20141328 Ver 1_Year 0 Monitoring Report_2016_20170119

0KI
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report
Thomas Creek Restoration Project
Wake County, North Carolina
DMS Project ID No. 96074, DEQ Contract No. 5549
Permits: SAW -2013-02009, DWR#14-1328
Cape Fear River Basin: 03030004-020010
Prepared for:
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services (DMS)
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1652
Data Collection Period: October -November 2015
Submission Date: October 2016
* This document was printed using 30% recycled paper.

Final
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report
Thomas Creek Restoration Project
Wake County, North Carolina
DMS Project ID No. 96074, DEQ Contract No. 5549
Permits: SAW -2013-02009, DWR#14-1328
Cape Fear River Basin: 03030004-020010
Prepared for:
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
Prepared by:
I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L
Data Collection Period: October -November 2015
Submission Date: October 2016

N r:110OKI] &$MON N 0112 W
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.............................................................................1-1
2.0 PROJECT GOALS, BACKGROUND AND ATTRIBUTES ..................... 2-1
2.1
PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION....................................................................................................... 2-1
2.2
PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES...............................................................................................................
2-1
3.0 PROJECT STRUCTURE, RESTORATION TYPE AND APPROACH.. 3-1
3.1
PROJECT COMPONENTS.................................................................................................................................3-1
3.2
RESTORATION APPROACH.............................................................................................................................
3-1
3.2.1
Reach RI Restoration.................................................................................................................................
3-1
3.2.2
Reach R2 Restoration.................................................................................................................................
3-2
3.2.3
Reach R3 Restoration and Enhancement....................................................................................................
3-2
3.2.4
Reach R4 Restoration and Enhancement....................................................................................................
3-3
3.2.5
Reach R5 Restoration and Enhancement....................................................................................................
3-3
3.2.6
Reach R6 Enhancement..............................................................................................................................
3-4
3.2.7
Reach R 7 Enhancement ..............................................................................................................................3-4
3.2.8
Reach TI Enhancement..............................................................................................................................
3-5
3.2.9
Reach T2 Enhancement..............................................................................................................................
3-5
3.3
PROJECT HISTORY, CONTACTS, AND ATTRIBUTE DATA..............................................................................
3-5
3.3.1
Construction Summary...............................................................................................................................
3-5
4.0 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS..................................................................
4-1
5.0 MONITORING PLAN AND SUCCESS CRITERIA
.................................. 5-1
5.1
STREAM MONITORING...................................................................................................................................
5-1
5.1.1
Bankfull Events and Flooding Functions....................................................................................................
5-1
5.1.2
Cross-sections.............................................................................................................................................5-1
5.1.3
Pattern........................................................................................................................................................
5-2
5.1.4
Longitudinal Profile....................................................................................................................................
5-2
5.1.5
Bed Material Analysis.................................................................................................................................
5-2
5.1.6
Visual Assessment.......................................................................................................................................
5-2
5.2
VEGETATION MONITORING...........................................................................................................................
5-3
5.3
WETLAND MONITORING................................................................................................................................
5-3
5.4
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT MONITORING...............................................................................................
5-3
6.0 AS
-BUILT DATA DOCUMENTATION......................................................
6-1
6.1
STREAM DATA................................................................................................................................................6-1
6.2
VEGETATION DATA........................................................................................................................................6-1
6.3
AREAS OF CONCERN.......................................................................................................................................
6-1
7.0 MAINTENANCE AND CONTINGENCY PLANS .....................................
7-1
7.1
STREAMS.........................................................................................................................................................7-1
7.2
WETLAND.......................................................................................................................................................
7-1
7.3
VEGETATION..................................................................................................................................................
7-1
7.4
SITE BOUNDARY.............................................................................................................................................
7-2
7.5
FARM ROAD CROSSING..................................................................................................................................
7-2
7.6
BEAVER MANAGEMENT.................................................................................................................................
7-2
8.0 REFERENCES................................................................................................ 8-1
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE III 10/21/2016
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96074)

LIST OF TABLES
Table
1
Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Table
2
Project Activity and Reporting History
Table
3
Project Contacts
Table
4
Project Attributes
Table
5
Baseline Stream Summary
Table
6
Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Table
7
Vegetation Species Planted Across the Restoration Site
Table
8
Stem Counts for Each Species Arranged by Plot
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Vicinity Map
Figure 2 Restoration Summary Map
Figure 3 Reference Sites Location Map
Figure 4 Monitoring Features Overview Map
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A Figures 1 - 4, Tables 1 - 4
Appendix B Morphological Summary Data (Tables 5 and 6), Profile and Cross -Section Graphs,
and Pebble Count Sheets
Appendix C Vegetation Summary Data (Tables 7 and 8)
Appendix D As -Built Plan Sheets/Record Drawings
Appendix E Photo Log
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE IV 10/21/2016
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96074)

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. (Baker) restored 4,721 linear feet (LF) of perennial and intermittent stream
and enhanced 3,948 LF of intermittent stream. Baker also planted approximately 14 acres (AC) of native
riparian vegetation within the 22.7 acre recorded conservation easement areas along all or portions of the
restored and enhanced reaches (Reaches R1, 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 Division of Mitigation
Services' (NCDMS) Targeted Local Watershed (TLW) 03030004-020010 (the Harris Lake HU) 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
(Schafale and Weakley 1990) 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 (LWT) 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 goals of the project were 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, and
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,
• 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
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 1-1 10/21/2016
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96074)

• Control invasive species vegetation within much of the project area and, if necessary, continue
treatments during the monitoring period.
This report documents the completion of the restoration and enhancement construction activities and presents
as -built monitoring data for the post -construction monitoring period. Table 1 summarizes project conditions
before and after restoration and enhancement, as well as the conditions predicted in the previously approved
project Mitigation Plan. Table 1 is located in Appendix A.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 1-2 10/21/2016
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96074)

2.0 PROJECT GOALS, BACKGROUND AND ATTRIBUTES
2.1 Project Location and Description
The Site is located in Wake County, NC, approximately 1.5 miles southwest of the community of New
Hill, as shown on the Vicinity Map (Figure 1). The Site is located in the NCDMS TLW 03030004-020010
(the Harris Lake HU) of the Cape Fear River Basin, and is located in what was formerly known as NCDWR
subbasin 03-06-07. The project includes nine unnamed headwater tributaries (UTs) to Thomas Creek and
is located in the Piedmont physiographic region. The UTs were divided into individual Reaches (R1, R2,
R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, T 1 and T2) as shown in Figure 2.
Project Reaches R1, R2, R3, R4, and T1 are shown as dashed blue -line streams on the USGS topographic
quadrangle map. Project Reaches R5, R6, R7, and T2 are not shown as blue -line streams, dashed or solid.
Reaches Rl, R2, R3, and R4 are listed as perennial streams within the project limits on the 1970 Wake
County Soil Survey. The remaining reaches are all shown in the Soil Survey maps and are listed as
intermittent, unclassified streams. The presence of historic valleys for each of the project stream systems
is clearly evident on LIDAR imagery. On-site jurisdictional field determinations for the project identified
Reaches Rl, R2, R3 (downstream), R4, R5, R6 (downstream), and R7 (downstream) as perennial, while
Reaches R3 (upstream), R6 (upstream), R7 (upstream), T1, and T2 were identified as intermittent. These
determinations were confirmed during field investigations and on-site jurisdictional determination with
the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), NCDWR and NCDMS. The preliminary
jurisdictional determination was approved in September 2014.
Based on the NCDMS 2009 Cape Fear RBRP plan, the Thomas Creek Restoration Project area is located
in an existing TLW within the Cape Fear River Basin (2009 Cape Fear RBRP), and is located within the
Middle Cape Fear / Kenneth and Parker Creeks LWP area. The restoration strategy as stated in the RBRP
for the Cape Fear 03030004 8 -digit Catalog Unit (CU) is to promote low impact development, stormwater
management, restoration and buffer protection in urbanizing areas, and buffer preservation elsewhere.
Site Directions
To access the Site from Raleigh, take US -1 south and head south towards Sanford, for approximately 12
miles. Take the ramp for Exit 89 to New Hill/Jordan Lake. At the end of the ramp turn right on New Hill -
Holleman Road and continue for 0.8 miles to the stop sign at Old US Highway 1. Turn left on Old US
Highway 1 and continue 1.1 miles before turning left on Shearon Harris Rd (SR1134). The destination
will be on the right in 0.4 miles. Turn right onto the gravel road and continue to the end to park among
the most southern farm buildings. The site is to the southwest and west.
2.2 Project Goals and Objectives
The primary goals of the project are to improve ecologic functions and to manage NPS inputs to the
impaired areas as described in the NCDMS 2009 Cape Fear RBRP and 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
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2-1 10/21/2016
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96074)

• 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 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,
• 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.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2-2 10/21/2016
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96074)

3.0 PROJECT STRUCTURE, RESTORATION TYPE AND APPROACH
3,1 Project Components
The project area consists of the restoration and enhancement of nine UTs to Thomas Creek and is located
in the Piedmont physiographic region. For assessment and design purposes, the nine UTs were divided
into individual Reaches (RI, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, T1 and T2). Native species riparian buffer vegetation
was established and/or protected at least 50 feet from the top of both bank along all project reaches. Lastly,
cattle were excluded along project reaches R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, and T1 through permanent fencing outside
of the conservation easement. The reach designations have remained in the same order to be consistent
throughout the document.
3,2 Restoration Approach
Based on the post -construction as -built survey, the project consisted of 298 LF of Restoration on Reach
R1, 2,126 LF of Restoration on Reach R2, 914 LF of Restoration on Reach R3 (downstream), 117 LF of
Enhancement II on Reach R3 (upstream), 342 LF of Restoration on Reach R4 (downstream), 896 LF of
Enhancement 11 on Reach R4 (upstream), 1,041 LF of Restoration on Reach R5 (downstream), 128 LF of
Enhancement II on Reach R5 (upstream), 1,566 LF of Enhancement II on Reach R6 (downstream), 210
LF of Enhancement I on Reach R6 (upstream), 287 LF of Enhancement II on Reach R7 (downstream),
360 LF of Enhancement II on Reach R7 (upstream), 227 LF of Enhancement I on Reach T1, and 157 LF
of Enhancement 11 on Reach T2. Table 1 and Figure 2 (Appendix A) provide a summary of the project
components. A recorded conservation easement consisting of 22.7 acres protects and preserves all stream
reaches, existing wetland areas, and riparian buffers in perpetuity.
The project involved the restoration and enhancement of a Rural Piedmont Stream System (Schafale and
Weakley 1990) which 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, and restoring natural flows to areas previously drained by ditching activities. The existing
channels abandoned within the restoration areas were partially to completely filled to decrease surface and
subsurface drainage and raise the local water table. Permanent cattle exclusion fencing was installed
around all proposed reaches and riparian buffers, where cattle have access (R1, R2, R4 upper, R5 lower,
T 1 and T2).
The vegetative components of this project included stream bank, floodplain, and transitional upland
planting and is described as the riparian buffer zone. The Site was planted with native species riparian
buffer vegetation as shown in Table 7 and Table 8 (Appendix C) and now protected through a permanent
conservation easement.
3.2.1 Reach RI Restoration
Reach R1 was significantly incised and degraded with actively eroding banks, and had downcut to a
large existing bedrock feature in the downstream portion of the Reach. A Priority Level II restoration
approach was chosen for this Reach that transitioned the restored channel back to the existing grade
within approximately 250 feet of the downstream extent of the project.
The restored channel was constructed as a Rosgen `C5' stream type. In -stream structures such as
constructed riffles were installed to control grade, dissipate scour energies, and eliminate the potential
for upstream channel incision. Additionally, log vanes and weirs were incorporated for scour
formation, bank stability, and habitat diversity.
The width/depth ratio for this reach is 17.4 at Cross Section 12, and over time, the channel may narrow
due to deposition of sediment and streambank vegetation growth. Channel narrowing should not risk
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 3-1 10/21/2016
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96074)

downcutting because any narrowing would be in response to stabilizing processes (i.e., tree
establishment, point bar formation). The bankfull floodplain bench will provide energy dissipation
when needed to maintain channel stability.
Channel banks were graded to stable, 2:1 or flatter slopes wherever possible, bankfull benches were
incorporated along most of the Reach to further promote stability, and riparian vegetation was re-
established throughout the buffer.
Riparian buffers in excess of 50 feet were restored along all of Reach R1, and invasive species treatment
was conducted throughout the reach. No stream crossing or breaks in the easement were installed along
this reach. Fencing was installed along RI to exclude cattle from the easement area.
3.2.2 Reach R2 Restoration
Work along Reach R2 involved a combination of Priority Level I and II restoration approaches to
provide floodplain reconnection and promote long-term channel stability. Before construction, R2 was
incised and eroding throughout its length. Mature hardwood trees were abundant for the first 600 feet
of existing channel, after which the channel enters open pasture and was against the right side of the
valley for 1,300 feet.
To preserve the existing mature canopy as much as possible and to improve the floodplain width of a
stabilizing channel, a Priority Level II restoration was selected for the upstream portion of Reach R2.
This upper section was built as a Rosgen `C5' stream type. In the location of Cross Section 5 the
width/depth ratio is 14.8 and the entrenchment ratio is 3.7. Bankfull benches were excavated
throughout most of this upper section to promote stability.
Where Reach R2 entered the channelized section that flowed through pasture, Priority Level I,
restoration was implemented. This reach was also built as a Rosgen `C5' stream type. Cross Section
6 shows that this reach has a width/depth ratio of 10.08. While this is width/depth ratio is lower than
the standard width/depth ratio of 12 for a `C' stream type, the channel still fits within a `C' stream type
using the continuum of physical variables that allow some fluctuation on parameter values. The channel
sinuosity is also more in line with a `C' stream type. The bankfull floodplain will provide energy
dissipation for storm discharges greater than the bankfull discharge to maintain channel stability.
These approaches allow for the restoration of a stable channel form with appropriate bedfonn diversity,
as well as improved channel function through improved aquatic habitat, more frequent overbank
flooding, restoration of riparian and terrestrial habitats, exclusion of cattle and associated pollutants,
and decreased erosion and sediment loss from streambank erosion.
Mapped jurisdictional wetlands in the lower Reach R2 floodplain were protected during the
construction process. Wetland enhancement was achieved by raising the streambed and thus elevating
the local water table and hydroperiod. Additionally, wetland vegetation was reestablished and
protected. Numerous vernal pools were also incorporated along the filled abandoned channel in the
right floodplain to provide additional habitat diversity and improved floodwater detention.
Riparian buffers in excess of 50 feet were restored along all of Reach R2, and invasive species treatment
was conducted throughout the reach. One gated stream crossing was installed within a break in the
easement along Reach R2, at the transition from Priority Level II to Priority Level I. Fencing was
installed along R2 to exclude cattle from the easement area.
3.2.3 Reach R3 Restoration and Enhancement
After an initial 117 -foot section of Level II Enhancement (invasive species treatment and some
supplemental buffer planting only), work along Reach R3 involved a combination of Priority Level I
and II restoration approaches to provide floodplain reconnection and promote long-term channel
stability. In its existing condition, the reach was incised and actively eroding. These techniques
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 3-2 10/21/2016
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96074)

allowed for the restoration of a stable channel form with appropriate bedform diversity, as well as
improved channel function through improved aquatic habitat, more frequent overbank flooding,
restoration of riparian and terrestrial habitats, and decreased sedimentation from streambank erosion.
This reach was constructed with a meandering riffle/pool bedform morphology, which has led to a
stable longitudinal profile and diverse microhabitat for aquatic organisms. The reach was constructed
as a Rosgen `C5' stream type.
Much of the mapped jurisdictional wetlands in the upper Reach R3 floodplain were protected during
the construction process. Wetland enhancement was achieved for the entire reach by raising the
streambed and thus elevating the local water table as well as increasing the hydroperiod. Additionally,
wetland vegetation was reestablished.
Riparian buffers in excess of 50 feet were restored along all of Reach R3, and invasive species treatment
was conducted throughout. One existing stream ford crossing location in the lower section of R3 was
maintained within an easement break, but was improved to a pipe crossing. Cattle are excluded and do
not have access to this crossing.
3.2.4 Reach R4 Restoration and Enhancement
Work on the lower portion of Reach R4 involved a restoration approach along the 342 -foot section of
the downstream end to its confluence with Reach R3.
The primary source of impairment for Reach R4 was incision caused by a headcut that had migrated
up from Reach R2. The existing ford crossing stopped the migration of the headcut, and
consequently, the upper portion of Reach R4 immediately upstream of the crossing is highly stable
and has been used as a reference reach. The upper 870 -foot section of Reach R4 was included as an
Enhancement Level II reach. The riparian buffers were largely adequate but the outer portion of the
left bank buffer was in pasture so it was planted to make it at least 50 feet wide. The existing fence
along this left bank, where cows had access to the pasture, was replaced and relocated farther out to
enclose this planted buffer. Per agreement with the Interagency Review Team (IRT), invasive species
control was not conducted for upper Reach R4.
Along the downstream end of Reach R4, the channel was in poor condition due to incision. This
reach section was restored using Priority Level II restoration and used log jams and constructed riffles
to control grade, dissipate energies, and eliminate the potential for upstream channel incision.
Channel banks were graded to stable slopes, and bioengineering measures were incorporated to
further promote stability and re-establish riparian vegetation. This section of Reach R4 was
constructed as a Rosgen `C5' stream type. In the location of Cross Section 4, the width/depth ratio is
12.7 and floodplain benches were excavated to increase the active floodplain width, which reduce
stresses on the restored channel during out of bank storm events.
Riparian buffers in excess of 50 feet were restored along all of Reach R4 and invasive species
treatment was conducted throughout lower R4. One existing stream ford crossing located at the break
between the upper and lower portions of R4 was maintained within an easement break, but was
improved to a gated pipe crossing. Old fencing was removed and replaced along the eastern
boundary of the downstream section of R4 to exclude cattle from the easement area. Additionally, a
small vehicular bridge located at Station 12+40 was removed.
3.2.5 Reach R5 Restoration and Enhancement
Work on Reach R5 continued the enhancement approach (easement establishment, invasive species
treatment, and supplemental planting) from lower Reaches R6 and R7. This work extended to the top
128 feet of Reach R5, at which point the approach switched to Priority Level I restoration, beginning
at an active headcut. The first 300 feet of the Priority I section was within a forested area, while the
lower 700 feet was in active pasture. The benefits of this approach included floodplain reconnection,
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 3-3 10/21/2016
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96074)

and a full restoration of a natural channel dimension, pattern, and profile, which improve natural stream
functions.
Lower Reach R5 was designed as a Rosgen `C5' stream type. The width/depth ratio at Cross Section
14 is 8.38 which makes this an `E' stream type. This should not cause any negative issues as this is a
small channel and has already established herbaceous vegetation and livestakes, which will help to
prevent bank erosion. The as -built width/depth ratio at this location is similar to reference reach streams
in this area. Log structures were installed to maintain pools and provide grade control. The new
channel was constructed primarily off-line from the existing channel. Existing mature, native trees
were preserved wherever possible. At the downstream end of the reach, floodplain benching was
installed near the confluence with Reach R2, to tie into the benching constructed for that reach and
Reach Rl.
Mapped jurisdictional wetlands in the upper Reach R5 floodplain were enhanced by raising the
streambed and thus elevating the local water table as well as increasing the hydroperiod. Additionally,
wetland vegetation was reestablished. Numerous vernal pools were also incorporated along the filled
abandoned channel in the floodplain of Reach R5 to provide additional habitat diversity and improved
floodwater detention.
Riparian buffers in excess of 50 feet were restored along all of Reach R5, and invasive species
treatment was conducted throughout. The existing stream crossing near the downstream end of Reach
R5 was relocated upstream within an easement break and was improved. Fencing was installed along
the downstream section of R5 to exclude cattle from the easement area.
3.2.6 Reach R6 Enhancement
Work on Reach R6 involved two separate enhancement approaches. The upstream, 210 -foot segment
is incised, degraded, and widening. As such, Level I Enhancement was employed to flatten the bank
angles and excavate floodplain benches throughout this section. The constructed channel dimensions
had a width -to -depth ratio of 18.7 with 2.5:1 riffle side slopes, allowing the channel to narrow as buffer
vegetation establishes. Combined with planting of native riparian buffer, this will protect against future
channel erosion along the reach and enable long-term stability.
In the proposal stage, Baker had proposed Priority Level I restoration for this upper segment of Reach
R6. The concept was to make this segment similar to a reference- quality segment just below it.
However, the survey revealed that the incised segment is much steeper (valley slope is 0.037 ft/ft) than
the reference segment and this likely exacerbated the instability. As such, it was not feasible to recreate
the reference segment and an enhancement approach was utilized.
Below the upstream, degraded section, the mitigation approach transitioned to an Enhancement Level
II that focused on the establishment of an easement, invasive species treatment, and supplemental buffer
planting. No channel work was proposed or performed. Though the bank height ratios exceed 2.0 in
some locations, the IRT felt that it was more important to maintain the existing vegetation, and that the
smaller stream channel size meant that further erosion is likely to be limited.
One existing stream crossing on lower Reach R6 will be maintained and left out of the conservation
easement. The piped crossing will remain in its current condition since it is stable and cattle do not
have access to it.
3.2.7 Reach R7 Enhancement
Similar to Reach R6, work on Reach R7 included two different enhancement approaches. The upstream
segment was degrading and had a very steep channel slope in the first 160 feet of 0.044 ft/ft. As such,
a construction -heavy Enhancement Level II approach was utilized to stabilize the head cuts and channel
gradient, as well as the unstable side slopes on the upper 360 feet of Reach R7. This work involved
installing constructed riffles, log weirs, and rock step structures, some bank sloping and matting, and
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 3-4 10/21/2016
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96074)

supplemental riparian buffer planting. Wetlands are located just above the project reach and the aim is
to prevent the headcut from migrating through and degrading this aquatic resource.
The lower 287 -foot segment of Reach R7 was mostly stable with floodplain benches developing in
several locations. The work conducted here was similar to lower Reach R6 and upper Reach R5,
including easement establishment, invasive species treatment, and supplemental riparian buffer
planting. There are no stream crossings on Reach R7.
3.2.8 Reach T1 Enhancement
Work on Reach T1 involved an Enhancement Level I approach. The channel was improved in the
upper portion in its existing location by fencing an existing wetland area, then as construction moved
downstream by grading back slopes, and by installing a step -pool sequence in the channel. Eventually
it transitioned to a meandering channel with excavated benches that was constructed off-line until its
confluence with Reach R2.
These techniques allowed for the enhancement of a stable channel form with appropriate bedform
diversity, as well as improved channel function through improved aquatic habitat, more frequent
overbank flooding, restoration of riparian and terrestrial habitats, exclusion of cattle and associated
pollutants, and decreased erosion and sediment loss from streambank erosion.
Mapped jurisdictional wetlands along Reach T1 were protected at the upper end. Below the crossing,
they were enhanced through the construction process by incorporating them as floodplain benches,
raising the stream bed, and thus increasing the hydro period. Additionally, wetland vegetation was
reestablished and protected.
Riparian buffers in excess of 50 feet were restored along all of Reach T 1, and invasive species treatment
was conducted throughout. One stream crossing (and associated easement break) was constructed
along upper Reach T1. The existing, eroding ford crossing was improved and fencing was installed to
exclude cattle from the easement area.
3.2.9 Reach T2 Enhancement
Work on Reach T2 involved a Level II Enhancement approach to maintain channel stability and exclude
cattle. The channel had two locations with abrupt grade changes, which would likely become headcuts
if tree roots were not there to prevent that. The channel also lacked any pool habitat. Thus, grade
control structures were installed to stabilize the headcuts and help form pools to provide increased
bedform diversity. Additionally, a stable confluence was constructed where the channel ties back into
Reach R2.
Riparian buffers in excess of 50 feet were restored along all of Reach T2, and invasive species treatment
was conducted throughout. Cattle, which used this channel as a favorite wallow area, were permanently
excluded with fencing. No stream crossings are located along Reach T2.
3.3 Project History, Contacts, and Attribute Data
Baker implemented the project under a full delivery contract with NCDMS to provide stream mitigation
credits in the Cape Fear River Basin. The chronology of the project is presented in Table 2. The contact
information for all designers, contractors, and relevant suppliers is presented in Table 3. Relevant project
background information is presented in Table 4. Tables 2, 3, and 4 are located in Appendix A of this
report. As -built stationing is outlined in the Construction Summary, below, and in Table 1 in Appendix
A.
3.3.1 Construction Summary
In accordance with the approved Mitigation Plan and regulatory permits, site preparation activities
began on May 20, 2015 with the installation of sedimentation and erosion control measures, and the
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 3-5 10/21/2016
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96074)

establishment of staging areas, haul roads, and stockpile areas. The construction contractor for the
project was River Works, Inc. (River Works). Actual in -stream structure location and placement varied
slightly from the design plans in various sections (as described below) due to unexpected locations of
exposed bedrock or adjacent springs/seeps, as well as to increase vertical stability at various locations
along the project. Any substitutions and/or relocations were made based on existing field conditions
and best professional judgment. The as -built plan sheets/record drawings depict actual surveyed areas
within the project area and depict any changes from the final design plans to what was implemented
on-site during construction. The as -built plan sheets/record drawings are located in Appendix C.
Channel construction started in late May 2015 on Reach R3. During construction of this reach, the
discovery of extensive shallow bedrock from station 17+00 down to the existing crossing necessitated
the installation of a rock riffle as substitute for a log jam, as well as the inability to cut the left floodplain
bench for approximately 75 ft of channel from Station 18+00 to 18+75. Also, a boulder rock shelf was
built along the left bank of the channel immediately downstream of the pipe crossing to protect against
scour.
During the construction of Reach R2, some minor modifications to the floodplain benching were made
in the upstream section to avoid removing a few existing mature white oak trees, and five eroding
gullies that drained into R2 were stabilized with fill and covered with seed/matting. A boulder shelf
was also added along the right channel bank at the outfall location of one of the more significant
drainages at station 25+60 to help ensure stability during high flow events.
Work on upper Reach R7 substituted rock checks for a logjam at the top of a gully at Station 13+50.
It was noted during construction that the drainage did not receive nearly as much water as it was initially
assumed and that the wooden log jam would simply rot in place.
On Reach R5, rock riffles were substituted for three of the proposed log jams, and another rock riffle
was added beginning at Station 37+00. The rock riffles help improve bed stability and will provide a
greater range of in -stream habitat. The channel alignment was also slightly modified near Station
36+25 to 36+75 to avoid having to remove several mature trees.
During construction on Reach Rl, shallow bedrock was discovered in the lowermost portion of the
reach in the channel and extending into the banks and floodplain. As a result, a rock sill was substituted
for the log weir in the channel near the bottom at Station 44+05, and the left floodplain benching was
stopped at station 44+00. Despite the bedrock, a vegetated geolift was installed along the upper left
bank near the very bottom of the reach to help stabilize the remaining steep bank slope.
Construction crews also treated any invasive vegetation observed throughout the riparian buffer during
construction. Pockets of invasive species were discovered, in particular multiflora rose (Rosa
multiflora), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), and Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinese),
especially along Reach R2.
Approximately 6,300 feet of permanent cattle exclusion fencing (woven wire) was installed outside the
conservation easement boundary along Reaches Rl, R2, T 1, T2, R4, and R5, with access gates and rock
crossings as shown on the as -built plan sheets. In addition, Baker worked with the landowner to install
a new groundwater well and four permanent watering stations for the cattle outside of the project
boundary.
Upon completion of stream work within the Site, sedimentation and erosion control measures such as
temporary stream crossings, rock check dams, and silt fence were removed, coir fiber matting was
installed along both stream banks, and all disturbed areas were stabilized with temporary and permanent
seed and mulch before de -mobilizing from the Site. Baker and River Works met on site September 23,
2015 and conducted a preliminary final walk through inspection, and generated a punch -list of final
items to be completed. River Works completed this punch list and demobilized in early October 2015.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 3-6 10/21/2016
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96074)

