20141259 Ver 1_Year 1 Monitoring Report_2016_20170224

FINAL
Town Creek Restoration Project — Option B
Year 1 Monitoring Report
Stanly County, North Carolina
DMS Project ID Number — 95026; NC DEQ Contract No. 003990
Yadkin Pee -Dee River Basin: 03040105060040
Project Info: Monitoring Year: 1 of 5
Year of Data Collection: 2016
Year of Completed Construction: 2016
Submission Date: December 2017
Submitted To: NCDEQ — Division of Mitigation Services
1625 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
NCDEQ Contract ID No. 003990

Town Creek Restoration Project — Option B
Year 1 Monitoring Report
Stanly County, North Carolina
DMS Project ID Number — 95026; NC DEQ Contract No. 003990
SAW -2014-00016; DWR#14-1259 V2
Yadkin Pee -Dee River Basin: 03040105060040
Report Prepared and Submitted by Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
NC Professional Engineering License # F-1084
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
9716-B Rea Road #56,
Charlotte, NC 28277
INTERNATIONAL
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026 I
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 1 OF 5

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................1
2.0 METHODOLOGY.........................................................................................2
2.1 Stream Monitoring.......................................................................................................... 2
2.1.1 Morphologic Parameters and Channel Stability...................................................................................3
2.1.1.1 Dimension.......................................................................................................................................3
2.1.1.2 Longitudinal Profile........................................................................................................................3
2.1.1.3 Substrate and Sediment Transport ..................................................................................................3
2.1.2 Stream Hydrology....................................................................................................................................3
2.1.2.1 Bankfull Events...............................................................................................................................3
2.1.2.2 Flow Documentation.......................................................................................................................4
2.1.3 Photographic Documentation of Site.....................................................................................................4
2.1.3.1 Lateral Reference Photos....................................................................................................................4
2.1.3.2 Longitudinal Station Photos...............................................................................................................4
2.1.4 Visual Assessment....................................................................................................................................4
2.2 Vegetation Assessment................................................................................................... 5
3.0 REFERENCES...............................................................................................6
APPENDICES
Appendix A Project Vicinity Map and Background Tables
Figure
1
Vicinity Map and Directions
Table
1
Project Mitigation Components
Table
2
Project Activity and Reporting History
Table
3
Project Contacts
Table
4
Project Attribute
Appendix B Visual Assessment Data
Figure 2 Current Condition Plan View (CCPV)
Table 5a -e Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Table 5f Stream Problem Areas (SPAS)
Table 6a Vegetation Condition Assessment
Table 6b Vegetation Problem Areas (VPAs)
Stream Station Photos
Appendix C Vegetation Plot Data
Table 7 Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Table 8 CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Table 9 CVS Stem Count of Planted Stems by Plot and Species
Vegetation Plot Photos
Appendix D Stream Survey Data
Figure 3 Year 1 Cross-sections with Annual Overlays
Figure 4 Riffle Pebble Count Size Class Distribution with Annual
Overlays
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026 II
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 1 OF 5

Table
10
Baseline Stream Summary
Table
Ila
Cross-section Morphology Data
Table
l lb
Stream Reach Morphology Data
Appendix E Hydrologic Data
Figure
5a -b
In -stream Flow Gauge Graphs
Figure
6
Monthly Rainfall Data
Table
12
Verification of Bankfull Events
Table 13 Verification of In -stream Flow Conditions
Hydrologic Data Photos
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026 III
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 1 OF 5

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. (Baker) restored 2,760 linear feet (LF) and enhanced approximately 943 LF
of jurisdictional stream along UT to Town Creek. This report documents and presents the Year 1 monitoring
data as required during the five-year monitoring period.
The primary restoration goals of the project are described below:
Create geomorphically stable conditions along the channels,
Enhance hydrologic connections between streams and the degraded riparian buffer and overall
ecosystem functionality;
Restore and protect riparian buffer functions and corridor habitat in perpetuity by establishing a
permanent conservation easement.
Improve terrestrial habitat and reduce sediment and nutrient loading to the prof ect reaches and the Little
Long Creek Watershed.
To accomplish these goals, the following objectives were identified:
Restore existing incised, eroding, and channelized streams by creating a stable stream channel with
access to its floodplain,
Improve in -stream habitat by providing a more diverse bedform with riffles and pools, creating deeper
pools and areas of water re -aeration, and reducing bank erosion,
Prevent cattle from accessing the project boundary by installing permanent fencing and thus reduce
excessive bank erosion and undesired nutrient inputs,
Plant native species riparian buffer vegetation along stream bank and floodplain areas, protected by a
permanent conservation easement, to increase stormwater runoff filtering capacity, improve bank
stability, and shade the stream to decrease water temperature,
Control invasive species vegetation within the project area and, if necessary, continue treatments during
the monitoring period.
The Town Creek Restoration Project — Option B (Site) is located in Stanly County, approximately 1.5 miles
west of the Town of New London, within cataloging unit 03040105 of the Yadkin Pee -Dee River Basin. The
Site is located in a North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS) - Targeted Local Watershed (HUC
03040105060-040). Directions to the Project Site can be found in Figure 1 of Appendix A.
During Year 1 monitoring, the planted acreage performance categories were functioning at 100 percent with no
bare areas or low stem density areas to report. No invasive species areas of concern, exceeding the mapping
threshold were documented; however, individuals stems ofLigustrum sinese (Chinese privet) were noted within
the easement. These areas were located predominantly in the areas of the easement not cleared during
construction and where mature woody vegetation is present.
Based on data collected from the eight monitoring plots during Year 1 monitoring, the average density of total
planted stems per plot ranges from 647 to 850 stems per acre with a tract mean of 754 stems per acre. Therefore,
the Year 1 data demonstrate that the Site is on track for meeting the minimum success interim criteria of 320
trees per acre by the end of Year 3. Vegetation stem counts are summarized in Tables 7 and 9 of Appendix C.
The thirteen (13) permanent cross-sections located throughout the Site show minimal adjustment to stream
dimension since construction. In addition, Tables 5a through 5f (Appendix B) indicate the Site has remained
geomorphically stable with lateral/vertical stability and in -stream structure performance of 100% on all stream
reaches and no noted areas of bank scour and/or erosion around structures. Visual observations and a review
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 1 OF 5

of pebble count data collected indicated that stream is sufficiently moving fines through the system. Riffles are
comprised of a mix of substrates with the bed material moving towards a mix of coarser substrates. Cross-
sectional and pebble count data are provided in Figures 3 and 4, respectively, in Appendix D.
In -stream pressure transducers, TC FL and TC FL2, were installed on Reach 1 to document intermittent flow
conditions throughout the monitoring year. Since post -construction installation, each gauge has documented at
least one period of consecutive stream flow for the required minimum of 30 days, with a maximum of 168
consecutive days for TC FL and 150 consecutive days for TC FL2. Figures 5a and 5b in Appendix E, depict
the documented flow conditions for each gauge from installation through Monitoring Year 1 relative to local
rainfall data, while Table 13 documents both the total cumulative days of flow and the maximum number of
consecutives days of flow.
Lastly at least one post -construction bankfull event occurred during MYL Documentation of the event was
recorded on 10/12/2016 and is located in Table 12 in Appendix E.
Summary information/data related to the Site and statistics related to performance of various project and
monitoring elements can be found in the tables and figures in the report Appendices. Narrative background and
supporting information formerly found in these reports can be found in the Baseline Monitoring Report and in
the Mitigation Plan available on the NCDMS' website. All raw data supporting the tables and figures in the
appendices is available from NCDMS upon request.
2.0 METHODOLOGY
The five-year monitoring plan for the Site includes criteria to evaluate the success of the stream and vegetation
components of the project. Monitoring methods used will follow the NCDMS Monitoring Report Template,
Version 1.3 — 1/15/10 and are based on the design approaches and overall project goals. To evaluate success
criteria associated with a geomorphically stable channel, hydrologic connectivity, and aquatic habitat diversity,
geomorphic monitoring methods will be conducted for project reaches that involve Restoration and
Enhancement Level I mitigation. The specific locations of monitoring features, such as vegetation plots,
permanent cross-sections, reference photograph stations and crest gauges, are shown on the CCPV sheets found
in Figure 2 of Appendix B.
Year 1 monitoring data were collected in October and November 2016. All visual site assessment data
contained in Appendix B were collected on October 12, 2016. Vegetation data and plot photos were collected
on November 10 and 12, 2016, respectively. Sediment data were collected on October 11 and 12, 2016.
Stream survey data were collected on November 3' and certified on November 9' of 2016. Stream survey
data were collected to meet the requirements for a topographic ground survey to the accuracy of Class C Vertical
and Class A Horizontal (21 NCAC-56 section .1606) and was geo-referenced to the NAD83 State Plane
Coordinate System, FIPS3200 in US Survey Feet, which was derived from the Town Creek Restoration Project
Option B's As -built Survey.
2.1 Stream Monitoring
Geomorphic monitoring of the Restoration and Enhancement Level I reaches 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. Additionally, monitoring methods for all reaches will include those described under Photo
Documentation of Site, Visual Assessment, and Vegetation Monitoring. The methods used and related success
criteria are described below for each parameter. Figure 2 shows approximate locations of the proposed
monitoring devices throughout the project site.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 1 OF 5

2.1.1 Morphologic Parameters and Channel Stability
2.1.1.1 Dimension
A total of thirteen (13) permanent cross-sections, nine (9) riffles and four (4) pools, were installed
throughout the entire project area. Cross-sections selected for monitoring included representative riffle
and pool facets for each of the three project reaches, Reach 2, 3, and 5, which implemented at least 500
linear feet of Restoration or Enhancement I activities.
Each cross-section was marked on both banks with permanent pins to establish the exact transect used.
A common benchmark was also chosen to consistently reference and facilitate the comparison of year-
to-year data. The cross-sectional surveys are conducted annually and include measurements of Bank
Height Ratio (BHR) and Entrenchment Ratio (ER). The monitoring survey includes points measured
at all breaks in slope, including top of stream banks, bankfull, inner berm, edge of water, and thalweg,
if the features are present. Riffle cross-sections are classified using the Rosgen Stream Classification
System (Rosgen, 1994), and all monitored cross-sections should fall within the quantitative parameters
defined for channels of the design stream type.
There should be little change in annual cross-sectional surveys from those collected during the post -
construction as -built survey. If changes do take place, they will be evaluated to determine if they
represent a movement toward a more unstable condition (e.g., down -cutting or erosion) or a movement
toward increased stability (e.g., settling, vegetative changes, deposition along the banks, or decrease in
width/depth ratio). Cross-sectional data is presented in Figure 3 of Appendix D.
2.1.1.2 Longitudinal Profile
A longitudinal profile was surveyed for the entire length of channel immediately after construction to
document as -built baseline conditions for the first year of monitoring only. The survey was tied to a
permanent benchmark and measurements included thalweg, water surface, bankfull, and top of low
bank. Each of these measurements was taken at the head of each feature (e.g., riffle, pool) and at the
maximum pool depth. Yearly longitudinal profiles will not be conducted during subsequent monitoring
years unless channel instability has been documented or remedial actions/repairs are required by the
USACE or NCDMS.
2.1.1.3 Substrate and Sediment Transport
After construction, there should be minimal change in the pebble count data over time given the current
watershed conditions and sediment supply regime. A substrate sample was collected for each riffle
cross-sections where constructed riffles were installed (X1, X4, X5, X7, X9, X10, and X12). Samples
collected combined with evidence provided by changes in cross-sectional data and visual assessments
will reveal changes in sediment gradation that occur over time as the stream adjusts to upstream
sediment loads. Significant changes in sediment gradation were evaluated with respect to stream
stability and watershed changes. Bed material distribution data are located in Figure 4 of Appendix D.
2.1.2 Stream Hydrology
2.1.2.1 Bankfull Events
The occurrence of bankfull events within the monitoring period were documented by the use of a crest
gauge and photographs. 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. The crest gauge
was installed the floodplain of Reach 5 within ten feet (horizontal) of the restored channel. Photographs
will be used to document the occurrence of debris lines and sediment deposition on the floodplain
during monitoring site visits.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 1 OF 5

