20141024 Ver 1 _Year 0 Monitoring Report 2016 _20170119

0KI
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project — Option A
Stanly County, North Carolina
DMS Project ID No. 94648; NCDEQ Contract No. 003277
SAW -2013-01280; DWR# 14-1024
Yadkin Pee -Dee River Basin: 03040105060040
Prepared for:
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1652
Data Collection Period — February — June 2016
Submission Date — Nov 2016
This document was printed using 100% recycled paper.

Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project — Option A
Stanly County, North Carolina
DMS Project ID No. 94648; NCDEQ Contract No. 003277
SAW -2013-01280; DWR# 14-1024
Yadkin Pee -Dee River Basin: 03040105060040
Prepared for:
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services (DMS)
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
Prepared by:
I N T E R N AT 1 0 N A L
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
9716-B Rea Road #56
Charlotte, NC 28277
NC Engineering License: F-1084
Data Collection Period — February — June 2016
Submission Date — Nov 2016

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.............................................................................1-1
2.0 PROJECT GOALS, BACKGROUND AND ATTRIBUTES ..................... 2-1
2.1
PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION........................................................................................................... 2-1
2.2
SITE DIRECTIONS.............................................................................................................................................
2-1
2.3
PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES...................................................................................................................
2-1
3.0 PROJECT STRUCTURE, RESTORATION TYPE AND APPROACH..
3-1
3.1
PROJECT COMPONENTS....................................................................................................................................
3-1
3.2
RESTORATION APPROACH................................................................................................................................
3-1
3.2.1
Reach I Restoration....................................................................................................................................
3-1
3.2.2
Reach 2 Restoration....................................................................................................................................
3-2
3.2.3
Reach R3 Restoration.................................................................................................................................
3-2
3.2.4
Reach 4 Enhancement.................................................................................................................................
3-3
3.2.5
Reach 5 Enhancement.................................................................................................................................
3-3
3.2.6
Reach 6 Restoration....................................................................................................................................
3-3
3.2.7
Reach 7 Restoration....................................................................................................................................
3-4
3.3
WETLAND RESTORATION AND CREATION APPROACH.....................................................................................
3-4
3.4
CONSTRUCTED STORMWATER WETLAND BMPS.............................................................................................
3-5
3.5
PROJECT HISTORY, CONTACTS, AND ATTRIBUTE DATA...................................................................................
3-5
3.5.1
Construction Summary...............................................................................................................................
3-5
4.0 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS..................................................................
4-1
5.0 MONITORING PLAN AND SUCCESS CRITERIA ..................................
5-1
5.1
STREAM MONITORING.....................................................................................................................................
5-1
5.1.1
Bankfull Events and Flooding Functions....................................................................................................
5-1
5.1.2
Flow Documentation...................................................................................................................................
5-1
5.1.3
Cross-sections.............................................................................................................................................5-2
5.1.4
Pattern........................................................................................................................................................
5-2
5.1.5
Longitudinal Profile....................................................................................................................................
5-2
5.1.6
Bed Material Analysis.................................................................................................................................
5-2
5.1.7
Visual Assessment.......................................................................................................................................
5-3
5.2
VEGETATION MONITORING..............................................................................................................................
5-3
5.3
WETLAND MONITORING..................................................................................................................................
5-4
5.4
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT MONITORING...................................................................................................
5-4
6.0 AS
-BUILT DATA DOCUMENTATION......................................................
6-1
6.1
STREAM DATA.................................................................................................................................................
6-1
6.2
VEGETATION DATA.........................................................................................................................................
6-1
6.3
WETLANDS DATA............................................................................................................................................6-1
6.4
FLOW DOCUMENTATION DATA........................................................................................................................
6-2
6.5
AREAS OF CONCERN........................................................................................................................................
6-2
7.0 MAINTENANCE AND CONTINGENCY PLANS .....................................
7-1
7.1
STREAMS.........................................................................................................................................................
7-1
7.2
WETLAND........................................................................................................................................................7-1
7.3
VEGETATION....................................................................................................................................................7-1
7.4
SITE BOUNDARY..............................................................................................................................................
7-2
7.5
FARM ROAD CROSSING....................................................................................................................................
7-2
7.6
BEAVER MANAGEMENT...................................................................................................................................
7-2
8.0 REFERENCES................................................................................................ 8-1
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE III 11/10/2016
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
LIT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)

LIST OF TABLES
Table
1
Project Mitigation Components
Table
2
Project Activity and Reporting History
Table
3
Project Contacts
Table
4
Project Attributes
Table
5
Baseline Stream Summary
Table
6
Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Table
7
Vegetation Plot Attribute Data
Table
8
Vegetation Species Planted Across the Restoration Site
Table
9
Planted Stem Count for Each Species Arranged by Plot
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Vicinity Map
Figure 2 Mitigation Summary Map
Figure 3 Reference Sites Location Map
Figure 4a/b Monitoring Well Locations (As -built and Existing)
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A Figures 1 — 4b, Tables 1 - 4
Morphological Summary Data (Tables 5 and 6), Cross-section Data (X1 — X19),
Appendix B Longitudinal Profile (Reaches 1 — 4 and 6 — 7), and Reachwide Pebble Count Data
(Reach 1 — 3, and Reach 6).
Appendix C Vegetation Summary Data (Tables 7 — 9), CVS Output Tables
Appendix D As -Built Plan Sheets/Record Drawings
Appendix E Photo -ID Log
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE IV 11/10/2016
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc., (Baker) restored 5,554 linear feet (LF) and enhanced 791 LF (447 LF of
Enhancement I and 344 LF of Enhancement II) of perennial and intermittent stream along an Unnamed
Tributary (UT) to Town Creek and three additional unnamed tributaries. Also as part of this Project, Baker
restored, created, and enhanced 5.12 acres of riparian wetlands and constructed two stormwater wetland best
management practices (BMPs) upstream of the mitigation areas. In addition, Baker planted 25.1 acres of native
riparian vegetation within the recorded conservation easement. Both BMPs are included in the conservation
easement. Though no mitigation credit is being sought for wetland enhancement, additional stream mitigation
credit is being sought for the inclusion of the proposed stormwater BMPs and the extended riparian buffer width
within the conservation easement.
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project — Option A (Site) is located in Stanly County, approximately 1.7 miles
west of the Town of New London, within cataloging unit 03040105 of the Yadkin Pee -Dee River Basin (see
Figure 1). The Site is located in a North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS) - Targeted Local
Watershed (03040105060040). The Project involved stream restoration and enhancement, as well as wetland
restoration, creation, and enhancement along UT to Town Creek and several of its tributaries, which had been
impaired due to historical pasture conversion and cattle grazing.
Based on both the River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP) document for the Lower Yadkin — Pee Dee River
Basin (NCEEP, 2009) and the Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basinwide Water Quality Plan (NCDENR, 2008), many
streams in the Rocky River Watershed (03040105) are documented as impaired or impacted due to habitat
degradation. Stressors identified in the plan include impervious surfaces, sedimentation and erosion from
construction, general agriculture, and other land disturbing activities. As stated in the Yadkin -Pee Dee River
Basinwide Water Quality Plan, the project watershed naturally consists of erodible soils; therefore, increasing
the system's vulnerability to the aforementioned stressors.
The primary goals of the Project were to improve aquatic habitat degradation by improving ecologic functions
and reducing non -points source loads from agricultural run-off to the impaired areas as described in the Lower
Yadkin — Pee Dee RBRP and as identified below:
Improve aquatic and terrestrial habitat through increasing dissolved oxygen concentrations, reduction
in nutrient and sediment loading, improving substrate and in -stream cover, and reduction of in -stream
water temperature;
Improve both aquatic and riparian aesthetics;
Create geomorphically stable conditions along UT to Town Creek and its tributaries through the Project
area;
Prevent cattle from accessing the Project area thereby protecting riparian and wetland vegetation and
reducing excessive bank erosion;
Restore historical wetlands, create new wetlands, and enhance/preserve existing wetlands to improve
terrestrial habitat and reduce sediment and nutrient loading to UT to Town Creek and the Little Long
Creek Watershed.
To accomplish these goals, the following objectives were identified:
Restore, enhance, create, and protect riparian wetlands and buffers to reduce nutrient and pollutant
loading by particle settling, vegetation filtering and nutrient uptake;
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 1-1 11/10/2016
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)

Construct wetland 13MPs on the upstream extent of Reaches 4 and 7 to improve water quality by
capturing and retaining stormwater run-off from the adjacent cattle pastures to allow for the biological
removal of nutrient pollutant loads and for sediment to settle out of the water column;
Restore existing incised, eroding, and channelized streams by creating stable channels with access to
their geomorphic floodplains;
Improve in -stream habitat by providing a more diverse bedform with riffles and pools, creating deeper
pools and areas of water re -aeration, and reducing bank erosion;
Control invasive species vegetation within the Project reaches;
Establish native stream bank, riparian floodplain, and wetland vegetation, protected by a permanent
conservation easement, to increase stormwater runoff filtering capacity, improve bank stability, shade
the stream to decrease water temperature, and provide improved wildlife habitat quality.
This report documents the completion of the restoration construction activities and presents as -built monitoring
data for the post -construction monitoring period. Table 1 summarizes the project components and mitigation
credit assets and is located in Appendix A.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 1-2 11/10/2016
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)

2.0 PROJECT GOALS, BACKGROUND AND ATTRIBUTES
2.1 Project Location and Description
The Site is located in Stanly County, NC, approximately 1.7 miles west of the Town of New London, as
shown on the Vicinity Map (Figure 1). The Project is located within the Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basin and
the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS) - Targeted Local Watershed
03040105060040. The Project is located in the Piedmont physiographic region within the Carolina Slate
Belt and includes an Unnamed Tributary (UT) to Town Creek, three of its headwater unnamed tributaries,
and seven riparian wetlands. The four UTs were divided into seven individual Reaches (RI, R2, R3, R4,
R5, R6, and R7) as shown in Figure 2.
The United States Geologic Survey (USGS) topographic quadrangle maps (Richfield and New London)
depict UT to Town Creek (Reaches R1, R2, and R3) as solid blue -line stream, along its entire length within
the project limits. Though the topographic quadrangle maps do not depict UT to Town Creek's smaller
tributaries (Reaches R4, R5, R6, and R7) with either a solid or a dashed blue line, the topographic
crenulations depicted on the quadrangle maps clearly define the hydrologic watercourse of each reach.
Preliminary field investigations determined that Reaches R1, R2, and R3 are perennial streams, while
Reaches R4, R5, R6, and R7 are intermittent channels. On-site field investigations were confirmed during
an on-site jurisdictional determination field review with the United States Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE). The jurisdictional determination was approved on July 17, 2013.
Based on both the RBRP document for the Lower Yadkin — Pee Dee River Basin (NCEEP, 2009) and the
Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basinwide Water Quality Plan (NCDENR, 2008), many streams in the Rocky River
Watershed (03040105) are documented as impaired or impacted due to habitat degradation. Stressors
identified in the plan include impervious surfaces, sedimentation and erosion from construction, general
agriculture, and other land disturbing activities.
2.2 Site Directions
To access the Site from Raleigh, take I-40 West toward Sanford/Wake Forest. Take Exit 293 (I-440/US-
64 W/US-1) toward Sanford/Wake Forest. Keep left at the fork toward US -1 S/US-64 W. Take Exit 293A
for US -1 S/US-64 W toward Sanford/Asheboro. Keep left at the fork toward US -1 S/US-64 W. Continue
on US -1 S/US-64 W towards Apex/Sanford/Asheboro. Take exit 98B to merge onto US -64 W towards
Pittsboro/Asheboro. After 62 miles, turn left onto Connector Rd. Turn right onto NC 49 S. After 28.4
miles, take a slight left onto N Main St. After 1.1 miles, turn left onto Old Salisbury Rd. Follow Old
Salisbury Rd. for approximately 2.0 miles to its intersection with Misenheimer Rd. / Steakhouse Rd. Go
through the intersection and continue on Old Salisbury Rd. for approximately 0.4 miles and the Site is on
the right accessed via a dirt farm road.
2.3 Project Goals and Objectives
The primary goals of the Project are to improve aquatic habitat degradation by improving ecologic
functions and reducing non -points source loads from agricultural run-off to the impaired areas as described
in the Lower Yadkin — Pee Dee RBRP and as identified below:
Improve aquatic and terrestrial habitat through increasing dissolved oxygen concentrations, reduction
in nutrient and sediment loading, improving substrate and in -stream cover, and reduction of in -stream
water temperature;
Improve both aquatic and riparian aesthetics;
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2-1 11/10/2016
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)

Create geomorphically stable conditions along UT to Town Creek and its tributaries through the Project
area;
Prevent cattle from accessing the project area thereby protecting riparian and wetland vegetation and
reducing excessive bank erosion;
Restore historical wetlands, create new wetlands, and enhance/preserve existing wetlands to improve
terrestrial habitat and reduce sediment and nutrient loading to UT to Town Creek and the Little Long
Creek Watershed.
To accomplish these goals, the Project incorporated the following objectives:
Restore, enhance, create, and protect riparian wetlands and buffers to reduce nutrient and pollutant
loading by particle settling, vegetation filtering and nutrient uptake;
Construct wetland BMPs on the upstream extent of Reaches 4 and 7 to improve water quality by
capturing and retaining stormwater run-off from the adjacent cattle pastures to allow for the biological
removal of nutrient pollutant loads and for sediment to settle out of the water column;
Restore existing incised, eroding, and channelized streams by creating stable channels with access to
their geomorphic floodplains;
Improve in -stream habitat by providing a more diverse bedform with riffles and pools, creating deeper
pools and areas of water re -aeration, and reducing bank erosion;
Control invasive species vegetation within the project reaches;
Establish native stream bank, riparian floodplain, and wetland vegetation, protected by a permanent
conservation easement, to increase stormwater runoff filtering capacity, improve bank stability, shade
the stream to decrease water temperature, and provide improved wildlife habitat quality.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2-2 11/10/2016
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)

3.0 PROJECT STRUCTURE, RESTORATION TYPE AND APPROACH
3.1 Project Components
The Project area consists of the restoration and enhancement of an UT to Town Creek and three of its
headwater tributaries and the restoration, enhancement, and creation of 5.12 acres riparian wetlands. The
Project is located in the Carolina Slate Belt Level IV Ecoregion of the Piedmont physiographic region.
For assessment and design purposes, the four UTs were divided into seven individual Reaches (Rl, R2,
R3, R4, R5, R6, and R7). Two stormwater wetland BMPs were constructed upstream of the mitigation
areas and native species riparian buffer vegetation was established and/or protected at least 50 feet from
the top of both bank along all project reaches and at least 30 feet from the top of bank of each BMP.
Lastly, cattle were excluded along all project reaches, headwater wetlands, and BMPs located within the
conservation easement with the installation of permanent fencing. The reach designations have remained
in the same order to be consistent throughout the document.
3.2 Restoration Approach
Based on the post -construction as -built survey, the Project consisted of the following: 1,204 LF of Priority
I Restoration on R1, 1,782 LF of Priority I Restoration on R2, 829 LF of Priority I Restoration on R3, 447
LF of Enhancement I on R4, 344 LF of Enhancement II on R5, 1,340 LF of Priority I Restoration on Reach
R6, and 399 LF of Priority I Restoration on R7. A recorded conservation easement consisting of 25.1
acres protects and preserves all stream reaches, wetland areas, BMPs, and riparian buffers in perpetuity.
The Project involved the restoration and enhancement of a Rural Piedmont Stream System (NC WAM
2010, Schafale 2012) which had been impaired due to past agricultural conversion and cattle grazing.
Restoration practices involved raising the existing streambed and reconnecting the stream to the relic
floodplain, and restoring natural flows to areas previously drained by ditching activities. The existing
channels abandoned within the restoration areas were partially to completely filled to decrease surface and
subsurface drainage and raise the local water table. Permanent cattle exclusion fencing was provided
around all proposed reaches, wetland areas, and riparian buffers.
The vegetative components of this Project included stream bank, floodplain, wetland, and transitional
upland planting and described as the riparian buffer zone. The Site was planted with native species riparian
buffer vegetation as shown in Table 8 and Table 9 (Appendix C) and now protected through a permanent
conservation easement. Table 1 and Figure 2 (Appendix A) provide a summary of the Project components.
3.2.1 Reach 1 Restoration
A Priority Level I restoration approach was implemented along R1 to provide floodplain reconnection
and promote long-term channel stability. In its existing condition, the reach was incised and eroding.
The channel improvements began at Station 10+00 and tied into an existing 84 -inch corrugated metal
pipe (CMP) at Misenheimer Road. From there a new off-line 'C4' stream type was constructed to
restore floodplain connectivity, provide stream bed and bank stability, improve transport of sediment
and water quality, improve existing wetland hydrology, provide hydrology to restored wetlands and
provide habitat and bedform diversity. In -stream structures included constructed riffles for grade
control and aquatic habitat, log vanes, rock j -hooks, and bio -engineering practices (vegetated geo-lifts)
for stream bedibank stability, and habitat diversity.
At the downstream end of the reach, approximately Station 21+12, the restored channel ties into
existing bedrock at proposed grade and transitions back on-line with the existing alignment, at Station
21+50. Bedrock along the channel bed continues throughout the remainder of the reach to its terminus
with R2. Though no grade control or habitat type structures were implemented within this section of
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 3-1 11/10/2016
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)

the reach, contractors were able to use construction equipment to chisel out sections of rock and create
streambed variability to grade throughout the section.
Channel banks were graded to stable slopes throughout the entire reach. Floodplain benches were
implemented along the upstream extent of the reach to promote stability in areas where the channel lies
close to the toe of slope and to provide a floodplain along the reach while the stream is being
transitioned up to the historic floodplain.
The existing, unstable channel was partially to completely filled along its length using fill material
excavated from construction of the restored channel.
Riparian buffers in excess of 50 feet were restored along all of R1. No stream crossing or breaks in the
easement were implemented along this reach; however, permanent fencing was installed outside the
conservation easement to exclude cattle access to the creek.
3.2.2 Reach 2 Restoration
Work along Reach 2 involved Priority Level I Restoration throughout its entirety from its inception at
the confluence of Reach 7 (Station 22+04) and termination at the confluence of R6 (Station 40+46).
Bedrock along the channel bed continues from Reach 1 to Station 27+75 of Reach 2.
R2 was constructed from its upstream extent to Station 24+75 along the existing alignment throughout
a large meander to Station 24+75. Downstream of Station 24+75, the floodplain widens and flattens,
which allowed for the stream to transition off-line and into a `C4' stream type throughout the remainder
of the reach. Restoration activities throughout the reach restored floodplain connectivity, provided
stream bed and bank stability, improved transport of sediment and water quality, improved existing
wetland hydrology, provided hydrology to restored and created wetlands and provided habitat and
bedform diversity. In -stream structures included constructed riffles for grade control and aquatic
habitat, log vanes, log weirs, rock j -hooks, and vegetated geo-lifts for stream bed/bank stability and
habitat diversity. Channel banks were graded to stable slopes throughout the entire reach.
To allow for farm access from Old Salisbury Road, Reach 2 is divided by a sixty -foot existing farm
road crossing located between Station 34+05 and 34+65. Based on hydraulic analysis, the existing 42 -
inch CMP at this crossing was undersized; therefore, to meet capacity requirements and ensure the
integrity of the crossing, the culvert was replaced with two 48 -inch reinforced concrete pipes (RCPs)
and a 42 -inch bankfull RCP.
The existing, unstable channel was partially to completely backfilled along its length in areas where
the constructed channel transitioned off-line. Backfill was comprised of material excavated from
construction of the restored channel.
Invasive species vegetation such as parrotfeather (Myiophyllum aquaticum) and multi -flora rose (Rosa
multiflora) were removed and/or treated within the conservation easement along R2. As previously
noted, one 60 -foot stream crossing, as well as an easement break, were included approximately mid-
way along R2. Permanent fencing and crossing gates were installed outside the conservation easement
to exclude cattle access to the creek.
3.2.3 Reach R3 Restoration
Reach 3 begins at the confluence of Reaches 2 and 6. Work within this reach consisted of Rosgen
Priority Levels I and 11 Restoration approaches. A new off-line, `C4' stream type was constructed to
allow the channel to meander across the valley and reconnect to its original floodplain. Channel banks
were graded to stable slopes throughout the entire reach. Floodplain grading was implemented towards
the lower end of Reach 3, where the channel must transition down to the existing bed elevation (Shallow
Rosgen Priority Level II approach).
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 3-2 11/10/2016
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)

