Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
20120916 Ver 1_Year 2 Monitoring Report_2014_20150414
UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project Year 2 Final Monitoring Report Onslow County, North Carolina NCEEP Project ID Number - 95019 Project Info: Monitoring Year: 2 of 7 Year of Data Collection: 2014 Year of Completed Construction: 2013 Submission Date: March 2015 Submitted To: NCDENR - Ecosystem Enhancement Program 1625 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699 NCDENR Contract ID No. 003992 Y -91J EkOstem ag em.ent PROGRAM UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project Year 2 Final Monitoring Report Onslow County, North Carolina NCEEP Project ID Number — 95019 Report Prepared and Submitted by Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. NC Professional Engineering License # F -1084 INTERNATIONAL MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT, NCEEP PROJECT NUMBER - 95019 MARCH 2015. MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................. ..............................1 2.0 METHODOLOGY ........................................................... ..............................3 2.1 Stream Assessment —Reach UTI a & UTl b .................................................................. ............................... 3 2. 1.1 Hydrology .................................................................................................................... ..............................3 2.1.2 Photographic Documentation ...................................................................................... ..............................3 2.2 Stream Assessment —Reach UTI c ................................................................................ ............................... 3 2.2.1 Morphologic Parameters and Channel Stability .......................................................... ..............................4 2.2.2 Hydrology .................................................................................................................... ..............................4 2.2.3 Photographic Documentation ...................................................................................... ..............................4 2.2.4 Visual Stream Morphological Stability Assessment .................................................... ..............................4 2.3 Vegetation Assessment .................................................................................................. ..............................5 3.0 REFERENCES ................................................................. ..............................6 APPENDICES Appendix A Project Vicinity Map and Background Tables Figure 1 Project Vicinity Map Table 1 Project Components and Mitigation Credits Table 2 Project Activity and Reporting History Table 3 Project Contacts Table 4 Project Attributes Appendix B Visual Assessment Data Figure 2a Current Condition Plan View (CCPV) Figure 2b Plan View Current Condition Figure 2c Plan View Current Condition Table 5a Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table 5b Stream Problem Areas (SPAS) Table 6a Vegetation Condition Assessment Table 6b Vegetation Problem Areas (VPAs) Stream Station Photos Vegetation Plot Photos Vegetation Problem Area Photos Appendix C Vegetation Plot Data Table 7 Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment Table 8 CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata Table 9a CVS Stem Count of Planted Stems by Plot and Species Table 9b Vegetation Stem Count Densities MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. II UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT, NCEEP PROJECT NUMBER - 95019 MARCH 2015, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7 Table 9c CVS Density Per Plot Table 9d Vegetation Summary and Totals Appendix D Stream Survey Data Figure 3 Year 2 Cross - sections with Annual Overlays Table 10 Baseline Stream Data Summary Table 11 Cross - section Morphology Data Appendix E Hydrologic Data Figure 4 Wetland Gauge Graphs Figure 5 Flow Gauge Graphs Figure 6 Observed Rainfall versus Historic Average Table 12 Wetland Restoration Area Well Success Table 13 Flow Gauge Success Table 14 Verification of Bankfull Events MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. III UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT, NCEEP PROJECT NUMBER - 95019 MARCH 2015, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Michael Baker International (Baker) restored 3,606 linear feet (LF) of perennial stream, 4.0 acres (AC) of riparian wetlands, and enhanced 600 LF of stream along an unnamed tributary (UT) to Mill Swamp in Onslow County, North Carolina (NC), (Appendix A). The UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project (Site) is located in Onslow County, approximately three miles northwest of the Town of Richlands. The Site is located in the NC Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) sub -basin 03 -05 -02 and the Targeted Local Watershed (TLW) 03030001 - 010020 of the White Oak River Basin. The project involved the restoration and enhancement of a Coastal Plain Headwater Small Stream Swamp system (NC WAM 2010, Schafale and Weakley 1990) from impairments within the project area due to past agricultural conversion, cattle grazing, and draining of floodplain wetlands by ditching activities. The project goals directly addressed stressors identified in the White Oak River Basin Restoration Priority Plan (RBRP) such as degraded riparian conditions, channel modification, and excess sediment and nutrient inputs. The primary restoration goals, as outlined in the approved mitigation plan, are described below: • Create geomorphically stable conditions along the unnamed tributaries across the Site, • Implement agricultural Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce nonpoint source inputs to receiving waters, • Protect and improve water quality by reducing bank erosion, nutrient and sediment inputs, • Restore stream and wetland hydrology by connecting historic flow paths and promoting natural flood processes, and • Restore and protect riparian buffer functions and corridor habitat in perpetuity by establishing a permanent conservation easement. To accomplish these goals, the following objectives were identified: • Restore existing incised, eroding, and channelized streams by providing access to their historic floodplains, • Prevent cattle from accessing the riparian buffer, reducing excessive bank erosion, • Increase aquatic habitat value by providing more bedform diversity, creating natural scour pools and reducing sediment from accelerated bank erosion, • Plant native species riparian buffer vegetation along stream bank and floodplain areas, protected by a permanent conservation easement, to increase stormwater runoff filtering capacity, improve bank stability, and shade the stream to decrease water temperature, • Improve aquatic and terrestrial habitat through improved substrate and in- stream cover, addition of woody debris, and reduction of water temperature, and • Control invasive species vegetation within the project area and if necessary, continue treatments during the monitoring period. The project as -built condition closely mimics that proposed by the design. Differences are outlined below: • The Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan (Mitigation Plan) specified the planting of riparian live stakes during construction; however, due to the time of planting in May 2013 none were installed. MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT, NCEEP PROJECT NUMBER - 95019 MARCH 2015, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7 During construction, it was determined that live stakes would be installed during the dormant season. It is noted that as of March 27, 2014, approximately 300 live stakes were installed along the stream banks in the restored single thread channel of the UT 1 c area. • Permanent fencing along Reach UT3 was originally proposed 50 feet from both of the streambanks outside of the conservation easement; however, the landowner decided to use the northern pasture for hay production only, so fencing was installed only on the southern side of the reach to exclude cattle. During Year 2 monitoring, the planted acreage performance categories were functioning at 100 percent with no bare areas or low stem density areas to report. The average density of total planted stems, based on data collected from the six monitoring plots following Year 2 monitoring, is 553 stems per acre. Therefore, the Year 2 data demonstrate that the Site is on track for meeting the minimum success interim criteria of 320 trees per acre by the end of Year 3. Invasive species vegetation areas of concern were observed and documented accordingly during Year 2. Following Year 2, three areas totaling approximately 0.68 acre, or 5.7 percent of the total planted area (12 acres) within the easement for the Site was found to contain the invasive species Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense). To control areas of invasive species early, these areas are scheduled to be treated in 2015 during the appropriate treatment window by use of the herbicide Glyphosate. During Year 2 monitoring, groundwater monitoring demonstrated that four of the ten groundwater monitoring wells located along Reach UTIc met the wetland success criteria as stated in the Site Mitigation Plan. The gauges that met success criteria (MSAW1, MSAW4, MSAW5 and MSAW8) demonstrated consecutive hydroperiods of 12 percent or greater which ranged from 21.2 to 47.3 percent of the growing season. The gauges that did not meet success criteria (MSAW2, MSAW3, MSAW4, MSAW6, MSAW7, MSAW9 and MSAW 10) demonstrated consecutive hydroperiods of 12 percent or less which ranged from 0.3 percent to 4.5 percent of the growing season. No remedial action is proposed at this time, considering the seasonal rainfall totals were slightly below the historic average. Additionally, a few of the wells not meeting success are outside of the wetland fringe /hydric soils boundary. Baker will