The planting of live -stakes and bare -root trees and shrubs was conducted in late January of 2016 for
the entire project. The planting crew also searched for and removed any invasive species identified in
Reaches R3 (upper), R5 (upper), R6, and R7. Some multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora) and Japanese
honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica) were removed. Further invasive species inspections will be
conducted again each year during the monitoring phase.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 3-7 10/21/2016
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96074)

4.0 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Baker has obtained regulatory approval for numerous stream mitigation plans involving NCDOT and NCDMS
full -delivery projects. The success criteria for the Site will follow the mitigation plan developed for this project,
as well as the Stream Mitigation Guidelines (SMG) issued in April 2003 (USACE) and NCDMS's supplemental
guidance document Monitoring Requirements and Performance Standards for Stream and/or Wetland
Mitigation dated November 7, 2011. All monitoring activities will be conducted for a period of 7 years, unless
the Site demonstrates complete success by Year 5 and no concerns have been identified. An early closure
provision may be requested by the provider for some or all of the monitoring components. Early closure may
only be obtained through written approval from the USACE in consultation with the NCIRT.
Based on the design approaches, different monitoring methods are proposed for the project reaches. For reaches
that involve a combination of traditional Restoration (Rosgen Priority Levels I and/or 1I) and Enhancement
Level I (stream bed/bank stabilization) approaches, geomorphic monitoring methods will follow those
recommended by the 2003 SMG and the 2011 NCDMS supplemental guidance. For reaches involving
Enhancement Level 11 approaches, monitoring efforts will focus primarily on visual inspections, photo
documentation, and vegetation assessments. The monitoring parameters shall be consistent with the
requirements described in the Federal Rule for compensatory mitigation sites in the Federal Register Title 33
Navigation and Navigable Waters Volume 3 Chapter 2 Section § 332.5 paragraphs (a) and (b). Specific success
criteria components and evaluation methods are described in Section 5.0 and report documentation will follow
the NCDMS Baseline Monitoring Document template and guidance (v 2.0, dated 10/14/10).
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 4-1 10/21/2016
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96074)

5.0 MONITORING PLAN AND SUCCESS CRITERIA
5.1 Stream Monitoring
Geomorphic monitoring of the proposed restoration reaches will be conducted once a year for a minimum
of seven years following the completion of construction to evaluate the effectiveness of the restoration
practices. Monitored stream parameters include stream dimension (cross-sections), pattern (planimetric
survey), profile (longitudinal profile survey), and visual observation with photographic documentation.
The success criteria for the restored reaches will follow the methods described below for each parameter,
though the Enhancement Level II reaches/sections will follow the methods described in sections 5.1.6 and
5.2. All monitoring features are shown in Figure 4 (Appendix A) as well as in the as -built plan sheets
(Appendix D).
5.1.1 Bankfull Events and Flooding Functions
The occurrence of bankfull events within the monitoring period will be documented by the use of
pressure transducers, a crest gauge, and photographs. Two pressure transducer gauges were installed
in the restored channels of Reach R2 (upstream) and Reach R5 to record water depth and flow duration,
as well as bankfull events in their respective reaches. A crest gauge was also installed on the floodplain
of Reach R2 (downstream) within five feet (horizontal) of the restored channel bank. It will be used to
document the highest watermark between site visits, and will be checked at each site visit to determine
if a bankfull event has occurred. Photographs will also be used to document the occurrence of debris
lines and sediment deposition on the floodplain during monitoring site visits.
Two bankfull flow events must be documented within the five- to seven-year monitoring period. The
two bankfull events must occur in separate years; otherwise, the monitoring will continue until two
bankfull events have been documented in separate years.
5.1.2 Cross-sections
Permanent cross-sections were installed at a rate of one cross-section per twenty bankfull widths of
restored stream, not to exceed 500 LF. At Thomas Creek, ten cross-sections were established at riffles,
and six at pools. Each cross-section was marked on both stream banks with permanent monuments
using rebar cemented in place to establish the exact transect used. A common benchmark will be used
for cross-sections and consistently used to facilitate easy comparison of year-to-year data. The cross-
section surveys will occur in Years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7, and must include measurements of Bank Height
Ratio (BHR) and Entrenchment Ratio (ER). The monitoring survey will include points measured at all
breaks in slope, including top of stream banks, bankfull, inner berm, edge of water, and thalweg, if the
features are present. Riffle cross-sections will be classified using the Rosgen Stream Classification
System.
There should be little change in as -built cross-sections. If changes do take place, they will be
documented in the survey data and evaluated to determine if they represent a movement toward a more
unstable condition (e.g., down -cutting or erosion) or a movement toward increased stability (e.g.,
settling, vegetative changes, deposition along the stream banks, or decrease in width/depth ratio). Using
the Rosgen Stream Classification System, and all monitored cross-sections should fall within the
quantitative parameters (i.e. BHR no more than 1.2 and ER no less than 2.2 for `C' stream types)
defined for channels of the design stream type. Given the smaller channel sizes and meander geometry
of the proposed steams, bank pins will not be installed unless monitoring results indicate active lateral
erosion.
Reference photo transects will be taken at each permanent cross-section. Lateral photos should not
indicate excessive erosion or continuing degradation of the stream banks. Photographs will be taken
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 5-1 10/21/2016
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96074)

of both stream banks at each cross-section. The survey tape will be centered in the photographs of the
streambanks. The water line will be located in the lower edge of the frame, and as much of the stream
bank as possible will be included in each photo. Photographers should make an effort to consistently
maintain the same area in each photo over time.
5.1.3 Pattern
The plannametric measurements such as sinuosity, radius of curvature, and meander width ratio were
taken from the as -built survey for the baseline (Year 0) only. Subsequent visual monitoring will be
conducted twice a year, at least five months apart, to document any changes or excessive lateral
movement along the restored channel.
5.1.4 Longitudinal Profile
A longitudinal profile was surveyed for the entire length of all the restored channels after construction
to document the as -built baseline (Year 0) conditions only. This included Reach Rl, Reach R2, Reach
R3 (downstream), Reach R4 (downstream), Reach R5 (downstream), Reach R6 (upstream), and Reach
T 1. The survey was tied to a permanent benchmark and measurements included thalweg, water surface,
bankfull, and top of low bank. Each of these measurements was taken at the head of each feature (e.g.,
riffle, pool) and at the maximum pool depth. The longitudinal profile shows that the bedform features
installed are consistent with intended design. The longitudinal profile will not be taken during
subsequent monitoring years unless vertical channel instability has been documented or remedial
actions/repairs are deemed necessary.
5.1.5 Bed Material Analysis
After construction, there should be minimal change in the pebble count data over time given the current
watershed conditions and sediment supply regime. Changes in particle sizes or size distribution within
the two pebble count locations in constructed riffles should be evaluated as to whether the changes are
indicators of instability. Two pebble count samples were collected on Reach R2 (downstream) and
Reach R5 where constructed riffles were installed as part of the project. Additional samples will be
collected in the same riffle locations each subsequent monitoring year and compared to the data from
previous years. Any significant changes (i.e.; aggradation, degradation) will be noted after stream bank
vegetation becomes established and a minimum of two bankfull flows or greater have been
documented.
5.1.6 Visual Assessment
Visual monitoring assessments of all stream sections will be conducted by qualified personnel twice
per monitoring year with at least five months in between each site visit. Photographs will be used to
visually document system performance and any areas of concern related to stream bank stability,
condition of in -stream structures, channel migration, headcuts, live stake mortality, impacts from
invasive plant species or animal species, and condition of pools and riffles. The photo locations are
shown on Figure 4 and will be shown on a plan view map per NCDMS's monitoring report guidance
(vl.5, June 2012).
The photographs will be taken from a height of approximately five to six feet from the same locations
and view directions on the Site for each monitoring period. A series of photos over time will be also
be used to subjectively evaluate channel aggradation (bar formations) or degradation, stream bank
erosion, successful maturation of riparian vegetation, and effectiveness of sedimentation and erosion
control measures.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 5-2 10/21/2016
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96074)

5.2 Vegetation Monitoring
Successful restoration of the vegetation on a site is dependent upon hydrologic restoration, planting of
preferred canopy species, and volunteer regeneration of the native plant community. In order to determine
if the criteria are achieved, vegetation -monitoring quadrants were installed and will be monitored across
the Site in accordance with the CVS-NCDMS Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version 4.2 (2008). The
vegetation monitoring plots are a minimum of 2 percent of the planted portion of the Site with a minimum
of nine plots established randomly within the planted riparian buffer areas per Monitoring Levels 1 and 2.
The size of individual quadrants are 100 square meters for woody tree species. No monitoring quadrants
were established within the undisturbed areas of Reaches R4, R5, R6 and R7.
Vegetation monitoring will occur in the fall, prior to the loss of leaves. Individual quadrant data will be
provided and will include species diameter, height, density, and coverage quantities. Relative values will
be calculated, and importance values will be determined. Individual seedlings will be marked such that
they can be found in succeeding monitoring years. Mortality will be determined from the difference
between the previous year's living, planted seedlings and the current year's living, planted seedlings.
All monitoring devices were installed by March 2016. All buffer vegetation was planted in January 2016.
The approved contract with NCDMS requires that all vegetation must be planted at least six months (180
days) before (Year 1) monitoring activities are conducted at the end of the first full growing season.
The vegetation plots will be monitored annually for seven years, or until the final success criteria are
achieved. The restored Site will be evaluated between September and November. The interim measure
of vegetative success for the Site will require the survival of at least 320, 3 -year old, planted trees per acre
at the end of Year 3 of the monitoring period. At Year 5, density must be no less than 260, 5 -year old,
planted trees per acre. The final vegetative success criteria will be the survival of 210, 7 -year old, planted
trees per acre at the end of the seven-year monitoring period, which must average 10 feet in height.
However, if the performance standard is met by Year 5 and stem densities are greater than 260, 5 -year old
stems/acre, vegetation monitoring may be terminated with approval by the USACE and Interagency
Review Team (IRT).
While measuring species density and height is the current accepted methodology for evaluating vegetation
success on mitigation projects, species density and height alone may be inadequate for assessing plant
community health. For this reason, the vegetation monitoring plan will incorporate the evaluation of
additional plant community indices, native volunteer species, and the presence of invasive species
vegetation to assess overall vegetative success.
Baker will provide any required remedial action on a case-by-case basis, such as replanting more
wet/drought tolerant species, beaver management/dam removal, or removing undesirable/invasive species
vegetation, and continue to monitor vegetation performance until the corrective actions demonstrate that
the Site is trending towards or meeting the standard requirement.
Additionally, herbaceous vegetation, primarily native grasses and forbs, was seeded/planted throughout
the Site. During and immediately following construction activities, all ground cover at the project Site
was in compliance with the NC Erosion and Sedimentation Control requirements.
5.3 Wetland Monitoring
No wetland credits were proposed for the Site, therefore, no such monitoring is required.
5.4 Stormwater Management Monitoring
No stormwater BMPs were proposed for the Site. Therefore, no such monitoring is required.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 5-3 10/21/2016
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96074)

6.0 AS -BUILT DATA DOCUMENTATION
Stream and vegetation components will be monitored for seven years post -construction to evaluate project
success, unless the Site demonstrates complete success by Year 5 and no areas of concern have been identified.
The specific locations of vegetation plots, flow/crest gauges, and cross-sections are shown on the as -built plan
sheets.
6.1 Stream Data
One manual crest gauge was installed at the bankfull elevation along the restored channel of Reach R2
(downstream) and will be used to document the occurrence of bankfull events on the downstream portion
of the Site. Additionally, two in -channel pressure transducers were installed in Reach 2 (upstream) and
Reach 5 (downstream). The in -channel pressure transducers will record water depth and flow duration
within the channels as well as document bankfull events in the respective reaches. Photographs will also
be used to document the occurrence of debris lines and sediment deposition on the floodplain during
monitoring site visits.
For monitoring stream success criteria, sixteen permanent cross-sections were installed along all restored
reaches on the Site. The permanent cross-sections will be used to monitor channel dimension and bank
stability over time.
In addition, a longitudinal survey was completed for the restored stream channels (Reach RI, Reach R2,
Reach R3 (downstream), Reach R4 (downstream), Reach R5 (downstream), Reach R6 (upstream), and
Reach T1) to provide a baseline for evaluating changes in bed conditions over time. The permanent as -
built cross-sections (with photos), the as -built longitudinal data, the quantitative pre -construction,
reference reach, and design data used to determine restoration approach, as well as other as -built data
including Reach 2 and Reach 5 pebble count samples are all provided in Appendix B. As -built data will
be used for comparison to post -construction monitoring data. The locations of the permanent cross-
sections and the crest gauges are shown in Figure 4 in Appendix A, and on the as -built plan sheets in
Appendix D. Photographs of the selected portions of the restored reaches are provided in Appendix E.
6.2 Vegetation Data
Bare -root trees and shrubs were planted within restoration and enhancement areas of the conservation
easement. A minimum 50 -foot buffer was established and/or protected along both banks of all stream
reaches. Planting of bare -root trees and shrubs and live stakes was completed in January 2016.
The Mitigation Plan for the Site specifies that the number of quadrants required shall be based on the CVS-
NCDMS monitoring guidance (2007). The total number of quadrants was calculated using the CVS-
NCDMS Entry Tool Database version 2.2.7 (CVS-NCDMS, 2007). The sizes of individual quadrants are
100 square meters. A total of sixteen vegetation plots were installed throughout the Site. The initial
planted density within each of the vegetation monitoring plots is provided in Table 8. The average density
of planted bare root stems, based on the data from the sixteen vegetation monitoring plots, is 784 stems
per acre. The locations of the vegetation plots are shown on the as -built plan sheets in Appendix D.
6.3 Areas of Concern
No areas of concern were identified post -construction for the site.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 6-1 10/21/2016
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96074)

7.0 MAINTENANCE AND CONTINGENCY PLANS
Maintenance requirements vary from site to site and are generally driven by the following conditions:
• Projects without established, woody floodplain vegetation are more susceptible to erosion from floods
than those with a mature, hardwood forest.
• Projects with sandy, non -cohesive soils are more prone to bank erosion than cohesive soils or soils with
high gravel and cobble content.
• Alluvial valley channels with access to their floodplain are less vulnerable to erosion than channels that
have been disconnected from their floodplain.
• Wet weather during construction can make accurate channel and floodplain excavations difficult.
• Extreme and/or frequent flooding can cause floodplain and channel erosion.
• Extreme hot, cold, wet, or dry weather during and after construction can limit vegetation growth,
particularly temporary and permanent seed.
• The presence and aggressiveness of invasive vegetation species can affect the extent to which a native
species vegetation buffer can be established.
• The presence of beaver can affect vegetation survivability and stream function.
The Site will be monitored on a regular basis and as well as a physical inspection of the Site at least twice a
year throughout the post -construction monitoring period until performance standards are met. These site
inspections may identify site components and features that require routine maintenance. Maintenance issues
and recommended remediation measures will be detailed and documented in the post -construction monitoring
reports. Factors that may have caused any maintenance needs, including any of the conditions listed above,
shall be discussed. Routine maintenance, if required, will be most likely be needed in the first two years
following site construction and may include the following components as described below.
7.1 Streams
Routine channel maintenance and repair activities may include modifying in -stream structures to prevent
piping, securing loose coir matting, and supplemental installations of live stakes and other target vegetation
along the project reaches. Areas of concentrated stormwater and floodplain flows that intercept the
channel may also require maintenance to prevent stream bank failures and head -cutting until vegetation
becomes established.
7.2 Wetland
No wetland mitigation was proposed for the Site; therefore, no such maintenance is required.
7.3 Vegetation
Vegetation will be maintained to ensure the health and vigor of the targeted plant community. Routine
vegetation maintenance and repair activities may include supplemental planting, pruning, and fertilizing.
Exotic invasive plant species will treated by mechanical and/or chemical methods. Any invasive plant
species control requiring herbicide application will be performed in accordance with NC Department of
Agriculture (NCDA) rules and regulations.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 7-1 10/21/2016
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96074)

7.4 Site Boundary
Site boundaries will be demarcated in the field to ensure clear distinction between the mitigation site and
adjacent properties. Boundaries may be identified by fence, marker, bollard, post, or other means as
allowed by site conditions and/or conservation easement. Boundary markers disturbed, damaged, or
destroyed will be repaired and/or replaced on an as needed basis.
7.5 Farm Road Crossing
The farm road crossings within the Site may be maintained only as allowed by the recorded
Conservation Easement, deed restrictions, rights of way, or corridor agreements.
7.6 Beaver Management
Routine maintenance and repair activities caused by beaver activity may include supplemental planting,
pruning, and dam breeching/dewatering and/or removal. Beaver management will be performed in
accordance with US Department of Agriculture (USDA) rules and regulations using accepted trapping and
removal techniques only within the project boundary on an as -needed basis.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 7-2 10/21/2016
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96074)

8.0 REFERENCES
Carolina Vegetation Survey (CVS) and NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCDMS). 2007. CVS-
NCDMS Data Entry Tool v. 2.2.7. University of North Carolina, Raleigh, NC.
Lee, M., Peet R., Roberts, S., Wentworth, T. CVS-NCDMS Protocol for Recording Vegetation,
Version 4.1, 2007.
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services. 2011. Monitoring Requirements and
Performance Standards for Stream and/or Wetland Mitigation. November 7, 2011.
Rosgen, D. L. 1994. A classification of natural rivers. Catena 22:169-199.
Rosgen, D.L. 1996. Applied River Morphology — Second Edition. Wildland Hydrology Books,
Pagosa Springs, Colo.
Schafale, M. P., and A. S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the natural communities of North
Carolina, third approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. Division of
Parks and Recreation, NCDENR. Raleigh, NC.
United States Army Corps of Engineers. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.
Technical Report Y-87-1. Environmental Laboratory. US Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS.
2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines, April 2003, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Wilmington District.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 8-1 10/21/2016
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96074)

APPENDIX A
Figures 1 - 4, Tables 1 - 4

6+:.
The subject project site is an environmental restoration site of the NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) and is encompassed by a recorded
conservation easement, but is bordered by land under private ownership. Accessing the site may require traversing areas near or along the easement
boundary and therefore access by the general public is not permitted. Access by authorized personnel of state and federal agencies or their
designees/contractors involved in the development, oversight and stewardship of the restoration site is permitted within the terms and timeframes of their
defined roles. Any intended site visitation or activity by any person outside of these previously sanctioned roles and activities requires prior coordination
with DMS.
Jordan
CHAT�:IgMI
COIVT
Site Directions
To access the Site from Raleigh, take US -1 south
and head south towards Sanford, for approximately
12 miles. Take the ramp for Exit 89 to New
Hill/Jordan Lake. At the end of the ramp turn right
on New Hill -Holleman Road and continue for 0.8
miles to the stop sign at Old US Highway 1. Turn
left on Old US Highway 1 and continue 1.1 miles
before turning left on Shearon Harris Rd (SR1134).
The destination will be on the right in 0.4 miles.
Turn right onto the gravel road and continue to the
end to park among the most southern farm
buildings.
Note: Site is located within targeted local
watershed 03030004020010.
Wake County
Harris
Lake
^fit _.'�1i .'tea.. `•� ` s
It
Figure 1 - Project Vicinity Map
Thomas Creek Site
DMS Project ID No. 96074
NCDEQ - N
Division of
Mitigation Services
INTERNATIONAL
0 0.5 1 2 3
Miles

Restoration Feature Approach N
Restoration
Enhancement 1 (1.5:1)
Enhancement II (2.5:1)
Enhancement II (5:1) * 'y►+ . r`'
Enhancement II (10:1) ��11
Reach R4
qPv. Reach R3 (upstream)
(upstream)
Reach R6q
(upstream)
Reach R3
�• (downstream) r
S y Reach R4
�%, (downstream)
• _ 1
Reach R6 ` Reach R2
(downstream) _
Reach T2 y
1w w
Reach R5 40
(upstream) I'A.
Wil► Reach T1
Reach R7
(upstream)
� � Reach R7 4�
1w (downstream)
�•� .�.; Reach R5
(downstream) •
Reach R1 r
4% w
Figure 2
Michael Baker0 250 500 Restoration Summary Map
Feet Thomas Creek Site
I N T E R N AT 1 0 N A L

Reference Stream Locations
r
Little Beaver Cr.
Jo an Lake 0
WAKE
COUNTY-
i
Upper Reach R4
CHAT M
COUNTY ®N
� 1
r
Project Location
/r
/
7
{yj
f'
I
Harris
Lake
w
z
x
y Springs
Michael Baker NCDEQ - N Figure 3
0 0.5 Division of Reference Stream
�
N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L Mitigation Services Miles Locations Map
Thomas Creek Site