In addition to restoring floodplain connectivity and hydrology throughout the reach, restoration
activities provided stream bed and bank stability, improved transport of sediment and water quality,
and provided habitat and bedform diversity. In -stream structures included constructed riffles for grade
control and aquatic habitat, log vanes, log weirs, rock j -hooks, and vegetated geo-lifts for stream
bed/bank stability and habitat diversity.
The existing, unstable channel was partially to completely backfilled along its length in areas where
the constructed channel transitioned off-line. Backfill was comprised of material excavated from
construction of the restored channel.
Riparian buffers in excess of 50 -feet were restored along all of Reach 3. No stream crossings or breaks
in the easement were implemented along this reach. As in R2, fencing was installed outside of the
conservation easement to exclude cattle from entering the restored streams.
3.2.4 Reach 4 Enhancement
Reach 4 begins at the outlet of a constructed wetland and continues to its confluence with Reach 5 (the
beginning of Reach 6). A `134' stream type was constructed to restore the appropriate dimension and
profile. Reach 4 was constructed on-line with minimal pattern changes; however, due to intermittent
flows and the abundance of available on-site rock material, the on-site Construction Engineer decided
to use rock in lieu of logs for the grade control structures along this reach. Therefore, in -stream
structures, such as constructed riffles, grade -control rock j -hooks, rock step -pools, and boulder sills
were placed in key locations to aid in dissipating stream flow energy, control grade, enhance pool -to -
pool spacing, and improve the quality of pool habitat present and bedform diversity. Floodplain
benches were installed and integrated with local topography where feasible along the reach.
Riparian buffers in excess of 50 -feet were restored or protected along all of R4. Invasive species
vegetation such as Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinese) and multi -flora rose (Rosa multiflora) were
removed and/or treated along the reach in areas where existing riparian vegetation was left undisturbed.
No stream crossing or breaks in the easement were implemented along this reach; however, permanent
fencing was installed outside the conservation easement to exclude cattle access to the creek as well as
the upstream water quality constructed wetland.
3.2.5 Reach 5 Enhancement
Reach 5 is a small intermittent tributary that originates northwest of Reach 6 and terminates at its
confluence with Reach 4. Reach 5 was vertically stable upstream of a large headcut located just below
a bedrock knickpoint at Station 11+90; however, the bedform diversity and bank stability along the
entire reach was highly degraded do to cattle access to the channel. Therefore, Enhancement Level II
practices were implemented along Reach 5. Boulder steps were installed to hold grade, dissipate flow
energies, and improve the quality of pool habitat, and eroding banks were stabilized.
No stream crossing or breaks in the easement were implemented along this reach; however, permanent
fencing was installed along the conservation easement to permanently restrict cattle access to the
restored stream. Invasive species vegetation was treated and the riparian buffer was planted with native
vegetation.
3.2.6 Reach 6 Restoration
Reach 6 begins at the confluence of Reaches 4 and 5. A Rosgen Priority Level I Restoration approach
was implemented on this reach. The majority of the channel was constructed as a `C4' type channel
and in-line with the existing alignment. However at Station 25+50, the channel slope drops as it
approaches the wider and flatter floodplain of the mainstem; therefore, the channel was constructed off-
line for this section of the reach. This allowed the channel to meander across the valley as it reconnects
to its floodplain. Channel banks were graded to stable slopes throughout the entire reach.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 3-3 11/10/2016
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)

Multiple areas of bedrock along the channel bed and outcrops were present along Reach 6, making the
installation of some grade control structures unnecessary and some habitat structures difficult.
Therefore, in -stream structures, were installed where needed and feasible with instruction from the on-
site Construction Engineer. As in Reach 4, the Construction Engineer opted to use boulder structures
in lieu of logs, because of the intermittent nature of the stream's base flow and the abundance of
available on-site rock.
Restoration activities used throughout the reach were implemented to maintain channel grade and
sediment transport functions while increasing habitat through bedform diversity. In -stream structures
consisted of constructed riffles, boulder sills, and rock j -hooks for grade control and aquatic habitat,
and vegetated geo-lifts for stream bed/bank stability and habitat diversity.
To accommodate Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) water system requirements for
cattle management, pasture rotation, and large farm equipment access, a culverted crossing (48 -inch
RCP) was installed along Reach 6. The crossing is located at Station 20+30 and allows cattle to move
from pastures on opposite sides of the conservation easement, thus reducing the distances traveled to
other areas of the farm. The culverted crossing on Reach 6 has been removed from the as -built
restoration length and the associated SMU adjustment has been accounted for in the stream credit
calculations as shown in Table 1.
Riparian buffers in excess of 50 -feet were restored or protected along all of R6. Invasive species
vegetation such as Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinese) and multi -flora rose (Rosa multiflora) were
removed and/or treated along the reach in areas where existing riparian vegetation was left undisturbed.
Permanent fencing was installed outside the conservation easement to exclude cattle access to the creek
as well as the upstream water quality constructed wetland. Gates were installed at the cattle crossing
to prevent cattle access when the crossing is not in use.
3.2.7 Reach 7 Restoration
Reach 7 begins at the outlet of a constructed wetland and continues to its confluence with Reach 1. A
Rosgen Priority Level I Restoration approach was implemented along this reach. A `134' type channel
was constructed keeping mostly in-line with its existing alignment, while restoring channel dimension
and profile. In -stream structures were placed in key locations to maintain channel grade and sediment
transport functions, aid in dissipating stream flow energy, enhance pool -to -pool spacing, and improve
the quality of pool habitat present. Channel dimensions were adjusted to create an appropriately sized
bankfull channel, while eroding banks were stabilized.
Non-native, invasive species vegetation were removed and/or treated, while riparian buffer vegetation
was restored along all of R7 from the planting of native vegetation and the implementation of a
conservation easement. No stream crossings or breaks in the easement were implemented along this
reach; however, permanent fencing was installed outside the conservation easement to exclude cattle
access to the creek as well as the upstream water quality constructed wetland.
3.3 Wetland Restoration and Creation Approach
Wetland restoration and creation areas were based upon the type of soil unit identified in the Hydric Soil
Investigation Report, hydrologic results, and the soil borings, located in the Project's Mitigation Plan.
Vertical adjustment of the channel's profile from Priority I Restoration restored floodplain hydrology and
raised the surrounding groundwater elevation, while minor floodplain grading, 12 -inches or less for
restoration areas and greater than 12 -inches for creation areas (NCIRT, 2013), removed excess floodplain
fill; therefore, improving surface hydrologic inputs to wetlands. Non-native, invasive species vegetation
were removed and/or treated. Planting of native wetland species vegetation and permanent cattle exclusion
was also implemented throughout the wetland restoration, creation, and enhancement areas. These areas
are included within the Project's conservation easement and will be protected in perpetuity.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 3-4 11/10/2016
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)

3.4 Constructed Stormwater Wetland BMPs
Constructed stormwater wetland BMPs located at the upstream extent of Reaches 4 and 7 were installed
to treat stormwater runoff from their contributing watersheds. These watersheds are likely contributing
high nutrient and fecal coliform loads to UT to Town Creek. BMPs were constructed to detain 1 -inch of
stormwater runoff for approximately 48 -hours to help remove these pollutants.
Design features include V -Notch weirs, wetland and littoral shelf vegetation plantings, and an emergency
spillway. Both constructed wetlands are included in the Project's conservation easement and fencing
encompasses their perimeters to exclude cattle access.
3.5 Project History, Contacts, and Attribute Data
Baker implemented the Project under a full delivery contract with NCDMS to provide stream and wetland
mitigation credits in the Yadkin — Pee Dee River Basin. The chronology of the Project is presented in
Table 2. The contact information for all designers, contractors, and relevant suppliers is presented in Table
3. Relevant project background information is presented in Table 4. Tables 2, 3, and 4 are located in
Appendix A of this report. As -built stationing is outlined in the Construction Summary, below, and in
Table 1 in Appendix A.
3.5.1 Construction Summary
In accordance with the approved Mitigation Plan and regulatory permits (i.e., 401/404, Sedimentation
and Erosion Control), construction activities began in July 2015 with site preparation, installation of
sedimentation and erosion control measures, and the establishment of staging areas, haul roads, and
stockpile areas. The construction contractor was Wright Contracting, LLC. (Wright). Materials were
stockpiled as needed for the initial stages of construction. Suitable channel fill material and alluvium
was harvested on-site from existing spoil piles and within the existing streambed. The floodplain was
graded to promote the re-establishment of hydrologic connectivity to the floodplain and riparian
wetlands, before tying into existing grades, where necessary. Construction equipment was equipped
with Topcon GPS units to allow for the quick layout of the design plan for channel work and floodplain
grading; however, survey grade stakes were also set along the extents of the floodplain and limits of
disturbance to aid the grading activities. Since construction activities began during the growing season
of the NC Piedmont, vegetation installation of vegetated geo-lifts, live stakes, and bare root areas were
delayed until after the onset of the dormant season (November 15).
Actual in -stream structure location, placement, and type varied slightly from the design plans in various
sections due to exposed bedrock, as well as to promote bedform diversity, increase vertical stability,
and maintain structure integrity. Additional rock lined channels and matted grass swales, not shown
on the Mitigation Plan, were incorporated within the floodplain of Reach 1, Reach 2, and Reach 6.
Originally, it wasn't anticipated that discharges from natural and stormwater drainages into the project
floodplain would lead to stream bank instability; however, after multiple large rain events, it was
determined that these measures were necessary to maintain the restored channel's integrity.
Construction began on the upstream portion of Reach 1 at Station 10+00 by tying into an existing 84 -
inch CMP at Misenheimer Road and proceeded downstream towards the confluence of Reach 7 and the
beginning of Reach 2. The work involved the construction of a defined single thread channel that was
built mostly offline, using a pump around operation, to Station 21+12 where the channel ties into
existing bedrock at proposed grade and transitions back on-line with the existing alignment. Bedrock
along the channel bed continues throughout the remainder of the reach to its terminus with R2. Though
no grade control or habitat type structures were implemented within this section of the reach,
contractors were able to use construction equipment to chisel out sections of rock and create streambed
variability to grade throughout the section.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 3-5 11/10/2016
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)

A floodplain bench was incorporated along the right stream bank from Station 10+25 to 11+25 to
increase floodplain relief due to the channel's proximity to the toe of slope. Reach 1 was built with
channel meanders and riffle -pool sequences, as well as a series of small grade drops to accommodate
for existing constraints along the stream bed and within the floodplain such as: Steep topography,
adjacent wetlands, mature hardwood trees, and existing bedrock outcrops. The existing degraded
channel was filled and graded to match the design topography in the floodplain.
The new channel was reconnected with its floodplain using a Priority Level I approach and the
floodplain was graded, to promote the re-establishment of hydrologic connectivity to the floodplain and
riparian wetlands, while allowing higher flow energies to dissipate. Upon completion of new channel
segments, in -stream structures, coir fiber matting, and permanent seeding, were installed before moving
to the next section. As stated previously, vegetation planting of bio -engineered structures and stream
banks were delayed until after the onset of the dormant season. The as -built length of Reach 1 is 1,204
LF.
As in Reach 1, work along Reach 2 involves Priority Level I Restoration. Bedrock along the channel
bed continues from Reach 1 into Reach 2 to Station 27+75. Channel alignment from Station 22+04 to
24+75 remained on-line and followed the existing alignment throughout a large meander. As in Reach
1, no grade control or habitat type structures were implemented within this section of the reach;
however, contractors were able to use construction equipment to chisel out sections of rock and create
streambed variability to grade. In -stream structures were incorporated into the design around Station
27+75, where the floodplain begins to widen and flatten. Construction activities continued
downstream along the Mainstem towards the culverted stream crossing on Reach 2. An undersized
culverted farm crossing on Reach 2 at Station 34+05 was replaced with the installation of two 48 -inch
RCPs and one 42 -inch RCP, designed to provide bankfull flood relief and ensure the integrity of the
crossing.
Downstream of the crossing, Priority I Level design was continued throughout the remainder of Reach
2 and into Reach 3. The downstream segment of Reach 3 transitions from a Priority Level I approach
to a Priority Level II. This allows the channel to step back down to its existing grade and tie into the
existing channel at the project boundary.
As in Reach 1, the existing degraded channel along Reach 2 and Reach 3 was filled and graded to match
the design topography and promote the re-establishment of hydrologic connectivity to the floodplain
and riparian wetlands, while minimizing the disturbance of the wetland areas and mature hardwoods.
Upon completion of new channel segments along Reach 2 and Reach 3, in -stream structures, coir fiber
matting, and permanent seeding were installed before moving to the next section. Again, vegetation
planting of bioengineered structures and stream banks were delayed until after the onset of the dormant
season. The as -built length of Reach 2 and Reach 3 is 1,782 LF and 829 LF, respectively.
While construction was being completed along Reach 2 and Reach 3, contractors brought another
construction crew to begin work on Reach 7 and its upstream constructed wetland. Prior to the
excavation of the BMP, the contractor created and matted a small diversion ditch to carry "clean" water
run-off around the area set aside for the BMP work. Work then began on the excavation of the BMP.
The BMP was constructed off-line from Reach 7 to act as its own sediment trap. Next the BMP's
permanent pool and littoral shelf were graded to design elevations and the concrete weir was formed
and poured. After the concrete had cured, the on-site Engineer verified its grade, and a riprap spillway
was installed. Prior to completion, the contractor redirected the diversion ditch from around the BMP
into its inlet, so it would be able to carry pollutant -laden run-off from an existing drainage swale within
the surrounding pasture and outside the easement to the constructed wetland for treatment. After the
construction of the BMP was completed, the contractor stabilized the area with temporary and
permanent riparian seed and mulch and began work on Reach 7 at Station 10+00. Vegetative plantings
were installed during the dormant season, and herbaceous plugs were installed in late May.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 3-6 11/10/2016
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)

Construction activities continued downstream on Reach 7 to its confluence with the Mainstem at the
Reach 1 and Reach 2 break. Work along Reach 7 implemented a B4a' stream type through Priority
Level I Restoration. Due to the nature of the stream type and the narrow channel corridor, a majority
of this channel was kept in its existing location, while the channel dimension and profile were restored.
Grade control structures were used to maintain channel grade and sediment transport functions while
increasing habitat and bedform diversity. Upon completion of new channel segments, in -stream
structures, coir fiber matting, and permanent seeding, were installed before moving to Reach 5. The
as -built length of Reach 7 is 399 LF. As stated previously, live stake planting were delayed until after
the onset of the dormant season. Both Reach 7 and its upstream constructed wetland are included in
the conservation easement and were permanently fenced from cattle access.
After completing the construction along the Mainstem through Reach 3, the construction crew moved
to the upstream extent of Reach 4 to begin work on the upstream constructed wetland. Prior to the
excavation of the BMP, the contractor created and matted a small diversion ditch to carry "clean" water
run-off around the area set aside for the BMP work. Work then began on the excavation of the BMP.
The BMP was constructed off-line from Reach 4 to act as its own sediment trap. During construction
of the BMP, contractors exposed large amounts of very rocky soils and bedrock along the bed and side
slopes of the wetland. Though difficult, the majority of the permanent pool and littoral shelf were
excavated to grade, with on minor inflections of +/- 1 -foot along the bottom. Grading, though
challenging, was met in areas were rock was exposed along the side slopes. After excavation of the
BMP was completed, the concrete weir was formed. Due to excessive rainfall, pouring of the weir was
delayed slightly; therefore, the riprap spillway was installed first, then the concrete weir was poured,
allowed to cure, and the on-site Engineer verified its grade.
Prior to completion, the contractor redirected the diversion ditch from around the BMP into its inlet, so
it would be able to carry pollutant -laden run-off from an existing drainage Swale within the surrounding
pasture and outside the easement to the constructed wetland for treatment. After the construction of
the BMP was completed, the contractor stabilized the area with temporary and permanent riparian seed
and mulch and began work on Reach 4 at Station 10+00. Vegetative plantings were installed during
the dormant season, and herbaceous plugs were installed in late March.
Construction activities continued downstream on Reach 4 to its terminus at Station 14+47 where Reach
5 discharges into the channel, and Reach 6 begins. Work along Reach 4 was kept on-line and consisted
of Enhancement Level I activities to restore the channel to the appropriate dimension and profile of a
`B4' type stream. Floodplain benching was used increase floodplain relief in areas where the floodplain
is pinched due to steep topography. Structure type and placement followed the design plans; however,
structures using logs were changed to boulders.
The contractor did not disturb vegetation within the Enhancement area, unless it was necessary to
remove existing invasive species vegetation or trees that were damaged or stressed due to significant
bank erosion. Upon completion of new channel segment and the installation of in -stream structures,
coir fiber matting and permanent seeding were installed before moving to Reach 6. As stated
previously, live stake and riparian plantings were delayed until after the onset of the dormant season.
Both Reach 4 and its upstream constructed wetland are included in the conservation easement and were
permanently fenced from cattle access. The as -built length of Reach 4 is 447 LF.
While construction was being completed by a crew on Reach 4, the construction crew previously
working on Reach 7 moved to Reach 5. Work began on the upstream portion (Station 10+00) of Reach
5 and progressed downstream to its confluence at the reach break of Reach 4 and Reach 6. Work along
Reach 5 implemented an Enhancement Level II approach. Banks were graded to stabilize eroding
slopes. Boulder sills were placed in the downstream portion of the reach to control grade, enhance
pool -to -pool spacing, and improve the quality of pool habitat present. Invasive species were either
removed or treated and mature native trees were left intact where feasible. After construction was
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 3-7 11/10/2016
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)

complete on Reach 5 and the channel was stabilized with temporary and riparian seed, the supplemental
construction crew demobilized from the Site, leaving the primary crew to work on Reach 6. The as -
built length of Reach 5 after construction is 344 LF. Planting of the riparian buffer occurred during the
dormant season.
Work along the entire length of Reach 6 consisted of Priority Level I Restoration. Construction started
in the upstream extent and progressed downstream to a culverted stream crossing at Station 20+30.
Work along this portion of the reach was conducted on-line allowing for pattern variations that
incorporate slight meanders and riffle -step -pool sequences appropriate for a B4' stream type. A
drainage feature located in the left floodplain at Station 19+50 was graded into trapezoidal swale and
matted to stabilize the side slopes and prevent post -construction erosion or headcutting. As in Reach
4, structure material containing the use of logs was changed to boulders. Structure placement varied
slightly and an additional boulder sill was added in the upstream extent of Reach 6 in order to provide
better grade control.
A culverted crossing (48 -inch RCP) was installed along Reach 6 at Station 20+30. The majority of the
crossing lies outside of the conservation easement; however, due to crossing stability issues, the culvert
extends approximately six feet into the easement on the downstream portion of Reach 6. This minor
easement encroachment has been removed from the as -built restoration length on Reach 6 and the
associated SMUs have been adjusted accordingly. The installation of the crossing in conjunction with
easement fencing along Reach 6 restricts cattle access to the restored stream, while still allowing for
pasture rotation and farm equipment passage. Upon completion of the crossing, side slopes were
stabilized and work progressed downstream.
Work conducted downstream of the crossing on Reach 6 from Station 20+50 to 25+50 was similar to
that of the upstream section; however, in this portion of Reach 6, bedrock was present along the stream
bed in multiple locations. Therefore, grade control structures were only implemented along this section
of the reach where bedrock was not present. However, the presence of bedrock did not impede the
implementation of bio -engineered structures as designed.
Stream work at Station 25+50, transitioned from a `B4' type channel to a `C4' type channel. Work in
this section was conducted mostly off-line allowing the channel to meander across a wider and flatter
floodplain to its confluence with the Mainstem. Grade control and habitat structures were implemented
in the form of vegetated geo-lifts, rock j -hooks, and constructed riffles.
Mature wooded areas were left undisturbed along Reach 6, except for areas where the removal and/or
treatment of invasive species was needed. Stream banks and vegetated geo-lifts were stabilized with
temporary and permanent seed and mulch. Bare root vegetation and live stakes were planted during
the dormant season. The as -built length of Reach 6 after construction is 1,346 LF.
All excess fill material generated during construction of all reaches was wasted and stabilized on-site
in the locations and as noted in the Erosion and Sediment Control plans. Minimal Site modifications
involved the location and selection of some in -stream structures and bank stabilization practices.
Substitutions and/or relocations were made based on existing field conditions and best professional
judgment. All riparian buffer areas within the project boundaries are a minimum of 50 -feet along both
stream banks and are protected in perpetuity by a recorded conservation easement that totals 25.1 acres.
Permanent cattle exclusion fencing (woven wire) was installed outside the conservation easement
boundary along all reaches that border pastureland. Access gates were installed near the stream
crossings and at strategic locations for post -construction monitoring activities and maintenance access,
if needed. In addition, permanent watering systems were tied to an existing on-site well and were
installed in pasture areas as directed by the property owner.
The As -built plan sheets/record drawings depict actual surveyed areas within the project area and depict
any deviations from the final design plans to what was implemented on-site during construction. The
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 3-8 11/10/2016
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)

