20120916 Ver 1_Year 2 Monitoring Report Final_2015_20160224

UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project
Year 2 Final Monitoring Report
Onslow County, North Carolina
NCDMS Project ID Number - 95019
Project Info: Monitoring Year: 2 of 7
Year of Data Collection: 2015
Year of Completed Construction: 2013
Submission Date: January 2016
Submitted To: NCDEQ — Division of Mitigation Services
1625 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
NCDEQ Contract ID No. 003992

UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project
Year 2 Final Monitoring Report
Onslow County, North Carolina
NCDMS Project ID Number — 95019
Report Prepared and Submitted by Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
NC Professional Engineering License # F-1084
INTERNATIONAL
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 95019
JANUARY 2016, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................1
2.0 METHODOLOGY.........................................................................................4
2.1 Stream Assessment —Reach UTI a & UTl b................................................................................................. 4
2. 1.1 Hydrology..................................................................................................................................................4
2.1.2 Photographic Documentation....................................................................................................................4
2.2 Stream Assessment —Reach UTI c............................................................................................................... 4
2.2.1 Morphologic Parameters and Channel Stability........................................................................................5
2.2.2 Hydrology..................................................................................................................................................5
2.2.3 Photographic Documentation....................................................................................................................5
2.2.4 Visual Stream Morphological Stability Assessment..................................................................................5
2.3 Vegetation Assessment................................................................................................................................6
3.0 REFERENCES...............................................................................................7
APPENDICES
Appendix A Project Vicinity Map and Background Tables
Figure
1
Project Vicinity Map
Table
1
Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Table
2
Project Activity and Reporting History
Table
3
Project Contacts
Table
4
Project Attributes
Appendix B Visual Assessment Data
Figure
2
Current Condition Plan View (CCPV) Index
Figure
2a
Plan View Current Condition
Figure
2b
Plan View Current Condition
Table
5a
Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Table
5b
Stream Problem Areas (SPAS)
Table
6a
Vegetation Condition Assessment
Table
6b
Vegetation Problem Areas (VPAs)
Stream Station
Photos
Vegetation Plot Photos
Vegetation Problem Area Photos
Appendix C Vegetation Plot Data
Table
7
Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Table
8
CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Table
9a
CVS Stem Count of Planted Stems by Plot and Species
Table
9b
Vegetation Stem Count Densities
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
II
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 95019
JANUARY 2016, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

Table 9c CVS Density Per Plot
Table
9d
Vegetation Summary and Totals
Appendix D Stream Survey Data
Figure
3
Year 3 Cross-sections with Annual Overlays
Table
10
Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table
11
Cross-section Morphology Data
Appendix E Hydrologic Data
Figure
4
Wetland Gauge Graphs
Figure
5
Flow Gauge Graphs
Figure
6
Observed Rainfall versus Historic Average
Table
12
Wetland Restoration Area Well Success
Table
13
Flow Gauge Success
Table
14
Verification of Bankfull Events
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. III
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 95019
JANUARY 2016, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Michael Baker International (Baker) restored 3,606 linear feet (LF) of perennial stream, 4.0 acres (AC) of
riparian wetlands, and enhanced 600 LF of stream along an unnamed tributary (UT) to Mill Swamp in Onslow
County, North Carolina (NC), (Appendix A). The UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project (Site) is located in
Onslow County, approximately three miles northwest of the Town of Richlands. The Site is located in the NC
Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) sub -basin 03-05-02 and the NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services
((DMS) formerly Ecosystem Enhancement Program) Targeted Local Watershed (TLW) 03030001-010020 of
the White Oak River Basin. The project involved the restoration and enhancement of a Coastal Plain Headwater
Small Stream Swamp system (NC WAM 2010, Schafale and Weakley 1990) from impairments within the
project area due to past agricultural conversion, cattle grazing, and draining of floodplain wetlands by ditching
activities.
The project goals directly addressed stressors identified in the White Oak River Basin Restoration Priority Plan
(RBRP) such as degraded riparian conditions, channel modification, and excess sediment and nutrient inputs.
The primary restoration goals, as outlined in the approved mitigation plan, are described below:
• Create geomorphically stable conditions along the unnamed tributaries across the Site,
• Implement agricultural Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce nonpoint source inputs to
receiving waters,
• Protect and improve water quality by reducing bank erosion, nutrient and sediment inputs,
• Restore stream and wetland hydrology by connecting historic flow paths and promoting natural flood
processes, and
• Restore and protect riparian buffer functions and corridor habitat in perpetuity by establishing a
permanent conservation easement.
To accomplish these goals, the following objectives were identified:
• Restore existing incised, eroding, and channelized streams by providing access to their historic
floodplains,
• Prevent cattle from accessing the riparian buffer, reducing excessive bank erosion,
• Increase aquatic habitat value by providing more bedform diversity, creating natural scour pools and
reducing sediment from accelerated bank erosion,
• Plant native species riparian buffer vegetation along stream bank and floodplain areas, protected by a
permanent conservation easement, to increase stormwater runoff filtering capacity, improve bank
stability, and shade the stream to decrease water temperature,
• Improve aquatic and terrestrial habitat through improved substrate and in -stream cover, addition of
woody debris, and reduction of water temperature, and
• Control invasive species vegetation within the project area and if necessary, continue treatments during
the monitoring period.
The project as -built condition closely mimics that proposed by the design. Differences are outlined below:
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 95019
JANUARY 2016, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

• The Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan (Mitigation Plan) specified the planting of riparian live stakes
during construction; however, due to construction being completed during the growing season in May
2013 no live stakes were installed. During construction, it was determined that live stakes would be
installed during the dormant season. It is noted that as of March 27, 2014, approximately 300 live
stakes were installed along the stream banks in the restored single thread channel of the UTIc area.
• Permanent fencing along Reach UT3 was originally proposed 50 feet from both of the streambanks
outside of the conservation easement; however, the landowner decided to use the northern pasture for
hay production only, so fencing was installed only on the southern side of the reach to exclude cattle.
Special Notes:
In consideration of this report, the following timeline should be noted:
Completion of construction — 5/31/13
Completion of installation of tree and shrub bare roots — 6/13/13
Year 1 (2013) vegetation monitoring — 10/16/13
Live stake installation - 3/27/14
Year 1 (2013) supplemental vegetation monitoring — 5/18/14
Year 2 (2014) vegetation monitoring —12/19/14
Year 3 (2015) vegetation monitoring — 11/13/15
Supplemental Year 1 (5/18/14) vegetation monitoring was conducted in order to provide additional
mortality data. This additional monitoring effort was done since the time that had elapsed between the
installation of the tree and shrub bare roots (6/13/13) and Year 1 vegetation monitoring (10/16/13) was
only 125 days of the growing season (March 18th through November 16th). Trees and shrubs grew for
an additional 61 days of growing season from 3/18/14 through 5/18/14 in early 2014 and were
supplementally monitored. A total of 186 days of growing season had elapsed since the trees were
planted and the supplemental Year 1 vegetation monitoring was conducted. An additional 181 days
within the growing season (5/19/14 through 11/16/14) had elapsed prior to Year 2 vegetation
monitoring, providing the required minimum of 180 days of growing season growth as stated in the
approved Mitigation Plan. As such, Baker considered the data collected on 12/19/14 to be Year 2 data
and the data collected on 11/13/15 to be Year 3 data. However, the US Army Corps of Engineers has
declined to release the credits generated from Year 2 (2014) citing too short of a period between plant
installation and monitoring. As such, this report (2015) will be considered Year 2. All references to
Year 2 included in this report will indicate monitoring activities conducted during 2015. Data collected
during 2014 that was previously considered monitoring Year 2 will be labeled as Year 2*.
During Year 2 monitoring, the planted acreage performance categories were functioning at 99 percent with no
bare areas or low stem density areas to report. The average density of total planted stems, based on data
collected from the six monitoring plots following Year 2 monitoring, is 465 stems per acre. It was observed
during Year 2 vegetation monitoring that plots 3 and 6 have not met the minimum interim success criteria of
320 trees per acre by the end of Year 3. However, all plots currently exceed the required seven-year stem
density of 210 stems per acre.
Invasive species areas of concern were observed and documented accordingly during Year 2. Following Year
2 monitoring, four areas totaling approximately 1.48 acres or 12.3 percent of the total planted area (12 acres)
were found to contain the invasive species, Chinese privet. To control areas of invasive species early, these
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 95019
JANUARY 2016, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

areas are scheduled to be treated in 2016 during the appropriate treatment window by use of the herbicide
Glyphosate.
During Year 2 monitoring, groundwater monitoring demonstrated that four of the ten groundwater monitoring
wells located along Reach UTIc met the wetland success criteria as stated in the Site Mitigation Plan. The
gauges that met success criteria (MSAW1, MSAW4, MSAW5 and MSAW8) demonstrated consecutive
hydroperiods of 12 percent or greater which ranged from 19.7 to 37.7 percent of the growing season. The
gauges that did not meet success criteria (MSAW2, MSAW3, MSAW6, MSAW7, MSAW9 and MSAW 10)
demonstrated consecutive hydroperiods of 12 percent or less which ranged from 0.6 percent to 8.6 percent of
the growing season. It is noted that a few of the wells not meeting success are outside of the wetland
fringe/hydric soils boundary. Baker will continue to monitor the hydrology into Year 3.
During Year 2 monitoring, it was determined that monitoring wells (MSAW2, MSAW3, MSAW6, MSAW7,
MSAW9 and MSAW 10) were potentially providing erroneous data. The cause of the data errors was estimated
to be two -fold. The first cause was estimated to be a hardware issue. During field investigations, it was
determined that the water pressure sensor of some the pressure transducers had become clogged with bentonite.
The transducers have since been unclogged and elevated within the well casing to reduce the likelihood of
clogging, and the holes pumped out to remove remaining bentonite particles existing within the well casing. In
addition, all pressure transducers are cleaned during each logger download. The second cause is estimated to
be due to the installation of the wells during less than ideal conditions. Auguring well holes during in the wet
conditions of the site potentially smeared the soil of the well hole wall which could decrease soil permeability.
Due to the aforementioned issues, a minimum of six additional wells will be installed in 2016 along the left
floodplain of UT 1 c. In addition, poorly performing well locations may be adjusted and new well holes augured.
During subsequent well data collection, the automatic wells will be calibrated by measuring the ground water
level before the data logger is removed from the well casing. The manual measurement will ensure accurate
and real-time data provided by the automatic wells.
Year 2 flow monitoring demonstrated that both flow gauges (MSFL1 and MSFL2) met the stated success
criteria of 30 days or more of consecutive flow through reaches UTIa and UTIb. Both gauges demonstrated
consecutive days of flow that ranged from 51.0 days (MSFL 1, UT 1 a) to 151.6 days (MSFL2, UT lb). These
gauges demonstrated similar patterns relative to rainfall events observed in the vicinity of the Site.
The Year 2 monitoring survey data of eight (8) cross-sections indicates that the Site is geomorphically stable
and performing at 100 percent for the all parameters evaluated. The data collected are within the lateral/vertical
stability and in -stream structure performance categories.
The Site was found to have had at least four post -construction above bankfull events based on the crest gauge
readings during Year 2.
Summary information/data related to the Site and statistics related to performance of various project and
monitoring elements can be found in the tables and figures in the report Appendices. Narrative background and
supporting information formerly found in these reports can be found in the Baseline Monitoring Report and in
the Mitigation Plan available on the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS) website. All
raw data supporting the tables and figures in the appendices is available from NCDMS upon request.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 95019
JANUARY 2016, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

