20140332 Ver 1_More Info Received_20171207 (2)

,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

,I v

Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No ID. 96313
Mitigation Credits
Stream
Riparian Wetland
Non -riparian Wetland
Buffer
Nitrogen Nutrient Offset
Phosphorus
Nutrient Offset
Type R, El, Ell, BMP
R
E
Totals 5,299 SMU
2.51 WMU (2.50 WMU requested)
0.0
Project Com 3onents
Project Component or Reach ID Stationing/ Location (As -Built)"
Existing Footage/
Acreage (LF/AC)*
Approach
Restoration/ Restoration
Equivalent (SMU/WMU)
Restoration Footage or
Acreage (LF/AC)
Mitigation Ratio
RI'" 51+00.00 - 63+89.87
1,217
Restoration
1,290
1,290
1:1
R2*•
49+65.28 -51+00.00
(downstream section)
167
Enhancement l[
54
134
2.5 :1
R2 43+48.17-49+65.28
(upstream section)
701
Enhancement)
409
614
1.5:1
R3
(downstream section) 39+35.73-43+48.17
60' easement break subtracted from stream (CE 40+45.09 - 41+05.52)
lengths
362
Enhancement)
235
352
1.5:1
R3 28+31.92 - 39+35.73
(upstream section)
1,224
Restoration
1,102
1,102
1:1
R4 15+35.86 - 28+31.92
1,350
Restoration
1,296
1,296
1:1
R5 10+00 - 15+35.86
536
Enhancement 11
214
536
2.5:1
R6 10+00 - 15+19.39
536
Enhancement UBMP
294
442 LF (valley length)
1.5:1
Tl 10+00-11+44.99
121
Restoration
145
145
1:1
T2 10+00-12+85.21
283
Enhancement 11
113
283
2.5:1
T3 10+04.88 - 10+92.84
83
Restoration
70
70
1:1
T4 10+30.18 - 11+49.36
47
Enhancement 1/BMP
78
117 LF (valley length)
1.5:1
Wetland Area - Type 1 See Figures
1.57
Rehabilitation
0.51
1.53
3:1
Wetland Area - Type 2 See Figures
0.49
Rehabilitation
0.29
0.43
1.5:1
Wetland Area - Type 3 See Figures
2.06
Rehabilitation
1.17
1.75
1.5:1
Wetland Area - Type 4 See Figures
0.49
Re-establishment
0.46
0.46
1:1
Wetland Area - Type 5 See Figures
0.27
Re-establishment
0.08
0.27
3.5:1
*Wetland existing acrage and restoration acrages were swapped in Table 5.1 of the Mitigation Plan.
"*Stations and lengths are taken from the 2017 As -Built survey and may thus differ slightly from the Mitigation Plan. See Appendix F for coorespondence.
Component Summation
Restoration Level Stream (LF)
Riparian Wetland (AC) Non -riparian Wetland (AC)
Buffer (SF)
Upland (AC)
Restoration 3,903
4.44
Enhancement) 1,525
Enhancement 11 953
BMP Elements
Element Location Purpose/Function
JNotes
BMP Elements: BR= Bioretention Cell; SF= Sand Filter; SW= Stormwater Wetland; WDP= Wet Detention Pond; DDP= Dry Detention
Pond; FS= Filter Strip; S= Grassed Swale; LS= Level Spreader; NI=Natural Infiltration Area
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)

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

S { T 1
Table 3. Project Contacts
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No ID. 96313
Designer
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
Cary, NC 27518
Contact:
Katie McKeithan, Tel. [phone]
Construction Contractor
6105 Chapel Hill Road
River Works, Inc.
Raleigh, NC 27607
Contact:
Bill Wright, Tel. [phone]
Planting Contractor
6105 Chapel Hill Road
River Works, Inc.
Raleigh, NC 27607
Contact:
Bill Wright, Tel. [phone]
Seeding Contractor
6105 Chapel Hill Road
River Works, Inc.
Raleigh, NC 27607
Contact:
Bill Wright, Tel. [phone]
Seed Mix Sources
Green Resources, Rodney Montgomery 336-215-3458
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Dykes and Son, 931-668-8833
Mellow Marsh Farm, 919-742-1200
ArborGen, 843-528-3204
Live Stakes Suppliers
Foggy Mountain Nursery, 336-384-5323
Monitoring Performers
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
Cary, NC 27518
Contact:
Stream Monitoring Point of Contact
Katie McKeithan, Tel. [phone]
Vegetation Monitoring Point of Contact
Katie McKeithan, Tel. [phone]
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)

Table 4. Project Attributes
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No ID. 96313
Project Information
Project Name
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project
County
Guilford
Pro'ed Area saes
20.2
Project Coordinates latitude and longitude)
36.237 N, -79.749 W
Project Watershed Summary
Information
Ph i to hic Province
Piedmont
River Basin
Cape Fear
USGS Hydrologic Unit Mi it and 14 -digit
03030002 / 03030002010020
NCDWR Sub -basin
3/62001
Project Drainage Area acres
438
Project Drai a Area Percent Ira ious
1%
CGIA Land Use Classification
2.01.01.01, 2.03.01, 2.99.01, 3.02 / Forest (53%) Agriculture (39%) Impervious Cover (1%) Unclassified (7s/o)
Reach Summary Information
Parameters
Reach RI
Reach R2
Reach R3
Reach R4
Reach R5
LenofRach linear feet
1,290
748
1,454
1,296
536
Valley Classification os rn
VII
VH
VII
VII
VII
Drainage Area acres
438
299
242
138/95
24
NCDWR Stream Identification Score
35.5
35.5
41.5
41.525
28.5
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
C; NSW
Morphological Description
os en stream
E
Bc incised
Bc incised
Ge
Bc
Evolutionary Trend
Incised E-)Gc-)F
Bc4G-)F
Bc4G-)F
GAF
Bc-)G
Underlying Mapped Soils
CnA
CnA
CnA, PpE2
CnA, CkC
CkC
Drainage Class
Somewhat Poorly Drained
Somewhat Poorly Drained Somewhat Poorly Drained and Well Drained
Somewhat Poorly
Drained and Well
Drained
Well Drained
Soil Hydric Status
H dric
Hydric
Partially Hydric
Partial) Hydric
Upland
Average Channel Slopeft/ft
0.0069
0.0068
0.0095
0.017
0.023
FEMA Classification
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Native Vegetation Community
Piedmont Headwater Stream Forest
Percent Composition of Exotic/Invasive Vegetation
25%
15%
5%
<5%
<5%
Parameters
Reach R6
Reach TI
Reach T2
Reach T3
Reach T4
Length of Reach linear feet
442 LF(valley length)_145
283
70
117 LF(valley len
Valley Classification os en
VII
VII
VII
VII
VII
Drainage Area acres
61
55
47
41
10
NCDWR Stream Identification Score
18
26.75
27.25
19
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
C; NSW
Morphological Description
os en stream
Bc incised
E incised
F
E incised
-
Evolution Trend
DC -)GAF
E -)G -)F
Bc4G>F
E4G-*F
Underlying Mapped Soils
CkC
CnA
CnA, PpE2
CnA
CkC
DrainageClass
Well Drained
Poorly Drained
Somewhat Poorly Drained and Well Drained
Somewhat Poorlyge
Drained
Well Drained
Soil Hydric Status
Upland
Hydric
Partially Hydric
Hydric
Upland
Average Channel Slone ft/ft
0.014
0.024
0.022
0.02
FEMA Classification
N/A
N/A
N/A
WA
N/A
Native Vegetation Community
Piedmont Headwater Stream Forest
Percent Composition of Exotic/Invasive Vegetation
1 5%
l0%
10%
10%
10%
Regulatory Considerations
Regulation
Resolved Supporting Documentation
Waters of the United States - Section 404
Yes Categorical Exclusion (Appendix B)
Waters of the United States - Section 401
Yes Categorical Exclusion (Appendix B)
Endangered Species Act
flNo
N/A Categorical Exclusion (Appendix B)
Historic Preservation Act
N/A Categorical Exclusion (A pendix B)
Coastal Area Management Act (LAMA)
N/A Categorical Exclusion (Appendix B)
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
N/A 1 Categorical Exclusion (Appendix B)
Essential Fisheries Habitat
No
N/A Categorical Exclusion (Appendix B)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)

a'; o
q qc! o
1
1
1 j
1 f
�21
:mm)
oil
5 72
2
-so
m
04
Ey
92
MCI ems.
0

51
El
CCCCSaCSCGC
ws
wU
co
5!9 a — a - 's >
, , ay." , I u
m 72
-j
am
i2.
u
So
cl
51

M
°aeeveeee! �??,nm IpiMpi
rv�v�.0 a`m o
III jiI11I71;ilitl
I I i I I I I I
iii
•a
'o
I
I !!? iii!ii
,ijli !i I!II
Iij
p
i M I I t I
d
I i
if
0
ilj!�!Illi ^���&i iiieli
it III ii,i�I;IIIIIII
°!I!I IIII iIIiI ililli
!! III 1111111 fit
a
c
E
e u
�1 ; i!I! I 11 iiiii!
� Ii li�iitiilj!i
III to loi I� !Iii -t
� II! iieii-ijli '
e
•a
r
u
81 ii i i II ;;
fii ii
tlo I it '.;iIII ii
!olit ,,,III !1!111
�
d
� ,!1111
I
�!ilii,Ill Ii.I. Ililll
I I I I I I I I I
i! illiii,,.Iii!!iiI
oc
e
CCCCC O CCCC O CCCCC�
ye p, C E �' � pCC C�
33bA�ao
�^a'ggxo ¢.ax��Ev cg;p�
-
EN�$i>
a �
um y
OOGG
Y
aNbN E
Eh
>J
6 m
5
bIIIIIIE S
Y
x
qq
>
e �
a}y
m
M

LL
Table S continued. Baseline Stream Summary
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No ID. 96313
Reach 4
Parameter
USGS
Regional Curve*
Pm,Esisting Condition
Reference Reach(es) Data
Design (lower/upper)
As -built
Composite
Gauge
Dimension and Substrate- RifBt
LL
UL
Eq.
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD n
Min Mean
Med Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
BF Width (ft)
_____
_____
____
_____
-----
7,60
-----
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
-----
----
---- ---
--- 9.2/8.1
----- -----
-----
-----
7.2
9.3
9.1
11.8
1.7
4,0
Floodprone Width (ft)
----
---
-----
_____
-----
9.1
_-
___-
_____
____
____
__-_
____
___.
_____ ____
- >19/>17
___ _____
____
___
31.3
57.9
66.0
68.1
15.4
4.0
BF Mew Depth (R)
_____
_____
_____
___
_____
0.86
___
_____
____ _____
_- 0.7 / 0.6
____ _____
____
-----
0.5
0.8
0.9
1.1
0.2
4.0
BF Max Depth O____
----
-----
----
-----
1.39
___
-----
_____
___
____
___
-----
-----
----- ----
-- 0.9/08
----- -----
-----
---
0.8
1.4
1.5
1.7
0.3
4.0
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft')
-._--
-----
--•-
-----'-"'
6.5
---
--"-
-----
-""
...-
'--'
""'
""-
""' -'--
--' 6.5 / 5.0
'-'-' ""-
'---'
-----
3.3
7.7
7.4
12.7
3.4
4.0
Width/Depth Ratio
----
-----
-----
-----
-----
8.8
----
----
-----
-----
10.0
-----
-----
14.0
----- -----
----- 13.0
----- ____
_____
-----
11.0
12.3
113
15.4
I.8
4.0
-----
1.2
_____
-----
>2.2
----- _____
____ >2.2
_____ __..
_____
-----
4.4
5.9
5.8
7.6
1.3
3.0
Bank Height Ratio
-----
-----
----
---
-----
6.8
----
.....
_____
1.0
-----
""'
1.1
""' -----
-"" 1.0
----- ----
""'
.....
LO
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
3.0
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft
----
---
-----
----
----
---
-----
----
--
-----
----
-----
----
----- ---_
--' 30-4222-43
---- ---
----
-----
36.9
43.0
42.8
49.7
4.7
4.0
Radius of Ctrrvattue(ft)
2
----•
3
---
- I8-28/16.25
- --•--
--
--
17.2
24.5
25.1
34.3
4.9
10.0
Rc:Bankfull width (R/ft)
-----
-----
---
---
-----
----
---
-- ----
- 3.1/2.0
---- ----
--
----
L8
2.6
2.7
3.7
0.5
10.0
Mcarider Wavelength (ft
___
__.
-___
-___
_____
_____
_____
____
_____
_____
___
____
_____
--- --
- 120.0 / 80.0
--• ----
---
---
63.1
94.5
930
123.0
20.2
9.0
----
--- 120/2.7
---- ----
----
-----
4.0
4.6
4.6
5.3
0.5
4.0
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
_____
_____
_____
-----
_____
_____
-----
_____
____
___
____
_____
-----
Riffle Slope (0/ft)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
_____
_____
_____
_____
.....
_____
____
-----
_____
----- _____
___ 0.019
____ ____
_____
_____
0.013
0.021
0.018
0.036
0.008
7.0
Pool L�gth (ft)____
_____
____
_____
_____
_____ _-__
___ _____
_____ ____
_____
Pool to Pool Spacing (ft)
-----
----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-- 36.6429-52
----• ----
----
---
31.2
58.1
56.1
87.8
18.7
6.0
Pool Max De (
____
____
_____
_____
_____
-----
_____
_____
____
____
____
____
_____
_____
_____ _ _
--
-_ 2.0 / 1.9
----- --•-
-_•-
.--
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
0.0
1
Pool Volume (ft)
--
"-
- ---
- '-
'-'-
-'•
-
--
'-
-'
--
Substrate and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
-_
_-_
___
_____
_____
____
_-
____
_____
_-
___ _____
-�_ ____
_-
-____
SC%/Sa°/,/G%/B%/Be%
-----
--_
-__
___
__
___
_____
____
d 16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95----
0.2/0.3/0Aft9/L8
Reach Shear Stress (competency) IWft
____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
____
____
_____
___
____
_____
_____
-__
-__
_____
.....
-----
_____
-----
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve
-----
-----
-----
----
-----
-----
208
-----
-----
_____
_-._
_
_
_
_ -
- 141
-----
----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Strew Power (transport capacity) W/m
-----
_____
_____
_____
-----
-----
45.1
_____
_____
_____
'--
"___
-----
-----
----- '-'-
----- 30.7
_____
____
---•-
-""
-----
-----
""Additional
AdditionalReach Parameter
-----
---
Drainage Area (SM
-----
0.22
-----
-'-
0.22
--'-
"-'
"'-
-----
-----
-----
_____ '--
-'--- -----
---- 0.22
"-'
'-
-"-
-'---
----
0.22
---__
Impervious cover estimate (%
___
-- -
_____
_____
_____
_____
Rosgen Classi6cati
---
---
"-"
-'-'
"-"
Gc
-'
"'-
--'
-'-
'--
C5
-----
-----
'--_ --
---- CS
---- '--
--
-'
'--
-'--
--
E
BF Velocity (
--
3.29
3.90
___
-----
3.69
-__
-_
_-
__-
3.5
__ _
_____
5.0
---_ _-
- 18/4A
_.__.
_-
-__
____
____
___
_____
_____
____-
BF Discharge (cfs
--
17.9
29.8
----
----
24
---
-----
-
---
--
---
---'
'--
'--' -
---- 24.8 / 21.1
-------
--------
--
----- ------_
_-
'--
___-
1173.9-----
___-_
__-_
_-_
-_ ----------
--- .....
_-_
_____
____
1173.9
Channellength (ft
-__
.....
-----
-----
"'--
-----
____
1350.0
____
_____
__•__
____
-----
-----
""' _-_
---_ ____
----- -----
""'
""'
•----
-----
____
1263.4
-----
"'--
Sinuosity
___
____
_____
_____
_____
1.15
-----
____-
_____
____
1.2
__ -
_____
l.5
_____
____ 1.13/1.22
____ ____
_._.
.....
_____
_____
_____
1.08
_____
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft
---
.....
_____
_____
_____
0.016
--
----
-----
-----
___
____
.....
_____
----- 0.011 / 0.016
"'-
-----
-----
-----
BFslope (ft/ft)
"--
'-'-
-""
"-'
_____
_____
--
__..
----
_____
_____
____
_____
_____
_____ -----
-'-' --'-
'--' --'
'__.
.....
_____
_____
'--
0.0
_____
--•-
Banldull Floodplain Area (acres
'-
-----
.....
---'
----
'-'
--'
'--
--'
'--
...-'
---
-"'•
"-'
--
--
--'-
-----
-----
BEHI VL//L%/M%/H%/VH%/E•
---
---
---
--
---_
____
-._
.__
--_
_-_
-__
-
-___
-
_-__
-- -_-
..__.
--•
.._-.
----
-_
___
___.
Channel Stability or Habitat Metri
-_- -
_-
_-
_-_
__-
Biol ical or
-
---
---
--
• 1999 Regional Cruve and Esitmate from Revised Regional Curve. See Mitigation Plan for more inforrnation.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)

►a
Table 5 continued Baseline Stream Summar?
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No ID. 96313
Reach 5
Parameter
auS
Regional Curve•
Pre-Esistin Condition
Reference Reach(es) Data
Design
As-builtG
Composite
Dimension and Substrate - Riffk
LL UL Eq.
Min Mean Med Max SD n
Min Meau Med Mar SD n
Min Mean Med Max SD n
Min Mem Med Max SD n
_____ 7.38 _____
_____
____ ___. _____ .....
____ _____
Floodp_____
rune t
---'-
----- -----•'--
. -'-- "-'-
—_ 118 -""
-'-'- "-" -'-- _-_' —__ ""-
""' _—__ .__ _.__ ""'
---'-— --'
BF Mean Depth (ft
_____
_____ _____ ----
--- 0.44 -----
_ — ----- _---
BF Max Depth (R)
____ 0.67 ____
_____ _____ ___ _._._
____ ______ ..... .....
.....
BF Cross-sectional Area (W
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ 3.2 _____ "--' —"' ----
""' ----- ----- ---- --- -----
..... _____ '__ ---- ----- ----'
--- -"— ""- _'— _____ _____
Width/Depth Ratio
____
_____ _____ _____
____ 16.77 _____ _______—
_____ _____ ___ ____
_____ ____ _______
_____ ___. _____ _____ _____
Entrenchment Kati
____
___ ____ ._._
1.6 _.___ _____
_____ _____ _____ _.__ ._._ _____
___ ______ _____ _._.
____ ____ __ __ _____ ...__ _____
-
BankHeight Ratio
____
_____ _____ "--
—_'_ 5.8 ----- ..... --- -"'-
-- ----- _____ ----- '-- "--
__. _____ _____ ____ ___ _____
d50(mm)
_____ '-- '—'- -----
_____ ----- ..... ----- ----- -----
"-- — ----- _____ ___-- -_—_
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft
_____
_____ _____ •'--
..... ---- -----
----- -----
"'— '— --- ----- —'-- '-"-
Radius of Curvature (ft)
—__
____ ""• '---'
'-- ----- ----- _____ —"' '—'-
-----
—"-
'-- '—. "'— -- "'-- •___
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
-----
- — -- -----
..... ----- -----
----- ----- ----- --'— —"' _____
_____ —'-- _____ ____ _____ _____
----- -- ""' ___ ----- -----
Meander Wavelength (ft
_____
_____ _____ _____
—_ ____ _____ _____ _____
_____
Meander Width Ratio
-----
----- ----- ---
_-- -'--' ---- ----- ----------
-----
Prole
RiffleLength (ft)
-----
- — -- -----
- ----- ----- —'- '---- '---
----- ----- ----- ---- ----- ----
—" --- ---- __-- --- '---
RiffleSlope (ft/ft)
---
----- ----- -----
----- ----- -----'---
-___ '--' ---- -----
..... ---- -- ---• -'--- ---
'--- -- •—" —'-- '--- ----
Pool Length (ft)
-----
—___ .___
"-- '—" -- --' _____ _____--'-
Pool to Pool Spacing (ft
----- -----
---- —__ .-- __— _'— •__
_—__ _ --_ ___ _-- _---
Pool Max Depth III)
___ __ ____ _____ _____
Pool Volume (f?)
"'-'
"'-- -.-.. _---
'—" -'-- __"' --- -----
Substrate and Transport Parameters
Ri% / Ru%/ P•/ / G% / S%
--__
_____ _____ _____
_—__ ___— -___ _-_-_ _—_ ___
__
SC%/ Sall. / G% / B% / Be/
-----
'—'- ----- -----
--' --'- ----- ___ --- -----
----
----- ----
—'-- --_
dl6/d35/d50/d84/d95
Reach Shear Stress (competency) Ib/ft
_____
_____ _____ _____
__-' '-'— _____ ----- ---' _____
_____ ---- ----- -----
---
Max part sin (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve
_____
_.__ ____ ____
_—_ ____ _____ _____ _____ _____
___ _—_ ____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m'
-----
----- -- --
---- ----- ---- ---- __. --
__— -- _—_ __—
---
----- ---- '—' -----
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area ISM
-----
_____ 0.04____
—_ _—_ ____ 0.04 ____ _____
___ ____ _____ ____ _____ _____
____ __—_ ___. 0.04 ""' _'_.
—___ _— __—_ 0.04 -__—
Impervious cover estimate (%.
-----
---- ----- ----
---- -___ ____
-----
---- ---- _— -__- --- ----
Rosgen Classificafi
-----
---- ---- "_•
Be -'-- "._. --- '—'-
__— _____ _____ '--' ----- ..._._____
'--'
-----
BF Velocity (fps
3.97
—_ _____
"-'-
BF Discharge (cfs-----
__--- 12.7 -'--
-'__ "-'- "'-' '-'-' '-"'
•-- "— --' _.__ —"-
--- --- "-- '-"' "'— _—_
Valley-'--
Len
__'_
___ --- '--
_:_.. 470.2 ---
-- -- --
-- _— _____ —_
---' '--'
"-- ---' -- '-- '-- -'--
'--' -- "-- —'-- '---
470
_____ 536.0 —_
_____
_____ _____ ____ ._._ ___ _____
_.._ 520
____
___ 1.14 -..._ _____ ___ ___.
___ _.__
_____
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (R/ft
----
----- --- ---
— 0.017 ----- ----- ----- ----
---- --- ----- ---- --- ----
-__ _--_ __— --__ --__ .....
_____ ____ _--_ __— ____ ___
BF slope (R/R)
____ ..... ----- -----
'--' "—' ---'- — ----- _____
_____
Bankfidl Floodplain Area (acres
_____
_____ _____ _—
.___. .___ ___ ___ _____ -----
_____
BEHI VL%/ L% / M% / H% / VH%/ E°
--__
__-. --_ ___—
__-- --- ___ _____ _____ _____
_-- _____ _____ __-- -•--
Channel Stability m Habitat Metri
----
----- ---- ----
-- ---- --- --- --- -----
----
---_
—'_ _-- -- _— _-_ _._
Biological or
• 1999 Regional Cmve and Esitmate from Revised Regional Curve. See Mitigation Plan for more information.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)

