20120916 Ver 1_Year 3 Monitoring Report_2016_20170206

UT to Mill Swamp - Monitoring Report
Fourth Monitoring Measurement
Third Year of Credit Release
Onslow County, North Carolina
NCDMS Project ID Number - 95019
Project Info: Credit Release Year: 3 of 7 (Fourth site measurement since construction)
Year of Data Collection: 2016
Year of Completed Construction: 2013
Submission Date: January 2017
Submitted To: NCDEQ — Division of Mitigation Services 1625 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
NCDEQ Contract ID No. 003992

UT to Mill Swamp - Monitoring
Report
Third Monitoring Measurement
Second Year of Credit Release
Onslow Couny, North Carolina
NCDMS Project ID Number - 95019
Report Prepared and Submitted by Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
NC Professional Engineering License # F-1084
INTERNATIONAL
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 95019

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

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

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Michael Baker Engineering (Baker) restored 3,606 linear feet (LF) of perennial stream, 6.62 acres (AC) of
riparian wetlands, and enhanced 600 LF of stream along an unnamed tributary (UT) to Mill Swamp in Onslow
County, North Carolina (NC), (Appendix A). The UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project (Site) is located in
Onslow County, approximately three miles northwest of the Town of Richlands. The Site is located in the NC
Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) sub -basin 03-05-02 and the NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services
((DMS) formerly Ecosystem Enhancement Program) Targeted Local Watershed (TLW) 03030001-010020 of
the White Oak River Basin. The project involved the restoration and enhancement of a Coastal Plain Headwater
Small Stream Swamp system (NC WAM 2010, Schafale and Weakley 1990) from impairments within the
project area due to past agricultural conversion, cattle grazing, and draining of floodplain wetlands by ditching
activities.
The project goals directly addressed stressors identified in the White Oak River Basin Restoration Priority Plan
(RBRP) such as degraded riparian conditions, channel modification, and excess sediment and nutrient inputs.
The primary restoration goals, as outlined in the approved mitigation plan, are described below:
• Create geomorphically stable conditions along the unnamed tributaries across the Site,
• Implement agricultural Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce nonpoint source inputs to
receiving waters,
• Protect and improve water quality by reducing bank erosion, nutrient and sediment inputs,
• Restore stream and wetland hydrology by connecting historic flow paths and promoting natural flood
processes, and
• Restore and protect riparian buffer functions and corridor habitat in perpetuity by establishing a
permanent conservation easement.
To accomplish these goals, the following objectives were identified:
• Restore existing incised, eroding, and channelized streams by providing access to their historic
floodplain,
• Prevent cattle from accessing the riparian buffer, reducing excessive bank erosion,
• Increase aquatic habitat value by providing more bedform diversity, creating natural scour pools and
reducing sediment from accelerated bank erosion,
• Plant native species riparian buffer vegetation along stream bank and floodplain areas, protected by a
permanent conservation easement, to increase stormwater runoff filtering capacity, improve bank
stability, and shade the stream to decrease water temperature,
• Improve aquatic and terrestrial habitat through improved substrate and in -stream cover, addition of
woody debris, and reduction of water temperature, and
• Control invasive species vegetation within the project area and if necessary, continue treatments during
the monitoring period.
The project as -built condition closely mimics that proposed by the design. Differences are outlined below:
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 95019

• The Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan (Mitigation Plan) specified the planting of riparian live stakes
during construction; however, due to construction being completed during the growing season in May
2013 no live stakes were installed. During construction, it was determined that live stakes would be
installed during the dormant season. It is noted that as of March 27, 2014, approximately 300 live
stakes were installed along the stream banks in the restored single thread channel of the UTIc area.
• Permanent fencing along Reach UT3 was originally proposed 50 feet from both of the streambanks
outside of the conservation easement; however, the landowner decided to use the northern pasture for
hay production only, so fencing was installed only on the southern side of the reach to exclude cattle.
Special Notes:
In consideration of this report, the following timeline should be noted:
Completion of construction — 5/31/13
Completion of installation of tree and shrub bare roots — 6/13/13
Year 1 (2013) vegetation monitoring — 10/16/13
Live stake installation - 3/27/14
Year 1 (2013) supplemental vegetation monitoring — 5/18/14
Year 2* (2014) vegetation monitoring — 12/19/14
Year 2 (2015) vegetation monitoring — 11/13/15
Year 3 (2016) vegetation monitoring — November, 2016
Supplemental Year 1 (5/18/14) vegetation monitoring was conducted in order to provide additional
mortality data. This additional monitoring effort was done since the time that had elapsed between the
installation of the tree and shrub bare roots (6/13/13) and Year 1 vegetation monitoring (10/16/13) was
only 125 days of the growing season (March 18' through November 16th). Trees and shrubs grew for
an additional 61 days of growing season from 3/18/14 through 5/18/14 in early 2014 and were
supplementally monitored. A total of 186 days of growing season had elapsed since the trees were
planted and the supplemental Year 1 vegetation monitoring was conducted. An additional 181 days
within the growing season (5/19/14 through 11/16/14) had elapsed prior to Year 2 (2014) vegetation
monitoring, providing the required minimum of 180 days of growing season growth as stated in the
approved Mitigation Plan. As such, Baker considered the data collected on 12/19/14 to be Year 2 data
and the data collected on 11/13/15 to be Year 3 data. However, the US Army Corps of Engineers has
declined to release the credits generated from Year 2 (2014) citing too short of a period between plant
installation and monitoring. As such, the 2015 monitoring report was considered Year 2. All references
to Year 2 henceforth will indicate monitoring activities conducted during 2015. Data collected during
2014 that was previously considered monitoring Year 2 will be labeled as Year 2*.
During Year 3 monitoring, the planted acreage performance categories were functioning at 99 percent with no
bare areas and only one low stem density area to report. The average density of total planted stems, based on
data collected from the six monitoring plots following Year 3 monitoring, is 472 stems per acre. It was observed
during Year 3 vegetation monitoring that only plot 3 has not met the minimum interim success criteria of 320
trees per acre by the end of Year 3. However, all plots currently exceed the required seven-year stem density
of 210 stems per acre.
Invasive species areas of concern were observed, documented and treated accordingly during Year 3. Following
Year 3 monitoring, four areas (Areas 1, 2, 3, 4) of Chinese privet, totaling approximately 1.48 acres or 9.7
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. 2
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 95019

percent of the total planted area within UT 1 c (15.2 acres) were found to contain the invasive species. To control
areas of invasive species, these areas were treated in October and November 2016 by mechanical removal and
the use of the herbicide Glyphosate.
During Year 3 monitoring, groundwater monitoring demonstrated that five of the sixteen groundwater
monitoring wells located along Reach UT 1 c met the wetland success criteria as stated in the Site Mitigation
Plan. The gauges that met success criteria (MSAWI, MSAW4, MSAW5, MSAW8 and MSAW24)
demonstrated consecutive hydroperiods of 12 percent or greater, which ranged from 24.6 to 31.2 percent of the
growing season. The gauges that did not meet success criteria (See Table 12) demonstrated consecutive
hydroperiods of 12 percent or less which ranged from 0.6 percent to 8.7 percent of the growing season. It is
noted that MSAW7 and MSAW3 are not meeting success but are outside of the wetland restoration and hydric
soils boundary. Baker will continue to monitor the hydrology into Year 4. It should also be noted that the wells
meeting success criteria are located in the restored wetland area south of UT 1 c. The total restored wetland area
south of UT 1 c equals 3.26 acres. The wetland area north of UT 1 c is 3.36 acres. The total wetland restoration
acreage equals 6.62 acres. The total wetland acreage has been incorrectly reported in past monitoring reports
as 4.0 acres of wetland restoration. Baker and DMS are contracted at 4.0 WMUs but the project wetland acreage
is in excess of the contracted amount.
For the first three years of the project, it was observed that groundwater levels on the northern portion of UTIc
were not performing as designed for many of the wetland monitoring wells. Therefore, it was determined that
an additional six monitoring wells be installed in spring of 2016. Five wetland wells were installed in February
2016 (MSAW 19, MSAW20, MSAW21, MSAW22, MSAW23) and one in March 2016 (MSAW24). Data from
the additional five monitoring wells is located Appendix E.
During Year 2 monitoring, it was determined that monitoring wells (MSAW2, MSAW3, MSAW6, MSAW7,
MSAW9 and MSAW 10) were potentially providing erroneous data. The cause of the data errors was estimated
to be two -fold. The first cause was estimated to be a hardware issue. During field investigations, it was
determined that the water pressure sensor of some the pressure transducers had become clogged with bentonite.
The transducers have since been unclogged and elevated within the well casing to reduce the likelihood of
clogging, and the holes pumped out to remove remaining bentonite particles existing within the well casing. In
addition, all pressure transducers are cleaned during each logger download. The second cause is estimated to
be due to the installation of the wells during less than ideal conditions. Auguring well holes during in the wet
conditions of the site potentially smeared the soil of the well hole wall which could decrease soil permeability.
Due to the aforementioned issues, six additional wells were installed in February 2016 along the left floodplain
of UTlc. During subsequent well data collection, the automatic wells will be calibrated by measuring the
ground water level before the data logger is removed from the well casing. This manual measurement will
ensure accurate and real-time data provided by the well data logger.
Year 3 flow monitoring demonstrated that both flow gauges (MSFL1 and MSFL2) met the stated success
criteria of 30 days or more of consecutive flow through reaches UTla and UTlb. Both gauges demonstrated
consecutive days of flow that ranged from 59.0 days (MSFL1, UTla) to 105.0 days (MSFL2, UTlb). These
gauges demonstrated similar patterns relative to rainfall events observed in the vicinity of the Site.
The Year 3 monitoring survey data of eight (8) cross-sections indicates that the Site is geomorphically stable
and performing at 100 percent for the all parameters evaluated. The data collected are within the lateral/vertical
stability and in -stream structure performance categories.
The Site was found to have had at least two post -construction above bankfull events based on the crest gauge
readings during Year 3.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 95019

Summary information/data related to the Site and statistics related to performance of various project and
monitoring elements can be found in the tables and figures in the report Appendices. Narrative background and
supporting information formerly found in these reports can be found in the Baseline Monitoring Report and in
the Mitigation Plan available on the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS) website. All
raw data supporting the tables and figures in the appendices is available from NCDMS upon request.
2.0 METHODOLOGY
The seven-year monitoring plan for the Site includes criteria to evaluate the success of the stream, wetland and
vegetation components of the project. The methodology and report template used to evaluate these components
adheres to the NCDMS monitoring guidance document dated November 7, 2011, which will continue to serve
as the template for subsequent monitoring years. The specific locations of monitoring features: vegetation
plots, permanent cross-sections, monitoring wells, flow gauges, and the crest gauge, are shown on the CCPV
sheets found in Appendix B.
The Year 3 monitoring data were collected in October, November and December 2016. All visual site
assessment data located in Appendix B were also collected in October and November 2016.
2.1 Stream Assessment — Reach UTla & UTlb
The UTla and UTlb mitigation approach involved the restoration
functions in a multi -thread headwater stream system. Monitoring
document stability and the use of water level monitoring gauges
functions.
2.1.1 Hydrology
of historic flow patterns and flooding
efforts focus on visual observations to
to document groundwater and flooding
Two automated groundwater gauges (pressure transducers) are installed along well transects, with a
total of four well transects installed in the UT 1 a and UTlb areas. The automated loggers are
programmed to collect data at 6 -hour intervals to record groundwater levels in UTla and UTlb areas.
Groundwater data collected during Year 3 monitoring are located in Appendix E.
Additionally, two flow gauges (pressure transducers) were installed to document the occurrence of
extended periods of shallow surface ponding, indicative of flow. The gauges attempt to document
flooding connectivity between the restored UTla and UTlb reaches for at least 30 consecutive days
under normal climatic conditions. Flow data collected during Year 3 monitoring are located in
Appendix E.
2.1.2 Photographic Documentation
The headwater stream reaches were photographed longitudinally beginning at the downstream portion
of the Site and moving towards the upstream end of the Site. Photographs were taken looking upstream
at delineated locations throughout the restored stream valley. The photograph points were established
close enough together to provide an overall view of the reach lengths and valley crenulations. The
angle of the photo depends on what angle provides the best view and was noted and continued in future
photos. Selected UTla and UTlb site photographs are located in Appendix B.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 95019

