20120916 Ver 1_Year 5 Monitoring Report_2018_20190116

MM6 pan Polvtt Nqn ®eMlla^^iliOPeeMIWn VmI^y eP�rya'rinetlgrM NOINrR PePoIIW p01i4]110
WM1Im (mk Wye PewnaC Y9206 e
Gblglnp Nnlr WW00pl
Hp16: N1urtnenlrwWMlwblRfevmmanAMgvvJUIINMNvenalavlvW
Dema eiuemauaNW
M1m4annmtleewlleFble Na NCIRTb �Np
]-A10%mwrveolvetlhhN NM1Mi Eatlrwtll HladnMUllevenlpNoman®tlanEaMM1m Genmei

Innovation Done Right ... We Make a Difference
I N T E R N AT 1 0 N A L
January 16, 2019
Jeff Schaffer
Eastern Supervisor, Project Management
NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
Subject: Task 11: Response Letter to DMS review comments regarding the Draft Year 5 Monitoring
Report for the UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project (#95019)
White Oak River Basin — CU#03030001, Onslow County, North Carolina
DEQ Contract No. 003992, Baker No. 124578
Dear Mr. Schaffer,
Please find enclosed three hardcopies of the Final Year 5 Monitoring Report and our responses to your
review comments received on December 19, 2018 regarding the UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project
located in Onslow County, NC. As requested, we have also provided a CD containing a pdf version of the
final report along with the revised GIS shapefiles in response to the review comments below:
Digital drawings:
a. Digital files for each asset listed in Table 1 were not formatted or attributed as required in the
EEP/DMS digital drawing guidance. The stream centerlines for example were submitted as a
highly segmented polyline and were devoid of attributes such as reach ID and linear footage.
DMS would prefer to receive shapefiles for all of the features in the digital drawings
requirements, but at a minimum, each asset (as listed in table 1 of the monitoring report) and
each monitoring feature must be provided as a discreet, properly attributed polyline/polygon as
required by contract and stated in table 2 of DMS's Format, Data Requirements, and Content
Guidance for Electronic Drawings Submitted to EEP version 1.0 (03/27/08).
Response: For the draft e -submittal, older shapefiles were erroneously included. The revised
shapefiles (made last year from similar DMS comments) are included with the final e -submittal
with our apologies for the confusion.
b. During the review, DMS received a pop-up warning that the spatial reference is missing for
the As- Built_ Streams_UTMillSwamp, Crossings_UTMillSwamp,
F1owGauges_UTMillSwamp, TopOfBank_UTMillSwamp, UTMillSwamp_CrestGauge
shapefiles.
Response: As stated above, older shapefiles were erroneously included the draft e -submission
and have been replaced with the revised shapefiles in the final e -submission with our apologies
for the confusion.
2. Cover Page: Change the word "Permits:" to USACE Action ID.
Response: Change made as advised.

Innovation Done Right ... We Make a Difference
3. Section 1:
a. Page 3, paragraph 7: the report states that gauge MSAWIO "unexpectedly and permanently
failed during the summer of 2018." Please address if this gauge is to be replaced and if not,
explain why.
Response: Wetland gauge MSAWIO has never passed the hydrology success criteria of
consecutive days within 12" of ground surface for 12% of the growing season in any
monitoring year, with 0.0%, 0.6%,5.3%,2.l%,4.9%, and now 5.3%. Given that this was
one of the wetter years on record and it still failed to meet success criteria, it seems highly
unlikely that it ever will. As such, it will not be replaced. The report has been amended to
offer more explanation about this well.
b. Page 3, paragraph 8: the report states that "Flow gauge MSFL2 (on lower UTlb) permanently
failed during the winter of 2017/2018 and was not replaced as it had already met the required
project success criteria in each previous monitoring year." Please address if this gauge is to be
replaced and if not, explain why.
Response: We do not intend to replace flow gauge MSFL2 at this stage of the project. The
mitigation plan states that the success criteria for this reach (UTIb) is the documentation of two
separate flow events within a 5 -year monitoring period consisting of a minimum of 30
consecutive days each. Gauge MSFL2 has easily passed each previous monitoring year with
consecutive flow lengths of 35, 131, 152, 105, and 164 days, along with cumulative yearly flow
totals of 79, 327, 186, 231, and 243 days (see Table 13). Thus, this gauge has already
significantly exceeded the required success criteria. Also consider that this reach does have a
second flow gauge installed within the upper section which has also already met the success
criteria five consecutive times and will continue to record now data for the reach for the
remaining two years of project monitoring. The report has been amended to offer more
explanation about this gauge.
4. Section 2.2.2: Even though the groundwater gauges are discussed in this section, explain why there
is no section to specifically discuss the wetland assessment. Section 2.2.2 appears as if it should be
more associated with the stream portion of this project.
Response: A new Section 2.3 (Wetlands Assessment) was added to methodology portion of report
as a location for the wetlands -specific discussion.
Appendix D, Table 11: During our review of the Bank Height Ratios (BHR) in Table 11, DMS staff
performs a visual comparison of the MY5 data to As-Built/Baseline cross-sections. DMS
noted/realized that by displaying the As -built Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area alone, the calculation for
the BHR can be difficult to reconcile. We noted possible discrepancies in the BHR calculations for
cross-sections 1 and 5 given this disconnect. Using the new BHR calculation methodology where the
As -Built Bankfull Area is held constant, please display the Year 5 bankfull elevation as another data
series just for the sake of clarity between the BHR calculation and the overlay. It appears that the
BHR calculations were done correctly, but just please add the MY5 bankfull data series with its
elevation for the sake of clarity to the reader.
Response: An additional data series was added to each cross-section figure showing the MY5
bankfull line (generated using the as -built bankfull area as per the recent DMS memo) as requested.
The BHR calculations for the listed cross-sections were re -checked again and were all confirmed as
correct. With the new bankfull line shown, a visual comparison between it and the MY5 cross-
section data certainly makes the BHR value appear to make intuitive sense.

Innovation Done Right ...We Make a Difference
If you have any questions or require additional information, please feel free to contact me at 919-481-5731
or via email at [e-mail].
Sincerely,
14 -
Scott King, LSS, PWS
Enclosures

UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project
Sixth Monitoring Measurement
Fifth Year of Credit Release - FINAL
Onslow County, North Carolina
NCDMS Project ID Number — 95019, DEQ Contract No. 003992
USACE Action ID: SAW -2011-02193, DWR# 20120916
Project Info: Credit Release Year: 5 of 7 (Sixth site measurement since construction)
Year of Data Collection: 2018
Year of Completed Construction: 2013
Submission Date: December 2019
Submitted To: NCDEQ — Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652

UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project
Sixth Monitoring Measurement
Fifth Year of Credit Release - FINAL
Onslow County, North Carolina
NCDMS Project ID Number — 95019, DEQ Contract No. 003992
USACE Action ID: SAW -2011-02193, DWR# 20120916
Report Prepared and Submitted by Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
NC Professional Engineering License # F-1084
INTERNATIONAL
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT, NCDMS PROJECT NUMBER - 95019
MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 7 (2018)

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................1
2.0 METHODOLOGY.........................................................................................4
2.1 Stream Assessment —Reach UTI a & UTI b................................................................................................. 4
2.1.1 Hydrology..................................................................................................................................................4
2.1.2 Photographic Documentation....................................................................................................................5
2.2 Stream Assessment —Reach UTI c............................................................................................................... S
2.2.1 Morphologic Parameters and Channel Stability........................................................................................5
2.2.2 Hydrology..................................................................................................................................................6
2.2.3 Photographic Documentation....................................................................................................................6
2.2.4 Visual Stream Morphological Stability Assessment..................................................................................6
2.3 Wetland Assessment.................................................................................................................................... 6
2.4 Vegetation Assessment................................................................................................................................7
3.0 REFERENCES...............................................................................................7
APPENDICES
Appendix A Project Vicinity Map and Background Tables
Figure 1 Project Vicinity Map
Table 1 Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Table 2 Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3 Project Contacts
Table 4 Project Attributes
Appendix B Visual Assessment Data
Figure 2 Current Condition Plan View (CCPV) Map
Table 5a Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Table 5b Stream Problem Areas (SPAS)
Table 6a Vegetation Conditions Assessment
Table 6b Vegetation Problem Areas (VPAs)
Stream Station Photographs
Crest Gauge and Flow Camera Photographs
Vegetation Plot Photographs
Vegetation Problem Area Photographs
Appendix C Vegetation Plot Data
Table 7 Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment (Planted Stems)
Table 8 CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Table 9a CVS Stem Count of Planted Stems by Plot and Species
Table 9b Vegetation Planted Stem Count Densities
Table 9c CVS Density Per Plot
Table 9d Vegetation Plot Summary Information
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT, NCDMS PROJECT NUMBER - 95019
MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 7 (2018)

Appendix D Stream Survey Data
Figure
3
Cross -Sections with Annual Overlays
Table
10
Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table
11
Cross-section Morphology Data
Appendix E Hydrologic Data
Figure
4
Wetland Gauge Graphs
Figure
5
Flow Gauge Graph
Figure
6
Observed Rainfall versus Historic Average
Table
12
Wetland Restoration Area Well Success
Table
13
Flow Gauge Success
Table
14
Verification of Bankfull Events
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT, NCDMS PROJECT NUMBER - 95019
MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 7 (2018)

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Michael Baker Engineering (Baker) restored 3,606 linear feet of perennial stream, 6.62 acres of riparian
wetlands, and enhanced 600 linear feet of stream along an unnamed tributary (UT) to Mill Swamp in Onslow
County, North Carolina (NC), (Appendix A). The total planted acreage was approximately 15.2 acres, and the
permanent conservation easement is 19.6 acres. The UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project (Site) is located in
Onslow County, approximately three miles northwest of the Town of Richlands. The Site is located in the NC
Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) sub -basin 03-05-02 and the NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services
(NCDMS) Targeted Local Watershed (TLW) 03030001-010020 of the White Oak River Basin. The project
involved the restoration and enhancement of a Coastal Plain Headwater Small Stream Swamp system (Schafale
and Weakley 1990) from impairments within the project area due to past agricultural conversion, cattle grazing,
and draining of floodplain wetlands by ditching activities.
The project goals directly addressed stressors identified in the White Oak River Basin Restoration Priorities or
RBRP (NCDMS 2010) such as degraded riparian conditions, channel modification, and excess sediment and
nutrient inputs. The primary restoration goals, as outlined in the approved mitigation plan, are described below:
• Create geomorphically stable conditions along the unnamed tributaries across the Site,
• Implement agricultural Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce nonpoint source inputs to
receiving waters,
• Protect and improve water quality by reducing bank erosion, nutrient and sediment inputs,
• Restore stream and wetland hydrology by connecting historic flow paths and promoting natural flood
processes, and
• Restore and protect riparian buffer functions and corridor habitat in perpetuity by establishing a
permanent conservation easement.
To accomplish these goals, the following objectives were identified:
• Restore existing incised, eroding, and channelized streams by providing access to their historic
floodplains,
• Prevent cattle from accessing the riparian buffer, reducing excessive bank erosion,
• Increase aquatic habitat value by providing more bedform diversity, creating natural scour pools and
reducing sediment from accelerated bank erosion,
• Plant native species riparian buffer vegetation along stream bank and floodplain areas, protected by a
permanent conservation easement, to increase stormwater runoff filtering capacity, improve bank
stability, and shade the stream to decrease water temperature,
• Improve aquatic and terrestrial habitat through improved substrate and in -stream cover, addition of
woody debris, and reduction of water temperature, and
• Control invasive species vegetation within the project area and if necessary, continue treatments during
the monitoring period.
The project as -built condition closely mimics that proposed by the design. Differences are outlined below:
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT, NCDMS PROJECT NUMBER - 95019
MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 7 (2018)

• The Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan (Mitigation Plan) specified the planting of riparian live stakes
during construction; however, due to construction being completed during the growing season in May
2013 no live stakes were installed. During construction, it was determined that live stakes would be
installed during the dormant season. It is noted that as of March 27, 2014, approximately 300 live
stakes were installed along the stream banks in the restored single thread channel of the UT 1 c area.
• Permanent fencing along Reach UT3 was originally proposed 50 feet from both of the streambanks
outside of the conservation easement; however, the landowner decided to use the northern pasture for
hay production only, so fencing was installed only on the southern side of the reach to exclude cattle.
Special Notes:
In consideration of this report, the following timeline should be noted:
Completion of construction — 5/31/13
Completion of installation of tree and shrub bare roots — 6/13/13
Year 1 (2013) vegetation monitoring —10/16/13
Live stake installation - 3/27/14
Year 1 (2013) supplemental vegetation monitoring — 5/18/14
Supplemental Year 1 (5/18/14) vegetation monitoring was conducted in order to provide additional
mortality data. This additional monitoring effort was done since the time that had elapsed between the
installation of the tree and shrub bare roots (6/13/13) and Year 1 vegetation monitoring (10/16/13) was
only 125 days of the growing season (March 18th through November 16th). Trees and shrubs grew for an
additional 61 days of growing season from 3/18/14 through 5/18/14 in early 2014 and were
supplementally monitored. A total of 186 days of growing season had elapsed since the trees were planted
and the supplemental Year 1 vegetation monitoring was conducted. An additional 181 days within the
growing season (5/19/14 through 11/16/14) had elapsed prior to Year 2 (2014) vegetation monitoring,
providing the required minimum of 180 days of growing season growth as stated in the approved
Mitigation Plan. As such, Baker considered the data collected on 12/19/14 to be Year 2 data and the data
collected on 11/13/15 to be Year 3 data. However, the US Army Corps of Engineers has declined to
release the credits generated from Year 2 (2014) citing too short of a period between plant installation
and monitoring. As such, the 2015 monitoring report was considered Year 2. All references to Year 2
henceforth will indicate monitoring activities conducted during 2015. Data collected during 2014 that
was previously considered monitoring Year 2 will be labeled as Year 2*.
Year 2* (2014) vegetation monitoring — 12/19/14
Year 2 (2015) vegetation monitoring — 11/13/15
Year 3 (2016) vegetation monitoring — November, 2016
Supplemental 3 -foot bare roots installed in the area around Vegetation Plot 3 only — March 20, 2017
Year 4 (2017) vegetation assessment was conducted in October of 2017, but no formal monitoring plot
data is required to be collected as part of Year 4 monitoring effort.
Year 5 (2018) vegetation monitoring — 10/30/18
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT, NCDMS PROJECT NUMBER - 95019
MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 7 (2018)

