20140332 Ver 1_Year 3 Monitoring Report_2020_20200220

ID#* 20140332 Version* 1
Select Reviewer:*
Mac Haupt
Initial Review Completed Date 02/21/2020
Mitigation Project Submittal - 2/20/2020
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site?* r Yes r No
Type of Mitigation Project:*
V Stream Pr Wetlands r- Buffer r- Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name:*
Jeremiah Dow
Project Information
...................................................................................
ID#:* 20140332
Existing IDY
Project Type:
Project Name:
Email Address:*
[e-mail]
Version:
*1
Existing Version
r DMS r Mitigation Bank
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project
County: Guilford
Document Information
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Monitoring Report
File Upload: Browns Summit_ 96313_MY3_2020-02-13.pdf 45.48MB
Rease upload only one RDFcf the conplete file that needs to be subnitted...
Signature
Print Name:* Jeremiah Dow
Signature:*

Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project
Year 3 Monitoring Report
Guilford County, North Carolina
DMS Project ID No. 96313, DEQ Contract No. 5792
Permits: SAW-2014-01642, DWR No. 14-0332
Cape Fear River Basin: 03030002-010020
Project Info: Monitoring Year: 3 of 7
Year of Data Collection: 2019
Year of Completed Construction (including planting): 2017
Submission Date: December 2019
Submitted To: NCDEQ - Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652

Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project
Year 3 Monitoring Report
Guilford County, North Carolina
DMS Project ID No. 96313, DEQ Contract No. 5792
Permits: SAW-2014-01642, DWR No. 14-0332
Cape Fear River Basin: 03030002-010020
Report Prepared and Submitted by Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
NC Professional Engineering License 9 F-1084
I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. i
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96313
DECEMBER 2019, MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 7

Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
INTERNATIONAL
February 11, 2020
Jeremiah Dow
NCDENR, Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600, Cary NC 27518
Office: 919.463.5488 1 Fax: [phone]
Subject: Response to Task 9 Draft Year 3 Monitoring Report Comments for Browns Summit
(DMS #96313) Cape Fear River Basin; CU 03030002; Guilford County, North
Carolina Contract No. 005792
Dear Mr. Dow:
Please find enclosed our responses to the Year 3 Monitoring Report Comments dated January 17, 2020
regarding the Browns Summit Creek Mitigation Project. We have revised the Year 3 Monitoring Report
document in response to this review.
1. Digital files:
a. Features for RI-R6 and T3 within the DMS geodatabase do not match the reported feet within the asset
table. Please provide DMS with design phase features for these project components that accurately capture
the creditable feet reported within the asset table.
Response: DMS has commented that they would like the GIS shapefiles for all projects and noted that for
some projects the lengths were not matching with the credit/asset table. Michael Baker spoke with DMS
Science and Analysis staff about this issue. We are happy to provide processed shapefiles derived from the
as -built survey CAD files for all project features. That is, we have taken the final as -built CAD files,
converted them into GIS, and modified them so that each feature segment is combined or split by reach or
wetland type and that the attribute table is clear and has a length or acre value approximate to the
credit/asset table. But due both to rounding issues in length and credit calculations, as well as to inherent
program differences between CAD and GIS, some small differences may exist between the two. We have
had this issue come up before on other projects. But the as -built CAD files used to create the PE/PLS
signed/sealed plan sheets are the legal standard by which we determine all our credits/assets. The GIS
shapefiles are secondary files we derive from the CAD to more easily make maps in our reports. So while
small differences between the two (of a few feet here or there) are likely to occur on some reaches,
particularly longer ones and ones with breaks such as for crossings, Michael Baker has not regarded this as
of particular importance. The CAD files are what have generated all official feature measurements. DMS
accepted that small differences would be acceptable for the creditable features but did want the processed
as -built shapefiles for each project and Michael Baker has agreed to provide them. Also, Reach 6 and T4
are calculated from valley length and not stream centerline. This explains the discrepancy between the
Table 1 stream lengths and the GIS attribute table.
b. Vegetation folder does not contain a CVS file. Please provide.
Response: The CVS file has been added to the E-Submission files per DMS request. Please note, the X/Y
portion of the CVS entry tool has always been used for internal purposes at Michael Baker. X/Y has been
Page 1

We Make a Difference
INTERNATIONAL
used to identify the plant plot and number (e.g. 4-15 means plot 4, plant 15) and not for internal plant
location, as CVS does not otherwise provide an easy way to carry over clear plant ID numbering from year
to year. Thus, the plot dimensions recorded in CVS are correct for each veg plot, though we understand
that may have confusing by looking at our X/Y entry data. Michael Baker spoke with DMS Science and
Analysis staff about this issue. They have allowed our existing projects to continue with the X/Y entry tool
for our own purposes but for future projects we will enter the X/Y grid plot coordinates as the CVS
program originally intended. We will also provide DMS with a copy of our plot maps showing individual
plant locations within each plot. And to be clear, the CVS field protocol is being followed throughout our
projects with the sole exception of this X/Y grid plot entry tool. All planted stems are identified and
marked (and mapped internally) at the as -built stage and tracked and assessed throughout the monitoring
phase.
c. Missing raw data for in stream flow and wetland gauge figures, and also missing raw precipitation data.
Response: Raw data for stream flow, wetland gauges and Precipitation has been added to the e-submission
files per DMS request.
2. Appendix A:
a. Figure 2 Please label "Wetland Mitigation Types " in the map legend as Re-establishment or
Rehabilitation.
Response: Figure 2 "Restoration Summary" has been revised to add wetland mitigation types to the map
legend.
b. Table I Please take credit calculations out to 3 digits.
Response: Table 1 has been revised to show credit calculations out to 3 digits per DMS request.
3. Appendix B: a. Figures 4.1 & 4.2 — See comment 4a. Please add wetland mitigation type (re-
establishment or rehabilitation) to the map legend. Also, please indicate graphically, or with a label on the
map, that BSAW2 did not meet success criteria. It would also be helpful to differentiate the veg problem
areas between invasive and low stem density areas with differing colors or labels.
Response: Figures 4.1 and 4.2 have been revised to show wetland mitigation type, a note detailing that
BSAW2 did not meet success criteria and veg problem areas broken down to distinguish the two different
types.
4. Appendix C: a. Table 8 — Please remove the color coding key at the bottom of the table since it is not
used.
Response: Table 8 has been revised by removing the color coding key from the bottom of the table.
5. Appendix D: a. Please verb BHRs. For example: On XS-I it appears that there was some slight
aggradation but the BHR is 1.1 in the report when a <I BHR seems more appropriate. The bankfull line
adjusted vertically based on MYI cross sectional area (green line) being above the actual identified MY3
low top of bank (red line) would typically imply aggradation (see x-section 4). Also, BHRs of below one (1)
can be reported as <1.
Response: Figure 5 has been revised with updated BHR numbers and bankfull lines per DMS request. The
numerical data has been maintained to simplify formulas utilized to create Table I I and I I (e.g. "<1"
does not allow us to run formulas to pick up min, mean, med, max and standard deviation).
6. Appendix E:
a. Table 15 — We recommend a footnote that brings attention to the BSAW2 malfunction on 713119.
Response: A footnote has been added to Table 15 stating `BSAW2 malfunctioned (7/3/2019) but has been
replaced on (10/30/2019) to capture well data during monitoring year 4".
Page 2

We Make a Difference
I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L
b. Table 16 — Same as comment "a" above.
Response: A footnote has been added to Table 15 stating `BSAW2 malfunctioned (7/3/2019) but has been
replaced on (10/30/2019) to capture well data during monitoring year 4".
One hard copy and one pdf copy along with updated digital files (via FTP) are being provided. If you have
any questions concerning the Year 3 Monitoring Report, please contact me at 919-481-5703 or via email
at [e-mail].
Sincerely,
Kathleen McKeithan, PE, CPESC, CPSWQ, CFM
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
Page 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................I
2. METHODOLOGY.........................................................................................3
2.1
Stream Assessment.......................................................................................................................................3
2.1.1
Morphological Parameters and Channel Stability....................................................................................4
2.1.2
Hydrology................................................................................................................................................4
2.1.3
Photographic Documentation...................................................................................................................4
2.1.4
Visual Stream Morphological Stability Assessment................................................................................5
3.1
Vegetation Assessment.................................................................................................................................5
4.1
Wetland Assessment.....................................................................................................................................5
3. REFERENCES...............................................................................................5
APPENDICES
Appendix A Project Vicinity Map and Background Tables
Figure
1
Project Vicinity Map and Directions
Figure
2
Restoration Summary Map
Figure
3
Reference Stream Locations Map
Table
1
Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Table
2
Project Activity and Reporting History
Table
3
Project Contacts
Table
4
Project Attributes (Pre -Construction
Conditions)
Appendix B Visual Assessment Data
Figure 4.1 & 4.2
Table 5
Table 6
Stream Station Photos
Vegetation Plot Photos
Problem Area Photos
Appendix C Vegetation Plot Data
Table 7
Table 8
Table 9
Current Condition Plan View (CCPV)
Visual Stream Morphology Stability
Assessment
Vegetation Conditions Assessment
CVS Density Per Plot
Vegetation Plot Summary
Stem Count for Each Species Arranged by
Plot
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96313
DECEMBER 2019, MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 7

Appendix D Stream Survey Data
Figure
5
Year 3 Cross -sections
Table
10
Baseline Stream Summary
Table
1la
Cross-section Morphology Summary
Table
1lb
Stream Reach Morphology Summary
Appendix E Hydrologic Data
Table
12
Verification of Bankfull Events
Table
13
Flow Gauge Success (2019)
Table
14
Flow Gauge Success
Figure
6
Flow Gauge Graphs
Table
15
Wetland Restoration Area Success (2019)
Table
16
Wetland Restoration Area Success
Figure
7
Wetland Restoration Graphs (2019)
Hydrology Monitoring Station Photos
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96313
DECEMBER 2019, MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 7

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. (Baker) restored approximately 3,903 linear feet (LF) of jurisdictional stream
and enhanced 2,478 LF of stream (of which 559 is for BMPs) along unnamed tributaries (UT) to the Haw River
and restored over 4.44 acres of wetland (existing channel lengths). The unnamed tributary (mainstem) has been
referred to as Browns Summit Creek for this project. In addition, Baker constructed two best management
practices (BMPs) within the conservation easement boundary. The Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project
(project) is located in Guilford County, North Carolina (NC) (Figure 1) approximately three miles northwest of
the Community of Browns Summit. The project is located in the NC Division of Water Resources (NCDWR)
subbasin 03-06-01 and the NC Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS) Targeted Local Watershed (TLW)
03030002-010020 (the Haw River Headwaters) of the Cape Fear River Basin. The purpose of the project is to
restore and/or enhance the degraded stream, wetland, and riparian buffer functions within the site. A recorded
conservation easement consisting of 20.2 acres (Figure 2) will protect all stream reaches, wetlands, and riparian
buffers in perpetuity. Examination of the available hydrology and soil data indicate the project will potentially
provide numerous water quality and ecological benefits within the Haw River watershed, and the Cape Fear
River Basin.
Based on the NCDMS 2009 Cape Fear River Basin Restoration Priority (RBRP) Plan, the Browns Summit
Creek Restoration Project area is located in an existing targeted local watershed (TLW) within the Cape Fear
River Basin (2009 Cape Fear RBRP), but is not located in a Local Watershed Planning (LWP) area. The
restoration strategy for the Cape Fear River Basin targets specific projects, which focuses on developing
creative strategies for improving water quality flowing to the Haw River in order to reduce non -point source
(NPS) pollution to Jordan Lake.
The primary goals of the project, set in the Mitigation Plan, are to improve ecologic functions and to manage
nonpoint source loading to the riparian system as described in the NCDMS 2009 Cape Fear RBRP. These goals
are identified below:
• Create geomorphically stable conditions along the unnamed tributaries across the site,
• Implement agricultural BMPs to reduce nonpoint source inputs to receiving waters,
• Address known and obvious water quality and habitat stressors present on site,
• Restore stream and floodplain connectivity, and
• Restore and protect riparian buffer functions and corridor habitat.
To accomplish these goals, the following objectives were identified:
• Restore existing incised, eroding, and channelized streams by creating stable dimension and connecting
them to their relic floodplains;
• Re-establish and rehabilitate site wetlands that have been impacted by cattle, spoil pile disposal,
channelization, subsequent channel incision, and wetland vegetation loss;
• Prevent cattle from accessing the conservation easement boundary by installing permanent fencing and
thus reduce excessive stream bank erosion and undesired nutrient inputs;
• Increase aquatic habitat value by improving bedform diversity, riffle substrate and in -stream cover;
creating natural scour pools; adding woody debris and reducing sediment loading from accelerated
stream bank erosion;
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96313
DECEMBER 2019, MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 7

• Construct a wetland BMP on the upstream extent of Reach R6 to capture and retain and for sediment
to settle out of the water column;
• Construct a step pool BMP channel to capture and disperse volumes and velocities by allowing
discharge from a low density residential development to spread across the floodplain of Reach R4;
thereby, diffusing energies and promoting nutrient uptake within the riparian buffer;
• Plant native species within the riparian corridor to increase runoff filtering capacity, improve stream
bank stability and riparian habitat connectivity, and shade the stream to decrease water temperature;
• Control invasive species vegetation within the project area and, if necessary, continue treatments during
the monitoring period; and
• Establish a conservation easement to protect the project area in perpetuity.
The Year 3 monitoring survey data of seventeen cross -sections indicates that the Site is geomorphically stable
and performing at 100 percent for all the parameters evaluated. Cross -sections (located in Appendix D) only
show minor fluctuations in their geometry as compared to previous monitoring years and visually the site has
remained stable with very little fluctuation. The as -built (MYO) cross section survey was conducted by the
construction contractor's sub and did not provide the level of detail/quality that is normally provided.
Therefore, the As -built data is shown in a light grey and should not be utilized for comparison. Moving forward
the cross-section survey will be to the appropriate level of detail as is reflected in the MY1 cross -sections. The
data collected are within the lateral/vertical stability and in -stream structure performance categories. One
Stream Problem Area (SPA) was discovered at station 47+50 during Year 3 monitoring. High water in the
channel has scoured around the side and into the pool of the log weir causing undermining and bank instability,
this SPA is indicated on the CCPV in Appendix B and will continue to be monitored and repaired in Year 4. It
was also noted in MY2 report that trees and debris have fallen and damaged the easement fencing in areas that
could possible give cattle access to the easement. A fencing contractor was contracted for these fencing issues
and repairs have been made
During Year 3 monitoring, all plots meet the planted acreage performance categories (Appendix B and Q. Due
to hard soils and poor nutrition two areas around the BMP on reach 6 have been reported as low vigor. These
trees are not as healthy or tall as they should be at MY3. This area will be evaluated for replanting and soil
amendments over the coming winter (2019) to spring (2020). The average density of total planted stems, based
on data collected from the fourteen monitoring plots following Year 3 monitoring in October of 2019, was 517
stems per acre not including volunteer species. Thus, the Year 3 vegetation data demonstrate that the Site is
meeting the minimum success interim criteria of 320 trees per acre by the end of Year 3. Additionally, there is
one area within the conservation easement of invasive species vegetation observed during the Year 3
monitoring. This area totaled to 0.19 acres and has been shown on the CCPV Appendix B. Invasive species
treatments were conducted in both the spring and fall of MY3 to control the WAS that were reported in MY2.
Additional treatments are planned for April, 2020.
Year 3 flow monitoring demonstrated that all flow gauges (BSFL1, BSFL2 and BSFL3) met the stated success
criteria of 30 days or more of consecutive flow through R4, T3 and T1 respectively. Flow gauge BSFL1
documented 140 days of consecutive flow in R4, while flow gauge BSFL2 documented 198 days of consecutive
flow in T3, and BSFL3 documented 289 days of consecutive flow in T1. The gauges demonstrated similar
patterns relative to rainfall events observed in the vicinity of the Site as shown in the flow gauge graphs in
Appendix E.
During Year 3 monitoring, the RI crest gauge documented two post -construction bankfull event from January
2019 and second event in June of 2019. The site had already meet the bankfull flow requirement of two bankfull
events within two separate monitoring years in previous monitoring years (MY1 and MY2).
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. 2
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96313
DECEMBER 2019, MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 7

Seven wells were installed in the wetland restoration areas. Six of the seven are preforming successfully. One
well did not meet success (BSAW2). However, the well shows hydrology coming to within twelve inches of
the ground surface relatively consistently and holding for longer periods than previous years. Unfortunately,
BSAW 2 failed to log after July 3, 2019 due to equipment malfunction which did lose critical data. If 2019 data
followed 2018 data with an increased in saturation from July to November, the well may have passed. The well
has since then been replaced (October 30, 2019) to continue logging for the following monitoring years. It is
anticipated that wetland hydrology will improve with additional monitoring.
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.
2. METHODOLOGY
The seven-year monitoring plan for the Site includes criteria to evaluate the success of the stream and vegetation
components of the Site. The methodology and report template used to evaluate these components adheres to
the DMS monitoring report template document Version 1.5 (June 8, 2012), which will continue to serve as the
template for subsequent monitoring years. The vegetation -monitoring quadrants follow CVS-DMS monitoring
levels I and 2 in accordance with CVS-DMS Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version 4.1 (2007).
Stream survey data was collected to a minimum of Class C Vertical and Class A Horizontal Accuracy using
Leica TS06 Total Station and was georeferenced to the NAD83 State Plane Coordinate System, FIPS3200 in
US Survey Feet, which was derived from the As -built Survey.
The specific locations of monitoring features, such as vegetation plots, permanent cross -sections, reference
photograph stations, crest gauges and flow gauges, are shown on the CCPV map found in Appendix B.
Channel construction began in October 10, 2016 at the upstream extent of the site and worked in the downstream
direction (begin on Reach 6 and ended with Reach 1). The construction was completed on March 8, 2017.
Planting was installed as major reaches were completed and finalized by March 10, 2017. Minor supplemental
planting occurred in March of 2018.
The Monitoring Year 3 vegetation plot and cross-section data were collected in October 2019 and the visual
site assessment was collected in November 2019. Visual Assessment is contained in Appendix B, vegetation
plot data are found in Appendix C, and the stream survey data are in Appendix D.
2.1 Stream Assessment
Historically, the Browns Summit site has been utilized for agriculture. Cattle have had direct access to the
entire site. Ponds were located throughout the project, including within the alignment of RI, R3, R4, and R6.
Channelization was clearly confirmed by the historical aerial photo from 1937 and spoil piles were found along
several of the reaches. The Project involved the restoration and enhancement of the headwater system.
Restoration practices involved raising the existing streambed and reconnecting the stream to the relic floodplain
to restore natural flow regimes to the system. The existing channels abandoned within the restoration areas
were filled to decrease surface and subsurface drainage and to raise the local water table. Permanent cattle
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96313
DECEMBER 2019, MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 7

exclusion fencing was provided around all proposed reaches and riparian buffers, except along reaches where
no cattle are located.
2.1.1 Morphological Parameters and Channel Stability
Cross -sections were classified using the Rosgen Stream Classification System, and all monitored cross -
sections fall within the quantitative parameters defined for channels of the design stream type.
Morphological survey data are presented in Appendix D.
A longitudinal profile was surveyed for the entire length of channel immediately after construction to
document as -built baseline conditions for the Monitoring Year 0 only. Annual longitudinal profiles
were not planned to 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. However, during preparation of the MY monitoring report, it was discovered that
the data provided by the construction contractor's survey subcontractor for as -built was of low quality
and insufficient. The quality of the sealed as -built survey provided by the contractor wasn't discovered
until the MY survey was overlain on top of the MYO cross sections. The channel in reality had not
fluctuated nearly as dramatically as shown in Figure 5 (cross section overlays) and has remained stable
and is performing as designed. This has been documented through field inspections throughout MY
by Michael Baker and DMS staff. Due to the MYO survey quality discovered during MY1, Michael
Baker proposed to utilize the detailed survey data and associated parameters collected during MY by
a different surveyor as the basis of comparison through the monitoring phase of the project. This will
ensure an accurate assessment of success and trends throughout the life of the project. The contractor
had the site's longitudinal profile re -surveyed incase future comparisons are required. The longitudinal
profile overlay was provided in previous reports.
Additionally, per DMS request, bankfull ratio is calculated by adjusting the bankfull line vertically to
recreate the as -built cross -sectional area. Once the cross -sectional area is the same bankfull ratio is
calculated and recorded. After bankfull ratio is recorded then previous bankfull elevation is set and the
remaining data is calculated. However, in this case, due to a poor as -built survey we are referencing
all calculations from this point forward to the monitoring year 1 survey. This will help ensure that the
cross -sections best represent the actual characteristics of the stream.
2.1.2 Hydrology
To monitor on -site bankfull events, one crest gauge (crest gauge # 1) was installed along Rl's left bank
at bankfull elevation. The crest gauge readings are presented in Appendix E. Thus, the site has meet
the bankfull flow requirements of two bankfull events within two separate years.
Year 3 flow monitoring demonstrated that all flow gauges (BSFL1, BSFL2 and BSFL3) met the stated
success criteria of 30 days or more of consecutive flow through R4, T3 and T1 respectively. The gauges
demonstrated similar patterns relative to rainfall events observed in the vicinity of the Site as shown in
the flow gauge graphs in Appendix E.
2.1.3 Photographic Documentation
Reference photograph transects were taken at each permanent cross-section. The survey tape was
centered in the photographs of the bank. Representative photographs and Stream Problem Area
photographs for Monitoring Year 3 were taken along each Reach in November 2019 and are provided
in Appendix B. Photographs of each Vegetation Plot taken in October 2019 can be found in Appendix
B.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96313
DECEMBER 2019, MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 7

