20141328 Ver 1_Year 6 Monitoring Report_2021_20220104

Mitigation Project Information Upload
ID#* 20141328 Version* 1
.........................................................................................................................................................................
Select Reviewer:*
Erin Davis
Initial Review Completed Date 01/04/2022
Mitigation Project Submittal - 1/4/2022
......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Is this a Prospectus,Technical Proposal or a New Site?* 0 Yes O No
Type of Mitigation Project:*
Stream Wetlands Buffer Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name:* Email Address:*
Jeremiah Dow [e-mail]
Project Information
......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
ID#:* 20141328 Version:* 1
Existing ID# Existing Version
Project Type: • DMS Mitigation Bank
Project Name: Thomas Creek Restoration Project
County: Wake
Document Information
......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Monitoring Report
File Upload: Thomas Creek_96074_MY6_2021.pdf 52.42MB
Please upload only one PDF of the complete file that needs to be submitted...
Signature
......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Print Name:* Jeremiah Dow
Signature:*

Thomas Creek Restoration Project
Year 6 Monitoring Report - FINAL
Wake County,North Carolina
DMS Project ID Number—96074,DEQ Contract No. 5549
Permits: SAW-2013-02009,DWR# 14-1328
Cape Fear River Basin: 03030004-020 010
J 1 " I, i�S
,� � e'- 4,`A 1- �, #5�' F1�s j id s, s i.
f. , t` e f �' wroD`7,11410 7r•'s z _A A-,4 S� ...;r
t 3 y §
if
L Y x T # u R ri S r -.
t —
�r
' z' . `
li
:il -II. .- t -:# . 1 1 i'' •••-• '..00-*,.-/--1: 141' . , • -- - •' 1 ,.7-',,-- 2- '-':IV- - ----`"' ,..,--
A\
fs 5 i 4�� ' ": Iy , d
' )4P:,:-. ftP, ,r(1,-, i 0, _il .
''' l'A 9 ' '''' i/l'' .
1411
Project Info: Monitoring Year: 6 of 7
Year of Data Collection: 2021
Year of Completed Construction(including planting): 2016
Submission Date: December 2021
Submitted To: NCDEQ-Division of Mitigation Services
1625 Mail Service Center
Raleigh,NC 27699
NC DEQ Contract ID No. 003992

Michael Baker Michael Baker Engineering,Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway,Ste.600 I Cary,North Carolina 27518
INTERNATIONAL Office:919.463.5488 I Fax:[phone]
December 6,2021
Jeremiah Dow,Project Manager
NCDEQ,Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh,NC 27699-1652
Subject: Response to DMS Comments for DRAFT Monitoring Year 6 Report
Thomas Creek Restoration Project, Wake County
DMS Project#96074, DEQ Contract#5549,RFP# 16-005020
Mr. Dow:
Please find below our responses to the NC Division of Mitigation Services(DMS)review comments received
December 3,2021 in reference to the Thomas Creek Restoration Project—DRAFT Monitoring Year 6 Report.
We have revised the Draft document in response to the referenced review comments as outlined below:
1) For Table 1,the Total credits for the site should be 5,706.733. I attached a copy of Table for you to
see the total credits and the credits for each Reach. The blue highlighted cells are numbers I had to
reduce by 20 feet due to the non-credit generating stream length in crossings being included as part of
the design length. I think you can leave those numbers what they were,but I wanted you to see what I
did to do to get the credit numbers.
Response: Baker has modified Table 1 accordingly,though we did remove the non-creditable
sections from the original mitigation plan lengths for clarity so any reader could follow how the
final credits were established. A notation was added below the table to explain the revision.
2) Need to update the coordinates in Table 4.
Response: Project coordinates in Table 4 were updated as requested.
3) As a reminder,this project has a Monitoring Phase Performance Bond, so a new bond will need to be
in place and approved through next year,MY7 before we can authorize payment.
Response: Baker is currently in the process of obtaining the final monitoring bond.
Baker has provided one hardcopy and a pdf copy of the Final report,along with all the updated digital files(to
be sent by secure ftp link). Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions regarding our
response submittal.
Sincerely,
Scott King, LSS,PWS
Project Manager

Thomas Creek Restoration Project
Year 6 Monitoring Report - FINAL
Wake County,North Carolina
DMS Project ID Number—96074,DEQ Contract No. 5549
Permits: SAW-2013-02009,DWR# 14-1328
Cape Fear River Basin: 03030004-020010
Report Prepared and Submitted by Michael Baker Engineering,Inc.
NC Professional Engineering License#F-1084
Michael Baker
INTERNATIONAL
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT,DMS PROJECT NO.96074
MONITORING YEAR 6 OF 7(2021)

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
2.0 METHODOLOGY 3
2.1 Stream Assessment 3
2.1.1 Morphological Parameters and Channel Stability 3
2.12 Hydrology 4
2.13 Photographic Documentation 4
2.14 Visual Stream Morphological Stability Assessment 4
2.2 Vegetation Assessment 4
3.0 REFERENCES 5
APPENDICES
Appendix A Project Vicinity Map and Background Tables
Figure 1 Project Vicinity Map and Directions
Figure 2 Restoration Summary Map
Figure 3 Reference Stream Locations Map
Figure 4 Monitoring Features Overview Map
Table 1 Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Table 2 Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3 Project Contacts
Table 4 Project Attributes(Pre-Construction Conditions)
Appendix B Visual Assessment Data
Figure 5 Current Condition Plan View(CCPV)Maps
Table 5 Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Table 6 Vegetation Conditions Assessment
Stream Station Photo-Points
Crest Gauge Photographs
Additional Monitoring Photographs
Appendix C Vegetation Plot Data
Table 7* CVS Density Per Plot
Table 8* CVS Vegetation Plot Summary Information
Table 9* Total Stem Counts for Each Species Arranged by Plot
Appendix D Stream Survey Data
Figure 6* Year 5 Cross-Sections
Figure 7* Pebble Count Plot Data
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. ii
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT,DMS PROJECT NO.96074
MONITORING YEAR 6 OF 7(2021)

Table 10 Baseline Stream Summary
Table 11 a* Cross-section Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring
Summary
Table 11 b* Stream Reach Morphology Summary
Appendix E Hydrologic Data
Figure 8 Flow Gauge Graphs
Figure 9 Observed Rainfall Versus Historic Averages
Table 12 Verification of Bankfull Events
Table 13 Flow Gauge Success
*Note: The figures and tables marked above with an asterisk are not included as part of this Year 6
Monitoring Report,but were left listed in the Table of Contents to explain the otherwise out-of-sequence
figure/table numbering and appendix designations. For clarity,Michael Baker wishes to preserve the
continuity of the labeling for these features between monitoring years to avoid confusion(e.g.to allow
Appendix C to always contain vegetation data,and Table 12 to always be the bankfull event table, etc. in
each monitoring report). These figures and tables had been included in past reports and will be included
again as part of the Year 7 monitoring report for 2022.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. iii
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT,DMS PROJECT NO.96074
MONITORING YEAR 6 OF 7(2021)

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Michael Baker Engineering,Inc. (Baker) restored 4,721 linear feet of perennial and intermittent stream and
enhanced 3,948 linear feet of intermittent stream as documented in the As-built Baseline Report. Baker also
planted approximately 14.4 acres of native riparian vegetation within the 22.7 acre recorded conservation
easement areas along all or portions of the restored and enhanced reaches (Reaches RI, R2,R3, R4,R5, R6,
R7, T1, and T2). The Thomas Creek Restoration Project (Site)is located in Wake County,North Carolina
(Figure 1),approximately 1.5 miles southwest of the Community of New Hill. (Figure 1). The Site is located
within the NC Divisi on of Mitigati on S ervices'(NCDMS)Targeted Local Watershed(TLW)03030004-020010
(the Harris Lake Hydrologic Unit)of the Cape Fear River Basin and is located in what was formerly known as
the NC Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) subbasin 03-06-07. The project involved the restoration and
enhancement of a rural Piedmont stream system,which had been impaired due to past agricultural conversion
and cattle grazing.
Based on the NCDMS 2009 Cape Fear River Basin Restoration Priority (RBRP) Plan, the Thomas Creek
Restoration Project area is located in an existing targeted local watershed within the Cape Fear River Basin and
is located within the Middle Cape Fear/ Kenneth and Parker Creeks, Local Watershed Planning(LWP)area.
The restoration strategy for the Cape Fear River Basin is to promote low impact development, stormwater
management,restoration and buffer protection in urbanizing areas,and buffer preservation elsewhere.
The primary goal of the project was to improve ecologic functions through the restoration and enhancement of
streams and buffers in a degraded,urbanizing area as described in the NCDMS 2009 Cape Fear RBRP. Detailed
project goals are identified below:
• Create geomorphically stable conditions along the unnamed tributaries throughout the Site,
• Protect and improve water quality by reducing streambank erosion,and nutrient/sediment inputs,
• Restore stream and floodplain interaction by connecting historic flow paths and promoting natural flood
processes,
• Restore and protect riparian buffer functions and corridor habitat in perpetuity by establishing a
permanent conservation easement, and
• Improve aquatic and terrestrial habitat through improved substrate and in-stream cover, addition of
woody debris,and reduction of water temperature.
To accomplish these goals,the following objectives were identified:
• Restore existing incised, eroding, and channelized streams by providing them access to their relic
floodplains,
• Implement agricultural BMPs, including cattle watering stations,to reduce nonpoint source(NPS)
inputs to receiving waters,
• Prevent cattle from accessing the conservation easement by installing permanent fencing and thus
reduce excessive streambank erosion and undesired nutrient inputs,
• Enhance aquatic habitat value by providing more bedform diversity,creating natural scour pools and
reducing sediment from accelerated streambank erosion,
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. 1
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT,DMS PROJECT NO.96074
MONITORING YEAR 6 OF 7(2021)

• Plant native species riparian buffer vegetation along streambank and floodplain areas,protected by a
permanent conservation easement, to increase stormwater runoff filtering capacity, improve
streambank stability and riparian habitat connectivity, and shade the stream to decrease water
temperature, and
• Control invasive species vegetation within much of the project area and, if necessary, continue
treatments during the monitoring period.
In accordance with the Mitigation Plan and the project-applicable DMS guidance document "Monitoring
Requirements and Performance Standards for Stream and/or Wetland Mitigation"dated 11/7/2011,no formal
vegetation plot monitoring was performed,nor were any stream cross-sectional surveys conducted as part of
this Year 6 monitoring effort. A visual assessment of the site is emphasized this year,with the full vegetation
and cross-section survey work to resume for the Year 7 monitoring in 2022.
From the Year 6 visual inspection monitoring,all stream reaches appear stable and functioning. All stream
riffle beds are vertically stable,the pools are maintaining depth, stream banks are stable and vegetating, and in-
stream structures are physically intact and performing as designed as reported in Table 5 (Appendix B). No
Stream Problem Areas (SPAs)were identified in Year 6. The two short sections of minor bank scour from
Hurricane Florence that were reported,repaired,and replanted in Year 4(2019)monitoring report appear fully
stable with vegetation continuing to establish well(see photos in Appendix B).
The Year 6 visual inspection monitoring also observed that the planted acreage performance categories were
functioning at 100 percent with no eroding or bare areas to report,nor any areas of high mortality or poor growth
as reported in Table 6 (Appendix B). No Vegetation Problem Areas (VPAs) were identified in Year 6.
Additionally, there were no significant areas of invasive species vegetation observed during the Year 6
monitoring. There were a few small,isolated pockets of cattail(Typha latifolia)found along sections of Reach
R2. They will be monitored closely over the next year and treated if necessary.
Also,as previously discussed in the Year 3 monitoring report in 2018,an area roughly 0.38 acres in size of low
vigor/short stems had been noted within the left buffer of upper Reach R3, though stem density remains quite
good. Based on soil test results,this area has periodically received small applications of soil amendments to
help improve stem growth. In April of 2021,pelletized lime was applied to this area along with small amounts
of fertilizer to the planted stems. The plant vigor and growth in this area certainly continues to improve but
remains a little behind the growth observed on the rest of the site. As such, soil amendments will continue to
be applied to this area. Please see the CCPV in Appendix B for the location of this amended area.
Additionally, there were no areas of non-native invasive species vegetation observed during the Year 6
monitoring. However, a few short sections of stream along the upper and middle portions of Reach R2 and the
lower portion of Reach R4 were observed to have scattered pockets of native cattail(Typha latifolia)growing
in the channel. These sections had been previously treated in March and April of 2019 as noted in previous
monitoring reports. These areas will continue to be monitored in the future and treated again if necessary.
Year 6 flow monitoring demonstrated that both flow gauges (TMCK-FL1 and TMCK-FL2) met the stated
success criteria of 30 days or more of consecutive flow through Reaches 2 and 5 respectively. Flow gauge
TMCK-FL1 documented 279 days of consecutive flow in Reach 2,while flow gauge TMCK-FL2 documented
224 days of consecutive flow in Reach 5. The flow gauges demonstrated similar patterns relative to rainfall
events and can corroborate reported bankfull events from the crest gauge,as shown in the flow gauge graphs in
Appendix E.
As the observed monthly rainfall data for the project presented in Figure 9 in Appendix E demonstrates, the
past 12 months have been wetter as compared to historic averages for Wake County. A total of 55.1 in. of
rainfall was observed for the project using the nearest NC-CRONOS station,while Wake County averages 43.8
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. 2
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT,DMS PROJECT NO.96074
MONITORING YEAR 6 OF 7(2021)

in. of annual rainfall. However,it should be noted that bulk of this excess rainfall came over the winter of
2020-2021,while the spring of 2021 was well below average monthly rainfalls and the summer and fall of 2021
were much closer to their average ranges.
During Year 5 monitoring, the Reach R2 crest gauge (crest gauge #1) documented one post-construction
bankfull event in July 2021,as confirmed by both in-stream flow gauges(see Appendix E). As bankfull events
have now been documented in all six years of monitoring, the project has exceeded the bankfull standard
required for credit release.
Summary information/data related to the Site and statistics related to performance of various project and
monitoring elements can be found in the tables and figures in the report Appendices. Narrative background and
supporting information formerly found in these reports can be found in the Baseline Monitoring Report and in
the Mitigation Plan available on the DMS website. Any raw data supporting the tables and figures in the
Appendices is available from DMS upon request.
This report documents the successful completion of the Year 6 monitoring activities for the post-construction
monitoring period.
2.0 METHODOLOGY
The seven-year monitoring plan for the Site includes criteria to evaluate the success of the stream and vegetation
components of the Site. The methodology and report template used to evaluate these components adheres to
the DMS guidance documents Monitoring Requirements and Performance Standards for Stream and/or Wetland
Mitigation(DMS 2011),and to the Monitoring Report Template,Version 1.5(DMS 2012),which will continue
to serve as the template for subsequent monitoring years. In accordance with these documents and the approved
Mitigation Plan, no formal vegetation plot monitoring was performed, nor were any stream cross-sectional
surveys conducted as part of this Year 6 monitoring effort. A visual assessment of the site is emphasized this
year,with the full vegetation and cross-section survey work to resume for the Year 7 monitoring in 2022.
The specific locations of monitoring features, such as vegetation plots, permanent cross-sections, reference
photograph stations, crest gauges and flow gauges, are shown on the Current Condition Plan View(CCPV)
map found in Appendix B.
All earthwork for project construction was completed in October of 2015,with subsequent as-built survey work
completed in November of 2015. All site planting(bareroot stems and live-stakes)was completed in January
of 2016. The Year 6 visual site assessment data contained in Appendix B were obtained throughout the year
from field visits in February,May,August, and October 2021.
2.1 Stream Assessment
The Project involved the restoration and enhancement of a rural Piedmont stream system that had been impaired
due to past agricultural conversion and cattle grazing. Restoration practices involved raising the existing
streambed and reconnecting the stream to the relic floodplain to restore natural flood regimes to the system.
The existing channels abandoned within the restoration areas were partially to completely filled to decrease
surface and subsurface drainage and to raise the local water table. Permanent cattle exclusion fencing was
provided around all proposed reaches and riparian buffers, except along reaches where no cattle are located or
cattle lack stream access.
2.1.1 Morphological Parameters and Channel Stability
A longitudinal profile was surveyed for the entire length of channel immediately after construction to
document as-built baseline conditions for the Monitoring Year 0 only. Annual longitudinal profiles
will not be conducted during subsequent monitoring years unless channel instability has been
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. 3
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT,DMS PROJECT NO.96074
MONITORING YEAR 6 OF 7(2021)

documented or remedial actions/repairs are required by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers(USACE)
or DMS.
As per the Mitigation Plan and DMS monitoring guidance for this project,no cross-section survey data
were collected for this Monitoring Year 6 assessment. Consequently,none of the cross-sectional survey
graphs(Figure 6),morphology data(Tables 1 la and 11b), or pebble count data(Figure 7)are presented
in Appendix D as in previous monitoring reports.
2.1.2 Hydrology
To monitor on-site bankfull events,one crest gauge(crest gauge#1)was installed along the downstream
portion of Reach R2 at bankfull elevation along the left top of bank at approximately Station 38+90.
During Year 6 monitoring, one above-bankfull event was documented in July 2021. Further details of
the crest gauge readings are presented in Table 12 in Appendix E.
To monitor flow on restored reaches,two flow gauges were installed on site; TMCK-FL1 on Reach 2
(Station 20+75), and TMCK-FL2 on Reach 5 (Station 33+90). The Year 6 flow monitoring data
demonstrated that both flow gauges met the stated success criteria of 30 days or more of consecutive
flow. The pressure transducer device in Flow Gauge #1,which had failed in May 2020,was replaced
in December of 2020,prior to all Year 6 monitoring.
2.1.3 Photographic Documentation
Representative stream photographs for Monitoring Year 6 were taken along each Reach in February
2021 and are provided in Appendix B. Additional photographs were taken at other times during the
year as noted in the photologs.
2.1.4 Visual Stream Morphological Stability Assessment
The visual stream morphological stability assessment involves the qualitative evaluation of lateral and
vertical channel stability, and the integrity and overall performance of in-stream structures throughout
the Project reaches as a whole. Habitat parameters and pool depth maintenance are also evaluated.
During Year 6 monitoring,Baker staff walked the entire length of each of the Project reaches several
times throughout the year,noting geomorphic conditions of the stream bed profile(riffle/pool facets),
both stream banks, and engineered in-stream structures. Representative photographs were taken per
the Site's Mitigation Plan,and the locations of any SPAs were documented in the field for subsequent
mapping on the CCPV figures. There were no SPAs noted during Year 6 monitoring. A more detailed
summary of the results for the visual stream stability assessment can be found in Appendix B, which
includes supporting data tables and figures,as well as the general stream photos.
2.2 Vegetation Assessment
In order to determine if the success criteria were achieved,vegetation-monitoring quadrants were installed and
are monitored across the site in accordance with the CVS-DMS Protocol for Recording Vegetation,Version 4.1
(Lee 2007)using the CVS-DMS Data Entry Tool v. 2.3.1 (CVS 2012). The vegetation monitoring plots cover
a minimum of 2 percent of the planted portion of the Site with sixteen plots established randomly within the
planted riparian buffer areas per Monitoring Levels 1 and 2. The sizes of individual quadrants are 100 square
meters for woody tree species.
As per the Mitigation Plan and DMS monitoring guidance for this project, there was no vegetation plot
monitoring conducted for the Year 6 monitoring effort,and thus no vegetation data summary tables are included
in Appendix C as in previous monitoring reports.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. 4
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT,DMS PROJECT NO.96074
MONITORING YEAR 6 OF 7(2021)

