20141328 Ver 1_Year 5 Monitoring Report_2020_20210115

ID#* 20141328 Version* 1
Select Reviewer:*
Erin Davis
Initial Review Completed Date 01/15/2021
Mitigation Project Submittal - 1/15/2021
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site?* r Yes r No
Type of Mitigation Project:*
V Stream r Wetlands r- Buffer r- Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name:*
Jeremiah Dow
Project Information
...................................................................................
ID#:* 20141328
Existing IDY
Project Type:
Project Name:
County:
Email Address:*
[e-mail]
Version:
*1
Existing Version
r DMS r Mitigation Bank
Thomas Creek Restoration Project
Wake
Document Information
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Monitoring Report
File Upload: ThomasCreek 96074_MY5_2020.pdf 15.15MB
Rease upload only one RDFcf the conplete file that needs to be subnitted...
Signature
Print Name:* Jeremiah Dow
Signature:*

Thomas Creek Restoration Project
Year 5 Monitoring Report - FINAL
Wake County, North Carolina
DMS Project ID Number — 96074, DEQ Contract No. 5549
Permits: SAW-2013-02009, DWR# 14-1328
Cape Fear River Basin: 03030004-020010
Project Info: Monitoring Year: 5 of 7
Year of Data Collection: 2020
Year of Completed Construction (including planting): 2016
Submission Date: January 2021
Submitted To: NCDEQ - Division of Mitigation Services
1625 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
NC DEQ Contract ID No. 003992

INTERNATIONAL
January 7, 2021
Jeremiah Dow, Project Manager
NCDEQ, Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Ste. 600 1 Cary, North Carolina 27518
Office: 919.463.5488 1 Fax: [phone]
Subject: Response to DMS Comments for DRAFT Monitoring Year 5 Report
Thomas Creek Restoration Project, Wake County
DMS Project # 96074, DEQ Contract #5549, RFP# 16-005020
Mr. Dow:
Please find below our responses to the NC Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) review comments dated
December 21, 2020 in reference to the Thomas Creek Restoration Project —DRAFT Monitoring Year 5
Report. We have revised the Draft document in response to the referenced review comments as outlined
below:
Digital files/drawings:
a. If available, please submit features that characterize the mitigation plan design lengths.
Response: The old GIS shapefiles used to make the figures in the mitigation plan from 2015 were
found and are included with the revised digital files. Please note the project design CAD files
were used to determine the proposed reach lengths in the mitigation plan.
b. Please submit photos as jpegs rather than a pdf.
Response: Photos have been provided as individual JPGs in the revised digital documents.
c. Please submit pebble count data used to create figures.
Response: The figures include the pebble count by size data used to generate the two graphs, but
scanned copies of the original field collection forms have also been included with the revised
digital files.
d. Please submit the data used to create the flow gauge figures.
Response: The flow gauge data used to create the figures has been provided with the revised
digital files.
As requested, Baker has provided one (1) hardcopy and a pdf copy of the Final report, along with all the
updated digital files (to be sent by secure ftp link) . Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any
questions regarding our response submittal.
Sincerely,
14-
Scott King, LSS, PWS
Project Manager

Thomas Creek Restoration Project
Year 5 Monitoring Report - FINAL
Wake County, North Carolina
DMS Project ID Number — 96074, DEQ Contract No. 5549
Permits: SAW-2013-02009, DWR4 14-1328
Cape Fear River Basin: 03030004-020010
Report Prepared and Submitted by Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
NC Professional Engineering License 4 F-1084
I N T E R N AT 1 0 N A L
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. i
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96074
MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 7 (2020)

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY......................................................................... 1
2.0 METHODOLOGY..................................................................................... 3
2.1 Stream Assessment................................................................................................................................. 3
2.1.1 Morphological Parameters and Channel Stability................................................................................. 4
2.1.2 Hydrology...........................................................................................................................................4
2.1.3 Photographic Documentation...............................................................................................................4
2.1.4 Visual Stream Morphological Stability Assessment............................................................................. 5
2.2 Vegetation Assessment.......................................................................................................................... 5
3.0 REFERENCES........................................................................................... 5
APPENDICES
Appendix A Project Vicinity Map and Background Tables
Figure 1 Project Vicinity Map and Directions
Figure 2 Restoration Summary Map
Figure 3 Reference Stream Locations Map
Figure 4 Monitoring Features Overview Map
Table 1 Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Table 2 Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3 Project Contacts
Table 4 Project Attributes (Pre -Construction Conditions)
Appendix B Visual Assessment Data
Figure 5 Current Condition Plan View (CCPV) Maps
Table 5 Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Table 6 Vegetation Conditions Assessment
Stream Station Photo -Points
Vegetation Plot Photographs
Crest Gauge Photographs
Maintenance and Repair Photographs
Additional Monitoring Photographs
Appendix C Vegetation Plot Data
Table 7 CVS Density Per Plot
Table 8 CVS Vegetation Plot Summary Information
Table 9 Total Stem Counts for Each Species Arranged by Plot
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96074
MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 7 (2020)

Appendix D Stream Survey Data
Figure
6
Year 5 Cross -Sections
Figure
7
Pebble Count Plot Data
Table
10
Baseline Stream Summary
Table
1 la
Cross-section Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring
Summary
Table
1lb
Stream Reach Morphology Summary
Appendix E Hydrologic Data
Figure 8 Flow Gauge Graphs
Figure 9 Observed Rainfall Versus Historic Averages
Table 12 Verification of Bankfull Events
Table 13 Flow Gauge Success
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96074
MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 7 (2020)

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. (Baker) restored 4,721 linear feet of perennial and intermittent stream and
enhanced 3,948 linear feet of intermittent stream as documented in the As -built Baseline Report. Baker also
planted approximately 14.4 acres of native riparian vegetation within the 22.7 acre recorded conservation
easement areas along all or portions of the restored and enhanced reaches (Reaches RI, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6,
R7, TI, and T2). The Thomas Creek Restoration Project (Site) is located in Wake County, North Carolina
(Figure 1), approximately 1.5 miles southwest of the Community of New Hill. (Figure 1). The Site is located
within the NC Division of Mitigation Services' (NCDMS) Targeted Local Watershed (TLW) 03030004-020010
(the Harris Lake Hydrologic Unit) of the Cape Fear River Basin, and is located in what was formerly known as
the NC Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) subbasin 03-06-07. The project involved the restoration and
enhancement of a rural Piedmont stream system, which had been impaired due to past agricultural conversion
and cattle grazing.
Based on the NCDMS 2009 Cape Fear River Basin Restoration Priority (RBRP) Plan, the Thomas Creek
Restoration Project area is located in an existing targeted local watershed within the Cape Fear River Basin and
is located within the Middle Cape Fear / Kenneth and Parker Creeks, Local Watershed Planning (LWP) area.
The restoration strategy for the Cape Fear River Basin is to promote low impact development, stormwater
management, restoration and buffer protection in urbanizing areas, and buffer preservation elsewhere.
The primary goal of the project was to improve ecologic functions through the restoration and enhancement of
streams and buffers in a degraded, urbanizing area as described in the NCDMS 2009 Cape Fear RBRP. Detailed
project goals are identified below:
• Create geomorphically stable conditions along the unnamed tributaries throughout the Site,
• Protect and improve water quality by reducing streambank erosion, and nutrient/sediment inputs,
• Restore stream and floodplain interaction by connecting historic flow paths and promoting natural flood
processes,
• Restore and protect riparian buffer functions and corridor habitat in perpetuity by establishing a
permanent conservation easement, and
• Improve aquatic and terrestrial habitat through improved substrate and in -stream cover, addition of
woody debris, and reduction of water temperature.
To accomplish these goals, the following objectives were identified:
• Restore existing incised, eroding, and channelized streams by providing them access to their relic
floodplains,
• Implement agricultural BMPs, including cattle watering stations, to reduce nonpoint source (NPS)
inputs to receiving waters,
• Prevent cattle from accessing the conservation easement by installing permanent fencing and thus
reduce excessive streambank erosion and undesired nutrient inputs,
• Enhance aquatic habitat value by providing more bedform diversity, creating natural scour pools and
reducing sediment from accelerated streambank erosion,
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96074
MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 7 (2020)

Plant native species riparian buffer vegetation along streambank and floodplain areas, protected by a
permanent conservation easement, to increase stormwater runoff filtering capacity, improve
streambank stability and riparian habitat connectivity, and shade the stream to decrease water
temperature, and
Control invasive species vegetation within much of the project area and, if necessary, continue
treatments during the monitoring period.
The Year 5 monitoring survey data of the sixteen permanent cross -sections indicates that these stream sections
are geomorphically stable and are within the lateral/vertical stability and in -stream structure performance
categories. Certain cross -sections (found in Appendix D) have shown very minor fluctuations in their geometry
as compared to the previous survey conducted in Year 3. These minor fluctuations represent a trend towards
increased stability based off visual field evaluations. All reaches are fully stable and performing as designed
and are rated at 100 percent for all the visual parameters evaluated in Table 5.
There were no Stream Problem Areas (SPAS) identified on the project during the Year 5 monitoring. The two
short sections of minor bank scour from Hurricane Florence that were reported, repaired, and replanted in Year
4 appear fully stable with vegetation establishing well (see photos in Appendix B).
During Year 5 monitoring, the planted acreage performance categories were functioning well with no bare or
thin areas to report. The average density of total planted stems (not including volunteers), based on data
collected from the sixteen monitoring plots following Year 5 monitoring in October 2020, was 562 stems per
acre. Thus, the Year 5 vegetation data demonstrate that the Site meets the minimum success interim criteria of
260 trees per acre by the end of Year 5. Additionally, there were no areas of invasive species vegetation
observed during the Year 5 monitoring.
There were no Vegetation Problem Areas (VPAs) identified on the project during the Year 5 monitoring.
However, previously in Year 3 an area of low vigor/short stem heights totaling approximately 0.38 acres was
noted along the left buffer of Reach R3. Based on soil test results, this area has periodically received small
applications of soil amendments to help improve stem growth. In February 2020 the area received an
application of lime, while in May and October of 2020 a small application of fertilizer was applied. The plant
vigor and growth in this area certainly appears to be improving but is still behind the growth observed on the
rest of the site. As such, soil amendments will continue to be applied to this area. This area is noted in Table
6 and in shown in the CCPV, both of which can be found in Appendix B.
Year 5 flow monitoring demonstrated that both flow gauges (TMCK-FL1 and TMCK-FL2) met the stated
success criteria of 30 days or more of consecutive flow through Reaches 2 and 5 respectively. Flow gauge
TMCK-FL1 documented 129 days of consecutive flow in Reach 2, while flow gauge TMCK-FL2 documented
295 days of consecutive flow in Reach 5. The flow gauges demonstrated similar patterns relative to rainfall
events as shown in the flow gauge graphs in Appendix E. Unfortunately, the pressure transducer device in
Flow Gauge #1 failed in May 2020. It will be replaced before the start of Year 6 monitoring.
During Year 5 monitoring, the Reach R2 crest gauge (crest gauge 91) documented one post -construction
bankfull event in February 2020, as confirmed by the in -stream flow gauges (see Appendix E). As bankfull
events have now been documented in all five years of monitoring, the project has now met the bankfull standard
required for credit release.
Two pebble counts were conducted during Year 5 monitoring, one each in riffles located along Reach R2 and
Reach R5. The results indicate that the riffle in R2 appears stable and is quite similar to the previous year's
condition, having apparently fully flushed out the finer sediment previously observed to have been deposited
there. The riffle in R5 also appears quite stable as the distribution is fairly consistent with all previous results,
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96074
MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 7 (2020)

despite the significant flow events of the past few years. Pebble count data and graphs can be found in Appendix
D, while photographs of the two riffles at the time of sampling can be found in Appendix B.
Summary information/data related to the Site and statistics related to performance of various project and
monitoring elements can be found in the tables and figures in the report Appendices. Narrative background and
supporting information formerly found in these reports can be found in the Baseline Monitoring Report and in
the Mitigation Plan available on the DMS website. Any raw data supporting the tables and figures in the
Appendices is available from DMS upon request.
This report documents the successful completion of the Year 5 monitoring activities for the post -construction
monitoring period.
2.0 METHODOLOGY
The seven-year monitoring plan for the Site includes criteria to evaluate the success of the stream and vegetation
components of the Site. The methodology and report template used to evaluate these components adheres to
the DMS guidance documents Monitoring Requirements and Performance Standards for Stream and/or Wetland
Mitigation (DMS 2011), and to the Monitoring Report Template, Version 1.5 (DMS 2012), which will continue
to serve as the template for subsequent monitoring years. The vegetation -monitoring quadrants follow CVS-
DMS monitoring levels 1 and 2 in accordance with CVS-DMS Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version 4.1
(Lee 2007).
Stream survey data was collected to a minimum of Class C Vertical and Class A Horizontal Accuracy using
Leica TS06 Total Station and was georeferenced to the NAD83 State Plane Coordinate System, FIPS3200 in
US Survey Feet, which was derived from the As -built Survey. This survey system collects point data with an
accuracy of less than one tenth of a foot.
The specific locations of monitoring features, such as vegetation plots, permanent cross -sections, reference
photograph stations, crest gauges and flow gauges, are shown on the Current Condition Plan View (CCPV)
map found in Appendix B.
All earthwork for project construction was completed in October of 2015, with subsequent as -built survey work
completed in November of 2015. All site planting (bareroot stems and live -stakes) was completed in January
of 2016.
The Monitoring Year 5 vegetation plot data were collected in October 2020, the visual site assessment data
contained in Appendix B were obtained in February and October 2020, and the cross-section data found in
Appendix D were collected in September 2020.
2.1 Stream Assessment
The Project involved the restoration and enhancement of a rural Piedmont stream system that had been impaired
due to past agricultural conversion and cattle grazing. Restoration practices involved raising the existing
streambed and reconnecting the stream to the relic floodplain to restore natural flood regimes to the system.
The existing channels abandoned within the restoration areas were partially to completely filled to decrease
surface and subsurface drainage and to raise the local water table. Permanent cattle exclusion fencing was
provided around all proposed reaches and riparian buffers, except along reaches where no cattle are located or
cattle lack stream access.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96074
MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 7 (2020)

2.1.1 Morphological Parameters and Channel Stability
A longitudinal profile was surveyed for the entire length of channel immediately after construction to
document as -built baseline conditions for the Monitoring Year 0 only. Annual longitudinal profiles
will not be conducted during subsequent monitoring years unless channel instability has been
documented or remedial actions/repairs are required by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
or DMS.
Survey data from the sixteen permanent project cross -sections were collected and classified using the
Rosgen Stream Classification System, and all monitored cross -sections fall within the quantitative
parameters defined for channels of the design stream type (Rosgen 1994). The Year 5 monitoring
survey data for the cross -sections indicates that the Site is geomorphically stable and performing at 100
percent for all the parameters evaluated. The data collected are within the lateral/vertical stability and
in -stream structure performance categories. Morphological survey data are presented in Appendix D.
Please note, as per DMS/IRT request the bank height ratios for MY5 have been calculated using the as -
built bankfull area to determine low bank height and the max depth based on the current -year channel
cross -sectional area. All other values were calculated using the as -built bankfull elevation, as was done
for all previous monitoring reports.
Particle size distribution assessments (pebble counts) were conducted using the modified Wolman
method as described in Applied River Morphology (Rosgen 1996).
2.1.2 Hydrology
To monitor on -site bankfull events, one crest gauge (crest gauge 91) was installed along the downstream
portion of Reach R2 at bankfull elevation along the left top of bank at approximately Station 38+90.
During Year 5 monitoring, one above-bankfull event was documented in February 2020. Further details
of the crest gauge readings are presented in Table 12 in Appendix E.
To monitor flow on restored reaches, two flow gauges were installed on site; TMCK-FL1 on Reach 2
(Station 20+75), and TMCK-FL2 on Reach 5 (Station 33+90). The Year 5 flow monitoring data
demonstrated that both flow gauges met the stated success criteria of 30 days or more of consecutive
flow. The gauges also demonstrated similar patterns relative to rainfall events and can corroborate
reported overbank flow events from the crest gauge, as shown in the flow gauge graphs found in
Appendix E.
As the observed monthly rainfall data for the project presented in Figure 9 in Appendix E demonstrates,
the past 12 months have been much wetter as compared to historic averages for Wake County. A total
of 59.5 in. of rainfall was observed for the project using the nearest NC-CRONOS station, while Wake
County averages 43.8 in. of annual rainfall.
2.1.3 Photographic Documentation
Reference photograph transects were taken at each permanent cross-section in September of 2020. The
survey tape was centered in the photographs of the bank. The water line was located in the lower edge
of the frame, and as much of the bank as possible is included in each photograph.
Representative stream photographs for Monitoring Year 5 were taken along each Reach in February
2020 and are provided in Appendix B.
Photographs of each Vegetation Plot taken in October 2020 can also be found in Appendix B.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96074
MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 7 (2020)

2.1.4 Visual Stream Morphological Stability Assessment
The visual stream morphological stability assessment involves the qualitative evaluation of lateral and
vertical channel stability, and the integrity and overall performance of in -stream structures throughout
the Project reaches as a whole. Habitat parameters and pool depth maintenance are also evaluated.
During Year 5 monitoring, Baker staff walked the entire length of each of the Project reaches several
times throughout the year, noting geomorphic conditions of the stream bed profile (riffle/pool facets),
both stream banks, and engineered in -stream structures. Representative photographs were taken per
the Site's Mitigation Plan, and the locations of any SPAS were documented in the field for subsequent
mapping on the CCPV figures. There were no SPAS noted during Year 5 monitoring. A more detailed
summary of the results for the visual stream stability assessment can be found in Appendix B, which
includes supporting data tables and figures, as well as the general stream photos.
2.2 Vegetation Assessment
In order to determine if the success criteria were achieved, vegetation -monitoring quadrants were installed and
are monitored across the site in accordance with the CVS-DMS Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version 4.1
(Lee 2007) using the CVS-DMS Data Entry Tool v. 2.3.1 (CVS 2012). The vegetation monitoring plots cover
a minimum of 2 percent of the planted portion of the Site with sixteen plots established randomly within the
planted riparian buffer areas per Monitoring Levels 1 and 2. The sizes of individual quadrants are 100 square
meters for woody tree species.
During Year 5 monitoring, the planted acreage performance categories were functioning well with no bare areas
to report. The average density of total planted stems, based on data collected from the sixteen monitoring plots
following Year 5 monitoring in October 2020, was 562 stems per acre. Thus, the Year 5 vegetation data
demonstrate that the Site has met the minimum success interim criteria of 260 trees per acre by the end of Year
5. There were no VPAs noted during the Year 5 monitoring.
Additionally, there were no significant areas of invasive species vegetation observed during the Year 5
monitoring. There were a few small, isolated pockets of cattail (Typha latifolia) found along sections of Reach
R2. They will be monitored closely over the next year and treated if necessary.
The complete Year 5 vegetation assessment information is provided in Appendix B and C.
3.0 REFERENCES
Carolina Vegetation Survey (CVS) and NC Division of Mitigation Services (DMS). CVS-DMS
Data Entry Tool v. 2.3.1. University of North Carolina, Raleigh, NC. 2012.
Lee, M., Peet R., Roberts, S., Wentworth, T. 2007. CVS-DMS Protocol for Recording Vegetation,
Version 4.1.
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (DMS). 2012. NCDMS Monitoring Report Template,
Version 1.5, June 8, 2012.
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (DMS). 2011. NCDMS Monitoring Requirements and
Performance Standards for Stream and/or Wetland Mitigation. November 7, 2011.
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (DMS). 2009. Cape Fear River Basin Restoration Priorities.
Rosgen, D.L. 1994. A Classification of Natural Rivers. Catena 22:169-199.
Rosgen, D.L. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildlands Hydrology. Pagosa Springs, CO.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96074
MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 7 (2020)