2.1.4 Visual Stream Morphological Stability Assessment
The visual stream morphological stability assessment involves the qualitative evaluation of lateral and
vertical channel stability, and the integrity and overall performance of in -stream structures throughout
the Project reaches as a whole. Habitat parameters and pool depth maintenance are also measured and
scored. During Year 3 monitoring, Michael 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.
A more detailed summary of the results for the visual stream stability assessment can be found in
Appendix B, which includes supporting data tables, as well as general stream photos.
3.1 Vegetation Assessment
In order to determine if the success criteria were achieved, vegetation -monitoring quadrants were installed and
are monitored across the site in accordance with the CVS-DMS Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version 4.1
(2007). The vegetation monitoring plots are a minimum of 2 percent of the planted portion of the Site with
fourteen 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.
Year 3 vegetation assessment including planted species and invasive species information is provided in
Appendix B and C.
4.1 Wetland Assessment
Seven (7) groundwater monitoring wells were installed in the wetland mitigation area to document hydrologic
conditions of the restored wetland area. The wetland gauges are depicted on the CCPV figures (Figure 2) found
in Appendix B. Installation and monitoring of the groundwater stations have been conducted in accordance
with the USACE standard methods.
3. REFERENCES
Carolina Vegetation Survey (CVS) and NC Division of Mitigation Services (DMS). CVS-DMS
Data Entry Tool v. 2.3.1. University of North Carolina, Raleigh, NC.
Lee, M., Peet R., Roberts, S., Wentworth, T. 2007. CVS-DMS Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version
4.1.
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (DMS). 2012. Monitoring Requirements and
Performance Standards for Stream and/or Wetland Mitigation. Version 1.5, June 8, 2012.
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (DMS). 2009. Cape Fear River Basin Restoration Priorities.
Rosgen, D. L. 1994. A Classification of Natural Rivers. Catena 22:169-199.
Schafale, M. P., and A. S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the natural communities of North Carolina, third
Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. Division of Parks and Recreation,
NCDEQ. Raleigh, NC.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. 5
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96313
DECEMBER 2019, MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 7

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines, April 2003, U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers (USACE). Wilmington District.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96313
DECEMBER 2019, MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 7

Appendix A
Project Vicinity Map and Background Tables

To access the site from Raleigh, take Interstate 40 and head west on 1-40 towards Greensboro, for approximately 68 miles. Take the exit
ramp to E. Lee St. (exit 224) towards Greensboro and continue for 2 miles before turning onto U.S. Highway 29 North. Once on U.S.
Highway 29 North, travel north for approximately 10 miles before exiting and turning on to NC-150 West. Continue west on NC-150 for 5
miles. The project site is located along and between NC-150 and Spearman Rd., with access points through residences on Middleland Dr.
and Broad Ridge Ct. 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.
Site Location
GUILFORD
Conservation Easement
MA NCDMS TLW
Note: Site is located within targeted local
watershed 0303002010020.
1"W'
�M�����■�1� i�
r���itrtii,��w71►��I►`j�4i�
Guilford County
M.
0
A
t
Figure 1
Site Location Project Vicinity Map
Browns Summit (DMS# 96313)
NCDEQ - Division
of Mitigation Services N
0.5
0.5
0 Miles

Conservation Easement
Restoration Feature Approach
Restoration
Enhancement I
— Enhancement 11
— No Credit
Wetland Mitigation Types
1 - "Functioning", 3:1 credit ratio Rehabilitation
' 2 - Degraded, 1.5:1 credit ratio Rehabilitation
- 3 - Partially Functioning, 1.5:1 credit ratio Rehabilitation
4 - Filled, 1:1 credit ratio Reestablishment
- 5 - Hydrologic Reestablishment, 3.5:1 ratio
Reach R2 (upper)
Reach R1 r
Reach T1
Reach R2 (lower)
Reach T2

jjq f
ROCKINGHAM
COUNTY
r . •
Project Locationmot'
'AAt
AN
Project Location
GUILFORD
0 Reference Wetland COUNTY'
Reference Stream Reaches
Major Roads
Minor Roads
m
UT to Reedy Fork
Rivers/Streams
Lakes/Ponds(
L County Boundary
Geology
Carolina Slate Belt
r i
Charlotte and Milton Belts N O , NC e f Ge I ao Analysis,'NC
9r11 Boa-�d - _ti,�
2 1 0 2 Figure 3
Michael BakerReference Stream
Locations Map
I N R N A T 1 0 N A L Miles Browns Summit Site

Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No ID. 96313
Mitigation Credits
Stream
Riparian R etland
Non -riparian Wetland
Buffer
Nitrogen Nutrient Offset
Phosphorus Nutrient
Offset
Type
R, El, EII
R
E
Totals
5,301 SMU
2.�0
0.0
Project Components
Project Component or Reach ID
Stationing/ Location (As -Built)`
Existing Footage/
Acreage (LF/AC)'
Approach
Restoration/ Restoration
Equivalent (SMU/WMU)
Credits
Mitigation Restoration
Footage or Acreage
(LF/AC)"
Asbuilt Footage or
Acreage (LF/AC)
Mitigation Ratio
RI
51+00.00 - 63+89.87
1,217
Restoration
1,290.000
1,290
1,290
1:1
R2
(downstream section)
49+65.28 - 51+00.00
167
Enhancement II
53.600
134
135
2.5:1
R2
(upstream section)
43+48.17 - 49+65.28
701
Enhancement I
409.333
614
617
1.5:1
R3
(downstream section)
60' easement break subtracted from stream
lengths
39+35.73 - 43+48.17
(CE 40+45.09 - 41+05.52)
362
Enhancement I
234.667
352
352
1.5:1
R3
(upstream section)
28+31.92 - 39+35.73
1,224
Restoration
1,102.000
1,102
1,104
1:1
R4
15+35.86 - 28+31.92
1,350
Restoration
1,296.000
1,296
1,296
1:1
R5
10+00 - 15+35.86
536
Enhancement II
214.400
536
536
2.5:1
R6
10+00 - 15+19.39
536
Enhancement DBMP
294.667
442 LF (valley length)
442 (valley length)
1.5:1
Tl
10+00 - 11+44.99
121
Restoration
145.000
145
145
1:1
T2
10+00 - 12+85.21
283
Enhancement II
113.200
283
285
2.5:1
T3
10+04.88 - 10+92.84
83
Restoration
70.000
70
88
1:1
T4
10+30.18 - 11+49.36
47
Enhancement DBMP
78.000
117 LF (valley length)
119
1.5:1
Wetland Area - Type 1
See Figures
1.57
Rehabilitation
0.510
1.53
1.53
3:1
Wetland Area - Type 2
See Figures
0.49
Rehabilitation
0.287
0.43
0.43
1.5:1
Wetland Area - Type 3
See Figures
2.06
Rehabilitation
1.167
1.75
1.75
1.5:1
Wetland Area - Type 4
See Figures
0.49
Re-establishment
0.460
0.46
0.46
1:1
Wetland Area - Type 5
See Figures
0.27
Re-establishment
0.077
0.27
0.27
3.5:1
*Wetland existing acrage and restoration acrages were swapped in Table 5.1 of the Mitigation Plan.
**Stations and lengths are taken from the 2017 As -Built survey and may thus differ slightly from the Mitigation Plan.
Component Summation
Restoration Level
Stream (LF)
Riparian Wetland (AC)
Son -riparian '�i etland (AC)
Buffer (SF)
Upland (AC)
Restoration
3,903
4.44
Enhancement I
1,525
Enhancement II
953
BMP Elements
Element
Location
Purpose/Function
JNotes
BMP Elements: BR= Bioretention Cell; SF- Sand Filter; S W= Stonnwater Wetland; WDP= Wet Detention Pond; DDP= Dry Detention
Pond; FS=Filter Strip; S= Grassed Swale; LS= Level Spreader; NI=Natural Infiltration Area
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
DECEMBER 2019, MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 7

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No ID. 96313
Activity or Report
Scheduled Completion
Data Collection
Complete
Actual Completion
or Delivery
Mitigation Plan Prepared
not specified in proposal
Summer 2015
May 1, 2015
Mitigation Plan Amended
not specified in proposal
Summer 2015
September 17, 2015
Mitigation Plan Approved
December 4, 2014
Winter 2015
January 0, 1900
Final Mitigation Plan with PCN (minor revisions requested in
approval letter)
not specified in proposal
Winter 2015
January 29, 2016
Final Design - (at least 90% complete)
not specified in proposal
September 20, 2016
Construction Begins
not specified in proposal
October 10, 2016
Temporary S&E mix applied to entire project area
June 1, 2015
March 10, 2017
Permanent seed mix applied to entire project area
June 2, 2015
March 10, 2017
Planting of live stakes
June 3, 2015
March 10, 2017
Planting of bare root trees
June 3, 2015
March 10, 2017
End of Construction
May 4, 2015
March 8, 2017
Survey of As -built conditions (Year 0 Monitoring -baseline)
June 3, 2015
Spring 2017
July 1, 2017
Baseline Monitoring Report*
May 7, 2017
Spring 2017
September 15, 2017
Year 1 Monitoring
December 1, 2017
November 2017
December 1, 2017
Year 2 Monitoring
December 1, 2018
November 2018
December 1, 2018
Year 3 Monitoring
December 1, 2019
November 2019
December 1, 2019
Year 4 Monitoring
December 1, 2020
Year 5 Monitoring
December 1, 2021
Year 6 Monitoring
December 1, 2022
Year 7 Monitoring
December 1, 2023
* Monitoring schedule completion dates updated based on completion of construction.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
DECEMBER 2019, MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 7

Table 3. Project Contacts
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No ID. 96313
Designer
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
Cary, NC 27518
Contact:
0
Construction Contractor
6105 Chapel Hill Road
River Works, Inc.
Raleigh, NC 27607
Contact:
Stephen Carroll, Tel. [phone]
Planting Contractor
6105 Chapel Hill Road
River Works, Inc.
Raleigh, NC 27607
Contact:
Stephen Carroll, Tel. [phone]
Seeding Contractor
6105 Chapel Hill Road
River Works, Inc.
Raleigh, NC 27607
Contact:
Stephen Carroll, Tel. [phone]
Seed Mix Sources
Green Resources, Rodney Montgomery 336-215-3458
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Dykes and Son, 931-668-8833
Mellow Marsh Farm, 919-742-1200
ArborGen, 843-528-3204
Live Stakes Suppliers
Foggy Mountain Nursery, 336-384-5323
Monitoring Performers
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
Cary, NC 27518
Contact:
Stream Monitoring Point of Contact
Katie McKeithan, Tel. [phone]
Vegetation Monitoring Point of Contact
Katie McKeithan, Tel. [phone]
Surveyers
Kee Mapping and Surveying, 828-575-9021
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
DECEMBER 2019, MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 7

Table 4. Project Attributes
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No ID. 96313
Project Information
Project Name
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project
County
Guilford
Project Area (acres)
20.2
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude)
36.237 N,-79.749 W
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province
Piedmont
River Basin
Cape Fear
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit and 14-digit
03030002 / 03030002010020
NCDWR Sub -basin
3/6/2001
Project Drainage Area (acres)
438
Project Drainage Area Percent Impervious
1%
CGIA Land Use Classification
2.01.01.01, 2.03.01, 2.99.01, 3.02 / Forest (53%) Agriculture (39%) Impervious Cover (1%) Unclassified (7%)
Reach Summary Information
Parameters
Reach RI
Reach R2
Reach R3
Reach R4
Reach R5
Length of Reach (linear feet)
1,290
748
1,454
1,296
536
Valley Classification (Rosgen)
VB
VII
VII
V1I
VII
Drainage Area (acres)
438
299
242
138/95
24
NCDWR Stream Identification Score
35.5
35.5
41.5
41.5/25
28.5
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
C; NSW
Morphological Description
(Rosgen stream type)
E
Be incised
Be incised
Gc
Be
Evolutionary Trend
IncisedE--)Gc--)F
Be--)G--)F
Be--)G--)F
GAF
BC--)G
Underlying Mapped Soils
CnA
CnA
CnA, PpE2
CnA, CkC
CkC
Drainage Class
Somewhat Poorly Drained
Somewhat Poorly Drained
Somewhat Poorly Drained
and Well Drained
Somewhat Poorly
Drained and Well
Drained
Well Drained
Soil Hydric Status
Hydric
Hydric
Partially Hydric
Partially Hydric
Upland
Average Channel Slope (ft/ft)
0.0069
0.0068
0.0095
0.017
0.023
FEMA Classification
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Native Vegetation Community
Piedmont Headwater Stream Forest
Percent Composition of Exotic/Invasive Vegetation
25%
15%
5%
<5%
<5%
Parameters
Reach R6
Reach TI
Reach T2
Reach T3
Reach T4
Length of Reach (linear feet)
442
145
283
70
117
Valley Classification (Rosgen)
VII
VII
VII
V1I
VII
Drainage Area (acres)
61
55
47
41
10
NCDWR Stream Identification Score
18
26.75
27.25
19
-
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
C; NSW
Morphological Description
(Rosgen stream type)
Be incised
E incised
F
E incised
-
Evolutionary Trend
Be--)G--)F
E--)G--)F
Be--)G--)F
E--)G--)F
Underlying Mapped Soils
CkC
CnA
CnA, PpE2
CnA
CkC
Drainage Class
Well Drained
Somewhat Poorly Drained
Somewhat Poorly Drained
and Well Drained
Somewhat Poorly
Drained
Well Drained
Soil Hydric Status
Upland
Hydric
Partially Hydric
Hydric
Upland
Average Channel Slope (ft/ft)
0.014
0.024
0.022
0.02
-
FEMA Classification
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Native Vegetation Community
Piedmont Headwater Stream Forest
Percent Composition of Exotic/Invasive Vegetation
5%
10% 1
10%
10%
10%
Regulatory Considerations
Regulation
Applicable
Resolved
Supporting Documentation
Waters of the United States — Section 404
Yes
Yes
Categorical Exclusion (Appendix B)
Waters of the United States — Section 401
Yes
Yes
Categorical Exclusion (Appendix B)
Endangered Species Act
No
N/A
Categorical Exclusion (Appendix B)
Historic Preservation Act
No
N/A
Categorical Exclusion (Appendix B)
Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA)
No
N/A
Categorical Exclusion (Appendix B)
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
1 No
1 N/A
I Categorical Exclusion (Appendix B)
Essential Fisheries Habitat
No
I N/A
I Categorical Exclusion (Appendix B)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
DECEMBER 2019, MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 7

Appendix B
Visual Assessment Data

QConservation Easement
!.
r 1
F `30 f
• Flow Gauge
—
- PL1 f
�`
• Monitoring Wells
Photo Location
Veg Plot 14:
Crest Gauge
324 stems/ac
Cross Sections
Stream Problem Areas''
Vegetation Problem Areas
Veg Plot 13:
_
Invaisive
405 stems/ac
-
Low stem density
t
Vegetation Plots MY3
Pass
Streams by Mitigation Type
Reach R1
Restoration
VPA 3-1 0.19 ac
Enhancement I
Enhancement 11
— No Credit
Wetland Mitigation Types
1 - "Functioning", 3:1 credit ratio Rehabilitation
2 - Degraded, 1.5:1 credit ratio Rehabilitation
3 - Partially Functioning, 1.5:1 credit ratio Rehabilitation
4 - Filled, 1:1 credit ratio Reestablishment
5 - Hydrologic Reestablishment, 3.5:1 credit ratio
Veg Plot 12:
324 stems/ac
Reach R2 (upper)
SPA 3-1
Reach R3 (lower)
Veg Plot 9:
486 stems/ac
Veg Plot 11:
526 stems/ac
i Reach T1
Reach R2 (lower)
BSAW 2 did not meet
success criteria
Veg Plot 10:
324 stems/ac
Reach T2
Figure 4.1
Michael Baker 0 125 250 500 Current Conditions
Plan View
I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L Feet Browns Summit Site
(DMS #96313)

QConservation Easement
Flow Gauge
Monitoring Wells
- Photo Location
• Crest Gauge
Cross Sections
Stream Problem Areas
Vegetation Problem Areas
® Invaisive
Low stem density
Vegetation Plots MY3
= Pass
Streams by Mitigation Type
- Restoration
- Enhancement I
- Enhancement II
- No Credit
Wetlands by Mitigation Type
- 1 - "Functioning", 3:1 credit ratio Rehabilitation
- 2 - Degraded, 1.5:1 credit ratio Rehabilitation
- 3 - Partially Functioning, 1.5:1 credit ratio Rehabilitation
- 4 - Filled, 1:1 credit ratio Reestablishment
- 5 - Hydrologic Reestablishment, 3.5:1 credit ratio
Veg Plot 5:
Reach R4 (lower) 486 stems/ac
Veg Plot 8:
647 stems/ac
Reach R3 (upper)
Veg Plot 6:
567 stems/ac
Veg Plot 4:
486 stems/ac
R4 (upper) Veg Plot 3:
850 stems/ac
IF6V07g7stems/ac
Reach R6 VPA 3-3 0.14 ac
VPA 3-2 0.13 ac
INTERNATIONAL
Veg Plot 1: Reach R5
688 stems/ac F : HF: F ,.
0 125 250
Feet
Veg Plot 7:
526 stems/a
XM z , 0
6
PL21
Xi ® [ Reach T3
PL22
PL234�
Reach T4
Figure 4.2
500 Current Conditions
Plan View
Browns Summit Site
(DMS #96313)

Table 5. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No ID. 96313
Reach ID
R1
Assessed Length
1,290
Number with
Footage with
Adjusted %for
Number Stable,
Number of
Amount of
% Stable,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Major Channel
Channel Sub-
Performing as
Total Number
Unstable
Unstable
Performing as
Woody
Woody
Woody
Category
Category
Metric
Intended
in As -built
Segments
Footage
Intended
Vegetation
Ve etafion
Vegetation
Bank lacking vegetative cover
1. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
resulting simply from poor growth
0
0
100%
and/or scour and erosion
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include
undercuts that are modest, appear
0
0
o
100/o
sustainable and are providing
habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or
collapse
0 0 100%
0
0
100%
2. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with
no dislodged boulders or logs.
20
20
o
100/o
Grade control structures exhibiting
2. Grade Control
maintenance ofgrade across the
11
11
100%
sill.
2a Piping
Structures lacking any substantial
flow underneath sills or arms.
20
20
100%
Bank erosion within the structures
extent of influence does not
3. Bank Protection
exceed 15%. (See guidance for
20
20
100%
this table in EEP monitoring
guidance document)
Pool forming structures
maintaining — Max Pool Depth:
4. Habitat
Mean Bankfull Depth ratio > 1.6
20
20
100%
Rootwads/logs providing some
cover at base -flow.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DIMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
DECEMBER 2019, MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 7