3.0 REFERENCES
Carolina Vegetation Survey (CVS)and NC Division of Mitigation Services(DMS). CVS-DMS
Data Entry Tool v. 2.3.1. University of North Carolina, Raleigh,NC. 2012.
Lee,M., Peet R.,Roberts, S.,Wentworth, T. 2007. CVS-DMS Protocol for Recording Vegetation,
Version 4.1.
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services(DMS). 2012. NCDMS Monitoring Report Template,
Version 1.5,June 8,2012.
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services(DMS). 2011. NCDMS Monitoring Requirements and
Performance Standards for Stream and/or Wetland Mitigation.November 7,2011.
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services(DMS). 2009. Cape Fear River Basin Restoration Priorities.
Rosgen, D.L. 1994. A Classification of Natural Rivers. Catena 22:169-199.
Rosgen,D.L. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildlands Hydrology. Pagosa Springs, CO.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. 5
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT,DMS PROJECT NO.96074
MONITORING YEAR 6 OF 7(2021)

Appendix A
Project Vicinity Map and Background Tables

ll I, ..„ ,.JAIL .fi�yg ,. Cary~ Jr* ■/
• - ,.. Y'-01 W ~ • .SST\ 1 I
11 The subject project site is an environmental restoration site of the NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) and is encompassed by a recorded
conservation easement, but is bordered by land under private ownership- Accessing the site may require traversing areas near or along the easement •
F
I boundary and therefore access by the general public is not permitted- Access by authorized personnel of state and federal agencies or their
designees/contractors involved in the development,oversight and stewardship of the restoration site is permitted within the terms and timeframes of their
defined roles- Any intended site visitation or activity by any person outside of these previously sanctioned roles and activities requires prior coordination .1.
with DMS-
r
miu. 11P ,.,. :Si_ •■ Vr
T .Tr.. .7Calkah.
7 t ar M4afV
.ing,N) i ctoI lio, --ei-lit.0li-7v
tmo F. i 2i.-iyil 7 ��ff i�r !Apex irmtlin,
._•(lik ifri'if • • . nr-tsialf tk VW ''' iiiirLt.
ribi
1 e.:16. .e' t leo.
` impa ./.4 .•• 4.1 fiiiiv)111
Jordan La Le
..- lir ,,iiii} 411W- - 1 0,,,,„„
_...........,, •,......,,,:: „.t.
Aviiiiirwp)
r . ...L. ._..',..*. r i „ •c.r. • ,
11
0,
. i,
iii„ �' ram• '� :11;.,
• „,
ii„ • ...„..
.
... .
..,
.i iiidAyi....,_t
-„��, iiii.
IT
'. 03111' . '..
*Of° ,10-41-11111411111k
ti;1:„.,..,. � � Iltri,,,
� �� �r' Project+ 1pf
Location Pi° ,AW
I 1104All
74111. ' — i f4._41 felf*
cjt
H�y SprigsLA
IT, giloMr. ►i APO*
Site Directions _* ;
To access the Site from Raleigh, take US-1 southTIFF t�
and head south towards Sanford,for approximately IlerAL
12 miles- Take the ramp for Exit 89 to New
Hill/Jordan Lake- At the end of the ramp turn right {i�r I -r�
1
on New Hill-Holleman Road and continue for 0-8
A miles to the stop sign at Old US Highway 1- Turn t• �
left on Old US Highway 1 and continue 1.1 miles ti s
before turning left on Shearon Harris Rd(SR1134)-
The destination will be on the right in 0-4 miles- ���
Turn right onto the gravel road and continue to the Wirliirir -
end to park amongthe most southern farm I
Ilk"! II 11:A11114111 -1:‘ 1111111ki
buildings- 1144 1 1,
- 116%. ' Atif l'illiirillillik,
el L
Note: Site is located within targeted local ,! '
watershed 03030004020010. ir S r- ~�
:r' a7� I ..dLJ C_ !I I \ -0 r .d
Figure 1 - Project Vicinity Map
- Thomas Creek Site
Fr, DMS Project ID No. 96074
,
r
��,"�Irss�ma�1� L• .1_, NCDEQ - N
s7r�i� icm= f //L i 11�� 1414
�m.��t�mr[ i� r 40 k Division of
fil�i i#���� , �� ....
Mitigation Services
�1�1 p-a�.�4�
�.�1 Michael Baker
w, Project INTERNATIONAL
Wake County Location
0 0.5 1 2 3
Miles

,,
Restoration Feature Approach N
lea f `
Restoration - PI (1:1) ; ,
Restoration - PII (1:1)
Enhancement I (1.5:1)
Enhancement II (2.5:1) ;
Enhancement II (5:1)
Enhancement II (10:1) "`
Reach R4
Reach R3 (upstream)
. 1+ \ (upstream) '' f .;
sSri , r
=,a
t
` 44
Reach R6 n
(upstream) • �\
n � ' Reach R3. � r
""'" (downstream) ''
y,✓ Reach R4
` h ' (downstream)
la '
ti P,
f Reach R6 ; ,,
(downstream) $:
I Reach R2
i
t # (upstream)
• .r-
t i t
';
- e 3 Reach R5 • �
•
(upstream)
Reach R7 ♦
(upstream) "
Reach R7
(downstream)
j;.
Reach R2
1 (downstream)
Alf
,-4 Reach R5 ft.
(downstream) ;
Michael Baker 0 250 500 Figure 2
Restoration Summary Map
Feet Thomas Creek Site
INTERNATIONAL

' �, }�'. / `' • � l ,, A ii1 Apex /
Ap *.~ lov‘ " rf 6 - wr+
' :'A Reference Stream Locations ,' 41 Apex
F. V 1
4i ��r 1 */
V
•
:IP\
// Artbek., . '
otv z i' t # f // Little Beaver Cr. i
Jo +an LakeC ; p ' IWO
I •
1014
ic.r....741111*..\\ .
1\
Upper Reach R4 l�MCO ( YN. its, •oit\
' IV
, , 4 1p Project Location
NalL______,Po i t.
! 0
. A . idoi
,Vito,--
A / •
1 1111:111r. Ali •
— 14 .
wiL
-,___ Ham,
.. 4 I 1 I la 0:
A41k.
/
Il
r'
44,..i,- ali Ai /
Holly Springs
rr-
NCDEQ - N Figure 3
Michael Baker Division of 0 0.5 Reference Stream
INTERNATIONAL Mitigation Services Miles
Thomas Creek Site

Ar"v, * - . • . . ...... , .„
, _
Conservation Easement : AA
Veg Plot Locations _
•
Cross Sections •:--, ;,F.,,: ,' V,.._ -
Crest Gauge PE
® Flow Gauge «�; . :,,4 ' Y.4
IV
Pebble Count Locations
Reach R4
u stream
A Photo-Points .' (upstream) r
Reach R3 4 r.
(upstream) ... . . `:.:
ErP
) .
�,"
- V16. _ - - X1 f• .
Y• EEO . Reach R3 ;. V o.- x[
� '� :�--- (downstream) X2 V1
Reach R6 ' ;ti. ., V5 ' ��
� . ;r ..,: :: Reach R4
(upstream) ,, -:, �,^
• �.e. 'A. �; .� X4 (downstream)
X3
,' �,'' :fir::. #1 V2
L ;.( I , t'..
X5
'
•
Reach R6 d ' .V6: '
`
_r (downstream) ' � .
r r:, • Reach R2!A r�' e
..: ...: (upstream) } !t
z S ' V7 0 X6 ,
' :' V15,-, r,. X7
�. : 'r v a. .x Reach R5
r ,;,...: - :s - ; (upstream) V8. k... -_ '' X8
H Reach R7 ay'` : —V14. 4 ae
(upstream) ``
Ica -- ' 0: f' Reach R2
Reach R7 O. X15 V9 (downstream)
(downstream) ,X14` e
a 0' X101- X9 -d.
w.�_ V13 z . A
r' �i avj'
4 #2 #1 0:;, t
::,Y - .. f.x
,. Reach R5 �.: V10• 'j/a."
f T. (downstream) n* "'210 • ,. •'
, :;
X16
--..-,..1,,',.. 41 ' ,,,,' .,::, -.-' ...,'-`,,_.'V12,';4%;* \4 i' -'''''
X11 .
_ ._., _; a ''... X12 :. : ,..
:. ..• te ' ,411)
51.. _ _ ''3.•r..a" If!I•. "4?--. 1.40.a4_v.,•. :'•*.';i;,ti.
Figure 4
Michael Baker 0 250 500 Monitoring Features
Feet Overview Map
INTERNATIONAL Thomas Creek Site

Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Thomas Creek Restoration Project:DMS Project ID No.96074
Mitigation Credits
Stream(SMUs) Riparian Wetland Non-riparian Wetland Buffer Nitrogen Nutrient Offset Phosphorus
Nutrient Offset
Type R,El,EII
Totals 5,706.733
Project Components
Restoration/Restoration Design Reach Length As-Built
Existing Footage/ Mitigation
Project Component or Reach ID As-Built Stationing/Location Approach Equivalent(SMU)from (LF)from Mitigation Restoration
Acreage(LF) Ratio
Mitigation Plan* Plan** Footage(LF)
Reach 1 42+01 to 44+99 397 Restoration 266.000 266 298 1:1
Reach 2(downstream)t 27+78 to 42+01 1,238 Restoration(PI) 1,384.000 1,384 1,423 1:1
Reach 2(upstream)t 20+55 to 27+58(at CE Break) 757 Restoration(PII) 703.000 703 703 1:1
Reach 3(downstream) 11+17 to 18+70/CE Break/18+94 to 20+55 937 Restoration 929.000 929 914 1:1
Reach 3(upstream) 10+00 to 11+17 130 Enhancement II 26.000 130 117 5:1
Reach 4(downstream) 10+41 to 13+83 327 Restoration 361.000 361 342 1:1
Reach 4(upstream) 00+99 to 09+95 870 Enhancement II 87.000 870 896 10:1
Reach 5(downstream) 29+30 to 34+97/CE Break/35+17 to 39+91 883 Restoration 1,044.000 1,044 1,041 1:1
Reach 5(upstream) 28+02 to 29+30 137 Enhancement II 27.400 137 128 5:1
Reach 6(downstream) 12+10 to 15+55/CE Break/15+81 to 28+02 1,592 Enhancement II 319.600 1,598 1,566 5:1
Reach 6(upstream) 10+00 to 12+10 210 Enhancement I 140.000 210 210 1.5:1
Reach 7(downstream) 13+60 to 16+47 287 Enhancement II 57.200 286 287 5:1
Reach 7(upstream) 10+00 to 13+60 360 Enhancement II 144.000 360 360 2.5:1
Reach T1 10+00 to 10+55/CE Break/10+75 to 12+47 242 Enhancement I 155.333 233 227 1.5:1
Reach T2 10+00 to 11+57 171 Enhancement II 63.200 158 157 2.5:1
Component Summation
Restoration Level Stream(LF) Riparian Wetland(AC) Non-riparian Wetland(AC) Buffer(SF) Upland(AC)
Restoration 4,721
Enhancement I 437
Enhancement II 3,511
BMP Elements
Element Location Purpose/Function Notes
BMP Elements: BR=Bioretention Cell;SF=Sand Filter;SW=Stormwater Wetland;WDP=Wet Detention Pond;DDP=Dry Detention
Pond;FS=Filter Strip;S=Grassed Swale;LS=Level Spreader;NI=Natural Infiltration Area
Notes:
t Starting in MY2,Reach 2 was broken up into an upstream and downstream component based on restoration approach as per DMS request. None of the actual restored lengths have changed,although the credits for
R2(downstream)were adjusted as explained below.
*Starting in MY2,the SMU credit numbers used for these reaches were taken directly from the mitigation plan credit table(Table 5.1)as per DMS/IRT instruction,and vary from those presented in the baseline and MY1
monitoring reports. This was done because credits were originally calculated along the as-built thalweg but have been updated to be calculated along stream centerlines for MY2 onward after discussions with the IRT
stemming from the April 3,2017 Credit Release Meeting. Stationing and Restoration Footage numbers reported herein and on all subsequent monitoring reports will remain as reported from the as-built survey. As Reach R2
was not originally subdivided,the credits were reduced from the downstream section where the bulk of differences are expected to have occurred,though the total combined credits equal the original value for R2 as found in
the approved mitigation plan.
**Starting in MY3,as per DMS/IRT instruction,this column was added to the table showing the design reach lengths taken from the mitigation plan(Table ES.1). Please note that some of the numbers presented here vary
slightly from the mit plan as they originally did not remove non-creditable sections such as easement breaks for crossings from their calculations. The numbers presented here have those non-creditable sections removed.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC.
YEAR 6 MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT(DMS PROJECT NO.ID 96074)

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Thomas Creek Restoration Project:DMS Project ID No.96074
Elapsed Time Since Grading Completed in Oct.2015 6 Years,1 Month
Elapsed Time Since Planting Completed in Jan.2016 5 Years,10 Months
Number of Reporting Years 1 6
Activity or Deliverable Data Collection Actual Completion or
Complete Delivery
Mitigation Plan Prepared N/A Oct-14
Mitigation Plan Amended N/A Mar-15
Mitigation Plan Approved N/A Mar-15
Final Design—(at least 90%complete) N/A Mar-15
Construction Begins N/A Apr-15
Temporary S&E mix applied to entire project area N/A Oct-15
Permanent seed mix applied to entire project area N/A Oct-15
Planting of live stakes N/A Jan-16
Planting of bare root trees N/A Jan-16
End of Construction N/A Oct-15
Survey of As-built conditions(Year 0 Monitoring-baseline) Nov-15 Nov-15
Baseline Monitoring Report Mar-16 Oct-16
Year 1 Monitoring Nov-16 Jan-17
Stream structure and bank repairs made to Reach R1 Repairs made in July 2016
Year 2 Monitoring Oct-17 Nov-17
Livestakes re-planted along sections of lower Reach R2 Planted in January 2017
Year 3 Monitoring Nov-18 Dec-18
Bank scour repair on 3 sections of Reach R2 Repairs made in March 2018
Supplemental planting(1-gal.)on R3 Planted in March 2018
Year 4 Monitoring Oct-19 Jan-20
Bank scour repair on 2 sections of Reach R2 January 2019
Supplemental planting(bareroots)on Reach T1 Planted in January 2019
Cattail treated on sections of R2 and R4 Treated in March and April 2019
Soil amendments on Reach R3 March and September 2019
Year 5 Monitoring Oct-20 Jan-21
Soil amendments on Reach R3 May and October 2020
Year 6 Monitoring Oct-21 Dec-21(Final)
Soil amendments on Reach R3 April 2021
Year 7 Monitoring - -
1 The number of reports or data points produced excluding the baseline
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC.
YEAR 6 MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT(DMS PROJECT NO.ID 96074)

Table 3. Project Contacts
Thomas Creek Restoration Project:DMS Project ID No.95729
V
8000 Regency Parkway,Suite 600
Michael Baker Engineering,Inc.
Cary,NC 27518
Contact:
Katie McKeithan,Telephone:[phone]
Construction Contractor
5616 Coble Church Rd
KBS Earthworks
Julian,NC 27283
Contact:
Chris Sizemore,Telephone:[phone]
Planting Contractor
5616 Coble Church Rd
KBS Earthworks
Julian,NC 27283
Contact:
Chris Sizemore,Telephone:[phone]
Seeding Contractor
5616 Coble Church Rd
KBS Earthworks
Julian,NC 27283
Contact:
Chris Sizemore,Telephone:[phone]
Seed Mix Source Green Resources,Telephone:[phone]
Nursery Stock Suppliers Mellow Marsh Farm,Telephone:[phone]
ArborGen,Telephone: [phone]
Monitoring Performers
Michael Baker Engineering,Inc. 8000 Regency Parkway,Suite 600
Cary,NC 27518
Contact:
Stream Monitoring Point of Contact Scott King,Telephone [phone]
Vegetation Monitoring Point of Contact Scott King,Telephone [phone]
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC.
YEAR 6 MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT(DMS PROJECT NO.ID 96074)

