20181034 Ver 1_UT to Rush Fork_100068_MY2_2023_20240213

UT to Rush Fork Stream Mitigation Project
Year 2 (2023) Monitoring Report FINAL
DMS Project ID No. 100068, DEQ Contract No. 7535
RFP# 16-007335 (Issued 9/8/17)
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2018-01171, DWR# 2018-1034
Haywood County, North Carolina, French Broad River Basin: 06010106
MY2 Data Collection Period: May – November 2023

Submitted to/Prepared for:
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services (DMS)
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1652

Submission Date: January 2024
This document was printed using 30% recycled paper.

January 19, 2023

Paul Wiesner, PM
NCDEQ, Division of Mitigation Services
Asheville Regional Office
2090 U.S. 70 Highway
Swannanoa, NC 28778-8211

Subject:
Response to DMS Comments (January 3, 2024) for DRAFT Monitoring Year 2 Report.
UT to Rush Fork Stream Mitigation Project
French Broad River Basin: 06010106
DMS Project #100068
DEQ Contract #7535

Dear Mr. Wiesner,
Please find below our responses to the NC Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) review comments
dated January 3, 2024, in reference to the UT to Rush Fork Stream Mitigation Project’s DRAFT
Monitoring Year 2 Report. We have revised the Draft document in response to review comments as
outlined below.

· General: Feral hog damage was reported in MY1 (2022). Was any additional feral hog
damage noted in MY2 (2023)? Please update the report text accordingly.
RESPONSE: No feral hog damage was noted during MY2 (2023). The report text has been
updated as requested.

· During the April 19, 2023, IRT Credit Release meeting, Baker reported that some
supplemental planting was conducted on the site and would be reported in MY2 (2023).
Please report any supplemental planting efforts completed in MY2 (2023) in the report text
and Table 2 (Project Activity and Reporting History). Please also include a map of the
supplementally planted area/s and a species list as an Appendix in the final MY2 (2023) report.
The planting list should include a wetness tolerance column for each species planted (FACW;
FAC; FACU; etc.).
RESPONSE: A small number of stems were planted in March 2023. This information has been
added to the report text and Table 2. A shapefile showing the approximate extent of the
planted area has been added to the CCPV’s and the electronic submittal and a planting list
including a wetness tolerance has been added to Table 7 Vegetation Plot Data in Appendix C
as requested.

· Section 1.4 Monitoring Results and Project Performance: “Baker will send an email and letter
to the property owner to notify the farmer who leases the field that this is in violation of the
terms of the conservation easement. Baker will work with the property owner and farmer to
create a path for equipment, so this violation does not occur in the future.” Please include a
copy of the email and a signed copy of the landowner notification letter in an Appendix of the
revised MY2 (2023) report.
RESPONSE: A copy of the email and I signed copy of the landowner notification letter has
been added in Appendix F Correspondence as requested.

· Section 1.4 Monitoring Results and Project Performance: “These VPAs and other areas
observed low density will be supplementally planted before the growing season begins in April
of 2024 (MY3) at a rate of 200 stems per acre.” What supplemental plant species are
proposed? Please consider planted stem diversity when selecting species for the MY3 (2024)
supplemental planting effort. If the proposed species vary from the planting list in the IRT
approved mitigation plan, the IRT should be consulted through DMS. Table 6 indicates that
the low stem density areas represent 5.5% of the site, so an Adaptive Management Plan (AMP)
does not appear to be warranted. Please include a map of the supplementally planted area/s and
a species list as an Appendix in next year’s MY3 (2024) report. The planting list should include a
wetness tolerance column for each species planted (FACW; FAC; FACU; etc.).
RESPONSE: Species selected for planting in MY3 (2024) will partially depend on nursery
availability; however, and effort will be made to procure a diverse group of species which are
also included from the planting list on the approved mitigation plan. Planted areas will be
mapped and reported on in the MY3 report as requested.

· Current Condition Plan View (CCPV) Maps: Since the VPAs reported are all low stem density
areas, DMS recommends updating the map legend to Low Stem Density Areas.
RESPONSE: The map legend has been updated as requested.

· Table 5 & Table 6: Please include the assessment date/s at the top of each table. The date
is provided for some reaches but not all.
RESPONSE: The assessment dates have been added to each reach as requested.

· Bankfull Events & Crest Gauge graphs: Please review and confirm that the graphs and data
presented are accurate. It is difficult to determine how the provided crest gauge data
correlates with the provided rainfall data; no rain gauge data is provided for the one (1)
bankfull event reported in MY3 (2023). Many times, the crest gauge data falls well below the
stream bed elevation. Please consider using a different color for the streambed elevation line.
Lastly, Gauge is misspelled in the legend for Crest Gauge #2.
RESPONSE: After further evaluation we believe that the bankfull event reported on 12-23-
2022 was an erroneous reading as there is no corroborating rain or flow data. This has been
called out on the graph and deleted as an event in Table 10. Crest gauge data prior to the
relocation of the gauges to in-stream should be disregarded as there were no events recorded
and the graph is inaccurate prior to 5-10-2023 based on streambed and bankfull elevation
lines. We also believe there may have been a malfunction with the site BARO as both the
crest gauges and the flow gauges data takes the same sharp downward trend in late June
2023. This trend falls well below the streambed elevation in most cases which is not possible
in reality. Baker staff will download and replace the BARO if necessary, early in MY3. Lastly,
the spelling error and the streambed elevation line have been revised as requested.

· Table 11: Please update the report so the table and CCPV maps are synonymous. The CCPV
maps report FL-1; FL-2; FL-3. Table 11 reports RF1; RF2; RF3.
RESPONSE: The CCPV maps have been changed to be consistent as requested.

Digital Support File Comments:
· Please include stream survey station IDs in the revised files and in all future submissions;
station ID examples are TLB, THW etc.
RESPONSE: Stream survey station IDs have been added to the 04 Geomorphology Data
folder in the eSubmission Files (Reference_Reach_Survey_DL_MY2_UT Rush Fork - Normal
Method_REV and Rush Fork_Yearly Xsecs_AnnualSummary) as requested.

As requested, Michael Baker has provided an electronic response letter addressing the DMS comments
received and two (2) hardcopies of the FINAL report, and the updated e-submission digital files will be sent
via secure ftp link. A full final electronic copy with electronic support files have been included on a USB
drive. Please do not hesitate to contact me ([e-mail] 828-412-6101) should you have
any questions regarding our response submittal.

Sincerely,

Jason York
Environmental Scientist

Enclosure: Final MY2 Report UT to Rush Fork Stream Mitigation Project

MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2
RUSH FORK STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT, DMS NO. 100068
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 PROJECT SUMMARY ....................................................................................... 3
PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................................... 3
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................................................. 3
PROJECT SUCCESS CRITERIA ..................................................................................................................... 4
MONITORING RESULTS AND PROJECT PERFORMANCE ............................................................................. 4
TECHNICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL DESCRIPTIONS ............................................................................... 5
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................ 5

APPENDICES

Appendix A Background Tables and Figures
Figure 1 Project Vicinity Map
Figure 2 Project Asset and Credit Map
Table 1 Project Mitigation Quantities and
Credits
Table 2 Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3 Project Contacts
Table 4 Project Baseline Information and
Attributes
Appendix B Visual Assessment Data
Figure 3 Current Condition Plan View (CCPV)
Map
Table 5 Visual Stream Morphology Stability
Assessment
Table 6 Vegetation Condition Assessment
Stream Station Photo-Points
Vegetation Plot Photographs
Monitoring Gauges and Overbank Photographs

Appendix C Vegetation Plot Data
Table 7 Vegetation Plot Data

Appendix D Stream Geomorphology Data
Figure 4 Cross-Sections with Annual Overlay
Table 8 Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table 9 Cross-Section Morphology Data
Summary
Appendix E Hydrologic Data
Table 10 Verification of Bankfull Events
Figure 5 Flow Gauge Graphs
Figure 6 Observed Rainfall Versus Historic
Averages
Table 11

All Years Flow Gauge Success

Appendix F Correspondence

MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 3
RUSH FORK STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT, DMS NO. 100068
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT

1.0 PROJECT SUMMARY
Project Description
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. (Michael Baker) restored approximately 2,843.58 linear feet and enhanced
an additional 1,179.54 linear feet of stream along seven reaches on unnamed tributaries (UT) to Rush Fork
Creek. Additionally, 0.996 uncredited acres of adjacent riparian wetlands will be enhanced and protected
within the project conservation easement. The project lies within the French Broad River Basin, Hydrologic
Unit Code (HUC) 06010106-020010 (Pigeon River/Crabtree Creek Watershed), which is identified as a
Targeted Local Watershed (TLW) in the NC Division of Mitigation Services’ (DMS 2009) French Broad
River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP) report. The project is located in the Blue Ridge Physiographic
Region, within the Southern Crystalline and Mountains Level IV ecoregion. The project watershed drains
into Rush Fork Creek, which flows for approximately 2.8 miles to its confluence with Crabtree Creek and
then continues for approximately 0.7 miles to the Pigeon River. These streams are designated as Class C
waters by the surface water classification system of the NC Division of Water Resources (DWR).
The UT to Rush Fork Stream Mitigation Project (project) is located on two adjacent parcels of an active
cattle farm in Haywood County, North Carolina, halfway between the unincorporated communities of
Crabtree and Fines Creek as shown on the Project Vicinity Map (Figure 1). The project site entrance is 5.9
miles north on Route 209 from exit 24 off of I-40, on the right at 9503 Rush Fork Road. Coordinates for
the approximate center of the project are 35.644607 N Latitude, -82.940170 W Longitude. Current
agricultural use on the project site is predominantly livestock pasture; however, other current uses include
forest and hay production. Past uses may have included row crops and apple production. These activities
negatively impacted both water quality and streambank stability along the project stream reaches. The
observed functional stressors include streambank erosion, sedimentation, excess nutrient input, channel
modification, and the loss of riparian buffers.

The project is being conducted as part of the DMS Full Delivery In-Lieu Fee Program and is anticipated to
generate a total of 3,533.610 cold-water stream mitigation credits and the site is protected by an 8.26-acre
permanent conservation easement (Appendix B).

Goals and Objectives
The goals of this project are identified below:
· Reconnect stream reaches to their floodplains,
· Improve stream stability,
· Improve aquatic habitat,
· Reestablish forested riparian buffers, and
· Permanently protect the project in a conservation easement.
To accomplish these goals, the following objectives were identified:
· To restore appropriate bankfull dimensions, and/or raise channel beds, by utilizing either a Priority
I Restoration approach or an Enhancement Level I approach.
· Stabilize eroding channel banks and arrest incision by utilizing an Enhancement Level II approach.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 4
RUSH FORK STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT, DMS NO. 100068
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT

· To construct streams of appropriate dimensions, pattern, and profile in restored reaches, slope
stream banks and provide bankfull benches on enhanced reaches and utilize bio-engineering to
provide long-term stability.
· Construct the correct channel morphology along all stream channels, increasing the number and
depth of pools utilizing structures including geo-lifts with brush toe, log vanes/weirs, root wads,
and/or J-hooks.
· Establish riparian buffers at a 30-foot minimum width along all stream reaches, planted with native
tree and shrub species.
· Establish a permanent conservation easement restricting land use in perpetuity. This will prevent
site disturbance and allow the project to mature and stabilize.

Project Success Criteria
The success criteria and performance standards for the project will follow the NCDMS’s template As-
Built Baseline Monitoring Report Format, Data Requirements, and Content Guidance (October 2020),
and the Annual Monitoring Report Format, Data Requirements, and Content Guidance (October 2020),
and as described in Section 7 of the approved Mitigation Plan. All specific monitoring activities will
follow those outlined in detail in Section 8 of the approved Mitigation Plan and will be conducted for a
period of 7 years.