The Year 5 monitoring survey data of the eight permanent cross-sections indicate that the Site is geomorphically
stable and performing at 100 percent for the all parameters evaluated. The data collected are within the
lateral/vertical stability and in-stream structure performance categories. There are no Stream Problem Areas
(SPA) to report.
During Year 5 monitoring, the planted acreage performance categories were functioning at 100 percent with no
bare areas to report, no current low stem density areas, and no areas of poor growth rates. The average density
of total planted stems, based on the data collected from the six monitoring plots in October 2018 was 459
stems/acre. Thus, the Year 5 vegetation data demonstrates that the Site has met the minimum success interim
criteria of 260 stems/acre by the end of Year 5.
Previously during Year 4 monitoring, the area around Veg Plot 3 totaling approximately 0.20 acres was
supplementally planted in March of 2017 with additional stems of bald cypress (Taxodium distichum) from bare
root, and water tupelo (Nyssa aquatica) planted from tubelings. This area was inspected again in October of
2018 and the stems appear to be alive and doing well, with numerous healthy-looking stems readily identifiable.
Invasive species areas of concern were observed and documented during Year 5 monitoring. One area of
Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) re-sprouts totaling 0.53 acres was discovered along the left floodplain of
the middle section of Reach UTIc. This area is identified as a Vegetation Problem Area (VPA) and will be
treated in Monitoring Year 6. These resprouts overlap with a 0.55 acre area that had previously been treated
for privet in February of 2018. The CCPV found in Appendix B shows the locations of each of these areas.
Additionally, scattered loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) and sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua) saplings were
observed growing in the floodplain of UTlc and lower UTlb. They were subsequently heavily thinned during
Monitoring Year 5.
At this time, no other areas of concern regarding the Site vegetation were observed along UT 1 a, UTlb or UT 1 c.
The complete Year 5 vegetation assessment information and photographs are provided in Appendix B and C.
During Year 5 monitoring, groundwater monitoring demonstrated that fifteen of the sixteen groundwater
monitoring wells located along Reach UTIc met the wetland success criteria as stated in the Site Mitigation
Plan. The gauges that met success criteria demonstrated consecutive hydroperiods of 12% or greater, ranging
from 12.3 to 100% of the growing season (see Figure 4 and Table 12 in Appendix E). The one gauge that did
not meet success criteria with only 5.3% was MSAW 10, which unexpectedly and permanently failed during the
summer of 2018. Gauge MSAW 10 has never passed the hydroperiod success criteria of consecutive days within
12" of ground surface for 12% of the growing season in any monitoring year, with 0.0%, 0.6%, 5.3%, 2.1%,
4.9%, and now 5.3%. Given that this was one of the wetter years on record and it still failed to meet success
criteria during the typical early-spring timeframe, it seems highly unlikely that it ever will. As such, it will not
be replaced.
Additionally, during an IRT field visit on 5/1/18, it was suggested that wells MSAW3 and MSAW7 could be
relocated to better help confirm restored wetland areas elsewhere in the floodplain. These wells had previously
been located either directly on the wetland boundary, or outside it in the adjacent uplands, and it was felt they
would be more useful collecting data in other, more relevant areas. As such, in June 2018 these two wells were
relocated to the suggested areas as shown in the CCPV found in Appendix B. Graphs for all the groundwater
data collected from each well during Year 5 monitoring are located in Appendix E.
Year 5 flow monitoring on Reach UTIb demonstrated that flow gauge MSFL1 (on upper UTIb) met the stated
success criteria of 30 days or more of consecutive flow through upper UTlb with 65 days of consecutive flow
and 247 days of total cumulative flow. The gauge demonstrated similar patterns relative to rainfall events
observed in the vicinity of the Site. Flow gauge MSFL2 (on lower UT lb) unexpectedly and permanently failed
during the winter of 2017/2018. It will not be replaced as it had already met the required project success criteria
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. 3
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT, NCDMS PROJECT NUMBER - 95019
MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 7 (2018)

in each previous monitoring year with consecutive flow lengths of 35, 131, 152, 105, and 164 days, along with
cumulative yearly flow totals of 79, 327, 186, 231, and 243 days (see Table 13). Thus, this gauge has already
significantly exceeded the required success criteria of documenting two separate flow events within the project
monitoring period. Flow data for this reach will continue to be collected for the remaining two project
monitoring years from gauge MSFL1 alone. Flow data collected during Year 5 monitoring are located in
Appendix E.
The Site was also found to have had at least two above-bankfull events based on the crest gauge readings during
Year 5 monitoring. The highest recorded reading was measured to be 3.41 feet and was associated with
Hurricane Florence on September 15, 2018. Crest gauge reading data are presented in Appendix E and gauge
photographs are presented in Appendix B.
Summary information/data related to the Site and statistics related to performance of various project and
monitoring elements can be found in the tables and figures in the report Appendices. Narrative background and
supporting information formerly found in these reports can be found in the Baseline Monitoring Report and in
the Mitigation Plan available on the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS) website. All
raw data supporting the tables and figures in the appendices is available from NCDMS upon request.
2.0 METHODOLOGY
The seven-year monitoring plan for the Site includes criteria to evaluate the success of the stream, wetland, and
vegetation components of the project. The methodology and report template used to evaluate these components
adheres to the NCDMS Monitoring Requirements and Performance Standards for Stream and/or Wetland
Mitigation guidance document dated November 7, 2011 (NCDMS 2011), which will continue to serve as the
template for subsequent monitoring years. The specific locations of monitoring features: vegetation plots,
permanent cross-sections, monitoring wells, flow gauges, and the crest gauge, are shown on the CCPV sheets
found in Appendix B.
The Year 5 vegetation plot data and all visual site assessment data were collected in October 2018. The cross-
section survey data were collected in November 2018, while the final monitoring gauge data were collected in
December 2018.
2.1 Stream Assessment — Reach UTla & UTlb
The UTla and UTlb mitigation approach involved the restoration of historic flow patterns and flooding
functions in a multi -thread headwater stream system. Monitoring efforts focus on visual observations to
document stability, the use of water level monitoring gauges to document both groundwater and flooding
functions.
2.1.1 Hydrology
Two automated groundwater well gauges (pressure transducers) are installed along well transects, with
a total of four well transects installed in the UT 1 a and UT lb areas. The automated loggers are
programmed to collect data at 6 -hour intervals to record groundwater levels in UTla and UTlb areas.
Graphs of the groundwater data collected for these gauges during Year 5 monitoring are located in
Appendix E.
Additionally, two in -stream flow gauges (pressure transducers) were installed to document the
occurrence of extended periods of shallow surface ponding, indicative of flow. The gauges attempt to
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT, NCDMS PROJECT NUMBER - 95019
MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 7 (2018)

document flooding connectivity between the restored UTla and UTlb reaches for at least 30
consecutive days under normal climatic conditions. Flow gauge MSFL1 (on UTIa) met this success
criteria with 65 consecutive days of recorded flow, and a cumulative total of 247 days of flow. The
gauge demonstrated similar patterns relative to rainfall events observed in the vicinity of the Site. Flow
gauge MSFL2 (on UTlb) permanently failed during the winter of 2017/2018 and was not replaced as
it had already met the required project success criteria in each previous monitoring year. Flow data
collected during Year 5 monitoring are located in Appendix E.
2.1.2 Photographic Documentation
The headwater stream reaches were photographed longitudinally beginning at the downstream portion
of the Site and moving towards the upstream end of the Site. Photographs were taken looking upstream
at delineated locations throughout the restored stream valley. The photograph points were established
close enough together to provide an overall view of the reach lengths and valley crenulations. The
angle of the photo depends on what angle provides the best view and was noted and continued in future
photos. Site photographs for UTla and UTlb were taken at established photo -point stations and can
be found in Appendix B.
2.2 Stream Assessment — Reach UT1c
The UTIc mitigation approach involved the restoration of historic flow patterns and flooding functions in a
single -thread headwater stream system. Monitoring efforts focus on visual observations, the use of groundwater
level monitoring gauges, a crest gauge to document bankfull flooding events, and established stream cross-
sections to monitor channel stability.
Stream survey data is collected to a minimum of Class C Vertical and Class A Horizontal Accuracy using Leica
TSO6 Total Station and was georeferenced to the NAD83 State Plane Coordinate System, FIPS3200 in US
Survey Feet, which was derived from the As -built Survey. This survey system collects point data with an
accuracy of less than one tenth of a foot.
2.2.1 Morphologic Parameters and Channel Stability
A longitudinal profile was surveyed for the entire length of channel immediately after construction to
document as -built baseline monitoring conditions (Year 0) only. The survey was tied to a permanent
benchmark and measurements included thalweg, water surface, bankfull, and top of low bank. Each of
these measurements was taken at the head of each feature (e.g., riffle, pool) and at the maximum pool
depth. Yearly longitudinal profiles will not be conducted during subsequent monitoring years unless
channel instability has been documented or remedial actions/repairs are required by the USACE or
NCDMS.
Survey data from the eight permanent project cross-sections were collected and classified using the
Rosgen Stream Classification System, and all monitored cross-sections fall within the quantitative
parameters defined for channels of the design stream type (Rosgen 1994). The Year 5 monitoring
survey data for the cross-sections indicates that the Site is geomorphically stable and performing at 100
percent for all the parameters evaluated. The data collected are within the lateral/vertical stability and
in -stream structure performance categories. Morphological survey data are presented in Appendix D.
Please note, as per NCDMS/IRT request the bank height ratios for MY5 have been calculated using the
as -built bankfull area to determine low bank height and the max depth based on the current -year channel
profile. All other values were calculated using the as -built bankfull elevation, as was done for all
previous monitoring reports.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
Ur TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT, NCDMS PROJECT NUMBER - 95019
MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 7 (2018)

2.2.2 Hydrology
One crest gauge was installed on the floodplain at the bankfull elevation along the left top of bank on
UTlc approximately at Station 45+50. In MY5, two above-bankfull events associated with storm
events were documented by the crest gauge. The highest recorded reading was measured to be 3.41
feet and was associated with Hurricane Florence on September 15, 2018. Crest gauge reading data are
presented in Appendix E and gauge photographs are presented in Appendix B.
2.2.3 Photographic Documentation
Representative project photographs for MY5 for Reach UTIc were taken at the previously established
photo -point stations located along the enhanced and restored stream sections of UT 1 c and are presented
in Appendix B. Additionally, reference photograph transects were taken at each permanent cross-
section in November of 2018. The survey tape was centered in the photographs of the bank. The water
line was located in the lower edge of the frame, and as much of the bank as possible is included in each
photograph.
2.2.4 Visual Stream Morphological Stability Assessment
The visual stream morphological stability assessment involves the qualitative evaluation of lateral and
vertical channel stability, and the integrity and overall performance of in -stream structures throughout
the Project reach as a whole. Habitat parameters and pool depth maintenance are also evaluated.
During Year 5 monitoring, the entire project reach was walked, noting geomorphic conditions of the
stream bed profile (riffle/pool facets); both stream banks, and engineered in -stream structures. All
stream reaches appear stable and functioning. All stream beds are vertically stable, the pools are
maintaining depth, stream banks are stable and vegetating, and in -stream structures are physically intact
and performing as designed. No Stream Problem Areas (SPAS) were documented during Year 5
monitoring. A more detailed summary of the methodology and results for the visual stream stability
assessment can be found in Appendix B, which includes supporting data tables.
2.3 Wetland Assessment
Following construction, ten automated groundwater monitoring wells were installed in the UT 1 c
wetland restoration area following USACE protocols (USACE 2005). The gauges themselves are all
In -Situ brand Rugged Troll 100 data loggers. An additional six monitoring wells were installed in the
spring of 2016 in the left floodplain of UTIc for a more detailed evaluation there. During an IRT site
visit on 5/1/18, it was suggested that two of the wells (MSAW3 and MSAW7) originally located on, or
just outside, the wetland boundary line be relocated to help confirm restored wetland areas elsewhere
in the floodplain. As such, in June 2018 those two wells were relocated to the suggested areas as shown
in the CCPV found in Appendix B. Also during Year 5 monitoring, the gauge at well MSAW 10
unexpectedly and permanently failed in the summer of 2018. Given that it has never once passed the
success criteria hydroperiod requirement, it will not be replaced at this stage of the project. Graphs of
the groundwater data collected from each well during Year 5 monitoring are found in Appendix E.
During Year 5 monitoring, groundwater monitoring demonstrated that fifteen of the sixteen
groundwater monitoring wells located along Reach UTIc met the wetland success criteria as stated in
the Site Mitigation Plan. The gauges that met success criteria demonstrated consecutive hydroperiods
of 12% or greater, ranging from 12.3 to 100% of the growing season (see Table 12 in Appendix E).
Total observed rainfall at the Albert Ellis airport (KOAJ) weather station located near Richlands, NC
for the previous 12 -month period from December 2017 through November 2018 was 74.2 inches. The
WETS table for Hoffman Forest station (NC4144) in Onslow County was used to calculate the 30 -year
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT, NCDMS PROJECT NUMBER - 95019
MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 7 (2018)