2.2 Stream Assessment — Reach UT1c
The UT 1 c mitigation approach involved the restoration of historic flow patterns and flooding functions in a
single -thread headwater stream system. Monitoring efforts focus on visual observations, the use of groundwater
level monitoring gauges, a crest gauge to document bankfull flooding events and established stream cross-
sections to monitor channel stability.
Stream survey data was collected to a minimum of Class C Vertical and Class A Horizontal Accuracy using
Leica TS06 Total Station and was georeferenced to the NAD83 State Plane Coordinate System, FIPS3200 in
US Survey Feet, which was derived from the As -built Survey. This survey system collects point data with an
accuracy of less than one tenth of a foot.
2.2.1 Morphologic Parameters and Channel Stability
Cross-sections were classified using the Rosgen Stream Classification System, and all monitored cross-
sections fall within the quantitative parameters (i.e. BHR no more than 1.2 and ER no less than 2.2)
defined for channels of the design stream type. Morphological survey data is presented in Appendix
D.
A longitudinal profile was surveyed for the entire length of channel immediately after construction to
document as -built baseline conditions for the first year of monitoring only. The survey was tied to a
permanent benchmark and measurements included thalweg, water surface, bankfull, and top of low
bank. Each of these measurements was taken at the head of each feature (e.g., riffle, pool) and at the
maximum pool depth. Yearly longitudinal profiles will not be conducted during subsequent monitoring
years unless channel instability has been documented or remedial actions/repairs are required by the
USACE or DMS.
2.2.2 Hydrology
Following as -built conditions, ten automated groundwater -monitoring stations were installed in the
UTIc wetland restoration area and follow USACE protocols (USACE 1997). Groundwater data
collected during Year 3 monitoring are located in Appendix E.
For the first three years of the project, it was observed that groundwater levels on the northern portion
of UT 1 c were not performing as designed for many of the wetland monitoring wells. Therefore, it was
determined that an additional six monitoring wells be installed in spring of 2016. Five wetland wells
were installed in February 2016 (MSAW19, MSAW20, MSAW21, MSAW22, MSAW23) and one in
March 2016 (MSAW24). Data from the supplemental six monitoring wells is located Appendix E.
Total observed rainfall at the Albert Ellis airport (KOAJ) weather station located near Richlands, NC
for the period of January through November 2016 was 54.77 inches. The WETS table for Hoffrnan
Forest station (NC4144), Onslow County was used to calculate the 30 -year average for the same period
(January through November) and is 52.84 inches. According to the Albert Ellis gauge, total rainfall
during the Year 3 monitoring period from January through October 2016 was 1.93 inches above the
historic approximated average as compared to the Hoffinan Forest station for Onslow County.
Although, total rainfall for 2016 was recorded at 1.93 inches above normal through November, it was
a relatively dry year until two significant storm events moved across the area in the fall of 2016. The
storms occurred on September 2nd and October 8' when Hurricane Matthew moved across Onslow
County. As measured by the KOAJ rain gauge at the Albert Ellis airport, total rainfall for the September
2nd event was 6.65 inches and the Hurricane Matthew event was 6.92 inches. Combined, the two fall
storms comprised 25.7% of the rain that fell in Onslow County from January to November 2016.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 95019

One crest gauge was installed on the floodplain at the bankfull elevation along the left top of bank on
UTlc approximately at Station 45+50. The highest bankfull reading recorded in Year 3 was measured
to be 2.32 feet and was estimated to have occurred on October 8, 2016. Crest gauge readings are
presented in Appendix E.
2.2.3 Photographic Documentation
Reference photograph transects were taken at each permanent cross-section. The survey tape was
centered in the photographs of the bank. The water line was located in the lower edge of the frame,
and as much of the bank as possible is included in each photograph. Photographs were also taken of
grade control structures along the restored stream, and limited to log weirs or logjams. Selected UTlc
site photographs from Year 3 monitoring are shown in Appendix B.
2.2.4 Visual Stream Morphological Stability Assessment
The visual stream morphological stability assessment involves the qualitative evaluation of lateral and
vertical channel stability, and the integrity and overall performance of in -stream structures throughout
the Project reach as a whole. Habitat parameters, and pool depth maintenance, are also measured and
scored. During Year 3 monitoring, the entire project reach was walked, noting geomorphic conditions
of the stream bed profile (riffle/pool facets); both stream banks, and engineered in -stream structures.
Photos were taken at every stream photograph reference station as discussed in the previous section,
and in locations of potential SPAS, which were documented in the field for subsequent mapping on the
CCPV figure if applicable. A more detailed summary of the methodology and results for the visual
stream stability assessment can be found in Appendix B, which includes supporting data tables, and
SPA photos if applicable.
2.3 Vegetation Assessment
In order to determine if success criteria are achieved, vegetation -monitoring quadrants were installed and are
monitored annually across the Site in accordance with the CVS-NCEEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation,
Version 4.1 (2007). The vegetation monitoring plots are a minimum of two percent of the planted portion of
the Site, with six plots established randomly within the planted UTIa, UT lb and UTIc riparian buffer areas per
Monitoring Levels 1 and 2. No monitoring quadrants were established within the undisturbed wooded areas of
UT 1 a and UT lb. The sizes of individual quadrants are 100 square meters for woody tree species.
Additionally, the existing vegetation areas were visually monitored during the annual site visits to document
any mortalities. Following Year 3 monitoring, it is reported that one vegetation plot (Plot 3) did not meet the
Year 3 success criteria of 320 stems per acre. The monitoring data found that Plot 3 had 243 planted stems per
acre. However, volunteer monitoring in Plot 3 had found six additional natural stems within the plot boundaries,
making the actual stem density of Plot 3, 486 stems/acre. It is also noted, that the stem density of Plot 3 exceeds
the required Year 7 density of 210 stems per acre as stated in the site's mitigation plan.
Invasive species areas of concern were observed and documented accordingly during Year 3. During, Year 3
monitoring, four areas (Areas 1, 2, 3, 4) totaling approximately 1.48 acres of the planted area were found to
contain the invasive species, Chinese privet (Lugustrum sinense). The 1.48 -acre area of privet was treated in
October and November by mechanical removal and the use of the herbicide Glyphosate. These areas are
scheduled to be treated again in 2017 during the appropriate treatment window.
At this time, no other areas of concern regarding the existing vegetation was observed along UTIa, UTIb or
UT 1 c. Year 3 vegetation assessment information is provided in Appendix B and C.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 95019

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

Appendix A
Project Vicinity Map and Background Tables

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

Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95019
Mitigation Credits
Stream
Riparian Wetland
Non -riparian Wetland
Buffer
Nitrogen Nutrient Offset
Phosphorus
Nutrient
Offset
Type
R, E1
R E
Totals
4,006 SMU
6.62 WMU 0
Project Components
Project Component or Reach ID
Stationing/
Existing Footage/ Acreage
Location
Approach
Restoration/
Restoration Equivalent
Restoration Footage or Acreage
Mitigation
Ratio
Reach UT 1 a
10+00 —16+00
600 LF
Enhancement Level I
400 SMU
600 LF
1.5:1
Reach UTIb
16+00 —36+93
2,131 LF
Headwater Restoration
2,093 SMU
2,093 LF
1:1
Reach UTIc
37+24 —52+37
1,350 LF
Single thread Restoration
1,513 SMU
1,513 LF
1:1
Reach UT3
10+00 —23+69
1,060 LF
Cattle Exclusion
N/A
N/A
N/A
Wetland Area #1
See plan sheets
0.0 AC
Restoration
6.62 WMU
6.62 AC
1:1
Component Summation
Restoration Level
Stream (LF)
Riparian Wetland (AC) Non -riparian Wetland (AC)
Buffer (SF)
Upland (AC)
Riverine
Non-Riverine
Restoration
3,606 4.0
Enhancement
600
Enhancement II
Creation
Preservation
High Quality Preservation
BMP Elements
Element Location
Purpose/Function
Notes
BMP Elements: BR= Bioretention Cell; SF= Sand Filter; SW= Stormwater Wetland; WDP= Wet Detention Pond; DDP= Dry Detention
Pond; FS= Filter Strip; S= Grassed Swale; LS= Level Spreader; NI=Natural Infiltration Area
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95019)

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95019
Activity or Report
Scheduled
Completion
Data Collection
Complete
Actual Completion
or Delivery
Mitigation Plan Prepared
N/A
N/A
Aug -13
Mitigation Plan Amended
N/A
N/A
Sep -13
Mitigation Plan Approved
N/A
N/A
Nov -13
Final Design — (at least 90% complete)
N/A
N/A
Mar -13
Construction Begins
N/A
N/A
Apr -13
Temporary S&E mix applied to entire project area
N/A
N/A
N/A
Permanent seed mix applied to entire project area
N/A
N/A
Jun -13
Planting of live stakes
Fall/Winter 2013
N/A
Mar -14
Planting of bare root trees
N/A
N/A
Jun -13
End of Construction
N/A
N/A
May -13
Survey of As -built conditions (Year 0 Monitoring -baseline)
N/A
Aug -13
Aug -13
Year 1 Monitoring
Dec -13
Dec -13
Jun -14
'Year 2* Monitoring
Dec -14
Dec -14
Jan -15
Year 2 Monitoring
Nov -15
Nov -15
Dec -15
Year 3 Monitoring
Dec -16
Nov -16
Dec -16
Year 4 Monitoring
Dec -17
Nov -17
N/A
Year 5 Monitoring
Dec -18
Nov -18
N/A
Year 6 Monitoring
Dec -19
Nov -19
N/A
Year 7 Monitoring
Dec -20
Nov -20
N/A
' As stated in the Special Notes section of the Excutive Summary: the US Army Corps of Engineers declined to release the
credits generated from Year 2 (2014) citing too short of a period between plant installation and monitoring following
construction. As such, this report (2016) will be considered Year 3. All references to Year 3 included in this report will
indicate monitoring activities conducted during 2016. Data collected during 2014 that was previously considered monitoring
Year 2 is labeled as Year 2*
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95019)