IE Veg Plot Locations f' ` N
Cross Sections
C
Crest Gauge
® Flow Gauge - -
Pebble Count Locations
A Photo Locations
Reach R4
't
Conservation Easement (upstream)
Reach R3
(upstream)
�- V3 1 V4 � • .
V16 X1
y
Reach R3
X13 (downstream) X2?., V1'
_i
Reach R6 + V5 Reach R4
(upstream) . X4 (downstream)
/•�' Z'
X3'
I #1' V2k
X5`
, _ r~
Reach T2 � V6 _
(downstream)
Reach R2 a
a,
V7 X6
Reach R5 — X7
i
(upstream)
' X8 .` V8 Reach T1
Reach R7 V14 Z�\
(upstream)
� Reach R7 ' - C�J� I' V9
+� (downstream) X14 X15
X10
X9
V13 0 _..,,.. _..
J• r
#2 / ..
Reach R5 #1 V10.
(downstream) X16
V 2 ``
. X11 : CV11
X12 Reach R1
Figure 4
BakerMichael 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 No ID. 96074
Mitigation Credits
Stream
Riparian Wetland
Non-riparian Wetland
Buffer
Nitrogen Nutrient
Offset
Phosphorus
Nutrient Offset
Type R, E1, Ell
Totals 5,728 SMU
Project Com onents
Project Component or Reach ID
Stationing/ Location
Existing Footage/
Acreage (LF)
Approach
Restoration/ Restoration
Equivalent (SMU)
Restoration Footage
or Acreage (LF)
Mitigation
Ratio
Reach 1
42+01 to 44+99
397
Restoration
298
298
1:1
Reach 2
20+55 to 27+58 / CE Break / 27+78 to 42+01
1,995
Restoration
2,126
2,126
1:1
Reach 3 (downstream)
11+17 to 18+70 / CE Break / 18+94 to 20+55
937
Restoration
914
914
1:1
Reach 3 (upstream)
10+00 to 11+17
130
Enhancement 11
23
117
5:1
Reach 4 (downstream)
10+41 to 13+83
327
Restoration
342
342
1:1
Reach 4 (upstream)
0+99 to 9+95
870
Enhancement II
90
896
10:1
Reach 5 (downstream)
29+30 to 34+97 / CE Break / 35+17 to 39+91
883
Restoration
1,041
1,041
1:1
Reach 5 (upstream)
28+02 to 29+30
137
Enhancement II
26
128
5:1
Reach 6 (downstream)
12+10 to 15+55 / CE Break / 15+81 to 28+02
1,592
Enhancement II
313
1,566
5:1
Reach 6 (upstream)
10+00 to 12+10
210
Enhancement I
140
210
1.5:1
Reach 7 (downstream)
13+60 to 16+47
287
Enhancement II
57
287
5:1
Reach 7 (upstream)
10+00 to 13+60
360
Enhancement II
144
360
2.5:1
Reach T1
10+00 to 10+55 / CE Break / 10+75 to 12+47
242
Enhancement I
151
227
1.5:1
Reach T2
10+00 to 11+57
171
Enhancement II
63
157
2.5:1
Component Summation
Restoration Level
Stream (LF)
Riparian Wetland (AC) Non-riparian Wetland (AC)
Buffer (SF)
Upland (AC)
Restoration
4,721
Enhancement
437
Enhancement II
3,511
BMP Elements
Element Location Purpose/Function
Notes
BMP Elements: BR= Bioretention Cell; SF=
Sand Filter; SW= Stormwater Wetland; WDP= Wet Detention Pond; DDP= Dry Detention
Pond; FS= Filter Strip; S= Grassed Swale; LS=
Level Spreader; NI=Natural Infiltration Area
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96074)

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Thomas Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No ID. 96074
Activity or Report
Scheduled
Completion
Data Collection
Complete
Actual
Completion or
Deliver
Mitigation Plan Prepared
N/A
N/A
Oct-14
Mitigation Plan Amended
N/A
N/A
Mar-15
Mitigation Plan Approved
Feb-15
N/A
Mar-15
Final Design — (at least 90% complete)
N/A
N/A
Mar-15
Construction Begins
Apr-15
N/A
Apr-15
Temporary S&E mix applied to entire project area
Oct-15
N/A
Oct-15
Permanent seed mix applied to entire project area
Oct-15
N/A
Oct-15
Planting of live stakes
Mar-15
N/A
Jan-16
Planting of bare root trees
Mar-15
N/A
Jan-16
End of Construction
Oct-15
N/A
Oct-15
Survey of As-built conditions (Year 0 Monitoring-baseline)
Jan-16
Nov-15
Nov-15
Baseline Monitoring Report
Jun-16
Mar-16
Oct-16
Year 1 Monitoring
Dec-16
N/A
N/A
Year 2 Monitoring
Jan-17
N/A
N/A
Year 3 Monitoring
Jan-18
N/A
N/A
Year 4 Monitoring
Jan-19
N/A
N/A
Year 5 Monitoring
Jan-20
N/A
N/A
Year 6 Monitoring
Jan-21
N/A
N/A
Year 7 Monitoring
Dec-22
N/A
N/A
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96074)

Table 3. Project Contacts
Thomas Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 96074
Designer
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
Cary, NC 27518
Contact:
Scott King, Tel. [phone]
Construction Contractor
6105 Chapel Hill Road
River Works, Inc.
Raleigh, NC 27607
Contact:
Phillip Todd, Tel. [phone]
Planting Contractor
6105 Chapel Hill Road
River Works, Inc.
Raleigh, NC 27607
Contact:
Phillip Todd, Tel. [phone]
Seeding Contractor
6105 Chapel Hill Road
River Works, Inc.
Raleigh, NC 27607
Contact:
Phillip Todd, Tel. [phone]
Seed Mix Sources
Green Resources, Tel. [phone]
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Mellow Marsh Farm, 919-742-1200
ArborGen, 843-528-3204
Monitoring Performers
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
Cary, NC 27518
Contact:
Stream Monitoring Point of Contact
Scott King, Tel. [phone]
Vegetation Monitoring Point of Contact
Scott King, Tel. [phone]
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96074)

Table 4. Project Attributes
Thomas Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No. ID 96074
Project Information
Project Name
Thomas Creek Restoration Project
County
Wake
Project Area (acres)
22.7
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude)
35.6636 N, -79.9547 W
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province
Piedmont
River Basin
Cape Fear
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8 -digit and 14 -digit
03030004 / 03030004020010
NCDWR Sub -basin
03-06-07
Project Drainage Area (acres)
246 (Reach RI main stem at downstream extent)
Project Drainage Area Percent Impervious
<1%
CGIA / NCEEP Land Use Classification
2.01.01.01, 2.03.01, 2.99.01, 3.02 / Forest (66%) Agriculture (19%) Impervious Cover (1%)
Reach Summary Information
Parameters
Reach RI
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
(Rosgen stream type)
Be
F (upstream)/
Gc (downstream)
Gc (upstream)/
Be (downstream)
Be
Be
Evolutionary Trend
Bc4Gc4F
Bc-->Gc�F
BC�GC—>F
Bc4Gc4F
Bc4Gc4F
Underlying Mapped Soils
WoA
WoA
WoA
WoA
WoA
Drainage Class
Poorly drained
Poorly drained
Poorly drained
Poorly drainedPoorly
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 TI
Reach T2
Length of Reach (linear feet)
1,828
646
242
171
Valley Classification (Rosgen)
VII
VII
VII
VII
Drainage Area (acres)
32
14
49
5
NCDWR Stream Identification Score
25/30
23/35
23.75
20.75
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
C
Morphological Description
(Rosgen stream type)
G5c (upstream)/
135c (downstream)
G5 (upstream)/
135c (downstream)
BSc
BSc
Evolutionary Trend
Bc->Gc4F
Bc4Gc4F
Bc4Gc—>F
Bc4GC->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%
<5%
<5%
<5%
Regulatory Considerations
Regulation
Applicable Resolved
Supporting Documentation
Waters of the United States — Section 404
Yes Yes
Categorical Exclusion (Appendix B)
Waters of the United States — Section 401
Yes Yes
Categorical Exclusion (Appendix B)
Endangered Species Act
No N/A
Categorical Exclusion (Appendix B)
Historic Preservation Act
No N/A
Categorical Exclusion (Appendix B)
Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA)
No N/A
Categorical Exclusion (Appendix B)
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
No Yes
Categorical Exclusion (Appendix B)
Essential Fisheries Habitat
No N/A
Categorical Exclusion (Appendix B)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96074)

APPENDIX B
Morphological Summary Data (Tables 5 and 6),
Profile and Cross -Section Graphs, and Pebble
Count Sheets

5.Baseline Stream Summar)
as Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 96074
Dimension and Substrate - Rifflc
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft) -----
Width/Depth Ratio - -_
Entrenchment Ratio -----
Bank Height Ratio ___
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft) -----
Radius of'Curvature (ft) ___
Meander Wavelength (ft)
Meander Width Ratio
Profile
Riffle Slope (ft/ft) -----
Pool to Pool Spacing (fi) ---
Substrate and Transport Parameters
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/ft -----
Max part size (mra) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve) -----
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m� -----
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM) -----
Impervious cover estimate (%)
Rosgen Classification -----
BF Velocity (fps) -----
Valley Length -----
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft) -----
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric ----
Biological or Othej -----
I - Pre -Existing Condition measurment taken on existing sandbed riffle
— — —
— — — 0.38 — —
— — — — — —
— — — ^p — —
Reference Reach(es) Data
Regional Curve
Pre -Existing Condition
_ _ _ _ _ _
— — — o — —
As -built
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
Little Beaver Creek (Wake County)
LL UL Eq.
Min Mean Med max SD
n
Min
Mean Med Max SD
-----
— — —
— — — — — —
— — — — — —
— — — — — —
— — — 271.1
— — —
— — — 397 — —
— — — — — —
— — — 266 — —
— — — om
— — —
— — — u" — —
u — — 1.3 — —
— — — 1.22 — —
— — — 1.2
— — —
| — — — 0.0028 — —
| — — — — — —
| — — — 0.022 — —
| — — — 0.0168
— — —
| — — — 0.0050 — —
|0.002 — — mm — —
| — — — 0.0165 — —
| — — — 0.0201
— — —
— — — 0.38 — —
— — — — — —
— — — ^p — —
Design
_ _ _
-----
— — —
_ _ _ _ _ _
— — — s — —
_ _ _ _ _ _
— — — o — —
As -built
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean Med Max SD n
_ _ _ 44* _ _
_ _ _ -----
-----
— — —
— — — — — —
— — — — — —
— — — — — —
— — — 271.1
— — —
— — — 397 — —
— — — — — —
— — — 266 — —
— — — om
— — —
— — — u" — —
u — — 1.3 — —
— — — 1.22 — —
— — — 1.2
— — —
| — — — 0.0028 — —
| — — — — — —
| — — — 0.022 — —
| — — — 0.0168
— — —
| — — — 0.0050 — —
|0.002 — — mm — —
| — — — 0.0165 — —
| — — — 0.0201
— — —
— — — 0.38 — —
— — — — — —
— — — ^p — —
— — — um
_ _ _
-----
— — —
_ _ _ _ _ _
— — — s — —
_ _ _ _ _ _
— — — o — —
_ _ _ _ _ _
— — — C5 — —
_ _ _ -----
— — — C5
3.4 4.0 —
— — — 3.9 — —
m — — 5 — —
— — — ^ — —
— — — -----
27.6 44* _
27.6
_ _ _ ~^ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ 44* _ _
_ _ _ -----
-----
— — —
— — — — — —
— — — — — —
— — — — — —
— — — 271.1
— — —
— — — 397 — —
— — — — — —
— — — 266 — —
— — — om
— — —
— — — u" — —
u — — 1.3 — —
— — — 1.22 — —
— — — 1.2
— — —
| — — — 0.0028 — —
| — — — — — —
| — — — 0.022 — —
| — — — 0.0168
— — —
| — — — 0.0050 — —
|0.002 — — mm — —
| — — — 0.0165 — —
| — — — 0.0201
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. zmyoo74)

Table 5 continued. Baseline Stream Summar3
Thomas Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 96074
Reach 2 - Length 2,126 It
USGS
Reference Reach(es) Data
Parameter
Gauge
Regional Curve
Pre-Existing Condition
Design
As-built
a
Little Beaver Creek (Wake County)
Dimension and Substrate - Rifth
L L
UL Eq.
Min
Mean
Med Max SD
n
Min
Mean Med Max SD
n
Min _
Mean
Med Max
SD n
Min
Mean
Med Max SD n
BF Width (ft)
-----
11.6
11.9 -----
6.5
-----
----- 9.4 -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
9.2
-----
----- 10.4
----- -----
10.2
10.3
----- 10.4 ----- -----
Floodprone Width (ft)
-----
-----
----- -----
9.0
-----
----- 13.2-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-
>18
----- ----
----- -----
38.2
58.5
----- 74.5 ----- -----
BE Mean Depth (fl)
-----
1.2
1.5 -----
0.6
-----
----- 1.2 -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
0.7
-----
----- 0.7
----- -----
0.7
0.8
----- 1.0 ----- -----
BF Max Depth (fl)
-----
-----
- -----
1.6
-----
----- 2.6 -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
0.8
-----
----- 1.0
----- -----
1.0
1.2
----- 1.5 ----- -----
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft')
-----
6.0
7.7 -----
7.7
-----
----- 15.7 -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
6.0
-----
-- 7.7
----- -----
7.4
8.6
----- 10.2 ----- -----
Width/Depth Ratio
-----
-----
----- -----
3.4
-----
----- 5.4 -----
-----
10.0
----- ----- 15.0 -----
-----
14.0
-----
-- 14.0
----- -----
10.1
12.5
----- 14.8 ----- -----
Entrenchment Ratio
-----
-----
- -----
1.4
-----
----- 1.4 -----
-----
-----
----- ----- >2.2 -----
-----
-----
>2.2
- ----
----- -----
3.7
5.7
----- 6.2 ----- -----
Bank Height Ratio
-----
-----
- -----
2.2
-----
----- 3.3 -----
-----
1.0
----- ----- 1.1 -----
-----
-----
1.0
----- ----
----- -----
1.0
1.0
----- 1.0 ----- -----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
---- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
---------- ----- -----
Pattern
T
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
-----
-----
- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
32.0
-----
----- 45.0
----- -----
-----
56.6
----- ----- ----- -----
Radius of Curvature (ft)
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
17.0
-----
----- 30.0
----- -----
-----
22.0
----- ----- ----- -----
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
2.0
----- ----- 3.0 -----
-----
2.0
-----
- 3.0
----- -----
-----
2.1
----- ----- ----- -----
Meander Wavelength (ft)
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
75.0
-----
----- 107.0
----- -----
-----
83.2
----- ----- ----- -----
Meander Width Ratio
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
7.0
----- ----- 14.0 -----
-----
3.3
-----
----- 4.7
----- -----
-----
5.5
----- ----- ----- -----
Profile
RiffleLength (ft)
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
17.7
----- ----- ----- -----
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
0.0094
-----
----- 0.02
----- -----
-----
0.012
----- ----- ----- -----
Pool Length (ft)
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
----
---- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
Pool to Pool Spacing (ft)
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
25
-----
----- 75
----- -----
-----
50.8
----- ----- ----- -----
Pool Max Depth (ft)
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
1.7
-----
----- 1.9
----- -----
-----
1.7
----- ----- ----- -----
poolVolume (ft)
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----------
-----
-----
----- ---------- -----
Substrate and Transport Parameters
Ri % / Ru % / P% / G% / S%
-----
---- -----
-----
-----
- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----------
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----
SC% / Sa% / G% / B% / Be%
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----------
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----
' dl6 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
-----
----- ----
0.11 / 0.22 / 0.32 / 0.85 / 1.89
20.2 / 47.6 / 62.5 / 133.1 / 173.1
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/ft'
-----
-----
---- ----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve)
----
-----
----- ---
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ---------- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
-
----- ----- ----- ---
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m'
-----
-__-
----- ----
-----
-----
----- _ ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
---
-----
---- -----
0.153
-----
----- 0.275 -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- 0.275
----- -----
-----
-----
----- 0.275 ----- -----
Impervious cover estimate o
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----------
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- -----
Rosgen Classification
-----
-----
----- -----
G5c
-----
----- F5 -----
-----
-----
----- ----- C5 -----
-----
-----
-----
----- C5
----- -----
-----
-----
----- C5 ----- -----
BF Velocity (fps)
-----
3.2
3.9 ----
3.8
-----
- 3.9 -----
-----
3.5
----- ----- 5 -----
-----
3.8
-----
----- 3.9
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
BF Discharge (cfs)
---
17.8
29.7 -----
22.9
-----
----- 35.0 -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
23.0
-----
----- 29.7
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
ValleyLength
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- 2549.3 ----- -----
Channel length (ft)
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- 1,995 -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- 1,089
----- -----
-----
-----
----- 3413.7 ----- -----
Sinuosity
----
-----
----- -----
-----
1.17
----- ----- -----
-----
1.2
----- ----- 1.5 -----
-----
-----
-----
----- 1.20
----- -----
-----
-----
----- 1.3 ----- -----
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
----
-----
----- -----
-----
0.0082
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
0.0047
-----
----- 0.0083
----- -----
-----
-----
----- 0.0092
BE slope (ft/ft)
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
0.0098
----- ----- -----
-----
0.002
----- ----- 0.01 -----
-----
-----
-----
----- 0.01
----- -----
-----
-----
----- 0.0123 ----- ---
BankfullFloodplain Area (acres)
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----
BEHI VL% / L% / M% / H% / VH°/u / E%
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- -----
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----
Biological or Other
----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- ----------
-----I
----
-----
----- -----
----------
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
1 - Pre-Existing Condition measurment taken on existing sandbed riffle, As-Built measurement taken on constructed rock riffle
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96074)

Table 5 continued. Baseline Stream Summar}
Thomas Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 96074
Reach 3 - Length 1,031 It
USGS
Reference Reach(es) Data
Parameter
Gauge
Regional Curve
Pre -Existing Condition
Design
As -built
a
Thomas Creek Site Upper Reach 4 (On-site)
Dimension and Substrate - RifBc
LL
UL Eq.
Min
Mean Med Max SD
n
Min
Mean Med Max SD n
Min
Mean
Med Max SD
n
Min
Mean
Med Max SD n
BF Width (ft)
-----
11.6
11.9 -----
4.5
----- ----- 5.3 -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
-----
7.0
----- ---- -----
-----
7.5
8.4
----- 9.3 ----- -----
Floodprone Width (ft)
-----
-----
----- -----
6.7
----- ----- 9.5 -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
-----
>16
----- ---- -----
-----
37.3
46.3
----- 55.3 ----- -----
BF Mean Depth (ft)
-
1.2
1.5 -----
0.7
----- ----- 0.8 -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
-----
0.7
----- ---- -----
-----
0.6
0.7
----- 0.8 ----- -----
BF Max Depth (ft)
-----
-----
----- ---
1.0
----- ----- 1.5 -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
-----
0.7
----- ---- -----
-----
0.9
0.9
----- 1.:29 ----- -----
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft)
-----
26.8
36.2 -----
3.0
----- ----- 4.3 -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
-----
4.1
----- ---- -----
-----
4.5
5.9
----- 7.3 ----- -----
Width/Depth Ratio
-----
-----
----- -----
6.5
----- ----- 6.7 -----
-----
10
----- ----- 14.0 ----- -----
11.0
12.0
----- 13.0 -----
-----
11.9
12.1
----- 12.3 ----- -----
Entrenchment ent do
-----
-----
----- -----
1.5
----- -----
---- >2.2
-----
>2.2
----- ----- -----
-----
5.0
5.5
----- 5.9 ----- -----
Bank Height Ratio
-----
-----
----- -----
2.3
----- ----- 3.2 -----
-----
1.0
----- ----- 1.1 ----- -----
-----
1.0
----- ----- -----
-----
1.0
1.0
----- 1.0 ----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----------
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
-
----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
18
-----
----- 28 -----
-----
-----
32.2
----- ----- ----- -----
Radius of Curvature (ft)
-----
---
----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
15
-----
----- 21 -----
-----
-----
19.1
----- ----- ----- -----
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
-----
----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
2
----- ----- 3 ----- -----
2.0
-----
----- 2.7 -----
-----
-----
2.3
----- ----- ----- -----
Meander Wavelength (ft)
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
70
-----
----- 80 -----
-----
-----
77.5
----- ----- ----- -----
MeanderWidth Ratio
----
-----
----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
2.6
-----
----- 4.0 -----
-----
-----
3.8
----- ----- ----- -----
Profile
RiffleLength (ft)
--
----- ----
-
- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
12.5
----- ----- ----- -----
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
--
----- -----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
1.1
----- ----- 2.0 ----- -----
-----
0.031
----- ---- -----
-----
-----
0.013
----- ----- ----- -----
Pool Length (ft)
----
----- ---
-----
----- ---- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----------
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
Pool to Pool Spacing (ft)
-----
---
----- ----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
28.0
-----
----- 48.0 -----
-----
-----
47.2
----- ----- ----- -----
PoolMax Depth (ft)
-
---
----- ---
-
- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
-----
1.5
----- ---- -----
-----
-----
1.3
----- ----- ----- -----
Pool Volume (ft')
----
-----
---- ----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----------
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
Substrate and Transport Parameters
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
SC% / Sa % / G% / B% / Be%
----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ---------- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
' d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
-----
-----
----- -----
.014 /.029 / 0.41 / 1.16 / 3.05
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/ft2
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----------
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve)
-----
......
----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
---------- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
Stream Power (transport capacity) Whre
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----------
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
----- ----- 0.083 -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- 0.083 -----
-----
-----
-----
----- 0.083 ----- -----
Impervious cover estimate (° o)
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
---------- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----------
-----
-----
-----
----- ---------- -----
Rosgen Classification
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
----- ----- B5c -----
-----
----
----- ----- E/C5 ----- -----
----
-----
----- E/C5 -----
-----
-----
-----
----- C5 ----- -----
BF Velocity (fps)
-----
3.0
3.6 -----
3.8
----- ----- 2.3 -----
-----
3.5
----- ----- 5 ----- -----
-----
-----
----- 3.8 -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
BF Discharge (cfs)
-----
9.4
16.5 -----
12.2
----- ----- 16.5 -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- 16.5 -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
ValleyLength
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- 2549.3 ----- -----
Channel length (ft)
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
----- ----- 1,067 -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- 1,231 -----
-----
-----
-----
----- 3413.7 ----- -----
Sinuosity
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
----- ----- 1.22 -----
-----
1.20
----- ----- 1.50 ----- -----
-----
-----
----- 1.20 -----
-----
-----
-----
----- 1.3 ----- -----
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
----
-----
----- -----
-----
----- ----- 0.0150 -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- 0.0150 -----
-----
-----
-----
----- 0.0092 ----- -----
BF slope (ft/ft)
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
----- ----- 0.0182 -----
-----
0.005
----- ----- 0.015 ----- -----
-----
-----
----- 0.0182 -----
-----
-----
-----
----- 0.0123 ----- -----
BankfullFloodplain Area acres
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
BEHI VL% / L% / M% / H% / VH% / E%
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----------
-----
----- ----------
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----------
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----------
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
Biological or Other
-----
-----
----- ----
----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
1 - Pre -Existing Condition measurment taken on existing sandbed riffle
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96074)