514,
...
.....
...
it ii!ri!
. .
. I ..... ......
aaaZZZgV
u°
514,

♦a
Table 5 continued. Baseline Stream Summar}
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No ID. %313
Reach Tl
Parameter
USGS
Regional Curve•
Pea Existing
Condition
Reference Reach(es) Data
Design
As -built
Composite
Gauge
Dimension and Substrate- Rifflt
LL UL
Eq.
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
IN
Min
Mean
Med M&x SD
n
Min
Mean
Med Max
SD IN
Min
Mem
Med
Mar
SD
n
BF Width (ft)
__-• -- -__.
_-_
_____
7.0
----- ----
----- ----
7.7
7.7
7.7
7.7
0.0
1.0
Floodpmne Width (ft)
89.1
_____
____
_____
___
_____
_____
____ ___ _____
_____
____
_____
_____ ____
_____ _____
39.9
39.9
39.9
39.9
0.0
1.0
BF Mean Depth (ft)
__.__
0.67
_____
_____
-----
_____ .__. _____
____
____
0.5
_____ ____
_._ ._._
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.0
1.0
BF Max Depth (ft)
-----
1.53
-----
----- ----- -...
--
-"'
0.7
___ ____
____ _____
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
0.0
1.0
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft')
_____
_____
_____
4.5
-----
--...
_____
_____
___ ____
---
----
---•-
3.8
----- ---•
----- ----
5.1
5.1
5.1
5.1
0.0
1.0
Width/Depth Rat
____
_____ _____
____
_____
10.15
__._
_____
____
-----
10.0
-----
----- 14.0 -----
----
-----
13.0
----- ----
----- ----
11.7
11.7
11.7
11.7
0.0
1.0
Entrenchment Rati
-----
'--- -"-
'--'
""'
13.1
"'-
""'
'-"
-----
-----
----- >2.2 -----
.....
--"
-----
----- ----
----- -----
5.2
5.2
5.2
5.2
0.0
1.0
Bank Height Rati
-----
1.6
--
-----
1.0
-----
---- 1.1 -----
-----
----
-----
----- ----
----- -----
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
1.0
d50(mm)
----- - _...
____
.....
__-_
__' "'-
_____ _____
___
____
___
_____
_____
.....
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft
.....
_._. --_
-----
____
____
_____
_____
.....
-----
_____
_____
_____ __- ____
_____
____
____
_.___ ___
_____ -----
29.6
29.6
29.6
29.6
0.0
1.0
---• ---
---
14
----
---- 21.0
----- -----
16.3
17.4
17.4
18.5
1.1
2.0
-____ 3
_-_
___
._-_-
__-_ ___
----- .....
2.1
2.3
2.3
2.4
0.1
2.0
Meander Wavelength (ft
____
___ _-
-_
____
_____
-----
.....
-__
____
____
____
----
---•
60.0
----- ---
----- ---
56.0
57.9
57.9
59.7
1.8
2.0
Meander Width Reti
---
_-- '-"
--
-'-'
'-"'
""'
"'-'
---
"-
3.5
-""
--"- g --'
----
-----
4.0
----- -•-
----- •-•-
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
0.0
1.0
Profile
_.__
___
0.029
_____ ___
_____ _____
-
Pool Length (ft)
_____
_____ -"
'-'•
"-'
--'
""'
_____
_____
_____-'-
Pool to Pool Spacing (ft
____
____ _-
-_
_-
____
_____
____
_____
.....
___.
_____
_____ ___ ___
_____
27
_____
____ 35.0
_____ _____
18.2
23.8
26.6
34.6
7.6
3
_____
____
1.2
___ ____
----- _____
-_
____
Pool Volume (ft')
____
._.__
____
.....
.....-
Substrate and Transport Parameters
Ri % / Ru% / P•/ / G% / S%
""'
'--- _.-
_-'
_____
_____
'--
""'
"'-
_-"
-'-'
--
-"-
---
_____
_____
___-
SC%/ Sa%/ G%/ B% / Be%
---'
'-'- -'--
----
---=-
-----
-----
.....
-----
-'--
----
----
----- - -----
---
-----
-
-----
-----
----dl6
d161d35 /d50 /d94 /d95
-----
-- ----
---'
---
-----
----
----
-----
-----
Reach Shear Stress (competency) Ib/ft
_...
-'-- --'
---
"--
-'-"
'--'
____
.....
----
-----
_____
----' '--- --'
"-"
-'-'-
"'-
'-"
---
'--'
_____
_____
--"
Max part sin (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve
-----
-- ---
--
--
.__
_-_-_
___-
__-_
_____
_____
.....
----- ____ --'
'-._-
-_-
-_--
•--_
__...
--__
.....
_____
-----
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/nr
-----
__- ___
__._
____
__-
____
_____
-----
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ ____
_____
_____
_____
-----
____
_-_
____
_____
Additional Reach Parameters
--
----
Drainage Area (SM
---
---- 0.09
-
.....
-----
-----
0.09
----
---
_____
_____
_____ ___ ____
--__
'-_
____
----- 0.09
----- ____
--
____
_____
0.09
_____
-----
Impervious cover estimate (%
____
-_._ ___
__
____
___
_____
-__
__
____
_____
-----
Rosgen Classificati
"'-'
"'- -'-
-
E
-__
CS
-- '___ ._-.
_.___
_.._
C5
'--' _____
_____ -"'
---
.....
----
-----
BFVelocity (
""'
3.76
"-'
-_.
3.5
""'
""'
-----
BF Discharge (c
_____
_____
16.9
-_.._
_
_____
-----
____
114.2
___
____
____
-
_____ __-
_____ .....
____
_�
_.___
114.2
Channellength (ft
-.__
____ ___
_-_
____
_____
___
121.0
..._
____
_____
.....
.__. _..._ ___
_____
_____
____
_.__ ____
_____ _____
____
___
-_
139.6
---
1.06
'-'
"--- 1.5 --
---'-
'--
1.12
'-"' "-__
___- __._
_____
--
•-"
1.22
Ater Surface Slope
-----
_-_ ____
____
___
0.024
_____
.....
_____
_____
.....
----- -___ ___
___
-----
0.019
_____ _____
____ ___
_____
_-
-_
____
Banldull Floodplain Area (acres
-__.
__- ._--
-
_--_
_-_-
-_
_--
.___
_--
--_-_
•--'
__-_- -__ _-
_-_
_____
.....
_'--
BEHI VVI. / L% / M% / H%/ VH% / E°
_____
-'-
---'
"'--
'-'-
--- -"'
'-". _._
--'-
--'
"_.
____
-----
Channel ra iny or Habitat Meth
_____
.....
____
____
_____
___ ___ ____
-----
Biological or
• 1999 Regional Crave and Esitmate from Revised Regional Curve. See Mitigation Plan for more information.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)

a,
In
0
z
F-
u
tiu
z
z
xW
Z �D
z
z
0 u
04 t
r') z
�4
Z
. . . . . . . . . . .
O
. . . . . . . . .
.
. . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . .
11 A
9
CD
Eb
a,
In
0
z
F-
u
tiu
z
z
xW
Z �D
z
z
0 u
04 t
r') z
�4
Z

`
m
e
2
s
g
�jppp�
a
�
�\y
a
F roomy
�
W
6 ;all 4 fig} an_
'° 3gy
C8m o o %m cA
ID `G y6 R Ci Cl W�\�a
.po= �i J til ?gin
'OO s g a Fn' I
.nemet
_ F I N 1< i fl m tau
To 0 3 m
CLm '2o�pe Ce
�W'Xw Ew ��S O�i�i as
00��'
a, c.H �EnE cUe�rnw"9e�
2�e8,o Ttwos
UR
�°$2 $ L�o 6� Frig'
o'
0
m my ��-a a 31 a ����s�a
c.za�a r.c.a�aaa
l ii i i l i
1 I I I I
I 11111 .,! „ !11111
n�
oc
a
$
0
i l l„ i H! H I S ,,ill!
1 H l l 1 1 H 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1
n
1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 I�!� i 1 1 � i!� l�
I i 1 I 1 i �� i l l �� it��� 1 1! am
HHHHHHH HIM
I Hill Hill . l H H I ! I e
w5
I i iH H l„H i I i i i i
I .! I ,',! l
w
s
0
HHHHHHH HIM
! I ! ! ! MH H H H 1 1 1 O
,co7-111115
5
i i i i H H H Ili I!
I Hill MH H„M l i E
,
a �+
C
Ili 11
1 M MH 1:0111111%
O
m
l 1!!M I lM 1 1 Ili 11
1 MH MH IH 1H` 1 1 1 1 1 0
l
Ill 11
HillHill °
HHHHHHH ! „ I!
I ! ! ! ! I , ! M„ „ M 3
i! i IM ill
l
I I! yo t I 1.
1 ea i i 1 l I 1 1 , O? o a. O°°u
!!!!! !;!.I !,!,l M E
oa
I 1 i I i
1 1 1 1H 1. 91 1 , 1 1 H 1 1 1 1P
I, I,! I l H H H I!! ,!
1 1 1 I 1 ' I
I.,,!, Hill „ H H 1 1. o
1 1 1 1 1 1 l
i i I I 1 I 1
ii ii11i
11
M5,2'! MH HHHHif
O
UI III A I!Iiiiilig
IIill�l� �
Ii�gi il! dila
P
i I l
1 1 �0 N i , 1 „ & 1 H 1 1
I I � I I I � � 3-
1 1 1 1 1 . 1 . . , ! , , , . , !
O

Table 5 continued. Baseline Stream Summary
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No ID. 96313
Reach T4
Parameter
USGS
Regional Curve-
ProEaisfing Condition
Reference Reach ea Data
Design
As-built
Composite
Gaulbe
Dimension and Substrate - Rifflt
LL UL Eq.
Min
Mean Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med Max SD
n
Min Mean
Med Max SD n
Min Mean Med Max SD n
_____ 5.8
----- ____ ----- .___
FlcodproneWidth (ft)
_____
_____ _____ ___
-___
_____ _____
-----
_____
____
____
-----
----- ___.
___
----- 12.0
____ .___ ----- _____ _____ -----
BF Mean Depth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
____
___ 0.5
__-_- ____ -_-__ -____
'--
----- 0.6
_____ ._._ _____ -----
BF Cross-sectional Ates (ft')
_____
_____ _____ -----
-----
'--_ .�-
_____
-----
--'
--'
""'
"-- '-"' --
'--
----- 2.8
.'_'. –" --- _____
_____ ----- ____ ____ ___ _.___
WiddJDepth Ratio
-----
"'-' _'– '--
_–__
_'___ __–_
""'
""'
-----
12.0
""-
-"" 18.0 ""'
""' 12.0
""' ""'
Entrenchment Rati
_____
_____ '–" "'–
____
_____ _–'
--'--
--'
-----
1.4
-----
----- 2.2 -----
""' <2.2
____ _____ -----
Bank Height Ratio
_____
_--- ----- ._._
.__
----- _____
"'–
_____
-----
1.0
-----
---- 1.1 –'
""' 1.0
'–" _____ _____ .....
Pattern
ChannelBeltwidth (R
-----
----- "'-- '--
'--
_____ _____
_____
-----
'__–
----
----
----- ----- _____
_____
_____ -----
'-- –'-' "'– ----- ----- -----
Radiusof Curvature (11)
____
_____ ____ _____
""-
---- --•--
-----
_____
_____
_____
_____
'--' '-- "'–
'–"
_____ _____
----- .... ---- ____
--- _____ ----- _____
MeanderWavelength (ft
_____
----- _.–' --
--
----- ____
_____
_____
-----
_____
_____
_____ '–" –"'
--
"'– '-"'
"-- '-" "'–
____ _____ "— _____ _____
MeanderWidth Rati
_____
_____ _____ _—
____
_____ -----
-----
-----
-----
_____
-----
----- ____
-----
----- ----- _____ ----- _____
Profile
-----
..... --_-
____ ____ -----
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
-----
---- ----- ---
-----
---- -----
_____
___–
_–_
-----
_____
_____ -- -----
_____
----- 0.051
----- ---- ----- ----
0.007 0.047 0.048 0.072 0.023 11
Pool to Pool Spacing (R
_____
_____ ___ ____
_____
_____ -----
-----
_____
-----
_.__
____
_____ ___ _____
____
_____ 14
____ __._ ----- -----
12.3 16.1 14.6 21.6 3.5 11
PoolMax Depth (R)
_____
----- ___ __._
___
---- _____
"–'
-----
-----
_____
-----
----- ----- -----
'–"
'--' 1.9
----- ____ _____ ____
----- ----- ---- ___ _____ ___
Substrate and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P"/o/G%/SON
-----
----- ----- –'--
"'-'
'-- '–"
_____
_____
"'–
"--
'-'–
'–'- -- ""'
'–'-
-----
_____ "–' '--'
"-- ---- _____ _____ ----- __
SC%/ Sall. / G%/ B% / Be%
----
'---- '--- —
----
---- '--•
'–'-
'----
--'–
-----
---
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----
dI6/ d35 / d50 A84/05
d[6/
----
----- -----
-_Reach
ReachShear Stress (competency) lb/ft
""'
"'– ""' –"-
""-
'–" -----
"___
_.'-'
'--'
'—'
-----
----- ----
'--
Max part sin (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve
____
----- ----- ___
-----
----- -----
-----
_____
_____
____
____.
.___ ._.__
____
----- ----- _____
_____ ----- ----- --__-
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m
____
____ ___ ___
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
__._
.__._
____.
____ ____
----- -----
----- _____ ----- -____
dditional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM,
-----
----- ----- —'
""'
'–" '–"
'–"
"'– _____
----- --- __–' _____ -----
Imperviouscover estimate (%.
_____
_____ _____ ____
_____
.__ _____
____
____
____
____
____
_____ ____ _____
____
____ ____
_____ ----- ----- -----
----- _____ ____ ----- ___-_
Rosgen Classification
----
---- ----- --'
""'
-- _____
_____
_____
----
----
B5c
--" ----- ____
___
'–" B5c
----• _____ "'– '--__
_"– -"'- --' B5c _____ _._._
_____ 6.0 _____
___ 3.7
_____ ----- ----- -----
____ -----
BFDischarge (cfs
-----
----- ----- --'
""'
'-- "'–
'–"
"'-'
"'–
--'
-----
-"'–
'--' 10.4
-----
----- ----- ----- _____ _____ "--
-----
_____ _____
"-- ----- ----- _____
143.34
____
_____
"--- 1.3 ____
____
'-"' 1.20
----- ____. –"' ---
0.8314497 --- ----
_____ _____ "–'
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (R/ft
_____
_____ '-- "–'
""'
"'– –'-'
--
"'--
-----
-----
"–'
"–' _____ _____
-----
----- 0.047
Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres.
_____
"'– "'– --
_____
_____ -----
.....
.....
-----
-----
"–'
"–' "–' _____
-----
---- –"'
_____ _____ _____ -----
____ _____ '-- _____ -----
BEHIVL%/L%/M%/H"h/VH%/E°e
-----
--._ –"' _--
----
_____ "–'
'--
"-"
"--
_____
-----
..... ___ ___
_'–'
"-" —'
'--' ----- _____ '--
–__ _.._
Channel Stability or Habitat Metri
-----
---- ----- ----
----
---- ----
'---
-----
.....
____
'--
..... _-- -- _____ _____ -----
Biological or Other
_____
_____
" 1999 Regional Cmve and Esionate from Revised Regional Curve. See Mitigation Plan for more information.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)

Table 6. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Proiect: DMS Proiect No ID. 96313
Stream Reach
Reach 4
Cross-section X-1 Riffle
Cross-section X-2 (Pool)
Cross-section X-3 (Riffle)
Dimension and substrate
Base MYl
MY2 MY3 MY4
MY5 MY+
Base MYl
MY2 MY3 MY4
MY5 MY+
Base MYl
MY2 MY3 MY4
MY5 MY+
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
BF Width (ft)
7.2
11.6
9.5
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.5
0.9
0.9
Width/Depth Ratio
15.4
12.7
11
BF Cross-sectional Area (W)
3.3
10.5
8.2
BF Max Depth (ft)
0.8
2
1.6
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
31.3
-
662
Entrenchment Ratio
4.4
7.0
Bank Height Ratio
1
1
I
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
7.4
12.6
10.1
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.5
0.8
0.80
Cross Sectional Area between end pins (ft)
-
-
-
d50 (mm)
Stream Reach
Reach 4
Reach 3
Cross-section X-4 (Riffle)
Cross-section X-5 (Riffle)
Cross-section X-6 (Pool)
Cross-section X-7 (Riffle)
Dimension and substrate
Base MYl
MY2 MY3 MY4
MY5 MY+
Base MYl
MY2 MY3 MY4
MY5 MY+
Base MYI
MY2 MY3 MY4
MY5 MY+
Base
MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
BF Width (ft)
8.7
11.8
12.5
11.2
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.8
1.1
0.9
0.6
WiddvDepth Ratio
11.6
1.7
14
18.6
BF Cross-sectional Area (W)
6.6
12.7
11.2
6.8
BF Max Depth (ft)
1.4
1.7
1.3
1.1
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
65.8
68.1
-
89.9
Entrenchment Ratio
7.6
5.8
8
Bank Height Ratio
I
1
1
1
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
9.4
12.8
13.0
11.6
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.7
1.0
0.9
0.6
Cross Sectional Area between end pins (ft)
-
-
-
-
d50 (mm)
Stream Reach
Reach 3
Cross-section X-8 (Riffle)
Cross-section X-9 (Pool)
Cross-section X-10 (Riffle)
Cross-section X-11 (Riffle)
Dimension and substrate
Base MYl
MY2 MY3 MY4
MY5 MY+
Base MYl
MY2 MY3 MY4
MY5 MY+
Base MYl
MY2 MY3 MY4
MY5 MY+
Base
MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
BF Width (ft)
10.60
17.60
11.60
9.30
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.90
1.00
0.60
0.90
Widih/Depth Ratio
11.5
17.7
19.2
10.8
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft')
9.8
17.5
7.0
8.1
BF Max Depth (ft)
1.30
2.20
1.30
1.30
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
86.6
-
51.6
65.6
Entrenchment Ratio
8.2
-
4.4
7.0
Bank Height Ratio
LO
1.0
1.0
1.0
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
11.2
18.2
12.0
9.9
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.9
LO
0.6
0.8
Cross Sectional Area between end pins (ft)
-
-
-
-
d50 (mm
-
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)