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

Table 4. Project Attributes
UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95019
Project Information
Project Name
UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project
County
Onslow
Project Area (acres)
19.6
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude)
34.9377 N, -77.5897 W
Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province
Inner Coastal Plain
River Basin
White Oak
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit and 14-digit
03030001 / 03030001010020
DWQ Sub-basin
03-05-02
Project Drainage Area AC
421 (d/s main stem UTI)
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Irn ervious Area
<1%
CGIA Land Use Classification
2.01.03.99, Other Hay, Rotation, or Pasture; 413
NCEEP Land Use Classification for UT to Mill Swamp
Watershed (White Oak River Basin Restoration Priorities,
2010)
Forest (52%)
Agriculture (44%)
1 Impervious Cover (0.6%)
Stream Reach Summary Information
Parameters
Reach UT1
Reach UT3
Length of Reach (LF)
4,091
1,060
Valley Classification (Ros en)
X
X
Drainage Area AC
421
23
NCDWQ Stream Identification Score
40.5
21
NCDWQ Water Quality Classification
C; NSW
C; NSW
Morphological Description (Rosgen stream type)
(Channelized Headwater System)
Intermittent Ditch (N/A)
Evolutionary Trend
Gc->F
Intermittent Ditch (N/A)
Underlying Mapped Soils
Mk, St, Ly, FoA
Mk, St
Drainage Class
Poorly drained, somewhat poorly drained
Poorly drained, somewhat poorly drained
Soil Hydric Status
Hydric
Hydric
Average Channel Slope (ft/ft)
0.0041
0.0058
FEMA Classification
N/A
N/A
Native Vegetation Community
Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp
Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp
Percent Composition of Exotic/Invasive Vegetation
—10%
<5%
Wetland Summary Information
Parameters
Wetland 1 (Non-Jurisdictional WI)
Size of Wetland (AC)
6.62 (3.36 north ofUTIc, 3.26 south of UTI c)
Wetland Tvpe
Riparian Riverine
Mapped Soil Series
Mk (Muckalee), St (Stallings), Ly (Lynchburg)
Drainage Class
Poorly drained, somewhat poorly drained
Soil Hydric Status
Hydric
Source of Hydrology
Groundwater
Hydrologic hn airment
Partially (disconnected floodplain from ditches and channel incision)
Native Vegetation Community
Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp, Successional
Percent Composition of Exotic/Invasive Vegetation
19.7% (Before fall 2016 treatment event)
Regulatory Considerations
Regulation
Applicable Resolved
Supporting Documentation
Waters of the United States — Section 404
Yes Yes
See Mitigation Plan
Waters of the United States — Section 401
Yes Yes
See Mitigation Plan
Endangered Species Act
No N/A
See Mitigation Plan
Historic Preservation Act
No N/A
See Mitigation Plan
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)/ Coastal Area
Management Act (LAMA)
No N/A
See Mitigation Plan
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
No N/A
See Mitigation Plan
Essential Fisheries Habitat
No N/A
See Mitigation Plan
Source: White Oak River Basin Restoration Priorities, 2010(http://www.hlip://portal.ncdenr.ora/c/document
dfb17873496b& rg_oup1d=60329)
librar/get file?uuid=lcOb7e5a-9617-4a44-a5f8-
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95019)

Appendix B
Visual Assessment Data

Conservation Easement
Crest Gauge
_ ® Flow Gauges
As— Photo Points
Monitoring Well Year 3 Success
O Groundwater Wells Meeting Criteria
Fig 2A 0 Groundwater Wells NOT Meeting Criteria
O Headwater Research Wells
p, - - - - Cattle Exclusion Fencing
Cross Sections
Stream Crossings
In -Stream Structures
UT 1a
As -Built Streams by Mitigation Type (All Stable)
Enhancement I
No Mitigation Credit
Reach Break
Restoration: Multi -Thread Channel
<- Restoration: Single -Thread Channel
- Vegetation Plot Meeting Criteria
O - Vegetation Plot NOT Meeting Criteria
Treated Vegetation Problem Areas (total 1.48 ac)
UT 3 Restored Wetland Area
O.
O
_�- . Fig 2B
i
0
0 M
0 0 0
0 0 UT 1c
P,,
O 0
y x clr 1 -
`
Reach Break O � o
r O
V O
Yds • � �i � � f', f�% / �, _ F-
NC One ap, NC Center for Geographic Information and Analysis, NC 911
Board '
0 250 500 N Figure 2 Index Map
Michael BakerFeet Current Condition Plan View
Monitoring Year 3
1 N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L DMS Project # 95019 UT to Mill Swamp Site

Sta. 10+00.00
UT 1a
Conservation Easement
Crest Gauge
® Flow Gauges
A. Photo Points
Monitoring Well Year 3 Success
0 Groundwater Wells Meeting Criteria
0 Groundwater Wells NOT Meeting Criteria
0 Headwater Research Wells (non-credit areas)
Veg Plot 1: - - - - Cattle Exclusion Fencing
567/1,052 Cross Sections
Stream Crossings
In -Stream Structures
As -Built Streams by Mitigation Type (All Stable)
Enhancement I
W18 Restoration: Multi -Thread Channel (No Top of Bank)
Sta. 16+00Restoration: Single -Thread Channel
.00
No Mitigation Credit
- Vegetation Plot Meeting Criteria
- Vegetation Plot NOT Meeting Criteria
AL I
PP13
PP1
PP12
Sta. 10+00.00
I N T E R N AT 1 0 N A L
Veg Plot 2:
405/931
NC One a NC Cei
p,
0 100 200 N
Feet
DMS Project # 95019
Survey/Monitoring Date: Nov/Dec 2016
Aerial Photo Date: 2014
k.
UT 1b: Sta. 26+07.40
UT3 (end): Sta. 23+69.36
114 Veg Plot 3:
243/1,012
UT lb
Figure 2A
Current Condition Plan View
Monitoring Year 3
UT to Mill Swamp Site

F243
g Plot 3::/1,012
PP
MSAW5 Ms 2,
Wetlands South O
of Stream (3.26 ac) Y _ •
MS,
MSAW4
UT I C O y, XS -6 MSAV
Survey/Monitoring Date: Nov/Dec 2016
Aerial Photo Date: 2014
Treated VPA #3 `s.
Veg Plot 5: 567/809
j Treated VPA #3
I - Veg Plot 6: 364/728
I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L
0 100 200 N
Feet
DMS Project # 95019
Treated VPA #1
Sta. 52+37.58
Figure 2B
Current Condition Plan View
Monitoring Year 3
UT to Mill Swamp Site
QConservation Easement
Note:
Vegetation Problem Areas treated
Crest Gauge
in October
and November 2016
Flow Gauges
UT lb
Photo Points
Monitoring Well Year 3 Success
O Groundwater Wells Meeting Criteria
MSFL2
V'
• Groundwater Wells NOT Meeting Criteria
O Headwater Research Wells
Cross Sections
Stream Crossings
Sta. 36+93.00
In -Stream Structures
Veg Plot 4: 688/931
-
As -Built Streams by Mitigation Type (All Stable)
Enhancement I
'!
'I
Wetlands North
Restoration: Multi -Thread Channel (No Top of Bank)
PP8
MSAW24
MSAW10
of Stream (3.36 ac)
Restoration: Single -Thread Channel
M
No Mitigation Credit
Stream
MSAW23 MISAW7
- Vegetation Plot Meeting Criteria
Crossing
- Vegetation Plot NOT Meeting Criteria
Ms 22
a Restored Wetland Area
Treated VPA #4
MSAVV8
XS -2
�, .g,. MSAW6
0 Treated Vegetation Problem Areas (total 1.48 ac)
PP
MSAW5 Ms 2,
Wetlands South O
of Stream (3.26 ac) Y _ •
MS,
MSAW4
UT I C O y, XS -6 MSAV
Survey/Monitoring Date: Nov/Dec 2016
Aerial Photo Date: 2014
Treated VPA #3 `s.
Veg Plot 5: 567/809
j Treated VPA #3
I - Veg Plot 6: 364/728
I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L
0 100 200 N
Feet
DMS Project # 95019
Treated VPA #1
Sta. 52+37.58
Figure 2B
Current Condition Plan View
Monitoring Year 3
UT to Mill Swamp Site

Table 5a. Visual Steam Morphology Stability Assessment
UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95019
Reach ID: UT1c
Assessed Length (LF): 1,513
Major Channel Category
Channel Sub-
Category
Metric
Number Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
per As -built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable Footage
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing Woody
Veg.
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody Veg.
Adjusted % for
Stabilizing
Woody Veg.
1.Vertical Stability
1. Aggradation
0
0
100%
2. Degradation
0
0%
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture Substrate
3
3
100%
3. Meander Pool
Condition
1. Depth
22
22
100%
2. Length
22
22
100%
1. Bed
4. Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
19
19
100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide)
19
19
100%
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or scour and erosion
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
2. Bank
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhanging undercut/overhangingto the extent that mass wasting appears likely
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3. Mass Wasting
Banks slumping, caving or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3. Engineering Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or los
8
8
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill
8
8
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sill or arms
8
8
100%
3. Bank Position
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%
1 8
8
100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth
1 8
1 8
1
1 100%
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95019)

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

Table 6a. Vegetation Conditions Assessment
UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project: EEP Project ID No. 95019
Reach ID: UTla, UTlb, UTlc
Planted Acreage: UTla, UTlb, UTlc =15.2
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
Vegetation Category
Defintions
% of Planted Acreage
Threshold (acres)
Depiction
Polygons
Acreage
1. Bare Areas
Very limited cover both woody and herbaceous material.
0.1
NA
0
0.00
0.0%
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 4 or 5
0.1
VP3
1
0.025
0.16%
2. Low Stem Density Areas
stem count criteria.
Total
0
0.00
0.0%
3. Areas of Poor Growth Rates or
Areas with woody stems or a size class that are obviously small given the
0.25
NA
0
0.00
0.0%
Vigor
monitoring year.
Cumulative Total
0
0.00
0.0%
Easement Acreage:
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
Vegetation Category
Defintions
% of Planted Acreage
Threshold
Depiction
Polygons
Acreage
5. Invasive Areas of Concern
Areas of points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale)
1000 fr2
Yes
5
1.48
9.7% prior to treatment (will be
(Treated as 11/22/2016)
assessed in 2017 for new limits)
6. Easement Encroachment Areas
Areas of points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale)
none
NA
0
0.00
0.0%
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95019)

Table 6b. Vegetation Problem Areas (VPAs)
UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95019
Feature Issue
Problem Area Number
(as shown on CCPV)
Suspected Cause
Photo Number
Invasive/Exotic Populations
#1 (See CCPV)
Ligustrum sinense (Treated 11/22/2016)
3,4,5,6
Invasive/Exotic Populations
#2 (See CCPV)
Ligustrum sinense (Treated 11/22/2016)
1,2
Invasive/Exotic Populations
#3 (See CCPV)
Ligustrum sinense (Treated 10/14/2016)
None
Invasive/Exotic Populations
#4 See CCP
Ligustrum sinense Treated 10/14/2016
None
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95019)

Photo Point 1 — Downstream at Culvert
Photo Point 3 — Log Jam
Photo Point 5 — Log Weir
Photo Point 2 — Log Jam
Photo Point 4 — Log Weir/Log Jam
Photo Point 6 — Log Weir

Photo Point 7 — Log Weir
Photo Point 8 — UTIb Downstream
Photo Point 9 — UT 1 b at Flow Gauge #2 Photo Point 10 — UT3 above confluence
Photo Point 11 — UT3 Log Weir
Photo Point 12 — UT3 Log Weir
iM.
'
t
u {
Photo Point 8 — UTIb Downstream
Photo Point 9 — UT 1 b at Flow Gauge #2 Photo Point 10 — UT3 above confluence
Photo Point 11 — UT3 Log Weir
Photo Point 12 — UT3 Log Weir

Photo Point !3— UT3 £o/ W6£
Photo Point 15— UTI6 view upstream
Photo Point 17 — £o/ W61
Photo Point 14 — UTI6 view upstream
Photo Point 16 — £o2 Weir
#§mo Point 18— to/ Weir, UTla tie-in
»� .
#§mo Point 18— to/ Weir, UTla tie-in

