20131177 Ver 1_Year 4 Monitoring Report_2017_20171101

UT to Cane Creek Restoration Project
Year 4 Final Monitoring Report
Alamance County, North Carolina
DMS Project ID Number — 95729, DEQ Contract No. 4951
Permits: SAW -2012-01907, DWR# 13-1177
Project Info: Monitoring Year: 4 of 7
Year of Data Collection: 2017
Year of Completed Construction: 2014
Submission Date: November 2017
Submitted To: NCDEQ - Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
NC DEQ Contract ID No. 004951

Mitigation Services
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
November 29, 2017
Scott King, LSS — Project Manager
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
Cary, NC 27518
Ref: Task 10—Draft Year 4 Monitoring Report Comments
UT to Cane Creek Restoration Project (#95729)
Cape Fear Basin 03030002
Alamance County, North Carolina
Contract No. 004951, RFP No. 16-004357
Dear Mr. King:
ROY COOPER
Governor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Secretary
On November 9, 2017, DMS received one (1) hardcopy of the Draft Monitoring Year 4 Report and on
November 7, 2017 DMS received one (1) electronic transfer of the pdf copy and digital files for UT to Cane
Creek from Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. (Baker). DMS and Baker staff also conducted a site visit on
November 29, 2017. DMS has completed our review of the DRAFT Year 3 Monitoring Report and digital
submittals and have no additional comments.
Please provide the required three (3) hardcopies, one (1) pdf copy of the FINAL report. If you have any
questions, or wish to discuss these comments further, please contact me at any time. I can be reached at
[phone], or via email at jef£schaffer ckncdenr.gov.
Sincerely,
Jeff Schaffer
Eastern Supervisor/Project Manager
NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services
cc: file
Jake Byers
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 1 217 W. Jones Street, Suite 3000
919 707 8976 T

UT to Cane Creek Restoration Project
Year 4 Final Monitoring Report
Alamance County, North Carolina
DMS Project ID Number — 95729, DEQ Contract No. 4951
Permits: SAW -2012-01907, DWR# 13-1177
Report Prepared and Submitted by Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
NC Professional Engineering License # F-1084
INTERNATIONAL
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. I
UT TO CANE CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 95729
MONITORING YEAR 4 OF 7 (2017)

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................1
2.0 METHODOLOGY.........................................................................................3
2.1 Stream Assessment.......................................................................................................................................3
2.1.1 Morphological Parameters and Channel Stability......................................................................................3
2.1.2 Hydrology..................................................................................................................................................3
2.1.3 Photographic Documentation....................................................................................................................4
2.1.4 Visual Stream Morphological Stability Assessment..................................................................................4
2.2 Vegetation Assessment................................................................................................................................4
3.0 REFERENCES...............................................................................................5
APPENDICES
Appendix A Project Vicinity Map and Background Tables
Figure 1 Vicinity Map and Directions
Figure 2 Mitigation Work Plan
Figure 3 Reference Locations
Table 1 Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Table 2 Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3 Project Contacts Table
Table 4 Project Attribute Table
Appendix B Visual Assessment Data
Figure
4
Current Condition Plan View (CCPV)
Table
5a
Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Table
5b
Stream Problem Areas (SPAS)
Table
6a
Vegetation Condition Assessment
Table
6b
Vegetation Problem Areas (VPAs)
Stream and Project Photographs
Appendix C Vegetation Plot Data*
Table 7* Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Table 8* CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Table 9a* CVS Stem Count of Planted Stems by Plot and Species
Table 9b* Stem Count For Each Species Arranged by Plot
Table 9c* CVS Density Per Plot
Table 9d* CVS Vegetation Summary and Totals
Appendix D Stream Survey Data
Figure 5* Cross -Sections with Annual Overlays
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. II
UT TO CANE CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 95729
MONITORING YEAR 4 OF 7 (2017)

Table 10 Baseline Stream Data Summary Tables
Table I]* Cross -Section Morphology Data
Appendix E Hydrologic Data
Table 12 Verification of Bankfull Events
* Note: The figures and tables marked above with an asterisk are not included as part of this
Year 4 Monitoring Report, but were left listed in the Table of Contents to explain the
otherwise out -of -sequence figure/table numbering and appendix designations. For clarity,
Michael Baker wishes to preserve the continuity of the labeling for these features between
monitoring years to avoid confusion (e.g. to allow Appendix C to always contain vegetation
data, and Table 12 to always be the bankfull event table, etc. in each monitoring report).
These figures and tables had been included in past reports and will be included again as part
of the Year 5 monitoring report for 2018.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. III
UT TO CANE CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 95729
MONITORING YEAR 4 OF 7 (2017)

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. (Baker) restored 3,314 linear feet (LF) of perennial and intermittent streams
and enhanced 2,911 LF of channel for the Unnamed Tributary (UT) to Cane Creek Restoration Project (Site).
Baker also planted approximately 14.0 acres of native riparian species vegetation within the 19.9 acre recorded
conservation easement areas along the restored and enhanced reaches (Reaches RI, R3, R4, R5 and R5a) for
the Site. Table 1 summarizes project components and mitigation credits (Appendix A). The Site is located in
Alamance County, approximately three miles south of the Town of Saxapahaw (Figure 1). The Site is located
in the NC Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) Sub -basin 03-06-04 and the North Carolina Department of
Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) - Division of Mitigation Services' (DMS) Targeted Local Watershed (TLW)
03030002-050050 of the Cape Fear River Basin. The Project involved the restoration and enhancement of rural
Piedmont streams, which had been impaired due to past agricultural conversion and cattle grazing.
Based on the DMS 2009 Cape Fear River Basin Restoration Priority (RBRP) Plan, the UT to Cane Creek
Restoration Project area is located in an existing TLW within the Cape Fear River Basin, although it is not
located in a Local Watershed Planning (LWP) area. The restoration strategy for the Cape Fear River Basin
targets specific projects, which focus on developing creative strategies for improving water quality flowing to
the Haw River in order to reduce non -point source (NPS) pollution to Jordan Lake.
The primary goals of the Project were to improve ecologic functions and to manage NPS inputs to the impaired
areas as described in the DMS 2009 Cape Fear RBRP and as identified below:
• Create geomorphically stable conditions along the UTs across the Site,
• Implement agricultural best management practices (BMPs) to reduce NPS inputs to receiving waters,
• Protect and improve water quality by reducing stream bank erosion, and nutrient and sediment inputs,
• Restore stream and floodplain interaction by connecting historic flow paths and promoting natural
flood processes, and
• Restore and protect riparian buffer functions and corridor habitat in perpetuity by establishing a
permanent conservation easement.
To accomplish these goals, the following objectives were identified:
• Restore existing incised, eroding, and channelized streams by providing flood water access to the relic
floodplains,
• Prevent cattle from accessing the conservation easement by installing permanent fencing thus reducing
excessive stream bank erosion and nutrient inputs,
• Increase aquatic habitat value by providing more bedform diversity, creating natural scour pools and
reducing sediment inputs from accelerated stream bank erosion,
• Plant native species riparian buffer vegetation along stream bank and floodplain areas, protected by a
permanent conservation easement, to increase stormwater runoff filtering capacity, improve stream
bank stability and riparian habitat connectivity, and shade the stream to decrease water temperature,
• Improve aquatic and terrestrial habitat through improved substrate and in -stream cover, addition of
woody debris, and reduction of water temperature, and
• Treat invasive species vegetation within the Site area and, if necessary, continue treatments during the
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO CANE CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 95729
MONITORING YEAR 4 OF 7 (2017)

