20140332 Ver 1_Year 4 Monitoring Report_2020_20210226

Mitigation Project Information Upload
ID#* 20140332 Version* 1
Select Reviewer:*
Erin Davis
Initial Review Completed Date 02/26/2021
Mitigation Project Submittal -2/26/2021
Is this a Prospectus,Technical Proposal or a New Site?* r Yes r No
Type of Mitigation Project:*
rJ Stream 17 Wetlands r Buffer r Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name:* Email Address:*
Kelly Phillips [e-mail]
Project Information
.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
ID#:* 20140332 Version:*1
Existing ID## Existing Version
Project Type: C' DMS r Mitigation Bank
Project Name: Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project
County: Guilford
Document Information
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Monitoring Report
File Upload: Browns Summit_96313_MY4_2020.pdf 23.59MB
Rease upload only one R7Fof the complete file that needs to be submitted...
Signature
Print Name:* Kelly Phillips
Signature:*
. el P 1t4os

Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project
Year 4 Monitoring Report
Guilford County,North Carolina
DMS Project ID No. 96313, DEQ Contract No. 5792
Permits: SAW-2014-01642, DWR No. 14-0332, RFP 16-005568
Cape Fear River Basin: 03030002-010020
,zYy YY
L , tad v ! �s N i ma A t
ii:t'"A ',.'..'.'-.I;,", ,,,,%::'4',- "Ii
[ y Y L � 3 ,,.4--;,,,,,,,,,,,, 1 afC roc h�5 eY A§ J' / a� �' i �A
'� k. � nx �`�t ri � :+s °,K` ; '' •Y` T. 'S','Y i 3,,,, f .� -s
'' rr sr -
.�- t',. -4 ka �� .' .,,,:,_ ,;.„4:,p. Ssw tea'„ • xf �`, , ."'r d . ��.
"' y r.. `} �lite � � . � %s.. �K' y f r ,mac "'!y K
z.
" 'c am" F a i ' 3 - o- s�fs.`r' ..
;,r! P +' i ., .
1 •,• ,ems
— s
:m
Project Info: Monitoring Year: 4 of 7
Year of Data Collection: 2020
Year of Completed Construction(including planting): 2017
Submission Date: December 2020
Submitted To: NCDEQ -Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh,NC 27699-1652

Michael Baker Engineering,Inc.
Michael Baker 8000 Regency Parkway,Suite 600,Cary NC 27518
INTERNATIONAL Office:919.463.5488 I Fax:[phone]
February 22, 2021
Kelly Phillips
NCDEQ- Division of Mitigation Services
232 State Park Road
Troutman, NC 28166
Subject:Response to Task 10 Draft Year 4 Monitoring Report Comments for Browns Summit
(DMS#96313) Cape Fear River Basin; CU 03030002; Guilford County, North
Carolina Contract No. 005792
Dear Mr. Phillips:
Please find enclosed our responses to the Year 4 Monitoring Report Comments dated January 27, 2021
regarding the Browns Summit Creek Mitigation Project. We have revised the Year 4 Monitoring Report
document in response to this review.
Comment: Cover Sheet: Please add the RFP# to the cover sheet.
Response: RFP: 16-005568 has been added to the cover sheet as requested.
Comment: Section 1.0 Executive Summary: Please identf the thermal regime (warm) in the
project summary information.
Response: Warm-temperature thermal regime has been added to the executive summary.
Comment: Section 1.0 Executive Summary: The report indicates well BSAW8 was installed
during MY4 in an adjacent wetland. Please include the location of this well on a figure and
provide an interpretation of the data relative to the site.
Response: BSAW8 (MW8) has been added to the CCPV along with a written description located
in the executive summary.
Comment: Section 2.1.4 Visual Assessment:Add discussion for the Reach 2 grade control
structure identified in Table 5 as not functioning. Evaluate any concern associated with the
reduced function of the structure and potential impact on the system.
Response: Reach 2 grade control failed during MY3 but repaired in MY4. Table 5 has been
updated to show no structures failing.
Comment:Appendix A - CCPV: Indicate the location of the Reach 2 structure of concern on the
CCPV.
Response: See above response to comment.
Page 1

Michael Baker
We Make a Difference
INTERNATIONAL
Comment:Appendix A - Table 1:Please take credit calculations out to 3 digits (5,301.867 SMU).
Response: Table 1 credit calculations have been revised to show 3 digits.
Digital files:
Comment: DMS commented last year about mismatches between spatial feature lengths and
values reported in the asset table. The submitted features resolved the discrepancies for RJ-R5.
DMS understands that credits for R6 and T4 were calculated using valley length, and as such,
these features will not match the asset table. However, T3's feature length is 87 ft compared to the
reported length of 70 ft. DMS wants to verify that there are no available features that accurately
characterize the reported length for T3.
Response: The as-built survey length for reach T3 is 87.96 ft which matches the spatial feature
length value for T3. However, in Table 1 we are requesting 70 SMU at 1:1 credit to reflect the
credits reported in the Mitigation plan.
Comment: Please spatially identify the area experiencing the grade control issue (Table 5) in the
CCPV, and include this feature in the digital submission.
Response: See response to comment 4.
Comment: Please submit photos as JPEGs.
Response: JPEGs have been added in the e-submission support files.
Comment: Please provide the data used to create the streamflow and groundwater well figures.
Response: Streamflow and groundwater well raw spreadsheets have been included in the support files.
Two hard copies and one pdf copy along with updated digital files uploaded to a thumb drive are being
provided. If you have any questions concerning the Year 4 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 2

Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project
Year 4 Monitoring Report
Guilford County,North Carolina
DMS Project ID No. 96313, DEQ Contract No. 5792
Permits: SAW-2014-01642, DWR No. 14-0332, RFP 16-005568
Cape Fear River Basin: 03030002-010020
Report Prepared and Submitted by Michael Baker Engineering,Inc.
NC Professional Engineering License#F-1084
Michael Baker
INTERNATIONAL
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT,DMS PROJECT NO.96313
DECEMBER 2020,MONITORING YEAR 4 OF 7

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
2. METHODOLOGY 3
2.1 Stream Assessment 3
2.1.1 Morphological Parameters and Channel Stability 3
2.1.2 Hydrology 4
2.1.3 Photographic Documentation 4
2.1.4 Visual Stream Morphological Stability Assessment 4
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 Current Condition Plan View(CCPV)
Table 5 Visual Stream Morphology Stability
Assessment
Table 6 Vegetation Conditions Assessment
Stream Station Photos
Vegetation Plot Photos*
Problem Area Photos*
Appendix C Vegetation Plot Data
Table 7* CVS Density Per Plot
Table 8* Vegetation Plot Summary
Table 9* Stem Count for Each Species Arranged by
Plot
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC. ii
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT,DMS PROJECT NO.96313
DECEMBER 2020,MONITORING YEAR 4 OF 7

Appendix D Stream Survey Data
Figure 5* Cross-sections
Table 10 Baseline Stream Summary
Table 11 a* Cross-section Morphology Summary
Table 11b* Stream Reach Morphology Summary
Appendix E Hydrologic Data
Table 12 Verification of Bankfull Events
Table 13 Flow Gauge Success(2020)
Table 14 Flow Gauge Success
Figure 6 Flow Gauge Graphs
Table 16 Wetland Restoration Area Success
Figure 7 Wetland Restoration Graphs(2020)
Hydrology Monitoring
Station Photos
*Note: The figures and tables marked above with an asterisk are not included as part of this Year 4
Monitoring Report,but were left listed in the Table of Contents to explain the otherwise out-of-sequence
figure/table numbering and appendix designations. For clarity,Michael Baker wishes to preserve the
continuity of the labeling for these features between monitoring years to avoid confusion(e.g.to allow
Appendix C to always contain vegetation data, and Table 12 to always be the bankfull event table, etc. in
each monitoring report). These figures and tables have been included in past reports and will be included
again as part of the Year 5 monitoring report for 2021.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT,DMS PROJECT NO.96313
DECEMBER 2020,MONITORING YEAR 4 OF 7

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Michael Baker Engineering,Inc.(Michael 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. All of these stream features are in
the warm-temperature thermal regime. 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. 1
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT,DMS PROJECT NO.96313
DECEMBER 2020,MONITORING YEAR 4 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.
In accordance with the Mitigation Plan and the project-applicable DMS guidance document "Monitoring
Requirements and Performance Standards for Stream and/or Wetland Mitigation. Version 1.5, Dated June 8,
2012, no formal vegetation plot monitoring was performed, nor were any stream cross-sectional surveys
conducted as part of the Year 4 monitoring effort.A visual assessment of the site is emphasized this year,with
the full vegetation and cross-section survey work to resume for the Year 5 monitoring in 2021. No Stream
Problem Area(SPA) or Vegetation Problem Area(VPA)were discovered during Year 4 monitoring. SPA 3-1
reported during Monitoring Year 3 (MY3) was repaired and remained stable throughout the MY4. VPA 3-1
reported in MY3 was treated in April 2020 and July 2020 along with any other invasive species found on the
site. Baker plans on retreating these areas for future monitoring years. VPA 3-2 and 3-3 reported in MY3 were
supplemental planted with species appropriate for the area planted and approved by the mitigation planting list.
These areas were also seeded to help establish vegetation and help prevent scouring.
Year 4 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 137 days of consecutive flow in R4,while flow gauge BSFL2 documented 202 days of consecutive
flow in T3, and BSFL3 documented 310 days of consecutive flow in Ti. 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 4 monitoring,the R1 crest gauge documented two post-construction bankfull event from February
2020 at 0.91 feet and second event in November of 2020 at 1.49 feet. 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).
Eight wells were installed in the wetland restoration areas. One additional well, BSAW8 was installed during
MY4 to gather additional data in adjacent wetlands. BSAW8 is located adjacent to wetland type 5 (Hydrologic
reestablishment) where BSAW1 is located. BSAW8 data shows the wetland preforming well above success
criteria. Seven of the eight are preforming successfully. One well did not meet success (BSAW2). However,
BSAW2 shows hydrology coming to within twelve inches of the ground surface relatively consistently and
having more cumulative days meeting criteria than previous years.It is anticipated that wetland hydrology will
improve with additional monitoring.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC. 2
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT,DMS PROJECT NO.96313
DECEMBER 2020,MONITORING YEAR 4 OF 7

