20140332 Ver 1_Year 2 Monitoring Report_2018_20181231

Mitigation Project Name Brovms Summitt
DMS ID 96313
River Basin Cape Fear
Cataloging Unit 03030902
County Guilford USACE Action ID 201401642
Date Project Instilled 3/6/2014 NCDWR Permit No 20140332
Data Prepared 5/2212018
Credit Release Milestone
Potential Credits(Mitigation Plan
PoolCredits(As-Bu11t5urvey)
SCM1eduled
Releases
(Stream)
Warm
5,266.6]0
5,309.86]
acremm;Credts. ..'
Co01 Cold Anticipated Actual
Release Year Release Date
(Stream) (Stream)
Sabadmaa
Releases
(Forested)
Riparian
Rivedne
21790
2.500
Wenand credits
Riper.. Non Non-tl
dvetlne padan 5cheduletl
Releases
(Coria/)
Coastal Anticipated Actual
Release Year Release Dab
(WeOand) (Wetland)
1 SRe Estebllahmeno
NIA
NIA
WA
NIA
NIA
WA
NIA
2 Year 0l As -Built
30%
1,590.260
2017
12A12017
30%
0.750
30%
2017
12/11209
3 ears Monitoring)
10%
530.08]
2018
425/2018
1011
0250
10%
2016
4252018
d Year2 Monadn)
10%
2019
VU
10%
1 W
2019
SYear 3 Monitoring)
10%
2020
M.
ASEuiltAmounls (fee[antl ares)
20.1
2020
953.009
6 ear d Monitorin
5%
2021
5%
3,903.000
10%
2021
2.500
1 ear S Monitoring)10%
2022
Percentage Releaud
15%
40%
15%
2022
e Year6 MonR9dn
SA
2023
1,561300
5%
384.200
WA
2023
9 Year]Moni[odn
10%
Reklead Amounts(credita)
2024
406.6"
10%
1.000
hA
2024
Stream BanMY115fandaN
10%
WA
WA
TotalCretl6s Released to Date
2,120.36]
1
1.000
Greensboro Eastern Loop,
DEBITS (released credits only)
Rados 1 1.5 2.5 5 1.n5SS
E,
a:
ew c� c n
A
g6
2K 2 207 2y
VU
ASEuiltAmounls (fee[antl ares)
3,903.000
1,525.000
953.009
4.460
As -Built Amounts(mNgation credits)
3,903.000
1,016.667
381.209
2.500
Percentage Releaud
40%
40%
40%
00%
Released Amounts (feet l acnes)
1,561300
610.000
384.200
i.»6
Reklead Amounts(credita)
1,561200
406.6"
152.480
1.000
NWWRPermlt USACEAcdonlD Project Name.
NCOOT TIP U -2525B I C -
Greensboro Eastern Loop,
20110918 2005-21386 Guilfortl County
1,170.900
457.SOo
285.900
SR 2022 - Bridge 108-
201&00402 Olvlsion 7, Gutford County
0.085
SR 2109 - Bridge ii2(B-
5731)-Olvision ]. GuRfard
2017-00079 County
0.107
SR 1308 -Bridge 310117-
20174102 2017-00185 Divlsion 5, Durham Count,
0.320
SR 2351- BRE9e i] (&5715)
-Division 7. Roodn,ham
20174007/ County
0.089
SER 1836 J SR 2220
Improvements - Division 5,
2015-02591 Orange) Durham Counties
0.107
NODOT TIP U-25258 / C -
Greensboro Eastem Lao,,
20130818 2005.21386 Guilford Count,
390.300
152500
95.300
NCDOT TIP "734-
201]-1486 2009.02019 Division 9
1,088
Remaining Amouma(feet/acres)
0.000
0,000
0.000
0.000
Remaining Amounts(credts)
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000

(? S
/&/�
I (Date
1 - For NCDMS, no Credits are released during the first milestone
2- For NCDMS projects, the second credit release milestone occurs automatically when the as -built report (baseline monitoring report) has been made available to the NCIRT by posting itto the NCDMS Portal, provided thefollowing criteria
have been met:
1) Approval of the final Mitigation Plan
2) Recordation of the preservation mechanism, as well as a title opinion acceptable to the USACE covering the property
3) Completion of all physical and biological improvements to the mitigation site pursuant to the mitigation plan
4) Reciept of necessary DA permit authorization or written DA approval for porjects where DA permit issuance Is not required
3- A 10% reserve of credits is to be held back until the bankfull event performance standard has been met

Final
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project
Year 2 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: 2 of 7
Year of Data Collection: 2018
Year of Completed Construction (including planting): 2017
Submission Date: December 2018
Submitted To: NCDEQ - Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652

I N T E R N AT 1 0 N A L
December 31, 2018
Jeff Schaffer
NCDENR, Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600, Cary NC 27518
Office: 919.463.54881 Fax: [phone]
Subject: Response to Task 8 Draft Year 2 Monitoring Report Comments for Brown's Summit
(DMS #96313) Cape Fear River Basin; CU 03030002; Guilford County, North
Carolina Contract No.005792
Dear Mr. Schaffer:
Please find enclosed our responses to the Year 2 Monitoring Report Comments dated December 20, 2018
regarding the Browns Summit Creek Mitigation Project. We have revised the Year 2 Monitoring Report
document in response to this review.
Digital files:
a. BrownsSummit_96313_AB_VegPlots shapefile is missing spatial reference information.
b. The shapefile submitted for Wetland Monitoring Wells has MY1 information instead of MY2.
Response: The digital submittal has been revised per comments and provided in the same format
as previously submitted
2. Section 1:
a. Page 2: In first full paragraph Baker states that Stream Problem Area on Reach 6 will be
repaired. Please state when repairs will occur.
b. Page 2: In second full paragraph Baker states that there are three areas of invasive
species of vegetation. Please state when treatments will begin.
c. Page 3: In first paragraph, report states that BSAW2 did not meet hydrologic success of 12% in
years 1 and 2. Baker should keep a watch on this well and maybe do a little investigative work
through out that wetland area to determine potential causes. Good thing is that it is trending
up. 3.2% in MY1 and 6.8% in MY2.
Response: Changes have been made in the final report. All SPA and VPA are scheduled to be
treated and repaired beginning January 2019.
3. Section 4.1, page 5: The report states that that BSAW2 did not meet hydrologic success of 12% in
years 1 and 2. Baker should keep a watch on this well and maybe do a little investigative work
through out that wetland area to determine potential causes. Good thing is that it is trending up.
3.2% in MY1 and 6.8% in MY2.
Response: We have noticed that this year has given BSAW2 the best results thus far and a positive
trend towards passing. However, because BSA W2 failed we plan on doing further research to
hopefully result BSAW2 passing in the future.
Page 1

We Moke o Difference
INTERNATIONAL
Appendix A, Table 1:
a. Verify total Stream Mitigation Credits. DMS calculated credits at 5,301 (5,300.867). It may
possibly be a rounding error. Take credit calculation out to 3 digits before rounding.
b. Verify total Riparian Wetland Credits. DMS calculated credits at 2.50 as did Baker's
electronic version.
Response: Looking further into Stream Mitigation Credits and Riparian Wetland Credits (Table 1)
we realized the discrepancy between DMS and Bakers Credits was due to rounding errors. Changes
have been made to Table 1 and reflect the DMS calculated credits.
5. Appendix B, CCPV: Section 2.1.4 references two stream problem areas (SPAs). Please point these
areas out on the CCPV.
Response: The CCPV has been revised per comment above.
6. Appendix D, Table 11: During our review of the Bank Height Ratios (BHR) in Table 11, DMS staff
performs a visual comparison of the MY 3 data to As-Built/Baseline cross-sections. DMS
noted/realized that by displaying the As -built Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area alone, the calculation for
the BHR can be difficult to reconcile. We noted possible discrepancies in the BHR calculations for
cross-sections 1, 7, 8 and 12 given this disconnect. Using the new BHR calculation methodology
where the As -Built Bankfull Area is held constant, please display the Year 5 bankfull elevation as
another data series just for the sake of clarity between the BHR calculation and the overlay. It
appears that the BHR calculations were done correctly, but just please add the MY5 bankfull data
series with its elevation for the sake of clarity to the reader.
Response: MYS Bankfull data series have been added and clarification to the cross-sections.
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 2 Monitoring Report, please contact me at 919-481-5703 or via
email at Katie.McKeithan(@mbakerintl.com.
Sincerely,
Kathleen McKeithan, PE, CPESC, CPSWQ, CFM
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
Page 2

Final
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project
Year 2 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
DECEMBER 2018, MONITORING YEAR 2 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....................................................................................4
2.1.2 Hydrology................................................................................................................................................4
2.1.3 Photographic Documentation...................................................................................................................4
2.1.4 Visual Stream Morphological Stability Assessment................................................................................5
3.1 Vegetation Assessment.................................................................................................................................5
4.1 Wetland Assessment.....................................................................................................................................5
3. REFERENCES...............................................................................................6
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
Vegetation Plot Photos
Problem Area Photos
Appendix C Vegetation Plot Data
Table
7
CVS Density Per Plot
Table
8
Vegetation Plot Summary
Table
9
Stem Count for Each Species Arranged by
Plot
Appendix D Stream Survey Data
Figure
5
Year 1 Cross-sections
Figure
5.1
Longitudinal Profile by Reach
Table
10
Baseline Stream Summary
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96313
DECEMBER 2018, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