Crest gauge reading, 1.44 feet — February 5, 2016
storm
Flow Gauge Camera #1 — February 4, 2016
est gauge reading, 2.32 feet — October 8, 20
(Hurricane Matthew)
QU MSFL1 59V15C6 05-05 2016 15.01.00
Flow Gauge Camera #1— May 5, 2016 (Smal
rain event)
Flow Gauge Camera #2 — February 5, 2016 Flow Gauge Camera #2 — October 9, 2016
(Following February 4 storm event) (Following Hurricane Matthew storm event)

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

Vegetation Problem Areas (Before and After Treatment)
Privet Area #2 11/15/2015
Privet Area #2 10/25/2016
Privet Area #1 11/15/2015
Privet Area #1 11/22/2016
Privet Area #1 11/15/2015 Privet Area #1 11/22/2016

Appendix C
Vegetation Plot Data

Table 7. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment (Planted Stems)
UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95019
Plot ID
Vegetation Survival Threshold Met?
YR3 Planted Density / As -
built Planted Stem
Density*
2016 Tract Mean
1
Y
567/1052
472
2
Y
405/931
3
N
243/1012
4
Y
688/931
5
Y
567/809
6
Y
364/728
Note: *Planted /As -Built Planted Stem Count reflects the changes in stem density based on the density of planted stems at the time of the
As -Built Survey. Planted Stem Count reflects the changes in planted stem density ONLY. See Table 9c and 9d for volunteer species totals.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95019)

Table 8. CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95019
Report Prepared By Dwayne Huneycutt
Date Prepared 11/29/2016 12:01
database name
database location
computer name
file size
MichaelBaker_2016_Candiff_UTMillSwamp.mdb
L:\Monitoring\Veg Plot Info\CVS Data Tool\Candiff UT to Mill Swamp
CARYLDHUNEYCUTT
59187200
DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT------------
Metadata Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a summary of project(s) and project data.
Proj, planted Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre, for each year. This excludes live stakes.
Proj, total stems
Plots
Vigor
Vigor by Spp
Damage
Damage by Spp
Damage by Plot
Planted Stems by Plot and Spp
ALL Stems by Plot and spp
Each project is listed with its TOTAL stems per acre, for each year. This includes live stakes, all planted stems, and all natural/volunteer stems.
List of plots surveyed with location and summary data (live stems, dead stems, missing, etc.).
Frequency distribution of vigor classes for stems for all plots.
Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species.
List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences and percent of total stems impacted by each.
Damage values tallied by type for each species.
Damage values tallied by type for each plot.
A matrix of the count of PLANTED living stems of each species for each plot; dead and missing stems are excluded.
A matrix of the count of total living stems of each species (planted and natural volunteers combined) for each plot; dead and missing stems are
excluded.
PROJECT SUMMARY -------------------------------------
Project Code 95019
project Name UT to Mill Swamp
Description
River Basin White Oak
length(ft)
5237
stream -to -edge width (ft)
50
area (sq m)
48648.4
Required Plots (calculated)
12
Sampled Plots
6
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO MILLSWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95019)

Table 9a. CVS Stem Count of Planted Stems by Plot and Species
UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95019
a��
��'fi
Oti
��
off•
��
�,�• SO
Carpinus caroliniana
Shrub Tree American hornbeam
4
3
1.33
2
1
1
Itea virginica
Shrub Virginia sweetspire
1
1
1
1
Driodendron tulipifera
Tree tuliptree
3
1
3
3
Nyssa biflora
Tree swamp tupelo
7
5
1.4
1
1
1
3
1
Persea palustris
Tree swamp bay
3
3
1
1
1
1
Quercus laurifolia
Tree laurel oak
2
2
1
1
1
Quercus lyrata
Tree overcup oak
9
5
1.8
3
1
2
1
Quercus michauxii
Tree swamp chestnut oak
15
5
3
3
2
3
1
4
Quercus nigra
Tree water oak
2
2
1
1
1
1
Quercus pagoda
Tree cherrybark oak
14
6
2.33
1
4
1
5
4
2
Quercus phellos
Tree willow oak
7
4
1.75
1
1
4
1
Ulmus americana
Tree American elm
2
2
1
1
2
TOT: 0 12
112 112
69
1 12
14 1
10
6
17
14
9
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95019)

Table 9b. Vegetation Planted Stem Count Densities
UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95019
Common Name
Species
Plots
Year 3
Totals
Yearly Average Planted
stems/acre
1
2
3
4
5
6
American hornbeam
Carpinus caroliniana
2
1
1
4
Virginia sweetspire
Itea virginica
1
1
tuliptree
Liriodendron tulipifera
3
3
swamp tupelo
Nyssa biflora
1
1
1
3
1
7
swamp bay
Persea palustris
1
1
1
3
laurel oak
Quercus laurifolia
1
1
2
overcup oak
Quercus lyrata
3
1
2
1
7
swamp chestnut oak
Quercus michauxii
3
2
3
1
4
13
water oak
Quercus nigra
1
1
1
3
cherrybark oak
Quercus pagoda
1
4
1
5
4
2
17
willow oak
Quercus phellos
1
1
4
1
7
American elm
Ulmus americana
1
2
3
*Number of Planted Stems Per Plot
14
10
6
17
14
9
70
Stems/acre Year 3 (Fall 2016)
567
405
243
688
567
364
472
Stems/acre Year 2 (Fall 2015)
567
405
283
688
567
283
465
Stems/acre Year 2* (Fall 2014)
607
445
486
688
607
486
553
Stems/acre Supplemental Year 1 (Spring 2014)
648
486
486
769
648
607
607
Stems/acre Year 1 (Fall 2013)
648
567
567
769
688
648
648
Stems/acre Initial
1052
931
1012
931
809
728
911
Note: *Planted Stem Count reflects the changes in planted stem density ONLY. See Table 9c and 9d for volunteer species totals.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95019)

Table 9c. CVS Density Per Plot
UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95019
Current Plot Data (MY3 2016)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
95019-01-0001
95019-01-0002
95019-01-0003
95019-01-0004
95019-01-0005
95019-01-0006
P V T P V T P V T P V T P V T P V
T
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
Tree
2
2
1
1
1
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
I
I
Itea vir inica
Virginia sweets ire
Shrub
Liquidambar styraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
10
10
3
3
Liriodendron tuli ifera
tuli tree
Tree
3
3
3
3
3
Nyssa biflora
swamp tupelo
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
1
1
Persea palustris
swamp bay
tree
1
1
1
1
1
l
Quercus laurifolia
laurel oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
Quercus l rata
overcup oak
Tree
3
3
1
1
2
2
1
1
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
3
3
2
2
3
3
1
1
4
4
Quercus nigra
water oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus pagoda
the bark oak
Tree
1
1
4
4
1
1
5
5
4
4
2
2
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
4
4
1
1
Ulmus americana
American elm
Tree
1
1
2
2
Unknown
Shrub or Tree
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
l4
131
24
101
01
10
61
6
12
171
0
17
141 01
14
91 01
9
1 1 1 1 1 1
0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
81 21 91 61 01 6 41 21 6 7 01 7 71 01 7 71 0
7
5671 5261 9711 4051 01 405 2431 2431 4861 6881 01 688 5671 01 567 3641 0
364
P
4
1
3
7
3
2
7
13
3
17
7
3
701
121
472
MY3 (2016)
V
13
6
191
6
0.15
2
128
Annual Means
T P
4
1
13
6
7
3
2
7
13
3
17
7
3
86
13
580
4
1
3
7
3
2
9
15
2
14
7
2
691
12
465
MY2 (2015)
V
1
01
6
0.15
0
0
T
4
1
3
7
3
2
9
15
2
14
7
2
69
12
465
MY2* (2014)
P V
1
3
2
6
9
2
9
20
3
14
9
4
821 01
6
0.15
12 0
553 0
T
1
3
2
6
9
2
9
20
3
14
9
4
82
12
553
P
5
2
7
12
6
9
21
6
12
10
4
21
961
12
647
MY1 (2013)
V
1
01
6
0.15
0
0
T
5
2
7
12
6
9
21
6
12
10
4
2
96
12
647
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
Tree
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
Itea virginica
Virginia sweetspire
Shrub
Li uidambar styraciflua
sweetgurn
Tree
Liriodendron tuli ifera
tuli tree
Tree
N ssa biflora
swamp tupelo
Tree
Persea palustris
swamp bay
tree
Quercus laurifolia
laurel oak
Tree
Quercus lyrata
overcup oak
Tree
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
Quercus nigra
water oak
Tree
Quercus pagoda
the bark oak
Tree
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
Ulmus americana
American elm
iTree
Unknown
Shrub or Tree
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95019)
Color for Volunteers
II
P = Planted
V = Volunteers
T = Total

(Table 9d. Vegetation Summary and Totals I
UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95019
Year 3 (3 -Nov -2016)
Vegetation Plot Summary Information
Plot #
Riparian Buffer
Stems
Stream/ Wetland
z
Stems
Live Stakes
Invasives
3
Volunteers
4
Total
Unknown Growth
Form
1
n/a
14
0
0
13
24
0
2
n/a
10
0
0
0
10
0
3
n/a
6
0
0
6
12
0
4
n/a
17
0
0
0
17
0
5
n/a
14
0
0
0
14
0
6
n/a
9
0
0
0
9
0
Stem Class
'Buffer Stems
Stream/ Wetland Stems
3Volunteers
Wetland/Stream Vegetation Totals
(per acre)
Plot #
Planted Stream/
z
Wetland Stems
Volunteers
Total
YR3 Success Criteria of 260
stems/acre Met?
1
567
405
971
Yes
2
405
0
405
Yes
3
243
243
486
No
4
688
0
688
Yes
5
567
0
567
Yes
6
364
0
364
Yes
Project Avg
472
108
580
Yes
Riparian Buffer Vegetation Totals
(per acre)
Plot #
Riparian Buffer
Stems'
Success
Criteria Met?
1
n/a
2
n/a
3
n/a
4
n/a
5
n/a
6
n/a
Project Avg
n/a
characteristics
Native planted hardwood trees. Does NOT include shrubs. No pines. No vines.
Native planted woody stems. Includes shrubs, does NOT include live stakes. No vines
Native woody stems. Not planted. No vines.
Planted + volunteer native woody stems. Includes live stakes. Excl. exotics. Excl. vines.
Colors for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERNG, INC.
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95019)