In accordance with the Mitigation Plan and the project -applicable DMS guidance document "Monitoring
Requirements and Performance Standards for Stream and/or Wetland Mitigation" dated 11/7/2011, no formal
vegetation plot monitoring was performed, nor were any stream cross-sectional surveys conducted as part of
this Year 4 monitoring effort. A visual assessment of the site is emphasized this year, with the full vegetation
and cross-section survey work to resume for the Year 5 monitoring in 2018.
From the Year 4 visual inspection monitoring, all stream reaches appear stable and functioning. All stream
riffle beds are vertically stable, the pools are maintaining depth, stream banks are stable and vegetating, and in -
stream structures are physically intact and performing as designed (Appendix B). No Stream Problem Areas
(SPAS) were identified.
The Year 4 visual inspection monitoring also observed that the planted acreage performance categories were
functioning at 100 percent with no eroding or bare areas to report, nor any areas of poor growth (Appendix B).
In January of 2017, Baker conducted a vegetation assessment of several areas located outside of the vegetation
plots to estimate planted stem densities, and subsequently identified four locations totaling —0.66 acres with
somewhat thin densities (Figure 4). These areas were planted with additional bareroot stems in February of
2017 to ensure they met success criteria on future site evaluations. Subsequent inspection of these areas during
monitoring activities in October 2017 revealed they appeared to be doing well.
There were a few areas of scattered Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) previously identified as Vegetation
Problem Areas (VPAs) in Year 3 that were treated in February of 2017 through spraying and/or cutting
depending on plant size. A total of —0.25 acres of scattered privet were treated at the confluence of Reach R5
and Reach R3, and a total of —0.54 acres of scattered privet were treated along the right bank of lower Reach
R4, as shown in Figure 4 (Appendix B). These areas will be observed closely in the future for any sign of re -
sprouting. One new area of Chinese privet totaling —0.14 acres was discovered in the Year 4 monitoring effort
in the middle section of Reach R4, and will be treated in the winter of 2017-2018. This was the only identified
VPA for Year 4.
During Year 4 monitoring, both the Reach R5 crest gauge (crest gauge #1) and the Reach R3 crest gauge (crest
gauge #2) documented at least one post -construction bankfull event (Appendix E).
Summary information/data related to the Site and statistics related to performance of various project and
monitoring elements can be found in the tables and figures in the report Appendices. Narrative background and
supporting information formerly found in these reports can be found in the Baseline Monitoring Report and in
the Mitigation Plan available on the DMS website. All raw data supporting the tables and figures in the
Appendices is available from DMS upon request.
This report documents the successful completion of the Year 4 monitoring activities for the post -construction
monitoring period.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO CANE CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 95729
MONITORING YEAR 4 OF 7 (2017)

2.0 METHODOLOGY
The seven-year monitoring plan for the Site includes criteria to evaluate the success of the stream and vegetation
components of the Site. The methodology and report template used to evaluate these components adheres to
the DMS monitoring report template document Version 1.4 (November 7, 2011), which will continue to serve
as the template for subsequent monitoring years. The specific locations of monitoring features, such as
vegetation plots, permanent cross-sections, reference photograph stations, and crest gauges, are shown on the
Current Condition Plan View (CCPV) map (Figure 4) found in Appendix B.
In accordance with the Mitigation Plan and the project -applicable DMS guidance document "Monitoring
Requirements and Performance Standards for Stream and/or Wetland Mitigation" dated 11/7/2011, no formal
vegetation plot monitoring was performed, nor were any stream cross-sectional surveys conducted as part of
this Year 4 monitoring effort. A visual assessment of the site is emphasized this year, with the full vegetation
and cross-section survey work to resume for the Year 5 monitoring in 2018.
The Year 4 site visual site assessment data contained in Appendix B was collected in October 2017, unless
otherwise noted.
2.1 Stream Assessment
The Project involved the restoration and enhancement of a rural Piedmont stream system that had been impaired
due to past agricultural conversion and cattle grazing. Restoration practices involved raising the existing
streambed and reconnecting the stream to the relic floodplain, and restoring natural flows to areas previously
drained by ditching activities. The existing channels abandoned within the restoration areas were partially to
completely filled to decrease surface and subsurface drainage and raise the local water table. Permanent cattle
exclusion fencing was provided around all proposed reaches and riparian buffers, with the exception of Reach
Rl, where cattle lack access.
2.1.1 Morphological Parameters and Channel Stability
A longitudinal profile was surveyed for the entire length of channel immediately after construction to
document as -built baseline monitoring conditions (Year 0) only. Annual longitudinal profiles will not
be conducted during subsequent monitoring years unless channel instability has been documented or
remedial actions/repairs are required by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) or DMS.
As per the Mitigation Plan and DMS monitoring guidance for this project, no cross-section survey data
were collected for this Monitoring Year 4 assessment. Consequently, none of the cross-sectional survey
graphs (Figure 5) or morphology data (Table 11) are presented in Appendix D as in previous monitoring
reports.
2.1.2 Hydrology
To monitor on-site bankfull events, crest gauges were installed along two of the restored reaches. One
crest gauge was installed on the floodplain at the bankfull elevation along the left top of bank on Reach
R5 (Crest gauge 1), approximately at Station 22+00. The second crest gauge was installed on the
floodplain along the right top of bank along Reach R3 (Crest gauge 2), approximately at Station 13+50.
During Year 4 monitoring, one above-bankfull stage event was documented by both Crest gauge 1 and
Crest gauge 2. The crest gauge readings are presented in Appendix E, with photographic
documentation presented in Appendix B.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO CANE CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 95729
MONITORING YEAR 4 OF 7 (2017)

2.1.3 Photographic Documentation
Representative project photographs were taken of grade control structures and buffer areas along the
restored streams. Selected stream photographs from Year 4 monitoring are provided in Appendix B.
2.1.4 Visual Stream Morphological Stability Assessment
The visual stream morphological stability assessment involves the qualitative evaluation of lateral and
vertical channel stability, and the integrity and overall performance of in -stream structures throughout
the Project reaches as a whole. Habitat parameters and pool depth maintenance are also measured and
scored. During Year 4 monitoring, Baker staff walked the entire length of each of the Project reaches,
noting geomorphic conditions of the stream bed profile (riffle/pool facets), both stream banks, and
engineered in -stream structures. Representative photos were taken per the Site's Mitigation Plan. All
stream reaches appear stable and functioning. All stream riffle beds are vertically stable, the pools are
maintaining depth, stream banks are stable and vegetating, and in -stream structures are physically intact
and performing as designed. No Stream Problem Areas (SPAS) were documented during Year 4
monitoring. A more detailed summary of the results for the visual stream stability assessment can be
found in Tables 5a and 5b in Appendix B.
2.2 Vegetation Assessment
In order to determine if the success criteria are achieved, vegetation -monitoring quadrants were installed and
are monitored across the restoration site in accordance with the Carolina Vegetation Survey (CVS) -DMS
Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version 4.1 (2007). The vegetation monitoring plots are a minimum of 2
percent of the planted portion of the Site with six plots established randomly within the planted riparian buffer
areas per Monitoring Levels 1 and 2. No monitoring quadrants were established within the undisturbed wooded
areas of Reach R4. The sizes of individual quadrants are 100 square meters for woody tree species.
As per the Mitigation Plan and DMS monitoring guidance for this project, there was no vegetation plot
monitoring conducted for the Year 4 monitoring effort, and thus no vegetation data summary tables are included
in Appendix C as in previous monitoring reports. However, as reported in Tables 6a (Appendix B), the planted
acreage performance categories were functioning at 100 percent with no bare areas to report, no current low
stem density areas, no areas of poor growth rates.
In January of 2017, Baker conducted a vegetation assessment of a few areas located outside of the vegetation
plots that were suspected of potentially having thin stem densities. Although the areas investigated certainly
appeared to be meeting somewhere between the Year 3 and Year 5 success criteria of 320 and 260 stems/acre,
they nevertheless appeared thinner than the total vegetation plot average. As such, four areas totaling —0.66
acres located along the left banks of upper Reach R5 and R4 (see Figure 4) were planted with additional bareroot
stems in February 2017, to help ensure they met success criteria on future site evaluations. These areas were
inspected again in October 2017 and appeared to be doing well.
There were a few areas of scattered Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) previously noted in the Year 3
monitoring report. In February of 2017, these areas were treated through spraying and/or cutting depending on
plant size. A total of —0.25 acres of scattered privet were treated at the confluence of Reach R5 and Reach R3,
and a total of —0.54 acres of scattered privet were treated along the right bank of lower Reach R4, as shown in
Figure 4. Photographs of the treated privet can be found in Appendix B. These areas will be observed closely
in the future for any sign of re -sprouting. One new area of Chinese privet totaling —0.14 acres was discovered
in the Year 4 monitoring effort in the middle section of Reach R4, and will be treated in the winter of 2017-
2018. This area was designated a Vegetation Problem Area (VPA) as reported in Table 6b and shown in the
Photolog found in Appendix B.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO CANE CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 95729
MONITORING YEAR 4 OF 7 (2017)

