20131140 Ver 1_Year 4 Monitoring Report_2018_20190114

Mitigation Project Name Pee Dee Stream Restoration Site
DMS ID 95350
River Basin Yadkin
Cataloging Unit 03040104
County Montgomery USACE Action ID 2012-01077
Date Project Instituted 8/1/2012 NCDWR Permit No 2013-1140
Date Prepared 8/27/2018
Credit Release Milestone
Potential Credits (Mitigation Plan)
Potential Credits (As -Built Survey)
Potential Credits (IRT Approved)
Scheduled
Releases
Stream
(Stream)
Warm
6,408.670
6,504.000
6,408.267
Stream Credits
Cool Cold
Anticipated
Release Year
Stream
(Stream)
Actual ReleaseReleases
Date (Stream)
Scheduled
(Forested)
( td )
Wetland Credits
Riparian Riparian Non Non -riparian
Riverine riverme Scheduled
Releases
coastal
( )
Coastal
Anticipated
Release Year
(l )
Welland)
m s
a
Actual
Release Date
(Wetland)
Wtld ( )
1 (Site Establishment)
N/A
`
Zp
N/A
N/A
NIA
NIA
N/A
N/A
2 (Year 0 / As -Built)
30%
1,951.200
2015
10/5/2015
30%
30%
N/A
N/A
3 (Year 1 Monitoring)
10%
650.400
2016
4/25/2016
10%
10%
N/A
N/A
4 (Year 2 Monitoring)
10% 1
640.827
2017
10/20/2017
10%
15%
N/A
N/A
IRT Adjustment*
-38.290
10/20/2017
Percentage Released
60%
N/A
N/A
5 (Year 3 Monitoring) - NOT RELEASED
10%
640.827
2018
Not Released
15%
20%
N/A
N/A
6 (Year 4 Monitoring)
5%
2019
Released Amounts (feet I acres)
5%
10%
N/A
N/A
7 (Year 5 Monitoring)
10%
2020
15%
15%
N/A
N/A
8 (Year 6 Monitoring)
5%
2021
3,594.960
5%
N/A
N/A
N/A
9 (Year 7 Monitoring)
10%
2022
10%
NIA
N/A
N/A
Stream Bankfull Standard
10%
640.827
2017
10/20/2017
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Total Credits Released to Date
3,844.963
*NOTE: Adjustment required due to IRT concerns on how the as -built credits were calculated
DEBITS (released credits only)
Rnfinc 1 1 S 7 S S 1 2 S 1 Z ? S 1 Z ? S
(if any): None
Signature of Wilmingty( District Official Approving Credit Release
1 - For NCDMS, no credits are released during the first milestone
9r 20 l R
Date
71-8.1-
W
E E
hL
W
C
E qm-
rna
O
K
m o
K U
C
an d
Krnt
W
m s
a
C
A O
A m
00K
L
m
`m °
2O
C C
` m
Zmc
W
`
Zp
N
A O
OK
U
N
°dviE
o0
U
N C
N
OL
0 W
N
'OE
oa
U
IRT Approved As -Built Amounts (feet and acres)
5,991.600
625.000
IRT Approved As -Built Amounts (mitigation credits)
5,991.600
416.667
Percentage Released
60%
60%
Released Amounts (feet I acres)
3,594.960
375.000
Released Amounts (credits)
3,594.960
250.000
NCDWR Permit USACE Action ID Project Name
SMUs located in pond bed -
N/A N/A permanent reduction
452.000
NCDOT TIP R-2536 -
Asheboro Bypass, Randolph
2016-0299 2002-01260 County
2,535.980
SR 1320 - Bridge 228 -
Division 8, Montgomery
2016-02283 1 County
82.000
Remaining Amounts (feet I acres) 1
524.9801
375.000
Remaining Amounts (credits) 1
524.9801
250.000
(if any): None
Signature of Wilmingty( District Official Approving Credit Release
1 - For NCDMS, no credits are released during the first milestone
9r 20 l R
Date

2 - For NCDMS projects, the second credit release milestone occurs automatically when the as -built report (baseline monitoring report) has been made available to the NCIRT by posting it to the NCDMS Portal, provided the following criteria have
been met:
1) Approval of the final Mitigation Plan
2) Recordation of the preservation mechanism, as well as a title opinion acceptable to the USACE covering the property
3) Completion of all physical and biological improvements to the mitigation site pursuant to the mitigation plan
4) Reciept of necessary DA permit authorization or written DA approval for porjects where DA permit issuance is not required
3 - A 10% reserve of credits is to be held back until the bankfull event performance standard has been met

fires
January 14, 2019
Harry Tsomides
NC DEQ Division of Mitigation Services
5 Ravenscroft Drive, Suite 102
Asheville, NC 28801
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
Corporate Headquarters
5020 Montrose Blvd. Suite 650
Houston, TX 77006
Main: 713.520.5400
RE: Pee Dee Stream Restoration Site: MY4 Monitoring Report (NCDMS ID 95350)
Listed below are comments provided by DMS on December 11, 2018 regarding the Pee Dee
Stream Restoration Site: Year 4 Monitoring Report and RES' responses.
Vegetation - general
Invasive vegetation (mostly privet) is still significant (3.12 acres, 15% of easement).
Please indicate how and when this will be addressed over the next year.
RES will treat the invasive vegetation by cutting and spraying it. Due to the steep slopes in the
easement, mulching is not an option. RES plans for the treatments to take place once in the
spring, summer, and fall of 2019. This detail has been added to the report.
Hydrology - general
While DMS acknowledges RES' plans and efforts to validate withheld credits on the site via
adaptive management (stream characterization, flow gauges and excavation as described in
the Adaptive Management section), please understand that DMS cannot approve any
invoicing for the project beyond the current credit -approved amounts until the IRT approves
any adaptive plans and subsequently approves credits on these credit -withheld reaches.
Thompson Creek 1-2 creditable footage should be 1014, not 1029 (approved mitigation plan
length of 1314 minus 300). Please verify and change if agreed or clarify.
This is correct and has been updated in Table 1.
Project Credits / Table 1
During the 7/25/2018 field meeting with the IRT, additional hydrology monitoring was
discussed along reaches where poor hydrology was observed in stream sections near the
former ponds where silting had resulted in the lack of a well-defined channel, or a channel
form that was dry. The following credits (716.7 total) are currently being withheld due to
hydrology / channel formation questions:
Thompson 1 (100+00-102+50)
250 feet of Enhancement 1 (166.7 SMUs).
Thompson 1 (102+50-105+50)
300 feet of Restoration (300 SMUs).
Dale 1 (200+00-201+22)
122 feet Enhancement 1 (81.3 SMUs).
Dale 1 (201+22-203+75)
253 feet of Enhancement 1 (168.7 SMUs).
res. us

0
Please explain in the Table 1 notes the LF adjustments and any adaptive management plans.
Done.
Other edits
Visual Assessments should reflect any issues associated with the pond beds and stream
formation.
Table 5 and the CCPVs have been updated to reflect the issues associated with the pond beds
and stream formation.

Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 4 of 7
FINAL
Pee Dee Stream Restoration Project
NCDMS Contract No.: 004644
NCDMS Project No.: 95350
Montgomery County, NC
Data Collected: November 2018
Date Submitted: January 2019
Submitted to:
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services
NCDEQ-DMS, 1652 Mail Service Center Raleigh NC 27699-1652

Prepared by:
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, North Carolina 27605

Contents
1.0 PROJECT SUMMARY ...........................................
1.1. Goals and Objectives ..........................................
1.2. Success Criteria ...................................................
1.3. Project Setting and Background ..........................
1.4. Project Performance ............................................
2.0 METHODS..............................................................
3.0 REFERENCES........................................................
.................................................................... 5
.................................................................... 5
.................................................................... 5
.................................................................... 6
.................................................................... 7
.................................................................... 8
.................................................................... 9
Pee Dee Stream Restoration Project 3 RES
NCDMS Project No. 95350 Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 4 of 7 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
Figure 1. Vicinity Map
Figure 2. Current Conditions Plan View Maps
Appendix B. Visual Assessment Data
Table 5. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment
2018 Photo Station Photos
Appendix C. Vegetation Plot Data
(Vegetation plot monitoring not required for MY4)
Appendix D. Stream Geomorphology Data
(Cross section monitoring not required for MY4)
Table 12. Pebble Count Data Summary
Charts 1-9. MY4 Stream Reach Substrate Composition Charts
Table 13. Bank Pin Array Summary
Appendix E. Hydrology Data
Table 14. Verification of Bankfull Events
Table 15.2018 Rainfall Summary
Appendix F. July 2018 IRT Credit Release Site Visit Memo
Pee Dee Stream Restoration Project 4 RES
NCDMS Project No. 95350 Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 4 of 7 January 2019

1.0 PROJECT SUMMARY
1.1. Goals and Objectives
The project goals address stressors identified in the TLW and include the following:
• Improve water quality within the restored channel reaches and downstream watercourses by
reducing sediment and nutrient inputs and increasing dissolved oxygen levels
• Improve local aquatic and terrestrial ecological function via stream shading, habitat
complexities, and organic/woody material introduction
• Improve aquatic and benthic macroinvertebrate habitat and associated stream bed form
• Improve site hydrology and attenuate flood flows on-site and downstream
• Provide approximately 18.6 acres of riparian area restoration with a native plant community
• Protect stream and riparian improvements with livestock best management practices
• Protect the site in perpetuity with a permanent conservation easement
The project goals will be addressed through the following project objectives:
• Implement Priority I or II restoration of 5,992 feet of stream and enhancement of 625 feet of
stream
• Implement appropriate changes in dimension, pattern and/or profile to create
geomorphologically stable conditions along project area reaches
• Modify degraded stream channels to enable proper sediment transport capacity and improved
stream bed character
• Construct a floodplain bench that is accessible at the proposed bankfull channel elevation.
• Remove a major impoundment
• Integrate in -stream structures and native bank vegetation
• Plant native woody and herbaceous riparian vegetation with a minimum width of 50 feet from
the edge of the restored channels
• Eradicate invasive, exotic or undesirable plant species
• Install cattle exclusion fencing, two new wells, two new cattle drinking stations, and upgrade
eight existing cattle drinking stations
1.2. Success Criteria
The success criteria for the Pee Dee Stream Restoration Site follows 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.
1.2.1. Stream Restoration
Dimension — Cross-section measurements should indicate little change from the as -built cross-
sections. If changes do occur, they will be evaluated to determine whether the adjustments are
associated with increased stability or whether they indicate movement towards an unstable
condition.
Pattern and Profile — Measurements and calculated values should indicate stability with little
deviation from as -built conditions and established morphological ranges for the restored stream
type. Pool depths may vary from year to year, but the majority should maintain depths sufficient to
be observed as distinct features in the profile. The pools should maintain their depth with flatter
Pee Dee Stream Restoration Project 5 RES
NCDMS Project No. 95350 Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 4 of 7 January 2019

water surface slopes, while the riffles should remain shallower and steeper. Pattern measurements
will not be collected unless conditions seem to indicate that a detectable change appears to have
occurred based on profile and/or dimension measurements.
Substrate — Calculated D5o and D84 values should indicate coarser size class distributions of bed
materials in riffles and finer size class distributions in pools. The majority of riffle pebble counts
should indicate maintenance or coarsening of substrate distributions. Generally, it is anticipated that
the bed material will coarsen over time.
Sediment Transport — Depositional features should be consistent with a stable stream that is
effectively managing its sediment load. Point bar and inner berm features, if present, should
develop without excessive encroachment of the channel. Isolated development of robust (i.e.
comprised of coarse material and/or vegetation actively diverting flow) mid -channel or lateral bars
will be acceptable. Likewise, development of a higher number of mid -channel or lateral bars that
are minor in terms of their permanency such that profile measurements do not indicate systemic
aggradation will be acceptable, but trends in the development of robust mid -channel or alternating
bar features will be considered a destabilizing condition and may require intervention or have
success implications.
1.2.2. Surface Water Hydrology
Monitoring of stream surface water stages should indicate recurrence of bankfull flows on average every
1 to 2 years. At a minimum, throughout the monitoring period, the surface water stage should achieve
bankfull or greater elevations at least twice. The bankfull events must occur during separate monitoring
years.
1.2.3. Vegetation
Riparian vegetation monitoring shall be conducted for a minimum of seven years to ensure that success
criteria are met per USACE guidelines. Accordingly, success criteria will consist of a minimum survival
of 320 stems per acre by the end of the Year 3 monitoring period, a minimum of 260 stems per acre at the
end of Year 5, and a minimum of 210 stems per acre in Year 7. If monitoring indicates either that the
specified survival rate is not being met or the development of detrimental conditions (i.e., invasive
species, diseased vegetation), appropriate corrective actions will be developed and implemented.
1.3. Project Setting and Background
The Pee Dee Stream Restoration Site (Site) encompasses approximately 21.0 acres of predominately
agricultural land and includes three tributaries to Clarks Creek — Thompson Creek, Dale Branch, and
Jerry Branch. The Site is located in the Yadkin River Watershed (NCDWR sub -basin 03-07-10 and HUC
03040104020020) approximately 1 mile south of the town of Pee Dee, NC in Montgomery County
(Figure 1). Clarks Creek is listed as Class C water (NCDWR) and flows into the Pee Dee River. The Site
is located within a NCDMS targeted local watershed.
Following 2016 monitoring the NCIRT requested a review of the differential between the Approved
Mitigation Plan and Baseline Monitoring Report. The table below details the discrepancies by reach. The
primary cause of increased baseline SMUs is survey methodology (thalweg vs. centerline). The
Mitigation Plan lengths were based on centerline. Other causes of increased SMUs include field
adjustments during construction and the design assumption of the channel pattern after pond removal.
Additionally, credits for the stream reaches associated with the pond removals will be held until a later
date. This is discussed further in Section 1.4.4. The new SMU total for this site is 5,691.6 (Table 1).
Pee Dee Stream Restoration Project 6 RES
NCDMS Project No. 95350 Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 4 of 7 January 2019