Table 4. Project Attributes(Pre-Construction Conditions)
Thomas Creek Restoration Project:DMS Project No.ID 96074
Project Information
Project Name Thomas Creek Restoration Project
County Wake
Project Area(acres) 22.7
Project Coordinates(latitude and longitude) 35.660521 N,-79.954475 W
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province Piedmont
River Basin Cape Fear
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit and 14-digit 03030004/03030004020010
NCDWR Sub-basin 03-06-07
Project Drainage Area(acres) 246(Reach RI main stem at downstream extent)
Project Drainage Area Percent Impervious <1%
CGIA/NCEEP Land Use Classification 2.01.01.01,2.03.01,2.99.01,3.02/Forest(66%)Agriculture(19%)Impervious Cover(1%)
Reach Summary Information
Parameters Reach R1 Reach R2 Reach R3 Reach R4 Reach R5
Length of Reach(linear feet) 397 1,995 1,067 342 1,020
Valley Classification(Rosgen) VII VII VII VII VII
Drainage Area(acres) 246 176 62 36 62
NCDWR Stream Identification Score 37.5 38 25/37 31 31/34
NCDWR Water Quality Classification C
Morphological Description Bc F(upstream)/ Gc(upstream)/ Bc Bc
(Rosgen stream type) Gc(downstream) Bc(downstream)
Evolutionary Trend Bc- Gc- F Bc Gc F Bc- Gc- F Bc- Gc- F Bc- Gc- F
Underlying Mapped Soils WoA WoA WoA WoA WoA
Drainage Class Poorly drained Poorly drained Poorly drained Poorly drained Poorly drained
Soil Hydric Status Hydric Hydric Hydric Hydric Hydric
Average Channel Slope(ft/ft) 0.0165 0.0083 0.014 0.0102 0.0172
FEMA Classification N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Native Vegetation Community Piedmont Small Stream
Percent Composition of Exotic/Invasive Vegetation <5% 25% <5% <5% <5%
Parameters Reach R6 Reach R7 Reach T1 Reach T2
Length of Reach(linear feet) 1,828 646 242 171
Valley Classification(Rosgen) VII VII VII VII
Drainage Area(acres) 32 14 49 5
NCDWR Stream Identification Score 25/30 23/35 23.75 20.75
NCDWR Water Quality Classification C
Morphological Description G5c(upstream)/ G5(upstream)/
(Rosgen stream type) B5c(downstream) B5c(downstream) B5c B5c
Evolutionary Trend Bc- Gc- F Bc- Gc- F Bc- Gc- F Bc- Gc- F
Underlying Mapped Soils WoA WoA WoA WoA
Drainage Class Poorly drained Poorly drained Poorly drained Poorly drained
Soil Hydric Status Hydric Hydric Hydric Hydric
Average Channel Slope(ft/ft) 0.015/0.025 0.025 0.02 0.041
FEMA Classification N/A N/A N/A N/A
Native Vegetation Community Piedmont Small Stream
Percent Composition of Exotic/Invasive Vegetation <5% I <5% I <5% I <5% I
1 Regulatory Considerations
Regulation Applicable Resolved Supporting Documentation
Waters of the United States—Section 404 Yes Yes Categorical Exclusion(Appendix B)
Waters of the United States—Section 401 Yes Yes Categorical Exclusion(Appendix B)
Endangered Species Act No N/A Categorical Exclusion(Appendix B)
Historic Preservation Act No N/A Categorical Exclusion(Appendix B)
Coastal Area Management Act(CAMA) No N/A Categorical Exclusion(Appendix B)
FEMA Floodplain Compliance No Yes Categorical Exclusion(Appendix B)
Essential Fisheries Habitat No N/A Categorical Exclusion(Appendix B)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC.
YEAR 6 MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT(DMS PROJECT NO.ID 96074)

Appendix B
Visual Assessment Data

a- ;i ti
Np ,. _; ,.
Fig. 5A
i'
Reach R3 . I
• (upstream) '
. - IIP ` rs .•-„�-ri -r s Y / r
_. Reach R3 --
Fig. 5C
(downstream) ( - ..-
` '`
r Reach R4
�. `_; . - . (upstream) •
a Reach R6 01 °:.
0:.
(upstream) , p y
,"°` .rf 1� ;�` Reach R4
Z- ,• ,f: A
‘\' ‘)
"' e (downstream)J:
Reach T2
Reach R6 Reach R21
�•T'
(downstream) (upstream)
y t ,
Reach R7
(upstream) ii
t' 4.
~s:. Reach R5 ' ,' Reach T1
(upstream) •.-
Reach R7
f ti ' 4
•
(downstream) —' .. -- ,
V ti A / `
`� /, Reach R2
+iF\ L (downstream)
lik J',...'
•
Reach R5 0 ,.
(downstream) A
, 4:q1 i Ir Vil
r.- Reach R1
Fig. 5B
k
NCOneMap Orthoimagery 2017
q � .. .. ' MCA.�t i1I1 out--a; N O,iurt-lika . yr
Michael Baker 0 250 500 Feet Figure 5 Index Map
Current Condition Plan View
Thomas Creek Site - MY6
INTERNATIONAL DEQ DMS Project#96074

•:l` rpm�i+�1F e• 41.
.40 (,yy ' '?a:x�„';,[: '�C.,..:, ',�,4. ..
,a= i.�Y *•R 9..}• s. f�i V�M1/f •�i s�f�'yft � +' .,r .y .M`..� �. ""7y'�., j ,
N . - ,Ar
' .�.- ;x~' .1 u ' .., #.,$,w r, sit ate+_ 7,,,k:f:F zit,k 4.,N.,`a,,{ .•- , t ti,
3 '•" r • `P_ -i ; `tiff
,f
IP
vs Reach R3 = • _
(upstream) ,'''
41441114111** r j
., - , - ---
'.-..- -,-, . --- - ' , r ,
..... 47 . -,:. t••2 ..,ZI
•
pit
' Veg Plot 4 sue'
.� .:: " ..
v -, �
., .
•
• t,* y -;:. Soil Amendments '
VegPlot 3 1 . P!,, __- ( ac) Reach R4
0.38
(upstream)
N . " z.
•
•XS-1 Reach R3 _
�' s-- '" , x � (downstream) . ,�-.. ,, :`.7 , r-
. --4 N/ _ Veg Plot 1
r
Reach R4
VegPlot 5 '°
�� ��' � (downstream)
r� ' / XSr-4 .
0 �r.. -
X$-3 PP-16 ' '
J' PP-16 4 df
4 • A - y Veg Plot 2 i
PP-17
n` I ,_ - -
�� / \PP 18 r.
XS-5 ,
PP-19 •
'� / _ Conservation Easement
PP- i. Cross Sections (Not Surveyed in MY6)
-Cfr., �� ` Veg Plot 6 Q Crest Gauge
``:• ` ` •f rti .r. e :g":, ® Flow Gauge
_,. - ..
Photo-Points
• " `'. "' ,'' ` Streams by Mitigation Type
Reach R2
i .. (upstream) ," : Restoration
Enhancement I
r' `" . • Enhancement II
• No Credit
_ Veg Plots (Not Sampled in MY6)
�
- A Soil Amendment Location
0 100 200
Michael Baker Feet Figure 5A
Current Condition Plan View
INTERNATIONAL Thomas Creek Site - MY6
DENR DMS Project#96074

�tir
%i •r - Reach T2 • 4"
�;y ,!`, [ .. \\.....4
,.11,...
u _ ' i $, Reach R6 -
1111
tyY (downstream)
•�`..*` ;`•,...r, -:f. .i. ,...ram _ Veg Plot 7
ge
, . �'" .
,� Reach T1
Reach R5 ' .-c— -r
-� (upstream) Reach R2 , • (141, , Veg Plot 8 :: ;,
'
downstream .,
...yvile
(downstream) -
Reach R7
(downstream) ...;,= a'`: r'=- -
,.; =i.,- ` ' t Veg Plot 14 f
a yY:" ti-i
1 fit
ti ,r. XS-15tr-P
..;At, . •
', .:.'i , , !L 1• Veg Plot 9 i
' a ' PP-48 Veg Plot 13 /� r..
., ,- X
s S-10 _
e.
- -•,ta.. ,, ,,,•r".. •rr. w• ..• �PP-51 ��' • f
ti. ) :
. •f •
^4 • a,31` 1 .. ;•. . t,�
,'.a• , Reach R5 �� -P 5 °
PP-32
(downstream) , . ' •..
lO'. F .r.
Veg Plot 10
tr~ r_ PP-56 .
PP- 3 or _ Conservation Easement
Veg Plot 12 Cross Sections (Not Surveyed in
MY6)
4410
PP 57 Ai./ I •-
' Crest Gauge
.• s' XS-11 ® Flow Gauge
- -=:� j i, Veg Plot 11
,: D.PP_34 • _ •;,, A Photo Points
3 .ny_ 16#1 XS-12 e_4 Streams by Mitigation Type
Reach R1
IPA PP-35 Restoration
�r. ,,,;• r: r �,•-4 cA PP 36�rIc ' 07 ; Enhancement I
f Enhancement II
400,4
;I_ is ,, No Credit
';� 'r M J ' , !%' �! t - Veg Plots (Not Sampled in MY6)
0 100 200
Michael Baker 1Feet Figure 5B
Current Condition Plan View
INTERNATIONAL Thomas Creek Site - MY6
DENR DMS Project#96074

•
AF ,-A -• --
N
'. • s r tY 4. ' —.:,y T:4 'mil
:,y a re.. ..�.. _§�. 'W' i ,„ 1 +4 ter .
# , rod;. . 1
.s.
yr� �'� .,g�?�.�'- Veg Plot 16
+..14 Ir.. r: •4
�
, . tio. .........• ..
; ...v....... ,4..„, .044.14, ..0".1 .,.-„
y,... r 4,......,...riti.
ti= 73' r . !. _ •' . aye
Reach R6 `' ,k -'-• : ,. +9�
(upstream) � i. 14' ., 1,4i`•'-".,. .4 5 "S; .ell r-
mi
.4. i. '.-tP i 4
_,.PP'.:, ` fir'=-. ..-. ,[.- 14; -r4i, Yo,$4,iii i_\I-, 2 l' - .if yy 5
. .X;*
,„(,,,,ts— .0 ,,,-or-,,,., . 4 u.:el. a 7.&--le, jit• .;.,'• _
,,.,,,,,.., .„.„., J.. "
... . ......_ ;,„.„,,„.
• + ,- -I
•apt e • r; '' •'. ";#,• 'Conservation Easement
Cross Sections (Not Surveyed in MY6) .�., s •, ,fr
A Photo Points :.:pry':d'.•:'1 ,[= , (! jd,, •`0,,'4s`�;; t.
Streams by Mitigation Type t:t v,,.RP,g4
.
Restoration r+ c. ,.. 'd.< 5,.4i2 ' + .. o-i . tIr-',10,' : '.
Enhancement I •ti+x -1„ ;,,.; Reach R6
=• •• �`- (downstream)
Enhancement II
No Credit . .^
Veg Plots (Not Sampled in MY6) r� t'it ':}'° •; ' :..� ;.. £ * - e
' �
`gy •► 4 F
E :-,,va 4 ;- Reach R7 _ .�' .T - * • ,
a y ;�. :i (upstream) .. ro.. >., ,4.4)'
eiy 4`" Veg Plot 15 .Y::. 'r`L
r . .--i. r*/ .2 .741°: Viai. r :' . -.i r ' + - fk
.i ! gam ` S •
r J t Ho
y y
1/4
i .F1.
'may' ` ,4s y r. t , F J s e s i
U A ] +_, t -'A'. 'ate -' Y'- , .
. :y:`"� r' °� _'�''£ �, Reach R5 x `
,. L ~ (upstream)
,. ems:
[ : ' �"' Y ''rt* Reach R7 '` ., . .k�
kt, .‘. ,:-.1., . t 'r.'t -,241 (downstream) �,, ..
` a i
0 100 200
Michael Baker 1Feet Figure 5C
Current Condition Plan View
INTERNATIONAL Thomas Creek Site - MY6
DENR DMS Project#96074

Table 5.Visual Steam Morphology Stability Assessment
Thomas Creek Restoration Project:DMS Project ID No.96074
Reach ID:Reach 1
Assessed Length(LF): 298
Number Stable, Number of Amount of %Stable, Number with Footage with Adjusted%for
Major Channel Category Channel Sub-Category Metric Performing as Total Number Unstable Unstable Performing as Stabilizing Stabilizing Stabilizing
Intended per As-built Segments Footage Intended WoodyVeg. WoodyVeg. WoodyVeg.
9
1.Aggradation-Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow laterally(not 0 0 100%
1.Vertical Stability to include point bars)
2.Degradation-Evidence of downcutting 0 0 100%
2.Rif0e Condition 1.Texture Substrate-Riffle maintains coarser substrate 3 3 100%
1.Bed 1.Depth-Sufficent(Max Pool Depth/Mean Bkf Depth>_1.5) 3 3 100%
3.Meander Pool Condition 2.Length-Sufficent(>30%of centerline distance between tail of upstream riffle and
head of downstream riffle) 3 100%
1.Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend(Run) 3 _ 100%
4.Thalweg Position
2.Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend(Glide) 3 3 100%
1.Scoured/Eroding Bank lacking vegetative cover due to active scour and erosion 0 0 100% 0 0 100%
2.Bank 2.Undercut Banks undercut/overhanging to The extent that mass wasting is expected 100% 0 0 100%
I 3.Mass Wasting Banks slumping,caving or collapse 100% 0 0 100%
Totals 0 0 100% 0 0 100%
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs 3 3 100%
3.Engineering Structures 1.Overall Integrity
2.Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill 2 2 100%
2a.Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath or around sills or am. 3 3 100%
3.Bank Position Bank erosion within The structures extent of influence does not exceed 15% 3 3 100%
Pool forming structures maintaining-Max Pod Depth/Mean Bankfull Depth ratio 1.5. 3 3 100
4.Habitat Rootwads/logs providing some cover at low flow
Table 5.Visual Steam Morphology Stability Assessment
Thomas Creek Restoration Project:DMS Project ID No.96074
Reach ID:Reach 2
Assessed Length(LF): 2,126
Number Stable, Number of Amount of %Stable, Number with Footage with Adjusted%for
Major Channel Category Channel Sub-Category Metric Performing as Total Number Unstable Unstable Performing as Stabilizing Stabilizing Stabilizing
Intended per As-built Segments Footage Intended WoodyVeg. WoodyVeg. WoodyVeg.
9
1.Aggrde n-Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow laterally(not 0 0 100%
point Stability to include point bars)
2.Degradation-Evidence of downcutting 0 0 100%
2.Rif0e Condition 1.Texture Substrate-Riffle maintains coarser substrate 38 38 100%
1.Bed 1.Depth-Sufficent(Max Pool Depth/Mean Bkf Depth>_1.5) 41 41 100%
3.Meander Pool Condition 2.Length-Sufficent(>30%of centerline distance between tail of upstream riffle and
head of downstream riffle) 41 4, 100%
1.Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend(Run) 41 41 100%
4.Thalweg Position
2.Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend(Glide) 41 41 100%
1.Scoured/Eroding Bank lacking vegetative cover due to active scour and erosion 0 0 100% 0 0 100%
2.Bank 2.Undercut Banks undercut/overhanging to The extent that mass wasting is expected 0 0 100% 0 0 100%
3.Mass Wasting Banks slumping,caving or collapse 0 0 100% 0 0 100%
Totals 0 0 100% 0 0 100%
3.Engineering Structures 1.Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs 27 27 100%
2.Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill 24 24 100%
2a.Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath or around sills or arms 27 27 100%
3.Bank Position Bank erosion within The structures extent of influence does not exceed 15% 27 27 100%
Pool forming structures maintaining-Max Pod Depth/Mean Bankfull Depth ratio>_1.5.
4.Habitat 13 13 100
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at low flow
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC.
YEAR 6 MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT(DMS PROJECT NO.ID 96074)

Table 5.Continued Visual Steam Morphology Stability Assessment
Thomas Creek Restoration Project:DMS Project ID No.96074
Reach ID:Reach 3
Assessed Length(LF): 1,031
Number Stable, Number of Amount of %Stable, Number with Footage with Adjusted%for
Major Channel Category Channel Sub-Category Metric Performing as Total Number Unstable Unstable Performingas Stabilizing Stabilizing Stabilizing
Intended Segments As-built Se ments Footage Intended WoodyVeg. WoodyVeg. WoodyVeg.
9
1.Aggradation-Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow laterally(not 0 0 100%
1.Vertical Stability to include point bars)
2.Degradation-Evidence of downcutting 0 0 100%
2.Riffle Condition 1.Texture Substrate-Riffle maintains coarser substrate 100%
1.Bed 16 16
1.Depth-Sufficent(Max Pool Depth/Mean Bkf Depth>_1.5) 15 15 100%
3.Meander Pool Condition 2.Length-Sufficent(>30%of centerline distance between tail of upstream riffle and
head of downstream riffle) 15 15 100%
4.Thalweg Position 1.Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend(Run) 15 15 100%
2.Thalwe centerin at downstream of meander bend Glide 15 15 100%
1.Scoured/Eroding Bank lacking vegetative cover due to active scour and erosion 0 0 100% 0 0 100%
2.Undercut Banks undercut/overhanging to The extent that mass wasting is expected 0 0 100% 0 0 100%
2.Bank
3.Mass Wasting Banks slumping,caving or collapse 0 0 100% 0 0 100%
Totals 0 0 100% 0 0 100%
3.Engineering Structures 1.Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs 10 10 100%
2.Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill 2 2 100%
2a.Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath or around sills or arms 10 10 100%
3.Bank Position Bank erosion within The structures extent of influence does not exceed 15% 10 10 100%
Pool forming structures maintaining-Max Pod Depth/Mean Bankfull Depth ratio 1.5.
4.Habitat Rootwads/logs providing some cover at low flow 7 7 100%
Table 5.Continued Visual Steam Morphology Stability Assessment
Thomas Creek Restoration Project:DMS Project ID No.96074
Reach ID:Reach 4
Assessed Length(LF): 1,238
Number Stable, Number of Amount of %Stable, Number with Footage with Adjusted%for
Major Channel Category Channel Sub-Category Metric Performing as Total Number Unstable Unstable Performing as Stabilizing Stabilizing Stabilizing
Intended Per As-built Segments Footage Intended WoodyVeg. WoodyVeg. WoodyVeg.
9
1.Aggradation-Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow laterally(not 0 0 100%
1.Vertical Stability to include point bars)
2.Degradation-Evidence of downcutting 0 0 100%
2.Riffle Condition 1.Texture Substrate-Riffle maintains coarser substrate 100%
1.Bed 8 8
1.Depth-Sufficent(Max Pool Depth/Mean Bkf Depth>_1.5) 8 8 100%
3.Meander Pool Condition 2.Length-Sufficent(>30%of centerline distance between tail of upstream riffle and
head of downstream riffle) 8 8 100%
4.Thalweg Position 1.Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend(Run) 8 8 100%
2.Thalwe centerin at downstream of meander bend Glide 8 8 100%
1.Scoured/Eroding Bank lacking vegetative cover due to active scour and erosion 0 0 100% 0 0 100%
2.Bank 2.Undercut Banks undercut/overhanging to The extent that mass wasting is expected 0 0 100% 0 0 100%
3.Mass Wasting Banks slumping,caving or collapse 0 0 100% 0 0 100%
Totals 0 0 100% 0 0 100%
3.Engineering Structures 1.Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs 4 4 100%
2.Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill 1 1 100%
2a.Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath or around sills or arms 4 4 100%
3.Bank Position Bank erosion within The structures extent of influence does not exceed 15% 4 4 100%
Pool forming structures maintaining-Max Pool Depth/Mean Bankfull Depth ratio 1.5. 3 _ 100%
4.Habitat Rootwads/logs providing some cover at low flow
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC.
YEAR 6 MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT(DMS PROJECT NO.ID 96074)