Table 5 continued. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No ID. 96313
Reach ID R2 (downstream section)
Assessed Length 134
Number with
Footage with
Adjusted %for
Number Stable,
Number of
Amount of
% Stable,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Major Channel
Channel Sub-
Performing as
Total Number
Unstable
Unstable
Performing as
Woody
Woody
Woody
Cate or
Cate2ory
Metric
Intended
in As -built
Se ments
Foota a
Intended
Velletation
Vegetation
Velletation
Bank lacking vegetative cover
1. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
resulting simply from poor growth
0
0
100%
and/or scour and erosion
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears
likely.
likely. Does NOT include
2. Undercut
undercuts that are modest, appear
0
o
100%
sustainable and are providing
habitat.
Bank slumping, calving, or
3. Mass Wasting
icollme
0
0
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
2. Engineered
Structures physically intact with
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
no dislodged boulders or logs.
0
0
100%
Grade control structures exhibiting
2. Grade Control
maintenance ofgrade across the
0
0
100° o
sill.
Structures lacking any substantial
2a. Piping
flow underneath sills or arms.
0
0
100°16
Bank erosion within the structures
extent of influence does not
3. Bank Protection
exceed 15%.(See guidance for
0
0
100%
this table in EEP monitoring
guidance document)
Pool forming structures
maintaining — Max Pool Depth:
4. Habitat
Mean Bankfull Depth ratio > 1.6
0
0
100° o
Rootwads/logs providing some
cover at base -flow.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DIMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
DECEMBER 2019, MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 7

Table 5 continued. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No II). 96313
Reach II)
R2 (upstream section)
Assessed Length
614
Number with
Footage with
Adjusted %for
Number Stable,
Number of
Amount of
%Stable,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Major Channel
Channel Sub-
Performing as
Total Number
Unstable
Unstable
Performing as
Woody
Woody
Woody
Cate ory
Category
Metric
Intended
in As -built
Segments
Footage
Intended
Vegetation
Vegetation
Vegetation
Bank lacking vegetative cover
1. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
resulting simply from poor growth
0
0
100%
and/or scour and erosion
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include
undercuts that are modest, appear
0
0
o
100%
sustainable and are providing
habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or
collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
2. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with
no dislodged boulders or logs.
5
5
100%
iii
Grade control structures exhibiting
2. Grade Control
maintenance ofgrade across the
2
3
67%
sill.
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial
flow underneath sills or arms.
5
100°16
5
Bank erosion within the structures
extent of influence does not
3. Bank Protection
exceed 15%. (See guidance for
5
5
1009 0
this table in EEP monitoring
guidance document)
Pool forming structures
maintaining — Max Pool Depth:
4. Habitat
Mean Bankfull Depth ratio > 1.6
5
5
1009 0
Rootwads/logs providing some
cover at base -flow.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DIMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
DECEMBER 2019, MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 7

Table 5 continued. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No ID. 96313
Reach ID R3 (downstream section)
Assessed Length 352
Number Stable,
Number of
Amount of
%Stable,
Number with
Footage with
Adjusted %for
Major Channel
Channel Sub-
lCategory
Performing as
Total Number
Unstable
Unstable
Performing as
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Cate or
Metric
Intended
in As -built
Segments
Foota a
Intended
Woo
Woo
Woody
Bank lacking vegetative cover
1. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
resulting simply from poor growth
0
0
100%
and/or scour and erosion
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears
likely. Does NOT include
2. Undercut
undercuts that are modest, appear
0
0
o
100/o
sustainable and are providing
habitat.
Bank slumping, calving, or
1collapse
3. Mass Wasting
0
0
100%
Totals 0
0
100%
2. Engineered
Structures physically intact with
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
no dislodged boulders or logs.
7
7
o
100 /o
Grade control structures exhibiting
2. Grade Control
maintenance ofgrade across the
3
3
100%
sill.
Structures lacking any substantial
2a Piping
flow underneath sills or anus.
7
7
100%
Bank erosion within the structures
extent of influence does not
3. Bank Protection
exceed 15%. (See guidance for
7
7
100%
this table in EEP monitoring
guidance document)
Pool forming structures
maintaining — Max Pool Depth:
4. Habitat
Mean Bankfull Depth ratio > 1.6
7
7
100%
Rootwads/logs providing some
cover at base -flow.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DIMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
DECEMBER 2019, MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 7

Table 5 continued. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No ID. 96313
Reach ID R3 (upstream section)
Assessed Length 1,102
Number Stable,
Number of
Amount of
%Stable,
Number with
Footage with
Adjusted %for
Major Channel
Channel Sub-
lCategory
Performing as
Total Number
Unstable
Unstable
Performing as
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Category
Metric
Intended
in As -built
Se meats
Footage
Intended
Woo
Woo
Woody
Bank lacking vegetative cover
1. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
resulting simply from poor growth
0
0
100%
and/or scour and erosion
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears
likely. Does NOT include
2. Undercut
undercuts that are modest, appear
0
0
o
100/o
sustainable and are providing
habitat.
Bank slumping, calving, or
3. Mass Wasting
collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
2. Engineered
Structures physically intact with
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
no dislodged boulders or logs.
15
15
100%
Grade control structures exhibiting
2. Grade Control
maintenance ofgrade across the
10
10
100%
sill.
Structures lacking any substantial
2a Piping
flow underneath sills or anus.
15
15
100%
Bank erosion within the structures
extent of influence does not
3. Bank Protection
exceed 15%. (See guidance for
15
15
100%
this table in EEP monitoring
guidance document)
Pool forming structures
maintaining — Max Pool Depth:
4. Habitat
Mean Bankfull Depth ratio > 1.6
15
15
100%
Rootwads/logs providing some
cover at base -flow.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DIMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
DECEMBER 2019, MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 7

Table 5 continued. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No ID. 96313
Reach ID
R4
Assessed Length
1,296
Number Stable,
Number of
Amount of
%Stable,
Number with
Footage with
Adjusted %for
Major Channel
Channel Sub-
lCategoryMetric
Performing as
Total Number
Unstable
Unstable
Performing as
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Cate or
Intended
in As -built
Segments
Foota a
Intended
Woody
Woody
Woody
Bank lacking vegetative cover
1. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
resulting simply from poor growth
0
0
100%
and/or scour and erosion
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears
likely. Does NOT include
2. Undercut
undercuts that are modest, appear
0
0
o
100%
sustainable and are providing
habitat.
Bank slumping, calving, or
3. Mass Wasting
0
0
100%
colla se
Totals
0
0
100%
2. Engineered
Structures physically intact with
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
no dislodged boulders or logs.
14
14
o
100/o
Grade control structures exhibiting
2. Grade Control
maintenance ofgrade across the
4
4
100%
sill.
Structures lacking any substantial
2a Piping
flow underneath sills or anus.
14
14
100%
Bank erosion within the structures
extent of influence does not
3. Bank Protection
exceed 15%. (See guidance for
14
14
100%
this table in EEP monitoring
guidance document)
Pool forming structures
maintaining — Max Pool Depth:
4. Habitat
Mean Bankfull Depth ratio > 1.6
14
14
100%
Rootwads/logs providing some
cover at base -flow.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DIMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
DECEMBER 2019, MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 7

Table 5 continued. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No ID. 96313
Reach ID
R5
Assessed Length
536
Number with
Footage with
Adjusted %for
Number Stable,
Number of
Amount of
%Stable,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Major Channel
Channel Sub-
Performing as
Total Number
Unstable
Unstable
Performing as
Woody
Woody
Woody
Category
Cate or
Metric
I Intended
I in As -built
I Segments
I Footage
I Intended
I Vegetation
Vegetation
Vegetation
Bank lacking vegetative cover
1. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
resulting simply from poor growth
0
0
100%
and/or scour and erosion
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears
likely. Does NOT include
2. Undercut
undercuts that are modest, appear
0
0
o
100/o
sustainable and are providing
habitat.
Bank slumping, calving, or
3. Mass Wasting
collapse
0
0
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
2. Engineered
Structures physically intact with
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
no dislodged boulders or logs.
6
6
o
100/o
Grade control structures exhibiting
2. Grade Control
maintenance ofgrade across the
6
6
100%
sill.
Structures lacking any substantial
2a Piping
flow underneath sills or anus.
6
6
100%
Bank erosion within the structures
extent of influence does not
3. Bank Protection
exceed 15%. (See guidance for
6
6
100%
this table in EEP monitoring
guidance document)
Pool forming structures
maintaining — Max Pool Depth:
4. Habitat
Mean Bankfull Depth ratio > 1.6
6
6
100%
Rootwads/logs providing some
cover at base -flow.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DIMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
DECEMBER 2019, MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 7

Table 5 continued. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No ID. 96313
Reach ID R6
Assessed Length 442
Number with
Footage with
Adjusted %for
Number Stable, Number of
Amount of
%Stable,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Major Channel
Channel Sub-
Performing as Total Number Unstable
Unstable
Performing as
Woody
Woody
Woody
Cate or
Category
Metric
Intended in As -built Segments
Footage
Intended
Vegetation
Vegetation
Vegetation
Bank lacking vegetative cover
1. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
resulting simply from poor growth
0
0
100%
and/or scour and erosion
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears
likely. Does NOT include
2. Undercut
undercuts that are modest, appear
0
0
o
100/o
sustainable and are providing
habitat.
Bank slumping, calving, or
3. Mass Wasting
0
0
100%
colla se
0
0
100%
2. Engineered
Structures physically intact with
Structures
1.OverallIntegrity
no dislodged boulders or logs.
9
9
o
100%
Grade control structures exhibiting
2. Grade Control
maintenance ofgrade across the
9
9
100%
sill.
Structures lacking any substantial
2a Piping
flow underneath sills or anus.
9
9
100%
Bank erosion within the structures
extent of influence does not
3. Bank Protection
exceed 15%. (See guidance for
9
9
100%
this table in EEP monitoring
guidance document)
Pool forming structures
maintaining — Max Pool Depth:
4. Habitat
Mean Bankfull Depth ratio > 1.6
9
9
100%
Rootwads/logs providing some
cover at base -flow.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DIMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
DECEMBER 2019, MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 7

Table 5 continued. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No ID. 96313
Reach ID Ti
Assessed Length 145
Number with
Footage with
Adjusted %for
Number Stable,
Number of
Amount of
%Stable,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Major Channel
Channel Sub-
Performing as
Total Number
Unstable
Unstable
Performing as
Woody
Woody
Woody
Cate or
Category
Metric
Intended
in As -built
Segments
Footage
Intended
Vegetation
Vegetation
Vegetation
Bank lacking vegetative cover
1. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
resulting simply from poor growth
0
0
100%
and/or scour and erosion
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears
likely. Does NOT include
2. Undercut
undercuts that are modest, appear
0
0
a
100ro
sustainable and are providing
habitat.
Bank slumping, calving, or
3. Mass Wasting
collapse
0
0
100%
0 0
100%
2. Engineered
Structures physically intact with
1. Overall Integrity
6
6
o
100 /o
Structures
no dislodged boulders or logs.
Grade control structures exhibiting
2. Grade Control
maintenance ofgrade across the
6
6
100%
sill.
Structures lacking any substantial
2a. Piping
flow underneath sills or arms.
6
6
100°16
Bank erosion within the structures
extent of influence does not
3. Bank Protection
exceed 15%. (See guidance for
6
6
1009 0
this table in EEP monitoring
guidance document)
Pool forming structures
maintaining — Max Pool Depth:
4. Habitat
Mean Bankfull Depth ratio > 1.6
6
6
1009 0
Rootwads/logs providing some
cover at base -flow.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DIMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
DECEMBER 2019, MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 7

Table 5 continued. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No ID. 96313
Reach ID
T2
Assessed Length
283
Number with
Footage with
Adjusted %for
Number Stable,
Number of
Amount of
%Stable,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Major Channel
Channel Sub-
Performing as
Total Number
Unstable
Unstable
Performing as
Woody
Woody
Woody
Category
Category
Metric
Intended
in As -built
Segments
Footage
Intended
Vegetation
Ve etation
Vegetation
Bank lacking vegetative cover
1. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
resulting simply from poor growth
0
0
100%
and/or scour and erosion
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears
likely. Does NOT include
2. tindercut
undercuts that are modest, appear
0
0
100%
sustainable and are providing
habitat.
Bank slumping, calving, or
3. Mass Wasting
collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
2. Engineered
Structures physically intact with
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
no dislodged boulders or logs.
2
2
100%
Grade control structures exhibiting
2. Grade Control
maintenance ofgrade across the
2
2
100%
sill.
Structures lacking any substantial
2a.Piping
flow underneath sills or arms.
2
2
100%
Bank erosion within the structures
extent of influence does not
3. Bank Protection
exceed 15%. (See guidance for
2
2
100%
this table in EEP monitoring
guidance document)
Pool forming structures
maintaining — Max Pool Depth:
4. Habitat
Mean Bankfull Depth ratio > 1.6
2
2
100%
Rootwads/logs providing some
cover at base -flow.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DIMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
DECEMBER 2019, MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 7

Table 5 continued. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No ID. 96313
Reach ID
T3
Assessed Length
70
Number with
Footage with
Adjusted %for
Number Stable,
Number of
Amount of
%Stable,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Major Channel
Channel Sub-
Performing as
Total Number
Unstable
Unstable
Performing as
Woody
Woody
Woody
Cate or
Cate or
Metric
Intended
in As -built
Sellments
Footalle
Intended
Vegetation
Vegetation
Velletation
Bank lacking vegetative cover
1. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
resulting simply from poor growth
0
0
1009 0
and/or scour and erosion
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears
likely. Does NOT include
2. Undercut
undercuts that are modest, appear
0
0
o
100%
sustainable and are providing
habitat.
Bank slumping, calving, or
3. Mass Wasting
colla se
0
0
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
2. Engineered
Structures physically intact with
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
no dislodged boulders or logs.
1
1
100%
Grade control structures exhibiting
2. Grade Control
maintenance ofgrade across the
1
1
100%
sill.
Structures lacking any substantial
2a.Piping
flow underneath sills or arms.
1
1
100%
Bank erosion within the structures
extent of influence does not
3. Bank Protection
exceed 15%. (See guidance for
1
1
1009 0
this table in EEP monitoring
guidance document)
Pool forming structures
maintaining — Max Pool Depth:
4. Habitat
Mean Bankfull Depth ratio > 1.6
1
1
100° o
Rootwads/logs providing some
cover at base -flow.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DIMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
DECEMBER 2019, MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 7

Table 5 continued. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No II). 96313
Reach II) T4
Assessed Length 117
Number with
Footage with
Adjusted %for
Number Stable,
Number of
Amount of
%Stable,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Major Channel
Channel Sub-
Performing as
Total Number
Unstable
Unstable
Performing as
Woody
Woody
Woody
Cate or
Category
Metric
Intended
in As -built
Segments
Footage
Intended
Vegetation
Vegetation
Ve etation
Bank lacking vegetative cover
1. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
resulting simply from poor growth
0
0
100%
and/or scour and erosion
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears
likely. Does NOT include
2. Undercut
undercuts that are modest, appear
0
0
a
100;'0
sustainable and are providing
habitat.
Bank slumping, calving, or
3. Mass Wasting
0
0
100%
colla se
Total.0
0
100%
2. Engineered
Structures physically intact with
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
no dislodged boulders or logs.
8
8
100%
Grade control structures exhibiting
2. Grade Control
maintenance ofgrade across the
8
8
100%
sill.
Structures lacking any substantial
2a Piping
flow underneath sills or anus.
8
8
100%
Bank erosion within the structures
extent of influence does not
3. Bank Protection
exceed 15%. (See guidance for
8
8
1009 0
this table in EEP monitoring
guidance document)
Pool forming structures
maintaining — Max Pool Depth:
4. Habitat
Mean Bankfull Depth ratio > 1.6
8
8
Ir
1009 0
Rootwads/logs providing some
Lover at base -flow.
I
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DIMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
DECEMBER 2019, MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 7

Table 6. Vegetation Conditions Assessment
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No ID. 96313
Planted Acreage' 20.24
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
% of Planted
Ve etation Category
Definitions
Threshold
De iction
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
Very limited cover of both
1. Bare Areas
woody and herbaceous
0.1 acres
N/A
0
0.00
0.0%
material.
Woody stem densities
2. Low Stem Density
clearly below target levels
Areas
based on MY3, 4, or 5
0.1 acres
N/A
0
0.00
0.0%
stem count criteria.
0
Areas with woody stems of
3. Areas of Poor
a size class that are
Yellow
025 acres
2
0.27
1.3%
Growth Rates or Vigor
obviously small given the
Hatching
monitoring year.
Cumulative Total
2
0.27
1.3%
Easement Acreage 20.24
°o
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
Easement
Ve etation Cateaory
Definitions
Threshold
Depiction
Polygons
Acreage
Acreacle
4. Invasive Areas of
Areas or points (if too small to
<
render as polygons at map
1000 SF
Yellow Hatching
1
0.19
0.9 %
Concern
scale).
5. Easement
Areas or points (if too small to
a
render as polygons at map
none
N/A
0
0.00
0.0%
Encroachment Areas
scale).
1 = Enter the planted acreage within the easement. This number is calculated as the easement acreage minus any existing mature tree
stands that were not subject to supplemental planting of the understory, the channel acreage, crossings or any other elements not directly
planted as part of the project effort.
2 = The acreage within the easement boundaries.
3 = Encroachment may occur within or outside of planted areas and will therefore be calculated against the overall easement acreage. In
the event a polygon is cataloged into items 1, 2 or 3 in the table and is the result of encroachment, the associated acreage should be tallied
in the relevant Rem (i.e., item 1,2 or 3) as well as a parallel tally in Rem 5.
4 = Invasives may occur in or out of planted areas, but still within the easement and will therefore be calculated against the overall
easement acreage. Invasives of concern/interest are listed below. The list of high concern spcies are those with the potential to directly
outcompete native, young, woody stems in the short-term (e.g. monitoring period or shortly thereafter) or affect the community structure for
existing, more established tree/shrub stands over timeframes that are slightly longer (e.g. 1-2 decades). The low/moderate concern group
are those species that generally do not have this capacity over the timeframes discussed and therefore are not expected to be mapped with
regularity, but can be mapped, if in the judgement of the observer their coverage, density or distribution is suppressing the viability, density,
or growth of planted woody stems. Decisions as to whether remediation will be needed are based on the integration of risk factors by EEP
such as species present, their coverage, distribution relative to native biomass, and the practicality of treatment. For example, even
modest amounts of Kudzu or Japanese Knotweed early in the projects history will warrant control, but potentially large coverages of
Microstegium in the herb layer will not likley trigger control because of the limited capacities to impact tree/shrub layers within the
timeframes discussed and the potential impacts of treating extensive amounts of ground cover. Those species with the "watch list"
designator in gray shade are of interest as well, but have yet to be observed across the state with any frequency. Those in red italics are of
particular interest given their extreme risk/threat level for mapping as points where isolated specimens are found, particularly ealry in a
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
DECEMBER 2019, MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 7

Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project - Longitudinal Stream Photo Stations
Photos take October 17, 2019 (All photos are viewing upstream)
Photo Point 1 - Station 63+75, Reach 1 Photo Point 2 - Station 61+50, Reach 1
Photo Point 3 - Station 58+75, Reach 1
Photo Point 5 - Station 56+75, Reach 1
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96313)
DECEMBER 2019, MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 7
Photo Point 4 - Station 57+85, Reach 1
Photo Point 6 - Station 55+00, Reach 1

Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project — Longitudinal Stream Photo Stations
Photo Point 7 — Station 53+50, Reach 1 Photo Point 8 — Station 51+75, Reach 1
Photo Point 9 — Station 11+25, Reach T 1
Photo Point 11 — Station 46+00, Reach 2
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96313)
DECEMBER 2019, MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 7
Photo Point 10 — Station 49+00, Reach 2
Photo Point 12 — Station 44+75, Reach 2

Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project — Longitudinal Stream Photo Stations
Photos take October 17, 2019 (All photos are viewing upstream)
Photo Point 13 — Station 43+75, Reach 2/Reach T2
Photo Point 15 — Station 41+50, Reach 3
Photo Point 17 — Station 36+00, Reach 3
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96313)
DECEMBER 2019, MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 7
Photo Point 14 — Station 42+25, Reach 3
Photo Point 16 — Station 36+25, Reach 3
Photo Point 18 — Station 35+00, Reach 3

Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project — Longitudinal Stream Photo Stations
Photo Point 19 — Station 33+00, Reach 3 Photo Point 20 — Station 32+00, Reach 3
Photo Point 21 — 31+50, Reach 3
Photo Point 23 — Station 10+25, Reach T3
Photo Point 22 — Station 28+75, Reach 3/T3
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96313)
DECEMBER 2019, MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 7
Photo Point 24 — Station 26+50, Reach 4

Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project — Longitudinal Stream Photo Stations
Photo Point 25 — Station 24+50, Reach 4 Photo Point 26 — Station 24+00, Reach 4
Photo Point 27 — Station 22+50, Reach 4
Photo Point 29 — Station 11+00, Reach T4
Photo Point 28 — Station 21+50, Reach 4/T4
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96313)
DECEMBER 2019, MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 7
Photo Point 30 — Station 19+50, Reach 4

Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project — Longitudinal Stream Photo Stations
Photo Point 31 — Station 19+10, Step Pools Photo Point 32 — Station 18+00, Reach 4
Photo Point 33 — Station 16+75, Reach 4
Photo Point 35 — Station 15+00, Reach 6, Step
Pools
Photo Point 34 — Sta. 15+75, Reaches 4, 5 and 6
Photo Point 36 — Station 14+50, Reach 6, BMP
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96313)
DECEMBER 2019, MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 7

Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project — Longitudinal Stream Photo Stations
Photo Point 37 — Station 11+90, Reach 6, BMP
Photo Point 39 — Station 15+00, Reach 5
wing upstream)
Photo Point 38 — Station 10+50, Reach 6, Step Pools
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96313)
DECEMBER 2019, MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 7

Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project — Vegetation Plot Photo Stations
Photos taken October 17, 2019
Vegetation Plot 1
Vegetation Plot 3
Vegetation Plot 5
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96313)
DECEMBER 2019, MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 7
Vegetation Plot 2
Vegetation Plot 4
Vegetation Plot 6

Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project — Vegetation Plot Photo Stations
Phntnc taken (lctnhPr 17 ?01 A
Vegetation Plot 7
Vegetation Plot 9
Vegetation Plot 11
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96313)
DECEMBER 2019, MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 7
Vegetation Plot 8
Vegetation Plot 10
Vegetation Plot 12

Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project — Vegetation Plot Photo Stations
Photos taken October 17, 2019
Vegetation Plot 13
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96313)
DECEMBER 2019, MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 7
Vegetation Plot 14

Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project — Problem Areas Photos
SPA 3-1 — Reach 2, Station 47+50 (March 12, 2019)
VPA 3-1— Reach 1, Left Bank (October 17, 2019)
VPA 3-2 — Reach 5, Left Bank (July 3, 2019)
SPA 3-1— Reach 2, Station 47+50 (March 12, 2019)
VPA 3-1— Reach 1, Left Bank (October 17, 2019)
VPA 3-3 — Reach 5, Right Bank (July 3, 2019)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96313)
DECEMBER 2019, MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 7

Appendix C
Vegetation Plot Data

Table 7. CN'S Density Per Plot
#REF!
CVS Project Code 140048. Project Name: Browns Summit
Current Plot Data MY3 2019
Scientific Name
Common Name
140048-01-0001
140048-01-0002
140048-01-0003
140048-01-0004
140048-01-0005
140048-01-0006
140048-01-0007
140048-01-0008
Planted
Vol
T
Planted
Vol
T
Planted
Vol
T
Planted
Vol
T
Planted
Vol
T
Planted
Vol
T
Planted
Vol
T
Planted
Vol
T
Acernegundo
Boxelder maple
1
1
2
2
3
3
1
1
2
2
Betula nigra
River Birch
4
4
4
4
3
3
4
4
3
3
1
1
1
1
Callicarpa americans
American Beautyberry
Carpinuscaroliniana
American hornbeam
1
1
3
3
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
Celtis laevigata
Sugarberry
Cornus ammomum
Silky Dogwood
Diospyros virginiana
American Persimmon
11
1
1
1
1
1
Euonymus americanus
Strawberry -bush
1
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash
4
4
2
2
2
2
4
4
3
3
2
2
4
4
3
3
Hamamelis virginiana
Witch -hazel
2
2
Ilexopaca
American Holly
1
1
1
2
2
Ilex verticillata
Winterbeiry
1
1
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tulip
1
3
4
2
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
10
11
Nyssasylvatica
Black Gum
1
1
1
1
1
1
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
2
2
3
3
4
1
5
5
5
2
3
5
2
2
Quercus alba
White Oak
Quercus lyrata
Overcup Oak
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
Quercus michauxii
Swamp Chestnut Oak
2
2
2
1 2
1
1
1 2
1 2
Quercus phellos
Willow Oak
1
1
Ulmusamericana
American Elm
2
2
1
1
Viburnum dentatum
Arrow -wood
2
2
1
1
Viburnum nudum
113ossumhaw
1
1
1
1
Stem count
171
1 20
15
15
21
1
22
121
12
121
11
13
14
14
13
13
26
16
16
size (ares)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
size (ACRES)
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
Species count
9
1
9
9
0
9
11
1
11
9
0
9
10
1
10
6
0
6
9
2
9
11
0
11
Stems per ACRE
6881
401
809
6071
01
6071
8501
401
890
486
01
486
4861
401
526
567
01
567
526
811
1052
6471
01
64
Current Plot Data (MY3 2019)
Annual Means
140048-01-0009
140048-01-0010
140048-01-0011
140048-01-0012
140048-01-0013
140048-01-0014
MY3(2019)
MY2(2018)
MY1(2017)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Planted
Vol
T
Planted
Vol
T
Planted
Vol
T
Planted
Vol
T
Planted
Vol
T
Planted
Vol
T
Planted
JVol
T
Planted
Vol
T
Planted
Vol
T
Acernegundo
Boxelder maple
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
13
13
12
12
15
15
Betula nigro
River Birch
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
26
26
29
29
33
33
Collicarpaamericana
American Beautyberry
1
1
Carpinuscaroliniana
American hornbeam
1
1
1
1
3
3
14
14
14
14
23
23
Celtis laevigata
Sugarberry
2
2
1
1
3
3
3
3
4
4
Corpus ammomum
Silky Dogwood
1
1
11
1
1
1
Diospyros virginiana
American Persimmon
1
1
4
4
51
1
61
5
5
Euonymus americanus
Strawberry -bush
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
6
6
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
29
1
30
32
32
36
1
37
Hamamelis virginiana
Witch -hazel
2
2
1
1
5
5
6
6
8
8
Ilexopaca
American Holly
1
1
1
1
5
5
5
5
10
10
Ilex verticillata
Winterbeiry
1
1
1
1
21
2
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tulip
2
2
8
14
22
7
11
8
12
12
Nysso sylvatica
Black Gum
2
2
2
2
7
71
7
7
10
10
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
4
4
1
1
23
4
27
23
1
24
29
29
Quercus alba
White Oak
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus lyrata
Overcup Oak
2
2
4
4
11
11
12
12
15
15
Quercus michauxii
Swamp Chestnut Oak
1
1
8
8
10
101
13
13
Quercus phellos
Willow Oak
1
1
1
1
1
1
Ulmusamericana
American Elm
2
2
11
1 1
6
6
61
6
7
7
Viburnum dentatum
Arrow -wood
I
1
1
1
1
1
5
5
5
5
8
8
Viburnum nudum
Possumhaw
1
1
11
1 1
1
1
1
1
6
6
5
5
6
6
Stem count
121
12
81
1 8
13
13
8
1
8
10
10
8
21
10
179
20
199
187
4
191
244
2
246
size (ares)
1
1
1
1
1
1
14
14
14
size (ACRES)
0.02
1 0.02
0.02
1 0.02
0.02
0.02
0.35
0.35
1 0.35
Species count
12
01
121
91
01
9
11
0
111
111
01
12
7
0
1 71
91
21
91
201
41
20
20
4
21
20
2
21
Stems per ACRE
486
0
486
324
0
324
526
0
526
324
0
324
405
0
405
324
81
405
517.4195
517.4195
575.2317
541
12
5521
7051
61
711
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
Inclues volunteer stems
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DIAS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
DECEMBER 2019, MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 7

Table 8. Vegetation Plot Summary
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Projmt:DMS Project No ID. 96313
Browns Summit (#140048)
Year
Vegetation Plot Summary Information
Stream/
Riparian Buffer
Wetland
Unknown
Plot #
Stems'
Stems Live Stakes Invasives
Volunteers'
Total°
Growth Form
1
n/a
17 0 0
3
20
0
2
Na
15 0 0
0
15
0
3
n/a
21 0 0
1
22
0
4
n/a
12 0 0
0
12
0
5
n/a
12 0 0
1
13
0
6
n/a
14 0 0
0
14
0
7
n/a
13 0 0
13
26
0
8
n/a
16 0 0
0
16
0
9
n/a
12 0 0
0
12
0
10
n/a
8 0 0
0
8
0
11
n/a
13 0 0
0
13
0
12
n/a
8 0 0
0
8
0
13
n/a
10 0 0
0
10
0
14
n/a
8 0 0
2
10
0
Wetland/Stream Vegetation Totals
(per acre)
Stream/
Wetland Success Criteria
Plot#
Stems Volunteers' Total°
Met?
1
17
121
809
Yes
2
15
0
607
Yes
3
21
40
890
Yes
4
12
0
486
Yes
5
12
40
526
Yes
6
14
0
567
Yes
7
13
526
1052
Yes
8
16
0
647
Yes
9
12
0
486
Yes
10
8
0
324
Yes, barely
11
13
0
526
Yes
12
8
0
324
Yes, barely
13
10
0
405
Yes
14
8
81
405
Yes
Project Avg
0
58
575
Yes
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
DECEMBER 2019, MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 7

Table 9. Stem Count for Each Species Arranged by Plot
#REF!
Botanical Name
Common Name
Browns Summit Creek Vegetation Plots
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Acernegundo
Boxelder maple
1
2
3
1
2
1
1
1
1
Betula nigra
River Birch
4
4
3
4
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
Callicarpa americana
American Beautyberry
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
1
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
3
Celtis loevigato
Sugarberry
2
1
Corpus amomum
Silky dogwood
Diospyros virginiana
American Persimmon
1
1
1
1
Euonymus americanus
Strawberry -bush
1
1
1
Froxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash
4
2
2
4
3
2
4
3
1
1
1
1
1
Hamamelis virginiana
Witch -hazel
1
1 2
2
1
Ilexopaca
American Holly
1
1
2
1
1
Ilexverticillato
Winterberry
1
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tulip
1
2
1
1
1
2
Nyssa sylvatica
Black Gum
1
1
1
2
2
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
2
3
4
5
2
2
4
1
Quercus alba
White Oak
I
1
1
Quercus lyrato
Overcup Oak
1
1 2
1
1
2
1 4
Quercus michauxii
Swamp Chestnut Oak
2
2
1
2
1
Quercus phellos
Willow Oak
1
Ulmus americana
American Elm
2
1
2
1
Viburnum dentatum
Arrow -wood
1 2
1
1 1
1
Viburnum nudum
jPossumhaw
1
1
1
1
1
1
Initial count of planted bareroot material
18
22
24
17
18
19
18
19
18
20
17
16
21
18
Stems/plot
17
15
21
12
12
14
13
16
12
8
13
8
10
8
Stems/acre
688
607
850
486
486
567
526
648
486
324
526
324
405
1 324
Average Stems / Acre for Year 3 (Planted+ Volunteer)
517
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DIMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
DECEMBER 2019, MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 7

Appendix D
Stream Survey Data

Figure 5 Year 3 Cross -sections
N4�
Permanent Cross-section 1
(Year 3 Data - Collected October 2019)
Looking at the Left Bank Looking at the Right Bank
Stream
BKF
BKF
Max BKF
Feature
Type
BKF Area
Width
Depth
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
C
2.5
7.0
0.4
0.6
19.6
0.9
6.6
795.56
795.50
Browns Summit Restoration Site
Reach 4, Cross-section 1
798
797
`
796
---- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
--d
a�
w-----------
-----------
795
As -built
Year 1
MY3 BKF=
795.56'
Year 2
Year 3
Thalweg
= 794.80'
MY3 BKF
--o--- Bankfull
---0 - Floodprone Line
794
0
10
20 30 40 50
60 70
Station (ft)
Note: Per DMS/IRT request, bank height ratio is calculated by setting the current bankfull area to match the asbuilt bankfull
area and dividing by the current max depth. Note: MY1 data is being utilized as asbuilt data due to poor quality asbuilt survey.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96313
DECEMBER 2019, MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 7

Figure 5 Year 3 Cross -sections
Permanent Cross-section 2
(Year 3 Data - Collected October 2019)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Stream
BKF
BKF
Max BKF
Feature
Type
BKF Area
Width
Depth
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
1
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool
11.1
14.3
1 0.8
2.6
118.3
1
793.70
793.70
Browns Summit Restoration Site
Reach 4, Cross-section 2
797
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
796
w
795
w
0
794
0
-----------------------
793
Lu
As -built
s Year 1
792
—o— Year 2
e Year 3
791
-- e--- Bankfull Line
-- e--- Floodprone Line
790
0 10 20 30
40 50 60
Station (ft)
Note: MY1 data is being utilized as asbuilt data due to poor quality asbuilt survey.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96313
DECEMBER 2019, MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 7

Figure 5 Year 3 Cross -sections
Permanent Cross-section 3
(Year 3 Data - Collected October 2019)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Stream
BKF
BKF
Max BKF
Feature
Type
BKF Area
Width
Depth
Depth
1
W/D
BH Ratio
1
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
C
6.3
11.0
1 0.6
1.2
19.2
0.9
5.9
791.82
791.80
Browns Summit Restoration Site
Reach 4, Cross-section 3
794
793
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------e
w
�
c
0
792
w
As -built
791
MY3 BKF= 791.90'
Year 1
Year 2
Thalweg = 7Year
90.63'
+ 3
MY3 BKF
---0 - Bankfull Line
790
0 10
20 30 40
50 60 70
Station (ft)
Note: Per DMS/IRT request, bank height ratio is calculated by setting the current bankfull area to match the asbuilt bankfull
area and dividing by the current max depth. Note: MY1 data is being utilized as asbuilt data due to poor quality asbuilt survey.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96313
DECEMBER 2019, MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 7

Figure 5 Year 3 Cross -sections
Permanent Cross-section 4
(Year 3 Data - Collected October 2019)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Stream
BKF
BKF
Max BKF
Feature
Type
BKF Area
Width
Depth
Depth
1
W/D
BH Ratio
1
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
C
5.0
8.8
1 0.6
0.9
15.3
0.9
7.5
789.04
789.08
Browns Summit Restoration Site
Reach 4, Cross-section 4
791
790.5
790
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
�89.5
0 789
------------
�88.5
w
788
As -built
Year 1
787.5
MY3 BKF= 789.16'
Year 2
e Year 3
Thalweg = 788.15'
MY3 BKF
---0-- Bankfull Line
787
---0-- Floodprone
786.5
0 10
20 30 40 50
60 70 80
Station (ft)
Note: Per DMS/IRT request, bank height ratio is calculated by setting the current bankfull area to match the asbuilt bankfull
area and dividing by the current max depth. Note: MY1 data is being utilized as asbuilt data due to poor quality asbuilt survey.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96313
DECEMBER 2019, MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 7

Figure 5 Year 3 Cross -sections
Permanent Cross-section 5
(Year 3 Data - Collected October 2019)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Stream
BKF
BKF
Max BKF
Feature
Type
BKF Area
Width
Depth
Depth
1
W/D
BH Ratio
1
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
C
7.8
14.5
1 0.5
1.0
26.9
0.9
4.7
785.57
785.52
Browns Summit Restoration Site
Reach 4, Cross-section 5
787
786.5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------o
786
w
PC
w
0 785.5
.2
u 785
w
As -built
*Year 1
784.5
MY3 BKF= 785.595'
Year 2
e Year 3
Thalweg = 784.58'
MY3 BKF
--4--- Bankfull
784
---0-- Floodprone
783.5
0 10 20
30 40 50
60 70
Station (ft)
Note: Per DMS/IRT request, bank height ratio is calculated by setting the current bankfull area to match the asbuilt bankfull
area and dividing by the current max depth. Note: MY1 data is being utilized as asbuilt data due to poor quality asbuilt survey.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96313
DECEMBER 2019, MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 7

Figure 5 Year 3 Cross -sections
Permanent Cross-section 6
(Year 3 Data - Collected October 2019)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Stream
BKF
BKF
Max BKF
Feature
Type
BKF Area
Width
Depth
Depth
1
W/D
BH Ratio
1
ER
BKF Elev
1
TOB Elev
Pool
14.5
12.7
1 1.1
2.2
11.1
1
781.68
781.80
Browns Summit Restoration Site
Reach 3, Cross-section 6
785
784
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------o
.:
783
c
0
782
w
781
As -built sYear 1
780
Year 2 e Year 3
--<a--- Bankfull--<a--- Floodprone
779
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Station (ft)
Note: MY1 data is being utilized as asbuilt data due to poor quality asbuilt survey.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96313
DECEMBER 2019, MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 7

Figure 5 Year 3 Cross -sections
Permanent Cross-section 7
(Year 3 Data - Collected October 2019)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Stream
BKF
BKF
Max BKF
Feature
Type
BKF Area
Width
Depth
Depth
1
W/D
BH Ratio
1
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
C
4.8
9.3
1 0.5
0.8
18.3
1.0
9.7
781.42
781.48
Browns Summit Restoration Site
Reach 3, Cross-section 7
783
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------o
.;
w
782
c
0
:r
-
w
_�.._._.��✓ —
781
As -built
s Year 1
Year 2
MY3 BKF= 781.46'
Year 3
MY3 BKF
Thalweg = 780.58'
---0-- Bankfull
780
0 10 20 30 40 50
60 70 80 90
Station (ft)
Note: Per DMS/IRT request, bank height ratio is calculated by setting the current bankfull area to match the asbuilt bankfull
area and dividing by the current max depth. Note: MY1 data is being utilized as asbuilt data due to poor quality asbuilt survey.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96313
DECEMBER 2019, MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 7

Figure 5 Year 3 Cross -sections
Permanent Cross-section 8
(Year 3 Data - Collected October 2019)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Stream
BKF
BKF
Max BKF
Feature
Type
BKF Area
Width
Depth
Depth
1
W/D
BH Ratio
1
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
C
6.7
9.5
1 0.7
1.2
13.5
1.0
9.2
777.63
777.66
Browns Summit Restoration Site
Reach 3, Cross-section 8
780
779
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
w
� 778
w 777
: As -built
Year 1
w
w Year 2
f Year 3
776
MY3 BKF= 777.68' MY3 BKF
---e--- Bankfull
Thalweg = 776.47' ---0-- Floodprone
775
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
80 90
Station (ft)
Note: Per DMS/IRT request, bank height ratio is calculated by setting the current bankfull area to match the asbuilt bankfull
area and dividing by the current max depth. Note: MY1 data is being utilized as asbuilt data due to poor quality asbuilt survey.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96313
DECEMBER 2019, MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 7

Figure 5 Year 3 Cross -sections
Permanent Cross-section 9
(Year 3 Data - Collected October 2019)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Stream
BKF
BKF
Max BKF
Feature
Type
BKF Area
Width
Depth
Depth
1
W/D
BH Ratio
1
ER
BKF Elev
1
TOB Elev
Pool
16.7
15.1
1 1.1
2.5
13.7
1
775.88
775.90
Browns Summit Restoration Site
Reach 3, Cross-section 9
780
779
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------o
778
w
0 777
.2
776
---------------
w
775
I
As -built s Year 1
774
"L�
Year2 Year
--o - Bankfull--<a--- Floodprone
773
0 10 20 30 40 50
60 70 80 90 100
Station (ft)
Note: MY1 data is being utilized as asbuilt data due to poor quality asbuilt survey.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96313
DECEMBER 2019, MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 7

Figure 5 Year 3 Cross -sections
Permanent Cross-section 10
(Year 3 Data - Collected October 2019)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Stream
BKF
BKF
Max BKF
Feature
Type
BKF Area
Width
Depth
Depth
1
W/D
BH Ratio
1
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
C
5.9
10.3
1 0.6
1.1
17.9
1.1
5.1
773.83
774.08
Browns Summit Restoration Site
Reach 3, Cross-section 10
777
776
Ito----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
w
w
774
----------------
As-built
773
Year 1
MY3 BKF= 773.93'
Year 2
Thalweg = 772.76'
Year 3
MY3 BKF
772
0 10 20
30 40
50 60 70
Station (ft)
Note: Per DMS/IRT request, bank height ratio is calculated by setting the current bankfull area to match the asbuilt bankfull
area and dividing by the current max depth. Note: MY1 data is being utilized as asbuilt data due to poor quality asbuilt survey.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96313
DECEMBER 2019, MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 7

