20141259 Ver 1_Year 0 Monitoring Report_2016_20170119

0KI
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report
Town Creek Restoration Project — Option B
Stanly County, North Carolina
DMS Project ID No. 95026; NCDEQ Contract No. 003990
SAW -2014-00016; DWR#14-1259 V2
Yadkin Pee -Dee River Basin: 03040105060040
Prepared for:
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1652
Data Collection Period — February — June 2016
Submission Date — November 2016
[%,
[ This document was printed using 100% recycled paper.

Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report
Town Creek Restoration Project — Option B
Stanly County, North Carolina
DMS Project ID No. 95026; NCDEQ Contract No. 003990
SAW -2014-00016; DWR#14-1259 V2
Yadkin Pee -Dee River Basin: 03040105060-040
Prepared for:
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services (DMS)
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
Prepared by:
I N T E R N AT 1 0 N A L
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
9716-B Rea Road #56
Charlotte, NC 28277
NC Engineering License: F-1084
Data Collection Period — February - June 2016
Submission Date — November 2016

TABLE OF CONTENTS
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
SITE DIRECTIONS...........................................................................................................................................
2-1
2.3
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 1 Restoration....................................................................................................................................
3-1
3.2.2
Reach 2 Enhancement Level I.....................................................................................................................
3-1
3.2.3
Reach 3 Restoration....................................................................................................................................
3-2
3.2.4
Reach 4 Enhancement Level I.....................................................................................................................
3-2
3.2.5
Reach 5 Restoration....................................................................................................................................
3-3
3.3
PROJECT HISTORY, CONTACTS, AND ATTRIBUTE DATA..............................................................................
3-3
3.3.1
Construction Summary...............................................................................................................................
3-3
4.0 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS..................................................................
4-1
5.0 MONITORING PLAN AND SUCCESS CRITERIA ..................................
5-1
5.1
STREAM MONITORING...................................................................................................................................
5-1
5.1.1
BankAll Events and Flooding Functions....................................................................................................
5-1
5.1.2
Flow Documentation...................................................................................................................................
5-1
5.1.3
Cross-sections.............................................................................................................................................5-2
5.1.4
Pattern........................................................................................................................................................
5-2
5.1.5
Longitudinal Profile....................................................................................................................................
5-2
5.1.6
Bed Material Analysis.................................................................................................................................
5-2
5.1.7
Visual Assessment.......................................................................................................................................
5-3
5.2
VEGETATION MONITORING...........................................................................................................................
5-3
5.3
WETLAND MONITORING................................................................................................................................
5-4
5.4
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT MONITORING...............................................................................................
5-4
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 11/15/2016
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT -OPTION B (DMS PROJECT NO. 95026)

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 Planted and Total Stem Counts (Species by Plot with Annual Means)
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Vicinity Map
Figure 2 Mitigation Summary Map
Figure 3 Reference Site Locations Map
Figure 4-4b Current Conditions Plan View Maps
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix
A
Figures 1 — 4b, Tables 1 - 4
Appendix
B
Morphological Summary Data (Tables 5 and 6), Pebble Count Sheets, Survey Data
Sheets
Appendix
C
Vegetation Summary Data (Table 7 and 8)
Appendix
D
As -Built Plan Sheets/Record Drawings
Appendix
E
Photo Log
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE IV 11/15/2016
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B (DMS PROJECT NO. 95026)

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc., (Baker) restored 2,785 linear feet (LF) and enhanced approximately 943 LF
of jurisdictional stream along an unnamed tributary (UT) that flows into Town Creek. Baker also planted native
riparian species within the 11.97 acre (AC) recorded conservation easement along the restored and enhanced
reaches (Reaches 1 — 5). The Town Creek Restoration Project — Option B (Site) is located in Stanly County,
approximately 1.5 miles west of the Town of New London, within cataloging unit 03040105 of the Yadkin Pee -
Dee River Basin. The Project is located in a North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS) -
Targeted Local Watershed (HUC 03040105060-040), and involved stream restoration and enhancement along
a UT to Town Creek, which had been impaired due to historical pasture conversion and active cattle grazing.
See Figure 1.
Based on both the River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP) document for the Lower Yadkin — Pee Dee River
Basin (NCEEP, 2009) and the Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basinwide Water Quality Plan (NCDENR, 2008), many
streams in the Rocky River Watershed (03040105) are documented as impaired or impacted due to habitat
degradation. Stressors identified in the plan include impervious surfaces, sedimentation and erosion from
construction, general agriculture, and other land disturbing activities. As stated in the Yadkin -Pee Dee River
Basinwide Water Quality Plan, the project watershed naturally consists of erodible soils; therefore, increasing
the system's vulnerability to the aforementioned stressors.
The primary goals of the project are as follows:
Improve aquatic and terrestrial habitat through the increase of dissolved oxygen concentrations,
reduction of nutrient and sediment loads, improvement of substrate and in -stream cover, reduction of
stream bank erosion, and reduction of in -stream water temperature,
Create geomorphically stable conditions along the channels,
Enhance hydrologic connections between streams and the degraded riparian buffer and overall
ecosystem functionality;
Restore and protect riparian buffer functions and corridor habitat in perpetuity by establishing a
permanent conservation easement.
Improve terrestrial habitat and reduce sediment and nutrient loading to the project reaches and the Little
Long Creek Watershed.
To accomplish these goals, the project pursued the following objectives:
Restore existing incised, eroding, and channelized streams by creating a stable stream channel with
access to its floodplain,
Improve in -stream habitat by providing a more diverse bedform with riffles and pools, creating deeper
pools and areas of water re -aeration, and reducing bank erosion,
Prevent cattle from accessing the project boundary by installing permanent fencing and thus reduce
excessive bank erosion and undesired nutrient inputs,
Plant native species riparian buffer vegetation along stream bank and floodplain areas, protected by a
permanent conservation easement, to increase stormwater runoff filtering capacity, improve bank
stability, and shade the stream to decrease water temperature,
Control invasive species vegetation within the project area and, if necessary, continue treatments during
the monitoring period.
This report documents the completion of the restoration construction activities and presents as -built monitoring
data for the post -construction monitoring period. Table 1 summarizes the project components and mitigation
credit assets and is located in Appendix A.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 1-1 11/15/2016
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B (DMS PROJECT NO. 95026)

2.0 PROJECT GOALS, BACKGROUND AND ATTRIBUTES
2.1 Project Location and Description
The Site is located in Stanly County, NC, approximately 1.5 miles west of the Town of New London, as
shown on the Vicinity Map (Figure 1). The project is located within the Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basin and
the NCDMS - Targeted Local Watershed (HUC 03040105060-040). The project is located in the Piedmont
physiographic region within the Carolina Slate Belt and includes an Unnamed Tributary (UT) that flows
directly into Town Creek just downstream of the project's extent. The project channel was divided into
five reaches (Reach 1, Reach 2, Reach 3, Reach 4, and Reach 5) as shown in Figure 2.
The United States Geologic Survey (USGS) topographic quadrangle maps (Richfield and New London)
depict the stream channel (Reach 1 — Reach 5) as a dashed blue -line stream, along its entire length within
the project limits. Preliminary on-site field investigations determined that 654 LF of the project channel
(which included all of R1 and 291 LF of R2) was classified as an intermittent, while the remaining 3,444
LF of the channel (428 LF of R2 through R5) was classified as perennial. On-site field investigations were
confirmed during an on-site jurisdictional determination field review with the United States Army Corps
of Engineers (USACE). The jurisdictional determination was approved on January 2, 2014.
2.2 Site Directions
To access the Site from Raleigh, take I-40 West toward Sanford/Wake Forest. Take Exit 293 (1-440/US-
64 W/US-1) toward Sanford/Wake Forest. Keep left at the fork toward US -1 S/US-64 W. Take Exit 293A
for US -1 S/US-64 W toward Sanford/Asheboro. Keep left at the fork toward US -1 S/US-64 W. Continue
on US -1 S/US-64 W towards Apex/Sanford/Asheboro. Take exit 98B to merge onto US -64 W towards
Pittsboro/Asheboro. After 62 miles, turn left onto Connector Rd. Turn right onto NC 49 S. After 28.4
miles, take a slight left onto N Main St. After 1.1 miles, turn left onto Old Salisbury Rd. Follow Old
Salisbury Rd. for approximately 2.0 miles to its intersection with Misenheimer Rd. / Steakhouse Rd. Go
through the intersection and continue on Old Salisbury Rd. for approximately 0.4 miles and the Project
site is on the left accessed via a paved driveway.
2,3 Project Goals and Objectives
The primary goals of the project are to improve aquatic habitat degradation by improving ecologic
functions and reducing non -points source loads from agricultural run-off to the impaired areas as described
in the Lower Yadkin — Pee Dee RBRP and as identified below:
Improve aquatic and terrestrial habitat through the increase of dissolved oxygen concentrations,
reduction of nutrient and sediment loads, improvement of substrate and in -stream cover, reduction of
stream bank erosion, and reduction of in -stream water temperature,
Create geomorphically stable conditions along the channels,
Enhance hydrologic connections between streams and the degraded riparian buffer and overall
ecosystem functionality;
Restore and protect riparian buffer functions and corridor habitat in perpetuity by establishing a
permanent conservation easement.
Improve terrestrial habitat and reduce sediment and nutrient loading to the project reaches and the Little
Long Creek Watershed.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2-1 11/15/2016
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT -OPTION B (DMS PROJECT NO. 95026)

To accomplish these goals, the project incorporated the following objectives:
Restore existing incised, eroding, and channelized streams by creating a stable stream channel with
access to its floodplain.
Improve in -stream habitat by providing a more diverse bedform with riffles and pools, creating deeper
pools and areas of water re -aeration, and reducing bank erosion.
Prevent cattle from accessing the project boundary by installing permanent fencing and thus reduce
excessive bank erosion and undesired nutrient inputs.
Plant native species riparian buffer vegetation along stream bank and floodplain areas, protected by a
permanent conservation easement, to increase stormwater runoff filtering capacity, improve bank
stability, and shade the stream to decrease water temperature.
Control invasive species vegetation within the project area and, if necessary, continue treatments during
the monitoring period.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2-2 11/15/2016
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT -OPTION B (DMS PROJECT NO. 95026)

3.0 PROJECT STRUCTURE, RESTORATION TYPE AND APPROACH
3,1 Project Components
The project area consists of the restoration and enhancement of a UT to Town Creek. The project is located
in the Carolina Slate Belt Level IV Ecoregion of the Piedmont physiographic region. For assessment and
design purposes, the project channel was divided into five individual reaches (Reach 1, Reach 2, Reach 3,
Reach 4, and Reach 5). A riparian buffer of native species vegetation was established and/or protected at
least 50 feet from the top of both bank along all entire project length. Lastly, cattle were excluded along
all project reaches and existing riparian wetlands located within the conservation easement with the
installation of permanent fencing. The reach designations have remained in the same order to be consistent
throughout the document. No wetland credit is being sought for inclusion of the riparian wetlands within
the conservation easement boundary.
3.2 Restoration Approach
Based on the post -construction as -built survey, the project consisted of 317 LF of Restoration on Reach 1,
711 LF of Enhancement I on Reach 2, 1,621 LF of Restoration on Reach 3, 232 LF of Enhancement I on
Reach 4, and 822 LF of Restoration on Reach 5. A recorded conservation easement consisting of 11.97
acres protects and preserves all stream reaches, existing wetland areas, and riparian buffers in perpetuity.
The vegetative components of this project include stream bank, floodplain, and transitional upland planting
and is described as the riparian buffer zone. The Site was planted with native riparian buffer species as
shown in Table 7 and Table 8 (Appendix C) and is protected within the permanent conservation easement.
Table 1 and Figure 2 (Appendix A) provide a summary of the project components.
3.2.1 Reach 1 Restoration
A restoration approach began on Reach 1 at the property boundary. A series of boulder steps were
implemented to stabilize a head cut at the property boundary and allow for a stable transition into the
restored channel. The upstream 105 LF of Reach 1 was realigned to fall along the center of the valley
and bankfull benches were excavated to provide floodplain connections and to restore stream functions.
The newly formed channel reconnects with the existing channel alignment at Station 11+38.
The remainder of the reach was constructed mostly on-line along the existing valley bottom as a Rosgen
B stream type. In -stream structures included constructed riffles for grade control and aquatic habitat
improvement, grade control j -hook vanes, rock step structures for stream bed/bank stability, and habitat
diversity.
The existing, abandoned channel was filled along its length using material excavated during
construction for the restored channel. A second modification to the existing channel alignment was
made near the end of R1 where a large bedrock outcrop was promoting lateral instability by diverting
flows around the feature. Therefore, the channel was moved off-line to allow for the bedrock outcrop
to function as bank stability and a habitat feature.
Riparian buffers in excess of 50 feet were restored along all of Reach 1 and permanent fencing was
installed to exclude livestock from entering the restored stream or buffer area. The buffer was planted
with a diverse mix of woody and herbaceous vegetation to reestablish a native plant community.
3.2.2 Reach 2 Enhancement Level I
Work on Reach 2 involved a Level I Enhancement approach for the entire reach and included the
implementation of streambank stabilization measures and in -stream structures to enhance bedform
morphology, provide improved connection to the floodplain, and stabilize the reach profile. In -stream
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 3-1 11/15/2016
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B (DMS PROJECT NO. 95026)

structures included the use of constructed riffles for grade control and aquatic habitat improvement,
grade control j -hook vanes, rock step structures for stream bed/bank stability, and habitat diversity.
Riparian buffers in excess of 50 feet were restored along all of Reach 2 and permanent fencing was
installed to exclude livestock from entering the restored stream or buffer area. This buffer was planted
with a diverse mix of woody and herbaceous vegetation to reestablish a native plant community. Along
this reach, a jurisdictional wetland area that may have historically been used as a livestock -watering
pond has been preserved within the buffer. To enhance the hydrology of this wetland, the existing berm
between the wetland and the channel was lowered to improve hydrologic connectivity between the
channel and the riparian wetland.
This reach terminates as Station 20+61 where a 48 -inch culverted stream crossing was installed to allow
for livestock and farm equipment to cross the channel. Originally, the project was designed to exclude
the entire crossing area from the easement; however, after initial installation of the crossing it was
determined that the upstream face of the crossing embankment was too steep. Therefore, an additional
eight feet was added to the upstream face of the culverted crossing, which extended the crossing into
the easement by 6 feet.
3.2.3 Reach 3 Restoration
Reach 3 begins immediately downstream of the easement crossing. Due to varying existing bank height
ratios (BHR) that ranged from 1.0 to greater than 2.0 throughout this reach, a restoration approach was
implemented in order to fully restore stream functions and floodplain connectivity.
Channel banks were graded to stabilize slopes, appropriate bankfull geometry was established
throughout the reach. Bankfull benches were incorporated as needed to further promote stability and
re-establish floodplain connection. The channel pattern throughout this reach meanders throughout the
floodplain within the valley walls and incorporates a variety of bank stabilization measures and high
quality habitat features such as vegetated geolifts, toewood, and rootwads. In -stream structures such
as rock and log step pools, vanes, and constructed riffle structures were installed to control grade and
dissipate flow energies.
The restored channel was constructed as a Rosgen "C" stream type. The existing, unstable channel was
filled along its length using material excavated for construction of the restored channel. An existing
stream crossing within this reach was removed. Riparian buffers in excess of 50 feet were restored
along all of Reach 3 and permanent fencing was installed to exclude livestock from entering the restored
stream or buffer area. The existing vegetation within the riparian corridor of this reach was preserved
where feasible. The remainder of the buffer was planted with a diverse mix of woody and herbaceous
vegetation to supplement the existing vegetation and establish a native plant community. In addition
to these plantings, existing non-native, invasive vegetation was treated with herbicides or physically
removed to control them inside the easement.
3.2.4 Reach 4 Enhancement Level I
The presence of bedrock and mature trees along this reach has helped minimize vertical incision;
however, previous livestock access has affected bank stability and bedform morphology. Therefore,
Enhancement Level I was implemented to stabilize stream banks and to enhance bedform diversity with
the installation of in -stream structures such as constructed riffles. Riparian buffers in excess of 50 feet
were restored and/or preserved throughout the reach and permanent fencing was installed to exclude
livestock from entering the easement. Mature woody vegetation within the riparian corridor along this
reach was also preserved where feasible. The remainder of the buffer was planted with a diverse mix
of woody and herbaceous vegetation to supplement the existing vegetation to establish a native plant
community. In addition to these plantings, existing exotic invasive species vegetation were treated to
control them within the easement.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 3-2 11/15/2016
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B (DMS PROJECT NO. 95026)

3.2.5 Reach 5 Restoration
Work along Reach 5 involved the implementation of a restoration approach to restore stream functions
and floodplain connection. Stream banks were graded and planted to promote bank stability and re-
establish riparian vegetation. In -stream structures such as log vanes, rock vanes, and constructed riffles
were implemented to control grade, dissipate energies, and eliminate the potential for upstream channel
incision, while geo-lifts and toe wood were implemented to enhance the variability of aquatic habitat.
A series of rock cross vanes were implemented in the downstream extent of the reach in order to step
the channel down to meet the confluence elevation of Town Creek.
The restored channel was designed and constructed as a Rosgen "C" stream type. The existing,
unstable channel was filled along its length using material excavated for construction of the restored
channel. An existing farm crossing previously located at the upper extent of this reach was relocated
downstream within the alignment of an overhead power line in order to minimize easement breaks.
Along this reach, just downstream of the relocated farm road crossing, a jurisdictional wetland feature
has been preserved within the right floodplain of the conservation easement. As in Reach 2, this
wetland may have historically been a livestock watering pond. In order to improve the wetland's
hydrologic connectivity to the channel and stabilize an existing breach in the wetland berm, the
elevation of the berm was lowered and a rock -lined swale was constructed from the wetland spillway
to the main channel.
Riparian buffers in excess of 50 feet were restored along all of Reach 5 and permanent fencing was
installed to exclude livestock from entering the restored stream or buffer area. The existing vegetation
through this reach was preserved to the greatest extent possible. The buffer was planted with a diverse
mix of woody and herbaceous vegetation to supplement the existing vegetation and to establish a native
plant community. In addition to these plantings, existing non-native, invasive vegetation were removed
and/or treated to control them within the easement.
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 Yadkin — Pee Dee 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 (i.e., 401/404, S&EC),
construction activities began in late October 2015 with site preparation, installation of sedimentation
and erosion control measures, and the establishment of staging areas, haul roads, and stockpile areas.
The construction contractor was Wright Contracting, LLC. (Wright). Materials were stockpiled as
needed for the initial stages of construction. Suitable channel fill material and alluvium were harvested
on-site from existing spoil piles and within the existing streambed. Rock material was also harvested
on-site from rocky outcrops where feasible; however, some of the larger boulders came from a local
quarry and brought into the project site for use.
Construction equipment was equipped with Topcon GPS units to allow for the quick layout of the
design plan for channel work and floodplain grading; however, survey grade stakes were also set along
the extents of the floodplain and limits of disturbance to aid the grading activities. Since construction
activities began during the growing season of the NC Piedmont, vegetation installation of vegetated
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 3-3 11/15/2016
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B (DMS PROJECT NO. 95026)

geo-lifts, live stakes, and bare root areas were delayed until after the onset of the dormant season
(November 15).
Actual in -stream structure location, placement, and type varied slightly from the design plans in various
sections due to exposed bedrock, as well as to promote bedform diversity, increase vertical stability,
and maintain structure integrity. Additional rock lined channels and matted grass swales, not shown
on the Mitigation Plan, were incorporated within the floodplain of Reach 2 and Reach 3. Originally, it
wasn't anticipated that discharges from natural and stormwater drainages into the project floodplain
would lead to stream bank instability; however, after multiple large rain events, it was determined that
these measures were necessary to maintain the restored channel's integrity.
Construction began on the upstream portion of Reach 1 at Station 10+33 where an additional boulder
step was installed to stabilize an existing headcut at the property line. During the construction of Reach
1, a rock line channel was also incorporated to discharge surface flow into the reach at Station 10+80
from a hillside seep located in the left floodplain across the upstream property boundary. Work
proceeded downstream.
The work involved the construction of a defined single thread channel that was built mostly on-line
using a pump around operation. The existing degraded channel was filled in and graded back to match
the surrounding natural topographic contours. The entire length of Reach 1 was designed as a
combination step -pool system.
Upon completion of new channel segments and in -stream structures, coir fiber matting and permanent
seeding, were installed before moving to the next section. Invasive removal was minimal throughout
the buffer area along Reach 1 due to lack of vegetation along the stream bank and within the floodplain.
Live stake plantings along the channel were halted at the time of initial construction until after the end
of the growing season (Nov. 15th). All disturbed areas were seeded with temporary and permanent seed
and mulched with straw before mobilizing downstream to Reach 2. The as -built length of Reach 1 after
construction is 317 LF.
Work on Reach 2 began at Station 13+50 and progressed downstream to its terminus at a newly installed
culverted stream crossing at Station 20+61. Enhancement activities were implemented along Reach 2
to restore the channel to the appropriate dimension and profile of a `C4' type stream. Work was
conducted on-line using a pump around operation. Structure type and placement followed the design
plans; however, constructed riffles were added in multiple areas along the upstream portion of the reach
to aid in grade control and improve bedfonn diversity.
Upon completion of new channel segment and in -stream structures, coir fiber matting and permanent
seeding, were installed before moving to the next section. As in Reach 1, invasive species removal was
minimal throughout the buffer due to lack of vegetation along the stream bank and within the floodplain.
Live plant material installation for bio -engineered structures was halted at the time of initial
construction until after the end of the growing season (Nov. 15th). All disturbed areas were temporarily
and permanently seeded and mulched with straw before work began on the farm road crossing. The
as -built length of Reach 2 after construction is 711 LF.
A culverted crossing (48 -inch reinforced concrete pipe (RCP)) was installed from the end of Reach 2
(Station 20+61) to the head of Reach 3 (Station 20+87). The majority of the crossing lies outside of
the conservation easement. However, due to crossing stability issues, the culvert extends upstream
approximately six feet into the conservation easement. This minor easement encroachment has been
removed from the as -built restoration length on Reach 2 and the associated SMUs have been adjusted
accordingly. The installation of the crossing in conjunction with easement fencing along Reach 2 and
Reach 3 restricts cattle access to the restored stream, while still allowing for pasture rotation and farm
equipment passage. Upon completion of the crossing, side slopes were stabilized and work progressed
downstream.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 3-4 11/15/2016
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B (DMS PROJECT NO. 95026)

Construction on Reach 3 began by installing a boulder step just downstream of the newly installed
culverted crossing to tie in the channel grade and aid in dissipating energy from flow from the pipe.
Work continued downstream and involved the construction of a defined single thread channel. Due to
valley constraints and exposed bedrock, the channel remains on-line for first 450 LF of Reach 3. The
implementation of grade control and habitat structures were also limited to areas along this section of
the Reach where bedrock was not present.
Around Station 25+50, the valley begins to open up and the floodplain widens allowing for the channel
to move off-line and for the more natural meandering pattern of a "C" type stream. The channel pattern
throughout the remainder of Reach 3 meanders throughout the floodplain within the valley walls. A
variety of bank stabilization measures and high quality habitat features were incorporated throughout
the remainder of the reach to accommodate for existing constraints along the stream bed and within the
floodplain such as: Adjacent wetlands, mature hardwood trees, and existing bedrock outcrops. The
existing degraded channel was filled and graded to match the design topography and to promote
hydrologic connectivity to the floodplain and existing riparian wetlands, while minimizing the
disturbance of the wetland areas and mature hardwoods. Upon completion of the new channel, coir
fiber matting and permanent seeding were installed before moving to the next section.
Vegetation planting of bioengineered structures were delayed along the upstream portion of Reach 3;
however, the construction of the downstream section coincided with onset of the dormant season, and
were planted at the time of construction. Invasive species were removed and/or treated throughout the
easement area. The as -built length of Reach 3 is 1,621.
Construction enhancement activities continued downstream along Reach 4 to its terminus at Station
39+40. Work along Reach 4 was kept on-line and consisted of Enhancement Level I activities to restore
the channel's dimension and profile. Construction work along Reach 4 followed the design plans;
however, a long constructed riffle at the end of Reach 3 that continues into Reach 4 was extended for
approximately 50 LF to help control grade within the area. The contractor did not disturb vegetation
within the Enhancement area, unless it was necessary to remove existing invasive species vegetation
or trees that were damaged due to bank work. Upon completion of Reach 4, coir fiber matting and
permanent seeding were installed before moving to Reach 5. The as -built length of Reach 4 is 232 LF.
Work along Reach 5 began at Station 39+40 and consisted of restoration activities along the Reach to
Station 45+60. Within this section of the Reach, the channel was constructed a "C" type stream, mostly
off-line, but intercepted the existing channel in areas within the floodplain. A pump around operation
was used in the areas where the new channel intercepted the existing channel and the remainder of the
existing degraded channel was filled.
An existing and undersized culverted farm road crossing was relocated downstream from Station 42+00
to Station 45+61 in order to align it with an existing overhead power line and to minimize easement
breaks. The culvert was replaced with a 48 -in RCP and the relocated crossing is located outside the
conservation easement. Restoration continued on the downstream side of the farm road crossing.
At Station 47+00, the new meandering channel converges with the existing channel and continues on-
line to its confluence with the main stem of Town Creek. A series of rock cross vanes and constructed
riffles are implemented throughout this section of the reach to step the channel down to the elevation
of Town Creek.
A pump around operation was used in the areas where the new channel intercepted the existing channel
and the remainder of the existing degraded channel was filled. The floodplain was graded to match the
design topography and promote the re-establishment of hydrologic connectivity to the floodplain and
riparian wetlands, while minimizing the disturbance of the wetland areas and mature hardwoods. Upon
completion of the new channel segment, coir fiber matting and permanent seeding were installed
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 3-5 11/15/2016
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B (DMS PROJECT NO. 95026)

throughout the Reach. Invasive species were either treated or removed throughout the easement. The
as -built length of Reach 5 after construction is 822 LF, which excludes the length of the RCP.
All excess fill material generated during construction of all reaches was wasted and stabilized on-site
in the locations and as noted in the Erosion and Sediment Control plans. All riparian buffer areas within
the project boundaries are a minimum of 50 feet along both stream banks and are protected in perpetuity
by a recorded conservation easement that totals 11.97 acres. Permanent cattle exclusion fencing (woven
wire) was installed outside the conservation easement boundary along all reaches with access gates near
each stream crossing as shown on the As-built/Record Drawing in Appendix D. In addition, Baker
has installed permanent watering systems for the cattle outside of the project boundary.
Minimal Site modifications involved the location and selection of some in -stream structures and bank
stabilization practices. Substitutions and/or relocations were made based on existing field conditions
and best professional judgment. As-built/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/Record Drawings are located in Appendix D. The as -built results for the
project totaled 3,703 LF of stream and are outlined in Table 1, which excludes both stream crossings.
After construction was complete, multiple large rain events in November and December 2015 exposed
multiple unstable floodplain drainage features along Reach 1, Reach 2, Reach 3, and Reach 5.
Therefore, prior to the removal of sediment and control measures and permanent demobilization and
the onset of easement planting, Baker and Wright met on-site on January 5, 2016 to generate a punch -
list of final items for completion and to discuss a strategy to best address the areas of instability while
limiting re -disturbance.
Work to repair areas of instability and to address outstanding punch list items began on January 11,
2016. Work began by installing two additional constructed riffles at Station at 13+70 and 14+05 to aid
in grade control. Next work moved to the left floodplain of Reach 2, where a matted drainage swale
was incorporated from a floodplain seep to outfall onto a constructed riffle at Station 14+60. A small
rock lined trapezoidal spillway (approximately 1 — 2 feet wide) was incorporated into the design of the
floodplain wetland's berm on Reach 2 to maintain channel stability as well as the floodplain wetland's
integrity. The addition of this feature was strategically placed at the downstream end of the wetland
berm where it would outfall into the channel across the arm of a log vane and into the downstream
plunge pool.
Construction work then progressed downstream on Reach 2 to stabilize the farm road crossing by
extending the culvert pipe 8 LF upstream and re -grading the crossing side slopes to a flatter angle of
repose and adding additional stone to the slope faces for erosion protection. Next, a trapezoidal rock -
lined channel was constructed down the hillslope in the right floodplain of Reach 3. The channel was
integrated into the project in order to intercept stormflows from outside the easement area and convey
them onto a constructed riffle at Station 28+30. Lastly, a small rock lined trapezoidal Swale
(approximately 2 — 3 feet wide) was incorporated into the design of the floodplain wetland's berm along
Reach 5. The feature was incorporated into the project's design to intercept drainage from an existing
breach in the wetland's berm and directed to outfall into the channel at Station 47+10 across the arm of
a rock cross vane and into the downstream plunge pool.
Repair work and punch list items were complete on January 14, 2016. Upon final approval from Baker,
sedimentation and erosion control measures such as temporary construction entrances, rock check
dams, and silt fence were removed, and all disturbed areas were stabilized with temporary and
permanent seed and mulch before de -mobilizing from the Site. Baker met with NCDMS on-site on
February 2, 2016 for the final construction Site walk. NCDMS approved the construction work during
the visit. The planting of bare -root trees and shrubs, live stakes, vegetated geo-lifts were completed
and approved on March 11, 2016. NCDMS approved the Site plantings and monitoring device
installations on June 20, 2016.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 3-6 11/15/2016
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B (DMS PROJECT NO. 95026)

