20141328 Ver 1_Year 3 Monitoring Report_2018_20190102

Mitigation Project Name Thomas Creek
DMS ID 96074
River Basin Cape Fear
Cataloging Unit 03030004
County Wake USACE Action ID 2013-02009
Daft Project lnstkuted 812712013 NCDWR Permit No 2014-1328
Data Prepared 5122/2018
Credit Release Milestone
Potential Credits (M1ti ation Plan
Potential Choate ASEUIh Suae
Potential Credits (IRT ADprovadr
Scheduled
Releases
(Stream)
Warn Cool
5,}06.}34
5728664
5,796.74
Celtl
Anticipated
Release Year
(Stream)
Actual
Release Date
(Stream)
Scheduled
Releases
(Forested)
Wetland Credits
Ripanan Ripener Non Non-dpadan
Rivadne dvedne Scheduled
Releases
(Coastal)
Coacul
Anticipated
Release Year
(Wetland)
Actual
Release Data
(Wetland)
1 (Blue Establishment
NIA
60%
WA
WA
NIA
No,
NIA
WA
2 fYear 0l As8uim
30%
1,]18.500
2016
11/42016
30%
30%
NIA
J Year1 Monkatln
10%
ST2.833
2017
418201]
107.
10%
NIA
IFTAdustmenr
4.640
130.550
4252018
48.900
200&1455 2005-02761 INIHIP's Place
4 ear 2 Monkon,
10%
5]0.6]3
2018
4252018
10%
1 P
WA
103.640
5 ear 3 Monitoring)10%
2010-02672008-01247Embassy Buttes Fayetteville
2019
15%
20%
WA
46:100
6 eaf4 Monhsd.
5%
106.470
2020
5%
10%
WA
} ear S Monitoring)
10%
6.105
2021
2009,1345 4006-00967 New Hill Place
15%
1S%
WA
6 ear 6 Monaorin
S6 I
2022
i s% I
WA
WA
9 earl ManHorin,)
Remaining Amounts (feet l acres)
1 2023
0,400
1 10% 1
1WA
'WA
0.0001
araam SankmIt Standard
10%
1 2018
4252018
I NIA
WA
Test Credits Released to Date
1
3,426.940
'NOTE: Adjushnent required due to IRT concems on how the as�buiR cred"n5 were calculated
DEBITS neleazc] cracks; only)
IRTApproved As-BultAmounts(feet and acres(
4,687.000
443.000
3.839.000
IRTApproved As4luiltAmounts(mitigation credits)
4,687.000
295.333
724.400
Percentage Released
60'6
60%
60%
Released Amoums(feet l acres(
2,812200
265.800
2,123,400
Releazed Amourds(cradifs(
=2.200
177.200
434.640
NCOWR Permit USACE Action 10 Prolect Name
NCDOTMP R-2238-
1999-0339 1293-02520 Wdening of NO 87
607.400
N0007T P R -241] -Surfers
2000-1432 200220889 Sypess
510.000
NCO07 TIP 43312 -Black &
20024228 1998.019,48 Decker Road
298.9001
63.170
20050155 2005-00248 Eactude Green Apadmenou
67.930
130.550
2005-20471 Forest Bpnngs SubdNislon
48.900
200&1455 2005-02761 INIHIP's Place
71.500
20094597 2W&20332 Lee County Industrial Park
138.580
2009,4597 2006-20332 Lee Count, industrial Park
103.640
2010-02672008-01247Embassy Buttes Fayetteville
192.000
2006-1151 2010-01848 SelemUllage
162.860
46:100
366.090
2005-1151 2010-01848 Selem Ulllege
106.470
200&1203 2005-20159 Town of Cary -WWRWMF
736,000
Br,rwater Medical Complex
2010-0251 2008,41392 Phasel
94.930
6.105
2009,1345 4006-00967 New Hill Place
82:495
)0].800
Remaining Amounts (feet l acres)
0.000
0,400
0.000
Remaining Amounts(creduss) 1
0.0001
0.0001
0.000
Contingencies, (if any): None
562033
5}0.673
0.0848600

I - For NCDMS, no credits preleased during the first milestone
2 - For NCDMS projects, th second credit release milestone occurs automatically when the as -built report (baseline monitoring report) has been made available to the NCIRT by posting it to the NCDMS Portal, provided the following criteria
have been met:
1) Approval of the final Mitigation Plan
2) Recordation of the preservation mechanism, as well as a title opinion acceptable to the USACE covering the property
3) Completion of all physical and biological improvements to the mitigation site pursuant to the mitigation plan
4) Reciept of necessary DA permit authonzation or written DA approval for poijects where DA permit issuance is not required
3- A 10% reserve of credits is to be held back until the bankfull event performance standard has been met

I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L
January 2, 2019
Jeff Schaffer
NCDEQ, Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Ste. 600 1 Cary, North Carolina 27518
Office: 919.463.5488 1 Fax: [phone]
Subject: Response to DMS Comments for DRAFT Monitoring Year 3 Report
Thomas Creek Restoration Project, Wake County
DMS Project # 96074, DEQ Contract #5549, RFP# 16-005020
Mr. Schaffer:
Please find enclosed our responses to the NC Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) review comments dated
December 19, 2018 in reference to the Thomas Creek Restoration Project —DRAFT Monitoring Year 3
Report. We have revised the Draft document in response to the referenced review comments. Each comment
and its corresponding response is outlined below.
1. Digital files/drawings:
a. ThomasCreek_ AsBuilt_F1owCrestGauges shapefile is missing spatial reference information.
Response: This shapefile has been revised to add back the spatial reference information and will be
included with the final e -submission.
b. There is a 9.61f segment of Reach 6 in the Attribute Table for
ThomasCreek_AsBuilt_Streams—ByMitigationType—Final shapefile. Please explain what this is or
remove if not necessary.
Response: This segment appears to be an unintended relict from the original shapefile processing and has
been removed. The revised shapefile will be included with the final e -submission.
c. Attribute Table for ThomasCreek_AsBuilt_VegPlotAreas shapefile contains no information for MY3.
Response: The shapefile attribute table appears to currently contains the same Pass/Fail information on
each veg plot for MY3 that was reported for MY and MY2. Perhaps an older version was mistakenly
submitted in the draft e -files. The correct, updated version will be included with the final e -submission.
Section 1.0 Executive Summary:
a. Page 1: Please change all references to linear footages and credits to reflect the approved mitigation plan
numbers not as -built.
Response: The report has been amended to clarify that the given lengths are from the as -built baseline
report so as to avoid confusion, but will still use the as -built restoration lengths. These numbers have
been reported in numerous tables, the as -built survey stationing and plansheets, GIS shapefiles, and in text
descriptions in all previous reports and Baker feels it would quite confusing to change them at this stage.
Further, the design reach lengths from the mitigation plan do not accurately represent the actual in -the -
field restored/enhanced lengths as numerous small field changes during construction altered those lengths
slightly for many of the reaches. These small changes were accurately accounted for in the as -built
survey and we feel should be reported as such. Baker understands that the IRT -approved credits for each

Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
■rrni•90r►=iEwr.I&XiA 8000 Regency Parkway, Ste. 600 1 Cary, North Carolina 27518
1 N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L Office: 919.463.5488 1 Fax: [phone]
length will still derive from the approved mitigation plan credit numbers, though this is a separate issue
from the restoration lengths.
b. Page 3, third full paragraph: Change second sentence to reflect that bankfull events have now occurred in
all 3 years of monitoring.
Response: Change made as recommended.
3. Appendix A, Table 1:
a. Please insert a column that shows linear footages from the approved mitigation plan.
Response: A new column showing the design reach lengths from the mitigation plan (Table ES. 1) was
added to Table 1 as directed. Please note that these numbers from the mitigation plan did not have any
non -creditable reach sections (as for the easement breaks for stream crossings) removed from them.
b. For column labeled Restoration Footage or Acreage (LF), please add reference that these are As -Built
numbers.
Response: Column labeled was modified to indicate they are As -Built numbers as suggested.
4. Appendix D, Table 11: During our review of the Bank Height Ratios (BHR) in Table 11, DMS staff
performs a visual comparison of the MY3 data to As-Built/Baseline cross-sections. DMS noted/realized
that by displaying the As -built Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area alone, the calculation for the BHR can be
difficult to reconcile. We noted possible discrepancies in the BHR calculations for cross-sections 1, 3, 4,
5, 6, 7, 10, 12, 13 and 14 given this disconnect. Using the new BHR calculation methodology where the
As -Built Bankfull Area is held constant, please display the Year 3 bankfull elevation as another data
series just for the sake of clarity between the BHR calculation and the overlay. It appears that the BHR
calculations were done correctly, but just please add the MY3 bankfull data series with its elevation for
the sake of clarity to the reader.
Response: An additional data series was added to each cross-section figure showing the MY3 bankfull line
(generated using the as -built bankfull area as per the recent DMS memo) as requested. The BHR
calculations for the listed cross-sections were re -checked again and were all confirmed as correct. With
the new bankfull line shown, a visual comparison between it and the MY3 cross-section data certainly
makes the BHR value appear to make intuitive sense.
As requested, Baker has provided three (3) hardcopies, and one (1) CD containing the pdf copy of the FINAL
report and all updated digital files. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions
regarding our response submittal.
Sincerely,
14 -
Scott King, LSS, PWS
Project Manager
Enclosures

FINAL
Thomas Creek Restoration Project
Year 3 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: 3 of 7
Year of Data Collection: 2018
Year of Completed Construction (including planting): 2016
Submission Date: December 2018
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 3 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
MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 7 (2018)

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................1
2.0 METHODOLOGY.........................................................................................4
2.1 Stream Assessment.......................................................................................................................................4
2.1.1 Morphological Parameters and Channel Stability .....................................................................................4
2.1.2 Hydrology..................................................................................................................................................5
2.1.3 Photographic Documentation....................................................................................................................5
2.1.4 Visual Stream Morphological Stability Assessment..................................................................................5
2.2 Vegetation Assessment................................................................................................................................6
3.0 REFERENCES...............................................................................................6
APPENDICES
Appendix A Project Vicinity Map and Background Tables
Figure 1 Project Vicinity Map and Directions
Figure 2 Restoration Summary Map
Figure 3 Reference Stream Locations Map
Figure 4 Monitoring Features Overview Map
Table 1 Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Table 2 Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3 Project Contacts
Table 4 Project Attributes (Pre -Construction Conditions)
Appendix B Visual Assessment Data
Figure 5 Current Condition Plan View (CCPV) Maps
Table 5 Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Table 6 Vegetation Conditions Assessment
Stream Station Photo -Points
Vegetation Plot Photographs
Crest Gauge Photographs
Stream and Vegetation Problem Areas and Repair Photographs
Appendix C Vegetation Plot Data
Table 7 CVS Density Per Plot
Table 8 CVS Vegetation Plot Summary Information
Table 9 Total Stem Counts for Each Species Arranged by Plot
Appendix D Stream Survey Data
Figure 6 Year 3 Cross-sections
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96074
MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 7 (2018)

Figure
7
Pebble Count Plot Data
Table
10
Baseline Stream Summary
Table
Ila
Cross-section Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring
Summary
Table
1 lb
Stream Reach Morphology Summary
Appendix E Hydrologic Data
Figure 8 Flow Gauge Graphs
Figure 9 Observed Rainfall Versus Historic Average Graph
Table 12 Verification of Bankfull Events
Table 13 Flow Gauge Success
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96074
MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 7 (2018)

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. (Baker) restored 4,721 linear feet of perennial and intermittent stream and
enhanced 3,948 linear feet of intermittent stream as documented in the As -built Baseline Report. Baker also
planted approximately 14.4 acres of native riparian vegetation within the 22.7 acre recorded conservation
easement areas along all or portions of the restored and enhanced reaches (Reaches R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6,
R7, T1, and T2). The Thomas Creek Restoration Project (Site) is located in Wake County, North Carolina
(Figure 1), approximately 1.5 miles southwest of the Community of New Hill. (Figure 1). The Site is located
within the NC Division of Mitigation Services' (NCDMS) Targeted Local Watershed (TLW) 03030004-020010
(the Harris Lake Hydrologic Unit) of the Cape Fear River Basin, and is located in what was formerly known as
the NC Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) subbasin 03-06-07. The project involved the restoration and
enhancement of a rural Piedmont stream system, which had been impaired due to past agricultural conversion
and cattle grazing.
Based on the NCDMS 2009 Cape Fear River Basin Restoration Priority (RBRP) Plan, the Thomas Creek
Restoration Project area is located in an existing targeted local watershed within the Cape Fear River Basin and
is located within the Middle Cape Fear / Kenneth and Parker Creeks, Local Watershed Planning (LWP) area.
The restoration strategy for the Cape Fear River Basin is to promote low impact development, stormwater
management, restoration and buffer protection in urbanizing areas, and buffer preservation elsewhere.
The primary goal of the project was to improve ecologic functions through the restoration and enhancement of
streams and buffers in a degraded, urbanizing area as described in the NCDMS 2009 Cape Fear RBRP. Detailed
project goals are identified below:
• Create geomorphically stable conditions along the unnamed tributaries throughout the Site,
• Protect and improve water quality by reducing streambank erosion, and nutrient/sediment inputs,
• Restore stream and floodplain interaction by connecting historic flow paths and promoting natural
flood processes,
• Restore and protect riparian buffer functions and corridor habitat in perpetuity by establishing a
permanent conservation easement, and
• Improve aquatic and terrestrial habitat through improved substrate and in -stream cover, addition of
woody debris, and reduction of water temperature.
To accomplish these goals, the following objectives were identified:
• Restore existing incised, eroding, and channelized streams by providing them access to their relic
floodplains,
• Implement agricultural BMPs, including cattle watering stations, to reduce nonpoint source (NPS)
inputs to receiving waters,
• Prevent cattle from accessing the conservation easement by installing permanent fencing and thus
reduce excessive streambank erosion and undesired nutrient inputs,
• Enhance aquatic habitat value by providing more bedform diversity, creating natural scour pools and
reducing sediment from accelerated streambank erosion,
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96074
MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 7 (2018)

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 3 monitoring survey data of the sixteen permanent cross-sections indicates that these stream sections
are geomorphically stable and are within the lateral/vertical stability and in -stream structure performance
categories. Certain cross-sections (located in Appendix D) have shown very minor fluctuations in their
geometry from last year, but these fluctuations do not represent a trend towards instability based off visual field
evaluations. All reaches are stable and performing as designed, and are rated at virtually 100 percent for all the
parameters evaluated with the exception of the two Stream Problem Areas (SPAS) described below.
During Year 3 monitoring, there were two SPAS observed on site. Both are short sections (-15 ft each) of
minor bank scour that occurred during Hurricane Florence along the downstream sections of pool bends on
Reach R2. These two sections are shorter sub -sections of stream areas previously identified in the Monitoring
Year 2 (MY2) report as SPAS for lacking good bank vegetation. In March 2018 these areas had been replanted
with livestakes, which were growing and stabilizing the banks when Hurricane Florence hit in mid-September.
The vast majority of the banks with the newly establishing livestakes held firm through the storm, but the two
SPA areas experienced minor scour from the high flows and had their livestakes seriously damaged or washed
out altogether. These areas will be graded back by hand and replanted with additional livestakes in the winter
of 2018/2019. These SPAS are further described in Table 5 and shown in both the CCPV and in photographs,
all of which can be found in Appendix B.
During Year 3 monitoring, the planted acreage performance categories were functioning well with no bare areas
to report (Appendix Q. The average density of total planted stems, based on data collected from the sixteen
monitoring plots following Year 3 monitoring in October 2018, was 597 stems per acre. Thus, the Year 3
vegetation data demonstrate that the Site meets 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 3
monitoring.
There were however, two Vegetation Problem Areas (VPAs) identified during the Year 3 monitoring. The first
VPA is an area of low stem density totaling 0.20 acres observed along both banks of a section of Reach T1.
This area is somewhat steeper and drier than the surrounding, more vegetatively successful areas. It is believed
that previously harsh growing seasons that were particularly hot and dry ultimately led to a high plant mortality.
It will be supplementally planted with bare -root and/or 1 -gallon plants of appropriate species during the winter
of 2018/2019. The second VPA is an area of low vigor/short stem heights totaling approximately 0.38 acres
noted along the left buffer of Reach R3. Upon close observation, there are a sufficient number of living stems
in this area, they simply are not growing at the expected rate. As noted above, previous growing seasons have
been particularly harsh and that no doubt hurt plant growth. However, a subsequent soil test revealed that this
buffer area could also benefit from a small application of soil amendments. So, over the winter of 2018/2019,
this area will receive an application of lime, and then some additional fertilizer in the spring and/or fall of 2019.
These WAS are further described in Table 6 and shown in the CCPV, both of which can be found in Appendix
B.
Throughout the monitoring year, Baker also conducted numerous temporary vegetation transects in areas
outside the permanent vegetation plots to help assess project performance. The transects were measured out in
the field as 100 ft long by 12 ft wide (for an area roughly similar to that of the veg plots). Any living stem of
an acceptable species that was at least 2 ft in height was counted. These stem counts were then converted into
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. 2
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96074
MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 7 (2018)

stems/acre values for comparison to the vegetation success criteria values. There were seven transects taken
during the Year 3 monitoring season; each one meeting the MY3 success criteria, and with an overall average
of 544 stems/acre. The location of the transects and their stems/acre values are shown on the CCPV found in
Appendix B.
Additionally, during Year 3 monitoring, low stem densities were observed in early 2018 along a section of the
right buffer of Reach R3. It was estimated that this area (totaling approximately 0.44 acres) was still passing
the MY3 success criteria of 320 stems/acre, but had nevertheless experienced greater mortality than the rest of
the site. Most of this area is located along a drier, steeper slope than the rest of the surrounding buffer and it is
believed that previous hot and dry harsh growing seasons contributed to the mortality. As such, in March 2018
this area was supplementally planted with a total of 60, 1 -gallon container sized trees. The species planted were
an approximately equal mix of green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), American hornbeam (Carpinus
caroliniana), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), basswood (Tilia americana), persimmon (Diospyros
virginiana), and silky dogwood (Cornus amomum, planted in the wetter portions of the lower floodplain). A
subsequent inspection of this planted area during monitoring activities in October 2018 revealed that the planted
stems appeared to be alive and growing well, as numerous stems were quickly and easily identified in the field
(including along one temporary vegetation transect) and had leaves and/or bud scars to indicate seasonal growth
and all-around vigor. Please see the CCPV in Appendix B for the location of this supplementally planted area.
Year 3 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 357 days of consecutive flow in Reach 2 (dating from Nov. 2017 to Oct. 2018), while
flow gauge TMCK-FL2 documented 82 days of consecutive flow in Reach 5. The flow gauges demonstrated
similar patterns relative to rainfall events as shown in the flow gauge graphs in Appendix E.
During Year 3 monitoring, the Reach R2 crest gauge (crest gauge #1) documented two post -construction
bankfull events in April 2018 and September 2018 (from Hurricane Florence). As bankfull events have now
been documented in all three years of monitoring, the project has now met the bankfull standard required for
credit release.
Two pebble counts were conducted in MY3, one each in riffles located along Reach R2 and Reach R5. The
results indicate that the riffle in R2 has somewhat coarsened as compared to MYl and MY2 and now more
closely resembles the as -built baseline distribution. It seems likely this is a result of the high flows from storm
events this past year (in particular Hurricane Florence) having flushed out some of the smaller material that had
settled in the riffle. By comparison, the riffle in R5 appears very stable as the distribution is quite similar to
MY2 results, despite the significant flow events of the past year. Pebble count data and graphs can be found in
Appendix D.
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 3 monitoring activities for the post -construction
monitoring period.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96074
MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 7 (2018)

