20141259 Ver 1_Year 5 Monitoring Report_2020_20210202

ID#* 20141259 Version* 1
Select Reviewer:*
Erin Davis
Initial Review Completed Date 02/02/2021
Mitigation Project Submittal - 2/2/2021
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site?* O Yes a No
Type of Mitigation Project:*
rJ Stream r Wetlands [Buffer ❑ Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name:*
Harry Tsomides
Project Information
...................................................................................
ID#:* 20141259
Existing IDY
Project Type:
Project Name:
County:
r DMS r Mitigation Bank
Town Creek
Stanly
Document Information
Email Address:*
[e-mail]
Version: * 1
Existing Version
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Closeout Report
File Upload: TownCreek_95026_MY5_2020.pdf 32.78MB
Rease upload only one RDF of the conplete file that needs to be subrritted...
Signature
Print Name:* Harry Tsomides
Signature:*

Town Creek Restoration Project — Option B
Final Monitoring Report/Closeout Report
Stanly County, North Carolina
DMS Project ID Number — 95026; NC DEQ Contract No. 003990
Yadkin Pee -Dee River Basin: 03040105060040
Project Info: Monitoring Year: 5 of 5
Year of Data Collection: 2020
Year of Completed Construction: 2016
Submission Date: January 2021
Submitted To: NCDEQ — Division of Mitigation Services
1625 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
NCDEQ Contract ID No. 003990

We Make a Difference
INTERNATIONAL
January 15, 2021
Harry Tsomides, Project Manager
NCDEQ - Division of Mitigation Services
5 Ravenscroft Drive, Ste. 102
Asheville, NC 28801
Subject: Task 9: Annual Final Monitoring Report/Closeout Report - Monitoring Year 5 & Response
to Comments
Town Creek Restoration Project - Option B
Yadkin River Basin - CU4 03040105 - Stanly County, NC
NCDMS Project ID No. 95026; NCDEQ Contract No. 003990
Dear Mr. Tsomides:
Please find enclosed the Final Year 5 Monitoring Report/Closeout Report and our responses to the Division
of Mitigation Services (DMS) review comments received on January 15th, 2021 regarding the Town Creek
Restoration Project - Option B, located in Stanly County, NC. We have revised Final Year 5 Monitoring
Document in response to the referenced review comments. Each response has been grouped with its
corresponding comment and is outlined below.
Comment - This report will serve as the 2021 close out report since it is being proposed for close out. If
Baker wishes to add anything to the report it considers pertinent to close out, please do so and explain in
the responses. Please indicate on the cover page that this is an MY5/Close Out Report. Stream
morphological, hydrological and vegetative data for all 5 years should be included.
Response - MY5 Report has been revised to include stream morphological, hydrological and vegetative
data from all 5 years of monitoring to serve as a monitoring report and close out report.
Comment - Please update the asset table to the current version (attached to this email), including
significant digits. Please note that the second part of Table 1 should be a project credits table rather
than a component summation table.
Response - Table I has been revised per DMS request.
Comment - Supplemental planting is noted on the CCPVs but not in Table 2, Project Activities. Please
update the table accordingly. In addition, please include the 2020 invasive treatment in the table (not
necessary to include in the maps since you indicated the occurrences were below the mapping
threshold).
Response - Revisions have been made per DMS request.
Digital suIport file comments
Comment - Please submit the features that characterize the cross sections, crest gauge, and in -
stream pressure transducers in Figs. 2A-2B.
MBAKERINTL.COM
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
Ballantyne One,157Zo Brixham Hill Avenue, Suite 300; Office 336
Charlotte, NC 282771 Off ice:704.665.2200

We Make o Difference
Response — Shapefiles that characterize the cross sections, crest gauge, and flow gauges have been added
per DMS request.
Comment - Please submit photos as JPEG's
Response — Revisions have been made per DMS request.
Comment - There are 75 photo points contained in the digital submission, but only 43 points in the
CCPV, which has been the case since the as -built. The unique ID's included in the submitted shapefile
also do not appear to match the CCPV. It looks like the submitted shapefile may contain points for
cross section and veg photos as well. Please update this shapefile and resubmit so that the spatial
data reflects only the photo stations in the CCPV with matching unique ID's.
Response — The Shapefile including the unique ID's and the correct amount of photo points have been
added to the digital submission file as requested.
Comment - Please be sure that all BHR calculations are using MY5 data. For example, XS4 is using
the MY4 LTOB elevation. When using the MY5 LTOB elevation, the BHR is 1.12. Please also ensure
that any footnotes are updated to include the proper elevations.
Response — Revisions have been made per DMS request.
If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me at [phone] or via my email
address at Andrew.Powers&mbakerintl.com.
Sincerely,
Andrew Powers
Environmental Associate
Cc: File

Town Creek Restoration Project — Option B
Year 5 Monitoring Report/Closeout Report
Stanly County, North Carolina
DMS Project ID Number — 95026; NC DEQ Contract No. 003990
SAW-2014-00016; DWR#14-1259 V2
Yadkin Pee -Dee River Basin: 03040105060040
Report Prepared and Submitted by Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
NC Professional Engineering License 4 F-1084
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
Cary, NC 27518
INTERNATIONAL
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026 i
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - 2020, YEAR 5 OF 5

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................I
2.0 METHODOLOGY.........................................................................................2
2.1 Stream Monitoring.......................................................................................................... 3
2.1.1 Morphologic Parameters and Channel Stability...................................................................................3
2.1.1.1 Dimension.......................................................................................................................................3
2.1.1.2 Longitudinal Profile........................................................................................................................3
2.1.1.3 Substrate and Sediment Transport ...................................................................................................3
2.1.2 Stream Hydrology....................................................................................................................................4
2.1.2.1 Bankfull Events...............................................................................................................................4
2.1.2.2 Flow Documentation.......................................................................................................................4
2.1.3 Photographic Documentation of Site.....................................................................................................4
2.1.3.1 Lateral Reference Photos....................................................................................................................4
2.1.3.2 Longitudinal Station Photos...............................................................................................................4
2.1.4 Visual Assessment....................................................................................................................................5
2.2 Vegetation Monitoring................................................................................................... 5
3.0 REFERENCES...............................................................................................6
APPENDICES
Appendix A Project Vicinity Map and Background Tables
Figure 1 Vicinity Map and Directions
Table 1 Project Mitigation Components
Table 2 Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3 Project Contacts
Table 4 Project Attribute
Appendix B Visual Assessment Data
Figure 2 Current Condition Plan View (CCPV)
Table 5a-e Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Table 5f Stream Problem Areas
Table 6a Vegetation Condition Assessment
Table 6b Vegetation Problem Areas
Stream Station Photos
Before and After Photos (MYO and MY5)
Appendix C Vegetation Plot Data
Table 7 Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Table 8 CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Table 9 CVS Stem Count of Planted Stems by Plot and Species
Vegetation Plot Photos
Appendix D Stream Survey Data
Figure 3 Year 5 Cross -sections with Annual Overlays
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026 ii
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - 2020, YEAR 5 OF 5

Figure
4
Riffle Pebble Count Size Class Distribution with Annual
Overlays
Table
10
Baseline Stream Summary
Table
1la
Cross-section Morphology Data
Table
1lb
Stream Reach Morphology Data
Appendix E Hydrologic Data
Figure
5a-b
In -stream Flow Gauge Graphs
Figure
6
Monthly Rainfall Data
Table
12
Verification of Bankfull Events
Table
13
Verification of In -stream Flow Conditions
Hydrologic Data Photos
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - 2020, YEAR 5 OF 5

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. (Michael Baker) restored 2,760 linear feet (LF) and enhanced approximately
943 LF of jurisdictional stream along UT to Town Creek. This report documents and presents the Year 5
monitoring data as required during the five-year monitoring period.
The primary restoration goals of the project are described below:
• Create geomorphically stable conditions along the channels,
• Enhance hydrologic connections between streams and the degraded riparian buffer and overall
ecosystem functionality;
• Restore and protect riparian buffer functions and corridor habitat in perpetuity by establishing a
permanent conservation easement.
• Improve terrestrial habitat and reduce sediment and nutrient loading to the project reaches and the Little
Long Creek Watershed.
To accomplish these goals, the following objectives were identified:
• Restore existing incised, eroding, and channelized streams by creating a stable stream channel with
access to its floodplain,
• Improve in -stream habitat by providing a more diverse bedform with riffles and pools, creating deeper
pools and areas of water re -aeration, and reducing bank erosion,
• Prevent cattle from accessing the project boundary by installing permanent fencing and thus reduce
excessive bank erosion and undesired nutrient inputs,
• Plant native species riparian buffer vegetation along stream bank and floodplain areas, protected by a
permanent conservation easement, to increase stormwater runoff filtering capacity, improve bank
stability, and shade the stream to decrease water temperature,
• Control invasive species vegetation within the project area and, if necessary, continue treatments during
the monitoring period.
The Town Creek Restoration Project — Option B (Site) is located in Stanly County, approximately 1.5 miles
west of the Town of New London, within cataloging unit 03040105 of the Yadkin Pee -Dee River Basin. The
Site is located in a North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS) - Targeted Local Watershed (HUC
03040105060-040). Directions to the Project Site can be found in Figure 1 of Appendix A.
During Year 5 monitoring, the planted acreage performance categories were functioning at over 90 percent with
no bare areas and no low stem density. The VPA 4-1 and VPA 4-2 reported in year 4 monitoring report were
addressed by planting thirty 3 gallon container trees in January 2020 that will thrive in the specific areas and
conditions. For the dryer upland areas we planted Sycamore, Green ash, Willow oak, and White oak. The
species planted in VPA 4-2 were Swamp chestnut oak, Black gum and Water oak, as the area is very wet soil.
No invasive species areas of concern, exceeding the mapping threshold were documented. Areas of invasive
encroachment have been treated with the proper herbicidal application method over the 2020 winter/spring
months.
Based on data collected from the eight monitoring plots during Year 5 monitoring, the average density of total
planted stems per plot ranges from 324 to 607 stems per acre with a tract mean of 486 stems per acre. Therefore,
the Year 5 data demonstrate that the Site has exceeded the minimum interim success criteria of 260 trees per
acre by the end of Year 5. The presence of volunteer woody vegetation was noted in VP1, VP5, VP6 and VP7;
however, these species were not included in the average vegetation plot data densities. Vegetation stem counts
are summarized in Tables 7 and 9 of Appendix C.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - 2020, YEAR 5 OF 5

The thirteen (13) permanent cross -sections located throughout the Site show minimal adjustment to stream
dimension since Monitoring Year 4. Since construction, fine sediment has been moving through the system as
expected causing the cross sections over time to appear to be filling in slowly. However, with site inspections
and photo points it is clear that the stream bed and banks are stable. In addition, Tables 5a through 5f (Appendix
B) indicate the Site has remained geomorphically stable with lateral/vertical stability and in -stream structure
performance of 100% on all stream reaches and no noted areas of bank scour and/or erosion around structures.
Visual observations and a review of pebble count data collected indicated that stream is sufficiently moving
fines through the system. Riffles are comprised of a mix of substrates with the bed material continuing to move
towards a mix of coarser substrates. Cross -sectional and pebble count data are provided in Figures 3 and 4,
respectively, in Appendix D.
In -stream pressure transducers, TC FL1 and TC FL2, were installed on Reach 1 to document intermittent flow
conditions throughout the monitoring year. Since post -construction installation, each gauge has documented at
least one period of consecutive stream flow for the required minimum of 30 days for all five monitoring years
so far, with a maximum of 202 consecutive days for TC FL1 and 214 consecutive days for TC FL2 this year.
Due to a data logger failure TC FL did not capture data from 1/01/2020 to 2/01/2020, this failure did not have
any effect on the success of the stream flow for this year. Figures 5a and 5b in Appendix E, depict the
documented flow conditions for each gauge from installation through Monitoring Year 5 relative to local
rainfall data, while Table 13 documents both the total cumulative days of flow and the maximum number of
consecutives days of flow.
At least one post -construction bankfull events occurred during Monitoring Year 5, with a recorded event at 1.01
feet above bankfull. By using the flow gauge data, along with the rain data the over bankfull even occurred on
May 21st. Nine or more bankfull events have been documented spread across the five years of monitoring since
construction, thus the site has met the two bankfull flow events have been documented in separate years.
Documentation of the event is in Table 12 of Appendix E.
The past five monitoring years have proven that the site has met success criteria for; vegetation, stream flow,
and channel bank stability. The Vegetation plots data shows that over the 5 years there is consistent vegetation
density, height, and vigor throughout the site. The asbuilt stem density averaged 804 stems/acre where in 5
years the stem density averaged at 486 stems/acre. This meets the closeout success criteria and proves that the
site has established vegetation. The stream flow gauges on reaches 1 and 2 have meet success criteria 5 out of
5 years. Lastly, the cross sections throughout the 5 monitoring years shows channel stability with no incision
and erosion. Photos of MYO and MY5 located in appendix B shows the stream stability and vegetation
establishment. These photos also show that the stream has performed as designed.
Summary information/data related to the Site and statistics related to performance of various project and
monitoring elements can be found in the tables and figures in the report Appendices. Narrative background and
supporting information formerly found in these reports can be found in the Baseline Monitoring Report and in
the Mitigation Plan available on the NCDMS' website. All raw data supporting the tables and figures in the
appendices is available from NCDMS upon request.
2.0 METHODOLOGY
The five-year monitoring plan for the Site includes criteria to evaluate the success of the stream and vegetation
components of the project. Monitoring methods used will follow the NCDMS Monitoring Report Template,
Version 1.30 — 1115110 and are based on the design approaches and overall project goals. To evaluate success
criteria associated with a geomorphically stable channel, hydrologic connectivity, and aquatic habitat diversity,
geomorphic monitoring methods will be conducted for project reaches that involve Restoration and
Enhancement Level I mitigation. The specific locations of monitoring features, such as vegetation plots,
permanent cross -sections, reference photograph stations and crest gauges, are shown on the CCPV sheets found
in Figure 2 of Appendix B.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - 2020, YEAR 5 OF 5

Stream survey data were collected to meet the requirements for a topographic ground survey to the accuracy of
Class C Vertical and Class A Horizontal (21 NCAC-56 section .1606) and was geo-referenced to the NAD83
State Plane Coordinate System, FIPS3200 in US Survey Feet, which was derived from the Town Creek
Restoration Project Option B's As -built Survey.
2.1 Stream Monitoring
Geomorphic monitoring of the Restoration and Enhancement Level I reaches has been conducted once a year
for a minimum of five years following the completion of construction. These activities evaluate the success
criteria associated with a geomorphically stable channel, hydrologic connectivity, and aquatic habitat diversity.
The stream parameters monitored include stream dimension (cross -sections), pattern (planimetric survey),
profile (longitudinal profile survey), visual observation with photographic documentation, and documentation
of bank full events. Additionally, monitoring methods for all reaches included those described under Photo
Documentation of Site, Visual Assessment, and Vegetation Monitoring. The methods used and related success
criteria are described below for each parameter. Figure 2 shows approximate locations of the proposed
monitoring devices throughout the project site.
2.1.1 Morphologic Parameters and Channel Stability
2.1.1.1 Dimension
A total of thirteen (13) permanent cross -sections, nine (9) riffles and four (4) pools, were installed
throughout the entire project area. Cross -sections selected for monitoring included representative riffle
and pool facets for each of the three project reaches, Reach 2, 3, and 5, which implemented at least 500
linear feet of Restoration or Enhancement I activities.
Each cross-section was marked on both banks with permanent pins to establish the exact transect used.
A common benchmark was also chosen to consistently reference and facilitate the comparison of year-
to-year data. The cross -sectional surveys have been conducted annually and include measurements of
Bank Height Ratio (BHR) and Entrenchment Ratio (ER). The monitoring survey includes points
measured at all breaks in slope, including top of stream banks, bankfull, inner berm, edge of water, and
thalweg, if the features are present. Riffle cross -sections are classified using the Rosgen Stream
Classification System (Rosgen 1994), and all monitored cross -sections should fall within the
quantitative parameters defined for channels of the design stream type.
There should be little change in annual cross -sectional surveys from those collected during the post -
construction as -built survey. If changes do take place, they would be evaluated to determine if they
represent a movement toward a more unstable condition (e.g., down -cutting or erosion) or a movement
toward increased stability (e.g., settling, vegetative changes, deposition along the banks, or decrease in
width/depth ratio). Cross -sectional data is presented in Figure 3 of Appendix D.
2.1.1.2 Longitudinal Profile
A longitudinal profile was surveyed for the entire length of channel immediately after construction to
document as -built baseline conditions for the first year of monitoring only. The survey was tied to a
permanent benchmark and measurements included thalweg, water surface, bankfull, and top of low
bank. Each of these measurements were taken at the head of each feature (e.g., riffle, pool) and at the
maximum pool depth. Yearly longitudinal profiles were not be conducted during subsequent
monitoring years as no channel instability has been documented or remedial actions/repairs required by
the USACE or NCDMS.
2.1.1.3 Substrate and Sediment Transport
After construction, there should be minimal change in the pebble count data over time given the current
watershed conditions and sediment supply regime. A substrate sample was collected for each riffle
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - 2020, YEAR 5 OF 5

