20141259 Ver 1_Year 4 Monitoring Report_2019_20200130

ID#* 20141259 Version* 1
Select Reviewer:*
Mac Haupt
Initial Review Completed Date 02/03/2020
Mitigation Project Submittal-1/30/2020
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site?* O Yes a No
Type of Mitigation Project:*
rJ Stream r Wetlands [Buffer ❑ Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name:*
Harry Tsomides
Project Information
...................................................................................
ID#:* 20141259
Existing IDY
Project Type:
Project Name:
County:
r DMS r Mitigation Bank
Town Creek
Stanly
Document Information
Email Address:*
[e-mail]
Version: * 1
Existing Version
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Monitoring Report
File Upload: TownCreek_95026_MY4_2019.pdf 30.64MB
Rease upload only one RDF of the conplete file that needs to be subrritted...
Signature
Print Name:* Harry Tsomides
Signature:*

Town Creek Restoration Project – Option B
Year 4 Monitoring Report

Stanly County, North Carolina
DMS Project ID Number – 95026; NC DEQ Contract No. 003990
Yadkin Pee-Dee River Basin: 03040105060040

Project Info: Monitoring Year: 4 of 5
Year of Data Collection: 2019
Year of Completed Construction: 2016
Submission Date: December 2019

Submitted To: NCDEQ – Division of Mitigation Services
1625 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
NCDEQ Contract ID No. 003990

MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019, YEAR 4 OF 5
i
Town Creek Restoration Project – Option B
Year 4 Monitoring Report

Stanly County, North Carolina
DMS Project ID Number – 95026; NC DEQ Contract No. 003990
SAW-2014-00016; DWR#14-1259 V2
Yadkin Pee-Dee River Basin: 03040105060040

Report Prepared and Submitted by Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
NC Professional Engineering License # F-1084

Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
Cary, NC 27518

Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
Cary, NC 27518 | Office: 919-463-5488
January 28, 2020

Harry Tsomides, Project Manager
NCDEQ - Division of Mitigation Services
5 Ravenscroft Drive, Ste. 102
Asheville, NC 28801

Subject: Response to DMS Comments for DRAFT Monitoring Year 4 Report
Town Creek Restoration Project – Option B
Yadkin River Basin – CU# 03040105 – Stanly County, NC
NCDMS Project ID No. 95026; NCDEQ Contract No. 003990

Dear Mr. Tsomides:

Please find enclosed the Final Year 4 Monitoring Report and our responses to the Division of Mitigation
Services (DMS) review comments received on December 16, 2019 regarding the Town Creek Restoration
Project – Option B, located in Stanly County, NC. In response to the referenced review comments, we have
revised the Final Year 4 Monitoring Document, as needed. Each response has been grouped with its
corresponding comment and is outlined below.
 Table 2 – This table should indicate the month‐year of stream monitoring, vegetation
data collection, and report, similar to MY1 through MY3.
Response: Table 2 has been revised to include the month-year of both stream monitoring and
vegetation data collection as requested.
Digital Support Comments
 DMS does not have any spatial features for Town Creek. Please provide features that
characterize the creditable assets that have been reported, ensuring that features are
segmented and attributed as they are in the asset table and that feature lengths match the linear
feet reported.
Response: DMS has commented that they would like the GIS shapefiles for all projects
and noted that for some projects the lengths were not matching with the credit/asset
table. Baker spoke with DMS Science and Analysis staff about this issue. We are happy
to provide processed shapefiles derived from the as-built survey CAD files for all project
features. That is, we have taken the final as-built CAD files, converted them into GIS, and
modified them so that each feature segment is combined or split by reach or wetland type
and that the attribute table is clear and has a length or acre value approximate to the
credit/asset table. But due both to rounding issues in length and credit calculations, as well
as to inherent program differences between CAD and GIS, some small differences may
exist between the two. We have had this issue come up before on other projects. But the
as-built CAD files used to create the PE/PLS signed/sealed plan sheets are the legal
standard by which we determine all our credits/assets. The GIS shapefiles are secondary
files we derive from the CAD to more easily make maps in our reports. So, while small
differences between the two (of a few feet here or there) are likely to occur on some
reaches, particularly longer ones and ones with breaks such as for crossings, Baker has not
regarded this as of particular importance. The CAD files are what have generated all
official feature measurements. DMS accepted that small differences would be acceptable
for the creditable features but did want the processed as-built shapefiles for each project
and Baker has agreed to provide them.

 Cross section BHR calculations cannot be reproduced with the data in the given format. Please
consider using the DMS template for reporting cross section data and figures, or provide an excel
sheet that documents how calculations were done.
Response:
 CVS entry tool includes plots missing x and y information throughout monitoring
years. Also, in some cases, x or y information exceeds the bounds of the selected plot.
For example y may be equal to 15 in a plot that was indicated to be 10x10. Please add
the x y data throughout monitoring years and ensure the correct plot dimensions are
selected for these data.
Response: That X/Y portion of the CVS entry tool has always been used for internal
purposes at Baker. We have used it to identify the plant plot and number (e.g. 4-15 means
plot 4, plant 15) and not for internal plant location, as CVS does not otherwise provide an
easy way to carry over clear plant ID numbering from year to year. Thus, the plot
dimensions recorded in CVS are correct for each veg plot, though we understand that may
have confusing by looking at our X/Y entry data. But using the X/Y coordinate entry this
way saves Baker significant time each year during monitoring and helps eliminate errors
by reducing confusion. We have long regarded it as a mild flaw in the CVS tool but have
found this easy workaround to be a perfectly suitable rectification. Baker spoke with DMS
Science and Analysis staff about this issue. They have allowed that for our existing
projects we may continue to use the X/Y entry tool for our own purposes but for future
projects we will enter the X/Y grid plot coordinates as the CVS program originally
intended. We will also provide DMS with a copy of our plot maps showing individual
plant locations within each plot. And to be clear, the CVS field protocol is being followed
throughout our projects with the sole exception of this X/Y grid plot entry tool. All planted
stems are identified and marked (and mapped internally) at the as-built stage and tracked
and assessed throughout the monitoring phase.

Sincerely,

Andrew Powers
Project Manager
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019, YEAR 4 OF 5
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................ 1 
2.0 METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................... 2 
2.1 Stream Monitoring .......................................................................................................... 2 
2.1.1 Morphologic Parameters and Channel Stability ................................................................................... 3 
2.1.1.1 Dimension ....................................................................................................................................... 3 
2.1.1.2 Longitudinal Profile ........................................................................................................................ 3 
2.1.1.3 Substrate and Sediment Transport................................................................................................... 3 
2.1.2 Stream Hydrology .................................................................................................................................... 3 
2.1.2.1 Bankfull Events ............................................................................................................................... 3 
2.1.2.2 Flow Documentation ....................................................................................................................... 4 
2.1.3 Photographic Documentation of Site ..................................................................................................... 4 
2.1.3.1 Lateral Reference Photos .................................................................................................................... 4 
2.1.3.2 Longitudinal Station Photos ............................................................................................................... 4 
2.1.4 Visual Assessment .................................................................................................................................... 4 
2.2  Vegetation Monitoring ................................................................................................... 5 
3.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................... 6

APPENDICES

Appendix A Project Vicinity Map and Background Tables Figure 1 Vicinity Map and Directions Table 1 Project Mitigation Components Table 2 Project Activity and Reporting History Table 3 Project Contacts Table 4 Project Attribute
Appendix B Visual Assessment Data Figure 2 Current Condition Plan View (CCPV) Table 5a-e Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table 5f Stream Problem Areas Table 6a Vegetation Condition Assessment Table 6b Vegetation Problem Areas Stream Station Photos
Appendix C Vegetation Plot Data Table 7 Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment Table 8 CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata Table 9 CVS Stem Count of Planted Stems by Plot and Species
Vegetation Plot Photos
Appendix D Stream Survey Data Figure 3 Year 4 Cross-sections with Annual Overlays
Figure 4 Riffle Pebble Count Size Class Distribution with Annual
Overlays
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019, YEAR 4 OF 5
iii
Table 10 Baseline Stream Summary
Table 11a Cross-section Morphology Data
Table 11b Stream Reach Morphology Data
Appendix E Hydrologic Data Figure 5a-b In-stream Flow Gauge Graphs
Figure 6 Monthly Rainfall Data Table 12 Verification of Bankfull Events
Table 13 Verification of In-stream Flow Conditions
Hydrologic Data Photos

MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019, YEAR 4 OF 5
1
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. (Baker) restored 2,760 linear feet (LF) and enhanced approximately 943 LF
of jurisdictional stream along UT to Town Creek. This report documents and presents the Year 4 monitoring
data as required during the five-year monitoring period.
The primary restoration goals of the project are described below:
 Create geomorphically stable conditions along the channels,
 Enhance hydrologic connections between streams and the degraded riparian buffer and overall
ecosystem functionality;
 Restore and protect riparian buffer functions and corridor habitat in perpetuity by establishing a
permanent conservation easement.
 Improve terrestrial habitat and reduce sediment and nutrient loading to the project reaches and the Little
Long Creek Watershed.
To accomplish these goals, the following objectives were identified:
 Restore existing incised, eroding, and channelized streams by creating a stable stream channel with
access to its floodplain,
 Improve in-stream habitat by providing a more diverse bedform with riffles and pools, creating deeper
pools and areas of water re-aeration, and reducing bank erosion,
 Prevent cattle from accessing the project boundary by installing permanent fencing and thus reduce
excessive bank erosion and undesired nutrient inputs,
 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,
 Control invasive species vegetation within the project area and, if necessary, continue treatments during
the monitoring period.
The Town Creek Restoration Project – Option B (Site) is located in Stanly County, approximately 1.5 miles
west of the Town of New London, within cataloging unit 03040105 of the Yadkin Pee-Dee River Basin. The
Site is located in a North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS) - Targeted Local Watershed (HUC
03040105060-040). Directions to the Project Site can be found in Figure 1 of Appendix A.
During Year 4 monitoring, the planted acreage performance categories were functioning at over 90 percent with
no bare areas and 0.34 Acres of low stem vigor. The cause for VPA 4-1 is the area consist mainly of dense
fescue and compacted soil. VPA 4-2 is in an area with very wet soil and an abundance of Tearthumb (Traucalon
Sagittatum) choking out the smaller trees in this area. No invasive species areas of concern, exceeding the
mapping threshold were documented. Presence of this invasive species likely due to encroachment from the
abutting property. Areas of invasive encroachment will be treated with the proper herbicidal application method
over the 2019 – 2020 winter/spring months and will be monitored and/or treated during next monitoring year
as needed.
Based on data collected from the eight monitoring plots during Year 4 monitoring, the average density of total
planted stems per plot ranges from 364 to 769 stems per acre with a tract mean of 546 stems per acre. Therefore,
the Year 4 data demonstrate that the Site has exceeded the minimum interim success criteria of 320 trees per
acre by the end of Year 3 and is on track for meeting the minimum success criteria of 260 trees per acre by the
end of Year 5. The presence of volunteer woody vegetation was noted in VP6; however, these species were

MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019, YEAR 4 OF 5
2
not included in the average vegetation plot data densities. Vegetation stem counts are summarized in Tables 7
and 9 of Appendix C.
The thirteen (13) permanent cross-sections located throughout the Site show minimal adjustment to stream
dimension since construction. In addition, Tables 5a through 5f (Appendix B) indicate the Site has remained
geomorphically stable with lateral/vertical stability and in-stream structure performance of 100% on all stream
reaches and no noted areas of bank scour and/or erosion around structures. Visual observations and a review
of pebble count data collected indicated that stream is sufficiently moving fines through the system. Riffles are
comprised of a mix of substrates with the bed material continuing to move towards a mix of coarser substrates.
Cross-sectional and pebble count data are provided in Figures 3 and 4, respectively, in Appendix D.
In-stream pressure transducers, TC FL1 and TC FL2, were installed on Reach 1 to document intermittent flow
conditions throughout the monitoring year. Since post-construction installation, each gauge has documented at
least one period of consecutive stream flow for the required minimum of 30 days for all four monitoring years
so far, with a maximum of 36 consecutive days for TC FL1 and 146 consecutive days for TC FL2 this year.
Figures 5a and 5b in Appendix E, depict the documented flow conditions for each gauge from installation
through Monitoring Year 4 relative to local rainfall data, while Table 13 documents both the total cumulative
days of flow and the maximum number of consecutives days of flow.
Lastly, at least one post-construction bankfull events occurred during MY4, with a recorded event at 0.38 feet
above bankfull. Two bankfull flow events have been documented in separate years, thus the site has met the
bankfull flow requirements. Documentation of the event is in Table 12 of Appendix E.
Summary information/data related to the Site and statistics related to performance of various project and
monitoring elements can be found in the tables and figures in the report Appendices. Narrative background and
supporting information formerly found in these reports can be found in the Baseline Monitoring Report and in
the Mitigation Plan available on the NCDMS’ website. All raw data supporting the tables and figures in the
appendices is available from NCDMS upon request.
2.0 METHODOLOGY
The five-year monitoring plan for the Site includes criteria to evaluate the success of the stream and vegetation
components of the project. Monitoring methods used will follow the NCDMS Monitoring Report Template,
Version 1.30 – 1/15/10 and are based on the design approaches and overall project goals. To evaluate success
criteria associated with a geomorphically stable channel, hydrologic connectivity, and aquatic habitat diversity,
geomorphic monitoring methods will be conducted for project reaches that involve Restoration and
Enhancement Level I mitigation. The specific locations of monitoring features, such as vegetation plots,
permanent cross-sections, reference photograph stations and crest gauges, are shown on the CCPV sheets found
in Figure 2 of Appendix B.
Stream survey data were collected to meet the requirements for a topographic ground survey to the accuracy of
Class C Vertical and Class A Horizontal (21 NCAC-56 section .1606) and was geo-referenced to the NAD83
State Plane Coordinate System, FIPS3200 in US Survey Feet, which was derived from the Town Creek
Restoration Project Option B’s As-built Survey.
2.1 Stream Monitoring
Geomorphic monitoring of the Restoration and Enhancement Level I reaches will be conducted once a year for
a minimum of five years following the completion of construction. These activities will evaluate the success
criteria associated with a geomorphically stable channel, hydrologic connectivity, and aquatic habitat diversity.
The stream parameters to be monitored include stream dimension (cross-sections), pattern (planimetric survey),
profile (longitudinal profile survey), visual observation with photographic documentation, and documentation
of bank full events. Additionally, monitoring methods for all reaches will include those described under Photo

MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019, YEAR 4 OF 5
3
Documentation of Site, Visual Assessment, and Vegetation Monitoring. The methods used and related success
criteria are described below for each parameter. Figure 2 shows approximate locations of the proposed
monitoring devices throughout the project site.
2.1.1 Morphologic Parameters and Channel Stability
2.1.1.1 Dimension
A total of thirteen (13) permanent cross-sections, nine (9) riffles and four (4) pools, were installed
throughout the entire project area. Cross-sections selected for monitoring included representative riffle
and pool facets for each of the three project reaches, Reach 2, 3, and 5, which implemented at least 500
linear feet of Restoration or Enhancement I activities.
Each cross-section was marked on both banks with permanent pins to establish the exact transect used.
A common benchmark was also chosen to consistently reference and facilitate the comparison of year-
to-year data. The cross-sectional surveys are conducted annually and include measurements of Bank
Height Ratio (BHR) and Entrenchment Ratio (ER). The monitoring survey includes points measured
at all breaks in slope, including top of stream banks, bankfull, inner berm, edge of water, and thalweg,
if the features are present. Riffle cross-sections are classified using the Rosgen Stream Classification
System (Rosgen 1994), and all monitored cross-sections should fall within the quantitative parameters
defined for channels of the design stream type.
There should be little change in annual cross-sectional surveys from those collected during the post-
construction as-built survey. If changes do take place, they will be evaluated to determine if they
represent a movement toward a more unstable condition (e.g., down-cutting or erosion) or a movement
toward increased stability (e.g., settling, vegetative changes, deposition along the banks, or decrease in
width/depth ratio). Cross-sectional data is presented in Figure 3 of Appendix D.
2.1.1.2 Longitudinal Profile
A longitudinal profile was surveyed for the entire length of channel immediately after construction to
document as-built baseline conditions for the first year of monitoring only. The survey was tied to a
permanent benchmark and measurements included thalweg, water surface, bankfull, and top of low
bank. Each of these measurements was taken at the head of each feature (e.g., riffle, pool) and at the
maximum pool depth. Yearly longitudinal profiles will not be conducted during subsequent monitoring
years unless channel instability has been documented or remedial actions/repairs are required by the
USACE or NCDMS.
2.1.1.3 Substrate and Sediment Transport
After construction, there should be minimal change in the pebble count data over time given the current
watershed conditions and sediment supply regime. A substrate sample was collected for each riffle
cross-sections where constructed riffles were installed (X1, X4, X5, X7, X9, X10, and X12). Samples
collected combined with evidence provided by changes in cross-sectional data and visual assessments
will reveal changes in sediment gradation that occur over time as the stream adjusts to upstream
sediment loads. Significant changes in sediment gradation were evaluated with respect to stream
stability and watershed changes. Bed material distribution data are located in Figure 4 of Appendix D.
2.1.2 Stream Hydrology
2.1.2.1 Bankfull Events
The occurrence of bankfull events within the monitoring period were documented by the use of a crest
gauge and photographs. The crest gauge will record the highest watermark between site visits, and the
gauge will be checked at each site visit to determine if a bankfull event has occurred. The crest gauge
was installed the floodplain of Reach 5 within ten feet (horizontal) of the restored channel. Photographs

MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019, YEAR 4 OF 5
4
will be used to document the occurrence of debris lines and sediment deposition on the floodplain
during monitoring site visits.
Two bankfull flow events have been documented in separate years, monitoring year 1 had one bankfull
event and monitoring year 3 had 5 bankfull events. Thus, the site has met the bankfull flow requirement.
2.1.2.2 Flow Documentation
A combination of photographic and flow gauge data was collected from two in-stream pressure
transducers (TC FL1 and TC FL2) and a remote in-field camera that were installed on Reach 1.
Collected data will document that the restored intermittent stream system continues to exhibit base flow
for of at least 30 consecutive days throughout each monitoring year under normal climatic conditions.
In order to determine if rainfall amounts were normal for the given year, rainfall gauge data was
obtained from the nearest Stanly County weather station (CRONOS Database, NEWL – North Stanly
Middle School, if available) and compared to the average monthly rainfall amounts from the Stanly
County WETS Table (USDA 2018). If a normal year of precipitation does not occur during the first
five years of monitoring, flow conditions will continue to be monitored on the site until it documents
that the intermittent streams have been flowing during the appropriate times of the year.
Flow data and photographic documentation collected during Year 4 monitoring is located in Appendix
E.
2.1.3 Photographic Documentation of Site
Photographs were used to document restoration success visually. Reference stations and cross-section
photos were photographed during the as-built survey; this will be repeated for at least five years
following construction. Reference photos were taken once a year, from a height of approximately five
to six feet. Permanent markers ensure that the same locations (and view directions) are utilized during
each monitoring period. Photographers will make an effort to consistently maintain the same area in
each photo over time. Selected site photographs are shown in Appendix B for reference stations and
Appendix D for cross-sections.
2.1.3.1 Lateral Reference Photos
Reference photo transects were taken of the right and left banks at each permanent cross-section. A
survey tape was captured in most photographs which represents the cross-section line located
perpendicular to the channel flow. The water line was located in in the center of the photograph as
much as possible to capture bank, riparian and channel conditions.
2.1.3.2 Longitudinal Station Photos
Stream reaches were photographed longitudinally beginning at the upstream portion of the Site and
moving downstream. Photographs were taken looking both upstream and downstream at delineated
locations throughout the restored stream valley. The photograph points were established close enough
together to provide an overall view of the reach lengths, primary grade control structures, and valley
crenulations. The angle of the photo depends on what angle provides the best view was noted and will
be continued in future photos. Site photographs are located in Appendix B.
2.1.4 Visual Assessment
Visual monitoring assessments of all stream sections will be conducted by qualified personnel twice
per monitoring year with at least five months in between each site visit. Photographs will be used to
document system performance and any areas of concern related to stream bank stability, condition of
in-stream structures, channel migration, aggradation/degradation, headcuts, live stake mortality,
impacts from invasive plant species or animal species, floodplain vegetative conditions, and condition
of pools and riffles. The photo locations will be shown on a plan view map and descriptions will be

MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019, YEAR 4 OF 5
5
documented as either stream problem areas (SPAs) or vegetative problem areas (VPAs) in there
associated monitoring assessment tables located in Appendix B.
2.2 Vegetation Monitoring
To determine if the criteria are achieved, vegetation-monitoring quadrants were installed and are monitored
across the restoration site in accordance with the CVS-NCEEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version 4.0
(Lee 2006). The vegetation monitoring plots are a minimum of 2 percent of the planted portion of the site with
eight plots established randomly within the planted riparian buffer areas. No monitoring quadrants were
established within the undisturbed wooded areas of the project area. The size of individual quadrants are 100
square meters for woody tree species.
Level 1 CVS vegetation monitoring was conducted between spring, after leaf-out has occurred, and fall prior
to leaf fall. Individual quadrant data provided during subsequent monitoring events will include species
composition, density, survival, and stem height. Relative values were calculated, and importance values were
determined. Individual seedlings were marked to ensure that they can be found in succeeding monitoring years.
Mortality was determined from the difference between the previous year’s living, planted seedlings and the
current year’s living, planted seedlings.
The interim measure of vegetative success for the site is the survival of at least 320, -year old, planted trees per
acre at the end of Year 3 of the monitoring period. The final vegetative success criteria are the survival of 260,
5-year old, planted trees per acre at the end of Year 5 of the monitoring period.
Photographs were used to visually document vegetation success in sample plots and are located in Appendix C.

MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019, YEAR 4 OF 5
6
3.0 REFERENCES
Carolina Vegetation Survey (CVS) and NC Division of Mitigation Services (formerly NC Ecosystem
Enhancement Program). 2012. CVS-NCEEP Data Entry Tool v. 2.3.1. University of North Carolina, Raleigh,
NC.
Lee, M., Peet R., Roberts, S., Wentworth, T. 2006. CVS-NCEEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version
4.0.
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (formerly NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program). 2010.
Procedural Guidance and Content Requirements for EEP Monitoring Reports, v. 1.30, dated 1/15/10. Raleigh,
NC.
Rosgen, D. L. 1994. A Classification of Natural Rivers. Catena 22:169-199.
State Climate Office of North Carolina, 2019. CRONOS Database, North Stanly Middle School (NEWL),
Stanly County, NC. http://climate.ncsu.edu/cronos/?station=NEWL&temporal=sensormeta
United States Department of Agriculture, 2019. WETS Table. Climate Data for Stanly County, NC. Wets
Station: Albemarle, NC 0090, FIPS: 37167, 1971 - 2018. http://agacis.rcc-acis.org/

APPENDIX A
Project Vicinity Map and Background Tables

^_
L
i
t
t
l
e

L
o
n
g

C
r
e
e
kTow
n
C
r
e
e
k
L
o
n
g
C
r
e
e
k
DIRECTIONS TO SITE FROM RALEIGH, NC:Take I-40 West toward Sanford/Wake Forest. Take Exit 293 (I-440/US-64 W/US-1) toward Sanford/Wake Forest. Keep left at the fork toward US-1 S/US-64 W. Take Exit 293A for US-1 S/US-64 W toward Sanford/Asheboro. Keep left at the fork toward US-1 S/US-64 W. Continue on US-1 S/US-64 W towards Apex/Sanford/Asheboro. Take exit 98B to merge onto US-64 W towards Pittsboro/Asheboro. After 62 miles, turn left onto Connector Rd. Turn right onto NC 49 S. After 28.4 miles, take a slight left onto N Main St. After 1.1 miles, turn left onto Old Salisbury Rd. Follow Old Salisbury Rd. for approximately 2.0 miles to its intersection with Misenheimer Rd. / Steakhouse Rd. Gothrough the intersection and continue on Old Salisbury Rd. for approximately 0.4 miles and the Project site is on the left accessed via a paved driveway.N. Main St.The subject project site is an environmental restorationsite of the NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services (DMS)and is encompassed by a recorded conservation easement, but is bordered by land under private ownership.Accessing the site may require traversing areas near or along the easement boundary and therefore access bythe general public is not permitted. Access by authorizedpersonnel 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 definedroles. Any intended site visitation or activity by any person outside of these previously sanctioned rolesand activities requires prior coordination with DMS.
Ol
d

S
a
l
i
s
b
u
r
y

R
d
.UT t
o
T
ow
n
C
r
e
e
k
Steakhouse Rd.
Misenheimer Rd.
Project Location35.434 N, -80.2421 W
Richfield
New London
£¤NC8
£¤NC49
£¤US52
£¤NC740
Figure 1. Vicinity MapTown Creek Restoration Site -Option BStanly County, NC
^_
Project Site
LEGEND
0 3,0001,500 Feet
Map Vicinity
Stanly County, NC
Reference:NCDOT 02 & NC One Map
1" = 3000'
NC DMS Project No. 95026NC DEQ Contract No. 003990
Streams
Project Boundary
US Highways
Roads
Major Waterways
Municipalities
Yadkin (03040105060-040)
November 2018
±
Town Creek Restoration Project - Option B: DMS Project No ID. 95026Priority LevelMitigation Ratio (X:1)Reach 1 36310+33 - 13+50 317 317.0R PI 1 317.0Full Channel Restoration, Planted Buffer, Exclusion of Livestock, and Permanent Conservation Easement.Reach 2 73713+50 - 20+61 711 711.0EI PIII 1.5 474.0Dimension and Profile modified in keeping with reference, Planted Buffer, Livestock Exclusion, Permanent Conservation Easement and a culverted farm road crossing. The crossing lies within an easement break between Reach 2 and Reach 3. Due to stability issues along the crossing during construction, the upstream face of the crossing extends into the easement by 6 feet. To account for this encroachment Reach 2 ends at Station 20+61 to account for loss of stream footage.Reach 3 1,84920+87 - 37+08 1,621 1,621.0R PI 1 1,621.0Full Channel Restoration, Planted Buffer, Exclusion of Livestock, and Permanent Conservation Easement.Reach 4 23437+08 - 39+40 232 232.0EI PIII 1.5 154.7Dimension and Profile modified in keeping with reference, Planted Buffer, Livestock Exclusion, Permanent Conservation Easement.Reach 5 84939+40 - 47+87 847 815.0R PI 1 815.0Full Channel Restoration, Planted Buffer, Exclusion of Livestock, Permanent Conservation Easement and a culverted farm road crossing. The crossing lies within an easement break that coincides with a 25-ft overhead powerline right-of-way. Due to stability issues along the crossing during construction, the upstream and downstream faces of the crossing extend into the easement by a total of 7 feet. To account for the easement break and encroachment the creditable footage has been reduced by 35 feet.Wetland Group 1 (WG1)Wetland Group 2 (WG2)Buffer Group 1 (BG1)Buffer Group 2 (BG2)Buffer Group 3 (BG3)Overall Assets SummaryStreamNon-riparian WetlandCredited Buffer (linear feet) (acres) (square feet)Riverine Non-RiverineRestoration 2,753EnhancementEnhancement I 943Enhancement IICreationPreservationHigh Quality Pres* Creditable footage reflects approved credit lengths as outlined in the project Mitigation Plan.Overall CreditsStream 3,381.7Length and Area Summations by Mitigation CategoryRestoration LevelRiparian WetlandAsset Category(acres)Table 1. Project Mitigation ComponentsProject Component (reach ID, etc.)Wetland Position and Hydro TypeExisting Footage or AcreageStationingRestored Footage, Acreage, or SFCreditable Footage, Acreage, or SF*Restoration LevelApproachMitigation CreditsNotes/CommentsMICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION BYEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019, YEAR 4 OF 5
Activity or Report Scheduled
Completion
Data Collection
Complete
Actual Completion or
Delivery
Mitigation Plan Prepared N/A N/A Aug-14
Mitigation Plan Amended N/A N/A Oct-14
Mitigation Plan Approved N/A N/A Feb-15
Final Design – (at least 90% complete) N/A N/A Feb-15
Construction Begins N/A N/A Oct-15
Temporary S&E mix applied to entire project area N/A N/A Jan-16
Permanent seed mix applied to entire project area Feb-16 N/A Jan-16
Planting of live stakes Feb-16 N/A Mar-16
Planting of bare root trees Feb-16 N/A Mar-16
End of Construction Feb-16 N/A Jan-16
Survey of As-built conditions (Year 0 Monitoring-baseline) Apr-16 May-16 Jun-16
Baseline Monitoring Report May-16 Jun-16 Nov-16
Year 1 Stream Monitoring - Nov-16 -
Year 1 Vegetation Monitoring - Oct-16 -
Year 1 Monitoring Report Dec-16 Dec-16 Jan-17
Year 2 Stream Monitoring - Nov-17 -
Year 2 Vegetation Monitoring - Nov-17 -
Year 2 Monitoring Report Dec-17 Nov-17 Dec-17
Year 3 Stream Monitoring - Oct-18 -
Year 3 Vegetation Monitoring - Sep-18 -
Year 3 Monitoring Report Dec-18 Nov-18 Dec-18
Year 4 Stream Monitoring - Nov-19 -
Year 4 Vegetation Monitoring - Sep-19 -
Year 4 Monitoring Report Dec-19 Nov-19 Dec-19
Year 5 Monitoring Dec-20 N/A N/A
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Town Creek Restoration Project - Option B: DMS Project No ID. 95026
Number of Reporting Years: 4
Elapsed Time Since Grading/Planting Complete: 3 Years 9 Months
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019, YEAR 4 OF 5
Table 3. Project Contacts
Construction Contractor
Town Creek Restoration Project - Option B: DMS Project ID No. 95026
Designer
Cary, NC 27518
Contact:
Joe Wright, Tel. [phone]
Lawndale, NC 28090
Holly Ridge, NC 28445H.J. Forest Service
Contact:
Matt Hitch, Tel. [phone]
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. 8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
Kathleen M. McKeithan, PE, Tel. [phone]
P.O. Box 458
Contact:
160 Walker Road
Planting Contractor
Wright Contracting, LLC.
160 Walker Road
Lawndale, NC 28090
Foggy Mountain Nursery, Tel. [phone]
Joe Wright, Tel. [phone]
Green Resources, Tel. [phone]
Mellow Marsh Farm, Tel. [phone]
Andrew Powers, Tel. [phone]
Wright Contracting, LLC.
Monitoring Performers
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. 8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
Cary, NC 27518
Contact:
Nursery Stock Suppliers Mellow Marsh Farm, Tel. [phone]
Seed Mix Sources
Andrew Powers, Tel. [phone]
ArborGen, Tel. [phone]
Contact:
Seeding Contractor
Stream Monitoring Point of Contact
Vegetation Monitoring Point of Contact
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019, YEAR 4 OF 5
Reach 1 Reach 2 Reach 3 Reach 4 Reach 5
Restored Length of Reach (LF)317 711 1,621 232 822
Valley Classification (Rosgen)VII VII VII VII VII
Drainage Area (acres)59.8 77.8 115.6 119.4 134.8
NCDWR Stream Identification Score 27.25 27.25 - 32.0 32 32 32
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
Existing Morphological Description
(Rosgen stream type)
E4b: Incised,
unstable &
straight
E4 : Incised,
unstable &
straight
C4: variable;
unstable
E4: Incised &
unstable
C4 and E4:
Incised &
straight
Evolutionary Trend EbGBEGFBc CGFCEGcFCCGcFC
As-built Morphological Description
(Rosgen stream type)C4 C4 C4 C4 C4
Underlying Mapped Soils BaD BaD, BaF BaF BaF OaA
Drainage Class Well drained Well drained Well drained Well drained
Moderately well
drained
Soil Hydric Status Non-Hydric Non-Hydric Non-Hydric Non-Hydric Hydric
Average Channel Slope (ft/ft) 0.0181 0.0180 0.0122 0.0120 0.0128
FEMA Classification N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Native Vegetation Community
Percent Composition of Exotic/Invasive
Vegetation 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Regulation Applicable Resolved
Waters of the United States – Section 404 Yes Yes
Waters of the United States – Section 401 Yes Yes
Endangered Species Act Yes Yes
Historic Preservation Act Yes Yes
Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) No N/A
FEMA Floodplain Compliance No N/A
Essential Fisheries Habitat No N/A
Categorical Exclusion
Categorical Exclusion
Categorical Exclusion
C, Index #: 13-17-31-1-1
Categorical Exclusion
Piedmont Small Stream
Regulatory Considerations
Supporting Documentation
Categorical Exclusion
Categorical Exclusion
Categorical Exclusion
Reach Summary Information
Project Area (Acres) 11.97
Project Coordinates 35.434 N, -80.2421 W
03-07-13
03040105 / 03040105060-040
Piedmont
Carolina Slate Belt
No activity observed
Yadkin - Pee Dee
100%
134.8
<5%
2.01, 412 / Forest (40%) Agriculture (25%) Impervious Cover (7%)
Beaver activity observed during design phase
Project Drainage Area Percent Impervious
CGIA Land Use Classification
Table 4. Project Attributes
Town Creek Restoration Project - Option B: DMS Project ID No. 95026
Project County
Physiographic Region
Stanly
Project Information
Project Name Town Creek Restoration Project - Option B
Project Watershed Summary Information
Ecoregion
NCDWR Sub-basin for Project
Project River Basin
USGS Hydrologic Unit Code 8- and 14-digit
Project Drainage Area (Acres)
Within Extent of DMS Watershed Plan
WRC Class (Warm Cool Cold)
% Project Easement Fenced/Demarcated
Warm
Lower Yadkin RBRP, 2009
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019, YEAR 4 OF 5