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 bankf ill events
have been documented in separate years to demonstrate a floodplain connection has been restored.
2.1.2.2 Flow Documentation
A combination of photographic and flow gauge data were collected from two in -stream pressure
transducers (TC FL 1 and TC FL2) and a remote in -field camera that were installed on Reach 1.
Collected data will document that the restored intermittent stream system continues to exhibit base flow
for of at least 30 consecutive days throughout each monitoring year under normal climatic conditions.
In order to determine if rainfall amounts were normal for the given year, rainfall gauge data was
obtained from the nearest Stanly County weather station (CRONOS Database, NEWL — North Stanly
Middle School, if available) and compared to the average monthly rainfall amounts from the Stanly
County WETS Table (USDA, 2016). 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.
Flow data and photographic documentation collected during Year 1 monitoring are located in
Appendix E.
2.1.3 Photographic Documentation of Site
Photographs were used to document restoration success visually. Reference stations and cross-section
photos were photographed during the as -built survey; this will be repeated for at least five years
following construction. Reference photos were taken once a year, from a height of approximately five
to six feet. Permanent markers ensure that the same locations (and view directions) are utilized during
each monitoring period. Photographers will make an effort to consistently maintain the same area in
each photo over time. Selected site photographs are shown in Appendix B for reference stations and
Appendix D for cross-sections.
2.1.3.1 Lateral Reference Photos
Reference photo transects were taken of the right and left banks at each permanent cross-section. A
survey tape was captured in most photographs which represents the cross-section line located
perpendicular to the channel flow. The water line was located in the lower edge of the frame in order
to document bank and riparian conditions.
2.1.3.2 Longitudinal Station Photos
Stream reaches were photographed longitudinally beginning at the upstream portion of the Site and
moving downstream. Photographs were taken looking both upstream and downstream at delineated
locations throughout the restored stream valley. The photograph points were established close enough
together to provide an overall view of the reach lengths, primary grade control structures, and valley
crenulations. The angle of the photo depends on what angle provides the best view was noted and will
be continued in future photos. Site photographs are located in Appendix B.
2.1.4 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, aggradation/degradation, headcuts, live stake mortality,
impacts from invasive plant species or animal species, floodplain vegetative conditions, and condition
of pools and riffles. The photo locations will be shown on a plan view map and descriptions will be
documented in as either stream problem areas (SPAS) or vegetative problem areas (VPAs) in there
associated monitoring assessment tables located in Appendix B.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 1 OF 5

2.2 Vegetation Monitoring
In order to determine if the criteria are achieved, vegetation -monitoring quadrants were installed and are
monitored across the restoration site in accordance with the CVS-NCEEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation,
Version 4.0 (2006). The vegetation monitoring plots are a minimum of 2 percent of the planted portion of the
site with eight plots established randomly within the planted riparian buffer areas. No monitoring quadrants
were established within the undisturbed wooded areas of the project area. The size of individual quadrants are
100 square meters for woody tree species.
Level 1 CVS vegetation monitoring was conducted between spring, after leaf -out has occurred, and fall prior
to leaf fall. Individual quadrant data provided during subsequent monitoring events will include species
composition, density, survival, and stem height. Relative values were calculated, and importance values were
determined. Individual seedlings were marked to ensure that they can be found in succeeding monitoring years.
Mortality was determined from the difference between the previous year's living, planted seedlings and the
current year's living, planted seedlings.
The interim measure of vegetative success for the site is the survival of at least 320, 3 -year old, planted trees
per acre at the end of Year 3 of the monitoring period. The final vegetative success criteria is the survival of
260, 5 -year old, planted trees per acre at the end of Year 5 of the monitoring period.
Photographs were used to visually document vegetation success in sample plots and are located in Appendix C.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 1 OF 5

3.0 REFERENCES
Carolina Vegetation Survey (CVS) and NC Division of Mitigation Services (formerly NC Ecosystem
Enhancement Program). 2012. CVS-NCEEP Data Entry Tool v. 2.3.1. University of North Carolina, Raleigh,
NC.
Lee, M., Peet R., Roberts, S., Wentworth, T. 2006. CVS-NCEEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version
4.0.
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (formerly NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program). 2010.
Procedural Guidance and Content Requirements for EEP Monitoring Reports, v. 1.30, dated 1/15/10. Raleigh,
NC.
Rosgen, D. L. 1994. A Classification of Natural Rivers. Catena 22:169-199.
State Climate Office of North Carolina, 2016. CRONOS Database, North Stanly Middle School (MEWL),
Stanly County, NC. http://climate.ncsu.edu/cronos/?station=NEWL&temporal=sensonneta
United States Department of Agriculture, 2016. WETS Table. Climate Data for Stanly County, NC. Wets
Station: Albemarle, NC 0090, FIDS: 37167, 1971 - 2000. http://agacis.rcc-acis.org/37167/wets
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 1 OF 5

APPENDIX A
Project Vicinity Map and Background Tables

DIRECTIONS TO SITE FROM RALEIGH, NC:
Take 1-40 West toward Sanford/Wake Forest. Take Exit 293 (1-440/US-64 W/US-1) toward Sanford/Wake Forest. Keep left at the fork
toward US -1 SMS -64 W. Take Exit 293A for US -1 S/US-64 W toward Sanford/Asheboro. Keep left at the fork toward US -1 SMS -64 W.
Continue on US -1 SMS -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.
0
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.
I N T E R N AT 1 0 N A L
2017
0 1,500 3,000
Feet
1" = 3000'
Map Vicinity
Project Site
Stanly County, NC
LEGEND
— Streams
0 Project Boundary
US Highways
— Roads
0 Major Waterways
0 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

Table 1. Project Mitigation Components
Town Creek Restoration Project - O tion B: DMS Project No ID. 95026
Project Component
Wetland Position
Existing Footage or
2,760
Restored Footage,
Creditable Footage,
Restoration
Approach
Enhancement II
Mitigation
Creation
Priority
Mitigation
(reach ID, etc.)
and Hydro Type
Acreage
Stationing
Acreage, or SF
Acreage, or SF
Level
Credits
Notes/Comments
Level
Ratio X:1
106
Full Channel Restoration, Planted Buffer, Exclusion of Livestock, and
Reach 1
363
10+33 - 13+50
317
317
R
PI
1
317
Permanent Conservation Easement.
Dimension and Profile modified in keeping with reference, Planted Buffer,
Livestock Exclusion, Permanent Conservation Easement. A 26 -ft culverted farm
Reach 2
737
13+50 - 20+61
711
711
EI
PIII
1.5
474
road crossing was implemented between Reach 2 and Reach 3 from Station
20+61 - 20+87.
Full Channel Restoration, Planted Buffer, Exclusion of Livestock, and
Reach 3
1,849
20+87 - 37+08
1,621
1,621
R
PI
1
1,621
Permanent Conservation Easement.
Dimension and Profile modified in keeping with reference, Planted Buffer,
Reach 4
234
37+08 - 39+40
232
232
EI
PIII
1.5
155
Livestock Exclusion, Permanent Conservation Easement.
Full Channel Restoration, Planted Buffer, Exclusion of Livestock, Permanent
Reach 5
849
39+40 - 47+87
847
822
R
PI
1
822
Conservation Easement and a 27 -ft culverted farm road crossing.
etland Group 1
/G1)
etland Group 2
Buffer Group 1 BG1
Buffer Group 2 BG2
Buffer Groun 3 (BG3)
Lenuth and Area Summations by Mitivation Cateuory
Restoration Level
Stream Riparian Wetland Non -riparian Credited Buffer
Wetland
linear feet (acres) acres (square feet
Asset
Riverine Non-Riverine
Restoration
2,760
Enhancement
Enhancement I
943
Enhancement II
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., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 1 OF 5
General Note- The above component table is intended
to be a close camplementtathe asset map. Each entry
in the above table sh ou I d have clear distinction and
a ppropri ate sym boIogy i n th e a s, et m a p.
1 - Wetla nd G rou ps re pre se nt poole d wetla nd polygon s
inthemapwiththe same wetland type and restoration
level. Ifsomeofthewetlandpolygonswithina group
are in meaningfully different landscape positions, soil
types or have d iffe rent com m u n ity to rgets (as examples),
then furthersegmentation in the table maybe
warranted. Buffer groups represent pooledbuffer
polygons with common restoration levels.
2 -Wetland positionand Hydro Type -Indicates
Riparian Riverine, (RR), riparinan non-riverine(RNR) or
Non-Riverine (NR)
3- Restored Footage, Acreage or Square Feet (SF)
4 - Crediti ble Footage, Acreage or Sq ua re fe et-
cre d iti bl e a n ou nts after exclusion and red ucti ons 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., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 1 OF 5
General Note- The above component table is intended
to be a close camplementtathe asset map. Each entry
in the above table sh ou I d have clear distinction and
a ppropri ate sym boIogy i n th e a s, et m a p.
1 - Wetla nd G rou ps re pre se nt poole d wetla nd polygon s
inthemapwiththe same wetland type and restoration
level. Ifsomeofthewetlandpolygonswithina group
are in meaningfully different landscape positions, soil
types or have d iffe rent com m u n ity to rgets (as examples),
then furthersegmentation in the table maybe
warranted. Buffer groups represent pooledbuffer
polygons with common restoration levels.
2 -Wetland positionand Hydro Type -Indicates
Riparian Riverine, (RR), riparinan non-riverine(RNR) or
Non-Riverine (NR)
3- Restored Footage, Acreage or Square Feet (SF)
4 - Crediti ble Footage, Acreage or Sq ua re fe et-
cre d iti bl e a n ou nts after exclusion and red ucti ons 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
Elapsed Time Since Grading/Planting Complete:
Number of Reporting Years: 1
11 Months
Activity or Report
Scheduled
Completion
Data Collection
Com Tete
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
Dec -16
Jan -17
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., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 1 OF 5

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.
9716-B Rea Road, 456
Charlotte, NC 28277
Contact:
Stream Monitoring Point of Contact
Kristi Suggs, Tel. [phone]
Vegetation Monitoring Point of Contact
Kristi Suggs, Tel. [phone]
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 1 OF 5

Table 4. Project Attributes
Town Creek Restoration Project - Option B: DMS Project ID No. 95026
Project Information
Project Name
Town Creek Restoration Project - Option B
Project County
Stanly
Project Area (Acres)
11.97
Project Coordinates
35.434 N, -80.2421 W
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Region
Piedmont
Ecoregion
Carolina Slate Belt
Project River Basin
Yadkin - Pee Dee
USGS Hydrologic Unit Code 8- and 14-digit
03040105 / 03040105060-040
NCDWR Sub-basin for Project
03-07-13
Project Drainage Area (Acres)
134.8
Project Drainage Area Percent Impervious
<5%
CGIA Land Use Classification
2.01, 412 / Forest (40%) Agriculture (25%) Impervious Cover (7%)
Within Extent of DMS Watershed Plan
Lower Yadkin RBRP, 2009
WRC Class (Warm Cool Cold)
Warm
Project Easement Fenced/Demarcated
100%
Beaver activity observed during design phase
INo activity observed
Reach 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,
C4: variable;
unstable & unstable
straight
E4: Incised &
unstable
C4 and E4:
Incised &
straight
Evolutionary Trend
Eb4G-->B
E4G417413c C4G4F-->C
E-->Gc-->F4C
C-->Gc4F4C
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 0.0122
0.0120
0.0128
FEMA Classification
N/A
N/A N/A
N/A
N/A
Native Vegetation Community
Piedmont Small Stream
Percent Composition of Exotic/Invasive
Vegetation
0% T0/0
0%
0
0
0%
0
0%
Regulatory
Considerations
Regulation
Applicable
Resolved Supporting
Documentation
Waters of the United States — Section 404
Yes
Yes Categorical Exclusion
Waters of the United States — Section 401
Yes
Yes Categorical Exclusion
Endangered Species Act
Yes
Yes Categorical Exclusion
Historic Preservation Act
Yes
Yes Categorical Exclusion
Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA)
No
N/A Categorical Exclusion
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
No
N/A Categorical Exclusion
Essential Fisheries Habitat
No
N/A Categorical Exclusion
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 1 OF 5

APPENDIX B
Visual Assessment Data

'0
C A
Alt.
Fig 2
V
Reach 2
ti
(Enhancement I
Reach 3
(Restoration)
xXx
Type
(9 In -Stream Pressure Transducer
@ Crest Gauge
Photo Points
Reach Boundary
Station Markers
Successful Vegetation Plots
Cross Section - Pool
Cross Section - Riffle
Preexisting Channel
Stream Top of Bank
Stream Centerline
Fencing
Conservation Easement A
DMS Project No. 95026
North Carolina N Figure Overview Baker Project No. 124526
Michael Baker Division of 0 125 250 500 Current Condition Plan View Date: 2017 -
Mitigation Feet Town Creek Restoration Project - Option B Monitoring Year: 1 of 5
1 N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L Services Stanly County, NC Drawn By: RWM
I I Sheet: 1 of 3

rt
Reach 1
_."11+00 (Restoration)
12+00
As
13+00
14+Qo*
15+00
XS -2
16+00 f Reach 2
W (Enhancement 1)
17+00
18+00
19too
XS -4
20+00
A!W
21;90,
- Station Markers
0 In -Stream Pressure Transducer
Reach Boundary
Photo Points
Successful Vegetation Plots
Cross Section - Pool
Cross Section - Riffle
Structures
Preexisting Channel
Stream Top of Bank
Stream Centerline
Fencing
Conservation Easement
North Carolina
Michael Baker Division of 0 75 150
INTERNATIONAL Mitigation
Services
ff
19
20
+ 00
S-5
XS -6
11".1 7,3111111�'
L
Reach 3
(Restoration)
-7
30 +00
NC Soard, NCCGIA, NCDOT
DMS Project No. 95026
N Figure 2A Baker Project No. 124526
300 Current Condition Plan View Date: 2017
Feet Town Creek Restoration Project - Option B Monitoring Year: 1 of 5
Stanly County, NC Drawn By: RWM
Sheet: 2 of 3

