20130187 Ver 1_Year 4 Monitoring Report_2018_20190110

Mitigation Project Name UT to Millers Creek
DMS ID 95719
River Basin Cape Fear
Cataloging Unit 03030006
County Duplin UBACE Action ID 2013-00386
Date Projectlnsfltutell 1211212021 NCDWR Permit No 2013-0187
Data Prepared 92212013
Credit Release Milestone
Potential Credits(Mitigation Plan
Potential Credits As -Built Survey)
SCM1eduletl
Releases
(Stream)
Warm
2,679.000
2,709.000
stream Cres{
Cool Cold Anticipated
Release Year
(Stream)
Actual
Release Dato
(Super)
Scheduled
Releases
(Ferestad)
Rlpadan
Rberine
8'200
8.000
Wetlaad Credits
Wpanan on Nond tlen
tivatlna Fa Scheduled
Releases
(Coastal)
Coastal Anticipated
Relsase Year
(Wetland)
Actual
Release Date
(Wetland)
1 She Establishment
WA
N/A
WA
NIA
NIA
N/A
NIA
2 ear 0l ASBu
30%
812.]00
2016
3212016
30%
2.400
30%
2016
3212015
3 Yearl Monitoring)10%
2]0.900
2016
4262016
10%
0.800
10%
2016
4282016
4 Year2MonRore
10%
270.900
2017
4/32017
10%
0.800
15%.
2017
4132017
5 ear3 Monitorin
10%
270.900
2018
4/152018
15%
1.200
20%
2016
4252018
6 (Year4 Modern
5%
2019
1,89650
5%
10%
2019
7 ear S Monhorin
10%
2020
IVA
15%
2020
9 ear6 Menhedn
5%
2021
NCOOT MP 33906 -gneiss
5%
WA
2021
9 earl Emomin
10%
202210%
0.121
NIA
2022
Stream Bankfull Standard
10%
270.900
2017
.3201]
NIA
NIA
Total Credits Released to Date
1
11896500
1
1
5.200
NCDOT TIP B4152 -Bridge on
OESITS (released medhs only)
Retia. 1 1.5 25 5 1.09625
.p
F S S
X T
al W Z6
Asdulh A....Is Reet and school
;709.000
8]70
As-Bullt Amounts (mitigation cred'6s)
2,709.000
8.000
Percentage Released
70%
65%
Released Amouma(feetlacres)
1,89640
SA01
Released Amounts (credits)
1,89650
5.200
NCDWR Permit USACE Ad., 10 Prolett Name
NCOOT MP 33906 -gneiss
2001-01309 over Six Runs Cr. Sampson Co
0.121
NCDOT TIP 8J654 -Badges
on NC 55, Hillman & Sampapn
200340152 Co
0.5041 1
NCDOT TIP B4152 -Bridge on
NC 242, Sampson &
2000-016]2 Cumiskmd Co
0274
NCOOT To B-5116 -Bridge on
2010-00123 SR 1502, Bladen Co
0.219
NCDOT TIP BA54S-Bridge on
2012-0219 2010-00334 ISR 1558, Hameh Cc
0.329
NCOOT TIP 8 -5143 -Badge on
200900859 SR 1105, Duplin Co
I
I
0.142
NC00T TIP R -5528 -SR 1841
Improvements-Dlvislon B,
2014.00131 Hamad Co
0.515
NODOT TP M117-Bntlge on
201302241 N0210, Bladed Co
0230
The Pok Company 5&J V Ilatl
2010-00917 tivesbck
110.000
NCOOTTIP R -2303C -NC 24,
2012-0240 1992-03237 Sampson County
702.700
0.301
NCOOTTIP R -2303C -NC 24,
2012-0240 1992-03237 Sampson County
270.900
0.87
NCDOT TIP R -23030-N024,
2012-0240 199243237 Sampson County
541.800
Remaining Amounts (fetll acres)
270.900
2.189
Remaining Amouma(credite)
V0.9001i
L996

i l q- S ct-�ll
(if any): None
Gl6l l
I - For NCEEP, no credits are relea$ed during the first milestone
2- For NCEEP projects, the seco/'y'' 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 NCEEP Portal, provided the following criteria
have been met:
1) Approval of the final Mitigation Plan
2) Recordation of the preservation mechanism, as well as a title opinion acceptable to the USACE covering the property
3) Completion of all physical and biological improvements to the mitigation site pursuant to the mitigation plan
4) Reciept of necessary DA permit authorization or written DA approval for porjects where DA permit issuance is not required
3 - A 10% reserve of credits is to be held back until the bankfull event performance standard has been met

YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT
UT MILLERS CREEK
Duplin County, North Carolina
DMS Project ID No. 95719, Contract No. 5000, USACE Action ID No. SAW -2013-00386
DWR Project No. 13-0187
Prepared for:
NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services (DMS)
217 West Jones St., Suite 3000A
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
Construction Completed: February 2015
Visual Assessment Data Collected: March, July, September, December 2018
Submitted: January 10, 2018