1.4. Project Performance
Monitoring Year 4 (MY4) data was collected in November 2018. Monitoring activities included visual
assessment of all reaches and the surrounding easement, 16 permanent photo stations, 12 pebble counts,
and 6 bank pin arrays. Per the Approved Mitigation Plan, vegetation plot and cross-section data were not
collected in MY4.
Summary information/data related to the occurrence of items such as beaver or easement encroachment
and statistics related to performance of various project and monitoring elements can be found in the tables
and figures in the report appendices. Narrative background and supporting information formerly found in
these reports can be found in the Baseline Monitoring Report (formerly Mitigation Plan) and in the
Mitigation Plan (formerly Restoration Plan) documents available on the NCDMS website
(http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/eep). All raw data supporting the tables and figures in the appendices is
available from NCDMS upon request.
1.4.1. Vegetation
Visual assessment of the easement (Appendix B - Table 6, Figure 2) indicates that herbaceous
vegetation is well established throughout the project. Invasive exotic vegetation has been identified
throughout the Site as Chinese privet (Lingustrum sinense). Invasive species treatments were
administered in February and June of MY4. Treatments will continue throughout the monitoring period.
RES plans to cut and spray the privet again in the spring, summer, and fall of 2019. RES remapped the
invasive areas in MY4 and approximate size and locations of the invasive species areas are in Table 6 and
on Figure 2.
Vegetation plot data was not collected in MY4. It will be collected and reported again in MY5 and MY7.
1.4.2. Stream Geomorphology
Visual assessment of the stream was performed to document signs of channel instability, such as eroding
banks, structural instability, or excessive sedimentation. With exception to the areas noted in Section
Pee Dee Stream Restoration Project 7 RES
NCDMS Project No. 95350 Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 4 of 7 January 2019
Propos�eJ�Length
1V
Reach
Mtigation Type
proposedSMUs
Baseline SMUs
Ratioon
Thompson
Enhancement I
401
1.5:1
166.7
162
Creek 1
Thompson
Creek 1-2
P1 Restoration
504
1:1
1,314
1349
Dale
Enhancement I
1,369
1.5:1
250
250
Branch 1
Dale
P1 Restoration
3,440
1:1
2,955
2,993
Branch 2-5
Jerry
P1 Restoration
1,852
1:1
1,670
1,691
Branch
Hudson
P1 Restoration
707
1:1
52.6
59
Branch
Total
8,273
6,408.3
6,504.0
*The contracted amount of credits for this Site is 6,138 SMUs
1.4. Project Performance
Monitoring Year 4 (MY4) data was collected in November 2018. Monitoring activities included visual
assessment of all reaches and the surrounding easement, 16 permanent photo stations, 12 pebble counts,
and 6 bank pin arrays. Per the Approved Mitigation Plan, vegetation plot and cross-section data were not
collected in MY4.
Summary information/data related to the occurrence of items such as beaver or easement encroachment
and statistics related to performance of various project and monitoring elements can be found in the tables
and figures in the report appendices. Narrative background and supporting information formerly found in
these reports can be found in the Baseline Monitoring Report (formerly Mitigation Plan) and in the
Mitigation Plan (formerly Restoration Plan) documents available on the NCDMS website
(http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/eep). All raw data supporting the tables and figures in the appendices is
available from NCDMS upon request.
1.4.1. Vegetation
Visual assessment of the easement (Appendix B - Table 6, Figure 2) indicates that herbaceous
vegetation is well established throughout the project. Invasive exotic vegetation has been identified
throughout the Site as Chinese privet (Lingustrum sinense). Invasive species treatments were
administered in February and June of MY4. Treatments will continue throughout the monitoring period.
RES plans to cut and spray the privet again in the spring, summer, and fall of 2019. RES remapped the
invasive areas in MY4 and approximate size and locations of the invasive species areas are in Table 6 and
on Figure 2.
Vegetation plot data was not collected in MY4. It will be collected and reported again in MY5 and MY7.
1.4.2. Stream Geomorphology
Visual assessment of the stream was performed to document signs of channel instability, such as eroding
banks, structural instability, or excessive sedimentation. With exception to the areas noted in Section
Pee Dee Stream Restoration Project 7 RES
NCDMS Project No. 95350 Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 4 of 7 January 2019