5.
",.28+00 L.a 24 qk
l .
29+00
XS -7s , Reach 3
' ^ (Restoration)
31+00 r 1
213 �`<. +f ..Fs•
32 00
30
3U4 00 - ! • _
a
100
Station Markers
® Crest Gauge
X Reach Boundary
Photo Points
Successful Vegetation Plots
Cross Section - Pool
Cross Section - Riffle
Structures
Preexisting Channel
Stream Top of Bank
— Stream Centerline
-- - Fencing
Conservation Easement
XS -8 9
�'. 38+
r'
32 33
Reach 4
(Enhancement 1)
xs
a"
Tr .
34
a0+00
.'I
XS -10
y a1+00 �.
t \fit jF Reach 5
35 (Restoration)
XS -11
az+oo
,l XS -1243+00
�•
e
36-2--
44+00
37
XS -13•s,
•�
45+00'x_
` r
M
\ 38 39 `t
I as+oo �
—47+00,
41
i
I
i
I
I
I
I
i
-,A
a
4'
5
M�I
42
` 43
i
1
i
DMS Project No. 95026
North Carolina N Figure 2B Baker Project No. 124526
Michael Baker 0 75 150 300
Division of j� Current Condition Plan View Date: 2017
Mitigation Feet /\ Town Creek Restoration Project - Option B Monitoring Year: 1 of
1 N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L Services "vv Stanly County, NC Drawn By: RWM
Sheet: 3 of 3

Table 5a. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Town Creek Restoration Project - Option B: Project No. 95026
Reach ID Town Creek - Reach 1
Assessed Len th (LF) 317
Major Channel
Category
Channel
Sub-
Category
Metric
Number Stable
Performing
as Intended
Total
Number
per As -Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
% Stable
Performing
as Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody Veg.
Footage
g e
Stabilizing
Woody Ve .
Adjusted %
for Stabilizing
Woody Veg.
1. Vertical
1. Aggradation
0
0
100%
Stability
2. Degradation
0
0
100%
2. Riffle
Condition
1. Texture/Substrate
8 8
100%
1. Bed
3. Pool
1. Depth
9 9
100%
Condition
2. Length
9 9
100%
4.Thalweg
1. Thalweg centering for riffle/run
8 8
100%
position
2. Thalwe centering for pool/glide
9 1 9
100%
1. Scoured
/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
simply from poor growth and/or scour and
erosion
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent
that mass wasting appears likely
0
0
o
100/o
0
0
100%
2. Bank
3. Massasting
W
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
1. Overall
Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs
12
12
100%
2. Grade
Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill.
10
10
100%
3. Engineering
Structures
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms
10
10
o
100/o
3. Bank
Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent
of influence does not exceed 15%
12
12
100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining —
Max Pool Depth
10
10
100%
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 1 OF 5

Table 5b. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Town Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 95026
Reach ID Town Creek - Reach 2
Assessed Len th (LF) 711
Major
Channel
Number Stable,
Total
Number of
Amount of
% Stable,
Number with
Footage with
Adjusted % for
Channel
Sub-
Metric
Performing
Number
Unstable
Unstable
Performing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Category
Category
as Intended
per As -Built
Segments
Footage
as Intended
Woody Veg.
Woody Veg.
Woody Veg.
1. Vertical
1. Aggradation
0
0
100%
Stability
2. Degradation
0
0
100%
2. Riffle
1. Texture/Substrate
21
21
100%
Condition
1. Bed
3. Pool
1. Depth
20
20
100%
2. Length
20
20
100%
Condition
1. Thalweg centering for riffle /run
21
21
100%
4. Thalweg
2. Thalweg centering for
position
pool/glide
20
20
100%
Bank lacking vegetative cover
1. Scoured
resulting simply from poor growth
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
/Eroding
and/or scour and erosion
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
2. Bank
2.
extent that mass wasting appears
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
U
Undercut
likely
3. Mass
Bank slumping, calving, or
Wasting
collapse
0
0
o
100 /0
0
0
0
100 /o
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
1. Overall
Structures physically intact with
Integrity
no dislodged boulders or logs
20
20
100%
Grade control structures exhibiting
2. Grade
maintenance of grade across the
20
20
100%
Control
sill.
Structures lacking any substantial
3. Engineering
Structures
2a. Piping
flow underneath sills or arms
20
20
100%
Bank erosion within the structures
3. Bank
extent of influence does not
20
20
100%
Protection
exceed 15%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures
20
20
100%
maintaining — Max Pool Depth
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 1 OF 5

Table 5c. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Town Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 95026
Reach ID Town Creek - Reach 3
Assessed Len th (LF) 1,621
Major
Channel Sub-
Stable,
Total
Number of
Amount of
% Stable,
Number with
Footage with
Adjusted % for
Channel
Crfo
ategory
Metric
Perming
Number
Unstable
Unstable
Performing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Category
_a a
per As-Built
Segments
Footage
as Intended
Woody Veg.
Woody Veg.
Woody Veg.
1. Vertical
1. Aggradation
0
0
100%
2. Degradation
0
0
100%
Stability
2. Riffle
1. Texture/Substrate
32
32
100%
Condition
1. Bed
3. Pool
1. Depth
32
32
100%
2. Length
32
32
100%
Condition
1. Thalweg centering for riffle/run
32
32
100%
4. Thalweg
position
2. Thalweg centering for pool/glide
32
32
100%
Bank lacking vegetative cover
1. Scoured
resulting simply from poor growth
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
/Eroding
and/or scour and erosion
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
2. Bank
2. Undercut
extent that mass wasting appears
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
likely
3. Mass
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
°
100%
0
0
100%
Wasting
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
1. Overall
Structures physically intact with no
Integrity
dislodged boulders or logs
66
66
100%
2. Grade
Grade control structures exhibiting
Control
maintenance of grade across the sill.
15
15
100%
3. Engineering
Structures lacking any substantial
Structures
2a. Piping
flow underneath sills or arms
15
15
100%
Bank erosion within the structures
3. Bank
extent of influence does not exceed
66
66
100%
Protection
15%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining
15
15
100%
Max Pool Depth
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 1 OF 5

Table 5d. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Town Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 95026
Reach ID Town Creek -Reach 4
Assessed Len th (LF) 232
Major
Channel
Number Stable,
Total
Number of
Amount of
% Stable,
Number with
Footage with
Adjusted % for
Channel
Sub-
Metric
Performing
Number
Unstable
Unstable
Performing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Category
Category
as Intended
per As -Built
Segments
Footage
as Intended
Woody Veg.
Woody Veg.
Woody Veg.
1. Vertical
1. Aggradation
0
0
100%
Stability
2. Degradation
0
0
100%
2. Riffle
Condition
1. Texture/Substrate
4 4
100%
1. Bed
3. Pool
1. Depth
4 4
100%
Condition
2. Length
4 4
100%
4. Thalweg
1. Thalweg centering for riffle/run
4 4
100%
position
2. Thalweg centering for pool/glide
4 4
100%
1. Scoured
/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover
resulting simply from poor growth
and/or scour and erosion
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely
0
100%
0
0
100%
2. Bank
3 Mass
Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
1. Overall
Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs
0
0
N/A
2. Grade
Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill.
0
0
N/A
3. Engineering
Structures
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms
0
0
N/A
3. Bank
Protection
Bank erosion within the structures
extent of influence does not exceed
15%
0
0
N/A
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining —
Max Pool Depth
0
0
N/A
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 1 OF 5

Table 5e. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Town Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 95026
Reach ID Town Creek -Reach 5
Assessed Len th (LF) 822
Major Channel
Channel Sub-
Number Stable,
Total
Number of
Amount of
% Stable,
Number with
Footage with
Adjusted %
Category
Category
Metric
Performing
Number
Unstable
Unstable
Performing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
for Stabilizing
as Intended
per As -Built
Segments
Footage
as Intended
Woody Veg.
Woody Veg.
Woody Veg.
1. Vertical
1. Aggradation
0
0
100%
Stability
2. Degradation
0
0
100%
2. Riffle
1. Texture/Substrate
18 18
100%
Condition
1. Bed
3. Pool
1. Depth
16 16
100%
Condition
2. Length
16 16
100%
4. Thalweg
1. Thalweg centering for riffle/run
18 18
100%
position
2. Thalweg centering for pool/glide
16 16
100%
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured/
simply from poor growth and/or scour
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Eroding
and erosion
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
2. Bank
extent that mass wasting appears likely
3. Massasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
W
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
1. Overall
Structures physically intact with no
Integrity
dislodged boulders or logs
31
31
100%
2. Grade
Grade control structures exhibiting
Control
maintenance of grade across the sill.
5
5
100%
3. Engineering
2a Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
5
5
100%
Structures
underneath sills or anns
Bank erosion within the structures
3. Bank
extent of influence does not exceed
31
31
100%
Protection
15%
Pool forming structures maintaining —
4. Habitat
Max Pool Depth
5
5
100%
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 1 OF 5

Table 5f. Stream Problem Areas
Town Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 95026
Town Creek Reach 1
Feature Issue
Station No.
Suspected Cause
Photo Number
No issues in Year 1
N/A
N/A
N/A
Town Creek Reach 2
Feature Issue
Station No.
Suspected Cause
Photo Number
No issues in Year 1
N/A
N/A
N/A
Town Creek Reach 3
Feature Issue
Station No.
Suspected Cause
Photo Number
No issues in Year 1
N/A
N/A
N/A
Town Creek Reach 4
Feature Issue
Station No.
Suspected Cause
Photo Number
No issues in Year 1
N/A
N/A
N/A
Town Creek Reach 5
Feature Issue
Station No.
Suspected Cause
Photo Number
No issues in Year 1
N/A
N/A
N/A
Note: The first digit in the Photo Number column references the monitoring year and the second digit references the problem area or
photo (which would be identical to a prior years problem area/photo number when persisting from a previous monitoring year).
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 1 OF 5

Table 6a. Vegetation Condition Assessment
Town Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 95026
Reach ID Reaches 1 - 5
Planted Acreage 10.73
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Mapping
Threshold
CCPV
Depiction
Number of
Polygons
Combined
Acreage
% of Planted
Acreage
1. Bare Areas
Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous
material.
0.1 acres
N/A
0
0.00
0.0%
2. Low Stem Density Areas
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels
based on MY3, 4, or 5 stem count criteria.
0.1 acres
N/A
0
0.00
0.0%
Total
0
0.00
0.0%
3. Areas of Poor Growth Rates or
Vigor
Areas with woody stems of a size class that are
obviously small given the monitoring year.
0.25 acres
N/A
0
0.00
0.0%
Cumulative Total
0
0.00
0.0%
Easement Acreage 11.97
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Mapping
Threshold
CCPV
Depiction
Number of
Polygons
Combined
Acreage
% of Easement
Acreage
4. Invasive Areas of Concern
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at
map scale).
1000 SF
NA
0
0.00
0.0%
5. Easement Encroachment Areas
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at
map scale).
N/A
N/A
0
0.00
0.0%
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 1 OF 5

Table 6b. Vegetation Problem Areas
Town Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 95026
Reach 1
Feature Issue
Station No.
Suspected Cause
Photo Number
Invasive/Exotic
N/A
N/A
-
Populations
Reach 2
Feature Issue
Station No.
Suspected Cause
Photo Number
Invasive/Exotic
N/A
N/A
-
Populations
Reach 3
Feature Issue
Station No.
Suspected Cause
Photo Number
Invasive/Exotic
N/A
N/A
-
Populations
Reach 4
Feature Issue
Station No.
Suspected Cause
Photo Number
Invasive/Exotic
N/A
N/A
-
Populations
Reach 5
Feature IssueStation
No.
Suspected Cause
Photo Number
Invasive/Exotic
N/A
N/A
-
Populations
*Note: The first digit in the Photo Number column references the monitoring year and the second digit references the problem area or photo
(which would be identical to a prior years problem area/photo number when persisting from a previous monitoring year).
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 1 OF 5

Town Creek — Reach 1
PID 1: Station 10+40 — Upstream (10/12/16)
PID 3: Station10+70 — Left Floodplain Rock
Lined Channel (10/12/16)
PID 5: Station 12+20 — Downstream (10/12/16)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 1 OF 5
PID 2: Station 10+60 — Downstream (10/12/16)
PID 4: Station 11+25 — Downstream (10/12/16)
PID 6: Station 13+60 — Upstream (10/12/16)

