20141024 Ver 1_Year 2 Monitoring Report 2017_20171201

FINAL
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project — Option A
Year 2 Monitoring Report
Stanly County, North Carolina
DMS Project ID Number — 94648; NC DEQ Contract No. 003277
Yadkin Pee -Dee River Basin: 03040105060040
Project Info: Monitoring Year: 2 of 7
Year of Data Collection: 2017
Year of Completed Construction: 2016
Submission Date: December 2017
Submitted To: NCDEQ — Division of Mitigation Services
1625 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
NCDEQ Contract ID No. 003277

UT to Town Creek Restoration Project — Option A
Year 2 Monitoring Report
Stanly County, North Carolina
DMS Project ID Number — 94648; NC DEQ Contract No. 003277
SAW -2013-01280; DWR#14-1024
Yadkin Pee -Dee River Basin: 03040105060040
Report Prepared and Submitted by Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
NC Professional Engineering License # F-1084
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
Cary, NC 27518
I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. I
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

We Moke a Difference
I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L
January 17, 2018
Harry Tsomides, Project Manager
NCDEQ - Division of Mitigation Services
5 Ravenscroft Drive, Ste. 102
Asheville, NC 28801
Subject: Task 8: Annual Final Monitoring Report — Monitoring Year 2 & Response to Comments
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project — Option A
Yadkin River Basin — CU# 03040105 — Stanly County, NC
NCDMS Project ID No. 94648; NCDEQ Contract No. 003277
Dear Mr. Tsomides:
Please find enclosed the Final Year 2 Monitoring Report and our responses to the Division of Mitigation
Services (DMS) review comments received on December 12, 2017 regarding the UT to Town Creek
Restoration Project — Option A, located in Stanly County, NC. We have revised Final Year 2 Monitoring
Document in response to the referenced review comments. Each response has been grouped with its
corresponding comment and is outlined below.
Credits — Following the 2017 Credit Release meeting it was determined that Baker would apply an
approved buffer methodology to determine project credits. If possible please run the recently updated buffer
method and incorporate updated proposed credits into the MY02, along with a brief narrative explaining
why (and to what degree) project credits are changing during the monitoring period.
Response — Additional stream credits from excess buffers will be determined after the Interagency Review
Team has finalized the spreadsheet for calculating the amount of additional credits generated. Updates
will be included in the MY03 report and will include an updated asset table and all other necessary
documentation. Please note that per direct communication with Andrea Hughes with the USACE on
10/26117, a full credit release will be approved for monitoring year 2. This is due to the spreadsheet being
developed to calculate additional credits from additional buffer widths, not being complete in time.
Report should have Appendix tabs and front/rear protective covers (similarly to MY01).
Response — The final report copies include Appendix tabs and front/rear protective covers, as requested.
Tables on opposing pages should not read upside down when the report is held to one side; e.g., Tables 5b,
5d, 5f, etc. (similarly to MYO1).
Response — Front and back print settings have been adjusted. All tables have been printed right side up.
Some page footers contain the Town Creek DMS Project Number (95026).
Response — Page footers have been updated to reflect the correct DMS Project Number for UT to Town
Creek (94648).
Cross sections — Reported bankfull elevations have changed from MY01 to MY02. These were set and
consistent from MY to MY01. Bankfull elevation and the bankfull depth should remain static and reflect
MYO conditions for the purposes of monitoring changes/trends in the BHR. TOB elevation (the depth from
the thalweg to the low TOB) may change throughout monitoring period. Please update the cross sections
and data tables accordingly.
MBAKERINTL.COM
Michael Baker Engineering. Inc
B000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
Cary, NC 27518 1 Office 704.665.2200

We Make a Difference
Response — Bankfull elevations have been updated to reflect MYO. In addition, max BKF depth, BH ratio,
and ER have been revised where appropriate. Cross-sections and cross-section morphology and have been
updated to reflect changes in summary data. A footnote has been added to all associated tables to reflect
these changes. For ries the footnote is stated as follows:
"* Max BKFdepth was calculated from the As -built survey only for riffles. BHratio was calculated
using current year's low bank depth divided by the as -built year's max BAF depth. ER was
calculated using the current year's foodprone width divided by the as -built BAF width.
**Recorded BKF elevation refects the as -built survey BAF elevation. "
Forpools the footnote is stated as follows:
"*Recorded BKF elevation refects the as -built survey BKF elevation. "
Overall Assets Summary (Table 1) —Preferable that SMU should be reported to the nearest tenth to match
DMS' asset data tracking.
Response — SMUs reported in the Overall Assets Summary (Table 1) have been updated to refect the SMU
units to the nearest tenth.
Figures 2a through 2c - Figures should be printed on l Ix17 as they were in the MY01 report. Project
monitoring features are not legible at the submitted print size / scale.
It would be preferable to show the stream segment for each asset type in a unique color rather than callouts
to be consistent with most DMS monitoring reports. If that is not possible please show the reach breaks
clearly. For example, Figure 213 shows point-callouts for Reach 2 and Reach 3 but it is not clear looking at
the figure where the break point is between Reaches 2 and 3; e.g., is it the roadway/culvert or the confluence
with Reach 6?
Response — Figures 2 — 2c have been printed on 11x17 sized paper. As requested, each reach has been
identified with a distinct color to clearly define the reach on the CCPV maps (Figures 2 — 2C)
Table 6b — Please follow the format used for Stream Problem Areas; if no issues are noted for a Reach,
please indicate that in the Feature/Issue field.
VPAs 3 and 6 do not have a photo and are not identified in the table. There are several reach issues noted
without a photo ID. It is not necessary to have a photo for every problem area, but every problem area
should have a unique ID associated with it other than the photo ID. The reader needs to connect the CCPV
map with this table in order to easily know what type of problem exists in each of the called -out map
locations.
Since Myriophyllum aquaticum (parrot feather) is noted in the problem area photos it could be captured in
the table somehow.
Response — The "Feature Issue " column of Table 6b has been updated to correctly refect reaches with no
problem areas. Identif cation for VPA 2-3 and VPA 2-6 was inadvertently omitted from Table 6b and has
been updated accordingly. Notation of the presence ofMyriophyllum aquaticum (parrot feather) has been
included in Table 6b as requested. Because the issue is located in areas reachwide along Reach 1, Reach
2, and Reach 3 and not in discrete locations, VPAs were not assigned and were not depicted on the CCPV
figures.
Stream Station Photos — Suggestion: The photo size/clarity quality has diminished from MY01 to MY02
(gotten darker and smaller); one example is PID 9 Station 13+99 Reach 7. It is understood that vegetation
gets thicker every year and the photos may not always show much depending on the light conditions but it
would be good to try and minimize foreground vegetation and try to capture the stream itself to the degree

We Make a Difference
possible, using judgment to move around a little bit. Not necessary to go back and re -do photos for this
report, just a comment for the future.
Response — As suggested, Baker will be more cognizant of the clarity, size, and subject matter of each
stream station photo in subsequent monitoring years, so that they better represent the stream condition and
mimic photos from MY01.
If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me at [phone] or via my email
address at ksuggsna mbakerintl.com.
Sincerely,
Kristi Suggs
Project Manager
Cc: File

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................1
2.0 METHODOLOGY.........................................................................................3
2.1 Stream Monitoring.......................................................................................................... 3
2.1.1 Morphologic Parameters and Channel Stability...................................................................................4
2.1.1.1 Dimension.......................................................................................................................................4
2.1.1.2 Longitudinal Profile........................................................................................................................4
2.1.1.3 Substrate and Sediment Transport..................................................................................................4
2.1.2 Stream Hydrology....................................................................................................................................4
2.1.2.1 Bankfull Events...............................................................................................................................4
2.1.2.2 Flow Documentation.......................................................................................................................5
2.1.3 Photographic Documentation of Site.....................................................................................................5
2.1.3.1 Lateral Reference Photos....................................................................................................................5
2.1.3.2 Longitudinal Station Photos...............................................................................................................5
2.1.4 Visual Assessment....................................................................................................................................5
2.2 Vegetation Monitoring................................................................................................... 6
2.3 Wetland Monitoring........................................................................................................ 6
2.4 BMP Monitoring............................................................................................................. 7
3.0 REFERENCES...............................................................................................8
APPENDICES
Appendix A Project Vicinity Map and Background Tables
Figure 1 Vicinity Map and Directions
Table 1 Project Mitigation Component
Table 2 Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3 Project Contacts
Table 4 Project Attributes
Appendix B Visual Assessment Data
Figures 2-2c Current Condition Plan View (CCPV)
Table 5a -g Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Table 5h Stream Problem Areas (SPAS)
Table 6a Vegetation Condition Assessment
Table 6b Vegetation Problem Areas (VPAs)
Stream Station Photos
Stream Problem Area Photos
Vegetation Problem Area Photos
Appendix C Vegetation Plot Data
Table 7 Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. II
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

Table
8
CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Table
9
CVS Stem Count of Planted Stems by Plot and Species
Vegetation
Plot
Photos
Appendix D Stream
Survey Data
Figure
3
Cross-sections with Annual Overlays
Table
10
Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table
Ila
Cross-section Morphology Data
Table
1 lb
Stream Reach Morphology Data
Figure
4
Year 2 Profile
Figure
5a -d
Reachwide Pebble Count Distribution with Annual
Overlays
Appendix E Hydrologic Data
Figure
6
Wetland Gauge Graphs
Figure
7
In -stream Flow Gauge Graphs
Figure
8
Monthly Rainfall Data
Table
12
Wetland Mitigation Area Well Success
Table
13
Verification of In -stream Flow Conditions
Table
14
Verification of Bankfull Events
Hydrologic
Data Photos
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. III
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc., (Baker) restored 5,554 linear feet (LF) and enhanced 791 LF (447 LF of
Enhancement I and 344 LF of Enhancement II) of perennial and intermittent stream along an Unnamed
Tributary (UT) to Town Creek and three additional unnamed tributaries. Also as part of this Project, Baker
restored and created 4.12 acres of riparian wetlands and enhanced 1.00 acre of riparian wetlands and constructed
two wetland best management practices (BMPs) upstream of the mitigation areas. Though no mitigation credit
is being sought for wetland enhancement, additional stream mitigation credit is being sought for the inclusion
of the proposed stormwater BMPs and the extended riparian buffer width within the conservation easement.
This report documents and presents the Year 2 monitoring data as required during the monitoring period.
The primary goals of the Project were to improve aquatic habitat degradation by improving ecologic functions
and reducing non -points source loads from agricultural run-off to the impaired areas as described in the Lower
Yadkin — Pee Dee RBRP and as identified below:
• Improve aquatic and terrestrial habitat through increasing dissolved oxygen concentrations, reduction
in nutrient and sediment loading, improving substrate and in -stream cover, and reduction of in -stream
water temperature;
• Improve both aquatic and riparian aesthetics;
• Create geomorphically stable conditions along UT to Town Creek and its tributaries through the Project
area;
• Prevent cattle from accessing the project area thereby protecting riparian and wetland vegetation and
reducing excessive bank erosion;
• Restore historical wetlands, create new wetlands, and enhance/preserve existing wetlands to improve
terrestrial habitat and reduce sediment and nutrient loading to UT to Town Creek and the Little Long
Creek Watershed.
To accomplish these goals, the following objectives were identified:
• Restore, enhance, create, and protect riparian wetlands and buffers to reduce nutrient and pollutant
loading by particle settling, vegetation filtering and nutrient uptake;
• Construct wetland BMPs on the upstream extent of Reaches 4 and 7 to improve water quality by
capturing and retaining stormwater run-off from the adjacent cattle pastures to allow for the biological
removal of nutrient pollutant loads and for sediment to settle out of the water column;
• Restore existing incised, eroding, and channelized streams by creating stable channels with access to
their geomorphic floodplains;
• Improve in -stream habitat by providing a more diverse bedform with riffles and pools, creating deeper
pools and areas of water re -aeration, and reducing bank erosion;
• Control invasive species vegetation within the project reaches;
• Establish native stream bank, riparian floodplain, and wetland vegetation, protected by a permanent
conservation easement, to increase stormwater runoff filtering capacity, improve bank stability, shade
the stream to decrease water temperature, and provide improved wildlife habitat quality.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

UT to Town Creek Restoration Project — Option A (Site) is located in Stanly County, approximately 1.7 miles
west of the Town of New London, within cataloging unit 03040105 of the Yadkin Pee-Dee River Basin (see
Figure 1). The Site is located in a North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS) - Targeted Local
Watershed (03040105060040). The Project involved stream restoration and enhancement, as well as wetland
restoration, creation, and enhancement along UT to Town Creek and several of its tributaries, which had been
impaired due to historical pasture conversion and cattle grazing.
During Year 2 monitoring, vegetation conditions were performing close to 100% for both the planted acreage
and invasive/encroachment area categories. As noted in Table 6b, there was only one area of sparse herbaceous
vegetation that exceeded the mapping threshold of 0.1 acres. This area is located along Reach 3 near Vegetation
Plot 14 and consists of approximately 0. 11 acres. Lack of herbaceous vegetation is likely due to poor soils that
are frequently inundated by overbank storm flows and roadside drainage.
Treatment control applications for invasive species were conducted in March 2017. These treatments
significantly reduced invasive species populations documented in Monitoring Year 1. In MY2, a total of five
discrete areas of invasive species that exceeded the mapping threshold were documented. These areas totaled
approximately 0. 19 acres or 0.8% of the easement area and consisted primarily of Rosa multiflora (Multi-flora
rose), Ligustrum sinese (Chinese privet), and Paulownia tomentosa (princess tree).
Additionally, the project is experiencing an overgrowth ofMyriophyllum aquaticum (parrot feather) throughout
the mainstem (Reaches 1, 2, and 3) of the project. Prior to restoration, the presence of the aquatic weed had
been documented in the stream as well as the watershed; however, it seems that recent low flow conditions have
allowed the weed to proliferate. NCDEQ has been contacted to provide recommendations for a control plan if
one is available. All invasive species will continue to be monitored throughout the site and treated as needed.
Tables summarizing and maps depicting the vegetative assessment problem areas can be found in Appendix B.
Based on data collected from the twenty monitoring plots during Year 2 monitoring, the average density of total
planted stems per plot ranges from 486 to 890 stems per acre with a tract mean of 670 stems per acre. Therefore,
the Year 2 data demonstrate that the Site is on track for meeting the minimum success interim criteria of 320
trees per acre by the end of Year 3. Vegetation stem counts are summarized in Tables 7 and 9 of Appendix C.
The nineteen (19) permanent cross-sections located throughout the Site show minimal adjustment to stream
dimension since construction. Longitudinal profiles for Reach 1, 2, 3, and 6 have remained geomorphically
stable throughout the Year 2 post-construction monitoring period. Pools are well maintained and grade control
structures (constructed riffles, rock j-hooks, log vanes, and boulder steps) help maintain the overall profile
desired. In addition, Tables 5a through 5h (Appendix B) indicate the Site has remained geomorphically stable
with lateral/vertical stability and in-stream structure performance of 100% on most of the reaches. The only
area where a small amount of erosion is present was along the sill of a boulder step located on the right bank of
Reach 6 at Station 16+20. No other areas of bank scour and/or erosion around structures were noted. Visual
observations and a review of reach-wide pebble count data collected indicates that each Reach is sufficiently
moving fines through the system. Cross-sectional, longitudinal profile, and pebble count data are provided in
Figures 3, 4, and 5 respectively, in Appendix D.
Groundwater monitoring data collected during the growing season (March 27 through November 5) of the Year
2 monitoring period documented that all ten groundwater monitoring wells exhibited soil saturation within 12
inches of the ground surface for the minimum success criteria of nine percent (9%) or 20 consecutive days
during the growing season. UTTC AW2 exhibited the highest percentage of consecutive days (69.1 %) meeting
saturated conditions, as well as, the having the highest number of cumulative days (179.5) meeting conditions.
UTTC AW8 had the lowest percentage of consecutive days (11.5%) meeting saturated conditions, as well as,
the having the lowest number of cumulative days (89.0) meeting conditions. It should also be noted that UTTC
AW8 is located in a jurisdictional wetland and outside the boundary of the wetland areas where credit is being
generated (See CCPV in Appendix B). See Appendix E for a plot of wetland gauge data as it relates to monthly
precipitation for Monitoring Year 2 (Figure 6) and a summary of wetland attainment for all ten monitoring
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

gauges (Table 12). See Figure 2 in Appendix B, for a depiction of wetland mitigation areas and corresponding
gauge locations.
In -stream pressure transducers were installed on Reach 6 and 7 to document flow conditions throughout the
monitoring year. During Monitoring Year 2, in -stream flow gauges on Reach 6 (R6—W 1 and R6_W2) and on
Reach 7 (R7_W 1 and R7_W2) documented at least one period of consecutive stream flow for the required
minimum of 30 days. R6—W 1 experienced the longest period of consecutive stream flow with 205 days. Figure
7 in Appendix E, depict the documented flow conditions for each gauge through Monitoring Year 2 relative to
local rainfall data, while Table 13 documents both the total cumulative days of flow and the maximum number
of consecutives days of flow.
Two bankfull event were observed and documented during MY2. Information on bankfull events is provided
in Table 14 of 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 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 monitoring plan for the Site includes criteria to evaluate the success of the stream, wetland, and vegetation
components of the project. Stream and vegetation monitoring will be conducted for five years, while wetland
monitoring will be conducted for seven years. Monitoring methods used will follow the NCDMS Monitoring
Report Template, Version 1.2.1 — 12/01/09 and are based on the design approaches and overall project goals.
To evaluate success criteria associated with a geomorphically stable channel, hydrologic connectivity, and
aquatic habitat diversity, geomorphic monitoring methods will be conducted for project reaches that involve
Restoration and Enhancement Level I mitigation. The success criteria for the proposed Enhancement Level II
reaches/sections will follow the methods described in sections 2.1.3, 2.1.4, and 2.2, whereas, wetland restoration
and creation mitigation will follow those outlined in sections 2.3. The specific locations of monitoring features,
such as vegetation plots, permanent cross-sections, reference photograph stations, ground water gauges, flow
gauges, and crest gauges, are shown on the CCPV sheets found in Figure 2 of Appendix B.
Year 2 monitoring data were collected from October through November 2017. All visual site assessment data
contained in Appendix B were collected on November 8t' and 9t' of 2017. Vegetation data and plot photos
were collected on October 4t' and Stn of 2017. Sediment data were collected on November 2nd of 2017.
Stream survey data were collected from October 3' through October 11 t' of 2017 and were certified on October
25t' of 2017. Stream survey data were collected to meet the requirements for a topographic ground survey to
the accuracy of Class C Vertical and Class A Horizontal (21 NCAC-56 section .1606) and was geo-referenced
to the NAD83 State Plane Coordinate System, FIPS3200 in US Survey Feet, which was derived from the UT
to Town Creek Restoration Project Option A's As -built Survey.
2.1 Stream Monitoring
Geomorphic monitoring of the Restoration and Enhancement Level I reaches will be conducted once a year for
five years following the completion of construction. These activities will evaluate the success criteria associated
with a geomorphically stable channel, hydrologic connectivity, and aquatic habitat diversity. The stream
parameters to be monitored include stream dimension (cross-sections), profile (longitudinal profile survey),
visual observation with photographic documentation, documentation of bankfull events and documentation of
hydrologic conditions for restored intermittent reaches. Additionally, monitoring methods for all reaches will
include those described under Photo Documentation of Site, Visual Assessment, and Vegetation Monitoring.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

The methods used and related success criteria are described below for each parameter. Figure 2 shows
approximate locations of the proposed monitoring devices throughout the project site.
2.1.1 Morphologic Parameters and Channel Stability
2.1.1.1 Dimension
A total of nineteen (19) permanent cross-sections, twelve (12) riffles and seven (7) pools, were installed
throughout the entire project area. Cross-sections selected for monitoring included representative
riffles and pools for each of the four project reaches, Reach 1, 2, 3, and 6, which implemented at least
500 linear feet of Restoration or Enhancement I activities.
Each cross-section was marked on both banks with permanent pins to establish the exact transect used.
A common benchmark was also chosen to consistently reference and facilitate the comparison of year-
to-year data. The cross-sectional surveys are conducted annually and include measurements of Bank
Height Ratio (BHR) and Entrenchment Ratio (ER). The monitoring survey includes points measured
at all breaks in slope, including top of stream banks, bankfull, inner berm, edge of channel, and thalweg,
if the features are present. Riffle cross-sections are classified using the Rosgen Stream Classification
System (Rosgen, 1994), and all monitored cross-sections should fall within the quantitative parameters
defined for channels of the design stream type.
There should be little change in annual cross-sectional surveys from those collected during the post -
construction as -built survey. If changes do take place, they will be evaluated to determine if they
represent a movement toward a more unstable condition (e.g., down -cutting or erosion) or a movement
toward increased stability (e.g., settling, vegetative changes, deposition along the banks, or decrease in
width/depth ratio). Cross-sectional data is presented in Figure 3 of Appendix D.
2.1.1.2 Longitudinal Profile
Longitudinal profiles were surveyed for portions of the restored lengths of Reaches 1, 2, 3, and 6 and
are provided in Figure 4 of Appendix D. Longitudinal profiles will be replicated annually during the
five year monitoring period.
Measurements taken during longitudinal profiles include thalweg, water surface, and the top of low
bank. All measurements were taken at the head of each feature (e.g., riffle, run, pool, glide) and the
maximum pool depth. Surveys were tied to a permanent benchmark.
The pools should remain relatively deep with flat water surface slopes, and the riffles should remain
steeper and shallower than the pools. Bed form observations should be consistent with those
observed for channels of the design stream type as well as other design information.
2.1.1.3 Substrate and Sediment Transport
After construction, there should be minimal change in the pebble count data over time given the current
watershed conditions and sediment supply regime. Reachwide pebble counts were collected for
Reaches 1, 2, 3, and 6. Samples collected combined with evidence provided by changes in cross-
sectional data and visual assessments will reveal changes in sediment gradation that occur over time as
the stream adjusts to upstream sediment loads. Bed material distribution data are located in Figure 5
of Appendix D.
2.1.2 Stream Hydrology
2.1.2.1 Bankfull Events
The occurrence of bankfull events within the monitoring period were documented by the use of a crest
gauge and photographs. The crest gauge will record the highest watermark between site visits, and the
gauge will be checked at each site visit to determine if a bankfull event has occurred. The crest gauge
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

was installed in the floodplain of Reach 3 within ten feet (horizontal) of the restored channel.
Photographs will be used to document the occurrence of debris lines and sediment deposition on the
floodplain during monitoring site visits.
Two bankfull flow events must be documented within a five-year monitoring period. The two bankfull
events must occur in separate years; otherwise, the monitoring will continue until two bankfull events
have been documented in separate years to demonstrate a floodplain connection has been restored.
2.1.2.2 Flow Documentation
A combination of photographic and flow gauge data were collected from in -stream pressure transducers
and remote in -field cameras that were installed on restored intermitted reaches. R7_W 1 and R7 W2
were installed Reach 7, while R6_W 1 and R6_W2 were installed on Reach 6. Collected data will
document that the restored intermittent stream systems continue to exhibit base flow for of at least 30
consecutive days throughout each monitoring year under normal climatic conditions. In order to
determine if rainfall amounts were normal for the given year, rainfall gauge data was obtained from the
nearest Stanly County weather station (CRONOS Database, NEWL — North Stanly Middle School, if
available) and compared to the average monthly rainfall amounts from the Stanly County WETS Table
(USDA, 2017). If a normal year of precipitation does not occur during the first five years of monitoring,
flow conditions will continue to be monitored on the site until it documents that the intermittent streams
have been flowing for the required duration.
Flow data and photographic documentation collected during Year 2 monitoring are located in
Appendix E.
2.1.3 Photographic Documentation of Site
Photographs were used to document restoration success visually. Reference stations and cross-section
photos were photographed during the as -built survey; this will be repeated for five years following
construction. Reference photos were taken once a year, from a height of approximately five to six feet.
Permanent markers ensure that the same locations (and view directions) are utilized during each
monitoring period. Photographers will make an effort to consistently maintain the same area in each
photo over time. Selected site photographs are shown in Appendix B for reference stations and
Appendix D for cross-sections.
2.1.3.1 Lateral Reference Photos
Reference photo transects were taken of the right and left banks at each permanent cross-section. A
survey tape was captured in most photographs which represents the cross-section line located
perpendicular to the channel flow. The water line was located in the lower edge of the frame in order
to document bank and riparian conditions.
2.1.3.2 Longitudinal Station Photos
Stream reaches were photographed longitudinally beginning at the upstream portion of the Site and
moving downstream. Photographs were taken looking both upstream and downstream at locations
throughout the restored stream valley. The photograph points were established close enough together
to provide an overall view of the reach lengths, primary grade control structures, and valley
crenulations. The angle of the photo depends on what angle provides the best view was noted and will
be continued in future photos. Site photographs are located in Appendix B.
2.1.4 Visual Assessment
Visual monitoring assessments of all stream sections will be conducted by qualified personnel twice
per monitoring year with at least five months in between each site visit. Photographs will be used to
document system performance and any areas of concern related to stream bank stability, condition of
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

in -stream structures, channel migration, aggradation/degradation, headcuts, live stake mortality,
impacts from invasive plant species or animal species, floodplain vegetative conditions, and condition
of pools and riffles. The photo locations will be shown on a plan view map and descriptions will be
documented in as either stream problem areas (SPAS) or vegetative problem areas (VPAs) in there
associated monitoring assessment tables located in Appendix B.
2.2 Vegetation Monitoring
To determine if the criteria are achieved, vegetation -monitoring quadrants were installed and are monitored
across the restoration site in accordance with the CVS-NCDMS Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Level 1,
Version 4.2 (2008). The total number of quadrants was calculated using the CVS-NCEEP Entry Tool Database
version 2.3.1 (CVS-NCEEP, 2012) with twenty (20) plots established randomly within the planted riparian
buffer areas. No monitoring quadrants were established within the undisturbed wooded areas of the project
area. The size of individual quadrants are 100 square meters for woody tree species.
Level 1 CVS vegetation monitoring was conducted between spring, after leaf -out has occurred, and fall prior
to leaf fall. Individual quadrant data provided during subsequent monitoring events will include species
composition, density, survival, and stem height. Relative values were calculated, and importance values were
determined. Individual seedlings were marked to ensure that they can be found in succeeding monitoring years.
Mortality was determined from the difference between the previous year's living, planted seedlings and the
current year's living, planted seedlings.
The interim measure of vegetative success for the site is the survival of at least 320, 3 -year old, planted trees
per acre at the end of Year 3 of the monitoring period. The final vegetative success criteria is the survival of
260, 5 -year old, planted trees per acre at the end of Year 5 of the monitoring period.
Photographs were used to visually document vegetation success in sample plots and are located in Appendix C.
2.3 Wetland Monitoring
Ten groundwater monitoring stations were installed in restored, created, and enhanced wetland areas similar to
those from preconstruction monitoring to document hydrologic conditions at the Project site. The wetland
gauges are depicted on the CCPV figures (Figure 2) found in Appendix B. Installation and monitoring of the
groundwater stations have been conducted in accordance with the USACE standard methods outlined in the
ERDC TN -WRAP -05-2 (USAGE, 2005). To determine if the rainfall is normal for the given year, rainfall
amounts were tallied using data obtained from the Stanly County WETS Station (USDA, 2017) and from the
automated weather station at the North Stanly Middle School (MEWL) in New London, approximately 1.5 miles
southeast of the Project Site on Old Salisbury Rd. Data from the NEWL station was obtained from the
CRONOS Database located on the State Climate Office of North Carolina's website (2017).
Success criteria for wetland hydrology will be met when each wetland site is saturated within 12 inches of the
soil surface for 9 percent of the growing season as documented in the approved Mitigation Plan. To document
the hydrologic conditions of the restored site, each groundwater monitoring station will be monitored for seven
years post -construction or until wetland success criteria are met. Visual inspection of proposed wetland areas
will be conducted to document any visual indicators that would be typical of jurisdictional wetlands. This could
include, but is not limited to, vegetation types present, surface flow patterns, stained leaves, and ponded water.
Wetland plants will be documented along with other visual indicators noted above. Wetland restoration and
creation areas that exhibit all three wetland indicators (the presence of hydric soils, wetland hydrology, and
wetland vegetation) after construction and through the monitoring period will validate wetland restoration and
creation success.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

2.4 BMP Monitoring
Implementation of wetland BMPs located at the upstream extent of Reaches 4 and 7 were visually monitored
for vegetative survivability and permanent pool storage capacity using photo documentation during the 5 -Year
monitoring period. Maintenance measures will be implemented during the 5 -Year monitoring period to replace
dead vegetative material and to remove excess sedimentation from permanent pools, as needed.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

3.0 REFERENCES
Carolina Vegetation Survey (CVS) and NC Division of Mitigation Services (formerly NC Ecosystem
Enhancement Program). 2012. CVS-NCEEP Data Entry Tool v. 2.3.1. University of North Carolina,
Raleigh, NC.
Lee, M., Peet R., Roberts, S., Wentworth, T. 2008. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation
Level 1-2 Plot Sampling Only. Version 4.2.
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (formerly NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program).
2011. Monitoring Requirements and Performance Standards for Stream and/or Wetland Mitigation.
November 7, 2011.
2009. Procedural Guidance and Content Requirements for EEP Monitoring Report, v. 1.2.1. Raleigh,
NC.
Rosgen, D. L. 1994. A Classification of Natural Rivers. Catena 22:169-199.
State Climate Office of North Carolina, 2017. CRONOS Database, North Stanly Middle School (MEWL),
Stanly County, NC. http://climate.ncsu.edu/cronos/?station=NEWL&temporal=sensonneta
United States Department of Agriculture, 2000. WETS Table. Climate Data for Stanly County, NC. Wets
Station: Albemarle, NC 0090, FIDS: 37167, 1971 - 2017. hgp:Haaacis.rcc-acis.org,/37167/wets
United States Army Corps of Engineers. 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.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

APPENDIX A
Project Vicinity Map and Background Tables

DIRECTIONS TO SITE FROM RALEIGH, NC:
Take 1-40 West toward Sanford/Wake Forest. Take Exit 293 (1-440/US-64 W/US-1) toward Sanford/Wake Forest. Keep left at the fork
toward US -1 S/US-64 W. Take Exit 293A for US -1 S/US-64 W toward Sanford/Asheboro. Keep left at the fork toward US -1 S/US-64 W.
Continue on US -1 S/US-64 W towards Apex/Sanford/Asheboro. Take exit 98B to merge onto US -64 W towards Pittsboro/Asheboro. After
62 miles, turn left onto Connector Rd. Turn right onto NC 49 S. After 28.4 miles, take a slight left onto N Main St. After 1.1 miles, turn left
onto Old Salisbury Rd. Follow Old Salisbury Rd. for approximately 2.0 miles to its intersection with Misenheimer Rd. / Steakhouse Rd. Go
through the intersection and continue on Old Salisbury Rd. for approximately 0.4 miles and the Project site is on the right accessed via
a dirt farm road.
Q NG49 The subject project site is an environmental restoration
Ri h ie site of the NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services (DMS)
and is encompassed by a recorded conservation
easement, but is bordered by land under private ownership.
Accessing the site may require traversing areas near or
along the easement boundary and therefore access by
o i the general public is not permitted. Access by authorized
= personnel of state and federal agencies or their
designees/contractors involved in the development,
oversight and stewardship of the restoration site is
permitted within the terms and timeframes of their defined
roles. Any intended site visitation or activity by any
o person outside of these previously sanctioned roles
and activities requires prior coordination with DMS.

