20130186 Ver 1_Year 4 Monitoring Report_2018_20190122

Mitigation Project Name Cedar Creek
DMS ID 95718
River Basin Cape Fear
Cataloging Unit 03030006
County Sampson USACE Action ID 2013-00389
Data Project Instituted 12/1412012 NCDWRPermlt No 2013-0186
Data Prepared 512212018
Credit Release Milestone
Potemlal Credits(Mitigation Plan
PoteMialCretlRs Ae-Bull[5unre
PolandalCred'ns ORTAppreved)
Scheduled
Releases
(Stream)
Cool
30
90
33
Cola
Alosee Yeti Actual
Release Year Release Dab
(Sheam) (fitr¢aml
saneasea
Rebases
(Forezl¢tl)
Rlpadan
Riveane
13.100
13p2g
13.100
VJenana Credits
Riparian NO Non-ri
tiverine paean
Scheduled
Releases
(Co."])
Coasts)
Actual
Release Year Release Date
Release Year!
(Wetland) IWedanal
18ae Establishment
NIAWA
4,564.000
13.100
WA
We
IRT Adjusted As -Built Amounts lmkigmion credits)
WA
WA
NIA
2(Year 01 Az48ui
30%
79
2016
2/192016
3SA
4.118
3SA
2018
2119COt6
3 Year i Monitorin
tog.
3
2016
4252016
10%
1.372
10%
2016
4852016
d Year 2 Monitoring)10%
6.550
93
t
2M7
8182017
10%
1.310
15%
2017
816801)
IRTAdustmem'
NCDOTTIP R-2303C-NC24,
20124D240 1882-032375amPso1 County
0
204.000
0182017
4,120
-02d8
NCDOTTIP R43030- NO 26,
2012-0240 1992-03237 Sampson County
8182017
5(Year 3 MoniWringr'- NOT RELEASED
10%
93
2018
Notrelaazea
10%
1310
20%
2010
Not released
6 Bard Monitorin
5%2018
NCDOT TIP R -2303D -NO 24,
2012-0240 1892-03237 Sampson County
275.900
68.000
10%
10%
2019
7 ears Monitorin
10%2020
10%
15%
2020
e ear 6 Monitoring)
S/.2021
10%
NIA
2021
9 ear 7 Monitoring)
10%2023
0.000
0.000
1.060
10%
NIA
2022
0.000
$Veam Berrien Standard
10%
WA
NIA
Total credRs Released to Date
65
6550
-NOTE: Adjustment required due to IRT concerns on how the as -butt credits were calculated
"NOTE: Due to concerns expressed by One IRT, no stream or wetland credits were released Imm this site forme 2017 monitoring cycle'.
DEBITS (released credits only)
Ratios 1 1.5 2.5 5 1 3 2 5 1 3 2 5 1
3 2 5
1 - For NCDMS, no credits are Ni during the first milestone
no
so
is — —
IRr Adjusted ASBui¢ Amounts pest and acres)
2,90.3.000
630.000
4,564.000
13.100
IRT Adjusted As -Built Amounts lmkigmion credits)
2,943.000
453.333
1.833.600
13.100
Percentage Released
50%
50%
50%
50%
Released Amounts(fees)acres)
1,471.500
360.000
2;292.000
6.550
Released Amounts(credits)
1,471.500
226,667
916.800
6.550
NCDWRPennit IISACEAotian10 Project Name
NCDOTTIP R-2303C-NC24,
20124D240 1882-032375amPso1 County
896.700
204.000
1.038.000
4,120
NCDOTTIP R43030- NO 26,
2012-0240 1992-03237 Sampson County
336200
NCDOTTIP R-23030- NO 24,
2012-0260 1992-0323]Sam0 son County
288.800
88.000
458A00
1.3>0
NCDOT TIP R -2303D -NO 24,
2012-0240 1892-03237 Sampson County
275.900
68.000
456.d00
Remaining Amounts Zees l acres)
MOO
0.000
0.000
1.060
Remaining Amounts(credits)
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.060
1 - For NCDMS, no credits are Ni during the first milestone

2 - For NCDMS projects, the second credit release milestone occurs automatically when the as -built report (baseline monitoring report) has been made available to the NCIRT by posting it to the NCDMS Portal, provided the following criteria
have been met
1) Approval of the final Mitigation Plan
2) Recordation of the preservation mechanism, as well as a this 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) Redept of necessary DA permit authorization or written DA approval for proects 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

CEDAR CREEK STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION
PROJECT
MONITORING REPORT
MONITORING YEAR 4
FINAL
SAMPSON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
CONTRACT No. 005011 -PROJECT No. 95718
USACE ACTION ID No. 2012-00389 - NCDWR PROJECT No. 2013-0186
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: Cedar Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site: MY4 Monitoring Report (NCDMS ID
95718)
Listed below are comments provided by DMS on December 14, 2018 regarding the Cedar
Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site: Year 4 Monitoring Report and RES' responses.
1. Digital drawings: Show the 7% and 8% hydroperiods in the attribute table for the Wetland
Success shapefile instead of the ranges currently shown.
Done.
2. Section 1.3:
a. 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.
b. Table 1 a:
(1) Change "Proposed SMUs/WMUs" to "Approved Mitigation Plan SMUs/WMU"
(2) Change "Baseline SMUs/WMUs" to "As -Built Baseline SMUs/WMU"
(3) Add footnote for Proposed (stream) Length and the two columns commented on above that
measurements are based on centerline.
Done.
3. Section 5.1.4: Please state whether this site has met the bankfull standard. If it has, please
show the cumulative years of bankfull events in Table 13 in Appendix E.
The site has met the bankfull standard with bankfull events happening in two separate years
(MY2 and MY4). This has been added to Section 5.1.4.
4. Section 5.1.5:
a. Note that AW 7 has never met hydrologic success of 9% in years 1 through 4. If hydrology
doesn't at least show improvement in MY5, this area may need to be removed from credit.
The ditch that RES inferred was draining this wetland area was plugged in October 2018. RS
expects this gauge to trend towards and meet success criteria over the remaining three years
of monitoring.
b. Note that AW 11 has missed hydrologic success of 9% in 3 of 4 years. RES may need to
begin looking at refining assets in this area as well.
AW 11 is located on the outer edge of the Johns fine sandy loam area. According to Wetland
Saturation Threshold Table in the 2016 Mitigation Update, Thermic Aquic Hapludults wetland
res. us

0
saturation range is 6-8%. This means AW 11 would have met two of the four years with the
two successful years being the most recent showing an upward trend.
5. Appendix A, Table 1: Update footnote to read something like "Credit calculations were
originally calculated along the as -built thalweg. For Monitoring Year 3 forward, credits were
updated to be calculated along stream centerlines for after discussions with NC IRT
stemming from the April 3, 2017 Credit Release Meeting."
Done.
6. Appendix B:
a. CCPV: The locations of bank pins are not shown. Please show on appropriate figure(s).
Done.
b. Table 5 (all): Provide description of red asterisk as footnote or remove if not necessary in
both hardcopy and digital files.
The asterisks have been removed.
c. Table 6: Explain why there is nothing discussed on the Invasive Area of Concern row when
you discuss invasive vegetation in the report narrative, show it on the CCPV and list it in
Table 7.
The invasive species area has been quantified on Table 6, displayed on the CCPV, and listed
in Table 7.
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:
a. 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.
RES collected additional groundwater monitoring on January 10, 2019. The report now
includes data from the entire growing season.
b. Verify rainfall data for September. Looks low based on area impacted by Hurricane Florence.
The rainfall data recorded 25 inches for September. The average September rainfall near
Clinton, NC is 5 inches.
9. Please print this report double -sided.