as -built plan sheets/record drawings are located in Appendix D. The as -built results for the Project
totaled 6,351 LF of stream and are outlined in Table 1.
After construction was complete, multiple large rain events in November and December 2015 exposed
multiple unstable floodplain drainage features along Reach 1 and Reach 2, as well as, a small headcut
on Reach 7 at Station 12+00. Therefore, prior to the removal of sediment and control measures and
permanent demobilization and the onset of easement planting, Baker and Wright met on-site on January
14, 2016 to generate a punch -list of final items for completion and to discuss a strategy to best address
the areas of instability while limiting re -disturbance.
Work to repair areas of instability and to address outstanding punch list items, began on January 18,
2016. Work began in the left floodplain of the upstream portion of Reach 1. Two drainage swales, one
rock lined channel and one matted channel, were constructed to outlet stormwater through the
floodplain and converge into a single rock lined swale before out -falling into Reach 1 at Station 10+75.
Construction work then progressed downstream to Station 13+05. Drainage from an existing wetland
feature was causing erosion at the top of the left stream bank. The area was lightly graded and lined
with rock to its outfall with the Mainstem.
From there repair work moved downstream to Station 17+50, where a small gully was discovered
during construction. The erosional feature began at a roadside storm drainage outfall along Old
Salisbury Road and continued perpendicularly across the left floodplain to the toe of slope. Previous
attempts were made during the construction of this section of Reach 1 to stabilize the area, but were
deemed insufficient. Therefore, a rock lined step -pool channel was implemented down slope to its tie-
in with Reach 1.
After completion of the step -pool channel, the construction crew split up to simultaneously repair the
two remaining instability issues. Repair work on Reach 2 at Station 25+25 consisted of implementing
a rock lined channel in the left floodplain that will intercept discharges from a ground water seep and
roadside drainage. Repair work on Reach 7 at Station 12+00, included the addition of a boulder sill to
control grade, and the repair of the riffle -pool complex upstream of the structure.
Repair work and punch list items were complete on January 20, 2016. Upon final approval from Baker,
sedimentation and erosion control measures such as temporary construction entrances, rock check
dams, and silt fence were removed, and all disturbed areas were stabilized with temporary and
permanent seed and mulch before de -mobilizing from the Site. Baker met with NCDMS on-site on
February 2, 2016 for the final construction Site walk. NCDMS approved the construction work during
the visit. The planting of bare -root trees and shrubs, live stakes, vegetated geo-lifts were completed
and approved on March 11, 2016. The planting of herbaceous wetland plugs were completed in late
May 2016. Herbaceous plantings were approved by Baker on June 1, 2016. NCDMS approved the
Site plantings and monitoring device installations on June 20, 2016.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 3-9 11/10/2016
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)

4.0 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Baker has obtained regulatory approval for numerous stream mitigation plans involving NCDMS Full -delivery
Projects. The success criteria for the Site will follow the mitigation plans developed for these projects, as well
as the Stream Mitigation Guidelines (SMG) issued in April 2003 (USACE).
Channel stability, vegetation survival, and viability of wetland functions will be monitored on the Project Site.
Post -restoration monitoring will be conducted for a minimum of five years or until the success criteria are met
following the completion of construction to document project success. Different monitoring approaches are
proposed throughout the project area and are based on the design approach to be used. Reaches 1, 2, 3, 4, 6,
and 7 involve the Restoration and/or Enhancement I of the historic flow patterns as a single -thread channel,
success criteria will follow those recommended by the Stream Mitigation Guidelines (USACE, et.al, 2003).
Reach 5 will implement Enhancement Level II type success criteria, which will focus primarily on visual
assessments and vegetation success.
The monitoring parameters shall be consistent with the requirements described in the Federal Register Title 33
Navigation and Navigable Waters Volume 3 Chapter 2 Section § 332.5 paragraphs (a) and (b). Specific success
criteria components and evaluation methods are described in Section 5.0 and report documentation will follow
the NCDMS Baseline Monitoring Document template and guidance (v 1.0, 2009b).
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 4-1 11/10/2016
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)

5.0 MONITORING PLAN AND SUCCESS CRITERIA
5.1 Stream Monitoring
Geomorphic monitoring of the restoration reaches will be conducted once a year for a minimum of five
years following the completion of construction to evaluate the effectiveness of the restoration practices.
Monitored stream parameters include stream dimension (cross-sections), profile (longitudinal profile),
pattern (planimetric survey), and visual observation with photographic documentation. The success
criteria for the proposed Enhancement Level II reaches/sections will follow the methods described in
sections 5.1.6 and 5.2. The methods used and related success criteria are described below for each
parameter.
5.1.1 Bankfull Events and Flooding Functions
The occurrence of bankfull events within the monitoring period will be documented by the use of a
crest gauge and photographs. The crest gauge was installed in the floodplain within ten feet (horizontal)
of the restored channel. The crest gauge will record the highest watermark between site visits, and the
gauge will be checked at each site visit to determine if a bankfull event has occurred. Photographs will
be used to document the occurrence of debris lines and sediment deposition on the floodplain during
monitoring site visits.
Two bankfull events must be documented within the 5 -year monitoring period. The bankfull events
must occur in separate years; otherwise, the monitoring will continue until two floodplain events have
been documented in separate years.
5.1.2 Flow Documentation
Monitoring of flow will be conducted to demonstrate that the restored stream systems classified as
intermittent exhibit base flow for some portion of the year during a year with normal rainfall conditions.
In order to determine if rainfall amounts are normal for the given year, rainfall gauge data will be
obtained from the nearest Stanly County weather station (CRONOS Database, NEWL — North Stanly
Middle School, if available) and compared to the average monthly rainfall amounts from the Stanly
Count WETS Table (MRCS, 2002). If a normal year of precipitation does not occur during the first
five years of monitoring, flow conditions will continue to be monitored on the site until it documents
that the intermittent streams have been flowing during the appropriate times of the year.
The proposed monitoring of the restored intermittent reaches will include a combination of
photographic documentation and the installation of two in -stream pressure transducers within the
thalweg of the channel, one in the upstream portion and one in the downstream portion of Reaches 6
and 7. A regular and continuous series of remote photos over time will be used to subjectively evaluate
channel flow conditions throughout the year. More specifically, the longitudinal photos should indicate
the presence of flow within the channel in order to discern water levels within the pools and riffles.
The photographs will be taken from a height of approximately five to six feet to ensure that the same
locations (and view directions) at the site are documented in each monitoring period and will be shown
on a plan view map. The visual monitoring effort, including the photo locations with descriptions, will
be included with the annual monitoring reports. The devices will be inspected on a quarterly/semi-
annual basis to document surface hydrology and provide a basis for evaluating general flow response
to rainfall events and surface runoff during various water tables levels throughout the monitoring
period.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 5-1 11/10/2016
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)

5.1.3 Cross-sections
Permanent cross-sections will be installed at an approximate rate of one cross-section per twenty
bankfull widths or an average distance interval (not to exceed 500 LF) of restored stream, with
approximately twelve (12) cross-sections located at riffles, and seven (7) located at pools. Each cross-
section will be marked on both stream banks with permanent monuments of rebar set in place to
establish the exact transect used. A common benchmark will be used for cross-sections to facilitate
easy comparison of year-to-year data. The cross-section surveys will occur annually and must include
measurements of Bank Height Ratio (BHR) and Entrenchment Ratio (ER). The monitoring survey will
include points measured at all breaks in slope, including top of stream banks, bankfull, inner berm,
edge of water, and thalweg, if the features are present. Riffle cross-sections will be classified using the
Rosgen Stream Classification System.
There should be little change from the as -built cross-sections. If changes do take place, they will be
documented in the survey data and evaluated to determine if they represent a movement toward a more
unstable condition (e.g., down -cutting or erosion) or a movement toward increased stability (e.g.,
settling, vegetative changes, deposition along the stream banks, or decrease in width/depth ratio). Using
the Rosgen Stream Classification System, all monitored riffle cross-sections should fall within the
quantitative parameters (i.e. BHR no more than 1.2, an ER no less than 2.2 for `C' stream types and an
ER between 1.4 and 2.2 for `B' stream types) defined for channels of the design stream type. Given
the smaller channel sizes and meander geometry of the proposed steams, bank pins will not be installed
unless monitoring results indicate active lateral erosion.
Reference photo transects will be taken at each permanent cross-section. Lateral photos should not
indicate excessive erosion or continuing degradation of the stream banks. Photographs will be taken
of both stream banks at each cross-section. The survey tape will be centered in the photographs of the
stream banks. The water line will be located in the lower edge of the frame, and as much of the stream
bank as possible will be included in each photo. Photographers should make an effort to consistently
maintain the same area in each photo over time.
5.1.4 Pattern
The plan view measurements such as sinuosity, radius of curvature, meander width ratio will be taken
on newly constructed meanders during baseline (Year 0) only. Subsequent visual monitoring will be
conducted twice a year, at least five months apart, to document any changes or excessive lateral
movement in the plan view of the restored channel.
5.1.5 Longitudinal Profile
A longitudinal profile will be completed immediately after construction and annually thereafter for the
duration of the five-year monitoring period. The as -built survey will be used as the baseline for
subsequent surveys. The profile will be conducted for a total of 3,000 LF of the restored channels.
Measurements will include thalweg, water surface, bankfull, and top of low bank. Each of these
measurements will be taken at the head of each feature (e.g., riffle, run, pool, and glide) and the
maximum pool depth. The survey will be tied to a permanent benchmark.
5.1.6 Bed Material Analysis
After construction, there should be minimal change in the pebble count data over time given the current
watershed conditions and sediment supply regime. Reachwide pebble counts shall be conducted
annually for Reaches 1, 2, 3, and 6. Pebble counts shall be conducted immediately after construction
and annually thereafter at the time the cross-section and longitudinal surveys are performed during the
five-year monitoring period. These samples will reveal any changes in sediment gradation that occur
over time as the stream adjusts to upstream sediment loads. Significant changes in sediment gradation
shall be evaluated with respect to stream stability and watershed changes.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 5-2 11/10/2016
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)

5.1.7 Visual Assessment
Qualified personnel, annually for a minimum of five years following construction, will conduct visual
monitoring assessments of all stream sections. Photographs will be used to document success visually.
Reference photos were taken from a height of approximately five to six feet. To ensure that the same
locations are monitored, photograph locations have been marked in the field and documented in the As -
built Plan Set. When modifications to photo position must be made due to obstructions or other reasons,
the position will be noted along with any landmarks and the same position will be geographically
located using a sub -meter GPS unit for use in subsequent monitoring years. Photographs will be used
to evaluate channel aggradation or degradation, bank erosion, success of riparian vegetation, and
effectiveness of erosion control measures subjectively.
Reference photos include photos taken of structures along the restored streams. Photographers will
make every effort to consistently document the same area in each photo point over time. All photo
directions and locations have been documented in the As -built Plan Set. Locations and directions of
photos will continue to be documented throughout the monitoring period. Points will be close enough
together to provide an overall view of the reach.
5.2 Vegetation Monitoring
Successful restoration of the vegetation on a site is dependent upon hydrologic restoration, planting of
preferred canopy species, and volunteer regeneration of the native plant community. In order to determine
if the criteria are achieved, vegetation -monitoring quadrants were installed and will be monitored across
the site in accordance with the CVS- NCEEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Level 1-2 Plot Sampling,
Version 4.2 (2008). Based on the CVS-EEP Entry Tool Database version 2.2.7 (Lee, 2007), twenty
permanent monitoring quadrants were established within the floodplain areas throughout the conservation
easement. The size of each quadrant is 100 square meters for woody species.
Construction of the Site was completed in March 2016 including all buffer vegetation planting. The
approved contract with NCDMS requires that all vegetation must be planted at least six months (180 days)
before Baseline (Year 0) monitoring activities are conducted at the end of the first full growing season.
Since the Site was planted in March 2016, Baseline (Year 0) and Year 1 Monitoring will be initiated in the
fall, prior to the loss of leaves. Individual quadrant data will follow the guidelines established per CVS-
NCEEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Level 1-2 Plot Sampling, Version 4.2 (2008).
At the end of the first growing season, species composition, diameter, height, density, and survival will be
evaluated for each subsequent year during a period of five years or until the final success criteria are
achieved (Lee, et al., 2008). Individual seedlings will be marked to ensure that they can be found in
subsequent monitoring years. Mortality will be determined from the difference between the previous
year's living, planted seedlings and the current year's living, planted seedlings.
The restored Site will be evaluated between September and November. While measuring species density
and height is the current accepted methodology for evaluating vegetation success on mitigation projects,
species density and height alone may be inadequate for assessing plant community health. For this reason,
the vegetation monitoring plan will incorporate the evaluation of additional plant community indices,
native volunteer species, and the presence of invasive species vegetation to assess overall vegetative
success.
The interim measure of vegetative success for the Site will be the survival of at least 320, 3 -year old,
planted woody stems (trees and shrubs) per acre at the end of year three of the monitoring period. The
final vegetative success criteria will be the survival of 260, 5 -year old, planted woody stems (trees and
shrubs) per acre at the end of year five of the monitoring period. Vegetation monitoring will be conducted
for five years post -construction or until vegetative success criteria are met.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 5-3 11/10/2016
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)

Baker will provide any required remedial action on a case-by-case basis, such as replanting more
wet/drought tolerant species, beaver management/dam removal, or removing undesirable/invasive species
vegetation, and continue to monitor vegetation performance until the corrective actions demonstrate that
the Site is trending towards or meeting the success criteria.
Additionally, herbaceous vegetation, primarily native grasses and forbs, was seeded/planted throughout
the Site. During and immediately following construction activities, all ground cover at the project Site
was in compliance with the NC Erosion and Sedimentation Control requirements.
5.3 Wetland Monitoring
Wetland restoration and creation will be monitored after construction by groundwater wells and periodic
visual inspections. Post -construction groundwater monitoring stations were installed across the Project
Site in areas similar to those from pre -construction monitoring. Installation and monitoring of the
groundwater stations will follow the USACE standard methods outlined in the ERDC 7N-ff7?AP-05-2
(USACE, 2005). Water levels will be collected and analyzed in the same manner as the pre -construction
monitoring period.
Groundwater and surface water levels (overbank events) will be compared to pre -restoration conditions
and onsite reference stations; however, success criteria for wetland hydrology will be met when each
wetland site is saturated within 12 inches of the soil surface for 9 percent of the growing season (NCIRT,
2013). To document the hydrologic conditions of the restored site, each groundwater monitoring station
will be monitored for seven years post -construction or until wetland success criteria are met. As stated in
the May 13, 2013 letter from NCEEP to the IRT, "In the fourth year of monitoring, EEP will decide if the
specific site may qualify to close out after five successful monitoring years. For those, EEP will submit
to the IRT for early closure. For any ... site that EEP does not think meet early closeout criteria, EEP will
contact out to complete the final two years" of monitoring (NCEEP, 2013). A copy of the letter has been
included in Appendix F for reference.
In order to determine if the rainfall is normal for the given year, rainfall amounts will be tallied using data
obtained from the Stanly County WETS Station (NRCS, 2002) and from the automated weather station at
the North Stanly Middle School (NEWL) in New London, approximately 1.5 miles southeast of the Project
Site on Old Salisbury Rd. Data from the NEWL station can be obtained from the CRONOS Database
located on the State Climate Office of North Carolina's website (2011). Therefore, a rain gauge will not
be installed on-site.
Visual inspection of proposed wetland areas will be conducted to document any visual indicators that
would be typical of jurisdictional wetlands. This could include, but is not limited to, vegetation types
present, surface flow patterns, stained leaves, and ponded water. Wetland plants will be documented along
with other visual indicators noted above. Proposed wetland restoration and creation areas that exhibit all
three wetland indicators (the presence of hydric soils, wetland hydrology, and wetland vegetation) after
construction and through the monitoring period will validate wetland restoration and creation success.
5.4 Stormwater Management Monitoring
Implementation of stormwater wetland BMPs located at the upstream extent of Reaches 4 and 7 will be
visually monitored for vegetative survivability and permanent pool storage capacity using photo
documentation during the 5 -Year monitoring period. Maintenance measures will be implemented during
the 5 -Year monitoring period to replace dead vegetative material and to remove excess sedimentation from
permanent pools, as needed.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 5-4 11/10/2016
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)

6.0 AS -BUILT DATA DOCUMENTATION
To evaluate project success, post -construction monitoring will be conducted for a minimum of five years for
both the stream and vegetation components of the project and for a minimum of seven years for the wetland
components of the project or until the success criteria are met. The specific locations for the vegetation plots,
flow/crest gauges, groundwater monitoring wells, and cross-sections are shown on the as -built plan sheets.
6.1 Stream Data
For monitoring stream success criteria, nineteen (19) permanent cross-sections were installed along
Restoration and Enhancement I reaches throughout the Site. The permanent cross-sections will be used to
monitor channel dimension and bank stability over time. One crest gauge was installed along Reach 3.
The crest gauge will be used to document the occurrence of bankfull events. To provide a baseline for
evaluating changes in bed conditions over time, a longitudinal survey was completed for each of the
following stream reaches upon which Restoration and/or Enhancement I Mitigation was conducted: Reach
1, Reach 2, Reach 3, Reach 4, Reach 6, and Reach 7. The as -built permanent cross-sections (with photos)
and the as -built longitudinal data, as well as the quantitative pre -construction, reference reach, and design
data used to determine restoration approach are provided in Appendix B. In addition, the as -built reachwide
bed material sampling data for Reachl, Reach 2, Reach 3, and Reach 6 are included in Appendix B. As -
built data will be used for comparison to post -construction monitoring data. The locations of the
permanent cross-sections and the crest gauge are shown on the as -built plan sheets in Appendix D.
Representative photographs from selected portions of each project reach are provided in Appendix E.
6.2 Vegetation Data
Bare -root trees and shrubs were planted within restoration and enhancement areas of the conservation
easement. A minimum 50 -foot buffer was established and/or protected along both banks of all stream
reaches. Planting of bare -root trees and shrubs, live stakes, and herbaceous plugs began in March of 2016.
Bare -root and live stake planting were completed on March 11, 2016 and the installation of herbaceous
plugs was completed in May of 2016.
The Mitigation Plan for the Site specifies that the number of quadrants required shall be based on the CVS-
NCEEP monitoring guidance (2007). The total number of quadrants was calculated using the CVS-
NCEEP Entry Tool Database version 2.2.7 (CVS-NCEEP, 2007). The sizes of individual quadrants are
100 square meters. Twenty (20) vegetation plots were installed throughout the Project Site. The initial
planted density of each species and within each vegetation monitoring plot is provided in Table 8 and
Table 9, respectively. The average density of planted bare root stems, based on the data from the twenty
vegetation monitoring plots, is 730 stems per acre. The locations of the vegetation plots are shown on the
as -built plan sheets in Appendix D.
6.3 Wetlands Data
After construction was complete, eight (8) groundwater monitoring wells were reinstalled within wetland
restoration and creation areas throughout the Project Site. In addition, one well was reinstalled in each of
the reference wetlands (Monitoring Wells 1 and 6); therefore, totaling ten (10) in all. Groundwater
monitoring well installation was complete by mid-March 2016. Groundwater monitoring well data will
document water table hydrology throughout the monitoring period and will be compared to pre -restoration
and reference conditions. Each ground water monitoring well will record the groundwater level depth
below ground surface in inches, twice per day and at 12 -hour intervals throughout the monitoring period.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 6-1 11/10/2016
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)