3.0 REFERENCES
Carolina Vegetation Survey (CVS) and NC Division of Mitigation Services (DMS). CVS -DMS
Data Entry Tool v. 2.3.1. University of North Carolina, Raleigh, NC.
Lee, M., Peet R., Roberts, S., Wentworth, T. 2007. CVS -DMS Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version
4.1.
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (DMS). 2011. Monitoring Requirements and
Performance Standards for Stream and/or Wetland Mitigation. Version 1.4, November 7, 2011.
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (DMS). 2010. Baseline Monitoring Template and Guidance.
Version 2.0, October 14, 2010.
Rosgen, D. L. 1994. A Classification of Natural Rivers. Catena 22:169-199.
Schafale, M. P., and A. S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the natural communities of North Carolina, third
Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. Division of Parks and Recreation,
NCDEQ. Raleigh, NC.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines, April 2003, U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers (USACE). Wilmington District.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO CANE CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 95729
MONITORING YEAR 4 OF 7 (2017)

Appendix A
Project Vicinity Map and Background Tables

sROwn-
Michael Baker

Swepso—Ile Reference Site Locations
s
=a * Project Location
F
U S
e 5,
iJ
S r
2
y
y
Dh4
ryC B,
UT to Varnals Creek
UT to Wells Creek
H
g�4
'2
B
_
�G,eensnoro ChnPel Nrll Rd �`'
C
Rd Sww
o Camp
Project Location
.z
n i
Q �
u
_
c
------- - - -- ----�:���alh-gym------- -------- ---- - -- -
..
Sources: Esri, HERE, Del-orme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN,
Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), Mapmylndia,
OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
0 1 2 N Figure 3
Michael Baker
Miles
Reference Reach
DEQ - Division of Mitigation Services Location Map
I N T E R N A T I O N A L Project #95729 UT to Cane Creek Site
N
3
T' C
�
H'Dh4i
U
2
e
p
'
a°
y
Dh4
ryC B,
UT to Varnals Creek
UT to Wells Creek
H
g�4
'2
B
_
�G,eensnoro ChnPel Nrll Rd �`'
C
Rd Sww
o Camp
Project Location
.z
n i
Q �
u
_
c
------- - - -- ----�:���alh-gym------- -------- ---- - -- -
..
Sources: Esri, HERE, Del-orme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN,
Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), Mapmylndia,
OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
0 1 2 N Figure 3
Michael Baker
Miles
Reference Reach
DEQ - Division of Mitigation Services Location Map
I N T E R N A T I O N A L Project #95729 UT to Cane Creek Site

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

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

Table 3. Project Contacts
UT to Cane Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95729
Designer
8
000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
Cary, NC 27518
Contact:
Scott King, Telephone: [phone]
Construction Contractor
6105 Chapel Hill Road
River Works, Inc.
Raleigh, NC 27607
Contact:
Bill Wright, Telephone: [phone]
Planting Contractor
6105 Chapel Hill Road
River Works, Inc.
Raleigh, NC 27607
Contact:
Bill Wright, Telephone: [phone]
Seeding Contractor
6105 Chapel Hill Road
River Works, Inc.
Raleigh, NC 27607
Contact:
Bill Wright, Telephone: [phone]
Seed Mix Sources
Green Resources, Telephone: [phone]
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Mellow Marsh Farm, Telephone: [phone]
ArborGen, Telephone: [phone]
Monitoring Performers
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
Cary, NC 27518
Contact:
Stream Monitoring Point of Contact
Scott King, Tel. [phone]
Vegetation Monitoring Point of Contact
Scott King, Tel. [phone]
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT
UT TO CANE CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95729)

Table 4. Project Attributes
UT to Cane Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95729
Project Information
Project Name
UT to Cane Creek Restoration Project
County
Alamance
Project Area (acres)
19.9
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude)
35.8934 N, -79.3187 W
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province
Piedmont
River Basin
Cape Fear
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit and 14-digit
03030002 / 03030002050050
NCDWR Sub-basin
03-06-04
Project Drainage Area (acres)
452 (Reach R4 main stem at downstream confluence w/ Cane Creek)
Project Drainage Area Percent Impervious
<1%
CGIA Use Classification
2.01.01.01, 2.03.01, 2.99.01, 3.02 / Forest (49%) Agriculture (46%) Impervious Cover (1%)
Reach Summary Information
Parameters
Reach R1 Reach R3
Reach R4
Reach R5 Reach R5a
Length of Reach (linear feet)
1,052 400
2,731
1,925
145
Valley Classification (Rosgen)
VII VII
VII
VII
VII
Drainage Area (acres)
80 91
452
290
14
NCDWR Stream Identification Score
30.5 36
42.5
38.5
33.5
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
WS V; NSW
Morphological Description
(Rosgen stream type)
Incised E G Be (upstream)/
F (downstream) G
B
Evolutionary Trend
IncisedE4Gc4F Bc4G4Fb
Bc4G4Fb
Bc4G4Fb
B4G
Underlying Mapped Soils
We, GaE, Cg, DbB We
We, GbD3, Mo, Cg, Tal) We
We
Drainage Class
Poorly drained Poorly drained
Poorly
Poorly
drained
Poorly
Soil Hydric Status
Hydric I Hydric I
Hydric
Hydric I
Hydric
Average Channel Slope (ft/ft)
0.0127 1 0.0168
0.0169
0.0126
0.0223
FEMA Classification
N/A Zone AE
Zone AE
N/A
N/A
Native Vegetation Community
Piedmont Small Stream
Percent Composition of Exotic/Invasive Vegetation
<5% <5%
<5%
<5%
<5%
Regulatory Considerations
Regulation
Applicable Resolved
Supporting Documentation
Waters of the United States — Section 404
Yes Yes
Categorical Exclusion
Waters of the United States — Section 401
Yes Yes
Categorical Exclusion
Endangered Species Act
No N/A
Categorical Exclusion
Historic Preservation Act
No N/A
Categorical Exclusion
Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA)
No N/A
Categorical Exclusion
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
Yes Yes
Categorical Exclusion
Essential Fisheries Habitat
No N/A
Categorical Exclusion
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT
UT TO CANE CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95729)

Appendix B
Visual Assessment Data

9
Reach R5a
Reach Break
Reach Break
Reach R3
r, �,
4rr� Vii, !. 5.�.. 1'g Y•5'PiUp
Conservation Easement
Q Crest Gauge
Cross Sections (Not Surveyed in MY4)
Stream Crossings
- Vegetation Plots (Not Sampled in MY4)
Veg Problem Area: Privet (0.14 ac total)
Privet Treated (0.79 ac total)
Supplemental Plantings (0.75 ac total)
As -Built Streams by Mitigation Type (All Stable)
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement I
Stream Enhancement II
I N T E R N AT 1 0 N A L
. .
Fig 4B •a M
Reach R4
Reach R1
0 250 500
Feet
DEQ - Division of Mitigation Services
Proiect # 95729
•o�
N Current Condition
Plan View - Figure Index
Monitoring Year 4
UT to Cane Creek Site

= Conservation Easement
A. Crest Gauge
X X X Cattle Exclusion Fencing
Cross Sections (Not Surveyed in MY4)
Stream Crossings
In -Stream Structures
Stream Top Of Bank
As -Built Streams by MitigationType (All Stable)
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement I
Stream Enhancement 11
Privet Treated (Feb 2017)
Supplemental Plantings (Jan 2017)
Vegetation Plot Locations
W Plots Not Sampled for MY4
X -Section 1
X -Section 2
r
Reach R5
Reach Rya
Bareroots
f planted (0.12 ac)
Veg Plot 1
Bareroots
planted (0.19 ac)
r
X -Section 4
201 Orthoimage : N OneMa.p, N 112111renner, for Geographic Information and
Analysis
0 100 200 N Current Condition
Michael Baker Feet Plan View - Figure 4A
Monitoring Year 4
Project # 95729
1 N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L DEQ - Division Mitigation Services UT to Cane Creek Site

