20140332 Ver 1_Year 5 Monitoring Report_2021_20220224 (2)

ID#* 20140332 Version* 1
Select Reviewer:
Erin Davis
Initial Review Completed Date 02/24/2022
Mitigation Project Submittal - 2/24/2022
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site?* O Yes O No
Type of Mitigation Project:*
Stream Wetlands Buffer 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: • DMS Mitigation Bank
Project Name: Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project
County: Guilford
Document Information
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Monitoring Report
File Upload: Browns Summit _96313_MY5_2021.pdf 8.66MB
Please upload only one PDF of the complete file that needs to be submitted...
Signature
Print Name: * Kelly Phillips
Signature: *
�ef� P�f�llps

Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L
January 24, 2022
Kelly Phillips
NCDEQ- Division of Mitigation Services
610 East Center Avenue, Suite 301
Mooresville, NC 28115
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600, Cary NC 27518
Office: 919.463.5488 1 Fax: [phone]
Subject: Response to Task 11 Draft Year 5 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 5 Monitoring Report Comments dated January 24, 2022
regarding the Browns Summit Creek Mitigation Project. We have revised the Year 5 Monitoring Report
document in response to this review.
Comment: Section 1.0 Executive Summary: You have requested discontinuing flow monitoring due to
the consistently strong flow data. Please continue monitoring until you receive IRT approval to stop.
Response: Michael Baker will continue monitoring flow data unless told otherwise.
Comment: Section 2.1.1 Morphological Parameters and Channel Stability: Thank you for retaining the
summary information detailing why the survey data was used from the MYO report.
Response: You are welcome. Michael Baker will continue to include this in the report until
closeout.
Comment: 2.1.1 Morphological Parameters and Channel Stability: For consistency with terminology
please update the term bankfull ratio to bank height ratio.
Response: Section 2.1.1 has been updated using bank height ratio instead of bankfull ratio.
Comment: Section 2.1.4 Visual Assessment: Add discussion for the Reach 2 (upstream) 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: Table I Project Components and Mitigation Credits: Update the stream credits from
5,301.867 to 5,300.867 and the wetland credits from 2.50 to 2.501.
Response: Table 1 has been revised and included in the final report.
Page 1

We Make o Difference
I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L
Comment: Appendix A - CCPV Figures: Thank you for including the summary call -outs on the CCPVs.
These are very helpful during review.
Response: You are welcome. Michael Baker will continue to include this in the report until
closeout.
Comment: Appendix A - CCPV.• Indicate the location of the Reach 2 structure of concern on the CCPV.
Response: Reach 2 grade control failed during MY3 but repaired in MY4. The CCPV has been
updated to show no structures failing.
Digital files:
Comment: Please submit the data that supports the groundwater and surface water gauge
figures.
Response: Groundwater and surface water gauge data is now included in the support files under
hydrologic data.
Comment: Please submit the hydrology monitoring station photos.
Response: All hydrology monitoring station photos have been included in the support files under
Visual Assessment Data.
Comment: Please include a figure or table that illustrates the 70th and 30th percentiles of
monthly precipitation relative to observed monthly precipitation.
Response: Figure 8. Observed Rainfall Versus Historic Averages has been included in Appendix
E of the report along with the supported files located in the e-submission folder.
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 5 Monitoring Report, please contact me at 919-
481-5703 or via email at [e-mail].
Sincerely,
KQu LAk.
Kathleen McKeithan, PE, CPESC, CPSWQ, CFM
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
Page 2

Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project
Year 5 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 4 F-1084
INTERNATIONAL
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. i
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96313
DECEMBER 2021, MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 7

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................I
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
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
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.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96313
DECEMBER 2021, MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 7

Appendix D Stream Survey Data
Figure 5 Cross -sections
Table 10 Baseline Stream Summary
Table 11 a Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring
Summary
Table 11 b Stream Reach Morphology Summary
Appendix E Hydrologic Data
Table
12
Verification of Bankfull Events
Table
13
Flow Gauge Success
Table
14
Flow Gauge Success
Figure
6
Flow Gauge Graphs
Table
16
Wetland Restoration Area Success
Figure
7
Wetland Restoration Graphs (2021)
Figure
g
Observed Rainfall Versus Historic
Averages
Hydrology Monitoring
Station Photos
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96313
DECEMBER 2021, MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 7

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. (Michael Baker) restored approximately 3,9O3 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.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96313
DECEMBER 2021, MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 7

• Construct a wetland BMP on the upstream extent of Reach R6 to capture and retain and for sediment
to settle out of the water column;
• Construct a step pool BMP channel to capture and disperse volumes and velocities by allowing
discharge from a low density residential development to spread across the floodplain of Reach R4;
thereby, diffusing energies and promoting nutrient uptake within the riparian buffer;
• Plant native species within the riparian corridor to increase runoff filtering capacity, improve stream
bank stability and riparian habitat connectivity, and shade the stream to decrease water temperature;
• Control invasive species vegetation within the project area and, if necessary, continue treatments during
the monitoring period; and
• Establish a conservation easement to protect the project area in perpetuity.
The Year 5 monitoring survey data of seventeen cross -sections indicates that the site is geomorphically stable
and performing at 100 percent for all the parameters evaluated. Certain cross -sections (located in Appendix D)
have shown minor fluctuations in their geometry as compared to their MY conditions; however, visually the
site has remained stable. Therefore, no Stream Problem Area (SPA) were discovered during Year 5 monitoring.
SPA 3-1 reported during Monitoring Year 3 (MY3) was repaired during MY4 and remained stable throughout
MY5. Small areas of invasive species (Privet and Multiflora Rose) were treated during April and July 2021.
Michael Baker plans on retreating these areas for future monitoring years.
During Year 5 monitoring, all plots meet the planted acreage performance categories (Appendix B
and Q. The lowest number of stems per acre was vegetation plot 10 with 7 stems. Even though the
mortality was high in the early growing stages of this plot the remaining trees are very healthy with
large volunteer species coming up as well. Therefore, it is not expected that the number of stems
decrease over the remaining monitoring years. The average stems per acre for the site is 506 as
compared to MY3 average of 517 stems per acre.
Year 5 flow monitoring demonstrated that all flow gauges (BSFL1, BSFL2 and BSFL3) continue to meet the
stated success criteria of 30 days or more of consecutive flow through R4, T3 and T1 respectively. Flow gauge
BSFL1 documented 156 days of consecutive flow in R4, while flow gauge BSFL2 documented 181 days of
consecutive flow in T3, and BSFL3 documented 293 days of consecutive flow in T1. The minimal consecutive
flow for the gauges within five years of monitoring was 122 days, thus we recommend discontinuing this
monitoring effort. 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 5 monitoring, the RI crest gauge documented two post -construction bankfull event from July 2021
at 1.43 feet and second event in October of 2021 at 1.01 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 (total) have been installed in the wetland restoration areas. 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 improving each monitoring year and falling short of the success criteria by only 4
days. It is anticipated that wetland hydrology will continue to improve.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96313
DECEMBER 2021, MONITORING YEAR 5 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 5 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 5 visual site assessment was collected in November 2021. 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 Rl, 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.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96313
DECEMBER 2021, MONITORING YEAR 5 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 was not discovered
until the MY1 survey was overlain on top of the MYO cross sections. The channel in reality had not
fluctuated nearly as dramatically as shown in Figure 5 (cross section overlays) and has remained stable
and is performing as designed. This has been documented through field inspections throughout
subsequent monitoring years by Michael Baker and DMS staff. Due to the MYO survey quality
discovered during MY1, Michael Baker proposed to utilize the detailed survey data and associated
parameters collected during 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, bank height 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 bank height ratio
is calculated and recorded. After bank height 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 MY1 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 91) was installed along Rl's left bank
at bankfull elevation. The crest gauge readings are presented in Appendix E. Thus, the site has meet
the bankfull flow requirements of two bankfull events within two separate years.
Year 5 flow monitoring demonstrated that all flow gauges (BSFL1, BSFL2 and BSFL3) met the
stated success criteria of 30 days or more of consecutive flow through R4, T3 and T1 respectively.
The gauges demonstrated similar patterns relative to rainfall events observed in the vicinity of the Site
as shown in the flow gauge graphs in Appendix E.
2.1.3 Photographic Documentation
Visual inspection of the site is conducted at a minimum of twice a year. Representative photographs
for Monitoring Year 5 were taken along each Reach in March 2021 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 integrity and of in -stream structures throughout the project. Habitat
parameters and pool depth maintenance are also evaluated and scored. During Year 5 monitoring,
Michael Baker staff walked the entire project 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 Mitigation Plan, and 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.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96313
DECEMBER 2021, MONITORING YEAR 5 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 across the site 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.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96313
DECEMBER 2021, MONITORING YEAR 5 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 DIMS.
7 Site Location r.
GUILFORD
Conservation Easement
NCDMS TLW
Note: Site is located within targeted local
watershed 0303002010020.
1"W'
r�rt�itr•�>i��i�l►��j►`j�4i� i
Guilford County
Figure 1
Site Location Project Vicinity Map
Browns Summit (DMS# 96313)
NCDEQ - Division
of Mitigation Services N
I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L
0.5 0 0.5
Miles
c

x
Conservation Easement rt
Restoration Feature Approach
Restoration
Enhancement I
Enhancement 11
No Credit
Wetland Mitigation Types
1 - "Functioning", 3:1 credit ratio Rehabilitation
- 2 - Degraded, 1.5:1 credit ratio Rehabilitation
- 3 - Partially Functioning, 1.5:1 credit ratio Rehabilitation
4 - Filled, 1:1 credit ratio Reestablishment
- 5 - Hydrologic Reestablishment, 3.5:1 ratio
-- TV
V Reach R2 (upper)
`7* I r, Reach R3 (lower)
r J
6
i
Reach R4
Reach R6
Reach R5
INTERNATIDNAI_
0 250 500
Feet
r
pp ,:
Reach R1
Reach T1
e yti
Reach R2 (lower)
Reach T2
Reach R3 (upper)
Reach T3
.j
r
1,000 Figure 2
Restoration Summary Map
Browns Summit Site
(DMS #96313)