Post -construction groundwater monitoring wells were installed in the same locations as pre -construction
where feasible. However, due to the following, location modifications for some of the post -construction
monitoring wells from their pre -construction was necessary.
Pre -construction locations of monitoring wells 4, 5, 8, and 10 were located within or too close to
the restored channel alignment,
Well installation in or near the pre -construction locations of monitoring wells 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, and 10
was not feasible due to auger refusal through the rocky soil substrate, and
Pre -construction location of monitoring well 9 was located at the head of Reach 4 to monitor the
ground water hydrology of the proposed constructed wetland; therefore, monitoring well 9 was
moved to monitor ground water hydrology of an unrepresented wetland creation area along Reach
2.
The pre- and post -construction location of monitoring wells are depicted in Figures 4a and 4b of Appendix
A. In addition, monitoring well locations are shown on the As -Built Plan Set that is located in Appendix
D.
6.4 Flow Documentation Data
After construction was complete, two in -stream pressure transducers (flow gauge) were installed within
the thalweg of Reach 6 and Reach 7 to document intermittent base flow conditions during the monitoring
period exhibiting normal rainfall conditions. One transducer was installed in the upstream portion of each
reach, and one transducer was installed in the downstream portion of each reach. In addition, one remote
wireless camera was installed, at the height of five to six feet, alongside the downstream flow data logger
in Reach 6 and Reach 7 to subjectively evaluate channel flow conditions throughout the year. Installation
of the flow gauge and the photo logger was complete in May 2016. Each flow gauge will record base flow
data four times per day at 6 -hour intervals throughout the monitoring period, while the photo logger will
take a picture once a day throughout the monitoring period.
Locations for the flow gauges are shown on the as -built plan sheets in Appendix D.
6.5 Areas of Concern
Per observations made during the NCDMS Site visit on February 2, 2016, invasive species, which are
prevalent in areas outside of the conservation easement, may try to reestablish within the easement if not
properly maintained. No other areas of concern were noted for the time of this report.
Section 7.3 describes a specific corrective action plan that will be implemented for areas of concern.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 6-2 11/10/2016
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)

7.0 MAINTENANCE AND CONTINGENCY PLANS
Maintenance requirements vary from site to site and are generally driven by the following conditions:
Projects without established, woody floodplain vegetation are more susceptible to erosion from floods
than those with a mature, hardwood forest.
Projects with sandy, non -cohesive soils are more prone to bank erosion than cohesive soils or soils with
high gravel and cobble content.
Alluvial valley channels with access to their floodplain are less vulnerable to erosion than channels that
have been disconnected from their floodplain.
Wet weather during construction can make accurate channel and floodplain excavations difficult.
Extreme and/or frequent flooding can cause floodplain and channel erosion.
Extreme hot, cold, wet, or dry weather during and after construction can limit vegetation growth,
particularly temporary and permanent seed.
The presence and aggressiveness of invasive vegetation species can affect the extent to which a native
species vegetation buffer can be established.
The presence of beaver can affect vegetation survivability and stream function.
The Site will be monitored on a regular basis and as well as a physical inspection of the Site at least once a year
throughout the post -construction monitoring period. These site inspections may identify site components and
features that require routine maintenance. Maintenance issues and recommended remediation measures will be
detailed and documented in the post -construction monitoring reports. Factors that may have caused any
maintenance needs, including any of the conditions listed above, shall be discussed. Routine maintenance will
be most likely in the first two years following site construction and may include the following components as
described below.
7.1 Streams
Routine channel maintenance and repair activities may include modifying in -stream structures to prevent
piping, securing loose coir matting, and supplemental installations of live stakes and other target vegetation
along the project reaches. Areas of concentrated stormwater and floodplain flows that intercept the
channel may also require maintenance to prevent stream bank failures and head -cutting until vegetation
becomes established.
7.2 Wetland
Routine wetland maintenance and repair activities may include supplemental installations of target
vegetation within the wetland or installation and maintenance of groundwater wells. Areas of concentrated
stormwater and floodplain flows that intercept the wetland may also require maintenance to prevent scour.
7.3 Vegetation
Vegetation will be maintained to ensure the health and vigor of the targeted plant community. Routine
vegetation maintenance and repair activities may include supplemental planting, pruning, and fertilizing.
Baker will provide required remedial action on a case-by-case basis and will continue to monitor
vegetation performance until the corrective actions demonstrate that the site is trending towards or meeting
the standard requirement.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 7-1 11/10/2016
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)

Existing mature woody vegetation will be visually monitored during annual site visits to document any
mortality, due to construction activities or changes to the water table that may negatively affect existing
forest cover or favorable buffer vegetation. Additionally, herbaceous vegetation, primarily native grasses,
will be seeded/planted throughout the site as necessary. Exotic invasive plant species will be controlled
by mechanical and/or chemical methods. Any invasive plant species control requiring herbicide
application will be performed in accordance with NC Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
(NCDA&CS) rules and regulations.
7.4 Site Boundary
Site boundaries have been demarcated in the field to ensure clear distinction between the mitigation site
and adjacent properties. Boundaries can be identified by fence, marker, bollard, post, or other means as
allowed by site conditions and/or conservation easement. Boundary markers disturbed, damaged, or
destroyed will be repaired and/or replaced on an as needed basis.
7.5 Farm Road Crossing
The farm road crossings within the Site may be maintained only as allowed by the recorded Conservation
Easement, deed restrictions, rights of way, or corridor agreements.
7.6 Beaver Management
Routine maintenance and repair activities caused by beaver activity may include supplemental planting,
pruning, and dam breeching/dewatering and/or removal. Beaver management will be performed in
accordance with US Department of Agriculture (USDA) rules and regulations using accepted trapping and
removal techniques only within the project boundary.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 7-2 11/10/2016
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)

8.0 REFERENCES
Carolina Vegetation Survey (CVS) and NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP). 2007. CVS-
NCEEP Data Entry Tool v. 2.2.7. University of North Carolina, Raleigh, NC.
Lee, M., Peet R., Roberts, S., Wentworth, T. CVS-NCEEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation,
Version 4.1, 2007.
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (formerly NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program).
2009b. Baseline Monitoring Document Format, Data Requirements, and Content
Guidance, v. 1.0. Raleigh, NC.
2013. EEP Sites -Seven Year Monitoring. Letter to IRT, May 13, 2013. North Carolina Department
of Environment and Natural Resources. Raleigh, NC.
NC Interagency Review Team (NCIRT). 2013. September 10, 2013 Meeting with the NCIRT to discuss
Proposed SMU Adjustments for Implementing BMPs and Increased Buffer Widths and
Verifications for Wetland Restoration, Creation, and Success Criteria. Baker Attendees: Kristi
Suggs and Scott Hunt. Falls Lake Visitor Assistance Center, Raleigh, NC.
Rosgen, D. L. 1994. A classification of natural rivers. Catena 22:169-199.
. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology Books, Pagosa Springs, Colo.
Schafale, M.P. 2012. Guide to the Natural Communities of North Carolina, Fourth Approximation. North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP), NCDENR, Raleigh, North Carolina.
United States Army Corps of Engineers. 2010. Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of
Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region.
ERDC/EL TR -10-9, Vicksburg, MS.
http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/Wetlands/JDs/EMP Piedmont.pdf
. 2010 NC Wetland Assessment Method (NCWAM). Prepared with cooperation from US
Environmental Protection Agency, NC Department of Transportation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, NC Department of Environmental Quality, v4.1.
. 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines. Prepared with cooperation from US Environmental
Protection Agency, NC Wildlife Resources Commission, and the NC Division of Water Quality.
www.saw.usace.gnM.mil/wetlands/Mitigation/stream mitigation.html
.. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1.
Environmental Laboratory. US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station.
Vicksburg, MS.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 8-1 11/10/2016
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)

APPENDIX A
Figures 1 — 4b
Tables 1 — 4

DIRECTIONS TO SITE FROM RALEIGH, NC:
Take 1-40 West toward Sanford/Wake Forest. Take Exit 293 (1-440/US-64 W/US-1) toward Sanford/Wake Forest. Keep left at the fork
toward US -1 S/US-64 W. Take Exit 293A for US -1 S/US-64 W toward Sanford/Asheboro. Keep left at the fork toward US -1 S/US-64 W.
Continue on US -1 S/US-64 W towards Apex/Sanford/Asheboro. Take exit 98B to merge onto US -64 W towards Pitts boro/As heboro. After
62 miles, turn left onto Connector Rd. Turn right onto NC 49 S. After 28.4 miles, take a slight left onto N Main St. After 1.1 miles, turn left
onto Old Salisbury Rd. Follow Old Salisbury Rd. for approximately 2.0 miles to its intersection with Misenheimer Rd. / Steakhouse Rd. Go
through the intersection and continue on Old Salisbury Rd. for approximately 0.4 miles and the Project site is on the right accessed via
a dirt farm road.
Q Nc49 The subject project site is an environmental restoration
Ri hlle site of the NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services (DMS)
and is encompassed by a recorded conservation
easement, but is bordered by land under private ownership.
Accessing the site may require traversing areas near or
along the easement boundary and therefore access by
o =, the general public is not permitted. Access by authorized
personnel of state and federal agencies or their
designees/contractors involved in the development,
oversight and stewardship of the restoration site is
permitted within the terms and timeframes of their defined
roles. Any intended site visitation or activity by any
o person outside of these previously sanctioned roles
and activities requires prior coordination with DMS.
Figure 1. Vicinty Map Map Vicinity LEGEND
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A Project Site
Stanly County, NC Q Project Area
* —Streams
Reference: NCDOT 02 & NC One Map — US Highways
— Roads
NC DMS Project No. 94648 Major Waterways
NCDEQ Contract No. 003277
Municipalities
Nov 2016 0 1,500 3,000 1" = 3000' Stanly County, NC 0 Yadkin (HUC 03040105060-040)
Feet

Reach 1
Reach 7
F s "+
Reach 2
Reach 6
Reach 3
4• 4
I'
Reach 5
Reach 4
Gam♦ ��O
Pio
N
NC oneMap, N enter for Geographic Information and Analysis, NC 911 Board
MI P vl�lty LEGEND
Michael Baker Project SiConservation Easement Figure 2. Mitigation Summary
te
®Wetland Creation UT to Town Creek
INTERNATIONAL * ® Wetland Restoration Restoration Project - Option A
— Restoration Stanly County, NC
Nov 2016
Enhancement I
J
0 250 500
— Enhancement II NC DMS Project No. 94648
Feet ® Jurisdictional Wetlands NCDEQ Contract No. 003277
1" = 500' Stanly County, NC / Wetland BMPs

Wvuretn
V 1 49
Z
w' "n
DAVIDSON
ROWAN RANDOLPH
o
Ne
--------------------
------------------
--------------------
-------r---------------------------
— — — — — — — — — —
MossxF r- Fy said
UJ
LDDUS E U,4
jwpr��
Spencer Creek
4— L
Ella,
-
Sh4yy
Creekk
Project Sitel
ANSON
x
CHATHAM.
UT to N�y?
MONTGOMERY- I/ Rocky Creek
MOORE W aws
Eh d -
RICHMOND
7
Map Vicinity Project Site LEGEND N Figure 3. Reference Site Locations Map
a
vicinity
Michael Baker P c, ty Reference Reach Locations UT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A
I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L Project Site Stanly County, NC
0 3 6 NC DMS Project No. 94648
July 2016 C MENOMONEE:::::= Miles I" = 6 Miles NCDEQ Contract No. 003277
Stanly County, NC

4
a
IllAlll I
++ * e rm -
t4
N,
IV?
MW 2� �
t " 1
x AW 2
0
Reach 7 y
rill
Ilk
:. +MW 7
�e
y AW1
MW 1
Rcach 2 iMF'
UK
t
I
k `
a
IllAlll I
++ * e rm -
t4
N,
IV?
MW 2� �
t " 1
x AW 2
0
Reach 7 y
rill
Ilk
:. +MW 7
�e
y AW1
MW 1
Rcach 2 iMF'
MW 3+ AW3
t
k `
+^�. .
N
My W, 9
N
NC OneMap, N,C.C:enter forG,eograp hic,9l,nformation and Analysis, NC 911 Board
Michael Baker
LEGEND
Figure 4a. Monitoring Well Locations
Groundwater Monitoring Well (As -Built)
Existing Wetlands
(As -Built & Existing)
INTERNATIONAL
Flow Transducer (As -built)
® Wetland BMPs
UT to Town Creek
Nov 2016
Z� Groundwater Auto Well (Existing)
Conservation Easement
Restoration Project - Option A
Stanly County, NC
NC DMS Project No. 94648
Wetland Creation
0 75 150
NC DEQ Contract No. 003277
Wetland Restoration
Feet
Station 10+00 - 34+00 - Reaches 1 & 2
V = 150'
Station 10+00 - 14+00 - Reach 7

4
Reach 5
. .f
?
4-
I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A
INTERNATIONAL
Nov 2016
NC DMS Project No. 94648
NC DEQ Contract No. 003277
LEGEND
Monitoring Wells (As -Built)
O Crest Gauge (As -Built)
Flow Transducer (As -Built)
0 Groundwater Auto Well (Existing)
Wetland Creation
Wetland Restoration
Existing Wetlands
® Wetland BMPs
Conservation Easement
0 75 150
Feet
V = 150'
r`
MW 9
MW 8_'� AW8
Reach 6
1�
a' Zvi
IF
Figure 4b. Monitoring Well Locations
(As -Built & Existing)
UT to Town Creek
Restoration Project - Option A
Stanly County, NC
Station 33+00 - 47+75 - Reaches 2 & 3 Station 10+00 - 13+44 - Reach 5
Station 10+00 - 47+47 - Reach 4 Station 14+47 - 28+13 - Reach 6
MW 4
:w a 41, , ,
i
Reach 3
x.
MW 5 AW5 1
� YV
L..j
AW 10
MW 10
AW6

Table 1. Project Mitigation Components
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project - O tion A: DMS Project No ID. 94648
Project Component
Wetland Position and Hydro
Existing Footage or
Riverine Non-Riverine
Restored Footage,
Creditable Footage,
Restoration
Approach
Mitigation
Enhancement I
Mitigation Ratio
Enhancement 11
344
Stationing
Creation
1.56
Preservation
Notes/Comments
(reach ID, etc.)
Type
Acreage
Acreage, or SF
Acreage, or SF
Level
Priority Level
Credits
X:1
107
Full Channel Restoration, Planted Buffer, Exclusion of Livestock, and Permanent
Reach 1
1181
10+00 - 22+04
1,204
1,204
R
PI
1:1.0668
1284
Conservation Easement. Mitigation ratio of 1:1.0668 for buffer widths in excess
of 50 -ft.
Full Channel Restoration, Planted Buffer, Exclusion of Livestock, Permanent
Reach 2
1672
22+04 - 40+46
1,842
1,782
R
PI
1:1.08
1925
Conservation Easement, and a 60 -ft culverted farm road crossing. Mitigation ratio
of 1:1.07 for buffer widths in excess of 50 -ft.
Full Channel Restoration, Planted Buffer, Exclusion of Livestock, and Permanent
Reach 3
721
40+46 - 48+75
829
829
R
PI
1:1.10
912
Conservation Easement. Mitigation ratio of 1:1.1 for buffer widths in excess of 50 -
ft.
Dimension and Profile modified in keeping with reference, Planted Buffer,
Livestock Exclusion, Permanent Conservation Easement, and Headwater
Reach 4
404
10+00 - 14+47
447
447
EI
PIII
1:1
447
Constructed Wetland. Mitigation Ratio of 1:1 as result of water quality benefits
from the implementation of headwater constructed wetland.
Dimension modified and structure implementation in keeping with reference,
Reach 5
324
10+00 - 13+44
344
344
Ell
PIV
2.5:1
138
Planted Buffer, Livestock Exclusion, and Permanent Conservation Easement.
Full Channel Restoration, Planted Buffer, Exclusion of Livestock, Permanent
Reach 6
1349
14+47 - 28+13
1,366
1,340
R
P 1
1:1
1340
Conservation Easement, and a 26 -ft culverted farm road crossing.
Headwater Constructed Wetland, Full Channel Restoration, Planted Buffer,
Reach 7
386
10+00 - 13+99
399
399
R
P1
1:1
399
Livestock Exclusion, and Permanent Conservation Easement.
Minor floodplain grading, of 12 -inches or less, to restore floodplain hydrolgy and
Wetland Group 1 (WG I)
RNR
0
2.56
2.56
R
1:1
2.56
remediate compaction, based on hydric soil investigation. Planted, Excluded
Livestock and Permanent Conservation Easement.
Floodplain grading, of 12 -inches or greater, to restore relic floodplain hydrolgy and
Wetland Group 2 (WG2)
RNR
0
1.56
1.56
C
3:1
0.52
remediate compaction, based on hydric soil investigation. Planted, Excluded
Livestock and Permanent Conservation Easement.
Buffer Grou 1 (BG 1)
Buffer Grou 2 (BG2)
Buffer Grou 3 (BG3)
Length and Area Summations by Mitigation Category
Restoration Level
Stream
linear feet
Riparian Wetland Non -riparian Wetland Credited Buffer
(acres) acres (square feet
Riverine Non-Riverine
Restoration
5554
2.56
Enhancement
Enhancement I
447
Enhancement 11
344
Creation
1.56
Preservation
lHigh Quality Pres
lverall Assets Summary
Asset Category Overall
Credits
Stream 6445*
RP Wetland 3.08
* Stream assests are based on the stream length from the As -Built survey. Since the As -Built survey stream lengths exceeded the anticipated design lengths, the stream assets exceeded that of the proposed assest
range listed in the Mitigation Plan.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
General Note - The above component table is intended to
be a close complement to the asset map. Each entry in
the above table should have clear distinction and
appropriate symbology in the asset map.
1- Wetland Groups represent pooled wetland polygons in
the map with the same wetland type and restoration
level. If some of the wetland polygons within a group are
in meaningfully different landscape positions, soil types or
have different community targets (as examples), then
further segmentation in the table may be warranted.
Buffer groups represent pooled buffer polygons with
common restoration levels.
2 - Wetland Position and Hydro Type - Indicates Riparian
Riverine, (RR), riparinan non-riverine (RNR) or Non-
Riverine (NR)
3- Restored Footage, Acreage or Square Feet (SF)
4 - Creditible Footage, Acreage or Square feet - creditible
anounts after exclusion and reductions are accounted for,

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: DMS Project No ID. 94648
Activity or Report
Scheduled
Completion
Data Collection
Complete
Actual
Completion or
Delivery
Mitigation Plan Prepared
N/A
N/A
Apr -14
Mitigation Plan Amended
N/A
N/A
Dec -14
Mitigation Plan Approved
N/A
N/A
Dec -14
Final Design — (at least 90% complete)
N/A
N/A
Jan -15
Construction Begins
N/A
N/A
Jul -15
Temporary S&E mix applied to entire project area
N/A
N/A
Jan -16
Permanent seed mix applied to entire project area
N/A
N/A
Jan -16
Planting of live stakes
Feb -16
N/A
Mar -16
Planting of bare root trees
Feb -16
N/A
Mar -16
Planting of herbaceous plugs
Jun -16
N/A
May -16
End of Construction
Dec -16
N/A
Jan -16
Survey of As -built conditions Year 0 Monitoring -baseline)
Apr- 16
Ma -16
Jun -16
Baseline Monitoring Report
May -16
Jun -16
Nov -16
Year 1 Monitoring
Nov -16
N/A
N/A
Year 2 Monitoring
Nov -17
N/A
N/A
Year 3 Monitoring
Nov -18
N/A
N/A
Year 4 Monitoring
Nov -19
N/A
N/A
Year 5 Monitoring
Nov -20
N/A
N/A
Year 6 Wetland Monitoring
Nov -21
N/A
N/A
Year 7 Wetland Monitoring
Nov -22
N/A
N/A
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)