Reach R3
17�
n5X-Section 61
Veg Plot 6
Reach R4
= Conservation Easement
A. Crest Gauge
X X X Cattle Exclusion Fencing
Cross Sections (Not Surveyed in MY4)
Stream Crossings
In -Stream Structures
Stream Top Of Bank
As -Built Streams by MitigationType (All Stable)
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement I
Stream Enhancement 11
Veg Problem Area: Privet (0.14 ac total)
Privet Treated (Feb 2017)
Supplemental Plantings (Jan 2017)
Vegetation Plot Location
= Plots Not Sampled for MY4
X -Section 4 �L .
Privet Treatment
Areas (0.25 ac)
Veg Plot 2
0- i
Bareroots
planted (0.14 ac)
" X -Section 7
R X -Section 8
VPA: Privet
(0.14 ac)
Bareroots
planted (0.20 ac)
Veg Plot 3
0 100 200 N Current Condition
Michael BakerFeet Plan View - Figure 4B
Monitoring Year 4
Projecct # 95729
1 N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L DEQ - Division Mitigation Services UT to Cane Creek Site

= Conservation Easement
A. Crest Gauge
X X X Cattle Exclusion Fencing
Cross Sections (Not Surveyed in MY4)
Stream Crossings
In -Stream Structures
Stream Top Of Bank
As -Built Streams by MitigationType (All Stable)
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement I
Stream Enhancement II
Veg Problem Area: Privet (0.14 ac total)
Privet Treated (Feb 2017)
Vegetation Plot Location
= Plots Not Sampled for MY4
I N T E R N AT 1 0 N A L
Privet Treatment
Areas (0.54 acres)
YVeg Plot 4
XX -Se
0 100 200 N Current Condition
Feet Plan View - Figure 4C
Monitoring Year 4
DEQ -Division of Mitigation Services UT to Cane Creek Site
Project # 95729

Table 5a. Visual Steam Morphology Stability Assessment
UT to Cane Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95729
Reach ID: Reach 1
UT to Cane Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95729
Reach ID: Reach 3
Assessed Length (LF): 1,045
Assessed Length (LF): 398
Major Channel Category
Charnel Sob -Category
Metric
Number Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number per
As -baht
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amouat of
Unstable Footage
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody Veg.
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody Veg.
Adjusted % for
StM
Wo
LVertical Stability
1. Aggradation
Total Number per
Number of
0
0
100%
Footage with
Adjusted % for
Major Channel Category
2. Degradation 0 0% 100%
Metric
Performing as
As -built
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture Substrate
9
9
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
l00
Intended
1. Bed
3. Meander Pool Condition
1. Depth
21
21
Woody Veg.
Woody Veg.
100%
1. Aggradation
2. Length 21 21 1)0%
0
0
100%
4. Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
2 Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide)
21
20
21
20
1.Vertical Stability
2. Degradation
100%
100%
0
0%
l00%
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 to the extent that mass wasting appears likely
1. Bed
0
0
100,
0
0
100%
100%
3. Mass Wasting
Banks slumping, caving or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
l00%
Totals
0
1 0 1
100%
0
0
100%
3. Engineering Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs
4
4
4. Thalweg Position
1. Scoured/Eroding
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide)
100%
3
0
0
100%
100%
2. Grade Control
JGradecontrat structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill
4
4
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sill or arms
4
4
2. Bank
2. Undercut
100%
0
0
3. Bank Position
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%
4
4
3. Mass Wasting
100%
0
0
4. Habitat
lPool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth
4
4 EL
100%
Totals
0
Table 5a. Visual Steam Morphology Stability Assessment
UT to Cane Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95729
Reach ID: Reach 3
Assessed Length (LF): 398
Number Stable,
Total Number per
Number of
Amount of
% Stable,
Number with
Footage with
Adjusted % for
Major Channel Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Performing as
As -built
Unstable
Unstable Footage
Performing as
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Intended
Segments
Intended
Woody Veg.
Woody Veg.
Woody Veg.
1. Aggradation
0
0
100%
1.Vertical Stability
2. Degradation
0
0%
l00%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture Substrate
6
6
100%
1. Bed
1. Depth
3
3
100%
3. Meander Pool Condition
2. Length
3
3
l00%
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
3
3
100
4. Thalweg Position
1. Scoured/Eroding
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide)
3
3
0
0
100%
100%
0
0
100%
Bank lackingvegetative cover resultingsimply from nor growth and/or scour and erosion
2. Bank
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears likely
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3. Mass Wasting
Banks slumping, caving or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3. Engineering Structures
1. Overall Integrity
isnucto physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs
4
4
100%
2. Grade Control
10rade control structures exhibiting maintenance of de across the sill
4
4
100%
2a. Pi in
Structures lackingan substantial flow underneath sill or arms
4
4
100%
3. Bank Posidon
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%
4
4
100%
4. Habitat
IPool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth
4
4
100%
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT
UT TO CANE CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95729)

Table 5a. Visual Steam Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID: Reach 5
UT to Cane Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95729
Reach ID: Reach 4
Assessed Length (LF): 2,039
Assessed Length (LF): 2,743
Major Channel Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number per
As -built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable Footage
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody Veg.
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody Veg.
Adjusted % for
Stabilizing
Woody Veg.
1. Bed
1.Vertical Stability
2. Riffle Condition
3. Meander Pool Condition
Number Stable,
Total Number per
Number of
Amount of
% Stable,
Number with
Footage with
Adjusted % for
Major Channel Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Performing as
As -built
Unstable
Unstable Footage
Performing as
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide) 18 is 100
Intended
Segments
Intended
Woody Veg.
Woody Veg.
Woody Veg.
1. Aggradation
L Scoured/Eroding
0
0
l00%
0
0
100%
0
1.Vertical Stability
2. Degradation
2. Bank
2. Undercut
0
0%
l00%
0
0
100%
0
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture Substrate
7
7
Banks slumping, caving or collapse
100%
0
0
100%
1. Bed
0
1. Depth
2
2
R10%
0
0
100%
0
3. Meander Pool Condition
2. Length
2
2
l00%
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
2
2
IStructures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs
17
l00%
100%
4. Thalweg Position
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide)
2
2
IGr..dc c tarot structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill
17
100
100%
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lackingvegetative cover resultingsharplyfrom poor growth and/or scour and erosion
2a. Pi in
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
2. Bank
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears likely
3. Bank Position
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3. Mass WastingBanks
slumping, ravingor collapse
4. Habitat
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 logs
3
3
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibitin maintenance of de across the sill
3
3
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lackingan substantial flaw underneath sill or arms
3
3
l00
3. Bank Position
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%
3
3
100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth
3
3
100%
Table 5a. Visual Steam Morphology Stability Assessment
UT to Cane Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95729
Reach ID: Reach 5
Assessed Length (LF): 2,039
Major Channel Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number Stable,
Performing as
Intended
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. Bed
1.Vertical Stability
2. Riffle Condition
3. Meander Pool Condition
1. Aggradation
2. Degradation
1. Texture Substrate
1. Depth
2. Length
15
19
19
I S
19
19
0
0
0
0%
100%
l00%
100%
100%
100
4. Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
19
19
100
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide) 18 is 100
or
L 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 to the extent that mass wasting appears likely
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3. Mass Wasting
Banks slumping, caving or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3. Engineering Structures
11. Overall Integrity
IStructures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs
17
17
100%
2. Grade Control
IGr..dc c tarot structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill
17
17
100%
2a. Pi in
Structures lackin an substantial flow underneath sill or arms
17
17
l oo
3. Bank Position
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%
17
17
100
4. Habitat
lPool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth
1 17
17
100%
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT
UT TO CANE CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95729)

Table 5b. Stream Problem Areas (SPAS)
UT to Cane Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95729
Feature Issue
Station Number
Suspected Cause
Photo Number
None Observed
N/A
N/A
N/A
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT
UT TO CANE CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95729)

