20140332 Ver 1_Year 1 Monitoring Report 2017_20180102

FINAL
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project
Year 1 Monitoring Report
Guilford County, North Carolina
DMS Project ID No. 96313, DEQ Contract No. 5792
Permits: SAW -2014-01642, DWR No. 14-0332
Cape Fear River Basin: 03030002-010020
Project Info: Monitoring Year: 1 of 7
Year of Data Collection: 2017
Year of Completed Construction (including planting): 2017
Submission Date: January 2018
Submitted To: NCDEQ - Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652

Innovation Done Right...We Make a Difference
INTERNATIONAL
January 8, 2018
Jeff Schaffer
NCDENR, Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
Subject: Response to Task 7 Draft Year 1 Monitoring Report Comments dated January 2, 2018
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 Year 1 Monitoring Report Comments dated January 2, 2018
regarding the Browns Summit Creek Mitigation Project. We have revised the Year 1 Monitoring 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.
Response: The digital submittal has been revised per comments below and provided in the same format
as previously submitted.
2. Section 1, page 2: Explain why there was a month gap in data for gauge BSAW2 during the monitoring
period.
Response: The automated collector was not acquiring data properly, upon re -inspection approximately
one month into the monitoring season, the logger was re -set and began acquiring data.
3. Section 2.1.1, page 4: The report states that certain cross-sections have shown minor fluctuations in their
geometry as compared to their as -built conditions and that these fluctuations do not represent any trends
toward instability based off visual field evaluations. Please state which cross-section you are referring to and
explain the cause of these fluctuations and why there is no need for concern.
Response: All the cross-sections show some level of change between the As -Built and MY1 condition
based on the overlays; however, we feel the change is due to survey quality and extents. The quality of
the sealed as -built survey provided by the contractor was not discovered until the MY1 survey was
overlain. The channel has not fluctuated as shown in Figure 5 (cross section overlays), has remained
stable and is performing as designed. We now have Kee Surveying working on the site throughout the
monitoring period and anticipate their surveys will capture exactly what is happening on-site in future
monitoring efforts. The language in question has been removed and replace to provide clarification of
MYO and MY1 cross section discrepancies.
4. Appendix E, Table 15: Please indicate hydrologic success criteria for each well.
Response: Added under "Well ID"; e.g. BSAW (9% Criteria).
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
f? oma _L AGALUP-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
5. Appendix D: For Tables 11a and 11b, provide a footnote with the tables that describes the method by which
Baker is calculating Bank Height Ratio and Entrenchment Ratio. In addition, please provide context to any
observed changes in these calculated ratios in the report narrative. DMS has proposed a method for these
calculations that can be found in the As Built baseline template guidance AS -built Baseline Monitoring Report
—June 2017 Page 22, specifically the paragraphs 8 and 9.
Response: Due to the MYO survey quality discovered during MY1, Michael Baker proposes to utilize the
detailed survey data and associated parameters collected during MY1 as the basis of comparison
through the monitoring phase of the project. This will ensure an accurate assessment of success and
trends throughout the life of the project. Language stating this has been added to Section 2.1.1 and has
also been added to tables 11a, and 11b in Appendix D. Moving forward, BHR and Entrenchment Ratio
will be calculated by holding the MY1 bankfull riffle max depth constant throughout the life of the
project.
6. This is a reminder that in accordance with RFP#16-005568 Addendum#1 and email correspondence
between Jake Byers and Jeff Jurek, Baker must substitute an approved Monitoring Phase Performance Bond
(MPPB) for the original Performance Bond prior to DMS approval to retire the Performance Bond. Per the
correspondence between Jake and Jeff J., Baker can submit the MPPB for 20% of the contract value, and can
be reduced concurrent with the payment schedule once the annual monitoring deliverable is approved by DMS
and the credits are released by the Interagency Review Team (IRT). Therefore, the MPPB can be reduced to
18% of the contract value after release of the mitigation credit for Monitoring Year 2, continuing with a
reduction of the MPPB by 2% of the contract value through Monitoring Year 6. A MPPB of 10% of the
contract value must be maintained through Monitoring Year 7 and project closeout including final
determination/release of mitigation credits by the IRT. For specifics and preliminary approval of the draft
MPPB, please talk with Jeff Jurek. Be advised that until the MPPB is approved DMS will not be able to pay the
invoices for Tasks 6 and 7.
Response: MPPB is being provided for review and approval.
Three hard copies and on pdf copy along with updated digital files (via FTP) are being provided. If you
have any questions concerning the Year 1 Monitoring 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
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project
Year 1 Monitoring Report
Guilford County, North Carolina
DMS Project ID No. 96313, DEQ Contract No. 5792
Permits: SAW -2014-01642, DWR No. 14-0332
Cape Fear River Basin: 03030002-010020
Report Prepared and Submitted by Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
NC Professional Engineering License # F-1084
INTERNATIONAL
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. I
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96313
JANUARY 2018, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 7

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................1
2. METHODOLOGY.........................................................................................3
2.1 Stream Assessment.......................................................................................................................................3
2.1.1 Morphological Parameters and Channel Stability....................................................................................3
2.1.2 Hydrology................................................................................................................................................4
2.1.3 Photographic Documentation...................................................................................................................4
2.1.4 Visual Stream Morphological Stability Assessment................................................................................4
3.1 Vegetation Assessment................................................................................................................................. S
4.1 Wetland Assessment..................................................................................................................................... S
3. REFERENCES...............................................................................................5
APPENDICES
Appendix A Project Vicinity Map and Background Tables
Figure
1
Project Vicinity Map and Directions
Figure
2
Restoration Summary Map
Figure
3
Reference Stream Locations Map
Table
1
Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Table
2
Project Activity and Reporting History
Table
3
Project Contacts
Table
4
Project Attributes (Pre -Construction
Conditions)
Appendix B Visual Assessment Data
Figure
4.1 & 4.2
Current Condition Plan View (CCPV)
Table
5
Visual Stream Morphology Stability
Assessment
Table
6
Vegetation Conditions Assessment
Stream Station Photos / SPA
Photos
Vegetation Plot Photos
Appendix C Vegetation Plot Data
Table
7
CVS Density Per Plot
Table
8
CVS Vegetation Summary and Totals
Table
9
Stem Count for Each Species Arranged by
Plot
Appendix D Stream Survey Data
Figure
5
Year 1 Cross-sections
Table
10
Baseline Stream Summary
Table
Ila
Cross-section Morphology Summary
Table
l lb
Stream Reach Morphology Summary
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. II
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96313
JANUARY 2018, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 7

Appendix E Hydrologic Data
Table
12
Verification of Bankfall Events
Table
13
Flow Gauge Success (2017)
Table
14
Flow Gauge Success
Figure
6
Flow Gauge Graphs
Table
15
Wetland Restoration Area Success (2017)
Table
16
Wetland Restoration Area Success
Figure
7
Wetland Restoration Graphs (2017)
Hydrology Monitoring
Station Photos
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. III
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96313
JANUARY 2018, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 7

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. (Baker) restored approximately 3,903 linear feet (LF) of jurisdictional stream
and enhanced 2,478 LF of stream (of which 559 is for BMPs) along unnamed tributaries (UT) to the Haw River
and restored over 4.44 acres of wetland (existing channel lengths). The unnamed tributary (mainstem) has been
referred to as Browns Summit Creek for this project. In addition, Baker constructed two best management
practices (BMPs) within the conservation easement boundary. The Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project
(project) is located in Guilford County, North Carolina (NC) (Figure 1) approximately three miles northwest of
the Community of Browns Summit. The project is located in the NC Division of Water Resources (NCDWR)
subbasin 03-06-01 and the NC Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS) Targeted Local Watershed (TLW)
03030002-010020 (the Haw River Headwaters) of the Cape Fear River Basin. The purpose of the project is to
restore and/or enhance the degraded stream, wetland, and riparian buffer functions within the site. A recorded
conservation easement consisting of 20.2 acres (Figure 2) will protect all stream reaches, wetlands, and riparian
buffers in perpetuity. Examination of the available hydrology and soil data indicate the project will potentially
provide numerous water quality and ecological benefits within the Haw River watershed, and the Cape Fear
River Basin.
Based on the NCDMS 2009 Cape Fear River Basin Restoration Priority (RBRP) Plan, the Browns Summit
Creek Restoration Project area is located in an existing targeted local watershed (TLW) within the Cape Fear
River Basin (2009 Cape Fear RBRP), but is not located in a Local Watershed Planning (LWP) area. The
restoration strategy for the Cape Fear River Basin targets specific projects, which focuses on developing
creative strategies for improving water quality flowing to the Haw River in order to reduce non -point source
(NPS) pollution to Jordan Lake.
The primary goals of the project, set in the Mitigation Plan, are to improve ecologic functions and to manage
nonpoint source loading to the riparian system as described in the NCDMS 2009 Cape Fear RBRP. These goals
are identified below:
• Create geomorphically stable conditions along the unnamed tributaries across the site,
• Implement agricultural BMPs to reduce nonpoint source inputs to receiving waters,
• Address known and obvious water quality and habitat stressors present on site,
• Restore stream and floodplain connectivity, and
• Restore and protect riparian buffer functions and corridor habitat.
To accomplish these goals, the following objectives were identified:
• Restore existing incised, eroding, and channelized streams by creating stable dimension and connecting
them to their relic floodplains;
• Re-establish and rehabilitate site wetlands that have been impacted by cattle, spoil pile disposal,
channelization, subsequent channel incision, and wetland vegetation loss;
• Prevent cattle from accessing the conservation easement boundary by installing permanent fencing and
thus reduce excessive stream bank erosion and undesired nutrient inputs;
• Increase aquatic habitat value by improving bedform diversity, riffle substrate and in -stream cover;
creating natural scour pools; adding woody debris and reducing sediment loading from accelerated
stream bank erosion;
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. 1
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96313
JANUARY 2018, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 7

• Construct a wetland BMP on the upstream extent of Reach R6 to capture and retain and for sediment
to settle out of the water column;
• Construct a step pool BMP channel to capture and disperse volumes and velocities by allowing
discharge from a low density residential development to spread across the floodplain of Reach R4;
thereby, diffusing energies and promoting nutrient uptake within the riparian buffer;
• Plant native species within the riparian corridor to increase runoff filtering capacity, improve stream
bank stability and riparian habitat connectivity, and shade the stream to decrease water temperature;
• Control invasive species vegetation within the project area and, if necessary, continue treatments during
the monitoring period; and
• Establish a conservation easement to protect the project area in perpetuity.
The Year 1 monitoring survey data of seventeen cross-sections indicates that the Site is geomorphically stable
and performing at 100 percent for all the parameters evaluated. Certain cross-sections (located in Appendix D)
have shown minor fluctuations in their geometry as compared to their as -built conditions; however, visually the
site has remained stable with very little fluctuation. The as -built (MYO) cross section survey was conducted by
the construction contractor's sub and has not provided the level of detail that is normally provided. Therefore,
the fluctuations shown on the MYO and MY overlay graphs found in Appendix D is much more pronounced
than what is actually observed in the field. Cross section surveys moving forward will be to the appropriate
level of detail as is reflected in the MY1 cross sections. These fluctuations do not represent a trend towards
instability based off visual field evaluations. All reaches are stable and performing as designed. The data
collected are within the lateral/vertical stability and in -stream structure performance categories. No stream
problem areas were found.
During Year 1 monitoring, all plots meet the planted acreage performance categories (Appendix B and Q. The
average density of total planted stems, based on data collected from the fourteen monitoring plots following
Year 1 monitoring in September of 2017, was 705 stems per acre. Thus, the Year 1 vegetation data demonstrate
that the Site is on track to meet the minimum success interim criteria of 320 trees per acre by the end of Year
3. Additionally, there were no areas within the conservation easement of invasive species vegetation observed
during the Year 1 monitoring. No vegetative problem areas were found.
Year 1 flow monitoring demonstrated that all flow gauges (BSFL1, BSFL2 and BSFL3) met the stated success
criteria of 30 days or more of consecutive flow through R4, T3 and T1 respectively. Flow gauge BSFL1
documented 127 days of consecutive flow in R4, while flow gauge BSFL2 documented 166 days of consecutive
flow in T3, and BSFL3 documented 263 days of consecutive flow in T1. The gauges demonstrated similar
patterns relative to rainfall events observed in the vicinity of the Site as shown in the flow gauge graphs in
Appendix E.
During Year 1 monitoring, the R1 crest gauge documented one post -construction bankfull event from April
2017 and second event in August of 2017.
Seven wells were installed in the wetland restoration areas. Six of the seven are preforming successfully. One
well did not meet success (BSAW2). This is likely due to a month gap in data during a time of year in which
success is generally achieved; however, the well shows hydrology coming to within twelve inches of the ground
surface relatively consistently. It is anticipated that wetland hydrology will improve with additional monitoring.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96313
JANUARY 2018, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 7

Summary information/data related to the Site and statistics related to performance of various project and
monitoring elements can be found in the tables and figures in the report Appendices. Narrative background and
supporting information formerly found in these reports can be found in the Baseline Monitoring Report and in
the Mitigation Plan available on the DMS website. Any raw data supporting the tables and figures in the
Appendices is available from DMS upon request.
This report documents the successful completion of the Year 1 monitoring activities for the post -construction
monitoring period.
2. METHODOLOGY
The seven-year monitoring plan for the Site includes criteria to evaluate the success of the stream and vegetation
components of the Site. The methodology and report template used to evaluate these components adheres to
the DMS monitoring report template document Version 1.5 (June 8, 2012), which will continue to serve as the
template for subsequent monitoring years. The vegetation -monitoring quadrants follow CVS -DMS monitoring
levels 1 and 2 in accordance with CVS -DMS Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version 4.1 (2007).
Stream survey data was collected to a minimum of Class C Vertical and Class A Horizontal Accuracy using
Leica TS06 Total Station and was georeferenced to the NAD83 State Plane Coordinate System, FIPS3200 in
US Survey Feet, which was derived from the As -built Survey.
The specific locations of monitoring features, such as vegetation plots, permanent cross-sections, reference
photograph stations, crest gauges and flow gauges, are shown on the CCPV map found in Appendix B.
Channel construction began in October 10, 2016 at the upstream extent of the site and worked in the downstream
direction (begin on Reach 6 and ended with Reach 1). The construction was completed on March 8, 2017.
Planting was installed as major reaches were completed and finalized by March 10, 2017.
The Monitoring Year 1 vegetation plot data was collected in September 2017, the visual site assessment data
contained in Appendix B was collected in November 2017, and the cross-section data was collected in October
2017.
2.1 Stream Assessment
Historically, the Browns Summit site has been utilized for agriculture. Cattle have had direct access to the
entire site. Ponds were located throughout the project, including within the alignment of R1, R3, R4, and R6.
Channelization was clearly confirmed by the historical aerial photo from 1937 and spoil piles were found along
several of the reaches. The Project involved the restoration and enhancement of the headwater system.
Restoration practices involved raising the existing streambed and reconnecting the stream to the relic floodplain
to restore natural flow regimes to the system. The existing channels abandoned within the restoration areas
were filled to decrease surface and subsurface drainage and to raise the local water table. Permanent cattle
exclusion fencing was provided around all proposed reaches and riparian buffers, except along reaches where
no cattle are located or lack stream access.
2.1.1 Morphological Parameters and Channel Stability
Cross-sections were classified using the Rosgen Stream Classification System, and all monitored cross-
sections fall within the quantitative parameters defined for channels of the design stream type.
Morphological survey data are presented in Appendix D.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96313
JANUARY 2018, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 7