ROCKINGHAM
COUNTY
Haw, �-------�-�---�------�--------�---�--- --�-- - �-
State----�-- �----�--�------ �----
ry
Project Location
150
Haw River Rim horn Creek
State Park
Project Location
GUILFORD
® Reference Wetland COUNTY
0 Reference Stream Reaches °`,,:, Oh
Major Roads n"'4 UT to Reedy Fork
y�
Minor Roads w` _
'.�
Rivers/Streams
Lakes/Ponds 1 -;
County Boundary
sf I�
Geology, ;
Carolina Slate Belt.:
Charlotte and Milton Belts jc
F f
N .OF;?1M:pN e ,f=Y.ita51 �aysis,N
BoafOF J
d` r
2 1 0 2 Figure 3
Michael BakerReference Stream
Locations Map
INTERNATIONAL Miles Browns Summit Site

i
0
tE
0
U
fi"y.
L
O it
L
L
c
o Q
w
5
as
z
08
O
a
'E
L
O
O
O=
O
2
C
C
C
C
aEi
C
aEi
� L
� y
C
z
C
ttl
W a
N O
O
O
N
O
'O
W o
C
'� A
��.•'
a
�
a�
�
U
w
a.
c
w
•o
o
•�
l� O
00 O
N
N
4?
b0
O
`
00 O
C+
+
+
+ �v�j
O�
C (n
(n (n
(n (n
{T•i
Y
A
'a°7
CD u"I
C
C
M
ti
O
C4
a
M
M
S
ti
.u"li
ti
O N
p uj
pp
u-i
u'i 0
0 0
0 g
(n
(n (n
(n (n
(n
pQ
O cD
C
+ O
+
+ O
O O
O O
M
bA
2
ro
F'i
E
F •b
p
4
o n
Ny
o
LIM
p
a
E
aocn
n
P.
cn O
m
c
..
a0i
cn
a15'�U•+
O
a
O
O
.
..
..
p.
o
o
�
�-i
0.Li
�
•o c
a
aEi
Z U
O Lo
zaw
—U}
N
_ Z
a a a
LLI w Y O
W
(�z
Z U
W
La N
O
CO (nL
J (n m
WZ2
U a w
CO 0

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No
ID. 96313
Activity or Report
Scheduled Completion
Data Collection
Complete
Actual Completion
or Delivery
Mitigation Plan Prepared
not specified in proposal
Summer 2015
May 1, 2015
Mitigation Plan Amended
not specified in proposal
Summer 2015
September 17, 2015
Mitigation Plan Approved
December 4, 2014
Winter 2015
November 2, 2015
Final Mitigation Plan with PCN (minor revisions requested in
approval letter)
not specified in proposal
Winter 2015
January 29, 2016
Final Design - (at least 90% complete)
not specified in proposal
September 20, 2016
Construction Begins
not specified in proposal
October 10, 2016
Temporary S&E mix applied to entire project area
June 1, 2015
March 10, 2017
Permanent seed mix applied to entire project area
June 2, 2015
March 10, 2017
Planting of live stakes
June 3, 2015
March 10, 2017
Planting of bare root trees
June 3, 2015
March 10, 2017
End of Construction
May 4, 2015
March 8, 2017
Survey of As -built conditions (Year 0 Monitoring -baseline)
June 3, 2015
Spring 2017
July 1, 2017
Baseline Monitoring Report*
May 7, 2017
Spring 2017
November 30, 2017
Year 1 Monitoring
December 1, 2017
November 2017
January 8, 2018
Year 2 Monitoring
December 1, 2018
November 2018
December 31, 2018
Year 3 Monitoring
December 1, 2019
November 2019
February 12, 2020
Year 4 Monitoring
December 1, 2020
November 2020
February 11, 2021
Year 5 Monitoring
December 1, 2021
November 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 2021, MONITORING YEAR 5 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 Mont ome 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 2021, MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 7

W
W N
2
fA fA
2O 2O
fA P7
2O
-
oQ
w
w
3
o f
w
J K
w w
K K
w w
K K
w w
'�
••
,u. N
-
� �,
o�
A o
Q �,
`o° •�
'"
N w
(7 a
Ro B
A N
Q w
o
y U
U U
U U
U V
ofi
v
voi
� >,
•- '�
.o' m
d �>
•"
N
-
�
cT7 �
T U
o�
°'
o
Z o
¢
Z
� .o'
.-. �
"' '"
e>
"'
'�
T �
T U
o�
a
N
mT o
¢
Z
o a
.-. �
m
zzzzz
o
� rn
w
T c
o�
o
oo
a
Z
`o° •o'
N '-"
-
U s
��°
�'
Q
`o°
w
3
A
o
a
v
w
67,
67, a
Q E
o A
w
3"
o
--
N
N
cu
d pp
z
¢c�
ohs
oo'a
t
�.
U"
o `f•'
�"' m
o�
Q 67,
�55�
(3�o
CJ
U"
oaa
a
o w
F W
a
o
U a
a
a a
U
5 Z
w w
a a
Q
C�J
W a>
Z Z
R y
a
W 5
s `�°
rn Q
'.->
Gwc Z
R
a 4.
c J
a>
o Z
a y
Z a
W 5
s `E°
rn Q
Gwc Z
a
C '>
'> w
T U
w W

Appendix B
Visual Assessment Data

QConservation Easement
• Flow Gauge
• Monitoring Wells
�. Photo Location
Crest Gauge
Cross Sections
Vegetation Plots
Streams by Mitigation Type
Restoration
Enhancement I
Enhancement 11
No Credit
Wetland Mitigation Types
i 1 - "Functioning", 3:1 credit ratio Rehabilitation
2 - Degraded, 1.5:1 credit ratio Rehabilitation
3 - Partially Functioning, 1.5:1 credit ratio Rehabilitation
4 - Filled, 1:1 credit ratio Reestablishment
5 - Hydrologic Reestablishment, 3.5:1 credit ratio
.
BSAW7 0 w T
` ' O �, ,.. YI;. . •.ram: 1V
VP14
445 stems/ac '''s xS-17
i
PL2
BSAW6':. .il y r
VP13 XS-16 ��
405 stems/ac
IN
PL3
Bsaw5 �Q. xReach R1
S-15
PL4 177
PL5 k
`.ate � �=
f
XS-14'
PL6
j , v
i
PL7 XS-13
BS
1r ..
VP12 xS-12' 567 stems/act
405 stems/ac PI R
Reach R2 (upper)
B
rr . /y., r :' �.;. � � �,. •; .'d:' .. .: ' f :��/i alp'
.,1, >:.. it : ir•. ''�• d;:C;r•Y
.; PL11 PL12
.
'
!.s` �
S' �
; '
AO PL13
I`
1 , .�;V'^ff� ... R.
r.r � 1 .
, Ida•
Reach R3 (lower) 'I'��
PL15 's
Z
VP9
486 stems/ac Y
XS`11 PL16
0 125 250
INTERNATIONAL I Feet
Reach T1 i
Reach R2 (lower)
BSAW 2 did not meet
success criteria
VP10
283 stems/ac
.:� Reach T2
Figure 4.1
500 Current Conditions
Plan View
Browns Summit Site
(DMS #96313)

r6e
ation Easement
uge
ng Wells
ocation
auge
ections
ion Plots
Mitigation Type
— Restoration
— Enhancement I
— Enhancement II
— No Credit
Wetlands by Mitigation Type
1 - "Functioning", 3:1 credit ratio Rehabilitation
- 2 - Degraded, 1.5:1 credit ratio Rehabilitation
- 3 - Partially Functioning, 1.5:1 credit ratio Rehabilitation
- 4 - Filled, 1:1 credit ratio Reestablishment
- 5 - Hydrologic Reestablishment, 3.5:1 credit ratio
1,
00.0
1
VP8
6 77 stems/ac
i. 1 : PL17r
N 'r
each R3 (upper)
VP6
324 stems/ac Wq
X6
/I
X7 9
VP5
405 stems/ac
Reach R4 (lower)
VP4
445 stems/ac
Reach R4 (upper) VP3
769 stems/ac
VP2
Reach R6 607 stems/ac
PL38
w Reach T4
r • �t y
1 �r Reach R5
VP1 _
* 688 stems/ac
J r
- E .........., HE - E, � � ,��©•-�tMa�p c'�ii �b
N GIA, N B E
BakerMichael
0 125 250
INTERNATIONAL Feet
VP7
-
647 stems/ac
Reach T3
Figure 4.2
500 Current Conditions
Plan View
Browns Summit Site
(DMS #96313)

