20131177 Ver 1_Year 0 Monitoring Report 2014_20150414

IV 10KI
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report
UT to Cane Creek Restoration Project
Alamance County, North Carolina
EEP Project ID No. 95729
Cape Fear River Basin: 03030002 - 050050
Prepared for:
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP)
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 -1652
s
Data Collection Period — July 2014
Submission Date — August 2014
r '
#
* - This document was printed using 100% recycled paper.
"k N'.1 lbrN Fill
b,
''
CARq
4EI

Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report
UT to Cane Creek Restoration Project
Alamance County, North Carolina
EEP Project ID No. 95729
Cape Fear River Basin: 03030002 - 050050
Prepared for:
rb� d
i os r
Enna nccm
FEROGIR AM
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP)
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652
Prepared by:
am R P,
C" M3rF}±Gwo"2 57E
P•.]0 9i9
Data Collection Period — July 2014
Submission Date — August 2014

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................. ............................1 -1
2.0 PROJECT GOALS, BACKGROUND AND ATTRIBUTES ..................... 2 -1
2.1
PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION ........................................................................ ............................... 2 -1
2.2
SITE DIRECTIONS ............................................................................................................ ...............................
2 -1
2.3
PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ................................................................................ ...............................
2 -1
3.0 PROJECT STRUCTURE, RESTORATION TYPE AND APPROACH..
3 -1
3.1
PROJECT COMPONENTS ..................................................................................................... ............................3
-1
3.2
RESTORATION APPROACH ................................................................................................. ............................3
-1
3.2.1
Reach RI Restoration .................................................................................................. ...............................
3 -1
3.2.2
Reach R3 Restoration .................................................................................................. ...............................
3 -2
3.2.3
Reach R4 Enhancement and Restoration ..................................................................... ...............................
3 -2
3.2.4
Reach 5 Enhancement and Restoration ....................................................................... ...............................
3 -3
3.2.5
Reach 5a Enhancement ................................................................................................ ...............................
3 -3
3.3
PROJECT HISTORY, CONTACTS, AND ATTRIBUTE DATA ............................................... ...............................
3 -4
3.3.1
Construction Summary ................................................................................................ ...............................
3 -4
4.0 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS ................................... ...............................
4 -1
5.0 MONITORING PLAN AND SUCCESS CRITERIA ... ...............................
5 -1
5.1
STREAM MONITORING .................................................................................................... ...............................
5 -1
5.1.1
Bankfull Events and Flooding Functions ..................................................................... ...............................
5 -1
5.1.2
Cross - sections ................................................................................................................. ............................5
-1
5.1.3
Pattern ......................................................................................................................... ...............................
5 -2
5.1.4
Longitudinal Profile ..................................................................................................... ...............................
5 -2
5.1.5
Bed Material Analysis .................................................................................................. ...............................
5 -2
5.1.6
Visual Assessment ........................................................................................................ ...............................
5 -2
5.2
VEGETATION MONITORING ............................................................................................ ...............................
5 -2
5.3
WETLAND MONITORING ................................................................................................. ...............................
5 -3
5.4
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT MONITORING ................................................................ ...............................
5 -4
6.0 AS
-BUILT DATA DOCUMENTATION ....................... ...............................
6 -1
6.1
STREAM DATA .................................................................................................................... ............................6
-1
6.2
VEGETATION DATA ......................................................................................................... ...............................
6 -1
6.3
AREAS OF CONCERN ........................................................................................................ ...............................
6 -1
7.0 MAINTENANCE AND CONTINGENCY PLANS ...... ...............................
7 -1
7.1
STREAMS ............................................................................................................................. ............................7
-1
7.2
WETLAND ........................................................................................................................ ...............................
7 -1
7.3
VEGETATION ................................................................................................................... ...............................
7 -1
7.4
SITE BOUNDARY .............................................................................................................. ...............................
7 -2
7.5
FARM ROAD CROSSING ................................................................................................... ...............................
7 -2
7.6
BEAVER MANAGEMENT .................................................................................................. ...............................
7 -2
8.0 REFERENCES ................................................................. ............................... 8 -1
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE III 10/23/2014
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO CANE CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (EEP PROJECT NO. 95729)

LIST OF TABLES
Table
1
Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Table
2
Project Activity and Reporting History
Table
3
Project Contacts
Table
4
Project Attributes
Table
5
Baseline Stream Summary
Table
6
Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Table
7
Vegetation Species Planted Across the Restoration Site
Table
8
Stem Counts for Each Species Arranged by Plot
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Vicinity Map
Figure 2 Restoration Summary Map
Figure 3 Reference Sites Location Map
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A Figures 1 - 3, Tables 1 - 4
Appendix B Morphological Summary Data (Tables 5 and 6), Reach 5 Pebble Count Sheet
Appendix C Vegetation Summary Data (Tables 7 and 8)
Appendix D As -Built Plan Sheets /Record Drawings
Appendix E Photo -ID Log
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE IV 10/23/2014
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO CANE CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (EEP PROJECT NO. 95729)

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. (Baker) restored 3,314 linear feet (LF) of perennial and intermittent stream
and enhanced 2,911 LF of channel. Baker also planted approximately 14.0 acres (AC) of native riparian
vegetation within the recorded conservation easement areas along the restored and enhanced reaches (Reach
R1, R3, R4, R5 and R5a). The UT to Cane Creek Restoration Project (Site) is located in Alamance County,
approximately three miles south of the Town of Saxapahaw (Figure 1). The Site is located in the NC Division
of Water Resources (NCDWR) subbasin 03 -06 -04 and the NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program ( NCEEP)
Targeted Local Watershed (TLW) 03030002 - 050050 of the Cape Fear River Basin. The project involved the
restoration and enhancement of a Rural Piedmont Stream (NC WAM 2010, Schafale and Weakley 1990)
which had been impaired due to past agricultural conversion and cattle grazing.
Based on the NCEEP 2009 Cape Fear River Basin Restoration Priority (RBRP) Plan, the UT to Cane Creek
Restoration Project area is located in an existing targeted local watershed (TLW) within the Cape Fear River
Basin, although it is not located in a Local Watershed Planning (LWP) area. The restoration strategy for the
Cape Fear River Basin targets specific projects which focus on developing creative strategies for improving
water quality flowing to the Haw River in order to reduce non -point source (NPS) pollution to Jordan Lake.
The primary goals of the project were to improve ecologic functions and to manage NPS inputs to the
impaired areas as described in the NCEEP 2009 Cape Fear RBRP and as identified below:
• Create geomorphically stable conditions along the unnamed tributaries across the Site,
• Implement agricultural BMPs to reduce NPS inputs to receiving waters,
• Protect and improve water quality by reducing stream bank erosion, and nutrient and sediment inputs,
• Restore stream and floodplain interaction by connecting historic flow paths and promoting natural
flood processes, and
• Restore and protect riparian buffer functions and corridor habitat in perpetuity by establishing a
permanent conservation easement.
To accomplish these goals, the following objectives were identified:
• Restore existing incised, eroding, and channelized streams by providing them access to their relic
floodplains,
• Prevent cattle from accessing the conservation easement boundary by installing permanent fencing
and thus reduce excessive stream bank erosion and undesired nutrient inputs,
• Increase aquatic habitat value by providing more bedform diversity, creating natural scour pools and
reducing sediment from accelerated stream bank erosion,
• Plant native species riparian buffer vegetation along stream bank and floodplain areas, protected by a
permanent conservation easement, to increase stormwater runoff filtering capacity, improve stream
bank stability and riparian habitat connectivity, and shade the stream to decrease water temperature,
• Improve aquatic and terrestrial habitat through improved substrate and in- stream cover, addition of
woody debris, and reduction of water temperature, and
• Control invasive species vegetation within the project area and, if necessary, continue treatments
during the monitoring period.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 1 -1 10/2312014
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO CANE CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (EEP PROJECT NO. 95729)

This report documents the completion of the restoration construction activities and presents as -built
monitoring data for the post - construction monitoring period. Table 1 summarizes project conditions before
and after restoration, as well as the conditions predicted in the previously approved project Mitigation Plan.
Table 1 is located in Appendix A.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 1 -2 10/2312014
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO CANE CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (EEP PROJECT NO. 95729)

2.0 PROJECT GOALS, BACKGROUND AND ATTRIBUTES
2.1 Project Location and Description
The Site is located in Alamance County, NC, approximately three miles south of the Town of
Saxapahaw, as shown on the Vicinity Map (Figure 1). The project is located in the NC Division of
Water Resources (NCDWR) sub -basin 03 -06 -04 of the Cape Fear River Basin and hydrologic unit
03030002- 050050. The project includes four unnamed headwater tributaries (UTs) to Cane Creek and is
located in the Piedmont physiographic region. The four UTs were divided into individual Reaches (RI,
R3, R4, R5 and Rya) as shown in Figure 2.
Project Reaches R1 and R3 are dashed blue -line streams on the USGS topographic quadrangle map and
project Reaches R4 and R5 are both shown as solid blue -line streams along their entire length within the
project limits. Reaches RI, R3, R4, and R5a are shown as intermittent (unclassified) streams within the
project limits on the 1960 Alamance County Soil Survey. The presence of historic valleys for each of
the project stream systems is clearly evident on LIDAR imagery, which was confirmed during field
investigations and on -site jurisdictional determination with the USACE and NCDWR. The preliminary
jurisdictional determination was approved on October 13, 2013.
Based on the NCEEP 2009 Cape Fear River Basin Restoration Priority (RBRP) Plan, the UT to Cane
Creek Restoration Project area is located in an existing targeted local watershed (TLW) within the Cape
Fear River Basin, although it is not located in a Local Watershed Planning (LWP) area. The restoration
strategy for the Cape Fear River Basin targets specific projects which focus on developing creative
strategies for improving water quality flowing to the Haw River in order to reduce NPS pollution to
Jordan Lake.
2.2 Site Directions
To access the Site from Raleigh, take US -1 south and head west on US -64 towards Pittsboro, for
approximately 25 miles. Take the exit ramp to NC 87 north towards Burlington and continue for 13
miles before turning left onto East Greensboro Chapel Hill Road. Once on East Greensboro Chapel Hill
Road, travel west for approximately 1.2 miles before turning left onto Stockard Road. Then proceed 1.0
mile while heading south towards the end of the paved road. The Site is located where the farm access
road continues towards a farm pond crossing near an unnamed tributary to Cane Creek.
2.3 Project Goals and Objectives
The primary goals of the project are to improve ecologic functions and to manage NPS inputs to the
impaired areas as described in the NCEEP 2009 Cape Fear RBRP and are identified below:
• Create geomorphically stable conditions along the unnamed tributaries across the Site,
• Implement agricultural BMPs to reduce NPS inputs to receiving waters,
• Protect and improve water quality by reducing stream bank erosion, and nutrient and sediment inputs,
• Restore stream and floodplain interaction by connecting historic flow paths and promoting natural
flood processes, and
• Restore and protect riparian buffer functions and corridor habitat in perpetuity by establishing a
permanent conservation easement.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2 -1 10/2312014
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO CANE CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (EEP PROJECT NO. 95729)

To accomplish these goals, the following objectives were identified:
• Restore existing incised, eroding, and channelized streams by providing them access to their relic
floodplains,
• Prevent cattle from accessing the conservation easement boundary by installing permanent fencing
and thus reduce excessive stream bank erosion and undesired nutrient inputs,
• Increase aquatic habitat value by providing more bedform diversity, creating natural scour pools and
reducing sediment from accelerated stream bank erosion,
• Plant native species riparian buffer vegetation along stream bank and floodplain areas, protected by a
permanent conservation easement, to increase stormwater runoff filtering capacity, improve stream
bank stability and riparian habitat connectivity, and shade the stream to decrease water temperature,
• Improve aquatic and terrestrial habitat through improved substrate and in- stream cover, addition of
woody debris, and reduction of water temperature, and
• Control invasive species vegetation within the project area and, if necessary, continue treatments
during the monitoring period.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2 -2 10/2312014
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO CANE CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (EEP PROJECT NO. 95729)

3.0 PROJECT STRUCTURE, RESTORATION TYPE AND APPROACH
3.1 Project Components
The project area consists of the restoration and enhancement of four unnamed headwater tributaries
(UTs) to Cane Creek and is located in the Piedmont physiographic region. For assessment and design
purposes, the four UTs were divided into individual Reaches (R1, R3, R4, R5 and R5a). Native species
riparian buffer vegetation was established and/or protected at least 50 feet from the top of both bank
along all project reaches. Lastly, cattle were excluded along all project reaches (except Reach R1)
through permanent fencing outside of the conservation easement. The reach designations have remained
in the same order to be consistent throughout the document.
3.2 Restoration Approach
Based on the post - construction as -built survey, the project consisted of 1,045 LF of restoration on Reach
R1, 398 LF of restoration on Reach R3, 2,333 LF of Enhancement II on Reach R4 (upstream), 410 LF of
restoration on Reach R4 (downstream), 1,461 LF of restoration on Reach R5 (upstream), 433 LF of
Enhancement I on Reach R5 (downstream) and 145 LF of Enhancement II on Reach R5a. A recorded
conservation easement consisting of 19.9 acres protects and preserves all stream reaches, existing
wetland areas, and riparian buffers in perpetuity.
The project involved the restoration and enhancement of a Rural Piedmont Stream System (NC WAM
2010, Schafale and Weakley 1990) which had been impaired due to past agricultural conversion and
cattle grazing. Restoration practices involved raising the existing streambed and reconnecting the stream
to the relic floodplain, and restoring natural flows to areas previously drained by ditching activities. The
existing channels abandoned within the restoration areas were partially to completely filled to decrease
surface and subsurface drainage and raise the local water table. Permanent cattle exclusion fencing was
provided around all proposed reaches and riparian buffers, with the exception of Reach Rl, where cattle
lack access.
The vegetative components of this project include stream bank, floodplain, and transitional upland
planting and described as the riparian buffer zone. The Site was planted with native species riparian
buffer vegetation as shown in Table 7 and Table 8 (Appendix C) and now protected through a permanent
conservation easement. Table 1 and Figure 2 (Appendix A) provide a summary of the project
components.
3.2.1 Reach R1 Restoration
Due to the degraded nature of Reach R1, and the ability to fully restore stream functions and
floodplain connection, a Priority Level I restoration approach was implemented. The lowest part of
the stream valley runs along the field edge to the north of the existing stream channel. Starting at the
outlet of the upstream pond dam, the restored channel was raised to provide reconnection to the relic
floodplain. This approach was feasible because the pond outlet is significantly higher than the
existing bed of the stream channel. In- stream structures included constructed riffles for grade control
and aquatic habitat (bed material for the existing stream is sand/gravel), log vanes, and log step -pools
for stream bed/bank stability, and habitat diversity.
At the downstream end of the reach, the restored channel transitions down to the water surface
elevation of Cane Creek; therefore, rock and log step -pools and constructed riffle structures were
installed to control grade, dissipate energies, and eliminate the potential for upstream channel
incision. Along this downstream transition section, channel banks were graded to stable slopes, and
bankfull benches were graded to further promote stability and re- establishment of riparian vegetation
to the confluence.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 3 -1 10/2312014
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO CANE CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (EEP PROJECT NO. 95729)