Table 1. Project Mitigation Components
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: DMS Project No ID. 94648
Riparian Wetland Non -riparian Credited Buffer
Wetland
(acres) acres (square feet
Stream*
Riverine Non-Riverine
Restoration
5554
Approach
Enhancement
Project Component
Wetland Position
Existing Footage
Restored Footage,
Creditable Footage,
Restoration
Mitigation
1.56
Mitigation Ratio
Hi h Quality Pres
Stationing
Notes/Comments
(reach ID, etc.)
and Hydro Type
or Acreage
Acreage, or SF
Acreage, or SF
Level
Priority Level
Credits
X:1
Full Channel Restoration, Planted Buffer, Exclusion of Livestock, and Permanent
Reach 1
1181
10+00 - 22+04 1,204
1,204
R
PI
1:1.0668
1284.4
Conservation Easement. Mitigation ratio of 1:1.0668 for buffer widths in excess
of 50 -ft.
Full Channel Restoration, Planted Buffer, Exclusion of Livestock, Permanent
Reach 2
1672
22+04 - 40+46 1,842
1,782
R
PI
1:1.08
1924.6
Conservation Easement, and a 60 -ft culverted farm road crossing. Mitigation
ratio of 1:1.07 for buffer widths in excess of 50 -ft.
Full Channel Restoration, Planted Buffer, Exclusion of Livestock, and Permanent
Reach 3
721
40+46 - 48+75 829
829
R
PI
1:1.10
911.9
Conservation Easement. Mitigation ratio of 1:1.1 for buffer widths in excess of
50 -ft.
Dimension and Profile modified in keeping with reference, Planted Buffer,
Livestock Exclusion, Permanent Conservation Easement, and Headwater
Reach 4
404
10+00 - 14+47 447
447
EI
PIII
1:1
447.0
Constructed Wetland. Mitigation Ratio of 1:1 as result of water quality benefits
from the implementation of headwater constructed wetland.
Dimension modified and structure implementation in keeping with reference,
Reach 5
324
10+00 - 13+44 344
344
EII
PN
2.5:1
137.6
Planted Buffer, Livestock Exclusion, and Permanent Conservation Easement.
Full Channel Restoration, Planted Buffer, Exclusion of Livestock, Permanent
Reach 6
1349
14+47 - 28+13 1,366
1,340
R
P1
1:1
1340.0
Conservation Easement, and a 26 -ft culverted farm road crossing.
Headwater Constructed Wetland, Full Channel Restoration, Planted Buffer,
Reach 7
386
10+00 - 13+99 399
399
R
P1
1:1
399.0
Livestock Exclusion, and Permanent Conservation Easement.
Minor floodplain grading, of 12 -inches or less, to restore floodplain hydrolgy and
Wetland Group 1 (WG I)
RNR
0
2.56
2.56
R
1:1
2.6
remediate compaction, based on hydric soil investigation. Planted, Excluded
Livestock and Permanent Conservation Easement.
Floodplain grading, of 12 -inches or greater, to restore relic floodplain hydrolgy
Wetland Group 2 (WG2)
RNR
0
1.56
1.56
C
3:1
0.5
and remediate compaction, based on hydric soil investigation. Planted, Excluded
Livestock and Permanent Conservation Easement.
Buffer Group 1 (BG I)
Buffer Group 2 BG2
Buffer Group 3 (BG3
Length and Area Summations by Mitigation Category
Restoration Level
Stream
linear feet
Riparian Wetland Non -riparian Credited Buffer
Wetland
(acres) acres (square feet
Stream*
Riverine Non-Riverine
Restoration
5554
2.56
Enhancement
Enhancement
447
Enhancement II
344
Creation
1.56
Preservation
Hi h Quality Pres
* Adjustment of final stream credits is pending finalized IRT guidance for additional credits associated with wider buffers.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT — OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7
Overall Assets Summary
Asset Category
Overall
Credits
Stream*
6,444.5
RP Wetland
3.1
General Note - The above component table is intended to be a close
complement to the asset map. Each entry in the above table should have
clear distinction and appropriate symbology in the asset map.
1- Wetland Groups represent pooled wetland polygons in the map with
the same wetland type and restoration level. If some of the wetland
polygons within a group are in meaningfully different landscape positions,
soil types or have different community targets (as examples), then further
segmentation in the table may be warranted. Buffer groups represent
pooled buffer polygons with common restoration levels.
2 - Wetland Position and Hydro Type - Indicates Riparian Riverine, (RR) ,
riparinan non-riverine (RNR) or Non-Riverine (NR)
3- Restored Footage, Acreage or Square Feet (SF)

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: DMS Project No ID. 94648
Activity or Report
Scheduled
Completion
Data Collection
Complete
Actual
Completion or
Deliver
Mitigation Plan Prepared
N/A
N/A
Apr -14
Mitigation Plan Amended
N/A
N/A
Dec -14
Mitigation Plan Approved
N/A
N/A
Dec -14
Final Design — (at least 90% complete)
N/A
N/A
Jan -15
Construction Begins
N/A
N/A
Jul -15
Temporary S&E mix applied to entire project area
N/A
N/A
Jan -16
Permanent seed mix applied to entire project area
N/A
N/A
Jan -16
Planting of live stakes
Feb -16
N/A
Mar -16
Planting of bare root trees
Feb -16
N/A
Mar -16
Planting of herbaceous plugs
Jun -16
N/A
May -16
End of Construction
Dec -16
N/A
Jan -16
Survey of As -built conditions Year 0 Monitoring -baseline)
Apr- 16
Ma -16
Jun -16
Baseline Monitoring Report
May -16
Jun -16
Nov -16
Year 1 Monitoring
Dec -16
Nov -16
Dec -16
Invasive Treatment
N/A
N/A
Mar -17
Year 2 Monitoring
Dec -17
Nov -17
Dec -17
Year 3 Monitoring
Dec -18
N/A
N/A
Year 4 Monitoring
Dec -19
N/A
N/A
Year 5 Monitoring
Dec -20
N/A
N/A
Year 6 Wetland Monitoring
Dec -21
N/A
N/A
Year 7 Wetland Monitoring
Dec -22
N/A
N/A
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT — OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

Table 3. Project Contacts
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: DMS Project ID No. 94648
Designer
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
797 Haywood Road, Suite 201
Asheville, NC 28806
Contact:
Jacob Byers, PE, Tel. [phone]
Construction Contractor
160 Walker Road
Wright Contracting, LLC.
Lawndale, NC 28090
Contact:
Joe Wright, Tel. [phone]
Planting Contractor
P.O. Box 458
H.J. Forest Service
Holly Ridge, NC 28445
Contact:
Matt Hitch, Tel. [phone]
Seeding Contractor
160 Walker Road
Wright Contracting, LLC.
Lawndale, NC 28090
Contact:
Joe Wright, Tel. [phone]
Seed Mix Sources
Green Resources, Tel. [phone]
Mellow Marsh Farm, Tel. [phone]
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Mellow Marsh Farm, Tel. [phone]
Foggy Mountain Nursery, Tel. [phone]
ArborGen, Tel. [phone]
Monitoring Performers
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
Cary, NC 27518
Contact:
Stream Monitoring Point of Contact
Kristi Suggs, Tel. [phone]
Vegetation Monitoring Point of Contact
Kristi Suggs, Tel. [phone]
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT — OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

Table 4. Project Attributes
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project - O tion A: DMS Project H) No. 94648
Project County Stanly
Physiographic Region Piedmont
Ecoregion Carolina Slate Belt
Project River Basin Yadkin - Pee Dee
USGS HUC for Project (14 digit) 03040105060040
NCDWQ Sub-basin for Project 03-07-13
Within Extent of DMS Watershed Plan Lower Yadkin RBRP, 2009
WRC Class (Warm Cool Cold) Warm
% Project Easement Fenced/Demarcated 100%
Beaver activity observed during design phase No activity observed
Restoration Component Attribute Table
Reach 1 Reach 2
Reach 3
Reach 4
Reach 5
Reach 6
Reach 7
Drainage Area ac. 532.1 616.6
766.7
53.7
48.9
127.8
29.2
Stream Order 2 2
3
1
1
2
1
Restored Length LF 1,204 1,782
829
447
344
1,340
399
Perennial (P)/Intermittent I P P
P
I
I
I
I
Watershed Type Rural, Urban, etc. R R
R
R
R
R
R
Watershed LULC Distribution
Rural Residential 6% 1%
0%
1%
2%
0%
0%
Ag-Row Crop 8% 0%
0%
14%
4%
0%
10%
Ag-Livestock 57% 85%
70%
59%
17%
88%
64%
Forested 8% 0%
0%
17%
62%
0%
21%
Other/Open Area 8% 0%
0%
0%
9%
0%
0%
Commercial 10% 0%
0% 1
0%
0%
0%
0%
Roadway 3% 4%
2%
3%
<1%
0%
0%
Wooded-Livestock 0% 10%
28%
6%
4%
12%
5%
Oen Water 0% 0%
0%
0%
<1%
0%
0%
Watershed Impervious Cover % 19% 5%
2%
4%
<4%
<1%
<1%
NCDWR AU/Index#
13-17-31-1-1
NCDWQ Classification
C
303(d) Listed
No
303 (d) Listing Stressor
N/A
Total Acreage of Easement 5.35 8.01
3.79
1.97
1.06
3.55
1.36
Total Vegetated Easement Acreage 4.81 6.97
3.48
1.63
0.94
3.22
1.26
Total Planted Acreage for Restoration 4.81 6.97
3.48
1.63
0.94
3.22
1.26
Reach 1 Reach 2
Reach 3
Reach 4
Reach 5
Reach 6
Reach 7
Ros en Classification(existing) E4 E4
E4
B4
B4
B4
134a
Rosgen Classification (as-built) C4 C4
C4
134
134
C4b
134a
Valley Type VIII VIII
VIII
II
II
II
II
Valley Slope 0.0092 0.0092
0.0089
0.023
0.0447
0.0243
0.0495
Trout Waters Designation
No
Species of Concern, edangered etc.
(Y/N)
No*, Yes**
Dominant Soil Series and Characteristics
Series OaA OaA
OaA
GoF
GoF
GoF
BaD
Depth 46" 46"
46"
36"
36"
36"
40"
Clay % 10-35% 10-35%
10-35%
5-27%
5-27%
5-27%
Oct-55
K 0.28 0.28
0.28
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.15-0.24
T 4 4
4
4
4
4
3
* Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus ) a BGEPA species is listed as occurring in Stanly County; however, suitable habitat is not located within
the Project area or within two miles of the Site.
** Schweinitz's Sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii) A federally endangered species is listed as occurring within Stanly County and though suitable
habitat is present, a field study was conducted and no species were located within the Project area. NCNHP database indicated there are no known
populations of these species within two miles of the study area.
(NRCS, 2010a; NCDENR, 2007 & 2008; USFWS, 2012; NCNHP, 2012)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

APPENDIX B
Visual Assessment Data

•� mw a A, 1 0 n 6t d ,.y.' y ° ��. �Y�, r.
O Crest GaugeFig
Y
0 Flow Pressure Transducers r
_- - y
.00
• Groundwater Monitoring Well - Fail
O Groundwater Monitoring Well - Pass y,
n Photo ID Points
— Cross Section - Pool ; >i
Cross Section Riffle
BMPs
Bare Area,
4 y;
MA Invasive
Successful Vegetation Plots ?'
l
Stream Top of Bank
Reach 1 (Restoration)
Reach 2 (Restoration) _ t
Reach 3 (Restoration) Reach 1 y (Restoration)
— Reach 4 (Enhancement 1) 10
Reach 5 (Enhancement II)
Reach 6 (Restoration) y.
Reach 7 (Restoration) Reach 7
- (Restoration) y;
Conservation Easement ,
x — x Fenceline
Restored Wetlands Y
�1
Created Wetlands
Jurisdictional Wetlands
E
y,.
2 6
s
g
Reach 2
0 (Restoration)
;a 1
r
- I
I
�) 4�
Reach
(Restoration)ovi "7
e
Reach 5
?:
(Enhancement II) Reach 3
(Restoration)
X o'
%< Reach 4 y,
I (Enhancement 1)Al
M
X r1
Ar
I /.r
= +� �`" �: NC Center for Geographic 4nform s s
North Carolina Figure 2 Overview DMS Project No. 94648
N
Michael Baker Division of 0 Monitoring Year: 2 of 7
Mitigation
Feet Drawn By: KLS
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A Date: 2017
INTERNATIONAL Services 1" = 250' i p •
Stanly County, NC Sheet: 1 of 4

Bare Area
Invasive
0 Flow Pressure Transducers
is 0 Crest Gauge
40 Groundwater Monitoring Well - Fall
i. 0 Groundwater Monitoring Well - Pass
A Photo ID Points
In -Stream Structures
Stream Top of Bank
xx Fenceline
— Cross Section - Pool
— Cross Section - Riffle
Reach 1 (Restoration)
Reach 2 (Restoration)
Reach 3 (Restoration)
Reach 4 (Enhancement 1)
Vt Reach 5 (Enhancement 11)
Reach 6 (Restoration)
SA Reach 7 (Restoration)
Successful Vegetation Plots
Conservation Easement
BMPs
-4
Restored Wetlands
Created Wetlands
Jurisdictional Wetlands
Reach 7
(Restoration)
yyi
IF,(
'low
I
Reach 1
(Restoration)
8
R7 W2
6
20
4a3
A VPA?_1
R7 W1
Reach 2
(Restoration)
y.
Ammon
NC Center Information halysis
North Carolina Figure 2A DMS Project No. 94648
Division of o 75 150 Current Condition Plan View Monitoring Year: 2 of 7
Michael Baker Mitigation 111111111111E�� Feet Drawn By: KLS
I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L Services 1" = 150' UT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A Date: 2017
Stanly County, NC Sheet 2 of 4

� 16
v
VPA - Bare Areas
23
Reach 2 — VPA - Invasive Species
® Flow Pressure Transducers
22 (Restoration) O Crest Gauge
• Groundwater Monitoring Well - Fail
O Groundwater Monitoring Well -Pass
1� A Photo ID Points
In -Stream Structures
Stream Top of Bank i
x * Fenceline
— Cross Section - Pool
— Cross Section - Riffle •
Reach 1 (Restoration) ►
" Reach 2 (Restoration)
4- Reach 3 (Restoration)
4' Reach 4 (Enhancement 1)
Reach 5 (Enhancement 11)
Reach 6 (Restoration)
Reach 7 (Restoration)
Successful Vegetation Plots
Conservation Easement
BMPs
Restored Wetlands
Created Wetlands
} ® Jurisdictional Wetlands
Reach 6 xs t
(Restoration)
28
MW 4 29
O
~ry
30
:.3
7L ;R6 W2
• 25 31,
26
15 S� :�23 24
6 22
20
32
16 17 18 ,i
00
}y..•
k � .
12 34
1. 13
35
fVI
MW 5
O X36
Reach 3
(Restoration)
,Y 37
L 4 L
IS
38 111,WJ4
VPA2-2
1 39 ,
MW 10
O v 14
r
0
Mw.6 41�.,
K ' -. .
NC Center for Geographic Irnfo mation & Analysis
North Carolina Figure 213 DMS Project No. 94648
— Division of N 0 75 150 Monitoring Year: 2 of 7
MichaelCurrent Condition Plan View
Mitigation Feet Drawn By: KLS
I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L Services 1" = 150' UT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A Date: 2017
Stanly County, NC Sheet: 3 of 4

• 1D
VPA 2-6
a
L* r�
Reach 4
K
- (Enhancement 1)
i�
=7W s
Bare Area
Invasive
® Flow Pressure Transducers
�--y O Crest Gauge
• Groundwater Monitoring Well - Fail
O Groundwater Monitoring Well - Pass
SPA - Grade Control
A Photo ID Points
In -Stream Structures
Stream Top of Bank
may``
=_ x x Fenceline
- Cross Section - Pool
Cross Section - Riffle
'T__ 'Jk Reach 1 (Restoration)
Reach 2 (Restoration)
Reach 3 (Restoration)
Reach 4 (Enhancement 1)
Reach 5 (Enhancement 11)
= Reach 6 (Restoration)
Reach 7 (Restoration)
MbL Successful Vegetation Plots
Conservation Easement
® BMPs
® Restored Wetlands
Created Wetlands
Reach 5
(Enhancement 11)
18
19
D5
R6 W1
17C
ter..
SPA2-1 f
4 ; N1b x '.
VPA2-5 5
XS -19 '<<
8 G 9 -
10, i
a 11 y 12
VPA24 Reach 6
�y34 (Restoration)
16
AXs.»
.a.!
M
® Jurisdictional Wetlands 15
21 �
r Reach 3 XS22 •'x
-16
- (Restoration) 23 r Mw 4
- 24 R6 W2 O MW 8
29 O
28 10
3 ��r 30 0 27
MW 6 MW 5 12 ,32 25\}y > K?'
MW 10 O 31
O +S -
38 _
26
40 rq >37 s2 36 33
:b .r 13 —
0 75 150 Figure 2C DMS Project No. 94648
Michael Baker North Carolina
Division of ` Feet Current Condition Plan View Monitoring Year: 2 of 7
Q Drawn By: KLS
Mitigation Z 1" = 150' UT to Town Creek Restoration Project - O tion A
INTERNATIONAL 1 p Date: 2017
Services Stanly County, NC Sheet: 4 of 4
x
19
D5
R6 W1
17C
ter..
SPA2-1 f
4 ; N1b x '.
VPA2-5 5
XS -19 '<<
8 G 9 -
10, i
a 11 y 12
VPA24 Reach 6
�y34 (Restoration)
16
AXs.»
.a.!
M
® Jurisdictional Wetlands 15
21 �
r Reach 3 XS22 •'x
-16
- (Restoration) 23 r Mw 4
- 24 R6 W2 O MW 8
29 O
28 10
3 ��r 30 0 27
MW 6 MW 5 12 ,32 25\}y > K?'
MW 10 O 31
O +S -
38 _
26
40 rq >37 s2 36 33
:b .r 13 —
0 75 150 Figure 2C DMS Project No. 94648
Michael Baker North Carolina
Division of ` Feet Current Condition Plan View Monitoring Year: 2 of 7
Q Drawn By: KLS
Mitigation Z 1" = 150' UT to Town Creek Restoration Project - O tion A
INTERNATIONAL 1 p Date: 2017
Services Stanly County, NC Sheet: 4 of 4

Table 5a. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: Project No. 94846
Reach ID UT to Town Creek - Reach 1
Assessed Length (LF) 1,204
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
1. Aggradation
0
0
100%
2. Degradation
0
1 0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate
18 18
100%
3. Pool Condition
1. Depth
18 18
100%
2. Length
18 18
100%
4.Thalweg position
1. Thalweg centering for riffle/run
18 18
1 100%
2. Thalweg centering for pool/glide
1 18 1 18
100%
2. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or scour
and erosion
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears likely
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
1 0
1 100%
1 0
1 0
1 100%
Totalsi
0
1 0
1 100%
1 0
0
1 100%
3. Engineering
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs
19
19
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
10
10
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms
10
10
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%
19
19
100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining — Max Pool Depth
10
10
100%
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648
UT to TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 2 OF 7

Table 5b. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: Project No. 94846
Reach ID UT to Town Creek - Reach 2
Assessed Length (LF) 1,782
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
1. Aggradation
0
0
100%
2. Degradation
0
1 0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate
21 21
100%
3. Pool Condition
1. Depth
20 20
100%
2. Length
20 20
100%
4.Thalweg position
1. Thalweg centering for riffle/run
21 21
1 100%
2. Thalweg centering for pool/glide
1 20 1 20
100%
2. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or scour
and erosion
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears likely
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
1 0
1 100%
1 0
1 0
1 100%
Totalsl
0
1 0
1 100%
1 0
0
1 100%
3. Engineering
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs
19
19
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
9
9
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms
9
9
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%
19
19
100%
4 Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining — Max Pool Depth
9
9
100%
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648
UT to TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 2 OF 7

Table 5c. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: Project No. 94846
Reach ID UT to Town Creek - Reach 3
Assessed Length (LF) 829
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
1. Aggradation
0
0
100%
2. Degradation
0
1 0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate
11 11
100%
3. Pool Condition
1. Depth
10 10
100%
2. Length
10 10
100%
4.Thalweg position
1. Thalweg centering for riffle/run
l l l l
100%
2. Thalweg centering for pool/glide
10 1 10
100%
2. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or scour
and erosion
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears likely
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
1 0
1 0
1 100%
1 0
1 0
1 100%
Totalsi
0
1 0
1 100%
1 0
1 0
1 100%
3. Engineering
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs
12
12
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
6
6
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms
6
6
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%
12
12
100%
4 Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining — Max Pool Depth
6
6
100%
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648
UT to TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 2 OF 7

Table 5d. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: Project No. 94846
Reach ID UT to Town Creek - Reach 4
Assessed Length (LF) 447
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
1. Aggradation
0
0
100%
2. Degradation
0
1 0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate
15 15
100%
3. Pool Condition
1. Depth
12 12
100%
2. Length
12 12
100%
4.Thalweg position
1. Thalweg centering for riffle/run
15 15
1 100%
2. Thalweg centering for pool/glide
1 12 1 12
100%
2. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or scour
and erosion
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears likely
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
1 0
1 100%
1 0
1 0
1 100%
Totalsi
0
1 0
1 100%
1 0
0
1 100%
3. Engineering
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs
12
12
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
12
12
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms
12
12
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%
12
12
100%
4 Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining — Max Pool Depth
11
11
100%
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648
UT to TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 2 OF 7

Table 5e. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: Project No. 94846
Reach ID UT to Town Creek - Reach 5
Assessed Length (LF) 344
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
1. Aggradation
0
0
100%
2. Degradation
0
1 0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate
4 4
100%
3. Pool Condition
1. Depth
4 4
100%
2. Length
4 4
100%
4.Thalweg position
1. Thalweg centering for riffle/run
4 4
1 100%
2. Thalweg centering for pool/glide
4 1 4
100%
2. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or scour
and erosion
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears likely
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
1 0
1 0
1 100%
1 0
1 0
1 100%
Totalsl
0
1 0
1 100%
1 0
1 0
1 100%
3. Engineering
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs
4
4
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
4
4
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms
4
4
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%
4
4
100%
4 Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining — Max Pool Depth
4
4
100%
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648
UT to TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 2 OF 7

Table 5f. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: Project No. 94846
Reach ID UT to Town Creek - Reach 6
Assessed Length (LF) 1,340
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
1. Aggradation
0
0
100%
2. Degradation
0
1 0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate
33 33
100%
3. Pool Condition
1. Depth
34 34
100%
2. Length
34 34
100%
4.Thalweg position
1. Thalweg centering for riffle/run
33 33
1 100%
2. Thalweg centering for pool/glide
1 34 1 34
100%
2. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or scour
and erosion
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears likely
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
1 0
1 100%
1 0
1 0
1 100%
Totalsi
0
1 0
1 100%
1 0
0
1 100%
3. Engineering
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs
26
26
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
19
20
95%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms
20
20
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%
26
26
100%
4 Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining — Max Pool Depth
20
20
100%
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648
UT to TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 2 OF 7

Table 5g. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: Project No. 94846
Reach ID UT to Town Creek - Reach 7
Assessed Length (LF) 399
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
1. Aggradation
0
0
100%
2. Degradation
0
1 0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate
14 14
100%
3. Pool Condition
1. Depth
12 12
100%
2. Length
12 12
100%
4.Thalweg position
1. Thalweg centering for riffle/run
14 14
1 100%
2. Thalweg centering for pool/glide
1 12 1 12
100%
2. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or scour
and erosion
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears likely
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
1 0
1 100%
1 0
1 0
1 100%
Totalsi
0
1 0
1 100%
1 0
0
1 100%
3. Engineering
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs
14
14
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
14
14
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms
14
14
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%
14
14
100%
4 Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining — Max Pool Depth
13
13
100%
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648
UT to TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 2 OF 7