°
O y
� � N
Q
� G O
O N
W
� O
y O y
ec
a
ode
O
O
O
o
0 o
o d
L y
E
o
0
0
0
z�N
F
O .r
F
N `n
-C °
za
°
bb
O
Z
L
o4 `°
a
a
o aoi
U
ro
E
c W
o o °o
c o�rn x
°
o 'a o
�-o
O m
ro
`o
y
h
ycly
c
o o
'ro W 3 ro
N
ai rt
iG
G X .x.. O ro
CQ �d CQ U ,-. O h .�
O
CQ U
°=
O
C� G
C7
3
C� 4�.
i u N°
X„ X .�
CQ U U ..
o=°>
0.. OU
y �
y N
�
Q A
N
o
o
O
G
yp
ro
n P�
W
ro
o
d
0
o
o y
O
d
c.
c
j
°
°
>
w
It�°
x
`.°y a
U U
N
M
N
N
M
d d
c. c.
N U
L
c.
°
O
to y
O
O
Y
U
L
W
W co
F W
ai Q�
�rro
iG U
N N
w
M
10
CD
H
U
W
O
a

0
""
uq
� � d
Q
� a o
N •`� � fd
W
N � O
N
Owl
cz
E a
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
ode
0
0
0
0
0 0
4.
o d i
L
�
o d
z�N
F
Z y
o
0
0
0
0
F
d�
za
10
°°°
3 04
h
:°
�
"" 04
h of
a Al o
°°b
N
1
d
Z
O
h w
N Q
iywr
b0q
W U
bq l w Ob9
yclCR
C.
ro �
� •o
O
g
eu
y
c.
U
O Qr
W
�
fd
r0-i
O
O
N
CJ CJ
N
M
N
N
M
�
y Y
N
•d U
oN
Q.a
s
y d
ro
W
W
F W
CGa
� Ci
N V7
w
H
O
w
O
a
WN
Y � O
co a
LUz coW 2
_ 3: W
[o 0

0
""
uq
� � d
Q
� a o
N •`� � fd
N � O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Eo
a
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
ode
0
0
0
0
0 0
4.
o d i
L
�
o d
z�N
F
F
d�
o
G
za
Al
is
°o o
> O
dw
N Q
b9
` z
a
'�O
a
O a0i
ro
G W U
O °o
w ,? �
c wx
E
d
E
o
ro
N°
o o>
ro �
� •o
O
g
eu
y
c.
U
O Qr
W
�
fd
r0-i
O
O
N
CJ CJ
N
M
N
m
N
M
�
y Y
N
•d U
oN
Q.a
s
y d
ro
W
W
F W
CGa
�Ci
N V7
V
M
0
H
O
w
O
a
V)
H
O
w
O
a
z O
O LO
w
O }
w Z
w°
wz
ao
O 2
Wcli
N
Y O
Co
J V) m
w z co
_ w
[o 0

o
a
3
N C
� � O
O �
N
W
S"• bq
3
� � o
E a
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
o d d
o d i
L
z�N
F
z �,
ti
M
ti
ti
ti
F
d�
o
G
za
°°°
° `o ° ro :o `o
3 04
u °
h
o
:°
"" 04
of
a Al o
q O
�*
y a o ro -o o bmz
°
m
N
o
h
i -o °
~°o c
M
bq
U
.�
z dbmz
O
h w
y
N Q
E
iy�r
b0q i ro
,D
p U
U
G W U
bq l w C,
ro
°>
Cn
C.7
Cn
FA aXi aXi �9
0.. P�.
L ^"
°-
o,
y
U
O Qr
W
fd
r0-i
O
O
ro
d
>
sue.
y Y
N
d U
N
y+
7
oy
o
U
a
y
O
ro
G
L o
td
ro
W
W
F W
ai Q
� U
N V7
V
M
0
H
O
LLJ
O
a
V)
H
U
W
O
a
z O
O LO
W
O }
ou
LLJ Z
w°
W z
ao
U 2
WN
Y � cli
O
m�a
J n m
W z
_ LLJ
a LLJ
[o 0

o
a
3
N C
� � O
O �
N
W
S"• bq
3
� � o
0
0
0
0
0 0 0 0 0
Eo
a
o
0
0
0
0 0 0 0 0
a
o d d
o d i
L
z�N
F
z
F
d�
o
za
o
Alis
, a`�
`O t 3 ro
=° L
G =°
'D
ro
ro �
O Fr
W
�
fd
r0-i
O
O
y Y
N
d U
N
y+
oy
q.a
s
y d
ro
W
W
F W
ai Q
� U
N V7
w
H
U
W
O
a

o
a
3
N C
� � O
O �
N
W
S"• bq
3
� � o
E a
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
o d d
o d i
L
z�N
F
F
d�
o
za
Al o
N Q
b09 z i ro
,D
O
ro
G W U
tw w Om
ro
d
d
c o c o° c°
D
ro
3
c u N 'O
o= o
a.
ro �
°-
� O
O
G
y
it
U
O Fr
W
�
fd
r0-i
O
O
Cd
y Y
N
d U
N
y+
oy
q.a
s
y d
ro
W
W
F W
ai Q
� U
N V7
w
H
U
w
O
a
H
U
w
O
a
z O
O Lo
w
O }
� C7
w Z
w°
wz
ao
U 2
WN
Y � O
coV)�
J V) m
w z co
= w
�m0

0
""
uq
� � d
Q
� a o
N •`� � fd
G N
cz
E a
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
ode
0
0
0
0
0 0
4.
o d i
L
�
o d
z�N
F
10
cc
cc
cc
10
F
d�
10
10
10
10
10
did
oil
za
bq
�
�n on a. °°°
3 04
h
:°
"" 04
of
a Al o
C] o
°
h
'O
>,
°
M
U
O
._V.
N Q
.� ro 'O
b09 z i ro
,D
h
O
ro
G W U
bq w O�
O -o O
ro
N°
o o
ro
� •o
O
g
eu
y
c.
U
O Qr
W
�
fd
r0-i
O
O
>
sue.
tad
N
CJ CJ
N
M
N
N
M
�
y Y
N
•d U
oN
q.a
s
y d
ro
W
W
F W
CGa
� Ci
N V7
w
H
O
w
O
a
WN
Y � O
co a
LUz cow 2
_ w
�m0

0
""
uq
� � d
Q
� a o
N •`� � fd
G N
cz
E a
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o�
a
ode
0
0
0
0
0 0
4.
o d i
L
�
o d
z�N
F
F
d�
did
za
10
�n
on a °°°
3
h
?
04
a Al o
SD
°
w>
N Q
b09
z i ro
,D
O
ro
G W U
bq w O�
0 0
N
N
N
G O ,D
GE G ^d'
ro
3
U U h 'O
O°>
Cn
C7
Cn
L Q'
N
O Fr
W
fd
r0-i
O
O
>
sue.
tad
N
CJ CJ
N
M
N
N
M
�
y Y
N
•d U
oN
q.a
s
y d
ro
W
W
F W
CGa
� Ci
N V7
w
M
0
H
O
W
O
a
V)
H
U
W
O
a
z O
O LO
W
O}
W Z
w°
W z
ao
O 2
Wcli
N
Y O
Co
J V) m
W z 2
_ � W
2 m 0

0
� � d
Q
� a o
N •`� •O fd
G N
cz
a
ode
0
0
0
0
0 0
4.
o d i
L
°
o d
z�N
F
10
cc
cc
cc
cc
F
d�
10
10
10
10
10
did
za
10
�n on a Q °q
SDis
3 on
h
°
04
Q Alc o
'O
°
M
°
bb
z
h-
N Q
b09 i ro
,D
O
ro
G W U
bq w O�
O -o O
I
c o c c°
U
U
x c
o>
a�
cc
n
d
o°
cn
C.
ro �
� •o
O
g
eu
y
c.
U
O Qr
W
�
fd
r0-i
O
O
c.
is
d
c
N
CJ CJ
N
M
N
N
M
�
y Y
N
•d U
ro
W
W
F W
ai Q
� U
N V7
w
F
O
w
O
a
V)
W � N
Y � O
CO 0 L
—j0 m
w z 2
_ � w
2 m 0

0
� � d
Q
� a o
N •`� •O fd
W
G N
cz
a
ode
0
0
0
0
0 0
4.
o d i
L
°
o d
z�N
F
F
N `n
O
za
10
S1 bq
p
>1 O
i
L
U W
h OI U
Al O
Q O
bb
y O
U
h
ro
O E
z
N Q
b09 i ro
,D
O
ro
G W
Cn
C7
Cn
O Fr
W
fd
r0-i
O
O
o
c.
"
is
d
c
cz
N
CJ CJ
N
M
N
N
M
�
y Y
N
•d U
W
W
F W
ai Q�
�rro
iG U
N fn
V
M
0
H
U
W
O
a
V)
H
U
w
O
a
z O
O LO
W
O }
w Z
w°
w z
ao
O 2
Wcli
N
Y O
Co
J V) m
W z 0
_ 3: W
�m0