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 4 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 1 and 2 in accordance with CVS-DMS Protocol for Recording Vegetation,Version 4.1 (2007).
Stream survey data was collected to a minimum of Class C Vertical and Class A Horizontal Accuracy using
Leica TS06 Total Station and was georeferenced to the NAD83 State Plane Coordinate System, FIPS3200 in
US Survey Feet,which was derived from the As-built Survey.
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 4 visual site assessment was collected in November 2020.Visual Assessment is contained
in Appendix B.
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 R1, 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
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.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC. 3
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT,DMS PROJECT NO.96313
DECEMBER 2020,MONITORING YEAR 4 OF 7

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 MY1 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 MY1 survey was overlain on top of the MY0 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
subsequent monitoring years by Michael Baker and DMS staff. Due to the MY0 survey quality
discovered during MY1, Michael Baker proposed to utilize the detailed survey data and associated
parameters collected during MY1 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 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 R1'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 4 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 T 1 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
Visual inspection of the site are conducted at a minimum of twice a year. Representative photographs
for Monitoring Year 4 were taken along each Reach in March 2020 and are provided in Appendix B.
2.1.4 Visual Stream Morphological Stability Assessment
The visual stream morphological stability assessment involves the qualitative evaluation of lateral and
vertical channel stability, and the integrity and overall performance of in-stream structures throughout
the Project reaches as a whole. Habitat parameters and pool depth maintenance are also measured and
scored. During Year 4 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.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC. 4
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT,DMS PROJECT NO.96313
DECEMBER 2020,MONITORING YEAR 4 OF 7

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.
4.1 Wetland Assessment
Eight(8) 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.
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. 5
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT,DMS PROJECT NO.96313
DECEMBER 2020,MONITORING YEAR 4 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.
yr/ /
// .:1.
i
/ Aijr ,. ./ / raI '/
n. ..<
......
..d ... , ,,,,, , ,,,„, vd„
j,,,'
#/f fri- _.4/'tv,'0"
A, A
/ F'# 4i; / I A /
Site Location - - � � �� J �/
,,,K,.‘� 4/0! ighway 150 �`0.///
�,� ,//'i� .,, •
• - GUILFORD I#( „ter/ . ,�0 4 /
�,/� fir' it A 0
\ op.. _,,,,,____,____,?; . o• 6 ‘f At /4 ,
•
---.N 4,, .. '',.. e 't
Conservation Easement
— r
/// NCDMS TLW N_____ q
Greensboro
Note: Site is located within targeted local
watershed 0303002010020.
1 _1 '7/---: . 7"--__ I-17 IL 6/
L•
Figure 1
J Site Location! Project Vicinity Map
40,-,.„ •�i Browns Summit (DMS# 96313)
^71m A�'`rIi_
. radk,, roiri
��►orbali riv00.11 ika.t NCDEQ - Division
'-`��''�'~�'amm t!`�� 0�`��l -�_ a of Mitigation Services
41* .11. "�Greensboro'-
li
Valdr al,,...,, ,100„ t 85 q
OSP
y. 4.re
Michael Baker
lfroV Guilford County -_.y4J r
INTERNATIONAL
0.5 0 0.5
Miles

Conservation Easement ,w .
Restoration Feature Approach .; ' th e'
Restoration
Enhancement I L
Enhancement II � T.
'� ^ �"' �. ;� �(
t Reach R1
!IfNo Credit ! *I 1 '—.. %':
•- - M
Wetland Mitigation Types , ' may
i _ 1 -"Functioning", 3:1 credit ratio Rehabilitation a ;: ?, ;{
2 - Degraded, 1.5:1 credit ratio Rehabilitation Reach T1
3 - Partially Functioning, 1.5:1 credit ratio Rehabilitation
4 - Filled, 1:1 credit ratio Reestablishment , • .0
5 - Hydrologic Reestablishment, 3.5:1 ratio Reach R2 (lower)
4 ....
i Reach R2 (upper)
Reach T2
�, s
fi: • y
''r `- Reach R3 (lower) ' �
a 4.
• k \�,'''
, 1
Reach R3 (upper) ' 1; 4 .,r.x
,
, --1.-' 1 le '''' 4 ., 4,,,, .1', ' ''''-.. ? ?
Y� '. Reach T3
, ,,,
Reach R4 '
A ,,fit, I
Reach R6 k
' sd°r
1 Reach T4 / N' �I'°
a. :'' t
'-ill'4
�, Ea'OOncuu � C ar- @eooralahicO YmrAl7n��1ilp.1p -I,!(iC
Beard.- 9Y _ _^',r rr.ip$ ' . s.G
0 250 500 1,000 Figure 2
Michael Baker m Restoration Summary Map
INTERNATIONAL Feet Browns Summit Site
(DMS #96313)

.,'%,'-'. -... ...„ - ,..- ... h.. . -`411r.f$ -..-
• .yam - q1 Tr '
. - €)
i]
i`���}J'f v
.. ...11-'4 iti.,, ...., . ......,EAK
r 1' f ` _'fir'. ....
mi ,•." 'Miffil / 142k-
ROCKINGHAM
1,. 11: ", ': . . COUNTY
O'
40
Ail"pi 4' 4, .,, ,,r : ,,N.,..,..,.. i,-
/' JJyf fi A3 �f' 1 Jk A.11y� 41
51 -
', , ". -y' + Syr
•
�wRiver - - - � �-- - - - - - - - - - � -� - - --- - —vim "�
to Park ---------
,amipaii
110{ li :�
,, zi�
�' " Project Location
... , R p 1
.. 11 . 1 -a Buckhorn Creek
Haw River "' - {
State Park
ri it }'F , _-� *
-it l :r. e r L r
D. .1. rts( . -
., S1 }} - ra y , 4.
Project Location - , .. toir,-. A. . Ai s
GUILFORD .:'
O Reference Wetland COUNTY
n Reference Stream Reaches ..x� }
4
-.Y ,>4- Qi it
UT to Reedy Fork
Major Roads -� • ; . .A Ifr 4
Minor Roads ;''` ' `t ,
� ,"_ .. t. . . ��� ,rid ti �-�'�„� '�E'��p
Rivers/Streams µ "` � .a F °: -' •'"t .t'
1:_iiii:0 . ,
Lakes/Ponds > '
County Boundary ep, ' °
I
Geology :. Ns 'it "Vi?' -1-'''.6 r'. ' .
F4- '.-- • ,0:4144-AZ ,.s.
. �'
Carolina Slate Belt $
.....1 :,..
Charlotte and Milton Belts
s' I ,s(VoA lmr*.‘nt-�r 0G' -Nrl��-,�iv,pGiff,Gwi=1651 =,�id`P,nal ysis Nr'
1..,
2 1 0 2 Figure 3
i h I Baker - - Reference Stream
Locations Map
. . . R N A T I O 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 Wetland Non-riparian Wetland Buffer Nitrogen Nutrient Offset Phosphorus
Nutrient Offset
Type R,El,Ell R E
Totals 5,300.867 SMU 2.50 0.0
Project Components
Project Component or Reach ID 1 Stationing/Location(As-Built)* Existing Footage* Approach Restoration/Restoration Restoration Footage or Mitigation Ratio
Acreage(LF/AC) Equivalent(SMU/WMU) Acreage(LF/AC)**
Rl 51+00.00-63+89.87 1,217 Restoration 1,290 1,290 1:1
49+65.28-51+00.00 167 Enhancement II 54 134 2.5:1
(downstream section)
43+48.17-49+65.28 701 EnhancementI 409 614 1.5:1
(upstream section)
R3
(downstream section) 39+35.73-43+48.17 362 Enhancement I 235 352 1.5:1
60'easement break subtracted from stream (CE 40+45.09-41+05.52)
lengths
R3 28+31.92-39+35.73 1,224 Restoration 1,102 1,102 1:1
(upstream section)
R4 15+35.86-28+31.92 1,350 Restoration 1,296 1,296 1:1
R5 10+00-15+35.86 536 Enhancement II 214 536 2.5:1
R6 10+00-15+19.39 536 Enhancement I/BMP 295 442 LF(valley length) 1.5:1
Ti 10+00-11+44.99 121 Restoration 145 145 1:1
T2 10+00-12+85.21 283 Enhancement II 113 283 2.5:1
T3 10+04.88-10+92.84 83 Restoration 70 70 1:1
T4 10+30.18-11+49.36 47 Enhancement I/BMP 78 117 LF(valley length) 1.5:1
Wetland Area-Type 1 See Figures 1.57 Rehabilitation 0.51 1.53 3:1
Wetland Area-Type 2 See Figures 0.49 Rehabilitation 0.29 0.43 1.5:1
Wetland Area-Type 3 See Figures 2.06 Rehabilitation 1.17 1.75 1.5:1
Wetland Area-Type 4 See Figures 0.49 Re-establishment 0.46 0.46 1:1
Wetland Area-Type 5 See Figures 0.27 Re-establishment 0.08 0.27 3.5:1
*Wetland existing acrage and restoration acrages were swapped in Table 5.1 of the Mitigation Plan.
**All reach lengths shown here are taken from the Mitigation plan except for RI and R2 downstream which use the As-Built lengths per IRT agreement at As-Built.
Component Summation
Restoration Level Stream(LF) Riparian Wetland(AC) Non-riparian Wetland(AC) Buffer(SF) Upland(AC)
Restoration 3,903 4.44
Enhancement I 1,525
Enhancement II 953
BMP Elements
Element Location Purpose/Function Notes
BMP Elements: BR=Bioretention Cell;SF=Sand Filter;SW=Stormwater Wetland;WDP=Wet Detention Pond;DDP=Dry Detention
Pond;FS=Filter Strip;S=Grassed Swale;LS=Level Spreader;NI=Natural Infiltration Area
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT(DMS PROJECT NO.ID 96313)
DECEMBER 2020,MONITORING YEAR 4 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 Actual Completion
Complete 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 November 2,2015
Final Mitigation Plan with PCN(minor revisions requested in not specified in proposal Winter 2015 January 29,2016
approval letter)
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 3,2019
Year 4 Monitoring December 1,2020 November 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 2020, MONITORING YEAR 4 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:
Katie McKeithan,Tel.[phone]
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 2020, MONITORING YEAR 4 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) VII VII VII VII 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
E Bc incised Bc incised Gc Bc
(Rosgen stream type)
Evolutionary Trend Incised E-Gc-F Bc-G-F Bc-G-F G-F Bc-G
Underlying Mapped Soils CnA CnA CnA,PpE2 CnA,CkC CkC
Somewhat Poorly Drained Somewhat Poorly
Drainage Class Somewhat Poorly Drained Somewhat Poorly Drained and Well Drained Drained and Well Well Drained
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 Tl Reach T2 Reach T3 Reach T4
Length of Reach(linear feet) 442 145 283 70 117
Valley Classification(Rosgen) VII VII VII VII 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
Bc incised E incised F E incised -
(Rosgen stream type) _
Evolutionary Trend Bc4G4F E4G4F Bc4G4F E4G4F
Underlying Mapped Soils CkC CnA CnA,PpE2 CnA CkC
Drainage Class Well Drained Somewhat Poorly Drained Somewhat Poorly Drained Somewhat Poorly Well Drained
and Well Drained 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% I 10% I 10% I 10% I 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 No N/A Categorical Exclusion(Appendix B)
Essential Fisheries Habitat No N/A Categorical Exclusion(Appendix B)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT(DMS PROJECT NO.ID 96313)
DECEMBER 2020,MONITORING YEAR 4 OF 7