January 10, 2019
Lindsay Crocker
Project Manager
NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services
217 West Jones Street, Suite 3000A
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
Re: NCDEQ — Division of Mitigation Services
UT Millers MY 4 Monitoring Report
UT to Millers Creek Draft Year 4 Monitoring Report
Cape Fear River Basin, CU 03030006, Duplin County, DMS Project No. 95719
Ms. Crocker,
As per your email dated November 11, 2018. we have reviewed and addressed DMS review comments
as follows:
General:
Update hydrographs and Table 8 with data though the growing season (at least through 11/91).
It is possible that the two gauges not meeting may achieve success during this time.
Response:
The hydrographs have been updated through the entire year. All of the gauge locations
are meeting success criteria.
2. CCPV, replace the pages 16-22 with a GIS rendered CCPV. It does not need to include
engineering features. The gauges, vegetation plots, cross sections, and other monitoring
features should be labeled and visible. Also, the assets should be apparent, along with any
areas of concern (bank erosion, low vigor, etc areas). This should be a one-page map that is
easy to understand similar to the one the iRT requested at credit release (1'm attaching it).
Make sure that the headwater wetland is depicted separately on this map.
Response:
The CCPV has been rendered in GIS. The assets have been included on this map and
the figure for the asset map has been removed from the document.
3. All support files should be in their native file type (i.e. excel, not PDF)
Response:
All support files nave Deen resupmittea in tneir native nie type.
Specific:
4. Page 3, Visual Vegetation Assessment- this section describes a lot of low stem density and
bare areas that were not called out on previous reports, what has changed? During our site
walk, 1 did not notice this extent of vegetative concern. Additionally, there is a successful
vegetation plot in the middle of one section which does not make sense (VP6). Please

evaluate if this shape matches the area on the ground of low stem density and revise CCPV,
and table 6 accordingly,
Response:
The low stem density areas were reviewed and the CCPV was revised to show only one
area of low stem density that meets the mapping threshold. Table 6 was also updated to
reflect the revision.
5. Page 3, Visual Stream Assessment- the next paragraph describes "holes" near the soil lifts?
Would these features be better described as surficial scour, eroded depressions, or do they
actually tunnel through? If these are just storm flow features where water is moving around
roots, they may not be valuable to mention. The cataloging threshold for a channel the size of
UT Miller (<3' bank height) is 10' of bank scour, slumping, or collapse. Do these areas meet
this threshold? If not, remove and update table 5 accordingly.
Response:
The areas of erosion have been reviewed and it was determined that only two areas of
bank erosion meet the mapping threshold of over 10'. The CCPV was updated to reflect
these areas, as well as the narrative and Table 5.
6. Page 4, Methodology- this section describes 9 gauges, which would be an increase from 6 from
previous years. /understand the IRT requested additional gauges. Do you have and can you
provide the additional data and gauge locations on the CCPV? If not, ok.
Response:
The Methodology section was revised from 9 to 6 based on DMS's rejection of a
supplemental request for additional groundwater gauges dated August 16, 2018.
7. Asset map- Figure 2- show the headwater area as separate on this map OR merge this with
CCPV and delete it.
Response:
The headwater area has been defined and is shown on the CCPV. The asset map has
been deleted.
8. Table 1- break out the headwater wetland area as a separate row on the table.
Response:
The headwater wetland area is now shown separately in Table 1.
9. Page 24, Table 7. Update this table to include all bankfull events (see MY3 report).
Response:
The table has been updated to include all bankfull events.
10. Table _12. 1 understand that HDR listed the growing season as 2/1-11/30 in the Mitigation Plan
and plan to stick with this timeline. DMS will support this because it was described at the
project inception and approved at that time. Please provide the excel file from hydrology for all
previous years so DMS might have additional date to satiate iRT if needed.
Response:
The excel files for hydrology have been provided for all the previous years.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to give me a call
(919.232.6600, ext. 1645).

Prepared by:
F) ICA
HDR Engineering
555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 900
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
919.232.6600
919.232.6642 (fax)
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE DOCUMENT CONTAINED HEREIN, UT MILLERS CREEK
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT
SUPERVISION.
'� 3-M "�g 2
SIGNED SEALED, AND DATED THIS / � T� DAY OFY 2019.
Chris L. Smith, PE

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
1.0 PROJECT SUMMARY..................................................................................................... 2
1.1 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES........................................................................................................ 2
1.2 SUCCESS CRITERIA................................................................................................................. 2
1.3 BACKGROUND SUMMARY...................................................................................................... 3
1.4 VISUAL VEGETATION ASSESSMENT....................................................................................... 3
1.5 VISUAL STREAM ASSESSMENT............................................................................................... 3
1.6 SURFACE WATER AND GROUNDWATER HYDROLOGY............................................................ 3
2.0 METHODOLOGY.............................................................................................................4
3.0 REFERENCES...................................................................................................................4
APPENDIX A. PROJECT VICINITY MAP, ASSET MAP AND BACKGROUND TABLES ....................... 6
APPENDIX B. VISUAL ASSESSMENT DATA................................................................................
12
APPENDIX C. HYDROLOGIC DATA............................................................................................
17
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE PAGE
Figure1. Vicinity Map.................................................................................................................. 7
Figure 2.1 Current Condition Plan View................................................................................. 13
Figures 3.1 - 3.3 Problem Area Photos.................................................................................. 16
Figures 4.1 - 4.3 Crest Gauge Photos.................................................................................... 18
Figure 5. Monthly Precipitation....................................................................... 20
Figures 6.1 - 6.8. Wetland Gauges................................................................... 21
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE
Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits...........
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History .....................
Table 3. Project Contacts Table ..............................................
Table 4. Project Information......................................................
Table 5. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment...
Table 6. Vegetative Assessment Data .....................................
Table 7. Verification of Bankfull Events ...................................
Table 8. Summary of Gauge Hydrologic Data .......................
PAGE
............................................. 8
............................................. 9
........................................... 10
........................................... 11
........................................... 14
........................................... 15
........................................... 17
........................................... 19
Page 1