average for that same 12 -month period and documents an average of 56.5 inches of rainfall, with an
historic 30% probable of 51.9 inches and an historic 70% probable of 60.5 inches. Thus, the site appears
to have an exceeded the 70% probable by 13.7 inches. However, much of that additional rainfall came
in September 2018, and in particular from Hurricane Florence, which dropped approximately 13 inches
of rainfall on the site on September 15th alone. The remainder of the fall of 2018 has been fairly dry,
with monthly rainfall totals below their historic 30% probables in October and November.
2.4 Vegetation Assessment
In order to determine if success criteria are achieved, vegetation -monitoring quadrants were installed and are
monitored annually across the Site in accordance with the CVS-NCDMS Protocol for Recording Vegetation,
Version 4.1 (Lee 2007) using the CVS -DMS Data Entry Tool v. 2.3.1 (CVS 2012). The vegetation monitoring
plots are a minimum of two percent of the planted portion of the Site, with six plots established randomly within
the planted UTla, UTlb and UTlc riparian buffer areas per Monitoring Levels 1 and 2. No monitoring
quadrants were established within the undisturbed wooded areas of UTIa and UTlb. The sizes of individual
quadrants are 100 square meters for woody tree species.
During Year 5 monitoring, the planted acreage performance categories were functioning well with no bare areas
to report. The average density of total planted stems, based on the data collected from the six monitoring plots
in October 2018 was 459 stems/acre. Thus, the Year 5 vegetation data demonstrates that the Site has met the
minimum success interim criteria of 260 stems/acre by the end of Year 5.
3.0 REFERENCES
Carolina Vegetation Survey (CVS) and NC Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS). CVS -DMS
Data Entry Tool v. 2.3.1. University of North Carolina, Raleigh, NC. 2012.
Lee, M., Peet R., Roberts, S., Wentworth, T. 2007. CVS-NCDMS Protocol for Recording Vegetation,
Version 4.1.
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services. 2011. Monitoring Requirements and
Performance Standards for Stream and/or Wetland Mitigation. November 7, 2011.
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS). 2010. White Oak River Basin Restoration
Priorities.
Rosgen, D. L. 1994. A Classification of Natural Rivers. Catena 22:169-199.
Schafale, M. P., and A. S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the natural communities of North Carolina, third
approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. Division of Parks and Recreation,
NCDENR. Raleigh, NC.
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 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.
Ur TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT, NCDMS PROJECT NUMBER - 95019
MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 7 (2018)

Appendix A
Project Vicinity Map and Background Tables

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

Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95019
Mitigation Credits
Stream Riparian Wetland
Non-riparian Wetland
Buffer
Nitrogen Nutrient Offset
Phosphorus
Nutrient Offset
Type R, EI RE
Totals 3,909 SMU 4.0 WMU 0
Project Components
Project Component or Reach ID Stationing/ Existing Footage/ Acreage
Location
Approach
Restoration/
Restoratio, Equivalent
Restoration Footage or Acreage
Mitigation Ratio
Reach UTIs 10+00— 16+00
600 LF
Enhancement Level I
400 SMU
600 LF
1.5:1
Reach UTtb 16+00-36+93
2,131 LF
Headwater Restoration
1,996 SMU
1,996 LF
1:1
Reach UTle 37+24-52+37
1,350 LF
Single thread Restoration
1,513 SMU
1,513 LF
1:1
Reach UT3 10+00-23+69
1,060 LF
Cattle Exclusion
N/A
N/A
N/A
Wetland Area #1 See plan sheets
0.0 AC
Restoration
4.0 WMU
4.0 AC
1:1
Component Summation
Restoration Level Stream (LF)
Riparian
Wetland (AC) Non-riparian Wetland (AC)
Buffer (SF)
Upland (AC)
Riverine
Non-Riverine
Restoration 3,509 4.0
Enhancement) 600
Enhancement ii
Creation
Preservation
High Quality Preservation
BMP Elements
Element Location Purpose/Function
Notes
BMP Elements: BR= Bioretention Cell; SF= Sand Filter; SW= Stormwater Wetland; WDP= Wet Detention Pond; DDP= Dry Detention
Pond; FS=Filter Strip; S= Grassed Swale; LS= Level Spreader; NI—Natural Infiltration
Area
'Note: Credit calculations were originally calculated along the as -built thalweg but were revised starting in Monitoring Year 4 to be calculated along stream centerlines and valley length after discussions with the
NC -IRT stemming from the April 3, 2017 Credit Release Meeting.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95019)

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95019
Activity or Report
Scheduled
Completion
Data Collection
Complete
Actual Completion
or Delivery
Mitigation Plan Prepared
N/A
N/A
Aug -13
Mitigation Plan Amended
N/A
N/A
Sep -13
Mitigation Plan Approved
N/A
N/A
Nov -13
Final Design — (at least 90% complete)
N/A
N/A
Mar -13
Construction Begins
N/A
N/A
Apr -13
Temporary S&E mix applied to entire project area
N/A
N/A
N/A
Permanent seed mix applied to entire project area
N/A
N/A
Jun -13
Planting of live stakes
Fall/Winter 2013
N/A
Mar -14
Planting of bare root trees
N/A
N/A
Jun -13
End of Construction
N/A
N/A
May- 13
Survey of As -built conditions (Year 0 Monitoring -baseline)
N/A
Aug -13
Aug -13
Year 1 Monitoring
Dec -13
Dec -13
Jun -14
'Year 2* Monitoring
Dec -14
Dec -14
Jan -15
Year 2 Monitoring
Nov -15
Nov -15
Dec -15
Year 3 Monitoring
Dec -16
Nov -16
Dec -16
Year 4 Monitoring
Dec -17
Nov -17
Jan -18
Year 5 Monitoring
Dec -18
Dec -18
Dec -18
Year 6 Monitoring
Dec -19
N/A
N/A
Year 7 Monitoring
Dec -20
N/A
N/A
' As stated in the Special Notes section of the Excutive Summary: the US Army Corps of Engineers declined to release the
credits generated from Year 2 (2014) citing too short of a period between plant installation and monitoring following
construction. As such, this report (2018) will be considered Year 5. All references to Year 5 included in this report will
indicate monitoring activities conducted during 2018. Data collected during 2014 that was previously considered monitoring
Year 2 is labeled as Year 2*
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95019)

Table 3. Project Contacts
UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95019
Designer
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
Cary, NC 27518
Contact:
Katie Mckeithan, Tel. [phone]
Construction Contractor
River Works, Inc.
114 W. Main St.
Clayton, NC 27520
Contact:
Bill Wright, Telephone: [phone]
Planting Contractor
River Works, Inc.
114 W. Main St.
Clayton, NC 27520
Contact:
Bill Wright, Telephone: [phone]
Seeding Contractor
River Works, Inc.
114 W. Main St.
Clayton, NC 27520
Contact:
Bill Wright, Telephone: [phone]
Seed Mix Sources
Green Resources, Tel. [phone]
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Mellow Marsh Farm, 919-742-1200
ArborGen, 843-528-3204
Superior Tree, 850-971-5159
Monitoring Performers
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
Cary, NC 27518
Contact:
Stream Monitoring Point of Contact
Scott King, Tel. [phone]
Vegetation Monitoring Point of Contact
Scott King, Tel. [phone]
Wetland Monitoring Point of Contact
Scott King, Tel. [phone]
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95019)

Table 4. Project Attributes
UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95019
Project Information
Project Name
UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project
County
Onslow
Project Area acres
19.6
Project Coordinates latitude and longitude)
34.9377 N, -77.5897 W
Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province
Inner Coastal Plain
River Basin
White Oak
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit and 14-digit
03030001 / 03030001010020
DWQ Sub-basin
03-05-02
Project Draina e Area AC
421 (d/s main stem UT 1)
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Im ervious Area
<1%
CGIA Land Use Classification
2.01.03.99, Other Hay, Rotation, or Pasture; 413
NCEEP Land Use Classification for UT to Mill Swamp
Watershed (White Oak River Basin Restoration Priorities,
2010)
Forest (52%)
Agriculture (44%)
Impervious Cover (0.6%)
Stream Reach Summary Information
Parameters
Reach UTI
Reach UT3
Length of Reach LF
4,091
1,060
Valley Classification Ros en
X
X
Drainage Area AC
421
23
NCDWQ Stream Identification Score
40.5
21
NCDWQ Water Quality Classification
C; NSW
C; NSW
Morphological Description (Rosgen stream type)
(Channelized Headwater System)
Intermittent Ditch (N/A)
Evolutionary Trend
Gc4F
Intermittent Ditch /A
Underlying Mapped Soils
Mk, St, Ly, FoA
Mk, St
Drainage Class
Poorly drained, somewhat poorly drained
Poorly drained, somewhat poorly drained
Soil Hydric Status
Hydric
Hydric
Average Channel Slope(ft/ft)
0.0041
0.0058
FEMA Classification
N/A
N/A
Native Vegetation Community
Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp
Coastal Plain Small Stream Swam
Percent Composition of Exotic/Invasive Vegetation
—10%
<5%
Wetland Summary Information
Parameters
Wetland 1 (Non-Jurisdictional WI)
Size of Wetland AC
6.62 (3.36 north ofUTlc, 3.26 south ofUTlc)
Wetland Type
Riparian Riverine
Mapped Soil Series
Mk (Muckalee), St (Stallings), Ly (Lynchburg)
Drainage Class
Poorly drained, somewhat poorly drained
Soil Hydric Status
Hydric
Source of Hydrology
Groundwater
H drolo is Im airment
Partially (disconnected floodplain from ditches and channel incision)
Native Vegetation Community
Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp, Successional
Percent Composition of Exotic/Invasive Vegetation
19.7% (Before fall 2016 treatment event)
Re ulat ry Considerations
Regulation
Applicable Resolved
Supporting Documentation
Waters of the United States — Section 404
Yes Yes
See Mitigation Plan
Waters of the United States — Section 401
Yes Yes
See Mitigation Plan
Endangered Species Act
No N/A
See Mitigation Plan
Historic Preservation Act
No N/A
See Mitigation Plan
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)/ Coastal Area
Management Act CAMA
No N/A
See Mitigation Plan
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
No N/A
See Mitigation Plan
Essential Fisheries Habitat
No N/A
See Mitigation Plan
Source: White Oak River Basin Restoration Priorities, 2010(h!W://www.htti)://uortal.ncdenr.org/c/document
U017873496b& groupId-60329 )
library/get file?uuid=lcOb7e5a-9617-4a44-a5t8-
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95019)

Appendix B
Visual Assessment Data

i
UT 31
UT 1a
Reach Break
0 250 500 N Figure 2 Index Map
Michael BakerFeet Current Condition Plan View
Monitoring Year 5
1 N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L DMS Project # 95019 UT to Mill Swamp Site

Sta. 36+93.00
Stream
Crossing
All Wetlands South
of Stream (3.26 ac)
UT 1c
Monitoring Date: Nov/Dec 2018
Aerial Photo Date: 2016
Veg Plot 5:
567 stems/ac
Veg Plot 6:
324 stems/ac
Note: At the suggestion of the IRT during the site visit on 5/1/18 , Wells MSAW3 and MSAW7 were relocated to help
confirm restored wetland areas. They had previously been located on, orjust outside, the wetland boundary line.
INTERNATIONAL
0 100 200 N
Feet
DMS Project # 95019
Restoration: Single -Thread Channel
No Mitigation Credit
Privet Treated g
in Feb 2018 Vegetation Plots
(0.55 ac) = All Plots Passed in MY5
I Privet Treated Feb 2018 (0.58 ac)
VPA: Privet Resprouts (0.53 ac)
PP3
P P 2 Sta. 52+37.58
Figure 2B
Current Condition Plan View
Monitoring Year 5
UT to Mill Swamp Site
Conservation Easement
Q Crest Gauge
Flow Gauges
A Photo Points
Cross Sections
Monitoring Well Year 5 Success
Veg Plot 4:
• Wells Meeting Criteria
647 stems/ac
0 Wells NOT Meeting Criteria
All Wetlands No
® Restored Wetland Area
of Stream (3.36 ac)
As -Built Streams by Mitigation Type
Enhancement I
Privet Resprouts
Restoration: Multi -Thread Channel (No Top of Bank)
MSAW23 (0.53 ac)
Veg Plot 5:
567 stems/ac
Veg Plot 6:
324 stems/ac
Note: At the suggestion of the IRT during the site visit on 5/1/18 , Wells MSAW3 and MSAW7 were relocated to help
confirm restored wetland areas. They had previously been located on, orjust outside, the wetland boundary line.
INTERNATIONAL
0 100 200 N
Feet
DMS Project # 95019
Restoration: Single -Thread Channel
No Mitigation Credit
Privet Treated g
in Feb 2018 Vegetation Plots
(0.55 ac) = All Plots Passed in MY5
I Privet Treated Feb 2018 (0.58 ac)
VPA: Privet Resprouts (0.53 ac)
PP3
P P 2 Sta. 52+37.58
Figure 2B
Current Condition Plan View
Monitoring Year 5
UT to Mill Swamp Site

Table 5a. Visual St .. m M,,ph,[,gy Stability Anesament
UT to Mill Swamp R,,t .. ti— Project: DMS Project ID No. 95019
.
mi
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95019)