Table
Ila
Cross-section Morphology Summary
Table
l lb
Stream Reach Morphology Summary
Appendix E Hydrologic Data
Table
12
Verification of Bankfull Events
Table
13
Flow Gauge Success (2018)
Table
14
Flow Gauge Success
Figure
6
Flow Gauge Graphs
Table
15
Wetland Restoration Area Success (2018)
Table
16
Wetland Restoration Area Success
Figure
7
Wetland Restoration Graphs (2018)
Hydrology Monitoring
Station Photos
Appendix F Longitudinal Profile
Figure 9 Longitudinal Profile of Entire Site
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96313
DECEMBER 2018, MONITORING YEAR 2 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 (LWT) 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
DECEMBER 2018, MONITORING YEAR 2 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 2 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 MY2 overlay graphs found in Appendix D is much more pronounced
than what is actually observed in the field. MY1 and MY2 is a better representation of the cross-section surveys.
Moving forward the cross-section survey 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. Hurricane Florence washed out the uppermost riffle on R6 and
shifted some stone around on the step -pool structure below the BMP as indicated on the CCPV in Appendix B.
This has been noted as a Stream Problem Area (SPA) and will be repaired in January 2019.
During Year 2 monitoring, all plots except one meet the planted acreage performance categories (Appendix B
and Q. Due to the high flows pushing think herbaceous vegetation over, plot 12 trees may not have survived.
This area will be evaluated for replanting once the frost has set the herbaceous layer back. The average density
of total planted stems, based on data collected from the fourteen monitoring plots following Year 2 monitoring
in November of 2018, was 541 stems per acre not including volunteer species. Thus, the Year 2 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 three areas within the conservation easement of invasive species
vegetation observed during the Year 2 monitoring. These areas totaled to 1.26 acres and have been shown on
the CCPV Appendix B. We have made note of these areas and plan to start treatments in January 2019 until the
growing season starts in March.
Year 2 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 122 days of consecutive flow in R4, while flow gauge BSFL2 documented 158 days of consecutive
flow in T3, and BSFL3 documented 319 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 2 monitoring, the R1 crest gauge documented one post -construction bankfull event from February
2018, second event in September of 2018 (Hurricane Florence), and the third event October 2018 . The site has
meet the bankfull flow requirement of two bankfull events within two separate monitoring years (MY1 and
MY2).
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. 2
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96313
DECEMBER 2018, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

Seven wells were installed in the wetland restoration areas. Six of the seven are preforming successfully. One
well did not meet success (BSAW2). 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.
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 2 monitoring activities for the post -construction
monitoring period.
2. METHODOLOGY
The seven-year monitoring plan for the Site includes criteria to evaluate the success of the stream and vegetation
components of the Site. The methodology and report template used to evaluate these components adheres to
the DMS monitoring report template document Version 1.5 (June 8, 2012), which will continue to serve as the
template for subsequent monitoring years. The vegetation -monitoring quadrants follow CVS -DMS monitoring
levels 1 and 2 in accordance with CVS -DMS Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version 4.1 (2007).
Stream survey data was collected to a minimum of Class C Vertical and Class A Horizontal Accuracy using
Leica TS06 Total Station and was georeferenced to the NAD83 State Plane Coordinate System, FIPS3200 in
US Survey Feet, which was derived from the As -built Survey.
The specific locations of monitoring features, such as vegetation plots, permanent cross-sections, reference
photograph stations, crest gauges and flow gauges, are shown on the CCPV map found in Appendix B.
Channel construction began in October 10, 2016 at the upstream extent of the site and worked in the downstream
direction (begin on Reach 6 and ended with Reach 1). The construction was completed on March 8, 2017.
Planting was installed as major reaches were completed and finalized by March 10, 2017. Minor supplemental
planting occurred in March of 2018.
The Monitoring Year 2 vegetation plot and cross-section data was collected in October 2018 and the visual site
assessment was collected in November 2018. Visual Assessment is contained in Appendix B, vegetation plot
data are found in Appendix C, and the stream survey data are in Appendix D.
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 RI, 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.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96313
DECEMBER 2018, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

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.
A longitudinal profile was surveyed for the entire length of channel immediately after construction to
document as -built baseline conditions for the Monitoring Year 0 only. Annual longitudinal profiles
were not planned to be conducted during subsequent monitoring years unless channel instability has
been documented or remedial actions/repairs are required by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) or DMS. However, during preparation of the MY monitoring report, it was discovered that
the data provided by the construction contractor's survey subcontractor for as -built was of low quality
and insufficient. The quality of the sealed as -built survey provided by the contractor wasn't discovered
until the MY1 survey was overlain on top of the MYO cross sections. The channel in reality had not
fluctuated nearly as dramatically as shown in Figure 5 (cross section overlays) and has remained stable
and is performing as designed. This has been documented through field inspections throughout MY1
by Michael Baker and DMS staff. Due to the MYO survey quality discovered during MY1, Michael
Baker proposed to utilize the detailed survey data and associated parameters collected during MY by
a different surveyor as the basis of comparison through the monitoring phase of the project. This will
ensure an accurate assessment of success and trends throughout the life of the project. The contractor
had the site's longitudinal profile re -surveyed incase future comparisons are required. The longitudinal
profile overlay is provided in Appendix D and the 2018 sealed site longitudinal profile is provided in
Appendix F.
Additionally, per DMS request, bankfull ratio is calculated by adjusting the bankfull line vertically to
recreate the as -built cross-sectional area. Once the cross-sectional area is the same bankfull ratio is
calculated and recorded. After bankfull ratio is recorded then previous bankfull elevation is set and the
remaining data is calculated. However in this case, due to a poor as -built survey we are referencing all
calculations from this point forward to the monitoring year 1 survey. This will help ensure that the
cross-sections best represent the actual characteristics of the stream.
2.1.2 Hydrology
To monitor on-site bankfull events, one crest gauge (crest gauge #1) was installed along R1's left bank
at bankfull elevation. During Year 2 monitoring, three above bankfull stage events were documented:
February 2018, September of 2018, and October 2018 (Hurricane Florence). The crest gauge readings
are presented in Appendix E. Thus, the site has meet the bankfull flow requirements of two bankf ill
events within two separate years.
Year 2 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 122 days of consecutive flow in R4, while flow gauge BSFL2 documented
158 days of consecutive flow in T3, and BSFL3 documented 319 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. Representative photographs and Stream Problem Area
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96313
DECEMBER 2018, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

photographs for Monitoring Year 2 were taken along each Reach in October 2018 and are provided in
Appendix B. Photographs of each Vegetation Plot taken in November 2018 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 2 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 SPAS were documented
in the field for subsequent mapping on the CCPV figures. Two SPAS were discovered during Year 2
monitoring. Hurricane Florence washed out the uppermost riffle on R6 and shifted some stone around
on the step -pool structure below the BMP as indicated on the CCPV in Appendix B. It was also noted
that trees and debris have fallen and damaged the easement fencing in areas that could possible give
cattle access to the easement. A fencing contractor is being contracted for these fencing issues to be
repaired. The landowner temporarily fixed the event within hours of the hurricane and no cattle damage
occurred within the easement. 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.
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 2 data collected from the vegetation monitoring plots, the planted stem density is 541
stems per acre. Overall, 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; however, one area did fail due to high flows bending
thick herbaceous vegetation and the trees within it over. This area will be evaluated for replanting this winter
once the herbaceous vegetation has died back some.
Additionally, there were noted areas of invasive species vegetation, Chinese Privet (Ligustrum sinense),
observed during the Year 2 monitoring. These areas are identified in the monitoring year 2 CCPV. We are
scheduled to treat theses area in the spring of monitoring year 3.
Year 2 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 is showing a similar wetting cycle to the other wells and will be
monitored closely during 2019. Visually, the wetland areas are performing very well with saturated soils and
hydrophytic vegetation.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96313
DECEMBER 2018, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