Monitoring Results and Project Performance
The Year 2 monitoring survey data from the eighteen permanent cross-sections indicates that these stream
transects are geomorphically stable, both laterally and vertically, and in-stream structures are performing
as designed. All reaches are stable and performing as designed and are rated at 100 percent for all the
parameters evaluated (Table 5 in Appendix B). There were no Stream Problem Areas (SPAs) identified.
A minor Encroachment Area was observed during the completion of MY2 monitoring where a piece of
farm equipment was driven through an unfenced portion of the easement on the right floodplain of UT1-
R4 (shown on CCPV Figure 3C). It appears the equipment could not fit between the Conservation Easement
boundary and the tree line. The area was not mowed and did not sustain any permanent damage. Baker
has sent email and letter to the property owner to notify the farmer who leases the field that this is in
violation of the terms of the conservation easement. This correspondence is included in Appendix F. Baker
will work with the property owner and farmer to create a path for equipment, so this violation does not
occur in the future.
Approximately 30 1-gallon stems were planted prior to the growing season during MY2 on the right
floodplain of UT3 (CCPV Figure 3A). All planted species were included on the planting list from the
approved mitigation plan. During Year 2 monitoring, the planted acreage showed low stem density in many
parts of the project. The average density of total planted stems, based on data collected from the 6 permanent
and 1 random monitoring plots for the Year 2 monitoring conducted in October 2023 was 294 stems per
acre (Table 7 in Appendix C). Thus, the Year 2 vegetation data demonstrate that the Site is not on track to
meet the minimum success interim criteria of 320 trees per acre by the end of Year 3. Four vegetation
problem areas (VPAs) were identified due to low stem density, although only one exceeds the reportable
mapping threshold of 0.1 acres. These VPAs and other areas of observed low density will be
supplementally planted before the growing season begins in April of 2024 (MY3) at a rate of 200 stems per
acre. Areas with low stem density have a high density of fescue which was treated with herbicide during
MY2. Additional herbicide treatment of fescue will continue during the spring of 2024. Apparent feral
hog damage that was reported during MY1 did not continue to be an issue during MY2 so no further action
was taken.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 5
RUSH FORK STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT, DMS NO. 100068
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT

During Year 2 monitoring, no post-construction bankfull events were observed (see Table 10 in Appendix
E).
As the observed monthly rainfall data for the project presented in Figure 6, (Appendix E) demonstrates the
total monthly rainfall has varied widely from the historic average precipitation. In an annual comparison
the site experienced similar average annual rainfall during the monitoring year at 50.58 inches observed for
the project site comparable to the county’s 49.72 inches of rainfall. Observed project rainfall was collected
from the North Carolina Climate Office Weather Climate Database Legacy system. This system uses a
Multi-Sensor Precipitation Estimate (MPE) to combine radar-based precipitation values with surface
gauges to generate site specific data based on project coordinates. The closest weather station (WAYN) is
located approximately 11.4 miles southwest of the project at the Mountain Research Station on Test Farm
Rd. in Waynesville, NC. Three automated channel flow gauges exceeded the minimum 30-day
performance criteria during MY2. Summary information/data related to the Site and statistics related to
performance of various project and monitoring elements can be found in the tables and figures in the report
Appendices.
Narrative background and supporting information formerly found in these reports can be found in the
Baseline Monitoring Report and in the Mitigation Plan available on the DMS website. Any raw data
supporting the tables and figures in the Appendices is available from DMS upon request.
This report documents the successful completion of the Year 2 monitoring activities for the post-
construction monitoring period.
Technical and Methodological Descriptions
Stream survey data was collected to a minimum of Class C Vertical and Class A Horizontal Accuracy using
a Leica TS06 Total Station and was georeferenced to the NAD83 State Plane Coordinate System, FIPS3200
in US Survey Feet, which was derived from the As-built Survey. The survey data from the permanent
project cross-sections were collected and classified using the Rosgen Stream Classification System to
confirm design stream type (Rosgen 1994).
The six permanent vegetation-monitoring quadrants (plots) were installed across the site in accordance with
the CVS-DMS Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version 4.1 (Lee 2007) and the data collected from each
was input into the DMS Veg Table Production Tool (2021).
All of the crest gauges and flow gauges are Van Essen brand Baro-Diver data loggers.
All observed project rainfall was collected from the North Carolina Climate Office Weather Climate
Database Legacy system.
The specific locations of monitoring features, such as vegetation plots, permanent cross-sections, reference
photograph stations, and crest gauges, are shown on the CCPV map found in Appendix B.
References
Carolina Vegetation Survey (CVS) and NC Division of Mitigation Services (DMS). CVS-DMS Protocol
for Recording Vegetation, Version 4.1 (Lee 2007), DMS Veg Table Production Tool (2021)
Lee, M., Peet R., Roberts, S., Wentworth, T. 2007. CVS-DMS Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version
4.1.
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services. 2020. Annual Monitoring Report Format, Data
Requirements, and Content Guidance October 2020. NC Department of Environmental Quality.
Raleigh, NC.
North Carolina Interagency Review Team (NCIRT). 2020. Guidance document “Wilmington
District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update”. October 24, 2016
Rosgen, D.L. 1994. A Classification of Natural Rivers. Catena 22:169-199.

APPENDIX A

Background Tables and Figures

Fines Creek
Crabtree
40
276
209
06010106020040
06010106020010
06010106020030
06010106020020
06010105120010
06010105090030
06010106020070
06010106010040
06010106020050
06010106030040
Haywood County
281
25
107
40
74
70276
Figure 1.Project Vicinity MapUT to Rush Fork ProjectDMS Project No. 100068
Note: Site is located within Targeted Local Watershed 06010106-020010
SiteLocation
Site Location
0 1 20.5 Miles
Haywood County
French Broad River Basin
Project coordinates:35.644607 N, -82.940170
UT1-R1
UT3
Ro
u
t
e

2
0
9
UT2
UT1-R2
UT1-R3
UT1-R4
UT4
BMP
NC Center for Geographic Information & Analysis
Conservation Easement
Proposed BMP (no direct credits)
Stream Centerlines by Approach
Restoration
Enhancement I
Enhancement II
2019 Aerial Photograph Source: NC OneMap, NC Center for Geographic Information and Analysis
0 250 500125Feet
Figure 2. Project Asset and Credit Map
UT to Rush Fork Project Haywood County
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services
DMS Proj. No. 100068
Stream Mitigation CreditsReach Approach Length (ft) Ratio (X:1) CreditsReach UT1-R1 EI 206.20 1.5 137.467Reach UT1-R2 EII 275.00 2.5 110.000Reach UT1-R3 EI 612.10 1.5 408.067Reach UT1-R4 R 1,216.33 1.0 1,216.330Reach UT2 EII 86.24 2.5 34.496Reach UT3 R 1,584.45 1.0 1,584.450Reach UT4 R 42.80 1.0 42.800Total Footage for Credit 4,023.12Restoration 2,843.58 2,843.580Enhancement I 818.30 545.533Enhancement II 361.24 144.496Total Credits 3,533.610
Original
Mitigation Original Original Original
Plan*As-Built Mitigation Restoration Mitigation
Project Segment Ft/Ac Ft/Ac Category Level Ratio (X:1)Credits
Stream
Reach UT1-R1 206.20 206.410 Cold EI 1.5 137.467
Reach UT1-R2 275.00 275.000 Cold EII 2.5 110.000
Reach UT1-R3 612.10 600.860 Cold EI 1.5 408.067
Reach UT1-R4 1,216.33 1,224.370 Cold R 1.0 1,216.330
Reach UT2 86.24 78.160 Cold EII 2.5 34.496
Reach UT3 1,584.45 1,577.530 Cold R 1.0 1,584.450
Reach UT4 42.80 41.900 Cold R 1.0 42.800
Total:3,533.610
Wetland
N/A 0.996 0.996 - E - -
Total: N/A
Project Credits
Stream Riparian Non-Rip Coastal
Warm Cool Cold Wetland Wetland Marsh
Restoration --2,843.580 ---
Re-establishment ---
Rehabilitation ---
Enhancement ---
Enhancement I --545.534
Enhancement II --144.496
Creation ---
Preservation - - - - -
Totals 3,533.610
Table 1. Project Mitigation Quantities and Credits
UT to Rush Fork Stream Mitigation Project - NCDMS Project No. 100068
Restoration Level
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT to RUSH FORK MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100068)
Year 2 MONITORING REPORT
Grading Completed in Feb-22
Elapsed Time Since grading complete:23 months
All Planting Completed in Feb-22
Elapsed Time Since planting complete:23 months
Number of Reporting Years 1:2
Data Collection Completion or
Activity or Deliverable Complete Delivery
Institution date N/A April 2018
404 permit date N/A April 2021
Mitigation Plan N/A April 2021
Final Design – Construction Plans N/A February 2022
Construction Grading Completed N/A February 2022
As-Built Survey March 2022 August 2022
Livestake and Bareroot Planting Completed February 2022 N/A
As-Built Stream Survey March 2022 N/A
As-Built Vegetation Monitoring March 2022 N/A
As-Built Baseline Monitoring Report (MY0) March 2022 August 2022
Year 1 Monitoring
Year 1 Stream Survey November 2022 N/A
Year 1 Vegetation Monitoring November 2022 N/A
Monitoring Year 1 Report (MY1) December 2022 January 2023
Year 2 Monitoring Novemberr 2023 December 2023
Supplemental Planting N/A March 2023
Invasive Vegetation Treatment N/A May 2023
Year 2 Stream Survey November 2023 N/A
Year 2 Vegetation Monitoring October 2023 N/A
Year 3 Monitoring (anticipated) December 2024 December 2024
Year 4 Monitoring (anticipated) December 2025 December 2025
Year 5 Monitoring (anticipated) December 2026 December 2026
Year 6 Monitoring (anticipoated) December 2027 December 2027
Year 7 Monitoring (anticipated) December 2028 December 2028
1 = The number of monitoring reports excluding the as-built/baseline report
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
UT to Rush Fork Stream Mitigation Project - NCDMS Project No. 100068
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT to RUSH FORK MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100068)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
Designer
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.Cary, NC 27518
Contact: Katie McKeithan, Tel. [phone]
Construction Contractor
1000 Bat Cave Road,
Baker Grading & Landscaping, Inc.Old Fort, NC 28762
Contact: Charles Baker, Tel. [phone] x. 11
Survey Contractor
88 Central Avenue
Kee Mapping and Surveying Asheville, NC 28801
Contact: Brad Kee, Tel. [phone]
Planting Contractor
1000 Bat Cave Road,
Baker Grading & Landscaping, Inc.Old Fort, NC 28762
Contact: Charles Baker, Tel. [phone] x. 11
Seeding Contractor
1000 Bat Cave Road,
Baker Grading & Landscaping, Inc.Old Fort, NC 28762
Contact: Charles Baker, Tel. [phone] x. 11
Seed Mix Sources
9764 Raider Hollow Road,
Roundstone Native Seed, LLC Upton, KY 42784
Telephone: [phone]
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Foggy Mountain Nursery (livestakes)797 Helton Creek Road, Lansing, NC 28643 Telephone: [phone]
Dykes and Son Nursery 825 Maude Etter Road, McMinnville, TN 37110 Telephone: 843-528-
3204
Monitoring Performers
797 Haywood Rd. Suite 201
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.Asheville, NC 28806
Stream Monitoring POC Jason York, Tel. [phone]
Vegetation Monitoring POC Jason York, Tel. [phone]
Table 3. Project Contacts
UT to Rush Fork Stream Mitigation Project - NCDMS Project No. 100068
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT to RUSH FORK MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100068)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit 6010106
UT3 UT4
1,618 18
Moderately
Confined Unconfined
98 27
Perennial Intermittent
C C
A to B4 B
A to B4 Cb
IV – Degradation
and Widening III – Degrading
Zone X Zone X
06010106-020010
DWR Sub-basin 04-03-05
Thermal Regime COLD
C
B4a
Table 4. Project Baseline Information and Attributes
River Basin French Broad
Planted Acreage (Acres of Woody Stems Planted)
Project Name
County
Project Area (acres)
UT to Rush Fork Stream Mitigation Project - NCDMS Project No. 100068
Table 4. Project Background Information
UT to Rush Fork Stream Mitigation Project
Haywood County
8.26
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province Blue Ridge
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude) 35.644607 N, -82.940170 W
7.3
UT2
2,464 99
Supporting Docs?
Water of the United States - Section 404 PCN
Evolutionary trend (Simon) IV – Degradation
and Widening III – Degrading
Drainage area (Acres)
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14-digit
Project Drainage Area (Acres and Square Miles)
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area
Parameters
Length of reach (linear feet)
Valley confinement (Confined, moderately confined, unconfined)
CGIA Land Use Classification 79,8% forested, 17.1% hay/pasture, and 2.9% developed (open space).
Reach Summary Information
UT1
308 acres/0.48 square miles (at downstream end of UT1)
0.18% impervious area
Yes Yes
Water of the United States - Section 401
Endangered Species Act
Yes No
Yes Yes
FEMA classification
Parameters
Moderately
Confined Unconfined
308 24
Perennial Intermittent
C
Yes No
Zone X Zone X
Regulatory Considerations
Applicable? Resolved?
Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
Stream Classification (existing)
Stream Classification (proposed)
B4a
1 Source: USGS National Land Cover Database (NLCD) for 2016
Essential Fisheries Habitat No N/A
PCN
B
B
Categorical Exclusion
N/A
Notes:
Categorical Exclusion
No N/A N/A
FEMA Floodplain Compliance No N/A N/A
Historic Preservation Act
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA or CAMA)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT to RUSH FORK MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100068)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT

APPENDIX B

Visual Assessment Data

!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
"/
"/
!>
!>
!>
"/
#0
#0#0#0#0
#0
#0
#0#0#0
#0
#0#0 #0#0#0#0#0#0
#0#0#0
#0
#0
#0
#0#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0#0
#0
#0
#0
#0#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0#0
R
o
u
t
e

2
0
9
Fig. 3C
Fig. 3B
Fig. 3A
FL-3
±
0 500250Feet
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Serv ice s
DMS Proj. No. 100068
Figure 3. Current ConditionPlan View (CCPV) Ove rview MY2UT to Rush Fork ProjectHaywood County
UT3
R
o
u
t
e