Cedar Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration • USGS HUC 03030006
Year 4 Monitoring Report • Sampson County, North Carolina • January 2019
Cedar Creek
Sampson County, North Carolina
DMS Project ID 95718
Cape Fear River Basin
HUC 3030006090060
Prepared by:
fires
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
919-209-1061
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC ii

Cedar Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration • USGS HUC 03030006
Year 4 Monitoring Report • Sampson County, North Carolina • January 2019
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 PROJECT GOALS, BACKGROUND AND ATTRIBUTES........................................................ 1
1.1 Location and Setting...............................................................................................................
l
1.2 Project Goals and Objectives..................................................................................................
l
1.3 Project Structure.....................................................................................................................
3
1.3.1 Restoration Type and Approach.....................................................................................
3
1.4 Project History, Contacts and Attribute Data.........................................................................
5
1.4.1 Project History................................................................................................................
5
1.4.2 Project Watersheds.........................................................................................................5
2 Success Criteria..............................................................................................................................
6
2.1 Stream Restoration.................................................................................................................
6
2.1.1 Bankfull Events..............................................................................................................
6
2.1.2 Cross Sections................................................................................................................
6
2.1.3 Bank Pin Arrays.............................................................................................................
6
2.1.4 Digital Image Stations....................................................................................................
7
2.2 Wetland Restoration...............................................................................................................7
2.3 Vegetation Success Criteria....................................................................................................7
2.4 Scheduling/Reporting.............................................................................................................7
3 MONITORING PLAN...................................................................................................................
8
3.1 Stream Restoration.................................................................................................................
8
3.1.1 As -Built Survey..............................................................................................................8
3.1.2 Bankfull Events..............................................................................................................
8
3.1.3 Cross Sections................................................................................................................
8
3.1.4 Digital Image Stations....................................................................................................
8
3.1.5 Bank Pin Arrays.............................................................................................................
8
3.1.6 Visual Assessment Monitoring.......................................................................................
9
3.1.7 Surface Flow...................................................................................................................
9
3.2 Wetland Hydrology................................................................................................................
9
3.3 Vegetation..............................................................................................................................
9
4 Maintenance and Contingency plan...............................................................................................
9
4.1 Stream...................................................................................................................................10
4.2 Wetlands...............................................................................................................................10
4.3 Vegetation............................................................................................................................10
5 Year 4 Monitoring Conditions(MY4)..........................................................................................
10
5.1 Year 4 Monitoring Data Collection......................................................................................10
5.1.1 Morphological State of the Channel.............................................................................10
5.1.2 Vegetation.....................................................................................................................10
5.1.3 Photo Documentation...................................................................................................10
5.1.4 Stream Hydrology........................................................................................................11
5.1.5 Wetland Hydrology......................................................................................................11
6 REFERENCES.............................................................................................................................
11
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC iii

Cedar Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration • USGS HUC 03030006
Year 4 Monitoring Report • Sampson 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
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. Stream and Wetland Photos
Figure 5. Vegetation Plot Photos
Figure 6. Stream and 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 in MY4
Appendix E. Hydrology Data
Table 13. Documentation of Geomorphological Significant Flow Events
Table 14. Rainfall Summary
Table 15. Wetland Hydrology Criteria Attainment
Figure 8. 2018 Groundwater Monitoring Gauge Hydrographs
Figure 9. Headwater Valley Restoration Flow Chart
Crest Gauge Verification Photos
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC iv

Cedar Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration • USGS HUC 03030006
Year 4 Monitoring Report • Sampson County, North Carolina • January 2019
1 PROJECT GOALS, BACKGROUND AND ATTRIBUTES
1.1 Location and Setting
The Cedar Creek Stream and Wetland Site is located in Sampson County approximately 3.1 miles
southwest of Clinton, NC (Figure 1). To access the Site from the town of Clinton, travel west on
Highway 24 (Sunset Avenue), take a left onto Airport Road and go 1.3 miles. Turn right onto West
Main Street Extension, go approximately 350 feet, and turn left onto a dirt farm path. Follow the farm
path along the cultivated field edge to the southwest corner and enter the forest. Follow the dirt path to
cultivated fields adjacent to the project below UT2. Turning to the left will take you to UT2. Going to
the right will take you to UT3.
1.2 Project Goals and Objectives
The Cedar Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Project has provided 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 agricultural fields through buffer
Nutrient removal
areas, the 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.
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 riparian canopy restoration to 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
Benefit will be achieved through the restoration of buffer areas which will infiltrate more water
Water storage
during precipitation events than under current site conditions. Wetland areas will provide additional
storage of runoff and flood waters.
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
hydrologic connections
appropriately 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
Benefit will be achieved by restoring riparian buffer habitat to appropriate bottomland hardwood
Restoration of habitats
ecosystem. Protected riparian corridors will create contiguous natural areas with uninterrupted
migration corridors.
Benefit will be achieved through the construction of instream structures designed to improve
Improved substrate and
bedform diversity and to trap detritus. Stream will be designed with the appropriate channel
instream cover
dimension and will prevent aggradation and sedimentation within the channel. Substrate will
become coarser as a result of the stabilization of stream banks and an overall decrease in the amount
fine materials deposited in the stream.
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC

Cedar Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration • USGS HUC 03030006
Year 4 Monitoring Report • Sampson County, North Carolina • January 2019
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 Cedar Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Project is located in the Great Coharie Creek
Watershed (http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/DMS/priorities-map). This 14 -digit Hydrologic Unit Code
(HUC 03003006090060) is identified as a Targeted Local Watershed (TLW) in the Cape Fear River
Basin Restoration Priority (RBRP).
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 (LWP) is available for the project area.
The 2009 Cape Fear RBRP identified water quality and agricultural impacts as major stressors within
this TLW. The Cedar Creek 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 addressed stressors identified in the TLW, and include the following:
• Water quality improvements,
• Natural resource protection, and
• Manage agricultural impacts.
The project goals were addressed through the following project objectives:
• Converting active farm fields to forested buffers,
• Stabilization of eroding stream banks,
• Reduction in stream bank slope,
• Restoration of riparian buffer bottomland hardwood habitats, and
• Construction of in -stream structures designed to improve bedform diversity.
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC

Cedar Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration • USGS HUC 03030006
Year 4 Monitoring Report • Sampson County, North Carolina • January 2019
1.3 Project Structure
Table la. Cedar Creek Site Project Components — Stream Mitigation
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.
RES did not submit an asset revision and reverted to the Approved Mitigation Plan assets.
1.3.1 Restoration Type and Approach
Stream restoration efforts along the unnamed tributaries to Great Coharie Creek were accomplished
through analyses of geomorphic conditions and watershed characteristics. The design approach applied
a combination of analytical and reference and/or analog reach based design methods that meet
objectives commensurate with both ecological and geomorphic improvements. Proposed treatment
activities ranged from minor bank grading and planting to re-establishing stable planform and hydraulic
geometry. Reaches that required full restoration, natural design concepts have been applied and verified
through rigorous engineering analyses and modeling. The objective of this approach was to design a
geomorphically stable channel that provides habitat improvements and ties into the existing landscape.
Priority Level I stream restoration, headwater valley restoration, stream Enhancement Levels I and 11,
and stream buffers throughout the project site have been restored and protected in perpetuity. Priority
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC 3
Approved
Proposed Length
Mitigation
As -Built
Reach
Mitigation Type*
Mitigation Plan
(LIF)***
Ratio
Baseline SMLTs
SMUs***
UTl
Enhancement Il
3,064
2.5:1
1,226
1,226
UTl
Enhancement I
415
1.5:1
277
277
UTl
Enhancement Il
615
2.5:1
246
246
UTl
Enhancement I
265
1.5:1
177
177
UTI
Enhancement 11
827
2.5:1
331
331
UT2
Headwater Valley
337
1:1
337
337
UT2
P1 Restoration
504
1:1
504
518
UT2C
Headwater Valley
190
1:1
190
193
UT3
P1 Restoration
1,912
1:1
1,912
1,941
UT4
Enhancement I1
78
2.5:1
31
31
Total
8,207
5,230
5,276
*P1=Priority 1
"The contracted
amount of credits for this Site is 5,000 SMUs
***Stream lengths are based on the designed
stream centerline
Approved
Mitigation Area
NVlitigation
As -Built
Wetland
N liitigation Type
Mitigation Plan
(ac)
Ratio
Baseline WM[Js
WMUs
Wl
Restoration
13.10
1:1
13.10
13.72
Total
13.10
13.10
13.72
*The contracted amount of credits for this Site is 9.00 WMUs
1.3.1 Restoration Type and Approach
Stream restoration efforts along the unnamed tributaries to Great Coharie Creek were accomplished
through analyses of geomorphic conditions and watershed characteristics. The design approach applied
a combination of analytical and reference and/or analog reach based design methods that meet
objectives commensurate with both ecological and geomorphic improvements. Proposed treatment
activities ranged from minor bank grading and planting to re-establishing stable planform and hydraulic
geometry. Reaches that required full restoration, natural design concepts have been applied and verified
through rigorous engineering analyses and modeling. The objective of this approach was to design a
geomorphically stable channel that provides habitat improvements and ties into the existing landscape.
Priority Level I stream restoration, headwater valley restoration, stream Enhancement Levels I and 11,
and stream buffers throughout the project site have been restored and protected in perpetuity. Priority
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC 3