APPENDIX B
Visual Assessment Data

Reach 1
Reach 2
Reach 3
Reach 4
Reach 5
4
7
8
3
5
2
1
6
NC Center for Geographic Information & Analysis
Figure OverviewCurrent Condition Plan View Tow n Cre ek Restoration Project - Option BStanly C ounty, NC
In-Stream Pressure Transducer
Crest Gauge
Reach Boundary
Ph oto Station
Station Markers
Vege tation Plots
Vege tation Problem Areas
Cross Section - Pool
Cross Section - Riffle
Stream Top of Bank
Enha ncement I
Restor ation
Conservation Easement
Fig 2A
Fig 2B
0 250125Feet
NC O neMap, NC Center for Geo graphic Inform ation and Analysis, NC 911
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services
DMS Project No. 95026
Date: December 2019
Monitoring Year: 4 of 5
Drawn By: ADP
Sheet: 1 of 3
1" = 25 0'
TCFL1
TCFL2
VPA 4-2 (.15 AC)
VPA 4-1 (.19 AC)
XS-6
XS-5
XS-4
XS-3
XS-7
XS-2
XS-1
11+00
16+00
21+00
18+00
29+00
30+00
24+00
22+00
12+00
28+00
15+00
19+00
31+00
20+00
27+00
23+00
17+00
26+00
13+00
25+00
14+00
End Reach 2(Station 20+61)
Begin Reach 1(Station 10+33)
Begin Reach 3(Station 20+87)
En d Reach 1 / Begin Reach 2(Station 13+50)
9 8
76
5
4
321
24
28
27
26
25
23
22
21
20
1918
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
4
3
5
2
1
6
NC Center for Geographic Information & Analysis
Figure 2ACurrent Condition Plan View Town Creek Restorat ion Project - Option BStanly County, NC
In-Stream Pressure Transducer
Crest Gauge
Reach Boundary
Ph oto Station
Station Markers
Vege ta tion Plots
Vege ta tion Problem Areas VPAs
Cross Section - Pool
Cross Section - Riffle
Stream Top of Bank
Enha ncement I
Restor ation
Fencing
Conservation Easement
0 12562.5 FeetNorth Carolina Division of Mitigation Services
DMS Project No. 95026
Date: December 2019
Monitoring Year: 4 of 5
Drawn By: ADP
Sheet: 2 of 3
1" = 12 5'
3332
XS-11
XS-8
XS-10
XS-13
XS-9
XS-7
XS-12
32+00
40+00
39+00
41+00
29+00
30+00
35+00
43+00
28+00
45+00
47+00
38+00
31+00
34+00
27+00
44+00
33+00
26+00
46+00
37+00
42+00
36+00
End Reach 5(Station 47+87)
En d Reach 4 / Begin Reach 5(Station 39+40)
En d Reach 3 / Begin Reach 4(Station 37+08)
24
42
43
4140
3938
37
36
35
34
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
23
7
8
5
6
NC Center for Geographic Information & Analysis
Figure 2BCurrent Condition Plan View Town Creek Restorat ion Project - Option BStanly County, NC
In-Stream Pressure Transducer
Crest Gauge
Reach Boundary
Ph oto Station
Station Markers
Vege ta tion Plots
Cross Section - Pool
Cross Section - Riffle
Stream Top of Bank
Enha ncement I
Restor ation
Fencing
Conservation Easement
0 12562.5 FeetNorth Carolina Division of Mitigation Services
DMS Project No. 95026
Date: December 2019
Monitoring Year: 4 of 5
Drawn By: ADP
Sheet: 3 of 3
1" = 12 5'
Reach ID Town Creek - Reach 1Assessed Length (LF) 317Major Channel CategoryChannel Sub-CategoryMetricNumber Stable, Performing as IntendedTotal Numberper As-BuiltNumber of Unstable SegmentsAmount of Unstable Footage% Stable, Performing as IntendedNumber with Stabilizing Woody Veg.Footage with Stabilizing Woody Veg.Adjusted % for Stabilizing Woody Veg.1. Aggradation0 0 100%2. Degradation0 0 100%2. Riffle Condition1. Texture/Substrate 8 8 100%1. Depth9 9 100%2. Length9 9 100%1. Thalweg centering for riffle/run 8 8 100%2. Thalweg centering for pool/glide 9 9 100%1. Scoured /ErodingBank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or scour and erosion0 0 100% 0 0 100%2. UndercutBanks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears likely0 0 100% 0 0 100%3. Mass WastingBank slumping, calving, or collapse 0 0 100% 0 0 100%0 0 100% 0 0 100%1. Overall IntegrityStructures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs12 12 100%2. Grade ControlGrade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.10 10 100%2a. PipingStructures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms10 10 100%3. Bank ProtectionBank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%12 12 100%4. HabitatPool forming structures maintaining ~ Max Pool Depth10 10 100%Table 5a. Visual Stream Morphology Stability AssessmentTown Creek Restoration Project - Option B: Project No. 950262. BankTotals3. Engineering Structures1. Bed1. Vertical Stability3. Pool Condition4.Thalweg positionMICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION BYEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019, YEAR 4 OF 5
Reach ID Town Creek - Reach 2Assessed Length (LF) 711Major Channel CategoryChannel Sub-CategoryMetricNumber Stable, Performing as IntendedTotal Numberper As-BuiltNumber of Unstable SegmentsAmount of Unstable Footage% Stable, Performing as IntendedNumber with Stabilizing Woody Veg.Footage with Stabilizing Woody Veg.Adjusted % for Stabilizing Woody Veg.1. Aggradation 0 0 100%2. Degradation 0 0 100%2. Riffle Condition1. Texture/Substrate 21 21 100%1. Depth 20 20 100%2. Length20 20 100%1. Thalweg centering for riffle/run 21 21 100%2. Thalweg centering for pool/glide 20 20 100%1. Scoured /ErodingBank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or scour and erosion0 0 100% 0 0 100%2. UndercutBanks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears likely0 0 100% 0 0 100%3. Mass WastingBank slumping, calving, or collapse 0 0 100% 0 0 100%0 0 100% 0 0 100%1. Overall IntegrityStructures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs20 20 100%2. Grade ControlGrade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.20 20 100%2a. PipingStructures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms20 20 100%3. Bank ProtectionBank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%20 20 100%4. HabitatPool forming structures maintaining ~ Max Pool Depth20 20 100%TotalsTable 5b. Visual Stream Morphology Stability AssessmentTown Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 950263. Engineering Structures1. Bed1. Vertical Stability3. Pool Condition4. Thalweg position2. BankMICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION BYEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019, YEAR 4 OF 5
Reach ID Town Creek - Reach 3Assessed Length (LF) 1,621Major Channel CategoryChannel Sub-CategoryMetricNumber Stable, Performing as IntendedTotal Numberper As-BuiltNumber of Unstable SegmentsAmount of Unstable Footage% Stable, Performing as IntendedNumber with Stabilizing Woody Veg.Footage with Stabilizing Woody Veg.Adjusted % for Stabilizing Woody Veg.1. Aggradation0 0 100%2. Degradation0 0 100%2. Riffle Condition1. Texture/Substrate 32 32 100%1. Depth32 32 100%2. Length32 32 100%1. Thalweg centering for riffle/run 32 32 100%2. Thalweg centering for pool/glide 32 32 100%1. Scoured /ErodingBank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or scour and erosion0 0 100% 0 0 100%2. UndercutBanks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears likely0 0 100% 0 0 100%3. Mass WastingBank slumping, calving, or collapse 0 0 100% 0 0 100%0 0 100% 0 0 100%1. Overall IntegrityStructures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs66 66 100%2. Grade ControlGrade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.15 15 100%2a. PipingStructures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms15 15 100%3. Bank ProtectionBank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%66 66 100%4. HabitatPool forming structures maintaining ~ Max Pool Depth15 15 100%TotalsTable 5c. Visual Stream Morphology Stability AssessmentTown Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 950263. Engineering Structures1. Bed1. Vertical Stability3. Pool Condition4. Thalweg position2. BankMICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION BYEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019, YEAR 4 OF 5
Reach ID Town Creek -Reach 4Assessed Length (LF) 232Major Channel CategoryChannel Sub-CategoryMetricNumber Stable, Performing as IntendedTotal Numberper As-BuiltNumber of Unstable SegmentsAmount of Unstable Footage% Stable, Performing as IntendedNumber with Stabilizing Woody Veg.Footage with Stabilizing Woody Veg.Adjusted % for Stabilizing Woody Veg.1. Aggradation0 0 100%2. Degradation0 0 100%2. Riffle Condition1. Texture/Substrate 4 4 100%1. Depth4 4 100%2. Length4 4 100%1. Thalweg centering for riffle/run 4 4 100%2. Thalweg centering for pool/glide 4 4 100%1. Scoured /ErodingBank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or scour and erosion0 0 100% 0 0 100%2. UndercutBanks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears likely0 0 100% 0 0 100%3. Mass WastingBank slumping, calving, or collapse 0 0 100% 0 0 100%0 0 100% 0 0 100%1. Overall IntegrityStructures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs0 0 N/A2. Grade ControlGrade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.0 0 N/A2a. PipingStructures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms0 0 N/A3. Bank ProtectionBank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%0 0 N/A4. HabitatPool forming structures maintaining ~ Max Pool Depth0 0 N/ATotalsTable 5d. Visual Stream Morphology Stability AssessmentTown Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 950263. Engineering Structures1. Bed1. Vertical Stability3. Pool Condition4. Thalweg position2. BankMICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION BYEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019, YEAR 4 OF 5
Reach ID Town Creek -Reach 5Assessed Length (LF) 820Major Channel CategoryChannel Sub-CategoryMetricNumber Stable, Performing as IntendedTotal Numberper As-BuiltNumber of Unstable SegmentsAmount of Unstable Footage% Stable, Performing as IntendedNumber with Stabilizing Woody Veg.Footage with Stabilizing Woody Veg.Adjusted % for Stabilizing Woody Veg.1. Aggradation 0 0 100%2. Degradation 0 0 100%2. Riffle Condition1. Texture/Substrate 18 18 100%1. Depth 16 16 100%2. Length16 16 100%1. Thalweg centering for riffle/run 18 18 100%2. Thalweg centering for pool/glide 16 16 100%1. Scoured/ ErodingBank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or scour and erosion0 0 100% 0 0 100%2. UndercutBanks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears likely0 0 100% 0 0 100%3. Mass WastingBank slumping, calving, or collapse 0 0 100% 0 0 100%0 0 100% 0 0 100%1. Overall IntegrityStructures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs31 31 100%2. Grade ControlGrade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.5 5 100%2a. PipingStructures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms5 5 100%3. Bank ProtectionBank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%31 31 100%4. HabitatPool forming structures maintaining ~ Max Pool Depth5 5 100%3. Engineering Structures2. BankTotalsTable 5e. Visual Stream Morphology Stability AssessmentTown Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 950261. Bed1. Vertical Stability3. Pool Condition4. Thalweg positionMICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION BYEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019, YEAR 4 OF 5
Feature IssueStation No. Suspected Cause Photo NumberNo issues in Year 4N/A N/A N/AFeature IssueStation No. Suspected Cause Photo NumberNo issues in Year 4N/A N/A N/AFeature IssueStation No. Suspected Cause Photo NumberNo issues in Year 4N/A N/A N/AFeature IssueStation No. Suspected Cause Photo NumberNo issues in Year 4N/A N/A N/AFeature IssueStation No. Suspected Cause Photo NumberNo issues in Year 4N/A N/A N/ATable 5f. Stream Problem AreasTown Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 95026Town Creek Reach 1Note: The first digit in the Photo Number column references the monitoring year and the second digit references the problem area or photo (which would be identical to a prior years problem area/photo number when persisting from a previous monitoring year).Town Creek Reach 4Town Creek Reach 2Town Creek Reach 5Town Creek Reach 3MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION BYEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019, YEAR 4 OF 5
Reach ID Reaches 1 - 5Planted Acreage 10.73Low Vigor DefinitionsMapping ThresholdCCPV DepictionNumber of PolygonsCombined Acreage% of Planted Acreage1. Bare AreasVery limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material.0.1 acres N/A 0 0.00 0.0%2. Low Stem Density AreasWoody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY4 or 5 stem count criteria.0.1 acres N/A 0 0.00 0.0%0 0.00 0.0%3. Areas of Poor Growth Rates or VigorAreas with woody stems of a size class that are obviously small given the monitoring year.0.25 acresVPA 4-1 and VPA 4-22 0.34 3.2%2 0.34 3.2%Easement Acreage 11.97Vegetation Category DefinitionsMapping ThresholdCCPV DepictionNumber of PolygonsCombined Acreage% of Easement Acreage4. Invasive Areas of ConcernAreas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).1000 SF NA 0 0.00 0.0%5. Easement Encroachment AreasAreas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).N/A N/A 0 0.00 0.0%Low VigorCumulative TotalTable 6a. Vegetation Condition AssessmentTown Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 95026MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION BYEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019, YEAR 4 OF 5
Feature Issue Station No. Suspected Cause Photo NumberLow Vigor 11+00 - 13+00 Dense fescue and compacted soils VPA 4-1 (1) - (2)Feature Issue Station No. Suspected Cause Photo NumberLow Vigor 16+20 - 18+00 Saturated soils VPA 4-2 (3) - (4)Feature Issue Station No. Suspected Cause Photo NumberNo Issues in Year 4. N/A N/A -Feature Issue Station No. Suspected Cause Photo NumberNo Issues in Year 4. N/A N/A -Feature Issue Station No. Suspected Cause Photo NumberNo Issues in Year 4. N/A N/A -Table 6b. Vegetation Problem AreasTown Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 95026*Note: The first digit in the Photo Number column references the monitoring year and the second digit references the problem area or photo (which would be identical to a prior years problem area/photo number when persisting from a previous monitoring year).Reach 2Reach 1Reach 3Reach 4Reach 5MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION BYEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019, YEAR 4 OF 5
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019, YEAR 4 OF 5
Town Creek – Reach 1

PID 1: Station 10+40 – Upstream (11/20/19)

PID 3: Station10+70 – Left Floodplain Rock
Lined Channel (11/20/19)

PID 5: Station 12+20 – Downstream (11/20/19)

PID 2: Station 10+60 – Downstream (11/20/19)

PID 4: Station 11+25 – Downstream (11/20/19)

PID 6: Station 13+60 – Upstream (11/20/19)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019, YEAR 4 OF 5
Town Creek – Reach 2
PID 7: Station 13+75 – Downstream (11/20/19)

PID 9: Station 14+65 – Downstream (11/20/19)

PID 11: Station 16+90 – Upstream (11/20/19)

PID 8: Station 14+65 – Left Floodplain
Matted Drainage Swale (11/20/19)

PID 10: Station 16+15 – Upstream (11/20/19)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019, YEAR 4 OF 5
PID 12: Station 17+75 – Upstream (11/20/19)

PID 14: Station 19+25 – Upstream (11/20/19)

PID 13: Station 18+75 – Upstream (11/20/19)

PID 15: Station 20+50 – Downstream
(11/20/19)

PID 16: Station 20+70 – Upstream (11/20/19)

MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019, YEAR 4 OF 5
Town Creek – Reach 3
PID 17: Station 21+75 – Upstream (11/20/19)

PID 19: Station 23+60 – Upstream (11/20/19)

PID 21: Station 24+50 – Upstream (11/20/19)

PID 18: Station 23+30 – Upstream (11/20/19)

PID 20: Station 23+60 – Left Bank (11/20/19)