cross -sections where constructed riffles were installed (X1, X4, X5, X7, X9, X10, and X12). Samples
collected combined with evidence provided by changes in cross -sectional data and visual assessments
will reveal changes in sediment gradation that occur over time as the stream adjusts to upstream
sediment loads. Significant changes in sediment gradation were evaluated with respect to stream
stability and watershed changes. Bed material distribution data are located in Figure 4 of Appendix D.
2.1.2 Stream Hydrology
2.1.2.1 Bankfull Events
The occurrence of bankfull events within the monitoring period were documented using a crest gauge
and photographs. The crest gauge records the highest watermark between site visits, and the gauge was
checked at each site visit to determine if a bankfull event has occurred. The crest gauge was installed
the floodplain of Reach 5 within ten feet (horizontal) of the restored channel. Photographs was used to
document the occurrence of debris lines and sediment deposition on the floodplain during monitoring
site visits.
2.1.2.2 Flow Documentation
A combination of photographic and flow gauge data were collected from two in -stream pressure
transducers (TC FL1 and TC FL2) and a remote in -field camera that were installed on Reach 1.
Collected data will document that the restored intermittent stream system continues to exhibit base flow
for of at least 30 consecutive days throughout each monitoring year under normal climatic conditions.
In order to determine if rainfall amounts were normal for the given year, rainfall gauge data was
obtained from the nearest Stanly County weather station (CRONOS Database, NEWL — North Stanly
Middle School, if available) and compared to the average monthly rainfall amounts from the Stanly
County WETS Table (USDA 2018). If a normal year of precipitation had not occur during the first
five years of monitoring, flow conditions would continue to be monitored on the site until it documents
that the intermittent streams have been flowing during the appropriate times of the year.
Flow data and photographic documentation collected during Year 5 monitoring are located in
Appendix E.
2.1.3 Photographic Documentation of Site
Photographs were used to document restoration success visually. Reference stations and cross-section
photos were photographed during the as -built survey; this was repeated for at least five years following
construction. Reference photos were taken once a year, from a height of approximately five to six feet.
Permanent markers ensure that the same locations (and view directions) are utilized during each
monitoring period. Photographers made an effort to consistently maintain the same area in each photo
over time. Selected site photographs are shown in Appendix B for reference stations and Appendix D
for cross -sections.
2.1.3.1 Lateral Reference Photos
Reference photo transects were taken of the right and left banks at each permanent cross-section. A
survey tape was captured in most photographs which represents the cross-section line located
perpendicular to the channel flow. The water line was located in in the center of the photograph as
much as possible to capture bank, riparian and channel conditions.
2.1.3.2 Longitudinal Station Photos
Stream reaches were photographed longitudinally beginning at the upstream portion of the Site and
moving downstream. Photographs were taken looking both upstream and downstream at delineated
locations throughout the restored stream valley. The photograph points were established close enough
together to provide an overall view of the reach lengths, primary grade control structures, and valley
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - 2020, YEAR 5 OF 5

crenulations. The angle of the photo depends on what angle provided the best view, was noted and
continued each year. Site photographs are located in Appendix B.
2.1.4 Visual Assessment
Visual monitoring assessments of all stream sections was conducted by qualified personnel twice per
monitoring year with at least five months in between each site visit. Photographs were used to
document system performance and any areas of concern related to stream bank stability, condition of
in -stream structures, channel migration, aggradation/degradation, headcuts, live stake mortality,
impacts from invasive plant species or animal species, floodplain vegetative conditions, and condition
of pools and riffles. The photo locations are shown on a plan view map and descriptions are
documented as either stream problem areas (SPAS) or vegetative problem areas (VPAs) in there
associated monitoring assessment tables located in Appendix B as needed.
2.2 Vegetation Monitoring
To determine if the criteria are achieved, vegetation -monitoring quadrants were installed and monitored across
the restoration site in accordance with the CVS-NCEEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version 4.0 (Lee
2006). The vegetation monitoring plots are a minimum of 2 percent of the planted portion of the site with eight
plots established randomly within the planted riparian buffer areas. No monitoring quadrants were established
within the undisturbed wooded areas of the project area. The size of individual quadrants are 100 square meters
for woody tree species.
Level 1 CVS vegetation monitoring was conducted between spring, after leaf -out had occurred, and fall prior
to leaf fall. Individual quadrant data provided during subsequent monitoring events included species
composition, density, survival, and stem height. Relative values were calculated, and importance values were
determined. Individual seedlings were marked to ensure that they can be found in succeeding monitoring years.
Mortality was determined from the difference between the previous year's living, planted seedlings and the
current year's living, planted seedlings.
The interim measure of vegetative success for the site is the survival of at least 320, -year old, planted trees per
acre at the end of Year 5 of the monitoring period. The final vegetative success criteria are the survival of 260,
5-year old, planted trees per acre at the end of Year 5 of the monitoring period.
Photographs were used to visually document vegetation success in sample plots and are located in Appendix C.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - 2020, YEAR 5 OF 5

3.0 REFERENCES
Carolina Vegetation Survey (CVS) and NC Division of Mitigation Services (formerly NC Ecosystem
Enhancement Program). 2012. CVS-NCEEP Data Entry Tool v. 2.3.1. University of North Carolina, Raleigh,
NC.
Lee, M., Peet R., Roberts, S., Wentworth, T. 2006. CVS-NCEEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version
4.0.
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (formerly NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program). 2010.
Procedural Guidance and Content Requirements for EEP Monitoring Reports, v. 1.30, dated 1115110. Raleigh,
NC.
Rosgen, D. L. 1994. A Classification of Natural Rivers. Catena 22:169-199.
State Climate Office of North Carolina, 2020. CRONOS Database, North Stanly Middle School (MEWL),
Stanly County, NC. http://climate.ncsu.edu/cronos/?station=NEWL&temporal=sensormeta
United States Department of Agriculture, 2020. WETS Table. Climate Data for Stanly County, NC. Wets
Station: Albemarle, NC 0090, FIPS: 37167, 1971 - 2018. http:Hagacis.rcc-acis.org/
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - 2020, YEAR 5 OF 5

APPENDIX A
Project Vicinity Map and Background Tables

DIRECTIONS TO SITE FROM RALEIGH, NC:
Take 1-40 West toward Sanford/Wake Forest. Take Exit 293 (1-440/US-64 W/US-1) toward Sanford/Wake Forest. Keep left at the fork
toward US-1 S/US-64 W. Take Exit 293A for US-1 S/US-64 W toward Sanford/Asheboro. Keep left at the fork toward US-1 S/US-64 W.
Continue on US-1 S/US-64 W towards Apex/Sanford/Asheboro. Take exit 98B to merge onto US-64 W towards Pittsboro/Asheboro. After
62 miles, turn left onto Connector Rd. Turn right onto NC 49 S. After 28.4 miles, take a slight left onto N Main St. After 1.1 miles, turn left
onto Old Salisbury Rd. Follow Old Salisbury Rd. for approximately 2.0 miles to its intersection with Misenheimer Rd. / Steakhouse Rd. Go
through the intersection and continue on Old Salisbury Rd. for approximately 0.4 miles and the Project site is on the left accessed via
a paved driveway.
Q Ne49 The subject project site is an environmental restoration
Ri h ie site of the NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services (DMS)
and is encompassed by a recorded conservation
easement, but is bordered by land under private ownership.
Accessing the site may require traversing areas near or
along the easement boundary and therefore access by
c = the general public is not permitted. Access by authorized
personnel of state and federal agencies or their
designees/contractors involved in the development,
oversight and stewardship of the restoration site is
permitted within the terms and timeframes of their defined
roles. Any intended site visitation or activity by any
o person outside of these previously sanctioned roles
\ and activities requires prior coordination with DMS.
INTERNATIONAL
December 2020
0 1,500 3,000
Feet
1" = 3000'
Map Vicinity
J Project Site I
Stanly County, NC
LEGEND
— Streams
QProject Boundary
US Highways
— Roads
0 Major Waterways
0 Municipalities
Yadkin(03040105060-040)
Figure 1. Vicinity Map
Town Creek Restoration Site -
Option B
Stanly County, NC
NC DMS Project No. 95026
NC DEQ Contract No. 003990

Table 1. Project Mitigation Components
Town Creek Restoration Project - O tion B: DMS Project No ID. 95026
Project Component
Wetland Position
Existing Footage or
Restored Footage,
Creditable Footage,
Restoration
Aroach
Mitigation
Priority
Mitigation
Stationing
Notes/Comments
(reach ID, etc.)
and Hydro Type
Acreage
Acreage, or SF
Acreage, or SF*
Level
Credits
Level
Ratio X:1
Full Channel Restoration, Planted Buffer, Exclusion of Livestock, and
Reach 1
363
10+33 - 13+50
317
317.0
R
PI
1.000
317.000
Permanent Conservation Easement.
Dimension and Profile modified in keeping with reference, Planted Buffer,
Livestock Exclusion, Permanent Conservation Easement and a culverted farm
road crossing. The crossing lies within an easement break between Reach 2 and
Reach 2
737
13+50 - 20+61
711
711.0
EI
PIII
1.500
474.000
Reach 3. Due to stability issues along the crossing during construction, the
upstream face of the crossing extends into the easement by 6 feet. To account
for this encroachment Reach 2 ends at Station 20+61 to account for loss of
stream footalZe.
Full Channel Restoration, Planted Buffer, Exclusion of Livestock, and
Reach 3
1,849
20+87 - 37+08
1,621
1,621.0
R
PI
1.000
1,621.000
Permanent Conservation Easement.
Dimension and Profile modified in keeping with reference, Planted Buffer,
Reach 4
234
37+08 - 39+40
232
232.0
EI
PIII
1.500
154.667
Livestock Exclusion, Permanent Conservation Easement.
Full Channel Restoration, Planted Buffer, Exclusion of Livestock, Permanent
Conservation Easement and a culverted farm road crossing. The crossing lies
within an easement break that coincides with a 25-ft overhead powerline right -of -
Reach 5
849
39+40 - 47+87
847
815.0
R
PI
1.000
815.000
way. Due to stability issues along the crossing during construction, the upstream
and downstream faces of the crossing extend into the easement by a total of 7
feet. To account for the easement break and encroachment the creditable
footage has been reduced by 35 feet.
Wetland Group 1
WGl
Wetland Group 2
1WG21
Buffer Group 1 (BG1
Buffer Group 2 (BG2
Buffer Group 3 BG3
Length and Area Summations by Mitigation Category
Restoration Level
Stream
linear feet
Riparian Wetland
(acres)
Non -riparian
Wetland
acres
Credited Buffer
(square feet
Riverine
Non-Riverine
Restoration
2,753.000
Enhancement
Enhancement I
943.000
Enhancement 11
Creation
Preservation
High Quality Pres
Totals
3696.000
* Creditable footage reflects approved credit lengths as outlined in the project Mitigation Plan.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - 2020, YEAR 5 OF 5
Overall Assets Summary
Asset
Overall
Category
Credits
Stream 3,381.667
Genera I Note -The above cam pone nt to bl e is intended
to he a close cam piementtothe asset map. Each entry
in the above table should have clear distinction and
a ppropri ate sy m bology i n th e a sset m a p.
1- W etla nd G rou ps r e pre se nt poole d w ed a nd polygon s
in the map with the same wetland type an d restoration
level. If some of thewetland polygon s with in a group
a r e i n m e a n i ngful ly d iffere nt I a n d sca pe pas itions, soil
ty pe s or h ave d itte re nt cam m u n ity to rgets (a s e x a m pies),
th en furthe r segmentatl on in the table may be
warranted. Huffergroupsrepresent pooledbuffer
polygon swlth common restoration levels.
2- W etla nd Position a nd Hyd re Type - I n d i cat e s
Riparian Riverine, (RR), riparinan non-riverine(RNR) or
Non Rivcrinc(NR)
3- Restored Footage, Acreage or Squ are Feet (SF)
4 -Cr"itihlpFn tagp,ArrpagpnrSquarPfaPt-
creditibleanaunts after exclusion and reductions are
accountedfor, such as utiIityimpacts, crossings, single

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Town Creek Restoration Project - Option B: DMS Project No ID. 9.5026
Elapsed Time Since Grading/Planting Complete: 4 Years 9 Months
Number of Reporting Years: 5
Activity or Report
Scheduled
Completion
Data Collection
Complete
Actual Completion or
Delivery
Mitigation Plan Prepared
N/A
N/A
Aug-14
Mitigation Plan Amended
N/A
N/A
Oct-14
Mitigation Plan Approved
N/A
N/A
Feb-15
Final Design — (at least 90% complete)
N/A
N/A
Feb-15
Construction Begins
N/A
N/A
Oct-15
Temporary S&E mix applied to entire project area
N/A
N/A
Jan-16
Permanent seed mix applied to entire project area
Feb-16
N/A
Jan-16
Planting of live stakes
Feb-16
N/A
Mar-16
Planting of bare root trees
Feb-16
N/A
Mar-16
End of Construction
Feb-16
N/A
Jan-16
Survey of As -built conditions (Year 0 Monitoring -baseline)
Apr-16
May-16
Jun-16
Baseline Monitoring Report
May-16
Jun-16
Nov-16
Year 1 Stream Monitoring
-
Nov-16
Year 1 Vegetation Monitoring
-
Oct-16
Year 1 Monitoring Report
Dec-16
Dec-16
Jan-17
Year 2 Stream Monitoring
-
Nov-17
Year 2 Vegetation Monitoring
-
Nov-17
Year 2 Monitoring Report
Dec-17
Nov-17
Dec-17
Year 3 Stream Monitoring
-
Oct-18
Year 3 Vegetation Monitoring
-
Sep-18
Year 3 Monitoring Report
Dec-18
Nov-18
Dec-18
Year 4 Monitoring
Dec-19
Nov-19
Dec-19
Year 5 Stream Monitoring
-
Sep-20
Year 5 Vegetation Monitoring
-
Sep-20
Year 5 Invasive Treamtent
-
-
Apr-20
Year 5 Supplemental Planting
-
-
Jan-20
Year 5 Monitoring Report
Dec-20
Nov-20
Jan-21
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - 2020, YEAR 5 OF 5

Table 3. Project Contacts
Town Creek Restoration Project - Option B: DMS Project ID No. 95026
Designer
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
Cary, NC 27518
Contact:
Kathleen M. McKeithan, PE, Tel. [phone]
Construction Contractor
160 Walker Road
Wright Contracting, LLC.
Lawndale, NC 28090
Contact:
Joe Wright, Tel. [phone]
Planting Contractor
P.O. Box 458
H.J. Forest Service
Holly Ridge, NC 28445
Contact:
Matt Hitch, Tel. [phone]
Seeding Contractor
160 Walker Road
Wright Contracting, LLC.
Lawndale, NC 28090
Contact:
Joe Wright, Tel. [phone]
Seed Mix Sources
Green Resources, Tel. [phone]
Mellow Marsh Farm, Tel. [phone]
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Mellow Marsh Farm, Tel. [phone]
Foggy Mountain Nursery, Tel. [phone]
ArborGen, Tel. [phone]
Monitoring Performers
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
Cary, NC 27518
Contact:
Stream Monitoring Point of Contact
Andrew Powers, Tel. [phone]
Vegetation Monitoring Point of Contact
Andrew Powers, Tel. [phone]
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - 2020, YEAR 5 OF 5

Table 4. Project Attributes
Town Creek Restoration Project - Option B: DMS Project ID No. 95026
Project Information
Project Name
Town Creek Restoration Project - Option B
Project County
Stanly
Project Area (Acres)
11.97
Project Coordinates
35.434 N,-80.2421 W
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Region
Piedmont
Ecoregion
Carolina Slate Belt
Project River Basin
Yadkin - Pee Dee
USGS Hydrologic Unit Code 8- and 14-digit
03040105 / 03040105060-040
NCDWR Sub -basin for Project
03-07-13
Project Drainage Area (Acres)
134.8
Project Drainage Area Percent Impervious
<5%
CGIA Land Use Classification
2.01, 412 / Forest (40%) Agriculture (25%) Impervious Cover (7%)
Within Extent of DMS Watershed Plan
Lower Yadkin RBRP, 2009
WRC Class (Warm Cool Cold)
Warm
% Project Easement Fenced/Demarcated
100%
Beaver activity observed during design phase
INo activity observed
Reach Summa Information
Reach 1
Reach 2
Reach 3
Reach 4
Reach 5
Restored Length of Reach LF
317
711
1,621
232
822
Valley Classification os en
VII
VII
VII
VII
VII
Drainage Area acres
59.8
77.8
115.6
119.4
134.8
NCDWR Stream Identification Score
27.25
27.25 - 32.0
32
32
32
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
C, Index #: 13-17-31-1-1
Existing Morphological Description
(Rosgen stream type)
E4b: Incised,
unstable &
straight
E4: Incised,
unstable &
straight
C4: variable;
unstable
E4: Incised &
unstable
C4 and E4:
Incised &
straight
Evolutionary Trend
Eb4G413
E4G417413c
C4G4174C
E4Gc4174C
C4Gc4F4C
As -built Morphological Description
Ros en streamtype)
C4
C4
C4
C4
C4
Underlying Mapped Soils
BaD
BaD, BaF
BaF
BaF
OaA
Drainage Class
Well drained
Well drained
Well drained
Well drained
Moderately well
drained
Soil Hydric Status
Non-Hydric
Non-Hydric
Non-Hydric
Non-Hydric
Hydric
Average Channel Slope (ft/ft)
0.0181
0.0180
0.0122
0.0120
0.0128
FEMA Classification
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Native Vegetation Community
Piedmont Small Stream
Percent Composition of Exotic/Invasive
Vegetation
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Regulator
Considerations
Regulation
Applicable
Resolved
Supporting
Documentation
Waters of the United States — Section 404
Yes
Yes
Categorical Exclusion
Waters of the United States — Section 401
Yes
Yes
Categorical Exclusion
Endangered Species Act
Yes
Yes
Categorical Exclusion
Historic Preservation Act
Yes
Yes
Categorical Exclusion
Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA)
No
N/A
Categorical Exclusion
FEMA Flood lain Compliance
No
I
N/A
Categorical Exclusion
Essential Fisheries Habitat
No
N/A
Categorical Exclusion
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - 2020, YEAR 5 OF 5

APPENDIX B
Visual Assessment Data

t j
teach
Supplemental Planting (.12 ac) K
4 p
01
End Reach 1 / Begin Reach 2
(Station 13+50)
uw5
15w0 < � Ty a 1 1 •-
iF
Supplemental Planting (.13 ac) F
,aw5
9
• r�
25w0
f
..
Xs-6
® In -Stream Pressure Transducer
a
® Crest Gauge
-
Reach Boundary
Y
0 Photo Station
Station Markers
0 Vegetation Plots
v,
..
Supplemental Planting
°
Cross Section - Pool°
r
Cross Section - Riffle
Stream Top of Bank
Stream
-''"
a
6
Enhancement I
I
sows
Restoration
A,
+� Fencing
i'
Conservation Easement
1p
�°
'�'!�'��,• `,j'
NC'C n r for G r phi
Info i i
DMS Project No. 95026
North Carolina
0 62.5
125 N
Figure 2A
Date: November2020
Michael Baker
Division of
Feet
Current Condition Plan View
Monitoring Year: 5 of 5
Mitigation
Town Creek Restoration Project - Option B
I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L
Services
1" = 125'
Stanly County, NC
Drawn By: ADP
Sheet: 2 of 3

XS -7
PMPx_q'q!
-'\ xs-io
7
End ReachB—eqij _ jReach :15
(§t7afiU_H-3.94,�40,
37 XS-13
"o 38
'oo
In -Stream Pressure Transducer
471oo
Crest Gauge - End Reach 5
Reach Boundary
0 Photo Station
Station Markers
Vegetation Plots
Cross Section - Pool
Cross Section - Riffle
r.
Stream Top of Bank 'W*
42—
Stream
Enhancement I 'A
Restoration Lcr
r
Fencing
Conservation Easement
NC
IL
DMS Project No. 95026
North Carolina 0 62.5 125 N Figure 2113 Date: November 2020
Michael Baker Division of 111111E= Feet Current Condition Plan View Monitoring Year: 5 of 5
INTERNATIONAL 1" = 125' Mitigation Town Creek Restoration Project - Option B Drawn By: ADP
Services Stanly County, NC
Sheet: 3 of 3