Cedar Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration • USGS HUC 03030006
Year 4 Monitoring Report • Sampson County, North Carolina • January 2019
Level I stream restoration was incorporated into the design of a single -thread meandering channel, with
parameters based on data taken from the reference site. Priority 1 stream restoration was proposed on
2,416 linear feet of stream channel. Headwater valley restoration was applied to 527 linear feet of
channel. Enhancement Level I was applied to 680 linear feet of channel that required buffer
enhancement, bank stabilization and habitat improvements. Enhancement Level 11 was applied to an
additional 4,584 linear feet of channel that required buffer enhancement and/or minimal bank and
habitat improvements.
UT1
UT1 flows from southeast to northwest across the project, totaling 5,186 linear feet of Enhancement
Level I and 11. The upper -most portion of UTI (reaches UT1A and UT1B) is stable and has a forested
buffer along both banks; however, privet was dominant within the right buffer. The downstream portion
of UT1 (reaches UTIC, UTD and UT1E) was moderately stable and exhibited some areas of localized
erosion prior to mitigation activities. The buffer along this section consisted of a five year old clear-cut
along the left bank and cultivated fields along the right bank. A 60 -foot easement break is present within
the downstream section (ME) to account for an existing farm crossing which has been upgraded. 680
linear feet of Enhancement Level I was performed along reach UTL Selective locations were identified
to include streambed structures, minor bank grading, planting a native stream buffer and invasive
species control. Primarily, Stabilization/Enhancement 11 activities included performing minor bank
grading, planting the buffer with native vegetation, and invasive species control.
UT2
UT2 is the middle tributary of the project, totaling 337 linear feet of headwater valley restoration along
the upstream section and 518 linear feet of Priority 1 restoration through the downstream section. The
upper section of the channel was channelized and bordered by cultivated fields to the northwest and a
pine stand to the southeast, while the lower portion was a small ditch surrounded by cultivated fields.
The headwater valley portion relocated the flow path to the natural valley (to the left of the existing
ditch), and the abandoned ditch has been back filled. The performed P 1 restoration included relocating
the channel to follow the natural valley and emptying into Cedar Creek near STA 25+50. A 60 -foot
easement break crossing is present at STA 4+66 along UT2. Twin 24" HDPE culverts were installed
within the easement break crossing. Restoration activities included constructing a meandering channel,
installing habitat and drop structures, filling and plugging the abandoned channel, planting the buffer
with native vegetation, and invasive species control.
UT2C
UT2C is also located in the middle of the project (adjacent to UT2), totaling 193 linear feet of headwater
valley restoration. The upstream end of the reach begins at an existing wetland that borders a farm path
to the north. Flow from the wetland originally had been diverted to a ditch that ran east -west along the
farm path before it was conveyed across the path and into UT2 near the upstream end. Restoration
activities involved redirecting channel flow to the natural valley and grading out the existing ditch and
path such that the area matches existing grade on either side of the path. Additional activities included
planting the buffer with native vegetation and invasive species control.
UT3
UT3 is the western most tributary of the project, totaling 1,941 linear feet of Priority 1 restoration. The
upper section of the channel was incised/oversized and began at a pond outlet east of the airport and
flowed through a wooded area consisting of saplings and some mature hardwoods, while the lower
section flowed through a cultivated field. The restored channel has been relocated to the west to follow
the natural valley, and now flows through the middle of the wetland restoration area (Wl). UT3 now
outlets into Cedar Creek near STA 43+10. Restoration activities included constructing a meandering
channel, installing habitat and grade control structures, filling and plugging the abandoned channel,
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC

Cedar Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration • USGS HUC 03030006
Year 4 Monitoring Report • Sampson County, North Carolina • January 2019
planting the buffer with native vegetation, and invasive species control. Small ditches located adjacent
to UT3 and within the conservation easement have also been plugged and filled to redirect and diffuse
flow through the wetland restoration area and/or into UT3.
UT4
UT4 is the eastern most tributary of the project, totaling 78 linear feet of Enhancement Level II. The
reach was relatively stable, but had been historically channelized. The buffer along this section
consisted of an agricultural field along the right bank, and a forested buffer along the left bank; however,
privet was common within the left buffer. Stabilization/Enhancement II activities included performing
minor bank grading, cutting a floodplain bench, and planting the buffer with native vegetation, and
invasive species control.
Wetland W1
This 13.72 -acre wetland is located along UT3 and where it reaches the confluence of with UT 1 Reach
E. The pre -restoration land use was sparsely wooded and active cropland. Wetland restoration activities
consisted of removing valley fill, filling drainage ditches, removing subsurface drainage tiles, and
raising adjacent stream channels to reconnect the floodplain with seasonal and out of bank flows.
Raising the stream bed will also reduce the "dry shoulder" effect near the stream channel. Specific
wetland restoration activities included: reconnecting low lying areas of hydric soil with the floodplain,
plugging agricultural drainage ditches, planting native tree and shrub species commonly found in small
stream swamp ecosystems, and surface roughening to increase infiltration and storage. Wetland
restoration activities also included the breaching, backfilling, and planting of an old pond (0.22 acres)
that was identified after Mitigation Plan approval. The IRT has not approved these additional 0.22 acres
therefore RES will revert back to the 13.10 WMUs from the Approved Mitigation Plan. Wetland
restoration limits and hydroperiods will be determined by on-site soil investigations and hydrologic
modeling in conjunction with pre -construction water table monitoring at the restoration sites and
reference wetlands. Combined with the stream restoration, these actions will result in a sufficiently high
water table and flood frequency to support hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology, resulting in
restored riparian wetlands.
1.4 Project History, Contacts and Attribute Data
1.4.1 Project History
The Cedar Creek 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 42.0 acres and is broken into four tributaries, UT 1, UT2, UT3, and UT4. The land
use in the 2,778 -acre (4.34 mit) project watershed that drains to UT 1 consisted of row crop production,
livestock production, silviculture, and sand mining areas. Past land use practices caused increased
erosion and sedimentation along drainage -ways and stream banks in the watershed.
UT2 has a drainage area of 32 acres (0.05 mit) and flows southwest into UT I. Land use in this small
drainage area consisted entirely of row crop production and disturbed hardwood forest. UT2 originated
in a disturbed hardwood forest and flows through a cultivated field to its confluence with UT 1.
UT3 has a drainage area of 147 acres (0.23 mit) and flows south into UTI. Land use in this drainage
area consisted of row crop production, historical and future livestock production, disturbed hardwood
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC

Cedar Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration • USGS HUC 03030006
Year 4 Monitoring Report • Sampson County, North Carolina • January 2019
forest, maintained open space, and impervious surfaces associated with residential commercial
development. Portions of the Sampson County Airport, including parts of the runway, terminal, and
apron areas, lie within the UT3 drainage area. UT3 originates at a pond that is adjacent to the airport
property. This reach flowed through a disturbed hardwood forest, and then through a cultivated field to
its confluence with UTI.
UT4 has a drainage area of 77 acres (0.12 mi2), originates within a disturbed hardwood forest, and flows
southwest into UT Land use in this small drainage area consisted of a mix of row crop production
and disturbed hardwood forest located primarily along the drainage way.
UT2, UT3 and UT4 were straightened, dredged, or re -aligned in the past to promote drainage. Soil
investigations showed that much of the low-lying landscape adjacent to UTI and its confluences with
UT2 and UT3 exhibited hydric characteristics and a shallow seasonal high water table. The low lying
fields in this area were considered prior converted wetlands (PC) that were drained and are currently
utilized for row crop and livestock production.
The land use in the watershed is characterized by evergreen forest (47 percent), cultivation (31 percent),
woody wetlands (9 percent), open space (8 percent) and shrub/scrub (5 percent).
2 Success Criteria
The success criteria for the Cedar Creek Site stream restoration 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 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). 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
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC

Cedar Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration • USGS HUC 03030006
Year 4 Monitoring Report • Sampson County, North Carolina • January 2019
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).
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 seven 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.
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).
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC

Cedar Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration • USGS HUC 03030006
Year 4 Monitoring Report • Sampson County, North Carolina • January 2019
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 will include 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
Three sets of manual and auto -logging crest gauges were installed on the site, one along UT2, one along
UT2C, and one along UT3. 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.
3.1.3 Cross Sections
A total of 27 permanent cross sections were installed to monitor channel dimensions and stability. Cross
sections were typically located at representative riffle/shallows and pool sections along each stream
reach. Four cross sections were installed along UTI where enhancement activities were performed.
Eight cross sections (three pools, two runs, and three shallows) were installed along UT2. UT2C has
one cross section installed throughout its length. Stream reach UT3 has 14 cross sections installed along
its length where stream restoration was performed. 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 UT2 and UT3. 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.
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC

Cedar Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration • USGS HUC 03030006
Year 4 Monitoring Report • Sampson County, North Carolina • January 2019
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 reaches on UT2 and UT2C 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
gauges 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.
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 fourteen
automatic recording pressure transducers (Auto -Wells) have been installed on the site. Eleven 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 20 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.
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC

Cedar Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration • USGS HUC 03030006
Year 4 Monitoring Report • Sampson County, North Carolina • January 2019
4.1 Stream
No stream problems were identified in MY4. The three stream problem areas noted in MY3 were
repaired in October 2018. The log outlet structure at the confluence of UT -1 and UT -2 was fixed as
well as the double log drop before the confluence of UT -3 and UT -1. Also the localized areas of bank
erosion on UT -1 were stabilized with livestakes and matting and a brush toe was added to one localized
problem area.
4.2 Wetlands
No wetland problems areas were noted during the Year 4 monitoring period. The ditch between AW8
and AW7 was plugged in October 2018. 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 as part of the annual monitoring report.
4.3 Vegetation
One vegetation problem area remained during the Year 4 monitoring period. The vegetation problem
area is mapped on the Current Conditions Plan View (CCPV) as part of the annual monitoring report.
The vegetation problem area (VPA1) consists of a 0.5 -acre area of invasive species Chinese Privet
(Ligustrum sinense) at the upstream portion of UT -1. Invasive treatment (cutting and spraying) was
completed again in August 2018 and will continue as necessary in following years. The other
vegetation problem area reported in MY3 was a small sparse herbaceous vegetation area along UT -2
above the stream crossing (Sta. 4+00). This area was reseeded, mulched, and replanted in October 2018.
5 YEAR 4 MONITORING CONDITIONS (MY4)
The Cedar Creek Year 4 Monitoring activities were completed in late August 2018. Year 4 wetland,
stream hydrology, and vegetation monitoring data is present below and in the appendices. Per the
Approved Mitigation Plan, cross section monitoring was not performed in Year 4. Data presented shows
the site has no stream problem areas and one vegetation problem area; however, the site is on track to
meeting stream, wetland and vegetation interim success criteria (Figure 3).
5.1 Year 4 Monitoring Data Collection
5.1.1 Morphological State of the Channel
Per the Approved Mitigation Plan, cross section monitoring was not performed in Year 4. Visual
monitoring, however, was performed and no new problems were found in Year 4. Problems from
previous years were repaired in October 2018 and are discussed in section 4.1.
5.1.2 Vegetation
The Year 4 monitoring vegetation survey was completed in late August 2018 and resulted in an average
of 652 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 16 planted stems. The minimum
planted stem per plot was nine stems and the maximum was 31 stems per plot. Six volunteer tree species
were noted during MY4 activities. The average planted stem height was 5.6 feet. Vegetation summary
data tables can be found in Appendix C and vegetation plot photos in Figure 5.
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
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC 10

Cedar Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration • USGS HUC 03030006
Year 4 Monitoring Report • Sampson County, North Carolina • January 2019
also be documented with a digital photograph during monitoring activities. Stream digital photographs
can be found in Figure 4 and Figure 5 for vegetation photos.
5.1.4 Stream Hydrology
Three sets of manual and auto -logging crest gauges were installed on the site, one along UT2, one along
UT2C, and one along UT3. The auto logging crest gauges were installed within the channel and
continuously record flow conditions at hourly intervals. Crest Gauge 1 and Crest Gauge 3 documented
bankfull events towards the end of Year 4 monitoring period. With the bankfull events in 2018, the site
has now met the bankfull standard. Crest Gauge 2, on the headwater valley restoration reach UT -2C,
documented 57 consecutive and 168 total flow days. Stream hydrology data can be found in Appendix
E.
5.1.5 Wetland Hydrology
Eight of the eleven wetland gauges achieved the success criteria by remaining continuously within 12
inches of the soil surface for at least nine percent of the growing season. Groundwater gauge data
indicate the hydroperiods being very responsive to rainfall events. Wetland hydrology gauge AW7 fell
short of the nine percent success criteria. AW7 documented 7 days consecutively (3%) throughout the
growing season. RES plugged the ditch adjacent to AW7 to make sure wetland hydrology is met in
this area in future years. AW8 and AW11 fell short of the success as well but stayed above the five
percent hydroperiod for jurisdictional wetlands with eight percent. All three reference gauges
documented hydroperiods well above the nine percent success criteria ranging from 15 to 23 percent
of the growing season. Wetland gauge and rainfall data is presented in Table 15 and Figure 8.
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 (2014). Cedar Creek Stream 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
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC 11

Cedar Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration • USGS HUC 03030006
Year 4 Monitoring Report • Sampson County, North Carolina • January 2019
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 12

Appendix A
Project Background Data 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. Project USGS Map

Appendix A — General Tables and Figures
Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Credit calculations were originally calculated along the as -built thalweg. For Monitoring Year 3 forward, credits were updated to be calculated along stream centerlines following discussions stemming from the April 3, 2017 Credit Release Meeting.
Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Cedar Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Project/DMS Project # 95718
Mitigation Credits
Stream
Riparian Wetland
Non -riparian Wetland Buffer
Nitrogen Nutrient Offset
Phosphorous Nutrient
Offset
Type
R
RE R
RE R RE
Totals
5,230
0 13.10
N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A
N/A
Project Components
Project Component -or, Reach
ID Mitigation
Plan StationingLocation (LF)
Existing Footage/Acreage Approach (PI, PH etc.)
Restoration
or -Restoration
Restoration
Equivalent
Mitigation Plan
Footage or
Acrea ga
Mitigation Ratio
SMUs/
WMUs
UTI
1+01 to 31+65
3,064 Enhancement II
R
3,064
1 :2.5
1,226
UTI
31+65 to 35+80
415 Enhancement I
R
415
1 : 1.5
277
UTI
35+80 to 41+95
615 Enhancement H
R
615
1 :2.5
246
UTI
41+95 to 44+60
265 Enhancement I
R
265
1 :1.5
177
UTI
44+60 to 53+51
891 Enhancement H
R
827
1 :2.5
331
UT2
0+11 to 3+48
364 Headwater Valley
R
337
1 : 1.0
337
UT2
3+48 to 9+12
587 PI Restoration
R
504
1 : 1.0
504
UT2C
0+02 to 1+92
NA Headwater Valley
R
190
1 : 1.0
190
UT3
0+60 to 19+72
1,428 PI Restoration
R
1,912
1 -1.0
1,912
UT4
0+36 to 1+14
78 Enhancement II
R
78:2.5
2.5
31
Wetland 1
Adjacent to UT 1 & UT3
17.3 Restoration
R13.10
1 : 1.0
13.1
Component Summation
Restoration Level
Stream (line. feet)
Riparian Wetland (acres) Non -riparian
Wetland
Buffer (square
feet)
Upland (acres)
Riverine
Non-Riverine
Restoration
2,416
13.10
Headwater Valley
527
Enhancement 1
680
Enhancement I1
Creation
4,584
Preservation
High Quality
Preservation
BMP Elements
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
Credit calculations were originally calculated along the as -built thalweg. For Monitoring Year 3 forward, credits were updated to be calculated along stream centerlines following discussions stemming from the April 3, 2017 Credit Release Meeting.