The existing, unstable channel was partially to completely filled along its length using a combination
of existing spoil piles that were located along the reach and fill material excavated from construction
of the restored channel. Vernal pools were incorporated along the filled abandoned channel to
provide habitat diversity and improved detention of runoff.
Riparian buffers in excess of 50 feet were restored or protected along all of Reach R1. No stream
crossing or breaks in the easement were installed along this reach. Since cattle do not have access to
the reach, permanent fencing will not be required.
3.2.2 Reach R3 Restoration
Work along Reach R3 involved a combination of Priority Level I and II restoration approaches to
provide floodplain reconnection and promote long -term channel stability. In its existing condition,
the reach was incised and eroding. Much of the adjacent timber had recently been harvested;
therefore, restoration activities were conducted with minimal impact to existing trees. Due to the
short length of the reach before its confluence with Reach R4, it was practical to use a Priority Level I
approach that raised the stream back to its historic floodplain. Therefore, restoration activities
involved a combination of raising the streambed along the upstream portion of the reach, and narrow
benching further downstream along a portion of the right floodplain to increase the floodprone area
width. These techniques allowed restoration of a stable channel form with appropriate bedform
diversity, as well as improved channel function through improved aquatic habitat, more frequent
overbank flooding, improved riparian and terrestrial habitats, exclusion of cattle and associated
pollutants, and decreased erosion and sediment loss from stream bank erosion.
Riparian buffers in excess of 50 feet were restored along all of Reach R3. No stream crossings or
breaks in the easement were installed along Reach R3.
3.2.3 Reach R4 Enhancement and Restoration
Work on Reach R4 primarily involved enhancement approaches on the majority of the upstream
portion of the reach, and restoration approaches on a short section of the downstream end near its
confluence with Cane Creek. The primary source of impairment for Reach R4 is direct cattle access
to the stream; therefore, Enhancement Level II approaches were incorporated along the upper portion
of Reach R4 to permanently exclude cattle from the system. Due to the presence of bedrock along
much of this reach, the stream showed little indication of channel incision, downcutting, or past
channelization. Minor channel bank stabilization work and structure installation occurred throughout
upper portions of the reach where the riparian buffer had been the most impacted and cattle access
had been most detrimental to channel dimension and stream bank erosion. Portions of the riparian
buffer along Reach R4 were recently thinned and cleared as a result of timber harvest, increasing the
importance of restoring appropriate riparian species and removing invasive species vegetation.
Along the downstream 410 LF of Reach R4, the channel condition was very poor due to channel
incision and heavy use by cattle. This reach section was restored through the use of j-
hooks /constructed riffle structures to control grade, dissipate energies, and eliminate the potential for
upstream channel incision. Log vanes were added for additional bank protection and channel banks
were graded to stable slopes. Bioengineering measures (vegetated geolifts) and bankfull benches
were incorporated to further promote stability and re- establishment of riparian vegetation to the
confluence.
Riparian buffers in excess of 50 feet were restored along all of Reach R4. Two existing stream
crossings on Reach R4 were improved and the crossings were fenced to exclude cattle from entering
the restored streams.
To accommodate NRCS watering system requirements for cattle management, one additional ford
crossing was installed on Reach R4 upstream during construction. This crossing is located at station
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 3 -2 10/2312014
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO CANE CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (EEP PROJECT NO. 95729)

33 +00 and allows cattle to move from pastures on opposite sides of the conservation easement, thus
reducing the distances traveled to other areas of the farm. The channel length at the ford crossing is
20 LF and the length reduction has been accounted for in the stream credit calculations as shown in
Table 1.
3.2.4 Reach R5 Enhancement and Restoration
Work on Reach R5 involved full restoration of the upstream portion of the reach down to the
culverted stream crossing, and enhancement approaches on a short section of the downstream end
below the existing crossing. The primary source of impairment for Reach R5 was its incised and
unstable condition, although direct cattle access to the stream was also a major contributor to its
degraded condition. From the northern property line and moving downstream, Reach R5 was deeply
incised, with vertical eroding stream banks and limited to no floodplain access. Due to the rapid drop
in grade after the reach enters the project property, a Priority Level I restoration approach was
feasible for the upper portion of Reach R5. This approach involved constructing the restored channel
off -line and along the lowest part of the valley (to the left side of the existing channel). The benefits
of this approach were that floodplain connection was restored, as well as limited impact to desirable
native species trees along the existing channel, and the ability to provide full restoration of stream
functions and a more appropriate channel pattern for the valley type. Many of the existing trees along
Reach R5 were Tree -of- heaven (Ailanthus altissima), an invasive exotic species; therefore, removal
of these particular trees was completed to encourage establishment of native species.
A Rosgen Bc stream type was designed for the restoration reach, similar to the approach described for
Reach R3. At the downstream end of the reach, above the culverted stream crossing, floodplain
benches were graded to transition the restored reach back to the existing bed elevation at the crossing.
Along the downstream 433 LF of Reach R5 below the stream crossing, channel incision decreased
and the primary source of impairment was direct cattle access. Because the stream mostly connected
to its floodplain along this reach, Enhancement Level I approaches were implemented for this section
of Reach R5. These approaches included permanent exclusion of cattle, minor grading of the stream
banks, and limited use of structures to promote channel stability, bedform diversity, stabilize an active
headcut, and establish an appropriate riparian buffer.
Riparian buffers in excess of 50 feet were restored along all of Reach R5. The existing culverted
stream crossing near the downstream end of Reach R5 was replaced and improved as part of the
proposed project. A new, culverted crossing was installed to provide access across the stream. The
crossing was designed to pass a 10 -year return period event, with excess capacity on the floodplain to
pass larger events without damaging the crossing. The new crossing was fenced to exclude cattle
from entering the restored stream.
3.2.5 Reach R5a Enhancement
Reach R5a begins at the northeastern end of the Site at the property line and flows southwestward
approximately 145 LF to the confluence with Reach R5. Reach R5a was only slightly degraded, and
had incised down to bedrock in some locations, causing minor lateral instability. A few of the
existing riffles along the degraded Reach R5a were observed to have exposed bedrock and coarse
gravel accumulations imbedded with fine sediment. Most of Reach R5a was exhibiting moderate
incision, with typical BHRs of 1.3 or more. Two constructed riffles were installed to provide vertical
stability and prevent any potential headcutting.
The right buffer along this section of Reach R5a can be described as wooded with frequent breaks in
continuity of canopy of trees insufficient to form a definable, single line of native trees along the top
of the stream banks. The uppermost end of Reach R5a, near the property line exhibits a small area
with a more "natural" buffer, though actively accessed by cattle. Invasive vegetation species such as
Tree -of- heaven (Ailanthus altissima) and Multiflora rose were removed along the left bank and the
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 3 -3 10/2312014
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO CANE CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (EEP PROJECT NO. 95729)

slopes were stabilized and planted with native species buffer vegetation. A majority of Reach R5a
was actively subject to water quality stressors in the form of buffer with direct livestock herd access.
The reach was fenced to exclude cattle from entering the restored stream.
3.3 Project History, Contacts, and Attribute Data
Baker implemented the project under a full delivery contract with NCEEP to provide stream mitigation
credits in the Cape Fear River Basin. The chronology of the project is presented in Table 2. The contact
information for all designers, contractors, and relevant suppliers is presented in Table 3. Relevant
project background information is presented in Table 4. Tables 2, 3, and 4 are located in Appendix A of
this report. As -built stationing is outlined in the Construction Summary, below, and in Table 1 in
Appendix A.
3.3.1 Construction Summary
In accordance with the approved Mitigation Plan and regulatory permits (i.e., 401/404, S &EC),
construction activities began in early March 2014 with site preparation, installation of sedimentation
and erosion control measures, and the establishment of staging areas, haul roads, and stockpile areas.
The construction contractor was River Works, Inc. (River Works). Materials were stockpiled as
needed for the initial stages of construction. Suitable channel fill material and alluvium was
harvested on -site from existing spoil piles and within the existing streambed. Survey grade stakes
were set along the thalweg and limits of disturbance to direct the grading activities. Actual in- stream
structure location and placement varied slightly from the design plans in various sections due to
exposed bedrock as well as to promote bedform diversity and increase vertical stability.
Construction began on the upstream portion of Reaches R5 and R5a at station 10 +00 and proceeded
downstream along Reach R5 towards the culverted stream crossing. The work involved the
construction of a defined single thread channel that was built mostly offline using a pump around
operation. The existing degraded channel was filled in and graded back to match the surrounding
natural topographic contours. The entire length of Reach R5 was designed as a combination step -
pool system with some natural channel meanders. The new channel was reconnected with its
floodplain using a Priority Level I approach and graded as to let higher flow energies dissipate across
the existing land surface. Upon completion of new channel segments, in- stream structures, coir fiber
matting, and vegetation plantings, including permanent seeding, were installed before moving to the
next section. Downstream of the culverted stream crossing, from station 25 +00 to station 29 +18,
enhancement activities included invasive species vegetation removal, stabilizing stream banks, and
installing in- stream structures. All disturbed areas were seeded with temporary and permanent seed
and covered with straw before mobilizing to the next project area. The as -built length of Reach R5
after construction is 1,925 LF.
After completing the upstream Reach R5, work along Reach R3 began on the upstream portion
(station 10 +00) near the wooded area and proceeded downstream. The contractor used care as to not
disturb mature hardwood trees within this section. Most of this reach was built within the existing
channel corridor and followed the confined valley contours. In- stream structures such as constructed
riffles and grade control j -hooks were installed to provide channel stability. A floodplain bench was
excavated along the right stream bank to increase the floodprone area width. The as -built length of
Reach R3 after construction is 398 LF.
Construction activities continued downstream along the mainstem, Reach R4 (station 29 +18).
Construction procedures and activities were consistent with the upstream reaches (Reach R5 and R3)
and for the remainder of the project, however the contractor did not disturb vegetation within the
Enhancement areas unless it was necessary to remove existing invasive species vegetation or trees
that were damaged or stressed due to significant bank erosion. Enhancement activities included
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 3 -4 10/2312014
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO CANE CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (EEP PROJECT NO. 95729)

heavy invasive species removal, as well as localized in- stream structure installation and vegetation
planting.
Similar to Reach R3, a majority of the stream work along Reach R4 (upstream and downstream
section) was conducted within the existing stream channel corridor due to the existing topography and
channel conditions. Construction activities included heavy invasive species removal (Chinese Privet)
and regrading /matting /planting channel banks from station 29 +18 to station 33 +50. Further
downstream, an existing ford stream crossing was improved near station 33 +00 for landowner access
and site monitoring purposes. Bioengineering measures (vegetated geolifts) and in- stream structures
were added to stabilize stream banks and large woody debris was removed from the channel between
Sta. 38 +00 and Sta. 44 +50.
Restoration work continued along Reach R4, station 52 +70 with the installation of a pump - around
operation and permanent ford stream crossing. A floodplain bench was excavated along the right
bank until station 57 +00 and in- stream structures were installed per the approved design plans to
provide grade control and bank protection. Additionally, a constructed riffle was added near station
53 +50 and 54 +50 to provide grade control. Upon completion of the Reach R4 channel segments, coir
fiber matting was installed along the banks and all disturbed areas were covered with temporary and
permanent seed and straw.
Lastly, Reach RI was constructed offline from the existing dam to the confluence with Cane Creek.
As the restored channel transitions down to the water surface elevation of Cane Creek, rock and log
step -pools and constructed riffle structures were installed to control grade, dissipate energies, and
eliminate the potential for upstream channel incision. Along this reach section, channel banks were
graded to stable slopes, and the floodplain was reconnected to further promote stability and re-
establishment of native riparian vegetation. The existing, unstable channel was partially to
completely filled along its length using a combination of existing spoil piles that were located along
the reach and fill material excavated from construction of the restored channel. Vernal pools were
incorporated along the filled abandoned channel to provide habitat diversity and improved detention
of runoff. The as -built length of Reach R1 after construction is 1,045 LF.
Minimal site modifications involved the location and selection of some in- stream structures and bank
stabilization practices. Substitutions and /or relocations were made based on existing field conditions
and best professional judgment. All riparian buffer areas within the project boundaries are a
minimum of 50 feet along both stream banks and are protected in perpetuity by a recorded
conservation easement that totals 19.9 acres. Permanent cattle exclusion fencing (woven wire) was
installed outside the conservation easement boundary along all reaches, except Reach RI, with access
gates near each stream crossing as shown on the As -built Plan Sheets in Appendix C. In addition,
Baker is coordinating with the landowner to install permanent watering systems for the cattle outside
of the project boundary.
As -built plan sheets /record drawings depict actual surveyed areas within the project area and depict
any changes from the final design plans to what was implemented on -site during construction. The
as -built plan sheets /record drawings are located in Appendix C. The as -built results for the project
totaled 6,225 LF of stream and are outlined in Table 1.
Upon completion of stream work within the Site, sedimentation and erosion control measures such as
temporary stream crossings, rock check dams, and silt fence were removed and all disturbed areas
were stabilized with temporary and permanent seed and mulch before de- mobilizing from the Site. In
addition, the planting of bare -root trees and shrubs began in April (Reach R5) and completed in June
2014 (Reach Rl). Baker and River Works met on -site June 20, 2014 and conducted a preliminary
final walk through inspection, and generated a punch -list of final items to be completed. River Works
completed this punch list and demobilized in early July 2014 after the final walk inspection walk
through on June 24, 2014.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 3 -5 10/2312014
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO CANE CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (EEP PROJECT NO. 95729)

4.0 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Baker has obtained regulatory approval for numerous stream mitigation plans involving NCDOT and NCEEP
full- delivery projects. The success criteria for the Site will follow the mitigation plans developed for these
projects, as well as the Stream Mitigation Guidelines (SMG) issued in April 2003 and October 2005 ( USACE
and NCDWR) and NCEEP's recent supplemental guidance document Monitoring Requirements and
Performance Standards for Stream and /or Wetland Mitigation dated November 7, 2011. All monitoring
activities will be conducted for a period of 7 years, unless the Site demonstrates complete success by Year 5
and no concerns have been identified. An early closure provision may be requested by the provider for some
or all of the monitoring components. Early closure may only be obtained through written approval from the
USACE in consultation with the NCIRT.
Based on the design approaches, different monitoring methods are proposed for the project reaches. For
reaches that involve a combination of traditional Restoration (Rosgen Priority Levels I and/or II) and
Enhancement Level I (stream bed/bank stabilization) approaches, geomorphic monitoring methods will
follow those recommended by the 2003 SMG and the 2011 NCEEP supplemental guidance. For reaches
involving Enhancement Level 11 approaches, monitoring efforts will focus primarily on visual inspections,
photo documentation, and vegetation assessments. The monitoring parameters shall be consistent with the
requirements described in the Federal Rule for compensatory mitigation sites in the Federal Register Title 33
Navigation and Navigable Waters Volume 3 Chapter 2 Section § 332.5 paragraphs (a) and (b). Specific
success criteria components and evaluation methods are described in Section 5.0 and report documentation
will follow the NCEEP Baseline Monitoring Document template and guidance (v 2.0, dated 10/14/10).
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 4 -1 10/2312014
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO CANE CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (EEP PROJECT NO. 95729)