Appendix B
Visual Assessment Data

Q..
PL1
3`_ • i� BSAW7 © 'Y
Conservation Easement XS-17
® Flow Gauge Veg Plot 14 --
Monitoring Wells - . eb
0. Photo Location PL2 ,ice
J BSAW6 e�� 1
Crest Gauge XS-16
Veg Plot 13 ,. -,„ '
Cross Sections ., : - -;,�
Vegetation Plots MY4 •;
j. . ./y
Pass ,
;• 'PL3 i
I Streams by Mitigation Type ' +-• Reach R1-
Restoration ._ 5 CD
t)
$ PL4
Enhancement II "•" • -
PL51 -Mal
iJ BS_ '
—No Credit ;i�r. � -
Wetland Mitigation Types
1-"Functioning",3:1 credit ratio Rehabilitation XS-14
2-Degraded,1.5:1 credit ratio Rehabilitation _I PL6,1 _ i . g
1 44
3-Partially Functioning,1.5:1 credit ratio Rehabilitation 4
4-Filled,1:1 credit ratio Reestablishment _ ,� .y . •
5-Hydrologic Reestablishment,3.5:1 credit ratio
BSAW3 (j PL7 XS-13 ' :.r; �AN„
is
pLg XS-12' ,1 Veg Plot 11 '.0- y'-/
Veg Plot 12
ilk
BSFL Reach Ti
ca''J 1
Reach R2 (upper) Reach R2 (lower) -1--,__.--
--
',J. ..Sys-•..,..7-- -,,,�.-.--r i .-
BSA
BSAW 2 did not meet
success criteria
PL11 PL1 ';.t sm _'-
PL13 ' Veg Plot 10
1000 ,. . ..,-- ,. . Reach T2
�, PL14 ; 1! -`73 Kt11-
• Reach R3 (lower) r '` �
PL15
Veg Plot 9
..: .
C HERE.eit u io0OpenStreetMap kutkr3,and 1u".::3 e:132-t--rir
eommunity, IEWIL Rigital@lebe,@ogEra,Euiaw=tenr e?=L+C(r;�:..Ip$4.3s,
CIMIENArr �DO,Ili Dom° Mao AercA RID,WI,cnd ilia 0E3li-pa'
Com m uni, )"f[tl
Figure 4.1
Michael Baker 0 125 250 500 Current Conditions
Plan View
INTERNATIONAL Feet Browns Summit Site
(DMS #96313)

Veg Plot 8: ;,
O Conservation Easement 647 stems/ac
® Flow Gauge
Q Monitoring Wells
A Photo Location
li
• Crest Gauge
-Cross Sections Reach R3 (upper) r,... . I I°
II ----- ./ lii Veg Plot 7:
Vegetation Plots MY3 illife 'I I 526 stems/a.
-Pass 14Pinite ,,y� ,.'12.? 1Streams by Mitigation Type ��-Restoration1'4.
" PL20 n.
—Enhancement I • ��
—Enhancement II
Veg Plot6: ' ,. �+
—No Credit
567 stems/ac -
Wetlands by Mitigation Type ' .ro ,r
e PL271. P . e
-1-"Functioning",3:1 credit ratio Rehabilitation / .3 <' Reach T3
-2-Degraded,1.5:1 credit ratio Rehabilitation X7`.
S'
3-Partially Functioning,1.5:1 credit ratio Rehabilitation • yet.
'4-Filled,1:1 credit ratio Reestablishment I r,,
r 1 ,��..;. " �s r.
-5-Hydrologic Reestablishment,3.5:1 credit ratio -6y
Veg Plot 5:
Reach R4 (lower) 486 stems/ac
FIM
Veg Plot 4: - _
-- 486 stems/ac
•
Reach R4 (upper) Veg Plot 3: __ 533
850 stems/ac
Veg Plot 2: A
Reach R6 • 607 stems/ac VPA 3-3 0.14 ac
PL36 \
PL37 ,. /' -.
.. PL35 -. - — PL31. °,
I Olr ,A
PL38 a X1 .-,„ /AI -
PL39'e r!i PL32 r Reach T4 �
rfl �� ,r' -r•
r
, Y , -41
VPA 3-2 0.13 ac , E mot. r�� x � f joir
�N � �•
-1
Veg Plot 1: Reach R5
. 688 stems/ac Eat a Garman,©OpenStreetMap contributors," and the:GIS.user
community, ajoitga Esri,DigitalGlobe;GeoEye, Earthstar Geographies,
-` C`ER �o USDA, o AeroGRIDD,Mo a I nf�l�-OE Maw
1 Community
Figure 4.2
Michael Baker 0 125 250 500 Current Conditions
Plan View
INTERNATIONAL Feet Browns Summit Site
(DMS #96313)

Table 5.Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
#REF!
Reach ID Rl
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 Cate or Metric Intended in As-built Segments Footage Intended Vegetation Vegetation Ve e�tatiion
Bank lacking vegetative cover
I.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 0 0 100%
undercuts that are modest,appear
sustainable and are providing
habitat.
3.Mass Wasting Bank slumping,calving,or 0 0 100%
collapse
Totals 0 0 100%
2.Engineered 1.Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with 20 20 100%
Structures no dislodged boulders or logs.
Grade control structures exhibiting
2.Grade Control maintenance of grade across the 11 11 100%
sill.
2a.Piping Structures lacking any substantial 20 20 100%
flow underneath sills or arms.
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(DMS PROJECT NO.ID 96313)
DECEMBER 2020,MONITORING YEAR 4 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
Category Category Metric Intended in As-built Segments Foo�Intended Vegetation Vegetation Ve eta�hion
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 o
2.Undercut undercuts that are modest,appear 0 0 100/o
sustainable and are providing
habitat.
3.Mass Wasting Bank slumping,calving,or 0 0 100%
collapse
Totals 0 0 100%
2.Engineered 1.Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with 0 0 100%
Structures no dislodged boulders or logs.
Grade control structures exhibiting
2.Grade Control maintenance of grade across the 0 0 100%
sill.
2a.Piping Structures lacking any substantial 0 0 100%
flow underneath sills or arms.
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%
Rootwads/logs providing some
cover at base-flow.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT(DMS PROJECT NO.ID 96313)
DECEMBER 2020,MONITORING YEAR 4 OF 7

