20041635 Ver 1_Monitoring Report Year 6_20140808

UT to South Fork Creek (Stephens)
Stream and Wetland Restoration Project
Alamance County, North Carolina
EEP Project #405
Contract #D09079s
MY -06 Monitoring Report
,I"t t]
;II �i�11 '�'llj(:i�
PROGRAM
Prepared for:
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
217 West Jones St, Suite 3000A
Raleigh, NC 27603

UT to South Fork Creek
Stream and Wetland Restoration
EEP Project #405
Liberty, North Carolina
Alamance County
MY -06 Monitoring Report
Prepared By:
KCI
ASSOCIATES OF NC
Landmark Center II, Suite 220
4601 Six Forks Road
Raleigh, NC 27609
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Project Manager: Adam Spiller
Email: adam.spiller @kci.com
Project No: 16133829

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................................................... ............................... l
II. Methodology .................................................................................................................................................................. ............................... 3
III. References ...................................................................................................................................................................... ............................... 3
APPENDICES
Appendix A. Project Vicinity Map and Background Tables
Figure Ia.Vicinity Map .............. ...............................
Table la.
Project Components .. ...............................
Table lb.
Component Summations ..........................
Table 2.
Project Activity and Reporting History ...
Table 3.
Project Contacts Table .............................
Table 4.
Project Attribute Table ............................
Appendix B. Visual Assessment Data ....................... ...............................
Figure 2. Consolidated Current Conditions Plan View.......
Figure 3. Monitoring Features and Maintenance .................
Table 5. Visual Stream Morphology Assessment Table ...
Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment Table ............
Photos 1 -9. Stream Station Photos ........... ...............................
Photos 10- 1 6.Vegetation Monitoring Plots Photos .................
Appendix C. Vegetation Plot Data ............................. ...............................
Table 7. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment .........................
Table 8. CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata .. ...............................
Table 9. CVS Planted and Total Stem Counts .......................
Appendix D. Stream Survey Data .......... ...............................
Figure 4 -9. Cross - Sections .... ...............................
Figure 10. Longitudinal Profile ..........................
Figure 11 -16. Pebble Count Plots ........................
Table 10a. Baseline Stream Data Summary ........
Table 10b. Baseline Stream Data Summary ........
Table l la. Dimensional Morphology Summary.
Table 11 b. Stream Reach Data Summary ............
Appendix E. Hydrologic Data
Table 12. Verification of Bankfull Events ............................................................... ...............................
Table 13. Wetland Criteria Attainment ................................................................... ...............................
Photo17. Bankful Indicator ..................................................................................... ...............................
Figures 17 -20. Groundwater Monitoring Gauge Hydrographs ............................... ...............................
I. Executive Summary
..........4
.......... 5
.......... 6
......... 6
.......... 7
.......... 8
...... 9
.....10
.....11
.....12
.....13
.....26
.....17
.....22
......... ............................... 25
......... ............................... 26
......... ............................... 27
......... ............................... 28
.....30
.....31
.....40
.....43
.....47
..... 50
.....51
..... 52
.... 55
.... 56
.... 56
.... 56
.... 57
The UT to South Fork Creek (Stephens) (UTSFC) stream and wetland restoration project comprises 3943 linear feet of stream
restoration with approximately 0.77 acre of wetland restoration and 0.14 acre of wetland enhancement. Site construction was
completed June 2007 and plantings were completed in December 2007. This report represents the 5t' consecutive year monitoring
data collection. An integrated Baseline /Monitoring Year 1 Report year was combined as one report and submitted in May 2010,
which contains only stream and vegetation baseline data. The monitoring year two report was submitted separately in May 2010,
but contains monitoring year 1 stream and vegetation data. The monitoring year three report contains monitoring year two data,
and this year's monitoring year six report contains monitoring year five data. The report title year only represents the post
construction year as opposed to the post construction data collection year. The project is within USGS Hydrologic Cataloging
Unit (HUC) 03030002050050 (NCDWQ sub basin 03- 06 -04) of the Cape Fear River Basin. This HUC has been identified as a
Targeted Local Watershed (TLW) by EEP's Cape Fear River Basin Priorities Plan 2009. The project is in Alamance County,
approximately eight miles north of Siler City and one mile west of Snow Camp Road (SR 1004). The goals and objectives for UT
to South Fork Creek (Stephens) stream restoration are:
Project Goals:
• Improving water quality to the receiving watershed though:
• Cattle exclusion from the easement
• Planting a native riparian buffer
• Reduction of bank derived sediment losses through stabilization via:
■ Construction of a channel with a stable dimension, pattern and profile
• Protection of banks from hoof shear
• Integration of a stabilizing root mass as part of planting a native riparian buffer
• Providing wildlife habitat through the creation of a riparian zone
• Improving aquatic habitat with the use of natural material stabilization structures and a riparian buffer
UT to South Fork Creek (Stephens) Stream and Wetland Restoration Year 6 Monitoring Report-Final
NCEEP Project Number: 405 January 2014
KCI Associates of NC. 1

• Increasing stream access to the floodplain
• Reducing erosion and sedimentation
Priority I and II stream restoration was performed along 4181 if of UTSFC, including 2 cattle crossings exclusions and a 148 if
road crossing exclusion. Stream preservation of 27641f of a perennial unnamed tributary (UT) to UTSFC was obtained by
establishing cattle fencing along the existing stream buffer. In the floodplain of UTSFC, 0.77 acre of riparian wetlands was
restored. An additional 0.14 acre of riparian wetlands was enhanced. The stream is divided into three reaches A (Sta 6 +00 —
18 +75), B (Sta 18 +75 — 25 +00), and C (Sta 29 +00 — 40 +00 for monitoring purposes (Figure 2).
Currently the vegetation success criteria for the project site are being met. Seven vegetation plots were monitored using Version
4.2 of the CVS -EEP vegetation monitoring protocol. The average stem density for the project site is 1,908 stems /acre including
live stakes, planted stems, and natural stems. Counting only planted stems and excluding live takes, the average stem density for
the project site is 358 stems /acre. The success criterion for planted woody species is 320 stems /acre after MY -03. A mortality rate
of ten percent will be allowed after MY -04 (288 stems /acre), with another ten percent allowed after MY -05 (260 stems /acre).
Plots 4, 5, and 6 stem densities were below the 260 planted stems /acre threshold, but the total stems /acre of desirable species far
exceeded the stems /acre threshold. Since these same vegetation plots met the success criteria for total stems, this is a reflection of
high recruitment of natural volunteer species. Supplemental plantings were conducted during the 2012 monitoring period to
address areas of low stem densities identified in 2011.
The vegetation problem areas are small and consist of some areas with low planted stem densities and some areas of invasive
exotic plants. Treatment and removal of targeted invasive exotic plants within the project area was conducted in 2010 and 2011
with the last treatments conducted in October 2011. Currently the invasives are in a manageable state and will be monitored to
determine if further control measures will be necessary. Invasive exotic species observed throughout the conservation easement
include multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), Japanese stilt grass (Microstegium
vimineum), Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), and tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima). Some living individuals of multiflora
rose and Chinese privet were observed scattered within Reach C. Some young individuals of tree of heaven were observed in the
vicinity of the road crossing towards the center of the site. One area of Japanese honeysuckle was observed in Reach C. Japanese
stilt grass is present throughout Reach A and B. Although these species have been given different ranks of severity, the
functionality of the project is not expected to be impaired significantly. It is likely that all of these species were present in and
adjacent to the conservation easement prior to construction. Supplemental planting of the conservation easement was completed
on February 2, 2012.
Six riparian wetlands occur within the conservation easement totaling 0.91 acre. Wetlands 2 -6, totaling 0.77 acres, are restored
wetlands residing in the pre - construction channel alignment with each containing a groundwater monitoring gauge. Wetland 1,
totaling 0.14 acres, is an enhanced wetland with one reference groundwater monitoring gauge. Groundwater levels are monitored
to determine if levels are within 12 inches of the soil surface for at least 12% of the growing season. These areas will be
considered wetlands if the groundwater is within 12 inches for at least 12% of the growing season, and the area supports
hydrophytic vegetation, and meets the hydric soil requirements. According to the wetland groundwater gauges on site for MY -06,
gauges 1, 2, 3, and 5 met wetland hydrology requirements (Appendix E), while Gauge 4 was unable to be located after multiple
attempts using the supplied GPS coordinates and a metal detector. Wetland soils were observed within wetlands meeting the
wetland hydrology success criteria based on the F3 hydric soil indicator. Wetland plants such as common rush (Juncus effusus),
smartweed (Polygonum sp.), and various wetland sedges (Carex sp.) were also observed within these wetland areas.
Overall, the stream is stable and functioning as designed. There has been little change in the stream pattern, profile or dimension
between MY -05 and the present monitoring year. Vegetation within the channel bottom continues to be present in all of Reach A
and the upper portions of Reach B & C. All pebble counts within the site show little change and remain consistent with previous
pebble counts.
The bedform features of the entire stream have remained consistent as compared to the previous year's monitoring data, with
little change to pattern, profile or dimension. Comparison of the cross - sections in Reaches A and B show little change in
geometry between MY -05 and MY -06 and are overall stable with the exception of cross- sections 3 and 4. These cross - sections
are showing a slight change in geometry, as both are trending wider and deeper as compared to previous years.
Bank erosion problems are not evident anywhere along the site. Previously reported bank erosion areas have stabilized as woody
stem vegetation has grown on these banks. No further erosion was observed in these previous bank erosion areas.
Summary information/data related to the occurrence of items such as beaver encroachment and statistics related to performance
of various project and monitoring elements can be found in the tables and figures in the report appendices. Narrative background
and supporting information formerly found in these reports can be found in the Baseline Monitoring Report (formerly Mitigation
Plan) and in the Mitigation Plan (formerly Restoration Plan) documents available on EEP's website. All raw data supporting the
tables and figures in the appendices are available from EEP upon request.
UT to South Fork Creek (Stephens) Stream and Wetland Restoration Year 6 Monitoring Report-Final
NCEEP Project Number: 405 January 2014
KCI Associates of NC. 2

II. Methodology
Methodologies follow EEP monitoring report template Version 1.3 (1/15/2010) and guidelines (Lee et al 2008). Photos were
taken with a digital camera. A Trimble Geo XT handheld unit with sub -meter accuracy was used to collect groundwater gauge
locations, vegetation monitoring plot origins, and problem area locations. Cross - sectional and longitudinal surveys were
conducted using survey grade GPS equipment. Reports were then generated to display summaries of the stream survey.
A. Vegetation Methodologies
Level Il of the EEP /CVS protocol Version 4.2 was used to collect data for MY -06, which includes natural stems. Data collection
for these plots was conducted on July 29, 2013 (Appendix Q.
B. Wetland Methodologies
Five RDS groundwater monitoring gauges (1 -5) were downloaded bi- monthly to ensure proper function throughout the growing
season. Data is provided in an Excel spreadsheet along with incorporation of local rainfall data provided by the State Climate
Office.
C. Stream Methodologies
Stream profile and cross - sections were surveyed survey grade GPS equipment and methods. The longitudinal profile was
generated using the MY -00 alignment. Cross - sectional data was extracted based on a linear alignment between the end pins.
Cross - section bankfull elevations for yearly comparisons are based on the baseline bankfull elevation established for each cross -
section. Data collection for the stream data was conducted on December 12, 2013.
III. References
Lee, Michael T. Peet, Robert K. Roberts, Steven D., Wentworth, Thomas R. (2008). CVS -EEP Protocol for Recording
Vegetation Version 4.2.
Weakley, Alan (2007). Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, Georgia, and Surrounding Areas.
hqp://www.herbarium.unc.edu/flora.htin.
Wolman, M.G., 1954. A Method of Sampling Coarse River -Bed Material, Transactions of American Geophysical Union 35:951-
956.
UT to South Fork Creek (Stephens) Stream and Wetland Restoration Year 6 Monitoring Report-Final
NCEEP Project Number: 405 January 2014
KCI Associates of NC. 3

Appendix 1. Project Vicinity Map and Background Tables
UT to South Fork Creek (Stephens) Stream and Wetland Restoration Year 6 Monitoring Report-Final
NCEEP Project Number: 405 January 2014
KCI Associates of NC. 4

Fiaure 1. Vicinitv May
Osptic.11l
T
KC
ClIXI,(
T
�n uyxsu
UT to South Fork Creek
(EEP#405)
Vicinity Map
USGS Topographic Quad ranpIa Map
Alamance GGUnty, NC
Date: Figure
February 2012
Scale
1 1,600 3.206 Feet
I t
Job No.:
4133
UT to South Fork Creek (Stephens) Stream and Wetland Restoration Year 6 Monitoring Report-Final
NCEEP Project Number: 405 January 2014
KCI Associates ofNC. 5

Table 1a. Project Components
UT to South Fork Creek (Stephens) No. 405
Project
Existing
Restorati
Non -Ripar
Footage
Buffer
Mitigation
Mitigation
BMP
Wetland Ac
Component
Feet/Acres
on Level
Approach
or
Stationing
Ratio
Units
Elements
Comment
or Reach ID
Preservation 2734
HQ Preservation
70T771
Acreage
6677
0.91
0
1
UT to South
735
R
P2
690 If
0+30—
1:1
690
Fork Creek
7 +50
Instream
UT to South
1430
R
P1
1420 If
7+50—
1:1
1420
Structure
Fork Creek
21 +70
and
Vegetated
Buffers
UT to South
1917
R
P2
1833 If
23 +18
1:1
1833
Fork Creek
41 +81
UT to UTSFC
2764
p
Cattle
27341f
0+00—
5:1
547
Cattle Fence
Fencing
27 +64
Installed
Water
Pre-
Wetlands
Wetlands
0.77
R
table
0.77 Ac
1:1
0.77
construction
restored
15 +50
channel
location
Hardwood
Pre -
Wetlands
0.14
E
plantings
0.14
13 +00
2:1
0.07
construction
wetland
I = BR — Bimetention Cell; SF= Sand Filter; SW — Stonnwatcr Wctlead; W DP —Wet Detention Pond; DDP = Dry Dctcntmu Pond; FS = FiItcr Strip; Oresscd Swalc = S; LS — Lcvcl Sprcadcr; NI — Natural lu ltratian Arcs, O —
Other; CF= Cattle Fencing; WS = Wztcring Sy,tcm; CH — Livestock Housing
Cattle Crossings at Sta 0 +00 to 0 +30, Sur 6 +00 to 6 +30, Sta 28 -85 to 29 °15. 30 LF stream crossing on Preservation Reach of UT to UTSFC
Road Crossing at Star 21 +70 to 23 +18
Stream crossing lengths are not included in Mitigation Unit calculated values
Table 1 b. Component Summations
UT to South Fork Creek Ste hens No. 405
Restoration
Stream
Riparian
Non -Ripar
Upland
Buffer
Level
If
Wetland Ac
Ac
Ac
Ac
BMP
Non -
Riverine Riverine
Restoration 3943 0.77
Enhancement 0.14
Enhancement I
Enhancement II
Creation
Preservation 2734
HQ Preservation
70T771
Totals (Feet/Acres)
6677
0.91
0
0
MU Totals
4490
0.84
0
0
UT to South Fork Creek (Stephens) Stream and Wetland Restoration Year 6 Monitoring Report-Final
NCEEP Project Number: 405 January 2014
KCI Associates ofNC. 6