continue to monitor the hydrology and extrapolate the data to determine if additional wells are required to demonstrate successful groundwater hydrology. Year 2 flow monitoring demonstrated that both flow gauges (MSFL1 and MSFL2) met the stated success criteria of 30 days or more of consecutive flow through reaches UTla and UTlb. Both gauges demonstrated consecutive days of flow that ranged from 30.8 days (MSFLI) to 131.4 days (MSFL2). These gauges demonstrated similar patterns relative to rainfall events observed in the vicinity of the Site. The Year 2 monitoring survey data of eight (8) cross - sections indicates that the Site is geomorphically stable and performing at 100 percent for the all parameters evaluated. The data collected are within the lateral /vertical stability and in- stream structure performance categories. The Site was found to have had at least three post - construction above bankfull events based on crest gauge readings. Summary information/data related to the Site and statistics related to performance of various project and monitoring elements can be found in the tables and figures in the report Appendices. Narrative background and supporting information formerly found in these reports can be found in the Baseline Monitoring Report and in the Mitigation Plan available on the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program ( NCEEP) website. All raw data supporting the tables and figures in the appendices is available from NCEEP upon request. MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT, NCEEP PROJECT NUMBER - 95019 MARCH 2015, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7 2.0 METHODOLOGY The seven -year monitoring plan for the Site includes criteria to evaluate the success of the stream, wetland and vegetation components of the project. The methodology and report template used to evaluate these components adheres to the NCEEP monitoring guidance document dated November 7, 2011, which will continue to serve as the template for subsequent monitoring years. The specific locations of monitoring features: vegetation plots, permanent cross - sections, monitoring wells, flow gauges, and the crest gauge, are shown on the CCPV sheets found in Appendix B. The Year 2 monitoring data were collected in November and December 2014. All visual site assessment data located in Appendix B were also collected in November and December 2014. 2.1 Stream Assessment — Reach UTla & UTlb The UTla and UTlb mitigation approach involved the restoration of historic flow patterns and flooding functions in a multi - thread headwater stream system. Monitoring efforts focus on visual observations to document stability and the use of water level monitoring gauges to document groundwater and flooding functions. 2.1.1 Hydrology Two automated groundwater gauges (pressure transducers) are installed per transect, with a total of four well transects installed in the UTla and UTlb areas. The automated loggers are programmed to collect data at every 6 hours to record groundwater levels. Groundwater data collected during Year 2 monitoring are located in Appendix E. Two flow gauges (pressure transducers) were installed to document the occurrence of extended periods of shallow surface ponding, indicative of flow. The gauges document flooding connectivity between the restored UTla and UTlb reaches for at least 30 consecutive days under normal climatic conditions. Flow data collected during Year 2 monitoring are located in Appendix E. 2.1.2 Photographic Documentation The headwater stream reaches were photographed longitudinally beginning at the downstream portion of the Site and moving towards the upstream end of the Site. Photographs were taken looking upstream at delineated locations throughout the restored stream valley. The photograph points were established close enough together to provide an overall view of the reach lengths and valley crenulations. The angle of the photo depends on what angle provides the best view and was noted and continued in future photos. Selected UTla and UTlb site photographs are located in Appendix B. 2.2 Stream Assessment — Reach UTlc The UTIc mitigation approach involved the restoration of historic flow patterns and flooding functions in a single - thread headwater stream system. Monitoring efforts focus on visual observations, the use of groundwater level monitoring gauges, a crest gauge to document bankfull flooding events and established stream cross - sections to monitor channel stability. Stream survey data were collected conventionally using a Nikon DM -522 total station unit and is georeferenced used NAD83 -State Plane Feet- FIPS3200. This survey system collects point data with an accuracy of less than one tenth of a foot. MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT, NCEEP PROJECT NUMBER - 95019 MARCH 2015, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7 2.2.1 Morphologic Parameters and Channel Stability Cross - sections were classified using the Rosgen Stream Classification System, and all monitored cross - sections fall within the quantitative parameters (i.e. BHR no more than 1.2 and ER no less than 2.2) defined for channels of the design stream type. Morphological survey data is presented in Appendix D. A longitudinal profile was surveyed for the entire length of channel immediately after construction to document as -built baseline conditions for the first year of monitoring only. The survey was tied to a permanent benchmark and measurements included thalweg, water surface, bankfull, and top of low bank. Each of these measurements was taken at the head of each feature (e.g., riffle, pool) and at the maximum pool depth. Yearly longitudinal profiles will not be conducted during subsequent monitoring years unless channel instability has been documented or remedial actions /repairs are required by the USACE or NCEEP. 2.2.2 Hydrology Ten automated groundwater- monitoring stations were installed in the UTlc wetland restoration area and follow USACE protocols ( USACE 1997). Groundwater data collected during Year 2 monitoring are located in Appendix E. Total observed rainfall at the Albert Ellis airport weather station located near Richlands, NC for the period of January 2014 through November 2014 was 47.20 inches, as compared to the Onslow County WETS table of 52.84 inches annually. According to the Albert Ellis airport gauge, total rainfall during the Year 2 monitoring period from January 2014 through December 2014 was 5.64 inches below the historic approximated average for Onslow County. One crest gauge was installed on the floodplain at the bankfull elevation along the left top of bank on UTIc approximately at Station 45 +50. The highest bankfull reading recorded in Year 2 was measured to be 0.56 feet and was estimated to have occurred on August 4, 2014. Crest gauge readings are presented in Appendix E. 2.2.3 Photographic Documentation Reference photograph transects were taken at each permanent cross - section. The survey tape was centered in the photographs of the bank. The water line was located in the lower edge of the frame, and as much of the bank as possible is included in each photograph. Photographs were also taken of grade control structures along the restored stream, and limited to log weirs or log jams. Selected UTlc site photographs from Year 2 monitoring are shown in Appendix B. 2.2.4 Visual Stream Morphological Stability Assessment The visual stream morphological stability assessment involves the qualitative evaluation of lateral and vertical channel stability, and the integrity and overall performance of in- stream structures throughout the Project reach as a whole. Habitat parameters, and pool depth maintenance, are also measured and scored. During Year 2 monitoring, the entire project reach was walked, noting geomorphic conditions of the stream bed profile (riffle /pool facets); both stream banks, and engineered in- stream structures. Photos were taken at every stream photograph reference station as discussed in the previous section, and in locations of potential SPAS which were documented in the field for subsequent mapping on the CCPV figures. A more detailed summary of the methodology and results for the visual stream stability assessment can be found in Appendix B which includes supporting data tables, and SPA photos if applicable. MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT, NCEEP PROJECT NUMBER - 95019 MARCH 2015, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7 2.3 Vegetation Assessment In order to determine if the criteria are achieved, vegetation - monitoring quadrants were installed and are monitored across the Site in accordance with the CVS -NCEEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version 4.1 (2007). The vegetation monitoring plots are a minimum of 2 percent of the planted portion of the Site with six plots established randomly within the planted UTIa, UTlb and UTlc riparian buffer areas per Monitoring Levels 1 and 2. No monitoring quadrants were established within the undisturbed wooded areas of UTla and UTlb. The sizes of individual quadrants are 100 square meters for woody tree species. Additionally, the existing vegetation areas were visually monitored during the annual site visits to document any mortality, due to construction activities or changes to the water table, which could negatively impact existing forest cover or favorable buffer vegetation. Following Year 2 monitoring, it is reported that no areas of concern regarding the existing vegetation was observed along UTIa and UTIb. Invasive species areas of concern were observed and documented accordingly during Year 2. Following Year 2, three areas totaling approximately 0.68 acre, or 5.7 percent of the total planted area (12 acres) within the easement for the Site was found to contain the invasive species Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense). To control areas of invasive species early, these areas are scheduled to be treated in 2015 during the appropriate treatment window by use of the herbicide Glyphosate Year 2 vegetation assessment information is provided in Appendix B and C. MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT, NCEEP PROJECT NUMBER - 95019 MARCH 2015, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7 3.0 REFERENCES Carolina Vegetation Survey (CVS) and NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP). 