5.0 MONITORING PLAN AND SUCCESS CRITERIA
5.1 Stream Monitoring
Geomorphic monitoring of the proposed restoration reaches will be conducted once a year for a
minimum of seven years following the completion of construction to evaluate the effectiveness of the
restoration practices. Monitored stream parameters include stream dimension (cross- sections), pattern
(planimetric survey), profile (longitudinal profile survey), and visual observation with photographic
documentation. The success criteria for the proposed Enhancement Level II reaches /sections will follow
the methods described in sections 5.1.6 and 5.2. The methods used and related success criteria are
described below for each parameter.
5.1.1 Bankfull Events and Flooding Functions
The occurrence of bankfull events within the monitoring period will be documented by the use of a
crest gauge and photographs. The crest gauge will be installed on the floodplain within ten feet
(horizontal) of the restored channel. The crest gauge will record the highest watermark between site
visits, and the gauge will be checked at each site visit to determine if a bankfull event has occurred.
Photographs will be used to document the occurrence of debris lines and sediment deposition on the
floodplain during monitoring site visits.
Two bankf ill flow events must be documented within a seven -year monitoring period. The two
bankfull events must occur in separate years; otherwise, the monitoring will continue until two
bankfull events have been documented during the seven -year post construction monitoring period.
5.1.2 Cross - sections
Permanent cross - sections will be installed at an approximate rate of one cross - section per twenty
bankfull widths or an average distance interval (not to exceed 500 LF) of restored stream, with
approximately eight (8) cross - sections located at riffles, and four (4) located at pools. Each cross -
section will be marked on both stream banks with permanent monuments using rebar cemented in
place to establish the exact transect used. A common benchmark will be used for cross - sections and
consistently used to facilitate easy comparison of year -to -year data. The cross - section surveys will
occur in Years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7, and must include measurements of Bank Height Ratio (BHR) and
Entrenchment Ratio (ER). The monitoring survey will include points measured at all breaks in slope,
including top of stream banks, bankfull, inner berm, edge of water, and thalweg, if the features are
present. Riffle cross - sections will be classified using the Rosgen Stream Classification System.
There should be little change in as -built cross - sections. If changes do take place, they will be
documented in the survey data and evaluated to determine if they represent a movement toward a
more unstable condition (e.g., down - cutting or erosion) or a movement toward increased stability
(e.g., settling, vegetative changes, deposition along the stream banks, or decrease in width/depth
ratio). Using the Rosgen Stream Classification System, and all monitored cross - sections should fall
within the quantitative parameters (i.e. BHR no more than 1.2 and ER no less than 2.2 for `C' stream
types) defined for channels of the design stream type. Given the smaller channel sizes and meander
geometry of the proposed steams, bank pins will not be installed unless monitoring results indicate
active lateral erosion.
Reference photo transects will be taken at each permanent cross - section. Lateral photos should not
indicate excessive erosion or continuing degradation of the stream banks. Photographs will be taken
of both stream banks at each cross - section. The survey tape will be centered in the photographs of the
stream banks. The water line will be located in the lower edge of the frame, and as much of the
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 5 -1 10/2312014
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO CANE CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (EEP PROJECT NO. 95729)

stream bank as possible will be included in each photo. Photographers should make an effort to
consistently maintain the same area in each photo over time.
5.1.3 Pattern
The plan view measurements such as sinuosity, radius of curvature, meander width ratio will be taken
on newly constructed meanders during baseline (Year 0) only. Subsequent visual monitoring will be
conducted twice a year, at least five months apart, to document any changes or excessive lateral
movement in the plan view of the restored channel.
5.1.4 Longitudinal Profile
A longitudinal profile will be surveyed for the entire length of restored channel immediately after
construction to document as -built baseline conditions for the first year of monitoring only. The
survey will be tied to a permanent benchmark and measurements will include thalweg, water surface,
bankfull, and top of low bank. Each of these measurements will be taken at the head of each feature
(e.g., riffle, pool) and at the maximum pool depth. The longitudinal profile should show that the
bedform features installed are consistent with intended design stream type. The longitudinal profiles
will not be taken during subsequent monitoring years unless vertical channel instability has been
documented or remedial actions /repairs are deemed necessary.
5.1.5 Bed Material Analysis
After construction, there should be minimal change in the pebble count data over time given the
current watershed conditions and sediment supply regime. Significant changes in particle sizes or
size distribution in otherwise stable riffles and pools could warrant additional sediment transport
analyses and calculations. A substrate sample will be collected where constructed riffles are installed
as part of the project. One constructed riffle substrate sample will be compared to existing riffle
substrate data collected during the design phase and any significant changes (i.e.; aggradation,
degradation) will be noted after stream bank vegetation becomes established and a minimum of two
bankfull flows or greater have been documented.
5.1.6 Visual Assessment
Visual monitoring assessments of all stream sections will be conducted by qualified personnel twice
per monitoring year with at least five months in between each site visit. Photographs will be used to
visually document system performance and any areas of concern related to stream bank stability,
condition of in- stream structures, channel migration, headcuts, live stake mortality, impacts from
invasive plant species or animal species, and condition of pools and riffles. The photo locations and
descriptions will be shown on a plan view map per NCEEP's monitoring report guidance (vl.5, June
2012).
The Photographs will be taken from a height of approximately five to six feet to ensure that the same
locations (and view directions) at the Site are documented in each monitoring period. A series of
photos over time will be also be used to subjectively evaluate channel aggradation (bar formations) or
degradation, stream bank erosion, successful maturation of riparian vegetation, and effectiveness of
sedimentation and erosion control measures.
5.2 Vegetation Monitoring
Successful restoration of the vegetation on a site is dependent upon hydrologic restoration, planting of
preferred canopy species, and volunteer regeneration of the native plant community. In order to
determine if the criteria are achieved, vegetation- monitoring quadrants were installed and will be
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
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 5 -2 10/2312014
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO CANE CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (EEP PROJECT NO. 95729)

with a minimum of nine plots established randomly within the planted riparian buffer areas per
Monitoring Levels 1 and 2. The size of individual quadrants are 100 square meters for woody tree
species.
Vegetation monitoring will occur in the fall, prior to the loss of leaves. Individual quadrant data will be
provided and will include species diameter, height, density, and coverage quantities. Relative values
will be calculated, and importance values will be determined. Individual seedlings will be marked such
that they can be found in succeeding monitoring years. Mortality will be determined from the difference
between the previous year's living, planted seedlings and the current year's living, planted seedlings.
Construction of the Site was completed in June 2014 including all buffer vegetation planting. The
approved contract with NCEEP requires that all vegetation must be planted at least six months (180
days) before Baseline (Year 0) monitoring activities are conducted at the end of the first full growing
season. Since the final vegetation planting was completed in June 2014, the NCEEP requested that the
species composition, stem density, and survivability be assessed once more in early 2015, before
accepting the data for the Year 1 Monitoring Report. Due to the installation timing and condition of the
bare -root stems, supplemental vegetation monitoring will be completed upon leaf -out in the early spring
of 2015 to further document a successful first year for the vegetation plots on the Site. The data
collected in early 2015 will be included as part of the Year 1 Monitoring Report for the Site.
For each subsequent year, vegetation plots shall be monitored for seven years in Years 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7 or
until the final success criteria are achieved. The restored Site will be evaluated between March and
November. The interim measure of vegetative success for the Site will require the survival of at least
320, 3 -year old, planted trees per acre at the end of Year 3 of the monitoring period. At Year 5, density
must be no less than 260, 5 -year old, planted trees per acre. The final vegetative success criteria will be
the survival of 210, 7 -year old, planted trees per acre at the end of the seven -year monitoring period,
which must average 10 feet in height (DBH). However, if the performance standard is met by Year 5
and stem densities are greater than 260, 5 -year old stems /acre, vegetation monitoring may be terminated
with approval by the USACE and Interagency review Team (IRT).
While measuring species density and height is the current accepted methodology for evaluating
vegetation success on mitigation projects, species density and height alone may be inadequate for
assessing plant community health. For this reason, the vegetation monitoring plan will incorporate the
evaluation of additional plant community indices, native volunteer species, and the presence of invasive
species vegetation to assess overall vegetative success.
Baker will provide any required remedial action on a case -by -case basis, such as replanting more
wet /drought tolerant species, beaver management /dam removal, or removing undesirable /invasive
species vegetation, and continue to monitor vegetation performance until the corrective actions
demonstrate that the Site is trending towards or meeting the standard requirement.
Additionally, herbaceous vegetation, primarily native grasses and forbs, was seeded/planted throughout
the Site. During and immediately following construction activities, all ground cover at the project Site
was in compliance with the NC Erosion and Sedimentation Control requirements.
5.3 Wetland Monitoring
No wetlands were proposed for the Site, therefore, no such monitoring is required.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 5 -3 10/2312014
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO CANE CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (EEP PROJECT NO. 95729)

5.4 Stormwater Management Monitoring
No stormwater BMPs were proposed for the Site. therefore, no such monitoring is required.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 5 -4 10/2312014
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO CANE CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (EEP PROJECT NO. 95729)

6.0 AS -BUILT DATA DOCUMENTATION
Stream and vegetation components will be monitored for seven years post - construction to evaluate project
success, unless the Site demonstrates complete success by Year 5 and no areas of concern have been
identified. The specific locations of vegetation plots, flow /crest gauges, and cross - sections are shown on the
as -built plan sheets.
6.1 Stream Data
For monitoring stream success criteria, twelve permanent cross - sections were installed along all restored
and enhanced reaches on the Site. The permanent cross - sections will be used to monitor channel
dimension and bank stability over time. Two crest gauges were installed along the restored channels on
Reach R3 and Reach R5. The crest gauges will be used to document the occurrence of bankfull events.
In addition, a longitudinal survey was completed for the restored stream channels (Reach Rl, Reach R3,
Reach R4 and Reach R5) to provide a baseline for evaluating changes in bed conditions over time. The
as -built permanent cross - sections (with photos) and as -built longitudinal data as well as the quantitative
pre - construction, reference reach, design data used to determine restoration approach as well as as -built
data including one Reach 5 substrate sample are provided in Appendix B. As -built data will be used for
comparison to post - construction monitoring data. The locations of the permanent cross - sections and the
crest gauges are shown on the as -built plan sheets in Appendix D. Photographs of the selected portions
of the restored reaches are provided in Appendix E.
6.2 Vegetation Data
Bare -root trees and shrubs were planted within restoration and enhancement areas of the conservation
easement. A minimum 50 -foot buffer was established and/or protected along both banks of all stream
reaches. Planting of bare -root trees and shrubs and live stakes began in April 2014 and was completed
on June 18, 2014.
The Mitigation Plan for the Site specifies that the number of quadrants required shall be based on the
CVS -NCEEP monitoring guidance (2007). The total number of quadrants was calculated using the
CVS -NCEEP Entry Tool Database version 2.2.7 (CVS - NCEEP, 2007). The sizes of individual
quadrants are 100 square meters. A total of six (6) vegetation plots were installed throughout the project
Site. The initial planted density within each of the vegetation monitoring plots is provided in Table 8.
The average density of planted bare root stems, based on the data from the six vegetation monitoring
plots, is 693 stems per acre. The locations of the vegetation plots are shown on the as -built plan sheets
in Appendix D.
6.3 Areas of Concern
Per observations made during the final punch -list walk through and a NCEEP site visit on September 18,
2014, woody species vegetation planted along Reach R1 (left floodplain buffer) appear to have low
survivability. Planted stems within some of these buffer areas are experiencing problems due to heavy
competition with a thick herbaceous layer, planting just outside of the dormant season, and/or
unfavorable soil conditions. Section 7.3 describes a specific corrective action plan that will be
implemented for these areas of concern.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 6 -1 10/2312014
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO CANE CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (EEP PROJECT NO. 95729)

7.0 MAINTENANCE AND CONTINGENCY PLANS
Maintenance requirements vary from site to site and are generally driven by the following conditions:
• Projects without established, woody floodplain vegetation are more susceptible to erosion from floods
than those with a mature, hardwood forest.
• Projects with sandy, non - cohesive soils are more prone to bank erosion than cohesive soils or soils
with high gravel and cobble content.
• Alluvial valley channels with access to their floodplain are less vulnerable to erosion than channels
that have been disconnected from their floodplain.
• Wet weather during construction can make accurate channel and floodplain excavations difficult.
• Extreme and/or frequent flooding can cause floodplain and channel erosion.
• Extreme hot, cold, wet, or dry weather during and after construction can limit vegetation growth,
particularly temporary and permanent seed.
• The presence and aggressiveness of invasive vegetation species can affect the extent to which a native
species vegetation buffer can be established.
• The presence of beaver can affect vegetation survivability and stream function.
The Site will be monitored on a regular basis and as well as a physical inspection of the Site at least once a
year throughout the post - construction monitoring period until performance standards are met. These site
inspections may identify site components and features that require routine maintenance. Maintenance issues
and recommended remediation measures will be detailed and documented in the post - construction monitoring
reports. Factors that may have caused any maintenance needs, including any of the conditions listed above,
shall be discussed. Routine maintenance will be most likely in the first two years following site construction
and may include the following components as described below.
7.1 Streams
Routine channel maintenance and repair activities may include modifying in- stream structures to prevent
piping, securing loose coir matting, and supplemental installations of live stakes and other target
vegetation along the project reaches. Areas of concentrated stormwater and floodplain flows that
intercept the channel may also require maintenance to prevent stream bank failures and head - cutting
until vegetation becomes established.
7.2 Wetland
No wetland mitigation was proposed for the Site; therefore, no such maintenance is required.
7.3 Vegetation
Vegetation will be maintained to ensure the health and vigor of the targeted plant community. Routine
vegetation maintenance and repair activities may include supplemental planting, pruning, and fertilizing.
Exotic invasive plant species will controlled by mechanical and/or chemical methods. Any invasive
plant species control requiring herbicide application will be performed in accordance with NC
Department of Agriculture (NCDA) rules and regulations.
Due to the low stem count observed in Reach R1 and other localized buffer areas, a corrective action
plan will be initiated to address areas of concern as described in Section 6.3. Supplemental replanting
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 7 -1 10/23/2014
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO CANE CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (EEP PROJECT NO. 95729)

will take place in the upcoming 2014 dormant season and include buffer areas along Reaches R1, R3,
R4, and R5. Approximately 2,000 woody stems (bare- roots) will be planted at a target density of 436
stems per acre, in a 10 -foot by 10 -foot grid pattern. In addition, supplemental live stakes will be planted
along Reach RI steam banks as necessary.
The vegetation plantings will be documented in the Year 1 Monitoring Report and areas of concern will
be observed closely during subsequent monitoring periods to determine if further corrective action is
required to meet the interim vegetative success criteria of 260 stems per acre at the end of five years.
7.4 Site Boundary
Site boundaries will be demarcated in the field to ensure clear distinction between the mitigation site and
adjacent properties. Boundaries may be identified by fence, marker, bollard, post, or other means as
allowed by site conditions and/or conservation easement. Boundary markers disturbed, damaged, or
destroyed will be repaired and /or replaced on an as needed basis.
7.5 Farm Road Crossing
The farm road crossings within the Site may be maintained only as allowed by the recorded
Conservation Easement, deed restrictions, rights of way, or corridor agreements.
7.6 Beaver Management
Routine maintenance and repair activities caused by beaver activity may include supplemental planting,
pruning, and dam breeching /dewatering and/or removal. Beaver management will be performed in
accordance with US Department of Agriculture (USDA) rules and regulations using accepted trapping
and removal techniques only within the project boundary.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 7 -2 10/2312014
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO CANE CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (EEP PROJECT NO. 95729)