2.0 METHODOLOGY
The seven-year monitoring plan for the Site includes criteria to evaluate the success of the stream and vegetation
components of the Site. The methodology and report template used to evaluate these components adheres to
the DMS guidance documents Monitoring Requirements and Performance Standards for Stream and/or Wetland
Mitigation (DMS 2011), and to the Monitoring Report Template, Version 1.5 (DMS 2012), which will continue
to serve as the template for subsequent monitoring years. The vegetation -monitoring quadrants follow CVS -
DMS monitoring levels 1 and 2 in accordance with CVS -DMS Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version 4.1
(Lee 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 Current Condition Plan View (CCPV)
map found in Appendix B.
All earthwork for project construction was completed in October of 2015, with subsequent as -built survey work
completed in November of 2015. All site planting (bareroot stems and live -stakes) was completed in January
of 2016.
The Monitoring Year 3 vegetation plot data were collected in September and October 2018, the visual site
assessment data contained in Appendix B were obtained in October 2018, and the cross-section data in
Appendix D were collected in November 2018.
2.1 Stream Assessment
The Project involved the restoration and enhancement of a rural Piedmont stream system that had been impaired
due to past agricultural conversion and cattle grazing. Restoration practices involved raising the existing
streambed and reconnecting the stream to the relic floodplain to restore natural flood regimes to the system.
The existing channels abandoned within the restoration areas were partially to completely filled to decrease
surface and subsurface drainage and to raise the local water table. Permanent cattle exclusion fencing was
provided around all proposed reaches and riparian buffers, except along reaches where no cattle are located or
cattle lack stream access.
2.1.1 Morphological Parameters and Channel Stability
A longitudinal profile was surveyed for the entire length of channel immediately after construction to
document as -built baseline conditions for the Monitoring Year 0 only. Annual longitudinal profiles
will not be conducted during subsequent monitoring years unless channel instability has been
documented or remedial actions/repairs are required by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
or DMS.
Survey data from the sixteen permanent project cross-sections were collected and 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 (Rosgen 1994). The Year 3 monitoring
survey data for the cross-sections indicates that the Site is geomorphically stable and performing at 100
percent for all the parameters evaluated. The data collected are within the lateral/vertical stability and
in -stream structure performance categories. Morphological survey data are presented in Appendix D.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96074
MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 7 (2018)

Please note, as per DMS/IRT request the bank height ratios for MY3 have been calculated using the as -
built bankfull area to determine low bank height and the max depth based on the current -year channel
profile. All other values were calculated using the as -built bankfull elevation, as was done for all
previous monitoring reports.
Particle size distribution assessments (pebble counts) were conducted using the modified Wolman
method as described in Applied River Morphology (Rosgen 1996).
2.1.2 Hydrology
To monitor on-site bankfull events, one crest gauge (crest gauge # 1) was installed along the downstream
portion of Reach R2 at bankfull elevation along the left top of bank at approximately Station 38+90.
During Year 3 monitoring, two above-bankfull events were documented; one in April 2018 and another
in September 2018 (from Hurricane Florence). Further details of the crest gauge readings are presented
in Table 12 in Appendix E, and photographs can be found in Appendix B.
To monitor flow on restored reaches, two flow gauges were installed on site; TMCK-FL1 on Reach 2
(Station 20+75), and TMCK-FL2 on Reach 5 (Station 33+90). The Year 3 flow monitoring data
demonstrated that both flow gauges met the stated success criteria of 30 days or more of consecutive
flow. The gauges also demonstrated similar patterns relative to rainfall events and can corroborate
reported overbank flow events from the crest gauge, as shown in the flow gauge graphs found in
Appendix E.
As the observed monthly rainfall data for the project presented in Figure 9 in Appendix E demonstrates,
the past 12 months have been much wetter as compared to historic averages. A total of 54.9 in. of
rainfall was observed for the project (using the nearest NC-CRONOS station KTTA), while Wake
County averages 43.8 in. of annual rainfall, an excess of over 11 in.
2.1.3 Photographic Documentation
Reference photograph transects were taken at each permanent cross-section in November of 2018. 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 stream photographs for Monitoring Year 3 were taken along each Reach in October
2018 and are provided in Appendix B.
Photographs of each Vegetation Plot taken in September and October 2018 can also 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 evaluated.
During Year 3 monitoring, Baker staff walked the entire length of each of the Project reaches several
times throughout the year, noting geomorphic conditions of the stream bed profile (riffle/pool facets),
both stream banks, and engineered in -stream structures. Representative photographs were taken per
the Site's Mitigation Plan, and the locations of any SPAS were documented in the field for subsequent
mapping on the CCPV figures. There were two SPAS (bank scour) noted during Year 3 monitoring as
described above. A more detailed summary of the results for the visual stream stability assessment can
be found in Appendix B, which includes supporting data tables and figures, as well as the general stream
photos.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96074
MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 7 (2018)

2.2 Vegetation Assessment
In order to determine if the success criteria were achieved, vegetation -monitoring quadrants were installed and
are monitored across the site in accordance with the CVS -DMS Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version 4.1
(Lee 2007) using the CVS -DMS Data Entry Tool v. 2.3.1 (CVS 2012). The vegetation monitoring plots cover
a minimum of 2 percent of the planted portion of the Site with sixteen plots established randomly within the
planted riparian buffer areas per Monitoring Levels 1 and 2. The sizes of individual quadrants are 100 square
meters for woody tree species.
During Year 3 monitoring, the planted acreage performance categories were functioning well with no bare areas
to report. The average density of total planted stems, based on data collected from the sixteen monitoring plots
following Year 3 monitoring in September and October 2018, was 597 stems per acre. Thus, the Year 3
vegetation data demonstrate that the Site has met the minimum success interim criteria of 320 trees per acre by
the end of Year 3. There were two VPAs (one area of thin stem densities, and one are of low vigor/short stem
heights) noted during the Year 3 monitoring as described above.
Additionally, there were no significant areas of invasive species vegetation observed during the Year 3
monitoring. There were a few small, isolated pockets of cattail (Typha latifolia) found along sections of Reach
R2. They will be monitored closely over the next year and treated if necessary.
The complete Year 3 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. 2012.
Lee, M., Peet R., Roberts, S., Wentworth, T. 2007. CVS -DMS Protocol for Recording Vegetation,
Version 4.1.
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (DMS). 2012. NCDMS Monitoring Report Template,
Version 1.5, June 8, 2012.
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (DMS). 2011. NCDMS Monitoring Requirements and
Performance Standards for Stream and/or Wetland Mitigation. November 7, 2011.
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (DMS). 2009. Cape Fear River Basin Restoration Priorities.
Rosgen, D. L. 1994. A Classification of Natural Rivers. Catena 22:169-199.
Rosgen, D.L. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildlands Hydrology. Pagosa Springs, CO.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96074
MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 7 (2018)

Appendix A
Project Vicinity Map and Background Tables

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.
. z
4
`Jordan
CHATW.
C0OnT
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
Project Location
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
Restoration - PI (1:1) �, •._
Restoration - PH (1:1)
Enhancement 1 (1.5:1) --
Enhancement 11 (2.5:1)
Enhancement 11 (5:1)
Enhancement 11 (10:1) Aim belik
Lh R3
ream)
r �
Reach R6
(upstream)
Reach R3
(downstream)
Reach R6
(downstream)
Reach R7
(upstream)
NONNEW-- a
-R.
Reach R4
(upstream)
Reach R4
(downstream)
it
Reach R2
(upstream)
A -
Reach T2 i`
Reach R5
(upstream)
Reach T1
Reach R7
(downstream) ._
Reach R2
(downstream)
Reach R5
M
(downstream)
a'
e
1006 Reach R1
INTERNATIONAL
Figure 2
0 250 500 Restoration Summary Map
Feet Thomas Creek Site

A Reference Stream Locations I' I IX -
C HAT H-
C ov
�Y',
D p
i
�i
WAK
Upper Reach R4
A
Michael .
• . _ NCDEQ -
Division of
N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L Mitigation Services
A
Little Beaver Cr.
Proiect Location
NEENNE
' Holly Springs
f
N Figure 3
0 0.5 Reference Stream
Miles A Locations Map
Thomas Creek Site

= Conservation Easement
F-_1
Veg Plot Locations
!
Cross Sections
0
Crest Gauge
®
Flow Gauge
Pebble Count Locations
A
Photo -Points
V16
E4
Reach R6
(upstream) I
ReachR6R6
(down
r+
4
V15
Reach R7
(upstream)
F7r
N
A
Reach R7 X14
(downstream)
Reach R5
(downstream)
I N T E R N AT 1 0 N A L
+� V7 A. X6
Reach R5 aX7
(upstream)'' .., V$ Reach T1
Reach R2
:X 5 (downstream)
wV13 X10 X9
a
2 #1
V10
X16
rV12 ,� ;�-
X11 V11
X12I
Reach R1
Figure 4
0 250 500 Monitoring Features
Feet Overview Map
Thomas Creek Site
Reach R4
!
(upstream)
Reach R3
"
(upstream)
V4
f X1
h
Reach R3
(downstream) X2 .� :
b V1
V5
Reach R4
A_
X4 (downstream)
X3
Ilk
�JW
r
_
X5
Reach T2
.V6
.. a`
Reach R7 X14
(downstream)
Reach R5
(downstream)
I N T E R N AT 1 0 N A L
+� V7 A. X6
Reach R5 aX7
(upstream)'' .., V$ Reach T1
Reach R2
:X 5 (downstream)
wV13 X10 X9
a
2 #1
V10
X16
rV12 ,� ;�-
X11 V11
X12I
Reach R1
Figure 4
0 250 500 Monitoring Features
Feet Overview Map
Thomas Creek Site

Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Thomas Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 96074
Miti ation Credits
Stream (SMUs)
Riparian Wetland
Non -riparian Wetland
Buffer
Nitrogen Nutrient Offset
Phosphorus
Nutrient Offset
Type R, El, EII
Totals 5,706
Project Com onents
Project Component or Reach ID
As -Built Stationing/ Location
Existing Footage/
Acreage (LF) Approach
Restoration/ Restoration
Equivalent (SMU) from
Mitigation Plan*
Design Reach
Length (LF) from
Mitigation Plan**
As -Built
Restoration
Footage (LF)
Mitigation
Ratio
Reach 1
42+01 to 44+99
397 Restoration
266
266
298
1:1
Reach 2 (downstream)t
27+78 to 42+01
1,238 Restoration (PI)
1,384
1,404
1,423
1:1
Reach 2 (upstream)t
20+55 to 27+58 (at CE Break)
757 Restoration (PII)
703
703
703
1:1
Reach 3 (downstream)
11+17 to 18+70 / CE Break / 18+94 to 20+55
937 Restoration
929
949
914
1:1
Reach 3 (upstream)
10+00 to 11+17
130 Enhancement II
26
130
117
5:1
Reach 4 (downstream)
10+41 to 13+83
327 Restoration
361
361
342
1:1
Reach 4 (upstream)
00+99 to 09+95
870 Enhancement II
87
870
896
10:1
Reach 5 (downstream)
29+30 to 34+97 / CE Break / 35+17 to 39+91
883 Restoration
1,044
1,064
1,041
1:1
Reach 5 (upstream)
28+02 to 29+30
137 Enhancement II
27
137
128
5:1
Reach 6 (downstream)
12+10 to 15+55 / CE Break / 15+81 to 28+02
1,592 Enhancement II
320
1,618
1,566
5:1
Reach 6 (upstream)
10+00 to 12+10
210 Enhancement I
140
210
210
1.5:1
Reach 7 (downstream)
13+60 to 16+47
287 Enhancement II
57
286
287
5:1
Reach 7 (upstream)
10+00 to 13+60
360 Enhancement II
144
360
360
2.5:1
Reach Tl
10+00 to 10+55 / CE Break / 10+75 to 12+47
242 Enhancement I
155
253
227
1.5:1
Reach T2
10+00 to 11+57
171 Enhancement II
63
158
157
2.5:1
Component Summation
Restoration Level
Stream (LF)
Riparian Wetland (AC) Non -riparian Wetland (AC)
Buffer (SF)
Upland (AC)
Restoration
4,721
Enhancement
437
Enhancement II
3,511
BMP Elements
Element Location
Purpose/Function
Notes
BMP Elements: BR= Bioretention Cell; SF= Sand Filter; SW= Stormwater Wetland; WDP= Wet Detention Pond; DDP= Dry Detention
Pond; FS= Filter Strip; S= Grassed Swale; LS= Level Spreader; NI=Natural Infiltration Area
Notes:
f Starting in MY2, Reach 2 was broken up into an upstream and downstream component based on restoration approach as per DMS request. None of the actual restored lengths have changed, although the credits for
R2 (downstream) were adjusted as explained below.
* Starting in MY2, the SMT credit numbers used for these reaches were taken directly from the mitigation plan credit table (Table 5.1) as per DMS/IRT instruction, and vary from those presented in the baseline and MY
monitoring reports. This was done because credits were originally calculated along the as -built thalweg but have been updated to be calculated along stream centerlines for MY2 onward after discussions with the IRT
stemming from the April 3, 2017 Credit Release Meeting. Stationing and Restoration Footage numbers reported herein and on all subsequent monitoring reports will remain as reported from the as -built survey. As Reach R2
was not originally subdivided, the credits were reduced from the downstream section where the bulk of differences are expected to have occurred, though the total combined credits equal the original value for R2 as found in
the approved mitigation plan.
** Starting in MY3, as per DMS/IRT instruction, this column was added to the table showing the design reach lengths taken from the mitigation plan (Table ES. 1). Please note these numbers did not remove non -creditable
sections such as easement breaks for crossings from their calculations.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 3 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
3 Years, 2 Months
Elapsed Time Since Planting Completed in Jan. 2016
2 Years, 11 Months
Number of Reporting Years '
3
Activity or Deliverable
Data Collection
Complete
Actual Completion or
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
Oct -17
Nov -17
Year 3 Monitoring
Nov -18
Dec -18
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
1 The number of reports or data points produced excluding the baseline
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 3 MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96074)

Table 3. Project Contacts
Thomas Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95729
Designer
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
Cary, NC 27518
Contact:
Katie McKeithan, Telephone: [phone]
Construction Contractor
114 W. Main St.
River Works, Inc.
Clayton, NC 27520
Contact:
Bill Wright, Telephone: [phone]
Planting Contractor
114 W. Main St.
River Works, Inc.
Clayton, NC 27520
Contact:
George Morris, Telephone: [phone]
Seeding Contractor
114 W. Main St.
River Works, Inc.
Clayton, NC 27520
Contact:
Bill Wright, Telephone: [phone]
Seed Mix Source
Green Resources, Telephone: [phone]
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Mellow Marsh Farm, Telephone: [phone]
ArborGen, Telephone: [phone]
Monitoring Performers
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
Cary, NC 27518
Contact:
Stream Monitoring Point of Contact
Scott King, Tel. [phone]
Vegetation Monitoring Point of Contact
Scott King, Tel. [phone]
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 3 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 RI main stem at downstream extent)
Project Drainage Area Percent Impervious
<1%
CGIA / NCEEP Land Use Classification
2.01.01.01, 2.03.01, 2.99.01, 3.02 / Forest (66%) Agriculture (19%) Impervious Cover
(1%)
Reach Summary Information
Parameters
Reach RI
Reach R2
Reach R3
Reach R4
Reach R5
Length of Reach (linear feet)
397
1,995
1,067
342
1,020
Valley Classification (Rosgen)
VII
VII
VII
VII
VII
Drainage Area (acres)
246
176
62
36
62
NCDWR Stream Identification Score
37.5
38
25/37
31
31 /34
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
C
Morphological Description
(Rosgen stream e
Be
F (upstream)/
Gc(downstream)
Ge (upstream)/
Be (downstream)
Be
Be
Evolutionary Trend
Bc4Gc4F
BC-)GC-)F
Bc4GC-)F
Bc4Gc4F
Bc4Gc4F
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
HydricH
dric
Hydric
Average Channel Slope (ft/ft)
0.0165
0.0083
0.014
0.0102
0.0172
FEMA Classification
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Native Vegetation Community
Piedmont Small Stream
Percent Composition of Exotic/Invasive Vegetation
<5%
25%
<5%
<5%
<5%
Parameters
Reach R6
Reach R7
Reach TI
Reach T2
Length of Reach (linear feet)
1,828
646
242
171
Valley Classification (Rosgen)
VII
VII
VII
VII
Drainage Area (acres)
32
14
49
5
NCDWR Stream Identification Score
25/30
23/35
23.75
20.75
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
C
Morphological Description
(Rosgen stream type)
G5c (upstream)/
B5c(downstream)
G5 (upstream)/
135c (downstream)
BSc
BSc
Evolutionary Trend
BC-)GC-)F
BC-)GC-)F
Bc4GC-)F
BC-)GC-)F
Underlying Mapped Soils
WoA
WoA
WoA
WoA
Drainage Class
Poorly drained
Poorly drained
Poorly drained
Poorly drained
Soil Hydric Status
Hydric
Hydric
Hydric
Hydric
Average Channel Slope (ft/ft)
0.015/0.025
0.025
0.02
0.041
FEMA Classification
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Native Vegetation Community
Piedmont Small Stream
Percent Composition of Exotic/Invasive Vegetation
<5%
<5% 1
<5% 1
<5
Regulatory Considerations
Regulation
Applicable Resolved
Supporting Documentation
Waters of the United State'—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 3 MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95729)