Table 5b. Stream Problem Areas (SPAS)
UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95019
Feature Issue
Station Number
Suspected Cause
Photo Number
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95019)

Table 6a. Vegetation Conditions
Assessment
UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project: EEP Project ID No. 95019
Total Planted Acreage:
15.2
Mapping
Vegetation Category
Deflations
Threshold
CCPV
Number of
Combined
of Planted Acreage
lacteal
Depiction
Polygons
Acreage
L Bare Areas
Very limited cover both woody and herbaceous material.
0.1
NA
0
0.00
0.0%
2. Low Stem Density Areas
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 4 or 5
0.1
NA
0
0.00
0.0%
stem count criteria.
Total
0
0.00
0.0%
3. Areas of Poor Growth Rates or
Areas with woody stems or a size class that are obviously small given the
0.25NA
0
0.00
0.0%
Vigor
onitoring year.
Cumulative Total
0
0.00
0.0%
Easement Acreage:
19.6
Mapping
CCPV
Number ofCombined
Vegetation Category
Deflations
Threshold
Depiction
Polygons
Acrea e
% of Easement Acreage
5. Invasive Areas of Concern
Areas of points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale)
1000 ft'
Yellow polygon
l
0.53
2.7%
6. Easement Encroachment Areas
Areas of points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale)
nonc
NA
0
0.00
0.0%
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95019)

Table 6b. Vegetation Problem Areas (VPAs)
UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95019
Feature Issue
Station Numbers / Location
Suspected Cause
Photos
Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense)
Station 43+75 to 46+50 (along the outermost portion of
Re -sprouts
See Appendix B
the left bank). See CCPV for exact location
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95019)

UT to Mill Swamp: Stream Station Photographs
Photo Point 1— Upstream at Culvert
Photo Point 2 — Log Jam
Photo Point 3 — Log Jam Photo Point 4 — Log Weir/Log Jam
Photo Point 5 Log Weir
V.
Photo Point 6 Log Weir

r4�
Zy.
MVI
qP
3. 1
66, oi
.............. IMI
MMUM MWO-W10"I'llilplu,

Sp ;
wR I✓ iP � .>y � r I ' �. s
A w,
_-�7 A tai;� ALL
r
v
� d
�
Y
Y
i
�
Y
m
r
v
� d
�

UT to Mill Swamp: Crest Gauge and Flow Camera Photographs
Crest gauge reading: 1.50 ft from 5/31/18 storm
Crest gauge reading: 1.50 ft from 5/31/18 storm
Crest gauge reading: 3.41 ft from 9/15/18
(Hurricane Florence)
Debris wrack line on floodplain of UT -1 c
Crest gauge reading: 3.41 ft from 9/15/18
(Hurricane Florence)
Debris wrack line outside channel on UT -lb

UT to Mill Swamp: Crest Gauge and Flow Camera Photographs
Flow Camera #1 on 1/14/18 (flow in channel)
,'low Camera #1 on 9/19/18 (post-Hurrican(
1lorence) with flow in channel
;,, 1
Flow looking upstream on Reach UTlb at
Station 19+00 on 2/28/18
Flow Camera #1 on 3/8/18 (flow in channel)
low Camera #1 on 9/19/18 (post-Hurrican(
rlorence) with flow in channel
low looking downstream on Reach UT1b a
Station 19+00 on 2/28/18

UT to Mill Swamp: Vegetation Plot Photographs
Vegetation Plot 1
Vegetation Plot 2
Vegetation Plot 3
Vegetation Plot 5
Vegetation Plot 4
Vegetation Plot 6
s? 1
4'. NI � M1L 54. tri
F
Vegetation Plot 5
Vegetation Plot 4
Vegetation Plot 6

UT to Mi Swamp: Ve Vegetation Problem Are Photographs
V#A (Ligu *um ane s r s r ms 10/30/18
VI
V«A (Li a *am sines r s r Uq 12/04/18
Ligu *am sines (treated in Feb 2018
VPA (Ligu yum an n er s r Uq 10/30/18
Liutrum /n ne(tIe ted in Feb 2018
Liu yum /n ne(!£e ted in Feb 2018

Appendix C
Vegetation Plot Data

Table 7. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment (Planted Stems)
UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95019
MY5 Planted Density /
Plot ID
Vegetation Survival Threshold Met?
As -built Planted Stem
2018 Tract Mean
Density*
I
Y
567/1052
459
2
Y
324/931
3
Y
1 324/1012
4
Y
647/931
5
Y
567/809
6
Y
324/728
Note: *Planted /As -Built Planted Stem Count reflects the changes in stem density for each monitoring year as compared to their initial as
built planting density. These stem counts reflect the changes in the planted stem density ONLY. See Table 9c and 9d for volunteer
species totals.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95019)

Report Prepared By Scott King
Date Prepared 11/29/2018 12:01
abase name MichaelBaker_UTMillSwamp.mdb
abase location\\CARYFSl.bkr.mbakercorp.com\PROJECTS\124578\Monitoring\Post-Restoration\Veg Plots
iputer name CARYLAPOWERSI
size 59187200
CRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT --- —--- —
idata
Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a summary of project(s) and project data.
planted
Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre, for each year. This excludes live stakes.
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.
List of plots surveyed with location and summary data (live stems, dead stems, missing, etc.),
r
Frequency distribution of vigor classes for stems for all plots,
r by Slip
Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species.
age
List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences and percent of total stems impacted by each,
age by Slip
Damage values tallied by type for each species.
age by Plot
Damage values tallied by type for each plot.
led Stems by Plot and Slip
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
Stems by Plot and spp
excluded.
EJECT SUMMARY -----------------------
act Code
95019
act Name
UT to Mill Swamp
ription
r Basin
White Oak
b(ft)
5237
m -to -edge width (ft)
50
(sq m)
48648.4
sired Plots (calculated)
12
pled Plots
6
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95019)

to Mill Swann) Restoration Proiect: DMS Proiect ID No. 95019
biflora
d10 d? °m dj 0 °m
, o� o� o� o� 4Z o�
0 yw�' pQ p0 p -b p0 p0 p0
Q 2�F r� O O O O O O
Fy ^ci ^� ^� ^� ^� ^moi
h OC Qpm h ynQ' yO y0 y0 y0 �O h0
G°��°wmo�
reen ash
1
1 1
1.0 1
iliptree
3
1
3.0 3
vamp tupelo
5
4
1.3 1
vamp bay
3
3
1.0 1
iurel oak
2
2
1.0
vercup oak
7
4
1.8 3
vamp chestnut oak
12
5
2.4 3
,ater oak
2
2
1.0 1
her bark oak
17
6
2.8 1
,illow oak
ald cypress
merican elm
68
38
14
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95019)
16 1 14

Table 9b. Vegetation Planted Stem Count Densities
UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95019
Species Latin Name Common Name
1
2
Plots
3
4
5
6
Year 5
Totals
Yearly Average Planted
stems/acre
Carpinus caroliniana American hornbeam
2
1
1
4
Fraxinus pens Ivanica green ash
1
1
Liriodendron tuli ifera tuli tree
3
3
N ssa biflora swamp tupelo
1
1
1
2
5
Persea palustris swamp bay
1
1
1
3
Quercus laurifolia laurel oak
1
1
2
Quercus 1 rata overcup oak
3
1
1
1
2
1
7
Quercus michauxii swamp chestnut oak
3
1
3
1
4
12
Quercus nigra water oak
1
1
2
Quercus pagoda cher bark oak
1
4
1
5
4
2
17
Quercus phellos willow oak
1
1
4
1
7
Taxodium distichum bald cypress
2
2
Ulmus americana jAmeriran elm
1
2
3
*Number of Planted Stems Per Plot
14
8
8
16
14
8
68
Stems/acre Year 5 (Fall 2018)
567
324
324
648
567
324
459
Stems/acre Year 4 (Fall 2017)**
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Stems/acre Year 3 (Fall 2016)
567
405
243
688
567
364
472
Stems/acre Year 2 (Fall 2015)
567
405
283
688
567
283
465
Stems/acre Year 2* (Fall 2014)
607
445
486
688
607
486
553
Stems/acre Supplemental Year 1 (Spring 2014)
648
486
486
769
648
607
607
Stems/acre Year 1 (Fall 2013)
648
567
567
769
688
648
648
Stems/acre Initial
1052
931
1012
931
809
728
911
Notes:
*Planted Stem Count reflects the changes in planted stem density ONLY. See Table 9c and 9d for volunteer species totals.
**Supplemental planting in and around the vicinity of Vegetation Plot 3 was completed on March 20, 2017. Monitoring year 4 did not require vegetation plot monitoring.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95019)

Table 9c. CVS Density Per Plot
UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95019
Current Plot Data (MY5 2018)
Scientific Name Common Name
Species Type
95019-01-0001
P v
T
95019-01-0002
P V
T
95019-01-0003
P v
T
95019-01-0004
P V
T
95019-01-0005
P V
T
95019-01-0006
P V
T
Betula nigra river birch
Tree
Callicar a americana American beautyberry
Shrub
3
3
1
1
Carpinus caroliniana American hornbeam
Tree
2
2
1
1
1
1
Clethra alnifolia coastal sweetpepperbush
Shrub
1
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash
Tree
1
1
Itea virginica Virginia sweets ire
Shrub
Liriodendron tuli ifera tuli tree
Tree
3
3
1
1
N ssa biflors swamp tupelo
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
Parses palustris swamp bay
tree
1
2
3
1
1
1
1
Quercus laurifolia laurel oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
Quercus 1 rata overcup oak
Tree
3
3
1
1
2
2
1
1
Quercus michauxii swamp chestnut oak
Tree
3
3
1
1
3
3
1
1
4
4
Quercus nigra water oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
Quemus pagoda cher bark oak
Tree
1
1
4
4
1
1
5
5
4
4
2
2
Quercus phellos willow oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
4
4
1
1
Salix nigra black willow
Tree
I
1
1
1
1
10
1
Taxodium distichum bald cypress
Tree
2
2
Ulmus americana American elm
Tree
1
1
2
2
Acer Rubrum Red Maple
Shrub or Tree
1
1
Scientific Name Common Name
Betula nigra river birch
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
Species Type
Tree
141
81
566.56
P
61
1
0.02
31
242.81
MYS (2018)
v
2
id
809.3
T
8
51
323.75
P I
1
1
0.02
1
40.47
MY4 (2016)
v
9
6
364.22
T
81 3
1
0.02
5 3
323.75 121.41
Annual Means
MY3 (2015)
P v
11
445.1
T
161
7
P
1
11
1
0.02
1
40.47
MY2 (2014)
v
1
17
8
687.97
T
1
14
7
566.56
P
10
1
0.02
1
404.69
MY3 (2013)
v
24
8
971.25
T
8 0
1
0.02
6 0
323.75 0
8
323.7
Cafficarpa americana American beautyberry
Shrub
4
4
Carpinus caroliniana American hornbeam
Tree
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
5
5
Ciethra alnifolia coastal sweelpepperbush
Shrub
1
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash
Tree
1
1
1
1
Itea virginica Virginia sweets ire
Shrub
1
1
2
2
2
2
Liriodendron tulipifers tuliptree
Tree
3
1
4
3
3
6
3
3
6
6
7
7
Nyasa biflora swamp tupelo
Tree
5
5
71
7
71
7
9
1
9
12
12
Parses palustris swamp bay
tree
3
21
5
3
3
3
31
2
2
61
6
Quercus laurifolia laurel oak
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
Quercus lyrata overcup oak
Tree
7
7
7
7
9
9
9
9
9
9
Quercus michauxii swamp chestnut oak
Tree
12
12
13
13
15
15
20
20
21
21
Quercus nigra water oak
Tree
2
2
3
3
2
2
3
3
6
6
Quercus pagoda cher bark oak
Tree
17
17
17
17
14
14
14
14
12
12
Quercus phellos willow oak
Tree
7
7
7
7
7
7
9
9
10
10
Salix nigra black willow
lTree
12
12
Taxodium distichum bald cypressree
2
2
Ulmus americana American elm
Tree
33
3
3
2
2
4
4
4
4
Acer Rubrum Red Maple
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10
Volunteers
Shrub or Tree
P
v
T
681
13
458.64
1
211
6
0.15
6
141.64
Planted
Volunteers
Total
1
89
17
600.28
70
12
472.13
3
6
0.15
1
20.23
73
12
492.37
691
12
465.39
01
6
0.15
0
0
69
12
465.3
821
12
553.07
11
6
0.15
1
6.74
82
12
553.07
2
96
12
647.50
0
6
0.15
0
0
2
96
12
647.50
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95019)

Table 9d. Vegetation Plot Summary Information
UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95019
UT to Mill Swamp (#95019)
Year 5 (30-Oct-2018)
Vegetation Plot Summary Information
Riparian Buffer Stream Wetland
Unknown Growth
Plot#
Stems' Stems' Live Stakes Invasives Volunteers;
Tota 14
Form
1
n/a 14 0 0
6
20
0
2
n/a 8 0 0
1
9
0
3
n/a 8 0 0
2
11
0
4
n/a 16 0 0
1
17
0
5
n/a 14 0 0
10
24
0
6
n/a 8 0 0
0
8
0
Wetland/Stream Vegetation Totals
(per acre)
Stream/ Wetland
Plot # Stems' Volunteers; Tota 14 Success
Criteria Met?
1 567 243 809
Yes
2 324 40 364
Yes
3 324 121 445
Yes
4 647 40 688
Yes
5 567 405 971
Yes
6 324 0 324
Yes
Project Avg 459 148 594
Yes
Riparian Buffer Vegetation Totals
(per acre)
Riparian Buffer Success
Plot # Stems' Criteria Met?
1 n/a
2 n/a
3 n/a
4 n/a
5 n/a
6 n/a
Project Avg n/a
Stem Class
characteristics
Buffer Stems
Native planted hardwood trees. Does NOT include shrubs. No pines. No vines.
Stream/ Wetland Stems
Native planted woody stems. Includes shrubs, does NOT include live stakes. No vines
Volunteers
Native woody stems. Not planted. No vines.
Total
Planted + volunteer native woody stems. Includes live stakes. Excl. exotics. Excl. vines.
Colors for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
-
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95019)

Appendix D
Stream Survey Data

Figure 3. Cross-sections with Annual Overlays.
Permanent Cross-section 1
(Year 5 Data - Collected November 2018)
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF
IBKFAreal Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
I BH Ratio
I ER
I BKF Elev
I TOB Elev
Riffle
E
1 7.0 1 8.5
0.8
1.8
1 10.3
1 1.0
1 12.3
1 52.91
1 53.04
UT to Mill Swamp Cross-section 1
56
55
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
54
c
°
53
--------
M
w
52
As -Built
—Year 1
Year 2
Year 2*
51
Year 3
--4w— Year 5
MY5 BKF= 52.96'
MY5 BKF
---0--- Bankfull
50
--o--- Floodprone
0 20 40 60 80 100
Station (ft)
Note: Per DMS/IRT request, bank height ratio for MY5 has been calculated using the as -built bankfull area. All other values were
calculated using the as -built bankfull elevation, as was done for previous monitoring reports.