3. REFERENCES
Carolina Vegetation Survey (CVS) and NC Division of Mitigation Services (DMS). CVS -DMS
Data Entry Tool v. 2.3.1. University of North Carolina, Raleigh, NC.
Lee, M., Peet R., Roberts, S., Wentworth, T. 2007. CVS -DMS Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version
4.1.
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (DMS). 2012. Monitoring Requirements and
Performance Standards for Stream and/or Wetland Mitigation. Version 1.5, June 8, 2012.
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (DMS). 2009. Cape Fear River Basin Restoration Priorities.
Rosgen, D. L. 1994. A Classification of Natural Rivers. Catena 22:169-199.
Schafale, M. P., and A. S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the natural communities of North Carolina, third
Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. Division of Parks and Recreation,
NCDEQ. Raleigh, NC.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines, April 2003, U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers (USACE). Wilmington District.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96313
DECEMBER 2018, MONITORING YEAR 2 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 R
E
Totals 5,301 SMU 2.50
0.0
Project Components
Project Component or Reach ID Stationing/ Location (As-Built)*
Existing Footage*
Acreage (LF/AC)
Approach
Restoration/ Restoration
Equivalent (SMU/WMU)
Restoration Footage or
Acreage (LF/AC)**
Mitigation Ratio
RI 51+00.00 - 63+89.87
1,217
Restoration
1,290
1,290
1:1
R2 49+65.28 -51+00.00
(downstream section)
167
Enhancement II
54
134
2.5:1
R2 43+48.17-49+65.28
(upstream section)
701
Enhancement
409
614
1.5:1
R3
(downstream section) 39+35.73 - 43+48.17
60' easement break subtracted from stream (CE 40+45.09 - 41+05.52)
lengths
362
Enhancement I
235
352
1.5:1
R3 28+31.92 -39+35.73
(upstream section)
1,224
Restoration
1,102
1,102
1:1
R4 15+35.86 - 28+31.92
1,350
Restoration
1,296
1,296
1:1
R5 10+00 - 15+35.86
536
Enhancement II
214
536
2.5:1
R6 10+00 - 15+19.39
536
Enhancement UBMP
295
442 LF (valley length)
1.5:1
Tl 10+00-11+44.99
121
Restoration
145
145
1:1
T2 10+00 - 12+85.21
283
Enhancement II
113
283
2.5:1
T3 10+04.88 - 10+92.84
83
Restoration
70
70
1:1
T4 10+30.18 - 11+49.36
47
Enhancement UBMP
78
117 LF (valley length)
1.5:1
Wetland Area - Type 1 See Figures
1.57
Rehabilitation
0.51
1.53
3:1
Wetland Area - Type 2 See Figures
0.49
Rehabilitation
0.29
0.43
1.5:1
Wetland Area - Type 3 See Figures
2.06
Rehabilitation
1 1.1 1
1.75
1 1.5:1
Wetland Area - Type 4 See Figures
0.49
Re-establishment
0.46
0.46
1:1
Wetland Area - Type 5 See Figures
0.27
Re-establishment
0.08
0.27
3.5:1
*Wetland existing acrage and restoration acrages were swapped in Table 5.1 of the Mitigation Plan.
**Stations and lengths are taken from the 2017 As-Built survey and may thus differ slightly from the Mitigation Plan.
Component Summation
Restoration Level Stream (LF)
Riparian Wetland (AC) Non-riparian Wetland (AC)
Buffer (SF)
Upland (AC)
Restoration 3,903
4.44
Enhancement 1,525
Enhancement II 953
BMP Elements
Element Location Purpose/Function
Notes
BMP Elements: BR= Bioretention Cell; SF= Sand Filter; SW= Stormwater Wetland; WDP= Wet Detention Pond; DDP= Dry Detention
Pond; FS= Filter Strip; S= Grassed Swale; LS= Level Spreader; NI=Natural Infiltration Area
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
DECEMBER 2018, MONITORING YEAR 2 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 Deliver
Mitigation Plan Prepared
not specified in proposal
Summer 2015
May 1, 2015
Mitigation Plan Amended
not specified in proposal
Summer 2015
September 17, 2015
Mitigation Plan Approved
December 4, 2014
Winter 2015
November 2, 2015
Final Mitigation Plan with PCN (minor revisions requested in
approval letter)
not specified in proposal
Winter 2015
January 29, 2016
Final Design — (at least 90% complete)
not specified in proposal
September 20, 2016
Construction Begins
not specified in proposal
October 10, 2016
Temporary S&E mix applied to entire project area
June 1, 2015
March 10, 2017
Permanent seed mix applied to entire project area
June 2, 2015
March 10, 2017
Planting of live stakes
June 3, 2015
March 10, 2017
Planting of bare root trees
June 3, 2015
March 10, 2017
End of Construction
May 4, 2015
March 8, 2017
Survey of As -built conditions (Year 0 Monitoring -baseline)
June 3, 2015
Spring 2017
July 1, 2017
Baseline Monitoring Report*
May 7, 2017
Spring 2017
September 15, 2017
Year 1 Monitoring
December 1, 2017
November 2017
December 1, 2017
Year 2 Monitoring
December 1, 2018
November 2018
December 31, 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)
DECEMBER 2018. MONITORING YEAR 2 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
ursery Stock Suppliers
Dykes and Son, 931-668-8833
Mellow Marsh Farm, 919-742-1200
ArborGen, 843-528-3204
Live Stakes Suppliers
Foggy Mountain Nursery, 336-384-5323
Monitoring Performers
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
Cary, NC 27518
Contact:
Stream Monitoring Point of Contact
Katie McKeithan, Tel. [phone]
Vegetation Monitoring Point of Contact
Katie McKeithan, Tel. [phone]
Surveyers
Kee Mapping and Surveying, 828-575-9021
mmmm
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
DECEMBER 2018, MONITORING YEAR 2 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 RI
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 type)
E
Be incised
Be incised
Gc
Be
Evolutionary Trend
Incised E->Gc->F
BC->G->F
BC->G->F
G->F
BC->G
Underlying Mapped Soils
CnA
CnA
CnA, PpE2
CnA, CkC
CkC
Drainage Class
Somewhat Poorly Drained
Somewhat Poorly Drained Somewhat Poorly Drained and Well Drained
Somewhat Poorly
Drained and Well
Drained
Well Drained
Soil Hydric Status
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 type)
Be incised
E incised
F
E incised
-
Evolutionary Trend
Bc4G4F
E4G417
Bc4G4F
E4G417
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 (ft/ft)
0.014
0.024
0.022
0.02
FEMA Classification
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Native Vegetation Community
Piedmont Headwater Stream Forest
Percent Composition of Exotic/Invasive Vegetation
5%
10%
10%
10%
10%
Regulatory Considerations
Regulation
Applicable Resolved
Supporting Documentation
Waters of the United States — Section 404
Yes Yes
Categorical Exclusion (Appendix B)
Waters of the United States — Section 401
Yes Yes
Categorical Exclusion (Appendix B)
Endangered Species Act
No N/A
Categorical Exclusion (Appendix B)
Historic Preservation Act
No N/A
Categorical Exclusion (Appendix B)
Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA)
No N/A
Categorical Exclusion (Appendix B)
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
1 No 1 N/A
I Categorical Exclusion (Appendix B)
Essential Fisheries Habitat
I No N/A
I Categorical Exclusion (Appendix B)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
DECEMBER 2018, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

Appendix B
Visual Assessment Data

Conservation Easement
", - r Tom,' Fencing Problem
Flow Gauge
a _
}
F
Monitoring Wells
BSAW7 0:F
Photo Locations
'
$ Crest Gauge
Veg Plot 14: XS -17
445 stems/ac
-
— Cross Sections
,+Y -
- MY2 Fencing Problem
Veg Plot 13: `XS
-16
BSAW6
7,71 MY2 VPA
Vegetation Plots MY2jF
r•' 405 stems/ac
,,-
i ,Pass
' 1 a #
�_
Fail
1•
Reach R1
BSAW5� XS -15
Streams by Mitigation Type
t.
— Restoration
— Enhancement I
Enhancement 11
- S-14
`
N/A (outside CE)
VPA 0.50 Acres •
Wetland Mitigation Types"
1 - "Functioning", 3:1 credit ratio
- 2 -Degraded, 1.5:1 credit ratio
BSA W3 _ XS -13 _
�
- 3 - Partially Functioning, 1.5:1 credit ratio
�• �1 Veg Plot 11:;r;
IXS-12
4 -Filled, 1:1 credit ratio
Veg Plot 12: � 567 stems/ac"
203 stems/ac
,
Reach T1
VPA 0.44 Acres
VPA 0.32 Acres
r
:
Reach R2 (upper) %/// Reach R2 lower
BSAW2
V
J Veg Plot 10: �
- . • 324 stems/ac °
. - •. - '' �,,. Reach T2
Reach R3 (lower)
1
Veg Plot 9: :*
526 stems/ac
`
A N OneMap,NC Center for Gex off' ap i}c 6nf i
911 Boar
Figure 4.1
Michael Baker 0 125 250 500 Current Conditions
Plan View
I N T iE 1R N A T 1 D N A L Feet Browns Summit Site
(DMS #96313)

Wetland Mitigation Types " 41r
1 - "Functioning", 3:1 credit ratio �l
- 2 - Degraded, 1.5:1 credit ratio v
- 3 - Partially Functioning, 1.5:1 credit ratio Reach T3
- 4 - Filled, 1:1 credit ratio X6
Veg Plot 5: BSFL2 `
526 stems/ac`' ►
Reach R4 (lower)
MW1
I Q
Veg Plot 3: ' r,
Veg Plot 2: 890 stems/ac Veg Plot 4: r' -
567 ste486 stems/ac
ms/ac
Reach R6 SPA , BSFL1
`{ '
sl����� Q Q x2
� Reach T4
' 14
Reach R4 (upper),
Fencing Problem Reach R5 l "
Veg Plot 1:
728 stems/ac
NC OneMap, NC Center for Geo raphic Info.rmati i
911 Boar
Figure 4.2
Michael Baker 0 125 250 500 Current Conditions
Plan View
I N T E R N A T I O N A L Feet Browns Summit Site
(DMS #96313)
Veg Plot 9:
526 r
XS -11
%. .0,
r1 Conservation Easement
stems/ac
Vegetation Plots MY2
A
- Pass
- Fail
X10
Flow Gauge
_
Monitoring Wells
Veg Plot 8:
Photo Locations
648 stems/ac
$ Crest Gauge
X9
Cross Sections
I
Veg Plot 7:
648 stems/ac
— MY2 Fencing Issues
MY2 SPA
Reach R3(upper)
Streams by Mitigation Type
'X8
— Restoration
■
— Enhancement I
— Enhancement II
Veg Plot 6:
F
j
N/A (Outside CE)
607 stems/ac
Wetland Mitigation Types " 41r
1 - "Functioning", 3:1 credit ratio �l
- 2 - Degraded, 1.5:1 credit ratio v
- 3 - Partially Functioning, 1.5:1 credit ratio Reach T3
- 4 - Filled, 1:1 credit ratio X6
Veg Plot 5: BSFL2 `
526 stems/ac`' ►
Reach R4 (lower)
MW1
I Q
Veg Plot 3: ' r,
Veg Plot 2: 890 stems/ac Veg Plot 4: r' -
567 ste486 stems/ac
ms/ac
Reach R6 SPA , BSFL1
`{ '
sl����� Q Q x2
� Reach T4
' 14
Reach R4 (upper),
Fencing Problem Reach R5 l "
Veg Plot 1:
728 stems/ac
NC OneMap, NC Center for Geo raphic Info.rmati i
911 Boar
Figure 4.2
Michael Baker 0 125 250 500 Current Conditions
Plan View
I N T E R N A T I O N A L Feet Browns Summit Site
(DMS #96313)

Table 5. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessenenl
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project: DMS Pro'ect No h). 96313
Reach ID R2 (downstream section)
Assessed Length 134
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No ID. 96313
Number with
Footage with
Adjusted % for
Number Stable,
Reach ID
Number of
Rl
% Stable,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Major Channel
Channel Sub-
Performing as
Assessed Length
Unstable
1,290
Performing as
Woody
Woody
Woody
Cate ory
Category
Metric
Intended
in As -built
Segments
Intended
Vegetation
Vegetation
Vegetation
Number with
Footage with
Adjusted % for
_Footage
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 menta
Footage
Intended
Vegetation
Vegetation
Ve elation
Bank lacking vegetative cover
Banks undercuUoverhanging to the
1. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
resulting simply from poor growth
0
0
100%
2. Undercut
likely. Do include
undercuts that are modest, appear
0
and/or scour and erosion
100"
sustainable and are providing
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
habitat.
extent that mass wasting appears
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or
calla se
0
0
100%
2. Undercut
likely. DoesNOT include
0
0
100%
0
100%
2. Engineered
Structures
undercuts that are modest, appear
Structures physically intact with n
dislodged boulders or logs.
0
0
100%
sustainable and are providing
2. Grade Control
maintenance of grade across the
sill.
0
0
100%
habitat.
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial
flow underneath sills or arms.
0
0
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or
100%
da
0 0
collapse
3. Bank Protection
15%. (See guidance for this table
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
2. Engineered
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with ric
20
20
100%
Structures
dislodged boulders or logs.
Pool forming structures
maintaining — Max Pool Depth:
Grade control structures exhibiting
4. Habitat
Mean Bankfull Depth ratio> 1.6
0
0
100%
2. Grade Control
maintenance of grade across the
11
11
100%
cover at base -Flow.
sill.
Structures lacking any substantial
2a. Piping
flow underneath sills or arms.
20
20
100%
Bank erosion within the structures
extent of influence doesnot exceed
3. Bank Protection
15%. (See guidance for this table
20
20
100%
in EEP monitoring guidance
document)
Pool forming structures
maintaining — Max Pool Depth:
4. habitat
Mean Bankfall Depth ratio> 1.6
20
20
100%
Rootwads/logs providing some
cover at base -Flow.
Table 5 continued. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project: DMS Pro'ect No h). 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 ory
Category
Metric
Intended
in As -built
Segments
Intended
Vegetation
Vegetation
Vegetation
_Footage
Bank lacking vegetative cover
1. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
resulting simply from poor growth
0
0
100
and/or scour and erosion
Banks undercuUoverhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears
2. Undercut
likely. Do include
undercuts that are modest, appear
0
0
100"
sustainable and are providing
habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or
calla se
0
0
100%
Totals
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%
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial
flow underneath sills or arms.
0
0
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 — Max Pool Depth:
4. Habitat
Mean Bankfull Depth ratio> 1.6
0
0
100%
Rootwads/logs providing some
cover at base -Flow.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
DECEMBER 2018, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

