20141024 Ver 1_Year 4 Monitoring Report_2019_20200130

ID#* 20141024 Version* 1
Select Reviewer:*
Mac Haupt
Initial Review Completed Date 02/03/2020
Mitigation Project Submittal-1/30/2020
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site?* d Yes a No
Type of Mitigation Project:*
rJ Stream rJ Wetlands [Buffer ❑ Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name:*
Harry Tsomides
Project Information
...................................................................................
ID#:* 20141024
Existing IDY
Project Type:
Project Name:
County:
r DMS r Mitigation Bank
Ut to Town Creek
Stanly
Document Information
Email Address:*
[e-mail]
Version: * 1
Existing Version
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Monitoring Plans
File Upload: UTtoTownCreek_94648_MY4_2019.pdf 82.11 MB
Rease upload only one RDF of the corrplete file that needs to be subrritted...
Signature
Print Name:* Harry Tsomides
Signature:*

UT to Town Creek Restoration Project – Option A
Year 4 Monitoring Report

Stanly County, North Carolina
DMS Project ID Number – 94648; NC DEQ Contract No. 003277
Yadkin Pee-Dee River Basin: 03040105060040

Project Info: Monitoring Year: 4 of 7
Year of Data Collection: 2019
Year of Completed Construction: 2016
Submission Date: December 2019

Submitted To: NCDEQ – Division of Mitigation Services
1625 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
NCDEQ Contract ID No. 003277

MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT – OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019

i
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project – Option A
Year 4 Monitoring Report

Stanly County, North Carolina
DMS Project ID Number – 94648; NC DEQ Contract No. 003277
SAW-2013-01280; DWR#14-1024
Yadkin Pee-Dee River Basin: 03040105060040

Report Prepared and Submitted by Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
NC Professional Engineering License # F-1084

Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
Cary, NC 27518

Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
Cary, NC 27518 | Office: 919-463-5488
January 28, 2020

Harry Tsomides, Project Manager
NCDEQ - Division of Mitigation Services
5 Ravenscroft Drive, Ste. 102
Asheville, NC 28801

Subject: Response to DMS Comments for DRAFT Monitoring Year 4 Report
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project – Option A
Yadkin River Basin – CU# 03040105 – Stanly County, NC
NCDMS Project ID No. 94648; NCDEQ Contract No. 003277

Dear Mr. Tsomides:

Please find enclosed the Final Year 4 Monitoring Report and our responses to the Division of Mitigation
Services (DMS) review comments received on December 16, 2019 regarding the UT to Town Creek
Restoration Project – Option A, located in Stanly County, NC. In response to the referenced review
comments, we have revised the Final Year 4 Monitoring Document, as needed. Each response has been
grouped with its corresponding comment and is outlined below.
 Please keep DMS updated on the invasive treatments (mainly privet, parrot feather).
Response: Baker plans to continue treating invasive species throughout the remainder of project
updating DMS with results.
 Include Baker’s meeting minutes from the June 11, 2019 IRT meeting, as an Appendix, and
reference in the Executive Summary.
Response: Meeting minutes have been referenced in the Executive Summary per comments and
added to Appendix F.
 Please comment on Baker’s intention whether or not you plan to conduct additional wetland/soil
studies, based on discussions at the June 2019 IRT meeting that, while some mapped wetland areas
did not appear to reflect wetland conditions, there may be unmapped areas that could be
substantiated by additional data. Please indicate if/what type of data you plan to collect, when, and
how it will be presented (e.g., as an Appendix in next year’s report).
Response: Baker plans to conduct additional wetland studies per IRT request. Results will be
reported in Monitoring Year 5 report in a separate appendix. This is also mentioned in the Executive
Summary explaining how we plan to conduct the wetland/soil study.
 Map any new gauges or flow cameras (e.g., Reaches 4 and 5) installed this year. If no useful data
have been collected yet, please indicate that in the narrative.
Response: Locations of the two flow cameras have been added to the CCPV per comment and
reported in the executive summary portion of the report. Due to the time of year the data was
collected we plan to show results in Monitoring Year 5 report when the collected data is more
useful.
 Please footnote the Wetland Gauge Attainment Table to indicate the criteria for consecutive days
(20) and percent of growing season (9%).
 Response: Wetland Gauge Attainment Table (Table 12a) has been revised per comments.
 Please include a photo point of each culvert location.
Response: Culvert photos have been added to the Stream Photos section located in Appendix B.
 Tale 2 indicates additional riparian planting in March 2019, however the text indicates that
supplemental planting occurred in September 2019; please resolve this mismatch.
Response: Revisions have been made to Table 2 showing dates in which supplemental planting
occurred.
 References section has two blank entries. Please add the appropriate reference for the listing.
Response: Revisions have been made to the reference list in the final report.
 Asset table - It would be helpful to list the total project stream credits in the Overall Assets Summary
(i.e., ‘Stream’ credits plus ‘Credited buffer’ credits); also, wetland credits should be listed as 3.080,
not 3.1.
Response: Revisions have been made to the Overall Assets Summary per comments.
Correspondence regarding additional SMUs have also been added to the final report located in
Appendix A.

Digital Submission Comments
 XS cross section BHR calculations cannot be reproduced with the data in the given format.
Please consider using the DMS template for reporting XS data and figures. Figure 3 in the report
indicates that the new BHR calculation method was used, but as an example, XS 17 appears as
though it should have a BHR less than 1, but is reported as 1.0.
Response: Changes have been made to Figure 3 in the report to show the appropriate BHR
line. Also, in the footnotes of all riffle cross section graphs the thalweg elevation has been
recorded to complete the new BHR calculation method.
 Wetland group 1 is the only feature within our geodatabase that matches what is reported in
the asset table. Please provide DMS with mitigation features that are representative of
creditable assets reported in the asset table.
Response: Updated Wetland and Stream shapefiles have been added to the e‐submission file
to be representative of the creditable assets table located in appendix A.
 Missing CVS
Response: CVS data sheet has been added to the e‐submission file per comment. Also, the
X/Y portion of the CVS entry tool has always been used for internal purposes at Baker. We
have used it to identify the plant plot and number (e.g. 4-15 means plot 4, plant 15) and not
for internal plant location, as CVS does not otherwise provide an easy way to carry over
clear plant ID numbering from year to year. Thus, the plot dimensions recorded in CVS
are correct for each veg plot, though we understand that may have confusing by looking at
our X/Y entry data. But using the X/Y coordinate entry this way saves Baker significant
time each year during monitoring and helps eliminate errors by reducing confusion. We
have long regarded it as a mild flaw in the CVS tool but have found this easy workaround
to be a perfectly suitable rectification. Baker spoke with DMS Science and Analysis staff
about this issue. They have allowed that for our existing projects we may continue to use
the X/Y entry tool for our own purposes but for future projects we will enter the X/Y grid
plot coordinates as the CVS program originally intended. We will also provide DMS with
a copy of our plot maps showing individual plant locations within each plot. And to be
clear, the CVS field protocol is being followed throughout our projects with the sole
exception of this X/Y grid plot entry tool. All planted stems are identified and marked (and
mapped internally) at the as-built stage and tracked and assessed throughout the monitoring
phase.

Sincerely,

Andrew Powers
Project Manager

MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT – OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................ 1
2.0 METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................... 4
2.1 Stream Monitoring .......................................................................................................... 4
2.1.1 Morphologic Parameters and Channel Stability ................................................................................... 5
2.1.1.1 Dimension ....................................................................................................................................... 5
2.1.1.2 Longitudinal Profile ........................................................................................................................ 5
2.1.1.3 Substrate and Sediment Transport................................................................................................... 5
2.1.2 Stream Hydrology .................................................................................................................................... 5
2.1.2.1 Bankfull Events ............................................................................................................................... 5
2.1.2.2 Flow Documentation ....................................................................................................................... 6
2.1.3 Photographic Documentation of Site ..................................................................................................... 6
2.1.3.1 Lateral Reference Photos .................................................................................................................... 6
2.1.3.2 Longitudinal Station Photos ............................................................................................................... 6
2.1.4 Visual Assessment .................................................................................................................................... 6
2.2 Vegetation Monitoring ................................................................................................... 7
2.3 Wetland Monitoring ........................................................................................................ 7
2.4 BMP Monitoring ............................................................................................................. 7
3.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................... 9

APPENDICES
Appendix A Project Vicinity Map and Background Tables Figure 1 Vicinity Map and Directions Table 1 Project Mitigation Component Table 2 Project Activity and Reporting History Table 3 Project Contacts Table 4 Project Attributes
Appendix B Visual Assessment Data Figures 2-2c Current Condition Plan View (CCPV) Table 5a-g Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table 5h Stream Problem Areas (SPAs) Table 6a Vegetation Condition Assessment Table 6b Vegetation Problem Areas (VPAs)

Stream Station Photos
Culvert Photos
Stream Problem Area Photos
Vegetation Problem Area Photos
Appendix C Vegetation Plot Data Table 7 Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success Summary
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT – OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019

iii
Table 8 CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata Table 9 CVS Stem Count of Planted Stems by Plot and Species Vegetation Plot Photos
Appendix D Stream Survey Data Figure 3 Cross-sections with Annual Overlays Table 10 Baseline Stream Data Summary Table 11a Cross-section Morphology Data
Table 11b Stream Reach Morphology Data
Figure 4 Year 4 Profile
Figure 5a-d Reachwide Pebble Count Distribution with Annual
Overlays
Appendix E Hydrologic Data Figure 6 Wetland Gauge Graphs Figure 7 In-stream Flow Gauge Graphs
Figure 8 Monthly Rainfall Data Table 12 Wetland Mitigation Area Well Success
Table 12a Wetland Gauge Attainment Data Table 13 Verification of In-stream Flow Conditions
Table 14 Verification of Bankfull Events Hydrologic Data Photos
Appendix F IRT Meeting Minutes

MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT – OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019

1
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc., (Michael Baker) restored 5,554 linear feet (LF) and enhanced 791 LF (447
LF of Enhancement I and 344 LF of Enhancement II) of perennial and intermittent stream along an Unnamed
Tributary (UT) to Town Creek and three additional unnamed tributaries. Also as part of this Project, Michael
Baker restored and created 4.12 acres of riparian wetlands and enhanced 1.00 acre of riparian wetlands and
constructed two wetland best management practices (BMPs) upstream of the mitigation areas. Though no
mitigation credit is being sought for wetland enhancement, additional stream mitigation credit is being sought
for the inclusion of the proposed stormwater BMPs and the extended riparian buffer width within the
conservation easement. This report documents and presents the Year 4 monitoring data as required during the
monitoring period.
The primary goals of the Project were to improve aquatic habitat degradation by improving ecologic functions
and reducing non-points source loads from agricultural run-off to the impaired areas as described in the Lower
Yadkin – Pee Dee River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP) and as identified below:
• Improve aquatic and terrestrial habitat through increasing dissolved oxygen concentrations, reduction
in nutrient and sediment loading, improving substrate and in-stream cover, and reduction of in-stream
water temperature;
• Improve both aquatic and riparian aesthetics;
• Create geomorphically stable conditions along UT to Town Creek and its tributaries through the Project
area;
• Prevent cattle from accessing the project area thereby protecting riparian and wetland vegetation and
reducing excessive bank erosion;
• Restore historical wetlands, create new wetlands, and enhance/preserve existing wetlands to improve
terrestrial habitat and reduce sediment and nutrient loading to UT to Town Creek and the Little Long
Creek Watershed.
To accomplish these goals, the following objectives were identified:
• Restore, enhance, create, and protect riparian wetlands and buffers to reduce nutrient and pollutant
loading by particle settling, vegetation filtering and nutrient uptake;
• Construct wetland BMPs on the upstream extent of Reaches 4 and 7 to improve water quality by
capturing and retaining stormwater run-off from the adjacent cattle pastures to allow for the biological
removal of nutrient pollutant loads and for sediment to settle out of the water column;
• Restore existing incised, eroding, and channelized streams by creating stable channels with access to
their geomorphic floodplains;
• Improve in-stream habitat by providing a more diverse bedform with riffles and pools, creating deeper
pools and areas of water re-aeration, and reducing bank erosion;
• Control invasive species vegetation within the project reaches;
• Establish native stream bank, riparian floodplain, and wetland vegetation, protected by a permanent
conservation easement, to increase stormwater runoff filtering capacity, improve bank stability, shade
the stream to decrease water temperature, and provide improved wildlife habitat quality.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT – OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019

2
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project – Option A (site) is located in Stanly County, approximately 1.7 miles
west of the Town of New London, within cataloging unit 03040105 of the Yadkin Pee-Dee River Basin (see
Figure 1). The site is located in a North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS) - Targeted Local
Watershed (03040105060040). The Project involved stream restoration and enhancement, as well as wetland
restoration, creation, and enhancement along UT to Town Creek and several of its tributaries, which had been
impaired due to historical pasture conversion and cattle grazing.
Baker’s meeting minutes from June 11th, 2019 IRT meeting can be found in Appendix F.
During Year 4 monitoring, vegetation conditions were performing over 90% for planted acreage and close to
100% for invasive/encroachment area categories. As noted in Table 6b, an area (VPA4-3) of low herbaceous
vegetation has continued to persist from MY2. This area is located along Reach 2 between Vegetation Plot 14
and 13 and consists of approximately 0.26 acres. This area has been supplemental planted with gallon plants,
annual seed, perennial grass plugs and appropriate amount of lime in September 2019 but due to lack of rain
and harsh temperatures this area is expected to have a high mortality; therefore, the same efforts will be made
in MY5 when the conditions are more suitable. Areas of poor growth performance are present within the
floodplains of Reach 2 and 3. Lack of herbaceous vegetation and poor growth performance is likely due to
poor soils that are frequently inundated by overbank storm flows and offsite drainage.
Supplement planting was conducted in September 2019 for vegetation problem areas (VPA4-1 and VPA4-3)
noted with poor growth performance. Planted species consisted of woody bare root, potted plantings, and
rhizome spreading grasses that were installed at a planting density of 150 plants/acre. Their successful growth
will provide shade and an input of organic material that will allow for some of the existing herbaceous
vegetation to spread to this area. The planted species consisted of sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), green ash
(Fraxinus pennsylvanica), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), and Big Bluestem (Andropogon gerardi).
Both SPA and VPA data and photographic documentation collected during Year 4 monitoring are located in
Appendix B. See Tables 5a through 5h for SPA data documentation and Tables 6a through 6b for VPA data
documentation.
The presence of parrot feather (Myriophyllum aquaticum) throughout the mainstem (Reaches 1, 2, and 3) of the
project have persisted; however, its abundance has been reduced. Treatments were conducted during June and
July 2019 by mechanical and chemical application. A request for recommendations to assist in the control of
parrot feather was initiated by Michael Baker to the NC Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) prior
to the close of Monitoring Year 2, a response was received in early November 2018, and Michael Baker has
been following NCDEQ’s proposed protocol. Michael Baker plans on continuing treatments mechanically and
chemically throughout the growing season to help keep control of the parrot feather.
In Monitoring Year 4, no areas of invasive species were documented due to none of the areas exceeding the
mapping threshold of 1000 square feet (SF) and treatments throughout 2019. Four treatment sessions have been
performed between March and June treating invasive species throughout the entire site. Species targeted consist
of primarily Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinese) along with multi-flora rose (Rosa multiflora) and princess tree
(Paulownia tomentosa). The presence of these invasive species continues to persist predominantly in areas of
the easement where mature woody vegetation is present and along the easement fence line. Treatment control
applications for parrot feather (Myriophyllum aquaticum) were conducted in April and June of 2019 for areas
of concern that were documented in MY3 as well as for areas that had re-sprouted from previous treatment
applications. All invasive species will continue to be monitored throughout the site and treated as needed. Tables
summarizing the vegetative assessment areas can be found in Appendix B.
Based on data collected from the twenty monitoring plots during Year 4 monitoring, the average density of total
planted stems per plot ranges from 486 to 850 stems per acre with a tract mean of 645 stems per acre. Therefore,
the Year 4 data demonstrate that the site has exceeded the minimum interim success criteria of 320 trees per
acre by the end of Year 3 and is on track for meeting the minimum success criteria of 260 trees per acre by the
end of Year 5. The presence of volunteer woody vegetation was noted in vegetation plots VP1, VP3, VP4,
VP5, VP6, VP7, VP10, VP12, VP13, VP14, VP16, VP17, VP18, and VP19; however, these species were not
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT – OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019

3
included in the average vegetation plot densities calculated for assessing the project’s interim success criteria.
Vegetation stem counts are summarized in Tables 7 and 9 of Appendix C.
The nineteen (19) permanent cross-sections located throughout the site show minimal adjustment to stream
dimension since construction. Longitudinal profiles for Reach 1, 2, 3, and 6 have remained geomorphically
stable throughout the Year 4 post-construction monitoring period. Pools are well maintained and grade control
structures (constructed riffles, rock j-hooks, log vanes, and boulder steps) continue to maintain the overall
profile desired. As indicated in Tables 5a through 5h (Appendix B), the site’s lateral/vertical stability and in-
stream structure performance has maintained at or close to 100% through Monitoring Year 4. Areas of concern
consist of primarily of erosional features just downstream of the culverts at the head of Reach 1 and on Reach
6. These erosional impacts are likely the result of high flood velocities from large storm events, including two
large hurricanes (Florence and Michael). Though impacts are visible, the stream seems to be structurally stable
and vegetation should recolonize quickly. Additional efforts will be made in Monitoring Year 5 to these areas
to help stabilize and reestablish live stakes. These areas have been shown to the IRT and DMS during the
Monitoring Year 3 credit release site walk for their evaluation. No areas of bank scour and/or erosion around
structures were noted. Visual observations and a review of reach-wide pebble count data collected indicates
that each Reach is sufficiently moving fines through the system. Riffles are comprised of a mix of substrates
with the bed material continuing to move towards a mix of coarser substrates. Cross-sectional, longitudinal
profile, and pebble count data are provided in Figures 3, 4, and 5 respectively, in Appendix D.
Groundwater monitoring data collected during the growing season (March 27 through November 5) of Years
2, 3, and 4 documented that all ten groundwater monitoring wells exhibited soil saturation within 12 inches of
the ground surface for the minimum success criteria of nine percent (9%) or 20 consecutive days during the
growing season (eight of ten wells meet in Monitoring Year 1 as well, the two non-meeting wells did not
function properly within the growing season). During Monitoring Year 4, UTTC AW7 exhibited the highest
percentage of consecutive days (83.6%) meeting saturated conditions, as well as, the having the highest number
of cumulative days (186) meeting conditions. UTTC AW8 continued to have the lowest percentage of
consecutive days (22.7%) meeting saturated conditions, as well as, the having the lowest number of cumulative
days (51) meeting conditions. It should also be noted that UTTC AW8 is located in a jurisdictional wetland
and outside the boundary of the wetland areas where credit is being generated (See CCPV in Appendix B). See
Appendix E for a plot of wetland gauge data as it relates to monthly precipitation for Monitoring Year 4 (Figure
6). Monitoring Year 4 wetland restoration success results are depicted in Table 12, and a summary of wetland
attainment for all ten monitoring gauges is depicted in Table 12a. See Figure 2 in Appendix B, for a depiction
of wetland mitigation areas and corresponding gauge locations. Additional wetland studies will be conducted
per June 2019 IRT meeting to map wetland and non-wetland areas to reflect the wetland conditions throughout
the site. This study will involve soil testing for hydric indicators in both mapped and unmapped wetland areas
during the wet time of the year generally late winter to early spring. Results from this study will be presented
in Monitoring Year 5 report in a separate appendix.
In-stream pressure transducers were installed on Reach 6 (R6_W1 and R6_W2) and 7 (R7_W1 and R7_W2) to
document intermittent flow conditions on restored streams throughout the monitoring year. Since post-
construction installation, each gauge has documented at least one period of consecutive stream flow for the
required minimum of 30 days for all three monitoring years. Reach 7 (R7_W2) experienced the longest period
of consecutive stream flow with 154 days. Figure 7 in Appendix E, depict the documented flow conditions for
each gauge through Monitoring Year 4 relative to local rainfall data, while Table 13 documents both the total
cumulative days of flow and the maximum number of consecutives days of flow. Per IRT request, two flow
cameras were placed in August of 2019 approximately half way down both Reach 4 and Reach 5 to document
flow throughout Monitoring Year 5. These locations can be found on the CCPV in Appendix B. Due to no
useful data collected throughout Monitoring Year 4 photos will not be reported in this monitoring report and
plan to present photos in Monitoring Year 5 report.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT – OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019

4
Currently, both BMPs are functioning as designed. Minor accumulated silt is present in Reach 7’s BMP;
however, ample storage capacity continues to be available. No downstream sedimentation on Reach 7 has been
noted as result of the BMP’s performance.
Lastly, at least two post-construction bankfull events were observed and documented during Monitoring Year
4 . As of Monitoring Year 4, two bankfull events have been documented in separate years, thus the site has met
the minimum success requirement for bankfull flow. Information on bankfull events is provided in Table 14 of
Appendix E. Photo documentation is also included in Appendix E.
Summary information/data related to the site and statistics related to performance of various project and
monitoring elements can be found in the tables and figures in the report Appendices. Narrative background and
supporting information formerly found in these reports can be found in the Baseline Monitoring Report and in
the Mitigation Plan available on the NCDMS website. All raw data supporting the tables and figures in the
appendices is available from NCDMS upon request.
2.0 METHODOLOGY
The monitoring plan for the site includes criteria to evaluate the success of the stream, wetland, and vegetation
components of the project. Stream and vegetation monitoring will be conducted for five years, while wetland
monitoring will be conducted for seven years. Monitoring methods used will follow the NCDMS Monitoring
Report Template, Version 1.2.1 – 12/01/09 and are based on the design approaches and overall project goals.
To evaluate success criteria associated with a geomorphically stable channel, hydrologic connectivity, and
aquatic habitat diversity, geomorphic monitoring methods will be conducted for project reaches that involve
Restoration and Enhancement Level I mitigation. The success criteria for the proposed Enhancement Level II
reaches/sections will follow the methods described in sections 2.1.3, 2.1.4, and 2.2, whereas, wetland restoration
and creation mitigation will follow those outlined in sections 2.3. The specific locations of monitoring features,
such as vegetation plots, permanent cross-sections, reference photograph stations, ground water gauges, flow
gauges, and crest gauges, are shown on the CCPV sheets found in Figure 2 of Appendix B.
Year 4 monitoring data were collected from September through November 2019. All visual site assessment
data contained in Appendix B were collected on November 20th of 2019. Vegetation data and plot photos were
collected on October 9th of 2019. Sediment data were collected on October 30th of 2019.
Stream survey data were collected from September 25th through October 10th of 2019 and were certified on
October 15th of 2019. Stream survey data were collected to meet the requirements for a topographic ground
survey to the accuracy of Class C Vertical and Class A Horizontal (21 NCAC-56 section .1606) and was geo-
referenced to the NAD83 State Plane Coordinate System, FIPS3200 in US Survey Feet, which was derived
from the UT to Town Creek Restoration Project Option A’s As-built Survey.
2.1 Stream Monitoring
Geomorphic monitoring of the Restoration and Enhancement Level I reaches will be conducted once a year for
five years following the completion of construction. These activities will evaluate the success criteria associated
with a geomorphically stable channel, hydrologic connectivity, and aquatic habitat diversity. The stream
parameters to be monitored include stream dimension (cross-sections), profile (longitudinal profile survey),
visual observation with photographic documentation, documentation of bankfull events and documentation of
hydrologic conditions for restored intermittent reaches. Additionally, monitoring methods for all reaches will
include those described under Photo Documentation of site, Visual Assessment, and Vegetation Monitoring.
The methods used and related success criteria are described below for each parameter. Figure 2 shows
approximate locations of the proposed monitoring devices throughout the project site.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT – OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019

5
2.1.1 Morphologic Parameters and Channel Stability
2.1.1.1 Dimension
A total of nineteen (19) permanent cross-sections, twelve (12) riffles and seven (7) pools, were installed
throughout the entire project area. Cross-sections selected for monitoring included representative
riffles and pools for each of the four project reaches, Reach 1, 2, 3, and 6, which implemented at least
500 linear feet of Restoration or Enhancement I activities.
Each cross-section was marked on both banks with permanent pins to establish the exact transect used.
A common benchmark was also chosen to consistently reference and facilitate the comparison of year-
to-year data. The cross-sectional surveys are conducted annually and include measurements of Bank
Height Ratio (BHR) and Entrenchment Ratio (ER). The monitoring survey includes points measured
at all breaks in slope, including top of stream banks, bankfull, inner berm, edge of channel, and thalweg,
if the features are present. Riffle cross-sections are classified using the Rosgen Stream Classification
System (Rosgen 1994), and all monitored cross-sections should fall within the quantitative parameters
defined for channels of the design stream type.
There should be little change in annual cross-sectional surveys from those collected during the post-
construction as-built survey. If changes do take place, they will be evaluated to determine if they
represent a movement toward a more unstable condition (e.g., down-cutting or erosion) or a movement
toward increased stability (e.g., settling, vegetative changes, deposition along the banks, or decrease in
width/depth ratio).