Figure 5 Year 3 Cross -sections
Permanent Cross-section 11
(Year 3 Data - Collected October 2019)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Stream
BKF
BKF
Max BKF
Feature
Type
BKF Area
Width
Depth
Depth
1
W/D
BH Ratio
1
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
C
6.6
9.7
1 0.7
1.2
14.5
1.0
6.7
771.76
771.90
Browns Summit Restoration Site
Reach 3, Cross-section 11
776
775
774
w
0 773
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------;
w
w 772
771
As -built
Year 1
MY3 BKF= 771.88' —o— Year 2
e Year 3
770
Thalweg = 770.54' MY3 BKF
--o-- Bankfull
---0 - Floodplain
769
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
70 80 90
Station (ft)
Note: Per DMS/IRT request, bank height ratio is calculated by setting the current bankfull area to match the asbuilt bankfull
area and dividing by the current max depth. Note: MY1 data is being utilized as asbuilt data due to poor quality asbuilt survey.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96313
DECEMBER 2019, MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 7

Figure 5 Year 3 Cross -sections
Permanent Cross-section 12
(Year 3 Data - Collected October 2019)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Stream
BKF
BKF
Max BKF
Feature
Type
BKF Area
Width
Depth
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
C
3.4
6.9
0.5
0.8
14.1
1.1
4.9
763.82
764.00
Browns Summit Restoration Site
Reach T1, Cross-section 12
767
766
w
w
� 765
•2
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
W
w 764
-------------
As -built
Year 1
763
MY3 BKF= 763.92' Year 2
e Year 3
Thalweg = 763.00' MY3 BKF
---0--- Bankfull
---0-- Floodprone
762
0 10 20 30
40 50
Station (ft)
Note: Per DMS/IRT request, bank height ratio is calculated by setting the current bankfull area to match the asbuilt bankfull
area and dividing by the current max depth. Note: MY1 data is being utilized as asbuilt data due to poor quality asbuilt survey.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96313
DECEMBER 2019, MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 7

Figure 5 Year 3 Cross -sections
Permanent Cross-section 13
(Year 3 Data - Collected October 2019)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Stream
BKF
BKF
Max BKF
Feature
Type
BKF Area
Width
Depth
Depth
1
W/D
BH Ratio
1
ER
BKF Elev
1
TOB Elev
Pool
18.3
17.6
1 1.0
3.0
16.9
1
762.95
762.48
Browns Summit Restoration Site
Reach 1, Cross-section 13
767
766<
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------�0
765
w
764
c
0
763
--------------------
a�
w 762
As -built
Year 1
761
Year 2
e Year 3
760
---0 - Bankfull
---0 - Floodprone
759
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
70 80 90
Station (ft)
Note: MY1 data is being utilized as asbuilt data due to poor quality asbuilt survey.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96313
DECEMBER 2019, MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 7

Figure 5 Year 3 Cross -sections
Permanent Cross-section 14
(Year 3 Data - Collected October 2019)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Stream
BKF
BKF
Max BKF
Feature
Type
BKF Area
Width
Depth
Depth
1
W/D
BH Ratio
1
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
C
11.8
12.2
1 1.0
1.8
12.5
1.0
6.0
761.71
761.70
Browns Summit Restoration Site
Reach 1, Cross-section 14
764
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------o
763
w
�
762
-
wo-
As -built
�,
w
761
Year 1
—o— Year 2
MY3 BKF= 761.76'
e Year 3
760
MY3 BKF
Thalweg = 759.92'
--o-- Bankfull
--o-- Floodprone
759
0 10
20 30 40 50
60 70 80
Station (ft)
Note: Per DMS/IRT request, bank height ratio is calculated by setting the current bankfull area to match the asbuilt bankfull
area and dividing by the current max depth. Note: MY1 data is being utilized as asbuilt data due to poor quality asbuilt survey.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96313
DECEMBER 2019, MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 7

Figure 5 Year 3 Cross -sections
Permanent Cross-section 15
(Year 3 Data - Collected October 2019)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Stream
BKF
BKF
Max BKF
Feature
Type
BKF Area
Width
Depth
Depth
1
W/D
BH Ratio
1
ER
BKF Elev
1
TOB Elev
Pool
16.3
22.4
1 0.7
1.5
30.8
1
760.52
760.63
Browns Summit Restoration Site
Reach 1, Cross-section 15
763
762
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.; 761
w
c-------------------------
0
760
As -built
u
Year 1
759
Year 2
Year 3
758
--<a-- Floodprone
--<a-- Bankfull
757
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
80 90 100
Station (ft)
Note: MY1 data is being utilized as asbuilt data due to poor quality asbuilt survey.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96313
DECEMBER 2019, MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 7

Figure 5 Year 3 Cross -sections
Permanent Cross-section 16
(Year 3 Data - Collected October 2019)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Stream
BKF
BKF
Max BKF
Feature
Type
BKF Area
Width
Depth
Depth
1
W/D
BH Ratio
1
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
C
12.0
11.6
1 1.0
1.7
11.3
1.0
6.1
759.53
759.53
Browns Summit Restoration Site
Reach 1, Cross-section 16
761
760
.%
---------
R 759
a�
w
As -built
sYear 1
Year 2
758
MY3 BKF= 759.61' e Year 3
MY3 BKF
Thalweg = 757.87' --<a-- Bankfull
---0-- Floodprone
757
0 10
20 30 40 50
60 70 80
Station (ft)
Note: Per DMS/IRT request, bank height ratio is calculated by setting the current bankfull area to match the asbuilt bankfull
area and dividing by the current max depth. Note: MY1 data is being utilized as asbuilt data due to poor quality asbuilt survey.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96313
DECEMBER 2019, MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 7

Figure 5 Year 3 Cross -sections
Permanent Cross-section 17
(Year 3 Data - Collected October 2019)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Stream
BKF
BKF
Max BKF
Feature
Type
BKF Area
Width
Depth
Depth
1
W/D
BH Ratio
1
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
C
12.2
12.6
1 1.0
1.7
13.0
1.0
5.5
758.65
758.80
Browns Summit Restoration Site
Reach 1, Cross-section 17
761
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------o
760
w
759
0
--------------------
------------------
W
w
758
As -built
sYear 1
Year 2
757
MY3 BKF= 758.83'
Year 3
MY3 BKF
Thalweg = 756.91'
---0--- Bankfull
--<a--- Flood prone
756
1
I
0 10 20
30 40 50
60 70
Station (ft)
Note: Per DMS/IRT request, bank height ratio is calculated by setting the current bankfull area to match the asbuilt bankfull
area and dividing by the current max depth. Note: MY1 data is being utilized as asbuilt data due to poor quality asbuilt survey.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96313
DECEMBER 2019, MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 7

Table 10. Baseline Stream Summary
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No ID. 96313
Reach 1
USGS
Reference Reach(es) Data
Parameter
Gauge
Regional Curve
Pre -Existing Condition
Design
As -built
Composite
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
LL UL Eq.
Min
Mean
Med Max SD
n
Min
Mean Med Max SD
a
Min
Mean
Med Max SD
a
Min
Mean
Mod
Max
SD
n
BF Width (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
12.3
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
12.9
---- ---- -----
-----
12.6
13.0
12.6
13.8
0.6
3
Floodprone Width (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
>100
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
>100
---- ---- -----
-----
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
0.0
3
BF Mean Depth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
1.3
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
1.2
---- ---- -----
-----
0.9
1.1
1.1
1.2
0.1
3
BF Max Depth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
2.1
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
1.5
---- ---- -----
-----
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
0.0
3
BF Cross -sectional Area (ff)
-----
12.0 16.5 -----
-----
16.3
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
15.2
---- ---- -----
-----
12.5
13.4
13.2
14.5
0.8
3
Width/Depth Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
9.3
----- ----- -----
-----
10
----- ----- 12 -----
-----
-----
11.0
---- ---- -----
-----
10.9
12.7
12.0
15.2
1.8
3
Entrenchment Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
8.7
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- >2.2 -----
-----
-----
>6.7
---- ---- -----
-----
5.3
5.5
5.4
5.7
0.2
3
Bank Height Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
I
----- ----- -----
-----
I
----- ----- I -----
-----
-----
I
---- ---- -----
-----
1
1
1
1
0
3
d50(min)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
0.8
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
50.0
-----
----- 75.0 -----
-----
72.6
88.2
75.3
136.9
24.7
5
Radius of Curvature (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
26.0
-----
----- 39.0 -----
-----
25.9
34.5
35.4
42.0
5.3
7
Re Bankfull width (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
2
----- ----- 3 -----
-----
2.0
-----
----- 3.0 -----
-----
2.0
2.7
2.7
3.2
0.4
7
Meander Wavelength (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
140
-----
----- 170 -----
-----
130.2
162.0
161.3
190.9
24.9
5
Meander Width Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
3.5
----- ----- 10 -----
-----
4
-----
----- 6
-----
5.6
6.8
5.8
10.5
1.9
5
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
5.4
20.5
13.0
47.7
14.6
13
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
0.013
----- ----- -----
-----
0.001
0.019
0.010
0.091
0.023
13
PoolLength (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
---- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----------
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Pool to Pool Spacing (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
Al
-----
----- 87 -----
-----
41.4
63.2
59.1
100.8
18.2
12
Pool Max Depth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
1.2
----- ----- 2.5 -----
-----
-----
2.7
----- ----- -----
-----
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.8
0.0
2
pool Volume (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----------
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----------
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Substrate and Transport Parameters
Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
---------- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
SC%/Sa%/G%/B%/Be%
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
---------- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
-----
----- ----- -----
0.3/0.5/0.8/5.8/10.2
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/ft'
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----------
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
114
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
88
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m2
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
25.7
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
20.3
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
-----
----- 0.68 -----
-----
-----
----- 0.68 -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- 0.68 -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
0.68
-----
-----
Impervious cover estimate (%)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
---------- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
---------- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
RosgenClassification
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
E
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
E5 ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
E5
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
C
-----
-----
BF Velocity (fps)
-----
3.6 4.1 -----
-----
3.56
----- ----- -----
-----
4
----- ----- 6 -----
-----
-----
3.20
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
BF Discharge (cfs)
-----
43.2 67.4 -----
-----
58
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
49
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
ValleyLength
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- 1086.6 -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
1036.3
-----
-----
Channel length (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- 1217 -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
1279.7
-----
-----
Sinuosity
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
1.12
----- ----- -----
-----
1.3
----- ----- 1.6 -----
-----
-----
1.40
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
1.2
-----
-----
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
0.0058
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
0.0058
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
BFslope (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
0.0043
-----
-----
BaukfullFloodplain Area (acres)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
----
-----
----- ----------
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
BEHI VL % / L % / M % / 11% / VH % / E°
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----------
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Biological or Other
-----
I ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----I
-----
-----
----- ----------
-----I
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
* 1999 Regional Crave and Estimate from Revised Regional Curve. See Mitigation Plan for more information.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
December 2019, MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 7

Table 10 continued. Baseline Stream Summary
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No ID. 96313
Reach 2
USGS
Reference Reach(es) Data
Parameter
Gauge
Regional Curve
Pre -Existing Condition
Design
As -built
Composite
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
LL UL Eq.
Min Mean Med Max SD n
Min Mean Med Max SD a
Min Mean Med Max SD a
Min Mean Mod Max SD u
BFWidth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- 10.06 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 11.0 ---- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
FloodproneWidth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- 22.1 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ---- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BFMean Depth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- 1.1 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 1.0 ---- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BFMax Depth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- 2.0 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 1.3 ---- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BFCross -sectional Area (ff)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- 11.1 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 11.1 ---- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Width/Depth Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
----- 9.1 ----- ----- ----- -----
10 ----- ----- 12 ----- -----
----- I I ---- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
EntrenchmentRatio
-----
----- ----- -----
----- 2.2 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- >2.2 ----- -----
----- ----- ---- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BankHeight Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
----- 2 ----- ----- ----- -----
I ----- ----- I ----- -----
----- I ---- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
d50(mm)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- 0.6 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Pattern
ChannelBeltwidth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ---- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- --------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Radiusof Curvature (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
22 ----- ----- 33.0 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
2 ----- ----- 3 ----- -----
2 ----- ----- 3.0 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
MeanderWavelength (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- --------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
MeanderWidth Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
3.5 ----- ----- 10 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Profile
RiffleLength (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- --------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
RiffleSlope (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- --------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
PoolLength (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ---- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- --------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Pool to Pool Spacing (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- --------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Pool Max Depth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
1.2 ----- ----- 2.5 ----- -----
----- 2.2 ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Pool Volume (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- --------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Substrate and Transport Parameters
Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ---------- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----------
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----
SC%/Sa%/G%/B%/Be%
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ---------- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----------
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
-----
----- ----- -----
0.2/0.4/0.6/2.9/6.9
Reach Shear Stress (competency) 1b/ft2
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- 100.0 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 90 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m2
-----
----- ----- -----
----- 20.4 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 19.1 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Additional Reach Parameters
-----
Drainage Area (SM)
-----
----- 0.47 -----
----- ----- ----- 0.47 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 0.47 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 0.47 ----- -----
Impervious cover estimate (%)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ---------- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ---------- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
RosgenClassification
-----
----- ----- -----
----- Be ----- ----- ----- -----
----- E5 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- E5 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BF Velocity (fps)
-----
3.50 4.03 -----
----- 3.87 ----- ----- ----- -----
4 ----- ----- 6 ----- -----
----- 2.91 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BF Discharge (cfs)
-----
32.4 51.6 -----
----- 43 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 32.3 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
ValleyLength
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 643.0 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Channellength (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 868.0 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Sinuosity-----
----- ----- -----
----- 1.35 ----- ----- ----- -----
1.3 ----- ----- 1.6 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- 0.0054 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 0.0054 ----- ----- ----- -----
---------- ----- ----- ----- -----
BFslope (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ---- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BankfullFloodplain Area (acres)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BEHIVL%/L%/M%/H%/VH%/E°
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----------
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Biological or Other
-----
I ----- ----- -----
I ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----I
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----I
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
* 1999 Regional Crave and Esitmate from Revised Regional Curve. See Mitigation Plan for more information.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
December 2019, MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 7

Table 10 continued. Baseline Stream Summary
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No ID. 96313
Reach 3
USGS
Reference Reach(es) Data
Parameter
Gauge
Regional Curve
Pre -Existing Condition
Design
As -built
Composite
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
LL UL Eq.
Min
Mean
Med Max SD
n
Min
Mean Med Max SD
a
Min
Mean
Med Max SD
a
Min
Mean
Mod
Max
SD
n
BF Width (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
8.5
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
10.3
---- ---- -----
-----
9.3
10.7
10.9
11.6
0.9
4
Floodprone Width (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
17.8
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
>23
---- ---- -----
-----
51.6
73.4
76.1
89.9
15.7
4
BF Mean Depth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
1.15
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
0.9
---- ---- -----
-----
0.6
0.8
0.8
0.9
0.2
4
BF Max Depth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
1.8
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
1.2
---- ---- -----
-----
1.1
1.3
1.3
1.3
0.1
4
BF Cross -sectional Area (ff)
-----
6.5 9.3 -----
-----
9.7
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
9.7
---- ---- -----
-----
6.8
7.9
7.6
9.8
1.2
4
Width/Depth Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
7.15
----- ----- -----
-----
10
----- ----- 12 -----
-----
-----
11.0
---- ---- -----
-----
10.8
15.0
15.1
19.2
3.9
4
Entrenchment Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
2.0
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- >2.2 -----
-----
-----
>2.2
----- ---- -----
-----
4.4
6.9
7.5
8.2
1.5
4
Bank Height Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
2
----- ----- -----
-----
I
----- ----- I -----
-----
-----
I
----- ---- -----
-----
1
1
1
1
0
4
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
35
-----
----- 56.0 -----
-----
37.4
54.0
59.9
64.7
11.9
3
Radius of Curvature (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
20
-----
----- 30.0 -----
-----
20.0
27.8
25.8
37.2
6.3
10
Re Bankfull width (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
2
----- ----- 3 -----
-----
2
-----
----- 3.0 -----
-----
1.9
2.6
2.4
3.5
0.6
10
Meander Wavelength (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
90
-----
----- 130.0 -----
-----
90.4
108.9
101.0
137.2
17.2
5
Meander Width Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
3.5
----- ----- 10 -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ---- -----
-----
3.5
5.1
5.6
6.1
1.1
3
Profile
RiffleLength (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ---- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ---------
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
0.018
----- ---- -----
-----
0.005
0.021
0.019
0.040
0.010
13
PoolLength (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
---- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ---------
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Pool to Pool Spacing (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
47
-----
----- 70.0 -----
-----
20.1
55.2
59.2
81.3
18.3
13
Pool Max Depth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
1.2
----- ----- 2.5 -----
-----
-----
2
----- ---- -----
-----
1.3
1.8
1.8
2.2
0.5
2
Pool Volume (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----------
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ---------
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Substrate and Transport Parameters
Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
---------- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
SC%/Sa%/G%/B%/Be%
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
---------- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
-----
----- ----- -----
0.1/0.2/0.4/10.4/22.4
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/ft'
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----------
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
141
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
116
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m2
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
30.7
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
26.2
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Additional Reach Parameters
-----
Drainage Area (SM)
-----
----- 0.38 -----
-----
-----
----- 0.38 -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- 0.38 -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
0.38
-----
-----
Impervious cover estimate (%)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
---------- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
---------- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
RosgenClassification
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
Be
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
E5 ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
E5
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
C
-----
-----
BF Velocity (fps)
-----
3.42 3.97 -----
-----
3.5
----- ----- -----
-----
4
----- ----- 6 -----
-----
-----
3.3
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
BF Discharge (cfs)
-----
25.7 41.7 -----
-----
34.5
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
31.9
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
ValleyLength
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- 1441.8 -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
1323.2
-----
-----
Channel length (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- 1586.0 -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
1495.2
-----
-----
Sinuosity
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
1.10
----- ----- -----
-----
1.3
----- ----- 1.6 -----
-----
-----
1.20
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
1.13
-----
-----
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
0.0082
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
0.0082
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
BFslope (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
0.010
-----
-----
BankfullFloodplain Area (acres)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
BEHIVL%/L%/M%/H%/VH%/E°
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----------
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Biological or Other
-----
I ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----I
-----
-----
----- ----------
-----I
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
* 1999 Regional Crave and Esitmate from Revised Regional Curve. See Mitigation Plan for more information.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
December 2019, MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 7