A longitudinal profile was surveyed for the entire length of channel immediately after construction to
document as -built baseline conditions for the Monitoring Year 0 only. Annual longitudinal profiles
will not be conducted during subsequent monitoring years unless channel instability has been
documented or remedial actions/repairs are required by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
or DMS.
During preparation of the MY1 monitoring report and data collection, it was discovered that the data
provided by the construction contractor's survey subcontractor for as -built cross sections was of low
quality and insufficient. The quality of the sealed as -built survey provided by the contractor wasn't
discovered until the MY1 survey was overlain on top of the MYO cross sections. The channel in reality
has not fluctuated nearly as dramatically as shown in Figure 5 (cross section overlays) and has remained
stable and is performing as designed. This has been documented through field inspections throughout
MY1 by Michael Baker and DMS staff. Due to the MYO survey quality discovered during MY1,
Michael Baker proposes to utilize the detailed survey data and associated parameters collected during
MY1 by a different surveyor as the basis of comparison through the monitoring phase of the
project. This will ensure an accurate assessment of success and trends throughout the life of the project.
2.1.2 Hydrology
To monitor on-site bankfull events, one crest gauge (crest gauge #1) was installed along R1's left bank
at bankfull elevation. During Year 1 monitoring, one above bankfull stage event was documented in
April 2017 and one in August of 2017 by the crest gauge. The crest gauge readings are presented in
Appendix E. Year 1 flow monitoring demonstrated that all flow gauges (BSFL1, BSFL2 and BSFL3)
met the stated success criteria of 30 days or more of consecutive flow through R4, T3 and T1
respectively. Flow gauge BSFL1 documented 127 days of consecutive flow in R4, while flow gauge
BSFL2 documented 166 days of consecutive flow in T3, and BSFL3 documented 263 days of
consecutive flow in T1. The gauges demonstrated similar patterns relative to rainfall events observed
in the vicinity of the Site as shown in the flow gauge graphs in Appendix E.
2.1.3 Photographic Documentation
Reference photograph transects were taken at each permanent cross-section. The survey tape was
centered in the photographs of the bank. The water line was located in the lower edge of the frame,
and as much of the bank as possible is included in each photograph. Representative photographs for
Monitoring Year 1 were taken along each Reach in October 2017 and are provided in Appendix D. No
Stream Problem Areas were found; thus, no photographs are included. Photographs of each Vegetation
Plot taken in September 2017 can be found in Appendix B.
2.1.4 Visual Stream Morphological Stability Assessment
The visual stream morphological stability assessment involves the qualitative evaluation of lateral and
vertical channel stability, and the integrity and overall performance of in -stream structures throughout
the Project reaches as a whole. Habitat parameters and pool depth maintenance are also measured and
scored. During Year 1 monitoring, Michael Baker staff walked the entire length of each of the Project
reaches several times throughout the year, noting geomorphic conditions of the stream bed profile
(riffle/pool facets), both stream banks, and engineered in -stream structures. Representative
photographs were taken per the Site's Mitigation Plan, and the locations of any Stream Problem Areas
(SPAS) were documented in the field for subsequent mapping on the CCPV figures. No SPAS were
discovered during Year 1 monitoring. A more detailed summary of the results for the visual stream
stability assessment can be found in Appendix B, which includes supporting data tables, as well as
general stream photos.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96313
JANUARY 2018, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 7

3.1 Vegetation Assessment
In order to determine if the success criteria were achieved, vegetation -monitoring quadrants were installed and
are monitored across the site in accordance with the CVS -DMS Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version 4.1
(2007). The vegetation monitoring plots are a minimum of 2 percent of the planted portion of the Site with
fourteen plots established randomly within the planted riparian buffer areas per Monitoring Levels 1 and 2. The
sizes of individual quadrants are 100 square meters for woody tree species.
Based on the recent Year 1 data collected from the vegetation monitoring plots, the planted stem density is 705
stems per acre. Therefore, the vegetation data demonstrate that the Site is on track for meeting the minimum
success criteria of 320 trees per acre by the end of Year 3.
Additionally, there were no areas of invasive species vegetation observed during the Year 1 monitoring.
Year 1 vegetation assessment information is provided in Appendix B and C.
4.1 Wetland Assessment
Seven (7) groundwater monitoring wells were installed in the wetland mitigation area to document hydrologic
conditions of the restored wetland area. Six of the seven wells are showing successful hydrology. BSAW2 is
currently unsuccessful; however, the well did not perform initially and had to be re -installed. Thus,
approximately a month of the initial part of the growing season is missing. The well is showing a similar
wetting cycle to the other wells and will be monitored closely during 2018 for expected improvement. Visually,
the wetland areas are performing very well with saturated soils and hydrophytic vegetation.
3. REFERENCES
Carolina Vegetation Survey (CVS) and NC Division of Mitigation Services (DMS). CVS -DMS
Data Entry Tool v. 2.3.1. University of North Carolina, Raleigh, NC.
Lee, M., Peet R., Roberts, S., Wentworth, T. 2007. CVS -DMS Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version
4.1.
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (DMS). 2012. Monitoring Requirements and
Performance Standards for Stream and/or Wetland Mitigation. Version 1.5, June 8, 2012.
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (DMS). 2009. Cape Fear River Basin Restoration Priorities.
Rosgen, D. L. 1994. A Classification of Natural Rivers. Catena 22:169-199.
Schafale, M. P., and A. S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the natural communities of North Carolina, third
Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. Division of Parks and Recreation,
NCDEQ. Raleigh, NC.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines, April 2003, U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers (USACE). Wilmington District.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96313
JANUARY 2018, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 7

Appendix A
Project Vicinity Map and Background Tables

To access the site from Raleigh, take Interstate 40 and head west on 1-40 towards Greensboro, for approximately 68 miles. Take the exit
ramp to E. Lee St. (exit 224) towards Greensboro and continue for 2 miles before turning onto U.S. Highway 29 North. Once on U.S.
Highway 29 North, travel north for approximately 10 miles before exiting and turning on to NC -150 West. Continue west on NC -150 for 5
miles. The project site is located along and between NC -150 and Spearman Rd., with access points through residences on Middleland Dr.
and Broad Ridge Ct. The subject project site is an environmental restoration site of the NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) and is
encompassed by a recorded conservation easement, but is bordered by land under private ownership. Accessing the site may require
traversing areas near or along the easement boundary and therefore access by the general public is not permitted. Access by authorized
personnel of state and federal agencies or their designees/contractors involved in the development, oversight and stewardship of the
restoration site is permitted within the terms and timeframes of their defined roles. Any intended site visitation or activity by any person
outside of these previously sanctioned roles and activities requires prior coordination with DMS.
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

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
5,300.87 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
RI 51+00.00 - 63+89.87
1,217
Restoration
1,290.00
1,290
1:1
R2
(downstream section) 49+65.28 - 51+00.00
167
Enhancement II
53.60
134
2.5:1
R2 43+48.17 - 49+65.28
(upstream section)
701
Enhancement I
409.33
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
234.67
352
1.5:1
R3 28+31.92-39+35.73
(upstream section)
1,224
Restoration
1,102.00
1,102
1:1
R4 15+35.86 - 28+31.92
1,350
Restoration
1,296.00
1,296
1:1
R5 10+00 - 15+35.86
536
Enhancement II
214.40
536
2.5:1
R6 10+00 - 15+19.39
536
Enhancement I/BMP
294.67
442 LF (valley length)
1.5:1
Tl 10+00 - 11+44.99
121
Restoration
145.00
145
1:1
T2 10+00-12+85.21
283
Enhancement II
113.20
283
2.5:1
T3 10+04.88 -10+92.84
83
Restoration
70.00
70
1:1
T4 10+30.18 - 11+49.36
47
Enhancement I/BMP
78.00
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.
Component Summation
Restoration Level Stream (LF)
Riparian Wetland (AC) Non -riparian
Wetland (AC)
Buffer (SF)
Upland (AC)
Restoration 3,903.00
4.44
Enhancement I 1,525.00
Enhancement II 953.00
BMP Elements
Element Location Purpose/Function
Notes
BMP Elements: BR= Bioretention Cell; SF= Sand Filter; SW= Stormwater Wetland; WDP= Wet Detention Pond; DDP= Dry Detention
Pond; FS= Filter Strip; S= Grassed Swale; LS= Level Spreader; NI=Natural Infiltration Area
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
JANUARY 2018, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 7

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No ID. 96313
Activity or Report
Scheduled Completion
Data Collection
Complete
Actual Completion
or Delivery
Mitigation Plan Prepared
not specified in proposal
Summer 2015
May 1, 2015
Mitigation Plan Amended
not specified in proposal
Summer 2015
September 17, 2015
Mitigation Plan Approved
December 4, 2014
Winter 2015
November 2, 2015
Final Mitigation Plan with PCN (minor revisions requested in
approval letter)
not specified in proposal
Winter 2015
January 29, 2016
Final Design — (at least 90% complete)
not specified in proposal
September 20, 2016
Construction Begins
not specified in proposal
October 10, 2016
Temporary S&E mix applied to entire project area
June 1, 2015
March 10, 2017
Permanent seed mix applied to entire project area
June 2, 2015
March 10, 2017
Planting of live stakes
June 3, 2015
March 10, 2017
Planting of bare root trees
June 3, 2015
March 10, 2017
End of Construction
May 4, 2015
March 8, 2017
Survey of As -built conditions (Year 0 Monitoring -baseline)
June 3, 2015
Spring 2017
July 1, 2017
Baseline Monitoring Report*
May 7, 2017
Spring 2017
September 15, 2017
Year 1 Monitoring
December 1, 2017
November 2017
January 4, 2018
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.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
JANUARY 2018, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 7

Table 3. Project Contacts
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No ID. 96313
Designer
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
Cary, NC 27518
Contact:
Katie McKeithan, Tel. [phone]
Construction Contractor
6105 Chapel Hill Road
River Works, Inc.
Raleigh, NC 27607
Contact:
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.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
JANUARY 2018, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 7

Table 4. Project Attributes
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No ID. 96313
Project Information
Project Name
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project
County
Guilford
Project Area (acres)
20.2
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude)
36.237 N, -79.749 W
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province
Piedmont
River Basin
Cape Fear
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8 -digit and 14 -digit
03030002 / 03030002010020
NCDWR Sub -basin
3/6/2001
Project Drainage Area (acres)
438
Project Drainage Area Percent Impervious
1%
CGIA Land Use Classification
2.01.01.01, 2.03.01, 2.99.01, 3.02 / Forest (53%) Agriculture (39%) Impervious Cover (1%) Unclassified (7%)
Reach Summary Information
Parameters
Reach R1
Reach R2
Reach R3
Reach R4
Reach R5
Length of Reach (linear feet)
1,290
748
1,454
1,296
536
Valley Classification (Rosgen)
VII
VII
VII
VII
VII
Drainage Area (acres)
438
299
242
138/95
24
NCDWR Stream Identification Score
35.5
35.5
41.5
41.5/25
28.5
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
C; NSW
Morphological Description
(Rosgen stream e)
E
Be incised
Be incised
Gc
Be
Evolutionary Trend
Incised E4Gc—>F
BC--)G--)F
BC--)G--)F
G4F
Bc4G
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
Hydric
Partially Hydric
Partially Hydric
Upland
Average Channel Slope (ft/ft)
0.0069
0.0068
0.0095
0.017
0.023
FEMA Classification
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Native Vegetation Community
Piedmont Headwater Stream Forest
Percent Composition of Exotic/Invasive Vegetation
25%
15%
5%
<5%
<5%
Parameters
Reach R6
Reach T1
Reach T2
Reach T3
Reach T4
Length of Reach (linear feet)
442
145
283
70
117
Valley Classification (Rosgen)
VII
VII
VII
VII
VII
Drainage Area (acres)
61
55
47
41
10
NCDWR Stream Identification Score
18
26.75
27.25
19
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
C; NSW
Morphological Description
(Rosgen stream e)
Rc incised
Eincised
F
Eincised
Evolutionary Trend
Bc4G4F
E--)G--)F
BC--)G--)F
E4G4F
Underlying Mapped 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 Slope (f /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/InvasiveVegetation
5%
10%
10% 110%
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 I N/A
1 Categorical Exclusion (Appendix B)
Essential Fisheries Habitat
No I N/A
I Categorical Exclusion (Appendix B)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
JANUARY 2018, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 7

Appendix B
Visual Assessment Data

= Fail
Streams by Mitigation Type
Restoration
Enhancement I
Enhancement 11
N/A (Outside CE) XS
Wetland Mitigation Types
1 - "Functioning", 3:1 credit ratio
2 - Degraded, 1.5:1 credit ratio .
3- Partially Functioning, 1.5:1 credit ratio
4- Filled, 1:1 credit ratio BSA
E
Plot 12:
tems/ac
Reach R2 (upper)
Reach R1
lig• •,. • � s --- ....�::� "�
Veg Plot 11:
648 stems/ac
Reach T1
Reach R2 (lower)
"stems/ac
Reach T2
Reach R3 (lower)
Veg Plot 9: ll
769 stems/ac
Y,
xS- Ild
NC OneM-a N' C enter for Geo ra hic Information and Anal sis NC
P, 9 p Y
- ' 911 Board
Figure 4.1
Michael Baker 0 125 250 500 Current Conditions
Plan View
N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L Feet Browns Summit Site
(DMS #96313)
Conservation Easement
`-}
® Flow Gauge
I
+
Monitoring Wells
Photo Locations
Veg Plot 14:
0 Crest Gauge
607 stems/ac
Cross Sections
,
Vegetation Plots MY1 (All Passed)
Veg Plot 13:
i
- -�'• s
' Pass
728 stems/ac
= Fail
Streams by Mitigation Type
Restoration
Enhancement I
Enhancement 11
N/A (Outside CE) XS
Wetland Mitigation Types
1 - "Functioning", 3:1 credit ratio
2 - Degraded, 1.5:1 credit ratio .
3- Partially Functioning, 1.5:1 credit ratio
4- Filled, 1:1 credit ratio BSA
E
Plot 12:
tems/ac
Reach R2 (upper)
Reach R1
lig• •,. • � s --- ....�::� "�
Veg Plot 11:
648 stems/ac
Reach T1
Reach R2 (lower)
"stems/ac
Reach T2
Reach R3 (lower)
Veg Plot 9: ll
769 stems/ac
Y,
xS- Ild
NC OneM-a N' C enter for Geo ra hic Information and Anal sis NC
P, 9 p Y
- ' 911 Board
Figure 4.1
Michael Baker 0 125 250 500 Current Conditions
Plan View
N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L Feet Browns Summit Site
(DMS #96313)

= Conservation Easement
® Flow Gauge
0 Monitoring Wells
A Photo Locations
0 Crest Gauge
Cross Sections
Vegetation Plots MY1 (All Passed)
- Pass
- Fail
Streams by Mitigation Type
Restoration
Enhancement I
Enhancement 11
N/A (Outside CE)
Wetland Mitigation Type
5 - Hydrologic Reestablishment, 3.5:1 credit ratio
Veg Plot 2:
769 stems/ac
Reach R6
MLI'-im-M
Veg Plot 9:
769 stems/ac 7�T
XS -11 iV
Veg Plot 8: XS -10
728 stems/ac
Reach R3 (upper)
Veg Plot 6:
728 stems/ac
XS -7 Z�
X 6.k: r.
C
Veg Plot 5:
u 728 stems/ac t
ll. .
Veg Plot 4:
688 stems/ac
Veg Plot 3:
971 stems/ac
I N T E R N AT 1 0 N A L
Reach R5
Veg Plot 1:
728 stems/ac
0 125 250
Feet
Veg Plot 7:
607 stems/ac
Reach T3 �.
A
t
Reach R4
Reach T4
Figure 4.2
500 Current Conditions
Plan View
Browns Summit Site
(DMS #96313)

Table 5. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessmem
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project: DMS Pro'ec[ No ID. 96313
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No ID. 96313
Reach ID
Reach ID
R2 (downstream section)
R1
Assessed Length
Assessed Length
134
1,290
Number with
Number with
Footage with
Adjusted % for
Number Stable,
Number Stable,
Number of
Number of
Amount of
% Stable,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Major Channel
Channel Sub-
Performing as
Performing as
Total Number
Unstable
Unstable
Performing as
Woody
Woody
Woody
Cale ory
Category
Metric
Intended
in As -buil[
Segments
Footage
Intended
Vegetation
Ve etation
Ve etation
Bank lacking vegetative cover
1. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
resulting simply from poor growth
Bank lacking vegetative cover
0
0
100%
1. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
resulting simply from poor growth
0
0
100%
and/or scour and erosion
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears
Banks "I"'ut/overhanging to the
2. Undercut
likely. DocsNOT include
undercuts that are modest, appear
extent that mass wasting appears
0
0
100
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include
0
0
100
habitat.
undercuts that are modest, appear
sustainable and are providing
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collaps
0
100%
habitat.
0
0
100%
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collaps
0
100%
0
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with n
20
20
0
0
100%
100%
100%
2. Engineered
Structures
dislodged boulders or logs.
Grade control structures exhibiting
2. Grade Control
maintenance of grade across the
sill.
0
0
Grade control structures exhibiting
100%
2. Grade Control
maintenance of grade across the
11
11
100%
sill.
extent of influence doesnot exceed
Structures lacking any substantial
3. Bank Protection
15%. (See guidance for this table
0
0
2a. Piping
flow underneath sills or arms.
20
20
100%
Bank erosion within the structures
document)
extent of influence docsnot exceed
Pool forming structures
3. Bank Protection
15%. (See guidance for this table
20
20
100%
in EEP monitoring guidance
4. Habitat
Mean Bankfull Depth ratio, 1.6
0
0
100%
document)
Romwads/logs providing some
Pool forming structures
cover at base -flow.
maintaining — Max Pool Depth:
4. Habitat
Mean BankfullDepth ratio> 1.6
20
20
100%
Romwads/logs providing some
cover at base -flow.
Table 5 continued. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project: DMS Pro'ec[ No ID. 96313
Reach ID
R2 (downstream section)
Assessed Length
134
Number with
Footage with
Adjusted %for
Number Stable,
Number of
Amount of
% Stable,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Major Channel
Channel Sub-
Performing as
Total Number
Unstable
Unstable
Performing as
Woody
Woody
Woody
Cate o
Cate or
Metric
Intended
in As -built
Segments
Footage
Intended
Vegetation
Ve etation
Vegetation
Bank lacking vegetative cover
1. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
resulting simply from poor growth
0
0
100%
and/or scour and erosion
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears
2. Undercut
likely. DocsNOT include
undercuts that are modest, appear
0
0
100
sustainable and are providing
habitat.
0
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collaps
0
100%
0
0
100%
2. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with n
dislodged boulders or logs.
0
0
100%
Grade control structures exhibiting
2. Grade Control
maintenance of grade across the
sill.
0
0
100%
2a Pi Ping
Structures lacking any substantial
flow underneath sills or amts.
0
0
100%
Bank erosion within the structures
extent of influence doesnot exceed
3. Bank Protection
15%. (See guidance for this table
0
0
100`%
in EEP monitoring guidance
document)
Pool forming structures
maintaining —MaxPool Depth
4. Habitat
Mean Bankfull Depth ratio, 1.6
0
0
100%
Romwads/logs providing some
cover at base -flow.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
JANUARY 2018, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 7