2.1.1.2 Longitudinal Profile
Longitudinal profiles were surveyed for portions of the restored lengths of Reaches 1, 2, 3, and 6 and
are provided in Figure 4 of Appendix D. Longitudinal profiles will be replicated annually during the
five-year monitoring period.
Measurements taken during longitudinal profiles include thalweg, water surface, and the top of low
bank. All measurements were taken at the head of each feature (e.g., riffle, run, pool, glide) and the
maximum pool depth. Surveys were tied to a permanent benchmark.
The pools should remain relatively deep with flat water surface slopes, and the riffles should remain
steeper and shallower than the pools. Bed form observations should be consistent with those observed
for channels of the design stream type as well as other design information.
2.1.1.3 Substrate and Sediment Transport
After construction, there should be minimal change in the pebble count data over time given the current
watershed conditions and sediment supply regime. Reachwide pebble counts were collected for
Reaches 1, 2, 3, and 6. Samples collected combined with evidence provided by changes in cross-
sectional data and visual assessments will reveal changes in sediment gradation that occur over time as
the stream adjusts to upstream sediment loads.
2.1.2 Stream Hydrology
2.1.2.1 Bankfull Events
The occurrence of bankfull events within the monitoring period were documented by the use of a crest
gauge and photographs. The crest gauge will record the highest watermark between site visits, and the
gauge will be checked at each site visit to determine if a bankfull event has occurred. The crest gauge
was installed in the floodplain of Reach 3 within ten feet (horizontal) of the restored channel.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT – OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019

6
Photographs will be used to document the occurrence of debris lines and sediment deposition on the
floodplain during monitoring site visits.
Two bankfull flow events must be documented within a five-year monitoring period. The two bankfull
events must occur in separate years; otherwise, the monitoring will continue until two bankfull events
have been documented in separate years to demonstrate a floodplain connection has been restored.
2.1.2.2 Flow Documentation
A combination of photographic and flow gauge data were collected from in-stream pressure transducers
and remote in-field cameras that were installed on restored intermitted reaches. R7_W1 and R7_W2
were installed on Reach 7, while R6_W1 and R6_W2 were installed on Reach 6. Two additional flow
cameras have been placed on Reach 4 and 5 to collect pictures of flow per IRT request. Collected data
will document that the restored intermittent stream systems continue to exhibit base flow for of at least
30 consecutive days throughout each monitoring year under normal climatic conditions. In order to
determine if rainfall amounts were normal for the given year, rainfall gauge data was obtained from the
nearest Stanly County weather station (CRONOS Database, NEWL – North Stanly Middle School, if
available) and compared to the average monthly rainfall amounts from the Stanly County WETS Table
(USDA, 2019). If a normal year of precipitation does not occur during the first five years of monitoring,
flow conditions will continue to be monitored on the site until it documents that the intermittent streams
have been flowing for the required duration.
Flow data and photographic documentation collected during Year 4 monitoring are located in Appendix
E.
2.1.3 Photographic Documentation of Site
Photographs were used to document restoration success visually. Reference stations and cross-section
photos were photographed during the as-built survey; this will be repeated for five years following
construction. Reference photos were taken once a year, from a height of approximately five to six feet.
Permanent markers ensure that the same locations (and view directions) are utilized during each
monitoring period. Photographers will make an effort to consistently maintain the same area in each
photograph over time. Selected site photographs are shown in Appendix B for reference stations and
Appendix D for cross-sections.
2.1.3.1 Lateral Reference Photos
Reference photo transects were taken of the right and left banks at each permanent cross-section. A
survey tape was captured in most photographs which represents the cross-section line located
perpendicular to the channel flow. The water line was located in the center of the photograph in order
to document bank and riparian conditions.
2.1.3.2 Longitudinal Station Photos
Stream reaches were photographed longitudinally beginning at the upstream portion of the site and
moving downstream. Photographs were taken looking both upstream and downstream at locations
throughout the restored stream valley. The photograph points were established close enough together
to provide an overall view of the reach lengths, primary grade control structures, and valley
crenulations. The angle of the photo depends on what angle provides the best view was noted and will
be continued in future photos. Site photographs are located in Appendix B.
2.1.4 Visual Assessment
Visual monitoring assessments of all stream sections will be conducted by qualified personnel twice
per monitoring year with at least five months in between each site visit. Photographs will be used to
document system performance and any areas of concern related to stream bank stability, condition of
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT – OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019

7
in-stream structures, channel migration, aggradation/degradation, headcuts, live stake mortality,
impacts from invasive plant species or animal species, floodplain vegetative conditions, and condition
of pools and riffles. The photo locations will be shown on a plan view map and descriptions will be
documented in as either stream problem areas (SPAs) or vegetative problem areas (VPAs) in there
associated monitoring assessment tables located in Appendix B.
2.2 Vegetation Monitoring
To determine if the criteria are achieved, vegetation-monitoring quadrants were installed and are monitored
across the restoration site in accordance with the CVS-NCDMS Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Level 1,
Version 4.2 (Lee 2008). The total number of quadrants was calculated using the CVS-NCEEP Entry Tool
Database version 2.3.1 (CVS-NCEEP 2012) with twenty (20) plots established randomly within the planted
riparian buffer areas. No monitoring quadrants were established within the undisturbed wooded areas of the
project area. The size of individual quadrants are 100 square meters for woody tree species.
Level 1 CVS vegetation monitoring was conducted between spring, after leaf-out has occurred, and fall prior
to leaf fall. Individual quadrant data provided during subsequent monitoring events will include species
composition, density, survival, and stem height. Relative values were calculated, and importance values were
determined. Individual seedlings were marked to ensure that they can be found in succeeding monitoring years.
Mortality was determined from the difference between the previous year’s living, planted seedlings and the
current year’s living, planted seedlings.
2.3 Wetland Monitoring
Ten groundwater monitoring stations were installed in restored, created, and enhanced wetland areas similar to
those from preconstruction monitoring to document hydrologic conditions at the Project site. The wetland
gauges are depicted on the CCPV figures (Figure 2) found in Appendix B. Installation and monitoring of the
groundwater stations have been conducted in accordance with the USACE standard methods outlined in the
ERDC TN-WRAP-05-2 (USACE 2005). To determine if the rainfall is normal for the given year, rainfall
amounts were tallied using data obtained from the Stanly County WETS Station (USDA 2019) and from the
automated weather station at the North Stanly Middle School (NEWL) in New London, approximately 1.5 miles
southeast of the project site on Old Salisbury Road. Data from the NEWL station was obtained from the
CRONOS Database located on the State Climate Office of North Carolina’s website (2019).
Success criteria for wetland hydrology will be met when each wetland site is saturated within 12 inches of the
soil surface for 9 percent of the growing season as documented in the approved Mitigation Plan. To document
the hydrologic conditions of the restored site, each groundwater monitoring station will be monitored for five
years post-construction or until wetland success criteria are met. Visual inspection of proposed wetland areas
will be conducted to document any visual indicators that would be typical of jurisdictional wetlands. This could
include, but is not limited to, vegetation types present, surface flow patterns, stained leaves, and ponded water.
Wetland plants will be documented along with other visual indicators noted above. Wetland restoration and
creation areas that exhibit all three wetland indicators (the presence of hydric soils, wetland hydrology, and
wetland vegetation) after construction and through the monitoring period will validate wetland restoration and
creation success.
2.4 BMP Monitoring
Implementation of wetland BMPs located at the upstream extent of Reaches 4 and 7 are visually monitored for
vegetative survivability and permanent pool storage capacity using photo documentation during the five year
monitoring period. Maintenance measures will be implemented during the five year monitoring period to
replace dead vegetative material and to remove excess sedimentation from permanent pools.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT – OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019

8
Michael Baker will monitor the excess sedimentation in the BMPs by measuring the accumulated silt elevation
within the pond’s permanent pool. When the elevation of the accumulated silt keeps the BMP from functioning,
Michael Baker will have the sediment excavated.

MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT – OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019

9
3.0 REFERENCES
Lee, M., Peet R., Roberts, S., Wentworth, T. 2008. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation
Level 1-2 Plot Sampling Only. Version 4.2.
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (formerly NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program).
2011. Monitoring Requirements and Performance Standards for Stream and/or Wetland Mitigation.
November 7, 2011.
2009. Lower Yadkin Pee-Dee River Basin Restoration Priorities, revised January 2009. Raleigh, NC.
2009. Procedural Guidance and Content Requirements for EEP Monitoring Report, v. 1.2.1. Raleigh, NC.
Rosgen, D. L. 1994. A Classification of Natural Rivers. Catena 22:169-199.
State Climate Office of North Carolina, 2019. CRONOS Database, North Stanly Middle School (NEWL),
Stanly County, NC. http://climate.ncsu.edu/cronos/?station=NEWL&temporal=sensormeta
United States Department of Agriculture, 2019. WETS Table. Climate Data for Stanly County, NC. Wets
Station: Albemarle, NC 0090, FIPS: 37167, 1971 - 2018. http://agacis.rcc-acis.org/37167/wets
United States Army Corps of Engineers. 2005. “Technical Standard for Water-Table Monitoring of Potential
Wetland Sites,” WRAP Technical Notes Collection (ERDC TN-WRAP-05-2), U.S. Army Engineer
Research and Development Center. Vicksburg, MS.

APPENDIX A
Project Vicinity Map and Background Tables

^_
Project Site
35.4322 N, -80.2464 W
Li
tTown CreekLong C
r
e
ek
DIRECTIONS TO SITE FROM RALEIGH, NC:
Take I-40 West toward Sanford/Wake Forest. Take Exit 293 (I-440/US-64 W/US-1) toward Sanford/Wake Forest. Keep left at the fork
toward US-1 S/US-64 W. Take Exit 293A for US-1 S/US-64 W toward Sanford/Asheboro. Keep left at the fork toward US-1 S/US-64 W .
Continue on US-1 S/US-64 W towards Apex/Sanford/Asheboro. Take exit 98B to merge onto US-64 W towards Pittsboro/Asheboro. After
62 miles, turn left onto Connector Rd. Turn right onto NC 49 S. After 28.4 miles, take a slight left onto N Main St. After 1.1 miles, turn left
onto Old Salisbury Rd. Follow Old Salisbury Rd. for approximately 2.0 miles to its intersection with Misenheimer Rd. / Steakhouse Rd. Go
through the intersection and continue on Old Salisbury Rd. for approximately 0.4 miles and the Project site is on the right accessed via
a dirt farm road.N. Main St.The subject project site is an environmental restoration
site of the NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services (DMS)
and is encompassed by a recorded conservation
easement, but is bordered by land under private ownership.
Accessing the site may require traversing areas near or
along the easement boundary and therefore access by
the general public is not permitted. Access by authorized
personnel of state and federal agencies or their
designees/contractors involved in the development,
oversight and stewardship of the restoration site is
permitted within the terms and timeframes of their defined
roles. Any intended site visitation or activity by any
person outside of these previously sanctioned roles
and activities requires prior coordination with DMS.
O
l
d

S
a
l
i
s
b
u
r
y

R
d
.UT
to
Town
Creek
Steakhous
e

R
d
.
Misenheime
r

R
d
.
Richfield
New London
£¤NC8
£¤NC49
£¤US52
£¤NC740
Figure 1. Vicinty Map
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A
Stanly County, NC
^_^_
Project Site
LEGEND
03,0001,500
Feet
Map Vicinity
Stanly County, NC
Reference:NCDOT 02 & NC One Map
1" = 3000'
NC DMS Project No. 94648
Project Area
Streams
US Highways
Roads
Major Waterways
Municipalities
Yadkin (HUC 03040105060-040)2018
±
NCDEQ Contract No. 003277
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: DMS Project No ID. 94648Priority LevelMitigation Ratio (X:1)Reach 1 1181 10+00 - 22+04 1,204 1,204 R PI 1:1 1204.0Full Channel Restoration, Planted Buffer, Exclusion of Livestock, and Permanent Conservation Easement. Mitigation ratio of 1:1.0668 for buffer widths in excess of 50-ft.Reach 2 1672 22+04 - 40+46 1,842 1,782 R PI 1:1 1782.0Full Channel Restoration, Planted Buffer, Exclusion of Livestock, Permanent Conservation Easement, and a 60-ft culverted farm road crossing. Mitigation ratio of 1:1.07 for buffer widths in excess of 50-ft.Reach 3 721 40+46 - 48+75 829 829 R PI 1:1 829.0Full Channel Restoration, Planted Buffer, Exclusion of Livestock, and Permanent Conservation Easement. Mitigation ratio of 1:1.1 for buffer widths in excess of 50-ft.Reach 4 404 10+00 - 14+47 447 447 EI PIII 1:1 447.0Dimension and Profile modified in keeping with reference, Planted Buffer, Livestock Exclusion, Permanent Conservation Easement, and Headwater Constructed Wetland. Mitigation Ratio of 1:1 as result of water quality benefits from the implementation of headwater constructed wetland.Reach 5 324 10+00 - 13+44 344 344 EII PIV 2.5:1 137.6Dimension modified and structure implementation in keeping with reference, Planted Buffer, Livestock Exclusion, and Permanent Conservation Easement.Reach 6 1349 14+47 - 28+13 1,366 1,340 R P1 1:1 1340.0Full Channel Restoration, Planted Buffer, Exclusion of Livestock, Permanent Conservation Easement, and a 26-ft culverted farm road crossing.Reach 7 386 10+00 - 13+99 399 399 R P1 1:1 399.0Headwater Constructed Wetland, Full Channel Restoration, Planted Buffer, Livestock Exclusion, and Permanent Conservation Easement.Reach 1, 2, 3 - - - - - - - 265.0Additional stream credits calculated and approved by DMS on 6/21/18 for buffers in excess of 50-ft along Reach 1 - 3.Wetland Group 1 (WG1)RNR 0 2.56 2.56 R 1:1 2.560Minor floodplain grading, of 12-inches or less, to restore floodplain hydrolgy and remediate compaction, based on hydric soil investigation. Planted, Excluded Livestock and Permanent Conservation Easement.Wetland Group 2 (WG2)RNR 0 1.56 1.56 C 3:1 0.520Floodplain grading, of 12-inches or greater, to restore relic floodplain hydrolgy and remediate compaction, based on hydric soil investigation. Planted, Excluded Livestock and Permanent Conservation Easement.StreamNon-riparian WetlandCredited Buffer (linear feet) (acres) (square feet)Riverine Non-RiverineRestoration 5554 2.566,403.6Enhancement3.080Enhancement I 447Enhancement II 344Creation 1.56PreservationHigh Quality PresRestoration LevelRiparian Wetland(acres)* Creditable stream footage is based on as-built lengths as approved in the Mitigation Plan.Notes/CommentsLength and Area Summations by Mitigation CategoryOverall CreditsOverall Assets SummaryAsset CategoryStream (ft)RP Wetland (ac)Table 1. Project Mitigation ComponentsApproachRestoration LevelCreditable Footage, Acreage, or SF*Restored Footage, Acreage, or SFStationingExisting Footage or AcreageWetland Position and Hydro TypeProject Component (reach ID, etc.)Mitigation CreditsGeneral Note ‐The above component table is intended to be a close complement to the  asset map.  Each  entry in the above table should have clear distinction and  appropriate symbology in the asset map.    1 ‐Wetland Groupsrepresent pooled wetland polygons in the map with the  same  wetland type and restoration level.  If some of the wetland polygons within a  group  are in meaningfully different landscape positions,  soil types or have different community targets (as examples), then further segmentation in the table may be warranted.  Buffer groups represent  pooled buffer polygons with common restoration levels. 2 ‐Wetland Position and Hydro Type  ‐Indicates Riparian  Riverine, (RR) , riparinan non‐riverine (RNR) or Non‐Riverine (NR)3‐RestoredFootage, Acreage or Square Feet (SF)4 ‐Creditible Footage, Acreage or Square feet ‐creditible anounts after MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT – OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019
Activity or Report Scheduled
Completion
Data Collection
Complete
Actual
Completion or
Delivery
Mitigation Plan Prepared N/A N/A Apr-14
Mitigation Plan Amended N/A N/A Dec-14
Mitigation Plan Approved N/A N/A Dec-14
Final Design – (at least 90% complete) N/A N/A Jan-15
Construction Begins N/A N/A Jul-15
Temporary S&E mix applied to entire project area N/A N/A Jan-16
Permanent seed mix applied to entire project area N/A N/A Jan-16
Planting of live stakes Feb-16 N/A Mar-16
Planting of bare root trees Feb-16 N/A Mar-16
Planting of herbaceous plugs Jun-16 N/A May-16
End of Construction Dec-16 N/A Jan-16
Survey of As-built conditions (Year 0 Monitoring-baseline)Apr-16 May-16 Jun-16
Baseline Monitoring Report May-16 Jun-16 Nov-16
Year 1 Monitoring Dec-16 Nov-16 Dec-16
Invasive Treatment N/A N/A Mar-17
Year 2 Monitoring Dec-17 Nov-17 Dec-17
Additional Riparian Planting N/A N/A Mar-18
Invasive Treatment N/A N/A Apr-18
Year 3 Monitoring Dec-18 Nov-18 Dec-18
Year 4 Monitoring Dec-19 19-Nov Dec-19
Additional Riparian Planting N/A N/A Sep-19
Invasive Treatment N/A N/A Jun-19
Year 5 Monitoring Dec-20 N/A N/A
Year 6 Wetland Monitoring Dec-21 N/A N/A
Year 7 Wetland Monitoring Dec-22 N/A N/A
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: DMS Project No ID. 94648
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT – OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019
Vegetation Monitoring Point of Contact
Stream Monitoring Point of Contact
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
Foggy Mountain Nursery, Tel. [phone]
Mellow Marsh Farm, Tel. [phone]
ArborGen, Tel. [phone]
Andrew Powers, Tel. [phone]
Andrew Powers, Tel. [phone]
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
Cary, NC 27518
Contact:
Mellow Marsh Farm, Tel. [phone]
Monitoring Performers
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Wright Contracting, LLC.
H.J. Forest Service
Wright Contracting, LLC.
Seed Mix Sources
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
Kathleen M. McKeithan, PE, Tel. [phone]
Contact:
Holly Ridge, NC 28445
Lawndale, NC 28090
Joe Wright, Tel. [phone]
Green Resources, Tel. [phone]
Table 3. Project Contacts
Construction Contractor
Planting Contractor
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: DMS Project ID No. 94648
P.O. Box 458
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
Designer
Cary, NC 27518
Contact:
Joe Wright, Tel. [phone]
160 Walker Road
Contact:
Seeding Contractor
Lawndale, NC 28090
Contact:
Matt Hitch, Tel. [phone]
160 Walker Road
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT – OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019
Reach 1 Reach 2 Reach 3 Reach 4 Reach 5 Reach 6 Reach 7
Drainage Area (ac.) 532.1 616.6 766.7 53.7 48.9 127.8 29.2
Stream Order 2 2 3 1 1 2 1
Restored Length (LF)1,204 1,782 829 447 344 1,340 399
Perennial (P)/Intermittent (I) P P P I I I I
Watershed Type (Rural, Urban, etc.) R R R R R R R
Rural Residential 6% 1% 0% 1% 2% 0% 0%
Ag-Row Crop 8% 0% 0% 14% 4% 0% 10%
Ag-Livestock 57% 85% 70% 59% 17% 88% 64%
Forested 8% 0% 0% 17% 62% 0% 21%
Other/Open Area 8% 0% 0% 0% 9% 0% 0%
Commercial 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Roadway 3% 4% 2% 3% <1% 0% 0%
Wooded-Livestock 0% 10% 28% 6% 4% 12% 5%
Open Water 0% 0% 0% 0% <1% 0% 0%
Watershed Impervious Cover (%) 19% 5% 2% 4% <4% <1% <1%
NCDWR AU/Index#
NCDWQ Classification
303(d) Listed
303 (d) Listing Stressor
Total Acreage of Easement 5.35 8.01 3.79 1.97 1.06 3.55 1.36
Total Vegetated Easement Acreage 4.81 6.97 3.48 1.63 0.94 3.22 1.26
Total Planted Acreage for Restoration 4.81 6.97 3.48 1.63 0.94 3.22 1.26
Reach 1 Reach 2 Reach 3 Reach 4 Reach 5 Reach 6 Reach 7
Rosgen Classification (existing) E4 E4 E4 B4 B4 B4 B4a
Rosgen Classification (as-built) C4 C4 C4 B4 B4 C4b B4a
Valley Type VIII VIII VIII II II II II
Valley Slope 0.0092 0.0092 0.0089 0.023 0.0447 0.0243 0.0495
Trout Waters Designation
Species of Concern, edangered etc.
(Y/N)
Series OaA OaA OaA GoF GoF GoF BaD
Depth 46” 46” 46” 36” 36” 36” 40”
Clay % 10-35% 10-35% 10-35% 5-27% 5-27% 5-27% Oct-55
K 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.15-0.24
T 4 4 4 4 4 4 3
* Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus ) a BGEPA species is listed as occurring in Stanly County; however, suitable habitat is not located within
the Project area or within two miles of the Site.
** Schweinitz’s Sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii ) A federally endangered species is listed as occurring within Stanly County and though
suitable habitat is present, a field study was conducted and no species were located within the Project area. NCNHP database indicated there are no
known populations of these species within two miles of the study area.
(NRCS, 2010a; NCDENR, 2007 & 2008; USFWS, 2012; NCNHP, 2012)
NCDWQ Sub-basin for Project
Dominant Soil Series and Characteristics
13-17-31-1-1
C
No
N/A
No
No*, Yes**
Watershed LULC Distribution
Beaver activity observed during design phase
Restoration Component Attribute Table
03-07-13
Lower Yadkin RBRP, 2009
Table 4. Project Attributes
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: DMS Project ID No. 94648
Project County
Physiographic Region
Ecoregion
Project River Basin
Warm
100%
No activity observed
Stanly
Piedmont
Carolina Slate Belt
Yadkin - Pee Dee
03040105060040USGS HUC for Project (14 digit)
Within Extent of DMS Watershed Plan
WRC Class (Warm Cool Cold)
% Project Easement Fenced/Demarcated
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT – OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019

