20141328 Ver 1_Year 1 Monitoring Report_2016_20170327

FINAL
Thomas Creek Restoration Project
Year 1 Monitoring Report
Wake County, North Carolina
DMS Project ID Number — 96074, DEQ Contract No. 5549
Permits: SAW -2013-02009, DWR# 14-1328
Cape Fear River Basin: 03030004-020010
Project Info: Monitoring Year: 1 of 7
Year of Data Collection: 2016
Year of Completed Construction (including planting): 2016
Submission Date: January 2017
Submitted To: NCDEQ - Division of Mitigation Services
1625 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
NC DEQ Contract ID No. 003992

FINAL
Thomas Creek Restoration Project
Year 1 Monitoring Report
Wake County, North Carolina
DMS Project ID Number — 96074, DEQ Contract No. 5549
Permits: SAW -2013-02009, DWR# 14-1328
Cape Fear River Basin: 03030004-020010
Report Prepared and Submitted by Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
NC Professional Engineering License # F-1084
INTERNATIONAL
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. I
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96074
JANUARY 2017. MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 7

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................1
2.0 METHODOLOGY.........................................................................................3
2.1 Stream Assessment.......................................................................................................................................3
2.1.1 Morphological Parameters and Channel Stability.....................................................................................3
2.1.2 Hydrology..................................................................................................................................................4
2.1.3 Photographic Documentation....................................................................................................................4
2.1.4 Visual Stream Morphological Stability Assessment..................................................................................4
2.2 Vegetation Assessment................................................................................................................................5
3.0 REFERENCES...............................................................................................5
APPENDICES
Appendix A Project Vicinity Map and Background Tables
Figure
1
Project Vicinity Map and Directions
Figure
2
Restoration Summary Map
Figure
3
Reference Stream Locations Map
Table
1
Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Table
2
Project Activity and Reporting History
Table
3
Project Contacts
Table
4
Project Attributes (Pre -Construction Conditions)
Appendix B Visual Assessment Data
Figure
4
Current Condition Plan View (CCPV)
Table
5
Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Table
6
Vegetation Conditions Assessment
Stream
Station Photos / SPA Photos
Vegetation Plot Photos
Appendix C Vegetation Plot Data
Table
7
CVS Density Per Plot
Table
8
CVS Vegetation Summary and Totals
Table
9
Stem Count for Each Species Arranged by Plot
Appendix D Stream Survey Data
Figure
5
Year 1 Cross-sections
Figure
6
Pebble Count Plot Data
Table
10
Baseline Stream Summary
Table
Ila
Cross-section Morphology Summary
Table
l lb
Stream Reach Morphology Summary
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. II
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96074
JANUARY 2017. MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 7

Appendix E Hydrologic Data
Table 12 Verification of Bankfull Events
Table 13 Flow Gauge Success (2016)
Figure 7 Flow Gauge Graphs (2016)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. III
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96074
JANUARY 2017. MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 7

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. (Baker) restored 4,721 linear feet (LF) of perennial and intermittent stream
and enhanced 3,948 LF of intermittent stream. Baker also planted approximately 14 acres (AC) of native
riparian vegetation within the 22.7 acre recorded conservation easement areas along all or portions of the
restored and enhanced reaches (Reaches RI, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, T1, and T2). The Thomas Creek
Restoration Project (Site) is located in Wake County, North Carolina (Figure 1), approximately 1.5 miles
southwest of the Community of New Hill. (Figure 1). The Site is located within the NC Division of Mitigation
Services' (NCDMS) Targeted Local Watershed (TLW) 03030004-020010 (the Harris Lake HU) of the Cape
Fear River Basin, and is located in what was formerly known as the NC Division of Water Resources (NCDWR)
subbasin 03-06-07. The project involved the restoration and enhancement of a Rural Piedmont Stream
(Schafale and Weakley, 1990) which had been impaired due to past agricultural conversion and cattle grazing.
Based on the NCDMS 2009 Cape Fear River Basin Restoration Priority (RBRP) Plan, the Thomas Creek
Restoration Project area is located in an existing targeted local watershed within the Cape Fear River Basin and
is located within the Middle Cape Fear / Kenneth and Parker Creeks, Local Watershed Planning (LWP) area.
The restoration strategy for the Cape Fear River Basin is to promote low impact development, stormwater
management, restoration and buffer protection in urbanizing areas, and buffer preservation elsewhere.
The primary goal of the project was to improve ecologic functions through the restoration and enhancement of
streams and buffers in a degraded, urbanizing area as described in the NCDMS 2009 Cape Fear RBRP. Detailed
project goals are identified below:
• Create geomorphically stable conditions along the unnamed tributaries throughout the Site,
• Protect and improve water quality by reducing streambank erosion, and nutrient/sediment inputs,
• Restore stream and floodplain interaction by connecting historic flow paths and promoting natural
flood processes,
• Restore and protect riparian buffer functions and corridor habitat in perpetuity by establishing a
permanent conservation easement, and
• Improve aquatic and terrestrial habitat through improved substrate and in -stream cover, addition of
woody debris, and reduction of water temperature.
To accomplish these goals, the following objectives were identified:
• Restore existing incised, eroding, and channelized streams by providing them access to their relic
floodplains,
• Implement agricultural BMPs, including cattle watering stations, to reduce nonpoint source (NPS)
inputs to receiving waters,
• Prevent cattle from accessing the conservation easement by installing permanent fencing and thus
reduce excessive streambank erosion and undesired nutrient inputs,
• Enhance aquatic habitat value by providing more bedform diversity, creating natural scour pools and
reducing sediment from accelerated streambank erosion,
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96074
JANUARY 2017. MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 7

Plant native species riparian buffer vegetation along streambank and floodplain areas, protected by a
permanent conservation easement, to increase stormwater runoff filtering capacity, improve
streambank stability and riparian habitat connectivity, and shade the stream to decrease water
temperature, and
Control invasive species vegetation within much of the project area and, if necessary, continue
treatments during the monitoring period.
The Year 1 monitoring survey data of sixteen cross-sections indicates that the Site is geomorphically stable and
performing at 100 percent for all the parameters evaluated. Certain cross-sections (located in Appendix D)
have shown minor fluctuations in their geometry as compared to their as -built conditions. These fluctuations
do not represent a trend towards instability based off visual field evaluations. All reaches are stable and
performing as designed. The data collected are within the lateral/vertical stability and in -stream structure
performance categories. The only exception is a short, 10 -foot section along the left bank of a log step -pool
structure on Reach 2 that has recently shown scour damage from Hurricane Matthew, and which will be repaired
in 2017. The location and photographs of this lone problem area can be found in Appendix B.
Additionally, damage from Hurricane Joaquin in October 2015 caused damage to the rock step pool located at
the confluence of Reach 2 and Reach 5, and also to two riffles and their adjacent banks along Reach 1
immediately downstream. The high flows scoured around the rock step pool, scoured out pools, pushed riffle
rock to one side, and began undermining channel banks. Once started, the damage slowly got worse over the
winter with each storm event. In July 2016, a River Works crew mobilized on site and replaced the rock step
pool with a larger boulder cross vane at the confluence and repaired the channel banks and two rock riffles
downstream with slightly larger cobble. This section has been stable since its repair and remained stable after
Hurricane Matthew in October 2016, a larger storm event that Hurricane Joaquin in 2015. The location and
photographs of this repaired stream section can be found in Appendix B.
During Year 1 monitoring, the planted acreage performance categories were functioning at 100 percent with no
bare areas to report (Appendix B). The average density of total planted stems, based on data collected from the
sixteen monitoring plots following Year 1 monitoring in September 2016, was 728 stems per acre. Thus, the
Year 1 vegetation data demonstrate that the Site has met the minimum success interim criteria of 320 trees per
acre by the end of Year 3. Additionally, there were no areas of invasive species vegetation observed during the
Year 1 monitoring.
Year 1 flow monitoring demonstrated that both flow gauges (TMCK-FL1 and TMCK-FL2) met the stated
success criteria of 30 days or more of consecutive flow through Reaches 2 and 5 respectively. Flow gauge
TMCK-FL1 documented 229 days of consecutive flow in Reach 2, while flow gauge TMCK-FL2 documented
126 days of consecutive flow in Reach 5. The gauges demonstrated similar patterns relative to rainfall events
observed in the vicinity of the Site as shown in the flow gauge graphs in Appendix E.
During Year 1 monitoring, the Reach R2 crest gauge (crest gauge #1) documented at least one post -construction
bankfull event from early October 2016.
Summary information/data related to the Site and statistics related to performance of various project and
monitoring elements can be found in the tables and figures in the report Appendices. Narrative background and
supporting information formerly found in these reports can be found in the Baseline Monitoring Report and in
the Mitigation Plan available on the DMS website. Any raw data supporting the tables and figures in the
Appendices is available from DMS upon request.
This report documents the successful completion of the Year 1 monitoring activities for the post -construction
monitoring period.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96074
JANUARY 2017. MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 7

2.0 METHODOLOGY
The seven-year monitoring plan for the Site includes criteria to evaluate the success of the stream and vegetation
components of the Site. The methodology and report template used to evaluate these components adheres to
the DMS monitoring report template document Version 1.5 (June 8, 2012), which will continue to serve as the
template for subsequent monitoring years. The vegetation -monitoring quadrants follow CVS -DMS monitoring
levels 1 and 2 in accordance with CVS -DMS Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version 4.1 (2007).
Stream survey data was collected to a minimum of Class C Vertical and Class A Horizontal Accuracy using
Leica TS06 Total Station and was georeferenced to the NAD83 State Plane Coordinate System, FIPS3200 in
US Survey Feet, which was derived from the As -built Survey. This survey system collects point data with an
accuracy of less than one tenth of a foot.
The specific locations of monitoring features, such as vegetation plots, permanent cross-sections, reference
photograph stations, crest gauges and flow gauges, are shown on the CCPV map found in Appendix B.
All earthwork for project construction was completed in October of 2015, with subsequent as -built survey work
completed in November of 2015. All site planting (bareroot stems and live -stakes) was completed in January
of 2016.
The Monitoring Year 1 vegetation plot data was collected in September 2016, the visual site assessment data
contained in Appendix B was collected in October 2016, and the cross-section data was collected in November
2016.
2.1 Stream Assessment
The Project involved the restoration and enhancement of a Rural Piedmont Stream System (NC WAM 2010,
Schafale and Weakley, 1990) that had been impaired due to past agricultural conversion and cattle grazing.
Restoration practices involved raising the existing streambed and reconnecting the stream to the relic floodplain
to restore natural flow regimes to the system. The existing channels abandoned within the restoration areas
were partially to completely filled to decrease surface and subsurface drainage and to raise the local water table.
Permanent cattle exclusion fencing was provided around all proposed reaches and riparian buffers, except along
reaches where no cattle are located or lack stream access.
2.1.1 Morphological Parameters and Channel Stability
Cross-sections were classified using the Rosgen Stream Classification System, and all monitored cross-
sections fall within the quantitative parameters defined for channels of the design stream type.
Morphological survey data are presented in Appendix D.
A longitudinal profile was surveyed for the entire length of channel immediately after construction to
document as -built baseline conditions for the Monitoring Year 0 only. Annual longitudinal profiles
will not be conducted during subsequent monitoring years unless channel instability has been
documented or remedial actions/repairs are required by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
or DMS.
The Year 1 monitoring survey data of sixteen cross-sections indicates that the Site is geomorphically
stable and performing at 100 percent for all the parameters evaluated. Certain cross-sections (located
in Appendix D) have shown minor fluctuations in their geometry as compared to their as -built
conditions. These fluctuations do not represent and trend towards instability based off visual field
evaluations. All reaches are stable and performing as designed. The data collected are within the
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96074
JANUARY 2017. MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 7

lateral/vertical stability and in -stream structure performance categories. The only exception is a 10 -
foot section along the left bank of a log step -pool structure on Reach 2 that has recently shown scour
damage from Hurricane Matthew. It is not believed this small area will stabilize on its own without
future repair, which will be conducted in 2017. The location and photographs of this lone problem area
can be found in Appendix B.
Additionally, damage from Hurricane Joaquin in October 2015 caused damage to the rock step pool
located at the confluence of Reach 2 and Reach 5, and also to two riffles and their adjacent banks along
Reach 1 immediately downstream. The high flows scoured around the rock step pool, scoured out
pools, pushed riffle rock to one side, and began undermining channel banks. Once started, the damage
slowly got worse over the winter with each storm event. In July 2016, a River Works crew mobilized
on site and replaced the rock step pool with a larger boulder cross vane at the confluence, and repaired
the channel banks and two rock riffles downstream with slightly larger cobble. This section has been
stable since construction and remained stable after Hurricane Matthew in October 2016, a larger storm
event that Hurricane Joaquin in 2015. The location and photographs of this repaired stream section can
be found in Appendix B.
2.1.2 Hydrology
To monitor on-site bankfull events, one crest gauge (crest gauge # 1) was installed along the downstream
portion of Reach 2. This crest gauge is located on the floodplain at bankfull elevation along the left top
of bank on Reach R2, at approximately Station 38+90.
During Year 1 monitoring, one above bankfull stage event was documented in October 2016 by the
crest gauge. The crest gauge reading is presented in Appendix E.
Year 1 flow monitoring demonstrated that both flow gauges (TMCK-FL1 and TMCK-FL2) met the
stated success criteria of 30 days or more of consecutive flow through Reaches 2 and 5 respectively.
Flow gauge TMCK-FL 1 documented 229 days of consecutive flow in Reach 2, while flow gauge
TMCK-FL2 documented 126 days of consecutive flow in Reach 5. The gauges demonstrated similar
patterns relative to rainfall events observed in the vicinity of the Site as shown in the flow gauge graphs
in Appendix E.
2.1.3 Photographic Documentation
Reference photograph transects were taken at each permanent cross-section. The survey tape was
centered in the photographs of the bank. The water line was located in the lower edge of the frame,
and as much of the bank as possible is included in each photograph.
Representative photographs for Monitoring Year 1 were taken along each Reach in October 2016 and
are provided in Appendix B. Photographs of both the single Stream Problem Area and the repaired
stream section on Reach 1 can also be found in Appendix B.
Photographs of each Vegetation Plot taken in September 2016 can be found in Appendix B.
2.1.4 Visual Stream Morphological Stability Assessment
The visual stream morphological stability assessment involves the qualitative evaluation of lateral and
vertical channel stability, and the integrity and overall performance of in -stream structures throughout
the Project reaches as a whole. Habitat parameters and pool depth maintenance are also measured and
scored. During Year 1 monitoring, Baker staff walked the entire length of each of the Project reaches
several times throughout the year, noting geomorphic conditions of the stream bed profile (riffle/pool
facets), both stream banks, and engineered in -stream structures. Representative photographs were
taken per the Site's Mitigation Plan, and the locations of any Stream Problem Areas (SPAS) were
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. 4
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96074
JANUARY 2017. MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 7

documented in the field for subsequent mapping on the CCPV figures. Only one SPA was discovered
during Year 1 monitoring. A more detailed summary of the results for the visual stream stability
assessment can be found in Appendix B, which includes supporting data tables, as well as general
stream and SPA photos.
2.2 Vegetation Assessment
In order to determine if the success criteria were achieved, vegetation -monitoring quadrants were installed and
are monitored across the site in accordance with the CVS -DMS Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version 4.1
(2007). The vegetation monitoring plots are a minimum of 2 percent of the planted portion of the Site with
sixteen plots established randomly within the planted riparian buffer areas per Monitoring Levels 1 and 2. The
sizes of individual quadrants are 100 square meters for woody tree species.
Based on the recent Year 1 data collected from the vegetation monitoring plots, the planted stem density is 728
stems per acre. Therefore, the vegetation data demonstrate that the Site is on track for meeting the minimum
success criteria of 320 trees per acre by the end of Year 3.
Additionally, there were no areas of invasive species vegetation observed during the Year 1 monitoring.
Year 1 vegetation assessment information is provided in Appendix B and C.
3.0 REFERENCES
Carolina Vegetation Survey (CVS) and NC Division of Mitigation Services (DMS). CVS -DMS
Data Entry Tool v. 2.3.1. University of North Carolina, Raleigh, NC.
Lee, M., Peet R., Roberts, S., Wentworth, T. 2007. CVS -DMS Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version
4.1.
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (DMS). 2011. Monitoring Requirements and
Performance Standards for Stream and/or Wetland Mitigation. Version 1.4, November 7, 2011.
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (DMS). 2010. Baseline Monitoring Template and Guidance.
Version 2. 0, October 14, 2010.
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (DMS). 2009. Cape Fear River Basin Restoration Priorities.
Rosgen, D. L. 1994. A Classification of Natural Rivers. Catena 22:169-199.
Schafale, M. P., and A. S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the natural communities of North Carolina, third
Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. Division of Parks and Recreation,
NCDEQ. Raleigh, NC.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines, April 2003, U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers (USACE). Wilmington District.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96074
JANUARY 2017. MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 7

Appendix A
Project Vicinity Map and Background Tables

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

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

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

Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Thomas Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 96074
Mitigation Credits
Stream
Riparian Wetland
Non -riparian Wetland
Buffer
Nitrogen Nutrient Offset
Phosphorus
Nutrient
Type R, El, EH
Totals 5,728 SMU
Project Components
Project Component or Reach ID
Stationing/ Location
Existing Footage/
Acreage (LF)
Approach
Restoration/ Restoration
Equivalent (SMU)
Restoration Footage or
Acreage (LF)
Mitigation
Ratio
Reach 1
42+01 to 44+99
397
Restoration
298
298
1:1
Reach 2
20+55 to 27+58 / CE Break / 27+78 to 42+01
1,995
Restoration
2,126
2,126
1:1
Reach 3 (downstream)
11+17 to 18+70 / CE Break / 18+94 to 20+55
937
Restoration
914
914
1:1
Reach 3 (upstream)
10+00 to 11+17
130
Enhancement II
23
117
5:1
Reach 4 (downstream)
10+41 to 13+83
327
Restoration
342
342
1:1
Reach 4 (upstream)
0+99 to 9+95
870
Enhancement II
90
896
10:1
Reach 5 (downstream)
29+30 to 34+97 / CE Break / 35+17 to 39+91
883
Restoration
1,041
1,041
1:1
Reach 5 (upstream)
28+02 to 29+30
137
Enhancement II
26
128
5:1
Reach 6 (downstream)
12+10 to 15+55 / CE Break / 15+81 to 28+02
1,592
Enhancement II
313
1,566
5:1
Reach 6 (upstream)
10+00 to 12+10
1 210
Enhancement I
140
210
1.5:1
Reach 7 (downstream)
13+60 to 16+47
287
Enhancement Il
57
287
5:1
Reach 7 (upstream)
10+00 to 13+60
360
Enhancement II
144
360
2.5:1
Reach T1
10+00 to 10+55 / CE Break / 10+75 to 12+47
242
Enhancement I
151
227
1.5:1
Reach T2
10+00 to 11+57
171
Enhancement II
63
157
1 2.5:1
Com onent Summation
Restoration Level
Stream (LF)
Riparian Wetland (AC) Non -riparian Wetland (AC)
Buffer (SF)
Upland (AC)
Restoration
4,721
Enhancement 1
437
Enhancement II
3,511
BMP Elements
Element Location
Purpose/Function
Notes
BMP Elements: BR= Bioretention Cell; SF= Sand Filter; SW= Stormwater Wetland; WDP= Wet Detention Pond; DDP= Dry Detention
Pond; FS= Filter Strip; S= Grassed Swale; LS= Level Spreader; NI=Natural Infiltration Area
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR I MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96074)