Table 5 continued. Baseline Stream Summar3
Thomas Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 96074
Reach 4 - Length 1,238 It
Parameter
USGS
Rcoional (Curse
Pre -Existing Condition
Reference Reach(es) Data
Design
As -built
Thomas Creek Site Upper
Reach 4 (On-site)
Gauge
Dimension and Substrate - RifBc
I.I.
UI I.q.
Min Mean Med
Max SD
n
Min
Mean Med
Max SD n
Min
Mean
Med Max
SD n
Min Mean
Med Max SD n
BF Width (ft)
-----
11.6
119 ---
----- ----- -----
4.5 -----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- ----- -----
-----
6.3
----- ----
----- -----
----- 6.8
----- ----- ----- -----
Floodprone Width (ft)-----
----- -----
----- ----- -----
9.9 -----
----
-----
----- -----
----- ----- -----
-----
>13
----- ----
----- -----
----- 21.9
----- ----- ----- -----
BF Mean Depth (ft)
-----
1.2
1.5 -----
----- ----- -----
0.7 -----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- ----- -----
-----
0.5
----- ----
----- -----
----- 0.5
----- ----- ----- -----
BFMax Depth (ft)
-
-----
----- ----
----- ----- -----
1.4 -----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- ----- -----
-----
0.6
----- ----
----- -----
----- 0.9
----- ----- ----- -----
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft2)
-----
-----
3.1 ----
----- ----- -----
3.1 -----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- ----- -----
-----
3.1
----- ----
----- -----
----- 3.6
----- ----- ----- -----
Width/Depth Ratio
---
-----
----- ---
----- ----- -----
6.4 -----
-----
10.0
----- -----
14.0 ----- -----
12.0
----
----- 14.0
---- -----
----- 12.7
----- ----- ----- -----
Entrenchment ent ho
-----
----
---- ---
----- ----- -----
----
-----
----- -----
>2.2 ----- -----
-----
>2.1
----- ----
---- -----
----- 3.2
----
Bank Height Ratio
-
----- ---
----- ----- -----
3.0 -----
-----
1.0
----- -----
1.1 ----- -----
-----
1.0
----- ----
----- -----
----- 1.0
----- ----- ----- -----
d50 (min)
-----
-
---- ---
---- ----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
----- -----
----- ----- ----- -----
Pattern
_
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
-----
-----
----- -----
----- ----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- ----- -----
20.0
-----
----- 29.0
----- -----
----- 34.0
----- ----- ----- -----
Radius of Curvature (ft)
-
-----
----- -----
----- ----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- ----- -----
12.0
-----
----- 18.0
----- -----
----- 16.9
----- ----- ----- -----
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
-----
-----
----- -----
----- ----- -----
----- -----
-----
2.0
----- -----
3.0 ----- -----
2.0
-----
----- 3.0
----- -----
----- 2.5
----- ----- ----- -----
Meander Wavelength (ft)
-----
---
----- -----
----- ----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- ----- -----
60.0
-----
----- 75.0
----- -----
----- 66.2
----- ----- ----- -----
Meander Width Ratio
----
-----
----- -----
----- ----- -----
----- -----
-----
3.5
----- -----
8.0 ----- -----
3.2
-----
----- 4.6
----- -----
----- 5.0
----- ----- ----- -----
Profile
RiffleLength (ft)
--
----- ----
----- ----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
----- 15.4
----- ----- ----- -----
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
---
---
----- -----
----- ----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- 0.029
----- -----
----- 0.035
----- ----- ----- -----
Pool Length (ft)
-----
-----
----- -----
----- ----- ----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
----- -----
----- ----- ----- -----
Pool to Pool Spacing (ft)
-
----- -----
----- ----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- ----- -----
28-
-----
----- 43
----- -----
----- 42.8
----- ----- ----- -----
PoolMax Depth (ft)
-----
----- ---
----- ----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- 1.5
----- -----
----- 1.3
----- ----- ----- -----
Pool Volume (ft')
-----
-----
----- ---
----- ----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
----- -----
----- ----- ----- -----
Substrate and Transport Parameters
-----
-----
----- -----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- -----
---------
----- -----
----- -----
SC% / Sa% / Ci / B% / Be%
-----
---
----- -----
----- ----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- -----
----------
----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
-----
-----
----- -----
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/ft2
..----
-----
----- -----
----- ----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
----- -----
----- ----- ----- -----
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve)
-----
-----
----- -----
----- ----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
----- -----
----- ----- ----- -----
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m2
-----
-----
----- -----
----- ----- -----
----------
-----
-----
----- -----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
----- -----
----- ----- ----- -----
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
-----
-----
----- -----
----- ----- -----
0.056 -----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- 0.056
----- -----
----- -----
----- 0.056 ----- -----
Impervious cover estimate (%)
-----
-----
----- -----
----- ----- -----
----- -----
----------
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
----- -----
----- ----- ----- -----
Rosgen Classification
-----
-----
----- -----
----- ----- -----
135c -----
-----
-----
----- -----
C5 ----- -----
-----
-----
----- C5
----- -----
----- -----
----- C5 ----- -----
BF Velocity (fps)
-----
3.2
3.9 -----
----- ----- -----
3.6 -----
-----
3.5
----- -----
5 ----- -----
-----
-----
----- 3.6
----- -----
----- -----
----- ----- ----- -----
BF Discharge (cfs)
-----
17.8
29.7 -----
----- ----- -----
11.1 -----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- 11.1
----- -----
----- -----
----- ----- ----- -----
ValleyLength
-----
-----
----- -----
----- ----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
----- -----
----- 285.55 ----- -----
Channel length (ft)
-----
-----
----- -----
----- ----- -----
1,197 -----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- 1,201
----- -----
----- -----
----- 342.91 ----- -----
Sinuosity
-----
-----
----- -----
----- ----- -----
1.16 -----
-----
1.20
----- -----
1.50 ----- -----
-----
-----
----- 1.13
----- -----
----- -----
----- 1.20 ----- -----
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
----
-----
----- -----
----- ----- -----
0.0121 -----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- 0.015
----- -----
----- -----
----- 0.0156 ----- -----
BF slope (ft/ft)
-----
-----
----- -----
----- ----- -----
0.0105 -----
-----
0.005
----- -----
0.015 ----- -----
-
-----
----- 0.024
----- -----
----- -----
----- 0.0188 ----- -----
Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
-----
-----
----- -----
----- ----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- ----------
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
----- -----
----- ----- ----- -----
BEHI VL % / L% / M% / H% / VH% / E%
-----
-----
----- -----
----- ----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- ----- ----------
-----
----- -----
----------
----- -----
----- ----- ----- -----
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
----
-----
----- -----
----- ----- -----
----------
-----
-----
----- -----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- -----
----------
----- -----
----- ----- ----- -----
Biological or Other
-----
-----
----- -----
---- ----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- -----
----------
----- -----
----- ----- ----- -----
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96074)

scontinued. Baseline Stream o~"°"n
as Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 96074
and Substrate mllh
Width/Depth Ratio -----
Entrenchment Ratio
Bank Height Ratio
d50 (min)
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
Meander Wavelength (ft)
Meander Width Ratio -----
Riffle Length (ft) -----
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
Pool Length (ft)
Pool to Pool Spacing (ft)
Pool Max Depth (ft)
Pool Volume (ft') -----
:e and Transport Parameters
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/fF -----
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve)
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/M2 -----
kal Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM) -----
Impervious cover estimate (%)
Rosgen Classification -----
BF Velocity (fps)
Valley Length -----
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft) -----
Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres) -----
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric -----
Biological or Otherl -----
ailt measurements taken from constructed rock riffle
Regional Curve
_ _
_ _
_ _
_ _
_ _
0.097 —
Pre -Existing Condition
I L HE Eq.
Min
Mean Med Max
_ _
135c —
_ _ _ _
-- o -- —
_ _
-- —
_ _ -----
-- C5 --
,^ 3.7 --
3.7 --
-- 4.2 -- --
3.5 --
-- 5 --
"^ /4.7 —
w^ —
— /6.5 — —
— —
— — -----
_ _ _
-----
-- -- --
-----
_ _
-- --
_ _ _ _
-- 1,022 -- --
_ _
-- --
_ _ -----
-- -- --
-'— -- --'
o' —'—
-- /.42 -- --'
uo '--
-- 1.50 -----
----- _ _
_ _
_ 0.0/77 _ _
Reference Reach(es) Data
Little Beaver Creek (Wake County)
SEP n Min Mean Med Max SD
_ _ _ _ _ _ -----
-----
_ _ _ _ _ _ -----
-----
_ _ _ _ _ _ -----
-----
_ _ 3.5 _ _ o -----
-----
_ _ _ _ _ _ -----
-----
-- -- | -- -- -- -- --
_ _ _
_ _ _
-----
_ _ -----
-----
_ _ _
-----
_ _ _
-----
_ _ _
-----
-----
— — —
_ _
_ _
_ _
_ _
_ _
0.097 —
_ _ _ _
_ _ _ _
_ _ _ _
_ _ _ _
_ _ _ _
— 0.083 — —
_ _
_ _
_ _
_ _
_ _
— —
_ _ -----
_ _ -----
_ _ -----
_ _ -----
_ _ -----
— — -----
_ _ _
-----
— -- —
-----
_ _
135c —
_ _ _ _
-- o -- —
_ _
-- —
_ _ -----
-- C5 --
,^ 3.7 --
3.7 --
-- 4.2 -- --
3.5 --
-- 5 --
"^ /4.7 —
w^ —
— /6.5 — —
— —
— — -----
_ _ _
-----
-- -- --
-----
_ _
-- --
_ _ _ _
-- 1,022 -- --
_ _
-- --
_ _ -----
-- -- --
-'— -- --'
o' —'—
-- /.42 -- --'
uo '--
-- 1.50 -----
----- _ _
_ _
_ 0.0/77 _ _
_ _
_ _ -----
-----
— — —
— —
— 0.0133 — —
0.005 —
— 0.015 —
mncnAnLBAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. zmyoo74)
Design
As -built
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean Med Max SD

5 continued. Baseline Stream Summar3
is Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 96074
^ - Length 1,776 It
USGS
eter Gauge
BF Mean Depth (ft) -----
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft) -----
Widdi/Depth Ratio
Entrenchment Ratio -----
Bank Height Ratio - __
Channel Beltwidth (ft) -----
Radius of Curvature (ft)
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
Meander Wavelength (ft)
Meander Width Ratio
Pool Length (ft) -----
Pool to Pool Spacing (ft) -
Pool Max Depth (ft) -----
Pool Volume (fit) -----
ate and Transport Parameters
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/ft2 -----
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve) -----
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/ml -----
Dual Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM) -----
Impervious cover estimate (%)
Rosgen Classification -----
BF Velocity (fps) -----
Valley Length -----
Channel length (ft) -----
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
Channel Stability or Habitat Metricl -----
Biological or Citherl -----
Regional Curve
-- 0.050 -- --
Pre -Existing Condition
-- --
----- -----
135c —
Reference Reach(es) Data
----- -----
— —
----- -----
— B5c
2» -----
----- 4.1 ----- -----
* -----
----- ^
,./ --
Thomas Creek Site Upper Reach 4 (On -
LL UL Eq.
Min
Mean Med Max SD
n
Min
Mean Med Max SD
-- --'
-- 1.13 -- --'
uo --'
-- 1.30
0.0/48 --
-- mum -- --
| -- --
-- --
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. zmyoo74)
wmv --
-- 0.050 -- --
-- --
-- --
----- -----
135c —
----- ----- ----- -----
— m. — —
----- -----
— —
----- -----
— B5c
2» -----
----- 4.1 ----- -----
* -----
----- ^
,./ --
-- 'uu -- --
-- --
-- --
----- ----'
-- --
----- ----- ----'
-- 1,828 -- --
----- ----'
-- --
----- ----'
-- --
-- --'
-- 1.13 -- --'
uo --'
-- 1.30
0.0/48 --
-- mum -- --
| -- --
-- --
Design As -built
n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n
1.42
mn
mo

Table 5 continued. Baseline Stream Summary
Thomas Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 96074
Reach 7 - Length 647 It
Parameter
USGS
Regional Curve
Pre -Existing Condition
Reference Reach(es) Data
Design
As -built
Thomas Creek Site Upper Reach 4 (On-site)
Gauge
a
Dimension and Substrate - Rifflc
I I. UL Eq.
Min Mean Med Max SD n
Min Mean Med Max SD n
Min Mean Med Max SD n
Min Mean Med Max SD n
BFWidth (ft)
-
---------
----- ----- ----- 3.6 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 4.6 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
FloodproneWidth (ft)
--
----- ----- ----- 5.4 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BFMean Depth (ft)
--
----- ----- ----- 0.4 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 0.3 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BFMax Depth (ft)
- --
---- ----- ----- 0.6 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 0.4 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BFCross-sectional Area (ft')
-----
----- ----- ---
--- ----- ----- 1.6 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 1.5 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Width/Depth Ratio
---
----- ----- ----- 8.4 ----- -----
12.0 ----- ----- 18.0 ----- -----
----- 14.0 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
EntrenchmentRatio
-----
----- ----- ---
----- ----- ----- 1.5 ----- -----
1.4 ----- ----- 2.2 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Bank Height Ratio
- --
----- ----- ----- 4.2 ----- -----
1.0 ----- ----- 1.1 ----- -----
----- 1.0 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
--
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Radius of Curvature (ft)
__---
--- ---- ----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
----- ----- ---
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
MeanderWavelength (ft)
-----
----- ----- ---
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
MeanderWidth Ratio
-----
----- ----- ---
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
-----
----- --
----- ----- ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
---- ----- --- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
---
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
PoolLength (ft)
-----
----- ---- --
----- ----- ----
----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Poolto Pool Spacing (ft)
-----
---- ----- ---
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
PoolMax Depth (ft)
-----
---- ----- ---
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 1.0 ---- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
PoolVolume (ft')
-----
----- ----- ---
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Substrate and Transport Parameters
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ---- - ----- ----- ----
SC% / Sa% / G% / 13% / Be%
-----
--- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----
' dl6 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
-----
----- ----- -----
.012 / 0.29 / 0.43 / 0.87 / 1.39
Reach Shear Stress (competency) IMF
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----------
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m2
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 0.022 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 0.022 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 0.022 ----- -----
Impervious cover estimate ° o)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Rosgen Classification
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 135 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- B5c ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 135c ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BF Velocity (fps)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- 3.6 ----- ----- ----- -----
4 ----- ----- 6 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 3.33 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BFDischarge (cfs)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 5.7 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 5 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Valley Length
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ---- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Channellength (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 646 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 646 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Sinuosity
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 1.11 ----- -----
1.10 ----- ----- 1.30 ----- -----
- ----- ----- 1.11 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 0.025 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 0.032
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BF slope (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 0.036 ----- -----
0.005 ----- ----- 0.015 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 0.036 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Bankfull Floodplain Area acres
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ---------- ----- ----- -----
BEHI VL % / L% / M% / H% / VH% / E%
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----------
----- ----- ----- ----------
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----------
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Biological or Other
-----
----- ----- -----
---- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----------
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
1 - Pre -Existing Condition measurment taken on existing sandbed riffle
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96074)

5 continued. Baseline Stream Summar3
is Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 96074
TI -Length 227 It
USGS
eter Gauge
Floodprone Width (ft) ___
BF Mean Depth (ft) -----
BF Max Depth (ft)
Width/Dc,pth Ratio ---
Entrenchment Ratio -----
Bank Height Ratio - __
Channel Beltwidth (ft) -----
Radius of Curvature (ft)
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
Meander Wavelength (ft) -----
Meander Width Ratio -----
Riffle Slope (ft/ft) -----
Pool Length (ft) -----
Pool to Pool Spacing (ft) - -_
Pool Max Depth (ft) -----
Pool Volume (ft') -----
ate and Transport Parameters
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/ft2 -----
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve) -----
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m2 -----
Dnal Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM) -----
Impervious cover estimate (%)
Rosgen Classification -----
BF Velocity (fps) -----
Valley Length -----
Channel length ffl) -----
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (11/11) ----
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric -----
Biological or Other
Regional Curve Pre -Existing Condition Reference Reach(es) Data
Thomas Creek Site Upper Reach 4 (On -
LL UL Eq. Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. zmyoo74)
-- our __ __ __ __ __ -----
-----
___ __ __ __ __ -----
-----
_-- xm -- -- -- -- -- m*
----- 'o ----- --' ----- --' ----- -----
----- '^» ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
-----
_-- -- --' -- --' -- -----
----- ~~ ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
-----
_-- /.09 -- --' uo --' -- 1s0
----- oozm -- -- | -- -- -- --
mm
B5c
aa
13.9
zm
oo
0.004
0.005
Design
As-buflt
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean Med Max SD n
mm
B5c
aa
13.9
zm
oo
0.004
0.005

Table 5 continued. Baseline Stream Summary
Thomas Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 96074
Reach T2 - Length 157 ft
Parameter
USGS
Regional Curve
Pre -Existing Condition
Reference Reach(es) Data
Design
As -built
Thomas Creek Site Upper Reach 4 (On-site)
Gauge
Dimension and Substrate - RIM(
I UL Eq.
Min Mean Med Max SD n
Min Mean Med Max SD n
Min _ Mean _ Med Max SD n
Min Mean Med Max SD n
BFWidth (ft)
----
--- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 2.1 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
FloodproneWidth (ft)
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 3.4 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BFMean Depth (ft)
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 0.4 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BFMax Depth (ft)
----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 0.6 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BFCross-sectional Area (ftp)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 0.8 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Width/Depth Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 5.6 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---- — -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
EntrenchmentRatio
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 1.6 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BankHeight Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 2.3 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----
----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----------
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Pattern
Channel a twi t
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----------
Radius us o urvature
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- -----
----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
--- ----- ----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Meander Wavelength (ft)
-----
----- ----- ---
---- --- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ---------- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Meander Width Ratio
-----
---- ---- ---
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
-- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- —
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
-----
--- ----- ----
---- ---- ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Pool Length (ft)
- -_
----- ----- -----
---- ----- ---- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Pool to Pool Spacing (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
---- ---- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----------
----- ----- ----- ----------
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----
Pool Max Depth (ft)
---
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ---- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----------
----- ----- ----- ----- —
Pool Volume (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
---- ----- ----- ----- ----- --------
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Substrate and Transport Parameters
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----------
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----
SC% / Sa% / G% / 13% / Be%
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----
----
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----------
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
-----
----- ----- -----
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/ft2
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/ml
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Additional Reach Parameters
E"
Drainage Area (SM)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 0.008 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 0.008 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 0.008 ----- -----
Impervious cover estimate (%)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- --------- ----- -----
----- ---------- ----- ----- -----
RosgenClassification
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 135c ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- — ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BFVelocity (fps)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 3.4 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BFDischarge (cfs)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 2.7 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Valley Length
-----
----- ----- -----
---- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Channellength (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 171 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- — 158 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Sinuosity-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 1.17 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
-----
----- -----
----- ----- ----- 0.0414 ----------
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ---- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BFslope (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 0.0417 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- — ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Bankfull Floodplain Area acres
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ---- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ---- ---------- -----
----- ---------- ----- ----- -----
BEHI VL % / L% / M% / H% / VH% / E% I
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----------
----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ---- ----- ----------
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Biological or Other
----- ----- ----
— ----- ---- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----------
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96074)

Table 6. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Thomas Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 96074
Stream Reach
Reach 3 (1,031 LF)
Cross-section X-1 (Riffle)
Cross-section X-2 (Pool)
Cross-section X-3 (Riffle)
Dimension and substrate
Base
MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4
MY5 MY+
Base MY1
MY2 MY3 MY4
MY5 MY+
Base MY1
MY2 MY3 MY4
MY5 MY+
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
BF Width (ft)
9.34
10.51
7.47
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.78
1.27
0.61
Width/Depth Ratio
11.9
8.25
12.34
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft2)
7.3
13.4
4.5
BF Max Depth (ft)
1.29
2.06
0.89
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
55.3
61.3
37.3
Entrenchment Ratio
5.9
5.8
5.0
Bank Height Ratio
1
1
1
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
10.9
13.1
8.7
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.7
1.0
0.52
Cross Sectional Area between end pins (ft)
-
-
-
d50 (mm)
-
-
-
Stream Reach
Reach 4 (1,238 LF)
Reach 2 (2,126 LF)
Reach TI (227 LF)
Cross-section X-4 (Riffle)
Cross-section X-5 (Riffle)
Cross-section X-6 (Riffle)
Cross-section X-7 (Riffle)
Dimension and substrate
Base
MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4
MY5 MY+
Base MY]
MY2 MY3 MY4
MY5 MY+
Base MY1
MY2 MY3 MY4
MY5 MY+
Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
BF Width (ft)
6.78
10.42
10.15
8.46
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.53
0.71
1.01
0.62
Width/Depth Ratio
12.7
14.77
10.08
13.64
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft2)
3.6
7.4
10.2
5.3
BF Max Depth (ft)
0.87
1.01
1.5
0.88
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
21.9
38.17
62.93
30.61
Entrenchment Ratio
3.2
3.7
6.2
3.6
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1
1
1
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
7.8
11.8
12.2
9.7
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.5
0.6
0.8
0.5
Cross Sectional Area between end pins (ft2)
-
-
-
d50 (mm)
-
-
-
Stream Reach
Reach 2 (2,126 LF)
Cross-section X-8 (Pool)
Cross-section X-9 (Pool)
Cross-section X-10 (Riffle)
Dimension and substrate
Base
MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4
MY5 MY+
Base MY1
MY2 MY3 MY4
MY5 MY+
Base MY1
MY2 MY3 MY4
MY5 MY -+-
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
BF Width (ft)
15.33
14.50
10.27
BF Mean Depth (ft)
1.15
1.13
0.81
Width/Depth Ratio
13.3
12.9
12.6
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft2)
17.6
16.3
8.4
BF Max Depth (ft)
2.70
2.15
1.18
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
53.1
70.6
74.5
Entrenchment Ratio
3.5
4.9
7.2
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
17.6
16.8
11.9
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
1.0
1.0
0.7
Cross Sectional Area between end pins (ft)
-
-
-
d50 (mm)
-
-
-
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96074)

Table 6. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Thomas Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 96074
Stream Reach
Reach 1 (298 LF)
Reach 6 (1,776 LF)
Cross-section X-11 (Pool)
Cross-section X-12 (Riffle)
Cross-section X-13 (Riffle)
Dimension and substrate
Base MY1
MY2 MY3 MY4
MY5 MY+
Base MY1
MY2 MY3 MY4
MY5 MY+
Base
MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
BF Width (ft)
16.24
13.91
6.26
BF Mean Depth (ft)
1.46
0.80
0.33
Width/Depth Ratio
11.1
17.4
18.7
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft2)
23.7
11.1
2.1
BF Max Depth (ft)
3.38
1.13
0.64
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
68.8
30.6
19.4
Entrenchment Ratio
4.2
2.2
3.1
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
19.2
15.5
6.9
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
1.2
0.7
0.3
Cross Sectional Area between end pins (ft 2)
-
-
-
d50 (mm)
-
-
-
Stream Reach
Reach 5 (1,169 LF)
Cross-section X-14 (Riffle)
Cross-section X-15 (Pool)
Cross-section X-16 (Pool)
Dimension and substrate
Base MY1
MY2 MY3 MY4
MY5 MY+
Base MY1
MY2 MY3 MY4
MY5 MY+ Base
MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
BF Width (ft)
7.52
10.30
9.34
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.90
0.75
0.78
Width/Depth Ratio
8.4
13.8
11.9
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft)
6.8
7.7
7.3
BF Max Depth (ft)
1.24
1.45
1.29
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
49.9
59.6
63.8
Entrenchment Ratio
6.6
5.8
5.9
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
9.3
11.8
10.9
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.7
0.7
0.7
Cross Sectional Area between end pins (ft2)
-
-
-
d50 (mm)
-
-
-
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96074)

Pebble Count; As -built Survey
Thomas Creek Mitigation Project, DMS# 96074
SITE OR PROJECT:
REACH/LOCATION
FEATURE:
DATE:
Thomas Creek
Reach R2 (Station 37
Rock Riffle
6 -Nov -15
MATERIAL
PARTICLE
SIZE (mm)
Total
AB 2015
Class %
% Cum
Distribution
Plot Size (mm)
Silt/Clay
Silt / Clay
<.063
2
2%
2%
0.063
Sand
Very Fine
.063 -.125
2%
0.125
Fine .125 - .25 1 1 % 3%
0.25
Medium .25 -.50 3%
0.50
Coarse .50 - 1.0 14 12% 14%
1.0
Very Coarse 1.0-2.0 1 14% 1
2.0
Very Fine
2.0-2.8
14%
2.8
Very Fine 2.8-4.0 14%
4.0
Gravel
Fine
4.0-5.6
14%
5.6
Fine 5.6-8.0 14%
8.0
Medium 8.0 - 11.0 14%
11.0
Medium 11.0 - 16.0 14%
16.0
Coarse 16-22.6 3 3% 17%
22.6
Coarse 22.6-32 7 6% 23%
32
Very Coarse
32-45
11
9%
32%
45
30%
Very Coarse
1 45-64 1
23
19%
51% 1
64
Small
64-90
27
23%
74%
90
Small
90-128
10
8%
82%
128
Cobble
Large
128-180
17
14%
97%
180
Large 180-256 3 3% 99%
256
Small
256-362
1
1 %
100%
362
Boulder
Small
362-512
100%
512
Medium 512- 1024 100%
1024
Large -Very Large 1024-2048 100%
2048
Bedrock
Bedrock
> 2048
100%
5000
_J
Total % of whole count 119 100%
Largest particle= 362
Summary Data
Channel materials
D16 = 20.2 D84 = 133.1
D35 = 47.6 D95 = 173.1
D50 = 62.5 D100 = 256-362
Thomas Creek (Reach 112)
Pebble Count Particle Size Distribution
100%
90% SAB 2015
80%
70%
60%
W
i 50%
d
CL
y 40%
0 30%
E 20%
Mr
U 10%
0%
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
Thomas Creek (Reach R2)
Pebble Count Size Class Distribution
100%
90%
■ AB 2015
80%
70%
W
i
60%
a
50%
rn
rn
40%
V
30%
20%
10%
0%
Particle Size Class (mm)