2
0
9
VP1: 405stems/ac
VP2: 243stems/ac
VP6: 202stems/ac
RF1
CG-1
PP-44
PP-43
PP-42
PP-41
PP-40
PP-39
PP-38
PP-37
PP-36
PP-35
PP-34
PP-33
PP-32
PP-31
PP-30
PP-29
XS-6
XS-2
XS-3
XS-5
XS-4
XS-1
Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS usercommunity, Source: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar Geographics, and the GIS UserCommunity
Su pple me ntal Planting
Low Ste m Den sity Areas
Conservatio n Easement
#0 Ph oto Po ints
"/Crest G auge
!>Flo w G aug e
Cross-Sections
Stream Top -o f-Bank
Vegetation Plots
FAIL
PASS
Str eams by Mitigation Type
Resto ration
En hance me nt I
En hance me nt II
No Credit
JD Wetlan ds
±
0 250125Feet
Figure 3A. Current ConditionPlan View (CCPV) MY2UT to Rush Fork ProjectHaywood County
North Carolina Division of Mitiga tion Services
DMS Proj. No. 100068
UT1-R1
UT3
R
o
u
t
e

2
0
9
UT2
UT1-R2
UT1-R3
UT4
UT1-R4
VP2: 243stems/ac RVP MY2: 243stems/ac
VP3: 283stems/ac
VP5: 243stems/ac
VP6: 202stems/ac
PP-9
PP-10
PP-11
CG-2
RF2
RF3
RF1 PP-4
PP-8
PP-7
PP-6
PP-5
PP-2
PP-1
PP-46
PP-45
PP-44
PP-43
PP-42
PP-41
PP-40
PP-39
PP-38
PP-37
PP-28PP-27
PP-26
PP-25
PP-24
PP-23PP-22
PP-21
PP-20
PP-19
PP-18PP-17PP-14
PP-13PP-12
PP-3
PP-16
PP-15
XS-8
XS-6
XS-9
XS-5
XS-7
XS-4
XS-14
XS-18
XS-13
XS-17
Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS usercommunity, Source: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar Geographics, and the GIS UserCommunity
Su pple me ntal Plantin g
Low Ste m Den sity Areas
Conservatio n Ea se ment
#0 Ph oto Po ints
"/Crest Gauge
!>Flo w Gaug e
Cross-Sections
Stream Top -o f-Ban k
Vegetation Plots
FAIL
PASS
Streams by Mitigation Type
Resto ration
En hance me nt I
En hance me nt II
No Credit
JD Wetlan ds
±
0 250125Feet
Figure 3B. Current ConditionPlan View (CCPV) MY2UT to Rush Fork ProjectHaywood County
North Carolina Division of Mitiga tion Services
DMS Proj. No. 100068
UT2
UT1-R3
UT1-R4
UT4
UT1-R4
VP4: 445stems/ac
VP3: 283stems/ac
VP6: 202stems/ac
FL-3
CG-3
PP-57PP-56
PP-55
PP-54
PP-53
PP-52
PP-51
PP-50
PP-49
PP-48
PP-47
PP-28PP-27
PP-26
PP-25
PP-24
PP-23
PP-22PP-21
PP-20
PP-19 PP-18
XS-8
XS-9
XS-7
XS-11
XS-10
XS-12
XS-18
XS-17
Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS usercommunity, Source: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar Geographics, and the GIS UserCommunity
Low Stem Density Area
Conservation Easement
#0 Photo Points
"/Crest Gauge
!>Flow Gauge
Cross-Sections
Stream Top-of-Bank
Vegetation Plots
FAIL
PASS
Streams by Mitigation Type
Restoration
Enhancement I
Enhancement II
No Credit
JD Wetlands
Encroachment MY2
±
0 250125Feet
Figure 3C. Current ConditionPlan View (CCPV) MY2UT to Rush Fork ProjectHaywood County
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services
DMS Proj. No. 100068
Table 5. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment - Assessed November 2023
UT to Rush Fork Stream Mitigation Project – NCDMS Project No. 100068
Reach ID: Reach UT1-R1
Assessed Length (LF): 206.41
Major Channel Category Channel Sub-Category Metric
Number Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number per As-
built
Number of Unstable
Segments
Amount of Unstable
Footage
% Stable, Performing
as Intended
1. Bed
1.Vertical Stability
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow laterally (not to include point
bars)0 0 100%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting 0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition 1. Texture Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate 10 10 100%
3. Meander Pool Condition
1. Depth - Sufficent (Max Pool Depth/Mean Bkf Depth ≥ 1.5) (Plunge Pools)9 9 100%
2. Length - Sufficent (>30% of centerline distance between tail of upstream riffle and head of downstream
riffle)9 9 100%
4. Thalweg Position 1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)N/A N/A 100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide)N/A N/A 100%
2. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding Bank lacking vegetative cover due to active scour and erosion 0 0 100%
2. Undercut Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting is expected 0 0 100%
3. Mass Wasting Banks slumping, caving or collapse 0 0 100%
Totals 0 0 100%
3. Engineering Structures 1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs 10 10 100%
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill 10 10 100%
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath or around sills or arms 10 10 100%
3. Bank Position Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%10 10 100%
4. Habitat Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth/Mean Bankfull Depth ratio ≥ 1.5. Rootwads/logs
providing some cover at low flow 10 10 100%
Reach ID: Reach UT1-R2 (EI)
Assessed Length (LF): 275.00
Major Channel Category Channel Sub-Category Metric
Number Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number per As-
built
Number of Unstable
Segments
Amount of Unstable
Footage
% Stable, Performing
as Intended
1. Bed
1.Vertical Stability
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow laterally (not to include point
bars)0 0 100%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting 0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition 1. Texture Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate 2 2 100%
3. Meander Pool Condition
1. Depth - Sufficent (Max Pool Depth/Mean Bkf Depth ≥ 1.5) (Plunge Pools)2 2 100%
2. Length - Sufficent (>30% of centerline distance between tail of upstream riffle and head of downstream
riffle)2 2 100%
4. Thalweg Position 1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)N/A N/A 100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide)N/A N/A 100%
2. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding Bank lacking vegetative cover due to active scour and erosion 0 0 100%
2. Undercut Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting is expected 0 0 100%
3. Mass Wasting Banks slumping, caving or collapse 0 0 100%
Totals 0 0 100%
3. Engineering Structures 1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs 2 2 100%
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill 2 2 100%
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath or around sills or arms 2 2 100%
3. Bank Position Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%2 2 100%
4. Habitat Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth/Mean Bankfull Depth ratio ≥ 1.5. Rootwads/logs
providing some cover at low flow 2 2 100%
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT to RUSH FORK MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100068)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
Table 5. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment - Assessed November 2023
Reach ID: Reach UT1-R3 (EII)
Assessed Length (LF): 600.86
Major Channel Category Channel Sub-Category Metric
Number Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number per As-
built
Number of Unstable
Segments
Amount of Unstable
Footage
% Stable, Performing
as Intended
1. Bed
1.Vertical Stability
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow laterally (not to include point
bars)0 0 100%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting 0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition 1. Texture Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate 20 20 100%
3. Meander Pool Condition
1. Depth - Sufficent (Max Pool Depth/Mean Bkf Depth ≥ 1.5) (Plunge Pools)19 19 100%
2. Length - Sufficent (>30% of centerline distance between tail of upstream riffle and head of downstream
riffle)19 19 100%
4. Thalweg Position 1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)N/A N/A 100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide)N/A N/A 100%
2. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding Bank lacking vegetative cover due to active scour and erosion 0 0 100%
2. Undercut Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting is expected 0 0 100%
3. Mass Wasting Banks slumping, caving or collapse 0 0 100%
Totals 0 0 100%
3. Engineering Structures 1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs 19 19 100%
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill 19 19 100%
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath or around sills or arms 19 19 100%
3. Bank Position Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%19 19 100%
4. Habitat Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth/Mean Bankfull Depth ratio ≥ 1.5. Rootwads/logs
providing some cover at low flow 19 19 100%
Reach ID: Reach UT1-R4
Assessed Length (LF): 1,224.37
Major Channel Category Channel Sub-Category Metric
Number Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number per As-
built
Number of Unstable
Segments
Amount of Unstable
Footage
% Stable, Performing
as Intended
1. Bed
1.Vertical Stability
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow laterally (not to include point
bars)0 0 100%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting 0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition 1. Texture Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate 36 36 100%
3. Meander Pool Condition
1. Depth - Sufficent (Max Pool Depth/Mean Bkf Depth ≥ 1.5) (Plunge Pools)36 36 100%
2. Length - Sufficent (>30% of centerline distance between tail of upstream riffle and head of downstream
riffle)36 36 100%
4. Thalweg Position 1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)N/A N/A 100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide)N/A N/A 100%
2. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding Bank lacking vegetative cover due to active scour and erosion 0 0 100%
2. Undercut Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting is expected 0 0 100%
3. Mass Wasting Banks slumping, caving or collapse 0 0 100%
Totals 0 0 100%
3. Engineering Structures 1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs 36 36 100%
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill 36 36 100%
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath or around sills or arms 36 36 100%
3. Bank Position Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%N/A N/A 100%
4. Habitat Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth/Mean Bankfull Depth ratio ≥ 1.5. Rootwads/logs
providing some cover at low flow N/A N/A 100%
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT to RUSH FORK MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100068)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
Table 5: Visible Stream Morphology Assessment. Reach ID: Reach UT2 - Assessed November 2023
Assessed Length (LF): 78.16
Major Channel Category Channel Sub-Category Metric
Number Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number per As-
built
Number of Unstable
Segments
Amount of Unstable
Footage
% Stable, Performing
as Intended
1. Bed
1.Vertical Stability
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow laterally (not to include point
bars)0 0 100%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting 0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition 1. Texture Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate 1 1 0 0 100%
3. Meander Pool Condition
1. Depth - Sufficent (Max Pool Depth/Mean Bkf Depth ≥ 1.5) (Plunge Pools)0 0 0 0 100%
2. Length - Sufficent (>30% of centerline distance between tail of upstream riffle and head of downstream
riffle)N/A N/A 100%
4. Thalweg Position 1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)N/A N/A 100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide)N/A N/A 100%
2. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding Bank lacking vegetative cover due to active scour and erosion 0 0 100%
2. Undercut Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting is expected 0 0 100%
3. Mass Wasting Banks slumping, caving or collapse 0 0 100%
Totals 0 0 100%
3. Engineering Structures 1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs 0 0 100%
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill 0 0 100%
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath or around sills or arms 0 0 100%
3. Bank Position Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%0 0 100%
4. Habitat Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth/Mean Bankfull Depth ratio ≥ 1.5. Rootwads/logs
providing some cover at low flow 0 0 100%
Reach ID: Reach UT3
Assessed Length (LF): 1,577.53
Major Channel Category Channel Sub-Category Metric
Number Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number per As-
built
Number of Unstable
Segments
Amount of Unstable
Footage
% Stable, Performing
as Intended
1. Bed
1.Vertical Stability
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow laterally (not to include point
bars)0 0 100%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting 0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition 1. Texture Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate 44 44 0 0 100%
3. Meander Pool Condition
1. Depth - Sufficent (Max Pool Depth/Mean Bkf Depth ≥ 1.5) (Plunge Pools)43 43 0 0 100%
2. Length - Sufficent (>30% of centerline distance between tail of upstream riffle and head of downstream
riffle)43 43 100%
4. Thalweg Position 1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)N/A N/A 100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide)N/A N/A 100%
2. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding Bank lacking vegetative cover due to active scour and erosion 0 0 100%
2. Undercut Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting is expected 0 0 100%
3. Mass Wasting Banks slumping, caving or collapse 0 0 100%
Totals 0 0 100%
3. Engineering Structures 1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs 43 43 100%
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill 43 43 100%
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath or around sills or arms 43 43 100%
3. Bank Position Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%43 43 100%
4. Habitat Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth/Mean Bankfull Depth ratio ≥ 1.5. Rootwads/logs
providing some cover at low flow 43 43 100%
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT to RUSH FORK MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100068)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
Table 5: Visible Stream Morphology Assessment. Reach ID: Reach UT2 - Assessed November 2023
Reach ID: Reach UT4
Assessed Length (LF): 41.90
Major Channel Category Channel Sub-Category Metric
Number Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number per As-
built
Number of Unstable
Segments
Amount of Unstable
Footage
% Stable, Performing
as Intended
1. Bed
1.Vertical Stability
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow laterally (not to include point
bars)0 0 100%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting 0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition 1. Texture Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate 1 1 0 0 100%
3. Meander Pool Condition
1. Depth - Sufficent (Max Pool Depth/Mean Bkf Depth ≥ 1.5) (Plunge Pools)0 0 0 0 100%
2. Length - Sufficent (>30% of centerline distance between tail of upstream riffle and head of downstream
riffle)0 0 100%
4. Thalweg Position 1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)N/A N/A 100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide)N/A N/A 100%
2. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding Bank lacking vegetative cover due to active scour and erosion 0 0 100%
2. Undercut Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting is expected 0 0 100%
3. Mass Wasting Banks slumping, caving or collapse 0 0 100%
Totals 0 0 100%
3. Engineering Structures 1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs 0 0 100%
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill 0 0 100%
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath or around sills or arms 0 0 100%
3. Bank Position Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%0 0 100%
4. Habitat Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth/Mean Bankfull Depth ratio ≥ 1.5. Rootwads/logs
providing some cover at low flow 0 0 100%
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT to RUSH FORK MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100068)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
Vegetation Category Defintions
Mapping
Threshold (acres)CCPV Depiction Number of
Polygons Combined Acreage % of Planted
Acreage
1. Bare Areas Very limited cover both woody and herbaceous material. 0.1 acres N/A 0 0.00 0.0%
2. Low Stem Density Areas Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 4, or 5
stem count criteria.0.1 acres Orange Hatch 4 0.30 5.5%
3. Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor Areas with woody stems or a size class that are obviously small given the
monitoring year.0.25 acres N/A 0 0.00 0.0%
Vegetation Category Defintions
Mapping
Threshold CCPV Depiction Number of Points Combined Acreage
% of Planted
Acreage
4. Invasive Areas of Concern Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale) 1000 ft² N/A 0 0.00 0.0%
5. Easement Encroachment Areas Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale) 577 ft² Red Hatch 1 0.03 0.4%
Easement Acreage: 8.26
Table 6. Vegetation Conditions Assessment - Assessed November 2023
UT to Rush Fork Stream Mitigation Project - NCDMS Project No. 100068
Planted Acreage: 7.3
Total
Cumulative Total
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT to RUSH FORK MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100068)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
MY2 Stream Station Photo-Points
NCDMS Project No. #100068
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. UT to Rush Fork Stream Mitigation Project DMS No. 100068
Year 2 Monitoring Report