PID 22: Station 25+50 – Upstream (11/20/19)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019, YEAR 4 OF 5
PID 23: Station 27+50 – Upstream (11/20/19)

PID 25: Station 28+35 – Right Floodplain
Rock Lined Channel (11/20/19)

PID 27: Station 29+80 – Downstream
(11/20/19)

PID 24: Station 28+10 – Upstream (11/20/19)

PID 26: Station 28+90 – Upstream (11/20/19)

PID 28: Station 31+40 – Upstream (11/20/19)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019, YEAR 4 OF 5
PID 29: Station 33+00 – Upstream (11/20/19)

PID 31: Station 35+50 – Upstream (11/20/19)

PID 30: Station 33+45 – Downstream
(11/20/19)

PID 32: Station 36+90 – Upstream (11/20/19)
Town Creek – Reach 4

PID 33: Station 37+15–Downstream (11/20/19)

PID 34: Station 39+05 – Upstream (11/20/19)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019, YEAR 4 OF 5
Town Creek – Reach 5
PID 35: Station 42+00 – Downstream (11/20/19) PID 36: Station 43+25 – Downstream (11/20/19)

PID 37: Station 44+25 – Downstream (11/20/19) PID 38: Station 45+30 Downstream (11/20/19)

PID 39: Station 45+50 – Upstream (11/20/19) PID 40: Station 46+90 – Upstream (11/20/19)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019, YEAR 4 OF 5

PID 41: Station 47+00 – Right Floodplain Rock PID 42: Station 47+75 – Upstream (11/20/19)
Lined Channel from Wetland (11/20/19)

PID 43: Station 48+05 – Downstream (11/20/19)

APPENDIX C
Vegetation Plot Data

Plot #
Stream/ Wetland
Stems1 Volunteers2 Total3
Success Criteria
Met?
VP1 607 0 607 Yes
VP2 567 0 567 Yes
VP3 769 0 769 Yes
VP4 607 0 607 Yes
VP5 364 0 364 Yes
VP6 486 202 688 Yes
VP7 607 0 607 Yes
VP8 405 0 405 Yes
Project Avg 546 26 572 Yes
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Table 7. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Town Creek Restoration Project No. 95026
1Native planted woody stems. Includes shrubs, does NOT include live stakes. No vines
2Native woody stems. Not planted. No vines.
3Planted + volunteer native woody stems. Includes live stakes. Excl. exotics. Excl. vines.
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Wetland/Stream Vegetation Totals (per acre)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019, YEAR 4 OF 5
Table 8. CVS Vegetation Plot MetadataTown Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 95026Report Prepared ByDrew PowersDate Prepared9/17/2019 9:23database name124526_TownCreek_cvs‐eep‐entrytool‐v2.3.1_MY4.mdbdatabase locationL:\Projects\124526_TownCreek\DISCIPLINE\DISCIPLINE\Docs\Reports\Monitoring\YR‐4\App C ‐ Vegetation Plot Datacomputer nameCARYLAPOWERS1file size58146816DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐MetadataDescription of database file, the report worksheets, and a summary of project(s) and project data.Proj, plantedEach project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre, for each year.  This excludes live stakes.Proj, total stemsEach project is listed with its TOTAL stems per acre, for each year.  This includes live stakes, all planted stems, and all natural/volunteer stems.PlotsList of plots surveyed with location and summary data (live stems, dead stems, missing, etc.).VigorFrequency distribution of vigor classes for stems for all plots.Vigor by SppFrequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species.DamageList of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences and percent of total stems impacted by each.Damage by SppDamage values tallied by type for each species.Damage by PlotDamage values tallied by type for each plot.Planted Stems by Plot and SppA matrix of the count of PLANTED living stems of each species for each plot; dead and missing stems are excluded.ALL Stems by Plot and sppA matrix of the count of total living stems of each species (planted and natural volunteers combined) for each plot; dead and missing stems are excluded.PROJECT SUMMARY‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐Project Code95026project NameTown Creek Restoration Project ‐ Option BDescriptionRiver BasinYadkin‐Pee Deelength(ft)stream‐to‐edge width (ft)area (sq m)Required Plots (calculated)Sampled Plots8MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION BYEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019, YEAR 4 OF 5
Table 9. CVS Stem Count of Planted Stems by Plot and SpeciesTown Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 95026P V T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all TAsimina trilobapawpaw Tree11Betula nigrariver birch Tree2211 22Callicarpa americanaAmerican beautyberry ShrubCarpinus carolinianaAmerican hornbeam Tree112 2Cercis canadensiseastern redbud Tree2211Cornus amomumsilky dogwood Shrub33441111Diospyros virginianacommon persimmon Tree5544Fraxinus pennsylvanicagreen ash Tree11Liriodendron tulipiferatuliptree Tree333322 33Platanus occidentalisAmerican sycamore Tree22Quercus albawhite oak TreeQuercus falcatasouthern red oak TreeQuercus lyrataovercup oak Tree22Quercus michauxiiswamp chestnut oak Tree33Quercus pagodacherrybark oak Tree2222Quercus phelloswillow oak Tree55773311113355Sambucus canadensisCommon Elderberry ShrubSambucus nigraEuropean black elderberry ShrubUlmus americanaAmerican Elm Tree11150151401418018150159 0 912517600400600400400522607 0 607 567 0 567 769 769 769 607 0 607 364 0 364 486 202 688Table 9. CVS Stem Count of Planted Stems by Plot and SpeciesTown Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 95026PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all TAsimina trilobapawpaw Tree1 1111111 1 1 1111Betula nigrariver birch Tree2 27 7888999888121212Callicarpa americanaAmerican beautyberry Shrub1 1 1 2 2 2111Carpinus carolinianaAmerican hornbeam Tree3 3333333 3 3 3111Cercis canadensiseastern redbud Tree3 3444111111111111111111Cornus amomumsilky dogwood Shrub9 9 10 10 10 12 12 12 13 13 13 14 14 14Diospyros virginianacommon persimmon Tree5495511555 4 4 4444Fraxinus pennsylvanicagreen ash Tree1 1 2 2222222 2 2 2222Liriodendron tulipiferatuliptree Tree4 4 1 1 16 16 21 21 21 24 24 24 26 26 26 27 27 27Platanus occidentalisAmerican sycamore Tree5 5 6 6 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 14 14 14Quercus albawhite oak Tree1 1 1 4 4 4333Quercus falcatasouthern red oak Tree2 2 2555Quercus lyrataovercup oak Tree2 2222222Quercus michauxiiswamp chestnut oak Tree3 3555555 8 8 8999Quercus pagodacherrybark oak Tree1 1 5 5555888 8 8 8666Quercus phelloswillow oak Tree4 4 1 1 39 39 41 41 42 44 44 44 43 43 43 47 47 47Sambucus canadensisCommon Elderberry Shrub111111111Sambucus nigraEuropean black elderberry Shrub222Ulmus americanaAmerican Elm Tree1115 0 15 10 0 10 108 5 113 121 121 128 142 142 142 149 149 149 159 159 1595 0 0 4 0 0 13 2 2 14 14 14 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16607 0 607 405 0 405 546 25 572 612 612 647 718 718 718 754 754 754 804 804 804Current Plot Data (MY4 2019)MY4 (2019) MY2 (2017) MY1 (2016)118 8Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%Exceeds requirements by 10%size (ACRES)Species countStems per ACREExceeds requirements, but by less than 10%Stem countsize (ares)895026-01-VP7 95026-01-VP8Scientific Name Common NameSpecies Type0.02 0.02MY3 (2018)80.200.20Scientific Name Common NameSpecies Type95026-01-VP1 95026-01-VP2Stems per ACRE10.02Current Plot Data (MY4 2019)95026-01-VP3 95026-01-VP4 95026-01-VP5 95026-01-VP610.0210.0210.0210.02Stem countsize (ares)size (ACRES)Species count1MY0 (2016)Annual Means80.200.020.20 0.20MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION BYEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019, YEAR 4 OF 5
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019, YEAR 4 OF 5
Town Creek – Vegetation Plot Photos

Vegetation Plot 1 (9/12/19)

Vegetation Plot 3 (9/12/19)

Vegetation Plot 5 (9/12/2019)

Vegetation Plot 2 (9/12/19)

Vegetation Plot 4 (9/12/2019)

Vegetation Plot 6 (9/12/2019)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019, YEAR 4 OF 5
Vegetation Plot 7 (9/12/2019) Vegetation Plot 8 (9/12/2019)