Pebble Count; As -built Survey
Thomas Creek Mitigation Project, DMS# 96074
SITE OR PROJECT:
REACH/LOCATION
FEATURE:
DATE:
Thomas Creek
Reach R5 (Station 37
Rock Riffle
6 -Nov -15
MATERIAL
PARTICLE
SIZE (mm)
Total
AB 2015
Class %
% Cum
Distribution
Plot Size (mm)
Silt/Clay
Silt / Clay
<.063
4
4%
4%
0.063
Sand
Very Fine
.063 -.125
4%
0.125
Fine .125 - .25 4%
0.25
Medium .25 -.50 4%
0.50
Coarse .50 - 1.0 3 3% 6%
1.0
Very Coarse 1.0-2.0 1 6% 1
2.0
Very Fine
2.0-2.8
6%
2.8
Very Fine 2.8-4.0 6%
4.0
Gravel
Fine
4.0-5.6
6%
5.6
Fine 5.6-8.0 1 1 % 7%
8.0
Medium 8.0 - 11.0 7%
11.0
Medium 11.0 - 16.0 6 5% 12%
16.0
Coarse 16-22.6 15 13% 25%
22.6
Coarse 22.6-32 5 4% 30%
32
Very Coarse
32-45
14
12%
42%
45
Very Coarse 45-64 18 16% 58% 1
64
Small
64-90
17
15%
73%
90
Small
90-128
12
11%
83%
128
Cobble
Large
128-180
13
11%
95%
180
Large 180-256 4 4% 98%
256
Boulder
Small
256-362
1
1 %
99%
362
Small 362-512 1 1 % 100%
512
Medium 512- 1024 100%
1024
Large -Very Large 1024-2048 100%
2048
Bedrock
Bedrock
> 2048
0%
100%
5000
Total % of whole count 114 100%
Largest particle= 512
Summary Data
Channel materials
D16 = 17.6 D84 = 130.6
D35 = 36.9 D95 = 184.8
D50 = 53.7 D100 = 362 - 512
Thomas Creek (Reach 115)
Pebble Count Particle Size Distribution
100%
90% SAB 2015
80%
70%
60%
d
i 50%
d
a
y 40%
0 30%
E 20%
U 10%
0%
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
Thomas Creek (Reach R5)
Pebble Count Size Class Distribution
100%
90%
■ AB 2015
80%
70%
W
i
60%
a
50%
rn
rn
40%
V
30%
20%
10%
0%
Particle Size Class (mm)

Permanent Cross-section 1
(As -Built Data - Collected Oct/Nov 2015)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
BKF Width Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
C
7.3
9.34 0.78
1.29
11.9
1
5.9
271.44
271.45
Thomas Creek Cross-section 1
Reach 3
276
275
274
0
273
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
w
272
w
271
�— As -built
- Bankfull
270
---0--- Floodprone
269
0 10 20 30 40 50
60 70 80
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross-section 2
(As -Built Data - Collected Oct/Nov 2015)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Stream
BKF
Max BKF
Feature
Type
BKF Area
BKF Width
Depth
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool
13.4
10.51
1.27
2.06
8.25
1
5.8
270.65
270.67
Thomas Creek Cross-section 2
Reach 3
276
275
274
273
---------- - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
272
m
w 271
270
As -built
�- Bankfull
269
--o--- Floodprone
268
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70 80
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross-section 3
(As -Built Data - Collected Oct/Nov 2015)
q W t� z
F
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Stream BKF Max BKF
Feature Type BKF Area BKF Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle C 1 4.5 7.47 0.61 0.89 12.34 1 5 264.45 264.47
Thomas Creek Cross-section 3
k
uyr
Reach 3
270 -
q W t� z
F
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Stream BKF Max BKF
Feature Type BKF Area BKF Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle C 1 4.5 7.47 0.61 0.89 12.34 1 5 264.45 264.47
Thomas Creek Cross-section 3
Reach 3
270 -
269
268
w
c
267
w
266
w
265
-----------------------------------------------------------
�— As -built
264
- o--- Bankfull
- o--- Floodprone
263
0
10 20 30 40 50
60 70 80
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross-section 4
(As -Built Data - Collected Oct/Nov 2015)
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area BKF Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth W/D
BH Ratio
ER BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
C
3.6 6.78
0.53
0.87 12.74
1
3.2 265.46
265.47
Thomas Creek Cross-section 4
Reach 4
270
269
268
c
0
267
a�
w-------------------------------------------------------
266
------
AAs -built
265
Bankfull
o--- Floodprone
264
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
40 45 50
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross-section 5
(As -Built Data - Collected Oct/Nov 2015)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area BKF Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth W/D
BH Ratio
ER BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
C
7.4 10.42
0.71
1.01 14.77
1
3.7 262.63
262.64
Thomas Creek Cross-section 5
Reach 2
269
268
267
266
c
0
265
a�
Lu
264
------------------------------------------------------------
263
As -built
---------------
e, Bankfull
262
--- --- Floodprone
261
0 10 20 30 40 50
60 70 80
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross-section 6
(As -Built Data - Collected Oct/Nov 2015)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Stream
Feature Type
BKF Area BKF Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle C
1 10.2 10.15
1.01
1.5
10.08
1
6.2 259.42
259.43
262
261
Thomas Creek Cross-section 6
Reach 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------o
= 260
0
---------------
w 259
As -built
258
- o--- Bankfull
- o--- Floodprone
257
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross-section 7
(As -Built Data - Collected Oct/Nov 2015)
Looking at the Left Bank
4,
NO
Looking at the Right Bank
Stream
Feature Type
BKF Area BKF Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle C
1 5.3 8.46
0.62
0.88
13.64
1
3.6 258.57
258.57
Thomas Creek Cross-section 7
Reach T1
263
262
261
c
0
260
a�
—
w
-------------- -------------------------
259
------------ As -built
258
- o Bankfull
- o Floodprone
257
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross-section 8
(As -Built Data - Collected Oct/Nov 2015)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Stream
Feature Type
BKF Area BKF Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool
17.6 15.33
1.15
2.7
13.32
1
3.5 258.12
258.13
Thomas Creek Cross-section 8
Reach 2
262
261
260
c 259 -
258
-----------------------
LU
257 -
As -built
256 -
- o--- Bankfull
- o Floodprone
255
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross-section 9
(As -Built Data - Collected Oct/Nov 2015)
3
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area BKF Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth W/D
BH Ratio
ER BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool
257 -
16.3 14.5
1.13
2.15 12.87
1
4.9 255.05
255.06
Thomas Creek Cross-section 9
Reach 2
258
257 -
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------0
256 -
c
0
R255
n_..._.._..... ..........
a�
LU
254 -
s As -built
253
-=-e, - Bankfull
--- Floodprone
252
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross-section 10
(As -Built Data - Collected Oct/Nov 2015)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Stream
Feature Type
BKF Area BKF Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle C
1 8.4 10.27
0.81
1.18
12.64
1
7.2 254.18
254.19
257
256 -
Thomas Creek Cross-section 10
Reach 2
-,
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------o
= 255
0
y..
M
w 254
---------------
As -built
253 -
- o--- Bankfull
---0--- Floodprone
252
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross-section 11
(As -Built Data - Collected Oct/Nov 2015)
-
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area BKF Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth W/D
BH Ratio
ER BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool
254
23.7 16.24
1.46
3.38 11.14
1
4.2 249.04
249.04
Thomas Creek Cross-section 11
Reach 1
254
253 -
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------o
252
251
250
0
249
-------------------------
w
248
247
s As -built
246
Bankfull
245
0--- Floodprone
244
0 10 20 30 40 50
60 70 80
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross-section 12
(As -Built Data - Collected Oct/Nov 2015)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area BKF Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth W/D
BH Ratio
ER BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
C
11.1 13.91
0.8
1.13 17.43
1
2.2 247.88
247.89
Thomas Creek Cross-section 12
Reach 1
254
253
252
251
0
250
a�
Lu249 -
------------------------------------------------
248
........ ........... As -built
---<_-,-- Bankfull
247
- --- Floodprone
246
11
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross-section 13
(As -Built Data - Collected Oct/Nov 2015)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Stream
Feature Type
BKF Area BKF Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle C
1 2.1 6.26
0.33
0.64
18.72
1
3.1 295.07
295.08
Thomas Creek Cross-section 13
Reach 6
301
300 -
299
298
0
297
as
Lu 296
------------------------------------------------
295
------------- AAs -built
- o--- Bankfull
294
- o--- Floodprone
293
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross-section 14
(As -Built Data - Collected Oct/Nov 2015)
Looking at the Left Bank
.ate 8,1
Looking at the Right Bank
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area BKF Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth W/D
BH Ratio
ER BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
E
6.8 7.52
0.9
1.24 8.38
1
6.6 260.96
260.98
Thomas Creek Cross-section 14
Reach 5
264
263
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------o
262
c
0
261 -------- ......
a�
LU
260
As -built
259 Bankfull
-0--- Floodprone
258
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross-section 15
(As -Built Data - Collected Oct/Nov 2015)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area BKF Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth W/D
BH Ratio
ER BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool
262
7.7 10.3
0.75
1.45 13.81
1
5.8 259.27
259.28
Thomas Creek Cross-section 15
Reach 5
263
262
261
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0 260
259 -
LU
258
As -built
- Bankfull
257 -
--- Floodprone
256
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross-section 16
(As -Built Data - Collected Oct/Nov 2015)
ma
r i •r 4� t 'Sb..a 4 � �u N'i
Looking at the Left Bank
ik.
Looking at the Right Bank
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area BKF Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth W/D
BH Ratio
ER BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool
258
7.3 9.34
0.78
1.29 11.9
1
5.9 271.44
271.45
Thomas Creek Cross-section 16
Reach 5
258
257
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------o
256
c
0
255 -
a�
LU
254
As -built
253
-- D- Bankfull
- --- Floodprone
252
0 10 20 30 40 50
60 70 80
Station (ft)

258
256
254
d 252
d
p 250
ca
248
W
246
244
242
240
4200
Thomas Creek - Reach 1
As -built Station 42+00 to 45+25
(Data Collected December 2015)
4225 4250 4275 4300 4325 4350 4375 4400 4425 4450 4475 4500 4525
Station

Thomas Creek - Reach 2
As -built Station 20+55 to 42+00
(Data Collected December 2015)
264
Thalweg
262
........ ........................................... .._
fLeft Top of Bank
Right Top of Bank
260
-
Water Surface
258
- - - - - --
C
O
256
N
W
254
- -
252
- - -- - -- -
250
248
2055 2155 2255 2355 2455 2555 2655 2755 2855 2955 3055 3155 3255 3355 3455 3555 3655 3755 3855 3955 4055 4155
Station

Thomas Creek - Reach 3
As -built Station 11+10 to 20+55
(Data Collected Oct/Nov 2015)
278
276
274
r
272
d
d
270
O
w
O
268
W
266
264
262
Thalweg
(Left Top of Bank
—*--Right Top of Bank
Water Surface
260 ;
1110 1155 1200 1245 1290 1335 1380 1425 1470 1515 1560 1605 1650 1695 1740 1785 1830 1875 1920 1965 2010 2055
Station

269
268
267
N 266
O
C
O
265
d
W
264
`v.
262
1030
Thomas Creek - Reach 4
As -built Station 10+39 to 13+83
(Data Collected - Oct/Nov 2015)
1080 1130 1180 1230 1280 1330 1380
Station

Thomas Creek - Reach 5
As -built Station 29+18 to 39+88
(Data Collected - Oct/Nov 2015)
266
264
--s.—Thalweg
—Left Top of Bank
262
--*- Right Top of Bank
Water Surface
260
- -- --- -- -- --------
---258
258
c
O
256
41
W
254
--- -- - --- -- --
252
250
248
2900 3000 3100 3200 3300 3400 3500 3600 3700 3800 3900 4000
Station

Thomas Creek - Reach 6
As -built Station 10+00 to 12+08
(Data Collected - Oct/Nov 2015)
--s.—Thalweg
+Left Top of Bank
Right Top of Bank
Water Surface
100 125 150 175 200 225
Station
299
298
297
296
w
d
295
C
O
294
d
W
293
292
291
290
0
25
50
75
--s.—Thalweg
+Left Top of Bank
Right Top of Bank
Water Surface
100 125 150 175 200 225
Station

Thomas Creek - T1
As -built Station 10+00 to 12+47
(Data Collected - Oct/Nov 2015)
262
Thalweg
261
--m—Left Top of Bank
Right Top of Bank
260
Water Surface
d
V259
--------------------
C
O
t4
>
d
258
------------------------------------- _ ------
- -- ----
W
257
...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
.......
256
255
990
1005 1020 1035 1050 1065 1080 1095 1110 1125 1140 1155
1170 1185 1200 1215 1230 1245
Station

APPENDIX C
Vegetation Summary Data
(Tables 7 and 8)

Table 7. Vegetation Species Planted Across the Restoration Site
Thomas Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 96074
Botanical Name
Common Name
% Planted by Species
Total Number of Stems
Riparian Buffer Plantings
Betula nigra
river birch
9.5
800
Fraxinus ennsylvanica
green ash
6.0
500
Liriodendron tulipfera
tulip poplar
9.5
800
Platanus occidentalis
Americansycamore
11.9
1000
Quercus michauxii
swarnp chestnut oak
9.5
800
Quercus pagoda
the bark oak
9.5
800
Riparian Buffer Plantings - Understory
simina triloba
paw paw
9.5
800
Carpinus caroliniana
ironwood
14.3
1200
Diospyros vir iniana
persimmon
6.0
500
Viburnum dentatum
arrowwood viburnum
14.3
1200
Riparian Live Stake Plantings
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
40%
NA
Salix nigra
black willow
10%
NA
Salix sericea
silky willow
30%
NA
Sambucus canadensis
elderbe
20%
NA
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96074)

Table 8. Stem Count for Each Species Arranged by Plot
Thomas Creek Restoration Pro'ect: DMS Project ID No. 96074
Botanical Name
Common Name
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Thomas Creek Vegetation Plots
8 9 10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Tree Species
Betula nigra river birch
5
3
2
2
3
2
6
6
2
5
2
5
4
2
6
5
Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash
2
1
1
4
1
2
3
1
1
1
Liriodendron tuli fera tulip poplar
4
1
1
2
4
3
1
4
6
3
1
3
Platanus occidentalis American s camore
3
1
4
1
4
2
4
1
2
2
4
5
5
2
Quercus michauxii swamp chestnut oak
1
2
2
1
1
2
1
4
3
1
4
1
2
Quercus pagoda the back oak
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
2
2
1
2
2
Shrub Species
Asimina triloba paw paw
1
1
1
1
1
1
Carpinus caroliniana ironwood
1
2
3
1
4
1
5
1
3
3
1
6
Diospyros virginiana persimmon
4
1
3
3
2
2
1
1
1
3
3
1
4
2
1
1
Viburnum dentatum arrowwood viburnum
6
4
1
2
1
5
4
4
9
1
4
4
Stems/plot
21
17
15
16
16
15
24
18
16
24
24
23
22
20
17
22
Stems/acre
Average Stems/ Acre for Year 0 As -Built (Baseline Data)
t784
688
607
648
648
607
971
728
648
971
971
931
890
809
688
890
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96074)

APPENDIX D
As -Built Plan Sheets/Record Drawings

�1
VICINITY MAP
INDEX OF SHEETS
1 . . . . . . TITLE SHEET
1-A . . . . . . STREAM CONVENTIONAL SYMBOLS
GENERAL NOTES
STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS
VEGETATION SELECTION
1-13 ...... CONVENTIONAL SYMBOLS
2 - 2-E DETAILS
3-15 ...... AS -BUILT PLAN VIEW
16-20 ...... AS -BUILT PROFILES
.Iff"r PP
,--*pN1 CARoi;�
'%.
��OFES S
10
SEAL '
L-5034
059 9y0 S U0o�� *$;
�s'••......... �c, N
/,MARSHALL G. WIGHT, ASA DULY REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL
LAND SURVEYOR IN THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, HEREBY
CERTIFY THAT THE DATA SHOWN ON THIS DRAWING, WAS OBTAINED
UNDER MY SUPERVISION, IS AN ACCURATE AND COMPLETE
REPRESENTATION OF WHAT WAS CONSTRUCTED IN THE FIELD,
AND THAT THE PHYSICAL DIMENSIONS OR ELEVATIONS SHOWN
THUS ARE AS -BUILT CONDITIONS, EXCEPT WHERE OTHERWISE
NOTED HERON, WITNESS MY ORIGINAL SIGNATURE, REGISTRATION
NUMBER, AND SEAL THISa3 DAY OF 5j qo fp�b,&4 -,?,Ot°6
&0_1 W-4 _�' 1: 1 A f 7 � -_
PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVE R L-5034
1% WithersRavenel
Engineers I Planners I Surveyors
115 MacKenan Drive I Cary, NC 275111 t: 919.469.3340 1 license #: C-0832 I
ww Athersravenel.com
NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
WAKE COUNTY
LOCATION: 1.5 MILES SOUTHWEST OF THE COMMUNITY OF NEW HILL
TYPE OF WORK: AS - BUILT PLAN
STATE
BAKER PROJECT REFERENCE NO.
SHEET
NO.
TOTAL
SHEETS
NC
13574
1
27
NCDMS ID No. 96074
STREAM LENGTH SUMMARY PREPARED FOR THE OFFICE OF: PREPARED IN THE OFFICE OF: PROJECT ENGINEER
SCALESMichael Baker Engineering Inc.
20 0 20 40
i�" I m i wi
PLANS
20 0 20 40
PROFILE (HORIZONTAL)
4 0 4 8
PROFILE (VERTICAL)
REACH
NAME
AS -BUILT STREAM LENGTH LF
REACH
1
298
REACH
2
2,126
REACH
3
1,031
REACH
4
1,238
REACH
5
1,169
REACH
6
1,776
REACH
7
647
REACH
Tl
227
REACH
T2
157
TOTAL
8,669
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
Lzmj: Cary, NORTH CAROLINA 27518
Phone: [phone]
INTERNATIOFax: 919.
NAL License #4 F-10840
NCDEQ ®%%%mlll/f��
DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES®``�'"CA's®®®
1652 MAIL SERVICE CENTER JACOB M. BYERS PE:r SEAL
RALEIGH NC 27699-1652 PROJECT ENGINEER a;2039201
`®
40
LETTING DATE: �� • ��
SCOTT KING, LSS. PWS''fa,
PROJECT MANAGER
CONTACT: JEFF SCHAFFER ;/'t
PROJECT MANAGER L P.E.
S NAT .

M
N
N
C
Q
D2
Q
I
LO
c�
i
c
CL
Q
in
0
0
i
O
LL
L)
ro
E
0
STREAM uOVENTIONL SYMBOLS
SUPERCEDIES SHEET I -B
C ROCK J -HOOK
a= ROCK VANE / SILL
OUTLET PROTECTION
ROCK CROSS VANE
J
DOUBLE DROP ROCK CROSS VANE
6.0%
SINGLE WING DEFLECTOR
Betula nigra
DOUBLE WING DEFLECTOR
9.5%
FACW
6.60
TEMPORARY SILT CHECK
-0-
ROOT WAD
o
LOG J -HOOK
�®
a
GRADE CONTROL LOG J -HOOK
Quercus michauxii
LOG VANE
LOG WEIR
GRADE CONTROL LOG JAM
LOG CROSS VANE
\ / \ LOG STEP -POOL
Ool CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE
o�os
o BOULDER CLUSTER
c9 ` BOULDER REVETMENT
"0C9 ROCK STEP POOL
0 VERNAL POOL
O SAFETY FENCE
TF TAPE FENCE
FP 100 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN
cE CONSERVATION EASEMENT
----435---- EXISTING MAJOR CONTOUR
EXISTING MINOR CONTOUR
-------------- LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE
PROPERTY LINE
"NOTE: ALL ITEMS ABOVE MAY NOT BE USED ON THIS PROJECT
® FOOT BRIDGE
--� TEMPORARY STREAM CROSSING
PERMANENT FORD STREAM CROSSING
EM GM SLOPE DRAIN
TRANSPLANTED VEGETATION
TREE REMOVAL
TREE PROTECTION
DITCH PLUG/CHANNEL BLOCK
CHANNEL FILL
FZZZBRUSH MATTRESS
GEOLIFT WITH BRUSH TOE
1. THE CONTRACTOR IS REQUIRED TO INSTALL IN -STREAM STRUCTURES USING
A TRACK HOE WITH A HYDRAULIC THUMB OF SUFFICIENT SIZE TO PLACE
BOULDERS (3'x2'x2'), LOGS AND ROOTWADS.
2. WORK IS BEING PERFORMED AS AN ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION PLAN.
THE CONTRACTOR SHOULD MAKE ALL REASONABLE EFFORTS TO REDUCE
SEDIMENT LOSS AND MINIMIZE DISTURBANCE OF THE SITE WHILE
PERFORMING THE CONSTRUCTION WORK.
3. CONSTRUCTION IS SCHEDULED TO BEGIN SPRING OF 2015.
4. CONTRACTOR SHOULD CALL NORTH CAROLINA "ONE -CALL" BEFORE
EXCAVATION STARTS. (1-800-632-4949)
5. ENGINEER WILL FLAG TREES TO BE SAVED PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.
�10 111011 111
PROJECT REFERENCE NO
135794
PROJECT ENGINEER
I
I
I
C A R
�•�� SEAL 9l
I
039201
- � I
SHEET
I -A
,� SOB fi
DATE:
Michael Baker Engineering Inc.
Michael - 8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
Cary, NORTH CAROLINA 27518
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
IN T E R N A TI O N A L License #: F-1084
NCDMS ID No. 96074
NORTH CAROLINA
EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLANNING AND DESIGN MANUAL
MARCH 2009 (REV 20 13)
6.05 TREE PROTECTION
6.06 TEMPORARY GRAVEL CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE
•
CREST GAUGE
6.0%
FACW
Betula nigra
River Birch
9.5%
FACW
6.60
TEMPORARY SEDIMENT TRAP
-0-
FLOW GAUGE
Quercus pagoda
Cherrybark Oak
9.5%
FACW
Quercus michauxii
Swamp Chestnut Oak
6.62
TEMPORARY SILT FENCE
X
BAROMETRIC PRESSURE GAUGE
6.0%
6.63
TEMPORARY ROCK DAM
❑
VEG PLOT
FACW-
6.70
TEMPORARY STREAM CROSSING
I
01; � ; i � � I � � � � � @ Fal M) I @ 0 � WMI, - 911011 aff M(011 I
Proposed Bare -Root and Live Stake Species
Thomas Creek Restoration Project Stream Mitigation Plan - NCEEP Project No. 96074
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash
6.0%
FACW
Betula nigra
River Birch
9.5%
FACW
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tulip Poplar
9.5%
FAC
Quercus pagoda
Cherrybark Oak
9.5%
FACW
Quercus michauxii
Swamp Chestnut Oak
9.5%
FACW-
Diospyros virginiana
Persimmon
6.0%
FAC
Platanus occidentalis
American Svcamore
12.0%
FACW-
Carpinus caroliniana
American Hornbeam 14.3%
FAC
Viburnum dentatum
Arrowwood Viburnum 14.3%
FAC
Asimina triloba
Paw Paw 9.5%
FAC
RiparianLive Stake
Plantings
Salix nigra
Black Willow
10%
OBL
Sambucus canadensis
Elderberry
20%
FACW-
Salix sericea
Silky Willow
30%
OBL
Cornus amomum
Silky Dogwood
40%
FACW+
Proposed Permanent Seed Mixture
Thomas Creek Restoration Project Stream Mitigation Plan - NCEEP Project No. 96074
Andropogon gerardii
Big blue stem
10%
1.5
FAC
Dichanthelium clandestinum
Deer tongue
15%
1.5
FACW
Carex crinata
Fringed sedge
10%
2.25
FACW+
Elymus virginicus
Virginia wild rye
15%
1.5
FAC
Juncus effusus
Soft rush
10%
2.25
FACW+
Panicum virgatum
Switchgrass
15%
1.5
FAC+
Schizachyrium scoparium
Little blue stem
15%
0.75
FACU
Sorghastrum nutans
Indiangrass
10%
0.75
FACU
Total
100%
15