2.0 METHODOLOGY
The seven-year monitoring plan for the Site includes criteria to evaluate the success of the stream, wetland and
vegetation components of the project. The methodology and report template used to evaluate these components
adheres to the NCEEP monitoring guidance document dated November 7, 2011, which will continue to serve
as the template for subsequent monitoring years. The specific locations of monitoring features: vegetation
plots, permanent cross-sections, monitoring wells, flow gauges, and the crest gauge, are shown on the CCPV
sheets found in Appendix B.
The Year 2 monitoring data were collected in October and November 2015. All visual site assessment data
located in Appendix B were also collected in October 2015.
2.1 Stream Assessment — Reach UTla & UTlb
The UTla and UTlb mitigation approach involved the restoration of historic flow patterns and flooding
functions in a multi -thread headwater stream system. Monitoring efforts focus on visual observations to
document stability and the use of water level monitoring gauges to document groundwater and flooding
functions.
2.1.1 Hydrology
Two automated groundwater gauges (pressure transducers) are installed per transect, with a total of
four well transects installed in the UTla and UTlb areas. The automated loggers are programmed to
collect data at 6 -hour intervals to record groundwater levels. Groundwater data collected during Year
2 monitoring are located in Appendix E.
Two flow gauges (pressure transducers) were installed to document the occurrence of extended periods
of shallow surface ponding, indicative of flow. The gauges attempt to document flooding connectivity
between the restored UTla and UTlb reaches for at least 30 consecutive days under normal climatic
conditions. Flow data collected during Year 2 monitoring are located in Appendix E.
2.1.2 Photographic Documentation
The headwater stream reaches were photographed longitudinally beginning at the downstream portion
of the Site and moving towards the upstream end of the Site. Photographs were taken looking upstream
at delineated locations throughout the restored stream valley. The photograph points were established
close enough together to provide an overall view of the reach lengths and valley crenulations. The
angle of the photo depends on what angle provides the best view and was noted and continued in future
photos. Selected UTla and UTlb site photographs are located in Appendix B.
2.2 Stream Assessment — Reach UT1c
The UT 1 c mitigation approach involved the restoration of historic flow patterns and flooding functions in a
single -thread headwater stream system. Monitoring efforts focus on visual observations, the use of groundwater
level monitoring gauges, a crest gauge to document bankfull flooding events and established stream cross-
sections to monitor channel stability. Stream survey data was collected to a minimum of Class C Vertical and
Class A Horizontal Accuracy using Leica TS06 Total Station and was georeferenced to the NAD83 State Plane
Coordinate System, FIPS3200 in US Survey Feet, which was derived from the As -built Survey. This survey
system collects point data with an accuracy of less than one tenth of a foot.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 95019
JANUARY 2016, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

2.2.1 Morphologic Parameters and Channel Stability
Cross-sections were classified using the Rosgen Stream Classification System, and all monitored cross-
sections fall within the quantitative parameters (i.e. BHR no more than 1.2 and ER no less than 2.2)
defined for channels of the design stream type. Morphological survey data is presented in Appendix
D.
A longitudinal profile was surveyed for the entire length of channel immediately after construction to
document as -built baseline conditions for the first year of monitoring only. The survey was tied to a
permanent benchmark and measurements included thalweg, water surface, bankfull, and top of low
bank. Each of these measurements was taken at the head of each feature (e.g., riffle, pool) and at the
maximum pool depth. Yearly longitudinal profiles will not be conducted during subsequent monitoring
years unless channel instability has been documented or remedial actions/repairs are required by the
USACE or DMS.
2.2.2 Hydrology
Ten automated groundwater -monitoring stations were installed in the UTlc wetland restoration area
and follow USACE protocols (USACE 1997). Groundwater data collected during Year 2 monitoring
are located in Appendix E.
Total observed rainfall at the Albert Ellis airport (KOAJ) weather station located near Richlands, NC
for the period of January 2015 through October 2015 was 41.15 inches. The WETS table for Hoffman
Forest station (NC4144), Onslow County was used to calculate the 30 -year average for the same period
(January through October) and was found to be 49.13 inches. According to the Albert Ellis gauge, total
rainfall during the Year 2 monitoring period from January 2015 through October 2015 was 7.98 inches
below the historic approximated average as compared to the Hoffman Forest station for Onslow
County.
One crest gauge was installed on the floodplain at the bankfull elevation along the left top of bank on
UTlc approximately at Station 45+50. The highest bankfull reading recorded in Year 2 was measured
to be 1.61 feet and was estimated to have occurred on May 11, 2015. Crest gauge readings are presented
in Appendix E.
2.2.3 Photographic Documentation
Reference photograph transects were taken at each permanent cross-section. The survey tape was
centered in the photographs of the bank. The water line was located in the lower edge of the frame,
and as much of the bank as possible is included in each photograph. Photographs were also taken of
grade control structures along the restored stream, and limited to log weirs or logjams. Selected UTIc
site photographs from Year 2 monitoring are shown in Appendix B.
2.2.4 Visual Stream Morphological Stability Assessment
The visual stream morphological stability assessment involves the qualitative evaluation of lateral and
vertical channel stability, and the integrity and overall performance of in -stream structures throughout
the Project reach as a whole. Habitat parameters, and pool depth maintenance, are also measured and
scored. During Year 2 monitoring, the entire project reach was walked, noting geomorphic conditions
of the stream bed profile (riffle/pool facets); both stream banks, and engineered in -stream structures.
Photos were taken at every stream photograph reference station as discussed in the previous section,
and in locations of potential SPAS which were documented in the field for subsequent mapping on the
CCPV figures. A more detailed summary of the methodology and results for the visual stream stability
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 95019
JANUARY 2016, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

assessment can be found in Appendix B, which includes supporting data tables, and SPA photos if
applicable.
2.3 Vegetation Assessment
In order to determine if success criteria are achieved, vegetation -monitoring quadrants were installed and are
monitored across the Site in accordance with the CVS-NCEEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version 4.1
(2007). The vegetation monitoring plots are a minimum of two percent of the planted portion of the Site with
six plots established randomly within the planted UTIa, UT1b and UT1c riparian buffer areas per Monitoring
Levels 1 and 2. No monitoring quadrants were established within the undisturbed wooded areas of UTIa and
UTIb. The sizes of individual quadrants are 100 square meters for woody tree species.
Additionally, the existing vegetation areas were visually monitored during the annual site visits to document
any mortality, due to construction activities or changes to the water table, which could negatively impact
existing forest cover or favorable buffer vegetation. Following Year 2 monitoring, it is reported that two
vegetation plots (plots 3 and 6) did not meet the Year 3 success criteria of 320 stems per acre. However, at this
time the stem density of these two plots exceeds the required Year 7 density of 210 stems per acre as stated in
the site's mitigation plan.
Invasive species areas of concern were observed and documented accordingly during Year 2. Following Year
2 monitoring, four areas totaling approximately 1.48 acres of the planted area were found to contain the invasive
species, Chinese privet. To control areas of invasive species, these areas are scheduled to be treated in 2016
during the appropriate treatment window by use of the herbicide Glyphosate.
No other areas of concern regarding the existing vegetation was observed along UTIa, UTlb or UTIc. Year 2
vegetation assessment information is provided in Appendix B and C.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 95019
JANUARY 2016, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

3.0 REFERENCES
Carolina Vegetation Survey (CVS) and NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP). 2007. CVS-NCEEP
Data Entry Tool v. 2.3.1. University of North Carolina, Raleigh, NC.
Lee, M., Peet R., Roberts, S., Wentworth, T. 2007. CVS-NCEEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version
4.1.
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program. 2011. Monitoring Requirements and
Performance Standards for Stream and/or Wetland Mitigation. November 7, 2011.
Rosgen, D. L. 1994. A Classification of Natural Rivers. Catena 22:169-199.
Schafale, M. P., and A. S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the natural communities of North Carolina, third
approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. Division of Parks and Recreation,
NCDENR. Raleigh, NC.
United States Army Corps of Engineers. 1997. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Research Program.
Technical Note VN-rs-4.1. Environmental Laboratory. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS.
2005. "Technical Standard for Water -Table Monitoring of Potential Wetland Sites," WRAP
Technical Notes Collection (ERDC TN -WRAP -05-2), U.S. Army Engineer Research and
Development Center. Vicksburg, MS.
2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines, April 2003, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Wilmington
District.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 95019
JANUARY 2016, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

Appendix A
Project Vicinity Map and Background Tables

The subject project site is an environmental restoration site of the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and the Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) and is encompassed
by a recorded conservation easement, but is bordered by land under private ownership. Accessing the site may require traversing areas near or along the easement boundary
and therefore access by the general public is not permitted. Access by authorized personnel of state and federal agencies or their designees/contractors involved in the
development, oversight and stewardship of the restoration site is permitted within the terms and timeframes of their defined roles. Any intended site visitation or activity by any
person outside of these previously sanctioned roles and activities requires prior coordination with DMS.
cov0"/-rv�
Project Location
DMS Project # 95019 Figure 1Project Location Project Vicinity Map
_ UT to Mill Swamp Site
1 ,J_
258
DEQ -
Division of Mitigation Services
Michael O }
Baker
Onslow County 210 1 N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L
0 0.5 1 2 3
Miles
Richlt ds `—�.-
f
ONSL
COU
Site Directions
To access the site from Raleigh, follow Interstate 40
southeast and take the NC Highway 24 Exit EasUNC
Highway 903 North, Exit 373 toward Kenansville and
Magnolia. From Exit 373, continue on the Kenansville
Bypass for 6 miles before turning right onto NC
Gr
Highway 24 East. After turning right onto NC Highway
'
24 (Beulaville Highway), continue for 23 miles before
turning left onto US Highway 258 (Kinston Highway).
Once on US Highway 258, travel for approximately 1.2
miles before turning right onto Warren Taylor Road.
--
Then proceed 0.5 miles and turn left while heading
north through a large field. The site is located where
Note: Site is located within targeted local
the farm road intersects UT to Mill Swamp at a
g
downstream culvert crossing.
Watershed 03030001010020.
DMS Project # 95019 Figure 1Project Location Project Vicinity Map
_ UT to Mill Swamp Site
1 ,J_
258
DEQ -
Division of Mitigation Services
Michael O }
Baker
Onslow County 210 1 N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L
0 0.5 1 2 3
Miles

Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95019
Mitigation Credits
Stream Riparian Wetland
Non-riparian Wetland
Buffer
Nitrogen Nutrient Offset
Phosphorus
Nutrient Offset
Type R, El R G
Totals 4,006 SMU 4.0 WMU Il
Project Components
Stationing/
Project Component or Reach ID Existing Footage/ Acreage
Location
Approach
Restoration/
Restoration Equivalent
Restoration Footage or Acreage
Mitigation
Ratio
Reach UT 1 a 10+00— 16+00
600 LF
Enhancement Level l
400 SMU
600 LF
1.5:1
Reach UTIb 16+00 —36+93
2,131 LF
Headwater Restoration
2,093 SMU
2,093 LF
1:1
Reach UTIc 37+24 —52+37
1,350 LF
Single thread Restoration
1,513 SMU
1,513. LF
1:1
Reach U73 10+00 — 23+69
1,060 LF
Cattle Exclusion
N/A
N/A
N/A
Wetland Area #I See plan sheets
0.0 AC
Restoration
4.0 WMU
4.0 AC
1:1
Component Summation
Restoration Level Stream (LF)
Riparian Wetland (AC) Non-riparian Wetland (AC)
Buffer (SF)
Upland (AC)
Riverine
Non-Riverine
Restoration 3,606 4.0
Enhancement 600
Enhancement II
Creation
Preservation
High Quality Preservation
BMP Elements
Clement Location Purpose/Function
Notes
BM[' Elements: BR— Bioretention Cell; SF= Sand Filter; SW= Stormwater Wetland; WDP= Wet Detention Pond; DDP= Dry Detention
Pond: FS= Filter Strip; S= Grassed Swale; LS= Level Spreader; NI=Natural Infiltration Area
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95019)

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95019
Activity or Report
Scheduled
Completion
Data Collection
Complete
Actual Completion
or Delivery
Mitigation Plan Prepared
N/A
N/A
Aug -13
Mitigation Plan Amended
N/A
N/A
Sep -13
Mitigation Plan Approved
N/A
N/A
Nov -13
Final Design — (at least 90% complete)
N/A
N/A
Mar -13
Construction Begins
N/A
N/A
Apr -13
Temporary S&E mix applied to entire project area
N/A
N/A
N/A
Permanent seed mix applied to entire project area
N/A
N/A
Jun -13
Planting of live stakes
Fall/Winter 2013
N/A
Mar -14
Planting of bare root trees
N/A
N/A
Jun -13
End of Construction
N/A
N/A
May -13
Survey of As -built conditions (Year 0 Monitoring -baseline)
N/A
Aug -13
Aug -13
Year 1 Monitoring
Dec -13
Dec -13
Jun -14
'Year 2* Monitoring
Dec -14
Dec -14
Jan -15
Year 2 Monitoring
Nov -15
Nov -15
Dec -15
Year 3 Monitoring
Dec -16
Nov -16
Dec -16
Year 4 Monitoring
Dec -17
Nov -17
Dec -17
Year 5 Monitoring
Dec -18
Nov -18
Dec -18
Year 6 Monitoring
Dec -19
Nov -19
Dec -19
Year 7 Monitoring
Dec -20
Nov -20
Dec -20
' As stated in the Special Notes section of the Excutive Summary: the US Army Corps of Engineers has declined to release the
credits generated from Year 2 (2014) citing too short of a period between plant installation and monitoring following
construction. As such, this report (2015) will be considered Year 2. All references to Year 2 included in this report will
indicate monitoring activities conducted during 2015. Data collected during 2014 that was previously considered monitoring
Year 2 will be labeled as Year 2*
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95019)

Table 3. Project Contacts
UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95019
Designer
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
Cary, NC 27518
Contact:
Jake Byers, Tel. [phone]
Construction Contractor
River Works, Inc.
6105 Chapel Hill Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
Contact:
Phillip Todd, Tel. [phone]
Planting Contractor
River Works, Inc.
6105 Chapel Hill Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
Contact:
Phillip Todd, Tel. [phone]
Seeding Contractor
River Works, Inc.
6105 Chapel Hill Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
Contact:
Phillip Todd, Tel. [phone]
Seed Mix Sources
Green Resources, Tel. [phone]
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Mellow Marsh Farm, 919-742-1200
ArborGen, 843-528-3204
Superior Tree, 850-971-5159
Monitoring Performers
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
Cary, NC 27518
Contact:
Stream Monitoring Point of Contact
Dwayne Huneycutt, Tel. [phone]
Vegetation Monitoring Point of Contact
Dwayne Huneycutt, Tel. [phone]
Wetland Monitoring Point of Contact
Dwayne Huneycutt, Tel. [phone]
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95019)

Table 4. Project Attributes
UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95019
Project Information
Project Name
JUT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project
County
Onslow
Project Area (acres)
1 19.6
Project Coordinates latitude and longitude)
134.9377 N, -77.5897 W
Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province
Inner Coastal Plain
River Basin
White Oak
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit and 14-digit
03030001 / 03030001010020
DWQ Sub-basin
03-05-02
Project Drainage Area AC
421 (d/s main stem UTI)
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area
<1%
CGIA Land Use Classification
2.01.03.99, Other Hay, Rotation, or Pasture; 413
NCEEP Land Use Classification for UT to Mill Swamp
Watershed (White Oak River Basin Restoration Priorities,
2010)
Forest (52%)
Agriculture (44%)
Impervious Cover (0.6%)
Stream Reach Summary Information
Parameters
Reach UTl
Reach UT3
Length ofReach LF
4,091
1,060
Valley Classification Ros en)
X
X
Drainage Area AC
421
23
NCDWQ Stream Identification Score
40.5
21
NCDWQ Water Quality Classification
C; NSW
C; NSW
Morphological Description (Rosgen stream type)
(Channelized Headwater System)
Intermittent Ditch (N/A)
Evolutionary Trend
Gc4F
Intermittent Ditch (N/A)
Underlying Mapped Soils
Mk, St, Ly, FoA
Mk, St
Drainage Class
Poorly drained, somewhat poorly drained
Poorly drained, somewhat poorly drained
Soil Hydric Status
Hydric
Hydric
Average Channel Slope (ft/ft)
0.0041
0.0058
FEMA Classification
N/A
N/A
Native Vegetation Community
Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp
Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp
Percent Composition of Exotic/Invasive Vegetation
—10%
<5%
Wetland Summary Information
Parameters
Wetland 1 (Non-Jurisdictional WI)
Size of Wetland (AC)
4.0
Wetland Type
Riparian Riverine
Mapped Soil Series
Mk (Muckalee), St (Stallings), Ly (Lynchburg)
Drainage Class
Poorly drained, somewhat poorly drained
Soil Hydric Status
Hydric
Source of Hydrology
Groundwater
Hydrologic Im airment
Partially (disconnected floodplain from ditches and channel incision)
Native Vegetation Community
Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp, Successional
Percent Composition of Exotic/Invasive Vegetation
—5%
Regulatory Considerations
Regulation
Applicablel ApplicableResolved
Supporting Documentation
Waters of the United States — Section 404
Yes Yes
See Mitigation Plan
Waters of the United States — Section 401
Yes Yes
See Mitigation Plan
Endangered Species Act
No N/A
See Mitigation Plan
Historic Preservation Act
No N/A
See Mitigation Plan
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)/ Coastal Area Management Act ( No N/A
See Mitigation Plan
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
NoN/A
See Mitigation Plan
Essential Fisheries Habitat
No N/A
See Mitigation Plan
Source: White Oak River Basin Restoration Priorities, 2010(hqp://www.hn://portal.ncdenr.ory/c/document
df017873496b&grounld-60329)
library/get file?uuid—1 cOb7e5a-9617-4a44-a5f8-
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95019)

Appendix B
Visual Assessment Data

Restoration: Multi -Thread Channel
Restoration: Single -Thread Channel
Conservation Easement
- Vegetation Plot Meeting Criteria
- Vegetation Plot NOT Meeting Criteria
Vegetation Problem Areas (VPA) Invasive Species Present
Restored Wetland Area
G
4 h Fig}'2,B
f f.,
1�
A4
0 UT 1c
0 O 0 TJ
Reach Break 0
O
l;
0 250 500 N Figure Index
Michael BakerFeet Current Condition Plan View
Monitoring Year 2
1 N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L DMS Project # 95019 UT to Mill Swamp Site
® Crest Gauge
AFlow Gauges
x.
O Groundwater Wells Meeting Criteria
• Groundwater Wells NOT Meeting Criteria
® Photo Points
- - - - Cattle Exclusion Fencing
I
2
Cross Sections
Stream Crossings
In -Stream Structures
As -Built Streams by Mitigation Type (All Stable)
Enhancement I
UT la
No Mitigation Credit
Restoration: Multi -Thread Channel
Restoration: Single -Thread Channel
Conservation Easement
- Vegetation Plot Meeting Criteria
- Vegetation Plot NOT Meeting Criteria
Vegetation Problem Areas (VPA) Invasive Species Present
Restored Wetland Area
G
4 h Fig}'2,B
f f.,
1�
A4
0 UT 1c
0 O 0 TJ
Reach Break 0
O
l;
0 250 500 N Figure Index
Michael BakerFeet Current Condition Plan View
Monitoring Year 2
1 N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L DMS Project # 95019 UT to Mill Swamp Site
7,r '
Restoration: Multi -Thread Channel
Restoration: Single -Thread Channel
Conservation Easement
- Vegetation Plot Meeting Criteria
- Vegetation Plot NOT Meeting Criteria
Vegetation Problem Areas (VPA) Invasive Species Present
Restored Wetland Area
G
4 h Fig}'2,B
f f.,
1�
A4
0 UT 1c
0 O 0 TJ
Reach Break 0
O
l;
0 250 500 N Figure Index
Michael BakerFeet Current Condition Plan View
Monitoring Year 2
1 N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L DMS Project # 95019 UT to Mill Swamp Site

® Crest Gauge
Sta. 10+00.00 0 Flow Gauges
O Goundwater Wells Meeting Criteria
• Groundwater Wells NOT Meeting Criteria
Photo Points
- - - - Cattle Exclusion Fencing
pJ Cross Sections
Stream Crossings
UT la Plot ID 1: In -Stream Structures
567/1,052 Stream Top Of Bank
As -Built Streams by Mitigation Type (All Stable)
Enhancement I
Restoration: Multi -Thread Channel (No Top of Bank)
P 1
Restoration: Single -Thread Channel
MSAW18
MSAW17 No Mitigation Credit
Sta. 16+00.00 Conservation Easement
- Vegetation Plot Meeting Criteria
- Vegetation Plot NOT Meeting Criteria
Vegetation Problem Areas (VPA) Invasive Species Present
Restored Wetland Area
A. 41iL
PP15 Survey/Monitoring Date: Oct/Nov 2015
Aerial Photo Date: 2014
MSFL1.r
:1 -
MSAW16 '
MSAW15
� r
P
UT 1 b: Sta. 26+07.40
UT3 (end): Sta. 23+69.36
Stream PP13 _ - _ MSAW14 Plot ID 3:
Crossing (�)OO PP10 283/1,012
PP11
PP 12"`{ ;
UT 3 MSaw13
r�
�+ O ,Y [•
Plot ID 2:
405/931 MSAW12
Sta. 10+00.00
UT lb
• MSAW11
NAN neMap, NC Center for Geographic Inform rtion andAal sis, NC 911
� Board
0 100 200 N Figure 2A
Michael Baker Feet Current Condition Plan View
Monitoring Year 2
1 N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L DMS Project # 95019 UT to Mill Swamp Site