Table 3. Project Contacts
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: DMS Project ID No. 94648
Designer
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
797 Haywood Road, Suite 201
Asheville, NC 28806
Contact:
Jacob Byers, PE, Tel. [phone]
Construction Contractor
160 Walker Road
Wright Contracting, LLC.
Lawndale, NC 28090
Contact:
Joe Wright, Tel. [phone]
Planting Contractor
P.O. Box 458
H.J. Forest Service
Holly Ridge, NC 28445
Contact:
Matt Hitch, Tel. [phone]
Seeding Contractor
160 Walker Road
Wright Contracting, LLC.
Lawndale, NC 28090
Contact:
Joe Wright, Tel. [phone]
Seed Mix Sources
Green Resources, Tel. [phone]
Mellow Marsh Farm, Tel. [phone]
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Mellow Marsh Farm, Tel. [phone]
Foggy Mountain Nursery, Tel. [phone]
ArborGen, Tel. [phone]
Monitoring Performers
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
9716-B Rea Road 956
Charlotte, NC 28277
Contact:
Stream Monitoring Point of Contact
Kristi Suggs, Tel. [phone]
Vegetation Monitoring Point of Contact
Kristi Suggs, Tel. [phone]
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)

Table 4. Project Attributes
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: DMS Project ID No. 94648
Project County Stanly
Physiographic Region Piedmont
Ecoregion Carolina Slate Belt
Project River Basin Yadkin - Pee Dee
USGS HUC for Project (14 digit) 03040105060040
NCDWQ Sub-basin for Project 03-07-13
Within Extent of DMS Watershed Plan Lower Yadkin RBRP, 2009
WRC Class (Warm Cool Cold) Warm
% Project Easement Fenced/Demarcated 100%
Beaver activity observed during design phase No activity observed
Restoration Component Attribute Table
Reach 1 Reach 2
Reach 3
Reach 4
Reach 5
Reach 6
Reach 7
Drainage Area ac. 532.1 616.6
766.7
53.7
48.9
127.8
29.2
Stream Order 2 2
3
1
1
2
1
Restored Length LF 1,204 1,782
829
447
344
1,340
399
Perennial (P)/Intermittent P P
P
I
I
I
I
Watershed Type Rural, Urban, etc. R R
R
R
R
R
R
Watershed LULC Distribution
Rural Residential 6% 1%
0%
1%
2%
0%
0%
Ag-Row Crop 8% 0%
0%
14%
4%
0%
10%
Ag-Livestock 57% 85%
70%
59%
17%
88%
64%
Forested 8% 0%
0%
17%
62%
0%
21%
Other/Open Area 8% 0%
0%
0%
9%
0%
0%
Commercial 10% 0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Roadwa 3% 4%
2%
3%
<1%
0%
0%
Wooded-Livestock 0% 10%
28%
6%
4%
12%
5%
Oen Water 0% 0%
0%
0%
<1%
0%
0%
Watershed Impervious Cover % 19% 5%
2%
4%
<4%
<1%
<1%
NCDWR AU/Index#
13-17-31-1-1
NCDWQ Classification
C
303(d) Listed
No
303 d) Listing Stressor
N/A
Total Acreage of Easement 5.35 8.01
3.79
1.97
1.06
3.55
1.36
Total Vegetated Easement Acreage 4.81 6.97
3.48
1.63
0.94
3.22
1.26
Total Planted Acreage for Restoration 4.81 6.97
3.48
1.63
0.94
3.22
1.26
Reach 1 Reach 2
Reach 3
Reach 4
Reach 5
Reach 6
Reach 7
Ros en Classification(existing) E4 E4
E4
B4
B4
B4
B4a
Ros en Classification as-built C4 C4
C4
B4
B4
C4b
B4a
Valley Type VIII VIII
VIII
II
II
I1
H
Valley Sloe 0.0092 0.0092
0.0089
0.023
0.0447
0.0243
0.0495
Trout Waters Designation
No
Species of Concern, edangered etc.
Y/N
No*, Yes**
Dominant Soil Series and Characteristics
Series OaA OaA
OaA
GoF
GoF
GoF
BaD
Depth 46" 46"
46"
36"
36"
36"
40"
Clay % 10-35% 10-35%
10-35%
5-27%
5-27%
5-27%
Oct-55
K 0.28 0.28
0.28
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.15-0.24
T 4 4
4
4
4
4
3
* Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus ) a BGEPA species is listed as occurring in Stanly County; however, suitable habitat is not located
within the Project area or within two miles of the Project site.
** Schweinitz's Sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii) A federally endangered species is listed as occurring within Stanly County and
though suitable habitat is present, a field study was conducted and no species were located within the Project area. NCNHP database
indicated there are no known populations of these species within two miles of the study area.
(NRCS, 2010a; NCDENR, 2007 & 2008; USFWS, 2012; NCNHP, 2012)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)

APPENDIX B
Morphological Summary Data
Tables 5 and 6
Cross-section Data and Photos
Longitudinal Profile
Reachwide Pebble Count Data

Table 5. Baseline Stream Summary
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: DMS Project ID
No. 94648
Reach 1 (1,204 LF)
Parameter
Design
As-built
Min
Mean Med
Max SD
n
Min
Mean
Med Max SD
n
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
BF Width (ft)
-----
13.5 - - -
----- -----
-----
11.8
-----
----- 14.4 -----
3
Floodprone Width (ft)
45
----- -----
63 -----
-----
33.1
-----
----- 91.8 -----
3
BF Mean Depth (ft)
-----
1 -----
----- -----
-----
0.8
-----
----- 1.0 -----
3
BF Max Depth (ft)
-----
1.4 -----
----- -----
-----
1.2
-----
----- 1.4 -----
3
BF Cross-sectional Area ff)
-----
13.8 -----
----- -----
-----
9.1
-----
----- 13.9 -----
3
Width/Depth Ratio
-----
13.2 -----
----- -----
-----
14.4
-----
----- 15.2 -----
3
Entrenchment Ratio
3.3
----- -----
4.7 -----
-----
2.8
-----
----- 6.4 -----
3
Bank Height Ratio
-----
1 -----
----- -----
-----
1.0
-----
----- 1.0 -----
3
d50 (mm)
-----
50 -----
----- -----
-----
-----
31.2
----- ----- -----
-----
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
Radius of Curvature (ft)
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
42.0
51.6
----- 72.9 -----
18
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
Meander Wavelength (ft)
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
Meander Width Ratio
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
2.6
----- ----- -----
15
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
16.9
33.0
34.2 42.0 -----
7
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.01
----- -----
0.017 -----
-----
0.011
0.017
0.016 0.024 -----
7
Pool Length (ft)
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
---------- -----
-----
Pool Spacing (ft)
20.3
----- -----
67.5 -----
-----
46.0
62.0
64.0 75.0 -----
10
Pool Max Depth (ft)
2.1
----- -----
3.6 -----
-----
2.50
-----
----- 2.52 -----
2
Pool Volume (ft)
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
Substrate and Transport Parameters
Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
----
SC% / Sa% / G% / B% / Be%
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
----
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
11.3 / 33.0 / 50.0 / 128.0 / >2048
4.0 / 18.4 / 31.2 / 96.6 / >2048 / >2048
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/F
-----
0.41 -----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve)
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m2
-----
26.6 -----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
-----
----- -----
0.830 -----
-----
-----
0.83
----- ----- -----
-----
Impervious cover estimate (%)
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
Rosgen Classification
-----
C4 -----
----- -----
-----
-----
C4
----- ----- -----
-----
BF Velocity (fps)
-----
3.6 -----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
BF Discharge (cfs)
-----
13.8 -----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
Valley Length
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
1,082
----- ----- -----
-----
Channel length (ft)2
-----
1,192 -----
----- -----
-----
-----
1,206
----- ----- -----
-----
Sinuosity
-----
1.10 -----
----- -----
-----
-----
1.11
----- ----- -----
-----
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
-----
0.0094 -----
----- -----
-----
-----
0.0096
----- ----- -----
-----
BF slope (ft/ft)
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
0.0107
----- ----- -----
-----
Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
BEHI VL% / L% / M% / H% / VH% / E%
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
Biological or Other
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
Harman, W.A., G.D. Jennings, J.M. Patterson, D.R. Clinton, L.O. Slate, A.G. Jessup, J.R. Everhart, and R.E. Smith.
1999. Bankfull hydraulic geometry relationships for North Carolina streams. Wildland Hydrology. AWRA Symposium Proceedings. D.S.
Olsen and J.P. Potyondy, eds. American Water Resources Association. June 30-July 2, 1999. Bozeman, MT.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)

Table 5. Baseline Stream Summary (continued)
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: DMS Project ID
No. 94648
Reach 2 (1,782 LF)
Parameter
Design
As-built
Min
Mean Med
Max SD
n
Min
Mean
Med Max SD
n
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
BF Width (ft)
-----
14.0 - - -
----- -----
-----
15.4
-----
----- 15.6 -----
3
Floodprone Width (ft)
83
----- -----
104.0 -----
-----
74.9
-----
----- 102.7 -----
3
BF Mean Depth (ft)
-----
1.1 -----
----- -----
-----
1.0
-----
----- 1.1 -----
3
BF Max Depth (ft)
-----
1.4 -----
----- -----
-----
1.3
-----
----- 1.8 -----
3
BF Cross-sectional Area ff)
-----
14.7 -----
----- -----
-----
14.8
-----
----- 17.0 -----
3
Width/Depth Ratio
-----
13.3 -----
----- -----
-----
14.2
-----
----- 16.5 -----
3
Entrenchment Ratio
5.9
----- -----
7.4 -----
-----
4.8
-----
----- 6.7 -----
3
Bank Height Ratio
-----
1.0 -----
----- -----
-----
1.0
-----
----- 1.0 -----
3
d50 (mm)
-----
50 -----
----- -----
-----
-----
20.9
----- ----- -----
-----
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
Radius of Curvature (ft)
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
48.6
54.7
----- 65.6 -----
7
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
Meander Wavelength (ft)
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
Meander Width Ratio
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
3.0
----- ----- -----
8
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
10.1
20.0
21.8 28.0 -----
4.0
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
0.012
0.017
0.014 0.026 -----
4.0
Pool Length (ft)
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
Pool Spacing (ft)
21
----- -----
70 -----
-----
46.0
69.0
70.0 85.0 -----
10
Pool Max Depth (ft)
2.1
----- -----
3.7 -----
-----
2.5
-----
----- 2.9 -----
2
Pool Volume (ft)
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
Substrate and Transport Parameters
Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
----
SC% / Sa% / G% / B% / Be%
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
11.3 / 33.0 / 50.0 / 128.0 / >2048
<0.063 /
12.2 / 20.9 / 68.5 / 151.8 / >2048
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/F
-----
0.4 -----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve)
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/mz
-----
35.7 -----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
-----
0.96 -----
----- -----
-----
-----
0.96
----- ----- -----
-----
Impervious cover estimate (%)
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
Rosgen Classification
-----
C4 -----
----- -----
-----
-----
C4
----- ----- -----
-----
BF Velocity (fps)
-----
3.7 -----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
BF Discharge (cfs)
-----
55 -----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
Valley Length
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
1,549
----- ----- -----
-----
Channel length (ft)2
-----
1,833 -----
----- -----
-----
-----
1,842
----- ----- -----
-----
Sinuosity
-----
1.07 -----
----- -----
-----
-----
1.19
----- ----- -----
-----
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
-----
0.0127 -----
----- -----
-----
-----
0.0077
---------- -----
-----
BF slope (ft/ft)
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
0.0091
----- ----- -----
-----
Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
BEHI VL% / L% / M% / H% / VH% / E%
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
Biological or Other
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
Harman, W.A., G.D. Jennings, J.M. Patterson, D.R. Clinton, L.O. Slate, A.G. Jessup, J.R. Everhart, and R.E. Smith.
1999. Bankfull hydraulic geometry relationships for North Carolina streams. Wildland Hydrology. AWRA Symposium Proceedings. D.S.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)

Table 5. Baseline Stream Summary (continued)
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: DMS Project ID No. 94648
Reach 3 (829 LF)
Parameter
Design
As-built
Min
Mean Med
Max SD
n
Min
Mean
Med Max SD
n
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
BF Width (ft)
-----
15.5 - - -
----- -----
-----
14.9
-----
----- 17.1 -----
3
Floodprone Width (ft)
104
----- -----
218.0 -----
-----
99.3
-----
----- 99.8 -----
3
BF Mean Depth (ft)
-----
1.2 -----
----- -----
-----
1.1
-----
----- 1.3 -----
3
BF Max Depth (ft)
-----
1.6 -----
----- -----
-----
1.6
-----
----- 1.8 -----
3
BF Cross-sectional Area ff)
-----
18.2 -----
----- -----
-----
16.3
-----
----- 21.5 -----
3
Width/Depth Ratio
-----
13.2 -----
----- -----
-----
13.5
-----
----- 14.0 -----
3
Entrenchment Ratio
6.7
----- -----
14.1 -----
-----
5.8
-----
----- 6.7 -----
3
Bank Height Ratio
-----
1.0 -----
----- -----
-----
1.0
-----
----- 1.0 -----
3
d50 (mm)
-----
15 -----
----- -----
-----
-----
21.8
----- ----- -----
-----
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
Radius of Curvature (ft)
31.0
----- -----
47.0 -----
-----
54.5
63.2
----- 71.8 -----
9
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
Meander Wavelength (ft)
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
Meander Width Ratio
3.5
----- -----
8.0 -----
-----
-----
3.2
----- ----- -----
7
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
23.1
38.0
35.0 60.0 -----
5
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.005
----- -----
0.006 -----
-----
0.003
0.010
0.013 0.014 -----
5
Pool Length (ft)
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
Pool Spacing (ft)
62
----- -----
109 -----
-----
64
78
77 91 -----
9
Pool Max Depth (ft)
2.4
----- -----
4.11 -----
-----
3.2
-----
----- 3.2 -----
l
Pool Volume (ft)
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
Substrate and Transport Parameters
Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
----
SC% / Sa% / G% / B% / Be%
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
----d16/d35/d50/d84/d95
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
1.0/ 11.0/
15.0/64.0/ 150.0
2.0/12.6/21.8/74.1/ 128.0/128-180
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/F
-----
0.23 -----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve)
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/mz
-----
12.5 -----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
-----
----- -----
1.2 -----
-----
-----
-----
----- 1.2
Impervious cover estimate (%)
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
Rosgen Classification
-----
C4 -----
----- -----
-----
-----
C4
----- ----- -----
-----
BF Velocity (fps)
-----
3.6 -----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
BF Discharge (cfs)
-----
65.0 -----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
Valley Length
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
695
----- ----- -----
-----
Channel length (ft)2
-----
803 -----
----- -----
-----
-----
823
----- ----- -----
-----
Sinuosity
-----
1.16 -----
----- -----
-----
-----
1.18
----- ----- -----
-----
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
-----
0.0032 -----
----- -----
-----
-----
0.0062
----- ----- -----
-----
BF slope (ft/ft)
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
0.0075
----- ----- -----
-----
Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
BEHI VL% / L% / M% / H% / VH% / E%
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
Biological or Other
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
Harman, W.A., G.D. Jennings, J.M. Patterson, D.R. Clinton, L.O. Slate, A.G. Jessup, J.R. Everhart, and R.E. Smith.
1999. Bankfull hydraulic geometry relationships for North Carolina streams. Wildland Hydrology. AWRA Symposium Proceedings. D.S.
Olsen and J.P. Potyondy, eds. American Water Resources Association. June 30-July 2, 1999. Bozeman, MT.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)

Table 5. Baseline Stream Summary (continued)
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: DMS Project ID No. 94648
Reach 6 (1,340 LF)
Parameter
Design
As-built
Min Mean Med
Max SD
n
Min
Mean
Med Max SD
n
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
BF Width (ft)
----- 10.0 -----
----- -----
-----
8.5
-----
----- 10.5 -----
-----
Floodprone Width (ft)
19 ----- -----
87.0 -----
-----
33.1
-----
----- 55.4
BF Mean Depth (ft)
----- 0.6 -----
----- -----
-----
0.6
-----
----- 0.9 -----
-----
BF Max Depth (ft)
----- 0.9 -----
----- -----
-----
1.2
-----
----- 1.5 -----
-----
BF Cross-sectional Area ff)
----- 6.3 -----
----- -----
-----
5.3
-----
----- 9.8 -----
-----
Width/Depth Ratio
----- 15.9 -----
----- -----
-----
11.4
-----
----- 15.1 -----
-----
Entrenchment Ratio
1.9 ----- -----
8.7 -----
-----
3.1
-----
----- 5.7 -----
-----
Bank Height Ratio
----- 1.0 -----
----- -----
-----
1.0
-----
----- 1.0 -----
-----
d50 (mm)
----- ----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
28.3
----- ----- -----
-----
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
----- ----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
Radius of Curvature (ft)
----- ----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
----- ----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
Meander Wavelength (ft)
----- ----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
Meander Width Ratio
----- ----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
----- ----- -----
----- -----
-----
9.1
25.0
22.7 60.0 -----
12
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.025 ----- -----
0.041 -----
-----
-----
0.002
----- 0.027 -----
12
Pool Length (ft)
----- ----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
Pool Spacing (ft)
----- 50.0 -----
----- -----
-----
27.0
37.0
31.0 75.0 -----
8
Pool Max Depth (ft)
1.3 ----- -----
2.2 -----
-----
1.4
-----
----- 1.8 -----
2
Pool Volume (ft)
----- ----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
Substrate and Transport Parameters
Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%
----- ----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
----
SC% / Sa% / G% / B% / Be%
----- ----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
----
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95
11.3/22.6/32.0/90.0/150.0
8.7/21.5/28.3/73.4/160.7/>2048
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/F
----- 0.67 -----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve)
----- ----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/mz
----- 32.6 -----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
----- ----- -----
0.2 -----
-----
-----
-----
----- 0.2
Impervious cover estimate (%)
----- ----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
Rosgen Classification
----- C4b -----
----- -----
-----
-----
C4b
----- ----- -----
-----
BF Velocity (fps)
----- 2.2 -----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
BF Discharge (cfs)
----- 14 -----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
ValleyLength
----- ----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
1259
----- ----- -----
-----
Channel length (ft)2
----- 1,370 -----
----- -----
-----
-----
1366
----- ----- -----
-----
Sinuosity
----- 1.04 -----
----- -----
-----
-----
1.08
----- ----- -----
-----
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
----- 0.0226 -----
----- -----
-----
-----
0.0226
----- ----- -----
-----
BF slope (ft/ft)
----- ----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
0.0244
----- ----- -----
-----
Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
----- ----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
BEHI VL% / L% / M% / H% / VH% / E%
----- ----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
Biological or Other
----- ----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
Harman, W.A., G.D. Jennings, J.M. Patterson, D.R. Clinton, L.O. Slate, A.G. Jessup, J.R. Everhart, and R.E. Smith.
1999. Bankfull hydraulic geometry relationships for North Carolina streams. Wildland Hydrology. AWRA Symposium Proceedings. D.S.
Olsen and J.P. Potyondy, eds. American Water Resources Association. June 30-July 2, 1999. Bozeman, MT.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)