Table 6. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No ID. 96313
Stream Reach
Reach T1
Reach 1
Cross-section X-12 (Riffle)
Cross-section X-13 (Pool)
Cross-section X-14 (Riffle)
Cross-section X -IS Pool
Dimension and substrate
Base MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Base MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5_- MY+
Base MYI MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Base MYI MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
BF Width (ft)
7.70
19.60
13.80
29.40
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.70
1.20
0.90
1.10
Width/Depth Ratio
11.7
16.4
15.2
26.1
BF Cross-sectional Area (fF)
5.1
23.5
12.5
33.2
BF Max Depth (ft)
1.20
2.80
1.70
2.80
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
39.9
-
100.0
100.0
Entrenchment Ratio
5.2
-
5.3
2.7
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
8.5
21.0
14.4
30.5
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.6
1.1
0.9
1.1
Cross Sectional Area between end pias (RZ)
-
-
-
d50
-
Stream Reach
Reach 1
Cross-section X-16 Riffle
Cross-section X-17 Riffle
Dimension and substrate
Base MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Base MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
BF Width (ft)
12.60
12.60
BF Mean Depth (ft)
1.10
1.20
WiddvDepth Ratio
12.0
10.9
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft')
13.2
14.5
BF Max Depth (ft)
1.70
1.70
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
100.0
100.0
Entrenchment Ratio
5.7
5.4
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
13.5
13.3
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
1.0
1.1
Cross Sectional Area between end pins (ft)
-
-
d50 (mm
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)

Permanent Cross-section 1
(As -built Data - Collected March 2017)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Feature
Stream
I Type
BKF Area
I BKF Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
I W/D
BH Ratio ER
I BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
I C
1 3.3
1 72
0.5
0.8
1 15.4
1 4.4
1 795.36
795.36
Browns Summit Restoration Site
Reach 4, Cross-section 1
--
798
797
c
0
—
---------------- ----------------------------------------------------- ---- --------------------------------o
R 796
d
E-5
-------------------------- ----------------- ----- ---------------------------------------------------E
795
As -built
Bankfull
--o--- Floodprone
794
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross-section 2
(As -built Data - Collected March 2017)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Stream
BKF
Max BKF
Feature
Type
BKF Area I
BKF Width
Depth
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool
C
10.5
11.6
0.9
2.0
12.7
1
793.82
793.82
Browns Summit Restoration Site
Reach 4, Cross-section 2
796
795
r
794
o---------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
r
w
793
�— As -built
792
--o- Bankfull
--o--- Floodprone
791
0 10
20 30 40
50 60 70
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross-section 3
(As -built Data - Collected March 2017)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Stream
IBKF
Max BKF
Feature
Type
BKF Area
BKF Width
Depth Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle
E
8.2
9.5
1 0.9 1.6
1 11
1
7
791.82 791.82
Browns Summit Restoration Site
Reach 4, Cross-section 3
794
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------o
793
c
0
d
792
LU
791
As -built
--o-- Bankfull
--d - Floodprone
790
0 10 20 30 40
50 60 70
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross-section 4
(As -built Data - Collected March 2017)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Stream
BKF Max BKF
Feature
Type
BKF Area
BKF Width
Depth Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
C
6.6
8.7
0.8 1.4
11.6
1
7.6
788.59
788.59
Browns Summit Restoration Site
Reach 4, Cross-section 4
791
— —
790.5
790
--------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S 789.5
c
0
789
_d
U'788.5
---------------------------------
------------------------------------- - -----------------------------------
-- ---
788
--♦— As -built
Bankfull
787.5
---e -- Floodprone
787
0 10
20 30 40
50 60 70
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross-section 5
(As -built Data - Collected March 2017)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Stream
BKF
Max BKF
Feature
Type BKF Area
BKF Width Depth
Depth W/D I
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
E 12.7
11.8 1.1
1.7 11
1 1
5.8
785 78
785.78
Browns Summit Restoration Site
Reach 4, Cross-section 5
788
787.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
787
g786.5
0 786
c', 785.5
------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------------------------------
w
785
—♦— As -built
784.5
--o Bankfull
784
--o--- Floodprone
783.5
0 10 20 30 40
50 60 70
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross-section 6
(As -built Data - Collected March 2017)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Stream
BKF
Max BKF
Feature
Type BKF Area
BKF Width
Depth
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool
C 11.2
12.5
F 0.9
1.3
14
1
781.47
781.47
Browns Summit Restoration Site
Reach 3, Cross-section 6
785
-
-
784
783
---
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------o
c
0
0
782
W
-------------------------------------- ------------- - o
781
�— As -built
780
Bankfull
---0 - Floodprone
779
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
80 90 100
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross-section 7
(As -built Data - Collected March 2017)
Looking at the Left Bank
far
Looking at the Right Bank
Stream
BKF
Max BKF
Feature
Type
BKF Area
BKF Width
Depth
Depth W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
C
6.8
11.2
0.6
1.1 18.6
1
8
781.32
781.32
Browns Summit Restoration Site
Reach 3, Cross-section 7
783
—
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------o
782
c
0
r
LU
781
As -built
�- Bankfull
--o -- Floodprone
780
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
80 90 100
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross-section 8
(As -built Data - Collected March 2017)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Stream
BKF
Max BKF
Feature
Type
BKF Area
BKF Width
Depth
Depth
W/D
atio
kH8.2
ER BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
E
9.8
10.6
0.9
1.3
11.5
777.39
777.39
Browns Summit Restoration Site
Reach 3, Cross-section 8
780
- --
779
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--o
c
0
a
778
d
w
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
777
—+— As -built
Bankfull
--o - Floodprone
776
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross-section 9
(As -built Data - Collected March 2017)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Stream
BKF
Max BKF
Feature
Type
BKF Area
BKF Width Depth
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool
C
17.5
17.6 1
2.2
1 17.7
1
775.59
775.59
Browns Summit Restoration Site
Reach 3, Cross-section 9
780
779
778
_
0
777
M
a'�
776
W---------
------------------------ -------------------------------------------------
775
— s As -built
--o--- Bankfull
774
-o--- Floodprone
773
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
80 90 100 110
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross-section 10
(As -built Data - Collected March 2017)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Stream
BKF Max BKF
Feature
Type
BKF Area
BKF Width
Depth Depth
W/D BH Ratio
ER BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
C
7
11.6
0.6 1.3
19.2 1
4.4 773.67
773.67
Browns Summit Restoration Site
Reach 3, Cross-section 10
777
—
776
r775
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----Q
0
w
m
w
774
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------o
As -built
773
773
--o-- Bankfull
-- --- Floodprone
772
0 10 20 30 40
50 60 70
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross-section 11
(As -built Data - Collected March 2017)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Stream
BKF
Max BKF
Feature
Type
BKF Area
BKF Width
Depth
Depth
WID
1
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
E
8.1
9.3
0.9
1.3
10.8
1
7
771.5
771.5
Browns Summit Restoration Site
Reach 3, Cross-section 11
776
----------_ ___
775
774
c773
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------0
.2
ea
!
772
w
-----------------------------------------
---------- ---- ---------------------------------------
771
�— As -built
770
--�- Bankfull
--o--- Floodprone
769
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
80 90 100
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross-section 12
(As -built Data - Collected March 2017)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Stream
BKF
Max BKF
Feature
Type
BKF Area
BKF Width Depth
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle
E
5.1
7.7 0.7
1.2
11.7
1
5.2
764.08 764.08
Browns Summit Restoration Site
Reach T1, Cross-section 12
767
------
766
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---o
0
765
M
ED764
------------------------- -------------- -- -----------------------------------------------
{_
As -built
763
--o-- Bankfull
--o - Floodprone
762
0 10 20 30 40
50 60
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross-section 13
(As -built Data - Collected March 2017)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Stream
BKF
Max BKF
Feature
Type
BKF Area I
BKF Width
Depth
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev TOB Elev
Pool
C
23.5
19.6
1.2
2.8
16.4
1
762.61 762.61
Browns Summit Restoration Site
Reach 1, Cross-section 13
766
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------o
765
764
c
763
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------o
762
w
761
As -built
--o-- Bankfull
760
--o--- Floodprone
759
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
80 90 100
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross-section 14
(As -built Data - Collected March 2017)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Stream
BKF
Max BKF
Feature
Type BKF Area
BKF Width Depth
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle
C 12.5
13.8 0.9
1.7
15.2
1
5.3
761.48 761.48
Browns Summit Restoration Site
Reach 1, Cross-section 14
764
- ----
763
r
762
0
------------------------------------------------------------------- -----
-- ------------------o
w
761
—� As -built
760
--o-- Bankfull
---0--- Floodprone
759
-
0 10 20 30 40 50
60 70 80
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross-section 15
(As -built Data - Collected March 2017)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Stream BKF Max BKF
Feature Type BKF Area BKF Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Pool I C 33.2 1 29.4 1 1.1 2.8 26.1 1 2.7 760.08 760.08
Browns Summit Restoration Site
Reach 1, Cross-section 15
764
763 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
762
0 761
M
.22 760----------------------------------------------------------------
W -------------------------------------------o
759 s As -built
758
--o--- Bankfull
--4-- Floodprone
757
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross-section 16
(As -built Data - Collected March 2017)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Stream
BKF
Max BKF
Feature
Type BKF Area BKF Width
Depth
Depth
W/D BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle
E 13.2 12.6
1.1
1.7
12 1
5.7
759.44 759.44
Browns Summit Restoration Site
Reach 1, Cross-section 16
762
761
760
0
tp
------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------....
w
759
-+- As -built
758
<03 Bankfull
--o -- Floodprone
757
0 10 20 30 40 50
60 70 80
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross-section 17
(As -built Data - Collected March 2017)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Stream
BKF
Max BKF
Feature
Type
BKF Area
BKF Width
I Depth
Depth
W/D BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle
C
14.5
12.6
1.2
1.7
10.9 1
54
758.76 758.76
Browns Summit Restoration Site
Reach 1, Cross-section 17
761
------------------------... - . -------------------------------------------------------------------------------o
760
759
.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ED
758
sAs-built
757
--o--- Bankfull
--e--- Floodprone
756
0 10 20 30 40 50
60 70 80
Station (ft)

Browns Summit - Reach 4
797 -
796 - -- — ------
--o.-As-Built Thalweg
795 ---- — -----
794 - - --
793 -- --- --------
0
792 -- -
w
791 - --- ----------- -- - - --
790 -- — ------
----- -—------- -- - ---
789
—
788
------ ---- --------------- •--- -- --- --- - - - .....
787
- - - - --
786
1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400
Station

Browns Summit - Reach 5
811 —— -- --- ---- -- -- - — --- ---- — — -- -- — ----- — --
810
809 -r-As-Built Thalweg
808 -
807 - -
806 - -- - - - -- - ---
805 - - - - - - - -- - --- - - - - - -- - -- --- - - -- --- ----- --- --
c804 - - --- ---------- - -- ---- -- - - ------------ -
803 - - - - - - - -- - - - --------- ---- -- --.. _.. - -- --
A
m 802 - - --- --- - ----- --- ----
w
801 - - - - ----- - -- -- --- - -- - -- -- --- - --
800 --- --------- --- --- - ---- ----- ------ - - -- --- -
799 -------- ------------------------
798 - - - -- ---
797 ---- --- -._ .- --
796 -- — ------ --- - -- - -
795
794
1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600
Station
Browns Summit - Reach 6
807 --------
80s
- — -- --
805
-4-As-Built Thalweg
804
-
803
802
c
801
m
- - ----- -_
m 800
w
-- - - - - -- --
799
- _ -- --- ----- - ---
798
- - -- --- ---- - - - - --- -- - - ----- ----- - -- - _ .
797
----- -- - -. --------------- - - - -------------- - ---. - - ---
796
--- ----- -- -- ----------
795
- ----—
794
1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600
Station
r

Browns Summit - Reach T3
783
-0-As-Built Thalweg
c
0
782
m
LU
781
1000 1010 1020 1030 1040 1050 1060 1070 1080 1090 1100
Station
Browns Summit - Reach T4
795
794 -4-As-Built Thalweg
793
c
0
792
m
W
791
790 - -- ----- -- i
� P
789
1000 1020 1040 1060 1080 1100 1120 1140 1160
Station

APPENDIX C
Vegetation Summary Data
(Tables 7 and 8)

Table 7. Vegetation Species Planted Across the Restoration Site
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No ID. 96313
Botanical Name
Common Name
% Planted by Species
Total Number of Stems
Riparian Buffer Plantings
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash 10% 1200
Betula nigra River Birch 10% 1200
Driodendron tulipifera Tulip poplar 5% 600
Quercus michauxii Swamp Chestnut oak 5% 600
Diospyros virginiana Persimmon 2% 300
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore 11% 1300
Ulmus americana American elm 2% 300
Quercus l rata Overcu oak 6% 700
Acer ne undo Box elder 5% 600
Celtis laevi ata Su arbe 2% 300
N ssa s lvatica Black gum 2% 300
Riparian Buffer Plantings - Understory
Carpinus carolinianum Ironwood 11% 1300
Ilex opaca American holly 3% 400
Hamamalis virginiana witchhazel 3% 400
Viburnum dentatum Arrowwood 4% 500
Euon mus americanus Heart-a-busting4% 500
lnus serrulata Tag alder 5% 600
Ilex verticillata Winterbe 5% 600
Viburnum nudum Possomhaw 5% 600
Riparian Live Stake Plantings
Salix sericea Silky Willow
25%
NA
Sambucus canadensis Elderberry
25%
NA
Physocarpus opulifolius Ninebark
15%
NA
Cornus amomum Silky Dogwood
25%
NA
Salix nigra Black Willow
10%
NA
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)

Table 8. Stem Count for Each Species Arranged by Plot
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No ID. 96313
Botanical Name
Common Name
1
2
3
4
5
Browns Summit Creek Vegetation Plots
6 7 7 8 9
10
11
12
13
14
Tree Species
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash
Betula nigra River Birch
Liriodendron tuli i era Tulip poplar
uercus michauxii Swamp Chestnut oak
Diospyros vir iniana Persimmon
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore
Ulmus americana American elm
Quercus l rata Overcup oak
cer negundo Box elder
Celtis laevi ata Sugarberry
N ssa sylvatica Black gum
Shrub Species
Carpinus carolinianum Ironwood
Ilex o aca American holly
Hamamalis vir iniana witchhazel
Viburnum dentatum Arrowwood
Euonymus americanus Heart -a -busting
Inus serrulata Tag alder
Ilex verticillata Winterberry
Viburnum nudum Possomhaw
Initial count of planted bareroot materialspecies TBD
18
22
24
17
18
19
18
19
18
20
17
16
21
18
Stems/plot
18
22
24
17
18
19
18
19
18
20
17
16
21
18
Stems/acre
728
890
971
688
728
769
728
769
728
809
688
648
850
728
Average Stems/ Acre for Year 0 As -Built (Baseline Data)
766
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)

APPENDIX D
As -Built Plan Sheets/Record Drawings

1. V
ti
AS
LE
Thi
inh
be
ani
dra
incorporated into it as a result. Those retying on this record
document are advised to obtain independent verification of
its accuracy before applying for any purpose.
NORTH CAROLINA
RAts I a n.A— u,nWcs ria I a' I Wirn
INCI 140048 1 1 1 23
GRAPHIC SCALES
2,0 0 20 40
l 11 1 11 1
r r PLANS
20 0 20 40
PROFILE (HORIZONTAL)
DESIGN SUMMARY
REACH 1
1,233
1,290
REACH 2
805
752
REACH 3
1,469
1,456
REACH 4
1,296
1,296
REACH 5
562
536
REACH 6
454
442
T1
145
145
T2
283
285
T3
70
88
T4
117
119
THE OFFICE OF.
NCDENR
DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
1652 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH, NC 27699-1652
CONTACT. JEFF SCHAFFER
PROJECT MANAGER
W.M.1 Sal-'"q=tp I-
..,
nc
. ip•nty hm,. S- aoo55
Gry, MORIN CAgptiNA E�5'!
an,. na.'e> sAee
I N T E R N A T I O N A L
KATHLEEN M. McKEITHAN, PE
IJ WG DATE, I PROJECT ENGINEER /ALLVAGER
PROJECT ENGINEER
CA
fga
2 f i
•'��fpk k Yc'�E�•'�

STREAM CONVENTIONAL SYMBOLS
SUPERCEDES SHEET 1-B
00m'
0ROCK J -HOOK
ctl�m ROCK VANE
H % ROCK CROSS VANE
0o LOG J -HOOK
— LOG VANE
>s LOG WEIR
—®— SAFETY FENCE
—TF— TAPE FENCE
—FP— 100 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN
---@— CONSERVATION EASEMENT
----4d---- EXISTING MAJOR CONTOUR
---------- EXISTING MINOR CONTOUR
LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE
--- PROPERTY LINE
LOG STEP POOL
Green Ash ION• FACW
GRADE CONTROL LOG JAM
u
CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE
®
ROCK STEP POOL
�---
PHOTO POINT
Nelumbo lutea American lotus 25%
MONITORING WELL
®
FLOW GAUGE
-
CREST GAUGE
—®— SAFETY FENCE
—TF— TAPE FENCE
—FP— 100 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN
---@— CONSERVATION EASEMENT
----4d---- EXISTING MAJOR CONTOUR
---------- EXISTING MINOR CONTOUR
LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE
--- PROPERTY LINE
"NOTE: ALL ITEMS ABOVE MAY NOT BE USED ON THIS PROJECT
Proposed Plug Species br Reach Rf Constructed Wetlaaid
Browns Swnnut Creek Restoration Project
FOOT BRIDGE
Green Ash ION• FACW
TEMPORARY STREAM CROSSING
u
PERMANENT STREAM CROSSING
®
TRANSPLANTED VEGETATION
Nuphar lutea ssp. Advena Yellowpond lily 25%
DITCH PLUG
Nelumbo lutea American lotus 25%
CHANNEL FILL
®
BRUSH MATTRESS
®
GEOLIFT WITH BRUSH TOE
"NOTE: ALL ITEMS ABOVE MAY NOT BE USED ON THIS PROJECT
Proposed Plug Species br Reach Rf Constructed Wetlaaid
Browns Swnnut Creek Restoration Project
Fraxinus penmytvanica
Green Ash ION• FACW
BotsialNainsai
'�� �' � � � BMaP4vaa• s•�I•Int�
JR
J
Lemwspp. Duckweed 25%
OBL
Nuphar lutea ssp. Advena Yellowpond lily 25%
OBL
Nelumbo lutea American lotus 25%
OBL
Eleodrans aacularis Needle spikan sh 25Y•
OBL
70
,..l. ;� ', =la�r'i'ck} >�Iylt�trrttlal/s#slire `` i�,illaCwbr
`
Lobelia aardmalis Cardinal Flower 1 IN.
FACW
F.upalorladelphus fistulmus Joe Pyre Weed 15%
FACW
Hibiscus eowneus Scarlet Rose Mallow 15%
OBL
Lobelia elongara Longlef lobelia 15%
OBL
RAyndtcuporo colorato Starrush whitetop 120%
FACW
Cares tencro Quill sedge 25%
FAC
Lar MrisiFlslWap
liteCulfit+ I PloBiislYs�sWI11#i'Orlkabt
was ej`fusys
Sagiltaria lanafolia Bulltongue 101%
OBL
Irispseudacorus YellowFlag 15% -
OBL
Acorus onaricanur Sweetflag 15%
OBL
Pelrandravtginim Arrow atm 15%
OBL
Pontederia cordata Pickerish eed 201/•
OBL
Sarpua rypenunuf Woolgrass 25%
FACW
GENERAL NOTES
1. THE CONTRACTOR IS REQUIRED TO INSTALL IN -STREAM STRUCTURES USING
A TRACK HOE WITH A HYDRAULIC THUMB OF SUFFICIENT SIZE TO PLACE
BOULDERS (Tx7x21, LOGS AND ROOTWADS,
2, WORK IS BEING PERFORMED AS AN ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION PLAN,
THE CONTRACTOR SHOULD MAKE ALL REASONABLE EFFORTS TO REDUCE
SEDIMENT LOSS AND MINIMIZE DISTURBANCE OF THE SITE WHILE
PERFORMING THE CONSTRUCTION WORK.
3. CONSTRUCTION IS SCHEDULED TO BEGIN SUMMER OF 2015.
4. CONTRACTOR SHOULD CALL NORTH CAROLINA "ONE -CALL" BEFORE
EXCAVATION STARTS. (1-800-632-4949)
5. ENGINEER WILL FLAG TREES TO BE SAVED PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.
STANDARD SPECIIFICATIONS
NORTH CAROLINA
EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLANNING AND DESIGN MANUAL
MARCH 2009 (REV 2013)
VEGETATION SELECTION
Proposed Perstseait Seed Mixture
Brows Summit Creek Restoration Project
Fraxinus penmytvanica
Green Ash ION• FACW
BotsialNainsai
3660" Na>s
comom i o
shi�ad�+
hl�+a
ue aq
QWane)
wow
1i�ttranea
Andropogon gerardii
Big blue stem
I O`A
1.5
FAC
Dirhanthelium
clandesttmum
Deer tongue
151%
2.25
FAC
Carex crinita
Fringed sedge
10%
1.5
OBL
EJyasusvirginims
Virginia wild rye
ION•
1.5
FACW
was ej`fusys
Soft rush
10%
1.5
FACW
Panicvm virgatum
Switchgrass
15%
2.25
FAC
Sdtirachynum soopanum
Little blue stem
ION•
1.5
FACU
Sorghastrumnutons
Indiengrass
10%
1.5
FACU
anensmpensis
Jewelweed
ION•
1.5
FACW
Total
100•/.
15
Note: Final species selection may change due to refinement or mailability at the time of
Planting. If species substitution is required, the planting Contractor will submit a revised
planting list to Baker for approval prior to the procurement of plant stock.
6.05 TREE PROTECTION
6.06 TEMPORARY GRAVEL CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE
6.24 RIPARIAN AREA SEEDING
6.60 TEMPORARY SEDIMENT TRAP
6.62 TEMPORARY SILT FENCE
6.63 TEMPORARY ROCK DAM
6.70 TEMPORARY STREAM CROSSING
Proposed Bare -Reset staid Livestake Species
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project
Fraxinus penmytvanica
Green Ash ION• FACW
BotsialNainsai
River Birch 10% FACW
Cautious Nassau
%Plso"
111111, Species
Wedsd
I Tolerates
I PH=BaitPlsseis0—drsasary(Faisallresiches sum VJ+Bt)
Fraxinuspennsylvanioo Green Ash 10% FACW
Benda nigra
River Birch
ION.
FACW
Imodendrontulipijero
TdipPoplar
10%
FAC
Quentiusnridrauxii
SwampChestmtOsk
!0%
FACW
Dtospyros virginiana
Persimmon
5%
FAC
Plaranw occidentalis
American Sycamore
10%
FACW
Ulmus americana
American [Ins
5%
FACW
wwasBswaPiatiaip-uniardsry(FsVdlredeies B1,B2)
>Nxi'-tiMduaelAcrs
Carpmur earohniona
American Hombeam
ION•
FAC
Rex opam
American Holly
8%
FAC
Hamamchs virginiana
Witchlazel
61%
FACU
Viburnum dentatum
Arrowwood Viburnum
8%
FAC
Eronym a arxncnmus
Strawberry Bush
8%
FAC
• a,
rlloieer ENGINE"
1
I
I
I
Ina IIIy I '{' -
oa
1
r I
y APPROVED BY:
A32 I
10.0. for
IVA
qFN 1A Ya'1`E
a41tlw=, I DATE:
" 0
��gll21r�b1'rM,�IE-rui lOG I.
can. uoArn colas" vsu
Freda•: •n.aas.saer
INTERNAT10NALrU`I.O•.F-'mw
NCDMS ID No. 96313
AS-81JILT SURVEY PREPARED BY:
LEVEL CROSS SURVEYING, PLLC - Randleman. N.C.
RECORD DRAWINGS
This record dnuing has bean in part baaed upon
Utamadorn hrNalad by othas. V** 9% VVIT130011 'r
befeved to be reliable, the Engineer cannot=am its accuracy,
and dds Is not responsible for the accuracy of thk record
&w*q or ler any anon or omissions which may hate been
Mcolporated Yto R as a result These relying ono tMs record
doaanont aro advised to obtain irdeperderd vellication of
is accuracy before appying ler cry purpose.
Wetland Dollar Plarliap –0"ardsT (For Roseins 21.22)
V 3 18 -611110 sdAtro
Fraxinus penmytvanica
Green Ash ION• FACW
Betula nigra
River Birch 10% FACW
Quercuslyrota
Overcup Oak 10% OBL
Acernegaado
Box Elder 10% FACW
Ph untur ooddenralis
can Sycamore 10% FACW
Celts laevigata
Surgaberry 5% FACW
Nyssasytwtica
Blwkgum 5% FAC
Wetland Brix Plitstiaw-tworst«f (Foe Raeha Bi. Yf)
viii' `-fWstssdAert
Carpinuus earohmana
Amemon Hornbeam 101/• FAC
Alnus serrulasa
Tag Alder too/. OBL
Rex vernallasa
Winterberry ION• FACW
Nburnumnudwri
Possanhaw 10'/• OBL
Bijlsrtap Lire BWsellstlayf'
Sobsscrroca
Silky Willow 25% OBL
Sawhucuscanadensts
Elderberry 25% FACW
Cephalanthus occidentalis Buttonbush 15% OBL
Cornusamomum
Silky Dogwood 25% FACW
Salix nigra
Black Willow Io% OBL
Note: Final species selection may change due to refinement or availability at the
time of plating. If species substitution is requereda the planning contractor will
submit a revised plating list to Balder for approval prior to the procurement of plans
stock.

,^ i
'S.U.E = SUBSURFACE UTILITY ENGINEER
BOUNDARIES AND PROPERTY.-
r--'--�
State Une
0 %
-- ---
County Une
-- - -
Township Une
— --
City Une
Disappearing Stream
— —
Reservation Une
— — —
Property Line
19
Proposed Lateral, Toil, Head Ditch
Existing Iron Pin
a
Property Comer
------------
�Property
Prop"Monument
9
Parcel/Sequence Number
Iron Pin and Cap Marker
Existing Fence Line
--�—x-
Proposed Woven Wire Fence
e
Proposed Chain Link Fence
$—
Proposed Barbed Wire Fenn
Proposed Control of Access
Existing Wetland Boundary
- - - -+•- - - -
Proposed Wetland Boundary
•u
—E—
Existing Endangered Animal Boundary
�+
Existing Endangered Plant Boundary
�+
Proposed Permanent Utility Easement
BUILDINGS AND OTHER CULTURE.•
Gas Pump Vent or U0 Tank Cap
O
Sign
E.O.I.
Well
Small Mine
x
Foundation
0
Area Outline
Proposed Slope Stakes Cut
Cemetery
0
Building
Zroposed Wheel Chair Ramp pf�C
School
ting Metal Guardrail
!
Church
Dom
"
.HYDROLOGY.
Stream or Body of Water
Hydro, Pool or Reservoir
r--'--�
Jurisdictional Stmom-
0 %
Buffer Zone 1
a i
Buffer Zone 2
st 2 -
Flow Arrow
�.• --
Disappearing Stream
-•—
Spring
Above Ground Water Line
Wetland
19
Proposed Lateral, Toil, Head Ditch
m
False Sump
m
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DIVISI®N OF HIGHWAYS
CONVENTIONAL SYMBOLS
::_ttr'FOR
Standard Gouge
CSX TMOMWATAW
RR Signal Milepost
0 %
Switch
O
RR Abandoned
--- — — —
RR Dismantled
Recorded UG Water Line
-------
RIGHT OF WAY.•
Above Ground Water Line
Baseline Control Point
19
Existing Right of Way Marker
Q
Existing Right of Way Une
-
Proposed Right of Way Une
—�—
Proposed Right of Way Line with
A
Iron Pin and Cap Marker
Recorded UG Fiber Optics Cable
Proposed Right of Way Line with
Designated UG Fiber Optics Cable (S.U.E.')-
Concrete or Granite Marker
•
Existing Control of Access
—;�—
Proposed Control of Access
—�-
Existing Easement Line
--E--
Proposed Temporary Construction Easement-
—E—
Proposed Temporary Drainage Easement—
ME
Proposed Permanent Drainage Easement —
POE
Proposed Permanent Utility Easement
nm
Proposed Temporary Utility Easement
—TUE—
Proposed Permanent Easement with
E.O.I.
Iron Pin and Cap Marker
ROADS AND REUTBD FEATURES.
Existing Edge of Pavement
-----
Existing Curb
-----
Proposed Slope Stakes Cut
- - - - - -
Proposed Slope Stakes Fill
Zroposed Wheel Chair Ramp pf�C
ting Metal Guardrail
Proposed Guardrail
'
Existing Cable Guiderail
"
Proposed Cable Guidemil
^
Equality Symbol
Pavement Removal
VEGETATION
Single Tree
C7
Single Shrub
a
Hedge�-
Woods Une
Orchard
0 0 0 0
Vineyard
vx nr�e
EXISTING STRUCTURES:
MAJOR:
Bridge, Tunnel or Box Culvert
Bridge Wing Wall, Head Wall and End Wall -
MINOR:
Head and End Wali
Pipe Culvert
Footbridge
Drainage Box: Catch Basin, DI or JB
Paved Ditch Gutter
Storm Sewer Manhole
Storm Sewer
UTILITIES.•
POWER:
Existing Power Pole
Proposed Power Pole
Existing Joint Use Pole
Proposed Joint Use Pole
Power Manhole
Power Une Tower
Power Transformer
UG Power Cable Hand Hole
Ft -frame Pole
Recorded UG Power Une
Designated UG Power Une (S.U.E.')
ca+c w
WATER:
Water Manhole
0
Water Meter
o
Water Valve
Water Hydrant
.0
Recorded UG Water Line
M
Designated LIG Water Une (S.U.E.•)-- - - - -•- - - -
Above Ground Water Line
ve WOW
/-� TV:
TV Satellite Dish
------ < TV Pedestal IM
❑p TV Tower
----- UG TV Cable Hand Hole 19
(@ Recorded UG TV Cable T•
Designated UG TV Cable (S.U.E.') - - - -^- - - -
Recorded UG Fiber Optic Cable
Designated UG Fiber Optic Cable (S.U.E.')- - - - -^ ••- - -
TELEPHONE:
Existing Telephone Pole
-0-
Proposed Telephone Pole
-0-
Telephone Manhole
Telephone Booth
03
Telephone Pedestal
M
Telephone Cell Tower
A
UG Telephone Cable Hand Hole
19
Recorded UG Telephone Cable
p
Designated UG Telephone Cable (S.U.E.') -
- - - -�- - - -
Recorded LkG Telephone Conduit
TC
Recorded SS Forced Main Une—
ine
Designated LIG Telephone Conduit (S.U.E.t
- - - -R- - - -
Recorded UG Fiber Optics Cable
T ro
Designated UG Fiber Optics Cable (S.U.E.')-
- - - -T 10- - -
GAS:
Gas Valve
0
Gas Meter
Recorded UG Gas Une
Designated UG Gas Une (S.U.E.')
- - - -•- - -
Above Ground Gas Une
"'0 `^•
SANITARY SEWER:
Sanitary Sewer Manhole
Sanitary Sewer Cleanout
p
UG Sanitary Sewer Une
Above Ground Sanitary Sewer
,io S*MtwV So—
Recorded SS Forced Main Une—
ine
Designated
Designated SS Forced Main Line (S.U.E.•)
- - - - -�.- - - -
MISCELLANEOUS:
Utility Pole
•
Utility Pole with Base
Q
Utility Located Object
p
Utility Traffic Signal Box
m
Utility Unknown LLG Une
�+
UG Tank; Water, Gas, Oil
AIG Tank; Water, Gas, Oil
0
UG Test Hole (S.U.E.')
Abandoned According to Utility Records
— AATUR
End of Information
E.O.I.

ROOT WADS
ROOT WADS WITHOUT TRANSPLANTS
USE IF TRANSPLANTS ARE NOT AVAILABLE ON-SITE
COIR FIBER MATTING
/ (SEE SPECIFICATIONS AND SHEET 2-A)
FLOODPLAW/ BERM (0.5' MAX. HT.) BERM(S)
NOT TO EXTEND BEYOND
ULRTS OF ROOT WADS.
/..
113 THE TRUNK E AM BED
is// IS BELOW STREAM BED
10-I! FEET lON1 -T
.IT DIAMETER CROSS SECTION VIEW
COVER LOG
(6--r DIA.)
TOP OF BANK
PLAN VIEW
THALWEG
ROOT WADS WITH TRANSPLANTS
USE IF TRANSPLANTS ARE AVAILABLE ON-SITE
TRANSPLANTS
(SEE SHEET 7'A',1
''NTS NOT TO
FLOOD PI.AW� _ EXTEND BEYOND TRUNK TOP OF BANK OF R00T WADS,
10.15 FEET LONG
>10" DIAMETER
COVER LOG (0--8-DIA)
P T 113 THE TRUNK THICKNE!
-k IS BELOW STREAM BED
I
CROSS SECTION VIEW
T
D42•
+ 1•�
RIFFLE
Imo- YWki �{
D -M.
Q I Mt
9j
NOTES:
I. DURING CONSTRUCTION CORNERS OF OESIGN CHANNEL WILL BE ROUNDED
AND A THALWEG WILL BE SHAPED PER DIRECTION OF ENGINEER.
2. POOLS SHOWN ABOVE ARE LEFT POOLS FOR MEANDER CHANNELS.
MAT BANKS WITH COIR FIBER MATTING
NOTES:Iq
BAKER PROJECT REMMCE NO. SHEET NO.
R2
TYPICAL STRUCTURE PLACEMENT 140098 2
R6 8C STREAM
PROJECT ENGINEER
TRENCH BE EXCAVATED FOR THE LOG PORTION OF THE ROOT WAD.
STRUCTURE NOTES:
1. GENERALLY CONSTRUCTED RIFFLES, ROOT WADS,
POOL
V AND COIR FIBER MATTING
LOG WILL BE INSINSTALLED IN THE LOCA710N
WILL
CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE
AND SEQUENCE AS SHOWN. �
BASE FLOW CONDITIONS OR CHANNEL BOTTOM.
2. ANY CHANGES TO NUMBER OR LOCATION - ) = i APPROVED BY:
14.9
OF STRUCTURES DURING CONSTRUCTION -'
MUST BE APPROVED BY THE DESIGN ENGINEER. 432 j
tie
yq>J.�'.f„'('GINE jaT? i , Q .'•f
THE MEANDER BENDS SUE AS SHOWN. SEE GENERAL RUCTUREDTAHE OR PROTECT
THE APPROXIMATE
3. COIR FIBER MATTING TO BE INSTALLED ONALL
RTERRACEE STREAMFLOODPLAIN BENCHING.
(SEE SHEET
NDRIBED IN THE TECHNICAL DAATE,
SLOPAS DESCRIBED A
20
SPECIFICATIONS.
i
3. INSTALL COVER LOGS BETWEEN ROOTWADS TO PROVIDE HABITAT
eacrll aaA« Eny1n11r4�06 Me.
11.4
ROOT WADS awn.[A0191A31n1M
Phar ata.w.sw
11.5
I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L
28.9
COVER LOGS
19.5
GRADE CONTROL NCDMS ID No. 96313
104
LOG J -HOOK VA
ze
(SEE SHEET 2-0) AS -BUILT SURVEY PREPARED BY:
2e
LEVEL CROSS SURVEYING. PLLC - Rarldaman, N.C.
29
�c RECORD DRAWINGS
#_ Thie Record hawing has been prepared or part, based Upon
... Information hmisllW by 0ti) M. Weak INE information B
believed to be reliable, the Engirw cannot a win 6 am9aq
I and ft Is not msfows" for Rte awjaq of Rde moord
ER LOG
&wft or for any wrom or omisslOna 0kh may have bean
R" DME)
7, ,.� irwiporo0ed mb R as a resin. Those niykp on to record
doarrrorK are Weed to obtain Mepnderk ved4catlon of
WAD
O
its accuracy before apoiN for any purpose
MAT BANKS WITH COIR FIBER MATTING
NOTES:Iq
T1
R2
I. INSTALLATION USING THE TRENCHING METHOD REQUIRES THAT A
R6 8C STREAM
RIFFLE
TRENCH BE EXCAVATED FOR THE LOG PORTION OF THE ROOT WAD.
RIfFIE
POOL
ONE-THUM OF THE ROOT WAD SHOULD RE AW BELOW NORMAL
CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE
12A
BASE FLOW CONDITIONS OR CHANNEL BOTTOM.
SEE
(SEE SHEET
( SHEET 2-0)
14.9
2. THE NUMBER OF ROOTWWDS ESTIMATED MAY VARY DEPENDING ON
tie
OEOLIFT Vul'TH� BRUSH TOE
THE MEANDER BENDS SUE AS SHOWN. SEE GENERAL RUCTUREDTAHE OR PROTECT
THE APPROXIMATE
TOP OF BANK
(SEE SHEET
STATION AND LOCATION.
20
11.0
3. INSTALL COVER LOGS BETWEEN ROOTWADS TO PROVIDE HABITAT
11.0
11.4
ONLY WHEN AVAILABLE FROM ONSITE HARVESTINO,
11.5
151
TYPICAL RIFFLE POOL AND BANKFULL BENCH CROSS-SECTIONS
TOP OF TERRACE
I
VARIES
D44p
r+ ti
RIFFLE WITH BANKFULL BENCH
TOP OF TERRACE
R1
T1
R2
R3
R6 8C STREAM
RIFFLE
POOL
RIfFIE
POOL
RIFFLE
POOL
12A
17.1
11.0
14.9
101
tie
1s
1.7L2
0.9
21
11
20
11.0
11.2
11.0
11.4
11.0
11.5
151
28.9
11.1
19.5
9.7
104
as
ze
5.8
2e
S4
29
114 -UPPER
T1
R4 - LOWER
WIDTH OF BANKFULL (AMMB
R6 8C STREAM
POOL RIFFLE POOL
0.1 7.9 74
RMFIE
POOL
RIFFLE
POOL
1.2
0.8
9.2
121
7.D
10.0
13A
12.1
0.9
lis
0.a
1.5
7FFL-rFPOOL
34
MO
11.5
14.0
124
31
34
e.5
1143.5
33
80
BOTTOM WIDTH MAI
5.7
25
44
z4
VADTH OF SANKFULL (IM;M)
MAXWUM OEM (0404
VADTH TO DEPTH RATIO (NMA 10)
RANKFULL AREA (AMd)
BOTTOM WIDTH (WM)
WIDTH OF BANKFULL (NANO
MAM MUM DEPTH (04Msn
MTN TO DEPTH RATIO MW I D)
RANKFULL AREA (ADM)
BOTTOM WIDTH nAe)
R6 CIE STREAM
T1
T3 / T4
WIDTH OF BANKFULL (AMMB
RIFFLE POOL RIFFLE
POOL RIFFLE POOL
0.1 7.9 74
a5 54 74
0.e
0.e
0.7
1.2
0.8
M9
MAXWLW DEPTH IDaw
129
lza
13A
12.1
12.0
114
=TO DEPTH=(VEM/O)
3,1
4.0
34
7.4
1
2.8
1
4.5
BANFfII.L MEA fADM
31
34
4.4
28
33
28
BOTTOM WIDTH MAI
I v` / �+ NrvAR1E WEkIVAREB�{ \ \
NOM, �y,1R1ES..•1 (( I)
I
NM L +I L
POOL WITH BANKFULL BENCH
STEP -POOL