4.0 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Baker has obtained regulatory approval for numerous stream mitigation plans involving NCDMS full -delivery
projects. The success criteria for the project site will follow the mitigation plan developed for this project, as
well as the 2003 Stream Mitigation Guidelines (SMG). As outlined in the RFP #16-003579, all monitoring
activities will follow the NCDMS Monitoring Report Template, Version 1.3 — 1/15/10, will be conducted for a
period of 5 years, and will evaluate the effectiveness of the restoration and enhancement practices based on the
performance success criteria outlined in the approved mitigation plan and the 2003 SMG. If Year 5 does not
meet performance success criteria, NCDMS may require additional monitoring until the site does meet all
performance success criteria.
Based on the design approaches and overall project goals, different monitoring methods are proposed for the
project reaches. For reaches that involve Restoration and Enhancement Level I (stream bed/bank stabilization)
approaches, geomorphic monitoring methods will follow those recommended by the 2003 SMG. For reaches
involving Enhancement Level II 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 below 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 11/15/2016
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT -OPTION B (DMS PROJECT NO. 95026)

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 five years following the completion of construction. These activities will evaluate the success criteria
associated with a geomorphically stable channel, hydrologic connectivity, and aquatic habitat diversity.
The stream parameters to be monitored include stream dimension (cross-sections), pattern (planimetric
survey), profile (longitudinal profile survey), visual observation with photographic documentation, and
documentation of bank full events. The success criteria for the proposed Enhancement Level II
reaches/sections will follow the methods described in sections 5.1.7 and 5.2. The methods used and related
success criteria are described below for each parameter.
5.1.1 Bankfull Events and Flooding Functions
The occurrence of bankfull events within the monitoring period will be documented by the use of a
crest gauge and photographs. The crest gauge will be installed on the floodplain within ten feet
(horizontal) of the restored channel. The crest gauge will record the highest watermark between site
visits, and the gauge will be checked at each site visit to determine if a bankfull event has occurred.
Photographs will 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 a five-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 to demonstrate a floodplain connection has been restored.
5.1.2 Flow Documentation
Monitoring of flow will be conducted to demonstrate that the restored stream systems classified as
intermittent exhibit base flow for some portion of the year during a year with normal rainfall conditions.
In order to determine if rainfall amounts are normal for the given year, rainfall gauge data will be
obtained from the nearest Stanly County weather station (CRONOS Database, NEWL — North Stanly
Middle School, if available) and compared to the average monthly rainfall amounts from the Stanly
Count WETS Table (NRCS, 2002). If a normal year of precipitation does not occur during the first
five years of monitoring, flow conditions will continue to be monitored on the site until it documents
that the intermittent streams have been flowing during the appropriate times of the year.
The proposed monitoring of the restored intermittent reaches will include a combination of
photographic documentation and the installation of two in -stream pressure transducers within the
thalweg (bottom) of the channel, one in the upstream portion of the reach and one in the downstream
portion of the reach. A regular series of remote photos over time will be used to subjectively evaluate
channel flow conditions throughout the year. More specifically, the longitudinal photos should indicate
the presence of flow within the channel in order to discern water levels within the pools and riffles.
The photographs will be taken from a height of approximately five to six feet to ensure that the same
locations (and view directions) at the site are documented in each monitoring period and will be shown
on a plan view map. The visual monitoring effort, including the photo locations with descriptions, will
be included with NCDMS's annual monitoring reports. The devices will be inspected on a
quarterly/semi-annual basis to document surface hydrology and provide a basis for evaluating general
flow response to rainfall events and surface runoff during various water tables levels throughout the
monitoring period.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 5-1 11/15/2016
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B (DMS PROJECT NO. 95026)

5.1.3 Cross-sections
Permanent cross-sections were installed at an approximate rate of one cross-section per 500 LF of
restored stream, or nine (9) cross-sections located at riffles, and four (4) located at pools. Each cross-
section was marked on both stream banks with permanent monuments using rebar in place to establish
the exact transect used. A common benchmark was used for cross-sections and will be consistently
used to facilitate easy comparison of year-to-year data. The cross-section surveys will occur annually
and must include measurements of Bank Height Ratio (BHR) and Entrenchment Ratio (ER). The
monitoring survey includes points measured at all breaks in slope, including top of stream banks,
bankfull, inner berm, edge of water, and thalweg, if the features are present. Riffle cross-sections 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
of both stream banks at each cross-section. The survey tape will be centered in the photographs of the
stream banks. 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 a consistent effort to
maintain the same area in each photo over time.
5.1.4 Pattern
The plan view measurements such as sinuosity, radius of curvature, meander width ratio will be taken
on newly constructed meanders during 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 in the plan view of the restored channel.
5.1.5 Longitudinal Profile
A longitudinal profile will be surveyed for the entire length of restored channel immediately after
construction to document as -built baseline conditions for the first year of monitoring only. The survey
will be tied to a permanent benchmark and measurements will include thalweg, water surface, bankfull,
and top of low bank. Each of these measurements will be taken at the head of each feature (e.g., riffle,
pool) and at the maximum pool depth. The longitudinal profile should show that the bedform features
installed are consistent with intended design stream type. The longitudinal profiles will not be taken
during subsequent monitoring years unless vertical channel instability has been documented or remedial
actions/repairs are deemed necessary.
5.1.6 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. Significant changes in particle sizes or size
distribution in otherwise stable riffles and pools could warrant additional sediment transport analyses
and calculations. A substrate sample will be collected annually at cross-sections where constructed
riffles were installed as part of the project. One constructed riffle substrate sample will be compared
to existing riffle substrate data collected during the design phase and any significant changes (i.e.;
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 5-2 11/15/2016
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B (DMS PROJECT NO. 95026)

aggradation, degradation) will be noted after stream bank vegetation becomes established and a
minimum of two bankfull flows or greater have been documented.
5.1.7 Visual Assessment
Visual monitoring assessments of all stream sections will be conducted by qualified personnel twice
per monitoring year with at least five months in between each site visit. Photographs will be used to
document system performance and any areas of concern related to stream bank stability, condition of
in -stream structures, channel migration, headcuts, live stake mortality, impacts from invasive plant
species or animal species, and condition of pools and riffles. The photo locations and descriptions
will be shown on a plan view map.
The Photographs will be taken from a height of approximately five to six feet to ensure that the same
locations (and view directions) at the site are documented in 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.
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 planting success criteria are achieved and riparian buffer establishment goals are met, vegetation
monitoring will be conducted once a year for a minimum of five years following the completion of
construction and one full growing season. These activities will evaluate the success criteria associated
with the restoration and protection of the riparian buffer functions and corridor habitat, and reduction of
sediment loading from floodplain erosion and nutrient loading through the uptake of riparian vegetation.
In order to assess the success criteria of the riparian buffer effectively, vegetation -monitoring quadrants
were installed and will be monitored across the restoration site in accordance with the CVS-NCDMS
Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version 4.0 (2006). The vegetation monitoring plots shall be a
minimum of 2% of the planted portion of the site with a minimum of eight (8) plots established randomly
within the planted riparian buffer areas per Monitoring Levels 1 and 2. No monitoring quadrants were
established within areas where there are significant stands of undisturbed trees. The size of individual
quadrants will be 100 square meters for woody tree species.
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.
At the end of the first full growing season (from baseline/year 0) or after 180 days between March l" and
November 30', species composition, stem density, and survival will be evaluated. For each subsequent
year, until the final success criteria are achieved, the restored site will be evaluated March 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 three of the monitoring period. The final vegetative success criteria
will be measured at year five and must consist of a density of no less than 260, 5 -year old, planted trees
per acre.
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.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 5-3 11/15/2016
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B (DMS PROJECT NO. 95026)

Baker will provide required remedial action on a case-by-case basis, such as: replanting more wet/drought
tolerant species vegetation, conducting beaver management/dam removal, and removing
undesirable/invasive species vegetation, and will continue to monitor vegetation performance until the
corrective actions demonstrate that the site is trending towards or meeting the standard requirement.
Existing mature woody vegetation will be visually monitored during annual site visits to document any
mortality, due to construction activities or changes to the water table, that negatively impact existing forest
cover or favorable buffer vegetation.
5.3 Wetland Monitoring
Wetland mitigation has not been proposed for the site; therefore, no monitoring is included.
5.4 Stormwater Management Monitoring
No stormwater BMPs are proposed for the site; therefore, no monitoring is included.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 5-4 11/15/2016
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B (DMS PROJECT NO. 95026)

6.0 AS -BUILT DATA DOCUMENTATION
Stream and vegetation components will be monitored for five years post -construction to evaluate project
success. The specific locations of vegetation plots, flow/crest gauges, and cross-sections are shown on the as -
built plan sheets.
6.1 Stream Data
For monitoring stream success criteria, thirteen permanent cross-sections were installed along restored and
enhanced reaches on the site of greater than 500 LF (Reach 2 — 3 and Reach 5). The permanent cross-
sections will be used to monitor channel dimension and bank stability over time. One crest gauge was
installed along the restored channels on Reach 5. The crest gauge will be used to document the occurrence
of bankfull events. A longitudinal survey was completed for all restored and enhanced reaches to provide
a baseline for evaluating changes in bed conditions over time. Pebble count data was collected for riffle
cross-sections where constructed riffles were installed (X1, X4, X5, X7, X9, X10, and X12). The as -built
permanent cross-sections (with photos), longitudinal data, and pebble count data, as well as the
quantitative pre -construction, reference reach, and design data used to determine restoration approach are
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 gauge are shown 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, shrubs and live stakes began in March 2016 and was completed on
March 11, 2016.
The Mitigation Plan for the Site specifies that the number of quadrants required shall be based on the CVS-
NCDMS Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version 4.0 (2006). The total number of quadrants was
calculated using the CVS-NCDMS Entry Tool Database version 2.3.1. The sizes of individual quadrants
are 100 square meters. A total of eight (8) vegetation plots were installed throughout the project 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 eight vegetation monitoring plots, is 804
stems per acre. The location of each vegetation plot is shown on the as -built plan sheets in Appendix D.
6.3 Areas of Concern
Per observations made during the NCDMS Site visit on February 2, 2016, invasive species such as
parrotfeather (Myiophyllum aquaticum) and Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinese), which are prevalent in
areas outside of the conservation easement, may try to reestablish within the easement if not properly
maintained. No other areas of concern were noted for the time of this report.
Section 7.3 describes a specific corrective action plan that will be implemented for areas of concern.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 6-1 11/15/2016
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B (DMS PROJECT NO. 95026)

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 once a year
throughout the post -construction monitoring period. 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 will
be most likely 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 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 controlled 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 11/15/2016
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B (DMS PROJECT NO. 95026)

The vegetation plantings will be documented in the Year 1 Monitoring Report and areas of concern will
be observed closely during subsequent monitoring periods to determine if further corrective action is
required to meet the interim vegetative success criteria of 260 stems per acre at the end of five years.
7.4 Site Boundary
Site boundaries have been demarcated in the field to ensure clear distinction between the mitigation site
and adjacent properties. Boundaries are 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.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 7-2 11/15/2016
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B (DMS PROJECT NO. 95026)

8.0 REFERENCES
Carolina Vegetation Survey (CVS) and NC Division of Mitigation Services (formerly NC Ecosystem
Enhancement Program). 2012. CVS-NCEEP Data Entry Tool v. 2.3.1. University of North
Carolina, Raleigh, NC.
Lee, M., Peet R., Roberts, S., Wentworth, T. CVS-NCEEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation,
Version 4.0, 2006.
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (formerly NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program).
2010. Baseline Monitoring Document Format, Data Requirements, and Content
Guidance, v. 2.0, dated 10/14/10. Raleigh, NC.
Rosgen, D. L. 1994. A classification of natural rivers. Catena 22:169-199.
. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology Books, Pagosa Springs, Colo.
Schafale, M.P. 2012. Guide to the Natural Communities of North Carolina, Fourth Approximation. North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP), NCDEQ (formerly DENR), Raleigh, North Carolina.
United States Army Corps of Engineers. 2010. Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of
Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region.
ERDC/EL TR -10-9, Vicksburg, MS.
htlp://www.saw.usace.aE!ny.mil/Wetlands/JDs/EMP Piedmont.pdf
.. 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines. Prepared with cooperation from US Environmental
Protection Agency, NC Wildlife Resources Commission, and the NC Division of Water Quality.
www.saw.usace.4M.mil/wetlands/Mitigation/stream mitigation.html
.. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1.
Environmental Laboratory. US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station.
Vicksburg, MS.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 8-1 11/15/2016
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B (DMS PROJECT NO. 95026)

APPENDIX A
Figures 1 — 4b
Tables 1 — 4

DIRECTIONS TO SITE FROM RALEIGH, NC:
Take 1-40 West toward Sanford/Wake Forest. Take Exit 293 (1-440/US-64 W/US-1) toward Sanford/Wake Forest. Keep left at the fork
toward US -1 S/US-64 W. Take Exit 293A for US -1 S/US-64 W toward Sanford/Asheboro. Keep left at the fork toward US -1 S/US-64 W.
Continue on US -1 S/US-64 W towards Apex/Sanford/Asheboro. Take exit 98B to merge onto US -64 W towards Pittsboro/Asheboro. After
62 miles, turn left onto Connector Rd. Turn right onto NC 49 S. After 28.4 miles, take a slight left onto N Main St. After 1.1 miles, turn left
onto Old Salisbury Rd. Follow Old Salisbury Rd. for approximately 2.0 miles to its intersection with Misenheimer Rd. / Steakhouse Rd. Go
through the intersection and continue on Old Salisbury Rd. for approximately 0.4 miles and the Project site is on the left accessed via
a paved driveway.
Q N//--'Ri�h
C.
I
2E
0
I N T E R N AT 1 0 N A L
November 2016
0 1,500 3,000
Feet
1" = 3000'
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.
Project Loacation
35.434 N -80.2421 W ..........NN
Map
Project Site
Stanly County, NC
LEGEND
— Streams
Q Project Boundary
US Highways
— Roads
0 Major Waterways
Municipalities
Yadkin (03040105060-040)
Figure 1. Vicinty Map
Town Creek Restoration Site -
Option B
Stanly County, NC
NC DMS Project No. 95026
NC DEQ Contract No. 003990

�9ishmer-Rd `, e
' G %A
4
�`� Reach 1
r �` d
,!� Reach 2
t tip
S
; RF
p.
i
I
I N T E R N AT 1 0 N A L
November 2016
0 200 400
Feet
I" = 400'
J Project Site
Stanly County, NC
LEGEND
Enhancement I
Restoration
• Manholes
QConservation Easement
Wetland Areas
— Streams
— Roads
Figure 2. Mitigation Summary Map
Town Creek Restoration Site -
Option B
Stanly County, NC
NC DMS Project No. 95026
NC DEQ Contract No. 003990

Ninn
DAVIDSON Iy "JROWAN
--CABARRUS
-Nook
Project
-4
)C, I -- I- / I 1 1] 1 r 'in
rAid17
J--(
UNION 7,
ANSON
I N T E R N AT 1 0 N A L
November 2016
Map vicinity -fF--
- J {_ J Project Site
Stanly County, NC
A -Avl�
AAN043,LPH CHATHAM
L
,
- — – — – — -------I– — – — – — –
– — – — – — – — – — – — – — – — – — – — – — --
– — – — – — – — – —
Spencer Creek
Richland Creek
UT to
,-OMERY-_111, Rocky Creek
M04E))?E'
Ilarals
r I I
Ar
Z,
. 7
k,
of
RICHMOND
CoiDvriaht:@ 2014 " D e. A rr, Ale
LEGEND N
Reference Reach Locations
Town Creek Site
0 3 6
N100MMMM0====== Miles I" = 6 Miles
Figure 3. Reference Site Locations Map
Town Creek Restoration Site - Option B
Stanly County, NC
DMS Project No. 95026
NCDEQ Contract No. 003990

�Jo' Reach
Station 10+33 - 13+50
Y3{ y L
low
VP
ti
°
Reach
% Station 13+50
°o
L,
22+600
1`
23+00
• I •2q�00s
26+00
q
• W
z,
1111,I
s o0
Figure 4a2PD
8.
i
P�
� 1
F 5'
t
•V
,..
I
l
T
d'p.'� .�ILC��► C."� L: rs4.
i
J
�� r• Station 39+40 - 47+'87
A.
c
.• x � 4 ,� •,...'rte- .5 . -. - - -
Legend
® Photo Identification Points
Flow Transducer
® Crest Gauge T .,
Vegetation Plots
Cross Section - Pool
Cross Section - Riffle,.
NC OneM'ap,_N.C_C.enter_for_Geographi.c_Infbr��ati.on and Analysis, N,C 9.11 Board
0 100 200 November 2016 Figure 4. Current Condition Plan View -
Michael Baker Feet Overview Map
NC DMS Project No. 95026 Town Creek Restoration Project - Option B
N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L ill — 200 NC DEQ Contract No. 003990 Stanly County, NC

' d x.,,y
h
PID 2 '�`�' f +1 N
PID 3
PID 4
Reach 1
S ation 10+33 - 13+50
PID 5
i
VP 1
PID 6 L
PID 7
' Z_ PID 8
PID 9"
o0
X5.2
•1600
PID 10X5.3
PID 11
PIU�Y2�_
PID 15
PID�1:6 �— • /
M ■
i
d`•�k
K
' IB4BB i'
i
f
Legend
a
A Photo Identification Points
Flow Transducer .
® Crest Gauge
® Vegetation Plots s A
Cross Section - Pool,.
— Cross Section - Riffle
-�� NC OO neMap, N Center f r Geographic Informati � n and Analysis, NC 911 Board
Baker
0 50 loo November 2016 Figure 4a. Current Condition Plan View
Michael Feet Town Creek Restoration Project - Option B
1" = 100' NC DMS Project No. 95026 Stanly County, NC
N T E R N A T I 0 N A L NC DEQ Contract No. 003990

Table 1. Project Mitigation Components
Town Creek Restoration Project - Option B: DMS Project No ID. 95026
Project Component
Wetland Position and
Existing Footage or
2,760
Restored Footage.,
Creditable Footage,
Enhancement I
Approach
Enhancement H
Mitigation
Creation
Priority
Mitigation
Hi h Quality Pres
Stationing
Restoration Level
Notes/Comments
(reach ID, etc.)
Hydro Type
Acreage
Acreage, or SF
Acreage, or SF
Credits
Level
Ratio X:1
Reach 1
363
10+33 - 13+50
317
317
R
PI
1
317
Full Channel Restoration, Planted Buffer, Exclusion of Livestock, and Permanent Conservation Easement.
Dimension and Profile modified in keeping with reference, Planted Buffer, Livestock Exclusion, Permanent
Reach 2
737
13+50 - 20+61
711
711
EI
PHI
1.5
474
Conservation Easement. A 26 -ft culverted farm road crossing was implemented between Reach 2 and Reach 3
from Station 20+61 - 20+87.
Reach 3
1,849
20+87 - 37+08
1621
1,621
R
PI
1
1,621
Full Channel Restoration, Planted Buffer, Exclusion of Livestock, and Permanent Conservation Easement.
Reach 4
234
37+08 - 39+40
232
232
EI
PHI
1.5
155
Dimension and Profile modified in keeping with reference, Planted Buffer, Livestock Exclusion, Permanent
Conservation Easement.
Full Channel Restoration, Planted Buffer, Exclusion of Livestock, Permanent Conservation Easement and a 27 -ft
Reach 5
849
39+40 - 47+87
847
822
R
PI
1
822
culverted farm road crossing.
Wetland Group 1
(WGI)
Wetland Group 2
(WG2)
Buffer Group 1 (BGI)
Buffer Group 2 BG2
Buffer Group 3 BG3
Length and Area Summations by Mitigation Category
Restoration Level
Stream Riparian Wetland Non -riparian Credited Buffer
Wetland
linear feet)(acres) acres (square feet
Asset
Riverine Non-Riverine
Restoration
2,760
Enhancement
Credits
Enhancement I
943
Enhancement H
Creation
Preservation
Hi h Quality Pres
Overall Assets Summary
* Stream assests are based on the stream length from the As -Built survey. Since the As -Built survey stream lengths exceeded the anticipated design lengths, the stream assets exceeded that of the proposed
assests listed in the Mitigation Plan.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B (DMS PROJECT NO. 95026)
General Note -The above cc mponenttable is intended
to be close complementtothe assetmap. Each entry
in the abovetableshould have clear distinction and
appropriate symbology i n the asset map.
1- Wetland Groups represent pooled wetland polygons
inthemapwiththe same wetland type and restoration
level. If some ofthewetland polygonswithin a group
are in meaningfully different landsca pe positions, soil
types or have different community targets (as examples),
then furthersegmentation in thetable maybe
warranted. RuHergroups represent pooledbufler
polygonswith common restoration levels.
2 - Wetland position and Hydro Type - Indicates
Riparian Riverine,(RR), riparinan non-riverine[RNR)or
Non-Riverine (NR)
3- Restored Footage, Acreage or Square Feet [SF)
4-Creditihle Footage, Acreage orSquarefeet-
cred itibl ea nou nts after exclu sion and reductions a re
accounted for, such as utility impacts, crossings, single
Asset
Overall
Category
Credits
Stream 3,389
* Stream assests are based on the stream length from the As -Built survey. Since the As -Built survey stream lengths exceeded the anticipated design lengths, the stream assets exceeded that of the proposed
assests listed in the Mitigation Plan.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B (DMS PROJECT NO. 95026)
General Note -The above cc mponenttable is intended
to be close complementtothe assetmap. Each entry
in the abovetableshould have clear distinction and
appropriate symbology i n the asset map.
1- Wetland Groups represent pooled wetland polygons
inthemapwiththe same wetland type and restoration
level. If some ofthewetland polygonswithin a group
are in meaningfully different landsca pe positions, soil
types or have different community targets (as examples),
then furthersegmentation in thetable maybe
warranted. RuHergroups represent pooledbufler
polygonswith common restoration levels.
2 - Wetland position and Hydro Type - Indicates
Riparian Riverine,(RR), riparinan non-riverine[RNR)or
Non-Riverine (NR)
3- Restored Footage, Acreage or Square Feet [SF)
4-Creditihle Footage, Acreage orSquarefeet-
cred itibl ea nou nts after exclu sion and reductions a re
accounted for, such as utility impacts, crossings, single

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

Table 3. Project Contacts
Town Creek Restoration Project - Option B: DMS Project ID No. 95026
Designer
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
797 Haywood Road, Suite 201
Asheville, NC 28806
Contact:
Jake Byers, PE, Tel. [phone]
Construction Contractor
160 Walker Road
Wright Contracting, LLC.
Lawndale, NC 28090
Contact:
Joe Wright, Tel. [phone]
Planting Contractor
P.O. Box 458
H.J. Forest Service
Holly Ridge, NC 28445
Contact:
Matt Hitch, Tel. [phone]
Seeding Contractor
160 Walker Road
Wright Contracting, LLC.
Lawndale, NC 28090
Contact:
Joe Wright, Tel. [phone]
Seed Mix Sources
Green Resources, Tel. [phone]
Mellow Marsh Farm, Tel. [phone]
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Mellow Marsh Farm, Tel. [phone]
Foggy Mountain Nursery, Tel. [phone]
ArborGen, Tel. [phone]
Monitoring Performers
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
5550 Seventy-Seven Center Drive, Suite 320
Charlotte, NC 28217
Contact:
Stream Monitoring Point of Contact
Kristi Suggs, Tel. [phone]
Vegetation Monitoring Point of Contact
Kristi Suggs, Tel. [phone]
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B (DMS PROJECT NO. 95026)