Table 5. Baseline Stream Summary (continued)
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: DMS Project ID No. 94648
Reach 7 (399 LF)
Parameter
Design
As -built
Min
Mean Med
Max SD
n
Min Mean Med Max SD n
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
BF Width (ft)
-----
5.0 - - -
----- -----
-----
----- ----- ---------- ----- -----
Floodprone Width (ft)
10
----- -----
38.0 -----
-----
---------- ----- ----- ----- -----
BF Mean Depth (ft)
-----
0.3 -----
----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BF Max Depth (ft)
-----
0.4 -----
----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft)
-----
1.6 -----
----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Width/Depth Ratio
-----
15.6 - - -
----- -----
-----
----- ----- ---------- ----- -----
Entrenchment Ratio
2
----- -----
7.6 -----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Bank Height Ratio
-----
1.0 -----
----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
d50 (mm)
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
----- ---------- ----- ----- -----
Radius of Curvature (ft)
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Meander Wavelength (ft)
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Meander Width Ratio
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
10.3 22.0 18.9 43.0 ----- 7
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.045
----- -----
0.073 -----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
PoolLength (ft)
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
Pool Spacing (ft)
8.0
----- -----
25.0 -----
-----
24.0 33.0 32.0 43.0 ----- 8
Pool Max Depth (ft)
0.6
----- -----
1.1 -----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Pool Volume (ft)
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Substrate and Transport Parameters
Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
SC% / Sa% / G% / B% / Be%
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
----- ----- ---------- ----- -----
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
-----
-----
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/F
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
----- ----- ---------- ----- -----
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve)
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/mz
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
-----
----- -----
0.0 -----
-----
----- ---------- ----- ----- -----
Impervious cover estimate (%)
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
----- ---------- ----- ----- -----
Rosgen Classification
-----
Boa -----
----- -----
-----
----- 134a ----- ----- ----- -----
BF Velocity (fps)
-----
3 -----
----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BF Discharge (efs)
-----
4.7 -----
----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Valley Length
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
----- 382.26 ----- ----- ----- -----
Channel length (ft)2
-----
399 -----
----- -----
-----
----- 412.53 ----- ----- ----- -----
Sinuosity
-----
1.04 -----
----- -----
-----
----- 1.08 ----- ----- ----- -----
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
-----
0.0407 -----
----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BF slope (ft/ft)
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
----- ---------- ----- ----- -----
Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BEHI VL% / L% / M% / H% / VH% / E%
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Biological or Other
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
* Harman, W.A., G.D. Jennings, J.M. Patterson, D.R. Clinton, L.O. Slate, A.G. Jessup, J.R. Everhart, and R.E. Smith.
1999. Bankfull hydraulic geometry relationships for North Carolina streams. Wildland Hydrology. AWRA Symposium Proceedings. D.S.
Olsen and J.P. Potyondy, eds. American Water Resources Association. June 30 -July 2, 1999. Bozeman, MT.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)

Table 6. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: DMS Project ID No. 94648
Reach 1 (1,204 LF)
Cross-section X-1 (Riffle)
Cross-section X-2 (Pool)
Cross-section X-3 (Pool) Cross-section X-4 (Rittle)
Dimension and substrate Base MY
MY2 MY3 MY4
MY5 MY+ Base MYl
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY] MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Based on fixed baseline bankfu0 elevation
BF Width (ft)
11.77
22.22
16.38
14.44
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.77
1.23
1.41
0.96
Width/DepthRatio
15.23
18.03
11.59
15.04
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft)
9.1
27.4
23.2
13.9
BF Max Depth (ft)
1.11
2.5
2.52
1.35
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
33.14
70.59
77.09
91.83
Entrenchment Ratio
2.8
3.2
4.7
6.4
Bank Height Ratio
1
1
1
1
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
13.3
24.7
19.2
16.4
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.7
1.1
1.2
0.8
Based on current/developing current/developingbankfull feature
BF Width (ft)
BF Mean Depth (ft)
Width/Depth Ratio
BF Cross-sectional Area (ftp)
BF Max Depth (ft)
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
Entrenchment Ratio
Bank Height Ratio
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
Cross Sectional Area between end pins (ft')
d50 (mm)
Cross-section X-5 (Riffle)
Dimension and substrate
Base MY
MY2 MY3 MY4
MY5 MY+ Base MY]
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MYl
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
BFWidth (ft)
12.1
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.8
Width/DepthRatio
14.4
BF Cross-sectional Area (112)
10.1
BF Max Depth (ft)
1.2
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
71.2
Entrenchment Ratio
5.9
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
13.7
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.7
Based on current/developingbankfull feature
BF Width (ft)
BF Mean Depth (ft)
W idth/Depth Ratio
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft2)
BF Max Depth (ft)
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
Entrenchment Ratio
Bank Height Ratio
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
Cross Sectional Area between end pins (W)
d50 (mm)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)

Table 6. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project- Option A: DMS Project ID No. 94648
Reach 2 (1,782 LF)
Cross-section X-6 (Riffle)
Cross-section X-7 (Pool)
Cross-section X-8 (Riffle) Cross-section X-9 (Pool)
Dimension and substrate
Base MY
MY2 MY3 MY4
MY5 MY+
Base
MY MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Base MY
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 NlY5 Ml'-
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
BF Width (ft)
15.6
16.3
15.4
24.3
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.95
1.4
1.1
1.4
Width/Depth Ratio
16.5
11.5
14.5
17.9
BF Cross-sectional Area (ftp)
14.8
23.2
16.5
33.1
BF Max Depth (ft)
1.3
2.5
1.7
2.9
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
74.9
75.8
102.7
95.4
Entrenchment Ratio
4.8
4.6
6.7
3.9
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
17.5
19.2
17.6
27.1
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.8
1.2
0.9
1.2
Based on current/developing bankfull feature
BF Width (ft)
BF Mean Depth (ft)
Width/Depth Ratio
BF Cross-sectional Area (ftp)
BF Max Depth (ft)
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
Entrenchment Ratio
Bank Height Ratio
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
Cross Sectional Area between end pins (ft)
-
d50 (mm)
Cross-section X-10 (Riffle)
Dimension and substrate Base MYI
MY2 MY3 MY4
MY5 MY- Base
MYI MY3 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY-
Rase MY I
MY2 MY3 MY4 MYS MY- Base MY MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Based on fixed baseline bankfu0 elevation
BFWidth (ft)
15.5
BF Mean Depth (ft)
1.1
Width/Depth Ratio
14.2
BF Cross-sectional Area (112)
17.0
BF Max Depth (ft)
1.8
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
100.0
Entrenchment Ratio
6.4
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
17.7
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
1.0
Based on current/developing bankfull feature
BF Width (ft)
BF Mean Depth (ft)
Width/Depth Ratio
BF Cross-sectional Area (W)
BF Max Depth (ft)
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
Entrenchment Ratio
Bank Height Ratio
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
Cross Sectional Area between end pins (ft)
-
-
-
-
d50 (mm)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)

Table 6. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: DMS Project ID No. 94648
Reach 3 (829 LF)
Cross-section X-11 (Riffle)
Cross-section X-12 (Riffle)
Cross-section X-13 (Riffle)
Cross-section X-14 (Pool)
Dimension and substrate
Base MY
MY2 MY3 MY4
MY5 MY+ Base
MY MY2 MY3 MY4
MY5 MY+ Base
MY MY2 MY3 MY4
MY5 MY+ Base
MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
BF Width (ft)
14.9
17.1
16.0
21.3
BF Mean Depth (ft)
1.1
1.3
1.2
1.8
Width/Depth Ratio
13.5
13.7
14.0
11.7
BF Cross-sectional Area (112)
16.3
21.5
18.3
39.0
BF Max Depth (ft)
1.6
1.8
1.6
3.2
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
99.8
99.7
98.3
98.7
Entrenchment Ratio
6.7
5.8
61
4.6
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
17.1
19.6
18.3
25.0
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.6
Based on current/developing bankfu0 feature
BF Width (ft)
BF Mean Depth (ft)
Width/Depth Ratio
BF Cross-sectional Area (ftp)
BF Max Depth (ft)
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
Entrenchment Ratio
Bank Height Ratio
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
Cross Sectional Area between end pins (ft)
-
d50 (mm)
Reach 6 (1,340 LF)
Cross-section X-15 (Pool)
Cross-section X-16 (Riffle)
Cross-section X-17 (Riffle)
Cross-section X-18 (Riffle)
Dimension and substrate
Base MY
MY2 MY3 MY4
MY5 MY+ Base
MY MY2 MY3 MY4
MY5 MY+ Base
MY] MY2 MY3 MY4
MY5 MY+ Base
MY MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
BFWidth (ft)
11.0
9.7
10.5
8.5
BF Mean Depth (ft)
1.0
0.6
0.9
0.6
Width/Depth Ratio
10.9
15.1
11.4
13.5
BF Cross-sectional Area (ftp)
11.1
6.2
9.8
5.3
BF Max Depth (ft)
1.8
1.2
1.5
1.2
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
60.3
55.4
33.1
37.3
Entrenchment Ratio
5.5
5.7
3.1
4.4
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
13.0
11.0
12.4
9.7
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.9
0.6
0.8
0.5
Based on current/developing bankfull feature
BF Width (ft)
BF Mean Depth (ft)
Width/Depth Ratio
BF Cross-sectional Area (W)
BF Max Depth (ft)
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
Entrenchment Ratio
Bank Height Ratio
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
Cross Sectional Area between end pins (ft)
-
-
d50 (mm)
Cross-section X-19 (Pool)
Dimension and substrate
Base MYI
MY2 MY3 MY4
MY5 MY- Base
MY 1 MY2 MY3 MY4
MY5 MY- Base
MY 1 MY2 MY3 MY4
MY5 MY+ Base
MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MYS MY+
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
BF Width (ft)
10.8
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.8
Width/Depth Ratio
13.7
BF Cross-sectional Area (W)
8.4
BF Max Depth (ft)
1.4
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
41.4
Entrenchment Ratio
3.8
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
12.3
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.7
Based on current/developing bankfull feature
BF Width (ft)
BF Mean Depth (ft)
Width/Depth Ratio
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft2)
BF Max Depth (ft)
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
Entrenchment Ratio
Bank Height Ratio
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
Cross Sectional Area between end pins (ft)
_
d50 (mm)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)

Permanent Cross-section
X1 - Reach 1
(As -built Data - Collected April 2016)
LEFT BANK
RIGHT BANK
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
Stream
BKF
BKF
BKF
Max BKF
TOB
Feature
WAD
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
WFPA
Type
Area
Width
Depth
Depth
Elev
Riffle
C
9.1
11.77
0.77
1.11
15.23
1
2.8
574.29
574.31
33.14
579
578
= 577
O
> 576
d
W-----------------------------------------------
575
574
----------------
573
572
0
10
20
30 40
50 60 70 80
Station
---a--- Bankfull
--o--• Floodprone
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)

Permanent Cross-section
X2 - Reach 1
(As -built Data - Collected April 2016)
N
tk«
LEFT BANK
RIGHT BANK
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
Stream
BKF
BKF
BKF
Max BKF
TOB
Feature
WAD
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
WFPA
Type
Area
Width
Depth
Depth
Elev
Pool
27.4
22.22
1.23
2.5
18.03
1
3.2
574.71
574.72
70.59
578
577
= 576
O
> 575
d-------------------------------
W
574
573
572
571
0 10
20
30 40
50 60 70 80
Station
---a--- Bankfull
-0--- Floodprone
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)

Permanent Cross-section
X3 - Reach 1
(As -built Data - Collected April 2016)
LEFT BANK
RIGHT BANK
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
Stream
BKF
BKF
BKF
Max BKF
TOB
Feature
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
WFPA
Type
Area
Width
Depth
Depth
Elev
Pool
23.2
16.38
1.41
2.52
11.59
1
4.7
571.55
571.57
77.09
575
574
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------o
= 573
0
> 572
d
—
W
-----------------------
571
570
569
568
0 10
20
30 40
50 60 70 80
Station
0---
Bankfull
--o--- Floodprone
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)

Permanent Cross-section
X4 - Reach 1
(As -built Data - Collected April 2016)
LEFT BANK
RIGHT BANK
Stream
BKF
BKF
" '�
Max BKF
.
TOB
Feature
s�
W/D
�7 e
ER
BKF Elev
a
WFPA
x4
h G"
a-
k
RIGHT BANK
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
Stream
BKF
BKF
BKF
Max BKF
TOB
Feature
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
WFPA
Type
Area
Width
Depth
Depth
Elev
Riffle
C
13.9
14.44
0.96
1.35
15.04
1
6.4
571.46
571.48
91.83
574
573
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
c
O
m 572
d
W---------------
571
570
569
0 10
20
30
40 50
60 70 80
90 100
Station
- o--- Bankfull
- o--• Floodprone
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)

Permanent Cross-section
X5 - Reach 1
(As -built Data - Collected April 2016)
LEFT BANK
RIGHT BANK
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
Stream
BKF
BKF
BKF
Max BKF
TOB
Feature
WAD
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
WFPA
Type
Area
Width
Depth
Depth
Elev
Riffle
C
10.1
12.05
0.84
1.23
14.4
1
5.9
567.95
567.96
71.23
570
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------o
569
c
O
m
uJ 568
................
567
566
0 10
20
30 40
50
60 70 80
Station
- o--- Bankfull
-0---
Floodprone
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)

Permanent Cross-section
X6 - Reach 2
(As -built Data - Collected April 2016)
LEFT BANK
LIWAI
Stream
_
8
BKF
v
TOB
Feature
rk
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
RIGHT BANK
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
Stream
BKF
BKF
BKF
Max BKF
TOB
Feature
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
WFPA
Type
Area
Width
Depth
Depth
Elev
Riffle
C
14.8
15.61
0.95
1.29
16.52
1
4.8
561.9
561.91
74.86
565
564
c
------------------------------------------------------------------------------o
e+ -a 563
Q
W
562
561
560
0 10 20 30 40
50 60
70 80 90
100 110
Station
- 0--- Bankfull
-9--- Floodprone
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)

Permanent Cross-section
X7 - Reach 2
(As -built Data - Collected April 2016)
LEFT BANK
� N
g��,- 0 �
�J.
1
5
RIGHT BANK
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
Stream
BKF
BKF
BKF
Max BKF
TOB
Feature
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
WFPA
Type
Area
Width
Depth
Depth
Elev
Pool
23.2
16.34
1.42
2.49
11.52
1
4.6
561.64
561.65
75.75
565
564
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------o
= 563
O
> 562
d
----------------
—
W
561
560
559
558
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
70 80 90
100 110
Station
- o--- Bankfull
-0--- Floodprone
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)

Permanent Cross-section
X8 - Reach 2
(As -built Data - Collected April 2016)
LEFT BANK
RIGHT BANK
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
Stream
BKF
BKF
BKF
Max BKF
TOB
Feature
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
WFPA
Type
Area
Width
Depth
Depth
Elev
Riffle
C
16.5
15.44
1.07
1.7
14.47
1
6.7
558.82
558.84
102.74
561
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
o
560
c
0
559
>
...............
0)
W
558
557
556
0 10 20 30 40
50 60
70 80 90
100 110
Station
- 0--- Bankfull
-9--- Floodprone
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)

Permanent Cross-section
X9 - Reach 2
(As -built Data - Collected April 2016)
LEFT BANK
RIGHT BANK
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
Stream
BKF
BKF
BKF
Max BKF
TOB
Feature
WAD
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
WFPA
Type
Area
Width
Depth
Depth
Elev
Pool
33.1
24.33
1.36
2.89
17.9
1
3.9
552.73
552.76
95.4
556
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------o
555
554
O
> 553
d----------------------
-
W
552
551
550
549
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
70 80 90
100 110
Station
o--- Bankfull
---o--- Floodprone
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)

Permanent Cross-section
X10 - Reach 2
(As -built Data - Collected April 2016)
LEFT BANK
„n
d
RIGHT BANK
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
Stream
BKF
BKF
BKF
Max BKF
TOB
Feature
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
WFPA
Type
Area
Width
Depth
Depth
Elev
Riffle
C
17
15.54
1.1
1.76
14.19
1
6.4
552.8
552.8
100.03
555
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------o
554
c
0
k 553
>
...............
.T
W
552
551
550
0 10 20 30 40
50 60
70 80 90
100 110
Station
- 0--- Bankfull
-9--- Floodprone
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)

Permanent Cross-section
X11 - Reach 3
(As -built Data - Collected April 2016)
LEFT BANK
RIGHT BANK
Stream
BKF
BKF
BKF
Max BKF
o""
TOB
Feature
sir
WAD
BH Ratio
ER
3i
WFPA
Type
Area
Width
Depth
Depth
RIGHT BANK
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
Stream
BKF
BKF
BKF
Max BKF
TOB
Feature
WAD
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
WFPA
Type
Area
Width
Depth
Depth
Elev
Riffle
C
16.3
14.85
1.1
1.59
13.49
1
6.7
550.5
550.51
99.8
553
552
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------o
c
0
k 551
d
W--------------
550
549
548
0 10 20 30 40
50 60
70 80 90
100 110
Station
- 0--- Bankfull
-9--- Floodprone
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)

Permanent Cross-section
X12 - Reach 3
(As -built Data - Collected April 2016)
LEFT BANK
RIGHT BANK
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
Stream
BKF
BKF
BKF
Max BKF
TOB
Feature
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
WFPA
Type
Area
Width
Depth
Depth
Elev
Riffle
C
21.5
17.12
1.25
1.84
13.66
1
5.8
548.87
548.88
99.67
551
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------o
550
c
O
m 549
>
.................
2
W
548
547
546
0 10 20 30 40
50 60
70 80 90
100 110
Station
- 0--- Bankfull
-9--- Floodprone
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)

Permanent Cross-section
X13 - Reach 3
(As -built Data - Collected April 2016)
LEFT BANK
RIGHT BANK
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
Stream
BKF
BKF
BKF
Max BKF
TOB
Feature
WAD
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
WFPA
Type
Area
Width
Depth
Depth
Elev
Riffle
C
18.3
16
1.15
1.56
13.96
1
6.1
548.1
548.12
98.25
550
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
o
549
c
O
---------------
uJ 548
547
546
0 10 20 30 40
50 60
70 80 90
100 110
Station
- 0--- Bankfull
--o--- Floodprone
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)

Permanent Cross-section
X14 - Reach 3
(As -built Data - Collected April 2016)
LEFT BANK
RIGHT BANK
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
Stream
BKF
BKF
BKF
Max BKF
TOB
Feature
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
WFPA
Type
Area
Width
Depth
Depth
Elev
Pool
39
21.33
1.83
3.24
11.67
1
4.6
547.87
547.89
98.66
552
551
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------o
550
c
O
549
d
uJ548
---------------------
547
546
545
544
0 10 20 30 40
50 60
70 80 90
100 110
Station
- 0--- Bankfull
-9--- Floodprone
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)

Permanent Cross-section
X15 - Reach 6
(As -built Data - Collected April 2016)
LEFT BANK
RIGHT BANK
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
Stream
BKF
BKF
BKF
Max BKF
TOB
Feature
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
WFPA
Type
Area
Width
Depth
Depth
Elev
Pool
11.1
11.02
1.01
1.82
10.91
1
5.5
553.79
553.8
60.34
556
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
555
c
0
e+ra 554
>
-------------------
d
W
553
552
551
0 10
20
30 40 50
60
Station
- o--- Bankfull
- o--• Floodprone
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)

Permanent Cross-section
X16 - Reach 6
(As -built Data - Collected April 2016)
LEFT BANK
RIGHT BANK
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
Stream
BKF
BKF
BKF
Max BKF
TOB
Feature
WAD
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
WFPA
Type
Area
Width
Depth
Depth
Elev
Riffle
C
6.2
9.68
0.64
1.15
15.08
1
5.7
554.26
554.27
55.4
556
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------o
555
c
O
m
uJ 554
553
552
0 10
20
30 40 50 60
Station
- o--. Bankfull
- o--• Floodprone
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)

Permanent Cross-section
X17 - Reach 6
(As -built Data - Collected April 2016)
LEFT BANK
RIGHT BANK
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
Stream
BKF
BKF
BKF
Max BKF
TOB
Feature
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
WFPA
Type
Area
Width
Depth
Depth
Elev
Riffle
C
9.8
10.54
0.93
1.45
11.37
1
3.1
565.03
565.05
33.09
569
568
o 567
----------------------------------------------------------------
m
uJ 566
565
-------------------
564
563
0
10
20
30 40 50 60
Station
- o--- Bankfull
o--- Floodprone
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)

Permanent Cross-section
X18 - Reach 6
(As -built Data - Collected April 2016)
LEFT BANK
RIGHT BANK
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
Stream
BKF
BKF
BKF
Max BKF
TOB
Feature
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
WFPA
Type
Area
Width
Depth
Depth
Elev
Riffle
C
5.3
8.47
0.63
1.19
13.53
1
4.4
577.96
577.97
37.26
581
580
c
O
co 579
d
W
578
---------------
577
576
0
10
20
30
40 50 60
Station
- o--- Bankfull
o--- Floodprone
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)

k
LEFT BANK
Permanent Cross-section
X19 - Reach 6
(As -built Data - Collected April 2016)
RIGHT BANK
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
Stream
BKF
BKF
BKF
Max BKF
TOB
Feature
WAD
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
WFPA
Type
Area
Width
Depth
Depth
Elev
Pool
8.4
10.76
0.78
1.36
13.73
1
3.8
575.75
575.77
41.36
580
579
O 578
m
W577
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------o
576
-------------------
575
574
0
10
20
30 40 50 60
Station
- o--- Bankfull
--o--- Floodprone
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)

