20131177 Ver 1_Year 2 Monitoring Report_2015_20160224

UT to Cane Creek Restoration Project
Year 2 Final Monitoring Report
Alamance County, North Carolina
NCDEQ-DMS Project ID Number - 95729
Project Info: Monitoring Year: 2 of 7
Year of Data Collection: 2015
Year of Completed Construction: 2014
Submission Date: December 2015
Submitted To: NCDEQ - Division of Mitigation Services
1625 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
NC DEQ Contract ID No. 003992

UT to Cane Creek Restoration Project
Year 2 Final Monitoring Report
Alamance County, North Carolina
NC DEQ -DMS Project ID Number — 95729
Report Prepared and Submitted by Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
NC Professional Engineering License # F-1084
INTERNATIONAL
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO CANE CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 95729
DECEMBER 2015, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................1
2.0 METHODOLOGY.........................................................................................2
2.2 Stream Assessment.......................................................................................................................................3
2.2.1 Morphological Parameters and Channel Stability......................................................................................3
2.2.2 Hydrology..................................................................................................................................................3
2.2.3 Photographic Documentation....................................................................................................................3
2.2.4 Visual Stream Morphological Stability Assessment..................................................................................3
2.3 Vegetation Assessment................................................................................................................................4
3.0 REFERENCES...............................................................................................5
APPENDICES
Appendix A Project Vicinity Map and Background Tables
Figure
1
Vicinity Map and Directions
Figure
2
Mitigation Work Plan
Figure
3
Reference Locations
Table
1
Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Table
2
Project Activity and Reporting History
Table
3
Project Contacts Table
Table
4
Project Attribute Table
Appendix B Visual Assessment Data
Figure
4
Current Condition Plan View (CCPV)
Table
5a
Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Table
5b
Stream Problem Areas (SPAS)
Table
6a
Vegetation Condition Assessment
Table
6b
Vegetation Problem Areas (VPAs)
Stream Station Photos
Vegetation Plot
PhotosNPA 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
Stem Count For Each Species Arranged by Plot
Table
9c
CVS Density Per Plot
Table
9d
CVS Vegetation Summary and Totals
Appendix D Stream Survey Data
Figure
3
Year 2 Cross-sections with Annual Overlays
Table
10
Baseline Stream Data Summary Tables
Table
11
Cross-section Morphology Data
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. II
UT TO CANE CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 95729
DECEMBER 2015, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

Appendix E Hydrologic Data
Table 12 Verification of Bankfull Events
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO CANE CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 95729
DECEMBER 2015, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. (Baker) restored 3,314 linear feet (LF) of perennial and intermittent streams
and enhanced 2,911 LF of channel for the Unnamed Tributary (UT) to Cane Creek Restoration Project (Site).
Baker also planted approximately 14.0 acres (AC) of native riparian species vegetation within the recorded
conservation easement areas along the restored and enhanced reaches (Reaches R1, R3, R4, R5 and R5a) for
the Site. Table 1 summarizes project components and mitigation credits (Appendix A). The Site is located in
Alamance County, approximately three miles south of the Town of Saxapahaw (Figure 1). The Site is located
in the NC Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) Sub -basin 03-06-04 and the North Carolina Department of
Environmental Quality ((NCDEQ) formerly Department of Environment and Natural Resources) - Division of
Mitigation Services ((DMS) formerly Ecosystem Enhancement Program) Targeted Local Watershed (TLW)
03030002-050050 of the Cape Fear River Basin. The Project involved the restoration and enhancement of
Rural Piedmont Streams (NC WAM 2010, Schafale and Weakley 1990) which had been impaired due to past
agricultural conversion and cattle grazing.
Based on the DMS 2009 Cape Fear River Basin Restoration Priority (RBRP) Plan, the UT to Cane Creek
Restoration Project area is located in an existing TLW within the Cape Fear River Basin, although it is not
located in a Local Watershed Planning (LWP) area. The restoration strategy for the Cape Fear River Basin
targets specific projects, which focus on developing creative strategies for improving water quality flowing to
the Haw River in order to reduce non -point source (NPS) pollution to Jordan Lake.
The primary goals of the Project were to improve ecologic functions and to manage NPS inputs to the impaired
areas as described in the DMS 2009 Cape Fear RBRP and as identified below:
• Create geomorphically stable conditions along the UTs across the Site,
• Implement agricultural best management practices (BMPs) to reduce NPS inputs to receiving waters,
• Protect and improve water quality by reducing stream bank erosion, and nutrient and sediment inputs,
• Restore stream and floodplain interaction by connecting historic flow paths and promoting natural
flood processes, and
• Restore and protect riparian buffer functions and corridor habitat in perpetuity by establishing a
permanent conservation easement.
To accomplish these goals, the following objectives were identified:
• Restore existing incised, eroding, and channelized streams by providing flood water access to the relic
floodplains,
• Prevent cattle from accessing the conservation easement by installing permanent fencing thus reducing
excessive stream bank erosion and nutrient inputs,
• Increase aquatic habitat value by providing more bedform diversity, creating natural scour pools and
reducing sediment inputs from accelerated stream bank erosion,
• Plant native species riparian buffer vegetation along stream bank and floodplain areas, protected by a
permanent conservation easement, to increase stormwater runoff filtering capacity, improve stream
bank stability and riparian habitat connectivity, and shade the stream to decrease water temperature,
• Improve aquatic and terrestrial habitat through improved substrate and in -stream cover, addition of
woody debris, and reduction of water temperature, and
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO CANE CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 95729
DECEMBER 2015, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

• Treat invasive species vegetation within the Site area and, if necessary, continue treatments during the
monitoring period.
During Year 2 monitoring, the planted acreage performance categories were functioning at 100 percent with no
bare areas to report (Appendix B). The average density of total planted stems, based on data collected from the
six monitoring plots following Year 2 monitoring in October 2015, was 688 stems per acre. The Year 2
vegetation data demonstrate that the Site is on track for meeting the minimum success interim criteria of 320
trees per acre by the end of Year 3.
One area of invasive species vegetation was observed during Year 2 monitoring. It is noted that re -sprouts of
Ligustrum sinense (Chinese privet) was noted along Reach 5 near the confluence with Reach 3. The Chinese
privet plants observed consist of an area less than 1000 square feet and is shown on the Current Condition Plan
View (CCPV) map in the Appendix B.
Additionally, an easement issue regarding buffer encroachment was documented along the downstream portion
of Reach 1 following Year 1 monitoring. This problem area was approximately 0.06 acre in size and
encompassed 3.8% of the planted riparian buffer area of Reach R1. Encroachment occurred due to confusion
relating to the prior use of this area as an active agricultural field. Following construction, buffer signage was
in place at the concerned easement corner; however, signage was removed by an equipment operator. This
encroachment was noted by Baker monitoring staff and the signage was re-established. To further demarcate
the easement boundary, 1 -inch wire -mesh horse tape was installed and has prevented further encroachment.
Following Year 2 monitoring, this encroachment area is now thick with herbaceous vegetation as well as tree
stems. This area will continue to be periodically checked future site visits.
The Year 2 monitoring survey data of twelve 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.
During Year 2 monitoring, the Reach R3 crest gauge (crest gauge 2) documented at least two post -construction
bankfull events. Additionally, the Reach R5 crest gauge (crest gauge 1) recorded one bankfull event during
Year 2 monitoring.
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. All 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.
2.0 METHODOLOGY
The seven-year monitoring plan for the Site includes criteria to evaluate the success of the stream and vegetation
components of the Site. The methodology and report template used to evaluate these components adheres to
the DMS monitoring report template document Version 1.4 (November 7, 2011), which will continue to serve
as the template for subsequent monitoring years. 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.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO CANE CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 95729
DECEMBER 2015, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

The Year 2 cross-section data and vegetation plot data were collected in October 2015. All visual site
assessment data contained in Appendix B were also collected in October 2015.
2.2 Stream Assessment
The Project involved the restoration and enhancement of a Rural Piedmont Stream System (NC WAM 2010,
Schafale and Weakley 1990) that had been impaired due to past agricultural conversion and cattle grazing.
Restoration practices involved raising the existing streambed and reconnecting the stream to the relic floodplain,
and restoring natural flows to areas previously drained by ditching activities. The existing channels abandoned
within the restoration areas were partially to completely filled to decrease surface and subsurface drainage and
raise the local water table. Permanent cattle exclusion fencing was provided around all proposed reaches and
riparian buffers, with the exception of Reach R1, where cattle lack access.
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.
2.2.1 Morphological Parameters and Channel Stability
Cross-sections were classified using the Rosgen Stream Classification System, and all monitored cross-
sections fall within the quantitative parameters 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. Annual longitudinal profiles
will not be conducted during subsequent monitoring years unless channel instability has been
documented or remedial actions/repairs are required by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
or DMS.
2.2.2 Hydrology
To monitor on-site bankfull events, crest gauges were installed along two of the restored reaches. One
crest gauge was installed on the floodplain at the bankfull elevation along the left top of bank on Reach
R5 (Crest gauge 1), approximately at Station 22+00. The second crest gauge was installed on the
floodplain along the right top of bank along Reach R3 (Crest gauge 2), approximately at Station 13+50.
During Year 2 monitoring, two above bankfull stage events were documented by Crest gauge 1.
Additionally, one above bankfull stage event was recorded by Crest Gauge 2. The 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.
Representative photographs also were taken of grade control structures and buffer areas along the
restored stream. Selected stream 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 reaches as a whole. Habitat parameters and pool depth maintenance are also measured and
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO CANE CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 95729
DECEMBER 2015, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

scored. During Year 2 monitoring, Baker staff walked the entire length of each of the Project reaches,
noting geomorphic conditions of the stream bed profile (riffle/pool facets), both stream banks, and
engineered in -stream structures. Representative photos were taken per the Site's Mitigation Plan.
Locations of potential Stream Problem Areas (SPAS) are documented in the field for subsequent
mapping on the CCPV figures. A detailed summary of the methodology and results for the visual
stream stability assessment can be found in Appendix B, which includes supporting data tables, and
SPA photos if applicable.
2.3 Vegetation Assessment
In order to determine if the success criteria are achieved, vegetation -monitoring quadrants were installed and
are monitored across the restoration site in accordance with the Carolina Vegetation Survey (CVS) -DMS
Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version 4.1 (2007). The vegetation monitoring plots are a minimum of 2
percent of the planted portion of the Site with six plots established randomly within the planted riparian buffer
areas per Monitoring Levels 1 and 2. No monitoring quadrants were established within the undisturbed wooded
areas of Reach R4. The sizes of individual quadrants are 100 square meters for woody tree species.
During Year 2 monitoring, the planted acreage performance categories were functioning at 100 percent with no
bare areas to report (Appendix B). The average density of total planted stems, based on data collected from the
six monitoring plots following Year 2 monitoring in October 2015, was 688 stems per acre.
One area of Chinese privet less than 1,000 square feet was noted at Station 28+50 on the downstream portion
of Reach 5. This area will be closely monitored during Year 3 and appropriate actions will be taken if deemed
necessary.
As stated in Baker's letter dated November 7, 2014 to Mr. Jeff Schaffer of DMS, buffer areas with low stem
densities were to be "replanted during the 2014 dormant season". In March 2015, the supplemental replanting
of Reaches R3, R4 and R5 was completed with bare -root stems in accordance with this letter. These areas, as
well as vegetation monitoring plots 2 through 6, were replanted during this effort. The planting areas were
mostly unforested within the respective reach buffers.
Based on recent data collected from the vegetation monitoring plots the planted stem density is 688 stems per
acre. Therefore, the replanting data demonstrate that the Site is on back on track for meeting the minimum
interim success criteria of 320 trees per acre by the end of Year 3.
Following the replanting effort completed in March 2015 and the monitoring effort in October 2015, it is
reported that Chinese privet area shown on the Year 2 CCPV is the only invasive area of concern noted during
Year 2 monitoring.
Year 2 vegetation assessment information is provided in Appendix B and C.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO CANE CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 95729
DECEMBER 2015, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