1.0 PROJECT SUMMARY
The following report summarizes the vegetation establishment, stream stability, and wetland
hydrology for Year 4 monitoring for the UT Millers Creek Site (hereafter referred to as the "Site")
in Duplin County, North Carolina.
1.1 Goals and Objectives
The primary goals of the UT Millers Creek stream and wetland mitigation project focus on:
• Reducing stressors to water quality
• Providing and enhancing flood attenuation
• Restoring and enhancing aquatic, semi -aquatic and riparian habitat, and
• Restoring and enhancing habitat connectivity with adjacent natural habitats.
The following objectives accomplish the goals listed above:
1. Removing stressors to water quality and increasing attenuation is directly tied to:
a. Restoration of the formerly deeply incised and entrenched UT as a Priority I (PI)
restoration where bankfull and larger flows access the historic floodplain allowing
nutrients, sedimentation, trash and debris from upstream urban runoff to settle from
floodwaters.
b. Restoration of the UT as PI restoration allows the Site to mitigate flood flows by
reconnecting bankfull and higher flows to its historic floodplain.
c. Restoration of the riparian buffers and wetlands adjacent to the UT (i.e. restoration
of an existing pond and ditch back to riparian wetlands) allows floodwaters to
attenuate, in turn reducing stressors from upstream impacts.
d. Restoration of wetland hydrology within the riparian buffer supports hydrophytic
vegetation, which assists in the uptake, storage and fixation of nutrients and
sedimentation from overbank flows. Adjacent low quality pine plantations were
removed and planted with native hydrophytic vegetation.
Restoring and enhancing aquatic, semi -aquatic and terrestrial habitat is directly tied to:
a. Introduction of woody materials such as planted vegetation, log sills, soil lifts and
toe wood to the restored channel. Woody materials will promote shading, bed form
diversity and foraging opportunities for aquatic organisms, benthic
macroinvertebrates, and fish.
b. Restoration of native vegetation to the stream channel banks and the adjacent
riparian corridor has diversified flora and provides an abundance of available
foraging and cover habitat for amphibians, reptiles, mammals and birds.
c. Restoration of wetland hydrology and introducing floodwaters back to the historic
floodplain provides a diversity of habitats for semi -aquatic flora and fauna that may
have not been seen on the Site since before anthropogenic disturbances.
Habitat restoration and connectivity can be directly tied to:
a. The removal of existing pine plantations and replanting of native vegetation.
b. The restored community ensures a protected habitat corridor between the Site and
the downstream mature riparian buffers and upland habitats.
1.2 Success Criteria
Monitoring of restoration efforts will be performed until success criteria are fulfilled. Monitoring
includes stream channel/hydraulics, wetland hydrology, and vegetation. Year 4 Monitoring
consists of hydrology monitoring, stream and wetland visual monitoring and vegetation visual
Page 2

monitoring. In general, the restoration success criteria, and required remediation actions, are
based on the Stream Mitigation Guidelines (USACE et al. 2003) and the Ecosystem
Enhancement Program Monitoring Requirements and Performance Standards for stream and/or
Wetland Mitigation (NCEEP 2011). Project success criteria are further detailed in the Baseline
Monitoring Document & As -Built Baseline Report (ICA 2015).
1.3 Background Summary
The North Carolina Department of Environmental and Natural Resources Department of
Mitigation Services (DMS) contracted ICA Engineering, Inc. (ICA) to restore 2,625 linear feet of
the Unnamed Tributary to Millers Creek (UT) and 4.5 acres of riparian wetlands within the Site
to assist in fulfilling stream mitigation goals in the watershed (Table 1 and Table 4). The Site is
located approximately one-half (0.5) mile west of Magnolia in Duplin County, North Carolina and
contains an unnamed tributary to Millers Creek and associated restored riparian wetlands
(Figure 1). The Site is located within DMS Targeted Local Watershed Catalogue Unit (CU)
03030006. The Site is comprised of one property owned by William Jeffrey Hatcher and wife
Susan King Hatcher (PIN # 247100987405). Additional information concerning project history is
presented in Table 2.
1.4 Visual Vegetation Assessment
Visual assessment of on-site vegetation suggests that planted stems are becoming well
established and volunteer stems are becoming more evident. The herbaceous vegetation is also
becoming better established as previously noted bare areas are starting to show a dense
community of annual and perennial species. No exotic or nuisance species were observed
during Year 4.
One area of low stem density remain present on-site. The total acreage of low stem density
areas is 0.12 acres (approximately 1 % of planted acreage). Low stem density has been noted
from station 33+60 — 36+00. It is expected that volunteer species will establish in this area in
future years. Photos of this area are presented in Figures 3.1-3.3.
1.5 Visual Stream Assessment
UT Millers Creek remains stable and functioning as designed. Channel bank stability continues
to benefit from the maturation of vegetation along the channel toes and bank. During Year 4,
two areas of minor or moderate erosion were noted. It is expected that these areas will fill with
vegetation and no remedial action is recommended at this time. Photos of these areas are
presented in Figures 3.1-3.3.
1.6 Surface Water and Groundwater Hydrology
The site has experienced several bankfull flows throughout the monitoring period. Bankfull event
documentation can be found in Appendix C.
Based upon the Final Mitigation Plan, the hydrologic criteria for restored wetlands at the Site are
as follows (based upon the corresponding landscape position and wetland community type):
a. For the riparian bottomland hardwood forest community, the hydrologic criterion
will be the establishment of a static water table at, or within, 12 inches of the soil
Page 3