Appendix B
Visual Assessment Data

Reach R6
(upstream)
Reach R6
lliiid (downstream)
Reach R7
(upstream)
Reach R7
(downstream)
NCOneMap Orthoimagery 2013
I N T E R N AT 1 0 N A L
Reach R5
Rea
,k
Air
Reach R5
(upstream)
Reach R2
(downstream)
o o�
.A
0 250 500
Feet
DEQ DMS Project # 96074
I�
Reach R4
(upstream)
Reach R4
(downstream)
Figure 5 Index Map
Current Condition Plan View
Thomas Creek Site - MY3

Reach R3
(upstream)
Veg Transect: 508 stems/ac
Veg Plot 3:
324 stems/ac
VegPlotPlot 4: 486 stems/ac Veg Transect:
689 stems/ac
VPA: Low Vigor/ each R4
Short Stems (0.38 ac) (upstream)
i
Reach R3
(downstream) _
Veg Transect:
363 stems/ac e
Veg Plot 5:
..,_ 405 stems/ac
t
t.
k .: Supplemental
Planting (0.44 ac)
v,
;y�.���. •pry,;.,: - ;�,
PR�each T2
I N T E R N AT 1 0 N A L
0 100 200
Feet Figure 5A
Current Condition Plan View
DENR DMS Project # 96074 Thomas Creek Site - MY3
g Plot 1:567 stems/ac
kR4
Reach
(downstream) �} ,
Veg Plot 2:
405 stems/ac
F
Conservation Easement
Cross Sections
Crest Gauge
® Flow Gauge
Photo -Points
Veg Plot 6:
Streams by Mitigation Type
486 stems/ac
Restoration
Enhancement
Reach R2 Enhancement 11
(upstream )
No Credit
Veg Plots - Year 3 (All Passed)
- Pass
Temporary Veg Transects
® Supplemental Planting (March 2018)
1
® VPA: Low Vigor / Short Stems
0 100 200
Feet Figure 5A
Current Condition Plan View
DENR DMS Project # 96074 Thomas Creek Site - MY3

Reach R7
(downstream)
,�. Reach R5
downstream
Y-. r
Reach T2
Reach R6 _; .4'
�
(downstream)'-
thin stem
XS -6
density (0.20 ac)
Veg Plot 7:
688 stems/ac
1XS-7
each T1
Reach R5
' Veg Plot
(upstream) Reach R2
-
445 stems//ac
(downstream )
Veg Plot 14:
728 stems/ac
SPA -1
X. Veg Plot 13:
607 stems/ac
Veg Plot 9:
607 stems/ac
Veg Transect:
°X
SPA -2
363 stem/ac
Veg Transect:
r762
stem/ac
FL2
IPP=SO
Conservation Easement
Cross Sections
33'
Veg Plot 10:
0 Crest Gauge
809 stems/ac
® Flow Gauge
Pebble Count Locations
- SPA: Bank Scour
Veg Plot 12:
Veg Transect:
Livestakes Replanted (March
809 stems/ac
798 stem/ac
2018)
PP -57.` n �:
Photo Locations
Veg Transect:
Veg Plot 11:
Streams by Mitigation Type
326 stem/ac
XS -11 850 stems/a(
+
Restoration
PP -34
Enhancement
XS -12-*,,-
Reach R1
Enhancement II
No Credit
Veg Plots - Year 3
- All Plots Passed
Temporary Veg Transects
VPA: Thin Stem Density
0 100 200
Feet
Figure 5113
Current Condition Plan View
Thomas Creek Site - MY3
N T E R N AT 1 0 N A L DENR DMS Project# 96074

th
�W
Conservation Easement
Cross•
• • Locationss p�T•' x� ' ,
Streams by Mitigation Type
Restoration
a - f• - : .*
Enhancement 11
No CreditVeg Plots
All Plots Passed
ek
Rea
(u Pst
Veg Plot 14.
s:
~fir ,�'. ,�,<•►r� •
r ,
. is �, • _ _ �� �� �, A� � -. .. + ::
- .ayi'. '� A .:fid' '7.~ ",�r''-�.,af� •i�r ��
r� "r�,...;4rry • �1 � '� gyp. ••a,. - .. �a':ti � .'' 728
0 100 200
Michael Baker —Feet•
- DIVIS Project# 96074

Table 5. Visual Steam Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID: Reach 2
Thomas Creek Restoration
Project: DMS Project ID No. 96074
Reach ID: Reach 1
2,126
Assessed Length (LF):
298
Metric
Number Stable,
Performin as
9
Intended
Total Number
per As -built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
%Stable,
Performingas
Intended
Number with Footage with Adjusted %for
Stabilizing Stabilizing Stabilizing
9 9 9
Woody Vag. Woody Woody Vag.
1.Vertical Stability
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow laterally (not to
include point bars)
0
Number Stable,
100%
Number of
Amount of
%Stable,
Number with
Footage with Adjusted %for
Major Channel Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Performing as
Total Number
Unstable
Unstable
Performing as
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
1. Bed
3. Meander Pool Condition
1. Depth - Sufficent (Max Pool Depth/Mean Bkf Depth z 1.5)
Intended
per As -built
Segments
Footage
Intended
Woodv Ve .
Woodv Ve .
Woody Veg.
2. Length - Sufficent (>30% of centerline distance between tail of upstream riffle and
head of downstream riffle) 41 41
100%
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow laterally (not to
4. Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
0
0
100%
100%
1.Vertical Stability
include point bars)
2. Degradation - Evidence of do -cutting
0
0
100%
Bank lacking vegetative cover due to active scour and erosion
2
30
99%
0
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture Substrate - Riffle maintains warner substrate
3
3
Banks undercuttoverhanging to the extent that mass wasting is expected
100
0
100%
0
1. Bed
100%
1. Depth - Sufficent (Max Pool Depth/Mean Bkf Depth z 1.5)
3
3
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
2. Length - Sufficent (>30% of centerline distance between tail of upstream riffle and
Totalsl
2
1 30
1 99% 1
0
0
3. Meander Pool Condition
head of downstream riffle)
3
3
100%
IL
3. Engineering Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs
27
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
3
3
100%
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill
24
4. Thalweg Position
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide)
3
3
100
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath or around sills or arms
27
27
100%
3. Bank Position
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%
27
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover due to active scour and erosion
100%
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
2. Bank
2. Undercut
Banks undercutloverhanging to the extent that mass wasting is ex ected
100%
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%
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs
3
3
100%
3. Engineering Structures
1. Overall Integrity
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill
2
2
100%
2a. Piping
Istructures lacking any substantial flow underneath or around sills or arms
3
3
100%,
3. Bank Position
JBank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%
3
3
100%
Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth/Mean Bankfull Depth ratio z 1.5.
3
3
100%
4. Habitat
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at low flow
Table 5. Visual Steam Morphology Stability Assessment
Thomas Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 96074
Reach ID: Reach 2
Assessed Length (LF):
2,126
Major Channel Category
1 9 ry
Channel Sub -Cate 9crY
Metric
Number Stable,
Performin as
9
Intended
Total Number
per As -built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
%Stable,
Performingas
Intended
Number with Footage with Adjusted %for
Stabilizing Stabilizing Stabilizing
9 9 9
Woody Vag. Woody Woody Vag.
1.Vertical Stability
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow laterally (not to
include point bars)
0
0
100%
fta.
2. Degradation - Evidence of do -cutting 0
0 100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture Substrate - Riffle maintains warner substrate
38
38
100%
1. Bed
3. Meander Pool Condition
1. Depth - Sufficent (Max Pool Depth/Mean Bkf Depth z 1.5)
41
41
100%
2. Length - Sufficent (>30% of centerline distance between tail of upstream riffle and
head of downstream riffle) 41 41
100%
4. Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
41
41
100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide) 41 41
100
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover due to active scour and erosion
2
30
99%
0
0
99%
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%
Totalsl
2
1 30
1 99% 1
0
0
99%
ALL
3. Engineering Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs
27
27
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill
24
24
100
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath or around sills or arms
27
27
100%
3. Bank Position
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%
27
27
100%
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
13
100%
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 3 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):
Assessed Length (LF):
1,031
Major Channel Category
Major Channel Cate
/ gory
Channel Sub -Cate gory
Metric
Number Stable,
Performing as
d
Intended
Total Number
per As -built
Number of
Unstable
Se meets
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
%Stable,
Performin as
g
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
9
Woody Veg.
Footage with Adjusted %for
Stabilizing Stabilizing
9 9
Woody Veg. Woody Veg.
1. Bed
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 downcultin 0 0 100%
1. Texture Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate 100%
i6 16
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting
1. Texture Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate 8 8
2. Riffle Condition
3. Meander Pool Condition
1. Depth - Sufficent (Max Pool Depth/Mean Bkf Depth z 1.5)
15
15
1. Depth - Sufficent (Max Pool Depth/Mean Bkf Depth >_ 1.5)
8
100%
100%
2. Length - Sufficent (>30% of centerline distance betwee4ise-upeGIted ream riffle and 100%
head of downstream riffle 15 15
4. Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
15
15
4. Thalweg Position
100%
8
8
2. Thalwegcenteringat downstream of meander bend G 15 15 100%
100%
2. Thalwegcenteringat downstream of meander bend Glide 8 8
100%
1. ScouredlEroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover due to active scour and ero
0
0
100 %
0
0
100
0
2. Undercut
Banks undercutloverhan in to the extent that mass wasting
100%
0
0
100 %
0
0
100
2. Bank
3. Mass Wasting
Banks slumping, caving or collapse
0
100%
0
0
100 %
0
0
100
1 0
100%
0
0
T.tal.1
0 1
0
1 100 % 1
0
1 0
1 100%
0
100%
0
0
100%
3. Engineering Structures
11. Overall Integrity
Istructures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs
10
10
11. Overall Integrity Istructures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs
4
100%
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill
2
2
1
1
100%
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath or around sills or arms
10
10
4
100%
100%
3. Bank Position
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%
10
10
100%
4. Habitat
Pool foing structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth/Mean Bankfull Depth ratio z 1.5.
Rootwadrms/I s rovidin 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 Length (LF):
1,238
Major Channel Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
Per As -built
Numberof
Unstable
Segments
Amountof
Unstable
Footage
%Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Numberwith
Stabilizing
Woody Veg.
Footagewith
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
1. Texture Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate 8 8
0 100%
100
2. Riffle Condition
1. Bed
3. Meander Pool Condition
1. Depth - Sufficent (Max Pool Depth/Mean Bkf 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. Thalwe centering at upstream of meander bend Run
8
8
100%
2. Thalwegcenteringat 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
1 2. Undercut Banks undercutfoverhanging to the extent that mass wasting is expected
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3. Mass Wasting Banks slumping, caving or collapse
0
1 0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3. Engineering Structures
11. Overall Integrity Istructures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs
4
4
100%
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill
1
1
100%
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath or around sills or arms
4
4
100%
3. Bank Position Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%
4
4
100
Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth/Mean Bankfull Depth ratio>_ 1.5.
4. Habitat Rootwads/I s roviding some cover at low flow
3
3
100%
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 3 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
Reach ID: Reach 6
Assessed Length (LF):
1,169
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
Segmenis
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
%Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Numberwith
Stabilizing
Woody Veg.
Footage with Adjusted %for
Stabilizing Stabilizing
Woody Ve9� Woody Vag.
Number Stable,
'I.Verfical Stability
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow laterally (not to
include point bars
Amount Of
%Stable,
0
0
100%
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Performing as
2. Degradation - Evidence of do -cutting 0 0
1. Texture Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate 17 17
100%
100%
Unstable
2. Riffle Condition
1. Bed
3. Meander Pool Condition
1. Depth - Sufficent (Max Pool Depth/Mean Bkf Depth z 1.5)
18
18
Intended
100%
Segments
Foota a
Intended
2. Length - Sufficent (>30% of centerline distance between tail of upstream riffle and
head of downstream riffle 18 18
100%
Wood Ve .
4. Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
18
18
0
0
100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend Glide 18 18
100%
include point bars
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcuttin
0
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover due to active scour and erosion
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
2. Undercut
Banks undercuttoverhanging to the extent that mass wasting is expected
100%
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
2. Bank
3. Mass Wasting
Banks slumping, caving or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
5
5
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
head of downstream riffle
3. Engineering Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs
16
16
100
4. Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
5
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill
1
1
100%
2. Thalwegcenteringat downstream of meander bend Glide
5
5
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath or around sills or arms
16
16
100
3. Bank Position
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%
16
16
100%
1. Scoured/Eroding Bank lacking vegetative cover due to active scour and erosion
0
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth/Mean Bankfull Depth ratio z 1.5.
Rootwads/I s rovidin some cover at low flow
15
15
100%
2. Bank
100%
0
Table 5. Continued Visual Steam Morphology Stability Assessment
Thomas Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 96074
Reach ID: Reach 6
Assessed Length (LF):
1,776
Number Stable,
Number of
Amount Of
%Stable,
Number with
Footage with Adjusted %for
Major Channel Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Performing as
Total Number
Unstable
Unstable
Performing as
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Intended
per A.•built
Segments
Foota a
Intended
Wood Veg.
Wood Ve .
Wood Ve .
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow laterally (not to
0
0
100%
1.Vertical Stability
include point bars
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcuttin
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
100%
6
6
1. Bed
1. Depth - Sufficent (Max Pool Depth/Mean Bid Depth z 1.5)
5
5
100%
3. Meander Pool Condition
2. Length - Sufficent (>30% of centerline distance between tail of upstream riffle and
head of downstream riffle
5
5
100
4. Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
5
5
100%
2. Thalwegcenteringat 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 undercuttoverhan in to the extent that mass wasting is expected
0
0
100 %
0
0
100%
3. Mass Wasting Banks slumping, caving or collapse
0
0
100 %
0
0
100
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3. Engineering Structures
1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs
0
0
-
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill
0
0
-
2a. Pi in Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath or around sills or arms
0
0
-
3. Bank Position Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%
0
0
-
Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth/Mean Bankfull Depth ratio x 1.5.
0
0
-
4. Habitat Rootwads/lo s rovidin some cover at low flow
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 3 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):
647
Number Stable,
Total Number
Number of
Amount of
%Stable,
Number with
Footage with
Adjusted %for
Major Channel Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Performing as
Total Number
Unstable
Unstable
Performing as
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Intended
Intended
Per As -built
Segments
Footage
Intended
oodv Ve .
Woody Veg.
Woody Veg.
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow laterally (not to
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow laterally (not to
0
0
100%
1.Vertical Stability
1.Vertical Stability
include point bars
0
0
100
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcuttin
0
100%
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
1. Texture Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
4
100%
100%
1. Bed
1. Depth - Sufficent (Max Pool Depth/Mean Bkf Depth z 1.5) 1
5
5
5
100%
1. Bed
3. Meander Pool Condition
1. Depth - Sufficent (Max Pool Depth/Mean Bkf Depth z 1.5)
6
6
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
head of downstream riffle
6
6
5
5
100%
100%
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
6
6
5
5
100%
100%
4. Thalweg Position
2. Thalwe centerin at downstream of meander bend Glide
6
6
100
0
100%
0
0
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover due to active scour and erosion
2. Undercut
Banks undercuttoverhanging to the extent that mass wasting is expected
0
0
100%
0
0
100
2. Bank
2. Undercut
Banks undercuVoverhan in to the extent that mass wasting is expected
3. Mass WastingBanks
slumping, cavinor collapse
0
0
100 %
0
0
100
0
3. Mass Wasting
Banks slumping, caving or collapse
0
0
100%
1 0
0
100%
0
100%
T.taisl
0
0
100%
0
0
100
3. Engineering Structures
11. Overall Integrity
Istructures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs
2
2
1
1
100%
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill
2
2
1
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
1
1
100%
100%
Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth/Mean Bankfull Depth ratio z 1.5.
2
2
1
1
100
100
4. Habitat
Rootwads/I s rovidin some cover at low flow
4. Habitat
'00twads/10 s rovidin some cover at low flow
Table 5.Continued Visual Steam Morphology Stability Assessment
Thomas Creek Restoration Project:
DMS Project ID No. 96074
Reach ID: Reach T1
Assessed Length (LF):
227
Number Stable,
Total Number
Number of
Amountof
%Stable,
Number with
Footage with Adjusted %for
Major Channel Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Performing as
Unstable
Unstable
Performing as
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Intended
per As -built
Segments
Footage
Intended
Wood Ve
Woody Veg.
Woody Veg.
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow laterally (not to
0
0
100%
1.Vertical Stability
include point bars)
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
4
4
100%
1. Bed
1. Depth - Sufficent (Max Pool Depth/Mean Bkf Depth z 1.5) 1
5
1 5 1
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
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
5
5
100%
4. Thalweg Position
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide)
5
5
100%
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover due to active scour and erosion
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
2. Undercut
Banks undercuttoverhanging to the extent that mass wasting is expected
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
2. Bank
3. Mass WastingBanks
slumping, cavinor collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
3. Engineering Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs
1
1
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibitingmaintenance of rade 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 z 1.5.
1
1
100
4. Habitat
'00twads/10 s rovidin some cover at low flow
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 3 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
Number Stable,
Number of
Amount of
% Stable,
Number with
Footage with Adjusted %for
Major Channel Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Performing as
Total Number
Unstable
Unstable
Performing as
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Intended
Per As -built
Se ments
Foota a
Intended
Wood Ve
Wood Ve
Wood Ve .
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow laterally (not to
0
0
100%
1.Vertical Stability
include point bars
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
3
3
100%
1. Bed
1. Depth - Sufficent (Max Pool Depth/Mean Bkf Depth z IS)
100%
3. Meander Pool Condition
2
2
2. Length - Sufficent (>30% of centerline distance between tail of upstream riffle and
100
head of downstream riffle)
2
2
4. Thalweg Position
1. Thalwegcenteringat upstream of meander bend Run
2
2
100%
2. Thalwegcenteringat downstream of meander bend Glide
2
2
100%
1. ScouredlEroding
1Bank lacking vegetative cover due to active scour and erosion
00
1 100%
1 0
1 0
100
2. Undercut
113anks undercutloverhanging to the extent that mass wasting is expected
0
0
00%
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
11. Overall Inte rit
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or los
1
1
100%
2. Grade Control
lGrade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill
1
1
100%
2a. PI In
Structures lackingan 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 z 1.5.
1
1
100%
4. Habitat
Rootwads/I s rovidin some cover at low flow
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 3 MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96074)

