20140332 Ver 1_Baseline and AsBuilt Report_20171207

,0 1
FINAL
�VVP
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project
Guilford County, North Carolina
DMS Project ID No. 96313, DEQ ContractNo. 5792
ww
Permits: SAW -2014-01642, WR#14-0332
Cape Fear River Basin: 03030002-010020
Submitted to/Prepared for:
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services (DMS)
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1652
Data Collection Period: February - March 2017
Submission Date: November 2017
This document was printed using 30% recycled paper.
DEC ® 6 2017
MITiG®tTI � op
sERVICES
I a ff� ---
� 7 2017 � �

Final
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project
Guilford County, North Carolina
DMS Project ID No. 96313, DEQ Contract No. 5792
Permits: SAW -2014-01642, DWR#14-0332
Cape Fear r Basin: 03030002-010020
Submitted to/Prepared for:
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
Prepared by:
INTERNATIONAL
Data Collection Period: February - March 2017
Submission Date: November 2017

Innovation Done Right -We Make a Difference
INTERNATIONAL
September 15, 2017
Jeff Schaffer
NCDENR, Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
Subject: Response to Task 6 Draft As -Built Baseline Report Comments dated August 28, 2017
Browns Summit Creek Mitigation Project, Guilford County
Cape Fear Cataloging Unit 03030002
USACE AID SAW 2014-01642, CMS Project #96313
Dear Mr. Schaffer:
Please find enclosed our responses to the As -Built Baseline Report Comments dated August 28, 2017 in
reference to the Browns Summit As -Built Baseline Report. We have revised the As -Built Baseline Report
document in response to this review.
1. Digital data/drawings: Ensure all digital data/drawings are provided in accordance with Format, Data
Requirements, and Content Guidance for Electronic Drawings Submitted to EEP version 1.0 (03/27/08) as
required by contract.
a. Endure all CADD and GIS files are correctly georeferenced using the state plane coordinates system (NAD
83).
b. While not required, DMS would prefer to receive shapefiles for all features listed in the above referenced
guidance.
Response. Digital data/draws will be submitted as requested.
2. Section 1.0, page 1-1: The numbers provided for the linear footage of restored and enhanced stream and the
acreage of restored wetlands match the mitigation plan, but not those in Table 1 of this document. Determine
which are the correct numbers and use them.
Response: Numbers referenced have been revised to match the table and As -Built Plan set
3. Section 1.3, page 1-2: In first sentence, delete "proposed" since these have been restored. Instances of this
issue are seen multiple times throughout the document and should be updated.
Response: "Proposed" language has been removed from the document.
4. Section 1.4, page 1-2: In first sentence, it is assumed Baker intended this to read "mitigating factors" versus
"mitigation factors".
Response. Revised.
5. Section 3.2.1, page 3-3: In next to last sentence provide wetland types that were rehabilitated. (i.e. Wetland
Type 1, 2, 3, etc.).
Response: Additional text added pet request.
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
IReF• pa . Lft Kmr /snurroRr MBAKERINTL.COM 8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600, Cary NC 27518
Office: 919.463.5488 1 Fax: [phone]

Innovation Done Right -We Make a Difference
6. Section 3.2.1, page 3-3: Clarify whether the replacement of the culvert at downstream end of Reach Rl is
considered a geomorphic upgrade. If so please emphasize the improvement.
Response. Additional text added pet request.
7. Section 3.2.1, pages 3-2 to 3-5: In each reach section, list the linear footage for each channel/valley.
Response. Lengths have been added as requested.
8. Section 3.2.11, page 3-6: List the total wetland acreage restored.
Response. Acerage has been added as requested.
9. Section 3.2.2, page 3-3: In first sentence of last paragraph, provide wetland types that were re-established.
(i.e. Wetland Type 1, 2, 3, etc.).
Response: Additional text added per request.
10. Section 3.2.3, page 3-4: in the last paragraph, provide statement about whether or not any of the
jurisdictional wetlands will be used for credit.
Response. Additional text added per request.
11. Section 3.2.6, page 3-4: Baker needs to ensure it is perfectly clear that this `BMP" feature is not a true
stormwater BMP but was installed to treat water before entering the mainstem of the stream and that it is
anticipated the feature will morph into a headwater wetland and that NO maintenance will be done on this
except as stated in the mitigation plan. See section 9.4 in the mitigation plan.
Response. Additional text added to the next to last paragraph discussing naturalization and no
maintenance after stabilization.
12. Section 3.2.10, page 3-5: Again, Baker needs to ensure it is perfectly clear that this "BMP" feature is not a
true stormwater BMP but was installed to treat water before entering the mainstem of the stream and that it is
anticipated the feature will morph into a headwater wetland and that NO maintenance will be done on this
except as stated in the mitigation plan. See section 9.4 in the mitigation plan.
Response. Additional text added to the paragraph regarding no maintenance following monitoring.
13. Section 3.2.11, page 3-6: Provide wetland types that were rehabilitated and re-established. (i.e. Wetland Type
1, 2, 3, etc.)
Response. Additional text added to 3.2. 11 describing the wetland types and locations.
14. Section 4.1.1, page 4-1: Indicate the elevation at which the gage first starts recording. Verify that it is set
sufficiently low enough that it captures the bankfull stage or indicate if it is the recording elevation some
distance above bankfull.
Response. Added text describing the gage being set at bankfull elevation.
15. Section 4.1.2, page 4-1: In the second paragraph, R4 is referred to as an intermittent reach. Verify that this
is the correct reach for this statement.
Response. Removed the word intermittent from the text, but yes part of R4 was called as intermittent.
R4, TI and T3 are the correct reaches to be monitored.
16. Appendix A, Table 1:
a. Overall, Baker needs to explain the differences between linear footage and SMUs between Mitigation Plan
and As -Built. Provide information on how were stream lengths measured (centerline or thalweg). DMS will
need a memo/letter detailing the reasons for each change.

Innovation Done Right ... We Make o Difference
Response: Lengths have been revised and verified with As Built Plans. A memorandum is included
to address changes in SMUs and WMUs.
b. In the Mitigation Credits section of Table 1, provide the Riparian Wetland credits.
Response: Revised pet request.
c. In the Mitigation Credits section of Table 1, when totaling the credits assigned to each reach in the table,
DMS came up with 5,234 SMU and not 5,728 SMU as shown.
Response: Lengths have been revised and verified with As Built Plans.
d. In addition, the total SMUs determined by DMS is 266 SMU below the contracted amount of 5,500 SMUs.
Unless Baker can prove that assets are at or above contracted amount, the contract value would need to be
reduced $89,110.00 based on the shortfall of SMUs. To reconcile the difference resulting from the 266 SMU
shortfall, please adjust the Task 6 payment downward to a revised amount of $132,917.50. The remaining
future milestone invoice amounts will be revised as shown in the table below.
Response: Lengths have been revised and verified with As Built Plans. Michael Baker is providing
5,323 of the 5,500 SMUs and all of the WMUs. The contract should be reduced by $59,268.42. Please
let me know how you would like for the payment table to be adjusted.
17. Appendix A, Table 4:
a. Explain why no reach summary information is provided for reaches Tl, T2, T3 and T4.
Response: The table repeats starting at Parameters (itis actually in bold, but it is still a litde difficult
to see), so there is a section for Reach RI through Reach R5 and a section below for Reach R6 through
Reach T4.
b. The reach lengths for R1, R2, R3, R4 and R5 are from the mitigation plan and do not reflect the as -built
length as determined from information in Table 1.
Response: Revised.
18. Appendix B, Cross -Section 3: The graph appears to be from Cross -Section 1.
Response: Revised.
19. Appendix D, Sheet 18: This sheet appears to be a duplicate of Sheet 17.
Response: Removed.
20. Appendix E, Photo Log: Label the Reach 6 photos as BMPs.
Response: Added "BMP" or "Step Pools" to Reach 6 photos.
If you have any questions concerning the As -Built Baseline Report, please contact me at 919-805-1750 or
via email at Katie.McKeithan(cDmbakerintl.com.
Sincerely,
Kathleen McKeithan, PE, CPESC, CPSWQ, CFM
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.