Appendix A
Project Vicinity Map and Background Tables

The subject project site is an environmental restoration site of the NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) and is encompassed by a recorded
conservation easement, but is bordered by land under private ownership. Accessing the site may require traversing areas near or along the easement
boundary and therefore access by the general public is not permitted. Access by authorized personnel of state and federal agencies or their
designees/contractors involved in the development, oversight and stewardship of the restoration site is permitted within the terms and timeframes of their
defined roles. Any intended site visitation or activity by any person outside of these previously sanctioned roles and activities requires prior coordination
with DMS.
N
Jordan
5
CHATW,
COUJVT
Site Directions
To access the Site from Raleigh, take US-1 south
and head south towards Sanford, for approximately
12 miles. Take the ramp for Exit 89 to New
Hill/Jordan Lake. At the end of the ramp turn right
on New Hill -Holleman Road and continue for 0.8
miles to the stop sign at Old US Highway 1. Turn
left on Old US Highway 1 and continue 1.1 miles
before turning left on Shearon Harris Rd (SR1134).
The destination will be on the right in 0.4 miles.
Turn right onto the gravel road and continue to the
end to park among the most southern farm
buildings.
Note: Site is located within targeted local
watershed 03030004020010.
Wake County
1
Project Location
It
S _ f r T
Figure 1 - Project Vicinity Map
Thomas Creek Site
DMS Project ID No. 96074
NCDEQ - N
Division of
Mitigation Services
I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L
0 0.5 1 2 3
Miles

l �Apex
I
Y�
r Apex
�
A Reference Stream Locations i
o-
I
Little Beaver Cr.
T��
/V/ Upper Reach R4 �
C O b -T] Y
Michael Baker NCDEQ -
Division of
N T E R N ,A T 1 Q N A L Mitigation Services
Project Location
1
Holly! prings
N Figure 3
0 0.5 1 Reference Stream
Miles A Locations Map
Thomas Creek Site

gfV7' t' X6 r.
-
Reach R5 F'
r s?u X8
(upstream) V8 Reach T1
w`
Reach R7 `y V14
(upstream)
Reach R2
Reach R7 X15 { V9 (downstream)
-. (downstream) X14y X10 X9
r - Reach R5 L a V10
ti (downstream) X16�
' y V120
0 F A .� t
` lk X11 V11
+x12
Reach R1
Figure 4
Michael Baker 0 250 500 Monitoring Features
Feet Overview Map
1NTERNATI0NAL Thomas Creek Site

Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Thomas Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 96074
Mitigation Credits
Stream (SMUs)
Riparian Wetland
Non -riparian Wetland
Buffer
Nitrogen Nutrient Offset
Phosphorus
Nutrient Offset
Type
R, El, EII
Totals
5,706
Project Components
Project Component or Reach ID
As -Built Stationing/ Location
Existing Footage/
Acreage (LF)
Approach
Restoration/ Restoration
Equivalent (SMU) from
Mitigation Plan'
Design Reach
Length (LF) from
Mitigation Plan"
As -Built
Restoration
Footage (LF)
Mitigation
Ratio
Reach 1
42+01 to 44+99
397
Restoration
266
266
298
1:1
Reach 2 (downstream)t
27+78 to 42+01
1,238
Restoration (PI)
1,384
1,404
1,423
1:1
Reach 2 (upstream)t
20+55 to 27+58 (at CE Break)
757
Restoration (PII)
703
703
703
1:1
Reach 3 (downstream)
11+17 to 18+70 / CE Break / 18+94 to 20+55
937
Restoration
929
949
914
1:1
Reach 3 (upstream)
10+00 to 11+17
130
Enhancement II
26
130
117
5:1
Reach 4 (downstream)
10+41 to 13+83
327
Restoration
361
361
342
1:1
Reach 4 (upstream)
00+99 to 09+95
870
Enhancement II
87
870
896
10:1
Reach 5 (downstream)
29+30 to 34+97 / CE Break / 35+17 to 39+91
883
Restoration
1,044
1,064
1,041
1:1
Reach 5 (upstream)
28+02 to 29+30
137
Enhancement lI
27
137
128
5:1
Reach 6 (downstream)
12+10 to 15+55 / CE Break / 15+81 to 28+02
1,592
Enhancement II
320
1,618
1,566
5:1
Reach 6 (upstream)
10+00 to 12+10
210
Enhancement I
140
210
210
1.5:1
Reach 7 (downstream)
13+60 to 16+47
287
Enhancement II
57
286
287
5:1
Reach 7 (upstream)
10+00 to 13+60
360
Enhancement II
144
360
360
2.5:1
Reach Tl
10+00 to 10+55 / CE Break / 10+75 to 12+47
242
Enhancement I
155
253
227
1.5:1
Reach T2
10+00 to 11+57
171
Enhancement II
63
158
157
2.5:1
Component Summation
Restoration Level
Stream (LF)
Riparian Wetland (AC)
Non -riparian Wetland (AC)
Buffer (SF)
Upland (AC)
Restoration
4,721
Enhancement
437
Enhancement II
3,511
BMP Elements
Element
Location
Purpose/Function
Notes
BMP Elements: BR= Bioretention Cell, SF— Sand Filter, SW— Stormwater Wetland; WDP= Wet Detention Pond, DDP= Dry Detention
Pond, FS= Filter Strip; S= Grassed Swale; LS= Level Spreader; NI=Natural Infiltration Area
Notes:
t Starting in MY2, Reach 2 was broken up into an upstream and downstream component based on restoration approach as per DMS request. None of the actual restored lengths have changed, although the credits for
R2 (downstream) were adjusted as explained below.
* Starting in MY2, the SMU credit numbers used for these reaches were taken directly from the mitigation plan credit table (Table 5.1) as per DMSART instruction, and vary from those presented in the baseline and MYl
monitoring reports. This was done because credits were originally calculated along the as -built thalweg but have been updated to be calculated along stream centerlines for MY2 onward after discussions with the IRT
stemming from the April 3, 2017 Credit Release Meeting. Stationing and Restoration Footage numbers reported herein and on all subsequent monitoring reports will remain as reported from the as -built survey. As Reach I
was not originally subdivided, the credits were reduced from the downstream section where the bulk of differences are expected to have occurred, though the total combined credits equal the original value for R2 as found it
the approved mitigation plan.
** Starting in MY3, as per DMSART instruction, this column was added to the table showing the design reach lengths taken from the mitigation plan (Table ESA). Please note these numbers did not remove non -creditable
sections such as easement breaks for crossings from their calculations.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96074)

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Thomas Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 96074
Elapsed Time Since Grading Completed in Oct. 2015
5 Years, 1 Month
Elapsed Time Since Planting Completed in Jan. 2016
4 Years, 10 Months
Number of Reporting Years'
5
Activity or Deliverable
Data Collection
Complete
Actual Completion or
Delivery
Mitigation Plan Prepared
N/A
Oct-14
Mitigation Plan Amended
N/A
Mar-15
Mitigation Plan Approved
N/A
Mar-15
Final Design — (at least 90% complete)
N/A
Mar-15
Construction Begins
N/A
Apr-15
Temporary S&E mix applied to entire project area
N/A
Oct-15
Permanent seed mix applied to entire project area
N/A
Oct-15
Planting of live stakes
N/A
Jan-16
Planting of bare root trees
N/A
Jan-16
End of Construction
N/A
Oct-15
Survey of As -built conditions (Year 0 Monitoring -baseline)
Nov-15
Nov-15
Baseline Monitoring Report
Mar-16
Oct-16
Year 1 Monitoring
Nov-16
Jan-17
Stream structure and bank repairs made to Reach R 1
Repairs made in July 2016
Year 2 Monitoring
Oct-17
Nov-17
Livestakes re -planted along sections of lower Reach R2
Planted in January 2017
Year 3 Monitoring
Nov-18
Dec-18
Bank scour repair on 3 sections of Reach R2
Repairs made in March 2018
Supplemental planting (I -gal.) on R3
Planted in March 2018
Year 4 Monitoring
Oct-19
Jan-20
Bank scour repair on 2 sections of Reach R2
January 2019
Supplemental planting (bareroots) on Reach T1
Planted in January 2019
Cattail treated on sections of R2 and R4
Treated in March and April 2019
Soil amendments on Reach R3
March and September 2019
Year 5 Monitoring
Oct-20
Nov-20 (Draft)
Soil amendments on Reach R3
May and October 2020
Year 6 Monitoring
N/A
N/A
Year 7 Monitoring
N/A
N/A
1 The number of reports or data points produced excluding the baseline
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96074)

Table 3. Project Contacts
Thomas Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95729
Designer
8
000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
Cary, NC 27518
Contact:
Katie McKeithan, Telephone: [phone]
Construction Contractor
5616 Coble Church Rd
KBS Earthworks
Julian, NC 27283
Contact:
Chris Sizemore, Telephone: [phone]
Planting Contractor
5616 Coble Church Rd
KBS Earthworks
Julian, NC 27283
Contact:
Chris Sizemore, Telephone: [phone]
Seeding Contractor
5616 Coble Church Rd
KBS Earthworks
Julian, NC 27283
Contact:
Chris Sizemore, Telephone: [phone]
Seed Mix Source
Green Resources, Telephone: [phone]
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Mellow Marsh Farm, Telephone: [phone]
ArborGen, Telephone: [phone]
Monitoring Performers
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
Cary, NC 27518
Contact:
Stream Monitoring Point of Contact
Scott King, Tel. [phone]
Vegetation Monitoring Point of Contact
Scott King, Tel. [phone]
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96074)

Table 4. Project Attributes (Pre -Construction Conditions)
Thomas Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No. ID 96074
Project Information
Project Name
Thomas Creek Restoration Project
County
Wake
Project Area (acres)
22.7
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude)
35.6636 N,-79.9547 W
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province
Piedmont
River Basin
Cape Fear
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit and 14-digit
03030004 / 03030004020010
NCDWR Sub -basin
03-06-07
Project Drainage Area (acres)
246 (Reach RI main stem at downstream extent)
Project Drainage Area Percent Impervious
<1%
CGIA / NCEEP Land Use Classification
2.01.01.0., 2.03.01, 2.99.01, 3.02 / Forest (660/6) Agriculture (190/6) Impervious Cover
(10/6)
Reach Summary Information
Parameters
Reach Rl
Reach R2
Reach R3
Reach R4
Reach R5
Length of Reach (linear feet)
397
1,995
1,067
342
1,020
Valley Classification (Rosgen)
VB
VII
VII
VII
VE
Drainage Area (acres)
246
176
62
36
62
NCDWR Stream Identification Score
37.5
38
25 / 37
31
31 / 34
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
C
Morphological Description
(Rosgen stream type)
Be
F (upstream)/
Gc(downstream)
Gc (upstream)/
Be(downstream)
Be
Be
Evolutionary Trend
Be--)GC--)F
Be--)GC--)F
Be--)GC--)F
Be--)GC--)F
Be--)GC--)F
Underlying Mapped Soils
WoA
WoA
WoA
WoA
WoA
Drainage Class
Poorly drained
Poorly drained
Poorly drained
Poorly drained
Poorly drained
Soil Hydric Status
Hydric
Hydric
Hydric
Hydric
Hydric
Average Channel Slope (ft/ft)
0.0165
1 0.0083
1
0.014
1 0.0102
0.0172
FEMA Classification
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Native Vegetation Community
Piedmont Small Stream
Percent Composition of Exotic/Invasive Vegetation
<5%
25%
<5%
<5%
<5%
Parameters
Reach R6
Reach R7
Reach Tl
Reach T2
Length of Reach (linear feet)
1,828
646
242
171
Valley Classification (Rosgen)
VII
VII
VII
VII
Drainage Area (acres)
32
14
49
5
NCDWR Stream Identification Score
25 / 30
23 / 35
23.75
20.75
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
C
Morphological Description
(Rosgen stream type)
G5c (upstream)/
B5c(downstream)
G5 (upstream)/
B5c(downstream)
B5c
B5c
Evolutionary Trend
Be--)GC--)F
Be--)GC--)F
Be--)GC--)F
Be--)GC--)F
Underlying Mapped Soils
WoA
WoA
WoA
WoA
Drainage Class
Poorly drained
Poorly drained
Poorly drained
Poorly drained
Soil Hydric Status
Hydric
Hydric
Hydric
Hydric
Average Channel Slope (f /ft)
0.015/0.025
0.025
0.02
0.041
FEMA Classification
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Native Vegetation Community
Piedmont Small Stream
Percent Composition of Exotic/Invasive Vegetation
<5%
<5% 1
<5%
1 <5
Regulatory
Considerations
Regulation
Applicable
Resolved
Supporting Documentation
Waters of the United States — Section 404
Yes
Yes
Categorical Exclusion (Appendix B)
Waters of the United States — Section 401
Yes
Yes
Categorical Exclusion (Appendix B)
Endangered Species Act
No
N/A
Categorical Exclusion (Appendix B)
Historic Preservation Act
No
N/A
Categorical Exclusion (Appendix B)
Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA)
No
N/A
Categorical Exclusion (Appendix B)
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
No
Yes
Categorical Exclusion (Appendix B)
Essential Fisheries Habitat
No
N/A
Categorical Exclusion (Appendix B)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95729)

Appendix B
Visual Assessment Data

a
Reach R3
(upstream)
Reach R3
(downstream)
Reach R4
(upstream)
Reach R6
(upstream)
Reach R6
(downstream)
Reach R7
(upstream)
Reach R5 Reach T1
(upstream) -
wyti..:...,
Reach R7
(downstream) " '
0- Reach R2
(downstream)
Reach R5 0
(downstream) 0 JJJ jj���
JAe i.._. Reach R1
NCOneMap Orthoimagery 2017
7 ')' "�
Reach R4
(downstream)
h R2
h.7F.1
0 250 500 Figure 5 Index Map
BakerMichael Feet
Current Condition Plan View
N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L DEQ DMS Project # 96074 Thomas Creek Site - MY5

PO
W
Reach R3 -W, V
At _4 LP
m)
(upstrea
fP. L Z� PP-2
Z�
V eg r IOL 1+
405 stems/ac
N
Soil Amendments
(0.38 ac)
Veg Plot 3
64 stems/ac S -1 Reach R3
(downstream)
Veg Plot 1
PP-3 405 /a
PP-4
z� z
Veg Plot 5 PP-5 Reach R4
405 stems/ac 047 (downstream)
PP-7 XS-4
PP-6
7"7
-.4 XS-3 PP PP-15
-16 Veg Plot 2
PP-17 283 stems/ac
ALPFU 41P 4FW�Jw
-18
A7
XS-5.,
�.Ov ]PP-19 Conservation Easement
Cross Sections
Crest Gauge
Veg Plot 6
405 stems/ac Flow Gauge
Photo -Points
r. . . . . . . . . . . . A
Streams by Mitigation Type
Restoration
Reach R2
-SLIP.
(upstream) Enhancement I
J_
Enhancement 11
No Credit
_W Veg Plots -Year 5 (All Passed)
Reach T2
Plots Meeting Criteria
Soil Amendment Location
0 100 200
Michael Baker Feet Figure 5A
Current Condition Plan View
I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L DENR DMS Project# 96074 Thomas Creek Site - MY5
Reach R4
(upstream)

Reach T2
PP-23
Reach R6-
4`
:�- (downstream) -
°_� Veg Plot 7
-f 688 stems/ac
f PPS { Reach T1
ate'= • ;y 2t� X `- _
Reach R5 Veg Plot 8
(upstream)' Reach R2 364 stems/ac
(downstream) -
Reach R7 Veg Plot 14
(downstream) 728 stems/ac
�1 MY4 Bank Repair
jXS-15 +. VXS-9 Veg Plot 9
Veg Plot 13 607 stems/ac
3567 stems/ac
XS-
f MY4 Bank Repair
^.
Reach R5 t 10 Plot (downstream) VConservation Easement
Veg o
Cross Sections
809 stems/ac
Crest Gauge
Flow Gauge
_ f ` Ve Plot APw- Pebble Count Locations
9'
809 stems/ac �jj: Previous Stream Bank Repair
�' f (from MY4, 2019)
Photo -Points
Ve Plot 11
XS-11 :.:` �'` g Streams by Mitigation Type
stems/ac
y t.,
Restoration
' XS-12 :.
'-
_ Enhancement I
Or
Reach R1
Enhancement II
No Credit
Veg Plots - Year 5 (All
Passed)
s: Plots Meeting Criteria
0 100 200
Michael Baker Feet Figure 5113
Current Condition Plan View
N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L DENR DMS Project # 96074 Thomas Creek Site - MY5

i
-
�a w
�M1
Conservation EasemenCross Sections
Photo-Pointsit t w •* ~r
Streams by Mitigation Type
Restoration
Enhancement 11
- No Credit -1
f� iVeg Plots -Year 5 (All Passed)
Plots Meeting Criteria
w� ;Y•J f '
i.7 al
' -`ti;'�:�i � • ,�J - _µme* • __ . .,ems � 'fir - �' .
t
Lief - �,�, --*• _ �, _ • ,_�,AR,' .� _:_.. _ �f � �_. Vie.
00 200
Michael Baker — --Figure
Condition
DENR DMS Project# 96074

Table 5. Visual Steam Morphology Stability Assessment
Thomas Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 96074
Reach ID: Reach 1
Assessed Length(LF): 298
Major Channel Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
per As -built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
9
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
9
%Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Wood Vag.
Y 9
Footagewith
Stabilizing
Wood Vag.
Y 9
Adjusted%for
Stabilizing
Wood Ve
Y 9
1.Vertical Stability
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow laterally (not to
include point bars)
0
0
100%
2.Degradation- Evidence ofdowncutting
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture Substrate- Riffle maintains coarser substrate
3
_
100%
1. Bed
3. Meander Pool Condition
1. Depth - Sufficent (Max Pod Depth/Mean Bkf Depth >_ 1.5)
3
1 _
1
1
1 100%
2. Length - Sufficent (>30% of centerline distance between tail of upstream riffle and
head of downstream riffle)
3
100%
4. Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
3
3
100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide)
3
3
100%
1. Scoured/Erodin
Bank lackingve etative cover due to active scour and erosion
0
0
100°5
0
100%
2. Bank
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhan in to the extent that mass wastingis expected
0
0
10055
0
100%
3. Mass Wasting
Banks slumping, caving or collapse
0
1 0
1 100%
0
100%
Totalsl
0
1 0
1 100%
1
0
1 100%
3. Engineering Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs
3
_
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill
2
2
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath or around sills or arms
3
3
100%
3. Bank Position
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%
3
3
100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining -Max Pool Depth/Mean Bankfull Depth ratio>_ 1.5.
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at low flow
3
_
100%
Table 5. Visual Steam Morphology Stability Assessment
Thomas Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 96074
Reach ID: Reach 2
Assessed Length (LF): 2,126
Major Channel Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
N umber Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
per As -built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
9
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
9
%Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Wood Veg.
Y 9
Footage with
Stabilizing
Wood Veg.
Y 9
Adjusted%for
Stabilizing
Wood Ve
Y 9
1.Vertical Stability
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow laterally (not to
include point bars)
0
0
100%
2.Degradation- Evidence ofdowncutting
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture Substrate- Riffle maintains coarser substrate
38
38
100%
1. Bed
3. Meander Pool Condition
1. Depth - Sufficent (Max Pod Depth/Mean Bkf Depth >_ 1.5)
41
41
100%
2. Length - Sufficent (>30% of centerline distance between tail of upstream riffle and
head cf downstream riffle)
41
41
100%
4. Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
41
41
100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide)
41
41
100%
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover due to active scour and erosion
0
0
100%
0
100%
2. Bank
2. Undercut
Banks undercutloverhanging tothe extentthat mass wasting is expected
0
100%
0
100%
3. Mass Wasting
Banks slumping, caving or collapse
0
0
100%
0
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
100%
3. Engineering Structures 1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs 27
27 100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill
24
24
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath or around sills or arms
27
27
100%
3. Bank Position
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%
27
27
100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth/Mean Bankfull Depth ratio>_ 1.5.
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at low flow
13
13
100%
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96074)