APPENDIX B
Visual Assessment Data

NC Center for Geogr aphic Information & Analysis, Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar
Geographics, C NES/Airbus D S, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
Figure 2 OverviewCurrent Condition Plan View
Stream Flow CamerasCrest GaugeFlow Pressure TransducersGroundwater Monitoring WellsPhoto ID PointsCross Sec tion - PoolCross Sec tion - RiffleBMPsSuccessful Vegetation PlotsVegetation Problem AreasStream Problem AreasWetland TypeWetland RestorationWetland CreationJurisdictional WetlandsStream Top of BankReach 1 (Restoration)Reach 2 (Restoration)Reach 3 (Restoration)Reach 4 (Enhancement I)Reach 5 (Enhancement II)Reach 6 (Restoration)Reach 7 (Restoration)Conserva tion EasementFenceline
Fig 2A
Fig 2B
0 250125
Feet
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services
DMS Project N o. 94648
Date: 2019
Monitoring Year: 4 of 7
Drawn By: ADP
Sheet: 1 of 4
Fig 2C
1" = 250'UT to Town Cr eek Restoration Project - Option AStanly C ounty, NC
VPA 4-1
SPA 4-1
Reach 2(Restoration)
Reach 1(Restoration)
Reach 7(Restoration)
2
1
9
8
87
65
34
1
9
7
6
5
4
3
2
17
10
11
15
23
24
22
21
20
19
18
16
14
1312
MW 3
MW 1
MW 7
MW 2
X S -3
X S -2
XS-7
XS-8XS-6XS-1XS-4
XS-5R7 W2
R7 W1
6
4
7
2
1
3
20
5
Figure 2ACurrent Condition Plan View 0 12562.5 Feet
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services
DMS Project N o. 94648
Date: 2019
Monitoring Year: 4 of 7
Drawn By: ADP
Sheet 2 of 4
1" = 125'UT to Town Cr eek Restoration Project - Option AStanly C ounty, NC
Crest Gauge
Flow Pressure Transducers
Groundwater Monitoring Wells
Phot o ID Points
Cross Section - Pool
Cross Section - Riffle
BMPs
Successful Vegetation Plots
Vegetation Problem Areas
Stream Problem Areas
Wetland Restoration
Wetland Creation
Jurisdictional Wetlands
Stream Top of Bank
Reach 1 (Restoration)
Reach 2 (Restoration)
Reach 3 (Restoration)
Reach 4 (Enhancement I)
Reach 5 (Enhancement II)
Reach 6 (Restoration)
Reach 7 (Restoration)
Conservation Easement
Fenceline
Rea ch 6(Re storation)
VPA 4-3
VPA 4-2
SPA 4-2
Reach 2(Restoration)
Reach 6(Restoration)
Reach 3(Restoration)
33
25 26
10 1112 1314
15 16 17 18 19
20 2221 23 24
41
40
39
38
37
32
31
30
2928
27
26
23
24
22
21
35
36
34
25
X S -9
X S -1 4
X
S
-
1
5XS-8XS-11XS-10
XS-17XS-12XS-13
XS-16
MW 8
MW 6
MW 5
MW 4
MW 9
MW 3
MW 1
MW 10
8
9
11
12
14
15
13
16
10
R6 W2
NC Center for Geogr aphic Information & Analysis, Esri, HERE, Garmin, © OpenStreetMap contributors,
and the GIS user community, Sour ce: Esri, D igitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus
DS, U SDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
Figure 2BCurrent Condition Plan View
Crest GaugeFlow Pressure TransducersGroundwater Monitoring WellsPhoto ID PointsCross Section - PoolCross Section - RiffleBMPsSuccessful Vegetation PlotsVegetation Problem AreasStream Problem AreasWetland RestorationWetland CreationJurisdictional WetlandsStream Top of BankReach 1 (Restoration)Reach 2 (Restoration)Reach 3 (Restoration)Reach 4 (Enhancement I)Reach 5 (Enhancement II)Reach 6 (Restoration)Reach 7 (Restoration)Conserva tion EasementFenceline
0 12562.5
Feet
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services
DMS Project N o. 94648
Date: 2019
Monitoring Year: 4 of 7
Drawn By: ADP
Sheet: 3 of 4
1" = 125'UT to Town Cr eek Restoration Project - Option AStanly C ounty, NC
Reach 6(Restoration)
Reach 3(Restoration)
Reach 4(Enhancement I)
Reach 5(Enhancement II)
2
1
1
1
3
4
6
5
2
3 4
756 8
7
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 9
33
25
26
10
11 12
15
16
17
18
19
20
22 21
23
24
41
40
39
38
37 34
32
31
30
2928
35
1314
36
VPA2-2
R6 W1
R6 W2
XS-9XS-14XS-19
XS-15
XS-11 XS-10XS-16XS-18XS-12XS-13XS-17
MW 8
MW 6 MW 5
MW 4
MW 10
11
12
15
16
19
17
18
Figure 2CCurrent Condition Plan View
Additional Flow CameraCrest GaugeFlow Pressure TransducersGroundwater Monitoring WellsPhoto ID PointsCross Sec tion - PoolCross Sec tion - RiffleBMPsSuccessful Vegetation PlotsVegetation Problem AreasStream Problem AreasWetland RestorationWetland CreationJurisdictional WetlandsStream Top of BankReach 1 (Restoration)Reach 2 (Restoration)Reach 3 (Restoration)Reach 4 (Enhancement I)Reach 5 (Enhancement II)Reach 6 (Restoration)Reach 7 (Restoration)Conserva ti on EasementFenceline
0 12562.5
FeetNorth Carolina Division of Mitigation Services
DMS Project N o. 94648
Date: 2019
Monitoring Year: 4 of 7
Drawn By: ADP
Sheet: 4 of 4
1" = 125'UT to Town Cr eek Restoration Project - Option AStanly C ounty, NC
SPA 4-2
Reach ID UT to Town Creek - Reach 1Assessed Length (LF) 1,204Major Channel CategoryChannel Sub-Category MetricNumber Stable, Performing as IntendedTotal Numberper As-BuiltNumber of Unstable SegmentsAmount of Unstable Footage% Stable, Performing as IntendedNumber with Stabilizing Woody Veg.Footage with Stabilizing Woody Veg.Adjusted % for Stabilizing Woody Veg.1. Aggradation0 0 100%2. Degradation0 0 100%2. Riffle Condition1. Texture/Substrate 18 18 100%1. Depth18 18 100%2. Length18 18 100%1. Thalweg centering for riffle/run18 18 100%2. Thalweg centering for pool/glide 18 18 100%1. Scoured/ErodingBank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or scour and erosion1 40 97% 0 0 97%2. UndercutBanks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears likely 0 0 100% 0 0 100%3. Mass WastingBank slumping, calving, or collapse0 0 100% 0 0 100%1 40 97% 0 0 97%1. Overall IntegrityStructures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs 19 19 100%2. Grade ControlGrade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill. 10 10 100%2a. PipingStructures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms10 10 100%3. Bank ProtectionBank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15% 19 19 100%4. HabitatPool forming structures maintaining ~ Max Pool Depth 10 10 100%Table 5a. Visual Stream Morphology Stability AssessmentUT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: Project No. 948462. BankTotals3. Engineering Structures1. Bed1. Vertical Stability3. Pool Condition4.Thalweg positionMICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648UT to TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION AYEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019
Reach ID UT to Town Creek - Reach 2Assessed Length (LF) 1,782Major Channel CategoryChannel Sub-Category MetricNumber Stable, Performing as IntendedTotal Numberper As-BuiltNumber of Unstable SegmentsAmount of Unstable Footage% Stable, Performing as IntendedNumber with Stabilizing Woody Veg.Footage with Stabilizing Woody Veg.Adjusted % for Stabilizing Woody Veg.1. Aggradation0 0 100%2. Degradation0 0 100%2. Riffle Condition1. Texture/Substrate 21 21 100%1. Depth20 20 100%2. Length20 20 100%1. Thalweg centering for riffle/run21 21 100%2. Thalweg centering for pool/glide 20 20 100%1. Scoured/ErodingBank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or scour and erosion0 0 100% 0 0 100%2. UndercutBanks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears likely 0 0 100% 0 0 100%3. Mass WastingBank slumping, calving, or collapse0 0 100% 0 0 100%0 0 100% 0 0 100%1. Overall IntegrityStructures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs 19 19 100%2. Grade ControlGrade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill. 9 9 100%2a. PipingStructures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms9 9 100%3. Bank ProtectionBank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15% 19 19 100%4. HabitatPool forming structures maintaining ~ Max Pool Depth 9 9 100%3. Engineering StructuresTable 5b. Visual Stream Morphology Stability AssessmentUT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: Project No. 948462. BankTotals1. Bed1. Vertical Stability3. Pool Condition4.Thalweg positionMICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648UT to TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION AYEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019
Reach ID UT to Town Creek - Reach 3Assessed Length (LF) 829Major Channel CategoryChannel Sub-Category MetricNumber Stable, Performing as IntendedTotal Numberper As-BuiltNumber of Unstable SegmentsAmount of Unstable Footage% Stable, Performing as IntendedNumber with Stabilizing Woody Veg.Footage with Stabilizing Woody Veg.Adjusted % for Stabilizing Woody Veg.1. Aggradation0 0 100%2. Degradation0 0 100%2. Riffle Condition1. Texture/Substrate 11 11 100%1. Depth10 10 100%2. Length10 10 100%1. Thalweg centering for riffle/run11 11 100%2. Thalweg centering for pool/glide 10 10 100%1. Scoured/ErodingBank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or scour and erosion0 0 100% 0 0 100%2. UndercutBanks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears likely 0 0 100% 0 0 100%3. Mass WastingBank slumping, calving, or collapse0 0 100% 0 0 100%0 0 100% 0 0 100%1. Overall IntegrityStructures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs 12 12 100%2. Grade ControlGrade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill. 6 6 100%2a. PipingStructures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms6 6 100%3. Bank ProtectionBank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15% 12 12 100%4. HabitatPool forming structures maintaining ~ Max Pool Depth 6 6 100%3. Engineering StructuresTable 5c. Visual Stream Morphology Stability AssessmentUT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: Project No. 948462. BankTotals1. Bed1. Vertical Stability3. Pool Condition4.Thalweg positionMICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648UT to TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION AYEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019
Reach ID UT to Town Creek - Reach 4Assessed Length (LF) 447Major Channel CategoryChannel Sub-Category MetricNumber Stable, Performing as IntendedTotal Numberper As-BuiltNumber of Unstable SegmentsAmount of Unstable Footage% Stable, Performing as IntendedNumber with Stabilizing Woody Veg.Footage with Stabilizing Woody Veg.Adjusted % for Stabilizing Woody Veg.1. Aggradation0 0 100%2. Degradation0 0 100%2. Riffle Condition1. Texture/Substrate 15 15 100%1. Depth12 12 100%2. Length12 12 100%1. Thalweg centering for riffle/run15 15 100%2. Thalweg centering for pool/glide 12 12 100%1. Scoured/ErodingBank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or scour and erosion0 0 100% 0 0 100%2. UndercutBanks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears likely 0 0 100% 0 0 100%3. Mass WastingBank slumping, calving, or collapse0 0 100% 0 0 100%0 0 100% 0 0 100%1. Overall IntegrityStructures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs 12 12 100%2. Grade ControlGrade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill. 12 12 100%2a. PipingStructures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms12 12 100%3. Bank ProtectionBank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15% 12 12 100%4. HabitatPool forming structures maintaining ~ Max Pool Depth 11 11 100%3. Engineering StructuresTable 5d. Visual Stream Morphology Stability AssessmentUT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: Project No. 948462. BankTotals1. Bed1. Vertical Stability3. Pool Condition4.Thalweg positionMICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648UT to TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION AYEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019
Reach ID UT to Town Creek - Reach 5Assessed Length (LF) 344Major Channel CategoryChannel Sub-Category MetricNumber Stable, Performing as IntendedTotal Numberper As-BuiltNumber of Unstable SegmentsAmount of Unstable Footage% Stable, Performing as IntendedNumber with Stabilizing Woody Veg.Footage with Stabilizing Woody Veg.Adjusted % for Stabilizing Woody Veg.1. Aggradation0 0 100%2. Degradation0 0 100%2. Riffle Condition1. Texture/Substrate 4 4 100%1. Depth4 4 100%2. Length4 4 100%1. Thalweg centering for riffle/run4 4 100%2. Thalweg centering for pool/glide 4 4 100%1. Scoured/ErodingBank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or scour and erosion0 0 100% 0 0 100%2. UndercutBanks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears likely 0 0 100% 0 0 100%3. Mass WastingBank slumping, calving, or collapse0 0 100% 0 0 100%0 0 100% 0 0 100%1. Overall IntegrityStructures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs 4 4 100%2. Grade ControlGrade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill. 4 4 100%2a. PipingStructures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms4 4 100%3. Bank ProtectionBank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15% 4 4 100%4. HabitatPool forming structures maintaining ~ Max Pool Depth 4 4 100%3. Engineering StructuresTable 5e. Visual Stream Morphology Stability AssessmentUT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: Project No. 948462. BankTotals1. Bed1. Vertical Stability3. Pool Condition4.Thalweg positionMICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648UT to TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION AYEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019
Reach ID UT to Town Creek - Reach 6Assessed Length (LF) 1,340Major Channel CategoryChannel Sub-Category MetricNumber Stable, Performing as IntendedTotal Numberper As-BuiltNumber of Unstable SegmentsAmount of Unstable Footage% Stable, Performing as IntendedNumber with Stabilizing Woody Veg.Footage with Stabilizing Woody Veg.Adjusted % for Stabilizing Woody Veg.1. Aggradation0 0 100%2. Degradation0 0 100%2. Riffle Condition1. Texture/Substrate 33 33 100%1. Depth34 34 100%2. Length34 34 100%1. Thalweg centering for riffle/run33 33 100%2. Thalweg centering for pool/glide 34 34 100%1. Scoured/ErodingBank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or scour and erosion1 40 97% 0 0 97%2. UndercutBanks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears likely 0 0 100% 0 0 100%3. Mass WastingBank slumping, calving, or collapse0 0 100% 0 0 100%1 40 97% 0 0 97%1. Overall IntegrityStructures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs 26 26 100%2. Grade ControlGrade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill. 20 20 100%2a. PipingStructures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms20 20 100%3. Bank ProtectionBank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15% 26 26 100%4. HabitatPool forming structures maintaining ~ Max Pool Depth 20 20 100%3. Engineering StructuresTable 5f. Visual Stream Morphology Stability AssessmentUT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: Project No. 948462. BankTotals1. Bed1. Vertical Stability3. Pool Condition4.Thalweg positionMICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648UT to TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION AYEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019
Reach ID UT to Town Creek - Reach 7Assessed Length (LF) 399Major Channel CategoryChannel Sub-Category MetricNumber Stable, Performing as IntendedTotal Numberper As-BuiltNumber of Unstable SegmentsAmount of Unstable Footage% Stable, Performing as IntendedNumber with Stabilizing Woody Veg.Footage with Stabilizing Woody Veg.Adjusted % for Stabilizing Woody Veg.1. Aggradation0 0 100%2. Degradation0 0 100%2. Riffle Condition1. Texture/Substrate 14 14 100%1. Depth12 12 100%2. Length12 12 100%1. Thalweg centering for riffle/run14 14 100%2. Thalweg centering for pool/glide 12 12 100%1. Scoured/ErodingBank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or scour and erosion0 0 100% 0 0 100%2. UndercutBanks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears likely 0 0 100% 0 0 100%3. Mass WastingBank slumping, calving, or collapse0 0 100% 0 0 100%0 0 100% 0 0 100%1. Overall IntegrityStructures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs 14 14 100%2. Grade ControlGrade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill. 14 14 100%2a. PipingStructures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms14 14 100%3. Bank ProtectionBank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15% 14 14 100%4. HabitatPool forming structures maintaining ~ Max Pool Depth 13 13 100%3. Engineering StructuresTable 5g. Visual Stream Morphology Stability AssessmentUT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: Project No. 948462. BankTotals1. Bed1. Vertical Stability3. Pool Condition4.Thalweg positionMICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648UT to TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION AYEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019
Feature Issue Station No. Suspected Cause Photo NumberStream banks eroding downstream of the culvert10+10Flooding during 2018 eroded bank material from the area immediately downstream of the culvert at the beginning of the project. Vegetation is gone but area seems stable and will continued to be monitored in MY5. SPA 4-1Feature Issue Station No. Suspected Cause Photo NumberNo issues in Year 4N/AN/AN/AFeature Issue Station No. Suspected Cause Photo NumberNo issues in Year 4N/AN/AN/AFeature Issue Station No. Suspected Cause Photo NumberNo issues in Year 4N/AN/AN/AFeature Issue Station No. Suspected Cause Photo NumberNo issues in Year 4N/AN/AN/AFeature Issue Station No. Suspected Cause Photo NumberStream banks eroding downstream of the culvert20+50Flooding during 2018 eroded bank material from the area immediately downstream of the culvert. All soil material that was placed on bedrock has eroded away. Vegetation is gone but area seems stable since the banks are now primarily bedrock. This area will continued to be monitored in MY5. SPA 4-2Feature Issue Station No. Suspected Cause Photo NumberNo issues in Year 4N/AN/AN/AReach 6Reach 7Note: The first digit in the Photo Number column references the monitoring year and the second digit references the problem area or photo (which would be identical to a prior years problem area/photo number when persisting from a previous monitoring year).Table 5h. Stream Problem AreasUT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: Project No. 94846Reach 1Reach 4Reach 2Reach 5Reach 3MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648UT to TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION AYEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019
Reach ID Reaches 1 - 7Planted Acreage 22.31Vegetation Category DefinitionsMapping ThresholdCCPV DepictionNumber of PolygonsCombined Acreage% of Planted Acreage1. Bare AreasVery limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material.0.1 acres VPA4-3 1 0.26 1.2%2. Low Stem Density AreasWoody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY4 or 5 stem count criteria.0.1 acres N/A 0 0.00 0.0%1 0.26 0.4%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 acresVPA4-1 - VPA4-32 0.55 2.5%3 0.81 2.9%Easement Acreage 25.09Vegetation Category DefinitionsMapping ThresholdCCPV DepictionNumber of PolygonsCombined Acreage% of Easement Acreage4. Invasive Areas of ConcernAreas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).1000 SF N/A 0 0.00 0.0%5. Easement Encroachment AreasAreas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).N/A N/A 0 0.00 0.0%*Poor growth rate areas were noted where supplemental bare root and gallon container plantings were installed during MY4.TotalCumulative TotalTable 6a. Vegetation Condition AssessmentUT to Town Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 94648MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648UT to TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION AYEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019
Feature Issue Station No. Suspected Cause Problem Area / Photo NumberInvasive/Exotic PopulationsReachwide in various locationsMyriophyllum aquaticum (parrot feather) growing in various locations along the channel reach due low flow conditions present during the monitoring assessment. No VPA was associated with this problem area because it is a reachwide issue that is located in various sections along the Reach 1.Feature Issue Station No. Suspected Cause Problem Area / Photo NumberInvasive/Exotic PopulationsReachwide in various locationsMyriophyllum aquaticum (parrot feather) growing in various locations along the channel reach due low flow conditions present during the monitoring assessment. No VPA was associated with this problem area because it is a reachwide issue that is located in various sections along the Reach 2.Poor growth rates* 22+15 - 26+60Poor growth rates were noted in areas where supplemental gallon container plantings were installed during MY4.VPA4-1Poor growth rates* 42+00 - 43+20Poor growth rates were noted in areas where supplemental bare root plantings were installed during MY3.VPA4-2Feature Issue Station No. Suspected Cause Problem Area / Photo NumberInvasive/Exotic PopulationsReachwide in various locationsMyriophyllum aquaticum (parrot feather) growing in various locations along the channel reach due low flow conditions present during the monitoring assessment. No VPA was associated with this problem area because it is a reachwide issue that is located in various sections along the Reach 3.Bare Areas 46+50 - 48+60Poor soils noted in an area where supplemental seeding and grass plugs were installed durning MY4. VPA4-3Poor growth rates* 44+50 - 48+60Poor growth rates were noted in areas where supplemental bare root and gallon container plantings were installed during MY4.VPA4-3Feature Issue Station No. Suspected Cause Problem Area / Photo NumberInvasive/Exotic PopulationsN/ALigustrum sinese (Chinese privet)No VPA was associated with this problem area because very minimal amounts are scattered throughout the reach. Feature Issue Station No. Suspected Cause Problem Area / Photo NumberInvasive/Exotic PopulationsN/ALigustrum sinese (Chinese privet)No VPA was associated with this problem area because very minimal amounts are scattered throughout the reach. Feature Issue Station No. Suspected Cause Problem Area / Photo NumberInvasive/Exotic PopulationsN/ALigustrum sinese (Chinese privet)No VPA was associated with this problem area because very minimal amounts are scattered throughout the reach. Feature Issue Station No. Suspected Cause Problem Area / Photo NumberInvasive/Exotic PopulationsN/ALigustrum sinese (Chinese privet)No VPA was associated with this problem area because very minimal amounts are scattered throughout the reach. Note: The first digit in the Photo Number column references the monitoring year and the second digit references the problem area or photo (which would be identical to a prior years problem area/photo number when persisting from a previous monitoring year).Table 6b. Vegetation Problem AreasUT to Town Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 94648Reach 2Reach 1Reach 3*Poor growth rate areas were noted where supplemental bare root and gallon container plantings were installed during MY4.Reach 4Reach 5Reach 6Reach 7MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648UT to TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION AYEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019

Stream Station Photos

MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT – OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019
UT to Town Creek – Reach 1

PID 1: Station 10+50 – Upstream (11/20/19)

PID 3: Station 10+80 – Left Floodplain
(11/20/19)

PID 5: Station 12+85 – Upstream (11/20/19)

PID 2: Station 10+50 – Downstream (11/20/19)

PID 4: Station 11+90 – Downstream (11/20/19)

PID 6: Station 13+05 – Left Floodplain
(11/20/19)

MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT – OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019
UT to Town Creek – Reach 1

PID 7: Station 15+30 – Upstream (11/20/19)

PID 8: Station 16+25 – Downstream (11/20/19)

PID 9: Station 17+75 – Left Floodplain (11/20/19) PID 10: Station 18+10– Downstream (11/20/19)

PID 11: Station 18+10 – Upstream (11/20/19) PID 12: Station 20+90 – Downstream (11/20/19)

MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT – OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019
UT to Town Creek Reach 1

PID 13: Station 21+00 – Upstream (11/20/19)

MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT – OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019
UT to Town Creek – Reach 2

PID 14: Station 22+75 – Upstream (11/20/19)

PID 16: Station 23+50 – Downstream (11/20/19)

PID 15: Station 23+25 – Upstream (11/20/19)

PID 17: Station 24+60– Upstream (11/20/19)

PID 18: Station 25+30– Left Floodplain (11/20/19) PID 19: Station 25+90– Downstream (11/20/19)

MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT – OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019
UT to Town Creek – Reach 2

PID 20: Station 26+50– Downstream (11/20/19)

PID 22: Station 29+35 – Upstream (11/20/19)

PID 24: Station 30+60 – Upstream (11/20/19)

PID 21: Station 28+75 – Downstream (11/20/19)

PID 23: Station 29+50 – Downstream Project
View from Floodplain Knoll (11/20/19)

PID 25: Station 33+10 – Upstream (11/20/19)

MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT – OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019
UT to Town Creek – Reach 2

PID 26: Station 33+10 – Downstream (11/20/19)

PID 28: Station 38+30 – Upstream (11/20/19)

PID 30: Station 39+10 – Downstream (11/20/19)

PID 27: Station 35+50 – Upstream (11/20/19)

PID 29: Station 38+40 – Downstream (11/20/19)

PID 31: Station 40+25 – Downstream (11/20/19)

MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT – OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019
UT to Town Creek – Reach 3

PID 32: Station 40+80 – Upstream (11/20/19)

PID 34: Station 43+00 – Downstream (11/20/19)

PID 36: Station 44+25 – Upstream (11/20/19)

PID 33: Station 41+80 – Upstream (11/20/19)

PID 35: Station 44+00 – Downstream (11/20/19)

PID 37: Station 45+50 – Downstream (11/20/19)

MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT – OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019
UT to Town Creek – Reach 3

PID 38: Station 45+95 – Upstream (11/20/19)

PID 40: Station 47+75 – Upstream (11/20/19)

PID 39: Station 46+80 – Upstream (11/20/19)

PID 41: Station 48+60 – Downstream (11/20/19)

MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT – OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019
UT to Town Creek – Reach 4

PID 1: Station 09+80 – Upstream (11/20/19)

PID 3: Station 11+20 – Upstream (11/20/19)

PID 5: Station 12+95 – Upstream (11/20/19)

PID 2: Station 10+60 – Upstream (11/20/19)

PID 4: Station 11+75 – Upstream (11/20/19)

PID 6: Station 13+45 – Downstream (11/20/19)

MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT – OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019
UT to Town Creek – Reach 4

PID 7: Station 13+80 – Upstream (11/20/19)

PID 8: Station 14+ 20 – Upstream (11/20/19)

MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT – OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019
UT to Town Creek – Reach 5

PID 1: Station 10+70 – Upstream (11/20/19)

PID 3: Station 11+75 – Upstream (11/20/19)

PID 5: Station 12+65 – Upstream (11/20/19

PID 2: Station 10+75 – Downstream (11/20/19)

PID 4: Station 12+20 – Upstream (11/20/19)

PID 6: Station 13+30 – Upstream (11/20/19)

MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT – OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019

UT to Town Creek – Reach 5

PID 7: Station 13+43 – Upstream (11/20/19)

MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT – OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019
UT to Town Creek – Reach 6

PID 1: Station14+55 – Upstream (11/20/19)

PID 3: Station 16+00 – Upstream (11/20/19)

PID 5: Station 17+25 – Upstream (11/20/19)

PID 2: Station 15+30 – Upstream (11/20/19)

PID 4: Station 16+50 – Upstream (11/20/19)

PID 6: Station 18+00 – Upstream (11/20/19)

MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT – OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019
UT to Town Creek – Reach 6

PID 7: Station 18+50 – Upstream (11/20/19)

PID 8: Station 18+90 – Downstream (11/20/19)

MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT – OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019
UT to Town Creek – Reach 6
PID 7: Station 18+50 – Upstream (11/20/19)

PID 9: Station 19+05 – Upstream (11/20/19)

PID 11: Station 19+50 – Upstream (11/20/19)

PID 8: Station 18+90 – Downstream (11/20/19)

PID 10: Station 19+50 – Left Floodplain
(11/20/19)

PID 12: Station 19+85 – Upstream (11/20/19)

MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT – OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019
UT to Town Creek – Reach 6

PID 13: Station 20+50 - Upstream (11/20/19)

PID 15: Station 21+00 – Upstream (11/20/19)

PID 17: Station 23+40 – Upstream (11/20/19)

PID 14: Station 20+50 - Downstream (11/20/19)

PID 16: Station 22+75 – Upstream (11/20/19

PID 18: Station 24+00 – Upstream (11/20/19)

MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT – OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019
UT to Town Creek – Reach 6

PID 19: Station 24+50 – Upstream (11/20/19)

PID 21: Station 25+80 - Downstream (11/20/19)

PID 23: Station 26+50 – Upstream (11/20/19)

PID 20: Station 23+25 – Upstream (11/20/19)

PID 22: Station 25+85 – Upstream (11/20/19)

PID 24: Station 26+75 – Upstream (11/20/19)

MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT – OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019
UT to Town Creek – Reach 6

PID 25: Station 28+00 – Upstream (11/20/19)

PID 26: Station 28+14 – Upstream (11/20/19)

MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT – OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019
UT to Town Creek – Reach 7

PID 1: Station 09+40: Upstream (11/20/19)

PID 3: Station 10+70 – Upstream (11/20/19

PID 5: Station 11+75 – Upstream (11/20/19)

PID 2: Station 09+90 – Upstream (11/20/19)

PID 4: Station 10+80 – Downstream (11/20/19)

PID 6: Station 12+20 – Upstream (11/20/19)

MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT – OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019
UT to Town Creek – Reach 7

PID 7: Station 12+90 – Upstream (11/20/19)

PID 9: Station 13+99 – Upstream (11/20/19)

PID 8: Station 13+50 – Upstream (11/20/19

MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT – OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019
UT to Town Creek – Culvert Photos

Reach 1 Culvert Downstream (12/11/19)

Reach 2 Culvert Downstream (11/20/19)

Reach 6 Culvert Downstream (6/11/19)

Reach 2 Culvert Upstream (12/11/19)

Reach 6 Culvert Upstream (11/20/19)

MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648
UT to TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019
Stream Problem Areas

MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648
UT to TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019
UT to Town Creek – Reach 1

SPA 4-1 - Station 10+10 – Stream banks downstream of culvert have eroded and washed away
during flooding (11/20/19)

UT to Town Creek – Reach 6

SPA 4-2 - Station 20+50 – Stream banks downstream of culvert have eroded and washed away
during flooding (11/20/19)

Vegetation Problem Area Photos

MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT – OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019

VPA 4-1– Photo of bare areas, areas of poor
growth rates, and areas were supplemental
plantings were installed. (11/20/19)

VPA 4-2 – Photo of bare areas and areas of
poor growth rates, as well as areas were
supplemental plantings were installed.
(11/20/19)

VPA 4-3 – Photo of bare areas, areas of poor
growth rates, and areas were supplemental
plantings were installed. (10/30/2019)

Parrot feather (Myriophyllum aquaticum)
growing in channel along Reach 1. (11/20/19)

Parrot feather (Myriophyllum aquaticum)
growing in channel along Reach 2. (11/20/19)

APPENDIX C
Vegetation Plot Data

Plot #Stream/Wetland
Stems2 Volunteers3 Total4 Success Criteria Met?
VP1 769 283 1052 Yes
VP2 728 0 728 Yes
VP3 728 81 809 Yes
VP4 526 40 567 Yes
VP5 648 40 688 Yes
VP6 728 121 850 Yes
VP7 526 162 688 Yes
VP8 728 0 728 Yes
VP9 526 0 526 Yes
VP10 769 40 809 Yes
VP11 850 0 850 Yes
VP12 526 121 648 Yes
VP13 486 81 567 Yes
VP14 688 121 809 Yes
VP15 688 0 688 Yes
VP16 688 40 728 Yes
VP17 526 121 648 Yes
VP18 769 40 809 Yes
VP19 526 81 607 Yes
VP20 486 81 567 Yes
Project Avg 645 73 718 Yes
4Total: Planted + volunteer native woody stems. Includes live stakes.
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
3Volunteers: Native woody stems. Not planted. No vines.
Table 7. Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success Summary
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 94648
1Buffer Stems: Native planted hardwood trees. Does NOT include shrubs. No pines. No vines.
2Stream/ Wetland Stems: Native planted woody stems. Includes shrubs, does NOT include live stakes. No vines.
Wetland/Stream Vegetation Totals (per acre)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019
Table 8.
Report Prepared By Drew Powers
Date Prepared 10/14/2019 13:15
database name UTtoTown_84648_MY4_cvs‐eep‐entrytool‐v2.3.1_2019.mdb
database location \\CARYFS1.bkr.mbakercorp.com\RDATA\Projects\120857_UT Town Creek\Documents\Reports\Monitoring\MY4_2019\Vegetation
computer name CARYLAPOWERS1
file size 51380224
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 94648
project Name UT to Town Creek Restoration Project ‐ Option A
Description
This project proposes to restore 5,597 linear feet (LF) and enhance 791 LF (444 LF of Enhancement I and 347 LF of Enhancement II) of 
stream along an Unnamed Tributary (UT) to Town Creek and three additional unnamed tributaries and to restore, enhance, and
River Basin Yadkin‐Pee Dee
length(ft)
stream‐to‐edge width (ft)
area (sq m)101576
Required Plots (calculated)20
Sampled Plots 20
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019
Table 9. CVS Stem Count of Planted Stems by Plot and SpeciesUT to Town Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 94648PVTPVTPVTPVTPVTPVTPVTPVTAcer negundo boxelder Tree 1 1Alnus serrulata hazel alder Shrub11Asimina triloba pawpaw TreeBetula nigra river birch Tree 1 11 14 42 22 24 4Callicarpa americana American beautyberry Shrub 1 12255Carpinus caroliniana American hornbeamTree 11221122 11Carya glabra pignut hickory TreeCephalanthus occidentalis common buttonbush ShrubCercis canadensis eastern redbud Tree3311Cornus amomum silky dogwood Shrub44 44Cornus florida flowering dogwood Tree 1 111Diospyros virginiana common persimmon Tree 4 4 8 3 3 4 4 1 1Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash Tree11 33Liriodendron tulipifera tuliptree Tree 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 4Nyssa sylvatica blackgum TreePlatanus occidentalis American sycamoreTree 111144112244 1212Quercus oak TreeQuercus alba white oak Tree22Quercus falcata southern red oakTree22111111Quercus lyrata overcup oak Tree 1 111 11Quercus michauxii swamp chestnut oakTree662211Quercus pagoda cherrybark oak Tree 3 3 1 1Quercus phellos willow oak Tree 2 26 65 5 6 63 3 3 3Quercus rubra northern red oak TreeSalix nigra black willow Tree11Sambucus canadensis Common Elderberry ShrubSambucus nigra European black elderberry Shrub11Ulmus americana American elm Tree11Unknown Shrub or Tree19 72618 01818 22013 11416 11718 32113 41718 0189210888729819617718516505769 283 1052 728 0 728 728 81 809 526 40 567 647 40 688 728 121 850 526 162 688 728 0 728P = PlantedV = VolunteersT = TotalSpecies countStems per ACREExceeds requirements, but by less than 10%Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%Current Plot Data (MY4 2019)Stem countsize (ares)94648-01-VP6 94648-01-VP7 94648-01-VP8Scientific Name Common Name Species Type94648-01-VP1 94648-01-VP2 94648-01-VP3 94648-01-VP4 94648-01-VP510.0210.0210.0210.0210.0210.0210.0210.02Exceeds requirements by 10%size (ACRES)MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION AYEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019
Table 9. CVS Stem Count of Planted Stems by Plot and Species - ContinuedUT to Town Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 94648PVTPVTPVTPVTPVTPVTPVTPVTAcer negundo boxelder TreeAlnus serrulata hazel alder ShrubAsimina triloba pawpaw TreeBetula nigra river birch Tree3311Callicarpa americana American beautyberry Shrub 2 2Carpinus caroliniana American hornbeam Tree 3 3Carya glabra pignut hickory TreeCephalanthus occidentalis common buttonbush Shrub 5 5 2 244Cercis canadensis eastern redbud Tree 1 1 1 166Cornus amomum silky dogwood Shrub 2 22 21 11 11 14 44 43 3Cornus florida flowering dogwood Tree 3 3Diospyros virginiana common persimmon Tree 3 3 7 7 1 1 2 2Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash Tree 119110 2222222211Liriodendron tulipifera tuliptree Tree 1 1 1 1336 4261 1Nyssa sylvatica blackgum Tree 1 13 32 2123 4 4Platanus occidentalis American sycamore Tree 1 1 3 1 4Quercus oak TreeQuercus alba white oak Tree 1 12 21 11111Quercus falcata southern red oak Tree 1 1Quercus lyrata overcup oak Tree 1 1111111Quercus michauxii swamp chestnut oak TreeQuercus pagoda cherrybark oak Tree 5 5 2 2Quercus phellos willow oak Tree111111Quercus rubra northern red oak TreeSalix nigra black willow TreeSambucus canadensis Common Elderberry ShrubSambucus nigra European black elderberry Shrub 2 211Ulmus americana American elm TreeUnknown Shrub or Tree13 01319 12021 02113 31612 21417 32017 01717 118808717909616515727808819526 0 526 769 40 809 850 0 850 526 121 647 486 81 567 688 121 809 688 0 688 688 40 728P = PlantedV = VolunteersT = Total94648-01-VP1294648-01-VP9 94648-01-VP10Scientific Name Common Name Species Type94648-01-VP13 94648-01-VP14 94648-01-VP15 94648-01-VP1694648-01-VP1110.02Current Plot Data (MY4 2019)Exceeds requirements by 10%Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%Stem countsize (ares)size (ACRES)Species countStems per ACRE10.0210.0210.0210.0210.0210.0210.02MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION AYEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019
Table 9. CVS Stem Count of Planted Stems by Plot and Species - ContinuedUT to Town Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 94648PVTPVTPVTPVTPVTPVTPVTPVTPV TAcer negundo boxelder Tree 1 11121121 1Alnus serrulata hazel alder Shrub113322665 5Asimina triloba pawpaw Tree 2 2 1 1 3 3 17 17 17 17 18 18 21 21Betula nigra river birch Tree18 18 10 10 13 13 16 16 7 7Callicarpa americana American beautyberry Shrub10 10 10 2 12 10 10 10 10 16 16Carpinus caroliniana American hornbeam Tree10 10 11 11 10 10 8 8 5 5Carya glabra pignut hickory Tree 1 11 1 18 18 20 20 24 24 29 29Cephalanthus occidentalis common buttonbush Shrub11 11 30 1 31 30 30 29 29 31 31Cercis canadensis eastern redbud Tree 6 6 18 18 7 7 9 9 13 13 21 21Cornus amomum silky dogwood Shrub 1 1 2 1 3 29 13034 5 3932 3229 297 7Cornus florida flowering dogwoodTree 11 1177392413939404043 43Diospyros virginiana common persimmon Tree 2 2 4 4 4 4 35 4 39 14 21 35 12 12 11 11 12 12Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash Tree 7 7 8 8 5 5 39 5 44 11 11 13 13 12 12 9 9Liriodendron tulipifera tuliptree Tree 1 11231316293113230 3029 2931 31Nyssa sylvatica blackgum Tree 1 1 12 2 1433Platanus occidentalis American sycamoreTree 11 1131132991010101012 12Quercus oak Tree7 7 7 7 19 19 15 15Quercus alba white oak Tree1 1 9 9 7 1 8 15 15 10 10 16 16Quercus falcata southern red oak Tree11779999141429 29Quercus lyrata overcup oak Tree7 7 11 11 8 8 4 4Quercus michauxii swamp chestnut oak Tree9 9 33 33 32 32 29 29 27 27Quercus pagoda cherrybark oak Tree 1 111 1 12Quercus phellos willow oak Tree 2 2 3 3 33 33Quercus rubra northern red oak TreeSalix nigra black willow Tree11Sambucus canadensis Common Elderberry Shrub22Sambucus nigra European black elderberry Shrub 1 15 51891 1Ulmus americana American elm Tree 1 1 1 1 3 3 6 6 19 19Unknown Shrub or Tree7713 3 16 19 1 20 13 2 15 12 2 14 319 36 355318 42 360 331 0 331 346 0 346 365 0 365538617526717221125229222202222022210 21526 121 647 769 40 809 526 81 607 486 81 567 645 73 718643 85 728 670 0 670 700 0 700 739 0 739P = PlantedV = VolunteersT = Total194648-01-VP17 94648-01-VP18 94648-01-VP19MY0 (2016)MY4 (2019)200.4910.02200.49Exceeds requirements by 10%Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%Current Plot Data (MY4 2019)Stem countsize (ares)size (ACRES)Species countStems per ACREScientific Name Common Name Species Type200.49MY3 (2018)0.492094648-01-VP20Annual Totals0.0210.0210.02200.49MY2 (2017) MY1 (2016)MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION AYEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019