Table 5 continued. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessmeni
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
Channel
Channel Sub-
Reach ID
Total Number
R2 (upstream section)
Unstable
Performing as
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
�Cate
Catc ory
Metric
Assessed Length
in As -built
614
Foota c
Intended
Woody
Woody
Wood
Bank lacking vegetative cover
1. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
resulting simply from poor growth
Number with
Footage with
Adjusted %for
Number Stable,
and/or scour and erosion
Number of
Amount of
% Stable,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Major Channel
Channel Sub-
Banks underout/overhanging to the
Performing as
Total Number
Unstable
Unstable
Performing as
Woody
Woody
Woody
Cate o
Cate o
Metric
Intended
in As -built
Se ments
Footage
intended
Vegetation
Vegetation
Vegetation
Bank lacking vegetative cover
undercuts that are modest, appear
I. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
resulting simply from poor growth
0
0
1001111
habitat.
and/or scour and erosion
0
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or
calla se
0
100%
Totals 0
0
100%
2. Engineered
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears
Structures
L Overall Integrity
dislodged boulders or logs.
7
7 100%
2. Undercut
likely. DoesNOT include
0
0
100%
3 100%
undercuts that are modest, appear
2a. Piping
flow underneath sills or arms.
7
7 100%
sustainable and are providing
extent of influence doesnot exceed
habitat.
15%. (See guidance for this table
7
7 100%
in EEP monitoring guidance
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or
collapse
doon.ent)
0
0
100%
Pool forming structures
I otalsl
0
0
100%
4. Habitat
2. Engineered
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with n
5
5
Romwads/logs providing some
100%
Structures
cover a[ base -flow.
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 PUP monitoring guidance
document)
Pool forming structures
maintaining — Max Pool Depth:
4. Habitat
Mean Bankfull Depth ratio> 1.6
5
5
100%
Rootwads/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
Channel
Channel Sub-
Performing as
Total Number
Unstable
Unstable
Performing as
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
�Cate
Catc ory
Metric
Intended
in As -built
'cements
Foota c
Intended
Woody
Woody
Wood
Bank lacking vegetative cover
1. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
resulting simply from poor growth
0
0
1001111
and/or scour and erosion
Banks underout/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.
0
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or
calla se
0
100%
Totals 0
0
100%
2. Engineered
Structures physically intact with n
Structures
L Overall Integrity
dislodged boulders or logs.
7
7 100%
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.
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
doon.ent)
Pool forming structures
maintaining -- Max Pool Depth:
4. Habitat
Mean Bankfull Depth mtio> 1.6
7
7 100%
Romwads/logs providing some
cover a[ base -flow.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
DECEMBER 2018, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

Table 5 continued. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessmem
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No ID. 96313
Reach ID R3 (upstream section)
Assessed Length 1,102
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No ID. 96313
Number Stable, Number of Amount of
% Stable,
Number with
Footage with
Adjusted % for
Major Channel
Channel Sub-
R4
Performing as Total Number Unstable Unstable
Performing as
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Cate o
EIM
Cate o
Metric
Intended in As -built Segments Footage
Intended
Wood
Wood
Wood
Bank lacking vegetative cover
Number Stable,
Number of
Amount of
% Stable,
1. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
resulting simply from poor growth
0 0
100%
Performing as
Total Number
Unstable
Unstable
and/or scour and erosion
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Cate o
Cate o
Metric
Intended
in As -built
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
Footage
Intended
W.odv
Wood,
Wood
extent that mass wasting appears
Bank lacking vegetative cover
2. Undercut
likely. DoesNOT include
undercuts that are modes[, appear
0 0
100%
resulting simply from poor growth
0
0
sustainable and are providing
and/or scour and erosion
habitat.
Banksundercut/overhanging to the
0 0
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or
collapse
100%
extent that mass wasting appears
0 0
100%
2. Engineered
Structures
1Overall Integrity
.
Structures physically intact with n
dislodged boulders or logs.
15 15
100%
2. Undercut
Grade control structures exhibiting
0
0
2. Grade Control
maintenance of grade across the
sill.
10
10
100%
sustainable and are providing
Piping
2a Pi
Structures lacking any substantial
flow underneath sills or arms.
15
15
100%
Bank erosion within the structures
habitat.
extent of influence doesnot exceed
0
3. Mass Wasting
3. Bank Protection
15%. (See guidance for this table
15
15
100%
in EEP monitoring guidance
Totals
0
0
100%
2. Engineered
1. Overall Integrity
document)
14
14
100%
Structures
dislodged boulders or logs.
Pool forming structures
maintaining -- Max Pool Depth:
Grade control structures exhibiting
4. Habitat
Mean Bankfull Depth ratio, 1.6
15
11
100%
4
4
Rootwads/logs providing some
100%
Structures lacking any substantial
cover at base -flow.
2a. Piping
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 Sab-
Performing as
Total Number
Unstable
Unstable
Performing as
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Cate o
Cate o
Metric
Intended
in As -built
Segments
Footage
Intended
W.odv
Wood,
Wood
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 appear
modest, a
0
0
100%
sustainable and are providing
habitat.
0
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or
collapse
0
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
2. Engineered
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with n
14
14
100%
Structures
dislodged boulders or logs.
Grade control structures exhibiting
2. Grade Control
maintenance of grade across the
sill.
4
4
100%
Structures lacking any substantial
2a. 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 mtio, 1.6
14
14
100%
Rootwads/logs providing some
cover at base -flow.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
DECEMBER 2018, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

Table 5 continued. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessi mi
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No ID. 96313
Reach ID
R5
Assessed Length
536
[Foo:taeof
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 or •
Cate or
Metric
Intended
in As -built
Se menta
Footage
IntendedVe
etation
Ve etation
Ve etation
Bank lacking vegetative cover
1. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
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 deuUoverhanging to the
unm
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears
extent that mass wasting appears
2. Undercut
likely. DoesNOT include
0
0
100%
2. Undercut
likely. DoesNOT include
0
0
100%
undercuts that are modest, appear
sustainable and are providing
sustainable and are providing
habitat.
habitat.
0
0
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or
collapse
100%
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or
collapse
ia
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
2. Engineered
Totals
0
0
100%
100%
2. Engineered
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with n
6
6
diaka ed boulders or to s
100%
Structures
dislodged boulders or logs.
2. Grade Control
maintenance of grade across the
sill.
9
9
100%
Grade control structures exhibiting
2. Grade Control
maintenance of grade across the
sill.
6
6
2a. Piping
flow underneath sills or arms.
100%
9
78
Structures lacking any substantial
Bank erosion within the structures
2a Piping
flow underneath sills or arms.
6
6
100%
extent of influence doesnot exceed
Bank erosion within the structures
3. Bank Protection
15%. (See guidance for this table
9
9
extent of influence doesnot exceed
in EEP monitoring guidance
3. Bank Protection
15%. (See guidance for this table
6
6
100%
document)
in EEP monitoring guidance
Pool fortning structures
document)
maintaining -- Max Pool Depth
Pool fortning structures
4. Habitat
Mean Bankfull Depth naw: 1.6
9
9
maintaining -- Max Pool Depth
Rootwads/logs providing some
4. Habitat
Mean Bankfull Depth ratio, 1.6
6
6
100%
cover at base -flow.
Romwads/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
R6
Assessed Length
442
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
Intendedin
As -built
Se mints
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 deuUoverhanging to the
unm
extent that mass wasting appears
2. Undercut
likely. DoesNOT include
0
0
100%
undercuts that are modest, appear
sustainable and are providing
habitat.
0
0
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or
collapse
100%
IL Totals
0
0
100%
2. Engineered
1. Overall Integrity
Stmctures physically intact with n
9
9
100%
Structures
diaka ed boulders or to s
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.
7
9
78
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 fortning structures
maintaining -- Max Pool Depth
4. Habitat
Mean Bankfull Depth naw: 1.6
9
9
100%
Rootwads/logs providing some
cover at base -flow.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
DECEMBER 2018, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