Table 5a. Visual Steam Morphology Stability Assessment
UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95019
Reach ID: UTIs
Assessed Length (LF): 1,513
Major Channel Category
Channel Sub-
Category
Metric
Number Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Tota] Number
per As -built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable Footage
%Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing Woody
Veg.
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody Veg.
Adjusted %for
Stabilizing
Woody Veg.
1. Aggmdation
0
0
100%
].Vertical Stability
2. Degradation
0
0%
100%
2. Riffle Condition
3. Meander Pool
1. Texture Substrate
1. Depth
3
22
3
22
100%
100%,
1. Be,[
Condition
2. Length
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
22
19
22
19
J1
REP
100%
100%
4. Thalweg Position
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide)
19
19
100%
1. Scoured/Eroding Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or scour and erosion
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
2. Bank
2. Undercut Banks undercut/overhanging undercut/overhangingto the extent that mass wasting appears likely
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3. Mass Wasting Banks slumping, caving or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
T.talsi
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3. Engineering Structures 1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or los
8
8
100",
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill
8
8
100%
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sill or arms
8
8
100%
3. Bank Position Bank erosion witbin the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%
8
8
100%
4. Habitat Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth
8
8
100%
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
UI TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95019)

Table 5b. Stream Problem Areas (SPAs)
UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95019
Feature Issue IStation Number ISuspected Cause 1Photo Number
None Observed N/A N/A N/A
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95019)

Table 6a. Vegetation Conditions Assessment
UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project: EEP Project ID No. 95019
Reach ID: UTla, UTlb, UTlc
Planted Acreage: UTla, UTlb, UTlc = 15.2
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
% of Planted
Vegetation Category
Detentions
Threshold
(acres)
Depiction
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
1. Bare Areas
Very limited cover both woody and herbaceous material
0.1
NA
0
0.00
0.0%
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 4 or 5
0.1
VP6, VP3
2
0.05
0.3%
2. Low Stem Density Areas
stem count criteria.
Total
0
0.00
0.0%
Areas with woody stems or a size class that are obviously small given the
0.25
NA
0
0.00
0.0%
3. Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor
monitoring year.
Cumulative Total
0
0.00
0.0%
Easement Acreage:
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
% of Planted
Vegetation Category
Defintions
Threshold
Depiction
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
5. Invasive Areas of Concern
Areas of points if too small to render as polygons at map scale
1000 ft2
NA
4
1.48
9.7%
6. Easement Encroachment Areas
Areas of points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale)
none
NA
0
0.00
0.0%
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95019)

Table 6b. Vegetation Problem Areas (VPAs)
UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95019
Feature Issue Problem Area Number
(as shown on CCPV)
Suspected Cause
Photo Number
Invasive/Exotic Populations #1 (See CCPV)
Ligustrum sinense
1
Invasive/Exotic Populations #2 (See CCPV)
Ligustrum sinense
2
Invasive/Exotic Populations #3 (See CCPV)
Ligustrum sinense
None
Invasive/Exotic Populations #4 See CCPV
Ligustrum sinense
None
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95019)

Photo Point 1 — Downstream at Culvert
Photo Point 3 — Log Jam
Photo Point 5 — Log Weir
Photo Point 2 — Log Jam
Photo Point 4 — Log Weir/Log Jam
iiJ ^
Y {
Y.
Photo Point 6 Log Weir

Photo Point 7 — Log Weir
Photo Point 8 — UTIb Downstream
Photo Point 9 — UTIb at Flow Gauge #2 Photo Point 10 — UT3 above confluence
Photo Point 11 — UT3 Log Weir
Photo Point 12 — UT3 Log Weir

��'��' a +
p �
MW
'�
Photo Point 13 — UT3 Log Weir
Photo Point 14 — UTlb view upstream
Photo Point 15 — UTlb view upstream
Photo Point 17 — Log Weir
Photo Point 16 — Log Weir
Photo Point 18 — Log Weir, UTIa tie-in
Fit,,j
Photo Point 17 — Log Weir
Photo Point 16 — Log Weir
Photo Point 18 — Log Weir, UTIa tie-in

ULU] ILLUILWUL
DO A Gfl Ltd wr M
,y
Crest gauge reading, 1.61 feet — June 23, 2015 Crest gauge reading, 1.07 feet — April 27, 2015
Flow Gauge #1 — November 12, 2015
Staff Gauge at Flow Gauge #2 — November 12,
2015
Flow Camera #1 UT 1 a — on January 23, 2015 Flow Camera #1 UT 1 a — on January 24, 2015 after
before January 24, 2015 storm January 24, 2015 storm

a�meu
Flow Camera #1 UTla — on May 10, 2015 before
Flow Camera #1 UTIa — on May 11, 2015 after
Tropical Storm Anna
Flow Camera #2 UTIb — on May 7, 2015 before
Flow Camera #2 UTlb — on May 11, 2015
Flow Camera #2 UTlb - on October 30, 2015
before November 10, 2015 storm
Flow Camera #2 UTlb - on November 10, 2015
during/after storm

Vegetation Plot 1
0 �2
Vegetation Plot 3
Vegetation Plot 5
Vegetation Plot 2
Vegetation Plot 4
Vegetation Plot 6

1. View of Chinese Privet in Vegetation Problem Area #1 (See CCPV).
Downstream UTIc - View is north
2. View of Chinese Privet in Vegetation Problem Area #2 (See CCPV)
Downstream UTIc - View is south

Appendix C
Vegetation Plot Data

Table 7. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95019
Plot ID
Vegetation Survival Threshold Met?
Total/Planted
Stem Count*
Tract Mean
1
Y
567/1052
465
2
Y
405/931
3
N
283/1012
4
Y
688/931
5
Y
567/809
6
N
283/728
Note: *Total/Planted Stem Count reflects the changes in stem density based on the density of
stems at the time of the As -Built Survey (Planted) and the current total density of planted stems (Total)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95019)

Table 8. CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95019
Report Prepared By Dwayne Huneycutt
Date Prepared 11/17/2015 8:11
database name MichaelBaker_2015_Candiff_UTMillSwamp.mdb
database location L:\Monitoring\Veg Plot Info\CVS Data Tool\Candiff UT to Mill Swamp
computer name CARYLDHUNEYCUTT
file size 54575104
SCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT------------
tadata Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a summary of project(s) and project data.
J, planted Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre, for each year. This excludes live stakes.
J, total stems Each project is listed with its TOTAL stems per acre, for each year. This includes live stakes, all planted stems, and all natural/volunteer stems.
is List of plots surveyed with location and summary data (live stems, dead stems, missing, etc.).
or Frequency distribution of vigor classes for stems for all plots.
or by Spp Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species.
nage List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences and percent of total stems impacted by each.
nage by Spp Damage values tallied by type for each species.
nage by Plot Damage values tallied by type for each plot.
nted Stems by Plot and Spp A matrix of the count of PLANTED living stems of each species for each plot; dead and missing stems are excluded.
PROJECT SUMMARY ----
Project Code
project Name
Description
River Basin
length(ft)
stream -to -edge width (ft)
area (sq m)
Required Plots (calculated)
Sampled Plots
95019
UT to Mill Swamp
White Oak
5237
50
48648.4
12
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
UT TO MILLS WAMP RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95019)

Table 9a. CVS Stem Count of Planted Stems by Plot and Species
UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95019
Y
:N
N
�i
5
.0
ti
ate{ q,
^�
a,`�� ami
a .,b01
o00
000 000
000 000 000
a
0ti
0ti
0ti b`
0~ 0�
R�'
��Q
�O
Ob
O�
���
♦O
5tiQ
Otis
R4O
O�
VJ
Oti O�
VJ VJ
O� O�
VJ
Carpinus caroliniana
Shrub Tree American hornbeam
4
3
1.33
2
1 1
Itea virginica
Shrub Virginia sweetspire
1
1
1
1
Driodendron tulipifera
Tree tuliptree
3
1
3
3
Nyssa biflora
Tree swamp tupelo
7
5
1.4
1
1
1 3
1
Persea palustris
Tree swamp bay
3
3
1
1
l 1
Quercus laurifolia
Tree laurel oak
2
2
1
1 1
Quercus lyrata
Tree overcup oak
9
5
1.8
3
1
2
2 1
Quercus michauxii
Tree swamp chestnut oak
15
5
3
3
2
4 2
4
Quercus nigra
Tree water oak
2
2
1
1
1
Quercus pagoda
Tree cherrybark oak
14
6
2.33
1
4
1 3
4 1
Quercus phellos
ITree 1willow oak
7
4
1.75
1
1 4
l
Ulmus americana
iTree I American elm
2
2
1
1
1
TOT: 10 12
112 112
69 1
12
14
10 1
7 1 17 1
14 7
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95019)

Table 9b. Vegetation Stem Count Densities
UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95019
Common Name Species
Plots
Year 2
Yearly Average
1
2
3
4
5
6
Totals
Stems/acre
American hornbeam Carpinus caroliniana
2
1
l
4
Virginia sweetspire Itea virginica
1
1
tuliptree Liriodendron tulipifera
3
3
swamp tupelo Nyssa biflora
1
1
1
3
1
7
swamp bay Persea palustris
1
1
l
3
laurel oak Quercus laurifolia
1
1
2
overcup oak Quercus lyrata
3
1
2
2
1
9
swamp chestnut oak Quercus michauxii
3
2
4
2
4
15
water oak Quercus nigra
1
1
2
cherrybark oak Quercus pagoda
1
4
1
3
4
1
14
willow oak Quercus phellos
1
1
4
1
7
American elm Ulmus americana
1
1
2
Number of Stems Per Plot
14
10
7
17
14
7
69
Stems/acre Year 2 (Fall 2015)
567
405
283
688
567
283
465
Stems/acre Year 2* (Fall 2014)
607
445
486
688
607
486
553
Stems/acre Supplemental Year 1 (Spring 2014)
648
486
486
769
648
607
607
Stems/acre Year 1 (Fall 2013)
648
567
567
769
688
648
648
Stems/acre Initial
1052
931
1012
931
809
728
911
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95019)