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Thomas Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 96074
Elapsed Time Since Grading Completed in Oct. 2015
1 Year 3 Months
Elapsed Time Since Planting Completed in Jan. 2016
1 Years 0 Months
Number of Reporting Years '
1
Activity or Deliverable
Data Collection Actual Completion or
Complete Delivery
Mitigation Plan Prepared
N/A
Oct -14
Mitigation Plan Amended
N/A
Mar -15
Mitigation Plan Approved
N/A
Mar -15
Final Design — (at least 90% complete)
N/A
Mar -15
Construction Begins
N/A
Apr- 15
Temporary S&E mix applied to entire project area
N/A
Oct -15
Permanent seed mix applied to entire project area
N/A
Oct -15
Planting of live stakes
N/A
Jan -16
Planting of bare root trees
N/A
Jan -16
End of Construction
N/A
Oct -15
Survey of As -built conditions Year 0 Monitoring—baseline)
Nov -15
Nov -15
Baseline Monitoring Report
Mar -16
Oct -16
Year 1 Monitoring
Nov -16
Jan -17
Year 2 Monitoring
Nov -17
N/A
Year 3 Monitoring
Nov -18
N/A
Year 4 Monitoring
Nov -19
N/A
Year 5 Monitoring
Nov -20
N/A
Year 6 Monitoring
Nov -21
N/A
Year 7 Monitoring
Nov -22
N/A
' The number of reports or data points produced excluding the baseline
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96074)

Table 3. Project Contacts
Thomas Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95729
Designer
797 Haywood Rd, Suite 201
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
Asheville, NC 28806
Contact:
Jake Byers, Telephone: [phone]
Construction Contractor
6105 Chapel Hill Road
River Works, Inc.
Raleigh, NC 27607
Contact:
Phillip Todd, Telephone: [phone]
Planting Contractor
6105 Chapel Hill Road
River Works, Inc.
Raleigh, NC 27607
Contact:
Phillip Todd, Telephone: [phone]
Seeding Contractor
6105 Chapel Hill Road
River Works, Inc.
Raleigh, NC 27607
Contact:
Phillip Todd, Telephone: [phone]
Seed Mix Source
Green Resources, Telephone: [phone]
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Mellow Marsh Farm, Telephone: [phone]
ArborGen, Telephone: [phone]
Monitorin Performers
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
Cary, NC 27518
Contact:
Stream Monitoring Point of Contact
Scott King, Tel. [phone]
Vegetation Monitoring Point of Contact
Scott King, Tel. [phone]
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96074)

Table 4. Project Attributes (Pre-Construction Conditions)
Thomas Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No. ID 96074
Project Information
Project Name
Thomas Creek Restoration Project
County
Wake
Project Area (acres)
22.7
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude)
35.6636 N, -79.9547 W
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province
Piedmont
River Basin
Cape Fear
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit and 14-digit
03030004 / 03030004020010
NCDWR Sub-basin
03-06-07
Project Drainage Area (acres)
246 (Reach R1 main stem at downstream extent)
Project Drainage Area Percent Impervious
<1%
CGIA / NCEEP Land Use Classification
2.01.01.01, 2.03.01, 2.99.01, 3.02 / Forest (66%) Agriculture
(19%) Impervious Cover
(I%)
Reach Summary Information
Parameters
Reach RI
Reach R2
Reach R3
Reach R4
Reach R5
Length of Reach (linear feet)
397
1,995
1,067
342
1,020
Valley Classification (Rosgen)
VII
VII
VII
VII
VII
Drainage Area (acres)
246
176
62
36
62
NCDWR Stream Identification Score
37.5
38
25/37
31
31/34
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
C
Morphological Description
(Rosgen stream e
Be
F (upstream)/
Gc (downstream)
Gc (upstream)/
Be (downstream)
Be
Be
Evolutionary Trend
Bc4GC--)F
Bc4GC-)F
Bc4Gc4F
BC-->GC-)F
Be-i-Gc�F
Underlying Mapped Soils
WoA
WoA
WoA
WoA
WoA
Drainage Class
Poorly drained
Poorly drained
Poorly drained
Poorly drained
Poorly drained
Soil Hydric Status
Hydric
Hydric
Hydric
Hydric
Hydric
Average Channel Slope (ft/ft)
0.0165.
0.0083
0.014
0.0102
0.0172
FEMA Classification
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Native Vegetation Community
Piedmont Small Stream
Percent Composition of Exotic/Invasive Vegetation
<5%
25%
<5 %
<5 %
<5%
Parameters
Reach R6
Reach R7
Reach Tl
Reach T2
Length of Reach (linear feet)
1,828
646
242
171
Valley Classification (Rosgen)
VII
VII
VII
VII
Drainage Area (acres)
32
14
49
5
NCDWR Stream Identification Score
25/30
23/35
23.75
20.75
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
C
Morphological Description
(Rosgen stream type)
G5c (upstream)/
B5c (downstream)
G5 (upstream)/
B5c (downstream)
BSc
BSc
Evolutionary Trend
BC-)GC-)F
BC-)GC-)F
Bc4Gc4F
BC-)GC-)F
Underlying Mapped Soils
WoA
WoA
WoA
WoA
Drainage Class
Poorly drained
Poorly drained
Poorly drained
Poorly drained
Soil Hydric Status
Hydric
Hydric
Hydric
Hydric
Average Channel Slope (ft/ft)
0.015/0.025
0.025
0.02
0.041
FEMA Classification
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Native Vegetation Community
Piedmont Small Stream
Percent Composition of Exotic/Invasive Vegetation
<5%
<5%
<5%
<5%
Regulatory Considerations
Regulation
Applicable Resolved Supporting Documentation
Waters of the United States — Section 404
Yes
Yes Categorical Exclusion (Appendix B)
Waters of the United States — Section 401
Yes
Yes Categorical Exclusion (Appendix B)
Endangered Species Act
No
N/A Categorical Exclusion (Appendix B)
Historic Preservation Act
No
N/A Categorical Exclusion
(Appendix B)
Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA)
No
N/A Categorical Exclusion
(Appendix B)
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
No
Yes Categorical Exclusion (Appendix B)
Essential Fisheries Habitat
No
N/A Categorical Exclusion (Appendix B)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95729)

Appendix B
Visual Assessment Data

Reach R6re ,
(upstream) ,
}
Reach R6
(downstream)
Reach R7
(upstream)
Reach R7
(downstream)
I N T E R N AT 1 0 N A L
1
Reach R5 Reach T1
17MM
(upstream)
Reach R5","
iA
no
Reach R2
. Reach R1
250 500 Figure 4 Index Map
Feet
Current Condition Plan View
DEQ DMS Project # 96074 Thomas Creek Site - MY1

Table 5. Visual Steam Morphology Stability Assessment
Thomas Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 96074
Reach ID: Reach 1
Assessed Length (LF): 298
Major Channel Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
per As -built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody Veg.
Footage with Adjusted %for
Stabilizing Stabilizing
Woody Ve9� Woody Ve 9.
Adjusted %for
Stabilizing
Woody Vag.
1.Vertical Stability
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow laterally (not to
include point bars)
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow laterally (not to
include point bars)
0
0
100%
100%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting 0 0 100%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting 0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
3
3
26
26
100%
100%
1. Bed
1. Depth - Sufficent (Max Pool Depth/Mean Bkf Depth t 1.5)3
3
28
28
100%
100%
3. Meander Pool Condition 2. Length - Sufficent (>30% of centerline distance between tail of upstream riffle and 100%
head of downstream riffle) 3 3
3. Meander Pool Condition 2. Length - Sufficent (>30% of centerline distance between tail of upstream riffle and
100
head of downstream riffle) 28 28
4. Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
3
3
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
28
100%
100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide) 3 3 100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide) 28 28 100
Mill
1. ScouredlEroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover due to active scour and erosion
1
10,99%
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover due to active scour and erosion
99%
2. Bank
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
2. Bank
2. Undercut
Banks undercutloverhanging to the extent that mass wasting is expected
100%
0
0
100 %
0
0
100%
100 %
3. Mass Wasting
Banks slumping, caving or collapse
100%
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
99%
0
0
99%
Totals
0
0
100 %
0
0
100%
100%
2. Grade Control
lGrade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill
10
10
3. Engineering Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs
3
3
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath or around sills or arms
100%
23
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill
2
2
3. Bank Position
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%
100%
23
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath or around sills or arms
3
3
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth/Mean Bankfull Depth ratio z 1.5.
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at low flow
100%
14
93
3. Bank Position
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%
3
3
100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth/Mean Bankfull Depth ratio >_ 1.5.
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at low flow
3
3
100%
Table 5. Visual Steam Morphology Stability Assessment
Thomas Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 96074
Reach ID: Reach 2
Assessed Length (LF): 2,126
Major Channel Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
per As •bullt
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
%Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody Ve9�
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody Veg.
Adjusted %for
Stabilizing
Woody Vag.
1.Vertical Stability
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow laterally (not to
include point bars)
0
0
100%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting 0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
26
26
100%
1. Bed
1. Depth - Sufficent (Max Pool Depth/Mean Bkf Depth z 1.5)
28
28
100%
3. Meander Pool Condition 2. Length - Sufficent (>30% of centerline distance between tail of upstream riffle and
100
head of downstream riffle) 28 28
d. Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
28
28
100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide) 28 28 100
1. ScouredlEroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover due to active scour and erosion
1
10,99%
0
0
99%
2. Bank
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhanging in to the extent that mass wastingis expected
0
0
100 %
0
0
100%
3. Mass Wasting
Banks slumping, caving or collapse
0
0
100 %
0
0
100%
Totals
1
10'
99%
0
0
99%
3. Engineering Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs
23
23
100%
2. Grade Control
lGrade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill
10
10
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath or around sills or arms
23
23
100%
3. Bank Position
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%
23
23
100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth/Mean Bankfull Depth ratio z 1.5.
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at low flow
13
14
93
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96074)

Table 5. Continued Visual Steam Morphology Stability Assessment
Thomas Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 96074
Reach ID: Reach 3
Assessed Length (LF): 1,031
Major Channel Category
1 9 r1/
Channel Sub -Cate 9°rY
Metric
Number Stable,
Performing as
d
Intended
Total Number
per As -built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
% Stable,
Performing as
9
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
9
Woody Veg.
Footage with
Stabilizing
9
Woody Veg.
Adjusted %for
Stabilizin 9
Woody Veg.
1.Vertical Stability
'I.Vertical Stability
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow laterally (not to
include point bars)
0
0
0
100 %
'
2. Degradation - Evidence of downculting 0 0 100%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting 0 0 100% 11111
2. Riffle Condition
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
14
14
100%
100%
1. Bed
1. Bed
3. Meander Pool Condition
1. Depth - Sufficent (Max Pool Depth/Mean Bid Depth 2:1.5)
15
15
100%
100
2. Length - Sufficent (>30% of centerline distance between tail of upstream riffle and
head of downstream riffle) 8 8 100%
2. Length - Sufficent (>30% of centerline distance between tail of upstream riffle and 100%
head of downstream riffle) 15 15
4. Thalweg Position
4. Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
15
15
100%
100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide) 8 8 100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide) 15 15 100
1. Scoured/Eroding
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover due to active scour and erosion
0
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
2. Bank
2. Undercut
Banks undercuUoverhanging to the extent that mass wasting is expected
0
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3. Mass Wasting
3. Mass WastingBanks
slumping, cavingor collapse
0
0
0
100 %
0
0
100%
Totals
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3. Engineering Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs
10
10
100%
3. Engineering Structures
1. Overall Integrity
2. Grade Control
JGmde control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill
2
2
100%
100
2. Grade Control
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath or around sills or arms
10
10
100%
100
2a. Piping
3. Bank Position
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15 %
10
10
100%
100 %
3. Bank Position
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth/Mean Bankfull Depth ratio z 1.5.
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at low flow
7
7
100%
100
Table 5. Continued Visual Steam Morphology Stability Assessment
Thomas Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 96074
Reach ID: Reach 4
Assessed Len gth(LF): 1,238
Major Channel Cate
1 9°rY
Channel Sub -Category
9 ry
Metric
Number Stable,
Performing as
d
Intended
Total Number
per As -built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
%Stable,
Performing as
9
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
9
Woody Veg.
Footage with Adjusted %for
Stabilizing Stabilizing
9 g
Woody Veg. Woody Veg.
1.Vertical Stability
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow laterally (not to
include point bars)
0
0
100 %
2. Degradation - Evidence of downculting 0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
8
8
100%
1. Bed
3. Meander Pool Condition
1. Depth - Sufficent (Max Pool Depth/Mean Bid Depth >_ 1.5)
8
8
100%
2. Length - Sufficent (>30% of centerline distance between tail of upstream riffle and
head of downstream riffle) 8 8 100%
4. Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
8
8
100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide) 8 8 100%
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover due to active scour and erosion
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
2. Bank
2. Undercut
Banks undercuUoverhanging to the extent that mass wasting is expected
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3. Mass Wasting
Banks slumping, caving or collapse
0
0
1 00 /
0
0
100%
Totals
0
0
100 %
0
0
100%
3. Engineering Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs
4
4
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill
1
1
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath or around sills or arms
4
4
100%
3. Bank Position
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%
4
4
100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth/Mean Bankfull Depth ratio z 1.5.
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at low flow
3
3
100%
Ills
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR I MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96074)

Table 5. Continued Visual Steam Morphology Stability Assessment
Thomas Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 96074
Reach ID: Reach 5
Assessed Length (LF): 1,169
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 Vag.
Footage with Adjusted % for
Stabilizing Stabilizing
Woody Vag. Woody Vag.
1.Vertical Stability
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow laterally (not to
include point bars)
0
0
100%
'
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting
0 0 100
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
17
17
6
100%
100%
1. Bed
3. Meander Pool Condition
1. Depth - Sufficent (Max Pool Depth/Mean Bkf Depth 21.5)
18
18
5
100%
100%
2. Length - Sufficent (>30% of centerline distance between tail of upstream riffle and
head of downstream riffle) 18
100
18
100%
4. Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
18
18
5
5
100%
100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide) 18
18 100
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide) 5 5
100
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover due to active scour and erosion
0
0
100%
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover due to active scour and erosion
OIL
i
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
2. Bank
2. Undercut
Banks undercuVoverhan ing to the extent that mass wasting is expected
100%
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
100%
3. Mass Wasting
Banks slumping, caving or collapse
_
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3. Engineering Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs
0
0
3. Engineering Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs
16
16
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill
100%
0
-
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill
1
1
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath or around sills or arms
100%
0
-
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath or around sills or arms
16
16
3. Bank Position
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%
100%
0
-
3. Bank Position
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%
16
16
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth/Mean Bankfull Depth ratio 2 1.5.
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at low flow
100%
0
-
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth/Mean Bankfull Depth ratio 2 1.5.
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at low flow
15
15
100
Table 5. Continued Visual Steam Morphology Stability Assessment
Thomas Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 96074
Reach ID: Reach 6
Assessed Length (LF): 1,776
Major Channel Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
per As -built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amountof
Unstable
Footage
%Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody Ve9•
Footage with Adjusted %for
Stabilizing Stabilizing
Woody Veg. Woody Ve 9•
1.Vertical Stability
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow laterally (not to
include point bars)
0
0
100%
'
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcu0ing 0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
6
6
100%
1. Bed
1. Depth - Sufficent (Max Pool Depth/Mean Bkf Depth 21.5)
5
5
100%
3. Meander Pool Condition 2. Length - Sufficent (>30% of centerline distance between tail of upstream riffle and
head of downstream riffle) 5 5
100%
4. Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
5
5
100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide) 5 5
100
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover due to active scour and erosion
0
0
100%
0
0
100
2. Bank
2. Undercut
Banks undercuttoverhanging to the extent that mass wasting is expected
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3. Mass Wasting
lBanks slumping, caving or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3. Engineering Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs
0
0
-
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill
0
0
-
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath or around sills or arms
0
0
-
3. Bank Position
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%
0
0
-
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth/Mean Bankfull Depth ratio 2 1.5.
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at low flow
0
0
-
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96074)

Table 5. Continued Visual Steam Morphology Stability Assessment
Thomas Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 96074
Reach ID: Reach 7
Assessed Length (LF): 227
Assessed Length (LF): 647
Major Channel Cate
1 9°rY
Channel Sub -Cate 9°rY
Major Channel Cate
1 9°rY
Channel Sub -Category
9 N
Metric
Number Stable,
Performing as
9
Intended
Total Number
per As
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
%Stable,
Performingas
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
9
Woody Veg.
Footage with Adjusted %for
Stabilizing Stabilizing
9 9
Woody Veg. Woody Veg.
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow laterally (not to
include point bars)
1.Vertical Stability
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow laterally (not to
include point bars
0
0
0
0
100%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting
0 0 100%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downculting 0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture Substrate - Rifle maintains coarser substrate
5
5
100%
100
1. Bed
1. Bed
3. Meander Pool Condition
1. Depth - Sufricent (Max Pool Depth/Mean Bkf Depth 21.5)
6
6
100%
100%
2. Length - Sufficent (>30% of centerline distance between tail of upstream riffle and
head of downstream riffle) 4 4
2. Length - Sufficent (>30% of centerline distance between tail of upstream riffle and 100%
head of downstream riffle) 6 6
4. Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
6
6
100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide) 6 6 100
100%
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover due to active scour and erosion
0
00
100%
100%
0
0
100%
2. Bank
2. Undercut
Banks undercuttoverhanging to the extent that mass wasting is expected
0
0
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3. Mass Wasting
Banks slumping, caving or collapse
0
100%
0
0
1 100%
0
0
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
otalsl
0 1
0
1 100% 1
0
1 0
100%
100%
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill
1
1
3. Engineering Structures
11. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs
2
2
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath or around sills or arms
100%
1
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill
2
2
3. Bank Position Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%
1
100%
100 %
2a. Pipin
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath or around sills or arms
2
2
1
1
100%
100%
3. Bank Position
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%
2
2
100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth/Mean Bankfull Depth ratio 2 1.5.
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at low flow
2
2
100%
Table 5.Continued Visual Steam Morphology Stability Assessment
Thomas Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 96074
Reach ID: Reach T1
Assessed Length (LF): 227
Major Channel Cate
1 9°rY
Channel Sub -Cate 9°rY
Metric
Number Stable,
Performing as
d
Intended
Total Number
per As -built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
%Stable,
Performin as
9
Intended
Number with
Stabilizin 9
Woody Veg.
Footage with Adjusted %for
Stabilizing Stabilizing
9 9
Woody Veg. Woody Veg.
1.Vertical Stability
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow laterally (not to
include point bars)
0
0
100
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting
0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
3
3
100%
1. Bed
3. Meander Pool Condition
1. Depth - Sufficent (Max Pool Depth/Mean Bkf Depth 21.5)
4
4
100%
2. Length - Sufficent (>30% of centerline distance between tail of upstream riffle and
head of downstream riffle) 4 4
100%
4. Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
4
4
100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide) 4 4
100%
1. Scoured/Eroding Bank lacking vegetative cover due to active scour and erosion
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
2. Undercut Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting is expected
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
2. Bank
3. Mass Wasting Banks slumping, caving or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3. Engineering Structures
1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs
1
1
100%
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill
1
1
100 %
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath or around sills or arms
1
1
100%
3. Bank Position Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%
1
1
100 %
EA
Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth/Mean Bankfull Depth ratio 2 1.5.
4. Habitat Rootwads/logs providing some cover at low flow
1
1
100%
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR I MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96074)

Table 5. Continued Visual Steam Morphology Stability Assessment
Thomas Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 96074
Reach ID: Reach T2
Assessed Length (LF): 157
Major Channel Category
1 9 rY
9erY
Channel Sub -Cate Metric
Number Stable,
Performing as
g
Intended
Total Number
per As -built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of % Stable,
Unstable Performingas
Footage Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
9
Woody Veg.
Footage with Adjusted % for
Stabilizing Stabilizing
9 9
Woody Veg. Woody Veg.
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow laterally (not to
1.Vertical Stability include point bars)
0
0
100%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcuhing 0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition 1. Texture Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
2
2
911111114
100%
1. Bed
1. Depth - Sufficent (Max Pool Depth/Mean Bid Depth 21.5)
2
2
100%
3. Meander Pool Condition 2 Length - Sufflcent (>30% of centerline distance between tail of upstream riffle and
100
head of downstream riffle) 2 2
4. Thalweg Position 1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
2
2
100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide) 2 2 100%
1. Scoured/Eroding Bank lacking vegetative cover due to active scour and erosion
00
100%
0
0
100%
2. Bank
2. Undercut Banks undercut/overhan in to the extent that mass wastingis expected
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3. Mass Wasting Banks slumping, caving or collapse 0
0 100% 0 0
100
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3. Engineering Structures
1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs
1
1
100
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill
1
1
100%
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath or around sills or arms
1
1
100%
3. Bank Position Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%
1
1
100%
Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth/Mean Bankfull Depth ratio 2 1.5.
4. Habitat Rootwads/logs providing some cover at low flow
1
1
100%
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96074)