0
""
uq
� � d
Q
� a o
N •`� � fd
N � O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Eo
a
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
ode
0
0
0
0
0 0
4.
o d i
L
�
o d
z�N
F
z
F
d�
o
za
S1 bq
i
U W
Al O
b
blJ
isO
U
h
ro
i
O E
>
O
> N �, ro
.N
c
U 0 3
N Q
b09 z i ro
,D
O
ro
G W
0 0
ro �
O Fr
W
�
fd
r0-i
O
O
sue.
N
CJ CJ
N
M
N
N
M
�
y Y
N
•d U
ro
W
W
F W
CG a
� Ci
N V7
w
H
U
w
O
a
WN
Y � O
co a
LUz cow 2
= w
�m0

0
""
uq
� � d
Q
� a o
N •`� � fd
N � O
E a
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
ode
� mw
0
0
0
0
0 0
4.
o d i
L
�
o d
z�N
F
F
d�
o
did
0E.
za
Al o
E °
M
w>
N Q
>
b09
z i ro
,D
O
ro
G W U
bq w C,
�
F •-
�
FA c°, ro
FA aXi ;� ° h .� FA �
� �
C.7 �
� �'
FA aXi aXi � �
0.. � � P�. �
L Q'
N
7
�q
In
O Fr
W
fd00
r0-i
O
O
>
sue.
tad
N
CJ CJ
N
M
N
N
M
�
y Y
N
•d U
oN
q.a
s
U
y d
a
n
O
y
O
O
Y
U
L
d
ro
W
W
F W
CGa
�Ci
N V7
w
M
0
H
O
W
O
a
V)
H
U
W
O
a
z O
O Lo
W
O}
W Z
w°
W z
ao
O 2
WN
Y � O
co V)
J V) m
W z co
_ W
[o 0

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
Vecletation Cateclory
Definitions
Threshold
Depiction
Polygons
Acreage
Acreacle
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
i 0.00
t 0.0%
Easement Acreage 20.24
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
_/001
Easement
Ve etation Cateaory
Definitions
Threshold
Depiction
Pol ons
Acrea a
Acreacle
4. Invasive Areas of
Areas or points (if too small to
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
Encroachment Areas
render as polygons at map
none
N/A
0
0.00
0.0%
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 2021, MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 7

Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project - Stream Stations Photos
Photos take March 23, 2021 (All photos are viewing upstream)
Photo Point 1 - Station 63+75, Reach 1 Photo Point 2 - Station 61+50, Reach 1
Photo Point 3 - Station 58+75, Reach 1
Photo Point 5 - Station 56+75, Reach 1
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DIMS PROJECT NO. 96313)
DECEMBER 2021, MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 7
Photo Point 4 - Station 57+85, Reach 1
Photo Point 6 - Station 55+00, Reach 1

Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project — Stream Stations Photos
Photos take March 23, 2021 (All photos are viewing upstream)
Photo Point 7 — Station 53+50, Reach 1
Photo Point 9 — Station 11+25, Reach T1
Photo Point 11 — Station 46+00, Reach 2
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96313)
DECEMBER 2021, MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 7
Photo Point 8 — Station 51+75, Reach 1
Photo Point 10 — Station 49+00, Reach 2
Photo Point 12 — Station 44+75, Reach 2

Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project - Stream Stations Photos
Photos take March 23, 2021 (All photos are viewing upstream)
Photo Point 13 - Station 43+75, Reach 2/Reach T2
Photo Point 15 - Station 41+50, Reach 3
Photo Point 17 - Station 36+00, Reach 3
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DIMS PROJECT NO. 96313)
DECEMBER 2021, MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 7
Photo Point 14 - Station 42+25, Reach 3
Photo Point 16 - Station 36+25, Reach 3
Photo Point 18 - Station 35+00, Reach 3

Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project — Stream Stations Photos
Photos take March 23, 2021 (All photos are viewing upstream)
Photo Point 19 — Station 33+00, Reach 3
Photo Point 21 — 31+50, Reach 3
Photo Point 23 — Station 10+25, Reach T3
Photo Point 20 — Station 32+00, Reach 3
Photo Point 22 — Station 28+75, Reach 3/T3
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96313)
DECEMBER 2021, MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 7
Photo Point 24 — Station 26+50, Reach 4

Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project — Stream Stations Photos
Photos take March 23, 2021 (All photos are viewing upstream)
Photo Point 25 — Station 24+50, Reach 4
Photo Point 27 — Station 22+50, Reach 4
Photo Point 29 — Station 11+00, Reach T4
Photo Point 26 — Station 24+00, Reach 4
Photo Point 28 — Station 21+50, Reach 4/T4
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96313)
DECEMBER 2021, MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 7
Photo Point 30 — Station 19+50, Reach 4

Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project — Stream Stations Photos
Photos take March 23, 2021 (All photos are viewing upstream)
Photo Point 31 — Station 19+10, Step Pools
Photo Point 33 — Station 16+75, Reach 4
Photo Point 35 — Station 15+00, Reach 6, Step
Pools
Photo Point 32 — Station 18+00, Reach 4
Photo Point 34 — Sta. 15+75, Reaches 4, 5 and 6
Photo Point 36 — Station 14+50, Reach 6, BMP
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96313)
DECEMBER 2021, MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 7

Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project — Stream Stations Photos
Photos take March 23, 2021 (All photos are viewing upstream)
Photo Point 37 — Station 11+90, Reach 6, BMP
Photo Point 39 — Station 15+00, Reach 5
Photo Point 38 — Station 10+50, Reach 6, Step Pools
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96313)
DECEMBER 2021, MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 7

�-ij Fml z..�qi

�
� s c
1' is r
re Yj e'r i tr 'r
k
.4

Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project - Vegetation Plot Photo Stations
Photos taken November 8, 2021
Vegetation Plot 13
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DIMS PROJECT NO. 96313)
DECEMBER 2021, MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 7
Vegetation Plot 14

Appendix C
Vegetation Plot Data

�11_I■IIIIII
ail=l:llili'
�11_I■IIlIII
�f0
0�I0IIII
�il=l:llllll
�11=1:IIIIII
�f0
I�OIIIII
III
0�00I���
II!
I
fll
I
I�
0
0
0
a

a

T 'T
/
)
\

71d
H
}
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
\
\
\
,
)
•
}f
`%
\
I
§
E
-
)
!
//
?
}
}}_);}
{\
{
e
r2!
/
_
m
))
75 0}k\\§=!\_
E
\
\
E
J
}
|}
\f/z2«21{{I)r
;
E-
M6
0
/
j±0
}
}k\)\�)ƒk\
_
7
2!a#!2@®!
R`i|-20Uz
Roa3:0
&4!@7e
)
]\\
)`)
k
\
!E
)
2
mE
EO
M
,kZ,,
#@
\
-\
i2E2
!�
2
);
�
\
22
�;\)\A§Mmccfc%)&1E

Appendix D
Stream Survey Data

Figure 5 Cross -sections
Looking at the Left Bank
Permanent Cross-section 1
(Year 5 Data - Collected September 2021)
Looking at the Right Bank
Stream
BKF
BKF
Max BKF
Feature
I Type
BKF Area
Width
Depth
I Depth
W/D I
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
C
2.4
6.3
0.4
0.7
16.3
1.1
7.3
795.43
795.62
Browns Summit Restoration Site
Reach 4, Cross-section 1
798
•
797
0
796
w-------------
------------
795
As -built
Year 1
MY5 BKF= 795.57'
Year 2
Year 3
Thalweg = 794.75'
Year 5
MY5 BKF
-- -- Bankfull Line
- 9--- Floodprone
794
0 10
20 30 40
50 60
Station (ft)
Note: Per DMS/IRT request, bank height ratio is calculated by setting the current bankfull area to match the asbuilt bankfull
area and dividing by the current max depth. Note: MY1 data is being utilized as asbuilt data due to poor quality asbuilt survey.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96313
DECEMBER 2021, MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 7

Figure 5 Cross -sections
Looking at the Left Bank
Permanent Cross-section 2
(Year 5 Data - Collected September 2021)
Looking at the Right Bank
Stream
BKF
BKF
Max BKF
Feature
Type
BKF Area
Width
Depth
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool
12.4
14.3
0.9
2.8
16.5
793.70
793.67
Browns Summit Restoration Site
Reach 4, Cross-section 2
797
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------o
796
795
w
c
794
-
- ---------------------
-�
As -built
793
w
Year 1
Year 2
792
Year 3
Year 5
791
-- --- Bankfull Line
790
---- Floodprone
0 10 20 30 40
50 60
Station (ft)
Note: MY1 data is being utilized as asbuilt data due to poor quality asbuilt survey.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96313
DECEMBER 2021, MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 7

Figure 5 Cross -sections
Looking at the Left Bank
Permanent Cross-section 3
(Year 5 Data - Collected September 2021)
Looking at the Right Bank
Stream
BKF
BKF
Max BKF
Feature
Type
BKF Area
Width
Depth
Depth
1
W/D
j
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
C
6.7
9.6
1 0.7
1.3
13.6
0.9
6.9
791.82
791.80
Browns Summit Restoration Site
Reach 4, Cross-section 3
794
—
793
0
792
>
w
---___________ -
�. --- --
As -built Year 1
791
MY5 BKF= 791.87'
Year 2 Year 3
Thalweg = 790.51'
Year 5 MY5 BKF
-- o--- Bankfull Line ---&-- Floodprone
790
0 10
20 30 40 50 60 70
Station (ft)
Note: Per DMS/IRT request, bank height ratio is calculated by setting the current bankfull area to match the asbuilt bankfull
area and dividing by the current max depth. Note: MY1 data is being utilized as asbuilt data due to poor quality asbuilt survey.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96313
DECEMBER 2021, MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 7