surface for a minimum of 12.5 percent of the growing season, equivalent to 38 days
based upon hydrologic monitoring undertaken from Feb 1 st through Nov 30th of
each monitoring year.
b. For the headwater riparian community (zero -order geomorphic position), the
hydrologic criterion will be the establishment of a static water table at, or within, 12
inches of the soil surface for a minimum of 10 percent of the growing season,
equivalent to 30 days based upon hydrologic monitoring undertaken from Feb 1st
through Nov 30th of each monitoring year.
The UT Millers site exhibits a range of hydrologic conditions characteristic of small stream
swamp wetland community types of the inner Coastal Plain of North Carolina. Several of the
groundwater gauges documented elevated groundwater levels at or near the soil surface for
extended periods of time during the growing season. In addition, portions of the site exhibited
intermittent to prolonged periods of surface inundation. Refer to the attached gauge
hydrographs depicting recorded groundwater and surface water levels from February 1 through
November 30.
All of the groundwater gauges located on the mitigation site exhibit hydrology indicative of
jurisdictional wetlands (i.e. hydroperiods greater than 5% of the growing season), and all six
gauges exceeded the minimum success criteria as outlined above. While the specific durations
of wetland hydrology at each gauge varied across the site, each gauge also displayed
prolonged wetland hydroperiods during normal rainfall conditions.
The summary of hydroperiods for each gauge is presented in Table 8 and gauge locations are
depicted in Figure 2.1.
2.0 METHODOLOGY
Groundwater hydrology was monitored using six automated gauges (RDS, Inc. WM-20s)
located within the riparian wetland restoration areas. Two reference gauges were installed; one
in a Headwater Riparian Wetland and one in a Bottomland Hardwood Wetland. Gauges were
installed in accordance with installation methods outlined in the Wetlands Regulatory Assistance
Program (WRAP) Technical Note 00-02 (Sprecher, 2000). Water levels were recorded once
daily and the data was downloaded every two months.
3.0 REFERENCES
ICA Engineering, Inc. As -Built Monitoring Document & As -Built Baseline Report for UT Millers
Creek Full Delivery Site. 2015.
Lee, Michael T., R. K. Peet, S. D. Roberts, and T. R. Wentworth. 2006. CVS-EEP Protocol for
Recording Vegetation, Version 4.0 (http://cvs.bio.unc.edu/methods.htm).
NCEEP. Ecosystem Enhancement Program Monitoring Requirements and Performance
Standards for stream and/or Wetland Mitigation. 2011.
Page 4

Sprecher, S. W. (2000). "Installing Monitoring Wells/Piezometers in Wetlands," ERDC TN -
WRAP -00-02, U.S. Army Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS.
US Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington District. Stream Mitigation Guidelines.
2003
Weakley, Alan S. 2011. Flora of the Southern and Mid -Atlantic States (online). Available:
http://www.herbarium.unc.edu/FloraArchives/WeakleyFlora_20l1-May-nay.pdf [May 15,
2011]. University of North Carolina Herbarium, North Carolina Botanical Garden,
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Page 5

APPENDICES
Appendix A. Project Vicinity Map and Background Tables
Page 6

'W E .-
S
1115 BM J�
% I 137 -�✓1 n ✓. '
11 7<1
_ �� � /-moi 1 • {�� �\ �i
1003
_ Project Site.-
`�� _ _ •- y. -.r '' _ � �1' ::jam .\. I _ / � . �� --- ''.
Sewage
Magnolia�
_ �► _ 1 _ :tel 191i
Gem.
Y:Pam
1 G i u Gem ,� 1161,
1?7 71-
117
cam, : ti• _
U.M.
Vicinity Map
UT to Millers Creek Mitigation Site, Duplin County, NC Figure
' 0 750 1,500 3,000 4,500 6,000
Feet
1 inch = 2,000 feet

Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
UT to the Millers Creek, Duplin County
DMS Pro ect ID No. 95719
Mitigation Credits
Stream Riparian Wetland Non -riparian Nitrogen Phosphorous
Buffer
Nutrient Offset Nutrient Offset
(SMU) (WMU) Wetland
Type R RE R
RE R RE
Totals 2,709 8.00
Restoration Level
Project Components
Project
Stationing/
Existing
Approach
Restoration
Restoration
Mitigation
SMU or
Component or
Location
Footage/ Acreage
P( PH etc.)
or Restoration
Footage or
Ratio
WMU
Reach ID
UT Millers
buffer
Buffer to protect Filter nutrients and provide cover, foraging
stream areas habitat woody debris, and wildlife
Equivalent
Acrea e
UT Millers
10+13—
2,100
PI
Restoration
2,709
1:1
2,709
Creek
37+22
Drained
Wetland
NA
1.22
NA
Restoration
1.22
1:1
1.22
Headwater
Drained
Wetland
NA
3.78
NA
Restoration
3.78
1:1
3.78
Pines
Drained Wetland
NA
2.55
NA
Restoration
2.55
1.25:1
2.04
Mature Woods
Drained Wetland
(Berm/Spoil Along
NA
0.45
NA
Restoration
0.45
1:1
0.45
UT
Pond
NA
0.77
NA
Restoration
0.77
1.5:1
0.51
TOTAL
NA
2,100/8.77
PINNA
Restoration
2,709/8.77
1 1 — 1.5:1
2,709/8.00
Component Summation
Stream
(linear feet)
Riparian Wetland (acres)
Non-
Riparian
Buffer
(square
Upland
Restoration Level
Wetland
acres
Riverine Non-Riverine
acres
feet
Restoration
2,709
8.77
BMP Elements
Element
I Location
Purpose/Function I Notes
Forested Buffer
UT Millers
buffer
Buffer to protect Filter nutrients and provide cover, foraging
stream areas habitat woody debris, and wildlife

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
UT to Millers Creek DMS Project ID No. 95719
Activity or Report
Data
Collection
Complete
Completion
or Delivery
Restoration Plan
Aug -13
Sep -14
Final Design — Construction Plans
Sep -14
Sep -14
Construction
3 -Nov -14
23 -Jan -15
Temporary S&E Mix Applied to Entire Project Area
---
23 -Jan -15
Permanent Seed Mix Applied to Entire Project Area
---
23 -Jan -15
Bare Root, Containerized, and B&B plantings for Entire
Pro'ect Area
---
10 -Mar -15
Mitigation Plan/As-built (Year 0 Monitoring -Baseline)
Mar -15
Apr -15
Year 1 Monitoring
Oct -15
Dec -15
Year 2 Monitoring
Nov -16
Feb -17
Year 3 Monitoring
Nov -17
Jan -18
Year 4 Monitoring
Dec -18
Jan -19
Year 5 Monitoring
Year 6 Monitoring
Year 7 Monitoring