Table 6. Vegetation Conditions Assessment
Thomas Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 96074
Planted Acreage: 14.4
Vegetation Category
Defintions
Mapping Threshold
CCPV Depiction
Number of Polygons
Combined Acreage
Of Planted
(acres)
Acreage
1. Bare Areas
Very limited cover both woody and herbaceous material.
0.1
N/A
0
0.00
0.0
2. Low Stem Density Areas
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 4,
0.1
Orange hatching
2
0.20
1.4
or 5 stem count criteria.
Total
2
0.20
1.4%
3. Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor
Areas with woody stems or a size class that are obviously small
0.25
Pink hatching
1
0.38
2.6
given the monitoring year.
Cumulative Totall
3
0.58 1
4.0%
Easement Acreage: 22.7
Vegetation Category Defintions
Mapping Threshold
CCPV Depiction
Number of Polygons
Combined Acreage
% of Planted
Acreage
4. Invasive Areas of Concern Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale)
1000 ft2
N/A
0
0.00
0.0
5. Easement Encroachment Areas Areas or points (if loo small to render as polygons at map scale)
none
N/A
0
0.00
0.0
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 3 MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96074)

Thomas Creek: MY3 Stream Station Photo -Points
PP -1: Reach 3, view upstream, Station 11+50
PP -2: Reach 3, view downstream, Station 12+00
PP -3: Reach 3, view upstream, Station 15+75
PP -4: Reach 3, view downstream, Station 16+25
PP -5: Reach 3, view downstream towards pipe crossing,
Station 18+50
PP -6: Reach 3, stream crossing, Station 18+80
�F
X14.
kt
k
1s
PP -1: Reach 3, view upstream, Station 11+50
PP -2: Reach 3, view downstream, Station 12+00
PP -3: Reach 3, view upstream, Station 15+75
PP -4: Reach 3, view downstream, Station 16+25
PP -5: Reach 3, view downstream towards pipe crossing,
Station 18+50
PP -6: Reach 3, stream crossing, Station 18+80

Thomas Creek: MY3 Stream Station Photo -Points
M
PP -7: Reach 3, Station 19+00
PP -8: Reach 4, view downstream at Station 01+90
PP -9: Reach 4, view downstream at Station 05+75
PP -10: Reach 4, view downstream at Station 06+10
PP -11: Reach 4, view upstream at Station 10+10
PP -12: Reach 4, view upstream at Station 10+50

Thomas Creek: MY3 Stream Station Photo -Points
PP -13: Reach 4, view upstream at Station 11+75
PP -14: Reach 4, view downstream at Station 12+25
PP -15: Reach 4, view upstream at Station 13+00
PP -16: Reach 2, view upstream at Station 20+60
PP -17: Reach 2, Flow Gauge #1 at Station 20+75
PP -18: Reach 2, view of stabilized drainage on left bank
at Station 20+80

Thomas Creek: MY3 Stream Station Photo -Points
PP -19: Reach 2, view upstream at Station 22+00
PP -21: Reach 2, view upstream at Station 25+25
PP -20: Reach 2, view upstream at Station 23+00
PP -22: Reach 2, view downstream at Station 25+50
PP -23: Reach 2, view of crossing at Station 27+75
PP -24: Reach 2, view downstream at Station 30+20

Thomas Creek: MY3 Stream Station Photo -Points
PP -25: Reach TI, view upstream at Station 11+75
PP -26: Reach 2, view of drainage on left bank at
Station 32+90
PP -27: Reach 2, view downstream at Station 33+25
PP -28: Reach 2, view downstream at Station 34+30
PP -29: Reach 2, view downstream at Station 36+90
PP -30: Reach 2, view upstream at Station 38+25

Thomas Creek: MY3 Stream Station Photo -Points
PP -31: Reach 2, Crest Gauge at Station 38+90
PP -32: Reach 2, view downstream at Station 39+40
PP -33: Reach 2, view upstream at Station 41+50
PP -35: Reach 1, view downstream at Station 43+25
PP -34: Reach 1, view upstream at Station 42+75
PP -36: Reach 1, view of drainage on left bank at
Station 44+00

Thomas Creek: MY3 Stream Station Photo -Points
PP -37: Reach 6, view upstream at Station 10+75
PP -38: Reach 6, view upstream at Station 11+50
PP -39: Reach 6, view upstream at Station 15+25
PP -40: Reach 6, view upstream at Station 18+90
PP -41: Reach 6, view upstream at Station 25+50
PP -42: Reach 7, view upstream at Station 10+40

Thomas Creek: MY3 Stream Station Photo -Points
PP -43: Reach 7, view of stabilized drainage at Station 13+50
, L C4
M
r .
t
PP -45: Reach 5, view upstream at Station 30+25
PP -44: Reach 7, view upstream at Station 15+00
J
PP -46: Reach 5, view downstream at Station 30+75
PP -47: Reach 5, view downstream at Station 31+40
PP -48: Reach 5, view downstream at Station 32+50
PP -46: Reach 5, view downstream at Station 30+75
PP -47: Reach 5, view downstream at Station 31+40
PP -48: Reach 5, view downstream at Station 32+50

Thomas Creek: MY3 Stream Station Photo -Points
PP -49: Reach 5, view upstream at Station 33+10
PP -50: Reach 5, view downstream at Station 33+75
PP -51: Reach 5, Flow Gauge #2 at Station 33+90
PP -52: Reach 5, view of crossing at Station 35+00
PP -53: Reach 5, view upstream at Station 36+40
PP -54: Reach 5, view upstream at Station 36+75

Thomas Creek: MY3 Stream Station Photo -Points
PP -55: Reach 5, view downstream at Station 37+30
PP -57: Reach 5, view upstream at Station 39+90
(the confluence of R5 and R2)
PP -56: Reach 5, view upstream at Station 38+50
PP -58: Reach T2, view upstream at Station 10+80

Thomas Creek: MY3 Vegetation Plot Photographs
Vegetation Plot 1 — September 2018
Vegetation Plot 2 — September 2018
Vegetation Plot 3 — September 2018
Vegetation Plot 4 — September 2018
Vegetation Plot 5 — September 2018 Vegetation Plot 6 — September 2018
5a ra i....
I.�:
Vegetation Plot 4 — September 2018
Vegetation Plot 5 — September 2018 Vegetation Plot 6 — September 2018

Thomas Creek: MY3 Vegetation Plot Photographs
Vegetation Plot 7 — October 2018
Vegetation Plot 9 — October 2018
Vegetation Plot 8 — October 2018
Vegetation Plot 10 —October 2018
Vegetation Plot 11 — October 2018
Vegetation Plot 12 — October 2018

Thomas Creek: MY3 Vegetation Plot Photographs
Vegetation Plot 13 — October 2018
vegetation riot i — aeptemner zu i zs
Vegetation Plot 14 — October 2018
Vegetation Plot 16 — September 2018

Thomas Creek: MY3 Crest Gauge Photographs
Crest Gauge on Reach 2 at Station 38+90
Overbank event of 1.49 ft from Hurricane Florence
(photo: 10/10/18)
Overbank event of 0.97 ft (photo: 4/23/18)
Close-up of overbank event of 1.49 ft from Hurricane
Florence (photo: 10/10/18)
Evidence of overbank flow, Reach R3: Debris jam in Evidence of overbank flow, Reach R2: Debris jam in
the limbs of floodplain vegetation the limbs of floodplain vegetation
4 iir
7LO:Rer
CO
N �
Close-up of overbank event of 1.49 ft from Hurricane
Florence (photo: 10/10/18)
Evidence of overbank flow, Reach R3: Debris jam in Evidence of overbank flow, Reach R2: Debris jam in
the limbs of floodplain vegetation the limbs of floodplain vegetation

Thomas Creek: MY3 Crest Gauge Photographs
Evidence of overbank flow, Reach R5: Debris pile /
wrack line in floodplain
Evidence of overbank flow, Reach Tl: Debris pile /
wrack line in floodplain

Thomas Creek: MY3 Stream and Vegetation Problem Areas and Repair Photographs
SPA -1: Bank scour and damaged livestake establishment SPA -2: Bank scour and damaged livestake establishment from
from Hurricane Florence, left bank of R2, Station 34+75 Hurricane Florence, left bank of R2, Station 35+75
Livestakes planted in March 2018 establishing and stabilizing Livestakes planted in March 2018 establishing and stabilizing
the left bank of R2, —Station 32+25 the left bank of R2, —Station 34+25
Livestakes planted in March 2018 establishing and stabilizing
the left bank of R2, —Station 35+50
IV77"
a.:
7 -
VPA-1: Thin stem density observed within the riparian
buffers of both banks of Reach T1

Appendix C
Vegetation Plot Data

Table 7. CVS Density Per Plot
Thomas Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 96074
Current Plot Data (MY3 2018)
Scientific Name
Common Name Species Type
96074-01-0001
P V T
96074-01-0002
P V T
96074-01-0003
P V T
96074-01-0004
P V T
96074-01-0005
P V T
96074-01-0006
P V T
96074-01-0007
P V T
96074-01-0008
P V T
96074-01-0009
P V T
Asimina triloba
pawpaw Tree
Betula nigra
river birch Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
3
3
2
2
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam Tree
4
1
5
1
1
5
5
Carya glabra
pignut hickory Tree
1
11
2
2
1
1
1
1
Diospyros virginiana
common persimmon Tree
5
5
1
1
21
1
2
5
51
1
1
1
11
1
1
1
1
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash Tree
1
1
1
1
3
3
1
1
2
2
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree Tree
1
1
1
3
4
1
1
2
2
2
Nyssa sylvatica
blackgum Tree
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore Tree
2
2
1
1
3
3
1
1
5
5
2
2
3
1
4
1
1
Quercus
oak Tree
1
1
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak Tree
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
4
4
Quercus nigra
water oak Tree
3
3
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
11
1
2
2
Quercus phellos
willow oak Tree
1
1
Quercus rubra
northern red oak Tree
Rhus copallinum
flameleaf sumac shrub
Sassafras albidum
sassafras Tree
1
1
Viburnum dentatum
southern arrowwood Shrub
1
1
4
4
41
1
4
1
1
2
2
3
3
1
4
3
1
3
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
14
6
567
2
1
0.02
2
80.9
16
7
647
10
6
405
01
1
0.02
0
10
6
405
81
4
324
71
1
0.02
1
40.5
9
5
364
12
6
486
9
1
0.02
4
364
21
9
850
10
7
405
1
0.02
2
80.9
2J486
12
5
486
1
1
0.02
1
40.5
13
6
526
17
6
688
1
1
0.02
1
40.5
18
7
728
11
6
445lid
1
1
12
15
7
607
2
1
0.02
2
80.9
17
9
688
Current Plot Data (MY3 2018) Continued
Annual Means
Scientific Name
Common Name Species Type
96074-01-0010
P V T
96074-01-0011
P V T
96074-01-0012
P V T
96074-01-0013
P V T
96074-01-0014
P V T
96074-01-0015
P V T
96074-01-0016
P V T
MY3 (2018)
P V T
MY2(2017)
P V T
P
MY1(2016)
V T
Asimina triloba
pawpaw Tree
1
1
3
3
3
1
4
3
3
5
5
Betula nigra
river birch Tree
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
25
25
26
26
38
38
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam Tree
4
4
1
1
2
2
5
5
5
6
5
5
32
2
34
32
1
33
34
34
Carya glabra
pignut hickory Tree
5
5
4
4
Diospyros virginiana
common persimmon Tree
2
21
2
21
1
11
1
21
2
1
1
2
24
2
26
25
31
28
31
31
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash Tree
3
3
1
11
2
2
1
1
15
151
15
15
161
16
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree Tree
1
1
4
4
2
2
3
3
141
5
19
18
4
22
28
28
Nyssa sylvatica
blackgum Tree I
I
I
1
1
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore Tree
2
2
2
2
5
5
5
5
6
6
1
1
39
1
40
38
1
39
40
40
Quercus
oak Tree
I
I
I
1
1
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak Tree
2
2
2
1
3
2
2
4
4
20
1
21
21
1
22
23
23
Quercus nigra
water oak Tree
I
I
I
1
1
1
41
4
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak Tree
4
41
1
1
4
4
3
3
1
1
22
22
22
22
27
27
Quercus phellos
willow oak Tree
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
Quercus rubra
northern red oak Tree
4
4
Rhus copallinum
flameleaf sumac shrub
1
3
3
Sassafras albidum
sassafras Tree
1
1
Viburnum dentatum
southern arrowwood IShrub
3
3
91
9
1
1
1
1
1
4
1
4
3
1
3
421
1
42
44
1
45
461
1 46
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
201
7T---OT-7
809
01
1
0.02
0
20
809
21
8
850
+0721
1
0.02
01
0
8
850
20
7
809
21
1
0.02
8
ELI
22
15
1
1
0.02
1
40.5
16
6
6471
18
7
7281
11
1
0.02
1
40.51
19
8
769
131
5
5261
11
1
0.02
1
40.51
14
5
5671
20
8
8091
21
1
0.02
2
80.91
22
9
890
2361
10
5q7l
261
16
0.40
11
65.81
262
15
663
244
10
6171
261
16
0.40
11
65.81
270
15
683
2881
10
728.41
01 288
16
0.40
10
01 728.434
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 109/c
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 109/c
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Includes volunteer stems
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 3 MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96074)

Table 8. CVS Vegetation Plot Summary Information
Thomas Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 96074
Thomas Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 96074
Year 3 (October 2018)
Vegetation Plot Summary Information
Plot #
Stream/
Riparian Wetland Live
Buffer Stems' Stemsz Stakes
Invasives
Volunteers
Tota14
Unknown
Growth Form
1
n/a 14 0
0
2
16
0
2
n/a 10 0
0
0
10
0
3
n/a 8 0
0
1
9
0
4
n/a 12 0
0
9
21
1 0
5
n/a 10 0
0
2
12
0
6
n/a 12 0
0
1
13
0
7
n/a 17 0
0
1
18
0
8
n/a 11 0
1 0
1
12
0
9
n/a 15 0
0
2
17
0
10
n/a 20 0
0
0
20
1 0
11
n/a 21 0
0
0
21
0
12
n/a 20 0
0
2
22
0
13
n/a 1 15 0
0
1
16
0
14
n/a 18 1 0
0
1
19
0
15
n/a 13 0
0 1
1
14
0
16
n/a 20 0
0
2
22
1 0
Wetland/Stream Vegetation Totals
(per acre)
Riparian Buffer Vegetation Totals
(per acre)
Plot #
Stream/
Wetland
StemsZ
Volunteers
Tota14
Success Criteria
Met?
Plot #
Riparian
Buffer
Stems'
Success
Criteria Met?
1
567 81 647
Yes
1
n/a
n/a
2
405 0 405
Yes
2
n/a
n/a
3
324 40 364
Yes
3
n/a
n/a
4
486 364 850
Yes
4
n/a
n/a
5
405 81 486
Yes
5
n/a
n/a
6
486 40 526
Yes
6
n/a
n/a
7
688 40 728
Yes
7
n/a
n/a
8
445 40 486
Yes
8
n/a
n/a
9
607 81 688
Yes
9
n/a
n/a
10
809 0 809
Yes
10
n/a
n/a
11
850 0 850
Yes
11
n/a
n/a
12
809 81 890
Yes
12
n/a
n/a
13
607 40 647
Yes
13
n/a
n/a
14
728 40 769
Yes
14
n/a
n/a
15
526 40 567
Yes
15
n/a
n/a
16
809 81 890
Yes
16
n/a
n/a
Project Avg
597 66 663
Yes
Project Avg 1
n/a
I n/a
Stem Class
1Buffer Stems
Stems
3Volunteers
4Total
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%
Includes volunteer stems
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 3 MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96074)

Table 9. Total Stem Counts for Each Species Arranged by Plot
Thomas Creek Restoration Project; DMS Project ID No. 96074
Botanical Name
Common Name
1 2 3 4 1 5
Tree Species
Average
Betula nigra
river birch
1
1 1
1
Carya glabra
pignut hickory
1
2
Diospyros vir iniana
common persimmon
5
1 2
5
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
1
3
1 1
Liriodendron tuli i era
tuli tree
1
4 2
N ssa s lvatica
blackgum
1
Platanus occidentalis
Americansycamore
2
1
3 1
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
1
2
5
Quercus pagoda
the bark oak
1 1
2 3
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Quercus rubra
I northern red oak
3
Shrub Species
Average
Asimina triloba pawpaw
1
3
Shrub Species
Asimina triloba pawpaw
1
3
Car inns caroliniana American hornbeam
5
1
5
4
1
2
5
6
5
Rhus co allinum winged sumac
Viburnum dentatum southern arrowwood
1
4
4
1
2
3
4
3
3
9
14
3
Sassafras albidum Sassafras
1
Total Stems Per Plot - Year 3
16
10
9
21
12
13
18
12
17
20
21
22
16
19
14
22
Total Stems/Acre - Year 3
647
405
364
850
486
526
728
486
688
809
850
890
647
769
567
890
663
Total Stems/Acre - Year 2*
688
445
405
850
445
526
809
486
648
809
850
890
647
809
567
1052
683
Total Stems/Acre - Year 1
809
526
567
526
526
607
890
728
648
931
931
850
769
728
688
931
728
Total Stems/Acre for As -Built (Year 0)
850
688
607
648
648
607
971
728
648
971
971
931
890
809
688
890
784
*Note: Starting in MY2, the values provided above in Table 9 include the identified volunteer species, while the baseline (MYO) and MY1 data did not.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 3 MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96074)

Appendix D
Stream Survey Data

Figure 6. Year 3 Cross-sections
Permanent Cross-section 1
(Year 3 Data - Collected November 2018)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
C
5.1
8.6
0.6
1.0
1 14.4
0.9
5.9
271.44
271.48
Note: Per DMS/IRT request, bank height ratio for MY3 has been calculated using the as -built bankfull area. All other values were calculated using the
as -built bankfull elevation, as was done for previous monitoring reports.

Permanent Cross-section 2
(Year 3 Data - Collected October 2018)
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
I -
13.3
10.0
1.3
2.5
7.6
270.65
270.73
Note: Per DMS/IRT request, bank height ratio for MY3 has been calculated using the as -built bankfull area. All other values were calculated
using the as -built bankfull elevation, as was done for previous monitoring reports.

Permanent Cross-section 3
(Year 3 Data - Collected November 2018)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Feature
Stream
Type BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
C 2.6
7.4
0.3
0.7
21.3
0.7 4.5
264.45
264.41
Note: Per DMS/IRT request, bank height ratio for MY3 has been calculated using the as -built bankfull area. All other values were calculated
using the as -built bankfull elevation, as was done for previous monitoring reports.