Table 9c. CVS Density Per Plot
UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95019
Current Plot Data (MY2 2015)
Annual Means
Species
95019-01-0001
95019-01-0002
95019-01-0003
95019-01-0004
95019-01-0005
95019-01-0006
MY2 (2015)
MY2* (2014)
MY3 (2013)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Type
PnoLS113-all
T
PnoLS
P -all T
PnoLS
P -all T
PnoLS P -all T
PnoLS
P -all T
PnoLS
P -all T
PnoLS
P -all T
PnoLS
P -all T
PnoLS
P -all T
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
1
1
1
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
Tree
2 2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
4
4
3
3
3
5
5
5
Itea virginica
Virginia sweetspire
Shrub
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
Liriodendron tuli ifera
tuli tree
Tree
3
3
3
3
3
3
6
6
6
7
7
7
N ssa biflora
swamp tupelo
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 3 3
3
1
1
1
7
7
7
9
9
9
12
12
12
Persea palustris
swamp bay
tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
2
2
2
6
6
6
Quercus laurifolia
laurel oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
Quercus I rata
overcup oak
Tree
3
3
3
1
1
1
2 2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
3
3
3
2
2
2
4
4
4 2 2
2
4
4
4
15
15
15
20
20
20
21
21
21
Quercus nigra
water oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
6
6
6
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
Tree
1
1
1
4
4
41
1
1
1 3 3
3
4
4
4
1
1
1
14
14
14
14
14
14
12
12
12
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
1
11
1
1
1
1
11 4 41
4
11
1
11
1
71
7
71
9
9
9
10
10
10
Ulmus americana
American elm
JTree
1 1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
4
4
4
4
4
4
Unknown
Shrub or
Tree
1
2
21
2
Stem count
14
14
14
10
10
10
7
7
7 17 17
17
14
14
14
7
71
7
69
69
69
821
821
82
961
961
96
size (ares)
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
6
6
size (ACRES)
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.15
0.15
0.15
Species count
81
81
8
6
6
6
41
41
41 71 71
7
71
7
7
71
7
7
12
121
12
121
121
12
121
12
12
Stems per ACRE
566.561
566.561 566.56 404.686 404.686 404.686
283.281
283.281 283.28 687.966 687.966 687.966
566.561
566.561 566.56
283.281
283.281 283281465.388 465.388 465.388
553.071
553.071 553.07 647.497 647.497 647.497
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95019)

Table 9d. Vegetation Summary and Totals
UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95019
Year 2 (13 -Nov -2015)
Vegetation Plot Summary Information
Riparian Buffer
Stream/ Wetland
Unknown
Plot #
Stems'
StemsZ Live Stakes Invasives
Volunteers3 Tota14 Growth Form
1
n/a
14 0 0
0
14 0
2
n/a
10 0 0
0
10 0
3
n/a
7 0 0
0
7 0
4
n/a
17 0 0
0
17 0
5
n/a
14 0 0
0
14 0
6
n/a
7 0 0
0
7 0
Wetland/Stream Vegetation Totals
(per acre)
Stream/ Wetland
Success Criteria
Plot #
Stems Volunteers3 Total°
Met?
1
567 0 567
Yes
2
405 0 405
Yes
3
283 0 283
Yes
4
688 0 688
Yes
5
567 0 567
Yes
6
283 0 283
Yes
Project Avg
465 0 465
Yes
Riparian Buffer Vegetation Totals
(per acre)
Riparian Success
Buffer Criteria
Plot # Stems' Met?
1 n/a
2 n/a
3 n/a
4 n/a
_5 n/a
6 n/a
Project Avg n/a
Stem Class
characteristics
Buffer Stems
Native planted hardwood trees. Does NOT include shrubs. No pines. No vines.
2Stream/ Wetland Stems
Native planted woody stems. Includes shrubs, does NOT include live stakes. No vines
3Volunteers
Native woody stems. Not planted. No vines.
4Total
Planted + volunteer native woody stems. Includes live stakes. Excl. exotics. Excl. vines.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERNG, INC..
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95019)

Appendix D
Stream Survey Data

Table 10. Baseline Stream Data Summary
UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95019
Reach UTlc (1,513 LF)
Parameter
USGS
Regional Curve Interval
Pre-Existing Condition'
Gauge
(Harman et at, 1999)*
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
LL UL Eq.
Min
Mean
Med Max SO
n
BF Width (11)
-----
23.0 80.0 9.9
6.8
-----
----- 8.7 -----
2
Floodprone Width (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
8.2
-----
----- 11.8 -----
2
BE Mean Depth (ft)
-----
2.3 5.8 1.3
0.8
-----
----- 1.0 -----
2
BE Max Depth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
1.1
-----
----- 1.4 -----
2
BE Cross-sectional Area (fte)
-----
80.0 300.0 16.2
5.6
-----
----- 8.6 -----
2
Width/Depth Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
8
-----
----- 9 -----
2
Entrenchment Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
1.2
-----
----- 1.4 -----
2
Bank Height Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
4.2
-----
----- 2.8 -----
2
d50 (mm)
-----
---- ----- ----
-----
0.25
----- ----- -----
12
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- -----
Radius of Curvature (ft)
-----
---- ---- ----
----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- -----
Meander Wavelength (ft
-----
---- ---- ----
----
----
----- -----
Meander Width Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- -----
PrMilc
Riffle Length (ft]
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
Riffle Slope (ft/ft
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
---------- -----
-----
Pool Length (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
Pool Spacing (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
Pool Max Depth (ft)
-----
I - I
-----
----- 1.16 -----
Pool Volume (to)
-----
---- ---- ----
----
-----
----- -----
Suhstrate-Ind I ransport Parameters
Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
SC% / Sa% / G% / B% / Be%
-----
---- ---- ----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
-----
----- ----- -----
0.10 / 0.15 / 0.25 / 1.2 / 2.72
Reach Shear Stress (competency) Ib/
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m'
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- -----
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- 0.66 -----
-----
Impervious cover estimate (%)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
Rosgen Classificatio
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
Gc
----- ----- -----
-----
BF Velocity (fps
-----
----- ----- -----
0.8
-----
----- 1.2 -----
2
BE Discharge (cfs)
-----
290.0 2000.0 66.0
-----
6.48
----- ----- -----
-----
35
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
Channel length (R�
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
4091
---------- -----
-----
Sinuosity
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
1.13
----- ----- -----
-----
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
0.0045
----- ----- -----
2.
BF slope (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
---------- -----
-----
Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
BEHI VL % / L% / M% / H% / VH% / E%
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
-----
---- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----------
-----
Biological or Other
-----
---- ----- ---
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
* Harman, W.A., G.D. Jennings, J.M. Patterson, D.R. Clinton, L.O. Slate, A.G. Jessup, J.R. Everhart, and
R.G. Smith. 1999. Bankfull hydraulic geometry relationships for North Carolina streams. W ildland Hydrology. AWRA Symposium
Proceedings. D.S. Olsen and J.P. Potyondy, eds. American Water Resources Association. June 30-July 2, 1999. Bozeman, MT.
Existing conditions survey data is compiled for the entire UTI Reach within the project limits.
s Bulk samples taken since pebble count procedure is not applicable for sand-bed streams.
'Values were chosen based on sand-bed reference reach dataand past project evaluations.
Composite reference reach information from Johannah Creek, Johnston County; Panther Branch, Brunswick County; Rocky Swamp, Halifax County;
and Beaver
Dam Branch, Jones County
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95019)

Table 10. Baseline Stream Summary
UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95019
Reach UTlc (1,513 LF)
Reference Reach(es) Data
Bcaverdam Branch
NC Coastal Plain
Composite Data°
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Min
Mean
%1,1 Mix
SO n
Min Mean Med
Max SO n
BE Width (ft)
-----
-----
----- -----
_
Floodprone Width (ft)
-----
=--
--- -----
--- -----
----- --- ---
--- _.
BF Mean Depth (ft)
-..
-..
_-- _--
----- _-- _--
BF Max Depth (ft)
- -
- -
BF Cross-sectional Area (W
-----
24
----- -----
---- 2
7.8 ---- -----
95.9 ---- ----
Width/Depth Ratio
11
-----
----- 17
-'-- 2
8 -'-- -----
14 -'-- -'--
Entrenchment Ratio
10
-----
----- 11
----- 2
4 ---- -----
13 ---- ----
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
----
---- 1.3
----- 2
1.0 ---- ----
1.3 ---- ----
d50 (mm)
-----
0.5
-- -----
-- -----
----- -- --
----- -- --
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
----- ----------
----- ----- -----
Radius of Curvature (ft)
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- -----
Rc:Bankfull width (fi ft
1.8
-----
----- 2.4
----- -----
1.5 ----- -----
3.0 ----- ---
Meander Wavelength (ft
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- -----
Meander Width Rati
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
2.0 ----- -----
6.3 ----- -----
Profile
Riffle Length (ft]
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
----- ----------
----- ----- -----
Riffle Slope (ft/ft
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
----- ----- -----
----- -'--- -'---
Pool Length (ft)
-----
-'-'-
-'-'- -'-'-
-'-'- -----
-'-'- -'-'- -----
----- ----- -----
Pool Spacing (ft)
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
----- ----------
----- ----- -----
Pool Max Depth (ft)
-----
-'-'-
----- -----
-'-'- -----
-'-'- -'-'- -'-'-
-'-'-
Pool Volume (ft')
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
----- -----
Substrate and Transport Parameters
Ri % / Ru% / P% / G% / S%-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- -----
SC% / Sa% / G% / B% / Be%
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----
cil6 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
0.3 / 0.4 / 0.5 / 0.9 / 1.2
----- ----- -----
----- ----- -_--
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ---
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
----- ----- -----
----- -----
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/ml
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
----- --------
-----
----- -----
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
-----
-----
----- 3.0
----- ----
1.0 ----- -----
19.5 -----
Impervious cover estimate (%
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ---
Rosgen Classificafro
-----
C5c
----- -----
----- -----
----- E5/C5 -----
----- ----- ---
BF Velocity (fps)
-----
1.5
----- ----
----- -----
1.0 ----- -----
1.4 -----
BF Discharge (cfs
-----
37
----- -----
----- -----
10 ----- -----
127 ----- --'-
35
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- -.-"
Channel length (ft)z
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- -----
Sinuosity
-----
1.66
----- -----
----- -----
1.22 ----- -----
1.77 ----- -----
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
-----
0.0004
----- -----
----- -----
0.0004 ----- -----
0.0022 ----- -----
BF slope (ft/ft)
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
---------- -----
----- ----- -----
Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- -----
BEHI VL % / L% / M% / H% / VH % / E%
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- -----
Channel Stability or Habitat Metri
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- -----
Biological or Othe
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
----- ----- -----
-----
' Harman, W.A., G.D. Jennings, J.M. Patterson, D.R. Clinton, L.O. Slate, A.G. Jessup, J.R. Everhart, and R.E. Smith. 1999. Bankfull hydraulic geometry relationships for North Carolina streams. W ildland Hydrology. AWRA Symposium Proceedings. D.S. Olsen and J.P. Potyon
ads. American Water Resources Association. June 30-July 2, 1999. Bozeman, MT.
1 Existing conditions survey data is compiled for the entire UTI Reach within the project limits.
2 Bulk samples taken since pebble count procedure is not applicable for sand-bed streams.
3 Values were chosen based on sand-bed reference reach data and past project evaluations.
4 Composite reference reach information from Johannah Creek, Johnston County; Panther Branch, Brunswick County; Rocky Swamp, Halif County; and Beaver Dam Brunch, Jones County
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95019)