Table 10 continued. Baseline Stream Summary
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No ID. 96313
Reach 4
USGS
Reference Reach(es) Data
Parameter
Regional Curve'
Pre -Existing Condition
Design (lower/upper)
As -built
Composite
Gauge
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
LL UL Eq.
Min
Mean
Med Max SD
n
Min
Mean Med Max SD
a
Min Mean Med Max SD
a
Min
Mean
Mod
Max
SD
n
BF Width (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
7.60
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
----- 9.2 / 8.1 ----- ----- -----
-----
7.2
9.3
9.1
11.8
1.7
4
Floodprone Width (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
9.1
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
----- >19 />17 ----- ----- -----
-----
31.3
57.9
66.0
68.1
15.4
4
BF Mean Depth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
0.86
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
----- 0.7 / 0.6 ----- ----- -----
-----
0.5
0.8
0.9
1.1
0.2
4
BF Max Depth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
1.39
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
----- 0.9 / 0.8 ----- ----- -----
-----
0.8
1.4
1.5
1.7
0.3
4
BF Cross -sectional Area (ff)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
6.5
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
----- 6.5 / 5.0 ----- ----- -----
-----
3.3
7.7
7.4
12.7
3.4
4
Width/Depth Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
8.8
----- ----- -----
-----
10.0
----- ----- 14.0 -----
-----
----- 13.0 ----- ---- -----
-----
11.0
12.3
11.3
15.4
1.8
4
Entrenchment Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
1.2
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- >2.2 -----
-----
----- >2.2 ----- ---- -----
-----
4.4
5.9
5.8
7.6
1.3
3
Bank Height Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
7
----- ----- -----
-----
I
----- ----- I -----
-----
----- I ----- ---- -----
-----
1
1
1
1
0
3
d50(min)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
0.4
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
----- 30-42/22-43 ----- ---- -----
-----
36.9
43.0
42.8
49.7
4.7
4
Radius of Curvature (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
2
----- ----- 3 -----
-----
----- 18-28/16-25 ----- ----- -----
-----
17.2
24.5
25.1
34.3
4.9
10
Re Bankfull width (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
----- 3.1 / 2.0 ----- ----- -----
-----
1.8
2.6
2.7
3.7
0.5
10
Meander Wavelength (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
----- 120.0 / 80.0 ----- ----- -----
-----
63.1
94.5
93.0
123.0
20.2
9
Meander Width Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
3.5
----- ----- 8 -----
-----
----- 12.0 / 2.7 ----- ----- -----
-----
4.0
4.6
4.6
5.3
0.5
4
Profile
RiffleLength (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ---- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- ---------
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
----- 0.019 ----- ---- -----
-----
0.013
0.021
0.018
0.036
0.008
7
PoolLength (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
---- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- ---------
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Pool to Pool Spacing (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
----- 36-64/29-52 ----- ---- -----
-----
31.2
58.1
56.1
87.8
18.7
6
Pool Max Depth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
----- 2.0 / 1.9 ----- ---- -----
-----
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
0.0
1
pool Volume (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----------
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- ---------
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Substrate and Transport Parameters
Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
---------- ----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
SC%/Sa%/G%/B%/Be%
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
---------- ----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
-----
----- ----- -----
0.2/0.3/0.4/0.9/1.8
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/ft'
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----------
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
208 ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
----- 141 -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m2
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
45.1 ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
----- 30.7 ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Additional Reach Parameters
-----
-----
Drainage Area (SM)
-----
----- 0.22 -----
-----
-----
----- 0.22 -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- 0.22 -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
0.22
-----
-----
Impervious cover estimate (%)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
---------- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
----- ----- ---------- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
RosgenClassification
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
Ge
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
C5 ----- ----- -----
-----
----- C5 ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
E
-----
-----
BF Velocity (fps)
-----
3.29 3.90 -----
-----
3.69
----- ----- -----
-----
3.5
----- ----- 5.0 -----
-----
----- 3.8 / 4.1 ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
BF Discharge (cfs)
-----
17.9 29.8 -----
-----
24
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
----- 24.8 / 21.1 ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
ValleyLength
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- 1173.9 -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
1173.9
-----
-----
Channel length (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- 1350.0 -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
1263.4
-----
-----
Sinuosity
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
1.15
----- ----- -----
-----
1.2
----- ----- 1.5 -----
-----
----- 1.13/1.22 ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
1.08
-----
-----
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
0.016
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
----- 0.011 / 0.016 ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
BFslope (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
0.0
-----
-----
BankfullFloodplain Area (acres)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----------
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
BEHIVL%/L%/M%/H%/VH%/E°
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----------
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Biological or Other
-----
I ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----I
----- ----- ----- ----------
-----I
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
* 1999 Regional Crave and Estimate from Revised Regional Curve. See Mitigation Plan for more information.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
December 2019, MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 7

Table 10 continued. Baseline Stream Summary
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No ID. 96313
Reach 5
USGS
Reference Reach(es) Data
Parameter
Gauge
Regional Curve'
Pre -Existing Condition
Design
As -built
Composite
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
LL UL Eq.
Min Mean Med Max SD n
Min Mean Med Max SD a
Min Mean Med Max SD a
Min Mean Mod Max SD u
BFWidth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- 7.38 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
FloodproneWidth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- 11.8 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BFMean Depth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- 0.44 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BFMax Depth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- 0.67 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BFCross -sectional Area (ff)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- 3.2 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Width/Depth Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
----- 16.77 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
EntrenchmentRatio
-----
----- ----- -----
----- 1.6 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BankHeight Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
----- 6 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Pattern
ChannelBeltwidth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ---- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- --------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Radius of Curvature (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----------
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- --------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ---- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- --------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
MeanderWavelength (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- --------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Meander Width Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----------
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- --------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Profile
RiffleLength (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- --------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
RiffleSlope (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- --------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
PoolLength (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ---- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- --------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Pool to Pool Spacing (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- --------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Pool Max Depth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---- ----------
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Pool Volume (fe)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- --------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Substrate and Transport Parameters
Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ---------- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----------
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----
SC%/Sa%/G%/B%/Be%
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ---------- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----------
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
-----
----- ----- -----
----
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/ft'
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ---------- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m2
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----------
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Additional Reach Parameters
-----
-----
Drainage Area (SM)
-----
----- 0.04 -----
----- ----- ----- 0.04 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 0.04 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 0.04 ----- -----
Impervious cover estimate (%)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ---------- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ---------- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
RosgenClassification
-----
----- ----- -----
----- Be ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BFVelocity (fps)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- 3.97 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BFDischarge (cfs)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- 12.7 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
ValleyLength
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 470.2 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 470 ----- -----
Channel length (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 536.0 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 520 ----- -----
Sinuosity-----
----- ----- -----
----- 1.14 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 1.11 ----- -----
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- 0.017 ---------- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----------
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BFslope (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ---- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BankfullFloodplain Area (acres)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----------
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BEHIVL%/L%/M%/H%/VH%/E°
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----------
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Biological or Other
-----I
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----I
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----I
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
* 1999 Regional Crave and Esitmate from Revised Regional Curve. See Mitigation Plan for more information.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
December 2019, MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 7

Table 10 continued. Baseline Stream Summary
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No ID. 96313
Reach 6
USGS
Reference Reach(es) Data
Parameter
Gauge
Regional Curve'
Pre -Existing Condition
Design
As -built
Composite
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
LL UL Eq.
Min Mean Med Max SD n
Min Mean Med Max SD a
Min Mean Med Nlax SD a
Min Mean Mod Max SD u
BFWidth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- 9.09 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 6.1 ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Floodprone Width (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- 12.7 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 13.0 ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BFMean Depth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- 0.48 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 0.5 ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BFMax Depth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- 0.8 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 0.6 ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BFCross -sectional Area (ff)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- 4.4 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 3.1 ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Width/Depth Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
----- 18.94 ----- ----- ----- -----
12.0 ----- ----- 18.0 ----- -----
----- 14.0 ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Entrenchment Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
----- 1.4 ----- ----- ----- -----
1.4 ----- ----- 2.2 ----- -----
----- <2.2 ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BankHeight Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
----- 5 ----- ----- ----- -----
I ----- ----- I ----- -----
----- I ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
d50(mm)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- 0.4 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Pattern
ChannelBeltwidth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ---- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- --------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Radius of Curvature (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----------
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- --------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ---- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- --------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
MeanderWavelength (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- --------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Meander Width Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----------
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- --------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Profile
RiffleLength (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- --------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
RiffleSlope (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 0.06 ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
PoolLength (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ---- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- --------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Poolto Pool Spacing (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
30 ----- ----- 54.0 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
PoolMax Depth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 1.7 ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Pool Volume (ft')
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- --------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Substrate and Transport Parameters
Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ---------- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----------
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----
SC%/Sa%/G%/B%/Be%
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ---------- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----------
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
-----
----- ----- -----
0.2/0.3/0.4/0.9/1.8
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/ft'
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ---------- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m2
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----------
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Additional Reach Parameters
-----
-----
Drainage Area (SM)
-----
----- 0.10 -----
----- ----- ----- 0.10 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 0.10 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 0.10 ----- -----
Impervious cover estimate (%)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ---------- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ---------- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Rosgen Classification
-----
----- ----- -----
----- Be ----- ----- ----- -----
----- B5c ----- ----- ----- -----
----- B5c ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BF Velocity (fps)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- 3.75 ----- ----- ----- -----
4 ----- ----- 6.0 ----- -----
----- 5.2 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BFDischarge (cfs)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- 16.5 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 16 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
ValleyLength
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 468.2 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Channel length (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 501.0 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 468.2 ----- -----
Sinuosity-----
----- ----- -----
----- 1.07 ----- ----- ----- -----
1.1 ----- ----- 1.3 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- 0.014 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 0.016 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BFslope (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ---- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BankfullFloodplain Area (acres)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BEHIVL%/L%/M%/H%/VH%/E°
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----------
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Biological or Other
-----I
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----I
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
* 1999 Regional Croce and Esitmate from Revised Regional Curve. See Mitigation Plan for more information.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
December 2019, MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 7

Table 10 continued. Baseline Stream Summary
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No ID. 96313
Reach Tl
USGS
Reference Reaches) Data
Parameter
Gauge
Regional Curve'
Pre -Existing Condition
Design
As -built
Composite
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
LL UL Eq.
Min
Mean
Med Max SD
n
Min
Mean Med Max SD
n
Min Mean
Med Max SD
a
Min
Mean
Mod
Max
SD
n
BF Width (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
6.80
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
----- 7.0
----- ---- -----
-----
7.7
7.7
7.7
7.7
0.0
1
Floodprone Width (II)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
89.1
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
----- -----
----- ---- -----
-----
39.9
39.9
39.9
39.9
0.0
1
BF Mean Depth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
0.67
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
----- 0.5
----- ---- -----
-----
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.0
1
BF Max Depth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
1.53
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
----- 0.7
----- ---- -----
-----
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
0.0
1
BF Cross -sectional Area (ff)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
4.5
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
----- 3.8
----- ---- -----
-----
5.1
5.1
5.1
5.1
0.0
1
Width/Depth Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
10.15
----- ----- -----
-----
10.0
----- ----- 14.0 -----
-----
----- 13.0
----- ---- -----
-----
11.7
11.7
11.7
11.7
0.0
1
Entrenchment Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
13.1
----- ----- -----
-----
----- ----- >2.2 -----
-----
----- -----
----- ---- -----
-----
5.2
5.2
5.2
5.2
0.0
1
Bank Height Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
2
----- ----- -----
-----
I
----- ----- I -----
-----
----- -----
----- ---- -----
-----
1
1
1
1
0
1
----- -----
----- ----- -----
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
----- -----
----- ---- -----
-----
29.6
29.6
29.6
29.6
0.0
1
Radius of Curvature (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
14 -----
----- 21.0 -----
-----
16.3
17.4
17.4
18.5
1.1
2
Re Bankfull width (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
2
----- ----- 3 -----
-----
----- -----
----- ---- -----
-----
2.1
2.3
2.3
2.4
0.1
2
Meander Wavelength (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
----- 60.0
----- ---- -----
-----
56.0
57.9
57.9
59.7
1.8
2
Meander Width Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
3.5
----- ----- 8 -----
-----
----- 4.0
----- ---- -----
-----
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
0.0
1
Profile
RiffleLength (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ---- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
----- -----
----- ---------
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
RiffleSlope (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
----- 0.029
----- ---- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
PoolLength (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
---- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
----- -----
----- ---------
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Pool to Pool Spacing (II)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
27 -----
----- 35.0 -----
-----
18.2
23.8
26.6
34.6
7.6
3
PoolMax Depth (II)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
----- 1.2
----- ---- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Pool Volume (fe)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----------
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
----- -----
----- ---------
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Substrate and Transport Parameters
Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
---------- ----- -----
-----
----- -----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
SC%/Sa%/G%/B%/Be%
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
---------- ----- -----
-----
----- -----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/ft'
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
----- -----
----- ----------
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
----- -----
---------- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m2
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
----- -----
----- ----------
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Additional Reach Parameters
-----
-----
Drainage Area (SM)
-----
----- 0.09 -----
-----
-----
----- 0.09 -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
----- -----
----- 0.09 -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
0.09
-----
-----
Impervious cover estimate (%)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
---------- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
----- -----
---------- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
RosgenClassification
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
E
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
C5 ----- ----- -----
-----
----- C5
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
BF Velocity (fps)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
3.76
----- ----- -----
-----
3.5
----- ----- 5.0 -----
-----
----- -----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
BFDischarge (cfs)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
16.9
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
----- -----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
ValleyLength
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- 114.2 -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
----- -----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
114.2
-----
-----
Channel length (II)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- 121.0 -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
----- -----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
139.6
-----
-----
Sinuosity
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
1.06
----- ----- -----
-----
1.2
----- ----- 1.5 -----
-----
----- 1.12
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
1.22
-----
-----
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
0.024
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
----- 0.019
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
BFslope (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
---- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
----- -----
----- ----------
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
BaukfullFloodplain Area (acres)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
---- -----
----- ----------
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
BEHI VL % / L % / M % / 11% / VH % / E°
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
----- -----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
----- -----
----- ----------
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Biological or Other
-----
I ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----I
----- -----
----- ----------
-----I
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
* 1999 Regional Crave and Esitmate from Revised Regional Curve. See Mitigation Plan for more information.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
December 2019, MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 7

Table 10 continued. Baseline Stream Summary
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No ID. 96313
Reach T2
USGS
Reference Reaches) Data
Parameter
Gauge
Regional Curve'
Pre -Existing Condition
Design
As -built
Composite
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
LL UL Eq.
Min Mean Med Max SD n
Min Mean Med Max SD n
Min Mean Med Max SD a
Mm Mean Mod Max SD u
BFWidth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- 18.00 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
FloodproneWidth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- 23.4 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BFMean Depth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- 0.22 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BFMax Depth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- 0.78 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BFCross -sectional Area (ff)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- 4.0 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Width/Depth Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
----- 81.82 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
EntrenchmentRatio
-----
----- ----- -----
----- 1.3 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BankHeight Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
----- 3 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Pattern
ChannelBeltwidth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ---- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- --------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Radius of Curvature (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----------
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- --------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ---- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- --------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
MeanderWavelength (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- --------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Meander Width Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----------
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- --------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Profile
RiffleLength (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- --------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
RiffleSlope (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- --------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
PoolLength (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ---- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- --------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Pool to Pool Spacing (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- --------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Pool Max Depth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---- ----------
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
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) lb/ft'
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ---------- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m2
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----------
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Additional Reach Parameters
-----
-----
Drainage Area (SM)
-----
----- 0.07 -----
----- ----- ----- 0.07 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 0.07 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 0.07 ----- -----
Impervious cover estimate (%)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ---------- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ---------- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
RosgenClassification
-----
----- ----- -----
----- F ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BFVelocity (fps)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- 3.6 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BFDischarge (cfs)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- 14.4 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
ValleyLength
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 252.7 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 252.7 ----- -----
Channel length (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 283.0 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 284.2 ----- -----
Sinuosity-----
----- ----- -----
----- 1.12 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 1.12 ----- -----
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- 0.022 ---------- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----------
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BFslope (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ---- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BankfullFloodplain Area (acres)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----------
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BEHI VL % / L % / M % / 11% / VH % / E°
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----------
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Biological or Other
-----I
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----I
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----I
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
* 1999 Regional Crave and Esitmate from Revised Regional Curve. See Mitigation Plan for more information.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
December 2019, MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 7

Table 10 continued. Baseline Stream Summary
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No ID. 96313
Reach T3
Parameter
USGS
Regional Curve'
Pre -Existing Condition
Reference Reach es Data
Design
As -built
Composite
Gauge
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
LL UL Eq.
Min Mean Med Max SD n
Min Mean Mod Max SD a
Min Mean Med Max SD a
Min Mean Med Max SD u
BEWidth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- 2.93 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 5.8 ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Floodprone Width (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- 66.5 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 15.0 ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BFMean Depth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- 1.12 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 0.5 ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BFMax Depth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- 1.76 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 0.6 ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BFCross -sectional Area (ff)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- 3.3 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 2.8 ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Width/Depth Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
----- 2.62 ----- ----- ----- -----
12.0 ----- ----- 18.0 ----- -----
----- 12.0 ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
EntrenchmentRatio
-----
----- ----- -----
----- 22.7 ----- ----- ----- -----
1.4 ----- ----- 2.2 ----- -----
----- <2.2 ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BankHeight Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
----- 2 ----- ----- ----- -----
I ----- ----- I ----- -----
----- I ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Pattern
ChannelBeltwidth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ---- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- --------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Radius of Curvature (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----------
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- --------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
2 ----- ----- 3.0 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
MeanderWavelength (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- --------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Meander Width Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----------
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- --------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
profile
RiffleLength (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- --------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 0.033 ----- ---- ----- -----
0.017 0.025 0.017 0.017 0.007
PoolLength (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ---- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- --------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Poolto Pool Spacing (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 36 ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
PoolMax Depth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 0.9 ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
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) lb/ft2
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ---------- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/mr'
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----------
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Additional Reach Parameters
-----
Drainage Area (SM)
-----
----- 0.06 -----
----- ----- ----- 0.06 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 0.06 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 0.06 ----- -----
Impervious cover estimate (%)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ---------- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ---------- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
RosgenClassification
-----
----- ----- -----
----- E ----- ----- ----- -----
----- B5c ----- ----- ----- -----
----- B5c ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BF Velocity (fps)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- 3.6 ----- ----- ----- -----
4 ----- ----- 6.0 ----- -----
----- 2.3 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BFDischarge (cfs)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- 11.7 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 6.4 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
ValleyLength
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 44.3 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 80.5 ----- -----
Channellength (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 47.0 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 88.0 ----- -----
Sinuosity
-----
----- ----- -----
----- 1.06 ----- ----- ----- -----
1.1 ----- ----- 1.3 ----- -----
----- 1.20 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 1.09 ----- -----
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- 0.02 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 0.014 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BEslope (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ---- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BankfullFloodplain Area (acres)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BEHIVL%/L%/M%/H%/VH%/E°
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----------
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Biological or Other
-----
I ----- ----- -----
I ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
---- - ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----I
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
* 1999 Regional Crave and Esitmate from Revised Regional Curve. See Mitigation Plan for more information.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
December 2019, MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 7

Table 10 continued. Baseline Stream Summary
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No ID. 96313
Reach T4
Parameter
USGS
Regional Curve'
Pre -Existing Condition
Reference Reach es Data
Design
As -built
Composite
Gauge
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
LL UL Eq.
Min Mean Med Max SD n
Min Mean Mod Max SD a
Min Mean Med Max SD a
Min Mean Med Max SD u
BEWidth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 5.8 ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
FloodproneWidth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 12.0 ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BFMean Depth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 0.5 ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BFMax Depth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 0.6 ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BFCross -sectional Area (ff)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 2.8 ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Width/Depth Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
12.0 ----- ----- 18.0 ----- -----
----- 12.0 ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
EntrenchmentRatio
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
1.4 ----- ----- 2.2 ----- -----
----- Q.2 ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BankHeight Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
I ----- ----- I ----- -----
----- I ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Pattern
ChannelBeltwidth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ---- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- --------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Radius of Curvature (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----------
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- --------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ---- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- --------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
MeanderWavelength (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- --------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Meander Width Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----------
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- --------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Profile
RiffleLength (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- --------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 0.051 ----- ---- ----- -----
0.007 0.047 0.048 0.072 0.023 11
PoolLength (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ---- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- --------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Pool to Pool Spacing (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 14 ----- ---- ----- -----
12.3 16.1 14.6 21.6 3.5 11
PoolMax Depth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 1.9 ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
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) lb/ft'
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ---------- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/mr'
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----------
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Impervious cover estimate (%)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ---------- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ---------- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Rosgen Classification
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- B5c ----- ----- ----- -----
----- B5c ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- B5c ----- -----
BFVelocity (fps)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
4 ----- ----- 6.0 ----- -----
----- 3.7 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BFDischarge (cfs)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 10.4 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
ValleyLength
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 117.0 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 143.34 ----- -----
Channellength (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 119.18 ----- -----
Sinuosity
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
1.1 ----- ----- 1.3 ----- -----
----- 1.20 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 0.8314497 ----- -----
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 0.047 ----- ----- ----------
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BEslope (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ---- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BankfullFloodplain Area (acres)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BEHIVL%/L%/M%/H%/VH%/E°
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----------
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Biological or Other
-----
I ----- ----- -----
I ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
---- - ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----I
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
* 1999 Regional Crave and Esitmate from Revised Regional Curve. See Mitigation Plan for more information.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
December 2019, MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 7