Table 5h. Stream Problem Areas
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: Project No. 94846
Reach 1
Feature Issue
Station No. Suspected Cause
Photo Number
No issues in Year 2
N/A N/A
N/A
Reach 2
Feature Issue
Station No.
Suspected Cause Photo Number
No issues in Year 2
N/A
N/A N/A
Reach 3
Feature Issue Station No. Suspected Cause
Photo Number
No issues in Year 2 N/A N/A
N/A
Reach 4
Feature Issue
Station No.
Suspected Cause
Photo Number
No issues in Year 2
N/A
N/A
N/A
Reach 5
Feature Issue
Station No.
Suspected Cause
Photo Number
No issues in Year 2
N/A
N/A
N/A
Reach 6
Feature Issue
Station No.
Suspected Cause
Photo Number
Erosion along right sill of
boulder step allowing for
piping around the
structure.
16+20
Lack of vegetated growth on right bank at boulder sill.
SPA2-1
Reach 7
Feature Issue
Station No.
Suspected Cause
Photo Number
No issues in Year 2
N/A
N/A
N/A
Note: The first digit in the Photo Number column references the monitoring year and the second digit references the problem area
or photo (which would be identical to a prior years problem area/photo number when persisting from a previous monitoring year).
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648
UT to TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 2 OF 7

Table 6a. Vegetation Condition Assessment
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 94648
Reach ID Reaches 1 - 7
Planted Acreage 22.31
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
% of Planted
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Threshold
Depiction
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous
1. Bare Areas
0.1 acres
N/A
1
0.11
0.5%
material.
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels
2. Low Stem Density Areas
0.1 acres
N/A
0
0.00
0.0%
based on MY3, 4, or 5 stem count criteria.
Total
1
0.11
0.5%
3. Areas of Poor Growth Rates or
Areas with woody stems of a size class that are
0.25 acres
N/A
0
0.00
o
0.0 /o
Vigor
obviously small given the monitoring year.
Cumulative Total
1
0.11
0.5%
Easement Acreage 25.09
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
% of Easement
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Threshold
Depiction
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at
4. Invasive Areas of Concern
1000 SF
NA
5
0.19
0.8%
map scale).
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at
5. Easement Encroachment Areas
N/A
N/A
0
0.00
0.0%
map scale).
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648
UT to TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 2 OF 7

Table 6b. Vegetation Problem Areas
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 94648
Reach 1
Feature Issue
Station No.
Suspected Cause
Problem Area / Photo Number
No VPA was associated with this problem area
Invasive/Exotic
Reachwide in
Myriophyllum aquaticum (parrot feather) growing in various locations along the channel
because it is a reachwide issue that is located in
Populations
various locations
reach due low flow conditions present during the monitoring assessment.
various sections along the Reach 1.
Reach 2
Feature Issue
Station No.
Suspected Cause
Problem Area / Photo Number
No VPA was associated with this problem area
Invasive/Exotic
Reachwide in
Myriophyllum aquaticum (parrot feather) growing in various locations along the channel
because it is a reachwide issue that is located in
Populations
various locations
reach due low flow conditions present during the monitoring assessment.
various sections along the Reach 1.
Invasive/Exotic
22+25 - 24+25
Ligustrum sinese (Chinese privet) growing in easement in right floodplain
VPA 2-1
Populations
Reach 3
Feature Issue
Station No.
Suspected Cause
Problem Area / Photo Number
No VPA was associated with this problem area
Invasive/Exotic
Reachwide in
Myriophyllum aquaticum (parrot feather) growing in various locations along the channel
because it is a reachwide issue that is located in
Populations
various locations
reach due low flow conditions present during the monitoring assessment.
various sections along the Reach 1.
Bare Floodplain
46+50 - 48+00
Poor soils
VPA 2-2
Reach 4
Feature Issue
Station No.
Suspected Cause Problem Area / Photo Number
Invasive/Exotic
Ligustrum sinese (Chinese Privet) and Rosa multiflora (Multi-flora rose) growing in
13+80 - 14+50
VPA 2-6
Populations
easement along left bank.
Reach 5
Feature Issue Station No. Suspected Cause Problem Area / Photo Number
No Problems N/A - -
Reach 6
Feature Issue
Station No.
Suspected Cause
Problem Area / Photo Number
Invasive/Exotic
Ligustrum sinese (Chinese Privet) and Paulownia tomentosa (Princess tree) growing in
16+30 - 17+60
VPA 2-5
Populations
easement along right bank.
Invasive/Exotic
19+60 - 20+25
Rosa multiflora (Multi-flora rose) growing in easement along left bank.
VPA 2-4
Populations
Invasive/Exotic
21+00 - 21+50
Rosa multiflora (Multi-flora rose) growing in easement along left bank.
VPA 2-3
Populations
Reach 7
Feature Issue Station No. Suspected Cause Problem Area / Photo Number
No Problems N/A - -
*Note: The first digit in the Photo Number column references the monitoring year and the second digit references the problem area or photo (which would be identical to a prior years problem area/photo number when
persisting from a previous monitoring year).
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648
UT to TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 2 OF 7

Stream Station Photos

UT to Town Creek — Reach I
PID 1: Station 10+50 — Upstream (11/08/17)
PID 3: Station 10+80 — Left Floodplain
(11/08/17)
PID 5: Station 12+85 — Upstream (11/08/17)
PID 2: Station 10+50 — Downstream (11/08/17)
PID 4: Station 11+90 — Downstream (11/08/17)
�r3}
R
�i�A � 111AAA►►lkkk... a.:. ,
PID 3: Station 10+80 — Left Floodplain
(11/08/17)
PID 5: Station 12+85 — Upstream (11/08/17)
PID 2: Station 10+50 — Downstream (11/08/17)
PID 4: Station 11+90 — Downstream (11/08/17)
PID 6: Station 13+05 — Left Floodplain
(11/08/17)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7
x
PID 6: Station 13+05 — Left Floodplain
(11/08/17)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

UT to Town Creek — Reach I
PID 7: Station 15+30 — Upstream (11/08/17)
PID 9: Station 17+75 — Left Floodplain
(11/08/17)
PID 11: Station 18+10 — Upstream (11/08/17)
PID 8: Station 16+25 — Downstream (11/08/17)
PID 10: Station 18+10— Downstream (11/08/17)
PID 12: Station 20+90 — Downstream (11/08/17)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

UT to Town Creek Reach I
PID 13: Station 21+00 — Upstream (11/08/17)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

UT to Town Creek — Reach 2
PID 14: Station 22+75 — Upstream (11/08/17)
PID 16: Station 23+50 — Downstream (11/08/17)
'ID 18: Station 25+30— Left Floodplain
(11/08/17)
PID 15: Station 23+25 — Upstream (11/08/17)
PID 17: Station 24+60— Upstream (11/08/17)
PID 19: Station 25+90 - Downstream (11/08/17)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

UT to Town Creek — Reach 2
PID 20: Station 26+50— Downstream (11/08/17)
PID 22: Station 29+35 —Upstream (11/08/17)
PID 24: Station 30+60 — Upstream (11/08/17)
i
w r
PID 21: Station 28+75 — Downstream (11/08/17)
PID 23: Station 29+50 — Downstream Project
View from Floodplain Knoll (11/08/17)
PID 25: Station 33+10 —Upstream (11/08/17)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

UT to Town Creek — Reach 2
PID 26: Station 33+10 — Downstream (11/08/17)
PID 28: Station 38+30 — Upstream (11/08/17)
PID 30: Station 39+10 — Downstream (11/08/17)
PID 27: Station 35+50 — Upstream (11/08/17)
PID 29: Station 38+40 — Downstream (11/08/17)
PID 31: Station 40+25 — Downstream (11/08/17)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

UT to Town Creek — Reach 3
PID 32: Station 40+80 — Upstream (11/08/17)
PID 34: Station 43+00 —Downstream (11/08/17)
PID 36: Station 44+25 — Upstream (11/08/17)
PID 33: Station 41+80 — Upstream (11/08/17)
PID 35: Station 44+00 — Downstream (11/08/17)
PID 37: Station 45+50 — Downstream (11/08/17)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

UT to Town Creek — Reach 3
PID 38: Station 45+95 — Upstream (11/09/17)
PID 40: Station 47+75 — Upstream (11/09/17)
PID 39: Station 46+80 — Upstream (11/09/17)
PID 41: Station 48+60 — Downstream (11/09/17)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

UT to Town Creek — Reach 4
PID 1: Station 09+80 — Upstream (11/09/17)
/3
qW 4k
A
a or *�r;
PID 3: Station 11+20 — Upstream (11/09/17)
PID 5: Station 12+95 — Upstream (11/09/17)
PID 2: Station 10+60 — Upstream (11/09/17)
PID 4: Station 11+75 — Upstream (11/09/17)
PID 6: Station 13+45 — Downstream (11/09/17)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

UT to Town Creek — Reach 4
PID 7: Station 13+80 — Upstream (11/09/17)
PID 8: Station 14+ 20 — Upstream (11/09/17)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

UT to Town Creek — Reach 5
PID 1: Station 10+70 — Upstream (11/09/17)
PID 3: Station 11+75 — Upstream (11/09/17)
PID 5: Station 12+65 — Upstream (11/09/17)
PID 2: Station 10+75 — Downstream (11/09/17)
PID 4: Station 12+20 — Upstream (11/09/17)
PID 6: Station 13+30 — Upstream (11/09/17)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT — OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

UT to Town Creek — Reach 5
PID 7: Station 13+43 — Upstream (11/09/17)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

UT to Town Creek — Reach 6
PID 1: Station14+55 — Upstream (11/09/17)
PID 3: Station 16+00 — Upstream (11/09/17)
..........
'AV77
f:.':..:
'ID 5: Station 17+25 — Upstream (11/09/17
PID 2: Station 15+30 — Upstream (11/08/17)
PID 4: Station 16+50 — Upstream (11/09/17)
PID 6: Station 18+00 — Upstream (11/09/17)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7
- q
PID 4: Station 16+50 — Upstream (11/09/17)
PID 6: Station 18+00 — Upstream (11/09/17)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

UT to Town Creek — Reach 6
R• y 4
N�, k
PID 7: Station 18+50 — Upstream (11/09/17)
PID 9: Station 19+05 — Upstream (11/09/17)
PID 11: Station 19+50 — Upstream (11/09/17)
PID 8: Station 18+90 — Downstream (11/09/17)
PID 10: Station 19+50 — Left Floodplain
(11/09/17)
PID 12: Station 19+85 — Upstream (11/09/17)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

UT to Town Creek — Reach 6
PID 13: Station 20+50 - Upstream (11/09/17)
M
PID 15: Station 21+00 — Upstream (11/09/17)
PID 17: Station 23+40 — Upstream (11/09/17)
PID 14: Station 20+50 - Downstream (11/09/17)
PID 16: Station 22+75 — Upstream (11/09/17)
PID 18: Station 24+00 — Upstream (11/09/17)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

UT to Town Creek — Reach 6
PID 19: Station 24+50 — Upstream (11/09/17)
PID 21: Station 25+80 - Downstream (11/09/17)
PID 23: Station 26+50 —Upstream (11/09/17)
PID 20: Station 23+25 — Upstream (11/09/17)
PID 22: Station 25+85 — Upstream (11/09/17)
PID 24: Station 26+75 — Upstream (11/09/17)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

UT to Town Creek — Reach 6
PID 25: Station 28+00 — Upstream (11/09/17)
PID 26: Station 28+14 — Upstream (11/09/17)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7
_r
PID 25: Station 28+00 — Upstream (11/09/17)
PID 26: Station 28+14 — Upstream (11/09/17)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

UT to Town Creek —Reach 7
PID 1: Station 09+40: Upstream (11/08/17)
PID 3: Station 10+70 — Upstream (11/08/17)
PID 2: Station 09+90 — Upstream (11/08/17)
PID 4: Station 10+80 — Downstream (11/08/17)
PID 5: Station 11+75 — Upstream (11/08/17)
PID 6: Station 12+20 — Upstream (11/08/17)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

UT to Town Creek — Reach 7
PID 7: Station 12+90 — Upstream (11/08/17)
PID 9: Station 13+99 — Upstream (11/08/17)
PID 8: Station 13+50 — Upstream (11/08/17)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

Stream Problem Area Photos

UT to Town Creek —Reach 6
SPA2-1— Station 16+20 - Erosion around right
seal of boulder step. (11/09/17)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

Vegetation Problem Area Photos

UT to Town Creek — Reach 1 - 3
Myriophyllum aquaticum (Parrot feather) - Reach I
Myriophyllum aquaticum (Parrot feather) - Reach 2
Myriophyllum aquaticum (Parrot feather) - Reach 3
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

UT to Town Creek — Reach 2
VPA 2-1— Ligustrum sinese in Right Floodplain (10/16/17)
UT to Town Creek —Reach 3
VPA 2-2 — Bare Area in Left Floodplain from Station 46+50 — 48+00 (09/19/17)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

UT to Town Creek —Reach 6
VPA24 — Rosa multiflora in Right Floodplain from Station 19+60 — 20+25
(11/09/17)
VPA 2-5 — Paulownia tomentosa in Left Floodplain from Station 16+30 —17+60
(11/09/17)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

APPENDIX C
Vegetation Plot Data

Table 7. Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success Summary
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 94648
Wetland/Stream Vegetation Totals (per acre)
Stream/Wetland
Plot # Stems Volunteers
Success Criteria
Total4 Met.
VPI 728 0
728
Yes
VP2 809 0
809
Yes
VP3 728 0
728
Yes
VP4 607 0
607
Yes
VP5 688 0
688
Yes
VP6 769 0
769
Yes
VP7 607 0
607
Yes
VP8 728 0
728
Yes
VP9 526 0
526
Yes
VP10 769 0
769
Yes
VPl l 890 0
890
Yes
VP12 607 0
607
Yes
VP13 526 0
526
Yes
VP14 607 0
607
Yes
VP15 728 0
728
Yes
VP16 728 0
728
Yes
VP17 607 0
607
Yes
VP18 769 0
769
Yes
VP19 486 0
486
Yes
VP20 1 4861 0
486
Yes
Project Avg 670 MEL 670
1Buffer Stems: Native planted hardwood trees. Does NOT include shrubs. No pines. No vines
2Stream/ Wetland Stems: Native planted woody stems. Includes shrubs, does NOT include live stakes.
3Volunteers: Native woody stems. Not planted. No vines.
4Total: Planted + volunteer native woody stems. Includes live stakes. Excl. exotics. Excl. vines.
Yes
No vines
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 2 OF 7

Table 8. CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
u i to i Own ureek Restoration rroject: rroject ivo. V4045
Report Prepared By Russell Myers
Date Prepared 10/13/2017 11:40
database name
120857_UTtoTown_cvs-eep-entrytool-v2.3.1_MYl.mdb
database location
L:\projects\120857_UT Town\Monitoring\YR-2\Vegetation
computer name
ASHELRMYERS
file size
49188864
II]16Ye)91WIMeffe]WAXIIN;�y71DIDV10lea VIks11919UluIDIeYW""W"W"
Metadata Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a summary of project(s) and project data.
Proj, planted Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre, for each year. This excludes live stakes.
Proj, total stems Each project is listed with its TOTAL stems per acre, for each year. This includes live stakes, all planted stems, and all natural/volunteer stems.
Plots List of plots surveyed with location and summary data (live stems, dead stems, missing, etc.).
Vigor Frequency distribution of vigor classes for stems for all plots.
Vigor by Spp Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species.
Damage List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences and percent of total stems impacted by each.
Damage by Spp Damage values tallied by type for each species.
Damage by Plot Damage values tallied by type for each plot.
Planted Stems by Plot and Spp A matrix of the count of PLANTED living stems of each species for each plot; dead and missing stems are excluded.
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
ALL Stems by Plot and spp excluded.
PROJECT SUMMARY -------------------------------------
Project Code 94648
project Name UT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A
This project proposes to restore 5,597 linear feet (LF) and enhance 791 LF (444 LF of Enhancement I and 347 LF of Enhancement 11) of stream along
Description an Unnamed Tributary (UT) to Town Creek and three additional unnamed tributaries and to restore, enhance, and
River Basin Yadkin -Pee Dee
length(ft)
stream -to -edge width (ft)
area (sq m) 101576
Required Plots (calculated) 20
Sampled Plots 20
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 2 OF 7

Table 9. CVS Stem Count of Planted Stems by Plot and Species
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 94648
Current Plot Data (MY2 2017)
Scientific Name Common Name
Species Type
94648-01-VP1
PnoLS P -all T
94648-01-VP2
PnoLS P -all
T
94648-01-VP3
PnoLS P -all
T
94648-01-VP4
PnoLS P -all
T
94648-01-VP5
PnoLS P -all
T
94648-01-VP6
PnoLS P -all
T
94648-01-VP7
PnoLS P -all
T
94648-01-VP8
PnoLS P -all
T
Acer ne undo boxelder
Tree
1
1
Asimina triloba pawpaw
Tree
Betula nigra river birch
Tree
1
1
1
1
4
4
2
2
2
2
4
4
Callicar a americana American beautyberry
Shrub
1
1
2
2
5
5
Carpinus caroliniana American hornbeam
Tree
1
1
2
2
1 1
1
1 2
1
2
1
1 1 1
1
Ce halanthus occidentalis common buttonbush
Shrub
Cercis canadensis eastern redbud
Tree
4
4
1
1
Cornus amomum silky dogwood
Shrub
4
4
4
4
Cornus orida flowering dogwood
Tree
1
1
3
3
Diospyros vir iniana common persimmon
Tree
3
1 3
3
3
1
4
4
1
1
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash
Tree
Liriodendron tuli i era tuli tree
Tree
1
1
N ssa s lvatica black um
Tree
Platanus occidentalis American sycamore
Tree
1
1
1
1
4
4
1
1
2
2
4
4
12
12
Quercus oak
Tree
Quercus alba white oak
Tree
2
2
uercus klcata southern red oak
Tree
2
2
1
]
Quercus l rata overcup oak
Tree
1
1
2
2
1
1
Quercus michauxii swamp chestnut oak
Tree
6
6
2
2
1
1
Quercus pagoda the bark oak
Tree
4
4
1
1
1
1
Quercus phellos willow oak
Tree
2
2
6
6
5
5
1 6
6
3
3
3
3
Quercus rubra northern red oak
Tree
Salix nigra black willow
Tree
1
1
Sambucus canadensis Common Elderberry
Shrub
Sambucus nigra European black elderberry
Shrub
2
2
4
4
Unknown
Shrub or Tree
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
18
1
0.02
9
728
18
9
728
20 1
1
0.02
8
809
20
8
809
18
1
0.02
7
1 728
18
7
728
15 1
7
607
1
1
0.02
15
7
607
17 1
1
0.02
6
688
17
6
688
19
1
1 0.02
7
769
19
7
769
15
1
0.02
5
607
15
51
607
18
1
0.02
5
1 728
18
5
728
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Pnols = Planted No Live Stakes
P -all = Planted Includes Live Stakes
T = Total
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 2 OF 7

Table 9. CVS Stem Count of Planted Stems by Plot and Species - Continued
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 94648
Current Plot Data (MY2 2017)
Scientific Name Common Name
Species Type
94648-01-VP9
PnoLS P-all
T
94648-01-VP10
PnoLS P-all
T
94648-01-VPII
PnoLS P-all
T
94648-01-VP12
PnoLS P-all T
94648-01-VP13
PnoLS P-all
T
94648-01-VP14
PnoLS P-all
T
94648-01-VP15
PnoLS P-all
T
94648-01-VP16
PnoLS P-all
T
Acer negundo boxelder
Tree
Asimina triloba pawpaw
Tree
Betula nigra river birch
Tree
3
3
Callicar a americana American beautyberry
Shrub
2
2
2
2
1
1
Carpinus caroliniana American hornbeam
Tree
3
3
Ce halanthus occidentalis common buttonbush
Shrub
3
3
1
1
4
4
Cercis canadensis eastern redbud
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
6
Cornus amomum silky dogwood
Shrub
3
3
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
4
5
5
3
3
Cornus orida flowering dogwood
Tree
3
3
Diospyros vir iniana common persimmon
Tree
1
3
3
1
1
5
5
1
1
2
2
Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash
Tree
1
1
9
9
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Liriodendron tuli i era tuli tree
Tree
2
2
3
3
3
3
1
1
N ssa s lvatica blackgum
Tree
1
1
3
3
3
3
1
1
4
4
Platanus occidentalis American sycamore
Tree
1
1
2
2
Quercus oak
Tree
Quercus alba white oak
Tree
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
uercus alcata southern red oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
Quercus l rata overcup oak
Tree
1
1
5
5
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
Quercus michauxii swamp chestnut oak
Tree
Quercus pagoda the bark oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
uercus Phellos willow oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
Quercus rubra northern red oak
Tree
Salix nigra black willow
Tree
Sambucus canadensis Common Elderberry
Shrub
Sambucus nigra European black elderberry
Shrub
2
2
2
2
Unknown
Shrub or Tree
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species counti
Stems per ACREF
13
1
0.02
7
526
13
7
526
19
1
0.02
7
769
19
7
769
22
1
0.02
10 1
1 890
22
10
890
15
8
1 15
1
0.02
8
607
13 1
1
0.02
8
526
13
8
526
15
1
0.02
7
607
15
7
607
18
1
0.02
8
72R
18
8
728
18
1
0.02
8
18
8
728
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10% -IMK--]
Punts = Planted No Live Stakes
P-all = Planted Includes Live Stakes
T = Total
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 2 OF 7

Table 9. CVS Stem Count of Planted Stems by Plot and Species - Continued
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 94648
Current Plot Data (MY2 2017)
Annual Means
Scientific Name Common Name
Species Type
94648-01-VP17
PnoLS P -all
T
94648-01-VP18 94648-01-VP19
PnoLS P -all T PnoLS P -all
T
94648-01-VP20
PnoLS P -all
T
MY2 (2017)
PnoLS P -all
T
MY1 (2016)
PnoLS P -all
T
MYO (2016)
PnoLS P -all
T
Acer negundo boxelder
Tree
1
1
Asimina triloba pawpaw
Tree
2
2
2
2
6
6
5
5
Betula nigra river birch
Tree
17
17
18
18
21
21
Callicar a americana American beautyberry
Shrub
13
13
16
16
7
7
Carpinus caroliniana American hornbeam
Tree
10
10
10 1
10
1 16
1
16
Ce halanthus occidentalis common buttonbush
Shrub
2
2
10
10
8
8
5
5
Cercis canadensis eastern redbud
Tree
6
6 1
20
20
24
24
29
29
Cornus amomum silky dogwood
Shrub
1
1
1
1
30
30
29
29
31
31
Cornus orida flowering dogwood
Tree
1
1
1 1
1
9
9
13
13
21
21
Diospyros vir iniana common persimmon
Tree
1
1
2
2 5
5
1
1
32
32
29
29
7
7
Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash
Tree
8
8
8
8 5
5
39
39
40
40
43
43
Liriodendron tuli i era tuli tree
Tree
1
1
1
1
12
12
11
11
12
12
N ssa s lvatica blackgum
Tree
1
1
13
13
12
12
9
9
Platanus occidentalis American sycamore
Tree
1
1
1
1
30
30
29
29
31
31
Quercus oak
Tree
1
3
3
Quercus alba white oak
Tree
1 1
1
10
10
10
10
12
12
uercus alcata southern red oak
Tree
1
2
2
7
7
19
19
15
15
Quercus l rata overcup oak
Tree
15
15
10
10
16
16
Quercus michauxii swamp chestnut oak
Tree
9
9
14
14
29
29
Quercus pagoda the bark oak
Tree
8
8
4
4
Quercus phellos willow oak
Tree
2
2
3
3
32
32
29
29
27
27
Quercus rubra northern red oak
Tree
2
2
Salix nigra black willow
Tree
1
1
Sambucus canadensis Common Elderberry
Shrub
6
6
19
19
Sambucus nigra European black elderberry
Shrub
1
1
11
11
7
7
Unknown
Shrub or Tree
7
7
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
15
1
0.02
6
607
15
66F
607
19
769
19 12
1 1
0.02 0.02
6 4
769
12
4
486
12 1
1
0.02
8
12
8
486
331
22
670
1
20
0.49
331
22
670
346
1 20
0.49
22
346
22
700
365
21
1 739
1
20
0.49
365
21
739
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Pnols = Planted No Live Stakes
P -all = Planted Includes Live Stakes
T = Total
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 2 OF 7

Appendix D
Stream Survey Data

Figure 3. Cross-sections with Annual Overlays
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: Project No. 94648
Permanent Cross-section
Xl - Reach 1 (Station 11+61)
Monitoring Year 2 - Collected October 2017
LEFT BANK
RIGHT BANK
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 2 OF 7
Stream
BKF
BKF
BKF
Max BKF
BH
BKF
TOB
Feature
Type
Area
Width
Depth
Depth*
WAD
Ratio*
ER*
Elev**
Elev
WFPA
Riffle
C
6.87
11.6
0.59
1.11
19.66
1.0
2.74
574.29
574.38
32.25
579
578
577
O
576
uJ-
-------------------------------------
575
---------------�
574
573
572
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Station
As -Built MY1 2016 MY2 2017 ---e--- Bankfull - -0--- Floodprone
* Max BKF depth was calculated from the As -built survey. BH ratio was calculated using current year's low bank depth divided by
the as -built year's max BKF depth. ER was calculated using the current year's floodprone width divided by the as -built BKF width.
**Recorded BKF elevation reflects the as -built survey BKF elevation.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 2 OF 7

Figure 3 Continued. Cross-sections with Annual Overlays
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: Project No. 94648
Permanent Cross-section
X2 - Reach 1 (Station 12+00)
Monitoring Year 2 - Collected October 2017
LEFT BANK RIGHT BANK
Stream BKF BKF BKF Max BKF BH BKF TOB
Feature T pe Area Width Depth Depth WAD Ratio ER Elev* Elev WFPA
Pool 22.54 19.7 1.14 2.36 17.28 - - 574.71 574.69 70.59
578
577 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- q
576
d
575
----------------------
W
574
573
572
571
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Station
s As -Built — MY1 2016 MY2 2017 Bankfull ---0--• Floodprone
*Recorded BKF elevation reflects the as -built survey BKF elevation.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 2 OF 7

Figure 3 Continued. Cross-sections with Annual Overlays
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: Project No. 94648
Permanent Cross-section
X3 - Reach 1 (Station 15+99)
Monitoring Year 2 - Collected October 2017
LEFT BANK
RIGHT BANK
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 2 OF 7
Stream
BKF
BKF
BKF
Max BKF
BH
BKF
TOB
Feature
WAD
ER
WFPA
Type
Area
Width
Depth
Depth
Ratio
Elev*
Elev
Pool
20.86
1 16.5
1.26
2.39
13.1
-
-
571.55
1 571.50
77.08
575
574
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------o
573
c
O�1
�
:7
/
572
��
—'�—
✓
m�g►�
------------------
W
r�
571
;
570
569
568
0 10 20 30 40
50 60
70 80
Station
AAs -Built MY1 2016
MY2 2017
---e--- Bankfull
---0--- Floodprone
*Recorded BKF elevation reflects the as -built survey BKF elevation.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 2 OF 7