Table 5 continued. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessmeni
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No ID. 96313
Reach ID T2
Assessed Length 283
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No ID. 96313
Number with Footage with
Adjusted %for
Number Stable,
Reach ID
Number of
T1
% Stable,
Stabilizing Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Major Channel
Channel Sub-
Performing as
Total Number
Assessed Length
Unstable
145
Woody Woody
Woody
Cate o
Cate o
Metric
Intended
in As -built
Segments
Foota a
Intended
Ve etation Ve etation
Vegetation
EFootaable'
Number with
Footage with
Adjusted %for
1. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
Number Stable,
Number of
100%
% Stable,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Major Channel
Channel Sub-
Performing as
Total Number
Unstable
Performing as
Woody
Woody
Woody
Cate o
Cate o
Metric
Intended
in As -built
Segments
Intended
Vegetation
Vegetation
Vegetation
2. Undercut
Bank lacking vegetative cover
0 0
L00%
sustainable and are providing
1. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
resulting simply from poor growth
0
0
1001111
and/or scour and erosion
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or
collapse
p 0
100%
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
Totals
0 0
100%
2. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with n
dislod ed boulders or to s
2
extent that mass wasting appears
100%
Grade control structures exhibiting
likely. DoesNOT include
2. Grade Control
maintenance of gmde across the
2
2
100%
2. Undercut
undercuts that are modest, appear
0
0
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial
flow underneath sills or arms.
2
2
sustainable and are providing
100%
Bank erosion within the structures
habitat.
extent of influence docsnot exceed
3. Bank Protection
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or
olla se
0
0
100%
in PUP monitoring guidance
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with n
6
Ttaisl
6
0
0
100%
100%
document)
2. Engineered
Structures
dislodged boulders or logs.
Pool forming structures
maintaining — Max Pool Depth:
Grade control structures exhibiting
Mean Bankfull Depth ratio> 1.6
2
2
2. Grade Control
maintenance of grade across the
sill.
6
6
Rootwads/logs providing some
100%
Structures lacking any substantial
cover at base -Flow.
2a. Piping
flow underneath sills or arms.
6
6
100%
Bank erosion within the structures
extent of influence docsnot exceed
3. Bank Protection
15%. (See guidance for this table
6
6
100%
in PUP monitoring guidance
document)
Pool forming structures
maintaining -- Max Pool Depth:
4. Habitat
Mean Bankfull Depth mtio> 1.6
6
6
100%
Rootwads/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 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 o
Cate o
Metric
Intended
in As -built
Segments
Foota a
Intended
Ve etation 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
undercuts that are modes[, appear
0 0
L00%
sustainable and are providing
habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or
collapse
p 0
100%
Totals
0 0
100%
2. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with n
dislod ed boulders or to s
2
2
100%
Grade control structures exhibiting
2. Grade Control
maintenance of gmde across the
2
2
100%
sill.
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial
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 PUP 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)
DECEMBER 2018, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

Table 5 continued. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessmem
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No ID. 96313
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No H). 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,
StabBizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Major Channel
Channel Sub-
Stabilizing
Performing as
Total Number
Unstable
Unstable
Performing as
Woody
Woody
Woody
Cate ory
Cate ory
Metric
Intended
in As -built
Se ments
Foota a
Intended
Vegetation
Ve etation
Ve etation
Intended
Ve etation
Bank lacking vegetative cover
Ve etation
Bank lacking vegetative cover
1. Bank
1. Sco rred/Eroding
resulting simply from poor growth0
0
100%
resulting simply from poor growth
0
0
and/or scour, and erosion
and/or scour, and erosion
Banksundercut/overhanging to the
Banks unde"ut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears
extent that mass wasting appears
likely. DoesNOT include
2. Undercut
2. Undercut
rmderems that are modest, appear
0
0
100
sustainable and are providing
habitat.
habitat.
Bank stumping, calving, or
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or
1collapse
0
0
100%
3. Mass Wasting
collapse
0
0
100%
Totals
S
0
0
100%
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
2. Engineered
Structures physically intact with ac
2. Grade Control
maintenance of grade across the
8
S
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
dislod ed boulders or to s
1
1
100%
Grade control structures exhibiting
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial
flow underneath sills or arms.
8
4
2. Grade Control
maintenance of grade across the
sill.
1
1
Bank erosion within the structures
100%
Structures lacking any substantial
extent of influence doesnot exceed
2a. Piping
flow underneath sills or amts.
l
l
3. Bank Protection
100
8
8
100%
Bank erosion within the structures
in EEP monitoring guidance
extent of influence doesnot exceed
document)
3. Bank Protection
15%. (See guidance for this table
l
l
100%
in EEP monitoring guidance
maintaining — Max Pool Depth:
document)
4. Habitat
Mean Bankfult Depth ratio, 1.6
8
S
100%
Pool forming structures
Rootwads/logs providing some
maintaining —Mas Pool Depth:
cover at base -flow.
4. Habitat
Mean Bankfull Depth ratio, 1.6
1
1
100%
Rcotwads/logs providing some
cover at base -Flow.
Table 5 continued. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No H). 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-
Performing as
Total Number
Unstable
Unstable
Performing as
Woody
Woody
Woody
Cate o
Cate o
Metric
Intended
in As -built
Segments
Footage
Intended
Ve etation
Vegetation
Ve etation
Bank lacking vegetative cover
1. Bank
1. Sco rred/Eroding
resulting simply from poor growth
0
0
100%
and/or scour, and erosion
Banks unde"ut/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
1collapse
0
0
100%
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with rc
dislod ed boulders or logs
8
Totals
S
0
0
100%
100%
2. Engineered
Structures
Grade control structures exhibiting
2. Grade Control
maintenance of grade across the
8
S
100%
sill.
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial
flow underneath sills or arms.
8
4
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 Bankfult Depth ratio, 1.6
8
S
100%
Rootwads/logs providing some
cover at base -flow.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
DECEMBER 2018, MONITORING YEAR 2 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
1. Bare Areas
woody and herbaceous
0.1 acres
Pattern and
0
0.00
0.0%
Color
material.
Woody stem densities
2. Low Stem Density
clearly below target levels
Pattern and
Areas
based on MY3, 4, or 5
.
01 acres
Color
0
0.00
°
0.0/°
stem count criteria.
Total
0
0.00
0.0%
Areas with woody stems of
3. Areas of Poor
a size class that are
0.25 acres
Pattern and
0
0.00
0.0%
Growth Rates or Vigor
obviously small given the
Color
monitoring year.
Cumulative Total
0
0.00
0.0%
Easement Acreage2 20.24
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
Easement
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Threshold
Depiction
Polygons
Acreage
Acreacie
4. Invasive Areas of
Areas or points (if too small to
Pattern and
Concern
render as polygons at map
1000 SF
Color
3
1.26
6.2%
scale).
5. Easement
Areas or points (if too small to
Pattern and
Encroachment Areas'
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)
DECEMBER 2018, MONITORING YEAR 2 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
Photo Point 3 — Station 58+75, Reach l
Photo Point 4 — Station 57+85, Reach 1
Photo Point 5 — Station 56+75, Reach 1
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96313)
DECEMBER 2018, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7
Photo Point 6 — Station 55+00, Reach 1

Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project — Longitudinal Stream Photo Stations
Photo Point 7 Station 53+50, Reach 1 Photo Point 8 — Station 51+75, Reach 1
Photo Point 9 — Station 11+25, Reach T1
Photo Point 10 — Station 49+00, Reach 2
Photo Point 11 — Station 46+00, Reach 2
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96313)
DECEMBER 2018, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7
Photo Point 12 — Station 44+75, Reach 2

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

"T
rsf`f9 D d
f
i
ll 4
\
a 4k',� -
f
Alik
%I '.
� 6 t CL�ti-
r.> r a.
#4 NN i
0M1 1
b

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)
DECEMBER 2018, MONITORING YEAR 2 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)
DECEMBER 2018, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project — Longitudinal Stream Photo Stations
Photos take October 22, 2018 (All photos are viewing upstream)
Photo Point 37 — Station 11+90, Reach 6, BMP
Photo Point 39 — Station 15+00, Reach 5
Photo Point 38 — Station 10+50, Reach 6, Step Pools
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96313)
DECEMBER 2018, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project — Vegetation Plot Photo Stations
Photos take October 22, 2018
Vegetation Plot 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)
DECEMBER 2018, MONITORING YEAR 2 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)
DECEMBER 2018, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7
Vegetation Plot 12

Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project — Vegetation Plot Photo Stations
Photos take October 22, 2018
Vegetation Plot 13
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96313)
DECEMBER 2018, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7
Vegetation Plot 14

Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project — Problem Areas Photos
Photos taken October 22, 2018 unless otherwise noted
SPA 1 — Reach 6, Station 10+25
SPA 2 — Reach 6, Station 15+00
VPA 1 — Reach 1, Left Bank (March 22, 2018)
VPA 2 Reach 1, Right Bank (April 25, 2018)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96313)
DECEMBER 2018, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