Permanent Cross-section 2
(Year 5 Data - Collected November 2018)
x2 rtb
0 20 40 60 80 100
Station (ft)
Note: Per DMS/IRT request, bank height ratio for MY5 has been calculated using the as -built bankfull area. All other values were
calculated using the as -built bankfull elevation, as was done for previous monitoring reports.
Stream
BKF
BKF
Max BKF
Feature
I Type
BKF Area I Width
Depth
Depth
W/D
I BH Ratio I ER I BKF Elev I TOB Elev
Pool
-
10.9 8.9
1.2
1.7
7.2
1 - I - 1 52.66 1 52.76
UT to Milli Swamp Cross-section 2
56
55
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------o
54
= 53
_
p-
\-------
> 52
aD
w
51
As -Built -Y 1
Year 2 Year 2*
50
Year 3 Year 5
--o-- Bankfull --o--- Floodprone
49
0 20 40 60 80 100
Station (ft)
Note: Per DMS/IRT request, bank height ratio for MY5 has been calculated using the as -built bankfull area. All other values were
calculated using the as -built bankfull elevation, as was done for previous monitoring reports.

Permanent Cross-section 3
(Year 5 Data - Collected November 2018)
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool
-
11.4
15.6
0.7
2.0
21.2
-
-
52.40
52.27
UT to Mill Swamp Cross-section 3
56
55
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------o
54
= 53
0
> 52
aD
)r77
LU
51
-Year
50
-Year 3 (Year 5
--o--- Bankfull --o--- Floodprone
49
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Station (ft)
Note: Per DMS/IRT request, bank height ratio for MY5 has been calculated using the as -built bankfull area. All other values were
calculated using the as -built bankfull elevation, as was done for previous monitoring reports.

Permanent Cross-section 4
(Year 5 Data - Collected November 2018)
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF
BKF Area Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle
C
6.4 9.0
0.7
1.5
12.7
1.1 11.6 52.25 52.49
56
55
54
53
0
> 52
am
LU
51
50
UT to Mill Swamp Cross-section 4
As -Built—• Year 1
Year 2 Year 2*
Year 3 t Year 5
MY5 BKF= 52.36' MY5 BKF Bankfull
--o--- Floodprone
20 40 60 80 100
Station (ft)
Note: Per DMS/IRT request, bank height ratio for MY5 has been calculated using the as -built bankfull area. All other values were
calculated using the as -built bankfull elevation, as was done for previous monitoring reports.

Permanent Cross-section 5
(Year 5 Data - Collected November 2018)
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
C
7.1
10.7
0.7
1.5
16.2
1.0
10.5
50.85
50.45
UT to Mill Swamp Cross-section 5
55
54
53
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------d
52
0
> 51
--------
LU
50
As -Built —Year 1
Year 2 Year 2*
49
Year 3 --4&— Year 5
MY5 BKF= 51.08' MY5 BKF --o--- Bankfull
-- G--- Floodprone
48
0 20 40 60 80 100
Station (ft)
Note: Per DMS/IRT request, bank height ratio for MY5 has been calculated using the as -built bankfull area. All other values were
calculated using the as -built bankfull elevation, as was done for previous monitoring reports.

Permanent Cross-section 6
(Year 5 Data - Collected November 2018)
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF
BKF Area Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Pool
-
11.2 11.5
1.0
1.9
11.8
- - 50.68 50.65
UT to Milli Swamp Cross-section 6
54
53
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
52
51
--
o
50
m
w 49
As -Built -Year 1
Year 2 Year 2*
48
Year 3 (Year 5
--o--- Bankfull ---0-- Floodprone
47
0 20 40 60 80 100
Station (ft)
Note: Per DMS/IRT request, bank height ratio for MY5 has been calculated using the as -built bankfull area. All other values were
calculated using the as -built bankfull elevation, as was done for previous monitoring reports.

Permanent Cross-section 7
(Year 5 Data - Collected November 2018)
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool
-
17.0
15.2
1.1
2.2
13.6
-
-
49.80
49.65
Note: Per DMS/IRT request, bank height ratio for MY5 has been calculated using the as -built bankfull area. All other values were
calculated using the as -built bankfull elevation, as was done for previous monitoring reports.
UT to Mill Swamp Cross-section 7
54
53
Tree base
52
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------0
51
0
>
50
----------
a)
LU
49
As -Built
-Year 1
Year 2
Year 2*
48
Year 3
Year 5
--[a-- Bankfull
---0-- Floodprone
47
0 20 40 60 80 100
120 140
Station (ft)
Note: Per DMS/IRT request, bank height ratio for MY5 has been calculated using the as -built bankfull area. All other values were
calculated using the as -built bankfull elevation, as was done for previous monitoring reports.

Permanent Cross-section 8
(Year 5 Data - Collected November 2018)
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
E
16.6
10.5
1.6
2.5
6.7
1.2
8.0
48.70
48.66
UT to Mill Swamp Cross-section 8
54
53
52
--.
51
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
50
M
49
LU
48
As -Built —Year 1
Year 2 Year 2*
47
MY5 BKF= 48.21' —Year 3 (Year 5
MY5 BKF ---0--- Bankfull
46
0 20 40 60 80 100
Station (ft)
Note: Per DMS/IRT request, bank height ratio for MY5 has been calculated using the as -built bankfull area. All other values were
calculated using the as -built bankfull elevation, as was done for previous monitoring reports.

Table 10. Baseline Stream Data Summary
UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95019
Reach UTIc (1,513 LF)
Parameter
USGS
Regional Curve Interval
Pre-Existing Condition'
Gauge
(Harman et at, 1999)*
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
LL UL Eq.
Min
Mean
Med Max SD
n
BF Width (ft)
-----
23.0 80.0 9.9
6.8
-----
----- 8.7 -----
2
Floodprone Width (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
8.2
-----
----- 11.8 -----
2
BF Mean Depth (ft)
-----
2.3 5.8 1.3
0.8
-----
----- 1.0 -----
2
BF Max Depth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
1.1
-----
----- 1.4 -----
2
BF Cross-sectional Area (ftp)
-----
80.0 300.0 16.2
5.6
-----
----- 8.6 -----
2
Width/Depth Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
8
-----
----- 9 -----
2
Entrenchment Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
1.2
-----
----- 1.4 -----
2
Bank Height Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
4.2
-----
----- 2.8 -----
2
d50 (mm)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
0.25
----- ----- -----
12
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
Radius of Curvature (ft)
---
----- ----- ---
----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
Meander Wavelength (ft)
---
----- ----- ---
----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
Meander Width Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
Pool Length (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
----
----- ----- ----- -----
Pool Spacing (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
Pool Max Depth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
1.1
-----
----- 1.16 -----
2
Pool Volume (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
Substrate and Transport Parameters
Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
SC% / Sa% / G% / B% / Be%
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
- --
----- ----- -----
0.10 / 0.15 / 0.25 / 1.2 / 2.72
Reach Shear Stress (competency)1b/f
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- -----
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve)
---
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m2
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- -----
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- 0.66 ----- -----
Impervious cover estimate (%)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
----- -----
Rosgen Classification
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
Ge
----- ----- ----- -----
BF Velocity (fps)
-----
----- ----- -----
0.8
-----
----- 1.2 -----
2
BF Discharge (cfs)
-----
290.0 2000.0 66.0
-----
6.48
----- ----- ----- -----
35
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
Channel length (ft)2
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
4091
----- ----- ----- -----
Sinuosity
-----
----- ----- ---
----
1.13
----- ----- ----- -----
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
0.0045
----- ----- -----
2
BF slope (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- ---
-
-----
----- ----
Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
BEHI VL% / L% / M% / H% / VH% / E%
-----
----- ----- ---
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
Biological or Other
-----
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 geometry relationships for North Carolina streams. Wildland Hydrology. AWRA Symposium
Proceedings. D.S. Olsen and J.P. Potyondy, eds. American Water Resources Association. June 30-July
2, 1999. Bozeman, MT.
Existing conditions survey data is compiled for the entire UTl Reach within the project limits.
Bulk samples taken since pebble count procedure is not applicable for sand-bed streams.
' Values were chosen based on sand-bed reference reach data and past project evaluations.
Composite reference reach information from lohannah Creek, Johnston County; Panther Branch, Brunswick County; Rocky Swamp, Halifax County; and Beaver
Dam Branch, Jones County
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95019)

Table 10. Baseline Stream Data Summary (continuted)
UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95019
Reach UTIc (1,513 LF)
Reference Reach(es)
Data
Parameter
Beaverdarn Branch
NC Coastal Plain Composite Data4
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Min
Mean
Med Max SD
n
Min
Mean Med
Max SD n
BFWidth (ft)-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- ----- -----
Floodprone Width (ft)
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- ----- -----
BF Mean Depth (ft)
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
---------
----- ----- -----
BF Max Depth (ft)
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----
----- ----- -----
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft)
-----
24
----- ----- -----
2
7.8
----- -----
95.9 ----- -----
Width/Depth Ratio
11
-----
----- 17 -----
2
8
----- -----
14 ----- -----
Entrenchment Ratio
10
-----
----- 11 -----
2
4
----- -----
13 ----- -----
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
-----
----- 1.3 -----
2
1.0
----- -----
1.3 ----- -----
d50(mm)
-----
0.5
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- ----- -----
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- ----- -----
Radius of Curvature (ft)
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- ----- -----
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
1.8
-----
----- 2.4 -----
-----
1.5
----- -----
3.0 ----- -----
Meander Wavelength (ft)
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- ----- -----
Meander Width Ratio
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
2.0
----- -----
6.3 ----- -----
Profile
Riffle Length (11)
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----
----- ----- -----
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----
----- ----- -----
Pool Length (ft)
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
---------
----- ----- -----
Pool Spacing (ft)
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- ----- -----
Pool Max Depth (ft)
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- ----- -----
Pool Volume (ft')
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- ----- -----
Substrate and Transport Parameters
Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- ----- -----
SC% / Sao/. G% B% Be%
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- ----- -----
d16 / d35 d50 d84 d95
0.3 / 0.4 0.5 0.9 / 1.2
-----
----- -----
----- ----- -----
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/F
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- ----- -----
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve)
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- ----- -----
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/M2
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----------
----- ----- -----
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
-----
-----
----- 3.0 -----
-----
1.0
----- -----
19.5 ----- -----
Impervious cover estimate (%)-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- ----- -----
Rosgen Classification
-----
C5c
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
E5/C5 -----
----- ----- -----
BF Velocity (fps)
-----
1.5
----- ----- -----
-----
1.0
----- -----
1.4 ----- -----
BF Discharge (cfs)
-----
37
----- ----- -----
-----
10
----- -----
127 ----- -----
35
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- ----- -----
Channel length (ft)2
.....
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- ----- -----
Sinuosity
-----
1.66
----- ----- -----
-----
1.22
----- -----
1.77 ----- -----
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (11/11)
-----
0.0004
----- ----- -----
-----
0.0004
----- -----
0.0022 ----- -----
BF slope (ft/ft)
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
---------
----- ----- -----
Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- ----- -----
BEHI VL% / L% / M% / H% / VH% / E%
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- ----- -----
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- ----- -----
Biological or Other
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
- -----
----- -----
----- ----- -----
Harman, W.A., G.D. Jennings, J.M. Part--, 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.
I Existing conditions survey data is compiled for the entire UTI Reach within the project limits.
2 Bulk samples taken since pebble count procedure is not applicable for sand -bed streams.
3 Values were chosen based on sand -bed reference reach data and past project evaluations.
4 Composite reference reach information from Joharmah Creek, Johnston County; Panther Branch, Brunswick County; Rocky Swamp, Halifax County; and Beaver
Dam Branch, Jones County
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95019)