UT to Town Creek - Reach 1
As -built Stations 9+95 to 22+04
(Data Collected April 2016)
578
577
576
- - - -
-
-
_ _
-
- -
tThalweg
-
--
-
tLeft Top of Bank
575
.......... _........ __...
_
..----
_.........
-0-Water Surface
574
...._...
_._.__..._.. -
573
_
.......... --
- .... ....
G1 572.....
_.....
_
C571
-
-- - ---
- ----
--- — -
----- - ---
--
-- - --
--- --
---- ------
----- ---- -
--- ---
---
-
O
+_' 570
ca
>
-
-- - ---
- --------
----- - - --
- - ---- -
- -
- -- - ---
- --- -
----- ---- -
-- ---
-------- ---
---
-
569
---
------ ---
- --- - —
-- --
--------
- - --- -
---- ---- -
-------- ---
--
--
-- ---
-- - ---
W
568
- - — -
-
------
- -
---
-- ---
-- - ---
---
--- ---
--- —
--- ---
--
567
-
-- ---
---- --
- -
- - - -
- -- -- -
- -- — - --
----- -- ---- -
- - -
-
-
566
565
564
-
563
....... _.._..._.__..._.__.._
562
995 1095 1195 1295 1395 1495 1595 1695 1795 1895 1995 2095 2195
Station
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)

MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
UT to Town Creek - Reach 2
As -Built Stations 22+04 to 40+46
(Data Collected April 2016)
567
566
565
--*---Tha1weg
Nk
564
E__
Stream Crossing
563 -
—0— Left Top of Bank
562
Nab. -
---A—Water Surface
561
�w
560
...
.. . .. .......
559
.2
558
— --
--------------
>
557
4)
556
555
..... ... . .. ..........
. .... .
....
. .. ..........
.. . ........ ..
................. . ....
............... ......
.............. .. . . ............... -
554
553
__1WE
552
551
550
--------------
---
..............
.
...........
549 -
.........
..... ..... .... . . . ............ .... . ...
....... .... . .. ...........
— . ... .....
...
.. ........ ......... . . . . . . . .....
...... ........ . .... ..... ..................
.. ......... . .... .....
......................
...
548
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
11
2195 2295 2395 2495
2595 2695 2795 2895 2995 3095 3195 3295
3395 3495 3595 3695 3795 3895 3995
Station
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)

UT to Town Creek - Reach 3
As -Built Stations 40+46 to 48+75
(Data Collected April 2016)
552
551
550
549
548
O
ca
N 547
W
546
545
544
543
tThalweg
tLeft Top of Bank
--X—Water Surface
4046 4146 4246 4346 4446 4546 4646 4746 4846
Station
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
4946

594
593
592
591
590
589
C 588
ca
> 587
W
586
585
584
583
582
581
UT to Town Creek - Reach 4
As -built Stations 9+98 to 14+47
(Data Collected April 2016)
--o—Thalweg
(Left Top of Bank
Water Surface is not shown because there was no water in the channel.
995 1045 1095 1145 1195 1245 1295 1345 1395 1445
Station
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
1495

596
595
594
593
592
591
(D 590
d
589
O
588
cv
4) 587
W
586
585
584
583
582
581
580
UT to Town Creek - Reach 5
As -built Stations 10+00 to 13+43
(Data Collected April 2016)
I I
Water Surface is not shown because there was no water in the channel.
995 1045 1095 1145 1195 1245 1295
Station
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
1345

584
582
580
578
O
4__576
r_
O
R 574
d
W
572
570
568
566
564
UT to Town Creek - Reach 6 (Upstream)
As -built Stations 14+46 to 20+96
(Data Collected April 2016)
1446 1496 1546 1596 1646 1696 1746 1796 1846 1896 1946 1996 2046
Station
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
2096

568
566
564
562
d
560
O
558
d
W
556
554
552
550
548
UT to Town Creek - Reach 6 (Downstream)
As -built Stations 20+96 to 28+13
(Data Collected April 2016)
2096 2146 2196 2246 2296 2346
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
2396 2446
Station
2496 2546 2596 2646 2696 2746 27'

585
584
583
582
581
580
579
578
.� 577
Q 576
575
O 574
573
W
572
571
570
569
568
567
566
565
564
563
562
UT to Town Creek - Reach 7
As -built Stations 9+86 to 13+98
(Data Collected April 2016)
--0--Thalweg
—a—Left Top of Bank
Water Surface is not shown because there was no water in the channel.
975 1025 1075 1125 1175 1225 1275 1325 1375
Station
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
1425

PEBBLE COUNT DATA SHEET: REACH -WIDE COUNT
PARTICLE CLASS WEIGHT (g) Reach Summary
MATERIAL
FAKER PROJECT NO. 120857
SITE OR PROJECT:
UT To Town Creek - ASbullt
REACH/LOCATION:
Reach 1 (5 Riffles & 5 Pools)
DATE COLLECTED:
5/11/2016
FIELD COLLECTION BY:
KS & DH
DATA ENTRY BY:
KS
PARTICLE CLASS WEIGHT (g) Reach Summary
MATERIAL
PARTICLE
SIZE (mm)
Riffle
Pool
Total
Class %
% Cum
D35 = 5.80
Silt / Clay
< .063
D50 = 12.46
15
15
15%
15%
D95 = > 2048
Very Fine
063-125 .125
D100 = > 2048
D100= >2048]
15%
s
Fine
.125-25 .25
15%
A
N
Medium
.25-50 .50
15%
o
Coarse
.50-1.0
15%
Very Coarse
1.0-2.0
15%
O
Very Fine
2.0 - 2.8
15%
Very Fine
2.8-4.0
1
15%
Fine
4.0-5.6
1
1
1%
16%
G
R
Fine
5.6-8.0
1
5
6
6%
22%
Q
A
v
Medium
8.0-11.0
1
2
3
3%
25%
E
Medium
11.0-16.0
4
3
7
7%
32%
L �(
Coarse
16.0-22.6
5
5
5%
37%
�Q
C
Coarse
22.6-32
8
5
13
13%
51%
Very Coarse
32-45
8
8
16
16%
67%
O Q
Very Coarse
45-64
5
5
5%
72%
O
Small
64-90
6
5
11
11%
83%
Small
90-128
5
5
5%
88%
Large
128-180
2
2
4
4%
92%
0O
Large
180-256
92%
LL_
Small
256-362
92%
Small 362-512
92%
Medium
512-1024
92%
Large -Very Large 1024-2048
92%
BEDROCK
Bedrock
> 2048
5
3
8
8%
100%
Total I�Total 501501991100%�1 oo°i�% 100% 1
Riffle Summary
Class % % Cum
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
2% 2%
2% 4%
8% 12%
10% 22%
16% 38%
16% 54%
10% 64%
12% 76%
10% 86%
4% 90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
10% 100%
100% 100%
Largest particles: 150.00 170.00 mm Cummulative Riffle Pool
(riffle) (pool) lChannel material lChannel material Channel material
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
D16 = 1 4
D16= 18.37
D16 = <0.06
D35 = 18.37
D35 = 29.98
D35 = 5.80
D50 = 31.16
D50 = 41.32
D50 = 12.46
D84 = 96.57
D84 = 119.29
D84 = 73.35
D95 = > 2048
D95 = > 2048
D95 = > 204
D100 = >2048
D100 = > 2048
D100= >2048]
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)

100%
90%
80%
70%
LL 50%
c
m
L
a 40%
30%
20%
10%
UT to Town Creek - Asbuilt
Sediment Distribution - Active Bed Pebble Count
Reachwide - Reach 1 (5 Riffles & 5 Pools)
� Class Percent
--o Riffle Data
--Z Pool Data
—m Cumulative Data
Cl) N LO O O O W O co O O O (D N (n O W O CO N N_ V of e0
O N Cl! Ln N N V Ln 0� (O N M O O N 00 LQ (0N (0 In O O O
N i i i C) N N
V to L0 O O O W O CO ' (� M V 4 O N O O N n
N N Ln N N V (n C (6 N O N W N (0 N N
O — — O
Particle Size (mm) f
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)

PEBBLE COUNT DATA SHEET: REACH -WIDE COUNT
PARTICLE CLASS WEIGHT (g) Reach Summary
MATERIAL
BAKER PROJECT NO. 120857
SITE OR PROJECT:
UT To Town Creek - Asbullt
REACH/LOCATION:
Reach 2 (5 Riffles & 5 Pools)
DATE COLLECTED:
5/11/2016
FIELD COLLECTION BY:
KS & DH
DATA ENTRY BY:
KS
PARTICLE CLASS WEIGHT (g) Reach Summary
MATERIAL
PARTICLE
SIZE (mm)
Riffle
Pool
Total
Class %
% Cum
D16 =
Silt / Clay 1
.063
D100 =
22
22
22%
22%
46%
Very Fine
.063 - .125
27.48
D50 =
20.93
54%
22%
D50 =
Fine
125-25 .25
68.52
78%
2%
D84 =
22%
D95 =
YYy���I�I�II
Medium
25-50 .50
D95 =
158.40
D100 =
> 2048
22%
D100 =
Coarse
.50-1.0
96%
96%
22%
96%
Very Coarse
1.0-2.0
100%
1
1
1 %
23%
O�
Very Fine
2.0-2.8
23%
Very Fine
2.8-4.0
1
23%
Fine
4.0-5.6
1
1
2
2%
25%
R
Fine
5.6-8.0
2
2
4
4%
29%
V
Medium
8.0 - 11.0
2
2
2%
31%
E
Medium
11.0 - 16.0
4
7
11
11%
42%
UO
L O
Coarse
16.0-22.6
6
3
9
9%
52%
Coarse
22.6-32
8
1
9
9%
61%
nODaIC9
Very Coarse
32-45
8
5
13
13%
74%
Very Coarse
45-64
8
1
9
9%
83%
O
Small
64-90
4
1
5
5%
88%
Small
90-128
4
1
5
5%
93%
COBBLE
Large
128-180
4
4
4%
97%
OO
Large
180-256
97%
Small
256-362
97%
Small
362-512
97%
Medium
512-1024
97%
Large -Very Large
1024-2048
97%
BEDROCK
Bedrock
> 2048
1
2
3
3%
100%
I Total I 50 I 50 I 99 I 100% I 100%
Largest particles: 140.00 110.00 mm
(riffle) (pool)
Riffle Summary
Class % % Cum
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
2% 2%
4% 6%
6%
8% 14%
12% 26%
16% 42%
16% 58%
16% 74%
8% 82%
8% 90%
8% 98%
98%
98%
98%
98%
98%
2% 100%
100% 100%
Cummulative
Class %
% Cum
Riffle
Channel materials
D50 =
44%
Channel materials
D16 =
<0.063
44%
D100 =
D16 =
16.95
D35 =
12.18
46%
2%
D35 =
27.48
D50 =
20.93
54%
4%
D50 =
37.95
D84 =
68.52
78%
2%
D84 =
98.28
D95 =
151.79
92%
2%
D95 =
158.40
D100 =
> 2048
96%
D100 =
> 2048
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
Pool Summary
Class %
% Cum
44%
44%
D50 =
44%
D84 =
44%
D95 =
44%
D100 =
44%
2%
46%
46%
2%
48%
2%
50%
4%
54%
4%
58%
14%
72%
6%
78%
2%
80%
10%
90%
2%
92%
2%
94%
2%
96%
96%
96%
96%
96%
96%
96%
4%
100%
100%
100%
Pool
Channel materials
D16 =
<0.063
D35 =
<0.063
D50 =
5.60
D84 =
36.68
D95 =
107.33
D100 =
> 2048

UT to Town Creek - Asbuilt
Sediment Distribution - Active Bed Pebble Count
Reachwide - Reach 2 (5 Riffles & 5 Pools)
100%
17
Class Percent
90%
❑ Riffle Data
Pool Data
80%
--W-Cumulative Data
70%
IJ
1�
60%
L
u- 50%
c
m
U
L
a 40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
❑
Cl) Ln
O N
Ln O
N U?
O
O
N
c0
N
O
4
CO
LC)
00
O
O
CO
O
CO
N
N
M
L
M
O
O
00
N
O
a0
CO
N
N_
7
c°
00
V
LC) Ln
N N
O
O
O
W
O
CO
{
O
7
O
N
'
O
�
co
V
(�O
O
a0
N
O
M
O
Ln
N
O
O
N
O
N
n
Q0
N
N
V
L()
00
CO
N
0)
N
co
Ln
N
CO
M
N
111O
N
Particle
Size
(mm)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)

PEBBLE COUNT DATA SHEET: REACH -WIDE COUNT
PARTICLE CLASS WEIGHT (g) Reach Summary
MATERIAL
AKER PROJECT NO. 120857
SITE OR PROJECT:
UT To Town Creek - Asbullt
REACH/LOCATION:
Reach 3 (5 Riffles & 5 Pools)
DATE COLLECTED:
5/10/2016
FIELD COLLECTION BY:
KS & DH
DATA ENTRY BY:
KS
PARTICLE CLASS WEIGHT (g) Reach Summary
MATERIAL
PARTICLE
SIZE (mm)
Riffle
Pool
Total
Class %
% Cum
74.07
Silt/Clay
<.063
D100 =
14
14
14%
14%
34%
Very Fine
.063-.125
4%
1
1
1 %
15%
52%
Fine
125-25 .25
8%
68%
10%
78%
15%
FAMedium
6%
.25-.50
4%
90%
6%
96%
15%
100%
Coarse
.50 - 1.0
1
1
1 %
16%
100%
Very Coarse
1.0 - 2.0
100%
100%1
100%
16%
OQ
Very Fine
2.0-2.8
1
1
1 %
17%
�j
Very Fine
2.8-4.0
17%
Fine
4.0-5.6
1
2
3
3%
20%
R
Fine
5.6-8.0
1
3
4
4%
24%
V
Medium
8.0-11.0
3
4
7
7%
31%
O
E
Medium
11.0 - 16.0
7
4
11
11%
42%
V
L O
Coarse
16.0-22.6
5
4
9
9%
51%
Coarse
22.6-32
6
5
11
11%
62%
OO�nC1C9
Very Coarse
32-45
8
1
9
9%
71%
Very Coarse
45-64
7
3
10
10%
81%
O I
Small
64-90
5
2
7
7%
88%
Small
90- 128
4
3
7
7%
95%
OO
Large
128-180
3
2
5
5%
100%
Large 180-256
100%
Small
256-362
100%
Small 362-512
100%
Medium
512-1024
100%
Large -Very Large 1024-2048
100%
BEDROCK
Bedrock
> 2048
100%
I Total I 50 I 50 I 100 I 100% I 100% I
Largest particles: 180.00 150.00 mm
(riffle) (pool)
Cummulative
Channel materials
D16 =
2.00
D35 =
12.61
D50 =
21.75
D84 =
74.07
D95 =
128.00
D100 =
128-180
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
Riffle Summary
Class % %Cum
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
2% 2%
2% 4%
6% 10%
14% 24%
10% 34%
12% 46%
16% 62%
14% 76%
10% 86%
8% 94%
6% 100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100% 100%
Riffle
Channel materials
D16 = 12.92
D35 = 23.26
D50 = 34.85
D84 = 84.07
D95 = 135.48
D100 = 128-180
Pool Summary
Class %
%Cum
28% 1
28%
2%
30%
D84 =
30%
D95 =
30%
2%
32%
32%
2%
34%
34%
4%
38%
6%
44%
8%
52%
8%
60%
8%
68%
10%
78%
2%
80%
6%
86%
4%
90%
6%
96%
4%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%1
100%
Pool
Channel materials
D16 =
#N/A
D35 =
4.35
D50 =
10.16
D84 =
56.91
D95 =
120.70
D100 =
128-180

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
L
_
a_ 50%
30%
20%
10%
0%
UT to Town Creek - Asbuilt
Sediment Distribution - Active Bed Pebble Count
Reachwide - Reach 3 (5 Riffles & 5 Pools)
Class Percent
f Riffle Data
f Pool Data
❑ 4 4
co L O O O W O CO O O O CO N U-) V O 00 O CO N N <t 00 00
o N N L N N V M N O N C? O O N O N M O O O
N i i i N N
V u7 O O O N O co O N L (.O O O O (O N ' N
N N N N V lf'7 W O O N O N M N N
O 7 � O
Particle Size (mm)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)

PEBBLE COUNT DATA SHEET: REACH -WIDE COUNT
PARTICLE CLASS WEIGHT (g) Reach Summary
MATERIAL
AKER PROJECT NO. 120857
SITE OR PROJECT:
LIT To Town Creek - Ashuilt
REACH/LOCATION:
Reach 6 (6 Riffles & 4 POOIS)
DATE COLLECTED:
5/11/2016
FIELD COLLECTION BY:
KS & DH
DATA ENTRY BY:
KS
PARTICLE CLASS WEIGHT (g) Reach Summary
MATERIAL
PARTICLE
SIZE (mm)
Riffle
Pool
Total
Class %
% Cum
0%
Silt / Clay 1
1.063
180.00
7
7
7%
7%
0%
Very Fine
063-125 .125
2%
2%
7%
8%
7%
12%
inee
.125-.25
12%
28%
22%
50%
7%
nAA
Medium
.25-.50
10%
90%
2%
92%
7%
95%
Coarse
.50 - 1.0
98%
98%
7%
98%
Very Coarse
1.0-2.0
2%
100%
100%
100%
7%
O
Very Fine
2.0-2.8
7%
Very Fine
2.8-4.0
2
7%
Fine
4.0-5.6
1
1
1%
8%
G
R
Fine
5.6 - 8.0
4
1
5
5%
13%
V
Medium
8.0-11.0
2
2
4
4%
17%
E
t
Medium
11.0 - 16.0
3
1
4
4%
21%
L
O
Coarse
16.0 - 22.6
7
7
14
14%
36%
Coarse
22.6-32
13
7
20
20%
56%
�O Oc1C��
Very Coarse
32-45
8
3
11
11%
67%
Very Coarse
45-64
10
2
12
12%
80%
O
Small
64-90
6
4
10
10%
90%
Small
90-128
1
2
3
3%
93%
4-0
Large
128-180
2
1
3
3%
96%
OLarge
180-256
2
2
2%
98%
Small
256-362
98%
Small
362-512
98%
77t
Medium
512-1024
98%
Large -Very Large
1024-2048
98%
BEDROCK
Bedrock
> 2048
1
1
2
2% 1
100%
I Total I 60 I 40 I 98 I 100% I 100%
Largest particles: 210.00 165.00 mm Cummulative
(riffle) (pool) Channel materials
D16 = 8.66
D35 = 21.51
D50 = 28.33
D84 = 73.35
D95 = 160.66
D100 = > 2048
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
Riffle Summary
Class %
% Cum
15.22
0%
25.15
0%
32.00
0%
73.35
0%
180.00
0%
> 2048
0%
0%
5%
0%
2%
2%
7%
8%
3%
12%
5%
17%
12%
28%
22%
50%
13%
63%
17%
80%
10%
90%
2%
92%
3%
95%
3%
98%
98%
98%
98%
98%
2%
100%
100%
100%
Riffle
Channel materials
D16 =
15.22
D35 =
25.15
D50 =
32.00
D84 =
73.35
D95 =
180.00
D100=
> 2048
Pool Summary
Class %
% Cum
18%
18%
D35 =
18%
D50 =
18%
D84 =
18%
D95 =
18%
D100 =
18%
18%
5%
23%
23%
3%
25%
5%
30%
3%
33%
18%
50%
18%
68%
8%
75%
5%
80%
10%
90%
5%
95%
3%
98%
98%
98%
98%
98%
98%
3%
100%
100%
100%
Pool
Channel materials
D16 =
<0.063
D35 =
16.81
D50 =
22.60
D84 =
73.35
D95 =
128.00
D100 =
> 2048