i
LAXER FROIECT REFEIIENCE No. SHOT NO.
LIVE STAKING
PLANTING SPECIFICATIONS
140048 2'A
i
FAOOECT ENGINEER
TOP OF STREAMBANK
A
LIVE STAKE TOP OF STREAMBAWC TOP OF STREAIBANK
PLANTI
i
��
g
-_ _____' -___-,--_' _
APPROVED BY:
V43
TOE OF SLOPE
f =
! : q•� rl
PLANT STAKES FROM TOP OF BANK TO TOE
TOP OF STRFAMBANK
l�'"GINEEA'\8
.
B B OF BANK IN A DIAMOND SHAPED STAGGERED
PATTERN TO SPECIFIED SPACING
1 DATE
LIVE STAKE
BOTTOM OF CHANNEL - -
"J{{x{{ i
JI
Oyu
law e.P0'"' ME 6� a Mc.
CYt. NORTH CMOU4]13N
TOE OF SLOPE
INTER NA T I O N A L F�°:::aoSpD..
SECTION A - X ^'
PLAN VIEW
BOTTOM OF CHANNEL
NCDMS ID No. 96313
AS -BUILT SURVEY PREPARED BY --
LEVEL CROSS SURVIEYINO, PLLC - Randleman, N.C.
SOUARE CUTTOP
CROSS SECTION VIEW OF BARE ROOT PLANTING
RECORD DRANNJGS
This mwd dr944cly has been Wepamd M Pao based upon
NO LIVE STAKES ON POINT BAR BUDS FACING UPWARD
liftnedion WW*d by Of = V*& ft bdonnafOn N
belawd to be mllahb, the EI*iw carm spun Its awaacy,
and fa{ Is not mspone�k for the awKaq of the mco(d
LIVE CUTTING MIN. tr2 DA
dMM(I of /or any mom or omissions wflkh mar how been
7 • Y LENGTH
rmponellaxi it as Those mWg on this
TOP OF STREAMBANK
dO nwd elegy advisedmb
to obtain InclepwIdard �seult.
�d
6 acaraq befom appIft for any purpose.
L PU1N1' BARE ROOT SHRUBS AND TREES TO THE MOTH OF THE
BUFFER(PLANTING ZONE AS SHOWN ON THE PLANS.
2. ALLOW FOR 610 FEET BETWEEN PLANTINGS, DEPENDING ON SIZE.
3, LOOSEN COMPACTED SOIL.
ANGLE CUT 30.45 DEGREES
4 OTHER APPROVEMADE
ANSA MATTOCK DIBBLE, PLANTING BAR, OR
TOE OF SLOPE
LIVE STAKE DETAIL
S. PLANT IN HOLES DEEP AND WIDE ENOUGH TO ALLOW THE ROOTS
TTO SPREAD OUTANDDOM ITHOonnNG.
W
Q ROOTSLWHILE unNo TO PLANT
BY MEANS OF WET CANVAS, BURLAP DR STRAW.
7. HEEL -IN PLANTS IN MOIST SOIL OR S� UST IF NOT PROMPTLY
PLANTED UPON ARRIVAL TO PROJECT SITE.
NOTES:
V -a` SPACING X -Y SPACING 1. STAKES SHOULD BE CUT AND INSTALLED ON THE SAME DAY,
I DO NOT INSTALL STAKES THAT HAVE BEEN SPLIT.
a STAKES MUST BE INSTALLED VAIN BUDS POINTING UPWARDS.
4.STAKES SHOULD BE INSTALLED PERPENDICULAR TO BANK
LIVE STAKE
SPACING PLAN VIEW a STAKES SHOULD BE 1F2 TO 2INCHES IN DIAMETER AND 2 TO 3 FT LONG.
Q STAKES SHOULD BE INSTALLED LEAVING 115 OF STAKE ABOVE GROUND.
TRANSPLANTEDVEGETATION
BRUSH MATTRESS
TRANSPLANTED VEGETATION, ROOTMASS. AND SOK MATERIAL
STAKES 2 FT LONG
ON -BRIE ALLl1ViUM
12 GUAGE GALVANIZED
BRUSH LAYER
WIRE SECURED TO STAKES BANKFUI ELEVATIONTOP
OF STREALIBAHNKSTAKE
(TYP.)LNE
Ilk
FA$OINE (SEE TYP.)TRANSPLANTED
STREAAABEDa0
VEGETATION, ROOTMASS. AND SOIL MATERIAL
BRANCHES MIN PER 3.3 Ff.
TOE OF BANK
BRANCHES OF I INCH OR LESS
- BOTTOM CHANNEL
_ —�
FLOW NO
1. CREATE
12' DEEP TRENCH
-
1. BRUSH MATTRESS SHOULD BE INSTALLED DURING 2. STAKE AND WIRE BRUSH LAYER INTO TRENCH
.
VEGETATION DORMANCY. 3. BACK FILL 3' OF ONSITE ALLUVIUM OVER BRUSH LAYER
'2.ONLY
USE SPECIES SPECIFIED UNDER LIVE STAKES
NOTES:
PLAN VIEW SECTION OF VEGETATION SELECTION
CROSS SECTION
CROSS SECTION VIEW t• EXCAVATE A HOLE IN THE BANK TO BE STABILIZED THAT WILL
ACCOMMODATE THE SIE OF TRANSPLANT TO BE PLACED.
BEGIN EXCAVATION AT THE TOE OF THE BANK
2. EXCAVATE THE ENTRE ROOT MASS AND AS MUCH ADDITIONAL
SOIL MATERIAL AS POSSIBLE IF ENTRE ROOT MASS CAN NOT
BE EXCAVATED AT ONCE, THE TRANSPLANT IS TOO LARGE AND
ANOTHER SHOULD BE SELECTED.
.
ELEVATION
� y � �
TRANSPLANTED VEGETATION AND ROOTMASS 3. PLACE TRANSPLANT IN THE BAWL TO BE STABILIZED 90 THAT
VEGETATION IS ORIENTATED VERTICALLY.
4, FILL IN ANY HOLES
4V
AROUND THE TRANSPLANT AND COMPACT.
_
_ _- ____ - S ANY LOOSE SOK LEFT IN THE STREAM SHOULD BE REMOVED.
WOODEN STAKE
NOTCHEDF V41RE OR
®
_
& WHEN POSSIBLE, PLACE MULTIPLE TRANSPLANTS CLOSE
TOGETHER SUCH THAT THEY TOUCH.
LENGTH
® ® TOP OF BANK
® r
® ® �\ TOE OF BANK
(``�`'/j)
STREAMBED
1\
---__------'
/f
-'--
------------..
TYPICAL STAKE
2-3 FT
f,
PLAN VIEW
1. BOARD FOR STAKE SHOULD BEY:4':24'. LIVE FASCINE
A
2. SAW 2'x 4' TIMBER DIAGONALLY TO PRODUCE 2 DEAD STOUT STAKES. (SEE TYP.)

DITCH PLUG BAKER PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHAT NO.
LOG WEIR
140046 2 B
PROJECT ENGINEER
i
®
quer„
TRANSPLANTS ®
3
® TRANSPLANTS
DITCH TO BE PLUGGED i APPROVED BY:
432
�
�
app Rs�,�`aV1
® CHANNELNBOTH
B
1.5 %CHANNEL WIDTH ®
�y Rad W Babr EnRlnwrw Imo.
—.—.—.—.—�.`
!
I SCOUR
TOP OF STREAMBANK
♦ ®
1
woo ■rorr."•.r. sr.
Cur. noem Cr.naiwA 215+6
DITCH PLUG r+w. 6+a4ue.ee
rre 6+ab2.crw
INTERNATIONAIuv,,...r-wa
\ POOL
!
�• FLOW
NCDMS ID No. 96313
_ _ _ _
LOO WEIR
NOTE
-_ - _ _---_-_--_-- ----
STREAMBED
COMPACT BACKFILL USING ONSITE HEAVY EQUIPMENT AS-BUILT SURVEY PREPARED BY:
N 10 INCH LIFTS. LEVEL CROSS SURVEYING, PLLC • Randennan, N.C.
5
PLAN VIEW RECORD DRAWINGS
This record draw v hes been prepared In Part based Won
HEADER LOG BACKFILL (ON-SITE ALLlJJ1UR)
Inliormadw hanishad by Others. VOM this information is
believed b be red", the Engineer ryurot aslKmR ib awacy,
MAN VIEW
i
and this is not resfoonsbfe for tine acmacy of this record
&&wV of for any or onksions %Nch may how been
a
OGEOTEXTILE.FABRIC
NcoMoraled Otto In as nesA Those r&' pV on ft record
FOOTER LOO
dwAt*nt are advised to Obtain i ndependert Lerillution Of
4' MINIMUM
U NCOMPACTED BACKFILL ins aoaaacy betae applying for any Purpose.
COMPACTED BACKFILL 1.S MINIMUM
TRANSPLANTS
SECTION A-A'
FINISH GRADE FINISH GRADE
INVERT
ELEVATION
HEADER LOG NOTES:
1. LOGS SHOULD BE AT LEAST 12 INCHES IN DIAMETER, RELATIVELY STRAIGHT,
DITCH INVERT
FOOTERLOG HARDWOOD, AND RECENTLY HARVESTED.
2. LOGS -24 INCHES IN DIAMETER MAY BE USED ALONE WITHOUT AN ADDITIONAL LOG.
GEOTEXTLE FABRIC SHOULD STILL BE USED TO SEAL AROUND LOG
3. PLACE FOOTER LOGS FIRST AND THEN HEADER (TOP( LOQ SET HEADER LOG
CROSS SECTION YIEYV
APPROODMTLEY 31NCHES ABOVE THE INVERT ELEVATION.
COMPACTED BACKFILL
4. CUT A NOTCH IN THE HEADER LOG APPROXI ATLEY SO PERCENT OF THE CHANNEL
BOTTOM MTN AND EXTENDING DOWN TO THE INVERT ELEVATION.
SECTION A A'
5. USE GEOTEXTILE FABRIC TO SEAT. GAPS BETWEEN LOGS.
-
6. PLACE TRANSPLANTS FROM TOE OF STREAMBANK TO TOP OF STREAMBANK
GRADE CONTROL LOG J-HOOK VANE
LOG VANE
LOG BURIED
BELOW STREAMSED
LOO BURIED
BELOW STREAMBED
STONE BACKFILL
STONE BACKFILL
\.3
OI
I13
ULL HEADER LOG O
O
ULL
LEAVE O.5' • 0.75' G„WS N THE NOOK
SECTION OF THE HEADER R OCK
HEADER LOG O
NO GAPS BETWEEN FOOTER ROCKS
1J3 OEOTEXTTLE FABRIC
FOOTER L
A'
SECTION A - A'
1!3
Gl:OiFOOTER LOO
FlBR�A
A' �. L�w
�.
MI IMUM
GEOTEXTI.E FABRIC
A 2W W
`, GEOTE7rTILE FABRIC SECTION A - A'
1J
'EXCAVAIPOOLTEi \ \ ROo7WAD
i
't
i.t
EXPOOL I
4, Pool
t
n i TOP OF STREAMBANK
i
_ �''• FLOW
\ ROOTWADi
^'
J ROOTWAD
STREAMBED �::''
~••�''
ri
` ROOTINAO
��
Arl'+'1M'
Fi
S TOP OF STREAMBANK
L
FLOW
LOG BURIED IN
STREAMBANK AT LEAST 5' ' :+'`'i a %:' %%�-'%''4
l js.'' a
LOGS BURIED IN STREAMBED
STREAMBANK 1'I' ••
PLAN VIEW 4gj~may"Y"^ /f FOOTER LOG
AT LEAST sv N -<sr
BOULDER s
pf � sof „i�r
HEADER LOG �Gi+'�
;„ .1-,;
PLAN VIEW - .�.
1t.. BE AT LEAST 10' IN DIAMETER, RELATIVELY HARVESTED, � � FOOTER LOG
PROFILE VIEW
NOTES:
LOGS SHOULD STRAIGHT, HARDWOOD, AND RECENTLY �:
2. BOULDERS MUST BE OF SUFFICIENT 39E TO ANCHOR LOGS. � f s •
3. SOIL SHOULD BE COMPACTED WELL AROUND BURIED PORTIONS OF LAGS. HEADER
LOG
4. ROO7WADS SHOULD BE PLACED BENEATH THE HEADER LOG AND PLACED SO THAT R LOCKS THE HEADER LOO
1. LOGS SHOULD BE AT LEAST 1P IN DIAMETER, RELATIVELY STRAIGHT, HARDWOOD. AND RECENTLY HARVESTED.
INTO THE BANK SEE ROOTWAD DETAIL �
2. BOULDERS MUST BE AT LEAST 7 a 2' ■ 2'.
S. BOULDER SHOULD BE PLACED ON TOP OF HEADER LOG FOR ANCHORING,
3. SOIL SHOULD BE COMPACTED WELL BURIED PORTIONS OF LOG.
THE
6. DIED I EXI LE FABRICE SHOULDLL
BE MAILED TROOTWADS,
O THE LOO BELOW THE O 1 PROFILE VIEW
7. TRANSPLANTS
4. ROOTW ADS SHOULD BE PLACED BENEATH HEADER LOG AND PLACED SO THAT IT LOCKS THE HERDER LOG
INTO THE BANK SEE ROOTNAD DETAIL
CAN BINSTEAD OFPER DIRECTION ENGINEER.
5. BOULDERS SHOULD BE PLACED ON TOP OF HEADER LAG FOR ACHORING,
6. HEADER BOULDERS TO BE PLACED 0.5 TO 0.75 FEET APART.
7. GEOTEXTILE FABRIC SHOULD BE NAR.EO TO THE LOO BELOW THE BACKFILL
S. TRANSPLANTS CAN BE USED INSTEAD OF ROOWADS, PER DIRECTION OF ENGIWER.

A _0
GRADE CONTROL LOG JAM
Al
` BEGIN INVERT ELEVATION PRIMARY LOOS
HEADER L00
B B' RACXFILLWITH A
ON-SITE ALLUVIUM SECONDARY LOOS AND WOODY DEBRIS
�— FILTER FABRIC H -0.1-O ALOW
-- _ (TYPICAL) 4 H -O7. 3'
_ ®® ® 00�:
- HEADER LOG X • .i• HEADER LOO
LOOS - - SMINIW/Y 0.'
A'
INDARV
_ A4,a 4 a O M
SANOV SOIL aACKFRi
_
PRIMARY LOGS
SPACE EVERY IT -T
= SECTION A - A'
- s1INI1WY
FILTER FABRIC
TYPICAL)
�—HEADER LOG
��—L00 POLE
W(DRrvE POLE INTO GROUND
TO A MMMUM DEPTH OF M
LEND INVERT ELEVATION
A PLAN VIEW
B
10' DAMETE
OR GREATE
SANK
PROTECTION
SEE NOTE
10' DIMIETEF
OR GREATEF
TRANSPLANTS OR LIVE STAKES
SIS: TYPICAL SECTION FOR
CHAPNIEL DIMENSIONS
SET AVERT ELEVATION BASED
ON DESIGN STREAM PROFILE
S MNMSJAI
BURIED INTO
BAN(
I
SECTION B - W
LOG STEP -POOL
"m ROIECT RH![FlNCE No.=
o. SHM NO.
140046 1 2-C
PwAwT ENGINE"
i APPROVED BY:
r
32
K
DAM
INTERNAT 10NALuR`e.weR+N«�i
NCDMS ID No. 96313
ASBIILT SURVEY PREPARED BY:
LEVEL CROSS SURVEYING, PLLC - R-Idmmm, N.C.
This Ro-d MM OoSR p poo in prL Ousd Lw
nfanmlbR Aw isW by M - V46 Bi Wmn*m is
WIMd to be mftb, IM EnyIR-r (BIYI, um 6 SwAsq.
SW ft is not rn wM* b the owns i do* Road
&aft orfor &W -1Bn ormb*m v6+a may hm bon
dmgmdam adrw d to obtln imot wm-Ivw*aom of
SANKFULL ELEVATION ban�p�•
4
HEADER LOG -
v:
ISS
FOOTER LOO 1. PRIMARY LOGS SHOULD BE AT LEAST 10' OR MORE M DIAMETER, RELATIVELY STRAIGHT,
HARDWOOD PREFERRED, AND RECENTLY HARVESTED AND EXTENDING INTO THE BANK S' ON EACH SIDE.
2 SECONDARY LOOS SHOULD BE AT LEAST 1- IN DIAMETER AND NO LARGER THAN 17, AND EXTEND INTO THE BANK 2 FEET ON EACH SIDE,
WOOD MATERIAL SHALL BE VARYING DIAMETER TO ALLOW MATERIAL TO BE COMPACTED.
S. VERTICAL POSTS SHOULD BE AT LEAST IV IN DIAMETER AND SHOULD BE DRIVEN INTO, THE GROUND
S MINIMUM A MINIMUM OF S.
BURIED INTO N. FILTER FABRIC SHOULD BE NAILED TO THE HEADER LOO BELOW THE BACKFILL
SAW S. ROOTWADS AND COIL FIBER MATTING CAN BE USED INSTEAD OF TRANSPLANTS OR LIVE STAKES, PER ORECTIGN OF ENGINEER.
S. AFTER TRENCH HAS BEEN EXCAVATED A LAYER OF SECONDARY LOOS AND WOODY DEBRIS SHOULD BE PLACED WITH
L -RM AL GAPS. A LAYER OF ONSITE ALLUVI lA SHOULD BE APPLIED TO FILL VOWS BETWEEN SECONDARY LOGS
BEFORE ADDITIONAL LAYERS ARE PLACED.
— OEOTEXTE FABRIC
SECTION A - A'
—FOOTEIL LOG
BACKFILL
CHANNEL AVERT BAN161AL ELEVATION
r HEAOER LOG
1, LOGS WI TROUT ROOT MASS MAY MUSED IF APPROVED BY PROJECT ENGINEER.
2 FOR BANK PROTE USE ROOT WADS TOE WOOD, OECUFTI. TRANSPLANTS. OR BOULDERS,
4SEE
SOILsl=HOIAS D BRELCOMPACTED YELL AROUND BURIED PORTIONS OF LOG
A'