Vegetation Plot Photos
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT – OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019
UT to Town Creek – Reach 1

Vegetation Plot 1 (10/09/2019)

Vegetation Plot 3 (10/09/2019)

Vegetation Plot 5 (10/09/2019)

Vegetation Plot 2 (10/09/2019)

Vegetation Plot 4 (10/09/2019)

MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT – OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019
UT to Town Creek – Reach 2
Vegetation Plot 6 (10/09/2019)

Vegetation Plot 8 (10/09/2019)

Vegetation Plot 10 (10/09/2019)

Vegetation Plot 7 (10/09/2019)

Vegetation Plot 9 (10/09/2019)

Vegetation Plot 11 (10/09/2019)

MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT – OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019

UT to Town Creek – Reach 3

Vegetation Plot 12 (10/09/2019)

Vegetation Plot 14 (10/09/2019)

Vegetation Plot 13 (10/09/2019)

MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT – OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019
UT to Town Creek – Reach 6 & Reach 4

Vegetation Plot 15 (10/09/2019)

Vegetation Plot 17 (10/09/2019)

Vegetation Plot 16 (10/09/2019)

Vegetation Plot 18 (10/09/2019)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT – OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019, MONITORING YEAR 4 OF 5
UT to Town Creek – Reach 5 & Reach 7

Vegetation Plot 19 (10/09/2019)

Vegetation Plot 20 (10/09/2019)