8.0 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. CVS -NCEEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation,
Version 4.1, 2007.
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.
1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology Books, Pagosa Springs, Colo.
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. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation
Manual. Technical Report Y -87 -1. Environmental Laboratory. US Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS.
2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines, April 2003, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Wilmington District.
2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines. Prepared with cooperation from US Environmental Protection
Agency, NC Wildlife Resources Commission, and the NC Division of Water Quality.
www.saw.usace.army.mil/wetlands/Mitigation/stream mitigation.html
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 8 -1 10/23/2014
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
LIT TO CANE CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (EEP PROJECT NO. 95729)

APPENDIX A
Figures 1 - 3, Tables 1 - 4

Haw River -��'� Mebane i
Mebane
i
"
I , _ G`E F
C O U N -T Y
ALA AE �G
-0
-
t
� t
E Greensboro
Chapel Hill Rd'+'
�. � x•65 �,- �I� � - �• � `� ,
I b.
k Stockard Rd `
Project Location
Note: Site is located within targeted local
watershed 03030002050050.
- —
o tee:= 'A T �H•r
Figure 1
Project Vicinity Map
UT to Cane Creek Site
� 49 j
N
rh
I
54 j Project
t 49 87 Location
Alamance County
0 0.5 1 2 3
Miles

Reach R3
Reach RI
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement I
Reach R5a Stream Enhancement 11
Recorded Conservation Easement
Parcel Boundary
bL
Reach R5
Reach R4
Reach R4
wwwpvc V~ N
Figure 2
0 350 700 Mitigation Work Plan
N 31Q 111111111E=�� Feet UT to Cane Creek Site
INIIII X-I till
F I , A

f
,
u,
UT to Wells Creek
4
F
`` ❑ Reference Site Locations
Project Location
.F
UT to Varnals Creek
A gs"I�+y
Y
Project Location
ti
Sources: Esri, DeLorme, HERE, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN,
Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), TomTom
0 1 2Miles N Figure 3
46 Reference Reach
Location Map
EEP Project #95729 UT to Cane Creek Site

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

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
UT to Cane Creek Restoration Project: EEP Project No ID. 95729
Activity or Report
Scheduled
Completion
Data Collection
Complete
Actual
Completion or
Deliver
Mitigation Plan Prepared
N/A
N/A
Aug -13
Mitigation Plan Amended
N/A
N/A
Oct -13
Mitigation Plan Approved
May -13
N/A
Dec -13
Final Design — (at least 90% complete)
N/A
N/A
Feb -14
Construction Begins
Nov -13
N/

Table 3. Project Contacts
UT to Cane Creek Restoration Project: EEP Project ID No. 95729
Designer
8
000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
Cary, NC 27518
Contact:
Kayne Van Stell, Tel. 919 - 481 -5730
Construction Contractor
6105 Chapel Hill Road
River Works, Inc.
Raleigh, NC 27607
Contact:
Phillip Todd, Tel. [phone]
Planting Contractor
6105 Chapel Hill Road
River Works, Inc.
Raleigh, NC 27607
Contact:
Phillip Todd, Tel. [phone]
Seeding Contractor
6105 Chapel Hill Road
River Works, Inc.
Raleigh, NC 27607
Contact:
Phillip Todd, Tel. [phone]
Seed Mix Sources
Green Resources, Tel. 336 - 855 -6363
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Mellow Marsh Farm, 919- 742 -1200
ArborGen, 843 -528 -3204
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
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO CANE CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (EEP PROJECT NO. 95729)

Table 4. Project Attributes
UT to Cane Creek Restoration Project: EEP Project ID No. 95729
Project Information
Project Name
UT to Cane Creek Restoration Project
County
Alamance
Project Area (acres)
19.9
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude)
35.8934 N, - 79.3187 W
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province
Piedmont
River Basin
Cape Fear
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8 -digit and 14 -digit
03030002 / 03030002050050
NCDWR Sub -basin
3 -06 -04
Project Drainage Area (acres)
452 (Reach R4 main stem at downstream confluence w/ Cane Creek)
Project Drainage Area Percent Impervious
<1%
CGIA / NCEEP Land Use Classification
2.01.01.01, 2.03.01, 2.99.01, 3.02 / Forest (49 %) Agriculture (46 %) Impervious Cover (1 %)
Reach Summary Information
Parameters
Reach RI
Reach R3
Reach R4
Reach R5
Reach R5a
Length of Reach (linear feet)
1,052
400
2,731
1,925
145
Valley Classification (Rosgen)
VII
VII
VII
VII
VII
Drainage Area (acres)
80
91
452
290
14
NCDWR Stream Identification Score
30.5
36
42.5
38.5
33.5
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
WS V; NSW
Morphological Description
(Rosgen stream type)
Incised E
G
Be (upstream)/
F (downstream)
G
B
Evolutionary Trend
IncisedE4Gc4F
BC--)G--)Fb
BC--)G--)Fb
Bc4G4Fb
B4G
Underlying Mapped Soils
We, GaE, Cg, DbB
We
We, GbD3, Mc, Cg, TaD
We
We
Drainage Class
Poorly drained
Poorly drained
Poorly
Poorly drained
Poorly
Soil Hydric Status
Hydric
Hydric
Hydric
Hydric
Hydric
Average Channel Slope (ft/ft)
0.0127
0.0168
0.0169
0.0126
0.0223
FEMA Classification
N/A
Zone AE
Zone AE
N/A
N/A
Native Vegetation Community
Piedmont Small Stream
Percent Composition of Exotic/Invasive Vegetation
<5% <5% <5% <5% <5%
Regulatory Considerations
Regulation
Applicable
Resolved
Supporting Documentation
Waters of the United States — Section 404
Yes
Yes
Categorical Exclusion (Appendix B)
Waters of the United States — Section 401
Yes
Yes
Categorical Exclusion (Appendix B)
Endangered Species Act
No
N/A
Categorical Exclusion (Appendix B)
Historic Preservation Act
No
N/A
Categorical Exclusion (Appendix B)
Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA)
No
N/A
Categorical Exclusion (Appendix B)
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
Yes
Yes
Categorical Exclusion (Appendix B)
Essential Fisheries Habitat
No
N/A
Categorical Exclusion (Appendix B)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO CANE CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (EEP PROJECT NO. 95729)

APPENDIX B
Morphological Summary Data
(Tables 5 and 6)

Table 5. Baseline Stream Summar
UT to Cane Creek Restoration Project: EEP Project ID No. 95729
Reach 1 (1,045 LF)
Parameter
USGS
Regional Curve interval
Pre - Existing
Condition
Reference Reach
es Data
Design
As -built
UT to Wells Creek
UT to Varnals
Creek
Gauge
(Harman et ay 1999)*
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
LL UL Eq.
Min
Mean
Mad
Max SD n
Min
Mean
Mod Max SD
a
Min
Mean
Med
Max SD
n
.uu
Mean
Med Max SD
n
Min
Mean
Med Max SD n
BF Width (fl)
- --
23.0 80.0 4.9
5.6
____
_____
7.3 - -_ - -_
- --
8
___ ----- ___
____
-----
9.7
_____
___ ____
-. _.
___
6.9
____ _____ _____
-----
7.2
_____
____ 9.1 - -_ - -_
Floodprone Width (ft
- --
___ ___ _____
6.8
___
____
>30 - -- - --
- --
- --
____ ----- _ - --
-----
-----
_____
____
____ ____
-. _.
____
>20
____ _____ _____
-----
61'6
____
____ 84.4 - -- - --
BF Mean Depth (it)
- --
2.3 5.8 0.8
0.7
___
___
0.9 - -- - --
- --
- --
_____ ----- -----
----
_
____
_____
____ ____
___
___
0.5
_____ _____ ____
-----
0.5
____
___ 1.0 ___ -----
BF Max Depth (ft)
- --
____ _____ _____
1.1
_____
____
1.2 - -- - --
- --
- --
_____ ----- -----
-----
-----
____
_____
_____ ____
_. _.
_____
0.7
_____ ____ ___
-----
0.7
_____
_____ 1.9 ___ -----
BF Cross-sectional Area
- --
.
- - --
____
5.2 - -_ - -_
- --
5.3
----- __- ___
___
-----
7.9
____
___ _ - _
___
____
3.7
____ ___ -----
- -_-
4.0
___
____ 8.7 -
Width/Depth Ratio
- -_
- -_ _____ _____
.
____
_____ 26 ____
_ -_
8
_____
____
18 - - --
- -__-
_____
13.0
____ __- __-
- -_-
9.6
___
___ 15.2
Entrenchment Rah
- --
- -- - - - -- _____
1.2
- - - --
____
9.5 ___ ___
2.0
_ -_
____
- 3.4 _____
___
1.9
- ____
- ____
3.9 ___-
__.
____
>2.2
_____ __- - _-
- -_-
6.9
_____
_____ 10.8 ___ -----
Bank Height Ratio
-----
----- _____ _____
1.6
___
___
4.3 _____
1.4
_____ 2.5 - --
- - --
1.1
_____
_____
1.5 -__
___
____
1.0
_____ ____ -----
- -_-
1.0
___
___ 1.3
d50(man)
- --
----- ____ ____
_____
____
___ --
_____
____
____ _____ -----
____
____
-----
_____ ____ ___
Pattern
ChannelBeltwidth(ft
- --
_____ _____ _____
_____
___
___
___ ___ -
___
_____
_____ ___ -----
-----
-----
____
_____
___ ____-
_ -___
_ ?.p
____
____ 45.0 _____
-----
-----
__
___ ___ ----- -----
RadiusofCurvatme(ft)
- --
----- _____ _____
____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
____
____
_____ _____ -----
-----
___
____
_____
___ ___-
___.
14.0
____
_____ 21.0 ___
-----
-----
___
____ ____ ____ ___
Rc:Bankfilll width (ft /ft
-----
----- _____ _____
_____
____
____
____ __ ____
0.3
_____ 4.0 - --
- --
0.8
____
2.3 - -_
- -_-
2.0
.___
___ 3.0 ___
____
6.9 - -_
- -_-
50.0
,__
____ 80.0 - --
Meander Width Ratio
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ ____ ____
1.3
_____ 4.4 ___
___
1.2
_____
_____
1.8 -__-
__.
3.6
____
_____ 6.5
Profile
Riffle Length (ft
____
____ ____ ____
____
____
___
_____
_____
__
____
----- ----- -----
-----
____
Riffle Slope (ft/ft )
-----
___ ___ ____
____
____
""' -'-'
-- --
____
_____
_____
-_- __- __-
- -_-
_____
Pool Length (ft)
___
_____ ____ ____
_____
____
___
_____
____
_____ ____ ____
-----
___
Pool Spacing (ft)
- --
____ ___ ____
_____
____
-----
----- ----- -----
i.I
____
_____ 7.9 ____
-----
2.9
_____
_____
5.0 _____
___-
28.0
_____
_____ 42.0 ____
-----
_____
____
_____ _____ _____ ____
Pool Max Depth ft)
____
___ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
____
2.3
_____ 2.7 ____
-----
1.6
_____
2.3 -_
__-
_____
1.5
_____ ____
PoolVolume (ff)
_____
----- _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
_____ _____ _____
_____
___
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____
Substrate and Transport Parameters
Ri % /Ru % /P % /G % /S%
- --
____ ____ _____
_____
____
___
----- -----
____
_____
_____ ____
__.
-----
___
_____ _____ -----
-----
____
_____
_____
SC % /Sa % /G % /B % /Be%
____
_____ ___ -----
-----
_____
____
____ -----
____
_____
_____ _____
__.
___
____
____ ____ -----
-----
____
____
_____ _____
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
- - - --
- - - -- - - - -- - - - --
0.1 / 0.6/ 4.5 / 53 / 96
0.2 / 2.5/ 8 / 92 /1,536
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/
____
____ _____ _____
_____
_____
____
_____ ____ -----
_____
_____
_____ _____
___
___
___
__
---- _ ___
-----
___
___
____ ____ _____ _____
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull ( Rosgen Curve
____
----- ____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
___ -
_____
----- ----- -----
- -_-
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____
Stream Power (transport capacity) Whn
____
_____ _____ ____
_____
_.__
___
____ ____ _____
_____
____
_____ ____
____
_____
____
____
___
___
____
----- ----- -----
-----
_____
____
____ ____ ____ _____
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM
_____
___ ___ _____
_____
___
____
125 _____ _____
____
_____ 0.13 - --
____
0.24 ____
- - -_
- -_
____
____ u.l ^_> ___
____
____
_____
____ 0.125 __- - -_
Impervious cover estimate (%
___
_____ _____ _____
___
____
Rosgen Classification
_____
_____ _____ _____
G5c
____
E5 _____ _____
____
_____
_____ C4/1 -----
_ -_
-----
____
____
B4 /la __-
__.
-__
E4 /C4
- -- - -- -_-
- - --
- - --
E4 /C4
_____ ____ ----- __-
BF Velocity (fps)
0.8
____
____
1.2 -_ .___
_____
____
_____ 5.3 - --
- --
- --
_____
_____
____ ___
___
-----
3.5
___ ----- __-
-----
-----
3.5
___ _____ ----- -----
BF Discharge (cfs )
___
290.0 2000.0 19.8
_____
____
___
19.8 -_ ____
_____
_____
_____ 25.2 -__
___
- -_
___
____
46.6 - - --
__
____
13
____ ___ ___
____
____
13
___ _____ __-
ValleyLengt
_____
____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
____
_____
_____ _____ -----
_ -_
-----
-----
____
____ -----
__.
_____
_____
----- ----- -----
- - --
-----
859.4
_____ _____ ___ ___
Channellength (fl}
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
-----
_____
943 ____ _____
_____
_____
_____ ----- _____
___
-----
_____
_____
_____ _____
-----
_____
_____
___ ----- ___
___
_____
1044.9
_____ _____ _____ ,____
Sinuosity-----
---- ---- -----
-----
- ---
-----
1.09 ----- - ---
-----
-----
----- 1.40 -----
-----
- --
----
----
1.20 -----
-----
----
1.20
----- ----- - --
- --
-----
1.2
---- ----- ----- -----
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft
-----
---- ----- -----
- ---
-----
-----
0.0127 ----- -----
-----
-----
- --- 0.0197 -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
0.0405 -----
-----
----
0.012
---- --- - ---
- --
-----
0.0123
---- ----- ----- -----
BF slope ( )
_____
_____ ____ _____
_____
_____
_____
0.0135 _____ _____
_____
_____
_____ 0,0 _____
_____
_____
_____
_ ____
p, 5 _____
_____
_____
0.015
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
0.0150
_____ _____ _____ _____
Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____ ----- -- --
----
-----
-----
-----
---- ----
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____
BEHIVL % /L % /M % /H % /VH % /E%
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
----
_____
_____
_____
_____ ____ _
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
-----
---- ---- -----
-----
-----
- - --
- - - --
---- ----
-----
-----
----- ---- -- --
---
-----
----
---- --- ---
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- ---
Biological or Othe
____
_____ _____ _____
____
____
_____
____
* Harman, W.A., G.D. Jennings, J.M. Patterson, D.R. Clirdon, L.O. Slate, A.G. Jessup, S.R. Everhart, and R.E. Smith. 1999. Bankfoll 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 304u1y 2, 1999. Bozeman, MT.
Existing conditions survey data is compiled for the entire UT Reach within the project limits.
c Bulk samples taken since pebble count procedure is rm pplicable for sand -bed streams.
r Values were cbosen based on sand -bed reference reacM1 data and past project evaluations.
* Composite reference,,nh information from Joha m h Creek, Johnston County; Panther Branch, Brunswick Co..V; Rocky Swamp, Halifax Coamy; and Beaver Dam Bm..h, Janes
County
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO CANE CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (EEP PROJECT NO. 95729)