Table 5.Continued Visual Steam Morphology Stability Assessment
Thomas Creek Restoration Project:DMS Project ID No.96074
Reach ID:Reach 5
Assessed Length(LF): 1,169
Number Stable, Number of Amount of %Stable, Number with Footage with Adjusted%for
Major Channel Category Channel Sub-Category Metric Performing as Total Number Unstable Unstable Performingas Stabilizing Stabilizing Stabilizing
Intended Segments As-built Se ments Footage Intended WoodyVeg. WoodyVeg. WoodyVeg.
9
1.Aggradation-Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow laterally(not 0 0 100%
1.Vertical Stability to include point bars)
2.Degradation-Evidence of downcutting 0 0 100%
2.Riffle Condition 1.Texture Substrate-Riffle maintains coarser substrate 100%
17 17
1.Bed 1.Depth-Sufficent(Max Pool Depth/Mean Bkf Depth>_1.5) 18 18 100%
3.Meander Pool Condition 2.Length-Sufficent(>30%of centerline distance between tail of upstream riffle and
head of downstream riffle) 18 18 100%
4.Thalweg Position 1.Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend(Run) 18 18 100%
2.Thalwe centerin at downstream of meander bend Glide 18 18 100%
1.Scoured/Eroding Bank lacking vegetative cover due to active scour and erosion 0 0 100% 0 0 100%
2.Bank 2.Undercut Banks undercut/overhanging to The extent that mass wasting is expected 3 0 100% 0 0 100%
3.Mass Wasting Banks slumping,caving or collapse 0 0 100% 0 0 100%
Totals 0 0 100% 0 0 100%
3.Engineering Structures 1.Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs 16 16 100%
2.Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill 1 1 100%
2a.Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath or around sills or arms 16 16 100%
3.Bank Position Bank erosion within The structures extent of influence does not exceed 15% 16 16 100%
Pool forming structures maintaining-Max Pod Depth/Mean Bankfull Depth ratio>_1.5. 15 15 100%
4.Habitat Rootwads/logs providing some cover at low flow MI- JAL-
Table 5.Continued Visual Steam Morphology Stability Assessment
Thomas Creek Restoration Project:DMS Project ID No.96074
Reach ID:Reach 6
Assessed Length(LF): 1,776
Number Stable, Number of Amount of %Stable, Number with Footage with Adjusted%for
Major Channel Category Channel Sub-Category Metric Performing as Total Number Unstable Unstable Performing as Stabilizing Stabilizing Stabilizing
Intended per As-built Segments Footage Intended Woody Veg. Woody Veg. Woody Veg.
1.Aggradation-Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow laterally(not 0 0 100%
1.Vertical Stability to include point bars)
2.Degradation-Evidence of downcutting 0 0 100%
2.Riffle Condition 1.Texture Substrate-Riffle maintains coarser substrate 6 100%
1.Bed 1.Depth-Sufficent(Max Pool Depth/Mean Bkf Depth>_1.5) 5 5 100%
3.Meander Pool Condition 2.Length-Sufficent(>30%of centerline distance between tail of upstream riffle and
head of downstream riffle) 5 5 100%
4.Thalweg Position 1.Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend(Run) 5 5 100%
2.Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend(Glide) 5 5 100%
1.Scoured/Eroding Bank lacking vegetative cover due to active scour and erosion 0 0 100% 0 0 100%
2.Bank 2.Undercut Banks undercut/overhanging to The extent that mass wasting is expected 3 0 100% 0 0 100%
3.Mass Wasting Banks slumping,caving or collapse 0 0 100% 0 0 100%
Totals 0 0 100% 0 0 100%
3.Engineering Structures 1.Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs 0 0 -
2.Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill 0 0 -
2a.Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath or around sills or arms 0 0 -
3.Bank Position Bank erosion within The structures extent of influence does not exceed 15% 0 0 -
Pool forming structures maintaining-Max Pool Depth/Mean Bankfull Depth ratio 1.5. 0 0 -
4.Habitat Rootwads/logs providing some cover at low flow
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC.
YEAR 6 MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT(DMS PROJECT NO.ID 96074)

Table 5.Continued Visual Steam Morphology Stability Assessment
Thomas Creek Restoration Project:DMS Project ID No.96074
Reach ID:Reach 7
Assessed Length(LF): 647
Number Stable, Number of Amount of %Stable, Number with Footage with Adjusted%for
Major Channel Category Channel Sub-Category Metric Performing as Total Number Unstable Unstable Performing as Stabilizing Stabilizing Stabilizing
Intended Segments As-built Se ments Footage Intended Wood Veg. Wood Veg. Wood Ve
9 9Y 9 Y 9 Y 9
1.Aggradation-Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow laterally(not 0 0 100%
1.Vertical Stability to include point bars)
2.Degradation-Evidence of downcutting 0 0 100%
2.Riffle Condition 1.Texture Substrate-Riffle maintains coarser substrate 5 5 100%
1.Bed 1.Depth-Sufficent(Max Pool Depth/Mean Bkf Depth>_1.5) 6 c 100%
3.Meander Pool Condition 2.Length-Sufficent(>30%of centerline distance between tail of upstream riffle and
head of downstream riffle) e e 100%
4.Thalweg Position 1.Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend(Run) ? e 100%
2.Thalwe centerin at downstream of meander bend Glide 6 e 100%
1.Scoured/Eroding Bank lacking vegetative cover due to active scour and erosion 0 0 100% 0 0 100%
2.Bank 2.Undercut Banks undercut/overhanging to The extent that mass wasting is expected 0 0 100% 0 0 100%
3.Mass Wasting Banks slumping,caving or collapse 0 0 100% 0 0 100%
Totals 0 0 100% 0 0 100%
3.Engineering Structures 1.Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs 2 2 100%
2.Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill 2 2 100%
2a.Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath or around sills or arms 2 2 100%
3.Bank Position Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15% 2 2 100%
Pool forming structures maintaining-Max Pod Depth/Mean Bankfull Depth ratio 1.5. 2 2 100%
4.Habitat Rootwads/logs providing some cover at low flow
Table 5.Continued Visual Steam Morphology Stability Assessment
Thomas Creek Restoration Project:DMS Project ID No.96074
Reach ID:Reach T1
Assessed Length(LF): 227
Number Stable, Number of Amount of %Stable, Number with Footage with Adjusted%for
Major Channel Category Channel Sub-Category Metric Performing as Total Number Unstable Unstable Performing as Stabilizing Stabilizing Stabilizing
Intended Per As-built Segments Footage Intended Wood Veg. Wood Veg. Wood Ve
9 9 Y 9 Y 9 Y 9
1.Aggradation-Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow laterally(not 0 0 100%
to include point bars)
1.Vertical Stability
2.Degradation-Evidence of downcutting 0 0 100%
2.Riffle Condition 1.Texture Substrate-Riffle maintains coarser substrate 4 4 100%
1.Bed
1.Depth-Sufficent(Max Pool Depth/Mean Bkf Depth>_1.5) 5 5 100%
3.Meander Pool Condition 2.Length-Sufficent(>30%of centerline distance between tail of upstream riffle and 100
head of downstream riffle)
1.Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend(Run) _ 5 100%
4.Thalweg Position '
2.Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend(Glide) 5 5 100%
1.Scoured/Eroding Bank lacking vegetative cover due to active scour and erosion 0 0 100% 0 0 100%
2.Undercut Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting is expected 0 0 100% 0 0 100%
2.Bank
3.Mass Wasting Banks slumping,caving or collapse 100% 0 0 100%
., 0 100% 0 0 100%
Totals
3.Engineering Structures 1.Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs 1 1 100%
2.Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill 1 1 100%
2a.Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath or around sills or arms 1 1 100%
3.Bank Position Bank erosion within The structures extent of influence does not exceed 15% 1 1 100%
Pool forming structures maintaining-Max Pod Depth/Mean Bankfull Depth ratio 1.5. 1 1 100%
4.Habitat Rootwads/logs providing some cover at low flow
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC.
YEAR 6 MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT(DMS PROJECT NO.ID 96074)

Table 5.Continued Visual Steam Morphology Stability Assessment
Thomas Creek Restoration Project:DMS Project ID No.96074
Reach ID:Reach T2
Assessed Length(LF): 157
Number Stable, Number of Amount of %Stable, Number with Footage with Adjusted%for
Major Channel Category Channel Sub-Category Metric Performing as Total Number Unstable Unstable Performing as Stabilizing Stabilizing Stabilizing
Intended per As-built Segments Footage Intended WoodyVeg. WoodyVeg. WoodyVeg.
9
1.Aggradation-Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow laterally(not 0 0 100%
1.Vertical Stability to include point bars)
2.Degradation-Evidence of downcutting 0 0 100%
2.Rif0e Condition 1.Texture Substrate-Riffle maintains coarser substrate 3 3 100%
1.Bed 1.Depth-Sufficent(Max Pool Depth/Mean Bkf Depth>_1.5) 2 2 100%
3.Meander Pool Condition
2.Length-Sufficent(>30%of centerline distance between tail of upstream riffle and 100
head of downstream riffle) 2
4.Thalweg Position 1.Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend(Run) 2 2 100%
2.Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend(Glide) 2 2 100%
1.Scoured/Eroding Bank lacking vegetative cover due to active scour and erosion 0 0 100% 0 0 100%
2.Bank 2.Undercut Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting is expected 0 0 100% 0 0 100%
3.Mass Wasting Banks slumping,caving or collapse 0 0 100% 0 0 100%
Totals 100% 0 0 100%
3.Engineering Structures 1.Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs 1 1 100%
2.Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill 1 1 100%
2a.Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath or around sills or arms 1 1 100%
3.Bank Position Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15% 1 1 100%
Pool forming structures maintaining-Max Pod Depth/Mean Bankfull Depth ratio>_1.5. 1 1 100
4.Habitat Rootwads/logs providing some cover at low flow
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC.
YEAR 6 MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT(DMS PROJECT NO.ID 96074)

Table 6. Vegetation Conditions Assessment
Thomas Creek Restoration Project:DMS Project ID No.96074
Planted Acreage:14.4
Vegetation Category Defintions Mapping Threshold CCPV Depiction Number of Polygons Combined Acreage %of Planted
(acres) Acreage
1.Bare Areas Very limited cover both woody and herbaceous material. 0.1 N/A 0 0.00 0.0%
2.Low Stem Density Areas Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3,4, 0.1 N/A 0 0.00 0.0%
or 5 stem count criteria.
Total 0 0.00 0.0%
3.Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor Areas with woody stems or a size class that are obviously small 0.25 N/A 0 0.00 0.0%
given the monitoring year.
Cumulative Total 0 0.00 0.0%
Easement Acreage:22.7
%of Planted
Vegetation Category ry Defintions Mapping Threshold CCPV Depiction Number of Polygons Combined Acreage
Acreage
4.Invasive Areas of Concern Areas or points(if too small to render as polygons at map scale) 1000 ft' N/A 0 0.00 0.0%
5.Easement Encroachment Areas Areas or points(if too small to render as polygons at map scale) none N/A 0 0.00 0.0%
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC.
YEAR 6 MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT(DMS PROJECT NO.ID 96074)

Thomas Creek:FgMY6 Stream Station Photo-Points (from 2/16/21)
q ' 1 ` a tilt fy qi
.„u,v.,,,,,I,,o,p,x0,41,... ...,;,.i,,,e...,,,,, , '
.- -?,.- .1u,-*,4,04.titti...1.4)i,:,,I,.. ,,,.
_ ,
• '‘''',1'1.‘,°',:,,,1 'xi.
---vti..--k,! I'h 3Y t I � '�� ..r' -fit� � s .Y �, --. ' \ ' -
f,-,
.41;',1.wk,' ,,,,„, _ ,, •„:;:3;:.,:-, „-_,-,-, , _ . -
s >. �, a t
,, *I V�J{ a,' 2,1:=: n R r, R , -- r.;de, r +!>- .5 .,s?- ---
1' £� • SS !Wp } _
�1
r
,,o,.ttigm.:,,,,,,,,.;,..,:c-,,,!..:(:,. ...,.,14.....,,,,,‘..t,..4,,, ,7:011-,:t ..*: , . ,. .4,,,,,,f.,:ii,:;,:„.;..,,,_, -,7 , ,, ,, ..,::,,,_,, ;, , , ,
s 7r F
PP-1:Reach 3,view upstream,Station 11+50 PP-2: Reach 3,view downstream, Station 12+00
1' =a -� .', ''t �ti ! s' I .1 v r r r Y',� , .�k ,�., ' L{f ,.,
qqpp � b*
TY
t�h` � 1 ,-t�p f C+^, $+'F��'� , � f E'x"" z '1.�' f ��( r � t J , ",
y� : r.- a ems,' G N L r - i I I-,.Af044...„1 ,4 i',..-.7.2,:.. filt � r. if
/✓r
I
oi,
It
,&L'`OL'it'd -r.?4:,,, til$4.ttlita;'? I."'4...P', ?:1,1-.4X.t.,--;e:',II-- . -- .
11,
4.l-kN
t'+'',,,:i''',I,4,.,1'
ibx . ,r,i.'71l k.yi,t kY' a iiJfP.;. , ..c & 2 of \
PP-3:Reach 3,view upstream,Station 15+75 PP-4:Reach 3,view downstream,Station 16+25
.4 0.i!.,i.,-.lt,i3OiIi11#t,WpNA,4,okiii i:i:i,i..ff 4,i'.t;,,q,:,,,r f i,',t,,..i`1,,,4,,,1:..A.,4,.';71,,1i0!ro-,P4,t°4,.,.ft-kK,4,..,*4 i...of.4-4,„1''p,,:,io,4;&,,,,uA'•,N,v,o4,,1,,.,At,o,,-,,I,','4,414.
,„,,:,Cl,•-4fT,4‘'V/,,41.-4k,V..1-1;,44,,,..,4J4-4.'.'_,',Ai,?,,.4..,. FV1t,1F4t0 4i'4.,r,'11,,,7?,0•,I„1:4,,-',,;,t,
'...%.,,,1',,,!.,,
4<4,1,,03..',4 4'1Ii,„,,,.4,•",^,..-
io*4.4r't.X
I
:gf,A-1
4.i..,44
y 1,,y 7 y. F .s ,y t r " - a. ffy. , ��¢k d ff i:t i /�� 1
s 7y _ - d
' `#-tee¢' A r -„vwt• �i' d st+ ., ._ - h- i,- {''i
•
'TrF J)r 'i n GYi: K, , -
PP-5:Reach 3, •view downstream towards pipe crossing, PP-6:Reach 3,stream crossing, Station 18+80
Station 18+50

Thomas Creek: MY6 Stream 41iStation Photo-Points (from 2/16/21)
''!,•,:
4 4 t fi
'i:Si-1,,t ,T., 'f.-'1101r- :eviti,--1,.:--",-,,•_,Acit-A-.7-' :1417,,,r,A,___TF,-::: - ....--,"r.',t, ,.,7-zz,144,i,.-r.-. ,-21-ik-,,,,,, - ,,,. 7,..,--,1-, ----;-:'-' ,,, - a:, -
it
.1 7.;"i'''. '44 i '.' 4' '''4--,,,,j,.kf,,sl.,,':'i.',;,.,,ys."'f;i!:,:''''',,,,:e;j.:lf.,.e.;.,,7ttj$:_'Atq„, ,7746-'':1',,f'-'':;''-'7:, :0,,,,,,v;',41,;:-.7, --4.1-):4:7:,' ,,,.7;;;-_,;:tii.,,,,!:10.A:11-:?K,,,t4,:_;417.:_”*„.,,„,,,_1,7„,.t.,z,„6-2,42,...ces.;:kle"::--4.4,,,,L..:.;:it''',..„411e.-:-:'_.:,,.. .:,14:4'''..-1`:'1=';.1_1,,,,,-,;„__::.-
4 • >a
11-.. ..,,,-;. ...._.,„, .. ..." , , i : .j-it.i.,1, - ,,12-6 --1,40.4.&- , .'' .,,,,..A.,6".,-. ,
NA
.-:Te'''S•?6;,--t'4004/4''' Y41':'
r3,'''''''
4 - ;,, 1 "•i.€ .. r '� „ a. ri m -. -
.,4tic Ai
h 3 4 U , f t - - 41TT - \
y K-+' x3 �± ,174.
PP-7:Reach 3,Station 19+00 PP-8: Reach 4,view downstream at Station 01+90
�e`e •
£`.'° „ -may �qd•-- ' _y�p
Fr ''S t 41' ri rat; _ ,rs - $
fi
::_. .. .,.
s, -4;-s•- '''.-..;:- ., ••—- -• ,,. .1 i it,,,,,,,,0-.:'Y . - 7 ,,,,,..
,........i._ „,„,,,..„,,,. , , ..,.,„. 4 1 ',.. ,z.„ ,f
. a •
,5 ''
f �, x t.. ..
PP-9:Reach 4,view downstream at Station 05+75 PP-10:Reach 4,view downstream at Station 06+10
-
: : s
� � S H 1� t� `� � F r 1 � �` � 1 � i
4 u
'r � 4` 61 fit- * �' r r r' 7` 1. ,.
�� '�,;, 4 "/ 1 1. f 3 a C- 6 r "`"" ''l .e: _ ,j"51 i4'
•
1 3 _i b�iiy P $`x .. d L Kp •' l
xyy t `-. / -_ i $ ?=e'-r; `g --�'SS33 A,"` r 'f , ens"'.
K, r, '' f c _ .'" � ; r ' , ,,+ 4 ;�o� `� Ih` err ; 'j ,,M .. a
_ti
41
� Y' y�
•
grle
r'h.'`$ r - d'' !1 'iff" _ "fi r,'} 3 F `4'4'.4
17
kV.
a 'y J - t �'" ^ r;=-+�• i �.7. . d k -xsY m •om' .:
i��Y �Iftit �� --�"� -� *d � j{ 'lea � � � �;R t} 9` �I��'�7 , '� , {
` a�'*tl mo ril l'r .i. '' r.:"�� _:� Y' "",, . ;x� r_�4 ', ilk.t�vl,� .— - -
rk,
PP-11:Reach 4,view upstream at Station 10+10 PP-12:Reach 4,view upstream at Station 10+50