Table 5 continued. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessmem
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project DMS Project No ID. 96313
Reach ID R3 (downstream section)
Assessed Length 352
Number Stable,
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No ID. 96313
Amount of
% Stable,
Number with
Footage with
Adjusted % for
Major Channel
Channel Sub-
Reach ID
Total Number
R2 (upstream section)
Unstable
Performing as
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Catego"
Cate .,y
Metric
Assessed Length
in As -built
614
Foota a
Intended
Wood v
Woody
Wood v
Number with
Footage with
Adjusted %for
Number Stable,
Number of
Amount of
% Stable,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Major Channel
Channel Sub-
Performing as
Total Number
Unstable
Unstable
Performing as
Woody
Woody
Woody
Cate o
Cate o
Metric
Intended
in A,built
Segments
Footage
Intended
Ve etation
Vegetation
Ve etation
Bank lacking vegetative cover
2. Undercut
1. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
resulting simply from poor growth
100%
0
0
1001111
sustainable and are providing
and/or scour and erosion
habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collaps
0
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
0
extent that mass wasting appears
Totals 0 0 100%
2. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with n
dislodged boulders or logs.
7
7 100%
2. Undercut
likely. DoesNOT include
0
0
100%
2. Grade Control
maintenance of grade across the
sill.
3
3 100%
undercuts that are modest, appear
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial
flow underneath sills or arms.
7
7 100%
Bank erosion within the structures
sustainable and are providing
extent of influence doesnot exceed
3. Bank Protection
habitat.
7
7 100%
in EEP monitoring guidance
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collaps
document)
MIN
0
0
100%
Pool forming structures
maintaining — Max Pool Depth:
0
0
100%
4. Habitat
Mean Bankfull Depth ratio> 1.6
2. Engineered
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with or
5
5
Romwads/logs providing some
l00
Structures
dislodged boulders or logs.
Grade control structures exhibiting
2. Grade Control
maintenance of grade across the
sill.
3
3
100%
Structures lacking any substantial
2a. Piping
flow underneath sills or arms.
5
5
100%
Bank erosion within the structures
extent of influence doesnot exceed
3. Bank Protection
15%. (See guidance for this table
5
5
100%
in EEP monitoring guidance
document)
Pool funning structures
maintaining -- Max Pool Depth
4. Habitat
Mean Bankfull Depth mtio> 1.6
5
5
100%
Rmuwads/logs providing some
cover at base -flow.
Table 5 continued. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project DMS Project No ID. 96313
Reach ID R3 (downstream section)
Assessed Length 352
Number Stable,
Number of
Amount of
% Stable,
Number with
Footage with
Adjusted % for
Major Channel
Channel Sub-
Performing as
Total Number
Unstable
Unstable
Performing as
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Catego"
Cate .,y
Metric
Intended
in As -built
Segments
Foota a
Intended
Wood v
Woody
Wood v
Bank lacking vegetative cover
1. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
resulting simply from poor growth
0
0
100%
and/or scour and erosion
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears
2. Undercut
likely. DoesNOT include
undercuts that are modest, appear
0
0
100%
sustainable and are providing
habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collaps
0
100%
0
Totals 0 0 100%
2. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with n
dislodged boulders or logs.
7
7 100%
Grade control structures exhibiting
2. Grade Control
maintenance of grade across the
sill.
3
3 100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial
flow underneath sills or arms.
7
7 100%
Bank erosion within the structures
extent of influence doesnot exceed
3. Bank Protection
15%. (See guidance for this table
7
7 100%
in EEP monitoring guidance
document)
Pool forming structures
maintaining — Max Pool Depth:
4. Habitat
Mean Bankfull Depth ratio> 1.6
7
7 100%
Romwads/logs providing some
cover at base -flow.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
JANUARY 2018, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 7

Table 5 continued. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessmeni
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No ID. 96313
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No ID. 96313
Reach ID
R3 (upstream section)
R4
Assessed Length
1,102
Assessed Length
1,296
Number Stable,
Number of
Amount of
% Stable, Number with Footage with Adjusted % for
Major Channel
Channel Sub-
Amount of
Performing as
Total Number
Unstable
Unstable
Performing as Stabilizing Stabilizing Stabilizing
Cate o
Cate o
Metric
Intended
in As -built
Se menta
Footage
Intended Wood Wood Wood
Cate ory
Category
Bank lacking vegetative cover
Intended
in As -built
Segments
Footage
Intended
1. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
resulting simply from poor growth
Bank lacking vegetative cover
0
0
100%
and/or scour and erosion
1. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
resulting simply from poor growth
0
0
100%
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
and/or scour and erosion
extent that mass wasting appears
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
2. Undercut
likely. DoesNOT include
0
0
100%
undercuts that are modest, appear
likely. DocsNOT include
sustainable and are providing
2. Undercut
undercuts that are modes[, appear
habitat.
0
0
100
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collaps
0
100%
0
habitat.
0
0
100%
2. Engineered
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with n
15
15
0
100%
Structures
0
dislodged boulders or logs.
0
Grade control structures exhibiting
100%
2. Engineered
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with n
l4
2. Grade Control
maintenance of grade across the
sill.
10
10
Structures
100%
dislodged boulders or logs.
2a. Piping
Stmctures lacking any substantial
15
15
100%
Grade control structures exhibiting
flow underneath sills or arms.
2. Grade Control
Bank erosion within the structures
4
4
100%
extent of influence doesnot exceed
Stmctures lacking any substantial
3. Bank Protection
15%. (See guidance for this table
15
15
14
14
100%
100
in EEP monitoring guidance
Bank erosion within the structures
document)
extent of influence doesnot exceed
Pool forming structures
3. Bank Protection
15%. (See guidance for this table
14
14
maintaining —MaxPool Depth
100%
in EEP monitoring guidance
4. Habitat
Mean Bankfull Depth ratio> 1.6
15
15
100%
document)
Rootwada/logs providing some
cover at base -flow.
Table 5 continued. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No ID. 96313
Reach ID
R4
Assessed Length
1,296
Number Stable,
Number of
Amount of
% Stable,
Number with
Footage with Adjusted % for
Major Channel
Channel Sub-
Performing as
Total Number
Unstable
Unstable
Performing as
Stabilizing
Stabilizing Stabilizing
Cate ory
Category
Metric
Intended
in As -built
Segments
Footage
Intended
Woodv
Woodv Wood
Bank lacking vegetative cover
1. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
resulting simply from poor growth
0
0
100%
and/or scour and erosion
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears
likely. DocsNOT include
2. Undercut
undercuts that are modes[, appear
0
0
100
sustainable and are providing
habitat.
0
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collaps
0
100%
0
0
100%
2. Engineered
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with n
l4
14
100%
Structures
dislodged boulders or logs.
Grade control structures exhibiting
2. Grade Control
maintenance of grade across the
sill.
4
4
100%
Stmctures lacking any substantial
2a Pi
Piping
flow underneath sills or arms.
14
14
100
Bank erosion within the structures
extent of influence doesnot exceed
3. Bank Protection
15%. (See guidance for this table
14
14
100%
in EEP monitoring guidance
document)
Pool forming structures
maintaining — Max Pool Depth:
4. Habitat
Mean Bankfull Depth ratio> 1.6
14
I
14100%
=
Rootwads/logs providing some
cover at base -flow.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
JANUARY 2018, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 7

Table 5 continued. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessmeni
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No ID. 96313
Reach ID
R5
Assessed Length
536
[Amount
Number with
Footage with
Adjusted % for
Number Stable,
Number of
of
% Stable,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Major Channel
Channel Sub-
Performing as
Total Number
Unstable
table
Performing as
Woody
Woody
Woody
Cate o
Cate o
Metric
Intended
in As -built
Se entsta
a
Intended
ation
Veetation
Vegetation
Bank lacking vegetative cover
1. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
resulting simply from poor growth
0
0
100%
and/or scour and erosion
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears
2. Undercut
likely. DoesNOT include
0
0
100
2. Undercut
undercuts that are modest, appear
0
0
100%
sustainable and are providing
habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collaps
0
0
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
2. Engineered
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with o
9
9
100%
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
dislodged boulders or logs.
6
6
100%
Grade control structures exhibiting
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the
sill.
9
9
2. Grade Control
maintenance of grade across the
sill.
6
6
100%
Structures lacking any substantial
Structures lacking any substantial
2a. Piping
flow underneath sills or arms.
9
9
2a. Piping
flow underneath sills or arms.
6
6
100%
Bank erosion within the structures
Bank erosion within the structures
extent of influence doesnot exceed
extent of influence doesnot exceed
3. Bank Protection
15%. (See guidance for this table
3. Bank Protection
15%. (See guidance for this table
6
6
100%
100%
in EEP monitoring guidance
in EEP monitoring guidance
document)
document)
Pool forming structures
Pool forming structures
maintaining — Max Pool Depth:
maintaining -- Max Pool Depth
4. Habitat
Mean Bankfull Depth ratio> 1.6
4. Habitat
Mean Bankfull Depth mtio> 1.6
6
6
100%
100%
Romwads/logs providing some
R.mwads/logs providing some
cover at base -flow.
cover at base -flow.
Table 5 continued. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No ID. 96313
Reach ID
R6
Assessed Length
442
EAmount
Number with
Footage with
Adjusted %for
Number Stable,
Number of
% Stable,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Major Channel
Channel Sub-
Performing as
Total Number
Unstable
Performing as
Woody
Woody
Woody
Cate ory
Cale or
Metric
Intended
in As -built
Se ments
Intended
Ve elation
Ve etation
vegetation
Bank lacking vegetative cover
1. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
resulting simply from poor growth
0
0
100
and/or scour and erosion
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears
2. Undercut
likely. DoesNOT include
0
0
100
undercuts that are modest, appear
sustainable and are providing
habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collaps
0
0
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
2. Engineered
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with or
9
9
100%
Structures
dislod ed boulders or logs
Grade control structures exhibiting
2. Grade Control
maintenance of grade across the
sill.
9
9
100%
Structures lacking any substantial
2a. Piping
flow underneath sills or arms.
9
9
100%
Bank erosion within the structures
extent of influence doesnot exceed
3. Bank Protection
15%. (See guidance for this table
9
9
100%
in EEP monitoring guidance
document)
Pool forming structures
maintaining — Max Pool Depth:
4. Habitat
Mean Bankfull Depth ratio> 1.6
9
9
100%
Romwads/logs providing some
cover at base -flow.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
JANUARY 2018, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 7

Table 5 continued. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessmeni
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No ID. 96313
Reach ID
T1
Assessed Length
145
EAmount
Number with
Footage with
Adjusted %for
Number Stable,
Number of
Amount of
% Stable,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Major Channel
Channel Sub-
Performing as
Total Number
Unstable
Unstable
Performing as
Woody
Woody
Woody
Cate o
Cate o
Metric
Intended
in As -built
Se ments
Footage
Intended
Ve etation
Vegetation
Vegetation
Bank lacking vegetative cover
1. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
resulting simply from poor growth
0
0
100%
and/or scour and erosion
1. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
resulting simply from poor growth
0
0
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
and/or scour and erosion
extent that mass wasting appears
Banksundercut/overhanging to the
likely. DocsNOT include
extent that mass wasting appears
2. Undercut
undercuts that are modest, appear
0
0
100%
likely. DoesNOT include
sustainable and are providing
2. Undercut
undercuts that are modes[, appear
habitat.
0
l00%
sustainable and are providing
0
0
100%
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collaps
habitat.
Totals
0
0
100%
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collaps
2. Engineered
Structures physically intact with n
0
100%
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
dislodged boulders or logs.
6
6
100%
2. Engineered
Structures physically intact with n
Grade control structures exhibiting
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
dislod ed boulders or to s
2
2. Grade Control
maintenance of grade across the
sill.
6
6
100%
Grade control structures exhibiting
Structures lacking any substantial
2. Grade Control
maintenance of grade across the
sill.
2
2a Pi ping
flow underneath sills or amus.
6
6
100%
Structures lacking any substantial
Bank erosion within the structures
2a. Piping
flow underneath sills or arms.
2
2
extent of influence docsnot exceed
100%
Bank erosion within the structures
3. Bank Protection
15%. (See guidance for this table
6
6
100%
extent of influence docsnot exceed
in EEP monitoring guidance
3. Bank Protection
15%. (See guidance for this table
2
2
document)
100%
in EEP monitoring guidance
Pool forming structures
document)
maintaining — Max Pool Depth:
Pool forming structures
4. Habitat
Mean Bankfull Depth ratio> 1.6
6
6
100%
V
maintaining — Max Pool Depth:
Rootwads/logs providing some
4. Habitat
Mean Bankfull Depth ratio> 1.6
2
2
cover at base -flow.
I
I
Rootwads/logs providing some
Table 5 continued. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No ID. 96313
Reach ID
T2
Assessed Length
283
Number with
Footage with
Adjusted % for
Number Stable,
Number of
Amount of
% Stable,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Major Channel
Channel Sub-
Performing as
Total Number
Unstable
Unstable
Performing as
Woody
Woody
Woody
Cate ory
category
Metric
Intended
in As -built
Segments
Footage
Intended
Vegetation
Vegetation
Vegetation
Bank lacking vegetative cover
1. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
resulting simply from poor growth
0
0
100%
and/or scour and erosion
Banksundercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears
likely. DoesNOT include
2. Undercut
undercuts that are modes[, appear
0
0
l00%
sustainable and are providing
habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collaps
0
0
100%
Totals
0
0
l00%
2. Engineered
Structures physically intact with n
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
dislod ed boulders or to s
2
2
100%
Grade control structures exhibiting
2. Grade Control
maintenance of grade across the
sill.
2
2
100%
Structures lacking any substantial
2a. Piping
flow underneath sills or arms.
2
2
100%
Bank erosion within the structures
extent of influence docsnot exceed
3. Bank Protection
15%. (See guidance for this table
2
2
100%
in EEP monitoring guidance
document)
Pool forming structures
maintaining — Max Pool Depth:
4. Habitat
Mean Bankfull Depth ratio> 1.6
2
2
100%
Rootwads/logs providing some
cover at base -flow.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
JANUARY 2018, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 7