Table 3. Project Contacts Table
UT to Millers Creek (DMS Project ID No. 95719)
Designer
HDR I ICA Engineering
555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 900
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Primary project design POC
Kevin Williams [phone]
Construction Contractor
Land Mechanic Designs, Inc.
126 Circle G Lane
Construction Contractor POC
Willow Spring, NC 27592
Lloyd Glover [phone]
Planting Contractor
River Works, Inc.
6105 Chapel Hill Road
Planting Contractor POC
Raleigh, NC 27607
Phillip Todd [phone]
Seeding Contractor
Land Mechanic Designs, Inc.
126 Circle G Lane
Willow Spring, NC 27592
Seeding Contractor POC
Lloyd Glover [phone]
Seed Mix Sources
Green Resources — Triangle Office
1) ArborGen
Nursery Stock Suppliers
2) Mellow Marsh Farm, Inc.
3) Foggy Mountain Nursery (live stakes)
HDR I ICA Engineering
Monitoring Performers
555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 900
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Alex DiGeronimo [phone]
HDR I ICA Engineering
Stream Monitoring POC
555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 900
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Alex DiGeronimo [phone]
Land Management Group, Inc
Vegetation Monitoring POC
3805 Wrightsville Avenue, Suite 15
Wilmington, NC 28403
Kim Williams [phone] x 1908

Reach Summary Information
Table 4. Project Information
UT to Millers Creek (DMS Project ID No. 95719)
Parameters
Project Information
Project Name
UT to Millers Creek Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
Project County
Duplin
Project Area (acres)
15.944 AC
Project Coordinates
34.894467,-78.067625
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Region
Coastal Plain
Ecoregion
Southeastern Plains
Project River Basin
Cape Fear
USGS 8 -digit HUC
3030006
USGS 14 -digit HUC
3030006110040
NCDWQ Subbasin
03-06-19
Project Drainage Area
250 AC
Watershed Land Use
Cultivated, Southern Yellow Pine, Bottomland Forest /
Hardwood Swamps
Reach Summary Information
Regulatory Considerations
Parameters
UT to Millers Creek
Restored length
2,709 linear feet
Drainage Area
250 AC.
NCDWQ Index Number
36
NCDWQ Classification
C, Sw
Valle Type/Morphological Description
X/Existin G/5/Restored E5
Dominant Soil Series
Bibb sandy loam and Torhunta fine sandy loam
(USDA/NRCS records). Cape Fear, Rains, Plummer,
Rutlege and Lynn Haven Soil series (additional series
mapped by LMG)
Drainage Class
Poorly and very poorly
Soil Hydric Status
Bibb sandy loam (hydric)
Torhunta mucky fine sandy loam (hydric)
Slope
0.0016
FEMA Classification
Zone X
Native Vegetation Community
Mixed stand of hardwoods and pine
Percent Composition of Exotic Invasives
<5%
Wetland Summary Information
Regulatory Considerations
Parameters
Wetland 1
Wetland 2
Wetland 3
Size of Wetland (acres)
0.21
0.12
0.59
Wetland Type (non -riparian riverine or riparian non-riverine
Riparian Non-Riverine
Riparian Non-Riverine
Riparian Non-Riverine
Mapped Soil Series
BbA
ToA
BnB
Drainage class
Poorly Drained
Very Poorly Drained
Moderately Well Drained
Soil Hydric Status
Hydric
Hydric
Partially Hydric
Source of Hydrology
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Hydrologic Impairment
Stream Incision
Stream Incision
Stream Incision/Beavers
Native vegetation community
Forested
Forested
Emergent
Percent composition of exotic invasion vegetation
0
0
0
Regulatory Considerations
Regulation
Applicable
Resolved
Supporting
Documentation
Waters of the U.S. —Sections 404 and 401
Yes
Yes
Restoration Plan/NW 27
Endangered Species Act
No
Yes
NCNHP/USFWS
Historic Preservation Act
No
Yes
NCSHPO
CZMA/CAMA
No
Yes
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
Yes
Yes
HECRAS
Essential Fisheries Habitat
No
N/A

Appendix B. Visual Assessment Data
Page 12

ok-
Y r
Legend /LO.,
Property Lines �QQ "�• !►
Conservation Easement �+►
Stream Restoration (2,709 Ft)
Riparian Restoration Boundary
Headwater Wetland Restoration -
�.
®(1.22 Ac) 1C
Riparian Wetland Restoration -
Pines (3.78 Ac)
r
Riparian Wetland Restoration -
P9
Mature Woods (2.55 Ac)
Riparian Wetland Restoration -
Pond (0.77 Ac)
Riparian Restoration - Berm
Removal - (0.45 Ac)
Confirmed Hydric Soils
Veg Plots -
Cross Sections
Groundwater Gauges
Q Bank Pins -
Moderate Erosion Y•;;; :. ,. r ,
Minor Erosion�k
Criteria Met (Based on Year 3)
L• r «
Q Low Stem Density • - ��
Current Condition Plan View - Year 4
UT Millers Creek, Duplin County, North Carolina 1 z Figure �
0 87.5 175 350 525 700 Environmental 2.1
Feet Quality r7l

Table 5: Visual Stream Morpholoqv Stability Assessment
Reach ID: UT Millers Creek
Assessed Length: 2,709 FT
Number
Footage
Adjusted %
with
with
for
Total
Number of Amount of
% Stable,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Channel
Number Stable,
Number in
Unstable Unstable
Performing as
Woody
Woody
Woody
Major Channel Category
Sub-Category
Metric
Performing as Intended
As-built
Segments Footage
Intended
Vegetation
Vegetation
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability (Riffle
and Run units)
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars)
0 0
100%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting
0 0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
N/AN/A
100%
3. Meander Pool
Condition
1 Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth: Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6)
5
5
100%
2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
61
61
100%
4 Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
57
57
100%
100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
57 57
2. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
scour and erosion
2 30
98.9%
N/A N/A N/A
Banks undercutloverhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
0 0
100%
N/A N/A N/A
and are providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0 0
100%
N/A N/A N/A
Totals
2 30
98.9%
N/A N/A N/A
3. Engineered Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
12
12
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
12
12
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
12
12
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
15%. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document)
12
12
100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base-flow.
12
12
100%