Innovation Done Right ...We Make a Difference
INTERNATIONAL
November 30, 2017
Jeff Schaffer
NCDENR, Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
Subject: Response to Task 6 Draft As -Built Baseline Report Comments dated October 31, 2017
Browns Summit Creek Mitigation Project, Guilford County
Cape Fear Cataloging Unit 03030002
USACE AID SAW 2014-01642, CMS Project #96313
Dear Mr. Schaffer:
Please find enclosed our responses to the As -Built Baseline Report Comments dated August 28, 2017 in
reference to the Browns Summit As -Built Baseline Report. We have revised the As -Built Baseline Report
document in response to this review.
1. Digital files - The digital data and drawings have been reviewed by DMS and appear to meet DMS
requirements, therefore when resubmitting the electronic files just resubmit any needing revision based on the
comments contained in this letter.
Response: The digital submittal has been revised per comments below and provided in the same format
as previously submitted.
2. Section 1.0, 1st and 3rd sentences of paragraph 1: delete "stormwater". It is DMS's opinion that referring to
these features as "stormwater" BMPs gives the IRT the wrong impression of what these are intended to be
functionally.
Response: "Stormwater" has been removed from both places as requested. Also removed from 4.4s
first sentence, 'This project includes the implementation of two stormwater BMW and second
sentence, "The Stormwater BMPs success..."
3. Section 1. 1, 5t, objective: same comment and #2 above.
Response: "Stormwater" has been removed from 5' objective under 1.1.
4. Section 2.2, 5t, objective: same comment and #2 above.
Response: "Stormwater' has been removed from 5"' objective under 2.2.
5. Section 3.2.10, la sentence of paragraph 1: same comment and #2 above.
Response: "Stormwater" has been removed from 3.2.10's first sentence.
G. Appendix A, Table 1:
a. During review, the DMS project manager noticed that stream footage and/or credits changed from the first
draft of the as -built baseline document and the revised submittal. DMS PM called Baker PM for an explanation
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
!OF ima 4Lft met AmLLYPoRT MBAKERINTL.COM 8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600, Cary NC 27518
Office: 919.463.5488 1 Fax: [phone]

Innovation Done Right ... We Make a Difference
and was told that the Baker PM was not satisfied with the initial survey and had a new one done. Please explain
why this new survey was not done prior to submittal of the first draft.
Response: We provided the topographical survey we had at the time. It was discovered later that there
was missing topographic data and breaklines in the survey provided by Riverworks and their
subconsultant surveyor. Additional data was collected and has been provided in the subsequent
submittal to ensure that the sheets reflect the as -built condition.
b. Overall, Baker needs to provide specific and detailed explanations of the differences between linear footage
and SMUs between Mitigation Plan and As -Built. Provide specific information on how the stream lengths were
measured (centerline or thalweg). DMS will need a memo/letter listing each change along with the detailed
explanation for each change.
Response: See Appendix F for the Baseline Report.
c. SMUs for Reach R3 (downstream) (234.667) should round up to 235, which would then equal the mitigation
plan numbers for this reach. This change would also increase the total SMUs to 5,324.
Response: The final Mitigation Plan dated January 2016 had 234 SMUs for R3 in Table ES.1 and Table
S. 1, so I have left the table at 234 SMUs.
d. Wetland area and credits for Wetland Types 1, 2, 3 and 4 all decreased from mitigation plan to version 2 of
the Draft As -Built Baseline report. Please explain the reason behind these changes in the revised Task 6
deliverable as well as in the memo/letter requested in 6.a. above. Typically, these numbers do not change.
Response: The wetland existing acreage and restoration acreage columns were switched in the
Mitigation Plan which was carried into the draft submittal. The columns have been corrected.
e. The total linear footage for Reaches R6 and T4 is 5591f making the total if for Enhancement 11,528
(969+559). Make this change to the Enhancement I line in the component summation.
Response: Enhancement I summation has been added to the table per the revised table (R6 + T4 = 442 +
117 = 559 & R2 upstream + R3 downstream 614 + 3S2 = 966 for a total of 559 + 966 =1,525).
f. Based on recent discussions between the IRT and DMS regarding credit release for instrument projects, if
the provider desires to change the credit from mitigation plan to as -built, the provider must submit a written
request to modify the mitigation plan to include any revisions to figures, drawings and narrative. See attached
memo from Todd Tugwell.
Response: Andrea Hughes (Mitigation Project Manager with the Wilmington District Regulatory
Division) has been notified by personal conversation with lake Byers and by letter dated November 2,
2017 Subject: Credit Revisions (Mitigation Plan Vs. As -built) carbon copied to your attention.
g. In addition, the total SMUs determined by DMS is 176 SMU below the contracted amount of 5,500 SMUs.
Unless Baker can prove that assets are at or above contracted amount, the contract value would need to be
reduced $58,960.00 from $1,997,500.00 to $1,938,540.00 based on the shortfall of SMUs. To reconcile the
overpayment for Task 1 through 5 resulting from the 176 SMU shortfall, please adjust the Task 6 payment
downward to a revised amount of $155,530.00. The remaining future milestone invoice amounts will be revised
as shown in the table below.

Innovation Done Right ... We Make a Difference
Browns Summit 096313
Revised Payment Schedule based on 176 SOU Shortfall of Below Contracted AN
SMU ShcrN
176
Canlact
UnitCost Redux
mm 558,960.00
Task
Deiverable
Payment
Cri"
Contact
$1.997,500.00
Revised
Conl act omdge
$1,938.54000
Proposed
Schedule
I
Cat Ex
5%
$99,875.00
596927.00 $2,948.00
$99.875.00
2
Cos Ease
20%
$399,500.00
5387,708.00 $11,79200
5399,500.00
3
Ml Plan
15%
$299,625.00
5290.78100 58,844.00
$299.625.00
4
Gra3
15%
5299.625.00
5290.78100 $8.844.00
$299,625.00
5
P
10%
$199, 750.00
$193.85400 $5,896.00
$19975000
sr!►Tdd 1
$
$1,298,375.00
$1280,061.00 $36,324.00
$1296375.00
6
Baseline
10%
$199,750.00
S103.854.00
$156.530.00
7
MY 1
5%
$99,875.00
$96,92700
$96.927.00
8
MY 2
2%
$39,950.00
$38,770.80
536770.80
9
MY 3
2%
$39.950.00
538,770 80
538 770.80
10
MY 4
2%
539.960.00
$3877080
538.770.80
11
MY 5
2%
$39,950.00
$38.770.80
$38.770.80
12
MY6
2%
$39,950.00
S38,770. 80
S38 T70.80
13
IMY7
10%
$199,75000
519385400
S193.854.00
suaToW (Vista 7-13)
$
$699,125.00
5678,48900
$640.165.00
$ 3,366.75
Total
96, 508.25
$1.997.500.00
51.936.540.00
$1.938.540.00
Response: Per Jake Byers -s conversation with you and Andrea, the credits have been revised to provide
5,299 SMUs, thus there will be a 201 SMU shortfall. The Baseline report should be billed by the
following table (utilized the same logic you have proposed above, just changed the SMU shortfall to
Browns Summit #96313
Revised Payment Schedule based on SMU shortfall
SMU Shortfall
Unit Cost
contract redux
201
335
$67,335.00
Task Deliverable
Payment
Orginal Contract Revised Contraci Overage
Proposed Schedule
$1,997,500.00
$1, 930,165.00
1 Cat Ex
5%
$
99, 875.00
$
96, 508.25
$ 3,366.75
$
99, 875.00
2 Cons Ease
20%
$
399,500.00
$
386,033.00
$13,467.00
$
399,500.00
3 Mit Plan
15%
$
299,625.00
$
289,524.75
$10,100.25
$
299,625.00
4 Grading
15%
$
299, 625.00
$
289, 524.75
$10,100.25
$
299, 625.00
5 Planting
10%
$
199,750.00
$
193,016.50
$ 6,733.50
$
199,750.00
sub -total
' $1,298,375.
00
$1, 254, 607.25
'$43,767.75
$
1, 298, 375.00
6 Baseline
10%
$
199,750.00
$
193,016.50
$ 6,733.50
$
149,248.75
7 MY 1
5%
$
99, 875.00
$
96, 508.25
$ 3,366.75
$
96, 508.25
8 MY 2
2%
$
39,950.00
$
38,603.30
$ 1,346.70
$
38,603.30
9 MY 3
2%
$
39,950.00
$
38,603.30
$ 1,346.70
$
38,603.30
10 MY 4
2%
$
39,950.00
$
38,603.30
$ 1,346.70
$
38,603.30
11 MY 5
2%
$
39, 950.00
$
38, 603.30
$ 1,346.70
$
38, 603.30
12 MY 6
2%
$
39,950.00
$
38,603.30
$ 1,346.70
$
38,603.30
13 MY 7
10%
$
199, 750.00
$
193, 016.50
$ 6,733.50
$
193, 016.50
Total
$
1,930,165.00