BEGIN HEAD OF RIFFLE INVERT
ELEVATION AND STATION -1
TOP OF BANKS A
1 r
B
BEGIN TAIL OF RIFFLE INVERT
ELEVATION AND STATION
PLAN VIEW
CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE
EROSION CONTROL
MATTING
URGER STONE MAY BE PLACED
TO REDIRECT LOW FLOW AT RIFFLE Den
DIRECTION OF ENGINEER _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ BANKFULL
-GEOTEXTRE FABRIC
B O
TOE
-STONE BACKFI L STONE BACKFILL
NOTES:
1. UNDERCUT CHANNEL BED ELEVATION AS NEEDED TO ALLOW FOR LAYERS OF
STONE TO ACHIEVE FINAL GRADE.
2. INSTALL EROSION CONTROL MATTING ALONG COMPLETED BANKS SUCH THAT
THE EROSION CONTROL MATTING AT THE TOE OF THE BANK EXTENDS DOWN
TO THE UNDERCUT ELEVATION.
3. INSTALL STONE BACKFILL, COMPACTED TO GRADE.
4. FINAL CHANNEL BED SHAPE SHOULD BE ROUNDED, SMOOTH. AND CONCAVE,
WITH THE ELEVATION OF THE BED 0.2 FT DEEPER IN THE CENTER THAN AT
THE EDGES,
BOULDERS
BACK OF BENCH
BANKFULL
TOE OF BANK
O�
PLAN VIEW
MV VARY
NVERT ELEVATION
BACKFILL
IKFULL MOTH
STONE BACKFILL
TOE
SECTION B - B'
STAKE TOP LAYER
OF MATTING IN 6' TRENCH
(SEE MATTING DETAIL)
114 OF BEGIN HEAD OF RIFFLE INVERT
GLIDE ELEVATION AND STATION FLOODPLAIN
ENOTH UNDISTURBED
STONE BACKFILL � EARTH
1M OF RUN LENGTH 1 O U� �
LhDE I ( COMPACTED
. O _ ONSITE SOIL (TVP)
PROFILE A - A'
H - STEP HEIGHT
TAIL OF RIFFLE INVERT
TION AND STATION
OF BANK I BANIffULL STAGE
EROSION CONTROL MATTING
ENCOMPASSES UFT
UVE BRANCH CUTTINGS (SEE
PUNTING PLAN FOR SPECIES)
60( WELL GRADED MIX OF CUSS B
AND CUSS A STONE CAN BE
SUBSTITUTED FOR BRUSH MATERIAL
BASEFLOW
BRUSH CAN BE LIMBS, BRANCHES, ROOTS OR ANY OTHER J
WOODY VEGETATION APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER.
NOTES'
1. WHEN GEOUFTS ARE BUILT ABOVE ROOTWAD CLUSTER USE LARGE STONE BACKFILL BEHIND ROOT MASS TO BUILT FOUNDATION.
ROCK STEP POOL CHANNEL
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC
STONE BACKFILL �
PROFILE VIEW A -A'
VARIES IV -1 TO 2Vd' _
p
?4 Y
".•_TING GROUND
LARGE STONE
POOL CROSS SECTION B -B'
BRUSH TOE APPROX. 1 FT
BELOW FINISHED
BED ELEVATION
m VARIES 15%0' TO 20 -0 -
NOTES
1. BOULDERS MUST BE AT LEAST 7 X 2' X T AND NOT EXCEED W X T X Y.
2. fOOTERS SHALL BE INSTALLED SUCH THAT 114 TO 113 OF THE LENGTH IS DOWNSTREAM
OF THE HEADER.
3. SOK. SHALL BE WELL COMPACTED AROUND SVRIED PORTION OF FOOTERS WITH BUCKET
OF TRACK HOE.
4. INSTALL COIR FIBER MATTING UNDERNEATH FOOTER BOULDERS.
5. UNDERCUT POOL BED ELEVATION a INCHES TO ALLOW FOR LAYER OF STONE.
B. INSTALL COIR FIBER MATTING ALONG COMPLETED BANKS SUCH THAT THE GEOTEXTI E
FABRIC AT THE TOE OF THE BANK EXTENDS DOWN TO THE UNDERCUT ELEVATION.
7. INSTALL LARGE STONE BACKFILL ALONG SIDE SLOPES.
8. FINAL CHANNEL BED SHAPE SHOULD BE ROUNDED, COMPACTED, AND CONCAVE, WITH THE
ELEVATION OF THE BED APPROXIMATELY 0.5 FT DEEPER IN THE CENTER THAN AT THE EDGES.
9. STEP HEIGHT (H) SWILL NOT EXCEED 0.8 FT.
10. MINIMUM POOL DEPTH (D) SHALL BE NO LESS THAN 1.7 FT.
11. IN GENERAL, POOL TO POOL SPACING SHALL BE NO LESS THAN B FT AND NO GREATER THAN
37 FT BASED ON EXISTING CONDITIONS SUCH AS SLOPE AND SUITABLE FILL MATERIAL
CONSTRUCTED RIFFLES MAY BE SUBSTITUTED IN AREAS WHERE EXISTING SLOPES EXCEED
10%AS DETERMINED IN THE FIELD BY THE CONTRACTOR AND ENGINEER.
GROUND
YhMIt PROJECT REFERENCE NO, SHEET NO.
GEOLIFT WITH BRUSH TOE
140048 1 2.0
PROJECT ENGINEER
AS411J LT SURVEY PREPARED BY:
LEVEL CROSS SURVEYING, PLLC • RanOkman, N.C.
RECORD DRAWINGS
rFyo�� Sr
This record drawing has been prepared in part based upon
+ i APPROVED BY
information hrnished by others. While this information is
.
_
believed to be MWA, the Engineer earshot assure 4s accuracy,
and this is not responsmle for the accuracy of this recordNOTES
drawing or br have
f • 1?
k01HE�\,yTjd*
any enors or omissgnc which may been
'��4�M
1. LIVE BRANCH CUTTINGS SHALL BE THE SAME SPECIES AS THE LIVE STAKES
AND SHALL BE INSTALLED DURING VEGETATION DORMANCY.
Incorporated Into t a7 a lesult Those ICNy1rIg on this record
dm ROOM are advised to obtain Independent veiftabon of
LL's OAT -
•� f
2.E
85MH CUTTINGS SHALL BE INSTALLED ATA DENSITY OF 20-30 CUTTINGS
Its accuracy Detre applying for any purpose.
LIEEAM
PER FOOT AND A MAXIMUM ETER OF Z5 INCHES
3. NUMBER OF SOIL LIFTS MAY VARY IN GENERAL LIFTS SHALL EXTEND TO THE
TOP OF BANK OR BANKFULL
1I0MM B41ur Engln.f Inc.
wOR MRray hT.n R.+r wG
STAGE.
• 0.,y, woRTM ��Ae�y,r nc1l
4. GEOLIFTS TO OE INSTALLED IN CHANNEL SECTIONS ALONG SIDE SLOPES STEEPER
THAN 21 AN OR ADJACENT TO MILL SLOPES.
:�''uh'iRds wo
I N T E R N A T I O N A L ue.•..r F-1lr
NCDMS ID No. 96313
STAKE TOP LAYER
OF MATTING IN 6' TRENCH
(SEE MATTING DETAIL)
114 OF BEGIN HEAD OF RIFFLE INVERT
GLIDE ELEVATION AND STATION FLOODPLAIN
ENOTH UNDISTURBED
STONE BACKFILL � EARTH
1M OF RUN LENGTH 1 O U� �
LhDE I ( COMPACTED
. O _ ONSITE SOIL (TVP)
PROFILE A - A'
H - STEP HEIGHT
TAIL OF RIFFLE INVERT
TION AND STATION
OF BANK I BANIffULL STAGE
EROSION CONTROL MATTING
ENCOMPASSES UFT
UVE BRANCH CUTTINGS (SEE
PUNTING PLAN FOR SPECIES)
60( WELL GRADED MIX OF CUSS B
AND CUSS A STONE CAN BE
SUBSTITUTED FOR BRUSH MATERIAL
BASEFLOW
BRUSH CAN BE LIMBS, BRANCHES, ROOTS OR ANY OTHER J
WOODY VEGETATION APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER.
NOTES'
1. WHEN GEOUFTS ARE BUILT ABOVE ROOTWAD CLUSTER USE LARGE STONE BACKFILL BEHIND ROOT MASS TO BUILT FOUNDATION.
ROCK STEP POOL CHANNEL
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC
STONE BACKFILL �
PROFILE VIEW A -A'
VARIES IV -1 TO 2Vd' _
p
?4 Y
".•_TING GROUND
LARGE STONE
POOL CROSS SECTION B -B'
BRUSH TOE APPROX. 1 FT
BELOW FINISHED
BED ELEVATION
m VARIES 15%0' TO 20 -0 -
NOTES
1. BOULDERS MUST BE AT LEAST 7 X 2' X T AND NOT EXCEED W X T X Y.
2. fOOTERS SHALL BE INSTALLED SUCH THAT 114 TO 113 OF THE LENGTH IS DOWNSTREAM
OF THE HEADER.
3. SOK. SHALL BE WELL COMPACTED AROUND SVRIED PORTION OF FOOTERS WITH BUCKET
OF TRACK HOE.
4. INSTALL COIR FIBER MATTING UNDERNEATH FOOTER BOULDERS.
5. UNDERCUT POOL BED ELEVATION a INCHES TO ALLOW FOR LAYER OF STONE.
B. INSTALL COIR FIBER MATTING ALONG COMPLETED BANKS SUCH THAT THE GEOTEXTI E
FABRIC AT THE TOE OF THE BANK EXTENDS DOWN TO THE UNDERCUT ELEVATION.
7. INSTALL LARGE STONE BACKFILL ALONG SIDE SLOPES.
8. FINAL CHANNEL BED SHAPE SHOULD BE ROUNDED, COMPACTED, AND CONCAVE, WITH THE
ELEVATION OF THE BED APPROXIMATELY 0.5 FT DEEPER IN THE CENTER THAN AT THE EDGES.
9. STEP HEIGHT (H) SWILL NOT EXCEED 0.8 FT.
10. MINIMUM POOL DEPTH (D) SHALL BE NO LESS THAN 1.7 FT.
11. IN GENERAL, POOL TO POOL SPACING SHALL BE NO LESS THAN B FT AND NO GREATER THAN
37 FT BASED ON EXISTING CONDITIONS SUCH AS SLOPE AND SUITABLE FILL MATERIAL
CONSTRUCTED RIFFLES MAY BE SUBSTITUTED IN AREAS WHERE EXISTING SLOPES EXCEED
10%AS DETERMINED IN THE FIELD BY THE CONTRACTOR AND ENGINEER.
GROUND

+/
+
/
! I
I
X s3
_ —/ - - — AS-BUILTTHAL_
---
\\
x x �,
ILQM PRO1ER WEA@IGE No. 1 SHEET NO.
AS -BUILT SURVEY PREPARED BY:
LEVEL CROSS SURVEYING, PLLC • Randleman, N.C.
140048 3wlo>Ecr
�VGINEER
RECORD DRAWINGS
This record drawing has been prepared in part,based upon
�� ''
r,.•`�" cit
i
information furnished by others. While this information is
believed to be reliable, the Engineer cannot assure its accuracy,
_ ; APPROVED BY:
2 3
and this is not responsible for the accuracy of this record
drawing or for any errors or omissions which may have been
incorporated into it as a result. Those relying on this record
document are advised to Main independent verification of
DATE:
its accuracy before applying for any purpose.
_--ole #1
I hs.1 MW Enpinar,.qy Inc.
3 11 P•ne.M. SN -
- • • rFC"a. h0PIW.6�!l0-2I 4
INTERN ATIONALL=.Tl.
NCDMS ID NO. 96313
/
! I
I
X s3
_ —/ - - — AS-BUILTTHAL_
---
\\
x x �,
\ \ \\\�\�\ \.\ _-
- - A&BIftL��TOPMBAAIVK
--�
_--ole #1
STEP POOL
c`
BROWNS SUMMIT
AS BUILT PLAN VIEW
20 0 20 40
SCALE (FT)
c`
BROWNS SUMMIT
AS BUILT PLAN VIEW
20 0 20 40
SCALE (FT)

AS -BUILT SURVEY PREPARED BY:
LEVEL CROSS SURVEYING, PLLC -Randleman, N.C.

MATCH LINE - SHEET 4
AS -BUILT SURVEY PREPARED BY:
LEVEL CROSS SURVEYING, PLLC - Randleman, N.C.
RECORD DRAWINGS
This record drawing has been prepared in part, based upon
information furnished by others. While this information is
bekwed to be reliable, the Engineer cannot assure its accuracy,
and this is not responsible for the accuracy of this record
drawing or for any errors or omissions which may have been
incorporated Into it as a result Those relying on this record
document are advised to obtain independent verification of
Its accuracy before applying for any purpose.
Mq T
Sy
EFT
Ikzl1, 6
I 41A��----
� � �lli lj�hlrfJt/�! rlltllrri� --
Hrlif l rly�
,f�i/il/(111/llf

e
�MEN
AS -BUILT SURVEY PREPARED BY:
LEVEL CROSS SURVEYING, PLLC - Randleman, N.0
RECORD DRAWINGS ,.�` o't% j•
This record drawing has been prepared in part, based upon
information fumished by others. While this information is APPRo
believed to be reliable, the Engineer cannot assure its accuracy,
and this is not responsible for the accuracy of this record E* f q .
drawing or for any errors or omissions which may have been
incorporated into it as a result. Those relying on fhls record %�Iwrw1• n,
document are advised to obtain independent verification of
its accuracy before applying for any purpose.
Ald."B_E
W
W IYPno/ P—
C_ MONTH CMO
• Fvn�.111.M15W1
NAD 83
_ INTERNATIONALik...r•.ca,
NCDMS ID NO. 96;
- --- --
--- --795----- -'-�~' /
—_--
tV _
_ ''`_ __--� � __ _ —� moi• _ -. _._
—__--- �—_—__.___ --- —
_ -- _---- �� END REACH- A. a�92.84 �— __ --
------ _END EACH 4 - STA.2$ 31.93
_ — --_—_ --- -- BEGIN -REACH 3 UPPER
\`--------------- -x---
,� _ 790—--
X.
r / / 20?k
m _
--— — — — — — — — — —
x ^�� � Q / AS-BUOTHALWEG y -- Yi'��� `J-HOOKVAN'E�1YP)-___------ --
(y1 -'— -� _ — ♦ �� \`�=�—�.� —,..i' �, � �/ i� f �` � , �`` jr � X � — i' � tom— '9
Od
22
1'y
3 \ \
`\FLO*6A E#2� \\
-BUILT TOP OF BAN P.
x \\ I/-- —a AL_� Rf]Ei_f jt (� f C-- ♦ _ _ _Jia � � � — — dim
AS-t3UILT WE
Moflz
—x __
X_x
x—�=� x---_ _
x—x---x x-- x \ \ — / • /
x --x
x X ^ x x_____x---x—_._x�x

a
0
-- -- _
--- f — — ---- -----
-- -WGA PLOT
---�as—
~- tip-- ---
T THALWEd (TYP.)
-
REACH 3 i
-lam • !
ttlj 1 ` ' _ =_ �-- "3 cis
GEOLIFT WITH -
"114/0
I 1 1\ 'M ----- —
OG
1 i I r !
'01
co
-----
\ \ —I -� --- ENL UM'
—t3 CH its_ �� 'i�
-�� _TV
AS_-y-fA*,.f9tiANK 1-zV
VEG PLOT
AS-BUILT SURVEY PREPARED BY:
LEVEL CROSS SURVEYING, PLLC - Randleman, N.C.
RECORD DRAWINGS
This record drawing has been prepared in part, based upon
information furnished by others. M* ft information is
believed to be reliable, the Engineer cannot assure its accuracy,
and this is not responsible far the accuracy of flits record
drawing or for any errors or omissions whIch may have been
incorporated into it as a result Those relying on this record
document are advised to obtain independent verification of
its accuracy before applying for any purpose.
1 --
x
BROWNS SUMMIT
AS BUILT PLAN VIEM
20 0 20 4

Q
785
AS -BUILT SURVEY PREPARED BY;
LEVEL CROSS SURVEYING, PLLC - Randleman, N.C.
RECORD DRAWINGS
This record drawing has been prepared in part, based upon
information furnished by others. While this information is
believed to be reliable, the Engineer cannot assure its accuracy,
and this is not responsible for the accuracy of this record
drawing or for any errors or omissions which may have been
incorporated into it as a result Those retying on this record
document are advised to obtain independent verification of
its accuracy before applying for any purpose.
r S

AS -BUILT SURVEY PREPARED BY:
LEVEL CROSS SURVEYING, PLLC - Randleman, N.C. k
RECORD DMNGS
�D � `_� This record drawing has beeneenprepared in paA,based upon
information furnished by others. M& this information is
believed to be reliable, the Engineer cannot assure Its accuracy, X
and this is not responsible for the accuracy of this record
drawing or for any errors or omissions which may have been
I— rated if. itIL Th this A
mak_
k
Ir—INV.;
D
rpo as a Mu ose relying on reco _ 9. )
docurnent are advised to obtain independent verification of
its accuracy before applying for any purpose. _
m
k_k /k RE CF
-w�a- — AS -BUILT TOP OF @ANK (fYP.) e—``�k✓
X_Qn AS -B ILT WETLAN (TYP.)
Z 1 ,_ -
LOG
INLETGPRO PiP00
_ 1
ILT THAL
0
J -HO(
END R
1 + Ir END REAC
BEGIN REACH 2 UPPER
VEG PLOT-—
Jilo
/`.i''---
__}} /
,'REACH 2241+70�'
/ // _/! /i i / 9�t► //tom �/ ��' — /•.
IN REACH T2 i
;TA. 10+00.00
/ C
U)
m
m
1iI
I� II p
i
! �1
1
GEOLIFT WITH
BRUSH TOE (TYP.)
BAKER PROJECT REFERENCE NO. I SHEET NO.
FROXCr p4CAMEER
,IICI.R/
a '
APPROVED BY:
114
DATE
merilm MIN® locir,l B,YM EnRlnwfl� Ino.
�
c.r. IaRm colour :nn
hpnw 0�0.tl15W
INTERNAI10MAL :riw
NCDMS ID NO. 96313
BROWNS SUMMIT
A& -BUILT PLAN MEW
20 0 20 40
■ ■� �011111111111111
SCALE (FT)

or 1
wmt ntatcT esrelnrcE No. ar�Er No.
N AS -BUILT SURVEY PREPARED BY: 1 MmmcT P4mm 10
N LEVEL CROSS SURVEYING, PLLC - Randleman, N.C.
RECORD
This record drawing has been rpepared 'm part, based upon me Y
Rdormabon fumished by others. While this h* maton is i APPROVED BY,
believed to be reliable, the Engineer cannot assure its acaxacy, z
and this IS not responsible for the accuracy of this fBCofd E'rGINtE�,•d;
drawing or for any errors or omissions which may have been r y�
incorporated into it as a result Those relying on this recordDATE:
doarnentare advised to obtain independent verification of 9•$q l�
its accuracy before applying for any purpose.
►r,r.rG�In
nn$ lM.
I an. •cors w,au•
res.• rxuu..a.ee
I N T E R N A T I O N A L ru`e,,..•'•i�r.',a°i.
k I K&D 63NCDMS ID NO. 96313
—GEOLIt=T WITH k
BRUSH TOE (TYP.)
AS -BUILT WETLAND "P.) k\\�
7
;.A
LOG ROLLER (TYP.)
AS BUILT TOP OF BANK (TYP.) AS -BUILT
N `\h � � REACH 2 X` x— ETI AND (TYP.
,m -
\ END REACH T - STA 11 +44 9= J- Hook VANE
1 - STA. 51+529
r � G PLOT
3(\ x AS -BUILT THALWEG (TYP.) END REACH 2 L ER yr T65
BEGIN R CHI _
STAN +00,00 .—
* x� S1+0
�5>
' �k 1
�Y
r - IN uj
LO PRO ION a
Z
6STRUCTURES OMITTED AN
END REACH 2 UPPER FLOW GAUGE Q
DITCH PLUGGED DURING IN L
n OW
CONSTRUCTION STA. 49+65.28
a I
AS -BUILT WETLAND (TYP.)
r
Li 6 WEIR
n x REAL
c
c X I'aI OT
Y
a
a
c 4.
o x �
l'
E
E �
n BROWNS SUMMIT
C. BEGIN REACH T1 AS—BUILT PLAN FMW
0 10+00.00
r
\ io 0 20 40
9
r
s
SCALE (Fr)

s V
h
BAKER PROJECT REFERENCE NO, I SKEET NI
140048 11
e AS -BUILT SURVEY PREPARED BY: PROJECT )ENGINEER
LEVEL CROSS SURVEYING, PLLC . Randleman, N.C.
RECORD DRAWINGS.,
This record drawing has been prepared in part, based upon
NAD 83 information furnished by others. While this information is ,= APPROVED B�
believed to be reliable, the Engineer cannot assure its accuracy, t.y 3 '
and this is notresponsible forthe accuracy ofthis record'y, fNGInt��
drawing or for any errors or omissions which may have been a;�Ek .i
incorporated into it as a result. Those relying on this record ° g� DATE.
document are advised to obtain independent verification of
its accuracy before applying for arty purpose.
NlcMal Bahr Enpinnr
!OW 0.pMp OaMe/. 6W i
Cwv. M00.TM C.WOINu :rS.
ra b]S°a
X�—..
---+�a IN T E R N A T 10 N A L`
X
��x NCDMS NO. 96313
TLAND (TYP.)
EACH 1;
-�r
G TYRE Y,�� yr LoVAN(TYP
W3 AS -BUILT TOP ---' /
p 1
+ __ -'�-
r� -*/ >Y � � — Yr' y, �, SOK TE (TM*r yr s O� I- / - ` ` y`A
4k \ 1
5Al I
-*A- y, yr yr vE
PLOT 7,
00
-----
f \ J 1 )v - 1 1
itA
4 / l \
Sr )_
LIJ- --- -
Cl) - - RUSHJOE-(TYP.)
^>i tet; \
LU yr y INSTALL ROY.ER (rjP.)
J Jr � //� � � �' Jr Yr � y' � � // Y' Y' Y' � � 1 moi- ! - `tee �,, -- '_ �� I \ ��t. \ �•� \ \ \ � ' �
U
—
n\--.--------
S-WILT WETLANDjTYP:j
---------
y1 yr y Jl /�y�' �► �� //� //////pis _ -� L- ---- - ---- \�"� \ \ �\-------
Y�Y� X—X X—_% x
i
I BROWNS SUMMIT
AS -BUILT PLAN HEI