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
L
i
LL
t 50%
C
d
v
L
(- 40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
UT to Town Creek - Asbuilt
Sediment Distribution - Active Bed Pebble Count
Reachwide - Reach 6 (6 Riffles & 4 Pools)
Class Percent
—m Riffle Data
—� Pool Data
f
Cumulative
Data
4
M
11
Ln
N
11
Ln
N
,
Ln
:
O
1111
O
O
N
j --
00
O
(O
lie
O
O
O
(O
N
Cl)
LO
V
CO
V
a7
O
N
N
O
O
(0
N
N
oO
CO
O
N
N4
Ln
W
r
(6
N
N
i
N
M
Lj)
O
O
O
V
LOLf)
N
N
Ln
O
O
O
aD
O
O
'
O
T
O
'
O
O
M
O
O
co
O
O
N
�
'
N
'
N
A
O
N
N
7
Ln
00
O
NO
�
00
Ln
N
(0
co
N
V
N
Ln
O
Particle
Size
(mm)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)

APPENDIX C
Vegetation Summar
Tables 7 — 9
CVS Output Tables

Table 7. Vegetation Plot Attribute Data
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: DMS Project ID No. 94648
Plot ID
Community Type*
Planting Zone ID
Reach ID
CVS Level
VP1
Piedmont Alluvial Forest
Upland
Reach 1
I / H
VP2
Piedmont Alluvial Forest
Riparian
Reach 1
1/11
VP3
Piedmont Alluvial Forest
Upland
Reach 1
I / H
VP4
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Wetland
Reach 1
I / H
VP5
Piedmont Alluvial Forest
Upland
Reach 1
1/111
VP6
Bottomland Hardwood Forest /
Piedmont Alluvial Forest
Wetland / Riparian
Reach 2
I / H
VP7
Piedmont Alluvial Forest
Riparian
Reach 2
I / H
VP8
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Wetland
Reach 2
I / H
VP9
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Wetland
Reach 2
1/11
VP10
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Wetland
Reach 2
I / H
VP11
Piedmont Alluvial Forest
Upland / Riparian
Reach 2
I / lI
VP12
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Wetland
Reach 3
I / II
VP13
Piedmont Alluvial Forest
Riparian
Reach 3
I / II
VP14
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Wetland
Reach 3
1/11
VP15
Piedmont Alluvial Forest
Riparian
Reach 6
I / II
VP16
Piedmont Alluvial Forest
Upland
Reach 6
1/111
VP17
Piedmont Alluvial Forest
Upland / Riparian
Reach 6
I / H
VP18
Piedmont Alluvial Forest
Upland
Reach 4
1/11
VP19
Piedmont Alluvial Forest
Upland
Reach 5
I / lI
VP20
Piedmont Alluvial Forest
Upland
Reach 7
I / H
* Community Types are based on (NCWAM, A.1) and (Schafale, 2012).
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)

Table 8. Vegetation Species Planted Across the Restoration Site
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: DMS Project ID No. 94648
Botanical Name
Common Name I % Planted by Species
Total Number of Stems
Riparian Buffer Plantings - Overstory
Betula nigra
river birch
5%
788
Carpinus caroliniana
ironwood
4%
600
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
7%
1111
Liriodendron tulipfera
tulip poplar
9%
1452
Nyssa sylvatica
black gum
5%
700
Platanus occidentalis
sycamore
7%
1158
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
4%
600
Quercus alcata
Southern red oak
6%
860
Quercus alba
white oak
5%
800
Quercus phellos
willow oak
7%
1170
Quercus lyrata
overcup oak
4%
600
Riparian Buffer Plantings - Understory
Callicarpa americana
beautyberry
2%
250
Celphalanthus occidentalis
buttonbush
4%
600
Asimina triloba
paw paw
5%
812
Cercis canadensis
redbud
6%
900
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
7%
1058
Cornus florida
1 flowering dogwood
5%
800
Diospyros virginiana
persimmon
4%
630
Sambucus nigra
lelderberry
4%
600
Riparian Live Stake Plantings
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
35%
NA
Salix nigra
black willow
10%
NA
Salix sericea
silky willow
35%
NA
Sambucus nigra
elderberry
20%
NA
Constructed Wetland Zone Plantings
Juncus effusus
soft rush
30%
-
Carex lurida
Lurid Sedge
25%
-
Scirpus cyperinus
wool grass
20%
-
Acorus calamus
sweetflag
15%
-
Lobelia cardinalis
cardinal flower
5%
-
Hibiscus moscheutos
I swam hibiscus
5%
-
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)

Table 9. Planted and Total Stem Counts (Species by Plot with Annual Means)
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: DMS Project ID No. 95026
Tree Species Common Name
Type Plot 1
PnoL P -all
T
PnoL
Plot 2
P -all
T
PnoL
Plot 3
P -all
T
PnoL
Current Data (AB 2016)
Plot 4 Plot 5
P -all T PnoL P -all
T
PnoL
Plot 6
P -all
T
PnoL
Plot 7
P -all
T
PnoL
Plot 8
P -all
T
Asimina triloba paw paw
Tree 0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Betula nigra river birch
Tree 1 1
1
0
0
0
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
Callicar a americana American beautyberry
Shrub 0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
3
3
4
4
4
0
0
0
Carpinus caroliniana ironwood
Tree 1 1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ce halanthus occidentalis common buttonbush
Shrub 0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Cercis canadensis redbud
Tree 1 1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
5
5
1
1
1
0
0
0
Cornus amomum silky dogwood
Shrub 0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
5
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
5
5
0
0
0
Cornus florida flowering dogwood
Tree 0 0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
3
3
1
1
1
Diospyros vir iniana common persimmon
Tree 0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
3
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash
Tree 0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Lirodendron tuli i era tulip poplar
Tree 0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Nyssa sylvatica black gum
Tree 0 0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Platanus occidentalis sycamore
Tree 2 2
2
2
2
2
4
4
4
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
0
0
0
13
13
13
uercus s. Oak
Tree 0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Quercus alba white oak
Tree 4 4
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
4
4
0
0
0
Quercus falcata southern red oak
Tree 1 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Quercuslyrata overcup, oak
Tree 1 1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
2
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
Quercus michuaxii swarnp chestnut oak
Tree 6 6
6
4
4
4
2
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
3
3
Quercus phellos willow oak
Tree 0 0
0
5
5
5
5
5
5
0
0
0
5
5
5
3
3
3
0
0
0
2
2
2
Sambucus nigra elderberry
Shrub 0 0
0
2
2
2
0
0
0
4
4
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
Unknown Unknown
Unknown 0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
Stems Per Plot 17 17
Plot area (ares) 1
Plot area (acres) 0.025
Species Countl 8 1 8
Stems Per Acrel 688 1 688
17
1 8 1
1 688 1
18
8
728
18
1
0.025
1 8
1 728
18
1 8
1 728
17
6
688
17
1
0.025
1 6
1 688
17
1 6
1 688
18
7
728
18
1
0.025
1 7
1 728
18
1 7
1 728
17
6
688
17
1
0.025
1 6
1 688
17
1 6
1 688
20
6
809
20
1
0.025
1 6
1 809
20
1 6 1
1 809 1
17
5
688
17
1
0.025
1 5
1 688
17
1 5 1
1 688 1
21
6
850
1 21
1
0.025
1 6
1 850
21
1 6
1 850
Notes: CVS Level 1 Survey performed.
PnoL = Planted No Live Stakes
P -all= Planted Including Live Stakes
Total = Total number of Plants
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)

Table 9 Cont. Planted and Total Stem Counts (Species by Plot with Annual Means)
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: DMS Project ID No. 95026
Tree Species Common Name
Type Plot 9
PnoL P -all
T
PnoL
Plot 10
P -all
T
PnoL
Plot 11
P -all
T
PnoL
Current Data (AB 2016)
Plot 12 Plot 13
P -all T PnoL P -all
T
PnoL
Plot 14
P -all
T
PnoL
Plot 15
P -all
T
PnoL
Plot 16
P -all
T
Asimina triloba paw paw
Tree 0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
4
4
0
0
0
Betula nigra river birch
Tree 0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
3
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
2
Callicar a americana American beautyberry
Shrub 0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Carpinus caroliniana ironwood
Tree 3 3
3
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ce halanthus occidentalis common buttonbush
Shrub 0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
Cercis canadensis redbud
Tree 0 0
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
0
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
4
4
0
0
0
Cornus amomum silky dogwood
Shrub 2 2
2
2
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
3
3
3
4
4
4
6
6
6
Cornus florida flowering dogwood
Tree 6 6
6
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
Diospyros vir iniana common persimmon
Tree 0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
2
Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash
Tree 1 1
1
8
8
8
5
5
5
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
0
0
Lirodendron tuli i era tulip poplar
Tree 0 0
0
0
0
0
2
2
2
4
4
4
0
0
0
2
2
2
0
0
0
1
1
1
Nyssa sylvatica black gum
Tree 0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
6
6
Platanus occidentalis sycamore
Tree 0 0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
uercus s. Oak
Tree 0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Quercus alba white oak
Tree 0 0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Quercus falcata southern red oak
Tree 0 0
0
0
0
0
2
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
Quercus lyrata overcup oak
Tree 0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
5
5
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
Quercus michuaxii swamp chestnut oak
Tree 4 4
4
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
3
3
3
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus phellos willow oak
Tree 0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
Sambucus nigra elderberry
Shrub 0 0
0
3
3
3
0
0
0
4
4
4
2
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
2
Unknown Unknown
Unknown 0 0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
2
2
2
0
0
0
2
2
2
1
1
1
0
0
0
Stems Per Plot 16 16
Plot area (ares) 1
Plot area (acres) 0.025
Species Count 5 5
Stems Per Acre 647 647
16
5
647
19
8
769
19
1
0.025
8
769
19
8
769
19
9
769
19
1
0.025
9
769
19
9
769
20
9
809
20
1
0.025
9
809
20
9
809
16
7
647
16
1
0.025
7
647
16
7
647
17
8
688
17
1
0.025
8
688
17
8
688
19
8
769
19
1
0.025
8
769
19
8
769
24
10
971
24
1
0.025
10
971
24
10
971
Notes: CVS Level 1 Survey performed.
PnoL = Planted No Live Stakes
P -all= Planted Including Live Stakes
Total = Total number of Plants
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)

Table 9 Cont. Planted and Total Stem Counts (Species by Plot with Annual Means)
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: DMS Project ID No. 95026
Tree Species
Common Name
Type
PnoL
Plot 17
P -all
T
PnoL
Current Data (AB 2016)
Plot 18 Plot 19
P -all T PnoL P -all
T
PnoL
Plot 20
P -all
T
Annual Means
Current Mean AB (2016)
P T P T
Asimina triloba
paw paw
Tree 1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
5
5
5
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
21
21
21
21
Callicar a americana
American beautyberry
Shrub 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
7
7
7
Carpinus caroliniana
ironwood
Tree 2
2
2
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
16
16
16
16
Ce halanthus occidentalis
common buttonbush
Shrub 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
Cercis canadensis
redbud
Tree 1
1
1
8
8
8
1
1
1
0
0
0
29
29
29
29
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
31
31
31
31
Cornus florida
flowering dogwood
Tree 0
0
0
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
21
21
21
21
Diospyros vir iniana
common persimmon
Tree 0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
2
0
0
0
7
7
7
7
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree 7
7
7
8
8
8
6
6
6
0
0
0
43
43
43
43
Lirodendron tuli i era
tulip poplar
Tree 0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
12
12
12
12
Nyssa sylvatica
black gum
Tree 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
9
9
9
Platanus occidentalis
sycamore
Tree 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
31
31
31
31
uercus s.
Oak
Tree 1
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
3
3
3
3
Quercus alba
white oak
Tree 0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
12
12
12
12
Quercus falcata
southern red oak
Tree 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
5
5
15
15
15
15
Quercus lyrata
overcup oak
Tree 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
16
16
16
16
Quercus michuaxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
29
29
29
29
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree 2
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
3
3
27
27
27
27
Sambucus nigra
elderberry
Shrub 1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
19
19
19
19
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
7
7
7
Stems Per Plot 17
Plot area (ares)
Plot area (acres)
Species Count 9
Stems Per Acrel 688
17
1
0.025
9
688
17
9
688
20
5
809
20
1
0.025
5
809
20
5
809
16
10
647
16
1
0.025
10
647
16
10
647
17
8
688
17
1
0.025
8
688
17
8
688
365
21
730
365
20
0.50
21
730
365
20
0.50
21
730
365
21
730
Notes: CVS Level 1 Survey performed.
PnoL = Planted No Live Stakes
P -all= Planted Including Live Stakes
Total = Total number of Plants
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)

APPENDIX E
Photo Log

L
UT to Town Creek — Reach I
PID 1: Station 10+50 — Upstream (5/11/16)
PID 3: Station 10+80 — Left Floodplain
(3/11/16)
PID 5: Station 12+85 — Upstream (3/11/16)
PID 2: Station 10+50 — Downstream (2/4/16)
PID 4: Station 11+90 — Downstream (11/5/15)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE E-2 11/10/2016
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
LIT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)

UT to Town Creek — Reach I
PID 6: Station 13+05 — Left Floodplain (2/4/16)
Snapping Turtle (11/5/15)
PID 7: Station 15+30 — Upstream (5/11/16)
PID 8: Station 16+25 — Downstream (11/5/15)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE E-3 11/10/2016
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)

UT to Town Creek — Reach I
PID 9: Station 17+75 — Left Floodplain
(5/11/16)
PID 10: Station 18+10 — Downstream (5/11/16)
PID 12: Station 20+90 — Downstream (5/11/16)
Caddisfly Casings (3/11/16)
PID 11: Station 18+10 — Upstream (5/11/16)
PID 13: Station 21+00 — Upstream (5/11/16)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE E-4 11/10/2016
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
LIT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)

UT to Town Creek — Reach 2
PID 14: Station 22+75 — Upstream (2/4/16)
PID 16: Station 23+50 — Downstream (11/5/16)
PID 15: Station 23+25 — Upstream (2/4/16)
s {tr 22
a v�
PID 17: Station 24+60 — Upstream (11/5/15)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE E-5 11/10/2016
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
LIT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)

UT to Town Creek — Reach 2
PID 18: Station 25+30 - Left Floodplain
(5/11/16)
PID 20: Station 26+40 - Downstream (3/11/16)
btt`y� j i)k I�
PID 19: Station 25+90 — Downstream (11/5/15)
..... ..... all'',
Em
PID 21: Station 28+75 - Downstream (11/5/15)
PID 22: Station 29+35 - Upstream (3/11/16)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE E-6
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
11/10/2016

UT to Town Creek — Reach 2
PID 23: Station 29+50 — Downstream Project
View from Floodplain Knoll (5/11/16)
PID 25: Station 33+10 — Upstream (5/11/16)
(
y
PID 24: Station 30+60 — Upstream (3/11/16)
PID 26: Station 33+10 — Downstream (5/11/16)
PID 27: Station 35+50 — Upstream (3/1/16) PID 28: Station 38+30 — Upstream (11/5/15)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE E-7 11/10/2016
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
LIT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)

UT to Town Creek — Reach 2
PID 29: Station 38+40 — Downstream (11/5/15)
PID 30: Station 39+10 — Downstream (3/11/16)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE E-8 11/10/2016
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)

UT to Town Creek — Reach 3
PID 31: Station 40+25 — Downstream (2/18/16)
PID 33: Station 41+80 — Upstream (11/5/15)
PID 35: Station 44+00 — Downstream (3/11/16)
PID 32: Station 40+80 — Upstream (11/5/15)
PID 34: Station 43+00 — Downstream (5/11/16)
PID 36: Station 44+25 — Upstream (11/5/15)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE E-9 11/10/2016
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)

UT to Town Creek — Reach 3
PID 37: Station 45+50 — Downstream (2/18/16)
PID 39: Station 46+80 — Upstream (11/5/15)
PID 38: Station 45+95 — Upstream (11/5/15)
PID 40: Station 47+75 — Upstream (11/5/15)
PID 41: Station 48+60 — Downstream (5/10/16)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE E-10
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
LIT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
11/10/2016

UT to Town Creek —Reach 4
PID 1: Station 09+80 — Upstream (12/11/15)
PID 2: Station 10+60 — Upstream (11/5/15)
PID 3: Station 11+20 — Upstream (11/5/15)
PID 4: Station 11+75 — Upstream (11/5/15)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE E-11 11/10/2016
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
LIT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)

UT to Town Creek — Reach 4
PID 5: Station 12+95 — Upstream (11/5/15)
PID 7: Station 13+80 — Upstream (11/5/15)
PID 6: Station 13+45 — Downstream (11/5/15)
PID 8: Station 14+ 20 — Upstream (11/5/15)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE E-12 11/10/2016
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)

UT to Town Greek — Reach 4
Cows Fenced out of Easement along Reach 4
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE E-13 11/10/2016
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)

UT to Town Creek — Reach 5
PID 1: Station 10+70 — Upstream (11/5/15)
..,. a,.29
.aF
ti g
r
� "
tw' Y
r�
PID 3: Station 11+75 — Upstream (11/5/15)
PID 2: Station 10+75 — Downstream (11-5-15)
PID 4: Station 12+20 — Upstream (11/5/15)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE E-14 11/10/2016
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
LIT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)

UT to Town Creek — Reach S
PID 5: Station 12+65 — Upstream (11/5/15)
PID 7: Station 13+43 — Upstream (2/18/16)
PID 6: Station 13+30 — Upstream (11/5/15)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE E-15 11/10/2016
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)

UT to Town Creek —Reach 6
p ; A, �
-
P-
r
4.
PID 1: Station14+55 — Upstream (11/5/15)
PID 3: Station 16+00 — Upstream (11/5/15)
PID 2: Station 15+30 — Upstream (11/5/15)
PID 4: Station 16+50 — Upstream (11/5/15)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE E-16 11/10/2016
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)

UT to Town Creek —Reach 6
PID 5: Station 17+25 — Upstream (11/5/15)
PID 8: Station 18+90 — Downstream (11/5/15)
PID 6: Station 18+00 — Upstream (11/5/15)
PID 7: Station 18+50 — Upstream (11/5/15)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE E-17 11/10/2016
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
LIT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)

UT to Town Creek —Reach 6
PID 9: Station 19+05 — Upstream (11/5/15)
PID 12: Station 19+85 — Upstream (11/5/15)
PID 10: Station 19+50 — Left Floodplain
(11/5/15)
PID 11: Station 19+75 — Upstream (11/5/15)
PID 13: Station 20+50 - Upstream (12/11/15)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE E-18 11/10/2016
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
LIT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)

UT to Town Creek —Reach 6
PID 14: Station 20+50 - Downstream (12/11/15)
PID 17: Station 23+40 — Upstream (11/5/15)
PID 15: Station 21+00 — Upstream (11/5/15)
PID 16: Station 22+75 — Upstream (11/5/15)
PID 18: Station 24+00 — Upstream (3/11/2016)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE E-19 11/10/2016
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
LIT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)

UT to Town Creek —Reach 6
PID 19: Station 24+50 — Upstream (11/5/15)
PID 21: Station 25+80 - Downstream (2/4/16)
PID 23: Station 26+50 — Upstream (3/11/16)
A
PID 20: Station 25+25 — Upstream (2/4/2016)
PID 22: Station 25+85 — Upstream (11/5/15)
PID 24: Station 26+75 — Upstream (3/11/16)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE E-20 11/10/2016
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
LIT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)

UT to Town Creek — Reach 6
PID 25: Station 28+00 — Upstream (3/11/26)
PID 26: Station 28+14 — Upstream (11/5/16)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE E-21 11/10/2016
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)

UT to Town Creek — Reach 7
PID 1: Station 09+40: Upstream (11/5/15)
PID 3: Station 10+70 — Upstream (11/5/15)
PID 2: Station 09+90 — Upstream (3/11/16)
PID 4: Station 10+80 — Downstream (11/5/15)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE E-22 11/10/2016
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
LIT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)

UT to Town Creek — Reach 7
PID 5: Station 11+75 — Upstream (11/5/15)
PID 7: Station 12+90 — Upstream (2/2/16)
PID 6: Station 12+10 — Upstream (11/5/15)
PID 8: Station 13+40 — Upstream (11/5/15)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE E-23 11/10/2016
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
LIT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)

UT to Town Creek — Reach 7
PID 9: Station 13+99 — Upstream (11/5/15)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE E-24 11/10/2016
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
LIT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)