Table 5. Continued Visual Steam Morphology Stability Assessment
Thomas Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 96074
Reach ID: Reach 3
Assessed Length LF : 1,031
Major Channel Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
per As -built
Number of Amount of
Unstable Unstable
Segments Footage
9 9
%Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Wood Vag.
Y 9�
Footage with
Stabilizing
Wood Veg.
Y 9�
Adjusted %for
Stabilizing
Wood Ve
Y 9.
1. Bed
1.Vertical Stability
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow laterally (not to
include point bars)
0 0
100%
2.Degradation- Evidence ofdowncutting
1. Texture Substrate- Riffle maintains coarser substrate
16
16
0 0
100%
100%
2. Rife Condition
3. Meander Pool Condition
1. Depth - Sufficent (Max Pod Depth/Mean Bkf Depth >_ 1.5)
15
15
100%
2. Length - Sufficent (>30% of centerline distance between tail of upstream riffle and
head of downstream riffle)
15
15
100%
4. Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
15
15
100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend Glide
15
15
100%
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover due to active scour and erosion
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhangingundercutloverhanging to the extent that mass wasting is ex ected
4
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
2. Bank
3. Mass Wasting
Banks slumping, caving or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3. Engineering Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intactwith no dislodged boulders or logs
10
10 100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill
2
2 100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath or around sills orarms
10
10 100%
3. Bank Position
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%
1 10
10 100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining -Max Pool Depth/Mean Bankfull Depth ratio>_ 1.5.
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at low flow
7
7 100%
Table 5. Continued Visual Steam Morphology Stability Assessment
Thomas Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 96074
Reach ID: Reach 4
Assessed Length LF : 1,238
Major Channel Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
per As -built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
9
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
9
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Wood Veg.
Y 9�
Footage with
Stabilizing
Wood Veg.
Y 9�
Adjusted % for
Stabilizing
Wood Ve
Y 9.
1.Vertical Stability
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow laterally (not to
include point bars
0
0
100%
2. Degradation- Evidence ofdowncutting
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture Substrate- Riffle maintains coarser substrate
100%
1. Bed
3. Meander Pool Condition
1. Depth - Sufficent (Max Pod Depth/Mean Bkf Depth >_ 1.5)
100%
2. Length - Sufficent (>30% of centerline distance between tail of upstream riffle and
head of downstream riffle
100%
4. Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
S
S
100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream ofineander bend Glide
100%
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover due to active scour and erosion
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
2. Bank
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhan in to the extentthat mass wastingis expected
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3. Mass Wasting
Banks slum in , cavin or colla se
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3. Engineering Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs
4
4
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill
1
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath or around sills or arms
4
4
100%
3. Bank Position
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%
4
4
2%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining -Max Pool Depth/Mean Bankfull Depth ratio 1.5.
Rco,_ s/I s providingsome cover at low flow
3
3
100%
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96074)

Table 5. Continued Visual Steam Morphology Stability Assessment
Thomas Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 96074
Reach ID: Reach 5
Assessed Length LF : 1,169
Number Stable,
Total Number
Number of
Amount of
%Stable,
Number with
Footage with
Adjusted%for
Major Channel Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Performing as
per As -built
Unstable
Unstable
Performing as
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Intended
Segments
9
Footage
9
Intended
Wood Veg.
Y 9
Wood Veg.
Y 9
Wood Ve
Y 9
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow laterally (not to
0
0
100%
1.Vertical Stability
include point bars)
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting
0
100%
2. Rife Condition
1. Texture Substrate- Riffle maintains coarser substrate
100%
17
17
1. Bed
1. Depth - Sufficent (Max Pod Depth/Mean Bkf Depth >_ 1.5)
18
18
100%
3. Meander Pool Condition
2. Length - Sufficent (>30% of centerline distance between tail of upstream riffle and
head of downstream riffle
18
18
100%
4. Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
18
18
100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide)
18
18
100%
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover due to active scour and erosion
0 0
100%
0
0
100%
2. Bank
2. Undercut
Banks undercutloverhanging to the extent that mass wasting is expected
0
100%
0
0
100
3. Mass Wasting
Banks slumping, caving or collapse
0 0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals 0 0 100%
0
0
100%
3. Engineering Structures
11. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs 16 16 100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill
1
1 100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath or around sills or arms
16
16 100%
3. Bank Position
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%
16
16 100%
Pool forming structures maintaining -Max Pool Depth/Mean Bankfull Depth ratio_ 1.5.
15
15 100%
4. Habitat
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at low flow
Table 5. Continued Visual Steam Morphology Stability Assessment
Thomas Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 96074
Reach ID: Reach 6
Assessed Length LF : 1,776
Major Channel Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
N umber Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
per As -built
Numberof
Unstable
Segments
9
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
9
%Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Wood Veg.
Y 9�
Footage with
Stabilizing
Wood Veg.
Y 9�
Adjusted %for
Stabilizing
Wood Ve
Y 9.
1.Vertical Stability
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow laterally (not to
include point bars
0
0
100%
2. Degradation- Evidence ofdowncutting
1. Texture Substrate- Riffle maintains coarser substrate
6
6
0
0
100%
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Bed
3. Meander Pool Condition
1. Depth - Sufficent (Max Pod Depth/Mean Bkf Depth >_ 1.5)
5
°
100%
2. Length - Sufficent (>30% of centerline distance between tail of upstream riffle and
head of downstream riffle)
100%
4. Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
_
=
100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream ofineander bend Glide
°
°
100%
1. Scoured/Eroding
an lacking vegetative cover due to active scour and erosion
0
100%
0
0
100
2. Bank
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhan in to the extent that mass wastingis expected
0 0
100%
0
0
100%
3. Mass Wasting
Banks slumping, caving orcollapse
0 0
100%
0
100%
Totals
0 0
100%
0
0
100%
3. Engineering Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs
0
0
-
2. Grade Control
lGradecontrol structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill
0
0
-
22. Piping
tru IS lacking any substantial flow underneath or around sills or arms
0
0
-
3. Bank Position
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%
0
0
-
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining -Max Pool Depth/Mean Bankfull Depth ratio>_ 1.5.
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at low flow
0
0
-
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96074)

Table 5. Continued Visual Steam Morphology Stability Assessment
Thomas Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 96074
Reach ID: Reach 7
Assessed Length LF : 647
Number Stable,
Number of
Amount of
%Stable,
Number with
Footage with
Adjusted %for
Major Channel Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Performing as
Total Number
Unstable
Unstable
Performing as
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Intended
per As -built
Segments
9
Footage
9
Intended
Wood Veg.
Y 9
Wood Veg.
Y 9
Wood Ve
Y 9
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow laterally (not to
0
0
100%
1.Vertical Stability
include point bars)
2.Degradation- Evidence ofdowncutting
0
0
100%
2. Rife Condition
1. Texture Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
100%
5
1. Bed
1. Depth - Sufficent (Max Pod Depth/Mean Bkf Depth >_ 1.5)
6
100%
3. Meander Pool Condition
2. Length - Sufficent (>30% of centerline distance between tail of upstream riffle and
head of downstream riffle
100%
4. Thalweg Position 1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run) 6
100%
100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream ofineander bend Glide 6 1 6
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover due to active scour and erosion
0
0
100%
0
100%
2. Bank
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extentthat mass wasting is expected
0
0
100%
0
100%
3. Mass Wasting
Banks slumping, caving or collapse
0
100%
0
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
100%
3. Engineering Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs
2
2
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill
2
2
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath or around sills or arms
2
2
10 0%
3. Bank Position
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%
2
2
100%
Pool forming structures maintaining -Max Pool Depth/Mean Bankfull Depth ratio>_ 1.5.
2
2
100%
4. Habitat
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at low flow
Table 5. Continued Visual Steam Morphology Stability Assessment
Thomas Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 96074
Reach ID: Reach T1
Assessed Length LF : 227
N umber Stable,
Numberof
Amount of %Stable,
Number with
Footage with
Adjusted%for
Major Channel Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Performing as
Total Number
Unstable
Unstable Performing as
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Intended
per As -built
Segments
9
Footage Intended
9
Wood Vag.
Y 9�
Wood Veg.
Y 9�
Wood Ve
Y 9.
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow laterally (not to
0
0 100%
1.Vertical Stability
include point bars)
2.Degradation- Evidence ofdowncutting
0
0 100%
1. Bed
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture Substrate- Riffle maintains coarser substrate
4
a
100%
1. Depth - Sufficent (Max Pod Depth/Mean Bkf Depth >_ 1.5)
5
_
100%
3. Meander Pool Condition
2. Length - Sufficent (>30% of centerline distance between tail of upstream riffle and
head of downstream riffle)
5
=
100%
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
5
_
100%
4. Thalweg Position
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide)
_
= 100%
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover due to active scour and erosion
0 0 100%
0
0
100%
2. Undercut
Banks undercutloverhanging to the extent that mass wasting is expected
0 0 100%
0
0
100%
2. Bank
3. Mass WastingBanks
slum in , Gavin or colla se
0 0 100%
0
0
100%
0 0 100%
0
0
100%
Totals
3. Engineering Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs 1 1 100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill
1
1 100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath or around sills or arms
1
1 100%
3. Bank Position
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%
1
1 100%
Pool forming structures maintaining -Max Pool Depth/Mean Bankfull Depth ratio>_ 1.5.
1
1 100%
4. Habitat
Rootwads/I s providingsome cover at lowflow
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96074)

Table 5. Continued Visual Steam Morphology Stability Assessment
Thomas Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 96074
Reach ID: Reach T2
Assessed Length (LF): 157
Number Stable,
Total Number
Number of
Amount of
% Stable,
Number with
Footage with
Adjusted % for
Major Channel Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Performing as
per As -built
Unstable
Unstable
Performing as
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Intended
Segments
9
Footage
9
Intended
Wood Veg.
Y 9
Wood Veg.
Y 9
Wood Ve
Y 9
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow laterally (not to
0
0
100%
1.Vertical Stability
include point bars)
2.Degradation- Evidence ofdowncutting
.,
0
100%
2. Rife Condition
1. Texture Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
1 3
3
100%
1. Bed
1. Depth - Sufficent (Max Pod Depth/Mean Bkf Depth >_ 1.5)
100%
3. Meander Pool Condition
2
2. Length - Sufficent (>30% of centerline distance between tail of upstream riffle and
100%
head of downstream riffle)
2
4. Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
2
2
100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream ofineander bend Glide
100%
1. ScouredlErodin
Bank lacking vegetative cover due to active scour and erosion
0 100%
0
100%
2. Bank
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting is expected
1
100%
0
100%
3. Mass Wasting
lBanks slumping, caving or collapse
I
1
100%
1
1 0
100%
Totals
0 100%
1
1 0
1 100%
3. Engineering Structures
11. Overall Integrity
IStructures physically intactwith no dislodged boulders or logs
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath or around sills or arms
100%
3. Bank Position
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%
1
100%
Pool forming structures maintaining -Max Pool Depth/Mean Bankfull Depth ratio>_ 1.5.
1
100%
4. Habitat
Rcotwads/logs providing some cover at low flow
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96074)

Table 6. Vegetation Conditions Assessment
Thomas Creek Restoration Project: DIMS Project ID No. 96074
Planted Acreage: 14.4
Vegetation Category
Defintions
Mapping Threshold
CCPV Depiction
Number of Polygons
Combined Acreage
of Planted
(acres)
Acreage
1. Bare Areas
Very limited cover both woody and herbaceous material.
0.1
N/A
0
0.00
0.0%
2. Low Stem Density Areas
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 4,
0.1
N/A
0
0.00
0.0%
or 5 stem count criteria.
Total
0
0.00
0.0%
3. Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor
Areas with woody stems or a size class that are obviously small
0.25
N/A'
0'
0.38
2.6%
given the monitoring year.
Cumulative Total
0
0.3a
2.6%
Easement Acreage: 22.7
Vegetation Category
Defintions
Mapping Threshold
CCPV Depiction
Number of Polygons
Combined Acreage
% of Planted
Acreage
4. Invasive Areas of Concern
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale)
1000 ft'
N/A
0
0.00
0.0%
5. Easement Encroachment Areas
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale)
none
N/A
0
0.00
0.0
*Note The area of low vigor noted here refers to the previously reported VPA that is being addressed as described in the report text. At DIMS request, it is not shown on the CCPV so as to not to create confusion between any
potential new VPAs for the monitoring year.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96074)

Thomas Creek: MY5 Stream Station Photo -Points (from 2/14/20)
PP-1: Reach 3, view upstream, Station 11+50
PP-3: Reach 3, view upstream, Station 15+75
PP-5: Reach 3, view downstream towards pipe crossing,
Station 18+50
PP-2: Reach 3, view downstream, Station 12+00
PP-4: Reach 3, view downstream, Station 16+25
PP-6: Reach 3, stream crossing, Station 18+80

Thomas Creek: MY5 Stream Station Photo -Points (from 2/14/20)
PP-7: Reach 3, Station 19+00
PP-9: Reach 4, view downstream at Station 05+75
PP-11: Reach 4, view upstream at Station 10+10
PP-8: Reach 4, view downstream at Station 01+90
PP-10: Reach 4, view downstream at Station 06+10
PP-12: Reach 4, view upstream at Station 10+50

Thomas Creek: MY5 Stream Station Photo -Points (from 2/14/20)
PP-13: Reach 4, view upstream at Station 11+75
PP-15: Reach 4, view upstream at Station 13+00
PP-17: Reach 2, Flow Gauge #1 at Station 20+75
PP-14: Reach 4, view downstream at Station 12+25
PP-16: Reach 2, view upstream at Station 20+60
PP-18: Reach 2, view of stabilized drainage on left bank
at Station 20+80

Thomas Creek: MY5 Stream Station Photo -Points (from 2/14/20)
PP-19: Reach 2, view upstream at Station 22+00
PP-21: Reach 2, view upstream at Station 25+25
PP-23: Reach 2, view of crossing at Station 27+75
PP-20: Reach 2, view upstream at Station 23+00
PP-22: Reach 2, view downstream at Station 25+50
PP-24: Reach 2, view downstream at Station 30+20

Thomas Creek: MY5 Stream Station Photo -Points (from 2/14/20)
PP-25: Reach T1, view downstream at Station 11+75
p , r
? I r
1
PP-27: Reach 2, view downstream at Station 33+25
PP-29: Reach 2, view downstream at Station 36+90
PP-26: Reach 2, view of drainage on left bank at
Station 32+90
PP-28: Reach 2, view downstream at Station 34+30
PP-30: Reach 2, view upstream at Station 38+25

Thomas Creek: MY5 Stream Station Photo -Points (from 2/14/20)
PP-3 1: Reach 2, Crest Gauge at Station 38+90
PP-33: Reach 2, view upstream at Station 41+50
PP-35: Reach 1, view downstream at Station 43+25
PP-32: Reach 2, view downstream at Station 39+40
PP-34: Reach 1, view upstream at Station 42+75
PP-36: Reach 1, view of drainage on left bank at
Station 44+00

Thomas Creek: MY5 Stream Station Photo -Points (from 2/14/20)
PP-37: Reach 6, view upstream at Station 10+75
PP-39: Reach 6, view upstream at Station 15+25
PP-41: Reach 6, view upstream at Station 25+50
PP-38: Reach 6, view upstream at Station 11+50
PP-40: Reach 6, view upstream at Station 18+90
PP-42: Reach 7, view upstream at Station 10+40

Thomas Creek: MY5 Stream Station Photo -Points (from 2/14/20)
PP-43: Reach 7, view of stabilized drainage at Station 13+50
PP-45: Reach 5, view upstream at Station 30+25
^ �R
PP-47: Reach 5, view downstream at Station 31+40
PP-44: Reach 7, view upstream at Station 15+00
PP-46: Reach 5, view downstream at Station 30+75
PP-48: Reach 5, view downstream at Station 32+50

Thomas Creek: MY5 Stream Station Photo -Points (from 2/14/20)
PP-49: Reach 5, view upstream at Station 33+10
PP-51: Reach 5, Flow Gauge #2 at Station 33+90
PP-53: Reach 5, view upstream at Station 36+40
PP-50: Reach 5, view downstream at Station 33+75
PP-52: Reach 5, view of crossing at Station 35+00
PP-54: Reach 5, view upstream at Station 36+75

Thomas Creek: MY5 Stream Station Photo -Points (from 2/14/20)
PP-55: Reach 5, view downstream at Station 37+30
PP-57: Reach 5, view upstream at Station 39+90
(the confluence of R5 and R2)
PP-56: Reach 5, view upstream at Station 38+50
PP-58: Reach T2, view upstream at Station 10+80
(photo from 6/2/20)

w
Jj
mmp�l
-o" ZR69 -4
IV t
Am.

d fir.
{ y f �i

1" f1r
y
f
_
J
y
�3
r

Thomas Creek: MY5 Crest Gauge Photographs
Crest Gauge on Reach R2 at Station 38+90
(photo from 2/14/20)
Overbank event of 0.98 ft on 2/6/20
(photo from 2/14/20)
Debris piles along bank on Reach R2
(photo from 2/20/20)
Overbank event of 0.98 ft on 2/6/20
(photo from 2/14/20)
Debris piles in floodplain along Reach R2
(photo from 2/20/20)

Thomas Creek: MY5 Maintenance and Repair Photographs
R2 Station 34+75: Previous bank repair on left bank from
Hurricane Florence scour (photo: June 2020)
R2 Station 35+75: Previous bank repair on left bank from
Hurricane Florence scour (photo: June 2020)
R2 Station 34+75: Previous bank repair on left bank from
Hurricane Florence scour (photo: October 2020)
R2 Station 35+75: Previous bank repair on left bank from
Hurricane Florence scour (photo: October 2020)

Thomas Creek: MY5 Additional Monitoring Photographs
Reach R2 riffle (Station 37+00) used for pebble count
Flow Gauge #1 on Reach R2 (photo: 2/14/20)
Flow Gauge #1 on Reach R2 (photo: 10/22/20)
Reach R5 riffle (Station 37+00) used for pebble count
Flow Gauge 41 on Reach R2 (photo: 6/2/20)
Flow Gauge #2 on Reach R5 (photo: 2/14/20)

Thomas Creek: MY5 Additional Monitoring Photographs
Flow Gauge #2 on Reach R5 (photo: 10/22/20)
Pipe culvert on R3 (photo: 10/22/20)
Pipe culvert on R4 (photo: 2/20/20)
Pipe culvert on R3 (photo: 1/23/20)
Pipe culvert on R4 (photo: 2/14/20)
Crossing outside of CE on T1 (photo: 10/22/20)

s �g��lxp 1�� �Yy r.,,'9 r d � . m �j
al � x
e iI,
e =_
Y- r- $ry{-. fin^ SyF�t'� EAR
\ A, /` J,

Thomas Creek: MY5 Additional Monitoring Photographs
Flow on upper R6, upstream (photo: 1/23/20)
Flow on upper R6, upstream (photo: 2/20/20)
Flow on upper Reach R6, upstream (photo: 10/22/20)
Flow on upper R6, upstream (photo: 1/23/20)
Flow on upper R6, upstream (photo: 2/20/20)
Flow on upper Reach R6, upstream (photo:10/22/20)

Appendix C
Vegetation Plot Data

Table 7. CVS Density Per Plot
Thomas Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 96074
Current Plot Data (MY5 2020)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
96074-01-0001
96074-01-0002
96074-01-0003
96074-01-0004
96074-01-0005
96074-01-0006
96074-01-0007
96074-01-0008
96074-01-0009
96074-01-0010
P
V
T
P
V
T
P
V
T
P
V
T
P
V
T
P
V
T
P
V
T
P
V
T
P
V
T
P
V
T
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
2
2
2
2
simina triloba
pawpaw
Tree
1
1
Baccharis halimifolia
eastern baccharis
Shrub
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
3
1
1
1
1
2
2
3
3
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
Tree
3
3
4
4
4
4
Carya glabra
pignut hickory
Tree
1
1
1
1
Diospyros virginiana
common persimmon
Tree
4
1
5
1
1
2
2
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
2
2
Euonymus amen .canus
hearts a bustin
Shrub
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1 3
3
1
1 1
2
1 1
3
Hamamelis virginiana
American witchhazel
Tree
1
1
Ilex opaca
American holly
Tree
1
1
2
2
uniperus virginiana
eastern redcedar
Tree
1
1
5
5
Liquidambarstyraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
5
5
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
3
1
2
1 2
Myrica cerifera
wax myrtle
Shrub
Nyssa sylvatica
blackgum
Tree
Pinus taeda
loblolly pine
Tree
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
1
1
1 2
1
2
1
1
2
5
5
2
2
3
3
1
1
2
2
Prunus serotina
black cherry
Tree
Quercus alba
white oak
Tree
1
1
2
2
Quercus lyrata
overcup oak
Tree
2
2
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
1
1
2
1
3
2
2
1
1
4
4
2
2
Quercus nigra
water oak
Tree
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
6
1 7
1 3
3
2
2
4
4
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
1
1
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
Tree
Rhus copallinum
flameleaf sumac
shrub
Sambucus canadensis
elderberry
Shrub
1
1
Sassafras albidum
sassafras
Tree
Viburnum dentatum
southern arrowwood
Shrub
5
5
1
1
2
2
2
2
4
4
3
3
3
3
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACREI
10
2
12
7
1
8
9
5
14
10
12
21
10
6
16
10
3
13
17
0
17
9
2
11
15
4
19
20
12
32
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
5
2
6
6
1
6
4
4
7
6
6
8
6
5
8
4
2
5
7
0
7
16
2
8
7
3
8
7
3
10
405
80.9
486
283
40.5
324
364
202
567
405
486
850
405
243
647
1405
121
526
688
0
688
1 364
180.9
445
607
162
769
809
486
1295
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Includes volunteer stems
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96074)