Figure 5 Cross -sections
Looking at the Left Bank
Permanent Cross-section 4
(Year 5 Data - Collected September 2021)
Looking at the Right Bank
BKF
Feature I Stream
IBKF Area I Width I Depth I MaxBKF
I W/D I BH Ratio I ER I BKF Elev I TOB Elev
Riffle C 5.4 8.9 0.6 1 14.7 1.0 7.4 789.04 789.128
791
790.5
790
w
789.5
0 789
9
aa) 788.5
w
::
Browns Summit Restoration Site
Reach 4, Cross-section 4
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------o
MY5 BKF= 789.15'
787.5
Thalweg = 788.03'
787
786.5
As -built Year 1
Year 2 Year 3
Year 5 MY5 BKF
-- --- Bankfull Line --- 9--- Floodprone
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Station (ft)
Note: Per DMS/IRT request, bank height ratio is calculated by setting the current bankfull area to match the asbuilt bankfull
area and dividing by the current max depth. Note: MY1 data is being utilized as asbuilt data due to poor quality asbuilt survey.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96313
DECEMBER 2021, MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 7

Figure 5 Cross -sections
Looking at the Left Bank
Permanent Cross-section 5
(Year 5 Data - Collected September 2021)
Looking at the Right Bank
BKF
Feature I Stream
IBKF Area I w dth I Depth I Max
Depth F I W/D I BH Ratio I ER I BKF Elev I TOB Elev
Riffle C 7.8 10.4 0.8 1.0 13.8 0.9 6.6 785.57 785.5
787
786.5
786
w
c 785.5
� 785
w
784.5
784
783.5
MY5 BKF= 785.603'
Thalweg = 784.53'
Browns Summit Restoration Site
Reach 4, Cross-section 5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------0
As -built Year 1
Year 2 Year 3
Year 5 MY5 BKF
-- --- Bankfull --- 9--- Floodprone
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Station (ft)
Note: Per DMS/IRT request, bank height ratio is calculated by setting the current bankfull area to match the asbuilt bankfull
area and dividing by the current max depth. Note: MY1 data is being utilized as asbuilt data due to poor quality asbuilt survey.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96313
DECEMBER 2021, MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 7

Figure 5 Cross -sections
Looking at the Left Bank
Permanent Cross-section 6
(Year 5 Data - Collected September 2021)
Looking at the Right Bank
Stream
BKF
BKF
Max BKF
Feature
Type
BKF Area
Width
Depth
Depth
1
W/D
j
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool
15.3
12.1
1 1.3
2.4
9.6
-
-
781.68
781.84
Browns Summit Restoration Site
Reach 3, Cross-section 6
785
—
784
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------o
783
w
c 782
----------------
—
�o
781
As -built
w
Year 1
780
Year 2
Year 3
Year 5
779
-- --- Bankfull
-- --- Floodprone
778
1
1-
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
70 80
90
Station (ft)
Note: MY1 data is being utilized as asbuilt data due to poor quality asbuilt survey.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96313
DECEMBER 2021, MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 7

Figure 5 Cross -sections
Looking at the Left Bank
Permanent Cross-section 7
(Year 5 Data - Collected September 2021)
Looking at the Right Bank
Stream
BKF
BKF
Max BKF
Feature I
Type
BKF Area
Width
Depth
I Depth
W/D j
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
C
4.8
9.4
0.5
1.1
18.3
1.0
9.6
781.42
781.51
Browns Summit Restoration Site
Reach 3, Cross-section 7
783
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
w
782
0
IV-
W------------
781
I - As -built Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
MY5 BKF=
781.56' — Year 5
MY5 BKF
Thalweg
= 780.33' -- -- Bankfull
---&-- Floodprone
780
0 10
20 30 40 50 60
70 80 90
Station (ft)
Note: Per DMS/IRT request, bank height ratio is calculated by setting the current bankfull area to match the asbuilt bankfull
area and dividing by the current max depth. Note: MY1 data is being utilized as asbuilt data due to poor quality asbuilt survey.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96313
DECEMBER 2021, MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 7

Figure 5 Cross -sections
Looking at the Left Bank
Permanent Cross-section 8
(Year 5 Data - Collected September 2021)
Looking at the Right Bank
Stream
BKF
BKF
Max BKF
Feature
Type
BKF Area
Width
Depth
Depth
1
W/D
j
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
C
6.8
13.9
1 0.5
1.2
28.3
0.9
6.3
777.63
777.49
Browns Summit Restoration Site
Reach 3, Cross-section 8
780
779
w
= 778
o
As -built
m
w 777
Year 1
-
Year 2
Year 3
776
MY5 BKF= 777.657'
---♦- MY5 BKF
Thalweg = 776.38'
---o--- Bankfull
---o--- Floodprone
775
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
70 80 90
Station (ft)
Note: Per DMS/IRT request, bank height ratio is calculated by setting the current bankfull area to match the asbuilt bankfull
area and dividing by the current max depth. Note: MY1 data is being utilized as asbuilt data due to poor quality asbuilt survey.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96313
DECEMBER 2021, MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 7

Figure 5 Cross -sections
Looking at the Left Bank
Permanent Cross-section 9
(Year 5 Data - Collected September 2021)
Looking at the Right Bank
Feature
Stream
I Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
I Depth
W/D I
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool
17.3
15.6
1.1
2.5
14
1
775.88
775.64
Browns Summit Restoration Site
Reach 3, Cross-section 9
780 —
779
o------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------o
778
w
c 777 \
co
775
774
773
0 10 20 30 40 50
Station (ft)
As -built Year 1
Year 2 Year 3
Year 5 ---&-- Bankfull
---- Floodprone
60 70 80 90 100
Note: MY1 data is being utilized as asbuilt data due to poor quality asbuilt survey.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96313
DECEMBER 2021, MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 7

Figure 5 Cross -sections
Looking at the Left Bank
Permanent Cross-section 10
(Year 5 Data - Collected September 2021)
Looking at the Right Bank
Stream
BKF
BKF
Max BKF
Feature
Type
BKF Area
Width
Depth
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
1
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
C
5.6
8.9
0.6
1.1
14.3
1
5.9
773.83
773.98
Browns Summit Restoration Site
Reach 3, Cross-section 10
777
776
=
775
------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
w
774
As -built Year 1
773
MY5 BKF=
773.97' Year 2
Year 3
Year 5
MY5 BKF
Thalweg =
772.76'
-- --- Bankfull
--- Floodprone
772
0 10
20 30 40 50
60 70
Station (ft)
Note: Per DMS/IRT request, bank height ratio is calculated by setting the current bankfull area to match the asbuilt bankfull
area and dividing by the current max depth. Note: MY1 data is being utilized as asbuilt data due to poor quality asbuilt survey.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96313
DECEMBER 2021, MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 7

Figure 5 Cross -sections
Looking at the Left Bank
Permanent Cross-section 11
(Year 5 Data - Collected September 2021)
Looking at the Right Bank
Feature
Stream
I Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
I Depth
W/D j
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
C
6.9
9.5
0.7
1.1
13.1
1.1
6.9
771.76
771.95
776
775
774
w
c 773
0
�o
w 772
771
MY5 BKF= 771.87'
770 Thalweg = 770.66'
769
0 10 20
Browns Summit Restoration Site
Reach 3, Cross-section 11
----------
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
+Year 5
MY5 BKF
-- --- Bankfull Line
-- &-- Flood rone
30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Station (ft)
Note: Per DMS/IRT request, bank height ratio is calculated by setting the current bankfull area to match the asbuilt bankfull
area and dividing by the current max depth. Note: MY1 data is being utilized as asbuilt data due to poor quality asbuilt survey.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96313
DECEMBER 2021, MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 7

Figure 5 Cross -sections
Permanent Cross-section 12
(Year 5 Data - Collected October 2021)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Stream
BKF
BKF
Max BKF
Feature
Type
BKF Area
Width
Depth
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
C
3.2
6.1
0.5
1
11.5
0.9
5.5
763.82
763.84
Browns Summit Restoration Site
Reach T1, Cross-section 12
767
766
w
=
765
o-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
co
w
764
--------------- ®�
As -built Year 1
763
MY5 BKF= 763.95' Year
2 Year 3
Year
5 MY5 BKF
Thalweg = 762.84'
--o-- Bankful ---- Floodprone
762
0 10 20 30
40 50
Station (ft)
Note: Per DMS/IRT request, bank height ratio is calculated by setting the current bankfull area to match the asbuilt bankfull
area and dividing by the current max depth. Note: MY1 data is being utilized as asbuilt data due to poor quality asbuilt survey.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96313
DECEMBER 2021, MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 7

Figure 5 Cross -sections
i'.c `:: ;may':. • ..' :.:.. �'.,
'. 'Via
Looking at the Left Bank
Permanent Cross-section 13
(Year 5 Data - Collected September 2021)
Looking at the Right Bank
Feature
Stream
I Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
I Depth
W/D I
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool
17.9
12
1.5
2.8
8
1
762.95
762.83
767 —
766
765
764
0
763
m
W 762
761
760
759
0
Browns Summit Restoration Site
Reach 1, Cross-section 13
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Station (ft)
Note: MY1 data is being utilized as asbuilt data due to poor quality asbuilt survey.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96313
DECEMBER 2021, MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 7