Appendix D
Stream Survey Data

Table 10. Baseline Stream Data Summary
UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95019
Reach UT1c (1,513 LF)
Parameter
USGS
Regional Curve Interval
Pre -Existing Condition'
Gauge
(Harman et al, 1999)*
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
LL UL Eq.
Min
Mean
Med Max SD
n
BF Width (ft)
-----
23.0 80.0 9.9
6.8
-----
----- 8.7 -----
2
Floodprone Width (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
8.2
-----
----- 11.8 -----
2
BF Mean Depth (ft)
-----
2.3 5.8 1.3
0.8
-----
----- 1.0 -----
2
BF Max Depth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
1.1
-----
----- 1.4 -----
2
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft2)
-----
80.0 300.0 16.2
5.6
-----
----- 8.6 -----
2
Width/Depth Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
8
-----
----- 9 -----
2
Entrenchment Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
1.2
-----
----- 1.4 -----
2
Bank Height Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
4.2
-----
----- 2.8 -----
2
d50 (mm)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
0.25
----- ----- -----
12
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
Radius of Curvature (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
Meander Wavelength (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
Meander Width Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
Pool Length (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
Pool Spacing (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
Pool Max Depth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
1.1
-----
----- 1.16 -----
2
Pool Volume (fft3)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
Substrate and Transport Parameters
Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
SC% / Sa% / G% / B% / Be%
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- -----
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
-----
----- ----- -----
0.10 / 0.15 / 0.25 / 1.2 / 2.72
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/F
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m2
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- 0.66
Impervious cover estimate (%)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
----- -----
Rosgen Classification
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
Gc
----- ----- ----- -----
BF Velocity (fps)
-----
----- ----- -----
0.8
-----
----- 1.2 -----
2
BF Discharge (cfs)
-----
290.0 2000.0 66.0
-----
6.48
----- ----- ----- -----
35
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
Channel length (ft)2
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
4091
----- ----- ----- -----
Sinuosity
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
1.13
----- ----- ----- -----
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
0.0045
----- ----- -----
2
BF slope (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
BEHI VL% / L% / M% / H% / VH% / E%
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
Biological or Other
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
Harman, W.A., G.D. Jennings, J.M. Patterson, D.R. Clinton, L.O. Slate, A.G. Jessup, J.R. Everhart, and R.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.
Existing conditions survey data is compiled for the entire UTI Reach within the project limits.
2 Bulk samples taken since pebble count procedure is not applicable for sand -bed streams.
3 Values were chosen based on sand -bed reference reach data and past project evaluations.
a Composite reference reach information from Johannah Creek, Johnston County, Panther Branch, Brunswick County; Rocky Swamp, Halifax County; and Beaver Dam Branch, Jones County
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95019)

Table 10. Baseline Stream Summary
UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 9.5019
Reach UTlc (1,513 LF)
Reference Reach(es) Data
Beaverdam Branch
NC Coastal Plain Composite Data
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Min
Mean
Med Max
SD n
Min
Mean Med Max SD n
BF Width (11)
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
---------- ----- ----- -----
Floodprone Width (ft)
-----
-----
----- -----
----------
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BF Mean Depth (ft)
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
----- ----- -----
BF Max Depth (ft)
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft)
-----
24
----- -----
----- 2
7.8
----- ----- 95.9 ----- -----
Width/Depth Ratio
11
-----
----- 17
----- 2
8
----- ----- 14 ----- -----
Entrenchment Ratio
10
-----
----- 11
----- ?
4
----- ----- 13 ----- -----
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
-----
----- 1.3
----- 2
1.0
----- ----- 1.3 ----- -----
d50 (mm)
-----
0.5
----- -----
- - - -
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (11)
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Radius of Curvature (ft)
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
1.8
-----
----- 2.4
----- -----
1.5
----- ----- 3.0 ----- -----
Meander Wavelength (ft)
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Meander Width Ratio
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
2.0
----- ----- 6.3 ----- -----
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
----- ----- -----
Riffle Slope (11/11)
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
----- ----- -----
Pool Length (11)
-----
-----
----- ----
----- -----
-----
----- ---------- ----- -----
Pool Spacing (ft)
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
Pool Max Depth (11)
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Pool Volume (ft3)
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
----- ----- -----
Substrate and Transport Parameters
Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
SC% / Sa% / G% / B% / Be%
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
---------- ----- ----- -----
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
0.3 / 0.4 / 0.5 / 0.9 / 1.2
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
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)
-----
-----
----- 3.0
----- -----
1.0
----- ----- 19.5
Impervious cover estimate (%)
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Rosgen Classification
-----
C5c
----- -----
----- -----
-----
E5/C5 ----- ----- ----- -----
BF Velocity (fps)
-----
1.5
----- -----
----- -----
1.0
----- ----- 1.4 ----- -----
BF Discharge (cfs)
-----
37
----- -----
----- -----
10
----- ----- 127 ----- -----
35
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Channel length (11)2
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Sinuosity
-----
1.66
----- -----
----- -----
1.22
----- ----- 1.77 ----- -----
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
-----
0.0004
----- -----
----- -----
0.0004
----- ----- 0.0022 ----- -----
BF slope (ft/ft)
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
----- ---------- ----- -----
Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
-----
-----
----- -----
----------
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BEHI VL% / L% / M% / H% / VH% / E%
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Biologicalor Other
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Hannan, W.A., G.D. Jennings, J.M. Patterson, D.R. Clinton, L.O. Slate, A.G. Jessup, J.R. Everhart, and R.E. Smith. 1999.
Bankfall hydraulic geometryrelationships 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.
1 Existing conditions survey data is compiled for the entire UTI Reach within the project limits.
2 Bulk samples taken since pebble count procedure is not applicable for sand-bed streams.
3 Values were chosen based on sand-bed reference reach data and past project evaluations.
4 Composite reference reach information from Johannah Creek, Johnston County; Panther Branch, Brunswick County; Rocky Swamp, Halifax County; and Beaver Dam Branch, Jones County
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95019)

Table 10. Baseline Stream Summary
UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95019
Reach UTlc (1,513 LF)
Design
As -built
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Min
Mean
Med Max SD
n
Min
Mean
Med Max SD
n
BF Width (ft)
-----
10.3
----- ----- -----
1
10.1
-----
----- 13.8 -----
4
Floodprone Width (ft)
-----
>100
----- ----- -----
1
80.1
-----
----- 105.0 -----
4
BF Mean Depth (ft)
-----
0.7
----- ----- -----
1
0.6
-----
----- 1.2 -----
4
BF Max Depth (ft)
-----
1.0
----- ----- -----
1
1.1
-----
----- 2.0 -----
4
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft')
-----
7.6
----- ----- -----
1
7.5
-----
----- 12.3 -----
4
Width/Depth Ratio
-----
14
----- ----- -----
1
8.3
-----
----- 19.4 -----
4
Entrenchment Ratio
-----
>10
----- ----- -----
1
7.9
-----
----- 9.4 -----
4
Bank Height Ratio
-----
1.0
----- ----- -----
1
1.0
-----
----- 1.1 -----
4
d50 (mm)
-----
0.25
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
35
-----
----- 60 -----
-----3
38.0
79.0
----- 120.0 -----
-----
Radius of Curvature (ft)
20
-----
----- 30 -----
-----3
21.0
26.0
----- 31.0 -----
-----
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
2.0
-----
----- 3.0 -----
-----
38.0
79.0
----- 120.0 -----
-----
Meander Wavelength (ft)
80
-----
----- 110 -----
-----3
72.0
104.0
----- 124.0 -----
-----
Meander Width Ratio
3.5
-----
----- 6.0 -----
-----3
3.5
6.0
----- 8.0 -----
-----
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.004
-----
----- 0.010 -----
-----
0.0046
0.0043
----- 0.0039 -----
-----
Pool Length (ft)
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
Pool Spacing (ft)
30
-----
----- 80 -----
-----
41
-----
72 57 -----
-----
Pool Max Depth (ft)
-----
1.6
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
Pool Volume (ft3)
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
Substrate and Transport Parameters
Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
----
SC% / Sa% / G% / B% / Be%
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
----
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
----
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/fz
-----
0.149
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve)
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/mz
-----
4.181
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
-----
-----
----- 0.66 -----
-----
-----
-----
----- 0.66
Impervious cover estimate (%)
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
Rosgen Classification
-----
C5
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
C5
----- ----- -----
-----
BF Velocity (fps)
-----
1.76
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
3.0
----- ----- -----
-----
BF Discharge (cfs)
-----
12.9
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
340.0
----- ----- -----
-----
35
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
3523
----- ----- -----
-----
Channel length (ft)2
-----
1453
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
4238
----- ----- -----
-----
Sinuosity
-----
1.24
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
1.20
----- ----- -----
-----
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
-----
0.0038
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
0.0042
----- -----
BF slope (ft/ft)
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
0.0054
----- ----- -----
-----
Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
BEHI VL% / L% / M% / H% / VH% / E%
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
Biologicalor 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.
Bankfall 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.
1 Existing conditions survey data is compiled for the entire UTI Reach within the project limits.
2 Bulk samples taken since pebble count procedure is not applicable for sand -bed streams.
3 Values were chosen based on sand -bed reference reach data and past project evaluations.
4 Composite reference reach information from Johannah Creek, Johnston County; Panther Branch, Brunswick County; Rocky Swamp, Halifax County; and Beaver Dam Branch, Jones County
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95019)

Table 11. Cross-section Morphology Data
UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95019
Reach UTlc (1,513 LF)
Cross-section X-1 (Riffle)
Cross-section X-2 (Pool)
Cross-section X-3 (Pool)
Cross-section X-4 (Riffle)
Dimension and substrate
Base
MY1
MY2*
MY2
MY3 MY4
MY5 MY+ Base
MY1
MY2*
MY2
MY3 MY4
MY5 MY+ Base
MY]
MY2*
MY2
MY3 MY4 MY5
MY+ Base
MY1
MY2*
MY2
MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
BF Width (ft)
11.9
11.1
11.3
10.1
8.8
15.4
22.5
21.25
12.70
11.94
21.3
39.23
33.48
19.55
18.06
11.2
11.5
11.34
9.63
9.66
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.63
0.63
0.70
0.64
0.75
1.07
0.72
0.71
1.00
0.99
0.63
0.48
0.46
0.66
0.65
0.67
0.74
0.77
0.66
0.68
Width/Depth Ratio
18.9
17.7
16.1
15.9
11.7
14.4
31.2
30.1
12.6
12.0
33.9
82.4
72.8
29.6
27.84
16.5
15.4
14.7
14.63
14.25
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft2)
7.5
6.9
8.0
6.4
6.6
16.6
16.2
15
12.8
11.9
13.4
18.7
15.4
12.9
11.7
7.5
8.5
8.7
6.3
6.6
BF Max Depth (ft)
1.35
1.28
1.63
1.63
1.72
2.40
2.17
2.12
1.75
1.75
1.53
1.77
1.76
1.60
1.78
1.11
1.25
1.47
1.50
1.61
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
104.5
104.4
104.5
104.5
104.5
107.9
107.9
107.94
107.94
107.95
117.0
116.7
116.68
116.66
116.68
104.5
104.5
104.46
104.43
104.48
Entrenchment Ratio
8.8
9.4
9.2
10.3
11.9
7.0
4.8
5.1
8.5
9
5.5
3
3.5
6
6.5
9.4
9.1
9.2
10.8
10.8
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.0
0.8
0.9
1
1
1.1
1.0
1
1.1
1.2
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
13.2
12.3
12.7
11.4
10.3
17.6
23.9
22.7
14.7
13.9
22.5
40.2
34.4
20.9
19.4
12.5
12.9
12.9
11.0
11.0
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.9 1
0.7
0.7
0.9
0.9
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
Based on current/developing bankfull feature
BF Width (ft)
BF Mean Depth (ft)
Width/Depth Ratio
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft')
BF Max Depth (ft)
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
Entrenchment Ratio
Bank Height Ratio
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
d50 (mm)
Cross-section X-5 (Riffle)
Cross-section X-6 (Pool)
Cross-section 7 (Pool)
Cross-section X-8 (Riffle)
Dimension and substrate
Base
MY1
MY2*
MY2
MY3 MY4
MY5 MY+ Base
MY]
MY2*
MY2
MY3 MY4
MY5 MY+ Base
MY]
MY2*
MY2
MY3 MY4 MY5
MY+ Base
MY1
MY2*
MY2
MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
BF Width (ft)
13.8
14.6
13.4
11.5
11.2
15.1
31.0
22.9
13.3
13.9
15.5
16.6
16.3
15.8
15.6
10.1
10.7
12.2
9.6
10.2
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.71
0.74
0.71
0.66
0.72
0.75
0.39
0.49
0.73
0.80
1.07
1.11
1.09
1.08
1.17
1.22
1.27
1.34
1.42
1.64
Width/Depth Ratio
19.4
19.8
19.0
17.3
15.5
20.1
78.8
46.4
18.4
17.5
14.5
14.9
15.0
14.7
13.4
8.3
8.4
9.1
6.8
6.2
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft2)
9.9
10.8
9.5
7.6
8.0
11.3
12.2
11.3
9.7
11.1
16.7
18.4
17.7
17.0
18.2
12.3
13.6
16.3
13.7
16.7
BF Max Depth (ft)
1.31
1.42
1.62
1.50
1.56
1.78
1.56
1.71
1.65
1.80
1.97
2.08
2.22
2.03
2.52
1.96
2.15
2.65
2.11
2.62
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
112.3
112.3
112.3
112.3
112.3
114.3
114.3
114.3
114.3
114.3
132.4
132.4
132.3
132.3
132.4
80.1
82.9
86.3
80.4
85.4
Entrenchment Ratio
8.1
7.7
8.4
9.8
10.1
7.6
3.7
5.0
8.6
8.2
8.5
8.0
8.1
8.4
8.5
7.9
7.8
7.1
8.3
8.4
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.2
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.2
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
15.3
16.1
14.9
12.8
12.6
16.6
31.823.9
14.8
15.5
17.7
18.8
18.5
17.9
17.9
12.5
13.2
14.8
12.5
13.4
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.6
0.7
1 0.6
0.6
0.6
0.7 1
0.4
0.5
0.7
0.7
0.9
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.2
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)
d50 (mm)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.UT TO MILL SWAMP
RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95019)