Town Creek — Reach 2
PID 9: Station 14+65 — Downstream (10/12/16)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 1 OF 5
PID 8: Station 14+65 — Left Floodplain
Matted Drainage Swale (10/12/16)

PID 10: Station 16+15 — Upstream (10/12/16)
PID 12: Station 17+75 — Upstream (10/12/16)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 1 OF 5
PID 11: Station 16+90 — Upstream (10/12/16)
PID 13: Station 18+75 — Upstream (10/12/16)
PID 14: Station 19+25 — Upstream (10/12/16)

PID 15: Station 20+50 — Downstream
(10/12/16)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 1 OF 5
PID 16: Station 20+70 — Upstream (10/12/16)

Town Creek — Reach 3
PID 17: Station 21+75 — Upstream (10/12/16)
PID 19: Station 23+60 — Upstream (10/12/16)
PID 21: Station 24+50 — Upstream (10/12/16)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 1 OF 5
PID 18: Station 23+30 — Upstream (10/12/16)
PID 20: Station 23+60 — Left Bank (10/12/16)
PID 22: Station 25+50 — Upstream (10/12/16)

PID 23: Station 27+50 — Upstream (10/12/16)
PID 25: Station 28+35 — Right Floodplain
Rock Lined Channel (10/12/16)
PID 27: Station 29+80 — Downstream
(10/12/16)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 1 OF 5
PID 24: Station 28+10 — Upstream (10/12/16)
PID 26: Station 28+90 — Upstream (10/12/16)
PID 28: Station 31+40 — Upstream (10/12/16)

PID 29: Station 33+00 — Upstream (10/12/16)
PID 31: Station 35+50 — Upstream (10/12/16)
PID 30: Station 33+45 — Downstream
(10/12/16)
PID 32: Station 36+90 — Upstream (10/12/16)
Town Creek — Reach 4
PID 33: Station 37+15—Downstream (10/12/16)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 1 OF 5
PID 34: Station 39+05 —Upstream (10/12/16)

Town Creek — Reach 5
PID 35: Station 42+00 — Downstream (10/12/16) PID 36: Station 43+25 — Downstream (10/12/16)
PID 37: Station 44+25 — Downstream (10/12/16)
PID 39: Station 45+50 — Upstream (10/12/16)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 1 OF 5
PID 38: Station 45+30 Downstream (10/12/16)
PID 40: Station 46+90 — Upstream (10/12/16)

PID 41: Station 47+00 — Right Floodplain Rock
Lined Channel from Wetland (10/12/16)
PID 43: Station 48+05 — Downstream (10/12/16)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 1 OF 5
PID 42: Station 47+75 — Upstream (10/12/16)

APPENDIX C
Vegetation Plot Data

Table 7. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Town Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 95026
Wetland/Stream Vegetation Totals (per acre)
Stream/ Wetland
Plot #
z
Volunteers
Tota
Success Success Criteria Met?
Stems'
VP1
728
0
728
Yes
VP2
850
0
850
Yes
VP3
769
0
769
Yes
VP4
769
0
769
Yes
VP5
850
0
850
Yes
VP6
728
0
728
Yes
VP7
688
0
688
Yes
VP8
647
0
647
Yes
Project Avg
754
0
1 754
1 Yes
1Native planted woody stems. Includes shrubs, does NOT include live stakes. No vines
2Native woody stems. Not planted. No vines.
3Planted + volunteer native woody stems. Includes live stakes. Excl. exotics. Excl. vines.
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 1 OF 5

Table 8. CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Town Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 95026
Report Prepared By Russell Myers
Date Prepared 11/18/2016 10:16
database name 124526_TownCreek_Cvs-eep-entrytool-v2.3.1.mdb
database location C:\Users\Russell.Myers\Desktop\UT and Town CVS
computer name ASHELCTOMSIC
file size 58146816
DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT------------
Metadata Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a summary of project(s) and project data.
Proj, planted Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre, for each year. This excludes live stakes.
Proj, total stems Each project is listed with its TOTAL stems per acre, for each year. This includes live stakes, all planted stems, and all natural/volunteer stems.
Plots List of plots surveyed with location and summary data (live stems, dead stems, missing, etc.).
Vigor Frequency distribution of vigor classes for stems for all plots.
Vigor by Spp Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species.
Damage List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences and percent of total stems impacted by each.
Damage by Spp Damage values tallied by type for each species.
Damage by Plot Damage values tallied by type for each plot.
Planted Stems by Plot and Spp A matrix of the count of PLANTED living stems of each species for each plot; dead and missing stems are excluded.
ALL Stems by Plot and spp A matrix of the count of total living stems of each species (planted and natural volunteers combined) for each plot; dead and missing stems are excluded.
PROJECT SUMMARY
Project Code
project Name
River Basin
length(ft)
stream -to -edge width (ft)
area (sq m)
Required Plots (calculated)
Sampled Plots
95026
Town Creek Restoration Project - Option B
Yadkin -Pee Dee
8
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT - 2017. YEAR I OF 5

Table 9. CVS Stem Count of Planted Stems by Plot and Species
Town Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 95026
Current Plot Data (MY1 2016)
Scientific Name Common Name
Species
Type
PnoLS
95026-01-VP1
P -all
T
PnoLS
95026-01-VP2
P -all
T
PnoLS
95026-01-VP3
P -all
T
PnoLS
95026-01-VP4
P -all
T
PnoLS
95026-01-VP5
P -all
T
Asimina triloba pawpaw
Tree
Betula nigra river birch
Tree
2
2
2
1
1
1
Callicar a americana American beautyberry
Shrub
2
2
2
Car inns caroliniana American hornbeam
Tree
2
2
2
Cercis canadensis eastern redbud
Tree
7
7
7
Cornus amomum silky dogwood
Shrub
4
4
4
5
5
5
2
2
2
2
2
2
Diospyros vir iniana common persimmon
Tree
4
4
4
Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash
Tree
1
1
1
Liriodendron tuli i era tuli tree
Tree
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
5
5
5
Platanus occidentalis Americansycamore
Tree
2
2
2
Quercus alba white oak
Tree
1
1
1
I
1
1
2
2
2
uercus alcata southern red oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus michauxii swamp chestnut oak
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
Quercus pagoda the bark oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
Quercus phellos willow oak
Tree
6
6
6
7
7
7
3
3
3
11
11
11
5
5
5
Sambucus canadensis Common Elderberry
Shrub
1
1
1
Sambucus nigra European black elderberry
Shrub
Stem count
18
1 18
18
21
21
21
19
19
19
19
19
19
21
21
21
size (ares)
1
1
1
1
1
size (ACRES)
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
Species count
9
9
9
8
8
86
6
6
5
5
5
5
5
5
Stems per ACRE
728
728
728
850
850
850
769
769 E769
769
769
769
850
850
850
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 1 OF 5

Table 9. CVS Stem Count of Planted Stems by Plot and Species
Town Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 95026
Current Plot Data (MY1 2016)
Annual Means
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species
Type
PnoLS
95026-01-VP6
P -all
T
PnoLS
95026-01-VP7
P -all
T
PnoLS
95026-01-VP8
P -all
T
PnoLS
MY1 (2016)
P -all
T
PnoLS
MYO (2016)
P -all
T
Asimina triloba
pawpaw
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
1
1
1
4
4
4
1 8
8
8
12
12
12
Callicar a americana
American beautyberry
Shrub
2
2
2
1
1
1
Car inns caroliniana
American hornbeam
Tree
1
1
1
3
3
3
1
1
1
Cercis canadensis
eastern redbud
Tree
4
4
4
11
11
11
11
11
11
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
13
13
13
14
14
14
Diospyros vir iniana
common persimmon
Tree
4
4
4
4
4
4
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
1
l
1
2
1 2
2
2
2
2
Liriodendron tuli i era
tuli tree
Tree
1
1
1
6
6
6
5
5
5
26
26
26
27
27
27
Platanus occidentalis
Americansycamore
Tree
5
5
5
6
6 1
6
13
13
13
14
14
14
Quercus alba
white oak
Tree
4
4
4
3
3
3
uercus alcata
southern red oak
Tree
1
2
2
2
5
5
5
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
4
4
4
8
8
8
9
9
9
Quercus pagoda
the bark oak
Tree
1
1
1
8
8
8
6
6
6
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
6
6
6
4
4
4
1
1
1
43
43
43
47
47
47
Sambucus canadensis
Common Elderberry
Shrub
1
1
1
Sambucus nigra
European black elderberry
Shrub
1 1
2
2
2
Stem count
18
1 18
18
17
1 17
17
16
1 16
16
149
149
149
159
159
159
size (ares)
1
1
1
8
8
size (ACRES)
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.20
0.20
Species count
7
7
7
1 5
5
5
4
4
4
1 16
16
1616
16
16
Stems per ACRE
728
728
728
1 688
688
688
647
647
647
1 754
754
754
804
804
804
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 1 OF 5

Town Creek — Vegetation Plot Photos
Vegetation Plot 1 (10/12/16)
Vegetation Plot 3 (10/12/16)
Vegetation Plot 5 (10/12/16)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 1 OF 5
Vegetation Plot 2 (10/12/16)
Vegetation Plot 4 (10/12/16)
Vegetation Plot 6 (10/12/16)

Vegetation Plot 7 (10/12/2016)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 1 OF 5
Vegetation Plot 8 (10/12/2016)

APPENDIX D
Stream Survey Data

Figure 3. Cross-sections with Annual Overlays
Town Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 95026
Permanent Cross-section
XI - Reach 2
(Monitoring Year 1 - Collected November 2016)
LEFT BANK
RIGHT BANK
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 1 OF 5
Stream
BKF
BKF
BKF
Max BKF
BKF
TOB
Feature
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
WFPA
Type
Area
Width
Depth
Depth
Elev
Elev
Riffle
C
4.80
1 8.46
0.57
0.96
14.92
1.06
3.02
586.35
586.41
25.55
590
-
589
0
588
w
587
------------------------------------------------------
586
-----------------
585
0 10
20 Station
30
40 50
—s As -Built
s MY1 2016 -0--- Bankfull
--- Floodprone
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 1 OF 5

Figure 3 Cont. Cross-sections with Annual Overlays
Town Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 95026
Permanent Cross-section
X2 - Reach 2
(Monitoring Year 1 - Collected November 2016)
LEFT BANK
RIGHT BANK
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 1 OF 5
Stream
BKF
BKF
BKF
Max BKF
BH
BKF
TOB
Feature
W/D
ER
WFPA
Type
Area
Width
Depth
Depth
Ratio
Elev
Elev
Riffle
C
7.66
9.13
0.84
1.34
10.88
1.01
3.62
583.31
583.32
33.03
587
586
0
585
----------------------------------------------------------------------W
584
-
583
------------------
582
581
0 10
20 Station 30
40 50
—♦—As -built MY12016 --- --- Bankfull
--- --- Floodprone
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 1 OF 5

Figure 3 Cont. Cross-sections with Annual Overlays
Town Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 95026
Permanent Cross-section
X3 - Reach 2
(Monitoring Year 1 - Collected November 2016)
LEFT BANK
RIGHT BANK
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 1 OF 5
Stream
BKF
BKF
BKF
Max BKF
BH
TOB
Feature
WAD
ER
BKF Elev
WFPA
Type
Area
Width
Depth
Depth
Ratio
Elev
Pool
9.99
1 8.73
1.14
2.00
7.62
1 1.00
4.25
582.09
582.09
37.11
586
585
584
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
583
w
582
-----------------
581
580
579
0 10
20 Station
30
40 50
—As -Built MY12016 --4 --- Bankfill
--- o---
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 1 OF 5

Figure 3 Cont. Cross-sections with Annual Overlays
Town Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 95026
Permanent Cross-section
X4 - Reach 2
(Monitoring Year 1- Collected November 2016)
11104W8:1:1101"1
RIGHT BANK
Stream BKF BKF BKF Max BKF BKF TOB
Feature Type Area Width Depth Depth WAD BH Ratio ER Elev Elev WFPA
Riffle I C 7.00 9.91 0.71 1.32 1 14.05 1 1.05 1 3.84 1 576.81 576.88 1 38.11
579
578
0
W 577
576
575
0
10 20 Station 30 40 50
A As -Built W l 2016 -9 Bankfull - -0--- Floodprone
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 1 OF 5

Figure 3 Cont. Cross-sections with Annual Overlays
Town Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 95026
Permanent Cross-section
X5 - Reach 3
(Monitoring Year 1 - Collected November 2016)
LEFT BANK
RIGHT BANK
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 1 OF 5
Stream
BKF
BKF
BKF
Max BKF
BKF
Feature
WAD
BH Ratio
ER
TOB Elev
WFPA
Type
Area
Width
Depth
Depth
Elev
Riffle
C
8.11
1 11.83
0.69
1.35
17.27
1.09
4.06
568.85
1 568.98
48.09
571
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------o
570
0
V
569
---------------------
568
567
0 10
20 Station
30
40 50
0 As -Built
MY12016 -0---
-0---Floodprone
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 1 OF 5