Appendix D

Stream Survey Data

Figure 3. Cross-sections with Annual Overlays
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: Project No. 94648
Feature Stream
Type
BKF
Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth W/D BH
Ratio*ER BKF
Elev**
TOB
Elev WFPA
Riffle C 6.7 8.6 0.8 1.1 11.0 1.3 3.8 574.3 574.9 32.4
=
*BHR = 1.3 is based on as-built bkf area of 9.1 at an elevation of 574.54. Remainder of data based on actual bankfull elevation
from as-built which is 574.3. Thalweg elevation is 573.21.
Permanent Cross-section
X1 Riffle - Reach 1 (Station 11+61)
Monitoring Year 4 - Collected October 2019
LEFT BANK RIGHT BANK
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
0 10203040506070Elevation
Station
As-Built MY1 2016 MY2 2017 MY3 2018
MY4 2019 MY4 BKF Bankfull Floodprone
X1 - Riffle
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019
Figure 3 Continued. Cross-sections with Annual Overlays
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: Project No. 94648
Feature Stream
Type
BKF
Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth W/D BH
Ratio*ER BKF
Elev
TOB
Elev WFPA
Pool 21.2 17.9 1.2 2.6 15.2 - - 574.7 575.0 70.6
Permanent Cross-section
X2 Pool - Reach 1 (Station 12+00)
Monitoring Year 4 - Collected October 2019
LEFT BANK RIGHT BANK
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
0 10203040506070ElevationStation
As-Built MY1 2016 MY2 2017 MY3 2018
MY4 2019 Bankfull Floodprone
X2 - Pool
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019
Figure 3 Continued. Cross-sections with Annual Overlays
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: Project No. 94648
Feature Stream
Type
BKF
Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth W/D BH
Ratio ER BKF
Elev*
TOB
Elev WFPA
Pool 20.3 12.9 1.6 2.6 8.2 - - 571.6 571.9 77.1
Permanent Cross-section
X3 Pool - Reach 1 (Station 15+99)
Monitoring Year 4 - Collected October 2019
LEFT BANK RIGHT BANK
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
0 1020304050607080Elevation
Station
As-Built MY1 2016 MY2 2017 MY3 2018
MY4 2019 Bankfull Floodprone
X3 - Pool
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019
Figure 3 Continued. Cross-sections with Annual Overlays
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: Project No. 94648
Feature Stream
Type
BKF
Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth W/D BH
Ratio*ER BKF
Elev
TOB
Elev WFPA
Riffle C 9.7 13.5 0.7 1.0 18.7 0.9 6.6 571.5 571.5 88.5
*BHR = 0.9 is based on as-built bkf area of 13.9 at an elevation of 571.7. Remainder of data based on actual bankfull elevation
from as-built which is 571.5. Thalweg elevation is 570.41.
Permanent Cross-section
X4 Riffle - Reach 1 (Station 16+18)
Monitoring Year 4 - Collected October 2019
LEFT BANK RIGHT BANK
569
570
571
572
573
574
0 102030405060708090100Elevation
Station
As-Built MY1 2016 MY2 2017 MY3 2018
MY4 2019 MY4 BKF Bankfull Floodprone
X4 - Riffle
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019
Figure 3 Continued. Cross-sections with Annual Overlays
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: Project No. 94648
Feature Stream
Type
BKF
Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth W/D BH
Ratio*ER BKF
Elev
TOB
Elev WFPA
Riffle C 7.0 10.7 0.7 1.0 16.3 1.0 7.3 568.0 568.2 77.3
*BHR = 1.0 is based on as-built bkf area of 10.1 at an elevation of 568.22. Remainder of data based on actual bankfull elevation
from as-built which is 568.0. Thalweg elevation is 566.97.
Permanent Cross-section
X5 Riffle - Reach 1 (Station 19+41)
Monitoring Year 4 - Collected October 2019
LEFT BANK RIGHT BANK
566
567
568
569
570
0 102030405060708090Elevation
Station
As-Built MY1 2016 MY2 2017 MY3 2018
MY4 2019 MY4 BKF Bankfull Floodprone
X5 - Riffle
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019
Figure 3 Continued. Cross-sections with Annual Overlays
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: Project No. 94648
Feature Stream
Type
BKF
Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth W/D BH
Ratio*ER BKF
Elev
TOB
Elev WFPA
Riffle C 13.0 17.6 0.7 1.3 23.8 0.9 4.1 561.9 561.7 72.4
*BHR = 0.9 is based on as-built bkf area of 14.8 at an elevation of 561.88. Remainder of data based on actual bankfull elevation
from as-built which is 561.9. Thalweg elevation is 560.59.
Permanent Cross-section
X6 Riffle - Reach 2 (Station 25+16)
Monitoring Year 4 - Collected October 2019
LEFT BANK RIGHT BANK
560
561
562
563
564
565
0 102030405060708090100110Elevation
Station
As-Built MY1 2016 MY2 2017 MY3 2018
MY4 2019 MY4 BKF Bankfull Floodprone
X6 - Riffle
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019
Figure 3 Continued. Cross-sections with Annual Overlays
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: Project No. 94648
Feature Stream
Type
BKF
Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth W/D BH
Ratio*ER BKF
Elev
TOB
Elev WFPA
Pool 18.9 15.5 1.2 2.5 12.7 - - 561.6 561.9 76.3
Permanent Cross-section
X7 Pool - Reach 2 (Station 25+60)
Monitoring Year 4 - Collected October 2019
LEFT BANK RIGHT BANK
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
0 1020304050607080ElevationStation
As-Built MY1 2016 MY2 2017 MY3 2018
MY4 2019 Bankfull Floodprone
X7 - Pool
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019
Figure 3 Continued. Cross-sections with Annual Overlays
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: Project No. 94648
Feature Stream
Type
BKF
Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth W/D BH
Ratio*ER BKF
Elev
TOB
Elev WFPA
Riffle C 12.9 14.2 0.9 1.5 15.8 1.0 7.2 558.8 559.0 102.7
*BHR = 1.0 is based on as-built bkf area of 16.5 at an elevation of 559.05. Remainder of data based on actual bankfull elevation
from as-built which is 558.8. Thalweg elevation is 557.32.
Permanent Cross-section
X8 Riffle - Reach 2 (Station 29+17)
Monitoring Year 4 - Collected October 2019
LEFT BANK RIGHT BANK
556
557
558
559
560
561
0 102030405060708090100110Elevation
Station
As-Built MY1 2016 MY2 2017 MY3 2018
MY4 2019 MY4 BKF Bankfull Floodprone
X8 - Riffle
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019
Figure 3 Continued. Cross-sections with Annual Overlays
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: Project No. 94648
Feature Stream
Type
BKF
Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth W/D BH
Ratio*ER BKF
Elev
TOB
Elev WFPA
Pool 29.5 18.8 1.6 2.6 11.9 - - 552.7 552.5 95.4
Permanent Cross-section
X9 Pool - Reach 2 (Station 37+60)
Monitoring Year 4 - Collected October 2019
LEFT BANK RIGHT BANK
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
0 102030405060708090100Elevation
Station
As-Built MY1 2016 MY2 2017 MY3 2018
MY4 2019 Bankfull Floodprone
X9 - Pool
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019
Figure 3 Continued. Cross-sections with Annual Overlays
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: Project No. 94648
Feature Stream
Type
BKF
Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth W/D BH
Ratio*ER BKF
Elev
TOB
Elev WFPA
Riffle C 13.7 13.8 1.0 1.6 14.0 1.0 7.2 552.8 553.0 100.1
*BHR = 1.0 is based on as-built bkf area of 17.0 at an elevation of 553.005. Remainder of data based on actual bankfull elevation
from as-built which is 552.8. Thalweg elevation is 551.19.
Permanent Cross-section
X10 Riffle - Reach 2 (Station 37+91)
Monitoring Year 4 - Collected October 2019
LEFT BANK RIGHT BANK
550
551
552
553
554
555
0 102030405060708090100Elevation
StationAs-Built MY1 2016 MY2 2017 MY3 2018
MY4 2019 MY4 BKF Bankfull Floodprone
X10 - Riffle
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019
Figure 3 Continued. Cross-sections with Annual Overlays
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: Project No. 94648
Feature Stream
Type
BKF
Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth W/D BH
Ratio*ER BKF
Elev
TOB
Elev WFPA
Riffle C 13.2 14.5 0.9 1.4 16.1 1.0 6.9 550.5 550.6 99.8
*BHR = 1.0 is based on as-built bkf area of 16.3 at an elevation of 550.622. Remainder of data based on actual bankfull elevation
from as-built which is 550.5. Thalweg elevation is 549.12.
Permanent Cross-section
X11 Riffle - Reach 3 (Station 41+62)
Monitoring Year 4 Collected September 2019
RIGHT BANKLEFT BANK
548
549
550
551
552
553
0 102030405060708090100110Elevation
Station
As-Built MY1 2016 MY2 2017 MY3 2018
MY4 2019 MY3 BKF Bankfull Floodprone
X11 - Riffle
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019
Figure 3 Continued. Cross-sections with Annual Overlays
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: Project No. 94648
Feature Stream
Type
BKF
Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth W/D BH
Ratio*ER BKF
Elev
TOB
Elev WFPA
Riffle C 16.0 16.2 1.0 1.6 16.4 0.9 6.2 548.9 548.9 99.9
*BHR = 0.9 is based on as-built bkf area of 21.5 at an elevation of 549.117. Remainder of data based on actual bankfull elevation
from as-built which is 548.9. Thalweg elevation is 547.30.
Permanent Cross-section
X12 Riffle - Reach 3 (Station 44+80)
Monitoring Year 4- Collected September 2019
RIGHT BANKLEFT BANK
546
547
548
549
550
551
0 102030405060708090100ElevationStation
As-Built MY1 2016 MY2 2017 MY3 2018
MY4 2019 MY4 BKF Bankfull Floodprone
X12 - Riffle
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019
Figure 3 Continued. Cross-sections with Annual Overlays
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: Project No. 94648
Feature Stream
Type
BKF
Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth W/D BH
Ratio*ER BKF
Elev
TOB
Elev WFPA
Riffle C 13.0 14.7 0.9 1.4 16.5 1.0 6.7 548.1 548.3 98.3
*BHR = 1.0 is based on as-built bkf area of 18.3 at an elevation of 548.38. Remainder of data based on actual bankfull elevation
from as-built which is 548.1. Thalweg elevation is 546.74.
Permanent Cross-section
X13 Riffle - Reach 3 (Station 45+61)
Monitoring Year 4 - Collected September 2019
RIGHT BANKLEFT BANK
546
547
548
549
550
0 102030405060708090100Elevation
Station
As-Built MY1 2016 MY2 2017 MY3 2018
MY4 2019 MY4 BKF Bankfull Floodprone
X13 - Riffle
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019
Figure 3 Continued. Cross-sections with Annual Overlays
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: Project No. 94648
Feature Stream
Type
BKF
Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth W/D BH
Ratio*ER BKF
Elev
TOB
Elev WFPA
Pool 31.4 18.0 1.7 3.1 10.3 - - 547.9 548.1 98.7
Permanent Cross-section
X14 Pool - Reach 3 (Station 45+95)
Monitoring Year 4 - Collected September 2019
RIGHT BANKLEFT BANK
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
0 102030405060708090100110Elevation
StationAs-Built MY1 2016 MY2 2017 MY3 2018
MY4 2019 Bankfull Floodprone
X14 - Pool
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019
Figure 3 Continued. Cross-sections with Annual Overlays
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: Project No. 94648
Feature Stream
Type
BKF
Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth W/D BH
Ratio*ER BKF
Elev
TOB
Elev WFPA
Pool 9.2 10.7 0.9 1.7 12.6 - - 553.8 553.9 60.3
Permanent Cross-section
X15 Pool - Reach 6 (Station 26+17)
Monitoring Year 4 - Collected September 2019
LEFT BANK RIGHT BANK
551
552
553
554
555
556
0 102030405060ElevationStation
As-Built MY1 2016 MY2 2017 MY3 2018
MY4 2019 Bankfull Floodprone
X15 - Pool
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019
Figure 3 Continued. Cross-sections with Annual Overlays
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: Project No. 94648
Feature Stream
Type
BKF
Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth W/D BH
Ratio*ER BKF
Elev
TOB
Elev WFPA
Riffle C 4.6 8.7 0.5 0.9 16.6 1.0 5.8 554.3 554.3 50.6
*BHR = 1.0 is based on as-built bkf area of 6.2 at an elevation of 554.325. Remainder of data based on actual bankfull elevation
from as-built which is 554.3. Thalweg elevation is 553.35.
Permanent Cross-section
X16 Riffle - Reach 6 (Station 26+02)
Monitoring Year 4 - Collected September 2019
RIGHT BANKLEFT BANK
552
553
554
555
556
0 102030405060ElevationStation
As-Built MY1 2016 MY2 2017 MY3 2018
MY4 2019 MY4 BKF Bankfull Floodprone
X16 - Riffle
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019
Figure 3 Continued. Cross-sections with Annual Overlays
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: Project No. 94648
Feature Stream
Type
BKF
Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth W/D BH
Ratio*ER BKF
Elev
TOB
Elev WFPA
Riffle C 5.3 13.6 0.4 0.8 35.0 0.6 2.1 565.0 564.9 28.5
*BHR = 1.0 is based on as-built bkf area of 9.8 at an elevation of 554.325. Remainder of data based on actual bankfull elevation
from as-built which is 565.0. Thalweg elevation is 564.18.
Permanent Cross-section
X17 Riffle - Reach 6 - (Station 21+06)
Monitoring Year 4 - Collected October 2019
RIGHT BANKLEFT BANK
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
0 1020304050ElevationStation
As-Built MY1 2016 MY2 2017 MY3 2018
MY4 2019 MY4 BKF Bankfull Floodprone
X17 - Riffle
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019
Figure 3 Continued. Cross-sections with Annual Overlays
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: Project No. 94648
Feature Stream
Type
BKF
Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth W/D BH
Ratio*ER BKF
Elev
TOB
Elev WFPA
Riffle C 4.2 7.6 0.6 1.0 13.7 1.0 4.3 578.0 578.1 32.6
*BHR = 1.0 is based on as-built bkf area of 5.3 at an elevation of 578.09. Remainder of data based on actual bankfull elevation
from as-built which is 578.0. Thalweg elevation is 576.97.
Permanent Cross-section
X18 Riffle - Reach 6 (Station 16+80)
Monitoring Year 4 - Collected October 2019
LEFT BANK RIGHT BANK
576
577
578
579
580
581
0 1020304050Elevation
Station
As-Built MY1 2016 MY2 2017 MY3 2018
MY4 2019 MY4 BKF Bankfull Floodprone
X18 - Riffle
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019
Figure 3 Continued. Cross-sections with Annual Overlays
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: Project No. 94648
Feature Stream
Type
BKF
Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth W/D BH
Ratio*ER BKF
Elev
TOB
Elev WFPA
Pool 7.7 13.2 0.6 1.2 22.5 - - 575.8 575.7 39.2
Permanent Cross-section
X19 Pool - Reach 6 (Station 17+69)
Monitoring Year 4 - Collected October 2019
LEFT BANK RIGHT BANK
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
0 102030405060ElevationStation
As-Built MY1 2016 MY2 2017 MY3 2018
MY4 2019 Bankfull Floodprone
X19 - Pool
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019
Table 10. Baseline Stream Summary DataUT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: DMS Project ID No. 94648Reach 1 (1,204 LF)LL UL Eq. Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD nDimension and Substrate - RiffleBF Width (ft) ----- 23.0 80.0 11.0 9.0 ----- ----- 11.9 ----- 2 ----- 12.2 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 8.7 ----- ----- ----- -----Floodprone Width (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 77.0 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 72.4 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 228.5 ----- ----- ----- -----BF Mean Depth (ft) ----- 2.3 5.8 1.4 1.2 ----- ----- 1.5 ----- 2 ----- 1.3 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.2 ----- ----- ----- -----BF Max Depth (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.8 ----- ----- 2.1 ----- 2 ----- 1.8 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.9 ----- ----- ----- -----BF Cross-sectional Area (ft²) ----- 80.0 300.0 18.9 ----- 13.8 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 16.3 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 10.6 ----- ----- ----- -----Width/Depth Ratio ----- ----- ----- ----- 5.8 ----- ----- 10.3 ----- 2 ----- 9.1 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 7.3 ----- ----- ----- -----Entrenchment Ratio ----- ----- ----- ----- 6.5 ----- ----- 8.6 ----- 2 ----- 6 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 26.3 ----- ----- ----- -----Bank Height Ratio ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.2 ----- ----- 1.2 ----- 2 ----- 1 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1 ----- ----- ----- -----d50 (mm) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 50.0 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 22.6 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 8.6 ----- ----- ----- -----PatternChannel Beltwidth (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- 31 ----- ----- 101 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 24 ----- ----- 52 ----- -----Radius of Curvature (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- 17 ----- ----- 77 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 5.4 ----- ----- 22.1 ----- -----Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.4 ----- ----- 8.6 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.6 ----- ----- 2.5 ----- -----Meander Wavelength (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- 63 ----- ----- 144 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 54 ----- ----- 196 ----- -----Meander Width Ratio ----- ----- ----- ----- 2.6 ----- ----- 11.2 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 2.8 ----- ----- 6 ----- -----ProfileRiffle Length (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Riffle Slope (ft/ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.011 ----- ----- 0.056 ----- ----- 0.0606 ----- ----- 0.089 ----- ----- 0.1 ----- ----- 0.067 ----- -----Pool Length (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Pool Spacing (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- 65.6 ----- ----- 206.5 ----- ----- 26.3 ----- ----- 81.3 ----- ----- 13 ----- ----- 46.5 ----- -----Pool Max Depth (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 2.8 ----- ----- ----- 1 ----- 2.2 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 2.5 ----- ----- ----- -----Pool Volume (ft3)----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Substrate and Transport ParametersRi% / Ru% / P% / G% / S% ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----SC% / Sa% / G% / B% / Be% ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 ----- ----- ----- -----Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f² ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.61 ----- ----- 0.71 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m²----- ----- ----- ----- 32 ----- ----- 37.7 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Additional Reach ParametersDrainage Area (SM) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.830 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.05 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.5 ----- -----Impervious cover estimate (%) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Rosgen Classification ----- ----- ----- ----- -----E4 (incised----- ----- ----- ----- ----- E4b ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- E4 / C4 ----- -----BF Velocity (fps) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 3.6 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 5.5 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----BF Discharge (cfs) ----- 290.0 2000.0 77.8 ----- ----- ----- 50 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 85 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Valley Length ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Channel length (ft)2----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1181 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Sinuosity ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.20 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.10 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.10 ----- -----Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.0080 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.0235 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.0132 ----- -----BF slope (ft/ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- -----BEHI VL% / L% / M% / H% / VH% / E% ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Channel Stability or Habitat Metric ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Biological or Other----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----UT to Rocky Creek Spencer Creek UpstreamParameterUSGS GaugeRegional Curve Interval (Harman et al, 1999)*Pre-Existing Condition111.3 / 33.0 / 50.0 / 128.0 / >2048 <0.063 / 2.4 / 22.6 / 120 / 256 0.06 / 3 / 8.6 / 77 / 180* Harman, W.A., G.D. Jennings, J.M. Patterson, D.R. Clinton, L.O. Slate, A.G. Jessup, J.R. Everhart, and R.E. Smith. 1999. Bankfull hydraulic geometry relationships for North Carolina streams. Wildland Hydrology. AWRA Symposium Proceedings. D.S. Olsen and J.P. Potyondy, eds. American Water Resources Association. June 30-July 2, 1999. Bozeman, MT.1 Reach 1 data based on two riffle cross-sections and one pool cross-section.Reference Reach(es) DataMICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648UT to TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION AYEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019
Table 10 Cont. Baseline Stream Summary DataUT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: DMS Project ID No. 94648Reach 1 (1,204 LF)Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD nMin Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD nDimension and Substrate - RiffleBF Width (ft) 16.2 ----- ----- 16.7 ----- ----- ----- 33.2 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 13.5 ----- ----- ----- ----- 11.8 ----- ----- 14.4 ----- 3Floodprone Width (ft) 50 ----- ----- 53 ----- ----- ----- 77.5 ----- ----- ----- ----- 45 ----- ----- 63 ----- ----- 33.1 ----- ----- 91.8 ----- 3BF Mean Depth (ft) 0.9 ----- ----- 0.9 ----- ----- ----- 2.3 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1 ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.8 ----- ----- 1.0 ----- 3BF Max Depth (ft) 1.4 ----- ----- 1.5 ----- ----- ----- 2.8 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.4 ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.2 ----- ----- 1.4 ----- 3BF Cross-sectional Area (ft²) 15 ----- ----- 15.5 ----- ----- ----- 75.1 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 13.8 ----- ----- ----- ----- 9.1 ----- ----- 13.9 ----- 3Width/Depth Ratio 18 ----- ----- 18.6 ----- ----- ----- 14.1 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 13.2 ----- ----- ----- ----- 14.4 ----- ----- 15.2 ----- 3Entrenchment Ratio 3.0 ----- ----- 3.3 ----- ----- ----- 2.3 ----- ----- ----- ----- 3.3 ----- ----- 4.7 ----- ----- 2.8 ----- ----- 6.4 ----- 3Bank Height Ratio ----- 1 ----- 2.5 ----- ----- ----- 1 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1 ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.0 ----- ----- 1.0 ----- 3d50 (mm) ----- 45 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 3 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 50 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 31.2 ----- ----- ----- -----PatternChannel Beltwidth (ft) 25 ----- ----- 40 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Radius of Curvature (ft) 14.3 ----- ----- 26.1 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 42.0 51.6 ----- 72.9 ----- 18Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft) 0.9 ----- ----- 1.6 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Meander Wavelength (ft) 90 ----- ----- 94 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---------- -----Meander Width Ratio 1.5 ----- ----- 2.4 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 2.6 ----- ----- -----15ProfileRiffle Length (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 15.5 35.0 35.4 62.8 12.718Riffle Slope (ft/ft) 0.013 ----- ----- 0.0413 ----- ----- 0.014 ----- ----- 0.024 ----- ----- 0.01 ----- ----- 0.017 ----- ----- 0.008 0.017 0.017 0.031 0.006 18Pool Length (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Pool Spacing (ft) 37.3 ----- ----- 95.8 ----- ----- 146 ----- ----- 277.0 ----- ----- 20.3 ----- ----- 67.5 ----- ----- 38.0 64.0 64.0 81.7 11.0 17Pool Max Depth (ft) ----- 2.5 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 4.1 ----- ----- ----- ----- 2.1 ----- ----- 3.6 ----- ----- 2.50 ----- ----- 2.52 0.0 2Pool Volume (ft3)----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Substrate and Transport ParametersRi% / Ru% / P% / G% / S% ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----SC% / Sa% / G% / B% / Be% ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f² ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.41 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m²----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 26.6 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Additional Reach ParametersDrainage Area (SM) ----- ----- ----- 1 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 8.35 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.830 ----- ----- ----- 0.83 ----- ----- ----------Impervious cover estimate (%) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Rosgen Classification ----- ----- ----- C4 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- C4 ----- ----- ----- C4 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- C4 ----- ----- ----- -----BF Velocity (fps) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 6.6 ----- ----- ----- 3.6 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----BF Discharge (cfs) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 524 ----- ----- ----- 13.8 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Valley Length ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1,082 ----- ----- ----- -----Channel length (ft)2----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1,192 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1,206 ----- ----- ----- -----Sinuosity ----- ----- ----- 1.20 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.10 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.11 ----- ----- ----- -----Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft) ----- ----- ----- 0.0133 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.007 ----- ----- ----- 0.0094 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.0096 ----- ----- ----- -----BF slope (ft/ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- -----BEHI VL% / L% / M% / H% / VH% / E% ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Channel Stability or Habitat Metric ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Biological or Other----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----As-builtRichland Creek Morgan BranchDesign6.0 / - / 45 / 125 / - - / 1.2 / 3 / 77 / 800 11.3 / 33.0 / 50.0 / 128.0 / >2048 4.0 / 18.4 / 31.2 / 96.6 / >2048 / >2048Reference Reach(es) DataParameter* Harman, W.A., G.D. Jennings, J.M. Patterson, D.R. Clinton, L.O. Slate, A.G. Jessup, J.R. Everhart, and R.E. Smith. 1999. Bankfull hydraulic geometry relationships for North Carolina streams. Wildland Hydrology. AWRA Symposium Proceedings. D.S. Olsen and J.P. Potyondy, eds. American Water Resources Association. June 30-July 2, 1999. Bozeman, MT.1MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648UT to TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION AYEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019
Table 10 Cont. Baseline Stream Summary DataUT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: DMS Project ID No. 94648Reach 2 (1,782 LF)LL UL Eq. Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD nDimension and Substrate - RiffleBF Width (ft) ----- 23.0 80.0 11.3 ----- 12.6 ----- ----- ----- 1 ----- 12.2 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 8.7 ----- ----- ----- -----Floodprone Width (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 81.0 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 72.4 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 228.5 ----- ----- ----- -----BF Mean Depth (ft) ----- 2.3 5.8 1.4 ----- 1.2 ----- ----- ----- 1 ----- 1.3 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.2 ----- ----- ----- -----BF Max Depth (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.6 ----- ----- ----- 1 ----- 1.8 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.9 ----- ----- ----- -----BF Cross-sectional Area (ft²) ----- 80.0 300.0 19.6 ----- 14.5 ----- ----- ----- 1 ----- 16.3 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 10.6 ----- ----- ----- -----Width/Depth Ratio ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 11.0 ----- ----- ----- 1 ----- 9.1 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 7.3 ----- ----- ----- -----Entrenchment Ratio ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 6.4 ----- ----- ----- 1 ----- 6 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 26.3 ----- ----- ----- -----Bank Height Ratio ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.3 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1 ----- ----- ----- -----d50 (mm) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 50.0 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 22.6 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 8.6 ----- ----- ----- -----PatternChannel Beltwidth (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- 60 ----- 185 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 24 ----- ----- 52 ----- -----Radius of Curvature (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- 21 ----- 80 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 5.4 ----- ----- 22.1 ----- -----Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.7 ----- 6.3 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.6 ----- ----- 2.5 ----- -----Meander Wavelength (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- 100 ----- 340 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 54 ----- ----- 196 ----- -----Meander Width Ratio ----- ----- ----- ----- 7.9 ----- 27 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 2.8 ----- ----- 6 ----- -----ProfileRiffle Length (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Riffle Slope (ft/ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.01 ----- 0.033 ----- ----- ----- 0.0606 ----- ----- 0.089 ----- ----- 0.1 ----- ----- 0.067 ----- -----Pool Length (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Pool Spacing (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- 49 ----- 319 ----- ----- ----- 26.3 ----- ----- 81.3 ----- ----- 13 ----- ----- 46.5 ----- -----Pool Max Depth (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 2.1 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 2.2 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 2.5 ----- ----- ----- -----Pool Volume (ft3)----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Substrate and Transport ParametersRi% / Ru% / P% / G% / S% ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----SC% / Sa% / G% / B% / Be% ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 ----- ----- ----- -----Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f² ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.77 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m²----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 42.6 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Additional Reach ParametersDrainage Area (SM) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.9 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.05 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.5 ----- -----Impervious cover estimate (%) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Rosgen Classification ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----E4 (incised----- ----- ----- ----- ----- E4b ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- E4 / C4 ----- -----BF Velocity (fps) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 3.8 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 5.5 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----BF Discharge (cfs) ----- 290.0 2000.0 81.2 ----- ----- ----- 55 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 85 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Valley Length ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Channel length (ft)2----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1,672 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Sinuosity ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.20 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.10 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.10 ----- -----Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.009 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.0235 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.0132 ----- -----BF slope (ft/ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- -----BEHI VL% / L% / M% / H% / VH% / E% ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Channel Stability or Habitat Metric ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Biological or Other----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----UT to Rocky Creek Spencer Creek Upstream11.3 / 33.0 / 50.0 / 128.0 / >2048 <0.063 / 2.4 / 22.6 / 120 / 256 0.06 / 3 / 8.6 / 77 / 180ParameterUSGS GaugeRegional Curve Interval (Harman et al, 1999)*Pre-Existing ConditionReference Reach(es) Data* Harman, W.A., G.D. Jennings, J.M. Patterson, D.R. Clinton, L.O. Slate, A.G. Jessup, J.R. Everhart, and R.E. Smith. 1999. Bankfull hydraulic geometry relationships for North Carolina streams. Wildland Hydrology. AWRA Symposium Proceedings. D.S. Olsen and J.P. Potyondy, eds. American Water Resources Association. June 30-July 2, 1999. Bozeman, MT.MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648UT to TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION AYEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019
Table 10 Cont. Baseline Stream Summary DataUT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: DMS Project ID No. 94648Reach 2 (1,782 LF)Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD nMin Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD nDimension and Substrate - RiffleBF Width (ft) 16.2 ----- ----- 16.7 ----- ----- ----- 33.2 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 14.0 ----- ----- ----- ----- 15.4 ----- ----- 15.6 ----- 3Floodprone Width (ft) 50 ----- ----- 53 ----- ----- ----- 77.5 ----- ----- ----- ----- 83 ----- ----- 104.0 ----- ----- 74.9 ----- ----- 102.7 ----- 3BF Mean Depth (ft) 0.9 ----- ----- 0.9 ----- ----- ----- 2.3 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.1 ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.0 ----- ----- 1.1 ----- 3BF Max Depth (ft) 1.4 ----- ----- 1.5 ----- ----- ----- 2.8 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.4 ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.3 ----- ----- 1.8 ----- 3BF Cross-sectional Area (ft²) 15 ----- ----- 15.5 ----- ----- ----- 75.1 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 14.7 ----- ----- ----- ----- 14.8 ----- -----17.0 ----- 3Width/Depth Ratio 18 ----- ----- 18.6 ----- ----- ----- 14.1 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 13.3 ----- ----- ----- ----- 14.2 ----- ----- 16.5 ----- 3Entrenchment Ratio 3.0 ----- ----- 3.3 ----- ----- ----- 2.3 ----- ----- ----- ----- 5.9 ----- ----- 7.4 ----- ----- 4.8 ----- ----- 6.7 ----- 3Bank Height Ratio ----- 1 ----- 2.5 ----- ----- ----- 1 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.0 ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.0 ----- ----- 1.0 ----- 3d50 (mm) ----- 45 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 3 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 50 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 20.9 ----- ----- ----- -----PatternChannel Beltwidth (ft) 25 ----- ----- 40 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Radius of Curvature (ft) 14.3 ----- ----- 26.1 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 48.6 54.7 ----- 65.6 ----- 7Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft) 0.9 ----- ----- 1.6 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Meander Wavelength (ft) 90 ----- ----- 94 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---------- -----Meander Width Ratio 1.5 ----- ----- 2.4 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 3.0 ----- ----- -----8ProfileRiffle Length (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 16.4 48.9 39.1 101.3 37.2 21Riffle Slope (ft/ft) 0.013 ----- ----- 0.0413 ----- ----- 0.014 ----- ----- 0.024 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.003 0.018 0.018 0.035 0.0 21Pool Length (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Pool Spacing (ft) 37.3 ----- ----- 95.8 ----- ----- 146 ----- ----- 277.0 ----- ----- 21 ----- ----- 70 ----- ----- 46.0 75.4 70.0 130.2 23.5 19Pool Max Depth (ft) ----- 2.5 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 4.1 ----- ----- ----- ----- 2.1 ----- ----- 3.7 ----- ----- 2.5 ----- ----- 2.9 0.3 2Pool Volume (ft3)----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Substrate and Transport ParametersRi% / Ru% / P% / G% / S% ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----SC% / Sa% / G% / B% / Be% ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f² ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.4 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m²----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 35.7 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Additional Reach ParametersDrainage Area (SM) ----- ----- ----- 1 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 8.35 ----- ----- ----- 0.96 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.96 ----- ----- ----- -----Impervious cover estimate (%) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Rosgen Classification ----- ----- ----- C4 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- C4 ----- ----- ----- C4 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- C4 ----- ----- ----- -----BF Velocity (fps) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 6.6 ----- ----- ----- 3.7 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----BF Discharge (cfs) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 524 ----- ----- ----- 55 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Valley Length ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1,549 ----- ----- ----- -----Channel length (ft)2----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1,833 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1,842 ----- ----- ----- -----Sinuosity ----- ----- ----- 1.20 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.07 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.19 ----- ----- ----- -----Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft) ----- ----- ----- 0.0133 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.007 ----- ----- ----- 0.0127 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.0077 ----- ----- ----- -----BF slope (ft/ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- -----BEHI VL% / L% / M% / H% / VH% / E% ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Channel Stability or Habitat Metric ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Biological or Other----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----As-builtRichland Creek Morgan Branch6.0 / - / 45 / 125 / - - / 1.2 / 3 / 77 / 800 11.3 / 33.0 / 50.0 / 128.0 / >2048 <0.063 / 12.2 / 20.9 / 68.5 / 151.8 / >2048DesignReference Reach(es) DataParameter* Harman, W.A., G.D. Jennings, J.M. Patterson, D.R. Clinton, L.O. Slate, A.G. Jessup, J.R. Everhart, and R.E. Smith. 1999. Bankfull hydraulic geometry relationships for North Carolina streams. Wildland Hydrology. AWRA Symposium Proceedings. D.S. Olsen and J.P. Potyondy, eds. American Water Resources Association. June 30-July 2, 1999. Bozeman, MT.MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648UT to TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION AYEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019