Permanent Cross-section 1
(Year 3 Data - Collected November 2016)
Feature
Stream Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
E
6.6
8.81
0.75
1.72
11.69
1.1
11.9
52.91
53.05
UT to Mill Swamp Cross-section 1
56
55
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------o
54
c
53
--------
ca
-
W
52
-Year 3
Year 2
Year 2*
t Year 1
51
As -Built
o Bankfull
- o--- Floodprone
50
0 20 40 60 80
100 120
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross-section 2
(Year 3 Data - Collected November 2016)
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool
11.9
1 11.94
0.99
1.75
12.02
1.1
9
52.66
52.77
UT to Milli Swamp Cross-section 2
56
55
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------a
54
53
p
>
52
as
w
51
Year 3
Year 2
Year 2*
t Year 1
50
As -Built
--o--- Bankfull
- o- - - Floodprone
49
0 20 40 60 80
100 120
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross-section 3
(Year 3 Data - Collected November 2016)
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool
11.7
18.06
0.65
1.78
27.84
1
6.5
52.4
1 52.47
UT to Mill Swamp Cross-section 3
56
55
54
53
0
> 52
w
51 Year 3 Year 2
Year 2* Year 1
50 - As -Built - < Bankfull
o--- Floodprone
49
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross-section 4
(Year 3 Data - Collected November 2016)
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle
C
6.6
9.66
0.68
1.61
14.25
1.2
10.8
52.25 52.5
UT to Mill Swamp Cross-section 4
56
55
54
53
0
>
52
m
w
51
Year 3
Year 2
Year 2*
t Year 1
50
As -Built
--o--- Bankfull
- o--- Floodprone
49
0 20 40 60 80
100 120
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross-section 5
(Year 3 Data - Collected November 2016)
Stream
Feature Type BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle C 8
11.15
0.72
1.56 15.54
1.2
10.1
50.85 51.09
UT to Mill Swamp Cross-section 5
55
54
53 -
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------o
52 -
0
m---------
w
50 - Year 3 Year 2
Year 2* Year 1
49 - As -Built - - Bankfull
o--- Floodprone
48
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross-section 6
(Year 3 Data - Collected November 2016)
Stream BKF
Feature Type BKF Area Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev TOB Elev
Pool 11.1 13.9
0.8
1.8
17.47
1
8.2
50.68 50.71
UT to Milli Swamp Cross-section 6
54
53
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------o
52
51
0
> 50 -
a)
LU
49 —*—Year 3 Year 2
Year 2* Year 1
48 As -Built Bankfull
G--- Floodprone
47 -
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross-section 7
(Year 3 Data - Collected November 2016)
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev TOB Elev
Pool
18.2
15.59
1.17
2.52
13.37
1
8.5
49.8 49.9
UT to Mill Swamp Cross-section 7
54
53
- Tree base
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------o
52
51
c
0
>
50
w
49
Year 3
Year 2
Year 2*
Year 1
48
As -Built
--o--- Bankfull
- o--- Floodprone
47
-
0 20 40 60 80 100
120 140
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross-section 8
(Year 3 Data - Collected November 2016)
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
E
16.7
10.16
1.64
2.62
6.19
1.2
8.4
48.7
1 49.1
UT to Mill Swamp Cross-section 8
54
53
52
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
51
50
ca
49
—�—Year 3 Year 2
48
Year 2* Year 1
47
As -Built - o--- Bankfull
- G--- Floodprone
46
0
20 40 60 80 100 120
Station (ft)

Appendix E
Hydrologic Data

Table 12. Wetland Restoration Area Well Success
UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95019
Percentage of Consecutive Days <12 inches from Ground
Surface'
Most Consecutive Days Meeting Criteria '
Percentage of Cumulative Days <12 inches from Ground
Surface'
Cumulative Days Meeting Criteria'
Well ID
Year 3 (2016)
Year 2 (2015)
Year 2* (2014)
Year 1 (2013)
Year 3 (2016)
Year 2 (2015)
Year 2* (2014)
Year 1 (2013)
Year 3 (2016)
Year 2 (2015)
Year 2* (2014)
Year 1 (2013)
Year 3 (2016)
Year 2 (2015)
Year 2* (2014)
Year 1 (2013)
UTlc Cross-sectional Well Arrays (Installed July 2013)
MSAW1 24.6 20.8 29.1 4.4
59.8 50.5 70.8 10.8
66.5
52.1
56.8
53.5
161.5
126.5
138.0
130.0
MSAW2 4.0 6.5 3.3 0.7
9.8 15.8 8.0 1.8
19.8
26.3
20.2
3.5
48.0
64.0
49.0
8.5
MSAW3 0.6 0.6 0.3 0.0
1.5 1.5 0.8 0.0
0.8
2.1
1.0
0.0
2.0
5.0
2.5
0.0
MSAW4 31.2 36.4 27.8 10.3
75.8 88.5 67.5 25.0
83.4
61.0
74.2
97.0
202.8
148.3
180.3
235.7
MSAW5 31.1 19.7 21.2 3.3
75.5 47.8 51.5 8.0
58.3
51.6
51.9
40.5
141.8
125.5
126.0
98.4
MSAW6 4.2 7.0 3.8 1.1
10.3 17.0 9.3 2.8
19.7
28.3
23.3
9.5
47.8
68.8
56.5
23.1
MSAW7 2.1 2.7 3.7 0.2
5.0 6.5 9.0 0.5
7.1
14.6
10.9
0.3
17.3
35.5
26.5
0.7
MSAW8 31.1 37.7 47.3 14.1
75.5 91.5 115.0 34.3
83.0
66.3
73.9
96.8
201.8
161.0
179.6
235.2
MSAW9 5.7 8.6 4.5 2.5
13.8 21.0 11.0 6.0
41.7
28.6
33.0
44.5
101.3
69.5
80.3
108.1
MSAW 10 2.1 5.3 0.6 0.0
5.0 13.0 1.5 0.0
16.8
13.1
1.1
0.0
40.8
31.8
2.8
0.0
Supplemental UTlc Monitoring Wells (Installed February/March 2016)
**MSAW19 8.7 -- -- --
21.3 -- -- --
43.8
--
--
--
106.5
--
--
--
**MSAW20 3.7 -- -- --
9.0 -- -- --
10.1
--
--
--
24.5
--
--
--
**MSAW21 3.7 -- -- --
9.0 -- -- --
12.7
--
--
--
30.8
--
--
--
**MSAW22 2.8 -- -- --
6.8 -- -- --
14.0
--
--
--
34.0
--
--
--
**MSAW23 3.1 -- -- --
7.5 -- -- --
23.7
--
--
--
57.5
--
--
--
**MSAW24 31.2 -- -- --
75.8 -- -- --
72.1
--
--
--
175.3
--
--
--
UT1a d UT1b Cross-sectional Well Arrays (Installed July 2013)
MSAWII 40.1 32.3 21.2 4.7
97.5 78.5 51.5 11.5
84.9
76.7
72.4
38.5
206.3
186.5
176.0
93.6
MSAW12 7.6 10.1 15.4 0.7
18.5 24.5 37.5 1.8
27.4
24.9
19.1
7.0
66.5
60.5
46.5
17.0
MSAW 13 40.0 40.0 46.5 6.5
97.3 97.3 113.0 15.8
84.8
82.2
80.0
81.5
206.0
199.8
194.5
198.0
MSAW14 17.9 18.3 39.1 0.6
43.5 44.5 95.0 1.5
61.6
46.7
31.0
4.0
149.8
113.5
75.3
9.7
MSAW15 1.6 2.4 0.9 0.8
4.0 5.8 2.3 2.0
6.7
5.1
3.9
4.0
16.3
12.5
9.5
9.7
MSAW16 2.1 2.3 2.8 2.4
5.0 5.5 6.8 5.8
7.1
11.5
13.0
14.5
17.3
28.0
31.5
35.2
MSAW17 0.3 0.7 0.1 0.0
0.8 1.8 0.3 0.0
0.5
1.3
0.1
0.0
1.3
3.3
0.3
0.0
MSAW18 2.2 7.4 10.2 3.8
5.3 18.0 24.8 9.3
10.7
20.8
15.3
18.5
26.0
50.5
37.3
45.0
Notes:
'Indicates the percentage of most consecutive or cumulative number of days within the monitored growing season with a water 12 inches or less from the soil surface.
2Indicates the most consecutive number of days within the monitored growing season with a water table 12 inches or less from the soil surface.
'Indicates the cumulative number of days within the monitored growing season with a water table 12 inches or less from the soil surface.
Growing season for Onslow County is from March 18 to November 16 and is 243 days long. 12% of the growing season is 29 days.
HIGHLIGHTED indicates wells that did not to meet the success criteria for the most consecutive number of days within the monitored growing season with a water 12 inches or less from the soil surface. Following Year 3 wetland monitoring, five of sixteen wells exhibited
hyrdroperiods greater than 12% during the 2016 growing season. These wells will be observed closely throughout monitoring Year 4.
**To gather additional well data in the UTIc restoration area, In-Situ groundwater monitoring dataloggers AW19 -AW23 were installed on 2/26/2016, AW24 was installed on 3/10/2016. The installation of the additional dataloggers was completed during the 2016 spring wet
season when groundwater levels are normally closer to the ground surface.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 3 MONITORING REPORT
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95019)

UT to Mill Swamp Rain
1
1
1/1/2016
2/15/2016
3/31/2016
5/15/2016 6/29/2016 8/13/2016
9/27/2016 11/11/2016 12/26/2016
1
1
0.0
1
1
1
1.0
1
1
. ,
2.0
1
=
3.0
4.0
=
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
UT to
Mill Swamp Wetland Restoration Well
(MSAW1)
10
Ground
5
Surface
0
-12 inches
c
-5
L.
r
-10MSAW1
cc
-3a
c
-15
o_
—Begin
-20
(g
Growing
p
Season
-25
t
— End Growing
9
-30
Season
-35
-40
GROWING SEASON
-45
(3/18 - 11/16)
-50
1/1/2016
2/15/2016
3/31/2016
5/15/2016 6/29/2016 8/13/2016
9/27/2016 11/11/2016 12/26/2016
Date
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
YR3 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
CRITERIA MET - 59.8 (24.6%)
9/11/2016-11/16/2016
1
1
1
1

