20131177 Ver 1_Year 7 Monitoring Report_2020_20210216

ID#* 20131177 Version* 1
Select Reviewer:*
Erin Davis
Initial Review Completed Date 02/16/2021
Mitigation Project Submittal - 2/16/2021
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site?* r Yes r No
Type of Mitigation Project:*
V Stream r Wetlands r- Buffer r- Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name:*
Jeremiah Dow
Project Information
...................................................................................
ID#:* 20131177
Existing IDY
Project Type:
Project Name:
Email Address:*
[e-mail]
Version:
*1
Existing Version
r DMS r Mitigation Bank
UT to Cane Creek Restoration Project
County: Alamance
Document Information
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Monitoring Report
File Upload: UTtoCaneCreek_95729_MY7_2020.pdf 9.63MB
Rease upload only one RDFcf the conplete file that needs to be subnitted...
Signature
Print Name:* Jeremiah Dow
Signature:*

UT to Cane Creek Restoration Project
Year 7 Final Monitoring Report
Alamance County, North Carolina
DMS Project ID Number —95729, DEQ Contract No. 4951
Permits: SAW-2012-01907, DWR# 13-1177
It `-` '1,IV '' i`' 1, pc?, ,.„ ,„ , ,,,,,„1. 5, 0
r ,r IL R % i A el.�� 1; l p e ' a h 7, -
f
� ?, ;; R 5 1 43, .! '''‘ lit,`, , , 1 'I f, '-' ,::',' r,',':::,-;
'oivk Ati rAilg1Ntri'P' 10 1,' '', Pt I,; Al il a; A $, .',, ' ' .1 7 , ii.4'z" ,,',"t.,i1-iv-',
. k, .;,-s; k ,, ,i1 .1.:'A.-, ,%,', V.,,,, 6 ,,.,-•7 121,j, LI% Al c9 I' ,i ,,I, .1, q",,,.,, ' ,AP' ,
04'
,,,ta ,1 \ � �`�+' 'I, 1 '31, y 1f° 7r.1 PI 7 1 !1! 1'
,00
6 x. ,y
- �, Pry $ y b _ �F
f
_ ----- ,. 1 ., ' .. -, .
, ___._. ..,,,,,:_,•-„,,ski„,,-.1.,,,,.t,T,..: t:*--,--4,J.,-.,..4..--,.. (---,,:',...,-:-.„ ---------_, ..:4",.._:-.4:-...;;"-
tik
• I, A y k -, LZ a ~1 7�� xi-
x / y b.
Y J -p^
I1. � i "e = F
" `y , y, .�._ _2,- i 1
µr 1 , Ai_
` 1�.yy
•� t t' % _,,,e'�arvr
'- v''
s y'
.Tifik i'' • -I i'... 'tI\''',--.' 'lex . -r --- , .4,e. "•mly . • -," --, 3,--*-.`...-...L +, .-----___ -/
Project Info: Monitoring Year: 7 of 7
Year of Data Collection: 2020
Year of Completed Construction: 2014
Submission Date: January 2021
Submitted To: NCDEQ -Division of Mitigation Services
1625 Mail Service Center
Raleigh,NC 27699
NC DEQ Contract ID No. 004951

Michael Baker Innovation Done Right...We Make a Difference
INTERNATIONAL
January 8, 2021
Jeremiah Dow
NCDEQ, Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
Subject: Response letter to DMS review comments regarding the Draft Year 7 Monitoring Report
for the UT to Cane Creek Restoration Project (#95729)
Cape Fear Basin— CU#03030002, Alamance County, North Carolina
Service Contract No. 004951, DMS No. 95729, RFP No. 16-004357, Baker No. 132700
Mr. Dow,
Please find below our responses to the NC Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) review comments dated
December 21, 2020 in reference to the UT to Cane Creek Restoration Project MY7 Draft report. We have
revised the draft document and the digital submission files as outlined below:
1. Digital files/drawings:
a. Please include a photo point shapefile containing the spatial features that depict the photo
points in the CCPV.
Response: The photo-point location shapefile used in the CCPV has been provided
with the revised digital submission files.
b. Please include photos as JPEGs.
Response: Photos have been provided as JPEGs in the revised digital file submission.
c. Please verify bank height ratio calculations. Ensure that the elevation that achieves the MYO
bankfull area in the MY7 channel is being used in these calculations. For example: Cross
Section 4 should have a BHR of 1.09, and should be using bankfull elevation of 479.54 to
achieve the MY0 cross sectional area.
Response: Baker checked each of the BHR calculations and verified that they are all
correct with the exception of XS-4 as noted. The bankfull elevation derived from the
as-built area for XS-4 was determined to be 479.54' (as noted) using the Mecklenburg
spreadsheet and was used to determine the BHR shown, but just wasn't correctly
brought into the project cross-section figure. However, using this elevation provides a
BHR of 0.97,which rounds to the 1.0 shown in the cross-section tables. For clarity, the
calculation was made using the following elevations (as provided in the XS-4 figure)
and equation:
BHR= (Low bank elevation -TWG elevation)/ (MY7 Bkf elevation—TWG elevation)
BHR= (479.51' —478.35') / (479.54' —478.35') = 1.16/ 1.19 =0.97

Innovation Dane Right...We Make o Difference
As requested, Baker has provided one (1) hardcopy and a pdf version of the Final report, along with all the
revised digital data/drawings and e-submission files,which will be sent via secure ftp link. Please do not
hesitate to contact me at 919-219-6339 or by email at [e-mail] should you have any
questions regarding our response submittal.
Sincerely,
le- 4
Scott King, LSS, PWS
Project Manager
Enclosures

UT to Cane Creek Restoration Project
Year 7 Final Monitoring Report
Alamance County, North Carolina
DMS Project ID Number — 95729, DEQ Contract No. 4951
Permits: SAW-2012-01907, DWR# 13-1177
Report Prepared and Submitted by Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
NC Professional Engineering License 4 F-1084
I N T E R N AT 1 0 N A L
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO CANE CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 95729
MONITORING YEAR 7 OF 7 (2020)

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
2.0 METHODOLOGY 3
2.1 Stream Assessment 3
2.1.1 Morphological Parameters and Channel Stability i
2.1.2 Hydrology "i
2.1.3 Photographic Documentation 4
2.1.4 Visual Stream Morphological Stability Assessment 4
2.2 Vegetation Assessment 4
3.0 REFERENCES 4
APPENDICES
Appendix A Project Maps and Background Tables
Figure 1 Project Vicinity Map
Figure 2 Mitigation Work Plan
Figure 3 Reference Locations
Table 1 Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Table 2 Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3 Project Contacts
Table 4 Project Attributes(Pre-Construction Conditions)
Appendix B Visual Assessment Data
Figure 4 Current Condition Plan View(CCPV)
Table 5a Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Table 5b Stream Problem Areas(SPAs)
Table 6a Vegetation Condition Assessment
Table 6b Vegetation Problem Areas(VPAs)
Stream Station Photo-Points
Vegetation Plot Photographs
Crest Gauge Photographs
Additional Project Photographs
Appendix C Vegetation Plot Data
Table 7 Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Table 8 CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Table 9a CVS Stem Count of Planted Stems by Plot and Species
Table 9b Stem Count For Each Species Arranged by Plot
Table 9c CVS Density Per Plot
Table 9d CVS Vegetation Summary and Totals
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC.
UT TO CANE CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT,DMS PROJECT NO.95729
MONITORING YEAR 7 OF 7(2020)

Appendix D Stream Survey Data
Figure 5 Year 7 Cross-Sections with Annual Overlays
Table 10 Baseline Stream Summary Table
Table 11 Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Appendix E Hydrologic Data
Table 12 Verification of Bankfull Events
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC. iii
UT TO CANE CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT,DMS PROJECT NO.95729
MONITORING YEAR 7 OF 7(2020)

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. (Baker)restored 3,314 linear feet(LF) of perennial and intermittent streams
and enhanced 2,911 linear feet of channel for the Unnamed Tributary(UT)to Cane Creek Restoration Project
(Site). Baker also planted approximately 14.0 acres of native riparian species vegetation within the recorded
conservation easement areas along the restored and enhanced reaches (Reaches R1, R3, R4, R5 and R5a) for
the Site. Table 1 summarizes project components and mitigation credits(Appendix A). The Site is located in
Alamance County,approximately three miles south of the Town of Saxapahaw(Figure 1). The Site is located
in the NC Division of Water Resources(NCDWR) Sub-basin 03-06-04 and the North Carolina Department of
Environmental Quality(NCDEQ)-Division of Mitigation Services' (DMS)Targeted Local Watershed(TLW)
03030002-050050 of the Cape Fear River Basin. The Project involved the restoration and enhancement of rural
Piedmont streams,which had been impaired due to past agricultural conversion and cattle grazing.
Based on the DMS 2009 Cape Fear River Basin Restoration Priority (RBRP) Plan, the UT to Cane Creek
Restoration Project area is located in an existing TLW within the Cape Fear River Basin, although it is not
located in a Local Watershed Planning (LWP) area. The restoration strategy for the Cape Fear River Basin
targets specific projects,which focus on developing creative strategies for improving water quality flowing to
the Haw River in order to reduce non-point source (NPS)pollution to Jordan Lake.
The primary goals of the Project were to improve ecologic functions and to manage NPS inputs to the impaired
areas as described in the DMS 2009 Cape Fear RBRP and as identified below:
• Create geomorphically stable conditions along the UTs across the Site,
• Implement agricultural best management practices(BMPs)to reduce NPS inputs to receiving waters,
• Protect and improve water quality by reducing stream bank erosion,and nutrient and sediment inputs,
• Restore stream and floodplain interaction by connecting historic flow paths and promoting natural
flood processes,and
• Restore and protect riparian buffer functions and corridor habitat in perpetuity by establishing a
permanent conservation easement.
To accomplish these goals,the following objectives were identified:
• Restore existing incised,eroding,and channelized streams by providing flood water access to the relic
floodplains,
• Prevent cattle from accessing the conservation easement by installing permanent fencing thus reducing
excessive stream bank erosion and nutrient inputs,
• Increase aquatic habitat value by providing more bedform diversity, creating natural scour pools and
reducing sediment inputs from accelerated stream bank erosion,
• Plant native species riparian buffer vegetation along stream bank and floodplain areas,protected by a
permanent conservation easement,to increase stormwater runoff filtering capacity,improve stream
bank stability and riparian habitat connectivity,and shade the stream to decrease water temperature,
• Improve aquatic and terrestrial habitat through improved substrate and in-stream cover,addition of
woody debris,and reduction of water temperature,and
• Treat invasive species vegetation within the Site area and,if necessary,continue treatments during the
monitoring period.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC. 1
UT TO CANE CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT,DMS PROJECT NO.95729
MONITORING YEAR 7 OF 7(2020)

The Year 7 monitoring survey data of the twelve permanent cross-sections indicates that these stream sections
are geomorphically stable and are within the lateral/vertical stability and in-stream structure performance
categories. Certain cross-sections (Appendix D) have shown very minor fluctuations in their geometry as
compared to the previous survey conducted in Year 5. These minor fluctuations represent a trend towards
increased stability based off visual field evaluations. All reaches are fully stable and performing as designed
and are rated at 100 percent for all the visual parameters evaluated in Table 5.
There were no Stream Problem Areas(SPAs)observed during the Year 7 monitoring. The previously reported
section of bank scour along Reach R4 from Year 5 has continued to stabilize with livestake vegetation
establishing well based on visual observations made during the monitoring year. Baker will continue to evaluate
this area and supplement with additional livestake transplants over the winter to ensure continued stability.
Additionally,a beaver dam was discovered towards the top of Reach R1 in early 2020(see CCPV for location)
and was removed in March 2020. The beaver likely came up the reach from the adjacent Cane Creek but the
dam has not been reestablished. This reach will be closely monitored for additional beaver activity.
During Year 7 monitoring,the planted acreage performance categories were functioning at 100 percent with no
thin or bare areas to report(Appendix B). The average density of total planted stems,based on data collected
from the six monitoring plots during the Year 7 monitoring in August 2020,was 587 stems per acre (Appendix
C). Thus, the vegetation data demonstrate that the Site has met the minimum success interim criteria of 210
trees per acre by the end of Year 7.
There were a few Vegetation Problem Areas(WA)observed during the Year 7 monitoring. They each consist
of scattered resprouts of the invasive species Chinese privet(Ligustrum sinense) found along the middle and
lowers sections of Reach R4 and along lower Reach R3, as detailed in Table 6a and 6b. The total combined
area of the scattered privet is approximately 1.8 acres in size. They are almost entirely located within the mature
forested area along the project enhancement reach. Their locations are shown on the Current Condition Plan
View(CCPV)maps in the Appendix B. They will be treated in the spring of 2021.
Additionally,the scattered Chinese privet noted in the Year 6 report was treated in March of 2020 in the lower
section of Reach R4, in an area approximately 0.5 acres in size. Much of this treated area overlaps with the
current VPA privet locations and represents continued resprouts.
During Year 7 monitoring,the Reach R3 crest gauge(crest gauge #2)documented one bankfull event from the
flooding resulting from heavy rainfall over two days in early August. Based on visual evidence of the floodplain
it also appears that Reach R5 experienced an overbank event during the same storm but crest gauge #1 was
found to have an established ant nest within it which destroyed any potential cork indicator. The crest gauge
was thoroughly cleaned out and set back up. All crest gauge reading information is presented 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 DMS website. All raw data supporting the tables and figures in the
Appendices is available from DMS upon request.
This report documents the successful completion of the Year 7 monitoring activities for the post-construction
monitoring period.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC. 2
UT TO CANE CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT,DMS PROJECT NO.95729
MONITORING YEAR 7 OF 7(2020)

2.0 METHODOLOGY
The seven-year monitoring plan for the Site includes criteria to evaluate the success of the stream and vegetation
components of the Site. The methodology and report template used to evaluate these components adheres to
the DMS guidance document "Monitoring Requirements and Performance Standards for Stream and/or
Wetland Mitigation" dated 11/7/11 (DMS 2011), and to the Monitoring Report Template, Version 1.5 (DMS
2012),which will continue to serve as the template for subsequent monitoring years. The specific locations of
monitoring features,such as vegetation plots,permanent cross-sections,reference photograph stations,and crest
gauges,are shown on the Current Condition Plan View(CCPV)map(Figure 4)found in Appendix B.
The Year 7 cross-section data was collected in September 2020,while the vegetation plot data was collected in
late August 2020. All visual site assessment data contained in Appendix B was collected in October 2020.
2.1 Stream Assessment
The Project involved the restoration and enhancement of a rural Piedmont stream system that had been impaired
due to past agricultural conversion and cattle grazing. Restoration practices involved raising the existing
streambed and reconnecting the stream to the relic floodplain, and restoring natural flows to areas previously
drained by ditching activities. The existing channels abandoned within the restoration areas were partially to
completely filled to decrease surface and subsurface drainage and raise the local water table. Permanent cattle
exclusion fencing was provided around all proposed reaches and riparian buffers,with the exception of Reach
R1,where cattle lack access.
Stream survey data was collected to a minimum of Class C Vertical and Class A Horizontal accuracy using
Leica TS06 Total Station and was georeferenced to the NAD83 State Plane Coordinate System, FIPS3200 in
US Survey Feet,which was derived from the As-built survey.
2.1.1 Morphological Parameters and Channel Stability
Survey data from the twelve permanent project cross-sections were collected and classified using the
Rosgen Stream Classification System (Rosgen 1994), and all monitored cross-sections fall within the
quantitative parameters defined for channels of the design stream type. The Year 7 monitoring survey
data for the cross-sections indicates that the Site is geomorphically stable and performing at virtually
100 percent for all the parameters evaluated. The data collected are within the lateral/vertical stability
and in-stream structure performance categories. All morphological survey data is presented in
Appendix D.
A longitudinal profile was surveyed for the entire length of channel immediately after construction to
document as-built baseline conditions for the first year of monitoring only. Annual longitudinal profiles
will not be conducted during subsequent monitoring years unless channel instability has been
documented or remedial actions/repairs are required by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
or DMS.
2.1.2 Hydrology
To monitor on-site bankfull events,crest gauges were installed along two of the restored reaches. One
crest gauge was installed on the floodplain at the bankfull elevation along the left top of bank on Reach
R5 (Crest gauge 1), approximately at Station 22+00. The second crest gauge was installed on the
floodplain along the right top of bank along Reach R3 (Crest gauge 2),approximately at Station 13+50.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC. 3
UT TO CANE CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT,DMS PROJECT NO.95729
MONITORING YEAR 7 OF 7(2020)