1.4.4, there was no indication of instability was observed during the visual assessment (Table 5 and
Figure 2). Structures are intact and performing as designed.
Geomorphic data for MY4 was not collected. It will be collected and reported again in MY5 and MY7.
Substrate monitoring was performed during MY4. Riffle D5o ranged from medium gravel to coarse gravel
on Jerry Branch, medium gravel to coarse gravel on Dale Branch, and coarse gravel on Thompson
Branch. Substrate will be monitored in future years for shifts in particle size composition. Substrate
composition data is presented in Appendix D.
1.4.3. Stream Hydrology
Since project completion in April 2015 at least six bankfull events have been documented on both Jerry
and Thompson Branch and at least seven on Dale Branch. At least five bankfull events were recorded in
MY4. One each on Jerry and Thompson Branches in the form of wrack lines and three on Dale Branch on
the crest gauge (Table 13). The project has received multiple heavy precipitation events with no
degradation to the channel or structures.
1.4.4. Adaptive Management
During a site visit with NCIRT and NCDMS at the Pee Dee Site in July 2018 (Appendix F), several
problem areas were identified regarding the drained pond on Thompson 1 and the drained pond/wetland
on Dale 1. Per the request of NCIRT, RES developed an Adaptive Mangement Plan to be sent to the IRT
in early 2019. The Adaptive Mangement Plan proposes the installation of flow gauges above the old pond
on Thompson 1, above the old pond/wetland on Dale 1, and at Cross Section 9 on Dale 2 to document at
least intermittent flow. Additionally, RES propses to excavate a baseflow channel through the old
pond/wetland on Dale 1.
2.0 METHODS
Visual assessments of the project were performed at the beginning and end of the monitoring year.
Permanent photo station photos were collected during vegetation monitoring. Additional vegetation or
stream problem areas within the project area were photo -documented. Geomorphic measurements were
taken using a Topcon GTS -312 Total Station. Three-dimensional coordinates associated with cross-
section and profile data were collected in the field and geo-referenced (NAD83 State Plane feet FIPS
3200). Morphological data was limited to 22 cross-sections.
Survey data (MYO, MY I, MY2, MY3, MY5, MY7) was imported into CAD, ArcGIS, and Excel for data
processing and analysis. Channel substrate was characterized using a Wolman Pebble Count as outlined
in Harrelson et al. (1994) and processed using Microsoft Excel.
Vegetation success (MYO, MY I, MY2, MY3, MY5, MY7) is being monitored using 14 permanent
monitoring plots. Vegetation monitoring followed CVS-EEP Level 1 Protocol for MY and is following
Level 2 Protocol Version 4.2 for monitoring years 2-7 (Lee et al. 2008). Level 2 Protocol includes
analysis of species composition and density of planted species. Data is processed using the CVS data
entry tool. In the field, the four corners of each plot were permanently marked with rebar and photos of
each plot taken from the origin each monitoring year.
Precipitation data was reported from the NCCRONOS station Uwharrie (Troy) up until its failure in June
2017. Precipitation data is now reported from the NCCRONOS station Albemarle 5.1 SSE. Three crest
gauges were installed to document bankfull events, one each on Jerry, Dale, and Thompson branches.
Pee Dee Stream Restoration Project 8 RES
NCDMS Project No. 95350 Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 4 of 7 January 2019

During quarterly visits to the site, the height of the corkline was recorded and cross-referenced with
known bankfull elevations at each crest gauge.
3.0 REFERENCES
Harrelson, Cheryl, C. Rawlins and J. Potyondy. 1994. Stream Channel Reference Sites: An Illustrated
Guide to Field Technique. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM -245. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment
Station. USDA Forest Service. Fort Collins, Colorado
Lee, M.T., R.K. Peet, S.D. Roberts, and T.R. Wentworth. 2008. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording
Vegetation. Version 4.2. http://cvs.bio.unc.edu/methods.htm; accessed November 2008.
Pee Dee Stream Restoration Project 9 RES
NCDMS Project No. 95350 Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 4 of 7 January 2019

Appendix A
General Tables and Figures

'Restoration footage accounts for crossings and exclusions.
2 B = Bioretention Cell; SF = Sand Filter; SW = Stonnwater Wetland; WDP = Wet Detention Pond; DDP = Dry Detention Pond; FS = Filter Strip; S = Grassed Swale; LS = Level Spreader; NI = Natural Infiltration Area; FB = Forested Buffer
3Credit calculations were originally calculated along the as -built thalweg and updated to be calculated along stream centerlines for MY3 after discussions with NC IRT stemming from the April 3, 2017 Credit Release Meeting.
4An Adaptive Mangement Plan has been created to address the adjustments in Thompson Creek and Dale Branch. A brei£ description is included in Section 1.4.4 of the MY4 Report.
Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Pee Dee Stream Restoration Site
Mitigation Credits
Stream
Riparian Wetland
Nitrogen
Non -riparian Wetland Buffer Nutrient Offset
Phosphorous Nutrient Offset
Type R
RE
R RE
R
RE
Totals 5,691.6
- -
-
Project Components
Project Component -or- Reach
ID
Stationing/Location
Existing Approach Restoration -or-
Restoration Footage
Footage/Acreage (PI, PIT etc.) Restoration or Acreage'
Equivalent
Creditable
Footage
Mitigation Ratio
s
Credits
n
Notes
Thompson Creek 1
100+0 - 102 + 50
250
PI EI 250
0
1.5
0
Adjusments above old pond
Thompson Creek 1 - 2
102+50 - 115+64
1,346
PI R 1,314
1,014
1
1,014
Adjustments in old pond
Dale Branch 1
200+00 - 203+75
375
PI EI 375
0
1.5
0
Adustments above and in old
pond/wetland
Dale Branch 2 - 5
203+75 - 234+50
2,407
PI R 2,955
2,955
1
2,955
Jerry Branch
300+00-317+30
1,832
PI R 1,670
1,670
1
1,670
Hudson Branch
403+05 - 403+58
53
PI R 52.6
52.6
1
52.6
Component Summation
Stream
Riparian Wetland
Non -riparian Wetland Buffer
Upland
Restoration Level
(linear feet)
(acres)
(acres) (square feet)
(acres)
Riverine
Non-Riverine
Restoration
5,706.3
-
-
- -
-
Enhancement
-
-
-
- -
-
EnhancementI
250
-
-
- -
-
Enhancement II
-
-
-
- -
-
Creation
-
-
-
- -
-
Preservation
-
-
-
- -
-
High Quality
Preservation
-
-
-
-
-
BMP Elements
Elemene
Location
Purpose/Function
Notes
FB
Entire Site
Protect Stream
'Restoration footage accounts for crossings and exclusions.
2 B = Bioretention Cell; SF = Sand Filter; SW = Stonnwater Wetland; WDP = Wet Detention Pond; DDP = Dry Detention Pond; FS = Filter Strip; S = Grassed Swale; LS = Level Spreader; NI = Natural Infiltration Area; FB = Forested Buffer
3Credit calculations were originally calculated along the as -built thalweg and updated to be calculated along stream centerlines for MY3 after discussions with NC IRT stemming from the April 3, 2017 Credit Release Meeting.
4An Adaptive Mangement Plan has been created to address the adjustments in Thompson Creek and Dale Branch. A brei£ description is included in Section 1.4.4 of the MY4 Report.