Table 5. Baseline Stream Summary (continued)
UT to Cane Creek Restoration Project: EEP Project ID No. 95729
Reach 3 (398 LF)
Parameter
USGS
Regional Curve interval
Pre - Existing
Condition
Reference Reach
es Data
esign
As -built
UT to s Creek
Wells
UT to Varnals Creek
Gauge
(Harman et ay 1999)*
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
LL UL Eq.
Min
Mean
Mad
Max SD n
Min
Mean
Mod Max SD
a
Min
Mean
Med Max SD
n
.ii„
Mean
Med Max
SD n
Min
Mean
Med Max SD n
BF Width (fl)
- --
23.0 80.0 5.1
_____
____
_____
7.6 - -_ - -_
- --
8
----- ----- ___
____
-----
9.7
- -_ -__ ____
-__
-_
7.2
----- - --
- -- -----
8.9
- --
____ 9.0 - -_ - -_
Floodprone Width(ft
--
___ ___ _____
_____
___
____
>16.3 - -- - --
- --
- --
____ ----- -----
-----
-----
_____
---
- 20.0
- -- - --
24.4
-----
_____ 36.3 - -- -----
BF Mean Depth (ft )
- --
2.3 5.8 0.8
_____
____
____
0.8 - -- - --
- --
- --
----- ----- -----
----
-
-----
----- ---- -
__-
- --
0.6
- - - -- - --
- -- - --
0.4
- -_
___ 0.6 - -- -----
BF Max Depth (ft)
--
____ _____ _____
_____
-----
-----
1.2 - -_ - -_
- -_
- -_
_____ ----- ___
___
-----
____
_____ ___ ___-
__.
_____
0.7
- -- _
-__ - --
0.8
-----
____ 1.1
BF Cross - sectional Area (ft'
- --
80.0 300.0 5.7
- - - --
- - - --
___
5.6 __- __-
__-
5.3
_ - -- __- _ -_
_ -_
__-
7.9
____ ' -- __ -_
-__
--"'
4.0
-_- __-
__- - -_-
3.7
'-- -_
____ 5.3 - -- - --
_____ 26 -----
-----
8
_____
____ 18 - -_
- -_-
____
13.0
- -_ -__
- -_ ____
15.3
___
___ 21.7
Entrenchment Rah
- --
- -- - - - -- - - - --
- - - --
- - - --
____
2.2 - -- - --
2.0
_____ 3.4 -----
-----
1.9
_____
_____ 3.9 -__-
__.
1.8
_____
----- �._
----- - -_-
2.7
____
____ 4.0
Bank Height Ratio
-----
----- _____ _____
_____
-----
____
1.5 _____
1.4
_____ 2.5 - --
- - --
1.1
_____
_____ 1.5 -__
___
- -__
1.0
----- - --
----- -----
1.0
____
__ 1.0
d50(mm )
--
----- ____ _____
_____
____
_____
_____
_____
----- ___
___ ____
____
___
_____ ----- -----
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft
-----
- - - -- ___ -----
-----
-----
____
____ ____
__
___
-__
____
__- -----
- _- - -_-
- -_-
_"'
__- __- __- __-
Radius of Curvature (ft)
___
- -_ -__ -___
___-
____
____
____ _____ _____
____
_____
_ -_
___
- -_-
_____ ____
____ ____ ____
Rc:BankfilB width (ft /ft
-----
----- _____ -----
-----
-----
_____
___ __ ____
0.3
_____ 4.0 -----
--
0.8
____ 2.3 - - -__
- -__-
-----
____
-----
----- 8.8 -----
-----
4.9
____ 6.9 _____
_ -__-
-----
___
- -_-
Meander Width Ratio
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ ____ ____
1.3
_____ 4.4
1.2
1.8
-----
__-
_____
Prolilc
Riffle Length (ft
____
____ ____ ____
____
____
___
__-
____
____
_____
___ -----
----- -----
___
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
_____
___ ___ ____
____
____
___
___
---- _
____
____
___ -----
----- -----
_____
Pool Length (ft)
___
_____ ____ ____
_____
____
_____
____
_____
____
___ -----
----- -----
___
Pool Spacing (ft)
--
____ ___ ____
_____
____
___
----- ----- -----
"I
____
_____ 7.9 ____
-----
2.9
_____
_____ 5.0 _____
____
11
___
___ 36
----- -----
_____
____
_____ _____ _____ ____
Pool Max Depth ft)
____
___ _____ _____
_____
_____
____
_____ _____ ____
2.3
_____
_____ 2.7 ____
_ -_
1.6
_____
_____ 2.3 -_
___
1.5
_____
____ 1.5
- -_ ____
____
___
__ -_ _____ _____
Pool Volume (ff)
_____
____ _____ _____
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
----- -----
-----
-----
_____
Substrate and Transport Parameters
Ri % /Ru % /P % /G % /S%
--
____ ----- _____
_____
____
-----
----- -----
____
_____
_____ ____
__.
_____
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
_____
_____ __-
SC % /Sa % /G % /B % /Be%
-----
_____ ___ ____
-----
____
___
----- -----
____
_____
_____ ____ -----
__.
____
____
----- -----
----- -----
____
____
_____
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
- - - --
- - - -- - - - -- - - - --
0.1 / 0.6/ 4.5 / 53 / 96
0.2 / 2.5/ 8 / 92 / 1,536
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/
____
____ _____ _____
____
_____
____
_____ ___ ___
_____
_____
_____ _____
__
___
___
___
---- _
___ -----
___
___
____ ___ _____ _____
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve
____
----- -_ - ____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
--- -
____
----- -----
----- - -_-
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____ -----
Stream Power (transport capacity) Who
____
----- _____ _____
____
____
____
_____ ____ ____
-----
____
_____ ____
____
_____
____ ____
___
___
____
----- -----
----- -----
_____
____
____ ____ _____ ____-
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
_____
___ ___ _____
_____
____
____
0.1
_____ 0.13 --
-___
_____
____ 0.24 - - -_
- - -_
-----
0.1
----- - --
-_- -----
-----
0.1
_____ __- __- -----
Impervious cover estimate (%
___
_____ _____ _____
_____
___
____
__-
_____
-----
Rosgen Classification
_____
____ ____ _____
_____
_____
-----
B4c _____ ____
____
____ C4 /1 --
____ B4 /1 a
-----
----- - --
----- -----
-----
___
____ ----- ----- -----
BF Velocity (fps)
____
_____ ___
_____ 5.3
-----
-----
----- -----
__- -----
-----
-----
----- __- ----- -----
BF Discharge (cfs )
___
290.0 2000.0 21.7
_____
____
___
21.7 ___ _____
____
_____
_____ 25.2 ___
___
-----
-----
----- 46.6 -- -
-___-
-----
-----
----- ___
___ ____
____
____
-----
ValleyLengt
_____
____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
____
_____
_____ ____ -----
-----
-----
-----
____ ____ -----
__.
-----
-----
- -_- -----
----- -- -
-----
356.8
- -- ___ ----- ____
Channellength (fty
-----
----- - --- -----
-----
-----
- ---
425 ----- -----
- ---
-----
----- ----- -----
----
- --
---
--- ----- -----
- --
----
-----
----- - --
----- - --
-----
389.1
---- ----- ----- -----
Sinuosity
-----
---- ---- -----
-----
- ---
-----
1.16 ----- - ---
-----
-----
----- 1.40 -----
-----
- --
----
---- 1.20 -----
-----
-----
1.18
----- -----
---- - --
---
1.1
---- - --- ----- -----
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft
-----
---- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
0.0195 ----- -----
-----
-----
- --- 0.0197 -----
-----
-----
-----
----- 0.0405 -----
-----
-----
0.016
----- -----
----- - --
-----
0.0172
---- ----- -- --- ----
BF slope (ft/ft)
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
0.0168 _____ _____
_____
_____
_____ 0.028 _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ 0.0458 _____
_____
_____
0.018
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____
0.0187
_____ _____
Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____ ----- -- --
----
-----
-----
----- ---- ---
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ ____ _____ _____
BEHIVL % /L % /M % /H % /VH % /E%
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
----
_____
_____
_____ _____ ____ _
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
-----
---- ----- -----
-----
-----
-- --
- - - --
---- ----
-----
-----
----- ---- -- --
---
---- ----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ---- ---- -----
Biological or Othe
____
_____ _____ -----
-----
____
_____
____
* Harman, W.A., G.D. Jennings, J.M. Patterson, D.R. Clumn, L.O. Slate, A.G. Jessup, S.R. Everhart, and R.E. Smith. 1999. BankPoll 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 304u1y 2, 1999. Bozeman, MT.
Existing conditions survey data is compiled for the entire UT Reach within the project limits.
'13,1k samples taken since pebble count procedure is notaVpli,abl, for sand -bed sheams.
'V,1 .. were cbosen based m sand -bed reference reacM1 data and past project evaluations.
'Composite reference,,nh information from Johm-h Creek, Johnston County; Panther Bmnch, Brunswick CounTy; Rocky Swamp, Halifax CounTy; and Beaver Dam Bm..h, Janes
County
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO CANE CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (EEP PROJECT NO. 95729)