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
UT to South Fork Creek (Stephens) No. 405
Elapsed Time Since Grading Complete: 6 yrs 6 months
Elapsed Time Since Planting Complete: 6 yrs 1 Months
Number of Reporting Years': 5
Activity or Deliverable
Data Collection
Complete
Completion or
Deliver
Restoration Plan
N/A
Sep -04
Final Design — 90%
N/A
N/A
Construction
N/A
June -07
Temporary S &E mix applied to entire project area
N/A
June -07
Permanent seed mix applied to entire project area
N/A
June -07
Containerized, B &B, and livestake planting
N/A
Dec -07
Monitoring Baseline Year 0/1
Apr -09
June -09
Year 2 Monitoring
Nov -09
Dec -09
Invasives treatment #1
N/A
May -10
Invasives treatment #2
N/A
Oct -10
Year 3 Monitoring
Sep -10
Dec -10
Invasives treatment #3
N/A
Apr -11
Invasives treatment #4
N/A
Oct -11
Year 4 Monitoring
Oct -11
Feb -12
Supplemental Planting
N/A
Feb -12
Year 5 Monitoring
Oct -12
Nov -12
Year 6 Monitoring
Dec -13
Jan -14
1 = Equals the number of reports or data points produced excluding the baseline
UT to South Fork Creek (Stephens) Stream and Wetland Restoration Year 6 Monitoring Report-Final
NCEEP Project Number: 405 January 2014
KCI Associates ofNC. 7

Table 3. Project Contacts Table
UT to South Fork Creek (Stephens) No. 405
Designer
Dewberry & Dais, Inc.
2301 Rexwoods Dr., Ste. 200
Raleigh, NC, 27607 -3366
Primary project design POC
Ph: 919- 881 -9939
Construction Contractor
N/A
Construction contractor POC
Survey Contractor
N/A
Survey contractor POC
Planting Contractor
N/A
Planting contractor POC
Seeding Contractor
N/A
Contractor point of contact
Seed Mix Sources
N/A
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Coastal Plain Conservation Nursery, Inc.
Ph: 252 - 482 -5707
Monitoring Years 1 -5 Performers
Ward Consulting Engineers, P.C.
8368 Six Forks Road Suite 104
Raleigh, NC 27615 -5083
Stream Monitoring POC
Becky Ward 919 - 870 -0526
Vegetation Monitoring POC
Chris Sheats - The Catena Group - 919 - 732 -1300
Wetland Monitoring POC
Chris Sheats - The Catena Group - 919 - 732 -1300
Monitoring Year 6 Performers
KCI Associates of North Carolina, PA
Landmark Center II, Suite 220
4601 Six Forks Road
Raleigh, NC 27609
Phone: [phone]
POC: Adam Spiller
UT to South Fork Creek (Stephens) Stream and Wetland Restoration Year 6 Monitoring Report-Final
NCEEP Project Number: 405 January 2014
KCI Associates ofNC. 8

Table 4. Project Attribute Table
UT to South Fork Creek (Stephens) No. 405
Project County
Alamance
Ph sio ra hic Region
Piedmont
Ecore ion
Carolina Slate Belt
Project River Basin
Cape Fear River Basin
USGS HUC for Project 14 digit)
3030002050050
NCDWQ Sub -basin for Project
03 -06 -04
Within extent of EEP Watershed Plan?
Cape Fear River Basin Priorities Plan 2009
WRC Hab Class arm, Cool, Cold
of project easement fenced or demarcated
100%
Beaver activity observed during desi n phase?
U
Restoration Component Attribute Table
Drainage area
1.33 sq mi
Stream order
2nd
Restored length feet
4003
Perennial or Intermittent
Perennial
Watershed type Rural, Urban, Developing etc.
Rural
Watershed LULC Distribution (e.g.)
Urban
Ag -Row Crop
Ag- Livestock
Forested
Water/Wetlands
51
29%
10%
7
3
Watershed impervious cover %
<5%
NCDWQ AU /Index number
NCDWQ classification
No classification; Haw River C, NSW
303d listed?
Yes
Upstream of a 303d listed segment?
Yes
Reasons for 303d listing or stressor
High pH
Total acreage of easement
22.58
Total vegetated acreage within the easement
21.86
Total planted acreage as part of the restoration
15.29
Ros en classification of pre-existing
F4, G4c
Ros en classification of As -built
E4
Valley type
Valley slope
Valley side slope ranee.. 2 -3.
Valley toe slope ranee.. 2 -3.
Cowardin classification
Riverine
Trout waters designation
Species of concern, endangered etc.? (Y/N)
Yes
Dominant soil series and characteristics
Series
Herndon, Orange, Appling, and Colifax silty loams
Depth
Cla
K
T
Use N/A for items that may not apply. Use " -" for items that are unavailable and "U° for items that are unknown
UT to South Fork Creek (Stephens) Stream and Wetland Restoration Year 6 Monitoring Report-Final
NCEEP Project Number: 405 January 2014
KCI Associates of NC. 9

Appendix 2. Visual Assessment Data
UT to South Fork Creek (Stephens) Stream and Wetland Restoration Year 6 Monitoring Report-Final
NCEEP Project Number: 405 January 2014
KCI Associates of NC. 10

Table 5 Visual Stream Morpholou Stability Assessment
Reach ID Reach A (Sta. 6 +00 — 18 +75)
Assessed Length 1275 ft.
Major
Channel
# Stable,
Total #
# of Unstable
Amount of
% Stable,
# with
Footage with
Adjusted %for
Channel
Sub-
Metric
Performing
in As-
Segments
Unstable
Performing as
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Category
9 r1l
Category
9 r1l
as Intended
built
Footage
9
Intended
Wood Veg.
Y 9�
Wood Veg.
Y 9�
Wood Ve
Y 9.
1. Vertical
Stability
1. Aegradation — Bar formation /growth sufficient to significantly
0
0
100%
1. Bed
(Riffle and
deflect flow laterally (not to include point bars)
Run units)
2. Degradation — Evidence of downcutting
0
0
100%
2. Riffle
Condition
1. Texture /Substrate Riffle maintains coarser substrate
5 12
42%
3. Meander
Pool
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankful Depth z1.6)
5 20
25%
Condition
2, Length appropriate ( >30% of centerline distance between tail of
5 20
25
upstream riffle and head of downstream riffle)
4. Thalweg
Position
1. Thalweg centering upstream of meander bend (Run)
32 32
100
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
LA
31 31
100%
—Am
POM
1. Scoured/
Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth
0 0
100
2. Bank
and /or scour and erosion
2. Undercut
Banks undercuttoverhanging to the extent that mass wasting
appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest,
0 0
100
appear sustainable and are providing habitat
3. Mass
Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapsing
0 0
100%
Totals
0 0
100%
1. Overall
Integrity
Structure physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs
2
3
66%
3. Engineered
Structures
2, Grade
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across
Control
the sill
1
1
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms
1
1
100
3. Bank
Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not
exceed 15% (see guidance for this table in EEP monitoring
3
3
100%
guidance document)
1
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintain — Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankful
Depth ratio ?1.6 Rootwads /logs providing some cover at base -flow
1
1
100%
UT to South Fork Creek (Stephens) Stream and Wetland Restoration Year 6 Monitoring Report-Final
NCEEP Project Number: 405 January 2014
KCI Associates of NC. 13

Table 5 Visual Stream Morpholou Stability Assessment
Reach ID Reach B (Sta. 18 +75 — 25 +00)
Assessed Length 62511.
Major
Channel
# Stable,
Total #
# of Unstable
Amount of
% Stable,
# with
Footage with
Adjusted
Channel
Sub-
Metric
Performing
in As-
Segments
Unstable
Performing as
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
for Stabilizing
Category
9 rY
Category
9 rY
as Intended
built
Footage
9
Intended
Wood Veg.
Y 9�
Wood Veg.
Y 9�
Wood Ve
Y 9.
1. Vertical
Stability
1. Aegradation — Bar formation /growth sufficient to significantly
0
0
100
1. Bed
(Riffle and
deflect flow laterally (not to include point bars)
Run units)
2 Degradation — Evidence of downcutting
0
0
100
2. Riffle
Condition
1. Texture /Substrate Riffle maintains coarser substrate
0
6
3. Meander
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth: Mean Bankful Depth ?1.6)
4
14
E29
Pool
2. Length appropriate ( >30 % of centerline distance between tail of
Condition
4
14
upstream riffle and head of downstream riffle
4. Thalweg
1. Thalweg centering upstream of meander bend (Run)
10
10
100%
Position
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
100%
10
10
1. Scoured/
Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth
0
0
100%
2. Bank
and /or scour and erosion
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting
appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest,
0
0
100
appear sustainable and are providing habitat
3. Mass
Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapsing
0
0
100
Totals
0
0
100%
1. Overall
Integrity
Structure physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs
2
2
100
3. Engineered
2. Grade
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across
2
2
Structures
100
Control
the sill
100
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms
2
2
3. Bank
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not
Protection
exceed 15% (see guidance for this table in EEP monitoring
2
2
100
guidance document)
Pool forming structures maintain — Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankful
r77,77_
Depth ratio ?1.6 Rootwads /logs providing some cover at base -flow
2
2
100%
UT to South Fork Creek (Stephens) Stream and Wetland Restoration Year 6 Monitoring Report-Final
NCEEP Project Number: 405 January 2014
KCI Associates of NC. 14

Table 5 Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID Reach C (Sta. 29 +00 — 40 +00)
Assessed Length 1100 ft.
Major
Channel
# Stable,
Total #
# of Unstable
Amount of
% Stable,
# with
Footage with
Adjusted
Channel
Sub-
Metric
Performing
in As-
Segments
Unstable
Performing as
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
for Stabilizing
Category
9 rY
Category
9 rY
as Intended
built
Footage
9
Intended
Wood Veg.
Y 9�
Wood Veg.
Y 9�
Wood Ve
Y 9.
1. Vertical
Stability
1. Aegradation — Bar formation /growth sufficient to significantly
0
0
100&
1. Bed
(Riffle and
deflect flow laterally (not to include point bars)
Run units)
2 Degradation — Evidence of downcutting
0
0
100
2. Riffle
Condition
1. Texture /Substrate Riffle maintains coarser substrate
1
S
13%
3. Meander
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth: Mean Bankful Depth ?1.6)
3
12
25%
Pool
2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
Condition
3
12
25%
upstream riffle and head of downstream riffle
4. Thalweg
1. Thalweg centering upstream of meander bend (Run)
26
26
100%
Position
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
100
26
26
1. Scoured/
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth
0
0
100
2. Bank
Eroding
and /or scour and erosion
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting
appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest,
0
0
100
appear sustainable and are providing habitat
3. Mass
Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapsing
0
0
100
Totals
0
0
100%
1. Overall
Integrity
Structure physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs
1
1
100%
3. Engineered
2. Grade
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across
1
1
Structures
100%
Control
the sill
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms
1
1
3. Bank
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not
Protection
exceed 15% (see guidance for this table in EEP monitoring
1
1
100%
guidance document)
Pool forming structures maintain — Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankful
r77,77_
Depth ratio ?1.6 Rootwads /logs providing some cover at base -flow
1
100%
UT to South Fork Creek (Stephens) Stream and Wetland Restoration Year 6 Monitoring Report-Final
NCEEP Project Number: 405 January 2014
KCI Associates of NC. 15

I able o. v C etation lAnnitlon Assessment 1 anle
Planted Acreage
Mapping Number of Combined % of
Vegetation Category Definitions Threshold CCPV Depiction Polygons Acreage Planted
Area
1. Bare Areas Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous
material
0.1 acres Pattern and Color 0 0 0
2. Low Stem Density Areas Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based
on MY 3, 4, or 5 stem count criteria
0.1 acres Pattern and Color 0 0 0
Total: 0 0
3. Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor Areas with woody stems of a size class that are obviously
small given the monitoring year
0.25 acres Pattern and color 0 0 0
Cumulative Total: 0 0
4. Invasive Areas of Concern
5. Easement Encroachment Areas
Easement Acreage
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map
scale)
UT to South Fork Creek (Stephens) Stream and Wetland Restoration
NCEEP Project Number: 405
KCI Associates of NC.
16
1000 SF I Pattern and Color 1 0 1 0 1 0
none Pattern and color 0 0 0
Year 6 Monitoring Report-Final
January 2014

Stream Station Photos
Photo 1. Looking downstream at XS — 12/13/2013
Photo 2. Looking downstream at XS -2 — 12/13/2013
UT to South Fork Creek (Stephens) Stream and Wetland Restoration Year 6 Monitoring Report-Final
NCEEP Project Number: 405 January 2014
KCI Associates of NC. 17

Photo 3. Looking downstream at XS -3 — 12/13/2013
Photo 4. Looking downstream at XS -4 — 12/13/2013
UT to South Fork Creek (Stephens) Stream and Wetland Restoration Year 6 Monitoring Report-Final
NCEEP Project Number: 405 January 2014
KCI Associates of NC. is

Photo 5. Looking downstream at XS -5 — 12/13/2013
Photo 6. Looking downstream at XS -6 — 12/13/2013
UT to South Fork Creek (Stephens) Stream and Wetland Restoration Year 6 Monitoring Report-Final
NCEEP Project Number: 405 January 2014
KCI Associates of NC. 19