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Pee Dee Stream Restoration Site
Activity or Report
Data Collection
Complete
Completion or
Delivery
Mitigation Plan
Dec - 2013
Dec - 2013
Final Design - Construction Plans
N/A
Jan - 2014
Construction
N/A
April - 2015
Temporary S&E Mix Applied to Entire Project Area
N/A
April - 2015
Live Stakes and Bare Root Plantings for Entire Project Area
N/A
April - 2015
Baseline Monitoring Document (Year 0 Monitoring - Baseline)
April - 2015
July 2015
Year 1 Monitoring
Oct - 2015
Dec - 2015
Year 2 Monitoring
Jan - 2016
Oct - 2016
Year 3 Monitoring
Stream: June - 2017
Nov - 2017
Vegetation: Sept - 2017
Year 3 Invasive Species Treatment
---
June - 2017
Year 4 Invasive Species Treatment
---
Feb - 2018
Year 4 Invasive Species Treatment
---
June - 2018
Year 4 Monitoring
Nov -2018
Nov - 2018
Year 5 Monitoring
Year 6 Monitoring
Year 7 Monitoring

Table 3. Project Contacts
Pee Dee Stream Restoration Site
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC
302 Jefferson Street; Suite 110
Prime Contractor
Raleigh, North Carolina 27605
David Godley [phone]
Wolf Creek Engineering
12-1/2 Wall St., Suite C
Designer
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
Grant Ginn [phone] ext 102
Northstate Environmental
Construction Contractor
2889 Lowery Street
Winston Salem, North Carolina 27101
Darrell Westmoreland [phone]
Northstate Environmental
Seeding Contractor
2889 Lowery Street
Winston Salem, North Carolina 27101
Darrell Westmoreland [phone]
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC
302 Jefferson Street; Suite 110
Planting Contractor
Raleigh, North Carolina 27605
David Godley [phone]
Kee Mapping and Surveying
As -built Surveys
PO Box 2566
Asheville, North Carolina 28802
Phillip B. Key [phone]
Green Resource
5204 Highgreen Court
Seeding Mix Source
Colfax, NC 27235
[phone]
ArborGen Inc.
2011 Broadbank Court
Ridgeville, SC 29472
[phone]
Bare Root Seedlings
North Carolina Forest Service
762 Claridge Nursery Road
Goldsboro, NC 27350
[phone]
Bear Duck Farms, LLC
105 Dobbs Place
Live Stakes
Goldsboro, NC 27350
Equinox Environmental
Monitoring Performers
37 Haywood St.
(YO -Y2)
2015-2016
Asheville, North Carolina 28802
Drew Alderman [phone]
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC
Monitoring Performers
302 Jefferson Street; Suite 110
(Y3+)
2017+
Raleigh, North Carolina 27605
Ryan Medric [phone]

Table 4. Project Baseline Information and Attributes
Project Information
Project Name
Pee Dee Stream Restoration
County
Montgomery County
Project Area (acres)
21
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude)
35°15'26.95" N, 80°01'47.83" W
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province
Piedmont
River Basin
Yadkin
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8 -digit 1 03040104
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14 -Digit
03040104020020
DWQ Sub -basin
03-07-10
Project Drainage Area (acres)
286
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area
<10%
CGIA Land Use Classification
2.01.03 Hay and Pasture Land
Reach Summary Information
Parameters
Thompson Creek
Dale Branch
Jerry Branch
Hudson Branch
Length of reach (linear feet)
1,596
2,782
1,832
56
Valley classification (Rosgen)
H
H
H
H
Drainage area (acres)
102
58
83
19
NCDWQ stream identification score
30.5
34
30.5
21.5
NCDWQ Water Quality Classification
C
C
C
C
Morphological Description (stream type) (Rosgen)
B4
B4
B4
B4
Evolutionary trend (Rosgen)
IV
IV
IV
IV
Underlying mapped soils
GoE, BBC2, BaC2
GoE, CnA
GoE, BaC2, BaB2 BaC2
Drainage class
Well -drained
Well -drained
Well -drained
Well -drained
Soil Hydric status
Non -Hydric
Non -Hydric
Non -Hydric
Non -Hydric
Slope
2%
2%
2%
2%
FEMA classification
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Native vegetation community
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Percent composition of exotic invasive vegetation
5%
5%
5%
5%
Wetland Summary Information
Parameters
-
-
-
Size of Wetland (acres)
-
-
Wetland Type (non -riparian, riparian riverine or riparian non-riverine) -
-
-
Mapped Soil Series
-
-
-
Drainage class
-
-
-
Soil Hydric Status
-
-
-
Source of Hydrology
-
-
-
Hydrologic Impairment
-
-
-
Native vegetation community
-
-
-
Percent composition of exotic invasive vegetation
-
-
-
Regulatory Considerations
Regulation
Applicable?
Resolved?
Supporting Documentation
Waters of the United States — Section 404
Yes
Yes
NWP
Waters of the United States — Section 401
Yes
Yes
401 Certification
Endangered Species Act
N/A
ERTR
Historic Preservation Act
N/A
ERTR
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)/ Coastal
Area Management Act (CAMA)
N/A
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
N/A
Essential Fisheries Habitat
N/A
ERTR

1 JJJ
St
i
j 73
R �1
' Pee Dee
4a 1
I
I�1
1
IAV
Norwood \-
G\°
�\ 731 M unt 'lead
1
)iia: -tions: From Asheville, take 140 East for approximately 99
_ miles. Take exit 148 for US -G4! NC -90 toward W Statesville.
�Continue onto US-70E1Carner Bengal IIlvd. Alter25miles turn
W. Sake Alexander Blvd and go 6 miles- Turn right.,to
Stokes Perry Road and drive 8 miles then tum right onto Liberty
\ 109 Rd/St Matthew Church Rd and drive 4 miles. Turn left mttoiSS
�•\ 52 S, atter 13 miles, turn lett onto NE connector Continue straight
through the first traffic circle and take the second exit at the second
1miYic --Ie. Tum nghl onto NC -740 S. Turn U1 onW NC -24
\ j
ENC -27 WINC-73 WE Main St. Aller 6 miles, sliglu right onle
NC -73 E and after 4 mike ,.none straight onto P-Dco Rd_ D-
0.2 miles to arrive tt the site.
- The subject project site is mr environmental restomfion site of the
15' ! NCDWQ Diykion of Mitigation Service, (DMS) and i,
cncnnrpassed by° a recorded conservation easemenL buL is
\ i borduod by land under private o-iership_ Accessing the site may
\ reyrure 1—rs ng areas near ur along the cawmenl bould— mud
�•\ / dterefore access by the general public is not permitted. Access by
authorized persomrcl of slate and federal agcrtcic; or their
- desigrimslconhacturs unolved in the developneal., ovenighl and
st--aidsflip ofthceswrati- site ispanuitwd wiflrin thetermsand
timeframes oftheir defined roles Anv intended site visitation or
activity by any person outside of these previously sanctioned roles
-- `- � / and activities requite., prior—Mi-n- with DMS.
res Figure 1: Vicinity Map
Pee Dee Stream Restoration Site
Project No. 95350 Notes: Conservation Easement from Key
Montgomery County, North Carolina Mapping & Survey, PA
Miles
0 0.5 1 2 3