Table 6. Vegetation Conditions Assessment
Thomas Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 96074
Reach ID: Reach 1
Planted Acreage: 3.1
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Mapping Threshold
CCPV
Number of Polygons
Combined Acreage
% of Planted
(acres)
Depiction
Acreage
1. Bare Areas
Very limited cover both woody and herbaceous material.
0.1
NA
0
0.00
0.0
2. Low Stem Density Areas
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 4
0.1
NA
0
0.00
0.0
or 5 stem count criteria.
Total
0
0.00
0.0
3. Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor
Areas with woody stems or a size class that are obviously small
0.25
NA
0
0.00
0.0
given the monitoring year.
Cumulative
Total
0
0.00
0.0%
Easement Acreage: 3.1
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Mapping Threshold
CCPV
Number of Polygons
Combined Acreage
of Planted
Depiction
Acreage
5. Invasive Areas of Concern
Areas of points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale)
1000 ft'
NA
0
0.00
0.0
6. Easement Encroachment Areas
Easement area shown was encroached into by use of farm
none
NA
0
0.00
0.0
equipment and will need to be replanted.
Reach ID: Reach 2
Planted Acreage: 8.4
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Mapping Threshold
CCPV
Number of Polygons
Combined Acreage
of Planted
(acres)
Depiction
Acreage
1. Bare Areas
Very limited cover both woody and herbaceous material
0.1
NA
0
0.00
0.0
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 4
0.1
NA
0
0.00
0.0
2. Low Stem Density Areas
or 5 stem count criteria.
Total
0
0.00
0.0
Areas with woody stems or a size class that are obviously small
0.25
NA
0
0.00
0.0
3. Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor
given the monitoring year.
Cumulative Total
0
0.00
0.0
Easement Acreage: 8.4
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Mapping Threshold
CCPV
Number of Polygons
I
Combined Acreage
I I
% of Planted
Depiction
Acreage
5. Invasive Areas of Concern
Areas of points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale)
1000 ft'
NA
0
0.00
0.0
6. Easement Encroachment Areas
Areas of points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale;
none
NA
0
0.00
0.0
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 3 MONITORING REPORT
UT TO CANE CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95729)

Table 6 continued. Vegetation Conditions Assessment
Thomas Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 96074
Reach ID: Reach 3
Planted Acreage: 3.1
Vegetation Category
Defintions
Mapping Threshold
CCPV
Number of Polygons
Combined Acreage
% of Planted
(acres)
Depiction
Acreage
1. Bare Areas
Very limited cover both woody and herbaceous material
0.1
NA
0
0.00
0.0
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 4
2. Low Stem Density Areas
or 5 stem count criteria.
0.1
NA
0
0.00
0.0
Total
0
0.00
0.0
3. Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor
Areas with woody stems or a size class that are obviously small
0.25
NA
0
0.00
0.0
given the monitoring year.
Cumulative Total
0
0.00
0.0
Easement Acreage: 3.1
Vegetation Category
Defintions
Mapping Threshold
CCPV
Number of Polygons
Combined Acreage
% of Planted
Depiction
Acreage
5. Invasive Areas of Concern
Areas of points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale)
1000 ft'
NA
0
0.00
0.0
6. Easement Encroachment Areas
Easement area shown was encroached into by use of farm
none
NA
0
0.00
0.0
equipment and will need to be replanted.
Reach ID: Reach 4
Planted Acreage: 8.4
Vegetation Category
Defintions
Mapping Threshold
CCPV
Number of Polygons
Combined Acreage
of Planted
(acres)
Depiction
Acreage
1. Bare Areas
Very limited cover both woody and herbaceous material.
0.1
NA
0
0.00
0.0
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 4
0.1
NA
0
0.00
0.0
2. Low Stem Density Areas
or 5 stem count criteria.
Total
0
0.00
0.0
Areas with woody stems or a size class that are obviously small
0.25
NA
0
0.00
0.0
3. Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor
given the monitoring year.
Cumulative Totall
0
i 0.00
i 0.0%
Easement Acreage: 8.4
Vegetation Category
Defintions
Mapping Threshold
CCPV
Number of Polygons
Combined Acreage
of Planted
Depiction
Acreage
5. Invasive Areas of Concern
Areas of points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale)
1000 ft'
NA
0
0.00
0.0%
6. Easement Encroachment Areas
Areas of points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale;
none
NA
0
0.00
0.0
6. Easement Encroachment Areas
Areas of points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale;
none
NA
0
0.00
0.0
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 3 MONITORING REPORT
UT TO CANE CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95729)

Table 6 continued. Vegetation Conditions Assessment
Thomas Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 96074
Reach ID: Reach 5
Planted Acreage: 3.1
Vegetation Category
Defintions
Mapping Threshold
CCPV
Number of Polygons
Combined Acreage
% of Planted
(acres)
Depiction
Acreage
1. Bare Areas
Very limited cover both woody and herbaceous material.
0.1
NA
0
0.00
0.0%
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 4
2. Low Stem Density Areas
or 5 stem count criteria.
0.1
NA
0
0.00
0.0%
Total
0
0.00
0.0%
3. Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor
Areas with woody stems or a size class that are obviously small
0.25
NA
0
0.00
0.0%
given the monitoring year.
Cumulative Totall
0
i 0.00 i
0.0%
Easement Acreage: 3.1
Vegetation Category
Defintions
Mapping Threshold
CCPV
Number of Polygons
Combined Acreage
% of Planted
Depiction
Acreage
5. Invasive Areas of Concern
Areas of points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale)
1000 ft'
NA
0
0.00
0.0%
6. Easement Encroachment Areas
Easement area shown was encroached into by use of farm
none
NA
0
0.00
00%
equipment and will need to be replanted.
Reach ID: Reach 6
Planted Acreage: 8.4
Vegetation Category
Defintions
Mapping Threshold
CCPV
Number of Polygons
Combined Acreage
of Planted
(acres)
Depiction
Acreage
1. Bare Areas
Very limited cover both woody and herbaceous material
0.1
NA
0
0.00
0.0%
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 4
0.1
NA
0
0.00
0.0%
2. Low Stem Density Areas
or 5 stem count criteria.
Total
0
0.00
0.0%
Areas with woody stems or a size class that are obviously small
0.25
NA
0
0.00
0.0%
3. Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor
I given the monitoring year.
Cumulative Total
0
0.00
0.0%
Easement Acreage: 8.4
Vegetation Category:::=
Defintions
Mapping Threshold
CCPV
Number of Polygons
Combined Acreage
% of Planted
Depiction
Acreage
5. Invasive Areas of Concern
lAreas of points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale)
1000 ft'
NA
1 0
1 0.00
0.0%
6. Easement Encroachment Areas
lAreas of points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale;
none
NA
1 0
1 0.00
0.0%
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 3 MONITORING REPORT
UT TO CANE CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95729)

Table 6 continued. Vegetation Conditions Assessment
Thomas Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 96074
Reach ID: Reach 7
Planted Acreage: 3.1
Vegetation Category
Defintions
Mapping Threshold
CCPV
Number of Polons
yg
Combined Acreage
% of Planted
(acres)
Depiction
Acreage
1. Bare Areas
Very limited cover both woody and herbaceous material.
0.1
NA
0
0.00
0.0%
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 4
2. Low Stem Density Areas
or 5 stem count criteria.
0.1
NA
0
0.00
0.0%
Total
0
0.00
0.0%
3. Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor
Areas with woody stems or a size class that are obviously small
0.25
NA
0
0.00
0.0%
given the monitoring year.
Cumulative Totall
0
i 0.00
0.0%
Easement Acreage: 3.1
Vegetation Category
Defintions
Mapping Threshold
CCPV
Number of Polygons
Combined Acreage
% of Planted
Depiction
Acreage
5. Invasive Areas of Concern
Areas of points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale)
1000 ft'
NA
0
0.00
0.0%
6. Easement Encroachment Areas
Easement area shown was encroached into by use of farm
none
NA
0
0.00
00%
equipment and will need to be replanted.
Reach ID: Reach T1
Planted Acreage: 8.4
Vegetation Category
Defintions
Mapping Threshold
CCPV
Number of Polygons
Combined Acreage
% of Planted
(acres)
Depiction
Acreage
1. Bare Areas
Very limited cover both woody and herbaceous material
0.1
NA
0
0.00
0.0%
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 4
0.1
NA
0
0.00
0.0%
2. Low Stem Density Areas
or 5 stem count criteria.
Total
0
0.00
0.0%
Areas with woody stems or a size class that are obviously small
0.25
NA
0
0.00
0.0%
3. Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor
I given the monitoring year.
Cumulative Total
0
0.00
0.0%
Easement Acreage: 8.4
Vegetation Category:::=
Defintions
Mapping Threshold
CCPV
Number of Polygons
Combined Acreage
% of Planted
Depiction
Acreage
5. Invasive Areas of Concern
lAreas of points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale)
1000 ft'
NA
1 0
1 0.00
0.0%
6. Easement Encroachment Areas
lAreas of points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale;
none
NA
1 0
1 0.00
0.0%
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 3 MONITORING REPORT
UT TO CANE CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95729)

Reach 3, view upstream, Station 11+75
Reach 3, view upstream, Station 15+75
Reach 3, view downstream at pipe crossing, Station 18+50
Reach 3, view downstream, Station 11+75
Reach 3, view downstream, Station 16+25
Reach 3, stream crossing, Station 18+80

Reach 3, Station 19+00
Reach 4, view downstream at Station 5+75
Reach 4, view upstream at Station 10+10
Reach 4, view downstream at Station 1+90
Reach 4, view downstream at Station 6+10
Reach 4, view upstream at Station 10+50
p 4
x
Myl—
"
s�
w
� r
Reach 4, view downstream at Station 6+10
Reach 4, view upstream at Station 10+50

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

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

Reach T1, view upstream at Station 11+75
Reach 2, view of drainage on left bank at Station 32+90
Reach 2, view downstream at Station 33+25
Reach 2, view downstream at Station 36+90
Reach 2, view downstream at Station 34+30
Reach 2, view upstream at Station 38+25

#� ''
h�tr
�x
a li 5a'k tiae y i�
Reach 2, Crest Gauge at Station 38+75
Reach 2, view upstream at Station 41+50
Reach 1, view downstream at Station 43+25
Reach 2, view downstream at Station 39+40
Reach 1, view upstream at Station 42+75
Reach 1, view of drainage on left bank at Station 44+00

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

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

Reach 5, view downstream at Station 37+30
Reach 5, view upstream at Station 39+90
(the confluence of R5 and R2)
Reach 5, view upstream at Station 38+50
Reach T2, view upstream at Station 10+60
Conservation Easement Post and Sign
Reach 2: Crest Gauge, 1.17 feet, Oct. 27, 2016

Stream Problem Area Photos
a ¢u
Oil
f
f t
y
"SS Sk S
4
Stream Problem Area (upstream), Oct. 2016, Station 40+60 Stream Problem Area (downstream), Oct. 2016, Station 40+60
Repaired Stream Area (before), May 2016, Station 42+00
Repaired Stream Area (after), Oct. 2016, Station 42+00
Repaired Stream Area (before), May 2016, Station 42+50 Repaired Stream Area (after), Oct. 2016, Station 42+50
f
f t
y
"SS Sk S
Repaired Stream Area (after), Oct. 2016, Station 42+00
Repaired Stream Area (before), May 2016, Station 42+50 Repaired Stream Area (after), Oct. 2016, Station 42+50

Vegetation Plot 1 — September 2016
Vegetation Plot 3 — September 2016
Vegetation Plot 2 — September 2016
Vegetation Plot 4 — September 2016
Vegetation Plot 5 — September 2016
Vegetation Plot 6 — September 2016

Vegetation Plot 7 — September 2016
Vegetation Plot 9 — September 2016
Vegetation Plot 11 — September 2016
Vegetation Plot 8 — September 2016
Vegetation Plot 10 —September 2016
Vegetation Plot 12 — September 2016

Vegetation Plot 13 — September 2016
Vegetation Plot 15 — October 2016
RR
Vegetation Plot 14 — September 2016
Vegetation Plot 16 — October 2016

Appendix C
Vegetation Plot Data

Table 7. CVS Density Per Plot
Thomas Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 96074
Current Plot Data (MY1 2016)
Species
96074-01-0001
96074-01-0002
96074-01-0003
96074-01-0004
96074-01-0005
96074-01-0006
96074-01-0007
-0008
Scientific Name
Common Name
Type
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
ll
T
Asimina lriloba
pawpaw Tree
Betula nigra
river birch Tree
2
2
2
1
1
1
3
3
3
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
7
Carpinus caroliniana
American hombeam Tree
4
4
4
1
1
1
6
6
6
Dios r
common ersimmon Tree
6
6
6
1
1
1
3
3
3
5
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
Frarinus pennsylvanica
green ash Tree
l
1
I
I
I
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
1
Liriodendron tuli i
tnli hee Tree
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
In
3Platanus
oecidentalisa
American sycamore Tree
2
2
2
1
1
1
3
3
3
1
1
1
5
5
5
2
2
2
4michauxii
swam chestnut oak Tree
l
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2Quercuspagoda
cherrybark oak Tree
I
1
1
21lViburnum
dentatum
southern anowwoo< Shmb
1
1
1
4
4
4
l
1
1
2
2
2
Stem coup
20
20
20
13
13
13
14
14
14
13
13
13
13
13
13
15
15
15
22
22
22
18size(area)
1
1
1
1
I
l
1
size (ACRES)
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
S ecies count
8
8
8
7
7
7
5
5
5
6
6
6
888
6
6
6
7
7
7
6Stems
per ACRE 809.4
809.0.
809.4
526.1
526.1
526.1
566.6
566.6
5666
5261
526.1
5261
526.1
526.1
526.1
607.0
607.0
607.0
890.3
890.3
890.3.et
728.4
Current Plot Data (MY1 2016) continued
Annual Means
Species
96074-01-0009
96074-01-0010
96074-01-0011
96074-01-0012
96074-01-0013
96074-01-0014
96074-01-0015
96074-01-0016
MY1(2016)
Scientific Name
Common Name Type
PnoLS
P -all
T
Pnol,S
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
Asimina triloba
pawpaw Tree
3
3
3
2
2
2
5
5
5
Betula nigra
river birch Tree
2
2
2
4
4
4
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
38
38
38
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam Tree
5
5
5
l
1
1
2
2
2
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
34
34
34
Diospyros virniana
common persimmon Tree
I
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
31
31
31
F-inus enns Ivanica
green ash Tree
2
2
2
3
3
3
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
16
16
16
Liriodendron tulipifera
tulitauce Tree
1
1
1
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
1
1
5
5
5
28
28
28
Platanus occidentalis
Amerimpcan s camore Tree
l
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
1
1
1
40
40
40
Quercus michauxii
swachestnut oak Tree
4
4
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
4
4
23
23
23
Quercus pagoda
I the bark oak Tree
2
2
2
4
4
4
3 1
3
3
4
4
4
3
3
3
1
L
1
27
27
27
Viburnum dentatum
southern arrowwoo< Shrub
4
4
4
4
4
4
8
8
8
I
1
1MO.02
4
3
3
3
46
46
46
Stem count16
16
16
23
23
23
23
23
23
21
21
21
19
19
19
18
18
1817
23
23
23
288
288
288
size (ares)
I
1
I
1
1
1
1
16
Am (ACRES)
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.40
Species coun
7
7
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
7
7
7
5
5
5
7
7
77
8
8
8
10
10
10
Stems per ACRE 647.5
647.5
647.5
930.8
930.8
930.8
930.8
930.8
930.8
849.8
849.8
849.8
768.9
768.9
768.9
728.4
728.4
728.48.0
X93:0.$
930.8
930.8
728.4
728.4 728.4
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirement, by less than 10%
Fails To nicer requirements by more than 10°i
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96074)

Table 8. CVS Vegetation Summary and Totals
Thomas Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 96074
Thomas Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 96074
Year 1 (September 2016)
Vegetation Plot Summary Information
Plot #
Riparian Buffer Stream/ Wetland
Stems StemsZ
Live Stakes
Invasives
s
Volunteers
J
Total
Unknown Growth
Form
1
n/a 20
0
0
0
20
0
2
n/a 13
0
0
0
13
0
3
n/a 14
0
0
0
14
0
4
n/a 13
0
0
0
13
0
5
n/a 13
0
0
0
13
0
6
n/a 15
0
0
0
15
0
7
n/a 22
0
0
0
22
0
8
n/a 18
0
0
0
18
0
9
n/a 1 16
0
0
0
16
0
10
n/a 23
0
0
0
23
0
11
n/a 23
0
1 0
0
23
0
12
n/a 21
0
0
0
21
0
13
n/a 19
0
0
0
19
0
14
n/a 18
0
0
0 1
18
1 0
15
n/a 17
0
0
0 1
17
1 0
16
n/a 23
0
0
0 1
23
1 0
Wetland/Stream Vegetation Totals
(per acre)
Riparian Buffer Vegetation Totals
(per acre)
Plot #
Stream/ WetlandRiparian
Z Volunteers3
Stems
Total°
Success
Criteria Met?
Plot #
Buffer
Stems
Success Criteria
Met?
1
809 0
809
Yes
1
n/a
n/a
2
526 0
526
Yes
2
n/a
n/a
3
567 0
567
Yes
3
n/a
n/a
4
526 0
526
Yes
4
n/a
n/a
5
526 0
526
Yes
5
n/a
n/a
6
607 0
607
Yes
6
n/a
n/a
7
890 0
890
Yes
7
n/a
n/a
8
728 0
728
Yes
8
n/a
n/a
9
647 0
647
Yes
9
n/a
n/a
10
931 0
931
Yes
10
n/a
n/a
11
931 0
931
Yes
11
n/a
n/a
12
850 0
850
Yes
12
n/a
n/a
13
769 0
769
Yes
13
n/a
n/a
14
728 0
728
Yes
14
n/a
n/a
15
688 0
688
Yes
15
n/a
n/a
16
931 0
931
Yes
16
n/a
n/a
Project Average
1728 0 1
728
1 Yes I
Project Average I
n/a
I n/a
Stem Class
Buffer Stems
Stream/ Wetland Stems
3Volunteers
°Total
Characteristics
Native planted hardwood trees. Does NOT include shrubs. No pines. No vines.
Native planted woody stems. Includes shrubs, does NOT include live stakes. No vines
Native woody stems. Not planted. No vines.
Planted + 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.
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96074)