Innovation Done Right ... We Make a Difference
7. Appendix A, Table 4: The reach lengths for R1, R2, R3, T2 and T3 are from the mitigation plan and do not
reflect the as -built length as determined from information in Table 1.
Response: Table 4 has been revised.
8. Appendix C, Table 8: Total stem counts for each plot have been provided but not the breakdown by species.
Please provide species breakdown per plot.
Response:
Per Jeff Schaffer's conversation with Jake Byers, a detailed breakdown will be provided in MY1 as
seedlings were not leaf bearing at the time of inspection.
9. Appendix D:
a. Record/Red Line Drawings: Given that there have been changes to the project during construction, please
explain why there are no red mark-ups. Also, the broken out Red Line drawings in the "Support Files" are not
signed and sealed and do not have red mark-ups either.
Response: Color copies of the sealed As-Builts are included within the submittal (see page 10 for
redlines). Sealed surveys and Redlines (in color) are provided in the Support Files.
b. As -Built Survey: Must be signed and sealed by Professional Land Surveyor.
Response: Sealed survey is provided.
10. Appendix E, Photo Log: Label the Reach G photos as BMPs.
Response: Photos have been re -labeled per request.
11. Credit Revision Memo, Table 1
a. Provide more specific explanations for each revision.
Response: Memo has been revised and followed up with additional correspondence with Andrea
Hughes. See Appendix F of the Baseline Report.
b. The mitigation plan acreage is not the same as what was in the asset table of the final mitigation plan.
Provide a detailed explanation of changes. (i.e. the existing acreage and restoration acreage in Table 5.1 in the
mitigation plan were reversed).
Response: The restoration acreage and existing acreage in the Mitigation Plan's Table 5.1 were indeed
reversed. The As -Built numbers match the (reversed) numbers. No changes were made to the WMUs.
If you have any questions concerning the As -Built Baseline Report, please contact me at 919-805-1750 or
via email at Katie. McKeithanPmbakerintl.com.
Sincerely,
K� `N wz , -
Kathleen McKeithan, PE, CPESC, CPSWO, CFM
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.............................................................................1-1
1.1 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES..................................................................................................................................
1-1
1.2 OVERALL RESTORATION APPROACH VERSUS AS-BUILT.................................................................................
1-2
1.3 MONITORING DURATION.................................................................................................................................
1-2
1.4 ISSUES..............................................................................................................................................................
1-2
2.0 PROJECT GOALS, BACKGROUND AND ATTRIBUTES ..................... 2-1
2.1 PROJECT LOCATION AND SETTING...................................................................................................................
2-1
2.2 PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES...................................................................................................................
2-1
3.0 PROJECT STRUCTURE, RESTORATION TYPE AND APPROACH.. 3-1
3.1 PROJECT STRUCTURE........................................................................................................................................
3-1
3.2 RESTORATION TYPE AND APPROACH...............................................................................................................
3-1
3.2.1 Reach RI Restoration.................................................................................................................................
3-1
3.2.2 Reach R2 Enhancement..............................................................................................................................
3-1
3.2.3 Reach R3 Restoration and Enhancement....................................................................................................
3-2
3.2.4 Reach R4 Restoration.................................................................................................................................
3-3
3.2.5 Reach R5 Enhancement..............................................................................................................................
3-3
3.2.6 Reach R6 BMP Enhancement.....................................................................................................................
3-3
3.2.7 Reach TI Restoration.................................................................................................................................
3-4
3.2.8 Reach T2 Enhancement..............................................................................................................................
3-4
3.2.9 Reach T3 Restoration.................................................................................................................................
3-4
3.2.10 Reach T4 BMP Enhancement.................................................................................................................
3-4
3.2.11 Wetlands.................................................................................................................................................3-4
3.3 PROJECT HISTORY, CONTACTS, AND ATTRIBUTE DATA...................................................................................
3-5
3.3.1 Construction Summary...............................................................................................................................
3-5
4.0 SUCCESS CRITERIA.................................................................................... 4-1
4.1 STREAM MONITORING...........................................................................................................................:.........
4-1
4.1.1 Bankfull Events and Flooding Functions....................................................................................................
4-1
4.1.2 Flow Documentation..................................................................................................................................
4-1
4.1.3 Cross Sections.............................................................................................................................................
4-2
4.1.4 Pattern........................................................................................................................................................
4-2
4.1.5 Longitudinal Profile....................................................................................................................................
4-2
4.1.6 Bed Material Analyses................................................................................................................................
4-2
4.1.7 Visual Assessment.......................................................................................................................................
4-3
4.2 VEGETATION MONITORING..............................................................................................................................
4-3
4.3 WETLAND MONITORING..................................................................................................................................
4-4
4.3.1 Groundwater Data Collection....................................................................................................................
4-4
4.3.2 Hydrology ...................................................................................................................................................4-4
4.4 BMP MONITORING..........................................................................................................................................
4-5
5.0 MAINTENANCE AND CONTINGENCY PLANS ..................................... 5-1
5.1
STREAMS......................................................................................................................................................... 5-1
5.2
WETLAND........................................................................................................................................................5-1
5.3
VEGETATION....................................................................................................................................................5-1
5.4
SITE BOUNDARY..............................................................................................................................................
5-2
5.5
FARM ROAD CROSSING....................................................................................................................................
5-2
5.6
BEAVER MANAGEMENT...................................................................................................................................
5-2
6.0
AS -BUILT DATA DOCUMENTATION......................................................
6-1
6.1
STREAM DATA.................................................................................................................................................
6-1
6.2
VEGETATION DATA.........................................................................................................................................
6-1
6.3
WETLAND DATA..............................................................................................................................................
6-1
6.4
AREAS OF CONCERN........................................................................................................................................
6-1
7.0 REFERENCES................................................................................................ 7-1
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE III NOVEMBER 2017 FINAL
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96313)

LIST OF TABLES
Table
1
Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Table
2
Project Activity and Reporting History
Table
3
Project Contacts
Table
4
Project Attributes
Table
5
Baseline Stream Summary
Table
6
Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Table
7
Vegetation Species Planted Across the Restoration Site
Table
8
Stem Counts for Each Species Arranged by Plot
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Vicinity Map
Figure 2 Restoration Summary Map
Figure 3 Reference Sites Location Map
Figure 4 Monitoring Features Overview Map
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A Figures 1 - 4, Tables 1 - 4
Appendix B Morphological Summary Data (Tables 5 and 6), Profile and Cross -Section Graphs
Appendix C Vegetation Summary Data (Tables 7 and 8)
Appendix D As -Built Plan Sheets/Record Drawings
Appendix E Photo Log
Appendix F Correspondence
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE IV NOVEMBER 2017 FINAL
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96313)

I ,I
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. (Baker) restored approximately 3,923 linear feet (LF) of jurisdictional stream
and enhanced 2,484 LF of stream (of which 559 is for Best Management Practices (BMPs)) along unnamed
tributaries (UT) to the Haw River (existing channel lengths) and restored over 4.44 acres of wetland. The
unnamed tributary (mainstem) has been referred to as Browns Summit Creek for this project. In addition, Baker
constructed two 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 20.24 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.
1.1 Goals and Objectives
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 PAGE 1-1 NOVEMBER 2017 FINAL
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96313)

• Construct a wetland BMP on the upstream extent of Reach R6 to capture and retain run-off from
adjacent cattle pastures to allow for the biological removal of nutrient pollutant loads and for sediment
to settle out of the water column;
• Construct a step pool BMP channel to capture and disperse stormwater volumes and velocities by
allowing stormwater 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 stormwater 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.
1.2 Overall Restoration Approach Versus As -Built
The As -Built follows the overall restoration approach presented in the approved Final Stream and Wetland
Mitigation Plan. No major alignment changes were made during construction. Due to significant storm events
throughout the construction period, several constructed riffles were added to the mainstem.
Discrepancies between the approved Mitigation Plan's footages and the As -Built survived footages have been
documented and approved by the USACE. R1 will provide 1,290 credits (57 additional credits from approved
Mitigation Plan) and R2 downstream will provide 54 credits (22 less credits than the approved Mitigation Plan).
See Appendix F for correspondence.
1.3 Monitoring Duration
Geomorphic monitoring of the restoration reaches will be conducted once a year for five to seven years
following the completion of construction to evaluate the effectiveness of the restoration practices. Two bankfull
flow events must be documented within the seven-year monitoring period. The two bankfull events must occur
in separate years; otherwise, the monitoring will continue until two bankfull events have been documented in
separate years. If a normal year of precipitation does not occur during the first seven years of monitoring, flow
conditions will continue to be monitored on the site until it documents that the intermittent streams have been
flowing during the appropriate times of the year. Vegetation plots shall be monitored for seven years in years
1, 2, 3, 5 and 7 or until the final success criteria are achieved. Wetland hydrology will be evaluated during each
growing season for seven years of hydrologic monitoring, or until success criteria have been met, whichever
occurs later.
1.4 Issues
No issues or mitigating factors have been noted at the site for recording at this time.
This report documents the completion of the restoration and enhancement construction activities and presents
as -built monitoring data for the post -construction monitoring period. Table 1 summarizes project conditions
before and after restoration and enhancement, as well as the conditions predicted in the previously approved
project Mitigation Plan. Table 1 is located in Appendix A.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 1-2 NOVEMBER 2017 FINAL
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96313)