Table 7. CVS Density Per Plot
Thomas Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 96074
Current Plot Data (MY5 2020) Continued
Annual
Means
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
96074-01-0011
96074-01-0012
96074-01-0013
96074-01-0014
96074-01-0015
96074-01-0016
MY5 (2020)
MY3 (2018)
MY2 (20
7)
MY1 (2016)
P
V
T
P
V
T
P
V
T
P
V
T
P
V
T
P
V
T
P
V
T
P
V
T
P
V
T
P
V
T
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
4
4
simina triloba
pawpaw
Tree
1
1
3
3
1 5
5
3
1
4
3
3
5
5
Baccharis halimifolia
eastern baccharis
Shrub
2
2
1
2
2
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
22
1 2
24
25
25
26
26
38
38
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
Tree
2
2
2
2
5
5
6
6
5
5
31
31
32
2
34
32
1
33
34
34
Carya glabra
pignut hickory
Tree
1
1
3
3
5
5
4
4
Diospyros virginiana
common persimmon
Tree
1
1
2
2
1
3
2
2
1
1
1 22
5
27
24
2
26
25
3
28
31
31
Euonymus americanus
hearts a bustin
Shrub
1
1
1
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
3
3
1
1
2
2
1
1
16
1 3
19
15
15
15
15
16
16
Hamamelis virginiana
American witchhazel
Tree
1
1
Ilex opaca
American holly
Tree
1
1
4
4
uniperus virginiana
eastern redcedar
Tree
5
5
3
3
2
2
16
16
Liquidambarstyraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
1
1 5
5
1
3
3
4
4
2
2
19
19
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
3
3
2
2
1
1
2
1 2
1 12
3
15
14
1 5
19
18
4
22
28
28
Myrica cerifera
wax myrtle
Shrub
1
1
1
1
Nyssa sylvatica
blackgum
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
Pinus taeda
loblolly pine
Tree
5
5
2
2
7
7
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
2
2
5
1
5
5
1 5
6
6
1
1
36
1 1
37
39
1
40
38
1
39
40
40
Prunus serotina
black cherry
Tree
1
1
1
1
2
2
Quercus alba
white oak
Tree
1
1
2
2
3
5
Quercus lyrata
overcup oak
Tree
1
1
3
3
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
2
2
2
2
3
1
4
19
2
21
20
2
22
21
1
22
23
23
Quercus nigra
water oak
Tree
4
4
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
Tree
1
1 1
4
4
2
2
1
1
20
6
26
22
22
22
22
27
27
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
3
1 3
1 3
3
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
Tree
4
4
Rhus copallinum
flameleaf sumac
shrub
1
1
1
1
3
3
Sambucus canadensis
elderberry
lShrub
1
1
Sassafras albidum
sassafras
iTree
1
1
Viburnum dentatum
southern arrowwood
IShrub
8
1
9
1
1
4
4
3
3
36
1
37
42
42
44
1
45
46
46
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
19
3
22
20
8
28
14
10
24
18
6
24
16
14
30
18
7
25
222
94
316
236
26
262
244
26
270
288
0
288
1
1
1
1
1
1
16
16
16
16
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
8
3
9
7
3
9
5
4
9
7
4
11
7
6
12
8
5
12
12
25
27
10
11
15
10
11
15
10
10
769
121
890
809
324
1133
567
405
971
728
243
971
647
567
1214
728
283
1012
562
238
799.3
597
65.8
663
617
65.8
683
728
0
728
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Includes volunteer stems
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96074)

Table 8. CVS Vegetation Plot Summary Information
Thomas Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 96074
Thomas Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 96074
Year 5 (October 2020)
Vegetation Plot S ary Information
Plot #
Riparian
Buffer Stems'
Stream/
Wetland
Stems
Live Stakes
Invasives
Volunteers3
Total°
Unknown
Growth Form
1
n/a
10
0
0
2
12
0
2
n/a
0
0
1
8
0
3
n/a
9
0
0
5
14
0
4
n/a
10
0
0
11
21
0
5
n/a
10
0
0
6
16
0
6
n/a
10
0
0
3
13
0
7
n/a
17
0
0
0
17
0
8
n/a
9
0
0
2
11
0
9
n/a
15
0
0
4
19
0
10
n/a
20
0
0
12
32
0
11
n/a
19
0
0
3
22
0
12
n/a
20
0
0
8
28
0
13
n/a
14
0
0
10
24
0
14
n/a
1 18
1 0
1 0
6
24
1 0
15
n/a
16
0
0
14
30
1
16
n/a
18
0
0
1 7
1 25
0
Wetland/Stream Vegetation Totals
(per acre)
Riparian Buffer Vegetation Totals
(per acre)
Plot #
Stream/
Wetland
Stems
Volunteers3
Total'
Success Criteria
Met?
Plot #
Riparian
Buffer
Stems'
Success
Criteria Met?
1
405 81 486
Yes
1
n/a
n/a
2
283 40 324
Yes
2
n/a
n/a
3
364 202 567
Yes
3
n/a
n/a
4
405 445 850
Yes
4
n/a
n/a
5
405 243 647
Yes
5
n/a
n/a
6
405 121 526
Yes
6
n/a
n/a
7
688 0 688
Yes
7
n/a
n/a
8
364 81 445
Yes
8
n/a
n/a
9
607 162 769
Yes
9
n/a
n/a
10
809 486 1295
Yes
10
n/a
n/a
11
769 121 890
Yes
11
n/a
n/a
12
809 324 1133
Yes
12
n/a
n/a
13
567 405 971
Yes
13
n/a
n/a
14
728 243 971
Yes
14
n/a
n/a
15
647 567 1214
Yes
15
n/a
n/a
16
728 283 1012
Yes
16
n/a
n/a
Project Avg
562 238 799
Yes
1 Project Avg
n/a
n/a
Stem Class
'Buffer Stems
2Stream/ Wetland
Stems
3Volunteers
4Total
Characteristics
Native planted hardwood trees. Does NOT include shrubs. No pines. No vines.
Native planted woody stems. Includes shrubs, does NOT include live stakes. No vines
Native woody stems. Not planted. No vines.
Planted + volunteer native woody stems. Includes live stakes. Excl. exotics. Excl. vines.
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
to meet ralWements by more than 10%
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (I)MS PROJECT NO. 96074)

Table 9. Total Stem Counts for Each Species Arranged by Plot
Thomas Creek Restoration Project; DMS Project ID No. 96074
Botanical Name
Common Name
Plots
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Tree Species
Acer rubrum red maple
Betula nigra river birch
Carya glabra pignut hickory
Diospyros virginiana common persimmon
Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash
Hamamelis virginiana American witchhazel
Ilex opaca American holly
luniperus virginiana eastern redcedar
Liquidambarstyraciflua sweetgum
Liriodendron tulipifera tuliptree
Nyssa sylvatica blackgum
Pin us taeda loblolly pine
Platanus occidentalis American sycamore
Prunus serotina black cherry
Quercus alba white oak
Quercus lyrata overcup oak
Quercus michauxii swamp chestnut oak
Quercus pagoda cherrybark oak
Quercus phellos willow oak
2
2
Average
Stems Per
Acres
1
1
2
1
3
1
1
2
3
1
2
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
5
1
2
4
1
1
3
2
2
3
2
1
1
2
2
3
1
3
3
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
5
5
3
2
5
5
3
4
2
1
2
3
2
3
2
2
1
5
2
1
2
2
5
2
3
1
2
2
5
5
6
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
3
2
1
4
2
2
2
4
1
1
7
3
2
4
1
4
2
1
1
1
1
Shrub Species
Asimina triloba pawpaw
Baccharis halimifolia eastern baccharis
Carpinus caroliniana American hornbeam
Euonymus americanus hearts a bustin
Myrica cerifera wax myrtle
Rhus copallinum flameleaf sumac
Sambucus canadensis elderberry
Viburnum dentatum southern arrowwood
1
1
3
2
3
4
4
2
2
5
6
5
1
1
1
1
5
1
2
2
4
3
3
9
1
4
3
Total Stems Per Plot - Year 5
12
8
14
21
16
13
17
11
19
32
22
28
24
24
30
25
Total Stems/Acre - Year 5
486
324
567
850
647
526
688
445
769
1295
890
1133
971
971
1214
1012
799
Total Stems/Acre - Year 3
647
405
364
850
486
526
728
486
688
809
850
890
647
769
567
890
663
Total Stems/Acre - Year 2*
688
445
405
850
445
526
809
486
648
809
850
890
647
809
567
1052
683
Total Stems/Acre - Year 1
809
526
567
526
526
607
890
728
648
931
931
850
769
728
688
931
728
Total Stems/Acre for As -Built (Year 0)
850
688
607
648
648
607
971
728
648
971
971
931
890
809
688
890
784
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96074)

Appendix D
Stream Survey Data

Figure 6. Year 5 Cross -Sections
Permanent Cross -Section 1
(Year 5 Data - Collected September 2020)
Looking from Left Pin Looking from Right Pin
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
1
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
AB BKF
Elev
LTOB
Elev
Riffle
C
5.1
8.7
0.6
1.0
1 15.1
0.9
5.9
271.44
271.43
Thomas Creek Cross -Section 1
Reach 3
276
275
274
0
273
As -built
�
Year
272
w
-
Year
------------
Year 3
271
--�-- AB Ban kfu II
MY5 BKF = 271.65'
MY5 BKF
270
TWG = 270.43'
--- Floodprone
t Year
269
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
70 80
Station (ft)
Note:Per DMS/IRT request, the bank height ratio for MY5 has been calculated using the bankfull elevation as determined from
the as -built bankfull area. All other values were calculated using the original as -built bankfull elevation, as was done for previous
monitoring reports.

Permanent Cross -Section 2
(Year 5 Data - Collected September 2020)
Looking from Left Pin
Looking from Right Pin
Stream
BKF
BKF
Max BKF
AB BKF
LTOB
Feature
Type
BKF Area
Width
Depth
Depth
1
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
Elev
Elev
Pool
-
14.2
10.3
1.4
2.4
1 7.5
-
-
270.65
270.57
Thomas Creek Cross -Section 2
Reach 3
276
275
274
273
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0-As-built
272
Year 1
a�
w 271
Year 2
-------------
Year 3
270
Bankfull
-- --- Floodprone
269
Year 5
268
0 10
20
30
40 50
60 70
80
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross -Section 3
(Year 5 Data - Collected September 2020)
Looking from Left Pin Looking from Right Pin
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
1
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
AB BKF
Elev
LTOB
Elev
Riffle
C
2.5
6.5
0.4
0.8
1 16.9
0.8
5.7
264.45
264.43
Thomas Creek Cross -Section 3
Reach 3_
270
-
269
268
v
As -built
0
267
/
Year1
Year 2
266
d
Year3
W
265
MY5 BKF
---&--AB Bankfull
264
MY5 BKF = 264.64'
\
---&-- Floodprone
TWG = 263.56'
Year 5
263
0 10
20 30 40 50
60 70
Station (ft)
Note:Per DMS/IRT request, the bank height ratio for MY5 has been calculated using the bankfull elevation as determined from
the as -built bankfull area. All other values were calculated using the original as -built bankfull elevation, as was done for previous
monitoring reports.

Permanent Cross -Section 4
(Year 5 Data - Collected September 2020)
Looking from Left Pin Looking from Right Pin
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
1
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
AB BKF
Elev
LTOB
Elev
Riffle
C
2.4
6.0
0.4
0.6
1 15
0.8
3.2
265.46
265.49
Thomas Creek Cross -Section 4
Reach 4
270
269
268
-As-built
OYear1
267
Year
d
W----------------------------------------------------
Year 3
266
MY5 BKF
-------------
---&--AB Bankfull
265
---- Floodprone
MY5 BKF = 265.62'
TWG = 264.82'
t Year 5
264
0 5 10
15 20 25 30 35
40 45 50
Station (ft)
Note:Per DMS/IRT request, the bank height ratio for MY5 has been calculated using the bankfull elevation as determined from
the as -built bankfull area. All other values were calculated using the original as -built bankfull elevation, as was done for previous
monitoring reports.

Permanent Cross -Section 5
(Year 5 Data - Collected September 2020)
x5 ltb.
Looking from the Left Bank
Looking from the Right Bank
Stream
BKF
BKF
Max BKF
AB BKF
LTOB
Feature
Type
BKF Area
Width
Depth
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
Elev
Elev
Riffle
C
4.9
9.5
0.5
0.8
18.4
0.9
3.8
262.63
262.75
Thomas Creek Cross -Section 5
Reach 2
269
As -built
Year 1 Year 2
268
Year 3
---- MY5 BKF --o-- AB Bankfull
267
--o-- Floodprone
Year 5
266
c
- 265
w 264
263
-----------------------------------------------------------
MY5 BKF
= 262.81'
--------------
262
TWG =
261.80'
261
0
10
20
30 40 50
60
70
Station (ft)
Note:Per DMS/IRT request, the bank height ratio for MY5 has been calculated using the bankfull elevation as determined from
the as -built bankfull area. All other values were calculated using the original as -built bankfull elevation, as was done for previous
monitoring reports.

Permanent Cross -Section 6
(Year 5 Data - Collected September 2020)
;.,
•'7L:iA' • ;}!- A d ., n i? aE` ,r, . ;ii.;�.. •. 4� .... �:.� r.�`' ,���a- t i •.. x !�t'.?:4
Looking from the Left Bank Looking from the Right Bank
Feature
Stream
I Type
BKF Area
BKF
I Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
I W/D
BH Ratio
ER
AB BKF
Elev
LTOB
Elev
Riffle
I C
1 8.2
1 9.5
0.9
1.3
1 11
0.9
6.6
259.42
259.45
Thomas Creek Cross -Section 6
Reach 2
262
261
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------0
w
0
260
As -built
v
Year
--
— Year 2
w
259
Year
------- MY5 BKF
MY5 BKF = 259.63'
258
f} AB Bankfull
TWG = 258.14'
4-- Floodprone
Year 5
257
0 10
20 30 40 50 60 70
Station (R)
Note:Per DMS/IRT request, the bank height ratio for MY5 has been calculated using the bankfull elevation as determined from
the as -built bankfull area. All other values were calculated using the original as -built bankfull elevation, as was done for previous
monitoring reports.

Permanent Cross -Section 7
(Year 5 Data - Collected September 2020)
Looking from the Left Bank
Looking from the Right Bank
Stream
BKF
BKF
Max BKF
Feature
Type
BKF Area
Width
Depth
Depth
1
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
C
2.3
6.5
0.4
0.5
1 18.7
0.9
3.8
258.57
258.80
Thomas Creek Cross -Section 7
Reach T1
263
—
262
261
=
As -built
O
260
— Year 1
Year 2
W
259
Year 3
-----------------------------------------------
MY5 BKF
258
---&--AB Bankfull
MY5 BKF=258.87'
---- Floodprone
TWG = 258.07'
f Year
257
0 10
20 30 40
50 60
Station (ft)
Note:Per DMS/IRT request, the bank height ratio for MY5 has been calculated using the bankfull elevation as determined from
the as -built bankfull area. All other values were calculated using the original as -built bankfull elevation, as was done for previous
monitoring reports.

Permanent Cross -Section 8
(Year 5 Data - Collected September 2020)
Looking at the Left Bank Looking at the Right Bank
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
1
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
AB BKF
Elev
LTOB
Elev
Pool
-
29.9
16.2
1.8
3
1 8.8
-
-
258.12
258.07
Thomas Creek Cross -Section 8
Reach 2
262 1
261
260
0
259
As -built
Year 1
a',
w
258
Year 2
Year 3
257
AB Bankfull
256
---- Floodprone
Year 5
255
0 10
20 30 40 50 60
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross -Section 9
(Year 5 Data - Collected September 2020)
Looking from the Left Bank Looking from the Right Bank
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
1
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
AB BKF
Elev
LTOB
Elev
Pool
-
23.7
15.3
1.6
3.4
1 9.8
-
-
255.05
254.54
Thomas Creek Cross -Section 9
Reach 2
258.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------0
257.5
256.5
255.5
o
-As-built
---------------------
254.5
Year 1
>
Year 2
/
w
253.5
Year 3
252.5
AB Bankfull
---- Floodprone
251.5
Year 5
250.5
0 10
20 30 40 50 60 70
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross -Section 10
(Year 5 Data - Collected September 2020)
Looking from the Left Bank
Looking from the Right Bank
Stream
BKF
BKF
Max BKF
AB BKF
LTOB
Feature
Type
BKF Area
Width
Depth
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
Elev
Elev
Riffle
C
6.4
9.4
0.7
1.1
13.7
0.9
8.0
254.18
254.34
Thomas Creek Cross -Section 10
Reach 2
257
256
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------0
255
0
w
254
------------
As-built
Year 1
Year2
Year3
253
MY5 BKF = 254.47'
TWG = 253.05'
----AB Ban kfull
---- Floodprone
MY5 BKF
t Year 5
252
0 10
20
30 40 50 60
70 80
Station (ft)
Note:Per DMS/IRT request, the bank height ratio for MY5 has been calculated using the bankfull elevation as determined from
the as -built bankfull area. All other values were calculated using the original as -built bankfull elevation, as was done for previous
monitoring reports.

Permanent Cross-section 11
(Year 5 Data - Collected September 2020)
Looking from the Left Bank
Looking from the Right Bank
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
1
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
AB BKF
Elev
LTOB
Elev
Pool
-
34.8
16.1
2.2
3.8
1 7.4
-
-
249.04
249.27
254
253
252
251
c
250
As -built
0
249
Year 1
w
248
Year 2
247
Year 3
246
-' AB Bankfull
---- Floodprone
245
_ Year 5
244
0 10
Thomas Creek Cross-section 11
Reach 1
20 30 40 50 60 70
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross -Section 12
(Year 5 Data - Collected September 2020)
x 12 Itb Y�
4
Looking from the Left Bank Looking from the Right Bank
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
1
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
C
7.4
12.4
0.6
1.0
1 20.9
0.9
2.4
247.88
247.98
Thomas Creek Cross -Section 12
Reach 1
254
253
252
251
As -built
Year
250
>
— Year
d
W249
-------------------------------------------
Year 3
---&-- AB Ban kfu II
248
------------------
---&-- Floodprone
247
MY5 BKF=248.12'
--- MY5 BKF
TWG = 246.91'
Year 5
246
0 10
20 30 40 50 60
70 80
Station (ft)
Note:Per DMS/IRT request, the bank height ratio for MY5 has been calculated using the bankfull elevation as determined from
the as -built bankfull area. All other values were calculated using the original as -built bankfull elevation, as was done for previous
monitoring reports.

Permanent Cross -Section 13
(Year 5 Data - Collected September 2020)
Looking from the Left Bank
Looking from the Right Bank
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
1
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
AB BKF
Elev
LTOB
Elev
Riffle
C
1.3
4.2
0.3
0.4
1 13.8
0.8
3.9
295.07
295.09
Thomas Creek Cross -Section 13
Reach 6
301
300
299
v
298
=
As -built
O
297
Year 1
d
Year
w
296
Year
295
---------------------------------------
--------
--- AB Ban kfull
MY5 BKF=295.26'
--- Floodprone
294
TWG = 294.62'
MY5 BKF
� Year 5
293
0 5 10
15 20 25 30 35
40 45 50
Station (ft)
Note:Per DMS/IRT request, the bank height ratio for MY5 has been calculated using the bankfull elevation as determined from
the as -built bankfull area. All other values were calculated using the original as -built bankfull elevation, as was done for previous
monitoring reports.

Permanent Cross -Section 14
(Year 5 Data - Collected September 2020)
Looking from the Left Bank
Looking from the Right Bank
Stream
BKF
BKF
Max BKF
AB BKF
LTOB
Feature
Type
BKF Area
Width
Depth
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
Elev
Elev
Riffle
E
3.3
5.8
0.6
1.0
10.3
0.9
8.5
260.96
261.1
Thomas Creek Cross -Section 14
Reach 5
264
263
262
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------o
0
-----------------
261
------------
>
d
As -built
W
Year
260
Year 2
Year
---- AB Ban kfu II
259
-- --- Floodprone
MY5 BKF=261.24,
MY5 BKF
TWG = 260.00'
Year 5
258
0 10
20 30
40
50
Station (ft)
Note:Per DMS/IRT request, the bank height ratio for MY5 has been calculated using the bankfull elevation as determined from
the as -built bankfull area. All other values were calculated using the original as -built bankfull elevation, as was done for previous
monitoring reports.