2.1.3 Photographic Documentation
Reference photograph transects were taken at each permanent cross-section. The survey tape was
centered in the photographs of the bank. The water line was located in the lower edge of the frame,
and as much of the bank as possible is included in each photograph.
Representative photographs also were taken of grade control structures and buffer areas along the
restored stream. Stream photographs from Year 7 monitoring are shown in Appendix B.
2.1.4 Visual Stream Morphological Stability Assessment
The visual stream morphological stability assessment involves the qualitative evaluation of lateral and
vertical channel stability,and the integrity and overall performance of in-stream structures throughout
the Project reaches as a whole. Habitat parameters and pool depth maintenance are also evaluated.
During Year 7 monitoring, Baker staff walked the entire length of each of the Project reaches, noting
geomorphic conditions of the stream bed profile(riffle/pool facets),both stream banks,and engineered
in-stream structures. Representative photos were taken per the Site's Mitigation Plan. Locations of
potential Stream Problem Areas (SPAs) are documented in the field for subsequent mapping on the
CCPV figures (no SPAs were identified in Year 7, as described above). A detailed summary of the
results for the visual stream stability assessment can be found in Appendix B, which includes all
supporting figures,data tables,and SPA photos if applicable.
2.2 Vegetation Assessment
In order to determine if the success criteria are achieved, vegetation-monitoring quadrants were installed and
are monitored across the restoration site in accordance with the Carolina Vegetation Survey (CVS)-DMS
Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version 4.1 (Lee 2007). The vegetation monitoring plots are a minimum
of 2 percent of the planted portion of the Site with six plots established randomly within the planted riparian
buffer areas per Monitoring Levels 1 and 2. No monitoring quadrants were established within the undisturbed
wooded areas of Reach R4. The sizes of individual quadrants are 100 square meters for woody tree species.
Year 7 vegetation assessment information is provided in Appendices B and C.
3.0 REFERENCES
Carolina Vegetation Survey(CVS)and NC Division of Mitigation Services(DMS). CVS-DMS
Data Entry Tool v. 2.3.1.University of North Carolina,Raleigh,NC. 2012.
Lee,M.,Peet R.,Roberts, S.,Wentworth,T. 2007. CVS-DMS Protocol for Recording Vegetation,Version
4.1.
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services(DMS). 2012. NCDMS Monitoring Report Template,
Version 1.5,June 8,2012.
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services(DMS). 2011. Monitoring Requirements and
Performance Standards for Stream and/or Wetland Mitigation. Version 1.4,November 7,2011.
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services(DMS). 2009. Cape Fear River Basin Restoration Priorities.
Rosgen,D. L. 1994.A Classification of Natural Rivers.Catena 22:169-199.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC. 4
UT TO CANE CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT,DMS PROJECT NO.95729
MONITORING YEAR 7 OF 7(2020)

Appendix A
Project Maps and Background Tables

•Asp T IL( 17"+--- WI•r -, ' '- rtir n f - cu ci, I I \t IT 1 L , I
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
i 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
yroles and activities requires prior coordination with DMS.
`kifAVILTaellilifir
�'��r"[ rA !i?�rf Graham �,qr� `s i ;sti - ss�,�� Mebane 4
44, p
PArt
• ■ i'vTa1 '- , t1124P -. • V:WillaWlearii\ • tee. 11111W17 gt 1 SI'
it
(
tik
.06%, dr_.‘ 471 WIti.lr ItIPZSIF'..r.—"Pi..i., 1 i" . -
1
'' T11411:7 . ,, e're.' ,-....N.
:11 r., .. . a rt -.viol 0. ,I.. ;ipkit4014,1 liiir lir ....„
,.., • waif ill. ti I
ritlfr 6
. ilk ..
)'. ., 10, 'VP
011 Its. 011141, i Alik V.N5
\ oc\ e .0 ;04f." 7, • .V . 4.11.4140,
-ry I
. s.
gi
gi. ei. 7 Y
41‘,
411
r . ii; _,.
flir - . ANL
111P.Fàp
0, f
dY
All .." o r- / li, i
, . 44 t . -
(---,,:417,401,,,,407 .:a\_. i r
i;:, ; likA ,, , 41.14
Li ► • E G, 4,0reensboro Chapel Hill Rd i , �.
If �� �'•
\ i _.. ,,,,,A,,p le rA .
f] ,� Stockard Rd r
A,„„„,,,,,,,,„4r,_
�� � �.. h� ,.., �....\_Project Location r
,,,,,
•
.,,
,_.., k ' J J
livibwi,ii
# .., mill. filik f ) \ --e Th.._,.,
ADO 1, 4 r \ Note: Site is located within targeted local
il; � � � watershed 03030002050050.
f
Figure 1
Project Vicinity Map
i i UT to Cane Creek Site
m A
�R i i
ei'wialsi ■�li'ta.Whir L.mf.., i -4tra•�i DEQ - Division of
r'A��r. ",walipk Wteli`jm�4��1 f i Mitigation ServicesA
aiktellitt. #` � 4•44> Project
i Location
Michael Baker
INTERNATIONAL
Alamance County
0 0.5 1 2 3
Miles

\ Mirligarr
.�.. Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement I
' Stream Enhancement II
_ Proposed Conservation Easement
JParcel Boundary
isilig . 1
\ ---
i
i
Reach R5
b
. - -. Illialb.' " • ,-
_-
111
Reach R3 ~'J
Me •
fi I
- 191' .t
..,, if! —
I
moP
1
";:� r . # Reach R4 S
I tl 1,
,.+
6P,' lio
1
'`ane
4
MO Co- -p,KC - - fir to 4;thk,bitattorain aujA .I si , N 9 ' ti
Bo.rd
0 500 1,000 N
Michael Baker Feet Figure 2
Mitigation Work Plan
N T E R N A T l N A L DEQ -Division of Mitigation Services UT to Cane Creek Site
Project#95729

zwPp°" Reference Site Locations
•
I * Project Location
c H'rq
r w�
9
1�
Y
441,
'Yce
n`ep im p..
—7 UT to Varnals Creek
UT to Wells Creek
r yc
LGupnnt oCn�RN H,,Rtl
Snow
Camp
Project Location
•
R
Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN,
Esri Japan, METI, Esri China(Hong Kong), Esri(Thailand), Mapmylndia,
OpenStreetMap contributors,and the GIS User Community
0 1 2 N Figure 3
Michael Baker Miles Reference Reach
DEQ - Division of Mitigation Services Location Map
INTERNATIONAL Project #95729 UT to Cane Creek Site

Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
UT to Cane Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95729
Mitigation Credits
Stream Riparian Wetland Non-riparian Wetland Buffer Nitrogen Nutrient Phosphorus
Offset Nutrient Offset
Type R,El,EII R E
Totals 4,594 SMU 0 0
Project Components
Restoration/
Stationing/ Existing Footage/ Restoration Footage Mitigation
Project Component or Reach ID Approach Restoration Equivalent
Location Acreage(LF) (SMU) or Acreage(LF) Ratio
Reach 1 10+00—20+45 944 Restoration 1,045 1,045 1:1
Reach 3 10+00—13+98 425 Restoration 398 398 1:1
Reach 4(Upstream section) 29+32—52+86 2,346 Enhancement Level II 933 2,333 2.5:1
Reach 4(Downstream section) 53+20—57+30 411 Restoration 410 410 1:1
Reach 5(Upstream section) 10+03—24+64 1,386 Restoration 1,461 1,461 1:1
Reach 5(Downstream section) 25+00—29+32 426 Enhancement Level I 289 433 1.5:1
Reach 5a 10+02—11+47 144 Enhancement Level II 58 145 2.5:1
Component Summation
Restoration Level Stream(LF) Riparian Wetland(AC) Non-riparian Wetland(AC) Buffer(SF) Upland(AC)
Riverine Non-Riverine
Restoration 3,314
Enhancement I 433
Enhancement II 2,478
Creation 0
Preservation 0
High Quality Preservation 0
BMP Elements
Element Location Purpose/Function Notes
BMP Elements: BR=Bioretention Cell;SF=Sand Filter;SW=Stormwater Wetland;WDP=Wet Detention Pond;DDP=Dry Detention
Pond;FS=Filter Strip;S=Grassed Swale;LS=Level Spreader;NI=Natural Infiltration Area
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC.
YEAR 7 MONITORING REPORT
UT TO CANE CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT(DMS PROJECT NO.95729)

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
UT to Cane Creek Restoration Project:DMS Project ID No.95729
Actual
Scheduled Data Collection Completion or
Activity or Report Completion Complete Delivery
Mitigation Plan Prepared N/A N/A Aug-13
Mitigation Plan Amended N/A N/A Oct-13
MItigation Plan Approved May-13 N/A Dec-13
Final Design—(at least 90%complete) N/A N/A Feb-14
Construction Begins Nov-13 N/A Mar-14
Temporary S&E mix applied to entire project area Feb-14 N/A Jun-14
Permanent seed mix applied to entire project area Feb-14 N/A Jun-14
Planting of live stakes Feb-14 N/A Jun-14
Planting of bare root trees Feb-14 N/A Jun-14
End of Construction Feb-14 N/A Jun-14
Survey of As-built conditions(Year 0 Monitoring-baseline) Apr-14 Jul-14 Aug-14
Year 1 Monitoring Dec-14 Jan-15 Apr-15
Year 2 Monitoring Dec-15 Oct-15 Nov-15
Year 3 Monitoring Dec-16 Oct-16 Nov-16
Year 4 Monitoring Dec-17 Oct-17 Nov-17
Year 5 Monitoring Dec-18 Oct-18 Dec-18
Year 6 Monitoring Dec-19 Oct-19 Jan-20
Year 7 Monitoring Dec-20 Oct-20 Dec-20
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC.
YEAR 7 MONITORING REPORT
UT TO CANE CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT(DMS PROJECT NO.95729)

Table 3. Project Contacts
UT to Cane Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95729
Designer
8000 Regency Parkway,Suite 600
Michael Baker Engineering,Inc.
Cary,NC 27518
Contact:
Katie McKeithan,Telephone:[phone]
Construction Contractor
5616 Coble Church Rd
KBS Earthworks
Julian,NC 27283
Contact:
Chris Sizemore,Telephone:[phone]
Planting Contractor 1111
5616 Coble Church Rd
KBS Earthworks
Julian,NC 27283
Contact:
Chris Sizemore,Telephone:[phone]
Seeding Contractor
5616 Coble Church Rd
KBS Earthworks
Julian,NC 27283
Contact:
Chris Sizemore,Telephone:[phone]
Seed Mix Sources Green Resources,Telephone:[phone]
Nursery Stock Suppliers Mellow Marsh Farm,Telephone:[phone]
ArborGen,Telephone: [phone]
Monitoring Performers
Michael Baker Engineering,Inc. 8000 Regency Parkway,Suite 600
Cary,NC 27518
Contact:
Stream Monitoring Point of Contact Scott King,Tel.[phone]
Vegetation Monitoring Point of Contact Scott King,Tel.[phone]
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC.
YEAR 7 MONITORING REPORT
UT TO CANE CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT(DMS PROJECT NO.95729)

Table 4. Project Attributes(Pre-Construction Conditions)
UT to Cane Creek Restoration Project:DMS Project ID No.95729
Project Information
Project Name UT to Cane Creek Restoration Project
County Alamance
Project Area(acres) 19.9
Project Coordinates(latitude and longitude) 35.8934 N,-79.3187 W
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province Piedmont
River Basin Cape Fear
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit and 14-digit 03030002/03030002050050
NCDWR Sub-basin 03-06-04
Project Drainage Area(acres) 452(Reach R4 main stem at downstream confluence w/Cane Creek)
Project Drainage Area Percent Impervious <1%
CGIA Use Classification 2.01.01.01,2.03.01,2.99.01,3.02/Forest(49%)Agriculture(46%)Impervious Cover(1%)
Reach Summary Information
Parameters Reach Rt Reach R3 Reach R4 Reach R5 Reach R5a
Length of Reach(linear feet) 1,052 400 2,731 1,925 145
Valley Classification(Rosgen) VII VII VII VII VII
Drainage Area(acres) 80 91 452 290 14
NCDWR Stream Identification Score 30.5 36 42.5 38.5 33.5
NCDWR Water Quality Classification WS V;NSW
Morphological Description
Incised E G Bc(upstream)/ F(downstream) G B
(Rosgen stream type)
Evolutionary Trend Incised E-Gc-F Bc G4Fb Bc-G-Fb Bc-G-Fb B-G
Underlying Mapped Soils We,GaE,Cg,DbB We We,GbD3,Mc,Cg,TaD We We
Drainage Class Poorly drained Poorly drained Poorly Poorly Poorly
drained
Soil Hydric Status Hydric Hydric Hydric Hydric Hydric
Average Channel Slope(ft/ft) 0.0127 0.0168 0.0169 0.0126 0.0223
FEMA Classification N/A Zone AE Zone AE N/A N/A
Native Vegetation Community Piedmont Small Stream
Percent Composition of Exotic/Invasive Vegetation <5% I <5% I <5% I <5% I <5%
Regulatory Considerations
Regulation Applicable Resolved Supporting Documentation
Waters of the United States—Section 404 Yes Yes Categorical Exclusion
Waters of the United States—Section 401 Yes Yes Categorical Exclusion
Endangered Species Act No N/A Categorical Exclusion
Historic Preservation Act No N/A Categorical Exclusion
Coastal Area Management Act(CAMA) No N/A Categorical Exclusion
FEMA Floodplain Compliance Yes Yes Categorical Exclusion
Essential Fisheries Habitat No N/A Categorical Exclusion
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC.
YEAR 7 MONITORING REPORT
UT TO CANE CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT(DMS PROJECT NO.95729)

Appendix B
Visual Assessment Data

i
Fig 4A
'F::;1"' ' Reach B eaLk ti
•i * • • ° �.
%
*Ps, P ''',. f i-;,'""::-.-,A-47 ;,-..:4'.1 '..'',-." .., --"- .- -r,;ik ' .,*
4r
,� _ ik
Fig 4B �
ft
,- • ' Reach R4
}i; ya
Conservation Easement r'.• w 0 ..'•F• :'
Crest Gauge ,_. • Fig 4C -, .' .
0 Photo-Points - 1 4 4 = °',;r" ;:::,4= ).
Cross Sections - � �': ,_ :•y-
Stream Crossings
r
Bank Repair in MY6 (Stabilizing) ,. .., _ .',1,`;.-'' '
r.:
VPA: Privet Resprouts {.
Privet Treated (March 2020) ..
•
* Beaver Dam (Removed March 2020) ,,4 •, •, •
As-Built Stream by Mitigation Type f 'r,;=' v Fig 4D s
f
Restoration •'�r '`` '
Enhancement I . ' ,
Reach R1
Enhancement II
No Credit
VegPlots (All Passed) _ 4 ``'' V.
`'. .w.: a":'i.-?: r:
0 250 500 N Current Condition
Michael Baker Feet Plan View - Figure Index
DEQ - Division of Mitigation Services Monitoring Year 7
NTERNATIONALI Project #95729 UT to Cane Creek Site

_ Conservation Easement ..f, ;'.�"�'�.. ka:. _'. -
Crest Gauge d_ ' .. ' '
•
•
A Photo-Points },: • '., -. • . .. -
Cross Sections F
- Stream Crossings ` 4' .
. • . PP-1
In-Stream Structures x i .
Stream Top Of Bank jY ` - It._ :4,
VPA: Privet Resprouts , - -..t• y" {
"Ilin
1.
As-Built Streams ByMitigation Type 7. ' = .: '
1.
Restoration 7-•' '7 •
- Enhancement I j
Enhancement I I .4 �Y'•4.:.
- No Credit X-Section 1 - _ " - -
Veg Plots (All Passed) 4 .L• ' ' _
_r:- '•., a '. '-ira ;
- it.., `' Veg Plot 1 �' `
.. Y t',-, •_ . 648 stems/ac F -
X-Section 2 • ` '' .:' 'r:�'
.'• - PP-5
X-Section 3 `-
r V.
•`.r�•. � �' Reach R5
PP 6
=1�. 4- - : -'ft' Crest Gauge#1
k
, C 'tr' zs`
„iv- ,,,,,„, 4 , ' . ,.,t. gl-4,,:.:`.
i. . . as
5
•
14 1
'C',t" X-Section 4
Michael Baker o 100 N Current Condition
Feet Plan View - Figure 4A
Monitoring Year 7
N T E R N A T I N A L DEQ Division of Mitigation Services UT to Cane Creek Site
IProject#95729

y. ; ^ X.. -Section 4
1 r, : .X-Section 5 •, . aYf
X-Section 6 .. `0.-"`'=
g4...
,: Veg Plot 2
. mN r „ _ 890 stems/ac
}'' i C3.t. /.-._.''gym .-L
Veg Plot 6 �� r;, _ �:
• i';" ..' 648 stems/ac ';A- .. .;Ty; .
�f- 3 fP.
_,A' -f.fir•.55.4;, L• t.. ..�Y ,'' '' •, �..
A:,....4. %II, ,,• , ,
Reach R4 ". \ :.-,
,:CT': . V
/. ' ,s. 410,, ,,A, . . ,,._
-*,.., ... .
. . . , #j1 • tiYA' Veg Plot 3 -
o., , y' - i � * 526 stems/ac •1*
,�.'' i. Y ' L'sY _ ' •".,...
_ Conservation Easement " ,:, ,`� w i ,i
A Photo-Points ;�i..# } -. 1• 4 ? `
•
Crest Gauge !-, .-is 'Ace -
Cross Sections �'� I
,i
it.
v.
- Stream Crossings
F ,.
g xs•ti ",,: . ..,-4P., , .re::y '• X-Section 7
- In-Stream Structures 1 - ;=;� ' ' .��. `
Stream Top Of Bank '' -y_._ . s1 ,�
Bank Repair in MY6 (Vegetating and Stabilizing) z Previous Bank Repair w t `"
p +;
Area from MY6 (Stabilizing) .r , -•
VPA: Privet Resprouts
y
As-Built Streams By Mitigation Type
X-Section 8 i
Restoration L 6. T _. - le,.., `
4.Fy roe '; 0,�:ti ..r , ,�,
- Enhancement I _ ;: . k.� `.
E71t
II • '. ilfr t
'l
- ., ..
- Passed) + •, 'r'
2013Orthoimagery: N CO 1 p In - c3,.. :prir o.�fntiligintiitd
�;imii! >: • - Analysis w' '.,�+;••_�. -:�`
0 100 200 N Current Condition
Michael Baker Feet Plan View - Figure 4B
Monitoring Year 7
N T E R N A T I N A L DEQ Division of Mitigation Services UT to Cane Creek Site
IProject#95729