, 4 r 4
2.0 PROJECT GOALS, BACKGROUND AND ATTRIBUTES
2.1 Project Location and Setting
The site is located in the NCDWR subbasin 03-06-01 of the Cape Fear River Basin. The site includes an
UT to the Haw River (Browns Summit Creek) and several smaller channels connecting to it. Soils
information indicates that the area contains primarily Codorus loam, Poplar Forest clay loam, and Clifford
sandy loam. The Codorus mapping unit is classified as hydric by the NRCS for Guilford County and
contains inclusions of Hatboro loam in the floodplain. Hatboro soils are also classified as hydric by the
NRCS. The area of wetland restoration is along the floodplain of Reach R1 and R4. This area had been
heavily manipulated and degraded and is mapped as hydric soils, including the Codorus and Hatborosoils
as described above.
The project site is located in the Charlotte Belt, which is part of the Charlotte and Milton Group. The
project site includes rock from the Churchland Plutonic Suite (Western group) which is intrusive, granitic
igneous rock. Observations by field staff in the watershed indicate that the project area has very few
bedrock outcrops. It appears to weather to gravel because that is the coarsest particle found in the stream
substrate.
Site Directions
The Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project site (site) is located in Guilford County, NC, approximately
three miles northwest of the Community of Browns Summit, as shown on the Project Site Vicinity Map
(Figure 1). To access the site from Raleigh, take Interstate 40 and head west on I-40 towards Greensboro,
for approximately 68 miles. Take the exit ramp to E. Lee Street (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 Road, with access
points through residences on Middleland Drive and Broad Ridge Court.
2.2 Project Goals and Objectives
The primary goals of the project 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 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 have been 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,
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2-1 NOVEMBER 2017 FINAL
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96313)

• 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,
• Construct a wetland BMP on the upstream extent of Reach R6 to capture and retain run-off from
adjacent cattle pastures to allow for the biological removal of nutrient pollutant loads and for
sediment to settle out of the water column,
• Construct a step pool BMP channel to capture and disperse stormwater volumes and velocities by
allowing stormwater 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 stormwater 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.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2-2 NOVEMBER 2017 FINAL
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96313)

1 4 . 1
3.0 PROJECT STRUCTURE, RESTORATION TYPE AND APPROACH
3.1 Project Structure
The project area consists of the restoration and enhancement of UTs to the Haw River, referred to as Brown
Summit Creek and UTs. The site is located in the Piedmont physiographic region. For assessment and
design purposes, the UTs were divided into individual Reaches (R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, T1, T2, T3 and
T4). Native species of riparian buffer vegetation were established and/or protected at least 50 feet from
the top of both bank along all project reaches. Lastly, cattle were excluded along all project reaches
through permanent fencing outside of the conservation easement. See Appendix A for Table 1 Project
Components and Figure 2 for Restoration Summary Map located in Appendix A.
3.2 Restoration Type and Approach
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.
3.2.1 Reach R1 Restoration
Priority Level I restoration was constructed for the entire 1,290 LF reach following a natural channel
pattern through the valley. The work involved establishing a bank height ratio of 1.0 throughout the
reach and stabilizing isolated eroding banks. The restoration approach in this area will promote more
frequent over bank flooding into the hydric soils area; thereby, creating increased opportunity for
wetland rehabilitation.
The restored channel was constructed off-line as much as possible throughout the existing pasture, and
was designed as a Rosgen E type channel. This approach minimized the number of existing trees that
had to be removed to construct the project. In -stream structures such as log rollers, log J -hook vanes,
grade control logjams, and constructed riffles were installed to control grade, dissipate scour energies,
and eliminate the potential for upstream channel incision. Additionally, geolifts with brush toe were
incorporated for bank stability and habitat diversity.
The existing, unstable channel was partially to completely filled along its length utilizing suitable fill
material excavated from construction of the restored channel.
Riparian buffers in excess of 50 feet were restored and protected along all of Reach R1. In fact, because
extra property was required to secure the easement, the riparian buffer averages approximately 100 feet
on each bank of Reach R1. No stream crossings or other breaks in the easement are along this reach
and permanent fencing was installed to exclude cattle from the entire reach. The culvert below R1
(outside of the easement) was upgraded to provide a stable crossing appropriately sized for the reach.
The previous crossing was actively eroding and in the process of failure.
The riparian area along the entire length of Reach R1 provides wetland rehabilitation (type 1, 2 and 3).
The culvert at the downstream end of Reach R1 was replaced with a two corrugated metal pipes.
3.2.2 Reach R2 Enhancement
Due to its partially degraded nature, an Enhancement Level I approach was implemented to provide
functional uplift to the 617 LF (614 LF utilized in credit calculation to match Mitigation Plan) upper
section of Reach R2 at a 1.5:1 credit ratio. The lower end downstream from the property line was
limited to Enhancement Level 11 at a 2.5:1 credit ratio. In the 134 LF lower segment, improvements
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 3-1 NOVEMBER 2017 FINAL
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96313)

were limited to cattle exclusion and invasive species control. Supplemental buffer planting was not
planned in the lower segment because the existing vegetation was satisfactory.
In the upper segment of Reach R2 below the easement break/crossing, a floodplain bench was cut along
the left bank to increase the entrenchment ratio to greater than 2.0 and provide flooding to the
floodplain. Additionally, two locations in the existing channel have riffles that are oriented up valley;
just upstream from this the flow vectors are pointed into vertical streambanks and the stream has
nowhere to go without causing significant erosion. The channel was realigned in these two areas to
redirect the streamflow down valley and eliminate the vertical eroding banks.
Additionally, the channel was raised to encourage floodplain access. Spoil piles along the right bank of
middle Reach R2 were removed, except where mature woody vegetation would be impacted, to
reconnect the channel with its floodplain and re-establish wetlands in this area.
This reach section was enhanced through the appropriate use of in -stream structures to control grade,
dissipate energies, and eliminate the potential for upstream channel incision. Channel banks were
graded to stable slopes, and the historic floodplain connection was reestablished in the vicinity of the
spoil piles to further promote stability and re-establishment of riparian vegetation.
Riparian buffers in excess of 50 feet were restored and protected along all of Reach R2. As with Reach
R1, the lower 300 feet has riparian buffers that, on average, exceed 100 feet on each bank. Additionally,
permanent fencing was installed to exclude cattle. Invasive species, such as Chinese privet, were
treated.
Mapped jurisdictional wetlands in the upper Reach R2 floodplain were re-established by removing
spoil piles and reconnecting the floodplain (type 4). Additionally, wetland vegetation was improved.
3.2.3 Reach R3 Restoration and Enhancement
Work along Reach R3 involved Priority Level I restoration continuing from Reach R4 to provide
floodplain reconnection and long-term channel stability. The upstream section of Reach R3 is 1,104 LF
(1,102 LF utilized in credit calculation to match Mitigation Plan). Below the easement break/stream
crossing toward the downstream end of Reach R3, an Enhancement Level I approach was implemented,
as described above for upper Reach R2. The downstream section of Reach R3 is 352 LF after removing
the approximate 60 LF crossing (due to the skew, over 60 LF was removed from the stream
alignment/stationing).
Reach R3 begins at the confluence Reaches R4 and T3 just above the former farm pond. The farm pond
was removed as part of the channel restoration. Below the pond, larger trees were avoided as much as
feasible.
This reach was designed as a Rosgen E type channel with a width -to -depth ratio of 11. The employed
techniques allowed restoration of a stable channel form with appropriate bedform diversity, as well as
improved channel function through improved aquatic habitat, active floodplain connection, restoration
of riparian and terrestrial habitats, exclusion of cattle, and decreased erosion and sediment loss from
bank erosion.
An easement break was provided toward the downstream end of Reach R3. The easement break is
approximately 60 feet wide to allow for future access to the land west of the stream project, but the
culvert crossing is approximately 32 LF.
Below this crossing in the lower segment of Reach R3, a floodplain bench was cut along the left bank
to increase the entrenchment ratio to greater than 2.0 and provide an area for bankfull flooding. This
removed vertical, eroding streambanks and allowed flood flows to access the floodplain.
Since the primary source of impairment for Reach R3 was direct cattle access and channel incision,
wood structures were incorporated into the channel, where appropriate, to promote stable bedform
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 3-2 NOVEMBER 2017 FINAL
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96313)