Appendix C
Vegetation Plot Data

Table 7. CVS Density Per Plot
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Pro'ect: DMS Pro'ect No ID. 96313
CVS Project Code 140048. Project Name: Browns Summit
Current Plot Data
140048-01-0001
140048-01-0002
140048-01-0003
140048-01-0004
140048-01-0005
140048-01-0006
140048-01-0007
140048-01-0008
Scientific Name Common Name Planted
Vol T
Planted
Vol T
Planted
Vol
T
Planted Vol
T
Planted
Vol T
Planted
Vol
T
Planted Vol
T
Planted
Vol T
Acernegundo Boxelder maple
1
1
2
2
3
3
1
1
2
2
Betula nigra River Birch
5
5
5
5
3
3
4
4
3
3
2
2
1
1
Callicarpa americana American Beautyberry
Carpinus caroliniana American hornbeam
1
1
3
3
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
Celtis laevigata Sugarberry
Cornus ammomum Silky Dogwood
Diospyros virginiana American Persimmon
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
Euonymus americanus Strawberry-bush
1
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash
4
4
2
2
2
2
4
4
3
3
2
2
4
4
3
3
Hamamelis virginiana Witch-hazel
1
1
2
2
Ilexopaca American Holly
1
1
1
1
2
2
Ilex verticillate Winterberry
1
1
Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Nyssa sylvatica Black Gum
1
1
1
1
1
1
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore
2
2
2
2
5
5
6
6
1
1
2
2
2
Quercus alba White Oak
Quercus lyrata Overcup Oak
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
Quercus michauxii Swamp Chestnut Oak
2
2
2
2
1
1
4
4
Quercus phellos Willow Oak
1
1
Ulmus americana American Elm
2
2
1
1
Viburnum dentatum Arrow-wood
2
2
1
1
Viburnum nudum lPossumhaw
1
1
Stem count
18
18
14
14
221
11
23
121
11
13
1.31
1
13
151
1
15
16
11
161
16
size (ares)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
size (ACRES)
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
Species count
91
01
9
91
01
9
11
11
11
91
11
9
101
01
10
61
0
6
9
1
9
ill
0
11
Stems per ACRE
728
01
728
5671
01
567
890
401
931
4861
401
526
5261
01
526F
607
0
607
gM
40
6881
6471
0
647
Current Plot Data (MYl 2017)
Annual Means
140048-01-0009
140048-01-0010
140048-01-0011
140048-01-0012
140048-01-0013
140048-01-0014
MY2 (2018)
MYl (2017)
Scientific Name Common Name Planted
Vol T
Planted
Vol T
Planted
Vol
T
Planted Vol
T
Planted
Vol T
Planted
Vol
T
PnoLS P-all
T
Planted
Vol T
Acer negun o Boxelder maple
1
1
1
1
1
1
12
12
15
15
Betula nigra River Birch
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
29
29
33
33
Callicarpa americana American Beautyberry
1
1
Carpinus caroliniana American hornbeam
1
1
1
1
3
3
14
14
23
23
Celtis laevigata Sugarberry
2
2
1
1
3
3
4
4
Cornus ammomum Silky Dogwood
11
1
11
1
Diospyros virginiana American Persimmon
1
1
1
1
5
1
6
5
5
Euonymus americanus Strawberry-bush
1
1
1
1
3
3
6
6
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
3
3
32
32
36
1
37
Hamamelis virginiana Witch-hazel
2
2
1
1
6
6
8
8
Ilex opaca American Holly
1
11
1
5
5
10
10
Ilex verticillata Winterberry
1
11
2
2
Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip
1
1
7
1
8
121
12
Nyssa sylvatica Black Gum
1
1
2
2
1
1
7
7
10
10
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore
4
4
1
1
23
1
24
29
29
Quercus alba White Oak
1
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus lyrata Overcup Oak
2
2
4
4
1
1
12
12
15
15
Quercus michauxii Swamp Chestnut Oak
1
11
1
10
1
10
13
13
Quercus phellos Willow Oak
1
1
1
1
Ulmus americana American Elm
2
1
2
11
1
1
6
6
71
7
Viburnum dentatum Arrow-wood
1
1
1
1
5
5
8
8
Viburnum nudum Possumhaw
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
5
6
6
Stem count
13
13
81
8
14
14
5
1
5
10
10
11
1
12
187
4
191
244
2
246
size (ares)
1
1
1
1
1
1
14
14
size (ACRES)
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.35
0.35
Species count
121
01
121
91
01
91
01
ill
ill
01
121
7
01
71
91
11
91
201
41
21
20
2
21
Stems per ACRE
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%
Inclues volunteer stems
0
526
0
324
5
0
567
0
202
0
405
40
486
12
552
7051
6
711
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
DECEMBER 2018, MONITORING YEAR 2 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'
StemsZ Live Stakes Invasives
Volunteers3
Tota 14
Growth Form
1
n/a
18 0 0
0
18
0
2
n/a
14 0 0
0
14
0
3
n/a
22 0 0
0
22
0
4
n/a
12 0 0
0
12
0
5
n/a
13 0 0
0
13
0
6
n/a
15 0 0
0
15
0
7
n/a
16 0 0
0
16
0
8
n/a
16 0 0
0
16
0
9
n/a
13 0 0
0
13
0
10
n/a
8 0 0
0
8
0
11
n/a
14 0 0
0
14
0
12
n/a
5 0 0
1
5
0
13
n/a
10 0 0
0
10
0
14
n/a
11 0 0
1
12
0
Wetland/Stream Vegetation Totals
(per acre)
Stream/
Wetland
Success Criteria
Plot #
StemsZ Volunteers3 Tota 14
Met?
1
18 0 728
Yes
2
14 0 567
Yes
3
22 0 890
Yes
4
12 0 486
Yes
5
13 0 526
Yes
6
15 0 607
Yes
7
16 0 648
Yes
8
16 0 648
Yes
9
13 0 526
Yes
10
8 0 324
Yes, Barely
11
14 0 567
Yes
12
5 1 203
No
13
10 0 405
Yes
14
12 1 445
Yes
Project Avg
13 0.1 541
Yes
Stem Class
characteristics
1Buffer Stems
Native planted hardwood trees. Does NOT include shrubs. No
pines. No vines.
2Stream/ 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.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
DECEMBER 2018, MONITORING YEAR 2 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
1
2
1
1
1
Betula nigra River Birch
5
5
3
4
3
2
1
1
1
1
3
Callicarpa americana American Beautyberry
Carpinus caroliniana American hornbeam
1
3
1 2
1
1
1
1
1
3
Celtis laevigata Sugarberry
2
1
Cornus amomum Silky dogwood
1
Diospyros virginiana American Persimmon
1
2
1
1
1
Euonymus americanus Strawberry -bush
1
1
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash
4
2
2
1 4
3
2
4
3
1
1
2
1
3
Hamamelis virginiana Witch -hazel
1
2
2
1
Ilex opaca American Holly
1
1
2
1
Ilex verticillata Winterberry
1
Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
Nyssa sylvatica Black Gum
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore
2
2
5
6
2
2
4
1
Quercus alba White Oak
1
Quercus lyrata Overcup Oak
1
2
1
1
2
4
1
Quercus michauxii Swamp Chestnut Oak
2
2
1
1
4
1
Quercus phellos Willow Oak
1
Ulmus americana American Elm
2
1
2
1
Viburnum dentatum Arrow -wood
2
1
1
1
Viburnum nudum Possumhaw
1
1
1
1
1
Initial count of planted bareroot material
18
22
24
17
18
19
18
19
18
20
17
16
21
18
Stems/plot
18
14
23
13
13
15
17
16
13 1
8
14
5
10
12
Stems/acre
728
567
931
526
526
607
688
648
526 1
324
567
202
405
486
Average Stems / Acre for Year 2 (Planted + Volunteer)
552
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
DECEMBER 2018, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

Appendix D
Stream Survey Data

Figure 5 Year 1 Cross-sections
Permanent Cross-section 1
(Year 2 Data - Collected October 2018)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Note: Per DMS/IRT request, bank height ratio is calculated by setting the current bankfull area to match the asbuilt bankfull area and
dividing by the current max depth. Note: MY1 data is being utilized as asbuilt data due to poor quality asbuilt survey.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96313
DECEMBER 2018, MONITORING YEAR 2 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
7
0.4
0.7
16.5
1.0
6.6
795.43
795.48
Browns Summit Restoration Site
Reach 4, Cross-section 1
798
797
c
G----
--------------------------------------------------------- --------------------
796
--o - Floodprone
LU
MY2 BKF
-----------
--o - Bankfull
795
As -built
Year 1
MY2 BKF= 795.49'
--*—Year 2
794
0 10 20 30 40 50
60 70
Station (ft)
Note: Per DMS/IRT request, bank height ratio is calculated by setting the current bankfull area to match the asbuilt bankfull area and
dividing by the current max depth. Note: MY1 data is being utilized as asbuilt data due to poor quality asbuilt survey.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96313
DECEMBER 2018, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

Figure 5 Year 1 Cross-sections
Permanent Cross-section 2
(Year 2 Data - Collected October 2018)
x2 Itb
Looking at the Left Bank
c2 rtb
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 10.5 12.3 1 0.9 2.7 14.4 793.70 793.71
Browns Summit Restoration Site
Reach 4, Cross-section 2
797
796
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
795
c 794
0
-- ------------------------
R
793
LU
--o--- Floodprone
792
0--- Bankfull
As -built
791
t Year
790
Year 2
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Station (ft)
Note: Per DMS/IRT request, bank height ratio is calculated by setting the current bankfull area to match the asbuilt bankfull area and dividing by
the current max depth. Note: MY1 data is being utilized as asbuilt data due to poor quality asbuilt survey.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96313
DECEMBER 2018, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

Figure 5 Year 1 Cross-sections
Permanent Cross-section 3
(Year 2 Data - Collected October 2018)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Stream
Feature Type
I BKF Max BKF
BKF Area BKF Width Depth Depth
W/D BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Rifle C
6.9 10.6 0.7 1.1
16.1 1.0
6.2
791.82
791.80
Note: Per DMS/IRT request, bank height ratio is calculated by setting the current bankfull area to match the asbuilt bankfull area and dividing by
the current max depth. Note: MY1 data is being utilized as asbuilt data due to poor quality asbuilt survey.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96313
DECEMBER 2018, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

Figure 5 Year 1 Cross-sections
Permanent Cross-section 4
(Year 2 Data - Collected October 2018)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
I BKF Max BKF
BKF Width Depth Depth
W/D BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
C
1 5.6
8.8 0.6 1
13.6 1.0
7.7
789.13
789.13
Browns Summit Restoration Site
Reach 4, Cross-section 4
791
790.5
790 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------a
789.5
-------------
0 789
ami 788.5
LU ---0--- Floodprone
788 MY2 BKF
787.5
-0--- Bankfull
As -built
787 MY2 BKF= 789.125' Year 1
786.5 1
Year 2
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Station (ft)
Note: Per DMS/IRT request, bank height ratio is calculated by setting the current bankfull area to match the asbuilt bankfull area and dividing by
the current max depth. Note: MY1 data is being utilized as asbuilt data due to poor quality asbuilt survey.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96313
DECEMBER 2018, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

Figure 5 Year 1 Cross-sections
Permanent Cross-section 5
(Year 2 Data - Collected October 2018)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Stream BKF I Max BKF
Feature I Type BKF Area I BKF Width I Depth Depth W/D I BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle I C 1 7.5 1 11.6 1 0.7 1 1.1 1 17.7 1 1.0 1 5.9 1 785.57 1 785.60
Browns Summit Restoration Site
Reach 4, Cross-section 5
787
786.5
--------------------------
786
0 785.5
w 785
784.5
784
MY2 BKF= 785.63'
"*% ­"Mro
---0 - Flood prone
--+--MY2 BKF
--Q - Bankfull
��As-built
Year 1
Year 2
783.5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Station (ft)
Note: Per DMS/IRT request, bank height ratio is calculated by setting the current bankfull area to match the asbuilt bankfull area and dividing by
the current max depth. Note: MY1 data is being utilized as asbuilt data due to poor quality asbuilt survey.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96313
DECEMBER 2018, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

Figure 5 Year 1 Cross-sections
Permanent Cross-section 6
(Year 2 Data - Collected October 2018)
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 1 13.7 12.4 1.1 2.2 1 11.2 781.68 781.70
785
784
w 783
0
is 782
d
Lu
781
780
779
Browns Summit Restoration Site
Reach 3, Cross-section 6
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------o
-0--- Floodprone
Bankfull
As -built
Year 1
Year 2
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Station (ft)
Note: Per DMS/IRT request, bank height ratio is calculated by setting the current bankfull area to match the asbuilt bankfull area and dividing by
the current max depth. Note: MY1 data is being utilized as asbuilt data due to poor quality asbuilt survey.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96313
DECEMBER 2018, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