3.0 REFERENCES
Carolina Vegetation Survey (CVS) and NC Division of Mitigation Services (DMS). CVS -DMS
Data Entry Tool v. 2.3.1. University of North Carolina, Raleigh, NC.
Lee, M., Peet R., Roberts, S., Wentworth, T. 2007. CVS -DMS Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version
4.1.
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (DMS). 2011. Monitoring Requirements and
Performance Standards for Stream and/or Wetland Mitigation. Version 1.4, November 7, 2011.
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (DMS). 2010. Baseline Monitoring Template and Guidance.
Version 2.0, October 14, 2010.
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,
NCDEQ. Raleigh, NC.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines, April 2003, U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers (USAGE). Wilmington District.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO CANE CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 95729
DECEMBER 2015, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

Appendix A
Project Vicinity Map and Background Tables

Figure 1
Project Vicinity
Map
UT to Cane Creek Site
4
�������Q��►��rfr♦�1�� ►fit✓$/'DEQ - Division of
LocationMitigation Services
49 8 54 Project
Michael Baker
- —

= f
s", F;' °"' ❑ Reference Site Locations
Project Location
S
T
U
y
a a
m C HroAa.
i $
U
2
e
s°
2U
1UT to Wells Creek
❑
W
1
ny
Y
I
h
C e�
�❑ UT to Varnals Creek
s
me
y�
�h
x
r-
Gr den aboro Chapyr Hrli Rd
Y
4
In
io a7d Camp
,c
Project Location
n
x
Q iOa
o m
m r
i
_ U
Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN,
Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), Mapmylndia,
r w OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
0 1 2 N Figure 3
Michael Baker
Miles
Reference Reach
DEQ - Division of Mitigation Services Location Map
N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L Project #95729 A UT to Cane Creek Site

Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
UT to Cane Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95729
Mitigation Credits
Stream
Riparian Wetland Non -riparian Wetland
Buffer
Nitrogen Nutrient
Offset
Phosphorus
Nutrient
Offset
Type R, E1, EII
R E
Totals 4,594 SMU
0 0
Project Components
Project Component or Reach ID
Stationing/ Existing Footage/
Location Acreage (LF) Approach
Restoration/Restoration
Restoration Equivalent
(SMU)
Footage
or Acreage (LF)
Mitigation
Ratio
Reach 1
10+00 —20+45 944 Restoration
1,045
1,045
1:1
Reach 3
10+00 — 13+98 425 Restoration
398
398
1:1
Reach 4 (Upstream section)
29+32 —52+86 2,346 Enhancement Level Il
933
2,333
2.5:1
Reach 4 (Downstream section)
53+20 —57+30 411 Restoration
410
410
1:1
Reach 5 (Upstream section)
10+03 —24+64 1,386 Restoration
1,461
1,461
1:1
Reach 5 (Downstream section)
25+00 —29+32 426 Enhancement Level I
289
433
1.5:1
Reach 5a
10+02— 11+47 144 Enhancement Level Il
58
145
2.5:1
Component Summation
Restoration Level
Stream (LF) Riparian Wetland (AC) Non -riparian Wetland (AC)
Buffer (SF)
Upland (AC)
Riverine Non-Riverine
Restoration
3,314
Enhancement I
433
Enhancement II
2,478
Creation
0
Preservation
0
High Quality Preservation
0
BMP Elements
Element Location
Purpose/Function Notes
BMP Elements: BR= Bioretention Cell; SF= Sand Filter; SW= Stormwater Wetland; WDP= Wet Detention Pond; DDP= Dry Detention
Pond; FS= Filter Strip; S= Grassed Swale; LS= Level Spreader; NI=Natural Infiltration Area
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
UT TO CANE CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95729)

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
UT to Cane Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95729
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
Oct -13
MItigation Plan Approved
May -13
N/A
Dec -13
Final Design — (at least 90% complete)
N/A
N/A
Feb -14
Construction Begins
Nov -13
N/A
Mar -14
Temporary S&E mix applied to entire project area
Feb -14
N/A
Jun -14
Permanent seed mix applied to entire project area
Feb -14
N/A
Jun -14
Planting of live stakes
Feb -14
N/A
Jun -14
Planting of bare root trees
Feb -14
N/A
Jun -14
End of Construction
Feb -14
N/A
Jun -14
Survey of As -built conditions (Year 0 Monitoring -baseline)
Apr -14
Jul -14
Aug -14
Year 1 Monitoring
Dec -14
Jan -15
Apr -15
Year 2 Monitoring
Dec -15
Oct -15
Nov -15
Year 3 Monitoring
Dec -16
N/A
N/A
Year 4 Monitoring
Dec -17
N/A
N/A
Year 5 Monitoring
Dec -18
N/A
N/A
Year 6 Monitoring
Dec -19
I N/A
N/A
Year 7 Monitoring
Dec -20
I N/A
N/A
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
UT TO CANE CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95729)

Table 3. Project Contacts
UT to Cane Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95729
Designer
8
000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
Cary, NC 27518
Contact:
Scott King, Telephone: [phone]
Construction Contractor
6105 Chapel Hill Road
River Works, Inc.
Raleigh, NC 27607
Contact:
Phillip Todd, Telephone: [phone]
Planting Contractor
6105 Chapel Hill Road
River Works, Inc.
Raleigh, NC 27607
Contact:
Phillip Todd, Telephone: [phone]
Seeding Contractor
6105 Chapel Hill Road
River Works, Inc.
Raleigh, NC 27607
Contact:
Phillip Todd, Telephone: [phone]
Seed Mix Sources
Green Resources, Telephone: [phone]
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Mellow Marsh Farm, Telephone: [phone]
ArborGen, Telephone: [phone]
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]
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
UT TO CANE CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95729)

Table 4. Project Attributes
UT to Cane Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95729
Project Information
Project Name
UT to Cane Creek Restoration Project
County
Alamance
Project Area (acres)
19.9
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude)
35.8934 N, -79.3187 W
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province
Piedmont
River Basin
Cape Fear
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit and 14-digit
03030002 / 03030002050050
NCDWR Sub-basin
3-06-04
Project Drainage Area (acres)
452 (Reach R4 main stem at downstream confluence w/ Cane Creek)
Project Drainage Area Percent Impervious
1<1%
CGIA Use Classification
2.01.01.01, 2.03.01, 2.99.01, 3.02 / Forest (49%) Agriculture (46%) Impervious Cover (1%)
Reach Summary Information
Parameters
Reach RI Reach R3
Reach R4
Reach R5
Reach Rya
Length of Reach (linear feet)
1,052 400
2,731
1,925
145
Valley Classification (Rosgen)
VII VII
VII
VII
Vii
Drainage Area (acres)
80 91
452
290
14
NCDWR Stream Identification Score
30.5 36
42.5
38.5
33.5
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
WS V; NSW
Morphological Description
(Rosgen stream type)
Incised E G Be (upstream)/
F (downstream) G
B
Evolutionary Trend
Incised E—>Gc4F Bc4G4Fb
Bc4G4Fb
Bc4G4Fb
B4G
Underlying Mapped Soils
We, GaE, Cg, DbB We
We, GbD3, Mc, Cg, TaD We
We
Drainage Class
Poorly drained Poorly drained
Poorly
Poorly
drained
poorly
Soil Hydric Status
Hydric Hydric
Hydric
Hydric
Hydric
Average Channel Slope (ft/ft)
0.0127 0.0168
0.0169
0.0126
0.0223
FEMA Classification
N/A Zone AE
Zone AE
N/A
N/A
Native Vegetation Community
Piedmont Small Stream
Percent Composition of Exotic/Invasive Vegetation
<5% <5%
<5%
<5%
<5%
Regulatory Considerations
Regulation
Applicable Resolved
Supporting Documentation
Waters of the United States — Section 404
Yes Yes
Categorical Exclusion
Waters of the United States — Section 401
Yes Yes
Categorical Exclusion
Endangered Species Act
No N/A
Categorical Exclusion
Historic Preservation Act
No N/A
Categorical Exclusion
Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA)
No N/A
Categorical Exclusion
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
Yes I Yes
I
Categorical Exclusion
Essential Fisheries Habitat
No I N/A
I
Categorical Exclusion
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
UT TO CANE CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95729)

Appendix B
Visual Assessment Data

Reach R5
!4
Reach R3
40
+yj Y
Vegetation Problem Area (<1,000 ft2)
0 Crest Gauge
Cattle Exclusion Fencing
Cross Sections
Stream Crossings
In -Stream Structures
As -Built Streams by Mitigation Type (All Stable)
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement I
Stream Enhancement II
Conservation Easement
Vegetation Plots Year 2
= Plot Meeting Criteria
IM Plot Not Meeting Criteria
I N T E R N AT 1 0 N A L
Reach R5a
Reach Break
- "��JW
VERNReach Break
Reach R4
Reach R1
0 250 500
Feet
DEQ - Division of Mitigation Services
Proiect # 95729
,...__.z
N Current Condition
Plan View - Figure Index
Monitoring Year 2
UT to Cane Creek Site

As -Built Streams by MitigationType (All Stable)
Stream Restoration
— Stream Enhancement I
Stream Enhancement 11
0 Crest Gauge
-) Vegetation Problem Area (<1,000 ft2)
X X X Cattle Exclusion Fencing
Cross Sections
Stream Crossings
In -Stream Structures
Stream Top Of Bank
Conservation Easement
Vegetaton Plots Year 2
= Plot Meeting Criteria (Year 2 Density / Planted Density)
UM Plot Not Meeting Criteria
Reach R5a
X -Section 1
f !
ti* Veg Plot 1. 607/880
.) 9 Reach R5 �
X -Section 2'
X -Section 4
j,. -- 2�1 • rtihoi age : NC • neMap, N' a ter f r Ge g aphic Information and
Anal &sjis
7
0 100 200 N Current Condition
-BakerFeet Plan View - Figure 4A
Monitoring Year 2
Projecctt # 95729
1 N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L DEQ -Division Mitigation Services UT to Cane Creek Site

W I
{ _ .,Y X -Section 5
Reach R3
X -Section 6
Veg Plot 6: 769/971
.P -
a
X -Section 4
4
M t Ar
Veg Plot 2: 931/1,012 4
As -Built Streams by MitigationType (All Stable)
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement I
Stream Enhancement 11
A Crest Gauge
0 Vegetation Problem Area (<1,000 ft2)
X X X Cattle Exclusion Fencing
Cross Sections
Stream Crossings
In -Stream Structures
Stream Top Of Bank
Conservation Easement
Vegetation Plots Year 2
- Plots Meeting Criteria (Year 2 Density / Planted Density)
- Plots Not Meeting Criteria
X -Section 7
X -Section 8
Reach R4
Veg Plot 3: 728/648
r- *See Table 7 for
explanation of stem count
r_
0 100 200 N Current Condition
Michael BakerFeet Plan View - Figure 4B
Monitoring Year 2
Projecctt # 95729
1 N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L DEQ -Division Mitigation Services UT to Cane Creek Site