Table 9. Stem Count for Each Species Arranged by Plot
Thomas Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 96074
Botanical Name Common Name
Tree Species
Betula nigra river birch
I
2
2
1
1 3 1
3
4
5
1
1 6
2
7
2
8
7
Plots
9 1
2
10
4
11
2
12
3
13
4
14
1
15
2
16
2
Fraxinuepennsylvanica green ash
1
1
1
3
1
2
3
1
2
1
Liriodendron tulipfera tulip poplar
3
1
1
2
3
3
1
4
4
1
5
Platanus occidentalis American sycamore
2
1
3
1
5
2
4
1
2
2
5
5
6
1
Quercus michauxii swamp chestnut oak
1
2
2
2
2
4
2
2
2
4
Average Stems Per Aqr
Quercuspagoda cheayback oak
Shrub Species
Asimino triloba pawpaw
1
2
2
4
1
2
4
3
4
3
3
2
1
Carpinus caroliniana I ironwood
4
1
6
5
1
2
5
5
5
Diospyros virginiana 1persimmon
6
1
3
5
1
1
2
1
1
2
3
1
2
2
Viburnum dentatum larrowwoodviburnurn
1
6
4
1
2
13
3
15
5
22
18
4
16
4
23
8
23
21
19
1
18
4
17
3
23
Stems Per Plot for Year 1 20 13 14 13
Stems/Acre for Year 1
809
526
567
526
526
607
890
728
648
931
931
850
769
728
688
931 728
Total Stems/ Acre for Year 0 As-Built (Baseline Data)
850
688
607
648
648
607
971
728
648
971
971
931
890
809
688
890 7S4
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR I MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96074)

Appendix D
Stream Survey Data

Figure 5.
Permanent Cross-section 1
(Year 1 Data - Collected November 2016)
i'
f'•, � � •:, Iter �f1 ,
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Feature
Stream
I Type
BKF Area
BKF Width
I BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
I W/D
BH Ratio
I ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
I C
5.4
1 8.76
0.62
1.09
1 14.1
1.1
1 5.9
271.44
271.52

Permanent Cross-section 2
(Year 1 Data - Collected November 2016)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Stream
BKF
Max BKF
Feature
Type
BKF Area BKF Width
Depth
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev TOB Elev
Pool
13.2 10.24
1.29
2.13
7.96
1
6
270.65 270.67

Permanent Cross-section 3
(Year 1 Data - Collected November 2016)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Stream
BKF
Max BKF
Feature
Type
BKF Area
BKF Width I
Depth
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
C
3
7.05
0.42
0.7
16.85
1.1
4.8
264.45
264.52

Permanent Cross-section 4
(Year 1 Data - Collected November 2016)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Stream
Feature Type
BKF Area
BKF Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle C
3.6
6.77
0.54
0.97 1 12.58
1
3.3
265.46
265.45
Thomas Creek Cross-section 4
Reach 4
270
269
'
\
268
c
0
267
m
—
w
--------------------------------------------------------
266
As -built
---------------- Year 1
265
--o--- Bankfull
---o--- Floodprone
264
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross-section 5
(Year 1 Data - Collected November 2016)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Stream
BKF
Max BKF
Feature
Type
BKF Area
BKF Width
Depth
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
C
5.8
9.82
0.59
0.89
1 16.61
1.1
3.8
262.63
262.69

Permanent Cross-section 6
(Year 1 Data - Collected November 2016)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Stream
Feature Type
BKF Area
BKF Max BKF
BKF Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle C
8.3
9.7 0.85 1.28 11.36 1.1 6.5 259.42 259.51
Thomas Creek Cross-section 6
Reach 2
262
261
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------o
w
= 260
0
Y
Eu- 259
As -built
Year 1
258
e--- Bankfull
e--- Floodprone
257
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Station (ft)

0.1
f• P pp�� C
t r '4 yx✓
Permanent Cross-section 7
(Year 1 Data - Collected November 2016)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Stream
BKF
Max BKF
Feature
Type
BKF Area
BKF Width I
Depth
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
C
1 3.4
6.81 1
0.49
0.75
13.83
1.2
4.1
258.57
258.7

Permanent Cross-section 8
(Year 1 Data - Collected November 2016)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Stream
BKF
Max BKF
Feature
Type
BKF Area
BKF Width
Depth
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool
26.3
16.06 1
1.64
2.58
1 9.8
1
3.3
258.12
258.12

Permanent Cross-section 9
(Year 1 Data - Collected November 2016)
LIAOf
f! s y
Looking at the Left Bank
tov' lop
alLooking at the Right Bank
Stream
BKF
Max BKF
Feature
Type
BKF Area
BKF Width I
Depth
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool
19.5
14.53
1.34
3.18
10.82
1
4.9
255.05
255.18

Permanent Cross-section 10
(Year 1 Data - Collected November 2016)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Stream
BKF
Max BKF
Feature
Type
BKF Area
BKF Width I
Depth
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
C
6.5
9.28 1
0.71
1.14
1 13.15
1.1
8
1 254.18
254.25

4,14, "-",1
Permanent Cross-section 11
(Year 1 Data - Collected November 2016)
T
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool
26.8
15.38
1.74
3.76 1 8.83
1
4.5
249.04
249.14
Thomas Creek Cross-section 11
Reach 1
254
253
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------o
252
251
Y
250
0
249
-----------------------
w 248
As -built
247
Year 1
246
- -0--- Bankfull
245
- -0--- Floodprone
244
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross-section 12
(Year 1 Data - Collected November 2016)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Stream
BKF
Max BKF
Feature Type
BKF Area
BKF Width
Depth
Depth W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle C
8.2
12.74
0.65
1.09 1 19.75
1.1
2.4
247.88
248.03

Permanent Cross-section 13
(Year 1 Data - Collected November 2016)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Stream
BKF
Max BKF
Feature
Type
BKF Area
BKF Width
Depth
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
C
1.1
4.12
0.26
0.49
1 16.06
1
4.3
295.07
295.09

Permanent Cross-section 14
(Year 1 Data - Collected November 2016)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Stream
BKF
Max BKF
Feature Type
BKF Area
BKF Width
Depth
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle E
4.4
6.85
0.64
1.17
1 10.78
1.1
7.3
260.96
261.06

Permanent Cross-section 15
(Year 1 Data - Collected November 2016)
A
'r.
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Stream
BKF
Max BKF
Feature
Type
BKF Area
BKF Width
Depth
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool
7.5
7.28
1.03
1.57
1 7.08
1.1
8.1
259.27
259.45

i r
Permanent Cross-section 16
(Year 1 Data - Collected November 2016)
$ '; At�
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Stream BKF Max BKF
Feature
Type I BKF Area BKF Width Depth Depth W/D I BH Ratio
I
ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Pool
10.4 8.74 1.19 2.68 7.32 1
7.7 255.05 255.1
Thomas Creek Cross-section 16
Reach 5
258
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------o
257
w 256
c
0
255
------------
LU
254
As -built
Year 1
253
--d--- Bankfull
-- G--- Floodprone
252
0 10 20 30 40 50
60 70 80
Station (ft)

Pebble Count; Monitoring Year 1
Thomas Creek Mitigation Project, DMS# 96074
SITE OR PROJECT:
Thomas Creek
REACH/LOCATION:
Reach R2 (Station 37+00)
FEATURE:
Rock Riffle
DATE:
7 -Nov -16
MATERIAL
PARTICLE
SIZE mm
Total
MY12016
Class %
% Cum
Distribution
Plot Size (mm)
Silt/Clay
Silt / Clay
<.063
2 50%
0%
0.063
N
Very Fine
.063-125 .125
V
0%
0.125
Fine
.125-25 .25
3
3%
3%
0.25
Sand
Medium
.25-50 .50
8
7%
9%
0.50
Coarse
.50-1.0
11
9%
19%
1.0
Very Coarse
1.0-2.0
2
2%
21%
2.0
Very Fine
2.0-2.8
4
3%
24%
2.8
Very Fine
2.8-4.0
6
5%
29%
4.0
Fine
4.0-5.6
1
1 %
30%
5.6
Fine
5.6-8.0
1
1 %
31%
8.0
Medium
8.0-11.0
31%
11.0
Gravel
Medium
11.0-16.0
31%
16.0
Coarse
16-22.6
31%
22.6
Coarse
22.6-32
2
2%
33%
32
Very Coarse
32-45
3
3%
35%
45
Very Coarse
45-64
11
9%
45%
64
Small
64-90
24
21%
66%
90
Small
90-128
15
13%
78%
128
Cobble
Large
128-180
20
17%
96%
180
Large
180-256
4
3%
99%
256
Small
256-362
1
1 %
100%
362
Small
362-512
100%
512
Boulder
Medium
512-1024
100%
1024
Large -Very Large
1024-2048
100%
2048
Bedrock
Bedrock
>2048
100%
5000
Total % of whole count 1 116 1 100%
Largest particle= 256
Summary Data
Channel materials
D16= 0.8 1 D84= 142.9
D35=1 43.0 1 D95 = 1 177.6
D50=1 69.7 1 DIN = 1 256-362
Thomas Creek (Reach R2)
Pebble Count Size Class Distribution
100%
90% n AB 2015
■ MY 12016
80%
70%
= 60%
2 50%
d
N 40%
N
30%
V
20%
10%
0%
Particle Size Class (mm)

Pebble Count; Monitoring Year 1
Thomas Creek Mitigation Project, DMS# 96074
SITE OR PROJECT:
Thomas Creek
REACH/LOCATION:
Reach R5 (Station 37+00)
FEATURE:
Rock Riffle
DATE:
7 -Nov -16
MATERIAL
PARTICLE
SIZE mm
Total
MY12016
Class %
% Cum
Distribution
Plot Size (mm)
Silt/Clay
Silt / Clay
<.063
2 50%
0%
0.063
N
Very Fine
.063-125 .125
V
0%
0.125
Fine
.125-25 .25
2
1 %
1 %
0.25
Sand
Medium
.25-50 .50
3
2%
3%
0.50
Coarse
.50-1.0
9
5%
8%
1.0
Very Coarse
1.0-2.0
1
1 %
9%
2.0
Very Fine
2.0-2.8
2
1 %
10%
2.8
Very Fine
2.8-4.0
10%
4.0
Fine
4.0-5.6
10%
5.6
Fine
5.6-8.0
1
1 %
10%
8.0
Medium
8.0-11.0
3
2%
12%
11.0
Gravel
Medium
11.0-16.01
10
6%
18%
16.0
Coarse
16-22.6
19
11%
29%
22.6
Coarse
22.6-32
6
3%
32%
32
Very Coarse
32-45
11
6%
39%
45
Very Coarse
45-64
28
16%
55%
64
Small
64-90
34
20%
75%
90
Small
90-128
24
14%
88%
128
Cobble
Large
128-180
14
8%
97%
180
Large
180-256
3
2%
98%
256
Small
256-362
2
1 %
99%
362
Small
362-512
1
1 %
100%
512
Boulder
Medium
512-1024
100%
1024
Large -Very Large
1024-2048
100%
2048
Bedrock
Bedrock
>2048
100%
5000
Total % of whole count 1 173 1 100% J
Largest particle= 256
Summary Data
Channel materials
D16= 1 14.7-1 D84= 1 114.4
D35 = 36.8 D95 = 168.8
D50= 57.5 DIN= 362-512
Thomas Creek (Reach R5)
Pebble Count Particle Size Distribution
100%
90% SAB 2015
fMYI 2016
80%
70%
60%
d
i 50%
m
o.
y 40%
30%
3
3 20%
V
10%
0%
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
Thomas Creek (Reach R5)
Pebble Count Size Class Distribution
100%
90% N AB 2015
■ MY 12016
80%
70%
= 60%
2 50%
d
N 40%
N
30%
V
20%
10%
0%
Particle Size Class (mm)

Table 10. Baseline Stream Summary
Thomas Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 96074
Reach 1 - Length 298 it
Reference
Reach(es) Data
Parameter
USGS Gauge
Regional Curve
Pre -Existing Condition
Design
As -built
Little Beaver Creek
(Wake County)
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
Min Mean
Med Max SD n
_____
_____
.
125
____
____ _____
_____
_____ 13.9
_____ _____ _____ _____
0o prone Width (ft:
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
_____
_____
_____
____
_____
____
>25
____
____ _____
____
--_ 30.6
BF Mean Depth(ft
_____
1.2
1.5
_____
_____
-----
_____ 1.2
____
_____
____
____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
0.9
_____
___ 0.8
_-__ ____ ___ -----
___BF
BFMax Depth (R)
_____
____
_____
_____
_____
____
_____ 1.9
_____
____
___
____ _____
_____
_____
____
_____
1.1
___
____ ____
_____
____ 1.1
___ ____ _____ ____
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft')
_____
_____
11.2
_____
_____
-----
_____ 11.2
_____
_____
_____
----- _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
11.2
___-
_-_ _____
_____
_____ 11.1
_____ _____ _____ _____
Wt th/Dept Rau
____
____
_____
____
_____
_____
_____ 7.2
_____
____
12.0
-__ ____
18.0
_____
_____
_____
14.0
-_--
_� ____
_____
_.__ 17.4
_-__- ____ _____ ___
-----
Entrenchment
Entrenc en[Ratt
____
_____
_____
____
_____
--_
_____ 1,8
-----
____
1,
___ ____
2.2
____
_____
__
>2.2
____
_A ____
__
_____ 2.2
_____
B Height Ratio
____-
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
___- 2.5
____
----
1.0
____ _____
1.1
_____
_____
____
1.0
-__
___ ____
____
___ 1.0
____
d50 (mm
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
____
___
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft
-----
----
-----
----
-----
----
--- ----
-----
----
-----
--- -----
-----
----
----
----
30.0
-----
---- -----
----
----- 34.4
-----
----Ra
us of Curvature O
Radius
_____
_____
___
_____
_____
___
____ ____
_____
____
____
____ _____
_____
____
_____
25.0
____
_____
35.0 _____
____
____ 33.1
_____
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft
----
-----
----
---
-----
----
---- ----
---
--
2.0
---- ----
3.0
----
-----
2.0
---
----
2.8 -----
---
--- 2.4
----- ---- --- ----
Meander Wavelength ft
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
____ ____
____
_____
_____
_____
____
_____
___
____
____
105.0 ____
___
____ 103.4
Meander Width Rati
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_-__ _____
_____
____
3.5
-__ _____
8.0
_____
_____
__-
2.4
_____
____
___
-____ 2.5
_____ _____
Profile
RiffleLength (ft
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ -----
-----
_____
-----
----- -----
_____
_____
_____
_____
-----
-----
_____ _____
_____
_____ 24.0
_____ _____ _____ _____
_____ ____
_____
_____
___
____ _____
____
____
_____
____
____
_____
0.028 _____
_____
___ 0.025
PoolLength (ft)
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
-----
_____
____ ____
_-__ ____ _____ -----
Pool to Pool Spacing (
-----
_____
-----
_____
_____
____
_____ ____
_____
_____
24
____
_____
60 _____
_____
___ 64.0
-----
Pool Max Dept t
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
2.4 _____
_____
_____ 2.5
Pool Volume (ft)
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
-----
_____
Substrate and Transport Parameters
_____
____ ____
_____
SC % / Sa% / G%/ B% / Be%
_____
_____
____
_____
_____
____
____ ____
____
____
____
- _____
____
____
_____
___
____
____
_____ ____
___
____ _____
_____ ____ ____ ___
' d I6 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
-----
-----
-----
-----
0.15 / 0.27 / 0.34 / 0.75 / 1.39
Reach Shear Stress (competency) Ib/ft
_____
_____
-----
-----
_____
___
____ ___
_____
-----
___
____ ____
___
___
_____
----------
- -
----- _____
______ ______
-------_
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
_____ ____
_____
_
-----_____
____
___ _____
-__
____
_____
____
_____
_____
_____----------_
_____
___ _____
___ ____ _____ ___
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
_____ ___
_____
-----
____-
__ ____
_____
____
_____
____
____
_____
_____ ____
____
___ ____
----- ____ ___ -----
Additional Reach Parameters
-
Drainage Area (SM)
____ 0.38
- _____
____
____
_____
___
____
____
0.38 ____
___
____ ____
_____ 0.38 ____ ____
Impervious cover estimate (o
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
---- -----
_____
_____
_____
__-
-----
_____
----- -----
RosgenClassificatio
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
-----
_____ E
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
C5
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
C5 _____
_____
___ _____
-------_
_____ C5 ______
BFVelocity (fps
----
3.4
4.0
`----
----
-----
----- 3.9
-----
-----
3.5
----- -----
5
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
4 -----
-----
---- -----
----- ----- ---- ----
BF Discharge (cfs
____
27.6
44.6
-__
_____
-_
____ 44.6
_____
____
_-
___ _____
__
____
_____
____
___
_____
44.6 _____
____
__-_ _____
___ ___
ValleyLen
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
-_
_____ _____
____
____
_____
____ _____
____
_____
_____
_____
___
____
_-__ ____
_____
____ ____
_-__ 271.1 _____ -----
Channel length (ft
_____ 397
____
____
___ _____
_____
____
_____
_____
___
_____
266 ____
____
----- _____
____ 324.3
_____
----- 1.18
_____
-----
1.1
_____ -----
1.3
-----
-----
----
----
-----
1.22 -----
----
----- ----
----- 1.2
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft
_____
____
____
_____
____
_____ 0.0028
_____
____
-___
____ ____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
0.022 _____
_____
____ ____
_____ 0.0168 _____ -----
BF
BF slope (ft/ft)
_____
_____
_____
_____
_
-_-_
___ 0.0050
-----
0.002
___ ____
0.015
-___
_____
___
___
-----
0.0165 ____
__
____ _____
_____ 0.0201
Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres
____
_____
___
____
_____
____
____ _____
____
___
____
____ _____
_____
________
_____
____
____
____
_____ _____
___
----- -----
_____
BEHIVL% / L% / M% / H% / VH% / E%
__________
_____
_____
_____
_____
____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____ _____ ___
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
_____
____
____
__--_
_____
___
___ ___
____
____
___
_____ _____
_____
____
_____
___
_____
____ ____
____
___ _____
____ ____ ____ -----
Biological
Biological or Other
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
1 - Pre -Existing Condition measurment taken on existing sandbed riffle
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96074)