sequences and habitat diversity. Riparian buffers in excess of 50 feet were restored along all of Reach
R3 and cattle are excluded.
Mapped jurisdictional wetlands limited to lower Reach R3 were protected during the construction
process. Wetland vegetation was improved in the jurisdictional areas. Additionally, new wetlands may
be created along upper Reach R3 by raising the stream bed as part of Priority 1 restoration. Invasive
species were treated throughout the site including along Reach R3. These areas are not being utilized
for wetland credits.
3.2.4 Reach R4 Restoration
Work along 1,296 LF of Reach R4 involved a Priority Level I Restoration approach. The channel begins
just upstream from a former farm pond at the confluence of Reaches R5 and R6. The farm pond along
Reach R4 was removed, and the channel bed elevation downstream was raised so that the bank height
ratio is 1.0. The failed pond dam was removed to provide a higher functioning floodplain connection.
The trees on the east side of the existing channel were preserved to be part of the restored channel
buffer.
Below the residential development, Priority Level I restoration continues by meandering through the
area with the mature trees. The existing channel was plugged and targeted for vernal pools where runoff
concentrates.
A width -to -depth ratio of 13 was utilized for the entire reach, which will reduce shear stress by
providing shallower bankfull depths to compensate for steeper valley slopes. The C channel meanders
through the available floodplain.
Cattle were excluded from all of Reach R4 and riparian buffers of at least 50 feet were established. No
channel crossings are on Reach R4. Invasive species were treated.
3.2.5 Reach R5 Enhancement
Work along 536 LF of Reach R5 involved Enhancement Level II practices to maintain stability of the
channel. The existing channel was incised but bank erosion was isolated and limited. Consequently,
Baker installed grade control structures, planted a riparian buffer, and permanently excluded livestock.
The spring at the head of the reach is incorporated in the project area.
Livestock were excluded and the buffer was planted. The riparian buffer is 50 feet wide or greater.
Invasive species control was implemented.
3.2.6 Reach R6 BMP Enhancement
Work along Reach R6 involved an Enhancement Level I/non-traditional BMP approach to remove an
existing non jurisdiction farm pond and re-establish and stabilize the eroding channel below it. The
pond was converted to a constructed headwater wetland feature with a low -maintenance, stone weir
outlet. The wetland was designed following the NCDWR BMP manual with the exception of the outlet,
due to the low/no maintenance requirement (maintenance only within monitoring period as detailed in
the Mitigation Plan). Thus, it features diverse topography and vegetation, as well as a forebay and pools.
The channel leading into and out of the wetland features step pools. The upstream segment incorporates
bench features where even small storm flows will interact with the floodplain, thereby dissipating
energy.
The constructed wetland was designed to detain discharge quantities from the 1 -inch rainfall event. A
natural stone weir was designed to slowly release discharges over a 48 hour period thereby reducing
downstream discharge velocities. The extended draw down time will also allow for sediments to settle
out of the water column and for the uptake of nutrients from wetland plantings. The constructed
wetland was designed to meet stormwater pollutant removal rates using the design parameters outlined
in the NCDENR BMP Manual. Design elements for the constructed wetland included the following
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 3-3 NOVEMBER 2017 FINAL
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96313)

wetland zones: deep pools, non-forebay, forebay, shallow water (low marsh), shallow land (high
marsh), and upland.
The conservation easement and buffer plantings were extended approximately 15 - 30 feet beyond the
footprint of the BMP to allow the buffer vegetation to act as pre-treatment feature for runoff entering
the BMP. All areas within the conservation easement were planted. The non-traditional BMP is
intended to naturalize into a wetland feature treating water off the fields through its buffer and varying
topography features hosting wetland plants and providing shallow and deep areas. No maintenance is
anticipated following the monitoring described within the Mitigation Plan and this document.
A 1.5:1 credit ratio for the valley length will be utilized for this BMP feature. The valley length is 442
LF.
3.2.7 Reach T1 Restoration
Work on 145 LF of Reach T1 involved a Priority Level I restoration approach. Priority Level lI
restoration was only needed for a short distance to transition/raise the streambed to a Priority Level I
depth. The restored channel follows the low point of the valley, as it previously did not, and it ties in to
Reach R2 at its newly restored elevation. The primary source of impairment was livestock access and
permanent exclusion fencing has now excluded livestock.
Rock and wood structures were incorporated into the channel where appropriate to promote stable
bedform sequences and habitat diversity. A native riparian buffer was planted in excess of 50 feet.
Invasive species control was conducted along Reach T1.
3.2.8 Reach T2 Enhancement
Work on 283 LF of Reach T2 involved an Enhancement Level Il approach to stabilize the channel
through planting and livestock exclusion. A grade control structure was incorporated to prevent a
headcut that had formed near the confluence with Reach R2/R3 from continuing up the reach.
Riparian buffers in excess of 50 feet were established along all of Reach T2. Invasive species control
was implemented and cattle exclusion fencing has been installed.
3.2.9 Reach T3 Restoration
Work on 88 LF of Reach T3 involved a Priority Level I restoration to connect with the restored main
channel at the interface of Reaches R3 and R4. The targeted section of Reach T3 was extremely incised
from a headcut that had migrated from the main channel through the reach. The bed elevation was
raised so that it ties to the restored main channel. Structures were incorporated to provide bedform
diversity and prevent future headcutting. Riparian buffers in excess of 50 feet were established along
all of Reach T3.
3.2.10 Reach T4 BMP Enhancement
A second non-traditional BMP feature was created to stabilize a migrating headcut on Reach T4 that
was located at the outfall of a 30 -inch stormwater culvert, which drains much of the Broad Ridge Court
subdivision. The rock -lined step -pool channel has been constructed to bring the stormwater runoff
from the outlet to the floodplain elevation. As shown in the approved mitigation plan, a 1.5:1 credit
ratio for the valley length of this BMP, similar to the BMP along Reach R6 is being used. The valley
length of this BMP is 117 LF. The Reach T4 treatment was installed to convey and potentially treat
water before entering the mainstem of the stream. As a stable step -pool channel, no maintenance is
anticipated following the monitoring described within this document.
3.2.11 Wetlands
The forested area in the downstream valley along Reach R1 is predominantly a large wetland area,
which was divided into sub -areas that have been impacted to various degrees by human and/or animal
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 3-4 NOVEMBER 2017 FINAL
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96313)

activity and had differing levels of pre -restoration wetland function. The wetland mitigation types along
R1 include rehabilitation approaches: functioning wetlands (type 1), degraded wetlands (type 2), and
partially functioning wetlands (type 3). Reach R1 was straightened and slightly incised, both of which
impact the drainage and flooding patterns of the area as a whole. To improve wetland hydrology
functions to the site, the pre -restoration straightened stream channel was abandoned and replaced by a
new, more sinuous channel built at the appropriate floodplain elevation, with correct bankfull geometry
thereby restoring their historical connection and improving flow dynamics between the stream and
wetland complex. The abandoned sections of channelized stream were fully to partially filled to
eliminate the drainage effect caused by these features. Type 1 functioning wetlands are 1.53 acres, type
2 degraded wetlands are 0.43 acres, and type 3 partially functioning wetlands are 1.75 acres.
A wetland area along Reach R2 was filled (type 4) and has been re-established by raising the stream
bed, cutting back stream banks prone to erosion to restore natural benching features, and spoil removal.
Type 4 filled wetlands are 0.46 acres.
The third wetland area is along lower Reach R4 required hydrologic reestablishment (type 5). The type
5 wetland is 0.27 acres. There were hydric soils situated on an abandoned floodplain and the pre -
restoration channel was severely incised approximately 6-8 feet below the floodplain. Priority Level I
restoration raised the channel bed to reconnect the stream to the historic floodplain. The existing
channel has been filled. These measures will restore wetland hydrology to this section of the project.
Grading activities focused on restoring pre -disturbance valley topography by removing the numerous
spoil piles, surface drains/swales, and some filled areas located in this area.
The restoration design for the wetland was based on a targeted "Piedmont Alluvial Forest" riparian
wetland type, as identified by Schafale and Weakley (1990). Hydrology of this system will be palustrine
and intermittently, temporarily, or seasonally flooded, as the restored channel was designed to carry the
bankfull flow and to flood at discharges greater than bankfull.
See Table 1 for project components including mitigation approach and wetland types. For more
information on wetland rehabilitation, re-establishment and wetland area types, see the Final Mitigation
Plan.
3.3 Project History, Contacts, and Attribute Data
Baker implemented the project under a full delivery contract with NCDMS to provide stream and wetland
mitigation credits in the Cape Fear River Basin. The chronology of the project is presented in Table 2.
The contact information for all designers, contractors, and relevant suppliers is presented in Table 3.
Relevant project background information is presented in Table 4. Tables 2, 3, and 4 are located in
Appendix A of this report. As -built stationing is outlined in the Construction Summary, below, and in
Table 1 in Appendix A.
3.3.1 Construction Summary
In accordance with the approved Mitigation Plan and regulatory permits, site preparation activities
began on October 10, 2016 with the installation of sedimentation and erosion control measures, and the
establishment of staging areas, haul roads, and stockpile areas. The construction contractor for the
project was River Works, Inc. (River Works). The as -built plan sheets/record drawings depict actual
surveyed areas within the project area and depict any changes from the final design plans to what was
implemented on-site during construction. The as -built plan sheets/record drawings are located in
Appendix C.
Channel construction begin in October at the upstream extent of the site and worked in the downstream
direction (begin on Reach R6 and ended with Reach R1). The construction was completed on March
8, 2017. Planting was installed as major reaches were completed and finalized by March 10, 2017.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 3-5 NOVEMBER 2017 FINAL
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96313)