Veg Plot 5: 607/728
Reach R1X-Section 11
X -Section 12
As -Built Streams by MitigationType (All Stable)
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement I
Stream Enhancement 11
Crest Gauge
0 Vegetation Problem Area (<1,000 ft2)
X X X Cattle Exclusion Fencing
Cross Sections
Stream Crossings
In -Stream Structures
Stream Top Of Bank
Conservation Easement
Vegetation Plots Year 2
- Plot Meeting Criteria (Year 2 Density / Planted Density)
- Plot Not Meeting Criteria
1
Analysis, NC 911 Board _
0 100 200 N Current Condition
Michael Baker Feet Plan View - Figure 4D
Monitoring Year 2
Projecct # 95729
1 N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L DEQ - Division Mitigation Services UT to Cane Creek Site
X -Section 10
X -Section 12
As -Built Streams by MitigationType (All Stable)
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement I
Stream Enhancement 11
Crest Gauge
0 Vegetation Problem Area (<1,000 ft2)
X X X Cattle Exclusion Fencing
Cross Sections
Stream Crossings
In -Stream Structures
Stream Top Of Bank
Conservation Easement
Vegetation Plots Year 2
- Plot Meeting Criteria (Year 2 Density / Planted Density)
- Plot Not Meeting Criteria
1
Analysis, NC 911 Board _
0 100 200 N Current Condition
Michael Baker Feet Plan View - Figure 4D
Monitoring Year 2
Projecct # 95729
1 N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L DEQ - Division Mitigation Services UT to Cane Creek Site

Table So. Visual Steam Morphology Stability Assessment
UT to Cane Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95729
Reach ID: Reach 1
Assessed Length (LF): 1,045
Major Channel Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number of
Total Number Unstable
per As -built 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. Aggradation
Am
0
0
100%
1.Vertical Stability
2. Degradation 0 0% 100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture Substrate
9
9
100%
1. Bed
3. Meander Pool
1. Depth
21
21
100%
Condition 2. Length 21 21 100%
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
21
21
100%
4. Thalweg Position
1. Scoured/Eroding
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide)
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or scour and
erosion
20
20
0
0
100%
100%
0
0
100%
2. Bank
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears likely
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3. Mass Wasting
Banks slumping, caving or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3. Engineering Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or los
4
Totals
4
0
0
100%
100%
0
0
100°o
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill
4
4
100%
100%
2a. Piping
28. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sill or arms
4
4
100%
100%
3. Bank Position
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%
3. Bank Position
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%
4
4
100%
100%
4. Habitat
IPool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth
4
4. Habitat
1Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth
4
4J7
100%
Table 5a. Visual Steam Morphology Stability Assessment
UT to Cane Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95729
Reach ID: Reach 3
Assessed Length (LF): 398
Major Channel Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number Stable,
Performing as Total Number
Intended 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. Aggradation
0
0
100%
].Vertical Stability
2. Degradation 0 0% 100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture Substrate6
6
100%
I. Bcd
3. Meander Pool
1. Depth
3
3
100%
Condition 2. Length 3 3 100%
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
3
3
100%
4. Thalweg Position
1. Scoured/Eroding
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide)
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or scour and
erosion
3
3
0
0
100
100%
0
0
100%
2. Bank
2. Undercut
Banks undencut/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%
3. Engineering Structures
1. Overall Intc rity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or los
4
Totals
4
0
0
100%
100%
0
0
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill
4
4
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking my substantial flow underneath sill or arms
4
4
100%
3. Bank Position
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%
4
4
100%
4. Habitat
IPool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth
4
4
100%
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
UT TO CANE CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95729)

Table 5a. Visual Steam Morphology Stability Assessment
UT to Cane Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95729
Reach ID: Reach 4
Assessed Length (LF): 2,743
Major Channel Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
per As -built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody Veg.
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody Veg.
Adjusted %
for Stabilizing
Woody Veg.
l.Vertical Stability
1.Vertical Stability
1. Aggradation
0
0
0
100%
2 Degradation
2. Degradation 0 0% 100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture Substrate
7
7
100%
1. Bed
3. Meander Pool
Condition
1. Depth
2
2
100%
2. Length 2 2 100%
4. Thalweg Position
I. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
2
2
100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide) 2 2 100%
JL
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/overhangingto the extent that mass wastingappears likely
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3. Mass Wasting
Banks slumping, caving or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
0
0
l00%
0
0
100%
3. Engineering Structures
3. Engineering Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs
3
3
100%
100%
2. Grade Control
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of rade across the sill
3
3
100%.
100%
2a. Piping
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sill or arms
3
3100%
100%
3. Bank Position
3. Bank Position
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%
3
3
100%.
100
4. Habitat
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth
3
3
100%
100%
Table 5a. Visual Steam Morphology Stability Assessment
UT to Cane Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95729
Reach ID: Reach 5
Assessed Length (LF): 2,039
Major Channel Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number of
Total Number Unstable
per As -built Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody Veg.
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody Veg.
Adjusted
for Stabilizing
Woody Veg.
l.Vertical Stability
1. Aggradation
0
0
100%
2 Degradation
0 0% 100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture Substrate
15
15
100%
1. Bed
3. Meander Pool
Condition
1. Depth
19
1 19
100%
2. Length 19 19 100%
FTb­14. Thalweg Position
I. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
19
19
100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide) 18 18 100'%
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 undemut/overhan ing to the extent that mass wasting appears likely
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3. Mass Wasting
Banks slum ing caving or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100"/0
Totals 0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3. Engineering Structures
I. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or los
17
17
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill
17
17
100%.
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sill or arms
17
17
100%
3. Bank Position
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%
17
17
100%.
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth
17
17
100%
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
UT TO CANE CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95729)

Table 5b. Stream Problem Areas (SPAS)
UT to Cane Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95729
Feature Issue
Station Number
Suspected Cause
Photo Number
None Observed
N/A
N/A
N/A
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
UT TO CANE CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95729)

Table 6a. Vegetation Conditions Assessment
UT to Cane Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95729
Reach ID: Reach 1
Planted Acreage: 3.1
Mapping
Vegetation Category
Deflations
Threshold
CCPV
Number of
Combined
% of Planted
Depiction
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
(acres)
1. Bare Areas
Very limited cover both woody and herbaceous material.
0.1
NA
0
0.00
0.0%
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 4 or 5
0.1
NA
0
0.00
0.0%
2. Low Stem Density Areas
stem count criteria.
Total
0
0.00
1 0.6%
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.
CumulativeTotal
0
0.00
0.0%
Easement Acreage: 3.1
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
% of Planted
Vegetation Category
Deflations
Threshold
Depiction
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
5. invasive Areas of Concern
Areas of points (iftoo small to render as polygons at map scale)
1000 ft2
NA
0
0.00
0.0%
Easement area shown was encroached into by use of farm equipment and
--f0
6. Easement Encroachment Areas
will need to be replanted.
none
NA
0.00
0.0%
Reach ID: Reach 3 and 4
Planted Acreage: 8.4
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
% of Planted
Vegetation Category
Deflations
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
2. Low Stem Density Areas
stem count criteria.
0.1
NA
0
0.00
0.0
Total
0
0.00
0.0
Areas with woody stems or a size class that are obviously small given the
3. Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor
monitoring year.
0.25
NA
0
0.00
0.0
Cumulative Totall
0 1
0.00
0.0%
Easement Acreage: 8.4
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
% of Planted
Vegetation Category
Deflations
Threshold
Depiction
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
5. Invasive Areas ofConcena
jAreas ofpoints (iftoo small to render as polygons at map scale)
1000 ft'
NA
0
0.00
0.0%
6. Easement Encroachment Areas
jAreas of points (iftoo small to render as polygons at map scale)
none
NA
0
0.00
0.0%
Reach ID: Reach 5
Planted Acreage: 5.0
Mapping
Vegetation Category
Deflations
Threshold
CCPV
Number of
Combined
% of Planted
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
2. Low Stem DensityAreas
stem count criteria.
0.1
NA
0
0.00
0.0
Total
0
0.00
0.0
Areas with woody stems or a size class that are obviously small given the
3. Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor
monitoring year.
0.25
NA
0
0.00
0.0
Cumulative Total
0
0.00
0.0
Easement Acreage: 5.0
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
% of Planted
Vegetation Category
Deflations
Threshold
Depiction
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
5. Invasive Areas of Concern
Areas of points (iftoo small to render as polygons at map scale)
1000 ft2
Points O 1
Area <1000 ft'
0.00
0.0%
6. Easement Encroachment Areas
Areas ofpoints (iftoo 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 CANE CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95729)

Table 6b. Vegetation Problem Areas (VPAs)
UT to Cane Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95729
Feature Issue
Station Number
Suspected Cause
Photo Number
Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense)
*Reach 5, Station —28+50
Re -sprout
VPA 1, 2, 3
* See Figure 4B for location of invasive species
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
UT TO CANE CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95729)

Reach R5 — View upstream of culvert, Station
24+75
Reach R5 — View upstream, Station 20+00
Reach R5 — View upstream, Station 16+50
Reach R5 — View upstream towards crest gauge,
Station 22+00
Reach R5 — View upstream, Station 17+25
Reach R5 — View upstream, Station 13+75

i
may. � "� `t � ' FS p ' �'�!.; 33�•- { i'n :v !
q �

K AL <.
x.
r
C �
a (`

Reach R1 — View upstream, Station 10+50
Reach R1 — Vernal Pool, Station 15+00
Reach R1 — View upstream, Station 19+25
Reach R1 — View downstream, Station 14+75
Reach R1 — View downstream, Station 17+00
Reach RI — View upstream, Station 20+00

Reach R5 — Crest Gauge 1, 0.62 feet. October 13,
2015
Reach R5 — Crest gauge I area. October 26, 2015
Reach R5— Crest Gauge 2, 0.33 feet. March 26, Reach R3 — Crest Gauge 2, 0.79 feet. October 13,
2015 2015
Reach R5 lower — Bankftill evidence, October 26, Reach R5 upper — Bankfull evidence, October 26,
2015 2015

Vegetation Plot 1 — October 2015
Vegetation Plot 3 — October 2015
Vegetation Plot 5 — October 2015
Vegetation Plot 2 — October 2015
Vegetation Plot 4 — October 2015
Vegetation Plot 6 — October 2015

1) Vegetation Problem Area #1 —Vicinity of Reach 2) Vegetation Problem Area #1 —Vicinity of Reach
5 Ctatinn ?R+S(1 (lrtnhPr ?01 5 5 Station 28+505 October 2015
3) Vegetation Problem Area #1 — Vicinity of Reach
5 Station 28+50, October 2015

Appendix C
Vegetation Plot Data

Table 7. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
UT to Cane Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95729
Plot ID Vegetation Survival Threshold Met? October 2015 Total/Planted Stem Count*
Tract Mean
1 Y
607/880
688
2 Y
931/1,012
3 Y
-728/648
4 Y
486/688
5 Y
607/728
6 Y
769/971
Notes:
* Total/Planted Stem Count reflects the change 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)
** Includes stems planted during the March 2015 re -planting effort
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
UT TO CANE CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95729)