PP-1: UT1, R 1, Station 11+00.
Upstream. May 10, 2023
PP-2: UT1, R 1, Station 11+80.
Upstream. May 10, 2023

PP-3: UT1, R 1, Station 12+10
Culvert. Downstream. May 10,
2023
PP-4: UT1, R 1, Station 12+33
Culvert. Upstream. May 10, 2023

PP-5: UT1, R 2, Station 13+25.
Facing Downstream. May 10,
2023
PP-6: UT1, R 2, Station 14+00.
Upstream. May 10, 2023

MY2 Stream Station Photo-Points
NCDMS Project No. #100068
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. UT to Rush Fork Stream Mitigation Project DMS No. 100068
Year 2 Monitoring Report

PP-7: UT1, R 2, Station 14+60.
Upstream. May 10, 2023
PP-8 UT1, R 2, Station 15+50.
Upstream. May 10, 2023

PP-9: UT1, R 3, Station 16+50.
Upstream. May 10, 2023
PP-10: UT1, R 3, 16+80.
Upstream. May 10, 2023

P-11: UT1, R 3, Station 17+35.
Upstream. May 10, 2023
PP-12: UT1, R 3, Station 18+25.
Upstream. May 10, 2023
MY2 Stream Station Photo-Points
NCDMS Project No. #100068
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. UT to Rush Fork Stream Mitigation Project DMS No. 100068
Year 2 Monitoring Report

PP-13: UT1, R 3, Station 18+90.
Upstream. May 10, 2023
PP-14: UT1 R 3, Station 19+55.
Upstream. May 10, 2023

PP-15: UT2, Station 10+15.
Upstream. May 10, 2023
PP-16: UT2, Station 10+85.
Upstream. May 10, 2023

PP-17: UT1, R3, Station 19+70.
Upstream. May 10, 2023

PP-18: UT1, R 3, Station 20+60.
Upstream. May 10, 2023
MY2 Stream Station Photo-Points
NCDMS Project No. #100068
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. UT to Rush Fork Stream Mitigation Project DMS No. 100068
Year 2 Monitoring Report

PP-19: UT1, R 3, Station 22+00.
Upstream. May 10, 2023
PP-20: UT1, R 4, Station 22+75.
Upstream. May 10, 2023

PP-21: UT1, R 4, Station 23+90.
Upstream. May 10, 2023
PP-22: UT1, R 4, Station 24+20.
Upstream. May 10, 2023

PP-23: UT4, Station 10+50.
Upstream. May 10, 2023
PP-24: UT1, R 4, Station 25+25.
Upstream. May 10, 2023

MY2 Stream Station Photo-Points
NCDMS Project No. #100068
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. UT to Rush Fork Stream Mitigation Project DMS No. 100068
Year 2 Monitoring Report

PP-25: UT1, R 4, Station 26+00.
Upstream. May 10, 2023
PP-26: UT1, R 4, Station 27+00.
Upstream. May 10, 2023

PP-27: UT1, R 4, Station 27+75.
Upstream. May 10, 2023
PP-28: UT1, R 4, Station 27+90.
Downstream. May 10, 2023

PP-29: UT3. Upstream. Station
10+15. May 10, 2023
PP-30: UT3, Station 10+30.
Upstream. May 10, 2023

MY2 Stream Station Photo-Points
NCDMS Project No. #100068
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. UT to Rush Fork Stream Mitigation Project DMS No. 100068
Year 2 Monitoring Report

PP-31: UT3, Station 11+10.
Upstream. May 10, 2023
PP-32: UT3, Station 11+75.
Upstream. May 10, 2023

PP-33: UT3, Station 13+15.
Upstream. May 10, 2023
PP-34: UT3, Station 14+15.
Upstream. May 10, 2023

PP-35: UT3, Station 14+85.
Upstream. May 10, 2023
PP-36: UT3, Station 15+95.
Upstream. May 10, 2023

MY2 Stream Station Photo-Points
NCDMS Project No. #100068
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. UT to Rush Fork Stream Mitigation Project DMS No. 100068
Year 2 Monitoring Report

PP-37: UT3, Station 17+35.
Upstream. May 10, 2023
PP-38: UT3, Station 17+65.
Upstream. May 10, 2023

PP-39: UT3, Station 18+75.
Upstream. May 10, 2023
PP-40: UT3, Station 20+40.
Upstream. May 10, 2023

PP-41: UT3, Station 21+20.
Upstream. May 10, 2023
PP-42: UT3, Station 22+10.
Upstream. May 10, 2023

MY2 Stream Station Photo-Points
NCDMS Project No. #100068
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. UT to Rush Fork Stream Mitigation Project DMS No. 100068
Year 2 Monitoring Report

PP-43: UT3, Station 22+15.
Downstream. May 10, 2023
PP-44: UT3, Station 23+15.
Upstream. May 10, 2023

PP-45: UT3, Station 24+40.
Upstream. May 10, 2023
PP-46: UT3, Station 25+35.
Upstream. May 10, 2023

PP-47: UT3, Station 26+30.
Upstream at confluence. May 10,
2023
PP-48: UT1, R 4, Station 30+50.
Downstream. May 17, 2023
MY2 Stream Station Photo-Points
NCDMS Project No. #100068
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. UT to Rush Fork Stream Mitigation Project DMS No. 100068
Year 2 Monitoring Report

PP-49: UT1, R 4, Station 31+20.
Upstream. May 17, 2023
PP-50: UT1, R 4, Station 32+50.
Upstream. May 17, 2023

PP-51: UT1, R 4, Station 33+10.
Upstream. May 17, 2023
PP-52: UT1, R 4, Station 34+30.
Upstream. May 17, 2023

PP-53: UT1, R 4, Station 35+00.
Upstream. May 17, 2023

PP-54: UT1, R 4, Station 35+60.
Upstream. May 17, 2023
MY2 Stream Station Photo-Points
NCDMS Project No. #100068
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. UT to Rush Fork Stream Mitigation Project DMS No. 100068
Year 2 Monitoring Report

PP-55: UT1, R 4, Station 36+15.
Upstream. May 17, 2023
PP-56: UT1, R 4, Station 37+00.
Upstream. May 17, 2023

PP-57: UT1, R 4, Station 37+50.
Upstream. May 17, 2023
PP-58: UT1, R 4, Station 37+60.
Downstream. End of Project. May
17, 2023

Vegetation Plot Photographs
NCDMS Project No. 100068
Michael Baker Engineering Inc. UT to Rush Fork Stream Mitigation Project (DMS #100068)
Year 2 Monitoring Report

Vegetation Plot #1: Photo taken
October 3, 2023
Vegetation Plot #2: Photo taken
August 31, 2023

Vegetation Plot #3: Photo taken
August 31, 2023
Vegetation Plot #4: Photo taken
August 14, 2023

Vegetation Plot #5: Photo taken
October 3, 2023

Vegetation Plot #6: Photo taken
August 31, 2023
Vegetation Plot Photographs
NCDMS Project No. 100068
Michael Baker Engineering Inc. UT to Rush Fork Stream Mitigation Project (DMS #100068)
Year 2 Monitoring Report

Random Vegetation Plot #3 MY2:
Photo taken October 3, 2023

Monitoring Gauges and Overbank Photographs. Photos taken November 8, 2023.
Michael Baker Engineering Inc.
UT to Rush Fork Stream Mitigation Project (DMS #100068)
Year 2 Monitoring Report

Flow Gauge 1. UT3. Flow Gauge 2. UT2.

Flow Gauge 3. UT4. Crest Gauge 1. UT3.

Crest Gauge 2 UT1 R1. Crest Gauge 3 UT1 R4.

APPENDIX C

Vegetation Plot Data

7.3
2022-02-23
NA
2023-10-03
2023-10-03
0.0247
Veg Plot 3 R
Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Total
Acer negundo boxelder Tree FAC 1
Aesculus flava yellow buckeye Tree FACU 1 1 1 1
Aronia arbutifolia red chokeberry Shrub FACW 2 2 3
Betula lenta sweet birch Tree FACU 1 1
Betula nigra river birch Tree FACW 2 2 1 1
Carpinus caroliniana American hornbeam Tree FAC 2 2 2 2
Cephalanthus occidentalis common buttonbush Shrub OBL 1 1
Cornus amomum silky dogwood Shrub FACW 1 1 1 1
Fraxinus americana white ash Tree FACU 1 1 1 1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash Tree FACW 4 4 1
Liriodendron tulipifera tuliptree Tree FACU 1 1 2 2 1 1
Liriodendron tulipifera var. tulipifera tuliptree Tree FACU 1 1
Platanus occidentalis American sycamore Tree FACW 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2
Quercus alba white oak Tree FACU 1 1 2 2 2 2 1
Quercus imbricaria shingle oak Tree FAC 1 1 2 2 2 2
Sambucus canadensis American black elderberry Tree 1 1
Tilia americana American basswood Tree FACU 2 2
Sum Performance Standard 10 10 6 6 7 7 11 11 6 6 5 5 6
Acer rubrum red maple Tree FAC 2
Acer saccharinum silver maple Tree FACW 1
Juglans nigra black walnut Tree FACU 4
Sum Proposed Standard 10 10 6 6 7 7 11 11 6 6 5 5 6
10 6 7 11 6 5 6
405 243 283 445 243 202 243
6 5 5 7 4 3 4
40 25 29 17 33 40 40
4 3 2 2 2 4 4
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
10 6 7 11 6 5 6
405 243 283 445 243 202 243
6 5 5 7 4 3 4
40 25 29 17 33 40 40
4 3 2 2 2 4 4
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1). Bolded species are proposed for the current monitoring year, italicized species are not approved, and a regular font indicates that the species has been approved.
2). The "Species Included in Approved Mitigation Plan" section contains only those species that were included in the original approved mitigation plan. The "Post Mitigation Plan Species" section includes species that are being proposed through a mitigation plan addendum for the current monitoring year
(bolded) , species that have been approved in prior monitoring years through a mitigation plan addendum (regular font), and species that are not approved (italicized).
3). The "Mitigation Plan Performance Standard" section is derived only from stems included in the original mitigation plan, whereas the "Post Mitigation Plan Performance Standard" includes data from mitigation plan approved, post mitigation plan approved, and proposed stems.
Mitigation Plan
Performance
Standard
Post Mitigation
Plan
Performance
Standard
Current Year Stem Count
Current Year Stem Count
Stems/Acre
Stems/Acre
Species Count
Species Count
Dominant Species Composition (%)
Dominant Species Composition (%)
Average Plot Height (ft.)
Average Plot Height (ft.)
% Invasives
% Invasives
Veg Plot 5 F Veg Plot 6 F
Species
Included in
Approved
Mitigation Plan
Post Mitigation
Plan Species
Indicator
Status
Veg Plot 1 F Veg Plot 2 F Veg Plot 3 F Veg Plot 4 F
Date of Current Survey
Plot size (ACRES)
Scientific Name Common Name
Tree/S
hrub
Table 7. Vegetation Plot Data
Planted Acreage
Date of Initial Plant
Date(s) of Supplemental Plant(s)
Date(s) Mowing
Michael Baker Engineering Inc.
UT to Rush Fork Stream Mitigation Project (DMS #100068)
Year 2 Monitoring Report
Table 7. Vegetation Plot Data
Stems/Ac.Av. Ht.
(ft)# Species % Invasives Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) # Species % Invasives Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) # Species % Invasives
405 6 0 243 5 0 283 5 0
324 5 0 283 6 0 364 5 0
729 9 0 607 11 0 729 9 0
Stems/Ac.Av. Ht.
(ft)# Species % Invasives Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) # Species % Invasives Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) # Species % Invasives
445 7 0 243 4 0 202 3 0
445 8 0 567 10 0 364 7 0
810 10 0 972 13 0 648 8 0
Stems/Ac.Av. Ht.
(ft)# Species % Invasives
243 4 0
364 6 0
567 10 0
*Each monitoring year represents a different plot for the random vegetation plot "groups". Random plots are denoted with an R, and fixed plots with an F.
Scientific Name # of Stems
Platanus occidentalis 12
Acer negundo 5
Betula nigra 5
Liriodendron tulipifera 4
Carpinus caroliniana 4
Monitoring Year 2
Table 7. Supplemental Planting Data
Common Name Indicator Status
American
hornbeam
tuliptree
river birch
boxelder
American
sycamore
FACW
FACU
FAC
FAC
FACW
Vegetation Performance Standards Summary Table
Veg Plot 1 F Veg Plot 2 F Veg Plot 3 F
Monitoring Year 7
Monitoring Year 5
Monitoring Year 3
Monitoring Year 2
Monitoring Year 1
Monitoring Year 0
Veg Plot 4 F Veg Plot 5 F Veg Plot 6 F
Veg Plot Group 1 R
Monitoring Year 7
Monitoring Year 5
Monitoring Year 7
Monitoring Year 5
Monitoring Year 3
Monitoring Year 2
Monitoring Year 1
Monitoring Year 3
Monitoring Year 2
Monitoring Year 1
Monitoring Year 0
Monitoring Year 0
Michael Baker Engineering Inc.
UT to Rush Fork Stream Mitigation Project (DMS #100068)
Year 2 Monitoring Report

