20140332 Ver 1_Year 0 Monitoring Report 2017_20170915

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 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
n
�• This document was printed using 30% recycled paper.

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 per request.
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
F W. oma =L ,®SAUYPORT MBAKERINTL.COM 8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600, Cary NC 27518
Office: 919.463.5488 1 Fax: [phone]

Innovation Done Right ...We Make o Difference
6. Section 3.2.1, page 3-3: Clarify whether the replacement of the culvert at downstream end of Reach R1 is
considered a geomorphic upgrade. If so please emphasize the improvement.
Response. Additional text added per 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 ofR4 was called as intermittent.
R4, T1 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 per 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 T1, T2, T3 and T4.
Response. The table repeats starting at Parameters (it is actually in bold, but it is still a little difficult
to see), so there is a section for Reach R1 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 [e-mail].
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, Lt 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: "Storm water" has been removed from both places as requested. Also removed from 4.4's
first sentence, "This project includes the implementation of two stormwater BMPs" and second
sentence, "The Stormwater BMPs success..."
3. Section 1.1, 5th objective: same comment and #2 above.
Response: "Storm water" has been removed from S"' objective under 1.1.
4. Section 2.2, 5th objective: same comment and #2 above.
Response: "Storm water" has been removed from S"' objective under 2.2.
5. Section 3.2.10, 1 st sentence of paragraph 1: same comment and #2 above.
Response: "Stormwater" has been removed from 3.2.10's first sentence.
6. 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.
F W. ,®SALUP-QU MBAKERINTL.COM 8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600, Cary NC 27518
Office: 919.463.5488 1 Fax: [phone]

Innovation Done Right ...We Make o 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
5.1, so 1 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 559 if making the total if for Enhancement 11,528
(969+559). Make this change to the Enhancement I line in the component summation.
Response: Enhancement 1 summation has been added to the table per the revised table (R6 + T4 = 442 +
117 = 559 & R2 upstream + R3 downstream 614 + 352 = 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 Jake 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 Dane Right ...We Make o Difference
Browns Summit #M13
Revised Payment Schedule braced on 176 SMU Shortfall of Below Contmacted Amt
SMU3hattall
176
Cofftw
Un9Cost Redux
$335.06 &98:9W. 00
Task
Celiymble
Payment
original
Contract
51,997.504.40
Revved
Cur w
$1,939,540.00
Overage
Proposed
Schedule
1
Cat Ex
5%
$99.975.00
$95:927 OC
$2.948.00
$99.875.00
2
Coro Ease
20%
$399.500.04
SWT.709.00 ~11.792.06
$3N..504.00
3
Mit Plan
15%
$299.625.04
5296,781.00
$8.944.04
$299..625.00
4
Gradrg
15%
$299.625.00
5296,781.00
$8.944.00
$299:625.06
5
PlarrUng
10%
$199.750.00
8197,BY_ OC
$5,996.00
$199,754.00
sub-Tclal (hacks 1-5)
$
81,298.775.04
$1:26;:451.00
U.324.04
$1,2K.3T5.00
6
Baseline
10%
$199.750.00
5197.85-.00
299,625.00
$155534.00
7
MY 1
5%
$99.975.00
$96.92T.00
$10,100.25
$96.927.00
B
MY 2
2%
$79,950.04
$39.770.80
$
$7B.7T6.80
9
MY 3
2%
$79.950.00
$39.770.8,
$1,298,375.00
$38.70.m
10
MY 4
2%
$79,950.00
$38-776.80
$
$3B-7(6.86
11
MY 5
2%
$79,950.00
$M.770.W
7 MY 1
$3B.Tf6.W
12
MY 6
2%
$79.950.00
$39.770.80
$
$W 70X
13
IMY 7 1
1095
1 $199,750.04 I
5197.85-.00
38, 603.30
$193.85490
sut�Total (basks 7-13)
38, 603.30
$699.125.00
%79,489.00
$
sy-Q 165.00
$
Total
$ 1,346.70
51.997.566.00
$1.938.x96.66
10 MY 4
$1.938.546.06
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 Contract
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
'r$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 Dane Right ...We Make o 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 lake 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 6 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.McKeithan(@mbakerintl.com.
Sincerely,
Kathleen McKeithan, PE, CPESC, CPSWQ, CFM
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.

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 River 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:
I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L
Data Collection Period: February - March 2017
Submission Date: November 2017

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 RS 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
BMP MONITORING..........................................................................................................................................
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)

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 USAGE. 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)

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)

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 (RI, 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 log jams, 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 II 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
Rl, 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 II
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 T 1.
3.2.8 Reach T2 Enhancement
Work on 283 LF of Reach T2 involved an Enhancement Level II 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 RI 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 bankf ill 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)

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 (vl.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 22nd through November 13th) 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)

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)

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
R1 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)

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 r.
Conservation Easement
® NCDMS TLW
Note: Site is located within targeted local
watershed 0303002010020.
Guilford County
Owl -
GUILFORD
'-a
Figure 1
Site Location Project Vicinity Map
Browns Summit (DMS# 96313)
Z9 NCDEQ - Division
,baro • 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 i.Arm�
BMP, 1.5:1 + t
Wetland Mitigation Types
1 - "Functioning", 3:1 credit ratio
Reach T1 _`
_ 2 - Degraded, 1.5:1 credit ratio ; 5 .
- 3 - Partially Functioning, 1.5:1 credit ratio:+. .-
4 - Filled, 1:1 credit ratio
- 5 - Hydrologic Reestablishment, 3.5:1 ratio Reach R2 (lower)
,r
Reach R2 (upper) Reach T2
Reach R3 (lower)
,r.
� r
Reach R3 (upper) s
..�w:: `•I;," � nr� 1: _ lilt ? �
Reach T3
.. e
,L
Reach
'..'ir Jilin
14
Reach R6
Reach T4
Reach R5
N OneMap, N enter for Geo raphic Information and Analy i , NC
911 Board
0 250 500 1,000 Figure 2
Michael BakerRestoration Summary Map
I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L Feet Browns Summit Site
(DMS #96313)

'
/ROCKINGHAM
COUNTY
--__-_-_-_---_-_-_-_---'
| avvRiver | —'-------------
(
150
Haw River Buckhorn Creek
State Park
7D) 61
Project Location
GUILFORD
Reference Wetland
Reference Stream Reaches
Major Roads LIT to Reedy Fork
Minor Roads
L --J County Boundary
Geology
Carolina Slate Belt
Charlotte and Milton Belts
Reference Stream
Miles Locations Map
L-RINATIO MAL Browns Summit Site

Conservation Easement
® Flow Gauge
Monitoring Wells
A Photo Locations
0 Crest Gauge
Cross Sections
- Veg Plot Locations
Stream Centerline
Wetland Mitigation Types
1 - "Functioning", 3:1 credit ratio
2 - Degraded, 1.5:1 credit ratio
AS 3 - Partially Functioning, 1.5:1 credit ratio
W' 4 - Filled, 1:1 credit ratio
I N T E R N AT 1 0 N A L
N
z .x
s . X17
X16
r
V13.. �7
15
Reach R1
•P :.:; X ='
- ' wOA
" I
X14 _ .w ■ �;
V
X13 ■_ . t
MW3' �..
V
X12
Reach R2 (lower)
Reach R2 (upper)
O -
MW2
Reach R3 (lower)
V9
X11
0 125 250
Feet
Reach T1
- s
Reach T2
Figure 4.1
500 Monitoring Features
Overview Map
Browns Summit Site
(DMS #96313)

= Conservation Easement
® Flow Gauge
0 Monitoring Wells
A Photo Locations
0 Crest Gauge
Cross Sections
- Veg Plot Locations
Stream Centerline
Wetland Mitigation Type
5 - Hydrologic Reestablishment, 3.5:1 credit ratio
Reach R3 (upper)
f'
S
Reach R6
Pe
iV2
xf X3 ♦ -.
Reach T4
4.1
g W
#v1 Reach R5
I N T E R N AT 1 0 N A L
NC OneMap, N enter for Geographic Information and Analysis, NC
911 Board
Figure 4.2
0 125 250 500 Monitoring Features
Overview Map
Feet Browns Summit Site
(DMS #96313)

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, EII, BMP R
E
Totals 5,299 SMU 2.51 WMU (2.50 WMU requested)
0.0
Project Com onents
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
R1** 51+00.00- 63+89.87
1,217
Restoration
1,290
1,290
1:1
R2**
(downstream section) 49+65.28 - 51+00.00
167
Enhancement II
54
134
2.5:1
R2 43+48.17 - 49+65.28
(upstream section)
701
Enhancement I
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 I
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 II
214
536
2.5:1
R6 10+00 - 15+19.39
536
Enhancement UBMP
294
442 LF (valley length)
1.5:1
T1 10+00-11+44.99
121
Restoration
145
145
1:1
T2 10+00 - 12+85.21
283
Enhancement II
113
283
2.5:1
T3 10+04.88 - 10+92.84
83
Restoration
70
70
1:1
T4 10+30.18 - 11+49.36
47
Enhancement UBMP
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
1 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 II 953
BMP Elements
Element Location Purpose/Function
Notes
BMP Elements: BR= Bioretention Cell; SF= Sand Filter; SW= Stormwater Wetland; WDP= Wet Detention Pond; DDP= Dry Detention
Pond; FS= Filter Strip; S= Grassed Swale; LS= Level Spreader; NI=Natural Infiltration Area
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
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 Deliver
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 1 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)

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
Project Area (acres)
20.2
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude)
36.237 N, -79.749 W
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province
Piedmont
River Basin
Cape Fear
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit and 14-digit
03030002 / 03030002010020
NCDWR Sub-basin
3/6/2001
Project Drainage Area (acres)
438
Project Drainage Area Percent Impervious
1%
CGIA Land Use Classification
2.01.01.01, 2.03.01, 2.99.01, 3.02 / Forest (53%) Agriculture (39%) Impervious Cover (l%) Unclassified (7%)
Reach Summary Information
Parameters
Reach Rl
Reach R2
Reach R3
Reach R4
Reach R5
Length of Reach (linear feet)
1,290
748
1,454
1,296
536
Valley Classification (Ros en)
VII
VII
VII
VII
VII
Drainage Area (acres)
438
299
242
138/95
24
NCDWR Stream Identification Score
35.5
35.5
41.5
41.5/25
28.5
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
C; NSW
Morphological Description
(Ros en stream e)
E
Be incised
Be incised
Gc
Be
Evolutionary Trend
Incised E�Gc�F
Bc4G4F
Bc4G4F
GAF
BCUG
Underlying Mapped Soils
CnA
CnA
CnA, PpE2
CnA, CkC
CkC
Drainage Class
Somewhat Poorly Drained
Somewhat Poorly Drained Somewhat Poorly Drained and Well Drained
Somewhat Poorly
Drained and Well
Drained
Well Drained
Soil Hydric Status
Hydric
i Hydric
Partially Hydric
Partial) H dric
Upland
Average Channel Slope (ft/ft)
0.0069
0.0068
0.0095
0.017
0.023
FEMA Classification
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Native Vegetation Community
Piedmont Headwater Stream Forest
Percent Composition ofExotic/Invmive Vegetation
25%
15%
5%
<5%
<5%
Parameters
Reach R6
Reach Tl
Reach T2
Reach T3
Reach T4
Length of Reach (linear feet)
442 LF (valley length)
145
283
70
117 LF (valley length)_
Valley Classification (Rosgen)
VII
VII
VII
VII
VH
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 streamtype)
Be incised
E incised
F
E incised
-
Evolution Trend
BC->G4F
E-),G�F
BC-->G-->F
E4G4F
UnderIving Ma ed Soils
CkC
CnA
CnA, PpE2
CnA
CkC
Drainage Class
Well Drained
Somewhat Poorly Drained Somewhat Poorly Drained
and Well Drained
Somewhat Poorly
Drained
Well Drained
Soil Hydric Status
Upland
Hydric
Partially Hydric
Hydric
Upland
Average Channel Sloe (ft/ft)
0.014
0.024
0.022
0.02
FEMA Classification
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Native Vegetation Community
Piedmont Headwater Stream Forest
Percent Composition of Exotic/Invasive Vegetation
5%
10%
10%
10%
10%
Regulatory Considerations
Regulation
Applicable Resolved
Supporting Documentation
Waters of the United States — Section 404
Yes Yes
Categorical Exclusion (Appendix B)
Waters of the United States — Section 401
Yes Yes
Categorical Exclusion
(Appendix B)
Endangered Species Act
No N/A
Categorical Exclusion (Appendix B)
Historic Preservation Act
No N/A
Categorical Exclusion (Appendix B)
Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA)
No N/A
Categorical Exclusion (Appendix B)
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
No N/A
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)

APPENDIX B
Morphological Summary Data (Tables 5 and 6)
and Profile and Cross -Section Graphs

Table 5. Baseline Stream Summary
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No ID. 96313
Reach 1
USGS
Reference Reach(es)
Data
Parameter
Regional Curve*
Pre -Existing
Condition
Design
As -built
Composite
Gauge
Dimension and Substrate -Riffic
LL
LJL
Eq.
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med Max
SD n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
BF Width (ft)
_____
_____
_____
_____
-----
12.3
-----
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
-----
----
_____
-----
12.9
---- ----
----- -----
12.6
13.0
12.6
13.8
0.6
3.0
Floodpronc Width (ft;
_____
_____
_____
_____
-----
>100
-----
_____
---- ----
----
----
-----
----
----
-----
-----
>100
---- ----
----- -----
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
0.0
3.0
BF Me- Depth
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
1.3
_____
_____
____ _____
____
____
_____
____
____
_____
_____
1.2
____ ____
_____ _____
0.9
1.1
1.1
1.2
0.1
3.0
BF Max Dept O
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
2,1
_____
____
____ _____
____
____
____
____
____
_____
-----
1.5
---- ----
----- -----
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
0.0
3.0
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft')
-----
12.0
16.5
-----
-----
16.3
-----
-----
---- ---
----
----
----
----
----
-----
----
15.2
---- ----
----- -----
12.5
13.4
13.2
14.5
0.8
3.0
Width/Depth Ratio
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
9.3
_____
____
____ _____
10
____
____
12
____
_____
____
11.0
____ ___
____ _____
10.9
12.7
12.0
15.2
1.8
3.0
Entrenchment Ratic
-----
-----
-----
-----
_____
8.7
_____
____
____ ___
____
____
____
>2.2
____
_____
____
>6,7
___ ___
____ _____
5.3
5.5
5.4
5.7
0.2
3.0
Bank Height Ratic
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
1,0
_____
____
____ _____
1.0
____
____
1.1
____
_____
____
1,0
___ ___
____ _____
LO
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
3.0
d5O from)
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
0.8
_____
_____
____
____
____ ____
____ _____
____
_____
_____
_____
_____
Pattern
Channel a [ws [
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
____ ___
____
____
____
___
___
-----
50.0
-----
---- 75.0
---- -----
72.6
88.2
75.3
136.9
24.7
5.0
Radius of Curvature (ft)
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
____ _____
____
____
____
___
___
_____
26.0
_____
____ 39.0
____ _____
25.9
34.5
35.4
42.0
5.3
7.0
----
3
----
-----
2.0
-----
---- 3.0
---- -----
2.0
2.7
2.7
3.2
0.4
7.0
Meander Wavelength (k
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
_____ _____
____
____
____
___
___
_____
140
_____
____ 170
____ _____
130.2
162.0
161.3
190.9
24.9
5.0
Meander Width Ratic
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
____
____
____
10
____
_____
4
_____
____ 6
_____
5.6
6.8
5.8
10.5
1.9
5.0
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
____ -----
____
____
____
___
___
_____
_____
_____
____ ____
___ _____
5.4
20.5
13.0
47.7
14.6
13.0
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
_____ _____
____
____
____
___
___
_____
_____
0.013
_____ ____
____ _____
0.001
0.019
0.010
0.091
0.023
13.0
_____
_____
_____
_____ ____
___
Pool to Pool Spacing (ft_
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
____ _____
____
____
____
___
___
_____
50
_____
_____ 87
____ _____
41.4
63.2
59.1
100.8
18.2
12.0
----
2.5
----
-----
-----
2.7
----- ----
---- -----
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.8
0.0
2.0
Pool Volume (ft)
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
Substrate and Transport Parameters
_____
___
_____
____ ____
___
SC%/Sa%/G%/B%/Be%
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
____ _____
____
____
____
____ ____
___ ___
___
___
_____
_____
_____
----
dl
dl6 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
-----
-----
-----
-----
03/0.5/0.8/5.8/102
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/ft
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
____ _____
____
____
____
___
___
_____
___
____
____
___ ___
___
___
_____
_____
_____
_____
Max part size(mm) mobilized at bankfall(Rosgen Curve
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
114
_____
____
____ ___
____
____
____
_____
_____
_____
____
88
____ ____
____ ____
___
___
_____
_____
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m'
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
25.7
_____
____
____ _____
____
____
____
_____
_____
_____
____
203
____ ____
____ ____
___
____
_____
_____
_____
-----
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
_____
_____
0.68
_____
_____
_____
_____
0.68
____ _____
____
____
____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____ 0.68
____ ____
____
____
_____
0.68
_____
-----
impervious cover estimate (0o
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
Rosgen Classification
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
E
_____
_____
____ ____
____
E5
____
_____
_____
_____
_____
E5
_____ _____
_____ ____
____
____
____
C
_____
_____
_____
3.20
____
____
____
____
_____
_____
-----
BF Discharge (cfs)
_____
43.2
67.4
_____
_____
58
_____
_____
____ ____
____
____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
49
_____ ____
____ ____
____
____
____
_____
_____
-----
Valley Lengtl
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
1086.6
____ ____
____
____
_____
_____
____
_____
___
____
____ ____
___ ___
___
___
_____
1036.3
_____
__-
Channellength (ft _
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
1217
____ ____
____
____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
____ ____
___ ___
___
___
_____
1279.7
_____
-----
Sinuosity
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
1.12
_____
____
____
1.3
____
____
1.6
_____
_____
1.40
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (Wk
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
0.0058
_____
____
____ ____
____
____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
0.0058
____ ____
____ ____
___
___
___
_____
_____
-----
BF slope (ft/ft)
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
____
____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
____ ____
____ ____
_____
_____
_____
0.0043
_____
__-
Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
____ ____
____
____
_____
_____
_____
_____
___
____
____ ____
___ ___
___
___
_____
_____
_____
_____
BEHI VL%/L%/M%/H%/VH%/E%
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
____ ____
____
____
____
_____
_____
_____
___
____
____ ____
___ ___
___
___
_____
_____
_____
__-
ChannelStability orHabitat Metric
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
____
____
____
_____
_____
_____
___ ___
___
___
_____
_____
_____
-----
Biological or Other
Biological
_____
I _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
____ ____
____
____
* 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)