2007. CVS -NCEEP Data Entry Tool v. 2.2.7. University of North Carolina, Raleigh, NC. Lee, M., Peet R., Roberts, S., Wentworth, T. 2007. CVS -NCEEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version 4.1. North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program. 2011. Monitoring Requirements and Performance Standards for Stream and/or Wetland Mitigation. November 7, 2011. Rosgen, D. L. 1994. A Classification of Natural Rivers. Catena 22:169 -199. Schafale, M. P., and A. S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the natural communities of North Carolina, third approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. Division of Parks and Recreation, NCDENR. Raleigh, NC. United States Army Corps of Engineers. 1997. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Research Program. Technical Note VN- rs -4.1. Environmental Laboratory. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS. 2005. "Technical Standard for Water -Table Monitoring of Potential Wetland Sites," WRAP Technical Notes Collection (ERDC TN- WRAP- 05 -2), U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. Vicksburg, MS. 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines, April 2003, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Wilmington District. MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT, NCEEP PROJECT NUMBER - 95019 MARCH 2015, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7 Appendix A Project Vicinity Map and Background Tables The subject project site is an environmental restoration site of the NCDENR Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) and is encompassed by a recorded conservation easement, but is bordered by land under private ownership. Accessing the site may require traversing areas near or along the easement boundary and therefore access by the general public is not permitted. Access by authorized personnel of state and federal agencies or their designees /contractors involved in the development, oversight and stewardship of the restoration site is permitted within the terms and timeframes of their defined roles. Any intended site visitation or activity by any person outside of these previously sanctioned roles and activities requires prior coordination with EEP. D UP L le LENO'IR ,COU'W� Site Directions To access the site from Raleigh, follow Interstate 40 southeast and take the NC Highway 24 Exit East/NC Highway 903 North, Exit 373 toward Kenansville and Magnolia. From Exit 373, continue on the Kenansville Bypass for 6 miles before turning right onto NC Highway 24 East. After turning right onto NC Highway 24 (Beulaville Highway), continue for 23 miles before turning left onto US Highway 258 (Kinston Highway). Once on US Highway 258, travel for approximately 1.2 miles before turning right onto Warren Taylor Road. Then proceed 0.5 miles and turn left while heading north through a large field. The site is located where the farm road intersects UT to Mill Swamp at a downstream culvert crossing. EEP Project # 95019 Onslow County J ONSL cove OUXTY Project Location L,--"/ _J Taylor Rd Note: Site is located within targeted local watershed 03030001010020. Figure 1 Project Vicinity Map UT to Mill Swamp Site r; N L'n iafflement I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L 0 0.5 1 2 3 Miles Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project: EEP Project 11D No. 95019 Mitigation Credits Stream Riparian Wetland Non - riparian Wetland Buffer Nitrogen Nutrient Offset Phosphorus Nutrient Offset Type R, El R E Totals 4,006 SMU 4.0 WMU 0 Project Components Project Component or Reach ID Stationing/ Location Existing Footage/ Acreage Approach Restoration/ Restoration E uivalent Restoration Footage or Acreage Mitigation Ratio Reach UTIa 10-00 —16+00 600 LF Enhancement Level I 400 SMU 600 LF 1.5:1 ReachUTlb 16- 00 -36 +93 2,131 LF Headwater Restoration 2,093 SMU 2,093 LF 1:1 Reach UTIc 37 +24— 52 +37 1,350 LF Single thread Restoration 1,513 SMU 1,513 LF 1:1 Reach UT3 10+00— 23 +69 1,060 LF Cattle Exclusion N/A N/A N/A Wetland Area #1 See plan sheets 0.0 AC Restoration 4.0 WMU 4.0 AC 1:1 Component Summation Restoration Level Stream (LF) Riparian Wetland (AC) Non - riparian Wetland (AC) Buffer (SF) Upland (AC) Riverine Non- Riverine Restoration 3,606 4.0 Enhancement I 600 Enhancement II Creation Preservation High Quality Preservation BMP Elements Element Location Purpose /Function Notes BMP Elements: BR= Bioretention Cell; SF= Sand Filter; SW= Stormwater Wetland; WDP= Wet Detention Pond; DDP= Dry Detention Pond; FS= Filter Strip; S= Grassed Swale; LS= Level Spreader; NI= Natural Infiltration Area MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT (EEP PROJECT NO. 95019) Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project: EEP Project ID No. 95019 Activity or Report Scheduled Completion Data Collection Complete Actual Completion or Delivery Mitigation Plan Prepared N/A N/A Aug -13 Mitigation Plan Amended N/A N/A Sep -13 Mitigation Plan Approved N/A N/A Nov -13 Final Design — (at least 90% complete) N/A N/A Mar -13 Construction Begins N/A N/A Apr -13 Temporary S &E mix applied to entire project area N/A N/A N/A Permanent seed mix applied to entire project area N/A N/A Jun -13 Planting of live stakes Fall/Winter 2013 N/A N/A Planting of bare root trees N/A N/A Jun -13 End of Construction N/A N/A Jun -13 Survey of As -built conditions (Year 0 Monitoring - baseline) N/A Aug -13 Aug -13 Year 1 Monitoring Dec -13 Dec -13 Jun -14 Year 2 Monitoring Dec -14 Dec -14 Jan -15 Year 3 Monitoring Dec -15 N/A N/A Year 4 Monitoring Dec -16 N/A N/A Year 5 Monitoring Dec -17 N/A N/A Year 6 Monitoring Dec -18 N/A N/A Year 7 Monitoring Dec -19 N/A N/A MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT (EEP PROJECT NO. 95019) Table 3. Project Contacts UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project: EEP Project ID No. 95019 Designer Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. 8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600 Cary, NC 27518 Contact: Kayne Van Stell, Tel. 919- 481 -5730 Construction Contractor River Works, Inc. 6105 Chapel Hill Road Raleigh, NC 27607 Contact: Phillip Todd, Tel. 919 -582 -3575 Planting Contractor River Works, Inc. 6105 Chapel Hill Road Raleigh, NC 27607 Contact: Phillip Todd, Tel. 919 -582 -3575 Seeding Contractor River Works, Inc. 6105 Chapel Hill Road Raleigh, NC 27607 Contact: Phillip Todd, Tel. 919 -582 -3575 Seed Mix Sources Green Resources, Tel. 336 - 855 -6363 Nursery Stock Suppliers Mellow Marsh Farm, 919 - 742 -1200 ArborGen, 843 -528 -3204 Superior Tree, 850- 971 -5159 Monitoring Performers Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. 8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600 Cary, NC 27518 Contact: Stream Monitoring Point of Contact Dwayne Huneycutt, Tel. 919 - 481 -5745 Vegetation Monitoring Point of Contact Dwayne Huneycutt, Tel. 919 - 481 -5745 Wetland Monitoring Point of Contact Dwayne Huneycutt, Tel. 919 - 481 -5745 MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT (EEP PROJECT NO. 95019) Table 4. Project Attributes UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project: EEP Project ID No. 95019 Project Information Project Name UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project County Onslow Project Area (acres) 19.6 Project Coordinates latitude and longitude) 134.9377 N, - 77.5897 W Watershed Summary Information Physiographic Province Inner Coastal Plain River Basin White Oak USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit and 14-digit 03030001 / 03030001010020 DWQ Sub -basin 03 -05 -02 Project Drainage Area AC 421 (d/s main stem UT I) Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area <1% CGIA Land Use Classification 2.01.03.99, Other Hay, Rotation, or Pasture; 413 NCEEP Land Use Classification for UT to Mill Swamp Watershed (White Oak River Basin Restoration Priorities, 2010) Forest (52 %) Agriculture (44 %) Impervious Cover (0.6 %) Stream Reach Summary Information Parameters Reach UTl Reach UT3 Length ofReach (LF) 4,091 1,060 Valley Classification Ros en) X X Drainage Area AC 421 23 NCDWQ Stream Identification Score 40.5 21 NCDWQ Water Quality Classification C; NSW C; NSW Morphological Description (Rosgen stream type) Intermittent Ditch (N /A) (Channelized Headwater System) Evolutionary Trend Gc4F Intermittent Ditch (N /A) Underlying Mapped Soils Mk, St, Ly, FoA Mk, St Drainage Class Poorly drained, somewhat poorly drained Poorly drained, somewhat poorly drained Soil Hydric Status Hydric Hydric Average Channel Slope (ft/ft) 0.0041 0.0058 FEMA Classification N/A N/A Native Vegetation Community Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp Percent Composition of Exotic /Invasive Vegetation —10% <5% Wetland Summary Information Parameters Wetland 1 (Non - Jurisdictional WI) Size of Wetland (AC) 4.0 Wetland Type Riparian Riverine Mapped Soil Series Mk (Muckalee), St (Stallings), Ly (Lynchburg) Drainage Class Poorly drained, somewhat poorly drained Soil Hydric, Status Hydric Source of Hydrology Groundwater Hydrologic Im airment Partially (disconnected floodplain from ditches and channel incision) Native Vegetation Community Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp, Successional Percent Composition of Exotic/Invasive Vegetation —5% Regulatory Considerations Regulation Applicablel Applicable Resolved Supporting Documentation Waters of the United States — Section 404 Yes Yes See Mitigation Plan Waters of the United States — Section 401 Yes Yes See Mitigation Plan Endangered Species Act No N/A See Mitigation Plan Historic Preservation Act No N/A See Mitigation Plan Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)/ Coastal Area Management Act ( No N/A See Mitigation Plan FEMA Floodplain Compliance No N/A See Mitigation Plan Essential Fisheries Habitat No N/A See Mitigation Plan Source: White