Table 6 Vegetation Condition Assessment
Planted Acreage 12.35
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Mapping Threshold
CCPV Depiction
Number of Polygons
Combined Acrea a
% of Planted Acreage_
Encroachment Areas
polygons filled with
Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous
1. Bare Areas
0.05 acres
orange dots and
0
0.00
0.0%
material.
x's
2. Low Stem Density
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based
Areas
on MY3, 4, or 5 stem count criteria.
1 acres
Pink dots
1
0.1
1.0 o
Total
3. Areas of Poor
Areas with woody stems of a size class that are obviously
Growth Rates or Vigor
small given the monitoring year.
1 acres
Pattern and Color
0
0.0
0.0%
Cumulative Total
Easement Acreage 15.94
Vegetation Category Definitions Mapping Threshold CCPV Depiction Number of Polygons Combined Acreage % of Easement Acreage
4. Invasive Areas of Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale). 1000 SF Pattern and Color N/A N/A N/A
Concern
5. Easement Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
none
Pattern and Color N/A N/A N/A
Encroachment Areas

OR I ICA
Figures 3.1 - 3.3. Problem Areas
3.1 Erosion at 30+00
3.2 Erosion at 31+50
3.3 Low stem density near STA 35+00
Page 16

Appendix C. Hydrologic Data
Table 7. Verification of Bankfull Events
Date
Crest Gauge
Info
Gauge
Readin
g (ft)
Gauge
Elevation
(ft)
Crest
Elevation
(ft)
Bankfull
Elevation
(ft)
Height
above
11
Bankfu(ft)
Site
Sta.
7/14/2015
2
37+03
2.29
107.16
109.45
107.71
1.74
10/19/2015
1
10+62
1.50
111.46
112.96
112.07
0.89
4/27/2016
1
10+62
1.88
111.46
113.34
112.07
1.26
4/27/2016
2
37+03
3.70
107.16
110.87
107.71
3.15
10/10/2016
1
10+62
2.79
111.46
114.25
112.07
2.18
10/10/2016
2
37+03
3.43
107.16
110.59
107.71
2.88
10/10/2016
N/A
Approx.
20+00
Visual
Visual
Visual
Visual
Visual
1/17/2017
1
10+62
2.29
111.46
113.75
112.07
1.68
1/17/2017
2
37+03
3.13
107.16
110.29
107.71
2.58
4/26/2017
1
10+62
2.00
111.46
113.46
112.07
1.39
4/26/2017
2
37+03
4.06
107.16
111.22
107.71
3.51
3/13/2018
1
10+62
3.58
111.46
115.04
112.07
2.97
3/13/2018
2
37+03
3.58
107.16
110.74
107.71
3.03
9/12/2018
1
10+62
4.5
111.46
115.96
112.07
3.89
9/12/2018
2
37+03
4.0
107.16
111.16
107.71
3.45
Page 17

3 'A
Se
-
wow
ug
i "A

Table 8. Summary of Gauge Hydrologic Data
Longest Number
Longest Number
Longest Number
Longest Number
Of Consecutive
Of Consecutive
Of Consecutive
Of Consecutive
Gauge
Wetland
Target
Percentage of
Days Meeting
Percentage of
Days Meeting
Percentage of
Days Meeting
Percentage of
Days Meeting
Number
Community
Hydroperiod
Growing
Wetland
Growing
Wetland
Growing
Wetland
Growing
Wetland
Type
Season Year 1
Hydrology
Season
Hydrology
Season
Hydrology
Season
Hydrology
Criteria During
Year 2
Criteria During
Year 3
Criteria During
Year 4
Criteria During
Year 1 Growing
Year 2 Growing
Year 3 Growing
Year 4 Growing
Season
Season
Season
Season
Riparian
1
Bottomland
12.5%
43
130
23
69
7.6
23
13
40
Hardwood
Riparian
2
Bottomland
12.5%
53
161
49
149
43.6
132
52
155
Hardwood
Riparian
3
Bottomland
12.5%
10
30
21
65
5.6
17
12.5
38
Hardwood
Headwater
4
Riparian
10%
70
212
100
304
52.5
159
54
162
(Zero Order)
Riparian
5
Bottomland
12.5%
32
97
49
149
49.2
149
52
155
Hardwood
Riparian
6
Bottomland
12.5%
52
158
48
146
51.5
156
54
162
Hardwood
Headwater
Reference
Riparian
10%
39
118
46
141
17.8
54
47
142
(Zero Order)
Riparian
Reference
Bottomland
12.5%
36
108
26
79
26.1
79
35
106
Hardwood

20
18
16
14
2
c
0
a10
.Q
U
(D
6- 8
6
4
2
0
UT to Millers Creek
Monthly Precipitation 2018 (30th/70th Percentiles)
January February March April May June July August September October November December
Notes: bb dd fr Month
raingaipge °o�lected°thtro�ugh D°e ember 17). Monthly Rainfall (on-site) 30th Percentile 70th Percentile
2. 301h and �ree
ni �y�ated from
erm chimatidatae4
( wcc.nres.usda.gov�

10
5
0
-5
-10
-25
-30
-35
-40
Reference: Zero -Order Wetland Gauge (EBDE114)
CO CO CO CO CO CO Co Co Co Co CO Co Co Co Co CO co Co co CO CO CO CO CO Co CO 00 Co Co CO co co Co Co Co co co Co Co CO CO
�, �, �, C C 1 6 Q Ci Q 4 �: U U U
Q Q Q Q z> >S >; >p >>> Q Q Q 09 Co Co Co 0 0 0 Z Z Z Z O O a
O 6 C6 6 t h 4 M^ O0) /� CO lU Co N O ^N kr) tl, M^ O O Q7 M N^ O 0> Q6 K
^^ N ^ N ^ N ^^ N ^ N ^ N M ^ N ^^ N ^ N ^ N M ^ N
Date
Reference Gauge (EBDE114) 12" Below Surface KOAJ Raingauge
10
9
8
7
6C
0
5w
CL
m
4a
3
2
1
0
0
M
(6
E
7
N
0
LL
IL
0
0
(n
co
w
m
0
0
0
c
c
.3
.3
0
0
0
0
�
c
Cn
w
AA, AA
A AA
N A,A-j
CO CO CO CO CO CO Co Co Co Co CO Co Co Co Co CO co Co co CO CO CO CO CO Co CO 00 Co Co CO co co Co Co Co co co Co Co CO CO
�, �, �, C C 1 6 Q Ci Q 4 �: U U U
Q Q Q Q z> >S >; >p >>> Q Q Q 09 Co Co Co 0 0 0 Z Z Z Z O O a
O 6 C6 6 t h 4 M^ O0) /� CO lU Co N O ^N kr) tl, M^ O O Q7 M N^ O 0> Q6 K
^^ N ^ N ^ N ^^ N ^ N ^ N M ^ N ^^ N ^ N ^ N M ^ N
Date
Reference Gauge (EBDE114) 12" Below Surface KOAJ Raingauge
10
9
8
7
6C
0
5w
CL
m
4a
3
2
1
0

10
5
0
-5
-10
d
-15
is
-20
-25
-30
-35
-40
Reference: Second -Order Wetland Gauge (14EB20BB)
co co CO co co co co co 00 co co Co co co Co co co co CO co co co co co co co co co CO co co Co co co co co co co co co co
�,
m , �`�D , >C >�� >�� >�C � >� --n, 10- QN � 2� Z� Z� 2� OU OD>^ Q -'Jr Q Ip Co0 0 0
(p h h r 0 0) M N oCs 4) v. i c
Ir- r_ F N N M NN
ti
Date
Reference Gauge (14EB20BB) 12" Below Surface KOAJ Raingauge
10
9
8
7
6E
C
0
52
3
2
1
0
a
d
CL

10
5
0
-5
-10
d
-15
Gauge 1 (14E14CEA)
-25
-30
-35
-40
CO CO CO CO co co co co co co CO co co co co co co co co CO CO CO CO co co CO co co co CO co co co co co co co co co CO CO
0) Q Q
>>> Q Q Q Go co co co O O O Z Z Z ZOO O
O 6 C6 Cp t6 h6 0)
^^ N ^ N ^ N ^^ ^ N M N^ N ^^O N K 6 O 01 R7 K 4
N
N ^ N M ^ N
Date
Gauge #1 (14E14CEA) 12" Below Surface On-site Raingauge
10
9
8
7
6c
c
0
5w
CL
a�
4a
3
2
1
0

10
5
0
-5
-10
-25
-30
-35
-40
Gauge 2 (A2873A5)
CO CO CO CO co co co co co co CO co co co co co co co co co CO CO CO co co co co co co CO co co co co co co co co co CO CO
C C C C r
> > > Q Q Q O O O Z Z Z ZOO O
O Cp h M^ O /� (o (!j M N O ^ (n tl M^ O O Q7 M N^ O 01 R7
^ O co P i i i i i i � O h i i i i i i i
^^ N ^ N ^ N ^^ N ^ N ^ N M N ^ N ^^ N ^ N ^ N M ^ N
Date
Gauge #2 (A2873A5) 12" Below Surface On-site Raingauge
10
9
8
7
6r_
c
5w
CL
4a
3
2
1
0
z
z
o
N
0
o
m
0
3
o
�
`o
a
JAAd I LkIAA
AA Alkl
�l
CO CO CO CO co co co co co co CO co co co co co co co co co CO CO CO co co co co co co CO co co co co co co co co co CO CO
C C C C r
> > > Q Q Q O O O Z Z Z ZOO O
O Cp h M^ O /� (o (!j M N O ^ (n tl M^ O O Q7 M N^ O 01 R7
^ O co P i i i i i i � O h i i i i i i i
^^ N ^ N ^ N ^^ N ^ N ^ N M N ^ N ^^ N ^ N ^ N M ^ N
Date
Gauge #2 (A2873A5) 12" Below Surface On-site Raingauge
10
9
8
7
6r_
c
5w
CL
4a
3
2
1
0

10
5
0
-5
-10
d
-15
Gauge 3 (1130D7EO)
-25
-30
-35
-40
CO CO CO CO co co co co co co CO co co co co CO co co co co CO CO CO co co CO co co co CO co co co co co co co co co CO CO
0) Q Q
>>> Q Q Q Go co co co O O O Z Z Z ZOO O
O 6 C6 Cp t6 h6 0)
^^ N ^ N ^ N ^^ ^ ^N ^^ ON K 6 O 01 R7 K (
N
^ N M ^ N
Date
Gauge #3 (1130D7EO) 12" Below Surface On-site Raingauge
10
9
8
7
6c
c
0
5w
CL
a�
4a
3
2
1
0

Gauge 4 (14E1949D)
15
11
10
10
9
50
M
0
8
uT
>
0
z
-5
7
�o
d
6
-10
c
d
2
L
w
Q
-15
5
in
c
w
d
4
-20
-25
3
2
-30
1
-35
-40 A A A 0
CO CO CO CO CO co co co co co CO co co co co CO co co co co CO CO CO co co co co co co CO co co co co co co co co co CO CO
r U U U
O
Q Q O O O>>P>Q0) 6 W Z
o o
h MZ 9Z 6Z CO6
0O>
6� 6 �K M
N N N ^ N cN
N N M N
Date
Gauge #4 (14E194AD) 12" Below Surface On-site Raingauge