Thomas Creek: MY6 Stream Station Photo-Points (from 2/16/21)
a v YP,p r' fey d �x' iY y ,}a'tg. i, - 1 r�,- ,y a�n' ''iSr u „ ti _ I1 f y f ''
'y -� S /'
lc
' Y`��. � a� ,. '� i � `..- :.v 'f a .� bpi '4.E,<. ',�; ., ?* "ATV ra ljk ;,
't om,. T ..I ' 1 �, r �� ak '.. Est r } k a 1,7.1,4
a, '- -&a'-7 #''e 3 1 . " ' c.v s N,�Q '.P , r' r :24Y:. z' '' rfi '�, � @- . ' 1.e, 'C
•;.0.,.,,,t1r4,,,,4elk-p,Tr'....„..'..r....3,1g-;p: *
4.
14—
r� � _ s�;} a ��, �^ �� �J I,"' � Ira � � 5�
`�" .0,..z, ."4! 1Yi �t �fi� § �� 5,, - a xe r-�- _ '`w—_ Zvi•,'• :,,�Y ,,,4.., a,
o ffs. V- _1. t t � x h,. _ 9 t'. 'A'..` :s'' 4� '''"
K ref` , a 3^ka •i x'- ��5 _ S I s }•'
I :MV
I - • r.to ry'!"x .3 � '�r_ -M 'I!
,I. i;U
§fin^i°� .M ��,.: �• � v�r� �� ''' _ .-� _ "�:3.. a 4 yr` j' em} \ r1 '� �1 .' � 5 ,Y ^ "=1 x1 -,,�' 't-L .' , 1 `. 4 �'. .y
PP-13: Reach 4,view upstream at Station 11+75 PP-14:Reach 4,view downstream at Station 12+25
lit44 7`' %� ,8 �3� fl.d Y a cY �� �1 x su �udlJ ��,
v y ri.v �i ly i r wr 7 � ,1 - � � a &� y s'r . .e .'"' ''
E a:�, j ttm ,,,,,,s t 1 0 'h ' s �.., x' fir Kirk' � } $'r� • r • km ,'1 I
J A�': z s' t \ I yy ? V I r l i •y�.A'c• gg f
kgrgr,Ritt-k h�+�''�" � rn �1�� !:,(.4,..,,,,..
Y• ..�..� E 1! � ' � r 1a>•,w9��+` , 4 �rE }�'- -( ,...4--'4.,,.
g�pp__ ti S •
YkvS x 1^ c k" +i1 3 / Y_ `��+�" �` f,1 6r. �'?3:� r ,h f d: i
�h v - i., ' a Y- - �y x - xt.t 'S�` e ( � ``'"y xy : s,,- r,,v .fit P'f ¢ ,�`
rY § vi ad _ ,�., r '-" tb k, , ,-- i' .q�'y t : \ ..tt,x ,, s Y i" r
A' F,F 5.�y y�y,� �' ¢ ` k '. _ e S } ` 6, M �.1'i;dam
If
9 A >W - -- d"+h�'�` i 1 ;d a { r- i�� _ T .C_ .h4 .0
i rS+„ M�® '-, fx+\ - _R -4,,-..,,f _• {f �} �' `j R ^� '� 1 `•d?" v5r#,F�� s�Y�
•
IN
...c.i..;:',41,,i ,,,;,4 ,.- .410 /Th,!,.....- •
PP-15: •Reach 4,view upstream at Station 13+00 jµ PP-16:Reach 2,view upstream at Station 20+60
•
• r 1,wyrefor ��
IFAd rt • 7 -� 99 ��`,,� '.'fine {k�y; Y
. G £• • �,?� _,/,•
�-,.
w. 3} _ , t91 tY+ i{.`� �'��,''� ,� tB Gx $- -�° *\� , ' '! - �� � 4 -hi ,Ifa, t L + 4 r,,_ ..--,-.•-, :-..- vki-,!„ ....-....4,- .,, '''.-e-i° ..r',7,...`'. , ,,r.-s
.e g 1
-IA�ti • . «,y_< ". I, !,�1 Ii'-�, k ,F'9izv-r j J5d y„ a 3
-- - o `a --k a '..�2c. v'�..- ,.. y31ytG. _ -
}. Ti L P. ,. _ kr "Y' q " , , 'ate �.
•
i„....,_,
S o'. '."-C- �. �e �- _ y& � I�!- ft X f;,f -r � j e9 E
_;Yir.r doss
PP-17:Reach 2,Flow Gauge#1 at Station 20+75 PP-18:Reach 2,view of stabilized drainage on left bank
at Station 20+80

Thomas Creek: MY6 Stream Station Photo-Points (from 2/16/21)
,,..„,,..,,, ,„,,,,,, ,,„,. 1.--,140.r., 1„;,,,',1 lilrikliff,IVORAM,101,,,' „'4, f.,',,,-..:;;,',...P-i*Ikl.,=, ,. „. •, 4,,,,44t,
„N
41.4.,,c,,. ,,,,:4,--=‘, , _ ,. ,,,,--.,y-,,.,,z, v„wtt, :,A,,.yig,,,, .,..,,,,p,,,,,,,, ,,,„,,,5-4,;.e,,,,',,„:- ',..,.,:z-.,-O'0tltr';'a.61•rm.TA..,
'-., a ' T"rh, ''� 5k - ' 'k' a?6 4014 1st?r' ` _ * tr ' ,,, ' �T'- „ °
�1� s 1 t , w \
, i4.
,,,,,
I',''*_ t'; °p ' ✓, r sJ 1 1 •'i '1, ' nr3 ,•r ' -f :r- TTII31!
PP-19: Reach 2,view upstream at Station 22+00 £ PP-20:Reach 2,view upstream at Station 23+00
211
4
1,,,,.-pika, :a � ,, . , „ k, ' - - } ! � ,: ." dY �r. �� f 31t 4N�� t e ,y . rt' 0 ris � t ao . .¢ , ` i . ^. i.
•
• .e , -, a K. ;* xr . . , t g t to - ` �-' k ^k "IiY .
:• �F " r a . ,,, ,; .- •$ 6 d -
E, f �� ` r: a
J '� � ', itTh '4°i .._ .ry .d
'�-
44
PP-21:Reach 2,view upstream at Station 25+25 PP-22:Reach 2,view downstream at Station 25+50
s�T VF I ,, ,
1 1 Nt apt fi
r ,�, � „ rt,
}
` - . b k , � 'i�t 4 fir ', J - , -
_le,.„XI'A ,,'Ifit'lf411...;r4:'-:4:4C.„‘5':1(41:'
il,
,r xt ,
��p y i
PP-23:Reach 2,view of crossing at Station 27+75 PP-24:Reach 2,view downstream at Station 30+20

Thomas Creek: MY6 Stream Station Photo Points(from 2/16/21)
.1 � >A ti d s ��a,,��.pp�j� 1, -: F /1 E�1p r �7f ram- ya r y �/ 3tf - . ySP -,,, • 4 r r' ;,,,N
4t ' S t t Y� : i V Fc f R °�' Y V.^ 4i . "x xrhd ,�;
ll �45= 1 , �[x i r t4 5A . ri , -i ,�s• `ai g _
�3 - � 16 y s .-. Via k �a i r / / , STD M t , e •4 ii' ' a; .
il
it
,i '� h e. .y a i � i 3� / i F/�' �"�' •
-' �RLxi? 1
of @4 1 } ' 3 rI
'' f G ' 1 f' ,,.`' y ..-,_Ne � y rz a � �\ �� lrf �b g;d� l.' �� A� 3L-' �� � � �&3 :a.{F
f.. i _ .- �,, �d y 0.,- f' �- , Ns Y-..* yew t.L�1e� Y^cY
}` •°.. l r jam eyY irY h R ,'- s[ '' - 1 A.. :. 1�'�." x`4 h kr,
1 k,
4
'-3rr- ' '-"l i _ e"'3'rh� I' �,�'ry ii 1 y�A , �• _
iirt-
_ E W ,' .L �i` L -
ax >J•N '��- 4lq� c
PP-25: Reach Ti,view downstream at Station 11+75 PP-26:Reach 2,view of drainage on left bank at
Station 32+90
V. k 7 f I r'. fig, 'i' 9 d d eta 1��F '!s.,F'
1 - d � you/' II'ti`� �x� /, A � ' 7 s 6} Lf p�, ' i .
1$.plyrit 6d}x+�Y.I Y� ''���' Ycy'141-'
�'�i � ,,, it c rS R� § t > 1��k f1.0 a` f<7 e x t44
m4 !r" , '4 i�� agJ r 1' i', �.,,g,Y - '° jE I L�,i 1P 'f - .A Y i y 'r l!N,r - pl;r.
4xi 1 "'h \ t n '.i if F'9 "to -3. t. � - •
,-, af.�s+ r i d-, hr :
� r�� e�'5 1''>x 8� .8@ t ,k� ii '41 r,,,i
!a x,n�� i . i- ''', C a '''r� . '
®ry �J ,��F ¢ u - �'6,1,� ,'c , ryq,�ix"rt r f, 3 z t �v�:Y i ��r `� h�
,x,`f I Ate, d.. -' : ��,Prf,e� ., L, % 4'P,V '''. +L f� ,a, - a�k.r., .t .;-j`
'-ax -..F� :J PK -•�O - ''.x '-v.+"Y' rL ''1- ee. - :' t* , x. x# }1 r -5
ope
PP-27:Reach 2,view downstream at Station 33+25 PP-28:Reach„2,view downstream at Station 34+30
-'vr.v•kr,„...-..„.„„ ....„
...,,..,,. .:„.„ ,
,...„,..., ,, ,, ,,,,,..„......._,...,...„ , ,
f„,
','P ' 's�6e `I r' �' � ,�Rp77Pla ,'15 1 f✓ ''0 �'� : v a'' {p-i'l 1ir,"4,' �" '� 1 'y; .ul ,') i , s`,
4.0kL t' '.1 - -. ' .
'''hh ( `� "i E '��r � � 3�' `�a,, 1� v 1'°Fr ' ' 7 p j
!_- $`i c s ./ar :X- f C€ �' fit,, -t'r �,r i ..
4 F��, a � !d t y ;h r
g!ii r 1 �, , &- k V�Fa r 4; 4 yea �wq, z(k _+, I k I
y t f 1 - 1' ,i p§�*r t y ? e 5. - �z�t i ,- i, `1° g _F §�� �' t '-t 7f 9����,S't5'�6 �4:gyp r d 1 P,gr1' Y19 '�°� f�-. Y 8• r *t Tn" 4 ' 1t�• 1 -irk ''�+ =r+" o _ re `y_ 5 * �''
rg a ' '°b:F r F r S.(Vt-_ - 1 Xt 1 - k t - 4"
Jii±
�,„ a4t : , 4 h r��a }� ,�" -t' r�a,y 4
ory r z, �_r• x S .. 't �-. �4!�t 9 7^i' kd' -'�:r 5 -o-• 4 _ wi �
',,,,,., .,
\ '�"• fit - - -- x�:. "ad'�'a 'tr,; " .xkv }; r`of i r,7�
f 1
rye r� b i b uat'. 3 -wire . , �+.1 T•„1 �. \1, pl
40
_.—ma y— # �'2 7.,a "r"d L --- - . 1 -^-
PP-29:Reach 2,view downstream at Station 36+90 PP-30:Reach 2,view upstream at Station 38+25

Thomas Creek: MY6 Stream Station Photo-Points (from 2/16/21)
FI Sg1-N7& ' i '1rh' A--• ° r,"=,(�`$� #-,- ` � e'c; " . n ,deg f�;;d 4dt
�-`�+ a �, 69: ' W a� _ R '&ems ' s sfakv, S[ • 1 " v- y -
1,,:,'1.',Iiif,e,,,,,*;;;,': 14,:-,1,p.,,illf,',.4-.I ,'-f44 i.V,t,,,,,,,,,.;-,r w s,'4
ri
54
r - ' , E = 1 ''' i:' a •
11 t� '1x '� m 'd '� xy7 i./.t .• �r x> `- 'h e" ° ..,{'y'"�,> .-_.s
:�1� k to A • a § .-.,, g+€ {� - A. a-
V - j f .�., i f` 1- ' a 5 +`,.' t- r ti ,y, •mod.
�. a 4 n_ c. ss r - f -n yh, 'x •4 s; - ? _t ,T t �^ [`
'�,� s .! , 9 a. .ems F t r ;b�, ,'
,oltir
PP-31:Reach 2,Crest Gauge at Station 38+90 PP-32:Reach 2,view downstream at Station 39+40
ry a..,r r r ] Yh yo i ,
is r 'S',1',_*''1'.'ns,' E ': 1, 5 - , ,, �'•✓� , a# ,I, .*A -� - � — o X �
•
41 ,
� � i �Fps '-i � x r r e�� r— � ' a � a t i-4�.
e I �� S�( �E I$� F a , x � f - �az Y'�,�r 3 rye 1.-, '� r I. +, �, ter ,i'Y•.� P�
¢ y �' : � i oaf. o'S, €!�' 41
Y {{ �H� a S d- `'" R, sty , x .:01,^f
,q�`y _L Z� 1 a't
i r -yid e lief
�� '1 • ,3¢ ",;''� x -, �`" ' 3 't. 3 �.,A• j
_ .�°i ', iw.1 _-ea 1 lililr r , k l r r / .rY r ryv;�L ? :- r, �z �',
:f' - . .. - -o'. y'� '' ram._ 1 ./r - F
_ ' 1/ 11- /I ~- - ,Ord, ,
' - •�'- I • l - y 6 - 7 / - rya
,o,
,,„,„ ,.
::„,,,,.,,,,,,,,,. ,,,--2g ',';'41
PP-33:Reach 2,view upstream at Station 41+50 PP-34:Reach 1,view upstream at Station 42+75
„.. Imilir: , , tor.41t4 40,,,,,, ,:,... ..: „..4,7 ..,, ..,..pfrt.-;..,4,,Ili, , .:*,,,. ,,y',,,.;•7,
'f 1 �-E 4 r Ib • z�`e 3
4 J^ , � l 1 yA '- �y
y
/ '2,.a s rt1
is fit .
k r
n 1 r
_4.- '''' _,..-- *,.,, , 4,1.F.;,,'''f-t-,-4, •,,,,.--I.:-
k �f •
,, 5 ..„T 1 Yr? <;r _ f' 4 f11 a - H '',,-,...--'-!;,1',,,, it,, - , ,!,,,,i,v ,,, ..,,r,-,0-f '.'i,7,7,-..1'''-,42: erk),,,?„„.441
k;�'s^c .ttt f wr y 'Tgvc "S
1'' t: ` w`�'k��.iY3 "a'' "}'+`a,*. : .,•'. ' i
PP-35:Reach 1,view downstream at Station 43+25 PP-36:Reach 1,view of drainage on left bank at
Station 44+00

Thomas Creek: MY6 Stream Station Photo-Points (fro72/,1, 6/21)
1 4 k q; h` t 'ia^w w" w y rY ! C a ' alp
�Ir t, y7 :� ',�"i � X y F 6 !� �s � 1, 4 � �i' �,`,.
tik
6', e1,,..,
F p I y' s'-i 1: �' t,?�A �'i r,. d, ! s' k 114
kr
•7 I• i I Pt,. -,01-�� R 5 it' a a :gi —s„, ,b p a t $
} ' '1 yl. 9�' ,ap �i % '� 1 '' r.. -',, `' ' 1 'r }F 'a', • + ,e y� may1F `� 4eq1'i 3 '1 S §K§M- c+ / ; a -, i 4 7.' k � .
3' h`k� . ar s�y*1'i - r 7`5 4 �' j a�Ir 1 �� t cP �t �� � k
'" r t �E , d ! v' a o f h� ': k3 _ r i i` t
''' 4 i; „�i �:',4 F?erg. ,. ., _ ,�y�9' - s' _
ii
0
'! # �' r III . 7 J 1 n .1. > r � �. I #4ii,,C.
PP-37: Reach 6,view upstream at Station 10+75 PP-38: Reach 6,view upstream at Station 11+50
J. � +t � `6. '� a r Y. t.t 7 �.w ,4 i r >✓ �„�. f;'
ri d i� ���Ir� w� '� ),� her ,f . . _� 7 1 uf -J:. '�� �,
ii�� qt f • q 'gE''• - 14. t
YY ,yp' r
r,y �S¢ 19A,:.:SR.,.` �i' ; _ ri - �' L`Xq-qtF i7' -b ^c r yTC , '
R- �i �"':? z: r- -} � . • - 1 - / '.,!-°fir'"
•
4.
F --rw. i�1 �i - � E r ii a c,:\, „.,,, ..„,:,,,..,:-.„:„,,,,,,:, ..„,,,„ ;R - p � Y'j' P ', 1 " ' �' `'
'if
) x Yi ate• 3 A - Y, Z T
„.„.,:._,,,. ::„. ,,,,,,
::,,;'4'''i.:;44, ,.;.e,14-.,-,;",,417.. ..
,_,,,,,* ...),,h ,-;ft.i.-40"/ .,,„,,,,,,,-'' _,,,,,,,„..rjr:,,,11 -,, :,-.- ,„p, ,..,.:, , .,,,,......,...
le}_ ' :G' _ R _ _ ow y' y'4tJ q'' ' S -t� a: PX _ �'� �'6� , sss l� �mw 5 ar '''9A 'a
1Jh u`` '4e _ ,1v,,. .v .j_ i a,. • 5,s 'a' ;' :. '.Jr'-
-.'"iir?";*.'' ,,,,e441.-,_ ,e.4, ; .. — ,,.. ,,,ii,.'5,.',' .'',: it '
PP-39:Reach 6,view upstream at Station 15+25 PP 40:Reach 6,view upstream at Station 18+90
r
-,'1r,i,,,.,,_P'
4 I.t yY y . h. "r ,F t f Y
T,.: 5 4 ,° re 'A .4 ,t' tY ; ji'‘'7• 3'tz e+�r.., :i17e : *, s , YT1'�' - ?:ah % ;Yf f,ty ^ ...
y 4 ' ' a r-src Y e , ,..,, T F. -`,!� w -J„ y fy1; t
a�' k.16 y- ' f ir`-' a„�3� .1, i "Y a� 3 �/ry
"84 'r �,' s �,ai I . ,�s, a ,r'` , "( ,.. h �' r �i' 3.'�
_ , ,it, ,,,‘,,,.:: 1),,,''',1.,.',,,4 ''4"',,Ii:4,.,?7"-Tr-,i,..t1.„,.
rye y i . r 3 �p +s., -1 y. -f. I -'�'^-, '.off. [�� �,� -c
mo _ y : � - + - :, ,� :�a , • 3 al'r .e ,
PP-41: Reach 6,view upstream at Station 25+50 PP-42:Reach 7,view upstream at Station 10+40