Permanent Cross-section 4
(Year 3 Data - Collected November 2018)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF
BKF Area Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
C
2.3 5.9
0.4
0.7
14.8
0.8
3.4
265.46
265.48
Note: Per DMS/IRT request, bank height ratio for MY3 has been calculated using the as -built bankfull area. All other values were calculated
using the as -built bankfull elevation, as was done for previous monitoring reports.

Permanent Cross-section 5
(Year 3 Data - Collected November 2018)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Note: Per DMS/IRT request, bank height ratio for MY3 has been calculated using the as -built bankfull area. All other values were calculated
using the as -built bankfull elevation, as was done for previous monitoring reports.
Stream
BKF
BKF
Max BKF
Feature
Type
BKF Area
Width
Depth
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
C
4.8
10.0
0.5
0.8
1 21.0
0.9
3.6
262.63
262.75
Thomas Creek Cross-section 5
Reach 2
269
268
267
266
c
g
265
M As
-built
4)
Year 1
ED 264
Year 2
263
------------------------------------
t Year 3
--------------
---- MY3 BKF
262
MY3 BKF = 262.815'
—!
--4--- Bankfull
--[�--- Floodprone
261
0 10
20 30 40 50
60 70
Station (ft)
Note: Per DMS/IRT request, bank height ratio for MY3 has been calculated using the as -built bankfull area. All other values were calculated
using the as -built bankfull elevation, as was done for previous monitoring reports.

Permanent Cross-section 6
(Year 3 Data - Collected November 2018)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Stream
Feature Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
I W/D BH Ratio
I ER BKF Elev
I TOB Elev
Riffle C
1 8.0
9.7
0.8
1.2
1 11.6 0.9
1 6.5 259.42
259.52
Note: Per DMS/IRT request, bank height ratio for MY3 has been calculated using the as -built bankfull area. All other values were calculated
using the as -built bankfull elevation, as was done for previous monitoring reports.

Permanent Cross-section 7
(Year 3 Data - Collected November 2018)
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 I C 3.0
6.7
0.4
0.6
15.0
0.9 4.0
258.57
258.81
Note: Per DMS/IRT request, bank height ratio for MY3 has been calculated using the as -built bankfull area. All other values were calculated
using the as -built bankfull elevation, as was done for previous monitoring reports.

Permanent Cross-section 8
(Year 3 Data - Collected November 2018)
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
30.3
16.1
1.9
2.7
8.6
258.12
1 258.12
Thomas Creek Cross-section 8
Reach 2
262 1
261
260
0 259
d 258 -----------------------
.2 As -built
Year 1
257 Year 2
256 � /��
—*--Year 3
- o--- Bankfull
255
--o--- Floodprone
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Station (ft)
Note: Per DMS/IRT request, bank height ratio for MY3 has been calculated using the as -built bankfull area. All other values were calculated using
the as -built bankfull elevation, as was done for previous monitoring reports.

Permanent Cross -Section 9
(Year 3 Data - Collected November 2018)
X9 Itb.7
3r
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Stream
Feature Type BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool I - 18.9
15.1
1.3
2.9
12.1
255.05
254.82
Note: Her UMS/IK I request, bank height ratio for MY3 has been calculated using the as -built banktull area. All other values were calculated
using the as -built banktull elevation, as was done for previous monitoring reports.

Permanent Cross-section 10
(Year 3 Data - Collected November 2018)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF
BKF Area Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
C
5.7 8.5
0.7
1.0
12.7 0.9
8.8
254.18
254.32
Note: Per DMS/IRT request, bank height ratio for MY3 has been calculated using the as -built bankfull area. All other values were calculated
using the as -built bankfull elevation, as was done for previous monitoring reports.

x11 Itb
Permanent Cross-section 11
(Year 3 Data - Collected November 2018)
x11 rtb
Looking at the Left Bank Looking at the Right Bank
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
I W/D BH Ratio
I ER
BKF Elev
I TOB Elev
Pool
34.6
16.3
2.1
4.1
1 7.7
-
249.04
1 249.24
Note: Her UMSnK I request, banK height rano Tor MY3 has been calculated using the as -built ban KTUll area. All other values were Calculated
using the as -built bankfull elevation, as was done for previous monitoring reports.

Permanent Cross-section 12
(Year 3 Data - Collected November 2018)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
C
7.7
13.1
0.6
1.0
22.3
0.9
2.2
247.88
247.98
Note: Per DMS/IRT request, bank height ratio for MY3 has been calculated using the as -built bankfull area. All other values were calculated
using the as -built bankfull elevation, as was done for previous monitoring reports.

Permanent Cross-section 13
(Year 3 Data - Collected November 2018)
x13 Itb
Nov 6, 201821 6 58 PM
4300 Shearon Harris Road
N., Hill
Wake County
-h oaWCarolina
`rr
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
C
0.9
3.7
0.2
0.4
15.5 0.7
4.5
295.07
295.12
Note: Her UMSnrc i request, banK height ratio Tor MY3 has been calculated using the as -built banKtuu area. All other values were calculated
using the as -built bankfull elevation, as was done for previous monitoring reports.

Permanent Cross-section 14
(Year 3 Data - Collected November 2018)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
E
3.5
6.4
0.5
1.1
11.6
0.8
7.8
260.96
261.05
Note: Per DMS/IRT request, bank height ratio for MY3 has been calculated using the as -built bankfull area. All other values were calculated
using the as -built bankfull elevation, as was done for previous monitoring reports.

Permanent Cross-section 15
(Year 3 Data - Collected November 2018)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF
BKF Area Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool
I -
8.7 9.5
0.9
1.6
10.4
259.27
259.45
Thomas Creek Cross-section 15
Reach 5
263
262 Clump ofluncus effusus
previously located on bank, not
sediment deposition.
261------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------
w
c 260
Y
R _
d259
W As -built
258 � Year1
Year 2
--*—Year 3
257 - -0 - Bankfull
- -0 -
256 Floodprone
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Station (ft)
Note: Per DMS/IRT request, bank height ratio for MY3 has been calculated using the as -built bankfull area. All other values were calculated
using the as -built bankfull elevation, as was done for previous monitoring reports.

Permanent Cross-section 16
(Year 3 Data - Collected November 2018)
Nov 5, 201$ 2.$5;01 PM
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF
BKF Area Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool
I -
10.6 8.9
1.2
2.6
7.4
255.05
254.92
Note: Per DMS/IRT request, bank height ratio for MY3 has been calculated using the as -built bankfull area. All other values were calculated
using the as -built bankfull elevation, as was done for previous monitoring reports.

Figure 7. Pebble Count - Monitoring Year 3
Thomas Creek Mitigation Project, DMS# 96074
SITE OR PROJECT:
Thomas Creek
REACH/LOCATION:
Reach R2 (Station 37+00)
FEATURE:
Rock Riffle
DATE:
23 -Oct -18
MATERIAL
PARTICLE
SIZE mm
Total
MY3 2018
Class %
% Cum
Distribution
Plot Size (mm)
Silt/Clay
Silt / Clay
<.063
1
1%
1%
0.063
Very Fine
.063-125 .125
V
1 %
0.125
Fine
.125 - .25
3
3%
4%
0.25
Sand
Medium
.25-50 .50
4%
0.50
Coarse
.50-1.0
13
13%
17%
1.0
Very Coarse
1.0-2.0
17%
2.0
Very Fine
2.0-2.8
17%
2.8
Very Fine
2.8-4.0
1
1 %
18%
4.0
Fine
4.0-5.6
18%
5.6
Fine
5.6-8.0
2
2%
20%
8.0
Medium
8.0-11.0
1
1 %
21%
11.0
Gravel
Medium
11.0-16.0
1
1 %
22%
16.0
Coarse
16-22.6
2
2%
24%
22.6
Coarse
22.6-32
2
2%
25%
32
Very Coarse
32-45
9
9%
34%
45
Very Coarse
45-64
14
14%
48%
64
Small
64-90
17
17%
65%
90
Small
90-128
18
18%
82%
128
Cobble
Large
128-180
16
16%
98%
180
Large
180-256
1
1 %
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 1 102 1 100% J
Largest particle= 256
Summary Data
Channel materials
D16= 1.7-1 D84= 1 132.7
D35=1 45.8 1 D95 = 1 168.5
D50=1 66.6 1 DIN = 1 256-362
Thomas Creek (Reach R2)
Pebble Count Size Class Distribution
100%
90% AB 2015
■MYl 2016
80%
■ MY2 2017
70% ■ MY3 2018
60%
d
i 50%
d
IL
40%
N
R 30%
V
20%
10%
0%
Particle Size Class (mm)

Figure 7. Pebble Count - Monitoring Year 3
Thomas Creek Mitigation Project, DMS# 96074
SITE OR PROJECT: Thomas Creek
REACH/LOCATION: Reach R5 (Station 37+00)
FEATURE: Rock Riffle
n A TF • ?1-00,t-19
MATERIAL
PARTICLE
SIZE mm
Total
MY3 2018
Class %
% Cum
Distribution
Piot Size (mm)
Silt/Clay
Silt / Clay
<.063
2
2%
2%
0.063
Very Fine
.063-125 .125
R 30%
2%
0.125
Fine
.125 - .25
1
1 %
3%
0.25
Sand
Medium
.25-50 .50
3%
0.50
Coarse
.50-1.0
3
3%
6%
1.0
Very Coarse
1.0-2.0
1
1 %
7%
2.0
Very Fine
2.0-2.8
7%
2.8
Very Fine
2.8-4.0
7%
4.0
Fine
4.0-5.6
7%
5.6
Fine
5.6-8.0
7%
8.0
Medium
8.0-11.0
1
1 %
8%
11.0
Gravel
Medium
11.0-16.0,
2
2%
10%
16.0
Coarse
16-22.6
6
6%
16%
22.6
Coarse
22.6-32
3
3%
19%
32
Very Coarse
32-45
13
13%
32%
45
Very Coarse
45-64
19
19%
51%
64
Small
64-90
13
13%
64%
90
Small
90-128
18
18%
82%
128
Cobble
Large
128-180
16
16%
98%
180
Large
180-256
1
1 %
99%
256
Small
256-362
990
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
1 otal /o of whole count 1 100 1 100% 1
Largest particle= 256
Summary Data
Channel materials
D16 = 22.6 1 D84 = 133.6
D35=1 47.6 1 D95 = 1 168.9
D50=1 62.8 1 D100= 1 362-512
Thomas Creek (Reach R5)
Pebble Count Particle Size Distribution
100%
90% —0 --AB 2015 71
— --MYI2016
80% -#� MY2 2017
70% --E—MY3 2018
60%
d
i 50%
d
D_
d 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% 0 AB 2015
■MYl 2016
80%
■ MY2 2017
70% ■ MY3 2018
60%
d
i 50%
d
y 40%
N
R 30%
V
20%
10%
0% IL ALL—
Particle Size Class (mm)