Oak River Basin Restoration Priorities, 2010 (hqp: / /www.ncegp. net / services /restplans/ FINAL% 20RBRP %2OWhite %200ak %2020110523.pddt) MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT (EEP PROJECT NO. 95019) Appendix B Visual Assessment Data 1 FiI IO UT 3 I N T E R N AT 1 0 N A L Legend A. Flow Gauges Groundwater Wells • Wells NOT Meeting Criteria O Wells Meeting Criteria - - - - Cattle Exclusion Fencing Cross Sections Stream Crossings In- Stream Structures As -Built Streams by Mitigation Type (All Stable) Enhancement I UT la No Mitigation Credit Restoration: Multi- Thread Channel Restoration: Single- Thread Channel Vegetation Plots Reach Break Vegetation Plot (All Plots Currently Meeting Criteria) Vegetation Problem Area (VPA) Invasive Species Present Conservation Easement Restored Wetland Area y A I -TIN 0 250 500 N Figure 2A - Plan View Feet Current Condition ECOS StC111 UT to Mill Swamp Site y EEP Project # 95019 Onslow County, NC Flow Gauges Groundwater Wells Crossing -r • Wells NOT Meeting Criteria MSAW14 O Wells Meeting Criteria - - - - Cattle Exclusion Fencing f Cross Sections UT 3 Stream Crossings F In- Stream Structures s! UT la • Stream Top Of Bank Veg Plot 1: As -Built Streams by Mitigation Type (All Stable) 607/1052 Enhancement I Veg Plot 2: Restoration: Multi- Thread Channel (No Top of Bank) Restoration: Single- Thread Channel 445/931 No Mitigation Credit MSAW18 Vegetation Plot (All Plots Currently Meeting Criteria) MSAW17 me - Vegetation Problem Area (VPA) Invasive Species Present Conservation Easement Restored Wetland Area Monitoring /Survey Date: Dec 2014 OO eMap, NC Center for Geogr p is Info oration and Anal sis, C 911 Aerial Photo Date: 2012 Board Michael Baker r MSFL1 N Figure 2B - Plan View Current Condition ECOS UT to Mill Swamp Site MSAW16 0 N A L y StCm Ms Onslow County, NC ° Plot ID 3: � Crossing -r MSAW14 486/1012 UT 3 MSAW13 • Veg Plot 2: 445/931 MSAW12 UT 1 b me - MSAW11 OO eMap, NC Center for Geogr p is Info oration and Anal sis, C 911 - Board Michael Baker �� 0 100 200 Feet N Figure 2B - Plan View Current Condition ECOS UT to Mill Swamp Site I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L y StCm EEP Project # 95019 Onslow County, NC " Veg Plot 3: 486/1012 UT 1 b J Stream Crossing Veg Plot 4: 688/931 I - A. Stream' Crossing MSAWS X01 X03 X04 X02 VPAs = total 0.03 ac Aill W-1 "00 A. Flow Gauges Groundwater Wells O Wells NOT Meeting Criteria O Wells Meeting Criteria Cross Sections Stream Crossings In- Stream Structures Top of Bank As -Built Streams by Mitigation Type (All Stable) Enhancement I Restoration: Multi- Thread Channel (No Top of Bank) Restoration: Single- Thread Channel No Mitigation Credit - Vegetation Plot (All Plots Currently Meeting Criteria) Vegetation Problem Area (VPA) Invasive Species Present Conservation Easement ® Restored Wetland Area • UT 1c oMS,awz k MSAW1 Veg Plot 5: 607/809 - VPA = 0.05 ac Monitoring /Survey Date: Dec 2014 Veg Plot 6: 486/728 Aerial Photo Date: 2012 ry NC OneMap, NC�Center for M i c h rmi �. 0 100 200 N • ggV�� Feet INTERNATIONAL �I11, Ms slTlellt EEP Project # 95019 VPA = 0.60 ac �� VPAs = total 0.05 ac X08 ,I Figure 2C - Plan View Current Condition UT to Mill Swamp Site Onslow County, NC Table 5a. Visual Steam Morphology Stability Assessment UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project: EEP Project ID No. 95019 Reach ID: UTlc Assessed Length (LF): 1,513 Major Channel Category Channel Sub- Category Metric Number Stable, Performing as Intended Total Number per As -built Number of Unstable Segments Amount of Unstable Footage %Stable, Performing as Intended Number with Stabilizing Woody Veg. Footage with Stabilizing Woody Veg. Adjusted %for Stabilizing Woody Veg. 1. Aggmdation 0 0 100% ]. Vertical Stability 2. Degradation 0 0% 100% 2. Riffle Condition 3. Meander Pool 1. Texture Substrate 1. Depth 3 22 3 22 100% 100%, 1. Bed Condition 2. Length 1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run) 22 19 22 19 1 REP 100% 100% 4. Thalweg Position 2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide) 19 19 100% 1. Scoured/Eroding Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or scour and erosion 0 0 100% 0 0 100% 2. Bank 2. Undercut Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears likely 0 0 100% 0 0 100% 3. Mass Wasting Banks slumping, caving or collapse 0 0 100% 0 0 100% Totals 0 0 100% 0 0 100% 3. Engineering Structures 1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs 8 8 100% 2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill 8 8 100% 2a. Piping Structures lacking an substantial flow underneath sill or arms 8 8 100% 3. Bank Position Bank erosion witbin the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15% 8 8 100% 4. Habitat Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth 8 8 100% MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT (EEP PROJECT NO. 95019) Table 5b. Stream Problem Areas (SPAs) UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project: EEP Project ID No. 95019 Feature Issue IStation Number ISuspected Cause lPhoto Number None Observed N/A N/A N/A MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT (EEP PROJECT NO. 95019) Table 6a. Vegetation Conditions Assessment UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project: EEP Project ID No. 95019 Reach ID: UTlc Planted Acreage: 4.0 Mapping CCPV Number of Combined % of Planted Vegetation Category Detentions Threshold Depiction Polygons Acreage Acreage (acres) 1. Bare Areas Very limited cover both woody and herbaceous material 0.1 NA 0 0.00 0.0% Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 4 or 5 0.1 NA 0 0.00 0.0% 2. Low Stem Density Areas stem count criteria. Total 0 0.00 0.0% Areas with woody stems or a size class that are obviously small given the 0.25 NA 0 0.00 0.0°% 3. Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor monitoring ear. Cumulative Total 0 0.00 0.0% Easement Acreage: Mapping CCPV Number of Combined % of Planted Vegetation Category Deentions Threshold Depiction Polygons Acreage Acreage 5. Invasive Areas of Concern Areas of points if too small to render as polygons at map scale 1000 ft2 NA 15 0.68 5.7% 6. Easement Encroachment Areas Areas of points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale) none NA 0 0.00 0.0% MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT (EEP PROJECT NO. 95019) Table 6b. Vegetation Problem Areas (VPAs) UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project: EEP Project ID No. 95019 Feature Issue Station Number Suspected Cause Photo Number Invasive/Exotic Populations 38 +50 Li strum sinense NA Invasive/Exotic Populations 47 +00 to 50 +00 Li strum sinense 2 Invasive /Exotic Populations 50 +50 to 52 +00 Li strum sinense 1 MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT (EEP PROJECT NO. 95019) Photo Point 1 — Downstream at Culvert Photo Point 3 — Log Jam b y 4 5� Photo Point 5 — Log Weir Photo Point 2 — Log Jam Photo Point 4 — Log Weir /Log Jam Photo Point 6 — Log Weir s -V { Photo Point 6 — Log Weir OAK r� i tit �tl Photo Point 7 — Log Weir Photo Point 8 — UTIb Downstream Photo Point 9 — UTIb at Flow Gauge #2 Photo Point 11 — UT3 Log Weir Photo Point 10 — UT3 above confluence i Photo Point 12 — UT3 Log Weir w f Photo Point 8 — UTIb Downstream Photo Point 9 — UTIb at Flow Gauge #2 Photo Point 11 — UT3 Log Weir Photo Point 10 — UT3 above confluence i Photo Point 12 — UT3 Log Weir Photo Point 13 — UT3 Log Weir Photo Point 15 — U T I b view upstream Photo Point 17 — Log Weir Photo Point 14 — UTIb view upstream 3 d! _ __ 7�1 y * - f Mks Photo Point 14 — UTIb view upstream 3 d! _ y * Photo Point 16 — Log Weir Photo Point 18 — Log Weir, UTIa tie -in Crest gauge reading, 0.32 inches — March 27, 2014 Flow Gauge #I — August 8, 2014 Crest gauge reading, 0.56 inches — October 14, 2014 Flow Gauge #2 area — August 8, 2014 Flow Gauge #1 — October 16, 2014 Flow Gauge #2 - April 27, 2014 4 � I i t j UMLA Vegetation Plot 1 Vegetation Plot 3 Vegetation Plot 5 Vegetation Plot 2 Vegetation Plot 4 Vegetation Plot 6 1. View of Chinese Privet problem area downstream UT1c floodplain - View is East 2. View of Chinese Privet problem area downstream UT1c floodplain - View is West Appendix C Vegetation Plot Data Table 7. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project: EEP Project ID No. 95019 Plot ID Vegetation Survival Threshold Met? Total /Planted Stem Count* Tract Mean 1 Y 607/1052 553 2 Y 445/931 3 Y 486/1012 4 Y 688/931 5 Y 607/809 6 Y 486/728 Note: *Total/Planted Stem Count reflects the changes in stem density based on the density of stems at the time of the As -Built Survey (Planted) and the current total density of planted stems (Total) MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT (EEP PROJECT NO. 95019) Table 8. CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project: Project ID No. 95019 Report Prepared By Dwayne Huneycutt Date Prepared 12/22/2014 11:18 database name cvs -eep- entrytool- v2.3. l.mdb database location L: \Monitoring \Veg Plot Info \CVS Data Tool \Candiff UT to Mill Swamp computer name CARYLDHUNEYCUTT file size 50442240 '-RIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT --------- data Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a summary of project(s) and project data. planted Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre, for each year. This excludes live stakes. 