Thomas Creek: MY6 Stream Station Photo-Points (from f 2/16/21)
I `aq 9' � 5 L 'i 1 rd'� r f r . -f" n d �1'v .'.
Ver
_ I �1 `x thy bs ,,
S - " iy. "c` F >.t.: k*.,;•r '"�:� -,,,....�-"'rim '
..-, 1:,4-4*.itgre.'• -,t;',•&.'4.i. - -- ‘-. , '_,,' `1\ic.'`', '''', k,..:4`,`P'11;rft4-- A.r.7414,4P -,.:,,, '.,1--‘"Vilit a' - ,,,,:rSk ,r, 1; r.,
q,0,; : 'ekTE, -,,' k,tR t- ' a 7a '�,
,, '.,` tr - 1 P—' 4 ' t-§L NHS 'A' ..yet �•.:
PP-43:Reach 7,view of stabilized drainage at Station 13+50 PP-44:Reach 7,view upstream at Station 15+00
•
•
., ..,. r r Z 4r 41r"ftt �d , Y""x
s'N j. Fi`i r ,• �,� „x S ya y,•z I 3 � iy ,� , � 4.�, ( a , ,'", rk.:,,,,---'-'''',,."-'
_ t i y � - ea x_� x a ik '« tv ' x! 1 .
r i J.X p ypY M }P �� sY • 3 Y, a r , t a r ' _k
- '� lY ti 'S ,d"T' . .
4144
' $ �—\ ate I -x � -r> ' -- ' _ . '-''F-'4--- 7,-ii
4 s ° ,yfee,.
at
PP-45:Reach 5,view upstream at Station 30+25 PP-46:Reach 5,view downstream at Station 30+75
q
m3,4 E r -- h�7 t, ,I t 1'z\,l
fix, - ;✓ - E '-- , 1.. L r r; I °y " y r
n'.-ys 4; ,y°iMl F ' e23'•
'.. z q, 11;_ : )c
r ',V-.is . .-.11,. p.--#A,-.--' ..‘,„ . . \ , '
Mi N:'
,,
,_ ,..,,,_ -
ti .emu,t ...$40,,
.,,, t., V1
L !Y- / X • ve
ti /' 7'�, % . +t- 7,.....
F "
!y -
F it i•1yy��hl !\ '`•L
` ", ai. .L q'� •
� _ ;ru
PP-47:Reach 5,view downstream at Station 31+40 PP-48:Reach 5,view downstream at Station 32+50

Thomas Creek: MY6 Stream Station Photo-Points (from 2/16/21)
9 v t. `shm4 �'�' " 3s G +tF t C 1... _ � 4 ti \ I { '� ai 1gF� A� q�py' J f+ p
aF 4'! r \y ' T i Fyr. :.5+ '_$Y� rq f"C.".{{tC�� ,k 4 } P'� ��@r✓.� it-..-,,
, -1,0 ,,, ., •,,,',,,,,',.&.-,,,C,AZ: •
a <sa ,� ;, r , �'* �• {.r.. \s$,�•, A,/, ,,,,40 '-,k, \.- ',IV-, v S + p, :\lir iri ,.:$41_j _ r.:„...'„,',V,,,,k-',,, f'es(. -,y
ii
t. g,
i. '''"W„,„0171., ,,::*$" .,:o ,,,,,Fc'. j , ' 7- 1.7„,,,St,viks''',:,7::?,..41:41,',,:4; 7,,,,:%."':".,:,.‘,4:77:. ---.,.,,i;'"1:1,.:'
t rItt �+' �` Ems€ 4��' •t -`fi -t s �ktf 7 °' _ !�d �-&t'4. 'r "'t.$ 1 1 - ,/ R'".%:
.+t ,- +�.� : s1 .i. aY ,,e, -: mar yd- _ '' `
:.
.1' ' ,' '.'11‘4:7-T'';': 14';'t- ,114 w, ---.4F --4,- -..-1--; - - -- ------ ', Ti'.r,1444'7"4"'—,,..-,,'',0„," 1
fr34t
PP 49: Reach 5,view upstream at Station 33+10 PP-50:Reach 5,view downstream at Station 33+75
f I. a`'�� � �,k' y - _°. 4` ;
F Zee r t,' ! F dF - ,i ,�
_AI,-
i it it „It
� 4 • x PPP
i '.... - iiiiiii..4.. - .-' _,.' .-- 01' ; . .'.,'''tilt.t6:. .,, ''.:-
VIL
` r
- -oilir r3!. r "rbA'A "fin "'" sM" r, :i c
Ark ,
iiiir,, s a A' .�w± IrS�s.. - �,�.. .. `.�L" S'R_h/ '4'ev',` l ';YIE,d'►; L6��'nans NJYNr '.. f�S2.
PP 5 L Reach 5,Flow Gauge#2 at Station 33+90 PP-52:Reach 5,view of crossing at •Station 35+00(note:no
cattle in upper field so gate is OK to have open)
' � "'�Q� � �� F r iy tor ,k,- , 'k b. i t j k. �-0 _'+' 64,itS'' d ! I df
Ni „. f ! �o , 94 F. uti rT gip,
! e/ : 41'
7,. /,, \N 4 r. >�,� . 1.' '' �P s �' �a !�' Allow 1V" a/� ��ii. �' '` fR (.
e.ark ''l� �. k � i IH.P R, 'd§. �i i'y{• �r 71'. iii� -, Y '
;. �� ` `.- k yew.,. r
g T � �g�ya�
'n sly i i 0T "d� 1�"k'r� � '"�' .. e, '. $ ' s „1:
ii
A\\.
- _ #, S d
•
PP-53:Reach 5,view upstream at Station 36+40 PP-54:Reach 5,view upstream at Station 36+75

Thomas Creek: MY6 Stream Station Photo-Points (from 2/16/21)
,4i. ,,,,,,,y,,,,,..1,,i ,,.,;,.,.;:6,-,,::i0;t:-.,.;,:.:1;;:?.,?0,:;.,,,,, ,, ,.
Y.A.'",,ii ,,,,,,* fi x '
k -,-: _,!:-,:,..-ti,f4800,,...,. .,:, -,, 1 ify 1:, ofi,,',..-' 407.• .4117,' ,,,•fii!'1:;!fre!-,'. : -,::I-lf ---er-,, -,7s,',,,_-_,,,;'---.- ,,,,,,,-
it
iii,i't, ',,i'' ,:., . ',. ' -,--, _,1•-- ,-';,., - -.,-,p1,-.--. r .,',,,,,,-$L-,,‘..,;r0 4`,;', it„, ,, ,,::-.,i,'4,4-4- ,.',i`!",!.;,:-- ,,i4
• 11^}I {{ + Y1
Ps E s / [ { ' j '' .✓ „� 1)�'� � b ,v� - L _ � i` c ' r" �or � „ :�I : i :� s �4 ,�� � S � ce c� 7. , + - -ar � �•
4; - , . - -
,..xt7--;:-_-- .,-, - .
-:;;;;-:,:,_11,--'1-41, ..i,' .,.',1:
�? •• `, - - � /i e44 ,; �� ,, I, -to 5
PP-55:Reach 5,view downstream at Station 37+30 PP-56:Reach 5,view upstream at Station 38+50
4 ���kl S • }"�Ii .. 1:;iJ!
e "'I'''.
l ,, ; r(t dF
'Mail, �
ffi
r :..s; xG lib _ -, bdh fx r+,' .� ' • a.-`' yeti
to .
PP-57:Reach 5,view upstream at Station 39+90 PP-58:Reach T2,view upstream at Station 10+80
(the confluence of R5 and R2)

Thomas Creek:MY6 Crest Gauge Photographs
'' � �
,•''.... '...• .;.,....,,...r.-:_....,:..‘i-4.:\r.:.„'„,....: ._.4:1,•,..,,--:, ,',,;',:::'•:,,.4`.-:: '?:,;:..i.rfiLi,.,":44*.A..,,,..A4:;=• ,::4,:, „,-..,,,,.-..- •,,:., •-•••,.... ,.'---7..-,.:--: .-.,••••••-•• ' , , - -' liiiiii
3 '1 Y h � !� 1 �.. i' �yg3:-,ite0'.•**-41.47p,1;-.4ifftli!-• : : .`• .'.'„,'• • .::::::',.. ./... :','••••••:...:• i.- -. 1'; .-•. - •
Z . 1
;' ,'v ; a' ,,,e, 1:,. /��' *�" .a'�•:.',r'a:' s x h uj2r F `_,-. :�.r l
sl S� FE � � /I� 7• '� ➢� �`�I"`1 � �" � � 3 ��FlRi�� l� 1 t�.:�, t�, y �� JA ,
des t - M1 s` i TE E°'r '.6\R\1�1, g t °yyi,,L 'Nx .`!f. . "I ny
�`� •�"f. 'Z 4 � 'c�t � �� ra41'Tj a _8s'4"8�'���,�'°� � c�/,L S'
ss 'r r '" { h� A"".vyd .,s ' PryzOoAP �'� / .:
ti � _
r
.a _ ..� ..r Y,,,}'.G .. . , a. . .T V' ..'9 a _ _ Y event
[ •.. iJ Y .•1
Crest Gauge on Reach R2 at Station 38+90 Overbank event of 0.62 ft on 7/8/21
(photo from 2/18/21) (photo from 8/10/21)
! Mts.
Fe
al ' i i ' IIE ' 1 /I , Ir1 ' � 811 ` ' , 119 ' } ' ' ` IPIf
c
KE AR METRIC UN{TS ANtl YYMB,OL. 100.?ntimefers.., me'- m er,.
;100R+ s Iml='I,tlum�-l� .s inche.r °f
.,I{ilm.rera{ m' =s meier,m '• tea x lose,=
13�0 1d10 15��. 16I0 17 0 18 0 ,9110 20IOrmn 21,0 122,0 23'0 2:0 2.r
„ , ,151A,. .,,,...L... ...1,..�.{.1,,,„„1,,,,�„„l,.a.,,,, „{,,„i„„l,,,hlt�.{,{I{l„�
A
Overbank event of 0.62 ft(7.4 in)on 7/8/21
(photo from 8/10/21)

Thomas Creek: MY6 Additional Monitoring Photographs
•
a fF j .-,g..'
p' �` v ��' � ara rpr
, ,
. ,-.7 ;
- -,, r
, _
--:7.:t.,,,_ , -_-- 7 ;:?,- \ , -,›-
; i- ,_--..-..„_...„ , . . , ,
. _
,_
,.
, ..
1
1 ._ „.., _._
__ _... ,,,,,,,,,-_._
...,
.;,_
..... i-_ -,, „ , -_,,,
_ .
}
..
,._ ,..„
\._,,, i -
‘,...„..4,-- __„_....„,
•
4 lril /+ 4 s 1 l'i' '� •
Flow Gauge#1 on Reach R2(photo:2/16/21) Flow Gauge#1 on-
ReachR2(photo:5/5/21)
� a„r�� . Y + I! 1f , as a 4,. �,n"+.f I '•
4i- ' t 1 I e- �", '�rY '7 4..
- __saw' s ''':S 7-4 ) t-
1 '' ten'- .. , " jsn, `�
41,c,„,--_,, ,,,,,14,,,,,, ,.,,,..,0,-*-A ' AA. ,,l`'701-,,;:' - . - , t 4, --1;3111'- ' '
,,,IV;A,,-,*,..-.., t,4:---,- „P.- --a---,,..z.,--iv r, ,_, ..1',,,,,•
I-
, 40„....., ,
,,__
.xk m ` fi .-, ..
L - *-- ' '
i' , �'.._,I',) , �.�, , 'i- j, .r. r;"�y. ;�#'#'�/. .::z (F ♦" "'; Ka-. '`: �`.���a rS;af �-» ...
,
Flow Gauge#1 on Reach R2(photo:8/10/21) Flow Gauge:2:--n7
Reach R5(photo:2/16/21)
- ' 'I'IT*:/friit e, 1...f if,'ra.,
Ar
,y 11 ✓; 9 �F firs i' �
ti dr `m'S.- ,. 1'
k I
, i. - ... `.
` - I��J.�� ��•- ,.'fie
4
• i CY O .. p ra ..,•� " ` 1 ' ° . S �
Flow Gauge#2 on Reach R5(photo:5/5/21) Flow Gauge#2 on Reach R5(photo:8/10/21)

Thomas Creek:MY6 Additional Monitoring Photographs
a x ' � a .�`'. ' ', ) i g
,...., :.-.4..„,,,, ( ..,, . ,ii
,„,0:,, ...,- ,:Lf,--„,,,'<7
'lea . , 7 , ,1 aT' "x� �'
•
Q ✓✓ bSy�# � � -'-i' �{ W a 1""� ' ',I,,,,',, yV, l �,},� fiy r l I
�" f c �5 _ -.-. 3 r ti.. .' +" � f r b . I Y c a� �Ay g
e .. .,,�, { "'c f t'' � t. s l.,s < _ ,�y,�'i*t" '- i yr p!, �,p� b,
§ {'*J Pit - r " t :. k -: .1 5 ..w `'' a'- • �.'x cy ;:Z• rw.aQ 'F�r 4
,----- ';',...,'4.„1„,,.'.. .i.' ,-.1.7.4i-4.,,,,:- ---7*...1r...-110‘41,11,-yr ' dt, ,,
r,41t - '�'T� � '+'� r :' �� ��"� �'{s "�'�,snS d,Y "• I{I `. a �S+", 'z i.o::%�
3
Flow in pipe culvert on R4(photo:2/16/21) Flow in pipe culvert on R4(photo:2/16/21)
_.
is MI ,'
..i.44tV*',A;4',.''''"
/.,,,
_ o
V if AY �.4 ..-,.-..A'
i L.'
'''-'.11t,,,*"7,0:1,4 ,e.i.-4.,',Tr _,-,, '''"*.'-' f,..'4L . _ ' ,',..;
.:.;,,lit, b A Y - y44 4.
ay ',y4 rs
Flow on T2,upstream(photo:2/16/21) Flow on T2,upstream(photo:5/5/21)
s i, 1 ' lt.' ''-' e,i1.„1,,,, , , .p:1 '\::-..—.p- ,,. ',,"44.'i
! ' ' t g
4 3.„._,„,,,,_. , .,,„,„,, ,, ,, ,.,,i,„ .,,,,. , ,,,. e ./
)'t'''li.4",/-1 ;',.5k,'",.447,''ZIY,A;I''', '''''4,,,.%•fi,'i; -..2wwi" . -•
..`' s s'. .t ''yet
Flow on T2,downstream(photo:5/5/21) Flow on upper R6,upstream(photo:2/16/21)

Thomas Creek:MY6 Additional Monitoring Photographs
7 Y k M A N tlA as £ k p^' 'Q�i ,i1apt� :y4 y, a,' r w ., C. s . +. i,'
�� ra ter- �'C� jr� �� � �, � V. 7 � �N '' �� � .'-'°�, i *y �r� '� _ - ,y�E''M �
„:),4,,,,, sk
i, d; r ! ,s r �' 1 if J'1 ,/,P- a, 7 ad„ '.:F ' #, , z� :'' 1.3a"
a � •}, -„ , :a t 1. Of+ + I f l c j 9'r �1 l •.',l ya�� :.,fix •idi ''
itiot
r a
I ��'� r � '�Js a
s��"�I , N't.t*n �A'� a$ rn a ?-�x a u ,r y"�- � '[h ,3#-Y �i+�.
kt
a
.717
t/ � %� y.�l��r Yi /'. '� 53 � , ,ti,. 3+r %ia" �
Flow on upper R6,upstream(photo:2/16/21) Flow on upper R6,upstream(photo:4/13/21)
.y y 1lit, y
h
, ..1..,, „..1...,.14 . e , , .0 ," i
a'' 9: 34
. ... t
z, '°� -. , _o iM F. 'i p N `ice '' *milt
'ey3 �p i. F��� �.� 3, �f �fPq, ,'� t�
Flow on upperR6,upstream(photo:4/13/21) Flow on upper R6,upstream(photo:5/5/21)
F za h: .
i { ;y
a T'
4A. r, ,, _i , .
/ /r may. Rf
Flow on upper R6,upstream(photo:5/5/21) Flow on upper R6,upstream(photo:5/5/21)

Thomas Creek:MY6 Additional Monitoring Photographs
4. t
�� fit' �i • _ A
Er` c. x� r ,s7
• yam ` fL
.
z ..�-®y': - c .+, =k Ems' ds- I 1 - -
Stable RockFord Crossing on Reach R2(photo:2/16/21) Stable RockFord Crossing on ReachRS(photo:2/16/21)
ELF
xh
•
r.
''�'+A sue"-- R i-l-,1 :"t `v5 ^x55.aa���zF'�,n -
3 •
t s t � . k.61 � - -
me
y-Y Y':.M1 ux ""E* i+ i y h '�-,, 1?.,1 .•a• • L'1'=-•
. P= ` .• F Y'?.-_:
.„*.
Stable Rock Ford Crossing on Reach T1 (photo:2/16/21) Previously repaired bend a long Reach R2(photo:2/16/21)
s ' � a " ?i- 45�� e,a
15s,1 •
x - _
- �4 yY] �' r iq"- u�x amp � ., ,r F1 atf5ri ; ro' ae � @, a 3f,, ice
_ ,,,k. g' ll rY'd " F `£`f
•
�� "
d •
f 19
F
n01 "n+. Jt�A ��}� '#
I -?h f�, ras. f ,
Previously repaired bend a long Reach R2(photo:2/16/21) Previously repaired bend a long Reach R2(photo:2/16/21)

Thomas Creek: MY6 Additional Monitoring Photographs
Previously repaired bend a long Reach R2(photo:5/5/21) Previously repaired bend a long Reach R2(photo:5/5/21)
r r E„ r 'N"-
� F ems.
•
gay,
Vegetation growth within the left buffer of upper Reach R3, Vegetation growth within the left buffer of upper Reach R3,
looking up-valley(photo:8/10/21) looking down-valley(photo:8/10/21)

Appendix C
Vegetation Plot Data*
*No vegetation plot monitoring was required for Year 6.