_ Conservation Easement �'- " '`' ' '-" '•: ;.
_ .
Crest Gauge TSB. •. .
A Photo-Points - '
Cross Sections -' - _ �; ' X-Section 7
- Stream Crossings - OPP-14
- In-Stream Structures "- i
Stream TopOf Bank _:,'_b 9. '
-, X-Section 8
Bank Repair in MY6 (Vegetating and Stabilizing) ` -
VPA: Privet Resprouts - •`. . ... • Previous Bank Repair Area
Of Privet Treated (March 2020) from MY6 (Stabilizing) - •
As-Built Streams By Mitigation Type
Restoration 4
- Enhancement I •
Enhancement II °'
- No Credit
•..t-4!.. .,
Veg Plots (All Passed) l _ -•
fs s
F
e
d i Privet Treated -
;: Privet Treated
t (0.36 ac) . (0.14 ac)
, ... _
, , Veg Plot 4
;k. r Li 405 405 stems/ac
tb: %..• ilk ' ' -..._, ,
s. • . -,#. 1 c , •... . ,
• ;:- \
„ 0
1 X-Section 9
5'..,j,.f :0,,r.''•. ' dr ,.i.... . '# -."I.' kN.. ....\\\\1 • - . .
i • l'A.'q - h:.. J...
=K 93 Oitt canntgay, IM6 o - =0,IM o' ' 3!a i0'u tnErirt tirtd
o 100 200 N Current Condition
Michael Baker
Feet Plan View - Figure 4C
Monitoring Year 7
N T E R N A T I N A L DEQ Division of Mitigation Services UT to Cane Creek Site
Project#95729

' 1 /..,lire°' T: ! -.. i to •f� ` 1
p ...
l: ''t`
ti.
i• iir r�r P, FA' r .
+ .
k
t Veg Plot 5 �`.• ,
405 stems/ac -� • s ' - ��-'
`.1-'
X-Section 1f1 7740A _. `{`
PP-19x P ;• 1`, i,:... " ...", ,
4 $r.' ... y 7 :Th: k.r ,• •
--,.. , . . , ...-.,'Wit*.A.. • .,,,'. ' ' ' ,,,i'5,,.., „i--,4.o...*4.„r
X-Section 10 '-°'.: - . .:. - ,,-... ' -
--f
{ X-Section 12 - ,:,,.; :
_F•'' Y r fir= .. ' _�� :-i.+'.
-n
if •
"
• ,h , . , / _ .0;04FP .
t. "Y
4
_ Conservation Easement f4 -
* Beaver Dam (Removed March 2020) :
A Photo-Points _
•fie:• •° __
Cross Sections r f _ `
- In-Stream Structures
Stream Top Of Bank r
t
As-Built Streams ByMitigation Type �t
9 Yp
Restoration ; +f r
. .. „..,. .
Enhancement I �[ ryp' ;
VIP'- '-'
Enhancement II ,••�- :- t .Ic
by ate-=- }`
- No Credit 1` ,. ,t •'k
Veg Plots (All Passed) �(� ..
2013 Orthoimagery: NC .- Op y1 - -r for Geographic" Ate- :"''':. 4• A.
. Analysis, NC 911 Board , t . J . ` '`
0 100 200 N Current Condition
Michael Baker Feet Plan View - Figure 4D
Monitoring Year 7
N T E R N A T l O N A L DEQ Division of Mitigation Services UT to Cane Creek Site
Project#95729

Table 5a.Visual Steam Morphology Stability Assessment
UT to Cane Creek Restoration Project:DMS Project ID No.95729
Reach ID:Reach 1
Assessed Length(LF):1,045
Number Stable, Number of %Stable, Number with Footage with Adjusted%for
Total Number per Amount of
Major Channel Category Channel Sub-Category Metric Performing as As-builtUnstable Unstable Footage Performing as Stabilizing Stabilizing Stabilizing
Intended Segments Intended Woody Veg. Woody Veg. Woody Veg.
1.Aggradation Mr 0 0 100% I
1.V ertical Stability
2.Degradation 0 0 100%
2.Riffle Condition 1.Texture Substrate 9 9 100%
1.Bed 1.Depth 21 21 100%
3.Meander Pool Condition
2.Length 21 21 100%
1.Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend(Run) 21 21 100%
4.Thalweg Position
2.Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend(Glide) 20 20 100%
1.Scoured/Eroding . . 100% 0 0 100%
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or scour and erosion
2.Bank 2.Undercut Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears likely . . 100% 0 0 100%
3.Mass Wasting Banks slumping,caving or collapse . . 100% 0 0 100%
Totals 100% 0 0 100%
4 4 100%
3.Engineering Structures 1.Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs
2.Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill 4 4 100%
2a.Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sill or arms 4 4 100%
3.Bank Position Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15% 4 4 100%
4.Habitat Pool forming structures maintaining-Max Pool Depth 4 4 MI. 100%
Table 5a.Visual Steam Morphology Stability Assessment
UT to Cane Creek Restoration Project:DMS Project ID No.95729
Reach ID:Reach 3
Assessed Length(LF):398
Number Stable, Number of %Stable, Number with Footage with Adjusted%for
Total Number per Amount of
Major Channel Category Channel Sub-Category Metric Performing as As-built Unstable Unstable Footage Performing as Stabilizing Stabilizing Stabilizing
Intended Segments Intended Woody Veg. Woody Veg. Woody Veg.
1.Aggradation 1 0 0 100%
1.V ertical Stability
2.Degradation 0 0 100%
2.Riffle Condition 1.Texture Substrate 6 6 100%
1.Bed 1.Depth 3 3 100%
3.Meander Pool Condition
2.Length 3 3 100%
1.Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend(Run) 3 3 100%
4.Thalweg Position
2.Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend(Glide) 3 3 100%
1.Scoured/Eroding Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or scour and erosior. 0 0 100% 0 0 100%
2.Bank 2.Undercut Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears likely 100% 0 0 100%
3.Mass Wasting Banks slumping,caving or collapse . . 100% 0 0 100%
Totals 100% 0 0 100%
lb
3.Engineering Structures 1.Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs 4 4 100%
2.Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill 4 4 100%
2a.Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sill or arms 4 4 100%
3.Bank Position Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15% 4 4 100%
4.Habitat Pool forming structures maintaining-Max Pool Depth 4 4 100%
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC.
YEAR 7 MONITORING REPORT
UT TO CANE CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT(DMS PROJECT NO.95729)

Table 5a.Visual Steam Morphology Stability Assessment
UT to Cane Creek Restoration Project:DMS Project ID No.95729
Reach ID:Reach 4
Assessed Length(LF):2,743
Number Stable, Number of %Stable, Number with Footage with Adjusted%for
Total Number per Amount of
Major Channel Category Channel Sub-Category Metric Performing as Unstable Performing as Stabilizing Stabilizing Stabilizing
Intended As-built Segments Unstable Footage Intended Woody Veg. Woody Veg. Woody Veg.
1.Aggradation 0 0 100%
L.V ertical Stability
2.Degradation 0 0 100%
2.Riffle Condition 1.Texture Substrate 7 7 100%
1.Bed 1.Depth 2 2 100%
3.Meander Pool Condition
2.Length 2 2 100%
1.Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend(Run) 2 2 100%
4.Thalweg Position
2.Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend(Glide) 2 2 100%
1.Scoured/Eroding Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or scow and erosion 100% 0 0 100%
2.Bank 2.Undercut Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears likely . . 100% 0 0 100%
3.Mass Wasting Banks slumping,caving or collapse . . 100% 0 0 100%
Totals U 100% 0 0 99%
3.Engineering Structures 1.Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs 3 3 100%
2.Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill 3 3 100%
2a.Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sill or arms 3 3111111k 100%
3.Bank Position Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15% 3 3 100%
4.Habitat Pool forming structures maintaining-Max Pool Depth 3 3 100%
Table 5a.Visual Steam Morphology Stability Assessment
UT to Cane Creek Restoration Project:DMS Project ID No.95729
Reach ID:Reach 5
Assessed Length(LF):2,039
Number Stable, Number of %Stable, Number with Footage with Adjusted°A for
Total Number per Amount of
Major Channel Category Channel Sub-Category Metric Performing as As-built Unstable Unstable Footage Performing as Stabilizing Stabilizing Stabilizing
Intended Segments Intended Woody Veg. Woody Veg. Woody Veg.
1.Aggradation M. E. 0 0 100%
1.V ertical Stability
2.Degradation 0 0 100%
2.Riffle Condition 1.Texture Substrate 15 15 =I 100%
1.Bed 1.Depth 19 19 100%
3.Meander Pool Condition
2.Length 19 19 100%
1.Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend(Run) 19 19 100%
4.Thalweg Position _
2.Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend(Glide) 18 18 100%
1.Scoured/Eroding Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or scour and erosion 100% 0 0 100°a
2.Bank 2.Undercut Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears likely . . 100% 0 0 100°o
3.Mass Wasting Banks slumping,caving or collapse 0 0 100% 0 0 100°o
Totals 0 0 100% 0 0 100°a
3.Engineering Structures 1.Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs 17 17 100%
2.Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill 17 17 100%
2a.Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sill or arms 17 17 100%
3.Bank Position Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15% 17 17 100%
4.Habitat Pool forming structures maintaining-Max Pool Depth 17 17 100%
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC.
YEAR 7 MONITORING REPORT
UT TO CANE CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT(DMS PROJECT NO.95729)

Table 5b. Stream Problem Areas(SPAs)
UT to Cane Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No.95729
Feature Issue Station Numbers Suspected Cause Photos
None -
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC.
YEAR 7 MONITORING REPORT
UT TO CANE CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT(DMS PROJECT NO.95729)

Table 6a. Vegetation Conditions Assessment
UT to Cane Creek Restoration Project:DMS Project ID No.95729
Planted Acreage:14.0
Mapping CCPV Number of Combined %of Planted
Vegetation Category Defintions Threshold
Depiction Polygons Acreage Acreage
(acres)
1.Bare Areas Very limited cover both woody and herbaceous material. 0.1 NA 0 0.00 0.0%
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3,4 0.1 NA 0 0.00 0.0%
2.Low Stem Density Areas or 5 stem count criteria.
Total 0 0.00 0.0%
Areas with woody stems or a size class that are obviously small 0.25 NA 0 0.00 0.0%
3.Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor given the monitoring year.
Cumulative Total 0 0.00 0.0%
Easement Acreage:19.9
Vegetation Category Defintions Mapping CCPV Number of Combined %of Easement
Threshold Depiction Polygons Acreage Acreage
1000 ft� Green polygons 4 1.80 9.0%
5.Invasive Areas of Concern Areas or points(if too small to render as polygons at map scale) with hatching
6.Easement Encroachment Areas Areas or points(if too small to render as polygons at map scale) none NA 0 0.00 0.0%
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC.
YEAR 7 MONITORING REPORT
UT TO CANE CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT(DMS PROJECT NO.95729)

Table 6b. Vegetation Problem Areas(VPAs)
UT to Cane Creek Restoration Project:DMS Project ID No.95729
Feature Issue Location Suspected Cause Photos
Scattered Chinese privet Reach R4:Mid and lower right bank and lower left
bank. Reach R3:Lower left bank. Total area—1.8 Re-sprouts N/A
(Ligustrum sinense)
acres
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC.
YEAR 7 MONITORING REPORT
UT TO CANE CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT(DMS PROJECT NO.95729)

UT to Cane Creek: MY7 Stream Station Photo-Points (from 10/08/20)
a i a1j, - .. 'y ^may f„+ �`� §. tta.. - ' .... .. �•
I '3 y,4 i., .-• yid:' J ' y 4, .Z.-' 3: ,y[V`
� .,x � _ _ � a W `_, � �, 4a "ems' r-�
qy� �
3
c. w a
+',ft r
alas �, ;, �' Y is ' , �, a - fit,,, i ''yyh
t' �` -ate`; - €3yr"I,�' a� 'x ' "°e,,`�3'm' a' ,'�'"_ - "mow L .y A` 4,- . `n k -
' a ' �' ' orb+'' - � �'''1: �''w - +, l3 ,.'--:-t .—> `C f (e' t C
/�ci / F^ � .� n \ 'i .', f, ._ . -, 4 $ # _§ '� tt' 4-ter r x f ra
•, I / a. Zs-e b P A �";,�t �, {kt 1 - 1T 5 4y,' -4, y' 8 ''. Arm- � ��'� a, 1?
4.,�,bf'��d >tr^ i';5a � �` " r ��a i `�V I ltli 1,',.'' ",y�� 1: 1?` '�a'R I,i
��i0-:12 s. .J.' v . g�'` I. n / 7t say.. M'M-
Sa. � .. .� .r.''t A '+'� ''Ia'u�H'�'w'f" 'y a2'pM, ti„wo�
PP-1: Reach R5,view upstream, Station 11+50 PP-2: Reach R5, view upstream, Station 12+50
WA
1 � !n .. 1 a 1�
° '; i f '>`�'.tsA e� r � t �I _ !,1` 'r a,t�-,�., � ,y i -
14 ,
i. ,,,e.„..,. ..,,,,,,, :i..407,0 14.... _._ _ f„,.1 [ '
,- .h.-*-m ,,q,. ; 'i i ,, T• �'.�,. ' ^_ _ fir s
��i�'�'W ��_ ��� Wyk J '�� , �� 6 S "
f 1;:
�,14.
_ - M
PP-3: Reach R5,view upstream, Station 13+75 PP-4: Reach R5,view upstream, Station 16+50
_ �+k ..'' 4..'s-- E r�' �,�w" 'kr."',.)4 �, _ 1 f, N r ; j i' E 1,N.4$���J. b Ir. A. '� 9,.,;FI'. * F1jØM
'Ji€ Fif' ' u«#+fib+r � � #x x' ^Ft�'� ?� '� ' ,�, "
f �' Y _ ° a• A :,fie"'*` '�,'; �` �`pf b t : ` !, '._ y f'
-- "" '�F !� s� G' ' . 'r �'�l f �:, �i':a:x '� , P.f'v°Y� ' f
s_
,. `u_, ✓ d ' Y,a �� �„ � per ,.:4 `- - 4 c c � z v :
tt
' ter � �4'` / —
ir/t
, 7 :#.A, ,' ". % ?74v . ' ."'sad„ "' k � (R #a,:- 'Is±i� yF N -�,I, �w�
it-vr
PP-5: Reach R5,view upstream, Station 17+25 PP-6: Reach R5,view upstream, Station 20+00

UT to Cane Creek: MY7 Stream Station Photo-Points (from 10/08/20)
'' ' tiktt atir ,-Z:',.'
��`ali �l}'��'- �d,'� k�2`"�'1 t ,F �F{ '�I� . ;�r° ��;� i' -i /,�--"t' � - i _ � . V i
`. „e'jY R,." •3 x e. : . r _'�.,�Y, , da. - r -- \`\ \�'\ / -I•—
bi
a'z s S•y , L- '. i -;' ,s .F ! :'Z dam.c- - ` • - - ,-
.0.,
iffm,
•
'�' A y nfi l � � "�'• 11
:*� • �, g, j
-.re-�,J� au-
from �. I I Y.771- r, _•`+�"i1 ,',,.�'`n i3"'f511.. .a: �r„ ' . T,, a 5
PP-7: Reach R5, •view upstream from crest gauge, PP-8: Reach R5,view upstream of culvert crossing
Station 22+00 Station 24+75
b - °.i Rai is v--� 'N ,r 'v'@- - , ,, '- a
x s a�,i 'mil , - w d"?" .. ``"' ' '. am - • a �-
77 I� =r - 4.'' '4, 3 _ ,,'fir I..dJ f1 ^ !�"�¢ -sI+. " �i„'
d a ' w'
t .t+dsR¢ a '
L _ f, F.x 'J� ham, V y3 d° �, "apu!` - �'° ¢°�
. b-' j "° ' i -� � ; ,' yam-•€
,e*,-,,,--iii-v- a
PP-9- Reach R5,view upstream, Station 28+50 PP-10: Reach R3,view upstream,at cross-section 6
F rF s - ,S
,4 C"- ,' lam'-..-J W 7,. .rr.-t-‘l i,.'..,-,:k,:„!r.::.'-4,',.,..,'10 1 -
t
= i*6
I.
_. .. . ., - '?Y• � r ti
Nt" ginr e,, i - t --r •-• o- � . V- t ; ra ¢ 9s i � NJ' t f. kk�f s � -� r r F '` Ptz�, . � a ' a sG„� Y " i1* Jt r 4 ' c w •r . 4F .yam{ ''; 't"1 ... ; ''' '-. -.
Alio,
k— - - s m ..r` �`` Sri ae`x
PP-11: Reach R4,view upstream, Station 31+50 PP-12: Reach R4,view of upstream, Station 35+00