Permanent Cross -Section 15
(Year 5 Data - Collected September 2020)
Looking from the Left Bank Looking from the Right Bank
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
1
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
AB BKF
Elev
LTOB
Elev
Pool
-
7.0
6.9
1.0
1.6
1 6.7
-
-
259.27
259.45
Thomas Creek Cross -Section 15
Reach 5
263
262 Root -wad on outer bank, not
sediment deposition. Bank is
vegetated and stable.
261 -------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------
0 260 As -built
a ---------- - Year 1
259 '
w Year 2
258 Year 3
--- 9---AB Bankfull
257 -- --- Floodprone
--*—Year 5
256
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross -Section 16
(Year 5 Data - Collected September 2020)
xI6.It
9/24/L0-
Looking from the Left Bank Looking from the Right Bank
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
1
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
AB BKF
Elev
LTOB
Elev
Pool
-
10.1
9.0
1.1
2.2
1 8.1
-
-
255.05
254.95
Thomas Creek Cross -Section 16
Reach 5
258
257
256
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
o
255
As -built
----------- -
a�
Year 1
w
254
Year 2
Year 3
253
AB Bankfull
-- --- Floodprone
Year 5
252
0 10
20 30 40 50 60 70
Station (ft)

Figure 7. Pebble Count Plot Data
Figure 7. Pebble Count - Monitoring Year 5
Thomas Creek Mitigation Project, DMS# 96074
SITE OR PROJECT: Thomas Creek
REACH/LOCATION: Reach R2 (Station 37+00)
FEATURE: Rock Riffle
DATE: 22-Oct-20
MY5 2020
Distribution
Plot Size (mm)
MATERIAL
PARTICLE
SIZE (mm)
Total
Class %
% Cum
Silt/Clay
Silt / Clay
< .063
0%
0.063
Sand
Very Fine
.063 - .125
0%
0.125
Fine
.125 - .25
0%
0.25
Medium
.25 - .50
2
2%
2%
0.50
Coarse
.50 - 1.0
4
4%
6%
1.0
Very Coarse
1.0 - 2.0
1
1 %
7%
2.0
Gravel
Very Fine
2.0 - 2.8
7%
2.8
Very Fine
2.8 - 4.0
7%
4.0
Fine
4.0 - 5.6
7%
5.6
Fine
5.6 - 8.0
2
2%
9%
8.0
Medium
8.0 - 11.0
4
4%
13%
11.0
Medium
11.0 - 16.0
8
8%
20%
16.0
Coarse
16 - 22.6
7
7%
27%
22.6
Coarse
22.6 - 32
1
1 %
28%
32
Very Coarse
32 - 45
5
5%
33%
45
Very Coarse
45 - 64
12
12%
44%
64
Cobble
Small
64 - 90
18
17%
62%
90
Small
90 - 128
17
16%
78%
128
Large
128 - 180
15
14%
92%
180
Large
180 - 256
6
6%
98%
256
Boulder
Small
256 - 362
1
1 %
99%
362
Small
362 - 512
1
1 %
100%
512
Medium
512- 1024
0
0%
100%
1024
Large -Very Large
1024-2048
1 0
0%
100%
1 2048
Bedrock
Bedrock
> 2048
0
0%
100%
5000
Total % of whole count 1 104 100% 1
Largest particle= 512
Summary Data
Channel materials
D16 =
13.0
D84 =
147.9
D35 -
48.3
D95 =
212.2
D50 =
71.7
D100 =
362 - 512
Thomas Creek (Reach R2)
Pebble Count Size Class Distribution
100%
90%
■ AB 2015
■MY1 2016
80%
■ MY2 2017
70%
■ MY3 2018
= 60%
■ MY4 2019
d
L 50%
■ MY5 2020
d
N 40%
N
30%
U
20%
-
10%
- - -
0%
job, I I L I nuill
-1 1 1 1
Particle Size Class (mm)

Figure 7. Pebble Count - Monitoring Year 5
Thomas Creek Mitigation Project, DMS# 96074
SITE OR PROJECT: Thomas Creek
REACH/LOCATION: Reach R5 (Station 37+00)
FEATURE: Rock Riffle
DATE:
22-Oct-20
MY5 2020
Distribution
Plot Size (mm)
MATERIAL
PARTICLE
SIZE (mm)
Total
Class %
% Cum
Silt/Clay
Silt / Clay
< .063
0%
0.063
Sand
Very Fine
.063 - .125
0%
0.125
Fine
.125 - .25
1
1 %
1 %
0.25
Medium
.25 - .50
2
2%
3%
0.50
Coarse
.50 - 1.0
1
1 %
4%
1.0
Very Coarse
1.0 - 2.0
5
5%
9%
2.0
GravelMedium
Very Fine
2.0 - 2.8
9%
2.8
Very Fine
2.8 - 4.0
9%
4.0
Fine
4.0 - 5.6
9%
5.6
Fine
5.6 - 8.0
1
1 %
10%
8.0
8.0 - 11.0
4
4%
14%
11.0
Medium
11.0 - 16.0
10
10%
24%
16.0
Coarse
16 - 22.6
5
5%
29%
22.6
Coarse
22.6 - 32
5
5%
34%
32
Very Coarse
32 - 45
6
6%
40%
45
Very Coarse
45 - 64
16
16%
56%
64
Cobble
Small
64 - 90
12
12%
68%
90
Small
90 - 128
13
13%
81 %
128
Large
128- 180
13
13%
94%
180
Large
180 - 256
5
5%
99%
256
Boulder
Small
256 - 362
1
1 %
100%
362
Small
362 - 512
100%
512
Medium
512 - 1024
100%
1024
Large -Very Large
1024-2048
100%
2048
Bedrock
Bedrock
> 2048
100%
5000
Total % of whole count 100 100%
Largest particle= 270
Summary Data
Channel materials
D16 =
11.9
D84 =
138.5
D35 =
3-3 9
D95 =
193.1
D50 =
56.1
D100 =
256 - 362
W-0--AB 2015
W-0--AB 2015
oil IN
i
Lada
Thomas Creek (Reach R5)
Pebble Count Size Class Distribution
100%
90%
■ AB 2015
■MY1 2016
80%
■ MY2 2017
70%
■ MY3 2018
= 60%
■ MY4 2019
d
L 50%
■ MY5 2020
d
N 40%
N
30%
U
20%
10%
0%
'
Particle Size Class (mm)

T-1D. Baae➢ue SR'nm S—m 7
Thomas Creek Restoratmu Project DMS Project ID \ o. 960'l4
Reach 1-Len m298 ft
Parameter
tiSG9
Gauge
Regmual Cmv'e
R'e-E—mg Coud—
Refer—Reach(ea) Data
Design
As-0uil[
LRt1e Ben'er Creek (W ake Couuly)
Dimeusmu and SuhsR'ate-R�k
LL - Eq.
Mm Mem Med Max SD v
Mm M. Med Max SD v
Mf Meav Med Max SD v
Mm Meav Mel Max SD v
BF Wid (R)
11.6 11.9 ___
___ ___ ___ 90 ___ ___
___ _— — - —_ —_
—_ 121 _ — —_ —_ _ —
_— 13 9
Flcodpmve wAffi(ft)
— —_ — -
___ ___ ___ 90
— - —_
— __ — _—
— - 30.6 —_ — -
BFMeavDe ffi(ft
12 1— -
___ ___ ___ 12 —_ — -
—_ — - — - —_
0.9-
BFMaxDepth(ft)
19 —_ —_
—_ —_ —_
1.1
BF_ —1 A—(W)
112
--- --- --- 112
— -
112 — —
11.1
Wid Tffi Rafi
--
--- --- --- 72
120 180 --
140 — - —
1]4
Evh®c -Rats
—_
___ ___ ___ 1.8
14 22 —_
12 — —
22
Bavk-*ht Rafi
— -
___ ___ ___ 25
10 1.1
10 — —
to
d50
Patfem
RadmsofCLrvatme(ft)
--
--- --- ---
25D 350
33.1
Rc_Bavkf ➢ wAffi(R/R)
20 28
24
Meavder Wavel®gth(ft)
—_
—_
___ ___ ___
—_ —_ 1—
1.4
Meavder Width Ralio
Pnfile
35 80 —_
—_ 24 —
25
2A.o
RitDe—,ffi (R
—_
_ -
___ ___ ___
- _
- _ _ _
Rit➢eSlape(R/R
—_
—_
___ ___ ___
—_
—_ —_ 0028
0025
lbo1 LevgN (R
Pool to —1 Spacmg(R)
o
Pool Max DepN(R)
— -
—_ 24
25
SubsR'ate avd Trayspost Panmefen
Ri%/Rv%/P95/G%/S%_—
SC%/Sa%/G%/B%/Be
--
--- ---
--
-- �-
—
�d16/d35/d50/d84/d95
--
--
0.15/027/—/0 /139
ReachShearS—(.p—y)1NtP-
MaxpaRsize (mm)moWizel at bmkf➢(Rosg®CLrve
—_
—_
___ ___ ___
Stmvv Rrwer(trayspok ca _o) Who'
Addkmual Reach Panmeters
DnivageArea(S
Rasg®Clussifi
—_
—_
___ ___ ___ E
CS
—_ —_ C5
CS
BF-e ty(fps
34 40
___ 39
35 5
4
BF Di=charge(cfs)
—_
22.6 .6
___ ___ ___ 446
—_ —_ M.b
Va11ryL gth
ChavvelkvgN(R)
—3
sm.ity
—_
___ ___ ___ 1.18 —_
1.1 13
—_ —_ 11
12
--m Skpe(Chavvel)(Nft)
BF smpe(NR)
0015
-- -- -- OD165
—1
Bavkfll Fleodphuv Area (acres)
B— VL%/L%/M%/—/ V—/E%
Chavvel Sf hty mFlabitm Me
Biol salml)f
t-He-Exisivg Cmdtiw meam�m®t tak®w existivg smdbedn131e
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96074)

Tab@10 mntuued. Base➢ne SR'nm Summary
Thomas Creek Restoratnn Rojeck DMS Reject D) T o. 960]4
Rearb 2-LengW 2,126R
Parameter
I;SGS
Gauge
Regm-Curve
—mg Coed—
Refer—Reach(es) Data
Design
As-0uil[
LRfle Ben'er Creek (W ake Counly)
Dlmensmn
LL IIL Eq.
Mf Mean Med Max SD v
Mf Mem Med Max SD v
Min Mean Med Max SD v
Mf Mem Mxl Max SD v
BF WidN (R
--
11.6 11.9 — -
65 — - —_ 94 _— ___
___ ___ —_ — - —_ —_
92 — - ___ ]04 —_ —_
102 103 ___ 104
Flcodpmve wA&(ft)
-- —_ — -
90 — - — - 132 ___
___ —_ — - —_ — - — -
-- >18 — - —
382 585 -- 745
BFMeavDepW(ft)
12 1.5 — -
06 — - —_ 12 —_ — -
—_ — - —_ — - —_ —_
0] —_ —_ 0]
0] 0.8
BF Max Depth (ft
—_
—_ —_
16 — - —_ 2 6 —_ —_
—_ —_ —_ —_ —_ —_
0 8 ] 0
10 12 1.5
BF_ —1 A—(W)
--
60 ]]
]] -- — - 157
-- -- -- --
60 -- -- ]]
]4 86 102
Wid Tffi Rafi
--
34 — - -- 54
100 -- -- 150 -- --
140 -- -- 140
10.1 125 148
Evh®c -Rats
--
14 -- — - 14
-- -- >22 -- --
-- 12 —
37 5 ] ] 2
Back-*ht Rafi
— -
22 — - -- 33
10 -- -- 1.1 -- --
1.0 —
09 10 10
Patfem
ow
AL
.6
Chavvel Be.Affi(ft)
—_
— - —_ — -
—_ —_ —_ —_ —_ —_
320 450
RadmsofCLrvatme(ft)
—_
— - —_ — -
—_ —_ —_ — - — -
170 —_ 30.o
2G.o
Rc_BavkM➢ Affi(R/R
—_
—_ — - —_
20 30 —_ —_
20 —_ 30
2.1
Meander Wavel®gth (ft)
—_
—_ — - — -
—_ — -
75 0 —_ 10] 0
83 2
Meander Width
Profile
]0 140 — - — -
33 —_ 47
5.5
—_
R ffle LevgN(R
— -
—_ — - —_
—_ —_
1]]
R ffle Slape(R/ft)
— -
— - —_ — -
— - — -
0009M1 —_ 002
0012
Pool LevgN(R
Pool f Paol spacmg(R
— -
—_ — - —_
—_ —_
25 —_ 75
508
Pool Max DepN (R
—_
— - —_ — -
—_ — -
1 ] —_ 19
17
Pool V ofine (R�
Subs— and Transport Rnmeters
SC%/Sa%/G%/B%/Be
- _
_- _-
_- -_
—
�d16/d35/d50/d84/d95
--
--
011/022/032/O85/189
20.2/47 6/625/133.1/ 1]3.1
Reach Shear S—(.p—y)1NtP
Max partsize (mm)moWizel at bmkf➢(Rosg®CLrve
Stream Power(fia Ps capacity) W"v
Addhnnal Reach Panmeters
—_
—_
Dnivage A—(S
Mperviwscwa estima@(%
—_
—_
—_
Rasg®Classifi
GSc -- FS
CS --
-- -- C5
C5
BF-e ty(fps
32 39
38 -- 39
35 5 — -
38 -- 39
BF Diechmge(cfs)
--
178 29.7
.9 -- -- 350
— -
23.0 -- 29.]
Va11ryL gth
—_
—_ —_ —_
—_
—_ —_
.493
ChavvelkgN(R)
—_ —_ —_ 1,995
—_
—_ —_ 1,089
3413]
sm.ity
—_
—_
—_ 1.1] —_
12 15 —_
—_ —_ —_ 120
13
00083
0009'1
BF sb,(NR)
Baokfll Flcodphuv Area (acres)
BEER VL%/L%/M%/—/VB%
Charnel Sf hty mllabRat Me
Bwll r mlRh
t -Re-Existing Cwditioo meamsmmt tahevwceis➢vg �dhedn131e, As -Bolt meamr®®t tak®w wmnoctedrock>�le
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96074)

Tab@10 mvtuned. Base➢ue SR'mm Summary
Thomas Creek Restor— Project DMS Project M T o. 74
Reach 3 - L.gffi 1031R
Parameter
LS G9
Gauge
Regnual Curve
A'e-Ex6tug Coudi[iou
Refe�euce Reach(es) Data
Design
As-0u➢t
Thomas Cicek She tipper Reach 4 (Ou-she)
Dimeusnu and Subs--Ri1fE
LL UL Eq.
Mf Mem Med Max SD v
Min Meav MM Max SD v
Mf Meav Med Max SD v
Mf Meav Mal Max SD
BF Width(R)
—_
11.6 11.9 — -
45 ___ ___ 53 ___ ___
___ — - — - — - — - —_
—_ 70 ___ _— — - —_
75 84 -- 93 --
- -
373 .3 553
BF Meav DepW(R)
12 1.5 —_
07 ___ ___ O8 ___ ___
___ — - — - — - — - —_
07— - — - —_
06 0701
BFMaxDepW(R
—_
—_
10 ___ ___ IS ___ ___
___ — - — - —_ — - — -
07 — - —_ —_
D9 09 1. IBF_
—1 A—(W)
—_
26.8 .2
30 ___ ___ 43 ___ ___
— - — - — - — - — -
41 —_ —
4.5 59 ]3
WidfhNepth Rufi
— -
65 --- --- 6] --- ---
]0 — - — - 140 — - — -
110 120
119 12.1 123
Evh®c -Rats
— -
15 --- --- 1.8 ---
— - — - — - >22 — - — -
>22
5.0 55 59
Ba Height Rafi
— -
23 ___ ___ 32 ___
1.0 — - — - 1.1 — - — -
10
1.0 10 10
d50
Patfin
18 —_ 28
Chavvel Belt ffi(R)
— -
—_
___ ___ ___ ___ ___
___ — - — - — - —_ —_
_— 322
RadmsofCLrvatme(ft)
— -
—_
___ ___ ___ ___ ___
___ — - — - — - —_ —_
15 —_ 21
— - 19.1
Rc_BavkM➢ Affi(R/R)
_ — - — - 3 —_ —_
20 —_ 27
-- 23
Meavder Wavel®gth(ft)
—_
—_
___ ___ ___ ___ ___
___ — - — - —_ —_
70 —_ 80
15
Meavder Width Ralio
P.-
26 —_ 40
38
125
Rffle evgth(R
_ _
_
___ ___ ___ ___ ___
_- - _ - _
- - _
Rit➢eSlape(R/R
— -
___ ___ ___ ___ ___
1.1 20 —_ — -
—_ OD31 —
0013
—lLevgth(R
Awl to Pool Spacmg(R
— -
___ ___ ___ ___ ___
_— —_ —
28.0 48.o
472
Awl Max DepN(R)
— -
—_
___ ___ ___ ___ ___
_— —_ — -
—_ 15 —
13
Pool V ofine (R�
Sub—. and Trauspoit Aramefrs
SC%/Sa%/G%/B%/Be
--
--
--- — -
�d16/d35/d50/d84/d95
--
--
014/ 029/041/1.16/3M
Reach ShearS—(cavp—y)16/ft'-
Maxpartsize(mm)moWizalatb f➢(Rosg®CLrve
—_
___ — -
SheamPower(hayspokcapacity) Who'
Addhioual Reach Parameters
Dmivage A—(S
—_
___ —_ 0083
-
Rasg®Clussifi
—_
___ — - — - BSc — - ___
__ —_ —_ F1C5 —_ —_
— —_ —5
CS
BF Ve ly s
30 36
___ 23 ___
38 --- --
35 - _ _ _ 5 _ _ _ _
_ _ - _ 3.1
BFDiecharge(cf�)
94 165
122 165
I65
Va11ryL gth
— -
—_ —_ —_ —_ —_
—_ —_
873
Chavvelk gth(R)
___ ___ ___ 1,067 —_
—_ —_ —_ —_ —_
—_ —_ 1231
1,031
Sivuasity
—_
—_
___ ___ ___ 122 —_
120 —_ —_ 1.50 —_ —_
—_ —_ 120
12
Water Swfce Slope(Chavvel)(ft/R)--
--
--- 00150 --
BFsb,(ft/R
--
--
--- --- --- 001ffi --
ODDS -- -- 0015 -- --
-- -- 001ffi
00123
Ba fll Fleodphuv Area(acres)
B— VL%/L%/M%/H%/ VH%
Chavvel Stability m HabRat Me
Bwll r mlRh
t-Ae-Eciswg Cmdtiw meawm®t tak®ov eeis➢vg �dbedriflle
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96074)