Table 10. Baseline Stream Data Summary (continued)
UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95019
Reach UTIc (1,513 LF)
Parameter
As -built
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
min
Mean Med
Max
SD n
Min
Mean Med
Max SD
n
BF Width (ft)
-----
10.3 -----
-----
----- 1
10.1
----- -----
13.8 -----
4
Floodprone Width (ft)
-----
>100 -----
-----
----- 1
80.1
----- -----
105.0 -----
4
BF Mean Depth (ft)
-----
0.7 -----
-----
----- 1
0.6
----- -----
1.2 -----
4
BF Max Depth (ft)
-----
1.0 -----
-----
----- 1
1.1
----- -----
2.0 -----
4
BF Cross-sectional Area (f[2)
-----
7.6 -----
-----
----- 1
7.5
----- -----
12.3 -----
4
Width/Depth Ratio
-----
14 -----
-----
----- 1
8.3
----- -----
19.4 -----
4
Entrenchment Ratio
-----
>10 -----
-----
----- 1
7.9
----- -----
9.4 -----
4
Bank Height Ratio
-----
1.0 -----
-----
----- 1
1.0
----- -----
1.1 -----
4
d50 (nrn)
-----
0.25 -----
-----
----- -----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
Pattern
Channel Beftwidth (ft)
35
----- -----
60
----- ----3
38.0
79.0 -----
120.0 -----
-----
Radius of Curvature (ft)
20
----- -----
30
----- ----3
21.0
26.0 -----
31.0 -----
-----
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
2.0
----- -----
3.0
----- ----3
38.0
79.0 -----
120.0 -----
-----
Meander Wavelength (ft)
80
----- -----
110
----- ----3
72.0
104.0 -----
124.0 -----
-----
Meander Width Ratio
3.5
----- -----
6.0
----- ----3
3.5
6.0 -----
8.0 -----
-----
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
-----
----- -----
-----
----- -----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.004
----- -----
0.010
----- -----
0.0046
0.0043 -----
0.0039 -----
-----
Pool Length (ft)
-----
----- -----
-----
----- -----
-----
Pool Spacing (ft)
30
----- -----
80
----- -----
41
----- 72
57 -----
-----
Pool Max Depth (ft)
-----
1.6 -----
-----
----- -----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
Pool Volume (ft)
-----
----- -----
-----
----- -----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
Substrate and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%-----
----- -----
-----
----- -----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
----
SC% / Sal/. G% B% Be%
-----
----- -----
-----
----- -----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
----
d16 / d35 d50 d84 d95
-----
----- -----
-----
----- -----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
----
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/fl
-----
0.149 -----
-----
----- -----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve)
-----
----- -----
-----
----- -----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/n12
-----
4.181 -----
-----
----- -----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
-----
----- -----
0.66
----- -----
-----
----- -----
0.66 -----
-----
Impervious cover estimate (%)
-----
----- -----
-----
----- -----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
Rosgen Classification
-----
C5 -----
-----
----- -----
-----
C5 -----
----- -----
-----
BF Velocity (fps)
-----
1.76 -----
-----
----- -----
-----
3.0 -----
----- -----
-----
BF Discharge (cfs)
-----
12.9 -----
-----
----- -----
-----
340.0 -----
----- -----
-----
35
-----
----- -----
-----
----- -----
-----
3523 -----
----- -----
-----
Channel length (ft)2
.....
1453 -----
-----
----- -----
-----
4238 -----
----- -----
-----
Sinuosity
-----
1.24 -----
-----
-----
-----
1.20 -----
----- -----
-----
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
-----
0.0038 -----
-----
----- -----
-----
0.0042 -----
----- -----
-----
BF slope (ft/ft)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
0.0054 -----
----- -----
-----
Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
-----
----- -----
-----
----- -----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
BEHI VL% / L% / M% / H% / VH% / E%
-----
----- -----
-----
----- -----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
-----
----- -----
-----
----- -----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
Biological or Other
-----
----- -----
-----
----- -----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
Harman, W.A., G.D. Jennings, J.M. Part--, 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.
Wildla7d Hydrology. AWRA Symposium Proceedings. D.S. Olsen
and J.P. Potyondy, eds.
American Water Resources Association. June 30 -July 2, 1999. Bozeman, MT.
I Existing conditions survey data is compiled for the entire UTI Reach within the project limits.
2 Bulk samples taken since pebble count procedure is not applicable for sand -bed streams.
3 Values were chosen based on sand -bed reference reach data and past project evaluations.
4 Composite reference reach information from Johannah Creek, Johnston County; Panther Branch, Brunswick County; Rocky Swamp, Halifax County; and Beaver Dam Branch, Jones County
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95019)

Table 11. Cross-section Morphology Data
UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95019
Reach UTlc (1,513 LF)
Cross-section X-1 (Riffle)
Cross-section X-2 (Pool)
Cross-section X-3 (Pool)
Cross-section X-4 (Riffle)
Dimension and substrate Base
MY]
MY2*
MY2 MY3 MY 4
MY5
MY+ Base
MYl
MY2*
MY2
MY3 MY 4
MY5
MY+ Base
MYl
MY2*
MY2
MY3 MY 4
MY5
MY+ Base
MYl
MY2*
MY2
MY3 MY 4
MY5 MY+
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
BF Width ft 11.9
11.1
11.3
10.1 8.8
8.5
15.4
22.5
21.3
12.7
11.9
8.9
21.3
39.2
33.5
19.6
18.1
15.6
11.2
11.5
11.3
9.6
9.7
9.0
BF Mean Depth (ft) 0.6
0.6
0.7
0.6 0.8
0.8
1.1
0.7
0.7
1.0
1.0
1.2
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.7
Width/Depth Ratio 18.9
17.7
16.1
15.9 11.7
10.3
14.4
31.2
30.1
12.6
12.0
7.2
33.9
82.4
72.8
29.6
27.8
21.2
16.5
15.4
14.7
14.6
14.3
12.7
BF Cross-sectional Area (ftp) 7.5
6.9
8.0
6.4 6.6
7.0
16.6
16.2
15.0
12.8
11.9
10.9
13.4
18.7
15.4
12.9
11.7
11.4
7.5
8.5
8.7
6.3
6.6
6.4
BF Max Depth ft 1.4
1.3
1.6
1.6 1.7
1.8
1 2.4
2.2
2.1
1.8
1.8
1.7
1.5
1.8
1.8
1.6
1.8
2.0
1.1
1.3
1.5
1.5
1.6
1.5
Width of Floodprone Area (ft) 104
104
104
104 104
104
108
108
108
108
108
108
117
117
117
117
117
117
104
105
104
104
104
105
Entrenchment Ratio 8.8
9.4
9.2
10.3 11.9 --
12.3
-
-
-
-
- --
-
-
-
-
-
- --
-
9.4
9.1
9.2
10.8
10.8 --
11.6
Bank Height Ratio 1.0
1.1
1.0
1.0 1.1 --
1.0
-
-
-
-
- --
-
-
-
-
-
- --
-
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.2 --
1.1
Wetted Perimeter ft 13.2
12.3
12.7
11.4 10.3
9.9
17.6
23.9
22.7
14.7
13.9
10.2
22.5
40.2
34.4
20.9
1944
16.7
12.5
12.9
12.9
11.0
11.0
9.9
Hydraulic Radius (ft) 0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6 0.6
0.7
0.9
0.7
0.7
0.9
0.9
1.1
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.6
Based on current/developing bankfull feature
BF Width (ft)
BF Mean Depth (ft)
Width/Depth Ratio
BF Cross-sectional Area (ftp)
BF Max Depth ft
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
Entrenchment Ratio
Bank Height Ratio
Wetted Perimeter ft
Hydraulic Radius ft
d50 (mm)
Cross-section X-5 Riffle
Cross-section X-6 (Pool)
Cross-section 7 Pool
Cross-section X-8 Riffle
Dimension and substrate Base
MYl
MY2*
MY2 MY3 MY4
MY5
MY+ Base
MYl
MY2*
MY2
MY3 MY4
MY5
MY+ Base
MYl
MY2*
MY2
MY3 MY4
MY5
MY+ Base
MYl
MY2*
MY2
MY3 MY4
MY5 MY+
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
BF Width (ft) 13.8
14.6
13.4
11.5 11.2
10.7
15.1
31.0
22.9
13.3
13.9
11.5
15.5
16.6
16.3
15.8
15.6
15.2
10.1
10.7
12.2
9.6
10.2
10.5
BF Mean Depth ft 0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7 0.7
0.7
0.8
0.4
0.5
0.7
0.8
LO
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.2
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.3
1.4
1.6
1.6
Width/Depth Ratio 19.4
19.8
1940
17.3 15.5
16.2
20.1
78.8
46.4
18.4
17.5
11.8
14.5
14.9
15.0
14.7
13.4
13.6
8.3
8.4
9.1
6.8
6.2
6.7
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft2) 9.9
10.8
9.5
7.6 8.0
7.1
11.3
12.2
11.3
9.7
11.1
11.2
16.7
18.4
17.7
17.0
18.2
17.0
12.3
13.6
16.3
13.7
16.7
16.6
BF Max Depth (ft) 1.3
1.4
1.6
1.5 1.6
1.5
1.8
1.6
1.7
1.7
1.8
1.9
2.0
2.1
2.2
2.0
2.5
2.2
2.0
2.2
2.7
2.1
2.6
2.5
Width of Floodprone Area ft 112
112
112
112 112
112
114
114
114
114
114
114
132
132
132
132
132
132
80
83
86
80
85
85
Entrenchment Ratio 8.1
7.7
8.4
9.8 10.1 --
10.5
-
-
-
-
- --
-
-
-
-
-
- --
-
7.9
7.8
7.1
8.3
8.4 --
8.0
Bank Height Ratio 1.0
1.0
1.1
1.1 1.2 --
1.0
-
-
-
-
- --
-
-
-
-
-
- --
-
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.2 --
1.2
Wetted Perimeter (ft) 15.3
16.1
14.9
12.8 12.6
11.5
16.6
31.8
23.9
14.8
15.5
13.3
17.7
18.8
18.5
17.9
17.9
16.7
12.5
13.2
14.8
12.5
13.4
12.6
Hydraulic Radius (ft) 0.6
0.7
0.6
0.6 0.6
0.6
0.7
0.4
0.5
0.7
0.7
11.8
0.9
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.2
1.3
Based on current/developing bankfull feature
BF Width (ft)
BF Mean Depth (ft)
Width/Depth Ratio
BF Cross-sectional Area (112)
BF Max Depth (ft)
Width of Floodprone Area ft
Entrenchment Ratio
Bank Height Ratio
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
Hydraulic Radius ft
d50 (mm)
Notes:
* As stated in the Special Notes section of the Excutive Summary: The US Army Corps of Engineers declined to release the credits generated from Year 2 (20 14) citing too short of a period between plant installation and monitoring, following construction. As such, this report (20 17) will be considered Year 4. All references to Year 4 included in this report will indicate monitoring activities conducted during 2017. Data collected during 2014 that
was previously considered monitoring Year 2 is labeled as Year 2*
1 UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Site does not require Year 4 and 6 monitoring cross-sectional surveys per Site Mitigation Plan
Note: Per DMS/lRT request, bank height ratio for MY5 has been calculated using the as -built bankfull area. All other values were calculated using the as -built bankfull elevation, as was done for previous monitoring reports.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95019)

Appendix E
Hydrologic Data

Figure 4. Wetland Gauge Graphs

UT to Mill Swamp Rain
1/1/2018 2/15/2018 4/1/2018 5/16/2018 6/30/2018 8/14/2018 9/28/2018 11/12/2018 12/27/2018
0.0
E 1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
AUG
20
15
10
5
0
m -5
3
-10
-15
o -20
a -25
d
-30
-35
-40
-45
50
UT to Mill Swamp Wetland Restoration Well
(MSAW2)
1/1/2018 2/15/2018 4/1/2018 5/16/2018 6/30/2018 8/14/2018 9/28/2018 11/12/2018 12/27/2018
Date
Ground
I I
Surface
-12 inches
I I
MSAW2
— Begin
00'r a
Growing
Season
End
Growing
Season
YRS MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
CRITERIA MET- 30 (12.3%)
7/25/2018 - 8/23/2018
GROWING SEASON
(3/18-11/16)
I
1/1/2018 2/15/2018 4/1/2018 5/16/2018 6/30/2018 8/14/2018 9/28/2018 11/12/2018 12/27/2018
Date

Note: Well MSAW3 was relocated by IRT suggestion on 6/7/18 as shown on the CCPV in Appendix B.
UT to Mill Swamp Rain
1/1/2018
2/15/2018 4/1/2018 5/16/2018 6/30/2018 8/14/2018 9/28/2018
11/12/2018 12/27/2018
0.0
5
1.0
2.0
E
3.0
4.0
I Well relocated I
I on 6/7/18 I
5.0
UT to Mill Swamp Wetland Restoration Well
(MSAW3)
10
5
GROWING SEASON
Ground
Surface
I
(3/18 - 11/16)
0
I
I
-12 inches
c
-5
L
a?
-10
MSAW3
R
-a
15
-
I
I
o
—Begin
0
-20
Growing
w
I
Season
-25
s
CL
I
—
— End
-30
I
Growing
YR5 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
Season
-35
CRITERIA MET- 32 (13.2%)
-40
7/25/2018
-45
-50
1/1/2018 2/15/2018 4/1/2018 5/16/2018 6/30/2018 8/14/2018 9/28/2018 11/12/2018 12/27/2018
Date
Note: Well MSAW3 was relocated by IRT suggestion on 6/7/18 as shown on the CCPV in Appendix B.
I Well relocated I
I on 6/7/18 I
Note: Well MSAW3 was relocated by IRT suggestion on 6/7/18 as shown on the CCPV in Appendix B.