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. List of plots surveyed with location and summary data (live stems, dead stems, missing, etc.). Frequency distribution of vigor classes for stems for all plots. by Spp Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species. ige List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences and percent of total stems impacted by each. ige by Spp Damage values tallied by type for each species. ige by Plot Damage values tallied by type for each plot. ed 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. IECT SUMMARY ---------- -- ------------- -- ---------- ct Code 95019 ct Name UT to Mill Swamp Basin White Oak length(ft) 5237 stream -to -edge width (ft) 50 area (sq m) 48648.4 Required Plots (calculated) 12 Sampled Plots 6 MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT UT TO MILLSWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT (EEP PRGJJECT NO. 95019) Table 9a. CVS Stem Count of Planted Stems by Plot and Species UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project: Project ID No. 95019 S ti S ti ti ti q, q*� �y ��ar 00 00 00 00 00 00 OS G° �Q �Q G° �° �o' Q Quo quo Quo 4�o Quo quo Betula nigra Tree river birch 1 1 1 1 Carpinus caroliniana Shrub Tree American hornbeam 3 2 1.5 2 1 Itea virginica Shrub Virginia sweetspire 2 2 1 1 1 Liriodendron tulipifera Tree tuliptree 6 2 3 4 2 Nyssa biflora Tree swamp tupelo 9 6 1.5 1 1 2 3 1 1 Persea palustris Tree swamp bay 2 21 1 1 1 1 Quercus lyrata Tree overcup oak 9 6 1.5 3 1 1 2 1 1 Quercus michauxii Tree swamp chestnut oak 20 5 4 31 3 8 1 5 Quercus nigra Tree water oak 3 3 1 1 1 1 Quercus pagoda Tree cherrybark oak 14 6 2.33 1 4 1 3 4 1 Quercus phellos Tree willow oak 91 4 2.25 1 4 3 1 Ulmus americana Tree American elm 41 2 2 1 3 TOT: 10 112 12 12 821 41 1 15 11 12 171 151 12 MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT (EEP PROJECT NO. 95019) Table 9b. Vegetation Stem Count Densities UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project: EEP Project ID No. 95019 Common Name Species Plots Year 2 Totals Yearly Average Stems /acre 1 2 3 4 5 6 river birch Betula nigra 1 1 American hombeam Carpinus caroliniana 2 1 3 Virginia sweetspire Itea virgin ica 1 1 2 tuliptree Liriodendron tulipifera 4 2 6 swamp tupelo Nyssa biflora 1 1 2 3 1 1 9 swamp bay Persea palustris 1 1 2 overcup oak Quercus lyrata 3 1 1 2 1 1 9 swamp chestnut oak Quercus michauxii 3 3 8 1 5 20 water oak Quercus nigra 1 I 1 3 cherrybark oak Quercus pagoda 1 4 1 3 4 1 14 willow oak Quercus phellos 1 4 3 1 9 American elm Ulmus americana 1 3 4 Number of stems /plot 15 11 12 17 15 12 82 Stems /acre Year 2 (Fall 2014) 607 445 486 688 607 486 553 Stems /acre Year 2 (Spring 2014) 648 486 486 769 648 607 607 Stems /acre Year 1 (Fall 2013) 648 567 567 769 688 648 648 Stems /acre Initial 1052 931 1012 931 809 728 911 MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT (EEP PROJECT NO. 95019) Table 9c. CVS Density Per Plot UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project: Project ID No. 95019 Current Plot Data (MY2 2014) Annual Means Scientific Name Common Name Species Type 95019 -01 -0001 95019 -01 -0002 95019 -01 -0003 95019 -01 -0004 95019 -01 -0005 95019 -01 -0006 MY2(2014) MY1(2013) PnoLS P -all T PnoLS P -all T PnoLS P -all T PnoLS P -all T PnoLS P -all T PnoLS P -all T PnoLS P -all T PnoLS P -all T Betula nigra river birch Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 Carpinus caroliniana American hornbeam Tree 2 2 2 1 1 1 3 3 3 5 5 5 Itea virginica Virginia sweetspire Shrub 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 Liriodendron tulipifera tuliptree Tree 4 4 4 2 2 2 6 6 6 7 7 7 Nyssa biflora swamp tupelo Tree 1 11 1 11 1 1 21 2 2 3 3 31 1 1 11 1 1 11 9 91 9 12 12 12 Persea palustris swamp bay tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 6 6 6 Quercus lyrata overcup oak Tree 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 9 9 9 9 9 Quercus michauxii swamp chestnut oak Tree 3 3 3 3 3 3 8 8 8 1 1 1 5 5 5 20 20 20 21 21 21 Quercus nigra water oak Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 6 6 6 Quercus pagoda cherrybark oak Tree 1 1 1 4 4 4 1 1 1 3 3 3 4 4 4 1 1 1 14 14 14 12 12 12 Quercus phellos willow oak Tree 1 11 1 1 1 4 4 4 3 3 3 1 1 1 9 9 9 10 10 10 Ulmus americana American elm Tree 1 1 1 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 Unknown Shrub or Tree 1 2 2 2 Stem count size (ares) size (ACRES) Species count Stems per ACRE 15 15 15 11 11 11 12 12 12 171 17 17 15 15 15 12 12 12 82 82 82 96 96 96 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 6 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.15 0.15 8 8 8 6 6 6 4 4 4 8 8 8 6 6 6 9 9 9 12 12 12 12 12 12 607.0285 607.0285 607.0285 445.1542 445.1542 445.1542 485.6228 485.6228 485.6228 687.9656 687.9656 687.9656 607.0285 607.0285 607.0285 485.6228 485.6228 485.6228 553.0704 553.0704 553.0704 647.497 647.497 647.497 Color for Density Exceeds requirements by 10% Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10% Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10% Fails to meet requirements by more than 10% MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT (EEP PROJECT NO. 95019) Table 9d. Vegetation Summary and Totals n/a 2 n/a 3 UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project: EEP Project ID No. 95019 4 n/a 5 n/a 6 Year 2 (19- Dec -2014) Project Avg n/a Vegetation Plot Summary Information Riparian Buffer Stream/ Wetland Unknown Growth Plot # Stems' Stemsl Live Stakes Invasives Volunteers; Total4 Form 1 n/a 15 0 0 0 15 0 2 n/a 11 0 0 0 it 0 3 n/a 12 0 0 0 12 0 4 n/a 17 0 0 0 17 0 5 n/a 15 0 0 0 15 0 6 n/a 12 0 0 0 12 0 Wetland /Stream Vegetation Totals (per acre) Stream/ Wetland Success Criteria Plot # Stem S2 Volunteers3 Tota14 Met? 1 607 0 607 Yes 2 445 0 445 Yes 3 486 0 486 Yes 4 688 0 688 Yes 5 607 0 607 Yes 6 486 0 486 Yes Project Avg 553 0 553 Riparian Buffer Vegetation Totals (per acre) Riparian Buffer Success Plot # Stems' Criteria Met? Stem Class characteristics 1Buffer Stems Native planted hardwood trees. Does NOT include shrubs. No pines. No vines. 2Stream/ Wetland Stems Native planted woody stems. Includes shrubs, does NOT include live stakes. No vines 3Volunteers Native woody stems. Not planted. No vines. 4Total Planted +volunteer native woody stems. Includes live stakes. Excl. exotics. Excl. vines. 1 n/a 2 n/a 3 n/a 4 n/a 5 n/a 6 n/a Project Avg n/a Yes 1 n/a 2 n/a 3 n/a 4 n/a 5 n/a 6 n/a Project Avg n/a MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERNG, INC. YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT (EEP PROJECT NO. 95019) Appendix D Stream Survey Data Permanent Cross - section 1 (Year 2 Data - Collected November 2014) Looking at the Left Bank Looking at the Right Bank Feature Stream Type BKF Area BKF Width BKF Depth Max BKF Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev Riffle Cc 8 11.34 0.7 1.63 16.09 1 9.2 52.91 1 52.92 UT to Mill Swamp Cross - section 1 56 55 54 r c 53 0 r > 52 a� w 51 As -Built Year 1 50 Year 2 - c Bankfull o Floodprone 49 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Station (ft) Permanent Cross - section 2 (Year 2 Data - Collected November 2014) Feature Stream Type BKF Area BKF Width BKF Depth Max BKF Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev Pool 15 21.25 0.71 2.12 1 30.09 1 5.1 52.66 52.65 UT to Milli Swamp Cross - section 2 56 55 ------------------------------- 54 r 53 0 r > 52 d W 51 As -Built Year 1 Year 2 - - - - -- Bankfull 50 e -- Floodprone 49 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Station (ft) Permanent Cross - section 3 (Year 2 Data - Collected November 2014) Looking at the Left Bank Looking at the Right Bank Stream BKF BKF Max BKF Feature I Type BKF Area I Width Depth Depth I W/D I BH Ratio I ER I BKF Elev TOB Elev Pool 1 15.4 1 33.48 0.46 1.76 1 72.8 1 0.9 1 3.5 1 52.4 52.22 UT to Mill Swamp Cross - section 3 56 55 54 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -o � 53 - 0 - ------- - - - - -- > 52 m w 51 As -Built Year 1 50 Year 2 - - -& -- Bankfull © Floodprone 49 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Station (ft) Permanent Cross - section 4 (Year 2 Data - Collected November 2014) Looking at the Left Bank Looking at the Right Bank Feature Stream Type BKF Area BKF Width BKF Depth Max BKF Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev Riffle Cc 8.7 11.34 0.77 1.47 14.7 1 9.2 52.25 1 52.28 UT to Mill Swamp Cross - section 4 56 55 54 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ - - - - -- 53 0 > 52 w 51 As -Built Year 1 50 -Year 2 Bankfull © Floodprone 49 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Station (ft) Permanent Cross - section 5 (Year 2 Data - Collected November 2014) Looking at the Left Bank Looking at the Right Bank Feature Stream Type BKF Area BKF Width BKF Depth Max BKF Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev Riffle Cc 9.5 13.44 0.71 1.62 18.96 1.1 8.4 50.85 1 50.95 UT to Mill Swamp Cross - section 5 55 54 53 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- = 52 0 r - CU > 51 w 50 � As -Built -Year 1 49 Year 2 Bankfull Floodprone 48 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Station (ft) Permanent Cross - section 6 (Year 2 Data - Collected November 2014) Looking at the Left Bank Looking at the Right Bank Feature Stream Type BKF Area BKF Width BKF Depth Max BKF Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev Pool 1 11.3 22.91 0.49 1.71 1 46.4 1 5 50.6 1 50.57 UT to Milli Swamp Cross - section 6 54 53 52 ° � 51 o-------- - - - - -- > 50 m w 49 As -Built Year 1 48 Year 2 - - - ©-- Bankfull a Floodprone 47 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Station (ft) Permanent Cross - section 7 (Year 2 Data - Collected December 2014) -ar i s � i. Looking at the Left Bank J Looking at the Right Bank Feature Stream Type BKF Area BKF Width BKF Depth Max BKF Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev Pool 17.7 16.29 1.09 2.22 14.99 1 8.1 49.8 49.74 UT to Mill Swamp Cross - section 7 54 53 Tree base 52 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- ------------------------------------------------ r cc � 51 0 w a� 50 - w 49 As -Built -Year 1 48 Year 2 - --o -- Bankfull - - © -- Floodprone 47 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Station (ft) Permanent Cross - section 8 (Year 2 Data - Collected November 2014) Looking at the Left Bank Looking at the Right Bank Feature Stream Type BKF Area BKF Width BKF Depth Max BKF Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev Riffle E 16.3 12.15 1.34 2.65 1 9.05 1 7.1 48.7 1 48.64 UT to Mill Swamp Cross - section 8 53 52 51 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- r 50 0 r > 49 N w 48 As -Built Year 1 47 Q -- Bankfull - - -o Floodprone Year 2 46 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Station (ft) MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT (EEP PROJECT NO. 95019) Table 10. Baseline Stream Data Summary UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project: EEP Project ID No. 95019 Reach UTlc (1,513 LF) Parameter USGS Regional Curve Interval Pre - Existing Condition' Gauge (Harman et al, 1999)* Dimension and Substrate - Riffle LL UL Eq. Min Mean Med Max SO n BF Width (11) - - - -- 23.0 80.0 9.9 6.8 - - - -- - - - -- 8.7 - - - -- 2 Floodprone Width (ft) - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- 8.2 - - - -- - - - -- 11.8 - - - -- 2 BE Mean Depth (ft) - - - -- 2.3 5.8 1.3 0.8 - - - -- - - - -- 1.0 - - - -- 2 BE Max Depth (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.1 ----- ----- 1.4 ----- 2 BE Cross - sectional Area (fte ) - - - -- 80.0 300.0 16.2 5.6 - - - -- - - - -- 8.6 - - - -- 2 Width/Depth Ratio ----- ----- ----- ----- 8 ----- ----- 9 ----- 2 Entrenchment Ratio - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- 1.2 - - - -- - - - -- 1.4 - - - -- 2 Bank Height Ratio ----- ----- ----- ----- 4.2 ----- ----- 2.8 ----- 2 d50 (mm) ----- - - -- ----- - - -- ----- 0.25 ----- ----- ----- 12 Pattern Channel Beltwidth (ft - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- Radius of Curvature (ft) ----- - - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- Meander Wavelength (ft ----- - - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- ----- - - - -- Meander Width Ratio - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- Profile Riffle Length (ft] ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- Riffle Slope (ft/ft - - - -- -- - -- -- - -- -- - -- -- - -- - - - -- - - - ------- - - - -- -- - -- Pool Length (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- Pool Spacing (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- Pool Max Depth (ft) ----- I - I ----- ----- 1.16 ----- Pool Volume (to) ----- - - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- ----- ----- ----- Suhstrate -Ind I ransport Parameters Ri % / Ru% / P% / G% / S% ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- SC% / Sa % / G% / B% / Be% ----- - - -- - - -- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- 0.10 / 0.15 / 0.25 / 1.2 / 2.72 Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f, - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- Stream Power (transport capacity) W /m' - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- Additional Reach Parameters Drainage Area ISM) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.66 ----- ----- Impervious cover estimate (% ) - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- Rosgen Classificatio - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- Gc - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- BF Velocity (fps ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.8 ----- ----- 1.2 ----- 2 BE Discharge (cfs ) - - - -- 290.0 2000.0 66.0 - - - -- 6.48 - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- 35 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- Channel length (R� ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 4091 - - - ------- ----- ----- Sinuosity ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.13 ----- ----- ----- ----- Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft) - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- 0.0045 - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- 2. BF slope (ft/ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- BEHI VL % / L% / M% / H% / VH% / E% ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- Channel Stability or Habitat Metri - - - -- - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- Biological or Other ----- - - -- ----- - -- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- * Harman, W.A., G.D. Jennings, J.M. Patterson, D.R. Clinton, L.O. Slate, A.G. Jessup, J.R. Everhart, and R.G. Smith. 1999. Bankfull hydraulic geometry relationships for North Carolina streams. Wildland Hydrology. AWRA Symposium Proceedings. D.S. Olsen and J.P. Potyondy, eds. American Water Resources Association. June 30 -July 2, 1999. Bozeman, MT. Existing conditions survey data is compiled for the entire UTI Reach within the project limits. s Bulk samples taken since pebble count procedure is not applicable for sand -bed streams. 'Values were chosen based on sand -bed reference reach data and past project evaluations. Composite reference reach information from Johannah Creek, Johnston County; Panther Branch, Brunswick County; Rocky Swamp, Halifax County; and Beaver Dam Branch, Jones County MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT (EEP PROJECT NO. 95019) Table 10. Baseline Stream Summary UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project: EEP Project ID No. 9,5019 Reach UTlc (1,513 LF) Reference Reach(es) Data Beaverdanl Branch NC Coastal Plain Composite Data Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Min Mean %1,1 Mix SO n Min Mean Med Max SO n BE Width (ft) - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- -- - -- Floodprone Width (ft) - - - -- ----- ----- -- - -- ----- - - - -- - - - -- ----- --- -- ----- BE Mean Depth (ft) °-- °-- ----- °-- °-- BE Max Depth (ft) -- - -- - BE Cross - sectional Area (W - - - -- 24 - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- 2 7.8 - - - -- - - - -- 95.9 - - - -- - - - -- Width/Depth Ratio 11 - - - -- -- -- 17 -- -- 2 8 -- -- -- -- 14 -- -- -- -- Entrenchment Ratio 10 - - - -- - - - -- 11 - - -- 2 4 - - -- - - - -- 13 - - -- - - -- Bank Height Ratio 1.0 - - -- - - - -- 1.3 - - -- 2 1.0 - - -- - - - -- 1.3 - - -- - - -- d50 (mm) ----- 0.5 -- ----- -- ----- ----- -- ----- ----- -- -- Pattern Channel Beltwidth (ft - - - -- - - - -- - -- -- - - - -- - -- -- - - - -- - -- -- - - - -- ,. Radius of Curvature (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- - -- Rc:Bankfull width (fi 1.8 - - - -- - - - -- 2.4 -- - -- - - - -- 1.5 -- - -- - - - -- 3.0 -- - -- --- Meander Wavelength (ft ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- Meander Width Rati - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- -- - -- - - - -- 2.0 -- - -- - - - -- 6.3 -- - -- --- -- Profile Riffle Length (ft] ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -'--- -'--- Riffle Slope (ft/ft - - - -- -- - -- -- - -- -- - -- -- - -- - - - -- -- - -- -- - -- -- - -- ----- -' - -- -' - -- Pool Length (ft) - - - -- -'-'- -'-'- -'-'- -'-'- ----- -'-'- -'-'--'-'- -'-'- -'-'- -'-'- Pool Spacing (ft) ----- -'-'- -'-'- -'-'- -'-'- ----- -'-'- -'-'--'-'- -'-'- -'-'- -'-'- Pool Max Depth (ft) - - - -- -' -'- - ---- - ---- -' -'- --- -- -' -'- -' -'- -' -'- -' -'- Pool Volume (ft') ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- Substrate and Transport Parameters Ri % / Ru% / P% / G% / S% ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- SC% / Sa% / G% / B% / Be% ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -- -- dl6 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 0.3 / 0.4 / 0.5 / 0.9 / 1.2 - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- -_ -- Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/ - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - -- Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull ( Rosgen Curve - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - --- Stream Power (transport capacity) W /mc ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- - - - -- ----- ----- ----- --- Additional Reach Parameters Drainage Area (SM) ----- ----- ----- 3.0 ----- - --- 1.0 ----- ----- 19.5 ----- -. -- Impervious cover estimate (% ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - -- Rosgen Classificafro - - - -- C5c - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- E5 /C5 - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - -- BE Velocity (fps) ----- 1.5 ----- - --- ----- ----- 1.0 ----- ----- 1.4 ----- BE Discharge (cfs ----- 37 ----- ----- ----- ----- 10 ----- ----- 127 ----- --'- 35 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -.-" Channel length (ft)z ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- - - - -- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- Sinuosity ----- 1.66 ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.22 ----- ----- 1.77 ----- ----- Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft) - - - -- 0.0004 - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- 0.0004 - - - -- - - - -- 0.0022 - - - -- - - - -- BF slope (ft/ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- BEHI VL % / L% / M% / H% / VH % / E% ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- Channel Stability or Habitat Metri - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- Biological or Othe ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ` Harman, W.A., G.D. Jennings, J.M. Patterson, D.R. Clinton, L.O. Slate, A.G. Jessup, J.R. Everhart, and R.E. Smith. 1999. Bankfull hydraulic geometry relationships for North Carolina streams. W ildlond Hydrology. AWRA Symposium Proceedings. D.S. Olsen and J.P. Pmyon ads. American Water Resources Association. June 30 -July 2, 1999. Bozeman, MT. 1 Existing conditions survey data is compiled for the entire UTI Reach within the project limits. 2 Bulk samples taken since pebble count procedure is not applicable for sand -bed streams. 3 Values were chosen based on sand -bed reference reach data and past project evaluations. 