Appendix A — General Tables and Figures
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Project Activity and Reporting History
Cedar Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Project/ DMS Project #95718
Activity or Report
Data Collection
Complete
Completion or Delivery
Mitigation Plan
NA
Aug -14
Final Design — Construction Plans
NA
Dec -14
Construction Completed
Mar -15
May -15
Site Planting Completed
May -15
May -15
Baseline Monitoring Document (Year 0
Monitoring — baseline)
Jul -15
Nov -15
Year 1 Monitoring
Dec -15
Feb -16
Year2 Monitoring
Oct -16
Dec -16
Year 3 Monitoring
Stream July -17
Vegetation: Aug -17
Feb -18
Beaver Management
NA
Sep -17
Year 4 Monitoring
Vegetation: Aug -18
Jan -19
Stream and Wetland Repair
NA
Oct -18
Year 5 Monitoring
[phone]
JosenbWright
Year 6 Monitoring
Green Resource
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Year 7 Monitoring
Full Delivery Provider
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC
Table 3. Project Contacts
Project Contacts Table —14
Cedar Creek 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]
Joseph Wright
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]
JosenbWright
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:
yan Medric

Appendix A — General Tables and Figures
Table 4. Project Information
Project Information
Project Name Cedar Creek Site
County Samp son
Project Area (acres) 42
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude) 34° 57'59.663" N 780 22'0.778" W
Project Watershed Summary Information
Parameters
Physiographic Province
Outer Coastal Plain
River Basin
Cape Fear
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8 -digit
3030006
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14 -digit
3003006090060
DWQ Sub -basin
3/6/2019
Project Drainage Area (acres)
2,890 acres
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious
Area
4.50%
CGA Land Use Classification
Woody wetlands, Shrub/scrub, cultivated crops, evergreen forest
Reach Summary Information (As -Built Conditions)
Parameters
UT1
UT2
UT3
UT4
Length of reach (linear feet)
5,186
1,048
1,941
78
Valley Classification
X
X
X
X
Drainage area (acres)
2780
35
151
77
NCDWQ stream identification score
50
34.5
40
42.5
NCDWQ Water Quality
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Classification
Morphological Description (stream
E5
E5
E5
E5
type)
Evolutionary trend
Stage II
Stage II/III
Stage
Stage
II/III
II/III
Underlying mapped soils
BH
Jo
BH
BH
frequently
frequently
frequently
Drainage class
flooded
undrained
flooded
flooded
Soil Hydric status
Hydric
Hydric
Hydric
Hydric
Slope
0.20%
1.40%
1.10%
1.00%
FEMA classification
N/A
N/A
AE
N/A
cultivated, mixed
mixed
mixed
cultivated
hardwood forest
hardwood
hardwood
Native vegetation community
mixed
hardwood
forest
Percent composition of exotic invasive
<5
0
0
<5
vegetation

Appendix A — General Tables and Figures
Table 4 con't. Project Information
Wetland Summary Information
Parameters
Wetland 1
UTI/3
Size of Wetland (acres)
13.72
Wetland Type (non -riparian, riparian
riverine or riparian non-riverine
Riparian Riverine
Mapped Soil Series
Bibb/Johnson
Drainage class
Frequently Flooded
Soil Hydric Status
Hydric
Source of Hydrology
Runoff/Groundwater Discharge
Hydrologic Impairment
Incised Channel, Dredging
Native vegetation community
Forested
Percent compositionof exotic invasive
vegetation
1-2%
Regulatory Considerations
Supporting
Regulation
Applicable
Resolved
Documentation
Waters of the United States -
Yes
Yes
SAW -2013-00389
Section 404
Waters of the United States -
Yes
Yes
DWR # 13-0186
Section 401
USFWS (Corr.
Endangered Species Act
Yes
Yes
Letter
SHPO (Corr.
Historic Preservation Act
Yes
Yes
Letter
Coastal Zone Management Act
(CZMA)/Coastal Area Management
No
NA
N/A
Act (CAMA)
EEP Floodplain
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
Yes
Yes
Requirements
Checklist
Essential Fisheries Habitat
No
NA
N/A

I
Leaend
© Airports e iii
NC Highway c
Kennc� Ca e
State Roads
Streams
Q Cedar Creek Easement The Cedar Creek Stream and Wetland Site is located in Sampson County approximately 3.1 miles southwest
O
Waterbody of Clinton, NC. To access the Site from the town of Clinton, travel west on Highway 24 (Sunset Avenue),
take a left onto Airport Road and go 1.3 miles. Turn right onto West Main Street Extension, go
5 -Mile Aviation Zone approximately 350 feet, and turn left onto a dirt farm path. Follow the farm path along the cultivated field
03030006090060 edge to the southwest corner and enter the forest. Follow the dirt path to cultivated fields adjacent to the
iproject below UT2. Turning to the left will take you to UT2. Going to the right will take you to UT3.
Figure 1 Date: 11/6/2015
W Project Vicinity Map Drawn by: BSH
Cedar Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site re
0 0.75 1.5 s
Sampson County, North Carolina
Miles
•
Oftm�
N.
®R
Leaend
© Airports e iii
NC Highway c
Kennc� Ca e
State Roads
Streams
Q Cedar Creek Easement The Cedar Creek Stream and Wetland Site is located in Sampson County approximately 3.1 miles southwest
O
Waterbody of Clinton, NC. To access the Site from the town of Clinton, travel west on Highway 24 (Sunset Avenue),
take a left onto Airport Road and go 1.3 miles. Turn right onto West Main Street Extension, go
5 -Mile Aviation Zone approximately 350 feet, and turn left onto a dirt farm path. Follow the farm path along the cultivated field
03030006090060 edge to the southwest corner and enter the forest. Follow the dirt path to cultivated fields adjacent to the
iproject below UT2. Turning to the left will take you to UT2. Going to the right will take you to UT3.
Figure 1 Date: 11/6/2015
W Project Vicinity Map Drawn by: BSH
Cedar Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site re
0 0.75 1.5 s
Sampson County, North Carolina
Miles

Ah

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. Stream and Wetland Photos
Figure 5. Vegetation Plot Photos
Figure 6. Stream and Vegetation Problem Area Photos

F `a�y•' �i. x
ip Y
49
I 4.A7
AV
114,
y 6 y i ..115
u c S
• • :�5:.a � '+a'S +`ifs^ '* ,� s.r�' '*i ���.:..
Nk
40.
-r
. ,.
so--" v L w
T a
44
77
x 'tic•. -'�Yyy�� 3 }t,.• .- ri '� .� ,� F_ a ... �•' � - of -oo .o o o t,'3 �` LU��I•��3
-, '• ..,�t.i. "r7r. �'��E`.Y tea: S. -!j �.�;a.. G

! + �.r1•, �•....:: itis.ttt.. y n • ,.4. _ n
" 4 REFAW�3 a ' Ste•, . :t i.�•: ifi . r .
.';5 *: s
RA.
- �. far res
9 r �
UT2C
Bare Area Repair � 22 7 - z •. .�;.;' �, ,��r.• � r, `�;,, s
0 100 200
.f . Feet
w
1 inch = 200 feet
May.:. ; •� � r ,-r Y.' `:}_
Localized Bank Repairs
�. Figure 3b.
on UT1 UT2 � � �r a �, r+•."
25
ab <<'St "
Cedar Creek
4 =Re'p
`':
Y �`� Restoration Project
s .., '9�t g .
'cal, MY4 2018
;� - `Y �F .;�; •, Current Conditions
Plan View
Date: 1/22/2019 Drawn by: RTM
UT1 may►-. `.�
,
M . °�' + ..k• LEGEND
O Conservation Easement
�, r
se.
_ Wetland Restoration Area
r . 7�
VP >260 stems/acre
Cross Sections
_•�' ';� . '•:..,,, :r�,.. µ. , P1 Restoration
VO * *' Headwater Valley Restoration
rr
, :�:, .. . • K ` .-�J — Enhancement
•�; "' � . w',.;; ..�... Vit••, . .'a _ �'.ry;:- `� .
Enhancement 11
- y�. & ;t' .. Y •ice • . T�+ ` i
. �-. _ ', �: s •uT1 �. �'- Bank ins
� • r ;� _ � �'• ti. ti � ' L - p,,. p
1 _ .L"i - •Fy�.. i. . •� i ��.-fjd�..-.�'fi'- l��[ • w: ,r � a
t ,:.. , a: • Crest Gauge
Wetland H dro eriod
.A ` .•., �' ��,' .� : _- - `'i. , � : •. s:� , ;,� `�'+.� ., � • <4%
VPA1 - Chinese Privet
a �k "' •, y�' yy ��._ vegetation Condition Assessment
Target Community
' ; d Present Mar inal Absent
€ ,;gr..k .�. ; 7 _ +•T' �'. ggl+sr ,az . .`� ii•r - r °' Absent
a•.r t k`' �:`�:" fn No Fill
Present
,., �, t v ;�• ;:' NC Center for Geographic Information & A� clysis