UT to Mill Swamp Rain
1/1/2018 2/15/2018 4/1/2018 5/16/2018 6/30/2018 8/14/2018 9/28/2018 11/12/2018 12/27/2018
0.0
E 1.0
2.0
3.0
w 4.0
20
15
10
5
0
R
3 -5
o -10
C7
o -15
Y
CL -20
d
-25
-30
-35
40
UT to Mill Swamp Wetland Restoration Well
(MSAW4)
1/1/2018 2/15/2018 4/1/2018 5/16/2018 6/30/2018 8/14/2018 9/28/2018 11/12/2018 12/27/2018
Date
Ground
Surface
I I
'V
-12 inches
ff JL &h:j I
MSAW4
— Begin
Growing
Season
End
Growing
Season
YR5 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
CRITERIA MET- 244 (100%)
GROWING SEASON 3/18/2018 - 11/16/2018
(3/18 - 11/16)
1/1/2018 2/15/2018 4/1/2018 5/16/2018 6/30/2018 8/14/2018 9/28/2018 11/12/2018 12/27/2018
Date

UT to Mill Swamp Rain
1/1/2018 2/15/2018 4/1/2018 5/16/2018 6/30/2018 8/14/2018 9/28/2018 11/12/2018 12/27/2018
0.0
E 1.0
2.0
3.0
w 4.0
20
15
10
5
0
R
3 -5
'o -10
C7
o -15
Y
s
CL -20
d
-25
-30
-35
40
UT to Mill Swamp Wetland Restoration Well
(MSAW5)
1/1/2018 2/15/2018 4/1/2018 5/16/2018 6/30/2018 8/14/2018 9/28/2018 11/12/2018 12/27/2018
Date
Ground
Surface
I
I
-12 inches
Kit IPJL.,�
I
III,
MSAW5
I lip,—
Begin
Growing
Season
End
Growing
Season
YR5 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
GROWING SEASON I CRITERIA MET - 57 (23.5%)
(3/18-11/16) 3/18/2018 - 5/12/2018
1/1/2018 2/15/2018 4/1/2018 5/16/2018 6/30/2018 8/14/2018 9/28/2018 11/12/2018 12/27/2018
Date

UT to Mill Swamp Rain
1/1/2018 2/15/2018 4/1/2018 5/16/2018 6/30/2018 8/14/2018 9/28/2018 11/12/2018 12/27/2018
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
� 4.0
5.0
20
15
10
5
0
R
3 -5
'o -10
C7
o -15
Y
s
CL -20
d
D
-25
-30
-35
-40
UT to Mill Swamp Wetland Restoration Well
(MSAW6)
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
YR5 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
CRITERIA MET - 37 (15.2%)
GROWING SEASON I 7/23/2018 - 8/28/2018
(3/18 -11/16)
1/1/2018 2/15/2018 4/1/2018 5/16/2018 6/30/2018 8/14/2018 9/28/2018 11/12/2018 12/27/2018
Date
Ground
Surface
12 inches
MSAW6
Begin
Growing
Season
End
Growing
Season

UT to Mill Swamp Rain
1/1/2018 2/15/2018 4/1/2018 5/16/2018 6/30/2018 8/14/2018 9/28/2018 11/12/2018 12/27/2018
0.0
S1.0
2.0
3.0
w 4.0
5.0
20
15
10
5
`m 0
3 -5
o -10
c�
o -15
a -20
0
-25
-30
-35
-40
UT to Mill Swamp Wetland Restoration Well
(MSAW7)
I
I►�1
GROWING SEASON YR5 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
a W,11 ,71ocAted CRITERIA MET - 32 (13.2%)
17/18 7/25/2018 - 8/25/2018
1/1/2018 2/15/2018 4/1/2018 5/16/2018 6/30/2018 8/14/2018 9/28/2018 11/12/2018 12/27/2018
Date
Note: Well MSAW7 was relocated by IRT suggestion on 6/7/18 as shown on the CCPV in Appendix B.
Ground
Surface
12 inches
MSAW7
— Begin
Growing
Season
End
Growing
Season

UT to Mill Swamp Rain
1/1/2018 2/15/2018 4/1/2018 5/16/2018 6/30/2018 8/14/2018 9/28/2018 11/12/2018 12/27/2018
0.0
S1.0
2.0
3.0
w 4.0
5.0
20
15
10
= 5
0
3 -5
o -10
o -15
t
cL -20
d
D
-25
-30
-35
-40
1/1/2018
UT to Mill Swamp Wetland Restoration Well
(MSAW8)
2/15/2018 4/1/2018 5/16/2018 6/30/2018 8/14/2018 9/28/2018 11/12/2018 12/27/2018
Date
Ground
Surface
I
I
-12 inches
MSAW8
I I
I I
— Begin
Growing
Season
End
YRS MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
CRITERIA MET - 244 (100%)
GROWING SEASON I 3/18/2018 - 11/16/2018
(3/18 - 11/16)
Growing
Season
I I
2/15/2018 4/1/2018 5/16/2018 6/30/2018 8/14/2018 9/28/2018 11/12/2018 12/27/2018
Date

UT to Mill Swamp Rain
1/1/2018 2/15/2018 4/1/2018 5/16/2018 6/30/2018 8/14/2018 9/28/2018 11/12/2018 12/27/2018
0.0
F 1.0
2.0
3.0
w 4.0
5.0
20
15
10
5
0
L
Y
-5
cc
-10
c
o -15
L
-20
0
t -25
Y
o -30
-35
-40
-45
-50
UT to Mill Swamp Wetland Restoration Well
(MSAW9)
1 I It I 1 1 111VII IA I\ I
I
I
GROWING SEASON
(3/18 - 11/16)
YR5 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
CRITERIA MET - 39 (16%)
7/21/2018-8/28/2018
1/1/2018 2/15/2018 4/1/2018 5/16/2018 6/30/2018 8/14/2018 9/28/2018 11/12/2018 12/27/2018
Date
Ground
Surface
12 inches
MSAW9
Begin
Growing
Season
End
Growing
Season

UT to Mill Swamp Rain
I
I
1/1/2018
2/15/2018
4/1/2018 5/16/2018 6/30/2018 8/14/2018 9/28/2018 11/12/2018
12/27/2018
0.0
1.0
I
failed in the summer of 2018
I
I
2.0
I
I
GROWING SEASON
(3/18 - 11/16)
CRITERIA MET- 13 (5.3%)
3/20/2018 - 4/1/2018
I
I
I
JT
3.0
4.0
5.0
UT to Mill Swamp Wetland Restoration Well
(MSAW10)
10
Ground
Surface
5
-12 inches
-5
-10
MSAW10
-15
a
Well MSAW10 Permanently
3
-20
— — Begin
Growing
C
25
Season
O
End
0
-30
Growing
Season
a
-35
YR5 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
-40
-45
-50
1/1/2018
2/15/2018
4/1/2018 5/16/2018 6/30/2018 8/14/2018 9/28/2018 11/12/2018
12/27/2018
Date
I
I
I
I
I
failed in the summer of 2018
I
I
I
I
GROWING SEASON
(3/18 - 11/16)
CRITERIA MET- 13 (5.3%)
3/20/2018 - 4/1/2018
I
I
I

UT to Mill Swamp Rain
1/1/2018 2/15/2018 4/1/2018 5/16/2018 6/30/2018 8/14/2018 9/28/2018 11/12/2018 12/27/2018
0.0
1.0
2.0
JT
3.0
4.0
5.0
20
15
10
0
C
�L 0
m
Y
-5
3
M -10
0
0 -15
0
Y
Y -20
Q
4)
-25
-30
-35
-40 1
1/1/2018
UT to Mill Swamp
(Well cross-sections 11, 12)
2/15/2018 4/1/2018 5/16/2018 6/30/2018 8/14/2018 9/28/2018 11/12/2018 12/27/2018
Date
Ground
Surface
-12 inches
MSAW11
MSAW12

UT to Mill Swamp Rain
1/1/2018
2/15/2018 4/1/2018 5/16/2018 6/30/2018 8/14/2018 9/28/2018 11/12/2018 12/27/2018
0.0
5
1.0
2.0
JT
3.0
4.0
5.0
UT to Mill Swamp
(Well cross-sections 13,14)
20
Ground
15
Surface
10
--12
inches
=
5
MSAW13
0
d
r
35
MSAW14
C
o
L
-10
0
-15
CL
-20
m
-25
-30
-35
-40
1/1/2018
2/15/2018 4/1/2018 5/16/2018 6/30/2018 8/14/2018 9/28/2018 11/12/2018 12/27/2018
Date

UT to Mill Swamp Rain
1/1/2018 2/15/2018 4/1/2018 5/16/2018 6/30/2018 8/14/2018 9/28/2018 11/12/2018 12/27/2018
0.0
1.0
2.0
JT
3.0
4.0
5.0
15
5
_ 0
-5
-10
3
-15
-20
w
-25
CL -30
0
-35
-40
-45
-50
1/1,
UT to Mill Swamp
• • •
I
I
1 i IVDA i11111r11m
0101�101001Li►'r'qVEUIVON \k"LW %IWi1001011.IM'1f'1010 INEEMEN LAIAi I1'�'��l'�1�1•f.l■VIINEENINEENE
his 1
IS
I�
I.
I
2018 2/15/2018 4/1/2018 5/16/2018 6/30/2018 8/14/2018 9/28/2018 11/12/2018 12/27/2018
Date
Ground
Surface
-12 inches
MSAW15
MSAW16

UT to Mill Swamp Rain
1/1/2018
2/15/2018 4/1/2018 5/16/2018 6/30/2018 8/14/2018 9/28/2018
11/12/2018 12/27/2018
0.0
_
5
1.0
2.0
E
3.0
R
4.0
5.0
UT to Mill Swamp
(Well cross-sections 17,18)
10
Ground
5
Surface
0
--12 inches
MSAW17
-10
r
-15
JIM X
MSAW18
C
'o
-20
C7
c-25
Y
s
I I I
CL
-30 -
d
-35
-40
-45
-50
1/1/2018
2/15/2018 4/1/2018 5/16/2018 6/30/2018 8/14/2018 9/28/2018
11/12/2018 12/27/2018
Date

UT to Mill Swamp Rain
1/1/2018
2/15/2018 4/1/2018
5/16/2018 6/30/2018 8/14/2018 9/28/2018
11/12/2018 12/27/2018
I
0.0
5
1.0
Growing
Season
End
2.0
GROWING SEASON
(3/18 - 11/16)
Growing
Season
I
3.0
4.0
5.0
UT to Mill Swamp Wetland Restoration Well
(MSAW19)
20
I
Ground
Surface
15
'
10
I
—
I
-12 inches
=
5
I
o
I
I
MSAW19
3
-5
I
- 10
0
-15
o
s
-20
..
-25
-30
-35
-40
-45
-50
1/1/2018
2/15/2018 4/1/2018
5/16/2018 6/30/2018 8/14/2018 9/28/2018
11/12/2018 12/27/2018
Date
—Begin
I
Growing
Season
End
YR5 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
CRITERIA MET - 47 (19.3%)
3/18/2018 - 5/2/2018
GROWING SEASON
(3/18 - 11/16)
Growing
Season
I

UT to Mill Swamp Rain
1/1/2018 2/15/2018 4/1/2018 5/16/2018 6/30/2018 8/14/2018 9/28/2018 11/12/2018 12/27/2018
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
� 4.0
5.0
10
5
0
S -5
-10
r6
3° -15
-20
° -25
0
CL -30
G
-35
-40
-45
-50
UT to Mill Swamp Wetland Restoration Well
(MSAW20)
I �
I �
AIsmun'1sminim=a
11,11 ►v=11W1 �a'aiani
z! alumLl�,
M—IN• •
SEASONRC—U—TIVE DAYS
CRITERIA MET - 30 (12.3%) GROWING
1/1/2018 2/15/2018 4/1/2018 5/16/2018 6/30/2018 8/14/2018 9/28/2018 11/12/2018 12/27/2018
Date
Ground
Surface
12 inches
MSAW20 I
— Begin
Growing
Season
End
Growing
Season

UT to Mill Swamp Rain
1/1/2018 2/15/2018 4/1/2018 5/16/2018 6/30/2018 8/14/2018 9/28/2018 11/12/2018 12/27/2018
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
� 4.0
5.0
10
5
0
S -5
-10
ca
3° -15
° -20
° -25
0
CL -30
G
-35
-40
-45
-50
UT to Mill Swamp Wetland Restoration Well
(MSAW21)
ISO III L=
Nis Ll ► ►►��ini �� ,■ ffml
i, III I ��111
LUKE
IYR5 MOST• DAYS
I •• •
0 I
I '
1/1/2018 2/15/2018 4/1/2018 5/16/2018 6/30/2018 8/14/2018 9/28/2018 11/12/2018 12/27/2018
Date
Ground
Surface
12 inches
MSAW21 I
— Begin
Growing
Season
End
Growing
Season

UT to Mill Swamp Rain
1/1/2018 2/15/2018 4/1/2018 5/16/2018 6/30/2018 8/14/2018 9/28/2018 11/12/2018 12/27/2018
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
� 4.0
5.0
20
15
10
F 5
0
-5
° -10
° -15
C -20
-25
-30
-35
-40
UT to Mill Swamp Wetland Restoration Well
(MSAW22)
I
I
�Lwr7 1111\�r1�11law
l.��
•CONSECUTIVE DAYSMET - 30 (12.3%) GROWING SEASON
1/1/2018 2/15/2018 4/1/2018 5/16/2018 6/30/2018 8/14/2018 9/28/2018 11/12/2018 12/27/2018
Date
Ground
Surface
12 inches
MSAW22
Begin
Growing
Season
End
Growing
Season