Photo 7. Looking downstream at XS -7 — 12/13/2013
Photo 8. Looking downstream at XS -8 — 12/13/2013
UT to South Fork Creek (Stephens) Stream and Wetland Restoration Year 6 Monitoring Report-Final
NCEEP Project Number: 405 January 2014
KCI Associates of NC. 20

Photo 9. Looking downstream at XS -9 — 12/13/2013
x[`Fb, H,p�
UT to South Fork Creek (Stephens) Stream and Wetland Restoration Year 6 Monitoring Report-Final
NCEEP Project Number: 405 January 2014
KCI Associates of NC. 21

Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos
Photo 10. Vegetation Plot 1 — 7/29/2013
Photo 11. Vegetation Plot 2 — 7/29/2013
UT to South Fork Creek (Stephens) Stream and Wetland Restoration Year 6 Monitoring Report-Final
NCEEP Project Number: 405 January 2014
KCI Associates of NC. 22

Photo 12. Vegetation Plot 3 — 7/29/2013
Photo 13. Vegetation Plot 4 — 7/29/2013
UT to South Fork Creek (Stephens) Stream and Wetland Restoration Year 6 Monitoring Report-Final
NCEEP Project Number: 405 January 2014
KCI Associates of NC. 23

Photo 14. Vegetation Plot 5 — 7/29/2013
Photo 15. Vegetation Plot 6 — 7/29/2013
Photo 16. Vegetation Plot 7 — 7/29/2013
UT to South Fork Creek (Stephens) Stream and Wetland Restoration Year 6 Monitoring Report-Final
NCEEP Project Number: 405 January 2014
KCI Associates of NC. 24

Appendix 3. Vegetation Plot Data
UT to South Fork Creek (Stephens) Stream and Wetland Restoration Year 6 Monitoring Report-Final
NCEEP Project Number: 405 January 2014
KCI Associates of NC. 25

Table 7. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
UT to South Fork Creek. EEP # 405 Monitoring Year 6 (2013)
Vegetation Plot ID
Vegetation Survival
Threshold Met 260 planted
stems /acre?
Monitoring Year 6
Planted Stem Density
stems /acre
Monitoring Year 6
Total Stem Density
stems /acre
VP 1
Yes
647
1335
VP 2
Yes
526
1740
VP 3
Yes
567
1821
VP 4
No
162
607
VP 5
No
202
931
VP 6
No
121
4168
VP 7
Yes, barely
283
2671
Project Avg
Yes
358
1896
UT to South Fork Creek (Stephens) Stream and Wetland Restoration
NCEEP Project Number: 405
KCI Associates of NC.
26
Year 6 Monitoring Report-Final
January 2014

Report Prepared By
Tommy Seelinger
Date Prepared
8/19/2013 16:09
database name
UTSF CVS veg data entry tool.mdb
database location
M:\2013 \16133829_UT South Fork Monitoring
computer name
12- 7GSWCXI
file size
71491584
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
Project Code
405
project Name
UT to South Fork Creek (Stephens)
Description
South Fork of Cane Creek in Alamance County EEP Project # 405.
River Basin
Cape Fear
length(ft)
stream -to -edge width (ft)
area (sq m)
Required Plots
(calculated)
Sampled Plots
7
UT to South Fork Creek (Stephens) Stream and Wetland Restoration Year 6 Monitoring Report-Final
NCEEP Project Number: 405 January 2014
KCI Associates of NC. 27

Table 9. CVS Stem Count Total and Planted by Plot and .S'neeies
UT to South Fork Creek (Stephens) Stream and Wetland Restoration Year 6 Monitoring Report-Final
NCEEP Project Number: 405 January 2014
KCI Associates of NC. 28
Current Plot Data (MYS 2013)
Scientific Name
Common Name
•i � iii
�� i iii
�i i iii
-i i iii-
�i i iii
-i i iii,
�i i iii
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
=
=
®
®
®=
=
==
=
=w
©
©®
©
©=
=
=
=.
MM®MMM
MMM
MMM
MMM
MMM
MMM
UT to South Fork Creek (Stephens) Stream and Wetland Restoration Year 6 Monitoring Report-Final
NCEEP Project Number: 405 January 2014
KCI Associates of NC. 28

UT to South Fork Creek (Stephens) Stream and Wetland Restoration Year 6 Monitoring Report-Final
NCEEP Project Number: 405 January 2014
KCI Associates of NC. 29
Annual Means
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
MYS (2013)
MY4 (2012)
MY3 (2011)
MY2 (2010)
MY1 (20 9)
MYO (2009)
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
Acerrubrum
red maple
Tree
23
54
57
10
31
Bocchoris holimifolia
eastern baccharis
Shrub
4
4
1
3
2
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
5
5
6
4
4
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Callicorpa americans
American beautyberry
Shrub
2
2
3
6
6
6
6
6
9
5
5
6
6
6
8
3
3
3
Carya alba
mockernut hickory
Tree
1
Carya ovoto
shagbark hickory
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
Celtis loevigato
sugarberry
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
3
Cercis canadensis
eastern redbud
Tree
8
8
8
8
8
8
7
7
9
7
7
7
5
5
5
2
2
2
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
6
6
8
6
6
8
7
7
8
7
7
9
7
7
7
7
7
7
Cornus florida
flowering dogwood
Tree
1
Corylus americana
American hazelnut
Shrub
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
S
5
5
5
5
5
Diospyros virginiana
common persimmon
Tree
3
3
3
3
3
5
31
31
5
3
3
3
2
2
3
2
2
2
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
7
7
53
8
8
80
8
8
58
8
8
50
8
8
40
7
7
7
Gleditsia triocanthos
honeylocust
Tree
2
2
2
3
Ilex decidua vor. decidua
Possum -haw
shrub
1
luglans nigra
black walnut
Tree
1
1
14
1
1
17
1
1
10
6
luniperus virginiana
eastern redcedar
Tree
15
10
10
11
3
Ligustrum sinense
Chinese privet
Exotic
2
1
3
Liquidomborstyrocifluo
sweetgum
Tree
57
72
95
55
49
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
4
4
4
5
5
8
3
3
6
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Morus rubra
red mulberry
Tree
3
3
3
3
3
5
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Nysso sylvatica
blackgum
Tree
1
Pinus taeda
loblolly pine
Tree
1
1
1
Platonus occidentolis
American sycamore
Tree
2
2
4
2
2
4
2
2
4
5
5
5
5
5
7
5
5
5
Prunus
plum
Tree
5
Prunus serotino
black cherry
Tree
1
1
4
5
4
1
Quercus coccinea
scarlet oak
Tree
2
2
2
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
Quercus shumardii
Shumard'soak
Tree
2
2
2
1
1
1
Quercus stelloto
post oak
Tree
4
4
4
Salixsericeo
silky willow
Shrub
1
Sambucus canadensis
Common Elderberry
Shrub
1
1
1
Ulmus
elm
Tree
1
1
13
6
6
21
8
8
95
8
8
8
Ulmus alata
winged elm
Tree
3
3
52
3
3
65
3
3
58
37
Ulmus rubra
slippery elm
Tree
5
5
50
5
5
51
4
4
29
2
2
6
Unknown
ITree
I
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACREI
621
621
328
681
681
427
571
571
393
581
8
253
58
58
275
49
49
49
7
7
7
7
7
7
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
181
181
26
171
171
27
15
15
24
141
141
23
14
141
221
131
131
13
358.4
358.4
1896.2
393.1
393.1
2468.6
329.51329.512272.01
335.31335.31
1462.6
335.31335.31
1589.81
283.3
283.3
283.3
UT to South Fork Creek (Stephens) Stream and Wetland Restoration Year 6 Monitoring Report-Final
NCEEP Project Number: 405 January 2014
KCI Associates of NC. 29

Appendix 4. Stream Survey Data
UT to South Fork Creek (Stephens) Stream and Wetland Restoration Year 6 Monitoring Report-Final
NCEEP Project Number: 405 January 2014
KCI Associates of NC. 30

River Basin:
Cape Feat
Watershed:
UT to South Fork Creek, MY -06
XS ID
UTSF (XS - 1, Riffle) Station 8 +36
Drainage Area (sq mi):
1.33
Date:
12/13/2013
Field Crew:
T. Seelinger, M. Koss
22.5
606.66
28.6
606.53
34.7
606.22
41.4
606.13
47.1
605.51
52.2
605.20
57.8
604.96
63.1
605.01
68.3
605.16
69.5
604.93
{ r
604.12
72.6
603.63
73.9
603.61
74.9
603.54
75.5
602.98
75.8
602.42
76.5
602.31
R ..
.i�M'�S"YAft vMi
602.63
78.0
603.04
78.9
603.93
80.3
h
of
604.89
91.4
604.86
97.1
604.98
a � ��ti�k
605.52
107.3
605.56
111.4
605.78
111.7
;.'", rya 7 r`r I
j
�
«,
°IIL.0'
��
f°
.;
xl
�r
Stream Type E4
River Basin:
Cape Feat
Watershed:
UT to South Fork Creek, MY -06
XS ID
UTSF (XS - 1, Riffle) Station 8 +36
Drainage Area (sq mi):
1.33
Date:
12/13/2013
Field Crew:
T. Seelinger, M. Koss
Station
Elevation
0.0
609.10
0.3
608.58
5.3
608.19
11.2
607.61
17.1
607.06
22.5
606.66
28.6
606.53
34.7
606.22
41.4
606.13
47.1
605.51
52.2
605.20
57.8
604.96
63.1
605.01
68.3
605.16
69.5
604.93
7L5
604.12
72.6
603.63
73.9
603.61
74.9
603.54
75.5
602.98
75.8
602.42
76.5
602.31
77.2
602.63
78.0
603.04
78.9
603.93
80.3
604.99
85.8
604.89
91.4
604.86
97.1
604.98
101.9
605.52
107.3
605.56
111.4
605.78
111.7
606.26
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
604.4
Bankfull Cross Area:
8.8
8.8
Bankfull Width:
8.7
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
606.5
Flood Prone Width:
>90
Max Depth at Bankfull:
2.1
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.0
W / D Ratio:
8.7
Entrenchment Ratio:
10.8
Rank Height Ratio:
1.0
Cape Fear River Basin, UT to South Fork Creek, MY-06, UTSF (XS -1, Riffle) Station 8 +36
610
609
608
607
N
m
� 606
0
605
�
604
603
602
601
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Baseline/MY -Ol, 2008 -MY-02,2009 MY-03,2010 MY -04, 2011
MY- 05,2012 -MY- 06,2013 - - -- Bankfull - -- -Flood Prone Area
UT to South Fork Creek (Stephens) Stream and Wetland Restoration Year 6 Monitoring Report-Final
NCEEP Project Number: 405 January 2014
KCI Associates of NC. 31

Station
Elevation
0.0
Cape Feat
UT to South Fork Creek, MY -06 s
UTSF (XS - 2, Riffle) Station 11+51 a
f-
'd
a r° L
i1�14 _*✓�i �'�
G `
Stream Type E4
River Basin:
Watershed:
XS ID
1.33
Date:
12/13/2013
Field Crew:
T. Seelinger, M. Koss
22.5
604.36
24.5
603.56
26.3
603.23
27.5
602.71
28.6
602.29
29.4
601.77
30.0
601.78
30.9
602.08
31.8
602.67
33.3
603.36
37.8
603.84
42.0
604.34
46.0
604.70
50.6
604.95
56.1
604.81
61.8
604.59
67.2
604.68
72.6
605.10
77.9
605.47
82.0
605.79
82.3
606.23
Station
Elevation
0.0
605.23
0.1
Drainage Area (sq mi):
1.33
Date:
12/13/2013
Field Crew:
T. Seelinger, M. Koss
Station
Elevation
0.0
605.23
0.1
604.73
4.8
604.82
10.3
604.73
16.6
604.51
22.5
604.36
24.5
603.56
26.3
603.23
27.5
602.71
28.6
602.29
29.4
601.77
30.0
601.78
30.9
602.08
31.8
602.67
33.3
603.36
37.8
603.84
42.0
604.34
46.0
604.70
50.6
604.95
56.1
604.81
61.8
604.59
67.2
604.68
72.6
605.10
77.9
605.47
82.0
605.79
82.3
606.23
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
604.0
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area:
15.1
Bankfull Width:
15.1
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
606.2
Flood Prone Width:
>90
Max Depth at Bankfull:
2.2
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.0
W / D Ratio:
15.1
Entrenchment Ratio:
5.5
Rank Height Ratio:
1.0
Cape Fear River Basin, UT to South Fork Creek, MY-06, UTSF (XS - 2, Riffle) Station 11 +51
607
606
N 605
m
e
° 604
W
603
602
601
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Baseline/MY -01, 2008 MY -02, 2009 MY-03,2010 MY-04,2011
MY -05, 2012 - MY -06, 2013 Bankfull -Flood Prone Area
UT to South Fork Creek (Stephens) Stream and Wetland Restoration Year 6 Monitoring Report-Final
NCEEP Project Number: 405 January 2014
KCI Associates of NC. 32

River Basin:
Watershed:
Elevation
0.0
Cape Fear
UT to South Fork Creek, MY -06
0.6
1.
XS ID
1.33
Date:
UTSF (XS - 3, Riffle) Station 14 +05
Field Crew:
T. Seelinger, M. Koss
20.9
602.69
22.3
602.32
23.9
601.91
25.7
501.59
26.4
600.54
27.4
600.40
28.4
600.45
29.4
601.49
r
602.10
32.9
602.60
35.1
602.97
3$.7
603.01
42.7
603.33
46.8
603.59
50.0
603.57
50.0
603.96
600
b n
0 10 20 30 40 50
BasetineMlY -01,2008 -MY-02,2009 MY -03, 2010 my-04,2011
MY-05,2012 - MY -06, 2013 _Bankfull Flood Prone Area
i r A
, rjVI �
}" f
r f1V. i
rJ 1 1 1
' - --
Stream Type E4
Station
Elevation
0.0
604.10
0.6
Drainage Area (sq mi):
1.33
Date:
12/13/2013
Field Crew:
T. Seelinger, M. Koss
Station
Elevation
0.0
604.10
0.6
603.46
7.1
603.21
12.6
603.19
17.7
603.01
20.9
602.69
22.3
602.32
23.9
601.91
25.7
501.59
26.4
600.54
27.4
600.40
28.4
600.45
29.4
601.49
31.1
602.10
32.9
602.60
35.1
602.97
3$.7
603.01
42.7
603.33
46.8
603.59
50.0
603.57
50.0
603.96
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
603.1
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area:
20.7
Bankfull Width:
17.4
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
605.9
Flood Prone Width:
>90
Max Depth a[ Bankfull:
2.7
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.2
W / D Ratio:
14.6
Entrenchment Ratio:
2.9
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Cape Fear River Basin, UT to South Fork Creek, MY-06, UTSF (XS - 3, Riffle) Station 14 +05
607
606
_______________________________________________ ____________________ __________.
605
ti
m
604
e
0
� 603
------ - - - - -- --------------- - - - - -- - ------- - - - - --
W
602
601
600
0 10 20 30 40 50
BasetineMlY -01,2008 -MY-02,2009 MY -03, 2010 my-04,2011
MY-05,2012 - MY -06, 2013 _Bankfull Flood Prone Area
UT to South Fork Creek (Stephens) Stream and Wetland Restoration Year 6 Monitoring Report-Final
NCEEP Project Number: 405 January 2014
KCI Associates of NC. 33