Table 10 continued. Baseline Stream Summary
Thomas Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 96074
Reach 2 - Length 2,126 ft
Reference
Reach(es) Data
Parameter
USGS Gauge
Regional Curve
Pre -Existing Condition
Design
As -built
Little Beaver Creek
(Wake County)
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
LL
UL
Eq.
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Nlin
Mean Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med Max 'SD
n
Min
Mean
Med Max SD n
BF Width (ft)
_____
11.6
11.9
_____
6.5
_____
_____
9.4
_____
____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
qy
_____
----- 10.4 _____
-----
10.2
10.3
----- 10.4 ----- -----
FloodproneWidth (ft
- ____
-----
-----
-----
9.0
- ____
- ____
13.2
_____
_____
_____
____ -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
>18
----- ---- -----
-----
38.2
58.5
----- 74.5 --- ----
BF Mean Depth (ft)
_____
1.2
LS
_____
0,6
____
_____
1.2
_____
_____
_-_
___ ____
_____
____
_____
0,7
___
_____ 0.7 ____
_-
0.7
0.8
____ 1.0 _____ _____
BF Max Dept O
_
-----_____
_____
_____
_____
1,6
___
____
2,6
____
___
____
____ _____
_____
_____
0.8
____
____ 1.0 _____
__-
1.0
1.2
-----' 1.5 ----- ____
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft) )
-----
6.0
7.7
-----
7.7
-----
----
15.7
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
6.0
-----
----- 7.7 -----
-----
7.4
8.6
-----
----- 10.2 ----- -----
Width/Depth Ratio
_____
_____
_____
_____
3,q
-__
___
5,q
_____
___
10.0
____ _____
15.0
___
_____
14.0
-__
_____ 14.0 ____
----
10.1
12.5
---- 14.8 ____ -----
Entrenchment Ratio
-----
1.4
---
1.4
----
>2.2
----
-----
----
>2.2
----- ---- -----
----
3.7
5.7
----- 6.2 ----- -----
Bank Height Ratio
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
1.0
____
1.0
1.0
_____ 1.0 ___ -----
d50(mm)
_____
_____
_____
_____
_-_
-_
__-_
_____ ____ ____ -----
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-'--
-----
----
-----
-----
---- ---
----
-----
-----
32.0
_____
_-__ ____
45.0
__-
_____
56.6
----- ----- --- -----
---Ra
ms of Curvature (ft)
Radius
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
_____
_____
_____
____
____
_____
17.0
_____
_____ 30.0 _____
____
_____
22.0
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft
-----
----
-----
-----
----
-----
-----
-----
----
-----
2.0
----- -----
3.0
-----
----
2.0
-----
---- 3.0 -----
----
-----
2.1
---- ----- ---- -----
Meander er ave engt
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
_____
____
____ _____
___
____
_____
75.0
___
_____ 107.0 _____
____
___
83.2
Meander Width Rati
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
-___
-----
_____
___
7.0
-___ ____
14.0
-----
_____
3.3
_-_
_____ 4.7 ____
_____
_-_
5.5
_-__ ----- ----- -----
Profile
RiffleLength (ft
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
-----
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
----- _____ _____
_____
____
17.7
_____ _____ ----- -----
__-Riffle
RiffleSlope (ft/ft
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
0.0094
_____
_____ 0.02 _____
_____
_____
0.012
Pool Length (ft
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
____ ___ _____ -----
Pool to Pool Spacing (
_____
____
_____
_____
_____
____
____
_____
____
____
____
____ _____
_____
_____
_____
25
____
____ 75 _____
____
____
50.8
-----
Pool Max Dep O
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
1 .7
_____
_____ 19 _____
.
_____
_____
17
.
_____ _____ _____ -----
PoolVolume (ft)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____ -----
Substrate and Transport Parameters
____
_____
____
____
____ ___ _____ ____
SC%/Sa%/G%/B%/Be%
___-
_____
_____
____
_____
-__
_____
____
_____
___
____
____ _____
-_
____
_____
___
_____ ____ _____
____
____
_____
____ ___ ___ ----
d
' d 16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
-----
----
-----
-----
0.11 / 0.22
/ 0.32 / 0.85 / 1.89
20.2 /
47.6 / 62.5 / 133.1 / 173.1
Reach Shear Stress (competency) Ib/ft
____
_____
____
___
_____
____
____
____
____
-----
_____
-_ ____
-__
____
_____
____
_____
____ _____ ____
___
____
____
_____ ___ ----- -----
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
---
----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
Sucam Power (transport capacity) W/m
_____
-----
_____
___
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
-----
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
____
_____
_____
____ _____ _____
____
_____
_____
_____ _____ ----- -_--
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
_____
_____
_____
____
0.153
-_ _
_____
0.275
_____
____
_-_
___ _____
-_
____
_____
_____
___
_____ 0.275 _____
____
_-__
_____
___
____ 0.275 -----
Impervious
Impernous cover estimate o
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
____
____
____ ____
____
____-
_____
_____
____
_____ _____
----- -----
Rosgen Classification,_____
_____
____
_____
G5c
____
_____
F5
_____
__-_
___
____ _____
C5
____
_____
_____
____
_____ C5 _____
_____
--_-
__-
____ C5 _-_ --_-
BF Velocity (fps)
-----
3.2
3.9
----
3.8
-----
-----
3.9
-----
-----
3.5
----- -----
5
----
-----
3.8
----
----- 3.9 -----
----
---
-----
----- ----- ---- -----
BFDischarge c s
-----
17.8
29.7-----22.9----
-----
_____
23.0
_____
_____ 29.7
_____
_____
----- ____ _____
ValleyLen
----
---
--
--
-----
----
-----
----
----
-----
----
--- ----
--'-
----
-----
--
---
----- ----- ----
--
----
-----
----- 2549.3 ----- -----
Channel length (8
----
1,995
----
--- -----
-----
-----
-----
----
----
---- 1,089 -----
---
----
---
---- 3413.7 ---
-----
1.17
___--___
-----
-----
1.2
---- _____
1.5
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ 1.20 _____
_____
___
__-
_____ 1.3 ----- -----
Water Surface lope (Channel) (ft/ft
-----
---
----
-----
-----
0.0082
--
---
-----
----
----
---- -----
-----
---
-----
0.0047
---
----- 0.0083 ----
--------
--
---
---- 0.0092
BF slope (ft/ft)
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
0.0098-----
---
----
_____
0.002
____ _____
0.01
____
_____
____
_____
_____ 0.01 _____
____
_____
_____
_____ 0.0123 _____ _____
Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres
____
____
_____
_____
_____
___
___
____
_____
___
___
___ _____
__________
____----- _____
____
---
_____
_____ ___ ----- _
---
BEHI VL o L% M% H% VH o E%
____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
__-
____
__-
-__
_-_
____ _____
____
____
_____
_____ -----
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
_____
_____
____
____
_____
Biological or Othei
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
-----
m
1 - Pre -Existing Condition measurent taken on existing sandbed riffle, As -Built measurement taken on constructed
rock riffle
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96074)

Table 10 continued. Baseline Stream Summary
Thomas Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 96074
Reach 3 - Length 1,031 ft
Reference
Reach(es) Data
Parameter
USGS Gauge
Regional Curve
Pre -Existing Condition
Design
As -built
Thomas Creek Site Upper Reach 4 (On-site)
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
LL
UL.
Eq.
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
ra.
Min
Mean
Med Max SD n
_____
7,0
_____
___
7.5
8.4
_____ 9.3 _____ _____
Floodprone Width (ft
_____
____
_____
_____
6.7
_____
_____
9.5
_____
_____
-----
_____
____
-----
_____
_____
_____
>16
_____
____
_____
____
37.3
46.3
_____ 55.3 ____ -----
BEcan Depth
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
p,7
_____
____
_____
_____
0.6
0.7
_____ 0.8 ____ ____
BF Max Depth (ft)
_____
_____
___
.____
1.0
_____
-----
1.5
-----
-----
_____
_____
-----
_____
-----
_____
_____
0.7
-----
_-__
_____
_____
0.9
0.9
_____ 1..29 _____ -----
BECross-sectional Area
-----
26.8
36.2----3.0----
-----
4.3
-----
-----
_____
4.1
____
4.5
5.9
_____ 7.3 ____
Width/DepthRan
_____
_____
_____
_____
.5
____
____
.7
_____
_____
1
____
----
140
.
-----
-----
110
.
120
.
-----
.
130
____
-----
11.9
12.1
----- 12.3 ----- -----
Entrenchment Rati
_ ____
_ ____
_ ____
_ ____
1.5
____
_ ____
1.8
_____
_____
____
____
_____
>2.2
____
_____
____
>2.2
_____
____
_____
____
5.0
5.5
____ 5.9 --- ----
Bank Height Ratio_____
_____
_____
_____
2.3
-----
_____
3.2
_____
_____
1.0
_____
_____
1.1
_____
_____
_____
1.0
_____
_____
_____
_____
1.0
1.0
_____ 1.0 _____ -----
d50(mm
_____
-----
_____
-----
_____
____
_____
_____
____
_____
_____ _____ -----
___Pattern
Pattern
Channel a twt [
____
____
_____
____
_____
___
____
_____
____
___
____
____
_____
____
_____
_____
18
____
____
28
_____
____
_____
32.2
-----
Radius of Curvature )
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
-----
-----
15
-----
-----
21
-----
-----
-----
19.1
_____ _____ _____ _____
Rc:Bankfull width(ft/ft
-----
____
_____
-----
_____
___
__
____
_____
-----
2
_____
_____
3
____
_____
2.0
___
_____
2.7
____
____
____
2.3
___ _____ ____ -----
Meander Wavelength (ft
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
__-
____
_____
_____
____
___
_____
____
____
_____
70
_____
_____
80
_____
____
____
77.5
_____ ____ _____ -----
__-Mean
er Width Rati
Meander
____
____
_____
____
_____
___
____
____
_____
____
_____
____
____
_____
2.6
____
_____
4.0
_____
____
____
3.8
Profile
RiffleLength Hl
-----
_____
_____
____
_____
____
____
____
____
___
_____
___
_____
____
____
_____
___
____
____
_____
____
___
____
12.5
_____ ___ ___ -----
Riffle Slope (ft/ft_____
____
_ __
_____
-----
1.1
----
2.0
-----
-----
----
0.031
-----
----
-----
---
-----
0.013
----- ----- ----- -----
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
Pool to Pool Spacing (ft
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
-----
-----
-----
-----
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
.
280
_____
_____
.
480
_____
_____
_____
472
.
_____ _____ _____ -----
Pool Max Depth (ft)
_____
____
-----
___
_____
___
___
_____
____
1.5
_____
____
_____
____
___
1.3
Pool Volume (f[)
_____
____
_____
____
_____
____
____
_ -----
Substrate and Transport Parameters
`
Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%
_____
_____
_____
____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
___
_____
_________
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ ----- ____
SC % / Sa% / G% / B% / Be%
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
---
----
----
----
---
---------
-----
----
-----
----
----
-----
-----
----- ---- ----- ---
' dl6/d35/d50/d84/d95_____
_____
_____
-----
.014/.029/0.41/1.16/3.05
Reach Shear Stress (competency) Ib/ft
____
_____
____
_____
_____
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
____
____
____
____
____
___
_____
____
___
_____
___
___
___
_____
____
___
___
_____
_____
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
__________
_____
_____
_____
____
____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
-----
-----
-----
----
-----
----
---
0.083
-----
-----
---
----
-----
-----
----
-----
----
-----
-----
0.083
-----
---
-----
-----
----- 0.083 ---- ----
Impervious cover estimate (%
____
____
_____
-----
_____
__
____
____
_____
_____
____
___
_____
____
____
_____
____
____
_____
_____
_____
____
____
_____
_____ ____ ___ ____
Rosgen Classificatio
____
_____
__ __
____
----
B5c
-----
E/CS
----
-----
---
---
---
E/C5
-----
---
-----
-----
----- C5 ----- -----
____
3.8
_____
_____ ___ ____ -----
BE Discharge (cfs)
_____
9.4
16.5
_____
12.2
-----
_____
16.5
____
_____
_____
_____
____
-----
_____
_____
____
_____
_____
16.5
_____
__-
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____ -----
ValleyLengt
_____
_____
____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
_____
____
____
_____
-----
_____ 873 ____ -----
Channel length (ft
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
1,067
_-_ __
_____
____-
_____
-----
-----
-----
_____
-----
_____
-----
1,231
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ 1,031 _____ -----
Sinuosity
_____
_____
1.20____
_____
1.50____
_____
____
___
_____
1.20
_____
____
____
_____
__ 1.2 ----- -----
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (f /ft.
_____
____
_____
_____
_____
____
-___
0.0150
_____
_____
__-_
-___
-___
_____
-----
_____
_____
____
____
0.0150
___-
_____
___
___
_'__ 0.0092 ----- _____
-----
0.0182
-----
-
0.005
_____
0.015
____
-----
-----
----
_____
0.0182
_____
_____
__
-----
-----___
0.0123 ----- ____
BankfullFloodplain Area (acres'_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
-----
_____
-----
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
_____
_____ _____ ____ ___-
BEHIVL%/L%/M%/H%/VH%/E%
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
_____
_____
____
____
_____
____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
-----
_____
_____ ____ ____ -----
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
----
---
----
-----
-----
----
----
____
_____
_____
___
___
_____
____
____
Biological or Othei
_____
____
_____
___
_____
___
_____
____
_____
_____
__
1 - Pre -Existing Condition measumrent taken on existing sandbed riffle
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96074)

Table 10 continued. Baseline Stream Summary
Thomas Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 96074
Reach 4 - Length 1,238 it
Reach(es) Dataon
Parameter
USGS Gauge
Regional Curve
Pre -Existing
Condition
Design
As-buil[
Thomas Creek Site Upper Reach 4 (On-site)
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
Min Mean
Med Max SD n
BE Width (ft)
_____
11.6
11.9
____
_____
____
____
q,5
_____
____
___
___ _____
_____
_____ _____
___
6.3
_-__
___
____ ___
_____ 6.8
____ ____ _____
Floodprone Width (ft
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
9,9
_____
_____
_____
---- -----
-----
---- -----
-----
>13
----
---
---- -----
----- 21.9
_____ ____ _____ -----
BEcan Depth ffl)
-----
1.2
1.5
_____
_____
____
_____
_____
_____
0.5
_____
____
_____ _____
----- 0.5
__- ____
BFMax Depth (ft)
_____
_____
____
_____
_____
-----
_____
1.4
-----
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____
_____
0.6
-----
____
_____ _____
____ 0.9
_____ _____ _____ _____
BE Cross-sectional Area ( z
_____
_____
3,1
_____
_____
_____
_____
.1
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____
_____
.
31
_____
____
_____ _____
--_- 36
.
_____ ____ _____ _____
Width/Depth Ratio
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
-__
____
6.4
-----
_____
10.0
___ _____
14.0
____ _____
12.0
____
-----
14.0
____ ___
____ 12.7
___ ___ _____ -----
Entrenchment Rah
____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
____
2.2
____
>2.2
_____ _____
____
>2.1
____
___
_____ ____
_____ 3.2
_____ -_ _____
BankHeight Ratio
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
3.0
_____
_____
1.0
_____ _____
1.1
_____ _____
_____
1.0
_____
____
_____ _____
_____ 1.0
_____ ____ _____ _____
d50(mm)
_____
_____
_____
____
_____
____
___ ____
-__ ____ _____ -----
Pattern
Channel Beltwtd[ (
____
_____
_____
_____
_____
-_
____
____
_____
_____
____
___ _____
____
____ _____
20.0
____
_____
29.0
_____ ____
---- 34.0
_____ ___ _____ -----
Radius of Curvature (ft)
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
____
____
__-
-__
_-_
-__ _____
-__
____ _____
12.0
___
__-
18.0
____ _-_
____ 16.9
_____ ____ _____ _____
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft
____
_____
_____
____
_____
____
____
____
____
____
2.0
____
3.0
_____
2.0
____
3.0
_____ 2.5
_____ -----
Meander Wavelength (ft
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
_____
_____
____
-----
____ ____
__-_
_____ -----
60.0
-----
_____
75.0
_____ ____
_____ 66.2
_____ _____ _____ -----
Meander Width Rani
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
3.5
_____ _____
8;0
_____ _____
3.2
_____
_____
4.6
_____ _____
_____ 5.0
_____ _____ ----- -----
Profile
1
Riffle Length (ft
-----
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
_____
____
_____
_____
__-
____ _____
___
____ _____
____
___
_____
____
_____ ____
____ 15.4
Riffle Slope (ft/ft
-----
----
----
----
----
----
----
-----
-----
----
----
---- ----
----
----- -----
----
----
---
0.029
---- -----
--- 0.035
--- ---- ---- -----
Pool Length (
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
_____
---- _____
_____
'-'-
--"-
----
Pool to Pool Spacing
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
_____ _____
_____
_____ -----
28-
----
-----
43
----- ----
---- 42.8
_____ _____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____
____
_____
_____
1.5
_____ _____
_____ 1.3
Pool Volume (fl~)
____
_____
_____
_____
_____
-__
_____
--_-
Substrate and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
_____
____
___
____
_____
____
_____
____
_____
____
___
_
___
____ _-
___ _____
____ ____ ----- _--
SC% / SA. / G% / B% / Be%
-----
----
----
-----
----
-----
----
-----
----
----
-----
---- ----
-----
----- -----
---
'----
----
-----
---
----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---
dl6 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
-----
-----
-----
Reach Shear Stress (competency) Ib/ft
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
__-
____
_____
_____
____
-_ ____
_____
____ _____
___
____
_____
_____
_____ ____
_____ _____
_____ ____ _____ -----
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankroll (Rosgen Curve
-----
----
-----
-----
-----
----
-----
--
---------
_____
____
____ ____
____
___ _____
____
___
_____
_____
____
--- -----
----- --- ---- ----
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m
__-
___
___
_____
-----
____
____
____
_-_
____ _____
_____ -__ _____ -----
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
-----
____
0.056
____
_____
_____
____ ____
-----
_____ _____
____
-----
_____
0.056
_____ __-
_____ _____
_____ 0.056 _____ -----
Impervious cover estimate (%
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____-----__
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
__ ___-----
_____
_____ _____ ----- _--
RosgenClassificatio
_____
-----
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
B5c
-----
_____
_____
_____ -----
C5
_____ _____
_____
_____
-----
C5
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____ C5 _____ ____
.
5
_____
3.6.
_____ _____
____ -
BF Discharge c s
----
17.8
29.7
-----
-----
-----
-----
1LI
----- -----
---
_____
_____ _____
_____ ______ _____ _-_-____
ValleyLengt
_____
-----
____
_____
_____
____
_____
____
_____
_____
___
____ _____
____
____ _____
_____
____
_____
____
_____ _____
____ _____
----- 285.55 _____ -----
___Channel
Channellength(ft
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
1,197
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
-----
1,201
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____ 342.91 _____ _____
____
_____
_____ _____
1.50
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
1.13
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____ 1.20 _____ -----
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft
Water
___
___
___
-__
_____
_____
_____
0.0121
-----
___
___
_____ _____
____
____ _____
_____
_____
-----
0.015
____ _____
____ _____
_____ 0.0156
-----
0.0105
----
-
0.005
_____
0.015
_____ -----
-----
-----
____
0.024
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____ 0.0188 __-
Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres
____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
_____
_____
_____
_____
__________
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____
BEHI VL% / L% / M% / H% / VH% / E%
__-
_-
____
___
_____
____
____
____
_____
-----
__
_____ _____
___
____ _____
_-_
___
_____
____
____ _-_
_____ _____
_____ ____ ___ -_--
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Othei
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
_____
_____
____
____
____
1 - Pre -Existing Condition ra-uratent taken on existing sandbed riffle
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96074)