Approximately 9,880 feet of permanent cattle exclusion fencing (woven wire with one strand of barbed
wire) was installed outside the conservation easement boundary along all non-residential conservation
easement borders, with access gates and rock crossings as shown on the as -built plan sheets. In
addition, Baker worked with the landowners to install a new groundwater wells and permanent watering
stations for the cattle outside of the project boundary.
Upon completion of stream work within the Site, sedimentation and erosion control measures such as
temporary stream crossings, rock check dams, and silt fence were removed. Coir fiber matting was
installed along both stream banks, and all disturbed areas were stabilized with temporary and permanent
seed and mulch before de -mobilizing from the Site. Baker and River Works met on site February 16,
2017 and conducted a preliminary final walk through inspection, and generated a punch -list of final
items to be completed. River Works completed this punch list and demobilized in March of 2017.
The planting of live -stakes and bare -root trees and shrubs was conducted as the project progressed for
the entire project. The planting crew also searched for and treated any invasive species identified within
the conservation easement. Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), tree -of -heaven (Ailanthus altissima),
multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), and princess tree (Paulownia tomentosa) were treated. Further
invasive species inspections will be conducted again each year during the monitoring phase.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 3-6 NOVEMBER 2017 FINAL
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96313)

4.0 SUCCESS CRITERIA
4.1 Stream Monitoring
Geomorphic monitoring of the restoration and enhancement level I reaches will be conducted once a year
for five to seven years following the completion of construction to evaluate the effectiveness of the
restoration practices. These parameters include stream dimension (cross sections), pattern (planimetric
survey), profile (longitudinal profile survey), and visual observation with photographic documentation.
The success criteria for the Enhancement Level II reaches/sections will follow the methods described
under Photo Reference Stations and Vegetation Monitoring. The methods used and related success criteria
are described below for each parameter. All monitoring features are shown in Figure 4 (Appendix A) as
well as in the as -built plan sheets (Appendix D).
4.1.1 Bankfull Events and Flooding Functions
The occurrence of bankfull events within the monitoring period will be documented by the use of a
manual crest gage and photographs. The crest gage was installed within the floodplain of R3
approximately five to ten feet (horizontal) of the restored channel at bankfull elevation. Installing the
instruments on the floodplain reduces the risk of damage by stormflow. The crest gage will record the
highest watermark between site visits, and the gage will be checked at each site visit to determine if a
bankfull event has occurred. Photographs will be used to document the occurrence of debris lines and
sediment deposition on the floodplain during monitoring site visits.
Two bankfull flow events must be documented within the seven-year monitoring period. The two
bankfull events must occur in separate years; otherwise, the monitoring will continue until two bankfull
events have been documented in separate years.
4.1.2 Flow Documentation
Monitoring of flow will be conducted to demonstrate that the restored stream system classified as
intermittent exhibits base flow for some portion of the year during a year with normal rainfall
conditions. In order to determine if rainfall amounts are normal for the given year, precipitation
amounts using tallied data obtained from the Piedmont Triad International Airport (KGSO) ASOS
station approximately 12 miles to the southwest will be analyzed. Data from the weather station can
be obtained from the CRONOS Database located on the State Climate Office of North Carolina's
website. If a normal year of precipitation does not occur during the first seven years of monitoring,
flow conditions will continue to be monitored on the site until it documents that the intermittent streams
have been flowing during the appropriate times of the year.
The monitoring of each restored intermittent reach will include the documentation of a combination of
photographic and baseflow monitoring data. More specifically, the longitudinal photos should indicate
the presence of flow within the channel in order to discern water levels within the pools and riffles.
The visual monitoring effort, including the photo locations with descriptions, will be included with
NCDMS's annual monitoring reports. A pressure transducer has been installed near the downstream
portion of restored reaches: R4, T1 and T3. The device will be inspected on a quarterly/semi-annual
basis to document surface hydrology and provide a basis for evaluating general flow response to rainfall
events and surface runoff during various water tables levels throughout the monitoring period. Success
criteria will include 30 days of consecutive baseflow for monitoring wells installed during a normal
rainfall year.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 4-1 NOVEMBER 2017 FINAL
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96313)

4.1.3 Cross Sections
Permanent cross sections have been installed at an approximate rate of one cross section per twenty
bankfull widths or an average distance interval (not to exceed 500 LF) of restored stream, with twelve
(12) cross sections located at riffles, and five (5) located at pools. Each cross section is marked on both
streambanks with permanent monuments using rebar cemented in place to establish the exact transect
used. A common benchmark will be used for cross sections and to facilitate easy comparison of year-
to-year data. The cross-section surveys will occur in years one, two, three, five, and seven, and must
include measurements of Bank Height Ratio (BHR) and Entrenchment Ratio (ER). The monitoring
survey will include points measured at all breaks in slope, including top of streambanks, bankfull, inner
berm, edge of water, and thalweg, if the features are present. Riffle cross sections will be classified
using the Rosgen Stream Classification System.
There should be little change in as -built cross sections. If changes do take place, they will be
documented in the survey data and evaluated to determine if they represent a movement toward a more
unstable condition (e.g., down -cutting or erosion) or a movement toward increased stability (e.g.,
settling, vegetative changes, deposition along the streambanks, or decrease in width/depth ratio). Using
the Rosgen Stream Classification System, all monitored cross sections should fall within the
quantitative parameters (i.e. BHR no more than 1.2 and ER no less than 2.2 for `C' stream types)
defined for channels of the design stream type. Given the smaller channel sizes and meander geometry
of the streams, bank pins will not be installed unless monitoring results indicate active lateral erosion.
Reference photo transects will be taken at each permanent cross section. Lateral photos should not
indicate excessive erosion or continuing degradation of the streambanks. Photographs will be taken of
both streambanks at each cross section. The survey tape will be centered in the photographs of the
streambanks. The water line will be located in the lower edge of the frame, and as much of the
streambank as possible will be included in each photo. Photographers shall make a consistent effort to
maintain the same area in each photo over time.
4.1.4 Pattern
The plan view measurements such as sinuosity, radius of curvature, meander width ratio will be taken
on newly constructed meanders during baseline (Monitoring Year 0) only. Subsequent visual
monitoring will be conducted twice a year, at least five months apart, to document any changes or
excessive lateral movement in the plan view of the restored channel.
4.1.5 Longitudinal Profile
A longitudinal profile has been surveyed for the entire length of restored channel immediately after
construction to document as -built baseline conditions . The survey is tied to a permanent benchmark
and measurements includes thalweg, water surface, bankfull, and top of low bank. Each of these
measurements was taken at the head of each feature (e.g., riffle, pool) and at the maximum pool depth.
The longitudinal profile should show that the bedform features installed are consistent with intended
design stream type. The longitudinal profiles will not be taken during subsequent monitoring years
unless vertical channel instability has been documented or remedial actions/repairs are deemed
necessary.
4.1.6 Bed Material Analyses
After construction, there should be minimal change in the bulk sample data over time given the current
watershed conditions and sediment supply regime. Significant changes in particle sizes or size
distribution in otherwise stable riffles and pools could warrant additional sediment transport analyses
and calculations. A substrate sample will be collected where certain constructed riffles are installed as
part of the project. One constructed riffle substrate sample will be compared to existing riffle substrate
data collected during the design phase and any significant changes (i.e.; aggradation, degradation) will
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 4-2 NOVEMBER 2017 FINAL
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96313)