APPENDIX D

Stream Geomorphology Data

FIGURE 4. CROSS SECTIONS WITH ANNUAL OVERLAY
Feature
Stream
Type BKF Area BKF Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle B 4.1 7.6 0.5 1 13.9 1.0 1.9 3063.86 3063.86
Note: Per DMS/IRT request, bank height ratio for MY2 has been calculated using the bankfull elevation as determined from the as-built bankfull area.
All other values were calculated using the as-built bankfull elevation.
Looking at the Left Bank Looking at the Right Bank
Permanent Cross-section 1
Year 2 Survey Collected: November 2023
3061
3062
3063
3064
3065
3066
3067
3068
3069
3070
0 10 20 30
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Station (ft)
Rush Fork Mitigation Site
UT 3, Cross-Section 1
As-built
Bankfull
Floodprone
MY1
MY2
MY2 BKF
Left and right pin are flush with ground
surface and are represented by 0 and the
furthest point on the X axis.
MY2 DMS BKF ELEV. = 3063.87
Thalweg = 3062.9
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT to RUSH FORK STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100068)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
FIGURE 4. CROSS SECTIONS WITH ANNUAL OVERLAY
Feature
Stream
Type BKF Area BKF Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Pool C 8.8 10.2 9 2.2 11.9 1.0 1.9 3048.03 3048.03
Looking at the Left Bank Looking at the Right Bank
Permanent Cross-section 2
Year 2 Survey Collected: November 2023
3045
3046
3047
3048
3049
3050
3051
0 10 20 30 40
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Station (ft)
Rush Fork Mitigation Site
UT3, Cross-Section 2
As-built
Bankfull
Floodprone
MY1
MY2
Left and right pin are flush with ground
surface and are represented by 0 and the
furthest point on the X axis.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT to RUSH FORK STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100068)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
FIGURE 4. CROSS SECTIONS WITH ANNUAL OVERLAY
Year 1 Survey Collected: November 2023
Feature
Stream
Type BKF Area BKF Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle B 3.7 7.2 0.5 0.9 14.1 1.0 1.9 3028.13 3028.13
Note: Per DMS/IRT request, bank height ratio for MY2 has been calculated using the bankfull elevation as determined from the as-built bankfull area.
All other values were calculated using the as-built bankfull elevation.
(Year 2 Data - Collected ???)
Permanent Cross-section 3
Looking at the Left Bank Looking at the Right Bank
3027
3028
3029
3030
3031
0 10 20 30 40
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Station (ft)
Rush Fork Mitigation Site
UT3, Cross-Section 3
As-built
Bankfull
Floodprone
MY1
MY2 BKF
MY2
Left and right pin are flush with ground
surface and are represented by 0 and the
furthest point on the X axis.
MY2 DMS BKF ELEV = 3028.13
Thalweg = 3027.24
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT to RUSH FORK STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100068)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
FIGURE 4. CROSS SECTIONS WITH ANNUAL OVERLAY
Feature
Stream
Type BKF Area BKF Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Pool E 14.1 12.8 1.1 3.2 11.7 1.0 1.9 3010.84 3010.84
Looking at the Left Bank Looking at the Right Bank
Permanent Cross-section 4
Year 2 Survey Collected: November 2023
3007
3008
3009
3010
3011
3012
3013
3014
3015
0 10 20 30
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Station (ft)
Rush Fork Mitigation Site
UT3, Cross-Section 4
As-built
Bankfull
Floodprone
MY1
MY2
Left and right pin are flush with ground
surface and are represented by 0 and the
furthest point on the X axis.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT to RUSH FORK STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100068)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
FIGURE 4. CROSS SECTIONS WITH ANNUAL OVERLAY
Feature
Stream
Type BKF Area BKF Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle B 5.7 10.7 0.5 1.1 20.3 1.0 1.9 2998.75 2998.75
Looking at the Left Bank Looking at the Right Bank
Note: Per DMS/IRT request, bank height ratio for MY2 has been calculated using the bankfull elevation as determined from the as-built bankfull area.
All other values were calculated using the as-built bankfull elevation.
Permanent Cross-section 5
Year 2 Survey Collected: November 2023
2997
2998
2999
3000
3001
3002
0 10 20 30 40
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Station (ft)
Rush Fork Mitigation Site
UT3, Cross-Section 5
As-built
Bankfull
Floodprone
MY1
MY2 BKF
MY2
Left and right pin are flush with ground surface and are
represented by 0 and the furthest point on the X axis.
MY2 DMS BFK ELEV. = 2998.799
Thalweg = 2997.69
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT to RUSH FORK STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100068)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
FIGURE 4. CROSS SECTIONS WITH ANNUAL OVERLAY
Feature
Stream
Type BKF Area BKF Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Pool E 15.9 12.8 1.2 2.5 10.3 1.0 1.9 2985.03 2984.8
Looking at the Left Bank Looking at the Right Bank
Permanent Cross-section 6
Year 1 Survey Collected: November 2023
2982
2983
2984
2985
2986
2987
2988
2989
0 10 20 30 40
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Station (ft)
Rush Fork Mitigation Site
UT3, Cross-Section 6
As-built
Bankfull
Floodprone
MY1
MY2
Left and right pin are flush with ground
surface and are represented by 0 and the
furthest point on the X axis.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT to RUSH FORK STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100068)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
FIGURE 4. CROSS SECTIONS WITH ANNUAL OVERLAY
Feature
Stream
Type BKF Area BKF Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle B 5.2 7.9 0.7 0.9 11.9 1.0 1.9 2976.51 2976.51
Looking at the Left Bank Looking at the Right Bank
Permanent Cross-section 7
Year 2 Survey Collected: November 2023
Note: Per DMS/IRT request, bank height ratio for MY2 has been calculated using the bankfull elevation as determined from the as-built bankfull area.
All other values were calculated using the as-built bankfull elevation.
2975
2976
2977
2978
2979
2980
2981
0 10 20 30
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Station (ft)
Rush Fork Mitigation Site
UT3, Cross-Section 7
As-built
Bankfull
Floodprone
MY1
MY2 BKF
MY2
Left and right pin are flush with ground
surface and are represented by 0 and
the furthest point on the X axis.
MY2 DMS BKF ELEV = 2976.62
Thalweg = 2975.57
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT to RUSH FORK STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100068)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
FIGURE 4. CROSS SECTIONS WITH ANNUAL OVERLAY
Feature
Stream
Type BKF Area BKF Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle C 12.1 18.1 0.7 1.5 26.9 1.0 1.9 2970.37 2970.26
Looking at the Left Bank Looking at the Right Bank
Note: Per DMS/IRT request, bank height ratio for MY2 has been calculated using the bankfull elevation as determined from the as-built bankfull area.
All other values were calculated using the as-built bankfull elevation.
Permanent Cross-section 8
Year 2 Survey Collected: November 2023
2968
2969
2970
2971
2972
2973
0 10 20 30 40 50
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Station (ft)
Rush Fork Mitigation Site
UT1 Reach 4, Cross-Section 8
As-built
Bankfull
Floodprone
MY1
MY2
MY2 BKF
Left and right pin are flush
with ground surface and are
represented by 0 and the
furthest point on the X axis.
MY2 DMS BKF = 2970.3
Thalweg = 2968.88
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT to RUSH FORK STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100068)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
FIGURE 4. CROSS SECTIONS WITH ANNUAL OVERLAY
Feature
Stream
Type BKF Area BKF Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Pool B 25.3 18.3 1.4 2.4 13.2 1.0 1.9 2954.14 2954.07
Looking at the Left Bank Looking at the Right Bank
Permanent Cross-section 9
Year 2 Survey Collected: November 2023
2951
2952
2953
2954
2955
2956
2957
2958
0 10 20 30 40
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Station (ft)
Rush Fork Mitigation Site
UT 1 Reach 4, Cross-Section 9
As-built
Bankfull
Floodprone
MY1
MY2
Left and right pin are flush with ground
surface and are represented by 0 and the
furthest point on the X axis.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT to RUSH FORK STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100068)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
FIGURE 4. CROSS SECTIONS WITH ANNUAL OVERLAY
Feature
Stream
Type BKF Area BKF Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle B 14.5 14.4 1 1.4 14.2 1.0 1.9 2922.1 2922.1
Looking at the Left Bank Looking at the Right Bank
Permanent Cross-section 10
Year 2 Survey Collected: August 2023
Note: Per DMS/IRT request, bank height ratio for MY2 has been calculated using the bankfull elevation as determined from the as-built bankfull area.
All other values were calculated using the as-built bankfull elevation.
2920
2921
2922
2923
2924
2925
2926
0 10 20 30 40
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Station (ft)
Rush Fork Mitigation Site
UT1 Reach 4, Cross-Section 10
As-built
Bankfull
Floodprone
MY1
MY2
MY2 BKF
Left and right pin are flush with
ground surface and are
represented by 0 and the furthest
point on the X axis.
MY2 DMS BKF ELEV.= 2922.1
Thalweg = 2920.65
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT to RUSH FORK STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100068)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
FIGURE 4. CROSS SECTIONS WITH ANNUAL OVERLAY
Feature
Stream
Type BKF Area BKF Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Pool E 32.6 19.3 1.7 3.4 11.4 1.0 1.9 2913.15 2913.09
Looking at the Left Bank Looking at the Right Bank
Permanent Cross-section 11
Year 2 Survey Collected: August 2023
DMS MY1 BKF = '
2909
2910
2911
2912
2913
2914
2915
2916
0 10 20 30 40
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Station (ft)
Rush Fork Mitigation Site
UT1 Reach 4, Cross-Section 11
As-built
Bankfull
Floodprone
MY1
MY2
Left and right pin are flush with
ground surface and are represented
by 0 and the furthest point on the X
axis.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT to RUSH FORK STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100068)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
FIGURE 4. CROSS SECTIONS WITH ANNUAL OVERLAY
Feature
Stream
Type BKF Area BKF Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle B 13.6 13 1 1.5 12.4 1.0 1.9 2904.41 2904.65
Looking at the Left Bank Looking at the Right Bank
Permanent Cross-section 12
Year 2 Survey Collected: August 2023
Note: Per DMS/IRT request, bank height ratio for MY2 has been calculated using the bankfull elevation as determined from the as-built bankfull area.
All other values were calculated using the as-built bankfull elevation.
2902
2903
2904
2905
2906
2907
0 10 20 30
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Station (ft)
Rush Fork Mitigation Site
UT1 Reach 4, Cross-Section 12
As-built
Bankfull
Floodprone
MY1
MY2
MY2 BKF
Left and right pin are flush with ground
surface and are represented by 0 and the
furthest point on the X axis.
MY2 DMS BKF ELEV= 2904.46
Thalweg = 2902.91
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT to RUSH FORK STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100068)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
FIGURE 4. CROSS SECTIONS WITH ANNUAL OVERLAY
Feature
Stream
Type BKF Area BKF Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Pool E 11.78 9.4 1.2 1.8 7.6 1.0 1.9 3051.49 3051.49
Permanent Cross-section 13
Year 2 Survey Collected November 2023
Looking at the Left Bank Looking at the Right Bank
3048
3049
3050
3051
3052
3053
3054
3055
3056
0 10 20 30
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Station (ft)
Rush Fork Mitigation Site
UT1 Reach 1, Cross-Section 13
As-built
Bankfull
Floodprone
MY1
MY2
Left and right pin are flush with ground
surface and are represented by 0 and the
furthest point on the X axis.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT to RUSH FORK STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100068)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
FIGURE 4. CROSS SECTIONS WITH ANNUAL OVERLAY
Feature
Stream
Type BKF Area BKF Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle B 5.5 8.5 0.6 1 13.1 1.0 1.9 3025.48 3025.48
Looking at the Right Bank
Note: Per DMS/IRT request, bank height ratio for MY2 has been calculated using the bankfull elevation as determined from the as-built
bankfull area. All other values were calculated using the as-built bankfull elevation.
Looking at the Left Bank
Permanent Cross-section 14
Year 2 Survey Collected: November 2023
3024
3025
3026
3027
3028
3029
3030
0 10 20 30
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Station (ft)
Rush Fork Mitigation Site
UT1 Reach 2, Cross-Section 14
As-built
Bankfull
Floodprone
MY1
MY2
MY2 BKF
Left and right pin are flush with ground
surface and are represented by 0 and the
furthest point on the X axis.
MY2 DMS BKF ELEV. = 3025.48
Thalweg = 3024.47
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT to RUSH FORK STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100068)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
FIGURE 4. CROSS SECTIONS WITH ANNUAL OVERLAY
Feature
Stream
Type BKF Area BKF Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle C 6.4 11.2 0.6 1.1 19.7 1.0 1.9 3008.35 3008.3
Looking at the Right Bank
Note: Per DMS/IRT request, bank height ratio for MY1 has been calculated using the bankfull elevation as determined from the as-built bankfull area.
All other values were calculated using the as-built bankfull elevation.
Looking at the Left Bank
Permanent Cross-section 15
Year 2 Survey Collected: November 2023
3007
3008
3009
3010
3011
0 10 20 30 40 50
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Station (ft)
Rush Fork Mitigation Site
UT1 Reach 3, Cross-Section 15
As-built
Bankfull
Floodprone
MY1
MY2
MY2 BKF
Left and right pin are flush with ground
surface and are represented by 0 and the
furthest point on the X axis.
MY2 DMS BKF ELEV. = 3008.343
Thalweg = 3007.28
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT to RUSH FORK STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100068)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
FIGURE 4. CROSS SECTIONS WITH ANNUAL OVERLAY
Feature
Stream
Type BKF Area BKF Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Pool E 14.3 12.7 1.1 2.5 11.3 1.0 1.9 2998.87 2998.87
Looking at the Right BankLooking at the Left Bank
Permanent Cross-section 16
Year 2 Survey Collected: November 2023
2996
2997
2998
2999
3000
3001
3002
0 10 20 30
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Station (ft)
Rush Fork Mitigation Site
UT1 Reach 3, Cross-Section 16
As-built
Bankfull
Floodprone
MY1
MY2
Left and right pin are flush with ground
surface and are represented by 0 and the
furthest point on the X axis.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT to RUSH FORK STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100068)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
FIGURE 4. CROSS SECTIONS WITH ANNUAL OVERLAY
Feature
Stream
Type BKF Area BKF Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Pool B 19.1 15 1.3 1.9 11.8 -- -- 2986.75 2986.74
Looking at the Right BankLooking at the Left Bank
Permanent Cross-section 17
Year 2 Survey Collected: November 2023
2984
2985
2986
2987
2988
2989
0 10 20
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Station (ft)
Rush Fork Mitigation Site
UT1 Reach 3, Cross-Section 17
As-built
Bankfull
Floodprone
MY1
MY2
Left and right pin are flush with ground
surface and are represented by 0 and the
furthest point on the X axis.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT to RUSH FORK STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100068)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
FIGURE 4. CROSS SECTIONS WITH ANNUAL OVERLAY
Feature
Stream
Type BKF Area BKF Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Pool B 16.5 14.3 1.2 2.5 12.4 1.0 1.9 2976.03 2976.03
Looking at the Right BankLooking at the Left Bank
Permanent Cross-section 18
Year 2 Data Collected: November 2023
2973
2974
2975
2976
2977
2978
0 10 20 30
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Station (ft)
Rush Fork Mitigation Site
UT1 Reach 3, Cross-Section 18
As-built
Bankfull
Floodprone
MY1
MY2
Left and right pin are flush with ground
surface and are represented by 0 and the