Table 5 continued. Baseline Stream Summon
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No ID. 96313
Reach 2
USGS
Reference Reaches) Data
Parameter
Regional Curve•
Pre -Existing
Condition
Design
As -built
Composite
Gauge
Dimension and Substrate - Rifflc
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
_____
11.0
____ ____ _____ ____
____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
0o prone Width (111_
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____22.1
_____
_____
_____
____ ____ _____
____ -----
BEMean Depth (ft)
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
1.1
_____
____ ____
_____
____
____
_____ ____ ____
_____
_____
1.0
____ ____ _____ ____
___ ___ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____
1.3
____ ____ _____ ____
____
BF Cross-sectional Area (it)
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
11.1
_____
____ ____
_____
____
____
____ ____ ____
_____
_____
11.1
____ ____ _____
____r
_____ _____ ____ -----
Width/Depth R
t ept aha
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
9.1
_____
____ ____
____ 12 ____
_____
11
____ ____ _____ ____
____ ____ ____ _____
EntrenchmentRatic
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
2.2
_____
____ ____
_____
____
____
____ >2.2 ____
_____
_____
_____
____ ____ ____ ____
____ ____ ____ _____ _____ _____
___
____
____ 1.1 ____
_____
_____
1.0
____ ____ _____ ____
____ ____ ____ _____ _____ _____
d50(mm)
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
0.6
_____
_____ _____
_____
____
____
____ ____ ____
_____
_____
_____
_____ ____ _____ ____
____ ____ _____ _____ _____ -----
Pattern
Channel Beltwid[h (ft;
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
________
___
____
____ ____ _____
___ ___ ___ ____ _____ _____
_____
22
____
____ 33.0 _____
Rc:Bankfull width(fff_
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
___- ___-
_____
2
___-
___- 3 ____
_____
2
_____
____ 3.0 _____ __-_
__-_ __-_ __-_ _-- _____ -----
Meander Wavelength(ft,
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____ ____
___
____
____
____ _____ ________
_____
___
_____
____ ____ _____
_____ ___
___ ___ ___ ____ _
MeanderWidth Ratic
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____ ____
_____
3.5
____
____ 10 _____
_____
____
_____
____ ____ _____ ____
____ ___ ___ ___ _____ -----
Profile
Riffle Length(ft)
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
___
_____
____ ___ ___
___ ___ ___ _____ _____ _____
Pool Length(ft)
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
_____
____
____
____ ___ ___
____
___ _-_
_-_ _-_ _-_ ____ _____ -----
Pool to Pool Spacing (ft_
Pool
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____ ____
___
____
____
____ ___
____
___
____
____ ____ ___ ___
___ ___ ___ _____ ____ -----
Pool Max Depth (ft)
Pool
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____ _____
_____
1.2
____
____ 2.5 ____
____
____
2.2
____ ____ ____ ____
____ ____ _____ _____ _____ -----
Pool Volume (f[°)
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
Substrate and Transport Parameters
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____ _____
_____
_____
____
____ ___ ___
____
___
____
____ _____ ___ ___
___ ___ _____ _____
___
____
___
____
____ _____ ___
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
-----
----- -----
-----
02/0.4/0.6/2.9/6.9
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/ft
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____ ____
-----
__Max
Mm,part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
100.0
-----
---- -----
-----
-----
----
---- ---- ----
----
----
90
---- ---- ---- ----
--- --- --- --- ----- -----
SiteamPower (transport capacity) W/m
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
20.4
_____
____ ____
___
____
____
____ ____ ____
____
____
19.1
Additional Reach Parameters
-----
Drainage Area (SM)
_____ 0.47
_____
_____
0.47 ____
____
____ ____ ____
____
____
____
____ 0.47 ____ ____
____ ____ ____ 0.47 _____ -----
impervious cover estimate o
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____ _____
_____
_____
____
____ ___ ___
____
___
____
____ ____ ___ ___
___ ___ ___ _____ _____ _____
Rosgen Classification
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
Be
_____
____ ____
___
____
E5
____ ____ ____
_____
____
E5
_____ ____ ____ ____
____ ____ _____ _____ ----- -----
BE Velocity(fps)
_____
3.50 4.03
_____
_____
3.87
_____
_____ _____
_____
4
____
____ 6 ____
_____
____
2.91
____ ____ ____ ____
____ ____ _____ _____ _____ -----
BEDischarge c s
_____
32.4 51.6
_____
_____
43
_____
_____
_____
323
____ ____ ____ ____
____ ____ _____
ValleyLengtf
_____
_____ ____
_____
_____
_____
_____
643.0 _____
_____
_____
____
____ ___ ___
_____
_____
____
____ ____ ___ ___
___ ___ ____ _____ _____ _____
_____
868.0 ____
_____
Sinuosity_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
1.35
_____
____ _____
_____
1.3
____
____ 1.6 ____
_____
_____
____
____ ____ ____ ____
____ ____ ____ _____ ____ -----
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ftI
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
0.0054
_____
____ ____
___
____
____
____ ____ ____
_____
____
0.0054
_____ ----- -----
BEslope(f/ft)
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres,
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____ ____
___
____
____
____ ___ ___
____
____
____ ___ ___
___ ___ ___ ___ ___ -----
BELT VL%/L%/M%/11 /VH%/E%
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____ ____
_____
____
____
____ ___ ___
____
___
____
____ ____ ___ ___
___ ___ ___ _____ _____ -----
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Channel
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
Biological or Other
_____
I _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____ ____
* 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)

Table 5 continued. Baseline Stream Summarl
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No ID. 96313
Reach 3
USGS
Reference
Reaches) Data
Parameter
Regional
Curve•
Pre -Existing
Condition
Design
As -built
Composite
a
Gauge
Dimension and Substrate - Riffh
LL
UL
Eq.
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD n
Min
Mean
Mod
Max
SD n
Min
Mean
Med Max SD n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
BE Width(ft)
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
8.5
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
10.3
____ ____ _____ ____
9.3
10.7
10.9
11.6
0.9
4.0
0o prone Width (If-
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
17.8
_____
____
____ ____
____
____
____
_____
_____ _____
____
>23
____ ____ _____ ____
51.6
73.4
76.1
89.9
15.7
4.0
BE Mean Depth (ft)
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
1.15
_____
____
____ ____
____
____
____
_____
_____ _____
____
0.9
____ ____ _____ ____
0.6
0.8
0.8
0.9
0.2
4.0
_____
1.8
_____
____
____ _____
____
1.2
____ ____ _____ ____
1.1
1.3
1.3
1.3
0.1
4.0
BE Cross-sectional Area (W)
-----
6.5
9.3
-----
-----
9.7
-----
-----
---- ----
----
----
----
----
----- -----
----
9.7
---- ---- ----- ----
6.8
7.9
7.6
9.8
1.2
4.0
-----
7.15
-----
----
10
----
----
12
-----
----
11.0
---- ---- ----- ----
10.8
15.0
15.1
19.2
3.9
4.0
Entrenchment Ratic
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
2.0
_____
____
____ ____
____
____
____
>2.2
_____ _____
____
>2.2
_____ ____ _____ ____
4.4
6.9
7.5
8.2
1.5
4.0
_____
2.1
_____
____
1.0
____
____
1.1
_____
____
1,0
_____ ____ _____ ____
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
4.0
_____
____
____ ____
____
____
____
_____ _____ _____ ____
_____
_____
_____
_____
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft;
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
____ ____
____
____
____
___
___ _____
35
____
_____ 56.0 _____ ____
37.4
54.0
59.9
64.7
11.9
3.0
____
____
____
___
___ ----
20
----
----- 30.0 ----- ----
20.0
27.8
25.8
37.2
6.3
10.0
Rc:Bankfull width (fl/ft_
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
____ ____
2
____
____
3
____ ____
2
_____
_____ 3.0 _____ ____
1.9
2.6
2.4
3.5
0.6
10.0
Meander Wavelength (if
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
____ ____
____
____
____
___
___ ----
90
-----
----- 130.0 ---- ----
90.4
108.9
101.0
137.2
17.2
5.0
Meander Width Ratic
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
____ _____
3.5
____
____
10
____ ____
____
_____
_____ ____ ____ ____
3.5
5.1
5.6
6.1
Ll
3.0
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
________
___
___ ____
___
____
_____ ____ ___
___
___
_____
_____
_____
_____
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
____ ___
____
____
____
___
___ ____
___
0.018
_____ ____ ____ ____
0.005
0.021
0.019
0.040
0.010
13.0
PoolLength (ft)
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
________
_____
___
_____
_____
_____
_____
Pool to Pool Spacing
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
____ ___
____
____
____
___
___ ----
47
----
----- 70.0 ----- ----
20.1
55.2
59.2
81.3
18.3
13.0
Pool Max Depth (ft)
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
____ _____
1.2
____
____
2.5
____ ____
____
2
_____ ____ _____ ____
1.3
1.8
1.8
2.2
0.5
2.0
Pool Volume (ft°)
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
Substrate and Transport Parameters
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
____
____
___
___ ____
___
____
____ ____ ___ ___
___
___
_____
_____
____
___ ____
___
____
____ ____ ___ ___
___
___
_____
_____
___
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
-----
-----
-----
-----
0.1/0.2/0.4/10.4/22.4
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/ft
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ ___
____
____
____
___
___ ____
___
____
____ ____ ___ ___
___
___
_____
_____
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Carve
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
141
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
____
____
____
____ ____
____
116
____ ____ ____ ____
____
___
_____
___
____
_____
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
30.7
_____
____
____ ___
____
____
____
____
____ _____
_____
26.2
____ ____ ____ ____
___
____
_____
_____
_____
-----
Additional Reach Parameters
-----
Drainage Area (SM)
_____
0.38
_____
_____
_____
_____
0.38
____ _____
_____
_____
____
____
_____ _____
_____
_____
____ 0.38 ____ ____
____
____
_____
0.38
_____
-----
impervious cover estimate o
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
____ ____
____
_____
____
___
_____ _____
___
____
____ ____ ___ ___
___
___
_____
_____
_____
_____
Rosgen Classification
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
Bo
_____
____
_____ ____
____
E5
____
____
_____ _____
_____
E5
_____ ____ ____ ____
____
____
_____
C
_____
-----
BE Velocity (fps)
_____
3.42
3.97
_____
_____
3.5
_____
_____
_____ ____
4
____
____
6
_____ _____
_____
3.3
_____ ____ ____ ____
____
____
_____
_____
_____
-----
BEDischarge lots)
-----25.7
41.
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
____
____
____
____ _____
_____
31.9
____ ____ ____ ____
____
____
_____
___
_____
1441.8
_____ _____
____
____
____
___
___ _____
___
____
____ ____ ___ ___
___
___
_____
1323.2
_____
-----
Channel length (H_
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
1586.0
_____ _____
____
____
____
___
___ _____
___
____
____ ____ ___ ___
___
___
_____
1495.2
_____
-----
Sinuosity
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
1.10
_____
_____
_____ _____
1.3
____
____
1.6
_____ _____
_____
1.20
____ ____ ____ ____
____
____
_____
1.13
_____
-----
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft;
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
0.0082
_____
_____
____ ____
____
____
____
____
__________
_____
0.0082
_____
_____
_____
-----
BEslope (fVft)
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
____
____
____
_____ _____
_____
____
____ ____ ____ ____
_____
_____
_____
0.010
_____
_____
Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres,
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
____ ____
____
____
____
___
____ _____
_____
____
____ ___ ___
___
___
_____
_____
____
___
BEHI VL%/L%/M%/H%/VH%/E%
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
____ ____
____
____
____
___
___ _____
___
____
____ ____ ___ ___
___
___
_____
_____
_____
-----
Channel
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
____ ____
____
____
____
___
___ _____
___
____
____ ___
____ ___
___
___
_____
_____
Biological or Other
_____
I _____
_____
_____
I _____
_____
_____
____
____
* 1999 Regional Crave and Esitm ne 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 5 continued. Baseline Stream Summar?
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No ID. 96313
Reach 4
USGS
Reference Reaches)
Data
Parameter
Regional
Curve*
Pre -Existing
Condition
Design (lower/upper)
As -built
composite
Gauge
Dimension and Substrate - Rifat
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
BF Width (fr)
_____
_____
_____
_____
-----
7.60
-----
_____
_____ ___
_____
_____
_____
____
----- -----
-----
9.2/8.1
----- -----
----- -----
7.2
9.3
9.1
11.8
1.7
4.0
Floodprone Width Ht,'
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
9.1
_____
____
_____ _____
____
____
____
_____
_____ ____
____
>19/>17
_____ _____
_____ ____
31.3
57.9
66.0
68.1
15.4
4.0
-----
0.86
-----
-----
----- ----
----
0.7/0.6
----- -----
----- ----
0.5
0.8
0.9
1.1
0.2
4.0
BF Max Depth (ft)
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
1.39
_____
_____
_____ _____
____
____
____
_____
_____ ____
____
0.9/0.8
_____ _____
_____ _____
0.8
1.4
1.5
1.7
0.3
4.0
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft')
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
6.5
-----
----
----- ---
----
----
----
----
---- ----
----
6.515.0
---- -----
---- ----
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
11.3
15.4
1.8
4.0
Entrenchment Ratic
-----
-----
-----
-----
_____
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
____ ___
____ ____
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
3.0
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
0.4
_____
_____
____
____
____ ____
____ ____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
Pattern
Channel a [wt [
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
____ ___
____
____
____
___
___ ----
---
30-42/22-43
---- ---
---- ----
36.9
43.0
42.8
49.7
4.7
4.0
Radius of Curvature (ft)
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
2
____
____
3
____ ____
____
18-28/16-25
____ ____
____ ____
17.2
24.5
25.1
34.3
4.9
10.0
----
---
3.1/2.0
---- ----
---- ----
1.8
2.6
2.7
3.7
0.5
10.0
Meander Wavelength (k
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
____
____
____
___
___ ____
___
120.0/80.0
____ ____
____ ____
63.1
94.5
93.0
123.0
20.2
9.0
Meander Width Ratic
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
___
____
----
8
---- ----
----
12.0/2.7
---- ----
---- ----
4.0
4.6
4.6
5.3
0.5
4.0
Profile
_____
_____
_____
_____ ____
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
_____ _____
____
____
____
___
___ _____
_____
0.019
_____ ____
_____ ____
0.013
0.021
0.018
0.036
0.008
7.0
_____
_____
_____
_____ ____
_____
Pool to Pool Spacing (ft=
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
---- -----
----
----
----
---
--- -----
-----
36-64/29-52
----- ----
---- ----
31.2
58.1
56.1
87.8
18.7
6.0
-----
-----
2.0/1.9
----- ----
---- ----
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
0.0
1
Pool Volume (D)
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
Substrate and Transport Parameters
_____
_____
_____
_____ ____
___ ___
___
___
____
SC%/Sa%/G%/B%/Be%
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
____ ____
____
____
_________
_____ _____
___ ___
___
___
_____
_____
_____
____
d16 / d35 / d50 / 184 / d95
-----
-----
-----
-----
0.2/0.3/0.4/0.9/1.8
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/ft
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
____ ____
____
____
____
___
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
___ ___
___
___
_____
_____
_____
-----
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfall (Rosgen Curve
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
208
____
____ _____
____
____
____
_____
_____ _____
_____
141
_____ _____
____ ____
____
___
_____
_____
___
__-
StreamPower (transport capacity) W/m'
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
45.1
____
____ ___
____
____
____
_____
_____ _____
____
30.7
____ ____
____ ____
___
____
_____
_____
_____
-----
Additional Reach Parameters
-----
DrainageArea (SM)
_____
_____
0.22
_____
_____
_____
_____
0.22
_____ _____
____
____
____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ 0.22
____ ____
____
____
_____
0.22
_____
-----
impervious cover estimate (0o
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
----- -----
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
____
Rosgen Classification
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
Ge
_____
____
_____ _____
____
C5
____
____
_____ _____
_____
C5
_____ _____
____ ____
____
____
_____
E
_____
_____
____
5.0
____
_____
3.8/4.1
_____
____
____
_____
_____
____
__-
BFDischarge (cfs)
_____
17.9
29.8
_____
_____
24
_____
_____
_____ _____
___
____
____
____
____ _____
_____
24.8/21.1
_____ ____
____ ____
____
____
_____
_____
_____
-----
Valley Lengtl
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
1173.9
_____ -----
____
____
____
___
___ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____
___ ___
___
___
_____
1173.9
_____
__-
Channellength (ft _
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
1350.0
____ _____
____
____
____
___
___ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____
___ ___
___
___
_____
1263.4
_____
_____
____
1.5
_____
_____
1.13/1.22
_____ _____
____ ____
____
____
_____
1.08
_____
Water Surface Slope (Channel) HUk
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
0.016
_____
____
____ _____
___
____
____
_____
_____ _____
_____
0.011/ 0.016
_____ _____
____ ____
____
____
_____
_____
_____
-----
BFslope(ft/ft)
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ -----
____
____
____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____
____ ____
_____
_____
_____
0.0
____
__-
BankfallFloodplain Area (acres
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
____ _____
____
____
____
_____
_____ _____
_____
____
_____ ____
___ ___
___
___
_____
_____
_____
_____
BEHI VL%/L%/M%/H%/VH%/E%
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
____ ___
____
____
____
___
_____ _____
_____
____
____ ____
___ ___
___
___
_____
_____
___
__-
ChannelStability orHabitat Menk
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
_____
____
____
____
___
_____
___
___
___
_____
_____
_____
-----
Biological or Other
Biological
_____
I _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
____
____
____
* 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)