Table 8. CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
UT to Cane Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95729
Report Prepared By Dwayne Huneycutt
Date Prepared 10/28/2015 8:00
database name MichaelBaker_2015_UTCaneCrk_95729.mdb
database location L:\Monitoring\Veg Plot Info\CVS Data Tool\UT to Cane Creek
computer name CARYLDHUNEYCUTT
file size 48234496
DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT------------
Metadata
Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a summary of project(s) and project data.
Proj, planted
Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre, for each year. This excludes live stakes.
Proj, total stems
Each project is listed with its TOTAL stems per acre, for each year. This includes live stakes, all planted stems, and all natural/volunteer stems.
Plots
List of plots surveyed with location and summary data (live stems, dead stems, missing, etc.).
Vigor
Frequency distribution of vigor classes for stems for all plots.
Vigor by Spp
Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species.
Damage
List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences and percent of total stems impacted by each.
Damage by Spp
Damage values tallied by type for each species.
Damage by Plot
Damage values tallied by type for each plot.
Planted Stems by Plot and Spp A matrix of the count of PLANTED living stems of each species for each plot; dead and missing stems are excluded.
PROJECT SUMMARY -------------------------------------
Project Code 95729
project Name UT to Cane Creek
Description
River Basin Cape Fear
length(ft)
stream -to -edge width (ft)
area (sq m)
Required Plots (calculated)
Sampled Plots 6
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
UT TO CANE CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95729)

Table 9a. CVS Stem Count of Planted Stems by Plot and Species
UT to Cane Creek Restoration Proiect: DMS Proiect ID No. 95729
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
UT TO CANE CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95729)
c
¢, y6
qit,
w ♦
ao
^15
w w w w w w
Betula nigra
Tree
river birch
10
3
3.33
6
1
3
Carpinus caroliniana
Shrub Tree
American hornbeam
7
5
1.4
1
l
1
1
3
Diospyros virginiana
Tree
common persimmon
5
4
1.25
2
1
1
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Tree
green ash
27
6
4.5
1
10
5
3
4
4
Driodendron tulipifera
Tree
tuliptree
1
1
1
1
Nyssa sylvatica
Tree
blackgum
3
1
3
3
Platanus occidentalis
Tree
American sycamore
11
5
2.2
4
2
2
1
2
Quercus spp.
Shrub Tree
oak
1
1
1
l
Quercus alba
Tree
white oak
5
3
1.67
2
2
1
Quercus laurifolia
Tree
laurel oak
3
2
1.5
1
2
Quercus lyrata
Tree
overcup oak
11
4
2.751
51
2
2
2
Quercus michauxii
Tree
swamp chestnut oak
13
6
2.17
1
1
3
2
l
5
Quercus nigra
Tree
water oak
3
2
1.5
1
2
Unknown
unknown
NA
2
2
1
l
l
14
14
13
102
14
15
23
18
12
15
19
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
UT TO CANE CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95729)

Table 9b. Stem Count for Each Species Arranged by Plot
UT to Cane Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95729
Botanical Name
Common Name
Plots
l 2 3 4 5 6
Tree Species
Betula nigra river birch
6
1
3
Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash
1
10
5
3
4
4
Liriodendron tulipfera tulip poplar
1
Nyssa sylvatica black gum
3
Platanus occidentalis American sycamore
4
2
2
1
2
Quercus alba white oak
2
2
1
Quercus laurifolia laurel oak
1
2
Quercus lyrata overcup oak
5
2
2
2
Quercus michauxii swamp chestnut oak
1
1
3
2
1
5
Average Stems Per Acre
Quercus nigra water oak
1
2
Quercus spp. unknown oak
1
1
Shrub Species
Asimina triloba paw paw
Carpinus caroliniana ironwood
I
1
1
1
3
Diospyros virginiana persimmon
2
1
1
1
Hamamelis virginiana witch hazel
Itea virginica Virginia sweetspire
Lindera benzoin spicebush
Viburnum dentatum arrowwood Viburnum
Unknown unknown
1
Total Stems Per Plot for Year 2 (October 2015)
15
23
18
12
15
19
Density Per Plot for Year 2 (October 2015)
607
931
728
486
607
769
688
Density Per Plot for Year 1 (After re-planting Mar. 2015)
728
1012
648
688
728
971
796
Total Stems/ Acre for Year 1 (Before re-planting Dec. 2014)
728
405
121
364
202
567
398
Total Stems/ Acre for Year 0 As-Built (Baseline Data)
880
680
640
680
760
520
693
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC,
YEAR 2 MONITORING
UT TO CANE CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95729)

Table 9c. CVS Density Per Plot
UT to Cane Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95729
Current Plot Data (MY2 2015)
Annual Means
Scientific Name
Species
Common Name T e
95729-01-0001
PnoLS P -all T
95729-01-0002
PnoLS P -all T
95729-01-0003
PnoLS P -all T
95729-01-0004
PnoLS P -all T
95729-01-0005
PnoLS P -all T
95729-01-0006
PnoLS P -all T
MY2(2015)
PnoLS P -all T
MY1(2015)
PnoLS P -all T
Betula nigra
river birch Tree
6 6
6
1
1
1
3
3
3
10
10
10
13
13 13
Carpinus caroliniana
American hombeam Tree
1 1
1
1 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
7
7
7
5
5 5
Diospyros vir iniana
common persimmon Tree
2 2
2
1 1
1
1 1
1
1
1
1
5
5
5
1
1 1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash Tree
1 I
1
10 10
10
5 5
5
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
27
27
27
15
15 15
Liriodendron tuli i era
tuli tree Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
N ssa s lvatica
blackgurn Tree
31
31
3
1
3
3
3
4
4 4
Platanus occidentalis
Americansycamore Tree
4 4
4
2 2
2
2 21
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
11
11
111
7
7 7
Quercus spp.
oak Tree
1 1
1
1
1
1
Quercus alba
white oak Tree
2 2
21
2 2
2
1
1
1
5
5
5
Quercus laurt olia
laurel oak Tree
1 1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3 3
Quercus l rata
overcup oak Tree
5 5
5
2 2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
11
11
11
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak Tree
1 I
1
1 1
1
3 3
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
5
51
5
13
13
13
9
9 9
Quercus nigra
water oak Tree
1 1
12
2
2
3
3
3
1
1 1
Unknown
unk Junk
1 1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1 1
Stem coup
15 15
15
23 23
23
18 18
18
12
12
12
15
15
15
19
19
19
102
102
102
59
591 59
size (ares)
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
6
size (ACRES)
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.15
0.15
Species count
6,,,6 6
6
8 8
8
9 9
9
7
7
7
9
9
9"
6
6
14
14
14
10
10 10
Stems per ACRE
607.03 607.03 930.78 930.78 930.78 728.43 728.43 728.43
485.62 485.62 607.03 607.03 607.03
768.90 768.90 687.97 687.97 687.97 397.94 397.94 397.94
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
UT TO CANE CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95729)

Table 9d. CVS Vegetation Summary and Totals
Riparian
Buffer
�
Stems
Success
Criteria Met?
1
UT to Cane Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95729
2
n/a
UT to Cane Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95729
n/a
Year 2 (October 2015)
5
n/a
Vegetation Plot SummaryyInformation
n/a
Pro'ect Average
n/a
Riparian Buffer Stream/ Wetland
a
4
Unknown Growth
Plot #
Z Live Stakes Invasives
Volunteers
Total
Stems Stems
Form
1
n/a 15 0 0
0
15
0
2
n/a 23 0 0
0
23
0
3
n/a n/a 0 0
0
18
0
4
na na 0 0
0
N0
5
n/a n/a 0 0
0
15
0
6
n/a 19 0 0
0
19
0
Wetland/Stream Vegetation Totals
(per acre
Stream/ Wetland
Success Criteria
Plot # Volunteer Tota
Stems
Met?
1 607 0 607
Yes
2 931 0 931
Yes
3 728 0 728
Yes
4 486 0 486
Yes
5 607 0 607
Yes
6 769 0 769
Yes
Project Average
Riparian Buffer Vegetation Totals
(per acre
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.
°Total
Planted + volunteer native woody stems. Includes live stakes. Excl. exotics. Excl. vines.
Plot #
Riparian
Buffer
�
Stems
Success
Criteria Met?
1
n/a
2
n/a
3
n/a
n/a
5
n/a
6
n/a
Pro'ect Average
n/a
769
0
688
Yes
Plot #
Riparian
Buffer
�
Stems
Success
Criteria Met?
1
n/a
2
n/a
3
n/a
n/a
5
n/a
6
n/a
Pro'ect Average
n/a
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
UT TO CANE CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95729)

Appendix D
Stream Survey Data

Permanent Cross-section 1, Reach 5
(Year 2 Data - Collected October 2015)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Stream BKF BKF
Feature Type BKF Area Width Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle Cc 2.6 6.24 0.41
0.87
15.06 1.2 10.1 437.9 438.05
498
497
496
495
c
0
494
_m
LU 493
492
491
490
UT to Cane Creek Cross-section 1
Reach 5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------o
Year 2
Year 1
-As-built
---0-- Bankfull
---0-- Floodprone
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross-section 2, Reach 5
(Year 2 Data - Collected October 2015)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Feature
Stream BKF
Type BKF Area Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Pool
14.5 10.75
1 1.35
2.39 7.98 1.1 9.6 491.11 491.36
UT to Cane Creek Cross-section 2
Reach 5
494
493
492
491
---------
C
0
490
Year 2
Lu 489
Year 1
488
As -built
487
--o--- Bankfull
o--- Floodprone
486
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross-section 3, Reach 5
(Year 2 Data - Collected October 2015)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Stream
Feature Type BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth W/D BH Ratio ER
BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle Cc 6.1
10.04
1 0.61
1.08 16.56 1 7.6
488.13 488.13
UT to Cane Creek Cross-section 3
Reach 5
493
492
491
490
c
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------o
489
♦Year 2
Lu 488
---------
Year 1
487
As -built
--�--- Bankfull
486
--o--- Floodprone
485
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross-section 4, Reach 5
(Year 2 Data - Collected October 2015)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Stream
Feature Type BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth W/D BH Ratio ER
BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle Cc 6.2
9
0.69
1.1 13.08 1 3.3
479.63 479.63
UT to Cane Creek Cross-section 4
Reach 5
487
486
485
r 484
0 483
m 482
— Year 2
w
481
----------------------------------- Year 1
480
As -built
----"" G--- Bankfull
479
--o--- Floodprone
478
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross-section 5, Reach 3
(Year 2 Data - Collected October 2015)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Stream BKF BKF Max BKF
Feature Type BKF Area Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle Cc 2.2 7.08 1 0.32 0.56 22.39 1.2 3.1 478.16 478.26
UT to Cane Creek Cross-section 5
Reach 3
485
484
483
ttr 482
c
0
481
as
Year 2
W 480
Year 1
479
----------------------As -built
------ Bankfull
478
--o--- Floodprone
477
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross-section 6, Reach 3
(Year 2 Data - Collected October 2015)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Stream BKF BKF Max BKF
Feature Type BKF Area Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Pool 3.7 6.17 1 0.61 1.04 10.19 1.1 5.4 479.9 480.02
UT to Cane Creek Cross-section 6
Reach 3
486
485
484
483
c
0
482
_ Year 2
W481
-------------------------------------
Year 1
480
_ As -built
a- Bankfull
479
-o--- Floodprone
478
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross-section 7, Reach 4
(Year 2 Data - Collected October 2015)
Stream
Feature Type
BKF BKF
BKF Area Width Depth
Max BKF
Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle Bc
10.0 16.00 1 0.62
1.01 25.7 1.0 1.9 457.85 457.85
UT to Cane Creek Cross-section 7
Reach 4
463
462
461
460
c
0
459
--------------- -- -----------------------------------
°'
Year 2
w 458
---------------
Year 1
457
As -built
456
--o-- Bankfull
o-- Floodprone
455
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross-section 8, Reach 4
(Year 2 Data - Collected October 2015)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Stream BKF BKF Max BKF
Feature Type BKF Area Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Pool 17.8 13.37 1 1.33 2.73 10.06 1.0 4.4 457 456.99
UT to Cane Creek Cross-section 8
Reach 4
462
461
460
r459 -------------------------------------------------
V�
0 458
M
m 457
-----------
w
=Year 2
456
Year 1
455
As -built
--o--- Bankfull
454
--o--- Floodprone
453
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross-section 9, Reach 4
(Year 2 Data - Collected October 2015)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Stream BKF BKF Max BKF
Feature Type BKF Area Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle Cc 9.3 13.01 1 0.72 1.22 18.12 1.1 2.3 431.18 431.33
UT to Cane Creek Cross-section 9
Reach 4
436
435
434
433
c--------------------------------
0
c 432
w 431
------------- vYear 2
Year 1
430
As -built
429
Bankfull
{a- Floodprone
428
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross-section 10, Reach 1
(Year 2 Data - Collected October 2015)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Stream BKF BKF Max BKF
Feature Type BKF Area Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Pool 7.1 8.05 1 0.88 1.68 9.1 1.2 7.6 440.65 440.94
UT to Cane Creek Cross-section 10
Reach 1
445
444
443
r
442
-------------------------------------------------------------------
C
0
441
>
-------
Year 2
W 440
Year 1
439
` As -built
-0__- Bankfull
438
e--- Floodprone
437
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross-section 11, Reach 1
(Year 2 Data - Collected October 2015)
Looking at the Left Bank
Stream
Feature Type BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth W/D BH Ratio
ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle Cc 2.6
6.24
1 0.41
0.87 15.06 1.2
10.1 437.9 438.05
UT to Cane Creek Cross-section 11
Reach 1
442
441
440
r
439
-- - - - - - - - -- - - r
0
438
--*--Year 2
w
J 437
Year 1
436
As -built
--o--- Bankfull
435
-- G--- Floodprone
434
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross-section 12, Reach 1
(Year 2 Data - Collected October 2015)
Looking at the Left Bank
i3v .1$ #,
it
'A
b
;.T nOlt
Looking at the Right Bank
Feature
Stream
Type BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle
Ink
7.23
1 0.55
0.85 13.2 1 12 434.7 434.7
c
0
------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YY
w
'r'°r �✓
Ufa �b
r
;.T nOlt
Looking at the Right Bank
Feature
Stream
Type BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle
Cc 3.95
7.23
1 0.55
0.85 13.2 1 12 434.7 434.7
UT to Cane Creek Cross-section 12
Reach 1
439
438
437
436
c
0
------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
435
w 434
Year 2
Year
433
As-built
432
--•o--- Bankfull
---e--- Floodprone
431
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Station (ft)