Table 10. Baseline Stream Summary
Thomas Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 96074
Reach 1 - Length 298 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
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Max
Min Mean
Med Max SD n
BE Width (ft)
_____
11.6
11.9
_____
_____
_____
_____ 9.0 _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
12.5
____ ____
_____ _____
_____ 13.9
_____ _____
FloodproneWidth (ft)
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ 9.0 _____
_____
_____
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
125
---- ----
----- -----
----- 30.6
_____ _____ _____ -----
BE Mean Depth (ft)
_____
1.2
1.5
_____
_____
_____
_____ 1.2 _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
0.9
____ ____
_____ _____
_____ 0.8
_____ _____ _____ -----
BE Max Depth (ft)
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ 1.9 _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
1.1
____ ____
_____ _____
_____ 1.1
_____ _____ _____ _____
BE Cross-sectrona ea
_____
_____
11.2
_____
_____
_____
_____ 11.2 _____
_____
_____
11.2
____ ____
_____ _____
_____ 11.1
_____ _____ _____ _____
Width/Depth Ratio
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ 7.2 _____
_____
12.0
_____
_____
18.0
_____
_____
_____
14.0
____ ____
_____ _____
_____ 17.4
_____ _____ _____ -----
Entrenchment Ratio
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ 1.8
_____
1.4
_____
_____
2.2
_____
_____
_____
>2.2
____
_____ -----
Bank
Bank Height Ratio
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ 2.5
_____
1.0
_____
1.1
_____
1.0
_____ _____
d50 unw
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____ _____ _____ -----
Pattern
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
Channel a tun [
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
30.0
_____ ____
_____ _____
_____ 34.4
_____ _____ _____ -----
Radius of Curvature (ft)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
25.0
-----
----- 35.0
----- -----
----- 33.1
----- ----- ----- -----
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
2.0
_____
_____
3.0
_____
2.0
_____
_____ 2.8
_____ _____
_____ 2.4
_____
_____ _____ -----
Meander
MeanderWavelength (ft)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- 105.0
----- -----
----- 103.4
----- ----- ----- -----
Meander Width Ratio
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
3.5
_____
8.0
_____
_____
_____
2.4
_____ ____
_____
_____ 2.5
_____ __
_____ ___ -----
profile
Profile
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
RiffleLength (ft)
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____ 24.0
_____ _____ _____ -----
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ 0.028
_____ _____
_____ 0.025
_____ _____ _____ _____
'-"'
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
""'
""' ""'
""' ""' ""' -----
Poolto Pool Spacing (ft)
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
____
___
_____
_____
24
_____
_____ 60
_____ _____
_____ 64.0
_____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
""'
""'
""'
""'
""'
""'
""' 2.4
""' ""'
""' 2.5
_____ _____ _____ -----
Pool Volume (ft)
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
___
___
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____ ___
_____ _____
_____ _____ _____ -----
Substrate and Transport Parameters
_____
___ ___ ___
___
___
___
___
___
_____
_____
_____
_____
___ ___
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____ _____ _____ ____
SC % / Sa% / G% / B% / Be%
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----------
----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----
' d16 / 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)
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____ _____ _____ -----
Strew Power (transport capacity) W/m'
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____ _____ _____ -----
Additional Reach Parameters
-----
-----
----- 0.38
----- -----
----- -----
----- 0.38 ----- -----
DrainageArea (SM)
-----
--- --- ---
----- ----- ----- 0.38 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Impervious cover estimate (%)
____
_____
_____
___
___
_____
__________ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____
RosgenClassification
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ E _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
C5
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ C5
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____ C5 _____ -----
BE Velocity (fps)
____
3.4
4.0
-----
_____
_____
_____ 3.9 _____
_____
3.5
_____
_____
5
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ 4
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____
BE Discharge c s
_____
27.6
44.6
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
----- 44.6
----- -----
----- -----
____V_____
_____ _____ _____ -----
Valley Length
alleyLength
_____
_____
_____
___
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____ 271.1 _____ -----
Channel length (ft)
---
---
---
-----
----
-----
----- 397 -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- 266
----- -----
----- -----
----- 324.3 ----- -----
Sinuosity
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ 1.18 _____
_____
1.1
_____
_____
1.3
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ 1.22
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____ 1.2 _____ -----
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ 0.0028 _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ 0.022
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____ 0.0168 _____ _____
_____ 0.0050 _____
_____
0.002
""'
""'
0.015
""'
_____
_____
_____
----- 0.0165
----- -----
----- -----
----- 0.0201 ----- -----
Bankfull Floodplain Mea (acres)
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____
BEHIVL%/ L%/ M%/ H%/ VH%/ E%
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____ _____ _____ -----
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
----
-----
---
---
-----
-----
----- -----
----------
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- ----- ----- -----
Biological or Other
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
1 - Pre -Existing Condition measurtnent taken on existing sandbed ri01e
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 3 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 R
Reference
Reach(m) Data
Parameter
USGS Gauge
Regional Curve
Pre -Existing Condition
Design
As -built
Little Beaver Creek
(Wake County)
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle m
LL
UL
Eq.
Min
Mean
Med Max
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med Max SD n
BE Width ffl)_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ 9.4
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
9.2
_____
_____
10.4 _____
_____
10.2
10.3
_____ 10.4 _____ _____
Floodprone Width (ft)
_____
____
____
_____
9.0
_____
_____ 13.2
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
___
>18
_____
____ _____
_____
38.2
58.5
_____ 74.5 _____ -----
BE
BF Mean Depth ()
_____
1.2
1.5
_____
0,6
_____
_____ 1.2
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
p,7
_____
_____
0.7 _____
_____
0.7
0.8
_____ 1.0 _____ _____
BF Max Dep[
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
1.0
_____
1.0
1.2
_____ 1.5 _____ -----
BE
BF Cross-sectional Area (')
_____
6.0
7.7
_____
7,7
_____
_____ 15.7
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
6.0
_____
_____
7.7 _____
_____
7.4
8.6
_____ 10.2 _____ -----
Width/DepthRano
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ 5,
_____
_____
_____
_____
5,
_____
-----
14.0
-----
-----
14.0 _____
-----
10.1
12.5
----- 14.8 ----- -----
Entrenchment Raho
_____
_____
_____
_____
1.4
_____
_____ 1.4
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
>2,2
_____
_____
_____
>2.2
_____
____ _____
_____
3.7
5.7
_____ 7.2 _____ -----
Bank
Ba Height Rano
_____
_____
_____
_____
2.2
_____
_____
1.1
_____
_____
-----
1.0
-----
---- -----
-----
0.9
1.0
----- 1.0 ----- -----
d50 Bron)_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____ -----
Pattern
Z
Channel a tun [
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
32.0
_____
_____
45.0 _____
_____
_____
56.6
_____ _____ _____ -----
Radius of Curvature (ft)
-----
---
---
---
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
17.0
-----
-----
30.0 -----
-----
-----
22.0
----- ----- ----- -----
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/fl)
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
2.0
_____
_____
3.0
_____
2.0
_____
_____
3.0 _____
_____
_____
2.1
_____
_____ _____ -----
Meander
Mean er Wave engt
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
75,
-----
-----
107.0 -----
-----
-----
83.2
_____ _____ _____ _____
Meander Width Ratio
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
7,0
_____
_____
14.0
_____
_____
3.3
_____
_____
q,7 _____
_____
_____
5.5
_____ _____ _____ -----
profile
00005
-
RiffleLength (R)
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
17.7
_____ _____ _____ -----
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
0.0094
_____
_____
0.02 _____
_____
_____
0.012
_____ _____ _____ _____
""'
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
""'
""'
""'
""' ""' '-'-' -----
Pool to Pool Spacing (ft)
__________
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
25
_____
_____
75 _____
_____
_____
50.8
_____ _____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
1.7
_____
_____
1.9 _____
_____
_____
1.7
_____ _____ _____ -----
Pool Volume (ft)
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
___ _____ _____ -----
Substrate and Transport Parameters _
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____ ____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ ___ ___
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
SC % / Sa% / G% / B% / Be%
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----
' d16 / 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)
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____ -----
Strew Power (transport capacity) W/m'
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
__________
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____
Additional Reach Parameters
ML
Drainage Area (SM)
_____
_____
_____
_____
0.153
_____
_____ 0.275
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
0.275 _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ 0.275 _____ _____
Impervious cover estimate (%)
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
__________
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____
Rosgen Classification
_____
_____
_____
_____
G5c
_____
_____ F5
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
C5
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
C5 _____
_____
___
____
_____ C5 _____ -----
BE Velocity(fps)
____
3.2
3.9
_____
3.8
_____
_____ 3.9
_____
_____
3.5
_____
_____
5
_____
_____
3.8
_____
_____
3.9 _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____ -----
BE Discharge c s)
17.8
29.7
_____
22.9
_____
_____ 35.0
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
-----
23.0
-----
-----
29.7
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
ValleyLength_____
_____
_____
____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ 2549.3 _____ -----
Channel length (ft)
---
---
-----
----
-----
-----
----- 1,995
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
1,089 -----
-----
-----
-----
----- 3413.7 ----- -----
Sinuosity
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
1.17
_____ _____
_____
_____
1.2
_____
_____
1.5
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
1.20 _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ 1.3 _____ -----
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (Rift)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
0.0082
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
0.0047
-----
-----
0.0083 -----
-----
-----
-----
----- 0.0092 ----- -----
_____
0.002
_____
_____
0.01
_____
0.01 _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ 0.0123 _____ _____
Bankfull Floodplain Mea (acres)
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____
BEHIVL%/ L%/ M%/ H%/ VH%/ E%
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____ -----
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
__________
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____
Biological or Other,
____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
1 - Pre -Existing Condition mcasurment taken on existing sandbed riffle, As -Built measurement taken on constructed
rock riffle
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 3 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
1111111I.
Eq.
Min
Mean
Med Max
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SO
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
Min
Mean
Med Max SO n
BE WidthO
_____
11.6
11.9
_____
4,5
_____
_____ 5,3
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
7,p
_____
____
_____
_____
7.5
8.4
_____ 9.3 _____ _____
Floodprone Width (ft)
-----
-----
-----
-----
6.7
-----
----- 9.5
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
>16
-----
----
-----
-----
37.3
46.3
----- 55.3 ----- -----
BF Mean Depth ()
_____
1.2
1.5
_____
0,7
_____
_____ 0.8
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
0.7
_____
____
_____
""'
0.6
0.7
_____ 0.8 ""' ""'
BF Max Depth (ft)
-----
-----
_____
1.0
_____
_____ 1.5
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
0.7
_____
____
_____
_____
0.9
0.9
_____ 1..29 _____ -----
BE
BF Cross-sectional Area (')
_____
26.8
36.2
_____
3,0
_____
_____ q3
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
4.1
_____
____
_____
_____
4.5
5.9
_____ 7.3 _____ -----
Width/DepthRano
_____
_____
_____
_____
,5
_____
_____ .7
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
-----
11.0
12.0
-----
13.0
_____
-----
11.9
12.1
----- 12.3 ----- -----
Entrenchment
Entrenchment Ratio
-----
-----
-----
-----
1.5
-----
----- 1.8
_____
_____
_____
-----
>2.2
-----
_____
_____
>2.2
_____
_____
_____
_____
5.0
5.5
_____ 5.9 _____ -----
Bank
Ba Height Rano
_____
_____
_____
_____
2.3
_____
_____
1.1
_____
_____
_____
1.0
_____
1.0
1.0
_____ 1.0 _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____ -----
Pattern
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
Channel a tun [
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
18
_____
_____
28
_____
_____
_____
32.2
_____ _____ _____ -----
Radius of Curvature (ft)
_____
_____
_____
__________
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
2
_____
_____
3
_____
2,p
_____
_____
2,7
_____
_____
_____
2.3
_____
_____ _____ -----
Meander
Meander Wavelength (ft)
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
70
_____
_____
80
_____
_____
_____
77.5
_____ _____ _____ -----
Meander Width Ratio
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
.
26
_____
_____
40
.
_____
_____
__ ___
3.8
_____ _____ _____ -----
Profile
W
W W
W
W
W
RiffleLength (ft)
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
12.5
_____ _____ _____ -----
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
1.1
-----
-----
2.0
-----
-----
-----
0.031
-----
----
-----
-----
-----
0.013
----- ----- ----- -----
""'
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
""'
"-"
""'
""' ""' ""' -----
Pool to Pool Spacing (ft)
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
28.0
_____
_____
48.0
_____
_____
_____
47.2
_____ _____ _____ -----
PoolMax Depth (ft)
__________
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
1.5
_____
____
_____
_____
_____
1.3
_____ _____ _____ _____
Pool Volume (ft)
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
___
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____ -----
Substrate and Transport Parameters
_____
_____ ___
___
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
___
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____
SC % / Sa% / G% / B% / Be%
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
' d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
-----
-----
-----
-----
.014 /.029 / 0.41 / 1.16 / 3.05
Reach Shear Stress (competency) Ib/ft'
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
__________
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve)
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____ -----
Strew Power (transport capacity) W/m'
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
__________
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- 0.083
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
0.083
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- 0.083 ----- -----
Impervious cover estimate (%)
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
__________
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____
Rosgen Classification_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ B5c
_____
_____
____
_____
_____
E/C5
_____
_____
____
_____
_____
E/C5
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ C5 _____ _____
BE Velocity (fps)
_____
3.0
3.6
_____
3.8
_____
_____ 2.3
_____
_____
3.5
_____
_____
5
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
3.8
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____ -----
BE Discharge (cfs)
_____
9.4
16.5
_____
12.2
_____
_____ 16.5
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
16.5
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____ -----
ValleyLength
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ 873 _____ -----
Channel length (ft)
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ 1,067
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
1,231
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ 1,031 _____ -----
Sinuosity
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ 1.22
_____
_____
1.20
_____
_____
1.50
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
1.20
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ 1.2 _____ -----
Water
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (Rift)
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ 0.0150
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
0.0150
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ 0.0092 _____ _____
_____ 0.0182
_____
_____
0.005
_____
_____
0.015
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
0.0182
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ 0.0123 _____ _____
Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____
BEHIVL%/ L%/ M%/ H%/ VH%/ E%
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____ -----
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
__________
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____
Biological or Other
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
1 - Pre-Existing Condition m,asnnnen, taken on existing sandbed riRle
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 3 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 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 - RiffleLL
Eq.
Min
Mean
Med
Max
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD n
Min
TANNEffed
Min
Mean
Med Max SD
BE Width O
_____
11.6
11.9
_____
_____
_____
_____
q,5 _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
6.3
_____
____
_____ _____
_____
6.8
_____ _____ _____
FloodproneWidth (ft)
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
9.9 _____
_____
_____
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
>13
-----
----
----- -----
-----
21.9
_____ _____ _____ -----
BE Mean Depth (ft)
_____
1.2
1.5
_____
_____
_____
_____
0.7 _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
0.5
_____
____
_____ _____
_____
0.5
_____ _____ _____ -----
BEMax Depth (ft)
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
1.4 _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
0.6
_____
____
_____ _____
_____
0.9
_____ _____ _____ _____
BE Cross-sectional Area (')
_____
_____
3,1
_____
_____
_____
_____
3,1 _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
3 .1
_____
____
_____ _____
_____
.
36
_____ _____ _____ _____
Width/Depth Ratio
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
6.4 _____
_____
10.0
_____
_____
14.0
_____ _____
12.0
____
_____
14.0
_____ _____
_____
12.7
_____ _____ _____ -----
Entrenchment Ratio
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
2.2
_____
>2.2
_____
_____
>2.1
_____ -----
BankHeight Ratio
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
3.0 _____
_____
1.0
_____
_____
1.1
_____ _____
_____
1.0
_____
____
_____ _____
_____
1.0
_____ _____ _____ _____
""'
'-'-'
'-'-'
""'
""'
""'
""'
""' ""'
""'
""'
""'
""'
""-
'---- _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
""'
-""
"-"
'-"' ""' ""' -----
Pattern
""'
34.0
""' ""' ""' -----
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
""'
""' ""' ""'
""' ""' ""' ""' ""' ""'
""' ""' ""' ""' ""' ""'
20.0 ""' ""' 29.0 ""' ""'
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)
Meander
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
60.0
_____
_____
75.0
_____ _____
_____
66.2
_____ _____ _____ _____
Meander Width Ratio
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
3,5
_____
_____
8.0
_____ _____
3.2
_____
_____
4.6
_____ _____
_____
5.0
_____ _____ _____ -----
Profile
IN- JIM
RiffleLength (ft)
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
15.4
_____ _____ _____ -----
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
0.029
----- -----
-----
0.035
----- ----- ----- -----
""' _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
""'
""'
""'
""' ""' ""' -----
Poolto Pool Spacing (ft)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
28-
-----
-----
43
----- -----
-----
42.8
----- ----- ----- -----
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
1.5
_____ _____
_____
1.3
_____ _____ _____ -----
Pool Volume (ft')
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____ -----
Substrate and Transport Parameters
NEEFi
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
__________
_____
____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____ ____
SC% / Sa% / G% / B% / Be%
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----------
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
-----
-----
-----
-----
Reach Shear Stress (competency) Ib/ft'
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
__________
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve)
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____ -----
Strew Power (transport capacity) W/m'
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
________
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
____
_____ _____ __ _
Additional Reach Parameters
_____
_____
_____
0.056
_____ _____
DrainageArea (SM)
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ 0.056 _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____ 0.056 _____ -----
Impervious cover estimate (%)
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____
Rosgen Classification
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
B5c _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
C5
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
C5
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ C5 _____ -----
BE Velocity(fps)
_____
3.2
3.9
_____
_____
_____
_____
3.6 _____
_____
3.5
_____
_____
5
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
3.6
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
BF Discharge c s)
17.8
29.7
-----
-----
-----
-----
_____
11.1
_____ _____
_____
_____
____V_____ _____ _____ -----
Valley Length
alleyLength
_____
___
___
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ 285.55 _____ -----
Channel length(ft)
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
1,197 _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
1,201
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ 342.91 _____ -----
Sinuosity
Sinuosity
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
1.16
_____
1.20
_____
_____
1.50
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
1.13
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ 1.20 _____ -----
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
Water
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
0.0121 _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
0.015
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ 0.0156 _____ _____
_____
0.005
_____
_____
0.015
_____
_____
0.024
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ 0.0188 _____
Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
----------
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
BEHIVL%/ L%/ M%/ H%/ VH%/ E%
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____ -----
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
----
----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----------
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
Biological or Other,
____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
1 - Pre -Existing Condition-,asartnent taken on existing sandbed riffle
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 3 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
Parameter
USGS Gauge
Regional Curve
Pre -Existing Condition
Reference Reach(es)
Data
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
Mecl Max
n
Min Mean
Med Max SD n
BF Width (ft)
_____
11.6
11.9
_____
4.4
_____
_____
8.9
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
6.8
_____ ____ _____
_____
_____ 8.6
_____ _____ _____ _____
Floodprone Width (ft)
"'--
""'
""'
_____
7.8
""'
""'
>30
""'
""'
""'
""' ""'
""'
""'
""'
""'
>16
""' "" ""'
""'
""' 49.9
""' ""' ""' ""'
BFMean Dep[
_____1.2
1.5
_____
0.4
_____
_____
1.0
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
0.5
_____ ____ _____
_____
_____ 0.9
_____ _____ _____ -----
BF Max Depth (ft)
_____
_____
_____
_____
0.8
_____
_____
1.6
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
0.7
_____ ____ _____
_____
_____ 1.2
_____ _____ _____ -----
BF Cross-sectional Area (W)
_____
_____
4.0
_____
3.4
_____
_____
4.5
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
3.6
_____ ____ _____
_____
_____ 6.8
_____ _____ _____ _____
Width/Depth Ratio
_____
_____
_____
_____
4.2
_____
_____
3.4
_____
_____
10.0
_____ _____
14.0
_____
_____
_____
13.0
_____ ____ _____
_____
_____ 8.4
_____ _____ _____ -----
Entrenchment Ratio_____
_____
_____
_____
1.8
_____
_____
5.4
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
>2.2
_____
_____
_____
>23
_____ ____ _____
_____
_____ 6.6
_____ _____ _____ _____
Bank Height Ratio
_____
_____
_____
_____
2.4
_____
_____
1.0
_____
_____
1.0
_____ _____
1.1
_____
_____
_____
1.0
_____ ____ _____
_____
_____ 1.0
_____ _____ _____ _____
d5O mum,
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
___
___
___ _____ _____
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____ _____ -----
Pattern
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
28
-----
----- 45 -----
-----
Channel Be twt t
-----
---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 58.6
----- ----- ----- -----
----Ra
us of Curvature (ft)
Radius
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
""'
""'
""'
14
""'
""' 20 ""'
""'
""' 17.5
_____ _____ _____ _____
Rc:Bankfull width (£lift)-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
2
-----
----- 3 -----
-----
----- 2.0
----- ----- ----- -----
Meander Wavelength (ft)
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
""'
""'
""'
60
""'
""' 90 ""'
""'
""' 81.5
_____ _____ _____ -----
Meander Width Ratio
-----
-----
---
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
3.5
----- -----
8
-----
-----
4.1
-----
----- 6.6 -----
-----
----- 6.8
----- ----- ----- -- ---
Profile
�
V
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
RiffleLength (ft)
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____ 15.2
_____ _____ _____ -----
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
0.0265
_____ ____ _____
_____
_____ 0.0196
_____ _____ _____ _____
Pool Length (ft)
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____
Pool to Pool Spacing O
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
25
_____
_____ 55 _____
_____
_____ 578
.
_____ _____ _____ -----
PoolMax Depth (ft)
__________
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
1.3
_____ ____ _____
_____
_____ 1.7
_____ _____ _____ _____
Pool Volume (ft)
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____ _____ -----
Substrate and'I ransport Parameters
_____
_____
___
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
___
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____
SC%/So /G%/B%/Be%
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
__________
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____ _____ ____
' d16 / d35 / d5o / d84 / d95
-----
-----
-----
-----
17.6 /
36.9 / 53.7 / 130.6 / 184.8
Reach Shear Stress (competency) Ib/ft2
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____ _____ -----
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve)
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
__________
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____
Stream Power (transport capacity) Wim'
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____ -----
Additional Reach Parameters
,I
015L
_____
_____
_____ 0.097 _____
_____
Drainage Area (SM)
_____ _____ _____
_____
0.097 _____ _____ 0.083 _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____
_____ 0.097 _____ -----
Impernous cover estimate o
Impervious
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____
Rosgen Classification
_____
_____
_____
B5c
_____
_____
C
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
C5
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ C5 _____
_____
_____ _____
_____ E5 _____ -----
BF
BF Velocity (fps)
-----
3.4
3.7
-----
3.7
-----
-----
4.2
-----
-----
3.5
----- -----
5
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- 3.3 -----
-----
----- -----
----- ----- ----- -----
BF Discharge (cfs)
_____
9.4
14.7
_____
14.4
_____
_____
16.5
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ 12.0 _____
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____ _____ -----
ValleyLength
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
----- -----
----- 726.02 ----- -----
Channel length (ft)-----
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
1,022
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- 1,828 -----
-----
----- -----
----- 1069.32 ----- -----
_____
1.50
_____
_____ 1.42 _____
_____
_____ _____
_____ 1.47 _____ -----
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
-----
0.0177
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- 0.0124 -----
-----
----- -----
----- 0.0123 ----- -----
BF slope (ft/ft)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
0.0133
-----
-----
0.005
----- -----
0.015
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- 0.0134 -----
-----
----- -----
----- 0.0185 ----- -----
Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
__________
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
__________
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____
Biological or Other
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
1 -PrejExisting Condition measrament taken on existing sandbed ri01e, As -Built measurement taken
on constmcted
rock riffle
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 3 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
Reference
Reach(es) Datave
Parameter
USGS Gauge
Regional Cur
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
Min
Mean
Med
Max SD a
ff-M-E--M
jEr-Min
Mean
Med Max SD
_____
4,3
_____ 4.6
_____ ____
_____ _____
_____ 6.3
_____
Floodprone Width (ft)_____
_____ _____
_____
4.5
_____
_____
6.5 _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ >9
_____ ____
_____ _____
_____ 19.4
_____ _____ _____ _____
BE Mean Depth (ft)_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
0.60 _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ 0.3
_____ ____
_____ _____
_____ 0.3
_____ _____ _____ _____
BEMax Depth (ft)
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
0.9 _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ 0.4
_____ ____
_____ _____
_____ 0.6
_____ _____ _____ _____
BE Cross-sectional Area (')
_____
_____ _____
_____
1,8
_____
_____
2,5 _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ 1 .5
_____ ____
_____ _____
_____ 21
.
_____ _____ _____ _____
Width/Depth Ratio
_____
_____ _____
_____
0.9
_____
_____
5.8 _____
_____
12.0
_____
_____
18.0 _____ _____
_____ 14.0
_____ ____
_____ _____
_____ 18.7
_____ _____ _____ -----
Entrenchment Ratio
_____
_____ _____
_____
1.4
_____
_____
1,5
_____
1.4
_____
2.2
_____ >2.0
_____
-----
Bank Height Rano
_____
_____ _____
_____
2.9
_____
_____
1.0
_____
1.1
_____ 1.0
_____ ____
_____ _____
_____ 0.8
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____ _____ _____ -----
Pattern
_____ _____
_____ _____ _____ -----
Channel a tun [
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
Radius of Curvature (ft)
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
-----
----- -----
-""
""'
""'
""'
""' ""'
""'
""'
""'
""'-----------------------------------------------------------------""'
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____
_____ _____
-
Meander Wavelength (ft)
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
__________
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____
Meander Width Ratio
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____ _____ _____ -----
Profile
""' 12.5
""' ""' ""' -----
Riffle Length (ft)
""'
""' ""' ""'
""' ""' ""' ""' ""' ""'
""' ""' ""' ""' ""' ""'
""' ""' ""' "" ""' ""'
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ 0.04
_____ ____
_____ _____
_____ 0.027
_____ _____ _____ _____
""' _____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____
""'
""' ""'
""' ""' ""' -----
Poolto Pool Spacing (ft)
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____ 34.6
_____ _____ _____ -----
PoolMax Depth (ft)
__________
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ 1.0
_____ ____
_____ _____
_____ 1.2
_____ _____ _____ _____
Pool Volume (ft')
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____ _____ _____ -----
Substrate and Transport Parameters
I
EL
_____ _____
_____ _____ _____ ____
_____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
SC % / Sa% / G% / B% / Be%
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
----- -----
----- -----
----------
----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
Reach Shear Stress (competency) Ib/ft'
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
__________
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve)
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____ _____ _____ -----
Strew Power (transport capacity) W/m'
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____
Additional Reach Parameters
-0�
-
Drainage Area (SM)
_____
_____ _____
_____
0.019
_____
_____
0.050 _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____
_____ 0.05
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____ 0.05 _____ _____
Impervious cover estimate (%)
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____
Rosgen Classification
_____
_____ _____
_____
B5c
_____
_____
G5c _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
B5c _____ _____
_____ _____
_____ B5c
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____ C5 _____ _____
_____
6
_____ 3.3
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____ _____ _____ -----
BEDischarge (cfs)
_____
_____ _____
_____
5.1
_____
_____
10.2 _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____
_____ 12
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____ _____ _____ -----
ValleyLength
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____ 201 _____ -----
Channel length (ft)-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
_____
1,828 _____
-----
-----
-----
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____
_____ 1,808
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____ 210 _____ _____
Sinuosity
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
1.13 _____
_____
1.10
_____
_____
1.30 _____ _____
_____ _____
_____ 1.05
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____ 1.04 _____ -----
Water
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
_____
_____ _____
_____
0.0148
_____
_____
0.0250 _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____
_____ 0.030
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____
_____
0.015 _____
_____ 0.033
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____ _____ _____
BankfallFloodplain Area (acres)
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
__________
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____
BEHIVL%/ L%/ M%/ H%/ VH%/ E%
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____ _____ _____ -----
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____
Biological or Other,
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
I - Pre -Existing Condition-,asartnent taken on existing sandbed riffle
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 3 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
Reference Reach(m) Data
Parameter
USGS Gauge
Regional Curve
Pre -Existing Condition
Design
As -built
Thomas Creek Site U er Reach 4 (On-site
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
LL UL Eq.
Min _ Mean Med Max
Min Mean Med Max SD n
Med
Min Mean Med Max SD n
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ 4.6 _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
FloodproneWidth (ft)
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ 5.4 _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
BEMean Depth ffl)
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ 0.4 _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ 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 Ratio
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ 1,5 _____
_____ _____ _____
1,q _____ 2,2
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
Bank
Bank Height Ratio
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____ 4,2 _____
_____ _____ _____
1,p _____ 1.1
_____ 1,p _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
d50 burn)
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
Pattern
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
Channel a tun [
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
Radius of Curvature (ft)
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- ""'
""' ""' ""' ""' ""' ""'
_____ _____ _____
""' ""' ""'-----------------------------------------------------------------""'
_____ _____ _____ _____ -
Meander Wavelength (ft)
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ __________ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
Meander Width Ratio
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
Profile
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ __________ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ ____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
Pool to Pool Spacing (ft)
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ ___ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ 1.0 _____ ____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
Pool Volume (ft')
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
___ ___ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
Substrate and Transport Parameters
___ ___ ___ ___ ___ _____
__________ _____ _____ _____
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ ____
SC%/Sa%/G%/B%/Be%
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
---------- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----------
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----
' d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
-----
----- ----- -----
.012 / 0.29 / 0.43 / 0.87 / 1.39
Reach Shear Stress (competency) Ib/ft'
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
__________ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve)
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ ___
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
Strew Power (transport capacity) W/m'
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ __________ _____ _____
11
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
Additional Reach Parameters
Fl—
_____ _____ _____ 0.022 _____ _____
Drainage Area (SM)
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ 0.022 _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ 0.022 _____ -----
Impervious cover estimate (%)
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ __________ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
Rosgen Classification
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ B5 _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ B5c _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ B5c _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ 6
_____ 3.33 _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
BEDischarge (cfs)
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ 5.7 _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ 5 _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
Valley Length
_____
_____ ___ ___
___-'-'- '-'-' ""' ""' ""'
""' ""' ""' -'-'- '-'-' ""'
""' ""' ""' ""' _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
Channellength (ft)
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ 646 _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ 646 _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
Sinuosity
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____ _____ 1.11 _____
1.10 _____ _____ 1.30 _____ _____
_____ _____
_____ _____ -----
Water
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ 0.025 _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ 0.032 _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____
0.005 _____ _____ 0.015 _____
_____ 0.036 _____ _____
___ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
__________ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
BEHIVL%/ L%/ M%/ H%/ VH%/ E%
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ __________ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
Biological or Other,
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
1 - Pre -Existing Condition measunnent taken on existing sandbed riRle
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 3 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
Reference
Reach(m) 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
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD n
Min Mean
Med Max Sp ----n
BE 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
_____ _____ _____ -----
BF Cross-sectional Area ( ')
BE
____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
2,g _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
3.8
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ 5.3
_____ _____ _____ _____
Width/Depth Ratio
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
18.6 -----
-----
12.0
-----
-----
18.0
----- -----
-----
13.0
----- -----
-----
-----
----- 13.6
----- ----- ----- -----
Entrenchment Ratio
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
1.5
_____
1.4
_____
2.2
_____ _____ -----
Bank Height Ratio
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
2.6
_____
1,0
_____
1.1
_____
1.0
_____ _____
d50 bram)
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____ _____ -----
Pattern
""'
""'
""'
""' ""'
""'
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
""'
""' ""' ""'
""'
""'
""'
""'
""' ""'
---
-----
""' "
""'
""' 32.5
""' ""' ""' -----
Radius of Curvature (ft)
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
13.5
_____
_____ 18.0
_____
_____
_____ 14.0
_____ _____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
20
.
_____
_____ 26
.
_____
_____
_____ 17
.
_____ _____ _____ -----
MeanderWavelength (ft)
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ 48.0
_____ _____ _____ -----
Meander Width Ratio
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ 3.8
____ _ _____ _____ _____
Profile
W
1
RiffleLength (ft)
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ 14.7
_____ _____ _____ -----
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
0.0135
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ 0.0113
_____ _____ _____ _____
""' _____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
""'
""' ""'
""' ""' ""' -----
Pool to Pool Spacing
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
----- -----
25
-----
----- 42
-----
-----
----- 412
_____ _____ _____ -----
PoolMax Depth (ft)
__________
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
1.4
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ 1.4
_____ _____ _____ _____
Pool Volume (ft)
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____
Substrate and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
__________
_____ ___
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____ _____ ____
SC%/Sa%/G%/B%/Be%
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
-----
-----
-----
-----
Reach Shear Stress (competency) Ib/ft'
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
__________
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve)
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____ _____ -----
Strew Power (transport capacity) W/m'
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_ ____
_____ _____
___
_____ _____ __ -----
Additional Reach Parameters
_
Drainage Area (SM)
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
0.077 _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ 0.077
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____ 0.077 _____ _____
Impervious cover estimate (%)
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____
Rosgen Classification
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
B5c _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
B5c
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ B5c
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____ C5 _____ _____
_____
_____ 3.66
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____ _____
BF Discharge (cfs)
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
14.0
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ 13.9
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____ _____ -----
Valley
ValleyLength
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____ 218 _____ -----
Channel length (ft)
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
242 _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ 253
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____ 227 _____ -----
Sinuosity
Sinuosity
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
1.09 _____
_____
1.10
_____
_____
1.30
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ 1.16
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____ 1.04 _____ -----
Water
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
0.0203 _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ 0.004
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____
_____
0.005
_____
_____
0.015
_____
_____ 0.005
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____
Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____
BEHIVL%/ L%/ M%/ H%/ VH%/ E%
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____ _____ -----
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____
Biological or Other
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
1 - Pre -Existing Condition measurtnent taken on existing sandbed i le
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 3 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 Reaches) Data
Design
As -built
Thomas Creek Site Upper Reach 4 (On-site
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
LL UL Eq.
Min Mean Med Max
Min Mean Med Max SD a
ed JE_Min
Mean Med Max SD n
BFWidth (ft)
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ 2.1 _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
FloodproneWidth (ft)
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ 3.4 _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
BFMean Depth (it)
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ 0.4 _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
BFMax Depth (ft)
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ 0.6 _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
BFCross-sectional Area (ft')
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ 0.8 _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ ----- _____ _____ _____
Width/Depth Ratio
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ 5.6 _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
EntrenchmentRatio
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ 1.6 _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ ----- _____ _____ -----
BankHeight Ratio
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ 2.3----- _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
d50 (non)
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____
Pattern
I'
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
Channel a tun [
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
Radius of Curvature (ft)
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
""'
""' ""' ""'
""' ""' ""' ""' ""' ""'
_____ _____ _____
""' ""' ""'-----------------------------------""'
_____ _____ _____ _____
Meander Wavelength (ft)
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ __________ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
Meander Width Ratio
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
Profile
_____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ __________ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
Pool to Pool Spacing (ft)
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
pool Volume (ft)
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
Substrate and Transport Parameters
_____ ___ _____
_____ ___ ___ ___ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ ____
SC%/Sa%/G%/B%/Be%
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----------
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----
d16 / 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
_____ _____ _____ 0.008 _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ 0.008 _____ _____
Drainage Area (SM)
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ 0.008 _____ -----
Impervious cover estimate (%)
-----
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ __________ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
RosgenClassification
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ B5c _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
BFDischarge (cfs)
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ 2.7----- _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
ValleyLength
_____
_____ _____ _____
----- ----- ""' ""' ""' ""'
""' ""' ""' ""' ""' ""'
""' ""' ""' ""' _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
Channel length (ft)
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____
_____ 171
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ 157 _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ 157 _____ -----
Sinuosity_____
Sinuosity
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ 1.17 _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ 0.0414 _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ 0.0417 _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ __________ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
BEHIVL%/ L%/ M%/ H%/ VH%/ E%
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ __________ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
Biological or Other
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____
1 - Pre -Existing Condition m,asurtn,nt taken on existing sandb,d rill,
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 3 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)
Rased on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3 MY4
MY5 MY+
Base
MYl
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
MY+
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3 MY4 bll
M) +
BF Width (ft)
9.3
8.8
8.3
8.6
10.5
10.2
10.2 10.0
7.5
7.1
7.0
7.4
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.6
1.3
1.3
1.2 1.3
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.3
Width/Depth Ratio
11.9
14.1
13.7
14.4
8.3
8.0
8.5 7.6
12.3
16.9
15.5
21.3
BE Cross-sectional Area (ft2)
7.3
5.4
5.1
5.1
13.4
13.2
12.2 13.3
4.5
3.0
3.1
2.6
BF Max Depth (ft)
1.3
1.1
1.0
1.0
2.1
2.1
2.0 2.5
0.9
0.7
0.7
0.7
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
55.3
51.8
51.4
50.7
61.3
62.2
59.5 62.9
37.3
34.1
34.1
33.8
Entrenchment Ratio
5.9
6.0
6.1
5.9
-
-
- -
5.0
4.9
5.0
4.5
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.9
-
-
- -
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
10.9
10.0
9.6
8.9
13.1
12.8
12.6 11.8
8.7
7.9
7.9
7.6
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.7
0.5
0.5
0.6
1.0
1.0
1.0 1.1
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
Cross Sectional Area between end pins (ft2)
-
-
-
d50 (mm)
Stream Reach
Reach 4 (1,238 LF)
Reach 2 upstream (703 LF)
Reach 2 downstream (1,423 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
MY5 MY+
Base
MYl
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
MY+
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3 MY4 MY5
MY+
Base MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
BE Width (ft)
6.8
6.8
6.1
5.9
10.4
9.8
9.8 10.0
10.2
9.7
9.5
9.7
8.5 6.8 6.9 6.7
BE Mean Depth (ft)
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.7
0.6
0.6 0.5
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4
Width/Depth Ratio
12.7
12.6
13.5
14.8
14.8
16.6
16.8 21.0
10.1
11.4
11.7
11.6
13.6 13.8 16.0 15.0
BE Cross-sectional Area (ft2)
3.6
3.6
2.8
2.3
7.4
5.8
5.6 4.8
10.2
8.3
7.7
8.0
5.3 3.4 3.0 3.0
BE Max Depth (ft)
0.9
1.0
0.8
0.7
1.0
0.9
0.9 0.8
1.5
1.3
1.3
1.2
0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
21.9
22.3
20.6
20.2
38.2
37.0
36.3 35.8
62.9
62.9
63.0
62.9
30.6 28.2 27.1 26.7
Entrenchment Ratio
3.2
3.1
3.2
3.4
3.7
3.7
3.7 3.6
6.2
6.2
6.2
6.5
3.6 3.7 3.7 4.0
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.2
0.9
0.8
1.0
0.9
1.0 0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
1.0 1.2 0.9 0.9
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
7.8
7.9
7.0
6.1
11.8
11.0
10.9 10.2
12.2
11.4
11.1
10.3
9.7 7.8 7.7 7.0
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.6
0.5
0.5 0.5
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4
Cross Sectional Area between end pins (112)
-
-
-
-
d50 (mm)
Stream Reach
111111111
Reach 2 downstream (1,423 LF)
Cross-section X-8 (Pool)
Cross-section X-9 (Pool)
Cross-section X-10 (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 NiY
\1i
BF Width (ft)
15.3
16.1
16.1
16.1
14.5
14.5
14.6 15.1
10.3
9.3
9.1
8.5
BE Mean Depth (ft)
1.2
1.6
1.7
1.9
1.1
1.3
1.4 1.3
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.7
Width/Depth Ratio
13.3
9.8
9.6
8.6
12.9
10.8
10.8 12.1
12.6
13.2
13.0
12.7�������������������������������������
BE Cross-sectional Area (ft2)
17.6
26.3
27.0
30.3
16.3
19.5
19.7 18.9
8.4
6.5
6.4
5.7�����������������������������������������
BE Max Depth (ft)
2.7
2.6
2.8
2.7
2.2
3.2
3.0 2.9
1.2
1.1
1.1
1.0
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
53.1
52.4
53.2
52.8
70.6
70.6
70.7 70.6
74.5
74.5
74.5
74.5
Entrenchment Ratio
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
7.2
7.3
7.3
8.8
s�������������������������������
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.9
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
17.6
19.3
19.5
18.3
16.8
17.2
17.3 17.0
11.9
10.7
10.5
8.9
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
1.0
1.4
1.4
1.7
1.0
1.1
1.1 1.1
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.6
Cross Sectional Area between end pins (112)
-
-
d50 (mm)
Note: Per DMS/IRT request, bank height ratio for MY3 has been calculated using the as -built bankfull area. All other values were calculated using the as -built bankfull elevation, as was done for previous monitoring reports.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 3 MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96074)