Figure 3 Continued. Cross-sections with Annual Overlays
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: Project No. 94648
Permanent Cross-section
X4 - Reach 1 (Station 16+18)
Monitoring Year 2 - Collected October 2017
LEFT BANK
RIGHT BANK
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 2 OF 7
Stream
BKF
BKF
BKF
Max BKF
BH
BKF
TOB
Feature
WAD
ER*
WFPA
Type
Area
Width
Depth
Depth*
Ratio*
Elev**
Elev
Riffle
C
11.96
15.5
0.77
1.26
20.13
1.0
6.23
571.46
571.52
90.00
574
573
.`
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
o 572
b
m^f
------------
W
571
570
569
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
80 90 100
Station
s As -Built MY1 2016
MY2 2017 ---o--- Bankfull
---e--- Floodprone
" Max BKF depth was calculated from the As -built survey.
BH ratio was calculated using current year's low bank depth divided by the
as -built year's max BKF depth. ER was calculated using the current year's floodprone width divided by the as -built BKF width.
**Recorded BKF elevation reflects the as -built survey BKF elevation.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 2 OF 7

Figure 3 Continued. Cross-sections with Annual Overlays
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: Project No. 94648
Permanent Cross-section
X5 - Reach 1 (Station 19+41)
Monitoring Year 2 - Collected October 2017
LEFT BANK
RIGHT BANK
Feature
Stream
BKF
BKF
BKF
Max BKF
WAD
BH
ER*
BKF
TOB
WFPA
Type
Area
Width
Depth
Depth'
Ratio*
Elev**
Elev
Riffle
C
7.14
11.92
0.6
1.11
19.87
1.0
6.41
567.95
568.11
77.18
570
569
.`
>
m 568
LU
--------------
567
566
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Station
AAs -Built s MY1 2016 MY2 2017 --o--- Bankfull --o--- Floodprone
Max BKF depth was calculated from the As -built survey. BH ratio was calculated using current year's low bank depth divided by the
as -built year's max BKF depth. ER was calculated using the current year's floodprone width divided by the as -built BKF width.
**Recorded BKF elevation reflects the as -built survey BKF elevation.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 2 OF 7

Figure 3 Continued. Cross-sections with Annual Overlays
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: Project No. 94648
Permanent Cross-section
X6 - Reach 2 (Station 25+16)
Monitoring Year 2 - Collected October 2017
LEFT BANK
RIGHT BANK
Feature
Stream
BKF
BKF
BKF
Max BKF
WAD
BH
ER*
BKF
TOB
WFPA
Type
Area
Width
Depth
Depth*
Ratio*
Elev**
Elev
Riffle
C
14.82
15.53
0.95
1.29
16.35
1
1.1
4.97
561.90
1561.93
77.62
565
l�
564
.2 563
w
562.00.
A
' 1t
561
�1
560
0 10 20 30 40
50 60
70 80 90 100 110
Station
AAs -Built MY1 2016
MY2 2017 ---e---
Bankfull ---e--- Floodprone
* Max BKF depth was calculated from the As -built survey.
BH ratio was calculated
using current year's low bank depth divided by the
as -built year's max BKF depth. ER was calculated using
the current year's floodprone width divided by the as -built BKF width.
**Recorded BKF elevation reflects the as -built survey BKF elevation.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 2 OF 7

Figure 3 Continued. Cross-sections with Annual Overlays
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: Project No. 94648
Permanent Cross-section
X7 - Reach 2 (Station 25+60)
Monitoring Year 2 - Collected October 2017
LEFT BANK
RIGHT BANK
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 2 OF 7
Stream
BKF
BKF
BKF
Max BKF
BH
BKF
TOB
Feature
WAD
ER
WFPA
Type
Area
Width
Depth
Depth
Ratio
Elev*
Elev
Pool
20.95
15.95
1.31
2.36
12.18
-
-
561.63
561.73
76.31
565
564
o -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------0
563
c
O
M 562
ani
�~-------------� y
�'�►
W
561
1
//
560
559
558
0 10 20 30
40 50 60 70
80 90
Station
AAs -Built MY1 2016
M2 2017 --- --- Bankfull ---&-- Floodprone
I -Recorded BKF elevation reflects the as -built survey BKF elevation.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 2 OF 7

Figure 3 Continued. Cross-sections with Annual Overlays
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: Project No. 94648
Permanent Cross-section
X8 - Reach 2 (Station 29+17)
Monitoring Year 2 - Collected October 2017
LEFT BANK
RIGHT BANK
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 2 OF 7
Stream
BKF
BKF
BKF
Max BKF
BH
BKF
TOB
Feature
Type
Area
Width
Depth
Depth*
WAD
Ratio*
ER*
Elev**
Elev
WFPA
Riffle
C
14.29
1 14.73
0.97
1.62
15.19
1 1.0
6.65
558.81
1 558.92
102.74
561
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------o
560
r 559
,�
W
558
1�
i
557
556
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Station
AAs -Built MY1 2016 MY2 2017 --o--- Bankfull ---0--- Floodprone
* Max BKF
depth was calculated from the As -built survey. BH ratio was calculated using current year's low bank depth divided by the
as -built year's max BKF depth. ER was calculated using the current year's floodprone width divided by the as -built BKF width.
**Recorded BKF elevation reflects the as -built survey BKF elevation.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 2 OF 7

Figure 3 Continued. Cross-sections with Annual Overlays
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: Project No. 94648
Permanent Cross-section
X9 - Reach 2 (Station 37+60)
Monitoring Year 2 - Collected October 2017
LEFT BANK
RIGHT BANK
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 2 OF 7
Stream
BKF
BKF
BKF
Max BKF
BH
BKF
TOB
Feature
WAD
ER
WFPA
Type
Area
Width
Depth
Depth
Ratio
Elev*
Elev
Pool
26.77
1 22.28
1.2
2.56
18.57
-
-
552.73
552.70
95.39
556
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
o
555
554
c
O
4553CU
—.
r
>
------------------
m
W
552
551
550
549
0 10 20
30 40
50 60 70 80 90
100 110
Station
AAs -Built
MY1 2016
s MY2 2017 Bankfull ---o--- Floodprone
*Recorded BKF elevation reflects the as -built survey BKF elevation.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 2 OF 7

Figure 3 Continued. Cross-sections with Annual Overlays
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: Project No. 94648
Permanent Cross-section
X10 - Reach 2 (Station 37+91)
Monitoring Year 2 - Collected October 2017
LEFT BANK
RIGHT BANK
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 2 OF 7
Stream
BKF
BKF
BKF
Max BKF
BH
BKF
TOB
Feature
WAD
ER*
WFPA
Type
Area
Width
Depth
Depth
Ratio*
Elev**
Elev
Riffle
C
14.42
14.47
1.00
1.76
14.47
1 0.84
6.45
552.80
1552.77
100.19
555
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
554
Cr
.0 553
------------
_•
552
551
550
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
70 80 90 100 110
Station
—AAs -Built MY1 2016 MY2 2017
0--- Bankfull - --- Floodprone
* Max BKF depth was calculated
from the As -built survey. BH ratio was calculated
using current year's low bank depth divided by the
as -built year's max BKF depth. ER was calculated using the current year's floodprone width divided by the as -built BKF width.
**Recorded BKF elevation reflects the as -built survey BKF elevation.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 2 OF 7

Figure 3 Continued. Cross-sections with Annual Overlays
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: Project No. 94648
Permanent Cross-section
X11 - Reach 3 (Station 41+62)
Monitoring Year 2 Collected October 2017
LEFT BANK
RIGHT BANK
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 2 OF 7
Stream
BKF
BKF
BKF
Max BKF
BH
BKF
TOB
Feature
WAD
ER*
WFPA
Type
Area
Width
Depth
Depth*
Ratio*
Elev**
Elev
Riffle
C
13.31
1 14.96
0.89
1.51
16.81
1 0.67
6.72
550.49
1 550.43
99.76
553
552
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------o
551
��,�- -M��• �
>
a�
• ^
�,�
W
�550
549
1 �
548
0 10
20 30 40 50 60 70 80
90 100 110
Station
AAs -Built
MY1 2016 MY2 2017 --- --- Bankfull - --- Floodprone
* Max BKF depth was calculated from the As -built survey. BH ratio was calculated using current year's low bank depth divided by the
as -built year's max BKF depth.
ER was calculated using the current year's floodprone width divided by the as -built BKF width.
**Recorded BKF elevation reflects the as -built survey BKF elevation.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 2 OF 7

Figure 3 Continued. Cross-sections with Annual Overlays
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: Project No. 94648
Permanent Cross-section
X12 - Reach 3 (Station 44+80)
Monitoring Year 2 - Collected October 2017
LEFT BANK
RIGHT BANK
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 2 OF 7
Stream
BKF
BKF
BKF
Max BKF
BH
BKF
TOB
Feature
WAD
ER*
WFPA
Type
Area
Width
Depth
Depth*
Ratio*
Elev**
Elev
Riffle
C
17.51
1 16.69
1.05
1.79
15.9
1 0.9
5.84
548.87
1 548.87
99.91
551
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
550
c
+r 549
M
----------------
m
W
548
547
546
0 10
20 30 40
50 60
70 80 90 100 110
Station
AAs -Built
MY1 2016
MY2 2017
- --- Bankfull ---e--- Floodprone
" Max BKF depth was calculated
from the As -built survey.
BH ratio was calculated using current year's low bank depth divided by the
as -built year's max BKF depth.
ER was calculated using
the current year's floodprone width divided by the as -built BKF width.
**Recorded BKF elevation reflects the as -built survey BKF elevation.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 2 OF 7

Figure 3 Continued. Cross-sections with Annual Overlays
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: Project No. 94648
Permanent Cross-section
X13 - Reach 3 (Station 45+61)
Monitoring Year 2 - Collected October 2017
LEFT BANK
RIGHT BANK
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 2 OF 7
Stream
BKF
BKF
BKF
Max BKF
BH
BKF
TOB
Feature
WAD
ER*
WFPA
Type
Area
Width
Depth
Depth*
Ratio*
Elev**
Elev
Riffle
C
13.50
1 15.33
0.88
1.56
17.42
0.79
6.15
548.10
548.15
98.35
550
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------o
549
O
548
--------------
W
547
546
0 10 20 30 40
50 60
70 80 90 100 110
Station
—� As -Built MY1 2016
- MY2 2017
------ Bankfull ---e--- Floodprone
* Max BKF depth was calculated from the As -built survey. BH ratio was calculated using current year's low bank depth divided by
the as -built year's max BKF depth. ER was calculated using the current year's floodprone width divided by the as -built BKF width.
**Recorded BKF elevation reflects the as -built survey BKF elevation.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 2 OF 7

Figure 3 Continued. Cross-sections with Annual Overlays
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: Project No. 94648
Permanent Cross-section
X14 - Reach 3 (Station 45+95)
Monitoring Year 2 - Collected October 2017
LEFT BANK
RIGHT BANK
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 2 OF 7
Stream
BKF
BKF
BKF
Max BKF
BH
BKF
TOB
Feature
WAD
ER
WFPA
Type
Area
Width
Depth
Depth
Ratio
Elev*
Elev
Pool
30.60
19.15
1.60
3.11
11.97
-
-
547.86
547.95
98.69
552
551
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------o
550
0 549
548
--
W
�ij1�—'►
1'
547
546
545,
544
0 10 20 30 40
50
60 70 80 90 100 110
Station
AAs -Built MY1 2016
MY2 2017 ---0--- Bankfull ---0--- Floodprone
*Recorded BKF elevation reflects the as -built survey BKF elevation.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 2 OF 7

Figure 3 Continued. Cross-sections with Annual Overlays
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: Project No. 94648
Permanent Cross-section
X15 - Reach 6 (Station 26+17)
Monitoring Year 2 - Collected October 2017
LEFT BANK
RIGHT BANK
Feature
Stream
BKF
BKF
BKF
Max BKF
WAD
BH Ratio
ER
BKF
TOB
WFPA
Type
Area
Width
Depth
Depth
q � �'4A
- �• zs 5 ,P � ��'n^
., !fir s—✓ J,S�
Elev*
Elev
Pool
7 nig r
n
10.85
0.91
1.78
11.92
-
-
553.79
1 553.82
60.36
556
RIGHT BANK
Feature
Stream
BKF
BKF
BKF
Max BKF
WAD
BH Ratio
ER
BKF
TOB
WFPA
Type
Area
Width
Depth
Depth
Elev*
Elev
Pool
9.89
10.85
0.91
1.78
11.92
-
-
553.79
1 553.82
60.36
556
555
0 554
d
------------------
W
553
i
552
551
0 10 20 30
40 50 60
Station
s As -Built MY1 2016 MY2 2017
-0--- Bankfull o--- Floodprone
*Recorded BKF elevation reflects the as -built survey BKF elevation.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 2 OF 7

Figure 3 Continued. Cross-sections with Annual Overlays
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: Project No. 94648
Permanent Cross-section
X16 - Reach 6 (Station 26+02)
Monitoring Year 2 - Collected October 2017
LEFT BANK
RIGHT BANK
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 2 OF 7
Stream
BKF
BKF
BKF
Max BKF
BH
BKF
TOB
Feature
WAD
ER*
WFPA
Type
Area
Width
Depth
Depth*
Ratio*
Elev**
Elev
Riffle
C
5.69
9.19
0.62
1.15
14.82
0.89
5.49
554.26
554.26
53.10
556
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------o
"A
555
i
ti� ✓
d 554
W
� 1
553
552
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Station
AAs -Built MY1 2016 MY2 2017 -0--- Bankfull --- Floodprone
" Max BKF depth was calculated from the As -built survey. BH ratio was calculated using current year's low bank depth divided by
the as -built year's max BKF depth. ER was calculated using the current year's floodprone width divided by the as -built BKF width.
""Recorded BKF elevation reflects the as -built survey BKF elevation.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 2 OF 7

Figure 3 Continued. Cross-sections with Annual Overlays
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: Project No. 94648
Permanent Cross-section
X17 - Reach 6 - (Station 21+06)
Monitoring Year 2 - Collected October 2017
LEFT BANK
RIGHT BANK
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 2 OF 7
Stream
BKF
BKF
BKF
Max BKF
BH
BKF
TOB
Feature
WAD
ER*
WFPA
Type
Area
Width
Depth
Depth*
Ratio*
Elev**
Elev
Riffle
C
7.89
10.25
0.77
1.45
13.31
0.81
2.88
565.02
565.05
30.32
569
568
r- 567
O
M
-------------------------------------------------------
W 566
iR
~
565
564
------------------ �' L,�✓'�'
%
563
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Station
As -Built MY1 2016 MY2 2017 -0--- Bankfull - o--- Floodprone
* Max BKF depth was calculated from the As -built survey. BH ratio was calculated using current year's low bank depth divided by the
as -built year's max BKF depth. ER was calculated using the current year's floodprone width divided by the as -built BKF width.
**Recorded BKF elevation reflects the as -built survey BKF elevation.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 2 OF 7

Figure 3 Continued. Cross-sections with Annual Overlays
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: Project No. 94648
Permanent Cross-section
X18 - Reach 6 (Station 16+80)
Monitoring Year 2 - Collected October 2017
LEFT BANK RIGHT BANK
Stream BKF BKF BKF Max BKF BH BKF TOB
Feature Type Area Width Depth Depth* WAD Ratio* ER* Elev** Elev WFPA
Riffle C 4.61 7.64 0.60 1.19 12.73 1 1.07 4.11 577.95 578.04 34.78
581
580
c
w
579
M
d
W _ _
578
i�
577
S
576
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Station
AAs -Built MY1 2016 MY2 2017 Bankfull --- Floodprone
" Max BKF depth was calculated from the As -built survey. BH ratio was calculated using current year's low bank depth divided by the
as -built year's max BKF depth. ER was calculated using the current year's floodprone width divided by the as -built BKF width.
**Recorded BKF elevation reflects the as -built survey BKF elevation.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 2 OF 7

Figure 3 Continued. Cross-sections with Annual Overlays
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: Project No. 94648
Permanent Cross-section
X19 - Reach 6 (Station 17+69)
Monitoring Year 2 - Collected October 2017
LEFT BANK
RIGHT BANK
Feature
Stream
BKF
BKF
BKF
Max BKF
WAD
BH
ER
BKF
TOB
WFPA
Type
Area
Width
Depth
Depth
Ratio
Elev*
Elev
Pool
7.89
10.45
0.76
1.30
13.75
-
-
575.75
575.72
40.77
580
579
0 578
0
ca
w577
---------------------------------------------------------------------------o
576
575
574
0 10 20 30
40 50 60
Station
—AAs -Built MY1 2016 MY2 2017 --- Bankfull - o--- Floodprone
*Recorded BKF elevation reflects the as -built survey BKF elevation.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 2 OF 7

Figure 4. Year 2 Profile
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: Project No. 94648
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 1 OF 7
UT to Town Creek - Reach 1
Monitoring Year 2 - Station 13+25 to 20+75
(Data Collected October 2017)
577
As -Built Thalweg
576
- -
MY1 Thalweg
575
-- --- ---
-- -- -- -- X
X4
-
�MY2 Thalweg
1
--*--MY2 Low Bank
574
1
1
573
-- .._.._.._
_.._.._.. ._.._.._.._.._
_.. _.._.._..-------------------------------------------------
1
1
1
X5
572
1
571
-..._.._ _.._.._.. ... ...
._...._. .... .._..-
-..._..-
1 .... ... _.... _
..._.. -
- ... _... _
_...
1
1
1
570
- -
- - - -
1
�
1
1
569
1
-
44
1
1
W
568
1 - -
--. .._... ._..._..
1
1
567
-
- -
-
566
-
- - - -
- - - - -
1 -
_. . ....
565
--------
-- -- -- --
- -
- I
1
-
564
563
562
Water surface is not shown because the riffles were dry at the time of survey.
561
560
1300
1400 1500 1600 1700 1800
1900 2000 2100
Station
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 1 OF 7

Figure 4 Cont. Year 2 Profile
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: Project No. 94648
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 2 OF 7
UT to Town Creek - Reach 2
Monitoring Year 2 - Station 25+00 to 30+00
(Data Collected October 2017)
567
566 -
--------------------------------------------
As -Built Thalweg
MYl Thalweg......................................................................
565
..................X
............................................................._.....X7._...._...._...._...._........_...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._........_...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._....._..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
.......
}
1
1
s MY2 Thalweg
564
t MY2 Low Bank
...............................................
1
1
563
-+ -
- - - -F -
- - - - - - . -...
.... _.... _.... .... _.... -
-..._.._ _.._.._..
1
562
t
t
_....._........_...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._..._...._...._...._....._....._....._....._....._....._....._....._....._....._....._....._....._....._....._
............._......_..........._......_......_......_.....-X8......_......_
...
_...... _..... _.... _.... _.... _.... _.... _.... _.... _..... _..... _.....
.... _.... _.... _.... _.... _.... _.... _.... _.... _.... _.... _
1
1
1
561
t
1
- - .... _.... _... -
- - - - - - _.._
_.... _...._... _...._.. _...._. _...._ _...._
_- - - - - - -
- - - ------------
-------------
--- ---
560
560
1
- - -
1
- -
- -- - - - -
- - - - -
-
c
1
0
559
_.._.._ .._..__� _.._.._.._.._..
_.. -
- --...._.._.._..
_... - - -
- -
-......_... _ 1....
.... _.... _.... .... _.... _.... ..... _..... _....
.... _.... _ .... _.... _.... _.... _
W
558
1
--- ------------
1
1
1
557
--- --- --
-- -L------------------------------------------------------
556
-------------
- --
-- --
555
555
....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................._
...
1
_...... _...... _.... _.... _.... _.... _.... _.... _.... _..... _..... _.....
.... _.... _.... _.... _.... _ .... _.... _.... _.... _.... _......
1
554
--------------------------------
_..._ _... _... _ _... _... _... ... _
... _... ... ... _... _...._...._.
.._.._.._ .._.._.._
.._.._.._ .._.._.._ _... _... _...
.... _.... _ .... _.... _.... _.... _
553
_....._........_...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._..._...._...._...._....._....._....._....._....._....._....._....._....._....._....._....._....._....._....._....._...._...._........_...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._....._....._........._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._....._.
552
Water surface is not shown because the riffles were dry at the time of survey.
--.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._._.._.._.._..._..._..._..._..._..._..._..._..._..._..._..._..._..._..._..._.._.._...._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._..._..._......._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._
551
- - - -- - - -- --
- -- - - - -
- - - -
- -- - - --
- ----
550
2475
2575
2675 2775
2875
2975
Station
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 2 OF 7

Figure 4 Cont. Year 2 Profile
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: Project No. 94648
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 2 OF 7
UT to Town Creek - Reach 2
Monitoring Year 2 - Station 35+25 to 40+25
(Data Collected October 2017)
560
559
-....-....-....-....-....-....-....-....-....-....-....-....-....-....-....-....-....-....-....-....-....-........
As -Built Thalweg
558
MYl Thalweg
557
---------- - -
s MY2 Thalweg
X9 X10
f MY2 Low Bank
556
}- - - - - - - - .._...._
_...._ _...._
_....._ _..... _.... _.. -
1 1 I
555
1 1
1 1
554
- - --_ .._.._.._ .._.._.._ .._.._.._
.._.._.._ .._.._.._ .._.._.._ _.._.._.. ._.._.._._.._.._..
_.._.._ .._.._.._ .._.._.._.._IF1
----------- ___
1 1
w
553
- -
- - - -
-
-
0
1 1
552
1 1
_.._..
W
551
1
-
1 1
550
-
1
1 1
549
1 1
1 1
548
547
546
545
Water surface is not shown because the riffles were dry at the time of survey.
544
543
3500
3600 3700 3800
3900 4000
Station
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 2 OF 7

Figure 4 Cont. Year 2 Profile
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: Project No. 94648
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 1 OF 7
UT to Town Creek - Reach 3
Monitoring Year 2 - Station 41+50 to 46+50
(Data Collected October 2017)
557
As -Built Thalweg
556
......................................................................................................................................................................................................
MY1 Thalweg
555
_...._ _...._ _...._ _.._
.... _...._... _...._.. _...._. _...._ _- - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - -
-
- - -
-...._...
+MY2 Thalweg
f MY2 Low Bank
554
-
-- - - -- - -- - --
- -- - - -- - - -- - - --
- -
- -- - -- - -
- - - - -
X11
X12-
553
- -
- -- - - -- - -
- - - -- - - --
-
-
1
1
X14--
552
-
1
-
- ---------------------------------------U
------------------------X13
1
1
1
1
551
1 --
--- --- --- --- -
-- -- --- --- --- ---
--- -- -- -- --- ---
--
--- U -- --
-- -- -
-
- --- -t- --- --- ---
a
1
1
1
1
w
550
r _.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._..
_...._...._...._...._....._......_..........._......_......_......_......_......_......_......_......_......_......_......_......_......_......_......_......_......_......_......_......_......_......_......_....._......_......_......_......_......_......_......_......_......_......_......_......_......_......_......_......_......_......_......_......_......_......_......_......_
...._......_......_......_......_......_......_...
1 _......_......_......_......_......_......_......_.................................................................................._......_...
1 _......_......_......_......_......_......_......_..........
t -----.......................------ .
0
..,
1
1
1
1
549
-------.._.. -- -- ---
--------------
-
--- --- --
-- -- -
- r-
--- - - -- - -- - --
t -
W
1
1
548
1 -..----
......._......---- ...... _-
1
_.........
.... _.... ....
_.... _.._..._.._........._...._...._...._....._....._....._...._...._...._...._...._.
1
1
1
547
_......_......_......_......_.....
.... _...._...._......._...._...._...
.... _...... .......... ....... ....... ....... ..... .._............................................................................
....... _...........
1
1
1
546
I
I
-
I
1
1
1
1
1
545..............................
1
_........................._......_......_......_......_......_......_.....
1
1
1
1
1
1
544
-
- - -...._ _...._
_...._ _.... _...._... _...._.. _...._. _...._ .._
...-
1
1
1
543
-
- - -
-
-
542
- ..... _.... .... _.... _
... _.... _....
.... _.... _.... .... _.... _ .... _.... ....
..... _..... ..... _..... ..... _....
541
Water surface is not shown because the riffles were dry at the time of survey.
------------------------------------
- -- -
540
540
4150
4250 4350 4450
4550
4650
Station
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 1 OF 7

Figure 4 Cont. Year 2 Profile
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: Project No. 94648
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 1 OF 7
UT to Town Creek - Reach 6
Monitoring Year 2 - Station 14+50 to 18+25
(Data Collected October 2017)
585
584
------------------------------------
. .... . .... .
... . .... . . ..... . ..... . ..... . ..... . ..... . ..... . ..... . ..... . ..... . ..... . ..... . .....
. ..... . ..... . ..... . ..... . ....
—As -Built Thalweg
.._...
_...._... _...._...._
MY1 Thalweg
583
....._......_......_......_......_......_......_......_......_......_......_......_......_......_......_......_......_......_......_......_......_......_......_......_......_......_......_............_......_......_......_......_......_......_......_......_......_......_......_......_......_......_......_......_......_......_......_......_......_......_......_......_......_......_......_......_
...._......_......_......_......_......_......_......_......_......_......_............................................................................................................................................._....
_......_......_......_......_......_......_......_......_......_...............
.... ....... ........
..... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ...
+MY2 Thalweg
582
--
.... .... _.... _ .... _.... _.... _.... .... _.... _.... .... _.... _.... .... _.... _ .....
..... _.... .... _.... _.... .... _.... _ .... _.... _.... _.... .... _.... _.... .... _.... _.... .... _.... _....
.... _.... _.... .... _.... - - - X1 ..... _.....
..... _..... --m�--
MY2 Low Bank
..._
_.... _.... .... _.... _.... _
1
581
_...._...._..........
1..........................................................................................._....
_...... _...... _...... _...... _...... _...... _...... _...... _...... _...... _...... _...... _...... _...... _...... _...... _...... _...... _...... _...... _............................................. _...... _...... _......
..... _...... _...... _...... _...... _...... _...... _..
1
580
-.._. ._.._.._. _.._.. ...
- 1
_....._....._....._....._...._......._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._....._....._....._....._...._...._...._........_...._...._...._...._...._...._.
_... ......... .... _.... _ .... _.... _.... _.... _..._.._.._.. _..- - - -
1
X19
579
1 --------------------------------------------------
---
------
578
578
.... .... _.... _.... .... _.... _ ..... _...._... ......................................................... .. -
- - - .... _..... ..... _.....
_..... _..... .... _...
.... .... _.... _.... .... _.... _.... .... _.... _.... .... _.... _.... .... _.... _.... ..... _..... .... _....
_.... _.... .... _.... _.... _
577
- ------- - -
F
e
W
1
576
-
1
1
1
575
........ .._.... _.... _.... _.... _.... .... _.... _.... _ .... _...._...._...._...._.....__....._...._...._...._........_...._....
_.... _.... _.... _.... _.
1
574
1
1
1
573
1
572
1
1
571
-
570
-
-
- - -
t -
Fw-ater surface is not shown because the riffles were dry at the time of survey.
569
- - ----
568
1425
1525 1625
1725 1825
Station
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 1 OF 7