r'..: Dale 1
4
v MM
r
Thompson 1
Dale',2
Thompson,2
Dale'3
Hudson
Jerryi1
Dale -4
Dale 5
JerryL
'Jerryi3
fires
s
0 175 350
Feet
1 inch = 350 feet
Figure 2
Pee Dee Stream
Restoration Project
MY4 2018
Current Conditions
Overview Map
Date: 11/29/2018 Drawn by: RTM
LEGEND
O Conservation Easement
D Vegetation Plot
Cross Section
Mitigation Type
— Restoration
— Enhancement I
• Crest Gauge
• Proposed Flow Gauge
• Rain Gauge
* Photo Station
vegetation Condition Assessment
H Target Community
m Present Marginal Absent
p, Absent No Fill
y
d
.y
Present
>
C

6
res
A
7- -. .
P.
0 75 150
•
��!�•� Feet
_ ���� `���•i�� 1 inch = 150 feet
•1
Figure 2
r k I Pee Dee Stream
/PS=14 Restoration Project
MY4 2018
Thompson 2
Current Conditions
Y =w Overview Map
Thompson 1' -
N.. .:. Date: 1/14/2019 Drawn by: RTM
12
LEGEND
O Conservation Easement
_ Vegetation Plot
Cross Section
Ps-1s Mitigation Type
Restoration
+� r•,. �ON1 13 Enhancement I
. ••
•Withheld Stream Credit
•�
_��� � ®Crest Gauge
� Y
O Rain Gauge
- 14 ® Proposed Flow Gauge
�- Photo Station
y ~' r#r yPS-16 L
-_
>
Y;� Vegetation Condition Assessment
*�,, ' "' . ► y Target Community
. Y •;•r. �"� ''�.. r�.. a . a��;. �p ah; ..:j��� . ���' .'[' :'.r ].�-. e+z� �- .� Present Marginal Absent
� � M1 • t ` a � ` s.r i�' �. Absent
• - fn No Fill
�� - k t •+."�`•'- •`R. •" .•�_. _ •.fir i R�... -
`�- �.� � .. � ;�:y .. �. ^�'4* ,Y,i � .� r. • n •y Present
. -.rC' fS ' . �• _ ;l _'' W.? 4 w _•c- .yam >
'*
Rrnr�rr._a• 2A13 NC` AnaMan oarial Imanary C 1F1 .-_ _ k= . �._ - . . .Av�i

PS -6
5
PS -7
VI'
z x-
1`' Dale 2
6
10
r for Geographic I
fires
0 75 s 150
Feet
1 inch = 150 feet
Figure 2
2
Pee Dee Stream
Restoration Project
MY4 2018
Current Conditions
Overview Map
Date: 1/14/2019 Drawn by: RTM
LEGEND
O Conservation Easement
Vegetation Plot
Cross Section
-- -_ Mitigation Type
— Restoration
Enhancement I
• Withheld Stream Credit
® Crest Gauge
O Rain Gauge
Dale ® Proposed Flow Gauge
Photo Station
vegetation Condition Assessment
n Target Community
m Present Marginal Absent
p, Absent No Fill
y
d
.y
Present
>
C

1
vq
X-7
4,
. . . . . . . . . .
19, res
S1410.
f 4f 0 75 150
Feet
Wo
1 inch = 150 feet
4!
A Figure 2
4
411,
Pee Dee Stream
Restoration Project
MY4 2018
J.erlrY
N....
Current Conditions
Overview Map
PS -3 Ilk. DateDrawn by: RTM
LEGEND
5 1=1 Conservation Easement
Vegetation Plot
6
Cross Section
P. .9 Mitigation Type
Restoration
4 7
Enhancement I
• Withheld Stream Credit
Crest Gauge
@ Rain Gauge
(D Proposed Flow Gauge
Photo Station
Vegetation Condition Assessment
Target Community
Present Marginal Absent
.0
0
Absent No Fi1111
7
Z Present
r
M Catiw for Ge eagggaphlo ki*wo4m A Analysis

Appendix B
Visual Assessment Data

Table 5. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Pee Dee Stream Restoration Site - Jerry Branch
Assessed Len th 1,832 feet
Major Channel
Category
Channel
Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Total
Number in
As -built
Number of Amount of
Unstable Unstable
Segments Footage
% Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Number
with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage
with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjusted %
for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars).
0 0
°
100/o
2 Degradation - Evidence of downcutting.
0 0
100%
(Riffle and Run Units)
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate.
90 90
100%
3. Meander Pool
1. Death Sufficient (Max Pool Depth: Mean Bankfull Depth>_ 1.6).
90 90
100%
Condition
2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstream riffle).
90 90
100%
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run).
N/A N/A
N/A
4. Thalweg Position
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide).
90 90
100%
2. Bank
1. Scoured /Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
scour and erosion.
0
0
100%
0
0 100%
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
0
0
100%
N/A
N/A N/A
and are providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse.
0
0
100%
N/A
N/A N/A
Totals
0
0
100%
N/A
N/A N/A
3. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
91
91
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
91
91
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
91
91
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence doesNOT exceed
15%.
5%
91
91
100
4. Habitat
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining` Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth Ratio > 1.6. Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow.
91
91
100

Table 5 cont'd. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Pee Dee Stream Restoration Site - Dale Branch
Assessed Len th 2,782 feet
Major Channel
Category
Channel
Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Total
Number in
As -built
Number of Amount of
Unstable Unstable
Segments Footage
% Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Number
with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage
with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjusted %
for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars).
2 37
o
87/o
2 Degradation - Evidence of downcutting.
0 0
100%
(Riffle and Run Units)
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate.
120 120
100%
3. Meander Pool
1. Death Sufficient (Max Pool Depth: Mean Bankfull Depth>_ 1.6).
119 119
100%
Condition
2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstream riffle).
119 119
100%
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run).
N/A N/A
N/A
4. Thalweg Position
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide).
119 119
100%
2. Bank
1. Scoured /Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
scour and erosion.
0
0
100%
0
0 100%
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
0
0
100%
N/A
N/A N/A
and are providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse.
0
0
100%
N/A
N/A N/A
Totals
0
0
100%
N/A
N/A N/A
3. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
122
122
N/A
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
122
122
N/A
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
122
122
N/A
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence doesNOT exceed
15%.
5%
122
122
N/A
4. Habitat
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining` Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth Ratio > 1.6. Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow.
122
122
N/A