1 4 y c
be noted after streambank vegetation becomes established and a minimum of two bankfull flows or
greater have been documented.
4.1.7 Visual Assessment
Visual monitoring assessments of all stream sections will be conducted by qualified personnel twice
per monitoring year with at least five months in between each site visit. Photographs will be used to
visually document system performance and any areas of concern related to streambank stability,
condition of in -stream structures, channel migration, headcuts, live stake mortality, impacts from
invasive plant species or animal species, and condition of pools and riffles. The photo locations and
descriptions will be shown on a plan view map per NCDMS's monitoring report guidance (0.5, June
2012).
The photographs will be taken from a height of approximately five to six feet to ensure that the same
locations (and view directions) at the site are documented in each monitoring period. A series of photos
over time will be also be used to subjectively evaluate channel aggradation (bar formations) or
degradation, streambank erosion, successful maturation of riparian vegetation, and effectiveness of
sedimentation and erosion control measures if necessary.
4.2 Vegetation Monitoring
In order to determine if the criteria are achieved, vegetation -monitoring quadrants have been installed and
will be monitored across the restoration site in accordance with the CVS-NCDMS Protocol for Recording
Vegetation, Version 4.1 (Lee at al., 2007). The vegetation monitoring plots are a minimum of 2% of the
planted portion of the site with a minimum of five (5) plots established randomly within the planted buffer
areas per Monitoring Levels 1 and 2. No monitoring quadrants were established within the undisturbed
wooded areas of Reaches R3, R4, R5, and R6. The size of individual quadrants will be 100 square meters.
Fourteen plots were established.
Vegetation monitoring will occur in the fall, prior to the loss of leaves. Individual quadrant data will be
provided and will include species diameter, height, density, and coverage quantities. Relative values will
be calculated, and importance values will be determined. Individual seedlings will be marked such that
they can be found in succeeding monitoring years. Mortality will be determined from the difference
between the previous year's living, planted seedlings and the current year's living, planted seedlings.
At the end of the first full growing season (from baseline/year 0) or after 180 days between March 1 st and
November 30th, species composition, stem density, height, and survival will be evaluated. For each
subsequent year, vegetation plots shall be monitored for seven years in years 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7 or until the
final success criteria are achieved. The restored site will be evaluated between March and November. The
interim measure of vegetative success for the site will require the survival of at least 320, 3 -year old,
planted trees per acre at the end of year three of the monitoring period. At year five, density must be no
less than 260, 5 -year old, planted trees per acre. The final vegetative success criteria will be the survival
of 210, 7 -year old, planted trees per acre. Additionally, the average height of the 7 -year old planted trees
will range from 7 feet to 10 feet tall. Certain native species, which are appropriate to plant on-site to
provide a diverse vegetation community, do not typically grow to these heights in 7 years and will be
excluded from the height performance standard. These excluded species composed primarily of
understory species are Persimmon, American Hornbeam, American Holly, Witchhazel, Strawberry Bush,
Black Gum, and Winterberry. If the performance standards are met by year 5 and stem densities are greater
than 260, 5 -year old stems/acre, vegetation monitoring may be terminated with approval by the USACE
and the NCIRT.
While measuring species density and height is the current accepted methodology for evaluating vegetation
success on mitigation projects, species density and height alone may be inadequate for assessing plant
community health. For this reason, the vegetation monitoring plan will incorporate the evaluation of
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 4-3 NOVEMBER 2017 FINAL
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96313)

additional plant community indices, native volunteer species, and the presence of invasive species
vegetation to assess overall vegetative success.
Baker will provide required remedial action on a case-by-case basis, such as: replanting more wet/drought
tolerant species vegetation, conducting beaver management/dam removal, and removing undesirable/
invasive species vegetation, and will continue to monitor vegetation performance until the corrective
actions demonstrate that the site is trending towards or meeting the standard requirement. Existing mature
woody vegetation will be visually monitored during annual site visits to document any mortality, due to
construction activities or changes to the water table, that negatively impact existing forest cover or
favorable buffer vegetation.
Additionally, herbaceous vegetation, primarily native species grasses, have been seeded/planted
throughout the site.
4.3 Wetland Monitoring
4.3.1 Groundwater Data Collection
Seven (7) groundwater monitoring wells were installed in the wetland mitigation area to document
hydrologic conditions of the restored wetland area. These wells will be used to evaluate wetland
hydrology during each growing season for seven years of hydrologic monitoring, or until success
criteria have been met, whichever occurs later. To meet the hydrologic success criteria, the monitoring
gage data must show that for each normal year within the monitoring period, the site has been inundated
or saturated for a certain hydroperiod. The targeted hydroperiod will be based on the range of wetness
conditions for the type of wetland system to be restored and will be compared to hydrology data
collected from the reference wetland site during the same monitoring period.
4.3.2 Hydrology
In order to determine if the hydrologic success criteria are achieved, automated groundwater -
monitoring stations have been installed across the restored site and will be monitored year-round.
Groundwater monitoring stations will follow the USACE standard methods found in the WRP
Technical Notes ERDC TN -WRAP -00-02, (July 2000). In the event that there are years of normal
precipitation during the monitoring period, and the data for those years do not show that the site has
been inundated or saturated for the appropriate hydroperiod during the normal precipitation year, the
review agencies may require remedial action. Baker will provide any required remedial action and
continue to monitor hydrology on the site until it displays that the site has been inundated or saturated
for the appropriate hydroperiod.
The objective is for the monitoring data to show the site exhibits an increased frequency of flooding.
Groundwater levels will be compared to pre -restoration conditions and reference conditions. The
success criteria for wetland hydrology will follow a range from 9-12 percent, depending on the specific
wetland location and the mitigation activity. The wetland areas along Reach R1 and the large bend of
Reach 2 will meet success criteria for wetland hydrology when the soils are saturated within 12 inches
of the soil surface for 12 percent of the growing season or twenty eight (28) or more consecutive days
during the growing season (236 days). The saturated conditions should occur during a period when
antecedent precipitation has been normal or drier than normal for a minimum frequency of 5 years in
10 (USACE, 2005 and 2010b). Note the number of growing days was increased from 229 days to 236
days (March 22°a through November 13`h) between the Mitigation Plan and Baseline Monitoring Report
due to the publication of recent data for the WETS Station: Greensboro AP, NC (years utilized for 50
percent probability of a 28 degree or higher day: 1971-2015).
The hydroperiod for success for the wetlands located along lower Reach R4 will be 9 percent of the
growing season or twenty-one (2 1) or more consecutive days.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 4-4 NOVEMBER 2017 FINAL
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96313)

I I r 4
In order to determine if the rainfall is normal for the given year, precipitation amounts using tallied data
obtained from the Piedmont Triad International Airport (KGSO) ASOS station approximately 12 miles
to the southwest will be analyzed. Data from this station can be obtained from the CRONOS Database
located on the State Climate Office of North Carolina's website. If a normal year of precipitation does
not occur during the first seven years of monitoring, Baker will continue to monitor hydrology on the
site until it documents that the site has been inundated or saturated for the appropriate hydroperiod.
If the rainfall data for any given year during the monitoring period are abnormal, it is possible that the
desired hydrology for the site may not meet specific success criteria. However, reference wetland data
will be assessed to determine if there is a positive correlation between the underperformance of the
project site and the natural hydrology of the reference site.
4.4 BMP Monitoring
This project includes the implementation of two BMPs. A constructed wetland, which will function as a
headwater wetland, was installed along Reach R6, and a rock lined step -pool channel stormwater control
measure was installed along Reach T4. Both BMPs will be visually monitored semi-annually for
vegetative survival, outlet stability, and storage capacity using photo documentation during the 7 -Year
monitoring period. A vegetation plot will also be established along the planted portion of Reach R6 and
will be included as part of the vegetation monitoring outlined above. Maintenance measures will be
implemented during the monitoring period to replace dead vegetative material and to remove excess
sedimentation, as needed, from the forebay of the constructed wetland and its permanent pool, as well as
the plunge pools along Reach T4. Should the outlet of the constructed wetland become unstable during the
7 -Year monitoring period, corrective measures will be implemented to rectify the instability issues.
The BMPs success criteria will include the following:
• step -pool channels (R6 outlet and T4) are considered successful if stability has been attained as
agreed upon by the IRT at closeout.
• Constructed Wetland (R6) vegetation will be considered successful with a visual assessment of 70
percent native vegetation coverage as defined in the NCDWR BMP manual (page 9-21 of the
NCDWR BMP manual). Native volunteers can be included within the visual assessment. The
vegetation plot in the buffer area of the BMP with planted stems will have the same standard
success criteria as other veg plots. All yearly maintenance and repairs, photo points, re -plantings,
and invasive treatments will be documented in the monitoring reports. Sediment buildup should
be minimal and not require repeated maintenance at closeout as agreed upon by the IRT for the
constructed wetland to be considered successful.
• NCDWR BMP field inspection - One field visit by NCDWR should be conducted between years
2-5 to inspect the BMPs. Baker will invite NCDWR staff to the site. Annual monitoring may be
requested by Baker instead of bi-annual monitoring for the BMPs after five years until closeout if
the stormwater control measure structures are stable and have not required maintenance in the past
year.
Long-term management of the BMP structures is not anticipated by USACE provided the structures remain
stable and functioning throughout the 7 -year monitoring period.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 4-5 NOVEMBER 2017 FINAL
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96313)