Table 5a. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Town Creek Restoration Project - Option B: Project No. 95026
Reach ID Town Creek - Reach 1
Assessed Length LF 317
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub
Category
Metric
Number Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Total
Number
per As -Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody Veg.
e
Footage
with
Stabilizing
Woody Veg.
Adjusted %
for Stabilizing
Woody Veg.
1. Vertical
1. Aggradation
0
0
100%
2. Degradation
0
0
100%
Stability
2. Riffle
Condition
1. Texture/Substrate
8
8
100%
3. Pool
1. Depth
9
9
100%
1. Bed
2. Length
1 9
9
100%
Condition
1
4.Thalweg
1. Thalweg centering for riffle/run
8
8
100%
position
2. Thalweg centering for pool/glide
9
9
100%
1. Scoured
/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
simply from poor growth and/or scour
and erosion
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent
that mass wasting appears likely
0
0
100% o
0
0
100% 0
2. Bank
3. Mass
Wastin
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
1. Overall
Integifty
Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs
12
12
100%
2. Grade
Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill.
10
10
100%
3. Engineering
Structures
2a Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms
10
10
100%
3. Bank
Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent
of influence does not exceed 15%
12
12
100%
4. Habitat
I Pool forming structures maintaining —
Max Pool Depth
10
10
100%
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - 2020, YEAR 5 OF 5

Table 5b. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Town Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 95026
Reach ID Town Creek - Reach 2
Assessed Len th L 711
Major
Channel
Category
g rY
Channel Sub
Category
Metric
Number Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Total
Number
per As -Built
P
Number of
Unstable
Segments
g
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
�
% Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Wood Veg.
Y g•
Footage with
Stabilizing
Wood Ve .
Y g
Adjusted %
for Stabilizing
Wood Ve .
Y g
1. Vertical
1. Aggradation
0
0
100%
Stability
2. Degradation
0
0
100%
2. Riffle
Condition
1. Texture/Substrate
21
21
100%
1. Bed
3. Pool
Condition
1. D th
20
20
100%
2. Length
20
20
100%
4. Thalweg
1. Thalweg centering for riffle/run
21
21
100%
2. Thalweg centering for pool/glide
20
20
100%
position
1. Scoured
/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover
resulting simply from poor growth
and/or scour and erosion
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
2. Bank
2. Undercut
extent that mass wasting appears
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
likel
3. Mass
Was m
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
1. Overall
Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs
20
20
100%
2. Grade
Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill.
20
20
100%
2a Piping
Structures lacking any substantial
flow underneath sills or arms
20
20
100%
3. Engineering
Structures
3. Bank
Protection
Bank erosion within the structures
extent of influence does not exceed
15%
20
20
100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining
Max Pool Depth
20
20
100%
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - 2020, YEAR 5 OF 5

Table 5c. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Town Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 95026
Reach ID Town Creek - Reach 3
Assessed Len th 1,621
Major
Channel
Category
g
Channel Sub-
Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Total
Number
per As -Built
p
Number of
Unstable
Segments
g
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
g
%Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Wood Ve .
y g
Footage with
Stabilizing
Wood Ve .
y g
Adjusted %for
Stabilizing
Wood Ve .
y g
1. Vertical
1. Aggradation
0
0
100%
2. Degradation
0
0
100%
Stability
2. Riffle
Condition
1. Texture/Substrate
32
32
100%
1. Bed
3. Pool
Condition
1. Depth
32
32
100%
2. Length
32
32
100%
4. Thalweg
1. Thalweg centering for riffle/run
32
32
100%
position
2. Thalweg centering for pool/glide
32
32
o
100%
1. Scoured
/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover
resulting simply from poor growth
and/or scour and erosion
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
2. Bank
2. Undercut
extent that mass wasting appears
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
likely
3. Mass
Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
1. Overall
Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs
66
66
100%
2. Grade
Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill.
15
15
100%
P►►n
2a. pg
Structures lacking any substantial
flow underneath sills or arms
15
15
o
100/o
3. Engineering
Structures
3. Bank
Protection
Bank erosion within the structures
extent of influence does not exceed
15%
66
66
100%
r4Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining
Max Pool Depth
15
15
100%
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - 2020, YEAR 5 OF 5

Table 5d. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Town Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 95026
Reach II) Town Creek -Reach 4
Assessed Len th 232
Major
Channel
Category
g rY
Channel Sub -
Category
Metric
Number Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Total
Number
per As -Built
P
Number of
Unstable
Segments
g
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
g
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Wood Ve .
Y g
Footage with
Stabilizing
Wood Ve .
Y g
Adjusted % for
Stabilizing
Wood Ve .
Y g
1. Vertical
1. Aggradation
0
0
100%
2. Degradation
0
0
100%
Stability
2. Riffle
Condition
1. Texture/Substrate
4
4
100%
1. Bed
3. Pool
Condition
1. Depth
4
4
100%
2. Length
4
4
100%
4. Thalweg
1. Thalweg centering for riffle/run
4
4
100%
position
2. Thalweg centering for pool/glide
4
4
100%
1. Scoured
/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover
resulting simply from poor growth
and/or scour and erosion
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
2. Bank
2. Undercut
extent that mass wasting appears
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
,likely
3. Mass
Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
1. Overall
Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs
0
0
N/A
2. Grade
Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill.
0
0
N/A
3. Engineering
Structures
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial
flow underneath sills or arms
0
0
N/A
3. Bank
Protection
Bank erosion within the structures
extent of influence does not exceed
15%
0
0
N/A
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining —
Max Pool Depth
0
0
N/A
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - 2020, YEAR 5 OF 5

Table 5e. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Town Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 95026
Reach ID Town Creek -Reach 5
Assessed Lenath L 820
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub-
Category
Metric
Number Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Total
Number
per As -Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody Veg.
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody Veg.
Adjusted %
for Stabilizing
Woody Veg.
1. Vertical
1. Aggradation
0
0
100%
Stability
2. Degradation
0
0
100%
2. Riffle
Condition
1. Texture/Substrate
18
18
100%
3. Pool
1. Depth
16
16
100%
1. Bed
Condition
2. Length
16
16
100%
4. Thalweg
1. Thalweg centering for riffle/run
18
18
100%
2 Thalweg centering for pool/glide
16
16
100%
position
1. Scoured/
Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover
resulting simply from poor growth
and/or scour and erosion
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
2. Bank
3. Mass
Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
1. Overall
Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs
31
31
100%
2. Grade
Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill.
5
5
100%
3. Engineering
Structures
2aPiing
. pg
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms
5
5
o
100%
3. Bank
Protection
Bank erosion within the structures
extent of influence does not exceed
15%
31
31
100%
r4--Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining —
Max Pool Depth
5
5
1000%
rI
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - 2020, YEAR 5 OF 5

Table 5I. Stream Problem Areas
Town Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 95026
Town Creek Reach 1
Feature Issue
Station No.
Suspected Cause
Photo Number
No issues in Year 5
N/A
N/A
N/A
Town Creek Reach 2
Feature Issue
Station No.
Suspected Cause
Photo Number
No issues in Year 5
N/A
N/A
N/A
Town Creek Reach 3
Feature Issue
Station No.
Suspected Cause
Photo Number
No issues in Year 5
N/A
N/A
N/A
Town Creek Reach 4
Feature Issue
Station No.
Suspected Cause
Photo Number
No issues in Year 5
N/A
N/A
N/A
Town Creek Reach 5
Feature Issue
Station No.
Suspected Cause
Photo Number
No issues in Year 5
N/A
N/A
N/A
Note: The first digit in the Photo Number column references the monitoring year and the second digit references the problem area
or photo (which would be identical to a prior years problem area/photo number when persisting from a previous monitoring year).
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - 2020, YEAR 5 OF 5

Table 6a. Vegetation Condition Assessment
Town Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 95026
Reach ID Reaches 1 - 5
Planted Acreage 10.73
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
% of Planted
Low Vigor
Definitions
Threshold
Depiction
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous
1. Bare Areas
0.1 acres
N/A
0
0.00
0.0%
material.
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels
2. Low Stem Density Areas
0.1 acres
N/A
0
0.00
0.0%
based on MY4 or 5 stem count criteria.
Low Vigor
0
0.00
0.0%
3. Areas of Poor Growth Rates or
Areas with woody stems of a size class that are
0.25 acres
N/A
0
0.00
a
0.0/o
Vigor
obviously small given the monitoring year.
Cumulative Totall
0
1 0.00
1 0.0%
Easement Acreage 11.97
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
% of Easement
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Threshold
Depiction
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at
4. Invasive Areas of Concern
1000 SF
NA
0
0.00
0.0%
map scale).
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at
5. Easement Encroachment Areas
N/A
N/A
0
0.00
0.0%
map scale).
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - 2020, YEAR 5 OF 5

Table 6b. Vegetation Problem Areas
Town Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 95026
Reach 1
Feature Issue
Station No.
Suspected Cause
Photo Number
No Issues in Year 5.
N/A
N/A
-
Reach 2
Feature Issue
Station No.
Suspected Cause
Photo Number
No Issues in Year 5.
N/A
N/A
-
Reach 3
Feature Issue
Station No.
Suspected Cause
Photo Number
No Issues in Year 5.
N/A
N/A
-
Reach 4
Feature Issue
Station No.
Suspected Cause
Photo Number
No Issues in Year 5.
N/A
N/A
-
Reach 5
Feature Issue
Station No.
Suspected Cause
Photo Number
No Issues in Year 5.
N/A
N/A
-
*Note: The first digit in the Photo Number column references the monitoring year and the second digit references the problem area or photo (which would be
identical to a prior years problem area/photo number when persisting from a previous monitoring year).
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - 2020, YEAR 5 OF 5

.N
NZ,
V.
OK
y
Y p'y
s
v

ilsa �{ �� J►z
{ i 4
� i y
lK
- yr tilm 'AP'j..
{►�.1
r� i , ]+� Ilan a.r� (,o:•
le
It
i-
-101
w
5F y
{ /1
S
z' � ¢�'i99 tee=•
✓14 �I

PID 12: Station 17+75 — Upstream (10/15/20)
PID 14: Station 19+25 — Upstream (10/15/20)
PID 16: Station 20+70 — Upstream (10/15/20)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - 2020, YEAR 5 OF 5
PID 13: Station 18+75 — Upstream (10/15/20)
PID 15: Station 20+50 — Downstream
(10/15/20)

Town Creek — Reach 3
PID 17: Station 21+75 — Upstream (10/15/20)
PID 19: Station 23+60 — Upstream (10/15/20)
PID 21: Station 24+50 — Upstream (10/15/20)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - 2020, YEAR 5 OF 5
PID 18: Station 23+30 — Upstream (10/15/20)
PID 20: Station 23+60 — Left Bank (10/15/20)
PID 22: Station 25+50 — Upstream (10/15/20)

PID 23: Station 27+50 — Upstream (10/15/20)
c
PID 25: Station 28+35 — Right Floodplain
Rock Lined Channel (10/15/20)
PID 27: Station 29+80 — Downstream
(10/15/20)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - 2020, YEAR 5 OF 5
PID 24: Station 28+10 — Upstream (10/15/20)
PID 26: Station 28+90 — Upstream (10/15/20)
PID 28: Station 31+40 — Upstream (10/15/20)

Y
PID 29: Station 33+00 — Upstream (10/15/2o
PID 30: Station 33+45 — Downstream
(10/15/20)
PID 31: Station 35+50 — Upstream (10/15/20) PID 32: Station 36+90 — Upstream (10/15/20
Town Creek — Reach 4
PID 33: Station 37+15—Downstream (10/15/20) PID 34: Station 39+05 — Upstream (10/15/20)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - 2020, YEAR 5 OF 5
PID 29: Station 33+00 — Upstream (10/15/2o
PID 30: Station 33+45 — Downstream
(10/15/20)
PID 31: Station 35+50 — Upstream (10/15/20) PID 32: Station 36+90 — Upstream (10/15/20
Town Creek — Reach 4
PID 33: Station 37+15—Downstream (10/15/20) PID 34: Station 39+05 — Upstream (10/15/20)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - 2020, YEAR 5 OF 5

Town Creek — Reach 5
PID 35: Station 42+00 — Downstream (10/15/20) PID 36: Station 43+25 — Downstream (10/15/20)
PID 37: Station 44+25 — Downstream (10/15/20)
PID 39: Station 45+50 —IIpstream (10/15/20)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - 2020, YEAR 5 OF 5
PID 38: Station 45+30 Downstream (10/15/20)
PID 40: Station 46+90 —IIpstream (10/15/20)

PID 41: Station 47+00 — Right Floodplain Rock
Lined Channel from Wetland (10/15/20)
PID 43: Station 48+05 — Downstream (10/15/20)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - 2020, YEAR 5 OF 5
AV
.1
PID 42: Station 47+75 — Upstream (10/15/20)

R

Before and After Photos (MY0 and MY5)
Reach 3 (MYO)
Reach 3 (MYO)
Reach 5 (MYO)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - 2020, YEAR 5 OF 5
A14
Reach 3 (MY5)
Reach 3 (MY5)
Reach 5 (MY5)

APPENDIX C
Vegetation Plot Data

Table 7. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Town Creek Restoration Project No. 95026
Wetland/Stream Vegetation Totals (per acre)
Stream/ Wetland
Success Criteria
Plot #
Stems'
Volunteers2
Total3
Met?
VPl
607
40
647
Yes
VP2
567
0
567
Yes
VP3
567
0
567
Yes
VP4
567
0
567
Yes
VP5
324
81
405
Yes
VP6
405
121
526
Yes
VP7
486
243
729
Yes
VP8
364
0
364
Yes
Project Avg
486
61
546
Yes
1Native planted woody stems. Includes shrubs, does NOT include live stakes. No vines
2Native woody stems. Not planted. No vines.
3Planted + volunteer native woody stems. Includes live stakes. Excl. exotics. Excl. vines.
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - 2020, YEAR 5 OF 5

Table 8. CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Town Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 95026
Report Prepared By Andrew Powers
Date Prepared 9/29/2020 9:26
database name 124526_TownCreek_cvs-eep-entrytool-v2.3.1_MY5.mdb
database location R:\124526_TownCreek\DISCI PLI N E\DISCI PLI N E\Docs\Reports\Monitoring\YR-5\App C - Vegetation Plot Data
computer name ASHEUYORK
file size 58146816
DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT------------
Metadata
Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a summary of project(s) and project data.
Proj, planted
Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre, for each year. This excludes live stakes.
Proj, total stems
Each project is listed with its TOTAL stems per acre, for each year. This includes live stakes, all planted stems, and all natural/volunteer stems.
Plots
List of plots surveyed with location and summary data (live stems, dead stems, missing, etc.).
Vigor
Frequency distribution of vigor classes for stems for all plots.
Vigor by Spp
Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species.
Damage
List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences and percent of total stems impacted by each.
Damage by Spp
Damage values tallied by type for each species.
Damage by Plot
Damage values tallied by type for each plot.
Planted Stems by Plot and Spp
A matrix of the count of PLANTED living stems of each species for each plot; dead and missing stems are excluded.
ALL Stems by Plot and spp
A matrix of the count of total living stems of each species (planted and natural volunteers combined) for each plot; dead and missing stems are excluded.
PROJECT SUMMARY---------
ProjectCode
project Name
Description
River Basin
length(ft)
stream -to -edge width (ft)
area (sq m)
Required Plots (calculated)
Sampled Plots
95026
Town Creek Restoration Project - Option B
Yadkin -Pee Dee
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - 2020, YEAR 5 OF 5

Table 9. CVS Stem Count of Planted Stems by Plot and Species
Town Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 95026
Current Plot Data (MY5 2020)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species
Type
95026-01-VPt
95026-01-VP2
95026-01-VP3
95026-01-VP4
95026-01-VP5
95026-01-VP6
95026-01-VP7
P
V
T
P
V
T
P
V
T
P
V
T
P
V
T
P
V
T
P
V
T
Asimina triloba
pawpaw
Tree
1
1
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
2
1
3
1
1
2
2
Callicarpa americana
American beautyberry
Shrub
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
Tree
1
1
2
2
Carya glabra
Pignut hickory
Tree
1
1
Cercis canadensis
eastern redbud
Tree
2
2
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
2
2
3
3
1
1
1
1
Diospyros virginiana
common persimmon
Tree
5
5
1
1
2
5
5
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
1
1
1
1
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
3
3
3
3
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
2
2
5
5
Quercus alba
white oak
Tree
Quercusfalcata
southern red oak
Tree
Quercus lyrata
overcup oak
Tree
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
1
1
2
2
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
Tree
2
2
1
1
1
1
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
5
5
7
7
3
3
11
11
3
3
3
3
4
4
Sambucus canadensis
Common Elderberry
Shrub
Sambucus nigra
European black elderberry
Shrub
Ulmus americana
American Elm
Tree
2
2
2
2
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
15
1
16
14
0
14
14
0
14
14
0
14
8
2
10
10
3
13
12
6
18
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
6
1
6
1 5
1 0
5
5 1 0
5
1 4
1 0
1 4
1 4 1 1
1 5
6
2
1 7
1 5
2
7
607
40
647
1 567
1 0
567
567 0
567
1 567
0
1 567
81
F1 405
1 405
1 121
r 526
1 486
1 243
1 728
Table 9. CVS Stem Count of Planted Stems by Plot and Species
Town Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 95026
Current Plot Data (MY5 2020)
Annual Means
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species
Type
95026-01-VP8
MY5 (2020)
MY4 (2019)
MY3 (2018)
MY2 (2017)
MY1 (2016)
MYO (2016)
P
V
T
P
V
T
P
V
T
P
V
T
P
V
T
P
V
T
P
V
T
Asimina triloba
pawpaw
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
2
2
7
1
8
7
7
8
8
9
9
8
8
12
12
Callicarpa americana
American beautyberry
Shrub
1
1
2
2
1
1
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
Tree
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
Cercis canadensis
eastern redbud
Tree
1
1
3
3
4
4
11
11
11
11
11
11
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
2
2
9
9
10
10
12
12
13
13
14
14
Diospyros virginiana
common persimmon
Tree
7
7
5
41
9
5
61
11
5
1 5
4
4
4
4
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
6
10
16
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
2
2
16
16
21
21
24
24
26
26
27
27
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
1
1
12
12
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
14
14
Quercus alba
white oak
Tree
5
5
12
12
1
1
4
4
3
3
Quercusfalcata
southern red oak
Tree
2
2
5
5
Quercus lyrata
overcup oak
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
3
3
5
5
5
5
8
8
9
9
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
Tree
3
3
5
5
5
5
8
8
8
8
6
6
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
4
4
39
39
41
1
42
44
44
43
43
47
47
Sambucus canadensis
Common Elderberry
Shrub
1
1
37
37
1
1
1
1
1
1
Sambucus nigra
jEuropean black elderberry
Shrub
2
2
Ulmus americana
American Elm
Tree
1
1
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
91
0
9
96
12
108
108
5
113
121
7
128
142
142
142
149
149
149
159
159
159
1
8
8
8
8
8
8
0.02
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
4
0
4
12 3 13
13 2
14
14
2 14
16 16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
364
0
364
48 61
25
572
35
718
L 718
1 754
1 754
1 754
1 804
1 804
1 804
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - 2020, YEAR 5 OF 5