Figure 4 Cont. Year 2 Profile
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: Project No. 94648
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 2 OF 7
UT to Town Creek - Reach 6
Monitoring Year 2 - Station 24+00 to 27+75
(Data Collected October 2017)
563
562
-
- -
- - -
-
- -... _._.._.._..
_.._.._.._.._..
As -Built Thalweg
561
-
- - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - -
- - -
MY1 Thalweg
s MY2 Thalweg
560
-
f MY2 Low Bank
-
559
_......_......_......_......_......_......_......_......_......_......_......_......_......_......_......_......_......_......_......_......_......_......_......_......_......_......_......_....._......_......_......_......_......_......_......_......_......_......_......_......_......_......_......_......_......_......_......_......_......_......_......_......_......_......_......_..........._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._....._....._....._....._....._....._....._....._....._....._....._....._....._....._....._.._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._....._....._....._...._...._........_...._...._...._...._...._....
X16
558
-
- - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - -
__
- - .._.._.. ... _... _... ... _... _. ----------------------------------------------
_..._..._ _..._
_.._ .._.._.._ .._.._.._ .._.._.._ _.._.._.. ._.._.._. _..._. _.._.._..
_.._.._.._.._..
w
557
- ..._...._...._...._....
_...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._..._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._........_
1 X15
X15
...._...._...._...._...._...._.._.._.._.._.._..._..._..._..._..._..._..._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._..._
.. ..
....
_.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._..._.._.._...._.._.._.._.._.._..
..
�
1 1
556
----------- .........------------ .
1 1
y
1 1
W
1 1
555
1 1
554
1
Y7
1 1
553
1 -
- - - -.. ._.._.._. _..._. _.._.._
_.._.._.._.._
1 1
552
1
- -
-...._ ._...._..
1 1
551
1 1
_......_...._...._....
1 1
550
I 1
1
-...._.._..
549
Water surface is not shown because the riffles were dry at the time of survey.
548
_.._.._.._..+
_.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._..._..._..._..._..._..._..._..._..._..._..._..._..._..._..._..._
_.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._..._..._..._.._.._...._.._.._.._.._.._..
547
2375
2475 2575
2675 2775
Station
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 2 OF 7

Figure 5a. Reachwide Pebble Count Distribution with Annual Overlays
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 94648
SITE OR PROJECT:
UT To Town Creek - Year 2
REACH/LOCATION:
Reach 1 (5 Riffles & 5 Pools)
DATE COLLECTED:
11/2/2017
FIELD COLLECTION BY:
KS and RM
DATA ENTERED BY:
KS
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648
UT to TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 2 OF 7
Cummulative
Channel materials
D16 =
PARTICLE CLASS
D35 =
Reach Summary
Riffle Summary
Pool Summary
MATERIAL
PARTICLE
SIZE (mm)
Riffle
Pool
Total
Class %%
Cum
Class %
% Cum
Class %
% Cum
Silt / Clay
<.063
3
1
4
4%
4%
6%
6%
2%
2%
60%
Very Fine
.063-125 .125
0
0
v
s.
4%
0%
6%
0%
2%
Fine
.125 - .25
0
0
4%
0%
6%
0%
2%
Medium
.25-50 .50
0
0
4%
0%
6%
0%
2%
Coarse
.50-1.0
0
0
4%
0%
6%
0%
2%
Very Coarse
1.0-2.0
0
0
4%
0%
6%
0%
2%
Very Fine
2.0-2.8
0
0
Particle Size Class (mm)
4%
0%
6%
0%
2%
Very Fine
2.8-4.0
0
0
4%
0%
6%
0%
2%
Fine
4.0-5.6
0
0
4%
0%
6%
0%
2%
Fine
5.6-8.0
0
1
1
1%
5%
0%
6%
2%
4%
>
Medium
8.0-11.0
0
5
5
5%
10%
0%
6%
10%
14%
C7
Medium
11.0-16.0
3
3
6
6%
16%
6%
12%
6%
20%
Coarse
16.0-22.6
2
8
10
10%
26%
4%
16%
16%
36%
Coarse
22.6-32
2
6
8
8%
34%
4%
20%
12%
48%
Very Coarse
32-45
3
9
12
12%
46%
6%
26%
18%
66%
Very Coarse
45-64
6
4
10
10%
56%
12%
38%
8%
74%
Small
64-90
11
3
14
14%
70%
22%
60%
6%
80%
Small
90-128
9
6
15
15%
85%
18%
78%
12%
92%
U
Large
128-180
8
3
11
11%
96%
16%
94%
6%
98%
Large
180-256
3
1
4
4%
100%
6%
100%
2%
100%
Small
256-362
0
0
100%
0%
100%
0%
100%
C4
Small
362-512
0
0
100%
0%
100%
0%
100%
C
Medium
512-1024
0
0
100%
0%
100%
0%
100%
Large -Very Large
1024-2048
0
0
100%
0%
100%
0%
100%
Bedrock
> 2048
0
0
100%
0%
100%
0%
100%
Total 1
50
50
100
100%
100%
100%
100%
100% 1
100%
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648
UT to TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 2 OF 7
Cummulative
Channel materials
D16 =
16.00
D35 =
32.92
D50 =
51.81
D84 =
125.03
D95 =
174.51
D100=
180-256
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648
UT to TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 2 OF 7
Riffle
Channel
materials
D16 =
22.60
D35 =
58.61
D50 =
77.08
D84 =
145.46
D95 =
190.88
D100=
180-256
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648
UT to TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 2 OF 7
UT to Town Creek- Reach 1
Reachwide Pebble Count Size Distribution
100%
90%
--*--Cumulative Summary AB (2016)
80% --*—Cumulative Summary MY (2016)
--*—Cumulative Summary MY2 (2017)
70%
y 60%
U
50%
40%
E
U 30%
20%
10%
0%
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
Pool
Channel
materials
D16 =
12.46
D35 =
22.12
D50 =
33.24
D84 =
101.21
D95 =
151.79
D100 =
180-256
UT to Town Creek- Reach 1
Reachwide Pebble Count Size Distribution
100%
90%
--*--Cumulative Summary AB (2016)
80% --*—Cumulative Summary MY (2016)
--*—Cumulative Summary MY2 (2017)
70%
y 60%
U
50%
40%
E
U 30%
20%
10%
0%
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
UT to Town Creek - Reach 1
Reachwide Pebble Count Class Distribution
100%
■ Cumulative Summary AB (2016)
90%
■ Cumlative Summary MY 1 (2016)
80%
■ Cumulative Summary MY2 (2017)
70%
y
60%
v
s.
a+
50%
h
Lj 40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Particle Size Class (mm)

Figure 5b. Reachwide Pebble Count Distribution with Annual Overlays
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 94648
SITE OR PROJECT:
UT To Town Creek - Year 2
REACH/LOCATION:
Reach 2 (5 Riffles & 5 Pools)
DATE COLLECTED:
11/2/2017
FIELD COLLECTION BY:
KS and RM
DATA ENTERED BY:
KS
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648
UT to TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 2 OF 7
UT to Town Creek- Reach 2
Reachwide Pebble Count Size Distribution
100%
90%
Cumulative Summary AB (2016)
80% —*--Cumulative Summary MY 1 (2016)
—*--Cumulative Summary MY2 (2017)
70%
y 60%
U
i.i
50%
40%
Lj 30%
20%
10%
0% i LL
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
Cummulative
Channel materials
PARTICLE CLASS
Reach Summary
Riffle Summary
Pool Summary
MATERIAL
PARTICLE
SIZE (mm)
Riffle
Pool
Total
Class %
% Cu.
Class %
°G, Cum
Class %
% Cum
Silt / Clay
< .063
2 1
7
9
9%
1 9%
4
4
14
14
Very Fine
.063-125 .125
0
0
9%
0
4
0
14
Fine
.125 - .25
0
0
v
s.
9%
0
4
0
14
n
Medium
.25 - .50
0
0
50%
9%
0
4
0
14
Coarse
.50-1.0
0
0
9%
0
4
0
14
Very Coarse
1.0-2.0
0
0
30%
9%
0
4
0
14
Very Fine
2.0-2.8
0
0
9%
0
4
0
14
Very Fine
2.8-4.0
0
0
9%
0
4
0
14
Fine
4.0-5.6
0
1
1
1%
10%
0
4
2
16
Particle Size Class (mm)
Fine
5.6-8.0
0
0
10%
0
4
0
16
Medium
8.0-11.0
2
1
3
3%
13%
4
8
2
18
Medium
11.0-16.0
0
2
2
2%
15%
0
8
4
22
Coarse
16-22.6
4
4
8
8%
23%
8
16
8
30
Coarse
22.6-32
6
5
11
11%
34%
12
28
10
40
Very Coarse
32-45
6
7
13
13%
47%
12
40
14
54
Very Coarse
45-64
9
6
15
15%
62%
18
58
12
66
Small
64-90
12
7
19
19%
81%
24
82
14
80
a
Small
90-128
8
6
14
14%
95%
16
98
12
92
�j
Large
128-180
1
1
2
2%
97%
2
100
2
94
Large
180-256
0
0
97%
0
100
0
94
Small
256-362
0
0
97%
0
100
0
94
Small
362-512
0
0
97%
0
100
0
94
Medium
512-1024
0
0
97%
0
100
0
94
Large -Very Large
1024-2048
0
0
97%
0
100
0
94
Bedrock
>2048
0
3
3
3`%,
100%
0
1006
100
Total
50
50
100
100%,
100%
100
100
100
100
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648
UT to TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 2 OF 7
UT to Town Creek- Reach 2
Reachwide Pebble Count Size Distribution
100%
90%
Cumulative Summary AB (2016)
80% —*--Cumulative Summary MY 1 (2016)
—*--Cumulative Summary MY2 (2017)
70%
y 60%
U
i.i
50%
40%
Lj 30%
20%
10%
0% i LL
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
Cummulative
Channel materials
D16 =
16.71
D35 =
32.85
D50 =
48.28
D84 =
97.06
D95 =
128.00
D100=
> 2048
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648
UT to TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 2 OF 7
UT to Town Creek- Reach 2
Reachwide Pebble Count Size Distribution
100%
90%
Cumulative Summary AB (2016)
80% —*--Cumulative Summary MY 1 (2016)
—*--Cumulative Summary MY2 (2017)
70%
y 60%
U
i.i
50%
40%
Lj 30%
20%
10%
0% i LL
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
Riffle
Channel materials
D16=
22.60
D35
= 39.04
D50
= 54.73
D84
= 94.05
D95
= 119.82
D100
= 128-180
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648
UT to TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 2 OF 7
UT to Town Creek- Reach 2
Reachwide Pebble Count Size Distribution
100%
90%
Cumulative Summary AB (2016)
80% —*--Cumulative Summary MY 1 (2016)
—*--Cumulative Summary MY2 (2017)
70%
y 60%
U
i.i
50%
40%
Lj 30%
20%
10%
0% i LL
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
Pool
Channel
materials
D16 =
8.00
D35 =
26.89
D50 =
40.82
D84 =
101.21
D95 =
2298.80
D100=
> 2048
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648
UT to TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 2 OF 7
UT to Town Creek- Reach 2
Reachwide Pebble Count Size Distribution
100%
90%
Cumulative Summary AB (2016)
80% —*--Cumulative Summary MY 1 (2016)
—*--Cumulative Summary MY2 (2017)
70%
y 60%
U
i.i
50%
40%
Lj 30%
20%
10%
0% i LL
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
UT to Town Creek - Reach 2
Reachwide Pebble Count Class Distribution
100%
■ Cumulative Summary AB (2016)
90%
■Cumulative Summary MY (2016)
80%
• Cumulative Summary MY2 (2017)
70%
'05
60%
v
s.
a+
50%
e�
U
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Particle Size Class (mm)

Figure 5c. Reachwide Pebble Count Distribution with Annual Overlays
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 94648
PEBBLE COUNT DATA SHEET
SITE OR PROJECT:
UT To Town Creek - Year 2
REACH/LOCATION:
Reach 3 (5 Riffles & 5 Pools)
DATE COLLECTED:
11/2/2017
FIELD COLLECTION BY:
KS and RM
DATA ENTERED BY:
KS
SEDIMENT ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648
UT to TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 2 OF 7
Cummulative
Channel materials
PARTICLE CLASS
D16
Reach Summary
Riffle Summary
Pool Summary
MATERIA
PARTICLE
S!ZLLrmnj
Riffle
Pool
Total
Class %
% Cum
Class %
% Cum
Class %
% Cum
Silt / Clay
<.063
20
8
28
28%
28%
40
40
16 1
16
,C
Very Fine
.063-125 .125
0
0
28%
0
40
0
16
Fine .125 - .25 1 0 0 28%
0 40
0
16
Medium .25-50 .50 0 0 28%
0 40
0
16
Coarse .50-1.0 0 2 2 2% 30%
0 40
4
20
Very Coarse 1.0 - 2.0 0 0 30%
0 40
0
20
Very Fine
2.0-2.8
0
0
30%
0
40
0
20
Very Fine 2.8-4.0 0 0 30%
0 40
0
20
Fine 4.0-5.6 0 0 30%
0 40
0
20
Fine 5.6-8.0 0 2 2 2% 32%
0 40
4
24
Medium 8.0-11.0 1 2 3 3% 35%
2 42
4
27
Medium 11.0-16.0 3 5 8 8% 43%
6 48
10
37
Coarse 16-22.6 4 5 9 9% 51%
8 56
10
47
Coarse 22.6-32 2 7 9 9% 60%
4 60
14
61
Very Coarse 32-45 3 3 6 6% 66%
6 66
6
67
F-TeryCoarse 45-64 1 5 6 6% 72%
2 68
10
76
s
Small
64-90
4
5
9
9%
8177--
8
76
10
86
Small 90-128 5 5 10 10% 91%
10 86
10
96
Large 128-180 6 2 8 8% 99%
12 98
4
100
Large 180-256 0 0 99%
0 98
0
100
"o
m
Small
256-362
1
0
1
1 %
100%
2
100
0
100
Small 362-512 0 0 100%
0 100
0
100
Medium 512-1024 0 0 100%
0 100
0
100
Large -Very Large 1024-2048 0 0 100%
0 100
0
100
Bedrock
> 2048
0
0
100%
0
100
0
100
50
51
101
100%
100%
100
100J1100
100
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648
UT to TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 2 OF 7
Cummulative
Channel materials
Channel materials
D16
= <0.063
D35
= 11.18
D50
= 21.34
D84
= 99.47
D95
= 151.47
D100
— 256-362
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648
UT to TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 2 OF 7
Riffle
Channel materials
D16
= <0.063
D35
= <0.063
D50
= 17.44
D84
= 119.29
D95
= 165.29
Dloo
— 256-362
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648
UT to TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 2 OF 7
Pool
Channel materials
D16 =
0.53
D35 =
14.68
D50 =
24.35
D84=
83.16
D95 =
123.14
D100 —
128-180
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648
UT to TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 2 OF 7
UT to Town Creek- Reach 3
Reachwide
Pebble Count Size Distribution
100%
90%
+Cumulative Summary AB (2016)
80%
—*--Cumulative Summary MY1 (2016)
f Cumulative Summary MY2 (2017)
70%
y 60%
v
s.
a 50%
40%
E
U 30%
20%
10%
0%
0.01
0.1 1
10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
UT to Town Creek - Reach 3
Reachwide Pebble Count Class Distribution
100%
■ Cumulative Summary AB (2016)
90 0
■Cumulative Summary MY (2016)
80%
■ Cumulative Summary MY2 (2017)
70 0
60%
v
y
50%
v,
e�
U
40%
30%
20%
10%
1.
0%
00
oclb� o41-1
Particle Size Class (mm)

Figure 5d. Reachwide Pebble Count Distribution with Annual Overlays
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 94648
SITE OR PROJECT:
UT To Town Creek - Year 2
REACH/LOCATION:
Reach 6 (6 Riffles & 4 Pools)
DATE COLLECTED:
11/2/2017
FIELD COLLECTION BY:
KS and RM
DATA ENTERED BY:
KS
SEDIMENT ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648
UT to TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 2 OF 7
UT to Town Creek- Reach 6
Cummulative
Channel materials
PARTICLE CLASS
Reach Summary
Riffle Summary
Pool Summary
MATERIAL
PARTICLE
SIZE (mm)
Riffle
Pool
Total
Class %
% Cum
Class %
%Cum
Class %
% Cum
Silt / Clay
< .063
3
6
9
9%
9%
5 1
5
15
15
b
Very Fine
.063-125 .125
0
0
9%
0
5
0
15
Fine .125-25 .25 0 0 9% 0 5
0
15
Medium .25-50 .50 0 0 9% 0 5
0
15
Coarse .50-1.0 0 0 9% 0 5
0
15
Very Coarse 1.0-2.0 0 0 9% 0 5
0
15
Z j
Very Fine
2.0-2.8
0
0
9%
0
5
0
15
Very Fine 2.8-4.0 0 0 9% 0 5
0
15
Fine 4.0-5.6 0 0 9% 0 5
0
15
Fine 5.6-8.0 0 0 9% 0 5
0
15
Medium 8.0-11.0 2 1 3 3% 12% 3 8
3
18
Medium 11.0-16.0 0 4 4 4% 16% 0 8
10
28
Coarse 16-22.6 1 3 4 4% 20% 2 10
8
35
Coarse 22.6-32 5 4 9 9% 29% 8 18
10
45
Very Coarse 32-45 10 5 15 15% 44% 17 35
13
58
Very Coarse 45-64 14 8 22 22% 66% 23 58
20
78
j
Small
64-90
10
7
17
17%
83%
17
75
18
95
Small 90-128 10 2 12 12% 95% 17 92
5
100
Large 128-180 3 0 3 3% 98% 5 97
0
100
Large 180-256 0 0 98% 0 97
0
100
L
Small
256-362
0
0
98%
0
97
0
100
Small 362-512 0 0 98% 0 97
0
100
Medium 512-1024 0 0 98% 0 97
0
100
Large -Very Large 1024-2048 0 0 98% 0 97
0
100
Bedrock
> 2048
2
0
2
2%
100%
3
100
0
100
60
40
100
100
100
100
100
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648
UT to TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 2 OF 7
UT to Town Creek- Reach 6
Cummulative
Channel materials
D16 =
16.00
D35 =
36.68
D50 =
49.54
D84 =
92.68
D95 =
128.00
D100
= > 2048
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648
UT to TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 2 OF 7
UT to Town Creek- Reach 6
Riffle
Channel materials
D16=
29.03
D35
= 45.00
D50
= 56.44
D84
= 108.85
D95
= 160.66
D100=
> 2048
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648
UT to TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 2 OF 7
UT to Town Creek- Reach 6
Pool
Channel materials
D16 =
9.09
D35 =
22.60
D50 =
36.68
D84 =
72.64
D95 =
90.00
D100
= 90 - 8]
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648
UT to TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 2 OF 7
UT to Town Creek- Reach 6
Reachwide Pebble Count Size Distribution
100%
90%
—*--Cumulative Summary AB (2016)
80%
—4—Cumulative Summary MY 1 (2016)
Cumulative Summary MY2 (2017)
70%
y 60%
U
a>
50%
40%
�j 30%
20%
10%
0%
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
UT to Town Creek - Reach 6
Reachwide Pebble Count Class Distribution
100%
■ Cumulative Summary AB (2016)
90%
■ Cumulative Summary MY 1 (2016)
80%
■ Cumulative Summary MY2(2017)
70%
60%
U
W
a
50%
y
CC
U 40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
N") OK �O O ,
�h1O
10tiD� ti0N00 h000
O• O•
Particle Size Class (mm)

Table 10. Baseline Stream Summary Data
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: DMS Project ID No. 94648
Reach 1 (1,204 LF)
Parameter
USGS
Regional Curve Interval
t
Pre -Existing Condition
Reference Reach es Data
UT to Rocky Creek
Spencer
Creek Upstream
Gauge
(Harman et al, 1999)*
LL UL Eq.
Min
Mean Med Max SD
n
Min
Mean
Med Max SD
n Min
Mean
Med Max SD n
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
BF Width (ft)
-----
23.0 80.0 11.0
9.0
----- ----- 11.9 -----
2
-----
12.2
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
8.7
----- ----- ----- -----
Floodprone Width (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
77.0 ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
72.4
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
228.5
---------- ----- -----
BF Mean Depth (ft)
-----
2.3 5.8 1.4
1.2
----- ----- 1.5 -----
2
-----
1.3
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
1.2
----- ----- ----- -----
BF Max Depth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
1.8
----- ----- 2.1 -----
2
-----
1.8
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
1.9
----- ----- ----- -----
BF Cross-sectional Area (ftz)
-----
80.0 300.0 18.9
-----
13.8 ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
16.3
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
10.6
----- ----- ----- -----
Width/Depth Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
5.8
----- ----- 10.3 -----
2
-----
9.1
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
7.3
----- ----- ----- -----
Entrenchment Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
6.5
----- ----- 8.6 -----
2
-----
6
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
26.3
----- ----- ----- -----
Bank Height Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
1.2
----- ----- 1.2 -----
2
-----
1
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
1
----- ----- ----- -----
d50 (mm)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
50.0 ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
22.6
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
8.6
----- ----- ----- -----
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
31
----- ----- 101 -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
24
-----
----- 52 ----- -----
Radius of Curvature (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
17
----- ----- 77 -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
5.4
-----
----- 22.1 ----- -----
Rc:Bankf ill width (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
1.4
----- ----- 8.6 -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
0.6
-----
----- 2.5 ----- -----
Meander Wavelength (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
63
----- ----- 144 -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
54
-----
----- 196 ----- -----
Meander Width Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
2.6
----- ----- 11.2 -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
2.8
-----
----- 6 ----- -----
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ---------- -----
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
0.011
----- ----- 0.056 -----
-----
0.0606
-----
----- 0.089 -----
-----
0.1
-----
----- 0.067 ----- -----
Pool Length (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ---------- -----
Pool Spacing (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
65.6
----- ----- 206.5 -----
-----
26.3
-----
----- 81.3 -----
-----
13
-----
----- 46.5 ----- -----
Pool Max Depth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
2.8 ----- ----- -----
1
-----
2.2
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
2.5
----- ----- ----- -----
Pool Volume (ft3)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
---------- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ---------- -----
Substrate and Transport Parameters
Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
SC% / Sa% / G% / B% / Be%
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
-----
----- ----- -----
11.3 / 33.0 / 50.0 / 128.0 / >2048
<0.063 / 2.4 / 22.6 / 120 / 256
0.06 / 3 / 8.6 / 77 / 180
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/F
-----
----- ----- -----
0.61
----- ----- 0.71 -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
---------- ----- -----
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
Stream Power (transport capacity) Whn2
-----
I ----- ----- -----
32
----- ----- 37.7 -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
----- ----- 0.830 -----
-----
-----
-----
----- 1.05 -----
-----
-----
-----
----- 0.5 -----
Impervious cover estimate (%)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ---------- -----
Rosgen Classification
-----
----- ----- -----
----- 4 (incise( -----
-----
-----
-----
----- E4b -----
-----
-----
-----
----- E4 / C4 ----- -----
BF Velocity (fps)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- 3.6 -----
-----
-----
-----
----- 5.5 -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
BF Discharge (cfs)
-----
290.0 2000.0 77.8
-----
----- ----- 50 -----
-----
-----
-----
----- 85 -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
Valley Length
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
---------- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ---------- -----
Channellength (ft)2
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
----- ----- 1181 -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
Sinuosity-----
----- ----- -----
-----
----- ----- 1.20 -----
-----
-----
-----
----- 1.10 -----
-----
-----
-----
----- 1.10 ----- -----
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
----- ----- 0.0080 -----
-----
-----
-----
----- 0.0235 -----
-----
-----
-----
----- 0.0132 ----- -----
BF slope (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ---------- -----
Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ---------- -----
BEHIVL% / L% / M% / H% / VH% / E%
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
Biological or Other
-----I
----- ----- -----
I -----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----------
* 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 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.
Reach 1 data based on two riffle cross-sections and one pool cross-section.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648
UT to TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 2 OF 7

Table 10 Cont. Baseline Stream Summary Data
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: DMS Project ID No. 94648
Reach 1 (1,204 LF)
Reference Reach es Data
Parameter
Design
As -built
Richland Creek Morgan Branch
Min
Mean
Med Max
SD n Min
Mean
Med Max SD
n
Min
Mean
Med Max SD
n
Min
Mean
Med Max
SD
n
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
BF Width (ft)
16.2
-----
----- 16.7
----- -----
-----
33.2
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
13.5
----- ----- -----
-----
11.8
-----
----- 14.4
-----
3
Floodprone Width (ft)
50
-----
----- 53
----- -----
-----
77.5
----- ----- -----
-----
45
-----
----- 63 -----
-----
33.1
-----
----- 91.8
-----
3
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.9
-----
----- 0.9
----- -----
-----
2.3
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
1
----- ----- -----
-----
0.8
-----
----- 1.0
-----
3
BF Max Depth (ft)
1.4
-----
----- 1.5
----- -----
-----
2.8
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
1.4
----- ----- -----
-----
1.2
-----
----- 1.4
-----
3
BF Cross-sectional Area (ftz)
15
-----
----- 15.5
----- -----
-----
75.1
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
13.8
----- ----- -----
-----
9.1
-----
----- 13.9
-----
3
Width/Depth Ratio
18
-----
----- 18.6
----- -----
-----
14.1
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
13.2
----- ----- -----
-----
14.4
-----
----- 15.2
-----
3
Entrenchment Ratio
3.0
-----
----- 3.3
----- -----
-----
2.3
----- ----- -----
-----
3.3
-----
----- 4.7 -----
-----
2.8
-----
----- 6.4
-----
3
Bank Height Ratio
-----
1
----- 2.5
----- -----
-----
1
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
1
----- ----- -----
-----
1.0
-----
----- 1.0
-----
3
d50 (mm)
-----
45
----- -----
----- -----
- - -
3
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
50
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
31.2
----- -----
-----
-----
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
25
-----
----- 40
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
Radius of Curvature (ft)
14.3
-----
----- 26.1
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
42.0
51.6
----- 72.9
-----
18
Rc:Bankf ill width (ft/ft)
0.9
-----
----- 1.6
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
Meander Wavelength (ft)
90
-----
----- 94
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
Meander Width Ratio
1.5
-----
----- 2.4
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
2.6
----- -----
-----
15
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
15.5
35.0
35.4 62.8
12.7
18
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.013
-----
----- 0.0413
----- -----
0.014
-----
----- 0.024 -----
-----
0.01
-----
----- 0.017 -----
-----
0.008
0.017
0.017 0.031
0.006
18
Pool Length (ft)
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
Pool Spacing (ft)
37.3
-----
----- 95.8
----- -----
146
-----
----- 277.0 -----
-----
20.3
-----
----- 67.5 -----
-----
38.0
64.0
64.0 81.7
11.0
17
Pool Max Depth (ft)
-----
2.5
----- -----
----- -----
-----
4.1
----- ----- -----
-----
2.1
-----
----- 3.6 -----
-----
2.50
-----
----- 2.52
0.0
2
Pool Volume (ft3)
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
Substrate and Transport Parameters
Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
----
-----
----- -----
-----
----
SC% / Sa% / G% / B% / Be%
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
----
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95
6.0/-/45/125/-
-/1.2/3/77/800
11.3/33.0/50.0/128.0/>2048
4.0/18.4/31.2/96.6/>2048/>2048
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/F
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
0.41
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Max part size (nun) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve)
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m2
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
26.6
----- ----- -----
-----
----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
-----
-----
----- 1
----- -----
-----
-----
----- 8.35 -----
-----
-----
-----
----- 0.830 -----
-----
-----
0.83
----- -----
Impervious cover estimate (%)
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
Rosgen Classification
-----
-----
----- C4
----- -----
-----
-----
----- C4 -----
-----
-----
C4
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
C4
----- -----
-----
-----
BFVelocity (fps)
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- 6.6 -----
-----
-----
3.6
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
BFDischarge (cfs)
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- 524 -----
-----
-----
13.8
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
ValleyLength
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
1,082
----- -----
-----
-----
Channel length (ft)2
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
1,192
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
1,206
----- -----
-----
-----
Sinuosity-----
-----
----- 1.20
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
1.10
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
1.11
----- -----
-----
-----
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
-----
-----
----- 0.0133
----- -----
-----
-----
----- 0.007 -----
-----
-----
0.0094
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
0.0096
----- -----
-----
-----
BF slope (ft/ft)
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----------
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
BEHIVL% / L% / M% / H% / VH% / E%
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
Biological or 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. Bankfull hydraulic geometry relationships for North Carolina streams. Wildland Hydrology. AWRA Symposium Proceedings. D.S. Olsen and J.P. Potyondy, eds. American Water Resources Association. June 30 -July 2, 1999.
Bozeman, MT.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648
UT to TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 2 OF 7