UT to Mill Swamp Rain
1/1/2018 2/15/2018 4/1/2018 5/16/2018 6/30/2018 8/14/2018 9/28/2018 11/12/2018 12/27/2018
0.0
S1.0
2.0
3.0
w 4.0
5.0
15
10
5
0
3 -5
_ -10
0
-15
0
a -20
-25
-30
-35
-40
UT to Mill Swamp Wetland Restoration Well
(MSAW23)
r4XIJ,WM,milli
Lillis LWIM 1111000001
�1KI&MME�111
F1 -1101
YR5 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS GROWING SEASON
7/25/2018 - 8/23/2018
�1► ►'I��II,I�lITi111�11�1 ��'►il►�
1/1/2018 2/15/2018 4/1/2018 5/16/2018 6/30/2018 8/14/2018 9/28/2018 11/12/2018 12/27/2018
Date
Ground
Surface
12 inches
MSAW23
— Begin
Growing
Season
End
Growing
Season

UT to Mill Swamp Rain
1/1/2018
2/15/2018
4/1/2018 5/16/2018 6/30/2018 8/14/2018 9/28/2018 11/12/2018
12/27/2018
0.0
5
1.0
2.0
3.0
of
4.0
5.0
UT to Mill Swamp Wetland Restoration Well
(MSAW24)
20
Ground
15
Surface
I
I
10
-12 inches
c
5
0
I
-
I
MSAW24
�
-5
cIV
-10—
— Begin
C7
Growing
o
Season
s
-15
I I
End
G-20
Growing
Season
-25
YR5 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
-30
CRITERIA MET - 34 (14%)
GROWING SEASON
7/24/2018 - 8/26/2018
-35
(3/18 - 11/16)
-40
I
1/1/2018
2/15/2018
4/1/2018 5/16/2018 6/30/2018 8/14/2018 9/28/2018 11/12/2018
12/27/2018
Date

Figure 5. Flow Gauge Graph
* Surface water flow is estimated to have occurred when the pressure transducer reading is equal to or above 0.1 feet in depth.
UT to Mill Swamp Daily Rain
1/1/2018
2/15/2018
4/1/2018 5/16/2018 6/30/2018 8/14/2018
9/28/2018 11/12/2018
0.0
c
1.0
_.
2.0
=
3.0
4.0
5.0
UT to Mill Swamp
(Flow Gauge 1 - MSFL1)
-0.1 ft FlowDepth
2.0
UT1 B - Upstream
MSFL1
1
-MSFL1
1.9
1.8
Misleading Readings
Hurricane Florence
1.7
Due to Ice
1.6
1.5
v 1.4
MY5 MOST CONSECUTIVE
Q1.3
DAYS CRITERIA MET -,65
1.1
(2/27/2018-5/2/2018)
1.0
L
r
0.9
0.8
0.7
R
0.6
0.5
N
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
1/1/2018
2/15/2018
4/1/2018 5/16/2018 6/30/2018 8/14/2018
9/28/2018 11/12/2018
Date
* Surface water flow is estimated to have occurred when the pressure transducer reading is equal to or above 0.1 feet in depth.

Figure 6.
Observed Rainfall versus Historic Average
UT to Mill Swamp
Rainfall: MY5
14.0
12.0
Sept. = 21.25"
10.0
a�
8.0
0
6.0
�.,
4.0
U
U
i-.
a
2.0
Ir
0.0
�b�t
t Historic Average (56.5 in)
—4—Historic 30% probable
A Historic 70% probable
—Onslow County Observed MY5 (74.2 in)
Note: Data from nearest NC-CRONOS station KOAJ
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95019)

Table 12. Wetland Restoration Area Well Success
UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95019
Well ID
Percentage of Consecutive Days <12 inches from Ground Surface'
Most Consecutive Days Meeting Criteria'
Percentage of Cumulative Days <12 inches from Ground Surface'
Cumulative Days Meeting Criteria'
Year 1
(2013)
Year 2*
(2014)
Year 2
(2015)
Year 3
(2016)
Year 4
(2017)
Year 5
(2018)
Year 1
(2013)
Year 2*
(2014)
Year 2
(2015)
Year 3
(2016)
Year 4
(2017)
Year 5
(2018)
Year 1
(2 13)
Year 2*
(2014)
Year 2
(2015)
Year 3
(2016)
Year 4
(2017)
Year 5
(2018)
Year 1
(2013)
Year 2*
(2014)
Year 2
(2015)
Year 3
(2016)
Year 4
(2017)
Year 5
(2018)
UTIc Cross-Sectional Well Arrays (Installed July 2013)
MSAW1 4.4 29.1 20.8 24.6 14.8 100.0
11
71 51 60
36
244
53.5
56.8
52.1
66.5
37.4
100.0
130
138
127
162
91
244
MSAW2 0.7 3.3 6.5 4.0 2.5 12.3
2
8 16 10
6
30
3.5
20.2
26.3
19.8
22.2
40.2
9
49
64
48
54
98
MSAW3t 0.0 0.3 0.6 0.6 0.4 13.1
0
1 2 2
1
32
0.0
1.0
2.1
0.8
0.4
27.9
0
3
5
2
1
68
MSAW4 10.3 27.8 36.4 31.2 46.1 100.0
25
68 89 76
112
244
97.0
74.2
61.0
83.4
80.2
100.0
236
180
148
203
195
244
MSAW5 3.3 21.2 19.7 31.1 25.1 23.4
8
52 48 76
61
57
40.5
51.9
51.6
58.3
52.7
91.4
98
126
126
142
128
223
MSAW6 1.1 3.8 7.0 4.2 10.7 15.2
3
9 17 10
26
37
9.5
23.3
28.3
19.7
24.3
67.6
23
57
69
48
59
165
MSAW7t 0.2 3.7 2.7 2.1 1.6 13.1
1
9 7 5
4
32
0.3
10.9
14.6
7.1
6.6
49.2
1
27
36
17
16
120
MSAW8 14.1 47.3 37.7 31.1 36.2 100.0
34
115 92 76
88
244
96.8
73.9
66.3
83.0
79.4
100.0
235
180
161
202
193
244
MSAW9 2.5 4.5 8.6 5.7 5.3 16.0
6
11 21 14
13
39
44.5
33.0
28.6
41.7
39.1
77.5
108
80
70
101
95
189
MSAW 104 0.0 0.6 5.3 2.1 4.9 5.3
0
2 13 5
12
13
0.0
1.1
13.1
16.8
30.5
20.9
0
3
32
41
74
51
Supplemental UTIc Monitoring Wells (Installed February/March 2016)
**MSAW19 -- -- 8.7 12.8 19.3
--
-- 21
31
47
--
43.8
42.4
66.0
--
--
--
107
103
161
MSAW20 -- -- -- 3.7 3.7 12.3
--
-- -- 9
9
30
--
--
--
10.1
19.3
42.2
--
--
--
25
47
103
**MSAW21 -- -- 3.7 10.7 12.7
--
-- 9
26
31
--
12.7
17.7
48.4
--
--
--
31
43
118
**MSAW22 -- -- 2.8 3.3 12.7
--
- 7
8
31
--
14.0
23.0
43.4
--
--
--
34
56
106
**MSAW23 -- -- 3.1 9.5 12.7
--
8
23
31
23.7
32.5
52.0
--
--
--
58
79
127
MSAW24 -- -- -- 31.2 1 26.3 1 13.9
--
-- -- 76
64
34 1--
--
--
72.1
1 83.1
1 64.8
--
--
--
175
1 202
158
Headwater Research Cross-Sectional Well Arrays on UTIa and UTIb (Installed July 2013)
MSAW11 4.7 21.2 32.3 40.1 36.0 49.8
12
52 79 98
88
122
38.5
72.4
76.7
84.9
68.3
99.6
94
176
187
206
166
243
MSAW12 0.7 15.4 10.1 7.6 14.5 25.3
2
38 25 19
35
62
7.0
19.1
24.9
27.4
15.1
84.0
17
47
61
67
37
205
MSAW 13 6.5 46.5 40.0 40.0 36.0 50.0
16
113 97 97
88
122
81.5
80.0
82.2
84.8
66.0
99.3
198
195
200
206
161
242
MSAW 14 0.6 39.1 18.3 17.9 25.6 23.5
2
95 45 44
62
57
4.0
31.0
46.7
61.6
32.7
84.6
10
75
114
150
80
207
MSAW 15 0.8 0.9 2.4 1.6 1.1 3.6
2
2 6 4
3
9
4.0
3.9
5.1
6.7
2.0
20.0
10
10
13
16
5
49
MSAW 16 2.4 2.8 2.3 2.1 1.2 1 13.6
6
7 1 6 5
3
33 1
14.5
13.0
1 11.5
7.1
1 2.2
40.2
35
1 32
28
17
5
98
MSAW17 0.0 0.1 0.7 0.3 0.2 3.7
0
0 2 1
1
9
0.0
0.1
1.3
0.5
0.2
9.3
0
0
3
1
1
23
MSAW 18 3.8 10.2 7.4 2.2 1.2 5.0
9
25 18 5
3
12
18.5
15.3
20.8
10.7
3.6
23.1
45
37
51
26
9
56
Notes:
'Indicates the percentage of the single greatest consecutive or cumulative number of days within the monitored growing season with a water 12 inches or less from the soil surface.
2Indicates the single greatest consecutive number of days within the monitored growing season with a water table 12 inches or less from the soil surface.
'Indicates the total cumulative number of days within the monitored growing season with a water table 12 inches or less from the soil surface.
4Well MSAW 10 unexpectedly and permanently failed in the summer of 2018.
t Wells MSAW3 and MSAW7 were relocated on 6/7/18 as per IRT suggestion during a field visit on 5/1/18. See CCPV in Appendix B for new and previous locations.
The growing season for Onslow County is from March 18 to November 16 and is 244 days long. 12% of the growing season is 29 days.
HIGHLIGHTED indicates wells that did not to meet the success criteria for the most consecutive number of days within the monitored growing season s or less from the soil surface. Following Year 5 wetland monitoring, only one of sixteen wells did not exhibit hyrdroperiods greater than 12% during
2018 growing season. That well is MSAW 10 and it permanently failed in the summer of 2018.
the
**To gather additional well data in the UTIc restoration area, In-Situ groundwater monitoring dataloggers AW19 -AW23 were installed on 2/26/2016, AW24 was installed on 3/10/2016. The installation of the additional dataloggers was completed during the 2016 spring wet season when groundwater levels were normally closer to
the ground surface.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95019)

Table 13. Flow Gauge Success
UT to Mill Swam Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95019
Flow Gauge ID
Most Consecutive Days Meeting Criteria'
Cumulative Days Meeting Criteria
Year 1
(2013)
Year 2*
(2014)
Year 2
(2015)
Year 3
(2016)
Year 4
(2017)
Year 5
(2018)
Year 6
(2019)
Year 7
(2020)
Year 1
(2013)
Year 2*
(2014)
Year 2
(2015)
Year 3
(2016)
Year 4
(2017)
Year 5
(2018)
Year 6
(2019)
Year 7
(2020)
Flow Gauges (Installed
September 27, 2013)
MSFL1
9
31
51
59
139
65
-
-
34
242
137
187
213
247
-
-
MSFL2
35
131
152
105
164
N/A3
-
-
79
327
186
231
243
N/A3
-
-
Notes
'hidicates the single greatest number of consecutive days within the monitoring year where flow was measured.
2Indicates the total number of days within the monitoring year where flow was measured.
3The pressure transducer for MSFL2 permanently failed over the winter of 2017/2018 and was not replaced as it had already met the required project success criteria in each previous year.
Success Criteria per UT to Mill Swamp Mitigation Plan: A surface water flow event will be considered perennial when the recorded flow duration occurs for a minimum of 30 consecutive days during the
monitoring year. Two surface water flow events must be documented within a five-year monitoring period; otherwise, monitoring will continue for seven years or until two flow events have been documented in
separate years.
Surface water flow is estimated to have occurred when the pressure transducer reading is equal to or above 0.1 feet in depth.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95019)

Table 14. Verification of Banldull Events
UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project: DMS Project No. 95019
Date of Data
Collection
Estimated Occurrence of
Bankfull Event
Method of Data
Collection
Gauge Reading
(feet)
Year 1 (2013)
10/16/2013 10/11/2013 Crest Gauge 0.17
12/24/2013 12/15/2013 Crest Gauge 0.19
Year 2* (2014)
3/27/2014 3/7/2014 Crest Gauge 0.32
10/14/2014 8/4/2014 Crest Gauge 0.56
12/19/2014 11/26/2014 Crest Gauge 0.27
Year 2 (2015)
1/24/2015 1/24/2015 Crest Gauge 0.59
4/27/2015 2/26/2015 Crest Gauge 1.07
6/23/2015 5/11/2015 Crest Gauge 1.61
11/12/2015 10/3/2015 Crest Gauge 1.54
Year 3 (2016)
3/10/2016
2/5/2016
Crest Gauge
1.44
11/22/2016
10/8/2016 (Hurricane Matthew)
Crest Gauge
2.32
Year 4 2017
3/20/2017 1/2/2017
Crest Gauge 1.18
6/2/2017 4/25/2017
Crest Gauge 1.20
Year 5 2018
6/7/2018 5/31/2018 Crest Gauge* 1.50
10/30/2018 9/15/2018 (Hurricane Florence) Crest Gauge* 3.41
Note: Crest gauge readings can be correlated with spikes in flow gauge measurements (see graph
in Appendix E)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95019)