Table 5 continued. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessmear
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No ID. 96313
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No ID. 96313
Reach ID
T3
T4
Assessed Length
70
Assessed Length
117
Number with
Footage with
Adjusted %for
Number with
Footage with
Number Stable,
Number of
Amount of
% Stable,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Major Channel
Channel Sub-
Stabilizing
Performing as
Total Number
Unstable
Unstable
Performing as
Woody
Woody
Woody
Cate ory
Cat' ."
Metric
Intended
in As -built
Segments
Footage
Intended
Vegetation
Vegetation
vegetation
Intended
vegetation
Bank lacking vegetative cover
vegetation
Bank lacking vegetative cover
1. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
resulting simply from poor growth
0
0
100%
resulting simply from poor growth
0
0
and/or scour and erosion
and/or scour and erosion
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears
extent that mass wasting appears
2. Undercut
likely. DoesNOT include
undercuts that are modest, appear
0
0
100%
2. Undercut
likely. DocsNOT include
undercuts that are modest, appear
sustainable and are providing
0
0
100%
habitat.
6d0
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collaps
0
100%
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collaps
Totals
0
0
100%
2. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with n
dislodged boulders or logs
I
I
Totals
0
100%
100%
Grade control structures exhibiting
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with nc
dislodged boulders or logs
8
8
100%
2. Grade Control
maintenance of grade across the
I
100%
sill.
maintenance of grade across the
sill.
8
8
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial
flow underneath sills or arms.
l
Structures lacking any substantial
flow underneath sills or arms.
8
8
100%
100%
Bank erosion within the structures
Bank erosion within the structures
extent of influence doesnot exceed
extent of influence doesnot exceed
3. Bank Protection
15%. (See guidance for this table
1
1
15%. (See guidance for this table
8
100%
100%
in EEP monitoring guidance
in EEP monitoring guidance
document)
document)
Pool forming structures
Pool forming structures
maintaining -- Max Pool Depth
maintaining — Max Pool Depth:
4. Habitat
Mean Bankfull Depth mtio> 1.6
1
1
Mean Bankfull Depth ratio> 1.6
8
100%
100%
Romwads/logs providing some
Rootwads/logs providing some
cover at base -flow.
cover at base -flow.
Table 5 continued. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No ID. 96313
Reach ID
T4
Assessed Length
117
Number with
Footage with
Adjusted % for
Number Stable,
Number of
Amount of
% Stable,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Major Channel
Channel Sub-
Performingas
Total Number
Unstable
Unstable
Performing as
Woody
Woody
Woody
Cate o
Cate o
Metric
Intended
in As -built
Se meats
Footage
Intended
vegetation
Vegetation
vegetation
Bank lacking vegetative cover
1. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
resulting simply from poor growth
0
0
100%
and/or scour and erosion
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears
2. Undercut
likely. DocsNOT include
undercuts that are modest, appear
0
0
100%
sustainable and are providing
habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collaps
0
0
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
2. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with nc
dislodged boulders or logs
8
8
100%
Grade control structures exhibiting
2. Grade Control
maintenance of grade across the
sill.
8
8
100%
2a Pi pmg
Structures lacking any substantial
flow underneath sills or arms.
8
8
100%
Bank erosion within the structures
extent of influence doesnot exceed
3. Bank Protection
15%. (See guidance for this table
8
8
100%
in EEP monitoring guidance
document)
Pool forming structures
maintaining — Max Pool Depth:
4. Habitat
Mean Bankfull Depth ratio> 1.6
8
8
100%
Rootwads/logs providing some
cover at base -flow.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
JANUARY 2018, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 7

Table 6. Vegetation Conditions Assessment
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No ID. 96313
Planted Acreage 20.24
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
% of Planted
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Threshold
Depiction
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
Very limited cover of both
Pattern and
1. Bare Areas
woody and herbaceous
0.1 acres
0
0.00
0.0%
Color
material.
Woody stem densities
2. Low Stem Density
clearly below target levels
Pattern and
.
01 acres
0
0.00
°
0.0/°
Areas
based on MY3, 4, or 5
Color
stem count criteria.
Total
0
0.00
0.0%
Areas with woody stems of
3. Areas of Poor
a size class that are
Pattern and
0.25 acres
0
0.00
0.0%
Growth Rates or Vigor
obviously small given the
Color
monitoring year.
Cumulative Totall
0
0.00
0.0%
Easement Acrea e2 20.24
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
0 OT
Easement
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Threshold
Depiction
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
4. Invasive Areas of
Areas or points (if too small to
Pattern and
Concern
render as polygons at map
1000 SF
Color
0
0.00
0.0%
J
scale).
I
I
5. Easement
Areas or points (if too small to
Pattern and
Encroachment Areas3
render as polygons at map
none
Color
0
0.00
0.0%
scale).
1 = Enter the planted acreage within the easement. This number is calculated as the easement acreage minus any existing mature tree
stands that were not subject to supplemental planting of the understory, the channel acreage, crossings or any other elements not directly
planted as part of the project effort.
2 = The acreage within the easement boundaries.
3 = Encroachment may occur within or outside of planted areas and will therefore be calculated against the overall easement acreage. In
the event a polygon is cataloged into items 1, 2 or 3 in the table and is the result of encroachment, the associated acreage should be tallied
in the relevant item (i.e., item 1,2 or 3) as well as a parallel tally in item 5.
4 = Invasives may occur in or out of planted areas, but still within the easement and will therefore be calculated against the overall easement
acreage. Invasives of concern/interest are listed below. The list of high concern spcies are those with the potential to directly outcompete
native, young, woody stems in the short-term (e.g. monitoring period or shortly thereafter) or affect the community structure for existing,
more established tree/shrub stands over timeframes that are slightly longer (e.g. 1-2 decades). The low/moderate concern group are those
species that generally do not have this capacity over the timeframes discussed and therefore are not expected to be mapped with regularity,
but can be mapped, if in the judgement of the observer their coverage, density or distribution is suppressing the viability, density, or growth
of planted woody stems. Decisions as to whether remediation will be needed are based on the integration of risk factors by EEP such as
species present, their coverage, distribution relative to native biomass, and the practicality of treatment. For example, even modest
amounts of Kudzu or Japanese Knotweed early in the projects history will warrant control, but potentially large coverages of Microstegium in
the herb layer will not Iikley trigger control because of the limited capacities to impact tree/shrub layers within the timeframes discussed and
the potential impacts of treating extensive amounts of ground cover. Those species with the "watch list" designator in gray shade are of
interest as well, but have yet to be observed across the state with any frequency. Those in red italics are of particular interest given their
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
JANUARY 2018, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 7

Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project — Longitudinal Stream Photo Stations
Photo Point 1 — Station 63+75, Reach 1 Photo Point 2 — Station 61+50, Reach 1
{ 5 Photo Point 3 Station 58+P'75, Reach 1 Photo Point 4 — Station 57+85, Reach 1
ddd iY4... V; i
El
s �+r
Photo Point 5 — Station 56+75, Reach 1
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96313)
JANUARY 2018, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 7
Photo Point 6 — Station 55+00, Reach 1

Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project — Longitudinal Stream Photo Stations
✓l
Photo Point 13 — Station 43+75, Reach 2/Reach T2
Photo Point 14 — Station 42+25, Reach 3
Photo Point 15 — Station 41+50, Reach 3
Photo Point 16 — Station 36+25, Reach 3
Photo Point 17 — Station 36+00, Reach 3
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96313)
JANUARY 2018, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 7
Photo Point 18 — Station 35+00, Reach 3

Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project — Longitudinal Stream Photo Stations
Photo Point 19 — Station 33+00, Reach 3 Photo Point 20 Station 32+00, Reach 3
Photo Point 21 — 31+50, Reach 3
Photo Point 22 — Station 28+75, Reach 3/T3
Photo Point 23 — Station 10+25, Reach T3
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96313)
JANUARY 2018, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 7
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
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96313)
JANUARY 2018, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 7
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, Step
Pools
Photo Point 36 — Station 14+50, Reach 6, BMP
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96313)
JANUARY 2018, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 7

Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project — Longitudinal Stream Photo Stations
Photos take November 16, 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, Step Pools
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96313)
JANUARY 2018, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 7

Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project — Vegetation Plot Photo Stations
Photos take September 29, 2017
Vegetation Plot 1
1
Vegetation Plot 2
Vegetation Plot 3
Vegetation Plot 4
Vegetation Plot 5
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96313)
JANUARY 2018, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 7
Vegetation Plot 6

Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project — Vegetation Plot Photo Stations
Vegetation Plot 7
Vegetation Plot 8
Vegetation Plot 9
Vegetation Plot 10
Vegetation Plot 11
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96313)
JANUARY 2018, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 7
Vegetation Plot 12

Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project — Vegetation Plot Photo Stations
Photos take September 29, 2017
Vegetation Plot 13
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96313)
JANUARY 2018, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 7
Vegetation Plot 14

Appendix C
Vegetation Plot Data

T,ble 7. CVS De,sity Per Plot
Err— Summit C-1, Rest ... tio, Project: DMS Pmr[ect No ID. 96313
CVS Project Code 140048. Project Name: Browns Summit
Current Plot Data
am=
am=
am=
am=
am=
am=
am=
American Holly
Platanusoccidentalis
Stem count
Species count
Stems per ACRE P
r
M��MEOW:
����
1
Stem count
sbe (ares)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
JANUARY 2018, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 7

Table S. Vegetation Plot Summary
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No ID. 96313
Browns Summit (#140048)
Year 1
Vegetation Plot Summary Information
Stream/
Riparian Buffer Wetland
Unknown
Plot #
Stems' Stems2 Live Stakes
Invasives Volunteers3
Tota14
Growth Form
1
n/a 18 0
0
0
18
0
2
n/a 19 0
0
0
19
0
3
n/a 24 0
0
0
24
0
4
n/a 17 0
0
0
17
0
5
n/a 18 0
0
0
18
0
6
n/a 18 0
0
0
18
0
7
n/a e 0
0
0
15
0
8
n/a 18 0
0
0
18
0
9
n/a 19 0
0
0
19
0
10
n/a 16 0
0
0
16
0
11
n/a 16 0
0
0
16
0
12
n/a 13 0
0
1
14
0
13
n/a 18 0
0
0
18
0
14
n/a 15 0
0
1
16
0
Wetland/Stream Vegetation
Totals
(per acre)
Stream/
Wetland
Success Criteria
Plot # Stems2 Volunteers3
Tota 14
Met?
1 18 0
728
Yes
2 19 0
769
Yes
3 24 0
971
Yes
4 17 0
688
Yes
5 18 0
728
Yes
6 18 0
728
Yes
7 e 0
607
Yes
8 18 0
728
Yes
9 19 0
769
Yes
10 16 0
647
Yes
11 16 0
647
Yes
12 13 1
567
Yes
13 18 0
728
Yes
14 15 1
647
Yes
Project Avg 18 0.1
711
Yes
Stem Class
characteristics
1Buffer Stems
Native planted hardwood trees. Does NOT include
shrubs. No pines.
No vines.
`Stream/ Wetland
Stems
Native planted woody stems. Includes shrubs, does
NOT include live
stakes. No vines
3Volunteers
Native woody stems. Not planted. No vines.
4Total
Planted + volunteer native woody stems. Includes live
stakes. Excl. exotics.
Excl.
vines.
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements
by 10%
Exceeds requirements,
but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements,
by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
JANUARY 2018, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 7

Table 9. 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
Acer negundo Boxelder maple
1
2
3
0
1
0
0
2
1
0
2
1
1
1
Betula nigra River Birch
5
5
3
1
4
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
Callicarpa americana American Beautyberry
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
Carpinus caroliniana American hornbeam
0
1
3
1 3
2
0
1
1
1 2
4
0
1
5
0
Celtis laevigata Sugarberry
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
0
0
Diospyros virginiana American Persimmon
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
Euonymus americanus Strawberry -bush
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
1
1
0
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash
4
3
2
5
4
3
4
3
1
1
2
1
0
4
Hamamelis virginiana Witch -hazel
0
1
0
1 0
1
0
0
2
1 2
0
0
1
0
1
Ilex opaca American Holly
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
2
1
1
1
2
1 1
0
Ilex verticillata Winterberry
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
Nyssa sylvatica Black Gum
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
1
2
0
2
0
0
2
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore
2
3 1
5
1
0
7
1
3
1 4
3
0
0
0
0
Quercus alba White Oak
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0 1
0
0
0
Quercus lyrata Overcup Oak
1
0
0
0
1
2
1
1
0
0
2
0
7
0
Quercus michauxii Swamp Chestnut Oak
2
1
2
0
1
0
3
1
0
0
1
1
0
1
Quercus phellos Willow Oak
1
0
0
1 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ulmus americana American Elm
0
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
1 2
2
0
0
0 1
0
Viburnum dentatum Arrow -wood
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
2
1
Viburnum nudum Possumhaw
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
Initial count of planted bareroot material
18
22
24
17
18
19
18
19
18
20
17
16
21
18
Stems/plot
18
191
24
1 17
1 18
1 18
1 15
18
19 1
16
1 16
14
18
16
Stems/acre
728
769 1
971
688
728
728
607
1 728
1 769
648
648 1
567 1
728
648
Average Stems / Acre for Year 1 (Planted + Volunteer)
711
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
JANUARY 2018, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 7

Appendix D
Stream Survey Data

Figure 5 Year 1 Cross-sections
Permanent Cross-section 1
(As -built Data Collected March 2017, Year 1 Data Collected October 2017)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96313
JANUARY 2018, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 7
Stream
BKF
Max BKF
Feature
Type
BKF Area
BKF Width
Depth
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle
C
3.4
8.13
0.4
0.9
19.4
1
5.9
795.43 795.43
Browns Summit Restoration Site
Reach 4, Cross-section 1
798
797
w
0
-------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------o
796
d
w
795
---0 - Floodprone
--o - Bankfull
­0#—As-built
Year 1
794
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Station (ft)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96313
JANUARY 2018, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 7

Figure 5 Year 1 Cross-sections
Permanent Cross-section 2
(As -built Data Collected March 2017, Year 1 Data Collected October 2017)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96313
JANUARY 2018, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 7
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
12.8
1 0.8
2.5
15.6
1 --
--
793.70
793.48
Browns Summit Restoration Site
Reach 4, Cross-section 2
797
796
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
795
r
c 794
-
w,
-------------- - - -- ------------------- ---- - -- -- -- --
- ---- ----- ----------------- -
�a
793
W
792
--o - Floodprone
--o - Bankfull
791
--�(—As-bu i It
Year 1
790
0 10 20 30 40
50 60
Station (ft)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96313
JANUARY 2018, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 7

Figure 5 Year 1 Cross-sections
Permanent Cross-section 3
(As -built Data Collected March 2017, Year 1 Data Collected October 2017)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96313
JANUARY 2018, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 7
Stream
BKF
Max BKF
Feature
Type
BKF Area
BKF Width
Depth
Depth
1
W/D
1
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev TOB Elev
Rifle
C
7.25
12.49
0.58
1.21
21.53
L 1
5.28
791.82 791.8
Browns Summit Restoration Site
Reach 4, Cross-section 3
794
793
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
c
0
M 792
m
-------------------------------- ---------------- --- ------ ----------------------------------------e
LU
- o-- Floodprone
791
- G--- Bankfull
--##—As-built
790
Year 1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Station (ft)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96313
JANUARY 2018, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 7

Figure 5 Year 1 Cross-sections
Permanent Cross-section 4
(As -built Data Collected March 2017, Year 1 Data Collected October 2017)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Stream
Feature Type
BKF Area
BKF Width
1
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
1
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle C
6.72
9.16
0.73
1.02
12.55
1 1
7.36
789.04
789.08
Browns Summit Restoration Site
Reach 4, Cross-section 4
791
790.5
790 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------e
F789.5
0 789 --------------------- ---- --------------- -
----------------------------------------------------- e
r
ani 788.5
Lu
788 --o - Floodprone
787.5 --o--- Bankfull
787
--)�-- As-bu i It
Year 1
786.5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Station (ft)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96313
JANUARY 2018, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 7

Figure 5 Year 1 Cross-sections
Permanent Cross-section 5
(As -built Data Collected March 2017, Year 1 Data Collected October 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 8.18 10.93 0.75 1.08 14.57 1 6.25 785.57 785.57
Browns Summit Restoration Site
Reach 4, Cross-section 5
787
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
786.5
786
r
W
o785.5 ------------------------------ ------
w
is
d 785
W
784.5
-o - Floodprone
-o-- Bankfull
784
--�<—As-bu i It
Year 1
783.5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Station (ft)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96313
JANUARY 2018, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 7

Figure 5 Year 1 Cross-sections
Permanent Cross-section 6
(As -built Data Collected March 2017, Year 1 Data Collected October 2017)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Stream
BKF
Max BKF
Feature Type
BKF Area
BKF Width
1
Depth
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool E
14.4
12.9 1
1.1
2.4
11.6
--
--
781.678
781.678
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96313
JANUARY 2018, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 7

Figure 5 Year 1 Cross-sections
Permanent Cross-section 7
(As -built Data Collected March 2017, Year 1 Data Collected October 2017)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96313
JANUARY 2018, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 7
Stream
BKF
Max BKF
Feature
Type
BKF Area
BKF Width Depth
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle
C
6.24
11.48 0.54
1.02
21.26
1
7.83
781.42 781.42
Browns Summit Restoration Site
Reach 3, Cross-section 7
783
—
782
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
O
W
_____ ____________________
_______________________ ______________ _ _______________________________
_ ____________
W
781
--o - Floodprone
--o - Bankfull
---)-o—As-built
Year 1
780
0 10
20 30 40 50 60
70 80 90
Station (ft)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96313
JANUARY 2018, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 7

Figure 5 Year 1 Cross-sections
Permanent Cross-section 8
(As -built Data Collected March 2017, Year 1 Data Collected October 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
7.16
10.05
0.71
1.05
14.15
1
8.48
777.63 777.63
Browns Summit Restoration Site
Reach 3, Cross-section 8
780
779
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- -
778
0
-------------------- ----------------------------------------
yr--------------------------------------------------------
d
Lu 777
--o - Floodprone
--o - Bankfull
776
--��—As-built
Year 1
775
0 10
20 30 40 50 60
70 80 90
Station (ft)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96313
JANUARY 2018, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 7