Table 6a. Vegetation Conditions Assessment
UT to Cane Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95729
Planted Acreage: 14.0
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
% of Planted
Vegetation Category
Deflations
Threshold
(acres)
Depiction
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
1. Bare Areas
Very limited cover both woody and herbaceous material.
0.1
NA
0
0.00
0.0%
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 4 or 5
0.1
NA
0
0.00
0.0%
2. Low Stem Density Areas
stem count criteria.
Total
0
0.00
0.0%
Areas with woody stems or a size class that are obviously small given the
0.25
NA
0
0.00
0.0%
3. Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor
monitoring year.
Cumulative Total
0
0.00
0.0%
Easement Acreage: 19.9
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
% of Planted
Vegetation Category
Deflations
Threshold
Depiction
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
5. Invasive Areas of Concern
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale)
1000 ft2
Yes
1
0.14
0.7%
6. Easement Encroachment Areas
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale)
none
NA
0
0.00
0.0
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT
UT TO CANE CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95729)

Table 6b. Vegetation Problem Areas (VPAs)
UT to Cane Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95729
Feature Issue
Station Number
Suspected Cause
Photos
Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense)
Reach R4, Station 44+00
re -sprouts
Appendix B
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT
UT TO CANE CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95729)

..�
4 ' �' � w' •/ it �i �`* • c 8T T �:\F �, � !1 � �
.:PF^F';
F � f � � ' _ •'r to � 4' �� ala r �� � � � �,

UT to Cane Creek: Stream and Project Photographs
Reach R5 — View upstream, Station 12+00
Reach R5 — View upstream, Station 28+50
Reach R5 — View upstream, Station 11+50
Reach R3 — View upstream, at cross-section 6
Reach R4 — View upstream, Station 31+50
Reach R4 — View of upstream, Station 35+00

UT to Cane Creek: Stream and Project Photographs
ILS
Reach R4 — View upstream, enhancement area,
Station 38+50
Reach R4 — View upstream, enhancement area,
Station 49+00
Reach R4 — View upstream, enhancement area
J -Hook). atation 4S+ -')U
Reach R4 — View upstream, stream crossing,
Station 53+00
Reach R4 — View upstream, Station 54+75 Reach R4 — View upstream, Station 56+50

UT to Cane Creek: Stream and Project Photographs
Reach R5: Crest Gauge #1, 0.76 feet on May 3, 2017
Reach R3: Bankfull evidence on May 3, 2017
j�IV�=�mGs1
Reach R3: Crest Gauge #2, 0.46 feet on May 3, 2017
Reach R3: Bankfull evidence, May 3, 2017
Reach R5/R3: Dead privet sprayed in Feb. 2017
Reach R4: Dead privet sprayed in Feb. 2017

UT to Cane Creek: Stream and Project Photographs
Reach R4: Privet re -sprouts, Station 44+00
Reach R4: Privet re -sprouts, Station 44+00

Appendix C
Vegetation Plot Data*
*No vegetation plot monitoring was required for Year 4.

Appendix D
Stream Survey Data*
*No cross-section stream survey monitoring was required for Year 4.

Table 10. Baseline Stream Summary
UT to Cane Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No.
95729
Reach 1 (1,045 LF)
Parameter
USGS
Regional Carve Interval
Pre -Existing
Conditiod
Reference Reach(es) Data
Design
As -built
Gauge
(Harman
et al, 1999)*
UT to Wells Creek
UT to Varnals Creek
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
LL
UL Eq.
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD n
Min
Mean
Med Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med Max
SD
n Min
Mean
Med Max SD
n Min
Mean
Med Max SD n
_____ _____
_____
8
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
6.9
_____ _____
_____ 7.2
_____
_____ 9.1 _____ _____
FloodproneWidth Ht
-----
-----
---- ----
6.8
-----
-----
>30
----- -----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
----- -----
>20
----- ----- -----
----- 65.6
-----
----- 84.4 ----- -----
BEcan Depth (ft)_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____
0.5
_____ _____ _____
_____ 0.5
_____
_____ 1.0 _____ -----
BEMax Depth (ft)
_____
_____
_____ _____
1.1
_____
_____
1.2
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____
0.7
_____ _____ _____
_____ 0.7
_____
_____ 1.9 _____ -----
BECross-sectional Area
-----
-----
_____
7.9
_____
_____
3.7
_____ _____ _____
_____ 4.0
_____
_____ 8.7 _____ _____
Width/Depth Ratio
-----
-----
----- ----
6.1
-----
-----
10.5
----- ---
7
----
----- 26
-----
----
8
-----
----- 18
---
---- -----
13.0
----- ----- -----
----- 9.6
-----
----- 15.2 ----- -----
Entrenchment ment ah
_____
_____
_____ _____
1.2
_____
_____
_____ 3.9
_____
_____
>2.2
_____ _____
_____ 6.9
_____
_____ 10.8 _____ -----
Bank Height Ratio
-----
-----
----- _____
1.6
_____
_____
4.3
_____ ___
1.4
_____
_____ 2.5
_____
_____
1.1
_____
_____ 1.5
_____
_____ _____
1.0
_____ _____ _____
_____ 1.0
_____
_____ 1.3
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____ -----
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft
""'
""'
""' ""'
""'
""'
""'
""'
____ -----
-""
""'
""' ""'
_____
-----
""'
""'
""' ""'
""'
""' 25.0
""'
""' 45.0 ""'
""' ""'
""'
""' ""' ""' -----
Radiusof Curvature (ft)
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
--- ---
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
----- 14.0
-----
----- 21.0 -----
----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
_____ 4.0
_____
-----
0.8
_____ 2.3
_____
----- 2.0
_____
_____ 3.0 _____
_____ _____
Meander Wavelength (ft
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- ---
4.4
-----
----- 8.8
----
----
4.9
-----
----- 6.9
-----
---- 50.0
-----
----- 80.0 -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
MeanderWidth Ran
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ ___
13
_____
_____ 4.4
_____
_ __
1.2
_____
_____ 1.8
_____
_- _ 3.6
_____
_____ 6.5 _____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____ -----
Profile
Riffle Length (ft
""'
""'
""' ""'
""'
""'
""'
""'
""' ""'
""'
----- ""'
""'
""' ""' ""'
""' ""'
""'
""' ""' ""' -----
RiffleSlope (ft/ft
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
__________
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____
PoolLength (R
""'
""'
""' ""'
""'
""'
""'
""'
""'
""'
----- ""'
""'
""' ""' ""'
""' ""'
""'
""' ""' ""' -----
PooPool pacing
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____ 7.
_____
2.9
_____
____
_ 5.0
_____
_____ 28.0
_____
_____ 42.0 _____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____
_____ 2.7
___
-----
L6
_____ 2.3
_____
----- _____
1.5
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____ -----
Pool Volume (ftp)
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____
Substrate and Transport Parameters
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____ ____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____ ----
___dl6
dl 6/ d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
-----
-----
----- -----
0.1 / 0.6/ 4.5 / 53 / 96
0.2 / 2.5/ 8 / 92 / 1,536
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----
ReachShear Stress (competency) Ib/
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____ -----
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____ -----
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____ -----
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
0.125
_____ -----
_____
_____
_____ 0.13
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ 0.24
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____ 0.125 _____
_____ _____
_____
_____ 0.125 _____ -----
Impervious cover estimate o
Impervious
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____
Rosgen Classification
-----
-----
----- _____
G5c
_____
E5
____ ___
-----
-----
_____ C4/1
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ B4/la
_____
_- _ _____
E4/C4
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____
E4/C4
_____ _____ _____ -----
BE Velocity ($s)
-----
-----
----------
0.8
-----
-----
1.2
----- -----
-----
-----
----- 5.3
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
----- -----
3.5
----- ----- -----
----- -----
3.5
----- ----- ----- -----
BE Discharge (cfs)
_____
290.0
2000.0 19.8
_____
_____
_____
19.8
_____ -----
_____
_____
_____ 25.2
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ 46.6
_____
----- _____
13
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____
13
_____ _____ _____ -----
ValleyLength
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____
859.4
_____ _____ _____ -----
Channellength (ft}
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
943
____ -----
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
----- _____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____
1044.9
_____ _____ _____ -----
Sinuosity
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
1.09
_____ ___
_____
_____
_____ 1.40
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ 1.20
_____
_____ _____
1.20
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____
1.2
_____ _____ _____ -----
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
_____
0.0127
_____ -
-----
-----
_____ 0.0197
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ 0.0405
_____
----- _____
0.012
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____
0.0123
_____ _____ _____ -----
BE slope (ft/ft)
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
0.0135
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ 0.028
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ 0.0458
_____
_____ _____
0.015
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____
0.0150
_____ _____ _____ _____
BankfullFloodplain Area (acres
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
----- _____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____
BEHIVL% / L% / M% / H% / VH% / E%
__________
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____
ChannelStability or Habitat Mem
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____
Biological or Other11
----------
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
" Harman, W.A., G.D. Jennings, J.M. Patterson, D.R. Clinton, L.O. Slate, A.G. Jessup, S.R. Everhart,
and R.E. Smith. 1999. Bankfull hydraWic geometry relationships for North Carolina streams. Wildland Hydrology. AWRA Symposium
Proceedings. D.S. Olsen and J.P. Potyondy, eds. American Water Resources Association. June 30 -July 2, 1999. Bozeman, MT.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT
UT TO CANE CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95729)