Table 10 Cont. Baseline Stream Summary Data
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: DMS Project ID No. 94648
Reach 2 (1,782 LF)
Parameter
USGS
Regional Curve Interval
Pre -Existing Condition
Reference Reach es Data
UT to Rocky Creek
Spencer Creek Upstream
Gauge
(Harman et al, 1999)
LL UL Eq.
Min
Mean
Med
Max SD
n
Min
Mean
Med Max SD
n Min
Mean
Med Max SD n
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
BF Width (ft)
-----
23.0 80.0 11.3
-----
12.6
-----
----- -----
1
-----
12.2
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
8.7
----- ----- ----- -----
Floodprone Width (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
81.0
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
72.4
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
228.5
---------- ----- -----
BF Mean Depth (ft)
-----
2.3 5.8 1.4
-----
1.2
-----
----- -----
1
-----
1.3
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
1.2
----- ----- ----- -----
BFMax Depth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
1.6
-----
----- -----
1
-----
1.8
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
1.9
----- ----- ----- -----
BF Cross-sectional Area (ftz)
-----
80.0 300.0 19.6
-----
14.5
-----
----- -----
1
-----
16.3
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
10.6
----- ----- ----- -----
Width/Depth Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
11.0
-----
----- -----
1
-----
9.1
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
7.3
----- ----- ----- -----
Entrenchment Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
6.4
-----
----- -----
1
-----
6
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
26.3
----- ----- ----- -----
BankHeight Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
1.3
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
1
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
1
----- ----- ----- -----
d50 (mm)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
50.0
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
22.6
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
8.6
----- ----- ----- -----
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
60
-----
185
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
24
-----
----- 52 ----- -----
Radius of Curvature (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
21
-----
80
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
5.4
-----
----- 22.1 ----- -----
Rc:Bankf ill width (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
1.7
-----
6.3
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
0.6
-----
----- 2.5 ----- -----
Meander Wavelength (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
100
-----
340
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
54
-----
----- 196 ----- -----
Meander Width Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
7.9
-----
27
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
2.8
-----
----- 6 ----- -----
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ---------- -----
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
0.01
-----
0.033
----- -----
-----
0.0606
-----
----- 0.089 -----
-----
0.1
-----
----- 0.067 ----- -----
Pool Length (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ---------- -----
Pool Spacing (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
49
-----
319
----- -----
-----
26.3
-----
----- 81.3 -----
-----
13
-----
----- 46.5 ----- -----
Pool Max Depth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
2.1
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
2.2
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
2.5
----- ----- ----- -----
Pool Volume (ft3)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
---------- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ---------- -----
Substrate and Transport Parameters
Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
SC% / Sa% / G% / B% / Be%
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
-----
----- ----- -----
11.3 / 33.0 / 50.0
/ 128.0 / >2048
<0.063 / 2.4 / 22.6 / 120 / 256
0.06 / 3 / 8.6 / 77 / 180
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/F
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
0.77
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
Stream Power (transport capacity) Whn2
-----
I ----- ----- -----
-----
42.6
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
0.9 -----
-----
-----
-----
----- 1.05 -----
-----
-----
-----
----- 0.5 -----
Impervious cover estimate (%)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
---------- ----- -----
Rosgen Classification
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
4 (incise( -----
-----
-----
-----
----- E4b -----
-----
-----
-----
----- E4 / C4 ----- -----
BFVelocity (fps)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
3.8 -----
-----
-----
-----
----- 5.5 -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
BF Discharge (cfs)
-----
290.0 2000.0 81.2
-----
-----
-----
55 -----
-----
-----
-----
----- 85 -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
Valley Length
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ---------- -----
Channellength (ft)2
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
1,672 -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
Sinuosity-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
1.20 -----
-----
-----
-----
----- 1.10 -----
-----
-----
-----
----- 1.10 ----- -----
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
0.009 -----
-----
-----
-----
----- 0.0235 -----
-----
-----
-----
----- 0.0132 ----- -----
BF slope (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ---------- -----
Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ---------- -----
BEHIVL% / L% / M% / H% / VH% / E%
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
Biologicalor Other
-----I
----- ----- -----
I -----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
* 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. Bankfull hydraulic geometry relationships for North Carolina streams. Wildland Hydrology. AWRA Symposium Proceedings. D.S. Olsen and J.P. Potyondy, eds. American Water Resources Association. June 30 -July 2, 1999. Bozeman, MT.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648
UT to TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 2 OF 7

Table 10 Cont. Baseline Stream Summary Data
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: DMS Project ID No. 94648
Reach 2 (1,782 LF)
Reference Reach es Data
Parameter
Design
As -built
Richland Creek Morgan Branch
Min
Mean
Med Max
SD n Min
Mean
Med Max SD
n
Min
Mean
Med Max SD
n
Min
Mean
Med Max
SD
n
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
BF Width (ft)
16.2
-----
----- 16.7
----- -----
-----
33.2
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
14.0
----- ----- -----
-----
15.4
-----
----- 15.6
-----
3
Floodprone Width (ft)
50
-----
----- 53
----- -----
-----
77.5
----- ----- -----
-----
83
-----
----- 104.0 -----
-----
74.9
-----
----- 102.7
-----
3
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.9
-----
----- 0.9
----- -----
-----
2.3
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
1.1
----- ----- -----
-----
1.0
-----
----- 1.1
-----
3
BF Max Depth (ft)
1.4
-----
----- 1.5
----- -----
-----
2.8
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
1.4
----- ----- -----
-----
1.3
-----
----- 1.8
-----
3
BF Cross-sectional Area (ftz)
15
-----
----- 15.5
----- -----
-----
75.1
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
14.7
----- ----- -----
-----
14.8
-----
----- 17.0
-----
3
Width/Depth Ratio
18
-----
----- 18.6
----- -----
-----
14.1
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
13.3
----- ----- -----
-----
14.2
-----
----- 16.5
-----
3
Entrenchment Ratio
3.0
-----
----- 3.3
----- -----
-----
2.3
----- ----- -----
-----
5.9
-----
----- 7.4 -----
-----
4.8
-----
----- 6.7
-----
3
Bank Height Ratio
-----
1
----- 2.5
----- -----
-----
1
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
1.0
----- ----- -----
-----
1.0
-----
----- 1.0
-----
3
d50 (mm)
-----
45
----- -----
----- -----
- - -
3
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
50
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
20.9
----- -----
-----
-----
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
25
-----
----- 40
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
Radius of Curvature (ft)
14.3
-----
----- 26.1
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
48.6
54.7
----- 65.6
-----
7
Rc:Bankf ill width (ft/ft)
0.9
-----
----- 1.6
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
Meander Wavelength (ft)
90
-----
----- 94
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
Meander Width Ratio
1.5
-----
----- 2.4
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
3.0
----- -----
-----
8
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
16.4
48.9
39.1 101.3
37.2
21
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.013
-----
----- 0.0413
----- -----
0.014
-----
----- 0.024 -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
0.003
0.018
0.018 0.035
0.0
21
PoolLength (ft)
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
Pool Spacing (ft)
37.3
-----
----- 95.8
----- -----
146
-----
----- 277.0 -----
-----
21
-----
----- 70 -----
-----
46.0
75.4
70.0 130.2
23.5
19
Pool Max Depth (ft)
-----
2.5
----- -----
----- -----
-----
4.1
----- ----- -----
-----
2.1
-----
----- 3.7 -----
-----
2.5
-----
----- 2.9
0.3
2
Pool Volume (ft)
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
---------
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
Substrate and Transport Parameters
Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
----
SC% / Sa% / G% / B% / Be%
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
----
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95
6.0/-/45/125/-
-/1.2/3/77/800
11.3/33.0/50.0/128.0/>2048
<0.063/12.2/20.9/68.5/151.8/>2048
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/F
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
0.4
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Max part size (nun) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve)
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m2
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
35.7
----- ----- -----
-----
----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
-----
-----
----- 1
----- -----
-----
-----
----- 8.35 -----
-----
-----
0.96
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
0.96
----- -----
Impervious cover estimate (%)
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
Rosgen Classification
-----
-----
----- C4
----- -----
-----
-----
----- C4 -----
-----
-----
C4
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
C4
----- -----
-----
-----
BFVelocity (fps)
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- 6.6 -----
-----
-----
3.7
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
BFDischarge (cfs)
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- 524 -----
-----
-----
55
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
ValleyLength
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
1,549
----- -----
-----
-----
Channel length (ft)2
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
1,833
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
1,842
----- -----
-----
-----
Sinuosity-----
-----
----- 1.20
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
1.07
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
1.19
----- -----
-----
-----
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
-----
-----
----- 0.0133
----- -----
-----
-----
----- 0.007 -----
-----
-----
0.0127
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
0.0077
----- -----
-----
-----
BF slope (ft/ft)
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----------
-----
-----
Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----------
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
BEHIVL% / 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. Bankfull hydraulic geometry relationships for North Carolina streams. Wildland Hydrology. AWRA Symposium Proceedings. D.S. Olsen and J.P. Potyondy, eds. American Water Resources Association. June 30 -July 2, 1999. Bozeman, MT.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648
UT to TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 2 OF 7

Table 10 Cont. Baseline Stream Summary Data
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: DMS Project ID No. 94648
Reach 3 (829 LF)
Parameter
USGS
Regional Curve Interval
1
Pre -Existing Condition
Reference Reach es Data
UT to Rocky Creek
Spencer
Creek Upstream
Gauge
(Harman et al, 1999)*
LL UL Eq.
Min
Mean Med Max SD
n
Min
Mean
Med Max SD
n Min
Mean
Med Max SD n
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
BF Width (ft)
-----
23.0 80.0 12.9
9.8
----- ----- 12.7 -----
2
-----
12.2
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
8.7
----- ----- ----- -----
Floodprone Width (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
230.3 ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
72.4
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
228.5
---------- ----- -----
BF Mean Depth (ft)
-----
2.3 5.8 1.6
1.5
----- ----- 1.8 -----
2
-----
1.3
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
1.2
----- ----- ----- -----
BF Max Depth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
2.9
----- ----- 3.2 -----
2
-----
1.8
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
1.9
----- ----- ----- -----
BF Cross-sectional Area (ftz)
-----
80.0 300.0 24.3
18.0
----- ----- 18.9 -----
2
-----
16.3
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
10.6
----- ----- ----- -----
Width/Depth Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
5.4
----- ----- 8.6 -----
2
-----
9.1
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
7.3
----- ----- ----- -----
Entrenchment Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
18.1
----- ----- 23.5 -----
2
-----
6
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
26.3
----- ----- ----- -----
BankHeight Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
1.0 ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
1
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
1
----- ----- ----- -----
d50 (mm)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
15.0 ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
22.6
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
8.6
----- ----- ----- -----
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
40
----- ----- 65 -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
24
-----
----- 52 ----- -----
Radius of Curvature (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
34
----- ----- 61 -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
5.4
-----
----- 22.1 ----- -----
Rc:Bankf ill width (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
1.7
----- ----- 4.9 -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
0.6
-----
----- 2.5 ----- -----
Meander Wavelength (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
63
----- ----- 199 -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
54
-----
----- 196 ----- -----
Meander Width Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
5
----- ----- 20.3 -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
2.8
-----
----- 6 ----- -----
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ---------- -----
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
0.014
----- ----- 0.03 -----
-----
0.0606
-----
----- 0.089 -----
-----
0.1
-----
----- 0.067 ----- -----
Pool Length (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ---------- -----
Pool Spacing (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
38
----- ----- 132 -----
-----
26.3
-----
----- 81.3 -----
-----
13
-----
----- 46.5 ----- -----
Pool Max Depth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
2.6 ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
2.2
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
2.5
----- ----- ----- -----
Pool Volume (ft3)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
---------- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ---------- -----
Substrate and Transport Parameters
Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
SC% / Sa% / G% / B% / Be%
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
-----
----- ----- -----
1.0 / 11.0 / 15.0 /64.0 / 150.0
<0.063 / 2.4 / 22.6 / 120 / 256
0.06 / 3 / 8.6 / 77 / 180
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/F
-----
----- ----- -----
0.3
----- ----- 0.33 -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
---------- ----- -----
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
Stream Power (transport capacity) Whn2
-----
I ----- ----- -----
15.8
----- ----- 16.7 -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
----- ----- 1.2 -----
-----
-----
-----
----- 1.05 -----
-----
-----
-----
----- 0.5 -----
Impervious cover estimate (%)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
---------- ----- -----
Rosgen Classification
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
----- ----- 4 (incise( -----
-----
-----
-----
----- E4b -----
-----
-----
-----
----- E4 / C4 ----- -----
BF Velocity (fps)
-----
----- ----- -----
3.4
----- ----- 3.6 -----
-----
-----
-----
----- 5.5 -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
BF Discharge (cfs)
-----
290.0 2000.0 101.6
-----
----- ----- 65.0 -----
-----
-----
-----
----- 85 -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
Valley Length
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
---------- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ---------- -----
Channellength (ft)2
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
----- ----- 721 -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
Sinuosity-----
----- ----- -----
-----
----- ----- 1.10 -----
-----
-----
-----
----- 1.10 -----
-----
-----
-----
----- 1.10 ----- -----
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
----- ----- 0.008 -----
-----
-----
-----
----- 0.0235 -----
-----
-----
-----
----- 0.0132 ----- -----
BF slope (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ---------- -----
Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ---------- -----
BEHIVL% / L% / M% / H% / VH% / E%
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
Biological or Other
-----
I ----- ----- -----
I -----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----------
* 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 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.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648
UT to TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 2 OF 7

Table 10 Cont. Baseline Stream Summary Data
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: DMS Project ID No. 94648
Reach 3 (829 LF)
Reference Reach es Data
Parameter
Design
As -built
Richland Creek Morgan Branch
Min
Mean
Med Max
SD n Min
Mean
Med Max SD
n
Min
Mean
Med Max SD
n
Min
Mean
Med Max SD
n
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
BF Width (ft)
16.2
-----
----- 16.7
----- -----
-----
33.2
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
15.5
----- ----- -----
-----
14.9
-----
----- 17.1 -----
3
Floodprone Width (ft)
50
-----
----- 53
----- -----
-----
77.5
----- ----- -----
-----
104
-----
----- 218.0 -----
-----
99.3
-----
----- 99.8 -----
3
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.9
-----
----- 0.9
----- -----
-----
2.3
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
1.2
----- ----- -----
-----
1.1
-----
----- 1.3 -----
3
BF Max Depth (ft)
1.4
-----
----- 1.5
----- -----
-----
2.8
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
1.6
----- ----- -----
-----
1.6
-----
----- 1.8 -----
3
BF Cross-sectional Area (ftz)
15
-----
----- 15.5
----- -----
-----
75.1
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
18.2
----- ----- -----
-----
16.3
-----
----- 21.5 -----
3
Width/Depth Ratio
18
-----
----- 18.6
----- -----
-----
14.1
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
13.2
----- ----- -----
-----
13.5
-----
----- 14.0 -----
3
Entrenchment Ratio
3.0
-----
----- 3.3
----- -----
-----
2.3
----- ----- -----
-----
6.7
-----
----- 14.1 -----
-----
5.8
-----
----- 6.7 -----
3
Bank Height Ratio
-----
1
----- 2.5
----- -----
-----
1
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
1.0
----- ----- -----
-----
1.0
-----
----- 1.0 -----
3
d50 (mm)
-----
45
----- -----
----- -----
- - -
3
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
15
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
21.8
----- ----- -----
-----
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
25
-----
----- 40
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
Radius of Curvature (ft)
14.3
-----
----- 26.1
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
31.0
-----
----- 47.0 -----
-----
54.5
63.2
----- 71.8 -----
9
Rc:Bankf ill width (ft/ft)
0.9
-----
----- 1.6
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
MeanderWavelength (ft)
90
-----
----- 94
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
Meander Width Ratio
1.5
-----
----- 2.4
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
3.5
-----
----- 8.0 -----
-----
-----
3.2
----- ----- -----
7
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
25.2
46.1
43.3 67.0 15.4
11
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.013
-----
----- 0.0413
----- -----
0.014
-----
----- 0.024 -----
-----
0.005
-----
----- 0.006 -----
-----
0.005
0.020
0.016 0.055 0.0
11
PoolLength (ft)
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- -----
-----
Pool Spacing (ft)
37.3
-----
----- 95.8
----- -----
146
-----
----- 277.0 -----
-----
62
-----
----- 109 -----
-----
63.7
77.7
77.2 90.9 8.3
9
Pool Max Depth (ft)
-----
2.5
----- -----
----- -----
-----
4.1
----- ----- -----
-----
2.4
-----
----- 4.11 -----
-----
3.2
-----
----- 3.2 -----
1
Pool Volume (ft)
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
---------
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
Substrate and Transport Parameters
Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
----
SC% / Sa% / G% / B% / Be%
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
----
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95
6.0/-/45/125/-
-/1.2/3/77/800
1.0/11.0/15.0/64.0/150.0
2.0/12.6/21.8/74.1/128.0/128-180
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/F
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
0.23
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Max part size (nun) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve)
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m2
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
12.5
----- ----- -----
-----
----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
-----
-----
----- 1
----- -----
-----
-----
----- 8.35 -----
-----
-----
-----
----- 1.2 -----
-----
-----
-----
----- 1.2 -----
Impervious cover estimate (%)
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
Rosgen Classification
-----
-----
----- C4
----- -----
-----
-----
----- C4 -----
-----
-----
C4
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
C4
----- ----- -----
-----
BFVelocity (fps)
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- 6.6 -----
-----
-----
3.6
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
BFDischarge (cfs)
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- 524 -----
-----
-----
65.0
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
ValleyLength
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
695
----- ----- -----
-----
Channel length (ft)2
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
803
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
829
----- ----- -----
-----
Sinuosity-----
-----
----- 1.20
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
1.16
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
1.19
----- ----- -----
-----
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
-----
-----
----- 0.0133
----- -----
-----
-----
----- 0.007 -----
-----
-----
0.0032
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
0.0062
----- ----- -----
-----
BF slope (ft/ft)
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
---------- -----
-----
Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----------
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
BEHIVL% / 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 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.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648
UT to TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 2 OF 7

Table 10 Cont. Baseline Stream Summary Data
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: DMS Project ID
No. 94648
Reach 6 (1,340 LF)
Parameter
USGS
Regional Curve Interval
Pre -Existing Condition
Reference Reach es Data
UT to Rocky Creek
Spencer Creek Upstream
Gauge
(Harman et al, 1999)
LL UL Eq.
Min
Mean
Med Max SD
n
Min
Mean
Med Max SD
n Min
Mean
Med Max SD n
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
BF Width (ft)
-----
23.0 80.0 5.7
-----
6.1
----- ----- -----
1
-----
12.2
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
8.7
----- ----- ----- -----
Floodprone Width (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
9.7
----- ----- -----
1
-----
72.4
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
228.5
---------- ----- -----
BF Mean Depth (ft)
-----
2.3 5.8 0.9
-----
0.8
----- ----- -----
1
-----
1.3
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
1.2
----- ----- ----- -----
BF Max Depth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
1.3
----- ----- -----
1
-----
1.8
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
1.9
----- ----- ----- -----
BF Cross-sectional Area (ftz)
-----
80.0 300.0 6.7
-----
4.7
----- ----- -----
1
-----
16.3
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
10.6
----- ----- ----- -----
Width/Depth Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
7.8
----- ----- -----
1
-----
9.1
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
7.3
----- ----- ----- -----
Entrenchment Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
1.6
----- ----- -----
1
-----
6
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
26.3
----- ----- ----- -----
Bank Height Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
1.9
----- ----- -----
1
-----
1
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
1
----- ----- ----- -----
d50 (mm)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
32.0
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
22.6
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
8.6
----- ----- ----- -----
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
40
-----
----- 65 -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
24
-----
----- 52 ----- -----
Radius of Curvature (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
8
-----
----- 69 -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
5.4
-----
----- 22.1 ----- -----
Rc:Bankf ill width (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
1.3
-----
----- 11.4 -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
0.6
-----
----- 2.5 ----- -----
Meander Wavelength (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
49
-----
----- 141 -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
54
-----
----- 196 ----- -----
Meander Width Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
6.6
-----
----- 10.7 -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
2.8
-----
----- 6 ----- -----
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ---------- -----
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
0.0606
-----
----- 0.089 -----
-----
0.1
-----
----- 0.067 ----- -----
Pool Length (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ---------- -----
Pool Spacing (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
24.0
-----
----- 259.0 -----
-----
26.3
-----
----- 81.3 -----
-----
13
-----
----- 46.5 ----- -----
Pool Max Depth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
1.4
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
2.2
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
2.5
----- ----- ----- -----
Pool Volume (ft3)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
---------- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ---------- -----
Substrate and Transport Parameters
Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
SC% / Sa% / G% / B% / Be%
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
-----
----- ----- -----
11.3
/ 22.6 / 32.0 / 90 / 150
<0.063 / 2.4 / 22.6 / 120 / 256
0.06 / 3 / 8.6 / 77 / 180
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/F
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
0.97
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
Stream Power (transport capacity) Whn2
-----
I ----- ----- -----
-----
53.6
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- 0.2 -----
-----
-----
-----
----- 1.05 -----
-----
-----
-----
----- 0.5 -----
Impervious cover estimate (%)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
---------- ----- -----
Rosgen Classification
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- B4 -----
-----
-----
-----
----- E4b -----
-----
-----
-----
----- E4 / C4 ----- -----
BFVelocity (fps)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- 3 -----
-----
-----
-----
----- 5.5 -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
BF Discharge (cfs)
-----
290.0 2000.0 25.8
-----
-----
----- 14 -----
-----
-----
-----
----- 85 -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
Valley Length
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ---------- -----
Channel length (ft)2
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- 1,349 -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
Sinuosity-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- 1.10 -----
-----
-----
-----
----- 1.10 -----
-----
-----
-----
----- 1.10 ----- -----
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- 0.023 -----
-----
-----
-----
----- 0.0235 -----
-----
-----
-----
----- 0.0132 ----- -----
BF slope (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ---------- -----
Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ---------- -----
BEHIVL% / L% / M% / H% / VH% / E%
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
Biological or Other
-----I
----- ----- -----
I -----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----------
* 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 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.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648
UT to TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 2 OF 7

Table 10 Cont. Baseline Stream Summary Data
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: DMS Project ID No. 94648
Reach 6 (1,340 LF)
Reference Reach es Data
Parameter
Design
As -built
Richland Creek Morgan Branch
Min
Mean
Med Max
SD n Min
Mean
Med Max SD
n
Min
Mean
Med Max SD
n
Min
Mean
Med Max SD
n
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
BF Width (ft)
16.2
-----
----- 16.7
----- -----
-----
33.2
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
10.0
----- ----- -----
-----
8.5
-----
----- 10.5 -----
-----
Floodprone Width (ft)
50
-----
----- 53
----- -----
-----
77.5
----- ----- -----
-----
19
-----
----- 87.0 -----
-----
33.1
-----
----- 55.4 -----
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.9
-----
----- 0.9
----- -----
-----
2.3
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
0.6
----- ----- -----
-----
0.6
-----
----- 0.9 -----
-----
BF Max Depth (ft)
1.4
-----
----- 1.5
----- -----
-----
2.8
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
0.9
----- ----- -----
-----
1.2
-----
----- 1.5 -----
-----
BF Cross-sectional Area (f?)
15
-----
----- 15.5
----- -----
-----
75.1
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
6.3
----- ----- -----
-----
5.3
-----
----- 9.8 -----
-----
Width/Depth Ratio
18
-----
----- 18.6
----- -----
-----
14.1
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
15.9
----- ----- -----
-----
11.4
-----
----- 15.1 -----
-----
Entrenchment Ratio
3.0
-----
----- 3.3
----- -----
-----
2.3
----- ----- -----
-----
1.9
-----
----- 8.7 -----
-----
3.1
-----
----- 5.7 -----
-----
Bank Height Ratio
-----
1
----- 2.5
----- -----
-----
1
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
1.0
----- ----- -----
-----
1.0
-----
----- 1.0 -----
-----
d50(nun)
-----
45
----- -----
----- -----
- - -
3
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
28.3
----- ----- -----
-----
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
25
-----
----- 40
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
Radius of Curvature (ft)
14.3
-----
----- 26.1
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
Rc:Bankf ill width (ft/ft)
0.9
-----
----- 1.6
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
MeanderWavelength (ft)
90
-----
----- 94
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
MeanderWidth Ratio
1.5
-----
----- 2.4
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
5.0
21.8
20.6 50.9 9.8
33
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.013
-----
----- 0.0413
----- -----
0.014
-----
----- 0.024 -----
-----
0.025
-----
----- 0.041 -----
-----
0.002
0.039
0.036 0.095 0.0
33
PoolLength (ft)
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- -----
-----
Pool Spacing (ft)
37.3
-----
----- 95.8
----- -----
146
-----
----- 277.0 -----
-----
-----
50.0
----- ----- -----
-----
17.5
39.2
38.8 82.7 14.2
34
Pool Max Depth (ft)
-----
2.5
----- -----
----- -----
-----
4.1
----- ----- -----
-----
1.3
-----
----- 2.2 -----
-----
1.4
-----
----- 1.8 -----
2
Pool Volume (ft)
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
Substrate and Transport Parameters
Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
----
SC% / Sa% / G% / B% / Be%
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
----
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95
6.0/-/45/125/-
-/1.2/3/77/800
11.3/22.6/32.0/90.0/150.0
8.7/21.5/28.3/73.4/160.7/>2048
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/F
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
0.67
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve)
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
Stream Power (transport capacity) Whn2
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
32.6
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
-----
-----
----- 1
----- -----
-----
-----
----- 8.35 -----
-----
-----
-----
----- 0.2 -----
-----
-----
-----
----- 0.2 -----
Impervious cover estimate (%)
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
Rosgen Classification
-----
-----
----- C4
----- -----
-----
-----
----- C4 -----
-----
-----
C4b
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
C4b
----- ----- -----
-----
BFVelocity (fps)
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- 6.6 -----
-----
-----
2.2
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
BFDischarge (cfs)
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- 524 -----
-----
-----
14
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
ValleyLength
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
1259
----- ----- -----
-----
Channel length (ft)2
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
1,370
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
1366
----- ----- -----
-----
Sinuosity-----
-----
----- 1.20
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
1.04
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
1.09
----- ----- -----
-----
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
-----
-----
----- 0.0133
----- -----
-----
-----
----- 0.007 -----
-----
-----
0.0226
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
0.0226
----- ----- -----
-----
BF slope (ft/ft)
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
---------- -----
-----
Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----------
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
BEHIVL% / 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 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.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648
UT to TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 2 OF 7