APPENDIX D
Stream Survey Data

Figure 3. Cross-sections with Annual Overlays
Town Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 95026
Feature Stream
Type BKF Area BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth W/D BH
Ratio*ER BKF
Elev
TOB
Elev WFPA
Riffle C 3.59 7.70 0.50 0.9 16.70 1.00 3.70 586.35 586.60 24.90
*BHR=1.0 is based on asbuilt bkf area of 5.79 at an elevation of 586.586. Remainder of data based on actual bankfull elevation from as-
built which is 586.35. Thalweg elevation is 585.462
Permanent Cross-section
X1 Riffle - Reach 2
(Monitoring Year 4 - Collected September 2019)
LEFT BANK RIGHT BANK
585
586
587
588
589
590
0 1020304050ElevationStation
As-Built MY1 2016 MY2 2017 MY3 2018 MY4 2019 MY4 BKF Bankfull
X1 - Riffle
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019, YEAR 4 OF 5
Figure 3 Cont. Cross-sections with Annual Overlays
Town Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 95026
Feature Stream
Type BKF Area BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth W/D BH
Ratio*ER BKF
Elev
TOB
Elev WFPA
Riffle E 6.09 8.40 0.70 1.30 11.50 0.90 3.80 583.31 583.33 32.20
*BHR=0.90 is based on asbuilt bkf area of 8.28 at an elevation of 583.524. Remainder of data based on actual bankfull elevation from as-built
which is 583.31. Thalweg elevation is 582.052
RIGHT BANKLEFT BANK
Permanent Cross-section
X2 Riffle - Reach 2
(Monitoring Year 4 - Collected September 2019)
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
0 1020304050ElevationStation
As-built MY1 2016 MY2 2017 MY3 2018
MY4 2019 MY4 BKF Bankfull Floodprone
X2 - Riffle
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019, YEAR 4 OF 5
Figure 3 Cont. Cross-sections with Annual Overlays
Town Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 95026
Feature Stream
Type
BKF
Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth W/D BH
Ratio ER BKF
Elev
TOB
Elev WFPA
Pool 8.26 8.60 1.00 1.80 9.10 - - 582.09 582.13 35.00
RIGHT BANKLEFT BANK
Permanent Cross-section
X3 Pool - Reach 2
(Monitoring Year 4 - Collected September 2019)
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
0 1020304050ElevationStation
As-Built MY1 2016 MY2 2017 MY3 2018
MY4 2019 Bankfull Floodprone
X3 - Pool
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019, YEAR 4 OF 5
Figure 3 Cont. Cross-sections with Annual Overlays
Town Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 95026
Feature Stream
Type
BKF
Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth W/D BH Ratio ER
BKF
Elev
TOB
Elev WFPA
Riffle C 7.24 9.90 0.70 1.30 13.50 1.00 3.80 576.81 576.93 37.40
*
*BHR = 1.0 is based on as-built bkf area of 8.38 at an elevation of 576.92. Remainder of data based on actual bankfull elevation from
as-built which is 576.81. Thalweg elevation is 575.504
LEFT BANK RIGHT BANK
Permanent Cross-section
X4 Riffle - Reach 2
(Monitoring Year 4 - Collected September 2019)
575
576
577
578
579
0 1020304050ElevationStation
As-Built MY1 2016 MY2 2017 MY3 2018
MY4 2019 MY4 BKF Bankfull Floodprone
X4 - Riffle
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019, YEAR 4 OF 5
Figure 3 Cont. Cross-sections with Annual Overlays
Town Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 95026
Feature Stream
Type
BKF
Area BKF Width BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth W/D BH
Ratio ER BKF
Elev TOB Elev WFPA
Riffle C 6.76 10.30 0.70 1.10 15.80 0.90 4.70 568.85 568.91 48.10
LEFT BANK RIGHT BANK
Permanent Cross-section
X5 Riffle - Reach 3
(Monitoring Year 4 - Collected September 2019)
*BHR = 0.9 is based on as-built bkf area of 8.68 at an elevation of 569.002. Remainder of data based on actual bankfull elevation from as-
built which is 568.85. Thalweg elevation is 567.771.
567
568
569
570
571
0 1020304050ElevationStation
As-Built MY1 2016 MY2 2017 MY3 2018
MY4 2019 MY4 BKF Bankfull Floodprone
X5 - Riffle
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019, YEAR 4 OF 5
Figure 3 Cont. Cross-sections with Annual Overlays
Town Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 95026
Feature Stream
Type
BKF
Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth W/D BH Ratio ER
BKF
Elev
TOB
Elev WFPA
Pool 11.54 13.40 0.90 1.80 15.60 - - 568.63 568.53 49.30
-
LEFT BANK RIGHT BANK
Permanent Cross-section
X6 Pool - Reach 3
(Monitoring Year 4 - Collected September 2019)
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
0 102030405060ElevationStation
As-Built MY1 2016 MY2 2017 MY3 2018
MY4 2019 Bankfull Floodprone
X6 - Pool
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019, YEAR 4 OF 5
Figure 3 Cont. Cross-sections with Annual Overlays
Town Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 95026
Feature Stream
Type BKF Area BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth W/D BH Ratio ER
BKF
Elev
TOB
Elev WFPA
Riffle C 4.65 9.40 0.50 0.80 18.90 0.90 4.20 563.96 563.98 38.00
*BHR = 0.9 is based on as-built bkf area of 6.51 at an elevation of 564.115. Remainder of data based on actual bankfull elevation from as-
built which is 563.96 . Thalweg elevation is 563.120.
LEFT BANK RIGHT BANK
Permanent Cross-section
X7 Riffle - Reach 3
(Monitoring Year 4 - Collected September 2019)
562
563
564
565
566
567
0 1020304050ElevationStation
As-Built MY1 2016 MY2 2017 MY3 2018
MY4 2019 MY4 BKF Bankfull Floodprone
X7 - Riffle
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019, YEAR 4 OF 5
Figure 3 Cont. Cross-sections with Annual Overlays
Town Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 95026
Feature Stream
Type BKF Area BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth W/D BH
Ratio ER BKF
Elev
TOB
Elev WFPA
Pool 10.62 11.20 0.90 1.90 11.90 - - 555.44 555.20 50.60
-
Permanent Cross-section
X8 Pool - Reach 3
(Monitoring Year 4 - Collected September 2019)
RIGHT BANKLEFT BANK
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
0 1020304050ElevationStation
As-Built MY1 2016 MY2 2017 MY3 2018
MY4 2019 Bankfull Floodprone
X8 - Pool
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019, YEAR 4 OF 5
Figure 3 Cont. Cross-sections with Annual Overlays
Town Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 95026
Feature Stream
Type
BKF
Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev
TOB
Elev WFPA
Riffle C 4.63 9.50 0.50 0.80 19.50 0.90 3.30 555.19 555.27 31.20
*BHR = 0.9 is based on as-built bkf area of 6.79 at an elevation of 555.37. Remainder of data based on actual bankfull elevation from as-
built which is 555.19. Thalweg elevation is 554.388.
LEFT BANK RIGHT BANK
Permanent Cross-section
X9 Riffle - Reach 3
(Monitoring Year 4 - Collected September 2019)
553
554
555
556
557
558
0 1020304050ElevationStation
As-Built MY1 2016 MY2 2017 MY3 2018
MY4 2019 MY4 BKF Bankfull Floodprone
X9 - Riffle
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019, YEAR 4 OF 5
Figure 3 Cont. Cross-sections with Annual Overlays
Town Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 95026
Feature Stream
Type
BKF
Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth W/D BH Ratio ER
BKF
Elev
TOB
Elev WFPA
Riffle C 6.92 10.20 0.70 1.20 15.10 1.10 5.80 550.83 551.03 59.20
*BHR = 1.1 is based on as-built bkf area of 8.0 at an elevation of 550.93. Remainder of data based on actual bankfull elevation from as-
built which is 550.83. Thalweg elevation is 549.674.
LEFT BANK RIGHT BANK
Permanent Cross-section
X10 Riffle - Reach 5
(Monitoring Year 4 - Collected September 2019)
549
550
551
552
553
0 10203040506070ElevationStation
As-built MY1 2016 MY2 2017 MY3 2018
MY4 2019 MY4 BKF Bankfull Floodprone
X10 - Riffle
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019, YEAR 4 OF 5
Figure 3 Cont. Cross-sections with Annual Overlays
Town Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 95026
Feature Stream
Type
BKF
Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth W/D BH Ratio ER
BKF
Elev
TOB
Elev WFPA
Pool 17.10 17.30 1.00 2.10 17.40 - - 549.52 549.32 63.60
-
RIGHT BANKLEFT BANK
Permanent Cross-section
X11 Pool - Reach 5
(Monitoring Year 4 - Collected September 2019)
547
548
549
550
551
552
0 10203040506070ElevationStation
As-Built MY1 2016 MY2 2017 MY3 2018
MY4 2019 Bankfull Floodprone
X11 - Pool
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019, YEAR 4 OF 5
Figure 3 Cont. Cross-sections with Annual Overlays
Town Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 95026
Feature Stream
Type
BKF
Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev
TOB
Elev WFPA
Riffle C 4.69 10.10 0.50 0.80 21.80 1.00 4.20 549.04 549.18 39.4
*BHR = 1.0 is based on as-built bkf area of 5.71 at an elevation of 549.14. Remainder of data based on actual bankfull elevation from as-
built which is 549.04. Thalweg elevation is 548.285.
LEFT BANK RIGHT BANK
Permanent Cross-section
X12 Riffle - Reach 5
(Monitoring Year 4 - Collected September 2019)
547
548
549
550
551
0 102030405060ElevationStation
As-Built MY1 2016 MY2 2017 MY3 2018
MY4 2019 MY4 BKF Bankfull Floodprone
X12 - Riffle
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019, YEAR 4 OF 5
Figure 3 Cont. Cross-sections with Annual Overlays
Town Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 95026
Feature Stream
Type
BKF
Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth W/D BH Ratio ER
BKF
Elev
TOB
Elev WFPA
Riffle C 5.97 11.00 0.50 0.90 20.10 1.10 5.20 546.93 546.98 56.6
*BHR = 1.1 is based on as-built bkf area of 5.97 at an elevation of 546.93. Remainder of data based on actual bankfull elevation from as-
built which is 546.93. Thalweg elevation is 545.984.
LEFT BANK RIGHT BANK
Permanent Cross-section
X13 Riffle - Reach 5
(Monitoring Year 4 - Collected September 2019)
545
546
547
548
549
0 102030405060ElevationStation
As-Built MY1 2016 MY2 2017 MY3 2018
MY4 2019 MY4 BKF Bankfull Floodprone
X13 - Riffle
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019, YEAR 4 OF 5
BAKER PROJECT NO.SITE OR PROJECT:Town Creek Stream Restoration Project - Monitoring Year 4REACH/LOCATION:Town Creek - Reach 2, XS 1DATE COLLECTED:10/30/2019FIELD COLLECTION BY:APDATA ENTRY BY:APPARTICLE CLASS COUNTMATERIAL PARTICLE SIZE (mm) Riffle Class % % CumSilt / Clay < .06321 20% 20%Very Fine .063 - .1250 0% 20%Fine .125 - .250 0% 20%Medium .25 - .500 0% 20%Coarse .50 - 1.00 0% 20%Very Coarse 1.0 - 2.00 0% 20%Very Fine 2.0 - 2.80 0% 20%Very Fine 2.8 - 4.00 0% 20%Fine 4.0 - 5.66 6% 26%Fine 5.6 - 8.012 12% 38%Medium 8.0 - 11.010 10% 48%Medium 11.0 - 16.011 11% 58%Coarse 16.0 - 22.68 8% 66%Coarse 22.6 - 325 5% 71%Very Coarse 32 - 4519 18% 89%Very Coarse 45 - 645 5% 94%Small 64 - 902 2% 96%Small 90 - 1283 3% 99%Large 128 - 1801 1% 100%Large 180 - 2560 0% 100%Small 256 - 3620 0% 100%Small 362 - 5120 0% 100%Medium 512 - 10240 0% 100%Large-Very Large 1024 - 20480 0% 100%Bedrock > 20480 0% 100%Total103 100% 100%D16 = #N/AD35 = 6.56D50 = 11.96D84 = 44.05D95 = 98.28D100 = > 2048RiffleChannel materials (mm)Figure 4. Riffle Pebble Count Size Class Distribution with Annual OverlaysTown Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 95026124526SummarySANDSILT/CLAYSANDGRAVELCOBBLEBOULDERBEDROCK0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000Cumulative PercentParticle Size (mm)Town Creek- Reach 2 - X1Riffle Pebble Count Particle Size DistributionAB (2016)MY1 (2016)MY2 (2017)MY3 (2018)MY4 (2019)0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Class PercentParticle Size Class (mm)Town Creek - Reach 2 - X1Riffle Pebble Count Size Class DistributionAB (2016)MY1 (2016)MY2 (2017)MY3 (2018)MY4 (2019)MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION BYEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019, YEAR 4 OF 5
BAKER PROJECT NO.SITE OR PROJECT:Town Creek Stream Restoration Project - Monitoring Year 4REACH/LOCATION:Town Creek - Reach 2, XS 4DATE COLLECTED:10/30/2019FIELD COLLECTION BY:APDATA ENTRY BY:APPARTICLE CLASS COUNTMATERIAL PARTICLE SIZE (mm) Riffle Class % % CumSilt / Clay < .06377% 7%Very Fine .063 - .12500% 7%Fine .125 - .2500%7%Medium .25 - .5000%7%Coarse .50 - 1.011 11% 19%Very Coarse 1.0 - 2.000% 19%Very Fine 2.0 - 2.800% 19%Very Fine 2.8 - 4.00 0% 19%Fine 4.0 - 5.62 2% 21%Fine 5.6 - 8.04 4% 25%Medium 8.0 - 11.07 7% 32%Medium 11.0 - 16.010 10% 42%Coarse 16.0 - 22.66 6% 48%Coarse 22.6 - 329 9% 58%Very Coarse 32 - 4513 13% 71%Very Coarse 45 - 6455% 76%Small 64 - 9055% 81%Small 90 - 12814 14% 96%Large 128 - 1804 4% 100%Large 180 - 25600% 100%Small 256 - 36200% 100%Small 362 - 5120 0% 100%Medium 512 - 10240 0% 100%Large-Very Large 1024 - 204800% 100%Bedrock > 204800% 100%Total97 100% 100%D16 = 0.67D35 = 12.04D50 = 24.12D84 = 95.89D95 = 135.87D100 = > 2048RiffleChannel materials (mm)Figure 4 Cont. Riffle Pebble Count Size Class Distribution with Annual OverlaysTown Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 95026124526SummarySANDSILT/CLAYSANDGRAVELCOBBLEBOULDERBEDROCK0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000Cumulative PercentParticle Size (mm)Town Creek - Reach 2 - X4Riffle Pebble Count Particle Size DistributionAB (2016)MY1 (2016)MY2 (2017)MY3 (2018)MY4 (2019)0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Class PercentParticle Size Class (mm)Town Creek - Reach 2 - X4Riffle Pebble Count Size Class DistributionAB (2016)MY1 (2016)MY2 (2017)MY3 (2018)MY4 (2019)MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION BYEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019, YEAR 4 OF 5
BAKER PROJECT NO.SITE OR PROJECT:Town Creek Stream Restoration Project - Monitoring Year 4REACH/LOCATION:Town Creek - Reach 3, XS 5DATE COLLECTED:10/30/2019FIELD COLLECTION BY:APDATA ENTRY BY:APPARTICLE CLASS COUNTMATERIAL PARTICLE SIZE (mm) Riffle Class % % CumSilt / Clay < .06376% 6%Very Fine .063 - .12500% 6%Fine .125 - .2500% 6%Medium .25 - .5000% 6%Coarse .50 - 1.000% 6%Very Coarse 1.0 - 2.033% 9%Very Fine 2.0 - 2.800% 9%Very Fine 2.8 - 4.000% 9%Fine 4.0 - 5.611% 10%Fine 5.6 - 8.033% 13%Medium 8.0 - 11.087% 20%Medium 11.0 - 16.01312% 32%Coarse 16.0 - 22.61413% 44%Coarse 22.6 - 32109% 53%Very Coarse 32 - 4576% 59%Very Coarse 45 - 641110% 69%Small 64 - 901211% 80%Small 90 - 1281917% 97%Large 128 - 18022% 99%Large 180 - 25611% 100%Small 256 - 36200% 100%Small 362 - 51200% 100%Medium 512 - 102400% 100%Large-Very Large 1024 - 204800% 100%Bedrock > 204800% 100%Total111 100% 100%D16 = 8.06D35 = 16.76D50 = 31.21D84 = 99.49D95 = 125.25D100 = > 2048RiffleChannel materials (mm)Figure 4 Cont. Riffle Pebble Count Size Class Distribution with Annual OverlaysTown Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 95026124526SummarySANDSILT/CLAYSANDGRAVELCOBBLEBOULDERBEDROCK0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000Cumulative PercentParticle Size (mm)Town Creek - Reach 3 - X5Riffle Pebble Count Particle Size DistributionAB (2016)MY1 (2016)MY2 (2017)MY3 (2018)MY4 (2019)0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Class PercentParticle Size Class (mm)Town Creek - Reach 3 - X5Riffle Pebble Count Size Class DistributionAB (2016)MY1 (2016)MY2 (2017)MY3 (2018)MY4 (2019)MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION BYEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019, YEAR 4 OF 5
BAKER PROJECT NO.SITE OR PROJECT:Town Creek Stream Restoration Project - Monitoring Year 4REACH/LOCATION:Town Creek - Reach 3, XS 7DATE COLLECTED:10/30/2019FIELD COLLECTION BY:APDATA ENTRY BY:APPARTICLE CLASS COUNTMATERIAL PARTICLE SIZE (mm) Riffle Class % % CumSilt / Clay < .06333% 3%Very Fine .063 - .12500% 3%Fine .125 - .2500% 3%Medium .25 - .5000% 3%Coarse .50 - 1.000% 3%Very Coarse 1.0 - 2.011% 4%Very Fine 2.0 - 2.800% 4%Very Fine 2.8 - 4.000% 4%Fine 4.0 - 5.600% 4%Fine 5.6 - 8.033% 7%Medium 8.0 - 11.066% 13%Medium 11.0 - 16.044% 17%Coarse 16.0 - 22.677% 24%Coarse 22.6 - 321414% 38%Very Coarse 32 - 451515% 53%Very Coarse 45 - 642020% 73%Small 64 - 901212% 85%Small 90 - 12888% 93%Large 128 - 18055% 98%Large 180 - 25622% 100%Small 256 - 36200% 100%Small 362 - 51200% 100%Medium 512 - 102400% 100%Large-Very Large 1024 - 204800% 100%Bedrock > 204800% 100%Total100 100% 100%D16 = 15.02D35 = 31.40D50 = 43.58D84 = 92.25D95 = 127.81D100 = > 2048RiffleChannel materials (mm)Figure 4 Cont. Riffle Pebble Count Size Class Distribution with Annual OverlaysTown Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 95026124526SummarySANDSILT/CLAYSANDGRAVELCOBBLEBOULDERBEDROCK0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000Cumulative PercentParticle Size (mm)Town Creek- Reach 3 - X7Riffle Pebble Count Particle Size DistributionAB (2016)MY1 (2016)MY2 (2017)MY3 (2018)MY4 (2019)0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Class PercentParticle Size Class (mm)Town Creek - Reach 3 - X7Riffle Pebble Count Size Class DistributionAB (2016)MY1 (2016)MY2 (2017)MY3 (2018)MY4 (2019)MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION BYEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019, YEAR 4 OF 5
BAKER PROJECT NO.SITE OR PROJECT:Town Creek Stream Restoration Project - Monitoring Year 4REACH/LOCATION:Town Creek - Reach 3, XS 9DATE COLLECTED:10/30/2019FIELD COLLECTION BY:APDATA ENTRY BY:APPARTICLE CLASS COUNTMATERIAL PARTICLE SIZE (mm) Riffle Class % % CumSilt / Clay < .06377% 7%Very Fine .063 - .12500% 7%Fine .125 - .2500% 7%Medium .25 - .5000% 7%Coarse .50 - 1.033% 10%Very Coarse 1.0 - 2.000% 10%Very Fine 2.0 - 2.800% 10%Very Fine 2.8 - 4.000% 10%Fine 4.0 - 5.600% 10%Fine 5.6 - 8.033% 13%Medium 8.0 - 11.066% 18%Medium 11.0 - 16.088% 26%Coarse 16.0 - 22.61313% 39%Coarse 22.6 - 321212% 50%Very Coarse 32 - 452120% 71%Very Coarse 45 - 641515% 85%Small 64 - 9077% 92%Small 90 - 12866% 98%Large 128 - 18022% 100%Large 180 - 25600% 100%Small 256 - 36200% 100%Small 362 - 51200% 100%Medium 512 - 102400% 100%Large-Very Large 1024 - 204800% 100%Bedrock > 204800% 100%Total103 100% 100%D16 = 9.38D35 = 19.98D50 = 28.97D84 = 60.62D95 = 113.82D100 = > 2048RiffleChannel materials (mm)Figure 4 Cont. Riffle Pebble Count Size Class Distribution with Annual OverlaysTown Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 95026124526SummarySANDSILT/CLAYSANDGRAVELCOBBLEBOULDERBEDROCK0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000Cumulative PercentParticle Size (mm)Town Creek- Reach 3 - X9Riffle Pebble Count Particle Size DistributionAB (2016)MY1 (2016)MY2 (2017)MY3 (2018)MY4 (2019)0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Class PercentParticle Size Class (mm)Town Creek - Reach 3 - X9Riffle Pebble Count Size Class DistributionAB (2016)MY1 (2016)MY2 (2017)MY3 (2018)MY4 (2019)MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION BYEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019, YEAR 4 OF 5
BAKER PROJECT NO.SITE OR PROJECT:Town Creek Stream Restoration Project - Monitoring Year 4REACH/LOCATION:Town Creek - Reach 5, XS 10DATE COLLECTED:10/30/2019FIELD COLLECTION BY:APDATA ENTRY BY:APPARTICLE CLASS COUNTMATERIAL PARTICLE SIZE (mm) Riffle Class % % CumSilt / Clay < .06333% 3%Very Fine .063 - .12500% 3%Fine .125 - .2500%3%Medium .25 - .5000%3%Coarse .50 - 1.000%3%Very Coarse 1.0 - 2.000% 3%Very Fine 2.0 - 2.800% 3%Very Fine 2.8 - 4.000%3%Fine 4.0 - 5.622%5%Fine 5.6 - 8.033%8%Medium 8.0 - 11.09 9% 17%Medium 11.0 - 16.014 14% 30%Coarse 16.0 - 22.68 8% 38%Coarse 22.6 - 3210 10% 48%Very Coarse 32 - 4518 17% 65%Very Coarse 45 - 641414% 79%Small 64 - 901111% 89%Small 90 - 1287 7% 96%Large 128 - 1804 4% 100%Large 180 - 25600% 100%Small 256 - 36200% 100%Small 362 - 5120 0% 100%Medium 512 - 10240 0% 100%Large-Very Large 1024 - 204800% 100%Bedrock > 204800% 100%Total103 100% 100%D16 = 9.10D35 = 15.83D50 = 27.48D84 = 81.07D95 = 123.79D100 = 180 - 256RiffleChannel materials (mm)Figure 4 Cont. Riffle Pebble Count Size Class Distribution with Annual OverlaysTown Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 95026124526SummarySANDSILT/CLAYSANDGRAVELCOBBLEBOULDERBEDROCK0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000Cumulative PercentParticle Size (mm)Town Creek - Reach 5 - X10Riffle Pebble Count Particle Size DistributionAB (2016)MY1 (2016)MY2 (2017)MY3 (2018)MY4 (2019)0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Class PercentParticle Size Class (mm)Town Creek - Reach 5 - X10Riffle Pebble Count Size Class DistributionAB (2016)MY1 (2016)MY2 (2017)MY3 (2018)MY4 (2019)MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION BYEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019, YEAR 4 OF 5
BAKER PROJECT NO.SITE OR PROJECT:Town Creek Stream Restoration Project - Monitoring Year 4REACH/LOCATION:Town Creek - Reach 5, XS 12DATE COLLECTED:10/30/2019FIELD COLLECTION BY:APDATA ENTRY BY:APPARTICLE CLASS COUNTMATERIAL PARTICLE SIZE (mm) Riffle Class % % CumSilt / Clay < .06322% 2%Very Fine .063 - .12500% 2%Fine .125 - .2500% 2%Medium .25 - .5000% 2%Coarse .50 - 1.000% 2%Very Coarse 1.0 - 2.044% 6%Very Fine 2.0 - 2.800% 6%Very Fine 2.8 - 4.000% 6%Fine 4.0 - 5.600% 6%Fine 5.6 - 8.055% 11%Medium 8.0 - 11.055% 16%Medium 11.0 - 16.01111% 27%Coarse 16.0 - 22.61010% 37%Coarse 22.6 - 321818% 54%Very Coarse 32 - 451616% 70%Very Coarse 45 - 6488% 78%Small 64 - 901212% 90%Small 90 - 12877% 97%Large 128 - 18033% 100%Large 180 - 25600% 100%Small 256 - 36200% 100%Small 362 - 51200% 100%Medium 512 - 102400% 100%Large-Very Large 1024 - 204800% 100%Bedrock > 204800% 100%Total101 100% 100%D16 = 10.16D35 = 20.32D50 = 27.36D84 = 62.15D95 = 101.21D100 = > 2048RiffleChannel materials (mm)Figure 4 Cont. Riffle Pebble Count Size Class Distribution with Annual OverlaysTown Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 95026124526SummarySANDSILT/CLAYSANDGRAVELCOBBLEBOULDERBEDROCK0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000Cumulative PercentParticle Size (mm)Town Creek - Reach 5 - X12Riffle Pebble Count Particle Size DistributionAB (2016)MY1 (2016)MY2 (2017)MY3 (2018)MY4 (2019)0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Class PercentParticle Size Class (mm)Town Creek- Reach 5 - X12Riffle Pebble Count Size Class DistributionAB (2016)MY1 (2016)MY2 (2017)MY3 (2018)MY4 (2019)MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION BYEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019, YEAR 4 OF 5