Table 10 continued. Baseline Stream Summary
Thomas Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 96074
Reach 5 - Length 1,169 ft
Reaches) Dataon
Parameter
USGS Gauge
Regional Curve
Pre-I?xis6ng
Condition
Design
As-buil[
Little Beaver Creek
(Wake County)
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
Min Mean
Med Max SD n
_____4.4
_____
_____
_____
6.8
_____ ____ _____
____
_____ 8.6
____ ____ _____ _____
Floodprone Width (ft
_____
_____
_____
_____
7,8
_____
_____
130
_____
_____
_____
---- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
>16
---- --- ----
-----
----- 49.9
_____ ____ _____ -----
BEcan Depth Hit
-----
---1.0 -
_____
_____
_____
0.5
_____ ____ _____
_____
----- 0.9
__- ____ ____
BFMax Depth (ft)
_____
_____
____
_____
0.8
_____
_____
1.6
-----
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
0.7
----- _-__ _____
_____
_____ 1.2
_____ _____ _____ _____
BE Cross-sectional Area (z
_____
_____
q,0
_____
3,q
_____
_____
,5
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
3.6
_____ _____
_-
_____
_____ 6.8
_____ ____ -__ _____
-----
--
13.0
----- -- ----
--
----- 8.4
-- --- ----- -----
EntrenchmentRati
____
_____
_____
_____
1.8
____
5.4
____
____
____
-__ ____
>2.2
_____
_____
____
>2.3
____ ___ _____
____
___ 6.6
_____ -_ ----- -----
Bank Height Ratio
_____
_____
_____
_____
2.4
_____
____
1,0
_____
1.0
_____
1.1
_____
1,0
_____
d50(amm)
_____
_____
_____
____
_____
____
----- _____
-__ ____ _____ -----
Pattern
Channel Beltwtd[ (ft,
____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
___ _____
_____
____
_____
28
____
_____ 45 _____
____
---- 58.6
_____ ___ _____ -----
____Ra
ms of Curvature
Radius
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
____
_____
14
__- 20 _____
_-_
_____ 17.5
_____
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft
____
_____
_____
-----
_____
____
____
____
_'__
____
_____
_____
2
_'__ 3
_____ 2.0
_____ ___ _____ -----
Meander Wavelength (ft
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
_____
_____
____
_____
____ ____
_____
_____
_____
60
_____
_____ 90 _____
__-
_____ 81.5
_____ _____ _____ -----
Meander Width Rati
____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
3.5
_____ _____
8
_____
_____
4.1
_____
____ 6.6 ____
_____
_____ 6.8
_____ _____ ____ -----
Profile
Riffle Length (ft
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
_____
____
_____
_____
__-
____ _____
___
____
_____
_____
___
_____ _____ _____
____
___ 15.2
Riffle Slope (ft/ft
-----
----
----
----
----
----
----
-----
----
----
----
---- ----
----
-----
----
-----
0.0265
--- --- ----
-----
--- 0.0196
--- ---- ---- -----
Pool Length (
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
_____
-"-
-'-'
_____
_____
____
_____ _-- '---
Pool to Pool Spacing (ft
_____
_____
____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
25
_____
----- 55 _____
_____
_____ 57.8
_____ _____ _____ -----
Pool Max Depth (ft)
________
_____
_____
_____
____
-----
-----
-----
___
____
____ -----
-----
-----
-----
___
----------
1.3
----- _- -----
-----
----- 1.7
----- _________
Pool Volume (f[)
-----
_____
_____
_____
_____
-__
_____
--_-
Substrate and Transport Parameters
Ri% l Ru°lo l P % l G % l S%____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
_____
__
-----___
____
SC%/Sa%/G%/B%/Be%
-----
----
----
-----
----
-----
----
-----
----
----
-----
---- ----
-----
-----
-----
---
-----
---- ----- ----
---
----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----
' dl / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
-----
-----
-----
---
17.6 /
36.9 / 53.7 / 130.6 / 184.8
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
__-
____
_____
_____
____
-_ ____
_____
____
_____
___
____
_____ _____
____
_____ _____
_____ ____
Max part siu (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve
-----
-----
----
-----
-----
----
-----
--
---------
_____
____
____ ____
____
___
_____
____
___
_____ _____ ____
--- -----
----- --- ---- ----
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/an
__-
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
__-
____
____
_-_
____ _____
_____ ____ _____ -----
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
-----
-----
-----
----
0.097
-----
----
0.083
----
-----
----
----- ----
-----
-----
-----
---
-----
---- 0.097 -----
---
--- -----
----- 0.097 ---- ----
Impervious cover estimate (%
_____
_____
____
____
____
_____
_____-----____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ __
----- _____
_____ _____ __- -_--
Rosgen Classification
_____
_____
_____
_____
B5c
_____
_____
C
-----
_____
_____
_____ -----
C5
_____
_____
-----
_____
----- C5 _____
_____
_____ _____
_____ E5 _____ -----
BEVelocity s
____
3.4
3.7____
_____ 3.3 _____
____
_____ _____
BF Discharge (cfs)
_____
9.4
14.7
_____
14.4
_____
_____
16.5
____
_____
___
____ _____
____
_____
_____
_____
____
____ 12.0 ____
_____
____ ____
____ ____ _____ -----
ValleyLengt
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
_____
____
_____
_____
____
____ _____
____
____
_____
_____
____
_____ __- _____
_____
____ _____
__- 726.02 _____ -----
Channel length (ft
----
-----
----
---
-----
-----
-----
1,022
-----
----
-----
----- -----
----
-----
-----
----
----
----- 1,828 -----
----
--- -----
----- 1069.32 ---- ----
____
1.31
____
--'-'
1.42
____
___
1.20
_____ _'_'
1.50
""'
_____
____
_____
""' 1.42 ""'
""-
--"' ""'
""' 1.47 ""' "'--
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (fUft
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
0.0177
-----
___
___
_____ _____
_-_
____
_____
_____
_____
----- 0.0124 __-
_____
____ ____
____ 0.0123
BE slope ( )
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
_____
0.0133
____
_ ___
0.005
____ _____
0.015
_____
_____
_____
_____
____ 0.0134 ____
_____
_____ _____
_____ 0.0185
Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_______
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _
BEHI VL% / L% / M% / H% / VH% / E%
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
____
____
_____
-----
__
_____ _____
___
____
_____
_-_
____
_____ ____
_-_
____
____ ____ ___ -----
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
---
----
----- -----
----- ---- ----- -----
Biological or Othei
____
_____
_____
____
_____
____
_____
_____
____
____
___ _
1 - Pre -Existing Condition measurment taken on existing sandbed riffle
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96074)

Table 10 continued. Baseline Stream Summary
Thomas Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 96074
Reach 6 - Length 1,776 ft
Parameter
USGS Gauge
Regional Curve
Pre-I?xis6ng Condition
Reaches) Dataon
Design
As-buil[
Thomas Creek Site Upper Reach 4 (On-site)
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
Min Mean
Med Max SD n
____
___ 4.6
----- ___
____
___
_____ 6.3
____ _____ _____ _____
Floodprone Width (ft
_____
_____ _____
_____
4.5
_____ _____ 6.5 _____
_____
_____
____ _____
_____ _____ _____
_____ >q
_____ ___
____
_____
_____ 19.4
_____ ____ _____ -----
BE Mean Depth (ft
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
____---------------- 0.60 _____
_____
____
____ _____
___ ___ _____
_____ 0.3
_____ ____
____
_____
--- 0.3
__- ____ ----- -----
BEMax Depth (ft)
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____ 0.9 -----
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____ _____
_____ 0.4
----- _-__
_____
_____
_____ 0.6
_____ _____ _____ _____
BE Cross-sechon Area ('
_____
_____ _____
_____
1,g
_____ _____ 2,5 _____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____ _____
_____ 15
.
____ _-
_____
_____
_____ 2.1
_____ ____ _____ _____
Ratio-----
----- -----
---
0.9
--- ---- 5.8 ----
----
12.0
--- ----
18.0 ---- _____
__ 14.0
___-_ --
----
--
_____ 18.7
___ ___ _____ -----
Entrenchment Rah
____
____ ____
____
1.q
____ ____
____ 1.5
____
1.4
-__ ____
2.2 _____ _____
____ >2.0
____ ___
_____
____
___ 3.1
_____ -_ _-__ -----
Bank Height Ratio
Bank
_____
_____ _____
_____
2.9
_____ ____ 4,4
_____
1.0
_____
1,1
_____ 1,0
_____
d50(mm)
-----
____ ____
_____
_____
----- _____
-__ ____ _____ -----
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft
_____
_____ -----
-----
_____
_____
-_ ____ ________
_____
____
___ _____
_____ ____ _____
____ ____
_____ _____
_____
----- _____
--
___
_____ _____ _____
Radius of Curvature (ft)
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
____ ____ ____ __-
---
_-_
--- -----
--- ---- -----
---
-----
-----
---
____ _____
_____ ____ _____ _____
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft
----
---- ---
----
_____
'-'- -'-' -'-' -"-
-"_
__"'
_-'
---- _____
_____ --' ---- -----
MeanderWavelength (ft
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ ____ _____
_____
____ ____
_____
_____
__-
_____ _____
_____ _____ _____ -----
Meander
Meander Width Rani
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____
Profile
Riffle Length (ft
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
____ _____ ____ _____
_____
__-
____ _____
___ ____ _____
_____ ____
_____ ____
_____
____
____ 12.5
Riffle Slope (ft/ft
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
____ ____ _____ _____
____
____
____ ____
____ _____ _____
_____ 0.04
_____ ___
____
_____
___ 0.027
____ ____ _____ -----
Pool Length (
_____
____ _____
_____
_____
____ _____
Poolto Pool Spacing (ft
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____
_____
____
_____ _____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____
----- _____
_____
_____
_____ 34,6
_____ _____ ____ -----
Pool Max Depth (11)
_________
_____
_____
_____
____ _____ _____ _____
____
_____
____ _____
_____ _____ _____
_____ 1.0
_____ _-
_____
_____
_____ 1.2
_____ _________
-----
Pool Volume (fit)
-----
_____ _____
_____
_____
-__ _____
--_-
Substrate and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
_____
____ ____
____
_____
____ _____ ____ _____
____
___
_
___ _____
____
_-
___ _____
__- ____ ----- _--
SC% / SA. / G% / B% / Be%
-----
----- -----
-----
----
----- ---- ----- ----
----
-----
---- ----
----- ----- -----
--- -----
---- -----
---
----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---
dl6 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
-----
----- -----
----
-----
Reach Shear Stress (competency) Ib/ft
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
____ __- ____ _____
_____
____
-_ ____
_____ ____ _____
___ ____
_____ _____
_____
____
_____ _____
_____ ____ _____ -----
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
---- ----- -- ---------
_____
____
____ ____
____ ___ _____
____ ___
_____ _____
____
--- -----
----- --- ---- ----
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m
__-
_____ _____
_____
_____
____ ____ ____
____
_-_
____ _____
_____ ____ _____ -----
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
_____
_____ _____
_____
0.019
_____ _____ 0.050 ____
_____
_____
_____ ____
----- _____ _____
____ _____
_____ 0.05
_____
__-
_____ _____
_____ 0.05 _____ -----
Impervious cover estimate (%
_____
____ ____
-----
_____
_____ _________
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____
----- _____
_____ _____ __- -_--
Rosgen Classification
_____
_____ _____
_____
B5c
_____ _____ G5c -----
_____
_____
_____ -----
B5c _____ _____
----- _____
----- B5c
_____
-----
_____ _____
_____ C5 _____ ____
_____
6
_____ 3.3
_____
____
_____ _____
BFDischarge (cfs)
_____
_____ _____
_____
5.1
_____ _____ 10.2 ____
_____
____
____ _____
____ _____ _____
_____ ___
_____ 12
____
_____
____ ____
____ ____ _____ -----
___Valley
ValleyLengt
_____
____ ____
____
_____
____ _____ ____ _____
_____
___
____ _____
____ ____ _____
_____ ____
_____ __-
_____
_____
____ _____
____ 201 _____ -----
Channel length
----
----- ----
---
-----
----- ----- 1,828 -----
-----
-----
----- -----
---- ---- -----
---- ----
----- 1,808
-----
----
--- -----
----- 210 ----- -----
__ _____ ____
_____
_____ ____-
1.30 _____ _____
_____ _____
_____ 1.05
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____ 1.04 _____ -----
Water
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/fi
_____
_____ _____
_____
0.0148
_____ _____ 0.0250 -----
___
___
_____ _____
____ ____ _____
_____ _____
----- 0.030
-----
0.0250
----- ----- 0.0361 ----
-
0.005
____-
0.015 _____ -----
----- -----
____ 0.033
_____
_____
_____ ____
_______-
Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ ____ _____ _____
_____
_____
__________
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____
BEHI VL% / L% / M% / H% / VH% / E%
_____
_____ _____
____
_____
----- ____ ____ _____
-----
__
_____ _____
___ ____ _____
_-_ ___
_____
____
_-_
____
____ _____ ----- -----
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ---
----
----- -----
----- ---- ----- -----
Biological or Othei
____
_____ _____
___
_____
_____ _____ _____ ____
____
___ _
1 - Pre -Existing Condition measurment taken on existing sandbed riffle
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96074)

Table 10 continued. Baseline Stream Summary
Thomas Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 96074
Reach 7 - Length 647 ft
Reaches) Dataon
Parameter
USGS Gauge
Regional Curve
Pre-I?xi06ng Condition
Design
As -built
Thomas Creek Site Upper Reach 4 (On-site)
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
Min Mean Med Max SD n
_____
_____ 4.6 _____ _____ _____ _____
FloodproneWidth (ft
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ 5.4 _____ _____
_____ ____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ ____ _____
_____ _____ _____ ____ _____ -----
an ept
BEMe-
____-
_____ _____ _____
_-___ ____ _____
_____ 0.3 _____ ____ ____ _____
_ -----
BEMax Depth (ft)
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ ----- _____ 0.6 ----- _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ 0.4 ----- _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
BECross-sectional Area (ft'
_____
----- _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ 1.6 _____ _____
_____ ____ _____ ____ _____ _____
_____ 1.5 _____ _____ ____ _____
____ _____ _____ ____ _____ _____
Width/Depth Ratio
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ —__ ____ 8.4 ----- _____
12.0 —_ ____ 18.0 ____ _____
____ 14.0 ----- ____ ____ ___
_____ _____ _____ —__ _____ -----
Entrenchment Rati
_____
___ ___ ____
_____ ____ ____ 1.5 ____
1.4 ____ 2;2
___ —_ ____ -----
Bank Height Ratio
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____ _____ ____ 4.2 _____
_____ _____ _____
1.0 _____ 1.1
_____ 1.0 _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ ____ _____ _____
d50(mm)
_____
_____ ----- _____
_____
____
_____ _____ —__ ____ _____ -----
pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft
____
____ ___ -----
_____ —_ ____ ____ _____ ____
___ _____ _____ _____ _____
____ _____ _____ _____ _____ ____
_____ _____ _____ ___ ____ -----
Radius of Curvature (ft)
Radius
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ ____ ____ ____ __— ---
--- ---- ----- ----- ----- -----
--- --- ----- -----_—_
_____ _____ _____ ____ _____ _____
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft
----
---- --- ----
_____ '-'— -'—' —'-' -"— —"_
__"'
_—'
----- ----- _____ --' ---- -----
Meander Wavelength (ft
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ ____ _____
____-
_____ __—
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
Meander Width Rati
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ __________
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
Profile
____ _____
____ ___ _____ ____ _____
Riffle Slope (ft/ft
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
____
_____
___ ___ _____ ____ _____ _____
Pool Length(
_____
----- _____ _____
----- ____ _____
_____
_____
Poolto Pool Spacing (ft
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ ----- _____ _____ ----- __________
_____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ ____-----_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ ________
_____
_____ 1.0 _____ ____ _____ _____
Pool Volume Hi')
____
_____ _____ _____
_____ —__ _____
--_-
Substrate and Transport Parameters
IL—
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
_____
_____ ____ ____
_____ ____ ____ ____ _____ ____
_
___ ___ _____
____ _—
___ _____ __— ____ ----- _--
SC % / Sa% / G% / B% / Be%
-----
----- ----- -----
---- ----- ---- ----- ---- ----
----- ---- ---- ----- ----- -----
---
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---
' d]6/d35/d50/d84/d95
---
.012/0.29/0.43/0.87/1.39
Reach Shear Stress (competency) Ib/
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ ____ _____ _____ _____ _____
____ —_ ____ _____ ____ _____
___ ____ _____ _____ ____
_____ _____ _____ ____ _____ -----
Max part size (oma) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve
-----
----- ----- -----
_____
----- ---- ----- -- ---------
____ ____ ____ ____ ___ _____
____ ___ _____ _____ ____
--- ----- ----- --- ---- ----
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m
__—
_____ _____ _____
_____ ____ __— ____
__-_ _—_
____ ----- _____ ____ _____ -----
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ ----- ____ 0.022 ____ ____
____ _____ ____ ----- _____ _____
____ _____ ____ 0.022 _____ __—
_____ _____ _____ 0.022 _____ -----
___Impervious
Imperviouscover estimate (%
_____
____ ____ ____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _________
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____
----- _____ _____ _____ ----- _--
RosgenClassificatio_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ B5 ----- _____
----- _____ ----- B5c _____ _____
----- _____ ----- B5c _____ -----
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ ____
_____ 6
___ _____ 3.33 _____ ____
_____ -----
BEDischarge (cfs)
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ ____ _____ 5.7 ____ _____
____ ____ _____ ____ _____ _____
_____ ___ _____ 5 ____ _____
____ ____ _-__ ____ _____ -----
___Valley
ValleyLengt
____
____ ____ ____
____- _____ _____
____ ____ _____ ____ ____ _____
_____ ____ _____ ____ _____ _____
____ _____ ____ ____ _
_____ ___
Channellength (ft
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ ----- _____ 646 _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
_____ _____ ----- 646 _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
----- 1.30 _____
_____ 1.11 _____ -----
_____ _____ _____
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ 0.025 ----- ___
___ _____ _____ ____ ____ _____
_____ _____ ----- 0.032
----- 0.015 _____
____ 0.036 ____ _____
_____ _____ _____
Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ ____ _____ _____ _____
_____ __________ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _ __
BEHI VL% / L% / M% / H% / VH% / E%
_____
_____ _____ _____
____ ____ ____ ____ _____ ____
_— _____ _____ ___ ____ _____
_—_ ___ _____ ____ _—_
____ ____ ____ ___ -----
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ---- ---
----
----- ----- ----- ---- ----- -----
Biological or Othei
-----
_____ _____ ____
_____ ____ _____ _____ ____ ____
___ _
1 - Pre -Existing Condition measurtnent taken on existing sandbed riffle
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96074)

Table 10 continued. Baseline Stream Summary
Thomas Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 96074
Reach Tl - Length 227 ft
Reach(es) Dataon
Parameter
USGS Gauge
Regional Curve
Pre -Existing
Condition
Design
As-buil[
Thomas Creek Site Upper Reach 4 (On-site)
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
Min Mean
Med Max SD n
BF Width (ft)_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
7.2
_____
_____
_____
_____ -----
_____ _____ -----
_____
7.0
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____ 8.5
_____ _____ _____ _____
FloodproneWidth (ft
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
10.8
_____
_____
_____
____ _____
_____ _____ _____
_____
____
____
_____
____ _____
_____ 30.6
_____ ____ _____ -----
BE Mean Depth (ft)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
____
_____
0.4
_____
_____
____
____ _____
____ ____ _____
_____
0.6
_____
____
_____ _____
----- 0.6
__- ____ ____ -----
BEMax Depth (ft)
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
-----
_____
0.7
-----
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____ _____
_____
0.7
-----
_____
_____ _____
____ 0.9
_____ _____ _____ -----
BE Cross-sectional Area (ft'
____
-----
____
____
_____
_____
_____
2.8
_____
-----
____
_____ _____
____ _____ _____
_____
3.8
_____
_____
_____ _____
----- 5.3
_____ ____ ----- _____
Wt ep Rab
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
-__
-___
,6
-----_____
----
12. 0
-- ---
180 ----
.
---
13.0
-----
----
---- ---
---- 13.6
- - --- ----- -----
Entrenchment Rati
-----
___
___
____
_____
____
____
1.5
____
1.4
____
2:2
-_ ----- -----
BankHeight Ratio
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
2.6
_____
_____
1.0
_____ _____
1.1 _____ _____
_____
1.0
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____ 1.0
_____ ____ _____ _____
____ _____
_____
____
_____
____
____
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft
-----
____
___
___
_____
-_
____
____
_____
____
____
___ _____
_____ ____ _____
____
____
_____
_____
_____ ____
---- 32.5
_____ ___ ____ -----
Radius of Curvature (fl)
----
----
-----
---
-----
----
----
----
---
---
---
---- -----
--- --- -----
13.5
---
---
18.0
----- ---
---- 14.0
----- ---- ----- -----
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft
____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
____
____
_'__
____
_____
-----
2.0
----
2.6
_____ 1.7
_____ ___ _____ -----
MeanderWavelength (ft
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
_____
_____
____
____-
____ ____
----- _____ _____
____
_____
_____
_____
_____ __-
_____ 48,0
_____ _____ _____ -----
MeanderWidth Rati
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____ 3.8
_____ _____ _____ -----
profile
Riffle Length (ft
____
_____
____
____
_____
____
_____
____
_____
____
__-
____ _____
___ ____ _____
_____
___
_____
____
_____ ____
____ 14.7
Riffle Slope (ft/ft
-----
-----
-----
---
----
----
----
-----
----
----
----
---- ----
---- ----- -----
-----
0.0135
---
---
---- -----
--- 0.0113
--- ---- ---- -----
Pool Length (
_____
____
_____
_____
-----
____
_____
-'-' _____
_____
---
Pool to Pool Spacing
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
-----
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
_____ _____
_____ _____ _____
25
_____
_-___
42
_____ _____
_____ 41.2
_____ _____ _____ -----
Pool Max Depth (it)
_________
_____
_____
_____
____
-----
-----
-----
____
_____
____ -----
----- ----- -----
____
1.4
-----
-----
----- -----
___ 1.4
----------
----- _________
Pool Volume (ft)
-----
_____
_____
_____
_____
-__
_____
Substrate and Transport Parameters
Ri% l Ru°lo l P % l G % l S%____
_____
____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
_____
__
-----___
____
SC% / SO/. / G% / B% / Be%
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
-----
-----
-----
----
----
-----
---- ----
----- ----- -----
---
-----
----
-----
---
----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---
dl6 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
-----
-----
-----
Reach Shear Stress (competency) Ib/ft
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
__-
____
_____
_____
____
-_ ____
_____ ____ _____
___
____
_____
_____
_____ ____
_____ _____
_____ ____ _____ -----
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
-----
--
---------
_____
____
____ ____
____ ___ _____
____
___
_____
_____
____
--- -----
----- --- ---- ----
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m
__-
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
____
____
__-_ _-_
____ -----
_____ ____ _____ -----
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
-----
____
0.077
____
_____
_____
_____ ____
----- _____ _____
____
_____
_____
0.077
_____ __-
_____ _____
_____ 0.077 _____ -----
Impervious cover estimate (%
_____
____
____
-----
_____
_____
_________------
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____ _ _--
RosgenClassificatio
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
B5c
-----
_____
_____
_____ -----
B5c _____ _____
-----
_____
-----
B5c
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____ C5 _____ -----
___BF
BFVelocity (fps)
-----
_____
_____
____
_____
-__
_____
5.0
_____
BF Discharge (cfs)
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
14.0_____
_____ _____
_____
___
13.9
____ _____
_____ _____
_-__ ____ _
_____ ___
ValleyLengt
____
____
____
____
-----
____
_____
____
_____
_____
___
____ _____
____ ____ _____
_____
____
_____
____
_____ -----
____ _____
___ 218 ___ -----
Channel en
----
-----
----
---
-----
-----
_____
242
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_-___
253
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____ 227 ----- -----
____-
1.30 _____
_____
1.16
_____ -----
_____ _____
_____ 1.04 _____ -----
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/fi
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
0.0203
-----
___
____
_____ _____
-___ __-_ _____
_____
_____
-----
0.004
___- _____
___- _____
___ -_- _____
-----
0.015 _____
____
0.005
_____ _____
_____ ____
_____ ____
BankfullFloodplain Area (acres
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
_____
_____
_____
_____
__________
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____
BEHI VL% / L% / M% / H% / VH% / E%
_____
_____
_____
____
_____
____
____
____
_____
-----
__
_____ _____
___ ____ _____
_-_
___
_____
____ _-_
____
____ _____ ____ -----
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
__-
____
____ _____
_____ ____ _____ -----
___Biological
Biologicalor Othei
-----
_____
_____
____
_____
____
_____
_____
____
____
___ _
1 - Pre -Existing Condition measurment taken on existing sandbed riffle
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96074)