Figure 3 Cont. Cross-sections with Annual Overlays
Town Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 95026
Permanent Cross-section
X6 - Reach 3
(Monitoring Year 1- Collected November 2016)
1004WaI.111CI
RIGHT BANK
Stream BKF BKF BKF Max BKF BKF TOB
Feature Type Area Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER Elev Elev WFPA
Pool 1 13.03 19.31 0.67 1.79 28.61 1 0.99 1 2.56 568.63 568.61 1 49.44
574
573
572
0 571
W 570
569
568
567
566
0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------o
10
20 Station
30 40
50
AAs -Built
s MY12016
-0
--- G---
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 1 OF 5

Figure 3 Cont. Cross-sections with Annual Overlays
Town Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 95026
Permanent Cross-section
X7 - Reach 3
(Monitoring Year 1 - Collected November 2016)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 1 OF 5
LEFT BANK
RIGHT BANK
Stream
BKF
BKF
BKF
Max BKF
TOB
Feature
WAD
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
WFPA
Type
Area
Width
Depth
Depth
Elev
Riffle
C
5.71
10.72
0.53
0.85
20.15
0.98
3.59
563.96
563.94
0.00
567
566
° 565
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
W
564
-------------------
563
562
100
110
120 Station
130
140 150
s As -Built
s MY 1 2016 ---G -
- - Bankfull
-0 Floodprone
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 1 OF 5

Figure 3 Cont. Cross-sections with Annual Overlays
Town Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 95026
Permanent Cross-section
X8 - Reach 3
(Monitoring Year 1 - Collected November 2016)
LEFT BANK RIGHT BANK
Stream BKF BKF BKF Max BKF BH BKF TOB
Feature Type Area Width Depth Depth WAD Ratio ER Elev Elev WFPA
Pool 12.46 1 12.08 1.03 1.98 11.72 1.03 4.18 555.44 555.49 50.46
559
558
®---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------0
557
0
556
w
555
554
553
552 +
0
10
20 Station
30
40 50
AAs -Built
MY1 2016 -- o---Bankfull
-- o---Floodprone
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 1 OF 5

Figure 3 Cont. Cross-sections with Annual Overlays
Town Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 95026
Permanent Cross-section
X9 - Reach 3
(Monitoring Year 1 - Collected November 2016)
1004W81 -1110C1
RIGHT BANK
Stream BKF BKF BKF Max BKF I TOB
Feature Type Area Width Depth Depth WAD BH Ratio ER BKF Elev Elev WFPA
Riffle I C 5.34 10.04 0.53 0.80 1 18.85 1 0.97 1 3.12 1 555.19 1 555.17 31.28
558
557
556
555
554
553
0
10 20 Station 30 40 50
As -Built MY12016 -9--- -G---
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 1 OF 5

Figure 3 Cont. Cross-sections with Annual Overlays
Town Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 95026
Permanent Cross-section
X10 - Reach 5
(Monitoring Year 1 - Collected November 2016)
IaDIWa:1110IC4
RIGHT BANK
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 1 OF 5
Stream
BKF
BKF
BKF
Max BKF
BKF
TOB
Feature
WAD
BH Ratio
ER
WFPA
Type
Area
Width
Depth
Depth
Elev
Elev
Riffle
C
7.21
10.28
0.70
1.10
14.65
1 0.99
5.74
550.83
550.82
59.03
553
552
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
0
w 551
--------------
550
549
0 10 20
30 Station 40
50
60 70
—0 As -built —# MY12016---o---Bankfull
--- G---
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 1 OF 5

Figure 3 Cont. Cross-sections with Annual Overlays
Town Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 95026
Permanent Cross-section
X11 - Reach 5
(Monitoring Year 1 - Collected November 2016)
1004W81 -1110C1
RIGHT BANK
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 1 OF 5
Stream
BKF
BKF
BKF
Max BKF
BKF
TOB
Feature
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
WFPA
Type
Area
Width
Depth
Depth
Elev
Elev
Pool
16.97
16.78
1.01
2.11
16.60
1 0.97
3.79
549.52
1 549.58
63.56
552
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------o
551
550
V
w
549
548
547
0 10 20 30 40
50
60 70
Station
AAs -Built *MY12016 - G- 13ankfull
--- 0---
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 1 OF 5

Figure 3 Cont. Cross-sections with Annual Overlays
Town Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 95026
Permanent Cross-section
X12 - Reach 5
(Monitoring Year 1 - Collected November 2016)
IaDIWa:1\0IC4
RIGHT BANK
Stream BKF BKF BKF Max BKF TOB
Feature Type Area Width Depth Depth WAD BH Ratio ER BKF Elev Elev WFPA
Riffle I C 5.53 10.49 0.53 0.8 19.92 1 1 1 3.85 1 549.04 1 549.04 1 40.39
551
550
0
C4
0549
547
0
10 20 30 40 50 60
Station
AAs -Built MY1 2016 --- --- Bankfull - -0---Floodprone
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 1 OF 5

Figure 4. Riffle Pebble Count Size Class Distribution with Annual Overlays
Town Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 95026
Cummulative
Channel materials mm
BAKER PROJECT NO.
124526
D35 =
SITE OR PROJECT:
Town Creek Stream Restoration Project - Monitoring Year 1
27.99
REACH/LOCATION:
Town Creek - Reach 2, XS 1
D95 =
77.08
DATE COLLECTED:
10/11/2016
FIELD COLLECTION BY:
Russell Myers and Andrew Powers
DATA ENTRY BY:
Russell Myers
5
PARTICLE CLASS COUNT
Summary
MATERIAL
PARTICLE
SIZE (mm)
Riffle
Class %
% Cum
SILIICLAy
Silt / Clay
< .063
12
12%
12%
SAND
Very Fine
.063 - .125
0
0%
12%
Fine .125-25 .25 0 0%
12%
Medium .25 - .50 0 0%
12%
Coarse .50 - 1.0 0 0%
12%
Very Coarse 1 1.0-2.0 1 0 1 0%
12%
GRAVEL
Very Fine
2.0-2.8
0
0%
12%
Very Fine 2.8-4.0 2 2%
14%
Fine 4.0-5.6 3 3%
17%
Fine 5.6-8.0 4 4%
21%
Medium 8.0 - 11.0 6 6%
27%
Medium 11.0-16.0 7 7%
34%
Coarse 16.0-22.6 8 8%
42%
Coarse 22.6-32 13 13%
55%
Very Coarse 32-45 1 16 1 16%
71%
Very Coarse 1 45-64 18 18%
89%
COBBLE
Small
64-90
11
11%
100%
Small 90-128 0 0%
100%
Large 128-180 0 0%
1000
Large 180-256 0 0%
100%
BOULDER
Small
256-362
0
0%
100%
Small 362-512 0 0%
100%
Medium 512-1024 0 0%
100%
Large -Very Large 1024-2048 0 0%
100%
BEDROCK
Bedrock
> 2048
0
0%
100%
Total
100
100%
100%
Cummulative
Channel materials mm
D16 =
5.01
D35 =
16.71
D50 =
27.99
Dao =
58.03
D95 =
77.08
Dioo =
64-90
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 1 OF 5
Town Creek- Reach 2 - X1
Riffle Pebble Count Particle Size Distribution
100%
90% AB (2016)
80% MY1 (2016)
70%
60% Al
C
_�. 50%
a�
a
> 40%
30%
(, 20%
10%
0%
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
Town Creek - Reach 2 - X1
Riffle Pebble Count Size Class Distribution
100%
90%
■ AB (2016) ■ MY 1 (2016)
80%
70%
60%
5
50%
U
W
Po 40%
y
U 30%
20%
10%
"
0%
Particle Size Class (mm)

Figure 4 Cont. Riffle Pebble Count Size Class Distribution with Annual Overlays
Town Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 95026
Cummulative
Channel materials mm
BAKER PROJECT NO.
124526
D35 -
SITE OR PROJECT:
Town Creek Stream Restoration Project - Monitoring Year 1
24.65
REACH/LOCATION:
Town Creek - Reach 2, XS 4
D95 -
128.00
DATE COLLECTED:
10/11/2016
FIELD COLLECTION BY:
Russell Myers and Andrew Powers
90%
fl
DATA ENTRY BY:
Russell Myers
PARTICLE CLASS COUNT
Summary
MATERIAL
PARTICLE
SIZE mm
Riffle
Class %
% Cum
SILIICLAy
Silt / Clay
< .063
18
18%
18%
SAND
Very Fine
.063-125 .125
0
0%
18%
Fine .125 - .25 0 0%
18%
Medium .25-50 .50 1 1 %
19%
Coarse .50-1.0 1 1 %
20%
Very Coarse 1.0-2.0 0 0%
20%
GRAVEL
Very Fine
2.0-2.8
0
0%
20%
Very Fine 2.8-4.0 0 0%
20%
Fine 4.0-5.6 2 2%
22%
Fine 5.6-8.0 11 11%
33%
Medium 8.0 - 11.0 0 0%
33%
Medium 11.0-16.0 5 5%
38%
Coarse 16.0-22.6 10 10%
48%
Coarse 22.6-32 8 8%
56%
Very Coarse 32-45 8 8%
64%
Very Coarse 45-64 10 10%
74%
C0BBLF
Small
64-90
16
16%
90%
Small 90-128 5 5%
95%
Large 128-180 5 5%
100%
Large 180-256 0 0%
100%
BOULDER
Small
256-362
0
0%
100%
Small 362-512 0 0%
100%
Medium 512-1024 0 0%
100%
Large -Very Large 1024-2048 0 0%
100%
BEDROCK
Bedrock
> 2048
0
0% 1
100%
Total
100
100% 1
100%
Cummulative
Channel materials mm
D16 =
<0.063
D35 -
12.78
D50 =
24.65
D84 =
79.20
D95 -
128.00
D100 =
128-180
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 1 OF 5
Town Creek - Reach 2 - X4
Riffle Pebble Count Particle Size Distribution
100%
90% —AB (2016)
80% +MY1 (2016)
70%
60%
C
y" 50%
40%
30%
-4 111
U 20%
10%
P7 LEI -I L
0%
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
Town Creek - Reach 2 - X4
Riffle Pebble Count Size Class Distribution
100%
90%
fl
NAB (2016)
■ MY 1 (2016)
80%
70%
60%
u
a
50%
40%
U
30%
20%
10%
0%
Particle Size Class (mm)

Figure 4 Cont. Riffle Pebble Count Size Class Distribution with Annual Overlays
Town Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 95026
Cummulative
Channel materials mm
BAKER PROJECT NO.
124526
D35 =
SITE OR PROJECT:
Town Creek Stream Restoration Project - Monitoring Year 1
37.24
REACH/LOCATION:
Town Creek - Reach 3, XS 5
D95 =
159.45
DATE COLLECTED:
10/12/2016
FIELD COLLECTION BY:
Russell Myers and Andrew Powers
90%
DATA ENTRY BY:
Russell Myers
80%
PARTICLE CLASS COUNT
Summary
MATERIAL
PARTICLE
SIZE mm
Riffle
Class %
% Cum
SILIICLAy
Silt / Clay
< .063
8
8%
8%
SAND
Very Fine
.063 - .125
0
0%
8%
Fine .125-25 .25 1 1%
9%
Medium .25 - .50 0 0%
9%
Coarse .50 - 1.0 0 0%
9%
Very Coarse 1 1.0-2.0 1 0 1 0%
9%
GRAVEL
Very Fine
2.0-2.8
0
0%
9%
Very Fine 2.8-4.0 2 2%
11%—
1Fine
Fine 4.0-5.6 2 2%
13%
Fine 5.6-8.0 1 1%
13%
Medium 8.0 - 11.0 8 8%
21
Medium 11.0-16.0 10 10%
31%
Coarse 16.0-22.6 6 6%
37%
Coarse 22.6-32 10 10%
46%
Very Coarse 32-45 9 9%
55%
Very Coarse 45-64 12 12%
66%
COBBLE
Small
64-90
14
13%
80%
Small 90-128 10 10%
89%
Large 128-180 9 9%
98%
Large 180-256 1 1 %
99%
BOULDER
Small
256-362
0
0%
99%
Small 362-512 1 1 %
100%
Medium 512-1024 0 0%
100%
Large -Very Large 1024-2048 0 0%
100%
BEDROCK
Bedrock
> 2048
0
0%
100%
Total
104
100% 1
100%
Cummulative
Channel materials mm
D16 =
8.89
D35 =
20.61
D50 =
37.24
Dao =
104.94
D95 =
159.45
Dino =
362-512
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 1 OF 5
Town Creek - Reach 3 - X5
Riffle Pebble Count Particle Size Distribution
100%
90% AB (2016) H��/77 H
80% MY1 (2016)
0 70%
U
s.
PLO
60%
w 50%
40%
U 30%
20%
10%
0%
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
Town Creek - Reach 3 - X5
Riffle Pebble Count Size Class Distribution
100%
90%
■ AB (2016)
■ MY 1 (2016)
80%
70%
60%
u
50%
a
40%
U
30%
20%
10%
0%
Cx Bio
o• o•
���
��?� ��b V61
Particle Size Class (mm)