UT to Cane Creek: MY7 Stream Station Photo-Points (from 10/08/20) .y
,.....-. .4..- ' ..,711-,:'-''''_,..:- .7-..tr.:.; - ..- ...' P7., . ''',•-'rvi.,-..v,V.-1.,, ,..4......-.A.,•;:,,-..,•*',z.i.,:.•,. ..:- . , '',...;:..
+S {- "r
.� w _ � t ' .ty fit+ _ - ;r ��. 5 r ,S?;`y'� ti 'e'_ 47
•••• • ,. . .;.,.. . : ;i:/v,-A .:-.,,,,.-'-'4,..",-,•41.-e--„ .: .,.•<(,,,1,,,..,./•-;,..•.;,,•fo,,,,t,,!:,414.-k "4-,„•,..:91i- •
gg Orr-
%
fi. I r k -, : , tom, .• co.'''.:
y 41 tot*
n
PP-13: Reach R4,view upstream, Station 38+50 PP-14: Reach R4,view upstream, Station 43+50
4�� is 4 S y, ' r am"..
,�4
_ _ ,, __.,,.1.
ww.,... .4..,,,,-,. 1,:,, :,.:,,,t1' .ca-- _'1:-_ :•Y.•'4,,f11,14.,7'.`93--.:4-14' - -• P -----I 7..---'-_-- - --- -._._!__2-',.-..45.z.; - - '--.-.= -. -i,--,:i ..=:..
lifiti. ., ,....,-..-- r -co ,,.. 1.,;-..if i...f.— oir. ..: ' . -...4,- ' - - -.7 -— -4- ,-__. _ 1- — 1- -. '' —'i -'4{1.1',...:-,-
tir
� • _- Y-'a
-1.: .1`# :y yrT b A,"..-, +aT "E„ - `_Jr�x� __ _ + - e.. .r•
r m �
PP-15: Reach R4, view upstream, Station 49+00 PP-16: Reach R4,view upstream at crossing,
�r, Station 53+00
�.; � � $ - . i - ,:, <,r��Hf' 4- „Y . € ''` �'! t ifka
--At 4: 4,7i•". --.. ,,N- i,sit.'",sk.,,c,4,.!,- - .#04,10,fir-4--74.4)e.-3-;,-41.•• 2', •
•
mt `` • 5 ' '' a �'�
Y •
't;.. _ 7-\ �,J p °"'1 ti,'?l= 5.�,' l'', '3-z4 4 +`�. y_ _ r ._.•'" . ;-a i �F d; ,z ,4'a
ilk
4
'••:',1',"7:-,A-r-• tlr'"'"7.0.6*.r.. :''-'''''''-'r'''''it'0".'1,4' ,5•3-47,i7,..',:i;.0..t.,•'4.7X4c---iji".,":.:::;“;:..,:-.t.--..".•
Pr
PP-17: Reach R4,view upstream, Station 54+75 PP-18: Reach R4,view upstream, Station 56+50

UT to Cane Creek: MY7 Stream Station Photo-Points (from 10/08/20)
` a. Nr ` i' f.—, 4r 41'" 'a'�1' 1-7
r 'r. -4 E G.�. as f..
i
rvi 4 - ;*r. 7$4-',6^!..,,'"°'4--.-" ';44A••,°,-A-1,4"4'',.,, , .' ' Yk,V.4 '''''T.! .,•?;-:''...,'" '''::';.„...4'''.!7` . .
'G 1:1 ,mow, ' _ i� .,5
' a t d� -_W _ � '•"' i `- 4` _ :,+i 0'z'is`- - f ,�r".a .r�� i,k�,Vt - i' i-
ya.K of a "�''> "�f 3 ���. , � � - ,y �•� 4 ,� � ��_
m 1�7y -tip rc _ 1I � ' t ' �JlZ-r
..? ''''' ' — .
ti
..; .,,' w k f -,.�t.. fit. 1 r , - ?,..s..l:i'r- '- 'i A yti.' ' % `,-. i �" ,,'�! 5- „
.ism --' 1r,`'�w•s 3`.,"�, inF= `Z R, *.A.:....-"
. 1t s^.1,. a.r_4.. � 1 M1 �. �`'jr '+ 7, `�." . TT 4,A(-
r.� '- -rx j * >0' -0 ' i ,a •lei§ `o- ? �. '¢ F t /y''
s.44,-; _,-.;,,,l'f6,---44:47,-7 ,t,--.,., -- __ ,,,,....,,,,,..;;A4;: v., f...., -,...,,,,,,..:4;4T, ,::''7%,._ ,M1.,'+;\--‘''' . ,. - - -
PP-19: Reach R1 view upstream, Station 10+50 PP-20: Reach R1,view upstream, Station 13+50
4)
I Atiti
' iliitt
ZYt i� � S _ .� i �'� .e __ A �d g�M€- � � �r - �� �" � - C _ � �9�` � ,�,y �-rr k ¢y, ,,' �`
' ' P IL' dx ;��y s ri - n. :e-}'z,` yy"i' k ., 'rk€^w� , : '' "-- '
+. # # f 1' .x` hLd:, �� ��3 ,=� x ,1� z `•, -Ps�.ate+ 1
I �5n a 'i :: ,s '."',V." '�. ''g, s- '' ? r :ti `' i •}its r s £�. �. `'x_,-; .r
liz;,' ' ` 1: '1 x,4, ' # , J ,71 xy !,, _ t +i 3, c t$' ��s.x.,, `� r. _..
xr J 1 - S-,'''.' '. + .*' ah„ :'� Ia '' ��y �.
y' ,' fi ,s
PP-21: Reach R1,view upstream, Station 15+00 PP-22: Reach Rl,view upstream, Station 17+00
•
is
tea•, _ r f _ - I
+�77- �3 r„ " - fir ,r
[t
As
r� 6e... i ' �� yr "w• 4
- } V - 7 y - y i s �, .-lv,+'F.
PP-23: Reach R1,view upstream, Station 19+25 PP-24: Reach R1,view upstream, Station 20+00

8/28/2°, ?,.,.,-.,*
. - '.‘•'. -4-'--t.''''''i*.-- '.-:'-'
• Plot UT to Cane
„ ...-.....„. i•'11;.'.. • 4-71\7,!, •-• - ... -...' ,, ., : _,•.•2'•.:: '4.-:--4:',"
,.... .-..- : , ..,,,--...--:<-...,:- .--,-,,:_ ...=,.'..: .:- '..':.'14k;
Creek: MY7 VegetationPhotographs (from
--,- :L '-.''''t'',,,'..:-..-''•.'"Y'''''''•'•.•'''%.':''-'':'.;-. ' .•'. ' .•:;€:r::7'.4. , • ., ,,,..,.7!i•. .., • _••' _. ":',....._.. ':,.1 .• :-..,;. ji• ;..• ,,,7...-7,,..• ' -_-:-.11 . '--
.,.1.1'...? ."..', ...,- ''''.4.'.7,,,,`1...,:7'7", .:':".j..-';,:.•4•:' :- -" -,,:h....",......''''.:-.ii*fik L.-:.:471:'T.'',,. :'.--, .. , . - .. T. :.,--„. .....:':'!,>:: 'iA,';',':.,' -_ '. . .
t'-'1.,,..e:,...,te-,..-§iii:di- .7,:. ''-'-': •-;.:',-. .;.-,...,- :'. ',--,'. :`',44.0.w4-.-,..,..-2.-•.„-.2.t.t.--
. . _ . ., ..... . . ,. . .. ..
'X'-'41'•, -----4"474"--451--- . '•.:- - . '. ..,--.::•v:i.:,.. .•,.---:0-7-,,,..,',...,;..,:., . . _
......'.
,-,,,. -...:ffv,_.7.N.. ..i.Y.'3.-.4;r:f,-;44,71P-.-:',,;..,.4-h.,.:*--S-,'t ,-..',„.j.,'. 17-ri.: -',..; ''',: • , al '_
ikk,;=,'Atp.-,0.14,...„k-•...1.,,i... .-i, • .?.,-:*:,, - ; .
H;,,- .,`.. .',-•,.:, .,:_.;.(,..,. :7;,_ ' -_,7Vsk ...A.pf*:-.`.. ... -... - .'.'..-_,_4,
-•,•-4.4?--:-•:.--:,-;':•'-i `-: :•'4''''':!'4'•'1.,'*1 0'4.i'4".'-.., ' ' ' ' . ' • - .
...'7'fi•9 '. :-;,. T.4,:r''';•.,.',. ...i.,:',A
• ... .. .., ..; . ... . : ...
. ....... ,„..... . ,._ ,
..-... .. • - . •
',.7...:A*--•• ...41-', .•:':';; I-1 -.0..--.--.:-!:-7 ...j•A%'11y-'Oww,,:;..,‘ ,71::,, •
. ,... . ...
, : .....
.--,,,....",...„,,,z,F ,,:-.4sio, :;.,,,,=_:...-.: ,..,,,.,,,,_....T.,..q.,..*.‘,,,.,.r.-....1, „, .,, ,.,;:, ,.,.,.,...,.. • . : ,`":- • - .!..- . ''
----,.•••---,-P,-•, ,•-•,---,r-• --- '0`-- ,...:'.••••.4-,:..m. to.,..,.---,. ;,,,,i4,11.44,1..‘';`• • -,,-,,.,,..-:_.,-4,-,itn,:.6... ., . .
,7 -.. 1.,.,,,,,. ,,,,7,..N:..--;.T„,._4., . . . -,""- -..1,„, ',,ii.,,.. -"2:',..'•,-,-..-';_.r,,c,x,-i:,_:-.---.4, . -' .,-;'.:7-','-;,-.V",.7--•....-.'.-. .'..., .
k y...,.__,e1,. .-1: ----,:, --.. .._.'"'-..• '' ' . - '. . ___....,-J-.-':-.".:,:i-A-1111,;_,:''Mt':...V.:..,..k)'kl-:.q.i '. -. . — . 1
t*t4i:
!'.',.'e.::...7..k. -.-'-'.t.F..-,..e, ...-4..gi i- ,. _.: -..:-_‘-.-- . . .•.._ .4„,,,.-- .
7
' *;•.' •-N..
"1:"--•'-•'.''/ ;- • _:•---- - --
•
...., . .
- ./ - •'---•....-:_...
Vegetation
. _, .44 Is. • .,-7,44 ..
„,..., eQ•gielf 33'' •-•,- •• -.'"--- , '',:j.":2 ' . ..e ""te. .--.. .•" " --".: --••' ..` '..:- -,i: .: ..',
Plot 1 Vegetation Plot 2
(
---4,s4,---,..-7 - -, ;; -. ..- ,iif!. A*.,." ..--7-te'N-- .. . :.', .....p i e:::,- ; ' . ,---. _•-
_ • • .-. -!-•%11tit.-.:;,";',.-'''t-°`-..".;; •!......-, .-,-- . 8-t. - :;....,, z..,:f. /.,_
...-_--j:A -1,„,,,,, ,1°70,-:,-'-.Aff.e:. . - •-,:1-..,..... -.-- , , -1- .--.
•:_...---..:- --• -..; :-.._ --.-•_..t.,...,,,,,4., „,;-_,_ .„....: • :., _-,....y-,--...:.-,tili* -At _ T - :;:,41 , .14A ." -.•••-••-4..i.illit '''. ,. -, '. -'y''
-; i,"'L,,,..",_ „:". ,•-• ' •,47 nti,.' : ,..trt•-•: IA,4;741 - ,-•.. - 1 • . 7 '
'N,"7,51`'-.:'..,:.' 5.'- -4.-:9'44. .-. '-(. ." ' . T:,,• ,- .. ,, • ...,
, • _ .. ,-•:•: ,,-. _- -..: _ 4r,:.tip• ...,... ,-,-,1#1,:liqi•• _ ,--.•-;:41---.- •••• . ,..- .. . • ''''
id
0„.-. , ^•. _ .. -. '..:i.-.412 ..,„,4 ,4,0,**7--.k.-- ,i;-.-.. .j- 342142-1.7' ‘----mit
..g-,!!:-,,.P..t..-i_;'t:'--•-.--,'44_••tr.4--"...w-...-r•.,-.,,_,...F',...../,.,-'.-1'e,.-':.,.,1-._.......:.:4.-,-,--•:%,-].,..4.-.-x..:.',:..,.,,.f{:L,„.,.,.,.'.:•::..,',;„'..,,:i").,.--,."-,L4'*',.,,,.....;-*.i•,..b,/,4..k,,,i.'47--,:z-,r,.4..,„4_.:-,-;",-,:,e..%0A,',*,,,,.,L.1';,4,•,1-,;t'4„..
, k.',4tf.?o:4,4:'z„&-4,:i,-''-'.1,-e;(-.,,-,,..,--,,:ik--,.,.,....t.,=,.f7,4.!.,::!:4!,*.71--I,-C-,--,--;g--,--.:-o.::,:-:.,'''-,'-' ../i.,,4t--;,o.-0•..-
-•,..,._.-•1
, .
Of
r4 4.0
..„4,0,_,... •If.,..:',..,i,-,4,--,5. -4.,,,iv.-.-A 1 *. , 1,-A_,_ • 941E— .' .' . .'..'' ;'7. ,":44.10: .:-....-T. ''s, "•":"*NC:1
.. .:.•..t,....4 --.._:::r,,,,-f:•=ir,-''..A ,.,"-'....,74..--..,...„..,-.-,,..A4,,,z1.--:-.4!"--Ti,titi( .:-'•44..-''44t4'-1-','- : ' '. ' ' :'''0 ... ..,
.,.t-nt.'4-, •!-." •.q.:••...,,,•:''',:. .4 -.• ' ',,,,..-4:Irk,A It ,•4••,'--:„,•-,. .•',- -='•,,-, _
•r•r.:'•:'1' •,,,2,:-,. „•••.:,•••-:_:•in:!Alili.01.,t,-4 a;*,„.,,!,, !r-A-4•010 g,-,_. -"Z"4'4-0,- !7-,•::r_-: ,,
- .-..'.,.'.;,1-,,,-- , -,,A---7,05--,-‘.,!.;..io*-r-:--1,..,i'44e.;.„4,7'A:64'4,F:.4,4,7-..1-'_• .V-- .„, .. ., .
;7':.,'', .: .l'.:,...,-4 „e; , .d..-t:'::44°1.30%-filir7';51•;:-::"":.'-;;5.7"tt"4:1•0: I . ' •'-' , 'A . , '- -
. -;!.4'. - -:.i.gr '''47..4.."*.i°!,;IVii4'4•:::.,V t'.:t''''-. .....:,-,. .:;-..t.;,,.41.,, ," . --„., k. . . ' ,
-,..,,:,,,,, ...nig,--,,,,,,,,- 4,•.4.t.....4,,,4„-.:„,= ,. •,..;„,,...,.. ,1_,-.,,,,,,,„. .4,,,,e,,,n ..'i .„,,,, ,. ,,, ,,, ,
, .•-•••:•fr.-47::', !*:','V,,,,.. ,-,'--' !,i:Iti,,-; ',,':•:,.••••;'-.41.-,2--.. . ,;•.-,..,..•ITI? ;,,,:.:-..;„!:.:*1'- ..i„,•;_:• -,-! - '' - - ,
--:'• '...'••;21.1, 4 ir.itit...'-'4,••1.7*„.,;t:,:.•*:.44_- ..-••;',',.:-,z,;.'".1411,4vv,,_ , to. ' /-..r. - •
.-,...po,* ..,444,.:,:,,,,- vi,..,,-,„:_.,-;-„--.4----:4;.,,,:;?;,g4,'•,.„'A..;;,:.,,f7..,._4,._•_,.,44--.4,,... '' K.,..k.,,,..,y; , '
' -.:4g&IV02-,k-il417 7:1 eiii'ttv t;',4,47Ni4:-k,i-„,-,J.-' :' -,..-:),•...;,:, ..,,,f ,
.:-...'-reit.5,441.-i,'.it--L.,;'e•--.-'#:4.-4,''',';',-/..'4%.,.4.'--L:':.'- --- '-';'--
3
. .lr......10N.:-,.*: ,,,--•-ti•;7.7,', .-,:- - fl..,4., .-,': . . .. ' ...--: '-:-'
...•_,.:.,,,.1".:1 ..:-77,411, ' 0,' L.:,' ....- , . ::-:. ,-.7..-.:40.. ...7•••• ---.. ,.*.,,''',...-. - -- -"" ' - ..
Vegetation Plot
.,,„.- , . _ •. , ,,,,;.,., V::::a...,.,ttio:12Pl,::.,zier,.:
. .,,,,,. ...---•!•/.• '„.T.7,,,,,y-i -4-- --,.:..t.:i,,,...... '. . . . .._.::-:
it.w,f„,1z,v.,,,,i. .4",..-',44:- .1-'f;,..'/-ft!‘•_„. .:, : ,.:";.,;H-''' :'..J].. :..:'.-. _ '11111111 '. .•'''• •,,.-t;,..k.1,'•--_.'... ..1 •z.::••...---',. ...-•.- , . -,.„4.-. .; - - ::__...: . _....1-
,'. :1 "- '..-4 .1,4.'':.-..'re•- •:•••:_•--,..-:..,_.:„,44•-,,, 4:1-7,. .; -"..!:..rA 4.'I'...-"-'. ..-.•-z-.;-,:8,-,.: ..7'-'7:•--:-'-'-...: ' ••••••• ' - '." . ._.:.•:"-.--J_•1 ' - - _ - -'--.• .--':-.-Y-
;t4-. ,-7:‘,t-,.-.;:,.•'•'.7.k• . ',.. --. '.*.. ..'--.'4•.::.*' ,. 'W' -'''.4*.'''-'''.;--.- -"'; '-'-• • •
.4'. •• •,'.-''' '3'Cil."-:0 0,4° .••=---.-'''''..04 - jvi•'_,,k-zi-tw.vet -...4 0 _....,__,*-5, --- •-•'. - .f 0. -. .. - . , . - • •.•. - • •',— . . -
.,„( 43.1....
,p,..1,i„•:•" , __. • . .,.1r.„.44;,..,;1 :‘,4...:.i..:,...;,,,,,z),,,r4.,:2..,„:...iii.1::,,v,.. .):,...._;, ..,....i.„. .....;....,, .. _, ,, ..„,z,,.. ...,.:::. ..•. . , ..r .,,.,...... ..,..„.::.,
.,s,..:. _.,.,...,„ .: , 4%7.3,c.;,t,-..;:e--•':,-,.,-:'-vii ,k,-1 -4•,..‘, '',4:' 1•;tP;,..-:-''.l-...:- -. L- . ' - - . `'- --''',,';, 7,!.*,eillii- _-_,._f:„:.--.-- -. ' '''''
. ._ ..,:44*.;'.:-....,.,'...•'''''.„;'..%';'.,, :*,'W.i..-...,L •-:-....,-,47-*T:.r-.!4.,,.' '.,1-='t.:'...:'•-•-.- - - '
... 4,X4.1.-,4„7..,..1,:„:,.. . ' :.".,.1.'`..:kc",,..:1:1,,'"A'''..'A-':.••j414.:',•••,2::::.",!•,:":,• ':.,, .L. .''''',,..„',2_.2 n:-2•44 •,•., . Ai_ ..i.,,,:-„,t,..,...„.„:„.,:-.„-; , , ... -, ,. _ ,
-:=.„,,,,i,..-:-.,,, -,,_-......, ,..... i„,_,A.':,•.•4,4::.*•,='-;,°si:•'",•",ir"iw,.."•,:',...... •:: ...,•••.`,.,J.4.'••.-,,A• •.• •
. ..„......... ...,. _.. .
'',.,-,..,•-,;-,:...- ', ,_:',4;•,....4.yi-t,••ii.if-41''.,'-•,•:',.;.'',..4.0y,.4.it.....:7,4:-„ ,',40..:',f•?4 i,,:ior--i-,,-,1„: . . .•,.v7w,..- .....:,,;4 . . - . „... ...
,?,::,.-4.-•„;;;47.•,:.. .4.1%iiii'''..7-,Iiir?.:7'.,',,wei*.t.--••-:,,L2--'1.- ot--•,.2,4' --1 1,,,t4,':-., -L...fii?'......„-,
., .,. -.'Nifthi„, ...:.,-,.:„: • - -* ,
„,,,r„.•,,,,Fid.'• ••7,.. iii*,•4ifv.,.**1-;:o,'6:-:',4614•4;;•:'.4r."4-.72c:-• 1 .t....r, ri,;:4_,. :
V4V,:•44.-,‘.,.,-0.,,.,,,: .:!.::;:,•,1...„,::: 4.:.:,....;,.,,..4,..i',z,t';`;. .t.,;(, -' ':.:.P...-:',. 'ir ..q.,,'44 ;--'.---t'.. ;` ... ' -'''. .' ,:'-.0.7 ,; Y.'s-, ../IV-" ''''
ktft.•-'-•t'W.fdir-.'t '-,:-,-, • ,''-fk,'::'":--,.•.--'i•,''''.21;.• ''' ,''• ';•. .C1' 111(. .'• •-'. 'v...2,-1 ",...- ...."."..:.., . ,,, , ,,,•,-.70t nApt, ::•:.:-.--,...mlf.,,. .:. , ,
1":;e;?i:!"•:''.*.nA,,,,':,.?.;,::;1'.,,t:,,,,,,t,•4, •'...7'4:: 2:7',,::,•,•....--.4. •*-t''•,-, ty, ,,,,,,,,,,-.ira` ,•..5•-• ,n, . .L.,.:,"„e.,,i1.',2-:' . •••_. L . ••-.,.,""-N.--k.,,. ,,z,4.k.:..A.,_-,._._:..4, -:
;-'74'. .-7.-P;;.::-F-....'","...'-4.;.4,„,--,:c.,,,...'4.:. -"... : '''A ..-"!:::- .I:.:*..-.0k,.-0::.?A .=,.-.-..---':, . . 'Iril.F .',.-.;", -.-_•,-..,,i..... , „:- *,,,,,„..,-,'Ilkort,i,T;'.,.' :,',...:.-..-. .'-,
'g'1.-i3; 0',.41'il,-;4.-i_.-.• -,...fi,':_.-----...•:'..-4-,,,_:,:...„,-----f --L. ,:4;••••;:,41.------1 .-1.,.::,.,,* !,,,,,,,,,-, .),.--.• , •:•,,vv,...wi• 1.,,.;:,,,v:.••;4-'.':.;,,_.. ,,,,..,-.'... ''.: '•.,:',.t'cj.H..:'','%•.
.,,::ft0.4',:r.10.51'. .,4,1:?.:1.;.;•X'• •• ..,.'::LN c'-', " ...-- ,i''4::Vii7"4.10,A4,7.:;.-'.:::', .,,;, '''',. ,,,i14' .,.. , '•-'1N-4,,70: '."- ''' ' ' " '''.
,::.410,'I''' ,r,:,-..',.-:',4414-fc':::._;'-::'''''..04.' ''''':•'.1.--t:.'1',•44•r-'''''':.4%.:4.N•-:''7,7.4%. V,T':': ri:, --,:.:.•1, '•''...:''-''''. . ' Plot 6
4-,,,,-.,-,,,,,,V,-,,,,,., ',.--;,--.••.r•-•••...;„.1., 44,;., ,I,..,,.T. .::,;.?,.t.i.,4,„k-.,: .,,;:r.'.•...-10,-,-,,.. . . . . . ,...
7.1".:NI:,`.?7'4,oe,:-lk.4,..,-A.. e:-; ,.,:*•;:...,---',-.7.t,-7 r=0.44';,,:',*--i.'Z'd,;'-*;<%.,--7 ,".'''.',-. ' . ' --
-.,‘, ,c474..-.:',,- '•,,i,.4'.,•,. . .,, ,r':.., ..:, ,.. _ . . .,..:a:',17,,w,
Plot 5
t
VegetationVegetation