Table 4. Project Attributes
Town Creek Restoration Project - Option B: DMS Project ID No. 95026
Project Information
Project Name
Town Creek Restoration Project -
Option B
Project County
Stanly
Project Area (Acres)
11.97
Project Coordinates
35.434 N, -80.2421 W
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Region
Piedmont
Ecoregion
Carolina Slate Belt
Project River Basin
Yadkin - Pee Dee
USGS Hydrologic Unit Code 8- and 14 -digit
03040105 / 03040105060-040
NCDWR Sub -basin for Project
03-07-13
Project Drainage Area (Acres)
134.8
Project Drainage Area Percent Impervious
<5%
CGIA Land Use Classification
2.01, 412 / Forest (40%) Agriculture (25%) Impervious Cover (7%)
Within Extent of DMS Watershed Plan
Lower Yadkin RBRP, 2009
WRC Class (Warm Cool Cold)
Warm
Project Easement Fenced/Demarcated
100%
Beaver activity observed during design phase
INo activity observed
Reach Summary Information
Reach 1
Reach 2 Reach 3
Reach 4
Reach 5
Restored Length of Reach LF
317
711 1,621
232
822
Valley Classification (Rosgen)
VII
VII VII
VII
VII
Drainage Area (acres)
59.8
77.8 115.6
119.4
134.8
NCDWR Stream Identification Score
27.25
27.25-32.0 32
32
32
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
C, Index #: 13-17-31-1-1
Existing Morphological Description
(Rosgen stream type)
E4b: Incised,
unstable &
straight
E4 : Incised,
unstable &
straight
C4: variable;
unstable
E4: Incised &
unstable
C4 and E4:
Incised &
straight
Evolutionary Trend
Eb4G4B
E4G417413c
C4G4174C
E4Gc4174C
C4Gc4174C
As -built Morphological Description
(Rosgen stream type)
C4
C4
C4
C4
C4
Underlying Mapped Soils
BaD
BaD, BaF
BaF
BaF
OaA
Drainage Class
Well drained
Well drained
Well drained
Well drained
Moderately well
drained
Soil Hydric Status
Non -Hydric
Non -Hydric
Non -Hydric
Non -Hydric
Hydric
Average Channel Slope (ft/ft)
0.0181
0.0180
1 0.0122
1 0.0120
1
0.0128
FEMA Classification
N/A
N/A
I N/A
I N/A
N/A
Native Vegetation Community
Piedmont
Small Stream
Percent Composition of Exotic/Invasive
Vegetation
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Re ulator
Considerations
Regulation
Applicable
Resolved Supporting
Documentation
Waters of the United States — Section 404
Yes
Yes Categorical Exclusion
Waters of the United States — Section 401
Yes
Yes Categorical Exclusion
Endangered Sp ecies Act
Yes
Yes Categorical Exclusion
Historic Preservation Act
Yes
Yes Categorical Exclusion
Coastal Area Management Act (LAMA)
No
N/A Categorical Exclusion
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
No
N/A Categorical Exclusion
Essential Fisheries Habitat
No
N/A Categorical Exclusion
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B (DMS PROJECT NO. 95026)

APPENDIX B
Morphological Summary Data
Tables 5 and 6
Cross-section Data and Photos
Longitudinal Profile
Pebble Count Data

Table 5. Baseline Stream Summar
Town Creek Restoration Project - Option B: DMS Project ID No. 95026
Reach 1 (317 LF)
Parameter
USGS
Regional Curve Interval
Pre -Existing Condition
Design
As -built
Gauge
(Harman et a1,
1999)*
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
LL UL
Eq.
Min
Mean Med Max
SD n
Min
Mean
Med Max SD
n
Min Mean Med Max SD n
BF Width (ft)
-----
23.0 80.0
4.2
5.5
----- ----- 7.2
----- 2
-----
9.0
----- ----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Floodprone Width (ft)
-----
----- -----
-----
72.1
----- ----- 76.6
----- 2
20
-----
----- 50 -----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BF Mean Depth (ft)
-----
2.3 5.8
0.7
0.8
----- ----- 1.1
----- 2
-----
0.68
----- ----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BF Max Depth (ft)
-----
----- -----
-----
1.8
----- ----- 2.3
----- 2
-----
1
----- ----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BF Cross-sectional Area ff)
-----
80.0 300.0
4.2
5.4
----- ----- 5.9
----- 2
-----
6.1
----- ----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Width/Depth Ratio
-----
-----
-----
5.22
----- ----- 9.43
----- 2
-----
13.3
----- ----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Entrenchment Ratio
-----
----- -----
-----
10.1
----- ----- 13.8
----- 2
-----
-----
----- >2.2 -----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Bank Height Ratio
-----
----- -----
-----
1.3
----- ----- 1.5
----- 2
-----
1
----- ----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
d50(mm)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
6.9 ----- -----
----- I
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
---------- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
Radius of Curvature (ft)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
----- -----
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
MeanderWavelength (ft)
-----
----- 0.0
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Meander Width Ratio
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
---------- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----------
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
----- -----
-----
0.022
----- ----- -----
-----
----- 0.012 ----- ----- ----- 8
Pool Length (ft)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
Pool Spacing (ft)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
----- -----
14.0
-----
----- 45.0 -----
-----
12.0 ----- ----- 42.0 ----- 11
Pool Max Depth (ft)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
----- -----
1.4
-----
----- 2.4 -----
-----
0.2 ----- ----- 0.8 ----- 11
Pool Volume (ft 3)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
Substrate and Transport Parameters
Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----
SC% / Sa% / G% / B% / Be%
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
----- -----
----- ----- ----
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
--
----- -----
-----
0.2 / 4.3 / 6.9 / 30.8 / 54.5
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----
Reach Shear Stress (competency) Ib/F
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
----- ----- ---------- ----- -----
Max part size (nun) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve)
--
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m2
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- 0.09
----- -----
-----
0.09
----- ----- -----
-----
----- 0.09 ----- ----- ----- -----
Impervious cover estimate (%)
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Rosgen Classification
-----
----- -----
-----
----- E4b (incised)
----- -----
-----
C4
----- ----- -----
-----
----- C4 ----- ----- ----- -----
BF Velocity (fps)
-----
----- -----
-----
----- ----- 2.76
----- -----
-----
2.72
----- ----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BF Discharge (cfs)
-----
290.0 2000.0
15.6
-----
----- ----- 16.3
----- -----
-----
16.3
----- ----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
ValleyLength
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
----- 301.9 ----- ----- ----- -----
Channel length (ft)2
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- 363
----- -----
-----
316
----- ----- -----
-----
----- 317.0 ----- ----- ----- -----
Sinuosity-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- 1.17
----- -----
-----
1.02
----- ----- -----
-----
----- 1.1 ----- ----- ----- -----
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- 0.0212
----- -----
-----
0.0217
----- ----- -----
-----
----- 0.0181 ----- ----- ----- -----
BF slope (ft/ft)
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
----- ----- ---------- ----- -----
Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
---------- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
BEHI VL% / L% / M% / H% / VH% / E%
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----------
-----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
Biological or Other
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
* Harman, W.A., G.D. Jennings, J.M. Patterson, D.R. Clinton, L.O. Slate, A.G. Jessup, J.R. Everhart, and R.E. Smith.
1999. Bankfull hydraulic geometryrelationships for North Carolina streams. Wildland Hydrology. AWRA Symposium Proceedings. D.S. Olsen and J.P. Potyondy, eds. American Water Resources Association. June 30 -July 2, 1999. Bozeman, MT.
Reach 1 data based on two riffle cross-sections and one pool cross-section.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B (DMS PROJECT NO. 95026)

Table 5. Baseline Stream Summa continued
Town Creek Restoration Project - Option B: DMS Project ID No. 95026
Reach 2 (711 LF)
Parameter
USGS
Regional Curve Interval
Pre -Existing Condition
Design
As -built
Gauge
(Harman et a1,
1999)*
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
LL UL
Eq.
Min
Mean Med Max
SD n
Min
Mean
Med Max SD
n
Min
Mean
Med Max SD
n
BF Width (ft)
-----
23.0 80.0
4.8
6.6
----- ----- 8.8
----- 2
-----
9.0
----- ----- -----
-----
8.8
-----
----- 12.0 -----
3
Floodprone Width (ft)
-----
----- -----
-----
25.5
----- ----- 42.7
----- 2
20
-----
----- 50.0 -----
-----
27.1
-----
----- 42.6 -----
3
BF Mean Depth (ft)
-----
2.3 5.8
0.8
1.1
----- ----- 1.6
----- 2
-----
0.7
----- ----- -----
-----
0.7
-----
----- 1.0 -----
3
BF Max Depth (ft)
-----
-----
-----
1.9
----- ----- 2.4
----- 2
-----
1.0
----- ----- -----
-----
1.1
-----
----- 2.3 -----
3
BF Cross-sectional Area ff)
-----
80.0 300.0
5.1
6.9
----- ----- 14.0
----- 2
-----
6.1
----- ----- -----
-----
5.8
-----
----- 12.0 -----
3
Width/Depth Ratio
-----
----- -----
-----
5.6
----- ----- 6.2
----- 2
-----
13.3
----- ----- -----
-----
10.2
-----
----- 13.2 -----
3
Entrenchment Ratio
-----
----- -----
-----
3.9
----- ----- 4.8
----- 2
-----
-----
----- >2.2 -----
-----
3.1
-----
----- 3.7 -----
3
Bank Height Ratio
-----
----- -----
-----
1.5
----- ----- 1.6
----- 2
-----
1.0
----- ----- -----
-----
1.0
-----
----- 1.0 -----
3
d50 (mm)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
16.7 ----- -----
----- I
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
17.1
-----
----- 23.3 -----
2
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
---------- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----------
-----
Radius of Curvature (ft)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
MeanderWavelength (ft)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
Meander Width Ratio
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----------
-----
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
----- -----
-----
0.0175
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
0.010
----- ----- -----
9
Pool Length (ft)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----------
-----
Pool Spacing (ft)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
----- -----
14
-----
----- 45 -----
-----
19.0
-----
----- 63.0 -----
19
Pool Max Depth (ft)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
----- -----
1.4
-----
----- 2.4 -----
-----
0.200
-----
----- 3.4 -----
20
Pool Volume (ft 3)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----------
-----
Substrate and Transport Parameters
Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----
SC% / Sa% / G% / B% / Be%
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
----- -----
----- -----
----
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
--
----- -----
-----
<0.063 / 7.2 / 16.7 / 54.5 / 85.7
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
<0.063
- 4.4 / 8.7 - 12.1
/ 17.1 - 23.3 / 55.3 - 77.1 / 75.6
- 117.2
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/F
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
0.79 ----- -----
----- -----
-----
0.65
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
Max part size (nun) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve)
--
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m2
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
34.9 ----- -----
----- -----
-----
32.9
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- 0.1
----- -----
-----
0.12
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
0.12
----- ----- -----
-----
Impervious cover estimate (%)
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
Rosgen Classification
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- E4 (incised)
----- -----
-----
C4
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
C4 / E4
----- ----- -----
-----
BF Velocity (fps)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- 1.49
----- -----
-----
3.48
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
BF Discharge (cfs)
-----
290.0 2000.0
19.3
-----
----- ----- 20.9
----- -----
-----
20.9
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
ValleyLength
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
- - - ----- -----
-----
-----
695
----- ----- -----
-----
Channellength (ft)2
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- 737
----- -----
-----
708
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
711
----- ----- -----
-----
Sinuosity
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- 1.06
----- -----
-----
1.02
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
1.02
----- ----- -----
-----
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- 0.0159
----- -----
-----
0.0177
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
0.0180
----- ----- -----
-----
BF slope (ft/ft)
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
---------- -----
-----
Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
---------- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----------
-----
BEHI VL% / L% / M% / H% / VH% / E%
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----------
-----
-----
-----
----- ----------
-----
Biologicalor Other
-----
----- -----
----
-----
----- ----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
Harman, W.A., G.D. Jennings, J.M. Patterson, D.R. Clinton, L.O. Slate, A.G. Jessup, J.R. Everhart, and R.E. Smith,
1999. Bankfull hydraulic geometryrelationships for North Carolina streams. Wildland Hydrology. AWRA Symposium Proceedings. D.S. Olsen and J.P. Potyondy, eds. American Water Resources Association. June 30 -July 2, 1999. Bozeman, MT.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B (DMS PROJECT NO. 95026)

Table 5. Baseline Stream Summar continued
Town Creek Restoration Project - Option B: DMS Project ID No. 95026
Reach 3 (1,621 LF)
Parameter
USGS
Regional Curve Interval
Pre -Existing Condition'
Design
As -built
Gauge
(Harman et a1,
1999)*
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
LL UL
Eq.
Min
Mean Med Max SD
n
Min
Mean
Med Max SD
n
Min
Mean
Med Max SD
n
BF Width (ft)
-----
23.0 80.0
5.5
6.0
----- ----- 16.1 -----
4
-----
10.0
----- ----- -----
-----
9.8
-----
----- 10.7 -----
3
Floodprone Width (ft)
-----
----- -----
-----
32.0
----- ----- >89 -----
4
2
-----
----- 80.0 -----
-----
37.8
-----
----- 48.1 -----
3
BF Mean Depth (ft)
-----
2.3 5.8
0.9
0.5
----- ----- 1.3 -----
4
-----
0.7
----- ----- -----
-----
0.6
-----
----- 0.8 -----
3
BF Max Depth (ft)
-----
----- -----
-----
1.3
----- ----- 1.9 -----
4
-----
1.0
----- ----- -----
-----
1.0
-----
----- 1.4 -----
3
BF Cross-sectional Area ff)
-----
80.0 300.0
6.4
5.7
----- ----- 13.6 -----
4
-----
7.0
----- ----- -----
-----
6.5
-----
----- 8.7 -----
3
Width/Depth Ratio
-----
----- -----
-----
4.6
----- ----- 35.6 -----
4
-----
14.3
----- ----- -----
-----
13.1
-----
----- 16.9 -----
3
Entrenchment Ratio
-----
----- -----
-----
5.0
----- ----- 8.2 -----
4
-----
-----
----- >.2.2 -----
-----
3.5
-----
----- 4.5 -----
3
Bank Height Ratio
-----
----- -----
-----
1.1
----- ----- 1.9 -----
4
-----
1.0
----- ----- -----
-----
1.0
-----
----- 1.0 -----
3
d50 (mm)
-----
----- -----
-----
6.5
----- ----- 7.3 -----
2
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
18.6
-----
----- 28.9 -----
3
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
35.0
-----
----- 80.0 -----
-----
22.0
-----
----- 52.1 -----
12
Radius of Curvature (ft)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
20.0
-----
----- 30.0 -----
-----
28.7
-----
----- 43.6 -----
15
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
2.0
-----
----- 3.0 -----
-----
3.0
-----
----- 3.8 -----
3
Meander Wavelength (ft)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
70.0
-----
----- 120.0 -----
-----
90.2
-----
----- 130.9 -----
15.0
Meander Width Ratio
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
3.5
-----
----- 8.0 -----
-----
3.0
-----
----- 4.9 -----
3
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----------
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----------
-----
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
0.016
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
0.011
----- ----- -----
23
Pool Length (ft)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----------
-----
Pool Spacing (ft)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
36
-----
----- 63 -----
-----
11
-----
----- 80 -----
35
Pool Max Depth (ft)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
1.4
-----
----- 2.4 -----
-----
0.2
-----
----- 1.3 -----
34
Pool Volume (ft 3)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----------
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----------
-----
Substrate and Transport Parameters
Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- -----
----
SC% / Sa% / G% / B% / Be%
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----------
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----------
----
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
-----
----- -----
-----
<0.063
/ 3.9 - 4.6 / 6.5 - 7.3 / 19.3 - 20.4 / 30.8 -
32.0
---
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
.063 - 5.6 / 9.9 - 16.3 / 18.6 - 28.9 / 85.1 - 99.5 / 154.8 - >2048 / 180 - >2
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/F
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
0.3 ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
0.47
---------- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
Max part size (nun) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve)
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m2
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
15.7 ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
25.6
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- 0.2 -----
-----
-----
-----
----- 0.2 -----
-----
-----
-----
----- 0.2
Impervious cover estimate (%)
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
Rosgen Classification
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- C4 / E4 (incised) -----
-----
-----
C4
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
C4
----- ----- -----
-----
BF Velocity (fps)
-----
----- -----
-----
3.6
----- ----- 3.6 -----
2
-----
3.8
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
BF Discharge (cfs)
-----
290.0 2000.0
24.8
26.4
----- ----- 28.0 -----
2
-----
26.4
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
ValleyLength
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
1377
----- ----- -----
-----
Channel length (ft)2
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- 1,849 -----
-----
-----
1,630
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
1621
----- ----- -----
-----
Sinuosity
-----
----- -----
-----
- -
----- ----- 1.31 - -
-----
-----
1.17
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
1.18
----- ----- -----
-----
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- 0.0111 -----
-----
-----
0.0122
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
0.0122
----- ----- -----
-----
BF slope (ft/ft)
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- --------
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
---------- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----------
-----
BEHI VL% / L% / M% / H% / VH% / E%
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----------
-----
-----
-----
----- ----------
-----
Biological or Other
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----------
-----
* Harman, W.A., G.D. Jennings, J.M. Patterson, D.R. Clinton, L.O. Slate, A.G. Jessup, J.R. Everhart, and R.E. Smith.
1999. Bankfull hydraulic geometryrelationships for North Carolina streams. Wildland Hydrology. AWRA Symposium Proceedings. D.S. Olsen and J.P. Potyondy, eds. American Water Resources Association. June 30 -July 2, 1999. Bozeman, MT.
Reach 3 data based on two riffle cross-sections and two pool cross-section.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B (DMS PROJECT NO. 95026)

Table 5. Baseline Stream Summar continued
Town Creek Restoration Project - Option B: DMS Project ID No. 95026
Reach 4 (232 LF)
Parameter
USGS
Regional Curve Interval
Pre -Existing Condition
Design
As -built
Gauge
(Harman et a1, 1999)*
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
LL UL Eq.
Min Mean Med Max SD n
Min Mean Med Max SD n
Min Mean Med Max SD n
BF Width (ft)
-----
23.0 80.0 5.7
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 10.5 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Floodprone Width (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
25 ----- ----- 110.0 ----------
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BF Mean Depth (ft)
-----
2.3 5.8 0.9
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 0.8 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BFMax Depth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 1.2 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BF Cross-sectional Area ff)
-----
80.0 300.0 6.7
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 8.7 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Width/Depth Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 12.5 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
EntrenchmentRatio
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- >2.2 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BankHeight Ratio
-----
----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 1.0 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
d50 (mm)
-----
----- ----- -----
---------- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ---------- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
Radius of Curvature (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- -----
MeanderWavelength (ft)
-----
----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Meander Width Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ---------- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----------
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ---------- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
Pool Length (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
-----
Pool Spacing (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
---------- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
Pool Max Depth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ---------- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
Pool Volume (ft 3)
--
----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
---------- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ---------- ----- -----
Substrate and Transport Parameters
Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----
SC% / Sa% / G% / B% / Be%
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
---------- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ---------- ----- ----
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ---------- ----- ----- ----
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/F
-----
----- _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- -----_____ _____
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfall (Rosgen Curve)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- -----
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m2
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ---------- ----- -----
----- ---------- ----- ----- -----
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 0.2 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 0.2 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 0.2
Impervious cover estimate (%)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ---------- ----- -----
RosgenClassification
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- C4 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- C4 ----- ----- ----- -----
BFVelocity (fps)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 3.22 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BF Discharge (cfs)
-----
290.0 2000.0 25.8
----- ----- ----- 28 ----- -----
----- 28 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
ValleyLength
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 202 ----- ----- ----- -----
Channel length (ft)2
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 234 ----- -----
----- 232 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 232 ----- ----- ----- -----
Sinuosity
----- -----
----- ----- ----- 1.21 ----- -----
----- 1.20 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 1.15 ----- ----- ----- -----
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 0.0094 ----- -----
----- 0.0113 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 0.012 ----- ----- ----- -----
BF slope (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
---------- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ---------- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
BEHI VL% / L% / M% / H% / VH% / E%
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
Biological or Other
----
----- ----- -----
I ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
* Harman, W.A., G.D. Jennings, J.M. Patterson, D.R. Clinton, L.O. Slate, A.G. Jessup, J.R. Everhart, and R.E. Smith. 1999. Bankfull hydraulic geometryrelationships for North Carolina streams. Wildland Hydrology. AWRA Symposium Proceedings. D.S. Olsen and J.P. Potyondy, eds. American Water Resources Association. June 30 -July 2, 1999. Bozeman, MT.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B (DMS PROJECT NO. 95026)

Table 5. Baseline Stream Summar continued
Town Creek Restoration Project - Option B: DMS Project ID No. 95026
Reach 5 (822 LF)
Parameter
USGS
Regional Curve Interval
Pre -Existing Condition
Design
As -built
Gauge
(Harman et a1, 1999)*
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
LL UL
Eq.
Min
Mean Med Max
SD n
Min
Mean
Med Max SD
n
Min
Mean
Med Max SD
n
BF Width (ft)
-----
23.0 80.0
6.1
5.2
----- ----- 17.0
----- 3
-----
10.5
----- ----- -----
-----
10.2
-----
----- 11.1 -----
3
Floodprone Width (ft)
-----
----- -----
-----
51.0
----- ----- 84.0
----- 3
25
-----
----- 110.0 -----
-----
43.8
-----
----- 59.4 -----
3
BF Mean Depth (ft)
-----
2.3 5.8
0.9
0.7
----- ----- 1.5
----- 3
-----
0.8
----- ----- -----
-----
0.5
-----
----- 0.8 -----
3
BF Max Depth (ft)
-----
----- -----
-----
1.6
----- ----- 2.1
----- 3
-----
1.2
----- ----- -----
-----
0.9
-----
----- 1.2 -----
3
BF Cross-sectional Area ff)
-----
80.0 300.0
7.4
8.0
----- ----- 12.3
----- 3
-----
8.7
----- ----- -----
-----
5.7
-----
----- 8.0 -----
3
Width/Depth Ratio
-----
----- -----
-----
3.5
----- ----- 23.5
----- 3
-----
12.5
----- ----- -----
-----
13.4
-----
----- 21.5 -----
3
Entrenchment Ratio
-----
----- -----
-----
3.0
----- ----- 13.2
----- 3
-----
-----
----- >2.2 -----
-----
4.0
-----
----- 5.7 -----
3
Bank Height Ratio
-----
----- -----
-----
1.3
----- ----- 1.3
----- 3
-----
1.0
----- ----- -----
-----
1.0
-----
----- 1.0 -----
3
d50 (mm)
-----
----- -----
-----
5.6
----- ----- 8.6
----- 2
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
27.5
-----
----- 41.8 -----
2
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
----- -----
37.0
-----
----- 84.0 -----
-----
23.8
-----
----- 44.2 -----
10
Radius of Curvature (ft)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
----- -----
21.0
-----
----- 31.5 -----
-----
24.5
-----
----- 40.9 -----
9
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
----- -----
2.0
-----
----- 3.0 -----
-----
2.8
-----
----- 3.5 -----
3
Meander Wavelength (ft)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
----- -----
73.5
-----
----- 126.0 -----
-----
95.2
-----
----- 139.9 -----
9
Meander Width Ratio
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
----- -----
3.5
-----
----- 8.0 -----
-----
2.9
-----
----- 3.9 -----
3
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----------
-----
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
----- -----
-----
0.02
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
0.018
----- ----- -----
11
Pool Length (ft)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----------
-----
Pool Spacing (ft)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
----- -----
42.0
-----
----- 74.0 -----
-----
25.0
-----
----- 96.0 -----
14
Pool Max Depth (ft)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
----- -----
1.7
-----
----- 2.9 -----
-----
0.4
-----
----- 1.1 -----
15
Pool Volume (ft)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----------
-----
Substrate and Transport Parameters
Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----------
-----
SC% / Sa% / G% / B% / Be%
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
-----
----- -----
-----
<0.063 / 2 - 4.8 / 5.6 - 8.6 / 20.4 - 28.7 / 77 - 87.7
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
3.2 - 13.6 /
20.4 - 27.8 / 27.5 - 41.8 / 65.1 - 84.1 / 114.6 - 122.5 / 128 - 25
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/F
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
0.55 ----- -----
----- -----
-----
0.47
----- ---------
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/mz
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
19.4 ----- -----
----- -----
-----
23.4
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- 0.210
----- -----
- - -
-----
----- 0.2 -----
-----
-----
-----
----- 0.2
Impervious cover estimate (%)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
Rosgen Classification
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- C4 / E4
----- -----
-----
C4
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
C4
----- ----- -----
-----
BF Velocity (fps)
-----
----- -----
-----
2.41
----- ----- 3.15
----- -----
-----
3.4
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
BF Discharge (cfs)
-----
290.0 2000.0
28.8
-----
----- ----- 29.6
----- -----
-----
29.6
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
ValleyLength
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
742
----- ----- -----
-----
Channel length (ft)2
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- 849
----- -----
-----
809
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
822
----- ----- -----
-----
Sinuosity-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- 1.17
----- -----
-----
1.17
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
1.11
----- ----- -----
-----
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- 0.0133
----- -----
-----
0.0106
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
0.0128
----- ----- -----
-----
BF slope (ft/ft)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----------
-----
Bankf ill Floodplain Area (acres)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
---------- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----------
-----
BEHIVL% / L% / M% / H% / VH% / E%
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
Biological or Other
-----
---- -----
-----
I -----
----- ----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----------
-----
-----
-----
----- ----------
-----
* Harman, W.A., G.D. Jennings, J.M. Patterson, D.R. Clinton, L.O. Slate, A.G. Jessup, J.R. Everhart, and R.E. Smith.
1999. Bankfull hydraulic geometry relationships for North Carolina streams. Wildland Hydrology. AWRA Symposium Proceedings. D.S. Olsen and J.P. Potyondy, eds. American Water Resources Association. June 30 -July 2, 1999. Bozeman, MT.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B (DMS PROJECT NO. 95026)

Table 6. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Town Creek Restoration Project - Option B: DMS Project ID No. 95026
Reach 2 (711 LF)
Cross-section X-1 (Riffle) Cross-section X-2 (Riffle) Cross-section X-3 (Pool) Cross-section X-4 (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+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
BF Width (ft)
8.75 - - - - -
9.17 - - - - -
11.96 - - - - -
10.00 - - - - - -
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.66 - - - - -
0.90 - - - -
1.00 - - - - -
0.84 - - - - - -
Width/Depth Ratio
13.23 - - - - -
10.17 - - - -
11.92 - - - - -
11.92 - - - - - -
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft)
5.79 - - - - - -
8.28 - - - -
12.01 - - - - -
8.38 - - - - - -
BF Max Depth (ft)
1.09 - - - - - -
1.37 - - - -
2.25 - - - - - -
1.45 - - - - - -
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
27.05 - - - - - -
33.92 - - - -
42.56 - - - - - -
41.34 - - - - - -
Entrenchment Ratio
3.09 - - - - - -
3.70 - - - -
3.56 - - - - - -
4.13 - - - - - -
Bank Height Ratio
1.01 - - - - - -
1.01 - - - -
1.00 - - - - - -
1.00 - - - - - -
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
10.07 - - - - - -
10.97 - - - -
13.96 - - - - - -
11.68 - - - - - -
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.57 - - - - - -
0.75 - - - -
0.86 - - - - - -
0.72 - - - - - -
Based on current/developing current/developingbankfull feature
BF Width (ft)
- - - -
- - - - -
- - - - - -
- - - - - - -
BF Mean Depth (ft)
- - - -
- - - - -
- - -
- - - - - - -
Width/Depth Ratio
- - - -
- - - - -
- - -
- - - - - - -
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft2)
- - - -
- - - -
- - -
- - - - - - -
BF Max Depth (ft)
- - - -
- - - -
- - -
- - - - - - -
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
- - - -
- - - -
- - -
- - - - - - -
Entrenchment Ratio
- - - -
- - -
- - -
- - - - - - -
Bank Height Ratio
- - - -
- -
- -
- - - - - - -
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
- - - - -
- -
- - -
- - - - - - -
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
- - - - -
-
- - -
- - - - - - -
Cross Sectional Area between end pins (ft)
-
-
-
d50 (mm)j
23.33
-
17.14
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B (DMS PROJECT NO. 95026)

6. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Creek Restoration Proiect - Oution B: DMS Proiect ID No. 95026
Cross-section X-5 (Riffle) Cross-section X-6 (Pool) I ross-section X-7 (Riffle) Cross-section X-8 (Pool)
Dimension and substrate Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ I Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
BF Width (ft)
10.65 - - - - -
13.63 - - -
9.84 - - - - -
11.92 - - - - - -
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.82 - - - - -
1.07 - - - - -
0.66 - - - - -
1.21 - - - - - -
Width/Depth Ratio
13.05 - - - - -
12.77 - - - -
14.87 - - - - -
9.85 - - - - - -
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft2)
8.68 - - - - -
14.54 - - - -
6.51 - - - - - -
14.42 - - - - - -
BF Max Depth (ft)
1.44 - - - - -
2.09 - - - -
1.03 - - - - -
2.24 - - - - - -
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
48.09 - - - - -
50.26 -
38.30 - - - - - -
50.45 - - - - - -
Entrenchment Ratio
4.52 - - - - -
3.69 - - -
3.89 - - - - - -
4.23 - - - - - -
Bank Height Ratio
1.00 - - - - -
1.00 - - - -
1.00 - - - - - -
1.00 - - - - - -
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
12.29 - - - - -
15.77 -
11.16 - - - - - -
14.34 - - - - - -
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.71 - - - - -
0.92 - - - - -
0.58 - - - - - -
1.01 - - - - - -
Based on current/developing current/developingbankfull feature
BF Width (ft)
- - - - -
- - - - -
- - - - -
- - - - - - -
BF Mean Depth (ft)
- - - - -
- - - - -
- -
- - - - - - -
Width/Depth Ratio
- - - - -
- - - - -
- - -
- - - - - - -
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft')
- - - - -
- - - - -
- - -
- - - - - - -
BF Max Depth (ft)
- - - - -
- - - -
- - - -
- - - - - - -
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
- - - - -
- - - -
- - - -
- - - - - - -
Entrenchment Ratio
- - - - -
- - - - -
- - - - -
- - - - - - -
Bank Height Ratio
- - - - -
- - - -
- - - - - -
- - - - - - -
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
- - - - - -
- - - -
- - - -
- - - - - - -
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
- - - - - -
- - - - -
- - - - - -
- - - - - - -
Cross Sectional Area between end pins (ft)
- - - - - -
- - - - - - -
- - - - - -
1cn i,,,M
1 R as - - - - -
- - - - - -
IR of - - - - -
Dimension and substrate
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
BF Width
BF Mean Depth
Width/Depth Rai
BF Cross-sectional Area (f
BF Max Depth (
Width of Floodprone Area (
Entrenchment Rai
Bank Height Rai
Wetted Perimeter
Hydraulic Radius
Based on current/developing current/developingbankfull feature
BF Width (
BF Mean Depth (
Width/Depth Rai
BF Cross-sectional Area (f
BF Max Depth (
Width of Floodprone Area (
Entrenchment Rai
Bank Height Rai
Wetted Perimeter
Hydraulic Radius
Cross Sectional Area between end pins (f
IV. ,1 - - - - - -
0.63 - - - -
16.87 - - - -
6.79 - - - - -
1.06 - - - - -
37.79 - - - -
3.53 - - - -
1.00 - - - - -
11.97 - - - - -
0.57 - - - - -
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B (DMS PROJECT NO. 95026)
: ��•,����.,vr��.,vs��.,�c��.,v���•,vea awLd=LVAvr�L•,vAMLVALcMwv&�LVALT a�oI aL.,Lamkvv�wvAMwLrMwL&�wvm

Table 6. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Town Creek Restoration Project - Option B: DMS Project ID No. 95026
Reach 5 (822 LF)
Cross-section X-10 (Riffle) 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 MYl 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)
10.36 - - - - -
16.70 - - -
11.06 - - - - -
10.19 - - - - - -
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.77 - - - - -
1.09 - - - - -
0.52 - - - - -
0.59 - - - - - -
Width/Depth Ratio
13.43 - - - - -
15.34 - - - -
21.45 - - - - -
17.40 - - - - - -
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft')
8.00 - - - - -
18.19 - - - -
5.71 - - - - - -
5.97 - - - - - -
BF Max Depth (ft)
1.18 - - - - -
2.20 - - - -
1.07 - - - - - -
0.91 - - - - - -
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
59.38 - - - - -
63.54 -
43.79 - - - - - -
56.59 - - - - - -
Entrenchment Ratio
5.70 - - - - -
3.81 - - -
3.96 - - - - - -
5.55 - - - - - -
Bank Height Ratio
1.01 - - - - -
1.00 - - - -
1.01 - - - - - -
1.00 - - - - - -
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
11.90 - - - - -
18.88 - - -
12.10 - - - - - -
11.37 - - - - - -
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.67 - - - - -
0.96 - - - - -
0.47 - - - - - -
0.53 - - - - - -
Based on current/developing current/developingbankfull feature
BF Width (ft)
- - - - -
- - - - -
- - - - - - -
- - - - - - -
BF Mean Depth (ft)
- - - - -
- - - -
- - - - - - -
- - - - - - -
Width/Depth Ratio
- - - - -
- - -
- - - - - - -
- - - - - - -
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft')
- - - - -
- -
- - - - - -
- - - - - - -
BF Max Depth (ft)
- - - -
- - - -
- - - - - - -
- - - - - - -
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
- - - -
- - -
- - - - - -
- - - - - - -
Entrenchment Ratio
- - - -
- -
- - - - - - -
- - - - - - -
Bank Height Ratio
- - - -
- -
- - - - - - -
- - - - - - -
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
- - - -
-
- - - - - -
- - - - - - -
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
- - - - - -
- - - - -
- - - - - - -
- - - - - - -
Cross Sectional Area between end pins (ft)
- - - - - -
- - - - - - -
- - - - - - -
- - - - - - -
d50 (mm)l
41.83 - - - - -
- - - - - - -
27.48 - - - - - -
- - - - - - -
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B (DMS PROJECT NO. 95026)

Permanent Cross-section
X1 - Reach 2
(As -built Data - Collected April 2016)
LEFT BANK
RIGHT BANK
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B (DMS PROJECT NO. 95026)
Max
Stream
BKF
BKF
BKF
BH
BKF
TOB
Feature
BKF
WAD
ER
WFPA
Type
Area
Width
Depth
Ratio
Elev
Elev
Depth
Riffle
C
5.79
8.75
0.66
1.09
13.23
1.01
3.09
586.35
586.36
27.05
590
589
c
0
R 588
a�
W--------------------------------------------------------
587
586
-----------------
585
0
10
20
30
40 50
Station
- -0---
Bankfull
--o---
Floodprone
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B (DMS PROJECT NO. 95026)

Permanent Cross-section
X2 - Reach 2
(As -built Data - Collected April 2016)
LEFT BANK
RIGHT BANK
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B (DMS PROJECT NO. 95026)
Stream
BKF
BKF
BKF
Max BKF
BH
BKF
TOB
Feature
WAD
ER
WFPA
Type
Area
Width
Depth
Depth
Ratio
Elev
Elev
Riffle E
8.28 9.17
0.90
1.37 10.17
1.01
3.70 583.31 583.32 33.92
587 -
586
O 585
------------------------------------------------------------------------
d
W 584
583 -
------------------
582
581
0
10
20
30
40 50
Station
--o Bankfull
--- ---
Floodprone
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B (DMS PROJECT NO. 95026)

Permanent Cross-section
X3 - Reach 2
(As -built Data - Collected April 2016)
LEFT BANK
RIGHT BANK
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B (DMS PROJECT NO. 95026)
Stream
BKF
BKF
BKF
Max BKF
BH
BKF
TOB
Feature
WAD
ER
WFPA
Type
Area
Width
Depth
Depth
Ratio
Elev
Elev
Pool
12.01
11.96
1.00
2.25
11.92
1.00
3.56
582.09
582.10
42.56
586
585
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------o
584
0
> 583
m
W
582
------------------------
581
580
579
0 10
20
30
40
50
Station
- o--- Bankfull
--o--- Floodprone
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B (DMS PROJECT NO. 95026)

Permanent Cross-section
X4 - Reach 2
(As -built Data - Collected April 2016)
LEFT BANK
RIGHT BANK
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B (DMS PROJECT NO. 95026)
Stream
BKF
BKF
BKF
Max BKF
BKF
TOB
Feature
WAD
BH Ratio
ER
WFPA
Type
Area
Width
Depth
Depth
Elev
Elev
Riffle
C
8.38
10.00
0.84
1.45
11.92
1.00
4.13
576.81
576.81
41.34
579
578
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C
O
ca
W 577
--------------------
576
575
0
10
20
30 40 50
Station
- o Bankfull
--o--- Floodprone
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B (DMS PROJECT NO. 95026)

Permanent Cross-section
X5 - Reach 3
(As -built Data - Collected April 2016)
LEFT BANK
RIGHT BANK
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B (DMS PROJECT NO. 95026)
Stream
BKF
BKF
BKF
Max BKF
BKF
TOB
Feature
WAD
BH Ratio
ER
WFPA
Type
Area
Width
Depth
Depth
Elev
Elev
Riffle
C
8.68
10.65
0.82
1.44
13.05
1.00
4.52
568.85
568.86
48.09
571
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------o
570
c
0
ca
m
W 569
568
567
0 10
20
30 40 50
Station
--o- Bankfull
--o--- Floodprone
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B (DMS PROJECT NO. 95026)

Permanent Cross-section
X6 - Reach 3
(As -built Data - Collected April 2016)
LEFT BANK
RIGHT BANK
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B (DMS PROJECT NO. 95026)
Stream
BKF
BKF
BKF
Max BKF
BH
BKF
TOB
Feature
WAD
ER
WFPA
Type
Area
Width
Depth
Depth
Ratio
Elev
Elev
Pool
14.54
13.63
1.07
2.09
12.77
1.00
3.69
568.63
568.63
50.26
574
573
572
C
571
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------o
W 570
569
568
567
566
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Station
--o--- Bankfull
- 4--- Floodprone
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B (DMS PROJECT NO. 95026)

Permanent Cross-section
X7 - Reach 3
(As -built Data - Collected April 2016)
LEFT BANK
RIGHT BANK
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B (DMS PROJECT NO. 95026)
Stream
BKF
BKF
BKF
Max BKF
BKF
TOB
Feature
WAD
BH Ratio
ER
WFPA
Type
Area
Width
Depth
Depth
Elev
Elev
Riffle
C
6.51
9.84
0.66
1.03
14.87
1.00
3.89
563.96
563.96
38.30
567
566
0
v565
o ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
d
W
564
--------------------
563
562
0
10
20
30
40 50
Station
--o--- Bankfull
-9---
Floodprone
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B (DMS PROJECT NO. 95026)

Permanent Cross-section
X8 - Reach 3
(As -built Data - Collected April 2016)
LEFT BANK
RIGHT BANK
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B (DMS PROJECT NO. 95026)
Stream
BKF
BKF
BKF
Max BKF
BH
BKF
TOB
Feature
WAD
ER
WFPA
Type
Area
Width
Depth
Depth
Ratio
Elev
Elev
Pool
14.42
11.92
1 1.21
2.24
9.85
1.00
4.23
555.44
555.45
50.45
559
558
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C 557
0
> 556
d
W------
555
554
553
552
0 10 20
30 40 50
Station
--o-- Bankfull
- o--- Floodprone
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B (DMS PROJECT NO. 95026)

Permanent Cross-section
X9 - Reach 3
(As -built Data - Collected April 2016)
LEFT BANK
RIGHT BANK
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B (DMS PROJECT NO. 95026)
Stream
BKF
BKF
BKF
Max BKF
BH
BKF
TOB
Feature
WAD
ER
W FPA
Type
Area
Width
Depth
Depth
Ratio
Elev
Elev
Riffle
C
6.79
10.71
0.63
1.06
16.87
1.00
3.53
555.19
555.19
37.79
558
557
0
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
0 556
m
W
555
--------------------
554
553
0
10
20
30
40
50
Station
- o--- Bankfull
- o Floodprone
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B (DMS PROJECT NO. 95026)

Permanent Cross-section
X10 - Reach 5
(As -built Data - Collected April 2016)
LEFT BANK
RIGHT BANK
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B (DMS PROJECT NO. 95026)
Stream
BKF
BKF
BKF
Max BKF
BH
BKF
TOB
Feature
WAD
ER
WFPA
Type
Area
Width
Depth
Depth
Ratio
Elev
Elev
Riffle
C
8.00
10.36
0.77
1.18
13.43
1.01
5.70
550.83
550.84
59.38
553
552
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
0
m
W 551
--------------
550
549
0
10
20
30 40
50 60 70
Station
- o--- Bankfull
- o Floodprone
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B (DMS PROJECT NO. 95026)

Permanent Cross-section
X11 - Reach 5
(As -built Data - Collected April 2016)
LEFT BANK
RIGHT BANK
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B (DMS PROJECT NO. 95026)
Stream
BKF
BKF
BKF
Max BKF
BH
BKF
TOB
Feature
WAD
ER
WFPA
Type
Area
Width
Depth
Depth
Ratio
Elev
Elev
Pool
18.19
16.70
1.09
2.20
15.34
1.00
3.81
549.52
549.52
63.54
552
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
o
551
c
0
m 550
-----------------------LUm
549
548
547
0 10
20
30 40
50 60 70
Station
- o Bankfull
--o--- Floodprone
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B (DMS PROJECT NO. 95026)

Permanent Cross-section
X12 - Reach 5
(As -built Data - Collected April 2016)
LEFT BANK
RIGHT BANK
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B (DMS PROJECT NO. 95026)
Stream
BKF
BKF
BKF
Max BKF
BH
BKF
TOB
Feature
WAD
ER
WFPA
Type
Area
Width
Depth
Depth
Ratio
Elev
Elev
Riffle
C
5.71
11.06
0.52
1.07
21.45
1.01
3.96
549.04
549.054
43.79
551
550
C
0
ca
0
W 549
n.ee.mn_ea__n.ee.m.
548
547
0
10
20
30
40 50 60
Station
--o--- Bankfull
--o--- Floodprone
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B (DMS PROJECT NO. 95026)

Permanent Cross-section
X13 - Reach 5
(As -built Data - Collected April 2016)
LEFT BANK
RIGHT BANK
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B (DMS PROJECT NO. 95026)
Stream
BKF
BKF
BKF
Max BKF
BH
BKF
TOB
Feature
WAD
ER
WFPA
Type
Area
Width
Depth
Depth
Ratio
Elev
Elev
Riffle
C
5.97
10.19
0.59
0.91
17.40
1.00
5.55
546.93
546.93
56.59
549
548
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------0
0
m
W 547
-----------------
546 -
545
0 10
20
30
40
50 60
Station
-- --- Bankfull
--- --- Floodprone
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B (DMS PROJECT NO. 95026)

Z)y4
593
592
591
590
C 589
ca
588
W
587
586
585
584
583
Town Creek - Reach 1
As -built Stations 10+33 to 13+50
(Data Collected April 2016)
__# V-00,-- -
1020 1045 1070 1095 1120 1145 1170 1195 1220 1245 1270 1295
Station
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B (DMS PROJECT NO. 95026)
Thalweg
--m—Low Bank
—)Water Surface
1320 1345

MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B (DMS PROJECT NO. 95026)
Town Creek - Reach 2
As-built Stations 13+50 to 20+61
(Data Collected April 2016)
588
587
--*-Thalweg
586
_ _.......--...................................
585
-
— - ---- --
f Low Bank
584
- - - - - -- -
--)�--Water Surface
583
- --- - - - -- - ---- -
^
582
W
12
581
_..--- - ... _.__.._.._
---.._._....._
�
H
580
-
- ---
ca
W
579
---- -
W
578
577
_ _...... - ...... _..
-- ..__ ...... ...... ....
576 _
575
574
- - - --
573
-
572
571
1345
1370 1395 1420 1445 1470 1495 1520 1545 1570 1595 1620 1645 1670 1695 1720 1745 1770
1795 1820 1845 1870 1895 1920 1945 1970 1995 2020 2045
Station
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B (DMS PROJECT NO. 95026)

MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B (DMS PROJECT NO. 95026)
Town Creek - Reach 3
As-built Stations 20+87 to 37+08
(Data Collected April 2016)
577
576
575
_
--*-Thalweg
574
-
573
--
-a-Low Bank
572
571
--m-Water Surface
--------------------
570
-- ----..._...._.__ ..__._ '
569
_..._.._..._.__..._.__..._._..._.._.._
568
-. _..
W
W
567
- --. --- ----- -
566
................... -... __.
565
- - -
O
564
-- ..._ _. _.._..__._._.._..
W
563
--- - -
W
562
- -- ----
--- - --- - -- -- --
561
-----
- - ---- --------- --- ---- -- ---- ---
560
- -- - - - - - — - ---- -- ---- -- ---- -- ---- -- -
559
558
557
_......_.......-._._............... .._.......__.._.
556
- - - -
555
554
- -
553
- - - ---
552
551
550
2065
2115 2165 2215 2265 2315 2365 2415 2465 2515 2565 2615 2665 2715 2765 2815 2865 2915 2965 3015
3065 3115 3165 3215 3265 3315 3365 3415 3465 3515 3565 3615 3665
Station
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B (DMS PROJECT NO. 95026)

MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B (DMS PROJECT NO. 95026)
Town Creek - Reach 4
As -built Stations 37+08 to 39+40
(Data Collected April 2016)
556
--o—Thalweg
555
Low Bank
554
- - - - - - -
­0(—Water Surface
d
O
553
-
O
m
d
W
552
551
-
550 .
549
3700
3725 3750 3775 3800 3825 3850
3875 3900 3925
Station
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B (DMS PROJECT NO. 95026)

Town Creek - Reach 5
As -built Stations 39+40 to 47+87
(Data Collected April 2016)
553
—o—Thalweg
551 _.
--o—Low Bank
--X—Water Surface
549
_ Stream Crossing
547
O--- --. ... -- -- -
C
O
ca
> 545
W
543
541
539 - -- ----
537
3935 3960 3985 4010 4035 4060 4085 4110 4135 4160 4185 4210 4235 4260 4285 4310 4335 4360 4385 4410 4435 4460 4485 4510 4535 4560 4585 4610 4635 4660 4685 4710 4735 4760 4785
Station
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B (DMS PROJECT NO. 95026)

PEBBLE COUNT DATA SHEET: RIFFLE 100 -COUNT
BAKER PROJECT NO. 124526
SITE OR PROJECT:
Town Creek - Baseline
D35 =
12.06
D50 =
REACH/LOCATION:
Reach 2 - X1
55.26
D95 =
75.61
DATE COLLECTED:
6/14/2016
FIELD COLLECTION BY:
KS & DH
DATA ENTRY BY:
KS
PARTICLE CLASS COUNT
Summary
MATERIAL
PARTICLE
SIZE (mm)
Riffle
Class %
% Cum
Silt / Clay
< .063
15
13%
13%
S
A
N
p
Very Fine
.063-1125 .125
13%
Fine .125 - .25
13%
Medium .25-50 .50
13%
Coarse .50 - 1.0
13%
Very Coarse 1.0-2.0
13%
Oi
Very Fine
2.0-2.8
2
2%
15%
l�
Very Fine
2.8-4.0
15%
Fine
4.0-5.6
3
3%
18%
RFine
5.6-8.0
6
5%
23%
A
V
Medium
8.0-11.0
11
10%
33%
E
Medium
11.0-16.0
9
8%
41%
L
�(
Coarse
16.0-22.6
9
8%
49%
�Q
C
Coarse
22.6-32
11
10%
59%
Very Coarse 32-45 17 15%
74%
Q�
n O
Very Coarse
45-64
19
17%
91%
O
Small
64-90
9
8%
99%
Small 90-128 1 1 %
100%
E
4—(
Large
128-180
100%
Large
180-256
100%
Small
256-362
100%
Small 362-512
100%
Medium
512-1024
100%
Large -Very Large 1024-2048
100%
BEDROCKBedrock
-2048
100%
Total1112 100%
Largest particles
Riffle
100 Channel materials
(riffle)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B (DMS PROJECT NO. 95026)
D16 =
4.43
D35 =
12.06
D50 =
23.33
D84 =
55.26
D95 =
75.61
D100 =
90-128

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
L
U- 50%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Town Creek - Baseline
Sediment Distribution - Active Bed Pebble Count
Reach 2 - X1 (Riffle)
� Class Percent
❑ Riffle Data
M LO LO O O O OJ O (O O O O (O N Ln O c0 O O N N V co W
O N N LC7 N N Ln O O N M O O N O LO N ID M O O O
VIn (n O O O O M N co V (�O O of O O N N A
Q N N Lo N N M O O O N O 00 m M N V
O of c0 N M NO
Particle Size (mm)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B (DMS PROJECT NO. 95026)

PEBBLE COUNT DATA SHEET: RIFFLE 100 -COUNT
PARTICLE CLASS COUNT Summary
MATERIAL
BAKER PROJECT NO. 124526
SITE OR PROJECT:
Town Creek - Baseline
REACH/LOCATION:
Reach 2 - X4
DATE COLLECTED:
6/16/2016
FIELD COLLECTION BY:
KS & DH
DATA ENTRY BY:
KS
PARTICLE CLASS COUNT Summary
MATERIAL
I PARTICLE
SIZE (mm)
Riffle
Class %
% Cum
D84 =
Silt / Clay
<.063
19
19%
19%
Very Fine
.063 - .125
19%
S
A
N
D
Fine
.125-25 .25
19%
Medium .25-50 .50
19%
Coarse .50-1.0 1 1%
20%
Very Coarse 1 10-20
20%
O
Very Fine
2.0-2.8
4
4%
24%
� ��
Very Fine
2.8-4.0
1
1 %
25%
0
G
R
Fine
4.0-5.6
4
4%
29%
Fine 5.6-8.0 4 4%
33%
O
V
E
L�11
/}.
�t
Medium
8.0-11.0
8
8%
41%
Medium 11.0-16.0 8 8%
49%
O �(
C
�0
Coarse
16.0-22.6
5
5%
54%
Coarse 22.6-32 9 9%
63%
Very Coarse 32-45 7 7%
70%
Very Coarse 45-64 1 8 8%
78%
O
Small
64-90
11
11%
89%
Small 90-128 8 8%
97%
COBBLE
Large
128-180
1
1 %
98%
OO
Large
180-256
2
2%
100%
Small
256-362
100%
Small 362-512
100%
Medium
512-1024
100%
Large -Very Large 1024 - 2048
100%
BEDROCK
Bedrock
> 2048
100%
I Total I 100 I 100% I I
Largest particles: 210 1 Riffle
(riffle) I Channel materials
D16 =
<0.063
D35 =
8.66
D50 =
17.14
D84 =
77.08
D95 =
117.21
D100 =
180-256
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B (DMS PROJECT NO. 95026)

Town Creek - Baseline
Sediment Distribution - Active Bed Pebble Count
Reach 2 - X4 (Riffle)
100% El
90%
Class Percent
❑ Riffle Data
80%
70%
60%
L
d
_
LL 50%
a�
L
40%
a
30%
20%
LI
10%
0%
M (n (n O O O o0 O (O O O O co N (fl V O W O O N N_ W CO
00 N N Un M O O N co
N N V LO W (0 N N Ln _O O O
.- N i N N
V L(7 LO O O O C0 O C0
N N d' (n O O O N M V a) N 00 W !) O N 0 N ^
O W (0 N co (f) O
r
Particle Size (mm)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B (DMS PROJECT NO. 95026)

PEBBLE COUNT DATA SHEET: RIFFLE 100 -COUNT
PARTICLE CLASS COUNT I Summary
MATERIAL
BAKER PROJECT NO. 124526
SITE OR PROJECT:
Town Creek - Baseline
REACH/LOCATION:
Reach 3 - X5
DATE COLLECTED:
6/16/2016
FIELD COLLECTION BY:
KS & DH
DATA ENTRY BY:
KS
PARTICLE CLASS COUNT I Summary
MATERIAL
PARTICLE
SIZE (mm)
Riffle
Class %
% Cum
Silt / Clay
< .063
20
20%
20%
S
A
Very Fine
.063-125 .125
20%
Fine .125 - .25
20%
Medium .25-50 .50
20%
N
D
Coarse
.50-1.0
20%
Very Coarse 1.0-2.0
20%
0Q
l�
Very Fine
2-0-2.8
20%
Very Fine 2.8-4.0
20%
0
Fine
4.0-5.6
3
3%
23%
G
R
Fine
5.6-8.0
10
10%
32%
Q
A
V
Medium
8.0-11.0
4
4%
36%
E
Medium
11.0 - 16.0
11
11%
47%
^0 L �(
kV C
�w0
Coarse
16.0-22.6
7
7%
54%
Coarse 22.6-32 7 7%
61%
Very Coarse 32-45 9 9%
70%
Very Coarse 45 - 64 8 89/6
77%
O
Small
64-90
8
8%
85%
Small 90-128 6 6%
91%
COBBLE
Large
128-180
7
7%
98%
OO
Large
180-256
2
2%
100%
Small
256-362
100%
Small 362-512
100%
Medium
512-1024
100%
Large -Very Large 1024-2048
100%
BEDROCKBedrock
> 2048
100%
Total I 102 I 100%Total 102 100% 1
Largest particles: 190 Riffle
(riffle) Channel materials
D16 = <0.063
D35 = 9.92
D50 = 18.55
D84 = 85.08
D95 = 154.78
D100 = 180-256
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B (DMS PROJECT NO. 95026)

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Town Creek - Baseline
Sediment Distribution - Active Bed Pebble Count
Reach 3 - X5 (Riffle)
Class Percent
—� Riffle Data
M Ln Ln O O O 00 O (O O O O (0 N LO V O 00 O (0 N N_ V 00 00
O N N � N N 4 Ln 00 CO N M tt (0 O N 00 N M L!'7 O O O
V U0 L() O O O W O (0 C'iN O M V CSO O 00 O (0 N - N n
C N N N N LO CO O (O N O r N M N N
r (6 Ln O
Particle Size (mm)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)

PEBBLE COUNT DATA SHEET: RIFFLE 100 -COUNT
BAKER PROJECT NO. 124526
SITE OR PROJECT:
Town Creek - Baseline
D84 =
96.72
D95 =
REACH/LOCATION:
Reach 3 - X7
> 2048
DATE COLLECTED:
6/16/2016
FIELD COLLECTION BY:
KS & DH
DATA ENTRY BY:
KS
PARTICLE CLASS COUNT
Summary
MATERIAL
PARTICLE
SIZE (mm)
Riffle
Class %
%Cum
Silt / Clay
< .063
19
19%
19%
Very Fine
.063-125 .125
19%
S
Fine
.125 - .25
19%
A
N
p
Medium
.25 - .50
19%
Coarse .50 - 1.0 2 2%
21%
Very Coarse
1.0-2.0
21%
O
Very Fine
2.0-2.8
21%
� lJ
0
G
R
Q A
V
E
�0 L �(
C
O�
r7 O Qnn�
Very Fine
2.8-4.0
21
Fine 4.0-5.6 2 2%
23%
Fine 5.6-8.0 5 5%
28%
Medium 8.0-11.0 4 4%
32%
Medium 11.0 - 16.0 3 3%
35%
Coarse 16.0-22.6 7 7%
42%
Coarse 22.6-32 12 12%
53%
Very Coarse 32-45 11 11%
64%
Very Coarse T45-64 9 9%
73%
O
Small
64-90
9
9%
82%
Small 90-128 9 9%
91%
E
4-0
Large
128-180
6
6%
97%
Q
Large
180-256
2
2%
99%
Small
256-362
99%
Small 362-512
99%
Medium
512-1024
99%
Large -Very Large 1024-2048
99%
BEDROCK
Bedrock
> 2048
1
1 %
100%
I Total I 101 I 100%
Largest particles: Bedrock I Riffle
(riffle) Channel material
D16 = <0.063
D35 = 16.28
D50 =
28.91
D84 =
96.72
D95 =
160.21
D100 =
> 2048
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B (DMS PROJECT NO. 95026)