Table 10 continued. Baseline Stream Summary
Thomas Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 96074
Reach T2 - Length 157 ft
Parameter
USGS Gauge
Regional Curve
Pre -Existing Condition
Reference Reach(es) Data
Design
As -built
Thomas Creek Site Upper Reach 4 (On-site)
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
Min Mean Med Max SD n
BFWidth (R)
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ 2.1 _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
0o prone Width (ft:
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____
BFMean Depth (ft)
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ 0.4 _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ ____
_____
_____ ____ _____ ____ _____
BFCross-sectional Area (ft')
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ ----- _____ 0.8 _____ _____
____ ____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ ____ ____ _-__ ____ _____
___ ___ _-__ ____ ___ _____
Width/Depth Ratio
_____
____ ____ _____
_____ ____ ----- 5.6 _____ _____
"—' _____ _____ ----- ---' _____
----- '—'- -"" "—' _____ -----
----- ---- "— '--- ----- -----
EntrenchmentRatio
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ 1.6 _____ _____
_____ ----- ----- _____ _____ -----
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
____ _____ _____ _____ ____ -----
___Bank
BankHeight Ratio
_____
_____ ___ ____
_____ _____
_____ _____ _____ 2.3-----
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ ____ _____ ___
d50 (mm
_____
_____ _____ __________
_____ ____ _____ ____
____ __— ___ _____ _____
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth(ft
_____
_____ _____ _____-----
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_ ----- _____ _____ _____ ___
Radius of Curvature (ft)
____
_____ _____ ____
_____ ___ ____ ____ _____ _____
_— _____ _____ ____ ____ _____
____ ____ _____ ____ ____ ____
____ ___ ____ _____ ____ ____
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft
-----
----- ----- ----
----- ---- --- ---------
----- -----
---- --- ----- ----- ---- -----
---------
- --------- ----
----- ----- -
Meander Wavelength (ft
____
____ _____ _____
_____ __ ____ ____ _____ _____
____ _____
___ _____ ____ _____
____ ____ _____ _____ _____ ____
____ _____ ___ ___ ____ ____
MeanderWidth Rati
____
___ _____ _____
----- ____ ____
_—_
_____ _____ _____ ____ _____ -----
Profile
Riffle Length (ft
-----
_____ _____ _____
_____ __________
____ ___ _ _____ _____
____ ____ ____
_____ _____ _____
Riffle Slope(ft/ft
_____
___ ____ _____
____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
PoolLength (ft
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ -----
_____ _____ _____
----- _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
___Pool
Poolto Pool Spacing (ft
_____
____ ____ ___
_____ ___ _____ ____ _____ _____
PoolMax Depth (ft
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ ----- _____ _____
_____ _____
_____ ___ _____
____ ____ _-__ ____ _____ -----
Pool
Pool Volume(ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
Substrate and 'Iansport Parameters
Rt o Ru o P o 0 0
----
---- ----- -----
-----
_—_ ___ ____ _____ -----
____ ____ ____ _____
____ _____
___ ____ ____ _____ ____
dl6 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
-----
----- ----- -----
Reach Shear Stress (competency) Ib/ft
_____
____ _____ ____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ ____ -----
_____ _____ _____ ____ ___ -----
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfult (Rosgen Curve
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ ____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
___Stream
StreamPower (transport capacity) W/m
____
____ ____ _____
_____ ____ _____ ____ _____ -----
____ ____ _____ ___ ____ _____
____ __ _____ __ _____ -----
___Additional
AdditionalReach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
-----
----- ----- _____
___----------____
----- ----- 0.008 _____ __
____ _____ __ ___ _____
_____ ___ ____ 0.008 _____ _____
____ _____ ___ 0.008 -----
Impervious cover estimate o
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____
_____ ____ ____
RosgenClassificatio
____
_____ ___ ____
_____ ____ _____ B5c _____ ____
_____ _____
_____ ____ _____ _____ _____ _____
____ _____ _____ ____ ____ -----
BF Velocity (fps)
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ __-_ ___ 3.4
___ _____ -----
BF Discharge (cfs)
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ ___ ____ 2.7 ____ ____
____ ____ _____ ____ _____ _____
____ _____ _____ ___
____ _____ _____ ____ .___ ____
Valley Lengt
_____
_____ _____ _______
_____ _____ ____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _
Channel length(ft
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ ___ _____ __
____ 171 -----_
___ ____ _____ ___ ____ _____
____ ____ _____ 157 ____ ____
_— ----- ----- -----__ 157 ----- -----
Sinuosity_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ __— 1.17 _____ _____
____ ____ _____ _____ ____ _____
____ _____ _____ _____ _____ ____
_____ _____ _____ ____ _____ -----
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (11/11
-----
----- ----- -----
----- -- ---- 0.0414 ----- -----
---- --- ----- --------- -----
---- _____ _____ _____ ____
___----------____
----- ----- ----- _
--
BFslope (ft/ft)
_____ _____ _____
_____ ____ ____ 0.0417 __— —__
_—_ ____ _____ —__ ____ _____
_—_ ___ ____ _____ ----- _—_
___ _____ _____ ____ _____ _____
Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres
_____
_____ _____ ____
_____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____
____
_____ —_ _____ ____ _____
___ ____ ____ _____ ____ ___
____ ___ _____ ___ ___ ____
BEHI VL%/L%/M%/H%/VH%/E%
_____
_____ _____ _____
__— ----- _____ _____ _____ _____
___ ____ _____ _____ ____ ____
Channel Stability or Habitat Metri
____
_____ _____ ___
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ ____
__._ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ ____ ____
_____ _____ _____
____ _____ _____ _____ ----- ____
Biological or Othei
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- --- ----
1 - Pre -Existing Condition measutment taken on existing sandbed riffle
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96074)

Table Ila. Cross -Section Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Thomas Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 96074
Stream Reach
Reach 3 (1,032 LF)
Cross-section X-1 (Riffle)
Cross-section X-2 (Pool)
Cross-section X-3 (Riffle)
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
Base I
MY1
MY2 MY3 MY4
MY5 MY+
Base
MYl
MY2 MY3 MY4
MY5 MY+
Base
MY
MY2 MY3 MY4
MY5 MY+
BF Width (ft)
9.34
8.8
10.51
10.24
7.47
7.05
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.78
0.6
1.27
1.29
0.61
0.42
Width/Depth Ratio
11.9
14.1
8.25
7.96
12.34
16.9
BF Cross-sectional Area (ftp)
7.3
5.4
13.4
13.2
4.5
3
BF Max Depth (ft)
1.29
1.1
2.06
2.13
0.89
0.7
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
55.3
51.84
61.3
62.24
37.3
34.07
Entrenchment Ratio
5.9
5.9
5.8
6
5.0
4.8
Bank Height Ratio
1
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
10.9
10.0
13.1
12.8
8.7
7.9
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.7
0.5
1.0
1.0
0.52
0.38
Cross Sectional Area between end pins (ft)
-
-
-
d50 (mm)
-
-
Stream Reach
Reach 4 (1,238 LF)
Reach 2 (2,126 LF)
Reach Tl (227 LF)
Cross-section X-4 (Riffle)
Cross-section X-5 (Riffle)
Cross-section X-6 (Riffle)
Cross-section X-7 (Riffle)
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
Base
MYl
MY2 MY3 MY4
M75 MY+
Base
MYl
MY2 MY3 MY4
MY5 MY+
Base
MYl
MY2 MY3 MY4
MY5 MY+
Base
MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
BF Width (ft)
6.78
6.77
10.42
9.82
10.15
9.7
8.46
6.8
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.53
0.54
0.71
0.59
1.01
0.85
0.62
0.5
Width/Depth Ratio
12.7
12.58
14.77
16.61
10.08
11.36
13.64
13.8
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft2)
3.6
3.6
7.4
5.8
10.2
8.3
5.3
3.4
BF Max Depth (ft)
0.87
0.97
1.01
0.89
1.5
1.28
0.88
0.8
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
21.9
22.27
38.17
36.97
62.93
62.9
30.61
28.2
Entrenchment Ratio
3.2
3.3
3.7
3.8
6.2
6.5
3.6
4.1
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.2
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
7.8
7.9
11.8
11.0
12.2
11.4
9.7
7.8
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.8
0.7
0.5
0.4
Cross Sectional Area between end pins (ft)
-
-
-
d50 (mm)
Stream Reach
Reach 2 (2,126 LF)
Cross-section X-8 (Pool)
Cross-section X-9 (Pool)
Cross-section X-10 (Riffle)
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
BF Width (ft)
15.33
16.06
14.50
14.53
10.27
9.28
BF Mean Depth (ft)
1.15
1.64
1.13
1.34
0.81
0.71
Width/Depth Ratio
13.3
9.8
12.9
10.82
12.6
13.15
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft2)
17.6
26.3
16.3
19.5
8.4
6.5
BF Max Depth (ft)
2.70
2.58
2.15
3.18
1.18
1.14
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
53.1
52.35
70.6
70.61
74.5
74.48
Entrenchment Ratio
3.5
3.3
4.9
4.9
7.2
8
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
17.6
19.3
16.8
17.2
11.9
10.7
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
1.0
1.4
1.0
1.1
0.7
0.6
Cross Sectional Area between end pins (ft)
-
-
-
d50 (mm)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96074)

Table Ila. (Continued) Cross Section Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Thomas Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 96074
Cross-section X -I I (Pool)
Cross-section X-12 (Riffle)
Cross-section X-13 (Riffle)
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
Base
myl MY2 MY3 MY4
MY5 MY+
Base
Myl
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Base
Myl
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Width/Depth Ratio
11.1
8.83
17.4
19.75
187
16.06
BE Cross-sectional Area (ft2)
23.7
26.8
11.1
8.2
2.1
1.1
Width ofFloodprone Area (ft)
68.8
68.76
30.6
29.95
19.4
17.63
Entrenchment Ratio
4.2
4.5
2.2
2.4
3.1
4.3
Ell
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
19.2
18.9
15.5
14.0
6.9
4.6
Cross Sectional Area between end pins (ft')
-
-
-
d50 (mm)
Strearn Reach
Reach 5 (1,168 LF)
Cross-section X-14_(g!fqe)__
Cross-section X-15 (Pool)
Cross-section Vl�.
Width/Depth Ratio
8.4
10.78
13.8
7.08
11.9
7.32
Width ofFloodprone Area (ft)
49.9
49.91
59.6
58.81
63.8
67.37
Entrenchment Ratio
6.6
7.3
5.8
8.1
5.9
7.7
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
9.3
8.1
11.8
9.3
10.9
11.1
Cross Sectional Area between end pins (ft')
-
-
-
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96074)

Table 11 b. Stream Reach Morphology Summary
Thomas Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 96074
Reach 1 (298 LF)
Parameter Baseline
MY- MY -2
MY -3 MY -4
MY -5
n
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Min Mean Med Max SDMin
Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n
Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD
Min Mean Med Max SD n
BEWidth (ft) _____ 13.9 _____ --- ---
----- 12.7 -----
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
BEMean Depth (ft) ----- 0.8 --- ----- ----- ---
--- 0.7 ----- — — ----- ----- -- ---- ---- ----- ---
--- ----- --- -- -- ----- ----- ----- ____ ----- ----- -----
-"— ----- -----
Width/Depth Raft — 17.4 — _____ _____ --
-- 19.8 — — — '---- — — — ""- "— —'-
-'— —'-' — — ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft= — 11.1 — — — ---
--- 8.2 — — — ----- — — — ----- ----- ---
--- ----- — — — ----- -- — — ----- ----- ---
--- ----- ----- — — -----
BF Max Depth (ft) — 1.1 — — — —__
__— 1.1 — — — _____ — — — ----- —___ ___
___ _____ _____ — — _____ — _____ _____
___ _____ _____ — —
Widthof Floodprone Area (ft ----- 30.6 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 30.0 -----— ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----— ----- ----- ----- --
----- ----- -----— — -----
EntrenchmentRati _____ 2.2 _— _— ___
___ 2.4 _____ _____ _____ ___ _____ _____ ___
___ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ ___
_____ _____ _____
Bank Height Ratic ----- 1.0 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 1.1 ----- -- ----- ----- ----- --- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----
---- ----- -----
Profile
Riffle Length (ft
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- — ----- -----
— —
— -- -- -- ----- -----
-----— ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- — ---- ----
Riffie Slope (ft1ft
-""
-'---
Pool Length (ft
— — ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ---------- ----' ----'
---' ----- ----- ----- ----' -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----'
PoolSpacing (ft
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- -----_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
Pool
Pool Max Depth (ft;
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ---------- ----- -----
----- ---- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Radius of Curvature (ft)
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Meander Wavelength (ft
----- — ----- ----- ----- -----
Meander Width Ratic
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Additional Reach Parameters
— — —
Drainage Area (SM)
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
---------- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- --- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- --- ----- -----
RosgenClassificatio
_____ — — — — —
— _____ —_____
_ _ _____ ___
_____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
BEVelocity (fps)
----- — — — — ---
---
---- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BE Discharge (cfs)
_____ _____ — -""
-- -- ----- ----- ---
----- ----- ----- --- ---- -"--
Valley Lengt
----- ----- ----- ----- ----------
----- ----- ----- ----- ---
----- -- --- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
---- ----- ----- --- --- -----
Channel Thalweg Length (ft
-"" — — — — —"
-'— ----- ----- -"" -- -----
--"' -"" —"
----- -----
-'— ----- ----- — — -----
-- -- -- ----- ----- —__
----- ----- -----
---' --- ---- "'--
Sinuosity
Sinuosity(ft
----- ----- ----- ----- ----------
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft
-"" --- '-- '— '— '—"
-'— ----- —-----
-----
-- -- -- ----- ----- ___
----- ----- ---' ---- ---- '--'
BE slope (ft/ft)
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----------
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ---------- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres
— — ___ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ — — _____
— — — _____ — ___
___----- --"' — — -----
— — — _____ _____ —__
___ _____ _____ — —
Channel Stability or Habitat Metri
---- -
-
-- -- — ----- ----- ---
-----
--- ----- ----- — ——
_____ _____
—_ — —__
__— _____
_____ _____ — —
Biological or Othei
— — ----- _____ _____ _____
_____ ----- —

Table 11 b. Stream Reach Morphology Summary
Thomas Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 96074
Reach 2 (2,126 LF)
Parameter
Baseline
My -1
MY -2
MY-
MY -4
My-$
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Min
Mean
Med Max
SDMin
n
Mean
Med Max SD n
Min Mann Med Max SD n
Min Mean Med Max SD n
Min Mean Med Max SD
Min Mean Med Max SD n
BF Width (ft) 10.2
10.3
----- 10.4
----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----
9.3 9.6
----- 9.8 ----- -----
----- ----- ---- ----- ----- ----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BF Mean Depth (ft) 0.7
0.8
- 1.0
- ---
0.6
0.7
- 0.9 - _____
- - - _____ - ___
___ _____ _____ - -__ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
Width/Depth Ratic 10.1
12.5
-- 14.8
----- ---
11.4
13.7
----- 16.6 - -----
- - - ----- ----- ---
--- ----- ----- - ----- -----
----- - -- ----- ----- ---
-'-' ----- ----- --- --- -----
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft' 7.4
8.6
- 10.2
----- ---
5.8
6.9
----- 8.3 - -----
- - - ----- ----- ---
-'- ----- ----- -- ----- -----
----- ---- ---- ----- ----- -----
-'- ----- ----- --- -- -----
BF Max Depth (ft) 1.0
1.2
----- 1.5
----- ---
0.9
1.1
----- 1.3 --- -----
----- - -- ----- ----- ---
---- ----- ----- --- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Width of Floodprone Area (ft 38.2
58.5
--- 74.5
----- ---
37.0
58.1
----- 74.5 - ""-
- - - ----- --"' ---
-'- ----- ----- - ----- -----
____ -- -- ----- ----- ---
----- ----- ----- ---- ---- -----
Entrenchment Ratic 3.7
5.7
----- 6.2
----- -----
3.8
6.1
----- 8.0 ----- -----
- ----- ----- ----- ----- -
- ----- -----
- - ------ ----- -----
----- ----- -----
Bank Height Ratic 1.0
1.0
_____ 1.0
_____ _____
_____
---- ----
---- ---- ---- ---------- ----
---- ----- ----- -- -- -----
Profile
RiffleLength (ft]
-----
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
_____ _____
Riffle Slope (ft/ft
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ---------- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---- ----- -----
Pool Length (ft
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
Pool Spacing (ft
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Pool Max Depth (ft;
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- -----
-----
Pattern
-
Channel Beltwidth (ft
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
Radius of Curvature (ft
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
- - - -
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft
----
-----
----- -----
-----
�........ ............. .........
Meander Wavelength (ft
-----
Meander Width Ra[ic
Additional Reach Parameters IW
DrainageArea (SM
-----
-
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Rosgen Classificatio
-----
-
----- -----
----- -----
-----
----------
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ---------- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BFVelocity (fps
-
-
-__ _____
____ _____
_____
_____
_____ -_ -_ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ ____
____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
BF Discharge (cfs)
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
----------
-- --- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
ValleyLengt
_____
-
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
Channel Thalweg Length (ft
-
-
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- - - -----
- - ------ ----- --
----- ----- ----- - - -----
- - - ----- ----- ---
-- ----- ----- - - -----
Sinuosity(ft
-----
-----
----- _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ ____ _ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft
Water
-----
-
- -----
----- ---
---
----
----- - - -----
----- - - ----- ----- ---
-------- ----- - - -----
----- - - - - ---
--- ----- -- -- -- -----
BF slope (ft/ft)
-----
----- ---
-'-
-
- -
--
-- ---- ---- - - --"-
Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres
-
-
- -----
----- ---
---
-
- - - -
- - - - - ---
--- - - - - -----
- - - - ----- ---
-------- ----- - - -----
Channel Stability or Habitat Metri
_-
-
_____ _____
_____ ____
____
_____
-
- _____ ____ ____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
Biologicalor Othei
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----11
-----
-----
-----
---- -----
----- -- ----- ----- -----I
----- ----- ----- ----- -- -----