Figure 5 Year 1 Cross-sections
Permanent Cross-section 9
(As -built Data Collected March 2017, Year 1 Data Collected October 2017)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Stream
BKF
Max BKF
Feature Type
BKF Area
BKF Width
1
Depth
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool E
17.2
15.3 1
1.1
2.4
13.5
--
--
775.88
775.88
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96313
JANUARY 2018, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 7

Figure 5 Year 1 Cross-sections
Permanent Cross-section 10
(As -built Data Collected March 2017, Year 1 Data Collected October 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
6.9
11.5
0.6
1.1
19.2
1
4.54
773.83 773.83
Browns Summit Restoration Site
Reach 3, Cross-section 10
777
776
7 t o
0
--------------------
-- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- ------
r
w 774
----------------------------
------------------- - --------------------------------------------------o
-o - Floodprone
773
-o-- Bankfull
--�<—As-built
772
Year 1
0 10
20 30 40
50 60 70
Station (ft)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96313
JANUARY 2018, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 7

Figure 5 Year 1 Cross-sections
Permanent Cross-section 11
(As -built Data Collected March 2017, Year 1 Data Collected October 2017)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96313
JANUARY 2018, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 7
Stream
BKF Max BKF
Feature Type
BKF Area BKF Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio
ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle C
8.0 11.7 0.7 1.2 17.2 1
5.53 771.76 771.76
Browns Summit Restoration Site
Reach 3, Cross-section 11
776
775
r
774
W
c773
------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------o
.2
°'
772
W--------------------------------
-- -------------- - -- - - --------------------------------------o
771
--o - Floodplain
--o--- Bankfull
770
--�O—As-bu i It
Year 1
769
0
10 20 30 40 50 60
70 80 90
Station (ft)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96313
JANUARY 2018, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 7

Figure 5 Year 1 Cross-sections
Permanent Cross-section 12
(As -built Data Collected March 2017, Year 1 Data Collected October 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
4.1
6.7
0.6
1.1
11.0
1
5.41
763.8184 763.82
Browns Summit Restoration Site
Reach T1, Cross-section 12
767
766
r
r765
---------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- ---------o
0
:r
�a
LU 764
------------------------------
------------- - ---- -- - ------------------------------------------o
---0 - Floodprone
763
--a Bankfull
--�,—As-bu i It
762
Year 1
0
10 20 30
40 50
Station (ft)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96313
JANUARY 2018, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 7

Figure 5 Year 1 Cross-sections
Permanent Cross-section 13
(As -built Data Collected March 2017, Year 1 Data Collected October 2017)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Stream
BKF
Max BKF
Feature Type
BKF Area
BKF Width
1
Depth
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool C
17.1
18.7 1
0.9
1.7
20.6
--
762.95
762.95
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96313
JANUARY 2018, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 7

Figure 5 Year 1 Cross-sections
Permanent Cross-section 14
(As -built Data Collected March 2017, Year 1 Data Collected October 2017)
Looking at the Left Bank
. --y. ww"
.
' X14 -RIGHT [SANK
Looking at the Right Bank
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96313
JANUARY 2018, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 7
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
14.7
0.9
1.6
17.3
1
4.96
761.71 761.71
Browns Summit Restoration Site
Reach 1, Cross-section 14
764
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------o
763
r
762
w--
-------- ------------------------- -- -
---- ------ ----------o
ca
w 761
-- e--- Floodprone
760
---e--- Bankfull
--�<—As-built
759
0 10 20 30 40 50
60 80
Station (ft)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96313
JANUARY 2018, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 7

Figure 5 Year 1 Cross-sections
Permanent Cross-section 15
(As -built Data Collected March 2017, Year 1 Data Collected October 2017)
arc � = �. �-�•� - `�• '' - - - ,.
N i .
M'
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
20.8
24.3
0.9
2.5
28.3
--
--
760.52
760.52
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96313
JANUARY 2018, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 7

Figure 5 Year 1 Cross-sections
Permanent Cross-section 16
(As -built Data Collected March 2017, Year 1 Data Collected October 2017)
X11 �9- rY yf• � A��� �L
Looking at the Left Bank
.3�.r •'!tea
Looking at the Right Bank
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96313
JANUARY 2018, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 7
Stream
BKF
Max BKF
Feature
Type
BKF Area
BKF Width
Depth
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle
E
13.0
11.9
1.09
1.8
10.9
1
6
759.53 759.53
Browns Summit Restoration Site
Reach 1, Cross-section 16
762
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------o
761
760
0
Lu 759
- --------------------------------------------- - ----------------- - -
- -- ----------
-o - Floodprone
-o-- Bankfull
758
--�<—As-built
Year 1
757
0 10 20 30 40 50
60 70 80
Station (ft)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96313
JANUARY 2018, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 7

Figure 5 Year 1 Cross-sections
Permanent Cross-section 17
(As -built Data Collected March 2017, Year 1 Data Collected October 2017)
_ f'- . -rte ' • 'b°...'; . �.. •• ` 7���-^]; �
_ r'
7 -LEP
f3AfVK
T i6, 2037
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
14.6
12.2
1.2
2.0
10.3
1
5.62
758.65 758.65
Browns Summit Restoration Site
Reach 1, Cross-section 17
761
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
760
r 759
0
d
w 758
---0--- Floodprone
757
--o--- Bankfull
--�<—As-built
Year 1
756
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Station (ft)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96313
JANUARY 2018, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 7

Table 10. Baseline Stream Summary
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No ID. 96313
Reach 1
USGS
Reference Reach(es) Data
Parameter
Gauge
Regional Curve*
Pre-Existing Condition
Design
As-built
a
Composite
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
LL UL
Eq.
Min
Mean
Med Max
SD n
Min
Mean
Med Max SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
BF Width (ft)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
12.3
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
12.9
----
----
-----
-----
12.6
13.0
12.6
13.8
0.6
3
F oo prone Width (ft)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
>100
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
---------- -----
-----
----
>100
----
----
-----
-----
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
0.0
3
BF Mean Depth (ft)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
1.3
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
1.2
----
----
-----
-----
0.9
1.1
1.1
1.2
0.1
3
BF Max Depth O
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
2.1
----- -----
----------
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
----
1.5
----
----
-----
-----
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
0.0
3
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft')
-----
12.0 16.5
-----
-----
16.3
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
15.2
----
----
-----
-----
12.5
13.4
13.2
14.5
0.8
3
Width/Depth Ratio
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
9.3
----- -----
----- -----
10
-----
----- 12 -----
-----
-----
11.0
----
----
-----
-----
10.9
12.7
12.0
15.2
1.8
3
Entrenchment Ratio
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
8.7
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- >2.2 -----
-----
-----
>6.7
----
----
-----
-----
5.3
5.5
5.4
5.7
0.2
3
Bank Height Ratio
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
I
----- -----
----- -----
I
-----
----- I -----
-----
-----
I
----
----
-----
-----
1
1
1
1
0
3
d50(mm)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
0.8
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
50.0
-----
-----
75.0
-----
-----
72.6
88.2
75.3
136.9
24.7
5
Radius of Curvature (ft)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
26.0
-----
-----
39.0
-----
-----
25.9
34.5
35.4
42.0
5.3
7
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- ----
2
-----
----- 3
-----
2.0
-----
-----
3.0
-----
-----
2.0
2.7
2.7
3.2
0.4
7
Meander Wavelength (ft)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
140
-----
-----
170
-----
-----
130.2
162.0
161.3
190.9
24.9
5
Meander Width Ratio
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
3.5
-----
----- 10 -----
-----
4
-----
-----
6
-----
5.6
6.8
5.8
10.5
1.9
5
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
5.4
20.5
13.0
47.7
14.6
13
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
----
-----
0.013
-----
-----
-----
-----
0.001
0.019
0.010
0.091
0.023
13
Pool Length (ft)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----------
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Pool to Pool Spacing (ft)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
----
50
-----
-----
87
-----
-----
41.4
63.2
59.1
100.8
18.2
12
Pool Max Depth (ft)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
1.2
-----
----- 2.5 -----
-----
-----
2.7
-----
-----
-----
-----
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.8
0.0
2
Pool Volume (ft')
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
----------
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Substrate and Transport Parameters
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
-----
----- -----
-----
0.3/0.5/0.8/5.8/10.2
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/ft'
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
114
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
88
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m'
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
25.7
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
20.3
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
-----
----- 0.68
-----
-----
-----
----- 0.68
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
0.68
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
0.68
-----
-----
Impervious cover estimate o
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
---------- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
RosgenClassification
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
E
----- -----
----- -----
-----
E5
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
E5
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
C
-----
-----
BF Velocity (fps)
-----
3.6 4.1
-----
-----
3.56
----- -----
----- -----
4
-----
----- 6 -----
-----
-----
3.20
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
BF Discharge (cfs)
-----
43.2 67.4
-----
-----
58
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
49
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
ValleyLength
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- 1086.6
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
1036.3
-----
-----
Channellength (ft)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- 1217
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
1279.7
-----
-----
Sinuosity-----
----- -----
-----
-----
1.12
----- -----
----- -----
1.3
-----
----- 1.6 -----
----
-----
1.40
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
1.2
-----
-----
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
0.0058
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
0.0058-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
BFslope (ft/ft)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
0.0043
-----
-----
Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
BEHIVL% / L% / M% / H% / VH % / E %
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
---
----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Biological or Other
-----I
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----------
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
* 1999 Regional Crave and Esitmate from Revised Regional Curve. See Mitigation Plan for more information.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
JANUARY 2018, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 7

Table 10 continued. Baseline Stream Summar}
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No ID. 96313
Reach 2
USGS
Reference Reach(es) Data
Parameter
Gauge
a
Regional Curve"'
Pre-Existing Condition
Design
As-built
Composite
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
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
BFWidth (11)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- 10.06 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 11.0 ---- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
FloodproneWidth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- 22.1 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ---- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BFMean Depth (11)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- 1.1 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 1.0 ---- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BF Max Depth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- 2.0 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 1.3 ---- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft')
-----
----- ----- -----
----- 11.1 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 11.1 ---- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Width/Depth Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
----- 9.1 ----- ----- ----- -----
10 ----- ----- 12 ----- -----
----- 11 ---- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
EntrenchmentRatio
-----
----- ----- -----
----- 2.2 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- >2.2 ----- -----
----- ----- ---- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BankHeight Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
----- 2 ----- ----- ----- -----
1 ----- ----- 1 ----- -----
----- 1 ---- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
d50(ram)
---
----- ----- -----
----- 0.6 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----
----- ---
---- ---- ----- ----- ----- -----
Radiusof Curvature (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
22 ----- ----- 33.0 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Rc:Bankfi ll width (ft/ft)
----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
2 ----- ----- 3 ----- ----
2 ----- ----- 3.0 ----- ---
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Meander Wavelength (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- --------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
MeanderWidth Ratio
----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
3.5 ----- ----- 10 ----- ----
----- ----- ----- ---- ----- ---
--- --- ----- ----- ----- -----
Profile
RiffleLength (ft)
----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----
----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- --------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
PoolLength (11)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----
----- -----
-- -- ----- ----- ----- -----
Pool to Pool Spacing (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---- ----------
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
PoolMax Depth (ft)
---
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
1.2 ----- ----- 2.5 ----- ----
----- 2.2 ----- ---- ----- ---
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Pool Volume (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- --------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Substrate and Transport Parameters
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----------
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
SC% / Sa% / G% / B% / Be%
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----------
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
-----
----- ----- -----
0.2/0.4/0.6/2.9/6.9
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/ft'
-----
---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve)
----- 100.0 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 90 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Stream Power (transport capacity) Who'
-----
----- ----- -----
----- 20.4 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 19.1----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Additional Reach Parameters
-----
Drainage Area (SM)
-----
----- 0.47 -----
----- ----- ----- 0.47 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 0.47 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 0.47 ----- -----
Impervious cover estimate (%)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
RosgenClassification
-----
----- ----- -----
----- Be ----- ----- ----- -----
----- E5 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- E5 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BF Velocity (fps)
-----
3.50 4.03 -----
----- 3.87 ----- ----- ----- -----
4 ----- ----- 6 ----- -----
----- 2.91 ----- ----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----------
BF Discharge (cfs)
---
32.4 51.6 -----
----- 43 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----
----- 32.3 ----- ----- ----- ---
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
ValleyLength
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 643.0 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Channellength (ft)
----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 868.0 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Sinuosity-----
----- ----- -----
----- 1.35 ----- ----- ----- -----
1.3 ----- ----- 1.6 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
----
----- ----- -----
----- 0.0054 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----
---- 0.0054
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BF slope (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ---------- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
----
---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- -----
----- ---
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BEHI VL% / L% / M% / H% / VH % / EON
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----------
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Biological or Other
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----------
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
* 1999 Regional Cruve and Estimate from Revised Regional Curve. See Mitigation Plan for more information.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
JANUARY 2018, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 7

Table 10 continued. Baseline Stream Summar}
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No ID. 96313
Reach 3
USGS
Reference Reaches) Data
Parameter
Gau
Regional Curve"'
Pre-Existing Condition
Design
As-built
g a
Composite
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
LL UL
Eq.
Min
Mean
Med Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med Max SD n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
BF Width (11)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
8.5
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
10.3
----
----
-----
-----
9.3
10.7
10.9
11.6
0.9
4
Floodprone Width (ft)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
17.8
----- -----
-----
-----
----------
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
>23
----
----
-----
-----
51.6
73.4
76.1
89.9
15.7
4
BF Mean Depth (ft)
-----
---- -----
-----
-----
1.15
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
0.9
----
----
-----
-----
0.6
0.8
0.8
0.9
0.2
4
BF Max Depth O
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
1.8
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
1.2
----
----
-----
-----
1.1
1.3
1.3
1.3
0.1
4
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft')
-----
6.5 9.3
-----
-----
9.7
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
9.7
----
----
-----
-----
6.8
7.9
7.6
9.8
1.2
4
Width/Depth Ratio
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
7.15
----- -----
-----
-----
10
-----
----- 12 ----- -----
-----
11.0
----
----
-----
-----
10.8
15.0
15.1
19.2
3.9
4
Entrenchment Ratio
-----
---- -----
-----
-----
2.0
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- >2.2 ----- -----
-----
>2.2
-----
----
-----
-----
4.4
6.9
7.5
8.2
1.5
4
Bank Height Ratio
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
2
----- -----
-----
-----
I
-----
----- I ----- -----
-----
I
-----
----
-----
-----
1
1
1
1
0
4
d50 (mm)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
---- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
35
-----
-----
56.0
-----
-----
37.4
54.0
59.9
64.7
11.9
3
Radius of Curvature (ft)
---
--- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----
20
-----
-----
30.0
-----
-----
20.0
27.8
25.8
37.2
6.3
10
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
2
-----
----- 3 ----- -----
2
-----
-----
3.0
-----
-----
1.9
2.6
2.4
3.5
0.6
10
Meander Wavelength (ft)
---
--- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----
90
-----
-----
130.0
-----
-----
90.4
108.9
101.0
137.2
17.2
5
Meander Width Ratio
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
3.5
-----
----- 10 ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----
-----
-----
3.5
5.1
5.6
6.1
1.1
3
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
---
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----
-----
0.018
-----
----
-----
---
0.005
0.021
0.019
0.040
0.010
13
Pool Length (II)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----------
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Pool to Pool Spacing (ft)
---
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----
47
-----
-----
70.0
-----
---
20.1
55.2
59.2
81.3
18.3
13
Pool Max Depth (ft)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
1.2
-----
----- 2.5 ----- -----
-----
2
-----
----
-----
-----
1.3
1.8
1.8
2.2
0.5
2
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 Curve)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
141
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
116
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m,2
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
30.7
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
26.2-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Additional Reach Parameters
-----
Drainage Area (SM)
-----
----- 0.38
-----
-----
-----
----- 0.38
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
0.38
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
0.38
-----
-----
Impervious cover estimate o
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
---------- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Rosgen Classification
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
Be
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
E5
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
E5
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
C
-----
-----
BFVelocity (fps)
-----
3.42 3.97
-----
-----
3.5
----- -----
-----
-----
4
-----
----- 6 ----- -----
-----
3.3
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
BF Discharge (cfs)
-----
25.7 41.7
-----
-----
34.5
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
31.9
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
ValleyLength
---
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- 1441.8
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
1323.2
-----
-----
Channel length (ft)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- 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-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
BFslope (ft/ft)
----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
0.010
-----
-----
Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
BEHIVL% / L% / M% / H% / VH % / E %
----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Biologicalor Other
-----
I ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
1999 Regional Cruve and Esitmate from Revised Regional Curve. See Mitigation Plan for more information.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
JANUARY 2018, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 7