Figure 4 Cont. Riffle Pebble Count Size Class Distribution with Annual Overlays
Town Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 95026
Cummulative
Channel materials mm
BAKER PROJECT NO.
124526
D35 =
SITE OR PROJECT:
Town Creek Stream Restoration Project - Monitoring Year 1
32.85
REACH/LOCATION:
Town Creek - Reach 3, XS 7
D95 =
120.06
DATE COLLECTED:
10/12/2016
■ AB (2016)
■ MY 1 (2016)
FIELD COLLECTION BY:
Russell Myers and Andrew Powers
V77
DATA ENTRY BY:
Russell Myers
PARTICLE CLASS COUNT
Summary
MATERIAL
PARTICLE
SIZE mm
Riffle
Class %
% Cum
SILIICLAy
Silt / Clay
< .063
8
8%
8%
SAND
Very Fine
.063-125 .125
0
0%
8%
Fine .125 - .25 2 2%
10%
Medium .25-50 .50 3 3%
13%
Coarse .50 - 1.0 0 0%
13%
Very Coarse 1.0-2.0 0 0%
13%
GRAVEL
Very Fine
2.0-2.8
0
0%
13%
Very Fine 2.8-4.0 0 0%
13%
Fine 4.0-5.6 3 3%
16%
Fine 5.6-8.0 6 6%
22%
Medium 8.0 - 11.0 8 8%
30%
Medium 11.0-16.0 4 4%
34%
Coarse 16.0-22.6 7 7%
41
Coarse 22.6-32 8 8%
49%
Very Coarse 32-45 13 13%
62%
Very Coarse 45-64 9 9%
71%
COBBLE
Small
64-90
15
15%
86%
Small 90-128 11 11%
97%
Large 128-180 2 2%
99%
Large 180-256 1 1 %
100%
BOULDER
Small
256-362
0
0%
100%
Small 362-512 0 0%
100%
Medium 512-1024 0 0%
100%
Large -Very Large 1024-2048 0 0%
100%
BEDROCK
Bedrock
> 2048
0
0%
100%
Total
100
100%
100%
Cummulative
Channel materials mm
D16 =
5.60
D35 =
16.81
D50 =
32.85
D84 =
86.00
D95 =
120.06
D100 =
180-256
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 1 OF 5
Town Creek
Riffle Pebble Count Particle Size Distribution
100%
Riffle Pebble Count Size Class Distribution
100%
90%
■ AB (2016)
■ MY 1 (2016)
80%
V77
70%
Hd
60%
90%
a.
a
50%
c�
U
40%
—AB(2016)
80%
4 MY1 (2016)
30%
20%
10%
70%
0%
60%
Particle Size Class (mm)
W
W 50%
a
40%
-
-
-
i
30%
U 20%
10%
0%
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
Town Creek
Riffle Pebble Count Size Class Distribution
100%
90%
■ AB (2016)
■ MY 1 (2016)
80%
70%
v
60%
a.
a
50%
c�
U
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Particle Size Class (mm)

Figure 4 Cont. Riffle Pebble Count Size Class Distribution with Annual Overlays
Town Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 95026
Cummulative
Channel materials mm
BAKER PROJECT NO.
124526
D35 =
SITE OR PROJECT:
Town Creek Stream Restoration Project - Monitoring Year 1
32.00
REACH/LOCATION:
Town Creek - Reach 3, XS 9
D95 =
148.14
DATE COLLECTED:
10/12/2016
FIELD COLLECTION BY:
Russell Myers and Andrew Powers
a AB (2016)
DATA ENTRY BY:
Russell Myers
PARTICLE CLASS COUNT
Summary
MATERIAL
PARTICLE
SIZE mm
Riffle
Class %
% Cum
SILIICLAy
Silt / Clay
< .063
4
4%
4%
SAND
Very Fine
.063-125 .125
0
0%
4%
Fine .125 - .25 0 0%
4%
Medium .25-50 .50 1 1%
5%
Coarse .50 - 1.0 0 0%
5%
Very Coarse 1 1.0-2.0 0 0%
5%
GRAVEL
Very Fine
2.0-2.8
0
0%
5%
Very Fine 2.8-4.0 0 0%
5%
Fine 4.0-5.6 2 2%
7%
Fine 5.6-8.0 2 2%
9%
Medium 8.0-11.0 9 9%
18%
Medium 11.0-16.0 14 14%
32%
Coarse 16.0-22.6 12 12%
44%
Coarse 22.6-32 6 6%
50%
Very Coarse 32-45 11 11%
61%
Very Coarse 45-64 12 12%
73%
COBBLE
Small
64-90
10
10%
83%
Small 90-128 9 9%
92%
Large 128-180 7 7%
99%
Large 180-256 1 1 %
100%
BOULDER
Small
256-362
0
0%
100%
Small 362-512 0 0%
100%
Medium 512-1024 0 0%
100%
Large -Very Large 1024-2048 0 0%
100%
BEDROCK
Bedrock
> 2048
0
0%
100%
Total
100
100%
100%
Cummulative
Channel materials mm
D16 =
10.25
D35 =
17.44
D50 =
32.00
Dao =
93.59
D95 =
148.14
D100 =
180-256
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 1 OF 5
Town Creek
Riffle Pebble Count Particle Size Distribution
100%
90% AB (2016)
80% +MYI (2016)
70%
60%
d
U
a.
a 50%
W
40%
ee
30%
V 20% 49
10%
0%
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
Town Creek
Riffle Pebble Count Size Class Distribution
100% -
90% -
a AB (2016)
■ MY 1 (2016)
80%
r
70%
C
a,
a
60%
50%
U
40%
30%
20%
10%
0% -ILL
tx (p 'b ")
Particle Size Class (mm)

Figure 4 Cont. Riffle Pebble Count Size Class Distribution with Annual Overlays
Town Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 95026
Cummulative
Channel materials mm
BAKER PROJECT NO.
124526
D35 =
SITE OR PROJECT:
Town Creek Stream Restoration Project - Monitoring Year 1
20.29
REACH/LOCATION:
Town Creek - Reach 5, XS 10
D95 =
119.29
DATE COLLECTED:
10/12/2016
90%
it AB (2016)
FIELD COLLECTION BY:
Russell Myers and Andrew Powers
80%
DATA ENTRY BY:
Russell Myers
PARTICLE CLASS COUNT
Summary
MATERIAL
PARTICLE
SIZE mm
Riffle
Class % I
% Cum
SILIICLAy
Silt / Clay
< .063
5
5%
5%
SAND
Very Fine
.063 - .125
0
0%
5%
Fine .125-25 .25 0 0%
5%
Medium .25 - .50 0 0%
5%
Coarse .50 - 1.0 2 2%
7%
Very Coarse 1.0-2.0 0 0%
7%
GRAVEL
Very Fine
2.0-2.8
0
0%
7%
Very Fine 2.8-4.0 2 2%
9%
Fine 4.0-5.6 4 4%
13%
Fine 5.6-8.0 6 6%
19%
Medium 8.0 - 11.0 8 8%
27%
Medium 11.0-16.0 12 12%
39%
Coarse 16.0-22.6 16 16%
55%
Coarse 22.6-32 10 10%
65%
Very Coarse 32-45 8 8%
73%
Very Coarse 45-64 12 12%
85%
COBBLE
Small
64-90
6
6%
91%
Small 90-128 5 5%
96%
Large 128-180 3 3%
99%
Large 180-256 1 1 %
100%
BOULDER
Small
256-362
0
0%
100%
Small 362-512 0 0%
100%
Medium 512-1024 0 0%
100%
Large -Very Large 1024-2048 0 0%
100%
BEDROCK
Bedrock
> 2048
0
0%
100%
Total
100
100%
100%
Cummulative
Channel materials mm
D16 =
6.69
D35 =
14.12
D50 =
20.29
Dao =
62.15
D95 =
119.29
Dioo =
180-256
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 1 OF 5
Town Creek
Riffle Pebble Count Particle Size Distribution
100%
90% AB (2016)
80%—MY1 (2016)
70%
60%
s~
50%
Q,
40%
30%
7
U 20%
10%
0%
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
Town Creek
Riffle Pebble Count Size Class Distribution
100%
90%
it AB (2016)
■ MY 1 (2016)
80%
70%
C
u
i
60%
a
50%
c�
U
40%
30%
20%
10%
II �
0%
lb
e
1�1b
Particle Size Class (mm)

Figure 4 Cont. Riffle Pebble Count Size Class Distribution with Annual Overlays
Town Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 95026
Cummulative
Channel materials mm
BAKER PROJECT NO.
124526
D35 =
SITE OR PROJECT:
Town Creek Stream Restoration Project - Monitoring Year 1
25.75
REACH/LOCATION:
Town Creek - Reach 5, XS 12
D95 =
134.72
DATE COLLECTED:
10/12/2016
NAB (2016)
■ MY 1 (2016)
FIELD COLLECTION BY:
Russell Myers and Andrew Powers
DATA ENTRY BY:
Russell Myers
70%
PARTICLE CLASS COUNT
Summary
U
MATERIAL
PARTICLE
SIZE mm
Riffle
Class % I
% Cum
SILIICLAy
Silt / Clay
< .063
2
2%
2%
SAND
Very Fine
.063 - .125
0
0%
2%
Fine .125-25 .25 0 0%
2%
Medium .25 - .50 0 0%
2%
Coarse .50 - 1.0 0 0%
2%
Very Coarse 1.0-2.0 0 0%
2%
GRAVEL
Very Fine
2.0-2.8
0
0%
2%
Very Fine 2.8-4.0 0 0%
2%
Fine 4.0-5.6 1 1%
3%
Fine 5.6-8.0 6 6%
9%
Medium 8.0 - 11.0 10 10%
18%
Medium 11.0-16.0 13 12%
30%
Coarse 16.0-22.6 13 12%
43%
Coarse 22.6-32 20 19%
62%
Very Coarse 32-45 18 1706
79%
Very Coarse 45-64 12 11%
90%
COBBLE
Small
64-90
3
3%
93%
Small 90-128 1 1 %
94%
Large 128-180 5 5%
99%
Large 180-256 1 1 %
100%
BOULDER
Small
256-362
0
0%
100%
Small 362-512 0 0%
100%
Medium 512-1024 0 0%
100%
Large -Very Large 1024-2048 0 0%
100%
BEDROCK
Bedrock
> 2048
0
0%
100%
Total
105
100%
100%
Cummulative
Channel materials mm
D16 =
10.26
D35 =
18.15
D50 =
25.75
Dao =
52.42
D95 =
134.72
D100 =
180 - 256
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 1 OF 5
Town Creek - Reach 5 - X12
Riffle Pebble Count Particle Size Distribution
100%
90%0 AB (2016)
80% +MY1 (2016)
70%
60%
C
Sv 50%
a
40%
30%
U 20%
10%
0%
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
Town Creek- Reach 5 - X12
Riffle Pebble Count Size Class Distribution
100%
90%
NAB (2016)
■ MY 1 (2016)
80%
70%
-
U
a
60%
eet
U
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%­M�
4> ^) ti� b �'lr �� bCk �O � `�r � �� 0
��O �,�� ��`ti
Particle Size Class (mm)

Table 10. Baseline Stream Summary
Town Creek Restoration Project - Option B: DMS Project ID No. 95026
Reach 1 (317 LFA
Parameter
USGS
Regional Curve Interval
Pre -Existing Condition
Design
Monitoring Baseline (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 (ftp)
-----
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
-----
I
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
d50(mm)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
6.9
----- ----- -----
I
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ---- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ---------- -----
Radius of Curvature (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ---- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ---------- -----
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ---- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ---------- -----
Meander Wavelength (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)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ---- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ---------- -----
Substrate and Transport Parameters
Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ---- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ---------- ----
SC%o / Sa% / G% / B% / Be%
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
---- ----- ----
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
-----
----- ----- -----
0.2 / 4.3 / 6.9 / 30.8 / 54.5
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/F
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
---- ----- -----
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m-
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
---------- ----- -----
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- 0.09 -----
-----
-----
0.09
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
0.09
----- ----- ----- -----
Impervious cover estimate (%)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
----- ----------
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ---------- -----
Rosgen Classification
-----
----- ----- -----
----- E4b (incised) -----
-----
-----
C4
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
C4
------- ---- -
BF Velocity s)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
----- 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 geometry relationships for North Carolina streams. Wildland Hydrology. AWRA Symposium Proceedings. D.S. Olsen and J.P. Potyondy, eds. American Water Resources Association. June 30 -July 2, 1999. Bozeman, MT.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 1 OF 5