Table 5 cont'd. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Pee Dee Stream Restoration Site - Thompson Branch
Assessed Len th 1,596 feet
Major Channel
Category
Channel
Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Total
Number in
As -built
Number of Amount of
Unstable Unstable
Segments Footage
% Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Number
with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage
with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjusted %
for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars).
2 550
o
66/o
2 Degradation - Evidence of downcutting.
0 0
100%
(Riffle and Run Units)
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate.
50 50
100%
3. Meander Pool
1. Death Sufficient (Max Pool Depth: Mean Bankfull Depth>_ 1.6).
50 50
100%
Condition
2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstream riffle).
50 50
100%
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run).
N/A N/A
N/A
4. Thalweg Position
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide).
50 50
100%
2. Bank
1. Scoured /Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
scour and erosion.
0
0
100%
0
0 100%
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
0
0
100%
N/A
N/A N/A
and are providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse.
0
0
100%
N/A
N/A N/A
Totals
0
0
100%
N/A
N/A N/A
3. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
51
51
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
51
51
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
51
51
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence doesNOT exceed
15
51
51
100
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining` Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth Ratio > 1.6. Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow.
51
51
100

Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment
Pee Dee Stream Restoration Site
Planted Acreage 21.0
% of
Number of
Combined
Vegetation Category
Definitions
CCPV Depiction
Planted
polygons
Acreage
Acreage
1. Rare Areas
Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material.
N/A
0
0.00
0%
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 4,
2. Low Stem Density Areas
or 5 stem count criteria.
Orange Simple Hatch
2
0.50
2%
Totals
2
0.50
2%
Areas with woody stems of a size class that are obviously small
3. Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor
given the monitoring year.
N/A
0
0.00
0%
Cumulative Totals
2
0.50
2%
Easement Acreage 21.0 acres
% of
Vegetation Category
Definitions
CCPV Depiction
Number of
Combined
Easement
Polygons
Acreage
Acrea e
4. Invasive Areas of Concern
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
Yellow Crosshatch
24
3.12
15%
5. Easement Encroachment Areas
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
N/A
0
0.00
0%

MY4 — 2018 Pee Dee Photo Station Photos
Jerry Branch — Permanent Photo Station 1
Station 300+25 - Downstream
Jerry Branch — Permanent Photo Station 2
Station 305+04 — Upstream

tZ5442 4�*
tu
ow
Poll
VAN dpy
vs
010
I A
I

vv-
,� - lir;
�s,
g
UP
57
`�
+M A
v f x=

wow
h
F
fs
\ z4
F
Oil�'� _
4 _
wow
h
F
fs
\ z4
F

h
r \
.1 . 08.2018

;G s
144'
fj s�

\: »
-
».��©/�
ƒ<%/��/
. 2k

Dale Branch Permanent Photo Station l 1
Station 229+20 — Upstream
Dale Branch — Permanent Photo Station 11
Station 229+20 — Downstream

k ,.

Thompson Branch — Permanent Photo Station 13
Station 101+15 —Downstream
Thompson Branch — Permanent Photo Station 14
Station 105+25 — Upstream

Ctrs if•. �: ��_
Y. y�
t
"
`ry
f
i

�
5
%
IH•
� !

Appendix C
Vegetation Plot Data
(Vegetation plot monitoring not required for MY4)

Appendix D
Stream Geomorphology Data
(Cross section monitoring not required for MY4)

Table 12. Pebble Count Data Summary
Charts 1-9. MY3 Stream Reach Substrate Composition Charts
Chart 1.
900/0
80%
70%
600/0
50%
40%
30%
20%
10"/0
0%
Silt/Clay
Pee Dee MY4 Substrate Composition
MM"
Sand
Gravel
Cobble Boulder Bedrock
■ 161 ■ JB2 ■ JB3 ■ DB2 ■ DB3 ■ DB4 ■ DB5 ■TB2
MY1 - 2015
MY2 - 2016
MY3 - 2017
MY4 - 2018
MY5 - 2019
MY6 - 2020
MY7 - 2021
Stream Reach
Pebble Count
Pebble Count
Pebble Count
Pebble Count
Pebble Count
Pebble Count
Pebble Count
D50 (mm)
D84 (nun)
D50 (nim)
D84 (nim)
D50 (nim)
D84 (nim)
D50 (mm)
D84 (mm)
D50 (mm)
D84 (mm)
D50 (mm)
D84 (mm)
D50 (MM)
D84 (MM)
Jerry Branch 1
0.2
34
0.062
5.2
12
58
11 28
Jerry Branch 2
22
44
5.2
9.6
12
30
22 78
Jerry Branch 3
20
44
15
51
40
76
12.5 45
Dale Branch 2
14
45
6.3
32
16
51
24 49
Dale Branch 3
2.1
13
4.4
30
8
80
9.4 60
Dale Branch 4
21
44
5
37
14
71
14.9 35
Dale Branch 5
33
60
16
41
32
69
48 96
Thompson Branch 2
15
51
20
51
50
95
30 76
Charts 1-9. MY3 Stream Reach Substrate Composition Charts
Chart 1.
900/0
80%
70%
600/0
50%
40%
30%
20%
10"/0
0%
Silt/Clay
Pee Dee MY4 Substrate Composition
MM"
Sand
Gravel
Cobble Boulder Bedrock
■ 161 ■ JB2 ■ JB3 ■ DB2 ■ DB3 ■ DB4 ■ DB5 ■TB2

Chart 2.
90°/0
8D°/a
7 No
60%
50%
40%
30%
2 0%
10%
0%
Jerry Branch 1 - Substrate Composition
Chart 3.
90%
80%
70°/0
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0.
Sand
Gravel
MW r_—
Cobble
=Cobble
■ MYI ■ MY2 MY3 ■ MY4
Boulder
Jerry Branch Z - Substrate Composition
M1 1
Silt/Clay
Sand Gravel
I�
Cobble
■ MYI ■ MY2 MY3 ® MY4
Boulder
Bedrock
Bedrock

Chart 4.
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30°/Q
20%
10%
0%
Chart 5.
80%
70%/0
60%
50%
40%
30%
2 0%
1Q%
oro
Jerry Branch 3 - Substrate Composition
111 IN ■
Silt/Clay Sand
Gravel Cobble Boulder
■ MY1 ■ MY2 MY3 iz MY4
Dale Branch Z - Substrate Composition
1 I1 1 11 .
Silt/Clay Sand Gravel
1_
Cobble Boulder
■ MY1 0 MY2 MY3 n MY4
Bedrock
Bedrock