4 Composite reference reach information from Johannah Creek, Johnston County; Panther Branch, Brunswick County; Rocky Swamp, Halff County; and Beaver Dam Branch, Jones County MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT (EEP PROJECT NO. 95019) Table 10. Baseline Stream Summary UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project: EEP Project ID No. 95019 Reach UTle (1,513 LF) Design As -built Dimension and Substrate- Riffle Min Mean Med Max SO \gin Mean Med Max SO n BF Width (ft) ----- 10.3. ----- ----- ----- 1 10.1 ----- ----- 13.8 ----- 4 Floodprone Width (ft) - - - -- >100 - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- 1 80.1 - - - -- - - - -- 105.0 - - - -- 4 BF Mean Depth (ft) - - - -- 0.7 - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- 1 0.6 - - - -- - - - -- 1.2 - - - -- 4 BF Max Depth (ft) - - - -- 1.0 - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- 1 1.1 - - - -- - - - -- 2.0 - - - -- 4 BF Cross- sectional Area (ft' - - - -- 7.6 - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- 1 7.5 - - - -- - - - -- 12.3 - - - -- 4 Width/Depth Ratio - - - -- 14 - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- 1 8.3 - - - -- - - - -- 19.4 - - - -- 4 Entrenchment Ratio - - - -- >10 - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- 1 7.9 - - - -- - - - -- 9.4 - - - -- 4 Bank Height Ratio - - - -- 1.0 - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- 1 1.0 - - - -- - - - -- 1.1 - - - -- 4 d50 (mm) ----- 0.25 ----- ----- ----- - - -- - -- ----- ----- ----- Pattern Channel Beltwidth (ft 35 - - - -- - - - -- 60 - - - -- - - - - - 38.0 79.0 - - - -- 120.0 - - - -- - - - -- Radius of Curvature (ft) 20 - - - -- - - - -- 30 - - - -- - - - - -' 21.0 26.0 - - - -- 31.0 - - - -- ----- Rc:Bankf ill width (ft/ft 2.0 - - - -- - - - -- 3.0 - - - -- - - - -' 38.0 79.0 - - - -- 120.0 - - - -- - - - -- Meander Wavelength (ft) 80 - - - -- 110 - - - -- - - - -} 72.0 104.0 - - - -- 124.0 - - - -- ----- Meander Width Ratio 3.5 - - - -- - - - -- 6.0 - - - -- - - - -' 3.5 6.0 - - - -- 8.0 - - - -- - - - -- Profile Riffle Length (ft - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- -- - -- ----- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- Riffle Slope (ft/ft 0.004 - - - -- - - - -- 0.010 - - - -- - - - -- 0.0046 0.0043 - - - -- 0.0039 - - - -- - - - -- Pool Length (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- - - - -- Pool Spacing (ft) 30 - - - -- - - - -- 80 - - - -- -- - -- 41 - - - -- 72 57 ----- ----- Pool Max Depth (ft) ----- 1.6 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- Pool Volume (fi) _____ _____ _____ ----- - - -- - - -- _____ ----- Substrate and Transport Parameters Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S% - - -- ----- ----- ----- ---- SC% / Sa % / G% / B% / Be% ----- ----- ----- ----- - - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- ----- ----- ----- ---- d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f - - - -- 0.149 - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull ( Rosgen Curve ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- Stream Power (transport capacity) W /m' ----- 4.181 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- Additional Reach Parameters Drainage Area (SM) ----- ----- ----- 0.66 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.66 ----- ----- Impervious cover estimate (% ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- Rosgen Classificatio - - - -- C5 - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- C5 - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- BF Velocity (fps) ----- 1.76 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 3.0 ----- ----- ----- ----- BF Discharge (cfs ) - - - -- 12.9 - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- 340.0 - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- 35 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 3523 ----- ----- ----- ----- Channel length (fly - - - -- 1453 - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- 4238 - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- ----- Sinuosity - - -- 1.24 - - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- 1.20 - - -- ---- ---- ----- Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft) 0.0038 - - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- 0.0042 - - -- - - -- - - -- - - - -- BF slope (ft/ft) ---- ----- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 0.0054 ---- ---- ---- ----- Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres - - -- - - - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- - - - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- - - - -- BEHI VL % / L% / M% / H% / VH % / E% ----- ----- ----- ---- ---- ----- --"- '--- ---- ---'- ---- ----- Channel Stability or Habitat Metri - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- ----- ----- _____ _____ _____ Biologicalor Othct - - -- _____ _____ _____ _____ ----- _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ * Harman, W.A., G.D. Jennings, J.M. Patterson, D.R. Clinton, L.O. Slate, A.G. Jessup, J.R. Everhart, and R.E. Smith. 1999. Bankfall hydraulic geometry relationships for Nonh Carolina streams. Wildland Hydrology. AWRA Symposium Proceedings. D.S. Olsen and J.P. I'my, taly, eds. American Water Resources Association. June 30 -July 2, 1999. Bozeman, MT. 1 Existing conditions survey data is compiled for the entire UTI Reach within the project limits. 2 Bulk samples taken since pebble count procedure is not applicable for sand -bed streams. 3 Values were chosen based on sand -bed reference reach data and past project evaluations. 4 Composite reference reach information from Johannah Creek, Johnston County; Panther Branch, Brunswick County; Rocky Swamp, Halifax County; and Beaver Dam Branch, Jones County MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT (EEP PROJECT NO. 95019) Table 11. Cross - section Morphology Data UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project: EEP Project ID No. 95019 Reach UTlc (1,513 LF) Cross - section X -1 (Riffle) Cross- section X -2 (Pool) Cross - section X -3 (Pool) Cross - section X4 (Riffle) Dimension and substrate Base I MYl MY2 I MY3 I MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MYl MY2 I MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MYl MY2 I MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MYl MY2 I MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation BF Width ft 11.9 11.1 11.3 15.4 22.5 21.25 21.3 39.23 33.48 11.2 11.5 11.34 BF Mean Depth (ft) 0.63 0.63 0.70 1.07 0.72 0.71 0.63 0.48 0.46 0.67 0.74 0.77 Width/Depth Ratio 18.9 17.7 16.1 14.4 31.2 30.1 33.9 82.4 72.8 16.5 15.4 14.7 BF Cross - sectional Area ft 7.5 6.9 8.0 16.6 16.2 15 13.4 18.7 15.4 7.5 8.5 8.7 BF Max Depth (ft) 1.35 1.28 1.63 1 2.40 2.17 2.12 1.53 1.77 1.76 1.11 1.25 1.47 Width of Flood prone Area (ft) 104.5 104.4 104.5 107.9 107.9 107.94 117.0 116.7 116.68 104.5 104.5 104.46 Entrenchment Ratio 8.8 9.4 9.2 7.0 4.8 5.1 5.5 3 3.5 9.4 9.1 9.2 Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1 1.0 0.8 0.9 1.1 1.0 1 Wetted Perimeter ft 13.2 12.3 12.7 17.6 23.9 22.7 22.5 40.2 34.4 12.5 12.9 12.9 Hydraulic Radius (ft) 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.9 0.7 1 0.7 1 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.7 1 0.7 Based on current/developing bankfull feature BF Width ft BF Mean Depth (ft) Width/Depth Ratio BF Cross - sectional Area ft BF Max Depth (ft) Width of Flood rone Area (ft) Entrenchment Ratio Bank Height Ratio Wetted Perimeter ft Hydraulic Radius ft d50 (mm) Cross - section X -5 Riffle Cross - section X -6 Pool Cross- section 7 Pool) Cross - section X -8 Riffle Dimension and substrate Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MYS MY- Base MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MYS MY+ Based on fixed baseline bankfaU elevation. BF Width ft 13.8 14.6 13.4 15.1 31.0 22.9 15.5 16.6 16.3 10.1 10.7 12.2 BF Mean Depth ft 0.71 0.74 0.71 0.75 0.39 0.49 1.07 1.11 1.09 112 1.27 134 Width/Depth Ratio 19.4 19.8 19.0 20.1 78.8 46.4 14.5 14.9 15.0 8.3 8.4 9.1 BF Cross - sectional Area ft 9.9 10.8 9.5 11.3 12.2 11.3 16.7 18.4 17.7 12.3 13.6 16.3 BF Max Depth ft 1.31 1.42 1.62 1 1.78 1.56 1.71 1 1.97 2.08 2.22 1.96 2.15 2.65 Width of Flood prone Area ft 112.3 112.3 112.3 114.3 114.3 114.3 132.4 132.4 132.3 80.1 82.9 86.3 Entrenchment Ratio 8.1 7.7 8.4 7.6 3.7 5.0 8.5 8.0 8.1 7.9 7.8 7.1 Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 LO 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.0 Wetted Perimeter fr 15.3 16.1 14.9 16.6 31.8 23.9 17.7 18.8 18.5 12.5 13.2 14.8 Hydraulic Radius ft 0.6 1 0.7 0.6 1 1 0.7 0.4 1 0.5 1 1 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 Based on current/developing bankfull feature BF Width (ft) BF Mean Depth (ft) Width/Depth Ratio BF Cross - sectional Area ft2 BF Max Depth ft Width of Flood prone Area ft Entrenchment Ratio Bank Height Ratio Wetted Perimeter ft H draulic Radius ft d50 (mm) MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT (EEP PROJECT NO. 95019) Appendix E Hydrologic Data UT to Mill Swamp Rain 1/1/2014 2/15/2014 4/1/2014 5/16/2014 6/30/2014 8/14/2014 9/28/2014 11/12/2014 12/27/2014 0.0 c = 1.0 R w 2.0 3.0 UT to Mill Swamp (MSAW1) 10 - Ground 5 Surface 0 - -12 inches S -5 LA - MSAW1 L w m -10 IL c -15 -20 C7 -25 t .. CL -30 YR2 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS CRITERIA MET - 70.8 -35 (3/18/2014- 5/27/2014) -40 GROWING SEASON -45 (3/18 - 11/16) -50 1/1/2014 2/15/2014 4/1/2014 5/16/2014 6/30/2014 8/14/2014 9/28/2014 11/12/2014 12/27/2014 Date UT to Mill Swamp Rain 1/1/2014 2/15/2014 4/1/2014 5/16/2014 6/30/2014 8/14/2014 9/28/2014 11/12/2014 12/27/2014 0.0 c 1.0 JT a 2.0 3.0 10 5 0 c -5 ;3 -10 ca 3a -15 -20 c� -25 CL -30 0 35 -40 -45 UT to Mill Swamp (MSAW2) 1 L I i I . `II 'l Irq alIL1I &\ 1 -i7i1 I11 = M1 �1am �AA i�����l���Ri►i�i►t�l�r�i�i�III iEl'IE11111II1,01IlEIEEME&IMME ZINN ..M U I � ■11� II►IIII I 14LURl� ... JISECUTIVE �u�J1i�ul �. DAYS CRITERIA WhMI GROWING 1 1 1 - Ground Surface -12 inches MSAW2 3/2/2014 5/1/2014 6/30/2014 8/29/2014 10/28/2014 12/27/2014 Date UT to Mill Swamp Rain 1/1/2014 2/15/2014 4/1/2014 5/16/2014 6/30/2014 8/14/2014 9/28/2014 11/12/2014 12/27/2014 0.0 - 1.0 c 2.0 3.0 UT to Mill Swamp (MSAW3) 10 Ground 5 Surface 0 YR2 MOST CONSECUTIVE � -12 inches DAYS CRITERIA MET - 0.8 GROWING SEASON c L -5 (3/29/2014) (3/18 ;? -10 R 15 c 3 4ul -20 ° -25 t m -30 D -35 -40 -45 -50 1/1/2014 3/2/2014 5/1/2014 6/30/2014 8/29/2014 10/28/2014 12/27/2014 Date MSAW3 UT to Mill Swamp Rain 1/1/2014 2/15/2014 4/1/2014 5/16/2014 6/30/2014 8/14/2014 9/28/2014 11/12/2014 12/27/2014 0.0 c -" 1.0 w 2.0 3.0 UT to Mill Swamp (MSAW4) 10 - Ground 5 Surface 0 - -12 inches -MSAW4 d -10 R 3 ky -15 c o -20 o -25 YR2 MOST CONSECUTIVE s DAYS CRITERIA MET - 67.5 G-30 (3/18/2014- 5/24/2014) -35 -40 GROWING SEASON -45 (3/18 - 11/16) -50 1/1/2014 2/15/2014 4/1/2014 5/16/2014 6/30/2014 8/14/2014 9/28/2014 11/12/2014 12/27/2014 Date UT to Mill Swamp Rain 1/1/2014 2/15/2014 4/1/2014 5/16/2014 6/30/2014 8/14/2014 9/28/2014 11/12/2014 12/27/2014 0.0 c -" 1.0 w 2.0 3.0 UT to Mill Swamp (MSAW5) 10 - Ground Surface 5 0 - -12 inches -5 -MSAW5 d -10 R 3 -15 c o -20 -25 s fl -30 YR2 MOST CONSECUTIVE D DAYS CRITERIA MET - 51.5 -35 (3/18/2014- 5/8/2014) -40 GROWING SEASON -45 (3/18 - 11/16) -50 1/1/2014 2/15/2014 4/1/2014 5/16/2014 6/30/2014 8/14/2014 9/28/2014 11/12/2014 12/27/2014 Date UT to Mill Swamp Rain 1/1/2014 2/15/2014 4/1/2014 5/16/2014 6/30/2014 8/14/2014 9/28/2014 11/12/2014 12/27/2014 0.0 c 1.0 w 2.0 3.0 UT to Mill Swamp (MSAW6) 10 - Ground 5 Surface 0 - -12 inches -5 MSAW6 d -10 .