UT to Cane Creek: MY7 Crest Gauge Photographs
• ^: - y. '' 1 R• . ; mow, _. + 3 n fl
'' -_N
* • . •. - - "
:011...---tail Nik i' f .7,' 1; I
(IP ), a.. 1,..
NPIPisi aat
I •
.till,. -t ''_' ��- =0 3� '
,.. ,
•� „Ks iyI - V�N4 v:b��� - c u - .. V I
Reach R3: Crest Gauge#2, 0.67 feet on 8/28/2000200 Reach R3: Closeup of Crest Gauge #2 on 8/28/20
(after 2.47" storm event on 8/4 and 8/5)
i I
�� ti
`" s :
' ems.. ' 1
JESII,
" Y , ,
k.
„.:_:,,,,, ,, ?r"ik,,,;:';-i -''s' --'.' -,—- --'-.3 . A VIII-'---)10-" -;
,)sv
Reach R5: Crest Gauge #1 (ant colony destroyed
cork indicators—has been cleaned and restored)

UT to Cane Creek: MY7 Additional Project Photographs
� t - `� ter: `'m,`x
-.
�Es�r ' ' T i a sS `? : 3' e Ri +_ t a .
, '$; , e ° t '` x-� , .y3&,, - ue '.- —.y' �; a � s a rr ,
_'� yte ' r r �, k ', � �`, ti' { s i.. ►`� � � �•ti ' v` i v 4 Y t,.-4,1_14X,,,,f4P4. N 'fti
�� `eat s �' ". "•et�` �' h '�� F ,
' ` �--,`` .ate 0-_ J.
m°'d. � "� xt,�:.;�,sY&-sWrix:..v.,*. .s.. , ..7C'; '"k:�...�`pF».e,..-„�. ,r-.... .
Pipe culvert crossing on lower Reach R5 Ford crossing in upper Reach R4
, ° .--i." ---Mr.V4::—',' 4.---144,*•-t,P,... •-•••-, - •- A-• --, „._-t..... - , ..,"*.4k..i-,-. At.- -- . - r'.--,-
„,,,.-50.,4*,,-.!..„, .v„,.,,,,,,t,.., -,..., - „. ,, , , - .. , - :2F-,-,..1.,,i7- --.- ' : ' s' A....:::„.-:::„.„--";'-.1:"..„
b..„,.„,..„. ,,.,,.......„........ . .,. L .. ,, . ,s...„...., .. . .. ... ..,.....:._ ., . . . ..,__ __ __„„..,..,..,,,,,,,,,,, „ , ..
,... ,,,,t,„..,..,,. .„..„, ...,. ..... .._ „,„..,„:„.,,,,, .
:.,_, „...,. . ___„..., ,....,-..,zr- 7,_:,,f5.--> __-_,„,t,-,..e.g-1-*
--•:Itt _ '...= _-4 ,. _---"-.-' 7- F-.0.
4.x '_� a• -''
Ford crossing in lower Reach R4 Reach R4 Station 43+50:Stabilizing and vegetating from
previously documented bank scour from Hurricane Florence
in Se st 2018 shoto from Oct 2020
- y * ' kt ," , t - f ' { n � #-.';4 ',, ,t
' , 4 TM; iC -fix -''' -c 05 y'�.e,
. .'' ";.-1',Arfv.`' -.'"-',- I ,-: ''. . . - '‘'. - ' _ •J.". 1.,,-;:•:"-..,..11- ,••,,e,,,,:-_-.r-,,,,,:.:4-."4 -
Reach R4 Station 43+50: Stabilizing and vegetating from Reach R4 Station 43+50:Stabilizing and vegetating from
previously documented bank scour from Hurricane Florence previously documented bank scour from Hurricane Florence
in Sept 2018(photo from Oct 2020) in Sept 2018(photo from Oct 2020)

Appendix C
Vegetation Plot Data

Table 7. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
UT to Cane Creek Restoration Project:DMS Project ID No.95729
Plot ID Vegetation Survival Threshold Met? MY7 Total/Planted Stem Count Tract Mean
1 Y 648/880
2 Y 890/1,012
3 Y 526/648 587
4 Y 405/688
5 Y 405/728
6 Y 648/971
Notes:
*Total/Planted Stem Count reflects the change in stem density based on the current total density of planted stems(Total),over the density of stems at
the time of the As-Built Survey(Planted).
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC.
YEAR 7 MONITORING REPORT
UT TO CANE CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT(DMS PROJECT NO.95729)

Table 8. CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
UT to Cane Creek Restoration Project:DMS Project ID No.95729
Report Prepared By Drew Powers
Date Prepared 09/14/2020 13:13
database name MichaelBaker_2020_UTCaneCrk_95729.mdb
database location L:\Projects\132700\Monitoring\Post_Restoration\Veg Plots\Year 7
computer name CARYLAPOWERS1
file size 50827264
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 95729
project Name UT to Cane Creek
Description
River Basin Cape Fear
length(ft)
stream-to-edge width(ft)
area(sq m)
Required Plots(calculated)
Sampled Plots 6
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC.
YEAR 7 MONITORING REPORT
UT TO CANE CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT(DMS PROJECT NO.95729)

Table 9a.CVS Stem Count of Planted Stems by Plot and Species
UT to Cane Creek Restoration Project:DMS Project ID No.95729
2�y OOy 00� OOM 00� OOy 00�
tb
4. 4.
4.
4.
tb eiv
w�� Qua `'//, °w � a� Q Q Q Q Q Q
Betula nigra Tree river birch 10 3 3.33 6 1 3
Carpinus caroliniana Shrub Tree American hornbeam 7 5 1.4 1 1 1 1 3
Diospyros virginiana Tree common persimmon 5 5 1 1 1 1 1 1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Tree green ash 23 6 3.83 1 9 5 2 3 3
Liriodendron tulipifera Tree tuliptree 2 2 1 1 1
Nyssa sylvatica Tree blackgum 2 1 2 2
Platanus occidentalis Tree American sycamore 12 5 2.4 5 2 2 1 2
Quercus alba Tree white oak 4 3 1.33 2 1 1
Quercus laurifolia Tree laurel oak 1 1 1 1
Quercus lyrata Tree overcup oak 10 4 2.5 6 1 2 1
Quercus michauxii Tree swamp chestnut oak 8 4 2 1 1 2 4
Quercus nigra Tree water oak 3 3 1 1 1 1
TOT: 0 12 12 12 87 12 16 22 13 10 10 16
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC.
YEAR 7 MONITORING REPORT
UT TO CANE CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT(DMS PROJECT NO.95729)

Table 9b. Stem Count for Each Species Arranged by Plot
UT to Cane Creek Restoration Project:DMS Project ID No.95729
Botanical Name Common Name Plots
1 I 2 3 I 4 I 5 6
Tree Species
Betula nigra river birch 6 1 3
Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash 1 9 5 2 3 3
Liriodendron tulipfera tulip poplar 1 1
Nyssa sylvatica black gum 2
Platanus occidentalis American sycamore 5 2 2 1 2
Quercus alba white oak 2 1 1
Quercus laurifolia laurel oak 1
Quercus lyrata overcup oak 6 1 2 1
Quercus michauxii swamp chestnut oak 1 1 2 4
Quercus nigra water oak 1 1 1
Shrub Species
Asimina triloba paw paw
Carpinus caroliniana ironwood 1 1 1 1 3
Diospyros virginiana persimmon 1 1 1 1 1
Hamamelis virginiana witch hazel
Itea virginica Virginia sweetspire
Lindera benzoin spicebush
Viburnum dentatum arrowwood viburnum
Total Stems Per Plot for Year 5(September 2020) 16 22 13 10 10 16 Average Stems Per Acre
Density Per Plot for Year 7(September 2020) 648 890 526 405 405 648 587
Density Per Plot for Year 5(September 2018) 688 890 607 405 445 728 627
Density Per Plot for Year 3(September 2016) 607 890 526 405 526 769 620
Density Per Plot for Year 2(October 2015) 607 890 728 486 607 769 681
Density Per Plot for Year 1 (After Supplemental Planting Mar.2015) 728 1012 648 688 728 971 796
Total Stems/Acre for Year 1(Before Supplemental Dec.2014) 728 405 121 364 202 567 398
Total Stems/Acre for Year 0 As-Built(Baseline Data) 880 680 640 680 760 520 693
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC,
YEAR 7 MONITORING
UT TO CANE CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT(DMS PROJECT NO.95729)

Table 9c.CVS Density Per Plot
UT to Cane Creek Restoration Project:DMS Project ID No.95729
Current Plot Data(MY7 2020) Annual Means
95729-01-0001 95729-01-0002 95729-01-0003 95729-01-0004 95729-01-0005 95729-01-0006 MY7(2020) MY5(2018) MY3(2016) MY2(2015) MY1(2014)
Scientific Name Common Name Species Type P V T P V T P V T P V T P V T P V T P V T P V T P V T P V T P V T
Alnus serrulata Tag alder Shrub 1 1 1 1
Asimina triloba pawpaw Tree 1 1 1 1
Betula nigra river birch Tree 6 6 1 1 3 5 8 10 5 15 10 1 11 10 10 10 10 13 13
Carpinus caroliniana American hornbeam Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 3 7 1 8 7 7 7 7 7 7 5 5
Celtis laevigata sugarberry Tree 4 4
Corn us amomum silky dogwood Shrub 1 1 1 1
Diospyros virginiana common persimmon Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 5 1 6 5 4 9 6 6 5 5 1 1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash Tree 1 1 2 9 2 11 5 5 2 2 3 5 8 3 3 23 8 31 23 20 43 24 24 27 27 15 15
Liquidambarstyraciflua sweetgum Tree 5 5 5 5 5 5 15 15
Liriodendron tulipifera tuliptree Tree 1 1 4 4 1 1 1 1 2 5 7 2 3 5 1 1 1 1
Nyssa sylvatica blackgum Tree 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 4 4
Platanus occidentalis American sycamore Tree 5 1 6 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 12 2 14 12 4 16 11 11 11 11 7 7
Quercus oak Tree 1 1
Quercus alba white oak Tree 2 2 1 1 1 1 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5
Quercus laurifolia laurel oak Tree 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3
Quercus lyrata overcup oak Tree 6 6 1 1 2 2 1 1 10 10 11 11 11 11 11 11
Quercus michauxii swamp chestnut oak Tree 1 1 1 1 2 2 4 4 8 8 11 1 12 11 11 13 13 9 9
Quercus nigra water oak Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1
Salix nigra black willow Tree 1 1
U/mus alata winged elm Tree 1 1 1 1 2 2
Unknown Unknown Shrub or Tree 2 2 1 1
Stem count 16 8 24 22 7 29 13 9 22 10 4 14 10 8 18 16 5 21 87 41 128 93 40 133 94 0 94 102 0 102 59 0 59
size(ares) 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 6 6 6 6
size(ACRES) 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15
Species count 7 4 9 7 2 8 8 2 10 7 4 9 7 4 10 6 1 6 12 11 17 12 9 15 12 0 12 14 0 14 10 0 10
Stems per ACRE 648 324 971 890 283 1,174 526 364 890 405 162 567 405 324 728 648 202 850 587 277 863 627 270 897 634 0 634 688 0 688 398 0 398
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC.
YEAR 7 MONITORING REPORT
UT TO CANE CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT(DMS PROJECT NO.95729)

Table 9d. CVS Vegetation Summary and Totals
UT to Cane Creek Restoration Project:DMS Project ID No.95729
UT to Cane Creek(#95729)
Year 7(September 2020)
Vegetation Plot Summary Information
Riparian Buffer Stream/Wetland Unknown Growth
Plot# Stems' Stems2 Live Stakes Invasives Volunteers3 Total' Form
1 n/a 16 0 0 8 24 0
2 n/a 22 0 0 7 29 0
3 n/a 13 0 0 9 22 0
4 n/a 10 0 0 4 14 0
5 n/a 10 0 0 8 18 0
6 n/a 16 0 0 5 21 0
Wetland/Stream Vegetation Totals
(per acre)
Stream/Wetland Success Criteria
Plot# Stems2 Volunteers3 Total4 Met?
1 648 324 971 Yes
2 890 283 1174 Yes
3 526 364 890 Yes
4 405 162 567 Yes
5 405 324 728 Yes
6 648 202 850 Yes
Project Avg 587 277 863 Yes
Riparian Buffer Vegetation Totals
(per acre)
Riparian Success
Plot# Buffer Stems' Criteria Met?
1 n/a
2 n/a
3 n/a
4 n/a
5 n/a
6 n/a
Project Avg n/a
Stem Class characteristics
'Buffer 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
'Volunteers Native woody stems. Not planted. No vines.
°Total Planted+volunteer native woody stems. Includes live stakes. Excl.exotics. Excl.vines.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC.
YEAR 7 MONITORING REPORT
UT TO CANE CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT(DMS PROJECT NO.95729)

Appendix D
Stream Survey Data

Figure 5. Year 7 Cross-Sections with Annual Overlays
Permanent Cross-Section 1, Reach 5
(Year 7 Data - Collected September 2020)
iv L }#' wf Fr r... y 4 eB. l \ 4 :t
,Yl,:j) ',. ,,,,- #' '-'1 , •A'.124,-:,---,:;-',, -',-v-\l' !''' x---, .' .' -c '''-''' :14:t ' ,- ^ 4:4‘....5 --' ' '157 '-0,k \ ,:!' .' ....-,
Ada \ ; t7 1:- -5 ,: { y, ,L°°� K p �'- • r/ .'ro» e / �- ..
. "4 - € - " S d ry
" 1
%
ss. i t' . t _ _._ f f .-.. }[' , .tea`
'ti t- ' 1 � vw, .\ `1}' ', `'` - _-.,.
r
ke •' : .ram y ,
eitti�� -�14.4 �y: L ro -, 09/09/20
r s
Looking at the Left Bank Looking at the Right Bank
Stream BKF BKF Max BKF AB BKF
Feature Type BKF Area Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER Elev TOB Elev
Riffle C 5.8 8.7 0.7 1.1 13.1 1.0 9.8 494.47 494.62
UT to Cane Creek Cross-Section 1
Reach 5
498
497 -
496 9 -e
0 495
ms
a) 494 i/LU
493 As-built Year 1
Year 2 Year 3
492 - Year 5 t Year 7 MY7 BKF=494.62'
MY7 BKF ---e---AB Bankfull TWG =493.33'
---0---Floodprone
491 I I I I I
30 40 50 60 70 80 90 0 10 20
Station (ft)
Note: Per DMS/IRT request,the bank height ratio for MY7 has been calculated using the bankfull elevation as determined using the as-built bankfull area.
All other values were calculated using the original as-built bankfull elevation,as was done for previous monitoring reports.