Table 5. Baseline Stream Summary (continued)
UT to Cane Creek Restoration Project: EEP Project ID No. 95729
Reach 4 (2,333 LF)
Parameter
USGS
Regional Curve Interval
Pre - Existing Condition
Reference Reach
,s Data
Design
As -built
UT to Wells Creek
UT to Varnals Creek
Gauge
(Harman et a1, 1999)'
Dimension and Substrate - MID
LL UL Eq.
Min
Mean Med Max SD n
Min
Mean
Med Max SD
n
Min
Mean
Med Max SD
SD
Min
Mean
Med Ma_, SD n
BF Width (ft)
_____
23.0 80.0 10.2
15.4
_____ _____ 16.7 _____ _____
__-
8
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
9.7
_____ _____ _____
____
10.1
_____
_____ 13.8 _____ _____
____ 14.0 _____ _____ _____ -----
Floodprone Width (ft
-----
-- - -- - ---
18.4
---- ---- 26.2 - -- -- --
- --
- ---
----- ----- ----
---
----
-----
----- ---- -- --
- --
--- >30
---- ----- -----
-----
80.1
- --
--- 105.0 ---- -----
BF Mean Depth (ft)
-----
2.3 5.8 1.3
0.9
----- ----- 1.0 ----- - ---
-- --
-----
----- ----- -- --
----
-----
-- --
----- --- ----
----
---- 1.0
----- ----- -----
----
0.6
-----
----- 1.2 ----- -----
BFMax Depth (ft)
_____
____ _____ _____
1.3
_____ _____ 1.6 _____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____ ____.
_.._
_____
_____
_____ _____ ____
_____
_____ 1.2
_____ _____ _____
_____
1.1
-___
_____ 2.0 _____ _____
BE Cross - sectional Area (ft'
- - - --
80.0 300.0 16.9
14.8
- - - -- - - - -- 15.5 - - - -- - - - --
- - - --
5.3
- - - -- - - - -- - - - --
- - --
- - - --
7.9
- - - -- - - - -- - - - --
- - - --
- - - -- 14.0
- - - -- - - - -- - - - --
- - - --
7.5
- - - --
- - - -- 12.3 - - - -- -----
Width/Depth Ratio
-----
----- --- -- -----
15.4
----- ----- 19.0 ----- -- --
7
-----
----- 26 _......
._._.
8
-----
----- 18 ----
-----
----- 14.0
---- ----- -----
-----
8.3
- ---
----- 19.4 ----- -----
Entrenchment Ratio
-----
----- ---- ----
1.2
----- ----- 1.6 -- -- -----
2.0
----
----- 3.4 -----
----
1.9
-----
--- 3.9 -----
- ---
---- >2.2
----- ----- ----
----
7.9
- --
---- 9.4 ----- -----
Bank Height Ratio
_____
_____ _____ -----
1.3
_____ _____ 2.8 _____ _____
1.4
-----
_____ 2.5 _____
_
1.1
_____ 1.5 _____
_____
_____ 1.0
_____ _____ _____
_____
1.0
____
_____ 1.1 _____ _____
-----
-----
--- --- -----
-----
----- - ---
----- ----------
- ---
-----
-----
-----
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ......
.....
...
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
38.0
79.0
----- 120.0 ----- -----
Radiusof Curvature (ft)
-----
---- ----- -----
-----
---- --- ----- ---- -----
-----
- ---
----- ----- -----
_
-----
- ---
----- ----- ----
-----
----- - ---
----- ----- -----
----
21.0
26.0
----- 31.0 ----- -----
Rc:Bankfull Width (11/11
-----
----- ----- - ---
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
0.3
- ---
- --- 4.0 ----
.... _.
0.8
-----
---- 2.3 -----
----
---- -----
----- ----- ----
----
38.0
79.0
--- 120.0 ----- -----
Meander Wavelength (ft
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
4.4
-----
----- 8.8 ----
._._.
4.9
-----
---- 6.9 ----
-----
----- ----
----- ----- -----
----
72.0
104.0
----- 124.0 ----- -----
Meander Width Ratio
-----
----- ----- --
- ---'
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
1.3
--
'- ---' 4.4 ..._....
......
1.2
-----
---- 1.8
-----
- --- ----- ----
----
3.5
6.0
---- 8.0 - --- -----
Probe,
Riffle Length ffl'
-----
----- -
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____
- ----- ----- -----
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
-----
---- --- -----
-- --
----- -- -- ----- ----- - --
-----
-----
-- -- ----- ----
_..._.
......
_..
-----
----- -----
---- ----- -----
----
0.0036
0.0043
----- 0.0039 ---- -----
PoolLength (ft)
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
Pool Spacing (ft)
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
----- _____ _____ _____ ____
2.1
_____
_____ 7.9 _____
_....
?,9
_____
_____ 5.0
_____
42 _____
_____ 84 _____
_____
41
_____
72 57 _____ _____
PoolMax Depth (ft.
_____
_____ _____ ____
_____
___ _____ _____ _____ _____
2.3
____
_____ 2.7 ___..-
_.. _.
1,6
_____
_____ ?.,
_____
_____ 2.2
_____ _____ _____
_____
----
_____
_____ ____ _____ _____
PoolVolume (f[1)
_____
_____ _____ ____
_____
_____ ___
_ ___
___
----- -----
____ _____ ____
-----
-_
Substrate and Transport Parameters
SC% / Sa% / G% / B% / Be %
-----
----- ----- -- --
- --
----- ----- ----- ---- -----
-----
-----
- - --
- - -- -----
----- ----- -----
-----
---
-----
----- ----- ----- ---
dl6 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
_____
_____ _____ -- --
24.2 / 50.6 / 69.4 / 50.6 / 24.2
0.1 / 0.6 / 4.5 / 53 / 96
0.2 / 2.5 / 8 / 92 / 1,536
-----
-- - --
- - - -- - - - -- - - --
- - --
- - - --
--
- - -- - -- - - -- - --
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/
_____
_____ _____ -----
-----
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____
-----
____
____
_____ -----
_____ ,____ _____
_____
____
___
_____ ----- _____ ,____
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve
___
_____ _____ ____
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____
____
____
_____ ____ ____
____
-----
-----
---- ----- -----
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____ ____
__
-----
-----
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m
_____
_____ ----- -----
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____
____ _____
----- _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ ----- _____
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area(SM)
----
---- --- -----
-----
----- -- -- 0.7 ----- -----
----
----
----- 0.13 -----
.
-----
-----
----- 0.24 -----
-----
._ -- -----
---- 0.7 -----
-----
----
-----
----- 0.7 ---- -----
Impervious cover estimate (%
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____
Rosgen Classification
-----
---- ----- -----
Bic
---- ----- F5 ----- -----
-----
-----
----- C4 11 -----
--....
-----
-----
----- B4 /1 a -----
-----
----- B3c
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
B3c
----- ---- ----- -----
BEVelocity (fps)
-----
---- - --- - ---
4.4
----- ----- 4.6 ----- -----
- ---
-----
----- 5.3 -- --
---- -
-----
-----
---- ---- ----
----
---- 4.0
----- ----- ----
----
-----
3.0
---- ---- ----- -----
BF Discharge (cfs )
----
290.0 2000.0 69.2
-----
- ---- - --- 69.2 ----- -----
-----
-----
----- 25.2 -----
---- -
-----
-----
----- 46.6 -----
-----
----- 56.0
----- ----- -----
----
-----
56.0
----- ----- ----- -----
ValleyLengt
-----
---- ----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- -- -- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----
---
-- --
-----
-- -- ---- -----
-----
----- -----
- --- ----- -----
.....--
-----
349
----- ----- ----- -----
Channellength (fly
- --
---- --- -----
-----
- - -- ----- 2,783 ____ ____
____
_____
_____ ____ ____
-----
-----
_____
_____ ____ _____
-----
____ ____
____ _____ _____
-----
_____
386
_____ ____ ____
_____ 1.40 -----
-----
--"' 1.20 ""'
"'--
--"' ____
__-_-
_____
1.10
_____ ____ ___ ___
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ftIf
- - -- 0.0169 - --
- - - -- 0.0197 - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - -- 0.0405 - - - --
- - --
- - - -- 0.015
- - -- - -- - --
- - --
- - - --
0.0074
- - -- - - -- - - -- - --
BE slope (11/11)
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
____ 0.0148 - -___
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ 0.028 ____
____
_ -__
_____
_____ 0.0458 ____
___
-___ 0.017
- -_ - -_ - -_
- - --
_____
0.0082
Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres
- --
- -- - -- -----
_____
_____ _____ __ - ----- -----
_____
----- _____ _____
__.
_____ ____
----- ----- -----
- -_-
-----
_____
_____ ----- - -_- -----
BEHIVL% /L % /M % /H% /VH % /E%
-----
____
____ ____ ___
- - --
-----
-----
----- _____ _-
___
___ ___
___ ___ -----
-----
___
____
____ ----- ----- -----
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
-----
____ ___ ____
_____
____ _____ _____ ----- -----
_____
_____
_____ ____ _____
_____
___
___ _____
___ _____ ___
-----
____
___
_____ _____ ----- -----
Biological or Othe
- - - --
I - - - -- - - - -- - - - --
- - - --
- - - -- - - - --
Harman, W.A., G.D. Jennings, J.M. Patterson, D.R. Clinton, L.O. Slate, A.G. Jessup, JR. Everhart, and R.E. Smith. 1999. Bavkfi ll hydraulic geometry relationships for Nvuh Carolina streams. Wildland Hydrology. AWRA Symposium Proceedings. D.S. Olsen and J.P. I'myondy, eds. American Water Resources Association.
Jane 30 -July 2, 1999. Bozeman, MT.
Existing conditions survey data is compiled for the enthe UT1 Reach within the project limits.
' Bulk samples taken since pebble count procedure is not applicable for sand -bed streams.
' Values were chosen based on sand -bed inference reach dam and past project evaluations.
4 Composite ref ence 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.
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO CANE CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (EEP PROJECT NO. 95729)

Table 5. Baseline Stream Summary (continued)
UT to Cane Creek Restoration Project: EEP Project ID No. 95729
Reach 5 (1,461 LF)
Parameter
USGS
Regional Curve Interval
Pre - Existing Condition
Reference Reach
es Data
Design
As -built
UT to Wells Creek
UT to Varnals Creek
G." go
(Harman et ay 1999)*
Dimension and Substrate -RiM
LL UL Eq.
Min Mean
Med Max SD n
Min
Mean
Med Max SD
a
Min
Mean
Med Max SD
V", Mean Med Max SD
n
Min
Mean
Med Max SD n
BF Width (ft)
_____
_____ _____
_____ 8.9 _____ _____
__-
8
_____ _____ _____
___
_____
9.7
_____ ____ _____
___
____ 10.8 _____ _____ _____
_____
102
_____
_____ 12.0 _____ ____
23.0 80.0 8.4
Floodprone Width (ft
-----
-- - -- - ---
----- ----
----- 11.8 - -- -- --
- --
- ---
----- ----- -----
---
----
-----
----- ---- - --
- --
--- >25 ---- ----- -----
- ---
76.0
- --
--- 103.7 ---- -----
BFMean Depth (ft)
_____
2.3 5.8 1.2
_____ _____
_____ 1.2 _____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
____
_____ _____ ____
_____
_____ 0.8 _____ _____ _____
____
0.7
_____
_____ 1.4 _____ _____
BFMax Depth (ft)
_____
____ ____ _____
_____ _____
_____ 1.5 _____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____ ____.
_.._
_____
_____
_____ _____ ____
_____
_____ 1.1 _____ _____ _____
____
1.2
-___
_____ 2.8 _____ _____
BF Cross - sectional Area (ft,
-----
80.0 300.0 12.5
----- -----
----- 10.9 ----- -- --
-----
5.3
----- ----- ----
... _.
-----
7.9
---- ---- -----
-----
---- 9.0 ----- ----- ----
---
7.1
-----
---- 15.8 ----- -----
Width/Depth Ratio
-----
----- --- -- -----
----- -----
----- 7.2 ----- -- --
7
-----
----- 26 _......
._._.
8
-----
----- 18 ----
-----
----- 13.0 ----- ----- -----
-----
8.0
- ---
----- 17.8 ----- -----
Entrenchment Ratio
-----
----- ---- ----
----- -----
----- 1.3 -- -- -----
2.0
----
----- 3.4 -----
----
1.9
-----
---- 3.9 -----
- ---
---- >2.2 ----- ----- -----
----
3.2
- --
---- 9.2 ----- -----
Bank Height Ratio
_____
_____ _____ -----
_____ _____
_____ 2.6 _____ _____
1.4
-----
_____ 2.5 _____
_____
1.1
_____
_____ 1.5 _____
_____
_____ 1.0 _____ _____ _____
_____
1.0
____
_____ 1.0 _____ _____
-----
-----
--- --- -----
-----
----- - --- ----- ----- ----
---
-----
-----
'---- - --- ----- -----
Pattc ,
Channel Beltwidth (ft
-----
- -- -- -' -----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
Radiusof Curvature (ft)
-----
---- ----- - ---
----- ----
--- ----- -----
----
-----
----- - --- ----- ----- -----
----
----
-----
----- - --- ----- -----
Rc:Bankfull width ffiff,
-----
----- ----- - ---
---- -----
----- ----- ----- -----
0.3
- ---
- --- 4.0 ----
.... _.
0.8
-----
---- 2.3 -----
----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----
----
----
-----
---- ----- ----- -----
MeanderWavelength (ft
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____
4.4
-----
----- 8.8 ----
._._.
4.9
_____
_____ 6.9 ____.
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____
____
____
_____ ____ _____ _____
Meander Width Ratio
_____
_____ -----
_ -__: _____
_____ _____ _____ _____
1.3
_ -_
_ -__: 4.4 ..._....
......
1.2
_____
_____ 1.8
_____
_____
_____
Pro lilc
Riffle Length (
-----
----- -
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
-
-----
-----
-----
----- - --- ----- -----
Riffle Slope (ft/ft )
-----
---- --- -----
-- -- -----
-
- -- - --- ----- ----- -----
-----
---
-----
----- ----- ---- -----
Pool Length (ft)
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____
PoolSpacing (ft
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____
____ _____ _____ ____
2.1
_____
_____ 7.9 _____
_....
2.9
_____
_____ 5.0 ____
_____
32.0 _____ 65.0 _____ _____
_____
.__.
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____
PoolMax Depth (ft.
_____
_____ _____ ____
_____ ____
____ _____ _____ _____
2.3
____
_____ 2,7 ___..-
_.. _.
1,6
_____
_____ 2.3 _____
_____
____ 2.0 _____ _____ _____
____
....._.
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____
Pool Volume (ftt)
_____
_____ _____ ____
_____ _____
____
____
__ -_
___ -_ ____ ----- _____ ____
-----
-_ -_
Substrate and Transport Parameters
_____
_____
_____
_____ ____ _____
SC% / Sa"k / G% / B% / Be %
-----
----- ----- -- --
----- -----
----- ----- ----- -- --
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
- --
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
---
- - - -- ----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ---- ----- ---
dl6 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
- - - --
- - - -- - - - -- - - --
16.6/31.2/47.0/85.3 /116.1
0.1 / 0.6/ 4.5 / 53 / 96
0.2 / 2.5/ 8 / 92 / 1,536
- - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - --
- - --
6.74 / 20.49 / 29.79 / 63.73 / 118.25
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/
_____
_____ _____ -----
----- -----
----- _____ _____ _____
_____
-----
_____ _____ _____
____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____
_____
___
____ ----- _____ ,____
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve
___
_____ _____ ____
_____ ____
____ _____ _____ _____
____
____
_____ ____ ____
____
-----
-----
---- ____ -----
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____ ____
__
-----
-----
StreamPower (transport capacity) W/m
_____
_____ ----- -----
----- -----
_____ _____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
----- ----- _____
_____
___ _____ ----- _____ _____
_____
___
_____
_____ _____ ----- _____
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area(SM)
____
____ ____ _____
_____ _____
____ 0.5 _____ _____
__
_____
_____ 0.13 _____
_..._.
_____
_____
_____ 0.24 ____
_____
_._ _____ _____ 0.5 _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ 0.5 _____ _____
Impervious cover estimate (%
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____
___
_.__.
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____
Rosgen Classification
_____
____ _____ _____
_____ _____
____ G4 _____ _____
____
_____
_____ C411 _____
__...
_____
_____
_____ B4 /1 a -----
_____
_____ No _____ _____ _____
_____
_____
B4c
_____ _____ _____ _____
BEVelocity (fps)
-----
---- ----- -----
- --- -----
----- 4.5 ----- -----
- --
----
----- 5.3 -- --
---- -
-----
-----
---- ---- -----
-----
---- 4.4 ----- ----- ----
----
----
4.4
---- ---- ----- -----
BF Discharge (cfs )
----
290.0 2000.0 50.0
_____ -----
____ 50 _____ _____
_____
____
_____ 25.2 _____
----
-----
_____
_____ 46.6 _____
____
_____ 40 _____ _____ _____
_._._
_____
40
_____ _____ _____ _____
_____
_____ ____ _____ _____
_____
____
_____ _____ _____
- -....
- ---
-----
-- -- ---- _____
____
_____ _____ _____
Channel length (ft
- --
'-'- "- "-"
"'-' __ -'
_____ 1848 ____
_____
_____
_____ ____ _____
____
'-"-
--"' -"- ---
Sinuosity_____
____ ____ _____
_____ _____
_____ 1.07 _____ _____
_____
_____
----- 1.40 1.40 ----_
___
____
-----
--"' 1.20 ""'
"'--
--"' ____ ____ ___ ___
____
_____
_____
_____ ____ ___ ___
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (flift
- - -- 0.0144 - --
- - - -- 0.0197 - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - -- 0.0405 - - - --
- - --
- - - -- 0.014 - - -- - -- - --
- - --
- - - --
0.014
- - -- - - -- - - -- - --
BF slope (ft/ft)
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____
____ 0.0128 -___ _____
_____
_____
_____ 0.028 ____
____
_ - -_
_____
_____ 0.0458 ____
___
____ 0.017 - -- - -_ - -_
- - --
_____
0.017
-_ ____ - -_-
Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres
- --
- -- ----- -----
----- _____
_____ __ - ----- -----
____
----- _____ _____
__.
_____ ____ ----- ----- -----
- -_-
-----
_____
_____ ----- ----- -----
BEHIVL% /L % /M % /H% /VH % /E%
-----
____
____ ____ ___
- - --
-----
-----
----- _____ _-
_ -___
___ ____ ----- ___ -----
-----
___
____
____ ___ ----- __-
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
-----
____ ___ ____
_____ ____
_____ ----- ----- -----
_____
_____
_____ ____ _____
_____
___
___ _____ ____ _____ ___
-----
____
____
_____ _____ ----- -----
Biological or Othe
- - - --
I - - - -- - - - -- - - - --
I - - - -- - - - --
- - - --
Harman, W.A., G.D. Jennings, J.M. Patterson, D.R. Clinton, L.O. Slate, A.G. Jessup, JR. Everhan, and R.E. Smith. 1999. Bavkfull hydraulic geometry relationships for North Carolina streams. Wildland Hydrology. AWRA Symposium Proceedings. D.S. Olsen and J.P. Pmyondy, eds. American Water Resources Association.
June 30 -July 2, 1999. Bozeman, MT.
Existing conditions survey data is compiled to, the enthe UT1 Reach within the pmucet limits.
' Bulk samples taken since pebble count procedure is not applicable for sand -bed streams.
' Values were chosen based on sand -bed mfi-ce each dam and past project evaluations.
4 Composite reference reach information from Joh mah Creek, Johnston County; Panther Brsuch, Brunswick County; Reeky Swamp, Halifax County; and Beaver Dam Branch, Jones
County
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO CANE CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (EEP PROJECT NO. 95729)