Table 5 Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
ReachlD UT1
Assessed Length 5186
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
/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
LUnd.t
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
and are rovidin habitat.
sting
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.
5
5
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
5
5
100%
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms. 5 5
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)
5
5
100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio> 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow.
5
5
100%

Table 5 Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
ReachlD UT2
Assessed Length 855
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
ng
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
EUnd.
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
0 0
100%
0 0 100%
and are providing habitat.
Bank slumping, calving, orcollapse
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.
21
21
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
21
21
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
21
21
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)
21
21
100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio> 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow.
21
21
100%

Table 5 Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
ReachlD UT2C
Assessed Length 193
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
ng
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
EUnd.
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
0 0
100%
0 0 100%
and are providing habitat.
Bank slumping, calving, orcollapse
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 UT3
Assessed Length 1941
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
ng
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
EUnd.
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
0 0
100%
0 0 100%
and are providing habitat.
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 UT4
Assessed Length 78
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
ng
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
scour and erosion
0 0
100°/%
100%
Banks undercutioverhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
EUnd.
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
0 0
10000/o
100%
and are providing habitat.
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0 0
100%
100%
Totals
0 0
100%
100%
2. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
0
0
N/A
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill_
0
0
N/A
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
0
0
N/A
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence doesnot exceed
15%. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document)
0
0
N/A
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio> 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow.
0
0
N/A

Table 6 Vegetation Condition Assessment
Planted Acreage 20
Easement Acreage 37.6
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
% of Planted
Vegetation Category
Definitions Threshold
Depiction
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
Combined
Easement
Red Simple
Definitions
Threshold
Depiction
1. Bare Areas
Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material. 0.1 acres
Acreage
0
0.00
0.0
Yellow
Hatch
4. Invasive Areas of Concern
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
1000 SF
Crosshatch
Orange
0.05
0.1
5. Easement Encroachment Areas' Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
2. Low Stem Density Areas
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 4, or 5 stem count criteria. 0.1 acres
Simple Hatch
0
0.00
0.0
Total
0
0.00
0.0%
Orange
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
0
0.00
0.0
Simple Hatch
Cumulative Total
0
0.00
0.0
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
Yellow
4. Invasive Areas of Concern
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
1000 SF
Crosshatch
1
0.05
0.1
5. Easement Encroachment Areas' Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
none
I Red SimpleHatch
0
0.00
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
Cedar Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Project - Project # 95718
Feature Issue I Station # / Range I Suspected Cause; Repair Photo Number
Table 8. Vegetation Problem Areas
Cedar Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Project - Project # 95718
Feature Category
Station Numbers
Suspected Cause; Repair
Photo Number
One patch of Chinese Privet present along the
VPAI
UTI @ 1+00 to 2+25
right bank on the most upstream easement
N/A
corner of UTI. Treatments will continue as
needed.

x
y�
X14 -Ps
xc�f
{F. r
08-28 2018

Cedar Creek MY4 Vegetation Plot Photos
Vegetation Plot 7
Vegetation Plot 9
Vegetation Plot 11
Appendix B — Visual Assessment Data
Vegetation Plot 8
Vegetation Plot 10
Vegetation Plot 12

Cedar Creek MY4 Vegetation Plot Photos
Vegetation Plot 13
Vegetation Plot 15
Vegetation Plot 17
Appendix B — Visual Assessment Data
Vegetation Plot 14
Vegetation Plot 16
Vegetation Plot 18

Cedar Creek MY4 Vegetation Plot Photos
Vegetation Plot 19
Appendix B — Visual Assessment Data
Vegetation Plot 20

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 C Vegetation Plot Data
Table 9a. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment Summary
Plot #
Planted
Stems/Acre
Volunteer
Stems/Acre
Total
Stems/Acre
Success
Criteria
Met?
Average
Stem
Height (ft)
1
890
25,293
26,183
Yes
5.8
2
1,255
0
1,255
Yes
5.3
3
971
4,087
5,059
Yes
4.5
4
728
32,375
33,103
Yes
8.0
5
486
0
486
Yes
7.3
6
728
2,954
3,683
Yes
4.7
7
445
1,052
1,497
Yes
2.8
8
607
0
607
Yes
8.8
9
364
2,671
3,035
Yes
6.9
10
526
4,290
4,816
Yes
2.3
11
567
0
567
Yes
5.5
12
688
0
688
Yes
8.0
13
526
0
526
Yes
8.9
14
647
0
647
Yes
3.5
15
809
0
809
Yes
8.4
16
486
6,637
7,122
Yes
4.8
17
486
4,856
5,342
Yes
5.0
18
971
4,937
5,908
Yes
1.8
19
405
0
405
Yes
6.8
20
445
121
567
Yes
4.8
Project Avg
652
4,464
5,115
Yes
5.6

Appendix C — Vegetation Plot Data
Table 9b. CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Cedar Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Report Prepared By
Ryan Medric
Date Prepared
11/6/2018 11:53
database name
Cedar_ Creek _MY4_2018.mdb
database location
S:\@RES Projects\North Carolina\0104 - Cedar
Creek\Monitoring\Monitoring Data\MY4_2018\Vegetation
Data
computer name
DESKTOP-SN39OLO
file size
76546048
DESCRIPTION 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 plot; dead and missing stems are excluded.
ALL Stems by Plot and spp
A matrix of the count of total living stems of each species
(planted and natural volunteers combined) for each plot; dead
and missing stems are excluded.
PROJECT SUMMARY
Project Code 95718
project Name Cedar Creek Restoration Site
Description
River Basin Cape Fear
length(ft)
stream -to -edge width (ft)
area (sq m)
Required Plots (calculated)
Sampled Plots 20