Appendix D
Stream Survey Data*
*No cross-section survey monitoring was required for Year 6.

Table 10.Baseline Stream Summary
Thomas Creek Restoration Project:DAIS Project ID No.96074
Reach 1-Length 298 ft
Reference Reaches)Data
Parameter ESGS Gauge Regional Curve Pre-Exiting Condition Design As-built
Little Beaver Creek(Wake County)
Dimension and Substrate-RiffleLL UL Eq. NMI Mean Med Max SD v Min Mem Med Max SD v Miv Mean Med Max SD v Min Mean Med Max SD v
BF Width(11) 116 119 90 12.5 — 139
Floodpmne Width OF -- 90 -- -- >25 -- -- 30.6
BF Mean Depth(ft) -- 12 1 5 -- 12 -- -- -- 09 -- -- 0.8
BF Max Depth -- --BF Crossaectimal Area(60; -- -- II -- -- II -- II -- -- -- II
Width/Depth Ratio —_ —_ —_ -- ]2 12 0 18 0 -- -- -- 140 _- _— I7 4
Entrenchment Ratio --_ _— I8 14 -- 22 -- —_ -- >22 — — 22
Bonk Height Ratio — --- -- 25 10 -- 1.1 10 — 10
d50(mm)
Pattern .
Channel Belt-NAM OF -- -- -- -- -- -- 300 344 -- --
Radius of Curvature(ft) -- -- -- -- -- -- 250 350 33.1 -- --
RcBankfullwidth(ft/8) ---- -- -- -- 2.0 -- 30 20 28 24 --
Meander Wavelength OF -- -- -- -- 105 0 103 4 ----
Meander Width Ratio --- -- 3 5 -- 8 0 -- 2 4 — 25 --
Profile
Raffle Length(ft) -- —_ 240
Raffle Slope(ft/ft) -- -- -- -- 0028 0025 --
Pool Length(ft)
Pool to Pool Spacmg(R; -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 24 60 64.0
Pool Max Depth WE -- -- -- -- -- -- —_ 24 2.5
Pool Volume(ft3)
Substrate and Transport Parameters L .11.
11196/Ru%/P%/G%/5%
SC%/Sa%/G%/B%/BeN
1 d16/d35/d50/d84/d95 -- -- -- 0.15/027/034/0]5/139
Reach Shear Shwa(competency)lb/11
Max part size(men)mobilized at bankfull(Rosgen Curve;
Stream Power(hmsportcapaaty)W/m
A dditiou a l Reach Parameters
Drainage Area(SM) -- -- 038 -- -- -- 038 038 --
Impervious cover estimate(%;
Rmgen Classification -- —_ -- E —_ -- -- C5 -- C5 ---- -- C5 ----
BFVelocIly(fps; -- 34 40 39 35 -- 5 -- 4
BFDiacharge(cfs) — 27 6 44.6 44.6 -- -- -- 44.6 -- --
Valley Length -- —_ -- -- _— ---- 271.1
Channel length(R) 397 -- -- -- -- -- 266 -- -- 3243
Smoak,: -- 1.18 _— 1.1 -- 13 122 12
Water Surface S rye(Channel) --- 000zs -- -- --
-- 0022 -- 00168
BF slope(ft/11) -- 00050 0002 -- 0015 ---- 00165 -- 00201
Bmkfull Floodplam Area(acres;
BEHI VL%/L%/M%/H%/VH%/E%
Channel Sthbildy or Habitat Metre
Biological or Other
1-Pre-Existing Condition measurment Men an existing sandbed Mlle
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC.
YEAR 6 MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT(EMS PROJECT NO.ID 96074)

T ablel0 continued.Baseline Stream Summary
Thomas Creek Restoration Project:DMS Project ID No.96074
:I:
2-Length 2,126 ft
Reference Reaches)Data
eterge Regional Curveensmn and Substrate-RiffleLL UL Eq. Mir Mean Med Max SD v Mir Mem Med Max SD v Miv Mean Med Max SD v Mir Mean Med Max SD v
BF Width(11) 116 119 fiS 94 92 104 102 103 104
Floodpmne Width(ft; 9 0 -- 13 2 -- >18 38 2 58.5 ---- 74 5
BF Mean Depth(ft) ---- 12 1 5 0 6 -- 12 -- -- 0 a 0 a 0 a 0.8 10 ----
BF Max Depth(ft) — 1.6 -- 26 -- -- 0.8 10 10 12 15 ----
BF Cross aechonal Area(Ili: 60 77 37 7a -- -- 15 7 -- -- 60 ].] ]4 86 102 --
Width/Depth Ratio -- 34 - -- 54 100 150 -- 140 140 101 125 148
Entrenchment Ratio 14 14 -- >22 -- >22 — 3] 57 72 --
Bank Height Ratio 22 33 10 -- 1.1 -- 10 — 09 10 10 --
d50(mm)
Pattern i • —
Channel BeltwidthOF -- -- -- 320 450 566
Radius of Curvature(ft) -- -- -- 170 300 220
Rc Bankfull width(ft/8) ---- -- 20 -- 30 20 30 2.1
Meander Wavelength(ft; ---- -- -- 750 1070 832
Meander Width Ratio -- ,0 -- 140 -- 33 47 55
Profile i
Riffle Length(ft) —_ _— —_ —_ l7 7
Raffle Slope(ft/ft) -- -- -- -- 00094 002 0012
Pool Length(ft)
Pool to Pool Spacing(8; _— _— —_ —_ _— _— 25 75 _— _— —_ 508
Pool Max Depth(ft. —_ —_ _— —_ _— —_ 1 i 19 —_ 1
Pool Volume(tts)
Substrate and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Rtr%/P%/G%/5%
SC%/Se%/G%/B%/B.
I d16/d35/d50/d84/d95 011/022/032/085/189 202/476/62.5/1331/1731
Reach Shear Stress(competency)lb/11
Max part size(mm)mobilized at bankfull(Rosgev Curve;
Stream Power(hansport capacity)W/m
A ddition al Reach Parameters
Drainage Area(SM) ---- 0.153 0275 -- -- 0275 0275
Impervious cover estimate(%;
Rosgev Classification ---- G5c F5 -- -- C5 -- C5 C5
BF Velocity(fps; ---- 32 39 38 39 35 -- 5 -- 38 39
BF Discharge(cfa) ---- 178 297 229 350 23.0 299
Valley Length ---- —_ _— —_ _— -- 25493
Channel length(R) ---- _— 1,995 _— —_ —_ _— 1,089 3413
Sinuosity -- _— 1.17 12 —_ 15 120 13
Water Surface Slope(Channel)(ft/ft; --- 00082 -- -- -- 00062 00083 00092
BF slope(ft/ft) -- -- -- -- 00098 0002 -- 001 -- 001 00123
Bankfull Floodplain Area(acres;
BEHI VL%/L%/M%/H%/VIM/E%
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
1-Pre-Existing Condition measurment Wren on culling sanabed nr0e.As-Built measurement tam on constructed rock off,
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC.
YEAR 6 MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT(DMS PROJECT NO.ID 96074)

T able 10 continued.Baseline Stream Summary
Thomas Creek Restoration Project:DMS Project ID No.96074
Reach 3-Length 1,031 ft
Reference Reach(es)Data
Parameter USGS Gauge Regions l Croce Pre-Existing Condition Design Asbui8
Thomas Creek Site tipper Reach 4(On-site)
Dimension and Substrate-Riffle —LL UL Eq. Min Mean Med Max SD v Mn! Mean Med Max SD v Mn! Mean Med Max SD v Min Mean Med Max SD v
BF Width(11) 116 119 45 53 30 35 84 93
Floodpmne Width(0; 67 95 -- -- >16 -- -- --- 333 463 — 553 ----
BF Mean Depth(ft) ---- 12 15 07 -- 08 -- -- -- 07 -- 06 0.] — 0S ----
BF Max Depth ---- 1.0 -- _— LS -- -- _— 07 -- -- -- 09 09 — 1.29 ---
BF Crossaeclimal Area all; ---- 268 362 3.0 -- -- 43 -- -- 4.1 -- -- -- 45 59 7 3 --
W6th/Depth Ratio ---- -- 65 -- -- 67 10 -- 140 -- -- 11.0 120 13.0 -- -- 119 12.1 123 --
Entrenchment Ratio 15 I8 --- -- -- >22 -- -- -- >22 -- -- 50 5.5 ---- 59
Bmk Height Ratio 23 32 10 LI 10 10 10 10
d50(mm)
Pattern M Mi • `
Channel Beltwidth(IF ---- -- IS 28 322
Radius of Curvature(ft) -- -- 15 21 19.1
RCBankfrll w6th(8/8) ---- - 3 20 2] 23
Meander Wavelength(L; -- -- 70 80 -- -- 33 S
Meander Width Ratio -- 26 40 38
Profile
Raffle Length(ft) -- ---- 12 5
Raffle Slope(8/ft) -- 1.1 20 0031 0013 --
Pool Length(ft)
Pool to Pool Spacmg(8; -- -- -- -- -- 280 480 432 -- -- --
Pool Max Depth(ft) -- -- -- -- --- 1 5 — 1.3 --
Pool Volume(8A)
Substrate and Transport Parameters ,
Ri%/Ru%/P.M/G%/5%
SC%/Se%/G%/B%/BeF
r d16/d35/d50/d84/d95 -- -- -- 014/029/041/1.16/305
Reach Shear Stress(competency)Ib/8
Max part size(mm)mobilized at bankroll(Roggen Curve;
Stream Power(hmspmt capaaty)W/m
A Milian aIRearh Parameters —
Dminage Area(SM) -- -- 0083 -- -- -- 0083 -- 0 083
Impervious cover estimate(%;
Roagen ClaaaiScatim ---- -- B5c -- ECG — E/C5 CS
BFVelocdy(fps; ---- 30 36 38 23 3.5 5 38 -- -- --
BF Diacharge(cfa) ---- 94 165 122 165 -- -- 165 -- --
Valley Length ---- -- --_ ---- 873 ---
Channel length(8) -- -- 1,067 -- -- 1,231 -- 1,031 --
Sinuovty -- -- 122 -- -- 120 150 120 -- 12 ---
Water Surface Slope(Channel)(WIT 00150 00150 ---- ---- 00092 ----
BF slope(8/8) -- -- 00182 0005 0015 00182 -- 00123 --
Bmkfull Floodplain Area(acres;
BEHI VL%/L%/MN./H%/VIM/E%
Channel S6biEty or Habitat Metric
Biologiml or Other
1-Pre-Existing Condition measurment Wren on au sting sandbed rgile
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC.
YEAR 6 MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT(DMS PROJECT NO.ID 96074)

T able 10 continued.Baseline Stream Summary
Thomas Creek Restoration Project:DAIS Project ID No.96074
Reach 4-Length 1,238 ft
Parameter USGS Gauge Regmna l Cu rv'e Pre-Existing Condition Reference Reach(es)Data Design As-built
Thomas Creek Site Upper Reach 4(On-site)
Dimension and Substrate-RinkLL UL Eq. NMI Mean Med Max SD v Miv Mean Med Max SD v Mn! Mem Med Max SD v Mir Mean Med Max SD v
BF Width(II) 11 6 11 9 4 5 -- -- -- 6 3 -- ---- 6 S
Floodpmne Width(O: -- 99 -- -- >13 -- ---- 219
BF Mean Depth(ft) ---- 1 2 1 5 0] -- -- -- -- -- 0 5 -- ---- 0.5
BF Max Depth _— _— 14 _— -- -- 0.6 -- -- -- 09
BF Cross-sectional Area(ft'; 3.1 3.1 -- 3.1 -- -- 36
Width/Depth Ratio -- -- 6.4 100 -- 140 -- 120 — 140 -- 127
Enhenchment Ratio — -- 22 -- -- >22 -- >2.1 -- -- 32
Bmk Height Ratio -- 30 10 -- -- 1.1 10 10
d50(mm)
Pattern .
Channel Beltwidth(ft) ---- -- -- -- -- 200 290 -- 34 0
Radius of Curvature(ft) -- -- -- -- 120 IS -- -- 16.9
Rc Bankfull width(8/8) ---- 2.0 -- -- 30 20 30 -- -- 2.5
Meander Wavelength(0: ---- -- -- -- 60.0 75 0 66.2 ----
Meander Width Ratio 35 -- -- SO -- 32 46 -- 50 --
Profile , M •
Raffle Length(ft) -- 154
Raffle Slope(8/ft) -- -- -- 0029 -- 0035 ----
Pool Length(ft)
Pool to Pool Spacing(8) -- -- -- -- -- -- 28- 43 -- -- 42.S
Pool Max Depth(ft) -- -- -- -- -- —_ 1 5 -- -- 1.3
Pool Volume(83)
Substrate and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
sC%/Se%/O%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95
Reach Shear shwa(competency)Ib/8
Max part size(mm)mobilized at bankfull(Roagen Carve;
Stream Poster(hmsportcapaaty)W/m
Addition alRearh Parameters i i
Dmivage Area(SM) -- -- 0056 -- -- -- 0056 0056 --
Impervioua cover estimate(%;
Roagen Classi0catim -- B5c -- -- -- C5 -- C5 C5
BF V ocdy -- 32 39 -- 36 35 -- 5 -- 36 -- --
BF DIscharge(cfs) --- 17 S 297 -- -- 11.1 -- -- -- 11.1 -- --
Valley Length -- —_ -- -- -- 25555 --
Channel length(8) — -- -- -- 1 19] -- -- -- -- -- 1,201 342 91 --
sivuosity — -- -- 1.16 -- 120 -- 150 1.13 120 --
Water Surface S rye(Channel) -- oom ---- --
-- 0015 00156 --
BF slope(8/8) — 00105 0005 — — 0015 ---- 0024 00185 --
Bmkthll Floodplain Area(acres;
BEHIVL%/L%/M%/H%/VH%/EN,
Channel Snbiliy or Habitat Meii<
Biological or Other
I-Pre-Existng Coudinon measurment Men®ceisbug sandbed Wile
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC.
YEAR 6 MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT(I)MS PROJECT NO.ID 96074)

T able 10 continued.Baseline Stream Summary
Thomas Creek Restoration Project:DMS Project ID No.96074
Reach 5-Length 1,169 ft
Parameter USGS Gauge Regional Curve Pre-Exiting Condition Reference Reach(es)Data Design As-built
Little Beaver Creek(Wake County)
Dimension and Substrate-RiffleLL UL Eq. Mn! Mean Med Max SD v Mn! Mem Med Max SD v Mn! Mem Med Max SD v Min Mean Med Max SD v
BE Width(ft) 116 119 44 89 68 86
Floodpmne Width(0: I8 -- >30 -- >16 -- 499
BF Mean Depth(ft) ---- 12 15 04 -- 10 —— —— 05 -- 0.9
BF Max Depth -- -- 0.8 -- -- Ib -- ——
_— 0 a —— -- -- 1 2
BF Cross-sectional Arm(ft'; —— —— 40 34 --- ---- 45 -- 36 -- —— 68
WIdth/Depth Ratio -- -- -- 42 - -- 34 100 140 —— —— —— 130 —- -- 84
Enfenvhment Ratio 18 54 -- >22 -- -- -- >23 -- -- 66
Bmk Height Ratio 2.4 10 10 -- 1.1 -- -- 10 — 10
d50(mm) -- -- ——
Pattern IE
Channel Beltimdth(ft) — _— _— —— -- _— —— -- _— 28 45 — 58 6 —— --
Radius of Curvature(ft) -- -- —— -- -- -- —— -- 14 20 175 ——
R>Bankfull width(f68) ---- -- 2 3 20 --
Meander Wavelength(ft, —— —— —— —— —— _— 60 90 81 5 --
Meander Width Ratio -- -- 3 5 -- 8 -- 4.1 -- 66 6 8 --
Ptnr
Raffle Length(8) 15 2
Rifle Slope(f/0( -- -- -- 00265 ---- -- 00196
Pool Length(8)
Pool to Pool Spacing MP -- -- -- --- -- -- —— -- 25 -- 55 -- ---- 578
Pool Max Depth(ft, —— —— —— -- —— _— —_ —_ 1 3 -- —— -- 1.7
Pool Volume(ft')
Substrate and i ra usport Pa ra m!ers ,
Ri%/Ru%/P%/ON,/5%
SC%/Sa%/G%/B%/B.
1416/435/d50/d84/d95 176/369/53_7/1306/1848
Reach Shear Stew(competency)lb/8
Max part size(rem)mobilized at bankfull(Roagen Curve;
Stream Power(hmaportcapamty)W/m
----
A ddition aIRearh Parameters —
DminageArea(SM) -- -- 0097 0083 —— -- -- 0097 -- 0097 --
Impervious cover estimate(%;
Roagen Claaaifcatim -- B5c C —— -- C5 -- -- -- -- C5 -- E5
BF V oc8y 34 3 7 3] 42 35 5 _— 33
BF Diachazge(cfa) -- 94 147 144 I65 —— -- -- 120 -- ——
Valley Length —_ —_ -- —— -- —— —_ —_ _— 72602 ---
Channel length(ft) -- —— -- 1,022 _— -- —— -- _— _— 1,828 —— 106932 ——
Sinuosity 1.31 142 120 —— 150 -- 142 147 ---
Water Surface S rye(Channel) --_ _— oom __ _— —_ —_ —_ —_ -- 00124 ---- ---- 00123 ----
BF slope(f/8) -- -- 00133 0005 -- 0015 —— -- -- -- 00134 —— -- -- 00185 --
Bmkfull Floodplain Area(acres;
BEHI VL%/L%/MN,/H%/VH%/EN,
Channel Stabiliy or Habitat Metro
Biological or Other
1-Pre-Frosting Condition mmsurment mken on ere sting sandbed Mlle.As-Built mmsm®®t tam on constructed rock rime
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC.
YEAR 6 MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT(DMS PROJECT NO.ID 96074)