� R 3 -15 c o -20 -25 s CL -30 -35 YR2 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS CRITERIA MET - 9.3 -40 (3/27/2014 - 4/5/2014) GROWING SEASON -45 (3/18 -11/16) -50 1/1/2014 2/15/2014 4/1/2014 5/16/2014 6/30/2014 8/14/2014 9/28/2014 11/12/2014 12/27/2014 Date UT to Mill Swamp Rain 1/1/2014 2/15/2014 4/1/2014 5/16/2014 6/30/2014 8/14/2014 9/28/2014 11/12/2014 12/27/2014 0.0 c -" 1.0 w 2.0 3.0 UT to Mill Swamp (MSAW7) 10 — Ground 5 GROWING SEASON Surface (3/18 - 11/16) 0 --12 inches -5 ka -MSAW7 d -10 R 3 -15 c o -20 -25 s L D -30 -35 YR2 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS CRITERIA MET - 9.0 -40 (3/25/2014- 4/3/2014) -45 -50 1/1/2014 2/15/2014 4/1/2014 5/16/2014 6/30/2014 8/14/2014 9/28/2014 11/12/2014 12/27/2014 Date GROWING SEASON �Groun Surfac -12 in UT to Mill Swamp Rain 1/1/2014 2/15/2014 4/1/2014 5/16/2014 6/30/2014 8/14/2014 9/28/2014 11/12/2014 12/27/2014 0.0 _ = 1.0 R YR2 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS CRITERIA MET - 115.0 (7/25/2014- 11/16/2014 m 2.0 3.0 UT to Mill Swamp (MSAW8) 10 d 5 e c L0 inches d Y `6 IAN AIPP" Ito 41 -5 8 3 0 -10 0 0 Y -15 r -20 CL ❑ -25 -30 -35 -40 -45 -50 1/1/2014 2/15/2014 4/1/2014 5/16/2014 6/30/2014 8/14/2014 9/28/2014 11/12/2014 12/27/2014 Date GROWING SEASON �Groun Surfac -12 in (3/18 - 11/16) �MSAW YR2 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS CRITERIA MET - 115.0 (7/25/2014- 11/16/2014 UT to Mill Swamp Rain 1/1/2014 2/15/2014 4/1/2014 5/16/2014 6/30/2014 8/14/2014 9/28/2014 11/12/2014 12/27/2014 0.0 _ = 1.0 R m 2.0 3.0 UT to Mill Swamp (MSAW9) 10 - Ground 5 Surface c L 0 - -12 inches d Y 3 -5 _MSAW9 3 -10 3y 5 0 111111 I'll 0 Y -15 r -20 _ _ _ _ ___ CL ❑ -25 -30 YR2 MOST CONSECUTIVE -35 DAYS CRITERIA MET - 11.0 -40 (8/1/2014 - 8/12/2014) GROWING SEASON -45 (3/18 - 11/16) -50 1/1/2014 2/15/2014 4/1/2014 5/16/2014 6/30/2014 8/14/2014 9/28/2014 11/12/2014 12/27/2014 Date YR2 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS CRITERIA MET - 1.5 (3/29/2014 UT to Mill Swamp Rain 1/1/2014 2/15/2014 4/1/2014 5/16/2014 6/30/2014 8/14/2014 9/28/2014 11/12/2014 12/27/2014 0.0 _ = 1.0 R m 2.0 3.0 UT to Mill Swamp (MSAW10) 10 5 Surface c L 0 - 3/30/2014) - -12 inches m Y `6 3 -5 3 0 -10 0 0 Y -15 r -20 CL ❑ -25 -30 -35 -40 -45 -50 1/1/2014 2/15/2014 4/1/2014 5/16/2014 6/30/2014 8/14/2014 9/28/2014 11/12/2014 12/27/2014 Date YR2 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS CRITERIA MET - 1.5 (3/29/2014 — Ground �MSAW10 GROWING SEASON (3/18 - 11/16) UT to Mill Swamp Rain 1/1/2014 3/2/2014 5/1/2014 6/30/2014 8/29/2014 10/28/2014 12/27/2014 0.0 _ = 1.0 m C •FO 2.0 3.0 UT to Mill Swamp (Well cross - sections 11, 12) 10 5 Datalogger MSAW11 experienced battery issues between January and April 2014. Ground Surface New logger installed has solved issue and MSAW11 is now operating normally. 0 - -12 inches -5 MSAW 11 c L 10 - MSAW12 3 15 _ = L -20 25 0 w a -30 VA m 11 -35 -40 V -45 - -50 1/1/2014 3/2/2014 5/1/2014 6/30/2014 8/29/2014 10/28/2014 12/27/2014 Date UT to Mill Swamp Rain 1/1/2014 3/2/2014 5/1/2014 6/30/2014 8/29/2014 10/28/2014 12/27/2014 0.0 c = 1.0 �a •7, 2.0 3.0 UT to Mill Swamp (Well cross - sections 13, 14) 10 Ground 5 Surface 0 - -12 inches _ -5 -MSAW13 -10 IL lk m Y 3 15 MSAW14 c 191 c -20 0 -25 _ a -30 -35 -40 -45 -50 1/1/2014 3/2/2014 5/1/2014 6/30/2014 8/29/2014 10/28/2014 12/27/2014 Date UT to Mill Swamp Rain 1/1/2014 3/2/2014 5/1/2014 6/30/2014 8/29/2014 10/28/2014 12/27/2014 0.0 c = 1.0 �a 2.0 3.0 UT to Mill Swamp (Well cross - sections 15, 16) 10 Ground 5 Surface - -12 inches 0 - MSAW 15 -5 -10 - MSAW16 m a 3 -15 c -20 0 -25 s -30 CL -35 0 -40 -45 -50 -55 1/1/2014 3/2/2014 5/1/2014 6/30/2014 8/29/2014 10/28/2014 12/27/2014 Date UT to Mill Swamp Rain 1/1/2014 3/2/2014 5/1/2014 6/30/2014 8/29/2014 10/28/2014 12/27/2014 0.0 c - 1.0 co C 2.0 3.0 UT to Mill Swamp (Well cross - sections 17, 18) 10 Ground 5 Surface 0 - -12 inches -5 - MSAW17 -10 co - MSAW18 c 0 -15 20 ,L^ V o -25 t VI H a d 0 -30 -35 -40 -45 -50 7/5/2013 9/3/2013 11/2/2013 1/1/2014 3/2/2014 5/1/2014 6/30/2014 8/29/2014 10/28/2014 12/27/2014 Date * Surface water flow is estimated to have occurred when the pressure transducer reading is equal to or above 0.05 feet in depth. UT to Mill Swamp Daily Rain 1/1/2014 2/15/2014 4/1/2014 5/16/2014 6/30/2014 8/14/2014 9/28/2014 11/12/2014 12/27/2014 0.0 0.5 �= 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 UT to Mill Swamp (Flow Gauge 1 - MSFL1) UT1 B - Upstream 2 1.8 Ground Surface 1.6 - MSFL1 1.4 a 1.2 YR2 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS m CRITERIA MET - 30.2* 1 (2/1/2014- 3/3/2014) m 0.8 m m 0.6 0.4 cn 0.2 0 . A \Nk %4W.0 1/1/2014 2/15/2014 4/1/2014 5/16/2014 6/30/2014 8/14/2014 9/28/2014 11/12/2014 12/27/2014 Date * Surface water flow is estimated to have occurred when the pressure transducer reading is equal to or above 0.05 feet in depth. UT to Mill Swamp Daily Rain 1/1/2014 2/15/2014 4/1/2014 5/16/2014 6/30/2014 8/14/2014 9/28/2014 11/12/2014 12/27/2014 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 •iE 2.0 2.5 3.0 UT to Mill Swamp (Flow Gauge 2 - MSFL2) 2 UT1 B - Downstream 1.8 Ground Surface 1.6 -MSFL2 YR2 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS CRITERIA MET - 164.4* r 1.4 (7/20/2014- 12/31/2014) CL W 0 1.2 L 1 3 8 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 1/1/2014 2/15/2014 4/1/2014 5/16/2014 6/30/2014 8/14/2014 9/28/2014 11/12/2014 12/27/2014 Date * Surface water flow is estimated to have occurred when the pressure transducer reading is equal to or above 0.05 feet in depth. Table 12. Wetland Restoration Area Well Success UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project: Project ID No. 95019 Well ID *Percentage of Consecutive Days <12 inches from Ground Surface' Most Consecutive Days Meeting Criteria' *Percentage of Cumulative Days <12 inches from Ground Surface' Cumulative Days Meeting Criteria' Number of Instances <12 inches from the Ground Surface' Cross - sectional Well Arrays MSAW 1 29.1 70.8 56.8 138.0 8.0 MSAW2 3.3 8.0 20.2 49.0 15.0 MSAW3 0.3 0.8 1.0 2.5 0.0 MSAW4 27.8 67.5 74.2 180.3 11.0 MSAW5 21.2 51.5 51.9 126.0 9.0 MSAW6 3.8 9.3 23.3 56.5 16.0 MSAW7 3.7 9.0 10.9 26.5 5.0 MSAW8 47.3 115.0 168.9 410.5 6.0 MSAW9 4.5 11.0 33.0 80.3 21.0 MSAW10 0.6 1.5 1.1 2.8 1.0 Cross - sectional Well Arrays (Non- credit Areas) MSAW 11 21.2 51.5 72.4 176.0 13.0 MSAW 12 15.4 37.5 19.1 46.5 2.0 MSAW 13 46.5 113.0 80.0 194.5 3.0 MSAW14 39.1 95.0 31.0 75.3 16.0 MSAW15 0.9 2.3 3.9 9.5 4.0 MSAW16 2.8 6.8 1 13.0 1 31.5 7.0 MSAW17 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.0 MSAW18 10.2 24.8 15.3 37.3 4.0 Notes: 'Indicates the percentage of most consecutive number of days within the monitored growing season with a water 12 inches or less from the soil 2Indicates the most consecutive number of days within the monitored growing season with a water table 12 inches or less from the soil surface. 'Indicates the cumulative number of days within the monitored growing season with a water table 12 inches or less from the soil surface. 4Indicates the number of instances within the monitored growing season when the water table rose to 12 inches or less from the soil surface. Growing season for Onslow County is from March 18 to November 16 and is 243 days long. HIGHLIGHTED indicates wells that did not to meet the success criteria for the most consecutive number of days within the monitored growing season with a water 12 inches or less from the soil surface. Following Year 2 wetland monitoring, six of ten wells did not exhibit a hyrdroperiod of 12% or greater during the growing season. These wells will be observed closely throughout monitoring Year 3. *All In -Situ groundwater monitoring dataloggers were installed on 7/12/2013. The installation of the dataloggers was completed after the 2013 spring wet season when groundwater levels are normally closer to the ground surface. For monitoring 2013, the dataloggers mainly recorded th fall wet season groundwater levels, therefore likelyhood of well success decreased due to the shorter saturation period. MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT (EEP PROJECT NO. 95019) Table 13. Flow Gauge Success St. Clair Creek Restoration Project: Project ID No. 95019 Well ID Consecutive Days of Flow' Cumulative Days of Flow2 UTIa Flow Gauge MSFL1 30.8 242.3 la UT1b Flow Gauge MSFL2 131.4 326.6 Notes: 'Indicates the number of consecutive days within the monitoring year where flow was measured. 'Indicates the number of cumulative days within the monitoring year where flow was measured. Flow success criteria for the Site is stated as: A surface water flow event will be considered perennial when the flow duration occurs for a minimum of 30 days. MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT (EEP PROJECT NO. 95019) Figure 6. Observed Rainfall versus Historic Average UT to Mill Swamp Observed Rainfall versus Historic Average 10.0 a 8.0 6.0 u 4.0 u L 2.0 0.0 +Historic Average Historic 30% probable — Historic 70% probable — Onslow County Observed 2013 Table 14. Verification of Bankfull Events UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project: Project No. 95019 Date of Data Collection Estimated Occurrence of Bankfull Event Method of Data Collection M3 Crest (feet) 3/27/2014 3/7/2014 Crest Gauge 0.32 10/14/2014 8/4/2014 Crest Gauge 0.56 12/19/2014 11/26/2014 Crest Gauge 0.27 MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT (EEP PROJECT NO. 95019)