Appendix C — Vegetation Plot Data
Table 9c. Planted and Total Stem Counts (Species by Plot)
Cedar Creek
Current Plot
Data (MY42018)
Current Plot Data (MY42018)
Annual Means
Scientific Name
Common Name
95718-01-0001
95718-01-0002
95718-01-0003
95718-01-0004
95718-01-0005
95718-01-0006
95718-01-0007
95718-01-0008 1
95718-01-0009
95718-01-0010
95718-01-0011
95718-01-0012
95718-01-0013
Scientific Name
Common Name Species Type PnoLS P -all T
PnoLS P -all T
PnoLS P -all T
Tree
PnoLS P -all T
PnoLS P -all
T
PnoLS P -all T
PnoLS P -all T
PnoLS P -all T
PnoLS P -all T
PnoLS P -all T
PnoLS P -all
T
PnoLS P -all T
PnoLS P -all T
Acer rubrum
red maple Tree
1829
621
1042
100
500
15
Asimina triloba
60
Tree
24
2
2
54
100
Asiminatriloba
pawpaw Tree
2
13
13
13
13
13
13
16
16
16
22
22
22
30
30
30
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
4
7
7
7
1
1
1
1
1
1
Betula nigra
river birch Tree
12
12
12
21
21
21
21
1
1
1
1
1
1
22
22
28
28
28
2
2
2
1
1
1
Carya ovata
shagbark hickory Tree
2
Chamaecyparisthyoides
Atlantic white cedar
Tree
2
2
Chamaecyparisthyoides Atlantic white cedar Tree
5
5
5
24
24
24
25
25
25
28
28
28
32
32
32
34
6
6
6
may hawthorn
Shrub Tree
2
2
2
11 11
11
Crataegus aestivalis
may hawthorn Shrub Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
Diospyrosvirginiana
common persimmon
Tree
Diospyros vi rginiana
common persimmon Tree
S1
2
21
21
3 3
3
4
4
4
Liquidambarstyraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
Liquidambarstyraciflua
sweetgum Tree
1
4
9
31
170
12
4
Liriodendrontulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
Liriodendrontulipifera
tuliptree Tree
1
1
300
1
1
1
4
1
2
310
1
1
47
3
3
3
2
9
9
19
19
19
Malus
apple
Tree
Malus
apple Tree
3
3
3
4
4
4
10
10
10
Nyssa sylvatica
Nyssa sylvatica
blackgum Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
4
4
1
1
1
Pinus
pine Tree
pine
Tree
10
13
1
23
Pi nustaeda
loblolly pine Tree
Pinustaeda
loblolly pine
Tree
3
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore Tree
1
1
1
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
6
6
6
1
1
1
8
8
8
11
11
1
1
11
1
32
32
4
4
4
Quercus
oak Tree
2
21
2
40
40
Quercus
oak
Tree
2 2
2
1
1
4
4
4
5
5
5
Quercus lyrata
overcup oak Tree
4
4
4
201
1
1
1
2
2
2
6
6
6
7
7
7
1
1
1
1
1
1
13
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
49
3
3
3
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak Tree
55
55
55
54
1
1
1
3
3
3
1
11
1
5
5
5
4 4
4
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
33
33
Quercus nigra
wateroak Tree
35
35
51
51
51
61
61
61
35
35
35
Quercus nigra
water oak
Tree
3
3
3
1
1
1
1 1
1
1
11
1
Quercus phellos
willow oak Tree
3
3
3
27
3
3
3
6
6
6
21
2
2
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
3
3
1
1
1
1
31
1
1
1
2
2
2
5
5
1 1
1
1
Salix nigra
black willow Tree
30
30
30
34
34
37
1
35
35
44
44
44
21
21
21
Salix nigra
blackwillow
Tree
2
Sambucus
elderberry Shrub
3
1
7
Sambucus
elderberry
Shrub
Taxodium distichum
bald cypress Tree
1
1
31 31 31
14
14
14
3
3
3
41
4
4
2 2
2
3
3
3
21
21
2
3
4
4
4
61 61
6
4
4
4
Unknown
I IShrub or Tree
8 8
8
4
4
4
98
98
L2528
98
98
98
102
102
102
107
107
107
142
142
142
Unknown
Shrub or Tree
Stem count
22
22
647
31 31 31
24
24
125
18
18
818
121
121
12
18
18
91
11 11
37
15
15
15
91
91
75 13
13
119
14
14
14
171 171
17
13
13
13
12
5
486
size (ares)
132
6
5342
1
24
1
0.02
4
9711
1
10 10
1
0.02
3 3
4051 4051
1
11
6
4451
11
1
0.02
6
4451
1
322
14
6521
322
20
0.49
14
6521
1
329
14
6661
329
20
0.49
14
6661
1
370
14
7491
1
370
14
7491
419
12
8481
1
450
14
9111
546
13
11051
1
1
1
1
1
size (ACRES)
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
Species count
=
51
71
11 11 11
51
51
71
51
51
71
51
5
5
4
4
71
41 41
61
51
51
51
31
31
51 51
51
81
81
81
81
21 21
21
51
51
5
StemsperACREJ
8901
8901261831
12551 12551 12551
9711
9711
50591
7281
7281331031
4861
4861
486
7281
7281
36831
4451 4451
14971
6071
6071
6071
3641
3641 30351
5261
5261
48161
5671
5671
5671
6881 6881
6881
5261
5261
526
Current Plot
Data (MY42018)
Annual Means
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
95718-01-0014
Pn.LS P -all T
95718-01-0015
PnoLS P -all T
95718-01-0016
PnoLS P -all T
95718-01-0017
PnoLS P -all T
95718-01-0018
PnoLS P -all T
95718-01-0019
PnoLS P -all T
95718-01-0020
PnoLS P -all T
MY4(2018)
PnoLS P -all T
MY3(2017)
PnoLS P -all T
MY2(2016)
PnoLS P -all T
MY1(2015)
PnoLS P -all T
MYO(2015)
PnoLS P -all T
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
150
120
100
1829
1042
15
Asimina triloba
pawpaw
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
13
13
13
13
13
13
16
16
16
22
22
22
30
30
30
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
4
4
4
21
21
21
21
21
21
22
22
22
22
22
22
28
28
28
Carya ovata
shagbark hickory
Tree
2
Chamaecyparisthyoides
Atlantic white cedar
Tree
2
2
2
24
24
24
25
25
25
28
28
28
32
32
32
34
34
34
Crataegus aestivalis
may hawthorn
Shrub Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Diospyrosvirginiana
common persimmon
Tree
S1
5
S1
5
5
51
4
4
4
Liquidambarstyraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
2
31
170
1
16
Liriodendrontulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
310
1
1
47
3
3
3
9
9
9
19
19
19
Malus
apple
Tree
3
3
3
4
4
4
10
10
10
Nyssa sylvatica
blackgum
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
4
4
4
1
1
1
Pinus
pine
Tree
10
13
1
23
Pinustaeda
loblolly pine
Tree
3
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
71
7
7
2
21
21
1
11
11
32
321
321
32
32
321
33
331
331
35
35
35
40
40
40
Quercus
oak
Tree
1
1
4
4
4
5
5
5
10
10
10
20
20
201
181
181
181
Quercus lyrata
overcup oak
Tree
2
21
2
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
13
13
13
1
1
2
2
2
49
49
49
48
48
48
55
55
55
54
54
54
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
3
3
3
4
4
4
2
2
2
4
4
4
33
33
33
35
35
35
51
51
51
61
61
61
35
35
35
Quercus nigra
water oak
Tree
3
3
3
8
1 1
1
1
1
1
7
7
15
6
6
27
7
7
7
9
9
9
21
2
2
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
3
3
3
1
11
1
31
31
3
5
5
5
1 1
1
1
1
1
30
30
30
34
34
37
35
35
35
44
44
44
21
21
21
Salix nigra
blackwillow
Tree
2
3
1
7
Sambucus
elderberry
Shrub
1
1
1
Taxodium distichum
bald cypress
Tree
3
3
3
4
4
4
6
6
6
8 8
8
4
4
4
98
98
L2528
98
98
98
102
102
102
107
107
107
142
142
142
Unknown
Shrub or Tree
3
3
3
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
16
7
647
16
1
0.02
7
647
16
7
647
20
6
809
20
1
0.02
6
809
20
6
809
12
4
486
12
1
0.02
4
486
176
8
7122
12
5
486
12
1
0.02
5
486
132
6
5342
24
4
9711
24
1
0.02
4
9711
146
8
59081
10 10
1
0.02
3 3
4051 4051
10
3
4051
11
6
4451
11
1
0.02
6
4451
14
7
5671
322
14
6521
322
20
0.49
14
6521
18
51151
329
14
6661
329
20
0.49
14
6661
1623
1
19
32841
370
14
7491
370
20
0.49
14
7491
370
14
7491
419
12
8481
419
20
0.49
12
8481
450
14
9111
546
13
11051
546 546
20
0.49
13 13
11051 1105

Appendix D
Stream Geomorphology Data
(Not required for MY4)

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

Appendix E - Hydrology Data
Table 13. Documentation of Geomorphologically Significant Flow Events
Crest Gauge
Stream Reach
Flow Events
Maximum Consecutive
Cumulative Flow Days
MY 1 0
NA
MY2 4
Flow Days
MY3 0
Crest Gauge 2
UT -2C
32
57
168
(HWV)
NA
MY2 1
0.4
MY3 0
Crest Gauge
Number of
Bankfull Events
Maximum Bankfull Height (ft.)
Crest Gauge 1 (UT3)
January
MY 1 0
NA
MY2 4
1.15
MY3 0
NA
MY4 4
1.05
Crest Gauge 3 (UT2)
March
MY1 0
NA
MY2 1
0.4
MY3 0
NA
MY4 2
0.25
Table 14. 2018 Rainfall Summary
Month
Average
Normal Limits
30 Percent 70 Percent
Clinton
Precipitation
January
4.33
3.32
5.03
3.81
February
3.23
2.14
3.87
1.82
March
4.50
3.23
5.32
3.23
April
3.16
1.70
3.85
4.39
May
3.68
2.69
4.34
4.34
June
4.49
3.11
5.34
2.6
July
6.06
4.16
7.22
7.18
August
5.40
3.12
6.56
4.85
September
5.00
2.04
6.07
25.68
October
3.21
1.62
3.92
1.64
November
2.89
1.83
3.49
3.98
December
3.24
2.14
3.88
6.79
Total
49.19
31.10
58.89
70.31