Table 5 continued. Baseline Stream Summon
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No ID. 96313
Reach 5
Parameter
USGS
Regional Curve*
Pre -Existing Condition
Reference Reaches) Data
Design
As -built
Composite
Gauge
Dimension and Substrate - Rifat
LL LJL 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
_____
_____ _____ _____ ____ ____ ____
____ _____ _____ _____ _____ ____
FloodproneWidth (ft_
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ 11.8 _____ _____ _____ _____
____ ____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ ____ _____ ____
___ ___ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____ ____ _____ ____
BFMax Depth (ft)
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ 0.67 _____ _____ _____ _____
____ ____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ ____ _____ ____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
BFCross-sectional Area (ft')
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ 3.2 _____ ____ _____ -----
____ ____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ ____ _____ ____
___ ___ _____ _____ _____ -----
Width/Depth Ratio
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ 16.77 _____ ____ ____ _____
____ ____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ ___ ____ ____
___ ___ _____ _____ _____ -----
EntrenchmentRatic
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ 1,6 _____ ____ ____ ____
____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _____
_____ _____ ____ ___ ____ ____
___ ___ _____ _____
BankHeight Ratio
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ 5.8 _____ ____ ____ ____
____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _____
_____ _____ ____ ___ ____ ____
___ ___ ___ _____ _____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____
_____
_____ _____ ____ ____ ____ ____
____ ____ _____ _____ _____
Pattern
Channela [wt [
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____
_____ _____ _____ ____
Radius of Curvature(ft)
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ ____ ____ ____
_____ __________
____ ____ _____ _____ _____
___ ___
___ ___ _____ _____ _____
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft --
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ ____ ____ ____
____ ____ _____ _____ ________
_____
_____ _____ _____ ____ ___
___ ___ __— -----
Meander Wavelength (k
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ ____ ____ ____
____ ____ ___ ___ _____
_____ ___ ___
___ ___ _____ _____ _____ -----
Meander
Meander Width Ratic
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ ____ _____ _____
____
_____ ____ ___ ___ _____
___
___ ___ _____ ----- __- __-
Profile
_____
_____ _____ _____ ----
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ ________
_____ ____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ ____ ___
___ ___ ___ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____
_____ _____ _____ ____
Pool to Pool Spacing (ft_
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ ____ ____ _____
____ ____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ ____ ___ ___
___ ___ ___ _____ _____ _____
____
_____ _____ _____ ____
Pool Volume (ft')
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____
Substrate and Transport Parameters
____
_____ _____ _____ _____
SC%/Sa%/G%/B%/Be%
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ ____ ____ _____
____ ____ ____ ___ ____
_____ _____ ____ ____ ___ ___
___ ___ ___ _____ _____ ----
dl
dl6 / 135 / d50 / d84 / d95
-----
----- ----- -----
----
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/ft
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ ____ ____ _____
____ ____ ____ ___ ___ ____
_____ _____ _____ ___ ___
___ ___ ___ _____ _____ -----
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfall (Rosgen Curve
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---- ---- ----
____ ____ _____ _____
---- ---------
_____ _____ _____ _____ --- ---
--- --- --- --- --- ---
StreamPower(transportcapacity) W/m'
Stream
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ ____ ____
____ ____ ____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ ___ ___
___ ___ ___ _____ _____ -----
Additional
Additional Reach Parameters
-----
-----
Drainage Area (SM)
_____
_____ 0.04 _____
_____ _____ _____ 0.04 ____ ____
____ ____ ____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ 0.04 ____ ____
____ ____ ____ 0.04 _____ -----
impervious cover estimate (0o
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____
Rosgen Classification
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ BeBc _____ ____ ____ ____
____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ ____ ____
____ ___ ___ ___ _____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____ ____ ____
___ ___ ___ ____
BFDischarge lets)
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ 12.7 _____ ____ ____ ____
____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ ____ ____
___ ___ ___ ____ _____ -----
ValleyLengtl
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ 4702 ____ ____
____ ____ ____ ___ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ ___ ___
___ ___ ___ 470 ____ __-
Channellength (ft _
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ 536.0 ____ ____
____ ____ ____ ___ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ ___ ___
___ ___ ___ 520 _____ -----
Sinuosity_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ 1.14 _____ ____ ____ _____
____ ____ ____ ____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ ____ ____
___ ___ ___ Lll ----- ---
Water Surface Slope (Channel) HUk
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ 0.017 _____ ____ ____ _____
____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _____
_____ _____ ____ ____ ____ ____
___ ___ ___ _____ _____ _____
____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____
Bankfull Floodplain Area(acres
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ ____ ____ _____
____ ____ ____ ___
___ ___
___ ___ ___ _____ ____ _____
BEHI VL%/L%/M%/H%/VH%/E%
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ ____ ____ ___
____ ____ ____ ___ ___ _____
_____ _____ _____ ___ ___
___ ___ ___ _____ ___ __-
ChannelStability orHabitat Metric
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ ____ _____
____ ____ ____ ___ ___
___
___ ___ ___ _____ _____ -----
Biological or Other
Biological
_____
I _____ _____ _____
I _____ _____ _____ ____ ____
____ ____
* 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)

Table 5 continued. Baseline Stream Summon
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No ID. 96313
Reach 6
Parameter
USGS
Regional Curve•
Pre -Existing
Condition
Reference Reach(es) Data
Design
As -built
Composite
Gauge
Dimension and Substrate - Rifflr
LL UL
Eq.
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD n
Min
Mean
Med
Max SD
n
Min
Mean Mod Max SD n
Min Mean Med Max SD n
BEWidth (ft)
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
9.09
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
6.1 _____ ____ _____ ____
____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
0o prone Width (ft'-
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____12.7
_____
____
_____
_____
_____
13.0 _____ ____ _____ ____
___
BFMean Depth (ft)
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
0.48
_____
____
_____ _____
____
____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
0.5 _____ ____ _____ ____
____ ___ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____
0.6 _____ ____ _____ ____
____
BFCross-sectional Area (W)
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
4.4
_____
____
_____ _____
____
____
____
____ ____
____
_____
3.1 _____ ____ _____ ____
____ ___ ___ _____ _____ _____
____
18.0 ____
_____
14.0 _____ ____ _____
_____
EntrenchmentRatic
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
1.4
_____
_____
_____ _____
1.4
____
____
2.2 ____
____
_____
<2.2 _____ ____ ____ ____
____ ____ ____ ____ _____ -----
Bank Height Ratic
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
5.2
_____
_____
_____ _____
1.0
____
____
1.1 ____
____
_____
1,0 _____ ____ ____ ____
____ ____ _____ _____ _____ ___
d50(mm)
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
0.4
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
____
____
____ ____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____ ____ ____
____ ____ _____ _____ _____ -----
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft;
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
__________
_____
____
____ ____
____
____
____
___ ___
___ ___
___ ___ _____ _____ _____
Radius of Curvature(ft)
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
____ ____
____
____
____
___ ___
____
_____
_____ _____ ____
Rc:Bankfidl width (fff-
---
--- ---
-----
---
-----
-----
----
---- ----
----
--- ---
----
---
----- -------- ---
--- --- --- ----- ----- -----
Meander
MeanderWavelength(f(
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
____ ____
____
____
____----
___ ___
____
___
_____ _____ ____
Meander Width Ratic
Meander
---
--- ---
-----
---
-----
-----
----
----
----
----
---
---
--- --- --- ----- ----- -----
Profile
Profile
Riffle Length(ft)
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
________
_____ _____ ____ ___
___ ___ ___ _____ _____ _____
____
___
0.06 _____ ____
Pool Length (ft)
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
__________
___
___ ___ ___ _____ _____
Pool to Pool Spacing (ft_
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
____ ____
____
____
____
___ ___
____
30
_____ _____ 54.0
PoolMax Depth (ft)
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____ ____
____
____
____
___ ___
____
____
1.7 _____ ___ ____ ____
___ ___ ___ ____ _____ -----
Pool Volume (ft°)
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
Substrate and Transport Parameters
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____ ____
____
____
____
___ ___
____
_____
_____ _____ ____ ___ ___
___ ___ ___ _____
___
____
_____
_____ _____ _____ ___ ___
___ ___ ___ ___
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
-----
----- -----
-----
02/0.3/0.4/0.9/1.8
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/ft
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
____ ____
____
____
____
___ ___
____
_____
_____ _____ _____
Max part size(mm) mobilized at bankfall(Rosgen Curve
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
____ ____
____
____
____
___ ___
____
___
____ ____ ___ ___
___ ___ ___ _____ _____ -----
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
____ ____
____
____
____
___ ___
____
___
____ ____ _____
Additional Reach Parameters
-----
-----
Drainage Area (SM)
_____ 0.10
_____
_____
0.10
____ ____
____
____
____
____ ____
____
____
____ ____ 0.10 ____ ____
____ ____ ____ 0.10 -----
impervious cover estimate o
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
____ ____
____
____
____
___ ___
____
___
____ ____ ____ ___ ___
___ ___ ___ _____ _____ _____
Rosgen Classification
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
Be
_____
____
____ ____
____
B5c
____
____ ____
_____
____
B5c _____ _____ _____
BF Velocity(fps)
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
3.75
_____
____
____ ____
4
____
____
6.0 ____
____
____
5.2
____
16 ____ ____ ____ ____
___
ValleyLengtl
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
468.2
____
____
____
____
___ ___
____
_____
_____ _____ ____ ___ ___
___ ___ ___ _____ _____ -----
Channel length(ft --
Channel
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
501.0
____ ____
____
____
____
___ ___
____
_____
_____ _____ _____ ___ ___
___ ___ ___ 468.2 ____ -----
Sinuosity_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
1.07
_____
____
____ _____
1.1
____
____
1.3 ____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____ ____ ____
____ ____ ____ _____ _____ -----
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (tuft;
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
0.014
_____
____
____ ___
____
____
____
____ ____
_____
_____
0.016 _____
BF slope (ft/ft)
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
____
____
____ ____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____ ____ ____
___ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres,
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
___ ___
____
____
____
___ ___
_____
_____
_____ _____
BEHI VL%/L%/M%/H%/VH%/E%
_________
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
_____ _____
____
____
___ ___
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____ ___ ___
___ ___ ___ _____ _____ _____
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
_____ ___
____
____
____
___ ___
_____
_____
_____ _____
Biological or Other
_____
I _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
____
* 1999 Regional Cruve 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)

Table 5 continued. Baseline Stream Summon
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No ID. 96313
Reach T1
Parameter
USGS
Regional Cu -e*
Pre -Existing
Condition
Reference Reaches) Data
Design
As -built
composite
Gauge
Dimension and Substrate - Rifat
LL
UL
Eq.
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SU n
Min
Mean
Med
Max SD n
Min
Mean
Med Max
SD n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
BF Width (ft)
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
6.80
_____
_____
_____ ___
_____
_____
___
_____ _____ ___
_____
7.0
_____ ____
_____ _____
7.7
7.7
7.7
7.7
0.0
1.0
Floodprone Width (ft_
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
89.1
_____
____
____ _____
____
____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____ ____
_____ _____
39.9
39.9
39.9
39.9
0.0
1.0
_____
0.67
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
0.5
_____ ____
_____ _____
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.0
1.0
BF Max Deft (
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
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 Ratio
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
10.15
-----
----
---- -----
10.0
----
----
14.0 ----- -----
-----
13.0
----- ----
----- -----
11.7
11.7
11.7
11.7
0.0
1.0
Entrenchment Ratic
-----
-----
-----
-----
_____
13.1
_____
____
____ ___
____
_ ___
>2.2 _____ _____
_____
_____
_____ ____
_____ _____
5.2
5.2
5.2
5.2
0.0
1.0
Bank Height Ratio
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
1.6
_____
_____
_____ _____
1.0
____
____
1.1 _____ _____
_____
_____
_____ ____
_____ _____
LO
1.0
LO
1.0
0.0
1.0
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____
____
____
_____
_____
____
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft;
_____
_____
____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ -----
____
____
____
___ ___ ____
___
_____
____ ____
_____ _____
29.6
29.6
29.6
29.6
0.0
1.0
Radius of Curvature(ft)
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
____ _____
____
____
____
___ ___ ____
14
_____
____ 21.0
_____ _____
16.3
17.4
17.4
18.5
Ll
2.0
____
3 ____ ____
____
_____
____ ____
____ _____
2.1
2.3
2.3
2.4
0.1
2.0
Meander Wavelength (k
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
____ _____
____
____
____
___ ___ ____
___
60.0
____ ___
___ _____
56.0
57.9
57.9
59.7
1.8
2.0
Meander Width Ratic
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
____
____
____
g ____ ____
____
4.0
____ ___
____ _____
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
0.0
1.0
Profile
___ ___ ____
___
____
____ ___
RiffleSlope (ft/ft)
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
_____ _____
____
____
____
___ ___ ____
___
0.029
____ ___
____ ____
___
___
_____
____
_____
_____
___ ___ ____
___
____
____ ___
___
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
____
___
____
____ ____
___
SC%/Sa%/G%/B%/Be%
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
____ ____
____
____
____
___ ___ ____
___
____
____ ____
___ ___
___
___
___
_____
_____
____
dl6 / 135 / d50 / d84 / d95
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ -----
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/ft
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
____ ____
____
____
____
___ ___ ____
___
____
____
___ ___
___
___
___
_____
_____
-----
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfall (Rosgen Curve
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
---- ----
----
----
____
_____ _____ _____
_____
____
____ ____
--- ---
---
---
---
-----
---
---
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m'
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
____
____
____
____
_____ _____ _____
_____
____
____ ____
___ ___
___
___
___
_____
_____
-----
Additional
Additional Reach Parameters
-----
-----
Drainage Area (SM)
_____
_____
0.09
_____
_____
_____
_____
0.09
____ ____
____
____
____
_____ _____ _____
_____
____
____ 0.09
____ ____
____
____
____
0.09
_____
-----
impervious cover estimate (0o
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
___
Rosgen Classification
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
E
_____
_____
____ ____
____
C5
____
____ _____ _____
____
C5
____ ____
____ ____
____
____
____
___
_____
_____
____
5,0
BFDischarge(cfs)
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
16.9
_____
____
____ ____
___
____
____
____ ____ _____
_____
____
____ ____
____ ____
___
___
___
____
_____
-----
Valley Lengtt
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
114.2
____ ____
____
____
____
___ ___ _____
____
____
____ ____
___ ___
___
___
___
114.2
_____
__-
Channellength (ft _
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
121.0
____ ____
____
____
____
___ ___ _____
_____
____
____ ____
___ ___
___
___
___
139.6
_____
-----
Sinuosity
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
1.06
_____
____
____
1.2
____
____
1.5 ____
_____
1.12
1.22
Water Surface Slope (Channel) Huff,
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
0.024
_____
____
____ ____
____
____
____
____ ____ _____
____
0.019
____ ____
____ ____
____
___
___
_____
_____
_____
____ ____ _____
____
_____
____ ____
Bankfall Floodplain Area(acres
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
____ ____
____
____
____
___ ___ _____
___
____
____ ____
___ ___
___
___
___
_____
_____
_____
BEHI VL%/L%/M%/H%/VH%/E%
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
____ ____
____
____
____
___ ___ _____
___
____
____ ____
___ ___
___
___
___
_____
___
----
_Channel
ChannelStability or Habitat Metric
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
____
____
____
____
___ ___
___
___
___
___
_____
_____
-----
Biological or Od-
Biological
_____
I _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
____ ____
____
____
* 1999 Regional Crave and Esitmate from Revised Regional Ctt ve. See Mitigation Plan for more
information.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)

Table 5 continued. Baseline Stream Summon
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No ID. 96313
Reach T2
Parameter
USGS
Regional Cu -e*
Pre -Existing Condition
Reference Reaches) Data
Design
As -built
composite
Gauge
Dimension and Substrate - Rifat
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
_____ _____ ____ ____ ____
____ _____ _____ _____
FloodpmneWidth (ft)
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ 23.4 _____ ____ ____ _____
____ ____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ ____ ___ ____ ____
___ ___ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ ____ ___ ____ ____
BFMax Depth (ft)
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ 0.78 _____ _____ ____ _____
____ ____ ____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ ____ ___ ____ ____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft')
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ 4.0 _____ ____ ____ ___
____ ____ ____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ ____ ___ ____ ____
___ ___ _____ _____ _____ -----
___WiWidth/Depth
dth/Depth Ratio
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ 81.82 _____ ____ ____ _____
____ ____ ____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ ____ ___ ____ ____
___ ___ ___ ____ _____ -----
Entrenchment Ratic
_____
____ _____ _____
_____ 13 _____ ____ ____ ___
____ ____ ____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____
BankHeight Ratio
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ 3.0 _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ ____ ____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ ____ ___ ____ ____
___ ___ ___ _____ _____ _____
_____
_____ _____ ____ ____ ____
Pattern
Channela [wt [
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____ ____ ___
Radius of Curvature(ft)
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ ____ _____ _____
_____ __________
____ ____ ____ ___ ___
___ ___
___ ___ _____ _____ _____
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft --
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ ____ ___ -----
____ ____ ____ ___ ___ _____
_____ _____ _____ ____ ___ ___
__
___ ___ _____ -----
Meander
Meander Wavelength (k
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ ____ _____ _____
____ ____ ___ ___ _____
___ ____ ___ ___
___ ___ _____ _____ _____ -----
Meander
Meander Width Ratic
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ ----- ___
____ ____ ____ ___ --
----- ----___
___ ___ __— -__ __- __-
Profile
_____
___ ____ _____ ____
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ __________
___ ____ ____ ___ ___
___ ___ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____
___ ____ _____ ____
Pool to Pool Spacing (ft_
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ ____ ____ _____
____
___ ____ _____ ____ ___ ___
___ ___ ___ _____ _____ _____
_____
___ ____ _____ ____
Pool Volume (ft')
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____
Substrate and Transport Parameters
_____ _____
___ ____ _____ _____
SC%/Sa%/G%/B%/Be%
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ ____ ____ ____
____ ____ ____ ___ _____
___ ____ _____ _____ ___ ___
___ ___ ___ _____ _____ ----
dl
dl6 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/ft
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ ____ ____ ____
____ ____ ____ ___ ___ _____
___ ____ _____ ___ ___
___ ___ ___ _____ ____ -----
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfall (Rosgen Curve
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---- ---- ----
---- ---- ____ ___ _____ _____
___ ____ ____ _____ --- ---
--- --- --- ----- --- ---
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m'
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ ____ ____
____ ____ ____ _____ _____ _____
___ ____ ____ _____ ___ ___
___ ___ ___ _____ _____ -----
Additional Reach Parameters
Additional
-----
-----
Drainage Area (SM)
_____
_____ 0.07 _____
_____ _____ _____ 0.07 ____ ____
____ ____ ____ _____ _____ _____
____ ____ ____ 0.07 ____ ____
____ ____ ____ 0.07 _____ -----
impervious cover estimate (0o
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____
_____ ___ ___
Rosgen Classification
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ F _____ ____ ____ ____
____ ____ ____ ___ _____ _____
_____ ____ ____ ____ ___ ___
___ ___ ___ ___ _____ _____
_____
BFDischarge(cfs)
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ 14.4 _____ ____ ____ ____
____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _____
_____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____
___ ___ ___ ____ _____ -----
Valley Lengtt
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ 252.7 ____ ____
____ ____ ____ ___ ___ _____
_____ ____ ____ ____ ___ ___
___ ___ ___ 252.7 --- ---
Channellength (ft _
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ 283.0 ____ ____
____ ____ ____ ___ ___ _____
___ ____ ____ ____ ___ ___
___ ___ ___ 284.2 _____ -----
Sinuosity_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ 1.12 _____ ____ ____ ____
____ ____ ____ _____ _____ _____
____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____
___ ___ ___ 1.12 _____ __-
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft;
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ 0.022 _____ ____ ____ ____
____ ____ ____ _____ _____ _____
____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____
___ ___ ___ _____ _____ _____
____ _____ _____ _____
Bankfall Floodplain Area (acres
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ ____ ____ ____
____ ____ ____ ________
_____ _____
___ ____ _____ _____ ___
___ ___ ___ _____ _____ _____
BEHI VL%/L%/M%/H%/VH%/E%
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ ____ ____ ____
____ ____ ____ ___ ___ _____
___ ____ _____ ___ ___
___ ___ ___ _____ ___ ----
_Channel
ChannelStability or Habitat Metric
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ ____ ____
____ ____ ____ ___ ___
___
___ ___ ___ _____ _____ -----
Biological or Od-
Biological
_____
I _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ ____ ____ ____
____ ____
* 1999 Regional Curve 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)