A"UILT SURVEY PREPARED BY:
LEVEL CROSS SURVEYING, PLLC - Randleman, N.C.
RECORD DRAWINGS
This record drawing has been prepared in part based upon
nformation furnished by otters. While this information is
believed to be reliable,ft Engineer cannot assure its accuracy,
and this is not responsible for the accuracy of this record
drawing or for any errors or omissions which may have been
incorporated into Ras a result Those retying on this record
document are advised to obtain independent verification of
its accuracy before applying for any purpose.
t4At4A3 -tom
THALWEG (TYP.)
AS -WILT WETLAND (TYP.)
`\ x _ \ '
r;LOI� ROLLER (TYP.) \ \ `
-- I
REACH 1
GRADE CONTR-OC',� --" -- /
6 b1\\ LOG JAM (TYP.)
17
�,,y,y�
1M0*7
VEG PLT�
#14
BAl !LT RAW (ng')" -*V. 7GEOLFTWITH5� /
VRU)
SH TOE ffYP 756.57
YMVVft \ 1
END fit 1 \
STA. 63+89.8
AI!�-PP.)Y
1
ICY 2Y %W
x -x J x
AS -BUILT WETLAND (TYP.)
I
—X
CMP
756.70
.757.14
N!vl -i/
l
HA2
A"UILT SURVEY PREPARED BY:
LEVEL CROSS SURVEYING, PLLC - Randleman, N.C.
RECORD DRAWINGS
This record drawing has been prepared in part based upon
nformation furnished by otters. While this information is
believed to be reliable,ft Engineer cannot assure its accuracy,
and this is not responsible for the accuracy of this record
drawing or for any errors or omissions which may have been
incorporated into Ras a result Those retying on this record
document are advised to obtain independent verification of
its accuracy before applying for any purpose.
t4At4A3 -tom
THALWEG (TYP.)
AS -WILT WETLAND (TYP.)
`\ x _ \ '
r;LOI� ROLLER (TYP.) \ \ `
-- I
REACH 1
GRADE CONTR-OC',� --" -- /
6 b1\\ LOG JAM (TYP.)
17
�,,y,y�
1M0*7
VEG PLT�
#14
BAl !LT RAW (ng')" -*V. 7GEOLFTWITH5� /
VRU)
SH TOE ffYP 756.57
YMVVft \ 1
END fit 1 \
STA. 63+89.8
AI!�-PP.)Y
1
ICY 2Y %W
x -x J x
AS -BUILT WETLAND (TYP.)
I
—X
CMP
756.70
.757.14

+----
1
— >-----777f
} '
I '
H. 4 ,m ���
i
_ _
.�
_ 1
t
- - {
!
_ : _ :.
LEVE! CROSS ; PLLG -R _,
1 14
i I
faO1Kt ENGMIEa
,
790
i
I
1 I
:
_ . .. _ - ..._ .
:.. -. __�_ .
r�1
T
-_ - - - 1
4
� �-�bl:'�a�u�w�s ,�
, • APPROVED BY:
..
-
,.
A 64 OI[Gj�WD� bft
gS F9$11 Ti106! IB RD 011 mod
432
r fy�Mfjrl
-. - - l�
._:�
rrontereallrm4d Eo obieifl;.h1dIdQnF ,
YYa�;:
'`:•�-�,..•}..;.
�
�
._
� . _ _,. ._ ._ . � _
- _ ` _ —_ —_
- - - _ - -
�.i:
—
�— ; _.®. _ _.
4_f
i 6wwe..:.r . 'aDohiltQ I to
DATE
i
I {
� �
� �
� ...
_-_- : ' .__. _.. _.._ . - , _ _. __.....,... _
._-� �...�s.y
ri••,.,-�
.. r}':'� .1'�.�fFl��
-Cl'�1r'.K ., ._
1 «y �•1'•,�«.�r-L.-.+-:�n� j
_ _WAhed
�
•OOOIMMMNOtEOskWOAM 1116.
780 "
•
_
1
_ {
'
1,
t
i
4 4
1NTEANAT10NALIs.„.i'�io�i�6
EEP ID No. 96313
- '
770 I
_ _.. `_._.-.-.
.._.--•-
(
--._._
_-'--'r * r -^-
r
_.-_._J__-•-•---t—_
r t
I
f'
,
.. y.-. _ ._ _ ..
, . , _:.::_.r_ 1. _ .--
'r—t1--
f
t
-
-`'--�---"- .t'__.__ _.,
',•--
770
i
(: _
_ AM
IR
{
71
1,
!_mo1
27+00 28+00
29+00 3-.•0+,
0y{3t
1:+_.-_
Lf A
,.,,:tt�
-_:.I�-
�.-
.�,.
..!-.
-. _
-
Ll lE
1LrL
Lr;,f•
780
0780
�:�:r
-•—._-
+_L..tt:,
__`_._
_.._.«.._.__.�
-
.�__.'-':..._.'�.:.-__--,
:I,r
.:
.
l-,r
iI,_r-
+-
-{�
_.
..--.:,..'.
77-
_rt------
'
..+,
:._
f«•
Lk
-
'.'#� --,=z-_' -
�-
•
.
_�..__ -.
r•
:i i_
-_..r_.-y.
.t._
'.,_.-
t♦I1
..
`f
��1
--.-}_-•:-
"._
.:
-
-•`
7770 70
.
j
.:,.},
._.
__:__-!-..
..
....
_om-._V:.-rrr`
- .
-.3:r_t
_.
__.._.
....�__._,.t
,,
.a--_.
r�,
._f'Iit
.-,?.._.}1E�:i:
-1t:• _,It1
1-_
tf
.,L•
_-_-_.__.�1i.-I
J1-
}I0
..
:-:�.
.
}ttiI{IrI�
:,_.
T
:,i
.a;:.I
'_�_.
i{
i
.A
i.
I__
i-
_
760760
_.
,a...-...._,._;
T1-
_-
._..
-- --_f-
•'('� -:.._'_i,
-0
_-
i.`:
-
It
32+00 33+00 34+00 35+00 36+00
.-_,�.
,._..i,.,i.
. .
,r
�..
:.
fl*,f
:
T �-780
�-T-._-.:
_-.�--.
-'1iI.1`
}_.i.
,1.•i��7
;jt
..':.
,l
-__-:.-
j•.. _1_
:,1,
•1::,
�tr
�_•
I
-
,i
_-Ii,A
I�
j�L.
.�
-
8..
.+,Ji
.-..._•,..II
--- .
-
I,
,..::
I
.,tt
ziIr
�-___:.
_.:-
_0.�_.'
_1
....:,._�:.:
._---: '
._ •� ...._� _ � .
':�.__.. . . �rIi
_.
.,j
---_.-..-
,.
.y,.__�..._.'
7700770
-i
ll.�.1:t
-....
om._._
-._r:,,_ �'__-__._��t
"-__..,....t.-
._.�._:.
:r..
_�...
.:
._
_"r__'JI
__
-_. - .L,.-:,,-...__..,__.
'r. -
..
-.
�:
-_
t1Ii-•i.4'-3Vi
.rI.
_. _�
•._:.;_�
-
'''
11,
.:
._.r
.i:_-
�'_
r_:_
:... , -
-.
,.UA
1-- -r
..
ir
��• }1:-
{
1iI
♦y
--
,-om_--.__..I.-
I.:.
.__.-,:
..._�i.-.-__
r:-_-.-._te_�..�
-_'.
I_
-
.. i r. .. j. . .; r : ,
-_ -_.-_..._
_.'r..',��
:--._._.
_..:.
__
_.-�:.__-:�
: i �
'•
760760
_
_r_ , I �� i - tl � - - '•.:'t -__ i Lt-
�c�sr
I r it._- _. _ _ ._:_ - ' �_-_ . - +-1 }.. .. ` ' r -. - .__---±._- _r"_, '- t f_ _'i -{'- - '_ --.. _ .' .L:. 11 -._ _ _._. _. .._-___-__� r- }-I_ _
_ -_. 1
- le. a
j t _L • _.:.. .. r_
7,
tttt71 ,
_ :.:. - � , , ...,. t . : ... I_. I . , l . ,._ .: . 1 :: : .:.'- _ . '..- 9 � ,.. 7.., }.. f 4 - 1 { I 1 ,�: •--j'L�r-+-�
;
_,_�T-{
750 L �� . ( 1 —h .: .. , , 750
37+00 38+00 39+00 40+00 41+00 42+00

W
i
'.J1111� ..1. :JI' - ll'�._iL■LL ' i ' � LLL..
Michael Baker
i
c
1
1
/1
11
11Mill"
11
i aSRYwww
MT Z.
�w■Y
wW
■
■
•
w�
r
r
1
!
1
_
�
V�"��RRWI�R•w�
-�
■� RRW
W
w
YWW■■
®
•w
-��'�r,.9�C�y���.7=-'c_'-___._
l�:w■�li�lw
.owra�YW�■�■.��-__-w■■■•!•W■���
® T■a_ 'MY•aw■•tw�lY■a�,■■w�®�'�3
■r�vv�� A�����y�A�.Mw�W1
�' �.w.�_l.■■■�4'MYN'O�Z�HtY
�O■Ww■.•w.•w■�1www�1lw� w■. �W�Ws
yWy�Y
R
-_ Vim. �11■�i� ��; _
_ !fir+. L rew�m
•'
mltsl
�
i
� �
®�tiw� mmw<a
mr:.v..i �i ii
WIRM a
Y RYs
■•WRRw
• _Yw•Y•ww w
■�■■w
�s
�Y
1
ww•
w■YYw
■ w\
Y■wW� wW\Rw.W■
w.■OW.•R
WYwW
■ R
W■ ww.
O
'
!
�
W�■i® ��■■w �.■wYW
� W �� Yw■ ■Y.•11w1•� ■ 3O____R
■ R•
wiYw
iy�'��•��a�a��•
1 1
� 1 1
1 1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
MEN
mmm om mum 'n® �! mi ima ���!
i�r�a� � i maw m ms
w�1 omf[ o
■R..w� �
•a
W.� a ..■YYRR .��?9�0�Yw■
w. ■w■
W�■Re.w■'.
®■
�
�•
'
m®mm�om
Joest
s smtumr
mlf ®s�+e��oom
:
: mo
'
mmeo m� moa mttmsts�,
i
_..: a®m®�
� i
surto
a
mo:�mr»saoem
i ma®e'S
mo 0
m
.100'
i�
wY ■Wmi
� i �1t�
01.
i
w•WRw
ww, R•YRRY■•wRi■wRRWwO■.•W.R.■YY■OY
i�iH
.ww■�YwR■Y■ "- _ �L� "i..i.3St■Rw■
mii�S��%oe ��oi�ii
Ytl�Y
W
.YiwY•1•W■•YM■IwY..Y■ w.w•RRW. .�®RY
Ii iR�iw"ii��i �i■iww■mw�w�W
lw■■
R
3i
WWYR.O■YMIVIP�i■rl.wiiwwWw®z
�ww MwYw■0••.fRw1�YYYiWiLi��iLy].aOJa.
"!_L� MMYw•■
W.
: ■w�w�� ■.. _�..'
R� ■ww Yp
�r■�..
f •■■6�_Yw■■—Y��w��YR�wwwww�
Y
w■w■ww®■Y■Y■v
wq•■�■ ■ 1w�R■■
� �■MM■m■�tlw��•■
ft�•.�_'w.-S.
■.
wT� ._:�..riuw Rf■■■■G�SS�ww■ww■
■wf•.w�
w— E
_
wR
■■RYYYIW■
.�w■�w.'.■N■•
- r•r- a7Y•
_
tl�e
WW m
�ii,
-�.s■fi♦i��i
- _
a __
■ .
_—____ _I_ "
�
mom v
�wWwFfl�lll�w=
:
-��_. '--+el■■.-- - -i'�w•�.��
� ® t�i� mai
_
�
oIi_ r
m�iiu�:.°���..•_��
IYNt�
�s
•
wRwW wo•wW:LINE,
•
°o�
�tt®ea0000nm
a gimme
m our
:w ms
m
� oomm our omgo em:eeemoesttattmeooME
r�__i�Y■■�p■iipw�■■�
omo�®g��a�og�■
o nomm
�___w
mo
:�m�v�o�mopoy�mo�om�®�moom�
��i'iGzi�iwii i. ii
aiii•w■:��
,eOEM
Iwwo•MSR•ww
_ _o■i7_
ME.owpg
M■■w■w■
__
w�
■w■R�wiw�w■ww■w.ww� �Www.■woawwww■o w.wwrw.w•■�RWa!gw�w.wwaww.ww.swrw�w.■rw•w■w.wwW■�e
__
g 11
6
11
11
11
11
11

770
:._._..
I
-___i
,
-- ,
-
_.
I
- _ '
ruaC
BAKER FROM= REPER54M NO. RRET NO.
�6
_
. - , _--
- -
E NC,
- -
PROJECT 84UNEER
---
.
-T
r
;.
_
t—,
� -
-
: {
-r
1
podpirwtl is ppb bp t
r
-
APPROVED BY:
760
�
.:d....
,�.-.y.�_�"
:..
_ `r -_"- _
TOP
DATE:
-�+•+-..r.
;
, ,
:
�
1
I ... �. .,�.-
_e _
r:'eT
1,-.�,�,..w,,,_
I
,
I
88r Ep 1-v
_._
_
:. ♦..
_-�
-i.
-<
750
.. I I}
..
� ..
1
Il
INTERNATIONAL
EEP ID No. 98313
k.
f
-
,
-.,
r
r:
740
740
59+00
60+00 61+00 62+00 63+00
770
`..
.,�f
- -.PRO
BAMIICF _
ff
t-
.., ..._._. t.....t. _. y._.._..._I _._
_:t .,; -.
•_..,_-._..:.:.
_._...
...,.
._�_
• . - ..:�'-
rt-_._'.,.`._ _ri
_.. '..-r ..
n
i
I
t �=.
,
y
760
it
T .� �__.�r._
,--_-;
_ —
L:
-
._-
+— ,k_.I..
__,—•.•_} __
•_t---
_-
_-._•-�
1
-_T:.
_... �. ._. _ .r_.__
I
t
!.. :, r �-.. :....
.-.-t-.-+.._
- �.—^-f-,,
—
-
-
- I _
_
_
-
--
,+
I
-_�
T-
750
;..
.- __�. �:-�� __ r ,--
I ,;
_.
I , _::
_.:.r_
, ,
� _ ; �;
i , _ ; . ; , :
1 r-. , t + r .T rr---
r
,:
E-11 -�
I ,�
=
-
—,
_i- i
-T- - �,
1
44
-
i
�
_�1----r-"r--F }—_`
y__r'-i-_
-�"'-t-
-
-----'.'E'-'I-"
.- Ste_!. •--.-t—T�
_ �_. ._..--i.__ _r_,. _-'-1_' -'_�
s rT-.'
'T�
_a_'_}-'. ---
_-Y"-'-"
- -
'T-
r_'. —
-L+__
740
tr
- =,,.
; -
790
,.(:.r
( , ,
_.. :_r ._ .., ,,i: ... I ,-, 1
(.
Irl. T
r .;
_l
i_i
,i (t I'f
_. .
..- ., :..
1.-
10+00 11+00 10+00 11+00
:.i -`j. t_ :
_
,. •. 1. { ,'-
.,t_.4 , :I.: E .,
._._{i_,_ _--,, ____
.;-4+::, .., ...,1 ,. .I. , .. ,.':. f .., .i ;.{ +t
_ : - -_ 1.
t. �,-.- f ,4
-:. .;, �, lis.; I ::
.. .7 :,.;. - .-1-.• t •_ 11-?, -- .., r
, 'j. :i. ,..,. t r-:_i.'f i ,. i
_1
.j: L. �. i j_
.-_:--f. ._ __,.._-.
� .._.__- _.-._. _.._._ , r . _..
_. «._.-_; ,�.._.� :�. T. --_ _`i`r--T "h._ `-t. }i _ :�._._T_�- +
t
•�r-- t - T- --7T
,.
LL
- -
1
80
, I
,
�__--...
�_.�
.�_
_
__' .._.._ _.Its• -:.ti ---k-.- «_.-:-;. --.-_ _.� ,_ .-3._1_._-•-r
.,I r � f , , �
.-. _ ._T :,_ _,.: _:__-r_. .:-_-k-r• �.-�__ -`_�'
{I , :-1 ...., 44 .. _ .r.`k-r-,►.T�
-' -.. .--- � I[� -.T_"' _ '_-}-- '-L�-�"_
"T" wy'wi.N• �I .: _. _� ,_ -1 _L. {..4- 'i
_P."_•- - i•-_
- _L-: 1-T. 1 _ -
+}-
...,
--_'-'_-.r_.--
,:__?
r' r.
1
-.
�'-
r �':_l�,i.._, ^f
y
� �
800
f - � ..
-. T-'
-,t-:,
♦ f.:. N ^t� ,r 1 +:' I I
_.:_-_
- I { � -
_ a
,
- F
:
y
..`_ t
-t
_t
,
r
I
r 1 I
t. ;; f ;,
,t at
790
790
I i -1- ,.1
— — —
fi,- T
,
_
t -
1..i�_
_ _ _1 _L+ -{}i.'1 -r. ?- -.j _ ' _--`t-'-j. _
-r +•._,-__ ... '.. �.. -_., _._ .._� __. _ -. _.1. .... _.1 _�_ d. __. _,_: ___ - ..l_ -�I-' r -r
,,. ,.,a -I ,1',. ,.- .. �. :_;.; .,.; I - I, :1' I f� Irl r-. 'f �,T -I l -,I •i -� rit 1 t
12+00 13+00 14+00 15+00