Table 116. Stream Reach Morphology Summary
Thomas Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 96074
Reach 3 (1,031 LF)
Parameter
Baseline
MY-
MY -2
MY-
MY -4
MY=$
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Min
Mean
Med Max
SDMin
n
Mean
Med Max SD n
Min Mcan Med Max SD n
Min Mean Med Max SD n
Min Mean Med Max SD
Min Mean Med Max SD n
BF Width (ft) 7.5
8.4
----- 9.3
----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----
7.1 7.9
----- 8.8 ----- -----
----- ----- ---- ----- ----- ----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BF Mean Depth (ft) 0.6
0.7
- 0.8
- ---
0.4
0.5
_____ 0.6 - _____
- - - _____ - ___
___ _____ _____ - -__ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
Width/Depth Ratic 11.9
12.1
- 12.3
----- ---
14.1
15.5
----- 16.9 - -----
- - - ----- ----- ---
--- ----- ----- - ----- -----
----- - - ----- ----- ---
-'-' ----- -------- --- -----
BFCross-sectional Area ff
- 7.3
-----
- -----
- - ------ --"' ---
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
-'-- ----- ----- --- --- -----
BF Max Depth (ft) 0.9
1.1
--- 1.3
----- ---
0.7
0.9
----- 1.1 - -----
----- - - ----- ----- ---
---- ----- ----- --- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Width of Floodprone Area (ft 37.3
46.3
- 55.3
----- ---
34.1
43.0
----- 51.8 - -----
- - - ----- ----- ---
--- ----- ----- - - -
---- -- -- ----- ----- ---
----- ----- ----- --- ---- -----
Entrenchment Ratic 5.0
5.5
----- 5.9
----- -----
4.8
5.4
----- 5.9 ----- -----
- ----- ----- ----- ----- -
- - -
- - ------ ----- -----
----- ----- -----
Bank Height Ratic 1.0
1.0
_____ 1.0
_____ _____
_____
---- ----
---- ---- ---- ---------- ----
---- ----- ----- -- -- -----
Profile
RiffleLength (ft]
-----
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
_____ _____
Riffle Slope (ft/ft
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ---------- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---- ----- -----
Pool Length (ft
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____
Pool Spacing (ft
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ---------- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Pool Max Depth (ft;
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
----- -----
-----
-----
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
Radius of Curvature (ft)
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
- - - -
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft
----
-----
----- -----
-----
Meander Wavclength (ft
----------
---- ----
---- ----
Meander Width Ratic
-----
----- -----
----- -----
Additional Reach Parameters IW
DrainageArea (SM)
-----
-
---- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Rosgen Classificatio
-----
-
----- -----
----- -----
-----
----------
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ---------- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BFVelocity (fps)
-
-
_____ _____
____ _____
_____
_____
_____-----
----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ ___
___ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
BF Discharge (cfs)
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
----------
-- --- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
ValleyLengt
_____
-
- -
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
Channel Thalweg Length (ft
-
-
- -
- -----
-----
-----
----- - - -----
- - - ----- ----- ----
----- ----- ----- - - -----
- - - ---------- ---
----- ----- - - -----
Sinuosity (11
_____
-----
----- -----
_____
------""
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ ____- ----- -
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft
-----
-
- -----
----- ---
---
----
----- - - -----
----- - - ----- ----- ---
-------- ----- - - -----
----- - - - - ---
--- ----- -- -- -- -----
BF slope (ft/ft)
-
-
- -
- ---
-'-
-
- - ""'
-- ---- ---- - - --"-
Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres
-
-
- -
- ---
---
-
- - - -
- - - - - ---
--- - - - - -----
- -____ -__
__ ----- - - - ----
ChannelStabilityorHabitatMetri
_-
-
_____ _____
_____ ____
____
_____
-
- --
_____ _____ _____ _____ -----
Biologicalor Othei
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----I
-----
-----
-----
---- -----
----- -- ----- ----- -----
I ----- ----- ----- ----- -- -----

Table 11 b. Stream Reach Morphology Summary
Thomas Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 96074
Reach 4 (1,238 LF)
Parameter
Baseline
MY -1'
MY -2
MY-
MY -4
MY -5
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Min Mean Med Max SD n
Min Mean Med Max SD n
Min Mean Med Max SD n
Min Mean Med Max SD n
Min Mean Med Max SD n
Min Mean Med Max SD n
BEWidth (ft)
----- 6.8 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 6.8 ----- ---- ---- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ---- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BFMean Depth (ft)
_____ 0.5 _____ _____ _____ _____
__— 0.5 _____ — — _____
____ — — _____ _____ ___
___ _____ _____ — — _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ ___
___ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
Width/Depth Ratic
----- 12.7 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 12.6 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- --- ----- ----- -----
--- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ---- ----- ---- ----
---- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BFCross-sectional Area (ft:
----- 3.6 ----- ----- ----- ---
--- 3.6 ----- — — -----
----- — — ----- ----- -----
--- ---- ----- ""- -- -----
-- ----- ---- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BFMax Depth (ft)
----- 0.9 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 1.0 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ---- ----- ----- -----
----- ---- ----- ----- ----- -----
Width of Floodprone Area (ft
----- 21.9 — ----- ----- --
___ 22.3 ----- — — -----
----- — — ----- ----- -----
___ ----- ----- ----- — -----
----- "'-- ----- ----- ---- -----
----- ----- ---- ----- ----- -----
EntrenchmentRati
----- 3.2 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 3.3 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ---- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----
---- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Bank Height Ratic
_____ 1.0 _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ 1.0 _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
Profile
RiffleLength (ft
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
RiffleSlope
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ---------- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Pool Length ((ft
— _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
Pool Spacing (ft
_____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ____-
PoolMax Depth (ft;
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Radius of Curvature (ft)
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft
— ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Meander Wavelength (f
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Meander Width Ratic
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Additional Reach Parameters
DrainageArea (SM]
_____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
__________ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
Rosgen Classificatio
-----— ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ---------- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ---------- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BF Velocity (fps
— — _____ _____ _____ _____
---------- ----- ----- ----- -----
---- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- -----_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
BE Discharge (cfs)
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ---------- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ---------- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
ValleyLen
— — — _____ _____ —__
___ _____
— __ _____ _____ —__
____ _____ _____
Channel Thalweg Length (ft
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
---------- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ---------- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Sinuosity(11
— — — _____ _____ ___
___ _____
— — _____ _____ ___
___ _____ _____ — —
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ff/ft
--- --- --- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- — — -----
--- — — ----- ----- ---
--- ----- ----- — -----
----- — — ----- ----- ---
--- ----- ----- — — -----
BF slope (ft/ft)
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- — — -----
— — — ----- ----- ---
--- ----- ----- — — -----
— — ----- ----- ---
--- ----- ----- — — --"-
Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres
----- — — ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- — — -----
----- — — ----- ----- ---
--- ----- ----- — -----
---------- -----
-- -- ---
----- ----- ----- ---- ---- -----
ChannelStability orHabitat Metri
_____ ____ _____ _____ _____ ____
__ _____ _____ _____ ____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
Biologicalor Othei
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----I
---- ---- -----
— ----- -----
----- ---- ---- ----- ----
---- ---- ---- -----

Table 116. Stream Reach Morphology Summary
Thomas Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 96074
Reach 5 (1,169 LF)
Parameter Baseline
MY-
MY -2
MY-
MY -4
MY=$
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Min Mean Med Max SDMin
n
Mean Med Max SD n
Min Mean Med Max SD n
Min Mean Med Max SD n
Min Mean Med Max SD
Min Mean Med Max SD n
BFWidth (ft) ----- 8.6 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----
----- 6.9 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BFMean Depth (ft) — 0.9 — _____ — ___
___ 0.6 — — — _____
— — — _____ — ___
___ _____ _____ — —__ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
Width/Depth Ratic ----- 8.4 --- ----- ----- ---
--- 10.8 ----- — — -----
— — — ----- ----- ---
--- ----- ----- — -- -----
----- — — ----- ----- ---
---- ----- ----- --- --- -----
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft' ____ 6.8 — _____ _____ ___
__— 4.4 _____ — — _____
— — — _____ _____ ___
___ _____ _____ — — _____
____ — — _____ _____ ___
___ _____ _____
BFMax Depth (ft) ----- 1.2 --- ----- ----- ---
--- 1.2 ----- -- -- -----
----- -- --- ----- ----- ---
----- ----- ----- ---- ---- -----
----- — — ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Width of Floodprone Area (ft ---- 49.9 — ----- ----- ---
--- 49.9 ----- — — -----
— — — ----- ---- ---
--- ----- ----- — — -----
---- -- -- ----- ----- ---
----- ----- ----- --- ---- -----
EntrenchmentRatic ----- 6.6 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 7.3 ---- ----- ----- -----
— ----- ----- ----- ----- ----
----- ----- ----- — ----- ----
-- — ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Bank Height Ratic _____ 1.0 _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ 1.1 _____ _____ _____ _____
—__ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ ____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ ___
___ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
Profile
RiffleLength (ft
-____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
Riffle Slope (ft/ft
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
---------- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ---------- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
PoolLength (ft
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
PoolSpacing (ft
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
Pool Max Depth (ft;
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Radius of Curvature (ft)
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ------ - - -
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft
---- — — ----- ----- �....' .. ....' ....... ........
Meander Wavclength (If
-----
Meander Width Ratic
Additional Reach Parameters IW
DrainageArea (SM)
----- — ---- ----- ----- -----
----- -----
----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Rosgen Classificatio
----- — ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ---------- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ---------- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BF Velocity (fps)
— — _____ _____ ____ _____
_____ _____ _____-----
--
-- --- ---
----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ ___
___ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
BF Discharge (cfs)
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
-- ---
----- ---------- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Valley Lengt
_____ — ___ _____ ----- -----
----- ----- ----- — — -----
----- — — ----- ----- ---
----- ----- ----- ----- -----_____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
Channel Thalweg Length (ft
— — — — — -----
----- ----- ----- — — -----
— — — ----- ----- ----
----- ----- ----- — — -----
— — — ---------- ---
----- ----- — — -----
Sinuosity(11
_____ ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ ____ - ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft
----- — — ----- ----- ---
--- ---- ----- — — -----
----- — — ----- ----- ---
-------- ----- — — -----
----- — — — — ---
--- ----- -- -- -- -----
BF slope (ft/ft)
— — — — — ---
-
--- — — — -----
— — — ----- --- ---
--- ----- ---- — — -----
— — — — ---- --
-- ---- ---- — — --"-
Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres
— — — — — ---
--- — — — — —
— — — — — ---
--- — — — — -----
— -____ —__
__ ----- — — - ----
ChannelStabilityorHabitatMetri
_— — _____ _____ _____ ____
____ _____ —
— ——
_____ _____ _____ _____ -----
Biologicalor Othei
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----I
----- ----- -----
---- -----
----- -- ----- ----- -----
I ----- ----- ----- ----- -- -----

Table 116. Stream Reach Morphology Summary
Thomas Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 96074
Reach 6 (1,776 LF)
Parameter Baseline
MY-
MY -2
MY-
MY -4
MY_5
n
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Min Mean Med Max SDMin
Mean Med Max SD n
Min Mean Med Max SD n
Min Mean Med Max SD n
Min Mean Med Max SD
Min Mean Med Max SD n
BFWidth (ft) ----- 6.3 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----
----- 4.1 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BFMean Depth (ft) — 0.3 — _____ — ___
___ 0.3 — — — _____
— — — _____ — ___
___ _____ _____ — _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
Width/Depth Rati ----- 18.7 — ----- ----- ---
-- 16.1 ----- — — -----
— — — ----- ----- ---
--- ----- ----- -- ----- -----
----- — — ----- ----- —"
---- ----- _---- --- --- -----
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft' 2.1 — _____ _____ ___
__— 1.1 _____ — _____
— _____ _____ ___
___ _____ _____ — _____ _____
____ — — _____ _____ ___
___ _____ _____
BFMax Depth (ft) ----- 0.6 --- ----- ----- ---
--- 0.5 ----- -- -- -----
----- -- --- ----- ----- ---
----- ----- ----- ---- ----- -----
----- — — ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Width of Floodprone Area (ft ----- 19.4 — ----- ----- —'-
--- 17.6 ----- — — -"'-
— — — ----- ----- —'-
--- ----- ----- — ----- -----
----- -- -- ----- ----- ---
----- ----- ----- --- ---- '----
EntrenchmentRati ----- 3.1 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 4.3 ----- ----- ----- -----
— ----- ----- ----- ----- ----
----- ----- ----- — ----- ----
-- — ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Bank Height Ratic _____ 1.0 _____ _____ _____ _____
----- 1.0 -----
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Profile
RiffleLength (ft
-____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____
_____ —_ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
Riffle Slope (ft/ft
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- -------"' ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Pool Length (ft
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
Pool Spacing (ft
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
Pool Max Depth (ft;
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Radius of Curvature (ft)
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ------ - - -
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft
---- — — ----- ----- �....' .. ....' ....... ........
Meander Wavclength (If
-----
Meander Width Ratic
Additional Reach Parameters IW
11
DrainageArea (SM)
----- — ---- ----- ----- -----
----- -----
----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Rosgen Classificatio
----- — ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ---------- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ---------- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BFVelocity (fps)
— — _____ _____ ____ -----
----- _____ _____-----
----- "'--
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ ___
___ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
BF Discharge (cfs)
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
-- ---
----- ---------- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
ValleyLengt
_____ — ___ _____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
Channel Thalweg Length (ft
— — — — — -----
----- ----- ----- — — -----
— — — ----- ----- ----
----- ----- ----- — — -----
— — — ---------- ---
----- ----- — — -----
Sinuosity (ft
_____
----- ----- --"' ----- ---------------
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ ____- ----- - ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft
----- — — ----- ----- ---
--- ---- ----- — — -----
----- — — ----- ----- ---
-------- ----- — — -----
----- — — — — ---
--- ----- -- -- -- -----
BF slope (ft/ft
— — — — — —'-
--- — — — ""-
-- ---- ---- — — ""-
Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres
— — — — — ---
--- — — — — —
— — — — — ---
--- — — — — -----
— -____ —__
__ ----- — — -----
Channel Stab,,.
_— — _____ _____ _____ -----
----- _____ —
— ——
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____
Biologicalor Other
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- -----
---- -----
----- -- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- -- -----

Table 116. Stream Reach Morphology Summary
Thomas Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 96074
Reach TI (2271,F)
Parameter Baseline
My-
MY -2
My-
MY -4
My-$
n
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Min Mean Med Max SDMin
Mean Med Max SD n
Min Mann Med Max SD n
Min Mean Med Max SD n
Min Mean Med Max SD
Min Mean Med Max SD n
BFWidth (ft ----- 8.5 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----
----- 6.8 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BFMean Depth (ft) — 0.6 — _____ — ___
___ 0.5 — — — _____
— — — _____ — ___
___ _____ _____ — _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
Width/Depth Rati ----- 13.6 — ----- ----- ---
-- 13.8 ----- — — -----
— — — ----- ----- ---
--- ----- ----- -- ----- -----
----- — — ----- ----- ---
---- ----- ----- --- --- -----
BF Cross-sectional Area (fl' — 5.3 — _____ _____ ___
__— 3.4 _____ — — _____
— — — _____ _____ ___
___ _____ _____ — _____ _____
____ — — _____ _____ ___
___ _____ _____
BFMax Depth (fl) ----- 0.9 — ----- ----- ---
--- 0.8 ----- -- -- -----
----- -- --- ----- ----- ---
----- ----- ----- ---- ----- -----
----- — — ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Width of Floodprone Area (ft ----- 30.6 — ----- ----- ---
-'— 28.2 ----- — — ""-
— — — ----- --"' ---
--- ----- ----- — _____ _____
____ -- -- ----- ----- ---
----- ----- ----- --- ---- -----
EntrenchmentRati ----- 3.6 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 4.1 ----- ----- ----- -----
— ----- ----- ----- ----- ----
----- ----- ----- — ----- ----
-- — ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Bank egg t Raticl _____ 1.0 _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ 1.2 _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ ____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ ___
___ _____ _____ _____ _____
Profile
RiffleLength (ft
----- _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____
_____ —_ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ ____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
Riffle Slope (ft/ft
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ---------- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
PoolLength (ft
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
Pool
PoolSpacing (ft
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
Pool Max Depth (ft;
Pool
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Radius of Curvature (ft)
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ------ - - -
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft
---- — — ----- ----- �....'.. ....'....... ........
MeanderWavclength(I
-----
Meander Width Ratic
Additional Reach Parameters IW
DrainageArea (SM
----- — ---- ----- ----- -----
----- -----
----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Rosgen Classificatio
----- — ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ---------- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ---------- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BFVelocity (fps
— — _____ _____ ____ _____
_____ _____ _____-----
----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ ___
___ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
BF Discharge (cfs)
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
-- ---
----- ---------- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
ValleyLengt
_____ — ___ _____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
Channel Thalweg Length (ft
— — — — — -----
----- ----- ----- — — -----
— — — ----- ----- ----
----- ----- ----- — — -----
— — — ---------- ---
----- ----- — — -----
Sinuosity (ft
_____
----- ----- --"' ----- ------""
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ ____- ----- -
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (fl/ft
----- — — ----- ----- ---
--- ---- ----- — — -----
----- — — ----- ----- ---
-------- ----- — — -----
----- — — — — ---
--- ----- -- -- -- -----
BF slope (ft/ft)
-- ---- ---- — — --"-
Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres
— — — — — ---
--- — — — — —
— — — — — ---
--- — — — — -----
— -____ —__
__ ----- — — -----
Channel Stability or Habitat Metri
_— — _____ _____ _____ ____
____ _____ —
— ——
_____ _____ _____ _____ -----
Biologicalor Othei
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----11
----- ----- -----
---- -----
----- -- ----- ----- -----I
----- ----- ----- ----- -- -----

Appendix E
Hydrologic Data

Table 12. Verification of Bankfull Events
Thomas Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 96074
Date of Data
Reach 2 Crest
Estimated Occurrence of Bankfull
Method of Data Collection
Collection
Gauge (feet)
Event
Year 1 Monitoring (2016)
10/27/2016
1.1
10/8/2016
Crest Gauge
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96074)

Table 13. Flow Gauge Success (2016)
Thomas Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 96074
Flow Gauge ID Consecutive Days of Flow' Cumulative Days of F1ow2
Reach 2 Flow Gauge
TMCK FL 229 229
Reach 5 Flow Gauge
TMCK F72 126 182
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.
* Surface water flow is estimated to have occurred when the pressure transducer reading is equal to or above
0.1 feet in depth.
Flow success criteria for the Site: A restored stream reach will be considered intermittent when the flow
duration occurs for a minimum of 30 consecutive days.

Thomas Creek 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
1.0
=3.0
% 4.0
ip 5.0
p 6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
Thomas Creek Reach 2
In-channel Flow Gauge TMCK FL1
2.50
2.40
2.30
2.20
2.10
-TMCK FL1
2.00
1.90
YR1 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
1.80
OF FLOW - 229.0*
1.70
(3/30/2016-11/13/2016)
s 1.60
1.50
Q
4) 1.40
p 1.30
`y 1.20
1.10
R
?� 1.00
0.90
y
0.80
R
0.70
7 0.60
Cl)
0.50
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.

Thomas Creek 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
10
c2.0
:-30
4.0
jE 5.0
p 6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
Thomas Creek Reach 5
1.40 In -channel Flow Gauge TMCK FL2
1.30
1.20
—TMCK FL2
1.10
Vol MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
1.00
OF FLOW - 126.0
(3/30/2016-7/24/2016)
0.90
w
0.80
p
i 0.70
d
R 0.60
0.50
V
0.40
3 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.