Table lla. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No ED. 96313
Stream Reach
Reach 4
Cross-section X-1 (Riffle)
Cross-section X-2 (Pool)
Cross-section X-3 (Riffle)
Dimension and substrate
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3 MY4 MY5
MY+
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3 MY4
MY5 MY+
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3 MY4
MY-5 MY+
Based on £reed baseline bankfull elevation
BF Width (ft)
7.2
8.1
7.0
7.0
11.6
12.8
12.3
14.30
9.5
12.49
10.6
11.0
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.9
0.8
0.9
0.8
0.9
0.58
0.7
0.6
Width/Depth Ratio
15.4
19.4
16.5
19.6
12.7
15.6
14.4
18.3
11
21.5
16.1
19.2
BF Cross -sectional Area (ff)
3.3
3.4
3.0
2.5
10.5
10.5
10.5
11.1
8.2
7.25
6.9
6.3
BF Max Depth (ft)
0.8
0.9
0.7
0.6
2
2.5
2.7
2.6
1.6
1.21
1.1
1.2
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
31.3
58.8
46.3
45.7
-
-
-
-
66.2
66.1
65.6
65.6
Entrenchment Ratio (MYl will provide standard)*
4.4
5.9
6.6
6.6
-
-
-
-
7.0
5.3
6.2
5.9
Bank Height Ratio (MYI will provide standard)*
1
1.0
1.0
0.9
-
-
-
-
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
7.4
8.5
7.2
7.1
12.6
15.3
15.0
16.8
10.1
13.0
11.0
11.5
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.5
Cross Sectional Area between end pins (ft)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
d50 (mm)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Stream Reach
Reach 4
Reach 3
Cross-section X-4 (Riffle)
Cross-section X-5 (Riffle)
Cross-section X-6 (Pool)
Cross-section X-7 (Riffle)
Dimension and substrate
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3 MY4 MY5
MY+
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3 MY4
MY5 MY+
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3 MY4
MY5 MY+
Base
MY
MY2
MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
BF Width (ft)
8.7
9.16
8.8
8.8
11.8
10.93
11.6
14.5
12.5
12.9
12.4
12.7
11.2
11.5
9.7
9.3
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.8
0.73
0.6
0.6
1.1
0.75
0.7
0.5
0.9
1.1
1.1
1.1
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
Width/Depth Ratio
11.6
12.55
13.6
15.3
11
14.57
17.7
26.9
14
11.6
11.2
11.1
18.6
21.3
21.0
18.3
BF Cross -sectional Area (ft')
6.6
6.72
5.6
5.0
12.7
8.18
7.5
7.8
11.2
14.4
13.7
14.5
6.8
6.2
4.5
4.8
BF Max Depth (ft)
1.4
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.7
1.08
1.1
1.0
1.3
2.4
2.2
2.2
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.8
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
65.8
72.0
67.5
66.1
68.1
69.3
68.3
68.3
-
-
-
-
89.9
89.9
89.9
89.9
Entrenchment Ratio (MYl will provide standard)*
7.6
7.4
7.7
7.5
5.8
6.3
5.9
4.7
-
-
-
-
8
7.8
9.3
9.7
Bank Height Ratio (MYI will provide standard)*
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
-
-
-
-
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
9.4
6.94
9.2
9.1
12.8
11.47
12
14.9
13.0
13.92
13.4
13.7
11.6
11.8
10.1
9.6
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
1.0
0.71
0.6
0.5
0.9
1.03
1.0
1.1
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.5
Cross Sectional Area between end pins (ft)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
d50 (mm)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Stream Reach
Reach 3
Cross-section X-8 (Riffle)
Cross-section
X-9 (Pool)
Cross-section X-10 (Riffle)
Cross-section
X-11 (Riffle)
Dimension and substrate
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+
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
BF Width (ft)
10.60
10.05
9.8
9.5
17.60
15.3
14.5
15.1
11.60
11.5
10
10.3
9.30
11.7
10.5
9.7
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.90
0.71
0.7
0.7
1.00
1.1
1.2
1.1
0.60
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.90
0.7
0.6
0.7
Width/Depth Ratio
11.5
14.15
15.1
13.5
17.7
13.5
12.1
13.7
19.2
19.2
20.8
17.9
10.8
17.2
18.5
14.5
BF Cross -sectional Area (ft)
9.8
7.16
6.4
6.7
17.5
172
17.3
16.7
7.0
6.9
4.8
5.9
8.1
8.0
6.0
6.6
BF Max Depth (ft)
1.30
1.05
1.1
1.2
2.20
2.4
2.5
2.5
1.30
1.1
1
1.1
1.30
1.2
1.2
1.2
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
86.6
89.5
88.3
87.1
-
-
-
-
51.6
67.5
50.9
52.3
65.6
87.3
65.2
65.7
Entrenchment Ratio (MYl will provide standard)*
8.2
8.5
9.0
9.2
-
-
-
-
4.4
4.5
5.1
5.1
7.0
5.5
6.2
6.7
Bank Height Ratio (MYI will provide standard)*
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
-
-
-
-
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
11.2
11.3
10.6
9.9
18.2
11.3
15.9
16.1
12.0
11.9
10.2
10.6
9.9
12.3
11.0
10.3
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.9
0.6
0.6
0.7
1.0
0.6
1.1
1.0
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.8
0.7
0.5
0.6
Cross Sectional Area between end pins (ft")
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
d50 (mm)
-
-
-
-I
-
-
-
-I
-
-
-
-I
-
-
-
-
*Per DMS/IRT request, bank height ratio is calculated by setting
the current bankfull area to match the asbuilt bankfull area and dividing b
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
December 2019, MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 7

Table Ila. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No ID. 96313
Table Ila continued. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No ID. 96313
Stream Reach
Reach Tl
Reach 1
Cross-section X-12 (Riffle)
Cross-section X-13 (Pool)
Cross-section X-14 (Riffle)
Cross-section X-15 (Pool)
Dimension and substrate
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3 MY4 MYS
MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3 MY4
MY5 MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3 MY4
MY5 MY+
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Based on rued baseline bankfull elevation
BF Width (ft)
77
6.7
6.4
6.9
19.6
18.7
17.3
17.6
13.80
14.7
13.1
122
29.4
24.3
22.8
22.4
BF Mean Depth (ft)
07
0.6
0.5
0.5
12
0.9
0.6
1.0
0.90
0.9
0.9
1.0
1.1
0.9
0.7
0.7
Width/DepthRatio
117
11
12.1
14.1
16.4
20.6
29
16.9
15.2
17.3
14
12.5
26.1
28.3
31.8
30.8
BF Cross -sectional Area (fe)
5.1
4.1
3.4
3.4
23.5
17.1
10.3
18.3
12.5
12.5
12.3
11.8
33.2
20.8
16.3
16.3
BF Max Depth (ft)
12
1.1
0.8
0.8
2.8
1.7
2.0
3
1.70
1.6
0.9
1.8
2.80
2.5
1.8
1.5
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
39.9
49.4
34.7
33.4
-
-
-
-
100.0
73.1
73.2
73.1
100.0
93.8
92.5
87.5
Entrenchment Ratio (MY1 will provide standard)*
52
5.4
5.4
4.9
-
-
-
-
5.3
5.0
5.6
6.0
-
-
-
-
Bank Height Ratio (MYI will provide standard)*
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
-
-
-
-
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
-
-
-
-
Wetted perimeter (ft)
8.5
7.18
6.7
7.2
21.0
19.4
18.1
20.2
14.4
15.4
13.9
13.0
30.5
25.7
23.7
23.0
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.6
0.57
0.5
0.5
1.1
0.9
0.6
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.9
0.9
1.1
0.8
0.7
0.7
Cross Sectional Area between end pins (ft")
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
d50 (mm)
-
-
-
-I
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Stream Reach
Reach 1
Cross-section X-16 (Riffle)
Cross-section
X-17 (Riffle)
Dimension and substrate
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3 MY4 MY5
MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3 MY4
MY5 MY+
Based on rued baseline bankfull elevation
BF Width (ft)
12.6
11.9
19.7
11.6
12.60
12.2
12.1
12.6
BF Mean Depth (ft)
1.1
1.09
0.7
1.0
1.20
1.2
1.1
1.0
Width/Depth Ratio
12.0
10.9
26.6
11.3
10.9
10.3
10.6
13.0
BF Cross -sectional Area (ff)
13.2
13
14.6
12.0
14.5
14.6
13.9
12.2
BF Max Depth (ft)
1.70
1.8
1.8
1.7
1.70
2
2.1
1.7
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
100.0
71.4
71.3
71.3
100.0
68.6
68.5
68.5
Entrenchment Ratio (MY1 will provide standard)*
5.7
6
3.6
6.1
5.4
5.6
5.7
5.5
Bank Height Ratio (MYI will provide standard)*
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Wetted perimeter (ft)
13.5
13.0
20.4
12.4
13.3
13.1
13.2
13.7
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
1.0
1.0
0.9
1
1.1
1.1
1.1
0.9
Cross Sectional Area between end pins (ft)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
d50 (mm)
-
-
-
-
I -
-
-
-
er DMS/dRT request, bank height ratio is calculated by setting the current bankfull area to match the asbuilt bankfull area and dividing b
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
December 2019, MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 7

Table llb. Stream Reach Morphology Summary
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No ID. 96313
Reach 4
Parameter
Baseline
MY-1
MY-2
MY- 3
MY- 4
MY- 5
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle only
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD"
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD'
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Bankfull Width (ft)
7.2
9.3
9.1
11.8
1.7
4
8.1
10.2
10.0
12.5
1.7
4
7
9.5
9.7
11.6
1.8
4
7
10.33
9.9
14.5
2.8
4
Floodprone Width (ft)
31.3
57.9
66.0
68.1
15.4
4
58.8
66.6
67.7
72.0
4.9
4
46.3
61.93
66.55
68.3
9.1
4
45.7
61.43
65.85
68.3
9.1
4
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.5
0.8
0.9
1.1
0.2
4
0.4
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.1
4
0.4
0.6
0.65
0.7
0.1
4
0.4
0.525
0.55
0.6
0.1
4
1Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
0.8
1.4
1.5
1.7
0.3
4
0.9
1.1
1.1
1.2
0.1
4
0.7
0.975
1.05
1.1
0.2
4
0.6
0.925
0.95
1.2
0.2
4
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (fe)
3.3
7.7
7.4
12.7
3.4
4
3.4
6.4
7.0
8.2
1.8
4
3
5.75
6.25
7.5
1.7
4
0.6
0.925
0.95
1.2
0.2
4
Width/Depth Rati
11.0
12.3
11.3
15.4
1.8
4
12.6
17.0
17.0
21.5
3.6
4
13.6
15.98
16.3
17.7
1.5
4
0.6
0.925
0.95
1.2
0.2
4
Entrenchment Ratio (MYI will provide standard)*
4.4
6.2
6.4
7.6
1.2
4
5.3
6.2
6.1
7.4
0.8
4
5.9
6.6
6.4
7.7
0.7
4
4.7
6.175
6.25
7.5
1.0
4
Bank Height Ratio (MY1 will provide standard)
1
1
1
1
0
4
1
1
1
1
0
4
1
1
1
1
0
4
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0
4
Profile
Riffle Length (ft
Riffle Slope (ft/ft
Pool Length (ft
Pool Max depth (ft
Pool Spacing (ft
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft
Radius of Curvature (ft)
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft
Meander Wavelength (ft
Meander Width Rati
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classificatio
Channel Thalweg length (ft'
Sinuosity (ft'
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft
BE slope (ft/ft
3Ri%/Ru%/PWMetri
3SC% / Sa% / G%/ C%
3dl6 / d35 / d50
Z % of Reach with Er
Channel Stability or HBiolog
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile.
2 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
4. = Of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3
Per DMSART request, bank height ratio is calculated by setting the current bankfull area to match the asbuilt bankfull area and dividing by
the current max depth.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
December 2019, MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 7

Table llb continued. Stream Reach Morphology Summary
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No ID. 96313
Reach 3
Parameter
Baseline
MY-1
MY-2
N1Y- 3
N1Y- 4
N1Y- 5
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle only
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD"
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD"
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD"
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD"
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD'
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD'
n
Bankfull Width (ft
9.3
10.7
10.9
11.6
0.9
4
10.1
11.2
11.5
11.7
0.7
4
9.7
10.0
9.9
10.5
0.3
4.0
9.3
9.7
9.6
10.3
0.4
4.0
Floodprone Width (ft
51.6
73.4
76.1
89.9
15.7
4
67.5
83.5
88.4
89.9
9.3
4
50.9
73.6
76.8
89.9
16.3
4.0
52.3
73.8
76.4
89.9
15.5
4.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.6
0.8
0.8
0.9
0.2
4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.1
4
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.1
4.0
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.1
4.0
1Bankfull Max Depth (ft
1.1
1.3
1.3
1.3
0.1
4
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.2
0.1
4
0.9
1.1
1.1
1.2
0.1
4.0
0.8
1.1
1.2
1.2
0.2
4.0
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ff)
6.8
7.9
7.6
9.8
1.2
4
6.2
7.1
7.0
8.0
0.6
4
4.5
5.4
5.4
6.4
0.8
4.0
4.8
6.0
6.3
6.7
0.8
4.0
Width/Depth Rati
10.8
15.0
15.1
19.2
3.9
4
14.2
18.0
18.2
21.3
2.6
4
15.1
18.9
19.7
21.0
2.4
4.0k13.
16.1
16.2
18.3
2.1
4.0
Entrenchment Ratio (MYI will provide standard)*
4.4
6.9
7.5
8.2
1.5
4
4.5
6.6
6.7
8.5
1.6
4
5.1
7.4
7.6
9.3
1.8
4.0
7.7
8.0
9.7
1.9
4.0
Bank Height Ratio (MY1 will provide standard)
1
1
1
1
0
4
1
1
1
1
0
4
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
4.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
0.0
4.0
Profile
Riffle Length (ft
Riffle Slope (ft/ft
Pool Length (ft'
Pool Max depth (ft'
Pool Spacing (ft
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft
Radius of Curvature (ft)
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft
Meander Wavelength (ft
Meander Width Rati
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classificatio
Channel Thalweg length (ft'
Sinuosity (ft'
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft
BE slope (ft/ft,
3Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
3SC% / Sa% / G%/ C% / B% / Be%
3d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
Z % of Reach with Eroding Bank
Channel Stability or Habitat Metri
Biological or Othe
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile.
2 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
4. = Of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3
Per DMS/IRT request, bank height ratio is calculated by setting the current bankfull area to match the asbuilt bankfull area and dividing by
the current max depth.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
December 2019, MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 7

Table llb continued. Stream Reach Morphology Summary
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No ID. 96313
Reach 1
Parameter
Baseline
MY-1
MY-2
lkfY- 3
N'IY- 4
lkfY- 5
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle only
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD"
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD'
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD'
n
Bankfull Width (ft)
12.6
13.0
12.6
13.8
0.6
3
11.9
12.9
12.2
14.7
1.3
3
12.1
15.0
13.1
19.7
3.4
3.0
11.6
12.1
12.2
12.6
0.4
3.0
Floodprone Width (ft)
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
0.0
3
68.6
71.0
71.4
73.1
1.9
3
68.5
71.0
71.3
73.2
1.9
3.0
68.5
71.0
71.3
73.1
1.9
3.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.9
1.1
1.1
1.2
0.1
3
0.9
1.1
1.1
1.2
0.1
3
0.7
0.9
0.9
1.1
0.2
3.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
3.0
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
0.0
1 3
1.6
1.8L5.6
2.0
0.2
3
0.9
1.6
1.8
2.1
0.5
3.0
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.8
0.0
3.0
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ff)
12.5
13.4
13.2
14.5
0.8
3
12.5
13.4
14.6
0.9
3
12.3
13.6
13.9
14.6
1.0
3.0
11.8
12.0
12.0
12.2
0.2
3.0
Width/Depth Ratio
10.9
12.7
12.0
15.2
1.8
3
10.3
12.8
17.3
3.2
3
10.6
17.1
14.0
26.6
6.9
3.0
11.3
12.3
12.5
13.0
0.7
3.0
Entrenchment Ratio (MYI will provide standard)*
5.3
5.5
5.4
5.7
0.2
3
5.0
5.5
6.0
0.4
3
3.6
5.0
5.6
5.7
1.0
3.0
5.5
5.9
6.0
6.1
0.3
3.0
Bank Height Ratio (MY1 will provide standard)
1
1
1
1
0
3
1
1
1
0
3
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
3.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
3.0
Riffle Length (ft
Riffle Slope (ft/ft
Pool Length (ft
Pool Max depth (ft'
Pool Spacing (ft
Pattern jmmd
Channel Beltwidth (ft
Radius of Curvature (ft)
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft
Meander Wavelength (ft
Meander Width Rati
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classificatio
Channel Thalweg length (ft'
Sinuosity (ft]
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft
BE slope (ft/ft
3Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
3SC% / Sa% / G%/ C% / B% / Be%
3dl6 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
Z % of Reach with Eroding Bank
Channel Stability or Habitat Metri
Biological or Othe
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile.
2 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
4. = Of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3
Per DMS/IRT request, bank height ratio is calculated by setting the current bankfull area to match the asbuilt bankfull area and dividing t
the current max depth.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
December 2019, MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 7

Appendix E
Hydrologic Data

Table 12. Verification of Bankfull Events
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No ID. 96313
Date of Collection
Reachl Crest Gauge (feet
Approximate Date of Occurrence (Source:
Method of Data
ABOVE bankfull
on -site rain gauge)
Collection
Year 1 Monitoring (2017)
Crest Gauge
6/7/2017
0.46
4/25/2017
Measurement
Crest Gauge
10/3/2017
0.22
8/17/2017
Measurement
Year 2 Monitoring (2018)
Crest Gauge
3/22/2018
0.35
2/7/2018
Measurement
Crest Gauge
10/22/2018
0.4
9/16/2018 (Hurricane Florance)
Measurement
Crest Gauge
11/16/2018
0.78
10/26/2018
Measurement
Year 3 Monitoring (2019)
Crest Gauge
3/28/2019
0.74
1/24/2019
Measurement
Crest Gauge
10/17/2019
0.94
6/8/2019
Measurement
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
DECEMBER 2019, MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 7

Table 13. Flow Gauge Success (MY3-2019)
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 96313
Flow Gauge ID Consecutive Days of Flow'
Cumulative Days of F1ow2
R4 Gauge
B SFL 1 140 199
T3 Gauge
BSFL2 198 284
TI Gauge
BSFL3 289 289
Notes:
'Indicates the number of consecutive days within the monitoring year where flow was measured.
ZIndicates the number of cumulative days within the monitoring year where flow was measured.
Flow success criteria for the Site is stated as: 30 days of consecutive baseflow for monitoring wells installed in T1 and T3 during a
normal rainfall year.
* Surface water flow is estimated to have occurred when the pressure transducer reading is equal to or above 0.05 feet in depth.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
DECEMBER 2019, MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 7

Table 14. Flow Gauge Success
Browns Summit Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 96313
Flow Gauge ID
Most Consecutive Days Meeting Criteria'
Cumulative Days Meeting Criteria
Year 1
2017
Year 2
2018
Year 3
2019
Year 4
2020
Year 5
2021
1 Year 6
2022
Year 7
2023
Year jL[
2017
Year 2
2018
Year 3
2019
Year 4
2020
Year 5
2021
Year 6
2022
Year 7
2023
Flow Gauges (Installed March 4, 2017)
BSFL1
127.0
122.0
140.0
171.0
248.0
199.0
BSFL2
166.0
158.0
198.0
173.0
303.0
284.0
BSFL3
263.0
319.0
289.0
263.0
319.0
289.0
Notes:
'Indicates the number of consecutive days within the monitoring year where flow was measured.
Indicates the number of cumulative days within the monitoring year where flow was measured.
Success Criteria per Browns Summit Mitigation Plan (1/13/2016): "Success criteria wil include 30 days of consecutive baseflow for monitorng wells installed in TI and T3 during a normal rainfall year."
12
Surface water flow is estimated to have occurred when the pressure transducer reading is equal to or above 0.05 feet in depth.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
DECEMBER 2019, MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 7

Figure 6. Flow Gauge Graphs
Daily Rain
1/1/2019
2/15/2019 4/1/2019 5/16/2019 6/30/2019 8/14/2019
9/28/2019 11/12/2019 12/27/2019
0.0
0.5
-
---
1.0
-
- --
-
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
-
Rain data from onsite rain gauge at the Browns Summit site
Browns Summit Restoration Site
1.00
In -channel Flow Gauges -ALL
0.95
—Min Flow - 0.05 feet
0.90
-
—BSFL1
0.85
- — —
- -
0.80
C
_
—BSFL2
0.75
-
- — .. - --
— --- - -
-
BSFL3
_
0.70
-
- - --- -
-
t
0.65.—
r
r
G
0.60
0.55
— —
L
0.50
0.45
>
>�
0.40
0.35
U
i
0.30
Au
7
0.25
U)
0.20
0.15
All
0.10
0.05
0.00
1/1/2019
2/15/2019 4/1/2019 5/16/2019 6/30/2019 8/14/2019
9/28/2019 11/12/2019 12/27/2019
Date
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DIMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
DECEMBER 2019, MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 7