Town Creek — Vegetation Plot Photos
Vegetation Plot 1(9/22/20)
Vegetation Plot 3 (9/22/20)
Vegetation Plot 5 (9/22/2020)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - 2020, YEAR 5 OF 5
Vegetation Plot 2 (9/22/20)
Vegetation Plot 4 (9/22/2020)
Vegetation Plot 6 (9/22/2020)

Vegetation Plot 7 (9/22/2020)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - 2020, YEAR 5 OF 5
Vegetation Plot 8 (9/22/2020)

APPENDIX D
Stream Survey Data

Figure 3. Cross -sections with Annual Overlays
Town Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 95026
LEFT BANK
Permanent Cross-section
XI Riffle - Reach 2
(Monitoring Year 5 - Collected September 2020)
RIGHT BANK
Stream
BKF
BKF
Max BKF
BH
Ir
BKF
TOB
Feature
BKF Area
W/D
WFPA
Type
Width
Depth
Depth
Ratio*
Elev
Elev
Riffle
C
3.45
7.10
0.50
0.90
14.50
0.90
3.60
586.35
586.51
25.30
X1 - Riffle
590
589
0
588
W
587
-----------------------------------------------------------
-�---------------
586
TWG 585.447'
585
0
10
2&ation
30
40
f As -Built
MY1 2016
MY2 2017 MY3 2018
MY4 2019
0 MY5 2020
-----• MY5 BKF
---0--• Bankfull ---0-- Floodprone
*BHR=0.9 is based on asbuilt bkf area of 5.79 at an elevation of 586.61. Remainder of data based on actual bankfull elevation from as -built
which is 586.35.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO.95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - 2020, YEAR 5 OF 5

Figure 3 Cont. Cross -sections with Annual Overlays
Town Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 95026
Permanent Cross-section
X2 Riffle - Reach 2
(Monitoring Year 5 - Collected September 2020)
LEFT BANK
RIGHT BANK
Stream
BKF
BKF
Max BKF
BH
BKF
TOB
Feature
BKF Area
W/D
ER
WFPA
Type
Width
Depth
Depth
Ratio*
Elev
Elev
Riffle
E
6.17
8.10
0.80
1.40
10.60
0.90
4.10
583.31
583.43
33.30
X2 - Riffle
587
586
585
°
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
w 584----------------
----------------------
583
j
TWG 581.919'
582
581
0
10
20
Station 30
40 50
s As -built
MYl 2016
MY2 2017
MY3 2018
MY4 2019
e MY5 2020-------
MY5 BKF ---0---
Bankfull
---0--- Floodprone
*13HR=0.90 is based on asbuilt bkf area of 8.28 at an elevation of 583.52. Remainder of data based on actual bankfull elevation from as -built
which is 583.31.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - 2020, YEAR 5 OF 5

Figure 3 Cont. Cross -sections with Annual Overlays
Town Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 95026
Permanent Cross-section
X3 Pool - Reach 2
(Monitoring Year 5 - Collected September 2020)
LEFT BANK
RIGHT BANK
Stream BKF BKF BKF Max BKF BH BKF TOB
Feature Type Area Width Depth Depth W/D Ratio ER Elev Elev WFPA
Pool 8.03 8.30 1.00 1.80 8.60 - - 582.09 582.44 35.30
X3 - Pool
586
585
584 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
583
a�
w 582----------------
581 � 1
580 TWG 580.250'
579 1
0
As -Built
MY4 2019
10 20 Station 30
MY 12016 MY2 2017
--e-- MY5 2020 ---&-- Bankfull
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - 2020, YEAR 5 OF 5
.N
MY3 2018
---- Floodprone
50

Figure 3 Cont. Cross -sections with Annual Overlays
Town Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 95026
Permanent Cross-section
X4 Riffle - Reach 2
(Monitoring Year 5 - Collected September 2020)
LEFT BANK
RIGHT BANK
Stream BKF BKF BKF Max BKF BKF TOB
Feature Type Area Width Depth Depth VV�D BH Ratio ER Elev Elev WFPA
Riffle C 7.24 9.80 0.70 1.30 1 13.30 1 1.00 1 3.50 576.81 577.09 1 37.40
579
578
0
w 577
576
575
0
s As -Built
a MY5 2020
X4 - Riffle
10 20 Station 30 40 50
MY 12016 MY2 2017 MY3 2018 MY4 2019
------- MY5 BKF ---&-- Bankfull -- -- Floodprone
*BHR = 1.0 is based on as -built bkf area of 8.38 at an elevation of 576.92. Remainder of data based on actual banlfull elevation from
as -built which is 576.81
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - 2020, YEAR 5 OF 5

Figure 3 Cont. Cross -sections with Annual Overlays
Town Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 95026
Permanent Cross-section
X5 Riffle - Reach 3
(Monitoring Year 5 - Collected September 2020)
LEFT BANK
RIGHT BANK
Stream BKF BKF Max BKF BH BKF
Feature Type Area BKF Width Depth Depth WAD Ratio ER Elev TOB Elev WFPA
Riffle I C 6.98 1 10.60 1 0.70 1.00 1 16.10 1 1.00 1 4.50 1 568.85 1 568.94 1 48.10
X5 - Riffle
570
0 569
a�
W
567 !
0
* As -Built
--e-- MY5 2020
10 20 Station 30
MY 12016 MY2 2017
•------ MY5 BKF - 9--- Bankfull
TWG 567.826'
40
MY3 2018
---- Floodprone
50
MY4 2019
*BHR = 1.0 is based on as -built bkf area of 8.68 at an elevation of 568.99. Remainder of data based on actual bankfull elevation from as -
built which is 568.85.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO.95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - 2020, YEAR 5 OF 5

Figure 3 Cont. Cross -sections with Annual Overlays
Town Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 95026
Permanent Cross-section
X6 Pool - Reach 3
(Monitoring Year 5 - Collected September 2020)
LEFT BANK
RIGHT BANK
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF
Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF
Elev
I TOB
UWlev
WFPA
Pool
15.38
21.70
0.70
2.10
1 30.50
-
-
568.83
1 568.71
50.00
X6 - Pool
574
573
572
571
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------o
a�
w 570
569----------------------
�r+�
568
TWG 566.780'
567
566
0 10
As -Built
MY4 2019
20 Station 30
-MY 1 2016
--e-- MY5 2020
40
MY2 2017
---- Bankfull
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - 2020, YEAR 5 OF 5
50 60
MY3 2018
---- Floodprone

Figure 3 Cont. Cross -sections with Annual Overlays
Town Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 95026
Permanent Cross-section
X7 Riffle - Reach 3
(Monitoring Year 5 - Collected September 2020)
LEFT BANK RIGHT BANK
Stream BKF BKF Max BKF BKF TOB
Feature Type BKF Area Width Depth Depth WAD BH Ratio ER Elev Elev WFPA
Riffle C 4.83 9.30 0.50 0.80 18.00 0.90 4.10 563.96 563.98 38.60
X7 - Riffle
567
566
0
0
565
W
tTEI!
563
TWG 563.114'
562 ' 1 1 '
0 10 20 Station 30 40 50
s As -Built -MY 1 2016 MY2 2017 MY3 2018 MY4 2019
a MY5 2020------• MY5 BKF--[4--• Bankfull ---0--• Floodprone
*BHR = 0.9 is based on as -built bkf area of 6.51 at an elevation of 564.11. Remainder of data based on actual bankfull elevation from as -built
which is 563.96.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO.95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - 2020, YEAR 5 OF 5

Figure 3 Cont. Cross -sections with Annual Overlays
Town Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 95026
Permanent Cross-section
X8 Pool - Reach 3
(Monitoring Year 5 - Collected September 2020)
LEFT BANK RIGHT BANK
Stream
BKF
BKF
Max BKF
BH
BKF
TOB
Feature
BKF Area
W/D
WFPA
Type
width
Depth
Depth
Ratio
Elev
Pool
11.48
9.60
1 1.20
2.00
8.00
-
555.44
1 555.35
50.50
X8 - Pool
559
558
557
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
ID 556
W
----------------- -
555
554
553
TWG 553.488'
552
0 10
20 Station 30
40
50
As -Built
MYl 2016
MY2 2017
MY3 2018
MY4 2019
MY5 2020--4---
Bankfull
--0--- Floodprone
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - 2020, YEAR 5 OF 5

Figure 3 Cont. Cross -sections with Annual Overlays
Town Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 95026
Permanent Cross-section
X9 Riffle - Reach 3
(Monitoring Year 5 - Collected September 2020)
LEFT BANK RIGHT BANK
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF
Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB
Elev
WFPA
Riffle
C
4.05
9.40
0.40
0.80
1 22.00
0.90
3.30
1 555.19
555.34
31.20
X9 - Riffle
558
--------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------;
557
Juncus clump
;
o
c�
556
-----------------------------------------------------------
;
W
;
555
-----------------
554
TWG 554.378'
553
'
0 10
20
Station 30
40 50
As -Built
MYl 2016 MY2 2017
MY3 2018 MY4 2019
MY5 2020
------- MY5 BKF --0-- Bankfull --4--
Floodprone
*BHR = 0.9 is based on as -built bkf area of 6.79 at an elevation of 555.42. Remainder of data based on actual bankfixll elevation from as -
built which is 555.19.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - 2020, YEAR 5 OF 5

Figure 3 Cont. Cross -sections with Annual Overlays
Town Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 95026
Permanent Cross-section
X10 Riffle - Reach 5
(Monitoring Year 5 - Collected September 2020)
LEFT BANK
RIGHT BANK
Stream BKF BKF BKF Max BKF BKF TOB
Feature Type Area Width Depth Depth WAD BH Ratio ER Elev Elev WFPA
Riffle C 6.54 10.00 0.70 1.10 1 15.30 1 1.00 1 5.90 550.83 551.00 1 58.90
553
552
0
w 551
550
549
0 10
f As -built
a MY5 2020
X10 - Riffle
20 30 Station 40 50 60 70
MY 12016 MY2 2017 MY3 2018 — — MY4 2019
------- MY5 BKF -- -- Bankfull ---&-- Floodprone
*BHR = 1.0 is based on as -built bkf area of 8.0 at an elevation of 550.97. Remainder of data based on actual bankfull elevation from as -
built which is 550.83.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - 2020, YEAR 5 OF 5

Figure 3 Cont. Cross -sections with Annual Overlays
Town Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 95026
Permanent Cross-section
XI I Pool - Reach 5
(Monitoring Year 5 - Collected September 2020)
LEFT BANK RIGHT BANK
Stream
BKF
BKF
BKF
Max BKF
BKF
TOB
Feature
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
WFPA
Type
Area
Width
Depth
Depth
Elev
Elev
Pool
17.12
17.80
1 1.00
2.20
18.40
-
-
549.52
1 549.41
63.60
X11 - Pool
552
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------o
551
'
0
550
a�
W-----------------------
549
548
TWG 547.298'
547
0
10
20
30 Station 40
50 60 70
As -Built
MYl 2016
MY2 2017
MY3 2018
MY4 2019 * MY5 2020
--4--- Bankfull
--4--- Floodprone
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - 2020, YEAR 5 OF 5

Figure 3 Cont. Cross -sections with Annual Overlays
Town Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 95026
Permanent Cross-section
X12 Riffle - Reach 5
(Monitoring Year 5 - Collected September 2020)
LEFT BANK RIGHT BANK
Stream
BKF
BKF
BKF
Max BKF
TOB
Feature
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
WFPA
Type
Area
Width
Depth
Depth
Elev
Riffle
C
4.96
10.30
0.50
0.80
21.50
0.90
3.90
549.04
549.12
40.6
X12 - Riffle
551
550
0
w
549
------------------
-
=r
548
TWG 548.196'
547
0 10 20
ration
40
50
As -Built
MYl 2016
MY2 2017
MY3 2018
MY4 2019
MY5 2020
------- MY5 BKF
---0---
Bankfull ---0--- Floodprone
*BHR = 0.9 is based on as -built bkf area of 5.71 at an elevation of 549.11. Remainder of data based on actual bankfixll elevation from as -
built which is 549.04.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - 2020, YEAR 5 OF 5

Figure 3 Cont. Cross -sections with Annual Overlays
Town Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 95026
Permanent Cross-section
X13 Riffle - Reach 5
(Monitoring Year 5 - Collected September 2020)
LEFT BANK
RIGHT BANK
Stream BKF BKF BKF Max BKF BKF TOB
Feature Type Area Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER Elev Elev WFPA
Riffle I C 5.85 12.30 0.50 0.90 1 25.90 1 0.90 1 4.60 1546.93 546.84 1 56.6
X13 - Riffle
549
0
w 547
546
545 1
0
As -Built
MY5 2020
TWG 545.981'
10 20 Station 30 40 50 60
-MY 1 2016 MY2 2017 MY3 2018 MY4 2019
------- MY5 BKF ---&-- Bankfull -- -- Floodprone
*BHR = 0.9 is based on as -built bkf area of 5.97 at an elevation of 546.94. Remainder of data based on actual banlfull elevation from as -
built which is 546.93.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - 2020, YEAR 5 OF 5

Ingure 4. Riffle Pebble Count Size Class Distribution with Annual Overlays
Town Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 95026
COLLECTED:
COLLECTION BY:
ENTRY BY:
MATERIAL PARTICLE
.0 Nn nv Silt I Clav
Fine
SAND Medium
coa
very coarse
Very Fine
Very Fine
Fine
Fine
Medium
GRAVEL Medium
Coarse
Coame
Very Coarse
Very Coarse
Small
small
COBBLE Large
Small
Small
BOULDER Medium
BEDROCK I Bedrock
BAKER PROJECT NO. 124526
Town Creek Stream Restoration Project - Monitorin Year
Town Creek- Reach 2 XS 1
10/14/2020
AP, JY
JY
PARTICLE CLASS COUNT
Summary
SIZE (mm)
Riffle
Class %
% Cum
063
11
11%
11%
.063 - .125
11%
.125-.25
11%
.25-.50
11%
.50-1.0
11
11%
22%
1.0-2.0
3
3%
25%
2.0-2.8
5
5%
30%
2.8-4.0
4
4%
34%
4.0-5.6
11
11%
45%
5.6-8.0
17
17%
62%
8.0-11.0
14
14%
76%
11.0-16.0
9
9%
85%
16.0-22.6
7
7%
92%
22.6-32
3
3%
95%
32-45
95%
45-64
3
3%
98%
64-90
1
1%
99%
90-121
1
1 %
100%
128 -180
100%
180 - 256
100%
256-362
100%
362-512
100%
512 - 1024
100%
1024 - 2048
100%
2048
100%
Total
100
100%
100%
Riffle
Channel materials (mm)
Dic =
0.69
D. =
4.12
D. =
6.22
D. =
15.35
D. =
45.00
D,m=
90-128
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., EMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - 2020, YEAR 5 OF 5
100%
Town Creek- Reach 2 - X1
Riffle Pebble Count Particle Size Distribution
y,
90%
80%
70%
60%
CAB (2016)
tMY1 (2016)
—MY2(2017)
--*—MY3 (2018)
tMY4(2019)
tMY5 (2020)
m
o.
50%
40%
s
7
U
30%
20%
10%
0%
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
Town Creek - Reach 2 - X1
Riffle Pebble Count Size Class Distribution
100%
90 %
■ AB (2016) ■ MY (2016) ■ MY2 (2017) Ill (2018) ■ MY4 (2019) ■ MYS (2020)
80 %
70
60%
°m 50%
m
p 40%
U 30%
20%
10%
0%
oil
Particle Size Class (nun)

Ingure 4 Cont. Riffle Pebble Count Size Class Distribution with Annual Overlays
Town Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 95026
OR PROJECT:
COLLECTED:
COLLECTION BY:
ENTRY BY:
Silt / Clay
Very Fine
Fine
SAND Medium
Coarse
Very Coarse
Very Fine
Very Fine
Fine
Fine
Medium
GRAVEL Medium
Caarse
Caarse
Very Coarse
Very Coarse
Small
Small
COBBLE Large
Large
Small
Small
BOULDER Medium
Large -Very Lar
BEDROCK Bedrock
BAKER PROJECT NO. 124526
Town Creek Stream Restoration Project - Monitofina Year 5
Town Creek- Reach 2, XS 4
10/14/2020
AP JY
JY
PARTICLE CLASS COUNT
Summary
SIZE (mm)
Riffle
Class %
%Cum
<063
4
4%
4%
063-.125
0
0%
4%
125-.25
0
0%
4%
2s-.so
0
0%
4%
.50-1.0
4
4%
8%
1.0-2.0
0
0%
8%
2.0-2.8
0
0%
8%
2.8-4.0
0
0%
8%
4.0-5.6
8
8%
16%
5.6-8.0
4
4%
20%
8.0-11.0
8
8%
28%
11.0-16.0
8
8%
36%
16.0-22.6
4
4%
40%
22.6 - 32
12
12%
52%
3z-as
16
160/6
68%
as-sa
12
12%
80%
64-90
12
12%
92%
90-128
4
4%
96%
128 -180
4
4 %
100%
180-256
0
0%
100%
256-362
0
00/0
100%
362-512
0
00/0
100%
512-1024
0
0%
100%
1024 - 2048
0
0%
100%
zoae
0
0%
100%
Total
100
100%
100%
Riffle
Channel materials (mm)
D,s =
5.60
D. =
15.27
D- =
30.20
D. =
71.70
D" =
117.21
D, _
> 2048
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., EMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - 2020, YEAR 5 OF 5
Town Creek - Reach 2 - X4
Riffle Pebble Count Particle Size Distribution
100
90 %
+`B (2016)
�MY1 (2016)
80%
tMY2(2017)
70%
tMY3 (2018)
y, 60 %
t W4 (2019)
°m
0%
tMY5 (2020)
a
40
FFM
�
0 30%
s
20
U
10%
L
0%
—LLJ
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
Town Creek - Reach 2 - X4
Riffle Pebble Count Size Class Distribution
100%
90 %
■ AB (2016) IN MY (2016) ■ MY2 (2017) all (2018) ■ MY4 (2019) ■ MY5 (2020)
80%
70%
60
0
$ 50%
r.
m
r�
40
y
U
30%
20
10%
0%
'1. LJLW(hgd
W"Wdl di .... . . . .
uJ ♦tip ,tiS .,�0 ♦O �p ti R, 5� g� ♦� O� b R� � q0 ♦`L�' ♦`bp .,5b ��^' h♦ti p`1rb pR� p00
Particle Size Class (man)