Table 10 continued.Baseline Stream Summary
Thomas Creek Restoration Project:DAIS Project ID No.96074
Reach 6-Length 1,776 ft
Parameter USGS Gauge Regions I Curve Pre-Ex6Bng Condition Reference Reach(es)Data Design As-built
Thomas Creek Site tipper Reach 4(On-site)
Dimension and Substrate-RiffleLL UL Eq. Min Mean Med Max SD v Miv Mean Med Max SD v Mn! Mean Med Max SD v Min Mean Med Max SD v
BF Width(11) 3 2 43 4 6 63
Floodpmne Width(0: 45 65 -- -- >9 -- -- 194
BF Mean Depth(ft) ---- -- 060 -- -- -- -- 03 -- 03
BF Max Depth -- -- 4 -- -- 06
-- 09 -- -- 0
BF Cross-sectional Area(ft'; ---- 1.8 -- -- 25 -- LS -- 2.1
Width/Depth Ratio ---- 09 -- 5S 120 -- 1S0 -- 140 -- IS
Enhenehment Ratio 14 -- 15 14 -- -- 22 -- >20 -- -- 3.1
Bmk Height Ratio 2.9 44 10 -- -- 1.1 -- 10 -- -- OS
d50(mm)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth(ft)
Radius of Curvature(ft)
RCBankfull width(Wit)
Meander Wavelength(ft;
Meander Width Ratio
Profile
Raffle Length(ft) -- -- — 125 --
Riffle Slope MR) -- -- -- -- 004 0027 --
Pool Length(ft)
Pool to Pool spacing(ft) 34 6
Pool Max Depth(ft) -- -- -- -- -- -- —_ 10 — 1.2
Pool Volume(&)
Substrate and Transport Parameters
IL%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
sC%/sa%/G%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95 -- -- -- --
Reach Shear she.(competency)lb/ft
Max part size(mm)mobilized at bankfull(Roggen Curve;
Stream Power(hmspmtcapamty)W/m
Addition aIReach Parameters
Drainage Area(SM) -- -- -- 0019 0050 -- -- -- 005 005 --
Impervious cover estimate(%;
Rosgen Classi.bon -- -- -- Bsc GSc -- -- -- BSc -- -- B5c -- CS
BF V ocdy s, -- -- -- 28 4.1 4 -- fi -- 33
BF DAcharge(cfs) -- -- -- 5.1 102 -- -- -- 12 -- --
Valley Length —_ —_ —_
Channel length(ft) -- -- -- 1 828 -- -- -- -- -- -- 1.SOS -- 210 -- --
Sinuosity -- -- -- 1.13 -- 1.10 -- 130 105 1.04 --
Water Surface Slope c ran ---- 0 014s --- oozso -- --
-- 0030 -- -- --
BF slope(0/0) -- -- -- -- 00250 -- -- 00361 0005 0015 -- -- 0033 -- -- -- --
Bmkfull Floodplain Area(acres;
BEHIVL%/L%/M%/H%/VH%(E%
Channel Stab..or Habitat Mehi<
Biological or Other
I-Pre-Emu-mg Gana-ion m.surment uk®m cu..sandbed rgile
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC.
YEAR 6 MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT(I)MS PROJECT NO.ID 96074)

T able 10 continued.Baseline Stream Summary
Thomas Creek Restoration Project:DMS Project ID No.98074
Reach 7-Length 647 ft
Parameter USGS Gauge Regmna l Cu rce Pre-Ex!tiug Condition Reference Reach(es)Data Design As-built
Thomas Creek Site Upper Reach 4(On-site)
Dhvension and Substrate-Riffle LL UL Eq. Mt Mean Med Max SD v Mt Mean Med Max SD v Mn! Mean Med Max SD v Min Mean Med Max SD v
BF Width(II) 36 -- -- -- 46 --
Floodpmne Width(ft; 54 -- -- --
BF Mean Depth(ft) -- 04 -- -- -- -- 03
BF Max Depth(II) -- 06 -- -- -- 04 --
BF Cross-sectional Area(ft'; --
Width/Depth Ratio ---- -- 84 120 -- 180 -- 140
Enhenehment Ratio _— I5 14 -- -- 22 -- --
Bmk Height Ratio -- 42 10
d50(mm)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth(ft)
Radius of Curvature(II)
RCBankfnll width(0/it)
Meander Wavelength(ft;
Meander Width Ratio
Profile
Raffle Length(ft)
Rife Slope(MR)
Pool Length(ft)
Pool to Pool Spacing(ft)
Pool Max Depth(ft` -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 10
Pool Volume(tP)
Substrate and Transport Parameters ,
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/5%
SC%/Sa%/G%/B%/B.0
d16/005/450/484/d95 -- -- -- 012/029/043/087/139
Reach Shear Stress(competency)lb/ft
Max part size(mm)mobilized at bankfull(Rosgen Curve;
Stream Power(hmspert mpamty)W/m
Addition aiReach Parameters
Drainage Area(SM) -- -- 0022 -- -- 0022 0022 ---
Impervious cover estimate(%;
Rosgen Classi mbon -- -- -- B5 -- -- BSc -- -- B5c
BF V el.Ey —_ —_ 3 b 4 -- fi -- -- 3.33
BF Discharge(cfa) -- -- 5./ -- -- 5
Valley Length
Channel length(ft) ---- 646 _— -- -- -- -- 646 -- --
Sinuosity 1.II 1.10 -- 130 1.II --
--- 0025 -- -- 0032 --
Surface
Water s Slope n -- --n
BF slope(ft/ft) -- — 0036 — — 0005 -- 0015 -- -- 0036 --
Bmkfull Floodplain Area(acres;
BEHI VL%/L%/M%/H%/VH%/E%
---
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
1-Pre-Existing Condition mmsurment liken era sting sandbed erne
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC.
YEAR 6 MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT(DMS PROJECT NO.ID 96074)

T able 10 continued.BaseBue Stream Summary
Thomas Creek Restoration Project:DMS Project ID No.96074
Reach T1-Length 227 ft
Parameter USGS Gauge Regmna l Cu roe Pre-Exis.g Condition Reference Reach(es)Data Design As-built
Thomas Creek Site Upper Reach 4(On-site)
Ditvension and Substrate-RinkLL UL Eq. Min Mean Med Max SD v Miv Mean Med Max SD v Mn! Mean Med Max SD v Min Mean Med Max SD v
BF Width(II) ]2 ]0 ---- S5
Floodpmve Width(0; 10 S -- -- -- --- 306 --
BF Mean Depth(ft) ---- 04 -- -- -- -- 06 -- -- 06 ----
BF Max Depth -- 07 -- -- -- 07 -- --- 09 ----
BF Cross-sectional Area(RE ---- -- 2.8 -- 3.8 -- -- 53
Width/Depth Ratio ---- -- IS 6 120 -- IS 0 -- -- -- 130 -- 13.6
Enkevchmevt Ratio _— I S 14 -- -- 2 2 -- —_ -- _— —_ 3 6
Bmk Height Ratio -- 26 10 -- -- 1.1 10 CO
d50(mm)
Pattern
Channel Belt-width(ft) ---- -- -- -- 32 5
Radius of Curvature(ft) -- --- -- -- 135 IS 0 -- -- 140
Rc BavkfuE vadth(ft/11) ---- -- -- -- -- -- 20 26 -- --- 1]
Meander Wavelength(ft; -- -- 45 0 -- -- -- --
Meavder Width Ratio -- -- -- —_ 3 S -- --Prof. r -
Riftle Length(ft) —_ -- _— _— 14]
Riffle Slope(ft/ft) -- -- -- 00135 --- 00113
Pool Length(ft)
Pool to Pool Spacing(11; -- -- -- -- -- 25 -- 42 412
Pool Max Depth(ffl -- -- -- -- -- _— —_ 14 —_ 1 4
Pool Volumee(tis)
Substrate and Transport Parameters , ' .
Ri%/Ru%/P%/O%/S%
SC%/5a%/O%/B%/Be
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95 -- --
Reach Shear Stress(competency)lb/11
Max part size(mm)mobilized at bavkfull(Rosgev Curve;
Stream Power(trmsportcapamty)W/m
A Milian alReach Parameters -
Drainage Area(SM) -- -- 0077 -- -- -- 00]] -- -- -- 00]]
Impervious cover estimate(%;
Roagev Classification -- -- B5c -- -- BSc -- -- -- B5c -- ---- CS
_— -- -- —BF V ocIly s, —_ —_ 50 -- -- -- —_ 366 --
BF Discharge(cfs) -- -- -- -- 140 -- -- -- 139 -- -- --
Valley Length —_ —_ -- -- -- -- —_ _— -- 218 -- _—
Channel length(R) ---- -- -- 242 -- -- -- -- -- 253 -- ---- 227
Sinuosity —_ -- 109 1.10 -- 130 —_ 1.16 _— -- 101 -- _—
Water Su ce5 rye C vv -- 00203 -- -- -- -- --
_— 0004 -- -- _—
BF slope(OHO) -- 00120 0005 -- 0015 -- -- -- 0005 -- -- --
Bmkfull Floodplam Area(acres;
BEHI VL%/L%/M%/H%/RH%/E%
Channel StnbiEty or Habitat Mehi<
Biological or Other
I-Pre-Existing Cond..m.surment Wien co existing sandbed raffle
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC.
YEAR 6 MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT(DMS PROJECT NO.ID 96074)

Table 10 continued.BaseBue Stream Summary
Thomas Creek Restoration Project:DMS Project ID No.96074
Reach T2-Length 157ft
Parameter tiSGS Gauge Regional Curve Pre-rxis.g Condition Reference Reach(es)Data Design As-built
Thomas Creek Site tipper Reach 4(On-she)
Dimension and Substrate-Riffle LL UL Eq. Mw Mean Med Max SD v Min Mean Med Max SD v Min Mem Med Max SD v Min Mean Med Max SD v
BE Width(ft) 2]
Floodpmne Width(0; 3 4 -- —— ——
BF Mean Depth(ft) -- 04 -- —— ——
BF Max Depth(ft) -- —— -- 06 —— --
BF Crossaectional Area(0 —— --- ---- Os —— --
Width/Depth Ratio -- -- 56 -- -- ——
Enhenehment Ratio -- 16 —— —— —— ——
Bonk Height Ratio —— 23 —— --
d50(mm) --
Pattern ��-
Channel Beltwidth(ft)
Radius of Curvature(ft) -- -- —— --
RCBankfull width(ft/11) -- -- —— --
Meander Wavelength(0; —— —— —— ——
Meander Width Ratio ——Prof.e —
Raffle Length(ft) —_ —— ——
Riffle Slope(ft/ft) —— —— ——
Pool Length(ft)
Pool to Pool Spacing(R) —— —— —— ——
Pool Max Dpth(ft) -- -- ——
Pool Volume(ft3)
Substrate and Transport Parameters
/12.6/P%/G%/S% -- -- —— --
SC%/Sa%/G%/B%/BCM -- -- -- --
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95
Reach Shear Stress(competency)Ib/R
Max part sine(rem)mobilzed at bankfull(Rosgen Curve; -- -- ——
Stream Power(hmspertcapamty)W/m _— _— —— --
A dditian aIRearh Parameters JIL —
Dminage Area(SM) -- -- —— -- 000S 0008 0008
Impervious cover estimate(%; -- —— -- ——
Rosgen Classi0catim —— —— B5c
BFVelocrty(fps; -- 34
BF Discharge(cfs) 2]
Valley Length ——
Channel length(ft) 171 157 157
Sinuovty —— -- —— 1.1] ——
Water Surface Slope(Channel)(11.91; —— -- 00414
BF slope(MI) -- 00417
Bmkfull Floodplam Area(acres;
BEHIVL%/L%/M%/H%/VH%/E%
Channel S.A.or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
1-the-Existing Condition measurment kk®m en sting sandbed raffle
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC.
YEAR 6 MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT(DMS PROJECT NO.ID 96074)

Appendix E
Hydrologic Data

Figure 8. Flow Gauge Graphs
Thomas Creek Daily Rain
c 01/01/2021 02/15/2021 04/01/2021 05/16/2021 06/30/2021 08/14/2021 09/28/2021 11/12/2021 12/27/2021
0.0 I I., m n I I
l 1 1 .1 I . ,,,.
co
c 1.0 -
Ce
2.0 -
F
0 3.0 -
Thomas Creek Reach 2
In-Channel Flow Gauge TMCK FL1
2.00
1.90 —TMCK FL1 —
1.80 Year 6 Maximum Flow YR6 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS OF —
1.70 Measurement=1.59'on FLOW-279* 0.02 feet(0.25 inches) —
1.60 AG 2/16/21 (1/1/21-10/7/21)
1.50
1.40
-c 1.20 - Crest Gauge Overbank Event
si
0 1.10
11 1.00
0.80
co
0.80 -
w 0.70 p
0.60 P�
t i \ON4#0114
0.50
cn 0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00 i 1 1 1
01/01/2021 04/01/2021 06/30/2021 09/28/2021 12/27/2021
Date
*Surface water flow is estimated to have occurred when the pressure transducer reading is equal to or above 0.02 feet(0.25 inches)in depth.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC.
YEAR 6 MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT(DMS PROJECT NO.96074)

Thomas Creek Daily Rain
01/01/2021 02/15/2021 04/01/2021 05/16/2021 06/30/2 02 1 08/14/2021 09/28/2021 11/12/2021 12/27/2021
0.0 ,.1I I IIInot.ci [ 0 nil. 1 I l, � , I iII 1 I
c 10 cc
2.0
p 3.0 -
Thomas Creek Reach 5
In-Channel Flow Gauge TMCK FL2
2.20
2.10 Year 6 Maximum Flow —TMCK FL2 —
2.00 Measurement=1.73'on
1.90 1/31/21 YR6 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS OF 0.02 feet(0.25 inches) —
1.80 FLOW 224 —
1.70 (1/1/21-8/13/21)
1.60
1.50
w 1.40
0 1.30 -
p 1.20 "
1.10
R 1.00
( 1
0.90
y 0.80
V 0.70 cti
= 0.60
44 \A °J1C,„,,'
. 0.50
0.40
0.20 111A464#4444PAIIStilifil"#‘1141$iT4444 441
0.20
0.10
0.00 i
01/01/2021 04/01/2021 06/30/2021 09/28/2021 12/27/2021
Date
*Surface water flow is estimated to have occurred when the pressure transducer reading is equal to or above 0.02 feet(0.25 inches)in depth.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC.
YEAR 6 MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT(DMS PROJECT NO.96074)

Figure 9. Observed Rainfall Versus Historic Averages
Thomas Creek Restoration Project MY6
Observed Rainfall versus Historic Averages
10.0 —
8.0
co 6.0 .. -r % ,'4�
it
d
•u 4.0 �� i
i
2.0
r
.
In
0.0 ,
'1r0 'Iv 'Iv '1> '1ry ,v '1r\ '1, 'Iv '1r1 '1.> ti,
— �'o - `. ' ,ei �t Q,�� �� S" '�� ''� c• Q�.
•
-Wake County Historic Average(43.8 in) Historic 30%Probable(28.6 in)
f Historic 70%Probable(52.5 in) --E--Observed Project Rainfall(55.1 in)
Note: Historic average annual rainfall for Wake County is 43.8",while the observed project rainfall recorded a total of 55.1"over the
previous 12 months(from 11/1/2020 to 10/31/2021). Project rainfall data was collected from the NC-CRONOS station LAKE.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 6 MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK STORATION PROJECT(DMS PROJECT NO. 96074)

Table 12. Verification of Bankfull Events
Thomas Creek Restoration Project:DMS Project ID No.96074
Date of Data Reach 2 Crest
Collection Gauge(feet) Estimated Occurrence of Bankfull Event Method of Data Collection
Year 1 Monitoring(2016)
10/27/2016 1.1 10/8/2016(Hurricane Matthew) Crest Gauge,Flow Gauge
Year 2 Monitoring(2017)
05/02/2017 0.21 4/25/2017(3.2"rain event) Crest Gauge,Flow Gauge
Year 3 Monitoring(2018)
04/23/2018 0.97 4/15/2018(1.8"rain event) Crest Gauge,Flow Gauge
10/10/2018 1.49 9/15-17/2018(6.1"from Hurricane Florence) Crest Gauge,Flow Gauge
Year 4 Monitoring(2019)
04/25/2019 0.89 4/19/2019(0.71"rain event) Crest Gauge,Flow Gauge
Year 5 Monitoring(2020)
02/21/2020 0.98 2/6/20(3.1"rain event) Crest Gauge,Flow Gauge
■ Year 6 Monitoring(2021)
08/10/2021 0.62 7/8/21(2.93"rain event) Crest Gauge,Flow Gauge
Note: Crest gauge readings can be corroborated with associated spikes in the flow gauge reading graphs(see Appendix E).
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC.
YEAR 6 MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT(DMS PROJECT NO.ID 96074)

Table 13.Flow Gauge Success
Thomas Creek Restoration Project:DMS Project ID No.96074
Most Consecutive Days Meeting Criterial Cumulative Days Meeting Criteria2
Flow Gauge ID Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7
(2016) (2017) (2018) (2019) (2020) (2021) (2022) (2016) (2017) (2018) (2019) (2020) (2021) (2022)
Reach 2 Flow Gauge#1(Installed March 30,2016)
TCFL1 229 248 357 179 129* 279 229 248 357 240 129* 279
Reach 5 Flow Gauge#2(Installed March 30,2016)
TCFL2 126 138 82 94 295 224 182 218 204 191 295 272
Notes:
*Flow Gauge#1 failed on 5/8/20 and was replaced on 12/18/20.
'Indicates the single greatest number of consecutive days within the monitoring year where flow was measured.
2Indicates the total number of days within the monitoring year where flow was measured.
Success Criteria:A restored stream reach will be considered at least intermittent when the flow duration occurs for a minimum of 30 consecutive days during the
monitoring year.
Surface water flow is estimated to have occurred when the pressure transducer reading is equal to or above 0.02 feet(0.25 inches)in depth.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC.
YEAR 6 MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT(DMS PROJECT NO.ID 96074)