Table 10 Cont. Baseline Stream Summary Data
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: DMS Project ID No. 94648
Reach 7 (399 LF)
USGS
Regional Curve Interval
Reference Reach es Data
UT to Rocky Creek
Spencer Creek Upstream
Parameter
Gauge
(Harman et al, 1999)*
Pre -Existing Condition
LL UL Eq.
Min
Mean
Med Max SD
n
Min
Mean
Med Max SD
n Min
Mean
Med Max SD n
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
BF Width (ft)
-----
23.0 80.0 3.2
-----
5.0
----- ----- -----
1
-----
12.2
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
8.7
----- ----- ----- -----
Floodprone Width (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
7.5
----- ----- -----
1
-----
72.4
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
228.5
---------- ----- -----
BF Mean Depth (ft)
-----
2.3 5.8 0.6
-----
0.3
----- ----- -----
1
-----
1.3
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
1.2
----- ----- ----- -----
BFMax Depth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
0.5
----- ----- -----
1
-----
1.8
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
1.9
----- ----- ----- -----
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft2)
-----
80.0 300.0 2.6
-----
1.6
----- ----- -----
1
-----
16.3
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
10.6
----- ----- ----- -----
Width/Depth Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
15.7
----- ----- -----
1
-----
9.1
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
7.3
----- ----- ----- -----
EntrenchmentRatio
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
1.5
----- ----- -----
1
-----
6
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
26.3
----- ----- ----- -----
BankHeight Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
2.6
----- ----- -----
1
-----
1
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
1
----- ----- ----- -----
d50(mm)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
17.5
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
22.6
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
8.6
----- ----- ----- -----
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
30
-----
----- 48 -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
24
-----
----- 52 ----- -----
Radius of Curvature (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
7
-----
----- 41 -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
5.4
-----
----- 22.1 ----- -----
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
1.4
-----
----- 8.2 -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
0.6
-----
----- 2.5 ----- -----
Meander Wavelength (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
26
-----
----- 101 -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
54
-----
----- 196 ----- -----
Meander Width Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
6
-----
----- 9.6 -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
2.8
-----
----- 6 ----- -----
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ---------- -----
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
0.0227
-----
----- 0.0578 -----
-----
0.0606
-----
----- 0.089 -----
-----
0.1
-----
----- 0.067 ----- -----
Pool Length (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ---------- -----
Pool Spacing (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
19
-----
----- 259 -----
-----
26.3
-----
----- 81.3 -----
-----
13
-----
----- 46.5 ----- -----
PoolMax Depth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
1.1
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
2.2
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
2.5
----- ----- ----- -----
Pool Volume (ft3)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
---------
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ---------- -----
Substrate and Transport Parameters
Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
SC% / Sa% / G% / B% / Be%
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ---------- -----
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
-----
----- ----- -----
8.5 /
12.4 / 17.5 / 50.6 / 81.6
<0.063 / 2.4 / 22.6 / 120 / 256
0.06 / 3 / 8.6 / 77 / 180
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f2
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
0.65
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m2
-----
I ----- ----- -----
-----
38.2
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- 0.046 -----
-----
-----
-----
----- 1.05 -----
-----
-----
-----
----- 0.5 -----
Impervious cover estimate (%)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
Rosgen Classification
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- B4 -----
-----
-----
-----
----- E4b -----
-----
-----
-----
----- E4 / C4 ----- -----
BF Velocity (fps)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- 3 -----
-----
-----
-----
----- 5.5 -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
BF Discharge (cfs)
-----
290.0 2000.0 9.6
-----
-----
----- 4.7 -----
-----
-----
-----
----- 85 -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
Valley Length
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ---------- -----
Channellength (ft)2
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- 386 -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
Sinuosity
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- 1.10 -----
-----
-----
-----
----- 1.10 -----
-----
-----
-----
----- 1.10 ----- -----
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- 0.045 -----
-----
-----
-----
----- 0.0235 -----
-----
-----
-----
----- 0.0132 ----- -----
BF slope (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ---------- -----
Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ---------- -----
BEHIVL% / L% / M% / H% / VH% / E%
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----------
Biological or Other
-----
I ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----------
* Harman, W.A., G.D. Jennings, J.M. Patterson, D.R. Clinton, L.O. Slate, A.G. Jessup, J.R. Everhart, and R.E. Smith. 1999. Bankfull hydraulic geometry relationships for North Carolina streams. Wildland Hydrology. AWRA Symposium Proceedings. D.S. Olsen and J.P. Potyondy, eds. American Water Resources Association. June 30 -July 2, 1999. Bozeman, MT.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648
UT to TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 2 OF 7

Table 10 Cont. Baseline Stream Summary Data
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: DMS Project ID No. 94648
Reach 7 (399 LF)
Reference Reach es Data
Parameter
Design
As -built
Richland Creek Morgan Branch
Min
Mean
Med Max
SD n Min
Mean
Med Max SD
n
Min
Mean
Med Max SD
n
Min
Mean
Med Max
SD n
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
BFWidth (ft)
16.2
-----
----- 16.7
----- -----
-----
33.2
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
5.0
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
Floodprone Width (ft)
50
-----
----- 53
----- -----
-----
77.5
----- ----- -----
-----
10
-----
----- 38.0 -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
BFMean Depth (ft)
0.9
-----
----- 0.9
----- -----
-----
2.3
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
0.3
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
BF Max Depth (ft)
1.4
-----
----- 1.5
----- -----
-----
2.8
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
0.4
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft2)
15
-----
----- 15.5
----- -----
-----
75.1
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
1.6
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
Width/Depth Ratio
18
-----
----- 18.6
----- -----
-----
14.1
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
15.6
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
Entrenchment Ratio
3.0
-----
----- 3.3
----- -----
-----
2.3
----- ----- -----
-----
2
-----
----- 7.6 -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
Bank Height Ratio
-----
1
----- 2.5
----- -----
-----
1
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
1.0
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
d50(mm)
-----
45
----- -----
----- -----
-----
3
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
Pattern
ChannelBeltwidth (ft)
25
-----
----- 40
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
Radius of Curvature (ft)
14.3
-----
----- 26.1
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
0.9
-----
----- 1.6
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
MeanderWavelength (ft)
90
-----
----- 94
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
MeanderWidth Ratio
1.5
-----
----- 2.4
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
8.2
15.3
12.4 32.5
8.0 14
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.013
-----
----- 0.0413
----- -----
0.014
-----
----- 0.024 -----
-----
0.045
-----
----- 0.073 -----
-----
0.015
0.062
0.046 0.171
0.049 14
PoolLength (ft)
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
Pool Spacing (ft)
37.3
-----
----- 95.8
----- -----
146
-----
----- 277.0 -----
-----
8.0
-----
----- 25.0 -----
-----
15.0
27.8
28.0 42.5
10.2 12
PoolMax Depth (ft)
-----
2.5
----- -----
----- -----
-----
4.1
----- ----- -----
-----
0.6
-----
----- 1.1 -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
Pool Volume (ft)
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
Substrate and Transport Parameters
Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
SC% / Sa% / G% / B% / Be%
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95
6.0/-/45/125/-
-/1.2/3/77/800
-----
-----
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/P
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve)
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/mz
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----------
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
-----
-----
----- 1
----- -----
-----
-----
----- 8.35 -----
-----
-----
-----
----- 0.0 ----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
Impervious cover estimate (%)
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
Rosgen Classification
-----
-----
----- C4
----- -----
-----
-----
----- C4 -----
-----
-----
134a
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
134a
----- -----
----- -----
BFVelocity (fps)
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- 6.6 -----
-----
-----
3
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
BFDischarge (cfs)
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- 524 -----
-----
-----
4.7
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
ValleyLength
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
382
----- -----
----- -----
Channellength (ft)2
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
399
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
413
----- -----
----- -----
Sinuosity-----
-----
----- 1.20
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
1.04
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
1.08
----- -----
----- -----
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
-----
-----
----- 0.0133
----- -----
-----
-----
----- 0.007 -----
-----
-----
0.0407
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
BF slope (ft/ft)
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
BEHIVL% / L% / M% / H% / VH% / E%
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
---------- -----
-----
-----
-----
----------
----- -----
Biological or Other
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----------
----- -----
* Harman, W.A., G.D. Jennings, J.M. Patterson, D.R. Clinton, L.O. Slate, A.G. Jessup, J.R. Everhart, and R.E. Smith. 1999. Bankfull hydraulic geometry relationships for North Carolina streams. Wildland Hydrology. AWRA Symposium Proceedings. D.S. Olsen and J.P. Potyondy, eds. American Water Resources Association. June 30 -July 2, 1999. Bozeman, MT.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648
UT to TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 2 OF 7

Table lla. Cross-section Morphology Data
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: DMS Project ID No. 94648
Reach 1 (1,204 LF
Cross-section X-1 (Riffle)
Cross-section X-2 (Pool)
Cross-section X-3 (Pool)
Cross-section X-4 (Riffle)
Dimension and substrate Base
MY1
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
MY+ Base
MY1
MY2 MY3 MY4
MY5 MY+
Base
MY1
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Base
MY1
MY2 MY3 MY4
MY5 MY+
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
BF Width (ft)
11.8
12.0
11.6
22.2
19.7
19.7
16.4
16.4
16.5
14.4
14.7
15.5
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.8
0.8
0.6
1.2
1.3
1.1
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.0
0.8
0.8
Width/Depth Ratio
15.2
15.7
19.7
18.0
15.7
17.3
11.6
12.3
13.1
15.0
17.6
20.1
BF Cross-sectional Area (ftz)
9.1
9.2
6.9
27.4
24.8
22.5
23.2
21.7
20.9
13.9
12.4
12.0
*BF Max Depth (ft)
1.1
1.1
1.1
2.3
2.5
2.4
2.5
2.4
2.4
1.3
1.3
1.3
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
33.1
32.5
32.3
70.6
70.7
70.6
77.1
77.3
77.1
91.8
90.2
90.0
*Entrenchment Ratio
2.8
2.8
2.7
-
-
-
-
-
-
6.4
6.3
6.2
*Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.0
0.9
1.0
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
13.3
13.5
12.8
24.7
22.3
22.0
19.2
19.0
19.0
16.4
16.4
17.0
Hydraulic Radius ft
0.7
0.7
0.5
1.1
1.1
1.0
1.2
1.1
1.1
0.8
0.8
0.7
d50 mm
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
* Max BKF depth was calculated from the As -built survey. BH ratio was calculated using current year's low bank depth divided by the as -built year's max BKF depth. ER was calculated using the current year's floodprone width divided by the as -built BKF width.
Cross-section X-5 (Riffle)
Dimension and substrate I Base
MY1
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
MY+ Base
MY1
MY2 MY3 MY4
MY5 MY+ Base
MY1
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Base
MY1
MY2 MY3 MY4
MY5 MY+
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
BF Width (ft)
12.1
12.1
11.9
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.8
0.9
0.6
Width/Depth Ratio
14.4
14.1
19.9
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft)
10.1
10.3
7.1
*BF Max Depth (ft)
1.1
1.1
1.1
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
71.2
79.0
77.2
*Entrenchment Ratio
5.9
6.6
6.4
*Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.2
1.0
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
13.7
13.8
13.1
Hydraulic Radius ft
0.7
0.7
0.5
d50 mm
- -
* Max BKF depth was calculated from the As -built survey only for riffles. BH ratio was calculated using current year's low bank depth divided by the as -built year's max BKF depth. ER was calculated using the current year's floodprone width divided by the as -built BKF width.
Reach 2 (1,782 LF
Cross-section X-6 (Riffle)
Cross-section X-7 (Pool)
Cross-section X-8 (Riffle)
Cross-section X-9 (Pool)
Dimension and substrate Base
MY1
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
MY+ Base
MY1
MY2 MY3 MY4
MY5 MY+ Base
MY1
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Base
MY1
MY2 MY3 MY4
MY5 MY+
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
BF Width (ft)
15.6
15.4
15.5
16.3
15.9
16.0
15.4
14.6
14.7
24.3
20.3
22.3
BF Mean Depth (ft)
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.4
1.4
1.3
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.4
1.5
1.2
Width/Depth Ratio
16.5
16.2
16.4
11.5
11.6
12.2
14.5
14.1
15.2
17.9
13.4
18.6
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft2)
14.8
14.6
14.8
23.2
21.8
21.0
16.5
15.1
14.3
33.1
30.9
26.8
*BF Max Depth (ft)
1.3
1.3
1.3
2.5
2.5
2.4
1.6
1.6
1.6
2.9
2.8
2.6
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
74.9
77.3
77.6
75.8
76.4
76.3
102.7
102.7
102.7
95.4
95.5
95.4
*Entrenchment Ratio
4.8
5.0
5.0
-
-
-
6.7
6.7
6.7
-
-
-
*Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.1
1.1
-
-
-
1.0
1.0
1.0
-
-
-
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
17.5
17.3
17.4
19.2
18.7
18.6
17.6
16.7
16.7
27.1
23.4
24.7
Hydraulic Radius ft
0.8
0.8
0.9
1.2
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.9
0.9
1.2
1.3
1.1
d50 mm
-
-
-
-
r -
-
r -
-
* Max BKF depth was calculated from the As -built survey only for riffles. BH ratio was calculated using current year's low bank depth divided by the as -built year's max BKF depth. ER was calculated using the current year's floodprone width divided by the as -built BKF width.
Cross-section X-10 (Riffle)
Dimension and substrate I Base
MY1
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
MY+ Base
MY
MY2 MY3 MY4
MY5 MY+ Base
MY1
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Base
MY1
MY2 MY3 MY4
MY5 MY+
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
BF Width (ft)
15.5
13.9
14.5
BF Mean Depth (ft)
1.1
1.1
1.0
Width/Depth Ratio
14.2
12.8
14.5
BF Cross-sectional Area (ftz)
17.0
15.1
14.4
*BF Max Depth (ft)
1.8
1.8
1.8
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
100.0
100.2
100.2
*Entrenchment Ratio
6.4
6.5
6.5
*Bank Height Ratio
0.9
0.9
0.8
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
17.7
16.1
16.5
Radius ft
1.0
0.9
0.9
kMHydraulic
d50 mm
- -
ax BKF depth was calculated from the As -built survey only for riffles. BH ratio was calculated using current year's low bank depth divided by the as -built year's max BKF depth. ER was calculated using the current year's floodprone width divided by the as -built BKF width.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 2 OF 7

Table lla Cont. Cross-section Morphology Data
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: DMS Project ID No. 94648
Reach 3 (829 LF)
Cross-section X-11 (Riffle)
Cross-section X-12 (Riffle)
Cross-section X-13 (Riffle)
Cross-section X-14 (Pool)
Dimension and substrate Base
MY1
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
MY+ Base
MY1
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
MY+
Base
MY1
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Base
MY1
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
BF Width (ft)
14.9
17.1
15.0
17.1
16.5
16.7
16.0
17.2
15.3
21.3
19.0
19.2
BF Mean Depth (ft)
1.1
0.9
0.9
1.3
1.1
1.1
1.2
1.0
0.9
1.8
1.7
1.6
Width/Depth Ratio
13.5
20.2
16.8
13.7
15.5
15.9
14.0
17.3
17.4
11.7
11.1
12.0
BF Cross-sectional Area (W)
16.3
14.5
13.3
21.5
17.6
17.5
18.3
17.2
13.5
39.0
32.5
30.6
*BF Max Depth (ft)
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.6
1.6
1.6
3.2
3.1
3.1
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
99.8
99.9
99.8
99.7
100.0
99.9
98.3
98.4
98.4
98.7
98.8
98.7
*Entrenchment Ratio
6.7
6.7
6.7
5.8
5.8
5.8
6.1
6.2
6.2
-
-
-
*Bank Height Ratio
1.0
0.9
0.7
1.0
0.9
0.9
1.0
0.9
0.8
-
-
-
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
17.1
18.8
16.7
19.6
18.7
18.8
18.3
19.2
17.1
25.0
22.4
22.4
Hydraulic Radius ft
1.0
0.8
0.8
1.1
0.9
0.9
1.0
0.9
0.8
1.6
1.5
1.4
d50 mm
-
-
-
-
* Max BKF depth was calculated from the As -built survey only for riffles. BH ratio was calculated using current year's low bank depth divided by the as -built year's max BKF depth. ER was calculated using the current year's floodprone width divided by the as -built BKF width.
Reach 6 (1,347 LF)
Cross-section X-15 (Pool)
Cross-section X-16 (Riffle)
Cross-section X-17 (Riffle)
Cross-section X-18 (Riffle)
Dimension and substrate I Base
MY1
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
MY+ Base
MY1
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
MY+Base
MY1
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Base
MY1
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
BF Width (ft)
11.0
10.6
10.9
9.7
9.3
9.2
10.5
10.3
10.3
8.5
7.5
7.6
BF Mean Depth (ft)
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.6
Width/Depth Ratio
10.9
12.0
11.9
15.1
15.2
14.8
11.4
12.6
13.3
13.5
13.0
12.7
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft)
11.1
9.4
9.9
6.2
5.7
5.7
9.8
8.4
7.9
5.3
4.3
4.6
*BF Max Depth (ft)
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.2
1.2
1.2
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
60.3
60.3
60.4
55.4
52.9
53.1
33.1
30.5
30.3
37.3
34.0
34.8
*Entrenchment Ratio
-
-
-
5.7
5.5
5.5
3.1
2.9
2.9
4.4
4.0
4.1
*Bank Height Ratio
-
-
-
0.6
0.8
0.9
1.0
0.9
0.8
1.0
1.0
1.1
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
13.0
12.4
12.7
11.0
10.6
10.4
12.4
11.9
11.8
9.7
8.6
8.8
Hydraulic Radius ft
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.5
0.5
0.5
d50 mm
-
-
-
* Max BKF depth was calculated from the As -built survey only for riffles. BH ratio was calculated using current year's low bank depth divided by the as -built year's max BKF depth. ER was calculated using the current year's floodprone width divided by the as -built BKF width.
Cross-section X-19 (Pool)
Dimension and substrate I Base
MY1
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
MY+ Base
MY1
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
MY+ Base
MY1
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Base
MY1
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
BF Width (ft)
10.8
10.1
10.5
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.8
0.7
0.8
Width/Depth Ratio
13.7
14.1
13.8
BF Cross-sectional Area ff)
8.4
7.3
7.9
*BF Max Depth (ft)
1.4
1.3
1.3
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
41.4
40.1
40.8
*Entrenchment Ratio
-
-
-
*Bank Height Ratio
-
-
-
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
12.3
11.6
12.0
Radius ft
0.7
0.6
0.7
kMHydraulic
d50 mm
- -
ax BKF depth was calculated from the As -built survey only for riffles. BH ratio was calculated using current year's low bank depth divided by the as -built year's max BKF depth. ER was calculated using the current year's floodprone width divided by the as -built BKF width.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 2 OF 7

Table 11b. Stream Reach Morphology Data
UT to Town Creek Restoration Pro 0ect - Option A: DMS Pro 0ect ID No. 94648
Reach 1 (1,204 LF
Parameter
As -built
MY1
MY2
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
BF Width (ft)
11.8
-----
-----
14.4
-----
3
12.0
12.9
12.1
14.7
1.6
3
11.6
13.0
11.9
15.5
2.2
3
Floodprone Width (ft)
33.1
-----
-----
91.8
-----
3
32.5
67.2
79.0
90.2
30.6
3
32.3
66.5
77.2
90.0
30.3
3
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.8
-----
-----
1.0
-----
3
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.9
0.0
3
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.8
0.1
3
*BF Max Depth (ft)
1.1
-----
-----
1.3
-----
3
1.1
1.2
1.1
1.3
0.1
3
1.1
1.2
1.1
1.3
0.1
3
BF Cross-sectional Area ff)
9.1
-----
-----
13.9
-----
3
9.2
10.6
10.3
12.4
1.6
3
6.9
8.7
7.1
12.0
2.9
3
Width/Depth Ratio
14.4
-----
-----
15.2
-----
3
14.1
15.8
15.7
17.6
1.7
3
19.7
19.9
19.9
20.1
0.2
3
*Entrenchment Ratio
2.8
-----
-----
6.4
-----
3
2.8
5.2
6.3
6.6
2.1
3
2.7
5.1
6.2
6.4
2.1
3
*Bank Height Ratio
1.0
-----
-----
1.0
-----
3
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.2
0.1
3
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
3
64.0
77.1
-----
-----
-----
-----
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Radius of Curvature (ft)
42.0
51.6
-----
72.9
-----
18
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Meander Wavelength (ft)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Meander Width Ratio
-----
2.6
-----
-----
-----
15
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
15.5
35.0
35.4
62.8
12.7
18
13
28
22
60
16
12
20.0
28.0
26.3
45.0
7.5
12
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.008
0.017
0.017
0.031
0.006
18
0.007
0.020
0.018
0.033
0.008
12
0.002
0.016
0.016
0.032
0.008
12
Pool Length (ft)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Pool Spacing (ft)
38.0
64.0
64.0
81.7
11.0
17
57.6
66.2
61.4
83
9.7
10
51.9
67.0
66.7
83.1
11.3
10
Pool Max Depth (ft)
2.5
-----
-----
2.5
0.0
2
2.43
-----
-----
2.48 0.0353553
2
2.3
-----
-----
2.4
0.0
2
Pool Volume
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Substrate and Transport Parameters
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
SC% / Sa% / G% / B% / Be%
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95
4.0/18.4/31.2/96.6/>2048
19.02/46/64/101.2/125.5
22.6/58.61/77.08/145.46/190.88
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/F
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/mz
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
-----
0.83
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
0.83
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
0.83
-----
-----
Impervious cover estimate (%)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Rosgen Classification
-----
C4
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
C4
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
C3
-----
-----
-----
-----
BF Velocity (fps)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
BF Discharge (cfs)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Valley Length
-----
1,082
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Channel length (ft)
-----
1,206
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
750
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
750
-----
-----
-----
-----
Sinuosity
-----
1.11
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
-----
0.0096
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
0.009
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
0.008
-----
-----
-----
-----
BF slope (ft/ft)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
BEHI VL% / L% / M% / H% / VH% / E%
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Biological or Other
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
* Max BKF depth was calculated from the As -built survey. BH ratio was calculated using current year's low bank depth divided by the as -built year's max BKF depth.
ER was calculated using the current year's floodprone width
divided by the as -built BKF width.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 2 OF 7

Table 1 l Cont. Stream Reach Morphology Data
UT to Town Creek Restoration Pro 0ect - Option A: DMS Pro 0ect ID No. 94648
Reach 2 (1,782 LF
Parameter
As -built
MYl
MY2
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
BF Width (ft)
15.4
-----
-----
15.6
-----
3
13.9
14.8
15.1
15.4
0.8
3
14.5
14.9
14.7
15.5
0.6
3
Floodprone Width (ft)
74.9
-----
-----
102.7
-----
3
77.3
93.4
100.2
102.7
14.0
3
77.6
93.5
100.2
102.7
13.8
3
BF Mean Depth (ft)
1.0
-----
-----
1.1
-----
3
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
0.1
3
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
3
*BF Max Depth (ft)
1.3
-----
-----
1.8
-----
3
1.3
1.6
1.6
1.8
0.2
3
1.3
1.6
1.6
1.8
0.2
3
BF Cross-sectional Area ff)
14.8
-----
-----
17.0
-----
3
14.6
14.9
15.1
15.1
0.2
3
14.3
14.5
14.4
14.8
0.3
3
Width/Depth Ratio
14.2
-----
-----
16.5
-----
3
12.8
14.4
14.1
16.2
1.7
3
14.5
15.3
15.2
16.4
0.9
3
*Entrenchment Ratio
4.8
-----
-----
6.7
-----
3
5.0
6.0
6.5
6.7
0.9
3
5.0
6.0
6.5
6.7
0.9
3
*Bank Height Ratio
0.9
-----
-----
1.0
-----
3
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.1
0.1
3
0.8
1.0
1.0
1.1
0.1
3
-----
46.8
-----
54.7
-----
-----
-----
-----
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
-----
-----
-----
-----
---------
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Radius of Curvature (ft)
48.6
54.7
-----
65.6
-----
7
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Meander Wavelength (ft)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Meander Width Ratio
-----
3.0
-----
-----
-----
8
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
16.4
48.9
39.1
101.3
37.2
21
21
32
32
43
9
13
14.5
30.1
28.6
50.0
9.0
14
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.003
0.018
0.018
0.035
0.0
21
0
0
0
0
0
13
0.004
0.016
0.014
0.033
0.009
14
Pool Length (ft)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Pool Spacing (ft)
46.0
75.4
70.0
130.2
23.5
19
46.1
65.9
66.3
95.2
14
12
42.9
66.7
66.2
95.4
15.7
12
Pool Max Depth (ft)
2.5
-----
-----
2.9
0.3
2
2.51
-----
-----
2.8 0.205061
2
2.5
-----
-----
2.6
0.1
2
Pool Volume
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Substrate and Transport Parameters
Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
SC% / Sa% / G% / B% / Be%
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
<0.063
/ 12.2 / 20.9 / 68.5 / 151.8
16 / 28.83 / 46.80 / 2048 / >2048
22.6 / 39.04 / 54.73 / 94.05 / 119.82
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/F
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/mz
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
-----
0.96
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
0.96
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
0.96
-----
-----
Impervious cover estimate (%)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Rosgen Classification
-----
C4
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
C4
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
C4
-----
-----
-----
-----
BF Velocity (fps)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
BF Discharge (cfs)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Valley Length
-----
1,549
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Channel length (ft)
-----
1,842
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
1006
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
1,006
-----
-----
-----
-----
Sinuosity
-----
1.19
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
-----
0.0077
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
0.0069
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
0.007
-----
-----
-----
-----
BF slope (ft/ft)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
BEHI VL% / L% / M% / H% / VH% / E%
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Biological or Other
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
* Max BKF depth was calculated from the As -built survey. BH ratio was calculated using current year's low bank depth divided by the as -built year's max BKF depth. ER was calculated using the current year's floodprone width
divided by the as -built BKF width.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 2 OF 7

Table 1 l Cont. Stream Reach Morphology Data
UT to Town Creek Restoration Pro 0ect - Option A: DMS Pro 0ect ID No. 94648
Reach 3 829 LF
Parameter
As -built
MYl
MY2
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
BF Width (ft)
14.9
-----
-----
17.1
-----
3
16.5
17.0
17.1
17.2
0.4
3
15.0
15.7
15.3
16.7
0.9
3
Floodprone Width (ft)
98.3
-----
-----
99.8
-----
3
98.4
99.4
99.9
100.0
0.8
3
98.4
99.3
99.8
99.9
0.9
3
BF Mean Depth (ft)
1.1
-----
-----
1.3
-----
3
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.1
0.1
3
0.9
0.9
0.9
1.1
0.1
3
*BF Max Depth (ft)
1.5
-----
-----
1.8
-----
3
1.5
1.6
1.6
1.8
0.1
3
1.5
1.6
1.6
1.8
0.1
3
BF Cross-sectional Area ff)
16.3
-----
-----
21.5
-----
3
14.5
16.5
17.2
17.6
1.7
3
13.3
14.8
13.5
17.5
2.4
3
Width/Depth Ratio
13.7
-----
-----
14.9
-----
3
15.5
17.7
17.3
20.2
2.4
3
15.9
16.7
16.8
17.4
0.8
3
*Entrenchment Ratio
5.8
-----
-----
6.7
-----
3
5.8
6.2
6.2
6.7
0.4
3
5.8
6.2
6.2
6.7
0.4
3
*Bank Height Ratio
1.0
-----
-----
1.0
-----
3
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.0
3
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.9
0.1
3
53.7
17.4
-----
-----
-----
-----
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Radius of Curvature (ft)
54.5
63.2
-----
71.8
-----
9
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Meander Wavelength (ft)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
MeanderWidth Ratio
-----
3.2
-----
-----
-----
7
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
25.2
46.1
43.3
67.0
15.4
11
17
25
24
33
6
7
22.9
28.6
29.6
37.8
5.0
7
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.005
0.020
0.016
0.055
0.0
11
0
0
0
0
0
7
0.009
0.024
0.019
0.039
0.012
7
Pool Length (ft)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
---------
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Pool Spacing (ft)
63.7
77.7
77.2
90.9
8.3
9
66.8
77
81.2
83
7.5
5
67.0
77.9
74.3
88.7
9.2
5
Pool Max Depth (ft)
3.2
-----
-----
3.2
-----
1
-----
3.06
-----
-----
-----
1
-----
3.2
-----
-----
-----
1
poolVolume
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Substrate and Transport Parameters
Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
SC% / Sa% / G% / B% / Be%
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95
2.0/12.6/21.8/74.1/128.0
16/36.88/53.7/112.6/214.7
<0.063/<0.063/17.44/119.29/165.29
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)
-----
1.2
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
1.2
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
1.2
-----
-----
Impervious cover estimate (%)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Rosgen Classification
-----
C4
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
C4
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
C4
-----
-----
-----
-----
BF Velocity (fps)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
BF Discharge (cfs)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Valley Length
-----
695
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Channel length (ft)
-----
829
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
496
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
496
-----
-----
-----
-----
Sinuosity
-----
1.19
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
-----
0.0062
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
0.00637
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
0.006
-----
-----
-----
-----
BF slope (ft/ft)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
BEHI VL% / L% / M% / H% / VH% / E%
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Biological or Other
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
* Max BKF depth was calculated from the As -built survey. BH ratio was calculated using current year's low bank depth divided by the as -built year's max BKF depth. ER was calculated using the current year's floodprone width
divided by the as -built BKF width.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 2 OF 7