Permanent Cross-Section 2, R
(Year 7 Data-Collected September 2020)each 5
`o- •-•....,,-; ' -`t-V,, 0 ?..F r ,1 Y s '" C - T - /`NI - h6 d c" i t -, r t
.fi a'' t' j (i V _, tto- r °' '
‘,.„..1M7,-7-4,"' ''' • .,•1 --.• '.,A -.-:—:..1 ' riff .,-,:7:.-"'",;;_t•-: t•-•- '.,.._t c:-.{7:.- t,..1:..-„..4,1., , _ ve.t.,4;_..„4„:„;.,-,,, ,i ,14, . ,,.
� S•r i- _ l� < *i t rc - - --ai 't-
'' sY - �_ #a3` ^' tom • mi_, i, ..� .
�-- s " e r ' � ; ,`.ate' r.' _ .-
Looking at the Left Bank Looking at the Right Bank
Stream BKF BKF Max BKF AB BKF
Feature Type BKF Area Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER Elev TOB Elev
Pool 15.9 11.2 1.4 2.6 7.9 491.11 491.11
UT to Cane Creek Cross-Section 2
Reach 5
494 0
493 -
492 .
— —����
0 491 - �� -As-built
\I -Year 1
d 490 -co
1 i -Year 2
W Year3
489 - -Year 5
♦Year 7
488 ---e---Bankfull
--�--Flood prone
I I I I 487 I I I I I I I
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross-Section 3, Reach 5
(Year 7 Data - Collected September 2020)
r .,� „`., . - a1,.= C 1_ 77 ' ,' ';.jots .41 '�1 y'� ,'e ,,:�. / ,R ,
\ Jt ,.'GI : L Vr, p i`. ,y, Op c'iy$:'. .k ,':`'
\ '4'\ , Ai., tea,p r" `ilk ! e r ✓ 1*.: �� ts0'1 '1 ♦ '$.1 •-
‘i• .- :-.1i''--- '.,".-A P..11_= .IP -.;,- ,=,--Ti-,.. ____ 411:, ::::1 irk,
gay { e
dirriat.
Iril. -
i j:-4 I
iliti
•
.41)(k
=Sry'
rye Y �� �, �1 p rr * 3 1 \I}
'ems 1: 0 �� 41
a ..+ "` , _
Looking at the Left Bank Looking at the Right Bank
Stream BKF BKF Max BKF
Feature Type BKF Area Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER AB BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle C 6.9 10.3 0.7 1.1 15.5 0.9 7.4 488.13 488.17
UT to Cane Creek Cross-Section 3
Reach 5
493 -
As-built Year 1
492 - Year 2 — Year 3
491 - Year 5 Year 7
MY7 BKF --0---AB Bankfull
4-
c 490 - ---0---Flood prone
O
+7
co
m489 - ��
w
488 __y,
i MY7 BKF=488.24'
487 -
TWG =487.05'
486 , f
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Station (ft)
Note: Per DMS/IRT request,the bank height ratio for MY7 has been calculated using the bankfull elevation as determined using the as-built bankfull area. All
other values were calculated using the original as-built bankfull elevation,as was done for previous monitoring reports.

Permanent Cross-Section 4, Reach 5
(Year 7 Data-Collected September 2020)
. . .,.. 1 1-;.;, 1'' :t;': f r.,. - ''...`.7 .-: .,.,'.'41-1,' 1•'''''' -J2,.,,,V '-:*,.' -.'.......'_"'';7 1' -1::;-:*,,,, .. .;
3c .,:err•I 1 .I -�' ` �+ y� - t eV.
- M1 :.. .V fir: `
F �� f -- .mot` r .rcvF "' -7v ti, sf ,
n.. Y=r- my�
. aar .
�
_ t
:� , . � X 4 RB
ice'.'. a ...• '\ ` - ,. - - - • :24... -,,,_. ..r - _
Looking at the Left Bank Looking at the Right Bank
Stream BKF BKF Max BKF AB BKF
Feature Type BKF Area Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER Elev TOB Elev
Riffle C 9.5 11.7 0.8 1.3 14.3 1.0 2.8 479.65 479.51
UT to Cane Creek Cross-Section 4
Reach 5
487
As-built Year 1
486 - —Year 2 Year 3
485 - Year 5 —•—Year 7
MY7 BKF ---0---AB Bankfull
484 -
�;, ---G---Floodprone
,61
• 483 - ��,
o ' j
482 \
w 481 -
480 -
479 - \ : �� MY7 BKF=479.54
478 - - 1 TWG=478.35'
477i I I I I I I I I 1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Station (ft)
Note:Per DMS/IRT request,the bank height ratio for MY7 has been calculated using the bankfull elevation as determined using the as-built bankfull area. All
other values were calculated using the original as-built bankfull elevation,as was done for previous monitoring reports.

Permanent Cross-Section 5, Reach 3
(Year 7 Data - Collected September 2020)
Er
�_- •; ' ry-_.-_ t
re.
--'7-`'''
. a . ~ ,•it..
C �_ R
441; ,.- . i .,„ ,..: . .0 )(,
g gQ9/20
/ / �' mil' / - - i '�-d _4 _ A =Y" ~;
Looking at the Left Bank Looking at the Right Bank
Stream BKF BKF Max BKF AB BKF
Feature Type BKF Area Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER Elev TOB Elev
Riffle C 2.6 6.0 0.4 0.6 13.9 0.9 3.6 478.16 478.24
UT to Cane Creek Cross-Section 5
Reach 3
485 -
As-built Year 1
484 Year 2 Year 3
483 - Year 5 Year 7
MY7 BKF ---0---AB Bankfull
482 ��
-- --Floodprone
7
/
481
w 480 -
479 -
'� — —� MY7 BKF=478.31'
478 - � � TWG =477.60'
477 , I I I I I I I
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Station (ft)
Note: Per DMS/IRT request,the bank height ratio for MY7 has been calculated using the Bankfull elevation as determined using the as-built bankfull
area. All other values were calculated using the original as-built bankfull elevation,as was done for previous monitoring reports.

Permanent Cross-Section 6, Reach 3
(Year 7 Data - Collected September 2020)
ra 2 Ji ,3x s i r_�� � ,Any ¢ v.-W �' �' V �r: eP ty_ E„1 ': �:ALr �G ls.._Y
'.. r �'S s 3" sl F' 'ia ,,..0,'� .n., '�g ? _ l � }.+ �. ° ':g • r �'�;' yF� "�
rl
��q'� °�<nN�� ,� �'� 'l � - ,..'� r ' ��.s� 4� z` r � �r� 4�- ,�° ��
. Jai ' ,t : "t i c � • x F_ r-:.
•
� � ssc. . -j +� � i4 g K.� 7 y fy9 / Terr. '�. .. ���t ¢�- ..
�� pit n+ w P "T. p '�� . _ i _�� 04''�
;16,4 k), - ---4 ',,f-_,iir 2:-•,--' ',. -41'1*—'svi/1 I ir)0
'i'tln r''- ,.p _-- _.., B. _ , ..� '! . -;-0.iir ; - - + i fir =
Looking at the Left Bank Looking at the Right Bank
Stream BKF BKF Max BKF
Feature Type BKF Area Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Pool - 5.3 6.7 0.8 1.2 8.5 - - 480.54 480.62
UT to Cane Creek Cross-Section 6
Reach 3
486 -
As-built Year 1
485
Year 2 Year 3
484 - Year 5 Year 7
-- --Bankfull -- --Floodprone
v483 -
c
o
482 - '.,✓
W 481 _ l �— — �-
48 0 �` — \ ''
479 - �z
478 , I I I I I I I I
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross-Section 7, Reach 4
(Year 7 Data - Collected September 2020)
- mrcq � v r �-`"- y,d ise s a� V• a s`... fi - df`� i✓ , -, a
.'.-...z -A,':-.4"f '.: ' • .,-..1:;.,"c:.;„4-9,,,,::N:,:v.,..,,,,!IN-:—:";..,_it e:4
yS • \ S's 7 1r 'd'b,-.4
i; }-'r., ,, ,--3---,- ,rtom'j - VR.41: 1,` C y ` ; _ �,,`—':' .' ", ^
F q •yf ,i ¢M
Fo "�'. 1,-,' ." �' ,y,• '•../ yam,^� C 1F'.. !e S. • F. -.� ^_
A ! f -
'"'.r '� -�` --a `x �`.:�¢ ` gyp, �r k� ,�J-.t ,�"' / r,
. f. _ 12
•
y C? _ P rfw5 ' '�' 4*, a,} i 604"-:!:!, ';'-'!',:-::- .:,:'' d1
� °� �. X
��� � 5.p t : 7 yy Yf"R�,. w gy f f ?, i
_. ..., }_ . ,.. :33 _ :- '-Y„;,�,,.„4.1- -IG- •
- '''' ` . any_Jr . ; r -A
RT
## •f*--• !.-_-"J*-- !;.:.--3.,,,;---'...ttl.-.'-' •-- —
Looking at the Left Bank Looking at the Right Bank
Stream BKF BKF Max BKF AB BKF
Feature Type BKF Area Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER Elev TOB Elev
Riffle C 16.1 16.2 1.0 1.8 16.3 1.0 3.7 457.85 457.71
UT to Cane Creek Cross-Section 7
Reach 4
463 -
462 -
461 -
v460 - i-
0 o As built
R 459 - —_� _ ,, Year 1
�� � � _ ✓ Year 2
w 458 - ���� -\ :/� Year 3
Year 5
457 �� •Year 7
MY7 BKF=457.77' L, ....
MY7 BKF
456 - TWG =456.06' -- --AB Bankfull
---0---Floodprone
455 1 I I I I I I I
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Station (ft)
Note: Per DMS/IRT request,the bank height ratio for MY7 has been calculated using the bankfull elevation as determined using the as-built bankfull
area. All other values were calculated using the original as-built bankfull elevation,as was done for previous monitoring reports.

Permanent Cross-Section 8,
(Year 7 Data - Collected SeptemberReach 2020) 4
-,,�y �as"`dg'',: k rx i a 4r tic , �'•�„� 7.'..s.• Y.,��ys+y
�T r x ,
n , ,1 ;.Ph - �._,t -- , 9�`� s..•ns ; F " yF .---.T 8V_ E • J
--... - ---;. - - -1.--- '4 '-1,-"*.r- -,F- '-'T,'' ,-C'---'`..s-,- . -'4. --.-`, 4--?','-' ,-,43,0' .....p. - - 4 r:://A '•;•, ,',-. ,r r 1 1.'k f e - , _ • ../
„,e,,,,
� x�r e' -...--4.... :!.'.... f �� i� x�s' �z - v ,----:-.
tl - ice„ 7� -:
7 yam •` �; �" 'a`E a.T �:� y V,� -' i k
it.
ga�';r Y'r - �. b $•• it7 .ice-.. -r 1I. `gyp ti _,
i55!! -_ -` r .4 - � ate
} � ,:� � "4 � r �, `� +:>' *" ro• ��� s �����'y �r fin 0V ��
+F w,' - ,,i-#P e.t,,alu- ` - `F ,fit .J�-�' �/. -C �' .,•� ,ttl.. . R�
•
,'-' .rr .'oA'l#ik �'m . � ,. r 1`% : �� ` mil . ` X. �' `
Looking at the Left Bank Looking at the Right Bank
Stream BKF BKF Max BKF AB BKF
Feature Type BKF Area Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER Elev TOB Elev
Pool - 18.0 12.2 1.5 2.1 8.3 - - 457.0 457.31
UT to Cane Creek
Reach Cross-Section4 8
462 -
461 - ,
460 -
459 3 r
j As-built
Year 1
457 ���,� 1� Year 2
0 458 _,
CO
W \� Year 3
456
l
Year 5
455 f Year 7
---e---Bankfull
4545
-- --Floodprone
453 7 I I I I I I I I
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross-Section 9, Reach 4
(Year 7 Data - Collected September 2020)
--- -- - . ----,-, .-ff-:,-7r'."..„' .-,t1.:.;,. -... . -,,.,,-.,,,,,,,,,,F.,. .. ,. . - --... :v.zi,
,..:,',..:-.--';',!:.:7-- i '
-- 1 t ° ` _ _ . '. Mtn , xf .,'- J
' f ry! ' �i ! ,te ;
--fl * _ rt r 9• -' . Si • 1 . x2... ` au �i �-
' z..t . v -4 1 •ry ter pit ' fit + n`Z*, ' -- 3 ,* • .
. i't
I, 7 t� a Ys :-ter
}1
-.✓. ` Y S9m �
�ixS
IL". , R. � s. � rd #f9J�Ir � i 1 ��. ),F` �. , 1di.8�a'1_. \ ��0 q.
Looking at the Left Bank Looking at the Right Bank
Stream BKF BKF Max BKF
Feature Type BKF Area Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER AB BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle C 8.91 10.3 0.9 1.3 11.8 0.9 2.8 431.18 431.5
UT to Cane Creek Cross-Section 9
Reach 4
436 -
435 - r� z�
—r►
434 -
// -As built
433 -
�
1 -Year 1
' Year 2
432 -
cu • �� Year 3
w 431 - /"/,� -Year5
Year 7
430 - = '!‘� 1_ ��
MY7 BKF431.62' ry MY7 BKF
TWG =429.88'
429 -- --AB Bankfull
-- --Floodprone
428 1 I I I I I I I I I 1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Station (ft)
Note: Per DMS/IRT request,the bank height ratio for MY7 has been calculated using the bankfull elevation as determined using the as-built bankfull area. All
other values were calculated using the original as-built bankfull elevation,as was done for previous monitoring reports.