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
L
U- 50%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Town Creek - Baseline
Sediment Distribution - Active Bed Pebble Count
Reach 3 - X7 (Riffle)
� Class Percent
❑ Riffle Data
M Lf) Lf) O O O 00 O (O O O O (O N LO O 00 O (O N N V 00 co
O N N Lq N N 4 Ln 00 CO N M O O N 00 N c`O') Ln O O O
V Cq
Ln Ln O O O O O M � N M V ((O O 00 O (0 N N n
Q N N Ln — N N M O O O N O 00 Ln M N V
O of O N co N
� Ln O
Particle Size (mm)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B (DMS PROJECT NO. 95026)

PEBBLE COUNT DATA SHEET: RIFFLE 100 -COUNT
BAKER PROJECT NO. 124526
SITE OR PROJECT:
Town Creek -
Baseline
D95 =
>2048
REACH/LOCATION:
Reach 3 - X9
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
DATE COLLECTED:
6/14/2016
FIELD COLLECTION BY:
KS & DH
DATA ENTRY BY:
KS
PARTICLE CLASS COUNT
Summary
MATERIAL
PARTICLESIZE
(mm)
Riffle
Class %
% Cum
Silt / Clay
< .063
15
15%
15%
S
A
N
p
Very Fine
.063- .125
15%
Fine .125 - .25
15%
Medium .25 - .50
15%
Coarse .50 - 1.0
15%
Very Coarse 1.0-2.0
15%
00 -
O�Very
0�
G
R
Q A
V
E
L
0 0
Very Fine
2.0-2.8
15%
Fine 2.8-4.0
15%
Fine 4.0-5.6 1 1 %
16%
Fine 5.6-8.0 5 5%
21%
Medium 8.0 - 11.0 8 8%
29%
Medium 11.0 - 16.0 10 10%
39%
Coarse 16.0-22.6 8 8%
47%
Coarse 22.6-32 9 9%
56%
Very Coarse 32-45 10 10%
66%
�0 h r) C
Very Coarse
45-64
11
11%
77%
O
Small
64-90
5
5%
82%
Small 90-128 7 7%
89%
COBBLE
DO
Large
128-180
3
3%
92%
Large 180-256 2 2%
94%
Small
256-362
94%
Small 362-512
94%
Medium
512-1024
94%
Large -Very Large 1024-2048
94%
BEDROCK
Bedrock
> 2048
6
6%
100%
I Total I 100 I 100% I I
Largest particles: Bedrock
Riffle
(riffle) Channel materials
D16 = 5.60
D35 = 13.77
D50 = 25.38
D84 =
99.53
D95 =
>2048
D100 =
> 2048
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B (DMS PROJECT NO. 95026)

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
L
L- 50%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Town Creek - Baseline
Sediment Distribution - Active Bed Pebble Count
Reach 3 - X9 (Riffle)
Class Percent
- ❑ Riffle Data
co LO LO
O N O QO LO C\j Ln O 0 fl N N co co
N Lq
N '70 Ln O O O
N i i N N
V Ln LO O O O W O CON LO
' M M LO CSO OCD O CO N h
N
QD N Ln N N Ln O O O N O (NW Ln M N V
O W CO N co N
r Ln O
Particle Size (mm)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B (DMS PROJECT NO. 95026)

PEBBLE COUNT DATA SHEET: RIFFLE 100 -COUNT
BAKER PROJECT NO. 124526
SITE OR PROJECT:
Town Creek - Baseline
D50 =
41.83
D84 =
REACH/LOCATION:
Reach 5 - X10
122.49
D100 =
180-256
DATE COLLECTED:
6/15/2016
FIELD COLLECTION BY:
KS & DH
DATA ENTRY BY:
KS
PARTICLE CLASS COUNT
Summary
MATERIAL
PARTICLE
SIZE (mm)
Riffle
Class %%Cum
Silt / Clay
-e.063
3
3%
3%
Very Fine
.063-125 .125
3%
Fine .125 - .25
3%
Medium .25-50 .50
3%
Coarse .50 - 1.0
3%
Very Coarse 1.0-2.0
3%
0,-,�
Very Fine
2.0-2.8
3%
��
Very Fine
2.8-4.0
3%
Fine
4.0-5.6
1
1%
4%
G
R
Fine
5.6 - 8.0
3
3%
7%
A
V
Medium
8.0 - 11.0
4
4%
11%
E
Medium
11.0 - 16.0
10
10%
21%
UO
L O
Coarse
16.0-22.6
8
8%
29%
�0 h C�
Coarse
22.6-32
10
10%
39%
Very Coarse 32-45 14 14%
53%
Very Coarse 45-64 15 15%
68%
O
Small
64-90
20
20%
88%
Small 90-128 8 8%
96%
COBBLE
Large
128-180
1
1%
97%
DO
Large
180-256
3
3%
100%
LE—
Small
256-362
100%
Small 362-512
100%
Medium
512-1024
100%
Large -Very Large 1024-2048
100%
BEDROCKBedrock
> 2048
100%
I Total I 100 I 100% I I
Largest particles: 200 1 Riffle
(riffle) I Channel materials
D16 = 13.27
D35 =
27.84
D50 =
41.83
D84 =
84.07
D95 =
122.49
D100 =
180-256
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B (DMS PROJECT NO. 95026)

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
L
U- 50%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Town Creek - Baseline
Sediment Distribution - Active Bed Pebble Count
Reach 5 - X10 (Riffle)
� Class Percent
❑ Riffle Data
M In Lf) O O O 00 O co O O O (O N LO O 00 O (O N N V W c0
O N N Lfi N N V' Ln C0 CO N CO O O N 00 Lo N (0 Ln O O O
V In In O O O O C9 N M V 4 O 7 O CO N � N A
Q N N Lo N N M O O O N O 00 m M N V
O of c0 N co Ln NO
Particle Size (mm)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B (DMS PROJECT NO. 95026)

PEBBLE COUNT DATA SHEET: RIFFLE 100 -COUNT
BAKER PROJECT NO. 124526
SITE OR PROJECT:
Town Creek - Baseline
D50 =
27.48
D84 =
REACH/LOCATION:
Reach 5 - X12
114.59
D100 =
128-180
DATE COLLECTED:
6/15/2016
FIELD COLLECTION BY:
KS & DH
DATA ENTRY BY:
KS
PARTICLE CLASS COUNT
Summary
MATERIAL
PARTICLE
SIZE (mm)
Riffle
Class %
%Cum
Silt / Clay
< .063
1
1 %
1
S
A
N
p
Very Fine
.063-1125 .125
1
Fine 1125-25 .25
1 %
Medium .25-50 .50
1 %
Coarse .50-1.0
1 %
Very Coarse 1.0-2.0
1 %
O�O(
Very Fine
2.0-2.8
1 %
Very Fine
2.8 - 4.0
1 %
0
Fine
4.0-5.6
1
1%
2%
G
R
Fine
5.6-8.0
2
2%
4%
Q
A
V
Medium
8.0 - 11.0
7
7%
11%
E
Medium
11.0-16.0
10
10%
20%
L �(
Coarse
16.0-22.6
22
21%
41%
�O
CCoarse
�C)
22.6-32
16
15%
57%
Very Coarse 32-45 20 19%
76%
Very Coarse 45-64 8 8%
84%
O
Small
64-90
7
7%
90%
Small 90-128 7 7%
97%
COBBLE
41
Large
128-180
3
3%
100%
OO
Large
180-256
100%
L�z
Small
256-362
100%
Small 362-512
100%
77
Medium
512-1024
100%
Large -Very Large 1024-2048
100%
BEDROCK
Bedrock
> 2048
100%
Total I 104100ITotal 104100% 1
Largest particles:
178 1 Riffle
(riffle) I Channel materials
D16 = 13.59
D35 =
20.38
D50 =
27.48
D84 =
65.13
D95 =
114.59
D100 =
128-180
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B (DMS PROJECT NO. 95026)

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
L
U- 50%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Town Creek - Baseline
Sediment Distribution - Active Bed Pebble Count
Reach 5 - X12 (Riffle)
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIiCassPercent
❑ Riffle Data
M LO LO O O O QO O (O O O O (O N Ln O M O '000
N N V W 00
00 N N to N N d' Ln 0� CO N co M O N O N M Ln O O O
V Ln Ln O O O M O co V ((O O O O O N N A
N N Lo N N M O O O N O 00 m O N V
O of c0 N co Ln NO
Particle Size (mm)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B (DMS PROJECT NO. 95026)

APPENDIX C
Vegetation Summar
Tables 7and 8
CVS Tables

Table 7. Vegetation Species Planted Across the Restoration Site
Town Creek Restoration Project - Option B: DMS Project ID No. 95026
Botanical Name
Common Name
% Planted by
Species
Wetland
Tolerance
Number of
Stems
Bare -Root Overstory Species
Betula nigra
river birch
8%
FACW
612
Carpinus caroliniana
ironwood
2%
FAC
125
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
8%
FACW
589
Liriodendron tulipfera
tulip poplar
6%
FACU
448
Platanus occidentalis
sycamore
7%
FACW
542
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
7%
FACW
500
Quercus falcata
Southern red oak
6%
FACU
440
Quercus alba
white oak
3%
FACU
200
Quercus phellos
willow oak
10%
FAC
730
Quercus pagoda
cherry bark oak
6%
FACW
400
Bare -Root Understory Species
Cercis canadensis
redbud
4%
FACU
300
Callicar a americana
beau be
3%
FACU
250
Sambucus nigra
elderberry
1%
FAC
100
Asimina triloba
paw paw
8%
FAC
588
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
10%
FACW
742
Diospyros vir iniana
1persimmon
11%
FAC
770
Total Species Planted
100%
7,336
Total Acreage Planted
10.73
# Stems / Acre
684
Riparian Live Stake Plantings
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
10%
FAC
Salix nigra black willow 10% OBL
Salix sericea silky willow 40% OBL
Sambucus nigra elderberry 40% FAC
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B (DMS PROJECT NO. 95026)

Table 8. Planted and Total Stem Counts (Species by Plot with Annual Means)
Town Creek Restoration Project - Option B: DMS Project ID No. 95026
Tree Species Common Name Type Plot 1
PnoL P -all T
Plot 2
PnoL P -all
T
PnoL
Plot 3
P -all
T
PnoL
Current Data (AB 2016)
Plot 4 Plot 5
P -all T PnoL P -all
T
PnoL
Plot 6
P -all
T
PnoL
Plot 7
P -all
T
PnoL
Plot 8
P -all
T
Annual Means
Current Mean AB (2016)
P T P T
Asimina triloba paw paw Tree 0 0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
Betula nigra river birch Tree 3 3 3
0
0
0
2
2
2
1
1
1
0
0
0
2
2
2
0
0
0
4
4
4
11
11
11
11
Callicarpa americana American beautyberry Shrub 0 0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
3
3
4
4
4
0
0
0
7
7
7
7
Carpinus caroliniana ironwood Tree 1 1 1
2
2
2
1
1
l
2
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
4
4
4
Cercis canadensis redbud Tree 1 1 1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
5
5
1
1
1
0
0
0
7
7
7
7
Cornus amomum silky dogwood Shrub 0 0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
5
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
5
5
0
0
0
5
5
5
5
Diospyros virginiana common persimmon Tree 0 0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
3
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
3
3
3
Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash Tree 0 0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Lirodendron tuli i era tulip poplar Tree 0 0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Platanus occidentalis sycamore Tree 2 2 2
2
2
2
4
4
4
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
0
0
0
13
13
13
28
28
28
28
Quercus alba white oak Tree 4 4 4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
4
4
0
0
0
8
8
8
8
Quercus falcata southern red oak Tree 1 1 I
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
3
3
3
Quercus michuaxii swamp chestnut oak Tree 6 6 6
4
4
4
2
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
3
3
15
15
15
15
Quercus pagoda chem bark oak Tree 0 0 0
5
5
5
5
5
5
0
0
0
5
5
5
3
3
3
0
0
0
2
2
2
20
20
20
20
Quercus phellos willow oak Tree 0 0 0
5
5
5
5
5
5
0
0
0
5
5
5
3
3
3
0
0
0
2
2
2
20
20
20
20
Sambucus nigra elderberry Shrub 0 1 0 0
2 1
2
1 2
0
1 0
0
4
4
1 4
0
1 0
0
0
0
1 0
0
1 0
1 0
1
11
3
3
3
3
Stems Per Plot 18 18 18
21
21
21
20
20
20
15
15
15
16
16
16
21
21
21
14
14
14
25
25
25
135
135
135
135
Plot area (ares) 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
8
8
8
8
Plot area (acres) 0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
Species Count 7 7 7
7
7
7
7
7
7
6
6
6
4
4
4
7
7
7
4
4
4
6
6
6
14
14
14
14
Stems Per Acre 720 720 720
840
840
840
800
800
800
600
600
600
640
640
640
840
840
840
560
560
560
1000
1000
1000
675
675
675
675
Notes: CVS Level 1 Survey performed.
Color for Density
PnoL = Planted No Live Stakes Exceeds requirements by 10%
P -all= Planted Including Live Stakes Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Total = Total number of Plants Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B (DMS PROJECT NO. 95026)

CVS Table: Metadata
Report Prepared By Kristi Suggs
Date Prepared 11/15/2016 12:05
atabase name 124526_TownCreek_cvs-eep-entrytool-v2.3.1.mdb
atabase location C:\My Documents\Baker\CVS\124526_TownCreek
:)mputer name CHABLKSUGGS
le size 58146816
DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT------------
Metadata
Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a summary of project(s) and project data.
Proj, planted
Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre, for each year. This excludes live stakes.
Each project is listed with its TOTAL stems per acre, for each year. This includes live stakes, all
Proj, total stems
planted stems, and all natural/volunteer stems.
Plots
List of plots surveyed with location and summary data (live stems, dead stems, missing, etc.).
(Vigor
Frequency distribution of vigor classes for stems for all plots.
Vigor by Spp
Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species.
List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences and percent of total stems
Damage
impacted by each.
Damage by Spp
Damage values tallied by type for each species.
Damage by Plot
Damage values tallied by type for each plot.
A matrix of the count of PLANTED living stems of each species for each plot; dead and missing stems
Planted Stems by Plot and Spp
are excluded.
(PROJECT SUMMARY -------------------------------------
Project Code 95026
project Name Town Creek Restoration Project - Option B
Description
River Basin Yadkin -Pee Dee
length(ft)
stream -to -edge width (ft)
area (sq m)
Required Plots (calculated)
Sampled Plots 8
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B (DMS PROJECT NO. 95026)

CVS Table: Planted Stems
Living planted stems, excluding live stakes, per acre: Negative (red) numbers indicate the
project failed to reach requirements in a particular year.
Project Code I Project Name I River Basin Year 0 (baseline)
95026 ITown Creek Restoration Project - Option B Yadkin -Pee Dee 1 804.3127155
CVS Table: Total Stems
Total stems, including planted stems of all kinds (including live stakes) and natural/volunteer
stems:
Project Code Project Name River Basin Year 0 (baseline)
95026 ITown Creek Restoration Project - Option B Yadkin -Pee Dee 1 804.3127155
CVS Table: Vigor
vigor Count Percent
4 1591 100
CVS Table: Damage
Damage Count Percent Of Stems
(no damage) 1591 1001
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B (DMS PROJECT NO. 95026)

CVS Table: Project Plots
plot
Plot
Level
Latitude/ Longitude/
Year Northing Easting
Date
Zone Datum Sampled
Planted
Living Stems
Planted Living Stems
EXCLUDING Live Stakes
Dead/Missing
Stems
Natural
(Volunteer)
Stems
Total Living
Stems
Total Living StemsPlanted
EXCLUDING Live
Stakes
Living
Stems per ACRE
Planted Living Stems EXCLUDING
Live Stakes PER ACRE
Natural (Volunteer)
Stems PER ACRE
Total Living
Stems PER ACRE
Total Living Stems EXCLUDING
Live Stakes PER ACRE
# species
95026-01-VP1
1
0
6/14/2016
22
22
0
0
22
22
890.3084146
890.3084146
0
890.3084146
890.3084146
8
95026-01-VP2
1
0
6/14/2016
21
21
0
0
21
21
849.8398503
849.8398503
0
849.8398503
849.8398503
8
95026-01-VP3
1
0
6/14/2016
19
19
0
0
19
19
768.9027217
768.9027217
0
768.9027217
768.9027217
8
95026-01-VP4
1
0
6/14/2016
21
21
0
0
21
21
849.8398503
849.8398503
0
849.8398503
849.8398503
7
95026-01-VP5
1
0
6/15/2016
23
23
0
0
23
23
930.7769789
930.7769789
0
930.7769789
930.7769789
5
95026-01-VP6
1
0
6/15/2016
18
18
0
0
18
18
728.4341574
728.4341574
0
728.4341574
728.4341574
6
95026-01-VP7
1
0
6/15/2016
18
18
0
0
18
18
728.4341574
728.4341574
0
728.4341574
728.4341574
6
95026-01-VP8
1
0
6/15/2016
17
17
0
0
17
17
687.9655931
687.9655931
0
687.9655931
687.9655931
4
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B (DMS PROJECT NO. 95026)

CVS Table: Vigor by Species
Species
Common Name
4 3 2 1 0 Missing Unknown
Asimina triloba
pawpaw
1
Betula nigra
river birch
12
Callicarpa americana
American beautyberry
1
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
14
Diospyros virginiana
common persimmon
4
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
2
Quercus alba
white oak
3
Quercus falcata
southern red oak
S
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
9
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
6
Quercus phellos
willow oak
47
Sambucus nigra
European black elderberry
2
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
1
Cercis canadensis
eastern redbud
11
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
27
Platanus occidentalis
lAmerican sycamore
14
TOT: 16
116
159
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B (DMS PROJECT NO. 95026)

CVS Table: Damage by Species
oy
�y
0
i`
X40
40
m
v
`m
4
a 0
40
k
4Q
0
Asimina triloba
pawpaw
0
1
0
Betula nigra river birch 0
12
Callicarpa americana American beautyberry 0
1
Carpinus caroliniana American hornbeam 0
1
Cercis canadensis eastern redbud 01
11
Cornus amomum silky dogwood 0
14
Diospyros virginiana common persimmon 0
4
Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash 0
2
Liriodendron tulipifera tuliptree 0
27
Platanus occidentalis American sycamore 0
14
Quercus alba white oak 0
3
Quercus falcata southern red oak 0
5
Quercus michauxii swamp chestnut oak 0
9
Quercus pagoda cherrybark oak 0
6
Quercus phellos willow oak 0
47
Sambucus nigra European black elderberry 0
2
TOT: 116 116 01
159
CVS Table: Damage by Plot
oy
0
X40
m
v
4
a 0
k
4Q
�o
0
0
95026 -01
-VPI
0
22
95026-01-VP2
0
21
95026-01-VP3
0
19
95026-01-VP4
0
21
95026-01-VP5
0
23
95026-01-VP6
0
18
95026-01-VP7
0
18
95026-01-VP8
1
0
17
TOT: 18
1
01
159
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B (DMS PROJECT NO. 95026)

CVS Table: Planted Stems by Plot and Species
w
qj
F
Z�
0
FF
Cb
4q,
a Oti Oti Oti Oti (Z) Oti Oti
Q�mr y ��Fy yoti roti yoti roti roti roti roti roti
wm \o
Asimina triloba
Shrub Tree
pawpaw
1
1
1
1
Betula nigra
Tree
river birch
12
5
2.4
3
2
1
2 4
Callicarpa americana
Shrub
American beautyberry
1
1
1
1
Carpinus caroliniana
Shrub Tree
American hornbeam
1
1
1
1
Cercis canadensis
Shrub Tree
eastern redbud
Ill
2
5.51
1
7
4
Cornus amomum
Shrub
silky dogwood
14
5
2.8
4 4
1 4
1
Diospyros virginiana
Tree
common persimmon
4
1
4
1 4
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Tree
green ash
2
2
1
1
1
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tree
tuliptree
27
7
3.86
3
3 3
5
1 61 6
Platanus occidentalis
Tree
American sycamore
14
4
3.5
2
1
5 6
Quercus alba
Tree
white oak
31
3
11
11
1 1
Quercus falcata
Tree
southern red oak
5
3
1.67
3
1 1
Quercus michauxii
Tree
swamp chestnut oak
9
3
3
3
2
4
Quercus pagoda
Tree
cherrybark oak
6
4
1.5
1 1
3
1
Quercus phellos
Tree
willow oak
47
8
5.88
8
7 3
12 6
6 4 1
Sambucus nigra
Shrub Tree
European black elderberry
2
2
1
1
1
TOT: 10 116
116
116
11591161
1
221
211 191
211 231181181
17
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B (DMS PROJECT NO. 95026)

APPENDIX D
As -Built / Record Drawings

a
1
NG
MEISENHEIMER RD ,
PROJECT
LOCATION
UNNAMED TRIBUTARY'
TO TOWN CREEK
OLD SALISBURY RD- y
2�
\X
-STEAKHOUSE RD
BLALOCK RD
TOWN CREEK
VICINITY MAP
NOT TO SC4 L,F
SALLY L & CRAYON C EFIRD JR
DEED BOOK 201, PAGE 78
PIN 662102973064
CURTIS S. SMITH
DEED BOOK 1086, PAGE 54
PIN 662102873154
GRAPHIC SCALES
20 0 20 40
PLANS
20 0 20 40
PROFILE (HORIZONTAL)
4 0 4 8
PROFILE (VERTICAL)
BEGIN REACH 1
STA. 10+33.10
PIS DIVISION OF M][TIGATTON SERVICES
6-- _FAN Y CO- u N [-I y
LOCA TION
APPA OXI A TEL Y 15, MILES, WEST OF THE TO WN OF 1N'1�-0T LONDON NC NFA R
�lL; TFRS'ECT1L ON Off' ST��91�C HOlam`-',, -R OAS A 1 YD OLD SA1LISBU-R Y R OA,,D
TYPE OF WORK: AS -BUIL T SUR VEY/ RECORD DRA WING
END REACH 1
BEGIN REACH 2
STA. 13+50.00
PROPERTY LINE
//_
END REACH 2
STA. 20+60.99
BEGIN REACH 3
DAVID LEE HAWARD STA. 20+86.77
DEED BOOK 242, PAGE 436
PIN 662102865498
C.0 N I RUL .PU I N FS
POINT
NORTHING
EA.MNG
ELEVATION
GPS1
613754.25
1630860.98
541.40
GPS2
614063.02
1630823.49
553.43
GPS3
614976.29
1630276.26
573.19
GPS4
615228.37
1630262.04
585.99
GPS5
616217.36
1629783.66
600.72
GPS6
616519.86
1 1629648.52
601.23
AS -BUIL T SUAR Y
LATITUDE: 35.436'2,59
LONGITUDE: —80.242172
�- GPS4
END REACH 4
BEGIN REACH 5
CTA QO-i-An nn
END REACH 3
BEGIN REACH 4
_ STA. 37+08.00
REACH NAME
METHOD
AS-BUTLT LENGTH (FD
1
RESTORATION
317
2
ENHANCEMENTI
711
3
RESTORATION
1621
4
ENHANCEMENTI
232
5
RESTORATION
822
DAVID LEE HARWARD
DEED BOOK 203, PAGE 368
PIN 662104943597
PR ITA ,Q ED FOR
NCDEQ
DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
5 RAVENCROFT DR., #102
ASHEVILLE, NC 28801
NC.DMS CONTTA CT HARRY TSOMIDES
PRO IECT HA NA GFR
S'T'ET ,T DEX
1 ...................................COVER SHEET
1-A ...................................CONVENTIONAL SYMBOLS
1-B ...................................GENERAL NOTES &
VEGETATION SELECTION
2 - 2-D ...................................TYPICAL CROSS
SECTIONS & DETAILS
3 - 3G....................................AS-BUILT SURVEY
PLAN/PROFILE
4 - 4G ....................................RECORD DRAWING
PLAN/PROFILE
1 % WithersRavenel
Engineers I Planners I Surveyors
115 MacKenan Drive I Cary, NC 27511 It: 919A60.33461 Ikense N: Ge6321
www.wllremravenel.enm
DAVID LEE HARWARD
DEED BOOK 340, PAGE 602
PIN 663103240463
END REACH 5
CTA A74.07 7n
TILLMAN ALBERT GRIFFIN
DEED BOOK 709, PAGE 551
PIN 663103124634
DAVID LEE HARWARD
DEED BOOK 978, PAGE 996
PIN 662104937281
PREPARED EV TLT OFFICE OF. -
Michael Baker Engineering Inc.
9716-B Rea Road #56
I 1 ► Charlotte, NORTH CAROLINA 28277
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
1 N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L License #: F-1084
JACOB M. BYERS, PE
PROJECT ENGINEER
KRISTI SUGGS
GPSI
P. 0, ECT ENGINT, �
�TAl
%% \� I CARP
•��SEAL��•
039201
� Q .
8 Mjjjjjlg;;��,
111q/(6 /,J.
I, MARSHALL G. WIGHT, ASA DULYREGISTERED PROFESSIONAL
,�II11 I I1Itr��
��i�
LAND SURVEYOR IN THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, HEREBY
C A R (� l
CERTIFY THAT THE DATA SHOWN ON THIS DRAWING, WAS OBTAINED
, • • • • • • •, �iir'�j�
UNDER MYSUPERWSION, IS AN ACCURATE AND COMPLETE
,,���p�
'• F E S S I 9 ��
•a�
REPRESENTATION OF WHAT WAS CONSTRUCTED IN THE FIELD,
�q ' ••
AND THAT THE PHYSICAL DIMENSIONS OR ELEVATIONS SHOWN
' SEAL
THUS ARE AS -BUILT CONDITIONS, EXCEPT WHERE OTHERWISE
r
` L-5034
NOTED HERON, WITNESS MY ORIGINAL IGNATURE, REGISTRATION
' �
•: q
NUMBER, AND SEAL THIS?�CtAY OF� Pc 6
per;'
S uw
.......
exon �ccrn� .rnr r n��i c�rnknow
1 % WithersRavenel
Engineers I Planners I Surveyors
115 MacKenan Drive I Cary, NC 27511 It: 919A60.33461 Ikense N: Ge6321
www.wllremravenel.enm
DAVID LEE HARWARD
DEED BOOK 340, PAGE 602
PIN 663103240463
END REACH 5
CTA A74.07 7n
TILLMAN ALBERT GRIFFIN
DEED BOOK 709, PAGE 551
PIN 663103124634
DAVID LEE HARWARD
DEED BOOK 978, PAGE 996
PIN 662104937281
PREPARED EV TLT OFFICE OF. -
Michael Baker Engineering Inc.
9716-B Rea Road #56
I 1 ► Charlotte, NORTH CAROLINA 28277
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
1 N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L License #: F-1084
JACOB M. BYERS, PE
PROJECT ENGINEER
KRISTI SUGGS
GPSI
P. 0, ECT ENGINT, �
�TAl
%% \� I CARP
•��SEAL��•
039201
� Q .
8 Mjjjjjlg;;��,
111q/(6 /,J.