Table 10. Baseline Stream Summary
Town Creek Restoration Project - Option B: DMS Project ID No. 95026
Reach 2 (711 LF)
Parameter
USGS
Regional Curve Interval
Pre -Existing Condition
Design
Monitoring Baseline (As -built)
Gauge
(Harman et 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 (ftp)
-----
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
----- -----
-----
1
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
17.1
-----
----- 23.3 -----
2
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- ---- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----------
-----
Radius of Curvature (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- ---- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----------
-----
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----------
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
----
-----
---- ----------
-----
Meander Wavelength (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)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----------
-----
Substrate and Transport Parameters
Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- ---- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----------
----
SC%a / Sa% / G% / B% / Be%
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----
-----
----
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
-----
----- ----- -----
<0.063 / 7.2 / 16.7 / 54.5 / 85.7
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
<0.063 - 4.4 /
8.7 - 12.1 / 17.1 - 23.3 / 55.3 - 77.1 / 75.6 - 117.2
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/F
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
0.79
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
0.65
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----------
-----
-----
-----
----- ----------
-----
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m2
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
34.9
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
32.9
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- 0.1
-----
-
-----
0.12
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
0.12
----- ----- -----
-----
Imperviouscover estimate (%)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
Rosgen Classification
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- E4 (incised)
-----
-----
-----
C4
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
C4 / E4
----- ----- -----
-----
BFVelocity (fps)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- 1.49
-----
-----
-----
3.48
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
BF Discharge (cfs)
-----
290.0 2000.0 19.3
-----
-----
----- 20.9
-----
---
-----
20.9
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
ValleyLength
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
695
----- ----- -----
-----
Channel length (ft)2
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- 737
-----
-----
-----
708
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
711
----- ----- -----
-----
Sinuosity-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- 1.06
-----
-----
-----
1.02
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
1.02
----- - -----
-----
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- 0.0159
-----
---
-----
0.0177
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
0.0180
----- --
-
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 geometry relationships for North Carolina streams. Wildland Hydrology. AWRA Symposium Proceedings. D.S. Olsen and J.P. Potyondy, eds. American Water Resources
Association. June 30 -July 2, 1999. Bozeman, MT.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 1 OF 5

Table 10. Baseline Stream Summary
Town Creek Restoration Project - Option B: DMS Project ID No. 95026
Reach 3 (1,621 LF)
Parameter
USGS
Regional Curve Interval
Pre -Existing Condition'
Design
Monitoring Baseline (As -built)
Gau a
(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 (ftp)
-----
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
-----
-----
I I
-----
----- 80 -----
35
Pool Max Depth (ft)
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
1.4
-----
----- 2.4
-----
-----
0.2
-----
----- 1.3 -----
34
Pool Volume (ft)
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ---- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----------
-----
Substrate and Transport Parameters
Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----------
----
SC%a / Sa% / G% / B% / Be%
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-
-----
----
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
-----
-----
----- -----
<0.063 / 3.9 -
4.6 / 6.5 - 7.3 / 19.3 - 20.4 / 30.8 - 32.0
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
<0.063
- 5.6 / 9.9 - 16.3 / 18.6 - 28.9 / 85.1 - 99.5 / 154.8 - >2048 / 180 - >2048
Reach Shear Stress (competency) Ib/F
-----
-----
----- -----
-
0.3
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
0.47
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve)
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----------
-----
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m2
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
15.7
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
25.6
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- 0.2 -----
-
-----
-----
----- 0.2
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- 0.2 -----
-----
Imperviouscover estimate (%)
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
Rosgen Classification
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- C4 / E4 (incised) -----
-----
-----
C4
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
C4
----- ----- -----
-----
BF Velocity s
-----
-----
----- -----
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 geometry relationships for North Carolina streams. Wildland Hydrology. AWRA Symposium Proceedings. D.S. Olsen and J.P. Potyondy, eds. American Water Resources
Association.
June 30 -July 2, 1999. Bozeman,
MT.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 1 OF 5

Table 10. Baseline Stream Summary
Town Creek Restoration Project - Option B: DMS Project ID No. 95026
Reach 4 (232 LF)
Parameter
USGS
Regional Curve Interval
Pre -Existing Condition
Design
Monitoring Baseline (As -built)
Gauge
(Harman et 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 (ftp)
-----
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)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ---------- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
Meander Wavelength (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)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----
----- ----- -----
Substrate and Transport Parameters
Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- ----
SC%a / Sa% / G% / B% / Be%
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ---- -----
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----
Reach Shear Stress (competency) Ib/F
-----
----- ----- -----
- ----- ----- ----- ----- -
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ---- ----- -----
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m-
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ---------- ----- -----
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 0.2 ----- -
----- ----- ----- 0.2 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 0.2 ----- -----
Imperviouscover estimate (%)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Rosgen Classification
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- C4 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- C4 ----- ----- ----- -----
BFVelocity (fps)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 3.22 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BF Discharge (cfs)
-----
290.0 2000.0 25.8
----- ----- ----- 28 ----- -
----- 28 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
ValleyLength
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 202 ----- ----- ----- -----
Channel length (ft)2
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 234 ----- -----
----- 232 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 232 ----- ----- ----- -----
Sinuosity-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 1.21 ----- -----
----- 1.20 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 1.15 ----- - ----- -----
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- --- 0.0094 ----- ---
----- 0.0113 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 0.012 ----- -- -
BF slope (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
BEHI VL% / L% / M% / H% / VH% / E%
----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---- -----
Biological or Other
----
----- ----- ----
---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----
----
-----
Hamann, 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., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 1 OF 5

Table 10. Baseline Stream Summary
Town Creek Restoration Project - Option B: DMS Project ID No. 95026
Reach 5 (822 LF)
Parameter
USGS
Regional Curve Interval
Pre -Existing Condition
Design
Monitoring Baseline (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 (ftp)
-----
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%a / Sa% / G% / B% / Be%
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
----
-----
-----
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
-----
-----
----- -----
<0.063 /
2 - 4.8 / 5.6 - 8.6 / 20.4 - 28.7 / 77 - 87.7
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
13.2 - 13.6 / 20.4 -
27.8 / 27.5 - 41.8 / 65.1 - 84.1 / 114.6 - 122.5 / 128 - 256
Reach Shear Stress (competency) Ib/F
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
0.55
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
0.47
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve)
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----------
-----
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m2
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
19.4
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
23.4
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- 0.210
-----
-
-----
-----
----- 0.2
----- -----
-----
-----
----- 0.2 -----
-----
Imperviouscover estimate (%)
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
Rosgen Classification
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- C4 / E4
-----
-----
-----
C4
----- -----
----- -----
-----
C4
----- ----- -----
-----
BF Velocity s
-----
-----
---------
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)
-----
-----
----- -----
-
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----------
-----
BEHI VL% / L% / M% / H% / VH% / E%
----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----
-----
Biological or Other
----
-----
----- ----
----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
* Harman, W.A., G.D. Jennhrgs, J.M. Patterson, D.R. Clinton, L.O. Slate, A.G. Jessup, I.R. Everhart, and R.E. Smith. 1999. Bankfull hydraulic geometry relationships for North Carolina streams. Wddland Hydrology. AWRA Symposium Proceedings. D.S. Olsen and J.P. Potyondy, eds. American Water Resources Association. June 30 -July 2, 1999. Bozeman, MT.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 1 OF 5

Table lla. Cross-section Morphology Data
MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
1.07
Town Creek Restoration Project - Option B: DMS Project ID No. 95026
Reach 2 (711 LF)
28.6 - - - - -
9.17
9.13 - - - - -
0.90
Cross-section X-1 (Riffle)
Dimension and substrate
Base
MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
1.37
1.34 - - - - -
BF Width (ft)
8.75
8.46 - - - - -
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.66
0.57 - - - - -
Width/Depth Ratio
13.23
14.92 - - - - -
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft)
5.79
4.80 - - - - -
BF Max Depth (ft)
1.09
0.96 - - - - -
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
27.05
25.55 - - - - -
Entrenchment Ratio
3.09
3.02 - - - - -
Bank Height Ratio
1.01
1.06 - - - - -
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
10.07
9.60 - - - - -
Hydraulic Radius (ft)l
0.57
0.50 - - - - -
Reach 3 (1,621 LF)
Cross-section X-5 (Riffle)
Dimension and substrate
Base
MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
BF Width (ft)
10.65
11.8 - - - - -
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.82
0.69 - - - - -
Width/Depth Ratio
13.05
17.3 - - - - -
BF Cross-sectional Area ff)
8.68
8.11 - - - - -
BF Max Depth (ft)
1.44
1.35 - - - - -
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
48.09
48.1 - - - - -
Entrenchment Ratio
4.52
4.06 - - - - -
Bank Height Ratio
1.00
1.09 - - - - -
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
12.29
13.21 - - - - -
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.71
0.61 - - - - -
Cross-section X-9 (Riffle)
Dimension and substrate
Base
MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
BF Width (ft)
10.71
10.04 - - - - -
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.63
0.53 - - - - -
Width/Depth Ratio
16.87
18.85 - - - - -
BF Cross-sectional Area ff)
6.79
5.34 - - - - -
BF Max Depth (ft)
1.06
0.80 - - - - -
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
37.79
31.28 - - - - -
Entrenchment Ratio
3.53
3.12 - - - - -
Bank Height Ratio
1.00
0.97 - - - - -
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
11.97
11.10 - - - - -
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.57
0.48 - - - - -
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 1 OF 5
Base
MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
1.07
0.67 - - - - -
12.77
28.6 - - - - -
9.17
9.13 - - - - -
0.90
0.84 - - - - -
10.17
10.88 - - - - -
8.28
7.66 - - - - -
1.37
1.34 - - - - -
33.92
33.03 - - - - -
3.70
3.62 - - - - -
1.01
1.01 - - - - -
10.97
10.81 - - - - -
0.75
0.71 - - - - -
=LVj V0
13.63
19.3 - - - - -
1.07
0.67 - - - - -
12.77
28.6 - - - - -
14.54
13 - - - - -
2.09
1.79 - - - - -
50.26
49.4 - - - - -
3.69
2.56 - - - - -
1.00
0.99 - - - - -
15.77
20.65 - - - - -
0.92
0.63 - - - - -
1.00
1.00 - - - - -
13.96
11.01 - - - - -
Base
MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Base
MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
0.66
0.53 - - - - -
14.87
20.15 - - - - -
11.96
8.73 - - - - -
1.00
1.14 - - - - -
11.92
7.62 - - - - -
12.01
9.99 - - - - -
2.25
2.00 - - - - -
42.56
37.11 - - - - -
3.56
4.25 - - - - -
1.00
1.00 - - - - -
13.96
11.01 - - - - -
0.86
0.91 - - - - -
9.84
10.72 - - - - -
0.66
0.53 - - - - -
14.87
20.15 - - - - -
6.51
5.71 - - - - -
1.03
0.85 - - - - -
38.30
38.48 - - - - -
3.89
3.59 - - - - -
1.00
0.98 - - - - -
11.16
11.78 - - - - -
0.58
0.48 - - - - -
1.00
1.05 - - - - -
11.68
11.33 - - - - -
Base
MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Base
MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
1.21
1.03 - - - - -
9.85
11.72 - - - - -
10.00
9.91 - - - - -
0.84
0.71 - - - - -
11.92
14.05 - - - - -
8.38
7.00 - - - - -
1.45
1.32 - - - - -
41.34
38.11 - - - - -
4.13
3.84 - - - - -
1.00
1.05 - - - - -
11.68
11.33 - - - - -
0.72
0.62 - - - - -
MY+
11.92
12.08 - - - - -
1.21
1.03 - - - - -
9.85
11.72 - - - - -
14.42
12.46 - - - - -
2.24
1.98 - - - - -
50.45
50.46 - - - - -
4.23
4.18 - - - - -
1.00
1.03 - - - - -
14.34
14.14 - - - - -
1.01
0.88 - - - - -
Base
MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+