Figure 5 Cross -sections
Looking at the Left Bank
Permanent Cross-section 14
(Year 5 Data - Collected September 2021)
Looking at the Right Bank
Feature
Stream
I Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
I Depth
W/D I
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
C
10.7
11
1.0
1.7
11.3
1.0
6.6
761.71
761.81
Browns Summit Restoration Site
Reach 1, Cross-section 14
764
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
763
w
= 762
c---------------
w 761
760 MY5 BKF= 761.86'
Thalweg = 760.03'
759
0 10 20 30 40
Station (ft)
As -built
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 5
MY5 BKF
-- --- Bankfull Line
-- --- Floodprone
50 60 70 80
Note: Per DMS/IRT request, bank height ratio is calculated by setting the current bankfull area to match the asbuilt bankfull
area and dividing by the current max depth. Note: MY1 data is being utilized as asbuilt data due to poor quality asbuilt survey.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96313
DECEMBER 2021, MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 7

Figure 5 Cross -sections
Looking at the Left Bank
Permanent Cross-section 15
(Year 5 Data - Collected September 2021)
Looking at the Right Bank
Feature
Stream
I Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
I Depth
W/D I
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool
12.1
12.4
1
1.6
12.6
1
760.52
760.67
Browns Summit Restoration Site
Reach 1, Cross-section 15
763
762
w
761 -
o '
760
w
759
758
757
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Station (ft)
Note: MY1 data is being utilized as asbuilt data due to poor quality asbuilt survey.
As -built
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 5
--o-- Floodprone
--o-- Bankfull
80 90 100
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96313
DECEMBER 2021, MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 7

Figure 5 Cross -sections
Looking at the Left Bank
Permanent Cross-section 16
(Year 5 Data - Collected September 2021)
Looking at the Right Bank
Stream
BKF
BKF
Max BKF
Feature
Type
BKF Area
Width
Depth
Depth
1
W/D
j
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
C
9.8
11.1
1 0.9
1.7
12.7
0.9
6.4
759.53
759.57
Browns Summit Restoration Site
Reach 1, Cross-section 16
762
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------a
761
w
= 760
C----
-----------------------
-----------------
m
M 759
As -built
Year 1
Year 2
-Year 3
758
MY5 BKF= 759.72'
—*--Year 5
Ti = 757.82'
MY5 BKF
--o-- Bankfull
--o-- Floodprone
757
0 10
20 30 40 50
60 70 80
Station (ft)
Note: Per DMS/IRT request, bank height ratio is calculated by setting the current bankfull area to match the asbuilt bankfull
area and dividing by the current max depth. Note: MY1 data is being utilized as asbuilt data due to poor quality asbuilt survey.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96313
DECEMBER 2021, MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 7

Figure 5 Cross -sections
Looking at the Left Bank
Permanent Cross-section 17
(Year 5 Data - Collected September 2021)
Looking at the Right Bank
Stream
BKF
BKF
Max BKF
Feature
Type
BKF Area
Width
Depth
I Depth
W/D j
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
C
12.2
12
1.0
2
11.7
1.0
5.7
758.65
758.91
Browns Summit Restoration Site
Reach 1, Cross-section 17
761
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------o
760
w
=
759
-----------------------
0
�o
m
w
758
As -built
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
757
MY5 BKF= 758.84'
Year 5
MY5 BKF
Thalweg = 756.63'
--- 9--- Bankfull
---- Floodprone
756
0 10 20
30 40 50
60 70
Station (ft)
Note: Per DMS/IRT request, bank height ratio is calculated by setting the current bankfull area to match the asbuilt bankfull
area and dividing by the current max depth. Note: MY1 data is being utilized as asbuilt data due to poor quality asbuilt survey.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96313
DECEMBER 2021, MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 7

109092-1 21211 q
^| | ! ! ! ! ! ! | ! ! ! ! ! !I
w! ! ! | | | | ! | ! ! ! | !I
/IH///M 2110 !|!s| ! !| !!! !!!!|!!!!|!!!|
�
^L |
m/ ! / I I / � / ! | | ! ! ! ! | ! ! ! !| 11 ! | ! ! ! | ! ! ! | | ! | | ! ! |
WAN-! !!||! TO! |! !OR !!nD;|!�I!!!!!
||!!|!!|| @1zs` 1112111 |! !!! !||!!!|||!|!|!

�
^
HIM!-! !!||! |!!!o! |! 19 !!"@|!!1!!!!!
| | ! ! | ! ! | | !---I! ! ! | ! ! U !I ! ! ! ! | | ! ! ! | | | ! | ! | !

Mnspg-! !!||!
||!!|!!|

sunnn~ | *sp@n |w U ! ! ! | ! ! ! | ! ! ! | | ! ! | ! | !
INIHIHII| Hill Hill || 11 !!! ! |o! ! ! | | | ! | ! | !
!!!||||! ! !!!|! |!!!! | HIM V!|II!|!!!!!
� ||!!|!!|| !!!!! !!|!!| !!5!Q.--i !!|!!!||!!|!|!
�
jWIWn^; Hill | Hill 11 ! ! | ! |M| GI! ! ! ! !
Eywomal
pg
90

//!/////! ��!/� /�/H / !| !!! U!!|!!!!|!!!|
�
^L |
m| ! ! ! ! ! ! | ! | | ! ! ! HIM| 11 ! | ! ! ! | ! ! ! | | ! | | ! ! |

^!!!!!!!!! ||!!| !|!!| ! /i !|! |!!!|!!!!|!!!|
a||!!|!!|| !!!!! !!|!! U !! !|! !!|!!!||!!|!|!
/ / ! IIHII 11 ! ! ! SHHHHHHHHH ! ! |
�
^L |
m|!!!!!!|! ||!!! !|!!! !| !! !|! !!|!!!||!||!!|
29=101 !!||! WHO! |! !!| !!Wu�|!!�!!!!!
| | ! ! | ! ! | | ! ! ! ! ! ! ! |m ! N !I ! ! ! ! | | ! ! ! | | | ! | ! | !

12 ! H H /3 H: ! | ! ! ! ! ! ! ! | ! ! ! ! | ! ! ! |
�
^L |
m|!!!!!!| ! ||!!! !|!!! !| !! !|! !!|!!!||!||!!|
210=111 11115 |1!0! |! !!| !!o|!|!�1!!!!!
| | ! ! | ! ! | | !� ! ! ! ! ! |� ! U !I ! ! ! ! | | ! ! ! | | | ! | ! | !
"its
HIM
ilia AS
11
HIM
Miami
HIS
Egg

^!!!!!!!!! ||!!| ...... !|! |!!!|!!!!|!!!|
o||!!|!!|| !!!!! ...... !! !|! !!|!!!||!!|!|!
.. ! ! ! ! ! ! | ! ! ! ! | ! ! ! |
�
^L |
m| ! ! ! ! ! ! | ! | | ! ! ! ! | ! ! ! !| ! ! ! | ! ! ! | ! ! ! | | ! | | ! ! |
mg

�
«
u8ogusu! !!||! 111-21 |! !!| !!Wn1|101!!!!!
o! ! ! | | | | ! | ! ! ! | ! HIM
!I ! ! | ! | ! | ! | ! ! | ! ! ! ! !
! ! | ! !9o- ! ! ! | ! | HIM
!I | ! ! ! ! !m ! ! !2 ! ! ! | ! !
1
y! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! | | ! ! ! !Hill
11 ! | ! | ! ! ! | ! ! ! ! | ! ! ! |
j| | ! ! | ! ! | | ! ! ! ! ! HIM
!I ! ! ! ! |N! ! ! | | | ! | ! | !
1 ! ! ! | !0- ! ! ! ! | ! HIM|
!I
:1
! ! ! | | | | ! ! ! ! ! | !
| ! ! ! ! |
| ! ! ! ! | 11! | !��! | ! ! ! ! !
�W| | ! ! | ! ! | | ! ! ! ! !
��
! ! | ! ! U
! ! ! ! 11 ! ! | ! ! ! | | ! ! | ! | !
�

�
«
mgw-! !!||! 11oz1 |! !!| !!Wng|in! !!!!!
o! ! ! | | | | ! | ! ! ! | ! | IIM
!I ! ! | ! | ! | ! | ! ! | ! ! ! ! !
y! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! | | ! ! ! ! | ! ! | !
! ! ! | ! | ! ! ! | ! ! ! ! | ! ! ! |
:1
W! ! ! | | | | ! ! ! ! ! | ! | ! ! ! ! | | ! ! ! ! |
�� �

�:
............
_;
............
!`
!^
�;
�:
............
°
............
............
\
§:
-
............
}§
............
-
............
::\
Lw
,
)!-

�;
............
!^
]))
::::<z:::;�.
=<
............
�;
............
!^
!^
))
:::z: ���:;��
))
:::::;:::;�.
!<
}:
............
............;
/
}\
�
\\��\\\\ {\\\
�
\\��\\\\\\\\\
ƒ!!!
:/!_ `_::>°:
`%#_`_::_°§ _
#)!)
__: :-- _:
:: _:: :- _
j\{}
"
� _ /\\` :
•�®_/2d
:\
\)
\
!
_ ` -
!
_ ` : /
!!
;
:: :
;
:: :
f
;})}
!]
/: :
/f : :
����)
\�
�
)
\j
�
-
\)())
/\
)
)!