UT to Mill Swamp Rain
1/1/2016
2/15/2016
3/31/2016 5/15/2016 6/29/2016 8/13/2016
9/27/2016 11/11/2016 12/26/2016
0.0
II�� ��\il��ll►�1�����
1.0
1 I
...
2.0
-
3.0
w
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
UT to
Mill Swamp Wetland Restoration Well
(MSAW2)
20
15
Ground
-
Surface
10
-12 inches
5 -
L
0-
d
MSAW2
C
-5
3
�km
MILqLL11i
I�■\\il\tea■
1■�i1�—
1■IIII�■11� 1�� ■� ����'■
�t��
-15
— — Begin
111�11111'�IY�
I.■ 111
Growing
O
-20
Season
MISSION
—
—End
CL
-25
I
MINE
Growing
ll
-30
4
Season
-35 -
LZ
YR3 M16ST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
-40 -
GROWING SEASON
CRIT �RIA MET - 9.8 (4.0%)
-45 -
-50
1/1/2016
2/15/2016
3/31/2016 5/15/2016 6/29/2016 8/13/2016
9/27/2016 11/11/2016 12/26/2016
Date
II�� ��\il��ll►�1�����
1 I

1
UT to Mill Swamp Rain
1
1
1/1/2016
2/15/2016
3/31/2016 5/15/2016
6/29/2016 8/13/2016 9/27/2016
11/11/2016
12/26/2016
0.0
1.0
1
. ,
2.0
1
=
3.0
1
4.0
1
1
=
5.0
I
6.0
I
1
7.0
8.0
UT to
Mill Swamp Wetland Restoration Well
(MSAW3)
10
Ground
5
YR3 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
Surface
1
CRITERIA MET - 1.5 (0.6%)
1
1
10/8/2016
-12 inches
c
-5
i
r
-10
MSAW3
cc
-3a
c
-15
O
— — Begin
_20
Growing
C
Season
r
-25
End
C
-30
Growing
Season
-35
-40
GROWING SEASON
-45
-50
1/1/2016
2/15/2016
3/31/2016 5/15/2016 6/29/2016 8/13/2016 9/27/2016
11/11/2016
12/26/2016
Date
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
(3/18 -11/16)
I
1

UT to Mill Swamp Rain
ace
1/1/2016
2/15/2016
3/31/2016 5/15/2016 6/29/2016 8/13/2016
9/27/2016 11/11/2016 12/26/2016
1
0.0
-12 inches
1.0
1
,.
2.0
— —Begin
Growing
=
3.0
1
Season
1
WE
4.0
CRITERIA MET - 75.8 (31.2%)
� —End
=
5.0
Growing
Season
1
1
GROWING SEASON
6.0
1
(3/18 - 11/16)
7.0
8.0
UT to Mill Swamp Wetland Restoration Well
(MSAW4)
10
1
1
Ground
5
f
SurUR
0
_
-5
111
0)
-10
IL
ca
-15
3
o
-20
C7
o
-25
t
CL
-30
-35
-40
-45
-50
1/1/2016
2/15/2016
3/31/2016 5/15/2016 6/29/2016 8/13/2016
9/27/2016 11/11/2016 12/26/2016
Date
ace
1
1
-12 inches
1
1
MSAW4
— —Begin
Growing
-
1
Season
1
YR3 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
CRITERIA MET - 75.8 (31.2%)
� —End
9/2/2016 - 11/16/2016
Growing
Season
1
1
GROWING SEASON
1
1
(3/18 - 11/16)

UT to Mill Swamp Rain
1/1/2016 2/15/2016 3/31/2016 5/15/2016 6/29/2016 8/13/2016
0.0
= 1.0
_. 2.0
3.0
WE 4.0
= 5.0
Wm 6.0
7.0
8.0
10
5
0
c -5
-10
m
-15
Lo -20
C7
r -25
s
CL -30
-35
-40
-45
50
9/27/2016 11/11/2016 12/26/2016
UT to Mill Swamp Wetland Restoration Well
(MSAW5)
1 1
1 1
1
i
1
1 1
YR3 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
1 CRITERIA MET - 75.5 (31.1%)
9/2/2016 - 11/16/2016
GROWING SEASON
(3/18 - 11/16)
1/1/2016 2/15/2016 3/31/2016 5/15/2016 6/29/2016 8/13/2016
Date
9/27/2016 11/11/2016 12/26/2016
Ground
Surface
12 inches
MSAW5
Begin
Growing
Season
End
Growing
Season

UT to Mill Swamp Rain
1
1/1/2016
2/15/2016
3/31/2016
5/15/2016 6/29/2016
8/13/2016 9/27/2016 11/11/2016
12/26/2016
1
0.0
1.0
1
,.
2.0
1
YR3 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
CRITERIA MET - 10.3 (4.2%)
=
3.0
1
1
WE
4.0
1
1
=
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
UT to Mill Swamp Wetland
Restoration Well
(MSAW6)
15
Ground
10
Surface
5
-12 inches
0
_
.S
L
-5
MSAW6
W1
3
-10
-a
-15
p
— — Begin
%-
Growing
_20
C
Season
-25
— —End
=
-30
Growing
Season
-35
10/8/2016-10/18/2016
-40
GROWING SEASON
(3/18 -11/16)
-45
-50
1/1/2016
2/15/2016
3/31/2016
5/15/2016 6/29/2016
8/13/2016 9/27/2016 11/11/2016
12/26/2016
Date
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
YR3 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
CRITERIA MET - 10.3 (4.2%)
1
1
1
I
1
1

UT to Mill Swamp Rain
1/1/2016 2/15/2016 3/31/2016 5/15/2016 6/29/2016 8/13/2016
0.0
= 1.0
_. 2.0
3.0
WE 4.0
= 5.0
Wm 6.0
7.0
8.0
10
5-
0
_ -5 -
-10 -
m
-15 -
o -20
C7
r -25 -
CL -30
-35 -
-40
-45 -
50 -
9/27/2016 11/11/2016 12/26/2016
UT to Mill Swamp Wetland Restoration Well
(MSAW7)
1/1/2016 2/15/2016 3/31/2016 5/15/2016 6/29/2016 8/13/2016
Date
9/27/2016 11/11/2016 12/26/2016
Ground
Surface
12 inches
MSAW7
Begin
Growing
Season
End
Growing
Season
MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
CRITERIA MET - �
L. NW rJ.� 1
1 1l
I
AL
GROWING SEASON (3/18 -
11/16) Lu kits
W
a, M,
1/1/2016 2/15/2016 3/31/2016 5/15/2016 6/29/2016 8/13/2016
Date
9/27/2016 11/11/2016 12/26/2016
Ground
Surface
12 inches
MSAW7
Begin
Growing
Season
End
Growing
Season

UT to Mill Swamp
Rain
I
1/1/2016
2/15/2016
3/31/2016
5/15/2016 6/29/2016
8/13/2016 9/27/2016 11/11/2016 12/26/2016
1
1
0.0
1
I
c
1.0
I
1
2.0
GROWING SEASON
1
-
3.0
1
1
,!
4.0
=
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
UT to Mill Swamp Wetland
Restoration Well
(MSAW8)
10
Ground
5
Surface
0
-12 inches
-5
WNW-
L
y
-10
MSAW8
is
-15
O
—
— Begin
i
-20
Growing
Season
o
-25
_
—
— End
CL
-30
Growing
m
�
Season
-35
-40
-45
(3/18 - 11/16)
-50
1/1/2016
2/15/2016
3/31/2016
5/15/2016 6/29/2016
8/13/2016 9/27/2016 11/11/2016 12/26/2016
Date
1
I
I
1
1
1
1
I
1
I
1
YR3 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
CRITERIA MET - 75.5 (31.1%)
9/2/2016 - 11/16/2016
GROWING SEASON
1
1
1

UT to Mill Swamp Rain
1/1/2016
2/15/2016
3/31/2016
5/15/2016 6/29/2016
8/13/2016 9/27/2016 11/11/2016
12/26/2016
0.0
c
1.0
1
1�1�I;�1,;..,_�llillllh1�1�1�1�
2.0
�►';1JI�Il�I�a�l�1���
��I�all�l��►7��'s/►�'���
-
3.0
,!
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
I '
UT to Mill Swamp Wetland
Restoration Well
(MSAW9)
20
15
10
5
0
-5
-10
o
-15
0
s
-20
-25
Q.
o
-30
YR3 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
-35
-40
GROWING SEASON
10/7/2016 - 10/20/20-16c'
-45
-50
1/1/2016
2/15/2016
3/31/2016
5/15/2016 6/29/2016
8/13/2016 9/27/2016 11/11/2016
12/26/2016
Date
�ri
1
1�1�I;�1,;..,_�llillllh1�1�1�1�
►.,_!__,�
�►';1JI�Il�I�a�l�1���
��I�all�l��►7��'s/►�'���
:-.
I '

1/1/2016 2/ 15/2016 3/31/2016
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
w 4.0
5.0
Wm 6.0
7.0
8.0
10
5
0
-5
-10
C
-15
3 -20
c -25
c -30
CL w -35
0
-40
-45
-50
UT to Mill Swamp Rain
5/15/2016 6/29/2016 8/13/2016
9/27/2016 11/11/2016 12/26/2016
UT to Mill Swamp Wetland Restoration Well
(MSAW10)
M, (R3 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
WNCRITERIA MET - 5.0 (2.1%)
29/2016 - 6/3/2016
�1111 u l l11� 11 L
GROWING SEASON
� 1i11�1
1/1/2016 2/15/2016 3/31/2016 5/15/2016 6/29/2016 8/13/2016 9/27/2016 11/11/2016 12/26/2016
Date
Ground
Surface
-12 inches
MSAW10
Begin
Growing
Season
End Growing
Season

UT to Mill Swamp Rain
1/1/2016
2/15/2016 3/31/2016 5/15/2016 6/29/2016 8/13/2016 9/27/2016 11/11/2016 12/26/2016
0.0
1.0
2.0
-
3.0
12
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
UT to Mill Swamp
(Well cross-sections 11, 12)
15
Ground
10
Surface
5
-12 inches
0
MSAW11
-5
L
*'
-10
MSAW12
cv
3WNNM10rWWv
"%
C-15
°
°
/L^
V
-20
°
0
-25
z
r
D
-30
-35
-40
IF
-45
-50
1/1/2016
2/15/2016 3/31/2016 5/15/2016 6/29/2016 8/13/2016 9/27/2016 11/11/2016 12/26/2016
Date

UT to Mill Swamp Rain
1/1/2016
2/15/2016 3/31/2016 5/15/2016 6/29/2016 8/13/2016 9/27/2016
11/11/2016 12/26/2016
0.0
1.0
2.0
=
3.0
w
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
UT to Mill Swamp
(Well cross-sections 13,14)
15
Ground
10
Surface
5
-12 inches
0-
-5Li
MSAW13
L
3
-10
MSAW14
C
-15
°
°
(7
-20
°
0
-25
-30
0
-35
-40
-45
-50
1/1/2016
2/15/2016 3/31/2016 5/15/2016 6/29/2016 8/13/2016 9/27/2016
11/11/2016 12/26/2016
Date