Figure 4 Cont. Riffle Pebble Count Size Class Distribution with Annual Overlays
Town Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 95026
{ITE OR PROJECT:
LEACH/LOCATION:
)ATE COLLECTED:
MELD COLLECTION BY:
)ATA ENTRY BY:
MATERIAL PARTICLE
;II TICI AY Silt/ Oay
Very Fine
Fine
SAND Medium
Coame
Very Coarse
Very Fine
Very Fine
Fine
Fine
Medium
GRAVEL Medium
Coarse
Coarse
Very Coarse
Very Coarse
Small
small
COBBLE Large
Large
Small
Small
BOULDER I Medium
BEDROCK I Bedrock
BAKER PROJECT NO. 124526
Town Creek Stream Restoration Project - Monitoring Year 5
Town Creek - Reach 3, XS 5
10/14/2020
AP, JY
JY
PARTICLE CLASS COUNT
Summary
SIZE (mm)
Riffle
Class %
% Cum
< 063
3
3%
3%
063 - 125
3%
.125-.25
3%
.2s-.s0
2
2%
5%
so-1.o
1
1%
6%
1.0 -2 .0
6%
2.0-2.8
6%
2.8-4.0
6
6%
12%
4.0-5.6
4
4%
16%
5.6-8.0
5
5%
21%
8.0-11.0
8
8%
29%
11.0-16.0
2
2%
31%
16.0-22.6
13
13%
44%
2z.- s3z
17
17%
61%
32-as
13
13%
74%
45-64
11
11 %
85%
64 - 90
9
9%
94%
90-128
3
3%
97%
128-180
2
2%
99%
180-256
1
1%
100%
256 - 362
100%
362 - 512
100 %
512 -1024
100%
1024 - 2048
100%
zo4a
100%
Total
100
100%
100%
Riffle
Channel materials (mm)
D,s =
5.60
D� =
17.79
D- =
25.55
D. =
61.98
Dy =
101.21
D, =
2048
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., EMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - 2020, YEAR 5 OF 5
Town Creek - Reach 3 - X5
Riffle Pebble Count Particle Size Distribution
100%
90 %
80%
u 70%
� 60%
50%
5 40%
+`B (2016)
--*—MY1 (2016)
tMY2 (2017)
—4—MY3 (2018)
tMY4(2019)
tMY5 (2020)
7
U 30%
20
10%
0%
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (uu)
Town Creek - Reach 3 - X5
Riffle Pebble Count Size Class Distribution
100%
90 %
NAB (2016) ■ MYl (2016) ■ MY2 (2017) ■ MY3 (2018) ■ MY4 (2019) ■ MY5 (2020)
80
70
60%
0
50%
$
`m
o.
40%
y
U
30%
20
10%
0%
0 SV �6O CO
5
Particle Size Class turn)

Figure 4 Cont. Riffle Pebble Count Size Class Distribution with Annual Overlays
Town Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 95026
ORPROJECT:
COLLECTED:
COLLECTION BY:
ENTRY BY:
Fire
SAND Medium
Coarse
Very Coarse
Fire
Fire
Medium
GRAVEL Medium
Coarse
Coarse
Very Coarse
Very Coarse
Small
Small
COBBLE Laroe
Small
BOULDER F Medium
BEDROCK I Bedrock
BAKER PROJECT NO. 124526
Town Creek Stream Restoration Project - Monitoring Year 5
Town Creek- Reach 3, XS 7
10/14/2020
AP, JY
JY
PARTICLE CLASS COU N T
Summary
SIZE)mm)
Riffle
Class%
%Cum
<.063
2
2%
2%
.063-.125
0
0%
2%
.125-25
0
0%
2%
.25-.50
0
0%
2%
.50-1.0
0
0%
2%
1.0-2.0
2
2%
4%
2.0-2.8
1
1%
5%
2.8 - 4.0
5%
4.0-5.6
2
2%
7%
5.6-8.0
8
8%
15%
8.0-11.0
11
11%
26%
11.0-16.0
10
10%
36%
16.0-22.6
9
9%
45%
22.s-32
10
10%
55%
32-as
17
17%
72%
45-64
9
9%
81%
64-90
7
7%
88%
90-1z8
6
6%
94%
128-180
0
0%
94%
so-zss
6
6%
100%
256-362
100%
362-512
100%
512 -1024
100%
1024 - 2048
100%
> zoas
100%
Total
100
100%
100%
Riffle
Channel materials (mm)
Die =
8.23
D35 =
15.41
D. =
26.89
D. =
74.07
D. =
190.88
D1. =
> 2048
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - 2020, YEAR 5 OF 5
Town Creek- Reach 3 - X7
Riffle Pebble Count Particle Size Distribution
100%
90%
tAB (2016)
80%
--*—MY1 (2016)�
—.*--MY2 (2017)
70%
--o—MY3 (2018)
/
e 60%
—MY4 (2019)
a 50%
tMY5 (2020)
TFU
m
40%
ca
7
E 30%
e
U
20%
10%
0%
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
Town Creek - Reach 3 - X7
Riffle Pebble Count Size Class Distribution
100%
90%
■AB (2016) ■MYI (2016) ■MY2 (2017) ■MY3 (2018) ■MY4 (2019) 0MY5 (2020)
80
70
O
60%
i
m
Fy
50%
m
U
40%
30%
20%
10%
IL
0%
oO , 4'
Particle Size Class (mm)

Figure 4 Cont. Riffle Pebble Count Size Class Distribution with Annual Overlays
Town Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 95026
COLLECTED:
ENTRY BY:
ilLT/CLAY I Silt/Clay
Very Fine
Fine
SAND Medium
Coarse
Very Coarse
Very Fine
Very Fine
Fine
Fine
Medium
GRAVEL Medium
Coarse
coa
Very Coarse
Very Coarse
Small
Small
COBBLE Large
Small
BOULDER Medium
Bedrock
BAKER PROJECT NO. 124526
Town Creek Stream Restoration Project - Monitmina Year 5
Town Creek - Reach 3, XS 9
10/14/2020
AP, JY
JY
PARTICLE CLASS COUNT
Summary
SIZE(mm)
Riffle
Class %
%Cum
<.063
2
2%
2%
.063-.125
0
0%
2%
.125-.25
0
0%
2%
.25-.50
0
0%
2%
.50 - 1.0
0
0%
2%
1.0-20
0
0%
2%
2.0-2.8
1
1%
3%
2.8-4.0
0
0%
3%
4.0 - 5.6
1
1%
4%
5.6-8.0
2
2%
6%
8.0-11.0
2
2%
8%
11.0-16.0
14
14%
22%
16.0-22.6
10
10%
32%
22.6 - 32
8
8%
40%
32-45
18
18%
58%
45 - 64
20
20%
78 %
64-90
8
8%
86%
90 -128
6
6%
92%
28 -180
0
0%
92 %
11 80 - 256
8
8%
100%
256-362
0
0%
100%
362-512
0
0%
100%
512-1024
1 0
0%
100%
1024 - 2048
1 0
0%
100%
>2048
0
0%
100%
Total
100
100%
100'k
Riffle
Channel materials (mm(
Dis=
13.63
Dom=
25.75
D. =
38.67
D. =
82.65
Das =
205.42
D, _
> 2048
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., EMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - 2020, YEAR 5 OF 5
Town Creek- Reach 3 - X9
Riffle Pebble Count Particle Size Distribution
100%
90%
tAB (2016)
-777
80%
tMY1 (2016)
--*—MY2 (2017)
70%
tMY3 (2018)
0
m
60%
tMY4(2019)
P
50%
tMY5 (2020)
40
7
s
30%
U
20
10%
0%
0.01
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
Town Creek - Reach 3 - X9
Riffle Pebble Count Size Class Distribution
100%
90 %
■ AB (2016) ■ MY (2016) ■ MY2 (2017) ■ MY3 (2018) ■ MY4 (2019) ■ MYS (2020)
80
70%
O
m
m 60%
o.
50%
U
40%
30%
20
10%
0%
Particle Size Class (ram)

ItSgure 4 Cont. Riffle Pebble Count Size Class Distribution with Annual Overlays
Town Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 95026
'ITE OR PROJECT:
:EACH/LOCATION:
'ATE COLLECTED:
IELD COLLECTION BY:
'ATA ENTRY BY:
MATERIAL PARTICLE
;II TICI AY Silt / Clay
Very Fine
Fine
SAND Medium
Coarse
Very Coarse
Very Fine
Very Fine
Fine
Fine
Medium
GRAVEL Medium
Coarse
Coarse
Very Coarse
Very Coarse
Small
Small
COBBLE Large
Large
Small
Small
BOULDER I Medium
BEDROCK I Bedrock
Riffle
Channel materials (mm)
Dis = 9.38
D = 18.14
D. = 27.99
D. = 56.91
Dy = 98.28
D,m = 128 - 180
BAKER PROJECT NO. 124526
Town Creek Stream Restoration Project - Monitoria Year
Town Creek- Reach 5, XS 10
10/14/2020
AP, JY
JY
PARTICLE CLASS COUNT
Summary
SIZE (mm)
Riffle
Class %
% Cum
<.063
4
4%
4%
.063-.125
3
3%
7%
125-.25
7%
25-.so
7%
.50 - 1.0
7%
1.0-2.0
0
0%
7%
2.0-2.8
1
1%
8%
2.8 - 4.0
1
1 %
9%
4.0-5.6
2
2%
11%
s.6-8.0
4
4%
15%
8.0-11.0
2
2%
17%
11.0 -16.0
14
14 %
31 %
16.0-22.6
11
11%
42%
22.6 - 32
13
13%
55 %
32-45
17
17%
72%
45 - 64
18
18 %
90%
64-90
4
4%
94%
90-128
4
4A
98%
128-180
2
2%
100%
180 - 256
100%
256-362
100%
362-512
100%
512-1024
100%
1 oza - 2048
100%
zoa8
100%
Total
100
100%
1001%
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., EMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - 2020, YEAR 5 OF 5
Town Creek - Reach 5 - X10
Riffle Pebble Count Particle Size Distribution
100%
90%
/
tAB (2016)
�-
80%
tMY1 (2016)
tMY2 (2017)
,I
70%
tMY3 (2018)
60%
°m
50%
--s—MY4(2019)
—MY5 (2020)
Pr
40
E30%
7
U 20 %
-
10
0%
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
100
Town Creek - Reach 5 - X10
Riffle Pebble Count Size Class Distribution
90%
fi ■ AB (2016)
■ MY (2016) Is MY2 (2017) ■ MY3 (2018) Is MY4 (2019) ■ MY5 (2020)
80
70
O
60
m
a
y
50%
U
40
30
20
10%
0%
Particle Size Class (nun)

Figure 4 Cont. Riffle Pebble Count Size Class Distribution with Annual Overlays
Town Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 95026
E OR PROJECT:
\CH/LOCATION:
fE COLLECTED:
LID COLLECTION BY:
FA ENTRY BY:
ATERIAL PARTICLE
.T CLAY Silt/Clay
Very Fine
Fine
SAND Medium
Coarse
Very Coarse
Very Fine
Fine
Fine
Medium
GRAVEL Medium
Coarse
Coarse
Very Coarse
Very Coarse
Small
Small
COBBLE Large
Large
Small
Small
BOULDER Medium
Large -Very La,
BEDROCK Bedrock
BAKER PROJECT NO. 124526
Town Creek Stream Restoration Project - Monitoring Year 5
Town Creek - Reach 5, XS 12
10/14/2020
AP, JY
JY
PARTICLE CLASS COUNT
Summary
SIZE (mm)
Riffle
Class %
% Cum
<.063
2
2%
2%
.063 - .125
0
0%
?%
125-.25
0
0%
2%
25-.50
0
0%
2%
.50-1.0
0
0%
2%
1.0-2.0
4
4%
6%
2.0-2.8
0
0%
6%
2.8-4.0
0
0%
6%
4.0-5.6
0
0%
6%
5.6-8.0
0
0%
6%
8.0-11.0
5
5%
11 %
11.0-16.0
11
11 %
22%
16.0-22.6
12
12%
34%
22.6 - 32
22
22 %
1 56 %
32 - 45
18
18 %
74 %
45-64
8
8%
82%
64 - 90
11
11 %
93 %
90-128
4
4%
97%
128 - 180
2
2%
99%
180 - 256
1
1 %
100%
256 - 362
0
0%
100%
362 - 512
0
0%
100
512-1024
0
0%
10N
1024-2048
0
0%
100%
> 2048
0
0%
100 %
Total
100
100%
100%
Riffle
Channel materials (mm)
Die=
13.04
D� =
22.96
Dom=
29.10
De,, =
68.09
D,=
107.33
D1. _
> 2048
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., EMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - 2020, YEAR 5 OF 5
Town Creek - Reach 5 - X12
Riffle Pebble Count Particle Size Distribution
100%
90%
CAB (2016)
80%
--*--MY1 (2016)
r
�MY2 (2017)
70%
tMY3 (2018)
60%
tMY4 (2019)
tMY5 (2020)
50%
r
40%
30%
oi
i7
O
U 20%
AIR
10%
0%
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mart)
Town Creek- Reach 5 - X12
Riffle Pebble Count Size Class Distribution
100%
90%
NAB (2016)
■MY1 (2016) ■MY2 (2017) ■MY3 (2018) 0MY4 (2019) ■MY5 (2020)
d
80 %
d
d
P.
70 %
U
60 %
50%
40 %
30 %
20 %
10%
0%
uR
Particle Size Class (mart)

Table 10. Baseline Stream Summary
Town Creek Restoration Project - Option B: DMS Project ID No. 95026
Reach 1 (317 LF)
Parameter
USGS
Regional Curve Interval
Pre -Existing Condition
Design
Monitoring Baseline (As -built)
Gauge
(Harman et al, 1999)'
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
LL UL Eq.
Min
Mean
Med Max SD
n
Min
Mean
Med Max SD
n
Min
Mean
Pled Max SD n
BE Width (ft)
-----
23.0 80.0 4.2
5.5
-----
----- 7.2 -----
2
-----
9.0
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
Floodprone Width (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
72.1
-----
----- 76.6 -----
2
20
-----
----- 50 -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
BF Mean Depth (ft)
-----
2.3 5.8 0.7
0.8
-----
----- 1.1 -----
2
-----
0.68
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
BF Max Depth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
1.8
-----
----- 2.3 -----
2
-----
1
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
BF Cross -sectional Area (ft)
-----
80.0 300.0 4.2
5.4
-----
----- 5.9 -----
2
-----
6.1
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
Width/Depth Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
5.22
-----
----- 9.43 -----
2
-----
13.3
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
Entrenchment Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
10.1
-----
----- 13.8 -----
2
-----
-----
----- >2.2 -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
Bank Height Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
1.3
-----
----- 1.5 -----
2
-----
1
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
d50(mm)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
6.9
----- ----- -----
I
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
Pattern
ChannelBeltwidth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
---- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ---------- -----
Radiusof Curvature (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
---- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ---------- -----
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
---- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ---------- -----
MeanderWavelength (ft)
-----
----- 0.0 -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
MeanderWidth Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ---- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ---------- -----
Profile
RiffleLength (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ---------- -----
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
0.022
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
0.012
----- ----- ----- S
PoolLength (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ---- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ---------- -----
Pool Spacing (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
14.0
-----
----- 45.0 -----
-----
12.0
-----
----- 42.0 ----- 11
Pool Max Depth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
1.4
-----
----- 2.4 -----
-----
0.2
-----
----- 0.8 ----- 11
PoolVolume (ft)
_____
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ---- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ---------- -----
Substrate and Transport Parameters
Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
---- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ---------- ----
SC% / Sa% / G% / B% / Be%
""'
""' ""' ""'
""'
""'
""' ""' ""'
""'
""'
""'
_____ _____
""
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
""' ""
35 50 84 95
-----
----- ----- -----
0.2 4.3 6.9 30.8 54.5
-----
-----
---------- -----
-----
-----
-----
_____ _____ _____ ----
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f-
Reach
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
---- ----- -----
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
---------- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ---------- -----
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m2
_____
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
---------- ----- -----
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- 0.09 -----
-----
-----
0.09
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
0.09
----- ----- ----- -----
Impervious cover estimate (%)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
----- ----------
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ---------- -----
Rosgen Classification
-----
----- ----- -----
----- E4b (incised) -----
-----
-----
C4
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
C4
----- ----- ----- -----
BF Velocity (fps)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
----- 2.76 -----
-----
-----
2.72
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
BF Discharge (cfs)
-----
290.0 2000.0 15.6
-----
-----
----- 16.3 -----
-----
-----
16.3
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
ValleyLength
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
301.9
----- ----- ----- -----
Channel length (ft)2
_____
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- 363 -----
-----
-----
316
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
317.0
----- ----- ----- -----
Sinuosity-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- 1.17 -----
-----
-----
1.02
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
1.1
----- ----- ----- -----
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- 0.0212 -----
-----
-----
0.0217
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
0.0181
----- ----- ----- -----
BFslope (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ---- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ---------- -----
Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ---------- -----
BETE VL% / L% / M% / H% / VH% / E%
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
---- ----- -----
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
---- ----- -----
Biological or Other
----
----- ----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----
-----
---
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ---------- -----
• Harman, W.A., G.D. Jennings, J.M. Patterson, D.R. Clinton, L.O. Slate, A.G. Jessup, J.R Everhart, and RE. Smith 1999. Bankfull hydraulic geometry relationships for North Carolina streams. Wildland Hydrology. AWRA Symposium Proceedings. D.S. Olsen and J.P. Potyondy, eds. American Water Resources Association
June 30-July 2, 1999. Bozeman,
MT.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - 2020, YEAR 5 OF 5