Table 10 continued. Baseline Stream Summar3
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No ID. 96313
Reach 4
Parameter
USGS
Regional Curve*
Pre -Existing Condition
Reference Reach(es) Data
Design (lower/upper)
As -built
Composite
Gauge
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
LL UL
Eq.
Min
Mean
Med Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med Max
SD n
Min Mean
Med Max
SD n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
BF Width (ft)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
7.60
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
----- 9.2/8.1
----- -----
----- -----
7.2
9.3
9.1
11.8
1.7
4
Floodprone Width (ft)
-----
---- -----
-----
-----
9.1
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
----- >19/>17
----- -----
----- -----
31.3
57.9
66.0
68.1
15.4
4
BF Mean Depth (ft)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
0.86
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
----- 0.7/0.6
----- -----
----- -----
0.5
0.8
0.9
1.1
0.2
4
BF Max Depth (ft)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
1.39
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
----- 0.9/0.8
----- -----
----- -----
0.8
1.4
1.5
1.7
0.3
4
BF Cross-sectional Area (ftp)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
6.5
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
----- 6.5/5.0
----- -----
----- -----
3.3
7.7
7.4
12.7
3.4
4
Width/Depth Ratio
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
8.8
----- -----
-----
-----
10.0
-----
----- 14.0
----- -----
----- 13.0
----- ----
----- -----
11.0
12.3
11.3
15.4
1.8
4
Entrenchment Ratio
-----
---- ----
- -
- ----
- ----
1.2
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- >2.2
----- -----
----- >2.2
----- ----
----- -----
4.4
5.9
5.8
7.6
1.3
3
Bank Height Ratio
----
----- -----
-----
-----
7
----- -----
-----
-----
I
-----
----- I
----- -----
----- I
----- ----
----- -----
1
1
1
1
0
3
d50(min)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
0.4
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
----- -----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
----- 30-42/22-43
----- ----
----- -----
36.9
43.0
42.8
49.7
4.7
4
Radius of Curvature (ft)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
2
-----
----- 3
----- -----
----- 18-28/16-25
----- -----
----- -----
17.2
24.5
25.1
34.3
4.9
10
Rc:Bankfi ll width (ft/ft)
---
--- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- ----
----- 3.1/2.0
----- -----
----- -----
1.8
2.6
2.7
3.7
0.5
10
Meander Wavelength (ft)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
----- 120.0/80.0
----- -----
----- -----
63.1
94.5
93.0
123.0
20.2
9
Meander Width Ratio
---
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
3.5
-----
----- 8
----- ----
---- 12.0/2.7
----- -----
----- -----
4.0
4.6
4.6
5.3
0.5
4
Profile
RiffleLength (ft)
---
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
----- 0.019
----- ----
----- -----
0.013
0.021
0.018
0.036
0.008
7
Pool Length (ft)
---
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- ----
----- -----
----- ----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Pool to Pool Spacing (ft)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
----- 36-64/29-52
----- ----
----- -----
31.2
58.1
56.1
87.8
18.7
6
Pool Max Depth (ft)
---
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- ----
----- 2.0/1.9
----- ----
----- -----
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
0.0
1
Pool Volume (ft)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
----- -----
----- ----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Substrate and Transport Parameters
R-1 % / Ru% / P% / G% / S %-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----------
----- -----
----- -----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
SC% / Sa% / G% / B% / Be%
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
----- -----
----- -----
----------
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
ell / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
-----
----- -----
-----
0.2/0.3/0.4/0.9/1.8
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/ft'
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
----- -----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
208 -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
----- 141
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m'
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
45.1 -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
----- 30.7-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Additional Reach Parameters
-----
-----
Drainage Area (SM)
-----
----- 0.22
-----
-----
-----
----- 0.22
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
----- -----
----- 0.22
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
0.22
-----
-----
Impervious cover estimate (%)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----------
-----
----- -----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
RosgenClassification
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
Gc
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
C5
----- -----
----- -----
----- C5
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
E
-----
-----
BF Velocity (fps)
-----
3.29 3.90
-----
-----
3.69
----- -----
-----
-----
3.5
-----
----- 5.0
----- -----
----- 3.8/4.1
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
BF Discharge (cfs)
---
17.9 29.8
-----
-----
24
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- ----
----- 24.8/21.1
----- -----
----- ---
----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
ValleyLength
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- 1173.9
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
----- -----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
1173.9
-----
-----
Channel length (ft)
----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- 1350.0
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- ----
----- -----
----- -----
----- ---
-----
-----
-----
1263.4
-----
-----
Sinuosity
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
1.15
----- -----
-----
-----
1.2
-----
----- 1.5
----- -----
----- 1.13/1.22
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
1.08
-----
-----
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
----
----- -----
-----
-----
0.016
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- ----
----- 0.011 / 0.016
----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
BFslope (ft/ft)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
----- -----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
0.0
-----
-----
Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----------
----- -----
----- -----
----- ---
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
BEHI VL% / L% / M% / H% / VH % / E %
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
----- -----
----- -----
----------
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
---
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- ----
----- -----
----- -----
----- ---
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Biological or Other
-----
I ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
----- -----
----- -----
----------
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
" 1999 Regional Crave and Esitmate from Revised Regional Curve. See Mitigation Plan for more information.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
JANUARY 2018, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 7

Table 10 continued. Baseline Stream Summar}
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No ID. 96313
Reach 5
Parameter
USGS
Regional Curve*
Pre-Existing Condition
Reference Reach(es) Data
Design
As-built
Composite
Gauge
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
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
BFWidth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- 7.38 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
FloodproneWidth (ft)
-----
---- ----- -----
----- 11.8 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BFMean Depth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- 0.44 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BFMax Depth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- 0.67 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BFCross-sectional Area (ftp)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- 3.2 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Width/Depth Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
----- 16.77 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
EntrenchmentRatio
-----
----- ----- -----
----- 1.6 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BankHeight Ratio
----
----- ----- -----
----- 6 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----
----- ----- ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
d50 (nam)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ---- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ---- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- --------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Radius of Curvature (ft)
---
--- ---- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
-----
----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Rc:Bankfull width (fUft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----------
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- --------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Meander Wavelength (ft)
-----
---- ---- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ---------
----- ----- ----- --------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Meander Width Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----------
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---- ----------
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- --------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----
----- ---
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Pool Length (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ---------- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- --------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Poolto Pool Spacing (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- -----
---
--- ---- ----- ----- ----- -----
Pool Max Depth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---- ----------
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
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 Curve)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----------
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m,2
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
---------- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Additional Reach Parameters
-----
-----
Drainage Area (SM)
-----
----- 0.04 -----
----- ----- ----- 0.04 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 0.04 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 0.04 ----- -----
Impervious cover estimate o
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ---------- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
RosgenClassification
-----
----- ----- -----
----- Be ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BF Velocity s
-----
----- ----- -----
----- 3.97 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BFDischarge (cfs)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- 12.7 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
ValleyLength
---
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 470.2 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 470 ----- -----
Channel length (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 536.0 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 520 ----- -----
Sinuosity---
----- ----- -----
----- 1.14 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----
---- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 1.11 ----- -----
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- 0.017 ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BFslope (ft/ft)
----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----
----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Bankfnll Floodplain Area (acres)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BEHIVL% / L% / M% / H% / VH % / E %
----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----
---- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----------
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Biological or Other
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----------
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
* 1999 Regional Crave and Esitmate from Revised Regional Curve. See Mitigation Plan for more information.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
JANUARY 2018, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 7

Table 10 continued. Baseline Stream Summar3
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 - RifFle
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
BFWidth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- 9.09 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 6.1 ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
FloodproneWidth (ft)
-----
---- ----- -----
----- 12.7 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 13.0 ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BFMean Depth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- 0.48 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 0.5 ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BFMax Depth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- 0.8 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 0.6 ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BFCross-sectional Area (ftp)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- 4.4 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 3.1 ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Width/Depth Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
----- 18.94 ----- ----- ----- -----
12.0 ----- ----- 18.0 ----- -----
----- 14.0 ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
EntrenchmentRatio
-----
----- ----- -----
----- 1.4 ----- ----- ----- -----
1.4 ----- ----- 2.2 ----- -----
----- <2.2 ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BankHeight Ratio
----
----- ----- -----
----- 5 ----- ----- ----- -----
I ----- ----- I ----- ----
----- I ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
d50(mm)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- 0.4 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ---- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- --------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Radius of Curvature (ft)
---
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
-----
----- ---
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----------
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- --------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
MeanderWavelength (ft)
----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- -----
----- ---
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Meander Width Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----------
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---- ----------
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- --------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----
----- 0.06 ----- ---- ----- ---
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Pool Length (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ---------- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- --------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Poolto Pool Spacing (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
30 ----- ----- 54.0 ----- ---
--- ----- ----- ----- -----
PoolMax Depth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 1.7 ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Pool Volume (ft')
-----
---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ---------- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- --------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Substrate and Transport Parameters
----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
-----
----- ----- -----
0.2/0.3/0.4/0.9/1.8
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/ft'
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m2
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
---------- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Additional Reach Parameters
-----
-----
Drainage Area (SM)
-----
----- 0.10 -----
----- ----- ----- 0.10 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 0.10 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 0.10 ----- -----
Impervious cover estimate o
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ---------- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Rosgen Classification
-----
----- ----- -----
----- Be ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 135c ----- ----- ----- -----
----- B5c ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BFVelocity (fps)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- 3.75 ----- ----- ----- -----
4 ----- ----- 6.0 ----- -----
----- 5.2 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BFDischarge (cfs)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- 16.5 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 16 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
ValleyLength
---
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 468.2 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----
--- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Channel length (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 501.0 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 468.2 ----- -----
Sinuosity---
----- ----- -----
----- 1.07 ----- ----- ----- -----
1.1 ----- ----- 1.3 ----- ----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- 0.014 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 0.016----- ----- ----- -----
---------- ----- ----- ----- -----
BFslope (ft/ft)
----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----
----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Bankfall Floodplain Area (acres)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BEHIVL% / L% / M% / H% / VH % / E %
----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----------
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Biological or Other
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----------
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
* 1999 Regional Crave and Esitmate from Revised Regional Curve. See Mitigation Plan for more information.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
JANUARY 2018, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 7

Table 10 continued. Baseline Stream Summar}
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No ID. 96313
Reach T1
Parameter
USGS
Regional Curve"'
Pre-Existing Condition
Reference Reach(es) Data
Design
As-built
Composite
Gau g a
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
LL UL Eq.
Min
Mean
Med Max SD
n
Min
Mean
Med Max SD n
Min Mean
Med Max
SD n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
BF Width (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
6.80
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
----- 7.0
----- ----
----- -----
7.7
7.7
7.7
7.7
0.0
1
Floodprone Width (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
89.1
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
----- -----
----- ----
----- -----
39.9
39.9
39.9
39.9
0.0
1
BF Mean Depth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
0.67
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
----- 0.5
----- ----
----- -----
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.0
1
BF Max Depth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
1.53
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
----- 0.7
----- ----
----- -----
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
0.0
1
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft')
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
4.5
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
----- 3.8
----- ----
----- -----
5.1
5.1
5.1
5.1
0.0
1
Width/Depth Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
10.15
----- ----- -----
-----
10.0
-----
----- 14.0 ----- -----
----- 13.0
----- ----
----- -----
11.7
11.7
11.7
11.7
0.0
1
Entrenchment Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
13.1
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- >2.2 ----- -----
----- -----
----- ----
----- -----
5.2
5.2
5.2
5.2
0.0
1
Bank Height Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
2
----- ----- -----
-----
I
-----
----- I ----- -----
----- -----
----- ----
----- -----
1
1
1
1
0
1
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
----- -----
----- -----
----------
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
----- -----
----- ----
----- -----
29.6
29.6
29.6
29.6
0.0
1
Radius of Curvature (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
14 -----
----- 21.0
----- -----
16.3
17.4
17.4
18.5
1.1
2
Rc:Bankfi ll width (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
2
-----
----- 3 ----- ----
----- -----
----- ----
----- -----
2.1
2.3
2.3
2.4
0.1
2
Meander Wavelength (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
----- 60.0
----- ----
----- -----
56.0
57.9
57.9
59.7
1.8
2
Meander Width Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
3.5
-----
----- 8 ----- ----
--- 4.0
----- ----
----- -----
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
0.0
1
Profile
RiffleLength (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
RiffleSlope (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
----- 0.029
----- ----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
PoolLength (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Pool to Pool Spacing (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
27 -----
----- 35.0
----- -----
18.2
23.8
26.6
34.6
7.6
3
PoolMax Depth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----
----- 1.2
----- ----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Pool Volume (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
----- -----
----- ----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Substrate and Transport Parameters
Ri % / Ru% / P% / G% / S %-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
---------- ----- -----
----- -----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
SC% / Sa% / G% / B% / Be%
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----------
----- -----
----- -----
----------
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/ft'
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
----- -----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
----- -----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m'
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
---------- ----- -----
----- -----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Additional Reach Parameters
-----
-----
Drainage Area (SM)
-----
----- 0.09 -----
-----
-----
----- 0.09 -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
----- -----
----- 0.09
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
0.09
-----
-----
Impervious cover estimate (%)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----------
----- -----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
RosgenClassification
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
E
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
C5
----- ----- ----- -----
----- C5
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
BF Velocity (fps)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
3.76
----- ----- -----
-----
3.5
-----
----- 5.0 ----- -----
----- -----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
BFDischarge (cfs)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
16.9
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----
----- -----
----- -----
----- ---
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
ValleyLength
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- 114.2 -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
----- -----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
114.2
-----
-----
Channel length (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- 121.0 -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----
----- -----
----- -----
----- ---
----
-----
-----
139.6
-----
-----
Sinuosity-----
----- ----- -----
-----
1.06
----- ----- -----
-----
1.2
-----
----- 1.5 ----- -----
----- 1.12
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
1.22
-----
-----
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
0.024
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----
----- 0.019-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
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.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
JANUARY 2018, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 7

Table 10 continued. Baseline Stream Summar3
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No ID. 96313
Reach T2
Parameter
USGS
Regional Curve*
Pre -Existing Condition
Reference Reach(es) Data
Design
As -built
Composite
Gauge
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
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
BFWidth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- 18.00 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Floodprone Width (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- 23.4 ----- ----- ----- -----
---------- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BFMean Depth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- 0.22 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BFMax Depth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- 0.78 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BFCross-sectional Area (ft')
-----
----- ----- -----
----- 4.0 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Width/Depth Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
----- 81.82 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
EntrenchmentRatio
-----
----- ----- -----
----- 1.3 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BankHeight Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
----- 3 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
---
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----------
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
--
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----
----- ----- ----- --------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Radius of Curvature (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----------
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- --------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Rc:Bankfi ll width (ft/ft)
----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----
----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Meander Wavelength (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- --------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
MeanderWidth Ratio
----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Profile
RiffleLength (ft)
---
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----
----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- --------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Pool Length (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ---- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- --------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Pool to Pool Spacing (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---- ----------
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Pool Max Depth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ---- ----------
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Pool Volume (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- --------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Substrate and Transport Parameters
Ri % / Ru% / P% / G% / S %
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----
SC% / Sa% / G% / B% / Be%
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----------
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ---------- ----- -----
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/ft'
-----
---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Stream Power (transport capacity) Who'
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ---------- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Additional Reach Parameters
-----
-----
Drainage Area (SM)
-----
----- 0.07 -----
----- ----- ----- 0.07 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 0.07 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 0.07 ----- -----
Impervious cover estimate (%)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ---------- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
RosgenClassification
-----
----- ----- -----
----- F ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BFVelocity (fps)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- 3.6 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BFDischarge (cfs)
---
----- ----- -----
----- 14.4 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
ValleyLength-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 252.7 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 252.7 ----- -----
Channel length (ft)
----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 283.0 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---
---- ----- ----- 284.2 ----- -----
Sinuosity-----
----- ----- -----
----- 1.12 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 1.12 ----- -----
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
----
----- ----- -----
----- 0.022 ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BF slope (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ---------- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ---
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BEHI VL% / L% / M% / H% / VH % / E %
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----------
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
---
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----
---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Biological or Other
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----------
- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
* 1999 Regional Crave and Esitmate from Revised Regional Curve. See Mitigation Plan for more information.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
JANUARY 2018, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 7