5.0 MAINTENANCE AND CONTINGENCY PLANS
Maintenance requirements vary from site to site and are generally driven by the following conditions:
• Projects without established, woody floodplain vegetation are more susceptible to erosion from floods
than those with a mature, hardwood forest.
• Projects with sandy, non -cohesive soils are more prone to bank erosion than cohesive soils or soils with
high gravel and cobble content.
• Alluvial valley channels with access to their floodplain are less vulnerable to erosion than channels that
have been disconnected from their floodplain.
• Wet weather during construction can make accurate channel and floodplain excavations difficult.
• Extreme and/or frequent flooding can cause floodplain and channel erosion.
• Extreme hot, cold, wet, or dry weather during and after construction can limit vegetation growth,
particularly temporary and permanent seed.
• The presence and aggressiveness of invasive vegetation species can affect the extent to which a native
species vegetation buffer can be established.
• The presence of beaver can affect vegetation survivability and stream function.
The Site will be monitored on a regular basis and as well as a physical inspection of the Site at least twice a
year throughout the post -construction monitoring period until performance standards are met. These site
inspections may identify site components and features that require routine maintenance. Maintenance issues
and recommended remediation measures will be detailed and documented in the post -construction monitoring
reports. Factors that may have caused any maintenance needs, including any of the conditions listed above,
shall be discussed. Routine maintenance, if required, will be most likely be needed in the first two years
following site construction and may include the following components as described below.
5.1 Streams
Routine channel maintenance and repair activities may include modifying in -stream structures to prevent
piping, securing loose coir matting, and supplemental installations of live stakes and other target vegetation
along the project reaches. Areas of concentrated stormwater and floodplain flows that intercept the
channel may also require maintenance to prevent stream bank failures and head -cutting until vegetation
becomes established.
5.2 Wetland
Wetland maintenance and repair activities may include repairing any erosional issues to prevent any
drainage ditches from forming.
5.3 Vegetation
Vegetation will be maintained to ensure the health and vigor of the targeted plant community. Routine
vegetation maintenance and repair activities may include supplemental planting, pruning, and fertilizing.
Exotic invasive plant species will treated by mechanical and/or chemical methods. Any invasive plant
species control requiring herbicide application will be performed in accordance with NC Department of
Agriculture (NCDA) rules and regulations.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 5-1 NOVEMBER 2017 FINAL
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96313)

8 , 4
5.4 Site Boundary
Site boundaries have been demarcated in the field to ensure clear distinction between the mitigation site
and adjacent properties. Boundary markers disturbed, damaged, or destroyed will be repaired and/or
replaced on an as needed basis.
5.5 Farm Road Crossing
The farm road crossings within the Site may be maintained only as allowed by the recorded Conservation
Easement, deed restrictions, rights of way, or corridor agreements.
5.6 Beaver Management
Routine maintenance and repair activities caused by beaver activity may include supplemental planting,
pruning, and dam breeching/dewatering and/or removal. Beaver management will be performed in
accordance with US Department of Agriculture (USDA) rules and regulations using accepted trapping and
removal techniques only within the project boundary on an as -needed basis.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 5-2 NOVEMBER 2017 FINAL
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96313)

6.0 AS -BUILT DATA DOCUMENTATION
The specific locations of vegetation plots, flow/crest gauges, and cross-sections are shown on the as -built
plan sheets located in Appendix D.
6.1 Stream Data
One manual crest gauge was installed at the bankfull elevation along the restored channel of Reach
R 1 and will be used to document the occurrence of bankfull events on the Site. Additionally, three in -
channel pressure transducers were installed in Reach 4, T3 and T1. The in -channel pressure
transducers will record water depth and flow duration within the channels as well as document bankfull
events in the respective reaches. Photographs will also be used to document the occurrence of debris
lines and sediment deposition on the floodplain during monitoring site visits.
For monitoring stream success criteria, seventeen permanent cross-sections were installed along all
restored reaches on the Site. The permanent cross-sections will be used to monitor channel dimension
and bank stability over time.
In addition, a longitudinal survey was completed for all reaches to provide a baseline for evaluating
changes in bed conditions over time. The permanent as -built cross-sections (with photos), the as -built
longitudinal data, the quantitative pre -construction, reference reach, and design data used to determine
restoration approach, as well as other as -built data will be used for comparison to post -construction
monitoring data. The locations of the permanent cross-sections and the crest gauges are shown in
Figure 4 in Appendix A, and on the as -built plan sheets in Appendix D. Photographs of the selected
portions of the restored reaches are provided in Appendix E.
6.2 Vegetation Data
Bare -root trees and shrubs were planted within the conservation easement. A minimum 50 -foot buffer
was established and/or protected along both banks of all stream reaches. Planting of bare -root trees
and shrubs and live stakes was completed in March of 2017.
The Mitigation Plan for the Site specifies that the number of quadrants required shall be based on the
CVS-NCDMS monitoring guidance (2007). The total number of quadrants was calculated using the
CVS-NCDMS Entry Tool Database version 2.2.7 (CVS-NCDMS, 2007). The sizes of individual
quadrants are 100 square meters. A total of fourteen vegetation plots were installed throughout the
Site. The initial planted density within each of the vegetation monitoring plots is provided in Table 8.
The average density of planted bare root stems, based on the data from the fourteen vegetation
monitoring plots, is 766 stems per acre. The locations of the vegetation plots are shown on the as -
built plan sheets in Appendix D and on Figure 4.
6.3 Wetland Data
Seven (7) groundwater monitoring wells were installed in the wetland mitigation area to document
hydrologic conditions of the restored wetland area.
6.4 Areas of Concern
No areas of concern were identified post -construction for the site.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 6-1 NOVEMBER 2017 FINAL
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96313)

7.0 REFERENCES
Carolina Vegetation Survey (CVS) and NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCDMS). 2007. CVS-
NCDMS Data Entry Tool v. 2.2.7. University of North Carolina, Raleigh, NC.
Lee, M., Peet R., Roberts, S., Wentworth, T. CVS-NCDMS Protocol for Recording Vegetation,
Version 4.1, 2007.
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services. 2011. Monitoring Requirements and
Performance Standards for Stream and/or Wetland Mitigation. November 7, 2011.
Rosgen, D. L. 1994. A classification of natural rivers. Catena 22:169-199.
Rosgen, D.L. 1996. Applied River Morphology — Second Edition. Wildland Hydrology Books,
Pagosa Springs, Colo.
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, NCDENR. Raleigh, NC.
United States Army Corps of Engineers. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.
Technical Report Y-87-1. Environmental Laboratory. US Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS.
2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines, April 2003, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Wilmington District.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 7-1 NOVEMBER 2017 FINAL
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96313)

A , 1 4
APPENDIX A
Figures 1 — 4-2, Tables 1 - 4

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.
7 Site Location C
Conservation Easement
® NCDMS TLW
Note: Site is located within targeted local
watershed 0303002010020.
Guilford County
hway 150
GUILFORD
1
Greensboro
1 ! ,
Figure 1
Site Location Project Vicinity Map
–�—__ Browns Summit (DMS# 96313)
NCDEQ - Division
of Mitigation Services N
INTERNATIONAL
0.5 0 0.5
Miles

= Conservation Easement
Restoration Feature Approach
Restoration, 1:1 Reach R1
Enhancement I, 1.5:1
Enhancement II, 2.5:1
BMP, 1.5:1
Wetland Mitigation Types
1 - "Functioning", 3:1 credit ratio
2 - Degraded, 1.5:1 credit ratio
Reach T1
3 - Partially Functioning, 1.5:1 credit ratio
4 - Filled, 1:1 credit ratio
5 - Hydrologic Reestablishment, 3.5:1 ratio Reach R2 (lower)
Reach R2 (upper) Reach T2
Reach R3 (lower)
► Reach R3 (upper)
Reach T3
Reach R6
INTERNATIONAL
Reach R4
Reach T4
Reach R5
Q.
0 250 500 1,000 Figure 2
Restoration Summary Map
Feet Browns Summit Site
(DMS #96313)

4! �' 7�a �, ��• "4.� awn �'-� � �: h..
AJ
,a; ,w,.... ,w r J� r � X• +. lira a � , A: Vf`51�'ia�
t
+� , y • � .� °� ` moi: t}
.' i, i yl,�. ,'� a e #` !�•.• �� Y 34x1'rr.
A
fir
a �I
r'
( t`
Project Location
Buckhorn Creek
Haw RiverState Parkc
_
tw
Project Location
WetlandReference • V
Reference Stream Reaches
q j
Lakes/PondsMajor Roads
Minor Roads 0
County A .
Boundary .: •„ t
Geology
Carolina Slate Belt
Charlotte and Milton Belts
Michael Baker