Table 10. Baseline Stream Summary
Town Creek Restoration Project - Option B: DMS Project ID No. 95026
Reach 2 (711 LF)
Parameter
USGS
Regional Curve Interval
Pre -Existing Condition
Design
Monitoring Baseline (As -built)
Gauge
(Harman et al, 1999)"
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
LL UL Eq.
Min
Mean
Med Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med Max SD
n
Min
Mean
Med Max SD
n
BE Width (ft)
-----
23.0 80.0 4.8
6.6
-----
----- 8.8
-----
2
-----
9.0
----- ----- -----
-----
8.8
-----
----- 12.0 -----
3
Floodprone Width (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
25.5
-----
----- 42.7
-----
2
20
-----
----- 50.0 -----
-----
27.1
-----
----- 42.6 -----
3
BE Mean Depth (ft)
-----
2.3 5.8 0.8
1.1
-----
----- 1.6
-----
2
-----
0.7
----- ----- -----
-----
0.7
-----
----- 1.0 -----
3
BE Max Depth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
1.9
-----
----- 2.4
-----
2
-----
1.0
----- ----- -----
-----
1.1
-----
----- 2.3 -----
3
BE Cross -sectional Area (ft)
-----
80.0 300.0 5.1
6.9
-----
----- 14.0
-----
2
-----
6.1
----- ----- -----
-----
5.8
-----
----- 12.0 -----
3
Width/Depth Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
5.6
-----
----- 6.2
-----
2
-----
13.3
----- ----- -----
-----
10.2
-----
----- 13.2 -----
3
Entrenchment Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
3.9
-----
----- 4.8
-----
2
-----
-----
----- >2.2 -----
-----
3.1
-----
----- 3.7 -----
3
Bank Height Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
1.5
-----
----- 1.6
-----
2
-----
1.0
----- ----- -----
-----
1.0
-----
----- 1.0 -----
3
d50 (mm)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
16.7
----- -----
-----
I
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
17.1
-----
----- 23.3 -----
2
Pattern
ChannelBeltwidth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
---- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----------
-----
Radiusof Curvature (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
---- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----------
-----
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
---- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----------
-----
MeanderWavelength (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
---- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----------
-----
MeanderWidth Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- ---- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----------
-----
Profile
RiffleLength (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----------
-----
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
0.0175
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
0.010
----- ----- -----
9
PoolLength (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----------
-----
Pool Spacing (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
14
-----
----- 45 -----
-----
19.0
-----
----- 63.0 -----
19
Pool Max Depth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
1.4
-----
----- 2.4 -----
-----
0.200
-----
----- 3.4 -----
20
PoolVolume (ft)
_____
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----------
-----
Substrate and Transport Parameters
Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
---- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----------
----
SC% / Sa% / G% / B% / Be%
""'
""' ""' ""'
""'
""'
""' ""'
""'
""'
""'
""'
_____ _____
""
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
""'
""
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
-----
----- ----------
<0.063 / 7.2 / 16.7 / 54.5 / 85.7
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
<0.063 - 4.4 / 8.7 - 12.1 / 17.1 - 23.3 / 55.3 - 77.1 / 75.6 - 117.2
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f-
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
0.79
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
0.65
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
---------- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----------
-----
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m2
_____
----- ----- -----
-----
34.9
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
32.9
----- ----- -----
----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- 0.1
-----
-----
-----
0.12
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
0.12
----- ----- -----
-----
Impervious cover estimate (%)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
---------- -----
-----
Rosgen Classification
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- E4 (incised)
-----
-----
-----
C4
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
C4 / E4
----- ----- -----
-----
BF Velocity (fps)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- 1.49
-----
-----
-----
3.48
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
BF Discharge (cfs)
-----
290.0 2000.0 19.3
-----
-----
----- 20.9
-----
-----
-----
20.9
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
ValleyLength
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
695
----- ----- -----
-----
Channel length (ft)2
_____
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- 737
-----
-----
-----
708
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
711
----- ----- -----
-----
Sinuosity
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- 1.06
-----
-----
-----
1.02
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
1.02
----- ----- -----
-----
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- 0.0159
-----
-----
-----
0.0177
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
0.0180
----- ----- -----
-----
BFslope (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----------
-----
Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----------
-----
BETE VL% / L% / M% / H% / VH% / E%
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
---- -----
-----
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
---- -----
-----
Biological or Other
----
----- ----- -----
-----
----- -----
----
---
-----
-----
Harman, W.A., G.D. Jennings, J.M. Patterson, D.R. Clinton, L.O. Slate, A.G. Jessup, J.R Everhart, and RE. Smith 1999. Bankfull hydraulic geometry relationships for North Carolina streams. Wildland Hydrology. AWRA Symposium Proceedings. D.S. Olsen and J.P. Potyondy, eds. American Water Resources
Association June 30-July 2, 1999. Bozeman,
MT.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - 2020, YEAR 5 OF 5

Table 10. Baseline Stream Summary
Town Creek Restoration Project - Option B: DMS Project ID No. 95026
Reach 3 (1,621 LF)
Parameter
USGS
Regional Curve Interval
1
Pre -Existing Condition
Design
Monitoring Baseline (As -built)
Gauge
(Harman
et al, 1999)"
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
LL
UL
Eq.
Min
Mean
Med Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD n
Min
Mean
Med Max SD
n
BE Width (ft)
-----
23.0
80.0
5.5
6.0
-----
----- 16.1
-----
4
-----
10.0
-----
-----
----- -----
9.8
-----
----- 10.7 -----
3
Floodprone Width (ft)
-----
-----
-----
-----
32.0
-----
----- >89
-----
4
2
-----
-----
80.0
----- -----
37.8
-----
----- 48.1 -----
3
BE Mean Depth (ft)
-----
2.3
5.8
0.9
0.5
-----
----- 1.3
-----
4
-----
0.7
-----
-----
----- -----
0.6
-----
----- 0.8 -----
3
BE Max Depth (ft)
-----
-----
-----
-----
1.3
-----
----- 1.9
-----
4
-----
1.0
-----
-----
----- -----
1.0
-----
----- 1.4 -----
3
BE Cross -sectional Area (ft)
-----
80.0
300.0
6.4
5.7
-----
----- 13.6
-----
4
-----
7.0
-----
-----
----- -----
6.5
-----
----- 8.7 -----
3
Width/Depth Ratio
-----
-----
-----
-----
4.6
-----
----- 35.6
-----
4
-----
14.3
-----
-----
----- -----
13.1
-----
----- 16.9 -----
3
Entrenchment Ratio
-----
-----
-----
-----
5.0
-----
----- 8.2
-----
4
-----
-----
-----
>.2.2
----- -----
3.5
-----
----- 4.5 -----
3
Bank Height Ratio
-----
-----
-----
-----
1.1
-----
----- 1.9
-----
4
-----
1.0
-----
-----
----- -----
1.0
-----
----- 1.0 -----
3
d50 (mm)
-----
-----
-----
-----
6.5
-----
----- 7.3
-----
2
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
18.6
-----
----- 28.9 -----
3
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
35.0
-----
-----
80.0
----- -----
22.0
-----
----- 52.1 -----
12
Radius of Curvature (ft)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
20.0
-----
-----
30.0
----- -----
28.7
-----
----- 43.6 -----
15
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
2.0
-----
-----
3.0
----- -----
3.0
-----
----- 3.8 -----
3
Meander Wavelength (ft)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
70.0
-----
-----
120.0
----- -----
90.2
-----
----- 130.9 -----
15.0
Meander Width Ratio
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
3.5
-----
-----
8.0
----- -----
3.0
-----
----- 4.9 -----
3
Profile
RiffleLength (ft)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----------
-----
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
0.016
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
0.011
----- ----- -----
23
PoolLength (ft)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----------
-----
Pool Spacing (ft)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
36
-----
-----
63
----- -----
11
-----
----- 80 -----
35
Pool Max Depth (ft)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
1.4
-----
-----
2.4
----- -----
0.2
-----
----- 1.3 -----
34
PoolVolume (ft)
_____
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----------
-----
Substrate and Transport Parameters
Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----------
----
SC% / Sa% / G% / B% / Be%
""'
""'
""'
""'
""'
""'
""' ""'
""'
""'
""'
""'
""
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____
""'
""
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
-----
-----
-----
-----
<0.063 / 3.9 -
4.6 / 6.5 - 7.3 / 19.3 - 20.4 / 30.8 - 32.0
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
<0.063 - 5.6 / 9.9 - 16.3
/ 18.6 - 28.9 / 85.1 - 99.5 / 154.8 - >2048 / 180 - >2048
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f-
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
0.3
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
0.47
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----------
-----
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m2
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
15.7
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
25.6
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- 0.2
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
0.2
----- -----
-----
-----
----- 0.2 -----
-----
Impervious cover estimate (%)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
---------- -----
-----
Rosgen Classification
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- C4 / E4 (incised)
-----
-----
-----
C4
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
C4
----- ----- -----
-----
BF Velocity (fps)
-----
-----
-----
-----
3.6
-----
----- 3.6
-----
2
-----
3.8
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
BF Discharge (cfs)
-----
290.0
2000.0
24.8
26.4
-----
----- 28.0
-----
2
-----
26.4
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
ValleyLength
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
1377
----- ----- -----
-----
Channel length (ft)2
_____
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- 1,849
-----
-----
-----
1,630
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
1621
----- ----- -----
-----
Sinuosity
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- 1.31
-----
-----
-----
1.17
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
1.18
----- ----- -----
-----
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- 0.0111
-----
-----
-----
0.0122
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
0.0122
----- ----- -----
-----
BFslope (ft/ft)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----------
-----
Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----------
-----
BETE VL% / L% / M% / H% / VH% / E%
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
---- -----
-----
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
---- -----
-----
Biological or Other
----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----
---
-----
-----
Harman W.A., G.D. Jennings, J.M. Patterson, D.R. Clinton, L.O. Slate, A.G. Jessup, J.R Everhart, and RE. Smith 1999. Bankfull hydraulic geometry relationships for North Carolina streams. Wildland Hydrology. AWRA Symposium Proceedings. D.S. Olsen and J.P. Potyondy, eds. American Water Resources Association June 30-July 2, 1999. Bozeman,
MT.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - 2020, YEAR 5 OF 5

Table 10. Baseline Stream Summary
Town Creek Restoration Project - Option B: DMS Project ID No. 95026
Reach 4 (232 LF)
Parameter
USGS
Regional Curve Interval
Pre -Existing Condition
Design
Monitoring Baseline (As -built)
Gauge
(Harman et al, 1999)"
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
LL UL Eq.
Min Mean Med Max SD n
Min Mean Med Max SD n
Min Mean Med Max SD n
BE Width (ft)
-----
23.0 80.0 5.7
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 10.5 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Floodprone Width (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
25 ----- ----- 110.0 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BF Mean Depth (ft)
-----
2.3 5.8 0.9
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 0.8 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BFMax Depth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 1.2 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BF Cross -sectional Area (ft)
-----
80.0 300.0 6.7
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 8.7 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Width/Depth Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 12.5 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
EntrenchmentRatio
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- >2.2 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BankHeight Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 1.0 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
d50(mm)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ---- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
Pattern
ChannelBeltwidth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ---- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
Radiusof Curvature (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ---- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ---- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
MeanderWavelength (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ---- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
MeanderWidth Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
Profile
RiffleLength (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
RiffleSlope (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
Pool Length (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- --------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
-----
Pool Spacing (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
PoolMax Depth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
PoolVolume (ft)
_____
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
Substrate and Transport Parameters
Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ---- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- ----
SC% / Sa% / G% / B% / Be%
""'
""' ""' ""'
""' ""' ""' ""' ""' ""'
_____ _____ _____
""' ""' ""
_____ _____ _____ _____
""' ""
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
----- ----- ---------- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f-
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ---- ----- -----
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ---------- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m-
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ---------- ----- -----
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 0.2 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 0.2 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 0.2 ----- -----
Impervious cover estimate (%)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ---------- ----- -----
Rosgen Classification
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- C4 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- C4 ----- ----- ----- -----
BFVelocity (fps)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 3.22 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BF Discharge (cfs)
-----
290.0 2000.0 25.8
----- ----- ----- 28 ----- -----
----- 28 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
ValleyLength
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 202 ----- ----- ----- -----
Channel length (ft)2
_____
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 234 ----- -----
----- 232 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 232 ----- ----- ----- -----
Sinuosity
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 1.21 ----- -----
----- 1.20 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 1.15 ----- ----- ----- -----
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 0.0094 ----- -----
----- 0.0113 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 0.012 ----- ----- ----- -----
BFslope (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ---------- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
BETE VL% / L% / M% / H% / VH% / E%
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ---- ----- -----
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ---- ----- -----
Biological or Other
----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---- -----
--- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
• Harman, W.A., G.D. Jennings, J.M. Patterson, D.R. Clinton, L.O. Slate, A.G. Jessup, J.R Everhart, and RE. Smith 1999. Bankfull hydraulic geometry relationships for North Carolina streams. Wildland Hydrology. AWRA Symposium Proceedings. D.S. Olsen and J.P. Potyondy, eds. American Water Resources Association June 30-July 2, 1999. Bozeman, MT.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - 2020, YEAR 5 OF 5

Table 10. Baseline Stream Summary
Town Creek Restoration Project - Option B: DMS Project ID No. 95026
Reach 5 (820 LF)
Parameter
USGS
Regional Curve Interval
Pre -Existing Condition
Design
Monitoring Baseline (As -built)
Gauge
(Harman et al, 1999)"
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
LL
UL
Eq.
Min
Mean
Med Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD n
Min
Mean
Med Max SD
n
BE Width (ft)
-----
23.0
80.0
6.1
5.2
-----
----- 17.0
-----
3
-----
10.5
-----
-----
----- -----
10.2
-----
----- 11.1 -----
3
Floodprone Width (ft)
-----
-----
-----
-----
51.0
-----
----- 84.0
-----
3
25
-----
-----
110.0
----- -----
43.8
-----
----- 59.4 -----
3
BE Mean Depth (ft)
-----
2.3
5.8
0.9
0.7
-----
----- 1.5
-----
3
-----
0.8
-----
-----
----- -----
0.5
-----
----- 0.8 -----
3
BE Max Depth (ft)
-----
-----
-----
-----
1.6
-----
----- 2.1
-----
3
-----
1.2
-----
-----
----- -----
0.9
-----
----- 1.2 -----
3
BE Cross -sectional Area (ft)
-----
80.0
300.0
7.4
8.0
-----
----- 12.3
-----
3
-----
8.7
-----
-----
----- -----
5.7
-----
----- 8.0 -----
3
Width/Depth Ratio
-----
-----
-----
-----
3.5
-----
----- 23.5
-----
3
-----
12.5
-----
-----
----- -----
13.4
-----
----- 21.5 -----
3
Entrenchment Ratio
-----
-----
-----
-----
3.0
-----
----- 13.2
-----
3
-----
-----
-----
>2.2
----- -----
4.0
-----
----- 5.7 -----
3
Bank Height Ratio
-----
-----
-----
-----
1.3
-----
----- 1.3
-----
3
-----
1.0
-----
-----
----- -----
1.0
-----
----- 1.0 -----
3
d50 (mm)
-----
-----
-----
-----
5.6
-----
----- 8.6
-----
2
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
27.5
-----
----- 41.8 -----
2
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
37.0
-----
-----
84.0
----- -----
23.8
-----
----- 44.2 -----
10
Radius of Curvature (ft)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
21.0
-----
-----
31.5
----- -----
24.5
-----
----- 40.9 -----
9
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
2.0
-----
-----
3.0
----- -----
2.8
-----
----- 3.5 -----
3
Meander Wavelength (ft)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
73.5
-----
-----
126.0
----- -----
95.2
-----
----- 139.9 -----
9
Meander Width Ratio
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
3.5
-----
-----
8.0
----- -----
2.9
-----
----- 3.9 -----
3
Profile
RiffleLength (ft)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----------
-----
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
0.02
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
0.018
----- ----- -----
11
PoolLength (ft)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----------
-----
Pool Spacing (ft)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
42.0
-----
-----
74.0
----- -----
25.0
-----
----- 96.0 -----
14
Pool Max Depth (ft)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
1.7
-----
-----
2.9
----- -----
0.4
-----
----- 1.1 -----
15
PoolVolume (ft)
_____
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----------
-----
Substrate and Transport Parameters
Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----------
-----
SC% / Sa% / G% / B% / Be%
""'
""'
""'
""'
""'
""'
""' ""'
""'
""'
""'
""'
""
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____
""'
""'
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
-----
-----
-----
-----
<0.063 /
2 - 4.8 / 5.6 - 8.6 / 20.4 - 28.7 / 77 - 87.7
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
13.2 - 13.6 / 20.4 -
27.8 / 27.5 - 41.8 / 65.1 - 84.1 / 114.6 - 122.5 / 128 - 256
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f-
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
0.55
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
0.47
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----------
-----
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m2
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
19.4
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
23.4
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- 0.210
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
0.2
----- -----
-----
-----
----- 0.2 -----
-----
Impervious cover estimate (%)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
---------- -----
-----
Rosgen Classification
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- C4 / E4
-----
-----
-----
C4
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
C4
----- ----- -----
-----
BF Velocity (fps)
-----
-----
-----
-----
2.41
-----
----- 3.15
-----
-----
-----
3.4
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
BF Discharge (cfs)
-----
290.0
2000.0
28.8
-----
-----
----- 29.6
-----
-----
-----
29.6
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
ValleyLength
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
742
----- ----- -----
-----
Channel length (ft)2
_____
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- 849
-----
-----
-----
809
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
822
----- ----- -----
-----
Sinuosity
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- 1.17
-----
-----
-----
1.17
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
1.11
----- ----- -----
-----
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- 0.0133
-----
-----
-----
0.0106
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
0.0128
----- ----- -----
-----
BFslope (ft/ft)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----------
-----
Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----------
-----
BEHI VL% / L% / M% / H% / VH% / E%
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
---- -----
-----
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
---- -----
-----
Biological or Other
----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----
-----
---
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----------
-----
• Harman, W.A., G.D. Jennings, J.M. Patterson, D.R. Clinton, L.O. Slate, A.G. Jessup, J.R Everhart, and RE. Smith 1999. Bankfull hydraulic geometry relationships for North Carolina streams. Wildland Hydrology. AWRA Symposium Proceedings. D.S. Olsen and J.P. Potyondy, eds. American Water Resources Association June 30-July 2, 1999. Bozeman, MT.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - 2020, YEAR 5 OF 5