Table 10. Baseline Stream Summary
UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95019
Reach UTle (1,513 LF)
Design
As -built
Dimension and Substrate- Riffle
Min
Mean
Med Max SO
\gin
Mean Med
Max
SO n
BF Width (ft)
-----
10.3.
----- ----- ----- 1
10.1
----- -----
13.8
----- 4
Floodprone Width (ft)
-----
>100
----- ----- ----- 1
80.1
----- -----
105.0
----- 4
BF Mean Depth (ft)
-----
0.7
----- ----- ----- 1
0.6
----- -----
1.2
----- 4
BF Max Depth (ft)
-----
1.0
----- ----- ----- 1
1.1
----- -----
2.0
----- 4
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft'
-----
7.6
----- ----- ----- 1
7.5
----- -----
12.3
----- 4
Width/Depth Ratio
-----
14
----- ----- ----- 1
8.3
----- -----
19.4
----- 4
Entrenchment Ratio
-----
>10
----- ----- ----- 1
7.9
----- -----
9.4
----- 4
Bank Height Ratio
-----
1.0
----- ----- ----- 1
1.0
----- -----
1.1
----- 4
d50 (mm)
-----
0.25
----- ----- ----- ----
---
----- -----
-----
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft
35
-----
----- 60 ----- -----
38.0
79.0 -----
120.0
----- -----
Radius of Curvature (ft)
20
-----
----- 30 ----- -----'
21.0
26.0 -----
31.0
----- -----
Rc:Bankftill width (ft/ft
2.0
-----
----- 3.0 ----- ----'
38.0
79.0 -----
120.0
----- -----
Meander Wavelength (ft)
80
----- 110 ----- ------
72.0
104.0 -----
124.0
----- -----
Meander Width Ratio
3.5
-----
----- 6.0 ----- -----'
3.5
6.0 -----
8.0
----- -----
Profile
Riffle Length (ft
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
----- -----
-----
----- -----
Riffle Slope (ft/ft
0.004
-----
----- 0.010 ----- -----
0.0046
0.0043 -----
0.0039
----- -----
Pool Length (ft)
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
Pool Spacing (ft)
30
-----
----- 80 ----- -----
41
----- 72
57
-----
Pool Max Depth (ft)
-----
1.6
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
----- -----
-----
----- -----
Pool Volume (8)
_____
_____
_____ ----- ---- ----
_____
-----
Substrate and 'transport Parameters
Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%
---- -----
-----
----- ----
SC% / Sa % / G% / B% / Be%
-----
-----
----- ----- ---- ----
----
---- -----
-----
----- ----
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
Reach Shear Stress (competency) Ib/
-----
0.149
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
----- -----
-----
----- -----
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
----- -----
-----
----- -----
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m'
-----
4.181
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
----- -----
-----
----- -----
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
-----
-----
----- 0.66 ----- -----
-----
----- -----
0.66
----- -----
Impervious cover estimate (%
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
----- -----
-----
----- -----
Rosgen Classificatio
-----
C5
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
C5 -----
-----
----- -----
BF Velocity (fps)
-----
1.76
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
3.0 -----
-----
----- -----
BF Discharge (cfs)
-----
12.9
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
340.0 -----
-----
----- -----
35
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
3523 -----
-----
----- -----
Channel length (Ry
-----
1453
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
4238 -----
-----
----- -----
Sinuosity
----
1.24
---- ---- ---- ----
----
1.20 ----
----
---- -----
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
0.0038
---- ---- ---- ----
----
0.0042 ----
----
---- -----
BF slope (ft/ft)
----
-----
---- ---- ---- ----
----
0.0054 ----
----
---- -----
Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres
----
-----
---- ---- ---- ----
----
----- ----
----
---- -----
BEHI VL % / L% / M% / H% / VH % / E%
-----
-----
----- ---- ---- -----
--"-
'--- ----
---'-
---- -----
Channel Stability or Habitat Metri
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
----- -----
_____
_____ -----
Biologicalor Othct
----
_____
_____ _____ _____ -----
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
* Harman, W.A., G.D. Jennings, J.M. Patterson, D.R. Clinton, L.O. Slate, A.G. Jessup, J.R. Everhart, and R.E. Smith.
1999. Bankfall hydraulic geometry relationships for Nonh Carolina streams. Wildland Hydrology. AWRA Symposium
Proceedings. D.S. Olsen and J.P. I'my, taly, eds.
American Water Resources Association. June 30 -July 2, 1999. Bozeman, MT.
1 Existing conditions survey data is compiled for the entire UTI Reach within the project limits.
2 Bulk samples taken since pebble count procedure is not applicable for sand -bed streams.
3 Values were chosen based on sand -bed reference reach data and past project evaluations.
4 Composite reference reach information from Johannah Creek, Johnston County; Panther Branch,
Brunswick County;
Rocky Swamp, Halifax County; and Beaver Dam Brunch, Jones County
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95019)

Table 11. Cross-section Morphology Data
UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95019
Reach UTlc (1,513 LF)
Cross-section
X -I (Riffle)
Cross-section
X-2 (Pool)
Cross-section
X-3 (Pool)
Cross-section
X-4 (Riffle)
Dimension and substrate
Base
MYl
MY2*
I MY2 I
MY3 MY4
MY5 MY+ Base
MYI
MY2*
I MY2 I
MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Base
MYI
MY2*
I MY2 I
MY3 MY4
MY5 MY+ Base
MYI
MY2*
I MY2 I
MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
BF Width ft)
11.9
11.1
11.3
10.1
15.4
22.5
21.25
12.70
21.3
39.23
33.48
19.55
11.2
11.5
11.34
9.63
BF Mean Depth ft
0.63
0.63
0.70
0.64
1.07
0.72
0.71
1.00
0.63
0.48
0.46
0.66
0.67
0.74
0.77
0.66
Width/Depth Ratio
18.9
17.7
16.1
15.9
14.4
31.2
30.1
12.6
33.9
82.4
72.8
29.6
16.5
15.4
14.7
14.63
BF Cross-sectional Area ftp
7.5
6.9
8.0
6.4
16.6
16.2
15
12.8
13.4
18.7
15.4
12.9
7.5
8.5
8.7
6.3
BF Max Depth ft
1.35
1.28
1.63
1.63
2.40
2.17
2.12
1.75
1.53
1.77
1.76
1.60
1.11
1.25
1.47
1.50
Width of Flood rove Area ft
104.5
104.4
104.5
104.5
107.9
107.9
107.94
107.94
117.0
116.7
116.68
116.66
104.5
104.5
104.46
104.43
Entrenchment Ratio
8.8
9.4
9.2
10.3
7.0
4.8
5.1
8.5
5.5
3
3.5
6
9.4
9.1
9.2
10.8
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.9
1
1.1
1.0
1
1.1
Wetted Perimeter (ft
13.2
12.3
12.7
11.4
17.6
23.9
22.7
14.7
22.5
40.2
34.4
20.9
12.5
12.9
12.9
11.0
Hydraulic Radius ft
0.6
0.6
1 0.6
0.6 1
0.9 1
0.7
1 0.7
1 0.9
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.6 1
0.6
0.7
1 0.7
0.6
Based on current/developing bankfull feature
BF Width ft)
BF Mean Depth ft
Width/Depth Ratio
BF Cross-sectional Area ftp
BF Max Depth ft
Width of Flood rove Area ft
Entrenchment Ratio
Bank Height Ratio
Wetted Perimeter (ft
Hydraulic Radius ft
d50 (mm)
Cross-section
X-5 Riffle
Cross-section
X-6 Pool
Cross-section 7 Pool
Cross-section
X-8 (Riffle
Dimension and substrate
Base
MYl
MY2*
MY2
My3 MY4
MY5 MY+ Base
MYl
MY2*
MY2
MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Base
MYl
MY2*
MY2
T MY4
MY5 MY+ Base
MYl
MY2*
MY2
MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
BF Width (fr
13.8
14.6
13.4
11.5
15.1
31.0
22.9
13.3
15.5
16.6
16.3
15.8
10.1
10.7
12.2
9.6
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.71
0.74
0.71
0.66
0.75
0.39
0.49
0.73
1.07
1.11
1.09
1.08
1.22
1.27
1.34
1.42
Width/Depth Ratio
19.4
19.8
19.0
17.3
20.1
78.8
46.4
18.4
14.5
14.9
15.0
14.7
8.3
8.4
9.1
6.8
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft')
9.9
10.8
9.5
7.6
11.3
12.2
11.3
9.7
16.7
18.4
17.7
17.0
12.3
13.6
16.3
13.7
BF Max Depth (ft)
1.31
1.42
1.62
1.50
1.78
1.56
1.71
1.65
1.97
2.08
2.22
2.03
1.96
2.15
2.65
2.11
Width of Flood rove Area fr)
112.3
112.3
112.3
112.3
114.3
114.3
114.3
114.3
132.4
132.4
132.3
132.3
80.1
82.9
86.3
80.4
Entrenchment Ratio
8.1
7.7
8.4
9.8
7.6
3.7
5.0
8.6
8.5
8.0
8.1
8.4
7.9
7.8
7.1
8.3
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
Wetted Perimeter (fr)
15.3
16.1
14.9
12.8
16.6
31:8
23.9
148
17.7
18:8
18.5
17.9
12.5
13.2
14.8
12.5
Hydraulic Radius (ft
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.4
0.5
0.7
0.9
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.1
Ll
Based on current/developing bankfull feature
BF Width (fr
BF Mean Depth (ft)
Width/Depth Ratio
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft'
BF Max Depth (ft)
Width of Flood rone Area(fr)
Entrenchment Ran
Bank Height Ratio
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
Hydraulic Radius (ft
d50 (mm)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95019)