Table 10. Baseline Stream Summary (continued)
UT to Cane Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No.
95729
Reach 3 (398 LF)
Parameter
USGS
Regional Carve Interval
Pre -Existing
Conditiod
Reference Reach(es) Data
Design
As -built
Gauge
(Harman
et al, 1999)*
UT to Wells Creek
UT to Varnals Creek
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
LL
UL Eq.
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD n Min
Mean
Med Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med Max SD
n Min
Mean
Med Max SD
n Min
Mean
Med Max SD n
_____
_____
_____
_____ ----- -----
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
9.7
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____
7.2
_____ _____ _____
_____ 8.9
_____
_____ 9.0 _____ _____
Floodprone Width Ht
-----
-----
---- ----
-----
-----
-----
>16.3
----- --- -----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
----- 12
-----
----- 20.0 -----
----- 24.4
-----
----- 36.3 ----- -----
BEcan Depth (ft)_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____
0.6
_____ _____ _____
_____ 0.4
_____
_____ 0.6 _____ -----
BEMax Depth (ft)
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
1.2
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____
0.7
_____ _____ _____
_____ 0.8
_____
_____ 1.1 _____ -----
BECross-sectional Area
-----
-----
-----
-----
5.6
----- -----
_____
7.9
_____
_____ _____
4.0
_____ _____ _____
_____ 3.7
_____
_____ 5.3 _____ _____
Width/Depth Ratio
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
9.9
_____ ___ 7
_____
_____ 26
_____
_____
8
_____
_____ 18 _____
_____ _____
13.0
_____ _____ _____
_____ 15.3
_____
_____ 21.7 _____ -----
Entrenchment ment ah
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ 3.9 _____
_ 1,8
_____ 2.2 _____
_____ 2.7
_____
_____ 4.0 _____ -----
Bank Height Ratio
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
_____
1.5
_____ _____ I_q
_____
_____ 2.5
_____
_____
1.1
_____
_____ 1.5 _____
_____ _____
1.0
_____ _____ _____
_____ 1.0
_____
_____ 1.0
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____ -----
Pattern
Channel a [wt t
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____
_____
Radius of Curvature (ft)
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____
_____ 4.0
_____
-----
0.8
_____ 2.3 _____
----- _____
_____
_____ _____
-----
Meander Wavelength
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ 4.4
_____
____
_ 8.8
_____
_____
4.9
_____
____ _____
_ 6.9
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____ ____
-----
Meander
Mean er Wi [ Ran
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ ___ 13
_____
_____ 4.4
_____
_ __
1.2
_____
_____ 1.8 _____
_- _ __-
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____ -----
Profile
RiffleLength (ft
""'
""'
""' ""'
""'
""'
""'
""'
""' ""'
""'
----- -----
-----
""' ""' ""'
""' ""'
""'
""' ""' ""' -----
RiffleSlope (ft/ft
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
__________
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____
PoolLength (R
""'
""'
""' ""'
""'
""'
""'
""'
""'
""'
----- -----
-----
""' ""' ""'
""' ""'
""'
""' ""' ""' -----
PooPool pacing
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____ 7.
_____
2.9
-----
____ _____
- 5.0
---- II
----
----- 36 -----
----- -----
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____
_____ 2.7
___
-----
1.6
_____ 2.3 _____
----- 1.5
_____
_____ 1.5 _____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____ -----
Pool Volume (ft')
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____
Substrate and Transport Parameters
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____ ____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____ ----
___dl6
dl 6/ d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
-----
-----
----- -----
0.1 / 0.6/ 4.5 / 53 / 96
0.2 / 2.5/ 8 / 92 / 1,536
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----
ReachShear Stress (competency) Ib/
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____ -----
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____ -----
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____ -----
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
0.1
_____ ___ _____
_____
_____ 0.13
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ 0.24 _____
_____ _____
0.1
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____
0.1
_____ _____ _____ -----
Impervious cover estimate o
Impervious
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____
Rosgen Classificatio
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
B4c
____ ----- _____
_____
_____ C4/I
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ B4/la _____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____
C4
_____ _____ _____ -----
BE Velocity (fps)
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
__________
5.3
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____ -----
BEDischarge (cfs)
_____
290.0
2000.0 21.7
_____
_____
_____
21.7
____ ----- _____
_____
_____ 25.2
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ 46.6 _____
----- _____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____ -----
ValleyLength
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____
356.8
_____ _____ _____ -----
Channellength (ft}
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
425
____ ----- _____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
----- _____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____
389.1
_____ _____ _____ -----
Sinuosity
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
1.16
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____ 1.40
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ 1.20 _____
_____ _____
1.18
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____
1.1
_____ _____ _____ -----
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
_____
0.0195
_____ ------
-----
_____ 0.0197
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ 0.0405 _____
----- _____
0.016
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____
0.0172
_____ _____ _____ -----
BE slope (ft/ft)
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
0.0168
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____ 0.028
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ 0.0458 _____
_____ _____
0.018
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____
0.0187
_____ _____ _____ _____
BankfullFloodplain Area (acres
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
----- _____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____
BEHIVL% / L% / M% / H% / VH% / E%
__________
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____
ChannelStability or Habitat Metri
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____
Biological or Othei
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
" Harman, W.A., G.D. Jennings, J.M. Patterson, D.R. Clinton, L.O. Slate, A.G. Jessup, S.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, e&. American Water Resources Association. June 304u1y 2, 1999. Bozeman, MT.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT
UT TO CANE CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95729)