Table 11 a. (Continued) Cross Section Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Thomas Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 96074
Stream Reach
Reach 1 (208 LF)
Reach 6 (1,776 LF)
Cross-section X-11 (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 \IY
BF Width (ft)
16.2
15.4
14.8
16.3
13.9
12.7
12.4
13.1
6.3
4.1
4.1
3.7
BF Mean Depth (ft)
1.5
1.7
1.7
2.1
0.8
0.7
0.8
0.6
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
Width/Depth Ratio
11.1
8.8
8.7
7.7
17.4
19.8
16.5
22.3
18.7
16.1
19.5
15.5
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft2)
23.7
26.8
25.0
34.6
11.1
8.2
9.3
7.7
2.1
1.1
0.8
0.9
BF Max Depth (ft)
3.4
3.8
3.5
4.1
1.1
1.1
1.3
1.0
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.4
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
68.8
68.8
68.7
68.8
30.6
30.0
31.3
29.1
19.4
17.6
16.0
16.9
Entrenchment Ratio
-
-
-
-
2.2
2.2
2.1
2.2
3.1
3.2
3.2
4.5
Bank Height Ratio
-
-
-
-
1.0
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.6
0.7
0.7
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
19.2
18.9
18.1
23.6
15.5
14.0
13.9
13.6
6.9
4.6
4.5
3.8
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
1.2
1.4
1.4
1.5
0.7
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
Cross Sectional Area between end pins (ft')
-
-
-
d50 (mm)
Stream Reach
Reach 5 (1,168 LF)
Cross-section X-14 (Riffle)
Cross-section X-15 (Pool)
Cross-section X-16 (Pool)
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
\I) \4Y+
BF Width (ft)
7.5
6.9
7.2
6.4
10.3
7.3
6.4
9.5
9.3
8.7
8.5
8.9
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.9
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.8
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.8
1.2
1.2
1.2
Width/Depth Ratio
8.4
10.8
13.5
11.6
13.8
7.1
6.2
10.4
11.9
7.3
7.0
7.4
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft2)
6.8
4.4
3.8
3.5
7.7
7.5
6.5
8.7
7.3
10.4
10.2
10.6
BF Max Depth (ft)
1.2
1.2
1.0
1.1
1.5
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.3
2.7
2.5
2.6
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
49.9
49.9
49.9
49.9
59.6
58.8
59.7
59.0
63.8
67.4
67.3
67.3
Entrenchment Ratio
6.6
6.6
6.6
7.8
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.8
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
9.3
8.1
7.6
6.9
11.8
9.3
8.4
10.5
10.9
11.1
10.9
11.1
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.7
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.9
0.9
1.0
Cross Sectional Area between end pins (ft)
-
-
-
d50 (mm)
Note: Per DMS/IRT request, bank height ratio for MY3 has been calculated using the as -built bankfull area. All other values were calculated using the as -built bankfull elevation, as was done for previous monitoring reports.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 3 MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96074)