River Basin:
Cape Fear
Watershed:
UT to South Fork Creek, MY -06
XS ID
UTSF (XS - 4, Riffle) Station 17 +04
Drainage Area (sq mi):
1.33
Date:
12/13/2013
Field Crew:
T. Seelinger, M. Koss
Station
Elevation
0.0
602.99
0.4
602.66
5.4
602.32
11.7
602.27
19.0
602.08
24.5
602.21
30.2
602.39
35.1
602.11
38.3
601.48
39.9
600.82
40.9
600.39
41.5
599.61
42.2
599.41
43.1
599.25
44.3
599.25
45.2
599.52
46.3
600.56
48.0
601.19
50.1
601.68
52.1
601.85
56.6
602.03
62.3
602.46
68.5
602.88
74.1
602.75
78.7
602.71
78.8
603.06
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
602.1
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area:
24.9
Bankfull Width:
25.3
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
605.0
Flood Prone Width:
>90
Max Depth at Bankfull:
2.9
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.0
W / D Ratio:
25.8
Entrenchment Ratio:
3.1
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Stream Type I E4
Cape Fear River Basin, UT to South Fork Creek, MY-06, UTSF (XS - 4, Riffle) Station 17 +04
606
605
604
N
603
e
°
--------- - -------- - -- --- --------------------
602
d
W 601
600
599
598
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Basetine/MY -01, 2008 MY-02,2009 W-03,2010 MY-04,2011
MY-05,2012 - MY -06, 2013 - - - - BankfWl Flood Prone Area
UT to South Fork Creek (Stephens) Stream and Wetland Restoration Year 6 Monitoring Report-Final
NCEEP Project Number: 405 January 2014
KCI Associates of NC. 34

River Basin:
Cape Fear
Watershed:
UT to South Fork Creek, MY -06
XS ID
UTSF (XS - 5, Riffle) Station 19 +73
Drainage Area (sq mi):
1.33
Date:
12/13/2013
Field Crew:
T. Seelinger, M. Koss
Station
Elevation
0.0
600.70
0.2
600.35
5.7
600.34
14.7
600.11
20.8
599.75
22.9
599.51
24.4
599.20
26.0
598.40
27.3
597.51
28.4
597.48
29.4
597.73
30.2
596.99
31.1
597.19
32.1
596.83
32.7
597.86
34.7
598.14
36.8
598.68
38.8
598.96
40.9
599.50
44.7
599.79
47.8
600.04
51.3
600.73
56.0
601.01
56.3
601.54
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
599.7
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area:
27.0
Bankfull Width:
23.0
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
602.6
Flood Prone Width:
>90
Max Depth at Bankfull:
2.9
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.2
W / D Ratio:
19.5
Entrenchment Ratio:
2.5
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Stream Type 0 E4
Cape Fear River Basin, UT to South Fork Creek, MY-06, UTSF (XS - 5, Riffle) Station 19 +73
603
yip
,p 5
602
601
m
Cape Fear River Basin, UT to South Fork Creek, MY-06, UTSF (XS - 5, Riffle) Station 19 +73
603
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
602
601
m
600
o---------------------
- - - - -- - _______________________ ________________
d 599
W
598
597
596
0 10 20 30 40 50
Baseline/MY -01, 2008 -MY-02,2009 W-03,2010 my-04,2011
MY- 05,2012 -MY- 06,2013 ---- B-kfidl -- - -FIwd Prone Area
UT to South Fork Creek (Stephens) Stream and Wetland Restoration
NCEEP Project Number: 405
KCI Associates of NC.
35
Year 6 Monitoring Report-Final
January 2014

River Basin:
Cape Fear
Watershed:
UT to South Fork Creek, MY -06
XS ID
UTSF (XS - 6, Riffle) Station 22 +78
Drainage Area (sq mi):
1.33
Date:
12/13/2013
Field Crew:
T. Seelinger, M. Koss
Station
Elevation
0.0
599.76
0.2
599.43
3.7
599.25
7.7
598.77
12.6
597.96
16.8
597.96
22.1
598.10
27.3
597.91
30.7
597.19
32.4
596.80
33.9
596.36
35.2
596.05
36.7
595.88
37.8
595.82
38.6
595.09
39.0
595.02
40.2
595.04
41.2
595.24
42.2
595.93
43.4
596.44
44.4
597.16
45.2
597.67
46.5
598.16
50.4
598.04
54.6
597.77
59.4
597.72
62.0
598.25
64.4
599.45
66.2
600.13
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
597.8
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area:
25.3
Bankfull Width:
17.6
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
600.6
Flood Prone Width:
>90
Max Depth at Bankfull:
2.8
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.4
W / D Ratio:
12.3
Entrenchment Ratio:
3.8
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
W
l-
r4 I ¢
r
Stream Type J E4
Cape Fear River Basin, UT to South Fork Creek, MY-06, UTSF (XS - 6, Riffle) Station 22 +78
602
601
600
N
599
e
°
598
m
W
597
596
595
594
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
B ... H", - -Ol, 2008 -M-V-02,2009 W-03,2010 MY -04, 2011
MY- 05,2012 -MY- 06,2013 _ - - -Ba Mll _ -_ -Flood Prone Area
UT to South Fork Creek (Stephens) Stream and Wetland Restoration
NCEEP Project Number: 405
KCI Associates of NC.
36
Year 6 Monitoring Report-Final
January 2014

River Basin:
Cape Fear
Watershed:
UT to South Fork Creek, MY -06
XS ID
UTSF (XS - 7, Riffle) Station 27 +22
Drainage Area (sq mi):
1.33
Date:
12/13/2013
Field Crew:
T. Seelinger, M. Koss
Station
Elevation
0.0
597.11
0.3
596.60
5.1
597.00
9.1
596.99
13.4
596.94
17.9
596.77
23.4
596.67
27.7
596.75
29.2
596.18
30.3
595.48
31.3
595.13
32.5
594.23
33.9
593.96
35.0
593.95
36.4
593.92
37.4
594.17
38.6
594.70
39.9
595.17
41.9
595.73
43.4
596.14
45.5
596.69
50.0
596.72
54.8
596.62
60.6
596.36
64.6
597.27
69.1
597.29
74.0
597.54
74.7
598.04
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
596.7
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area:
22.7
Bankfull Width:
15.8
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
599.4
Flood Prone Width:
>90
Max Depth at Bankfull:
2.7
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.4
W / D Ratio:
11.0
Entrenchment Ratio:
4.7
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Stream Type 9N E4
Cape Fear River Basin, UT to South Fork Creek, MY-06, UTSF (XS - 7, Riffle) Station 27 +22
600
________________________________________________________________________________
599
598
d
`U
597
o______________
______________ __ -------------
596
W
595
594
593
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Baseline/MY -01, 2008 -MY-02,2009 W-03,2010 my-04,2011
MY- 05,2012 -MY- 06,2013 ---- B -kfull -- - -Fbod Prone Area
UT to South Fork Creek (Stephens) Stream and Wetland Restoration Year 6 Monitoring Report-Final
NCEEP Project Number: 405 January 2014
KCI Associates of NC. 37

River Basin:
Cape Fear
Watershed:
UT to South Fork Creek, MY -06
XS ID
UTSF (XS - 8, Riffle) Station 30 +12
Drainage Area (sq mi):
1.33
Date:
12/13/2013
Field Crew:
T. Seelinger, M. Koss
Station
Elevation
0.0
597.33
0.2
596.95
8.4
596.83
15.9
596.82
22.7
597.31
36.5
597.18
43.4
596.50
49.6
596.22
55.6
596.08
57.3
595.61
58.5
594.73
60.1
593.97
61.2
593.25
62.7
593.39
63.9
593.21
65.2
592.93
67.0
593.21
67.7
594.12
69.1
594.65
70.5
595.04
71.9
595.25
73.8
595.61
75.7
595.85
80.8
595.96
86.7
595.92
91.9
596.02
97.1
595.87
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
596.1
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area:
27.1
Bankfull Width:
18.5
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
599.3
Flood Prone Width:
>90
Max Depth at Bankfull:
3.2
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.5
W / D Ratio:
12.7
Entrenchment Ratio:
5.2
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
}
Stream Type wl E4
Cape Fear River Basin, UT to South Fork Creek, MY-06, UTSF (XS - 8, Riffle) Station 30 +12
602
601
600
599
--------------------------------------------------------- __--------------- --
m
598
e
°
597
-------------- -- --- -- --- -- ------- -- - - - - -- -------------- -- -----
W596
595
594
593
592
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Baseline/MY -01, 2008 -W-02,2009 MY-03,2010 MY -04, 2011
.705, 2012 - MY -06, 2013 - - - - Bankfull - - - - Flood Prone Area
UT to South Fork Creek (Stephens) Stream and Wetland Restoration Year 6 Monitoring Report-Final
NCEEP Project Number: 405 January 2014
KCI Associates of NC. 38

Riser Basin:
Elevation
0.0
Cape Fear
0.3
Station 37 +55
Drainage Area (sq mi):
1.33
Date:
12/13/2013
Watershed:
T. Seelinger, M. Koss
14.2
iIl'to South Fork Creek, MY -06
17.2
594.50
a
594.15
XS ID
594.29
24.8
iTI'SF (XS - 9, Riffle)
26.1
592.81
d
591.76
27.9
591.66
29.0
591.60
30.0
591.57
30.8
591.94
31.8
591.87
33.2
592.36
34.9
592.76
37.4
593.56
40.5
594.46
45.7
594.34
52.4
594.16
58.3
594.69
62.9
595.46
68.2
595.51
80.5
594.96
86.1
594.89
92.6
595.03
97.6
595.19
98.0
- { ;
Z"
t
pl
r
��`
r•.
#
Stream
Type
FA
Station
Elevation
0.0
598.59
0.3
Station 37 +55
Drainage Area (sq mi):
1.33
Date:
12/13/2013
Field Crew
T. Seelinger, M. Koss
Station
Elevation
0.0
598.59
0.3
598.28
2.4
597.93
4.5
597.08
6.7
597.80
14.2
594.52
17.2
594.50
21.1
594.15
23.8
594.29
24.8
593.45
26.1
592.81
27.2
591.76
27.9
591.66
29.0
591.60
30.0
591.57
30.8
591.94
31.8
591.87
33.2
592.36
34.9
592.76
37.4
593.56
40.5
594.46
45.7
594.34
52.4
594.16
58.3
594.69
62.9
595.46
68.2
595.51
80.5
594.96
86.1
594.89
92.6
595.03
97.6
595.19
98.0
595.39
S LIMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
594.2
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area:
21.1
Bankfull Width:
14.7
Flood Prone Area F7esation:
596.8
Flood Prone Width:
>90
Max Depth at Bankfull:
2.6
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.4
W / D Ratio:
10.3
Entrenchment Ratio:
6.0
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Cape Fear River Basin, UT to South Fork Creek, MY -06, iTl'SF (XS - 9, Riffle) Station 37 +55
599
598
597
--- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
w
596
°
595
W 594
593
592
591
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
BaselineMlYAI, 2008 MY -02, 2009 MY -03, 2010
MY -04, 201 I MY -O5, 2012 MY-06,2013
- - - -- Bankfull - - - -- Flood Prone Area
UT to South Fork Creek (Stephens) Stream and Wetland Restoration Year 6 Monitoring Report-Final
NCEEP Project Number: 405 January 2014
KCI Associates of NC. 39

UT to South Fork Creek (Stephens) Stream and Wetland Restoration
NCEEP Project Number: 405
KCI Associates of NC.
40
Year 6 Monitoring Report-Final
January 2014
Longitudinal Profile
UT to South Fork Creek
EEP Project Number - 405
Station 6+10 - 18+75 (Reach A)
6D6
605
604
-
-0.0042x i 6U8.15
5 U.UU46X+ 6UI.11
603 -
602
601
bUO
J------
V
597
610
Rio
loin
1210
1410 ifiln 1910
— Baseline & MY-01 2008 MY-02 2009
MY-03 2010 - MY-04 2011
MY-05 2012 MY -06 2013
0 Structures Cress ngs
♦
Cross Sections ■ Bankful
Water Surface BKF Slope
UT to South Fork Creek (Stephens) Stream and Wetland Restoration
NCEEP Project Number: 405
KCI Associates of NC.
40
Year 6 Monitoring Report-Final
January 2014

UT to South Fork Creek (Stephens) Stream and Wetland Restoration
NCEEP Project Number: 405
KCI Associates of NC.
41
Year 6 Monitoring Report-Final
January 2014
Longitudinal Profile
UT to South Fork Creek
EEP Project Number - 405
Station 18 +75 - 25 +00 (Reach 6)
600 -
■
599
I
BKF = - 0.00477 + 608.51
59s
- - -- ----- - - -
- -- -
597
596
5w; =- 0.0049x+ 606.85
595
a
r � -
59
_ _ • — -- r
_ _
5'93
I
4ji
-
592
591
590
197.';
1()7.S
?07-';
717:5 2 77'.5 ?'175 747 �
Oase I ine & MY -01 2008
MY -02 2009
MY -03 2010 MY -04 2011 NIY -05 2012 MY -06 2013
b
Structures
k: Cressngs
4
Cross Sections ■ 8ankfrrl - - - -- Water Surface BKF Slope
UT to South Fork Creek (Stephens) Stream and Wetland Restoration
NCEEP Project Number: 405
KCI Associates of NC.
41
Year 6 Monitoring Report-Final
January 2014