Figure 5 Year 1 Cross-sections
Permanent Cross-section 7
(Year 2 Data - Collected October 2018)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Stream I
Feature I Type BKF Area I BKF Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle I C 1 4.5 1 9.7
0.5
0.9 21.0 1.0 9.3 781.42
781.48
Note: Per DMS/IRT request, bank height ratio is calculated by setting the current bankfull area to match the asbuilt bankfull area and dividing by
the current max depth. Note: MY1 data is being utilized as asbuilt data due to poor quality asbuilt survey.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96313
DECEMBER 2018, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

Figure 5 Year 1 Cross-sections
Permanent Cross-section 8
(Year 2 Data - Collected October 2018)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Feature
Stream
I Type
BKF Area
I BKF Width
I BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
I C
1 6.4
1 9.8
1 0.7
1.1
1 15.1
1.0
8.8
777.63
777.64
Note: Per DMS/IRT request, bank height ratio is calculated by setting the current Bankfull area to match the asbuilt bankfull area and dividing by the
current max depth. Note: MY1 data is being utilized as asbuilt data due to poor quality asbuilt survey.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96313
DECEMBER 2018, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7
Browns Summit Restoration Site
Reach 3, Cross-section 8
780
779
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------w
= 778
°
-- -- -- -
°
m
Ei 777
0--- Floodprone
MY2 BKF
--o -- Bankfull
776
As -built
MY2 BKF= 777.71' t Year 1
��Year 2
775
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Station (ft)
Note: Per DMS/IRT request, bank height ratio is calculated by setting the current Bankfull area to match the asbuilt bankfull area and dividing by the
current max depth. Note: MY1 data is being utilized as asbuilt data due to poor quality asbuilt survey.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96313
DECEMBER 2018, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

Figure 5 Year 1 Cross-sections
Permanent Cross-section 9
(Year 2 Data - Collected October 2018)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Stream BKF Max BKF
Feature Type 1BKFArea BKF Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
I
Pool 17.3 14.5 1.2 2.5 12.1 775.88 775.90
Browns Summit Restoration Site
Reach 3, Cross-section 9
780
779
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
778
w
0 777
w776
----------------
775
--o--- Floodprone
--0--- Bankfull
774
--As-built
+Year 1
��Year 2
773
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Station (ft)
Note: Per DMS/IRT request, bank height ratio is calculated by setting the current bankfull area to match the asbuilt bankfull area and dividing by
the current max depth. Note: MY1 data is being utilized as asbuilt data due to poor quality asbuilt survey.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96313
DECEMBER 2018, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

Figure 5 Year 1 Cross-sections
Permanent Cross-section 10
(Year 2 Data - Collected October 2018)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Stream BKF Max BKF
Feature Type 1BKFArea BKF Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle C 4.8 10 0.5 1 20.8 1.0 5.1 773.83 774.00
Browns Summit Restoration Site
Reach 3, Cross-section 10
777
776
775
o--------
--------------------- -------------------------------------------------
Lu 774
--d
-------------------- � --- Flood prove
----------------- --♦--- MY2 BKF
---0--- Bankfull
773
--)#—As-built
Year 1
MY2 BKF= 774'
Year 2
772
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Station (ft)
Note: Per DMS/IRT request, bank height ratio is calculated by setting the current bankfull area to match the asbuilt bankfull area and dividing by
the current max depth. Note: MY1 data is being utilized as asbuilt data due to poor quality asbuilt survey.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96313
DECEMBER 2018, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

Figure 5 Year 1 Cross-sections
Permanent Cross-section 11
(Year 2 Data - Collected October 2018)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Stream
Feature Type
BKF Area
BKF Width
I BKF Max BKF
Depth Depth
W/D BH Ratio ER
BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle C
1 6
10.5
0.6 1.2
18.5 1.0 6.2
771.76 771.75
Note: Per DMS/IRT request, bank height ratio is calculated by setting the current bankfull area to match the asbuilt bankfull area and dividing by
the current max depth. Note: MY1 data is being utilized as asbuilt data due to poor quality asbuilt survey.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96313
DECEMBER 2018, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

Figure 5 Year 1 Cross-sections
Permanent Cross-section 12
(Year 2 Data - Collected October 2018)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
1 8&Stream
Type
BKF Max BKF
BKF Area BKF Width Depth Depth
W/D BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle I C
3.4 6.4 0.5 0.8
1 12.1 1.0
5.4
763.82
763.90
Note: Per DMS/IRT request, bank height ratio is calculated by setting the current bankfull area to match the asbuilt bankfull area and dividing by
the current max depth. Note: MY1 data is being utilized as asbuilt data due to poor quality asbuilt survey.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96313
DECEMBER 2018, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7
Browns Summit Restoration Site
Reach T1, Cross-section 12
767
766
765
°
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -
ia
d
LU 764
---- ____----- _ -o--- Floodprone
MY2 BKF
-o--- Bankfull
763
As -built
MY2 BKF= 763.895' t Year 1
762
� Year 2
0 10 20 30 40 50
Station (ft)
Note: Per DMS/IRT request, bank height ratio is calculated by setting the current bankfull area to match the asbuilt bankfull area and dividing by
the current max depth. Note: MY1 data is being utilized as asbuilt data due to poor quality asbuilt survey.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96313
DECEMBER 2018, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

Figure 5 Year 1 Cross-sections
Permanent Cross-section 13
(Year 2 Data - Collected October 2018)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Stream BKF Max BKF
Feature I Type BKF Area I BKF Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
I
Pool 15.1 18.4 0.8 2 22.4 762.95 762.95
Browns Summit Restoration Site
Reach 1, Cross-section 13
766
765 6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
f.
764
c 763
.5
W 762
�.�------------------------ fi.
G--- Floodprone
761
0--- Bankfull
As -built
760
Year 1
Year 2
759
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Station (ft)
Note: Per DMS/IRT request, bank height ratio is calculated by setting the current bankfull area to match the asbuilt bankfull area and dividing by
the current max depth. Note: MY1 data is being utilized as asbuilt data due to poor quality asbuilt survey.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96313
DECEMBER 2018, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

Figure 5 Year 1 Cross-sections
Permanent Cross-section 14
(Year 2 Data - Collected October 2018)
Looking at the Left Bank
r
k jF
MEMO
i Y
wl-
Looking at the Right Bank
Stream BKF Max BKF
Feature Type 1BKFArea BKF Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle C 12.3 13.1 0.9 1.8 14.0 1.0 5.6 761.71 731.70
Browns Summit Restoration Site
Reach 1, Cross-section 14
764
— -
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------0
763
762
-
o
--------------
-0--- Floodprone
Lu 761
MY2 BKF
a- Bankfull
As -built
760
s Year 1
MY2 BKF= 761.73'
Year 2
759
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Station (ft)
Note: Per DMS/IRT request, bank height ratio is calculated by setting the current bankfull area to match the asbuilt bankfull area and dividing by
the current max depth. Note: MY1 data is being utilized as asbuilt data due to poor quality asbuilt survey.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96313
DECEMBER 2018, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

Figure 5 Year 1 Cross-sections
Permanent Cross-section 15
(Year 2 Data - Collected October 2018)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF Width
I BKF Max BKF
Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio
ER BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool
16.3
22.8
1 0.7 1.8 31.8
760.52
760.70
Note: Per DMS/IRT request, bank height ratio is calculated by setting the current bankfull area to match the asbuilt bankfull area and dividing by
the current max depth. Note: MY1 data is being utilized as asbuilt data due to poor quality asbuilt survey.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96313
DECEMBER 2018, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

Figure 5 Year 1 Cross-sections
Permanent Cross-section 16
(Year 2 Data - Collected October 2018)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF Max BKF
BKF Width Depth Depth
W/D BH Ratio ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
C
14.6
19.7 0.7 1.8
26.6 1.0 3.6
759.53
759.44
Browns Summit Restoration Site
Reach 1, Cross-section 16
762
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
761
760
0
w 759
-0--- Floodprone
MY2 BKF
758
o--- Bankfull
MY2 BKF= 759.44' As -built
t Year
--OK-- Year 2
757
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Station (ft)
Note: Per DMS/IRT request, bank height ratio is calculated by setting the current bankfull area to match the asbuilt bankfull area and dividing by
the current max depth. Note: MY1 data is being utilized as asbuilt data due to poor quality asbuilt survey.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96313
DECEMBER 2018, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

Figure 5 Year 1 Cross-sections
Permanent Cross-section 17
(Year 2 Data - Collected October 2018)
Looking at the Left Bank
x17 rtb Two�
Looking at the Right Bank
Stream BKF Max BKF
Feature I Type BKF Area I BKF Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
I
Riffle E 13.9 12.1 1.1 2.1 10.6 1 5.7 758.65 758.71
Browns Summit Restoration Site
Reach 1, Cross-section 17
761
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
760
w
759
m
Lu 758
-0--- Floodprone
MY2 BKF
757
-0--- Bankfull
As -built
MY2 BKF= 758.71' Year 1
Year 2
756
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Station (ft)
Note: Per DMS/IRT request, bank height ratio is calculated by setting the current bankfull area to match the asbuilt bankfull area and dividing by
the current max depth. Note: MY1 data is being utilized as asbuilt data due to poor quality asbuilt survey.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96313
DECEMBER 2018, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

Figure 5.1
Longitudinal Profile by Reach
768
LONGITUDINAL PROFILE- REACH 1
HORIZONTAL: I " = 40'
VERTICAL: I " = 4'
768
766
766
764
1
1764
762
762
760
-
760
758
758
O
O
+
0')
�
766
O
O
+
O
LO
O O
N I:t
+ +
O O
LO LO
O
co
+
O
LO
O O
00 O
+ +
O
LO LO
O O O
N ";T C0
+ + +
Ln LO LO
O
00
+
LO
O O
O N
+ +
N N
LO LO
O
+
N
LO
O O O
CO 00 O
+ + +
N N co
LO LO LO
O O
N It
+ +
co M
LO LO
766
764
762
760
-
- --
LEGEND
THALWEG
WATER SURFACE
RIGHT TOP OF BANK
LEFT TOP OF BANK
AS -BUILT THALWEG
764
762
760
-- - '
758
758
756
756
O
co
LO
O
CO
co
LO
O O
00 O
co "Cl,
LO In
O
N
"Cl,
In
O
It
"Cl,
In
O
C0
Ln
O O O
00 O N
"t Ln Ln
Ln Ln Ln
O
It
Ln
Ln
O O
CD 00
Ln Ln
Ln Ln
O O O
O N It
(0 (0 (0
Ln Ln Ln
O
CD
(0
Ln
O
00
(0
Ln