m
0
0
0
LL
L
ro
E
0
BOUNDARIES AND PROPERTY.-
State Line ---- -----
County Line --- ----
Township Line -- --
City Line -
Reservation Line
Property Line
Existing Iron Pin
Property Corner
Property Monument
Parcel/Sequence Number
Existing Fence Line -x
Proposed Woven Wire Fence
Proposed Chain Link Fence
Proposed Barbed Wire Fence
Existing Wetland Boundary - - -
Proposed Wetland Boundary
Existing Endangered Animal Boundary
Existing Endangered Plant Boundary
BUILDINGS AND OTHER CULTURE:
WLB — — — —
WLB
EAB
EPB
Gas Pump Vent or U/G Tank Cap
0
Utility Pole
S
Sign
-�-
W
W
Well
Small Mine
n n
Foundation
Q
Area Outline
Telephone Booth
Cemetery
t
Building
❑D
Abandoned According to Utility Records
School
End of Information
Church
UAG Telephone Cable Hand Hole
HYDROLOGY.•
Stream or Body of Water
Hydro, Pool or Reservoir F_
Jurisdictional Stream —is -
Buffer Zone 1 BZ 1
Buffer Zone 2 BZ 2
Flow Arrow -- ---
Disappearing Stream }--
Spring
Wetland
Proposed Lateral, Tail, Head Ditch
FLOW
False Sump
Sfi.\'I'ti; OF NORTH CAROLINA
DIVISION GP HIGHWAYS
CONVENTIONAL SYMBOLS
*S.U.E = SUBSURFACE UTILITY ENGINEER
RAILROADS. -
Standard Gauge
RR Signal Milepost
Switch
RR Abandoned
RR Dismantled
RIGHT OF WAY. -
Baseline Control Point
Existing Right of Way Marker
Existing Right of Way Line
Proposed Right of Way Line
Proposed Right of Way Line with
Iron Pin and Cap Marker
Proposed Right of Way Line with
Concrete or Granite Marker
Existing Control of Access
Proposed Control of Access
Existing Easement Line
Proposed Temporary Construction Easement -
Proposed Temporary Drainage Easement
Proposed Permanent Drainage Easement
Proposed Permanent Utility Easement
Proposed Temporary Utility Easement
Proposed Permanent Easement with
Iron Pin and Cap Marker
CSX TRANSPORTATION
0
MILEPOST 35
O
SWITCH
t
illm IMAM
ROADS AND RELATED FEATURES. -
Existing Edge of Pavement
Existing Curb
Proposed Slope Stakes Cut
Proposed Slope Stakes Fill
,Proposed Wheel Chair Ramp
Existing Metal Guardrail
Proposed Guardrail
Existing Cable Guiderail
Proposed Cable Guiderail
Equality Symbol
Pavement Removal
VEGETATION. -
Single Tree
Single Shrub
Hedge
Woods Line
Orchard
Vineyard
W
/c�,
�A�
E
—E—
TDE
PDE
PUE
TUE
93
--- C ---
--- F ---
EXISTING STRUCTURES.-
MAJOR:
TRUCTURES:MAJOR:
Bridge, Tunnel or Box Culvert
Bridge Wing Wall, Head Wall and End Wall -
MINOR:
Head and End Wall
Pipe Culvert
Footbridge
Drainage Box: Catch Basin, DI or JB
Paved Ditch Gutter
Storm Sewer Manhole
Storm Sewer
UTILITIES. -
POWER:
Existing Power Pole
Proposed Power Pole
Existing Joint Use Pole
Proposed Joint Use Pole
Power Manhole
Power Line Tower
Power Transformer
U/G Power Cable Hand Hole
H -Frame Pole
Recorded U/G Power Line
Designated U/G Power Line (S.U.E.*)
CONC r
CONC WW
CONC HW
>----------<
(3
S
HH
P
P
(ED
TELEPHONE:
Utility Pole
T T T
Existing Telephone Pole
-�-
T T T T
Proposed Telephone Pole
-o-
n n
Telephone Manhole
O
n n n n
Telephone Booth
AIG Tank; Water, Gas, Oil
Telephone Pedestal
❑D
Abandoned According to Utility Records
Telephone Cell Tower
End of Information
E.O.I.
UAG Telephone Cable Hand Hole
HH
3
Recorded U/G Telephone Cable
T
Designated U/G Telephone Cable (S.U.E.*) — -
- - -T- - - -
Recorded U/G Telephone Conduit
TC
Designated U/G Telephone Conduit (S.U.E.*j- -
- - —TO— - - -
Recorded U/G Fiber Optics Cable
T FO
Vineyard
Designated U/G Fiber Optics Cable (S.U.E.T -
- - -T FO— - -
WATER:
Water Manhole O
Water Meter o
Water Valve 0
Water Hydrant .0
Recorded U/G Water Line W
Designated U/G Water Line (S.U.E.* - - - —W____
Above
----
Above Ground Water Line A/G Water
1t
TV Satellite Dish C<
TV Pedestal 0
TV Tower 0
U/G TV Cable Hand Hole HH
Recorded U/G TV Cable TV
Designated U/G TV Cable (S.U.E.*) - - - —TV— - - -
Recorded U/G Fiber Optic Cable TV FO
Designated U/G Fiber Optic Cable (S.U.E. —TV FO— - -
GAS:
Gas Valve
Gas Meter
Recorded U/G Gas Line
Designated U/G Gas Line (S.U.E.*) - - - -G- - - -
Above Ground Gas Line A/G Gas
SANITARY SEWER:
Sanitary Sewer Manhole®0
Sanitary Sewer Cleanout 0
U/G Sanitary Sewer Line SS
Above Ground Sanitary Sewer A/G Sanitary Sewer
Recorded SS Forced Main Line FSS
Designated SS Forced Main Line (S.U.E.*) — - - - -FSS- - - -
MISCELLANEOUS:
Utility Pole
Utility Pole with Base
Utility Located Object
0
Utility Traffic Signal Box
❑s
Utility Unknown U/G Line
?UTL
U/G Tank; Water, Gas, Oil
AIG Tank; Water, Gas, Oil
U/G Test Hole (S.U.E.*)
Abandoned According to Utility Records
AATUR
End of Information
E.O.I.

m
N
C
N
i
U)
m
Q
Lp
c�
i
n
C
n
m
n
Q
i
C
01
0
O
L�
N
L
U
N
(6
E
0
r
oJ'
Nr-
-'-ILD
yo�]
Nj
\ o0
ROOT WADS
ROOT WADS WITHOUT TRANSPLANTS
USE IF TRANSPLANTS ARE NOT AVAILABLE ON-SITE
COIR FIBER MATTING
(SEE SPECIFICATIONS AND SHEET 2-A)
FLOOD PLAIN BERM (0.5' MAX. HT.) BERM(S) TOP OF BANK
7 NOT TO EXTEND BEYOND
LIMITS OF ROOT WADS.
10-15 FEET LONG
>10" DIAMETER -
FLOOD PLAIN
COVER LOG
(6"-8" DIA.)
ROOT WADS WITH TRANSPLANTS
USE IF TRANSPLANTS ARE AVAILABLE ON-SITE
TRANSPLANTS -
(SEE SHEET 2-A)
COVER LOG (6" - 8" DIA.)
TRANSPLANTS NOT TO
EXTEND BEYOND TRUNK
OF ROOT WADS.
LL STAGE
BASEFLOW
�o
TOP OF BANK
N
N
Wbkf
s�
Wbkf
R• 1
NOTES:
1. DURING CONSTRUCTION CORNERS OF DESIGN CHANNEL WILL BE ROUNDED
AND A THALWEG WILL BE SHAPED PER DIRECTION OF ENGINEER.
2. POOLS SHOWN ABOVE ARE LEFT POOLS FOR MEANDER CHANNELS.
THA
PLAN VIEW
DYER LOG
" - 8" DIA.)
DT WAD
NOTES:
1. INSTALLATION USING THE TRENCHING METHOD REQUIRES THAT A
TRENCH BE EXCAVATED FOR THE LOG PORTION OF THE ROOT WAD.
ONE-THIRD OF THE ROOT WAD SHOULD REMAIN BELOW NORMAL
BASE FLOW CONDITIONS OR CHANNEL BOTTOM.
2. THE NUMBER OF ROOTWADS ESTIMATED MAY VARY DEPENDING ON
THE ROOTMASS SIZE. IN GENERAL, ROOTWADS SHOULD PROTECT THE OUTER
MEANDER BEND AS SHOWN. SEE STRUCTURE TABLE FOR APPROXIMATE
STATION AND LOCATION.
3. INSTALL COVER LOGS BETWEEN ROOTWADS TO PROVIDE HABITAT
ONLY WHEN AVAILABLE FROM ON-SITE HARVESTING.
TYPICAL STRUCTURE PLACEMENT
STRUCTURE NOTES:
1. GENERALLY CONSTRUCTED RIFFLES, ROOT WADS,
LOG VANES AND COIR FIBER MATTING
WILL BE INSTALLED IN THE LOCATION
AND SEQUENCE AS SHOWN.
2. ANY CHANGES TO NUMBER OR LOCATION
OF STRUCTURES DURING CONSTRUCTION
MUST BE APPROVED BY THE DESIGN ENGINEER.
3. COIR FIBER MATTING TO BE INSTALLED ON
ALL RESTORED STREAMBANKS, FLOODPLAIN BENCHING,
AND TERRACE SLOPES AS DESCRIBED IN THE TECHNICAL
SPECIFICATIONS.
rl I1l� T 1 A I A 1•Y ['�
mommm
BAKER PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO.
135794 2
PROJECT ENGINEER
i
I
I
,,,,tit C1Al►►►I��,
�. =FES SIO
=
SEAL I 4/11ZVED BY:
039201
08 m
DATE:
I
i
i
Michael Baker Engineering Inca
8000 Ranancv Parkwav Rnife 600
518
.. .., ..... (Stt SHEE 12-U)
TYPICAL RIFFLE, POOL, AND BANKFULL BENCH CROSS-SECTIONS
(VARIES
?�7
2�
TOP OF TERRACE
Wbkf VARIES
ell -
D -Max
RIFFLE WITH BANKFULL BENCH
TOP OF TERRACE
VARIES Wbkf VARIES
R1 R2 -To R2 -Bottom
RIFFLE
POOL RIFFLE
POOL RIFFLE POOL
12.5
17.5 9.2
12.0 10.4 13.7
1.1
2.4 0.8
1.7 1.0 1.9
14.0
12.4 14.0
11.6 14.0 11.7
11.2
24.7 6.0
12.5 7.7 16.1
8.2
3.1 6.0
2.7 5.5 F' 3.3
R3
T1
R4
RIFFLE
R5
RIFFLE
RIFFLE
RIFFLE POOL
POOL
RIFFLE
7.0
POOL
RIFFLE
0.4
POOL
7.0
1.4
10.0
6.3
11.4
8.5
6.8
12.0 11.8
9.0
0.7
3.8
1.5
0.6
2.4
1.1
0.7
2.0
1.3
12.0
11.3
13.0
12.0
13.0
11.5
4.1
8.8
3.1
6.0
3.6
7.1
4.0
1.8
3.9
2.5
R6 / R7 *
T1
T2
RIFFLE
POOL
RIFFLE
POOL
RIFFLE POOL
4.6
6.7
7.0
( 9.0
3.5 6.0
0.4
1.0
0.7
1.4
0.4 0.8
14.0
11.4
13.0
10.5
12.0 11.8
1.5
4.0
3.8
7.7
1.0 3.0
2.4
1.2
4.4
2.0
2.0 1.6
USE 2.5:1 RIFFLE SIDE SLOPE
-d*VARIES-0- -4 Wbkf low -0 VARIES
7
Wb Wb
POOL WITH BANKFULL BENCH STEP - POOL
WIDTH OF BANKFULL (Wbkf)
MAXIMUM DEPTH (D -Max)
WIDTH TO DEPTH RATIO (Wbkf / D)
BANKFULL AREA (Abkf
BOTTOM WIDTH (Wb)
WIDTH OF BANKFULL (Wbkf)
MAXIMUM DEPTH (D -Max)
WIDTH TO DEPTH RATIO (Wbkf / D)
BANKFULL AREA (Abkf)
BOTTOM WIDTH (Wb)
WIDTH OF BANKFULL (Wbkf)
MAXIMUM DEPTH (D -Max)
WIDTH TO DEPTH RATIO (Wbkf 1 D)
BANKFULL AREA (Abkf)
BOTTOM WIDTH (Wb)

LIVE STAKING
Kin 1 IVC CTA VCO (1A1 r e-NIKIT DAM
7
Q
N
m
m
m
Q
r`
LD
M
i
cn
E
CL
i
m
co
Q
i
E
is
v,
0
z
0
LL
L
L)
V)
ro
E
0
6'-8' SPACING 2'-3' SPACING
LIVE STAKE SPACING PLAN VIEW
SQUARE CUT TO"
BUDS FACING UPWARD
LIVE CUTTING MIN. 1/2" DIA
2'- 3' LENGTH
ANGLE CUT 30 - 45 DEGREES'
LIVE STAKE DETAIL
NOTES:
1. STAKES SHOULD BE CUT AND INSTALLED ON THE SAME DAY.
2. DO NOT INSTALL STAKES THAT HAVE BEEN SPLIT.
3. STAKES MUST BE INSTALLED WITH BUDS POINTING UPWARDS.
4. STAKES SHOULD BE INSTALLED PERPENDICULAR TO BANK.
5. STAKES SHOULD BE 1/2 TO 2 INCHES IN DIAMETER AND 2 TO 3 FT LONG.
6. STAKES SHOULD BE INSTALLED LEAVING 1/5 OF STAKE ABOVE GROUND.
TRANSPLANTED VEGETATION
/,-- TRANSPLANTED VEGETATION, ROOTMASS, AND SOIL MATERIAL
CROSS SECTION VIEW
TRANSPLANTED VEGETATION AND ROOTMASS
li
it
it
-----------------------
/ - --- /
PLAN VIEW
ITERIAL
NOTES:
1. EXCAVATE A HOLE IN THE BANK TO BE STABILIZED THAT WILL
ACCOMMODATE THE SIZE OF TRANSPLANT TO BE PLACED.
BEGIN EXCAVATION AT THE TOE OF THE BANK.
2. EXCAVATE THE ENTIRE ROOT MASS AND AS MUCH ADDITIONAL
SOIL MATERIAL AS POSSIBLE. IF ENTIRE ROOT MASS CAN NOT
BE EXCAVATED AT ONCE, THE TRANSPLANT IS TOO LARGE AND
ANOTHER SHOULD BE SELECTED.
3. PLACE TRANSPLANT IN THE BANK TO BE STABILIZED SO THAT
VEGETATION IS ORIENTATED VERTICALLY.
4. FILL IN ANY HOLES AROUND THE TRANSPLANT AND COMPACT.
5. ANY LOOSE SOIL LEFT IN THE STREAM SHOULD BE REMOVED.
6. WHEN POSSIBLE, PLACE MULTIPLE TRANSPLANTS CLOSE
TOGETHER SUCH THAT THEY TOUCH.
TOP OF BANK
TOE OF BANK
LLj
cD
rn
_J
U_
Y
z
m
STONE BACKFILL
HEADER ROCK
FOOTER RO
PLANTING SPECIFICATIONS
PLANTINGS
CROSS SECTION VIEW OF BARE ROOT PLANTING
1/3
BOTTOM
WIDTH
OF
CHANNEL
TO
NOTES:
1. PLANT BARE ROOT SHRUBS AND TREES TO THE WIDTH OF THE
BUFFER/PLANTING ZONE AS SHOWN ON THE PLANS.
2. ALLOW FOR 6-10 FEET BETWEEN PLANTINGS, DEPENDING ON SIZE.
3. LOOSEN COMPACTED SOIL.
4. PLANT IN HOLES MADE BY A MATTOCK, DIBBLE, PLANTING BAR, OR
OTHER APPROVED MEANS.
5. PLANT IN HOLES DEEP AND WIDE ENOUGH TO ALLOW THE ROOTS
TO SPREAD OUT AND DOWN WITHOUT J -ROOTING.
6. KEEP ROOTS MOIST WHILE DISTRIBUTING OR WAITING TO PLANT
BY MEANS OF WET CANVAS, BURLAP, OR STRAW.
7. HEEL -IN PLANTS IN MOIST SOIL OR SAWDUST IF NOT PROMPTLY
PLANTED UPON ARRIVAL TO PROJECT SITE.
BAKER PROJECT REFERENCE NO.
135794
PROJECT ENGINEER
I
1
C A R pl '*+410
ice
SEAL �•' =
039201
it08 f� 'l gig v�,,,
SHEET NO.
2-A
DATE:
Michael Baker Engineering Inc.
Michael Bake 8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
Cary, NORTH CAROLINA 27518
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
1 N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L License #: F-1084
=L NCDMS ID No. 96074
ROCK VANE
STREAM BED ELEVATION
BANKFULL—
FLOW
FLOW —�
ooC
STONE BACKFILL—
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC—
NO GAPS BETWEEN ROCKS
4%TO7%SSE
HEADER ROCK
FOOTER ROCK
SCOUR POOL (EXCAVATED)
PROFILE VIEW
,SCOUR POOLi
SCOUR POOL (EXCAVATED)
PER DIRECTION OF ENGINEER
BOTTOM WIDTH
PLAN VIEW
NOTES FOR ALL VANE STRUCTURES:
1. INSTALL GEOTEXTILE FABRIC BEGINNING AT THE TOP OF THE HEADER ROCKS AND EXTEND
DOWNWARD TO THE DEPTH OF THE BOTTOM FOOTER ROCK, AND THEN UPSTREAM TO A
MINIMUM OF TEN FEET.
2. DIG A TRENCH BELOW THE BED FOR FOOTER ROCKS AND PLACE FILL ON UPSTREAM SIDE
OF VANE ARM, BETWEEN THE ARM AND STREAMBANK.
3. START AT BANK AND PLACE FOOTER ROCKS FIRST AND THEN HEADER (TOP) ROCK.
4. CONTINUE WITH STRUCTURE, FOLLOWING ANGLE AND SLOPE SPECIFICATIONS.
5. AN EXTRA ROCK CAN BE PLACED IN SCOUR POOL FOR HABITAT IMPROVEMENT.
6. USE HAND PLACED STONE TO FILL GAPS ON UPSTREAM SIDE OF HEADER AND FOOTER ROCKS.
7. AFTER ALL STONE BACKFILL HAS BEEN PLACED, FILL IN THE UPSTREAM SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE
WITH ON-SITE ALLUVIUM TO THE ELEVATION OF THE TOP OF THE HEADER ROCK.
8. START SLOPE AT 2/3 TO 1 TIMES THE BANKFULL STAGE.
STONE BACKFILL
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC
1, HEADER ROCK
STREAMBED
1'
1'-2'—►
10' MINIMUM ►
SECTION A - A
FOOTER ROCK

C
m
N
m
Q
LD
m
i
Tn
C
ro
i
m
cn
0
LL
L
L)
T)
fic
E
0
BAKER PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO.
LOG WEIR
LOG VANE
135794 1 2-B
PROJECT ENGINEER
i
BURIED
BELOW STT EAMBED
I
STONE BACKFILL CAR ��*
�•` ��� ... 0!/ �,
�. O . 'FS S I•� �� i
TRANSPLANTS(5D, TRANSPLANTS
0
SEAL !'• = I
= APP MED BY:
v� &j vU-P&Ovv vv _
�o0 Ooo oo pO'�O P6)c < 039201
�o =°0000°0000°0000 0°ooc �• i
0 0 foo° °o foo° oo c X10 �'••`.,'vG GIS • �'� i
(OD nQ0'9d oho °�8OC °�Rc •��9C . .••'
01
2/3
ADO o°Do�)0 0) o°P° � o°�o` DATE:
HEADER LOG O°000°000 o�OC
CHANNEL WIDTH
BANKFULL
I
�?�00000�00oP�oC>ac
1.5 X CHANNEL WIDTH
GEOTEXTILE Michael Baker Engineering Inc.
FOOTER LOG 8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
9 y y'
TOP OF STREAMBANK
1/3
\
BANKFULL
` A
FABRIC
Cary, NORTH CAROLINA 27518
Phone: [phone]
I Fax: [phone]
I SCOUR 1
6' MINIMUM I N T E R N A T1 O N A L License #: F-1084
POOL
FLOW
`---------- A- �
LOG WEIR
--
A ` 200-30°
SECTION A - A' NCDMS ID No. 96074
�-- ------------- _ ��
/,'/
I I STREAMBED
--- - ---------------------- ---
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC
\---'19C
5' A 5 OUR P�
HEADER LOG STONE BACKFILL
,EXPOOLTE/j �\\
i
PLAN VIEW
GEOTEXTILE.FABRIC
FOOTER LOG
ROOTWAD
O 5'
4' MINIMUM �
ROOTWAD
TRANSPLANTS
SECTION A -A'
LOGS BURIED IN
STREAMBANK
AT LEAST 5'
TOP OF STREAMBANK
FLOW
INVERT
PLAN VIEW
ELEVATION
STREAMBED
NOTES:
HEADER LOGNOTES:
1. LOGS SHOULD BE AT LEAST 10" IN DIAMETER, RELATIVELY STRAIGHT, HARDWOOD, AND RECENTLY HARVESTED. BOULDER
_ - - - 1. LOGS SHOULD BE AT LEAST 12 INCHES IN DIAMETER, RELATIVELY STRAIGHT,
- =
_ - FOOTER LOG HARDWOOD, AND RECENTLY HARVESTED.
2. BOULDERS MUST BE OF SUFFICIENT SIZE TO ANCHOR LOGS.
3. SOIL SHOULD BE COMPACTED WELL AROUND BURIED PORTIONS OF LOGS.
4 H THE HEADER LOG AND PLACED SO THAT IT LOCKS THE HEADER LOG
OOTWADS SHOULD BE PLACED BENEATH
2 ADDITIONAL LOG
GS >24 INCHES IN DIAMETER MAY BE USED ALONE WITHOUT AN AD
INTO THE BANK. SEE ROOTWAD DETAIL
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC SHOULD STILL BE USED TO SEAL AROUND LOG
3. PLACE FOOTER LOGS FIRST AND THEN HEADER (TOP) LOG. SET HEADER LOG
5. BOULDER SHOULD BE PLACED ON TOP OF HEADER LOG FOR ANCHORING.
6. GEOTEXTILE FABRIC SHOULD BE NAILED TO THE LOG BELOW THE BACKFILL.
FOOTER LOG
CROSS SECTION VIEW APPROXIMATLEY 3 INCHES ABOVE THE INVERT ELEVATION.
7. TRANSPLANTS CAN BE USED INSTEAD OF ROOTWADS, PER DIRECTION OF ENGINEER. HEADER LOG��%�
4. CUT A NOTCH IN THE HEADER LOG APPROXIMATLEY 50 PERCENT OF THE CHANNEL
BOTTOM WIDTH AND EXTENDING DOWN TO THE INVERT ELEVATION.
5. USE GEOTEXTILE FABRIC TO SEAL GAPS BETWEEN LOGS.
PROFILE VIEW
6. PLACE TRANSPLANTS FROM TOE OF STREAMBANK TO TOP OF STREAMBANK.
BARB WIRE FIELD FENCE
WOVEN WIRE FIELD FENCE
STEEL FRAME GATES
END POST BRACE POST
6 INCH DIAMETER BY 8 FOOT LONG 6 INCH DIAMETER BY 8 FOOT LONG
END POST BRACE POST
6 INCH DIAMETER BY 8 FOOT LONG 6 INCH DIAMETER BY 8 FOOT LONG
20' AND 10'
1
4"-� (SEE PLANS FOR SPECIFIC LENGTH)
STRAND
BARB WIRE BRACE WIRE
10 GAUGE WIRE APS OF
BARB WIRE (TYP.) 3 INCHES (TYP.)
9 GAUGE WIRE)
3 INCHES (TYP.)
X X X X X X X X X X X
X
W W W W
m 0 m0
Z Q Z
GRADUATED IN SIZE
GRADUATED IN SIZE
w j w
48 INCHES—X--X—X-X X X X X X X X FROM TOP TO BOTTOM
48 INCHES X X FROM TOP TO BOTTOM
cn
GETTING LARGER IN
GETTING LARGER IN
SIZE TOWARD THE TOP.
SIZE TOWARD THE TOP.
I I I I
x x x x x x x x x x x
x x
=
i+)
I 1
I I
NOTES:
X X X X X X X X X X X
GROUND LINE
X X
GROUND LINE
u
1. POST HEIGHT DIMENSION SHALL BE THE SAME
AS REQUIRED FOR THE ADJACENT FENCE.
VARIES
VARIES 10 GAUGE WIRE 12.5 GAUGE WIRE
2. CONSTRUCT AN END OR STRESS PANEL, AS
REQUIRED IN THE SPECIFICATION, ON EACH
24 INCHES
(TYP.)
/ y / / / / / / / V
/ i I / / / / / / i I 24 INCHES (TYP.)
SIDE OF GATE.
HINGES AND LOCKS SHALL BE INSTALLED
3. ASS SPECIFIED BY GATE MANUFACTURER.
/X
A
A A A
NOTE:
NOTE:
1. END POSTS SHALL BE INSTALLED AT A SPACING OF 10-15 FEET.
1. END POSTS SHALL BE INSTALLED AT A SPACING OF 8 FEET BETWEEN POSTS, NOT ON CENTER.
2. DUAL WOODEN POST TURN NEEDED IF CHANGE IN FENCE ANGLE IS >20 DEGREES.
3. LINE POSTS SPACED LESS THAN 16.5 FEET APART.