Permanent Cross-section 1
(Year 2 Data - Collected October 2015)
M
d
Looking at the Left Bank
V j.v .
Looking at the Right Bank
Feature
Stream
Type
1BKFArea
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
I Cc
1 6.4
1 10.1
0.64
1.63
1 15.85
1.0
10.3
52.91
52.95
UT to Mill Swamp Cross-section 1
56
55
54 "
53
0
> 52
m
LU
51 Year 2 Year 2*
50 Year 1 As -Built
---0--- Bankfull ---0--- Floodprone
49
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross-section 2
(Year 2 Data - Collected October 2015)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Feature
Stream
Type
IBKFAreaI
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
I BH Ratio
I ER
I BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool
1
1 12.8
1 12.7
1
1.75
1 12.64
1 1.0
1 8.5
1 52.66
1 52.69
UT to Milli Swamp Cross-section 2
56
55
-----------------------------------o
54
53
c
r
> 52
m
LU
51
Year 2 Year 2'
Year 1 As -Built
50
-- G--- Bankfull --o--- Floodprone
49
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross-section 3
(Year 2 Data - Collected October 2015)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Feature
Stream
Type IBKFArea�
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth W/D I BH Ratio I ER
I BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool
1 12.9
1 19.55
0.66
1.6 29.6 1 1.0 1 6.0
1 52.4
52.41
56
55
54
53
0
> 52
d
W
51
50
49
UT to Mill Swamp Cross-section 3
s------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------o
Year Year 2"
Year 1 As -Built
- G--- Bankfull --o--- Floodprone
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross-section 4
(Year 2 Data - Collected October 2015)
...,,
.y`
ti
;Y
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
I W/D
I BH Ratio
I ER
I BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
Cc
1 6.3
1 9.63
0.66
1.5
1 14.63
1 1.1
1 10.8
1 52.25
52.41
UT to Mill Swamp Cross-section 4
56
55
54 -
r------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------o
� 53
0
r
> 52
a�
LU
51
Year Year 2'
Year 1 As -Built
50
w% Bankfull ---0--- Floodprone
49
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross-section 5
(Year 2 Data - Collected October 2015)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Feature
Stream
Type
IBKFArea
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
I Cc
1 7.6
1 11.48
0.66
1.5
1 17.3
1 1.1
1 9.8
1 50.85
1 50.95
UT to Mill Swamp Cross-section 5
55
54
53
c 52
0
r
> 51 -----------
m
LU
50
�—Year 2 Year 2'
49 Year 1 As -Built
-o--- Bankfull ---0--- Floodprone
48
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross-section 6
(Year 2 Data - Collected October 2015)
Looking at the Left Bank
n
L
Looking at the Right Bank
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
I W/D
I BH Ratio
I ER
I BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool
1
1 9.7
1 13.33
0.73
1.65
1 18.35
1 1.0
1 8.6
1 50.68
50.69
UT to Milli Swamp Cross-section 6
54
53
52---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------o
� 51
> 50
CD
LU
49 F Year -2- Year 2`
Year 1 As -Built
48
--G--- Bankfull ---0--- Floodprone
47
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross-section 7
(Year 2 Data - Collected October 2015)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Stream BKF
Feature Type BKF Area Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D BH Ratio
ER BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool 17.0 15.77
1.08
2.03
1 14.67 1.0
8.4 49.8
49.79
UT to Mill Swamp Cross-section 7
54
53
Tree base
52
r
-----------------------------------------------------------
0
r
> 50
-- -- -- --
d
W
49
Year 2 Year 2'
48
— -Year 1 As-Built
--[�--- Bankfull --o--- Floodprone
47
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross-section 8
(Year 2 Data - Collected October 2015)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Stream
Feature Type
BKF
IBKFAreal Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D I BH Ratio
ER I BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle C
1 17.0 1 15.77
1.08
2.03
1 14.67 1 1.0
1 8.4 1 49.8
49.79
UT to Mill Swamp Cross-section 8
53
52
51
r
50
0
> 49
m
W Year 2 Year 2`
48
Year 1 As -Built
47
-- Bankfull ---0--- Floodprone
46
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Station (ft)

Appendix E
Hydrologic Data

Table 12. Wetland Restoration Area Well Success
UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95019
Well ID
*Percentage of
Consecutive Days <12
inches from Ground
Surface'
Most Consecutive Days
Meeting Criteria'
*Percentage of
Cumulative Days <12
inches from Ground
Surface'
Cumulative Days
Meeting Criteria'
Number of Instances <12 inches
from the Ground Surface'
Cross-sectional Well Arrays
MSAW 1 20.8 50.5 52.1 126.5
10.0
MSAW2 6.5 15.8 26.3 64.0
29.0
MSAW3 0.6 1.5 2.1 5.0
3.0
MSAW4 36.4 88.5 61.0 148.3
14.0
MSAW5 19.7 47.8 51.6 125.5
10.0
MSAW6 7.0 17.0 28.3 68.8
19.0
MSAW7 2.7 6.5 14.6 35.5
16.0
MSAW8 37.7 91.5 66.3 161.0
15.0
MSAW9 8.6 21.0 28.6 69.5
21.0
MSAW10 5.3 13.0 13.1 31.8
14.0
Cross-sectional Well Arrays (Non-credit Areas)
MSAW 11 32.3 78.5 76.7 186.5
8.0
MSAW 12 10.1 24.5 24.9 60.5
20.0
MSAW 13 40.0 97.3 82.2 199.8
7.0
MSAW 14 18.3 44.5 46.7 113.5
19.0
MSAW15 2.4 5.8 5.1 12.5
12.0
MSAW16 2.3 5.5 11.5 28.0
21.0
MSAW17 0.7 1.8 1.3 3.3
6.0
MSAW18 7.4 18.0 20.8 50.5
10.0
Notes:
'Indicates the percentage of most consecutive number of days within the monitored growing season with a water 12 inches or less from the soil
2Indicates the most consecutive number of days within the monitored growing season with a water table 12 inches or less from the soil surface.
'Indicates the cumulative number of days within the monitored growing season with a water table 12 inches or less from the soil surface.
4Indicates the number of instances within the monitored growing season when the water table rose to 12 inches or less from the soil surface.
Growing season for Onslow County is from March 18 to November 16 and is 243 days long.
HIGHLIGHTED indicates wells that did not to meet the success criteria for the most consecutive number of days within the monitored
growing season with a water 12 inches or less from the soil surface. Following Year 2 wetland monitoring, six of ten wells did not exhibit a
hyrdroperiod of 12% or greater during the growing season. These wells will be observed closely throughout monitoring Year 3. Additional
wells may be installed during Year 3.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95019)

Table 13. Flow Gauge Success
St. Clair Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 9.5019
Well ID
Consecutive Days of Flow'
Cumulative Days of Flow2
UTla Flow Gauge
MSFL1 51.0 137.3
UTlb Flow Gauge
MSFL2 151.6 T 186.1
Notes:
'Indicates 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.
Flow success criteria for the Site is stated as: A surface water flow event will be
considered perennial when the flow duration occurs for a minimum of 30 days.
2015 flow data reported is 1/1/2015 to 8/5/2015. Data from loggers after 8/8/2015
was not retreivable from data loggers due to an unkown logging issue. Resolution of
logging issue is pending at time of the Year 2 report.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95019)

Figure 6. Observed Rainfall versus Historic Average
UT to Mill Swamp
Observed Rainfall versus Historic Average (2015)
10.0
a 8.0
v
a
e
6.0
0
4.0
c,
Cd
2.0
0.0
10 '400
—+--Historic Average --&—Historic 30% probable
f Historic 70% probable —Onslow County Observed 2015
Table 14. Verification of Bankfull Events
UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project: DMS Project No. 95019
Date of Data
Collection
Estimated Occurrence of
Bankfull Event
Method of Data
Collection
M3 Crest
(feet)
1/24/2015
1/24/2015
Crest Gauge
0.59
4/27/2015
2/26/2015
Crest Gauge
1.07
6/23/2015
5/11/2015
Crest Gauge
1.61
11/12/2015
10/3/2015
Crest Gauge
1.54
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95019)

UT to Mill Swamp Rain
I
1/1/2015
2/15/2015
4/1/2015 5/16/2015 6/30/2015 8/14/2015 9/28/2015
11/12/2015 12/27/2015
0.0
MSAW1
1.0
I
2.0
—Begin
I
I
I
GROWING SEASON I
(3/18 - 11/16)
YR2 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
CRITERIA MET - 50.5 (20.8%)
3/18/2015-5/7/2015
c
Growing
Season
— —End Growing
Season
I
3.0
4.0
UT to Mill Swamp Wetland Restoration Well
(MSAW1)
10
Ground
5
f
Sur15
0
S
-5
L
-10
m
-15
C7
-20
-25
t
CL
-30
-35
-40
-45
-50
1/1/2015
2/15/2015
4/1/2015 5/16/2015 6/30/2015 8/14/2015 9/28/2015
11/12/2015 12/27/2015
Date
ace
I
I
-12 inches
I
I
MSAW1
I
I
—Begin
I
I
I
GROWING SEASON I
(3/18 - 11/16)
YR2 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
CRITERIA MET - 50.5 (20.8%)
3/18/2015-5/7/2015
I
I
Growing
Season
— —End Growing
Season
I

UT to Mill Swamp Rain
1/1/2015
2/15/2015
4/1/2015 5/16/2015 6/30/2015 8/14/2015
9/28/2015 11/12/2015 12/27/2015
0.0
1.0
w
2.0
c
3.0
4.0
UT to Mill Swamp Wetland Restoration Well
(MSAW2)
10
- Ground
5
Surface
I
i
--12 inches0
c
-5
;3
-10
3a
�i1�1
ll�l�■i��il■�■
�� I►711�1
-15
I�1�■1111
c
�I
0111loil I!■I IsI111111
■l�\I\IIS
°
-20
Begin
(D
Isl�l'I� �� � 1��I►11111�'�I�'���\\l
Growing
°
Season
s
-25
\r1il���ll�ll111111�'�l\�\�
EndGrowing
0
lll�ll��Vlll�li�
Season
-35
YR2 MTT CONSECUTIVE DAYS
-40
GROWING SEASON
CRITE�IA MET - 15.8 (6.5%)
-45
-50
1/1/2015
2/15/2015
4/1/2015 5/16/2015 6/30/2015 8/14/2015
9/28/2015 11/12/2015 12/27/2015
Date

UT to Mill Swamp Rain
1/1/2015
2/15/2015
4/1/2015 5/16/2015 6/30/2015 8/14/2015 9/28/2015 11/12/2015
12/27/2015
0.0
1.0
w
2.0
c
3.0
4.0
UT to Mill Swamp Wetland Restoration Well
GROWING SEASON
(3/18 - 11/16)
(MSAW3)
I
10
Ground
5
I I
Surface
0
-12 inches
c
-5
L
I I
;3
-10
MSAW3
ca
3a
15
c
-
I
°
—Begin
C7
-20TWA
[
q
Growing
°
Season
Y
-25 -
I I
/
s
-30
I
YR2 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
I
— —End
Growing
CRITERIA MET - 1.5 (0.6%)
Season
-35
10/2/2015 - 10/3/2015
-40
-45
No"
-50
1/1/2015
2/15/2015
4/1/2015 5/16/2015 6/30/2015 8/14/2015 9/28/2015 11/12/2015
12/27/2015
Date
GROWING SEASON
(3/18 - 11/16)
I
I

UT to Mill Swamp Rain
I
1/1/2015
2/15/2015
4/1/2015 5/16/2015 6/30/2015 8/14/2015 9/28/2015 11/12/2015
12/27/2015
0.0
I
1.0
MSAW4
`T°
2.0
c
—Begin
3.0
YR2 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
CRITERIA MET - 88.5 (36.4%)
3/18/2015 - 6/14/2015
4.0
Growing
Season
— —End
Growing
Season
- 1
UT to Mill Swamp Wetland Restoration Well
I
(MSAW4)
GROWING SEASON
(3/18 - 11/16)
I
(
I
10
I I
Ground
Surf
5
0
-5
d-10
w
m
3
-15
c
o
-20
-25
s
,rL-30
D
-35
-40
-45
-50
1/1/2015
2/15/2015
4/1/2015 5/16/2015 6/30/2015 8/14/2015 9/28/2015 11/12/2015
12/27/2015
Date
ace
I
1
-12 inches
I
I
MSAW4
—Begin
I
YR2 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
CRITERIA MET - 88.5 (36.4%)
3/18/2015 - 6/14/2015
1
I
Growing
Season
— —End
Growing
Season
- 1
(
I
1
GROWING SEASON
(3/18 - 11/16)
I
(
I
1