Table 10 Cont. Baseline Stream Summary DataUT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: DMS Project ID No. 94648Reach 3 (829 LF)LL UL Eq. Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD nDimension and Substrate - RiffleBF Width (ft) ----- 23.0 80.0 12.9 9.8 ----- ----- 12.7 ----- 2 ----- 12.2 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 8.7 ----- ----- ----- -----Floodprone Width (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 230.3 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 72.4 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 228.5 ----- ----- ----- -----BF Mean Depth (ft) ----- 2.3 5.8 1.6 1.5 ----- ----- 1.8 ----- 2 ----- 1.3 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.2 ----- ----- ----- -----BF Max Depth (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- 2.9 ----- ----- 3.2 ----- 2 ----- 1.8 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.9 ----- ----- ----- -----BF Cross-sectional Area (ft²) ----- 80.0 300.0 24.3 18.0 ----- ----- 18.9 ----- 2 ----- 16.3 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 10.6 ----- ----- ----- -----Width/Depth Ratio ----- ----- ----- ----- 5.4 ----- ----- 8.6 ----- 2 ----- 9.1 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 7.3 ----- ----- ----- -----Entrenchment Ratio ----- ----- ----- ----- 18.1 ----- ----- 23.5 ----- 2 ----- 6 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 26.3 ----- ----- ----- -----Bank Height Ratio ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.0 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1 ----- ----- ----- -----d50 (mm) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 15.0 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 22.6 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 8.6 ----- ----- ----- -----PatternChannel Beltwidth (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- 40 ----- ----- 65 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 24 ----- ----- 52 ----- -----Radius of Curvature (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- 34 ----- ----- 61 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 5.4 ----- ----- 22.1 ----- -----Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.7 ----- ----- 4.9 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.6 ----- ----- 2.5 ----- -----Meander Wavelength (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- 63 ----- ----- 199 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 54 ----- ----- 196 ----- -----Meander Width Ratio ----- ----- ----- ----- 5 ----- ----- 20.3 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 2.8 ----- ----- 6 ----- -----ProfileRiffle Length (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Riffle Slope (ft/ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.014 ----- ----- 0.03 ----- ----- 0.0606 ----- ----- 0.089 ----- ----- 0.1 ----- ----- 0.067 ----- -----Pool Length (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Pool Spacing (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- 38 ----- ----- 132 ----- ----- 26.3 ----- ----- 81.3 ----- ----- 13 ----- ----- 46.5 ----- -----Pool Max Depth (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 2.6 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 2.2 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 2.5 ----- ----- ----- -----Pool Volume (ft3)----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Substrate and Transport ParametersRi% / Ru% / P% / G% / S% ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----SC% / Sa% / G% / B% / Be% ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 ----- ----- ----- -----Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f² ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.3 ----- ----- 0.33 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m²----- ----- ----- ----- 15.8 ----- ----- 16.7 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Additional Reach ParametersDrainage Area (SM) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.2 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.05 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.5 ----- -----Impervious cover estimate (%) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Rosgen Classification ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----E4 (incised----- ----- ----- ----- ----- E4b ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- E4 / C4 ----- -----BF Velocity (fps) ----- ----- ----- ----- 3.4 ----- ----- 3.6 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 5.5 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----BF Discharge (cfs) ----- 290.0 2000.0 101.6 ----- ----- ----- 65.0 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 85 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Valley Length ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Channel length (ft)2----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 721 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Sinuosity ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.10 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.10 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.10 ----- -----Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.008 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.0235 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.0132 ----- -----BF slope (ft/ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- -----BEHI VL% / L% / M% / H% / VH% / E% ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Channel Stability or Habitat Metric ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Biological or Other----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----ParameterUSGS GaugeRegional Curve Interval (Harman et al, 1999)*Pre-Existing Condition1UT to Rocky Creek Spencer Creek Upstream* Harman, W.A., G.D. Jennings, J.M. Patterson, D.R. Clinton, L.O. Slate, A.G. Jessup, J.R. Everhart, and R.E. Smith. 1999. Bankfull hydraulic geometry relationships for North Carolina streams. Wildland Hydrology. AWRA Symposium Proceedings. D.S. Olsen and J.P. Potyondy, eds. American Water Resources Association. June 30-July 2, 1999. Bozeman, MT.1.0 / 11.0 / 15.0 /64.0 / 150.0 <0.063 / 2.4 / 22.6 / 120 / 256 0.06 / 3 / 8.6 / 77 / 180Reference Reach(es) DataMICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648UT to TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION AYEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019
Table 10 Cont. Baseline Stream Summary DataUT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: DMS Project ID No. 94648Reach 3 (829 LF)Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD nMin Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD nDimension and Substrate - RiffleBF Width (ft) 16.2 ----- ----- 16.7 ----- ----- ----- 33.2 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 15.5 ----- ----- ----- ----- 14.9 ----- ----- 17.1 ----- 3Floodprone Width (ft) 50 ----- ----- 53 ----- ----- ----- 77.5 ----- ----- ----- ----- 104 ----- ----- 218.0 ----- ----- 99.3 ----- ----- 99.8 ----- 3BF Mean Depth (ft) 0.9 ----- ----- 0.9 ----- ----- ----- 2.3 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.2 ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.1 ----- ----- 1.3 ----- 3BF Max Depth (ft) 1.4 ----- ----- 1.5 ----- ----- ----- 2.8 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.6 ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.6 ----- ----- 1.8 ----- 3BF Cross-sectional Area (ft²) 15 ----- ----- 15.5 ----- ----- ----- 75.1 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 18.2 ----- ----- ----- ----- 16.3 ----- -----21.5 ----- 3Width/Depth Ratio 18 ----- ----- 18.6 ----- ----- ----- 14.1 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 13.2 ----- ----- ----- ----- 13.5 ----- ----- 14.0 ----- 3Entrenchment Ratio 3.0 ----- ----- 3.3 ----- ----- ----- 2.3 ----- ----- ----- ----- 6.7 ----- ----- 14.1 ----- ----- 5.8 ----- ----- 6.7 ----- 3Bank Height Ratio ----- 1 ----- 2.5 ----- ----- ----- 1 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.0 ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.0 ----- ----- 1.0 ----- 3d50 (mm) ----- 45 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 3 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 15 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 21.8 ----- ----- ----- -----PatternChannel Beltwidth (ft) 25 ----- ----- 40 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Radius of Curvature (ft) 14.3 ----- ----- 26.1 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 31.0 ----- ----- 47.0 ----- ----- 54.5 63.2 ----- 71.8----- 9Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft) 0.9 ----- ----- 1.6 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Meander Wavelength (ft) 90 ----- ----- 94 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---------- -----Meander Width Ratio 1.5 ----- ----- 2.4 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 3.5 ----- ----- 8.0 ----- ----- ----- 3.2 ----- ----- ----- 7ProfileRiffle Length (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 25.2 46.1 43.3 67.0 15.411Riffle Slope (ft/ft) 0.013 ----- ----- 0.0413 ----- ----- 0.014 ----- ----- 0.024 ----- ----- 0.005 ----- ----- 0.006 ----- ----- 0.005 0.020 0.016 0.055 0.0 11Pool Length (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Pool Spacing (ft) 37.3 ----- ----- 95.8 ----- ----- 146 ----- ----- 277.0 ----- ----- 62 ----- ----- 109 ----- ----- 63.7 77.7 77.2 90.9 8.3 9Pool Max Depth (ft) ----- 2.5 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 4.1 ----- ----- ----- ----- 2.4 ----- ----- 4.11 ----- ----- 3.2 ----- ----- 3.2 ----- 1Pool Volume (ft3)----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Substrate and Transport ParametersRi% / Ru% / P% / G% / S% ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----SC% / Sa% / G% / B% / Be% ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f² ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.23 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m²----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 12.5 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Additional Reach ParametersDrainage Area (SM) ----- ----- ----- 1 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 8.35 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.2 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.2 ----- -----Impervious cover estimate (%) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Rosgen Classification ----- ----- ----- C4 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- C4 ----- ----- ----- C4 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- C4 ----- ----- ----- -----BF Velocity (fps) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 6.6 ----- ----- ----- 3.6 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----BF Discharge (cfs) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 524 ----- ----- ----- 65.0 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Valley Length ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 695 ----- ----- ----- -----Channel length (ft)2----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 803 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 829 ----- ----- ----- -----Sinuosity ----- ----- ----- 1.20 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.16 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.19 ----- ----- ----- -----Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft) ----- ----- ----- 0.0133 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.007 ----- ----- ----- 0.0032 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.0062 ----- ----- ----- -----BF slope (ft/ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- -----BEHI VL% / L% / M% / H% / VH% / E% ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Channel Stability or Habitat Metric ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Biological or Other----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Design As-builtRichland Creek Morgan Branch* Harman, W.A., G.D. Jennings, J.M. Patterson, D.R. Clinton, L.O. Slate, A.G. Jessup, J.R. Everhart, and R.E. Smith. 1999. Bankfull hydraulic geometry relationships for North Carolina streams. Wildland Hydrology. AWRA Symposium Proceedings. D.S. Olsen and J.P. Potyondy, eds. American Water Resources Association. June 30-July 2, 1999. Bozeman, MT.6.0 / - / 45 / 125 / - - / 1.2 / 3 / 77 / 800Reference Reach(es) DataParameter1.0 / 11.0 / 15.0 / 64.0 / 150.0 2.0 / 12.6 / 21.8 / 74.1 / 128.0 / 128 - 180MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648UT to TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION AYEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019
Table 10 Cont. Baseline Stream Summary DataUT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: DMS Project ID No. 94648Reach 6 (1,340 LF)LL UL Eq. Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD nDimension and Substrate - RiffleBF Width (ft) ----- 23.0 80.0 5.7 ----- 6.1 ----- ----- ----- 1 ----- 12.2 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 8.7 ----- ----- ----- -----Floodprone Width (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 9.7 ----- ----- ----- 1 ----- 72.4 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 228.5 ----- ----- ----- -----BF Mean Depth (ft) ----- 2.3 5.8 0.9 ----- 0.8 ----- ----- ----- 1 ----- 1.3 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.2 ----- ----- ----- -----BF Max Depth (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.3 ----- ----- ----- 1 ----- 1.8 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.9 ----- ----- ----- -----BF Cross-sectional Area (ft²) ----- 80.0 300.0 6.7 ----- 4.7 ----- ----- ----- 1 ----- 16.3 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 10.6 ----- ----- ----- -----Width/Depth Ratio ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 7.8 ----- ----- ----- 1 ----- 9.1 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 7.3 ----- ----- ----- -----Entrenchment Ratio ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.6 ----- ----- ----- 1 ----- 6 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 26.3 ----- ----- ----- -----Bank Height Ratio ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.9 ----- ----- ----- 1 ----- 1 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1 ----- ----- ----- -----d50 (mm) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 32.0 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 22.6 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 8.6 ----- ----- ----- -----PatternChannel Beltwidth (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- 40 ----- ----- 65 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 24 ----- ----- 52 ----- -----Radius of Curvature (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- 8 ----- ----- 69 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 5.4 ----- ----- 22.1 ----- -----Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.3 ----- ----- 11.4 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.6 ----- ----- 2.5 ----- -----Meander Wavelength (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- 49 ----- ----- 141 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 54 ----- ----- 196 ----- -----Meander Width Ratio ----- ----- ----- ----- 6.6 ----- ----- 10.7 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 2.8 ----- ----- 6 ----- -----ProfileRiffle Length (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Riffle Slope (ft/ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.0606 ----- ----- 0.089 ----- ----- 0.1 ----- ----- 0.067 ----- -----Pool Length (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Pool Spacing (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- 24.0 ----- ----- 259.0 ----- ----- 26.3 ----- ----- 81.3 ----- ----- 13 ----- ----- 46.5 ----- -----Pool Max Depth (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.4 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 2.2 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 2.5 ----- ----- ----- -----Pool Volume (ft3)----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Substrate and Transport ParametersRi% / Ru% / P% / G% / S% ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----SC% / Sa% / G% / B% / Be% ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 ----- ----- ----- -----Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f² ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.97 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m²----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 53.6 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Additional Reach ParametersDrainage Area (SM) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.2 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.05 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.5 ----- -----Impervious cover estimate (%) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Rosgen Classification ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- B4 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- E4b ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- E4 / C4 ----- -----BF Velocity (fps) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 3 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 5.5 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----BF Discharge (cfs) ----- 290.0 2000.0 25.8 ----- ----- ----- 14 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 85 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Valley Length ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Channel length (ft)2----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1,349 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Sinuosity ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.10 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.10 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.10 ----- -----Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.023 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.0235 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.0132 ----- -----BF slope (ft/ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- -----BEHI VL% / L% / M% / H% / VH% / E% ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Channel Stability or Habitat Metric ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Biological or Other----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Reference Reach(es) DataParameterUSGS GaugeRegional Curve Interval (Harman et al, 1999)*Pre-Existing ConditionUT to Rocky Creek Spencer Creek Upstream* Harman, W.A., G.D. Jennings, J.M. Patterson, D.R. Clinton, L.O. Slate, A.G. Jessup, J.R. Everhart, and R.E. Smith. 1999. Bankfull hydraulic geometry relationships for North Carolina streams. Wildland Hydrology. AWRA Symposium Proceedings. D.S. Olsen and J.P. Potyondy, eds. American Water Resources Association. June 30-July 2, 1999. Bozeman, MT.11.3 / 22.6 / 32.0 / 90 / 150 <0.063 / 2.4 / 22.6 / 120 / 256 0.06 / 3 / 8.6 / 77 / 180MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648UT to TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION AYEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019
Table 10 Cont. Baseline Stream Summary DataUT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: DMS Project ID No. 94648Reach 6 (1,340 LF)Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD nDimension and Substrate - RiffleBF Width (ft) 16.2 ----- ----- 16.7 ----- ----- ----- 33.2 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 10.0 ----- ----- ----- ----- 8.5 ----- ----- 10.5 ----- -----Floodprone Width (ft) 50 ----- ----- 53 ----- ----- ----- 77.5 ----- ----- ----- ----- 19 ----- ----- 87.0 ----- ----- 33.1 ----- ----- 55.4 ----- -----BF Mean Depth (ft) 0.9 ----- ----- 0.9 ----- ----- ----- 2.3 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.6 ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.6 ----- ----- 0.9 ----- -----BF Max Depth (ft) 1.4 ----- ----- 1.5 ----- ----- ----- 2.8 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.9 ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.2 ----- ----- 1.5 ----- -----BF Cross-sectional Area (ft²) 15 ----- ----- 15.5 ----- ----- ----- 75.1 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 6.3 ----- ----- ----- ----- 5.3 ----- ----- 9.8 ----- -----Width/Depth Ratio 18 ----- ----- 18.6 ----- ----- ----- 14.1 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 15.9 ----- ----- ----- ----- 11.4 ----- ----- 15.1 ----- -----Entrenchment Ratio 3.0 ----- ----- 3.3 ----- ----- ----- 2.3 ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.9 ----- ----- 8.7 ----- ----- 3.1 ----- ----- 5.7 ----- -----Bank Height Ratio ----- 1 ----- 2.5 ----- ----- ----- 1 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.0 ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.0 ----- ----- 1.0 ----- -----d50 (mm) ----- 45 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 3 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 28.3 ----- ----- ----- -----PatternChannel Beltwidth (ft) 25 ----- ----- 40 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Radius of Curvature (ft) 14.3 ----- ----- 26.1 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- -----Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft) 0.9 ----- ----- 1.6 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Meander Wavelength (ft) 90 ----- ----- 94 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---------- -----Meander Width Ratio 1.5 ----- ----- 2.4 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----ProfileRiffle Length (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 5.0 21.8 20.6 50.9 9.8 33Riffle Slope (ft/ft) 0.013 ----- ----- 0.0413 ----- ----- 0.014 ----- ----- 0.024 ----- ----- 0.025 ----- ----- 0.041 ----- ----- 0.002 0.039 0.036 0.095 0.0 33Pool Length (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Pool Spacing (ft) 37.3 ----- ----- 95.8 ----- ----- 146 ----- ----- 277.0 ----- ----- ----- 50.0 ----- ----- ----- ----- 17.5 39.2 38.8 82.7 14.2 34Pool Max Depth (ft) ----- 2.5 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 4.1 ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.3 ----- ----- 2.2 ----- ----- 1.4 ----- ----- 1.8 ----- 2Pool Volume (ft3)----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Substrate and Transport ParametersRi% / Ru% / P% / G% / S% ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----SC% / Sa% / G% / B% / Be% ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f² ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.67 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m²----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 32.6 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Additional Reach ParametersDrainage Area (SM) ----- ----- ----- 1 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 8.35 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.2 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.2 ----- -----Impervious cover estimate (%) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Rosgen Classification ----- ----- ----- C4 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- C4 ----- ----- ----- C4b ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- C4b ----- ----- ----- -----BF Velocity (fps) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 6.6 ----- ----- ----- 2.2 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----BF Discharge (cfs) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 524 ----- ----- ----- 14 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Valley Length ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1259 ----- ----- ----------Channel length (ft)2----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1,370 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1366 ----- ----- ----- -----Sinuosity ----- ----- ----- 1.20 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.04 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.09 ----- ----- ----- -----Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft) ----- ----- ----- 0.0133 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.007 ----- ----- ----- 0.0226 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.0226 ----- ----- ----- -----BF slope (ft/ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- -----BEHI VL% / L% / M% / H% / VH% / E% ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Channel Stability or Habitat Metric ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Biological or Other----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Reference Reach(es) DataParameterDesign As-builtRichland Creek Morgan Branch* Harman, W.A., G.D. Jennings, J.M. Patterson, D.R. Clinton, L.O. Slate, A.G. Jessup, J.R. Everhart, and R.E. Smith. 1999. Bankfull hydraulic geometry relationships for North Carolina streams. Wildland Hydrology. AWRA Symposium Proceedings. D.S. Olsen and J.P. Potyondy, eds. American Water Resources Association. June 30-July 2, 1999. Bozeman, MT.11.3 / 22.6 / 32.0 / 90.0 / 150.0 8.7 / 21.5 / 28.3 / 73.4 / 160.7 / >20486.0 / - / 45 / 125 / - - / 1.2 / 3 / 77 / 800MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648UT to TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION AYEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019
Table 10 Cont. Baseline Stream Summary DataUT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: DMS Project ID No. 94648Reach 7 (399 LF)LL UL Eq. Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD nDimension and Substrate - RiffleBF Width (ft) ----- 23.0 80.0 3.2 ----- 5.0 ----- ----- ----- 1 ----- 12.2 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 8.7 ----- ----- ----- -----Floodprone Width (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 7.5 ----- ----- ----- 1 ----- 72.4 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 228.5 ----- ----- ----- -----BF Mean Depth (ft) ----- 2.3 5.8 0.6 ----- 0.3 ----- ----- ----- 1 ----- 1.3 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.2 ----- ----- ----- -----BF Max Depth (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.5 ----- ----- ----- 1 ----- 1.8 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.9 ----- ----- ----- -----BF Cross-sectional Area (ft²) ----- 80.0 300.0 2.6 ----- 1.6 ----- ----- ----- 1 ----- 16.3 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 10.6 ----- ----- ----- -----Width/Depth Ratio ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 15.7 ----- ----- ----- 1 ----- 9.1 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 7.3 ----- ----- ----- -----Entrenchment Ratio ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.5 ----- ----- ----- 1 ----- 6 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 26.3 ----- ----- ----- -----Bank Height Ratio ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 2.6 ----- ----- ----- 1 ----- 1 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1 ----- ----- ----- -----d50 (mm) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 17.5 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 22.6 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 8.6 ----- ----- ----- -----PatternChannel Beltwidth (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- 30 ----- ----- 48 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 24 ----- ----- 52 ----- -----Radius of Curvature (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- 7 ----- ----- 41 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 5.4 ----- ----- 22.1 ----- -----Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.4 ----- ----- 8.2 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.6 ----- ----- 2.5 ----- -----Meander Wavelength (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- 26 ----- ----- 101 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 54 ----- ----- 196 ----- -----Meander Width Ratio ----- ----- ----- ----- 6 ----- ----- 9.6 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 2.8 ----- ----- 6 ----- -----ProfileRiffle Length (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Riffle Slope (ft/ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.0227 ----- ----- 0.0578 ----- ----- 0.0606 ----- ----- 0.089 ----- ----- 0.1 ----- ----- 0.067 ----- -----Pool Length (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Pool Spacing (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- 19 ----- ----- 259 ----- ----- 26.3 ----- ----- 81.3 ----- ----- 13 ----- ----- 46.5 ----- -----Pool Max Depth (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.1 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 2.2 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 2.5 ----- ----- ----- -----Pool Volume (ft3)----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Substrate and Transport ParametersRi% / Ru% / P% / G% / S% ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----SC% / Sa% / G% / B% / Be% ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 ----- ----- ----- -----Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f² ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.65 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m²----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 38.2 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Additional Reach ParametersDrainage Area (SM) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.046 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.05 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.5 ----- -----Impervious cover estimate (%) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Rosgen Classification ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- B4 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- E4b ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- E4 / C4 ----- -----BF Velocity (fps) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 3 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 5.5 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----BF Discharge (cfs) ----- 290.0 2000.0 9.6 ----- ----- ----- 4.7 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 85 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Valley Length ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Channel length (ft)2----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 386 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Sinuosity ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.10 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.10 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.10 ----- -----Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.045 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.0235 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.0132 ----- -----BF slope (ft/ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- -----BEHI VL% / L% / M% / H% / VH% / E% ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Channel Stability or Habitat Metric ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Biological or Other----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----* Harman, W.A., G.D. Jennings, J.M. Patterson, D.R. Clinton, L.O. Slate, A.G. Jessup, J.R. Everhart, and R.E. Smith. 1999. Bankfull hydraulic geometry relationships for North Carolina streams. Wildland Hydrology. AWRA Symposium Proceedings. D.S. Olsen and J.P. Potyondy, eds. American Water Resources Association. June 30-July 2, 1999. Bozeman, MT.ParameterUSGS GaugeRegional Curve Interval (Harman et al, 1999)*Pre-Existing ConditionReference Reach(es) DataUT to Rocky Creek Spencer Creek Upstream8.5 / 12.4 / 17.5 / 50.6 / 81.6 <0.063 / 2.4 / 22.6 / 120 / 256 0.06 / 3 / 8.6 / 77 / 180MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648UT to TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION AYEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019
Table 10 Cont. Baseline Stream Summary DataUT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: DMS Project ID No. 94648Reach 7 (399 LF)Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD nDimension and Substrate - RiffleBF Width (ft) 16.2 ----- ----- 16.7 ----- ----- ----- 33.2 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 5.0 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Floodprone Width (ft) 50 ----- ----- 53 ----- ----- ----- 77.5 ----- ----- ----- ----- 10 ----- ----- 38.0 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----BF Mean Depth (ft) 0.9 ----- ----- 0.9 ----- ----- ----- 2.3 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.3 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----BF Max Depth (ft) 1.4 ----- ----- 1.5 ----- ----- ----- 2.8 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.4 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----BF Cross-sectional Area (ft²) 15 ----- ----- 15.5 ----- ----- ----- 75.1 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.6 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- -----Width/Depth Ratio 18 ----- ----- 18.6 ----- ----- ----- 14.1 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 15.6 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Entrenchment Ratio 3.0 ----- ----- 3.3 ----- ----- ----- 2.3 ----- ----- ----- ----- 2 ----- ----- 7.6 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Bank Height Ratio ----- 1 ----- 2.5 ----- ----- ----- 1 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.0 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----d50 (mm) ----- 45 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 3 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----PatternChannel Beltwidth (ft) 25 ----- ----- 40 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Radius of Curvature (ft) 14.3 ----- ----- 26.1 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- -----Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft) 0.9 ----- ----- 1.6 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Meander Wavelength (ft) 90 ----- ----- 94 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---------- -----Meander Width Ratio 1.5 ----- ----- 2.4 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----ProfileRiffle Length (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 8.2 15.3 12.4 32.5 8.0 14Riffle Slope (ft/ft) 0.013 ----- ----- 0.0413 ----- ----- 0.014 ----- ----- 0.024 ----- ----- 0.045 ----- ----- 0.073 ----- ----- 0.015 0.062 0.046 0.171 0.049 14Pool Length (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Pool Spacing (ft) 37.3 ----- ----- 95.8 ----- ----- 146 ----- ----- 277.0 ----- ----- 8.0 ----- ----- 25.0 ----- ----- 15.0 27.8 28.0 42.5 10.2 12Pool Max Depth (ft) ----- 2.5 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 4.1 ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.6 ----- ----- 1.1 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Pool Volume (ft3)----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Substrate and Transport ParametersRi% / Ru% / P% / G% / S% ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----SC% / Sa% / G% / B% / Be% ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f² ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m²----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Additional Reach ParametersDrainage Area (SM) ----- ----- ----- 1 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 8.35 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.0 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Impervious cover estimate (%) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Rosgen Classification ----- ----- ----- C4 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- C4 ----- ----- ----- B4a ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- B4a ----- ----- ----- -----BF Velocity (fps) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 6.6 ----- ----- ----- 3 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----BF Discharge (cfs) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 524 ----- ----- ----- 4.7 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Valley Length ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 382 ----- ----- ----- -----Channel length (ft)2----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 399 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 413 ----- ----- ----- -----Sinuosity ----- ----- ----- 1.20 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.04 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.08 ----- ----- ----- -----Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft) ----- ----- ----- 0.0133 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.007 ----- ----- ----- 0.0407 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----BF slope (ft/ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- -----BEHI VL% / L% / M% / H% / VH% / E% ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Channel Stability or Habitat Metric ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Biological or Other----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----* Harman, W.A., G.D. Jennings, J.M. Patterson, D.R. Clinton, L.O. Slate, A.G. Jessup, J.R. Everhart, and R.E. Smith. 1999. Bankfull hydraulic geometry relationships for North Carolina streams. Wildland Hydrology. AWRA Symposium Proceedings. D.S. Olsen and J.P. Potyondy, eds. American Water Resources Association. June 30-July 2, 1999. Bozeman, MT.Design As-builtReference Reach(es) Data----- -----Richland Creek Morgan Branch6.0 / - / 45 / 125 / - - / 1.2 / 3 / 77 / 800ParameterMICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648UT to TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION AYEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019
Table 11a. Cross-section Morphology DataUT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: DMS Project ID No. 94648Reach 1 (1,204 LF)Dimension and substrateBase MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+BF Width (ft) 11.8 12.0 11.6 8.8 8.6 22.2 19.7 19.7 17.5 17.9 16.4 16.4 16.5 15.2 12.9 14.4 14.7 15.5 13.8 13.5BF Mean Depth (ft) 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.7 0.8 1.2 1.3 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.6 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7Width/Depth Ratio 15.2 15.7 19.7 12.7 11.0 18.0 15.7 17.3 14.7 15.2 11.6 12.3 13.1 11.4 8.2 15.0 17.6 20.1 20.2 18.7BF Cross-sectional Area (ft²) 9.1 9.2 6.9 6.1 6.7 27.4 24.8 22.5 20.7 21.2 23.2 21.7 20.9 20.2 20.3 13.9 12.4 12.0 9.3 9.7BF Max Depth (ft) 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 2.3 2.5 2.4 2.7 2.6 2.5 2.4 2.4 2.6 2.6 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.1 1.0Width of Floodprone Area (ft) 33.1 32.5 32.3 32.5 32.4 70.6 70.7 70.6 70.6 70.6 77.1 77.3 77.1 77.1 77.1 91.8 90.2 90.0 88.8 88.5Entrenchment Ratio 2.8 2.8 2.7 3.7 3.8 - - - - ------ 6.46.36.26.76.6*Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.3 - - - - ------ 1.00.91.00.90.9Wetted Perimeter (ft) 13.3 13.5 12.8 9.7 9.3 24.7 22.3 22.0 19.1 19.3 19.2 19.0 19.0 16.7 14.5 16.4 16.4 17.0 14.2 13.8Hydraulic Radius (ft) 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.6 0.7 1.1 1.1 1.01.1 1.11.2 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.4 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7d50 (mm)----- ----- ----- -----Dimension and substrateBase MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+BF Width (ft) 12.1 12.1 11.9 10.7 10.7BF Mean Depth (ft) 0.8 0.9 0.6 0.5 0.7Width/Depth Ratio 14.4 14.1 19.9 20.9 16.3BF Cross-sectional Area (ft²) 10.1 10.3 7.1 5.5 7.0BF Max Depth (ft) 1.1 1.1 1.1 0.8 1.0Width of Floodprone Area (ft) 71.2 79.0 77.2 74.6 77.3Entrenchment Ratio 5.9 6.6 6.4 7.2 7.3*Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.0Wetted Perimeter (ft) 13.7 13.8 13.1 11.0 11.0Hydraulic Radius (ft) 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.6d50 (mm)-----Reach 2 (1,782 LF)Dimension and substrateBase MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+BF Width (ft) 15.6 15.4 15.5 12.4 17.6 16.3 15.9 16.0 15.7 15.5 15.4 14.6 14.7 14.2 14.2 24.3 20.3 22.3 18.2 18.8BF Mean Depth (ft) 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.7 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 1.4 1.5 1.2 1.6 1.6Width/Depth Ratio 16.5 16.2 16.4 17.9 23.8 11.5 11.6 12.2 13.0 12.7 14.5 14.1 15.2 16.5 15.8 17.9 13.4 18.6 11.4 11.9BF Cross-sectional Area (ft²) 14.8 14.6 14.8 12.4 13.0 23.2 21.8 21.0 19.1 18.9 16.5 15.1 14.3 12.2 12.9 33.1 30.9 26.8 29.2 29.5BF Max Depth (ft) 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.3 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.5 2.5 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.4 1.5 2.9 2.8 2.6 2.7 2.6Width of Floodprone Area (ft) 74.9 77.3 77.6 71.9 72.4 75.8 76.4 76.3 76.3 76.3 102.7 102.7 102.7 102.6 102.7 95.4 95.5 95.4 95.4 95.4Entrenchment Ratio 4.8 5.0 5.0 4.8 4.1 - - - - - 6.7 6.7 6.7 7.3 7.2-----*Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1.1 1.1 0.8 0.9 - - - - - 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 1.0-----Wetted Perimeter (ft) 17.5 17.3 17.4 15.3 17.9 19.2 18.7 18.6 16.8 13.6 17.6 16.7 16.7 14.8 14.7 27.1 23.4 24.7 19.3 20.1Hydraulic Radius (ft) 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.7 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.1 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.9 1.2 1.3 1.1 1.5 1.5d50 (mm)----- ----- ----- -----Dimension and substrateBase MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+BF Width (ft) 15.5 13.9 14.5 13.2 13.8BF Mean Depth (ft) 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0Width/Depth Ratio 14.2 12.8 14.5 13.7 14.0BF Cross-sectional Area (ft²) 17.0 15.1 14.4 12.7 13.7BF Max Depth (ft) 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.6 1.6Width of Floodprone Area (ft) 100.0 100.2 100.2 100.2 100.1Entrenchment Ratio 6.4 6.5 6.5 7.6 7.2*Bank Height Ratio 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.9 1.0Wetted Perimeter (ft) 17.7 16.1 16.5 13.9 14.5Hydraulic Radius (ft) 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9d50 (mm)-----*BHR is based on the bkf elevation that yields the as-built bkf area for each cross-section. Remainder of data based on actual bankfull elevation from as-built for each cross-section.Cross-section X-1 (Riffle) Cross-section X-2 (Pool) Cross-section X-3 (Pool) Cross-section X-4 (Riffle)Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevationCross-section X-5 (Riffle)* Max BKF depth was calculated from the As-built survey. BH ratio was calculated using current year's low bank depth divided by the as-built year's max BKF depth. ER was calculated using the current year's floodprone width divided by the as-built BKF width. *BHR is based on the bkf elevation that yields the as-built bkf area for each cross-section. Remainder of data based on actual bankfull elevation from as-built for each cross-section.Cross-section X-6 (Riffle) Cross-section X-7 (Pool) Cross-section X-8 (Riffle) Cross-section X-9 (Pool)*BHR is based on the bkf elevation that yields the as-built bkf area for each cross-section. Remainder of data based on actual bankfull elevation from as-built for each cross-section.Cross-section X-10 (Riffle)Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevationBased on fixed baseline bankfull elevationBased on fixed baseline bankfull elevationMICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION AYEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019