UT to South Fork Creek (Stephens) Stream and Wetland Restoration
NCEEP Project Number: 405
KCI Associates of NC.
42
Year 6 Monitoring Report-Final
January 2014
Longitudinal Profile
UT to youth Fork Creek
EEP Project Number - 405
Station 25 +00 - 42 +14 (Reach C)
547
5961
- - - --
595
■
Reach C begirs
- _
29+00
--
594
SsKF = —
0-0023x + 602.64
593
--------------
------------
592
.,�_
'.S" _ -0- 0076x+ 60
1.45
-----------------
.�
Reach
Reach C ot)&
591
(40+00)
% - -
V -
590
VV
599
588
?1;00
i 7no
a C)O0 1100
33nn 3'Son
37nn
3900
4100
Baseline & MY -01 2008
MY -02 2009
MY -03 2010 MY -04 2011
MY -05 2012
MY -05 2013
0 Structures
k: Crassngs 4
Cross Sections ■ Bankful
- - -- -Water Surface
BKF Slope
UT to South Fork Creek (Stephens) Stream and Wetland Restoration
NCEEP Project Number: 405
KCI Associates of NC.
42
Year 6 Monitoring Report-Final
January 2014

Cross - Section
1 Riffle
- UTSF MY
-06
Cumulative Percent
1
0.9
Particle
Millimeter
Material
Count
Item %
Cum %
Silt/Clay
< 0.062
S/C
65
63%
63%
Very Fine
Fine
Medium
Coarse
Very Coarse
.062-125
125-25
.25 - .50
.50-1
1 - 2
S
A
N
D
S
2
2%
65%
0%
65%
0.8
0.7
0%
65%
0
0%
65%
0.6
a
5
5%
70%
0.5
Very Fine
Fine
Fine
Medium
Medium
Coarse
Coarse
Very Coarse
Very Coarse
2 - 4
4-5.7
5.7-8
8 - 11.3
11.3 -16
16-22.6
22.6-32
32-45
45-64
G
R
A
V
E
L
S
10
10%
80%
0 0.4
3
3%
83%
0.3
5
5%
87%
0.2
6
6%
93%°
0.1
1
1%
94%
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size - Millimeters
4
4%
98%
1
1%
99%
t MY -01 --&-- MY-02 —*— MY -03 t MY -04 MY -05 t MY -06
1
1%
100%
0%
100%
Individual Class Percentage
Small
Small
Large
Large
64-90
90-128
128-180
180-256
C
0
B
L
0%
100%
1 0%
100%
1
0%
100%
0.9
0%
100%
E 0.8
Small
Small
Medium
Lrg- Very Lrg
256-362
362-512
512-1024
1024-2048
B
L
D
R
0%
100%
w 0.7
0%
100%
y 0.6
o.s
0%
100%
0.4
0%
100%
5 0.3
Bedrock
>2048
BDRK
0%
100%
b
0.2
Total
103
100%
100%
0.1
Size (mm)
Type
0 N M v a o a Z o N M a
.. .-i N N N N N
ParticelSize - Millimeters
.MY -06
D50
0.062
silt /clay
63%
D84
6.5
sand
7%
D95
17
gravel
30%
cobble
0%
UT to South Fork Creek (Stephens) Stream and Wetland Restoration Year 6 Monitoring Report-Final
NCEEP Project Number: 405 January 2014
KCI Associates of NC. 43

Cross - Section
4 Riffle
- UTSF MY
-06
Cumulative Percent
1
0.9
0.8
a 0.7
0.6
Particle
Millimeter
Material
Count
Item %
Cum %
Silt/Clay
< 0.062
S/C
0%
0%
Very Fine
Fine
Medium
Coarse
Very Coarse
.062-125
.125-25
.25 - .50
.50 - 1
1 - 2
S
A
N
D
S
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
w
0%
0%
0.5
Very Fine
Fine
Fine
Medium
Medium
Coarse
Coarse
Very Coarse
Very Coarse
2 - 4
4-5.7
5.7-8
8 - 11.3
11.3-16
16-22.6
22.6-32
32-45
1 45-64
G
R
A
V
E
L
S
1
5
5%
5%
0.4
(
1 6%
11%
a 0.3
U
9
9%
20%
0.2
4
4%
24%
0.1
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size - Millimeters
10
10%
34%
23
23%
57%
17
17%
74%
+ MY -0l t MY -02 —� MY -03 t MY -04 —� MY -OS t MY -06
17
17%
91%
6
6%
97%
Individual Class Percentage
1
Small
Small
Large
Large
64-90
90-128
128-180
180-256
C
0
B
L
1
1%
98%
2
1 2%
100%
0%
100%
0.9
0.8
0%
100%
Small
Small
Medium
Lrg- Very Lrg
256-362
362-512
512-1024
1024-2048
B
L
D
R
0%
100%
w` 0.7
0%
100%
h 0.6
0.5
0%
100%
a 0.4
0%
100%
5
0.3
b
Bedrock
>2048
BDRK
0%
100%
02
Total
100
100%
100%
0.1
Size (mm)
T
1 ype
it
O N h V V N 7 O o0 D N N C O o0 O 1D N N V o0 D
O N G N M 7 D Q Ni co v1 Ic ,-. N 7 O
° ° Particel Size - Millimeters N
D50
20
silt /clay
0%
D84
39
sand
0%
■MV -o6
D95
57
gravel
97%
E�
cobble
3%
UT to South Fork Creek (Stephens) Stream and Wetland Restoration Year 6 Monitoring Report-Final
NCEEP Project Number: 405 January 2014
KCI Associates of NC. 44

Cross - Section
7 Riffle
- UTSF MY
-06
Cumulative Percent
1
Particle
Millimeter
Material
Count
Item %
Cum %
Silt/Clay
< 0.062
S/C
40
39%
39%
Very Fine
Fine
Medium
Coarse
Very Coarse
.062-125
.125-25
.25 - .50
.50 - 1
1 - 2
S
A
N
D
S
0%
39%
0.9
0.8
0%
39%
5
5%
44%
0.7
18
17%
61%
0.6
w
13
13%
74%
0.5
Very Fine
Fine
Fine
Medium
Medium
Coarse
Coarse
Very Coarse
Very Coarse
2 - 4
4-5.7
5.7-8
8 - 11.3
11.3-16
16-22.6
22.6-32
32-45
1 45-64
G
R
A
V
E
L
S
1
8
8%
82%
0.4
3
3%
84%
a 03
U
7
7%
91%
0.2
5
5%
96%
0.1
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size - Millimeters
2
2%
98%
0%
98%
1
1%
99%
—MY -01 +MY -02 — *—MY -03 tMY -04 —A—MY -0 +MY -06
0%
99%
1
0%
99%
Individual Class Percentage
1
Small
Small
Large
Large
64-90
90-128
128-180
180-256
C
0
B
L
0%
99%
1
1%
100%
0%
0%
100%
100%
0.9
0.8
Small
Small
Medium
Lrg- Very Lrg
256-362
362-512
512-1024
1024-2049
B
L
D
R
0%
100%
w 0.7
0%
100%
h 0.6
R
U 0.5
0%
100%
a 0.4
0%
100%
5
0.3
b
Bedrock
>2048
BDRK
0%
100%
02
Total
103
100%
100%
0.1
Size (mm)
Type
0 N h V h — N 7 \O o0 D N N C O o0 O N N V w 'D
O N G N M 7 D Q Ni co v1 Ic
O N M Vl O O O
° ° ParticelSize - Millimeters N
D50
0.64
silt /clay
39%
D84
5.6
sand
35%
■MY-06
D95
10
gravel
25 %°
cobble
1%
UT to South Fork Creek (Stephens) Stream and Wetland Restoration Year 6 Monitoring Report-Final
NCEEP Project Number: 405 January 2014
KCI Associates of NC. 45

Cross - Section
9 Riffle
- UTSF MY
-06
Cumulative Percent
Particle
Millimeter
Material
Count
Item %
Cum %
Silt/Clay
< 0.062
S/C
12
12%
12%
1
0.9
Very Fine
Fine
Medium
Coarse
Very Coarse
062-125
.125-25
.25-50
.50-1
1 - 2
S
A
N
D
S
3
3%
15%
0.8
7
7%
22%
8
1 8%
30%
a 0.7
d
9
9%
39%
0.6
a.
15
15%
54%
a o.5
Very Fine
Fine
Fine
Medium
Medium
Coarse
Coarse
Very Coarse
Very Coarse
2 - 4
4-5.7
5.7-8
8 - 11.3
11.3 - 16
16-22.6
22.6-32
32-45
45-64
(;
R
i
V
E
L
S
19
19%
73%
0 0.4
7
7%
80%
' 03
U
9
9%
89%
0.2
3%
92%
0.1
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size - Millimeters
6
6%
98%
?
2%
100%
0%
100%
--*--- MY -Ol t MY -02 -atr MY -03 t MY -04 MY -OS +MY -06
0%
100%
0%
100%
Cumulative Percent
1
Small
Small
Large
Large
64-90
90-128
128-180
180-256
C
O
B
L
0%
100%
0%
100%
0%
100%
0.9
0%
100%
0.8
Small
Small
Medium
Lrg- Very Lrg
256-362
362-512
512-1024
1024-2048
B
L
D
R
0%
100%
0.7
0.6
0%
100%
a
0.5
0%
100%
u
0.4
0%
100%
0.3
Bedrock
>2048
6DRK
0%
100%
7
v
0.2
Total
100
100%
100%
0.1
Size (mm)
Type
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
ParticleSize - Millimeters
0 MY -01 - MY -02 -A MY -03 -F MY -04 -A MY -05 0 MY -06
D50
1.7
silt /clay
12%
D84
6.8
sand
42%
D95
13
gravel
46%
cobble
0%
UT to South Fork Creek (Stephens) Stream and Wetland Restoration Year 6 Monitoring Report-Final
NCEEP Project Number: 405 January 2014
KCI Associates of NC. 46

Table 1 Oa. Baseline Stream Data Summary
UT to South Fork Creek (Stephens) No. 405 Reach: A Sta 6 +00 - 18 +75 1275 feet
Parameter Gauge Regional Curve -r--Pre-Existing Condition Reference Reach es Data Desi n Monitoring Baseline
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only
LL
UL
Eq.
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD5
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD5
n
Min
Med
Max
Min
I Mean
Med
Max
SD5
n
Bankfull Width (ft)
11.4
11.6
12
13.37
15.76
15.76
18.15
2.75
4
Floodprone Width (ft)
14.9
41.3
? 36
78.21
106.5
113.64
120.5
19.27
4
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.3
1
1.2
2.07
2.54
2.67
2.77
0.32
4
' Bankfull Max Depth ft
1.6
1.4
1
1.9
2.07
2.57
2.7
2.81
0.34
4
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
14.8
11.6
14.7
15.35
23.67
25.01
29.31
5.92
4
Width /Depth Ratio
8.7
11.6
9.8
4.76
6.17
6.55
6.79
0.95
4
Entrenchment Ratio
1.3
3.6
? 3.0
5.85
6.8
6.53
8.29
1.05
4
'Bank Height Ratiol
1
2.7
1
1
1
1.02
1 1.02
1 1.03
0.01
1 4
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
1.1
37.2
4
38.9
10
10
11.59
34.45
24.17
95.87
27.14
10
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.006
0.011
0.011
0.021
0.004
10
Pool Length (ft)
5
26.2
14.8
42.8
20
20
12.1
36.82
34.6
66.9
13.98
14
Pool Max depth (ft)
Pool Spacing (ft)
1
19
509
17
159
30
55
24
70.79
58.79
154.1
39.79
18
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft) 2 36 19.1 41.2 25 65 32.967 46.967 45.467 66.967 8.8377 20
Radius of Curvature (ft) 3.7 69.4 9.4 81.2 40 60 28.99 40.139 38.995 64.66 7.7822 20
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft) 0.3 6.1 0.8 7 3.3 5
Meander Wavelength (ft) 30 247 43.3 46.2 85 150 90 108.63 105 140 13.639 19
Meander Width Ratio 2.6 21.7 3.7 4 7.1 12.5 1.6511 2.3523 2.2771 3.3539 0.4426 20
Transport parameters
Reach Shear Stress (competency) Ib /f2
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (transport capacity) W /m2
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
G4c
E4b
E4
E4
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
3.1
4.3
3.1
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
45
50
Valley length (ft)
424.4
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
459.5
1275
Sinuosity (ft)
1.17
1.08
0.09
1.19
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
0.0031
0.022
0.0039
0.0044
BF slope (ft/ft)
0.0043
0.023
0.0043
0.0041
3Bankfull Flood lain Area acres
4% of Reach with Eroding Banks
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be tilled in.
1 = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross- section surveys and the longitudinal profile. 2 = For projects with a proximal USGS gauge in -line with the project reach (added bankfull verification - rare).
3. Utilizing survey data produce an estimate of the bankfull floodplain area in acres, which should be the area from the top of bank to the toe of the terrace riser /slope.
4 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey for comparison to monitoring data; 5. Of value /needed only if the n exceeds 3
UT to South Fork Creek (Stephens) Stream and Wetland Restoration
NCEEP Project Number: 405
KCI Associates of NC.
47
Year 6 Monitoring Report-Final
January 2014