CONVENTIONAL SYMBOLS - PLAN VIEW
EXISTING MAJOR CONTOUR EXISTING TREE � TRANSPLANT -SEAL
=' � APPROVED BY:
DATE:
EXISTING MINOR CONTOUR EXISTING WETLAND VEG PLOT ••• MIchael Baker Engineering Inc., Phone: 704,665.2200b
97 1 S -B Rea Road #56
Michael Baker,,,,,,,,,, NORTH CAROLINA 28277
2201
EXISTING STREAM ALIGNMENT ,N" �m ROCK CROSS VANE Q CREST GUAGE °"°" "° °�°•..` °`
AS BUILT/RECORD DRAWING
EXISTING SANITARY SEWER � LOG J -HOOK OO FLOW GUAGE
EXISTING OVERHEAD ELECTRIC BOULDER STEP — #' PHOTO POINT
AS—BUILT
EXISTING FENCE BOULDER TOE _________
SURVEYED CROSS SECTION
1 0+00 DESIGN STREAM ALIGNMENT CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE ,zop _ — AS -BUILT MAJOR CONTOUR
"FLOW FLOW DIRECTION LOG VANE
—— — AS—BUILT MINOR CONTOUR
DESIGN TOP OF BANK ROOT WADS
AS -BUILT THALWEG
LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE OOO ANGLED LOG STEP
AS -BUILT TOP OF BANK
DESIGN FENCE— VEGETATED GEOLIFT
DESIGN GATE sgs�TOE WOOD
cE— CONSERVATION EASEMENT
CONVENTIONAL SYMBOLS - PROFILE VIEW
AS -BUILT THALWEG
AS -BUILT LOW BANK
PROPOSED THALWEG
PROPOSED LOW BANK
EXISTING GROUND

GENERAL NOTES
1. CONSTRUCTION BEGAN IN OCTOBER 2015 AND WAS COMPLETED IN JANUARY 2016
2. RIPARIAN VEGETATION PLANTING BEGAN IN MARCH 2016 AND WAS COMPLETED IN MARCH 2016
STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS
NORTH CAROLINA
6.06 TEMPORARY GRAVEL CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE
6.24 RIPARIAN AREA SEEDING
6.62 TEMPORARY SILT FENCE
6.63 TEMPORARY ROCK DAM
6.70 TEMPORARY STREAM CROSSING
The folloing table lists the bare root vegetation selection for the project site. The planting area is appro)dmately 11 acres.
Riparian Buffer - Overstory Trees (8' x 8' spacing - 680 stems / acre)
Scientific Name
Common Name
% Planted by
Species
Wetland
Tolerance
Approx. Number of
Stems
Betula nigra
river birch
8%
FACW
612
Carpinus caroliniana
ironwood
2%
FAC
125
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
8%
FACW
589
Liriodendron tulipfera
tulip poplar
6%
FACU
448
Platanus occidentalis
sycamore
7%
FACW
542
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
7%
FACW
500
Quercus falcata
Southern red oak
6%
FACU
440
Quercus alba
white oak
3%
FACU
200
Quercus phellos
willow oak
10%
FAC
730
Quercus pagoda
cherry bark oak
6%
FACW
400
Riparian Buffer - Understory (8'x 8' spacing - 680 stems / acre)
Scientific Name
Common Name
% Planted by
Species
Wetland
Tolerance
Approx. Number of
Stems
Cercis canadensis
redbud
4%
FACU
300
Callicarpa americana
beautyberry
3%
FACU
250
Sambucus nigra
elderberry
1%
FAC
100
Asimina triloba
paw paw
8%
FAC
588
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
10%
FACW
742
Diospyros virginiana
persimmon
11%
FAC
770
Total Species Planted
100%
71336
Total Acreage Planted
10.73
# Stems / Acre
684
AS BUILT /RECORD DRAWING
Live staking was applied to all restored streambanks following the details in this plan set and
according to the construction specifications.
Scientific Name
Common Name
%Planted by
Species
Wetland
Tolerance
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
10%
FAC
Salix nigra
black willow
10%
OBL
Salix sericea
silky willow
40%
OBL
Sambucus nigra
elderberry
40%
FAC
Permanent herbaceous seed mixtures for the project site were planted throughout thte floodplain and riparian buffer areas. Permanent
seed mixtures were applied with temporary seed, as defined in the construction specifications
Scientific Name
Common Name
% Planted by
Species
Lbs. / Acre
Wetland Tolerance
Andropogon gerardii
Big blue stem
10%
1.5
FAC
Dichanthelium
clandestinum
Deer Tongue
15%
2.25
FAC
Carex crinita
Fringed sedge
10%
1.5
OBL
Chasmanthium latifolium
River oats
5%
0.75
FACU
Elymus virginicus
Virginia wild rye
15%
2.25
FACW
Juncus effusus
Soft rush
5%
0.75
FACW
Panicum virgatum
Switchgrass
10%
1.5
FAC
Polygonum pensylvanicum
Pennsylvania Smartweed
5%
0.75
FACW
Schizachyrium scoparium
Little blue stem
10%
1.5
FACU
Tripsacum dactyloides
Eastern gamagrass
5%
0.75
FACW
Sorghastrum nutans
I ndiangrass
10%
1.5
FACU

PROPOSED REVEGETA-
r
SLOPE TO EXISTING GI
NO STEEPER THAN 2:1
PROPOSED REVEGETATION
(TYP)
CONTROL MATTING (TYP)
INSTALL LIVE STAKES
(TYP)
SLOPE TO EXISTING GROUND
NO STEEPER THAN 2:1
INSTALL EROSION
CONTROL MATTING (TYP)
PROPOSED REVEGETATION
(TYP) zTO EXISTIN(
NO STEEPER THAN
TYPICAL RIFFLE SECTION REACH 3
CONTROL MATTING (TYP)
.0'
PROPOSED REVEGETATION
(T'P)
SLOPE TO EXIST
NO STEEPER TI -
PROPOSED REVEGETATION
(T'P)
Sl
N(
PROPOSED REVEGETATION
(TYP)
70.0 '
11 `�tJ I TILL UnlYll
PROTECTION PER PLANS
AS BUILT /RECORD DRAWING
SLOPE TO EXISTING GROUND
NO STEEPER THAN 2:1
120.0 '
TYPICAL POOL SECTION REACH 4 AND 5
STATION 37+08 - 47+74
160.0 '
20.0'
q
11N. i � Ur INIX
PROTECTION PER PLANS
-- 20.0'
23.0 '
I
INSTALL BANK
PROTECTION
PER PLANS

z
Q
m
U-
0
a_
O
w
a
0
J
co
U-
0
w
O
I-
M
w
dJ z
O J
cn U-
LL 0 zl
Lu m
� r� h
I Iv
IT
LOG VANE
NTS
VANE LOG
PLACE BOULDER ON TOP OF
VANE ARM TO STABILIZE IN BANK
BURIED IN BANK
MINIMUM 5'
EDGE OF TYPE II
FILTER FABRIC
TOP OF BANK
HEADER LO
WELL GRADED MIX
CLASS A & B STONE
STREAMBED FLOW
TYPE II FILTER FABRIC
m__0
\—BACKFILL (ON-SITE ALLUVIUM)
L�1
s
SET ELEVATION OF TOP OF
LOGS TO DESIRED ELEVATION
OF STREAMBED.
A%' BANKFULL
;
` � ��� BURIED IN BANK
_ _ MINIMUM 5'
4-7
p/o
1 - PLACE ONE BOULDER
BURT D IN STREAMBED—' ON EACH SIDE OF VANE ARM STREAM BED
MINIMUM 1'. TO STABLILZE ARM BURIED IN
1/3 BOT T OM STREAMBED —
WIDTH OF - MINIMUM V HEADER LOG
CHANNEL— B
PLAN VIEW
FOOTER LOG APPROXIMATE TOE OF SLOPE
LOG VANE STRUCTURE NOTES
PROFILE B -B'
1. BOULDERS SHALL BE AT LEAST 3'X2'X1'.
2. LOGS SHALL BE AT LEAST 12" IN DIAMETER WITH A MAXIMUM DIAMETER OF 24", RELATIVELY STRAIGHT, AND HARDWOOD.
3. A SINGLE LOG WITH A MINIMUM DIAMETER OF 36 INCHES MAY BE USED IN PLACE OF TWO LOGS (A HEADER AND FOOTER) PER ON-SITE ENGINEER APPROVAL.
4. LOGS FOR LOG VANES SHALL BE A MININUM OF 30' IN LENGTH.
5. VANE ARM LOG SHALL BE BURIED INTO THE BANK A MINIMUM OF 5'.
6. DIG A TRENCH BELOW THE BED FOR FOOTER LOG. START AT BANK AND PLACE FOOTER LOG FIRST AND THE HEADER LOGS. CONTINUE WITH STRUCTURE, FOLLOWING ANGLE AND
SLOPE SPECIFICATIONS.
7. USE FILTER FABRIC TO SEAL GAPS BETWEEN LOGS.
8. INSTALL FILTER FABRIC FOR DRAINAGE BEGINNING AT THE MIDDLE OF THE HEADER LOG AND EXTEND DOWNWARD TO THE DEPTH OF THE BOTTOM FOOTER LOG, AND THEN
UPSTREAM FOR A MINIMUM OF SIX FEET.
9. NAIL FILTER FABRIC TO TOP OF HEADER LOG USING 3" 10d GALVANIZED COMMON NAIL ON 1' SPACING ALONG LOG.
10. USE WELL GRADED MIX OF CLASS A AND B STONE ON UPSTREAM SIDE OF STRUCTURE
11. AFTER ALL STONE HAS BEEN PLACED, FILL IN THE UPSTREAM SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE WITH ON-SITE ALLUVIUM TO THE ELEVATION OF THE TOP OF THE HEADER LOG.
12. FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE TRIMMED ALONG THE TRANSITION BETWEEN THE STONE BACKFILL AND THE HEADER LOG SO THAT THE FILTER FABRIC DOES NOT OVERLAP THE
HEADER LOG.
1/3 BOTTOM 2/3 BOTTOM
I 211
PLAN VIEW
J—HOOK LOG VANE
NTS
1EADER BOULDER
LEVATION POINT
NO GAPS IN HEADER BOULDERS
TOP OF BA14K HEADER BOULDER
` BANKFULLELEVATION POINT
�, '
FLOW �� 7
STREAMBED ELEVATION '
BACKFILL (ON-SITE ALLUVIUM)
WFOOTER BOULDER
WELL GRADED MIX
CLASS A & B STONE
SCOUR POOL EXCAVATED
PER PROFILE
PROFILE VIEW
WELL GR'---
CLASS
F CLASS A !
BACKFILL (ON-SITE ALLUVIUM)
TYPE II FILTER FABRIC
HEADER LOG
BURIED IN BANK
MINIMUM 5'
FOOTER LOG
SECTION A - A
J -HOOK LOG VANE STRUCTURE NOTES:
1. BOULDERS MUST BE AT LEAST 2'x2'x2'.
2. LOGS SHOULD BE AT LEAST 12 INCHES IN DIAMETER WITH A MAXIMUM DIAMETER OF 24 INCHES, RELATIVELY STRAIGHT, HARDWOOD,
AND RECENTLY HARVESTED.
3. A SINGLE LOG WITH A MINIMUM DIAMETER OF 36 INCHES MAY BE USED IN PLACE OF TWO LOGS (A HEADER AND FOOTER) PER ON-SITE
ENGINEER APPROVAL.
4. USE FILTER FABRIC TO SEAL GAPS BETWEEN LOGS/BOULDERS.
5. DIG A TRENCH BELOW THE BED FOR FOOTER LOGS/BOULDERS. START AT BANK AND PLACE FOOTER LOG/BOULDERS FIRST AND THE
HEADER LOG/BOULDERS. CONTINUE WITH STRUCTURE, FOLLOWING ANGLE AND SLOPE SPECIFICATIONS.
6. INSTALL FILTER FABRIC FOR DRAINAGE BEGINNING AT THE MIDDLE OF THE HEADER LOG/BOULDERS AND EXTEND DOWNWARD TO THE
DEPTH OF THE BOTTOM FOOTER LOG/BOULDERS, AND THEN UPSTREAM FOR A MINIMUM OF SIX FEET.
7. NAIL FILTER FABRIC TO TOP OF HEADER LOG USING 3" 10d GALVANIZED COMMON NAIL ON 1' SPACING ALONG LOG.
8. USE WELL GRADED MIX OF CLASS A AND B STONE ON UPSTREAM SIDE OF STRUCTURE.
9. AFTER ALL STOtJE HAS BEEN PLACED, FILL IN THE UPSTREAM SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE WITH ON-SITE ALLUVIUM TO THE ELEVATION OF
THE TOP OF THE HEADER LOG/ROCK.
10. FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE TRIMMED ALONG THE TRANSITION BETWEEN THE STQNE BACKFILL AND THE HEADER LOG/BQULUERS SO THAT
THE FILTER FABRIC DOES NOT OVERLAP THE HEADER LOG/BOULDERS.
1EADERLOG
FOOTERLOG
STAKE TOP LAYER
OF MATTING IN 6" TRENCH
(SEE EROSIOP
MATTING DET,
VEGETATED GEOLIFT
NTS
�I
Un
PLAN VIEW
l�Ll1JJ h I'11VU L.l L/'1JJ u nlr I��r
CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE
NTS
HEAD OF
RIFFLE
B'
J
a V cra foo
RIFFLE
DEPTH
PROFILE A -A'
AS BUILT /RECORD DRAWING
F BAR OF CHANNEL
MATERIAL
TYPICAL SECTIONS)
RIFFLE MATERIAL 12" DEPTH MIX
OF 60% CLASS A, 20% CLASS B.
AND 20% 57 STONE
EROSION
CONTROL
MATTING
Dmax' '
TOWN CREEK PROJECT SPECIFIC SPECSr
ALL REACHES
RIFFLE DEPTH 12 IN
RIFFLE COMPOSTION 0-10 % ONSITE COARSE ALLUVIUM
60
% CLASS A
20
% CLASS B
20
%1 57 STONE
0
OTHER
TAIL OF RIFFLE
SECTION B -B'

CONSTRUCT
-rvnirr A i nr".ry
NO GAPS BETWEEN
FOOTER BOULDERS
-SCOUR QOL EXCAVATED
PER PRC FILE
BOULDER STEP
NTS
HEADER
BOULDERS
PLAN VIEW
0
STEP HEIGHT FROM PROFILE IN
PLANS
At
1 4`l14 ���jv� . POOL (TYP)
FILTER FABRIC (TYP)
FOO"
„s
BOL
STF
WELL GRI
CLASS A 2
BACKFILL (ON-SITE ALL
TYPE II FILTER F.
ROCK CROSS VANE
NTS
FLOW
TOP OF BANK
BANKFULL
STREAMBE
WELL GRADED MIX— —
CLASS A & B STONE
BACKFILL (ON-SITE ALLUVIUM
-UNGE
,)OL
4'
ALTERNATIVE PLAN VIEW: TWO BOULDERS FORM INVERT
—CHANNEL BED
i
SCOUR POOL EXCAVATED
PER PROFILE
—ELEVATION POINT
BURIED INTO BANK
HEADER BOULDER MINIMUM 5'
47%
7------ --- ---------N.�
4" TYRE II FILTER FABRIC
PROFILE VIEW B -B'
R BOULDER
EROSION CONTROL MATTI
FILTER FABRIC
AS BUILT /RECORD DRAWING
ROCK CROSS VANE STRUCTURE NOTES:
1. BOULDERS MUST BE AT LEAST 3'x2'x1'.
2. USE FILTER FABRIC TO SEAL GAPS BETWEEN BOULDERS.
3. DIG A TRENCH BELOW THE BED FOR FOOTER BOULDERS. START AT BANK AND PLACE FOOTER BOULDERS FIRST AND
THE HEADER BOULDERS. CONTINUE WITH STRUCTURE, FOLLOWING ANGLE AND SLOPE SPECIFICATIONS.
4. INSTALL FILTER FABRIC FOR DRAINAGE BEGINNING AT THE MIDDLE OF THE HEADER BOULDERS AND EXTEND DOWNWARD
TO THE DEPTH OF THE BOTTOM FOOTER BOULDERS, AND THEN UPSTREAM FOR A MINIMUM OF SIX FEET.
5. USE WELL GRADED MIX OF CLASS A AND B STONE ON UPSTREAM SIDE OF STRUCTURE.
6. AFTER ALL STONE HAS BEEN PLACED, FILL IN THE UPSTREAM SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE WITH ON-SITE ALLUVIUM TO THE
ELEVATION OF THE TOP OF THE HEADER BOULDER.
7. FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE TRIMMED ALONG THE TRANSITION BETWEEN THE STONE BACKFILL AND THE HEADER BOULDERS
SO THAT THE FILTER FABRIC DOES NOT OVERLAP THE HEADER BOULDERS.
BOULDER TOE
NTS
-TUCK EROSION CONTROL MATTING
BEHIND BOULDERS IN BANK.
FILTER FABRIC LAYS OVER
TOP OF BOULDER.
BOULDER TOE
r -INSTALLED BELOW STREAM BED
BASEFLOW
OPTIONAL FOOTER BOULDER
(SEE NOTE)
TOP OF BANK
CROSS SECTION VIEW
LEGEND:
- APPROXIMATE LEVEL OF BASEFLOW
WATER SURFACE
CHANNEL THALWEG / CONTROL LINE
NOTE: .n
?r-
0 poo CHANNEL BED MATERIAL 1. BOULDERS SHOULD EXTEND BELOW SCOUR DEPTH AND ABOVE BASE FLOW WATER LEVELS.
o FOOTER BOULDERS MAY BE REQUIRED, DEPENDING ON EXISTING BED MATERIAL.
2. TOE BOULDERS SHALL BE TOUCHING SO THAT VOID SPACE IS MINIMIZED.
CHANNEL SEDIMENT 3. THE MAJORITY OF THE BOULDER SHOULD BE BURIED IN THE STREAM BANK, LEAVING FACE OF
BOULDER EXPOSED TO FLOW.
4. FILTER FABRIC SHOULD BE PLACED BEHIND BOULDER TOE, BURIED BELOW BOULDER DEPTH,
UNDISTURBED IN-SITU SOIL AND EXTEND INTO THE BANK.
5. EROSION CONTROL MATTING SHOULD BE PLACED AGAINST BOULDER BEFORE BACKFILL,
THEN FOLDED BACK OVER SEEDED BANK SLOPE.
NON -WOVEN FILTER FABRIC 6. BOULDER TOE SHOULD BE BACKFILLED AND COMPACTED, VOID SPACE BETWEEN FABRIC
AND BOULDER TOE SHOULD BE MINIMIZED.
7. BOULDER TOE SHOULD NOT EXCEED MAXIMUM BANKFULL ELEVATION.
BOULDER: 2'x1.5'x1' to 3'x3'x2
BOULDER
PLAN VIEW
SCOUR
POOL
O
J
`L
B'
1
a
aW.
O
O
J
cn
J
co
0
0
O
O
I–
I–
CONSTRUCT
-rvnirr A i nr".ry
NO GAPS BETWEEN
FOOTER BOULDERS
-SCOUR QOL EXCAVATED
PER PRC FILE
BOULDER STEP
NTS
HEADER
BOULDERS
PLAN VIEW
0
STEP HEIGHT FROM PROFILE IN
PLANS
At
1 4`l14 ���jv� . POOL (TYP)
FILTER FABRIC (TYP)
FOO"
„s
BOL
STF
WELL GRI
CLASS A 2
BACKFILL (ON-SITE ALL
TYPE II FILTER F.
ROCK CROSS VANE
NTS
FLOW
TOP OF BANK
BANKFULL
STREAMBE
WELL GRADED MIX— —
CLASS A & B STONE
BACKFILL (ON-SITE ALLUVIUM
-UNGE
,)OL
4'
ALTERNATIVE PLAN VIEW: TWO BOULDERS FORM INVERT
—CHANNEL BED
i
SCOUR POOL EXCAVATED
PER PROFILE
—ELEVATION POINT
BURIED INTO BANK
HEADER BOULDER MINIMUM 5'
47%
7------ --- ---------N.�
4" TYRE II FILTER FABRIC
PROFILE VIEW B -B'
R BOULDER
EROSION CONTROL MATTI
FILTER FABRIC
AS BUILT /RECORD DRAWING
ROCK CROSS VANE STRUCTURE NOTES:
1. BOULDERS MUST BE AT LEAST 3'x2'x1'.
2. USE FILTER FABRIC TO SEAL GAPS BETWEEN BOULDERS.
3. DIG A TRENCH BELOW THE BED FOR FOOTER BOULDERS. START AT BANK AND PLACE FOOTER BOULDERS FIRST AND
THE HEADER BOULDERS. CONTINUE WITH STRUCTURE, FOLLOWING ANGLE AND SLOPE SPECIFICATIONS.
4. INSTALL FILTER FABRIC FOR DRAINAGE BEGINNING AT THE MIDDLE OF THE HEADER BOULDERS AND EXTEND DOWNWARD
TO THE DEPTH OF THE BOTTOM FOOTER BOULDERS, AND THEN UPSTREAM FOR A MINIMUM OF SIX FEET.
5. USE WELL GRADED MIX OF CLASS A AND B STONE ON UPSTREAM SIDE OF STRUCTURE.
6. AFTER ALL STONE HAS BEEN PLACED, FILL IN THE UPSTREAM SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE WITH ON-SITE ALLUVIUM TO THE
ELEVATION OF THE TOP OF THE HEADER BOULDER.
7. FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE TRIMMED ALONG THE TRANSITION BETWEEN THE STONE BACKFILL AND THE HEADER BOULDERS
SO THAT THE FILTER FABRIC DOES NOT OVERLAP THE HEADER BOULDERS.
BOULDER TOE
NTS
-TUCK EROSION CONTROL MATTING
BEHIND BOULDERS IN BANK.
FILTER FABRIC LAYS OVER
TOP OF BOULDER.
BOULDER TOE
r -INSTALLED BELOW STREAM BED
BASEFLOW
OPTIONAL FOOTER BOULDER
(SEE NOTE)
TOP OF BANK
CROSS SECTION VIEW
LEGEND:
- APPROXIMATE LEVEL OF BASEFLOW
WATER SURFACE
CHANNEL THALWEG / CONTROL LINE
NOTE: .n
?r-
0 poo CHANNEL BED MATERIAL 1. BOULDERS SHOULD EXTEND BELOW SCOUR DEPTH AND ABOVE BASE FLOW WATER LEVELS.
o FOOTER BOULDERS MAY BE REQUIRED, DEPENDING ON EXISTING BED MATERIAL.
2. TOE BOULDERS SHALL BE TOUCHING SO THAT VOID SPACE IS MINIMIZED.
CHANNEL SEDIMENT 3. THE MAJORITY OF THE BOULDER SHOULD BE BURIED IN THE STREAM BANK, LEAVING FACE OF
BOULDER EXPOSED TO FLOW.
4. FILTER FABRIC SHOULD BE PLACED BEHIND BOULDER TOE, BURIED BELOW BOULDER DEPTH,
UNDISTURBED IN-SITU SOIL AND EXTEND INTO THE BANK.
5. EROSION CONTROL MATTING SHOULD BE PLACED AGAINST BOULDER BEFORE BACKFILL,
THEN FOLDED BACK OVER SEEDED BANK SLOPE.
NON -WOVEN FILTER FABRIC 6. BOULDER TOE SHOULD BE BACKFILLED AND COMPACTED, VOID SPACE BETWEEN FABRIC
AND BOULDER TOE SHOULD BE MINIMIZED.
7. BOULDER TOE SHOULD NOT EXCEED MAXIMUM BANKFULL ELEVATION.
BOULDER: 2'x1.5'x1' to 3'x3'x2
BOULDER
PLAN VIEW