Table 10 continued. Baseline Stream Summar}
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No ID. 96313
Reach T3
Parameter
USGS
Regional Curve*
Pre-Existing Condition
Reference Reach(es) Data
Design
As-built
Composite
Gauge
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
LL UL Eq.
Min Mean Med Max SD n
Min Mean Med Max SD n
Nlin Mean Med Max SD n
Min Mean Med Max SD n
BFWidth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- 2.93 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 5.8 ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Floodprone Width (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- 66.5 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 15.0 ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BFMean Depth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- 1.12 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 0.5 ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BF Max Depth (ft)-----
----- ----- -----
----- 1.76 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 0.6 ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BFCross-sectional Area (ft')
-----
----- ----- -----
----- 3.3 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 2.8 ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Width/Depth Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
----- 2.62 ----- ----- ----- -----
12.0 ----- ----- 18.0 ----- -----
----- 12.0 ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Entrenchment Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
----- 22.7 ----- ----- ----- -----
1.4 ----- ----- 2.2 ----- -----
----- <2.2 ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BankHeight Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
----- 2 ----- ----- ----- -----
I ----- ----- I ----- -----
----- I ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- --------
----- ----- ----- -----
Pattern
ChannelBeltwidth (ft)
----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----
----- ---
---- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Radius of Curvature (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----------
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- --------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----
2 ----- ----- 3.0 ----- ---
---- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Meander Wavelength (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- --------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
MeanderWidth Ratio
----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
-----
--
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Profile
RiffleLength (ft)
----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----
----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 0.033 ----- ---- ----- -----
0.017 0.025 0.017 0.017 0.007 2
PoolLength (ft)
-
---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----
----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Poolto Pool Spacing (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 36 ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
PoolMax Depth (ft)
-----
--- ---- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---- - -
- 0.9 ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Pool Volume (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- --------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Substrate and Transport Parameters
----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
SC% / Sa% / G% / B% / Be%
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----------
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
---
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/ft'
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Max part size (mm) mobilized at baukfi ll (Rosgen Curve)
----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ---------
----- ----- ----- ---------- ---
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m2
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----------
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Additional Reach Parameters
-----
Drainage Area (SM)
-----
----- 0.06 -----
----- ----- ----- 0.06 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 0.06 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 0.06 ----- -----
Impervious cover estimate
Imperno
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---- ----- ----
----- ----- ----- ----
- -----
Rosgen Classification
-----
----- ----- -----
----- E ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 135c ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 135c ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BFVelocity (fps)
---
----- ----- -----
----- 3.6 ----- ----- ----- -----
4 ----- ----- 6.0 ----- ----
----- 2.3 ----- ----- ----- ---
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BFDischarge (cfs)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- 11.7 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 6.4 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
ValleyLength
---
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 44.3 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---
----- ----- ----- 80.5 ----- -----
Channellength (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 47.0 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 88.0 ----- -----
Sinuosity-----
----- ----- -----
----- 1.06 ----- ----- ----- -----
1.1 ----- ----- 1.3 ----- ----
----- 1.20 ----- ----- ----- ---
----- ----- ----- 1.09 ----- -----
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- 0.02 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 0.014----- ----- ----- -----
---------- ----- ----- ----- -----
BFslope (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----
----- ---
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BEHIVL% / L% / M% / H% / VH % / E %
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----------
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Biologicalor Other
-----I
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
1999 Regional Cruve and Esitmate from Revised Regional Curve. See Mitigation Plan for more information.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
JANUARY 2018, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 7

Table 10 continued. Baseline Stream Summar}
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No ID. 96313
Reach T4
Parameter
USGS
Regional Curve*
Pre-Existing Condition
Reference Reach(es) Data
Design
As-built
Composite
Gauge
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
LL UL Eq.
Min Mean Med Max SD n
Min Mean Med Max SD n
Nlin Mean Med Max SD n
Min Mean Med Max SD n
BFWidth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 5.8 ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
FloodproneWidth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 12.0 ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BFMean Depth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 0.5 ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BFMax Depth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 0.6 ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BFCross-sectional Area (ft')
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 2.8 ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Width/Depth Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
12.0 ----- ----- 18.0 ----- -----
----- 12.0 ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
EntrenchmentRatio
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
1.4 ----- ----- 2.2 ----- -----
----- <2.2 ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BankHeight Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
I ----- ----- I ----- -----
----- I ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
--- ----- ----- ----- ----------
----- ----- ----- -----
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ---------- ----- ----
----- ----- ----- --------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Radius of Curvature (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----------
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- --------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Rc:Bankfrdl width (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----
----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Meander Wavelength (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- --------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
MeanderWidth Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Profile
RiffleLength (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----
----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 0.051 ----- ---- ----- -----
0.007 0.047 0.048 0.072 0.023 11
PoolLength (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----
----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Pool to Pool Spacing (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 14 ----- ---- ----- -----
12.3 16.1 14.6 21.6 3.5 11
PoolMax Depth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- — —
— — 1.9 ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Pool Volume (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- --------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Substrate and Transport Parameters
----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
SC% / Sa% / G% / B% / Be%
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----------
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/ft'
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Max part size (mm) mobilized at baukfi ll (Rosgen Curve)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ---------
----- ----- ----- ---------- ---
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m2
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----------
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Impervious cover estimate
Imperno
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----
----- ----- ----- -----
- -----
Rosgen Classification
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 135c ----- ----- ----- -----
----- B5c ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- B5c ----- -----
BFVelocity (fps)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
4 ----- ----- 6.0 ----- ----
----- 3.7 ----- ----- ----- ---
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BFDischarge (cfs)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 10.4 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
ValleyLength
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 117.0 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----
---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---
----- ----- ----- 143.34 ----- -----
Channellength (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 119.18 ----- -----
Sinuosity
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
1.1 ----- ----- 1.3 -----
----- 1.20 ----- ----- ----- ---
----- ----- ----- 0.8314497 ----- -----
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 0.047----- ----- ----------
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BF slope (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ---- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- - --
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BEHIVL% / L% / M% / H% / VH % / E %
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----------
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Biological or Other
-----I
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----------
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
* 1999 Regional Crave and Esitmate from Revised Regional Curve. See Mitigation Plan for more information.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
JANUARY 2018, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 7

Table lla. 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
MYl
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
MY-
Base
MYl
MY2 MY3 MY4
MY5 MY+
Base
MYl
MY2 MY3 MY4
MY5 MY+
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
BF Width (ft)
7.2
8.1
11.6
12.8
9.5
12.49
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.5
0.4
0.9
0.8
0.9
0.58
Width/Depth Ratio
15.4
19.4
12.7
15.6
11
21.5
BF Cross-sectional Area (ftp)
3.3
3.4
10.5
10.5
8.2
7.25
BF Max Depth (ft)
0.8
0.9
2
2.5
1.6
1.21
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
31.3
58.8
-
-
66.2
66.1
Entrenchment Ratio (MYl will provide standard)*
4.4
5.9
-
-
7.0
5.3
Bank Height Ratio (MYl will provide standard)*
1
1.0
-
-
1
1
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
7.4
8.5
12.6
15.3
10.1
13
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.5
0.4
0.8
0.7
0.8
0.6
Cross Sectional Area between end pins (ft)
-
-
-
-
-
-
d50 (mm)
Stream Reach
Brach 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
9.16
11.8
10.93
12.5
12.9
11.2
11.5
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.8
0.73
1.1
0.75
0.9
1.1
0.6
0.5
Width/Depth Ratio
11.6
12.55
11
14.57
14
11.6
18.6
21.3
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft')
6.6
6.72
12.7
8.18
11.2
14.4
6.8
6.2
BF Max Depth (ft)
1.4
1.02
1.7
1.08
1.3
2.4
1.1
1.0
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
65.8
72.0
68.1
69.3
-
-
89.9
89.9
Entrenchment Ratio (MY1 will provide standard)*
7.6
7.4
5.8
6.3
-
-
8
7.8
Bank Height Ratio (MYl will provide standard)*
1
1
1
1
-
-
1
1.0
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
9.4
6.94
12.8
11.47
13.0
13.92
11.6
11.8
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.7
0.7
1.0
0.71
0.9
1.03
0.6
0.5
Cross Sectional Area between end pins (ft)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
d50 (mm)
Stream Reach
Reach 3
Cross-section X-8 (Riffle)
Cross-section X-9 (Pool)
Cross-section X-10 (Riffle)
Cross-section X-11 (Riffle)
Dimension and substrate
Base
MYl
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
MY- Base
MYl
MY2 MY3 MY4
MY5 MY+ Base
MYl
MY2 MY3 MY4
MY5 MY+ Base
MYl
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
BF Width (ft)
10.60
10.05
17.60
15.3
11.60
11.5
9.30
11.7
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.90
0.71
1.00
1.1
0.60
0.6
0.90
0.7
Width/Depth Ratio
11.5
14.15
17.7
13.5
19.2
19.2
10.8
17.2
BF Cross-sectional Area (ftp)
9.8
7.16
17.5
17.2
7.0
6.9
8.1
8
BF Max Depth (ft)
1.30
1.05
2.20
2.4
1.30
1.1
1.30
1.2
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
86.6
89.5
-
-
51.6
67.5
65.6
87.3
Entrenchment Ratio (MYl will provide standard)*
8.2
8.48
-
-
4.4
4.5
7.0
5.5
Bank Height Ratio (MYl will provide standard)*
1
1
-
-
1
1
1
1
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
11.2
11.27
18.2
11.27
12.0
11.91
9.9
12.31
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.9
0.64
1.0
0.64
0.6
0.58
0.8
0.65
Cross Sectional Area between end pins (ft)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
d50 (mm)
*BHR and Entrenchment Ratio will be calculated by holding the MYl bankfull riffle max depth constant throughout the life of the project.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
JANUARY 2018, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 7

Table lla. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No ID. 96313
Table Ila continued. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No ID. 96313
Stream Reach
Reach Tl
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
YIY+
Basc
MYl
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Base
MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 \rtY-
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
BF Width (ft)
7.70
6.7
19.60
18.7
13.80
14.7
29.40
24.3
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.70
0.6
1.20
0.9
0.90
0.9
1.10
0.9
Width/Depth Ratio
11.7
11
16.4
20.6
15.2
17.3
26.1
28.3
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft')
5.1
4.1
23.5
17.1
12.5
12.5
33.2
20.8
BF Max Depth (ft)
1.20
1.1
2.80
1.7
1.70
1.6
2.80
2.5
Width ofFloodprone Area (ft)
39.9
49.4
-
-
100.0
73.1
100.0
93.8
Entrenchment Ratio (MYl will provide standard)•
5.2
5.4
-
-
5.3
5.0
-
-
Bank Height Ratio (MYl will provide standard)*
1
1
-
-
1.0
1
-
-
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
8.5
7.18
21.0
19.36
14.4
15.37
30.5
25.67
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.6
0.57
1.1
0.88
0.9
0.81
1.1
0.81
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
MYl
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
MY+ Base
MYl
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
MY+
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
BF Width (ft)
12.60
11.9
12.60
12.2
BF Mean Depth (ft)
1.10
1.09
1.20
1.2
Width/Depth Ratio
12.0
10.9
10.9
10.3
BF Cross-sectional Area (ftp)
13.2
13
14.5
14.6
BF Max Depth (ft)
1.70
1.8
1.70
2
Width ofFloodprone Area (ft)
100.0
71.4
100.0
68.6
Entrenchment Ratio (MYl will provide standard)*
5.7
6
5.4
5.6
Bank Height Ratio (MYl will provide standard)*
1.0
1
1.0
1
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
13.5
13.0
13.3
13.1
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
1.0
1
1.1
1.1
Cross Sectional Area between end pins (ft)
-
-
-
-
d50 (mm)
'BHR and Entrenchment Ratio will be calculated by holding the MYl bankfull riffle max depth constant throughout the life of the project.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
JANUARY 2018, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 7

Table 11b. Stream Reach Morphology Summary
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No 11). 96313
Rnnrh d
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 —The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile.
2 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
4. = Of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3
-BHR and Entrenchment Ratio will be calculated by holding the MYl bankfull riffle max depth constant throughout the life of the project.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
JANUARY 2018, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 7
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle only
Bankftill Width (ft) ®■■®o■�li®®v■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
Floodprone Wid®����o���®o■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
:n�Depth ■■®■v■�■�■v■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
:nDepth
■®®■o�®®®■0■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (fl?) ®®®�o■�■■■v■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
Width/Depth
®®■o���®■v■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
Entrenchment Ratio .���d�■■■®v®®■�■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
RatioBank Height provide■■■■v®■■■■®®�■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
Pool Length (ft)
Pool Max depth (ft)
Pool Spacing (ft)
M
■■■■■
■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■
Channel
■■■■■■
■■■■■
■■■■■
■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■
Radius�B
■■■■■■
■■■■■
■■■■■
■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■
B■■■■■■
■■■■■
■■■■■
■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■
Meander■■■■■■
■■■■■
■■■■■
■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■
Meander Width Ratio
■■■■■■
■■■■■
■■■■■
■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■
Ro'gen Classification
Thalweg length (ft)
Sinuosity (ft)
SlopeChannel
Water Surface
: ..
■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■
d1. d50 d: d9
■■■■■■
■■■■■
■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■
Eroding
Channel
Biological .Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 —The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile.
2 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
4. = Of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3
-BHR and Entrenchment Ratio will be calculated by holding the MYl bankfull riffle max depth constant throughout the life of the project.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
JANUARY 2018, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 7

Table 11b continued. Stream Reach Morphology Summary
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No ID. 96313
Reach i
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 — The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile.
2 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
4. = Of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3
'BHR and Entrenchment Ratio will be calculated by holding the MY1 bankfull riffle max depth constant throughout the life of the project.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
JANUARY 2018, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 7
Bankfull Width (ft)
Floodprone Width (ft)
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
I Bankfull Max Depth
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (112)
WidEntrenchment
........................
Ratioth/Depth
Ratio providepr000000®0000®v
........................
LengthRiffle
MRiffle
��
Slope (ft/ft)
MMMMMM
Pool Length (ft)
MMMMMM
Pool Max depth (ft)
MINEIMENIMINE!
Pool Spacing (ft)
Channel Beftwidth (ft)
Radius of Curvature (ft)
M
Meander Wavelength (ft)
M
MIMIMIMIMI
Rosgen Classification
Thalweg length (ft)
Sinuosity (ft)
SlopeChannel
Water Surface
BF slope
/.MSM
.IMMIX
MIMIMIMIMI
MIMIMIMI�
of Reach with Eroding
ME
Channel
Biological .Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 — The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile.
2 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
4. = Of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3
'BHR and Entrenchment Ratio will be calculated by holding the MY1 bankfull riffle max depth constant throughout the life of the project.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
JANUARY 2018, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 7

Table 11b continued. Stream Reach Morphology Summary
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No ID. 96313
Reach 1
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 —The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile.
2 — Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
4. = Of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3
'BHR and Entrenchment Ratio will be calculated by holding the MY1 bankfull riffle max depth constant throughout the life of the project.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
JANUARY 2018, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 7
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle only
oo„ -
-. •-. =
®®®=
©
M
®®®M
© _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
•kfull Max Depth
�' - oi, -, ®M®MM©®=MMM®________________________
Width/Depth Ratio
Entrenchment Ratio (MY1 will provide standard)*
Bank Height Ratio (MYl will provide standard)*
Riffle Length (ft)
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
Pool Length (ft)
Pool Max depth (ft)
Pool Spacing (ft)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Channel-
C- • i ___Radius
ofCurvature (ft)
• C.i •
Meander Wavelength (ft)
Meander Width Ratio
RITIRI••. •. .
Rosgen Classification
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
Sinuosity (ft)
Water Surface Slope
BE •p
Eroding2 % of Reach with
Channel Stability or Habitat Metri
Biological Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 —The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile.
2 — Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
4. = Of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3
'BHR and Entrenchment Ratio will be calculated by holding the MY1 bankfull riffle max depth constant throughout the life of the project.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
JANUARY 2018, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 7

Appendix E
Hydrologic Data

Table 12. Verification of Bankfull Events
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No ID. 96313
Reachl Crest Gauge (feet
Approximate Date of Occurrence (Source:
Method of Data
Date of Collection
ABOVE bankfull
on-site rain gauge
Collection
Year 1 Monitoring (2017)
Crest Gauge
6/7/2017
0.46
4/25/2017
Measurement
Crest Gauge
10/3/2017
0.22
8/17/2017
Measurement
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
JANUARY 2018, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 7

Table 13. Flow Gauge Success (2017)
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 96313
Flow Gauge ID Consecutive Days of Flowl Cumulative Days of Flow
R4 Gauge
BSFL1 127 171
T3 Gauge
B SFL2
166
T1 Gauge
173
B SFL3
263
263
Notes:
'Indicates the number of consecutive days within the monitoring year where flow was measured.
2Indicates the number of cumulative days within the monitoring year where flow was measured.
Flow success criteria for the Site is stated as: 30 days of consecutive baseflow for monitoring wells installed in T1 and T3 during
a normal rainfall year.
* Surface water flow is estimated to have occurred when the pressure transducer reading is equal to or above 0.05 feet in depth.