Table 1 Oa. Baseline Stream Data Summary
UT to South Fork Creek (Stephens) No. 405 Reach: B Sta 18 +75 - 25 +00 625 feet
Parameter Gauge 2 1 Regional Curve Pre-Existing Condition Reference Reach es Data Design Monitoring Baseline
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only
LL
UL
Eq.
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Med
Max
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD5
n
Bankfull Width (ft)
11.4
11.6
12
14.6
18.56
14.9
29.84
7.53
4
Floodprone Width (ft)
14.9
41.3
>_ 36
49.52
78.82
76.33
113.09
29.43
4
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.3
1
1.2
2.01
2.65
2.69
3.19
0.5
4
' Bankfull Max Depth ft
1.6
1
1
1.4
1.9
2.04
2.74
2.8
3.32
0.54
1 4
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
14.8
11.6
14.7
21.85
30.41
27.39
45.01
10.15
4
Width /Depth Ratio
8.7
11.6
9.8
4.4
6.87
6.48
10.12
2.49
4
Entrenchment Ratio
1.3
3.6
? 3.0
3.12
4.55
3.67
7.75
2.17
4
'Bank Height Ratiol
I
1
1
2.7
1
1 1
1
1.03
1.07
1.08
1.09
1 0.03
4
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
1.1
37.2
4
38.9
10
10
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
Pool Length (ft)
5
26.2
14.5
42.8
20
20
Pool Max depth (ft)
Pool Spacing (ft)
19
509
17
154
30
55
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft) 2 36 19.1 41.2 25 40 33.2 53.95 56.2 70.2 15.671 4
Radius of Curvature (ft) 3.7 69.4 9.4 81.2 40 100 34.58 137.078 35.83 40.52 2.4743 6
Rc:Bankfull width (ft /ft) 0.3 6.1 0.8 7 3.3 8.3
Meander Wavelength (ft) 30 247 43.3 46.2 90 130 120 1136.25 137.5 1 150 13.769 4
Meander Width Ratio 2.6 21.7 3.7 4 7.5 10.8 1.82 1 2.96 3.0879 3.8571 0.861 4
Transport parameters
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f2
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power transport capacity) W /m2
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
G4c
E4b
E4
E4
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
3.1
4.3
3.1
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
45
50
Valley length (ft)
424.4
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
459.5
625
Sinuosity (ft)
1.17
1.08
0.09
1.08
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft /ft)
0.0031
0.022
0.0039
0.0057
BF slope (ft /ft)
0.0043
0.023
0.0043
0.0049
3Bankfull Flood lain Area acres
4% of Reach with Erodin Banks
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross - section surveys and the longitudinal profile. 2 = For projects with a proximal USGS gauge in -line with the project reach (added bankfull verification - rare).
3. Utilizing survey data produce an estimate of the bankfull floodplain area in acres, which should be the area from the top of bank to the toe of the terrace riser /slope.
4 -Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey for comparison to monitoring data; 5. Of value /needed only if then exceeds 3
UT to South Fork Creek (Stephens) Stream and Wetland Restoration
NCEEP Project Number: 405
KCI Associates of NC.
48
Year 6 Monitoring Report-Final
January 2014

Table 1 Oa. Baseline Stream Data Summary
UT to South Fork Creek (Stephens) No. 405 Reach: C Sta 29 +00 - 40 +00 1100 feet
Parameter Gauge 2 1 Regional Curve Pre-Existing Condition Reference Reach es Data Design Monitoring Baseline
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only
LL
UL
Eq.
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD'
n
Min
Med
Max
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Bankfull Width (ft)
11.4
11.6
12
16.98
18.44
18.19
20.19
1.39
7
Floodprone Width (ft)
14.9
41.3
? 36
80
103.11
100.9
134.45
22.9
7
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.3
1
1.2
2.84
3.27
3.18
3.77
0.36
7
' Bankfull Max Depth ft
1.6
1.4
1.9
2.86
3.36
3.18
4
0.42
7
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
14.8
11.6
1
1
1
14.7
28.16
38.51
37.44
49.25
7.24
7
Width /Depth Ratio
8.7
11.6
9.8
4.8
5.55
5.46
6.83
0.8
7
Entrenchment Ratio
1.3
3.6
? 3.0
3.96
5.67
5.51
7.92
1.57
7
'Bank Height Ratiol
I
I
1
1 2.7
1
1
1
1 1
1 1
1.05
1 1.05
1.13
0.05
7
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
1.1
37.2
4
38.9
12
12
Riffle Slope (ft /ft)
2.1
9.3
Pool Length (ft)
5
26.2
14.8
42.8
24
24
Pool Max depth (ft)
Pool Spacing (ft)l
19
509
17
159
31
50
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft) 2 36 19.1 41.2 25 40 45.967 68.167 58.967 114.97 23.957 10
Radius of Curvature (ft) 3.7 69.4 9.4 81.2 40 100 35.75 47.407 49.56 58.12 6.8513 11
Rc:Bankfull width (ft /ft) 0.3 6.1 0.8 7 3.3 8.3
Meander Wavelength (ft) 30 247 43.3 46.2 90 130 105 147.5 160 170 24.296 10
Meander Width Ratiol 2.6 21.7 3.7 4 7.5 10.8 2.3022 3.414 2.9533 5.7579 1.1999 10
Transport parameters
Reach Shear Stress competenc Ib /f2
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (transport capacity)
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
G4c
E4b
E4
E4
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
3.1
4.3
2.7
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
45
50
Valley length (ft)
424.4
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
459.5
1100
Sinuosity (ft)
1.17
1.08
1.48
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft /ft)
0.0031
0.022
0.0023
BF slope (ft /ft)
0.0043
0.023
0.0025
3Bankfull Flood lain Area acres
4% of Reach with Eroding Banks
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross - section surveys and the longitudinal profile. 2 = For projects with a proximal USGS gauge in -line with the project reach (added bankfull verification - rare).
3. Utilizing survey data produce an estimate of the bankfull floodplain area in acres, which should be the area from the top of bank to the toe of the terrace riser /slope.
4 =Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey for comparison to monitoring data; 5. Of value /needed only if then exceeds 3
UT to South Fork Creek (Stephens) Stream and Wetland Restoration
NCEEP Project Number: 405
KCI Associates of NC.
49
Year 6 Monitoring Report-Final
January 2014

Table 10b. Baseline Stream Data Summary (Substrate, Bed, Bank, and Hydrologic Containment Parameter Distributions)
UT to South Fork Creek (Stephens) No. 405 Reach: A [Sta 6 +00 - 18 +75] (1275 feet)
Parameter
Pre - Existing Condition
Reference Reach(es) Data
Design
As- built /Baseline
'Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%
27%
40%
'SC% / Sa% / G% / C% / B% / Be%
1d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 / dip / disp (mm)
Silt /Clay
4
22.6
Silt /Clay
4
128
2Entrenchment Class <1.5 / 1.5 -1.99 12.0-4.9 / 5.0 -9.9 / >10
3lncision Class <1.2 / 1.2 -1.49 / 1.5 -1.99 / >2.0
UT
to South Fork Creek Stephens No. 405 Reach: B [Sta 18 +75 - 25 +00] 625 feet
Parameter
Pre - Existing Condition
Reference Reach(es) Data
Design
As- built /Baseline
'Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%
25%
39%
'SC% / Sa% / G% / C% / B% / Be%
1d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 / dip / disp (mm)
Silt /Clay
4
22.6
Silt /Clay
4
128
2Entrenchment Class <1.5 / 1.5 -1.99 / 2.0 -4.9 / 5.0 -9.9 / >10
3lncision Class <1.2 / 1.2 -1.49 / 1.5 -1.99 / >2.0
UT to South Fork Creek Stephens No. 405 Reach: C [Sta 29 +00 - 40 +00
1100 feet
Parameter
Pre - Existing Condition
Reference Reach(es) Data
Design
As- built /Baseline
'Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%
28%
50%
'SC% / Sa% / G% / C% / B% / Be%
1d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 / dip / disp (mm)
Silt /Clay
4
22.6
Silt /Clay
4
128
2Entrenchment Class <1.5 / 1.5 -1.99 12.0-4.9 / 5.0 -9.9 / >10
3lncision Class <1.2 / 1.2 -1.49 / 1.5 -1.99 / >2.0
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt /Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
2 = Entrenchment Class - Assign /bin the reach footage into the classes indicated and provide the percentage of the total reach footage in each class in the table. This will result from the measured cross - sections as well as visual estimates
3 = Assign /bin the reach footage into the classes indicated and provide the percentage of the total reach footage in each class in the table. This will result from the measured cross - sections as well as the longitudinal profile
Footnotes 2,3 - These classes are loosley built around the Rosgen classification and hazard ranking breaks, but were adjusted slightly to make for easier assignment to somewhat coarser bins based on visual estimates in the field such that measurement of every segment for ER would not be necessary.
The intent here is to provide the reader /consumer of design and monitoring information with a good general sense of the extent of hydrologic containment in the pre- existing and the rehabilitated states as well as comparisons to the reference distributions.
ER and BHR have been addressed in prior submissions as a subsample (cross- sections as part of the design survey), however, these subsamples have often focused entirely on facilitating design without providing a thorough pre- constrution distribution of these parameters, leaving the reader /consumer with a sample that is weighted heavily on the stable sections of
the reach. This means that the distributions for these parameters should include data from both the cross - section surveys and the longitudinal profile and in the case of ER, visual estimates. For example, the typical longitudinal profile permits sampling of the BHR at riffles beyond those subject to cross - sections and therefore can be readily integrated and provide
a more complete sample distribution for these parameters, thereby providing the distribution /coverage necessary to provide meaningful comparisons.
UT to South Fork Creek (Stephens) Stream and Wetland Restoration
NCEEP Project Number: 405
KCI Associates of NC.
50
Year 6 Monitoring Report-Final
January 2014

Table 11a. Monitoring Data - Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross Sections)
UT to South Fork Creek (Stephens) No. 405 Reach: A [Sta 6 +00 - 18 +75] (1275 feet)
Cross Section 1 (Riffle)
Cross Section 2 (Riffle)
Cross Section 3 (Riffle)
Cross Section 4 (Riffle)
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
Base /MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY6
Base /MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY6
Base /MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY6
Base /MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY6
Record elevation (datum) used
604.41
604.70
604.41
604.41
604.41
604.41
603.98
603.96
603.98
603.98
603.98
603.98
60114
603.16
603.14
603.14
603.14
603.14
602.09
602.05
602.09
602.09
602.09
602.09
Bankfull Width (ft)
11.4
12.4
12.3
10.2
10.5
8.7
17.0
12.9
19.1
16.6
12.2
15.1
19.7
21.3
15.1
15.7
18.7
17.4
17.0
16.9
18.3
16.0
15.3
17.0
Floodprone Width (ft)
147
148
148
148
148
148
160
170
170
160
160
160
190
190
190
190
190
190
160
160
160
160
160
160
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
13
1.4
1.2
1.3
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.8
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.8
1.1
1.0
0.8
1.2
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.2
1.1
1.0
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.2
2.1
2.1
22
2.0
2.4
2.1
2.1
2.4
2.5
2.4
2.6
2.7
2.6
2.7
2.2
2.2
2.3
2.5
2.6
2.9
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
14.8
17.2
14.4
13.0
12.0
8.8
17.5
12.8
15.8
12.7
11.6
15.1
17.0
17.9
16.0
16.0
15.9
20.7
17.5
17.1
18.7
18.9
17.3
24.9
Bankfull Width /Depth Ratio
8.7
9.0
10.4
7.9
9.2
8.7
16.6
12.9
23.0
21.7
12.9
15.1
22.8
25.3
14.3
15.5
22.1
14.6
16.6
16.7
17.9
13.5
13.5
25.8
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
12.9
11.9
12.1
14.6
14.1
10.8
9.4
13.2
8.9
10.3
13.9
5.5
9.6
8.9
12.6
12.1
10.1
2.9
9.4
9.4
8.8
10.0
10.4
3.1
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.9
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
Cross Sectional Area between end ins (ft).
218.8
225.5
218.6
221.3
96.4
97.7
97.3
104.0
51.4
49.6
51.3
59.7
64.5
68.8
66.2
77.9
d50 (mm)
0.5
silt
silt
0.1
0.1
silt
36.3
0.4
0.2
4.5
1.8
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
36.3
21.7
13.5
12.5
9.9
20.0
Table 11 a. Monitoring Data - Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross Sections)
UT to South Fork Creek (Stephens) No. 405 Reach: B [Sta 18 +75 - 25 +00] (625 feet)
Table 1la. Monitoring Data - Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross Sections)
UT to South Fork Creek (Stephens) No. 405 Reach: C [Sta 29 +00 - 40 +00] (1100 feet)
Cross Section 5 (Riffle)
Cross Section 6 (Riffle)
Cross Section 7 (Riffle)
Cross Section 8 (Riffle)
Cross Section 9 (Riffle)
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
Base /MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY6
Base /MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY6
Base /MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY6
Base /MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY6
Base /MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY6
Record elevation (datum) used
599.73
599.83
599.73
599.73
599.73
599.73
597.79
598.09
597.79
597.79
597.79
597.79
596.66
596.65
596.66
596.66
596.66
596.66
596.10
596.01
596.10
596.10
596.10
596.10
594.20
594.09
594.20
594.20
594.20
594.20
Bankfull Width (ft)
18.1
20.6
20.4
19.0
18.2
20.0
18.3
20.1
18.4
18.0
17.4
17.6
17.7
17.9
17.2
17.6
17.4
17.2
18.0
17.7
16.0
17.7
17.0
17.2
15.8
15.6
32.6
15.3
15.3
14.7
Floodprone Width (ft)
170
170
170
170
170
170
83.5
83.5
83.5
83.5
83.5
83.5
190
190
190
190
190
190
200
200
200
200
200
200
135
135
135
135
135
135
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.2
1.1
1.3
1.3
1.1
1.2
1.5
1.5
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.6
1.6
1.7
2.1
1.6
1.4
1.6
1.6
1.7
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.7
1.6
0.8
1.9
1.7
1.4
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
2.2
2.3
2.5
2.5
2.4
2.9
2.8
3.0
2.8
2.8
2.9
2.8
2.7
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.7
2.7
2.8
2.8
2.9
3.0
2.9
3.2
2.7
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.7
2.6
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
22.2
23.5
25.8
23.9
20.1
27.0
28.2
30.8
26.3
26.0
25.1
25.3
28.8
28.4
28.8
37.2
27.1
22.7
28.2
28.7
26.7
26.6
25.2
27.1
26.6
25.5
27.0
28.7
26.3
21.1
Bankfull Width /Depth Ratio
14.8
18.0
16.1
15.1
16.5
19.5
11.9
13.1
12.9
12.5
12.1
12.3
10.9
11.3
10.3
8.3
11.2
11.0
11.4
11.0
9.7
11.7
11.4
12.7
9.4
9.6
39.3
8.2
8.9
10.3
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
9.4
8.3
8.3
9.0
9.3
2.5
4.6
4.3
4.5
4.6
4.8
3.8
10.7
10.6
11.1
10.8
10.9
4.7
11.1
11.3
12.5
11.3
11.8
5.2
8.6
8.6
4.1
8.8
8.9
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.0
0.7
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Cross Sectional Area between end ins ft2
78.2
79.2
75.6
87.6
163.9
163.5
162.1
143.0
79.9
79.0
78.4
83.4
424.4
419.7
439.8
114.3a
237.4
246.3
244.1
g6.
d50 (mm)
2.0
1.1
11.0
4.3
4.6
21.3
7.6
28.9
15.2
15.6
0.9
1.9
0.7
0.9
0.1
06
1.3
0.6
0.2
0.2
1.2
17.1
30.2
19.0
9.5
9.0
1 = Widths and depths for monitoring resurvey will be based on the baseline bankfull datum regardless of dimensional /depositional development. Input the elevation used as the datum, which should be consistent and based on the baseline datum established. If the performer has inherited the project and cannot acquire the datum used
for prior years this must be discussed with EEP. If this cannot be resolved in time for a given years report submission a footnote in this should be included that states: "It is uncertain if the monitoring datum has been consistent over the monitoring history, which may influence calculated values.
Additional data from a prior performer is being acquired to provide confirmation. Values will be recalculated in a future submission based on a consistent datum if determined to be necessary."
a= discrepency in area due to lack of right bank pin
UT to South Fork Creek (Stephens) Stream and Wetland Restoration
NCEEP Project Number: 405
KCI Associates of NC.
51
Year 6 Monitoring Report-Final
January 2014

Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross - section surveys and the longitudinal profile.
2 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt /Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
4. = Of value /needed only if the n exceeds 3
UT to South Fork Creek (Stephens) Stream and Wetland Restoration
NCEEP Project Number: 405
KCI Associates of NC.
52
Year 6 Monitoring Report-Final
January 2014
Exhibit Table 11 b. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
UT to South Fork Creek Stephens No. 405 Reach: A [Sta 6 +00 - 18 +75] 1275 feet
Parameter
Baseline /MY -01 (2010) MY -2 (2010)
MY -3 (2010)
MY -4 (2011)
MY -5 (2012)
MY -6 (2013)
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle only
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SID
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD'
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SID
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SID
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SID
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Bankfull Width (ft)
11.4
16.3
17.0
19.7
3.5
4
12.4
15.9
14.9
21.3
4.2
4
12.3
16.2
16.7
19.1
3.1
4
10.2
14.6
15.9
16.6
3.0
4
10.5
14.2
13.8
18.7
3.6
4
8.7
16.6
16.3
25.3
6.9
4
Floodprone Width (ft)
146.5
164
160
190
18
4
147.6
167
165
190
18
4
148
167
165
190
18
4
148
165
160
190
18
4
148
165
160
190
18
4
1 148
164.5
160
190
18
4
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.9
1.1
1.0
1.3
0.2
4
0.8
1.1
1.0
1.4
0.2
4
1 0.8
1.0
1.0
1.2
0.1
4
0.8
1.1
1.1
1.3
0.2
4
0.8
1.0
1.0
1.1
0.1
4
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.2
0.1
4
'Bankfull Max Depth ft
2.2
2.3
2.2
2.5
0.2
4
2.0
2.2
2.3
2.4
0.2
4
2.3
2.4
2.3
2.6
0.1
4
2.1
2.3
2.3
2.7
0.3
4
2.1
2.3
2.3
2.6
0.3
4
2.1
2.5
2.6
2.9
0.4
4
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area ft2
14.8
1 16.7
1 17.2
1 17.5
1 1.3
1 4
1 12.8
1 16.3
1 17.2
1 17.9
2.3
4
14.4
16.2
1 15.9
18.7
1.8
4
1 12.7
1 15.2
14.5
1 18.9
2.9
4
11.6
14.2
14.0
1 17.3
1 2.8
4
8.8
17.4
17.9
24.9
7.0
4
Width /Depth Ratio
8.7
16.2
16.6
22.8
5.8
4
9.0
16.0
14.8
25.3
7.0
4
10.4
16.4
16.1
23.0
1 5.4
4
7.9
14.6
14.5
21.7
5.7
4
9.2
14.4
13.2
22.1
5.4
4
8.7
16.1
14.9
25.8
7.1
4
Entrenchment Ratio
9.4
10.3
9.5
12.9
1
1.7
4
8.9
10.9
10.7
13.2
2.0
4
8.8
10.6
10.5
12.6
2.0
4
10.0
11.7
11.2
14.6
2.1
4
10.1
12.1
12.2
14.1
2.1
4
2.9
5.6
4.3
10.8
3.7
4
'Bank Height Ratio
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
4
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1 0.0
4
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.1
4
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.1
0.1
4
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
0.0
4
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
4
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
11.6
34.4
95.9
5.3
35.6
25.1
107.7
34.0
14
4.6
38.5
25.2
101.4
30.9
16
2.0
21.7
9.6
155.5
33.0
20
1 8.3
37.0
32.2
84.2
23.8
14
4.7
1 21.4
17.9
34.9
13.0
5
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
14
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
12
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
17
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
13
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.05
0.01
5
Pool Length (ft)
12.1
36.8
66.9
18.5
47.8
45.0
95.2
21.1
14
14.9
37.4
34.0
83.5
16.1
16
14.5
41.7
36.2
85.4
21.8
20
14.6
47.1
39.6
117.3
28.8
13
10.6
17.3
17.2
29.9
7.8
5
Pool Max depth (ft)
2.1
2.4
2.4
2.9
0.6
14
2.6
3.2
3.1
4.5
0.5
16
2.3
2.7
2.8
3.8
0.3
20
2.3
2.7
2.6
3.8
0.4
13
0.9
1.3
1.2
1.9
0.4
5
Pool Spacing (ft)
24.0
70.8
154.0
19.8
75.5
61.8
149.9
38.5
14
19.5
72.6
57.3
152.1
40.9
15
28.1
62.0
54.2
177.5
36.0
19
43.9
84.3
68.2
151.2
37.8
12
16.0
235.5
300.5
325.0
147.1
4
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft) 33.0 47.0 67.0
Radius of Curvature (ft) 29.0 40.1 64.7
Pattern data will not typically be collected unless visual data, dimensional data or profile data indicate significant
shifts from baseline
Rc:Bankfull width (ft /ft) 90.0 109.0 140.0
Meander Wavelength (ft) 1.7 2.4 3.4
Meander Width Ratio
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
E4
E4
E4
E4
E4
E4
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
1275
1275
1281
1275
1275
1275
Sinuosity (ft)
1.19
1.19
1.2
1.19
1.19
1.19
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft /ft)
0.0044
0.0044
N/A
0.0047
0.0048
0.0046
BF slope (ft /ft)
0.0041
0.004
0.0051
0.0040
0.0042
0.0042
3RI% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%
27%
1
140%
1
1
1
39%
56%
1
1
1
48%
1 47%
1
1
1
34%
65%
1
1
1
41%
1 48%
3SC% / Sa% / G% / C% / B% / Be%
41%
63.3%
29.3%
3.0%
0.0%
0.2%
46.8%
15.0%
36.3%
1.9%
0.0%
0.0%
44.8%
0.2
133.7%13.4%10.0%
0.0%
28%
21%
50%
1%
0%
0%
3d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
0.083
0.10746
3.4826
17.79
133.75
1
0.3928
2.2
4.2991
11.44
134.691
0.1132
2.0
12.9573
118.75
1 37.6
6
14
24
Z% of Reach with Eroding Banks
1%
3%
5%
0%
0%
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross - section surveys and the longitudinal profile.
2 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt /Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
4. = Of value /needed only if the n exceeds 3
UT to South Fork Creek (Stephens) Stream and Wetland Restoration
NCEEP Project Number: 405
KCI Associates of NC.
52
Year 6 Monitoring Report-Final
January 2014

Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross - section surveys and the longitudinal profile.
2 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
4. = Of value /needed only if the n exceeds 3
UT to South Fork Creek (Stephens) Stream and Wetland Restoration
NCEEP Project Number: 405
KCI Associates of NC.
53
Year 6 Monitoring Report-Final
January 2014
Exhibit Table 11 b. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
UT to South Fork Creek (Stephens) No. 405 Reach: B Sta 18 +75 - 25 +00 625 feet
Parameter
Baseline /MY -01 (2010) MY -2 (2010)
MY -3 (2010)
1 MY -4 (2011)
MY -5 (2012)
MY -6 (2013)
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle only
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SID
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SID
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SID
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SID
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SID
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SID
n
Bankfull Width (ft)
18.1
18.2
18.2
18.3
0.2
2
20.1
20.3
20.3
20.6
0.3
2
18.4
19.4
19.4
20.4
1.4
2
18.0
18.5
18.5
19.0
0.7
2
17.4
17.8
17.8
18.2
0.6
2
17.6
20.3
20.3
23.0
2
Floodprone Width (ft)
83.5
126.8
126.8
170.0
61.1
2
83.5
126.8
126.8
170.0
61.2
2
83.5
126.8
126.8
170.0
61.2
2
83.5
126.8
126.8
170.0
61.2
2
83.5
126.8
126.8
170.0
61.2
2
83.5
126.8
126.8
170.0
2
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.2
1.4
1.4
1.5
0.2
2
1.1
1.3
1.3
1.5
0.3
2
1 1.3
1.3
1.3
1.4
0.1
2
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.4
0.1
2
1.1
1.3
1.3
1.4
0.2
2
1.2
1.3
1.3
1.4
2
' Bankfull Max Depth ft
2.2
2.5
2.5
2.8
0.4
2
2.3
2.6
2.6
3.0
0.5
2
2.5
2.7
2.7
2.8
0.2
1 2
2.5
2.7
2.7
2.8
0.2
2
2.4
2.6
2.6
2.9
0.4
2
2.8
2.9
2.9
2.9
2
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area ftZ
22.2
1 25.2
1 25.2
1 28.2
1 4.2
1 2
1 23.5
1 27.1
27.1
30.8
5.2
2
25.8
26.1
26.1
26.3
0.4
2
23.9
24.9
24.9
26.0
1.5
2
20.1
22.6
22.6
25.1
3.5
2
25.3
26.2
26.2
27.0
2
Width /Depth Ratio
11.9
13.4
13.4
14.8
2.0
2
13.1
15.6
15.6
18.0
3.5
2
12.9
14.5
14.5
16.1
2.2
2
12.5
13.8
13.8
15.1
1.8
2
12.1
14.3
14.3
16.5
3.1
2
12.3
15.9
15.9
19.5
2
Entrenchment Ratio
47
7.0
7.0
9.4
3.4
2
4.3
6.3
6.3
8.3
2.8
2
4.5
6.4
6.4
8.3
2.7
2
4.6
6.8
6.8
9.0
3.1
2
4.8
7.1
7.1
9.3
3.2
2
2.5
3.2
3.2
3.8
2
'Bank Height Ratio
1.0
10.3
10.3
19.5
13.1
2
1.0
11.3
11.3
21.5
14.5
2
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
0.1
2
0.9
0.9
0.9
1.0
0.1
2
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.9
0.1
2
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
12.2
19.3
32.1
14.5
26.7
23.2
56.2
14.6
7
9.1
1 42.4
33.3
79.5
25.7
8
2.0
31.9
27.8
88.7
32.3
9
12.8
28.4
21.8
80.2
21.9
8
No identifiable riffles
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.006
0.021
0.043
0.001
0.0
0.01
0.025
0.009
6
0.001
0.0066
0.0051
0.014
0.005
8
0.0037
0.01
0.009
0.029
0.009
9
0.003
0.01
0.0078
0.033
0.01
7
Pool Length (ft)
10.7
27.4
53.8
14.0
34.0
32.2
51.7
12.1
8
14.8
35.3
32.3
83.9
22.2
8
14.4
39.3
38.1
78.2
23.0
8
13.3
23.7
21.1
46.6
11.5
8
9.0
24.6
18.7
52.2
19.2
4
Pool Max depth (ft)
1.8
3.2
3.0
6.1
1.3
8
2.8
4.2
4.0
6.6
1.1
8
2.8
4.1
4.0
6.4
1.1
8
2.6
3.7
3.7
4.3
0.5
8
0.8
1.9
1.6
3.9
1.3
4
Pool Spacing (ft)
570
77.3
118.0
33.5
70.1
59.0
132.5
31.9
7
34.7
78.2
77.4
114.7
29.1
7
28.9
66.6
52.3
122.1
35.9
7
27.9
51.3
42.0
119.0
31.8
7
86.7
134.6
141.0
176.0
3
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft) 33.2 54 70.2
Radius of Curvature (ft) 34.6 37.1 40.5
Pattern data will not typically be collected unless visual data, dimensional data or profile data indicate significant
shifts from baseline
Rc:Bankfull width ft/ft)
Meander Wavelength (ft) 120 136 150
Meander Width Ratio 1.82 2.96 3.86
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
E4
E4
E4
E4
E4
E4
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
625
625
630
625
625
625
Sinuosity (ft)
1.08
1.08
1.09
1.08
1.08
1.08
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
0.0057
0.007
N/A
0.0055
0.0051
0.0049
BF slope ( ft/ft)
0.0049
0.005
0.0025
0.0045
0.0053
0.0047
3RI% / RU% / P% / G% / S%
25%
39%
30%
43%
54%
45%
46%
50%
36%
30%
3SC% / Sa% / G% / C% / B% / Be%
6.5%
32.2%
56.5%
4.3%
0.0%
0.5%
10.9%
15.2%
69.0%
4.8%
0.0%
0.0%
16.9%
18.4%
59.3%
4.5%
0.0%
0.9%
28%
21 %
50%
1%
0%
0%
3d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
0.162
9.98915
14.497
33.33
46.18
0.1635
5.8
9.7197
32.36
50.55
0.7044
4.4
10.092
31.59
66.01
6
14
24
Z% of Reach with Eroding Banks
1%
1%
0%
0%
0%
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross - section surveys and the longitudinal profile.
2 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
4. = Of value /needed only if the n exceeds 3
UT to South Fork Creek (Stephens) Stream and Wetland Restoration
NCEEP Project Number: 405
KCI Associates of NC.
53
Year 6 Monitoring Report-Final
January 2014

Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross - section surveys and the longitudinal profile.
2 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Slit/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
4. = Of value /needed only if the n exceeds 3
UT to South Fork Creek (Stephens) Stream and Wetland Restoration
NCEEP Project Number: 405
KCI Associates of NC.
54
Year 6 Monitoring Report-Final
January 2014
Exhibit Table 11b. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
UT to South Fork Creek (Stephens) No. 405 Reach: C Sta 29 +00 - 40+001 1100 feet
Parameter
Baseline /MY -01 (2010) MY -2 (2010)
MY -3 (2010)
MY -4 (2011)
MY -5 (2012)
MY -6 (2013)
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle only
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD"
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SID
n
Min
Mean
Med
I Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SID
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SID
n
Bankfull Width (ft)
15.8
17.1
17.7
17.7
1.1
3
15.6
17.2
17.9
17.9
1.3
3
16.0
21.9
17.2
32.6
9.2
3
15.3
16.9
17.6
17.7
1.3
3
15.3
16.6
17.0
17.4
1.1
3
14.7
16.3
15.8
18.5
3
Floodprone Width (ft)
135.0
171.7
190.0
190.0
31.8
3
135.0
171.7
190.0
190.0
31.8
3
135.0
175.0
190.0
200.0
35.0
3
135.0
175.0
190.0
200.0
35.0
3
135.0
175.0
190.0
200.0
35.0
3
135.0
175.0
190.0
200.0
3
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.7
0.0
3
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
0.0
3
0.8
1.4
1.7
1.7
0.5
3
1.5
1.8
1.9
2.1
0.3
3
1.5
1.6
1.6
1.7
0.1
3
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.5
3
'Bankfull Max Depth ft
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
0.0
3
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.8
0.1
3
2.7
2.8
2.8
2.9
0.1
3
2.8
2.8
2.8
3.0
0.1
3
2.7
2.8
2.7
2.9
0.1
3
2.6
2.8
2.7
3.2
3
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area ftZ
26.6
1 28.1
1 28.8
1 28.8
1 1.3
1 3
1 25.5
1 27.5
28.4
28.4
1.7
3
26.7
27.5
27.0
28.8
1.2
3
26.6
30.8
1 28.7
37.2
5.6
3
25.2
26.2
26.3
1 27.1
0.9
3
21.1
23.6
22.7
27.1
1
3
Width /Depth Ratio
9.4
10.4
10.9
10.9
0.9
3
9.6
10.7
11.3
11.3
1.0
3
9.7
19.7
10.3
39.3
16.9
3
8.2
9.4
8.3
11.7
2.0
3
8.9
10.5
11.2
11.4
1.4
3
10.3
11.3
11.0
12.7
3
Entrenchment Ratio
8.6
10.0
10.7
10.7
1.3
3
8.6
9.9
10.6
10.6
1.1
3
4.1
9.2
11.1
12.5
4.5
3
8.8
10.3
10.8
11.3
1.3
3
8.9
10.5
10.9
11.8
1.5
3
4.7
5.3
5.2
6.0
3
'Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
3
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
-
3
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
3
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
3
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
0.0
3
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
3
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
8.8
253
51.8
7.6
26.2
19.4
52.7
16.0
10
9.0
1 39.5
27.0
1132.6
37.8
1 11
7.6
373
15.0
140.6
40.6
12
8.0
45.9
25.5
162.0
51.5
8
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
1
Riffle Slope (ft /ft)
0
0.014
0.053
0.003
0.019
0.013
0.06
0.016
10
0.001
0.013
0.012
0.03
0.010
9
0.003
0.013
0.010
0.03
0.01
12
0.0013
0.007
0.0056
0.013
0.005
7
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
1
Pool Length (ft)
27.0
49.8
92.0
27.4
70.1
73.9
103.8
27.5
11
25.2
62.7
61.1
108.8
28.1
12
11.8
57.0
51.2
112.2
29.8
11
28.2
72.4
72.7
119.6
32.7
8
37.4
53.2
48.7
73.5
3
Pool Max depth (ft)
2.4
2.7
2.6
3.2
0.3
10
3.3
3.7
3.7
4.2
0.3
12
3.1
3.5
3.4
4.0
0.3
11
3.3
3.6
3.5
3.9
0.3
8
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.3
3
Pool Spacing (ft)
20.0
78.0
148.0
30.6
90.0
82.3
202.0
49.7
10
32.2
97.2
95.7
201.3
51.1
12
29.5
91.0
89.5
161.4
44.8
10
77.9
116.9
95.2
196.4
42.7
7
63.5
91.4
91.4
119.3
2
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft) 46 68.2 115
Radius of Curvature (ft) 35.8 47.4 58.1
Pattern data will not typically be collected unless visual data, dimensional data or profile data indicate significant
shifts from baseline
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
Meander Wavelength (ft) 105 148 170
Meander Width Ratio 2.3 3.41 5.76
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
E4
E4
E4
E4
E4
E4
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
1100
1100
1111
1100
1100
1100
Sinuosity (ft)
1.48
1.48
1.49
1.48
1.48
1.48
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft /ft)
0.0023
0.003
N/A
0.0026
0.0030
0.0026
BF slope (ft /ft)
0.0025
0.0031
0.0026
0.0032
0.0027
0.0023
3Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%
28%
50%
24%
70%
40%
68%
41%
57%
33%
53%
3SC% / Sa% / G% / C% / B% / Be%
30.9%
27.2%
34.6%
6.7%
0.0%
0.7%
24.9%
26.0%
46.7%
2.4%
0.0%
0.0%
30.0%
21.7%
44.3%
1.3%
0.0%
2.7%
28%
21 %
50%
1%
0%
0%
3d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
0.094
1.6
6.5556
31.07
71.98
0.2865
1.9
13.5179
21.14
140.051
0.0616
0.7
13.429
19.6
72.9
6
14
1 24
2% of Reach with Eroding Banks
1%
2%
1%
0%
0%
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross - section surveys and the longitudinal profile.
2 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Slit/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
4. = Of value /needed only if the n exceeds 3
UT to South Fork Creek (Stephens) Stream and Wetland Restoration
NCEEP Project Number: 405
KCI Associates of NC.
54
Year 6 Monitoring Report-Final
January 2014

Appendix E. Hydrologic Data
UT to South Fork Creek (Stephens) Stream and Wetland Restoration Year 6 Monitoring Report-Final
NCEEP Project Number: 405 January 2014
KCI Associates of NC. 55

Table 12. Verification of Bankfull Events
UT to South Fork Creek (Stephens) No. 405
Date of Data Collection
Date of Occurrence
Method
Photo #
23- Jun -10
15- May -10
Visual Observation of Wrack Lines
N/A
12- Apr -11
31- Mar -11
Visual Observation of Wrack Lines
See previous
re ort
18- Jan -13
18- Jan -13
A 2.1 -inch* rainfall event within 4 hours occurred less than 24 hours after a 1.3
N/A
inch rainfall within 6 hours.
A 1.6 -inch` rainfall event within I hour occurred less than 15 hours after a 1.3 inch
18- Jan -13
18 -Jan-13
N/A
A
rainfall within 4 hours
A
Visual Observation of Wrack lines, 13.0 inches of rain fell over the course of 39
3- Jan -14
June -July 2014
days
17
- Reported at USGS 355637079122545 Rain gauge at Berry Andrews Rd near White Cross
Table 13. Wetland Criteria Attainment 2009 -2013
a — Gauge installed 9/28/2009 — groundwater level monitored for 42 days of the growing season
b -Gauge installed 8/12/2010 —groundwater level monitored for 89 days of the growing season
c —Gauge malfunction — groundwater level monitored for 148 days of the growing season
d —Monitoring ended before end of growing season -groundwater level monitored for 228 days of the growing season
e — Multiple attempts made to locate gauge throughout the growing season using GPS and a metal detector, all were unsuccessful
A wetland hydrology success criterion is met if levels are within 12 inches of the soil surface for at least 12% of the growing season.
Growing Season (230 days): March 24 to November 9 (source: http : / /www.wcc.nres.usda.gov /f(pref/ support/climate /wetlands /nc /370Ol.txt)
Photo 17. Bankful indicators (wrack lines and flatten brush) — 1/3/2014
UT to South Fork Creek (Stephens) Stream and Wetland Restoration Year 6 Monitoring Report-Final
NCEEP Project Number: 405 January 2014
KCI Associates of NC. 56
2009
MY -02
2010
MY -03
2011
MV -04
2012
MY -OS
2013
MV -06
A
C
A
d
A
r
A
A
d
i
O
L
i
O
L
3k d
y 0
y C
7k a�i
p
y G
tk a�i
Q
d k
3k u
y C
3k a�i
y F
7
C
Ci
'uJ
ii
�yh
Li
yam,
G
'VJ
C
X06
V
GV!
Fi
Syr, or
V
V
S�RII
ate+
�R+.
"n Q
���1I
V
e
��1
e
Q
1..1
a
ate.
Q
Vl
/r
V1
V1
/-�
Vl
z
z
Vl
Ref
—
—
3 b
1%
No
59
26%
Yes
37 d
16%
Yes
169
73%
Yes
2
8'
3%
No
20
9%
No
10°
4%
No
18d
8%
No
67
29%
Yes
3
0.
0%
No
79
34%
Yes
72
31%
Yes
73d
32%
Yes
195
84%
Yes
4
0.
0%
No
24
10%
No
34
15%
Yes
15'
�7%
No
5
0 a
0%
No
43
19%
Yes
62
27%
Yes
28d
12%
Yes
179
77%
Yes
a — Gauge installed 9/28/2009 — groundwater level monitored for 42 days of the growing season
b -Gauge installed 8/12/2010 —groundwater level monitored for 89 days of the growing season
c —Gauge malfunction — groundwater level monitored for 148 days of the growing season
d —Monitoring ended before end of growing season -groundwater level monitored for 228 days of the growing season
e — Multiple attempts made to locate gauge throughout the growing season using GPS and a metal detector, all were unsuccessful
A wetland hydrology success criterion is met if levels are within 12 inches of the soil surface for at least 12% of the growing season.
Growing Season (230 days): March 24 to November 9 (source: http : / /www.wcc.nres.usda.gov /f(pref/ support/climate /wetlands /nc /370Ol.txt)
Photo 17. Bankful indicators (wrack lines and flatten brush) — 1/3/2014
UT to South Fork Creek (Stephens) Stream and Wetland Restoration Year 6 Monitoring Report-Final
NCEEP Project Number: 405 January 2014
KCI Associates of NC. 56

IN
G
0
c -5
s
a
C -10
3 -15
_
0
U -20
-25
-30
Figure 17.
UT to South Fork Creek
Reference Gauge
2013 -MY06
-35 A
I I I \II
IIA I1� Ili/ lit, 'U!
4P-n4/' ='ll IYY' 11nu\n4'^
—' IA --'r' 11 �-- IVIq - "rI I
M M M M M M
M M M
M M M M M
M M M M M M M
M M M M M M M M M M M M M
O O O O O O
N N N N N N
O O O
N N N
O O O O O
N N N N N
O O O O O O O
N N N N N N N
O O O O O O O O O O O O O
N N N N N N N N N N N N N
00 a1 O
M M
O .-y N M d'
N N
[- 00 O\ D1
� N —r- N
O 00 0\ O
M
W') 71
�
r` n
00 00 0, 0� O
Date
Gauge 1
i Jurisdictional Depth
Rainfall
UT to South Fork Creek (Stephens) Stream and Wetland Restoration
NCEEP Project Number: 405
KCI Associates of NC.
57
4
3.5
3
2.5
_
2
c
1
1.5
1
0.5
❑C
Year 6 Monitoring Report-Final
January 2014

10
5
0
-5
a
A -10
3 -15
b
c
0
0
� -20
-25
-30
-35
Figure 18.
UT to South Fork Creek
Gauge 2
2013 -MY06
Begin Growing End Growing
Season Season
3/24/2013 11/9/2013
56 Days 67 Days VV
n�
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M M
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O O
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N N
N
M
M
Vl
00
0�
O
O
N
M
d'
�'
vn
�O
r _
00
01
0,
O
--
N
M
kn
kn
`O
r
00
a1 O
M
c\
N
N
-
N
000
N
M
N
O
N
N
N
M
M
M
d'
d'
kn
W'�
110
1.0
r`
r-
00
00
01
01
—
N
UT to South Fork Creek (Stephens) Stream and Wetland Restoration
NCEEP Project Number: 405
KCI Associates of NC.
Date
Gauge 2 Jurisdictional Depth Rainfall
58
4
3.5
3
2.5
c
2 w
0
1.5
1
0.5
Me
Year 6 Monitoring Report-Final
January 2014

10
5
0
c -5
A -10
-15
0
0
0
U -20
-25
-30
Figure 19.
UT to South Fork Creek
Gauge 3
2013 -MY06
-35
!
UlI
IIA1I�
11 -/
11\ 1V1
111 -11111
_I11
111
V 111111�11.T
I
IyIq
,
" I
r
r
-
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M M
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O O
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N N
N
M
M
�n
00
a1
O
O
N
M
V
�c
r—
oo
a1
a1
O
N
M
'T
M
In
IC
r-
Oc
01 O
�
-
7
N
N
-
N
-
N
\
7
N
�
N
M
�
)
Ln
�
�c
1—
r—
Oc
cc
41
41
—
O
O
,-�
-
. �
—
N N
UT to South Fork Creek (Stephens) Stream and Wetland Restoration
NCEEP Project Number: 405
KCI Associates of NC.
Date
Gauge 3 Jurisdictional Depth Rainfall
59
4
3.5
3
2.5
2 w
1.5
1
0.5
A
Year 6 Monitoring Report-Final
January 2014

UT to South Fork Creek (Stephens) Stream and Wetland Restoration Year 6 Monitoring Report-Final
NCEEP Project Number: 405 January 2014
KCI Associates of NC. 60
Figure 20.
UT to South Fork Creek
Gauge 5
2013 -MY06
4
10
Begin Growing
End Growing
Season
Season
5
3/24/2013
11 /9/2013
3.5
0
3
a -5
2.5
-10
A
179 Days
°
w
3 -15
e
c
1.5
-20
1
-25
-30
0.5
0
-35
M M M M M M M
M
M M M M M M
M M M M M M M
M
M M M
M M M M M
M M M M
O O O O O O O
N N N N N N N
O
N
O O O O O O
N N N N N N
O O O O O O O
N N N N N N N
�V
O
N
O O O
N N N
O O O O O
N N N N N
O O O O
N N N N
-�
N M M IT kn W
N M
01
O O�ti N M d'
M
kn l0 r- 0000 01 0I,
OC
O
�--� N
c�+m
M rY � k�0
N
r- M 01 O
N M
N N
--� --� N N
M
N ,� N
M � kn kn
N N
`O l h
N
00
N
00 01 01
.�-i
-� O O .--i .-�
N
- — N N
Date
Gauge 5
— Jurisdictional Depth
Rainfall
UT to South Fork Creek (Stephens) Stream and Wetland Restoration Year 6 Monitoring Report-Final
NCEEP Project Number: 405 January 2014
KCI Associates of NC. 60