Table 5 continued. Baseline Stream Summon
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No ID. 96313
Reach T3
Parameter
USG S
Regional Curve*
Pre -Existing
Condition
Reference Reach es Data
As -built
Com Composite
GangDesign
a
Dimension and Substrate - Rif h
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 _____ ____ _____ ____
____
Floodpmne Width (ft)
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
66.5
_____
_____
____ ____
____
____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
15.0 _____ ____ _____ ____
___ ___ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____
0.5 _____ ____ _____ ____
____
BFMax Depth (ft)
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
1.76
_____
_____
____ ____
____
____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
0.6 _____ ____ _____ ____
____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft')
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
3.3
_____
____
____ ____
____
____
____
____ _____ _____
____
2.8 _____ ____ _____ ____
____ ___ _____ _____ ____ ___
Width/Depth Ratio
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
2.62
_____
____
____ ____
12.0
____
____
18.0 _____ _____
_____
12.0 _____ ____ _____ ____
____ ____ _____ _____ _____ -----
Entrenchment ment a[rc
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
22.7
_____
____
____ ____
____
2.2 ____ _____
_____
<2,2 ____ _____ ____
____ ____ _____ _____
Bank Height Ratic
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
1,7
_____
____
____ ____
1.0
____
____
1.1 ____ _____
_____
LO _____ ____ _____ ____
____ ____ ____ _____ _____ _____
d5O (ram)
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____ _____ _____ _____
Pattern
Channel a [wr [
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ ____
___ -----
Radius of Curvature (ft)
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
__________
_____
____
____ ____
____
____
____
___ ___
___ ___
___ ___ _____ _____ _____
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft --
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
____ _____
____
____
____
___ ____
____ ____ ____
_____ 3.0
___ ___ _____ _____ ____ -----
Meander
Meander Wavelength (k
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
____ _____
____
____
___ ___ ____
___
____ ___ ___
___ ___ _____ _____ _____ -----
Meander
Meander Width Ratic
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
________
____
____
____
___
___
___ ___ _____ _____ ___ _
-----__
Profile
___ ___ ____
___
____ ____ ___
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
____
____
___ ___ ____
___
0.033 ____ ___ ____ ____
0.017 0.025 0.017 0.017 0.007 2
___ ___ ____
___
____ ____ ___ ___
Poolto Pool Spacing (ft_
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
____ _____
____
____
____
___ ___ ____
___
36 ____ ___ ___ ___
___ ___ _____ _____ _____ ____
___
0.9 ____ ___ ____ ____
Pool Volume (ft')
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
____ _____
____
____
____
____ ___ ____
___
____ ____ ___ ____ ___
___ _____ -----
Substrate and Transport Parameters
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
____ _____
_____
____
____
___ ___ ____
___
____ ____ ____ ___ ___
___ _____ _____ _____
____
___ _____
___
____ ____ ____ ___ ___
___ _____ _____ _____ ____
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ -----
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/ft
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
____ _____
____
____
____
___ ___ _____
_____
_____ _____ ____ ___ ___
___ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
Max part size(mm) mobilized at bankfull(Rosgen Carve
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
____ ____
____
____
____
___ ___ ____
_____
_____ _____ ___ ___
___ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
____ ____
____
____
____
___ ___ _____
_____
_____ _____ ____ ___ ___
___ ___ _____ _____ _____ -----
Additional Reach Parameters
- ----
DrainageArea(SM)
_____ 0.06
_____
_____
_____
_____
0.06
____ ____
____
____
____
____ ____ _____
_____
_____ _____ 0.06 ____ ____
____ ____ ____ 0.06 _____ -----
impervious cover estimate o
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
____ ____
____
____
____
___ ___ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____ ___ ___
___ ___ ___ _____ _____ _____
Rosgen Classification
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
E
_____
_____
_____ ____
____
B5c
____
____ _____ _____
_____
B5c _____ _____ _____ _____
BF Velocity(fps)
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
3.6
_____
_____
_____ ____
4
____
____
6.0 _____ _____
_____
2.3 -----
BFDischarge c s
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
11.7
_____
_____
_____
6.4 _____ ____ ____ ____
____
ValleyLengtt
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
____
_____
443
_____ ____
_____
____
____
____ _____ _____
_____
_____ _____ ____ ____ ____
___ ___ ___ 80.5 _____ -----
Channel length (ft _
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
47.0
____ ____
____
____
____
____ ____ _____
_____
_____ _____ ____ ____ ____
___ ___ ___ 88.0 _____ -----
Sinuosity
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
1.06
_____
_____
____ ____
1.1
____
____
1.3 ____ _____
_____
1.20 _____ ____ ____ ____
____ ____ ____ 1.09 _____ -----
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (tuft;
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
0.02
_____
_____
____ ____
____
____
____
____ ____ _____
_____
0.014 _____
----- -----
BFslope(f/ft)
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____
__ _ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres,
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____ ____
____
____
____
___ _____
_____ _____ ___ ___
___ ___ ___ _____ ___ ___
BEHI VL%/L%/M%/H%/VH%/E%
____ ____
____
____
____
___ _____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____ ___ ___
___ ___ ___ _____ _____ _____
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____ ____
____
____
____
_____ _____
_____ _____ ___
___
___ ___ ___ _____ ___
Biological or Other
_____
_____
_____
____ ____
* 1999 Regional Curve 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)

Table 5 continued. Baseline Stream Summar3
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No ID. 96313
Reach T4
Parameter
USG S
Regional Curve*
Pre -Existing
Condition
Reference Reach es Data
Design
As -built
Composite
Gane
Dimension and Substrate - Rifat
LL LJL
Eq.
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD n
Min
Mean
Med
Max SD n
Min Mean Med Max SD n
Min Mean Med Moa SD n
_____ 5.8 _____ ____ ____ ____
FloodpmneWidth (ft_
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____ ____
____
___—
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ 12.0 _____ ____ _—_ _—_
_—_ ___ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____ _____
_____ 0.5 _____ ____ ____
BFMax Depth (ft)
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
____ ____
____
____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____ 0.6 _____ ____ ____ ____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
BE Cross-sectional Area (ft)
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
____ ____
____
____
____
___ _____ _____
_____ 2.8 _____ ____ _____ ____
___ ___ _____ _____
Width/Depth Ratio
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
____ ____
12.0
____
____
18.0 _____ _____
_____ 12.0 _____ ____ ____ ____
____ ___ _____ _____ ____ -----
EntrenchmentRatic
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
____ ____
1.4
____
____
2.2 ____ _____
____ ¢2,2 _____ ___ ____ ____
____ ____ _____ _____ ____ -----
BankHeight Ratic
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
____ ____
1.0
____
____
1.1 ____ _____
____ 1.0 _____ ___ ____ ____
____ ____ ____ _____ _____ _____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____ _____ _____ ____ ____
Pattern
Channel a [wr [
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ ____
Radius of Curvature(ft)
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
________
_____
____
____ ____
____
____
____
___ ___
_____ ____ ___
___ ___ _____ _____ _____ _____
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft --
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
____ _____
____
____
____
___ _____
_____ _____ _____ ____ ___ ___
___ ___ _____ _____ _____ -----
Meander
Meander Wavelength (k
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
____ _____
____
____
___ ___ _____
_____ ___ ___
___ ___ _____ _____ _____ -----
Meander Width Ratic
Meander
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
____
____
___
___
___ ___ _____ _____ _____ -----
Profile
Profile
_____
_____ _____ _____ ____
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
____
____
___ ___ _____
_____ 0.051 _____ ____ ____ ____
0.007 0.047 0.048 0.072 0.023 11
____
_____ _____ _____ ____ ___
Pool to Pool Spacing (ft_
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
____ _____
____
____
____
___ ___ _____
_____ 14 _____ ____ ___ ___
12.3 16.1 14.6 21.6 3.5 11
_____
_____ 1.9 _____ ___ ____ ____
Pool Volume (ft')
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
____ _____
____
____
____
____ ___ _____
_____ _____ _____ ____ ____ ___
___ _____ -----
Substrate and Transport Parameters
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
____ _____
____
____
____
___ ___ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ ___ ___
___ _____ _____ _____
___ _____
_____ _____ _____ _____ ___ ___
___ _____ _____ ____
d16/ d35/ d50/ d84/ 195
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ -----
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/ft
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
_____ ___
_____
____
____
___ ___ ____
_____ _____ ____ _____ ___ ___
___ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull(Rosgen Carve
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
____
____
___ ___ ____
___ ____ ____ ___ ___
___ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ ___
_____
____
____
___ ___ ____
___ ____ ____ _____ ___ ___
___ _____ _____ _____ _____ -----
Additional Reach Parameters
DrainageArea (SM)
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
_____
_____
____
___ _____
___ ____ ____ _____ ___ ___
___ ____ _____ _____ _____ -----
impervious
mpernous cover estimate o
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
_____ _____
_____
____
____
___ ___ _____
___ ____ ____ _____ ___ ___
___ ___ _____ _____ _____ _____
Rosgen Classification
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
_____ _____
_____
B5c
____
____ _____ _____
____ B5c ____ ____ ____ ____
____ ____ _____ B5c ____ -----
BEVelocity(fps)
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
____ _____
4
____
____
6.0 _____ _____
____ 3.7 ____ ____ ____ ____
____ ____ _____ ____ _____ _____
_____
_____
____
____
___ _____ _____
___ 10.4 ____ ____ ___
ValleyLengtt
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
117.0
____ _____
_____
____
____
___ _____ _____
___ ____ ____ ____ ___ ___
___ ___ _____ 143.34 _____ -----
Channel length (ft _
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
____ ____
____
____
____
___ ___ _____
___ ____ ____ ____ ___ ___
___ ___ _____ 119.18 ____ -----
Sinuosity
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
____ ____
1.1
____
____
1.3 ____ _____
____ 1.20 ____ ____ ____ ____
____ ___ _____ 0.8314497 _____ -----
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (tuft;
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
____ ____
____
____
____
___ ___ _____
___ 0.047
_____ _____ ----- -----
BEslope(f/ft)
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres,
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
____ ____
____
____
____
___ _____ _____
___ ____
____ ____ ___ ___
___ ___ _____ _____ ___ ___
BEHI VL%/L%/M%/11 /VH%/E%
____
____ ____
____
____
____
___ _____ _____
___ ____ ____ ____ ___ ___
___ ___ _____ _____ _____ _____
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
____ ____
____
____
____
_____ _____ _____
___ ____ ___
____ ____ ___
___ ___ _____ _____ ___
Biological or Other
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
____ ____
* 1999 Regional Crave and Esianate 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 Project: DMS Project 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 MY
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
MY+
Base
MYl MY2 MY3 MY4
MY5 MY+
Base MY
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
MY+
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
BF Width (ft)
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 (ftp)
3.3
10.5
8.2
BF Max Depth (ft)
0.8
2
1.6
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
31.3
-
66.2
Entrenchment Ratio
4.4
-
7.0
Bank Height Ratio
1
1
1
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 MYl
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
Width/Depth Ratio
11.6
1.7
14
18.6
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft')
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
1
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 MY
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
Width/Depth Ratio
11.5
17.7
19.2
10.8
BF Cross-sectional Area (ftp)
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
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
11.2
18.2
12.0
9.9
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.9
1.0
0.6
0.8
Cross Sectional Area between end pins (ftz)
-
-
-
-
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-15 (Pool)
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)
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 (ft')
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 pins (ft)
-
-
-
-
d50 (mm)
-
-
-
Stream Reach
Reach 1
Cross-section X-16 Riffle
Cross-section X-17 Riffle
Dimension and substrate
Base MY 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
Width/Depth Ratio
12.0
10.9
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft2)
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)
.. _-:y •ail.; '��:..ry5 �_ ;�
Looking at the Right Bank
Stream
BKF
Max BKF
F�r _
Feature
Type
BKF Area
BKF Width Depth
Depth W/D
BH Ratio
ER
� a^^�c_- :'fir �`�"..�y,.r• : • t.. .
TOB Elev
Riffle
C
3.3
7.2 0.5
0.8 15.4
1 1
4.4
Sx'
795.36
Browns Summit Restoration Site
Looking at the Left Bank
.. _-:y •ail.; '��:..ry5 �_ ;�
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
3.3
7.2 0.5
0.8 15.4
1 1
4.4
795.36
795.36
Browns Summit Restoration Site
Reach 4, Cross-section 1
798
797
c
�
796
--------------------------------o
m
LU
-------------------------- -- ----------------- ----- ---------------------------------------------------o
795
As -built
--o - 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
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
794
Y
FU
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
--.R"•'.�r _.fi''. ���eoF'kd`�..•-Cyd .. _..
Looking at the Right Bank
Stream
BKF
Max BKF
r
-
/
Feature
Type
BKF Area
BKF Width
Depth
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
E
8.2
9.5
0.9
1.6
11
1
7
791.82
791.82
Browns Summit Restoration Site
Looking at the Left Bank
--.R"•'.�r _.fi''. ���eoF'kd`�..•-Cyd .. _..
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
8.2
9.5
0.9
1.6
11
1
7
791.82
791.82
Browns Summit Restoration Site
Reach 4, Cross-section 3
794
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------o
793
c
0
M
>
m
792
---------------------------------- ------ -----------------------------------------------------------------------o
LU
791
As -built
--o - Bankfull
--o - 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
---------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S789.5
C
0
789
m
U'788.5
---- ----- ---------------------
---------------- - -------------------------------------------------------------------
788
As -built
--o - Bankfull
787.5
--o - 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
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
E
12.7
11.8
1.1
1.7
11
1
5.8
785.78
785.78
Browns Summit Restoration Site
Reach 4, Cross-section 5
788
787.5
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------0
787
F786.5
0 786
785.5
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
W
785
784.5
As -built
--o - Bankfull
784
---0 - 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
0.9
1.3
14
1
781.47
781.47
Browns Summit Restoration Site
Reach 3, Cross-section 6
785
784
783
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
c---------------------
0
0
782
m
w
781
As -built
780
--o - Bankfull
--o - 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)
EEO
.. r
�� .� � .! - rte: �• f�- •. -
- �'"moi-`•7�:-��.ial:.. � _ [
Ld
Looking at the Left Bank
IS
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
w
c
0
Y
m-----------------------------
--------------- ------------- ----- ----- --------------------------------------0
W
781
As -built
--o - 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)
• �-� 1- 1 � _.�_ _ I. �„ �; �� - :,.;�.--,fir .-� -
to
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
9.8
10.6
0.9
1.3
11.5
1
8.2
777.39
777.39
Browns Summit Restoration Site
Reach 3, Cross-section 8
780
779
^.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
c
0
0 778
m
LU
777
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As -built
--o - 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
17.7
1
775.59
775.59
Browns Summit Restoration Site
Reach 3, Cross-section 9
780
779
778
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
c
777
Y
m
776
LU
775
As -built
774
--o - Bankfull
--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
w
r775
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----o
0
Y
Lu 774
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------o
As -built
773
--o - Bankfull
--o - 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
... _ ."•-, •,-,.,mow ;. ... ._. - r
Looking at the Right Bank
Stream
BKF
Max BKF
- _
r
Feature
Looking at the Left Bank
... _ ."•-, •,-,.,mow ;. ... ._. - r
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
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
w
c773
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------
Y
772
W
----------------------------------------- - ----------------------------------------------------------
771
As -built
770
--o - Bankfull
--o - Floodprone
769
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
80 90 100
Station (ft)

Looking at the Left Bank
Permanent Cross-section 12
(As -built Data - Collected March 2017)
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
765
0
Y
M764
------------------------- -------------- - --- -----------------
As -built
763
--o - Bankfull
--o - Floodprone
762
0 10 20 30 40
50 60
Station (ft)

NNW W12
Looking at the Left Bank
Permanent Cross-section 13
(As -built Data - Collected March 2017)
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
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
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
765
w
764
c
763
y----------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------Q
762
LU
761
As -built
760
--o - Bankfull
--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)
�..:�iy�-,saw• �:....Q.ra� __r _ _. �.�1.�..-_..�d-�,..__.--._- .. j _ '�
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
w
� 762
0
a------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------
--- ------------------o
w 761
As -built
760
--o - Bankfull
--o - 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
C
33.2
29.4
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
c
761
.2
m760
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
w
759
As -built
758
--o - Bankfull
--o - 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
, - FtF!.
14 11
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
7610
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
760
0
Y
w
759
As -built
758
--o - 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
Depth
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
C
14.5
12.6
1.2
1.7
10.9
1
5.4
758.76
758.76
Browns Summit Restoration Site
Reach 1, Cross-section 17
761
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------o
760
w
r 759
o----------------------------------------------------
------------------------------- -----
----- ----- --
Y
w 758
As -built
757
--o - Bankfull
--o - Floodprone
756
0 10 20 30 40 50
60 70 80
Station (ft)

IVO
767
766
C
O
d
W
765
764
763
4300
Browns Summit - Reach 2
4400 4500 4600 4700 4800 4900
Station
5000

783
C
0
782
0
LU
Browns Summit - Reach T3
-4--As-Built Thalweg
781 a
1000 1010 1020 1030 1040 1050 1060 1070 1080 1090 1100
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
Liriodendron 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 lyrata Overcup oak 6% 700
Acer negundo Box elder 5% 600
Celtis laevigata Sugarberry 2% 300
N ssa s lvatica I Black gum 1 2% 1 300
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
Euonymus americanus Heart -a -busting 4% 500
Alnus serrulata Tag alder 5% 600
flex verticillata Winterberry 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 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
Acer ne undo Box elder
Celtis laevi ata Sugarberry
N ssa s lvatica Black gum
Shrub Species
Carpinus carolinianum Ironwood
Ilex o aca American holly
Hamamalis vir iniana witchhazel
Viburnum dentatum Arrowwood
Euonymus americanus Heart -a -busting
Alnus 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 1
22
24
17
18
19
18
19
18
20
17 16
21
18
Stems/acre
728
890 1
971
688
1 728
769
728
769
728
809 1
688 1 648
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