111111111111111111111
111
A��������������������
���
e��������������������
���
m��������������������
���
,mvommoov������������
���
m,�0eeaee������������
���
�aeeo�eo�������������
���
IA19A1111111111111111
111
e�'e�oAov������������
���
��'�oeeea������������
���
tmmommmvv������������
���
avao'eoeo������������
���
ae0000a'o������������
���
A�oee'OAv������������
���
eA'o'eaoo������������
���
�veooee'v������������
���
ievv000000������������
���
moeoa"o'������������
���
�aA'e'n�������������
���
m�'oeoeae������������
���
e,eo0's'�������������
���
mnoe'eve������������
���
tmmommmvv
�����
�����
�����
11111
�����
11111
�����
�����
�����
�����
�����
�����
�����
�����
�����
11111
�����
11111
�����
�����
�����
�����
�����
�����
���
eae00v,00
���
�Ao'aa'oe
���
IIIIAIIAI
111
ee'aeeeee
���
/981111/1
111
,nommmvv
���
aeao'aaao
a�ooaeee�
���
���
A'Avea'oe
���
e��o'eee�
���
�vnoee0e
�..

111111111111111111111
111
A��������������������
���
e��������������������
���
m��������������������
���
,0aaeeaae������������
���
mvao"oa'������������
���
o�'ateea'������������
���
eaooaeAo,������������
���
�e'o'0evo������������
���
ta00ee00a������������
���
a,ao'vae'������������
���
aesooeAeo������������
���
Ave'e'e'a������������
���
e�ooaeee,������������
���
�ao'ooe'a������������
���
ieeeeee'ee������������
���
moA"oaea������������
���
�v�'e'e'e������������
���
m�aatoeoo������������
���
eav'e'�ee������������
���
m�'o�eeeo������������
���
tomeeemev
�����
�����
�����
�����
�����
�����
�����
�����
�����
�����
�����
�����
�����
�����
�����
�����
�����
�����
�����
�����
�����
�����
�����
�����
�
���
eo�00oe'o
���
�'�'aane
���
oo�oaeae�
���
eeeae'mae
���
mos'e'a'�
���
,nommmvv
���
O'aooe�eo
���
aA�oa�eo�
���
Ava'eoa'e
���
ea�oa'ee�
���
�aeoeo�0e
�■•
�

,11111111111111111111
111
A��������������������
���
e��������������������
���
m��������������������
���
,vveooaae������������
���
�v�'oeoeo������������
���
�a'e'ao'a������������
���
o�oo'e0a'������������
���
e�a,v��e,������������
���
��00'��'0������������
���
,vveooaae������������
���
ee�ooeee,������������
���
Ao'eeao'a������������
���
eea,ae�n������������
���
�eeaeveea������������
���
ieneee'ee������������
���
�i1i111B9111111111111
111
���eao�'e������������
���
mao0oeeeo������������
���
e��'eone������������
���
meoo�eea,������������
���
�����
�����
�����
�����
�����
�����
�����
�����
�����
�����
�����
�����
�����
�����
�����
�����
�����
�����
�����
�����
�����
�����
ea'aooeoo
���
���aoaeoe
���
ovaovov'�
���
eA'�oe00e
���
m��'eoa'�
���
,m"m
���
evvo'oeoo
���
ea'oaee'�
���
Aosee'ooe
���
ea�oaeA'�
���
�A'veAAoe
�..

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)
Crest Gauge
2/10/2020
0.91
1/24/2020
Measurement
Crest Gauge
11/6/2020
1.49
7/23/2020
Measurement
Year 5 Monitoring (2021)
Crest Gauge
7/1/2021
1.43
6/11/2021
Measurement
Crest Gauge
10/21/2021
1.01
9/22/2021
Measurement
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
DECEMBER 2021, MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 7

Table 13. Flow Gauge Success
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 96313
Flow Gauge ID
Consecutive Days of Flow'
Cumulative Days of Flow2
R4 Gauge
BSFL1
156
232
T3 Gauge
BSFL2
181
290
T1 Gauge
BSFL3
293
293
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 abov®.05 feet in depth.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
DECEMBER 2021, MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 7

Table 14. Flow Gauge Success
Browns Summit Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 96313
Most Consecutive Days Meeting Criteria'
Cumulative Days Meeting Criteria2
Flow Gauge ID
Year 1
2017
Year 2
2018
Year 3
2019
Year 4
2020
Year 5
2021
Year 6
2022
Year 7
2023
Year 1
2017
Year 2
2018
Year 3
2019
Year 4
2020
Year 5
2021
Year 6
2022
Year 7
2023
Flow Gauges (Installed March 4, 2017)
BSFLI
127.0
122.0
140.0
137.0
156.0
171.0
248.0
199.0
286.0
232.0
BSFL2
166.0
158.0
198.0
202.0
181.0
173.0
303.0
284.0
305.0
290.0
BSFL3
263.0
319.0
289.0
310.0
293.0
263.0
319.0
289.0
310.0
293.0
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.
Success Criteria per Browns Summit Mitigation Plan (1/13/2016): "Success criteria wit include 30 days of consecutive baseflow for monitohng 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 (DIMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
DECEMBER 2021, MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 7

N
O
N
O
N
N
r
N
�
N
LO
O
O
N
O
O N M
LL J J J
N
O
N
LL LL LL
N
N
O
N
O
N
N
co
Na
co
N
m
N
�
+r J
,�
N
O
N
v
N J
a
o
ZZ
00
rr
=
•�C
can c�v
N
O
�
O
N
Wmow
M
E
Ij
O
0
E
I
0
7
N C
=
C t
_
_
N
O
N
O C
oN
Lo
Ln
N
_
N
O
C
3
2
_
N
O
N
m
N
v
Y
I
v
m
v
CIC
m
O
CIC
c
'
O
N
y
N
S.w
ZZ
N
0
0
N
6)
�
w
O
c
O
GO
O
O — N N M
O O O O O
O O O O O O
O
O
O
O O
O
O
O
O
NO llejuieb
(•jj)
yldaa aaleM
aaejanS
m
m
rn
O
Z
U
w
a
c)
G
H
U
w
O �
w
O
Z Ln
O =
Q
Z w< }
O
z w oC
LU O
W H
Z w Z
(D' = O
w U
= ri
LU N
Y O
Q N
m V)
J L, w
Z
m
U O U
m o

V)
75
O n
— oC
U Q
Z < }
O
Z V Z
w �
LU O oC
w Y
W w
Z w Z
7D = O
w U
L ri
LU N
Y 73 0
Q =) N
m In =
J V, w
Z cow c
2 � W
U_ O U
mLU
0

N
p
N
O
N
N
n
N
N
N
N
N
O
N
O
N
N
N
o
N
O
W
N
O
N
67
p
N
O
Q
_ N
N
ON
v
N L
v
O N
co
ca y
O �
�
=
V) m
0
LC N
O
N
CD
N
T o
— C
N
CD
U-
Q
7 C
N
=
N
C
o
N
0
� =
o
N
y
m
�
Ln
E
ui
_
c
_
N
ON
N
o
m
v
v
NNW
m
m
rn
O
Z
U
w
O
a
U
w
� O
Z Ln
O

N
O
N
O
r
N
r
N
N
N
N
O
N
O
N
N
N
O
N
O
N
N
00
N
N
O'7
O
M
�
v
N
C
v
0o
N
O m
00
ca y
C
O
r4
(a)
_
O
O
T O
++
O
0
LL
7
Ln
•
m
m
rn
O
Z
U
w
O
a
H
U
w
o
z ,,,
o =
a
z � }
O (D
Z w oC
O
W W H
Z w Z
= O
w U
= 2 ri
LU N
Y 2 O
Q =) N
mV,�c
J Lr) W
LU Z
m
U O U
� m o

}\
}
;
!!§!
�
}
f§|2
]
-})
{42
7
/
-
)
;
�_\\{
\{
)7
)!
f)a»
!
jj))}\\\\I

U
J
N a�i
O
�
N
U CO CO CO 0]
0] CO
CO CO
CO
N
O
N
n
N
N
O
N
�
N
N
�
N
O
N
N
O
N
co
N
N
co
N
O
O
N
_
4-1
m
L
N
Q1
0 CO
N
N
OD
' `� p
4
N
O
O
/
(M
N
M
W
t0
OM
<< f
r
N C
o
(Q
N
N
Cl)
cn
N
o
O -�
�
W
�
�
O
aJ
-
`
N
Lo
N
EE
E
O
N
z
2
N
o
v
y
f �t
_
N
O
�
N
clj,T
m
l
o
H
O
O
e
N
M
O
41
�
O
y
�
o
O
E��'�
O
M
Qd
l
O u'1 O u'1 O u') O
M
O O N N M
(ui) aalempunoag
of yldaa
(•ui) Ile;uieb
'T.
O
Z
H
CJ
w
0
U
O
� LL
D_ O
Z �
o K
Q
Z K }
0
Z_ Z
w K
K OC O
w w H
Z w Z
O
w v H
. c
N
Y NO
CD N K
w N W
Z m
_ � W
v O v
m o