Table 1 l Cont. Stream Reach Morphology Data
UT to Town Creek Restoration Pro 0ect - Option A: DMS Pro 0ect ID No. 94648
Reach 6 (1,347 LF
Parameter
As -built
MYl
MY2
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
BF Width (ft)
8.5
-----
-----
10.5
-----
3
7.5
9.0
9.3
10.3
1.4
3
7.6
9.0
9.2
10.3
1.3
3
Floodprone Width (ft)
33.1
-----
-----
55.4
-----
3
30.5
39.1
34.0
52.9
12.1
3
30.3
39.4
34.8
53.1
12.1
3
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.6
-----
-----
0.9
-----
3
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.8
0.1
3
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.8
0.1
3
*BF Max Depth (ft)
1.2
-----
-----
1.5
-----
3
1.2
1.3
1.2
1.5
0.2
3
1.2
1.3
1.2
1.5
0.2
3
BF Cross-sectional Area ff)
5.3
-----
-----
9.8
-----
3
4.3
6.1
5.7
8.4
2.1
3
4.6
6.1
5.7
7.9
1.7
3
Width/Depth Ratio
11.4
-----
-----
15.1
-----
3
12.6
13.6
13.0
15.2
1.4
3
12.7
13.6
13.3
14.8
1.1
3
*Entrenchment Ratio
3.1
-----
-----
5.7
-----
3
2.9
4.1
4.0
5.5
1.3
3
2.9
4.2
4.1
5.5
1.3
3
*Bank Height Ratio
0.6
-----
-----
1.0
-----
3
0.8
0.9
0.9
1.0
0.1
3
0.8
0.9
0.9
1.1
0.1
3
34.3
56.44
-----
-----
-----
-----
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
-----
-----
-----
-----
----------
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Radius of Curvature (ft)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Meander Wavelength (ft)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Meander Width Ratio
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
5.0
21.8
20.6
50.9
9.8
33
10
23
21
54
12
12
8.3
18.1
17.6
34.6
6.9
18
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.002
0.039
0.036
0.095
0.0
33
0
0
0
0
0
12
0.003
0.025
0.023
0.064
0.016
18
Pool Length (ft)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Pool Spacing (ft)
17.5
39.2
38.8
82.7
14.2
34
30
41
39
62
9
16
28.1
40.4
40.1
56.1
7.7
15
Pool Max Depth (ft)
1.4
-----
-----
1.8
-----
2
1
-----
-----
2
-----
2
1.3
-----
-----
1.8
-----
2
Pool Volume
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Substrate and Transport Parameters
Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
SC% / Sa% / G% / B% / Be%
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
8.7
/ 21.5 / 28.3 / 73.4 / 160.7
14.4
/ 22.6 / 34.3 / 86.4 / >2048
29.03 / 45.00 / 56.44 / 108.85 / 160.66
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/F
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/mz
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
-----
0.2
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
0.2
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
0.2
-----
-----
Impervious cover estimate (%)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Rosgen Classification
-----
C4b
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
C4
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
C4
-----
-----
-----
-----
BF Velocity (fps)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
BF Discharge (cfs)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Valley Length
-----
1259
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Channel length (ft)
-----
1366
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
751
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
751
-----
-----
-----
-----
Sinuosity
-----
1.09
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
-----
0.0226
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
0.02266
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
0.023
-----
-----
-----
-----
BF slope (ft/ft)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
BEHI VL% / L% / M% / H% / VH% / E%
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Biological or Other
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
* Max BKF depth was calculated from the As -built survey. BH ratio was calculated using current year's low bank depth divided by the as -built year's max BKF depth. ER was calculated using the current year's floodprone width
divided by the as -built BKF width.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 2 OF 7

Appendix E
Hydrologic Data

Figure 6. Wetland Gauge Graphs
U 1 to 7 own Creek Restoration Froject - Option A:
1/1/2017 2/15/2017 4/1/2017
0.0
c
1.0
R
c
2.0
30
10
5
0
5 -5
L
-10
3
-15
° -20
C9
° -25
0
t
r
m -30
0
-35
-40
-45
50
ect [No. 94048
UT to Town Creek Rain
5/16/2017 6/30/2017 8/14/2017
9/28/2017 11/12/2017 12/27/2017
Observed 2017 Precipitation for CHRONOS Station NEWL, North Stanly Middle School
UT to Town Creek Wetland Restoration Well
(UTTC AW1)
1/1/2017 2/15/2017 4/1/2017 5/16/2017 6/30/2017 8/14/2017 9/28/2017 11/12/2017 12/27/2017
Date
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT — OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7
Ground Surface
-12 inches
UTTC AW1
YR2 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
- -Begin Growing Season
CRITERIA MET- 127.5 (57.4%)
(3/27/2017-8/1/2017)
— - - End Growing Season
GROWING SEASON
Well installed - 2/10/2016
(3/27 11/5)
1/1/2017 2/15/2017 4/1/2017 5/16/2017 6/30/2017 8/14/2017 9/28/2017 11/12/2017 12/27/2017
Date
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT — OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

Figure 6 Cont. Wetland Gauge Graphs
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: Project No. 94648
MICHAEL BAKER ENGIN
UT to Town Creek Rain
1/1/2017 2/15/2017 4/1/2017
5/16/2017 6/30/2017 8/14/2017 9/28/2017
11/12/2017 12/27/2017
0.0
c
-'
1.0
m
m
2.0
3.0
Observed 2017 Precipitation for CHRONOS Station NEWL, North Stanly Middle School
)
UT to Town Creek Wetland Restoration Well
(UTTC AW2)
10
5
0
-5
L
-10
3
-15
°
C7
-20
0
t
-25
Ground Surface
�
CL
-30
-12 inches
D
UTTC AW2
-35
'
YR2 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
�
- -Begin Growing Season
-40
- - End Growing Season
�
CRITERIA MET - 153.5 (69.1%)
GROWING SEASON
-45
�
(3/27/2017 - 8/27/2017)
(3/27 - 11/5
Well installed - 3/3/2016
�
-50
1/1/2017 2/15/2017
4/1/2017
5/16/2017 6/30/2017 8/14/2017 9/28/2017
11/12/2017 12/27/2017
Date
MICHAEL BAKER ENGIN
)
EERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT — OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

Figure 6 Cont. Wetland Gauge Graphs
U 1 to I own Creek Kestoration Froject - Option A:
1/1/2017 2/15/2017 4/1/2017
0.0
c
1.0
R
ji 2.0
30
10
5
0
-5
-10
3
-15
° -20
C9
° -25
t
m -30
0
-35
-40
-45
50
Observed 2017
ect [No. 94048
UT to Town Creek Rain
5/16/2017 6/30/2017 8/14/2017
9/28/2017 11/12/2017 12/27/2017
on for CHRONOS Station NEWL, North Stanly Middle School
UT to Town Creek Wetland Restoration Well
(UTTC AW3)
1/1/2017 2/15/2017 4/1/2017 5/16/2017 6/30/2017 8/14/2017 9/28/2017 11/12/2017 12/27/2017
Date
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT — OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7
71
Ground Surface
�
12 inches
, YR2 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
UTTC AW3
- -Begin Growing Season
CRITERIA MET - 108.5 (48.9%)
— - - End Growing Season
1 (3/27/2017 - 7/13/2017)
GROWING SEASON
FWell installed - 2/10/2016
(3/27 - 11/5)
1/1/2017 2/15/2017 4/1/2017 5/16/2017 6/30/2017 8/14/2017 9/28/2017 11/12/2017 12/27/2017
Date
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT — OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

Figure 6 Cont. Wetland Gauge Graphs
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: Project No. 94648
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT — OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, MONITORIN
UT to Town Creek Rain
1/1/2017 2/15/2017
4/1/2017
5/16/2017 6/30/2017 8/14/2017 9/28/2017
11/12/2017 12/27/2017
0.0
c
ace
-12 inches
UTTC AW4
— — — Begin Growing Season
— — — End Growing Season
-"
1.0
'
YR2 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
CRITERIA MET - 119.5 (53.8%)
(3/27/2017 - 7/24/2017)
�
�
�
-w
1
1
1
1
1
1
Well installed - 3/27/2016
2.0
o:
3.0
Observed 2017 Precipitation for CHRONOS Station NEWL, North Stanly Middle School
UT to Town Creek Wetland Restoration Well
(UTTC AW4)
15
1
10
�
GROWING SEASON
'
4�v
(3/27 - 11/5)
5
��M6
0
1
1
c
r
-5
1
1
3
10
-
3
O
-15
1
1
L
0
1
1
O
-20
Ground Sur- f
s
-25
CL
-30
-35
-40
-45
F
-50
1/1/2017 2/15/2017
4/1/2017
5/16/2017 6/30/2017 8/14/2017 9/28/2017
11/12/2017 12/27/2017
Date
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT — OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, MONITORIN
ace
-12 inches
UTTC AW4
— — — Begin Growing Season
— — — End Growing Season
'
'
YR2 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
CRITERIA MET - 119.5 (53.8%)
(3/27/2017 - 7/24/2017)
�
�
�
'
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Well installed - 3/27/2016
G YEAR 2 OF 7

Figure 6 Cont. Wetland Gauge Graphs
u i to i own t✓rem restoration rrolect - uption A
1/1/2017 2/15/2017 4/1/2017
0.0
c
1.0
R
2.0
30
10
5
0
S -5
L
-10
R
-15
o -20
C9
-25
s
CL -30
-35
-40
-45
50
ect iNo. 94046
UT to Town Creek Rain
5/16/2017 6/30/2017 8/14/2017
Observed 2017 Precipitation for CHRONOS Station NEWL, North Stanly Middle School
9/28/2017 11/12/2017 12/27/2017
UT to Town Creek Wetland Restoration Well
(UTTC AW5)
1/1/2017 2/15/2017 4/1/2017 5/16/2017 6/30/2017 8/14/2017 9/28/2017 11/12/2017 12/27/2017
Date
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7
GROWING SEASON
(3/27-11/5)
Ground Surface
-12 inches
YR2 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
UTTC AW5
' CRITERIA MET - 112.5 (50.7%)
- - - Begin Growing Season
(3/27/2017 - 7/17/2017)
- - - End Growing Season
Well installed - 3/3/2016
1/1/2017 2/15/2017 4/1/2017 5/16/2017 6/30/2017 8/14/2017 9/28/2017 11/12/2017 12/27/2017
Date
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

Figure 6 Cont. Wetland Gauge Graphs
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: Project No. 94648
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT — OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, MONITORIN
UT to Town Creek Rain
1/1/2017
2/15/2017 4/1/2017
5/16/2017 6/30/2017 8/14/2017 9/28/2017
11/12/2017 12/27/2017
0.0
c
-
1.0
c
2.0
�
— - - End Growing Season
�
�
GROWING SEASON
Well installed - 3/1/2016
(3/27 - 11/5)
�
3.0
Observed 2017 Precipitation for CHRONOS Station NEWL, North Stanly Middle School
UT to Town Creek Wetland Restoration Well
(UTTC AW6)
10
5
0
LN
F
-5
L
-10
a
c
-15
o
C7
-20
-25
Ground Surface
t
w
-12 inches
�
YR2 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
�
cL
-30
CRITERIA MET- 129.5 (58.3%)
D
UTTC AW6
(3/27/2017-8/3/2017)
-35
- - Begin Growing Season
I
-40
-45
-50
1/1/2017
2/15/2017 4/1/2017
5/16/2017 6/30/2017 8/14/2017 9/28/2017
11/12/2017 12/27/2017
Date
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT — OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, MONITORIN
�
— - - End Growing Season
�
�
GROWING SEASON
Well installed - 3/1/2016
(3/27 - 11/5)
�
G YEAR 2 OF 7

Figure 6 Cont. Wetland Gauge Graphs
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: Project No. 94648
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT — OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, MONITORIN
UT to Town Creek Rain
1/1/2017
2/15/2017 4/1/2017
5/16/2017 6/30/2017 8/14/2017 9/28/2017
11/12/2017 12/27/2017
0.0
c
-
1.0
c
2.0
-12 inches
�
YR2 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
�
CRITERIA MET - 130.5 (58.8%)
UTTC Awl
�
�
3.0
(3/27/2017-8/4/2017)
— —Begin Growing Season
- -Begin Growing Season
Observed 2017 Precipitation for CHRONOS Station NEWL, North Stanly Middle School
GROWING SEASON
UT to Town Creek Wetland Restoration Well
(3/27 - 11/5)
�
(UTTC AW7)
10
5
0
c
-5
;?
-10
cNJ
-15
o
-20
-25
Ground Surf
t
-30
D
-35
-40
-45
-50
1/1/2017
2/15/2017 4/1/2017
5/16/2017 6/30/2017 8/14/2017 9/28/2017
11/12/2017 12/27/2017
Date
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT — OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, MONITORIN
ace
-12 inches
�
YR2 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
�
CRITERIA MET - 130.5 (58.8%)
UTTC Awl
�
�
(3/27/2017-8/4/2017)
— —Begin Growing Season
- -Begin Growing Season
�
GROWING SEASON
Well installed - 3/1/2016
(3/27 - 11/5)
�
G YEAR 2 OF 7

Figure 6 Cont. Wetland Gauge Graphs
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: Project No. 94648
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT — OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, MONITORIN
UT to Town Creek Rain
1/1/2017 2/15/2017 4/1/2017 5/16/2017 6/30/2017 8/14/2017 9/28/2017
11/12/2017 12/27/2017
0.0
c
=
1.0
Tw
c
'R
2.0
3.0
Observed 2017 Precipitation for CHRONOS Station NEWL, North Stanly Middle School
UT to Town Creek Wetland Restoration Well
(UTTC AW8)
10
)
5
0
L
-5
3
-10
-15
3
0
0
-20
0
z
-25
Ground Surface
w
p
-30
-12 inches
UTTC AW8
-35
� YR2 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
�
- -Begin Growing Season
� CRITERIA MET- 25.5 (11.5%)
�
-40
- — End Growing Season
(4/23/2017 - 5/18/2017)
GROWING SEASON
-45
Well installed - 3/1/2016
1
(3/27 - 11/5
-50
1/1/2017 2/15/2017 4/1/2017 5/16/2017 6/30/2017 8/14/2017 9/28/2017
11/12/2017 12/27/2017
Date
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT — OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, MONITORIN
)
G YEAR 2 OF 7

Figure 6 Cont. Wetland Gauge Graphs
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: Project No. 94648
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT — OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7
UT to Town Creek Rain
1/1/2017 2/15/2017 4/1/2017
5/16/2017 6/30/2017 8/14/2017 9/28/2017
11/12/2017 12/27/2017
0.0
-
1-1 "Ji -
c
-
1.0
m
2.0
3.0
Observed 2017 Precipitation for CHRONOS Station NEWL, North Stanly Middle School
UT to Town Creek Wetland Restoration Well
(UTTC AW9)
10
5
0
='
m
f0
3
-5
3
-10
0
0
-15
�
0
-20
Q
-25
Ground Surface
YR2 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
-12 inches
-30
UTTC AW9
CRITERIA MET - 94.5 (42.6%)
-35
(3/27/2017-6/29/2017)
— - - Begin Growing Season
-40
— — — End Growing Season
GROWING SEASON
installed - 2/10/2016
-45TWell
(3/27 - 11/5)
-50
1/1/2017 2/15/2017 4/1/2017
5/16/2017 6/30/2017 8/14/2017 9/28/2017
11/12/2017 12/27/2017
Date
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT — OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

Figure 6 Cont. Wetland Gauge Graphs
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: Project No. 94648
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT — OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, MONITORIN
UT to Town Creek Rain
1/1/2017
2/15/2017 4/1/2017 5/16/2017 6/30/2017 8/14/2017 9/28/2017
11/12/2017 12/27/2017
0.0
c
-
1.0
' YR2 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
Ta
w
Ground Surface
� CRITERIA MET - 112.5 (50.7%)
�
-12 inches
(3/27/2016-7/17/2017)
2.0
— - — Begin Growing Season
— — — End Growing Season
�
3.0
Well installed - 2/9/2016
�
Observed 2017 Precipitation for CHRONOS Station NEWL, North Stanly Middle School
UT to Town Creek Wetland Restoration Well
(UTTC AW10)
10
5
c
0
L
d
f°
3
-5
3
10-
0
0
-15
0.
-20
d
13 -25
-30
-35
-40
-45
-50
1/1/2017
2/15/2017 4/1/2017 5/16/2017 6/30/2017 8/14/2017 9/28/2017
11/12/2017 12/27/2017
Date
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT — OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, MONITORIN
' YR2 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
�
Ground Surface
� CRITERIA MET - 112.5 (50.7%)
�
-12 inches
(3/27/2016-7/17/2017)
UTTC AW10
— - — Begin Growing Season
— — — End Growing Season
�
GROWING SEASON
(3/27 - 11/5)
Well installed - 2/9/2016
�
G YEAR 2 OF 7

Figure 7. In -stream Flow Gauge Graphs
UI to I own Creek Restoration rroject - Uptlon A: Froject 1Vo. 94648
North Stanly Middle School Daily Rain
1/1/2017 2/15/2017 4/1/2017 5/16/2017 6/30/2017 8/14/2017 9/28/2017 11/12/2017 12/27/2017
0.0
= 0.5
1.0
c
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
1.00
0.95
0.90
0.85
0.80
0.75
0.70
0.65
Q 0.60
d 0.55
0.50
L
G1 0.45
w
0.40
0.35
v 0.30
0.25
0.20
W 0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
UT to Town Creek Reach 7 (Upper)
In -channel Flow Gauge R7_W1
YR2 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
CRITERIA MET - 73.0*
(3/22/2017-6/2/2017)
UT to Town Creek FL1
- - - Flow Criteria - .05'
1/1/2017 2/15/2017 4/1/2017 5/16/2017 6/30/2017 8/14/2017 9/28/2017 11/12/2017 12/27/2017
Date
* Surface water flow is estimated to have occurred when the pressure transducer reading is equal to or above 0.05 feet in depth.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648
UT to TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 2 OF 7

Figure 7 Cont. In -stream Flow Gauge Graphs
U'1to Town Ureek Restoration Yroiect - Option A: Yroiect No. 94648
North Stanly Middle School Daily Rain
1/1/2017 2/15/2017 4/1/2017 5/16/2017 6/30/2017 8/14/2017 9/28/2017 11/12/2017 12/27/2017
0.0
0.5
1.0
C 1.5
•cC 2.0
113� 2.5
3.0
1.00
0.95
0.90
0.85
0.80
0.75
0.70
s 0.65
Q, 0.60
0.55
i 0.50
0.45
0.40
y 0.35
0.30
3 0.25
N 0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
UT toTown Creek Reach 7 (Lower)
In -channel Flow Gauge R7_W2
YR2 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
CRITERIA MET - 117.0 *
(3/17/2017-7/11/2017)
UT to Town Creek FL2
- - - Flow Criteria - .05'
1/1/2017 2/15/2017 4/1/2017 5/16/2017 6/30/2017 8/14/2017 9/28/2017 11/12/2017 12/27/2017
Date
* Surface water flow is estimated to have occurred when the pressure transducer reading is equal to or above 0.05 feet in depth.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648
UT to TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 2 OF 7

Figure 7 Cont. In -stream Flow Gauge Graphs
U t to i own creek restoration rrQlect - option A:
1/1/2017 2/15/2017 4/1/2017
0.0
0.5
�- 1.0
1.5
= 2.0
2.5
3.0
1.00
0.95
0.90
0.85
0.80
0.75
0.70
0.65
Q. 0.60
0.55
i 0.50
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
N 0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
YR2 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
CRITERIA MET - 67.0*
(3/14/2017 - 5/19/2017)
ect 1V o. 946475
North Stanly Middle School Daily Rain
5/16/2017 6/30/2017 8/14/2017
UT toTown Creek Reach 6 (Upper)
In -channel Flow Gauge R6_W1
9/28/2017 11/12/2017 12/27/2017
UT to Town Creek FL3
- - Flow Criteria - .05'
1/1/2017 2/15/2017 4/1/2017 5/16/2017 6/30/2017 8/14/2017 9/28/2017 11/12/2017 12/27/2017
Date
* Surface water flow is estimated to have occurred when the pressure transducer reading is equal to or above 0.05 feet in depth.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648
UT to TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 2 OF 7

Figure 7 Cont. In -stream Flow Gauge Graphs
u 1 to 1 own creek Kestoratlon rro ect - V tion A:
1/1/2017 2/15/2017 4/1/2017
0.0
0.5
1.0
c
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
1.00
0.95
0.90
0.85
0.80
0.75
w 0.70
L 0.65
Q 0.60
0.55
i 0.50
0.45
0.40
y 0.35
0.30
0.25
3
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
ect iNo. 94045
North Stanly Middle School Daily Rain
5/16/2017 6/30/2017 8/14/2017
UT toTown Creek Reach 6 (Lower)
In -channel Flow Gauge R6_W2
YR2 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
CRITERIA MET - 205.0*
(1/1/2017-7/23/2017)
9/28/2017 11/12/2017 12/27/2017
UT to Town Creek FL4
- - - Flow Criteria -05'
1/1/2017 2/15/2017 4/1/2017 5/16/2017 6/30/2017 8/14/2017 9/28/2017 11/12/2017 12/27/2017
Date
* Surface water flow is estimated to have occurred when the pressure transducer reading is equal to or above 0.05 feet in depth.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648
UT to TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 2 OF 7

Figure 8. Monthly Rainfall Data
ui to i own creek Restoration Project - option A: Yro]ect No. 94645
Monthly Rainfall for Stanly County, NC vs. Average Rainfall Data
(11/01/2016 - 10/31/2017)
7.00
6.00
5.00 �� ♦ '
• '. I
4.00 •' `�
0 44` I ♦ I `
.00 1 `
2 i
P" 3.00
•
2.00 �' ••••
1.00 -
A nn
v.vv
November December January February March April May June July August September October
Month
Stanly County Observed 2016 - 2017 Precipitation — — Average - - - • 30% - - - -70%
Historic rainfall data from WETS Station: ALBEMARLE, NCO090
Observed 2016 - 2017 Precipitaion from CHRONOS Station NEWL, North Stanly Middle School
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648
UT to TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 2 OF 7

Table 12. Wetland Restoration Area Well Success
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Opti n A: Project No. 94648
*Percentage of *Percentage of
Number of Instances
Automated Wetland
Most Consecutive
Consecutive Days Cumulative Days <12
Cumulative
where Water Table rose
Well ID
Well Type Mitigation Type
Days Meeting
<12 inches from inches from Ground
Days Meeting
to <12 inches from
Criteria 2
Ground Surface' Surfacer
Criteria'
Ground Surface
Cross-sectional Well Arrays No
UTTC AW1 Reference Jurisdictional
57.4 127.5 70.3
156.0
9
UTTC AW2 Groundwater Restoration
69.1 153.5 80.9
179.5
3
UTTC AW3 Groundwater Restoration
48.9 108.5 49.3
109.5
1
UTTC AW4 Groundwater Restoration
53.8 119.5 53.8
119.5
1
UTTC AW5 Groundwater Creation
50.7 112.5 56.1
124.5
5
UTTC AW6 Reference Jurisdictional
58.3 129.5 80.6
179.0
5
UTTC AW7 Groundwater Restoration
58.8 130.5 67.8
150.5
4
UTTC AW8 Groundwater Restoration
11.5 25.5 40.1
89.0
8
UTTC AW9 Groundwater Creation
42.6 94.5 48.9
108.5
5
UTTC AW10 Groundwater Creation
50.7 112.5 69.8
155.0
7
Notes:
'Indicates the percentage of most consecutive number of days within the monitored growing season with a water 12 inches or less from the soil 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.
4Indicates the number of instances within the monitored growing season when the water table rose to 12 inches or less from the soil surface.
Growing season for Stanly County is from March 27 to November 5 and is 222 days long.
Growing season percentage for success is 9% of 222 days = 20 days; where water table is 12 inches or less from the ground surface
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.
All In -Situ groundwater monitoring dataloggers were installed by 3/27/2016. Installation of the dataloggers was completed following construction in
Spring 2016 when groundwater levels are normally closer to the ground surface.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

Table 13. Verification of In -stream Flow Conditions
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: DMS Project ID No. 94648
Flow Gauge ID
"R7W
Consecutive Days of Flowl
Reach 7 Flow Gauges
Cumulative Days of Flow2
1
73.0
156.0
R7_W2
117.0
Reach 6 Flow Gauges
190.0
R6 W1
67.0
168.0
R6 W2
204.0
204.0
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 intermittent when the flow duration
occurs for a minimum of 30 days.
Surface water flow is estimated to have occurred when the pressure transducer reading is equal to or above 0.1 feet in depth.
Table 14. Verification of Bankfull Events
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: DMS Project ID No. 94648
Date of Data
Gauge Height
Photo #
Date of Occurrence
Method
Collection
(FT)
(if available)
Between 11/3/2016 and
Crest Gauge
1/25/2017
Crest Gauge
0.08
1/25/2017
PhotoMY2-1
Betweenl/25/2017 and
Crest Gauge
5/3/2017
Crest Gauge
0.11
5/3/2017
1
1
1 PhotoMY2-2
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT — OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

irm
t�IF!t

UTTC AW2 -11/08/17
UTTC AW3 -11/08/17
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT — OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT — 2017, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

UTTC AW4 -11/08/17
UTTC AW5 -11/08/17
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

UTTC AW6 -11/08/17
UTTC AW7 -11/08/17
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

UTTC AW8 -11/08/17
UTTC AW9 -11/08/17
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

UTTC AW10 -11/09/17
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

UT to Town Creek Reach 6 — Flow Documentation Photos
Flow Documentation Photo — R6—W2 (01/04/2017)
Flow Documentation Photo — R6—W2 (02/04/2017)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

Flow Documentation Photo — R6—W2 (03/04/2017)
UT to Town Creek Reach 7 — Flow Documentation Photos
Flow Documentation Photo R7—W2 (02/18/2017)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT — OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

AW�� s-a'4'f � !� ,� • .f idly
Ab'r
Flow Documentation Photo — R7—W2 (03/18/2017)
Flow Documentation Photo — R7 W2 (04/24/2017)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

� .ate', _— t i.+ r'i •.ii
r 1 lS r
r
�WINGSCA"ES O UTTC RCH 7 05 MAY 2017 10:00 am
M
�WINGSCAPES' 0
v
:[yra, • I
UTTC RCH 7
2
05 JUN 2017 10:00 am