00
d`
0
qK
V
• 0
AS
LE)
Tht
info
bell
anc
dra
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.
NORTH CAROLINA_
n
NCI 140048 1 g 1 23
GRAPHIC SCALES
20 0 20 40
DESIGN SUMMARY
REACH NAME PROPOSED LENGTH L AS -BUILT LENGTH LF
PREPARED FOR THE OFFICE OF.
NCDENR
DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
1652 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH, NC 27699-1652
PREPARED IN THE OFFICE OF.
fgglip irynnw�m::'me.:7°sw "eoo°m�.
�'^TM'° "R°
I N T E R N A T I 0 N A L`us:::�s'.iowe
PROJECT ENGINEER
5'
2
REACH 1 1,233 1,290
REACH 805 752
REACH 3 1,469 1,456
KATHLEEN M. McKEITHAN, PE
PLANS
20 0 20 40
REACH 4 1,296 1,296
REACH 5 562 536
REACH 6 454 442
PROFILE (HORIZONTAL)
4 0 4 B
T1 145 145
EETnRc
PROJECT ENGRUER 4 GER
T2 283 285
T3 Jo BB
CONTACT. JEFF SCHAFFER
PRO�L2'�'V4G�`
T4 111 1192
PROFILE CAL
NERTII
TOTAL 6345 6 409
srcA•4TVRE:

STREAM CONVENTIONAL
SYMBOLS
IS
SUPERCEDES
SHEET 1—B
FLOW GAUGE
0 pere
00
ROCK J -HOOK
—®—
SAFETY FENCE
eem
ROCK VANE
—TF—
TAPE FENCE
r�
d d
ROCK CROSS VANE
—FP—
100 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN
OBL
Eleocharis adndam
—Q—
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
01
LOG J -HOOK
ams eff. 19oftnesh
Lubeba mrdinaHs
Candies] Monet
10-o
---
EXISTING MAJOR CONTOUR
Joe Eye Weed
LOG VANE
FACW
Xybinw mccneus
Scarlet Rose Wlow
15%
----------
EXISTING MINOR CONTOUR
Longleaflobelia
LOG WEIR
OBL
Rhympiwpoor calumet
SasusholutetoP
20%
--------------
LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE
Quill sedge
LOG STEP POOL
---
PROPERTY LINE
®
GRADE CONTROL LOGJAM
BWitongw
FOOT BRIDGE
0111-
BLhis
CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE
--'
TEMPORARY STREAM CROSSING
OBL
Acarwamertmnw
Seeetflag
PERMANENT STREAM CROSSING
ORL
ROCK STEP POOL
Atrowaurn
TRANSPLANTED VEGETATION
(# F—
PHOTO POINT
IS
MONITORING WELL
Cammao Nem, %Plmtedby Species Wetland Tolerance
FLOW GAUGE
-
CREST GAUGE
DITCH PLUG
CHANNEL FILL
® BRUSH MATTRESS
® GEOLIFT WITH BRUSH TOE
**NOTE: ALL ITEMS ABOVE MAY NOT BE USED ON THIS PROJECT
Proposed Plug Species far Reach R6 Comtrsir ed Welland
Rroans Summit Creek Restoration Project
Frminwpenwylvanim
Green Ash 10%
Batmied Nam,
Cammao Nem, %Plmtedby Species Wetland Tolerance
Deep Pool Planting,
Four Cubic loch Herbaceous Plugs to be hmtalledd' On Center
Density
(lbsla)
Leanne app.
Dockoeed
25%
OBL
Nuphar lutea ss p. Advena
WAIrr.pomHily
25%
OBL
Nelumbe linea
Amancenlotw
2s%
OBL
Eleocharis adndam
Needle spikeruah
25%
OBL
High Mmsh Plowing,
Foos lents, Inch Berbacer Plugs to be Iwt]led 3' On Center
ams eff. 19oftnesh
Lubeba mrdinaHs
Candies] Monet
10-o
FACW
Eupatoriadelphusfismlosus
Joe Eye Weed
15%
FACW
Xybinw mccneus
Scarlet Rose Wlow
15%
OBL
lobelia elongate
Longleaflobelia
15%
OBL
Rhympiwpoor calumet
SasusholutetoP
20%
FACW
Cares"Rero
Quill sedge
25%
FAC
Low harsh Planting,
Few Cabic Each Herbaceous Plug, to be Iwtalled3' Ov Center
ikrrowawod Viburnum
Segiltarialanafolia
BWitongw
10%
0111-
BLhis
Irispseudamrw
Yellow Flag
15%
OBL
Acarwamertmnw
Seeetflag
15%
ORL
PeUmad-vlrgtnim
Atrowaurn
15%
ODL
Pontederiacardato
Pid.,aleeed
20%
OBL
Sarpwrypennw
Woolgrms
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 (3'x2'x2j, 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. (1500832.4949)
5. ENGINEER WILL FLAG TREES TO BE SAVED PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.
STANDARD SPECIIFIICATIONS
NORTH CAROLINA
EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLANNING AND DESIGN MANUAL
MARCH 2009 (REV 2013)
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
VEGETATION SELECTION
Proposed Permavevt Seed Mixture
BroVels Summit Creek Resile opProject
Frminwpenwylvanim
Green Ash 10%
Botanie]Name
Botanical Naso Common Name
%Planted
,Specie,
Density
(lbsla)
Wedrol
Tolerance
Altdropogan gerardit Big blue stem
10%
1.5
FAC
Dientantheliuse Due, Wngm
clandesimem
15%
225
FAC
Carrs crirtim Fringed sedge
101.
1.5
OBL
Elymus reglnims Virginia gild rye
101.
1.5
FAC]
ams eff. 19oftnesh
10%
1.5
FACW
Pauicum Virgule. Sa+teligrass
15%
2.25
FAC
Schixarhyriumccoparlum Little blue stem
101.
1.5
FACU
Se,ghaurum nutans Lrdimrgass
10%
1.5
FACU
bnpa6enr mpensis Jewelweed
10%
1.5
FACW
Total
100%
Is
6%
Note: Final species selecnonmay change it. ore6mmentormdlebility a the time of
planning. If BpeCIE9 9Yb6I1I11110n i8 reQWRd, BC r.rediae GoanBetnl N111 Yab11Yt aIEN,Ed
Passing list to Baker for appro ad prior to the procurement of plan¢ sock.
Proposed Bae -Reel end Livestake Species
Broome Summit Creek Reiteration Pro eet
Frminwpenwylvanim
Green Ash 10%
Botanie]Name
Commav Name
%Planted
by Species
Wetland
Tolerance
Riparian Beller Plantings — Overact , (For AI reaches event Rl, R2)
a'x8'rpsuio -680 stemslure
Froxiouspennsylvamon
Creew Ash
10%
FACW
Bem/a nigra
Ricer Such
10%
FACW
Drudendron mlipjem
TWip Popla
10%
FAC
Quartos midmwii
Satrap Chasm]Oak
10%
FACW
Dumpy. Virgin.
Persimmon
5%
FAG
Flown. oceidentalls
American gyrations
10%
FACW
Ulmusameneona
American Elm
5%
FACW
Ripuarian Buffer PI swings— Understory (For all reaches except Rl, R2)
8'x8's iv-680atevWure
Carpenter wrohrunna
American Herniation
I OYo
FAC
Bax opam
Americatifolly
9%
PAC
IlamamElls virgue.
Wltchbeml
6%
PACU
Nbernum dentatum
ikrrowawod Viburnum
8%
PAC
Euonymw amerimmas
Strunberry Bush
8%
PAC
M
aw
APPROVED BY'.
wi DACE:
®Ment Npr E qgrp�-�������pp I„c.
aM ,sue B)S
p
INTEflNATIONA L moe u-.0,11 s
NCDMS ID No. 96313
AS-BULT SURVEY PREPARED BY:
LEVEL CROSS SURVEYING, PLLC-Rantlkmeo NC.
RECORD DRAWINGS
Thr remrd timing bas been Prepared in part based upon
information furnished by start. While Nis informaon o
banned W be reliable, Oro Engineer rennet assure or accuracy,
and Nb W notmsposrsible for Na axu2cy of Nle record
drawing or for any anon or omissions wbzh may rase been
inmrpomWd kelp B an a rook Those retying on Nk remN
documentare entrant to obtain irslepercentsenhca4on 0
R accuracy belore applying Wr a" purpose.
Wetland Buhr Planfiap—C rerstory (For Beaches Illi RZ)
P x8,wearing -680atma/Aere
Frminwpenwylvanim
Green Ash 10%
FACW
Betula nigra
River Birab 10%
FACW
Quercus tynter
Osercup0ak 10%
OBL
Ace,wgunda
Be. Elder 10%
FACW
Planus occidentalis
lwerican Sycmn 10%
FACW
Celtic laevigaet
Ssgtrbmry 5%
FACW
Nyssasylvmim
Bimkgom 5%
FAC
Welland Dollar Plantings—Uaderiew,, (For Reacher RL R2)
8'x8'a-680atema/Acre
Carpinus mroliniana
Americus HOmbeatr 101%
FAC
Al.. serrulam
Tag Alter 101,
OBL
Be. verNollata
Wentnimny 10%
FACW
Flburnum vadum
Posrmrduw 10%
OBL
Aipvi. Live Stake Planti age
Salixscricea
Silky Willow 25%
OBL
Sambutusmrmdewis
Elderberry 25%
FACW
Ceplmiamhss omidentalis BuBonbush 15%
OBL
Cornus amomum
Silky Dogaeod 25%
FACW
Salix nigra
Black Willow 10%
OBL
Note: Pinal epeciee selection trey change rho: to refimautd or malebilityattbe
timeofplmeing. Bspecies aubatitmionis req]red uta PlvAng coMmor will
submit arovined planting list to Baler for approval Prior to rise Procurement of plant
sock

STATE OF NOIEg°ll"1H[ CAROLINA
'S.U.E = SUBSURFACE UTILITY ENGINEER DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
BOUNDARIES AND PROPERTY
I ft Ir,;,a,'
State Line
----
County Line
O
sx,rcx
Township Line
-- -- — —
City Line
51
Reservation Line
—
Property Line
—
Existing Iron Pin
Existing Right of Way Marker
Property Corner
Existing Right of Way Line
Property Monument
E9
Parcel/Sequence Number
—®—
Existing Fence Line
-�
Proposed Woven Wire Fence
----T'----
Proposed Chain Link Fence
Proposed Barbed Wire Fence
Designated UG Fiber Optics Cable (S.U.E.---
Existing Wetland Boundary
---
Proposed Wetland Boundary
T
Existing Endangered Animal Boundary
--r--
Existing Endangered Plant Boundary
—E
BUILDINGS AND OTHER CULTURE
Gas Pump Vent or LAG Tank Cap
Proposed Permanent Drainage Easement —PDE
Sign
Proposed Permanent Utility Easement
Well
Proposed Temporary Utility Easement
Small Mine
Proposed Permanent Easement with
Foundation
Iron Pin and Cap Marker
Area Outline
C
Cemetery
——
Building
-----
Proposed Slope Stakes Cut
--- ---
School
--- =---
Proposed Wheel Chair Ramp
Church
Dam
—
HYDROLOGY.•
Stream or Body of Water
0
O
s
0
k
Hydro, Pool or Reservoir_—,
Jurisdictional Stream
Buffer Zone 1—
Buffer Zone 2 U 2 -
Flow Arrow F
Disappearing Stream �.—
Spring 0--..�,.
Wetland
Proposed Lateral, Tail, Head Ditch _
False Sump
CONVENTIONAL SYMBOLS
Standard Gauge
I ft Ir,;,a,'
RR Signal Milepost
r„�� , ss
Switch
O
sx,rcx
RR Abandoned
-- -- — —
RR Dismantled
51
Proposed Joint Use Pole
RIGHT OF WAY.-
Power Manhole
Baseline Control Point
Power Line Tower
Existing Right of Way Marker
Power Transformer
Existing Right of Way Line
LLG Power Cable Hand Hole
E9
Proposed Right of Way Line
—®—
Proposed Right of Way Line with
A
Iron Pin and Cap Marker
----T'----
Proposed Right of Way Line with
Concrete or Granite Marker
Designated UG Fiber Optics Cable (S.U.E.---
Existing Control of Access
Proposed Control of Access
T
Existing Easement Line
--r--
Proposed Temporary Construction Easement-
—E
Proposed Temporary Drainage Easement—
—TDE—
Proposed Permanent Drainage Easement —PDE
Proposed Permanent Utility Easement
—PUE
Proposed Temporary Utility Easement
—TUE
Proposed Permanent Easement with
O
Iron Pin and Cap Marker
ROADS AND RELATED FEATURES:
Existing Edge of Pavement
——
Existing Curb
-----
Proposed Slope Stakes Cut
--- ---
Proposed Slope Stakes Fill
--- =---
Proposed Wheel Chair Ramp
Existing Metal Guardrail
Proposed Guardrail
T T '
Existing Cable Guiderail
Proposed Cable Guiderail
Equality Symbol
0
Pavement Removal
Single Tree 0
Single Shrub 0
Hedge
Woods Line
Orchard O fl O
Vineyard
EXISTING STRUCTURES. -
MAJOR:
Bridge, Tunnel or Box Culvert
Bridge Wing Wall, Head Wall and End Wall
—
MINOR:
Head and End Wall
Pipe Culvert
Footbridge
Drainage Box: Catch Basin, DI or JB
Paved Ditch Gutter
Storm Sewer Manhole
Storm Sewer
UTILITIES.-
POWER:
OO
Existing Power Pole
j
Proposed Power Pole
b
Existing Joint Use Pole
51
Proposed Joint Use Pole
71
Power Manhole
},
Power Line Tower
AIC •a.a�
Power Transformer
m
LLG Power Cable Hand Hole
E9
H -Frame Pole
Recorded LLG Power Line
Designated UG Power Line (S.U.E.')
TELEPHONE:
Existing Telephone Pole
OO
Proposed Telephone Pole
-0-
Telephone Manhole
0
Telephone Booth
51
Telephone Pedestal
71
Telephone Cell Tower
},
UG Telephone Cable Hand Hole
AIC •a.a�
Recorded LLG Telephone Cable
m
Abandoned According to Utility Records —
Designated LLG Telephone Cable (S.U.E.')-
--------
Recorded UG Telephone Conduit
Designated LTelephone Conduit
LG
----T'----
Recorded UG Fiber Optics Cable
T _
Designated UG Fiber Optics Cable (S.U.E.---
----,,o ---
WATER:
Water Manhole
OO
Water Meter
o
Water Valve
O
Water Hydrant
Ey
Recorded UG Water Line
'
Designated LkG Water Line (S.U.E.')-
-- --- - --
Above Ground Water Line
AIC •a.a�
N:
TV Satellite Dish
C(
N Pedestal
11
N Tower
O
LLG N Cable Hand Hole
Ey
Recorded LIG TV Cable
U2
Designated LPG TV Cable (S.U.E.')
----^----
Recorded UG Fiber Optic Cable
^ �
Designated LPG Fiber Optic Cable (S.U.E.'r - --
GAS:
Gas Valve 0
Gas Meter
Recorded UG Gas Line
Designated ILLS Gas Line (S.U.E.') - - - - - - -
Above Ground Gas Line
SANITARY SEWER:
Sanitary Sewer Manhole
Sanitary Sewer Cleanout 0+
IPG Sanitary Sewer Line ss
Above Ground Sanitary Sewer ..c S011tory S-81
Recorded SS Forced Main Line—
Designated
ine Designated SS Forced Main Line (S.U.E.')
MISCELLANEOUS:
Utility Pole
0
Utility Pole with Base
p
Utility Located Object
O
Utility Traffic Signal Box
Utility Unknown LLG Line
U2
LAG Tank; Water, Gas, Oil
O
ASG Tank; Water, Gas, Oil
0
LLG Test Hole (S.U.E.')
m
Abandoned According to Utility Records —
AATUR
End of Information
E.O.I.

FLKOI
ROOT WADS
ROOT WADS WITHOUT TRANSPLANTS
USE IF TRANSPLANTS ARE NOT AVAILABLE ON-SITE
FLOOD
COVER LOG (8-
ROOT WADS WITH TRANSPLANTS
USE IF TRANSPLANTS ARE AVAILABLE ONSITE
TRANSPLANTS NOT TO
EXTEND BEYOND TRUNK
OF ROOT WADS
M BEDSS
ut SED
171LT. \TI�aL9
LOG
DIA)
AD
1. INSTALLATION USING ME TRENCHING METMOD REQUIRES THATA
TRENCH BE EXCAVATED FOR THE LOG PORTION OF THE ROOT WAD.
ONE-THIRD OF THE ROOT WAD SHOULD REMAIN BELOW NORMAL
JEW BASE FLOW CONDITIONS OR CHAHNEL BOTTOM.
3. THE NUMBER OF ROOTWADS ESTIMATED MAY VARY DEPENDING ON
ME ROOTMASS SME IN GENERAL, ROOTWADS SHOULD PROTECT THE OUTER
MEANDER BEND AS SHOMM. SEE STRUCTURE TABLE FOR APPROXIMATE
STATION AND LOCATION,
3. INSTALL COVER LOGS BEIW£EN ROOTWADS TO PROVIDE HABTAT
ONLY WREN AVAILABLE FROM ONSITE HARVESTING.
z, pMe' r
j L
RIFFLE
DMu
A�
j NO L
POOL
NOTES:
1. WRING CONSTRUCTION CORNERS OF DESIGN CHANNEL MUL BE ROUNDED
ANDA THALVAFG MALL BE SHAPED PER DIRECTION OF ENGINEER.
2. POOLSSHO AWARELEFTPOOLSFORMFANDER CHANNELS.
TYPICAL STRUCTURE PLACEMENT
STRUCTURE NOTES:
1. GENERALLY CONSTRUCTED RIFFLES, ROOT WADS,
LOG VANES AND COIR FIBER MATTING
W1LLBE INSTALLED IN THE LOCATION
ANDSEOUENCEASSH AYN.
2. ANY CHANGES TO NUMBER OR LOCATION
OF STRUCTURES DURING CONSTRUCTION
MUST BE APPROVED BY THE DESIGN ENGINEER.
D COIR FIBER MATTING TO BE INSTALLED ON
ALL RESTORED STREAMBANKS, FLOOOPIAIN BENCHING,
AND TERRACE SLOPES AS DESCRIBED IN THE TECHNICAL
SPECIFICATIONS.
�- CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE
(SEESHEEI` -0)
TOPOFBANK
TYPICAL RIFFLE, POOL, AND BANKFULL BENCH CROSS-SECTIONS
VRd
PMu
-►f YA It
RIFFLE WITH BANKFULL BENCH
YAM
Yin I.
POOL WITH BANKFULL BENCH
PROJECT EQGGIMEEEERA,I�,
wAPPROVED BY:
'ry'f fHSIN Il- 7
HTE:
Y�knerl prb. a%plmvaln� Inc.
tw. uo" ns.
I N T E R N A T I D N A Lix.�.ns.me.
GEOUFT VAM BRUSH TOE
(SEESHEET341)
AS -BUILT SURVEY PREPARED BY:
R2
LEVEL CROSS SURVEYING, PLLC -Randleman, N.C.
R3
RECORD DRAWINGS
POOL
This remd dZft has been prepared In pelt based upon
POOL
information fumishad by DBMre. WNk this information ¢
PO A.
behved to be reliabM, the Engineer cannot assure b opera
POOL
and this k notresponMble for ft accurao, Oft mood
12.0
drawing or for any enure or ormow Mich may nave bean
a,
nmryomdd into Jas a mult Those relying on tma IemN
IntlependeM
O
dcolmerBare advised m obtain LerifiraEon of
L am'
BY.
As accuracy before applying Marty PUWN
LT
t.I
GEOUFT VAM BRUSH TOE
(SEESHEET341)
114 -UPPER
R1
R2
I POOL RIFFLE
R3
RIFFLE
POOL
RIFFLE
POOL
RIFFLE
PO A.
RIFFLE
POOL
la,
12.0
nA
n.D
4..6
ma
+AB
PoDTHOFIANYFUUM"
+.s
LT
t.I
u
11
10
aw' IDEPM(RMm.1
maw'"
31.0
+12
n.a
u.4
'.a
11.5
NIOMMIDEPMMROINMIr D)
ts3
2e.9
t11
10.5
9.7
104
SAMGULIMEA(Aw
ae
LE
SB
28
SA
LB
So"W"ADTN(NOI
114 -UPPER
STREAM Tl T3/T4
R4 -LOWER
I POOL RIFFLE
RS&STREAM
RIFFLE
POOL
RIFFLE
POOL
RIFFLE FOOL
B.1
IPa
Sa
la,
TD VLO
OA
15
PB
lA
0.e 1.3
u.B
Ha
13A
n.a
140 law
L)
1.
dS
114
3.5 BO
FA
1.7
5.7
Ls
4b 14
RE CIE
STREAM Tl T3/T4
RIFFLE
I POOL RIFFLE
I POOL RIFFLE
POOL
8.1
T.B 7.0
BOB 1B
1.5
0.B
0.9 PT
1.2 OA
OB
1L0
las 13.0
12.1 110
1L4
11
4.e se
Tw 2d
4.5
3.0
SD 4.4
10 3.3
2R
�lVARIESi�-- MWI �L�ARIEBi� �
I I I I
S�
DAlfle
L
STEP - POOL
FLLINMp
MUSSAM DEPTH
N1DTH TOOFPM TATO)+
41 r m
BOTR)M V ARFfm
BDTroMwwHAAb)
VADTHOFSANIFULL(VAMB
MAXIMUM DEPTH (D
W DTI TOOEPTH MTO (YAM/ 1a
BOTIOM I)TH )
aonOMvnOTN Dw1