C
L)
CV
m
Q
Lo
i
cn
C
r6
C
i
m
Q
C
V '
0
0
i
0
1
N
0
L
cn
r6
E
O
BANKFULL
10" DIAMETER
OR GREATER
BANK
PROTECTION
SEE NOTE
10" DIAMETER
OR GREATER
,
BELOV
LEAVE GAPS (OPTIONAL) PER DIF
OF ENGINEER BETWEEN HEADER
NO GAPS BETWEEN FOOTER
HEADER
FOOTEI
n
' BURY INTO BED/BANK
1 5 FEET OR GREATER
A'
PLAN VIEW
BANK PROTECTION
SEE NOTE
A
�°sa��STRFAM
BURY INTO BED/BANK
5 FEET OR GREATER
NOTES:
LOG STEP POOL
TONE BACKFILL
PERMANENT FORD STREAM CROSSING
FLOW 1 FT MAX. Oo �o"C�0000
(D 0°
\� o� o
°�°° BERM 0
1
U>))11 3 3
GEOTEXTIE FABRIC
SECTION A - A'
BANKFULL ELEVATION CHANNEL INVERT BANKFULL ELEVATION
HEADER LOG
�7 2.0% CROSS SLOPE—►
FOOTER LOG
SECTION B - B'
1. LOGS WITHOUT ROOT MASS MAY BE USED IF APPROVED BY PROJECT ENGINEER.
2. FOR BANK PROTECTION, USE ROOT WADS, TOE WOOD, GEOLIFTS, TRANSPLANTS, OR BOULDERS.
3. SEE NOTES FOR LOG WEIR MINUS NOTCHING.
4. SOIL SHOULD BE COMPACTED WELL AROUND BURIED PORTIONS OF LOG.
GRADE CONTROL LOG J -HOOK VANE
PLAN VIEW
OTEXTILE FABRIC
ROOTWAD
L -U.:) DURIED IN
STREAMBANK AT LEAST 5'
STONE BACKFILL
FOOTER LOG_ �GEOTEXTILE FABRIC
SECTION A - A'
ROOTWAD
TOP OF STREAMBANK
FLOW
STREAMBED '
FOOTER LOG
HEADER LOG
PROFILE VIEW
NOTES:
1. LOGS SHOULD BE AT LEAST 10" IN DIAMETER, RELATIVELY STRAIGHT, HARDWOOD, AND RECENTLY HARVESTED.
2. SOIL SHOULD BE COMPACTED WELL AROUND BURIED PORTIONS OF LOG.
3. ROOTWADS SHOULD BE PLACED BENEATH THE HEADER LOG AND PLACED SO THAT IT LOCKS THE HEADER LOG
INTO THE BANK. SEE ROOTWAD DETAIL.
4. BOULDERS SHOULD BE PLACED ON TOP OF HEADER LOG FOR ACHORING.
6. TRANSPLANTS CAN BE USED INSTEAD OF ROOWADS, PER DIRECTION OF ENGINEER.
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC
6 INCHES THICK OF
CLASS B STONE (TYP.)
BAKER PROJECT REFERENCE NO.
135794
PROJECT ENGINEER
I
I
I
���`���� ....• 61/,y�i�
• �
SEAL
�9�
039201
z
SHEET NO.
2-C
141, ,019 M
STONE BACKFILL ���'��������
DATE:
i
I
° ° Michael Baker Engineering Inc.
°o ° BERM °° 8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
�° ' Cary, NORTH CAROLINA 27518
O o� 1 O°Oo Phone: [phone]
Do° _ O Fax: [phone]
°00 1 3 INTERNATIONAL License #: F-1084
o 3 NCDMS ID No. 96074
NOTES:
1. CONSTRUCT STREAM CROSSING WHEN FLOW IS LOW.
2. HAVE ALL NECESSARY MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT ON-SITE BEFORE WORK BEGINS.
3. MINIMIZE CLEARING AND EXCAVATION OF STREAMBANKS. DO NOT EXCAVATE CHANNEL
BOTTOM. COMPLETE ONE SIDE BEFORE STARTING ON THE OTHER SIDE.
4. INSTALL STREAM CROSSING AT RIGHT ANGLE TO THE FLOW.
5. GRADE SLOPES TO A 3:1 SLOPE. TRANSPLANT SOD FROM ORIGINAL STREAMBANK ONTO
SIDE SLOPES.
6. MAINTAIN CROSSING SO THAT RUNOFF IN THE CONSTRUCTION ROAD DOES NOT ENTER
EXISTING CHANNEL.
7. A STABILIZED PAD OF STONE BACKFILL, 6 INCHES THICK, LINED WITH GEOTEXTILE FABRIC.
SHALL BE USED OVER THE BERM AND ACCESS SLOPES.
8. WIDTH OF THE CROSSING SHALL BE SUFFICIENT TO ACCOMMODATE THE LARGEST VEHICLE
CROSSING THE CHANNEL.
9. CONTRACTOR SHALL DETERMINE AN APPROPRIATE RAMP ANGLE ACCORDING TO EQUIPMENT
UTILIZED,
BEGIN HEAD OF RIFFLE INVERT
ELEVATION. 'A"
TOP OF BANK
D
LARGER STONE MAY PROTRU
THROUGH STONE BACKFILL LAY
AT DIRECTION OF ENGINE
BEGIN TAIL OF RIFFLE I
ELEVATION AND S'
CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE WITH LARGE STONE BASE
PLAN VIEW
RGER STONE MAY BE PLACED
REDIRECT LOW FLOW AT
ZECTION OF ENGINEER
F4
TONE BACKFILL
EROSION CONTROL
MATTING
RIFFLE D -max
C)n _JOonn
TOE
STONE BACKFILL
BANKFULL
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC
L-14" NOMINAL THICKNESS OF
LARGE STONE BASE
SECTION B - B'
1/4 OF BEGIN HEAD OF RIFFLE INVERT
GLIDE ELEVATION AND STATION
LENGTH
STONE BACKFILL
GIDE
NOTES:
1. UNDERCUT CHANNEL BED ELEVATION AS NEEDED TO ALLOW FOR LAYERS OF 'O
STONE TO ACHIEVE FINAL GRADE.
2. INSTALL EROSION CONTROL MATTING ALONG COMPLETED BANKS SUCH THAT
THE EROSION CONTROL MATTING AT THE TOE OF THE BANK EXTENDS DOWN 14" NOMINAL THICKNESS OF
TO THE UNDERCUT ELEVATION. LARGE STONE BASE
3. INSTALL BASE LAYER OF LARGE STONE.
4. INSTALL STONE BACKFILL ON TOP OF BASE, COMPACTED TO GRADE.
5. FINAL CHANNEL BED SHAPE SHOULD BE ROUNDED, SMOOTH, AND CONCAVE,
WITH THE ELEVATION OF THE BED 0.2 FT DEEPER IN THE CENTER THAN AT
THE EDGES.
PROFILE A - A'
1/4 OF RUN LENGTH
BEGIN TAIL OF RIFFLE INVERT
ELEVATION AND STATION

m
N
N
N
m
m
Q
LD
m
i
co
c
i
m
co
Q
Lli
0
i
0
L
U
ro
E
0
0
A
LL
7 if
BEGIN INVERT ELEVATION
B'
GRADE CONTROL LOG JAM
STONE BACKFILL
A
HEADER LOG
PRIMARY LOGS
SECONDARY LOGS AND WOODY DEBRIS
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC �O �'
HEADER LOG H = 0.1 - 0.3
0 0 (UP
HEADER LOG
Q:�
®: �`:�:
SECONDARY - —.� �.:. ® �. (b� H = 0.1 - 0.3'
LOGS —�
5' OU
MINIMUM
�.
A'
��...
0. U
.
©:. a..: @ O STRFA
PRIMARY LOGS r. S :; MBED
SPACE EVERY 5' -T SANDY SOIL BACKFILL
SECTION A - A'
S MINIMUM
�—HEADER LOG GEOTEXTILE FABRIC
BANKFULL -1W
Lv,_
A'
END INVERT ELEVATION
PLAN VIEW
LOG POLE
(DRIVE POLE INTO GROUND
TO A MINIMUM DEPTH OF 6')
NOTES:
1. PRIMARY LOGS SHOULD BE AT LEAST 10" OR MORE IN DIAMETER, RELATIVELY STRAIGHT,
HARDWOOD PREFERRED, AND RECENTLY HARVESTED AND EXTENDING INTO THE BANK 5' ON EACH SIDE.
2. SECONDARY LOGS SHOULD BE AT LEAST 1" IN DIAMETER AND NO LARGER THAN 10", AND EXTEND INTO THE BANK 2 FEET ON EACH SIDE.
WOOD MATERIAL SHALL BE VARYING DIAMETER TO ALLOW MATERIAL TO BE COMPACTED.
3. VERTICAL POSTS SHOULD BE AT LEAST 10" IN DIAMETER AND SHOULD BE DRIVEN INTO THE GROUND
A MINIMUM OF 6'.
4. FILTER FABRIC SHOULD BE NAILED TO THE HEADER LOG BELOW THE BACKFILL.
5. ROOTWADS AND COIR FIBER MATTING CAN BE USED INSTEAD OF TRANSPLANTS OR LIVE STAKES, PER DIRECTION OF ENGINEER.
6. AFTER TRENCH HAS BEEN EXCAVATED A LAYER OF SECONDARY LOGS AND WOODY DEBRIS SHOULD BE PLACED WITH
MINIMAL GAPS. A LAYER OF ON-SITE ALLUVIUM SHOULD BE APPLIED TO FILL VOIDS BETWEEN SECONDARY LOGS
BEFORE ADDITIONAL LAYERS ARE PLACED.
STAKE TOP LAYER
OF MATTING IN 6" TRENCH
(SEE MATTING DETAIL)
GEOLIFT WITH BRUSH TOE
4' (TYP.)
FLOODPLAIN I I
UNDISTURBED
EARTH -
1.0' LIFT OF
COMPACTED
ON-SITE SOIL (TYP)
BRUSH CAN BE LIMBS, BRANCHES, ROOTS OR ANY OTHER
WOODY VEGETATION APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER.
NOTE:
1. LIVE BRANCH CUTTINGS SHALL BE THE SAME SPECIES AS THE LIVE STAKES
AND SHALL BE INSTALLED DURING VEGETATION DORMANCY.
2. LIVE BRANCH CUTTINGS SHALL BE INSTALLED AT A DENSITY OF 20-30 CUTTINGS
PER LINEAR FOOT AND A MAXIMUM DIAMETER OF 2.5 INCHES.
3. NUMBER OF SOIL LIFTS MAY VARY IN GENERAL LIFTS SHALL EXTEND TO THE
TOP OF BANK OR BANKFULL STAGL.
4. GEOLIFTS TO BE INSTALLED IN CHANNEL SECTIONS ALONG SIDE SLOPES STEEPER
THAN 2:1 AND/OR ADJACENT TO HILL SLOPES.
TOP OF BANK / BANKFULL STAGE
r-- TRANSPLANTS OR LIVE STAKES
5' MINIMUM
BURIED INTO
BANK
TERRACE LIMITS
5' MINIMUM
BURIED INTO
BANK
SECTION B - B'
VARIES
A'
_1:108.
12" NOMINAL THICKNESS
WELL GRADED MIXTURE
STONE BACKFILL
000 00 D 000
0
0°0 O o O0C
000 °� c go,
BANKFULL ELEVATION
HEADER LOG
FOOTER LOG
VARIES
\ \\ /
\ \
B
BERM
TERRACE LIMITS
EROSION CONTROL MATTING U 0 0 OO 0 1_11
ENCOMPASSES LIFT o O 20
DC)000
00°
o° o000
C QO00 ob 000LIVE BRANCH CUTTINGS (SEE C'
PLANTING PLAN OR SPECIES) O °000 0 0 0
00
n n r -.n (--\ n n BENCH LIMITS OR TOP OF CHANNEL BANK
h� UCS ring Un
WELL GRADED MIX OF CLASS B
AND CLASS A STONE CAN BE A
SUBSTITUTED FOR BRUSH MATERIAL
BASEFLOW
PLAN VIEW
FINISHED BED
ELEVATION
BRUSH TOE APPROX. 1 FT
BAKER PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO.
135794 1 2-D
PROJECT ENGINEER
i
I
CARoj "' i
eee �� • •
oES $ I0*;
:
e • f ,• I
SEAL i
i APPROVED BY:
039201 = i
�unu► i
DATE:
i
1
Michael Baker Engineering Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
Michael Cary, NORTH CAROLINA 27518
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
1 N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L License #: F-1084
NCDMS ID No. 96074
BENCH LIMITS
FOREBAY
(WHERE SHOWN ON PLAN VIEW)
SS
RE
12" NOMINAL THICKNESS
WELL GRADED MIXTURE
STONE BACKFILL
SECTION C—C'
3'
BELOW FINISHED F 12" NOMINAL THICKNESS
BED ELEVATION WELL GRADED MIXTURE 12" NOMINAL THICKNESS
STONE BACKFILL WELL GRADED MIXTURE
STONE BACKFILL
NOTES:
1. WHEN GEOLIFTS ARE BUILT ABOVE ROOTWAD CLUSTER, USE LARGE STONE BACKFILL BEHIND ROOT MASS TO BUILT FOUNDATION.
BERM
PROFILE A—A'
SECTION B—B'
110ju "I
1. WHERE NEEDED TO CONCENTRATE RUNOFF COMPACT BERM USING ON-SITE HEAVY EQUIPMENT IN 6 INCH LIFTS.
2. CONTINUE RIPRAP ACROSS BANKFULL BENCH TO STREAM CHANNEL BANK UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.
3. SLOPE DRAIN CHANNELS SHOULD BE 6' WIDE INLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.
4. SLOPE DRAINS SHALL BE USED WHEN CONCENTRATED FLOW (RILL) TIES IN TO EXCAVATED CHANNEL SLOPE.
EXPECTED LOCATIONS ARE SHOWN ON PLAN VIEW BUT OTHERS MAY EXIST.
5. IF FOREBAY INCLUDED ON PLAN VIEW, LINE WITH 12 INCH MIX OF STONE BACKFILL.
6. SIZE OUTSIDE DIMENSIONS OF FOREBAY APPROXIMATELY AS SHOWN ON PLAN VIEW.
N

CHANNEL BLOCK
DITCH PLUG
I—L/AIN VICVV
w
CV
S
(17
m
Q
i
6'
Ln
M
/
C
ro
CD
(n
Q
C
7
cn
N
O
O
LL
V
L
U
E
O
-C
Q9'1t
OC -1
Nl-
\LC )
l9C2
CV/
\ o=
�(z
BAKER PROJECT REFERENCE NO.
135794
PROJECT ENGINEER
1
I
I
C A
• FS d
SI .9 �••
pF
I
SEAL !•' =
039201 -
SHEET NO.
2-E
DATE:
I
I
Michael Baker Engineering Inc.
Michael Bake 8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
Cary, NORTH CAROLINA 27518
Phone: [phone]
Fax: 919.46
1 N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L L cense #: F310840
NCDMS ID No. 96074
NOTE:
COMPACT BACKFILL USING ON-SITE HEAVY EQUIPMENT
IN 10 INCH LIFTS.

cn
m
Q
Ln
i
(n
C
D_
i
U
v�
Q
i
C
m
(D
0
i
0
0
L
U
E
0
,... �:._. , .. ti !,a'a?�"�-a. ;,, :. k / yrs , .• \ *a ::. �. .t - � - «jtq
��-
'�.
y h
,
_ O
e
_w
1 i
a _
k l
11
4
w V G �� I
°F
BEGIN REACH 3 UPPER _ -- �—� 00 F
i«
STA. 10+00.00
-mow
- -_.LOG WEIR (TYP.
i
NOTES:
- LINE WORK SHOWN SHADED IS PRE -CONSTRUCTION SURVEY AND DESIGN.
- LINEWORK SHOWN IN BLACK IS AS -BUILT SURVEYED DATA.
/,MARSHALL G. WIGHT, ASA DULY REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL
,1111 1 1l11Ii
LAND SURVEYOR IN THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, HEREBY
•. A R p��
CER TIFY THA T THE I
A TA SHO WN
UNDER MYSUPERVISION, IS AN A OCURATE N THIS ANSWING, WA S OB TAINED
D COM COMPLETE
..........
w� �; 'otiE S S I0 *- ��
REPRESENTATION OF WHAT WAS CONSTRUCTED IN THE FIELD,
9'
l
AND THAT THE PHYSICAL DIMENSIONS OR ELEVATIONS SHOWN
• SEAL
=
THUS ARE AS -BUIL T CONDITIONS, EXCEPT WHERE OTHERWISE
L-5034
NOTED HERON, WITNESS MY ORIGINAL SIGNATURE, REGISTRATION
= •� 9 O��•
NUMBER, AND SEAL THIS .V�PAYOF (5e /0Ae tbleL `6
SO
PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYO L-5034
NO WithersRavenel
Engineers I Planners a Surveyors
115 MacKenan Drive I Cary, NC 275111 t: 919,469.3340 1 license t C-08321
_.withersravenel.com
,... �:._. , .. ti !,a'a?�"�-a. ;,, :. k / yrs , .• \ *a ::. �. .t - � - «jtq
��-
'�.
y h
,
_ O
e
_w
1 i
a _
k l
11
4
w V G �� I
°F
BEGIN REACH 3 UPPER _ -- �—� 00 F
i«
STA. 10+00.00
-mow
- -_.LOG WEIR (TYP.
i
NOTES:
- LINE WORK SHOWN SHADED IS PRE -CONSTRUCTION SURVEY AND DESIGN.
- LINEWORK SHOWN IN BLACK IS AS -BUILT SURVEYED DATA.

cn
a
N
N
V)
al
C�
L
U
E
d
L
Ota
CVLf�
fn--'
NOTES-
- LINE WORK SHOWN SHADED IS PRE -CONSTRUCTION SURVEY AND DESIGN.
- LINEWORK SHOWN IN BLACK IS AS -BUILT SURVEYED DATA.
,,�rrrrr �ARrry�i
SEAL '
r
L-5034 -
'� • :4 C
r jySr �� J UO V
,%11 11
I, MARSHALL & WIGHT, ASA DULYREGISTERED PROFESSIONAL
LAND SURVEYOR IN THE S TA TE OF NORTH CAROLINA, HEREBY
CERTIFY THAT THE DATA SHOWN ON THIS DRAWING, WAS OBTAINED
UNDER MY SUPERVISION, IS AN A CCURA TE AND COMPLETE
REPRESENTATION OF WHAT WAS CONSTRUCTED IN THE FIELD,
AND THAT THE PHYSICAL DIMENSIONS OR ELEVATIONS SHOWN
THUS ARE AS -BUILT CONDITIONS, EXCEPT WHERE OTHERWISE
NOTED HERON, WITNESS MY ORIGINAL SIGNATURE, REGISTRATION
NUMBER, AND SEAL THIS4,7AYOF 5epa+bw ' /
M k G1,11
PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR 4-504
1% WithersRavenel
Engineers I Planners I Surveyors
115 Ma d(emu Cletus 1 Cary, NG 27811 11 916 469.13401 limn 0, Ca822 1

NOTES:
- LINE WORK SHOWN
SHADED
IS PRE -CONSTRUCTION
SURVEY AND DESIGN.
- LINEWORK SHOWN
IN BLACK
IS AS -BUILT SURVEYED
DATA.
Ln
4
cr
Ir)
V)
c
c
cF,
AS—BUILT FENCING (TYP.)
AS—BUILT FENCING (TYP.)
%0 WithersRavenel
Engineers I Planner I Surveyors
115 MwX@ran DAvs I Gty, N6 2T511 11: 919469-3340 1 IMwnw N: C,08321
www,%*wKsrawnd.=m
MATCH LINE
SEE SHEET 6
BEGIN REACH T2
STA. 10+00.00
1, MARSHALL G. WIGHT, ASA DULY REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL
LAND SURVEYOR IN THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA. HEREBY
or !l
6.6Q ... A ��/ �I�
CERTIFY THAT THE DATA SHO WN ON THIS DRAWING, WAS OBTAINED
UNDER MY SUPERVISION, IS AN ACCURATE AND COMPLETE
.
�
REPRESENTATION OF WHAT WAS CONSTRUCTED IN THE FIELD,
q •�
AND THAT THE PHYSICAL DIMENSIONS OR ELEVATIONS SHOWN
' SEAL
THUS ARE AS -BUIL T CONDITIONS, EXCEPT WHERE OTHERWISE
L-5034
NOTED HERON, WITNESS MY ORIGINAL SIGNATURE, REGISTRATION
•� O�
�
NUMBER, AND SEAL TH/S�3, DAY OF S tp� � � 201116
4
S UO
'�y•L L ••G•�'•+
Aa��it/iifA
%0 WithersRavenel
Engineers I Planner I Surveyors
115 MwX@ran DAvs I Gty, N6 2T511 11: 919469-3340 1 IMwnw N: C,08321
www,%*wKsrawnd.=m
MATCH LINE
SEE SHEET 6
BEGIN REACH T2
STA. 10+00.00

BEGIN REACH T1
STA. 10+00. 00
AS -BUILT
FENCING (TYP.)
MATCH LINE
SEE SHE
E�
T 5
Q -
(n
0
V
L
L)
In
ra
E
0
to* C A R
..........
J�c
SEAL IS
AS -BUILT L-5034
S U�
THALWEG (TY.P:)._.......?,
.
4*
�141
/, MARSHALL G. WIGHT, ASA DULYREGISTERED PROFESSIONAL
LAND SURVEYOR IN THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, HEREBY
CERTIFY THAT THE DATA SHOWN ON THIS DRAWING, WAS OBTAINED
UNDER MYSUPERVISION, ISANACCURATEAND COMPLETE
REPRESENTATION OF WHAT WAS CONSTRUCTED IN THE FIELD,
AND THAT THE PHYSICAL DIMENSIONS OR ELEVATIONS SHOWN
THUS ARE AS -BUIL T CONDITIONS, EXCEPT WHERE OTHERWISE
NOTED HERON, WITNESS MY ORIGINAL SIGNATURE, REGISTRATION
NUMBER, AND SEAL TH/s,73DAYOF Z..0/0/
;!WithersRavenel
Engineers I Planners I Surveyors
115 MacKenan Drive I Cary, NC 27511 It 919.469.33401 license #: C-08321
www.wfthersravenelxom
i pZ U01 te'01
NOTES:
AS -BUILT
FENCING
- LINE WORK SHOWN SHADED IS PRE -CONSTRUCTION SURVEY AND DESIGN.
- LINEWORK SHOWN IN BLACK IS AS -BUILT SURVEYED DATA.

Qo
N
c\
cn
Q
�rn
V �
nn
W
V(�
nW
W
L
(__)
0
ro
E
O
9�3
/, MARSHALL G. WIGHT, ASA DULY REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL
��� I i l t1► LAND SURVEYOR IN THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, HEREBY
C A Rp ���i CERTIFY THAT THE DATA SHOWN ON THIS DRAWING, WAS OBTAINED
,�� �� .,•.•••.,, io UNDER MYSUPERVISION, ISANACCURATEAND COMPLETE
��� �; •pF�S S �� ;•9 �� REPRESENTATION OF WHAT WAS CONSTRUCTED IN THE FIELD,
;s AND THAT THE PHYSICAL DIMENSIONS OR ELEVATIONS SHOWN
• SEAL THUS AREAS -BUILT CONDITIONS, EXCEPT WHERE OTHERWISE
L-5034 NOTED HERON, WITNESS MY ORIGINALS NATURE, R GISTRATION
i ' l NUMBER, AND SEAL THIS 2J DAY OF ZWp
Lu
vlV�
t /
3
i
f
fl
�i
Z /
T
1
y
"
t
T
_
_
�I
t
Cb
x ToCCONS GT
_
M
s
-
-
TSP
_ w
ol
w a
v-
� _:.-� �'a .. �'^-�-,_ / ��, � � � / � \ )0 OC K �, `=` .! � _-.._ `� °- „ \ fib.. _.- . �-'- ----"• - � \� 4�t
,
R _
\
0
3l
i - A
_
_
_ � t
i�
_ v
it N
✓ � � � � _ :.-� � `y � � i - is ,�i,°t A
e
t
t,
,
AS -BUILT BENCH LIMITS (TYP.)
_
`.
AS -BUILT FENCING (TYP.)
--
.
3,
j
:
'i
NOTES:
- LINE WORK SHOWN SHADED IS PRE -CONSTRUCTION SURVEY AND DESIGN.
- LINEWORK SHOWN IN BLACK IS AS -BUILT SURVEYED DATA.