Tab@10 wttuued. Base➢ue SR'mm Summary
Thomas Creek Restor— Pro'ecb DMS Project M T o. 9fi0]4
Reach 4 - ­gM 1,238R
Parameter
GauS
Regional Curve
—x6Rog Coudhnu
Refeicuce Reach(es)Data
Design
As-0u➢t
Thomas C—SheUp— Reach4 Ou-she
Dimeusnu and Subs--Ri1fE
LL UL Eq.
Mf Meat Med Max SD v
Mf Meat M,,d Max SD v
hdf Meat Med Max SD v
Mf Meat Mel Max SD v
BF Width (it)
11.6 11.9 ___
—_ —_ —_ 45 —_ —_
—_ — - —_ — - —_ —_
—_ 63 ___ _— ___ ___
—_ 68
>13 ___ __ ___ ___
219
BF Meav D,d],(it)
1.5 — -
07 —_
—_ —_ —_ — - —_
05 —_ _— ___ ___
05
BF Max D,d],(it
_ _
_ _
14 _ _
- _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _
06 —_ _— ___ ___
09
BF— diwal A—(W)
—_
3.1
3.1 —_
—_ —_ —_ — -
3.1 —_ __ ___ ___
36
Widd,A)'th Rafi
--
64 --
1- -- -- 140 --
120 — -- 140 --- ---
127 -- -- --
Eth®chm®tRat,,
—_
—_ 22
- >22 — -
>2.1 —_ — ___ ___
32
Back Height Rafi
— -
—_ 30 —_
1.0 —_ —_ 1.1 —_
10 —_ — ___ ___
10
d50
Pa[fem
-
ChamelBe.Affi(ft)
—_ 290
.0
RadmsofCLrvatme(ft)
-- -- --
120 -- -- 180
169 -- -- --
Rc_Batkf➢widW(NR)
20 —_ —_ 30 —_ —_
20 —_ 3.0
25
Meatdee Wavel®gth(ft)
—_
—_
—_ —_ —_ —_ —_ —_
6() —_ —_ 75.0
.2
Meavder Width Ratur
P.-
—_
—_
35 —_ —_ 8.0 —_ — -
32 —_ —_ 46
50
Rflh,Lwgth(R
_ _
_
-_ _ _ -_ _ _ -_ -_
-- _- _ _ -
154
Edit, Slape(Wit)0.9
—_
—_ 0035
—lLwgN(R
Pool to Pwl Spacfg(R)
43
Pool Max Depth (R)
— -
—_
—_ —_ —_ —_ —_ —_
—_ —_ —_ 1 5 —_ —_
—_ 13
Pool V ofine (R�
Subs— and Trauspoit Pamme—
s%
SC%/Sa%/G%/B%/Be
--
-- -- --
-- -- -- --
dl6/d35/d50/d84/d95
--
--
ReachSheacS—(.p,d—y)1NtP
Max part size(mm)m.b➢iz,d at b f➢(Rosg®CLrve
Stremt Powe htmpmt ca -0) Who'
Addhloual Reach Parameters
Draiwge A—(S
Rasg®Classifi
—_ —_ —_ BSc —_
—_ —_ CS —_ —_
—_ —_ CS
BF Vely s)
32 3 9
—_ .--
-- -- 36
35 -- —_ 5 _ - _ -
_ - —_ 36
BF Di. , h fi,)
1] 8 29.7
—_ —_ —_ 11.1 —_
—_ —_ —_ —_
—_ —_ 11.1
VAR, L gd,
_ _
.5.55
Charnel hmg[h(it
—_
—_ —_ —_ 1,19] —_
—_ —_ —_ —_
—_ —_ 1201 —_ —_
—_ —_ —_ 34291
SfuwRy
—_
—_
—_ — - —_ 1.16 —_
120 —_ —_ 1.50 —_ —_
—_ —_ 1.13 —_ —_
—_ —_ 120
—Smfce Slope(Cha d)(Nd
--
--
-- 00121 --0015
BFsk,,(NR
—_
—_
___ —_ 00105 —_
0005 —_ —_ 0015 —_ —_
—_ —_ 0024 —_ —_
—_ —_ —_ 00188
13 t fll Flwdpbut A — (acres)
B— VL%/L%/M%/H%/ VH%/E%
Charnel Stability w HabRat Me
Biol icalw0[h
t-He-Exiswg Cmditiw meawm®t tak®weeis➢vg �dbedri131e
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96074)

Tan@10—tmued. Base➢ue SReam Summaq.
Thomas Creek Restoratmu R'o'ect DMS Ro'ect ID T o. 960]4
Rearb S-Lw W1,169 ft
Parameter
GauS
�
Regio-Curve
--gCoudi[iou
Refercuce Reach(es)Data
Design
Asbuilt
LRfle Ben'er Creek ake Couuly
Dhv--aud Substrate-Ri1fE
LL - Eq.
Miv Mem Med Max SD v
Miv Meav Med Max SD v
Miv Meav Med Max SD v
Mm Mem Mel Max SD v
BF Width(R)
11.6 11.9 ___
44 ___ ___ 89 ___ ___
-- —_ —_ ___ —_ —_
—_ 68 ___ _— ___ ___
___ 8.6
Flwdptwe Width (R
—_ ___
] 8 -- - >30
BFMeav Depth(R
--
12 1.5 — -
04100.9
BF Max Depth CR
_ _
O8 16 - - _ -
- - _ - - - _ - - - - -
- - 0] - - _— ___ ___
_ - 12
BF Cmsc Hiwal A—(W)
—_
40
34 ___ ___ 45
—_ —_ —_ —_
—_ 36 —_ __ ___ ___
68
Width,Depth Rafi
—_
42 ___ ___ 34
140 —_ —_
—_ 130 —_ _— ___ ___
— - 84
E.—hRats
m®t
— -
11 ___ ___ 54
- >22
-- >23 __ ___ ___
_— 66
Back Height Rafi
— -
24 ___ ___ 10
10 —_ —_ 1.1 —_ —_
10 __ ___ ___
_— 10
d50
Pates
i
n
Charnel Bellwidth (R)
— -
—_
___ ___ ___
—_ —_ —_ —_ —_ —_
28 —_ —_ 45 ___ ___
586
Radu—fCLrvatme(ft)
—_
—_
___ ___ ___
—_ —_ —_ —_ —_ —_
14 —_ —_ 20 ___ ___
—_ 1]5
- - -
2 _ - 3 ___
_ - 20
Meavder Wavel®gth(ft)
—_
—_
___ ___ ___
—_ —_ —_ —_ —_ —_
60 —_ —_ 90 ___ ___
—_ 81.5
Meavder Width Ralio
—_
—_
___ ___ ___
35 —_ —_ 8 —_ —_
4.1 —_ —_ fi.fi ___ ___
—_ 68
Prvf k
RitDeLwgN (R
_ _
_
___ ___ ___
- _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ - _
- _ _ - - ___
152
Riffle Slape(R/ft)
Pool LwgN (R
Pool to Pwl Spacmg(R
— -
—_
___ ___ ___
—_ —_ —_ —_ —_ —_
25 —_ —_ 55 ___ ___
_— 57.8
Po MDep
13 _
1.]
Pool V omme (R�
SubsRrate and Transport Parameters
SC%/Sa%/G%/B%/Be
--
--- --- ---
--
d16/ d35/d50/d84/05
--
--
17 6/ 369/ 537/ 1306/184.8
Reach Shear Stress(wmp,d—y)lbAV
Max partsize (tmv)m.b➢iz,d at b ffil[(Rosg®CLrve
Stream Power h—Port capacity) Whv'
Addkmual Reach Parameters
Dmiwge Area (S
09] 0
Mperviws wva esA-%
Rasg®Clu.fi
BSc ___ ___ C
—_ —_ CS —_ —_
—_ —_ CS
BF Ve ly s
34 3]
37 ___ ___ 42 —_
35 —_ —_ 5 —_ —_
- -
—_ 3
BF Dischmge h fi,)
94 147
144 --- --- 165 --
-- -- -- --
-- -- 120 --- ---
--- --- --- -- --- — -
VAR,—gth
_ _
— ___ ___ _ _ - _
_ _ -
72602
CharnelkvgN(R)
1,022 —_
—_ —_ —_ —_
—_ —_ 1,828 ___ --_
___ ___ ___ IOD32
shu—ity
—_
—_
131 ___ ___ 142 —_
120 —_ —_ 1.50 —_ —_
—_ —_ 142 ___ ___
___ ___ ___ 147
--face Slope(Ch d)(tUR
--
--
— - --- 001]] --o.
BFslo,d1ft
--
--
--- --- --- 00133 --
0005 -- -- 0015 -- --
-- -- 00134 --- ---
--- --- --- 00185 ---
Baokf➢ll Flwdphuv Area (acres)
B— VL%/L%/M%/H%/ VH%/E%
Charnel Stability w "'hi"Me
Bwll r wOth
t -Re-Existing CwAtioo meamrm®t talo'n w existivg �d8edri131e, As -Bolt meamr®®t tak®w covstoctedrock>�le
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96074)

Tab@10 mvtuued. Base➢ue SR'mm Summary
Thomas Creek Rester— Prv'ecb DMS Project M T v. 960'l4
Reach 6 - ­gM 1,776R
Parameter
Regio-Curve
—x6Rug Cvudhnu
Refeicuce Reach(es)Data
Design
As-0u➢t
Thomas C—SheF er Reach4 Ou-she
Dimeusnu and Subs--Ri1fE
LL IlL Eq.
Mitt —tt Med Max SD v
Mf h_tt Med Max SD v
Mf Meatt Med Max SD v
Mm Meatt Mal Max SD v
BF Width(R)
___
___ — - ___
32 — - _— 43 - - _ -
- - — - — - — - — - —_
—_ 46 ___ _ - _ - —_
_ - 63-
FlovdpmtteWidth (ft)
___
45 — - — - 65
—_
>9 ___ —
194
BF Meatt Depth(R)
— -
___ — - — -
— — - — - O60 —_
—_ —_ —_ — - — - —_
—_ 03 — - —
03
BF Max Depth(R
_ _
_ _ - _ _ _
— _ _ - _ 09
_ _ - _ _ _ - _ - _
- _ 04 - _ _ _ _ _ - _
06
BF— dimal A—(W)
—_
_ —
18 — - —_ 25
—_ —_ — - —_
—_ 1.5 —_ — —_ —_
21
WidthiDepth Rafi
--
— -
09 — - — - 58
120 -- -- 180 — - --
-- 140 -- -- -- --
187
E.—hm®t Ra'
— -
—_
14 ___ — - 1.5
14 —_ —_ 22 —_ —_
—_ >20 -- —_ —_
—_ 3.1 —_
Battle Height Rafi
— -
29 ___ ___ 44
10 —_ —_ 1.1 —_ —_
10 — —_ —_
—_ 08 —_
d50
Pa[fem
Charnel Be.Affi(ft)
RadmsofCLrvatme(ft)--
--- ---
--
Rc_Ba f➢width(NR)
Meattder Wavel®gth(ft)
Meavder Width Raj
Pmfip-
—
125
RilEleLevgN(R
_ _
_
___ ___ ___ _ _
- _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ - _
- _ _ _ —
Riffle Slope(R/R
— -
___ ___ ___ —_
—_ —_ —_ —_ —_ —_
—_ 001 — —_
—_ o— —_
—lLevgN(R
Pool to Pool Spacfg(R)
346 —_
Pool Max Depth(R)
_ _
_ _
___ ___ ___ _ _
- _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ - _
- _ 10 _ _ _ _ - _
_ _ 12
Pool V ofine (R�
SubsR'ate and Trauspvit Ammethrs
s%
SC%/Sa%/G%/B%/Be
--
--- --- ---
-- —
dl6/d35/d50/d84/d95
Reach Shear s—(.pa®cy)16/lP
Max part size(mm)m.b➢iz,d at b f➢(Rosg®CLrve
—_
—_
___ ___ ___ —_
—_ —_ —_ —_ —_ —_
—_ --
——— - - -
StreamPower(—P,, t capacity) Whtt'
Addhloual Reach Parameters
Draivage Area (S
Rosg®Clussifi
—_
—_
BSc — - ___ GSc
—_ —_ BSc —_ —_
—_ —_ —_ BSc
BF Vely s
—_
28 — - ___ 41
4 _ _ 6 _ _
—_ —_
_ _ - _ _ _ 33
BF Di=ch , h fis)
—_
—_
5.1 — - — - 102
—_ —_ —_ —_
—_ —_ —_ 12
VAR,—gth
_ _
_ _
- _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _
_ _ - _ _ _ _
_ _ - _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _
- _ _ _ _ _ .1
ChamelkvgN(R)
1,828 —_
—_ —_ —_ —_
—_ —_ —_ 1,808 —_ —_
—_ —_ —_ 210 —_
shu—ity
—_
—_
—_ —_ —_ 1.13 —_
1.10 —_ —_ 130 —_ —_
—_ —_ —_ 105 —_ —_
—_ —_ 104 —_
Water Suh ^a Slope (Chamel)(R/R
--
--
00148 00250
-- --
-- -- -- 0030 -- --
-- -- -- -- --
BFslope(NR
--
--
it it-1 --
0005 -- -- 0015 -- --
-- -- -- 0033 -- --
-- -- -- -- --
Ba fll Flovdphutt Area(acres)
B— VL%/L%/M%/H%/ VH%/E%
Charnel Stability m "'hi"Me
Bwl,r mON
t-He-Exiswg Cmditiw meawm®t tale®weeis➢vg �dbedri131e
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96074)

Para�ve[er GauS Regm-Curve Av htmg Cooditioo Refemuce Reach(es)Dala Design As-0uil[
Thomas C—SheUp— Reach4 Ou-she
Dhveosno and Suhstrale-R— LL IJL Eq. Mf Meav Med Max SD v Mf Meav Med Max SD v Mf Meav Med Max sD v Mf Meav Mel Max sD v
BF Wid (R _ - ___ — - ___ ___ ___ ___ 36 - - _ - — - — - — - — - — - - - - - 46
BF Meav Depth(ft _ - ___ — - — - ___ ___ ___ 04 - _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ - _ - _ 03
BF Max Depth(ft _ - — _ - - _ - ___ ___ ___ 06 - _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ - _ - _ 04
BF— —1 A—(W) - - _ _ ___ ___ ___ 1.6 _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1.5
Widf Tffi Rafi —_ — - ___ ___ ___ 84 —_ 120 — - — - 180 — - —_ —_ 140
Evh®chm-Rala — - - - ___ ___ ___ 1.5 _ _ 14 - - — - 22
Bavh Height Rafi — - ___ ___ ___ 42 —_ 10 — - — - 1.1 —_ —_ 1.0
d50
Palfm
Ra mso CLrvalwe — - -- --- ---
Rc_Bavhf➢wAffi(WR)
-
MeavderWidthRatio
Pivfip
Ritile slape(WR)
Pool LevgN(R)
1-11. Pcol spacmg(R)
—_ ]U
Poo Max Dep _ _ _ _ ___ ___ ___ - _ - - — - — - — - — - — -
Pool V ofine (ft�
Subsh'ale and Trau .Aftram—
sC%/sa%/G%/B%/Be -- --- — - --- --- --
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95 -- -- 012/ 029/ 043 /O8]/ 139
ReachshearS—(.p—y)lWW
Max pmt size(mm)moWizel at b f➢(Rosg®CLrve
st—Power(trayspok cs -0) Whv'
Addhnual Reach Para.— i
Draivage Areas —_ —_ ___ ___ ___ 0022 — - — - — - — - —_ —_ —_ —_ 0022 ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 0022
Rang®Classifi - _ - _ ___ ___ ___ BS
BF
— - 6 - _ 333
Ve ly s - _ - ___ 3.6 -- 4 ___ — - _ - _ - _ -
BF Dischmge (cfs) - _ - _ ___ ___ ___ 5.] - _ _ _ _ - _ - _ - - - 5-
VallryL gth —_ _ - ___ ___ ___ -
-
sm.ity _ _ _ _ ___ ___ ___ 1.11 - _ 1.10 _ _ - _ 130 - _ - _ - _ _ _ - _ 1.11-
wa�eswf«supe
BF slope(Wft) 0036 —_ 0005
Bavhfll Flcodplaf A—(--) —_ —_ ___ ___ ___ -- —_ —_
B—VL%/L%/M%/H%/VH%/E% -- -- --- --- --- -- -- --- --- --- --- --
Chamelsf "tyor
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96074)

Tab@10mv -d. Base➢ve Sheam S--y
Thomas Creek Reslvralnv R'vi DMSR'vie Tv.960]4
Reach Tl-Lev h 227ft
Parame[a'
Gnus
Regmval Curve
R—as[ivg Cvvdhnv
Refemvice Reach(es)Da1a
-A,
As-0u➢1
Thomas Cmeh SheU er Reach4 Ov-she
Dhvevsnv avd Suhsh'a1e-Ri1fE
LL IIL Eq.
Mm Mem Med Max SD v
Mf Meav Med Max SD v
Mf Meav Med Max SD v
Mm Meav Mal Max SD v
BF Wid61(R
_ -
___ — - ___
___ ___ ___ ] 2 —_ _ -
— - — - — - — - — - —_
—_ ] 0 ___ _ - _
_ _ 8.1
---
-- 306
BFMeavDepW(ft
—_
___ — - — -
___ ___ — - 04
—_ — - — - — - — - —_
—_ 06 — -
_— 06
BF Max Depth(ft
—_
— _ —_ _ -
___ ___ - _ 0]07
09
BF_ —1 A—(W)
—_
_—
___ ___ 28
— - — - — - —_
—_ 3.8 —_
_— 53
Wid Tffi Rafi
--
— -
--- --- — - 1.6
120 — - — - 180 — - --
-- 130 --
— - 136 — -
Evh®c -Rala
— -
—_
___ ___ ___ 1.5 —_
14 — - — - 22 —_ —_
—_ —_
36 —_
Ba Height Rafi
— -
___ ___ ___ 26 —_
10 — - — - 1.1 —_
—_ 10 —_
ID
d50
P.—
.5
ChavvelBelt ffi(ft)
— - — - — - —_ —_
—_ —_
RadmsofCLrvatme(ft)
— -
--
--- --- --- -- --
— - — - — - — - -- --
135 -- 180 -- — -
140
Rc_BavkM➢ Affi(R/R
—_
—_
___ ___ ___ —_ —_
— - — - — - — - —_
20 —_ 26 —_ ___
17
Meav Wave®g
—_
—_
___
- _ - - ___
480
Meavder Width Ralio
Pivfip
38
14]
R ffle LevgN(R)
R ffle slape(R/ft
—_
___ ___ ___ —_ —_
— - — - — - — - — - —_
—_ 00135
00113
Pool LevgN(R
Pool f Pvol spacmg(R
— -
—_
___ ___ ___ —_ —_
— - — - — - — - — - —_
25 — 42
412
Pool MaxDepN(R)
— -
— - — - —_
-- 14 —_
14
Subsh'a1e avd Trav .Aftnm—
s%—
sC%/sa%/G%/B%/Be
--
--- --- ---
—
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95
--
--
Reachshearshess(.p—y)16/ft'-
Maxpmtsite (mm)mob➢izal at b f➢(Rosg®CLrve
sheam Power(hayspok ca-0) Whv'
Addkm—Reach Ammeters
—
DraivageArea(s
Rang®Cmssifi
BF-e ty(fps)
5.03.
BFDi=charge(cfs)
—_
—_
___ ___ ___ 140 —_
—_ — - — - —_ —_
—_ —_ —_ 139
--
Chamelk gN(R)
253
22]
sm.ity
—_
—_
___ ___ ___ 1.09 —_
1.10 — - — - 130 —_ —_
—_ —_ —_ 1.16
104
Wma swfce sbpe (Chamel)(R/R
--
--
--- 00203 --
BFsb,(R/R)
00120 —_
0005-
Ba fll Flvvdphuv Area(scree)
B— VL%/L%/M%/H%/ VH%/E%
Charnel stability m-a Me
Bwl'r mO[h
t-Re-Exisivg Cmditiw meam�m®t tak®w existivg �dbednRle
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96074)

Parameter Gauge -gm —Curve —a6Rog Coudhmu Thomas C— tippel Reach 4(0u-she) Design As-0u➢t
Dlmeusnu and SubsR'ate-RR1E LL IJL Eq. Min Mem Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max aD v Min Mean Med Max ID v Mm Mem Mel Max ID v
BF Width(R — - ___ — - — - - - ___ ___ 2.1
BF Mean De ffi(ft _ - ___ — - _ - ___ ___ 04
BF Max DT&(ft)
BF Cmac —1 A—(W) - - ___ ___ _— 0.8
Wid Tffi Rafi _ _ _ _ ___ ___ Sfi
Enh®chm®t Ratu - _ - _ ___ ___ 16
Bank Height 23
Ra vso cLrvalwe -- -- - ---
Rc_Banhf➢width(R/R)
Mean Wave®g —_ —_
Meander Width
P.-
Riffle slope(R/R)
Pool Levg[h(R)
Pool to pool swing (R)
pool Max DepN (R)
Pool Volume (R�
Sub—te and Trauspoit Paramefm
sC%/sa%/G%/B%/Be -- -- — - -- -- --- --- --- --- --- --
d16/d /d50/d84/05 -- -- — - — -
Reachahearatress(.p—y)1Nft'
Max part size Cmm)mob➢izel at bmhf➢(Rosg®CLrve
Stream power (trayspoR rapacity)
Addhnual Reach Panmeteas
Dmivage A—(s —_ —_ —_ __ —_ 0008 __ __ __ __ —_ __ —_ —_ —_ —_ —_ 0. oos __ __ __ __ __ 000s
Rosg®Cmssifi - _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ BSc
BF-e ty(fps -- 34
BF Discharge(cfs) - _ - _ 27
VallryL g[h
channel gth(d) 171 __ __ __ —_ —_ —_ —_ —_ —_ —_ —_ 157 —_ __ —_ __ __ 157
sinuosity _ _ _ _ 1.1] __ __ __ _ - - - _ - - - - - - - _ - - - _- _-
Wma—u slope(Chavnel)(R/d -- —_ o.14
BF snipe (R/R _ _ _ _ o011]-
BanhfllMlo pmf Area
_.VL%/L%/M%/H%/VH%/E% -- -- -- --- --- -- -- -- -- --
chavvelsfa hty or Habitat Me'
Biolouiral mlRh
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96074)