Table 10. Baseline Stream SummaryTown Creek Restoration Project - Option B: DMS Project ID No. 95026Reach 1 (317 LF)Dimension and Substrate - RiffleLL UL Eq. Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD nBF Width (ft) ----- 23.0 80.0 4.2 5.5 ----- ----- 7.2 ----- 2 ----- 9.0 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Floodprone Width (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- 72.1 ----- ----- 76.6 ----- 2 20 ----- ----- 50 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----BF Mean Depth (ft) ----- 2.3 5.8 0.7 0.8 ----- ----- 1.1 ----- 2 ----- 0.68 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----BF Max Depth (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.8 ----- ----- 2.3 ----- 2 ----- 1 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----BF Cross-sectional Area (ft²) ----- 80.0 300.0 4.2 5.4 ----- ----- 5.9 ----- 2 ----- 6.1 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Width/Depth Ratio ----- ----- ----- ----- 5.22 ----- ----- 9.43 ----- 2 ----- 13.3 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Entrenchment Ratio ----- ----- ----- ----- 10.1 ----- ----- 13.8 ----- 2 ----- ----- ----- >2.2 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Bank Height Ratio ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.3 ----- ----- 1.5 ----- 2 ----- 1 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----d50 (mm) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 6.9 ----- ----- ----- 1 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----PatternChannel Beltwidth (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----------Radius of Curvature (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Meander Wavelength (ft) ----- ----- 0.0 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Meander Width Ratio ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----ProfileRiffle Length (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Riffle Slope (ft/ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.022 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.012 ----- ----- ----- 8Pool Length (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Pool Spacing (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 14.0 ----- ----- 45.0 ----- ----- 12.0 ----- ----- 42.0 ----- 11Pool Max Depth (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.4 ----- ----- 2.4 ----- ----- 0.2 ----- ----- 0.8 ----- 11Pool Volume (ft3) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Substrate and Transport ParametersRi% / Ru% / P% / G% / S% ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----SC% / Sa% / G% / B% / Be% ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f² ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- -----Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m² ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Additional Reach ParametersDrainage Area (SM) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.09 ----- ----- ----- 0.09 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.09 ----- ----- ----- -----Impervious cover estimate (%) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Rosgen Classification ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- E4b (incised) ----- ----- ----- C4 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- C4 ----- ----- ----- -----BF Velocity (fps) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 2.76 ----- ----- ----- 2.72 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----BF Discharge (cfs) ----- 290.0 2000.0 15.6 ----- ----- ----- 16.3 ----- ----- ----- 16.3 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Valley Length ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 301.9 ----- ----- ----- -----Channel length (ft)2----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 363 ----- ----- ----- 316 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 317.0 ----- ----- ----- -----Sinuosity ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.17 ----- ----- ----- 1.02 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.1 ----- ----- ----- -----Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.0212 ----- ----- ----- 0.0217 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.0181 ----- ----- ----- -----BF slope (ft/ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- -----BEHI VL% / L% / M% / H% / VH% / E% ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Channel Stability or Habitat Metric ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Biological or Other ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----* Harman, W.A., G.D. Jennings, J.M. Patterson, D.R. Clinton, L.O. Slate, A.G. Jessup, J.R. Everhart, and R.E. Smith. 1999. Bankfull hydraulic geometry relationships for North Carolina streams. Wildland Hydrology. AWRA Symposium Proceedings. D.S. Olsen and J.P. Potyondy, eds. American Water Resources Association. June 30-July 2, 1999. Bozeman, MT.0.2 / 4.3 / 6.9 / 30.8 / 54.5Monitoring Baseline (As-built)ParameterUSGS GaugeRegional Curve Interval (Harman et al, 1999)*Pre-Existing Condition DesignMICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION BYEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019, YEAR 4 OF 5
Table 10. Baseline Stream SummaryTown Creek Restoration Project - Option B: DMS Project ID No. 95026Reach 2 (711 LF)Dimension and Substrate - RiffleLL UL Eq. Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD nBF Width (ft) ----- 23.0 80.0 4.8 6.6 ----- ----- 8.8 ----- 2 ----- 9.0 ----- ----- ----- ----- 8.8 ----- ----- 12.0 ----- 3Floodprone Width (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- 25.5 ----- ----- 42.7 ----- 2 20 ----- ----- 50.0 ----- ----- 27.1 ----- ----- 42.6 ----- 3BF Mean Depth (ft) ----- 2.3 5.8 0.8 1.1 ----- ----- 1.6 ----- 2 ----- 0.7 ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.7 ----- ----- 1.0 ----- 3BF Max Depth (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.9 ----- ----- 2.4 ----- 2 ----- 1.0 ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.1 ----- ----- 2.3 ----- 3BF Cross-sectional Area (ft²) ----- 80.0 300.0 5.1 6.9 ----- ----- 14.0 ----- 2 ----- 6.1 ----- ----- ----- ----- 5.8 ----- ----- 12.0 ----- 3Width/Depth Ratio ----- ----- ----- ----- 5.6 ----- ----- 6.2 ----- 2 ----- 13.3 ----- ----- ----- ----- 10.2 ----- ----- 13.2 ----- 3Entrenchment Ratio ----- ----- ----- ----- 3.9 ----- ----- 4.8 ----- 2 ----- ----- ----- >2.2 ----- ----- 3.1 ----- ----- 3.7 ----- 3Bank Height Ratio ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.5 ----- ----- 1.6 ----- 2 ----- 1.0 ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.0 ----- ----- 1.0 ----- 3d50 (mm) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 16.7 ----- ----- ----- 1 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 17.1 ----- ----- 23.3 ----- 2PatternChannel Beltwidth (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----------Radius of Curvature (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Meander Wavelength (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Meander Width Ratio ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----ProfileRiffle Length (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Riffle Slope (ft/ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.0175 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.010 ----- ----- ----- 9Pool Length (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Pool Spacing (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 14 ----- ----- 45 ----- ----- 19.0 ----- ----- 63.0 ----- 19Pool Max Depth (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.4 ----- ----- 2.4 ----- ----- 0.200 ----- ----- 3.4 ----- 20Pool Volume (ft3) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Substrate and Transport ParametersRi% / Ru% / P% / G% / S% ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----SC% / Sa% / G% / B% / Be% ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f² ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.79 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.65 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m² ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 34.9 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 32.9 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- -----Additional Reach ParametersDrainage Area (SM) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.1 ----- ----- ----- 0.12 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.12 ----- ----- ----- -----Impervious cover estimate (%) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Rosgen Classification ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- E4 (incised) ----- ----- ----- C4 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- C4 / E4 ----- ---------- -----BF Velocity (fps) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.49 ----- ----- ----- 3.48 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----BF Discharge (cfs) ----- 290.0 2000.0 19.3 ----- ----- ----- 20.9 ----- ----- ----- 20.9 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Valley Length ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 695 ----- ----- ----- -----Channel length (ft)2----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 737 ----- ----- ----- 708 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 711 ----- ----- ----- -----Sinuosity ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.06 ----- ----- ----- 1.02 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.02 ----- ----- ----- -----Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.0159 ----- ----- ----- 0.0177 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.0180 ----- ----- ----- -----BF slope (ft/ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- -----BEHI VL% / L% / M% / H% / VH% / E% ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Channel Stability or Habitat Metric ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Biological or Other ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----<0.063 - 4.4 / 8.7 - 12.1 / 17.1 - 23.3 / 55.3 - 77.1 / 75.6 - 117.2* 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.<0.063 / 7.2 / 16.7 / 54.5 / 85.7ParameterUSGS GaugeRegional Curve Interval (Harman et al, 1999)*Pre-Existing Condition Design Monitoring Baseline (As-built)MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION BYEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019, YEAR 4 OF 5
Table 10. Baseline Stream SummaryTown Creek Restoration Project - Option B: DMS Project ID No. 95026Reach 3 (1,621 LF)Dimension and Substrate - RiffleLL UL Eq. Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD nBF Width (ft) ----- 23.0 80.0 5.5 6.0 ----- ----- 16.1 ----- 4 ----- 10.0 ----- ----- ----- ----- 9.8 ----- ----- 10.7 ----- 3Floodprone Width (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- 32.0 ----- ----- >89 ----- 4 2 ----- ----- 80.0 ----- ----- 37.8 ----- ----- 48.1 ----- 3BF Mean Depth (ft) ----- 2.3 5.8 0.9 0.5 ----- ----- 1.3 ----- 4 ----- 0.7 ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.6 ----- ----- 0.8 ----- 3BF Max Depth (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.3 ----- ----- 1.9 ----- 4 ----- 1.0 ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.0 ----- ----- 1.4 ----- 3BF Cross-sectional Area (ft²) ----- 80.0 300.0 6.4 5.7 ----- ----- 13.6 ----- 4 ----- 7.0 ----- ----- ----- ----- 6.5 ----- ----- 8.7 ----- 3Width/Depth Ratio ----- ----- ----- ----- 4.6 ----- ----- 35.6 ----- 4 ----- 14.3 ----- ----- ----- ----- 13.1 ----- ----- 16.9 ----- 3Entrenchment Ratio ----- ----- ----- ----- 5.0 ----- ----- 8.2 ----- 4 ----- ----- ----- >.2.2 ----- ----- 3.5 ----- ----- 4.5 ----- 3Bank Height Ratio ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.1 ----- ----- 1.9 ----- 4 ----- 1.0 ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.0 ----- ----- 1.0 ----- 3d50 (mm) ----- ----- ----- ----- 6.5 ----- ----- 7.3 ----- 2 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 18.6 ----- ----- 28.9 ----- 3PatternChannel Beltwidth (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 35.0 ----- ----- 80.0 ----- ----- 22.0 ----- ----- 52.1 ----- 12Radius of Curvature (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 20.0 ----- ----- 30.0 ----- ----- 28.7 ----- ----- 43.6 ----- 15Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 2.0 ----- ----- 3.0 ----- ----- 3.0 ----- ----- 3.8 ----- 3Meander Wavelength (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 70.0 ----- ----- 120.0 ----- ----- 90.2 ----- ----- 130.9 ----- 15.0Meander Width Ratio ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 3.5 ----- ----- 8.0 ----- ----- 3.0 ----- ----- 4.9 ----- 3ProfileRiffle Length (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Riffle Slope (ft/ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.016 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.011 ----- ----- ----- 23Pool Length (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Pool Spacing (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 36 ----- ----- 63 ----- ----- 11 ----- ----- 80 ----- 35Pool Max Depth (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.4 ----- ----- 2.4 ----- ----- 0.2 ----- ----- 1.3 ----- 34Pool Volume (ft3) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Substrate and Transport ParametersRi% / Ru% / P% / G% / S% ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----SC% / Sa% / G% / B% / Be% ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f² ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.3 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.47 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m² ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 15.7 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 25.6 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- -----Additional Reach ParametersDrainage Area (SM) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.2 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.2 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.2 ----- -----Impervious cover estimate (%) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Rosgen Classification ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- C4 / E4 (incised) ----- ----- ----- C4 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- C4 ----- ---------- -----BF Velocity (fps) ----- ----- ----- ----- 3.6 ----- ----- 3.6 ----- 2 ----- 3.8 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----BF Discharge (cfs) ----- 290.0 2000.0 24.8 26.4 ----- ----- 28.0 ----- 2 ----- 26.4 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Valley Length ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1377 ----- ----- ----- -----Channel length (ft)2----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1,849 ----- ----- ----- 1,630 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1621 ----- ----- ----- -----Sinuosity ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.31 ----- ----- ----- 1.17 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.18 ----- ----- ----- -----Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.0111 ----- ----- ----- 0.0122 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.0122 ----- ----- ----- -----BF slope (ft/ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- -----BEHI VL% / L% / M% / H% / VH% / E% ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Channel Stability or Habitat Metric ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Biological or Other ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----<0.063 - 5.6 / 9.9 - 16.3 / 18.6 - 28.9 / 85.1 - 99.5 / 154.8 - >2048 / 180 - >2048* 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.<0.063 / 3.9 - 4.6 / 6.5 - 7.3 / 19.3 - 20.4 / 30.8 - 32.0ParameterUSGS GaugeRegional Curve Interval (Harman et al, 1999)*Pre-Existing Condition1Design Monitoring Baseline (As-built)MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION BYEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019, YEAR 4 OF 5
Table 10. Baseline Stream SummaryTown Creek Restoration Project - Option B: DMS Project ID No. 95026Reach 4 (232 LF)Dimension and Substrate - RiffleLL UL Eq. Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD nBF Width (ft) ----- 23.0 80.0 5.7 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 10.5 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Floodprone Width (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 25 ----- ----- 110.0 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----BF Mean Depth (ft) ----- 2.3 5.8 0.9 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.8 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----BF Max Depth (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.2 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----BF Cross-sectional Area (ft²) ----- 80.0 300.0 6.7 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 8.7 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Width/Depth Ratio ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 12.5 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Entrenchment Ratio ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- >2.2 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Bank Height Ratio ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.0 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----d50 (mm) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----PatternChannel Beltwidth (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----------Radius of Curvature (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Meander Wavelength (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Meander Width Ratio ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----ProfileRiffle Length (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Riffle Slope (ft/ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Pool Length (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----------Pool Spacing (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Pool Max Depth (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Pool Volume (ft3) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Substrate and Transport ParametersRi% / Ru% / P% / G% / S% ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----SC% / Sa% / G% / B% / Be% ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f² ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- -----Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m² ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Additional Reach ParametersDrainage Area (SM) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.2 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.2 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.2 ----- -----Impervious cover estimate (%) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Rosgen Classification ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- C4 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- C4 ----- ----- ----- -----BF Velocity (fps) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 3.22 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----BF Discharge (cfs) ----- 290.0 2000.0 25.8 ----- ----- ----- 28 ----- ----- ----- 28 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Valley Length ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 202 ----- ----- ----- -----Channel length (ft)2----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 234 ----- ----- ----- 232 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 232 ----- ----- ----- -----Sinuosity ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.21 ----- ----- ----- 1.20 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.15 ----- ----- ----- -----Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.0094 ----- ----- ----- 0.0113 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.012 ----- ----- ----- -----BF slope (ft/ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- -----BEHI VL% / L% / M% / H% / VH% / E% ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Channel Stability or Habitat Metric ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Biological or Other ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----* Harman, W.A., G.D. Jennings, J.M. Patterson, D.R. Clinton, L.O. Slate, A.G. Jessup, J.R. Everhart, and R.E. Smith. 1999. Bankfull hydraulic geometry relationships for North Carolina streams. Wildland Hydrology. AWRA Symposium Proceedings. D.S. Olsen and J.P. Potyondy, eds. American Water Resources Association. June 30-July 2, 1999. Bozeman, MT.-----ParameterUSGS GaugeRegional Curve Interval (Harman et al, 1999)*Pre-Existing Condition Design Monitoring Baseline (As-built)MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION BYEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019, YEAR 4 OF 5
Table 10. Baseline Stream SummaryTown Creek Restoration Project - Option B: DMS Project ID No. 95026Reach 5 (820 LF)Dimension and Substrate - RiffleLL UL Eq. Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD nBF Width (ft) ----- 23.0 80.0 6.1 5.2 ----- ----- 17.0 ----- 3 ----- 10.5 ----- ----- ----- ----- 10.2 ----- ----- 11.1 ----- 3Floodprone Width (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- 51.0 ----- ----- 84.0 ----- 3 25 ----- ----- 110.0 ----- ----- 43.8 ----- ----- 59.4 ----- 3BF Mean Depth (ft) ----- 2.3 5.8 0.9 0.7 ----- ----- 1.5 ----- 3 ----- 0.8 ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.5 ----- ----- 0.8 ----- 3BF Max Depth (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.6 ----- ----- 2.1 ----- 3 ----- 1.2 ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.9 ----- ----- 1.2 ----- 3BF Cross-sectional Area (ft²) ----- 80.0 300.0 7.4 8.0 ----- ----- 12.3 ----- 3 ----- 8.7 ----- ----- ----- ----- 5.7 ----- ----- 8.0 ----- 3Width/Depth Ratio ----- ----- ----- ----- 3.5 ----- ----- 23.5 ----- 3 ----- 12.5 ----- ----- ----- ----- 13.4 ----- ----- 21.5 ----- 3Entrenchment Ratio ----- ----- ----- ----- 3.0 ----- ----- 13.2 ----- 3 ----- ----- ----- >2.2 ----- ----- 4.0 ----- ----- 5.7 ----- 3Bank Height Ratio ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.3 ----- ----- 1.3 ----- 3 ----- 1.0 ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.0 ----- ----- 1.0 ----- 3d50 (mm) ----- ----- ----- ----- 5.6 ----- ----- 8.6 ----- 2 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 27.5 ----- ----- 41.8 ----- 2PatternChannel Beltwidth (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 37.0 ----- ----- 84.0 ----- ----- 23.8 ----- ----- 44.2 ----- 10Radius of Curvature (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 21.0 ----- ----- 31.5 ----- ----- 24.5 ----- ----- 40.9 ----- 9Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 2.0 ----- ----- 3.0 ----- ----- 2.8 ----- ----- 3.5 ----- 3Meander Wavelength (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 73.5 ----- ----- 126.0 ----- ----- 95.2 ----- ----- 139.9 ----- 9Meander Width Ratio ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 3.5 ----- ----- 8.0 ----- ----- 2.9 ----- ----- 3.9 ----- 3ProfileRiffle Length (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Riffle Slope (ft/ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.02 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.018 ----- ----- ----- 11Pool Length (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Pool Spacing (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 42.0 ----- ----- 74.0 ----- ----- 25.0 ----- ----- 96.0 ----- 14Pool Max Depth (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.7 ----- ----- 2.9 ----- ----- 0.4 ----- ----- 1.1 ----- 15Pool Volume (ft3) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Substrate and Transport ParametersRi% / Ru% / P% / G% / S% ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----SC% / Sa% / G% / B% / Be% ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f² ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.55 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.47 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m² ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 19.4 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 23.4 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- -----Additional Reach ParametersDrainage Area (SM) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.210 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.2 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.2 ----- -----Impervious cover estimate (%) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Rosgen Classification ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- C4 / E4 ----- ----- ----- C4 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- C4 ----- ----- ----- -----BF Velocity (fps) ----- ----- ----- ----- 2.41 ----- ----- 3.15 ----- ----- ----- 3.4 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----BF Discharge (cfs) ----- 290.0 2000.0 28.8 ----- ----- ----- 29.6 ----- ----- ----- 29.6 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Valley Length ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 742 ----- ----- ----- -----Channel length (ft)2----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 849 ----- ----- ----- 809 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 822 ----- ----- ----- -----Sinuosity ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.17 ----- ----- ----- 1.17 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.11 ----- ----- ----- -----Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.0133 ----- ----- ----- 0.0106 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.0128 ----- ----- ----- -----BF slope (ft/ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- -----BEHI VL% / L% / M% / H% / VH% / E% ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Channel Stability or Habitat Metric ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Biological or Other ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----13.2 - 13.6 / 20.4 - 27.8 / 27.5 - 41.8 / 65.1 - 84.1 / 114.6 - 122.5 / 128 - 256* 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.<0.063 / 2 - 4.8 / 5.6 - 8.6 / 20.4 - 28.7 / 77 - 87.7ParameterUSGS GaugeRegional Curve Interval (Harman et al, 1999)*Pre-Existing Condition Design Monitoring Baseline (As-built)MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION BYEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019, YEAR 4 OF 5