UT to Mill Swamp Rain
1/1/2015
2/15/2015 4/1/2015
5/16/2015 6/30/2015 8/14/2015
9/28/2015 11/12/2015
12/27/2015
0.0
I
I
1
GROWING SEASON (
1
1.0
`T°
2.0
c
3.0
4.0
UT to Mill Swamp Wetland Restoration Well
(MSAW5)
10
I
1
Ground
Surface
5
I
1
0
-12 inches
-5
d
- 10
1
MSAW5
w
m
3
-15
c
—Begin
o
-20
I
1
Growing
-25
-
1
Season
s
End
CL
-30
YR2 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
Growing
D
CRITERIA MET - 47.8 (19.7%)
1
Season
- 35
3/18/2015
-40
-45
-50
1/1/2015
2/15/2015 4/1/2015
5/16/2015 6/30/2015 8/14/2015
9/28/2015 11/12/2015
12/27/2015
Date
I
I
1
GROWING SEASON (
1

UT to Mill Swamp Rain
1/1/2015
2/15/2015
4/1/2015 5/16/2015 6/30/2015 8/14/2015 9/28/2015 11/12/2015
12/27/2015
0.0
(
GROWING SEASON
(3/18 - 11/16)
1.0
I 1
`T°
2.0
c
3.0
4.0
UT to Mill Swamp Wetland Restoration Well
(MSAW6)
10
I 1
Ground
face
SurI"
5
I
1
0
-12 inches
-5
d
w
-10
1
MSAW6
m
3
-15
c
—Begin
o
-20
I .\
I 1
Growing
-25 _
I 1
Season
s
End
-30
YR2 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
Growing
D
I CRITERIA MET - 17.0 (7.0%) 1
Season
- 35
9/28/2015
1
-40
-45
-50
1/1/2015
2/15/2015
4/1/2015 5/16/2015 6/30/2015 8/14/2015 9/28/2015 11/12/2015
12/27/2015
Date
(
GROWING SEASON
(3/18 - 11/16)
I (
I 1

UT to Mill Swamp Rain
1/1/2015 2/15/2015 4/1/2015 5/16/2015 6/30/2015 8/14/2015 9/28/2015 11/12/2015 12/27/2015
0.0
1.0
2.0
c
3.0
4.0
10
5
0
-5
d -10
w
m
3 -15
c
o -20
-25
s
CL -30
D
-35
-40
-45
-50
UT to Mill Swamp Wetland Restoration Well
(MSAW7)
YR2 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
1 CRITERIA MET - 6.5 (2.7%)
10/2/2015 - 10/8/2015
I 1
I 1
I 1
1 1
GROWING SEASON (3/18 -
11/16)
I 1
1/1/2015 2/15/2015 4/1/2015 5/16/2015 6/30/2015 8/14/2015 9/28/2015 11/12/2015 12/27/2015
Date
Ground
Surface
12 inches
MSAW7
Begin
Growing
Season
End
Growing
Season

UT to Mill Swamp Rain
1/1/2015
2/15/2015
4/1/2015 5/16/2015 6/30/2015 8/14/2015 9/28/2015
11/12/2015 12/27/2015
0.0
_
=
1.0
2.0
c
3.0
4.0
UT to Mill Swamp Wetland Restoration Well
GROWING SEASON
(MSAW8)
I
(3/18 - 11/16)
10
I
Ground
Surface
5
0
I
I
�
I
-12 inches
-5
`m
-10
I
MSAW8
-15
I
I
o
—Begin
-20
Growing
0
Season
o
-25
t
—End
a
-30
Growing
d
-35
I
YR2 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
I Season
CRITERIA MET - 91.5 (37.7%)
-40
I 3/18/2015 - 6/17/2015
-45
-50
1/1/2015
2/15/2015
4/1/2015 5/16/2015 6/30/2015 8/14/2015 9/28/2015
11/12/2015 12/27/2015
Date
GROWING SEASON
I
I
(3/18 - 11/16)
I
I

UT to Mill Swamp Rain
l
1/1/2015
2/15/2015
4/1/2015 5/16/2015 6/30/2015 8/14/2015 9/28/2015 11/12/2015
12/27/2015
0.0
_
=
1.0
Z
2.0
c
3.0
4.0
UT to Mill Swamp Wetland Restoration Well
(MSAW9)
10
nd
ce
5
0
niches
-5
a�
Y
-10
ws
3
-15
3
V 31
n
-20
Gro ing
p-25
ea on
.,
Growing
Y
CL
-30
on
d
-35
YR2 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
CRITERIA MET - 21 '
-40
GROWING SEASON
9/25/2015 -10/16/2015
-45
-50
1/1/2015
2/15/2015
4/1/2015 5/16/2015 6/30/2015 8/14/2015 9/28/2015 11/12/2015
12/27/2015
Date
l
l�
i

I
UT to Mill Swamp Rain
1/1/2015
2/15/2015
4/1/2015 5/16/2015 6/30/2015 8/14/2015 9/28/2015
11/12/2015 12/27/2015
�
0.0
►I;��■
i ���lLI�111�
_
=
1.0
Z
2.0
c
3.0
4.0
UT to Mill Swamp Wetland Restoration Well
(MSAW10)
10
5
YR? MOS T CONSECUTIVE DAYS
Surfac
0
9/25/2015 10/8/201 5
ANN
12 s
-5
-10
p
L
-15
'1
-20Begin
vir
c
-25
Season.
MEMI0
—End
-30Growint
Season
CL
-35
-40
GROWING SEASON
-45
-50 ,
1/1/2015
2/15/2015
4/1/2015 5/16/2015 6/30/2015 8/14/2015 9/28/2015
11/12/2015 12/27/2015
Date
I
I
�
►I;��■
i ���lLI�111�
X111 11���►�I�i���'
r

UT to Mill Swamp Rain
1/1/2015 2/15/2015 4/1/2015
5/16/2015 6/30/2015 8/14/2015 9/28/2015
11/12/2015 12/27/2015
0.0
_
C
1.0
»°
2.0
c
3.0
4.0
UT to Mill Swamp
(Well cross-sections 11, 12)
10
-Ground
Surface
5
0
-12 inches
_
-5
A
AL a—MSAW11
C
10
—MSAW12
15
M
C
c
LIlk
-20
25
ANT,
0
a.
a
30
11
d
Ilk Al
-35
-40
-45
-50
1/1/2015 2/15/2015 4/1/2015
5/16/2015 6/30/2015 8/14/2015 9/28/2015
11/12/2015 12/27/2015
Date

UT to Mill Swamp Rain
1/1/2015
2/15/2015 4/1/2015 5/16/2015 6/30/2015 8/14/2015 9/28/2015
11/12/2015 12/27/2015
0.0
_
1.0
2.0
c
3.0
4.0
UT to Mill Swamp
(Well cross-sections 13, 14)
10
Ground
Surface
5
0
--12 inches
-5
-MSAW13
L -10
m
.r
3
—MSAW14
15
c
o' -20
L
0 -25
a -30
d
-35
-40
-45
-50
1/1/2015
2/15/2015 4/1/2015 5/16/2015 6/30/2015 8/14/2015 9/28/2015
11/12/2015 12/27/2015
Date

UT to Mill Swamp Rain
1/1/2015
2/15/2015 4/1/2015 5/16/2015 6/30/2015 8/14/2015 9/28/2015
11/12/2015 12/27/2015
0.0
_
1.0
2.0
c
3.0
4.0
UT to Mill Swamp
(Well cross-sections 15, 16)
10
Ground
5
Surface
--12 inches
0
5
- MSAW15
c
L
-10
-MSAW16
d
M
3
-15
C
c
L
-20
o
-25
a
-30
-35
-40
-45
-50
1/1/2015
2/15/2015 4/1/2015 5/16/2015 6/30/2015 8/14/2015 9/28/2015
11/12/2015 12/27/2015
Date

UT to Mill Swamp Rain
1/1/2015 2/15/2015 4/1/2015
5/16/2015 6/30/2015 8/14/2015 9/28/2015
11/12/2015 12/27/2015
0.0
1.0
2.0
c
3.0
4.0
UT to Mill Swamp
(Well cross-sections 17, 18)
10
Ground
5
Surface
0
--12 inches
ci--5
- MSAW17
-10
15
-MSAW18
c
0
20
0
o
-25
s
S
m
30
-35
-40
45
-50
1/1/2015 2/15/2015 4/1/2015
5/16/2015 6/30/2015 8/14/2015 9/28/2015
11/12/2015 12/27/2015
Date

* Surface water flow is estimated to have occurred when the pressure transducer reading is equal to or above 0.1 feet in depth.
UT to Mill Swamp Daily Rain
1/1/2015
2/15/2015 4/1/2015
5/16/2015 6/30/2015 8/14/2015
9/28/2015 11/12/2015 12/27/2015
0.0
.-.
0.5
1.0
-
1.5
�a
2.0
c
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
UT to Mill Swamp
(Flow Gauge 1 - MSFL1)
UT1 B - Upstream
2
1.9
1.8
Ground Surface
1.7
1.6
- MSFL1
CL
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
YR2 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
CRITERIA MET - 51.0*
(2/14/2015-4/29/2015)
�
1
ID
0.9
0.8
Year 2 data logger
communication error,
being resolved
8/5/2015-11/12/2015
m 0.7
MU 0.6
0.5
0.4
u)
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
1/1/2015
2/15/2015 4/1/2015
5/16/2015 6/30/2015 8/14/2015
9/28/2015 11/12/2015 12/27/2015
Date
* Surface water flow is estimated to have occurred when the pressure transducer reading is equal to or above 0.1 feet in depth.

* Surface water flow is estimated to have occurred when the pressure transducer reading is equal to or above 0.1 feet in depth.
UT to Mill Swamp Daily Rain
1/1/2015
2/15/2015 4/1/2015
5/16/2015 6/30/2015 8/14/2015
9/28/2015 11/12/2015 12/27/2015
0.0
--
0.5
v
1.0
=
1.5
,T
2.0
S
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
UT to Mill Swamp
(Flow Gauge 2 - MSFL2)
2
UT1 B - Downstream
1.9
1.8
YR2 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
Ground Surface
1.7
CRITERIA MET - 151.6*
1.6
(1/1/2015-6/1/2015)
- MSFL2
1.5
1.4
1.3
0
1.2
a,
1.1
a
1
0.9
v
0.8
0.7
co
0.6
Year 2 data logger
TL J
A6
0.5
communication error,
0.4in
being resolved
0.3
8/5/2015-11/12/2015
0.2
0.1
0
,
1/1/2015
2/15/2015 4/1/2015
5/16/2015 6/30/2015 8/14/2015
9/28/2015 11/12/2015 12/27/2015
Date
* Surface water flow is estimated to have occurred when the pressure transducer reading is equal to or above 0.1 feet in depth.