Table Ila. Cross -Section Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Thomas Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 96074
Stream Reach
Reach 3 (1,032 LF)
Cross-section X-1 (Riffle)
Cross-section X-2 (Pool)
Cross-section X-3 (Riffle)
Based on fixed baseline bankfufl elevation
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3 MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MYl
MY2 MY3 MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3 MY4
MY5
MY+
BF Width (ft)
9.3
8.8
8.3
8.6 -
8.7
10.5
10.2
10.2 10.0 -
10.3
7.5
7.1
7.0
7.4 -
6.5
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.6 -
0.6
1.3
1.3
1.2 1.3 -
1.4
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.3 -
0.4
Width/Depth Ratio
11.9
14.1
13.7
14.4 -
15.1
8.3
8.0
8.5 7.6 -
7.5
12.3
16.9
15.5
21.3 -
16.9
BF Cross -sectional Area (W)
7.3
5.4
5.1
5.1 -
5.1
13.4
13.2
12.2 13.3 -
14.2
4.5
3.0
3.1
2.6 -
2.5
BF Max Depth (ft)
1.3
1.1
1.0
1.0 -
1.0
2.1
2.1
2.0 2.5 -
2.4
0.9
0.7
0.7
0.7 -
0.8
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
55
52
51
51 -
51
61
62
60 63 -
63
37
34
34
34 -
37
Entrenchment Ratio
5.9
6.0
6.1
5.9 -
5.9
-
-
- - -
-
5.0
4.9
5.0
4.5 -
5.7
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.9 -
0.9
-
-
- - -
-
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7 -
0.8
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
10.9
10.0
9.6
8.9 -
9.1
13.1
12.8
12.6 11.8 -
11.9
8.7
7.9
7.9
7.6 -
6.8
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.7
0.5
0.5
0.6 -
0.6
1.0
1.0
1.0 1.1 -
1.2
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4 -
0.4
d50 (mm)
-
-
-
Stream Reach
Reach
4 (1,238 LF)
Reach 2 upstream (703 LF)
Reach 2 downstream (1,423 LF)
Reach TI (227 LF)
Cross-section X-4 (Riffle)
Cross-section X-5 (Riffle)
Cross-section X-6 (Riffle)
Cross-section X-7 (Riffle)
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3 MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MYl
MY2 MY3 MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3 MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3 MY4
MY5 MY+
BF Width (ft)
6.8
6.8
6.1
5.9 -
6.0
10.4
9.8
9.8 10.0 -
9.5
10.2
9.7
9.5
9.7 -
9.5
8.5
6.8
6.9
6.7 -
6.5
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4 -
0.4
0.7
0.6
0.6 0.5 -
0.5
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.8 -
0.9
0.6
0.1
0.4
0.4 -
0.4
Width/Depth Ratio
12.7
12.6
13.5
14.8 -
15.0
14.8
16.6
16.8 21.0 -
18.4
10.1
11.4
11.7
11.6 -
0.9
13.6
13.8
16.0
15.0 -
18.7
BF Cross -sectional Area (W)
3.6
3.6
2.8
2.3 -
2.4
7.4
5.8
5.6 4.8 -
4.9
10.2
8.3
7.7
8.0 -
8.2
5.3
3A
3.0
3.0 -
2.3
BF Max Depth (ft)
0.9
1.0
0.8
0.7 -
0.6
1.0
0.9
0.9 0.8 -
0.8
1.5
1.3
1.3
1.2 -
1.3
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6 -
0.5
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
22
22
21
20 -
22
38
37
36 36 -
36
63
63
63
63 -
63
31
28
27
27 -
25
Entrenchment Ratio
3.2
3.1
3.2
3.4 -
3.2
3.7
3.7
3.7 3.6 -
3.8
6.2
6.2
6.2
6.5 -
6.6
3.6
3.7
3.7
4.0 -
3.8
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.2
0.9
0.8 -
0.8
1.0
0.9
1.0 0.9 -
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9 -
0.9
1.0
1.2
0.9
0.9 -
0.9
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
7.8
7.9
7.0
6.1 -
6.4
11.8
11.0
10.9 10.2 -
9.7
12.2
11.4
11.1
10.3 -
10.1
9.7
7.8
7.7
7.0 -
6.7
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4 -
0.4
0.6
0.5
0.5 0.5 -
0.5
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.8 -
0.8
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4 -
0.3
d50 (mm)
Stream Reach
Reach 2 downstream (1,423 LF)
Cross-section
X-8 (Pool)
Cross-section X-9 (Pool)
Cross-section X-10 (Riffle)
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3 MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MYl
MY2 MY3 MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3 MY4
MY5
MY+
BF Width (ft)
15.3
16.1
16.1
16.1 -
16.2
14.5
14.5
14.6 15.1 -
15.3
10.3
9.3
9.1
8.5 -
9.4
BF Mean Depth (ft)
1.2
1.6
1.7
1.9 -
1.8
1.1
1.3
1.4 1.3 -
1.6
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.7 -
0.7
Width/Depth Ratio
13.3
9.8
9.6
8.6 -
8.8
12.9
10.8
10.8 12.1 -
9.8
12.6
13.2
13.0
12.7 -
13.7
BF Cross -sectional Area (W)
17.6
26.3
27.0
30.3 -
29.9
16.3
19.5
19.7 18.9 -
23.7
8.4
6.5
6.4
5.7 -
6.4
BF Max Depth (ft)
2.7
2.6
2.8
2.7 -
3.0
2.2
3.2
3.0 2.9 -
3.4
1.2
1.1
1.1
1.0 -
1.1
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
53
52
53
53 -
53
71
71
71 71 -
71
74
74
74
75 -
75
Entrenchment Ratio
-
-
-
- -
-
-
-
- - -
-
7.2
7.3
7.3
8.8 -
8.0
Bank Height Ratio
-
-
-
- -
-
-
-
- - -
-
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.9 -
0.9
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
17.6
19.3
19.5
18.3 -
18.5
16.8
17.2
17.3 17.0 -
18.2
11.9
10.7
10.5
8.9 -
9.7
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
1.0
1.4
1.4
1.7 -
1.6
1.0
1.1
1.1 1.1 -
1.3
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.6 -
0.7
d50 (mm)
Note: Per DMS/IRT request, the bank height ratio for MY5 has been calculated using the bankfull elevation as determined from the as -built baukfWl area. All other values were calculated using the original as -built bankfull elevation, as was done for previous monitoring reports.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96074)

Table Ila. (Continued) Cross Section Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Thomas Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 96074
Stream Reach
Reach 1 (208 LF)
Reach 6 (1,776 LF)
Cross-section X-11 (Pool)
Cross-section X-12 (Riffle)
Cross-section X-13 (Riffle)
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3 MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3 MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3 MY4
MY5 MY+
BF Width (ft)
16.2
15.4
14.8
16.3 -
16.1
13.9
12.7
12.4
13.1 -
12.4
6.3
4.1
4.1
3.7 -
4.2
BF Mean Depth (ft)
1.5
1.7
1.7
2.1 -
2.2
0.8
0.7
0.8
0.6 -
0.6
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2 -
0.3
Width/Depth Ratio
11.1
8.8
8.7
7.7 -
7.4
17.4
19.8
16.5
22.3 -
20.9
18.7
16.1
19.5
15.5 -
13.8
BF Cross -sectional Area (W)
23.7
26.8
25.0
34.6 -
34.8
11.1
8.2
9.3
7.7 -
7.4
2.1
1.1
0.8
0.9 -
1.3
BF Max Depth (ft)
3.4
3.8
3.5
4.1 -
3.8
1.1
1.1
1.3
1.0 -
1.0
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.4 -
0.4
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
69
69
69
69 -
42
31
30
31
29 -
29
19
18
16
17 -
16
Entrenchment Ratio
-
-
-
- -
-
2.2
2.2
2.1
2.2 -
2.4
3.1
3.2
3.2
4.5 -
3.9
Bank Height Ratio
-
-
-
- -
-
1.0
1.2
1.1
0.9 -
0.9
0.8
0.6
0.7
0.7 -
0.8
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
19.2
18.9
18.1
23.6 -
19.9
15.5
14.0
13.9
13.6 -
12.8
6.9
4.6
4.5
3.8 -
4.3
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
1.2
1.4
1.4
1.5 -
1.7
0.7
0.6
0.7
0.6 -
0.6
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2 -
0.3
d50 (mm)
Stream Reach
Reach
5 (1,168 LF)
Cross-section X-14 (Riffle)
Cross-section X-15 (Pool)
Cross-section
X-16 (Pool)
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3 MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3 MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3 MY4
MY5 MY+
BF Width (ft)
7.5
6.9
7.2
6.4 -
5.8
10.3
7.3
6.4
9.5 -
6.9
9.3
8.7
8.5
8.9 -
9.0
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.9
0.6
0.5
0.5 -
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.0
0.9 -
1.0
0.8
1.2
1.2
1.2 -
1.1
Width/Depth Ratio
8.4
10.8
13.5
11.6 -
10.3
13.8
7.1
6.2
10.4 -
6.7
11.9
7.3
7.0
7.4 -
8.1
BF Cross -sectional Area (W)
6.8
4.4
3.8
3.5 -
3.3
7.7
7.5
6.5
8.7 -
7.0
7.3
10.4
10.2
10.6 -
10.1
BF Max Depth (ft)
1.2
1.2
1.0
1.1 -
1.0
1.5
1.6
1.6
1.6 -
1.6
1.3
2.7
2.5
2.6 -
2.2
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
50
50
50
50 -
50
60
59
60
59 -
60
64
67
67
67 -
55
Entrenchment Ratio
6.6
6.6
6.6
7.8 -
8.5
-
-
-
- -
-
-
-
-
- -
-
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.8 -
0.9
-
-
-
- -
-
-
-
-
- -
-
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
9.3
8.1
7.6
6.9 -
6.3
11.8
9.3
8.4
10.5 -
7.9
10.9
11.1
10.9
11.1 -
11.1
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.7
0.5
0.5
0.5 -
0.5
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.8 -
0.9
0.7
0.9
0.9
1.0 -
0.9
d50 (mm)
Note: Per DMS/IRT request, the bank height ratio for MY5 has been calculated using the bankfull elevation as determined from the as -built baukfWl area. All other values were calculated using the original as -built bankfull elevation, as was done for previous monitoring reports.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96074)

Table llb. Stream Reach Morphology Summary
Thomas Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 96074
Reach 1 (298 LF)
Parameter
MY-2
MY-5
MY-7
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Min Mean Mod Max SO n
Min Mean Mod Max SO n
Min Mean Med Max SO n
Min Mean Mod Max SO n
Min Mean Mod Max SD n
Min Mean Med Max SO n
BE Width (ft) _____ 13.9 _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ 12.7 _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ 12.4 _____ _____ _____ I
_____ 13.1 _____ _____ _____ I
_____ 12.4 _____ _____ _____ I
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
BE Mean Depth (ft) _____ 0.8 _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ 0.7 _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ 0.8 _____ _____ _____ I
_____ 0.6 _____ _____ _____ I
_____ 0.6 _____ _____ _____ I
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
Width/Depth Rati _____ 17.4 _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ 19.8 _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ 16.5 _____ _____ _____ I
_____ 22.3 _____ _____ _____ I
_____ 20.9 _____ _____ _____ I
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
BE Cross -sectional Area (ft' _____ 11.1 _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ 8.2 _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ 9.3 _____ _____ _____ I
_____ 7.7 _____ _____ _____ I
_____ 7.4 _____ _____ _____ I
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
BE Max Depth (ft) _____ 1.1 _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ 1.1 _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ 1.3 _____ _____ _____ I
_____ 1.0 _____ _____ _____ I
_____ 1.0 _____ _____ _____ I
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
Width ofFloodprone Area (ft _____ 30.6 _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ 30.0 _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ 31.3 _____ _____ _____ I
_____ 29.1 _____ _____ _____ I
_____ 29.4 _____ _____ _____ I
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
EntrenchmentRati _____ 2.2 _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ 2.2 _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ 2.1 _____ _____ _____ I
_____ 2.2 _____ _____ _____ I
_____ 2.4 _____ _____ _____ I
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
Bank Height Rati _____ 1.0 _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ 1.2 _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ 1.1 _____ _____ _____ I
_____ 0.9 _____ _____ _____ I
_____ 0.9 _____ _____ _____ I
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
Prank
Rifte Length (ft
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
Rifte Slope (ft/ft
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
Pool L®gtb (ft
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
PoolSpacing (ft
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
PoolMax Depth (ft
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Radius of Curvature (ft
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Re Bankfiill width (ft/ft
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Meander Wavelength (ft
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
Meander Width Rati
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
Additional Reach Parameters
DrainageArea (S
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____
_____ ____ _ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____
RosgenClassiftcatio
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ ____ _ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
BEVelocity (fps
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ ____ _ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
BEDischarge (cfs
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
Valley Leng
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- -----_____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
ChannelThalweg Length (ft
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
Sinuosity(ft
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ ____ _ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
WaterSurface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
BEslope (WI
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
BankfiillFloodplain Area (acres
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
ChannelStability or Habitat Metri
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
Biological or Othe
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____
Nate: Per DMS/1RT request, the bank height naio for MY5 has been calculated usng the bankfll elevation as determined from the as -built bankfull -All other values were calculated using the original a is ilt bankfull elevaiom, as was done for previous monitoring repots.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96074)

Table llb. Stream Reach Morphology Summary
Thomas Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 96074
Reach 2 upstream (703 LF)
Parameter
MY-1
MY-3
MY-5
MY-7
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Min Mean Mod Max SO n
Min Mean Med Max SO n
Min Mean Mod Max SO n
Min Mean Med Max SO n
Min Mean Med Max SD n
Min Mean Med Max SO n
BE Width (ft) ____ 10.4 _____ _____ _____ _____
____ 9.8 _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ 9.8 _____ _____ _____ I
_____ 10.0 _____ _____ _____ 1
_____ 9.5 _____ _____ _____ I
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
BE Mean Depth (ft) ____ 0.7 _____ _____ _____ _____
____ 0.6 _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ 0.6 _____ _____ _____ I
_____ 0.5 _____ _____ _____ 1
_____ 0.5 _____ _____ _____ I
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
Width/Depth Rati ____ 14.8 _____ _____ _____ _____
___ 16.6 _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ 16.8 _____ _____ _____ 1
_____ 21.0 _____ _____ _____ I
_____ 18.4 _____ _____ _____ I
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
BE Cross -sectional Area (ft' ____ 7.4 _____ _____ _____ _____
___ 5.8 _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ 5.6 _____ _____ _____ I
_____ 4.8 _____ _____ _____ I
_____ 4.9 _____ _____ _____ I
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
BF Max Depth (ft) ____ 1.0 _____ _____ _____ _____
____ 0.9 _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ 0.9 _____ _____ _____ I
_____ 0.8 _____ _____ _____ I
_____ 0_g _____ _____ _____ I
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
Width ofFloodprone Area (ft ____ 38.2 _____ _____ _____ _____
___ 37.0 _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ 36.3 _____ _____ _____ I
_____ 35.8 _____ _____ _____ I
_____ 36.0 _____ _____ _____ I
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
EntrenclunentRati ____ 3.7 _____ _____ _____ _____
____ 3.7 _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ 3.7 _____ _____ _____ I
_____ 3.6 _____ _____ _____ I
_____ 3.8 _____ _____ _____ I
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
Bank Height Rati ____ 1.0 _____ _____ _____ _____
____ 0.9 _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ 1.0 _____ _____ _____ I
_____ 0.9 _____ _____ _____ I
_____ 0.9 _____ _____ _____ I
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
Profile
RiltleLength (ft _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
RifteSlope (ft/ft _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
___ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
PoolLength (ft _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
Pool Spacing (ft _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
Pool Max Depth (ft
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Radius of Curvature (ft
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Re Bankfiill width (ft/ft
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Meander Wavelength (ft
_____
Meander Width Rati
Additional Reach Parameters
DrainageArea (S
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____
_____ ____ _ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____
RosgenClassificatio
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ ____ _ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
BEVelocity (fps
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
BEDischazge (cfs
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
Valley Leng
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- -----_____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
ChannelThalweg Length (ft
_____ _____
Sinuosity (ft
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ ____ _ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
WaterSurface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
BEslope (ft/ft
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
Bankfiill Floodplain Area (acres
_____
ChannelStability or Habitat Metri
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
Biological or Othe
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____
Nate: Pe, DMSART,.quest, the bank height -io fo, MY5 has been calculated using the bankfull elevation as determined from the as -built bankfull -All oche, values were calculated using the original a 1a ilt bankfull e1,vam, as was done fo, previous monitoring ,pmt,.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96074)

Table llb. Stream Reach Morphology Summary
Thomas Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 96074
Reach 2 downstream (1,423 LF)
Parameter
1-"-1
MY-2
MY-3
MY-5
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Min
Mean Mod
Max SO
❑
Min
Me-
Med Max SO
n
Min
Morm
Med Max SO
❑
Min
Moso
Med Max SO
n
Min
Merm
Med Max SD
n Min Mean Mod Max SO n
BF Width (ft) 10.2
10.2 -----
10.3 -----
2
9.3
9.5
----- 9.7 -----
2
9.1
9.3
----- 9.5 -----
2
8.5
9.1
----- 9.7 -----
2
9.4
9.4
----- 9.4 -----
2
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BF Mean Depth (ft) 0.8
0.9 -----
1.0 -----
2
0.7
0.8
----- 0.9 -----
2
0.7
0.8
----- 0.8 -----
2
0.7
0.8
----- 0.8 -----
2
0.7
0.7
----- 0.7 -----
2
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Width/Depth Rati 10.1
11.4 -----
12.6 -----
2
11.4
12.3
----- 132 -----
2
11.7
12.4
----- 13.0 -----
2
11.6
122
----- 12.7 -----
2
0.9
0.9
----- 0.9 -----
2
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BF Cross -sectional Area (ft' 8.4
9.3 -----
10.2 -----
2
6.5
7.4
----- 83 -----
2
6.4
7.1
----- 7.7 -----
2
5.7
6.9
----- 8.0 ----
2
6.4
6.4
----- 6.4 -----
2
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BF Max Depth (ft) 1.2
1.3 -----
1.5 -----
2
1.1
1.2
----- 13 -----
2
1.1
1.2
----- 1.3 -----
2
1.0
1.1
----- 1.2 -----
2
1.1
1.1
----- 1.1 -----
2
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Width of Floodprone Area (ft 62.9
68.7 -----
74.5 -----
2
62.9
68.7
----- 74.5 -----
2
63.0
68.7
----- 74.5 -----
2
62.9
68.7
----- 74.5 -----
2
62.9
62.9
----- 62.9 -----
2
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Entrenchment Ratic 6.2
6.7 -----
7.2 -----
2
6.2
6.8
----- 73 -----
2
6.2
6.8
----- 7.3 -----
2
6.5
7.7
----- 8.8 -----
2
6.6
6.6
----- 6.6 -----
2
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Bank Height Ratic 0.9
1.0 -----
1.0 -----
2
0.9
1.0
----- 1.0 -----
2
0.9
0.9
----- 0.9 -----
2
0.9
0.9
----- 0.9 -----
2
0.9
0.9
----- 0.9 -----
2
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Profile 111
Er
RiffleLength (8
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____ -----
iffle
RiffleSlope (ft/ft
R
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____
PoolLength (ft
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
PoolSpacing (ft
Pool
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ -----
Pool Max Depth (ft
Pool
_____ _____
Pattern
Chanel Beltwidth (f(
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
Radius of Curvature (ft
-----
----- -----
----- -----
Re Bankfiill width (ft/ft
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
Meander Wavelength (ft
_____
Meander Width Rati
Additional Reach Parameters
DrainageArea (S
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
____ _
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
RosgenClassificatio
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
____ _
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
BEVelocity (fps
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
____ _
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
BEDischarge (cfs
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
Valley Leng
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
ChannelThalweg Length (ft
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
Sinuosity(ft
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
____ _
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
WaterSmf- Slope (Channel) (ft/ft
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
BEslope (ft/ft
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
Bankfiill Floodplain Area (acres
_____
_____
Channel Stability or Habitat Metri
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
Biologicalor Othe
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
Nate: Pe, DMSART,.quest, the bank height nu. fo, MY5 has been calculated using the bankfull elevation as &a,-ined from the as -bunt bankfull -All other values were calculated using the original a 1afi t bankfull e1,vam, as was done fo, previous monitoring ,pmt,.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96074)