furthest point on the X axis.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT to RUSH FORK STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100068)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
Table 8. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Rush Fork Stream Mitigation Project: DMS Project No ID. 100068
UT1 - Reach 1-3 (Enhancement)
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Min Mean Med Max Min Mean Med Max Min Mean Med Max Min Mean Med Max
BF Width (ft) 7.1000 9.65 ----- 12.2000 9.90 11.39 ----- 12.88 9.00 9.50 ----- 10.00 7.79 9.28 9.28 10.76
Floodprone Width (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 15.09 27.03 15.09 38.96
BF Mean Depth (ft) 0.2700 0.58 ----- 0.8900 0.55 0.86 ----- 1.16 0.65 0.68 ----- 0.70 0.59 0.65 0.65 0.70
BF Max Depth (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.80 0.90 ----- 1.00 0.96 0.98 0.98 0.99
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft²) 3.3300 4.85 ----- 6.4 5.4 8.76 ----- 12.1 5.9 6.45 ----- 7.00 5.44 5.90 5.90 6.36
Width/Depth Ratio 7.9800 26.62 ----- 45.2600 8.97 13.49 ----- 18.00 13.80 14.05 ----- 14.30 11.13 14.69 14.69 18.24
Entrenchment Ratio 1.1500 1.43 ----- 1.7100 1.70 1.67 ----- 1.63 1.40 ----- ----- 2.20 1.94 2.78 2.78 3.62
Bank Height Ratio 1.0000 1.43 ----- 1.8600 1.00 1.19 ----- 1.38 1.10 ----- 1.10 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
d50 (mm)---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- ---- ---- ----
Channel Beltwidth (ft)-----N/A ----- ----- ----- N/A ----- ----- ----- N/A ----- ----- ---- N/A ---- ----
Radius of Curvature (ft)-----N/A ----- ----- ----- N/A ----- ----- ----- N/A ----- ----- ---- N/A ---- ----
Rc/Bankfull width (ft/ft)-----N/A ----- ----- ----- N/A ----- ----- ----- N/A ----- ----- ---- N/A ---- ----
Meander Wavelength (ft)-----N/A ----- ----- ----- N/A ----- ----- ----- N/A ----- ----- ---- N/A ---- ----
Meander Width Ratio -----N/A ----- ----- ----- N/A ----- ----- ----- N/A ----- ----- ---- N/A ---- ----
Riffle Length (ft)---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 4.30 14.60 15.40 20.50
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -0.0950 -0.0680 -0.0630 -0.0400
Pool Length (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 2.00 9.50 10.00 14.00
Pool to Pool Spacing (ft)---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 14.00 42.10 35.00 240.00
Pool Max Depth (ft) ---- ---- ---- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.50 1.75 ----- 2.00 2.33 2.46 2.47 2.55
SC% / Sa% / G% / C% / Bo%----------------------------------------------------------------------------
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 -----168.14/256/80 ------------------------------------------------------------------
Drainage Area (SM) ----- 0.21 ----- ----- 0.15 0.32 ----- 0.49 0.15 ----- ----- 0.21 0.15 ---- ---- 0.21
Impervious cover estimate (%) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- ---- ---- ----
Rosgen Classification ----- B4a ----- ----- B4a - B4 - Ba ----- ----- ----- B4a ----- ----- ---- B ---- ----
BF Velocity (fps) 3.00 3.82 ----- 4.64 3.42 5.11 ----- 6.80 2.15 3.58 ----- 5.00 ---- ---- ---- ----
BF Discharge (cfs) 10.00 19.75 ----- 29.50 23.90 31.16 ----- 38.41 12.60 14.95 ----- 17.30 ---- ---- ---- ----
Valley Length ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- ---- ---- ----
Channel Length (ft) ----- 1,164 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1,093.30 ----- ----- ---- 1,082.27 ---- ----
Sinuosity 1.06 1.07 ----- 1.07 1.02 1.08 ----- 1.14 ----- 1.05 ----- ----- ---- ---- ---- ----
As-built
Composite
Pattern
Profile
Substrate and Transport Parameters
Parameter Pre-Existing Condition
Reference Reach(es) Data
Design
Additional Reach Parameters
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT to RUSH FORK MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100068)
Year 2 MONITORING REPORT
Table 8. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Rush Fork Stream Mitigation Project: DMS Project No ID. 100068
UT1 - Reach 4 (Restoration)
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Min Mean Med Max Min Mean Med Max Min Mean Med Max Min Mean Med Max
BF Width (ft) 8.7300 11.07 ----- 13.4000 9.90 11.39 ----- 12.88 12.50 12.75 ----- 13.00 12.93 14.21 13.36 15.90
Floodprone Width (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 21.96 30.86 24.30 46.32
BF Mean Depth (ft) 0.7300 1.01 ----- 1.2800 0.55 0.86 ----- 1.16 0.90 0.93 ----- 0.95 0.69 0.71 0.87 1.11
BF Max Depth (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.20 1.25 ----- 1.30 1.35 1.46 1.43 1.60
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft²) 9.8600 10.48 ----- 11.1 5.4 8.76 ----- 12.1 11.3 11.70 ----- 12.10 11.01 13.27 14.33 14.48
Width/Depth Ratio 6.8200 12.59 ----- 18.3600 8.97 13.49 ----- 18.00 12.00 15.00 ----- 18.00 11.65 15.94 13.13 13.13
Entrenchment Ratio 1.4800 2.45 ----- 3.4200 1.70 1.67 ----- 1.63 1.40 1.80 ----- 2.20 1.59 2.13 1.88 1.88
Bank Height Ratio 1.0000 1.31 ----- 1.6200 1.00 1.19 ----- 1.38 1.00 ---- ----- 1.62 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
d50 (mm) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- ---- ---- ----
Channel Beltwidth (ft) ----- N/A ----- ----- ----- N/A ----- ----- ----- N/A ----- ----- ---- N/A ---- ----
Radius of Curvature (ft) ----- N/A ----- ----- ----- N/A ----- ----- ----- N/A ----- ----- ---- N/A ---- ----
Rc/Bankfull width (ft/ft) ----- N/A ----- ----- ----- N/A ----- ----- ----- N/A ----- ----- ---- N/A ---- ----
Meander Wavelength (ft) ----- N/A ----- ----- ----- N/A ----- ----- ----- N/A ----- ----- ---- N/A ---- ----
Meander Width Ratio ----- N/A ----- ----- ----- N/A ----- ----- ----- N/A ----- ----- ---- N/A ---- ----
Riffle Length (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 12.30 19.30 17.70 19.30
Riffle Slope (ft/ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- ----- ----- ---- -0.5800 -0.0220 -0.0377 -0.0790
Pool Length (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- ----- ----- ---- 2.00 13.40 14.00 22.00
Pool to Pool Spacing (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- ----- ----- ---- 18.00 44.80 40.00 117.00
Pool Max Depth (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 2.50 ----- ----- 2.55 2.72 2.72 2.89
SC% / Sa% / G% / C% / Bo%----------------------------------------------------------------------------
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 ----- 156/180/100.3 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- ---- ---- ----
Drainage Area (SM) ----- 0.48 ----- ----- 0.15 0.32 ----- 0.49 ----- ---- ---- ----
Impervious cover estimate (%) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- ---- ---- ----
Rosgen Classification ----- B4 ----- ----- B4a - B4 - Ba ----- ----- ----- B4 ----- ----- ---- B4 ---- ----
BF Velocity (fps) 3.17 3.61 ----- 4.04 3.42 5.11 ----- 6.80 4.00 5.00 ----- 6.00 ---- ---- ---- ----
BF Discharge (cfs) 31.24 38.03 ----- 44.81 23.90 ----- ----- 38.41 37.88 38.13 ----- 38.37 ---- ---- ---- ----
Valley Length ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- ---- ---- ----
Channel Length (ft) ----- 1,300.00 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1,216.33 ----- ----- ---- 1,224.37 ---- ----
Sinuosity 1.08 1.11 ----- 1.14 1.02 1.08 ----- 1.14 1.10 1.15 ----- 1.20 ---- ---- ---- ----
Parameter Pre-Existing Condition
Reference Reach(es) Data
Design As-built
Composite
Pattern
Profile
Substrate and Transport Parameters
Additional Reach Parameters
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT to RUSH FORK MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100068)
Year 2 MONITORING REPORT
Table 8. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Rush Fork Stream Mitigation Project: DMS Project No ID. 100068
UT3 - Restoration
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Min Mean Med Max Min Mean Med Max Min Mean Med Max Min Mean Med Max
BF Width (ft) ----- 6.58 ----- ----- 9.90 11.39 ----- 12.88 7.50 8.00 ----- 8.50 7.04 8.29 7.60 10.92
Floodprone Width (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 11.96 15.37 14.41 20.71
BF Mean Depth (ft) ----- 0.82 ----- ----- 0.55 0.86 ----- 1.16 0.57 0.61 ----- 0.65 0.52 0.61 0.58 0.77
BF Max Depth (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.70 0.78 ----- 0.85 0.71 0.89 0.89 1.07
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft²) ----- 5.4 ----- ----- 5.4 8.76 ----- 12.1 4.6 5.30 ----- 6.00 3.64 5.05 5.16 6.23
Width/Depth Ratio ----- 8.02 ----- ----- 8.97 13.49 ----- 18.00 ----- 13.10 ----- ----- 10.32 13.88 13.02 19.16
Entrenchment Ratio ----- 2.17 ----- ----- 1.70 1.67 ----- 1.63 1.40 1.80 ----- 2.20 1.70 1.85 1.86 1.97
Bank Height Ratio ----- 1.83 ----- ----- 1.00 1.19 ----- 1.38 ----- 1.00 ----- ----- 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
d50 (mm) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- ---- ---- ----
Channel Beltwidth (ft) ----- N/A ----- ----- ----- N/A ----- ----- ----- N/A ----- ----- ---- N/A ---- ----
Radius of Curvature (ft) ----- N/A ----- ----- ----- N/A ----- ----- ----- N/A ----- ----- ---- N/A ---- ----
Rc/Bankfull width (ft/ft) ----- N/A ----- ----- ----- N/A ----- ----- ----- N/A ----- ----- ---- N/A ---- ----
Meander Wavelength (ft) ----- N/A ----- ----- ----- N/A ----- ----- ----- N/A ----- ----- ---- N/A ---- ----
Meander Width Ratio ----- N/A ----- ----- ----- N/A ----- ----- ----- N/A ----- ----- ---- N/A ---- ----
Riffle Length (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 10.20 18.70 16.90 37.20
Riffle Slope (ft/ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -0.1400 -0.0660 -0.0649 -0.0330
Pool Length (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 2.00 5.70 6.00 12.00
Pool to Pool Spacing (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 10.00 37.00 34.00 70.00
Pool Max Depth (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.70 1.75 ----- 1.80 2.16 2.54 2.53 2.94
SC% / Sa% / G% / C% / Bo% ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- ---- ---- ----
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drainage Area (SM)-----0.15 ----------0.15 0.32 -----0.49 -----0.15 --------------0.15 --------
Impervious cover estimate (%) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- ---- ---- ----
Rosgen Classification ----- Ba ----- ----- B4a - B4 - Ba ----- ----- ----- Ba ----- ----- ---- B4 ---- ----
BF Velocity (fps) ----- 3.48 ----- ----- 3.42 5.11 ----- 6.80 4.42 4.71 ----- 5.00 ---- ---- ---- ----
BF Discharge (cfs) ----- 18.8 ----- ----- 23.90 31.16 ----- 38.41 19.00 24.50 ----- 30.00 ---- ---- ---- ----
Valley Length ----- 1,541 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- ---- ---- ----
Channel Length (ft) ----- 1,618 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1,584.45 ----- ----- ---- 1,577.53 ---- ----
Sinuosity ----- 1.05 ----- ----- 1.02 1.08 ----- 1.14 ----- 1.02 ----- ----- ---- ---- ---- ----
Profile
Substrate and Transport Parameters
Additional Reach Parameters
Parameter Pre-Existing Condition
Reference Reach(es) Data
Design As-built
Composite
Pattern
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT to RUSH FORK MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100068)
Year 2 MONITORING REPORT
Table 9. Cross-Section Morphology Data Summary
Stream Reach
Dimension and substrate Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-Bankfull1 Area 3063.86 3063.77 3063.87 -- -- -- 3028.13 3028.14 3028.13 ------
Bank Height Ratio_Based on AB Bankfull1 Area 1.00 1.10 1.00 -- -- -- 1.00 1.00 1.00 ------
Thalweg Elevation 3062.99 3062.93 3062.90 3045.87 3046.11 3048.03 3027.42 3027.38 3027.24 3007.90 3007.69 3007.63
LTOB2 Elevation 3063.86 3063.86 3063.86 3048.03 3048.03 3045.9 3028.13 3028.13 3028.13 3010.84 3010.84 3010.84
LTOB2 Max Depth (ft)0.87 0.90 1.0 2.16 1.92 2.2 0.71 0.75 0.90 2.94 3.15 3.20
LTOB2 Cross Sectional Area (ft2)4.20 4.96 4.10 11.12 10.36 8.8 3.64 3.66 3.70 15.11 14.74 14.10
Stream Reach
Dimension and substrate Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-Bankfull1 Area 2998.75 2998.78 2998.75 -- -- --2976.51 2976.50 2976.51 2970.37 2970.34 2970.37
Bank Height Ratio_Based on AB Bankfull1 Area 1.00 1.00 1.00 -- -- --1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Thalweg Elevation 2997.84 2997.76 2997.69 2982.50 2982.43 2982.51 2975.44 2975.44 2975.57 2969.02 2969.10 2968.88
LTOB2 Elevation 2998.75 2998.75 2998.75 2985.03 2985.03 2984.80 2976.51 2976.51 2976.51 2970.37 2970.37 2970.26
LTOB2 Max Depth (ft)0.91 0.99 1.10 2.53 2.60 2.50 1.07 1.07 0.90 1.35 1.27 1.50
LTOB2 Cross Sectional Area (ft2)6.23 6.14 5.70 15.51 15.74 15.90 6.11 5.93 5.20 11.01 11.34 12.10
Stream Reach
Dimension and substrate Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-Bankfull1 Area ---- --
2922.10 2922.01 2922.10 ---- --
2904.41 2904.34 2904.41
Bank Height Ratio_Based on AB Bankfull1 Area ---- --
1.00 1.00 1.00 ---- --
1.00 1.00 1.00
Thalweg Elevation 2951.59 2951.74 2951.78 2920.67 2920.48 2920.65 2910.26 2910.27 2909.73 2902.81 2902.80 2902.91
LTOB2 Elevation 2954.14 2954.14 2954.07 2922.10 2922.10 2922.10 2913.15 2913.15 2913.09 2904.41 2904.41 2904.65
LTOB2 Max Depth (ft)2.55 2.40 2.40 1.43 1.62 1.40 2.89 2.88 3.40 1.60 1.61 1.50
LTOB2 Cross Sectional Area (ft2)27.56 25.75 25.30 14.50 15.28 14.50 31.24 30.05 32.60 14.33 15.37 13.60
Table 9. Cross-Section Morphology Data Summary
UT to Rush Fork Restoration Project: DMS Project No ID. 100068
Stream Reach
Dimension and substrate Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-Bankfull1 Area ---- --
3025.48 3025.50 3025.48 3008.35 3008.34 3008.35 ---- --
Bank Height Ratio_Based on AB Bankfull1 Area ---- --
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ---- --
Thalweg Elevation 3049.01 3049.97 3049.66 3024.52 3024.65 3024.47 3007.37 3007.33 3007.28 2996.54 2996.38 2996.36
LTOB2 Elevation 3051.49 3051.49 3051.49 3025.48 3025.48 3025.48 3008.35 3008.35 3005.35 2998.87 2998.87 2998.87
LTOB2 Max Depth (ft)2.48 1.52 1.80 0.96 0.83 1.00 0.98 1.02 1.10 2.33 2.49 2.50
LTOB2 Cross Sectional Area (ft2)12.13 10.64 11.78 5.44 5.29 5.50 6.36 6.48 6.40 12.06 14.14 14.30
Stream Reach
Dimension and substrate Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-Bankfull1 Area ---- --
---- --
Bank Height Ratio_Based on AB Bankfull1 Area ---- --
---- --
Thalweg Elevation 2984.29 2984.76 2984.85 2973.48 2973.43 2973.50
LTOB2 Elevation 2986.75 2986.75 2986.74 2976.03 2976.03 2976.03
LTOB2 Max Depth (ft)2.46 1.99 1.90 2.55 2.60 2.50
LTOB2 Cross Sectional Area (ft2)17.60 15.99 19.10 17.29 17.10 16.50
UT1 Reach 4
Cross-section X-9 (Pool) Cross-section X-10 (Riffle) Cross-section X-11 (Pool)
UT3 UT 1 Reach 4
Cross-section X-5 (Riffle) Cross-section X-6 (Pool) Cross-section X-7 (Riffle) Cross-section X-8 (Riffle)
Cross-section X-12 (Riffle)
UT to Rush Fork Restoration Project: DMS Project No ID. 100068
UT3
Cross-section X-1 (Riffle) Cross-section X-2 (Pool) Cross-section X-3 (Riffle) Cross-section X-4 (Pool)
UT1 Reach 1 UT1 Reach 2 UT1 Reach 3
Cross-section X-13 (Pool) Cross-section X-14 (Riffle) Cross-section X-15 (Riffle) Cross-section X-16 (Pool)
UT1 Reach 3
Cross-section X-17 (Pool) Cross-section X-18 (Pool)
The above morphology parameters reflect the 2018 guidance that arose from the mitigation technical workgroup consisting of DMS, the IRT and industry mitigation providers/practitioners. The outcome resulted in the focus on three primary morphological parameters of
interest for the purposes of tracking channel change moving forward. They are the bank height ratio using a constant As-built bankfull area and the cross sectional area and max depth based on each years low top of bank. These are calculated as follows:
1 - Bank Height Ratio (BHR) takes the As-built bankful area as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation. For example if the As-built bankfull area was 10 ft2, then the MY1 bankfull elevation would be adjusted until the calculated bankfull area within
the MY1 cross section survey = 10 ft2. The BHR would then be calculated with the difference between the low top of bank (LTOB) elevation for MY1 and the thalweg elevation for MY1 in the numerator with the difference between the MY1 bankfull elevation and the MY1
thalweg elevation in the denominator. This same process is then carried out in each successive year.
2 -LTOB Area and Max depth -These are based on the LTOB elevation for each years survey (The same elevation used for the LTOB in the BHR calculation). Area below the LTOB elevation will be used and tracked for each year as above. The difference between the LTOB
elevation and the thalweg elevation (same as in the BHR calculation) will be recroded and tracked above as LTOB max depth.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT to RUSH FORK MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100068)
Year 2 MONITORING REPORT