UT to Mill Swamp Rain
1/1/2016
2/15/2016 3/31/2016 5/15/2016 6/29/2016 8/13/2016 9/27/2016
11/11/2016 12/26/2016
0.0
Willi
1.0
Tqqo-
2.0
—
3.0
4.
=
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
UT to Mill Swamp
(Well cross-sections 15, 16)
10
Ground
5
Surface
-12 inches
0
MSAW15
-5
L
MSAW16
d
-10
so
3 -15
c
L
-20
c
-25
WIX
CLd
-30
-35
-40
-45
-50
1/1/2016
2/15/2016 3/31/2016 5/15/2016 6/29/2016 8/13/2016 9/27/2016
11/11/2016 12/26/2016
Date

UT to Mill Swamp Rain
1/1/2016
2/15/2016 3/31/2016 5/15/2016 6/29/2016 8/13/2016 9/27/2016 11/11/2016 12/26/2016
0.0
`.
1.0
2.0
=
3.0
;4
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
UT to Mill Swamp
(Well cross-sections 17,18)
10
Ground
Surface
5
0
-12 inches
MSAW17
a`)
-10
MSAW18
C
-15
o
-20
,L^
V
o
-25
Q.
m
0
-30
-35
-40
�JL
-45
-50
1/1/2016
2/15/2016 3/31/2016 5/15/2016 6/29/2016 8/13/2016 9/27/2016 11/11/2016 12/26/2016
Date

1
I
UT to Mill Swamp Rain
1/1/2016
2/15/2016 3/31/2016 5/15/2016 6/29/2016 8/13/2016
9/27/2016 11/11/2016 12/26/2016
0.0
1.0
..,
2.0
-
3.0
4.0
=
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
UT to Mill Swamp Wetland Restoration Well
(MSAW19)
20
Ground
Surface
15
10
-12 inches
5
3
7il
MSAW19
-5
-10 -
0-
IL M
—
—Begin
-15 -
Growing
p
Season
t
-20
LIN
111o
Is al M
End G
d
-25
Seasonwing
-30
YR3 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
-35
-40
GROWING SEASON
5/5/2016 - 5/26/2016
-45
-50
1/1/2016
2/15/2016 3/31/2016 5/15/2016
6/29/2016 8/13/2016
9/27/2016 11/11/2016 12/26/2016
Date
1
I

UT to Mill Swamp Rain
1
1/1/2016
2/15/2016
3/31/2016 5/15/2016 6/29/2016 8/13/2016
9/27/2016 11/11/2016 12/26/2016
1
0.0
=
1.0
_.
2.0
1
-
3.0
1
4.0
I
(3/18 - 11/16)
1
1 I
I
1
10/8/2016 - 10/17/2016
=
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
UT to Mill Swamp Wetland Restoration Well
(MSAW20)
10
Ground
Surface
5
-12 inches
c
-5
L
?;
-10
MSAW20
-3a
-15
O
—
— Begin
_20
0
Growing
0-25
Season
Q
End Growing
m
-30
Season
-35
YR3 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
-40
GROWING SEASON
CRITERIA MET - 9.0 (3.7%)
-45
-50
1/1/2016
2/15/2016
3/31/2016 5/15/2016 6/29/2016 8/13/2016
9/27/2016 11/11/2016 12/26/2016
Date
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
I
(3/18 - 11/16)
1
1 I
I
1
10/8/2016 - 10/17/2016

UT to Mill Swamp Rain
1/1/2016
2/15/2016
3/31/2016
5/15/2016 6/29/2016 8/13/2016
9/27/2016 11/11/2016 12/26/2016
0.0
1.0
. ,
2.0
-
3.0
(3/18 - 11/16)
1
1
1
1
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
UT to Mill Swamp Wetland Restoration Well
(MSAW21)
10
Ground
5
Surface
1
1
I
1
-12 inches
c
-5
L
-10
MSAW21
-a
c
-15
1
o_
L
-20
—Begin
(g
Growing
p
1
Season
_25
t
-30
1
1
End Growing
1
Season
-35
YR3 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
CRITERIA MET - 9.0 (3.7%)
-40
GROWING SEASON
10/8/2016
-45
-50
1/1/2016
2/15/2016
3/31/2016
5/15/2016 6/29/2016 8/13/2016
9/27/2016 11/11/2016 12/26/2016
Date
(3/18 - 11/16)
1
1
1
1

UT to Mill Swamp Rain
1/1/2016
2/15/2016
3/31/2016 5/15/2016 6/29/2016 8/13/2016
9/27/2016 11/11/2016
12/26/2016
0.0
=
1.0
T If q4
2.0
=
3.0
4.0
=
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
UT to Mill Swamp Wetland Restoration Well
(MSAW22)
10
Ground
Surface
5
0
-12 inches
c
-5
-10
MSAW22
1C
�
-15
P
_20HINENINPIJW�
— —Begin
001001MEM111RAI11r,Growing
o
-25I00001Season
Q.
— — End
m
-30Season
Growing
G
-35
MIN'
YR3 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
GAIN
CRITERIA MET - 6.8 (2.8%)
MEN
-40
GROWING SEASON
-'8/2016 - 10/1S/201 -
-45
-50
1/1/2016
2/15/2016
3/31/2016 5/15/2016 6/29/2016 8/13/2016
9/27/2016 11/11/2016
12/26/2016
Date

UT to Mill Swamp Rain
1/1/2016
2/15/2016
3/31/2016 5/15/2016 6/29/2016 8/13/2016 9/27/2016
11/11/2016
12/26/2016
0.0
=
1.0
.=
2.0
-
3.0
4.0
=
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
UT to Mill Swamp Wetland Restoration Well
(MSAW23)
10 -
Ground
5
Surface
-
0-
-12 inches
11 NEI
MSAW23
-15 -
Lo --20
-
—Begin
(9
Growing
p
Season
_25
tLA
-30 -
End Growing
D
ZMA— I
Season
-35 -
I
-40
GROWING-
-45 -
10/7/2016-10/14/2016
-50-<
- T
T-
-1/1/2016
1/1/2016
2/15/2016
3/31/2016 5/15/2016 6/29/2016 8/13/2016 9/27/2016
11/11/2016
12/26/2016
Date

UT to Mill Swamp Rain
1/1/2016
2/15/2016
3/31/2016 5/15/2016 6/29/2016 8/13/2016 9/27/2016
11/11/2016
12/26/2016
0.0
'�R�f�1�Y1111L111�
" 'x,111111111 �L�1'�1L1'1�.►L"17,����#I�l'��s•��*.�l,�l.��
A►1 �#t1��1�1���►'���
1.0
\h��'�■■IlS��
� �1■TII�t■�1��
_.
2.0
-
3.0
`..°
4.0
E
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
UT to Mill Swamp Wetland Restoration Well
(MSAW24)
25 -
20
Ground
Surface
15
-
10
-12 inches
-
5-
-
MSAW23
-5 -
L-
-10 -
— — Begin
Growing
0
-15 -
p
Season
�
CL
-20 -
End Growing
-25 -
Season
-30 -
YR3 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
-35 -
-40 -
GROWING SEASON
9/2/2016 - 11/16/2016
-45 -
-50
1/1/2016
2/15/2016
3/31/2016 5/15/2016 6/29/2016 8/13/2016 9/27/2016
11/11/2016
12/26/2016
Date
'�R�f�1�Y1111L111�
" 'x,111111111 �L�1'�1L1'1�.►L"17,����#I�l'��s•��*.�l,�l.��
A►1 �#t1��1�1���►'���
\h��'�■■IlS��
� �1■TII�t■�1��

Table 13. Flow Gauge Success
St. Clair Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95019
Well ID
Consecutive Days of Flow
Cumulative Days of Flow
UTla Flow Gauge
MSFL1
59.0
187.0
UT1b Flow Gauge
MSFL2
105.0
231.0
Notes:
'Indicates the number of consecutive days within the monitoring year where flow was measured.
2Indicates the number of cumulative days within the monitoring year where flow was measured.
Flow success criteria for the Site is stated as: A surface water flow event will be considered perennial
when the flow duration occurs for a minimum of 30 days.
2016 flow data reported is 3/10/2016 to 12/2/2016. Data from loggers before 3/10/2016 was not
retreivable from data loggers due to an unkown logging issue. Logging issue has been resolved.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95019)

* Surface water flow is estimated to have occurred when the pressure transducer reading is equal to or above 0.1 feet in depth.
UT to Mill Swamp Daily Rain
1/1/2016
2/15/2016 3/31/2016
5/15/2016 6/29/2016 8/13/2016 9/27/2016 11/11/2016 12/26/2016
0.0
...
1.0
__
2.0
-
3.0
c
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
UT to Mill Swamp
(Flow Gauge 1 - MSFL1)
2
UT1 B - Upstream
1.9
1.8
Ground Surface
1.7
1.6
MSFL1
Q
a,
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.1
1
Data logger communication error,
issue has been resolved
YR3 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
CRITERIA MET - 59.0*
(4/22/2016-6/19/2016)
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
cn
0.3
0.2 -
0.1
0
1/1/2016
2/15/2016 3/31/2016
5/15/2016 6/29/2016 8/13/2016 9/27/2016 11/11/2016 12/26/2016
Date
* Surface water flow is estimated to have occurred when the pressure transducer reading is equal to or above 0.1 feet in depth.

* Surface water flow is estimated to have occurred when the pressure transducer reading is equal to or above 0.1 feet in depth.
1/1/2016 2/15/2016 3/31/2016
0.0
UT to Mill Swamp Daily Rain
5/15/2016 6/29/2016 8/13/2016 9/27/2016 11/11/2016 12/26/2016
-,
=
=
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
2.5
UT to Mill Swamp
(Flow Gauge 2 - MSFL2)
UT1B - Downstream
2.4
YR3 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
CRITERIA MET = >105
(1/1/2015-6/1/2015)
2.3
2.2
Ground Surface
MSFL2
2.1
2.0
1.9
a1.5
1.8
1.7
1.4
Data logger communication error,
issue has been resolved
d
0
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.8
5
0.7
3
0.6
Cn
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
1/1/2016 2/15/2016 3/31/2016
5/15/2016 6/29/2016 8/13/2016 9/27/2016 11/11/2016 12/26/2016
Date
* Surface water flow is estimated to have occurred when the pressure transducer reading is equal to or above 0.1 feet in depth.

Figure 6. Observed Rainfall versus Historic Average
UT to Mill Swamp
Observed rainfall versus Historic Average (Year 3/2016)
10.0
8.0
U
6.0 N 01
0
4.0
U
R. 2.0
0.0
Historic Average Historic 30% probable
A Historic 70% probable t Onslow County Observed 2015
Table 14. Verification of Bankfull Events
UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project: DMS Project No. 95019
Date of Data
Collection
Estimated Occurrence of
Bankf ill Event
Method of Data
Collection
M3 Crest
(feet)
Year 1 (2013)
10/16/2013 10/11/2013 Crest Gauge 0.17
12/24/2013 12/15/2013 Crest Gauge 0.19
Year 2* (2014)
3/27/2014 3/7/2014 Crest Gauge 0.32
10/14/2014 8/4/2014 Crest Gauge 0.56
12/19/2014 11/26/2014 Crest Gauge 0.27
Year 2 (2015)
1/24/2015 1/24/2015 Crest Gauge 0.59
4/27/2015 2/26/2015 Crest Gauge 1.07
6/23/2015 5/11/2015 Crest Gauge 1.61
11/12/2015 10/3/2015 Crest Gauge 1.54
Year 3 (2016)
3/10/2016
2/5/2016
Crest Gauge
1.44
11/22/2016
10/8/2016 (Hurricane Matthew)
Crest Gauge
2.32
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95019)