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%
Gauge
Consecutive
Cumulative
Occurrences
Percent of
Days growing
Season
Percent of
Days growing
Season
AW1
242
100
242
100
1
AW2
242
100
242
100
1
AW3
242
100
242
100
1
AW4
242
100
242
100
1
AW5
49
20
160
66
12
AW6
98
40
149
62
3
AW7
7
3
34
14
21
AW8
19
8
128
53
16
AW9
49
20
162
67
12
AW10
36
15
157
65
11
AW11
19
8
108
44
19
RAW1 *
36
15
86
35
10
RAW2
62
25
185
76
8
RAW3
62
25
176
73
9
*Reference Well l was damaged during Hurricane Florence
Table 15b. Wetland Hydrology Gauge Summary
<5% 1 5-8% 1>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
AW1
162
67
229
94
240
99 1
242
100
AW2
162
67
229
94
240
99
242
100
AW3
71
29
134
55
242
100
242
100
AW4
100
41
229
94
131
54
242
100
AW5
51
21
60
25
53
22
49
20
AW6
51
21
96
39
79
32
98
40
AW7
5
2
4
2
2
1
7
3
AW8
21
9
34
14
28
12
19
8
AW9
51
21
33
13
61
25
49
20
AW10
50
21
35
14
31
13
36
15
AW11
13
5
6
2
24
10
19
8
RAW1
23
10
56
23
177
73
36
15
RAW2
52
21
99
41
191
79
62
25
RAW3
51
21
88
36
63
1 26
62
25
<5% 1 5-8% 1>9%

Appendix E — Hydrology Data
Figure 8. 2018 Cedar Creek Groundwater Monitoring Gauge Hydrographs
10
5
W
20
-25
2018 Cedar Creek Groundwater Gauge AW1
Growing Season
v "N NIVIVI TlW
------------
________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -------
0 ___—_
0
J
1
F M A M J J A
Months
ti Clinton Daily Rainfall — CC AW1
S ❑ N o
90.0
9.0
8.0
7.0
N
6.0 t
Q
C
r-
5-0.2 5.D o
w
4.0 W
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0

Appendix E — Hydrology Data
2018 Cedar Creek Groundwater Gauge AW2
10 10
Growing Season
9
5
ITT
8
0
7
d
t
C]
D V
d -10 5 0
Q
W ++
L_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ----------------- -- ---------------
4 -___-_ _----.4 U
-15
c a
0 3
C7
-20
F2
-25 II
1
-30 0
J F M A M J J A S 0 N ❑
Months
Clinton Daily Rairlall - CC AW2

10
S
0
V
-20
-25
2018 Cedar Creek Groundwater Gauge AW3
Growing Season
ill
I
-30
J
F M A M J J A 5 D N a
Months
Clinton Daily Rain}a11 — CCAW3
Appendix E — Hydrology Data
10
9
8
7
N
6
s
c�
_
5 D
CL
4 Q
d
CL
3
2
1
0

Appendix E — Hydrology Data
2018 Cedar Creek Groundwater Gauge AW4
10
10.0
Growing Season
9.0
5
j
8.0
y
7.0
a
5.0 4)
C
0
a+
v
�
a
-10
-
5.0 G
W
------------------------------------
------ ------
m
a
EL
4.0'v
3
15
0
C
i.
d
3
II
11
3.0
2a
11
li
2.0
-25
II
II
;11
11
11
L
1"
-3D
0.0
J
F m A M J J A S O N D
Months
CIIMon Daily Rainfall CC AW4

ilf
5
83
&"
sill
-15
RE
-30
Appendix E — Hydrology Data
2018 Cedar Creek Groundwater Gauge AW5
Months
Clinton Daily Rainfall - CCAWS
9.0
IM
TO
rn
6.0
V
_
5.0 0
4W
m
tr
4.06.
La
6.
a
cm
2.0
1.0
At

Appendix E — Hydrology Data

Appendix E — Hydrology Data
2018 Cedar Creek Groundwater Gauge AW7
10 10.0
Growing Season
8.0
0
s.a
7.0
t -10
6.0
�
wOe
`y
Y
5.0 0
-20
w
y
4.0'3
c
aL
-30
L
C7
&0
2.0
-40
10
1
1
-50 0.0
J F M A M J J A S 0 N D
Months
�CWon Day Raintali -CC AW7

Appendix E — Hydrology Data
2018 Cedar Creek Groundwater Gauge AW8
10 10.0
Growing
Season
570
S.0
1
6,0
-10
o
m
�N
�.
-15
--
—
5.00
CL
4.0
-20
--
j
C
a`
°
3.0
-25
0
-
2.0
-30
•35 1.0
-4° 0-0
J F m A M J J A S 0 N D
Months
Clinton Daily Rainfall ("CA .

Appendix E - Hydrology Data
2018 Cedar Creek Groundwater Gauge AW9
10
10.0
Growing Season
5
9.0
0
8.0
r
-5
7.0
G
6.0
-10
a
Y
a
15
5,00
FU
v
a.+
20
Q-
4.0 Z
3
c
a
25
3.0
L7
-30
-- — 2.0
-35
1.0
-400.0
J
F M A M J J A S ❑ N D
Months
Clinton Daly Rainfall n

Appendix E — Hydrology Data
2018 Cedar Creek Groundwater Gauge AW10
10
100
Growing Season
5
9.0
0
s. o
7.0
-s
6,0
-1D
0
---------
— — — —
----
--
--- — —
—
--
------
m
'm
0
-15
5.0
w
L
yam+
'0
Q-
4.0
3
-2b
u
'a
C
L
4.
7
L9
25
3.0
-3D
2.0
-35
- 1.0
-40
LLIU
L
0.0
J
F m A M J J A S 0 N
D
Months
�Clmlon Daily Rainfall CCAW1❑

Appendix E — Hydrology Data
2018 Cedar Creek Groundwater Gauge AW11
10
10.0
�= Growing Season
'
❑
8.0
N
as
-5
7.0
10
6.0
D
t—
,
--------
—
—
--
-- ---
----- —
V
sti
m
d
--
p
15
5.0
W
L
rte+
}+
Q-
3
-20
=
- 4.0 u
d
=
3.0
t7
-25
I�
-30
I�
2.0
1.0
-35
— —
3
—
-40
Wmnn LI
11 0,0
J
F M A M J J A 5 0 N
a
Months
Rfffffff�CIiNonDaOyRain fall —CCA'.V'.—

Appendix E — Hydrology Data
2018 Cedar Creek Groundwater Gauge REFAWI
10 10.0
Growing Season
5
9.0
Z
Z
0
,
1�Z
8.0
-5
I=
�
7.0
=
6.0
-10
0 --------
---- —
---
—-------,;-------
c
t
4 15
5.0 p
47
=
Q
4- 0
3 -20 -
U
d
3.0
-25
,
-30
=Z
2.0
.Z
3.
-35. 1.0
kir
LZ.
40 0-0
J F M A M J J A S O N D
Months
j
fi Clinton Daily Rainfall CC REFAW1

Appendix E — Hydrology Data
2018 Cedar Creek Groundwater Gauge REFAW2
10
10.0
Growing Season
9.0
5
❑
8.❑
y
—5
�
1a
J
7.❑
�
v
f
6.❑�
_
-1❑
a
U
m
15
5.00
W
q
4.O'U
3
—2❑
Q
a`
o
�'
3.0
i7
-25
2.0
-30
1. ❑
-35
-40
L'L
0.0
J
F M A M J J A S 0 N D
Months
Clinton Daly Rainfall CC REF AW2

Appendix E — Hydrology Data
2018 Cedar Creek Groundwater Gauge REFAW3
10
€_
10-0
Growing Season_
5
=
9.0
€I
I
I
0
8.0
= I�
rn
-5
vW
l.0
_
6.0
-10
O
=
d
15
=
5-0 p
W
_
+r
CL
3
-20
4_0'U
C
=
�
&0
0
-25
I
30
I
2.0
-35
1.0
-40 €�I�j 0.0
J F M A M J J A 5 ❑ N ❑
Months
�CliMon Daily Rainfall CC REFAW3

Appendix E — Hydrology Data
TRlril�
,
���1f1�'�iP�����11�1�1�1Y1V■IIIIIIII��l�lllllll I V1�1�11�11�

Appendix E — Crest Gauge Verification Photos
Crest Gauge 1 Reading 1.05 ft (9/15/2018) Crest Gauge 3 Reading 0.25 ft (9/15/2018)