Table llb. Stream Reach Morphology Summary
Thomas Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 96074
Reach 3 (1,031 LF)
Parameter
MY-1
MY-2
MY-3
MY-5
MY-7
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Min
Mean Mod
Max SO
❑
Min
Me-
Med Max SO
n
Min
Mean
Med Max SO
❑
Min
Mean
Med Max SD
n72.5
in
Mea❑
Med Max SD
n
Min Mean Med Max SO n
BE Width (ft) 7.5
8.4 -----
93 -----
2
7.1
7.9
----- 8.8 -----
2
7.0
7.7
----- 8.3 -----
2
7.4
8.0
----- 8.6 -----
2.5
7.6
----- 8.7 -----
2
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BE Mean Depth (ft) 0.6
0.7 -----
0.8 ----
2
0.4
0.5
----- 0.6 -----
2
0.5
0.5
----- 0.6 -----
2
0.3
0.5
----- 0.6 -----
2.4
0.5
----- 0.6 -----
2
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Width/Depth Rati 11.9
12.1 ----
123 ----
2
14.1
15.5
----- 16.9 -----
2
13.7
14.6
----- 15.5 -----
2
14.4
17.9
----- 21.3 ----
25.1
16.0
----- 16.9 -----
2
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BE Cross -sectional Area (ft' 4.5
5.9 ----
73 ----
2
3.0
4.2
----- 5.4 -----
2
3.1
4.1
----- 5.1 -----
2
2.6
3.9
----- 5.1 ----
2
3.8
----- 5.1 ----
2
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BF Max Depth (ft) 0.9
1.1 ----
13 ----
2
0.7
0.9
----- 1.1 -----
2
07
08
----- 1.0 -----
2
0.7
09
----- 1.0 -----2.8
0.9
----- 1.0 -----
2
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Width ofFloodprone Area (ft 37.3
46.3 ----
553 ----
2
34.1
43.0
----- 51.8 -----
2
34.1
42.8
----- 51.4 -----
2
33.8
423
----- 50.7 ----
2
37.0
44.0
----- 51.0 -----
2
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Entrenchment Ratic 5.0
5.5 -----
5.9 -----
2
4.9
5.5
----- 6.0 -----
2
5.0
5.6
----- 6.1 -----
2
4.5
52
----- 5.9 -----
2
5.7
5.8
----- 5.9 -----
2
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Bank Height Rati 1.0
1.0 -----
1.0 -----
2
0.9
0.9
----- 0.9 -----
2
0.8
0.8
----- 0.8 -----
2
0.7
0.8
----- 0.9 -----
2
0.8
0.9
----- 0.9 -----
2
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Profile
RiMeLength (ft
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
Rif11eSlope (ft/ft
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
---------- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Pool""th (ft
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
PoolSpacing (ft
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
PoolMax Depth (ft
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
Pattern
Chanel Beltwidth (ft
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
Radius of Curvature (ft
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
Re Bankfiill width (ft/ft
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
Meander Wavelength (ft
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____
-----
Meander Width Rati
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
Additional Reach Parameters
DrainageArea (S
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
____ _
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
RosgenClassiftcatio
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
____ _
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
BEVelocity (fps
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
____ _
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
BEDischarge (cfs
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
Valley L®g
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
ChannelThalweg Length (ft
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
Sinuosity(ft
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
____ _
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
WaterSurface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
BEslope (ft/ft
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
Bankfiill Flo odIo_ n Area (acres
_____
----------
----------
-----
-----
-----
---------------
-----
-----
-----
_____
---------------
-----
-----
-----
---------------
-----
------------------------------
Channel StabiliTy or Habitat Metri
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
Biologicalor Othe
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
Nate: Per DMS/1RT request, the bank height naio for MY5 has been calculated using the baakfll elevation as determined from the as -built bankfull -All other values were calculated using the original a 1a ilt bankfull e1,vam, as was done for previous monitoring repmts.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96074)

Table llb. Stream Reach Morphology Summary
Thomas Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 96074
Reach 4 (1,238 LF)
Parameter Baseline
MY-1
MY-2
MY-3
MY-5
MI
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Min Mean Med Max SO n
Min Me- Med Max SO n
Min Mean Med Max SO n
Min Mean Med Max SO n
Min Mean Med Max SD n
Min Mean Med Max SO n
BE Width (ft) _____ 6.8 _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ 6.8 _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ 6.1 _____ _____ _____ I
_____ 5.9 _____ _____ _____ I
_____ 6.0 _____ _____ _____ I
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
BE Mean Depth (ft) _____ 0.5 _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ 0.5 _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ 0.5 _____ _____ _____ I
_____ 0.4 _____ _____ _____ I
_____ 0.4 _____ _____ _____ I
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
Width/Depth Rati _____ 12.7 _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ 12.6 _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ 13.5 _____ _____ _____ I
_____ 14.8 _____ _____ _____ I
_____ 15.0 _____ _____ _____ I
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
BE Cross -sectional Area (ft' _____ 3.6 _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ 3.6 _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ 2.8 _____ _____ _____ I
_____ 2.3 _____ _____ _____ I
_____ 2.4 _____ _____ _____ I
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
BE Max Depth (ft) _____ 0.9 _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ 1.0 _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ 0.8 _____ _____ _____ I
_____ 0.7 _____ _____ _____ 1
_____ 0.6 _____ _____ _____ I
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
Width ofFloodprone Area (ft _____ 21.9 _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ 22.3 _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ 20.6 _____ _____ _____ I
_____ 20.2 _____ _____ _____ I
_____ 21.5 _____ _____ _____ I
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
EntrenchmentRati _____ 3.2 _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ 3.1 _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ 3.2 _____ _____ _____ I
_____ 3.4 _____ _____ _____ I
_____ 3.2 _____ _____ _____ I
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
Bank Height Rati _____ 1.0 _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ 1.2 _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ 0.9 _____ _____ _____ I
_____ 0.8 _____ _____ _____ I
_____ 0.8 _____ _____ _____ I
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
Profile
11111111
RifteLength (ft _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
RifteSlope (ft/ft _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
___ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
Pool ft _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
Pool L®gth (III
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____
PoolSpacing (ft _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
Pool Max Depth (ft
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____
_____
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Radius of Curvature (ft
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Re Bankfiill width (ft/ft
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Meander Wavelength (ft
_____
Meander Width Rati
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (S
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____
_____ ____ _ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
RosgenClassificatio
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____
BEVelocity (fps
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ ____ _ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
BEDiscbargc (cfs
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
Valley Leng
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- -----_____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
ChannelThalweg Length (ft
_____ _____
Sinuosity (ft
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ ____ _ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
WaterSurface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
BEslope (WI
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
Bankfiill Floodplain Area (acres
___
ChannelStability or Habitat Morn_____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
Biological or Othe
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____
Nate: Per DMS/1RT request, the bank height naio for MY5 has been calculated using the baakfll elevation as determined from the as -built bankfull -All other values were calculated using the original a 1a ilt bankfull e1,vam, as was done for previous monitoring repmts.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96074)

Table llb. Stream Reach Morphology Summary
Thomas Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 96074
Reach 5 (1,169 LF)
Parameter Baseline
MY-1
MY-2
MY-3
MY-5
MI
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Min Mean Med Max SO n
Min Me- Med Max SO n
Min Mean Med Max SO n
Min Mean Med Max SO n
Min Mean Med Max SD n
Min Mean Med Max SO n
BE Width (ft) _____ 7.5 _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ 6.9 _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ 7.2 _____ _____ _____ I
_____ 6.4 _____ _____ _____ I
_____ 5.8 _____ _____ _____ I
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
BE Mean Depth (ft) _____ 0.9 _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ 0.6 _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ 0.5 _____ _____ _____ I
_____ 0.5 _____ _____ _____ I
_____ 0.6 _____ _____ _____ I
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
Width/Depth Rati _____ 8.4 _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ 10.8 _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ 13.5 _____ _____ _____ I
_____ 11.6 _____ _____ _____ I
_____ 10.3 _____ _____ _____ I
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
BE Cross -sectional Area (ft' _____ 6.8 _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ 4.4 _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ 3.8 _____ _____ _____ I
_____ 3.5 _____ _____ _____ I
_____ 3.3 _____ _____ _____ I
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
BE Max Depth (ft) _____ 1.2 _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ 1.2 _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ 1.0 _____ _____ _____ I
_____ 1.1 _____ _____ _____ I
_____ 1.0 _____ _____ _____ I
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
Width ofFloodprone Area (ft _____ 49.9 _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ 49.9 _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ 49.9 _____ _____ _____ I
_____ 49.9 _____ _____ _____ I
_____ 49.9 _____ _____ _____ I
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
EntrenchmentRati _____ 6.6 _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ 6.6 _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ 6.6 _____ _____ _____ I
_____ 7.8 _____ _____ _____ I
_____ 8.5 _____ _____ _____ I
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
Bank Height Rati _____ 1.0 _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ 1.0 _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ 0.8 _____ _____ _____ I
_____ 0.8 _____ _____ _____ I
_____ 0.9 _____ _____ _____ I
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
Profile
Rillle Length (ft _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____
Rifle Slope (ft/ft
_____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____
PoolL®gth (ft
_____ _____ _____Pool _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____
T_____ _____ _____ _____ _____
Spacing(ft_____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____Pool _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____
Max Depth (ft_____________________________________________
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Radius of Curvature (ft
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Re Bankfiill width (ft/ft
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Meander Wavelength (ft
_____
Meander Width Rati
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (S
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____
_____ ____ _ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
RosgenClassiftcatio
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____
BEVelocity (fps
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ ____ _ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
BEDischarge (cfs
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
Valley L®g
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- -----_____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
ChannelThalweg Length (ft
_____ _____
Sinuosity (ft
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ ____ _ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
WaterSurface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
BEslope (WI
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
Bankfiill Floodplain Area (acres
_____
ChannelStability or Habitat Metri
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
Biological or Othe
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____
Nate: Per DMS/1RT request, the bank height naio for MY5 has been calculated using the baakfll elevation as determined from the as -built bankfull -All other values were calculated using the original a 1a ilt bankfull e1,vam, as was done for previous monitoring repmts.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96074)

Table llb. Stream Reach Morphology Summary
Thomas Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 96074
Reach 6 (1,776 LF)
Parameter Baseline
MY-1
MY-2
MY-3
MY-5
MI
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Min Mean Med Max SO n
Min Me- Med Max SO n
Min Mean Med Max SO n
Min Mean Med Max SO n
Min Mean Med Max SD n
Min Mean Med Max SO n
BE Width (ft) _____ 6.3 _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ 4.1 _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ 4.1 _____ _____ _____ I
_____ 3.7 _____ _____ _____ I
_____ 4.2 _____ _____ _____ I
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
BE Mean Depth (ft) _____ 0.3 _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ 0.3 _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ 0.2 _____ _____ _____ I
_____ 0.2 _____ _____ _____ I
_____ 0.3 _____ _____ _____ I
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
Width/Depth Rati _____ 18.7 _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ 16.1 _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ 19.5 _____ _____ _____ I
_____ 15.5 _____ _____ _____ I
_____ 13.8 _____ _____ _____ 1
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
BE Cross -sectional Area (ft' _____ 2.1 _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ 1.1 _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ 0.8 _____ _____ _____ I
_____ 0.9 _____ _____ _____ I
_____ 1.3 _____ _____ _____ I
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
BE Max Depth (ft) _____ 0.6 _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ 0.5 _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ 0.4 _____ _____ _____ I
_____ 0.4 _____ _____ _____ 1
_____ 0.4 _____ _____ _____ I
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
Width ofFloodprone Area (ft _____ 19.4 _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ 17.6 _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ 16.0 _____ _____ _____ I
_____ 16.9 _____ _____ _____ I
_____ 16.4 _____ _____ _____ I
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
EntrenchmentRati _____ 3.1 _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ 3.2 _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ 3.2 _____ _____ _____ I
_____ 4.5 _____ _____ _____ I
_____ 3.9 _____ _____ _____ I
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
Bank Height Rati _____ 0.8 _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ 0.6 _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ 0.7 _____ _____ _____ I
_____ 0.7 _____ _____ _____ I
_____ 0.8 _____ _____ _____ I
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
Profile
11111111
RifteLength (ft _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
RifteSlope (ft/ft _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
___ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
PoolL®gth (_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
Pool
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____
PoolSpacing (_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
P
Pool Max Depth (ft]
ool
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____
_____
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Radius of Curvature (ft
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Re Bankfiill width (ft/ft
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Meander Wavelength (ft
_____
Meander Width Rati
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (S
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____
_____ ____ _ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
RosgenClassiftcatio
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____
BEVelocity (fps
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ ____ _ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
BEDischarge (cfs
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
Valley L®g
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- -----_____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
ChannelThalweg Length (ft
_____ _____
Sinuosity (ft
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ ____ _ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
WaterSurface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
BEslope (WI
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
Bankfiill Floodplain Area (acres
___
ChannelStability or Habitat Morn_____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
Biological or Othe
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____
Nate: Per DMS/1RT request, the bank height naio for MY5 has been calculated using the baakfll elevation as determined from the as -built bankfull -All other values were calculated using the original a 1a ilt bankfull e1,vam, as was done for previous monitoring repmts.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96074)

Table llb. Stream Reach Morphology Summary
Thomas Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 96074
Reach Tl (227 LF)
Parameter Baseline
MY-1
MY-2
W
MY-5
MY-7
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Min Mean Med Max SO n
Min Mean Mod Max SO n
Min Mean Mod Max SO n
Min Mean Med Max SO n
Min Mean Mod Max SO n
Min Mean Med Max SO n
BE Width (ft) _____ 8.5 _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ 6.8 _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ 6.9 _____ _____ _____ 1
_____ 6.7 _____ _____ _____ 1
_____ 6.5 _____ _____ _____ 1
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
BE Mean Depth (ft) ____ 0.6 _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ 0.5 _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ 0.4 _____ _____ _____ 1
_____ 0.4 _____ _____ _____ 1
_____ 0.4 _____ _____ _____ 1
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
Width/Depth Rati ____ 13.6 _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ 13.8 _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ 16.0 _____ _____ _____ 1
_____ 15.0 _____ _____ _____ 1
_____ 18.7 _____ _____ _____ 1
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
BE Cross -sectional Area (ft, ____ 5.3 _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ 3.4 _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ 3.0 _____ _____ _____ 1
_____ 3.0 _____ _____ _____ 1
_____ 2.3 _____ _____ _____ 1
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
BE Max Depth (ft) _____ 0.9 _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ 0.8 _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ 0.7 _____ _____ _____ 1
_____ 0.6 _____ _____ _____ 1
_____ 0.5 _____ _____ _____ 1
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
Width ofFloodprone Area (ft _____ 30.6 _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ 28.2 _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ 27.1 _____ _____ _____ 1
_____ 26.7 _____ _____ _____ 1
_____ 25.0 _____ _____ _____ 1
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
EntrenclunentRati _____ 3.6 _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ 3.7 _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ 3.7 _____ _____ _____ 1
_____ 4.0 _____ _____ _____ 1
_____ 3.8 _____ _____ _____ 1
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
Bank Height Rati _____ 1.0 _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ 1.2 _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ 0.9 _____ _____ _____ 1
_____ 0.9 _____ _____ _____ 1
_____ 0.9 _____ _____ _____ 1
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
Profile
Length (8 _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
Rifte_____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
RifteSlope (ft/ft _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
PoolLength (ft _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
Pool
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____
PoolSpacing (ft _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
PoolMax Depth (ft _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Radius of Curvature (ft
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Re Bankfiill width (ft/ft
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Meander Wavelength (ft
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
Meander Width Rati
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Additional Reach Parameters
DrainageArea (S
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ ____ _ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
RosgenClassiftcatio
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ ____ _ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
BEVelocity (fps
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ ____ _ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
BEDischazge (cfs
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
Valley Leng
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- -----_____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
ChannelThalweg Length (ft
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
Sinuosity(ft
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ ____ _ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
WaterSurface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
BEslope (WI
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
BankfiillFloodplain Area (acres
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
ChannelStability or Habitat Metri
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
Biological or Othe
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____
Nate: Pe, DMSART,.quest, the bank height -io fo, MY5 has been calculated using the baakfull elevation as determined from the as -built bankfull -All other values were calculated using the original a 1a ilt bankfull e1,vam, as was done fo, previous monitoring ,pmt,.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96074)

Appendix E
Hydrologic Data

Figure 8. Flow Gauge Graphs
Thomas Creek Daily Rain
01/01/2020 02/15/2020 03/31/2020 05/15/2020 06/29/2020 08/13/2020 09/27/2020 11/11/2020 12/26/2020
0.0
�v
C 1.0
T 2.0
.ia
❑ 3.0
Thomas Creek Reach 2
In -Channel Flow Gauge TMCK FL1
2.00
1.90
1.80
1.70
1.50
Y 1.40
w
1.30
�
O. 1.20
1.10
i 1.00
a) 0.90
M
0.80
a)0.70
0.60
w
0.50
7
N 0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
01 /01 /2020 03/31 /2020 06/29/2020 09/27/2020 12/26/2020
Date
Years Maximum Flow
Measurement = 1.96' on
—TMCK FL1
0.02 feet (0.25 inches)
* Surface water flaw is estimated to have occurred when the pressure transducer reading is equal to or above 0.02 feet (0.25 inches) in depth.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DIMS PROJECT NO. 96074)

Thomas Creek Daily Rain
01/01/2020 02/15/2020 03/31/2020 05/15/2020 06/29/2020 08/13/2020 09/27/2020 11/11/2020 12/26/2020
a
a 1.0
T
2.0
p 3.0
Thomas Creek Reach 5
2.20
2.10
2.00
1.90
1.80
1.70
1.60
1.50
1.40
C 1.30
❑ 1.20
1.10
1.00
?� 0.90
y 0.80
0.70
i 0.60
N
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
01 /01 /2020 03/31 /2020 06/29/2020 09/27/2020 12/26/2020
Date
* Surface water flow is estimated to have occurred when the pressure transducer reading is equal to or above 0.02 feet (0.25 inches) in depth.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96074)

Figure 9. Observed Rainfall Versus Historic Averages
Thomas Creek Restoration Project MY5
Observed Rainfall versus Historic Averages
10.0
8.0
6.0
It
4.0
U
a
2.0
0.0
+Wake County Historic Average (43.8 in) +Historic 30%Probable (28.6 in)
— Historic 70%Probable (52.5 in) —i--Observed Project Rainfall (59.5 in)
i
i
�
i
�
Note: Historic average annual rainfall for Wake County is 43.8", while the observed project rainfall recorded a total of 59.5" over the
previous 12 months (from 10/1/2019 to 9/31/2020). Project rainfall data was collected from the NC-CRONOS station LAKE.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEKSTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO.96074)

Table 12. Verification of Bankfull Events
Thomas Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 96074
Date of Data
Collection
Reach 2 Crest
Gauge (feet)
Estimated Occurrence of Bankfull Event
Method of Data Collection
Year 1 Monitoring (2016)
10/27/2016 1.1
10/8/2016 (Hurricane Matthew)
Crest Gauge, Flow Gauge
MI Year 2 Monitoring (2017)
05/02/2017 0.21
4/25/2017 (3.2" rain event)
Crest Gauge, Flow Gauge
Year 3 Monitoring (2018)
04/23/2018
0.97
4/15/2018 (1.8" rain event)
Crest Gauge, Flow Gauge
10/10/2018
1.49
9/15-17/2018 (6.1" from Hurricane Florence)
Crest Gauge, Flow Gauge
Year 4 Monitoring (2019)
04/25/2019
0.89
4/19/2019 (0.71" rain event)
Crest Gauge, Flow Gauge
Year 5 Monitoring (2020)
02/21/2020
0.98
2/6/20 (3.1" rain event)
Crest Gauge, Flow Gauge
Note: Crest gauge readings can be corroborated with associated spikes in the flow gauge reading graphs (see Appendix E).
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96074)

Table 13. Flow Gauge Success
Thomas Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 96074
Flow Gauge ID
Most Consecutive Days Meeting Criteria'
Cumulative Days Meeting Criteria
Year 1
(2016)
Year 2
(2017)
Year 3
(2018)
Year 4
(2019)
Year 5
(2020)
Year 6
(2021)
Year 7
(2022)
Year 1
(2016)
Year 2
(2017)
Year 3
(2018)
Year 4
(2019)
Year 5
(2020)
Year 6
(2021)
Year 7
(2022)
Reach 2 Flow Gauge #1 (Installed March 30, 2016)
TCFL1
229
248
357
179
129*
229
248
357
240
129*
Reach 5 Flow Gauge #2 (Installed March 30, 2016)
TCFL2
126
138
82
94
295
182
218
204
191
295
Notes:
* Flow Gauge #1 failed on 5/8/20 and will be replaced before the start of MY6
`Indicates the single greatest number of consecutive days within the monitoring year where flow was measured.
2Indicates the total number of days within the monitoring year where flow was measured.
Success Criteria: A restored stream reach will be considered at least intermittent when the flow duration occurs for a minimum of 30 consecutive days during the
monitoring year.
Surface water flow is estimated to have occurred when the pressure transducer reading is equal to or above 0.02 feet (0.25 inches) in depth.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96074)