TOP Of
STREAMBANK
TOE OF SLOPE
TOP OF STREAMBANK
BARE ROOT PLANTING
NTS
BUFFER WIDTH VARIES
SEE PLANTING PLAN
PLANTINGS
8' O.C.
CROSS-SECTION
CROSS-SECTION
TOP OF STREAMBANK
O
BARE ROOT PLATING NOTES:
TOE OF SLOPE
1. BARE ROOT SHRUBS AND TREES SHALL BE PLANTED AS SHOWN ON THE PLANS.
2. COMPACTED SOIL SHALL BE LOOSENED PRIOR TO PLANTING.
3. PLANTS SHALL BE PLACED IN HOLES DEEP AND WIDE ENOUGH TO ALLOW THE ROOTS TO
SPREAD OUT AND DOWN WITHOUT J -ROOTING.
4. ROOTS SHALL BE KEPT MOIST BY MEANS OF WET CANVAS, BURLAP, OR STRAW WHILE
DISTRIBUTING OR WAITING TO PLANT.
5. PLANTS SHALL BE HEELED -IN TO MOIST SOIL OR SAWDUST IF NOT PROMPTLY PLANTED
UPON ARRIVAL AT PROJECT SITE.
6. SEE PLANTING PLAN FOR PLANT SPACING.
7. SEE SPECIAL PROVISION, SEE DETAIL 6/26, AND PLANTING PLAN FOR PLANTING DETAILS.
LIVE STAKE
NTS
?_3,8
S
S�F�p �6N QC` S
eFC ph/oti
SLOPE BANK PER
PLAN SHEETS
TOE OF SLOPE
T^^ OF
EAMBANK
PLAN VIEW
D
SQUARE CUT TOP
BUDS FACING UPWARD
LIVE CUTTING
0.5" - 2" DIA
ANGLE CUT TC
45 DEGRES:
STAKES SHALL BE PLANTED &
INSTALLED FROM TOP OF BANK
TO TOE OF SLOPE
LIVE STAKE DETAIL
30" IN LENGTH
MINIMUM
NOTES
1. STAKES THAT HAVE BEEN SPLIT SHALL BE REJECTED AND NOT
USED FOR CONSTRUCTION.
2. STAKES SHALL BE INSTALLED WITH BUDS POINTING UPWARD.
3. STAKES SHALL BE INSTALLED PERPENDICULAR TO BANK.
4. STAKES SHALL BE 0.5" - 2" INCHES IN DIAMETER AND 15" IN
LENGTH MINIMUM.
5. STAKES SHALL BE INSTALLED WITH APPROXIMATELY 3" OF STAKE
REMAINING ABOVE GROUND,
6. STAKE SPACING SHALL BE 4' ON CENTER ON RIFFLE BANKS AND
3' ON CENTER ON OUTSIDE BANK $ENDS.
BERM (0.5' MAXIMUM HT.) BERM(S)
NOT TO EXTEND BEYOND LIMITS
OF ROOT WADS
FLOODPLAIN
EROSION CONTROL
TRENCH SHALL BE DUG TO
MATTING—
ATTINGACCOMODATE
ACCOMODATEROOT WAD.
MAINTAIN A 1:1 SLOPE WHEN
TIEING INTO EXISTING GRADE.
BACKFILL OVER STRUCTURE
8-12 FEET LONG
AND COMPACT TO A 95%
>12" DIAMETER
COMPACTION RATIO
ROOT WAD
NTS
IF ROOT WAD DOES NOT COVER ENTIRE BANK &
CONSTRUCTION IS BETWEEN MID OCTOBER TO
MID MARCH, BANK SHALL BE PROTECTED WITH
BRUSH MATTRESS
5' MAX ROOT
BALL DIAMETER
TOP OF
BANK
Ic-r BANKFULL STAGE — -- N
/ 1/3 OF ROOT MASS
HEIGHT SHALL BE
LOCATED BELOW STREAM
BED
COVER LOG
CROSS-SECTION VIEW
NOTE
1. ROOTWADS SHALL BE A HARDWOOD SPECIES WITH A 12" MINIMUM DIAMETER
2. THE CHANNEL BASEFLOW ELEVATION WILL VARY SEASONALLY AND MAY BE VERY
LOW DURING TIMES OF DROUGHT. FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES, THE BASEFLOW
ELEVATION WILL BE CONSIDERED TO BE EQUAL TO THE DOWNSTREAM RIFFLE
ELEVATION.
3. ELEVATION OF THE ROOTWADS WILL BE BASED ON THE DOWNSTREAM RIFFLE
ELEVATION. ROOTWADS SHOULD BE CONSTRUCTED SUCH THAT HALF OF THE
ROOTWAD MASS IS BELOW THE BASEFLOW WATER SURFACE
4. THE CONTRACTOR WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CHANGES TO THE ROOTWADS
ELEVATION AND PLACEMENT IF IT IS DETERMINED BY THE ENGINEER THAT THE
ROOTWADS WERE NOT INSTALLED PROPERLY ACCORDING TO THIS DETAIL.
GEOTEXTILE
NOTE
TRENCHING METHOD:
IF THE ROOT WAD CANNOT BE DRIVEN INTO
THE BANK OR THE BANK REQUIRES
RECONSTRUCTION, THE TRENCHING METHOD
SHALL BE USED. THIS METHOD REQUIRES
THAT A TRENCH BE EXCAVATED FOR THE LOG
PORTION OF THE ROOT WAD. ONE-THIRD OF
THE ROOT WAD SHALL REMAIN BELOW
NORMAL BASE FLOW CONDITIONS.
PERMANENT STREAM CROSSING
NTS
PI AAI WIMA/
NOTE
�S BUILT /RECORD DRAWING
COVER LOG
SHALL BE
ANCHORED
BETWEEN
ROOTWADS OR
WITH A BOULDER
ROOT WAD (TYP)
DRIVE POINT METHOD:
THE TRUNK END OF THE LOG SHALL BE SHARPENED
WITH A CHAINSAW BEFORE "DRIVING" IT INTO THE
BANK. ROOT WADS SHALL BE ORIENTED UPSTREAM
SO THAT THE STREAM FLOW MEETS THE ROOT WAD
AT A 90 -DEGREE ANGLE, DEFLECTING THE WATER
AWAY FROM THE BANK. A TRANSPLANT OR BOULDER
SHALL BE PLACED ON THE DOWNSTREAM SIDE OF
THE ROOT WAD IF A BACK EDDY IS FORMED BY THE
ROOT WAD. THE BOULDER SHALL BE
APPROXIMATELY 4'X TX 2'.
�., . ...__�... (,.n\/FR FII I MATFRIAI
CROSS SECTION VIEW
CATTLE CROSSING
CONSTRUCTED WITH 2:1 SIDE SLOPES
16'
FLOW D
30'
PLAN VIEW
DNE
EXISTING GROUND

INVERT, REFER TO ELEVATION
CALLOUT ON PROFILE
ROCK OR LOG DROP
��
s
INVERT
PLANTING OR OTHER BANK
PROTECTION AS SPECIFIED
IN PLANS
A
CAVA
POOL
CAVATE
POOL )
FLOW
INVERT
A
PROTECT BANK TYPICALLY USING ONE OR
eCAVAT MORE OF THESE:
- STONE: BOULDERS, OR CLASS 1
- WOOD: ROOT WADS OR TOE WOOD
- BIOENGINEERING: BRUSH MATTRESS,
TRANSPLANTS OR OTHER AS SPECIFIED IN
PLANS
Low -
A'
PLAN VIEW
ANGLED LOG STEP
NTS
LOG STEP
- BACKFILL WITH ON-SITE STREAM ALLUVIUM
(IF AVAILABLE), OTHERWISE USE A WELL
FCOvv GRADED MIX OF CLASS A, CLASS B, AND #57 STONE
O
FILTER FABRIC LOG FOOTERS MAY REQUIRE TWO
( TYPICAL) LOGS TO SUPPORT HEADER
SECTION A - A'
1-3% SLOPE ACROSS LOG
ELEVATION CALLOUT (TYP)-
HEADER LOG OR ROCK DROP, SEE PROFILE FOR EXACT
NOTES: INSTALL ON SLOPE WITH ELEVATION
1. LOGS SHOULD BE HARDWOOD, RECENTLY HARVESTED AND EXTENDING INTO THE BANK ON EACH SIDE AT MINIMUM INVERT OFFSET TO ONE SIDE
DISTANCE SPECIFIED BELOW. BASE FLOW
2. SOIL SHOULD BE COMPACTED WELL AROUND BURIED PORTIONS OF LOG
3. FILTER FABRIC SHOULD BE NAILED TO THE LOG BELOW THE BACKFILL
4. BOULDERS SHOULD BE PLACED ON TOP OF HEADER LOG FOR ANCHORING AND INCORPORATED INTO BANK
�- BANKFULL 5. TRANSPLANTS CAN BE USED INSTEAD OF BOULDERS WITH ENGINEER'S APPROVAL
PROJECT SPECIFIC SPECS`
BOULDER STEP MINIMUM BOULDER SIZE 2.5xl.5xl FT
MINIMUM LOG DIAMETER 10 IN
MINIMUM LOG EXTEND INTO BANKS 3 FT
AVERAGE CHANNEL BOTTOM WIDTH 5 FT
APPROXIMATE LOG LENGTHS 11+ FT SECTION B - B'
TOE WOOD
NTS
BANKFULL
MAX LIFT HEIGHT EQUAL 2',
{O WHEN BANK HEIGHT >2', USE
MULTIPLE LIFTS OF
COVER LOGS OR ROOTWADS TO BE BID AND INSTALLED PER APPROXIMATELY EQUAL HEIGHT
THEIR RELATIVE DETAILS AS A SEPARATE STRUCTURE
COMPONENT AND LOCATED WHERE SPECIFIED BY THEIR RESPECTIVE
SYMBOLS IN THE PLANS
LIVE BRUSH MATERIAL - -
MATERIAL SHOULD NOT EXTEND BACKFILL OVER BRUSH LAYER /
A MORE THAN 1/4 CHANNEL WIDTH
THICK BRUSH LAYER: -
WASTE WOOD FROM LIMB TOPS �-
GENERATED FROM CLEARING,
1"-6" VARIOUS SIZES IN DIAMETER: 1—
\ COVER LOGS AND/OR ROOTWADS / 0�
TO BE INCORPORATED AS SHOWN ON
PLAN VIEW PLANS AND PER RESPECTIVE DETAILS O
A'
FOUNDATION WIDTH
FOUNDATION OF EQUAL MIX
CLASS A AND CLASS 1 RIPRAP
SEE PROJECT SPECIFIC SPECS
FOR FOUNDATION AND OTHER SECTION VIEW A -A'
CHANNEL MEASUREMENTS OPTION 1: SOIL LIFTS
(EXTRA ARMOR AT TOE)
OPTIONAL USE OF TREE LIMBS
OR TRUNKS AT TOE WHEN
AVAILABLE ON SITE, CAN BE
USED INSTEAD OF OR IN
CONJUNCTION WITH BASE STONE
TO RAISE FOUNDATION HEIGHT
BA[CER PROJECI' REFERENCE NO. SI-IF.ET NO.
124526 2-D
NCEE•P PROJECT NU. 95026
PROJECT ENGINEER
I
I
,,,1111111/11,, I
FSSlp%
SEAL I APPROVED BY:
039201
OR m
�uu1
Michael Baker Engineering Inc.
9716.8 Res Road #56
Michael Charlotte. NORTH CAROLINA 28277
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
1 N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L License #: F-1084
AS BUILT /RECORD DRAWING
DOWNSTREAM PROTECTION OF BANK WITH
ONE OR MORE BOULDERS, ROOTWADS OR
TRANSPLANTS
\__ FOOTER LOG OR BOULDERS
PROJECT SPECIFIC SPECS
POOL WATER DEPTH
2.0
FT
FOUNDATION HEIGHT
12
IN
FOUNDATION WIDTH
2
FT
BRUSH THICKNESS
-8
IN
TOWN CREEK
RESTORATION
PROJECT—OP'lf'ION IE3
DETAILS

•11
596
592
ml
md
576' -
10+00
10+50
11+00
11+50
.................. I -------------------- .............................
12+00
12+50
...............................
13+00
�.._.._..---------..._• .- .._.._.._.._.__-•---
13+50
14+00
14+50
596
592
Michael Baker Engineering Inc.
,1•� � , �1'9716-B Rea Road #56
Charlotte, NORTH CAROLINA 28277
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
1 N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L License #: F-1054
LEGEND OF PROFILES
AS -BUILT THALWEG
-------------------- AS -BUILT LOW BANK
588 4 0 4 8
VERTICAL SCALE (FT)
20 0 20 40
584 1 -1 ' �
HORIZONTAL SCALE (FT)
580 ( TOWN CREEK
IRESTORATION
PROJECT -OPTION
-'576
15+00
AS -BUILT SURVEY
PLAN & PROFILE
RAKFR PROJECT RFFF.RFNC F NO.
SHFFT NO.
124526
3
NCDMS PROJECT NO. 95026
I, MARSHALL G. WIGHT, ASA DULY REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL
I ryf"�
LAND SURVEYOR IN THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, HEREBY
A R
CERTIFY TA SHOWN ON THIS OBTAINED
SUPERV/THE S10N,
UNDER MY IS AN ACCURATEAND COMPLETE
S 10.... QN:
REPRESENTATION OF WHAT WAS CONSTRUCTED IN THE FIELD,
9f ��
AND THA T THE PHYSICAL DIMENSIONS OR ELEVATIONS SHOWN
AL •
THUS AREAS -BUILT CONDITIONS, EXCEPT WHERE OTHERWISE
034
NOTED HERON, WITNESS MY ORIGINAL SIGNATURE, REGISTRATION
—
NUMBER, AND SEAL TI IS?,etDAYOF
Ulk .0
PROFkSSIOAAL LANDS RVEYOR -saw
WithersRavenel
1%
Engineers I Planners I Surveyors
115 MacKenan 06ve I Cary, W, 275111 t: ;119.489,33401 keno W. C-OV21
www.wilhereravnnnl.cnm
Michael Baker Engineering Inc.
,1•� � , �1'9716-B Rea Road #56
Charlotte, NORTH CAROLINA 28277
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
1 N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L License #: F-1054
LEGEND OF PROFILES
AS -BUILT THALWEG
-------------------- AS -BUILT LOW BANK
588 4 0 4 8
VERTICAL SCALE (FT)
20 0 20 40
584 1 -1 ' �
HORIZONTAL SCALE (FT)
580 ( TOWN CREEK
IRESTORATION
PROJECT -OPTION
-'576
15+00
AS -BUILT SURVEY
PLAN & PROFILE

592
O
576
572
568
15+00
IS
—X X x X x
X
k_X x x X X CE _X E CE E
E �CE
OULDER STEP (TYP.)
X-2
-_ - - - -BUILT TOP OF (TYPO
' X-3 585
r LOG VAN(T
I
r
1
)(-2 S8
� s
Cn
U)
X
k
k�
k_k_ 30
k
_k
LAS-BUI T
THALWEG (TYP:
—X-- X
X —X
�X —X
X y�—x
Ert
VEG PLOT
#2
_&o
RADE CON.TR"OL
LOG -J-HO-OK (TYP.)
X-4
I
I
I
1
K
I
' C AR 11111#11��
sS1p�:y_y
9
SEAL r•' •
L-5034
. J'
.......• .. \
L G. tt`
f��IJlllllltttt
W
i
- J
X-4 - (�
CONSTRUCTE
RIFFLE (TYP.) 08s
--
X _x__X
X_ ---x
-x. —x
15+50
16+00
16+50
17+00
17+50
18+00
18+50
19+00
19+50
592
BAKLR PROJE•CI' REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO.
124526 1 3A
NCDMS PROJECT NO. 95026
I, 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 THIS 7'"'rDAYOFWoci.�(o� .7,0!16
PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVE L-5034
r% WithersRavenel
Engineers I Planners I Surveyors
115 Mad<enSn ofwe I Cary, NC 275111 C 919,459.9340111cersa At, 1.4)53: I
w .wllharoroveneLcum
Michael Baker Engineering Inc.
III II Rea Road #56
Michael Charlotte, NORTH CAROLINA 26277
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
1 N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L License #: F-1084
588 LEGEND OF PROFILES
AS -BUILT THALWEG
-------------------- AS -BUILT LOW BANK
4.01"!
580
4 0 4 8
VERTICAL SCALE (FT)
576 20 0 20 40
HORIZONTAL SCALE (FT)
572 I TOWN CREEK
RESTORATION
PROJECT -OPTION B
568
20+00
AS -BUILT SURVEY
PLAN & PROFILE
/I ------------ - -----
15+50
16+00
16+50
17+00
17+50
18+00
18+50
19+00
19+50
592
BAKLR PROJE•CI' REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO.
124526 1 3A
NCDMS PROJECT NO. 95026
I, 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 THIS 7'"'rDAYOFWoci.�(o� .7,0!16
PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVE L-5034
r% WithersRavenel
Engineers I Planners I Surveyors
115 Mad<enSn ofwe I Cary, NC 275111 C 919,459.9340111cersa At, 1.4)53: I
w .wllharoroveneLcum
Michael Baker Engineering Inc.
III II Rea Road #56
Michael Charlotte, NORTH CAROLINA 26277
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
1 N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L License #: F-1084
588 LEGEND OF PROFILES
AS -BUILT THALWEG
-------------------- AS -BUILT LOW BANK
4.01"!
580
4 0 4 8
VERTICAL SCALE (FT)
576 20 0 20 40
HORIZONTAL SCALE (FT)
572 I TOWN CREEK
RESTORATION
PROJECT -OPTION B
568
20+00
AS -BUILT SURVEY
PLAN & PROFILE

N
AD 198B
NA J..
END REACH 2
STA. 20+60..99999
_CJI/ /
GATE BEGIN REACH 3 _X
STA. 20+86.77 o X X—x — G'
X ---X X X X GE h CE
X 585
ll
x _
CE X h�0
580
ONSTRUCTED
d- RIFFLE (TYP.)
CIO
1y
W
2
48" RCP
INV IN 573.08'
U —
X�
576
572
.:a
5601
20+00
20+50
[Ff " 0 flo
@1 OWN
M f W_.'eww�w
ONSOON
Q
G RAn COwTRnL
LOG J -HOOK (TYP.)
48" RCP
INV OUT 572.57'
5x0
OLS
S4S
580
X 'X -X x
VEG PLOT
LOG VANE (TYP.)
�--
5a5
T—X--
x
CE
NSTRUCTEpJ \
;IFFLE (TYP. \
30 30 (3C)�S
30 30 30 30 30 0
X X X X x x x _ -":-X-x X x X X X X
X X X X X X X X X
GATE
21+00
21+50
22+00
22+50
23+00
23+50
24+00
24+50
580 LEGEND OF PROFILES---
AS-BUILT THALWEG
-------------------- AS -BUILT LOW BANK
576
572
-.:
4e
560
25+00
4 0 4 8
VERTICAL SCALE (FT)
20 0 20 40
1 i-94
HORIZONTAL SCALE (FT)
TOWN CREEK
RESTORATION
PROJECT—OPTION B
AS—BUILT SURVEY
PLAN & PROFILE
BAKER PROJECT' REFrmr-NCE NO.
SI-1CLT NO.
12,4526
3B
NCDN4S PROJECT NO. 95076
1, MARSHALL G. WIGHT, ASA DULY REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL
I 111111t
VEYOR IN THE STA TE OF NORTH R
R 0/ �i�,
IFYTHATTHE ATA SHOWN ONH S DRAWING, WAS OBTAINED
CERTIFY O
�� �� -,.-• • • •.,��
,,i
UNDER MY SUPERVISION, IS AN ACCURATEAND COMPLETE
4-.,9
REPRESENTATION OF WHAT WAS CONSTRUCTED IN THE FIELD,
r
AND THAT THEPHYSICAL DIMENSIONS OR ELEVATIONS SHOWN
5 L - �_
THUS ARE AS-BU/LT CONDITIONS, EXCEPT WHERE OTHERWISE
L-5034
NOTEDHERON, WITNESS MY ORIGINAL SIGNATURE, REGISTRATION
NUMBER, AND SEAL THIS 7ftAYOF /j;
PRt7FE SIONAL LAND SURVEYOIrL-5034
•I��I ,' ��
WithersRavenel
1%
Engineers I Planners I Surveyors
116 MacKonon Driva I Cary, NC 27511 11: 919.469.99401 lic—sok: C-08921
www.wllhersmv ftml.com
Michael Baker Engineering Inc.
9716-B Res Road N56
Michael Baker
Charlotte, NORTH CAROLINA 28277
Phone: [phone]
1 N T E R N A T 10 N A L Lice se #: F-10841
580 LEGEND OF PROFILES---
AS-BUILT THALWEG
-------------------- AS -BUILT LOW BANK
576
572
-.:
4e
560
25+00
4 0 4 8
VERTICAL SCALE (FT)
20 0 20 40
1 i-94
HORIZONTAL SCALE (FT)
TOWN CREEK
RESTORATION
PROJECT—OPTION B
AS—BUILT SURVEY
PLAN & PROFILE

576
572
564
560
556
5521
25+00
k�
k,
'k
x x x x x x x x x x x
CE CE CE C CE CE CE GE
575
-6 s�o
_IIQ- UILT O P.)
[,� 570 CON UCTEb RIFFL
' 570 GRAD CONTROL
LOG J- OK T X-7
00 ► b�-A _ - 565 0
Op Q c�
VEG PLOT VEGETATED U
#5 GEOLIFT (TYP.) X 30 =
Uj
� 0 -IX -5 O
�� Cn
Q. X-
LOG VANE (TYP.) TO OOD (TYP-) X Uj
ROOT WADS ss5 -7
AS -BUIL THALWt� (TYP.) (TYP.)
ROOT WADS (TYP.} 999 J
v
OLS
Q
�X OLS OLS
M
----.----•--------- ..---- *-I.-.
25+50
-I.---
M
M
5 L5
SSS
x
3�
x --x x x x X X
�,. x x x
25+50 26+00 26+50 27+00 27+50 28+00 28+50 29+00 29+50
SLS
576
572
BAKER I'R0.J1:("l' RFITRFN(_E NO. SHEET NO.
124526 3C
NCDMS PROJECT NO. 95026
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 AREAS -BUILT CONDITIONS, EXCEPT WHERE OTHERWISE
NOTED HERON, WITNESS MY ORIGINAL SIGNATURE, REGISTRATION
NUMBER, AND SEAL THIS 740AYOF /v0(/0ftf,&,r 2-qs
00,
PROFS SIONAL LAND SURVEYOR &f034
1%
WithersRavenel
Engineers I Planners I Surveyors
115 ManKanan Orale I Cary. NC 2751 1 11: 919.469 3340 I Ocense it C-0932 I
www.withorsmvenal,cam
Michael Baker Engineering Inc.
9716-13 Rea Road 956
Michael Baker Charlotte, NORTH CAROLINA 28277
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
1 NTERNATI0NALt_icanse#:F-1084
LEGEND OF PROFILES
AS -BUILT THALWEG
568 ------- -------_---- AS -BUILT LOW BANK
564
&TU
556
552
30+00
4 0 4 8
VERTICAL SCALE (FT)
20 0 20 40
HORIZONTAL SCALE (FT)
TOWN CREEK
RESTORATION
PROJECT -OPTION B
AS -BUILT SURVEY
PLAN & PROFILE

Ng11Q
X
CE �
�X
x� GATE—X
t
CE ���—'� I X GE
CE
ROOT WADS (TYP.)
G�
565 565
565
c
ROOT WADS (TY.R.
DO g0 --,
E.(-rYP.) x/
AO
O
01/9
X
x
9 LS
0
OLS
el7t
09SANGLED LOGSTEP POOL (TYP)S-BUILT THALWEG (TYP.
OULDER STEP (TYP.)
S9S
515
OL9
X
�X
-GRADE CONTROL
-LOG J -HOOK (TYP.)
999
�k
CE k
k k
570 k
k
C k
-T BANS Y P .
565
TOE WOOD (TYP.)
\�.
09.9 ,.
1:,
0'11 C A R old�
S S/ 0.'�'4 �?
••� SEAL
L-5034 =
568 568
564 564
560
-----------
-----................................. 560
.................................----------• _ ---------------
556 556
552 552
548 548
544 544
30+00 30+50 31+00 31+50 32+00 32+50 33+00 33+50 34+00 34+50 35+00
BAKL•R PROJECT' REFERINCE NO. SHF FT NO.
12,4526 3D
NCDhMS PROJECT NO. 950 6
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
THUSAREAS-BUILT CONDITIONS, EXCEPT WHEREOTHERWISE
NOTED HERON, WITNESS MY ORIGINAL SIGNATURE, REGISTRATION
NUMBER, AND SEAL THIS 7%IDAYOFApy a, d_
PRONAL LAND SURVEYOR L-544
1% WithersRavenel
Engineers I Planners I Surveyors
115 MGOKrmAn Orivn I Cary, IJ C; : 1 s I s n : a aro.I Ian I garnx# R. C -08d2 I
ww�.uilhr,rsnvanol rnm
Michael Baker Engineering Inc.
971&B Rea Road #56
Michael Baker Charlotte, NORTH CAROLINA 28277
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
1 N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L License #: F-1084
LEGEND OF PROFILES
AS -BUILT THALWEG
-------------------- AS -BUILT LOW BANK
4 0 4 8
VERTICAL SCALE (FT)
20 0 20 40
HORIZONTAL SCALE (FT)
TOWN CREEK
RESTORATION
PROJECT -OPTION B
AS -BUILT LT SURVEY
PLAN & PROFILE

-----_ ` SLS
M.
a
��A
565
S55
�E
560 �
� ` n
l�
550
5
,
kC
k -CH 4
TOE WOOD (TYP.)
AS -BUILT TOP
END REACH 4
f� sss OF BANK (TYP.) BEGIN REACH 5 —
STA. 39+40.00
VEG
-r _ AS -BUILT
3� PLOT
THALWEG (TYP.)�x 30 #7
CONSTRUCTED RIF FL TYP. /+ x�x��30
X— �- /�x�k 30 _
30
r :,
SOn
�-x
�x
'`max
564
560
556
552
544
540
35+00
41-1S
S9S
� VJ
4,
�; oFF.Ss�p'•• ,
SEAL
L-5034
x-�
35+50
36+00
36+50
37+00
37+50
38+00
38+50
39+00
39+50
564
560
BAKFR PROJECT REFERENCE NU_
SHEET NO.
124526
1 3E
NCDMS PROJECT NO. 95026
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
NOTED HERON, WITNESS MY OR/G/NAL Sj NATURE, REGISTRATION
NUMBER, AND SEAL TH/S?V"-DAY OF �(1�1�ri1+f�9pt 2d 46
PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEY L-5034
WithersRavenel
1%
Engineers I Planners I Surveyors
115 MacKenan Wva I Cary. NC 2751111:919.4W3340 I Room * C4)8321
www.whhnmmvene1.mm
Michael Baker Engineering Inc.
9716-B Rea Road #56
1 / 1 ! Balker rhnrin"^ NnPTH rAPM INA 9A777
Phone: [phone]
1 N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L
Fax: se * 1084
LEGEND OF PROFILES
AS -BUILT THALWEG
556 -------------------- AS -BUILT LOW BANK
552
544
540
40+00
4 0 4 8
IIIIIIII� �
VERTICAL SCALE (FT)
20I 0 20 40
rr� -
HORIZONTAL SCALE (FT)
TC3Wl`+l CREEK
RESTORATION
PROJECT -OPTION
AS -BUILT SURVEY
PLAN & PROFILE

*m
556
552
J
ME
540
536 L
40+00
X �X vk� Jas—x X
CECE
CE k X� Xri�lx CE
565 GATE
� CE
X
CE
,����nrrrrq��
ro
CAR(j1�`O
�� �' •' �ESSIp 9�'�.
N�
SEAL r '
L-5034
Ck—
L G
448811100%
560
W (TYP. VEG#P8LOT
555
y S-BUI P OF BA TYP.) X-13
�j 550
2 X-10 ROOT WADS (TYP.) VEGETATED GEOLIF
,r WITH ROOT WADS P.)
s___x_1 10 C) X-12 �/
I
I
I 's
i 1
ti
X -10///u'
096 c
I ' X-13
VEGVEGETATED
PLOT �� X-1 2TYP.)
CONSTRUCTED
#7 _ �_ oss RIFFLE (TYP.)
AS-BUhL.THALWETI�P:} CREST GAUGE
X-11 0
099
S-99
30
---x x
30 x
GATE
GATE
GATE
40+50
41+00
41+50
42+00
42+50
43+00
43+50
44+00
44+50
560
556
552
1
544
540
—' 536
45+00
BAKER PROJECT' REFE.RF_N(E NO. SFIEFF N10,
] 21.526 3F
NCDNtS PROTECT NO. 95026
1, MARSHALL G, WIGHT, AS A DUL Y 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 ELEVA77ONS SHOWN
THUS AREAS -BUIL T CONDITIONS, EXCEPT WHERE OTHERWISE
NOTED HERON, W177VESS MY ORIGINAL SIGNATURE, REGISTRATION
NUMBER, AND SEAL THISW'DAYOF�(/p(,��
PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYM L-5034
NO
WithersRavenel
Engineers I Planners I Surveyors
115 MacKa
nn 13rwa [Cary. NC 27511 11: 919.469.3940 I icansa #: C-08:12 1
www.withemrave nel. wm
Michael Baker Engineering Inc.
9716-13 Rea Road #56
Michael Charlotte, NORTH CAROLINA 28277
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
1 N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L License #: F-1084
LEGEND OF PROFILES
AS -BUILT THALWEG
-------------------- AS -BUILT LOW BANK
4 0 4 8
VERTICAL SCALE (FT)
20 0 20 40
1 1 1 4
HORIZONTAL SCALE (FT)
TOWN CREEK
RESTORATION
PROJECT—OPTION aB
AS—BUILT SURVEY
PLAN & PROFILE