Table 11a Cont. Cross-section Morphology DataUT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: DMS Project ID No. 94648Dimension and substrateBase MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+BF Width (ft) 14.9 17.1 15.0 14.7 14.5 17.1 16.5 16.7 16.2 16.2 16.0 17.2 15.3 14.9 14.7 21.3 19.0 19.2 18.4 18.0BF Mean Depth (ft) 1.1 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.9 1.3 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.9 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.7Width/Depth Ratio 13.5 20.2 16.8 18.1 16.1 13.7 15.5 15.9 16.4 16.4 14.0 17.3 17.4 18.6 16.5 11.7 11.1 12.0 11.2 10.3BF Cross-sectional Area (ft²) 16.3 14.5 13.3 11.9 13.2 21.5 17.6 17.5 15.9 16.0 18.3 17.2 13.5 11.9 13.0 39.0 32.5 30.6 30.4 31.4BF Max Depth (ft) 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.3 1.4 3.2 3.1 3.1 2.8 3.1Width of Floodprone Area (ft) 99.8 99.9 99.8 99.8 99.8 99.7 100.0 99.9 99.9 99.9 98.3 98.4 98.4 98.3 98.3 98.7 98.8 98.7 98.7 98.7Entrenchment Ratio 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.8 6.9 5.8 5.8 5.8 6.2 6.2 6.1 6.2 6.2 6.6 6.7-----*Bank Height Ratio 1.0 0.9 0.7 0.9 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.9 1.0-----Wetted Perimeter (ft) 17.1 18.8 16.7 15.1 15.0 19.6 18.7 18.8 16.8 16.9 18.3 19.2 17.1 15.4 15.3 25.0 22.4 22.4 20.1 20.4Hydraulic Radius (ft) 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 1.1 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.5 1.5d50 (mm)----- ----- ----- -----Dimension and substrateBase MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+BF Width (ft) 11.0 10.6 10.9 10.5 10.7 9.7 9.3 9.2 8.1 8.7 10.5 10.3 10.3 9.8 13.6 8.5 7.5 7.6 7.2 7.6BF Mean Depth (ft) 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.6Width/Depth Ratio 10.9 12.0 11.9 12.1 12.6 15.1 15.2 14.8 16.1 16.6 11.4 12.6 13.3 18.7 35.0 13.5 13.0 12.7 13.4 13.7BF Cross-sectional Area (ft²) 11.1 9.4 9.9 9.1 9.2 6.2 5.7 5.7 4.1 4.6 9.8 8.4 7.9 5.2 5.3 5.3 4.3 4.6 3.9 4.2BF Max Depth (ft) 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.2 1.2 1.2 0.8 0.9 1.5 1.5 1.5 0.9 0.8 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.0 1.0Width of Floodprone Area (ft) 60.3 60.3 60.4 60.5 60.3 55.4 52.9 53.1 53.5 50.6 33.1 30.5 30.3 28.6 28.5 37.3 34.0 34.8 32.8 32.6Entrenchment Ratio - - - - - 5.7 5.5 5.5 6.6 5.8 3.1 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.1 4.4 4.0 4.1 4.5 4.3*Bank Height Ratio - - - - - 0.6 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.6 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.0Wetted Perimeter (ft) 13.0 12.4 12.7 11.3 11.5 11.0 10.6 10.4 8.4 9.0 12.4 11.9 11.8 10.1 13.7 9.7 8.6 8.8 7.6 7.9Hydraulic Radius (ft) 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5d50 (mm)----- ----- ----- -----Dimension and substrateBase MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+BF Width (ft) 10.8 10.1 10.5 9.7 13.2BF Mean Depth (ft) 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.6Width/Depth Ratio 13.7 14.1 13.8 13.1 22.5BF Cross-sectional Area (ft²) 8.4 7.3 7.9 7.1 7.7BF Max Depth (ft) 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.2Width of Floodprone Area (ft) 41.4 40.1 40.8 39.7 39.2Entrenchment Ratio - - - - -*Bank Height Ratio - - - - -Wetted Perimeter (ft) 12.3 11.6 12.0 10.2 13.6Hydraulic Radius (ft) 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.6d50 (mm)-----Cross-section X-13 (Riffle) Cross-section X-14 (Pool)*BHR is based on the bkf elevation that yields the as-built bkf area for each cross-section. Remainder of data based on actual bankfull elevation from as-built for each cross-section.Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevationBased on fixed baseline bankfull elevationCross-section X-19 (Pool)Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevationReach 6 (1,347 LF)Cross-section X-15 (Pool)Reach 3 (829 LF)Cross-section X-11 (Riffle) Cross-section X-12 (Riffle)Cross-section X-16 (Riffle) Cross-section X-17 (Riffle) Cross-section X-18 (Riffle)*BHR is based on the bkf elevation that yields the as-built bkf area for each cross-section. Remainder of data based on actual bankfull elevation from as-built for each cross-section.*BHR is based on the bkf elevation that yields the as-built bkf area for each cross-section. Remainder of data based on actual bankfull elevation from as-built for each cross-section.MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION AYEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019
Table 11b. Stream Reach Morphology DataUT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: DMS Project ID No. 94648Reach 1 (1,204 LF)ParameterAs-builtMY1 MY2 MY3 MY4Dimension and Substrate - RiffleMin Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD nBF Width (ft) 11.8 ----- ----- 14.4 ----- 3 12.0 12.9 12.1 14.7 1.6 3 11.6 13.0 11.9 15.5 2.2 3 8.8 11.1 10.7 13.8 2.5 3 8.6 10.9 10.7 13.5 2.5 3Floodprone Width (ft) 33.1 ----- ----- 91.8 ----- 3 32.5 67.2 79.0 90.2 30.6 3 32.3 66.5 77.2 90.0 30.3 3 32.5 65.3 74.6 88.8 29.3 3 32.4 66.1 77.3 88.5 29.73BF Mean Depth (ft) 0.8 ----- ----- 1.0 ----- 3 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.0 3 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.8 0.1 3 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.1 3 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.1 3*BF Max Depth (ft) 1.1 ----- ----- 1.3 ----- 3 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.3 0.1 3 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.3 0.1 3 0.8 1.0 1.1 1.1 0.2 3 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 0.1 3BF Cross-sectional Area (ft²) 9.1 ----- ----- 13.9 ----- 3 9.2 10.6 10.3 12.4 1.6 3 6.9 8.7 7.1 12.0 2.9 3 5.5 7.0 6.1 9.3 2.0 3 6.7 7.8 7.0 9.7 1.7 3Width/Depth Ratio 14.4 ----- ----- 15.2 ----- 3 14.1 15.8 15.7 17.6 1.7 3 19.7 19.9 19.9 20.1 0.2 3 12.7 17.9 20.2 20.9 4.5 3 11.0 15.3 16.3 18.7 3.9 3*Entrenchment Ratio 2.8 ----- ----- 6.4 ----- 3 2.8 5.2 6.3 6.6 2.1 3 2.7 5.1 6.2 6.4 2.1 3 3.7 5.9 6.7 7.2 1.9 3 3.8 5.9 6.6 7.3 1.9 3*Bank Height Ratio 1.0 ----- ----- 1.0 ----- 3 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.2 0.1 3 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 3 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 0.1 3 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.3 0.2 3d50 (mm) ----- 31.2 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 64.0 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 77.1 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 42.8 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 62.5 ----- ----- ----- -----PatternChannel Beltwidth (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Radius of Curvature (ft) 42.0 51.6 ----- 72.9 ----- 18 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Meander Wavelength (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Meander Width Ratio ----- 2.6 ----- ----- ----- 15 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----ProfileRiffle Length (ft) 15.5 35.0 35.4 62.8 12.7 18 13 28 22 60 16 12 20.0 28.0 26.3 45.0 7.5 12 17.9 28.4 27.6 48.5 9.9 12 16.0 30.1 28.0 60.2 12.4 12Riffle Slope (ft/ft) 0.008 0.017 0.017 0.031 0.006 18 0.007 0.020 0.018 0.033 0.008 12 0.002 0.016 0.016 0.032 0.008 12 0.003 0.014 0.013 0.031 0.008 12 -0.004 0.015 0.015 0.032 0.009 12Pool Length (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Pool Spacing (ft) 38.0 64.0 64.0 81.7 11.0 17 57.6 66.2 61.4 83 9.7 10 51.9 67.0 66.7 83.1 11.3 10 54.8 67.0 66.6 81.3 9.7 12 53.6 65.7 63.5 83.7 10.8 12Pool Max Depth (ft) 2.5 ----- ----- 2.5 0.0 2 2.43 ----- ----- 2.48 0.0353553 2 2.3 ----- ----- 2.4 0.0 2 2.6 ----- ----- 2.7 0.1 2 2.6 ----- ----- 2.6 0.0 2Pool Volume (ft3)----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Substrate and Transport Parameters----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S% ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----SC% / Sa% / G% / B% / Be% ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f² ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m² ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Additional Reach ParametersDrainage Area (SM) ----- 0.83 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.83 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.83 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.83 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.83 ----- ----- ----- -----Impervious cover estimate (%) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Rosgen Classification ----- C4 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- C4 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- C3 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- C3 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- C3 ----- ----- ----- -----BF Velocity (fps) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----BF Discharge (cfs) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Valley Length ----- 1,082 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Channel length (ft)2----- 1,206 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 750 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 750 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 750 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 750 ---------- ----- -----Sinuosity ----- 1.11 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft) ----- 0.0096 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.009 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.008 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.008 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.008 ----- ----- ----- -----BF slope (ft/ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----BEHI VL% / L% / M% / H% / VH% / E% ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Channel Stability or Habitat Metric ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Biological or Other----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----22.6 / 58.6 / 77.1 / 145.5 / 190.94.0 / 18.4 / 31.2 / 96.6 / >2048 19.0 / 46.0 / 64.0 / 101.2 / 125.520.14 / 43.46 / 62.51 / 120.70 / 162.5018.2 / 31.5 / 42.8 / 108.1 / 147.8* Max BKF depth was calculated from the As-built survey. BH ratio was calculated using current year's low bank depth divided by the as-built year's max BKF depth. ER was calculated using the current year's floodprone width divided by the as-built BKF width. MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION AYEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019
Table 11b Cont. Stream Reach Morphology DataUT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: DMS Project ID No. 94648Reach 2 (1,782 LF)ParameterAs-builtMY1 MY2 MY3 MY4Dimension and Substrate - RiffleMin Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD nBF Width (ft) 15.4 ----- ----- 15.6 ----- 3 13.9 14.8 15.1 15.4 0.8 3 14.5 14.9 14.7 15.5 0.6 3 13.2 14.1 14.2 14.9 0.9 3 13.8 15.2 14.2 17.6 2.1 3Floodprone Width (ft) 74.9 ----- ----- 102.7 ----- 3 77.3 93.4 100.2 102.7 14.0 3 77.6 93.5 100.2 102.7 13.8 3 71.9 91.6 100.2 102.6 17.1 3 72.4 91.7 100.1 102.7 16.8 3BF Mean Depth (ft) 1.0 ----- ----- 1.1 ----- 3 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 0.1 3 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 3 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.0 0.1 3 0.7 0.9 0.9 1.0 0.2 3*BF Max Depth (ft) 1.3 ----- ----- 1.8 ----- 3 1.3 1.6 1.6 1.8 0.2 3 1.3 1.6 1.6 1.8 0.2 3 1.4 1.5 1.4 1.6 0.1 3 1.3 1.5 1.5 1.6 0.2 3BF Cross-sectional Area (ft²) 14.8 ----- ----- 17.0 ----- 3 14.6 14.9 15.1 15.1 0.2 3 14.3 14.5 14.4 14.8 0.3 3 12.2 12.4 12.4 12.7 0.3 3 12.9 13.2 13.0 13.7 0.4 3Width/Depth Ratio 14.2 ----- ----- 16.5 ----- 3 12.8 14.4 14.1 16.2 1.7 3 14.5 15.3 15.2 16.4 0.9 3 13.7 16.0 16.5 17.9 2.1 3 14.0 17.9 15.8 23.8 5.2 3*Entrenchment Ratio 4.8 ----- ----- 6.7 ----- 3 5.0 6.0 6.5 6.7 0.9 3 5.0 6.0 6.5 6.7 0.9 3 4.8 6.6 7.3 7.6 1.5 3 4.1 6.2 7.2 7.2 1.8 3*Bank Height Ratio 0.9 ----- ----- 1.0 ----- 3 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 0.1 3 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.1 0.1 3 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.1 3 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.1 3d50 (mm) ----- 20.9 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 46.8 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 54.7 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 42.5 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 33.1 ----- ----- ----- -----PatternChannel Beltwidth (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Radius of Curvature (ft) 48.6 54.7 ----- 65.6 ----- 7 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Meander Wavelength (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Meander Width Ratio ----- 3.0 ----- ----- ----- 8 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----ProfileRiffle Length (ft) 16.4 48.9 39.1 101.3 37.2 21 21 32 32 43 9 13 14.5 30.1 28.6 50.0 9.0 14 16.8 32.1 31.9 65.5 12.3 14 10.8 31.4 29.0 68.0 13.3 14Riffle Slope (ft/ft) 0.003 0.018 0.018 0.035 0.0 2100000130.004 0.016 0.014 0.033 0.009 14 0.002 0.012 0.011 0.027 0.008 14 -0.008 0.007 0.007 0.025 0.008 14Pool Length (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Pool Spacing (ft) 46.0 75.4 70.0 130.2 23.5 19 46.1 65.9 66.3 95.2 14 12 42.9 66.7 66.2 95.4 15.7 12 43.7 73.5 72.3 109.1 20.0 12 36.5 72.6 71.7 111.9 22.2 12Pool Max Depth (ft) 2.5 ----- ----- 2.9 0.3 2 2.51 ----- ----- 2.8 0.205061 2 2.5 ----- ----- 2.6 0.1 2 2.5 ----- ----- 2.7 0.1 2 2.5 ----- ----- 2.6 0.1 2Pool Volume (ft3)----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Substrate and Transport ParametersRi% / Ru% / P% / G% / S% ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----SC% / Sa% / G% / B% / Be% ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f² ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m² ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Additional Reach ParametersDrainage Area (SM) ----- 0.96 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.96 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.96 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.96 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.96 ----- ----- ----- -----Impervious cover estimate (%) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Rosgen Classification ----- C4 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- C4 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- C4 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- C4 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- C4 ----- ----- ----- -----BF Velocity (fps) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----BF Discharge (cfs) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Valley Length ----- 1,549 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Channel length (ft)2----- 1,842 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1006 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1,006 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1,006 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1,006 ----- ----- ----- -----Sinuosity ----- 1.19 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft) ----- 0.0077 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.0069 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.007 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.007 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.007 ----- ----- ----- -----BF slope (ft/ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----BEHI VL% / L% / M% / H% / VH% / E% ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Channel Stability or Habitat Metric ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Biological or Other----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----22.6 / 39.0 / 54.7 / 94.1 / 119.8<0.063 / 12.2 / 20.9 / 68.5 / 151.8 11.98 / 23.45 / 33.11 / 87.42/ 2399.5916.5 / 28.0 / 42.5 / 107.3 / 2496.516.0 / 28.8 / 46.8 / 2048.0 / >2048 * Max BKF depth was calculated from the As-built survey. BH ratio was calculated using current year's low bank depth divided by the as-built year's max BKF depth. ER was calculated using the current year's floodprone width divided by the as-built BKF width. MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION AYEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019
Table 11b Cont. Stream Reach Morphology DataUT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: DMS Project ID No. 94648Reach 3 (829 LF)ParameterAs-builtMY1 MY2 MY3 MY4Dimension and Substrate - RiffleMin Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD nBF Width (ft) 14.9 ----- ----- 17.1 ----- 3 16.5 17.0 17.1 17.2 0.4 3 15.0 15.7 15.3 16.7 0.9 3 14.7 15.3 14.9 16.2 0.8 3 14.5 15.1 14.7 16.2 0.9 3Floodprone Width (ft) 98.3 ----- ----- 99.8 ----- 3 98.4 99.4 99.9 100.0 0.8 3 98.4 99.3 99.8 99.9 0.9 3 98.3 99.3 99.8 99.9 0.9 3 98.3 99.3 99.8 99.9 0.9 3BF Mean Depth (ft) 1.1 ----- ----- 1.3 ----- 3 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 0.1 3 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.1 0.1 3 0.8 0.9 0.8 1.0 0.1 3 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0 0.1 3*BF Max Depth (ft) 1.5 ----- ----- 1.8 ----- 3 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.8 0.1 3 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.8 0.1 3 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.6 0.2 3 1.4 1.5 1.4 1.6 0.1 3BF Cross-sectional Area (ft²) 16.3 ----- ----- 21.5 ----- 3 14.5 16.5 17.2 17.6 1.7 3 13.3 14.8 13.5 17.5 2.4 3 11.9 13.2 11.9 15.9 2.3 3 13.0 14.1 13.2 16.0 1.7 3Width/Depth Ratio 13.7 ----- ----- 14.9 ----- 3 15.5 17.7 17.3 20.2 2.4 3 15.9 16.7 16.8 17.4 0.8 3 16.4 17.7 18.1 18.6 1.2 3 16.1 16.3 16.4 16.5 0.2 3*Entrenchment Ratio 5.8 ----- ----- 6.7 ----- 3 5.8 6.2 6.2 6.7 0.4 3 5.8 6.2 6.2 6.7 0.4 3 6.2 6.5 6.6 6.8 0.3 3 6.2 6.6 6.7 6.9 0.4 3*Bank Height Ratio 1.0 ----- ----- 1.0 ----- 3 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.0 3 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.1 3 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.0 3 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.1 3d50 (mm) ----- 21.8 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 53.7 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 17.4 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 24.0 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 22.1 ----- ----- ----- -----PatternChannel Beltwidth (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Radius of Curvature (ft) 54.5 63.2 ----- 71.8 ----- 9 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Meander Wavelength (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Meander Width Ratio ----- 3.2 ----- ----- ----- 7 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----ProfileRiffle Length (ft) 25.2 46.1 43.3 67.0 15.4 11 17 25 24 33 6 7 22.9 28.6 29.6 37.8 5.0 7 14.9 23.2 21.3 39.4 8.5 7 15.7 23.7 24.4 30.5 5.4 7Riffle Slope (ft/ft) 0.005 0.020 0.016 0.055 0.0 110000070.009 0.024 0.019 0.039 0.012 7 0.009 0.015 0.015 0.019 0.003 7 0.005 0.018 0.017 0.035 0.011 7Pool Length (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Pool Spacing (ft) 63.7 77.7 77.2 90.9 8.3 9 66.8 77 81.2 83 7.5 5 67.0 77.9 74.3 88.7 9.2 5 54.4 79.7 85.1 98.6 16.7 5 65.8 79.2 80.2 92.8 9.8 5Pool Max Depth (ft) 3.2 ----- ----- 3.2 ----- 1 ----- 3.06 ----- ----- ----- 1 ----- 3.2 ----- ----- ----- 1 ----- 2.8 ----- ----- ----- 1 ----- 3.1 ---------- ----- 1Pool Volume (ft3)----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Substrate and Transport ParametersRi% / Ru% / P% / G% / S% ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----SC% / Sa% / G% / B% / Be% ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f² ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m² ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Additional Reach ParametersDrainage Area (SM) ----- 1.2 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.2 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.2 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.2 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.2 ----- ----- ----- -----Impervious cover estimate (%) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Rosgen Classification ----- C4 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- C4 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- C4 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- C4 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- C4 ----- ----- ----- -----BF Velocity (fps) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----BF Discharge (cfs) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Valley Length ----- 695 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Channel length (ft)2----- 829 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 496 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 496 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 496 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 496 ----- ----- ----- -----Sinuosity ----- 1.19 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft) ----- 0.0062 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.00637 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.006 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.006 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.006 ----- ----- ----- -----BF slope (ft/ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----BEHI VL% / L% / M% / H% / VH% / E% ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Channel Stability or Habitat Metric ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Biological or Other----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----<0.063 / <0.063 / 17.4 / 119.3 / 165.32.0 / 12.6 / 21.8 / 74.1 / 128.0 16.0 / 36.9 / 53.7 / 112.6 / 214.710.54 / 15.29 / 22.09 / 71.09 / 114.1611.7 / 16.9 / 24.0 / 70.0 / 135.1* Max BKF depth was calculated from the As-built survey. BH ratio was calculated using current year's low bank depth divided by the as-built year's max BKF depth. ER was calculated using the current year's floodprone width divided by the as-built BKF width. MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION AYEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019
Table 11b Cont. Stream Reach Morphology DataUT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: DMS Project ID No. 94648Reach 6 (1,347 LF)ParameterAs-builtMY1 MY2 MY3 MY4Dimension and Substrate - RiffleMin Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD nBF Width (ft) 8.5 ----- ----- 10.5 ----- 3 7.5 9.0 9.3 10.3 1.4 3 7.6 9.0 9.2 10.3 1.3 3 7.2 8.4 8.1 9.8 1.3 3 7.6 10.0 8.7 13.6 3.2 3Floodprone Width (ft) 33.1 ----- ----- 55.4 ----- 3 30.5 39.1 34.0 52.9 12.1 3 30.3 39.4 34.8 53.1 12.1 3 28.6 38.3 32.8 53.5 13.3 3 28.5 37.2 32.6 50.6 11.83BF Mean Depth (ft) 0.6 ----- ----- 0.9 ----- 3 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.8 0.1 3 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.8 0.1 3 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.0 3 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.1 3*BF Max Depth (ft) 1.2 ----- ----- 1.5 ----- 3 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.5 0.2 3 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.5 0.2 3 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.0 0.1 3 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.0 0.1 3BF Cross-sectional Area (ft²) 5.3 ----- ----- 9.8 ----- 3 4.3 6.1 5.7 8.4 2.1 3 4.6 6.1 5.7 7.9 1.7 3 3.9 4.4 4.1 5.2 0.7 3 4.2 4.7 4.6 5.3 0.6 3Width/Depth Ratio 11.4 ----- ----- 15.1 ----- 3 12.6 13.6 13.0 15.2 1.4 3 12.7 13.6 13.3 14.8 1.1 3 13.4 16.1 16.1 18.7 2.7 3 13.7 21.8 16.6 35.0 11.6 3*Entrenchment Ratio 3.1 ----- ----- 5.7 ----- 3 2.9 4.1 4.0 5.5 1.3 3 2.9 4.2 4.1 5.5 1.3 3 2.9 4.7 4.5 6.6 1.9 3 2.1 4.1 4.3 5.8 1.9 3*Bank Height Ratio 0.6 ----- ----- 1.0 ----- 3 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.0 0.1 3 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.1 0.1 3 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.0 0.1 3 0.6 0.9 1.0 1.0 0.2 3d50 (mm) ----- 28.3 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 34.3 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 56.4 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 44.6 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 44.6 ----- ----- ----- -----PatternChannel Beltwidth (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Radius of Curvature (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Meander Wavelength (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Meander Width Ratio ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----ProfileRiffle Length (ft) 5.0 21.8 20.6 50.9 9.8 33 10 23 21 54 12 12 8.3 18.1 17.6 34.6 6.9 18 4.9 17.2 17.4 40.6 8.9 19 7.1 18.6 19.7 37 8.1 19Riffle Slope (ft/ft) 0.002 0.039 0.036 0.095 0.0 3300000120.003 0.025 0.023 0.064 0.016 18 0.005 0.032 0.027 0.094 0.024 19 -0.018 0.018 0.017 0.048 0.018 19Pool Length (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Pool Spacing (ft) 17.5 39.2 38.8 82.7 14.2 34 30 41 39 62 9 16 28.1 40.4 40.1 56.1 7.7 15 18.8 39.7 39.8 56.2 9.5 18 24.7 41.6 40.0 67.8 12.4 18Pool Max Depth (ft) 1.4 ----- ----- 1.8 ----- 2 1 ----- ----- 2 ----- 2 1.3 ----- ----- 1.8 ----- 2 1.3 ----- ----- 1.7 0.3 2 1.2 ----- ----- 1.7 0.4 2Pool Volume (ft3)----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Substrate and Transport ParametersRi% / Ru% / P% / G% / S% ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----SC% / Sa% / G% / B% / Be% ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f² ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m² ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Additional Reach ParametersDrainage Area (SM) ----- 0.2 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.2 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.2 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.2 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.2 ----- ----- ----- -----Impervious cover estimate (%) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Rosgen Classification ----- C4b ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- C4 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- C4 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- C4 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- C4 ----- ----- ----- -----BF Velocity (fps) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----BF Discharge (cfs) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Valley Length ----- 1259 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Channel length (ft)2----- 1366 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 751 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 751 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 751 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 751 ----- ----- ----- -----Sinuosity ----- 1.09 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft) ----- 0.0226 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.02266 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.023 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.023 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.023 ----- ----- ----- -----BF slope (ft/ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----BEHI VL% / L% / M% / H% / VH% / E% ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Channel Stability or Habitat Metric ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Biological or Other----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----* Max BKF depth was calculated from the As-built survey. BH ratio was calculated using current year's low bank depth divided by the as-built year's max BKF depth. ER was calculated using the current year's floodprone width divided by the as-built BKF width. 29.03 / 45.00 / 56.44 / 108.85 / 160.668.7 / 21.5 / 28.3 / 73.4 / 160.7 14.4 / 22.6 / 34.3 / 86.4 / >204819.45/ 32.68 / 44.55 / 88.78 / 177.7124.0 / 34.5 / 44.6 / 80.0 / 146.2MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION AYEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019
Figure 4. Year 4 ProfileUT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: Project No. 946485605615625635645655665675685695705715725735745755765771300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100Elevation (feet)Station UT to Town Creek - Reach 1Monitoring Year 4 - Station 13+25 to 20+75(Data Collected October 2019) As-Built ThalwegMY1 ThalwegMY2 ThalwegMY3 ThalwegMY4 ThalwegMY4 Low BankMY4 WSX3X4X5XMICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION AYEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019
Figure 4 Cont. Year 4 ProfileUT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: Project No. 946485505515525535545555565575585595605615625635645655665672475 2575 2675 2775 2875 2975Elevation (feet)Station UT to Town Creek - Reach 2Monitoring Year 4 - Station 25+00 to 30+00(Data Collected October 2019) As-Built ThalwegMY1 ThalwegMY2 ThalwegMY3 ThalwegMY4 ThalwegMY4 Low BankMY4 WSX7X8X6MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION AYEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019
Figure 4 Cont. Year 4 ProfileUT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: Project No. 946485435445455465475485495505515525535545555565575585595603500 3600 3700 3800 3900 4000Elevation (feet)Station UT to Town Creek - Reach 2Monitoring Year 4 - Station 35+25 to 40+25(Data Collected October 2019) As-Built ThalwegMY1 ThalwegMY2 ThalwegMY3 ThalwegMY4 ThalwegMY4 Low BankMY4 WSX9X10MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION AYEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019
Figure 4 Cont. Year 4 ProfileUT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: Project No. 946485405415425435445455465475485495505515525535545555565574150 4250 4350 4450 4550 4650Elevation (feet)Station UT to Town Creek - Reach 3Monitoring Year 4 - Station 41+50 to 46+50(Data Collected October 2019) As-Built ThalwegMY1 ThalwegMY2 ThalwegMY3 ThalwegMY4 ThalwegMY4 Low BankMY4 WSX11X12X13X14MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION AYEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019
Figure 4 Cont. Year 4 ProfileUT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: Project No. 946485685695705715725735745755765775785795805815825835845851425 1525 1625 1725 1825Elevation (feet)Station UT to Town Creek - Reach 6Monitoring Year 4 - Station 14+50 to 18+25(Data Collected October 2019) As-Built ThalwegMY1 ThalwegMY2 ThalwegMY3 ThalwegMY4 ThalwegMY4 Low BankX18X19Water surface is not shown for Reach 6 section 1 because the riffles were dry at the time of survey.MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION AYEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019
Figure 4 Cont. Year 4 ProfileUT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: Project No. 946485475485495505515525535545555565575585595605615625632375 2475 2575 2675 2775Elevation (feet)Station UT to Town Creek - Reach 6Monitoring Year 4 - Station 24+00 to 27+75(Data Collected October 2019) As-Built ThalwegMY1 ThalwegMY2 ThalwegMY3 ThalwegMY4 ThalwegMY4 Low BankX16X15Water surface is not shown for Reach 6 section 2 because the riffles were dry at the time of survey.MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION AYEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 94648SITE OR PROJECT:REACH/LOCATION:DATE COLLECTED:FIELD COLLECTION BY:DATA ENTERED BY:MATERIAL PARTICLE SIZE (mm) Riffle Pool Total Class % % Cum Class % % Cum Class % % CumSilt / Clay < .0631122%2% 2%2%2%2%Very Fine .063 - .1252% 2% 2%Fine .125 - .252% 2% 2%Medium .25 - .502% 2% 2%Coarse .50 - 1.0222%4% 3%5% 2%Very Coarse 1.0 - 2.04% 5% 2%Very Fine 2.0 - 2.84% 5% 2%Very Fine 2.8 - 4.04% 5% 2%Fine 4.0 - 5.64% 5% 2%Fine 5.6 - 8.04% 5% 2%Medium 8.0 - 11.0111%5% 5%2%5%Medium 11.0 - 16.0235 5% 10% 3% 8% 7% 12%Coarse 16.0 - 22.6549 9% 19% 8% 17% 10% 22%Coarse 22.6 - 32257 7% 26% 3% 20% 12% 34%Very Coarse 32 - 454610 10% 36% 7% 27% 15% 49%Very Coarse 45 - 648715 15% 51% 14% 41% 17% 66%Small 64 - 9094 13 13% 64% 15% 56% 10% 76%Small 90 - 128204 24 24% 88% 34% 90% 10% 85%Large 128 - 18055 10 10% 98% 8% 98% 12% 98%Large 180 - 25698% 98% 98%Small 256 - 3621 1 2 2% 100% 2% 100% 2% 100%Small 362 - 512100% 100% 100%Medium 512 - 1024100% 100% 100%Large-Very Large 1024 - 2048100% 100% 100%Bedrock > 2048100% 100% 100%Total59 41 100 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%Channel materialsD16 = 20.14 D16 = 21.74 D16 = 18.31D35 = 43.49 D35 = 55.22 D35 = 32.64D50 = 62.51 D50 = 78.82 D50 = 46.15D84 = 120.70 D84 = 120.48 D84 = 121.84D95 = 162.50 D95 = 157.59 D95 = 167.56D100 = 256 - 362 D100 = 256 - 362 D100 = 256 - 362Channel materials Channel materialsCummulative Riffle PoolRiffle SummaryGravelCobbleBoulderPool SummarySandFigure 5a. Reachwide Pebble Count Distribution with Annual Overlays10/30/2019DPDPUT To Town Creek - Year 4Reach 1 (5 Riffles & 5 Pools)PARTICLE CLASS Reach Summary0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000Cumulative PercentParticle Size (mm)UT to Town Creek- Reach 1Reachwide Pebble Count Size DistributionCumulative Summary AB (2016)Cumulative Summary MY1 (2016)Cumulative Summary MY2 (2017)Cumulative Summary MY3 (2018)Cumulative Summary MY4 (2019)0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Class PercentParticle Size Class (mm)UT to Town Creek - Reach 1Reachwide Pebble Count Class DistributionCumulative Summary AB (2016)Cumlative Summary MY1 (2016)Cumulative Summary MY2 (2017)Cumulative Summary MY3 (2018)Cumulative Summary MY4 (2019)MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648UT to TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION AYEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019
Figure 5b. Reachwide Pebble Count Distribution with Annual OverlaysUT to Town Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 94648SITE OR PROJECT:REACH/LOCATION:DATE COLLECTED:FIELD COLLECTION BY:DATA ENTERED BY:MATERIAL PARTICLE SIZE (mm) Riffle Pool Total Class % % Cum Class % % Cum Class % % CumSilt / Clay < .0631344%4% 22 55Very Fine .063 - .12500 4% 02 05Fine .125 - .2500 4% 02 05Medium .25 - .5000 4% 02 05Coarse .50 - 1.02022%6% 46 05Very Coarse 1.0 - 2.000 6% 06 05Very Fine 2.0 - 2.800 6% 06 05Very Fine2.8 - 4.000 6% 06 05Fine 4.0 - 5.600 6% 06 05Fine 5.6 - 8.01344%9% 28 511Medium 8.0 - 11.03 2 5 5% 14% 6 13 4 14Medium 11.0 - 16.06 4 10 9% 23% 12 25 7 21Coarse 16 - 22.63 8 11 10% 33% 6 31 14 36Coarse 22.6 - 32 11 6 17 16% 49% 21 52 11 46Very Coarse 32 - 457 3 10 9% 58% 13 65 5 52Very Coarse 45 - 647 7 14 13% 71% 13 79 13 64Small 64 - 905 10 15 14% 85% 10 88 18 82Small 90 - 1283 3 6 6% 91% 6 94 5 88Large 128 - 1802 1 3 3% 94% 4 98 2 89Large 180 - 2560 0 94% 0 98 0 89Small 256 - 3620 0 94% 0 98 0 89Small 362 - 5120 0 94% 0 98 0 89Medium 512 - 10240 0 94% 0 98 0 89Large-Very Large 1024 - 20480 0 94% 0 98 0 89Bedrock > 20481 6 7 6% 100% 2 100 11 100Total52 56 108 100% 100% 100 100 100 100D16 = 11.98 D16 = 11.95 D16 = 12.04D35 = 23.45 D35 = 24.23 D35 = 22.21D50 = 33.11 D50 = 31.00 D50 = 40.17D84 = 87.42 D84 = 76.83 D84 = 101.69D95 = 2399.59 D95 = 137.03 D95 = 2964.01D100 = > 2048 D100 = > 2048 D100 = > 2048CummulativeChannel materialsRiffle Channel materialsPoolChannel materialsUT To Town Creek - Year 4Reach 2 (5 Riffles & 5 Pools)10/30/2019DPDPPARTICLE CLASS Reach Summary Riffle Summary Pool SummaryCobbleBoulder SandGravel0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000Cumulative PercentParticle Size (mm)UT to Town Creek- Reach 2Reachwide Pebble Count Size DistributionCumulative Summary AB (2016)Cumulative Summary MY1 (2016)Cumulative Summary MY2 (2017)Cumulative Summary MY3 (2018)Cumulative Summary MY4 (2019)0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Class PercentParticle Size Class (mm)UT to Town Creek - Reach 2Reachwide Pebble Count Class DistributionCumulative Summary AB (2016)Cumulative Summary MY1 (2016)Cumulative Summary MY2 (2017)Cumulative Summary MY3 (2018)Cumulative Summary MY4 (2019)MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648UT to TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION AYEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019
Figure 5c. Reachwide Pebble Count Distribution with Annual OverlaysUT to Town Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 94648SITE OR PROJECT:REACH/LOCATION:DATE COLLECTED:FIELD COLLECTION BY:DATA ENTERED BY:MATERIAL PARTICLE SIZE (mm) Riffle Pool Total Class % % Cum Class % % Cum Class % % CumSilt / Clay< .0635165%5%9922Very Fine.063 - .12500 5%0902Fine.125 - .2500 5%0902Medium.25 - .5000 5%0902Coarse.50 - 1.01122%7%21124Very Coarse1.0 - 2.00111%8%01126Very Fine2.0 - 2.800 8%01106Very Fine2.8 - 4.000 8%01106Fine4.0 - 5.61011%9%21206Fine5.6 - 8.02 2 4 4% 13% 4 16 4 9Medium8.0 - 11.03 5 8 7% 20% 5 21 9 19Medium11.0 - 16.011 9 20 18% 38% 19 40 17 35Coarse16 - 22.67 8 15 14% 51% 12 53 15 50Coarse22.6 - 32 6 9 15 14% 65% 11 63 17 67Very Coarse32 - 453 5 8 7% 72% 5 68 9 76Very Coarse45 - 644 8 12 11% 83% 7 75 15 91Small64 - 905 2 7 6% 89% 9 84 4 94Small90 - 1283 2 5 5% 94% 5 89 4 98Large128 - 1805 1 6 5% 99% 9 98 2 100Large180 - 2561 0 1 1% 100% 2 100 0 100Small256 - 3620 0 100% 0 100 0 100Small362 - 5120 0 100% 0 100 0 100Medium512 - 10240 0 100% 0 100 0 100Large-Very Large1024 - 20480 0 100% 0 100 0 100Bedrock> 20480 0 100% 0 100 0 10057 54 111 100% 100% 100 100 100 100D16 = 10.54D16 = 11.20D16 = 10.25D35 = 15.29D35 = 16.51D35 = 14.53D50 = 22.09D50 = 28.09D50 = 19.76D84 = 71.09D84 = 92.39D84 = 51.19D95 = 114.16D95 = 123.88D95 = 80.79D100 = 180 - 256D100 = 180 - 256D100 = 128 - 180Pool SummaryCummulativeChannel materialsRiffle PoolChannel materialsPARTICLE CLASS Channel materialsBoulderSEDIMENT ANALYSIS DATA SHEETReach SummarySandCobbleRiffle SummaryGravelPEBBLE COUNT DATA SHEETUT To Town Creek - Year 4Reach 3 (5 Riffles & 5 Pools)10/30/2019DPDP0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000Cumulative PercentParticle Size (mm)UT to Town Creek- Reach 3Reachwide Pebble Count Size DistributionCumulative Summary AB (2016)Cumulative Summary MY1 (2016)Cumulative Summary MY2 (2017)Cumulative Summary MY3 (2018)Cumulative Summary MY4 (2019)0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Class PercentParticle Size Class (mm)UT to Town Creek - Reach 3Reachwide Pebble Count Class DistributionCumulative Summary AB (2016)Cumulative Summary MY1 (2016)Cumulative Summary MY2 (2017)Cumulative Summary MY3 (2018)Cumulative Summary MY4 (2019)MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648UT to TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION AYEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019
Figure 5d. Reachwide Pebble Count Distribution with Annual OverlaysUT to Town Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 94648SITE OR PROJECT:REACH/LOCATION:DATE COLLECTED:FIELD COLLECTION BY:DATA ENTERED BY:MATERIAL PARTICLE SIZE (mm) Riffle Pool Total Class % % Cum Class % % Cum Class % % CumSilt / Clay < .063 2 0 2 2% 2% 3 3 0 0Very Fine .063 - .125 0 0 2% 0 3 0 0Fine .125 - .25 0 0 2% 0 3 0 0Medium .25 - .50 0 0 2% 0 3 0 0Coarse .50 - 1.0 0 0 2% 0 3 0 0Very Coarse 1.0 - 2.0 0 0 2% 0 3 0 0Very Fine 2.0 - 2.8 0 0 2% 0 3 0 0Very Fine 2.8 - 4.0 0 0 2% 0 3 0 0Fine 4.0 - 5.6 0 0 2% 0 3 0 0Fine 5.6 - 8.0 1 0 1 1% 3% 2 5 0 0Medium 8.0 - 11.0 1 1 2 2% 5% 2 7 2 2Medium 11.0 - 16.0 1 2 3 3% 8% 2 9 4 7Coarse 16 - 22.6 8 7 15 15% 22% 14 22 16 22Coarse 22.6 - 32 6 6 12 12% 34% 10 33 13 36Very Coarse 32 - 45 9 8 17 17% 50% 16 48 18 53Very Coarse 45 - 64 14 9 23 22% 73% 24 72 20 73Small 64 - 90 9 3 12 12% 84% 16 88 7 80Small 90 - 128 4 3 7 7% 91% 7 95 7 87Large 128 - 180 2 2 4 4% 95% 3 98 4 91Large 180 - 256 0 1 1 1% 96% 0 98 2 93Small 256 - 362 1 0 1 1% 97% 2 100 0 93Small 362 - 512 0 0 97% 0 100 0 93Medium 512 - 1024 0 0 97% 0 100 0 93Large-Very Large 1024 - 2048 0 0 97% 0 100 0 93Bedrock > 2048 0 3 3 3% 100% 0 100 7 10058 45 103 100 100 100 100D16 = 19.45 D16 = 19.25 D16 = 19.68D35 = 32.68 D35 = 33.62 D35 = 31.54D50 = 44.55 D50 = 46.15 D50 = 42.21D84 = 88.78 D84 = 82.55 D84 = 111.18D95 = 177.71 D95 = 130.20 D95 = 2435.50D100 = > 2048 D100 = 256 - 362 D100 = > 2048SEDIMENT ANALYSIS DATA SHEETPARTICLE CLASS Reach Summary Riffle Summary Pool SummaryCobbleBoulder SandGravelCummulativeChannel materialsRiffle Channel materialsPoolUT To Town Creek - Year 4Reach 6 (6 Riffles & 4 Pools)DPChannel materials10/30/2019DP0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000Cumulative PercentParticle Size (mm)UT to Town Creek- Reach 6Reachwide Pebble Count Size DistributionCumulative Summary AB (2016)Cumulative Summary MY1 (2016)Cumulative Summary MY2 (2017)Cumulative Summary MY3 (2018)Cumulative Summary MY4 (2019)0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Class PercentParticle Size Class (mm)UT to Town Creek - Reach 6Reachwide Pebble Count Class DistributionCumulative Summary AB (2016)Cumulative Summary MY1 (2016)Cumulative Summary MY2(2017)Cumulative Summary MY3 (2018)Cumulative Summary MY4 (2019)MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648UT to TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION AYEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019