Table 1lb. Stream Reach Morphology Summary
Thomas Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 96074
Reach 1 (298 LF)
Parameter Baseline
MY-qq
MY -2
MY -3
MY -4
MY -5
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle in 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
_____ 12.7 _____
_____ 12.4 ----- _____ I
----- 13.1 _____ _____ 1
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
BF Mean Depth (ft ----- 0.8 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 0.7 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 0.8 ----- ----- ----- I
----- 0.6 ----- ----- ----- I
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Width/Depth Rati ----- 17.4 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 19.8 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 16.5 ----- ----- ----- I
----- 22.3 ----- ----- I
----'
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft' ----- 11.1 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 8.2 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 9.3 ----- ----- ----- I
----- 7.7 ----- ----- ----- I
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
_____ ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BF Max Depth (ft) ""' 1.1 ""' ""' ----- ""'
""' 1.1 ""' ""' ""' ""'
""' 1.3 ""' ----- _____ I
""' 1.0 ""' ""' ""' I
""' ""' ""' ""' _____
""' ""' _____ ""' ""' -----
Width of Floodprone Area (ft ----- 30.6 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 30.0 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 31.3 ----- ----- ----- I
----- 29.1 ----- ----- ----- I
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
EntrenchmentRati _____ 2.2 _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ 2.2 _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ 2.1 _____ _____ _____ I
_____ 2.2 _____ _____ _____ 1
_____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
Bank Height Ratic ----- 1.0 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 1.2 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 1.1 ----- ----- ----- I
----- 0.9 ----- ----- ----- I
----- ----- ----- ---- ----- -------
"--- ----- --- ----- ----- -----
Profile
Riffle Length (11
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ---------- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Riftle Slope (Nft
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
--'-- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- --------- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Pool Length (11
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ---------- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
PoolSpacing lR
]
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
Poo Max Dept
Pool
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
Pattern
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth Hi
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Radius of Curvature (ft)
---- ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- j
/
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft
---- ---- ----- ---- ---- ---- /
Meander Wavelength (ft
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Meander Width Ratic
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ __________ _____ _____ _____
___
_____ _____ _____ ___ _________
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
RosgenClassificatio
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
BF Velocity (fps)
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----------
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ---------- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- _____ ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BF Discharge (cfs)
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----------
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ---------- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Valley Lengtl
----- ----- ----- ----- ----------
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ---------- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Channel Thalweg Length (ft
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ---------- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ---------- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Sinuosity (ft
----- ----- ----- ----- ----------
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
---------- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft
-- __ ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----------
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ---------- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BF slope (ft/ft)
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
---------- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
---------- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
---------- -----_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
Channel Stability or Habitat Metri
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ---------- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ---------- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Biological or Othei
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Note: Per DMS/IRT request, bank height ratio for MY3 has been calculated using the as -built bankfirll area. All other values were calculated using the as -built bankroll elevation, as was done for previous monitoring reports.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 3 MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96074)

Table l lb. Stream Reach Morphology Summary
Thomas Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 96074
Reach 2 upstream (703 LF)
Parameter
Baseline
MY-
MY -2
MY-
MY -4
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Min Mean Med Max SD n
Min Mean Med Max SD nMin
Mean Med Max SD n
Min Mean Med Max SD n
Min Mean Nlcd 19ue SD
Min Mean Med Max SD n
BF Width (ft
---- 10.4 ----- ----- ----- -----
---- 9.8 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 9.8 ----- ----- ----- I
----- 10.0 ----- ----- ----- I
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BF Mean Depth (ft
____ 0.7 _____ _____ _____ _____
____ 0.6 _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ 0.6 _____ _____ _____ I
_____ 0.5 _____ _____ _____ I
----- _____ _____ ----- ----- -----
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
Width/Depth Rati
---- 14.8 ----- ----- ----- -----
---- 16.6 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 16.8 ----- ----- ----- I
----- 21.0 ----- ----- ----- I
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BF Cross-sectional Area (ftp
---- 7.4 ----- ----- ----- -----
---- 5.8 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 5.6 ----- ----- ----- I
----- 4.8 ----- ----- ----- I
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BF Max Depth (ft)
---- 1.0 ----- ----- ----- -----
---- 0.9 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 0.9 ----- ----- ----- I
----- 0.8 ----- ----- ----- I
----- ----- ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Width of Floodprone Area (ft
---- 38.2 ----- ----- ----- -----
---- 37.0 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 36.3 ----- ----- ----- I
----- 35.8 ----- ----- ----- I
----- ----- ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
EntrenchmentRati
---- 3.7 ----- ----- ----- -----
---- 3.7 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 3.7 ----- ----- ----- I
----- 3.6 ----- ----- ----- I
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Bank Height Ratic
---- 1.0 ----- ----- ----- -----
---- 0.9 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 1.0 ----- ----- ----- I
----- 0.9 ----- ----- ----- I
----- ----- ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Profile
Riffle Length (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]
-- -- -- -- -- /r
Meander Width Raft
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Additional Reach Parameters
DrainageArea (SM)
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ __________ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
Rosgen Clmsificatio
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ---------- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BFVelocity (fps)
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ __________ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
BF Discharge (cfs)
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ---------- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Valley Lengtf,
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- -----_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _ _____
----- -----
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
Channel Thalweg Length (ft
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ---------- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Sinuosity(ft
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
__________ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
WaterSurface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BF slope (ft/ft)
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ ---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- -----_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- -----
----- ---------- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Channel Stability or Habitat Metri
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ ---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- -----_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
Biologicalor Othei
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- -----
----- -- ----- -----
Note: Per DWART request, bank height ratio for MY3 has been calculated using the as -built bankfull area. All other values were calculated using the as -built bankfull elevation, as was done for previous monitoring reports.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 3 MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96074)

Table l lb. Stream Reach Morphology Summary
Thomas Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 96074
Reach 2 downstream (1,423 LF)
Parameter
Baseline
MY -1
MY -3
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 SDn
Min Mean Med Max SD n
BF Width (ft
10.2
10.2
----- 10.3 -----
2
9.3
9.5
----- 9.7 -----
2
9.1
9.3 -----
9.5 -----
2
8.5
9.1
----- 9.7 -----
2
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BF Mean Depth (ft
0.8
0.9
----- 1.0 -----
2
0.7
0.8
----- 0.9 -----
2
0.7
0.8 -----
0.8 -----
2
0.7
0.8
----- 0.8 -----
2
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Width/Depth Rati
10.1
11.4
----- 12.6 -----
2
11.4
12.3
----- 13.2 -----
2
11.7
12.4 -----
13.0 -----
2
11.6
12.2
----- 12.7 -----
2
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft'
8.4
9.3
----- 10.2 -----
2
6.5
7.4
----- 8.3 -----
2
6.4
7.1 -----
7.7 -----
2
5.7
6.9
----- 8.0 -----
2
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BF Max Depth (ft)
1.2
1.3
----- 1.5 -----
2
1.1
1.2
----- 1.3 -----
2
1.1
1.2 -----
1.3 -----
2
1.0
1.1
----- 1.2 -----
2
----- ----- ----- ___- ----- -----
----- _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
Width of Floodprone Area (ft
62.9
68.7
----- 74.5 -----
2
62.9
68.7
----- 74.5 -----
2
63.0
68.7 -----
74.5 -----
2
62.9
68.7
----- 74.5 -----
2
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Entrenchment Rati
6.2
6.7
----- 7.2 -----
2
6.2
6.8
----- 7.3 -----
2
6.2
6.8 -----
7.3 -----
2
6.5
7.7
----- 8.8 -----
2
----- ----- ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Bank Height Ratic
0.9
1.0
----- 1.0 -----
2
0.9
1.0
----- 1.0 -----
2
0.9
0.9 -----
0.9 -----
2
0.9
0.9
----- 0.9 -----
2
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Profile
Riffle Length (ft
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Riftle Slope (ft/ft
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
---------- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Pool Length (ft
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
----------
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
---------- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
PoolSpacing (ft
-----
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ ----- _____ _____ _____ -----
Pool
Poo Max Dept �
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _
_____ _____ ____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
Pattern
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)
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Rosgen Classificatio
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----------
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BFVelocity (fps)
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
----------
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BF Discharge (cfs
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----------
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
ValleyLenb't
-----
-----
----- ----- ----------
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Channel Thalweg Length (ft
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----------
----- -----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Sinuosity (ft
-----
-----
----- ----- ----------
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----------
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BE slope (ft/ft)
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
----------
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____
----------
-----_____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ ----- ----- _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
Channel Stability or Habitat Metri
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----------
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Biological or Othei
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
Note: Per DWART request, bank height ratio for MY3 has been calculated using the as -built bauWl area. All other values were calculated using the as -built bankfull elevation, as was done for previous monitoring reports.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 3 MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96074)

Table l lb. Stream Reach Morphology Summary
Thomas Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 96074
Reach 3 (1,031 LF)
Parameter
Baseline
MY -1
MY -2
MY -3
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 SDn
Min Mean Med Max SD n
BF Width (ft
7.5
8.4
----- 9.3 -----
2
7.1
7.9
----- 8.8 -----
2
7.0
7.7
----- 8.3 -----
2
7.4
8.0
----- 8.6 -----
2
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BF Mean Depth (ft
0.6
0.7
----- 0.8 -----
2
0.4
0.5
----- 0.6 -----
2
0.5
0.5
----- 0.6 -----
2
0.3
0.5
----- 0.6 -----
2
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ---- ---- ----- -----
Width/Depth Rati
11.9
12.1
----- 12.3 -----
2
14.1
15.5
----- 16.9 -----
2
13.7
14.6
----- 15.5 -----
2
14.4
17.9
----- 21.3 -----
2
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft'
4.5
5.9
----- 7.3 -----
2
3.0
4.2
----- 5.4 -----
2
3.1
4.1
----- 5.1 -----
2
2.6
3.9
----- 5.1 -----
2
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BF Max Depth (ft)
0.9
1.1
----- 1.3 -----
2
0.7
0.9
----- 1.1 -----
2
0.7
0.8
----- 1.0 -----
2
0.7
0.9
----- 1.0 -----
2
----- ----- ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Width of Floodprone Area (ft
37.3
46.3
----- 55.3 -----
2
34.1
43.0
----- 51.8 -----
2
34.1
42.8
----- 51.4 -----
2
33.8
42.3
----- 50.7 -----
2
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Entrenchment Rati
5.0
5.5
----- 5.9 -----
2
4.9
5.5
----- 6.0 -----
2
5.0
5.6
----- 6.1 -----
2
4.5
5.2
----- 5.9 -----
2
----- ----- ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Bank Height Ran
1.0
1.0
----- 1.0 -----
2
0.9
0.9
----- 0.9 -----
2
0.8
0.8
----- 0.8 -----
2
0.7
0.8
----- 0.9 -----
2
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Profile
Riffle Length (ft
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
----------
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
---- -
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Riffle Slope (ft/ft
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
---------- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
---------- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Pool Length (ft
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
----------
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
---------- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
PoolSpacing (ft
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
Pool
Poo Max Dept �
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
Pattern
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft
-
Radius of Curvature (ft)
--
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft
--
/ /
/
Meander Wavelength (ft
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
Meander Width Ran c
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----------
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Rosgen Classificatio
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----------
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BF Velocity (fps)-----
-----
----- ----- -----
----------
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BF Discharge (cfs)
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----------
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Valley Lengtl
-----
-----
----- ----- ----------
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Channel Thalweg Length (ft
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----------
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Sinuosity (ft
-----
-----
----- ----- ----------
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----------
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BF slope (ft/ft)
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
----------
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
----------
-----_____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____ ----- ----- _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
Channel Stability or Habitat Metri
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----------
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
---------- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Biological or Othei
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
Note: Per DMS/IRT request, bank height ratio for MY3 has been calculated using the as -built bankfirll area. All other values were calculated using the as -built baokfidl elevation, as was done for previous monitoring reports.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 3 MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96074)

Table 1 lb. Stream Reach Morphology Summary
Thomas Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 96074
Reach 4 (1,238 LF)
Parameter
1
■
■
Depth
I
I
I
I-
r.
Depth
19
1
1:
1
I,
I
I
I•
I:
Riffle Length Ht�
Riffle Slope (ft/k
Pool Length (W
Pool Spacing (ft�
Pool Max Depth
Radius of Curvature Hl�
Rc:Bankfidl width (ft/f(
Me-der
molcsslo
Meander Width Rati,
Drainage
BF Velocity (fps'
BF Discharge
Valley Lengff
Channel Thalweg Length (ff
Sinuosity Hl�
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (fit/ft,
Channel Stability or Habitatr
Metri
•. ,
Note: Per DWART request, bank height ratio for MY3 has been calculated using the as -built bauWl area. All other values were calculated using the as -built bankfull elevation, as was done for previous monitoring reports.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 3 MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96074)

Table 1 lb. Stream Reach Morphology Summary
Thomas Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 96074
Reach 5 (1,169 LF)
Parameter
1
■
■
Depth
I•
I,
I
I
r
I:
Depth
I
I
I
I:
I:
Riffle Length Ht�
Riffle Slope (ft/k
Pool Length (W
Pool Spacing (ft�
Pool Max Depth
Radius of Curvature Hl�
Rc:Bankfiull width (ft/f(
Me-der
molcsslo
Meander Width Rati,
Drainage
BF Velocity (fps'
BF Discharge
Valley Lengff
Channel Thalweg Length (ff
Sinuosity Hl�
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (fit/ft,
Channel Stability or Habitatr
Metri
•• ,
:thn
Note- Per DMS/IRT request, bank height ratio for MY3 has been calculated using the as -built bankfirll area. All other values were calculated using the as -built baokfidl elevation, as was done for previous monitoring reports.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 3 MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96074)

Table 1 lb. Stream Reach Morphology Summary
Thomas Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 96074
Reach 6 (1,776 LF)
Parameter
1
■
■
Depth
I
I
I
I
r
I:
I•
Depth
1.
1
14
14
I
I:
I.
I
I
Riffle Length Ht�
Riffle Slope (ft/k
Pool Length (W
Pool Spacing (ft�
Pool Max Depth
Radius of Curvature Hl�
Rc:Bankfidl width (ft/f(
Me-der
molcsslo
Meander Width Rati,
Drainage
BF Velocity (fps'
BF Discharge
Valley Lengff
Channel Thalweg Length (ff
Sinuosity Hl�
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (fit/ft,
Habitatr
Channel Stability or Metri
:•• ,
Note: Per DWART requeat, ba,k height.atio be, MY3 has bee, calculated using the as -built ba,Wl area. All other values were calculated usivg the as -built bankfull elevation, as was dove to, pmvious mo,ito i,g,Turts.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 3 MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96074)

Table 1 lb. Stream Reach Morphology Summary
Thomas Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 96074
Reach TI (227 LF)I
Parameter
■
u ■
Min Mean Med Mix SD
Min Mean Med Max SD n
I.
I
I-
I-
I•
I:
I
I.
I.
I•
Riffle Length
Riffle Slope (ft/ff,
Pool Length (ft'
Pool Spacing (ft,'
Pool Max DepthMEN—
MEN—i
'�/iO ••�
Radics; .11.
// //// //// ////
// //
r ///// / ///// // /// �// //
• :. ,
r aoioi
riiiiii riiii rrr r
rim i
Drainage Area (SM)
BF Velocity (fps'
BF Discharge (cfs)
Valley Lengtf.
Channel Thalweg Length (f(
Sinuosity (ft,
Water Surface Slope (Charmcl) (ftlf(
Channel Stability or Habitat Metri:
Biological or Othei
Note: Per DMS/IRT request, bank height ratio for MY3 has been calculated using the as -built bankfirll area. All other values were calculated using the as -built baokfidt elevation, as was done for previous monitoring reports.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 3 MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96074)

Appendix E
Hydrologic Data

Figure 8. Flow Gauge Graphs
Thomas Creek Daily Rain
11/1/2017 12/16/2017 1/30/2018 3/16/2018 4/30/2018 6/14/2018 7/29/2018 9/12/2018 10/27/2018
0.0
1.0
c
M 2.0
W 3.0
21
4.0
5.0
2.50
2.40
2.30
2.20
2.10
2.00
1.90
1.80
1.70
1.60
CL 1.50
a) 1.40
0 1.30
d 1.20
1.10
?, 1.00
d 0.90
0.80
0.70
3 0.60
U) 0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
11/1/2017
Thomas Creek Reach 2
In -channel Flow Gauqe TMCK FL1
Year 3 Maximum Flow
Measurement = 2.34'
12/16/2017 1/30/2018 3/16/2018
Hurricane Florence = 1.93'
YR3 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
OF FLOW - 357*
(11/1/17-10/23/18)
-TMCK FL1
0.02 feet (0.25 inches)
4/30/2018 6/14/2018 7/29/2018 9/12/2018 10/27/2018
Date
Surface water flow is estimated to have occurred when the pressure transducer reading is equal to or above 0.02 feet (0.25 inches) in depth.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 3 MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96074)

Thomas Creek Daily Rain
E 11/1/2017 12/16/2017 1/30/2018 3/16/2018 4/30/2018 6/14/2018 7/29/2018 9/12/2018 10/27/2018
0.0
1.0
c
2.0
3.0
21
iE 4.0
in
5.0
Thomas Creek Reach 5 —Tll FL2
In -channel Flow Gauge TMCK FL2
1.50-
1 1 1 ches)
II■■I
_
1.40
II■til■ ERRONEOUS, �■ -.
1.30 READING
1.20 DUE TO ICE Hurricane Florence
1.10 II■■I
.-.
1.00
II■■I
YR3 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYSt
USE I
Q 0.90
d
❑ 0.80
II■■II I
(12/31/17 3/23/181
0.70
II■■II
4?
II■■II■ ��ll �I
0.60
V 0.50
II■■til■■�I���II �I�■
r_0.40
II■■II■II��wI�I1�Il I■���■I���■
3
II■■110111011111=0111=1II■II�II■II�1�1■
0.30
0.20
II■■II■I/I�I■I�IIIIAI III■III'I��■■II�I■
0.10
0.00
■�I■II■III��,/IIIII,�IIi11111��■ISI II■�I��W�II■►■�611�1■
,
11/1/2017 12/16/2017 1/30/2018 3/16/2018 4/30/2018 6/14/2018 7/29/2018 9/12/2018 10/27/2018
Date
* Surface water flow is estimated to have occurred when the pressure transducer reading is equal to or above 0.02 feet (0.25 inches) in depth.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 3 MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT N0. 96074)

Figure 9. Observed Rainfall Versus Historic Averages
Note: Historic average annual rainfall for Wake County is 43.8", while the observed project rainfall recorded a total of 54.9" over the
previous 12 months (from 11/1/2017 to 10/31/2018). Project rainfall data was collected from the nearest NC-CRONOS station KTTA.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 3 MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK STORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT N0. 96074)
Thomas Creek Restoration Project MY3
Observed Rainfall versus Historic Averages
R
10.0
8.0
i
i
i
6.0
0
.y
1■'
Y
4.0
oo
a
or
oo
2.0
0.0
Wake County Historic Average (43.8 in) t Historic 30% Probable (28.6 in)
Historic 70% Probable (52.5 in) --■-- Observed Project Rainfall (54.9 in)
Note: Historic average annual rainfall for Wake County is 43.8", while the observed project rainfall recorded a total of 54.9" over the
previous 12 months (from 11/1/2017 to 10/31/2018). Project rainfall data was collected from the nearest NC-CRONOS station KTTA.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 3 MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK STORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT N0. 96074)
i
i
i
1■'
Note: Historic average annual rainfall for Wake County is 43.8", while the observed project rainfall recorded a total of 54.9" over the
previous 12 months (from 11/1/2017 to 10/31/2018). Project rainfall data was collected from the nearest NC-CRONOS station KTTA.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 3 MONITORING REPORT
THOMAS CREEK STORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT N0. 96074)

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

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