APPENDIX E

Hydrologic Data

Date of Data
Collection
UT3 Crest Gauge
#1
UT1 R1 Crest
Gauge #2
UT1 R4 Crest
Gauge #3
Date of Bankfull
Event Occurrence
Method of Data
Collection
11/29/2022 NA NA NA NA
Continuous Stage
Recorder
5/10/2023 NA NA NA NA
Continuous Stage
Recorder
Table 10. Verification of Bankfull Events
UT to Rush Fork Stream Mitigation Project - NCDMS Project No. 100068
Year 1 Monitoring (2022)
Note: Crest gauge readings were corroborated with associated spikes in the automated Continuous Stage Recorder (see graph in Appendix E) and/or with
photographs (Appendix B).
Year 2 Monitoring (2023)
-1.00
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
12/5/2022 1/19/2023 3/5/2023 4/19/2023 6/3/2023 7/18/2023 9/1/2023 10/16/2023 11/30/2023
Re
l
a
t
i
v
e

E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
.
)
Date
Rush Fork
Crest Gauge #1 - UT3
Bankfull Elevation
Crest Gauge #1
Streambed Elevation
Crest gauge moved to in-stream on 5/10/2023
0
1
2
3
1/1/2023 0:00 2/1/2023 0:00 3/1/2023 0:00 4/1/2023 0:00 5/1/2023 0:00 6/1/2023 0:00 7/1/2023 0:00 8/1/2023 0:00 9/1/2023 0:00 10/1/2023 0:00 11/1/2023 0:00
UT Rush Fork Rain (MPE)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT to RUSH FORK MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100068)
Year 2 MONITORING REPORT
-1.00
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
12/5/2022 1/19/2023 3/5/2023 4/19/2023 6/3/2023 7/18/2023 9/1/2023 10/16/2023 11/30/2023
Re
l
a
t
i
v
e

E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
.
)
Date
Rush Fork
Crest Gauge #2 - UT1 R1
Bankfull Elevation
Crest Gauge #2
Streambed Elevation
Crest gauge moved to in-stream on 5/10/2023
-1.00
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
12/5/2022 1/19/2023 3/5/2023 4/19/2023 6/3/2023 7/18/2023 9/1/2023 10/16/2023 11/30/2023
Re
l
a
t
i
v
e

E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
.
)
Date
Rush Fork
Crest Gauge #3 - UT1 R4
Bankfull Elevation
Crest Gauge #3
Streambed Elevation
Erroneous reading 12/23/2022
Crest gauge moved to in-stream on 5/10/2023
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT to RUSH FORK MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100068)
Year 2 MONITORING REPORT
Figure 5 Flow Gauge Graphs
Rain data from the State Climate Office of NC Legacy data.
*Surface water flow is estimated to have occurred when the pressure transducer reading is equal to or above 0.05 feet in depth.
-0.50
-0.40
-0.30
-0.20
-0.10
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
1/1/2023 2/15/2023 4/1/2023 5/16/2023 6/30/2023 8/14/2023 9/28/2023 11/12/2023
Su
r
f
a
c
e