Permanent Cross-Section ,
(Year 7 Data - Collected September10Reach 2020) 1
1 1,-- f _ .
v '- s' 1„ ,'a,
'� '� �'°��� �`. \ p � r � �` "fig �'f.°.*. s � � ,,
.4 1
ti, R i , i �' it .� r ae
y
-+f x '�'� �.v i r t °+; x t d2^mob fl'' _ t r - k
1 r i Y F
I` �_�/rx fir ?
t a + � 1
.. -a,
_ _ N
. - r .,, Via' T. �;,yt
cN -� 4. i IIIS Ica _yy
, .--As--,-c _T.', ---...._./..14,/i-ii4L*15,- 4 : • 09/1 0/ 2 6.
� .,s g� '.. ahti '� 93'� r a V 1ya
-. ,,-.L.,,,,,ki. .r.:, . ,,1„--_,-wrlwv„,-v,..----,41, i_ \ ,.,__,- , ,..: , i...f., k.-k A-r.
__,, t
2„... i •. ,,__ ..__._
. , __,..... 1,-, ,, ./..__. ,4 ..4y. z, A •,.*Ily..14,:71-;' - ,
Looking at the Left Bank Looking at the Right Bank
Stream BKF BKF Max BKF AB BKF
Feature Type BKF Area Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER Elev TOB Elev
Pool - 9.1 7.7 1.2 2.0 6.5 - - 440.65 440.57
UT to Cane Creek Cross-Section 10
Reach 1
445
As built Year 1 Year 2
444 - Year 3 Year 5 Year 7
---e---Bankfull --�--Floodprone
?�
443 -
IF
0 —��—
0 442 — ___
ca
441 - _-
w
440 -
I1
439
438 -i I I I I I I I
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross-Section 11, Reach 1
(Year 7 Data - Collected September 2020)
' a --1't " k y r
"- ' _ g �a x is$,w as , GS,,1,,:,,,,„.„,„,,,....-4,-410*.:,-..-.7t,-4.---„F.....va...t,,, Irv,..,,,- Av :tv, ,, i---. - --,„,_,_#/r_••"•-7,4,-.,.. ,,,-. ._,, l•-• , k,:'i,..t,,,,F 444,':,,,-...4,,t r. .13.4,--:,,,W
_c ..;.� , i F, h y x / -,rr - t 0--
. 1,
eor
' 14;--1:t1.'•'•-..-.";.••••f-v- stl--,..-tr l't.-e. - .k-4-••°4N7,-e‘A:..':';1 ii-1._,.,.4 t-. 4 it..f:, i,,\41g. iitat .L.ft•,- -,-....-L.-,, ,-,g.,..-4 .,......-....V,:!: N../:-,-,,,,54; ..c,--.,...--- .4itat
Zij°V �' ' � � ma`s � a -`�f -T .y . r ? 4t, +. il WI' d" :1' `r 1 Iesi : '' j ' a, a Lk ` £"
ll
•
= 4 is1fE ; r I • a ti _to �) tl 17,, , � t,wiltigo4 ,k�'„ _
-` _._ }
* a 14 ?- 4 = /••. '. . I'. - l&:.)y J a� '2` 4. '> }.i- �`: • ' � �' '
�_ Xt' ; ti .1 -1 D
{\,._-! ' ./f '`�', �. x R r r Ertl. _ , +;�.'•• Rom,:
•
., .4,\,',.-••• itrwa;..,,,i-0 ci.,V.;-04;=4:i'l • ---::-',_.._4
' '46' ' 7 '-:.-.-it-,76.f. • ,. .,.' :--.4,- . i...'''-..-. . . , ,,.., i, ti-, ' ketw- ''firlb—':' ---'--"•"`'?'"'-v-11,A-t ' , x.--=-7'.--"--,'•'= -': Lr''-i ' - ft, ...'•,,••—
kr4
Av. ; ' y �€,p: .ri. -.,, Wit:A
Looking at the Left Bank Looking at the Right Bank
Stream BKF BKF Max BKF AB BKF
Feature Type BKF Area Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER Elev TOB Elev
Riffle E 3.5 6.0 0.6 1.2 10.3 1.0 11.3 437.90 438.04
UT to Cane Creek Cross-Section 11
Reach 1
440 -
439 ° -0
• 438 ��—� �� "'\: ,—�—�
O
47.
CO
1!, I��
11 MY7 BKF=438.00'
w• 437 - 1�� TWG=436.73'
As-built Year 1
Year 2 Year 3
436 - —Year 5 Year 7
MY7 BKF ---9---AB Bankfull Note: Thick vegetation has
-- --Floodprone established in the floodplains here.
435 , ,
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Station (ft)
Note: Per DMS/IRT request,the bank height ratio for MY7 has been calculated using the bankfull elevation as determined using the as-built bankfull area. All
other values were calculated using the original as-built bankfull elevation,as was done for previous monitoring reports.

Permanent Cross-Section 12, Reach 1
(Year 7 Data - Collected September 2020)
W ,,T-1...":7-7... ce,,..%-___4"4...-41,?,* t---..f,„ ii,. ,_,.. .ir-.{.- `,.....--;- ....._ -. .-7.... .;.•7"''', 2.: , .P ::117:44i-r4 ":'''', ,. -,T,'--7,....:,.,-_ ,-!..,,,_.).;1-i,;.,6!,,,!,..,.:e-.)-:-...±,.
-0., ..T-fz-t'A,-'--: 1-W-s•-•.:04.-.:, '4.:1'..4:---- -'-,--4-1-6*.1 7'''' - ' ''.--.'-_.1-?' - k 1'1' '
ri:; _ r:k1'4i.::‘,17:f'"-,,,,,,.__:trci'-i::„I.740!:',---::77."iti!'''','-",,, _ - 7::;, - s .: A' ..'y' r t+ �� f;":-!4:-=.i
',:.::11-7—ti-1::: : r
Imo-
' .,,n,'L,,,AinlrY,L.,4"-;.-r -..-L)-'''- 4
'ill
..":' ' - -14: L '
�r�!t �$ ��g{t - a"'d fir'.r ._ .b.. y .• Y
�. s�" Jib , - ,t x '
g4t...*-,
i . -
• • N „.. 1 yr.,..,.„...... .. . Y'_ - n��rr - ._ �'1 'tGK'.4. ^�,G ? �, '49A*.�f n40.---0
Looking at the Left Bank Looking at the Right Bank
Stream BKF BKF Max BKF AB BKF
Feature Type BKF Area Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER Elev TOB Elev
Riffle E 1.9 3.9 0.5 0.8 8.1 1.1 21.8 434.70 435
UT to Cane Creek Cross-Section 12
Reach 1
438
As-built Year 1 Year 2
437 - Year 3 Year 5 Year 7 j
MY7 BKF ---e---AB Bankfull ---9---Floodprone /
.-.
c 436 -
0
cu w 435 � =`��� _ 1 d
MY7 BKF=434.90'
434 - Note: Thick vegetation has r, ,
established in the floodplains here. ► "j TWG =433.74
433 , I I , I I I I I I , ,
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Station (ft)
Note: Per DMS/IRT request,the bank height ratio for MY7 has been calculated using the bankfull elevation as determined using the as-built bankfull area. All
other values were calculated using the original as-built bankfull elevation,as was done for previous monitoring reports.

Table 10.Baseline Stream Summary
LT to Cane Creek Restoration Project:DINS Project ID No.95729
Reach 1(1,04511)
Parameter USGS Regmel Mvehamval Pre-Existing Condtluna Rem aR ceead(es)Data Design Asbaik
...age (Harman et a1.1999)' UT toWdsCreek UT to VaraalsCreek
Dimension and Saharate-Riffle LL UL E9_ Min 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 n
BF Width() 230 800 49 56 8 97 69 '. 91
Floodpfone Width(0 24) 68 >30 >20 656 844
BF Mean Depth() 23 58 08 0'1 09 05 05 10
BF Max Depth(0) 11 12 07 07 19
BFCfosssectionel Area(1V) 800 300.0 52 51 52 53 79 37 40 8'1
Width/Depth Ratio 6.1 105 7 26 8 18 130 96 152 Entrenchment Ratio12 95 20 34 19 39 >22 69 108
Bank Height Ratio 16 -- 43 14 25 1l 15 -- 10 10 13
d50(men)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidlh(1i) 250 450
Radius of Cwsatme(1i) 140 210
Pc Baeddull sNdth(1.) 03 40 08 23 20 30
Meander Wavelength(1i) 44 88 49 69 500 800
Meander Width Ratio 13 44 12 18 36 65
Profile
PHI e Length(1i)
R.e Slope(1.)
Pool Length(1i)
Pool Spacing(1i) 21 79 29 50 28.0 420
Pool Max Depth(1i) 23 27 16 23 15
Pool Volwne(11) ---
Substrate and Transport Parameters
RiVo/Rio%/P%/G9,/SYo
SG%/Sato/G%/8%/Be%o
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95 01/06/45/53/96 02/25/8/92/1536
Reach Sheen Stress(compaacy)II,
Max part size()mobilized&bmlddl(Rosgen Curve)
Stream Power(transport capacity)W/m*
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area(SM) 0.125 -- 0.13 -- 024 -- 0.125 0.125
ImPerviom cover estimate(%)
Rosgen Classifiwiw -- -- G5c E5 -- G4/1 -- .1a -- E4/C1 -- E4/C1
BP Velocity(fps) 0 8 1.2 53 35 3 5
BF Discharge(crs) 290.0 2030.0 19.8 19.8 252 466 13 13
Valley Length -- -- -- — -- 8594
Channel length(fl)a 943 10449
Simwsity 109 -- 140 -- 120 120 12
Water Surface Slope(Chanel)(fl/fl) — 0012/ 00197 00405 0012 00123
BF slope(fl/A) — 00135 0028 00458 0015 00150
BaddoB Floodplain Area(acres) —
HRHI VL%/L%/M%/H%/Vet%/E%
Chanel Stability of Habitat Metric
Biological of Other
1lmmoa,WA,DD.loam,.IM Pmo.ar Da cmaa,L 0.swe,AD.less,IR Everhart,and I E.smw 1999.Ba kfw hsma3tieg amehy Mel.=forxathcaolma mom..wudmdHydvwgy.AWxw smw.;4.311 Proamta 0s.Olsenaarr.Pvtymh,eds Amy Waex<.mrre,A.s000non lure sway z 1999.Bozeman,ear
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC.
YEAR 7 MONTI'ORING REPORT
UT TO CANE CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT(I)MS PROJECT NO.95729)

Table 10.Baselue Stream Summary(corned)
LT to Cane Creek Restoration Project:DINS Project ID No.05120
Rend 3(398 LP)
Parameter USGS RegionalCurvehaW er Pre-Existing Condition' Reter® mceR 1(a)Data Design Asbaik
Gauge (Barnumet a1.1999)' UT to Wells Creeg UT to Varnals Creeg
Dimension and Sabstr ate-Riffle LL UL Eq. Min 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 n
BE Widthh(ft) 230 800 51 7.6 8 91 72 89 90
Floodpfone Width(ft) >163 12 20.0 244 363
BE Mean Depth(ft) 23 58 08 — 08 06 04 — 06
BEM.Depth(ft) 12 07 0 8 11
BFCrosssectional Area(1V) 800 3000 57 56 53 79 — 40 — — 37 — 53
Width/Depth Ratio 99 7 26 8 18 — — — 130 — — 153 — 217
Entrenchment Ratio 22 20 34 19 39 18 22 27 40
Bank Height Ratio 15 14 25 1l 15 -- 10 10 10
d50(men)
Pattern
Channel Beltwichh(1i)
Radius of Cwsature(1i)
RcBarkFull sNdth(1.1) 03 40 08 23
Meander Wavelength(1i) 44 88 49 69
Meander Width Ratio 13 44 12 18
Profile
Riffle Length(1i)
RIM e Slope Mgt)
Pool Length(1i)
Pool Spacing(1i) 21 79 29 50 11 36
Pool Max Depth(fl) 23 27 16 23 15 15
Pool Volwne(IV) ---
Substrate and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Rio%/PD(Gkoo/Skoo _—
SGYo/Sato/CT%/13%/Be%o -_-
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95 01/06/45/53/96 02/25/8/92/1536
Reach Sheen Stress(compaacy)163'
Mae pat size()mobilized at bankroll(Rosgen Curve)
Stream Power(transport capacity)WIm'
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area(SM) 0.1 -- 0.13 -- 024 0.1 0.1
Impernom cover estimate(%)
Rogers Classificata _— B4c — C4/1 — .1a C4
OF Velocity(fps) 53
BFDischarge(cfs) 290.0 2030.0 217 217 252 .6
Valley Length _— _— —_ —_ — 3568 —
Channel length(lif 425 389.1
Simmsity 116 1. 120 118 LL
Water Surface Slope(Channel)(fl/fl) — 00195 0019/ 00405 0016 00172
BF slope(004) — 00168 0028 00458 0018 00187
Banrolfloodplain Area(acres)
BEHI VL%/L%/M%/H%/Vet%/E%
Channel Stability of Habitat Metric
Biological of Other
Hams,WA,DD.3entgg 3M P.m,Da clmma,LD.swe,AD.less,IR Everhart,and RE.Sm.1999.Banum hytmtiegam el,MAID.,for North caola9.999 wudadHydvwgy.AWxw smw.;4.11ProamIna as.Olsen aalr.Pvtymh,eds Amami WarResarre,Assombon lme30J*20999.Dozers,mr
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC.
YEAR 7 MONTI'ORING REPORT
UT TO CANE CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT(I)MS PROJECT NO.95729)

Table 10.Baselue Stream Summary(corned)
LT to Cane Creek Restoration Project:DMS Project ID No.95729
Read 4(2,333 LE)
Parameter USGS Regim&Curvehamv& Pre-Existing Re m aR ceead(es)Data Den,. Asbaib
Cane (Harman et a1.1999)' DT toWdsCreek UT to VaraalsCreek
Dimension and Sab&rate-Riffle LL DL Eq. Min 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 n
BE Width(B) 230 800 102 154 16/ 8 97 140 101 — 138
FloodpfoneWidd(B) 184 262 >30 801 1050
BF Mean Depth(ft) 23 58 13 09 10 10 06 1 2
BEM.Depth(ft) 13 16 1 2 LL 20
BE Crosssectional Area(B( 800 3000 169 148 153 53 79 140 75 123
Width/Depth Ratio 154 -- 190 7 26 8 18 — — — 140 83 194 Entrenchment Ratio12 16 20 34 19 39 >22 79 94
Bank Height Ratio 13 28 14 25 1l 15 10 10 1l
d50(man)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth(B) 380 790 120.0
Radius of Cwsatme(R) 210 26.0 310
Rc Barkfull sNdth(Mt) 03 40 08 23 380 790 120.0
Meander Wavelength(ft) 44 88 49 69 720 104.0 1.0
Meander Width Ratio 13 44 12 18 35 60 80
Profile
Riffle Length(ft)
R.e Slope(1VB) 00046 00043 00039
Pool Length(ft)
Pool Spacing(B) 21 9 29 50 42 84 41 72 51
Pool Max Depth(B) 7
23 7 1 6 23 22
Pool Volume(fe)
Snbstrateand Transport Parameters
RiVo/Rio%/P%/G9,Slo _— —_
SCYo/Sato/CNo/13%/Belo
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95 .2/506/69.4/506/.2 01/06/45/53/96 02/25/8/92/1536
Reach Shear Stress(compaacY)II,
Maepartsze()mobilized&banlddl(Rosgen Curve)
Stream Power(transport capacity)W/m'r
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area(SM) 07 013 024 07 07
Imperviom cover estimate(%) —_ —_
Rosgen Classficata -- Mc E5 — C4/1 — -- 84/1a -- 04 04
BF -- 53 -- 40 30
Velocity s _— — —
BFDischarge(cfs) -- 290.0 2030.0 692 692 -- 252 -- .6 -- 560 560 Valley Length -- -- -- -- 349
Channel length(11)2 2,,783 386
Simmsity 104 -- 1. -- 120 -- 110 --
Water Surface Slope am —_ 0 0197 —.. 00405 — — 0015 -- 000/4
BF slope(B/A) — 00148 0028 00458 001/ — — 00082
BankroRPloodplain Area(acres)
BEHI VLlo/Llo/Mlo/Hlo/VHlo/Elo
Chanel Stability of Habitat Metric
Biological of Other
1lmmoa,WA,OD loam,rM Pmo.ar Da cmaa,1.0 swe,AD.less,IR Everhart,and IE.smw 1999.Bamrw hsma.1tiege®el raononsbps for North caola mean..Wadmd Hydrology.AWgA SYm9omm Prase.,0s.Olsen eNIP.Potyandi.m>Arnell.111Wa.rxeuravesAeuraonoa lure sway 21999.Bozma,mr
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC.
YEAR 7 MONTI'ORING REPORT
UT TO CANE CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT(DMS PROJECT NO.95729)

Table 10.Baselue Stream Summary(corned)
LT to Cane Creek Restoration Project:DINS Project ID No.95729
Had 5(1,461 LE)
ParameterUSGS ReglaalCmvehamval Pre-Existing Coadtluaa Rem a m ceR1(es)Data D.,. Asbadt
Gauge (Harman et 0,1999). UT to Wells Creek UT to Varaals Creek
Dimension and Substrate-Riffle LL DL Eq. Min 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 n
BF Width(B) 230 800 84 89 8 91 108 102 120
FloodpfoneWidd(B) 118 >25 760 — 1037
BF Mean Depth(ft) 23 58 12 — 12 — ---- 08 07 1— 4
BF Max Depth(R) 15 LL 12 28
BF Crosssectional Area(B( 800 3000 125 — 109 — — 53 79 ---- 90 — — — — 7_1 15.8
Width/Depth Ratio — 72 — 7 26 8 18 — — — 130 — — — — 80 1/_8
Entrenchment Ratio 13 20 34 19 39 >22 32 92
Bank Height Ratio 26 14 25 1l 15 10 10 10
c150(men)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth(B)
Radius of Cm,atme(B)
Rc Barkfull,,dth WI) 03 40 08 23
Meander Wavelength(ft) 44 88 49 69
Meander Width Ratio 13 44 12 18
Profile
Riffle Length(ft)
R.e Slope MR)
Pool Length(ft)
Pool Spacing(B) 21 79 29 50 320 650
Pool Max Depth(B) 23 2/ 16 23 20
Pool VoIlme(fe)
Substrate and Transport Parameters
RiVo/Rio%/P%/G9,5Yo
SG%/Sato/G%/B%/Be%o
a./d35.50/d84/d95 166/312/47.0/853/1161 01/06/45/53/96 02/25/8/92/1536 614/20.49/2919/6373/11825
Reach Sheen Stress(competency)MT
Max pat size(men)mobilized at bankroll(Rosgen Curve)
Stream Power(transport capacity)WA,
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area(SIVI) 05 -- 0.13 -- 024 05 -- 05
ImPerviom cover estimate(%)
Rosgen Classifiwiw -- G4 -- .1 — -- 84/la CA CA
OF Velocity(fp) 45 53 44 44
BF Discharge(crs) -- 290.0 2030.0 500 50 -- 252 -- 46.6 40 40
Valley Length --
Channel length(11)2 1848
Smoosity 101 -- 140 -- 120 --
Water Surface Slope as —.. 00197 — 00405 — — 0014 — -- 0014 —
BPslope(WA) 00128 0.-028 00458 0011 0011
Ba1doR Floodplain Area(acres)
BEHI VL%/L%/NI%/H%/Vet%/El,,
Chanel Stability of Habitat Metric
Biological of Other
Ham,WA,OD lame,lM Pma.m,0a Comma,LD.Slate,AO.less,BR Everhart,andgE.Bmw 1999.Bankroll hsmabegem eMedam.,for North caolma streams%Band Hydrology.Awxw smw.;tillNome.,as.Olsen aalr.Pvtymh,eds Amy Water x<.m.re,a.s..onon lure sway/a 1999.Bozeman,ear
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC.
YEAR 7 MONTI'ORING REPORT
UT TO CANE CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT(I)MS PROJECT NO.95729)