Table lla. Cross-section Morphology Data
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
MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Base
MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 775 MY+
Base
MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
BF Width (ft)
10.36
10.28 - - - - -
16.70
16.78 - - - - -
11.06
10.49 - - - - -
10.19
10.04 - - - - -
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.77
0.70 - - - - -
1.09
1.01 - - - - -
0.52
0.53 - - - - -
0.59
0.51 - - - - -
Width/Depth Ratio
13.43
14.65 - - - - -
15.34
16.60 - - - - -
21.45
19.92 - - - - -
17.40
19.58 - - - - -
BF Cross-sectional Area (ftz)
8.00
7.21 - - - - -
18.19
16.97 - - - - -
5.71
5.53 - - - - -
5.97
5.15 - - - - -
BF Max Depth (ft)
1.18
1.10 - - - - -
2.20
2.11 - - - - -
1.07
0.80 - - - - -
0.91
0.79 - - - - -
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
59.38
59.03 - - - - -
63.54
63.56 - - - - -
43.79
40.39 - - - - -
56.59
56.65 - - - - -
Entrenchment Ratio
5.70
5.74 - - - - -
3.81
3.79 - - - - -
3.96
3.85 - - - - -
5.55
5.64 - - - - -
Bank Height Ratio
1.01
0.99 - - - - -
1.00
1.03 - - - - -
1.01
1.00 - - - - -
1.00
0.97 - - - - -
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
11.90
11.68 - - - - -
18.88
18.80 - - - - -
12.10
11.55 - - - - -
11.37
11.06 - - - - -
Hydraulic Radius (ft)l
0.67
0.62 - - - - -
0.96
0.90 - - - - -
0.47
0.48 - - - - -
0.53
0.47 - - - - -
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 1 OF 5

Table llb. Stream Reach Morphology Data
Town Creek Restoration Project - Option B: DMS Project ID No. 95026
Reach 2 (711 LF)
Parameter
As -built
MY1
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Min
Mean Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
BF Width (ft)
8.8
----- -----
12.0
-----
3
8.5
9.2
9.1
9.9
0.7
3
Floodprone Width (ft)
27.1
----- -----
42.6
-----
3
25.6
32.2
33.0
38.1
6.3
3
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.7
----- -----
1.0
-----
3
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.1
3
BF Max Depth (ft)
1.1
----- -----
2.3
-----
3
1.0
1.2
1.3
1.3
0.2
3
BF Cross-sectional Area ff)
5.8
----- -----
12.0
-----
3
4.8
6.5
7.0
7.7
1.5
3
Width/Depth Ratio
10.2
----- -----
13.2
-----
3
10.9
13.3
14.1
14.9
2.1
3
Entrenchment Ratio
3.1
----- -----
3.7
-----
3
3.0
3.5
3.6
3.8
0.4
3
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
----- -----
1.0
-----
3
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.1
0.0
3
50 (mm)
17.1
----- -----
23.3
-----
2
24.7
-----
-----
28.0
-----
2
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Radius of Curvature (ft)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Meander Wavelength (ft)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Meander Width Ratio
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
-----
0.010 -----
-----
-----
9
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Pool Length (ft)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Pool Spacing (ft)
19.0
----- -----
63.0
-----
19
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Pool Max Depth (ft)
0.200
----- -----
3.4
-----
20
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Pool Volume (ft)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Substrate and Transport Parameters
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
SC% / Sa% / G% / B% / Be%
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95
<0.063-4.4/8.7-12.1 /17.1-23.3/55.3-77.1
/75.6-117.2
<0.063-5.0/12.8-16.7/24.7-28.0/58.0-79.2/77.1-128/64-180
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/F
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m2
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
-----
----- -----
0.12
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
0.12
Impervious cover estimate (%)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Rosgen Classification
-----
C4 / E4 -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
C4
-----
-----
-----
-----
BF Velocity (fps)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
BF Discharge (cfs)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Valley Length
-----
695 -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
695
-----
-----
-----
-----
Channel length (ft)2
-----
711 -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
711
-----
-----
-----
-----
Sinuosity
-----
1.02 -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
1.02
-----
-----
-----
-----
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
-----
0.0180 -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
BF slope (ft/ft)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
BEHI VL% / L% / M% / H% / VH% / E%
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Biological or Other
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 1 OF 5

Table llb. Stream Reach Morphology Data
Town Creek Restoration Project - Option B: DMS Project ID No. 95026
Reach 3 (1,621 LF)
Parameter
As -built
MYl
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Min
Mean
Med Max SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
BF Width (ft)
9.8
-----
----- 10.7 -----
3
10.0
10.9
10.7
11.8
0.9
3
Floodprone Width (ft)
37.8
-----
----- 48.1 -----
3
31.3
39.3
38.5
48.1
8.4
3
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.6
-----
----- 0.8 -----
3
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.7
0.1
3
BF Max Depth (ft)
1.0
-----
----- 1.4 -----
3
0.8
1.0
0.9
1.4
0.3
3
BF Cross-sectional Area ff)
6.5
-----
----- 8.7 -----
3
5.3
6.4
5.7
8.1
1.5
3
Width/Depth Ratio
13.1
-----
----- 16.9 -----
3
17.3
18.8
18.9
20.2
1.4
3
Entrenchment Ratio
3.5
-----
----- 4.5 -----
3
3.1
3.6
3.6
4.1
0.5
3
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
-----
----- 1.0 -----
3
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
0.1
3
d50 (mm)
18.6
-----
----- 28.9 -----
3
32.0
-----
-----
37.2
-----
3
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
22.0
-----
----- 52.1 -----
12
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Radius of Curvature (ft)
28.7
-----
----- 43.6 -----
15
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
3.0
-----
----- 3.8 -----
3
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Meander Wavelength (ft)
90.2
-----
----- 130.9 -----
15.0
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Meander Width Ratio
3.0
-----
----- 4.9 -----
3
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
-----
0.011
----- ----- -----
23
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Pool Length (ft)
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Pool Spacing (ft)
11
-----
----- 80 -----
35
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Pool Max Depth (ft)
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
<0.063-5.6/9.9-16.3/18.6-28.9/85.1-99.5/154.8->2048/180->2048
5.6-10.3/16.8-20.6/32-37.2/86-105/120.1-159.5/180-512
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/F
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve)
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m2
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
-----
-----
----- 0.2 -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
0.2
Impervious cover estimate (%)
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Rosgen Classification
-----
C4
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
C4
-----
-----
-----
-----
BF Velocity (fps)
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
BF Discharge (cfs)
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Valley Length
-----
1377
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
1377
-----
-----
-----
-----
Channel length (ft)2
-----
1621
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
1621
-----
-----
-----
-----
Sinuosity
-----
1.18
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
1.18
-----
-----
-----
-----
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
-----
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
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 1 OF 5

Table llb. Stream Reach Morphology Data
Town Creek Restoration Project - Option B: DMS Project ID No. 95026
Reach 5 (822 LF)
Parameter
As -built
MYl
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Min
Mean
Med Max SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
BF Width (ft)
10.2
-----
----- 11.1 -----
3
10.0
10.3
10.3
10.5
0.2
3
Floodprone Width (ft)
43.8
-----
----- 59.4 -----
3
40.4
52.0
56.7
59.0
10.1
3
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.5
-----
----- 0.8 -----
3
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.7
0.1
3
BF Max Depth (ft)
0.9
-----
----- 1.2 -----
3
0.8
0.9
0.8
1.1
0.2
3
BF Cross-sectional Area ff)
5.7
-----
----- 8.0 -----
3
5.2
6.0
5.5
7.2
1.1
3
Width/Depth Ratio
13.4
-----
----- 21.5 -----
3
14.7
18.1
19.6
19.9
2.9
3
Entrenchment Ratio
4.0
-----
----- 5.7 -----
3
3.9
5.1
5.6
5.7
1.1
3
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
-----
----- 1.0 -----
3
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
3
d50 (mm)
27.5
-----
----- 41.8 -----
2
20.3
-----
-----
25.7
-----
2
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
23.8
-----
----- 44.2 -----
10
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Radius of Curvature (ft)
24.5
-----
----- 40.9 -----
9
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
2.8
-----
----- 3.5 -----
3
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Meander Wavelength (ft)
95.2
-----
----- 139.9 -----
9
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Meander Width Ratio
2.9
-----
----- 3.9 -----
3
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
-----
0.018
----- ----- -----
11
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Pool Length (ft)
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Pool Spacing (ft)
25.0
-----
----- 96.0 -----
14
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Pool Max Depth (ft)
0.4
-----
----- 1.1 -----
15
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Pool Volume (ft 3)
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Substrate and Transport Parameters
Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
SC% / Sa% / G% / B% / Be%
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95
13.2-13.6/20.4-27.8/27.5-41.8/65.1-84.1/114.6-122.5/128-256
6.7-10.3/14.1-18.2/20.3-25.7/52.4-62.1/119.3-134.7/180-256
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/F
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve)
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m2
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
-----
-----
----- 0.2 -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
0.2
Impervious cover estimate (%)
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Rosgen Classification
-----
C4
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
C4
-----
-----
-----
-----
BF Velocity (fps)
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
BF Discharge (cfs)
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Valley Length
-----
742
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
742
-----
-----
-----
-----
Channel length (ft)2
-----
822
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
822
-----
-----
-----
-----
Sinuosity
-----
1.11
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
1.11
-----
-----
-----
-----
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
-----
0.0128
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
BF slope (ft/ft)
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
-----
-----
----- ----------
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
BEHI VL% / L% / M% / H% / VH% / E%
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Biological or Other
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 1 OF 5

APPENDIX E
Hydrologic Data

Figure 5a. In -Stream Flow Gauge Graphs
Ibwn Ureek Restoration Project: Project No. 95026
North Stanly Middle School Daily Rain
1/1/2016 2/15/2016 3/31/2016 5/15/2016 6/29/2016 8/13/2016 9/27/2016 11/11/2016 12/26/2016
._ 0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
•� 2.0
2.5
3.0
1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
Q
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0 00
Town Creek Reach 1
In -channel Flow Gauge TC FL1
YR1 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS _F___
Town Creek FL1
CRITERIA MET- 168.0*
(3/1/2016-8/15/2016)
FZ
1/1/2016 2/15/2016 3/31/2016 5/15/2016 6/29/2016 8/13/2016 9/27/2016 11/11/2016 12/26/2016
Date
* Surface water flow is estimated to have occurred when the pressure transducer reading is equal to or above 0.1 feet in depth.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR I MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 1 OF 5

Figure 5b. In -Stream Flow Gauge Graphs
Town Creek Restoration Proiect: Proiect No. 95026
North Stanly Middle School Daily Rain
,1 1/1/2016 2/15/2016 3/31/2016 5/15/2016 6/29/2016 8/13/2016 9/27/2016 11/11/2016 12/26/2016
0.0
0.5
•5 1.0
Cd
1.5
2.0
Town Creek Reach 2
1.00 In -channel Flow Gauge TC FL2
0.90
Town Creek FL2
YR1 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
0.80
CRITERIA MET - 150.0*
0.70
(3/1/2016 - 7/28/2016)
..
Y
a^^� 0.60
il
0.50
3
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
1/1/2016 2/15/2016 3/31/2016 5/15/2016 6/29/2016 8/13/2016 9/27/2016 11/11/2016 12/26/2016
Date
* Surface water flow is estimated to have occurred when the pressure transducer reading is equal to or above 0.1 feet in depth.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 1 OF 5

Figure 6. Monthly Rainfall Data
Town creek Kestoratton Project: Project No. y5uzb
Monthly Rainfall for Stanly County, NC vs. Average Rainfall Data
(January 2016 - November 2016)
7.00
6.00
5.00
2 4.00
U
2.00
% ♦� ♦ ' I
♦ ��
I
1.00
0.00
January
February March April May June July
Month
,0.
z
`.............
■
■
so,
■
August
September
October
November December
� Stanly County Observed 2016 Precipitation — — Average - - - • 30% - - - -70%
Historic rainfall data from WETS Station: ALBEMARLE, NCO090
Observed 2016 Precipitaion from CHRONOS Station NEWL, North Stanly Middle School
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 1 OF 5

Table 12. Verification of Bankfull Events
Town Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95026
Date of Data
Consecutive]
Cumulative Days
Flow Gauge ID
Photo #
Date of Occurrence
Method
Reach Location
Gauge Height (FT)
of Flow
Collection
Reach 1 Station 11+05
168
231
TCFL2
(if available)
150
Between 5/2016 and
Reach 5 Station
10/12/2016
Crest Gauge
0.2
Crest Gauge Photo 1
10/12/2016
42+50
Table 13. Verification of In -stream Flow Conditions
Town Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95026
Consecutive]
Cumulative Days
Flow Gauge ID
Reach Location
Days of Flow
of Flow
TCFL1
Reach 1 Station 11+05
168
231
TCFL2
Reach 2 Station 13+02
150
195
Notes:
'Indicates the number of consecutive days within the monitoring year where flow was measured.
2Indicates the number of cumulative days within the monitoring year where flow was measured.
Flow success criteria for the Site is stated as: A surface water flow event will be considered intermittent when the flow duration
occurs for a minimum of 30 days.
Surface water flow is estimated to have occurred when the pressure transducer reading is equal to or above 0.1 feet in depth.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 1 OF 5

Town Creek — Hydrologic Data Photos
Crest Gauge Photo 1 (10/12/16)
Flow Documentation Photo - TC FL2 Photo (11/13/2016)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 1 OF 5
.ia
a i��•i
is : ea a'�
Flow Documentation Photo - TC FL2 Photo (11/13/2016)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 95026
TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION B
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, YEAR 1 OF 5