lla. Cross-section Morphology Data
Creek Restoration Proiect - ODtion B: DMS Proiect ID No. 95026
1 Cross-section X-1 (Riffle) 1 Cross-section X-2 (Riffle) 1 Cross-section X-3 (Pool) 1 Cross-section X-4 (Riffle) 1
Dimension and substrate I Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+j Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+j Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+j Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
BF Width (ft)
8.75
8.46
8.64
7.80
7.70
7.10
9.17
9.13
8.72
8.50
8.40
8.10
11.96
8.73
9.40
9.10
8.60
8.30
10.00
9.91
10.74
9.20
9.90
9.80
BE Mean Depth (ft)
0.66
0.57
0.55
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.90
0.84
0.84
0.80
0.70
0.80
1.00
1.14
0.92
0.90
1.00
1.00
0.84
0.71
0.73
0.70
0.70
0.70
Width/Depth Ratio
13.23
14.92
15.71
16.60
16.70
14.50
10.17
10.88
10.38
11.20
11.50
10.60
11.92
7.62
11.08
9.80
9.10
8.60
11.92
14.05
14.71
12.90
13.50
13.30
BE Cross -sectional Area (W)
5.79
4.80
4.76
3.64
3.59
3.45
8.28
7.66
7.31
6.39
6.09
6.17
12.01
9.99
9.40
8.56
8.26
8.03
8.38
7.00
7.82
6.55
7.24
7.24
BE Max Depth (ft)
1.09
0.96
0.91
0.90
0.90
0.90
1.37
1.34
1.22
1.30
0.70
1.40
2.25
2.00
1.90
1.90
1.80
1.80
1.45
1.32
1.37
1.30
1.30
1.30
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
27.05
25.55
25.56
24.60
24.90
25.30
33.92
33.03
31.80
33.10
32.90
33.30
42.56
37.11
36.23
36.10
35.00
35.30
41.34
38.11
39.31
36.48
37.40
37.40
Entrenchment Ratio
3.09
3.02
2.96
3.20
3.70
3.60
3.70
3.62
3.65
3.90
3.80
4.10
3.56
4.25
3.56
4.00
-
-
4.13
3.84
3.66
4.00
3.80
3.50
Bank Height Ratio
1.01
1.06
1.00
0.90
1.00
0.90
1.01
1.01
1.00
0.90
0.90
0.90
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
-
-
1.00
1.05
1.00
0.90
1.00
1.00
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
10.07
9.60
9.74
8.00
8.00
7.30
10.97
10.81
10.40
9.00
8.90
8.70
13.96
11.01
11.24
10.40
9.80
9.40
11.68
11.33
12.20
9.70
10.40
10.30
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.57
0.50
0.49
0.50
0.5
0.5
0.75
0.71
0.70
0.70
0.7
0.7
0.86
0.91
0.84
0.80
0.8
0.9
0.72
0.62
0.64
0.70
0.7
0.7
Cross-section X-5 (Riffle) I Cross-section X-6 (Pool) I Cross-section X-7 (Riffle) I Cross-section X-8 (Pool)
IDimensionand substrate I Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+I Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+I Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+I Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+I
on
BE Width (ft)
10.65
BE Mean Depth (ft)
0.82
Width/Depth Ratio
13.05
BE Cross -sectional Area (W)
8.68
BE Max Depth (ft)
1.44
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
48.09
Entrenchment Ratio
4.52
Bank Height Ratio
1.00
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
12.29
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.71
sion and substrate
on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
11.83
11.09
10.30
10.30
10.60
13.63
19.31
14.77
13.20
13.40
21.70
9.84
10.72
10.26
9.20
9.40
9.30
11.92
12.08
12.56
11.10
11.20
9.60
0.69
0.77
0.70
0.70
0.70
1.07
0.67
0.89
0.90
0.90
0.70
0.66
0.53
0.54
0.50
0.50
0.50
1.21
1.03
0.98
1.00
0.90
1.20
17.27
14.40
15.60
15.80
16.10
12.77
28.61
16.60
14.10
15.60
30.50
14.87
20.15
19.00
16.90
18.90
18.00
9.85
11.72
12.82
11.00
11.90
8.00
8.11
8.50
6.80
6.76
6.98
14.54
13.03
13.09
12.23
11.54
15.38
6.51
5.71
5.53
4.99
4.65
4.83
14.42
12.46
12.32
11.26
10.62
11.48
1.35
1.22
1.10
1.10
1.00
2.09
1.79
1.75
1.90
1.80
2.10
1.03
0.85
0.79
0.90
0.80
0.80
2.24
1.98
1.77
1.90
1.90
2.00
48.09
48.11
48.11
48.10
48.10
50.26
49.44
49.15
49.60
49.30
50.00
38.30
38.48
38.74
38.00
38.00
38.60
50.45
50.46
50.63
50.60
50.60
50.50
4.06
4.34
4.70
4.70
4.50
3.69
2.56
3.33
3.80
-
-
3.89
3.59
3.77
4.10
4.20
4.10
4.23
4.18
3.86
4.60
-
-
1.09
1.00
0.90
0.90
1.00
1.00
0.99
1.00
1.00
-
-
1.00
0.98
1.00
0.90
0.90
0.90
1.00
1.03
1.00
0.90
-
-
13.21
12.63
10.70
10.70
11.00
15.77
20.65
16.55
13.90
14.10
22.40
11.16
11.78
11.34
9.40
9.60
9.60
14.34
14.14
14.52
12.20
12.30
10.90
0.61
0.67
0.60
0.6
0.6
0.92
0.63
0.79
0.90
0.8
0.7
0.58
0.48
0.49
0.50
0.5
0.5
1.01
0.88
0.85
0.90
0.9
1.1
Cross-section X-9 (Riffle)
MY
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5 MY+
I Base
MY
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5 MY+
I Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5 MY+
I Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5 MY+
Ul' V ..".kly
1V./1
1V.1/Y
-.11
1-
7-
>.YV -
BE Mean Depth (ft)
0.63
0.53
0.55
0.40
0.50
0.40
Width/Depth Ratio
16.87
18.85
18.93
21.80
19.50
22.00
BE Cross -sectional Area (W)
6.79
5.34
5.68
4.37
4.63
4.50
BE Max Depth (ft)
1.06
0.80
0.90
0.80
0.80
0.80
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
37.79
31.28
36.00
29.90
31.20
31.20
Entrenchment Ratio
3.53
3.12
3.46
3.10
3.30
3.30
Bank Height Ratio
1.00
0.97
1.00
0.90
0.90
0.90
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
11.97
11.10
11.51
9.90
9.70
9.80
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.57
0.48
0.49
0.40
0.5
0.4
Cross-section X-10 (Riffle) I Cross-section X-11 (Pool) I Cross-section X-12 (Riffle) I Cross-section X-13 (Riffle)
IDimensionand substrate I Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+I Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+I Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+I Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+I
on
BE Width (ft)
10.36
10.28
10.57
9.90
10.20
10.00
16.70
16.78
17.48
16.70
17.30
17.80
11.06
10.49
9.73
9.80
10.10
10.30
10.19
10.04
10.85
9.50
11.00
12.30
BE Mean Depth (ft)
0.77
0.70
0.73
0.70
0.70
0.70
1.09
1.01
0.99
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.52
0.53
0.56
0.40
0.50
0.50
0.59
0.51
0.54
0.50
0.50
0.50
Width/Depth Ratio
13.43
14.65
14.48
14.40
15.10
15.30
15.34
16.60
17.66
16.80
17.40
18.40
21.45
19.92
17.38
22.10
21.80
21.50
17.40
19.58
20.09
17.50
20.10
25.90
BE Cross -sectional Area (W)
8.00
7.21
7.71
6.77
6.92
6.54
18.19
16.97
17.24
16.65
17.10
17.12
5.71
5.53
5.46
4.34
4.69
4.96
5.97
5.15
5.83
5.13
5.97
5.85
BE Max Depth (ft)
1.18
1.10
1.13
1.20
1.20
1.10
2.20
2.11
2.06
2.10
2.10
2.20
1.07
0.80
0.87
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.91
0.79
0.88
0.90
0.90
0.90
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
59.38
59.03
59.40
59.30
59.20
58.90
63.54
63.56
63.59
63.60
63.60
63.60
43.79
40.39
41.07
40.00
39.40
40.60
56.59
56.65
56.58
56.60
56.60
56.60
Entrenchment Ratio
5.70
5.74
5.62
6.00
5.80
5.90
3.81
3.79
3.64
3.80
-
-
3.96
3.85
4.22
4.10
4.20
3.90
5.55
5.64
5.21
6.00
5.20
4.60
Bank Height Ratio
1.01
0.99
1.00
1.00
1.10
1.00
1.00
1.03
1.00
0.90
-
-
1.01
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.90
1.00
0.97
1.00
0.90
1.10
0.90
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
11.90
11.68
12.03
10.20
10.60
10.30
18.88
18.80
19.46
17.70
18.20
19.10
12.10
11.55
10.85
10.10
10.30
10.50
11.37
11.06
11.93
9.80
11.20
12.50
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.67
0.62
0.64
0.70
0.7
0.6
0.96
0.90
0.89
0.90
0.9
0.9
0.47
0.48
0.50
0.40
0.5
0.5
0.53
0.47
0.49
0.50
0.5
0.5
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO.95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - 2020, YEAR 5 OF 5

Table llb. Stream Reach Morphology Dad
Tower Creek Restoration P-j-t- Opd.. B: DMS P-jmt ID No. 95026
Reach 2 (711 LF)
Parameter
A".&
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
m ®stun and Substrate-R11Be
Min
Meav
Med
Max SO
v
Mi.
Mean
Med
Max
SD
v
Min
Meav
Med
Max
SO
v
Min
Meav
Med
Max
SD
v
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
v
Min
Meav
Med
Max
SO
n
BE Width (ft)
8.8
-----
-----
12.0 -----
3
8.5
9.2
9.1
9.9
0.7
3
8.6
9.4
8.7
10.7
1.2
3
7.8
8.5
8.5
9.2
0.7
3
7.7
8.7
8.4
9.9
1.1
3
7.1
8.3
8.1
9.8
1.4
3
Floodpfone Width (ft)
27.1
-----
-----
42.6 -----
3
25.6
32.2
33.0
38.1
6.3
3
25.6
32.2
31.8
39.3
6.9
3
24.6
31.4
33.1
36.5
6.1
3
24.9
31.5
32.2
37.4
6.3
3
25.3
32.0
33.3
37.4
6.2
3
BE Meav Depth El)
0.7
-----
-----
1.0 -----
3
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.1
3
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.1
3
0.5
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.2
3
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.1
3
0.5
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.2
3
BE Max Depth El)
1.1
-----
-----
2.3 -----
3
1.0
1.2
1.3
1.3
0.2
3
0.9
1.2
1.2
1.4
0.2
3
0.9
1.2
1.3
1.3
0.2
3
0.9
1.2
1.3
1.3
0.2
3
0.9
1.2
1.3
1.4
0.3
3
BE Cross-sectimal Area (ft')
5.8
-----
-----
12.0 -----
3
4.8
6.5
7.0
7.7
1.5
3
4.8
6.6
7.3
7.8
1.6
3
3.6
5.5
6.4
6.6
1.6
3
3.6
5.6
6.1
7.2
1.9
3
3.5
5.6
6.2
7.2
2.0
3
Width/Depth Ratio
10.2
-----
-----
13.2 -----
3
10.9
13.3
14.1
14.9
2.1
3
10.4
13.6
14.7
15.7
2.8
3
11.2
13.6
12.9
16.6
2.8
3
11.5
13.9
13.5
16.7
2.6
3
10.6
12.8
13.3
14.5
2.0
3
Entrenchment Ratio
3.1
-----
-----
3.7 -----
3
3.0
3.5
3.6
3.8
0.4
3
3.0
3.4
3.7
3.7
0.4
3
3.2
3.7
3.9
4.0
0.4
3
3.7
3.8
3.8
3.8
0.1
3
3.5
3.7
3.6
4.1
0.3
3
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
-----
-----
1.0 -----
3
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.1
0.0
3
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
3
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.0
3
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.1
3
0.9
0.9
0.9
1.0
0.1
3
d50 (mm)
17.1
-----
-----
23.3 -----
2
24.7
-----
-----
28.0
-----
2
17.0
-----
-----
17.0
-----
2
12.0
-----
-----
24.1
-----
2
12.0
-----
---
24.1
-----
2
12.0
-----
----
24.1
---
2
atteru
ChannelBeltwidth(ft)
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
___
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
Radios of Cufvalum El)
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
___
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
Rc Bankf.0 width (ft/ft)
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
Meander Wavelength IT)
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
___
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
Meavdef Width Ratio
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
___
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
Profile
Riffle Length(ft)
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
___
_____ _____
RittleSlope (ft/ft)
_____
0.010
_____
_____ _____
9
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
___
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
___
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
___
_____ _____
PoolLength IT)
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
___
_____
_____
_____
_____
___
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
___
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
___
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
___
_____ _____
PoolSpacing(ft)
19.0
_____
___
63.0 ____
19
_____
_____
___
_____
_____
_____
_____
___
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
___
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
___
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
___
_____ _____
PoolMax Depth (ft)
0.200
_____
___
3.4 _____
20
_____
_____
___
_____
_____
_____
___
___
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
___
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
___
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
___
_____ _____
PoolVolume He)
_____
_____
___
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
___
___
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
___
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
___
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
___
_____ _____
Substrate and It -pot I Parameters
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
___
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
___
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
___
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
___
_____ _____
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
_____
_____
___
___ _____
____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
_____
___
_____
_____
_____
____
_____
_____
_____
-_
_____
____
_____
_____
_____
___
_____
____
_____
_____
_____
SC%/Sa%/G%/B%/Bel.
_____
_____
___
___ _____
____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
_____
___
_____
_____
_____
____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
_____
_____
_____
___
_____
____
_____
_____
_____
___
___
dl6/d35/d50/d84/d95
<0.063-4.4/8.7-12.1
/17.1-23.3/55.3-77.1
/75.6-117.2
<0.063-5.0/12.8-16.7/24.7-28.0/58.0-79.2
/77.1-128/64-180
N/A /7.25/16.95/36.4-82.1
/64-123.4/90-256
N/A-0.7/6.6-12.0/12.0-24.1
/44.1-95.9 /98.3-135.9 />2048
N/A -0.8/7.3-12.3/12-24.0
/40.8-95.8
/73.9-125.3
/>2048
N/A
-0.7/6.6-12.0/12.0-24.0
/44.1-95.9 /98.3-135.9 />2048
ReachShear Stress (competency) lb/f'
_____
_____
___
___ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
___
_____
_____
_____
___
___
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
___
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
___
Max part sae (mm)mobili-d at bavkf.0 (Rosgen Curve)
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
___
_____
_____
_____
___
____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
___
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
___
_____ _____
Stream Powef(tfayspoftcapacity) W/m'
_____
___
___
___ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
___
_____
_____
_____
___
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
___
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
___
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
___
_____ _____
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Am.(SM)
_____
_____
_____
0.12 _____
_____
___
___
___
0.12
_____
_____
_____
___
_____
0.12
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
0.12
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
0.12
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
0.12
_____ _____
Imperviouscover estim ale(%)
_____
_____
_____
___ _____
_____
___
___
___
___
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
___
_____
_____
_____
___
_____
___
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
___
_____ _____
Rosgen Classification
_____
C4/E4
_____
_____ _____
_____
___
C4
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
C4/FA
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
C4/F4
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
C4/E4
_____
___
_____
_____
_____
C4/FA
_____
_____
_____ -----
BEVelocity (fps)
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
___
____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
___
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
___
___
___
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
BEDischarge (cfs)
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
___
____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
___
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
___
____
___
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
Valley Length
_____
695
_____
_____ _____
_____
___
695
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
695
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
695
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
695
_____
___
_____
_____
_____
695
_____
_____
_____ _____
Channel length (ft�
_____
711
_____
_____ _____
_____
___
711
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
711
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
711
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
711
_____
_-_
_____
_____
_____
711
_____
_____
_____ -----
Si ..sity
-----
1.02
-----
----- -----
-----
---
1.02
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
1.02
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
1.02
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
1.02
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
1.02
-----
-----
----- -----
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
0.0180
_____
_____ _____
_____
___
____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ -----
BEslope (ft/ft)
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
Bavkf.0 Floodplain Am.(acfes)
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
BEHIVL%/L%/M%/H%/VH%/E%
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
ChannelStability or Habitat Metric
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
Biolo ical or Other
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - 2020, YEAR 5 OF 5