10
5
0
-5
-10
C
-25
-30
-35
-40
Gauge 5 (14E1ABFA)
CO Co CO Co Co CO CO Co CO CO Co CO CO CO Co CO CO CO Co CO CO Co Co CO Co Co Co Co Co CO co Co Co Co Co Co CO CO Co Co Co
Q Q Q9� tL >;
: ;1 ;
> > > o o 0 0 o o v )
^ o 0� N (O k N t6 4 N^ o 0) N Cp N M N M ^� (\ h oIr- aS ^O O M N N �O of ro
Date
Gauge #5 (14E1ABFA) 12" Below Surface On-site Raingauge
10
9
8
7
6L
C
0
5.2
FAI
3
2
1
0
Q
d
CL
0
M
N
7
E
92o
z
0
0
cq
(
0
o
�0
V_
m
_0
C
U)
w
A
JAA IA ki I A UARA
AA_I_AAkI
CO Co CO Co Co CO CO Co CO CO Co CO CO CO Co CO CO CO Co CO CO Co Co CO Co Co Co Co Co CO co Co Co Co Co Co CO CO Co Co Co
Q Q Q9� tL >;
: ;1 ;
> > > o o 0 0 o o v )
^ o 0� N (O k N t6 4 N^ o 0) N Cp N M N M ^� (\ h oIr- aS ^O O M N N �O of ro
Date
Gauge #5 (14E1ABFA) 12" Below Surface On-site Raingauge
10
9
8
7
6L
C
0
5.2
FAI
3
2
1
0
Q
d
CL

10
5
0
-5
-10
�Ij
-25
-30
-35
-40
Gauge 6 (14E142FD)
CO Co CO co 00 CO CO 00 CO CO co CO CO CO 00 CO CO CO 00 CO CO 00 Co CO co 00 Co 00 00 CO co co 00 Co 00 00 CO CO co 00 Co
Q Q
N 0 V V U O O O O N Q>
ITT
^ 6 4 ^ CN OO NCO NNO ^NM�N CO hNO6� NO � 06 K
C
Date
Gauge #6 (14E142FD) 12" Below Surface On-site Raingauge
10
9
8
7
6L
S
0
5.2
ii
3
2
1
0
Q
d
CL
M
N
1=
�
0
z
0
N
(0
0
N
Co
cn
.3
0
3
0
0
Co
0
Co
w
_Aj
JAA IA if
k 1 11 4k
I A A-
CO Co CO co 00 CO CO 00 CO CO co CO CO CO 00 CO CO CO 00 CO CO 00 Co CO co 00 Co 00 00 CO co co 00 Co 00 00 CO CO co 00 Co
Q Q
N 0 V V U O O O O N Q>
ITT
^ 6 4 ^ CN OO NCO NNO ^NM�N CO hNO6� NO � 06 K
C
Date
Gauge #6 (14E142FD) 12" Below Surface On-site Raingauge
10
9
8
7
6L
S
0
5.2
ii
3
2
1
0
Q
d
CL

Supplement Hydrology Table Provided by DMS: UT to Millers Creek #95719
These tables are provided for the IRT and to illustrate differences in growing season day methods in relation to project success criteria
Approved Mitigation Plan lists 2/1-11/30 for documenting project success.
Gauge Number
Success Hydroperiod
USED FOR MY4--2/1/-11/30 303
days
3/1/-11/11255 days
3/19/-11/11303 days
3/19/-11/11303 days
%
%
Consecutive Days % of growing season
Consecutive Days % of growing season
Consecutive Days % of growing season
1
12.5
40
13%
40
16%
27
11%
2
12.5
155
51%
127
50%
108
46%
3
12.5
38
13%
38
15%
20
8%
4
10
162
53%
133
52%
114
48%
5
12.5
155
51%
127
50%
108
46%
6
12.5
162
53%1
134
53%1
115
49%
Gauge Number
Success Hydroperiod
USED FOR MY3--2/1/-11/30 303 days
3/1/-11/11255 days
3/19/-11/11303 days
%
Consecutive Days
% of growing season
Consecutive Days % of growing season
Consecutive Days % of growing season
1
12.5
23
8%
23
9%
23
10%
2
12.5
135
45%
107
42%
88
37%
3
12.5
17
6%
17
7%
17
7%
4
10
159
52%
131
51%
112
47%
5
12.5
149
49%
121
47%
102
43%
6
12.5
156
51%1
128
50%1
109
46%
Gauge Number
Success Hydroperiod
USED FOR MY2--2/1/-11/30 303 days
3/1/-11/11255 days
3/19/-11/11303 days
%
Consecutive Days
% of growing season
Consecutive Days % of growing season
Consecutive Days % of growing season
1
12.5
69
23%
50
20%
50
21%
2
12.5
149
49%
149
58%
149
63%
3
12.5
65
21%
37
15%
18
8%
4
10
304
100%
255
100%
237
100%
5
12.5
149
49%
130
51%
130
55%
6
12.5
146
48%1
131
51%1
131
55%
Gauge Number
Success Hydroperiod
USED FOR MY1--2/1/-11/30 303 days
3/1/-11/11255 days
3/19/-11/11303 days
%
Consecutive Days
% of growing season
Consecutive Days % of growing season
Consecutive Days % of growing season
1
12.5
130
43%
102
40%
83
35%
2
12.5
161
53%
133
52%
114
48%
3
12.5
30
10%
17
7%
17
7%
4
10
212
70%
184
72%
165
70%
5
12.5
97
32%
78
31%
78
33%
6
12.5
158
52%1
130
51%1
111
47%
Meeting success criteria
Not meeting success criteria