Table 11a. Cross-section Morphology DataTown Creek Restoration Project - Option B: DMS Project ID No. 95026Reach 2 (711 LF)Dimension and substrateBase MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+BF Width (ft)8.758.46 8.64 7.80 7.70 -- 9.179.13 8.72 8.50 8.40 -- 11.968.73 9.40 9.10 8.60 -- 10.009.91 10.74 9.20 9.90 --BF Mean Depth (ft)0.660.57 0.55 0.50 0.50 -- 0.900.84 0.84 0.80 0.70 -- 1.001.14 0.92 0.90 1.00 -- 0.840.71 0.73 0.70 0.70 --Width/Depth Ratio13.2314.92 15.71 16.60 16.70 -- 10.1710.88 10.38 11.20 11.50 -- 11.927.62 11.08 9.80 9.10 -- 11.9214.05 14.71 12.90 13.50 --BF Cross-sectional Area (ft²)5.794.80 4.76 3.64 3.59 -- 8.287.66 7.31 6.39 6.09 -- 12.019.99 9.40 8.56 8.26 -- 8.387.00 7.82 6.55 7.24 --BF Max Depth (ft)1.090.96 0.91 0.90 0.90 -- 1.371.34 1.22 1.30 0.70 -- 2.252.00 1.90 1.90 1.80 -- 1.451.32 1.37 1.30 1.30 --Width of Floodprone Area (ft)27.0525.55 25.56 24.60 24.90 -- 33.9233.03 31.80 33.10 32.90 -- 42.5637.11 36.23 36.10 35.00 -- 41.3438.11 39.31 36.48 37.40 --Entrenchment Ratio3.093.02 2.96 3.20 3.70 -- 3.703.62 3.65 3.90 3.80 -- 3.564.25 3.56 4.00 - -- 4.133.84 3.66 4.00 3.80 --Bank Height Ratio1.011.06 1.00 0.90 1.00 -- 1.011.01 1.00 0.90 0.90 -- 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 - -- 1.001.05 1.00 0.90 1.00 --Wetted Perimeter (ft)10.07 9.60 9.74 8.008.00 -- 10.97 10.81 10.409.00 8.90 -- 13.96 11.01 11.2410.40 9.80 -- 11.68 11.33 12.209.70 10.40 --Hydraulic Radius (ft)0.57 0.50 0.49 0.50 0.5 - - 0.75 0.71 0.70 0.70 0.7 - - 0.86 0.91 0.84 0.80 0.8 - - 0.72 0.62 0.64 0.70 0.7 - -Reach 3 (1,621 LF)Dimension and substrateBase MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+BF Width (ft)10.65 11.83 11.0910.30 10.30 -- 13.63 19.31 14.7713.20 13.40 --9.84 10.72 10.26 9.20 9.40 --11.92 12.08 12.56 11.10 11.20 --BF Mean Depth (ft)0.82 0.69 0.770.70 0.70 -- 1.07 0.67 0.890.90 0.90 --0.66 0.53 0.54 0.50 0.50 --1.21 1.03 0.98 1.00 0.90 --Width/Depth Ratio13.05 17.27 14.4015.60 15.80 -- 12.77 28.61 16.6014.10 15.60 --14.87 20.15 19.00 16.90 18.90 --9.85 11.72 12.82 11.00 11.90 --BF Cross-sectional Area (ft²)8.68 8.11 8.506.80 6.76 -- 14.54 13.03 13.0912.23 11.54 --6.51 5.71 5.53 4.99 4.65 --14.42 12.46 12.32 11.26 10.62 --BF Max Depth (ft)1.44 1.35 1.221.10 1.10 -- 2.09 1.79 1.751.90 1.80 --1.03 0.85 0.79 0.90 0.80 --2.24 1.98 1.77 1.90 1.90 --Width of Floodprone Area (ft)48.09 48.09 48.1148.11 48.10 -- 50.26 49.44 49.1549.60 49.30 --38.30 38.48 38.74 38.00 38.00 --50.45 50.46 50.63 50.60 50.60 --Entrenchment Ratio4.52 4.06 4.344.70 4.70 -- 3.69 2.56 3.333.80 - --3.89 3.59 3.77 4.10 4.20 --4.23 4.18 3.86 4.60 - --Bank Height Ratio1.00 1.09 1.000.90 0.90 -- 1.00 0.99 1.001.00 - --1.00 0.98 1.00 0.90 0.90 --1.00 1.03 1.00 0.90 - --Wetted Perimeter (ft)12.29 13.21 12.6310.70 10.70 -- 15.77 20.65 16.5513.90 14.10 -- 11.16 11.78 11.349.40 9.60 -- 14.34 14.14 14.5212.20 12.30 --Hydraulic Radius (ft)0.71 0.61 0.67 0.60 0.6 - - 0.92 0.63 0.79 0.90 0.8 - - 0.58 0.48 0.49 0.50 0.5 - - 1.01 0.88 0.85 0.90 0.9 - -Dimension and substrateBase MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+BF Width (ft) 10.71 10.04 10.41 9.80 9.50 --BF Mean Depth (ft) 0.63 0.53 0.55 0.40 0.50 --Width/Depth Ratio 16.87 18.85 18.93 21.80 19.50 --BF Cross-sectional Area (ft²) 6.79 5.34 5.68 4.37 4.63 --BF Max Depth (ft) 1.06 0.80 0.90 0.80 0.80 --Width of Floodprone Area (ft) 37.79 31.28 36.00 29.90 31.20 --Entrenchment Ratio 3.53 3.12 3.46 3.10 3.30 --Bank Height Ratio 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.90 0.90 --Wetted Perimeter (ft)11.97 11.10 11.519.90 9.70 --Hydraulic Radius (ft)0.57 0.48 0.49 0.40 0.5 - -Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevationCross-section X-6 (Pool) Cross-section X-7 (Riffle) Cross-section X-8 (Pool)Cross-section X-9 (Riffle)Cross-section X-5 (Riffle)Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevationCross-section X-1 (Riffle) Cross-section X-2 (Riffle) Cross-section X-3 (Pool) Cross-section X-4 (Riffle)Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevationMICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION BYEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019, YEAR 4 OF 5
Table 11a. Cross-section Morphology DataTown Creek Restoration Project - Option B: DMS Project ID No. 95026Reach 5 (820 LF)Dimension and substrateBase MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+BF Width (ft) 10.36 10.28 10.57 9.90 10.20 --16.70 16.78 17.48 16.70 17.30 --11.06 10.49 9.73 9.80 10.10 --10.19 10.04 10.85 9.50 11.00 --BF Mean Depth (ft) 0.77 0.70 0.73 0.70 0.70 --1.09 1.01 0.99 1.00 1.00 --0.52 0.53 0.56 0.40 0.50 --0.59 0.51 0.54 0.50 0.50 --Width/Depth Ratio 13.43 14.65 14.48 14.40 15.10 --15.34 16.60 17.66 16.80 17.40 --21.45 19.92 17.38 22.10 21.80 --17.40 19.58 20.09 17.50 20.10 --BF Cross-sectional Area (ft²) 8.00 7.21 7.71 6.77 6.92 --18.19 16.97 17.24 16.65 17.10 --5.71 5.53 5.46 4.34 4.69 --5.97 5.15 5.83 5.13 5.97 --BF Max Depth (ft) 1.18 1.10 1.13 1.20 1.20 --2.20 2.11 2.06 2.10 2.10 --1.07 0.80 0.87 0.80 0.80 --0.91 0.79 0.88 0.90 0.90 --Width of Floodprone Area (ft) 59.38 59.03 59.40 59.30 59.20 --63.54 63.56 63.59 63.60 63.60 --43.79 40.39 41.07 40.00 39.40 --56.59 56.65 56.58 56.60 56.60 --Entrenchment Ratio 5.70 5.74 5.62 6.00 5.80 --3.81 3.79 3.64 3.80 - --3.96 3.85 4.22 4.10 4.20 --5.55 5.64 5.21 6.00 5.20 --Bank Height Ratio 1.01 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.10 --1.00 1.03 1.00 0.90 - --1.01 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 --1.00 0.97 1.00 0.90 1.10 --Wetted Perimeter (ft)11.90 11.68 12.0310.20 10.60 -- 18.88 18.80 19.4617.70 18.20 -- 12.10 11.55 10.8510.10 10.30 -- 11.37 11.06 11.939.80 11.20 --Hydraulic Radius (ft)0.67 0.62 0.64 0.70 0.7 - - 0.96 0.90 0.89 0.90 0.9 - - 0.47 0.48 0.50 0.40 0.5 - - 0.53 0.47 0.49 0.50 0.5 - -Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevationCross-section X-10 (Riffle) Cross-section X-11 (Pool) Cross-section X-12 (Riffle) Cross-section X-13 (Riffle)MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION BYEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019, YEAR 4 OF 5
Parameter As-built MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4Dimension and Substrate - RiffleMin Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD nBF Width (ft) 8.8 ----- ----- 12.0 ----- 3 8.5 9.2 9.1 9.9 0.7 3 8.6 9.4 8.7 10.7 1.2 3 7.8 8.5 8.5 9.2 0.7 3 7.7 8.7 8.4 9.9 1.1 3Floodprone Width (ft) 27.1 ----- ----- 42.6 ----- 3 25.6 32.2 33.0 38.1 6.3 3 25.6 32.2 31.8 39.3 6.9 3 24.6 31.4 33.1 36.5 6.1 3 24.9 31.5 32.2 37.4 6.3 3BF Mean Depth (ft) 0.7 ----- ----- 1.0 ----- 3 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.1 3 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.1 3 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.2 3 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.1 3BF Max Depth (ft) 1.1 ----- ----- 2.3 ----- 3 1.0 1.2 1.3 1.3 0.2 3 0.9 1.2 1.2 1.4 0.2 3 0.9 1.2 1.3 1.3 0.2 3 0.9 1.2 1.3 1.3 0.2 3BF Cross-sectional Area (ft²) 5.8 ----- ----- 12.0 ----- 3 4.8 6.5 7.0 7.7 1.5 3 4.8 6.6 7.3 7.8 1.6 3 3.6 5.5 6.4 6.6 1.6 3 3.6 5.6 6.1 7.2 1.9 3Width/Depth Ratio 10.2 ----- ----- 13.2 ----- 3 10.9 13.3 14.1 14.9 2.1 3 10.4 13.6 14.7 15.7 2.8 3 11.2 13.6 12.9 16.6 2.8 3 11.5 13.9 13.5 16.7 2.6 3Entrenchment Ratio 3.1 ----- ----- 3.7 ----- 3 3.0 3.5 3.6 3.8 0.4 3 3.0 3.4 3.7 3.7 0.4 3 3.2 3.7 3.9 4.0 0.4 3 3.7 3.8 3.8 3.8 0.1 3Bank Height Ratio 1.0 ----- ----- 1.0 ----- 3 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 0.0 3 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 3 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.0 3 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.1 3d50 (mm) 17.1 ----- ----- 23.3 ----- 2 24.7 ----- ----- 28.0 ----- 2 17.0 ----- ----- 17.0 ----- 2 12.0 ----- ----- 24.1 ----- 2 12.0 ----- ----- 24.1 -----2PatternChannel Beltwidth (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Radius of Curvature (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Meander Wavelength (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Meander Width Ratio ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----ProfileRiffle Length (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Riffle Slope (ft/ft) ----- 0.010 ----- ----- ----- 9 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Pool Length (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Pool Spacing (ft) 19.0 ----- ----- 63.0 ----- 19 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Pool Max Depth (ft) 0.200 ----- ----- 3.4 ----- 20 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Pool Volume (ft3)----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Substrate and Transport Parameters----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S% ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----SC% / Sa% / G% / B% / Be% ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f² ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m² ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Additional Reach ParametersDrainage Area (SM) ----- ----- ----- 0.12 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.12 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.12 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.12 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.12 ----- -----Impervious cover estimate (%) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Rosgen Classification ----- C4 / E4 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- C4 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- C4 / E4 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- C4 / E4 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- C4 / E4 ----- ----- ----- -----BF Velocity (fps) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----BF Discharge (cfs) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Valley Length ----- 695 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 695 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 695 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 695 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 695 ----- ----- ----- -----Channel length (ft)2----- 711 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 711 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 711 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 711 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 711 ----- ----- ----- -----Sinuosity ----- 1.02 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.02 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.02 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.02 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.02 ----- ----- ----- -----Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft) ----- 0.0180 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----BF slope (ft/ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----BEHI VL% / L% / M% / H% / VH% / E% ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Channel Stability or Habitat Metric ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Biological or Other ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Table 11b. Stream Reach Morphology DataTown Creek Restoration Project - Option B: DMS Project ID No. 95026Reach 2 (711 LF)N/A - 0.7 / 6.6 - 12.0 / 12.0 - 24.1 / 44.1 - 95.9 / 98.3 - 135.9 / >2048N/A / 7.25 / 16.95 / 36.4 - 82.1 / 64 - 123.4 / 90 - 256 N/A - 0.7 / 6.6 - 12.0 / 12.0 - 24.1 / 44.1 - 95.9 / 98.3 - 135.9 / >2048<0.063 - 4.4 / 8.7 - 12.1 / 17.1 - 23.3 / 55.3 - 77.1 / 75.6 - 117.2 <0.063 - 5.0 / 12.8 - 16.7 / 24.7 - 28.0 / 58.0 - 79.2 / 77.1 - 128 / 64 - 180 MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION BYEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019, YEAR 4 OF 5
Table 11b. Stream Reach Morphology DataTown Creek Restoration Project - Option B: DMS Project ID No. 95026Parameter As-built MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4Dimension and Substrate - RiffleMin Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD nBF Width (ft) 9.8 ----- ----- 10.7 ----- 3 10.0 10.9 10.7 11.8 0.9 3 10.3 10.6 10.4 11.1 0.4 3 9.2 9.8 9.8 10.3 0.6 3 9.4 9.7 9.5 10.3 0.5 3Floodprone Width (ft) 37.8 ----- ----- 48.1 ----- 3 31.3 39.3 38.5 48.1 8.4 3 36.0 41.0 38.7 48.1 6.4 3 29.9 38.7 38.0 48.1 9.1 3 31.2 39.1 38.0 48.1 8.5 3BF Mean Depth (ft) 0.6 ----- ----- 0.8 ----- 3 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.7 0.1 3 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.1 3 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.2 3 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.7 0.1 3BF Max Depth (ft) 1.0 ----- ----- 1.4 ----- 3 0.8 1.0 0.9 1.4 0.3 3 0.8 1.0 0.9 1.2 0.2 3 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.1 0.2 3 0.8 0.9 0.8 1.1 0.2 3BF Cross-sectional Area (ft²) 6.5 ----- ----- 8.7 ----- 3 5.3 6.4 5.7 8.1 1.5 3 5.5 6.6 5.7 8.5 1.7 3 4.4 5.4 5.0 6.8 1.3 3 4.6 5.3 4.7 6.8 1.2 3Width/Depth Ratio 13.1 ----- ----- 16.9 ----- 3 17.3 18.8 18.9 20.2 1.4 3 14.4 17.4 18.9 19.0 2.6 3 15.6 18.1 16.9 21.8 3.3 3 18.9 28.8 19.5 48.1 16.7 3Entrenchment Ratio 3.5 ----- ----- 4.5 ----- 3 3.1 3.6 3.6 4.1 0.5 3 3.5 3.9 3.8 4.3 0.4 3 3.1 4.0 4.1 4.7 0.8 3 3.3 4.1 4.2 4.7 0.7 3Bank Height Ratio 1.0 ----- ----- 1.0 ----- 3 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 0.1 3 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 3 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.0 3 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.0 3d50 (mm) 18.6 ----- ----- 28.9 ----- 3 32.0 ----- ----- 37.2 ----- 3 39.0 ----- ----- 55.3 ----- 3 29.0 ----- ----- 43.6 ----- 3 29.0 ----- ----- 43.6 -----0PatternChannel Beltwidth (ft) 22.0 ----- ----- 52.1 ----- 12 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Radius of Curvature (ft) 28.7 ----- ----- 43.6 ----- 15 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft) 3.0 ----- ----- 3.8 ----- 3 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Meander Wavelength (ft) 90.2 ----- ----- 130.9 ----- 15.0 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Meander Width Ratio 3.0 ----- ----- 4.9 ----- 3 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----ProfileRiffle Length (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Riffle Slope (ft/ft) ----- 0.011 ----- ----- ----- 23 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Pool Length (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Pool Spacing (ft) 11 ----- ----- 80 ----- 35 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Pool Max Depth (ft) 0.2 ----- ----- 1.3 ----- 34 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Pool Volume (ft3)----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Substrate and Transport ParametersRi% / Ru% / P% / G% / S% ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----SC% / Sa% / G% / B% / Be% ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f² ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m² ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Additional Reach ParametersDrainage Area (SM) ----- ----- ----- 0.2 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.2 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.2 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.2 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.2 ----- -----Impervious cover estimate (%) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Rosgen Classification ----- C4 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- C4 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- C4 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- C4 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- C4 ----- ----- ----- -----BF Velocity (fps) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----BF Discharge (cfs) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Valley Length ----- 1377 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1377 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1377 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1377 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1377 ----- ----- ----- -----Channel length (ft)2----- 1621 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1621 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1621 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1621 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1621 ----- ----- ----- -----Sinuosity ----- 1.18 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.18 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.18 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.18 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.18 ----- ----- ----- -----Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft) ----- 0.0122 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----BF slope (ft/ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----BEHI VL% / L% / M% / H% / VH% / E% ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Channel Stability or Habitat Metric ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Biological or Other ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----8.1 - 15.0 / 16.8 - 31.4 / 29.0 - 43.6 /60.6 - 99.5 / 113.8 - 127.8 / >2048Reach 3 (1,621 LF)<0.063 - 5.6 / 9.9 - 16.3 / 18.6 - 28.9 / 85.1 - 99.5 / 154.8 - >2048 / 180 - >2048 5.6 - 10.3 / 16.8 - 20.6 / 32 - 37.2 / 86 - 105 / 120.1 - 159.5 / 180 - 512 19.8 - 21.8 / 28.5 - 38.0 / 39.0 - 55.3 / 92.4 - 114.4 / 150.9 - 208.5 / 180 - 3628.1 - 15.0 / 16.8 - 31.4 / 29.0 - 43.6 /60.6 - 99.5 / 113.8 - 127.8 / >2048MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION BYEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019, YEAR 4 OF 5
Table 11b. Stream Reach Morphology DataTown Creek Restoration Project - Option B: DMS Project ID No. 95026Parameter As-built MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4Dimension and Substrate - RiffleMin Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD nBF Width (ft) 10.2 ----- ----- 11.1 ----- 3 10.0 10.3 10.3 10.5 0.2 3 9.7 10.4 10.6 10.9 0.6 3 9.5 9.7 9.8 9.9 0.2 3 10.1 10.4 10.2 11.0 0.5 3Floodprone Width (ft) 43.8 ----- ----- 59.4 ----- 3 40.4 52.0 56.7 59.0 10.1 3 41.1 52.4 56.6 59.4 9.9 3 40.0 52.0 56.6 59.3 10.5 3 39.4 51.7 56.6 59.2 10.83BF Mean Depth (ft) 0.5 ----- ----- 0.8 ----- 3 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.7 0.1 3 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.1 3 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.2 3 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.7 0.1 3BF Max Depth (ft) 0.9 ----- ----- 1.2 ----- 3 0.8 0.9 0.8 1.1 0.2 3 0.9 1.0 0.9 1.1 0.1 3 0.8 1.0 0.9 1.2 0.2 3 0.8 1.0 0.9 1.2 0.2 3BF Cross-sectional Area (ft²) 5.7 ----- ----- 8.0 ----- 3 5.2 6.0 5.5 7.2 1.1 3 5.2 6.1 5.5 7.7 1.4 3 4.3 5.4 5.1 6.8 1.2 3 4.7 5.9 6.0 6.9 1.1 3Width/Depth Ratio 13.4 ----- ----- 21.5 ----- 3 14.7 18.1 19.6 19.9 2.9 3 14.5 17.3 17.4 20.1 2.8 3 14.4 18.0 17.5 22.1 3.9 3 15.1 19.0 20.1 21.8 3.5 3Entrenchment Ratio 4.0 ----- ----- 5.7 ----- 3 3.9 5.1 5.6 5.7 1.1 3 4.2 5.0 5.2 5.6 0.7 3 4.1 5.4 6.0 6.0 1.1 3 4.2 5.1 5.2 5.8 0.8 3Bank Height Ratio 1.0 ----- ----- 1.0 ----- 3 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 3 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 3 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 0.1 3 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 0.1 3d50 (mm) 27.5 ----- ----- 41.8 ----- 2 20.3 ----- ----- 25.7 ----- 2 33.6 ----- ----- 42.9 ----- 2 27.4 ----- ----- 27.5 ----- 2 27.4 ----- ----- 27.5 -----0PatternChannel Beltwidth (ft) 23.8 ----- ----- 44.2 ----- 10 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Radius of Curvature (ft) 24.5 ----- ----- 40.9 ----- 9 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft) 2.8 ----- ----- 3.5 ----- 3 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Meander Wavelength (ft) 95.2 ----- ----- 139.9 ----- 9 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Meander Width Ratio 2.9 ----- ----- 3.9 ----- 3 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----ProfileRiffle Length (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Riffle Slope (ft/ft) ----- 0.018 ----- ----- ----- 11 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Pool Length (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Pool Spacing (ft) 25.0 ----- ----- 96.0 ----- 14 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Pool Max Depth (ft) 0.4 ----- ----- 1.1 ----- 15 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Pool Volume (ft3)----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Substrate and Transport ParametersRi% / Ru% / P% / G% / S% ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----SC% / Sa% / G% / B% / Be% ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f² ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m² ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Additional Reach ParametersDrainage Area (SM) ----- ----- ----- 0.2 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.2 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.2 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.2 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.2 ----- -----Impervious cover estimate (%) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Rosgen Classification ----- C4 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- C4 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- C4 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- C4 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- C4 ----- ----- ----- -----BF Velocity (fps) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----BF Discharge (cfs) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Valley Length ----- 742 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 742 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 742 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 742 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 742 ----- ----- ----- -----Channel length (ft)2----- 822 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 822 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 822 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 822 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 822 ----- ----- ----- -----Sinuosity ----- 1.11 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.11 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.11 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.11 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.11 ----- ----- ----- -----Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft) ----- 0.0128 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----BF slope (ft/ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----BEHI VL% / L% / M% / H% / VH% / E% ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Channel Stability or Habitat Metric ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Biological or Other ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----13.2 - 13.6 / 20.4 - 27.8 / 27.5 - 41.8 / 65.1 - 84.1 / 114.6 - 122.5 / 128 - 256 6.7 - 10.3 / 14.1 - 18.2 / 20.3 - 25.7 / 52.4 - 62.1 / 119.3 - 134.7 / 180 - 2569.1- 10.2 / 15.8 - 20.3 / 27.4 - 27.5 / 62.2 - 81.1 / 101.2 - 123.8 / 180 - >2048Reach 5 (820 LF)9.1- 10.2 / 15.8 - 20.3 / 27.4 - 27.5 / 62.2 - 81.1 / 101.2 - 123.8 / 180 - >204814.4 - 15.0 / 24.7 - 32.2 / 33.6 - 42.9 / 64 - 104.2 / 128 - 164.6 /128 - 256MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION BYEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019, YEAR 4 OF 5