Table 10. Baseline Stream Summary
UT to Cane Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95729
Reach 1 (1,045 LF)
USGS
Regional
Carve Interval
Reference Reach(es)
Data
Parameter
Gauge
(Harman
et at, 1999)*
pre -Existing Condition
Design
As -built
UT to Wells Creek
UT to Varnals Creek
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
LL
UL Eq.
Min
Mean
Med Max
SD n
Min
Mean
Med Max SD n
Min
Mean
Med Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med Max SD
n
Min
Mean
Med Max SD n
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
6.9
____
_____ _____
__
7.2
____
____ 9.1 _____ _____
Floodprone Width(ft
-----
----
--- ---
6.8
----
----- >30
----- -----
----
-----
---- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
---- ----
-----
----
-----
>20
----- ---- -----
----
65.6
-----
----- 84.4 ----- -----
BF Mean Depth (ft
____
2.3
5.8 0.8
0.7
_____
_____ 0.9
----- ____
-----
-----
_____ ____ ____ _____
_____
_____
____ _____
_____
_____
_____
0.5
_____ ____ _____
____
0.5
____
____ 1.0 _____ -----
BEMax Depth (ft)
_____
,____
_____ _____
1.1
_____
_____ 1.2
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
0.7
_____ _____ _____
_____
0.7
_____
_____ 1.9 _____ -----
BECross-sectional Area ffl2
-----
80.0
----
-- -----
_____
7.9
_____
_____
_____
_____
3.7
_____ _____ _____
_____
4.0
____
_____ 8.7 _____ -----
____Wt
ept Ran
Width/Depth
_____
_____
___ _____6.1___
___ 10.5
_____ _____
7
_____
____
8
_____
___is____
----
--
13.0
-----
--'-
9.6
---
-_-- 15.2 ----- -----
Entrenchment ent att
_____
_____
____ _____1.2___
____
_____2.0
____ 3.4 ____ -----
1.9
____ 3.9
_____
____
____
12.2
____ ____ _____
_____
6.9
____
_____ 10.8
Bank Height Ratio
-----
-----
----- _____
1.6
_____
_____ 4.3
_____ _____
1.4
_____
_____ 2.5 _____ _____
1.1
_____
_____ 1.5
_____
_____
_____
1.0
_____ _____ _____
_____
1.0
_____
_____ 1.3
d50 (mm)
_____
_____
__ _____
_____
___
_____ ____
_____ __
____
_____
_____ ____ _____
____
___
_____ ____ _____
_____
_____
_____
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft
____
_____
____ "'--
-"'-
----
____ ""'
""' "'--
--"'
""'
""' ___ ""' -----
""'
""'
____ ____
_____
____
25.0
-__
""' 45.0 ""'
""'
""'
____
____ -__ ""' -----
Radius of Curvature (ft)
____
__-__
___ _____
_____
_____
___ ___
_____ _____
_____
-__
____ ____ ____ ____
_____
_____
____ ____
_____
____
14.0
____
_____ 21.0 _____
_____
Rc:Bankfull width(ft/ft
_____
_____
____ _____
____
____
__ ___
____ ____
0.3
_____
____ 4.0 ____ _____
11.3
_____
____ 2.3
___
___
2.0
____
_____ 3.0 -----
____Mean
er Wavelength (
Meander
-----
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
__- _____
____ _____
4.48.8
_____ _____
4.9
_____
___- 6.9
_____
____
50.0
_____
____ 80.0 _____
-----
_____
Meander Width Ratio
____
_____
___ ___
___
____
_____ _____
_____ ___
1,3
_____
_____ 4.4 ____ _ ___
1.2
_____
_____ 1.8
_____
____
3.6
_____
_____ 6.5 _____
_____
____
_____
_____ _____ _____ -----
Profile
_____ ____ _____ _____
_____
_____
___ _____
_____
-----
Riffle Slope
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ ____- _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
-----
_____ _____ _____ -----
PoolLength (ft)
""'
-----
____ ___'_
-__
____
_____
__-_
-----
""'
____
_____ _-__ "'--
--"'
-""
____
____ ""- ----- -----
Pool Spacing (ft)
_____
,____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____
____ _____
2.1
_____
_____ 7.9 _____ _____
2.9
,____
_____ 5.0
_____
_____
28.0
_____
_____ 42.0 _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____ -----
PooPool Max Deft (
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
____
_____ _____
___ ____
2.3
_____
2.7 _____ _ ___
1.6
_____
_____ 2.3
_____
_____
_____
1.5
_____ _____
_____
_____
____
_____ ____ _____ -----
PoolVolume (f[t)
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
__________
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
----- _____ _____
_____
-----
_____
_____ ----- _____ _____
Substrate and Transport Parameters
____
____ ____
_____ ___
___
_____
____ ____
_____
____
_____
_____
_____
_____ ____ _____ ____
___
_____
____ _____
____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
____
_____
____
____ _____ _____
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
-----
-----
----- -----
0.1 / 0.6/ 4.5 / 53 / 96
0.2 / 2.5/ 8 / 92 /1,536
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/
_____
_____
___ -----
___
_____
____
____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ ----- _____
_____
_____
____
_____ ____ _____ -----
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve
_____
_____
____ ____
____
____
__ _____
_____ ____
_____
_____
----- __-_ ____ ____
___
____
____ ____
___
_____
____
____ _____ _____
____
_____
____
____ _____ _____ _____
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m
_____
_____
___ -----
___
___
___ ___
____ ____
_____
____
____ _____ ___
___
___ _____
_____
____
____
____
_____ ____ _____
_____
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
_____
_____
____ ___
___
___
____ 0.125
_____ ___
_____
____
_____ 0.1.3 --- ----
-----
_____
_____ 0.24
____
_____
____
_____
____ 0.125 _____
____
_____
____
____ 0.125
Impervious cover estimate o
-----
-----
----- -----
---
---- -----
----- -----
_____
_____
_____ ____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
____
____
____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
-----
RosgenClassificatio
____
_____
____ _____
G5c
----- E5
_____
_____
----- C4/1 ___ -----
____
___
____ B4/la
-----
___
____
E4/C4
_____ ____ _____
_____
-----
E4/C4
____ ____ ____ -----
BE Velocity (fps)
----
-----
---- -----
0.8
-----
----- 1.2
---- --
-----
---
--- 5.3 ----- -----
----
----
----- -----
-----
----
----
3.5
---- -- -----
---
----
3.5
--- --- ---- -----
BE Discharge (cfsq
-----
-----
____ 25.2 _____
_____
___
13
_____ ____ _____
____
____
13
ValleyLengt-----
_____
___- ____
_____
_____
_____ ____
_____ -----
_____
__-_
_-__ _____ _____ -----
_-__
_____
___- ____
_____
____
_____
_____
_____ ----- _____
-----
_____
859.4
_____ ___-_
Channel length HH''
_____
_____
_- _____
_____
____
_____ 943
____ ____
_____
____
____ ____ ___ ____
____
_____
- ____
____
_____
____
____
____ ____ _____
_____
_____
1044.9
[nuns[
____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ 1.09
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ 1.40 _____ _____
___
_____
-_ 1.20
_____
_____
____
1.20
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
1.2
Water ace Slope (Channel) (
_____
_____
_
____----------
_____
_____ 0.0127
_____ ____
_____
_____
_____ 0.0197 ____ ____
_____
_____
____ 0.0405
_____
____
____
0.012
_____ ____ _____
_____
_____
0.0123
____ ___ _____ -----
BE slope (ft/ft)
____
-_-__
____ _____
_____
_____
_____ 0.0135
_____ -_
__-__
____
____ 0.028 _____ _____
____
-_-__
____ 0.0458
_____
_____
_-_
0.015
_____ ___ _____
_____
____
0.0150
Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
-_
___ ____
_____ _____
_____
_____
____ ____ ____ ____
____
_____
____ _____
_____
_____
___
____
_____ ____ _____
_____
BEHIVL%/L%JM%/H%/VH%/E%
-----
-----
_____ ----- _____ -----
-----
-----
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ ----- _____
-----
____
-----
_____ ___-_
ChannelStability or Habitat Metric
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____ -----
Biological or Othe
_____
I _____
_____ _____
_____
____
_____ ____
_____ _____
_____
_____
____ ____ ____ ____
I _____
_____
_____ _____
_____
* Harman, W.A., G.D. le-mp, J.M. Pauer D.R. Clinton, L.O. Slate, A.G. Jessup, l.R. Everhart, and R.E. Smith. 1999. Bmkfrdl hydraulic geometry relationships
for North Carolina streams. Wildland Hydrology. AWRA Symposium Proceedings. D.S. Olsen and J.P. Potyoady, eds. American Water
Rcsoarces Association. Jmte 304u1y 2, 1999. Bozeman, MT.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
UT TO CANE CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95729)