BAYER PROJECT REFERENCE NO. 1 MM NO.
LIVE STAKING
PLANTING SPECIFICATIONS
1400 Z -A
PROJECT wWNFH
TOP OF SIAEAMBANK
A
TOP OF STREAMBANK TOP OF STREAMBANK
LIVE STAKE
PIANSINO a
L
V Ili
TOEOFSLOPE
-----------------------_
APPROVED BY',
AIN�`'lA"L
PWNTSTAKES FROM TOP OF BANK TO TOE
OF BANK IN A DIAMOND 51NPE0 STAGGERED
B B B B PATTERN TO SPECIFIED SPADING
TOP OF STREAMBANK
p•!; �.�
�N r ,.LVVR�� PATE.
LIVE STAKE
BOTTOM OF CHANNEL
'AF,I
Bctcc EL 117S'6 lnc
mT
®
gwry�ub
o NO
N
TOE OF SLOPE
INTERNATIONAL -leu
SECTION A -A'
PLAN VIEW
eoTroM or cluuuEL
NCDMS ID No. 96313
AS4WILT SURVEY PREPARED BY.
Lflh1 CROSS SURVEYING, PLLC - Randleman, N.C.
SQUARE LUTTOP
CROSS SECTION VIEW OF BARE ROOT PLANTING_
RECORD DRANANGS
by Offen pVAIWtiGBd In Pan, based upon
Thl,NO
LIVE STAKES ON POINT BAR
BUDS FACING UPNARO
infornadpn Wished by Nle Intimation b
* EN arc
Be reMMB, AM Elgineer assure Is aavrxy,
Tis
BW
BIId h0 M
4 lIX tlIB ., rd
Of 0118 lave
ny
LIVE GUTTING MIN. irz' DIA
or errurbl9
or amuThoaa wfiidl may have been
drawing a ii any ors AtW
Y -D LENGnT
incorporan a on this Aoord
am InCependelnnt
TOP OF STREAMBANK
dotumM aW6e i to ob�l nfitaEon of
M aruurecy before appNiq for any puryosa.
NOTES•
L PLANT BARE ROOT SHRUBS AND TREES TO THE W10TH OF THE
BUFFERMLRITNG ZONE AS SHONM ON THE PIANS.
2. ALLOW FOR &1D FEET BETWEEN PLANTINGS, DEPENDING ON SME.
3. LOOSENCOMPACTED SOIL
\
ANGLE CUT 3O-45 DEGREES
4. OTHERIPPPPOVED NEEAN6ATUK, DIBBLE. PLANTING BAR, OR
TOE OF SLOPE
LIVE STAKE DETAIL
5. PLANT IN HOLES DEEP ANDWTDE ENOUGH TOALIDWTHE ROOTS
TO SPREAD OUT AND DOWN VATHOUT JJROOTING.
B. KEEP ROOTS MOIST WHILE DISTRIBUTING OR WARING TO PLANT
BY MEANS OF WET CANVAS BURLAP OR STREW.
T. HEEIAN PLANTS IN MOIST WE OR SAWDUST IF NOT PROMPTLY
PLANTED UPON ARRNAL TO PROJECT SUE
6'4 SPACINGno Y3 SPACING
NOTES:
1. STAKES SHOULD BE CUT AND INSTALLED ON THE SLIME DAY. •
2 DO NOT INSTALL STAKES THAT HAVE BEEN SPLIT.
& STAKES MUST BE INSTALLED WTw BUDS POINTING UPWARDS.
A STAKES SHOULD BE INSTALLED PERPENDICULAR TO BANK
LIVE STAKE SPACING PLAN VIEW
& STAKES "BUD E for TO 2 INCHES IN DMER AND 2 TO 3 FT LOM
& STAKES SHOULD BE INSTALLED LEAWNG 1W3 OP STAKE ABOVE GROUND.
TRANSPLANTED VEGETATION
BRUSH MATTRESS
TRANSPUNTEO VEGETATION, ROOTMABB, AND SOIL MATERIAL
STAKES 2 T LONG
ON-SITEALEAMUM
BRUSH LAYER
Y 12 GUNGE GPLVPNIZED
WRE SECURED TO STAKES BANKFULL ELEVATION
TOPOF STREAMBA!NK
. �STAKECTYP.)UNE
FASCINE(SEE TYPJn
P
NSPLANTED VEGETATION, ROOTMASS. AND SOIL MATERLLLSTRFJUABED
TOE of BANK
90SRANCHESMINFER>3FT. BRANCHES OF i INCH OR LESS
TOE OBOTTOMOF
CHANN
ROW NOTE
NOTES
T. LRFATEITDEEP
TRENCH
�1
i. BRUSH MATTRESS SHOULD BE INSTALlEO DURING 2. STAKEAND W1RE BRUSH LAVER INTO TRENCH
TIO ]. BALK FILL3'OF
ONLY
ONSITENLL.WIUM OVER BRUSH LAYER
2. ONLY USE SPECIFIED
USE SPECIES UNDER IJVE TAKES
EGET
xoiEs:
F TION SEL
PLAN VIEW sscTroN OF VEGETATION SELECTION.
CROSS SECTION
CROSS SECTION VIEW
1. EXWVATEAWMINTHEBANKTOBESTABILREDTHATWILL
ACCOMMODATE THE SUE OF TRANSPLANTTO BE PLACED.
BEGIN EXCXVATION AT THE TOE OF THE BANK
2 EXCAVATE THE ENTIRE ROOT MASSAND AS MUCHADDOIONAL
SOIaM ALAS POSSIBLE. IF ENNPE RO LAN NOT
VA
SE EXCAVATED AT ONCE, THE TRANSPLANT IS TOO LARGE ANO
IS M
BANIffULL ELEVATION
ANOTHER SHOULD BE SELECTED.
2.
nANSPLANIED VEGETATION ANO ROOTMASS
A PLACE TRANSPLANT IN THE SANKTO BE STABILRED SO THAT
VEGTATONISORIENTATEDVERTICALLY.
& ANY INANY S AROUND THE AND COMPACT.
HULD
y
N STAKE
OTOCHEDFORWLREOR
SOIL LEFT IN THE STREAM BE REMOVED.
6. MEN POSSIBLE. PLACE MULTIPLE TRANSPLANTS CLOSE
NLAAU
ROPEWIMIN.2+ LENGTH
® ®
® .\ �' ®
rocTHER sucH THAT rHEV Touch
®
® TOP OF BANK
yF
®
® % l` ® ®
® TOE OF BANK
STREAMBED
--------------
�' \ �______
--------- •________—
`
TYPICAL STAKE
NOTES
/2-3T
/
PLAN VIEW
1. BOARD FOR STAKE SHOULD BE Yr P K 24'. WE FASCINE
CC
2. SAW 2-K P UMBER DIAGONALLY TO PRODUCE DEAD STOUT STAKES. (SEE TYPJ

DITCH PLUG N'IO[ PROJECT REF ENCE NO. SNE NO.
LOG WEIR
140048 1 2"B
PROTECT ENGINEER
rrrro
RUNSPLANTS
® 1
® TRANSPLANTS
DITCH TO BE PLUGGED 9 APPROVEDBY.
DATE
® CHANNELYADT-1
F•p
9
1.SX CIWNNELVADTH
®
®,.
Enaln One.
�,`
TOP OF STflEAMBANK
®hxlBQn
p TM�par��
DITCH PLUG
1 SCOUR
1 ®
I N T E R N A T I D N A L `uv `mTnsaN
POOL
__ _
%
Plow
NC&E ID ND. 96313
- Z-COD
\
VA6IR
1•
-
_
-
im
L _ __ _
STREAMING
-
PREPARED BY:
SUROSS SURVEYING,
COMPACT 10INCH UUFPS. USING ONSf1E HEAVY EQUIPMENT LEVEL
Wap INCH LIFFB. LEVEL CROBB SURVEYING, PLLC - Randleman, N.C.
S A'
�
PLAN VIEW RECORD DRANINGS
O
O
This recon! :192 has beon prepared In pan, band upon
HEADER LOG / BALIffILL (ONSITE ALLIMUM)
NmiMBd by othere is
tlIO Inbum
Wiene l t C my
rannol assure 6s auurary,
bdkad k Ea ragomsible
PLAN VIEW
ana his k ortEngineer
bk fort" dcNrelit of
ming or or any ern my or ay mo Amn
ythlith reony
OGEOTEX I ILEFABRIt
�rebd intoyS es aresult Those "ngons
Ne rewrd
FOOTER LOO
document dre advised to obtain independentverifletlon of
UNCOMPACTED BACKFILL as accuracy bebre applying hr a, pur pee.
NMINIMUM
COMPACTED BACKFILL 1.6 MINIMUM
TRANSPLANTS
SECTIONAd
FINK GRADE FINISH GRADE
INVERT
ELEVATION
HEADER L00 DOM
- &
I. LOGBSHWLDBEATLEAST 121NCHES IN DIAMETER, RELATNELYSTRAIGHT,
DITCH INVERT
FOOTER LOG HARDWOOD, AND RECENTLY HARVESTED.
2. LOGS .24 INCHES IN OIAMETER MAY BE USED ALONE WITHOUT AN ADDITIONAL DG,
GEOTIXRLE FABRIC SHOVED STILL BE USEOTO SFALAROUND LOG
,;7
3. PU EFOOTERLOGSFlRSTANDTHENHEAOER(TOP)LOG SETHEADERLOG
CROSS SECTION VIEW APPROXIMATLEV 31NCHES ABOVE THE INVERT ELEVATION.
COMPACTED BALKFlLL
A. CUT A NOTCH IN THE HEADER LOG APPROXIMATLEY ED PERCENT OF THE CHANNEL
BOTTOM MOTH AND IXTENDING COVM TO THE INVERT EF/ATION.
5. USE GEOTEXTILE FABRIC TO SELL OAFS 9ElNEEN LOGS.
SECTION A - A'
S. PLACE TRANSPLANTS FROM TOE OF STREAMBANK TO TOP OF STREAMBANK
GRADE CONTROL LOG J-HOOK VANE
LOG VANE
LOG BURIED
BELOW STREAMED
LOG BURIED
BEIOW STREAMED
STONE BACKFILL
STONE BALIVILL�
O i�g
OOC
K ULL HEADER LOO
O
O
O
LEAVEO.5'-O.75' GIPS IN THE HOOK
SECTION OF THE HEADER ROCK
HEADER LOO OO
NO GAPS BER4EEN FOOTER ROCKS.
1l! GEOTfF11LE FABRIC
' FOOTER LO
A LL
A'
Ire
SECTION A -A'
FOOTER LOG CUT
A'', FABRIC
A 20 a0'
S MINIMUM
rGEOTIXRLE FABRIC
A 20'4IY
SECTION A-A'
�GDTIXTILE FABRIC
IXUVATEi
POOL
IXLAVATE'I
'I
POOL
TOP OF STREAMBANK
,
FLOW
ROOI\WD -% N
\ ROOIWAD
O STREAMBED
ROOTVMD
TOP OF STREAURI
FLORY '
LOG BURIED IN
STRFAMBANK AT LEAST 5' ��'s? .'-Nom'%may
LOGS BURIED IN SINEAMSED 3_
1, vlY=%
STRENA&1NK %
t of
AT LEIST S'
PLAN VIEW eR''l-�"�'J'� FOOTER LOG
ls J Y�BOULDER
_ `c_:.J�
PLAN VIEW
HEADER LOG G a � '�
.i
NOTES:
_✓K FOOTER LOG
1. LOGS SHOULDMUST AT LEAST 10- IN STRAIGHT W1RONgOO,ANO RECENTLY HARVESTED. ¢ _
PROFILE VIEW
TO, ANCHOR ';ry
ENT
SUP PICCTED%IIENT SRETOBURIED LOGS.
2. BOUOIL
NOTES
SHOULDST9EOF
PORPONS OF LOW. HEADER L00J
BE D BE
I . L0W SHOULD BE AT LEAST IV IN DIAMETER.REIARVELY STRAIGHT, HARDVWOD, AND RECENTLY HARVESTED.
LAC DBENEATHTHE
PLACED
A. ROOTVII DSSHO L
SER CDG AND PLACED SO THAT R LOCKS THE HEADER L00INTO
2. BOLADERS MUST BE AT LEAST 3' x 2' x 2'.
S. BOULDER SHOULD BE PLACED ON TOP OF HEADER LOG FOR ANCHORING
HOULD BE COMPACTED VVELL AROUND BURIED PORTIONS OF LOG,
DIL6.
FABRIC SHOULD BE F TO THE 1-00 R DI
THE gN
6. GTRANSP
ROOTVIADS SHOULD BE PLACEDENEATH THE HEADER LOG AND PLACED SO THAT IT LOCKS THE HEADER LOG
T. ANTS CAN BE USED INSTEAD OEOITICTILE
ROO AVCS, PEECTOF ENGINEER PROFILE VIEW
INTO THE BANK SEE ROOTWAD DETAIL
5. INDULGERS SHOULD BE PLACED ON TOP OF HEADER LOG FOR ACHORING
6. HEADER BOULDERS TO BE PLACED 0.5 TO O.n FEET APART.
T. OECTE)l LE FABRIC SHOULD BE NALLED TO THE LOG BELOW THE BACKFILL
S.1RAN6PUNT5 CAN BE USED INSTEAD OF ROOWADS, PER DIRECTION OF ENGINEER

A d
SECONDARY
LOGS—<
Ly
A PLAN VIEW
GRADE CONTROL LOG JAM
HEADER LOG
:ILTER FABRIC AM
Q°In ° Q:
� °�.
SANDY SOIL BACKFlLL
SECTION A - A•
SEE TVPICALSECTWN FOR
CHANNEL OIMENSIONS
� SET NNERT EIEVATDN BASED
ON DESIGN STREAM PROFlLEI
SMI OUM
BURI'DVNTO
BANK
PLAN VIEW
SECTION B - B'
LOG STEP -POOL
"
'0" '0
APPROVED BY:
SECONDARY LODE AND WOODY DEBRIS q•0•11
eDAIS:
HEADER LOG paeluN OLxanpl nn m[
A.w•w nn.n aN°°po8
- � � A�wromwpm wpn+e
®�.rHO.1-0.3-
I aYA• INTEfl NATIONAL00
ae NCDMS ID No. 96313
EO
AS -BUILT SURVEY PREPARED BY:
® ® O LEVEL CROSS SURVEYING, PLLC-Ranesman. NC.
s
RECORD DRAWINGS
MINIMUM Tat;ale O
re
FILTER FABRIC re" hes bean prepared in par( based upon
(TYPICAL) Infomalbn NmisIMO by onam. Mai ft Thurston is
talented to N reNeble, the Engineer aanrotassure Its acmraq.
and this s TIM TeapaTu53gB M the aocMaq of Ms record
coming or hr any errors a omsshns AM may have been
hmryoMNd Into It AS a rewk. Thane relying on B. mod
dowmentare advised to obbin iMkperdentrerifiration of
_. _..__.. So =Saq baton apPyiro M any puRosa,
/NtT
HEADER L00
NOTES.
FOOTER LOO 1, HARD
PRIMARY LOOS SHOULDERRE BEAT LEAST W R MORE IN DIAMETER RELATIVELY HE BANK
I
I SECONDARY
POW SHOD AND AT LEAST HARVESTED AND D NO LARGER
BANK S' ON EACH SIDE.
2 SECONDARY LOGS SHOULD A YING DIA MEIN DIAMETERALLO AND NO IARGER THAN PA AND IXTENOINTO THE BANK FEET ON EACH 810E
WDDI AL POSTS SHALL BE VARYING T to' IN DI TO ALLOW MATERIAL TO BE COMDRIVEN
IWO D.
TH
3. VERTICAL POSTS SHOULD BEATLEAST 10' IN DIAMETER AND SHOULD BE ORN/EN INTO THE GROUND
BURIED
INTO
ALMERF BRIGS
BUSIED INTO A. NAILED TO THE HEADER LOG BELOWTRANSPI-ANT
THE BACKFILL
SANK 8 AMRT D NCH HASIBEEN to GATRNG CAN BER OF INSTEAD Y LOGS AND VVD OR LIVEDEB IS SHO LD E PL C ED V IT ENGINEER.
13. AINIMALAPS. XASBEENIXN-SITEOAIAON SHOULD BE APRYEOOS AND WVODYOEBRESSEW MARY
LMiH
MINIMAE GAPS.A LAYER OF SME P ALLUNUM SHOULD BE APPDED TO FlLL VOIDS BETWEEN SECONDARY LOGS
BEFORE ADDITIONAL LAYERS ME PIACED,
SECTION A - A•
SECTION S - B'
NOTES:
1. LOGS VOTHOUT ROOT MASS MAY BE USED IF APPROVED BY PROJECT ENGINEER.
R. FOR SINK PROTECTION. USE ROOT WADS. MEVMOD, GEDIUM. TNANSPIANTS. OR BOULDERS.
L. SOIL SHOOUL BELCgMPPAICTED WELL MOUND BURIED PORTIONS OF LOG.

CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE
PLAN VIEW
Non
1. UNDERCUT CHANNEL BED ELEVATION AS NEEDED TO ALLOW FOR LAYERS OF
STONE TO ACHIEVE FINAL GRADE
2. INSTALL EROSION CONTROL MATTING ALONG COMPLETED RANKS SUCH THAT
THEEROBONCONTROLMATNNOATTHETOEOFTH K EXTENDSOOWM
TO THE UNDERCUT ELEVATION.
3. INSTALL STONE BACKFILL COMPACTED TO GRADE
X. FINAL CHANNEL BED SHAPE SHOULD BE ROUNDED, SMOOTH. AND CONCAVE.
VrIN THE ELEVATION OF THE BED 0.2 FT DEEPER IN THE CENTER THAN AT
THE EDGES,
BACK
TOi
EROSION CONTROL
MATTING
RFN£o+nv
_________
GEOTIXTIIE FABRIC
TOE
STONE BACKFILL
SECTION 8 - El'
PLAN VIEW
GEOLIFT WITH BRUSH TOE
NOTES
1
AND SHALL BE INSTALLED DURING VEGETATIBRANCH CUTTNGS SHALL BE THE FON DORMANCY.
STAKES
2. PER BRANCH
FOOTAND A MAXIMUM DIA ETER OF 251E�OF 2000CMINDS
3 NUMBER OF OL LIFTS MAY VARYIN GENERAL LIFTS SHALL EXTEND TO THE
TOPOFSAN O BANKFULLSTAGE.
A GEOUFTS TO BE INSTALLED IN CHANNEL gECTIONS ALONGSIDE SLOPES STEEPER
THAN 2:1 AND= ADJACENT TO HILL SLOPES.
I
1.0 UFT OF
COMPACTED
ONSITESOILI M
AS -BUILT SURVEY PREPARED BY:
LEVEL CROSS SURVEYING, PLLC-Rargkman, N.C.
RECORD CRAVINGS
The NcwB Rayig INR been prepared M part bneb upon
Mlornm on fIXnBRLxJ by omrs. Wnile IAB infomMBpn B
believed to be mrabN, PB Engineer cannot Havre IS arcMe,,
aM INS B notresponsibla fortbe StuNry offb8 rectttl
drawing or for any em. or oT.i.ns'A I& my bast been
incogwalM into Ras a resuR Those fOft on NB SaaN
b.ot are aMBal to obtain inOe Olen Wlfalien of
BS awuMcy bekre applying for any puspme.
PROJECT ENGINEER
N
• SI A
? APPROVED BY:
.ML..INEj`pTi•` e
40-11
ORFFN µ Nc,KyEy.`•
• 11� DATE:
etc wael6axer Fne53seH�M[.
INTERNA TIONAL w•'I F—eP
NCDMS ID No. 96313
WELL GRADED MIX OF ClA3S B
AND CLASS A STORE CAN BE
SUBSTITUTED FOR BRUSH MATERIAL
BASEFLOW
BRUSH CAN BE UMBS, BRANCHES. ROOTS OR ANY OTHER
NOTES: VA30DY VEGETATION APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER.
1. MEN GEOUFTSARE BUBTABOVE ROOTWAD CLUSTER, USE URGE STONE BACKFILL BEHIND RCOTIW $ TO BUILT FOUNDATION.
ROCK STEP POOL CHANNEL
A STEP INVERT ELEVATION
HEADER BOULDER
Fy POOL TOPOOL SPACINGNOTE
FOOTER BOULDER VARIES. RE UIREMNTS
SPACING REQUIREMENTS.
POOL
H-STEPHEIGHT Ke A•
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC /
STONE BACKFILL
PROFILE VIEW A -A'
POOL CROSS SECTION &B'
BRUSHTOEAPPROX. i FT
BELOW FINISHED
BED ELEVATION
POOL CROSS SECTION C -C'
NOTES
1. BOULDERS MUST BE AT LEASTYX Y X YANG NOT EXCEED PX 3' X Y.
2 FOOTERS SHALL BE INSTALLED SUCH THAT 1I4 TO 15 OF THE LENGTH IS DOWNSTREAM
OFTHEHEADER.
3. SOILSHALL BE WELL COMPACTEDAROUND BURIED PORTION OF FOOL n VATH BUCKET
OFTRACKHOE
A INSTALL CdR FIBER MATTING UNDERNEATH FOOTER BOULDERS,
0. UNDERCUT POOL BED ELEVATION B INCHES TO ALLDW FOR LAYER OF STONE.
6 INSTALL COIR FIBER MATING ALONG COMPLETED BANNS SUCH THAT THE GEOTFSTRE
FABRIC AT THE TOE OF THE BANK EXTENDS DOWN TO THE UNDERCUT ELEVATION.
L INSTALL LARGE STONE BACKFILL ALONG BIDE SLOPES.
B. FINAL CHANNEL BED SHAPE SHOULD BE ROUNDED, COMPACTED, AND CONCAVE, WFLH THE
ELEVATION OF THE BED APPROXIMATELY OS FT DEEPER W THE CENTER THAN AT THE EDGES.
0, STEPHEIGHT(MSWILLNOTEXCEEDGAFT.
10. MINIMUM POOL DEPTH (D) SHALL BE NO LESS THAN 1} FT.
11. IN GENERAL, POOLTO POOLSPACING SHALL BE NO LESS THAN a FTANO NO GREATER THAN
37 "WED ON EXISTING CONDITONS SUCH AS SLOPE AND SUITABLE FILL MATERIAL
CONSTRUCTED RIFFLES MAY BE SUBSTITUTED IN AREAS VMERE EXISTING SLOPES EXCEED
I^ AS DETERMINED IN THE MEW BY THE CONOACTORAND ENGINEER,

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 notresponsible forthe accuracy ofthis 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.
/ I
/ I
I I
/ I
/ I
E /
RE4CCH 5'`-------��
AS -BUIL
/
14,1
v AAA \\ l�----------
-HALW�
\ \ \
A
SBUfLTTOPOFBA�tlIt�TYP��,, �\\ \\\" "� �--- ----
V 0'f_
STEP POOL
Y
/
r

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

AS -BUILT SURVEY PREPARED BY: or�r PrwRI
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 I, ARRRovEDBY'
believed to be reliable, the Engineer cannot assure its accuracy, 's ds
and this Is not responsible for the accuracy of this record ryareEE. as q • $ • 17
drawing or for any errors or omissions which may have been a w,wea° '
incorporated Into Ras a result. Those relying on this record ��^ .coQy DATE-
documentam advised to obtain independent verification of Q •y) 1
Its accuracy before applying for any purpose.
INTER NA T 10NALu'=111=' nse
// \ BROWNS SUMMIT
\ AS BUILT PLAN MEW
/ so llso 40
SCALE (FT)

-------------
AS -BUILT SURVEY PREPARED BY:
LEVEL CROSS SURVEYING, PLLC - Randleman, N.C.
RECORD DRAWINGS
This record drawing has been prepared in pad, based upon
inionnafion 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 epos or omissions which may have been
incorporated into has a result Those retying on this record
document are advised to obtain irdependem vedfinbon of
its accuracy before apptyirg for any puryose.
NAONAO S3
NIOILCr FNWNM
aannu.H��
4
IL-NUAae
fyaa
E
BY:
MciaE
r f tE��
••�
k LLYc A
N
DATE
MN
NTERNATIONAL�ii�. wnau
NCDMS ID
NO. 96313
END REACH-T3��TA.-16+92.84',`--------
EACH 4-STA28+31 93 _
BROWNS SUMMIT
AS -BUILT PLAN VIEW
20 0 20 40
SCALE (FT)

t AS -BUILT SURVEY PREPARED BY:
1 LEVEL CROSS SURVEYING, PLLC - Randleman, N.C.
RECORD DRAWINGS
This recdrd drawing has been prepared in part based upon
1 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 mom or omissions which may have been
incorporated into has a result Those relying on this record
document are advised to obtain independent verfication of
its accuracy before applying for any purpose.
NPO a
APPRCUM M
Of •43•n
DAM
" o�.xwmcurouwnsn
N T E R N A T I0 N A Lr sse
1 BROWNS SUMMIT
AS BUILT PLAN VIEW
20 0 20 40
SCALE (Fn

Q
BROWNS SUMMIT
AS BUILT PLAN VIEW
20 0 20 1
SCALE (FT)
N.KER PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHFF! NO.
Q
AS-BUILT SURVEY PREPARED BY:
RROIICr p+clNN
LEVEL�Qg
LEVEL CROSS SURVEYING, PLLC -Randleman, N.C.
RECORD DRAWINGS
"'o••. y_r��l(y�y�,
This record drawing has been prepared in part based upon
e
Fig
information furnished by others. While this information is
- ARPROVED er.
believed to be reliable, the Engineer cannot assure its accuracy,
i 3
and this is not responsible forlhe accuracy of this record
drawing for have been
+ ;NCIHEE`cso' a •a-1 /
or any errors or omissions which may
y�EFN a ac'rF'pe`
6y"'•^u,g,('�
incorporated into Has a resulL Those retying on this record
DATE
document are advised to obtain independent verification of
its accuracy before applying for any purpose.
M�k1uN FleYe, Enpinee,lW
- WS
NM1NPw1's NugWY
63
INTERNATIONAIie..
top
NCDMS ID NO. 96313
Q
BROWNS SUMMIT
AS BUILT PLAN VIEW
20 0 20 1
SCALE (FT)

WEP FWJI REFEUNCE NO. 1 EMFT NO.
/
AS-BUILT SURVEY PREPARED BY: — _ — MU048 9
LEVEL CROSS SURVEYING, PLLC - Randleman, N.C. k Feactr p1uN�
RECORD DRAWINGS / Koj
Th'Is reard urnishe has been prepared in part, based uponF " in lieved t fbe reli tl by others. While this information is
belleved to be reliable, the Engineer annot assure ils axureq, k 7_AvvRovao n:
and this is not responsible for the accuracy of this record drawing or for any erors or omissions which may have been- ��.E,NSq •8•I't
incorporated into it as a result Those relying on this record
0 we
documentare advised to obtain independentvedgation of
X its accuracy before applying for any purpose.
"WIMMW EgY " Inc
(— l Ell, mann nen weo�
. _
m E �W�0�1 �,
/ E INTERNATIONAL'ue:,. `M10
� -30 k _ '' k m j NCDMS ID NO. 96313
— — — — �i i (Al
NV.768.4 �� / 'I / / ' _
" m
--k INv.7 .a m
�`k k RE CH 2 ;l LQ (p/
Wil, W A
CH ._nnrg A_S-BUILT TOP OE BANIC-&P.)
AS-B ILT WETLAN (TYP.)
AS- ILTTHALWE
I,
TA.1 5.5
TT0
- �Q
INLET PROGEOLIFP�QLOG O
T WITH
BRUSH
o _ J-HOOKy9N \ BRUSH TOE (TVP.)
//
/ / END 1'2 - STA. 12+85.21 + a /b END REACH 3 LOWER= &TA. 43+48.17
BEGIN REACH 2 UPPER —
VEG P16T —
REACH T2f1#�i l'/%%' _---------- '
\\ \\ BEGIN REACH T2 '�f _ BROWNS SUMMIT
\\ \\ STA. 10+00.00 AS-BUILT PLAN VIEW
i— 20 0 2040
SCALE (FT)

4 R PROJECTREfFAENCE NO. SHFEr NO.
N
AS -BUILT SURVEY PREPARED BY: y4OO48 IO
ramfn prowEER
n
I
LEVEL CROSS SURVEYING, PLLC - Randleman, N.C.
RECORD DRAWINGS .•°"t""• ✓.wY
This record drawing has been prepared in part based upon +••O 'F�1'1
I
information furnished by others. While this information is a ; APPI DBY
believed to be reliable, the Engineer cannot assure Bs acc uacy, _=
and this is notresponsible forthe accuracy ofthu record AHc1A q_8• R
drawing orfor any snows or omissions which may have been fM LL w,
incorporated into fl as a result Those relying on this record °i^ •• DAM
I
documentare advised to obtain indepandentvarficalion of
its accuracy before applying for any purpose.
Pp
® eM"'RB Yx E"'_d lnc.
INTERNATIONAL i=
k
HAD e-_� NCDMS ID NO. 96313
-—GEOLIFT WITH
BRUSH TOE (TYP.)
AS -BUILT
WETLAND (TYP.)
LOG ROLLER (TYP.) XIX_
?+Q
X
X
AS -BUILT TOP OF BANK (TYP.)
X_X�x
-/-/ AS -BUILT
ETLAND(TYP.
x
tr�Y
REACH 2
r✓ :
n
_ _ E
-HOOK VANE
E
END REACH T -STA. 11+44.99= �
L4
s
REA 1 -STA. 51+52.92 "
w
— -
�� G PLOT
AS -BUILT THALWEG (TYP.) END REACH 2 L ER Tay
3
M
m
�;. BEGIN R ACH 1
STA: 1+00.00
O
1 0o
O
� CE - C Y W
_ CE
w
�
E0+00
E j(�� LU
i
fn
3' 'wr� S9L
LOG OOU y w
IN ET PROT ION
10
M
o
STRUCTURES OMITTED AN
DITCH PLUGGED DURING
END REACH 2 UPPER Q
BEGIN REACH 21 OWER FLOW GAUGE 3
CONSTRUCTION
- STA. 49+65.28 i -
r
AS -BUILT WETLAND (TYP.)
I,
L GWEIR �fyP'
/
-
e
REAC
9
a
x
fYLOT�
i
O /
Y,
-CE E
I,
BROWNS SUMMIT
b
BEGIN REACH T1 AS -BUILT PLAN VIEW
m
STA. 10+00.00
Z0 40
� t
SCALE (FT)

WIEE FEOIECr REF CE NO. SHW NO.
AS -BUILT SURVEY PREPARED BY:
laooas 11
LEVEL
LEVEL CROSS SURVEYING, PLLC -Randleman, N.C. FnmECT p+raHEFR
RECORD DRAWINGS H
This record drawing has been prepared in part, based upon €' r ' T�
NAD 8 information fumishetl by otllers. While this information is s APPROVED Sr.
believed to be reliable, the Engineer cannot assure its aauncy, _
and this is notresponsible for the accuracy of this record
drawing or for any errors or omissions which may have been tx R ucwc>�a
incorporated into itas a result. Those retying on this record " ,$I7 DATE:
dommentare adNsed to obtain Independent verification of 1
Its accuracy before appMng for any purpose.
- m.Fow,»PFFP�.iFnFF
INTER NA T I ONAL`w,°s"
X X NCDMS NO. 96313
/
TLAND(TYP.)
I _
/ \ 1 \ \
_ -- �— EACH 11 )v kv � l S
/' �'' `��`--- ---- �Q � _4S-BUILT�THALW�G TYPE �1k � 1 � /! � � �
/ W Jk3 55 Nv y y / y � �1 � �'/ � � MWV #5-* �(1
+01 --_—_
/ // q �4S-BUILT TOP P — _-- OOK VA E (TYP. ' " `*'�'� I
/ < _
T\y /
v — Nv k
y, ITyF
// 'LOT
W - - _
Lu _ _'__- —_._ �}-�'_�'_—_ __-_ l Y'�i y' l�'"�.1 J'%'� Y' y' \\Y =_S'_ Y'
Y'Y' a'� Y'Y' Y' `�' � 3{' av Y� Y, / y�.-/ / 1� . Yi Yi `l3RUSM30FtTYP.) —��• -J 'y
W y, y, INST#LL Ldp ROLJ.ER(VP.) V v Y Yv //,v Y Y' Y' Y�\� Y' % Y' Y v Y' �� � \�\ � �__� Yam v Y'
IV z
A"UI'TWETLAND�TYP=j"--- \ \ \ \
\ \
-----------------_ \
Nil
%%//���JIIII111l1\\ __ —_-- — ��\ \\ \\ \_--_—
---/ /off//! \\\ _� 111
I—_---_—___--��\J� J` it
BROWNS SUMMIT
AS BUILT PLAN VIEW
20 0 TO 40
SCALE (FT)

3AS-By11L1 THALWEG (TYP.)
`—S —X10 ROLLER(TYP.) \
\\ GRADE CONTR
\ \ LOG JAM (TYP.
/I
AS -BUILT SURVEY PREPARED BY:
LEVEL CROSS SURVEYING, PLLC - Randleman, N.C.
RECORD DRAWINGS
This record drawing has been prepared in pad, 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 emors 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.
WETLAND (TYP.)
REACH 1 __
17
Nil
I
'M**7
31,11
I I
LT Tq
�A* (TYI�-)�
-*N.
r r?
"—i/IT
j- • !fi
p
r
VRLISF(�VTOETYP.)Y
M YYV\
y'
�'�
-----
\`: \
.AOGVAt (TY
17
Nil
'M**7
31,11
I I
LT Tq
�A* (TYI�-)�
-*N.
r r?
j- • !fi
p
r
�v �i'N
F9
cJ
r r?
j- • !fi
p
r
AkN 756.67
1
\
I
I � �
T WETLAND (TYP.) \ /
I I y