APPENDIX E
Hydrologic Data

Figure 5a. In-Stream Flow Gauge GraphsTown Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 95026* Surface water flow is estimated to have occurred when the pressure transducer reading is equal to or above 0.03 feet in depth. YR1 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS CRITERIA MET ‐168.0* (3/1/2016 ‐8/15/2016)0.00.51.01.52.01/1/2019 2/20/2019 4/11/2019 5/31/2019 7/20/2019 9/8/2019 10/28/2019 12/17/2019Rainfall (in.)North Stanly Middle School Daily Rain0.000.100.200.300.400.500.600.700.800.901.001.101.201.301.401.501.601.701/1/2019 2/10/2019 3/22/2019 5/1/2019 6/10/2019 7/20/2019 8/29/2019 10/8/2019 11/17/2019 12/27/2019Surface Water Depth (ft.)DateTown Creek Reach 1In-channel Flow Gauge TC FL1TC FL1Flow Criteria - 0.03'YR4 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS CRITERIA MET ‐36* (1/1/2019 ‐2/5/2019)MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION BYEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019, YEAR 4 OF 5
Figure 5b. In-Stream Flow Gauge GraphsTown Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 95026* Surface water flow is estimated to have occurred when the pressure transducer reading is equal to or above 0.03 feet in depth. YR1 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS CRITERIA MET ‐150.0* (3/1/2016 ‐7/28/2016)0.00.51.01.52.01/1/2019 2/20/2019 4/11/2019 5/31/2019 7/20/2019 9/8/2019 10/28/2019 12/17/2019Rainfall (in.)North Stanly Middle School Daily Rain0.000.100.200.300.400.500.600.700.800.901.001.101.201.301.401.501.601.7012/31/2018 2/9/2019 3/21/2019 4/30/2019 6/9/2019 7/19/2019 8/28/2019 10/7/2019 11/16/2019 12/26/2019Surface Water Depth (ft.)DateTown Creek Reach 2In-channel Flow Gauge TC FL2TC FL2Flow Criteria - .03'YR4 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS CRITERIA MET ‐146* (01/1/2019 ‐05/26/2019)MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION BYEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019, YEAR 4 OF 5
Figure 8. Monthly Rainfall DataTown Creek Restoration Project - Option A: Project No. 95026Historic rainfall data from WETS Station : ALBEMARLE, NC0090 Observed 2018 - 2019 Precipitaion from CHRONOS Station NEWL, North Stanly Middle School0.001.002.003.004.005.006.007.008.009.00November December January February March April May June July August September OctoberMontly Precipitation (in.)MonthMonthly Rainfall for Stanly County, NC vs. Average Rainfall Data (11/01/2018 - 10/31/2019)Stanly County Observed 2018 - 2019 PrecipitationAverage30%70%MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION AYEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019, YEAR 4 OF 5
Date of Data CollectionDate of Occurrence Method Reach Location Gauge Height (FT)Photo #(if available)10/12/2016Between 5/2016 and 10/12/2016Crest GaugeReach 5 Station 42+500.2 MY1 Report10/3/2017Between 5/3/2017 and 10/3/2017Crest GaugeReach 5 Station 42+500.17 MY2 Report1/11/2018Between 10/3/2017 and 1/11/2018Crest GaugeReach 5 Station 42+500.18 MY3 Report6/6/2018Between 4/19/2018 and 6/6/2018Crest GaugeReach 5 Station 42+501.03 MY3 Report7/17/2018Between 6/6/2018 and 7/17/2018Crest GaugeReach 5 Station 42+500.20 MY3 Report8/23/2018Between 7/17/2018 and 8/23/2018Crest GaugeReach 5 Station 42+500.65 MY3 Report11/14/2018Between 8/23/2018 and 11/14/2018Crest GaugeReach 5 Station 42+501.06 MY3 Report3/20/2019Between 11/14/2018 and 3/20/2019Crest GaugeReach 5 Station 42+500.38 Crest Gauge Photo 1Flow Gauge ID Reach LocationConsecutive Days of Flow1Cumulative Days of Flow2TCFL1 Reach 1 Station 11+05 36 200TCFL2 Reach 2 Station 13+02 146 181Table 12. Verification of Bankfull EventsNotes:¹Indicates the number of consecutive days within the monitoring year where flow was measured.2Indicates the number of cumulative days within the monitoring year where flow was measured.Flow success criteria for the Site is stated as: A surface water flow event will be considered intermittent when the flow duration occurs for a minimum of 30 days.Town Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95026Town Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95026Table 13. Verification of In-stream Flow ConditionsMICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION BYEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019, YEAR 4 OF 5
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019, YEAR 4 OF 5
Town Creek – Hydrologic Data Photos

Crest Gauge Photo 1– 6 (3/20/2019)

Flow Documentation Photo – Facing upstream of TCFL 2 (11/20/2019)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019, YEAR 4 OF 5
Flow Documentation Photo – Located at TCFL 2 (7/26/2019)

TC FL1 Photo (9/11/2019)

MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2019, YEAR 4 OF 5
TC FL2 Photo (11/30/2019)