- r j—� t I — __
.. - _ 1
--- i4
it--,--. --7-
- - - - -
i
1- , , � .. � -t-- , '� :. . f'--•- t
�
-i
-
T
790
;! -I1 . Li, _. .;- . ..,. { ;:}..-:... t}1 -:', I .-,:.. �-;_.I._. -_-+ -•;.1't, _'-'..-.. --,-.TI_-„,t - i«,1 -. __l_,:i-__., _1 t �t lI ..s;.�: :_..,. . ,1f,C-
it
-77 ._
478U
71
- -1
A.
:- 'I -- _ (:�� ,Lt._ --_ . • 1
_i{, .
T-
-44
-
-
-
-.--
-
r r t— r 7 , _ _ , .: .: { , i C f . - + '' t-!� - _ - t:. .� � t
-_•_�- -- t 7770 �
-
-
r '
i r
,.
77-1!-.- 1 -+
-fi I {
Y_ _ _ -
fHt
:.r _
,
–
t _r t t
I
4 3 r -
I t
iT—- - -� - -
:
1 L1
_r
-Y - L'.
T -- —
_1 1
{t :
+ —t
1
_ �77 { -
r :
+
- - - }-
- -
'y 11 - t m _ - 17
Tj
.{ 1 p
C
t
— t
_
–
J
J
¢
t
,
i r
t
t
r
,
4
�
Y
s
r
_r_
:
-
,
m
I
.
}
a
I
t
;I
I :
i 'I , i 1
_
74
f -r; i-
1 , I {,
-�
L LL
I
,
i
+•-
[
r ...
�
_ _
: � _ 1 r..�-� _ J- .-t-i'
•-:: }._.:..
A . i I
�
f
_ �'.
- (�.
L ._'
_ _
i ;..-- _
_i-._..
1 _.
-
fHt
:.r _
,
–
t _r t t
I
4 3 r -
I t
iT—- - -� - -
:
1 L1
_r
-Y - L'.
T -- —
_1 1
{t :
+ —t
1
_ �77 { -
r :
+
- - - }-
- -
'y 11 - t m _ - 17
Tj
.{ 1 p

MATCH LINE - STA. 23+00
'%%00111101"l,i�
fy.,
'� CE G0±OrWATION EASEMENT
• REEPR WITH CAP
O ENCTXlc IRON PIPE
3
TOPOGRAPHIC # A5-13UILT SURVEY
u1 JISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
GUILFORD COUNTY
NCDM5 ID NO. 96313
BAKER PROJECT NO. 140048
GUILFORD COUNTY, NC
MR GRAPH
D 2p ap' ap Iy0 160
I" -4O
SURVEY DATES: R'5FMIWY THROUGH SEREMBEA, 2017 Fil
im't r C..
•.OP06RAPtNC AND A5 -BUILT 511RVEY WA5 • •. V•• ••••.•
- DRAWN
UNDER MY "ItI 151ON ERAM AN ACTUAL SURVEY MADE
UNDER MY 5L'ffRVI51CN THE INFORMATION BEING 511OWN
HEREON. WITNFS MY ORIGINAL SIGNATURE, LICENSE NUMBER
AND SEAL 7M,5 300 DAY OP OCTOBER, 20:7.
l
ii�'�12o i'I
WWLUA)AA55... MWAM. 1-4
- t
NOTCS:
MMEIS"AL LAND SURVE{�R
SHOWN ARE HO TAL GROUND OISTANCL.
/�U5.
i/SAE
I = NI�1i•� sugnml mw
IN U.S. `1JRYEY PEET. N
5J M H
OOIWINMn MFTNODA
2. A:L 4REAS 6RE BY TI1F GOORDSNATc METtOD.
PO Bw 9"
3. iX6 SURVEY PBiPORMEp OAD MPP'REEgflm MTNdJT TME
ubert y NC
'��` Y
BEW.NT O' A TRIE RPRMT. TXIS 5LR 6 SUWI
PL. (WE) 40-1718
TO ANY PACTS AND � lMXG1, MAY BE 05CLOIJ p
BY A RAL AND ACCURATE TRIP SEARLX.
'%%00111101"l,i�
fy.,
'� CE G0±OrWATION EASEMENT
• REEPR WITH CAP
O ENCTXlc IRON PIPE
3
TOPOGRAPHIC # A5-13UILT SURVEY
u1 JISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
GUILFORD COUNTY
NCDM5 ID NO. 96313
BAKER PROJECT NO. 140048
GUILFORD COUNTY, NC
MR GRAPH
D 2p ap' ap Iy0 160
I" -4O
SURVEY DATES: R'5FMIWY THROUGH SEREMBEA, 2017 Fil
im't r C..

0
0
m
N
a
F-
N
Lu
z
T-
U
H
a
UM Q= SUMM, MW
po BOX 929
uww t), Pi 97A96
Pb. [phone]
NOTE5
1. ALL DMA.RCES 5FO- ARE NORX) . GROUND D19TANCES
IN U 5. S.— RET. "R 5 OTNER'MSE STATED)
2. ALL A AR[ I THE COORL:a1ATE METHOD.
.3. TI1I5 5NRVEr P°R Kw) AND MAP FRBARD wRNOUT iM:
—El OF A TIM RE" (RE TINS 910-15 5UBRCT
TO — FACT5 AO mptmETR5 WMCN NAY B! Q ad m
DY A FULL AND AGC IRATE TITLE SFARGN.
GCOURT.T 6IiIJ511 TOE
0
Ln
0
m
Q
N
Lu
z
v
ti
a
TOPOGRAPHIC b A5 -BUILT 5URVEY
DIV15ION OF MITIGATION 5ERVICE5
GUILFORD COUNTY
NCDM5 ID NO. 96313
BAKER PROJECT NO. 140048
GUILFORDqq��C��ONTY, NC
��Uyyyy
0 2(Y AO' � I XY 160
I°-40
5URVEY DATE5: FEDRUARY THROUGH 5EFTEMBER. 2017 2
P' y
I, WILLIAM 5. DURHAM, .IR, "MMY CERDPY THAT T N:5
TOP06RAFl11C AND A5-MXLr 5vRv[Y WA5 DP.AWN
CON3EKVATiOA EASEMENT
UNDER MY 5UPERV' FROM AN ACTUAL 5URVLY MAD!
UNDER MY 5UPERVISY)N. TNF INFORMATION BEING WOVN
! !11111/1/��
+AEON. wTfNED5 MY ORIGINAL SIGNATURE, LICEN5! NUMBER
ANO SEAL TMI5 30th DAY OP CCTODER, 2017.
`��� OARp %.
et�64s
EENcE
STI:
p�6�Ly l; �
O xcR0555EGT10N
A�.G'
'wIWAM 5. DURIMM. L-051
MOFE55/ONAL LAND SURVEYOR
CON5ERVATION MENIENT
✓, //1111`
• REDAR.I CAP
O DR5TMG IRON RIFE
0
Ln
0
m
Q
N
Lu
z
v
ti
a
TOPOGRAPHIC b A5 -BUILT 5URVEY
DIV15ION OF MITIGATION 5ERVICE5
GUILFORD COUNTY
NCDM5 ID NO. 96313
BAKER PROJECT NO. 140048
GUILFORDqq��C��ONTY, NC
��Uyyyy
0 2(Y AO' � I XY 160
I°-40
5URVEY DATE5: FEDRUARY THROUGH 5EFTEMBER. 2017 2

LFGENO
MONRGWNG WELL
Q. PICTURE eolw
ROCK J-IDOK
I►1111 ••
LOG VANE
�
LOG v+EIR
I, WIWAM 5. OURHAM, JR., HERE®! CERTFY THAT TTS
coNSTRucTeD wrrLE
LEM
ROCK STEP SOL
a
GEOUET WITH BRUSH TOE
• — • — • — coN5MATIOk EASEJAtM
PftJCF
x-1 - cRosS secnoN
0
cE CONSERVATION EASEMENT
• REBAR WITH CA➢
O Ex15TING IRON PIPE
0
d
w
z
J
U
Q
g
I, WIWAM 5. OURHAM, JR., HERE®! CERTFY THAT TTS
TOPOGRAPHIC 4 A5 -BUILT 5URVEY
-
TOPOGWHIC AND A5-5UV 5URVEY WA5 MAWR
UNDER MY5UPERv150NMOM ANAMALMMEYMADE
DIV15ION OF MITIGATION 5ERVICE5
UNDER MY 5IIPERVI51011.»TE INPORMATION mmG 9fICNM
HEREON. WITNE59 MY ORIGINAL 3'GNATI.'RE, UCFtbf NUMBER
,.,,��,,,
.?'w,.•••. O(��4
;a OfYs-As��'-,%'
AND 5EAL T1115 30th DAY Of OCTOBER, 201']_
;
_Z;i "-' `�
GUILFORD COUNTY
�,� ,, ,,�s`I
NCDMS ID NO. 96313
"Q
-SW(U.IN�t9. oHR�AM,.�:. - dol
%+y �'
9AA�fa.p
BAKER PROJECT NO. 140048
PROFESSIONAL LAND 5URVEYOR
ITTAA```
NOTES:
GUILF=ORD COUNTY, NC
GB I A MTAN5tDVR1 ARE HORVONTAL GROUND MSTANQ-5
��'E7�
�s=�P i
9URVPV
M U.S. RET. (UN ORIEfOMISE 9TATM
BAR GRAPH
2. ALL A18N' ARE W THE COORMAll NCh(00,
U 20 40 8a 20 60
PO Boz m
3 TH19 SURVEY PVMft1ED AND NW PREPARED WTfHOUT 'HE
BENEM OE A TRIP: M PORT. THO SUR 19 St B T
I.,- 40'
PL- (m) 4M-1713
TO A FALTS AND F49WA1 W Oh 60" BE Df3CLA5EO
BY A NLL AND ACCLAAW TME S pP
SURVEY WEB: FEBRUARY
THROUGH BEPfEMBEIt, 2017

0
0
Q
N
lu
z
U
H
a
UM CBM SURRIME PLIX
PO am m
ICY. UC 272"
Ph. (8.78)488-1718
NOT E5
ALL DISTANCES 5"- — HORROMAL GROUEID D151ANCES
INU.5. SUR R - 1UNIE55 O'IRRWIft 5TATEEt7
2, All. ARPA5 AU BY TM COORpNATE MET�.
3. THIS SURVEY FBNOIb�EO AIO MAP PI@EAR81 WBH T *NE
TO A Y A A AM kB'ORf. TM5 9.IRVEY IS Dr MSTT
TO ANY AI Apo 5i5T! B M '•M11LH MAY BE OIBQ.OBED
ar A nAL AIV au;uRAre rrrEE sFARcn.
I. W tUAM 5. DURHAM, JR.. -1EREBY CERTIFY THAT TN15
TOFOGRAFMC AND A5 -MKT 5URVEY'WAS DRAWN
'WOER Ott' SUFBEVIVON FROM AN ACTUAL 5URVEY MADE
L'NjIER MY 5EIFERVS:ON, THE INFORMATION BANG SHOWN
1'EREON. VATME5.5 MY ORIGIW,L 7*;NATURE, JCEN5E NUMBER
AND 5EAL TH5 30ch DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017.
AA). • (D- —1-7
W WAM 5. ouRHAM, JR. I
FROM55IONAL LAND SUR \
ROCK 5T' IVOL
GEOUFT Y BRUSH tat
TOPOGRAPHIC 4 A5-5UILT SURVEY
DIVISION OF MITIGATION 5ERVICE5
GUILFORD COUNTY
NCDM5 ID NO. 963 13
BAKER PROJECT NO. 140048
GUILFORD COUNTY, NC
BAR QW1
O 20 40 w 120 IC/J
1•=40'
5URVEY OATE5: FEB"RY THROUGH 5EMMM, 2017 4
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
4YOeONO��'�J
. o SEK
6- 1
L 4t> (4 •;,''
_
O k -0 CR055 SEGTICN
�!l111111\\�
CE CON5ERVATION E15EMENT
• uw WRN CAF ..
O mT.G EOJN FIFE
TOPOGRAPHIC 4 A5-5UILT SURVEY
DIVISION OF MITIGATION 5ERVICE5
GUILFORD COUNTY
NCDM5 ID NO. 963 13
BAKER PROJECT NO. 140048
GUILFORD COUNTY, NC
BAR QW1
O 20 40 w 120 IC/J
1•=40'
5URVEY OATE5: FEB"RY THROUGH 5EMMM, 2017 4

APPENDIX E
Photo Log

Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project — Vegetation Plot Photo Stations
Photos take March 22, 2017
Vegetation Plot 1
Vegetation Plot 2
Vegetation Plot 3
Vegetation Plot 4
Vegetation Plot 5
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96313)
Vegetation Plot 6

VA.

Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project — Vegetation Plot Photo Stations
Photos take March 22, 2017
Vegetation Plot 13
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96313)
Vegetation Plot 14

Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project — Longitudinal Stream Photo Stations
Photo Point 1 — Station 63+75, Reach 1 Photo Point 2 — Station 61+50, Reach 1
Photo Point 3 — Station 58+75, Reach 1
Photo Point 4 — Station 57+85, Reach 1
Photo Point 5 — Station 56+75, Reach 1
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO 96313)
Photo Point 6 — Station 55+00, Reach 1

Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project — Longitudinal Stream Photo Stations
Photo Point 7 — Station 53+50, Reach 1 Photo Point 8 — Station 51+75, Reach 1
Photo Point 9 — Station 11+25, Reach T1
Photo Point 10 — Station 49+00, Reach 2
Photo Point 11 — Station 46+00, Reach 2
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO 96313)
Photo Point 12 — Station 44+75, Reach 2

Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project — Longitudinal Stream Photo Stations
Photo Point 13 — Station 43+75, Reach 2/Reach T2 Photo Point 14 — Station 42+25, Reach 3
Photo Point 15 — Station 41+50, Reach 3
Photo Point 16 — Station 36+25, Reach 3
Photo Point 17 — Station 36+00, Reach 3
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO 96313)
Photo Point 18 — Station 35+00, Reach 3

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

r • M.ar
y 4 4,
i
Y
r
Photo Point 30 — Station 19+50,
)JECT NO. 96313)
Reach
4
vqV
� Y .
Photo Point 30 — Station 19+50,
)JECT NO. 96313)
Reach
4

s`
r
VIP,
5}�a S3ti
liz NN.
s.' ♦ � �eom^f
:c f pv
y,
Photo Point 35 —
Station 15+00, Reach
6, BMP
Photo Point 36 — Station 14+50, Reach 6, E
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,
BASELINE MONITORING
REPORT
INC
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK
RESTORATION
PROJECT
(DMS
PROJECT
NO. 96313)

Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project — Longitudinal Stream Photo Stations
Photos take March 9, 2017 (All photos are viewing upstream)
Photo Point 37 — Station 11+90, Reach 6, BMP
Photo Point 39 — Station 15+00, Reach 5
Photo Point 38 — Station 10+50, Reach 6, BMP
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96313)

Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project — Hydrology Monitoring Stations
Photos take March 9, 2017
Wetland Well 1 — Reach 4, Station 25+00
Wetland Well 2 — Reach 2, Station 47+00
Wetland Well 3 — Reach 1, Station 52+00
Wetland Well 4 — Reach 1, Station 55+00
Wetland Well 5 — Reach 1, Station 58+00
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96313)
Wetland Well 6 — Reach 1, Station 61+00

Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project — Hydrology Monitoring Stations
Phntne tA-p Mnrrlh A InI'7
Wetland Well 7 — Reach 1, Station 63+50
Automated Flow Gauge 1 — Reach 4
Automated Flow Gauge 2 — Reach T3
Manual Crest Gauge — Reach 1, Left Bank
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO, 96313)
Automated Flow Gauge 3 — Reach T1

h, %.
McKeithan, Katie
From: Hughes, Andrea W CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2017 8:25 AM
To: Byers, Jake
Cc: Schaffer, Jeff; McKeithan, Katie; Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US); Browning, Kimberly D CIV
USARMY CESAW (US)
Subject: RE: Brown Summit Credit Change Memo SAW 2014-01642
Hi Jake,
I apologize for not getting back with you sooner. Yes, we reviewed the information and we are okay with the proposed
as -built stream credits.
Thanks for your patience.
Andrea
Andrea W. Hughes
Mitigation Project Manager
Regulatory Division, Wilmington District
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 107
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
Phone: [phone] x 59
-----Original Message -----
From: Byers, Jake [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2017 9:21 AM
To: Hughes, Andrea W CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <[e-mail]>
Cc: Schaffer, Jeff <[e-mail]>; McKeithan, Katie<Katie.McKeithan @mbakerintl.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Brown Summit Credit Change Memo SAW 2014-01642
Andrea,
Please find attached a memo describing the discrepancies between the mitigation plan stream footage/credits and the
as -built (MYO) stream footage/credits for the Brown Summit Creek Mitigation project. Please let me know if you have
any questions or I can provide any additional information.
Thanks for your consideration on this matter.
-Jake

a
Jacob "Jake" Byers, PE I NC Ecosystem Services Manager I Michael Baker Engineering, Inc., a unit of Michael Baker
International
797 Haywood Road, Suite 2011 Asheville, North Carolina 28806 1 [0] 828-412-61011 [M] 919-259-4814
[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> I Blockedwww.mbakerintl.com
<Blockedhttp://www.mbakerintl.com/>
<Blockedhttp://www.mbakerintl.com/>

1"
• K
Innovation Done Right ...We Make a Difference
INTERNATIONAL
November 2, 2017
Andrea Hughes
Mitigation Project Manager
Regulatory Division, Wilmington District
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 107
Wake Forest, NC 27587
Subject: Credit Revisions (Mitigation Plan Vs. As -built)
Browns Summit Creek Mitigation Project, Guilford County
Cape Fear Cataloging Unit 03030002
USACE AID SAW 2014-01642, DMS Project #96313
Dear Ms. Hughes:
As we discussed in our phone conversation on October 31st, discrepancies exist between the footage
provided in the approved mitigation plan and the footage that was surveyed along the centerline of the
stream channel during the as -built phase. These differences are minor (1-2 linear feet) on all reaches
except for Reach 1 and Reach 2 Downstream. The minor differences along the other reaches will be
disregarded and the creditable lengths will revert to the approved mitigation plan. The table below shows
the values for stream lengths, and credits for R1 and R2 Downstream (DS) as provided in the mitigation
plan and as determined from as -built survey of the stream centerline.
Mitigation
Plan
As -Built
AB -Mitigation
Plan
Reach
LF
Ratio
Credits
Reach
LF
Ratio
Credits
R1
1233
1:1
1233
R1
1290
1:1
1290
57
R2 DS
191
2.5:1
76
R2 DS
134
2.5:1
54
-22
Regarding R1, field conditions such as extremely wet soil caused variations in the constructed stream
centerline and top of banks as compared to what was shown in the mitigation plan. The surveyed stream
centerline can be seen on the attached figures. Stream top of bank and toe of bank/edge of channel lines
have also been added for reference. The surveyed centerline data was gathered at the best professional
judgement of the licensed surveyor. While I realize that the centerline along Reach R1 may not be
perfectly in the center in all locations, it is very close. The survey resulted in a stream length of 1,290 feet,
which is 57 feet longer than the length stated in the mitigation plan.
The centerline for Reach R2 DS was, coincidentally, 57 feet shorter in the surveyed as -built condition than
what was proposed in the mitigation plan. This discrepancy primarily comes from the fact that during the
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
LO.F oma _M KdiEelAet 2AurPORt MBAKERINTL.COM 8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600, Cary NC 27518
Office: 919.463.54881 Fax: [phone]

Innovation Done Right ...We Make a Difference
mitigation plan stage, the existing thalweg that was surveyed during the original project survey was used
as the alignment of this enhancement reach (no proposed alignment changes) which was in line with the
current methodology at the time. Since that time, the USACE, through NCDMS has issued further
guidance on calculating credit based on centerline lengths and finalized this guidance on 10/5/17. (See
Credit Reporting Memo, Todd Tugwell, 10/5/17). Based upon this recent methodology, the centerline of
the enhancement reach R2 DS was surveyed and drawn and this resulted in a shorter reach length than
what was stated in the mitigation plan.
Michael Baker proposes to utilize the numbers presented herein and derived from the as -built survey to
calculate the credits provided by this project at the baseline stage. Michael Baker also proposes to utilize
this memo and maps as a mitigation plan addenda if the IRT deems it necessary.
This memo and correspondence back from the USACE will be included in the baseline monitoring report
and serve as a record of this conversation.
If you have any questions concerning the mitigation units, please contact me at 828-412-6101.
Sincerely,
f
Jake Byers, PE
CC: Jeff Schaffer, DMS
Katie McKeithan, Michael Baker

AS -BUILT CENTERLINE
STA. 51+00.00'
STA. 49+65.28
51 X00
II
AS -BUILT TOP <
F A z 54 +0t

��,9\'
('dA1)NNV9 d0 dOl 1lino-Sv
N
3NMj31N3011If1B-8V es 3NIlN31N3O 111f18'SV
X00
�O
1aa�
rCJ
( dA -L) NNVEI d0 d0l iii 1E