Figure 6. Flow Gauge Graphs Continued
Daily Rain
1/1/2019 2/15/2019 4/1/2019 5/16/2019 6/30/2019 8/14/2019 9/28/2019 11/12/2019 12/27/2019
0.0
0.5
- - -
1.0
- -- -
= 1.5
2.0
2.5
� 3.0
Rain data from onsite rain gauge at the Browns Summit site
Browns Summit Restoration Site
In -channel Flow Gauge BSFL1
1.00
0.95
-Min Flow - 0.05 feet
0.90
0.90
BSFL1
YR3 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
0.80
CRITERIA MET- 140
,-. 0.75
(1/1/2019 - 5/20/2019)
0.70
_
0.65
t
r
0.60
Q.
G 0.55
0.50
0.45
0.40
0.35
y
U 0.30
i 0.25
7
0.20
cl)
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
1/1/2019 2/15/2019 4/1/2019 5/16/2019 6/30/2019 8/14/2019 9/28/2019 11/12/2019 12/27/2019
Date
* Surface water flow is estimated to have occurred when the pressure transducer reading is equal to or above 0.05 feet in depth.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
DECEMBER 2019, MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 7

Figure 6. Flow Gauge Graphs Continued
Daily Rain
1/1/2019 2/15/2019 4/1/2019 5/16/2019 6/30/2019 8/14/2019 9/28/2019 11/12/2019 12/27/2019
0.0
,-. 0.5
- --- - --- - - ----- - ---- - -
1.0
------ ---- --- ----- ------ - ---- - -
- 1.5
..... .... _.................... .-..---..-..-.-..---..-.-..-----._.-...-.....-..-.....---------.-.-.-...-.-.-.-.-.-....
2.0
--- ------ ------
2.5
3.0
--- -----
Rain data from onsite rain gauge at the Browns Summit site
Browns Summit Restoration Site
In -channel Flow Gauge BSFL2
1.00
0.95
—Min Flow - 0.05 feet
YR3 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
CRITERIA MET- 198
0.90
0.85
0.80
—BSFL2
,-. 0.75
(1/1/2019 - 7/18/2019)
0.70
_
0.65
t
r
0.60
Q.
G 0.55
0.50
0.45
0.40
AM
0.35
LA
y
UIll
0.30
,
i 0.25
7
0.20
cn
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
1/1/2019 2/15/2019 4/1/2019 5/16/2019 6/30/2019 8/14/2019 9/28/2019 11/12/2019 12/27/2019
Date
* Surface water flow is estimated to have occurred when the pressure transducer reading is equal to or above 0.05 feet in depth.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
DECEMBER 2019, MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 7

Figure 6. Flow Gauge Graphs Continued
Daily Rain
1/1/2019 2/15/2019 4/1/2019 5/16/2019 6/30/2019 8/14/2019
9/28/2019 11/12/2019 12/27/2019
0.0
,-.
0.5
- --- - --- - - -----
- ---- - -
1.0
------ ---- --- ----- ------
- ---- - -
-
1.5
..... .... _.................... .-..---..-..-.-..---..-.-..-----._.-...-.....-..-.....---------.-.-.-...-.-.-.-.-.-....
2.0
--- ------ ------
2.5
3.0
--- -----
Rain data from onsite rain gauge at the Browns Summit site
Browns Summit Restoratoin Site
In -channel Flow Gauge BSFL3
1.00
0.95
0.90
—Min Flow - 0.05 feet
0.85
0.80
—BSFL3
0.75
,-.
0.70
_
0.65
t
r
0.60
Q.
G
0.55
0.50
1.0
i
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
YR3 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
CRITERIA MET- 289
(1/1/2019 - 10/17/2019)
7
0.20
cl)
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
1/1/2019 2/15/2019
4/1/2019 5/16/2019 6/30/2019 8/14/2019
9/28/2019 11/12/2019 12/27/2019
Date
* Surface water flow is estimated to have occurred when the pressure transducer reading is equal to or above 0.05 feet in depth.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
DECEMBER 2019, MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 7

15. Wetland Restoration Area Success (2019)
ad Restoration Area Success
is Summit Restoration Project: DAIS Project ID No. 95019
Percentage of Percentage of
Most Consecutive Mecuinimum
Consecutive Days Cumulative Days <12
Well ID <12 inches from Days Meeting Constive Days inches from Ground Cumulative Days Meeting
Criteria' for Success
Ground Surface' Surface'
Groundwater Monitoring Wells (Installed March 2017)
W4 (12% Criteria) 88.6 209 28 88.6 209
W5 (12% Criteria) 88.6 209 28 88.6 209
W6 (12% Criteria) 48.5 115 28 71.6 169
IN (12% Criteria) 88.6 209 28 88.6 209
sates the percentage of most consecutive or cumulative number of days within the monitored growing season with a water 12 inches or less
the soil surface.
sates the most consecutive number of days within the monitored growing season with a water table 12 inches or less from the soil surface.
sates the cumulative number of days within the monitored growing season with a water table 12 inches or less from the soil surface.
sates the number of instances within the monitored growing season when the water table rose to 12 inches or less from the soil surface.
tW 2 malfunctioned (7/3/2019) but has been replaced on (10/30/2019) to capture well data during monitoring year 4.
rding to the Site Mitigation Plan, the growing season for Guilford County is from March 22 to November 13 and is 236 days long. 12% of the
ing season is 28 days and 9 % of the growing season is 21 days.
BLIGHTED indicates wells that did notmeet the success criteria for the most consecutive number of days within the monitored growing
m with water 12 inches `r le- fr"m the sM s"rtacC.
season for Guilford County is 3/22 - 11/13
season is 236 days long; 12% of 236 days =28 days
;seasonis 236 dayslong; 9%of 236 days =21 days
Consective Days <12" from Ground Surface
BSAW1 (9% Criteria)
BSAW2(12%Criteria)* _
BSAW3 (12% Criteria)
BSAW4 (12% Criteria)
■ DAYS
BSAW5 (12%Criteria )
BSAW6 (12%Criteria)
BSAW7 (12%Criteria)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
Cumulative Days <12" from Ground Surface
BSAW1(9%
Criteria) A
BSAW2 (12%
Criteria)•
BSAW3 (12%
Criteria)
BSAW4 (12%
Criteria) ■ DAYS
BSAW5 (12%
Criteria)
BSAW6 (12%
Criteria)
BSAW7 (12%
Criteria)
0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60 66 72 78 84 90 96
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
DECEMBER 2019, MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 7

Table 16. Weiland Restoration Area Success
Browns Summit Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 96313
Percentage of Consecutive Days<12 inches from Gcoua d Smf-0
Most Consecutive Days Meeting Criteria-
Peceearage of Comolative Days<12 inches from Grouad Surface`
Cumulative Days Meeting Criteria'
W ell ID
Year 1
(2017)
Year 2
(2018)
Yeac 3
(2019)
Yeac 4
(2020)
Yeac 5
(2021)
Yeac 6
(2022)
Yeac 7
(2023)
Year 1
(2017)
Yeac 2
(201>i)
Yeac 3
(2019)
Yeac 4
(2020)
1 Year 5
(2021)
1 Yeac 6
(2022)
1 Yeac 7
(2023)
Yeac 1
(2017)
Yeac 2
(2019)
Year 3
(2019)
Yeac 4
(2020)
Yeac 5
(2021)
Yeac 6
(2022)
Yeac 7
(2023)
Yeac 1
(2017)
Yeac 2
(2018)
Yeac 3
(2019)
Yeac 4
(2020)
Yeac 5
(2021)
Yeac 6
(2022)
Yeac 7
(2023)
Type 5 3.5:1 Ratio -Success Criteria 9% of Growin Season
IRSAW1 44.7 45.1 88.6 105 5 106.5 209.0 74.8 80.5 88.6 176.5 190.0 209.0
T e 4 1:1 Ratio - Success Criteria 12% of Growin Season
BSAW2• 3.2 6.8 7.2 7.5 16.0 17.0 13.8 38.8 18.4 32.5 91.5 43.5
T e 2 1.5:1 Ratio - Success Criteria 12% of Growin Season
BSAW3 47.7 48.7 83.1 112.5 115.0 196.0 91.7 97.9 87.7 216.5 231.0 207.0
Type 3 1.5:1 Ratio
- Success
Criteria
12%
of Growl
Season
BSAW4
88.6
100.0
88.6
209.0
236.0
209.0
88.6
100.0
88.6
209.0
236.0
209.0
BSAWS
34.1
48.7
88.6
80.5
115.0
209.0
73.7
It ,
88.6
174.0
2M B
209A
BSAW6
46.0
48.7
48.7
108.5
115.0
115.0
89.4
919
71.6
211.0
217.0
169.0
BSAW7
51.1
48.7
88.6
120.5
115.0
209.0
91.1
91.7
88.6
215.0
216.5
209.0
Notes:
'BSA W 2 malfunctioned (7/3/2019) but has been replaced on (10/30/2019) to capture well data during monitoring year 4.
'Indicates the percentage of most consecutive or cmnulative number of days within the monitored growing season with a water 12 inches or less from the soil surface.
2Indicates the most consecutive number ofdays within the monitored growing season with a water table 12 inches or less from the soil surface.
'Indicates the cumulative number ofdays within the monitored growing season with a water table 12 inches or lessfrom the soil surface.
According to the Baseline Monitoring Report, the growing season for Guilford County is from March 22 to November 13
and is 229 days long. 12% of the growing season is 28 days and 9% ofthe growing season is 21 days.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
DECEMBER 2019, MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 7

Figure 7. Wetland Restoration Graphs (2019) Continued
Rain
1/1/2019 2/15/2019
4/1/2019 5/16/2019
6/30/2019 8/14/2019 9/28/2019
11/12/2019 12/27/2019
0.0
..
1.0 - ---
---- —
--- - --- -- -- ---- - ----- - - - - -
- -- - ---- --- — - -- — -
2.0 -----
- ---- - - --
------ ------ ------------- - ----- - - - - -
- -- - ---- --- — - -- — -
JT
3.0
..... ........... _..................... _..................... _.....................
_..................... _..................... _..................... _................ _... ..................................... ..................
.................. .................. .................. .................
.5
R
5.0
Rain data from onsite rain gauge at the Browns Summit site
Browns Summit Wetland Restoration Well
(BSAW1)
10
Ground
5
I
I Surface
0
-12 inches
c
-5
L
a?
-10
BSAW1
-15
I
I
— — Begin
(�
-20
Growing
0
-25
Season
t
YR3 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
-30
CRITERIA MET- 120 (50.8%)
I End
y=
Growing
0
3/22/2019 - 7/19/2019
I Season
-35
-40 GROWING SEASON
-45 (3/22 - 11/13)
I
I
-50
1/1/2019 2/15/2019
4/1/2019 5/16/2019
6/30/2019 8/14/2019 9/28/2019
11/12/2019 12/27/2019
Date
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
DECEMBER 2019, MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 7

Figure 7. Wetland Restoration Graphs (2019) Continued
Rain
1/1/2019 2/15/2019 4/1/2019 5/16/2019
6/30/2019 8/14/2019 9/28/2019
11/12/2019 12/27/2019
0.0
..
1.0 ............................._ . .......... .._._..
._.._...._._.._. _._.._. ........... -......................-....._....._.._.__._._._..._._.__._._._......_._.__._._._......_._.__._._._......_._.__._._._._..._._.__._._._._..._
2.0 -- ------ ---- - — -- ---- --
--- ----------------- ----- - - — - ---
- - - -- ---- --- —
JT
3.0
---
--- -- - ---- ------ -
R
5.0
Rain data from onsite rain gauge at the Browns Summit site
Browns Summit Wetland Restoration Well
(BSAW2)
10
Ground
5
I Surface
o
I
-12 inches
c
-5
L
a?
-10
BSAW2
c
-15
I
— — Begin
(�
-20
Growing
G
-25
Season
t
YR3 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
-30 CRITERIA MET 17 (7.2%)
End
y=
0
4/5/2019 - 4/21/2019
Growing
I Season
-35
-40 GROWING SEASON
-45 (3/22 - 11/13)
I
I
-50
1/1/2019 2/15/2019 4/1/2019 5/16/2019
6/30/2019 8/14/2019 9/28/2019
11/12/2019 12/27/2019
Date
*BSAW 2 died (7/3/2019) but has been replaced on (10/30/2019) to capture well data during monitoring year 4.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
DECEMBER 2019, MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 7

Fi ure 7. Wetland Restoration Graphs
2019 Continued
Rain
1/1/2019 2/15/2019
4/1/2019 5/16/2019 6/30/2019 8/14/2019 9/28/2019
11/12/2019 12/27/2019
0.0
..
1.0 ---
- - - - III --- --- ----- ----- -
--- - -
2.0 -----
-- -- ------------------ ------
-- - --- - -
3.0
- -
- --- -- - ---- ------ -
4.0
5.0
Rain data from onsite rain gauge at the Browns Summit site
Browns Summit Wetland Restoration Well
(BSAW3)
10
Ground
5
I Surface
0I
INV wf�c
I -12 inches
c
-
L
a;
-10
BSAW3
-15
I
I
o
— — Begin
(D
-20
Growing
Season
rc
-25
y=
-30
I YR3 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
End
I Growing
0
I CRITERIA MET - 196 (83.1%)
I Season
-35
3/22/2019 - 10/3/2019
-40 GROWING SEASON
-45 (3/22 - 11/13)
I
I
-50
1/1/2019 2/15/2019
4/1/2019 5/16/2019 6/30/2019 8/14/2019 9/28/2019
11/12/2019 12/27/2019
Date
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
DECEMBER 2019, MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 7

Figure 7. Wetland Restoration Graphs (2019) Continued
Rain
1/1/2019 2/15/2019 4/1/2019 5/16/2019
6/30/2019 8/14/2019 9/28/2019
11/12/2019 12/27/2019
0.0
1.0
I - -- ---- ---- ----- - - —
2.0
-------------- ----- --- - ----
---- ---- ----
T3.0
---
--- -- - ---- ------
4.0
5.0
Rain data from onsite rain gauge at the Browns Summit site
Browns Summit Wetland Restoration Well
(BSAW4)
10
Ground
5 I
I Surface
o I
-12 inches
c
-5
L
a;
-10
BSAW4
-15
I
I
— — Begin
(�
-20
Growing
0
Season
r
-25
Q-
-30
— End
0
I
YR3 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
I Growing
-35
CRITERIA MET- 209 (88.6%)
Season
3/22/2019 - 10/17/2019
-40 GROWING SEASON
-45 (3/22 - 11/13)
I
I
-50
1/1/2019 2/15/2019 4/1/2019 5/16/2019
6/30/2019 8/14/2019 9/28/2019
11/12/2019 12/27/2019
Date
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
DECEMBER 2019, MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 7

Figure 7. Wetland Restoration Graphs (2019) Continued
Rain
1/1/2019 2/15/2019
4/1/2019 5/16/2019 6/30/2019 8/14/2019 9/28/2019
11/12/2019 12/27/2019
0.0
1.0
I - -- ---- ---- ----- - - —
2.0
-------------- ----- --- - ----
---- ---- ----
T3.0
---
--- -- - ---- ------
4.0
5.0
Rain data from onsite rain gauge at the Browns Summit site
Browns Summit Wetland Restoration Well
(BSAW5)
10
Ground
5
I Surface
0
-12 inches
c
-5
L
a?
-10
BSAW5
-15
I
I
— — Begin
(�
-20
Growing
r
-25
Season
YR3 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
Q-
-30
I CRITERIA MET- 209 (88.6%)
I — —End
0
I 3/22/2019 - 10/17/2019
I Growing
Season
-35
III
-40 GROWING SEASON
-45 (3/22 - 11/13)
I
I
-50
1/1/2019 2/15/2019
4/1/2019 5/16/2019 6/30/2019 8/14/2019 9/28/2019
11/12/2019 12/27/2019
Date
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
DECEMBER 2019, MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 7

Figure 7. Wetland Restoration Graphs (2019) Continued
Rain
1/1/2019 2/15/2019
4/1/2019 5/16/2019 6/30/2019 8/14/2019 9/28/2019
11/12/2019 12/27/2019
0.0
1.0
I - -- ---- ---- ----- - - —
2.0
-------------- ----- --- - ----
---- ---- ----
T3.0
---
--- -- - ---- ------
4.0
5.0
Rain data from onsite rain gauge at the Browns Summit site
Browns Summit Wetland Restoration Well
(BSAW6)
10
Ground
5
I
I Surface
�
I
-12 inches
c
-5
L
\-11
a?
-10IN.
BSAW6
-15
IF
IFI
o
— — Begin
(D
-20
Growing
°
r
-25
YR3 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
Season
I
I
r
CRITERIA MET - 115 (48.5%)
— End
0
-30
3/22/2019 7/14/2019
Growing
I
I
Season
-35
-40 GROWING SEASON
-45 (3/22 - 11/13)
I
I
-50
1/1/2019 2/15/2019
4/1/2019 5/16/2019 6/30/2019 8/14/2019 9/28/2019
11/12/2019 12/27/2019
Date
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
DECEMBER 2019, MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 7

Figure 7. Wetland Restoration Graphs (2019) Continued
Rain
1/1/2019 2/15/2019
4/1/2019 5/16/2019 6/30/2019 8/14/2019 9/28/2019
11/12/2019 12/27/2019
0.0
1.0
I - -- ---- ---- ----- - - -
2.0
-------------- ----- --- - ----
---- ---- ----
T3.0
---
--- -- - ---- ------
4.0
5.0
Rain data from onsite rain gauge at the Browns Summit site
Browns Summit Wetland Restoration Well
(BSAW7)
10
Ground
5
I
I Surface
o
I
-12 inches
c
-5
L
a;
-10
BSAW7
-15
I
I
o
— — Begin
(D
-20
Growing
G
r
-25
Season
t
I YR3 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
I — End
o-30
CRITERIA MET- 209 (88.6%)
Growing
-35
I
3/22/2019- 10/17/2019
I Season
-40 GROWING SEASON
-45 (3/22 - 11/13)
I
I
-50
1/1/2019 2/15/2019
4/1/2019 5/16/2019 6/30/2019 8/14/2019 9/28/2019
11/12/2019 12/27/2019
Date
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
DECEMBER 2019, MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 7

Figure 7. Wetland Restoration Graphs (2019) Continued
Rain
1/1/2019 2/15/2019 4/1/2019 5/16/2019
6/30/2019 8/14/2019 9/28/2019
11/12/2019 12/27/2019
0.0
1.0
I - -- ---- ---- ----- - - -
2.0
-------------- ----- --- - ----
---- ---- ----
T3.0
---
--- -- - ---- ------ -
4.0
5.0
Rain data from onsite rain gauge at the Browns Summit site
Browns Summit Wetland Restoration Well
(BSREF)
10
I
I Ground
5
Surface
-12 inches
c
-5
a?
-10
BSREF
c
-15
— — Begin
-20
Growing
G0I
I
Season
-25
r
=
I
- 30
I
—End
m
YR3 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
Growing
0
-35
CRITERIA MET- 209 (100%)
Season
3/22/2019 - 10/17/2019
-40 GROWING SEASON
-45 (3/22 - 11/13)
-50
1/1/2019 2/15/2019 4/1/2019 5/16/2019
6/30/2019 8/14/2019 9/28/2019
11/12/2019 12/27/2019
Date
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
DECEMBER 2019, MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 7

Figure 7. Wetland Restoration Graphs (2019)
Rain
1/1/2019 1/31/2019 3/2/2019 4/1/2019 5/1/2019 5/31/2019 6/30/2019 7/30/2019 8/29/2019 9/28/2019 10/28/2019 11/27/2019 12/27/2019
0.0
1.0
w 2.0
c
3.0
Rain data from onsite rain gauge at the Browns Summit site
Browns Summit Wetland Restoration Wells
(BSAW1 - BSAW7)
5
Ground Surface
�w`,, ti Y .� ..�, au/1►
0N0+^'° � ��► M A�"� ���� 1 I' � -12 inches
-5 ti —� BSAW1
BSAwz
i 1
�d -10 — l
�p BSAW3
C -15 I BSAW4
p ' BSAW5
iD -20 N
O BSAW6
t BSAW7
p. -25
0 — — Begin Growing
Season
-30 — — End Growing
Season
-35
1/1/2019 1/31/2019 3/2/2019 4/1/2019 5/1/2019 5/31/2019 6/30/2019 7/30/2019 8/29/2019 9/28/2019 10/28/2019 11/27/2019 12/27/2019
Date
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
DECEMBER 2019, MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 7

Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project — Hydrology Monitoring Stations
Manual Crest Gauge — Reading 3/28/19
Wrack Line Showing High Flow (7/3/2019)
Manual Crest Gauge — Reach 1, Reading 10/17/19
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96313)
DECEMBER 2019, MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 7
Wrack Line Showing High Flow (7/3/2019)