Table 10. Baseline Stream Summary (continued)
UT to Cane Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No.
95729
Reach 4 (2,333 LF)
Parameter
USGS
Regional Carve Interval
Pre -Existing Conditiod
Reference Reach(es) Data
Design
As -built
Gauge
(Harman
et al, 1999)*
UT to Wells Creek
UT to Varnals Creek
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
LL
UL Eq.
Min
Mean Med Max
SD n
Min
Mean
Med Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med Max
SD
n Min
Mean
Med Max
SD
n Min
Mean
Med Max SD n
_____ _____
_____
8
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
14.0
_____
_____
_____ 10.1
_____
_____ 13.8 _____ _____
Floodprone Width Ht
-----
-----
---- -----
18.4
----- ----- 26.2
----- -----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
----- -----
>30
----- -----
-----
----- 80.1
-----
----- 105.0 ----- -----
BFcan Depth (ft)_____
_____ _____
_____
""'
""' ""'
""'
_____ ""'
1.0
""' ""'
""'
""' 0.6
""'
""' 1.2 _____ -----
BEMax Depth (ft)
-----
-----
----- ----
1.3
----- ----- 1.6
----- ---
-----
-----
----- -----
----
----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
----- -----
1.2
----- -----
-----
----- 1.1
-----
----- 2.0 ----- -----
BFCross-sechona Area
-----
----- _____ 15.5
_____
_____
5.3
_____ _____
_____
___
_____
7,9
_____ _____
_____
___ _____
14.0
_____ _____
_____
_____ 7.5
_____
_____ 12.3 _____ _____
Width/Depth Ratio
-----
-----
----- -----
15.4
---------- 19.0
---- -----
7
----- 26
-----
_____
-----
_____
18
---
---- -----
14.0
----- -----
-----
----- 8.3
-----
----- 19.4 _____ -----
Entrenchment ment ah
_____
_____
_____ _____
1.2
_____ _____
_____ 3.9
_____
_____
>2.2
_____
_____
_____ 7.9
_____
_____ 9.4 _____ -----
Bank Height Ratio
-----
-----
----- -----
1.3
----- ----- 2.8
---- ---
1.4
-----
----- 2.5
-----
----
1A
-----
----- 1.5
-----
----- -----
1.0
----- -----
-----
----- 1.0
-----
----- 1.1
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____ -----
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft
""'
""'
""' ""'
""'
""' ""' ""'
____ -----
-""
""'
""' ""'
_____
-----
""'
""'
""' ""'
""'
""' ""'
""'
""' ""'
""'
""' 38.0
79.0
_____ 120.0 ""' -----
Radiusof Curvature (ft)
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____ 21.0
26.0
----- 31.0 ----- -----
__
0.3
_____
_____ 4.0
_____
-----
0.8
_____
_____ 2.3
_____
----- _____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____ 38.0
79.0
_____ 120.0 _____ -----
Meander Wavelength (ft
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ---
4.4
-----
----- 8.8
-----
----
4.9
----
----- 6.9
-----
---- -----
-----
----- -----
-----
----- 72.0
104.0
----- 124.0 ----- -----
-----
Meander Width Ran
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _ __
13
_____
_____ 4.4
_____
_- _
1.2
_____
_____ 1.8
_____
_- _ _____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____ 3.5
6.0
_____ 8.0 _____ -----
Profile
RiffleLength (ft
""'
""'
""' ""'
""'
""' ""' ""'
""' ""'
""'
----- ""'
""'
""' ""'
""'
""' ""'
""'
""' ""' ""' -----
Riffle Slope (ft/ft
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
----- ----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
---- -----
-----
----- -----
-----
----- 0.0046
0.0043
----- 0.0039 ----- -----
PoolLength (R
""'
""'
""' ""'
""'
""' ""' ""'
""'
""'
----- ""'
""'
""' ""'
""'
""'
-----
PooPool pacing
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____ 7.
_____
2.9
_____
____
_ 5,0
_____
_____ 42
_____
____
_ 8q
_____
_____ 41
_____
72 57
_____ 2.7
_____
-----
L6
_____ 2.3
_____
----- _____
2.2
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____ -----
Pool Volume (ft')
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____
Substrate and Transport Parameters
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____ ____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____ ----
___dl6
dl 6/ d35 / d50 / d84 / d95-----
-----
----------
24.2 / 50.6 / 69.4 / 50.6 / 24.2
0.1 / 0.6 / 4.5 / 53 / 96
0.2 / 2.5 / 8 / 92 /1,536
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----
ReachShear Stress (competency) Ib/
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____ -----
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____ -----
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____ -----
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____ 0.7
_____ -----
_____
_____
_____ 0.13
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ 0.24
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____ 0.7
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____ 0.7 _____ -----
Impervious
Impervious cover estimate o
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____
Rosgen Classification
-----
-----
----- _____
B3c
_____ _____ F5
____ ___
-----
-----
_____ C4/I
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ B4/la
_____
_- _ _____
C4
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____
C4
_____ _____ _____ _____
----- 4.6
---- ---
-----
-----
----- 5.3
-----
----- -----
-----
---- -----
4.0
----- -----
-----
----- -----
3.0
BF Discharge (cfs)
_____
290.0
2000.0 69.2
_____
_____ _____ 69.2
_____ -----
_____
_____
_____ 25.2
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ 46.6
_____
----- _____
56.0
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____
56.0
_____ _____ _____ -----
ValleyLength
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ ___
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____
349
_____ _____ _____ -----
Channellength (ft}
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____ 2,783
____ -----
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
----- _____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____
386
_____ _____ _____ -----
Sinuosity
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____ 1.04
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ 1.40
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ 1.20
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____
1.10
_____ _____ _____ -----
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
----- _____ 0.0169
_____ -
-----
-----
_____ 0.0197
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ 0.0405
_____
----- _____
0.015
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____
0.0074
_____ _____ _____ -----
BE slope (ft/ft)
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____ 0.0148
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ 0.028
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ 0.0458
_____
_____ _____
0.017
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____
0.0082
_____ _____ _____ _____
BankfullFloodplain Area (acres
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____
____ -----
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
----- _____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____
BEHIVL% / L% / M% / H% / VH% / E%
__________
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____
ChannelStability or Habitat Mem
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ ----------
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____
Biological or Other
-----I
-----
----- -----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
" Harman, W.A., G.D. Jennings, J.M. Patterson, D.R. Clinton, L.O. Slate, A.G. Jessup, S.R. Everhart,
and R.E. Smith. 1999. Bankfull hydraWic geometry relationships for North Carolina streams. Wildland Hydrology. AWRA Symposium
Proceedings. D.S. Olsen -d J.P. Potyondy, eds. American Water Resources Association. June 30.July 2, 1999. Bozeman, MT.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT
UT TO CANE CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95729)

Table 10. Baseline Stream Summary (continued)
UT to Cane Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No.
95729
Reach 5 (1,461 LF)
Parameter
USGS
Regional Carve Interval
Pre -Existing Conditiod
Reference Reach(es) Data
Design
As -built
Gauge
(Harman
et al, 1999)*
UT to Wells Creek
UT to Varnals Creek
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
LL
UL Eq.
Min
Mean
Med Max
SD n Min
Mean
Med Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med Max SD
n Min
Mean
Med Max SD
n Min
Mean
Med Max SD n
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
9.7
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____
10.8
_____ _____ _____
_____ 10.2
_____
_____ 12.0 _____ _____
FloodproneWidth Ht
-----
-----
----- ----
-----
-----
----- 11.8
----- ----- -----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
----- -----
125
----- ----- -----
----- 76.0
-----
----- 103.7 ----- -----
BFcan Depth (ft)_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
""'
""' ""' ""'
_____ ""'
0.8
""' ""' ""'
""' 0.7
""'
""' 1.4 _____ -----
BEMax Depth (ft)
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ 1.5
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____
1.1
_____ _____ _____
_____ 1.2
_____
_____ 2.8 _____ -----
BFCross-sechona Area
-----
-----
-----
----- 10.9
----- -----
_____
9.0
_____ _____ _____
_____ 7.1
_____
_____ 15.8 _____ _____
Width/DepthRan
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ 7.
_____ _____ 7
_____
----- 26
-----
----
8
-----
----- 18 ---
---- -----
13.0
----- ----- -----
----- 8.0
-----
----- 17.8 _____ -----
Entrenc ment Rah
Entrenchment
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ Ig
____ ___ 2,p
_____
3.4
_____
_- _
19
____
_____ 3.9 _____
___ _____
>2.2
_____ _____ _____
_____ 3.2
_____
_____ 9.2 _____ -----
Bank Height Rah
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ 2.6
_____ ___ L4
_____
_____ 2.5
_____
_____
1A
_____
_____ 1.5 _____
_____ _____
1.0
_____ _____ _____
_____ 1.0
_____
_____ 1.0
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____ -----
Pattern
Channel a [wt t
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____
_____
Radius of Curvature (ft)
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____
_____ 4.0
_____
-----
0.8
_____ 2.3 _____
----- _____
_____
_____ _____
-----
Meander Wavelength
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ 4.4
_____
____
_ 8.8
_____
_____
4.9
_____
____ _____
_ 6.9
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____ ____
-----
Meander
Mean er Wi [ Ran
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____ ___ 13
_____
_____ 4.4
_____
_ __
1.2
_____
_____ 1.8 _____
_- _ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____ -----
Profile
RiffleLength (ft
""'
""'
""' ""'
""'
""'
""' ""'
""' ""'
""'
----- ""'
""'
""' ""' ""'
""' ""'
""'
""' ""' ""' -----
RiffleSlope (ft/ft
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
__________
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____
PoolLength (R
""'
""'
""' ""'
""'
""'
""' ""'
""'
""'
----- ""'
""'
""' ""' ""'
""'
""'
Pool Spacing
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____ 2.1
_____
_____ 7.
_____
----
2.9
-----
----- 5.0 -----
---- 32.0
-----
65.0 ----- -----
----- -----
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____
_____ 2.7
___
-----
1.6
_____ 2.3 _____
----- _____
2.0
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____ -----
Pool Volume (ft')
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____
Substrate and Transport Parameters
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____ ____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____ ----
___dl6
dl 6/ d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
-----
-----
----- -----
16.6/31.2/47.0/85.3/116.1
0.1 / 0.6/ 4.5 / 53 / 96
0.2 / 2.5/ 8 / 92 / 1,536
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
6.74 / 20.49 / 29.79 / 63.73 / 118.25
ReachShear Stress (competency) Ib/
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____ -----
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____ -----
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____ -----
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ 0.5
_____ ----- _____
_____
_____ 0.13
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ 0.24 _____
_____ _____
_____
_____ 0.5 _____
_____ _____
_____
_____ 0.5 _____ -----
Impervious
Impervious cover estimate o
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____
Rosgen Classification
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ G4
____ ___ _____
_____
_____ C4/1
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ B4/la _____
_____ _____
C4
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____
C4
_____ _____ _____ _____
_____ 4.5
_____ ___ _____
_____
____
_ 5.3
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____
4.4
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____
4.4
_____ _____ _____ -----
BE Discharge (cfs)
_____
290.0
2000.0 50.0
_____
_____
_____ 50
_____ ----- _____
_____
_____ 25.2
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ 46.6 _____
----- _____
40
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____
40
_____ _____ _____ -----
Valley Length
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____
Channel length (ft}
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ 1848
____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____ -----
Sinuosity
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____ 1.07
_____
_____ 1.40
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____ -----
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
_____ 0.0144
____ ------
-----
_____ 0.0197
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ 0.0405 _____
----- _____
0.014
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____
0.014
_____ _____ _____ -----
BE slope (ft/ft)
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ 0.0128
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____ 0.028
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ 0.0458 _____
_____ _____
0.017
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____
0.017
_____ _____ _____ _____
BankfullFloodplain Area (acres
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____
____ ----- _____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
----- _____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____
BEHIVL% / L% / M% / H% / VH% / E%
__________
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____
ChannelStability or Habitat Mahn
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____
----- -----_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____
Biological or Other
-----I
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- -----
----
" Harman, W.A., G.D. Jennings, J.M. Patterson, D.R. Clinton, L.O. Slate, A.G. Jessup, S.R. Everhart,
and R.E. Smith. 1999. Bankfull hydraWic geometry relationships for Nonh Carolina streams.
W ildland Hydrology. AWRA Symposium
Proceedings. D.S. Olsen -d J.P. Potyondy, eds. American Water Resources Association. June 30.July 2, 1999. Bozeman, MT.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT
UT TO CANE CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95729)