Table 10. Baseline Stream Summary (continued)
UT to Cane Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95729
Reach 3 (398 LF)
USGS
Regional
Carve Interval
I
Reference Reaches)
Data
Parameter
Gauge
(Harman
et at, 1999)*
Pre -Existing Condition
Design
As -built
UT to Wells Creek
UT to Varuals Creek
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
LL
UL Eq.
Min Mean
Med Max SD n
Min
Mean
Med Max SD n
Min
Mean
Med Max SD
n
Min
Mean
Med Max SD
n
Min
Mean
Med Max SD n
_____ _____ _____ _____
_____
9.7
_____ _____
_____
_____
___-
7.2
_____ _____ _____
____
8.9
____
____ 9.0 _____ _____
Floodprone Width(ft
-----
----
--- ----
---- ----
---- >16.3 ----- -----
----
-----
---- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
---- ---- -----
-----
12
-----
----- 20.0 -----
-----
24.4
-----
----- 36.3 ----- -----
BEcan Depth ffl)
_____
____ _____
____ 0.8 -----
____
_____
_____
____ _____ _____
___
_____
0.6
____ ____ -----
_____
0.4
____
____ 0.6 _____ -----
BEMax Depth (ft)
_____
,____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____ 1.2 _____ _____
_____
_____
----- ----- _____ ____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
0.7
_____ _____ _____
_____
0.8
-----
_____ 1.1 _____ -----
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft'
BE
-----
80.0
300.0 5.7
----- ----
----- 5.6 ---- -----
-----
53
----- ----- ----- ----
7.9
_____ ----- ----
_____
_____
4.0
_____ _____ _____
_____
3.7
____
_____ 5.3 ----- -----
Width/Depth Ratio
_____
_____
___ _____
__- _____
_____ q.q _____ _____
7
_____
----- 26 --- ---
8
-----
--- 18 --
----
--
.
130
---- -- -----
--'-
.
153
----
____ 21.7 _____ -----
Entrenchment ent att
_____
_____
____ _____
_____ _____
_____ 2.2 _____ _____
_____ 2.2 _____
_____
2.7
___
_____ 4.0
Bank Height Ratio
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____ 1.5 _____ _____
1.4
_____
_____ 2.5 _____ _____
1.1
_____
____ 1.5 _____
_____
_____
1.0
_____ _____ _____
_____
1.0
_____
_____ 1.0
d50(mm)
_____
_____
_- _____
_____ -__
____ ____
_-_
____
_____ ____ _____
____
_____
_____
Pattern
ChannelBeltwidth (ft
____
_____
____ ____
----- -----
____ _____ _____ ____
-----
_____
_____
___
____
-__
_____ ____ _____
_____
_____
____
____ -__ _____ -----
Radius of Curvature (ft)
____
__-__
___ _____
_____ _____
___ ___ _____ ____
-__
_-_
____
_____ ___ _____
_____
Rc:Bankfull width (tt/ft
_____
_____
____ _____
____ ____
__ ___ ____ -----
0.3
-__
____ 4.0 ____ _____
0,g
-----
_____ 2.3 ___
Meander Wavelength (ft
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____
__- _____ ____ -----
4.4
--'-
____ _____
- 8.8 ----
4.9
----
---- 6.9 -----
----
----
-----
---- ----- _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
Meander WidthRah
____
_____
___ ___
___ ____
_____ _____ _____ ___
1,3
_____
_____ 4.4 ____ _ ___
1.2
_____
_____ 1.8 _____
____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
____
_____
_____ _____ _____ -----
Profile
_____ ____ _____ _____
_____
_____
___ _____ _____
-----
Riffle Slope
_____
_____
_____
_____ ----- _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____ -----
PoolLength (ft)
""'
-"'-
____ ___'_
-__ ____
_____
____
-----
""'
""'
----- ___ "'--
--"'
-""
____
____ ""- ----- -----
PoolSpacing (ft)
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____ _____ _____ -----
2.1
_____
_____ 7.9 _____ -----
2.9
,____
_____ 5.0 _____
_____
11
_____
_____ 36 _____
_____
_____
-----
_____ _____ _____ -----
PooPool Max Deft (
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____ ____
_____ _____ ____ ____
2.3
_____
2.7 _____ _ ___
1.6
_____
_____ 2.3 _____
_____
1.5
_____
_____ 1.5 _____
_____
_____
____
_____ ____ _____ -----
PoolVolume (f[s)
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
-----
_____
_____ ----- _____ -----
Substrate and Transport Parameters
Rio Ru o P% 0 0
_____
_____
_____ -----
_____ ____
____ ____ _____ _____
_____
_____
____ _____ _____
____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
____
____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ ____ _____ -----
-----
____
____ _____ ____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
-----
-----
----- -----
0.1 / 0.614.5 / 53 / 96
0.2 / 2.5/ 8 / 92 /1,536
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/
_____
_____
___ -----
___ _____
____ ____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ ----- _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ ____ _____ -----
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve
_____
_____
----- ____
----- ____
__ -__ ____ ____
_____
_____
----- ____ ____ -----
___
_____
_-_ ____
___
__
-__
____ ___ _____
____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m
_____
_____
----- -----
-__ ____
__- _____ _____ ____
_____
____
____ _____ ____
_____
____ _____ ____
____
__-
_____
_____ ____ _____
_____
____
-----
_____ __-_
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
_____
_____
____ ___
___ ____
____ p, _____ -__
_____
___
____ 0.13 ___ ____
___
_____
-____ 0.24 ____
_____
____
0.1
_____ ____ _____
_____
_____
0.1
_____ -----
Impervious cover estimate
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____ -----
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
Rosgen-----
Classificatio
____
_____
____ "'--
-"'- ____
____ B4c ""' ____
""'
""'
___
""' C4/1 --_____
___
___
B4/la ""'
___
____
____
_____ ____ ---------------____
__- ____ ----- -----
BE Velocity (fps)
_____
_____ -----
____ ____ _____ -_
_____
-__
5,3
_-_
____
_____ ___ _____
-----
BEDischarge c s
----
-----
---
_____ 25.2 ---
____ 46.6 _____
_____
_-_
____
_____ ____ _____
-----
____VValley
alleyLengt
LengO
_____
_____
___- ____
_____ -----
__- ____ ____ ____
_____
__'_
----- _____ ----- -----
____
_____
___- _____ _____
____
__-
_____
____ _____ _____
-----
____
356.8
_____ _____
Channel length (ftf
_____
_____
_- _____
_____ -----
____ 425 _____ ____
_____
____
____ ____ ----- -----
____
_____
- ____ ____
_____
____
___
_____ ____ _____
_____
_____
389.1
[nuns[
____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ 1.40 _____ _____
___
_____
-_ 1.20 _____
_____
____
1.18
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
1.1
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft
_____
_____
____ -----
----- -----___
____ 0.0195 _____ ____
_____
_____
_____ 0.0197 __
----------_____
_____
____ 0.0405 _____
____
____
0.016
_____ ____ _____
_____
_____
0.0172
BF slope (ft/ft)
____
__-__
____ _____
_____ _____
_____ 0.0168 _____ -_
_____
____
____ 0.028 _____ _____
____
__-__
____ 0.0458 _____
_____
_-_
0.018
_____ ___ _____
_____
____
0.0187
Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres
_____
_____
_____ _____
____ -----
___ ____ ____ _____
_____
_____
____ ____ ____ ____
____
_____
____ _____ _____
_____
_-_
____
_____ ____ _____
_____
BEHIVL%/L%JM%/H%/VH%/E%
_____
-----
_____ ----- _____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
____
_____
____ _____ _____
-----
____
-----
_____ _____
ChannelStability or Habitat Metric
_____
_____
----- _____
____ -----
_____ _____ _____ _____
_____
____
_____ _____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____ -----
Biological or Othe
_____
I _____
_____ _____
----- ____
_____ ____ _____ _____
* Harman, W.A., G.D. Jenrmp, J.M. Pare-, D.R. Clinton, L.O. Slate, A.G. Jessup, l.R. Everhart, and R.E. Smith. 1999. Bmkfull hydraulic geometry relationships
for North Camlina streams. Wildland Hydrology. AWRA Symposium Proceedings. D.S. Olsen and J.P. Potyoady, eds. American Water
Resources Association. Jmw 304u1y 2, 1999. Bozeman, MT.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
UT TO CANE CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95729)