Table llb. Stream Reach Morphology Dad
Tower Creek Restoration P-j-t- Opd.. B: DMS P-jmt ID No. 95026
each 3 (1,621 LF)
Parameter
A".&
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
m ®stun and Substrate -Riffle
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SO
v
Min
Meav
Med
Max
SO
v
Min
Meav
Med
Max
SO
v
Min
Meav
Med
Max
SD
v
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
v
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
BE Width (ft)
9.8
-----
-----
10.7
-----
3
10.0
10.9
10.7
11.8
0.9
3
10.3
10.6
10.4
11.1
0.4
3
9.2
9.8
9.8
10.3
0.6
3
9.4
9.7
9.5
10.3
0.5
3
9.3
9.8
9.4
10.6
0.7
3
Floodprove Width (ft)
37.8
-----
-----
48.1
-----
3
31.3
39.3
38.5
48.1
8.4
3
36.0
41.0
38.7
48.1
6.4
3
29.9
38.7
38.0
48.1
9.1
3
31.2
39.1
38.0
48.1
8.5
3
31.2
39.3
38.6
48.1
8.5
3
BE Meav Depth El)
0.6
-----
-----
0.8
-----
3
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.7
0.1
3
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.8
0.1
3
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.7
0.2
3
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.7
0.1
3
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.7
0.2
3
BE Max Depth El)
1.0
-----
-----
1.4
-----
3
0.8
1.0
0.9
1.4
0.3
3
0.8
1.0
0.9
1.2
0.2
3
0.8
0.9
0.9
1.1
0.2
3
0.8
0.9
0.8
1.1
0.2
3
0.8
0.9
0.8
1.0
0.1
3
BE Cross-secti-1 Area (ft')
6.5
-----
-----
8.7
-----
3
5.3
6.4
5.7
8.1
1.5
3
5.5
6.6
5.7
8.5
1.7
3
4.4
5.4
5.0
6.8
1.3
3
4.6
5.3
4.7
6.8
1.2
3
4.5
5.4
4.8
7.0
1.3
3
Width/Depth Ratio
13.1
-----
-----
16.9
-----
3
17.3
18.8
18.9
20.2
1.4
3
14.4
17.4
18.9
19.0
2.6
3
15.6
18.1
16.9
21.8
3.3
3
18.9
28.8
19.5
48.1
16.7
3
16.1
18.7
18.0
22.0
3.0
3
Evtrevchmevt Ratio
3.5
-----
-----
4.5
-----
3
3.1
3.6
3.6
4.1
0.5
3
3.5
3.9
3.8
4.3
0.4
3
3.1
4.0
4.1
4.7
0.8
3
3.3
4.1
4.2
4.7
0.7
3
3.3
4.0
4.1
4.5
0.6
3
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
-----
-----
1.0
-----
3
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
0.1
3
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
3
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.0
3
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.0
3
0.9
0.9
0.9
1.0
0.1
3
d50 (mm)
18.6
-----
-----
28.9
-----
3
32.0
-----
-----
37.2
-----
3
39.0
---
-----
55.3
-----
3
29.0
-----
-----
43.6
---
3
29.0
-----
-----
43.6
-----
0
29.0
-----
-----
43.6
---
0
attern
Channel Beltwidth(ft)
22.0
_____
_____
52.1
____
12
_____
_____
___
_____
_____
_____
___
___
_____
___
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
___
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
Radiosof Curvature El)
28.7
_____
_____
43.6
____
15
_____
_____
___
_____
_____
_____
___
___
___
___
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
RcBankf.0 width (ft/ft)
3.0
_____
_____
3.8
_____
3
_____
_____
___
_____
_____
_____
_____
___
___
___
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
MeanderWavelength IT)
90.2
____
_____
130.9
___
15.0
_____
_____
___
___
_____
_____
_____
___
___
___
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
MeanderWidth Ratio
3.0
____
_____
4.9
_____
3
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
rM.
RifleLength (ft)
_____
_____
_____
___
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
RittleSlope (ft/ft)
_____
0.011
_____
___
_____
23
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
PoolLength IT)
_____
_____
___
___
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
PoolSpacing(ft)
11
_____
_____
g0
_____
35
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
PoolMax Depth (ft)
0.2
_____
_____
1.3
_____
34
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
PoolVolume He)
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
Substrate and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
_____
___
___
_____
_____
____
_____
___
_____
_____
_____
____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
_____
_____
___
_____
_____
____
SC%/Sa%/G%/B%/Be%
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
_____
___
___
_____
_____
____
_____
___
_____
_____
_____
____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
dl6/d35/d50/d84/d95
<0.063-5.6/9.9-16.3/18.6-28.9/85.1-99.5/154.8->2048/180->2048
5.6-10.3/16.8-20.6/32-37.2
/86-105/120.1-159.5/180-512
19.8-21.8/28.5-38.0/39.0-55.3
/92.4-114.4/150.9-208.5/180-362
8.1-15.0/16.8-31.4/29.0-43.6/60.6-99.5/113.8-127.8
/>2048
9.3-14.6/17.6-29.7/28.3-42.0/61.8-97.4/106.4-146.7
/>2048
8.1-15.0/16.8-31.4/29.0-43.6/60.6-919.5/113.8-127.8
/>2048
ReachShear Stress (c®petevcy) lb/f'
____
___
___
___
_____
_____
_____
___
___
___
_____
_____
_____
___
___
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
___
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
Max part sae(mm) mobilized at bavkf.U(R.*-Curve)
_____
_____
_____
_____
___
___
___
_____
_____
_____
___
_-_
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
___
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
___
_____ _____
Stream Powef(tmnsportcapacity) W/m'
_____
___
___
_____
_____
_____
_____
___
___
___
_____
_____
_____
___
___
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
___
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
___
_____ _____
ddiflanal Reach Parameters
Drainage Am.(SM)
_____
_____
_____
0.2
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
0.2
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
0.2
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
0.2
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
0.2
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
0.2
_____ _____
Imperviouscover estim ate(%)
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
___
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
___
_____
_____
_____
____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
Rosgev Classification
_____
C4
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
C4
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
C4
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
C4
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
C4
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
C4
_____
_____
_____ -----
BEVelocity (fps)
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
BEDischarge W.)
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
Valley Length
_____
1377
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
1377
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
1377
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
1377
____
_____
_____
_____
_____
1377
____
_____
_____
_____
_____
1377
_____
_____
_____ _____
Channel length (ft�
_____
1621
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
1621
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
1621
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
1621
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
1621
___
_____
_____
_____
_____
1621
_____
_____
_____ -----
Si .. sity
_____
1.18
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
1.18
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
1.18
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
1.18
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
1.18
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
1.18
_____
_____
_____ _____
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
0.0122
___
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
___
_____
_____
_____
___
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ -----
BE slope (ft/ft)
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
___
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
Bavkf.0 Floodplaiv At -(-es)
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
___
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
BEHIVL%/L%/M%/H%/VH%/E%
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
ChannelStability or Habitat Metric
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
___
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
Biolo ical or Otbff
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - 2020, YEAR 5 OF 5

Table llb. Stream Reach Morphology Dad
Town Creek Restoration P-j-t- Opd.. B: DMS P-jmt ID No. 95026
each 5 (820 LF)
Parameter
A".&
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
rm ®sran and Snb A-te-Riffle
Min
Meav
Med
Max
SO
v
Min
Meav
Med
Max
SD
v
Min
Meav
Med
Max
SD
v
Min
Meav
Med
Max
SD
v
Min
Meav
Med
Max
SD
v
Min
Meav
Med
Max
SD
n
BE Width (ft)
10.2
-----
-----
11.1
-----
3
10.0
10.3
10.3
10.5
0.2
3
9.7
10.4
10.6
10.9
0.6
3
9.5
9.7
9.8
9.9
0.2
3
10.1
10.4
10.2
11.0
0.5
3
10.0
10.9
10.3
12.3
1.3
3
Floodprove Width (ft)
43.8
-----
-----
59.4
-----
3
40.4
52.0
56.7
59.0
10.1
3
41.1
52.4
56.6
59.4
9.9
3
40.0
52.0
56.6
59.3
10.5
3
39.4
51.7
56.6
59.2
10.8
3
40.6
52.0
56.6
58.9
10.0
3
BE Meav Depth El)
0.5
-----
-----
0.8
-----
3
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.7
0.1
3
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.1
3
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.7
0.2
3
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.7
0.1
3
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.7
0.1
3
BE Max Depth El)
0.9
-----
-----
1.2
-----
3
0.8
0.9
0.8
1.1
0.2
3
0.9
1.0
0.9
1.1
0.1
3
0.8
1.0
0.9
1.2
0.2
3
0.8
1.0
0.9
1.2
0.2
3
0.8
0.9
0.9
1.1
0.2
3
BE Cross-secti-1 Area (ft')
5.7
-----
-----
8.0
-----
3
5.2
6.0
5.5
7.2
1.1
3
5.2
6.1
5.5
7.7
1.4
3
4.3
5.4
5.1
6.8
1.2
3
4.7
5.9
6.0
6.9
1.1
3
5.0
5.8
5.9
6.5
0.8
3
Width/Depth Ratio
13.4
-----
-----
21.5
-----
3
14.7
18.1
19.6
19.9
2.9
3
14.5
17.3
17.4
20.1
2.8
3
14.4
18.0
17.5
22.1
3.9
3
15.1
19.0
20.1
21.8
3.5
3
15.3
20.9
21.5
25.9
5.3
3
Evtrevchmevt Ratio
4.0
-----
-----
5.7
-----
3
3.9
5.1
5.6
5.7
1.1
3
4.2
5.0
5.2
5.6
0.7
3
4.1
5.4
6.0
6.0
1.1
3
4.2
5.1
5.2
5.8
0.8
3
3.9
4.8
4.6
5.9
1.0
3
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
-----
-----
1.0
-----
3
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
3
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
3
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.1
0.1
3
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.1
0.1
3
0.9
0.9
0.9
1.0
0.1
3
d50 (mm)
27.5
-----
-----
41.8
-----
2
20.3
-----
-----
25.7
-----
2
33.6
---
-----
42.9
-----
2
27.4
-----
-----
27.5
---
2
27.4
-----
-----
27.5
----
0
27.4
-----
-----
27.5
---
0
sttern
Channel Beltwidth(ft)
23.8
_____
_____
44.2
____
10
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
___
___
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
___
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
___
_____
_____
_____
_____
___
_____
_____
Radiosof Curvature El)
24.5
_____
_____
40.9
_____
9
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
___
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
___
_____
_____
RcBankf.0 width (ft/ft)
2.8
_____
_____
3.5
_____
3
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
___
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
___
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
___
_____
_____
MeanderWavelength IT)
95.2
_____
_____
139.9
_____
9
_____
_____
_____
___
_____
_____
_____
___
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
___
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
___
_____
_____
MeanderWidth Ratio
2.9
_____
_____
3.9
_____
3
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
rM.
RifleLength (ft)
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
RittleSlope (ft/ft)
_____
0.018
_____
_____
_____
11
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
Pool Length IT)
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
___
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
PoolSpacing(ft)
25.0
_____
_____
96.0
____
14
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
___
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
PoolMax Depth (ft)
0.4
_____
_____
1.1
____
15
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
___
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
___
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
Pool Volume He)
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
___
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
___
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
Substrate and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
___
___
_____
_____
_____
_____
___
____
_____
_____
_____
SC%/Sa%/G%/B%/Be%
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
___
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
___
___
_____
_____
_____
_____
___
___
_____
_____
_____
_____
___
___
_____
_____
_____
dl6/d35/d50/d84/d95
13.2-13.6/20.4-27.8/27.5-41.8/65.1-84.1/114.6-122.5/128-256
6.7-10.3/14.1-18.2/20.3-25.7/52.4-62.1/119.3-134.7/180-256
14.4-15.0/24.7-32.2/33.6-42.9/64-104.2/128-164.6/128-256
9.1-10.2/15.8-20.3/27.4-27.5/62.2-81.1/101.2-123.8/180->2048
10.8-11.0/19.9-21.3/29.3-33.5/75.5-75.9/115.4-120.8/180->2048
9.1-10.2/15.8-20.3/27.4-27.5/62.2-81.1/101.2-123.8/180->2048
ReachShear Stress (c®petevcy) lb/P
___
___
____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
___
____
_____
___
_____
_____
___
___
___
_____
_____
_____
___
___
_____
_____
_____
_____
___
Max part sae(mm) mobilized at bavkf.U(R.*-Curve)
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
___
____
_____
___
_____
___
___
___
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
Stream Powef(tmnsportcapacity) W/m'
___
___
____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
___
_____
_____
___
_____
_____
___
___
___
___
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
ddiflanal Reach Parameters
Drainage Am.(SM)
_____
_____
_____
0.2
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
0.2
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
0.2
___
_____
_____
_____
_____
0.2
___
_____
_____
_____
_____
0.2
_____
_____
_____
_____
___
0.2
Imperviouscover estim ate(%
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
___
_____
_____
_____
_____
___
___
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
___
___
Rosgev Classification
_____
Cq
___
_____
_____
_____
_____
Cq
___
_____
_____
_____
_____
Cq
_____
_____
___
_____
_____
Cq
___
___
___
_____
_____
Cq
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
Cq
BEVelocity (fps)
_____
_____
___
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
___
___
____
___
___
_____
_____
_____
_____
___
_____
_____
_____
_____
BEDischarge W.)
_____
_____
___
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
___
___
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
___
___
_____
_____
_____
___
____
___
_____
_____
_____
_____
___
_____
_____
_____
_____
Valley Length
_____
742
___
___
_____
_____
_____
742
___
___
_____
_____
_____
742
_____
___
___
_____
_____
742
_____
___
___
_____
_____
742
___
___
_____
_____
_____
742
Channel length (ft�
_____
822
___
___
_____
_____
_____
822
___
___
_____
_____
_____
822
_____
___
___
_____
_____
822
_____
___
___
_____
_____
822
___
_-_
_____
_____
_____
822
Sinuosity
_____
1.11
___
___
_____
_____
_____
1.11
___
___
___
_____
_____
1.11
____
___
___
_____
_____
1.11
___
___
___
_____
_____
1.11
___
___
_____
_____
_____
1.11
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
0.0128
___
___
_____
_____
_____
_____
___
___
___
_____
_____
_____
___
___
___
_____
_____
_____
___
_____
_____
_____
___
___
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
BFslope (ft/ft)
_____
___
___
___
_____
_____
_____
_____
___
___
___
_____
_____
_____
___
_____
_____
_____
___
___
___
_____
_____
_____
___
___
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
Bavkf.0 Floodplaiv Area(acres)
_____
___
___
___
_____
___
___
___
___
___
___
_____
_____
___
___
___
___
_____
_____
___
___
___
___
_____
_____
_____
___
___
_____
_____
_____
_____
-----
B EHI VL%/L%/M%/H%/VH%/E%
_____
___
___
___
_____
___
___
___
___
___
___
_____
_____
___
___
___
___
_____
_____
___
___
___
___
_____
_____
_____
___
___
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
_____
___
___
___
____
___
___
___
___
___
___
_____
_____
___
___
___
___
_____
_____
___
___
___
___
_____
_____
_____
___
___
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
ical or Otbef
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - 2020, YEAR 5 OF 5

APPENDIX E
Hydrologic Data

Figure 5a. In -Stream Flow Gauge Graphs
Town Ureek Restoration Project: Project INo. 95U26
North Stanly Middle School Daily Rain
1/1/2020 2/20/2020 4/10/2020 5/30/2020 7/19/2020 9/7/2020 10/27/2020 12/16/2020
0.0
= 0.5
1.0
1.5
= 2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
1.70
1.60
1.50
1.40
1.30
1.20
1.10
(1) 1.00
G
0.90
0.80
0.70
v
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
I Transducer was replaced on I
2/1/2020 due to failure
Town Creek Reach 1
In -channel Flow Gauge TC FL1
YR5 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
CRITERIA MET - 202*
(3/26/2020-10/13/2020)
TC FL1
— — — Flow Criteria - 0.03'
F•�"' --- r -- �"" — y�}--------------i
v
1/1/2020 2/10/2020 3/21/2020 4/30/2020 6/9/2020 7/19/2020 8/28/2020 10/7/2020 11/16/2020 12/26/2020
Date
* Surface water flow is estimated to have occurred when the pressure transducer reading is equal to or above 0.03 feet in depth.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - 2020, YEAR 5 OF 5

Figure 5b. In -Stream Flow Gauge Graphs
Town Ureek Kestoration Project: Project No. 95u2b
North Stanly Middle School Daily Rain
1/1/2020 2/20/2020 4/10/2020 5/30/2020 7/19/2020 9/7/2020 10/27/2020 12/16/2020
0.0
Tj - ]I-. 111 -11 -oil r 11
0.5
1.5
C 2.0
m 2.5
3.0
3.5
1.70
1.60
1.50
1.40
1.30
1.20
sMu
Q 1.00
d
G 0.90
L
W 0.80
0.70
W 0.60
v
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
YR5 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
CRITERIA MET - 214*
(01/1/2020 - 08/1/2020)
Town Creek Reach 2
In -channel Flow Gauge TC FL2
_ TC FL2 _
— Flow Criteria - .03'
1/5/2020 2/14/2020 3/25/2020 5/4/2020 6/13/2020 7/23/2020 9/1/2020 10/11/2020 11/20/2020 12/30/2020
Date
* Surface water flow is estimated to have occurred when the pressure transducer reading is equal to or above 0.03 feet in depth.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - 2020, YEAR 5 OF 5

Figure 6. Monthly Rainfall Data
Iown l,reek Kestoratlon Yrolect - Vptlon A: Yrolect 1V0. 9,UL6
8.00
7.00
6.00
v
5.00
0
4.00
U
U
c
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
Monthly Rainfall for Stanly County, NC vs. Average Rainfall Data
(11 /01 /2019 - 10/3 1/2020)
��♦♦ III
' ♦♦♦
I �
♦♦ III
III ♦♦♦
♦♦♦ III
♦I
November December January February March April May
Month
� Stanly County Observed 2019 - 2020 Precipitation — — Average
Historic rainfall data from WETS Station: ALBEMARLE, NCO090
Observed 2019 - 2020 Precipitaion from CHRONOS Station NEWL, North Stanly Middle School
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - 2020, YEAR 5 OF 5
June July August
---•30%---•70%
September October

Table 12. Verification of Bankfull Events
Town Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95026
Date of Data
Photo #
Date of Occurrence
Method
Reach Location
Gauge Height (FT)
Collection
if available
Between 5/2016 and
Reach 5 Station
10/12/2016
Crest Gauge
0.2
MY Report
10/12/2016
42+50
Between 5/3/2017 and
Reach 5 Station
10/3/2017
Crest Gauge
0.17
MY2 Report
10/3/2017
42+50
Between 10/3/2017 and
Reach 5 Station
1/11/2018
Crest Gauge
0.18
MY3 Report
1/11/2018
42+50
Between 4/19/2018 and
Reach 5 Station
6/6/2018
Crest Gauge
1.03
MY3 Report
6/6/2018
42+50
Between 6/6/2018 and
Reach 5 Station
7/17/2018
Crest Gauge
0.20
MY3 Report
7/17/2018
42+50
Between 7/17/2018 and
Reach 5 Station
8/23/2018
Crest Gauge
0.65
MY3 Report
8/23/2018
42+50
Between 8/23/2018 and
Reach 5 Station
11/14/2018
Crest Gauge
1.06
MY3 Report
11/14/2018
42+50
Between 11/14/2018 and
Reach 5 Station
3/20/2019
Crest Gauge
0.38
MY4 Report
3/20/2019
42+50
5/21/2020 based on Flow
Reach 5 Station
9/22/2020
Crest Gauge
1.01
Crest Gauge Photo 1
Gau e Data
42+50
Table 13. Verification of In -stream Flow Conditions
Town Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95026
Consecutive
Cumulative Days of
Flow Gauge ID
Reach Location
i
Days of Flow
2
Flow
Monitoring Year 1
TCFL1
Reach 1 Station 11+05
168
231
TCFL2
Reach 2 Station 13+02
150
195
Monitoring Year 2
TCFL1
Reach 1 Station 11+05
250
279
TCFL2
Reach 2 Station 13+02
202
205
Monitoring Year 3
TCFL1
Reach 1 Station 11+05
109
248
TCFL2
Reach 2 Station 13+02
156
287
Monitoring Year 4
TCFL1
Reach 1 Station 11+05
36
200
TCFL2
lReach 2 Station 13+02
146
181
Monitoring Year 5
TCFL1
Reach 1 Station 11+05
202
245
TCFL2
lReach 2 Station 13+02
214
283
Notes:
'Indicates the number of consecutive days within the monitoring year where flow was measured.
2Indicates the number of cumulative days within the monitoring year where flow was measured.
Flow success criteria for the Site is stated as: A surface water flow event will be considered intermittent when the flow duration
occurs for a minimum of 30 days
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - 2020, YEAR 5 OF 5

Town Creek — Hydrologic Data Photos
Crest Gauge Photo 1— (9/22/2020)
Crest Gauge Photo — (10/15/2020)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - 2020, YEAR 5 OF 5