Table 5. Baseline Stream Summary (continued)
UT to Cane Creek Restoration Project: EEP Project ID No. 95729
Reach 5. (145 LF)
Parameter
USGS
Regional Curve Interval
Pre - Existing Condition
Reference Reach
,a Data
Design
As -built
UT to Wells Creek
UT to Varnals Creek
Gauge
(Harman et a1, 1999)*
Dimension and Substrate -RiM
LL UL Eq.
Min Mean Med Max SD n
Min Mean Med Max SD a
Min Mean Med Max SD
\,m Mean Med Max SD n
M,i, Mean Med Max SD n
BEWidth (ft)
-- --
- --- ----- ----- 13.6 ----- - ---
--- 8 ----- ----- ----- ---
----- 9.7 ----- ----- -- -- -----
----- ---- ---- ----- ----- -----
---- ----- ----- ----- ----- - --
23.0 80.0 2.4
FloodproneWidth (ft
-----
-- - -- - ---
----- ---- ----- 16.9 ---- -- --
- -- - --- ----- ----- ---- ---
---- ----- ----- ---- - -- - --
--- ---- ---- ----- ----- ----
--- -- --- ---- --- -----
BFMean Depth (it)
-----
2.3 5.8 0.5
----- ----- ----- 0.3 ----- - ---
-- -- ----- ----- ----- -- -- ----
----- -- -- ----- --- ---- ----
---- ----- ---- ----- ---- ---
--- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BFMax Depth (ft)
_____
____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ 0.5 _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ ____. _.._
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ ____ _____ _____ _____ _____
BE Cross - sectional Area (ft,
-----
80.0 300.0 1.7
----- ----- ----- 4.2 ----- -- --
----- 5.3 ----- ----- ---- _.. _.
----- 7.9 ----- ----- ---- -----
---- ---- ----- ----- ----- -----
---- ----- ---- ---- ----- -----
Width/Depth Rati
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ---------- 45.0 ----- -- --
7 ----- ----- 26 _...... ._._.
8 ----- ----- 18 ---- -----
----- - --- ----- ----- ----- ----
--- - --- ----- - --- ----- -----
EntrenchmentRatio
-----
----- ---- ----
----- ----- ----- 1.3 -- -- -----
2.0 ---- ----- 3.4 ----- ----
1.9 ----- ---- 3.9 ----- - ---
---- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- - -- ---- ----- - --- -----
Bank Height Ratio
_____
_____ _____ -----
_____ _____ _____ 2.3 _____ _____
1.4 _____ _____ 2.5 _____ _____
1.1 _____ _____ 1.5 _____ _____
_____ ____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____
____ ____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ ____ _____ ____ _____ _____
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft
-----
- -- -- -- -----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Radiusof Curvature (ft)
-----
---- ----- -----
----- ---- --- ----- -----
---- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- - --- ----- -----
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft
-----
----- ----- - ---
____ ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
0.3 - --- - --- 4.0 ---- .... _.
0.8 ----- ---- 2.3 ----- ----
----- ---- ----- ----- -----
---- ----- ---- ----- ----- -----
MeanderWavelength (ft
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
4.4 _____ _____ 8.8 ---- ._._.
4.9 _____ _____ 6.9 ____. _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _-__ _____ _-__ _____ _____
Meander Width Ratio
_____
_____ -----
_ -__: _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
1.3 _ -_ _ -__: 4.4 ..._.... ......
1.2 _____ _____ 1.8
_____ _____
Pro lilc
Riffle Slope (ft/ft )
-----
---- --- -----
---- -----
-
----
_ -.. -..- ---- --- .. -..._
---- - --- ----- ----- ---- -----
PoolLength (ft)
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____ _____
...... .......... ....... ........ ...._
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
PoolSpacing (ft
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ ----- ____ _____ _____ ____
2.1 _____ _____ 7.9 _____ _.._
2.9 _____ _____ 5.0 ____ ____
_.. - _...... ....... .__. ._.....
____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
PoolMax Depth (ft.
_____
_____ _____ ____
_____ ___ ____ _____ _____ _____
2.3 ____ _____ 2.7 ___... _.. _.
1.6 _____ _____ 2.3 _____ _____
.......
____ _____ _____ ____ _____ _____
PoolVolume (q)
_____
_____ _____ ____
_____ ___ ____
____ __ -_
-.__ ___ ___ __- ___ -----
____ ----- _____
Substrate and Transport Parameters
_____
_____ _____ _____ ____ _____
SC% / Sa% / G% / B% / Be %
-----
----- ----- -- --
- -- ----- ----- ----- -- -- -- --
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- - --
--- ----- ----- ----- --------
- - - -- - - - -- - - -- - - - -- - - -- - - --
--- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
dl6 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
- - - --
- - - -- - - - -- - --
0.1 / 0.6/ 4.5 / 53 / 96
0.2 / 2.5/ 8 / 92 / 1,536
- - -- - - -- - - -- - -- - -- - - - --
- - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - -- - - -- - - - --
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(SM)
----
---- --- -----
---- ----- ----- 0.025 ----- -----
---- ---- ----- 0.13 -- -- -..._.
----- ----- ----- 0.24 ---- -----
__ ---- -- -- - -- ---- -- --
----- ---- ---- ---- ---- -----
Impervious cover estimate (%
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
RosgenClassification
_____
____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ C411 _____ __.. -.
_____ _____ _____ B4 /1 a _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
BEVelocity (fps)
_____
____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ 1.7 _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ 5.3 _____ ----
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
BE Discharge (cfs )
----
290.0 2000.0 6.2
----- ----- - --- 7.1 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 25.2 ----- ----
.. -- ----- ----- 46.6 ----- - ---
----- ----- ---- ----- ----- -_._
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
_____ _____ ____ _____ _____
_____ ____ _____ _____ _____ --....
- --- ----- -- -- ---- _____ ____
_____ _____ _____
Channel length (ft
__ --
'-'- "- ""'
"'-' __ -' ""' 144 "-'
_____ _____ _____ ____ _____ ____
"-" ""- '-"' "'- --- ---
Sinuosity
_____
____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ 1.19 _____ ____
_____ _____ ___
_____ 1.40 -_--_
____
""' ""- 1.20 ""' ""-
-"" ____ __- ___ ___ ____
_____ ____ _____ ____ ___ ___
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft
- - - --
- -- - -- - - - --
____ 0.0236 ____
- - - -- - - - -- - - - --
- - - -- - - - --____ 0.0197 ____ _____
____ _____ _____ 0.0405 _____ __ -_
_____ ____ - -__
_____ 0.028 ____
_____ 0.0458 ____ -----
- _- ____ - -_ -----
_____ ___ __ _____
BankfullFloodplain Area (acres
- --
- -- ----- -----
----- _____ _____ __ - ----- -----
_____ ___ _____ _____
_____ __-
____ ----- ----- ----- ----- - -_-
----- ____ _____ ----- ----- -----
BEHIVL% /L % /M % /H% /VH % /E%
-----
____ ____ ____ ___ - - --
----- ____ ----- _____ _- _ -___
____. ----- ----- _____ ----- -----
___ ___ ____ ___ ----- -----
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
-----
____ ___ ____
_____ ____ _____ ----- ----- -----
_____ _____ _____ ____ _____
_____ _ -_-
___ ___ -__ __- ___ -----
____ ___ _____ _____ ----- -----
Biological or Othe
- - - --
I - - - -- - - - -- - - - --
- - - -- - - - -- - - - --
Harman, W.A., G.D. Jennings, J.M. Patterson, D.R. Clinton, L.O. Slate, A.G. Jessup, JR. Evetlem, and R.E. Smith. 1999. Bavkfall hydraWie geometry relationships for Nvuh Carolina streams. Wildh ml Hydrology. AWRA Symposium Proceedings. D.S. Olsen and J.P. I'myondy, eds. American Water Resources Association. Jane 30 -July 2, 1999. Bozeman, MT.
Existing conditions survey data is compiled to, the embe UT1 Reach within the project limits.
' Bulk samples taken since pebble count procedure is not applicable for sand -bed streams.
' Values were chosen based on sand -bed mfi-ce reach data and past project evaluations.
4 Composite reference reach information from Johum ah Creek, Johnston County; Panther Branch, Brunswick County; Rocky Swamp, Halifax County; and Beaver Dam Branch, Jones County
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO CANE CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (EEP PROJECT NO. 95729)

Table 6. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
UT to Cane Creek Restoration Proiect: EEP Proiect ID No. 95729
Reach 5 (1,461 LF)
Cross - section X -1 (Riffle)
Cross - section X -2 (Pool)
Cross - section X -3 (Riffle)
Cross - section X -4 (Riffle)
Dimension and substrate
Base MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Base MYI MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Base MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Base MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
BF Width (ft)
BF Mean Depth (ft)
Width/Depth Ratio
BF Cross - sectional Area (112)
BF Max Depth (ft)
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
Entrenchment Ratio
Bank Height Ratio
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
Based on current/developing current/developing bankfull feature
BF Width (ft)
10.41
11.24
12.00
10.16
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.68
1.41
0.68
0.81
Width/Depth Ratio
15.2
8.0
17.8
12.5
BE Cross - sectional Area (ft)
7.1
15.8
8.1
8.3
BE Max Depth (ft)
1.19
2.79
1.16
1.33
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
85.1
103.7
76.0
32.2
Entrenchment Ratio
8.2
9.2
6.3
3.2
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
11.8
14.1
13.4
11.8
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.6
1.1
0.6
0.7
Cross Sectional Area between end pins (ft)
_
d50 (mm)
Reach 3 (398 LF)
Cross - section X -5 (Riffle)
Cross - section X -6 (Pool)
Dimension and substrate
Base MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Base MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Base MYI MY, MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
BF Width (ft)
BE Mean Depth (ft)
Width/Depth Ratio
BE Cross - sectional Area (ft2)
BF Max Depth (ft)
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
Entrenchment Ratio
Bank Height Ratio
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
Based on current/developing current/developing bankfull feature
BF Width (ft)
8.94
8.98
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.41
0.59
Width/Depth Ratio
21.7
15.3
BF Cross - sectional Area (ft2)
3.7
5.3
BF Max Depth (ft)
0.76
1.13
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
24.4
36.3
Entrenchment Ratio
2.7
4.0
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
9.8
10.2
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.4
1 0.5
Cross Sectional Area between end pins (ft')
_
d50 (mm)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO CANE CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (EEP PROJECT NO. 95729)

Table 6. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
UT to Cane Creek Restoration Proiect: EEP Proiect ID No. 95729
Reach 4 (2,333 LF)
Cross - section X -7 (Riffle)
Cross - section X -S (Pool)
Cross - section X -9 (Riffle)
Dimension and substrate
Base
MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
MY+
Base
MY MY2 MY3 MY4
MY5 MY+
Base MY1
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
BF Width (ft)
BF Mean Depth (ft)
Width/Depth Ratio
BF Cross - sectional Area (ft2)
BF Max Depth (ft)
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
Entrenchment Ratio
Bank Height Ratio
Wetted Perimeter (fi)
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
Based on current/developing current/developing bankfull feature
BF Width (ft)
18.74
17.08
13 -77
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.79
1.45
1.02
Width/Depth Ratio
23.7
11.8
13.5
BF Cross - sectional Area (W)
14.8
24.7
14.1
BF Max Depth (ft)
1.24
3.41
1.85
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
56.1
72.5
33.9
Entrenchment Ratio
3.0
4.2
2.5
Bank Height Ratio
1.9
1.1
1.1
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
20.3
20.0
15.8
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.7
1 1.2
0.9
Cross Sectional Area between end pins (ft2)
-
-
d50 (mm)
Reach 1 (1,045 LF)
Cross- section X -10 (Pool)
Cross - section X -11 (Riffle)
Cross - section X -12 (Riffle)
Dimension and substrate
Base
MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
MY+
Base
MYl MY2 MY3 MY4
MY5 MY+
Base MYl
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY[
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
BF Width (ft)
BF Mean Depth (ft)
Width/Depth Ratio
BF Cross - sectional Area (ft2)
BF Max Depth (ft)
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
Entrenchment Ratio
Bank Height Ratio
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
Based on current/developing current/developing bankfull feature
BF Width (ft)
9.11
7.21
7.83
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.95
0.57
0.51
Width/Depth Ratio
9.6
12.8
15.2
BF Cross - sectional Area (ft')
8.7
4.1
4.0
BF Max Depth (ft)
1.90
0.89
0.73
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
65.6
65.9
84.4
Entrenchment Ratio
6.9
9.1
10.8
Bank Height Ratio
1.1
1.0
1.3
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
11.0
8.4
8.9
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.8
1 0.5
1 0.5
Cross Sectional Area between end pins (ft2)
-
-
-
-
d50 (mm)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO CANE CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (EEP PROJECT NO. 95729)

UT to Cane Creek - Reach R1
As -built Station 10 +00 to 20 +45
(Data collected July 2014)
446
R
445
444
443
442
-
441
-
440
0 439
4.
> 438 -
437
W 436
435
- -
434
tThalweg
433
-
432
-M-Left Top of Bank -
431
■
Right Top of Bank
430
}Water Surface
429
428
990 1090 1190 1290 1390 1490 1590 1690 1790 1890 1990 2090
Station

UT to Cane Creek - Reach R3
As -built Station 10 +00 to 13 +90
(Data collected July 2014)
485
484
tThalweg
483
Water Surface
482
(Left Top of Bank
Right Top of Bank
481
c
0 480
m
y 479
W
478
477
�y
476
475
474
473
990 1030 1070 1110 1150 1190 1230 1270 1310 1350 1390
Station

UT to Cane Creek - Reach R5
As -built Station 10 +00 to 20 +00
(Data collected July 2014)
503
502
501
500
499
498
497
496
=
c
4.
495
>
494
493
W
492
-
491
- -
490
-4--Thalweg
IT
489
—Water Surface
488
487
(Left Top of Bank
486
—i° Right top of Bank
485
990 1090 1190 1290
1390 1490 1590 1690 1790 1890 1990
Station

UT to Cane Creek - Reach R5
As -built Station 20 +00 to 29 +57
(Data collected July 2014)
490
489
488
487
486
485
484
483
0 482
481
480
W 479
478
477
+Thalweg
476
Water Surface
475
474
—M—Left Top of Bank
473
Right top of Bank
472
2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 2500 2600 2700 2800 2900 3000
Station