Chart 6.
70%
60%
So°/O
44%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Chart 7.
900/0
800/D
70%
G0/0
50%
40%
30%
2 N
10%
0%
Dale Branch 3 - Substrate Composition
110 1_ 1 111 .1
Sift/Clay Sand Gravel Cobble
■ MY1 ■ MY2 MY3 ■ MY4
Boulder Bedrock
Dale Branch 4 - Substrate Composition
MEN 111
Silt/Clay Sand Gravel
■ MY1 ■ MY2
■W N
Cobble
MY3 2 MY4
Boulder Bedrock

Chart 8.
70010
sora
5o/o
40%
30.E
20%
10%
0%
Chart 9.
800/0
70'/0
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Dale Branch 5 - Substrate Composition
Silt/Clay Sand Gravel Cobble
■ MY1 ■ MY2 MY3 ■ MY4
Boulder Bedrock
Thompson Branch 2 - Substrate Composition
■ ■■ ■ 11111
Silt/Clay Sand Gravel Cobble
■ MY1 ■ MY2 MY3 0 MY4
Boulder Bedrock

Table 13. Pee Dee Bank Pin Array Summary
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4
Bank Pin Location Position Reading (mm) Reading (mm) Reading (mm) Reading (mm)
Cross Section 1
Upstream
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
At Cross Section
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Downstream
0.0
6.35
0.00
0.00
Cross Section 5
Upstream
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
At Cross Section
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Downstream
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Cross Section 13
Upstream
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
At Cross Section
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Downstream
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Cross Section 18
Upstream
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
At Cross Section
19.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
Downstream
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Cross Section 19
Upstream
12.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
At Cross Section
6.4
19.05
0.0
0.0
Downstream
0.00
19.05
0.0
0.0
Cross Section 21
Upstream
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
At Cross Section
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Downstream
0.0
50.8
0.0
0.0

Appendix E
Hydrology Data

Table 14. Verification of Bankfull Events
Reach
Method
Number of
Bankfull Events
Maximum Bankfull
Height (ft.)
Jerry Branch
Crest Gauge
>1
0.88
Dale Branch
Crest Gauge
>3
1.08
Thompson Branch
Crest Gauge
>1
0.67
Photo Verification of Bankfull Events
Wrack line @ Crest Gauge Jerry Branch — 0.88 ft. (Est. Date of Occurrence: 9/17/2018)
Crest Gauge @ Dale Branch — 1.08 ft. (Est. Date of Occurrence: 9/17/2018)

Wrack line @ Crest Gauge Thompson Branch - 0.67 ft. (Est. Date of Occurrence: 9/17/2018)
Table 15. 2018 Rainfall Summary
Month Average
Normal
Limits
Albemarle Station
Precipitation
30 Percent
70 Percent
January 4.07
2.74
4.87
3.66
February 3.41
2.47
4.03
2.42
March 4.28
1 3.05
5.07
2.78
April 3.15
1.86
3.82
5.46
May 3.61
2.54
4.28
3.37
June 4.34
2.56
5.27
3.11
July 4.84
3.08
5.83
5.83
August 4.50
2.89
5.42
5.37
September 4.48
2.26
5.48
12.83
October 3.75
2.19
4.53
6.87
November 3.34
1.98
4.05
8.22
December 3.66
2.52
4.35
8.43
Total 47.43
30.14
57.00
68.35

Appendix F
July 2018 IRT Credit Release Site Visit Memo

M E M O R A N D U M
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
TO: NCIRT; NCDMS
FROM: Ryan Medric - RES
DATE: 7/25/2018
fires
Raleigh, North Carolina 27605 919.209.1052 tel. [phone] fax
RE: Pee Dee MY3 IRT Credit Release Site Visit
Attendees: Todd Tugwell (USACE), Kim Browning (USACE), Mac Haupt (NCDWR), Paul
Wiesner (NCDMS), Melonie Allen (NCDMS), Harry Tsomides (NCDMS), David Godley (RES),
Brian Hockett (RES), Ryan Medric (RES)
Site Visit Date: July 12, 2018
The IRT, DMS, and RES had a site visit at the Pee Dee Stream Restoration Site to discuss credit
release. The main topic of discussion was the IRT's concern over the formation of the streams in
and above the old ponds on Thompson 1 and Dale 1. Additionally, invasive species were seen
throughout the easement. RES will need to continue to heavily treat the invasive species for the
rest of the monitoring period. Specific comments and concerns are below.
• Thompson 1 (100+00-102+50): The IRT noted that this reach had a defined flow path but
the lack of sorting in the bed material and uniform bedform were characteristic of a stream
with less than intermittent flow. It was determined that in order to receive credit on this
reach, RES would need to address the issues in the pond bottom below it. 250 feet of
Enhancement I credit will be withheld (166.7 SMUs).
• Thompson 1 (102+50-105+50): The stream channel in the pond bottom could not be found.
As it has been noted on previous site visits, the cracked soil from the pond bottom drying
causes any surface water to quickly drain. It is obvious where the channel picks back up
near the old dam location. In order to receive credit on any of Thompson 1, RES will need
to submit a Remedial Action Plan to address the channel forming and stream flow issues.
300 feet of Restoration credit will continue to be withheld (300 SMUs).
• Dale 1 (200+00-201+22): The reach above the pond bottom/wetland had better bedform
formation and sorting than the reach above the pond on Thompson. The IRT determined
that in order to receive credit on this reach, RES would need to install a flow gauge/camera
to document intermittent flow. Credits, however, will be withheld: 122 feet Enhancement
I (81.3 SMUs).
• Dale 1 (201+22-203+75): This area consists of a wetland that formed in an old pond bottom
prior to construction. The stream channel is absent of targeted bedform and riffle/pool
sequence in this section. The IRT determined that to receive credits on this reach, RES

would need to develop a Remedial Action Plan to address the channel formation and flow
issues. 253 feet of Enhancement I credit will be withheld (168.7 SMUs).
• Dale 2: The IRT suggested that it would be a good idea to install a flow gauge/camera on
this reach preferably between XS 8 and 9 in order to help demonstrate at closeout that the
reach was obtaining at least intermittent flows.
• Hudson: DMS brought the IRT to this reach to see if they thought it needed a flow gauge.
The IRT decided that the reach was short enough that it did not need a flow gauge.
In total the amount of credits that are withheld from Pee Dee are 716.7 SMUs. RES will decide if
a Remedial Action Plan is appropriate to address the problems in and above the old pond bottoms
as well as add a flow camera above the pond bottom on Dale 1 and in-between XS 8 and 9 on Dale
2.