N
�
U
�
O
C C
- O O
O
O
N
Q
N
O
UrV7
CO
co W00
N
n
I
N
I
I
I
'
I
�
NO
N
n
N
N
_
N
�
O
N
N
\
N
�
O
N
N
N
O
N
W
N
�_
N
�
7
O
N
W
N
O
N
O
a.d
N
�
L
O
o
0
}.I
N
W
W
M
4
0
a..r
O
N
O
v
O
10,
O
�
N
w
w
U
a
w
m
c-I
m
w
Q1
0
O
Z
U
w_
O
O_
0
U
W
O_ O
Z Ln
O �
z < w
� �o C7
Z w Z
O
w w
Z w Z
FD = O
w U
= � ri
LU N
Y � �
Oa0 V) OC
J VLU ) W
Z m
2 � w
U O U
� m o

O
C U
U
N
c c
O O
O
N
Q
D7
O_ CO O
N
O
(3 0
CO
co
a) cO_
0 Lu 0
N
r
I
N
I
I
I
N
n
N
N
_
N
�
O
N
N
\
N
�
O
N
N
N
O
N
W_
O
�
O
N
co
N
O
N
N
L
O
o
00
W
0
W
O
M
a..r
O
N
•�
� /1
N
V/
W
001,
0
COOO��
mO
O O O
OO
O
NMoO�
zoZ
m
c-I
m
w
Q1
O
Z
U
w_
O
O_
0
U
W
O_ 0
z ,,,
o l
z � w
� � C7
Z w Z
W W 0
Z w Z
FD = O
w U
= � ri
LU N
Y � �
m V) OC
J V) W
LU Z m
2 � w
U O U
� m o

O
C U
U
M
c
O
c
O
O
N
Q
D7
O_ COO_
O
N
O
(3 0
CO
co
0
Lu 0
N
r
I
N
I
I
I
N
n
N
N
_
N
�
O
N
N
\
N
�
O
N
N
N
O
N
p
�
O
N
W
N
m
O
N
N
�
L
O
o
00
W
+
N
T p
M N
m
c-I
m
Ql
0
O
Z
U
w
O
o_
0
U
W
O_ 0
Z Ln
O �
z � w
(D � C7
Z w Z
W W �
Z w Z
FD = O
w U
= � ri
LU N
Y � �
m V) OC
J VLU , W
Z m
2 � w
U O U
� m o

C
C U
U
c
O
c
O
O
N
Q
D7
O_ COO_
O
N
O
(3 0
CO
co
0
Lu 0
N
r
I
N
I
I
I
N
n
N
N
_
N
�
O
N
N
\
N
�
O
N
N
N
O
N
p
�
O
N
W
N
m
O
N
O
a.d
N
Fo
L
NI�a.O=N
.f.ir
=��,ON�ti�hOO�COOQ/_hh
�YEcaO�c��
O
O
O
N
aO
M
wN
\\rH
m
m
w
Ql
O
Z
U
w
O
o_
0
U
W
O_ 0
Z Ln
O 11
z � w
� LU 0 C7
Z w Z
W W 0
Z w Z
FD = O
w U
= � ri
LU N
Y � �
m V) OC
J VLU ) W
Z m
2 � w
U O U
� m o

c
c U
U
c c
O O
O
N
Q
D7
O_ c0 O_ O
N
O
(3 0
CO
co
0 Lu 0
N
n
I
N
I
I
I
N
n
N
N
_
N
�
O
N
N
\
N
�
O
N
N
N
O
N
W
N
�
O
N
W
N
m
O
N
O
+r
N
�
L
�
O
o
ZZ
I.L
W
O
=
G1
T p
y
'a
QM
N Q
O104
M N
m
m
w
Q1
O
Z
U
w
O
o_
0
U
W
O_ 0
Z Ln
O l
z �= w
O }
C7 H (LU D
Z w Z
W W 0
Z w Z
FD = O
w U
=
LU N
Y � �
m V) OC
J V) W
LU Z m
2 � w
U O U
� m o

C
C U
U
c c
O O
O
N
Q
D7
O_ COO_ O
N
O
(3 0
CO
co
0 Lu 0
N
n
I
N
I
I
I
N
n
N
N
_
N
�
O
N
N
\
N
�
O
N
N
N
O
N
O
�
O
N
W
N
m
O
N
O
a.d
N
�
L
O
o
�
W
N
+''
m
0
W
O
Ln
rj
N
O
N
O
v
mNC
�YcvOOO��
O
O
N
rpw
OpN
UN \
w
LO�N��'
ZOZ
NN,
m
m
l0
Q1
O
Z
U
w
O
o_
0
U
W
O_ 0
Z Ln
O �
z < w
(D � C7
Z w Z
W W 0
Z w Z
FD = O
w U
= � ri
LU N
Y � �
m V) OC
J VLU ) W
Z m
2 � w
U O U
� m o

C
C U
U
^
c c
O O
O
N
Q
D7
O_ COO_ O
N
O
(3 0
CO
co
0 Lu 0
N
n
I
N
I
I
I
N
n
N
N
_
N
�
O
N
N
\
N
�
O
N
N
N
O
N
O
�
O
N
co
N
m
O
N
O
a.d
N
�
L
O
o
00
0
W
N
m
c-I
m
l0
Q1
0
O
z
U
W_
O
o_
0
U
W
O_ 0
Z Ln
O l
z � w
(D � C7
Z w Z
W W �
Z w Z
FD = O
w U
= � ri
LU N
Y � �
m V) OC
J VLU , W
Z m
2 � w
U O U
� m o

U
U
c c
O O
O
N
Q
O)
O_ CO "O O_ M
N
O
(3 0
CO
co
0 Lu 0
N
r
I
N
I
I
I
N
n
N
N
_
N
�
O
N
N
\
N
�
O
N
N
N
O
N
N
�_
N
5
o
N
W
N
O
N
O
a.d
N
�
L
O
o
0
W
(� N
a W
0
N
m
c-I
m
l0
Q1
0
O
z
U
W_
O
o_
0
U
W
O_ 0
Z Ln
O l
z � w
(D � C7
Z w Z
W W 0
Z w Z
7D = O
w U
= � ri
LU N
Y � �
m V) OC
J VLU ) W
Z m
2 � w
U O U
� m o

"O U
C
U
LL
w
C
O
C
O
O
0
O
N
O-
c
-C
c
(v
O
0
C7 V7
CO
N
CO
N
C7 0
Lu
N
(.7 0
N
n
I
N
I
I
I
N
n
N
N
_
N
�
O
N
N
\
N
�
O
N
N
N
O
N
W_
N
�_
N
5
o
N
W
N
O
N
�a.d
O
N
�
L
O
o
ZZ
I.L
W
ca
LL
N
o
LNU
y
M
0 ,^
O
0
W
O
co
a..r
E
N
O
N
v
O
Li)
w
N
LO
E
O
U
_
N
o
c
O
O
=
)
ON
N
O
�
N_
a
v
�
O
N
O
<N
C
O
N
Y
O
Lo
N
N
O
O
LO
N
N
m
m
w
Ql
O
Z
U
w
O
o_
0
U
W
O_ 0
Z Ln
O �
z < w
(D � C7
Z w Z
W W 0
Z w Z
FD = O
w U
= � ri
LU N
Y � �
m to OC
J VLU ) W
Z m
2 � w
U O U
� m o

MIUM--14VA* NW] Ii] ie]IK1H&IFRMi Ip-]dPIG\IH
8.0
6.0
U
0 4.0
.;
a
2.0
0.0
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project MY5
Observed Rainfall versus Historic Averages
■
\
\
\
\
r,
%`\
t Guiford County Historic Average (46.02) t Historic 30% Probable (42.64)
—� Historic 70% Probable (50.79) --E-- Observed Project Rainfall (51.36 in)
Michael Baker Engineering, INC.
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project (DMS Project NO. ID 96313)
December 2021, Monitoring Year 5 of 7

Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project - Hydrology Monitoring Stations Photos
Photos taken on (10/21/2021) unless noted different
Manual Crest Gauge - Reading 7/l/2021 (1.43')
Manual Crest Gauge - Reading 10/21/2021 (1.0l')
ALL . 0_! FAIL U, 111ZdMWZWA' l v 'Y 1 wl ,
110
tea:,:•%�-n?y�� ..
Wrack Line Showing High Flow (3/23/2021)
Manual Crest Gauge - Reading 7/1/2021 (1.43')
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96313)
DECEMBER 2021, MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 7
Wrack Line Showing High Flow (3/23/2021)
Manual Crest Gauge - Reach 1

Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project - Hydrology Monitoring Stations Photos
Photos taken on (10/21/2021) unless noted different
Flow Gauge 1 — Reach 4
Flow Gauge 3 — Reach T1
Wetland Well 2 — Reach 2, Station 47+00
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DIMS PROJECT NO. 96313)
DECEMBER 2021, MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 7
Flow Gauge 2 — Reach T3
Wetland Well 1 — Reach 4, Station 25+00
Wetland Well 3 — Reach 1, Station 52+00

Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project - Hydrology Monitoring Stations Photos
Photos taken on (10/21/2021) unless noted different
Wetland Well 4 - Reach 1, Station 55+00
Wetland Well 6 - Reach 1, Station 61+00
Wetland Well 8 - Reach 4, Station 23+00
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96313)
DECEMBER 2021, MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 7
Wetland Well 5 - Reach 1, Station 58+00
Wetland Well 7 - Reach 1, Station 63+50