Table 10. Baseline Stream Summary (continued)
UT to Cane Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No.
95729
Reach 5a (145 LF)
Parameter
USGS
Regional Carve Interval
Pre -Existing
Conditiod
Reference Reach(es) Data
Design As -built
Gauge
(Harman
et al, 1999)*
UT to Wells Creek
UT to Varnals Creek
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
LL
UL Eq.
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD n Min
Mean
Med Max
SD n
Min
Mean
Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____
9.7
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____
FloodproneWidth Ht
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
16.9
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
BEcan Depth (ft)_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
BEMax Depth (ft)
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
0.5
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
BECross-sectional Area
-----
-----
-----
-----
4.2
----
5.3
_____
_____
7.9
____W_____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
Width/Depth
t t Dep Ran
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
45.0
_____ _____ 7
_____
----- 26
----- -----
8
_____
----- 18 --- _____ ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
nc ment Rah
EntreEntrenchment
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
1,3
____ ___ 2,p
_____
3.4
_____ _ __
1.9
_____
_____ 3.9 _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
___ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
Bank Height Ratio
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
2.3
_____ _____ 1.4
_____
_____ 2.5
_____ _____
1.1
_____
_____ 1.5 __________ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
Pattern
Channel a [wt t
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
Radius of Curvature (ft)
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ 4.0
_____ -----
0.8
_____ 2.3 _____ ----- _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
Meander Wavelength
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ 4.4
_____
____
_ 8.8
_____ _____
4.9
_____
____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ ____
_ 6.9 _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
Meander
Mean er Wi [ Ran
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ ___ 13
_____
_____ 4.4
_____ _ __
1.2
_____
_____ 1.8 _____ _- _ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
Profile
RiffleLength (ft
""'
""'
""' ""'
""'
""'
""'
""'
""' ""'
_____ ----- ""' ""' ""' ""' ""' ""' ""' ""' ""' ""' ""' -----
RiffleSlope (ft/ft
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
__________
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
PoolLength (ft
""'
""'
""' ""'
""'
""'
""'
""'
""'
"'-- ----- ""' ""' ""' ""' ""' ""' ""' ""' ""' ""' ""' -----
Poo pacing
Pool
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ 2.1
-----
____
- 7.9
_____ ----
2.9
-----
____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
- 5.0 ---- ----- ----- ----- -----
_____ 2.3
_____
_____ 2.7
___ -----
1.6
_____ 2.3 _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
Pool Volume (ft')
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
Substrate and Transport Parameters
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ ____
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
____dl6
dl 6/ d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
-----
-----
----- -----
0.1 / 0.6/ 4.5 / 53 / 96
0.2 / 2.5/ 8 / 92 / 1,536 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
ReachShear Stress (competency) Ib/
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
0.025
_____ _____
_____
_____ 0.13
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ 0.24 _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
Impervious
Impervious cover estimate o
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
Rosgen Classification
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____ _____
___
_____
_____ C4/I
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____ B4/la _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____
1.7
_____ ___ _____
_____
____
_ 5,3
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
BF Discharge (cfs)
_____
290.0
2000.0 6.2
_____
_____
_____
7.1
_____ ___ _____
_____
_____ 25.2
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ 46.6 _____ ----- _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
Valley Length
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
Channellength (ft}
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
144
____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
Sinuosity_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
1.19
_____
_____ 1.40
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft1ft)
""'
""'
""' ""'
""'
""'
""'
0.0236
""' ----- -""
""'
""' 0.0197
""' ""'
""'
""'
___ _____ _____ _____
""' 0.0405 ""' ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ""'
BE slope (ft/ft)
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
0.0224
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____ 0.028
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ 0.0458 _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
BankfullFloodplain Area (acres
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____ ----- _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
BEHIVL% / L% / M% / H% / VH% / E%
__________
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
ChannelStability or Habitat Mahn
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
on or Other11
----------
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
" Harman, W.A., G.D. Jennings, J.M. Patterson, D.R. Clinton, L.O. Slate, A.G. Jessup, S.R. Everhart,
and R.E. Smith. 1999. Bankfull hydraWic geometry relationships for North Carolina streams. Wildland Hydrology. AWRA Symposium
Proceedings. D.S. Olsen and J.P. Potyondy, eds. American Water Resources Association. June 30 -July 2, 1999. Bozeman, MT.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT
UT TO CANE CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95729)

Appendix E
Hydrologic Data

Table 12. Verification of Bankfull Events
UT to Cane Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95729
Date of Data Collection
Crest Gauge 1 (Reach 5)
Crest Gauge 2 (Reach 3)
Estimated Occurrence of Bankfull
Event
Method of Data Collection
Year 1 Monitoring
10/1/2014 NA
0.18
7/16/2014
Crest Gauge
Year 2 Monitoring
3/25/2015 0.33
NA
3/6/2015
Crest Gauge
10/13/2015 0.62
0.79
10/3/2015
Crest Gauge
Year 3 Monitoring
7/27/2016 1.21
NA
2/17/2016
Crest Gauge
9/30/2016 1.31
1.12
9/19/2016
Crest Gauge
11/9/2016 0.75
0.66
10/9/2016
Crest Gauge
Year 4 Monitoring
5/3/2017 0.76
0.46
4/24/2017
Crest Gauge
* Although the reading from Crest Gauge 2 on 5/3/2017 wasn't as clear as on previously recorded events, the evidence of overbank flow was obvious and was documented through
photographs as presented in Appendix B.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT
UT TO CANE CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95729)