552 552
ZM
544
540
536
532
48" RCP
INV IN 543.901
ROOT WADS (TYP.)
.Qp Yy
E
f �X AS -BUILT TOP OF BANK (TYP.)
� F E� END REACH 5
+ 4+00 STA. 47+87.20
17
AS -BUILT
THALWEG (TYP.
'-GRA CON Ll CONSTRUCTED
48" RCP LOG J- 00 P.) RIFFLE (TYP.)
INV OUT 543.91' TOE WOOD (TYP.)
l
V..
7 , _77� .........................................
528 1
45+00
45+50
46+00
46+50
47+00
47+50
552
544
&ISti7
536
532
528
48+50
LEGEND OF PROFILES
AS -BUILT THALWEG
- ----- - - - -- AS -BUILT LOW BANK
4 0 4 8
VERTICAL SCALE (FT)
zo 0 20 ao
HORIZONTAL SCALE (FT)
TOWN CREEK
RESTORATION
PROJECT -OPTION B
AS -BUILT SURVEY
PLAN & PROFILE
RAKER PROJECT REFERENCE NO.
SI-11-EYNO.
124526
3G
NCDNIS PROJECT NO. 95026
I, MARSHALL G. WIGHT, ASA DULY REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL
,,
LAND SURVEYOR INTHESTA7EOFNORTHCAROLINA, HEREBY
CARO! ��i
CERTIFY THAT THE DATA SHOWN ON THIS DRAWING, WAS OBTAINED
���� . • • • • •. •
,
S l p�•.•9
UNDER MY SUPERVISION, IS AN ACCURATE AND COMPLETE
REPRESENTA7701V OF WHAT WAS CONSTRUCTED 1N THE FIELD,
aFES
•:
!
AND THAT THE PHYSICAL DIMENSIONS OR ELEVATIONS SHOWN
•
SEA L
THUS ARE AS -BUIL T CONDITIONS, EXCEPT WHERE OTHERWISE
= L-5034
NOTED HERON, WITNESS MY ORIGINAL SIGNATURE, REGISTRATION
.• 9 ;
NUMBER, AND SEAL THIS7040AY OF IV011L3y
O�
'O� a S Uo...-*
x
114 L ••G •y�\ �`,
YL
PRO ESSlaNAI LAND SURVEY -5034
CE
40 WithersRavenel
GATE ROCK CROSS VANE (TYP.)
,� Engineers I Planners I Surveyors
CFNww.wllhatxravnnnl.cnm
1 VI N1mK.i, m D,I,. I Cary, NC :7511 I t:919 40,33401 liumrm k Ca18;17 I
x
550
Michael Baker Engineering Inc.
9716-B Rea Road #56
Michael Baker
Charlotte, NORTH CAROLINA 28277
00
r x + [-GATE
Fax: [phone]
I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L License#:F-1084
48" RCP
INV IN 543.901
ROOT WADS (TYP.)
.Qp Yy
E
f �X AS -BUILT TOP OF BANK (TYP.)
� F E� END REACH 5
+ 4+00 STA. 47+87.20
17
AS -BUILT
THALWEG (TYP.
'-GRA CON Ll CONSTRUCTED
48" RCP LOG J- 00 P.) RIFFLE (TYP.)
INV OUT 543.91' TOE WOOD (TYP.)
l
V..
7 , _77� .........................................
528 1
45+00
45+50
46+00
46+50
47+00
47+50
552
544
&ISti7
536
532
528
48+50
LEGEND OF PROFILES
AS -BUILT THALWEG
- ----- - - - -- AS -BUILT LOW BANK
4 0 4 8
VERTICAL SCALE (FT)
zo 0 20 ao
HORIZONTAL SCALE (FT)
TOWN CREEK
RESTORATION
PROJECT -OPTION B
AS -BUILT SURVEY
PLAN & PROFILE

.1i
596
592
•.
90
576 - -
10+00
rera"m
10+50
11+00
11+50
12+00
12+50
13+00
13+50
14+00
iL�
BAKER PROJECT' REFERENCE NO. SHEET' NO.
124526 1 4
NCDN4S PROJECT NO. 950.26
PROJECT' ENGINEER
CARp�%''.
a" SEAL
` r
039201 '
`,,;,,OB 11881111111% ,
[�/f//� -
DATE:
Michael Baker Engineering Inc
IR1 . 0 9716-B Rea Road #56
l� + Charlotte, NORTH CAROLINA 20277
Phone. [phone]
Fax: [phone]
1 N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L License #: F-1084
596 LEGEND OF PROFILES
AS -BUILT THALWEG
------------------- AS -BUILT LOW BANK
592 PROPOSED THALWEG
PROPOSED LOW BANK
EXISTING GROUND
588 4 0 4 8
VERTICAL SCALE (FT)
20 0 20 40
584 1UILL
�
HORIZONTAL SCALE (FT)
580 ( TOWN CREEK
I12ESTORATION
PROJECT -OPTION B
576
15+00
RECORD DRAWING
]ALAN & PROFILE

592
576
572
56$
15+00
k
k�X X X—C x r_x '_x_
E
OULDER STEP (TYP.)
X-2
:..A 585 I
� I
� X-3
S
� X-2 s$s
AD ,
ONSTRU E 11'
LED
Q
-3 ADDED
CONSTRUCTED -
RIFFLE
k
k
-98S
k_
_k X—
7+00
GPS5
N: 616217.36
E: 1629783.66
ELEV: 600.72'
x X
TOP OF
LOG V
x
(TYP
AS -BUILT
THALWEG (TY(P:
X
DESIGN�C-1
ALIGNMENT
—x
x
GRADE CO L
LOG J -H (TYP.)
X-4
,--'VEG PLOT !f
J #2 '
I
3� X__�X
x X
x )< —x
CONSTRUCTE
RIFFLE (TYP.)
BAKER PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SFTEET NO.
124526 1 4A
NCDMS PROJECT NO. 95026
PROJECT ENGINEER
I
I
' •�4 9� •� = I
t SEAL I //APPR ED BY:
039201
or
�M.� DATE:
x
Michael Baker Engineering Inc.
Michael 9716-B Rea Road #56
Baker Charlotte, NORTH CAROLINA 28277
Phone: 704,885.2200
Fax; 704885.2201
1 N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L License #: F-1084
X�X�x_:::_—'x
15+50
16+00
16+50
17+00
17+50
18+00
18+50
19+00
19+50
592
��:1:3
4
576
572
568
20+00
LEGEND OF PROFILES
AS -BUILT THALWEG
------------- - - AS -BUILT LOW BANK
- PROPOSED THALWEG
"",.......... PROPOSED LOW BANK
— — — — — - EXISTING GROUND
4 0 4 8
VERTICAL SCALE (FT)
20 0 20 40
HORIZONTAL SCALE (FT)
TOWN CREEK
RESTORATION
PROJECT -OPTION B
RECORD DRAWING
PLAN &. PROFILE
7777777:777-
_
-
•,
15+50
16+00
16+50
17+00
17+50
18+00
18+50
19+00
19+50
592
��:1:3
4
576
572
568
20+00
LEGEND OF PROFILES
AS -BUILT THALWEG
------------- - - AS -BUILT LOW BANK
- PROPOSED THALWEG
"",.......... PROPOSED LOW BANK
— — — — — - EXISTING GROUND
4 0 4 8
VERTICAL SCALE (FT)
20 0 20 40
HORIZONTAL SCALE (FT)
TOWN CREEK
RESTORATION
PROJECT -OPTION B
RECORD DRAWING
PLAN &. PROFILE

NA0 19,93
NAVD 1988
END REACH 2
STA. 20+60.9
-
ONSTRUCTED
,d RIFFLE (TYP.)
� n� 15
t!1
1Y
2
48" RCP
y INV IN 573.08'
C.�
:E
576
572
564
560
20+00
BAKER PROJECT REFERENCE NO. S1IEE T NO. MON
124526 4B
NCDMS PROJECT NO. 95026
PROJECT ENGINEER
I
I
�gnnrrq 1
C AR pt/u,
5 •.• ? : FES 51 py.,-� �,•.
• do
SEAL % I APP OVED BY:
GATE BEGIN REACH 3 _ x _X�-- X —X — cE a x ,x _ "`
STA. 20+86.77 — �E
o x -X 039201
X x XX —x CE ., �•'FNGINFS "�•�( fj
X X x C 585 ,,�%%�B �M B;:" i DATE:
580
— T I
W
U O Michael Baker Engineering Inc.
` o 9718-8 Rea Road a56
58J 580 — — OOD L � Michael • . Phonw 704.8 5.2200 CAROLINA 28277
57 5 – INTERNATIONAL L cdnso F--10841
x LO
580 - - - - -- —� -
1
5
V/
X
-GRADE CONTROL
LOG J -HOOK (TYP.)
VEG PLOT
#3
48" RCP
INV OUT 572.57'
0199
x x x J =
x x x x x x x x
5
-GATE
u
0L5
51
VEG PLOT
2
C NSTRUCTEQ
IFFLE (TYP. ,
ESIGN CHANNEL CHANGROCK VAIk
LIGNMENT TO BOUL ER STEP
-LOG VANE (TYP.)
30 3� 30
-x x x x x
x x x x x x ----x x
N
580
LEGEND OF PROFILES
AS -BUILT THALWEG
------------------- AS -BUILT LOW BANK
576 PROPOSED THALWEG
PROPOSED LOW BANK
- EXISTING GROUND
572 4 04 8
ftT� t I I I ---
VERTICAL SCALE (FT)
568 20 0 20 40
HORIZONTAL SCALE (FT}
564 TOWN CREEK
RESTORATION
PROJECT—OPTION B
560 IQ.IE("O-D n T) _Qj A WTNTG
20+50 21+00 21+50 22+00 22+50 23+00 23+50 24+00 24+50 25+00 PLAN & PROFILE
-------------------__--_----_ -
- -
BEDROCK IN THIS ARE
BEDROCK 0
TCROP ALONG
r -
................ -
TO
OF HILLSLOPE
777
.............. . . .
-------------------------
----------
580
LEGEND OF PROFILES
AS -BUILT THALWEG
------------------- AS -BUILT LOW BANK
576 PROPOSED THALWEG
PROPOSED LOW BANK
- EXISTING GROUND
572 4 04 8
ftT� t I I I ---
VERTICAL SCALE (FT)
568 20 0 20 40
HORIZONTAL SCALE (FT}
564 TOWN CREEK
RESTORATION
PROJECT—OPTION B
560 IQ.IE("O-D n T) _Qj A WTNTG
20+50 21+00 21+50 22+00 22+50 23+00 23+50 24+00 24+50 25+00 PLAN & PROFILE

576
572
•
560
556
552
25+00
k_
575
—�
4C l
�Z�
I
00
I
%Z.I
VI
I` <9 X-5
Q- X-
LOG VANE (TYP.)
ROOT WADS (TYP.)
M
k�-
�TOE-WOOD (TYP.)
AS-BUILT:,THALW (TYP.)
<p
k 0
k
3<
915 -
�-B P . )
570
GRADONTROL
LOGJ- OK T
VEG PLOT
#5
OLS
SSS
VEGETATED
GEOLIFT (TYP.)
ROOT WADS
(TYP.)
x x
ADDED ROCK LINED
DRAINAGE SWALE
OLS
x X X
5 LS
-A
x
ESIGN
D RIFFL
565
x x X
x --x -.—X x
-7
X-7
OLS
0
W
Lu
30 Z
ul
7-
SLS
X
25+50
26+00
26+50
27+00
27+50
28+00
28+50
29+00
29+50 29+50
576
BAKER PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO.
124526 1 4C
NCDMS PROJECT T NO. 95026
PROJECT ENGINEER
I
I
1``11�A1��, ftI
9•
SEAL •? I APPROVED BY:
039201
:�� ••, . ANG ���.: ��= � � �
•, ...........
. .I N,,• •• g ��
08 �M.� ����`�, j DATE:
Michael Baker Engineering Inc.
: . . 9716-B Rea Load #56
Charlotte, NORTH CAROLINA 28277
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
I N T E R N A TI O N A L License #: F-1084
LEGEND OF PROFILES
572 AS -BUILT THALWEG
------- - - - - AS -BUILT LOW BANK
PROPOSED THALWEG
568 .......................... PROPOSED LOW BANK
EXISTING GROUND
564
560
556
552
30+00
4 0 4 8
VERTICAL SCALE (FT)
20 0 20 40
1IIIIIII�
HORIZONTAL SCALE (FT)
'OWN CREEK
RESTORATION
PRO,TECT-ONION B
RECORD DRAWING
--.
rrr.
rrr�rrrr rrrirrrrrrrr.fT .
J
R
•_-
-i'--ter--, ---- ........._
��--
__-
-.- -
LTi- ._
.. , , ,
_
. ' . ,
, . , . , ,�, , .T, . , , , .-rrrTrrr rrr ►fTtt\ -�
-.
25+50
26+00
26+50
27+00
27+50
28+00
28+50
29+00
29+50 29+50
576
BAKER PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO.
124526 1 4C
NCDMS PROJECT T NO. 95026
PROJECT ENGINEER
I
I
1``11�A1��, ftI
9•
SEAL •? I APPROVED BY:
039201
:�� ••, . ANG ���.: ��= � � �
•, ...........
. .I N,,• •• g ��
08 �M.� ����`�, j DATE:
Michael Baker Engineering Inc.
: . . 9716-B Rea Load #56
Charlotte, NORTH CAROLINA 28277
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
I N T E R N A TI O N A L License #: F-1084
LEGEND OF PROFILES
572 AS -BUILT THALWEG
------- - - - - AS -BUILT LOW BANK
PROPOSED THALWEG
568 .......................... PROPOSED LOW BANK
EXISTING GROUND
564
560
556
552
30+00
4 0 4 8
VERTICAL SCALE (FT)
20 0 20 40
1IIIIIII�
HORIZONTAL SCALE (FT)
'OWN CREEK
RESTORATION
PRO,TECT-ONION B
RECORD DRAWING

N,g16
U VEG PLOT
#6 = -
W
W
r_o0
564
560
556
552
544
30+00
X
CE 'X---X--X
nr
•
y GPS3
N: 614976.29
E: 1630276.26
ELEV: 573.19'
OATE
�-
- GE .
-ROOT WADS (TYP.)
GF.
565 - cF
- DESIGN CHANNEL - 565
ALIGNMENT
�-CONSTRUCTED ` —ROOT WADS -(TY,
RIFFLE (TYP. — — -- -=---_
�)0 BOULDER TO -(TYP.)13
}
00 J.�x
� yQo--
�X
� X CE CE k
k
570 k
k
� k
-AS=f3 U ft-D-OF—BAN P . eE
565
565
60
01/9
m
0L9
•
GRADE
LOG—HOOK (ROP) TOE WOOD (NP.)
099
ANGLED LOG 099
STEP POOL
AS -BUILT THALWEG (TYP.)
—BOULDER STEP (TYP.)
5LS
OL9
P
30+50
31+00
31+50
32+00
32+50
33+00
33+50
34+00
34+50
.:,
564
560
556
552
;a
544
35+00
BAKER PROJECT REITRENCE NO. til IITT NO.
124526 4D
NCDMS PROJEC`f' NO. 95026
PROJECT TTIGINEER
I
I
���nnrrrrr I
CARP
a ! I
SSIp' /�9 ' -
O �•'•. i
. SEAL • APP OVED BY:
039201
• G I t4 I
08 rii.� 6��4aaaa ! GATE:
Michael Baker Engineering Inc.
Mich9716-6 Rea Road #56
•el Baker Charlotte, NORTH CAROLINA 28277
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
I N T E R N A T I O N A L License #: F-1084
LEGEND OF PROFILES
AS -BUILT THALWEG
- - - --------- AS -BUILT LOW BANK
PROPOSED THALWEG
PROPOSED LOW BANK
EXISTING GROUND
4 0 4 8
VERTICAL SCALE (FT)
20 0 20 40
HORIZONTAL SCALE (FT)
TOWN CREEK
RESTORATION
PROJECT -OPTION
RECORD DRAWING
PLAN & PROFILE
............... i ......
...
L
-_--
..Ilt.l-t....-t-t-t 11
-- -
-
-r �
�� �'t _ � - __--_----
-i..-.-�� _ �_
•Itt1�l��ty+r .T �•�-
. i i
. -•
_ _
. i
.L.--...-
30+50
31+00
31+50
32+00
32+50
33+00
33+50
34+00
34+50
.:,
564
560
556
552
;a
544
35+00
BAKER PROJECT REITRENCE NO. til IITT NO.
124526 4D
NCDMS PROJEC`f' NO. 95026
PROJECT TTIGINEER
I
I
���nnrrrrr I
CARP
a ! I
SSIp' /�9 ' -
O �•'•. i
. SEAL • APP OVED BY:
039201
• G I t4 I
08 rii.� 6��4aaaa ! GATE:
Michael Baker Engineering Inc.
Mich9716-6 Rea Road #56
•el Baker Charlotte, NORTH CAROLINA 28277
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
I N T E R N A T I O N A L License #: F-1084
LEGEND OF PROFILES
AS -BUILT THALWEG
- - - --------- AS -BUILT LOW BANK
PROPOSED THALWEG
PROPOSED LOW BANK
EXISTING GROUND
4 0 4 8
VERTICAL SCALE (FT)
20 0 20 40
HORIZONTAL SCALE (FT)
TOWN CREEK
RESTORATION
PROJECT -OPTION
RECORD DRAWING
PLAN & PROFILE

SLS
�O
.S O
O
CHANGED EOL
WITH ROOT WADS TO TOE I
SAc
SSS
f
i
564
560
556
552
544
540
35+00
y�S
S9S
M
560
kC 1J-3
�GH 4
. Q I 7r08.00
3
O9�
X
565
570
PIP
t�
XT -X
X60
1665
BAKLR PRO.IE(T REFERENCE NO. SHEFI' NO.
124526 4E
NCDMS PROJECT NO. 95026
PROJECT ENGINEER
I
I
CAR0Ij`�,
OAFS S 10
f
� SEAL - ,.
Tj � APPROVED BY.
�
039201 ? I
FNG I N ��' �,
e�•`` I DATE:
I
00
- � 1
Michael Baker Engineering Inc.
9716-B Rea Road #56
Charlotte, NORTH CAROLINA 28277
s Phone: [phone]
s NFax: 704-665-2201
N T E R N A TI 0 N A L Licenss #: F-1084
550
DESIGN H A NEL �~'
C TOE WOOD (TYP.)
f ALIGNMENT
AS -BUILT TOP END REACH 4
EXT DED OF BANK (TYP.) BEGIN REACH 5
J TRUCTED RI STA. 39+40.00
AS -BUILT 3 PLOT
THALWEG (TYP.) #7
CONSTRUCTED RIF L-E-(TYP. + x�—x� 0
j
.t
R
x
35+50
36+00
36+50
37+00
37+50
38+50
39+00
39+50
564
41691
LEGEND OF PROFILES
AS -BUILT THALWEG
556 ----""-""--"------- AS -BUILT LOW BANK
PROPOSED THALWEG
• PROPOSED LOW BANK
-- — — —— EXISTING GROUND
552
544
540
40+00
4 0 4 8
VERTICAL SCALE (FT)
20 0 20 40
HORIZONTAL SCALE (FT)
TOWN CREEK
RESTORATION
PROJECT -OPTION B
------------
-------------
35+50
36+00
36+50
37+00
37+50
38+50
39+00
39+50
564
41691
LEGEND OF PROFILES
AS -BUILT THALWEG
556 ----""-""--"------- AS -BUILT LOW BANK
PROPOSED THALWEG
• PROPOSED LOW BANK
-- — — —— EXISTING GROUND
552
544
540
40+00
4 0 4 8
VERTICAL SCALE (FT)
20 0 20 40
HORIZONTAL SCALE (FT)
TOWN CREEK
RESTORATION
PROJECT -OPTION B

552
544
540
536
532
528
45+00
k�
k
fi
GPS2
N: 614063.02
E: 1630823.49 j
ELEV: 553.43'
550
x_k
48" RC-P-,,-
INV
CPINV IN 543:9'___
9 ROOT WADS (TYP.)
�0, o0
sti
GATE
'--GRA CONT#dC
48" RCP LOG J- 00 P.)
INV OUT 543.91'
mss �
41+00
40
ROCK CROSS VANE (TYP.)
y
DED
FLO
AS -BUILT
THALWEG (TYP.)
CONSTRUCTED
RIFFLE (TYP.)
TOE WOOD (TYP.)
DESIGN CHANNEL
ALIGNMENT
rGATE
ISAS -BUILT TOP OF BANK (TYP.)
LINE
LFR
PLAIN L
NDN
END REACH 5
STA. 47+87.20
45+50
46+00
46+50
47+00
47+50
�1
13754.25
L. ' 630860.98
EL V: 541.40'
552
BAKER i'ROJEcr REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO.
124526 1 4G
NCDMS PROJECT NO. 95026
PROJECT' ENGINEER
I
I
CAR0 ��i��
..........!
SEAL i AP VED BY:
039201
F*G IM.
C�
DATE:
Michael Baker Engineering Inc.
Michael . . 9716-B Rea Road #56
Charlotte, NORTH CAROLINA 28277
Phone: [phone]
704.6
IN T E R N A TI O N A L �a se #, F510841
LEGEND OF PROFILES
548 AS -BUILT THALWEG
------------------- AS -BUILT LOW BANK
PROPOSED THALWEG
PROPOSED LOW BANK
544 EXISTING GROUND
540
536
532
528
48+50
4 0 4 8
MONO
VERTICAL SCALE (FT)
20 0 20 40
J
HORIZONTAL SCALE (FT)
TOWN CREEK
RESTORATION
PROJECT -OPTION B
RECORD DRAWING
PLAN & PROFILE
- --------------------------------------------
45+50
46+00
46+50
47+00
47+50
�1
13754.25
L. ' 630860.98
EL V: 541.40'
552
BAKER i'ROJEcr REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO.
124526 1 4G
NCDMS PROJECT NO. 95026
PROJECT' ENGINEER
I
I
CAR0 ��i��
..........!
SEAL i AP VED BY:
039201
F*G IM.
C�
DATE:
Michael Baker Engineering Inc.
Michael . . 9716-B Rea Road #56
Charlotte, NORTH CAROLINA 28277
Phone: [phone]
704.6
IN T E R N A TI O N A L �a se #, F510841
LEGEND OF PROFILES
548 AS -BUILT THALWEG
------------------- AS -BUILT LOW BANK
PROPOSED THALWEG
PROPOSED LOW BANK
544 EXISTING GROUND
540
536
532
528
48+50
4 0 4 8
MONO
VERTICAL SCALE (FT)
20 0 20 40
J
HORIZONTAL SCALE (FT)
TOWN CREEK
RESTORATION
PROJECT -OPTION B
RECORD DRAWING
PLAN & PROFILE

APPENDIX E
Photo Log

Town Creek — Reach I
PID 1: Station 10+40 — Upstream (12/31/15)
PID 2: Station 10+60 — Downstream
(12/31/15)
PID 3: Station -10+70 — Left Floodplain Rock
Lined Channel (12/31/15)
PID 4: Station 11+25 — Downstream (12/31/15)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE E-2 11/15/2016
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT -OPTION B (DMS PROJECT NO. 95026)

PID 5: Station 12+20 — Downstream (1/13/16)
PID 6: Station 13+60 — Upstream (12/11/15)
UT to Town Creek — Reach 2
PID 7: Station 13+75 — Downstream (12/11/15)
PID 9: Station 14+65 — Downstream (12/11/15)
1
PID 8: Station 14+65 — Left Floodplain
Matted Drainage Swale (1/14/16)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE E-3 11/15/2016
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT -OPTION B (DMS PROJECT NO. 95026)

PID 10: Station 16+15 — Upstream (3/11/16)
PID 11: Station 16+90 — Upstream (12/11/15)
r -
PID 12: Station 17+75 — Upstream (2/4/16)
PID 13: Station 18+75 — Upstream (12/11/15)
PID 14: Station 19+25 — Upstream (12/11/15)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE E-4 11/15/2016
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT -OPTION B (DMS PROJECT NO. 95026)

PID 15: Station 20+50 — Downstream (2/4/16)
PID 16: Station 20+70 — Upstream (2/4/16)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE E-5 11/15/2016
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B (DMS PROJECT NO. 95026)

UT to Town Creek — Reach 3
PID 17: Station 21+75 — Upstream (12/15/15)
PID 19: Station 23+60 — Upstream (1/13/16)
PID 21: Station 24+50 — Upstream (12-15-15)
PID 18: Station 23+30 —Upstream (12/15/16)
PID 20: Station 23+60 — Left Bank (12/15/15)
PID 22: Station 25+50 — Upstream (12/15/1!
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE E-6 11/15/2016
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B (DMS PROJECT NO. 95026)
.i
PID 18: Station 23+30 —Upstream (12/15/16)
PID 20: Station 23+60 — Left Bank (12/15/15)
PID 22: Station 25+50 — Upstream (12/15/1!
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE E-6 11/15/2016
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B (DMS PROJECT NO. 95026)

PID 23: Station 27+50 — Upstream (12/15/15)
PID 25: Station 28+35 — Right Floodplain
Rock Lined Channel (1/13/16)
PID 27: Station 29+80 — Downstream
(12/15/15)
PID 24: Station 28+10 — Upstream (12/15/15)
PID 26: Station 28+90 — Upstream (12/15/15)
PID 28: Station 31+40 — Upstream (12/15/15)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE E-7 11/15/2016
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B (DMS PROJECT NO. 95026)

PID 29: Station 33+10 — Upstream (1/13/16)
PID 31: Station 35+50 — Upstream (12/1.5/15)
y �iPL F,4
PID 30: Station 33+45 — Downstream
(12/15/15)
PID 32: Station 36+90 — Upstream (12/15/15)
UT to Town Creek — Reach 4
PID 33: Station 37+15 — Downstream (1/13/16)
PID 34: Station 39+05 — Upstream (2/4/16)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE E-8 11/15/2016
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B (DMS PROJECT NO. 95026)

UT to Town Creek —Reach 5
PID 35: Station 42+00 — Downstream (2/4/16)
PID 37: Station 44+25 — Downstream (1/13/16)
PID 39: Station 45+50 — Upstream (2/4/16)
PID 36: Station 43+25 — Downstream (1/13/16)
PID 38: Station 45+30 Downstream (1/13/16)
PID 40: Station 46+90 — Upstream (1/13/16)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE E-9 11/15/2016
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B (DMS PROJECT NO. 95026)

PID 41: Station 47+00 — Right Floodplain
Rock Lined Channel from Wetland (1/13/16)
PID 43: Station 48+05 — Downstream (1/13/16)
PID 42: Station 47+75 — Upstream (1/13/16)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE E-10 11/15/2016
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B (DMS PROJECT NO. 95026)