REACH 4 3
AS -BUILT SURVEY PREPARED BY.
9 RE1 PROTECT REEEEENCE NO $NEU NO
-REACH
LEVEL CROSS SURVEYING, PLUG - Randleman, N.C.
140048 1 14
PROTECT ENGINEER
EXISTING
RECORD DRAWINGS
790
GROUND
This record draWlny has been prepared in part, based upon
information furnished by others. We this information is
tis accuracy
believed to be rehabk, ft Engineer cannot ensure,
of �L•j�yyj
•• „'
rPROPOSED
and this 6 not fe5ponsible for the accuracy of this record
APPROVED BY'.
I BANKFuu
drawing or for any errors at omissions which may have teem
i <3O
/
lI
incorporated into it as a result. Those relying on this recordIIII
.*q; �^'NCINEg`--'ar' ��, ^......r 4� • �, • li
�
are advised obladepeMent verfication of
document obtain M
its accuracy before applying for any purpose.
°•• DATE.
780
_
b
®YnkR O. per snP.Nnp N[.
_
INTERNATIONAL""W""
DES>GN
THALWEG
I
_. `
-- I --
I
._
�—
__.
I
EEP ID No 96313
HAL Li
THALWEG
THALWEG
7701`
770
�—
J
END REACH 4
BEGNREA M UPPER=
27+00
28+00
29+00
30+00
31+00
REACH 3
PROPOSED
BANKFULC
= t
780
- -
t -
780
t
1
770
770
DESIGN DESIGN
- -
THALWEG THALWEG
AS�BUILT
THALWEG
760
760
32+00
33+00
34+00
35+00
36+00
780
REACH 3
780
PROPOSED
BANKFULL
- - -_-.
- ,—
2 -30 -WE EXISTING
GROUND
770 _
,,_
� _,> / ,_r,--
_—_
770
AS-BUILS
- -
-
THALWEGDESIGN
THALWEG
760
760
END REACH 3 UPPER
BELOVVER
R
—
3 'q
750 _
750
37+00
38+00
39+00 40+00
41+00
42+00

770
REACH 1
AS -BUILT SURVEY PREPARED BY:
RACER PROIECT REFERENCE NO SHEET NO,
LEVEL CROSS SURVEYING, PLLC - Randleman, N.G.
140048
16
PROJECT ENGINEER
EXISTING
RECORD DRAWINGS
PROPOSED
BANKFULL
GROUND
This record drawing has been prepared in part based upon
Intonation furnished by others. While We ihfonnatldn Is
believed to be. reliable, the Engineer mnotassure he =urM,
u•• •••c,
"" � •- if
✓ y����y
In'rOi1111EN
and he is natresponsible farthe accuracy of this record
3
az
AEVRovEo er.
drawingor for an errors or omissions which ma have been
in orMed into It as a result Those 1e I an this feCOfd
�p IYng
• '
%';y ...G...... ?,
T
760
_
gENRNC:oo
---
— :..-_.....__
doom area to tam e re n Caron
.__._.'t�accurs -before-zPPNm&tea
DATE.
•-•••'•�.. '�..-:
®MkI,
i .
IReF EnRlnaarin lnc.
Sj1
I N T E R N A T I O N A Luw.cElau
750
TNALVJEG
�Ha WEG
EEP ID No. 96313
740
740
59+00
60+00
61+00
62+00
63+00
770
REACH 1
REACH T1
REACH 6
PROPOSED
BANKFULL
EXISTING
PROPOSED
-
GROUND
BANKFULL DESIGN
FEXISTING
GROUND..
PROPOSED
BANKFULL
770
_
770
THALWEG
AS-BUILT
EG
760
---- ---
-
810
810
760
-.._._.
760
_ __v
TRAi`WEG
TRAA�AwELG
750
800
800
ASBURT
A&SUILTHALIWG
END R
+
S EL=76131
DESIGN
+ -. L=71 IiF
750
TRALWEG
750
.. . _.
EXISTING
GROUND
740
790
790
10+00
11+00
10+00
11+00
: __ _ T _
REACH 6
EXIST
810
',.
1
PROPOSED
SANKFULL
810
800
_..
800
i
-
I
�
i
I
790
- •
I DESIGN.
THALWEG
i ,
790
AS -BUILT
I
THALWEG
4
_..
__
-'r
1
12+00
13+00
14+00
15+00

G
C RC
PO B r s
Ubertyi NC 27298
Ph.495-1713
NOTE5:
1. ALL DISTANCES SHOWN ARE HORIZONTAL GROUND DISTANCES
pimIN U.S. 5URVEY PEST. (UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED)
2. ALL AREAS ARE BY THE COORDINATE METHOD.
3. TH15 5URVEY PERFORMED AND MAP PREF ABED WITHOUT THE
BENEFIT OF A TITLE REPORT. THI5 SURVEY 15 SUBJECT
TO ANY FACTS AND EASEMENTS WHICH MAY BE DISCLOSED
BY A FULL AND ACCURATE TITLE SEARCH,
J IVI IVII i
VICINITY MAP (NOT TO SCALE)
TOPOGRA MIC * A--DidILT 5UKVffY
TY
TOPOGRAPH{C AND A5 -BUILT SURVEY WAS DRAWN
UNDER MY 5UPERVI5ION FROM AN ACTUAL SURVEY MADE Xkxllift/ // FENCE � ��
UNDER MY SUPERVISION'. THE INFORMATION BEING SHOWNCARo
HEREON. WITNESS MY ORIGINAL SIGNATURE, LICENSE NUMBER `Z, - -`
AND SEAL THIS 30th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017. T
-'J I CK055 SECTION
D ID NO. 9G3 1
' 409
BAKER PROJECT NO. 140048
WILLIAM S. DURHAM, JR. L �O`� �� � - �� c€ CONSERVATION EASEMENT
�^ �-
f ROfE55IONAL LAND SURVEYOR �.. ,'° t�U I LI'OCOUNTY,
� RI '+.� U N I-r1te
, N
•._. it Jr3t.r=u,tlts4'�v"` ,' dh PF:RAP WITH (-AP
MATCH
LINE -
5TH..
23+00
00
PO B r s
Ubertyi NC 27298
Ph.495-1713
NOTE5:
1. ALL DISTANCES SHOWN ARE HORIZONTAL GROUND DISTANCES
pimIN U.S. 5URVEY PEST. (UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED)
2. ALL AREAS ARE BY THE COORDINATE METHOD.
3. TH15 5URVEY PERFORMED AND MAP PREF ABED WITHOUT THE
BENEFIT OF A TITLE REPORT. THI5 SURVEY 15 SUBJECT
TO ANY FACTS AND EASEMENTS WHICH MAY BE DISCLOSED
BY A FULL AND ACCURATE TITLE SEARCH,
J IVI IVII i
VICINITY MAP (NOT TO SCALE)
TOPOGRA MIC * A--DidILT 5UKVffY
TY
TOPOGRAPH{C AND A5 -BUILT SURVEY WAS DRAWN
UNDER MY 5UPERVI5ION FROM AN ACTUAL SURVEY MADE Xkxllift/ // FENCE � ��
UNDER MY SUPERVISION'. THE INFORMATION BEING SHOWNCARo
HEREON. WITNESS MY ORIGINAL SIGNATURE, LICENSE NUMBER `Z, - -`
AND SEAL THIS 30th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017. T
-'J I CK055 SECTION
D ID NO. 9G3 1
' 409
BAKER PROJECT NO. 140048
WILLIAM S. DURHAM, JR. L �O`� �� � - �� c€ CONSERVATION EASEMENT
�^ �-
f ROfE55IONAL LAND SURVEYOR �.. ,'° t�U I LI'OCOUNTY,
� RI '+.� U N I-r1te
, N
•._. it Jr3t.r=u,tlts4'�v"` ,' dh PF:RAP WITH (-AP

VICINITY MAP (NOT TO SCALE)
CE 22
rr>;,
O 'f
Q
PP -26
CE -19
I, WILLIAM 5. DURHAM, JR., HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS
CE -24
CE -23
0
VEGETATION
UNDER MY 5UPERVI'5ION FROM AN ACTUAL SURVEY MADE
yy
1
t 1
w J # lid l
HEREON. WITNE55 MY ORIGINAL SIGNATURE, LICENSE NUMBER
0 A d�
-
AND SEAL THIS 30th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017.
{
p°o
°
VEGETATION
I
- PLOT
r
�
ff�)�t
.fr rr
f
PP -24
wr
r
CE 22
rr>;,
O 'f
Q
PP -26
CE -21+'
CE -40
. + 00
0,
PP' -23
I, WILLIAM 5. DURHAM, JR., HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS
CE -24
CE -23
TOPOGRAPHIC AND AS -BUILT SURVEY WAS DRAWN
VEGETATION
UNDER MY 5UPERVI'5ION FROM AN ACTUAL SURVEY MADE
PLOT
t 1
w J # lid l
HEREON. WITNE55 MY ORIGINAL SIGNATURE, LICENSE NUMBER
0 A d�
-
AND SEAL THIS 30th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017.
V
p°o
°
VEGETATION
I
- PLOT
r
�
6 f �r
r rf/
G
.fr rr
PP -24
wr
r
WILLIAM 5, DURHAM, JR- L-409 1
aR a
opo r..
a n
PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR
NOTES;.
65AW- I CE -33
�PJJ�l�
CE -21+'
CE -40
. + 00
0,
PP' -23
PP -22
I, WILLIAM 5. DURHAM, JR., HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS
CE -24
TOPOGRAPHIC AND AS -BUILT SURVEY WAS DRAWN
VEGETATION
UNDER MY 5UPERVI'5ION FROM AN ACTUAL SURVEY MADE
PLOT
t 1
w J # lid l
HEREON. WITNE55 MY ORIGINAL SIGNATURE, LICENSE NUMBER
0 A d�
AND SEAL THIS 30th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017.
30+00
%�_V ° ooaQp
rf
_<�toyap
r !
�
gt
WILLIAM 5, DURHAM, JR- L-409 1
s J& �A<)
i'•.t5
PP -22
I, WILLIAM 5. DURHAM, JR., HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS
TOPOGRAPHIC AND AS -BUILT SURVEY WAS DRAWN
UNDER MY 5UPERVI'5ION FROM AN ACTUAL SURVEY MADE
UNDER MY 5UPERVI'5ION. THE INFORMATION B1=€NG SHOWN
w J # lid l
HEREON. WITNE55 MY ORIGINAL SIGNATURE, LICENSE NUMBER
0 A d�
AND SEAL THIS 30th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017.
, .......
SEAL
WILLIAM 5, DURHAM, JR- L-409 1
s J& �A<)
i'•.t5
PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR
NOTES;.
�PJJ�l�
1, ALL DISTANCES SHOWN ARE HORIZONTAL GROUND DISTANCES
IML CROSS S JIRVEYING, P=
IN U.S. SURVEY FEET. (UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED)
2. ALL AREAS ARE BY THE COORDINATE METHOD.
P01 Box3.
THIS SURVEY PERFORMED AND MAP PREPARED WITHOUT THE
Liberty, C 27298
BENEFIT OF A TITLE REPORT. THIS SURVEY IS SUBJECT
P
(336) —1713
TO ANY PACTS AND EASEMENTS WHICH MAY BE DISCLOSED
x
.
BY A FULL AND ACCURATE TITLE 5EARCII,
..
+
a
CE -25
PP-! 7
35+00
f
r ��•�\ '�4
! -4� n�}
/{ )
2 f`ti*3
'3°
r. r a ao rF.i--� ro66..dbG tl4�0666b6`V.&Q-0.... f
�1
fI
TOP13ANK
?" `
`
PP -20
{
{
`
t
O
�-
'>17a
VEGETATION... ;.
a a X r
PLOT
2
Yy{
CE -35
rt
CE -36
CE -37
I, WILLIAM 5. DURHAM, JR., HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS
TOPOGRAPHIC AND AS -BUILT SURVEY WAS DRAWN
UNDER MY 5UPERVI'5ION FROM AN ACTUAL SURVEY MADE
UNDER MY 5UPERVI'5ION. THE INFORMATION B1=€NG SHOWN
w J # lid l
HEREON. WITNE55 MY ORIGINAL SIGNATURE, LICENSE NUMBER
0 A d�
AND SEAL THIS 30th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017.
, .......
SEAL
WILLIAM 5, DURHAM, JR- L-409 1
s J& �A<)
i'•.t5
PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR
NOTES;.
�PJJ�l�
1, ALL DISTANCES SHOWN ARE HORIZONTAL GROUND DISTANCES
IML CROSS S JIRVEYING, P=
IN U.S. SURVEY FEET. (UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED)
2. ALL AREAS ARE BY THE COORDINATE METHOD.
P01 Box3.
THIS SURVEY PERFORMED AND MAP PREPARED WITHOUT THE
Liberty, C 27298
BENEFIT OF A TITLE REPORT. THIS SURVEY IS SUBJECT
P
(336) —1713
TO ANY PACTS AND EASEMENTS WHICH MAY BE DISCLOSED
.
BY A FULL AND ACCURATE TITLE 5EARCII,

ROCK€NGHAM COUNTY
GUILFORD COUNTY
ep
C�
St TE
tiP
50 oz
UL- E:TT RD
BROWN
5UMM>IT
VICINITY MAP (NOT TO SCALE)
LEGEND
MONITORING WELL
PICTURE POINT
ROCK
HOOK
POCK
ROCK VANE
LOG VANE
LOG WEIR
Do 0000
Qo c, 0ppa o f� CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE"
pp0-
ROCK 5TEF POOL
GEOLIFT WITH BRUSH TOE
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
FENCE
X 1 0 CRO55 SECTION
4
GE CONSERVATION EASEMENT
REBAR WITH CAP
* EX15TING IRON FIFE
Pw
IBM Cm, tst M
PO • 929
® ®_„ e
Ph.
NOTES,
1, ALL 'DISTANCES SHOWN ARE HORIZONTAL GROUND D15TANCES
IN U.S. SURVEY FEET. (UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED)
2. ALL AREAS ARE BY THE COORDINATE METHOD,
3. TH15 SURVEY PERFORMED AND MAF PREPARED WITHOUT THE
BENEFIT Of A TITLE REFORT. THIS SURVEY 15 5UBJ'ECT
TO ANY FACTS AND EA5EMENT5 WHICH MAY BE DISCLOSED
5Y A FULL AND ACCURATE TITLE SEARCH.
1, WILLIAM 5. DURHAM, JR., HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS
TOFOGRAPHIC AND AS -BUILT SURVEYWASDRAWN
UNDER MY 5UFERV1510N FROM AN ACTUAL SURVEY MADE
UNDER MY 5UPERVISION. THE INFORMATION BEING SHOWN
HEREON. WITNESS MY ORIGINAL SIGNATURE, LICENSE NUMBER
AND SEAL TH15 30th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017.
WILLIAM S. DURHAM; JR. L--409 I
PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR
0111011,
C A 0
SEALQL
L- � -
ter
C��4
'4
TOPOGRAPHIC * A5 -BUILT 5URVEY
DIV1510"N Of I I ATI I I
GUILfORD"ki
NCDMS ICS NO. 9G313
15AKER PROJECT SIO. 140046
0
Ln
U
Z

�}UIVIIVII 1
VICINITY MAP (NOT TO SCALE)
C[=-50
— CE -56
r VEGETATION
'' PLOT
I it i CE -57
4 '
0 CE -58
Qom^ CE -59'
®•e'er'
0
(, WILLIAM S. DURHAM, JR., HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS
TOPOGRAPHIC AND AS BUILT SURVEY WAS DRAWN,��������,
UNDER MY SUPERVISION FROM AN ACTUAL SURVEY MADE,"®.
UNDER MY SUPERVISION. THE IN'PORMATION BEING SHOWN ash
HEREON. WITNESS MY ORIGINAL SIGNATURE, LICENSE NUIVIDER
AND SEAL THIS 30th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017. -� E A LL-40?1
�
NOTES: WILLIAM S, DURHAM, JIB. L-4 91 ,��� S. o�w
t .ALL DISTANCES SHOWN ARE HPROfff5SIONAL LAND SURVE RORIZONTAL GROUND DISTANCES '
1 i�u IN U.S. SURVEY FEED. (UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED)sl
2. ALL AREAS ARE BY THE COORDINATE METHOD.
PO Box 929 3. THIS SURVEY PERFORMEDAND MAP PREPARED WITHOUT THE
JAberty, 27DENEfIT OF A TITLE REPORT. THIS SURVEY 15 SUBJECT
TO ANY FACTS AND EASEMENTS WHICH MAY BE DISCLOSED
.e [phone] BY A FULL AND ACCURATE TITLE SEARCH.
MONITORING WELL
°3 PICTURE POINT
Q
— ROCK J -HOOK
ROCK VANE
LOG VANE
LOG WEIR
JO00p000
0 0000
) 0
0 00 O 0 0 ° CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE
00 p00
ROCK STEP POOL
GEOLIFT WITH I3RU5H TOE
' CONSERVATION EASEMENT
FENCE
-1e CRO55 SECTION
0
CE CONSERVATION EASEMENT
al REBAR WITH' CAP
0 EXISTING IRON PIPE
rGATE
CE -53
.'r p
TIE5T
g.r FENCE
6
CE -54
1 a
r r�
135AW-7
CE -70
s
5TONE
r:a
ca551Nc
VEGETATION i INV; 7'
PLOT
tNW
x � >r � � 756.57
f rrf fr
f
r a CE -55
TOPOGRAPHIC A -DUILT &URVEY
GUILfORD COUNT
NCDM5 ID NO. 9G313
AF- . PROJECT NO, 14004
UILfORD COUNTY, NC
BAR GRAPti
0 20' 40' 80` 120' 160'
i"=40'
SURVEY DATES: FEBRUAR`f THROUGH SEPTEBBER, 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

Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project — Vegetation Plot Photo Stations
Photos take March 22, 2017
Vegetation Plot 7
Vegetation Plot 8
Vegetation Plot 9
Vegetation Plot 10
Vegetation Plot 11
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96313)
Vegetation Plot 12

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
Photos take March 9, 2017 (All photos are
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
A
i J
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
ng upstream)
`j_ -
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

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

Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project — Longitudinal Stream Photo Stations
Photo Point 31 — Station 19+10, Step Pools Photo Point 32 — Station 18+00, Reach 4
Photo Point 33 — Station 16+75, Reach 4
Photo Point 34 — Sta. 15+75, Reaches 4, 5 and 6
Photo Point 35 — Station 15+00, Reach 6, BMP
Photo Point 36 — Station 14+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 — 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
Photos take March 9, 2017
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

APPENDIX F
USACE Correspondence

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<[e-mail]>
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

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 [O] 828-412-61011 [M] 919-259-4814
[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> I Blockedwww.mbakerintl.com
<Blockedhttp://www.mbakerintl.com/>
<Blockedhttp://www.mbakerintl.com/>

Innovation Done Right...We Moke ❑ 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.
F W. AGALUP-QU MBAKERINTL.COM 8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600, Cary NC 27518
Office: 919.463.5488 1 Fax: [phone]

Innovation Dane Right ...We Make o 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,
Jake Byers, PE
CC: Jeff Schaffer, DMS
Katie McKeithan, Michael Baker

-BUILT CENTERLINE
ME
STA. 49+65.28
STA. 51+006,.006
51 *00
S
BUILT TOP OF I
54 +i

O�PN��V
�oF
5y#�� [AS-lIUIlT CENTERLINE PSllll� AS -BUILT CENTERLINE
-AS-BUILT TOP OF BANK (TVP) r
5%•ee I I
54+
+00
AS -BUILT TOP OF BANK (Typ,)
t
�8