W
a
t
e
r

D
e
p
t
h

(
f
t
.
)
Date
UT to Rush Fork
In-channel Flow Gauge 1 (RF1) - UT3
FG1
Min Flow - 0.05 Feet
Manual
YR2 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
CRITERIA MET -179
(1/1/2023 - 6/29/2023)
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
1/
1
/
2
0
2
3
1/
6
/
2
0
2
3
1/
1
1
/
2
0
2
3
1/
1
6
/
2
0
2
3
1/
2
1
/
2
0
2
3
1/
2
6
/
2
0
2
3
1/
3
1
/
2
0
2
3
2/
5
/
2
0
2
3
2/
1
0
/
2
0
2
3
2/
1
5
/
2
0
2
3
2/
2
0
/
2
0
2
3
2/
2
5
/
2
0
2
3
3/
2
/
2
0
2
3
3/
7
/
2
0
2
3
3/
1
2
/
2
0
2
3
3/
1
7
/
2
0
2
3
3/
2
2
/
2
0
2
3
3/
2
7
/
2
0
2
3
4/
1
/
2
0
2
3
4/
6
/
2
0
2
3
4/
1
1
/
2
0
2
3
4/
1
6
/
2
0
2
3
4/
2
1
/
2
0
2
3
4/
2
6
/
2
0
2
3
5/
1
/
2
0
2
3
5/
6
/
2
0
2
3
5/
1
1
/
2
0
2
3
5/
1
6
/
2
0
2
3
5/
2
1
/
2
0
2
3
5/
2
6
/
2
0
2
3
5/
3
1
/
2
0
2
3
6/
5
/
2
0
2
3
6/
1
0
/
2
0
2
3
6/
1
5
/
2
0
2
3
6/
2
0
/
2
0
2
3
6/
2
5
/
2
0
2
3
6/
3
0
/
2
0
2
3
7/
5
/
2
0
2
3
7/
1
0
/
2
0
2
3
7/
1
5
/
2
0
2
3
7/
2
0
/
2
0
2
3
7/
2
5
/
2
0
2
3
7/
3
0
/
2
0
2
3
8/
4
/
2
0
2
3
8/
9
/
2
0
2
3
8/
1
4
/
2
0
2
3
8/
1
9
/
2
0
2
3
8/
2
4
/
2
0
2
3
8/
2
9
/
2
0
2
3
9/
3
/
2
0
2
3
9/
8
/
2
0
2
3
9/
1
3
/
2
0
2
3
9/
1
8
/
2
0
2
3
9/
2
3
/
2
0
2
3
9/
2
8
/
2
0
2
3
10
/
3
/
2
0
2
3
10
/
8
/
2
0
2
3
10
/
1
3
/
2
0
2
3
10
/
1
8
/
2
0
2
3
10
/
2
3
/
2
0
2
3
10
/
2
8
/
2
0
2
3
11
/
2
/
2
0
2
3
11
/
7
/
2
0
2
3
UT Rush Fork Rain (MPE)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT to RUSH FORKMITIGATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 100068) MONITORING YEAR 2, 2023
Figure 5 Flow Gauge Graphs
Rain data from the State Climate Office of NC Legacy data.
*Surface water flow is estimated to have occurred when the pressure transducer reading is equal to or above 0.05 feet in depth.
-1.00
-0.90
-0.80
-0.70
-0.60
-0.50
-0.40
-0.30
-0.20
-0.10
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
1/1/2023 2/15/2023 4/1/2023 5/16/2023 6/30/2023 8/14/2023 9/28/2023 11/12/2023
Su
r
f
a
c
e

W
a
t
e
r

D
e
p
t
h

(
f
t
.
)
Date
UT to Rush Fork
In-channel Flow Gauge 2 (RF2)- UT2
FG2
Min Flow - 0.05 Feet
Manual
YR2 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
CRITERIA MET - 109
(1/1/2023 - 4/19/2023)
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
1/
1
/
2
0
2
3
1/
6
/
2
0
2
3
1/
1
1
/
2
0
2
3
1/
1
6
/
2
0
2
3
1/
2
1
/
2
0
2
3
1/
2
6
/
2
0
2
3
1/
3
1
/
2
0
2
3
2/
5
/
2
0
2
3
2/
1
0
/
2
0
2
3
2/
1
5
/
2
0
2
3
2/
2
0
/
2
0
2
3
2/
2
5
/
2
0
2
3
3/
2
/
2
0
2
3
3/
7
/
2
0
2
3
3/
1
2
/
2
0
2
3
3/
1
7
/
2
0
2
3
3/
2
2
/
2
0
2
3
3/
2
7
/
2
0
2
3
4/
1
/
2
0
2
3
4/
6
/
2
0
2
3
4/
1
1
/
2
0
2
3
4/
1
6
/
2
0
2
3
4/
2
1
/
2
0
2
3
4/
2
6
/
2
0
2
3
5/
1
/
2
0
2
3
5/
6
/
2
0
2
3
5/
1
1
/
2
0
2
3
5/
1
6
/
2
0
2
3
5/
2
1
/
2
0
2
3
5/
2
6
/
2
0
2
3
5/
3
1
/
2
0
2
3
6/
5
/
2
0
2
3
6/
1
0
/
2
0
2
3
6/
1
5
/
2
0
2
3
6/
2
0
/
2
0
2
3
6/
2
5
/
2
0
2
3
6/
3
0
/
2
0
2
3
7/
5
/
2
0
2
3
7/
1
0
/
2
0
2
3
7/
1
5
/
2
0
2
3
7/
2
0
/
2
0
2
3
7/
2
5
/
2
0
2
3
7/
3
0
/
2
0
2
3
8/
4
/
2
0
2
3
8/
9
/
2
0
2
3
8/
1
4
/
2
0
2
3
8/
1
9
/
2
0
2
3
8/
2
4
/
2
0
2
3
8/
2
9
/
2
0
2
3
9/
3
/
2
0
2
3
9/
8
/
2
0
2
3
9/
1
3
/
2
0
2
3
9/
1
8
/
2
0
2
3
9/
2
3
/
2
0
2
3
9/
2
8
/
2
0
2
3
10
/
3
/
2
0
2
3
10
/
8
/
2
0
2
3
10
/
1
3
/
2
0
2
3
10
/
1
8
/
2
0
2
3
10
/
2
3
/
2
0
2
3
10
/
2
8
/
2
0
2
3
11
/
2
/
2
0
2
3
11
/
7
/
2
0
2
3
UT Rush Fork Rain (MPE)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT to RUSH FORKMITIGATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 100068) MONITORING YEAR 2, 2023
Figure 5 Flow Gauge Graphs
Rain data from the State Climate Office of NC Legacy data.
*Surface water flow is estimated to have occurred when the pressure transducer reading is equal to or above 0.05 feet in depth.
-1.00
-0.90
-0.80
-0.70
-0.60
-0.50
-0.40
-0.30
-0.20
-0.10
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
1/1/2023 2/15/2023 4/1/2023 5/16/2023 6/30/2023 8/14/2023 9/28/2023 11/12/2023
Su
r
f
a
c
e

W
a
t
e
r

D
e
p
t
h

(
f
t
.
)
Date
UT to Rush Fork
In-channel Flow Gauge 3 (RF3)- UT4
FG3
Min Flow - 0.05 Feet
Manual
YR2 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
CRITERIA MET -180
(1/1/2023 - 6/30/2023)
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
1/
1
/
2
0
2
3
1/
6
/
2
0
2
3
1/
1
1
/
2
0
2
3
1/
1
6
/
2
0
2
3
1/
2
1
/
2
0
2
3
1/
2
6
/
2
0
2
3
1/
3
1
/
2
0
2
3
2/
5
/
2
0
2
3
2/
1
0
/
2
0
2
3
2/
1
5
/
2
0
2
3
2/
2
0
/
2
0
2
3
2/
2
5
/
2
0
2
3
3/
2
/
2
0
2
3
3/
7
/
2
0
2
3
3/
1
2
/
2
0
2
3
3/
1
7
/
2
0
2
3
3/
2
2
/
2
0
2
3
3/
2
7
/
2
0
2
3
4/
1
/
2
0
2
3
4/
6
/
2
0
2
3
4/
1
1
/
2
0
2
3
4/
1
6
/
2
0
2
3
4/
2
1
/
2
0
2
3
4/
2
6
/
2
0
2
3
5/
1
/
2
0
2
3
5/
6
/
2
0
2
3
5/
1
1
/
2
0
2
3
5/
1
6
/
2
0
2
3
5/
2
1
/
2
0
2
3
5/
2
6
/
2
0
2
3
5/
3
1
/
2
0
2
3
6/
5
/
2
0
2
3
6/
1
0
/
2
0
2
3
6/
1
5
/
2
0
2
3
6/
2
0
/
2
0
2
3
6/
2
5
/
2
0
2
3
6/
3
0
/
2
0
2
3
7/
5
/
2
0
2
3
7/
1
0
/
2
0
2
3
7/
1
5
/
2
0
2
3
7/
2
0
/
2
0
2
3
7/
2
5
/
2
0
2
3
7/
3
0
/
2
0
2
3
8/
4
/
2
0
2
3
8/
9
/
2
0
2
3
8/
1
4
/
2
0
2
3
8/
1
9
/
2
0
2
3
8/
2
4
/
2
0
2
3
8/
2
9
/
2
0
2
3
9/
3
/
2
0
2
3
9/
8
/
2
0
2
3
9/
1
3
/
2
0
2
3
9/
1
8
/
2
0
2
3
9/
2
3
/
2
0
2
3
9/
2
8
/
2
0
2
3
10
/
3
/
2
0
2
3
10
/
8
/
2
0
2
3
10
/
1
3
/
2
0
2
3
10
/
1
8
/
2
0
2
3
10
/
2
3
/
2
0
2
3
10
/
2
8
/
2
0
2
3
11
/
2
/
2
0
2
3
11
/
7
/
2
0
2
3
UT Rush Fork Rain (MPE)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT to RUSH FORKMITIGATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 100068) MONITORING YEAR 2, 2023
Figure 6. Observed Rainfall Versus Historic Averages
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Nov-22 Dec-22 Jan-23 Feb-23 Mar-23 Apr-23 May-23 Jun-23 Jul-23 Aug-23 Sep-23 Oct-23
Pr
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n

(
i
n
c
h
e
s
)
UT to Rush Fork MY2
Observed Rainfall versus Historic Averages
Monthly Precip. (50.58)Historic 30th Percentile (34.9)Historic 70th Percentile (58.79)Historic Avg. (49.72)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT to RUSH FORK MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 100068) MONITORING YEAR 2, 2023
Year 1
(2022)
Year 2
(2023)
Year 3
(2024)
Year 4
(2025)
Year 5
(2026)
Year 6
(2027)
Year 7
(2028)
Year 1
(2022)
Year 2
(2023)
Year 3
(2024)
Year 4
(2025)
Year 5
(2026)
Year 6
(2027)
Year 7
(2028)
RF1 152.0 179.0 219.0 179.0
RF2 266.0 109.0 266.0 177.0
RF3 104.0 180.0 116.0 183.0
DATA IN THIS SHEET IS ENTERED MANUALLY TO AVOID YEAR TO YEAR TYPOS
Success criteria will include 30 days of consecutive baseflow for monitoring gauges during a normal rainfall year.
Surface water flow is estimated to have occurred when the pressure transducer reading is equal to or above 0.05 feet in depth.
Flow Gauges (Installed March, 2022)
Table 11. All Years Flow Gauge Success
UT to Rush Fork Stream Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 100068
Flow Gauge ID
Most Consecutive Days Meeting Criteria 1 Cumulative Days Meeting Criteria 2
Notes:
¹Indicates the number of consecutive days within the monitoring year where flow was measured.
2Indicates the number of cumulative days within the monitoring year where flow was measured.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT to RUSH FORK MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100068)
Year 2 MONITORING REPORT

APPENDIX F
Correspondence

From: York, Jason
Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2023 3:33 PM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: UT to Rush Fork Mitigation Project, Haywood County NC

To Anne Collier,

My name is Jason York. I work with Michael Baker Intl. and Micky Clemmons. I am responsible for
monitoring the stream mitigation project, UT to Rush Fork, on your property in Haywood County, NC. I
hope you are enjoying this holiday season. I am writing to inform you of a small encroachment of the
agreed upon conservation easement boundary on this project. I understand that you lease farming
rights on this property to a farmer who runs cattle and cuts hay. There is a small area on the western
portion of the property where the conservation easement boundary runs close to the tree line, making it
difficult to drive a tractor around the easement boundary. It is obvious that a tractor or other machine
has been driven through the conservation easement in violation of the agreement. We will need to
come up with a solution so that the farmer can drive the equipment around the easement without going
over the boundaries of the project. My suggestion is that we remove a few trees, 2 or 3, which would
allow them to drive around the boundary and still allow them to do their work. I am happy to discuss
this option with the farmer and would be happy to help them with the labor to make this happen. I am
also open to any other suggestions you may have. If you have questions or would like to discuss this in
more detail please contact me at 828-380-0118 or respond to this email. This is not a big issue and it
can be easily resolved. Thank you for participating in this project with us.

The black line represents the path of the tractor.

Sincerely,
Jason York

Jason York | Environmental Scientist, Macroinvertebrate Lab Supervisor
797 Haywood Road, Suite 201 | Asheville, NC 28806 | [O] 828-412-6101 | [M] 828-380-0118
[e-mail] | www.MBakerintl.com

The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location.The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location.The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location.The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location.The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location.

797 Haywood Rd. Suite 201 | Asheville, NC 28753
Project Contact Information: 828-380-0118, [e-mail] MBAKERINTL.COM
Michael Baker Intl.
797 Haywood Rd. Suite 201
Asheville, NC 28806

January 8, 2024

To Anne Collier,

My name is Jason York. I work with Michael Baker Intl. and Micky Clemmons. I am responsible
for monitoring the stream mitigation project, UT to Rush Fork, on your property in Haywood
County, NC. I hope you enjoyed the holiday season. I am writing to inform you of a small
encroachment of the agreed upon conservation easement boundary on this project. I
understand that you lease farming rights on this property to a farmer who runs cattle and cuts
hay. There is a small area on the western portion of the property where the conservation
easement boundary runs close to the tree line, making it difficult to drive a tractor around the
easement boundary. It is obvious that a tractor or other machine has been driven through the
conservation easement in violation of the agreement. We will need to come up with a solution
so that the farmer can drive the equipment around the easement without going over the
boundaries of the project. My suggestion is that we remove a few trees, 2 or 3, which would
allow them to drive around the boundary and still allow them to do their work. I am happy to
discuss this option with the farmer and would be happy to help them with the labor to make
this happen. I am also open to any other suggestions you may have. If you have questions or
would like to discuss this in more detail please contact me at 828-380-0118 or respond to this
letter. This is not a big issue and it can be easily resolved. Thank you for participating in this
project with us.

The black line represents the path of the tractor.

Sincerely,

Jason York