Table 5 continued.Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project:DMS Project No ID.96313 _
Reach ID 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!or Cate l o Metric Intended in As-built Se l ments Foota l e Intended Ve l etation Ve etation Ve!etation
Bank lacking vegetative cover
1.Bank I.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 o
2.Undercut 0 0 100%
undercuts that are modest,appear
sustainable and are providing
habitat.
3.Mass Wasting Bank slumping,calving,or 0 0 100%
colla.se
Totals 0 0 100%
2.Engineered I.Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with 5 5 100%
Structures no dislodged boulders or logs.
Grade control structures exhibiting
2.Grade Control maintenance of grade across the 3 3 100%
sill.
2a.Piping Structures lacking any substantial 5 5 100%
flow underneath sills or arms.
Bank erosion within the structures
extent of influence does not
3.Bank Protection exceed 15%.(See guidance for 5 5 100%
this table in EEP monitoring
guidance document)
Pool forming structures
maintaining.Max Pool Depth:
4.Habitat Mean Bankfull Depth ratio>1.6 5 5 100%
Rootwads/logs providing some
cover at base-flow.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT(DMS PROJECT NO.ID 96313)
DECEMBER 2020,MONITORING YEAR 4 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- Performing as Total Number Unstable Unstable Performing as Stabilizing Stabilizing Stabilizing
Cate Ior Cate lor Metric Intended in As-built Segments Foota a Intended Wood Wood Wood
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 0 0 100%
undercuts that are modest,appear
sustainable and are providing
habitat.
3.Mass Wasting Bank slumping,calving,or 0 0 100%
colls.se
Totals 0 0 100%
2.Engineered l,Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with 7 7 100%
Structures no dislodged boulders or logs.
Grade control structures exhibiting
2.Grade Control maintenance of grade across the 3 3 100%
sill.
2a.Piping Structures lacking any substantial 7 7 100%
flow underneath sills or arms.
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(DMS PROJECT NO.ID 96313)
DECEMBER 2020,MONITORING YEAR 4 OF 7

Table 5 continued.Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Pro'ect:DMS Pro'ect 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- Performing as Total Number Unstable Unstable Performing as Stabilizing Stabilizing Stabilizing
Cate lor Cate l or Metric Intended in As-built Se l ments Foota le Intended Wood Wood Wood
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
.11
extent that mass wasting appears
2.Undercut likely. Does NOT include 0 0 100%
undercuts that are modest,appear
sustainable and are providing
habitat.
3.Mass Wasting Bank slumping,calving,or 0 0 100% ---
colla.se
Totals 0 0 100%—
---
2.Engineered I.Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with 15 15 100%
Structures no dislodged boulders or logs.
11
Grade control structures exhibiting
2.Grade Control maintenance of grade across the 10 10 100%
sill.
2a.Piping Structures lacking any substantial 15 15 100%
flow underneath sills or arms.
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(DMS PROJECT NO.ID 96313)
DECEMBER 2020,MONITORING YEAR 4 OF 7

Table 5 continued.Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Pro'ect:DMS Pro'ect 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- Performing as Total Number Unstable Unstable Performing as Stabilizing Stabilizing Stabilizing
Cate I or Cate l or Metric Intended in As-built Se l ments Foota le Intended Wood Wood Wood
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 theIII
extent that mass wasting appears
likely. Does NOT include o
2.Undercut 0 0 100%
undercuts that are modest,appear
sustainable and are providing
habitat.
3.Mass Wasting Bank slumping,calving,or 0 0 100% ---
colla.se
0 0 100%
2.Engineered 1,Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with 14 14 100%
Structures no dislodged boulders or logs.
Grade control structures exhibiting
2.Grade Control maintenance of grade across the 4 4 100%
sill.
2a.Piping Structures lacking any substantial 14 14 100%
flow undemeath sills or arms.
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(DMS PROJECT NO.ID 96313)
DECEMBER 2020,MONITORING YEAR 4 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 Category Metric Intended in As-built Segments Foo�Intended Vegetation Vegetation Ve et
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 0 0 100%
undercuts that are modest,appear
sustainable and are providing
habitat.
3.Mass Wasting Bank slumping,calving,or 0 0 100%
colla.se
0 0 100%
2.Engineered 1.Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with 6 6 100%
Structures no dislodged boulders or logs.
Grade control structures exhibiting
2.Grade Control maintenance of grade across the 6 6 100%
sill.
2a.Piping Structures lacking any substantial 6 6 100
flow underneath sills or arms.
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(DMS PROJECT NO.ID 96313)
DECEMBER 2020,MONITORING YEAR 4 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 Cate l o Metric Intended in As-built Se l ments Foota!e Intended Ve l etation Ve etation Ve etation
IMF
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 0 0 100%
undercuts that are modest,appear
sustainable and are providing
habitat.
11 Mass Wasting Bank slumping,calving,or 0 0 100%
colla sp e
Totals 0 0 100%
2.Engineered 1.Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with 9 9 100%
Structures no dislodged boulders or logs.
Grade control structures exhibiting
2.Grade Control maintenance of grade across the 9 9 100%
sill.
2a.Piping Structures lacking any substantial 9 9 100%
flow underneath sills or arms.
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(DMS PROJECT NO.ID 96313)
DECEMBER 2020,MONITORING YEAR 4 OF 7

Table 5 continued.Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project:DMS Project No ID.96313
Reach ID T1
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 Cate_ory 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 0 0 100%
undercuts that are modest,appear
sustainable and are providing
habitat.
3.Mass Wasting Bank slumping,calving,or 0 0 100%
colla.se
0 0 100%
2.Engineered 1.Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with 6 6 100%
Structures no dislodged boulders or logs.
Grade control structures exhibiting
2.Grade Control maintenance of grade across the 6 6 100%
sill.
2a.Piping Structures lacking any substantial 6 6 100%
flow underneath sills or arms.
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(DMS PROJECT NO.ID 96313)
DECEMBER 2020,MONITORING YEAR 4 OF 7

Table 5 continued.Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
#REF!
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 Cate o Metric Intende� in As-built Segments Footage intended Vegetation Vegetation Ve e�tatii n
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 0 0 100%
undercuts that are modest,appear
sustainable and are providing
habitat.
3.Mass Wasting Bank slumping,calving,or 0 0 100%
colla.se
.111 0 0 100%
2.Engineered 1.Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with 2 2 100%
Structures no dislodged boulders or logs.
Grade control structures exhibiting
2.Grade Control maintenance of grade across the 2 2 100%
sill.
2a.Piping Structures lacking any substantial 2 2 100%
flow underneath sills or arms.
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(DMS PROJECT NO.ID 96313)
DECEMBER 2020,MONITORING YEAR 4 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 Se ments Foota a Intended Ve etation Ve etation 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 o
2.Undercut undercuts that are modest,appear 0 0 100/o
sustainable and are providing
habitat.
3.Mass Wasting Bank slumping,calving,or 0 0 100%
collapse
Totals 0 I 0 100%
2.Engineered 1,Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with 1 I 100%
Structures no dislodged boulders or logs.
Grade control structures exhibiting
2.Grade Control maintenance of grade across the 1 I 100%
sill.
2a.Piping Structures lacking any substantial I 1 100%
flow underneath sills or arms.
Bank erosion within the structures
extent of influence does not
3.Bank Protection exceed 15%.(See guidance for 1 1 100%
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%
Rootwads/logs providing some
cover at base-flow.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT(DMS PROJECT NO.ID 96313)
DECEMBER 2020,MONITORING YEAR 4 OF 7

Table 5 continued.Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project:DMS Project No ID.96313
Reach ID 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 Catelor Metric Intended in As-built Segments Foota a 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 0 0 100%
undercuts that are modest,appear
sustainable and are providing
habitat.
3.Mass Wasting Bank slumping,calving,or 0 0 100%
collapse
0 0 100%
2.Engineered 1.Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with 8 8 100%
Structures no dislodged boulders or logs.
Grade control structures exhibiting
2.Grade Control maintenance of grade across the 8 8 100%
sill.
2a.Piping Structures lacking any substantial 8 8 100%
flow underneath sills or arms.
Bank erosion within the structures
extent of influence does not
3.Bank Protection exceed 15%.(See guidance for 8 8 100%
this table in EEP monitoring
guidance document)
Pool forming structures
maintaining—Max Pool Depth:
4.Habitat Mean Bankfull Depth ratio>1.6 8 8 100%
Rootwads/logs providing some
cover at base-flow.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT(DMS PROJECT NO.ID 96313)
DECEMBER 2020,MONITORING YEAR 4 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
Vegetation Category Definitions Threshold Depiction 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 0.1 acres N/A 0 0.00 0.0%
Areas based on MY3,4,or 5
stem count criteria.
Total 0 0.00 0.0%
Areas with woody stems of
3.Areas of Poor a size class that are 0.25 acres N/A 0 0.00 0.0%
Growth Rates or Vigor obviously small given the
monitoring year.
Cumulative Total 0 0.00 0.0%
Easement Acreage2 20.24
70 01
Mapping CCPV Number of Combined Easement
Vegetation Category Definitions Threshold Depiction Polygons Acreage Acreage
4.Invasive Areas of Areas or points(if too small to
4 render as polygons at map 1000 SF N/A 0 0.00 0.0%
Concern scale).
5.Easement Areas or points(if too small to
3 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 item(i.e.,item 1,2 or 3)as well as a parallel tally in item 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
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT(DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
DECEMBER 2020,MONITORING YEAR 4 OF 7

Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project—Stream Stations Photos
Photos take March 3, 2020 (All photos are viewing upstream)
�> a „
sue.
m
Photo Point 1 —Station 6,3+75,Reach 1 Photo Point 2—Station 61+50,Reach 1
p i �)
+ , Ibi ri �1 r
a
� r { sa
v
0.'
Photo Point 3 —Station 58+75, Reach 1 Photo Point 4 i„,,s,,,toa,,,,,,::,,,:z:n 57+85, Reach 1
i , .�
,_Pg s I;! 4i �!a II Fnf� } Ii4k ,t' E,.b it, ,,. . r:k ,,
�' 9
8
1.
Photo Point 5 —Station 56+75,Reach 1 Photo Point 6—Station 55+00, Reach 1
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT(DMS PROJECT NO.96313)
NOVEMBER 2020,MONITORING YEAR 4 OF 7

Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project—Stream Stations Photos
Photos take March 3, 2020 (All photos are viewing upstream)
j Ytr • Pyyi o �� � ' •ii � ' e •
1.4.il ._ 1
•
Photo Point 7— Station 53+50, Reach 1 Photo Point 8 — Station 51+75, Reach 1
I �
Photo Point 9— Station 11+25, Reach T1 Photo Point 10—Station 49+00, Reach 2
At ky/
C, / l
. 1
Photo Point 11 —Station 46+00, Reach 2 Photo Point 12—Station 44+75, Reach 2
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT(DMS PROJECT NO.96313)
NOVEMBER 2020,MONITORING YEAR 4 OF 7

Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project—Stream Stations Photos
Photos take March 3, 2020 (All photos are viewing upstream)
01
•
r
Photo Point 13 — Station 43+75, Reach 2/Reach T2 Photo Point 14—Station 42+25, Reach 3
41;"fir
SIB. ¢7
Photo Point 15 —Station 41+50, Reach 3 Photo Point 16 Station 36+25, Reach 3
_F , ,
A
•
)-1')..°
•
•
I , }/
Photo Point 17—Station 36+00, Reach 3 Photo Point 18—Station 35+00, Reach 3
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT(DMS PROJECT NO.96313)
NOVEMBER 2020,MONITORING YEAR 4 OF 7

Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project—Stream Stations Photos
Photos take March 3, 2020 (All photos are viewing upstream)
• � rl c., • i.. i" •-ti • ,pro '.,'
.per
R � 1
h ! c.
l'j � S d
4417'
Photo Point 19—Station 33+00, Reach 3 Photo Point 20—Station 32+00, Reach 3
y r't tileCt,\
r R
Ali L
•
Photo Point 21 —31+50, Reach 3 Photo Point 22—Station 28+75, Reach 3/T3
-71
10 6
Yr
Photo Point 23 —Station 10+25, Reach T3 Photo Point 24—Station 26+50, Reach 4
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT(DMS PROJECT NO.96313)
NOVEMBER 2020,MONITORING YEAR 4 OF 7

Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project—Stream Stations Photos
Photos take March 3, 2020 (All photos are viewing upstream)
ey yr
Photo Point 25 —Station 24+50, Reach 4 Photo Point 26—Station 24+00, Reach 4
_J
wir
.1110*
Photo Point 27—Station 22+50, Reach 4 Photo Point 28—Station 21+50, Reach 4/T4
Photo Point 29—Station 11+00, Reach T4 Photo Point 30—Station 19+50, Reach 4
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT(DMS PROJECT NO.96313)
NOVEMBER 2020,MONITORING YEAR 4 OF 7

Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project—Stream Stations Photos
Photos take March 3, 2020 (All photos are viewing upstream)
Photo Point 31 — Station 19+10, Step Pools Photo Point 32—Station 18+00, Reach 4
P• a, - t
d. I
Photo Point 33 — Station 16+75, Reach 4 Photo Point 34— Sta. 15+75, Reaches 4, 5 and 6
4" ,f�. ! .:
•
Photo Point 35 — Station 15+00, Reach 6, Step Photo Point 36— Station 14+50, Reach 6, BMP
Pools
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT(DMS PROJECT NO.96313)
NOVEMBER 2020,MONITORING YEAR 4 OF 7

Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project—Stream Stations Photos
Photos take March 3, 2020 (All photos are viewing upstream)
Photo Point 37—Station 11+90, Reach 6, BMP Photo Point 38—Station 10+50, Reach 6, Step Pools
y d *
Photo Point 39—Station 15+00, Reach 5
MICHAEL BAKER ,
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEKENGINEERING RESTORATION PROJECT(DMS PROJECT NO.96313)
NOVEMBER 2020,MONITORING YEAR 4 OF 7

Appendix C
Vegetation Plot Data*
*No Vegetation plot monitoring was required for Year 4.

Appendix D
Stream Survey Data
*No cross-section stream survey monitoring was required for Year 4

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
Year 4 Monitoring(2020)
11111
Crest Gauge
2/10/2020 0.91 1/24/2020 Measurement
Crest Gauge
11/6/2020 1.49 7/23/2020 Measurement
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT(DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
DECEMBER 2020,MONITORING YEAR 4 OF 7

Table 13.Flow Gauge Success(MY4-2020)
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No.96313
Flow Gauge ID Consecutive Days of Flow' Cumulative Days of Flow
R4 Gauge
BSFL1 137 286
T3 Gauge
BSFL2 202 305
T1 Gauge
BSFL3 310 310
Notes:
'Indicates the number of consecutive days within the monitoring year where flow was measured.
2Indicates the number of cumulative days within the monitoring year where flow was measured.
Flow success criteria for the Site is stated as: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 abov0.05 feet in depth.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT(DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
DECEMBER 2020, MONITORING YEAR 4 OF 7

Table 14.Flow Gauge Success
Browns Summit Restoration Project:DMS Project ID No.96313
Most Consecutive Days Meeting Criteria' Cumulative Days Meeting Criteria'
Flow Gauge ID Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7
(2017) (2018) (2019) (2020) (2021) (2022) (2023) (2017) (2018) (2019) (2020) (2021) (2022) (2023)
Flow Gauges(Installed March 4,2017)
BSFL1 127.0 122.0 140.0 137.0 171.0 248.0 199.0 286.0
BSFL2 166.0 158.0 198.0 202.0 173.0 303.0 284.0 305.0
BSFL3 263.0 319.0 289.0 310.0 263.0 319.0 289.0 310.0
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 monitoimg wells installed in TI 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 2020,MONITORING YEAR 4 OF 7

Figure 6.Flow Gauge Graphs
Daily Rain
1/1/2020 2/15/2020 3/31/2020 5/15/2020 6/29/2020 8/13/2020 9/27/2020 11/11/2020 12/26/2020
1 i 'I 1 'i I •I l I f i ll III -
0.5 - II I
1.0 -
1.5 -
2.0 -
c
•, 2.5 -
Ce 3.0 -
Rain data from onsite rain gauge at the Browns Summit site
Browns Summit Restoration Site
In-channel Flow Gauges -ALL
1.00 - I
0.95 - — —Min Flow-0.05 feet -
0.90 — -
-BSFL1
0.85 - — -
0.80 -- — —BSFL2 _
0.75 — --- -- BSFL3 -
.c 0.65 - — —— - - ----- 1-1 — --
Q- 0.60 -- --. --- -.— 1 ' — -.- I
0.55 MI - 1I — — I - - ■'-
0.40s) 0.35 II
I �`mm I II I`llI II glitill, ,
'1 EN
0.30 1 �II,T . .I,II ` �. �Ylu �`L�►► i11� 1 �I�
uj 0.25 F � i v110 III 11111111111111,111
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
1/1/2020 2/15/2020 3/31/2020 5/15/2020 6/29/2020 8/13/2020 9/27/2020 11/11/2020 12/26/2020
Date
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT(DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
DECEMBER 2020, MONITORING YEAR 4 OF 7

Figure 6.Flow Gauge Graphs Continued
Daily Rain
1/1/2020 2/15/2020 3/31/2020 5/15/2020 6/29/2020 8/13/2020 9/27/2020 11/11/2020 12/26/2020
0.0 �Tii rn . I - m i i 1 . 'I . 11 ,l . . 1 •- I 1I I I t •I -,I I. 'Ii - -•I I ,
0.5 II II � 1 II 1.0 -
1.5 -
i 2.0 -
2.5 -
W 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
0.85 YR4 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS -BSFL1
•
0.80 CRITERIA MET-137
0.75 (1/1/2020-5/16/2020)
0.70
s 0.65 l
r
fl. 0.60 •
0 0.55 • I
L 0.50
m 0.45 •
0.40 1
w 0.35 1
7 0.25
N 0.
r
0.151:4AIIV
\ 4\ \ V rWA \km(k.
0.10
0.05
._. 1!\ ,
1/1/2020 2/15/2020 3/31/2020 5/15/2020 6/29/2020 8/13/2020 9/27/2020 11/11/2020 12/26/2020
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 2020, MONITORING YEAR 4 OF 7