UT to Cane Creek - Reach R4 (d /s)
As -built Station 53 +20 to 57 +30
(Data collected July 2014)
440
439
+Thalweg
438
-.� —Water Surface
(Left top of Bank
437
Right top of Bank
436
435
c 434
0
433
432
W 431
430
429
428
427
426
425
5300 5340 5380 5420 5460 5500 5540 5580 5620 5660 5700 5740
Station

Permanent Cross - section 1
(As -built Data - Collected July 2014)
"' A
't„'
k-I - . "'I
< _ .. r9.
Looking at the Left Bank Looking at the Right Bank
Stream
BKF
Max BKF
Feature
Type
BKF Area
BKF Width
Depth
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
C
7.1
10.41
0.68
1.19
15.2
1
8.2
494.47
494.48
UT to Cane Creek Cross - section 1
498
497
496
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- - - - -o
495
c
m
d
494
w
493
492
As -built
Q Bankfull
491
o Floodprone
490
0 10 20 30 40
50 60 70
80 90 100 110
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross - section 2
(As -built Data - Collected July 2014)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Stream
BKF
Max BKF
Feature
Type
IBKFAreaI
BKF Width
I Depth
Depth
W/D
I BH Ratio
I ER
I BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool
15.8
11.24
1 1.41
2.79
1 8
1 1
9.2
491
491.11
UT to Cane Creek Cross - section 2
494
0
493
492
491
------- - - - - --
c
0
0
as
490
w
489
488
t As -built
487
o- Bankfull
o- Floodprone
486
0 10 20 30 40
50 60 70
80 90 100 110
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross - section 3
(As -Built Data - Collected July 2014)
40 W
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Stream
BKF
Max BKF
Feature
Type
BKF Area
BKF Width
Depth
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
8.1
12
0.68
1.16
17.8
1
6.3
488.13
488.13
UT to Cane Creek Cross - section 3
493
492
491
490
c
. °—
m
d
489
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- - - - -o
w
488
-------- - - - -
--
487
4 As -built
486
Q -- Bankfull
Q Floodprone
485
0 10 20 30 40
50 60 70
80 90 100 110
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross - section 4
(As -Built Data - Collected July 2014)
■,.t4 r'
,� j
T'� u
9 - -}� W.
i
`per
f
r °4, ,
e-
Looking at the Left Bank Looking at the Right Bank
Stream
BKF
Max BKF
Feature
Type
BKF Area
BKF Width
Depth
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
C
8.3
10.16
0.81
1.33
12.5
1.0
3.2
479.65
479.65
UT to Cane Creek Cross - section 4
487
486
485
r 484
0 483
w
m 482
w
481
-- - - - - --
—�— As -built
480
o- Bankfull
479
o- Floodprone
478
0 10 20 30 40
50 60 70
80 90 100 110
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross - section 5
(As -built Data - Collected July 2014)
Looking at the Left Bank Looking at the Right Bank
Stream I BKF I Max BKF
Feature I Type BKF Area BKF Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER I BKF Elev I TOB Elev
UT to Cane Creek Cross - section 5
485
484
483
482
c
0
481
m
w 480
479 ------------------------ - - - - -- As -built
478 - -a Bankfull
Q Floodprone
477
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross - section 6
(As -built Data - Collected July 2014)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Stream
BKF
Max BKF
Feature
Type
BKF Area
BKF Width
Depth
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool
5.3
8.98
0.59
1.13
15.3
1.0
4.0
479.9
479.86
UT to Cane Creek Cross - section 6
486
485
484
483
c
0
482
m
U' 481
---------------------------------------------
480
--- - -
- - --
t As -built
479
a Bankfull
Q Floodprone
478
0 10 20 30
40
50 60 70
80 90 100 110
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross - section 7
(As -built Data - Collected July 2014)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Stream
BKF
Max BKF
Feature
Type
BKF Area
BKF Width
Depth
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
C
14.8
18.74
0.79
1.24
23.7
1.9
3.0
457.85
459
UT to Cane Creek Cross - section 7
463
462
461
460
c
0
459
--------------------- - - - - -- -------------------------------------------
m
U' 458
457
As -built
a Bankfull
456
© Floodprone
455
0 10 20 30 40
50 60 70
80 90 100 110
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross - section 8
(As -built Data - Collected July 2014)
3
.. - �' .`��... ."$ a; _ • 'ice'„ -
_P
it
ap fir,
Looking at the Left Bank Looking at the Right Bank
Stream
BKF
Max BKF
Feature
Type
BKF Area
BKF Width
I Depth
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool
24.7
17.08
1.45
3.41
11.8
1.1
4.2
457
457.5
UT to Cane Creek Cross - section 8
462
461
460
--------------- - - --
;.
459
0
458
w
R
457
--------------------
w
456
455
—+— As -built
o- Bankfull
454
o- Floodprone
453
0 10 20 30
40
50 60 70
80 90 100 110
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross - section 9
(As -built Data - Collected July 2014)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Stream
BKF
Max BKF
Feature
Type
BKF Area
BKF Width
Depth
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
C
14.05
13.77
1.02
1.85
13.5
1.1
2.5
431.18
431.28
UT to Cane Creek Cross - section 9
436
435
434
433
------------------------------------------
c
0
432
m
U' 431
430
—+— As -built
429
Q Bankfull
Q Floodprone
428
0 10 20 30 40
50 60 70
80 90 100 110
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross - section 10
(As -built Data - Collected July 2014)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Stream
BKF
Max BKF
Feature
Type
BKF Area
BKF Width
I Depth
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool
8.7
9.11
0.95
1.9
9.55
1.1
6.9
440.65
440.88
UT to Cane Creek Cross - section 10
445
444
443
442
c
0
441
>
---- - -
- - --
a)
w
440
439
—+— As -built
438
- - -© Bankfull
© Floodprone
437
-
0 10 20 30 40
50 60 70
80 90 100 110
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross - section 11
(As -built Data - Collected July 2014)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Stream
BKF
Max BKF
Feature
Type
BKF Area
BKF Width
I Depth
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
C
4.1
7.21
0.57
0.89
12.8
1.0
9.1
437.9
437.94
UT to Cane Creek Cross - section 11
442
441
440
439
-
-----------------
0
R 438
-- -
- - - --
a�
w 437
436
As -built
435
- -© -- Bankfull
a Floodprone
434 -
0 10 20 30
40
50 60 70
80 90 100 110
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross - section 12
(As -built Data - Collected July 2014)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Stream
BKF
Max BKF
Feature
Type
BKF Area
BKF Width
I Depth
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
C
4.0
7.83
0.51
0.73
15.2
1.3
10.8
434.5
434.69
UT to Cane Creek Cross - section 12
439
438
437
436
c
435
w 434
433
As -built
432
- -e -- Bankfull
o- Floodprone
431
0 10 20 30 40
50 60 70
80 90 100 110
Station (ft)

100
90 —
80 —
70
60 —
v 50
L
a
40
30
20
10
0
0.01
Sediment Distribution - Active Bed Pebble Count
UT to Cane Creek - Reach 5, Riffle Cross - Section 3
--w—Cumulative Percent
■ Class Percent
0.1 1 10
Particle Size Class (mm)
Silt /Clay Sand Gravel
100
1000
Cobble Boulder Bedrock
► 4
tTtP

PEBBLE COUNT DATA SHEET
SITE OR PROJECT:
UT to Cane Creek
REACH /LOCATION:
Reach 5 at Cross - Section 3
DATE COLLECTED:
7/28/2014
FIELD COLLECTION BY:
SEK
DATA ENTERED BY:
SEK
SEDIMENT ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
Cummulative
Channel materials
Die = 6.74
D35 - 20.49
Dso = 29.79
DM = 63.73
D95 = 118.25
Dioo = 180-256
Riffle Summary
PARTICLE CLASS
Reach Summary
MATERIAL
PARTICLE
I SIZE (mm)
Riffle
I Pool
Total
Class %
%Cum
Silt / Clay
I < .063
4.00
1.87
4
-A 7AI
3.74
° a o a. °a° v
°i:LVao
Very Fine
063-125 .125
18.69
4.67
23.36
5.61
3.74
..
a ti o o a
Fine
125-25 .25
53.27
21.50
74.77
9.35
3.74
.° S A N a
44
Medium
.25-50 .50
96.26
1.87
98.13
1.87
3.74
6 6 O 49
°°a°ea
Coarse
.50-1.0
100.00
100.00
3.74
°o°Qa
a °u14 14 Qaaa
Very Coarse
1.0-2.0
1 2.00
2
1.87
5.61
��0�(((�- (�����
Very Fine
2.0-2.8
2.00
2
1.87
7.48
O �O�
Very Fine
2.8-4.0
5.00
5
4.67
12.15
Fine
4.0-5.6
1.00
1
0.93
13.08
Fine
5.6-8.0
6.00
6
5.61
18.69
Medium
8.0 -11.0
5.00
5
4.67
23.36
GRAVEL
O
Medium
11.0 - 16.0
6.00
6
5.61
28.97
Coarse
16-22.6
9
9
8.41
37.38
0 O ' �
Coarse
22.6-32
17
17
15.89
53.27
Very Coarse
32-45
23
23
21.50
74.77
(JO O
Very Coarse
45-64
10
10
9.35
84.11
O
Small
64-90
7
7
6.54
90.65
Small
90-128
6
6
5.61
96.26
4U- E
C
Large
128 - 180
2
2
1.87
98.13
Large
180-256
2
2
1.87
100.00
LIZ
Small
256-362
100.00
Small
362-512
100.00
Medium
512-1024
100.00
�-
Large -Very Large
1024-2048
100.00
BEDROCK
Bedrock
> 2048
100.00
107
0
107
Cummulative
Channel materials
Die = 6.74
D35 - 20.49
Dso = 29.79
DM = 63.73
D95 = 118.25
Dioo = 180-256
Riffle Summary
Class %
I % Cum
3.741
3.74
3.74
3.74
3.74
3.74
1.87
5.61
1.87
7.48
4.67
12.15
0.93
13.08
5.61
18.69
4.67
23.36
5.61
28.97
8.41
37.38
15.89
53.27
21.50
74.77
9.35
84.11
6.54
90.65
5.61
96.26
1.87
98.13
1.87
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100
100
Riffle
Channel materials
Die = 6.74
D35 = 20.49
Dso = 29.79
D84 = 63.73
D95 = 118.25
>iao = 180-256
Pool Summary
Class% %Cum
#DIV /0!
#DIV /0!
#DIV /0!
#DIV /0!
#DIV /0!
#DIV /0!
#DIV /0!
#DIV /0!
#DIV /0!
#DIV /0!
#DIV /0!
#DIV /0!
#DIV /0!
#DIV /0!
#DIV /0!
#DIV /0!
#DIV /0!
#DIV /0!
#DIV /0!
#DIV /0!
#DIV /0!
#DIV /0!
#DIV /0!
#DIV /0!
#DIV /0!
0 #DIV /0!
Pool
Channel materials
D,s = #N /A
D35 = #N /A
Dso = #N /A
DM = #N /A
D95 = #N /A
Dioo = #N /A

APPENDIX C
Vegetation Summary Data
(Tables 7 and 8)

Table 7. Vegetation Species Planted Across the Restoration Site
UT to Cane Creek Restoration Project: EEP Project ID No. 95729
Botanical Name -F-commonName
% Planted by Species
Total Number of Stems
Riparian Buffer Plantings - Overstory
Betula nigra
river birch
9.0
860
Carpinus caroliniana
ironwood
6.0
570
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
9.0
860
Liriodendron tulipfera
tulip poplar
6.0
570
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
9.0
860
Quercus alba
white oak
9.0
860
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
6.0
570
Quercus nigra
water oak
6.0
570
Riparian Buffer Plantings - Understory
Asimina triloba
paw paw
6.0
570
Diospyros vir iniana
persuntnon
6.0
570
Hamamelis vir iniana
witch hazel
6.0
570
Itea vir inica
Virginia sweets ire
8.0
760
Lindera benzoin
s icebush
8.0
760
Viburnum dentatum
arrowwood Viburnum
6.0
570
Riparian Live Stake Plantings
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
10%
NA
Salix nigra
black willow
10%
NA
Salix sericea
silky willow
40%
NA
Sambucus canadensis
elderberry
40%
NA
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO CANE CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (EEP PROJECT NO. 95729)

Table 8. Stem Count for Each Species Arranged by Plot
UT to Cane Creek Restoration Project: EEP Project ID No. 95729
Botanical Name
Common Name
Plots
1 2 3 4 5 6
Tree Species
Betula ni ra
river birch
4
1
2
Car inus caroliniana
ironwood
2
1
1
3
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
1
8
2
4
Liriodendron tulipfera
tulip poplar
Platanus occidentalis
Americansycamore
4
uercus alba
white oak
uercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
1
2
3
uercus ni ra
water oak
uercus spp.
unknown oak
I
Shrub Species
Asimina triloba
paw paw
1
Diospyros vi r iniana
persimmon
1
Hamamelis vir iniana
witch hazel
Itea vir inica
Virginia sweets ire
Lindera benzoin
s icebush
Viburnum dentatum
arrowwood viburnum
Unknown
lunknown
7
7
16
13
19
1
Stems /plot
22
17
16
17
19
13
Stems /acre
880
680
640
680
760
520
Total Stems/ Acre for Year 0 As -Built (Baseline Data)
693
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO CANE CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (EEP PROJECT NO. 95729)

APPENDIX D
As -Built Plan Sheets /Record Drawings

APPENDIX E
Photo Log

Reach 1, view upstream towards dam at station 12 +50
(June 12, 2014)
7 a
:T.
�jy••
d.
i�
Reach 1, view downstream at station 12 +50
(July 30, 2014)
Reach 3, view upstream at station 12 +50 (June 5, 2014) Reach 3, view downstream at station 10 +90 (June 5, 2014)
Reach 4, view upstream at 55 +00 (June 5, 2014)
Reach 4, rock J -Hook, view upstream at station 53 +75
(June 5, 2014)

All
Wh
Y'
Reach 4, crossing at station 53 +00 (June 5, 2014)
Reach 4, crossing at station 33 +00 (June 5, 2014)
Reach 5, view downstream at station 28 +00 (June 5, 2014)
Reach 4, view upstream at station 34 +00 (May 27, 2014)
Reach 4, view upstream at station 32 +00 (June 5, 2014)
Reach 5, view upstream at station 27 +75 (June 5, 2014)

10192MOLMe-I -W-
Reach 5, crossing at station 24 +75 (June 12, 2014)
Reach 5, view upstream at station 24 +25 (June 12, 2014)
Reach 5, view downstream at station 24 +00 (June 12, 2014)
• 41-
-
R, •
Reach 5, view downstream at station 17 +75 (June 12, 2014)
Reach 5, view upstream at station 16 +75 (June 12, 2014) Reach 5, view upstream at station 11 +50 (June 12, 2014)
� R =
it
{
Reach 5, view downstream at station 24 +00 (June 12, 2014)
• 41-
-
R, •
Reach 5, view downstream at station 17 +75 (June 12, 2014)
Reach 5, view upstream at station 16 +75 (June 12, 2014) Reach 5, view upstream at station 11 +50 (June 12, 2014)