Table 10. Baseline Stream Summary (continued)
UT to Cane Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95729
Reach 4 (2333 LF)
Parameter
USGS
Regional
Carve Interval
Pre -Existing Condition
Reference Reach(es)
Data
Design
As -built
UT to Wells Creek
UT to Varnals Creek
Gauge
(Harman et at, 1999)*
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
LL
UL
Eq.
Min
Mean Med Max
SD n
Min
Mean
Med Max SD n
Min
Mean
Med Max SD
n
Min
Mean
Med Max SD
n
Min
Mean
Med Max SD n
BF Width ffl)
_____
_____ _____
-----_____ ___
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
140
.
_____ ____ _____
-_
10.1
____
____ 13.8 _____ _____
Floodprone Width(ft
-----
----
---
---
18.4
----- ----- 26.2
----- -----
----
-----
---- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
---- ---- -----
----
-----
>30
----- ---- -----
----
80.1
-----
----- 105.0 ----- -----
BEcan Depth ffl)
_____
_____
_____
_____
____ _____ _____
_____
_____
1.0
_____ ____ _____
_____
0.6
____
_____ 1.2 _____ -----
BEMax Depth (ft)
_____
,____
_____
_____
1.3
_____ _____ 1.6
_____ _____
_____
____
_____ _____ _____ ____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
1.2
_____ _____ _____
_____
1.1
_____
_____ 2.0 _____ -----
BECross-sechona Area
-----
..
----- _____ 15.5
____ -----
_____
5,3
_____
_____
7.9
__ __ _____ _____
____
_____
14.0
_____ _____ _____
_____
7.5
____
_____ 12.3 _____ _____
----Width/Depth Ran
_____
_____
___
_____
15.4
_____ ___ 19.0
_____ _
7
_____ 26 _____ _____
g
_____
___ 1g ____
----
--
14.0
---- -- -----
--'-
8.3
----
---- 19.4 -----
____ 3.4 --- -----
1.9
____ 3.9 _____
-__
____
12.2
_____ ____ _____
_____
7.9
____
_____ 9.4
B Height Ran
_____
_____
_____
_____
1.
_____ _____
_____ _____
1,
____
_____ 2.5 _____ _____
1.1
_____
____ ,5 _____
_____
_____
1.0
_____ _____ _____
_____
1.0
____
_____ 1.1
d50 (mm)
_____
_____
_-
_____
_____
____ _____ _________
____
_
_____ ____ _____
____
____
_____ -__
_____
_____
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft
____
_____
____
____
____
___ ____ _____
_____ ____
_____
_____
___ ___ _____ -----
__-
_____
____ ____ _____
___
____
____
_____ ____ _____
_____
38.0
79.0
____ 120.0 _____ -----
Radius of Curvature (ft)
____
__-__
___
_____
_____
____ ___ ___
_____ _____
_____
-__
_____ ____ ____ ____
___
_____
___ ____ _____
____
____
____
_____ -_ __-__
-__
21.0
26.0
____ 31.0
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft
_____
_____
____
_____
___
_- _-_ ____
____ -----
0.3
-__
____ 4.0 ____ _____
0,g
-----
_____ 2.3 ___
-__
_-_
____
_____ ____ _____
____
38.0
79.0
____ 120.0
Meander Wavelength (ft
-----
_____
___-
_____
_____
_____ __- _____
____ -----
4.4
----
----- 8.8 ---- ----
4.9
----
----- 6.9 -----
----
---
-----
--- ----- ----
-----
72.0
104.0
----- 124.0 _____ -----
Meander Width Rah
-----
-----
-----
---
----- ----- -----
----- -----
1.3
_____
_____ 4.4 ----- -----
1.2
_____
_____ 1.8 _____
-----
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
3.5
6.0
_____ 8.0 _____ -----
Profile
____ _____ _____
_____
_____
___ _____ ___
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
----- -----
----
-----
----- ---- ----- ---
-----
-----
---- ---- ----
----
-----
----
---- ---- -----
----
0.0046
0.0043
----- 0.0039 ---- -----
PoolLength (ft)
-----
-----
____
_____
-__
____ _____
____
____
___
____
_____ _____ _____
Pool Spacing (ft)
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
____ _____
2.1
_____
_____ 7.9 _____ ___
2.9
,____
_____ 5.0 _____
_____
42
_____
_____ 84 _____
_____
41
_____
72 57 _____ -----
PoolPool Max Depth (ft
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
___ ____
2,3
_____
2.7 _____ _ ___
1.6
_____
_____ 2.3 _____
_____
___
2.2
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
____
_____ ____ _____ -----
PoolVolume (f[i)
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ __________
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
-----
_____
_____ ----- _____ _____
Substrate and Transport Parameters
Rio Ru o P% 0 0
_____
_____
_____
-----
_________
____ _____ _____
_____
____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
____
-____
_____ _____ _____
_:___ ____ _____ -----
-----
____
____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
____
_____
____
____ _____ _____
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95_____
_____
_____
-----
24.2 /50.6 / 69.4 / 50.6 / 24.2
0.1 / 0.6 / 4.5 / 53 / 96
0.2 / 2.5 / 8 / 92 /1,536
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/
_____
_____
___
-----
___
_____ ____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
____
____
____
____
____ ____ _____
_____
_____
____
_____ ____ _____ -----
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve
_____
_____
____
____
____
____ __ -__
____ ____
_____
_____
_____ ____ ___ ____
-----
_____
-_ ____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
____
_____
____
____ _____ _____ _____
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m
_____
_____
-----
-----
-__
____ __- _____
_____ ____
_____
____
_____ ___ -----
_____
____ _____ ____
_____
_____
_____
_____ ____ _____
_____
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
____ 0.7
_____ -__
_____
___
_____ 0.13 --- ----
-----
_____
____ 0.24 ____
____
____
_____
____ 0.7 _____
_____
_____
_____
____ 0.7
Impervious cover estimate o
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ ____ ____-
____ _____
_____
_____
_____ ____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
Rosgen Classification
____
_____
____
_
B3c
_____
_____ C4/1 ___ -----
-----
___
____ B4/la _____
___
____
B3c
_____ ____ _____
_____
_____
B3c
____ ____ ____ _____
---- 4.6
---- --
-----
---
- ----- -----
- - 5.3
----
----
----- ----- -----
----
---
4.0
----- --- ----
----
----
3.0
---- --- ---- -----
BF Discharge (c s
----
290.0
2000.0
fi9.2
-----
---
- --- 69.2
----- ----
-----
----
____ 25.2 _____ ----
----
-----
---- 46.6 -----
_____
_-_
56.0
_____ ____ _____
_____
____
56.0
ValleyLengt
-----
_____
___-
_____
_____
___ __- _____
____ -----
_____
__-_
_-__ _____ _____ -----
_-__
_____
___- _____ _____
____
_____
_____
_____ ----- _____
-----
____
349
_____
Channel length (ftf
_____
_____
_-
_____
_____
----- ----- 2,783
_____ ____
_____
____
____ ____ ----- -----
____
_____
- ____ ____
_____
_____
____
____ ____ _____
_____
_____
386
Sinuosity____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ 1.04
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ 1.40 _____ _____
___
_____
-_ 1.20 _____
_____
____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
1.10
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (
_____
_____
____---------------
_
-----0.0169
_____ ____
_____
_____
_____ 0.0197 ____ ____
_____
_____
____ 0.0405 _____
____
____
0.015
_____ ____ _____
_____
_____
0.0074
____ ____ _____ -----
BE slope (ft/ft)
____
-_-__
____
_____
_____
___ ____ 0.0148
_____ -_
__-__
____
____ 0.028 _____ _____
____
-_-__
____ 0.0458 _____
_____
_-_
0.017
_____ ___ _____
_____
____
0.0082
Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
----- ___ ____
____ _____
_____
_____
____ ____ ____ ____
____
_____
____ _____ _____
_____
_-_
____
_____ ____ _____
_____
____
____
BEHIVL%/L%JM%/H%/VH%/E%
-----
-----
_____ ----- _____ -----
_____
-----
_____ _____ _____
_____
____
_____
_____ ----- _____
-----
____
-----
_____ ___-_
ChannelStability or Habitat Metric
_____
_____
____
_____
____
----- _____ _____
_____ _____
_____
-----
_____ _____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____ -----
Biological or Othe
_____
I _____
_____
_____
____
____ _____ ____
_____ _____
* Harman, W.A., G.D. Jeanings, J.M. Pare-, D.R. Clinton, L.O. Slate, A.G. Jessup, l.R. Everhart, and R.E. Smith. 1999. Bmkfull hydraulic geometry relationships for North Carolina streams. Wildland Hydrology. AWRA Symposium Proceedings. D.S. Olsen and J.P. Potyondy, eds. American Water
Resources Association. June 304u1y 2, 1999. Bozeman, MT.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
UT TO CANE CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95729)

Table 10. Baseline Stream Summary (continued)
UT to Cane Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95729
Reach 5 (1,461 LF)
Parameter
USGS
Regional
Curve Interval
pre -Existing Condition
Reference Reaches)
Data
Design
As -built
UT to Wells Creek
UT to Varuals Creek
Gauge
(Harman et a1, 1999)*
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
LL
UL Eq.
Min Mean
Med Max SD n
Min
Mean
Med Max SD n
Min
Mean
Med Max SD
n
Min
Mean
Med Max SD
n
Min
Mean
Med Max SD n
_____
_____
9.7
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
10.8
_____ ____ _____
-_
10.2
____
____ 12.0 _____ _____
FloodproneWidth(ft
-----
----
--- ----
---- ----
----- 11.8 ----- -----
----
-----
---- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
---- ---- -----
----
-----
>25
----- ---- -----
----
76.0
-----
----- 103.7 ----- -----
BEcan Depth ffl)
_____
____ _____
_____ 1.2 -----
_____
_____
____ _____ _____
_____
_____
0.8
_____ ____ _____
____
0.7
____
__-_ 1.4 _____ -----
BEMax Depth (ft)
_____
,____
____ ____
_____ _____
_____ 1.5 _____ _____
_____
_____
_____ ----- _____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
1.1
_____ _____ _____
_____
1.2
-----
_____ 2.8 _____ -----
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft'
BE
-----
80.0
300.0 12.5
----- ----
----- 10.9 ----- -----
-----
53
----- ----- ----- -----
7.9
_____ _____
-----
____
_____
9.0
_____ __-_ _____
_____
7.1
____
_____ 15.8 ----- -----
Width/Depth Ratio
-----
-----
--- -----
--- ---
-- 7.2 ----- -----
7
-----
----- 26 ---- ----
8
-----
--- 18 --
---
--
13.0
----- -- -----
--'-
8.0
----
---- 17.8 ----- -----
Entrenchment ent att
_____
_____
____ _____
_____ -__
____ _____2.0
____ 3.4 ____ -----
1.9
____ 3.9 _____
-__
____
12.2
_____ ____ _____
_____
3.2
___
_____ 9.2
Bank Height Ratio
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____ 2.6 _____ _____
1.4
_____
_____ 2.5 _____ ___
1.1
_____
_____ 1.5 _____
_____
_____
1.0
_____ _____ _____
_____
1.0
_____
_____ 1.0
d50 (mm)
_____
_____
_- _____
_____ -__
____ ____ _____ __
____
_____
_____ ____ ____
_-_
___
_____ ____ _____
_____
_____
_____
Pattern
ChannelBeltwidth (ft
____
_____
____ "'--
-"'- ----
____ ""' ""' "'--
--"'
""'
""'
___
____
-__
_____ ____ ""'
""'
""'
____
____ -__ ""' -----
Radius of Curvature (ft)
____
__-__
___ _____
_____ _____
___ ___ _____ _____
-__
_-_
____
_____ ___ _____
_____
Rc:Bankfull width(tt/ft
_____
_____
____ _____
____ ____
__ ___ ____ ____
0.3
-__
____ 4.0 ____ _____
11.3
_____
____ 2.3 ___
Meander Wavelength (ft
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____
__- _____ ____ -----
4.4
--'-
____ _____
- 8.8 ----
4.9
-----
---- 6.9 -----
----
---
-----
---- ----- _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
Meander WidthRan
____
_____
___ ___
___ ____
_____ _____ _____ ___
1,3
_____
_____ 4.4 ____ _ ___
1.2
_____
_____ 1.8 _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
____
_____
_____ _____ _____ -----
Profile
-----
Riffle Slope
_____
_____
_____
_____ ----- _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____ -----
PoolLength (ft)
""'
-----
____ ___'_
-__ ____
_____
____
""-
""'
""'
-----
PoolSpacing (ft)
_____
,____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____ _____ ----- -----
2.1
_____
_____ 7.9 _____ _____
2.9
,____
_____ 5.0 _____
_____
32.0
_____
65.0 _____ _____
_____
-----
_____
_____ _____ _____ -----
PooPool Max Deft (
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____ ____
_____ _____ ___ ____
2,3
_____
2.7 _____ _ ___
1.6
_____
_____ 2.3 _____
_____
_____
2.0
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
____
_____ ____ _____ -----
PoolVolume (f[t)
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
----- _____ _____
_____
-----
_____
_____ ----- ----- -----
Substrate and Transport Parameters
Rio Ru o P% 0 0
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____ ____
_____ ____ _____ _____
_____
_____
____ _____ _____ -__
____
_____
____ ____ _____
____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
____
____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
____
_____
____
____ _____ _____
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
-----
-----
----- -----
16.6/31.2/47.0/85.3/116.1
0.1 / 0.6/ 4.5 / 53 / 96
0.2 / 2.5/ 8 / 92 /1,536
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
6.74 / 20.49 / 29.79 / 63.73 / 118:25
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/
_____
_____
___ -----
___ ____
____ _____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
____
_____ ----- _____ -----
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve
_____
_____
----- ____
----- ____
_- -__ ____ ____
_____
_____
----- __-_ ____ -----
___
_____
_-_ ____
___
_____
____
____ _____ _____
____
_____
____
____ _____ _____ _____
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m
_____
_____
___ -----
___ ____
__- _____ _____ ____
_____
____
____ _____ ___
_____
____ _____ _____
____
____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
____
___
_____ __-_
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
_____
_____
____ ___
___ ____
_____ 0.5 _____ -__
_____
___
_____ 0.1.3 --- ----
-----
_____
----- 0.24 ____
_____
____
___
_____ 0.5 _____
_____
_____
_____
____ 0.5
Impervious cover estimate o
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
---- ----- ---- -----
_____
_____
_____ ____ -____ _--_-
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
____
____
____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
--- -----
Rosgen Classification
____
_____
____ _____
____ ____
____ Oq _____ ____
_____
'----
___-- C4/1 _-- __-
--"'
__-
--- B4/la _____
'--
__-'
B4c
_____ ____ _____
_____
___--
B4c
____ ____ ____ -----
BEVelocity (fps)
-----
----- -----
---- 4.5 ---- --
-----
---
--- 5.3 ----- -----
----
----
----- ----- -----
----
---
4.4
----- --- ----
----
----
4.4
--- --- ---- -----
BE Discharge c s
-----
-
25.2 _____ ___
_____
40
_____ ____ _____
_____
40
ValleyLengt_____
_____
___- _____
_____
_____
____
__-
_____
____ _____ _____
-----
____
-----
_____ _____
___
_____ ____ _____
_____
_____
-----
Sinuosity____
_____
_____ _____
_____ -----
____ 1.07 _____ _____
_____
_____
_____ 1.40 _____ _____
__-
_____
-_ 1.20 _____
_____
____
____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
Water ace Slope (Channel) (
_____
_____
____ -----
----- ----------____
____ 0.0144 -----
_____
_____
_____ 0.0197 __
----------_____
_____
____ 0.0405 _____
____
____
0.014
_____ ____ _____
_____
_____
0.014
BF slope (ft/ft)
____
__-__
____ _____
_____ -----
_____ 0.0128 _____ -_
_____
____
____ 0.028 _____ _____
____
__-__
____ 0.0458 _____
_____
_-_
0.017
_____ ___ _____
_____
____
0.017
Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres
_____
_____
_____ _____
____ -----
___ ____ ____ _____
_____
_____
____ ____ ____ ____
____
_____
____ _____ _____
_____
_-_
____
_____ ____ _____
_____
____
____
BEHIVL%/L%JM%/H%/VH%/E%
_____
-----
_____ ----- _____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
____
_____
____ _____ _____
-----
____
-----
_____ _____
ChannelStability or Habitat Metric
_____
_____
----- _____
____ -----
_____ _____ _____ _____
_____
____
_____ _____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____ -----
Biological or Othe
_____
I _____
_____ _____
----- ____
_____ ____ _____ _____
* Harman, W.A., G.D. Jemmings, J.M. Panersom, D.R. Clinton, L.O. Slate, A.G. Jessup, l.R. Everhart, and R.E. Smith. 1999. Bmkfull hydraulic geometry relationships
for North Camim streams. Wildland Hydrology. AWRA Symposium Proceedings. D.S. Olsen and J.P. Potyoady, eds. American Water
Resources Association. J- 304u1y 2, 1999. Bozeman, MT.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
UT TO CANE CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95729)