Figure 6.Flow Gauge Graphs Continued
Daily Rain
1/1/2020 2/15/2020 3/31/2020 5/15/2020 6/29/2020 8/13/2020 9/27/2020 11/11/2020 12/26/2020
0.0 �l--Iri I r, Ill
-I I q n 1 l r'. I I I I . ' . I " I II l�I I 1 11
1.I"I I•II 1 - ..I . I III
I II I '
.-. 0.5 i I#III ri
1.0
- 1.5 -
72 2.0
•• 2.5
co
ix 3.0 -
Rain data from onsite rain gauge at the Browns Summit site
Browns Summit Restoration Site
In-channel Flow Gauge BSFL2
1.00 I
0.95 ' -Min Flow-0.05 feet
0.90 • •
YR4 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
0.85 -BSFL2
0.80 • CRITERIA MET-202 •
0.75 (1/1/2020-7/20/2020) •
• 0.70 •
t 0.65 1 •
0.60 •
O 0.55 - I I
1- 0.50 ill
0.45 1'i
0.40 I I aCjs i
0.35 p I ' ,,,�. iiv 0.30 $ �e�V11100 0.25 1 041
co 0.20
0.15 I
0.10 •
0.05
0.00 1 1 I 1 1
1/1/2020 2/15/2020 3/31/2020 5/15/2020 6/29/2020 8/13/2020 9/27/2020 11/11/2020 12/26/2020
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 2020, MONITORING YEAR 4 OF 7

Figure 6.Flow Gauge Graphs Continued
Daily Rain
1/1/2020 2/15/2020 3/31/2020 5/15/2020 6/29//2020 8/13/2020 9/27/2020 11/11/2020 12/26/2020
.-. 0.
0.05 ri�1-Ii .I 1 n T#III I I 1 n 1 l ri. I I •I • •
' • I " I II II I 1 11
1.nil I•I) - "I
. ri I III
ICI I '
1.0
- 1.5 -
72 2.0
2.5
co
ix 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 I
0.90 • —Min Flow-0.05 feet —
0.85 • —
0.80 \till —BSFL3 _
0.75i‘vo
may 0.70 •
tci 00..6060 y
"III Iry 1 ' �9"'
0 0.55 P�` 1�Mq
- 0.50
1 0.45
0.40
y 0.35
C.)
0.30
m 0.25 YR4 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
co 0.20 CRITERIA MET-310
0.15
0.10 (1/1/2020-11/5/2020)
0.05
0.00 1 1 1 1
1/1/2020 2/15/2020 3/31/2020 5/15/2020 6/29/2020 8/13/2020 9/27/2020 11/11/2020 12/26/2020
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 2020, MONITORING YEAR 4 OF 7

Table 16.Wetland Restoration Area Success
Browns Summit Restoration Project:DMS Project ID No.96313
Percentage of Consecutive Days<12 inches from Ground Surface' Most Consecutive Days Meeting Criteria' Percentage of Cumulative Days<12 inches from Ground Surface' Cumulative Days Meeting Criteria'
Well ID
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Vear 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Vear 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7
(2017) (2018) (2019) (2020) (2021) (2022) (2023) (2017) (2018) (2019) (2020) (2021) (2022) (2023) (2017) (2018) (2019) (2020) (2021) (2022) (2023) (2017) (2018) (2019) (2020) (2021) (2022) (2023)
Type 5(3.5:1 Ratio-Success Criteria 9%of Growin$Season)
BSAW1 44.7 45.1 88.6 97.0 105.5 106.5 209.0 229.0 74.8 80.5 88.6 97.0 176.5 190.0 209.0 229.0
BSAWB 97.0 229.0 97.0 229.0
Type 4(1:1 Ratio-Success Criteria 12%of Growing Season)
BSAW2 I 3.2 I 6.8 I 7.2 I 6.8 I I I I 7.5 I 16.0 I 17.0 I 16.0 I I I I 13.8 I 38.8 I 18.4 I 42.4 I I I I 32.5 I 91.5 I 43.5 I 100.0
Type 2(1.5:1 Ratio-Success Criteria 12%of Growing Season)
BSAW3 I 47.7 I 48.7 I 83.1 I 97.0 I I I I 112.5 I 115.0 I 196.0 I 229.0 I I I I 91.7 I 97.9 I 87.7 I 97.0 I I I I 216.5 I 231.0 I 207.0 I 229.0
Type 3(1.5:1 Ratio-Success Criteria 12%of Growing Season
BSAW4 97.0 100.0 88.6 97.0 229.0 236.0 209.0 229.0 97.0 100.0 88.6 97.0 _ 229.0 236.0 209.0 229.0
BSAWS 34.1 48.7 88.6 97.0 80.5 115.0 209.0 229.0 73.7 86.0 88.6 97.0 174.0 203.0 209.0 229.0
BSAW6 46.0 48.7 48.7 50.4 108.5 115.0 115.0 119.0 89.4 91.9 71.6 94.9 211.0 217.0 169.0 224.0
BSAW7 51.1 48.7 88.6 97.0 120.5 115.0 209.0 229.0 91.1 91.7 88.6 97.0 215.0 216.5 209.0 229.0
Notes:
'Indicates the percentage of most consecutive or cumulative number of days within the monitored growing season with a water 12 inches or less from the soil surface.
'Indicates the most consecutive number of days within the monitored growing season with a water table 12 inches or less from the soil surface.
'Indicates the cumulative number of days within the monitored growing season with a water table 12 inches or less from 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%of the growing season is 21 days.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT(DMS PROJECT NO.ID 96313)
DECEMBER 2020,MONITORING YEAR 4 OF 7

Figure 7.Wetland Restoration Graphs(2020)
Rain
1/1/2020 1/31/2020 3/1/2020 3/31/2020 4/30/2020 5/30/2020 6/29/2020 7/29/2020 8/28/2020 9/27/2020 10/27/2020 11/26/2020 12/26/2020
0.0 rP r T -1 _ .. - -1 ,1-, i , fir ' 1 -I 41 I_," 1 11
1 I�1
1.0 I I
2.0 -
To
c 3.0
lY 4.0 -
Rain data from onsite rain gauge at the Browns Summit site
Browns Summit Wetland Restoration Wells
(BSAW1 - BSAW8)
5fiN ii\
0 �, 1 �� ,�t I —Ground Surface
1 .. 4
1 �+M nr'�, �1�%�.M�r y� �� ���� �� � � 1 --12 inches
-5 't� &.. ., ,J .. t A- 1 -� / BSAW1
C
1 I BSAW2
R -10 I I BSAW3
1 BSAW4
3 -15 1 1 -BSAW5
O
L 1 1 BSAW6
0
O -20 I \ I BSAW7
L 1 BSAW8
Q. -25
m I I
CI
BSREF
-30
-35
1/1/2020 1/31/2020 3/1/2020 3/31/2020 4/30/2020 5/30/2020 6/29/2020 7/29/2020 8/28/2020 9/27/2020 10/27/2020 11/26/2020 12/26/2020
Date
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT(DM5 PROJECT NO.ID 96313)
DECEMBER 2020,MONITORING YEAR 4 OF 7

Figure 7.Wetland Restoration Graphs(2020)Continued
Rain
1/1/2020 2/15/2020 3/31/2020 5/15/2020 6/29/2020 8/13/2020 9/27/2020 11/11/2020 12/26/2020
s 1.0 _fir - • ril .„.. _ ... „.71 ..ri-]
- 1 i ' T -. i I i Ii 1 ''
— 2.0
3.0 -
iY 4.0 -
5.0 Rain data from onsite rain gauge at the Browns Summit site
Browns Summit Wetland Restoration Well
(BSAW1)
10 - I I
-Ground
5 I I Surface
I I
0 —
-12 inches
c -5 I
g -10 I
-BSAW1
3 I
-a -15
7 I
2 -20 - I I — — Begin
ID Growing
w -25 I Season
s YR4 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
Q- -30 CRITERIA MET-229(97.0%) — — End
3/22/2020 GrowingI 11/5/2020 Season
-35 I
-40 I I
GROWING SEASON
-45 (3/22- 11/13) I I
I I
-50 , I -
1/1/2020 2/15/2020 3/31/2020 5/15/2020 6/29/2020 8/13/2020 9/27/2020 11/11/2020 12/26/2020
Date
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT(DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
DECEMBER 2020, MONITORING YEAR 4 OF 7