Table 10.Baselue Stream Summary(corned)
LT to Cane Creek Restoration Project:DINS Project ID No.05129
Read Sa(1.LE)
Parametm USGS Regional CmvelmW Refer er Pre-Existing Condtluna R eaceRea1(ea)Data Design Asbaib
Gaage (Harman et al.1999)' UT to Wells Creek UT to Varnals Creek
Dimension and Sahara.-Riffle LL UL Eq. Min 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 n
BEWidlh(ft) 230 800 24 136 8 9'1
Floodprone Wild(ft) 169
BE Mean Depth(ft) 23 58 05 03
BEM.Depth(ft) 0 5
BFCrosssectional Area 800 300.0 1.7 42 53 79
Width/Depth Ratio — 450 7 26 8 18
Entrenchment Ratio 13 20 34 19 39
Bank Height Ratio 23 14 25 1l 15
d50(men)
Pattern
Channel Beltwichh(1i)
Radius of Cw.atme(1i)
RcBarkFull widd(1.1) 03 40 08 23
Meander Wavelength(1i) 44 88 49 69
Meander Width Ratio 13 44 12 18
Profile
Riffle Length(1i)
RIM a Slope Mgt)
Pool Length(1i)
Pool Spacing(1i) 21 79 29 50
Pool NIax Depth(fl) 23 21 16 23
Pool Volwne(IV) -
Substrate and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Rio%/P%/G%/S%
SG%/Sato/0%/13%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95 01/06/45/53/96 02/25/8/92/L536
Reach Sheen Stress(competency)IWP
Mae pat size(men)mobilized at bankroll(Rosgen Curve)
Stream Power(transport capacity)W/m*
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area(SM) 0025 -- 0.13 -- O.
ImPerviom cover estimate(%
Rosgen Classifiwiw -- -- -- .1 -- 84/1a
OF Velocity(fp) 1.7 53
BFDischarge(ds) 290.0 2030.0 62 71 252 .6
Valley Length
Channel length(lif L44
Smoosity 119 -- 1. -- 120 --
Water Surface Slope(Channel)(fl/fl) 00236 00197 00405
BF slope(fl/fl) 00224 0028 00458
Bankroll Floodplain Area(acres)
BEHI VL%/L%/M%/H%/Vet%/E%
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Ham.WA,OD.1.19.ED P.m..nx c.ms1.0.siaswc.1.99 Ix.ever.,and RE.Sm.1999.Bm1.nny91.k9.9..ao......Carol.9.999 wudmdHydvwgy.AWxw smw.;4.311 ProamIna as.Olsenaalr.Pvtymh,eds Amy Waex<.mrre,A.soconon lme30J*z t999.Bozem..n+r-
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC.
YEAR 7 MONTI'ORING REPORT
UT TO CANE CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT(I)MS PROJECT NO.95729)

Table 11.Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
UT to Cane Creek Restoration Project:DMS Project ID No.95729
Reach 1(1,045 LF)
Cross-section X-10(Pool) Cross-section X-11(Riffle) Cross-section X-12(Riffle)
Dimension and substrate Base I MY1 I MY2 I MY3 I MY4 I MY5 I MY6 I MY7 Base I MY1 I MY2 I MY3 I MY4 I MY5 I MY6 I MY7 Base I MY1 I MY2 I MY3 I MY4 I MY5 I MY6 I MY7
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
BF Width(ft) 9.1 9.0 8.1 7.8 - 8.0 - 7.7 7.2 7.0 6.2 6.4 - 6.4 - 6.0 7.8 7.1 7.2 6.3 - 6.2 - 3.9
BF Mean Depth(ft) 0.95 1.05 0.88 0.94 - 1.00 - 1.2 0.57 0.57 0.41 0.46 - 0.50 - 0.6 0.51 0.56 0.55 0.59 - 0.50 - 0.5
Width/Depth Ratio 9.6 8.6 9.1 8.3 - 8.2 - 6.5 12.8 12.3 15.1 13.9 - 12.2 - 10.3 15.2 12.6 13.2 10.7 - 12.6 - 8.1
BF Cross-sectional Area(ftl 8.7 9.4 7.1 7.3 - 7.9 - 9.1 4.1 4.0 2.6 2.9 - 3.3 - 3.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.8 - 3.1 - 1.9
BF Max Depth(ft) 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.9 - 1.7 - 2.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 - 1.0 - 1.2 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.9 - 1.0 - 0.8
Width of Floodprone Area(ft) 65.6 61.9 61.2 62.1 - 61.5 - 62.5 65.9 67.2 63.1 67.6 - 67.6 - 67.6 84.4 85.9 87.2 88.3 - 88.9 - 85.5
Entrenchment Ratio - - - - - - - - 9.1 9.6 10.1 10.6 - 10.6 - 11.3 10.8 12.1 12.0 13.9 - 14.3 - 21.8
Bank Height Ratio - - - - - - - - 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.1 - 1.0 - 1.0 1.3 1.1 1.0 1.1 - 1.1 - 1.1
Wetted Perimeter(ft) 11.0 11.1 9.8 9.7 - 9.4 - 9.2 8.4 8.1 7.1 7.3 - 7.0 - 6.9 8.9 8.2 8.3 7.5 - 6.7 - 4.4
Hydraulic Radius(ft) 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.8 - 0.8 - 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 - 0.5 - 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 - 0.5 - 0.4
Based on current/developing bankfull feature
BF Width(ft)
BF Mean Depth(ft)
Width/Depth Ratio
BF Cross-sectional Area(ft2)
BF Max Depth(ft)
Width of Floodprone Area(ft)
Entrenchment Ratio
Bank Height Ratio
Wetted Perimeter(ft)
Hydraulic Radius(ft)
Cross Sectional Area between end pins(ftz)
d50(mm)
Table 11.Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary(continued)
UT to Cane Creek Restoration Project:DMS Project ID No.95729
Reach 3(398 LF)
Cross-section X-5(Riffle) Cross-section X-6(Pool)
Dimension and substrate Base I MY1 I MY2 I MY3 I MY4 I MY5 I MY6 I MY7 Base I MY1 I MY2 I MY3 I MY4 I MY5 I MY6 I MY7
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
BF Width(ft) 8.9 9.6 7.1 5.4 - 6.2 - 6.0 9.0 8.7 6.2 7.3 - 6.9 - 6.7
BF Mean Depth(ft) 0.41 0.35 0.32 0.36 - 0.50 - 0.4 0.59 0.59 0.61 0.78 - 0.80 - 0.8
Width/Depth Ratio 21.7 27.3 22.4 15.0 - 13.0 - 13.9 15.3 14.7 10.2 9.3 - 9.2 - 8.5
BF Cross-sectional Area(ft2) 3.7 3.3 2.2 2.0 - 3.0 - 2.6 5.3 5.2 3.7 5.7 - 5.2 - 5.3
BF Max Depth(ft) 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.6 - 0.7 - 0.6 1.1 1.2 1.0 1.2 - 1.1 - 1.2
Width of Floodprone Area(ft) 24.4 22.7 22.2 21.8 - 23.5 - 23.0 36.3 36.3 33.5 41.5 - 41.7 - 42.5
Entrenchment Ratio 2.7 2.4 3.1 4.0 - 3.8 - 3.6 - - - - - - - -
Bank Height Ratio 1.0 0.9 1.2 1.0 - 1.0 - 0.9 - - - - - - - -
Wetted Perimeter(ft) 9.8 10.3 7.7 6.2 - 6.6 - 6.3 10.2 9.9 7.4 8.8 - 7.4 - 7.4
Hydraulic Radius(ft) 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 - 0.5 - 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 - 0.7 - 0.7
Based on current/developing bankfull feature
BF Width(ft)
BF Mean Depth(ft)
Width/Depth Ratio
BF Cross-sectional Area(ft2)
BF Max Depth(ft)
Width of Floodprone Area(ft)
Entrenchment Ratio
Bank Height Ratio
Wetted Perimeter(ft)
Hydraulic Radius(ft)
Cross Sectional Area between end pins(ftz)
d50(mm)
Note:Per DMS/IRT request,the bank height ratio for MY7 has been calculated using the as-built bankfull area. All other values were calculated using the as-built bankfull elevation,as was done for previous monitoring reports.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC.
YEAR 7 MONITORING REPORT
UT TO CANE CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT(DMS PROJECT NO.95729)

Table 11.Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary(continued)
UT to Cane Creek Restoration Project:DMS Project ID No.95729
Reach 4(2,333 LF)
Cross-section X-7(Riffle) Cross-section X-8(Pool) Cross-section X-9(Riffle)
Dimension and substrate Base I MY1 I MY2 I MY3 I MY4 I MY5 I MY6 I MY7 Base I MY1 I MY2 I MY3 I MY4 I MY5 I MY6 I MY7 Base I MY1 I MY2 I MY3 I MY4 I MY5 I MY6 I MY7
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
BF Width(ft) 18.7 17.3 16.0 16.3 - 17.2 - 16.2 17.1 16.1 13.4 11.8 - 13.5 - 12.2 13.8 13.7 13.0 11.1 - 10.1 - 10.3
BF Mean Depth(ft) 0.79 0.81 0.62 0.95 - 0.90 - 1.0 1.45 0.96 1.33 1.31 - 1.40 - 1.5 1.02 0.97 0.72 0.61 - 0.80 - 0.9
Width/Depth Ratio 23.7 21.5 25.7 17.2 - 18.9 - 16.3 11.8 16.8 10.1 9.0 - 9.8 - 8.3 13.5 14.1 18.1 18.1 - 13.3 - 11.8
BF Cross-sectional Area(ftl 14.8 14.0 10.0 15.5 - 15.6 - 16.1 24.7 15.5 17.8 15.5 - 18.7 - 18.0 14.1 13.3 9.3 6.8 - 7.8 - 8.9
BF Max Depth(ft) 1.24 1.23 1.01 1.72 - 1.80 - 1.8 3.41 2.18 2.73 2.30 - 2.40 - 2.1 1.85 1.52 1.22 1.00 - 1.20 - 1.3
Width of Floodprone Area(ft) 56.1 57.3 30.2 59.7 - 60.8 - 60.0 72.5 45.2 59.0 46.3 - 54.1 - 46.5 33.9 32.1 29.4 28.4 - 29.4 - 29.50
Entrenchment Ratio 3.0 2.0 1.9 3.7 - 3.5 - 3.7 - - - - - - - - 2.5 2.4 2.3 2.6 - 2.9 - 2.8
Bank Height Ratio 1.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 - 0.9 - 1.0 - - - - - - - - 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.0 - 1.1 - 0.9
Wetted Perimeter(ft) 20.3 19.0 17.2 18.2 - 18.4 - 17.9 20.0 18.1 16.0 14.4 - 15.0 - 13.6 15.8 15.6 14.5 12.3 - 10.7 - 10.8
Hydraulic Radius(ft) 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.8 - 0.9 - 0.9 1.2 0.9 1.1 1.1 - 1.2 - 1.3 0.9 0.9 0.6 0.6 - 0.7 - 0.8
Based on current/developing bankfull feature
BF Width(ft)
BF Mean Depth(ft)
Width/Depth Ratio
BF Cross-sectional Area(ft/)
BF Max Depth(ft)
Width of Floodprone Area(ft)
Entrenchment Ratio
Bank Height Ratio
Wetted Perimeter(ft)
Hydraulic Radius(ft)
Cross Sectional Area between end pins(ft2)
d50(mm)
Table 11.Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary(continued)
UT to Cane Creek Restoration Project:DMS Project ID No.95729
Reach 5(1,461 LF)
Cross-section X-1(Riffle) Cross-section X-2(Pool) Cross-section X-3(Riffle) Cross-section X-4(Riffle)
Dimension and substrate Base I MY1 I MY2 I MY3 I MY4 I MY5 I MY6 I MY7 Base I MY1 I MY2 I MY3 I MY4 I MY5 I MY6 I MY7 Base I MY1 I MY2 I MY3 I MY4 I MY5 I MY6 I MY7 Base I MY1 I MY2 I MY3 I MY4 I MY5 I MY6 I MY7
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
BF Width(ft) 10.4 10.1 9.0 8.8 - 9.4 - 8.7 11.2 11.3 10.8 10.8 - 11.5 - 11.2 12.0 11.2 10.0 10.4 - 15.0 - 10.3 10.2 11.7 9.0 10.3 - 12.5 - 11.7
BF Mean Depth(ft) 0.68 0.71 0.65 0.62 - 0.7 - 0.70 1.41 1.37 1.35 1.45 - 1.4 - 1.4 0.68 0.65 0.61 0.61 - 0.5 - 0.7 0.81 0.70 0.69 0.70 - 0.80 - 0.8
Width/Depth Ratio 15.2 14.2 14.0 14.1 - 13.4 - 13.1 8.0 8.3 8.0 7.4 - 8.0 - 7.9 17.8 17.3 16.6 17.0 - 29.2 - 15.5 12.5 16.7 13.1 14.7 - 16.3 - 14.3
BF Cross-sectional Area(ft2) 7.1 7.2 5.8 5.4 - 6.7 - 5.8 15.8 15.4 14.5 15.7 - 16.4 - 15.9 8.1 7.2 6.1 6.4 - 7.8 - 6.9 8.3 8.1 6.2 7.2 - 9.5 - 9.5
BF Max Depth(ft) 1.19 1.33 1.04 1.07 - 1.30 - 1.1 2.79 2.66 2.39 2.50 - 2.70 - 2.60 1.16 1.16 1.08 1.08 - 1.20 - 1.10 1.33 1.44 1.10 1.28 - 1.60 - 1.30
Width of Floodprone Area(ft) 85.1 85.0 85.1 85.1 - 85.1 - 85.0 103.7 103.7 103.7 103.6 - 103.6 - 103.6 76.0 76.5 76.0 76.2 - 76.3 - 76.3 32.2 34.3 30.1 33.2 - 37.5 - 35.0
Entrenchment Ratio 8.2 8.5 9.4 9.7 - 9.0 - 9.8 - - - - - - - - 6.3 6.9 7.6 7.3 - 5.1 - 7.4 3.2 2.9 3.3 7.3 - 3.0 - 2.8
Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 - 1.0 - 1.0 - - - - - - - - 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 - 1.0 - 0.9 1.0 0.9 1.0 1.1 - 1.1 - 1.0
Wetted Perimeter(ft) 11.8 11.5 10.3 10.0 - 9.8 - 9.2 14.1 14.0 13.5 13.7 - 13.5 - 13.0 13.4 12.5 11.3 11.7 - 15.4 - 10.8 11.8 13.1 10.4 11.7 - 13.9 - 121.5
Hydraulic Radius(ft) 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 - 0.7 - 0.6 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 - 1.2 - 1.2 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 - 0.5 - 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 - 0.7 - 0.8
Based on current/developing bankfull feature
BF Width(ft)
BF Mean Depth(ft)
Width/Depth Ratio
BF Cross-sectional Area(ft/)
BF Max Depth(ft)
Width of Floodprone Area(ft)
Entrenchment Ratio
Bank Height Ratio
Wetted Perimeter(ft)
Hydraulic Radius(ft)
Cross Sectional Area between end pins(ft2)
d50(mm)
Note:Per DMS/IRT request,the bank height ratio for MY7 has been calculated using the as-built bankfull area. All other values were calculated using the as-built bankfull elevation,as was done for previous monitoring reports.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC.
YEAR 7 MONITORING REPORT
UT TO CANE CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT(DMS PROJECT NO.95729)

Appendix E
Hydrologic Data

Table 12. Verification of Bankfull Events
UT to Cane Creek Restoration Project:DMS Project ID No.95729
Date of Data Collection Crest Gauge 1(Reach 5) Crest Gauge 2(Reach 3) Estimated Occurrence of Bankfull Method of Data Collection
Event
Year 1 Monitoring
10/01/2014 NA 0.18 07/16/2014 Crest Gauge
Year 2 Monitoring
03/25/2015 0.33 NA 03/06/2015 Crest Gauge
10/13/2015 0.62 0.79 10/03/2015 Crest Gauge
Year 3 Monitoring
07/27/2016 1.21 NA 02/17/2016 Crest Gauge
09/30/2016 1.31 1.12 09/19/2016 Crest Gauge
11/09/2016 0.75 0.66 10/09/2016 Crest Gauge
Year 4 Monitoring
05/03/2017 0.76 0.46 04/24/2017 Crest Gauge
Year 5 Monitoring
09/24/2018 1.22 1.08 09/17/2018(Hurricane Florence) Crest Gauge
Year 6 Monitoring
06/06/2019 0.83 0.46 04/14/2019 Crest Gauge
Year 7 Monitoring
•
08/28/2020 N/A(ants removed the cork 0.67 8/4/20 to 8/5/20(2.47"total) Crest Gauge
overbank indicator)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC.
YEAR 7 MONITORING REPORT
UT TO CANE CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT(DMS PROJECT NO.95729)