MAI un
V)
Q)
Q
r
0
nJ
a�
V)
In
>_
0
s
r
�t-
�Q,
ole
C\jLn
\C'7
AS -BUIL
FENCING (TYP
T
END REACH 2
BEGIN REACH
STA_ 42+00.93
END REACH 5 LOWER
STA. 39+90.61
C A R pI*,fo.
tssl
i
SEAL q� -
L-5034
S uw cam•,: �•`
1141
1, MARSHALL G. WIGHT, ASA DULY REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL
LAND SURVEYOR IN THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, HEREBY
CERTIFY THAT THE DATA SHOWN ON THIS DRAWING, WAS OBTAINED
UNDER MY SUPERVISION, IS AN ACCURATE AND COMPLETE
REPRESENTATION OF WHAT WAS CONSTRUCTED IN THE FIELD,
AND THAT THE PHYSICAL DIMENSIONS OR ELEVATIONS SHOWN
THUS ARE AS -BUIL T CONDITIONS, EXCEPT WHERE OTHERWISE
REGISTRATION
NUMBER, AND SEAL THIS DAY OF�tr,�
M 19dC 2e�9
PROkESSIONAL LAND SU VEYOR LS034
1% WithersRavenel
Engineers I Planners I Surveyors
115 Mo rl wl 01W. i Cary, NC 27511 It 919.4810.3340 1 L-'- a C.aa't. I
www Mthomiaveiml.mm
AS -BUILT FENCING
END REACH 1
44+9Y

m
c9
N
N
PD g3
NI
ESS10
SEAL
L-5034
Sulk
/,MARSHALL G. WIGHT, ASA DULY REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL
LAND SURVEYOR IN THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, HEREBY
CERTIFY THAT THE DATA SHOWN ON THIS DRAWING, WAS OBTAINED
UNDER MY SUPERVISION, IS AN ACCURATE AND COMPLETE
REPRESENTATION OF WHAT WAS CONSTRUCTED IN THE FIELD,
AND THAT THE PHYSICAL DIMENSIONS OR ELEVATIONS SHOWN
THUS ARE AS -BUILT CONDITIONS, EXCEPT WHERE OTHERWISE
NOTED HERON, WITNESS MY ORIGINAL SIGNATURE, REGISTRATION
NUMBER, AND SEAL THIS�DAY S �i�/Orn .� `�'
3
PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVE R L-5034
NOWithersRavenel
Engineers I Planners I Surveyors
115 MacKenan Drive I Cary, NC 27511 It: 919.469.3340 i license #: C-08321
www.wMersravenel.com
NOTES:
— LINE WORK SHOWN SHADED IS PRE—CONSTRUCTION SURVEY AND DESIGN.
— LINEWORK SHOWN IN BLACK IS AS—BUILT SURVEYED DATA.

m
Q
F
m
in
0
0
LL
-Z
L
E
0
Qog-
or1_
CVL(
\Im
01 BAKER PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO.
135794 10
/,MARSHALL G. WIGHT, ASA DULY REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL
LAND SURVEYOR IN THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, HEREBY
C A Rp� ��., CERTIFY THAT THE DATA SHOWN ON THIS DRAWING, WAS OBTAINED
8f� �� �� ,..•••••.• �� �j UNDER MY SUPERVISION, IS AN A CCURA TE AND COMPL ETE
�Q�oFES S I p� % �s� REPRESENTATION OF WHAT WAS CONSTRUCTED IN THE FIELD,
NPp i AND THAT THE PHYSICAL DIMENSIONS OR ELEVATIONS SHOWN
SEAL THUS AREAS -BUILT CONDITIONS, EXCEPT WHEREOTHERWISE
L-5034
NOTED HERON, WITNESS MY ORIGINAL SIGNATURE, REGISTRATION
i l NUMBER, AND SEAL THIS23DAY OF 5e
• y
,Q •..,•SUR•,.
4y
PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR irLL--5664<
WithersRavenel
t 1/ Engineers I Planners I Surveyors
115 MacKenan Drive I Cary, NC 27511 ( t: 919.469.3340 1 license #: C-0832
'ss;1 w vmithersraveneLcom
Michael Baker Engineering Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
Cary, NORTH CAROLINA 27518
-Michael Baker Phone: [phone]
iU I N T E R N A T 10 N A L cense # F-1084
o
F . NCDMS ID NO. 96074
N
M
CF'
--4\ VE G PLOT 1
Q- o)
� .e
Q)
� e
w
r _
1 g
_
N,
1
k
0 Ni
2
v _
ate'-
z
VEHICULAR AS FE I (TYP.)
U NGLT�� NC-�
CROSSING ONLY
z Y,
t
,
d' ��� END-���REACH 4 UPPER
�
,.
\ E 4 LOWER
�r
S TA . 10+41 2 3
a6.
00
P
_ G VAN
4
s-^
21.
�,
""�� RABaE�CONTRO
LOG- AAM (TYP.
:
441 s
- V s
270
STA. 9+95.25 o t `-
,
441
,
f
r-
r�
S
W
CONSTRUCT `
RIFFL 'QTY .
F
l —
30
AS -BU I LT THALWEG (TYP,) _
AS -BUILT TOP OF� BANK-(TYP.)
NOTES: AS -BUILT BENCH LI-M_ITS (TYP-)
- THOMAS CREEK
- LINE WORK SHOWN SHADED IS PRE -CONSTRUCTION SURVEY AND DESIGN. AS—BUILT PLAN VIEW
- LINEWORK SHOWN IN BLACK IS AS -BUILT SURVEYED DATA. REACH 4
20 10 0 20 40
SCALE (FT)

R
m
Q
I
LD
m
C
i-�
CP
()
Q
o�
CVLC�
3
NOTES:
- LINE WORK SHOWN SHADED IS PRE -CONSTRUCTION SURVEY AND DESIGN.
- LINEWORK SHOWN IN BLACK IS AS -BUILT SURVEYED DATA.
1, MARSHALL G. WIGHT, ASA DUL Y REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL
iq�
LAND SURVEYOR IN THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, HEREBY
C A R O`� ���
��
o
CERTIFY THAT THE DATA SHOWN ON THIS DRAWING, WAS OBTAINED
,, •.. ,
'OFFS S I0/ : 9 ���
UNDER MYSUPERVISION, IS ANACCURATE AND COMPLETE
REPRESENTATION OF WHAT WAS CONSTRUCTED IN THE FIELD,
!•'
AND THAT THE PHYSICAL DIMENSIONS OR ELEVATIONS SHOWN
SEAL
THUS ARE AS -BUILT CONDITIONS, EXCEPT WHERE OTHERWISE
L-5034
•'
NOTED HERON, WITNESS MY ORIGINAL SIGNATURE, REGISTRATION
NUMBER, AND SEAL THIS 23DAYOF5.rJ s/lh,�. 1'6
9 O��• "
�f�"
S
U'k
yq( L..G. �,,�•
PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR L-5034
;!WithersRavenel
Engineers ( Planners ( Surveyors
115 MacKenan Drive I Cary, NC 275111 t: 919.469.3340 1 license #: C-08321
www.withersravenel.com
R
m
Q
I
LD
m
C
i-�
CP
()
Q
o�
CVLC�
3
NOTES:
- LINE WORK SHOWN SHADED IS PRE -CONSTRUCTION SURVEY AND DESIGN.
- LINEWORK SHOWN IN BLACK IS AS -BUILT SURVEYED DATA.

N
O
LL
N
Q)
L
N
ro
E
0
_c
or,_
NLn
C A R Oj/♦♦♦
.oS 0'q
SEAL �•� •
L-5034
S URv�o���•`�
.,�4 ,' 4( i . G,
'Flejuu►►t`.
/,MARSHALL G. WIGHT, ASA DULY REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL
LAND SURVEYOR IN THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, HEREBY
CERTIFY THAT THE DATA SHOWN ON THIS DRAWING, WAS OBTAINED
UNDER MY SUPERVISION, IS AN ACCURATE AND COMPLETE
REPRESENTATION OF WHAT WAS CONSTRUCTED IN THE FIELD,
AND THAT THE PHYSICAL DIMENSIONS OR ELEVATIONS SHOWN
THUS ARE AS -BUIL T CONDITIONS, EXCEPT WHERE OTHERWISE
NOTED HERON, WITNESS MY ORIGINAL SIGNATURE, REGISTRATION
NUMBER, AND SEAL THISZ 3DAY OF 2,,0/6
�l
PROFESS! NAL LAND SURVEYOR L-6034
.2.1
100,WithersRavenel
NOTES:
- LINE WORK SHOWN SHADED IS PRE -CONSTRUCTION SURVEY AND DESIGN.
- LINEWORK SHOWN IN BLACK IS AS -BUILT SURVEYED DATA.

m
Q0
N
N
2.4+00
-... ,. mom'
-•� ... �:.... _, _ __ _.. - _ - - _." . Yom.... _ ._ ._ ....... ..-
m
Z
En
m
m
Q
4
6^
^``
'
I, O^
L
l J
(n
L
ro
n
m
cn
Q
NOTES:
- LINE WORK SHOWN SHADED IS PRE -CONSTRUCTION SURVEY AND DESIGN.
- LINEWORK SHOWN IN BLACK IS AS -BUILT SURVEYED DATA.
CV Lfl
,2
_
1 t i
s
x
r
�._
r ��
w
-/-N-DREACH 6 LOWER
UPPER
A. 28+02.07 -
- END REACH 7 LOWER
A
STA 16+46.78
CE
1
f
i
/
F
C
�l
r`
r
i
THOMAS CREEK
/, MARSHALL G. WIGHT, ASA DULY REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL
1111111/
LAND SURVEYOR IN THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, HEREBY
CA R p ���i
it N,�
CERTIFY THAT THE DATA SHOWN ON THIS DRAWING, WAS OBTAINED
,�� ......., •
'oF�CS S
UNDER MY SUPERVISION, IS AN ACCURATE AND COMPLETE
REPRESENTATION OF WHAT WAS CONSTRUCTED IN THE FIELD,
(}�•.•
;.
AND THAT THE PHYSICAL DIMENSIONS OR ELEVATIONS SHOWN
_ SEAL
THUS ARE AS -BUIL T CONDITIONS, EXCEPT WHERE OTHERWISE
L-5034
i ' l
NOTED HERON, WITNESS MY ORIGINAL SIGNATUR�E��, R�EG�-IS�TRATION
NUMBER, AND SEAL TH/
IS23DAYOF %/0 >` 0kbrc SO 16
S UR14 v
�(
�V1 ueG►i �,,,
rROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR -5034
WithersRavenel
I!
Engineers I Planners ( Surveyors
115 MacKenan Drive I Cary, NC 27511 It: 919.469.3340 1 license #: C-0832 I
w .withersravenel.com
- LINE WORK SHOWN SHADED IS PRE -CONSTRUCTION SURVEY AND DESIGN.
- LINEWORK SHOWN IN BLACK IS AS -BUILT SURVEYED DATA.
CV Lfl
,2
_
1 t i
s
x
r
�._
r ��
w
-/-N-DREACH 6 LOWER
UPPER
A. 28+02.07 -
- END REACH 7 LOWER
A
STA 16+46.78
CE
1
f
i
/
F
C
�l
r`
r
i
THOMAS CREEK

V)
a)
G
_Y
N
i.
U
N
0
E
0
s
I
_0-
NLn
cn0~
C A rrrr��i
Slp�;
'•4- SEAL �'•
r
i L-5034
su
Iw'%';14L � . "
,6av11610,
1, MARSHALL G. WIGHT, ASA DUL Y REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL
LAND SURVEYOR IN THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA. HERESY
CERTIFY THAT THE DATA SHOWN ON THIS DRAWING, WAS OSTAINED
UNDER MY SUPERVISION, IS AN ACCURATE AND COMPLETE
REPRESENTATION OF WHAT WAS CONSTRUCTED IN THE FIELD,
AND THAT THE PHYSICAL DIMENSIONS OR ELEVATIONS SHOWN
THUS AREAS -BUILT CONDITIONS, EXCEPT WHERE OTHERWISE
NOTED HERON, WITNESS MY ORIGINAL SI NATURE REGISTRATION`
NUMBER, AND SEAL THIS Z.3DAY OF &m to Gam. �G
PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR L
WithersRavenel
Engineers I Planners I Surveyors
115 MWKenan D,Ivo I Cary, NC 21511 It: DTD.489.394b I nvaii- Y. C atl32 1
wvnv w71Pm�aravanal ri:m
END REACH 5 UPPER \
NOTES:
r»-UuIL_
F L_i'mviivv
k 1 1 r- .
- LINE WORK SHOWN SHADED IS PRE -CONSTRUCTION SURVEY AND DESIGN.
- LINEWORK SHOWN IN BLACK IS AS -BUILT SURVEYED DATA.
P

r•.,
lzr
'La-
or-
�f
a
z
VEG
PLOT
15
BEGIN REACH 7 UPPER
STA. 10+00.00
C A R
+�
�•oFESSI0
SEAL� r
ra
L-5034
•:1
ft
S A
CE
ccil
IL
--- - l END REACH 7 UPPER
BEGIN REACH 7 LOWER
L MARSHALL G- WIGHT, ASA DULY REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL
LAND SURVEYOR IN THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, HEREBY
CER77FY THAT THE DATA SHOWN ON THIS DRAWING, WAS OBTAINED
UNDER MY SUPERVISION, IS AN ACCURATEAND COMPLETE
REPRESENTATION OF WHAT WAS CONSTRUCTED IN THE FIELD,
AND THAT THE PHYSICAL DIMENSIONS OR ELEVATIONS SHOWN
THUS AREAS -BUILT CONDITIONS, EXCEPT WHERE OTHERWISE
NOTED HERON, WITNESS MY ORIGINAL SIGNATURE, REGISTRA17ON
NUMBER, AND SEAL THIS Z>AYOF ,�eo-ac6� Z46
PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR L O34
1% WithersRavenel
Engineers I Planners I Surveyors
115 MecKenan Drive I Cary, NC 27511 It 915 469 3340 1 Iknnso a C -M12 1
www withemrevenel cnm
LOG WEIR (TYP.)
CONSTRUCTED
RIFFLE (TYP.)
NOTES:
STA, 13+60.00
ROCK STABILIZED SWALE
N
- LINE WORK SHOWN SHADED IS PRE -CONSTRUCTION SURVEY AND DESIGN.
- LINEWORK SHOWN IN BLACK IS AS -BUILT SURVEYED DATA.

l MARSHA LL . WIGHT,HT, PROFESSIONAL
'A ADULYR REGISTEREDNAL
LAND SURVEYOR THESTATEOFNORTH
BAKER PROJECT
CT REF ERE CE NO
SHEET
NO3,
a
IN
CAROLINA HEREBYREACH CERTIFY THAT THEDATA SHOWN ON THIS DRAWING WAS OBTAINED
155794
16c
UNDER MY SUPERVISION, IS ANACCURA TEAND
_
♦♦
.,
COMPLETE
REPRESENT WHAT
__.
.__,
_:
♦
AT/ON OF WAS CONSTRUCTED /N THE FIELD,
\
AND THAT THE PHYSICAL DIMENSIONS OR ELEVATIONS
ATIONS SHOWN
_. _.
-
. SEAL �
THUS AREAS-BUIL T CONDITIONS, EXCEPT WHERE OTHERWISE
' I
:.. _
.:I
NOTED HERON WITNESS.MYO' I ORIGINAL SIGNATURE RE REGISTRATIONL_5034i
,
NUMBER, A N M AND SEAL TH AYOF '
-
s O
. _. �.. -
.
9 S R
U
S A G
_
Af
milliPROFESSION
_
-
AL LAND SURVEYOR L 034;
Wt rs v nel
he Ra e
2 80
_
.
DESIGN
Engineers
.,
-
; ,
Planners Surveyors
BANKF L
.ria
-, ace nan Ca NC2 511 t' 9. 9 469 3 0. ' ns '
Ica a i. . 3
1]5 M. K Dray (. !y,.__. 7 i. __1.. .. 34._Lf #,_C-082
www. f rs avehel.com
4-
Mchael Baker EngineeringInc.
,�,,.... ... -
'
�Swte 600
Michael 8000 Re enc Parkway,
Car NORTH CAROLINA 7
2 518
F.
Phone: [phone]
Fax: 1 .46
a 9 9 3.5490
- v �
IN N _
I R A T I O N A L License F
e se #. 108
0
,
C S NO. 6 4
9 07
a
- _
-
-DESIGN
THALWE
_
AS -B LT T
Ua Ha 'WAG
L
�.,
:
-
260
-
,�
EXISTING,
GROUND260
10+00
11+00
12+00
13+00
14+00
15+00
80REACH
i-
280
DESIGN
BAN ULL _ _. � _
ISI G
GROUND �-
270
,
270
aw_ ,.
,
n.v
e
,
:c
260
r
260
:AS- LT THALWEG
-DESIGN
-
_THALWEG
250
-
50
15+00
16+00
17+00
18+00
19+00
20+00
2
-REACH
0
LL
-
-
EXISTING
I
DESIGN
27 0
_
-
GROUND
ANKF ,LL
270
M
-,
60
,gym yw
6
x
_
i
o
SI N:
DE G
-
;
LL
THALWEG,
,.
-
T -T
;AS -BU L THALWEG
I G
L
50
_
_
250
s .
-
;
o
_
OIC
-
C1_j Ln
\�a
��
21+00
22+00
23+00
24+00
25+00
26+00

C
LL
I
m
LD
m
m
0
0
LL
_Z
E
O
-C
i
c9
OIC
CVIS
-
REACH.2
x
11
'- "
MARSHALL G. WIGHT, A ADUwREGrSiEREDPROFESSl NAL
LAND SURVEYOR IN THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA HEREBY
BAKER PROJECT REFERENCE NO.
SHEET NO.
,
, R17
o
ER lFY THAT THE ATA H - tNN N THl D W N w A/ D
C T D S O O S RA l G, AS OBT NECA
1,35794
- _
-
-
-
♦6
SSI
UNDER MY UPERVISION ISANACCURATEANDCOMP LETE
'WAS
J
REPRESENTATIONOF'WHAT
CONSTRUCTED IN THE FIELD,
.
s
Q
AND THAT THE PHYSICAL DIMEN N R ELEVATIONS H
!l
SC SO SO N OSSWN O
Ja
. - SEAL
THUS AREAS BUILT CONDITIONS EXCEPT WHERE OTHERWISE
_
_.
--, --
- --- -:
L —5034
WITNESS MY SIGNATURE REGISTRATION
NOTED HERON Y
NUMBER, AND SEAL 3 DAYOF
27
i V
suw
:
H
. L G.
,f��,
UA*
_
PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR L-,,5634
r/r sRavenel
DESIGN.
.blithe
.-
ANKF LL
BU
Engineers Planners Surveyors
-
-
{
115 MacKenan Drive Ca NC 27512 t:: 919.469:3340 license H: C-0832
vnvw.ivithersravenel.coin
260
Michael Baker Engineering Inc.
9 9
enc
8000 Re Suite 600
Regency Parkway,
„_ ...
_...v.
-,
Michael —
Cary,NORTH CAROLINA 27518
, u,
hon 19.4 4
Phone: 63.5 8
F 4
ax. 919. 63.5490
_.
_
�
INTERNAT N
10 A L I_Ic n
i
CD ID
N MS NO. 6074
2 5 0
DESIGN
,
- -
'AS
250
-
G_
THALWEG
-
-BUILT
T ALWEG
—
— F
EXISTING
GROUND
27+00
28+00
29+00
30+00
31+00
27
:
REACH
2
:
270
EXISTING
S
GROUND
_ -
DESIGN .
260
- ,
u
260
ae_ ,
:
250
250
DESIGN'
_
THALWEG
_
_, ..
-
A _,.BUILT`THALWEG
S
31+00
32+00
33+00
34+00
35+00
36+00
,
REA. H
C
2
_
DESIGN.
BANKFULL
260
6
:
-
260
2 0
„ _
250
,
a _
.,�,_
fi.
DESIGN
- LT THALWE
AS BUI G
THALWEG
_
EXISTING
240
1
;- _
- -
_ GROUND
240
37+00
38+00
39+00
40+00
41+00
42+00

/,MARSHALL G. WIGHTASA DULY REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL
BAKER PROJECT C REFERENCE
NO.
SHEET NO.
k'EACHI,
,
11
♦ I
LAND SURVEYOR IN THE STATEOF NORTH CAROLINA, HEREBY
L E EBY
CERTIFY THAT THE DATA SHOWN WN N THIS RA
C O O S D WING, WAS OBTAINED
';
18
\
;,
♦ .,
._
UNDER MY . PERVf l N ( ANA A
U E SU S O S CCURATE AND COMPLETE-
♦ 'S S
•
REPRESENTATION OF WHAT WAS CONSTRUCTED IN THE FIELD
AND THAT THE PHYSICAL DIMENSIONS N OR AT(
S O S ELEVATIONS
Q
SEAL
O SHOWN
HSA AREAS-BUIL Dl
THUS REAS LT CONDITIONS, EXCEPT WHERE OTHERWISE
.
� +
E
NOTED HERON WITNESS MY ORIGI A SIGNATURE,
_
-, -
I
-. :
' +
, • - 503
. ,: .:
. l � +
O
-
N L URE, REGISTRATION
�t3 ,/
-NUM ER AND L THIS Y
B EA DA OF
d
260
_
S R
L
rt
4, ,
PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR L 503
_
WithersRavenel
-
En ineers I Planners I Surveyors
_.+ ... -. ,.. _ ... .. .:.,. -
115 MacKenan Drive Ca NC 27511 t: 919.469.3340 license #,"C-0832 -
I N I se.
vnvw:withersravenel.com
DES I N
ANKF
L
Michael Baker Engineering in rin
eeInc.
_
Michael Bake
e encY Parkway, kwaY, Suite 600
s' :
Car NORTH CAROLINA 27518
,
YPhone:
919.463.5488
Fax: [phone]
TERNA 1
N T O N A L License* F 1
a 084
H
;FF _
-
D
N MS ID
NO. 96074
240
I
240DESIGN
THALWEG
_
— AS—BUILT THALWEG
43+00
44+00
45+00
R A HA
t.
i
_
DESIGN
BA NKFULL
270
;
27 0
r
l _
f
x
60
>
260
EXISTING _
_AS-BUILT_THALWEG'
R ND
D ESIGN
„-
THALWEG.
2 50
_ _
250
10+00
11+00
12+00
13+00
R EA H 6
C
co0
>
:
:
:
:
r
_
DTE
m
BANU
;KF LLCr
300
=
_
_
30
Ln
,
ti
,
t
,
_.
290
�..�
29 0
LL
EXISTING
;GROUND
.— �
—
1 N
DES G
,
E
THALWEG
_3
AS-BUILTTHAL EG :
s
280
280
i , :
N S7
�
10+00
11+00
12+00
13+00
13+00
13+00

APPENDIX E
Photo Log

Reach 3, view upstream, Station 11+75
Reach 3, view upstream, Station 15+75
Reach 3, view downstream at pipe crossing, Station 18+50
'rt
Reach 3, view downstream, Station 11+75
Reach 3, view downstream, Station 16+25
Reach 3, stream crossing, Station 18+80
f
p
k f
�55G
Ste r
f (r %� 'hx��x.';�•'�,5.� <
Reach 3, stream crossing, Station 18+80

Reach 3, Station 19+00
Reach 4, view upstream at Station 2+50
Reach 4, view upstream at Station 5+90
Reach 4, view downstream at Station 5+90
Reach 4, view upstream at Station 10+10
Reach 4, view upstream at Station 10+50

Reach 4,view upstream at Station 11+75
Reach 4, view downstream at Station 12+25
Reach 4, view upstream at Station 13+00
Reach 2, Flow Gauge #1 at Station 20+75
Reach 2, view upstream at Station 20+60
Reach 2, view of stabilized drainage on left bank
at Station 20+80

Reach 2, view upstream at Station 22+00
Reach 2, view upstream at Station 25+25
Reach 2, view upstream at Station 23+00
Reach 2, view downstream at Station 25+50
Reach 2, view of crossing at Station 27+75
Reach 2, view downstream at Station 30+20

a X'
Reach T1, view upstream at Station 11+75
mo
y
... t'.rtt
Reach 2, view of drainage on left bank at Station 32+90
Reach 2, view downstream at Station 33+25
tom_^
Reach 2, view downstream at Station 36+90
Reach 2, view downstream at Station 34+30
Reach 2, view upstream at Station 38+25

Reach 2, Crest Gauge at Station 38+75
Reach 2, view upstream at Station 41+50
Reach 1, view downstream at Station 43+25
Reach 2, view downstream at Station 39+40
Reach 1, view upstream at Station 42+75
Reach 1, view of drainage on left bank at Station 44+00

Reach 6, view upstream at Station 11+00
Reach 6, view upstream at Station 15+25
Reach 6, view upstream at Station 12+00
Reach 6, view upstream at Station 18+90
Reach 6, view upstream at Station 25+50
Reach 7, view upstream at Station 10+40

Reach 7, view of stabilized drainage at Station 13+50
Reach 7, view upstream at Station 15+00
Reach 5, view upstream at Station 30+25
Reach 5, view downstream at Station 30+75
Reach 5, view downstream at Station 31+40
Reach 5, view downstream at Station 32+50

Reach 5, view upstream at Station 33+10
Reach 5, view downstream at Station 33+75
Reach 5, Flow Gauge #2 at Station 33+90
Reach 5, Rock Crossing at Station 35+00
Reach 5, view upstream at Station 36+40
Reach 5, view upstream at Station 36+75

Reach 5, view downstream at Station 37+30 Reach 5, view upstream at Station 38+50
Reach 5, view upstream at Station 39+90
(the confluence of R5 and R2)
� 1
m sa✓
1
�
k
�.r
y
1
Reach 5, view downstream at Station 37+30 Reach 5, view upstream at Station 38+50
Reach 5, view upstream at Station 39+90
(the confluence of R5 and R2)