Appendix E

Hydrologic Data

Figure 6. Wetland Gauge GraphsUT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: Project No. 94648-50-45-40-35-30-25-20-15-10-505101/1/2019 2/15/2019 4/1/2019 5/16/2019 6/30/2019 8/14/2019 9/28/2019 11/12/2019 12/27/2019Depth to Groundwater (in)DateUT to Town Creek Wetland Restoration Well(UTTC AW1)Ground Surface-12 inchesUTTC AW1Begin Growing SeasonEnd Growing SeasonWell installed ‐2/10/2016YR4 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS CRITERIA MET ‐114 (50.9%) (3/27/2019 ‐7/18/2019)GROWINGSEASON (3/27 ‐11/5)0.01.02.03.01/1/2019 2/15/2019 4/1/2019 5/16/2019 6/30/2019 8/14/2019 9/28/2019 11/12/2019 12/27/2019Rainfall (in)UT to Town Creek RainMICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT – OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019
Figure 6 Cont. Wetland Gauge GraphsUT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: Project No. 94648-50-45-40-35-30-25-20-15-10-505101/1/2019 2/15/2019 4/1/2019 5/16/2019 6/30/2019 8/14/2019 9/28/2019 11/12/2019 12/27/2019Depth to Groundwater (in)DateUT to Town Creek Wetland Restoration Well (UTTC AW2)Ground Surface-12 inchesUTTC AW2Begin Growing SeasonEnd Growing SeasonWell installed‐3/3/2016YR4 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS CRITERIA MET ‐95 (42.4%)(3/27/2019 ‐6/29/2019)GROWINGSEASON (3/27 ‐11/5)0.01.02.03.01/1/2019 2/15/2019 4/1/2019 5/16/2019 6/30/2019 8/14/2019 9/28/2019 11/12/2019 12/27/2019Rainfall (in)UT to Town Creek RainMICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT – OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019
Figure 6 Cont. Wetland Gauge GraphsUT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: Project No. 94648-50-45-40-35-30-25-20-15-10-505101/1/2019 2/15/2019 4/1/2019 5/16/2019 6/30/2019 8/14/2019 9/28/2019 11/12/2019 12/27/2019Depth to Groundwater (in)DateUT to Town Creek Wetland Restoration Well (UTTC AW3)Ground Surface-12 inchesUTTC AW3Begin Growing SeasonEnd Growing SeasonWell installed‐2/10/2016YR4 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS CRITERIA MET ‐64 (28.6%) (3/27/2019 ‐5/29/2019)GROWINGSEASON (3/27 ‐11/5)0.01.02.03.01/1/2019 2/15/2019 4/1/2019 5/16/2019 6/30/2019 8/14/2019 9/28/2019 11/12/2019 12/27/2019Rainfall (in)UT to Town Creek RainMICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT – OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019
Figure 6 Cont. Wetland Gauge GraphsUT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: Project No. 94648-50-45-40-35-30-25-20-15-10-50510151/1/2019 2/15/2019 4/1/2019 5/16/2019 6/30/2019 8/14/2019 9/28/2019 11/12/2019 12/27/2019Depth to Groundwater (in)DateUT to Town Creek Wetland Restoration Well(UTTC AW4) Ground Surface-12 inchesUTTC AW4Begin Growing SeasonEnd Growing SeasonYR4 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS CRITERIA MET ‐67 (29.9%)(3/27/2019 ‐6/1/2019)GROWINGSEASON (3/27 ‐11/5)Well installed‐3/27/20160.01.02.03.01/1/2019 2/15/2019 4/1/2019 5/16/2019 6/30/2019 8/14/2019 9/28/2019 11/12/2019 12/27/2019Rainfall (in)UT to Town Creek RainMICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT – OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019
Figure 6 Cont. Wetland Gauge GraphsUT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: Project No. 94648-50-45-40-35-30-25-20-15-10-505101/1/2019 2/15/2019 4/1/2019 5/16/2019 6/30/2019 8/14/2019 9/28/2019 11/12/2019 12/27/2019Depth to Groundwater (in)DateUT to Town Creek Wetland Restoration Well(UTTC AW5) Ground Surface-12 inchesUTTC AW5Begin Growing SeasonEnd Growing SeasonYR4 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS CRITERIA MET ‐69 (30.8%)(3/27/2019 ‐6/3/2019)GROWINGSEASON (3/27 ‐11/5)Well installed‐3/3/20160.01.02.03.01/1/2019 2/15/2019 4/1/2019 5/16/2019 6/30/2019 8/14/2019 9/28/2019 11/12/2019 12/27/2019Rainfall (in)UT to Town Creek RainMICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT – OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019
Figure 6 Cont. Wetland Gauge GraphsUT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: Project No. 94648-50-45-40-35-30-25-20-15-10-505101/1/2019 2/15/2019 4/1/2019 5/16/2019 6/30/2019 8/14/2019 9/28/2019 11/12/2019 12/27/2019Depth to Groundwater (in)DateUT to Town Creek Wetland Restoration Well(UTTC AW6) Ground Surface-12 inchesUTTC AW6Begin Growing SeasonEnd Growing SeasonGROWINGSEASON (3/27 ‐11/5)YR4 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS CRITERIA MET ‐116 (51.8%)(3/27/2019 ‐7/20/2019)Well installed‐3/1/20160.01.02.03.01/1/2019 2/15/2019 4/1/2019 5/16/2019 6/30/2019 8/14/2019 9/28/2019 11/12/2019 12/27/2019Rainfall (in)UT to Town Creek RainMICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT – OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019
Figure 6 Cont. Wetland Gauge GraphsUT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: Project No. 94648-50-45-40-35-30-25-20-15-10-505101/1/2019 2/15/2019 4/1/2019 5/16/2019 6/30/2019 8/14/2019 9/28/2019 11/12/2019 12/27/2019Depth to Groundwater (in)DateUT to Town Creek Wetland Restoration Well(UTTC AW7) Ground Surface-12 inchesUTTC AW7Begin Growing SeasonBegin Growing SeasonYR4 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS CRITERIA MET ‐186 (83.7%)(3/27/2019 ‐9/29/2019)GROWINGSEASON (3/27 ‐11/5)Well installed‐3/1/20160.01.02.03.01/1/2019 2/15/2019 4/1/2019 5/16/2019 6/30/2019 8/14/2019 9/28/2019 11/12/2019 12/27/2019Rainfall (in)UT to Town Creek RainMICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT – OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019
Figure 6 Cont. Wetland Gauge GraphsUT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: Project No. 94648-50-45-40-35-30-25-20-15-10-505101/1/2019 2/15/2019 4/1/2019 5/16/2019 6/30/2019 8/14/2019 9/28/2019 11/12/2019 12/27/2019Depth to Groundwater (in)DateUT to Town Creek Wetland Restoration Well(UTTC AW8) Ground Surface-12 inchesUTTC AW8Begin Growing SeasonEnd Growing SeasonYR4 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS CRITERIA MET ‐50 (22.3%) (3/27/2019 ‐5/16/2019)GROWINGSEASON (3/27 ‐11/5)Well installed‐3/1/20160.01.02.03.01/1/2019 2/15/2019 4/1/2019 5/16/2019 6/30/2019 8/14/2019 9/28/2019 11/12/2019 12/27/2019Rainfall (in)UT to Town Creek RainMICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT – OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019
Figure 6 Cont. Wetland Gauge GraphsUT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: Project No. 94648-50-45-40-35-30-25-20-15-10-505101/1/2019 2/15/2019 4/1/2019 5/16/2019 6/30/2019 8/14/2019 9/28/2019 11/12/2019 12/27/2019Depth to Groundwater (in)DateUT to Town Creek Wetland Restoration Well(UTTC AW9) Ground Surface-12 inchesUTTC AW9Begin Growing SeasonEnd Growing SeasonGROWINGSEASON (3/27 ‐11/5)YR4 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS CRITERIA MET ‐63 (28.1%) (3/27/2019 ‐5/28/2019)Well installed‐2/10/20160.01.02.03.01/1/2019 2/15/2019 4/1/2019 5/16/2019 6/30/2019 8/14/2019 9/28/2019 11/12/2019 12/27/2019Rainfall (in)UT to Town Creek RainMICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT – OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019
Figure 6 Cont. Wetland Gauge GraphsUT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: Project No. 94648-50-45-40-35-30-25-20-15-10-505101/1/2019 2/15/2019 4/1/2019 5/16/2019 6/30/2019 8/14/2019 9/28/2019 11/12/2019 12/27/2019Depth to Groundwater (in)DateUT to Town Creek Wetland Restoration Well(UTTC AW10) Ground Surface-12 inchesUTTC AW10Begin Growing SeasonEnd Growing SeasonYR4 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS CRITERIA MET ‐93 (41.5%)(3/27/2019 ‐6/27/2019)GROWINGSEASON (3/27 ‐11/5)Well installed‐2/9/20160.01.02.03.01/1/2019 2/15/2019 4/1/2019 5/16/2019 6/30/2019 8/14/2019 9/28/2019 11/12/2019 12/27/2019Rainfall (in)UT to Town Creek RainMICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT – OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: Project No. 94648* Surface water flow is estimated to have occurred when the pressure transducer reading is equal to or above 0.05 feet in depth. Figure 7. In-stream Flow Gauge Graphs0.000.050.100.150.200.250.300.350.400.450.500.550.600.650.700.750.800.850.900.951.001/1/2019 2/15/2019 4/1/2019 5/16/2019 6/30/2019 8/14/2019 9/28/2019 11/12/2019 12/27/2019Surface Water Depth (ft.)DateUT to Town Creek Reach 7 (Upper)In-channel Flow Gauge R7_W1UT to Town Creek FL1Flow Criteria - .05'YR4 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS CRITERIA MET ‐140.0* (1/1/2019 ‐5/20/2019)0.00.51.01.52.02.53.01/1/2019 2/15/2019 4/1/2019 5/16/2019 6/30/2019 8/14/2019 9/28/2019 11/12/2019 12/27/2019Rainfall (in.)North Stanly Middle School Daily RainMICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648UT to TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION AYEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: Project No. 94648* Surface water flow is estimated to have occurred when the pressure transducer reading is equal to or above 0.05 feet in depth. Figure 7 Cont. In-stream Flow Gauge Graphs0.000.050.100.150.200.250.300.350.400.450.500.550.600.650.700.750.800.850.900.951.001/1/2019 2/15/2019 4/1/2019 5/16/2019 6/30/2019 8/14/2019 9/28/2019 11/12/2019 12/27/2019Surface Water Depth (ft.)DateUT toTown Creek Reach 7 (Lower)In-channel Flow Gauge R7_W2UT to Town Creek FL2Flow Criteria - .05'YR4 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS CRITERIA MET ‐154.0 * (1/1/2019 ‐6/3/2019)0.00.51.01.52.02.53.01/1/2019 2/15/2019 4/1/2019 5/16/2019 6/30/2019 8/14/2019 9/28/2019 11/12/2019 12/27/2019Rainfall (in.)North Stanly Middle School Daily RainMICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648UT to TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION AYEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: Project No. 94648* Surface water flow is estimated to have occurred when the pressure transducer reading is equal to or above 0.05 feet in depth. Figure 7 Cont. In-stream Flow Gauge Graphs0.000.050.100.150.200.250.300.350.400.450.500.550.600.650.700.750.800.850.900.951.001/1/2019 2/15/2019 4/1/2019 5/16/2019 6/30/2019 8/14/2019 9/28/2019 11/12/2019 12/27/2019Surface Water Depth (ft.)DateUT toTown Creek Reach 6 (Upper)In-channel Flow Gauge R6_W1UT to Town Creek FL3Flow Criteria - .05'YR4 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS CRITERIA MET ‐129.0* (1/1/2019 ‐5/9/2019)0.00.51.01.52.02.53.01/1/2019 2/15/2019 4/1/2019 5/16/2019 6/30/2019 8/14/2019 9/28/2019 11/12/2019 12/27/2019Rainfall (in.)North Stanly Middle School Daily RainMICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648UT to TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION AYEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: Project No. 94648* Surface water flow is estimated to have occurred when the pressure transducer reading is equal to or above 0.05 feet in depth. Figure 7 Cont. In-stream Flow Gauge Graphs0.000.050.100.150.200.250.300.350.400.450.500.550.600.650.700.750.800.850.900.951.001/1/2019 2/15/2019 4/1/2019 5/16/2019 6/30/2019 8/14/2019 9/28/2019 11/12/2019 12/27/2019Surface Water Depth (ft.)DateUT toTown Creek Reach 6 (Lower)In-channel Flow Gauge R6_W2UT to Town Creek FL4Flow Criteria - .05'YR4 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS CRITERIA MET ‐147.0* (1/1/2019 ‐5/27/2019)0.00.51.01.52.02.53.01/1/2019 2/15/2019 4/1/2019 5/16/2019 6/30/2019 8/14/2019 9/28/2019 11/12/2019 12/27/2019Rainfall (in.)North Stanly Middle School Daily RainMICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648UT to TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION AYEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019
Figure 8. Monthly Rainfall DataUT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: Project No. 94648Historic rainfall data from WETS Station : ALBEMARLE, NC0090 Observed 2018 - 2019 Precipitaion from CHRONOS Station NEWL, North Stanly Middle School0.001.002.003.004.005.006.007.008.009.00November December January February March April May June July August September OctoberMontly Precipitation (in.)MonthMonthly Rainfall for Stanly County, NC vs. Average Rainfall Data (11/01/2018 - 10/31/2019)Stanly County Observed 2018 - 2019 PrecipitationAverage30%70%MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648UT to TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION AYEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019
Table 12. Wetland Restoration Area Well SuccessUT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: Project No. 94648Well IDAutomated Well TypeWetland Mitigation Type*Percentage of Consecutive Days <12 inches from Ground Surface¹Most Consecutive Days Meeting Criteria²*Percentage of Cumulative Days <12 inches from Ground Surface¹Cumulative Days Meeting Criteria³Number of Instances where Water Table rose to <12 inches from Ground Surface4UTTC AW1 Reference Jurisdictional 51.1 113.5 80.0 177.5 5UTTC AW2 Groundwater Restoration 42.6 94.5 72.5 161.0 6UTTC AW3 Groundwater Restoration 28.6 63.5 42.6 94.5 9UTTC AW4 Groundwater Restoration 30.0 66.5 41.9 93.0 4UTTC AW5 Groundwater Creation 30.9 68.5 49.8 110.5 6UTTC AW6 Reference Jurisdictional 52.0 115.5 79.5 176.5 5UTTC AW7 Groundwater Restoration 83.6 185.5 89.6 199.0 2UTTC AW8 Groundwater Restoration 22.7 50.5 28.2 62.5 6UTTC AW9 Groundwater Creation 28.2 62.5 43.7 97.0 8UTTC AW10 Groundwater Creation 40.3 89.5 69.8 155.0 7Notes:All In-Situ groundwater monitoring dataloggers were installed by 3/27/2016. Installation of the dataloggers was completed following construction in Spring 2016 when groundwater levels are normally closer to the ground surface. Growing season for Stanly County is from March 27 to November 5 and is 222 days long. Cross-sectional Well Arrays4Indicates the number of instances within the monitored growing season when the water table rose to 12 inches or less from the soil surface.³Indicates the cumulative number of days within the monitored growing season with a water table 12 inches or less from the soil surface.²Indicates the most consecutive number of days within the monitored growing season with a water table 12 inches or less from the soil surface.¹Indicates the percentage of most consecutive number of days within the monitored growing season with a water 12 inches or less from the soil surface.HIGHLIGHTED indicates wells that did not to meet the success criteria for the most consecutive number of days within the monitored growing season with a water 12 inches or less from the soil surface. Growing season percentage for success is 9% of 222 days = 20 days; where water table is 12 inches or less from the ground surfaceMICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT – OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019
Table 12a. Wetland Gauge Attainment Data
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: Project No. 94648
MY 1 (2016) MY2 (2017) MY3 (2018) MY4 (2019) MY5 (2020)
UTTC AW1 No/10 days
(5%)
Yes/25 days
(12%)
Yes/ 110.0
days
(49.5%)
Yes/ 114 days
(51.1%)
UTTC AW2 Yes/218 days
(100%)
Yes/218 days
(100%)
Yes/ 115.5
days (52%)
Yes/ 95 days
(42.6%)
UTTC AW3 Yes/188 days
(86%)
Yes/218 days
(100%)
Yes/ 73.5 days
(33.1%)
Yes/ 64 days
(28.6%)
UTTC AW4 Yes/200 days
(92%)
Yes/218 days
(100%)
Yes/ 97.5 days
(43.9%)
Yes/ 67 days
(30.0%)
UTTC AW5 No/10 days
(5%)
Yes/25 days
(12%)
Yes/ 79.5 days
(35.8%)
Yes/ 69 days
(30.9%)
UTTC AW6 Yes/218 days
(100%)
Yes/218 days
(100%)
Yes/ 108.5
days (48.9%)
Yes/ 116 days
(52.0%)
UTTC AW7 Yes/188 days
(86%)
Yes/218 days
(100%)
Yes/ 222.0
days (100%)
Yes/ 186 days
(83.6%)
UTTC AW8 Yes/200 days
(92%)
Yes/218 days
(100%)
Yes/ 52.0 days
(23.4%)
Yes/ 51 days
(22.7%)
UTTC AW9 Yes/188 days
(86%)
Yes/218 days
(100%)
Yes/ 72.5 days
(32.7%)
Yes/ 63 days
(28.2%)
UTTC AW10 Yes/200 days
(92%)
Yes/218 days
(100%)
Yes/ 82.5 days
(37.2%)
Yes/ 90 days
(40.3%)
Gauge
Summary of Groundwater Gauge Results for MY1-MY5
Success Criteria Achieved/Max Consecutive Days During Growing
Season (Percentage)
*Gauge 1 and 5 were not working properly during much of the 2016 growing season.
**Growing season percentage for success is 9% of 222 days = 20 days
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT – OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019
Flow Gauge ID Consecutive Days of Flow1
R7_W1 140.0
R7_W2 154.0
R6_W1 129.0
R6_W2 147.0
Date of Data
Collection Date of Occurrence Method
Gauge Height
(FT)
Photo #
(if available)
1/25/2017 Between 11/3/2016 and
1/25/2017 Crest Gauge 0.08 N/A
5/3/2017 Between1/25/2017 and
5/3/2017 Crest Gauge 0.11 N/A
6/6/2018 Between 4/18/18 and 6/6/2018 Crest Gauge 0.83
Crest Gauge Photos
MY3-1, MY3-2
8/23/2018 Between 6/6/2018 and
8/23/2018 Crest Gauge 0.99
Crest Gauge Photos
MY3-3, MY3-4
9/26/2018 Between 8/23/2018 and
9/26/2018 Crest Gauge 1.68
Crest Gauge Photos
MY3-5, MY3-6
11/14/2018 Between 9/26/2018 and
11/14/2018 Crest Gauge 1.24
Crest Gauge Photos
MY3-7, MY3-8
3/20/2019 Between 1/11/2019 and
2/24/2019 Crest Gauge 0.57
Crest Gauge Photos
MY4-1
10/30/2019 Between 8/14/2019 and
8/22/2019 Crest Gauge 0.34
Crest Gauge Photos
MY4-2
Table 14. Verification of Bankfull Events
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: DMS Project ID No. 94648
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: DMS Project ID No. 94648
Table 13. Verification of In-stream Flow Conditions
Reach 6 Flow Gauges
153.0
180.0
Notes:
¹Indicates the number of consecutive days within the monitoring year where flow was measured.
2Indicates the number of cumulative days within the monitoring year where flow was measured.
Flow success criteria for the Site is stated as: A surface water flow event will be considered intermittent when the flow duration
occurs for a minimum of 30 days.
Surface water flow is estimated to have occurred when the pressure transducer reading is equal to or above 0.05 feet in depth.
Cumulative Days of Flow2
Reach 7 Flow Gauges
150.0
182.0
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT – OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT – OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019 
UT to Town Creek – Bankfull Photos

Crest Gauge Photo MY4-1 (3/20/2019)

Crest Gauge Photo MY4-2 (10/30/2019)

MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT – OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019 
UT to Town Creek – Wetland Photos
UTTC AW1 – (10/30/2019)

UTTC AW2 – (10/30/2019)

MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT – OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019 
UTTC AW3 – (10/30/2019)

UTTC AW4 – (10/30/2019)

MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT – OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019 
UTTC AW5 – (10/30/2019)

UTTC AW6 – (10/30/2019)

MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT – OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019 
UTTC AW7 – (10/30/2019)

UTTC AW8 – (10/30/2019)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT – OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019 

UTTC AW9 – (10/30/2019)

UTTC AW10 – (10/30/2019)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT – OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019 
UT to Town Creek Reach 6 – Flow Documentation Photos

Flow Documentation Photo – R6 (1/1/2019)

Flow Documentation Photo – R6 (4/19/2019)

MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT – OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019 

Flow Documentation Photo – R6 (3/20/2019)

MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT – OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019 
UT to Town Creek Reach 7 – Flow Documentation Photos

Flow Documentation Photo – R7 (1/14/2019)

Flow Documentation Photo – R7 (3/19/2019) 
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT – OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019 

Flow Documentation Photo – R7 (6/11/2019)

Appendix F
IRT Meeting Minutes

Meeting Minutes
UT to TOWN RESTORATION PROJECT
DMS Project ID. 94648
NC DEQ Contract# 003277
USACE Action ID: 2008-02655
Yadkin Pee-Dee River Basin: 03040105060040
Date Prepared: June 13, 2019
Meeting Date, Time,
Location: June 11, 2019, 2:00 PM
On-site (Stanly County, NC)
Attendees:
USACE – Todd Tugwell, Steve Kichefski
DWR – Mac Haupt
DMS – Matthew Reid, Paul Wiesner
Baker – Drew Powers, Katie McKeithan, Scott King
Subject: Credit release site walkover with IRT
Recorded By: Drew Powers, Katie McKeithan, Scott King

An on-site meeting was held on June 11th, 2019 at 2:00 PM to discuss UT to Town Restoration Project
(Full Delivery) in Stanly County, NC. The purposes of this meeting were to:
1. Discuss credits to be released and to get ready for project closeout; and
2. Identify and discuss potential concerns/issues based on field observations.

General recent weather conditions have been hot and dry for several weeks in the area apart from a few
recent afternoon showers.

The group met at the entrance of the path leading to the site off Old Salisbury Road (in the middle of the
project) in Albemarle, NC. A general site overview and map orientation was provided and discussed.

Reach 4
The group then started walking into the site towards the top of Reach 4 to discuss the intermittent flow
and overall condition of the wetland BMP. Upon assessing Reach 4 it was noted that there was minimum
vegetation growing in the stream bed and sediment is being flushed out of the system. Mac, Todd, and
Steve discussed with Scott that it will be helpful to install either a flow gauge or flow camera to help
document the flow of Reach 4 and 5, about ¾ of the way up each reach.

We then walked up the reach to look at the BMP. It was commented that the concrete level spreaders
are no longer the preferred method for BMP outlets, but that it appears to be functioning well. There
was a significant amount of clear, standing water present within the deep pool section of the BMP. No
gullies or rills were observed flowing into the BMP, and established vegetation is present all around the
BMP. Upon observation in this low-water condition the group did not feel the functioning of the BMP
was threatened by excess sedimentation and no maintence was suggested. The group did express some
concern that the BMP was fairly deep, and that it may be reducing the amount of water flowing into its
downstream system.

We then walked downstream to the confluence of Reaches 4 and 5 to look at the flow gauge and it the
stream condition. There was no water present in the stream, but staining on the PVC pipe and
streambed along with a general lack of streambed vegetation implies that water is routinely in the
channel.

Reach 6
The group congregated at the pipe crossing where Travis Wilson (WRC) had a concern with the
installation of the pipe. In the as-built plans it was noted that the pipe was installed on top of bedrock;
and therefore the pipe is perched above the downstream water surface. DMS, USACE, and DWR all
agreed that there is not much that we can do about the situation now and that resetting the pipe would
not be needed. It was also commented that for future sites that a bottomless pipe could be a good
option, though the general consensus was that in this specific case it does not appear that would have
helped as the native bedrock in this section appears to be naturally perched in this location. The group
continued down the reach to the confluence of Reach 6 and 3.

Reach 3
When looking at Reach 3 it was commented that the vegetation looked good, especially for the slate
belt region. It was apparent that many of the trees were growing with good height for a 4-year project
and the smaller trees were ones that were supplemental planted in 2018. A bare area located on the
left bank at the bottom of Reach 3 was noted in the MY3 report shown as a vegetation problem area
(VPA). We commented that we have reseeded and replanted it and will continue to monitor this area.
Mac took a soil sample on the left flood plain in a wetland area upstream of the confluence with Reach 6
and down to ~6 inches did not see the expected hydric soils. He commented that we will need to revisit
the site and do a thorough inspection of our wetland boundaries prior to closeout, adjusting the exact,
final boundaries to our field assessments. Mac pointed out that final boundaries may have shifted some
and pointed out areas that looked wetter near where he took his soil boring. Todd then inspected
nearby Well 5 and saw no issues with the installation of the well and measured 11 inches to water
surface in the well. Mac did another soil sample near the well and saw very hydric soils throughout the
sample. Paul stated that the well success criteria is 9% and all wells for this site have met that criteria for
all monitoring years. We then walked upstream to the double culverts located at the break of Reach 2
and 3 where Todd and Mac commented that they did not like how wide the downstream section of
channel was constructed and asked this be avoided in the future. However, we showed that both the
construction and as-built plans indicated it was built as designed and the stream was stable. It was
noted that this section of channel is all bedrock.

Paul Wiesner pointed out that problem areas of invasive species (privet and parrot feather) were noted
in the MY3 report, primarily along sections of the main channel. We replied that two treatment efforts
have been made so far this year starting in March 2019 to address all invasive species throughout the
site, and we plan to continue to monitor and treat these species for the life of the project.

Reach 7
The group then headed to Reach 7 to inspect the intermittent channel and wetland BMP. Towards the
middle of the reach water was flowing in the channel with good vegetation establishing along the banks
and within the buffer. We then walked to the top of the reach to the BMP. Harry had commented on
the MY3 report that he had observed turbid water and potential sedimentation following a rain event
during his winter inspection, and asked how Michael Baker planned to monitor the BMP for any
potential maintenance needs. The group inspected the BMP under the current, low water-level
conditions and noted that the there is only a small amount of sediment (roughly 6” of a primarily
silt/clay material) captured in the deeper pool portion of the BMP. The standing water that was present
at the bottom of the pool was quite turbid. However, after observation in this low-water condition the
group did not feel the functioning of the BMP was threatened by excess sedimentation and no
maintence was suggested at this time. No gullies or rills were observed flowing into the BMP, and
established vegetation is present all around the BMP. Scott explained that both of the project BMPs
were designed to a depth in anticipation of some sedimentation for the period after construction before
vegetation could establish when some amount of erosion can usually be expected. Scott also
mentioned that we will keep an eye on the sedimentation/fill and confirm that ample storage room is
maintained within both of the project BMP’s. We can do that through visual inspections in the dry
season when remaining storage capacity can be directly observed. The group also expressed some
concern that the BMP may be reducing the amount of water flowing into its downstream system,
though given the flowing water observed in the channel downstream this was not as much of a concern
here.

Paul brought up that it was noted on the MY3 report that a tree or two was down on Reach 1 and we
confirmed that they have been cleaned up and that all fencing is in good condition.

This concluded the walkover and below are a few notes that were discussed back at the vehicles before
departure.

- Credit release: Todd and Mac agreed to all credits being released for MY3
- A gauge or flow camera should be installed on Reach 4 and 5 (about ¾ of the way up)
- The wetland boundaries need to be re-evaluated to represent the actual boundaries in the
field, particularly with regard to hydric soil formation
- The pipe crossing on Reach 6 is sufficient
- A photo point of each project culvert location will be added to the monitoring report

This represents Michael Baker Engineering's best interpretation of the meeting discussions. If anyone
should find any information contained in these meeting notes to be in error and/or incomplete based on
individual comments or conversations, please notify me with corrections/additions as soon as possible.

Most sincerely,

Andrew Powers
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
Cary, NC 27518
Phone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
From:Tsomides, Harry
To:Byers, Jake; Suggs, Kristi
Subject:EXTERNAL: UT Town and Town Creek credit release follow up
Date:Tuesday, May 1, 2018 10:18
Attachments:image002.png
Jake and Kristi -
Just wanted to follow up on the recent credit release meeting for Town Creek and UT Town. These
were our meeting notes for the sites. Please let me know if you have any additions, comments, or
questions.

UT to Town Creek
The IRT and Baker Eng. agreed on the additional buffer stream credits on the site. The buffer
calculation spreadsheet was utilized and adds 265 SMUs to the project. The current debit
ledger does not include these additional buffer stream credits. The aquatic invasive ”Parrot
feather” is present on the site and was discussed. The IRT would like to see this in-stream
invasive treated. The IRT also requested better crest gauge photos and wrack line photos in
future monitoring reports. The debit ledger should be amended to include the additional 265
stream credits and the additional credit and buffer calculations should be included in the 2018
monitoring report to document the project’s credit addition. Once the ledger is updated, the
credits will be released with no site visit required.

Town Creek
Flow gauges and depth of flow gauges installed was discussed. The IRT release the credits as
proposed.

========================================
Harry Tsomides
Project Manager
Division of Mitigation Services
NC Department of Environmental Quality

Tel. [phone]
[e-mail]

5 Ravenscroft Drive
Suite 102
Asheville, NC 28801

cid:image002.png@01D25492.B23B39F0

Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.

Site Name:USACE Action ID:NCDWR Project Number:Sponsor:County:StanlyMinimum Required Buffer Width1:50Mitigation TypeMitigation Ratio Multiplier2Creditable Stream Length3Baseline Stream CreditRestoration (1:1)155275527.00Enhancement I (1.5:1)1.5Enhancement II (2.5:1)2.5347138.80Preservation (5:1)5Other (7.5:1)7.5Other (10:1)10Custom Ratio 11 444444.00Custom Ratio 2Custom Ratio 3Custom Ratio 4Custom Ratio 5Totals 6318.00 6109.80Buffer Zones less than 15 feet >15 to 20 feet >20 to 25 feet >25 to 30 feet >30 to 35 feet >35 to 40 feet >40 to 45 feet >45 to 50 feet >50 to 75 feet >75 to 100 feet >100 to 125 feet >125 to 150 feetMax Possible Buffer (square feet)4189540 63180 63180 63180 63180 63180 63180 63180 315900 315900 315900 315900Ideal Buffer (square feet)5188765.5232 63169.9440 63076.3311 62775.7326 62337.4710 62106.2104 61917.4823 61752.6464 306392.9452 304924.3718 305134.0046 306325.7583Actual Buffer (square feet)6185521.2234 61481.6639 61082.9021 60471.6938 60193.8776 59895.3844 59584.0931 59164.6369 184069.5392 108881.0473 54814.3114 14611.8397Zone Multiplier50% 10% 10% 10% 5% 5% 5% 5% 7% 5% 4% 4%Buffer Credit Equivalent3054.90 610.98 610.98 610.98 305.49 305.49 305.49 305.49 427.69 305.49 244.39 244.39Percent of Ideal Buffer98% 97% 97% 96% 97% 96% 96% 96% 60% 36% 18% 5%Credit Adjustment‐52.50‐16.33‐19.31‐22.42‐10.50‐10.87‐11.51‐12.80 256.94 109.08 43.90 11.66Total Baseline CreditCredit Loss in Required BufferCredit Gain for Additional BufferNet Change inCredit from BuffersTotal Credit6109.80‐156.26 421.58 265.32 6375.12Wilmington District Stream Buffer Credit CalculatorUT to Town CreekSAW‐2013‐128014‐1024Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. ‐ NCDMS4This amount is the maximum buffer area possible based on the linear footage of stream length if channel were perfectly straight with full buffer width.  This number is not used in calculations, but is provided as a reference. Buffer Width Zone (feet from Ordinary High Water Mark)6Square feet in each buffer zone, as measured by GIS, excluding non‐forested areas, all other credit type (e.g., wetland, nutrient offset, buffer), easement exceptions, open water, areas failing to meet the vegetation performance standard, etc. Additional credit is given to 150 feet in buffer width, so areas within the easement that are more than 150 feet from creditable streams should not be included in this measurement.  Non‐creditable stream reaches within the easement should be removed prior to calculating this area wtih GIS5Maximum potential size (in square feet) of each buffer zone measured around all creditable stream reaches, calculated using GIS, including areas outside of the easement.  The inner zone (0‐15') should be measured from the top of the OHWM or the edge of the average stream width if OHWM is not known.  Non‐creditable stream reaches within the easement should be removed prior to calculating this area wtih GIS.2Use the Custom Ratio fields to enter non‐standard ratios, which are equal to the number of feet in the feet‐to‐credit mitigation ratio (e.g., for a perservation ratio of 8 feet to 1 credit, the multiplier would be 8)1Minimum standard buffer width measured from the top of bank (50 feet in piedmont and coastal plain counties or 30 feet in mountain counties)3Equal to the number of feet of stream in each Mitigation Type.  If stream reaches are not creditable, they should be excluded from this measurement, even if they fall within the easement