Table 10. Baseline Stream Summary (continued)
UT to Cane Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95729
Reach 5a (145 LF)
Parameter
USGS
Regional Carve Interval
Pre-Existing Condition
Reference Reaches) Data
Design
As-built
UT to Wells Creek
UT to Varnals Creek
Gauge
(Harman et at, 1999)*
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
LL UL Eq.
Min Mean Med Max SD n
Min Mean Med Max SD n
Min Mean Med Max SD n
Min Mean Med Max SD n
Min Mean Med Max SD n
BF Width ffl)
_____
____ _____ _____ 13.6 ____ _____
_____ 8 _____ _____ ____ ____
_____ 9.7 _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ ____ _____ __
_____ ____ ____ _____ _____ _____
FloodproneWidth(ft
_____
____ ___ ____
____ _____ _____ 16.9 _____ ___
____ ----- _____ _____ ----- _____
_____ _____ ____ ____ _____ ____
_____ _____ _____ ____ _____ ____
____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
BEcan Depth ffl)
_____
____ _____ _____
_____ _____ ____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ ____
_____ ____ _____ _____ _____ -----
BEMax Depth (ft)
_____
,____ _____ ____
_____ _____ _____ 0.5 _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ ----- _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ ----- _____ _____ _____ -----
BE Cross-sectional Area (ft'
_____
80.0 300.0 1.7
_____ ____ _____ 4.2 _____ _____
_____ 53 _____ ----- ____ ___
_____ 7.9 _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
____ ____ _____ ____ _____ -----
____Wt
Width/Depth
ept Ran
_____
_____ ___
___ 45.0 _____ _
7 _____ 26 _____ _
8 18
_____ _____ -----
Entrenchment ent att
_____
_____ ____ _____
_____ ___ ____ _____2.0
____ 3.4 ____ -----
_____ ___
1.9____
_____ _____
BankHeight Ratio
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ 2.3 _____ _____
1.4 _____ _____ 2.5 _____ _____
1.1 _____ _____ 1.5 ----------
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____
d50 (mm)
_____
_____ __ _____
_____ ___ _____ ____ _____ __
____ _____ _____ ____ ____
___ ___ _____ ____ _____ ____
_____ _____
Pattern
ChannelBeltwidth (ft
____
_____ ____ "'--
-"'- ---- ____ ""' ""' "'--
--"' ""'
_____ ___
____ -__ _____ ____ ""' ""'
""' ____ ____ -__ ""' -----
Radius of Curvature (ft)
____
__-__ ___ _____
_____ _____ ___ ___ _____ _____
-__
_-_ ____ _____ ___ _____ _____
Rc:Bankfull width(ft/ft
_____
_____ ____ _____
____ ____ __ ___ ____ ____
0.3 _____ ____ 4.0 ____ _____
11.3 ----- ____ 2.3 ___
Meander Wavelength (ft
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ ____ __- _____ ____ -----
____ _____
4.4 --'- - 8.8 ----
4.9 ----- ---- 6.9 ----- ----
--- ----- ---- ----- _____ _____
_____ _____ _____
Meander WidthRan
____
_____ ___ ___
___ ____ _____ _____ _____ ___
_____ 4.4 ____ _
1,3 _____ ___
_____
1.2 _____ 1.8 _____ ____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
Profile
_____ ____ _____ _____
_____ _____ ___ _____ _____
-----
Riffle Slope
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____ _____ ____- _____
_____ _____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ -----
PoolLength (ft)
""'
----- ____ ___'_
-__ ____ _____
____ -----
""' ""' ----- ___ "'-- --"'
-"" ---- ---- ""- ----- -----
PoolSpacing (ft)
_____
,____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ ____ _____
2.1 _____ _____ 7.9 _____ _____
2.9 ,____ _____ 5.0 _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ ----- _____ _____ _____ -----
PooPool Max Deft (
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ ____ _____ _____ ___ ____
2.7 _____ _
2.3 _____ ___
_____
1.6 _____ 2.3 _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ ____ _____ ____ _____ -----
PoolVolume (Itt)
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ __________ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ ----- _____ _____ _____
----- _____ _____ ----- _____ _____
Substrate and Transport Parameters
____ ____ ____ _____ _____
_____ _____ ____ _____ _____ ___
____ _____ ____ ____ _____ ____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ ____
_____ ____ ____ _____ _____ -----
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
-----
----- ----- -----
0.1 / 0.6/ 4.5 / 53 / 96
0.2 / 2.5/ 8 / 92 /1,536
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/
_____
_____ ___ -----
___ ____ ____ ____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____
_____ _____ _____ ____ _____ _____
_____ ____ _____ ____ _____ -----
Max part size (tom) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve
_____
_____ ____ ____
____ ___ ___ -__ ____ ____
_____ _____ ----- __-_ ____ -----
___ _____ _-_ ____ ___
_____ ____ ____ ___ _____ ____
_____ ____ ____ _____ _____ _____
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m
_____
_____ ___ -----
___ ___ ____ _____ _____ ____
_____ ____ ____ _____ ___
_____ ____ _____ _____ ____
____ _____ _____ ____ _____ _____
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
_____
_____ ____ ___
___ ____ _____ 0.025 _____ ___
_____ ____ _ 0.1.3
----- _____ _____ 0.24 ____ _____
_____ ____
Impervious cover estimate o
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ ____ _____ ____ _____
_____ _____ _____ ____ _____ ___-_
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
____ ____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____
RosgenClassificatio
-"'
"-'- -'-' -----
---- ----- "-' _____ _____ '-'-
_____ _____ ----- C4/1 ----- -----
--"' ----- --- B4/la _____ '-'-
__-' --" "-" '-" _____ _____
_____ '-'- -'-' -"' _____ ___--
---- 1.7 ---- --
- ----- -----
----- --- - - 5.3
---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----
--- --------- --- ----- -----
---- ---- ---- --- ---- ----
BEDischarge c s
____
290. 200.0 6.2
____ ____ ___ 7,1 _____ ____
____ 25.2 _____
_____ ____ ____
____ .____ ____ 46.6 _____ _____
___ ____ _____ ____ _____ _____
ValleyLengt
_____
_____ ___- _____
_____
_____ ____
__- _____ ____ _____ _____ _____
____ ----- _____ _____
----- 144 _____
____ _____ - ____ ____ _____
____ _____ ____ _____ _____
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____ _____ 1.40 _____
_____ -_ 1.20 _____ _____
____ ____ _____ _____
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft
_____
_____ ____ ____
____ ----- -_ 0.0236 _____ ____
_____ _____ _____ 0.0197 ____ ____
_____ _____ ____ 0.0405 _____ ____
____ ____ _____ ____ _____ _____
_____ ____ ____ ____ _____ -----
BE slope (ft/ft)
____
__-__ ____ _____
_____ ___ ____ 0.0224 _____ -_
_____ ____ ____ 0.028 _____ _____
____ __-__ ____ 0.0458 _____ _____
_-_ ____ _____ ___ _____ _____
Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres
_____
_____ _____ _____
____ ----- ___ ____ ____ _____
_____ _____ ____ ____ ____ ____
____ _____ _____
____ _____ _____
___ ____ _____ ____ _____ _____
BEHI VL%/L%JM%/H%/VH%/E%
_____
_____ _____ ----- _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
__- _____ ____ _____ _____ _____
____ ----- _____ _____
ChannelStability or Habitat Metric
_____
_____ ____ _____
____ ----- _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ ____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____
____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
Biological or Othe
_____
I _____ _____ _____
____ ____ _____ ____ _____ _____
_____ _____ ____ ____ ____ ____
I _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
* Harman, W.A., G.D. Jemmings, J.M. Paterson, D.R. Clinton, L.O. Slate, A.G. Jessup, l.R. Everhart, and R.E. Smith. 1999. Bmkfull hydraulic geometry relationships for North Carolina streams. Wildland Hydrology. AWRA Symposium Proceedings. D.S. Olsen and J.P. Potyoady, eds. American Water Resources Association. J- 304a1y 2, 1999. Bozeman, MT.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
UT TO CANE CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95729)

on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
on currenddeveloping bankfull feature
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
UT TO CANE CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95729)

Appendix E
Hydrologic Data

Table 12. Verification of Bankfull Events
UT to Cane Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95729
Estimated Occurrence of Bankfull
Date of Data Collection
Crest Gauge 1 (Reach 5)
Crest Gauge 2 (Reach 3)
Method of Data Collection
Event
3/25/2015
0.33
0.00
3/6/2015
Crest Gauge
10/13/2015
0.62
0.79
10/3/2015
Crest Gauge
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
UT TO CANE CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95729)