Figure 7.Wetland Restoration Graphs(2020)Continued
Rain
1/1/2020 2/15/2020 3/31/2020 5/15/2020 6/29/2020 8/13/2020 9/27/2020 11/11/2020 12/26/2020
• r
• 1.o I I
' . -I --it- ir ill i Ill 1
R 2.0 -
c▪ 3.0
a
ce 4.0 -
5.0 Rain data from onsite rain gauge at the Browns Summit site
Browns Summit Wetland Restoration Well
(BSAW2)
10 -
-Ground
5 I � 1 I
I 1 Surface
0
I --12 inches
c -5kir\N %
a) -i 0 I I BSAW2
-15
a I I
2
20 I I — — Begin
\4\1 \1\
0 Growing
w -25 I 1 I Season
_c I I
Q▪ -30 YR4 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS Growing
CRITERIA 16(6.8%)5/20/2020 I Season
-35 I 6/4/2020
-40 r I I
GROWING SEASON
-45 (3/22- 11/13) I 1
I 1
-50 , 1 - 1
1/1/2020 2/15/2020 3/31/2020 5/15/2020 6/29/2020 8/13/2020 9/27/2020 11/11/2020 12/26/2020
Date
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT(DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
DECEMBER 2020, MONITORING YEAR 4 OF 7

Figure 7.Wetland Restoration Graphs(2020)Continued
Rain
1/1/2020 2/15/2020 3/31/2020 5/15/2020 6/29/2020
8/13/2020 9/27/2020 11/11/2020/11/2020 12/26/2020
011.00 �- 11I . �, _ - i •'.'
, - . , , , , _, .., ,_ , i , Ill
.2
2.0
3.0 -
a
ce 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 I Surface
I 1
0
-12 inches
c -5 1 1
1,-) .1 0 I I BSAW3
3 I I
-a -15
3 I I
o -20 1 1 — — Begin
O Growing
O _25 I 1 Season
_c I 1
y -30 YR4 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS Growing
I CRITERIA MET 229(97.0%) I Season
-35 I 3/22/2020-11/5/2020 I
-40 r I I
GROWING SEASON
-45 (3/22- 11/13) I I
I I
-50 - 1 - 1
1/1/2020 2/15/2020 3/31/2020 5/15/2020 6/29/2020 8/13/2020 9/27/2020 11/11/2020 12/26/2020
Date
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT(DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
DECEMBER 2020, MONITORING YEAR 4 OF 7

Figure 7.Wetland Restoration Graphs(2020)Continued
Rain
1/1/2020 2/15/2020 3/31/2020 5/15/2020 6/29/2020 8/13/2020 9/27/2020 11/11/2020 12/26/2020
0.0 - .1-. T i -r r
1 1 ii i Ill
— 2.0
3.0 -
Fs 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
1
0 -r„/ti�.- '► 1, �~�� 1
--12 inches
c -5 1 1
I; 10 I I BSAW4
3 I I
-a -15
3 I I
2 -20 1 I I
I
Begin
0 Growing
w -25 I I Season
s I 1
Q- -30 End
CI I YR4 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS I Growing
-35 I CRITERIA MET-229(97.0%) I Season
3/22/2020-11/5/2020
I I
-40 GROWING SEASON •
-45 (3/22- 11/13) I I
I I
-50 - 1 - 1
1/1/2020 2/15/2020 3/31/2020 5/15/2020 6/29/2020 8/13/2020 9/27/2020 11/11/2020 12/26/2020
Date
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT(DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
DECEMBER 2020, MONITORING YEAR 4 OF 7

Figure 7.Wetland Restoration Graphs(2020)Continued
Rain
1/1/2020 2/15/2020 3/31/2020 5/15/2020 6/29/2020 8/13/2020 9/27/2020 11/11/2020 12/26/2020
0.0 - .1-. T i -r r
1 1 ii i Ill
— 2.0
3.0 -
Fs 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 I Surface
0iLA I
I 1 -12 inches
c -5 I 1
+% 1 0 I 1 BSAW5
3 I 1
-a -15
3 I I
2 -20 I 1 — — Begin
ID Growing
O -25 I I Season
s YR4 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
Q- -30 I 1 CRITERIA MET-229(97.0%) — — End
CI I 3/22/2020-11/5/2020 I Growing
-35 I 1 Season
-40 r I I
GROWING SEASON
-45 (3/22- 11/13) I 1
I 1
-50 - 1 - 1
1/1/2020 2/15/2020 3/31/2020 5/15/2020 6/29/2020 8/13/2020 9/27/2020 11/11/2020 12/26/2020
Date
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT(DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
DECEMBER 2020, MONITORING YEAR 4 OF 7

Figure 7.Wetland Restoration Graphs(2020)Continued
Rain
1/1/2020 2/15/2020 3/31/2020 5/15/2020 6/29/2020 8/13/2020 9/27/2020 11/11/2020 12/26/2020
0.0 � 1 ' rrT - � � .1-.] T � 1 rli1--
PI 11� 1.0 _
— 2.0 3.0 -
Fs 4.0 -
5.0
Rain data from onsite rain gauge at the Browns Summit site
Browns Summit Wetland Restoration Well
(BSAW6)
10 1
Ground
5 I I Surface
I I
0
-12 inches
c -5 1 VIVI1
4\
I
-20 1 1 — — Begin
0 Growing
w -25 I YR4 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS I Season
CRITERIA MET-119(50.4%) I —
End
Q -30 1 3/22/2020-7/19/2020 I Growing
-35 1 1 Season
-40 r I I
GROWING SEASON
-45 (3/22- 11/13) I I
I I
-50 1 - 1
1/1/2020 2/15/2020 3/31/2020 5/15/2020 6/29/2020 8/13/2020 9/27/2020 11/11/2020 12/26/2020
Date
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT(DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
DECEMBER 2020, MONITORING YEAR 4 OF 7

Figure 7.Wetland Restoration Graphs(2020)Continued
Rain
1/1/2020 2/15/2020 3/31/2020 5/15/2020 6/29/2020 8/13/2020 9/27/2020 11/11/2020 12/26/2020
0.0 - Tr] T i -r r
— 2.0
3.0 -
Fs 4.0 -
5.0 Rain data from onsite rain gauge at the Browns Summit site
Browns Summit Wetland Restoration Well
(BSAW7)
10 - . e
Ground
5 I I Surface
1
0 —
-12 inches
c -5 I 1
w 10 I I BSAW7
3 I 1
-a -15
I
I I
-20Begin
Growing
-25 I I Season
s I YR4 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS I — End
w 30 I CRITERIA MET-229(97.0%) I Growing
CI
-35 I 3/22/2020-11/5/2020 I Season
-40 r j I
GROWING SEASON
-45 (3/22- 11/13) I 1
I 1
-50 - 1 - 1
1/1/2020 2/15/2020 3/31/2020 5/15/2020 6/29/2020 8/13/2020 9/27/2020 11/11/2020 12/26/2020
Date
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT(DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
DECEMBER 2020, MONITORING YEAR 4 OF 7

Figure 7.Wetland Restoration Graphs(2020)Continued
Rain
1/1/2020 2/15/2020 3/31/2020 5/15/2020 6/29/2020 8/13/2020 9/27/2020 11/11/2020 12/26/2020
0.0 - ,1'. T i -r r
1
1 1 ii i Ill
— 2.0
3.0 -
Fs 4.0 -
5.0 Rain data from onsite rain gauge at the Browns Summit site
Browns Summit Wetland Restoration Well
(BSAW8)
10 -
Ground
5 I I Surface
I 1
0
-12 inches
c -5 I 1
w 10 I I BSAW8
3 I II
I-20 Begin
Growing
-25 I I Season
s I YR4 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS I — End
w 30 I CRITERIA MET-229(97.0%) I Growing
CI
-35 I 3/22/2020-11/5/2020 I Season
-40 r j I
GROWING SEASON
-45 (3/22- 11/13) I 1
I 1
-50 - 1 - 1
1/1/2020 2/15/2020 3/31/2020 5/15/2020 6/29/2020 8/13/2020 9/27/2020 11/11/2020 12/26/2020
Date
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT(DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
DECEMBER 2020, MONITORING YEAR 4 OF 7

Figure 7.Wetland Restoration Graphs(2020)Continued
Rain
1/1/2020 2/15/2020 3/31/2020 5/15/2020 6/29/2020 8/13/2020 9/27/2020 11/11/2020 12/26/2020
0.0 - i "••]
T 1 r r 1 1 II i iv
1
- 2.0
3.0 -
Fs• 4.0 -
5.0 Rain data from onsite rain gauge at the Browns Summit site
Browns Summit Wetland Restoration Well
(BSREF)
10 - -
1 Ground
5 Surface
I I
0
-12 inches
c -5 I
: I
1 -10 I I BSREF
-15 I I
2 -20 I I — — Begin
O I I Growing
w -25 Season
s I I
Q — — End
Q -30 I I Growing
-35 I I Season
I I
-40 GROWING SEASON I 1
-45 (3/22- 11/13) I I
-50 - I 1 1 1 I
1/1/2020 2/15/2020 3/31/2020 5/15/2020 6/29/2020 8/13/2020 9/27/2020 11/11/2020 12/26/2020
Date
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT(DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
DECEMBER 2020, MONITORING YEAR 4 OF 7

Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project—Hydrology Monitoring Stations Photos
Photos taken on(11/6/2020)unless noted different
r77/11,1
-.A. 1' T - - •i_ 1 �t:Wa k 9 L.,•, !}P k • r, ''a a �(S1
` �►
J t - 401 7 -� X - --- te akiea y 1 4':.A, ��1 \j a I
n1 r �y
1.
•' 9 .,I# , h' -._.:� m en as �r
\ -r! R ,f11TfSSlfi
r
Al
IF :
, ,,
Manual Crest Gauge—Reading 1/24/2020(.91') Manual Crest Gauge—Reading 11y/64/2020 (1"49')
J ot
g J
! .t -4,
�r :., b x�! , I t � .
.i - I } aJ� •
�! t"
Asa � 3 r. ` i6 ,„ gym`
�1� C
_ - {' ' `:, `fin, `t yi�'!lfi.r 1... i J 'uaF¢- - - l 1 r r 1z ,,t s �!
7477 to I, ! , / ill ;+ y ' A �3.. ,� �� .+
11 "1` tl.� W C '+ .
e.
I##4_ -_` ' > 1 's A.
Wrack Line Showing High Flow(3/3/2020) Wrack Line Showing High Flow(4/21/2020)
; A�4Ir,„ 1 A A7.� . Y I(I I ! !4 J , ,+ f., &a k 4.- I 35 --
- a:`Sar.Q,.N t4. ` - r 4 qq .-,' 1 r -.:' -' n �., may'"
�_ � c r 3' it J I ; p7,r I A.? , r - i a a } '�� .,b§ t } _
_ -_, tip ,
s _ ,` , , ',r, 5 ; 'R. {'-yly y ter,, it
,q,•- k:: 1
s ° 1 �4 q
".-..;,7,:-.„!,:: tl,a A ? ma x t_�+,," r 4'° ,-- r'-y: ,§.
.�'� ,a i" -fie - .1� _ -+ .Mi.
k.4!,,'1-...`N _ >'•.44:7,''''.)"
yk 'Y fx -', rat s+n .
. ...1.,',.,--
�.T • ,'-'4-,..
V J 4. • t pl # a +ems' t ref '�� �" ,7"^
e � � xj � - 2 y u'�- r�"� ,a x'7'� ,e"' .P� ; %nth - 1. .f•
..i. 4- --1->r. t .z: .4T '� a t - - ":,t � l > �'�'. . _t. ..-
Wrack Line Showing High Flow(11/6/2020) Manual Crest Guage—Reach 1
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT(DMS PROJECT NO.96313)
DECEMBER 2020,MONITORING YEAR 4 OF 7

Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project—Hydrology Monitoring Stations Photos
Photos taken on(11/6/2020)unless noted different
Q�
r .I. I ilia r ir, a ) x a. /�lYr- �s"
S ���v� I - I � v'h-� ✓ '�Yh` � r „y§.,� -� fi r�d1a= � + - xr�J�
E 4-I' 5.:/� r >� ` 5 y 1 ...}AT a. t ,,i 3 ',. tvb�5 .� ''h? a Ili,
LJ 4 `
�� - #fir- r e yy<;s1� :..:.
4
l�' ti 3 ,* '' -Al., • :.- 1_
t.44,•%;,6,'-01.1,iti ' 'C '.'of
,,, ,,,,,,,,.., _ _._ „,.,,,i:r
? P" _ ". - it a::.. 7 �� ',. t .-o tea. 2 #- �,
7.
��, r '44' -r .....% . ' `;� ,fir , a 5�. , rl "a x � � i„. � a'
1 rj. .j., .�' ram.. «rr't<''"�'14,x ..5' -•-• 4•b"'. "_4t.
t i. ` „.7,, ''','i
rJ ''' rat .-' i... - P.'' ' ,�'�'r ,'- *- ',.- r1," i'�' 2ar '' r, `"Y* i pf± # +la..
b) frci°.
,,,,,\
i \ z4 yet. 1, ,r._ n
Flow Gauge 1 —Reach 4 Flow Gauge 2 Reach T3
'' tiA R a ',k. A h! -z k 7�. 7 ' ', i d '' .d :•r
:fi
,,k,i:.4.:-,::-1.;''"'.''','•
,:,,.,,,
van a �"' -.','„to, yry -8' a x '`,•4 3= 'i s C k "i,/ "4 1 •, 1 I- � VI-1•1- ,A'
a y?` 3 ,, SKr -( #- e ' -. `" n` s �. ' " ' §�, 4
#+ .,', �- ,,r.r:ri t< .'-',„'"---,:-1 4 • . ".- .'I ;,•, ,'' t ': r b - ,-- f7 Y ,
�t'z a� '�u ,t-4. .. ', r•,_ „M�; ,-, • s� _ �, •,; 4 X e 0,
"i 6 diIP!
�� b{(r � �g 'r, ;-Sf�P:�� �, I � f � _6,r 1 � :1�.�
t,r:,:;.4.,',..i' ,,- ,,,*- 70,iii, ' - .. 2,,,„ -5—,--„„ ii,14-0
:,.›., :
7
441,4,
5-tea 'r ' 'h • ` _as I. ,',--,
r '' • �; - "� r max' 'r
.,: _ gyp.
Flow Gauge 3—Re75 ach Ti Wetland Well 1 —Reach 4, Station 25+00
e
2.
.4 41,012.-'°s -,ate, r •` - � .y, r— �.""
d - l wf l" €J^ _ s, wl- _ 3g 's}"' '!=R -Y+ C -'3t .y 3 ^-
r - ,q rah• L _ - .,i 'r , - r 7;7# i r ""
Y .'.... a
•
?, � .,� "fir '`�" � -' +€•' r � - $` -, ,, ' " ' '� �,n A�
vie �-�'-.,. a z1- 5 t. * : y .:
".0- -.-1.;,4
,� ,i , a fi $r_ F �` , 40. 'a>,_ ts '`v ,x ). <<�� ? µ
Wetland Well 2—Reach 2, Station 47+00 Wetland Well 3 —Reach 1, Station 52+00
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT(DMS PROJECT NO.96313)
DECEMBER 2020,MONITORING YEAR 4 OF 7

Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project—Hydrology Monitoring Stations Photos
Photos taken on(11/6/2020)unless noted different
y ..(-Pi,,
P 1 n L rpt
r -.. r s -"Kra yr 1�i1 .,r� �'x rY 7-i .,- -h '�' 1. ''txID ,' y - _ -�,-9F � a.. yv F-'.! ,ip, ,.,
ram- -„,:c,� � a. ) ro� '� r-!,���L '�� -� a� �, N i ' 4� ��� ��3 r
r Y• it r ,� ! w--
, ,,
s
_., , ,.,,_a ��. r� nP`� ��`/a � q .��r�_ v �a� .tea g 4 r i',�y �� l4•
•
„ v !@ ,ot,
q
Wetland Well 4—Reach 1, Station 55+00 Wetland Well 5—Reach 1, Station 58+00
a � y ,. r,r r r ) , a , {r icy f,�$�
4�'!�' ` .. -,0 , r r cti '�44��R ts+sf 'Aai„ -- 1.,,,,AI , !�i _ 'Ly -:,
A' "4' , S .--g, „; _ h Ali. t , 1 : s
a a .x.Y ti y 3.' , l• "4 . r `- C ea - .. ; r
1 to- v-�r+�" .. # �3 .F�� Y t 0. a' 'der s r 1'�
"u 4�
T
�.�.- -"i"r ' V ,. • ern ` � **< �' S i'r'. --': e '-+ -.'-
p ,,q. • € -C' - �i * ' tea„ �`"x
iit
i,„,I.,
,,,....\,, -.,„‘.
a y,# gyp'' 4, - �) - -.,a `� 1,; x '4 1' 3 _ .
a 3"�:�,, z d .,-sue^ ,, - "1,,._...;, __.t y k S w 4 y- hq F F Y.4 S , '� — :-, ?
,..„
..t
- 1 f,�• � � .6A b .- ,-- �t34 r 9 _ mil- '141 L , Y'.. F t
i .,2 t,.
,,..--1- , r, ':''' A -' ' t i 'ril ,, 44' ,I.-'..4,'PJ;4',' 7. c.-. „W.' .TL,'-',' ', '-',.1 ,.„ i ,.\ .;,,._i44-.1,.L 1,,,,t-...Ar-12--,.,ziL
a F U{ P 1 P �e /
I!`fit ,"! t�\. r $t v-
N I
. ..:' 6r1iRelacAlftil-:1Stait'tiro:1%61:00
-ii: 4--,. ... _-.,- .7"' -.4,-v..›. ";;.4?4';, 7:',..- -:-. ..;=;"',.,,*,-_-.-.;,- ,1 .
f.�,�,+31 ,�.� - - 1.71'•, /:I. -�.ir...w. z Wetland Well Wetland Well 7—Reach 1, Station 63+50
- ' iiii:%,, I j.4; ;i-A ...1.,, ,,,-,- ___ ,k;.,..„,
-,,74,
It
1, ,
fie'_ 1 m- M fli e" � C I l `� ,° t �" 5� }5.
OM, gel N 4 ty ,q' !'� �s � •y�R .:.T.,,,‘,... j�
% , f., wy ' .. ��
w t ���:� 'c, i- , i13`�'' '''s n E A /�,{ \� _ r'.ry, C ny s7 f, "R'�" . n
nr � a � � `^S��t 77� :-?,c1-',1:.,;1,___: :-.4,1.
.
t r +w� - 7!'c -y �' r"fly,.
°°k Cif`
(( F / Al," ~.
' „ek
Wetland Well 8 —Reach 4, Station 23+00 Wetland Well 9—Reach 2, Station 45+00
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT(DMS PROJECT NO.96313)
DECEMBER 2020,MONITORING YEAR 4 OF 7