Table 14. Flow Gauge Success
Browns Summit Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 96313
Most Consecutive Days Meeting Criteria' Cumulative Days Meeting Criteria'
Flow Gauge ID
Year 1
(2017)
Year 2
1 (2018)
Year 3
1 (2019)
Year 4
(2020)
Year 5
(2021)
Year 6
(2022)
Year 7 Year 1
(2023) (2017)
Year 2
(2018)
Year 3
(2019)
Year 4
1 (2020)
Year 5
(2021)
Year 6
(2022)
Year 7
(2023)
Flow Gauges (Installed March 4, 2017)
BSFL1
127.0
171.0
BSFL2
166.0
173.0
BSFL3
263.0
263.0
Notes:
'Indicates the number of consecutive days within the monitoring year where flow was measured.
2Indicates the number of cumulative days within the monitoring year where flow was measured.
Success Criteria per Browns Summit Mitigation Plan (1/13/2016): "Success criteria wil include 30 days of consecutive baseflow for monitoimg
wells installed in Tl and T3 during a normal rainfall year."
Surface water flow is estimated to have occurred when the pressure transducer reading is equal to or above 0.05 feet in depth.

rigure o. now tiauge urapns
Daily Rain
1/1/2017 2/15/2017 4/1/2017 5/16/2017 6/30/2017 8/14/2017 9/28/2017
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
1.00
0.95
0.90
0.85
0.80
0.75
_ 0.70
t 0.65
Q- 0.60
d
0.55
(D 0.50
M 0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
U) 0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
Browns Summit Restoration Site
In -Channel How Gauges -ALL
11/12/2017 12/27/2017
ISI �
ISI �
ISI
1�1
III�I ��I� I��III
IIU��I `►1l� 1111 Ih�
Ill► wJ .'����11�.R►� ' �i ►�
1/1/2017 2/15/2017 4/1/2017 5/16/2017 6/30/2017 8/14/2017 9/28/2017 11/12/2017 12/27/2017
Date

` Surface water flow is estimated to have occurred when the pressure transducer reading is equal to or above 0.05 feet in depth.
Daily Rain
1/1/2017
2/15/2017 4/1/2017
5/16/2017 6/30/2017 8/14/2017 9/28/2017 11/12/2017 12/27/2017
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
Browns Summit Restoration Site
In -channel Flow Gauge BSFL1
1.00
0.95
0.90
—BSFL1
0.85
YR1 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
0.80
CRITERIA MET -171
.-
0.75
(3/4/2017 - 7/8/2017)
0.70
_
s
0.65
Q.
0
0.60
0.55
0.50
0.45
0.40
0.35
0
0.30
0.25
(n
0.20
0.15
0.10
1
0.05
t�i
11 1 1 1
0.00
1/1/2017
2/15/2017 4/1/2017
5/16/2017 6/30/2017 8/14/2017 9/28/2017 11/12/2017 12/27/2017
Date
` Surface water flow is estimated to have occurred when the pressure transducer reading is equal to or above 0.05 feet in depth.

* Surface water flow is estimated to have occurred when the pressure transducer reading is equal to or above 0.05 feet in depth.
Daily Rain
1/1/2017 2/15/2017
4/1/2017 5/16/2017 6/30/2017 8/14/2017 9/28/2017 11/12/2017 12/27/2017
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
Browns Summit Restoration Site
In -channel Flow Gauge BSFL2
1.00
0.95
0.90
— BSFL2
0.85
YR1 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
0.80
CRITERIA MET - 173
.-.
0.75
(6/7/2017 - 11/20/2017)
0.70
s
0.65
Q.
0
0.60
0.55
0.50
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
(n
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
1/1/2017 2/15/2017
4/1/2017 5/16/2017 6/30/2017 8/14/2017 9/28/2017 11/12/2017 12/27/2017
Date
* Surface water flow is estimated to have occurred when the pressure transducer reading is equal to or above 0.05 feet in depth.

* Surface water flow is estimated to have occurred when the pressure transducer reading is equal to or above 0.05 feet in depth.
Daily Rain
1/1/2017 2/15/2017
4/1/2017 5/16/2017 6/30/2017 8/14/2017 9/28/2017 11/12/2017 12/27/2017
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
Browns Summit Restoratoin Site
In -channel Flow Gauge BSFL3
1.00
0.95
0.90
0.85
—BSFL3
0.80
YR1 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
.-.
0.75
CRITERIA MET - 263
0.70
(3/4/2017 - 11/20/2017)
s
0.65
Q.
0
0.60
0.55
0.50
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
Cl)
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
1/1/2017 2/15/2017
4/1/2017 5/16/2017 6/30/2017 8/14/2017 9/28/2017 11/12/2017 12/27/2017
Date
* Surface water flow is estimated to have occurred when the pressure transducer reading is equal to or above 0.05 feet in depth.

le 15. Wetland Restoration Area Success (2017)
land Restoration Area Success
runs Summit Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95019
Well ID
Percentage of
Consecutive Days
112 inches from
Ground Surface'
Most
Consecutive
Days Meeting
Criteria'
Minimum
Consecutive
Days for
Success
Percentage of
Cumulative Days <12
inches from Ground
Surface'
Cumulative Days Meeting Criteria'
Groundwater Monitoring Wells (Installed March 2017)
Wl (9% Criteria)
44.7 105.5
21
74.8
176.5
W2 (12% Criteria)
3.2 7.5
28
13.8
32.5
.W3 (12% Criteria)
47.7 112.5
28
91.7
216.5
.W4 (12% Criteria)
100.0 236.0
28
100.0
236.0
.W5 (12% Criteria)
34.1 80.5
28
73.7
174.0
W6 (12% Criteria)
46.0 108.5
28
89.4
211.0
icates the percentage of most consecutive or cumulative number of days within the monitored growing season with a water 12 inches or
from the soil surface.
icates the most consecutive number of days within the monitored growing season with a water table 12 inches or less from the soil
the cumulative number of days within the monitored growing season with a water table 12 inches or less from the soil surface.
the number of instances within the monitored growing season when the water table rose to 12 inches or less from the soil surface.
According to the Site Mitigation Plan, the growing season for Guilford County is from March 22 to November 13 and is 236 days long. 12%
A the growing season is 28 days and 9% of the growing season is 21 days.
HIGHLIGHTED indicates wells that did not meet the success criteria for the most consecutive number of days within the monitored
;rowing season with a water 12 inches or less from the soil surface.
season for Guilford County is 3/22 -11/13
g season is 236 days long; 12% of 236 days = 28 days
g season is 236 days long; 9% of 236 days = 21 days
BSAWl (9% Criteria)
BSAW2 (12% Criteria)
BSAW3 (12% Criteria)
BSAW4 (12% Criteria)
BSAW5 (12% Criteria)
BSAW6 (12% Criteria)
BSAW7 (12% Criteria)
% Consective Days <12" from Ground Surface
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
■ DAYS
% Cumulative Days <12" from Ground Surface
BSAWl (9%
Criteria)
BSAW2 (12%
Criteria)
BSAW3 (12%
Criteria)
BSAW4 (12%
Criteria) ■ DAYS
BSAW5 (12%
Criteria)
BSAW6 (12%
Criteria)
BSAW7 (12%
Criteria)
0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60 66 72 78 84 90 96

Table 16. Wetland Restoration Area Success
Browns Summit Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 96313
Percentage of Consecutive Days <12 inches from Ground Surface'
Most Consecutive Days Meeting Criteria-
Percentage of Cumulative Days <12 inches from Ground Surface'
Cumulative Days Meeting Criteria3
Well ID
Year t
(2017)
Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7
(2018) (2019) (2020) (2021) (2022) (2023)
Year 1
(2017)
Year 2
(2018)
Year 3
(2019)
Year,.
(2020)
Year 5
(2021)
Year 6
(2022)
Year 7
(2023)
Year 1
(2017)
Year 2
(2018)
Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6
(2019) (2020) (2021) (2022)
Year 7
(2023)
Year I
(2017)
Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7
(2018) (2019) (2020) (2021) (2022) (2023)
BSAWI 44.7 105.5
Type 5 (3.5:1 Ratio - Success Criteria 9 % of Growing Season)
74.8
176.5
Type 4 (1:1 Ratio - Success Criteria 12% of Growing Season
BSAW2 3.2 7.5
1 1 1 13.8
32.5
Type 2 (1.5:1 Ratio - Success Criteria 12% of Growing Season)
BSAW3 47.7 112.5
1 1 1 91.7
216.5
Type 3 (1.5:1 Ratio - Success Criteria 12 % of Growing Season)
BSAW4 11111.11 236.0
100.0
236.0
BSA WS 80.5
73.7
174.0
BSAW6 46.1134.1 108.5
89.4
211.0
BSAW7 51.1 120.5
91.1
215.0
Notes:
'Indicates the percentage of most consecutive or cumulative number of days within the monitored growing season with a water 12 inches or less from the soil surface.
21ndicates the most consecutive number of days within the monitored growing season with a water table 12 inches or less from the soil surface.
31ndicates the cumulative number of days within the monitored growing season with a water table 12 inches or less from the soil surface.
According to the Baseline Monitoring Report, the growing season for Guilford County is from March 22 to November 13
and is 229 days long. 12% of the growing season is 28 days and 9 % of the growing season is 21 days.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
JANUARY 2018, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 7

Figure 7 Wetland Restoration Graphs (2017)
Rain
1/1/2017 1/31/2017 3/2/2017 4/1/2017 5/1/2017 5/31/2017 6/30/2017 7/30/2017 8/29/2017 9/28/2017 10/28/2017 11/27/2017 12/27/2017
0.0
1.0
is
2.0
3.0
Browns Summit Wetland Restoration Wells
(BSAW1 -BSAW7)
5
-Ground
Surface
0 -_12 inches
5 BSAW1
L
y -10 -BSAW2
C -15
7
O
0 -20
O
BSAW5
M
-25
2
d
D
-30 JL
-35 AL j
1/1/2017 1/31/2017 3/2/2017 4/1/2017 5/1/2017 5/31/2017 6/30/2017 7/30/2017 8/29/2017 9/28/2017 10/28/2017 11/27/2017 12/27/2017
Date
� � i\F ry IM
. � -.,r
!L
' 1 �i� /1
� r ,✓,��
�BSAW3
�
�BSAW4
1
BSAW6
-BSAW7

Rain
1/1/2017
2/15/2017
4/1/2017 5/16/2017 6/30/2017 8/14/2017 9/28/2017
11/12/2017 12/27/2017
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
�a
4.0
5.0
Browns Summit Wetland Restoration Well
(BSAW1)
I
10
(3/22 - 11/13)
I
Ground
5
Surface
0
I
I
I
-12 inches
c
-5
L
-10
7T 36 12-W'WV
1A v
BSAW1
t0
a
15
-
I
I
°
Begin
C7
-20
Growing
°
Season
-25
t
-30
—End
I YR1 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
I Growing
O
CRITERIA MET- 105.5 (44.7%)
Season
-35
3/22/2017 - 7/5/2017
-40
-45
-50
1/1/2017
2/15/2017
4/1/2017 5/16/2017 6/30/2017 8/14/2017 9/28/2017
11/12/2017 12/27/2017
Date
GROWING SEASON
I
(3/22 - 11/13)
I

Rain
1/1/2017
2/15/2017
4/1/2017 5/16/2017 6/30/2017 8/14/2017 9/28/2017
11/12/2017 12/27/2017
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
a
4.0
(3/22 - 11/13)
I
5.0
I
Browns Summit Wetland Restoration Well
(BSAW2)
10
Ground
5
Surface
0
I
I
I
I
-12 inches
c
-5
L
-10
BSAW2
R
a
-15
I
o
NI
Begin
C7
-20
Growing
°
Season
-25
t
—End
-30
I
I Growing
O
Season
-35
YR1 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
CRITERIA MET - 7.5 (3.2%)
-40
GROWING SEASON
4/23/2017 - 4/30/2017
-45
-50
1/1/2017
2/15/2017
4/1/2017 5/16/2017 6/30/2017 8/14/2017 9/28/2017
11/12/2017 12/27/2017
Date
(3/22 - 11/13)
I
I

Rain
1/1/2017
2/15/2017
4/1/2017 5/16/2017 6/30/2017 8/14/2017 9/28/2017
11/12/2017 12/27/2017
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
�a
4.0
5.0
Browns Summit Wetland Restoration Well
(BSAW3)
10
GROWING SEASON
I
(3/22 - 11/13)
I
Ground
5
Surface
0
I
I
-12 inches
c
-5
IL
L
-10
BSAW3
R
a
-15
IV
�
I
°
Begin
(D
-20
Growing
°
0
Season
-25
t
-30
—End
I YR1 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
I
Growing
O
CRITERIA MET - 112.5 (47.7%)
Season
-35
3/22/2017 - 7/12/2017
-40
-45
-50
1/1/2017
2/15/2017
4/1/2017 5/16/2017 6/30/2017 8/14/2017 9/28/2017
11/12/2017 12/27/2017
Date
GROWING SEASON
I
(3/22 - 11/13)
I

Rain
1/1/2017
2/15/2017
4/1/2017 5/16/2017 6/30/2017 8/14/2017 9/28/2017
11/12/2017 12/27/2017
0.0
1.0
2.0
GROWING SEASON
(3/22 - 11/13)
I
3.0
I
4.0
5.0
Browns Summit Wetland Restoration Well
(BSAW4)
10
Ground
5
Surface
0
I
-12 inches
c
-5
L-
2
2
-10
BSAW4
t0
a
-15
I
I
°
Begin
C7
-20
Growing
°
0
Season
-25
t
-30
—End
I YR1 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
I Growing
O
-35
CRITERIA MET - 236 (100%)
Season
3/22/2017
-40
-45
-50
1/1/2017
2/15/2017
4/1/2017 5/16/2017 6/30/2017 8/14/2017 9/28/2017
11/12/2017 12/27/2017
Date
GROWING SEASON
(3/22 - 11/13)
I
I

Rain
1/1/2017
2/15/2017
4/1/2017 5/16/2017 6/30/2017 8/14/2017 9/28/2017
11/12/2017 12/27/2017
0.0
_
1.0
2.0
3.0
R
4.0
5.0
Browns Summit Wetland Restoration Well
(BSAW5)
10
Ground
5
Surface
0
I
WIMPI
-12 inches
c
-5
L
-10
BSAW5
to
-15
0_20
Begin
(�
Growing
p
Season
-25
End
G-30
I
I Growing
YR1 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
Season
-35
CRITERIA MET - 80.5 (34.1%)
-40
3/22/2017-6/10/2017
GROWING SEASON
-45
(3/22 - 11/13)
I
-50
1/1/2017
2/15/2017
4/1/2017 5/16/2017 6/30/2017 8/14/2017 9/28/2017
11/12/2017 12/27/2017
Date

Rain
1/1/2017
2/15/2017 4/1/2017
5/16/2017 6/30/2017 8/14/2017 9/28/2017
11/12/2017 12/27/2017
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
�a
4.0
5.0
Browns Summit Wetland Restoration Well
(BSAW6)
10
I
(3/22 - 11/13)
I
Ground
5
Surface
0
I
I
-12 inches
c
-5
L
2
-10
BSAW6
R
a
15
-
I
°
Begin
(D
-20
Growing
°
0
Season
-25
t
-30
—End
O
I
YR1 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
I Growing
-35
CRITERIA MET- 108.5 (46.0%)
Season
3/22/2017
-40
-45
-50
1/1/2017
2/15/2017 4/1/2017
5/16/2017 6/30/2017 8/14/2017 9/28/2017
11/12/2017 12/27/2017
Date
GROWING SEASON
I
(3/22 - 11/13)
I

Rain
I
1/1/2017
2/15/2017
4/1/2017 5/16/2017 6/30/2017 8/14/2017 9/28/2017
11/12/2017 12/27/2017
0.0
I
I
GROWING SEASON
I
I
3/22/2017- 7/20/2017
I
I
1.0
2.0
3.0
�a
4.0
5.0
Browns Summit Wetland Restoration Well
(BSAW7)
10
Ground
5
Surface
-12 inches
c
-5
L
-10
BSAW7
to
a
-15
L
— — Begin
(�
-20
Growing
p
Season
-25
t
o
-30YR1
MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
End
Growing
CRITERIA MET- 120.5 (51.1%)
Season
-35
-40
-45
(3/22 - 11/13)
-50
1/1/2017
2/15/2017
4/1/2017 5/16/2017 6/30/2017 8/14/2017 9/28/2017
11/12/2017 12/27/2017
Date
I
I
I
I
I
I
GROWING SEASON
I
I
3/22/2017- 7/20/2017
I
I

Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project — Hydrology Monitoring Stations
Photos take June 7, 2017 unless otherwise noted
Wetland Well 1 — Reach 4, Station 25+00
Wetland Well 2 — Reach 2, Station 47+00 March 9,
2017
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
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96313)
JANUARY 2018, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 7
Wetland Well 6 — Reach 1, Station 61+00

Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project — Hydrology Monitoring Stations
Photos take June 7, 2017 unless otherwise noted
Wetland Well 7 — Reach 1, Station 63+50
Automated Flow Gauge 1 — Reach 4
Automated Flow Gauge 2 — Reach T3
Automated Flow Gauge 3 — Reach T1
Manual Crest Gauge — Reach 1, Left Bank
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96313)
JANUARY 2018, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 7
Manual Crest Gauge — Reading 6/7/2017

Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project — Hydrology Monitoring Stations
Photos take June 7, 2017 unless otherwise noted
Lo._ql!:r
Manual Crest Gauge — Reading 10/3/2017
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96313)
JANUARY 2018, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 7