Figure 5.1
Longitudinal Profile by Reach
764
LONGITUDINAL PROFILE- REACH 1
HORIZONTAL: I " = 40'
VERTICAL: I " = 4'
764
762
762
760
760
758
A--
-
-
'�
-'"'
758
756
756
754
754
764
O
O
+
I,--
O O
N I:t
+ +
ti ti
O
co
+
ti
O
00
+
ti
O O O O
O N NT C0
+ + + +
00 00 00 00
O
00
+
00
O O O O O O
O N co 00 O
+ + + + + +
rn 0') � C)
O
N
+
�
O
It
+
CD
764
762
760
758
LEGEND
762
760
758
THALWEG
WATER SURFACE
RIGHT TOP OF BANK
LEFT TOP OF BANK
AS -BUILT THALWEG
�- - - _ - ,,
756
-,
756
754
754
O O
It CO
O O
CO CO
O
00
O
C0
O
O
C0
O
N
C0
O
It
C0
O O O O
C0 00 O N
N N
C0 C0 C0 C0
O
It
N
C0
O O
CD 00
N N
C0 C0

Figure 5.1
Longitudinal Profile by Reach
LONGITUDINAL
PROFILE- REACH
2
r10RIZONTAL:
I " =
40'
VERTICAL:
I " =
4'
770
770
768
768
766
- - -
-
�
766
764
764
762
762
760
760
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
I` 00
O
N
�
C0
00
O
N
Nt
(D
00
O
N
Nt
C0
00
O N
IZI-
+ +
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ +
+
N N
co
co
co
co
co
't
't
't
't
't
U7
U7
U7
U7
Ln
C0 C0
C0
Nt Nt
Nt
LEGEND
770
THALWEG
WATER SURFACE
RIGHT TOP OF
BANK
768
LEFT TOP OF
BANK
- -
AS -BUILT THALWEG
766
766
764
--
'--
---'
��,
.'
-,
764
762
762
760
760
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
C0
00
O
N
�
C0
00
O
N
C0
00
(D
N
C0 00
O
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ +
+
CO
CO
CO
f—
f—
r—
r—
f`
00
00
00
00
00
m
0)
0)
0) 0)
O
�
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
�
�
�
1;T
1;T
1;T
1;T
1;T
1;T
Nt Nt
LO

Figure 5.1
Longitudinal Profile by Reach
LONGITUDINAL PROFILE-
REACH
3
HORIZONTAL:
I " =
40'
VERTICAL:
I " =
4'
786
786
784
784
782
1
1782
780
-�
-
-�
780
778
-
778
776
776
O O
o 0
0
0
o O o
o
O
O
O
o
o
O O
o
00 O
N I:t
O
00
O N I:t
O
00
O
N
It
Cfl
00 O
N
+ +
+ +
+
+
+ + +
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ +
+
I- 00
00 00
00
00
0) m 0')
0')
0)
O
O
O
O
O
N N
N N
N
N
N N N
N
N
co
M
M
M
M M
M
784
784
LEGEND
782
THALWEG
782
WATER SURFACE
RIGHT TOP
OF
BANK
780
LEFT TOP OF
BANK
780
AS -BUILT THALWEG
778
- - -
778
776
- -
-
776
774
774
0
0 0
0
0
o
O o o
O
O
o
O
O
O O
O O
C0 00
O
N
CD 00 O
N
't
cD
CD
O
N It
cD co
+
+ +
+
+
+
+ + +
+
+
+
+
+
+ +
+ +
N
N
N
N N co
co
co
M
M
I-
It It
It It
M
m co
co
co
co
co co co
co
co
co
co
co
co co
co co

Figure 5.1
Longitudinal Profile by Reach
LONGITUDINAL PROFILE- REACH 3
HORIZONTAL: I
" =
40'
VERTICAL: I "
=
4'
778
778
776
776
774
-
v ' "
774
772
`
' - -
- -
,,
772
770
770
768
1768
0
0
0 0
0
0 0
0 0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
00
O
N NT
co
00 O
N I:t C4
00
O
N
It
CO
00
O N
+
+
+ +
+
+ +
+ + +
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ +
U-)
LO
U') co
(0 CD CD
CD
fl_
f�_
f`
f`
f`
00 00
C'7
m
co co
co
co co
co M M
M
co
co
co
co
co
co M
774
774
LEGEND
772
772
THALWEG
WATER SURFACE
_
-
RIGHT TOP
OF BANK
770
- _
_
-
770
LEFT TOP
OF BANK
,
AS -BUILT
THALWEG
768
768
766
766
764
764
0
0
0
0
0 0
0 0 0
0
0
Cfl
00
O
N 1�
(D 00 O
N
't
+
+
+
+
+ +
+ + +
+
+
00
00
00
0')
0') 07
0') 0') O
O
O

Figure 5.1
Longitudinal Profile by Reach
LONGITUDINAL PROFILE-
REACH 3
HORIZONTAL:
I "
= 40'
VERTICAL:
I " =
4'
774
774
772
772
770
770
768
768
- -'
766
N
766
764
764
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0 0
0
0
0
0
I:t
Cfl
00
O
N
(D 00 O
N
It
CD
00
O
O
O
N
N
N
N
N
LEGEND
THALWEG
WATER SURFACE
RIGHT TOP OF BANK
LEFT TOP OF BANK
AS—BUILT THALWEG

Figure 5.1
Longitudinal Profile by Reach
798
LONGITUDINAL PROFILE-
HORIZONTAL: I " = 40'
VERTICAL: I " = 4'
REACH 4
798
796
796
794
---
794
792
-
792
790
790
788
788
O O O O O
N IZT co 00
+ + + + +
LOU-) U') U-) U-)
796
O O
O N
+ +
O O
O O O
NT C0 00
+ + +
O O O
O O O
O N It
+ + +
I` 1` ti
O O
(.0 00
+ +
ti ti
O O
O N
+ +
00 00
O
NT
+
00
O
(0
+
00
796
794
792
790
LEGEND
794
792
790
THALWEG
WATER SURFACE
RIGHT TOP OF BANK
LEFT TOP OF BANK
AS -BUILT THALWEG
'
�- ,'
,
788
�'
- -
�- - _
788
786
786
O O O O O O O O O O O
C0 00 O N ,:I- co 0o O N co
+ + + + + + + + + + +
00 00 m m m m m O O O O
Ir- Ir- Ir- Ir- Ir- Ir- Ir- N N N N
O O O
0o O N
+ + +
O
N N N
O O
1- C0
+ +
N N
O O
00 O
+ +
N
N N

Figure 5.1
Longitudinal Profile by Reach
790
LONGITUDINAL PROFILE- REACH 4
HORIZONTAL: I " = 40'
VERTICAL: I " = 4'
790
788
-
, -',
788
, ,
786
786
784
-
-
---
- - ;`�
�` •
784
782
782
780
780
790
O
N
+
N
N
O O O
C0 00
+ + +
N N N
N N N
O
O
+
co
N
O
N
+
co
N
O O O
I:t c0 00
+ + +
co co co
N N N
O
O
+
N
O
N
+
It
N
O
't
+
't
N
O O O O
O 00 O N
+ + + +
LO N;t Ln Ln
N N N N
O
NT
+
Lid
N
O
c0
+
Ln
N
790
788
786LEFT
784
LEGEND
THALWEG
WATER SURFACE
RIGHT TOP OF BANK
TOP OF BANK
AS—BUILT THALWEG
788
786
784
782
782
-
- -- -- - ��,_
-- �,
780
i
T
780
O
C0
+
Ln
N
O
00
+
Ln
N
O O
O N
+ +
C0 C0
04 04
O
+
CO
04
O
C0
+
c0
04
O
00
+
CO
04
O O
O N
+ +
f` f`
N N
O
t
+
N
O
C0
+
N
O
00
+
N

Figure 5.1
Longitudinal Profile by Reach
LONGITUDINAL PROFILE-
REACH 5
HORIZONTAL:
1 " = 40'
VERTICAL:
1 " = 4'
812
812
810
810
808
808
806
806
804
804
802
802
-
800
800
O
O O
O O O O O O
O O
O O
O
O O O O
O
N
Cfl 00 O N 't O
00 O
N It
CO
00 O N 't
+
+ +
+ + + + + +
+ +
+ +
+
+ + + +
O
O O
O O
N
N N
N
N co co co
804
804
802
802
LEGEND
�-
-y-�
THALWEG
800
800
WATER SURFACE
RIGHT TOP OF BANK
`
LEFT TOP OF BANK
798
798
AS -BUILT THALWEG
796
796
794
794
�
000 O
N It CO 00 O N
M
M I-
Nt "t Nt LO LO

Figure 5.1
Longitudinal Profile by Reach
LONGITUDINAL PROFILE-
REACH 6
HORIZONTAL: 1 "
= 40'
VERTICAL: 1 "
= 4'
808
808
806
806
804
`,
►
804
,
802
802
,.
800
800
798
1 -HT_
798
O o 0 0
0 0
0 o O O
O
o O O
O O
O O
O N It O
00 O
N qzt CD 00
O
N 't C0
00 O
N Nt
+ + + +
+ +
+ + + +
+
+ + +
+ +
+ +
O O O O
O
N
N N N
N M
co co
804
804
802
802
LEGEND
THALWEG
800
800
WATER SURFACE
RIGHT TOP
OF BANK
LEFT TOP
OF BANK
798
798
AS -BUILT
THALWEG
796
�° 796
794
794
0
COO 0 0 O
N ;1- C0
00 O N

Figure 5.1
Longitudinal Profile by Reach
LONGITUDINAL PROFILE-
REACH
T1
and
T2
HORIZONTAL:
1 " =
40'
VERTICAL: 1 " =
4'
T1
768
768
�
LEGEND
766
766
THALWEG
t
i
WATER SURFACE
764
764
RIGHT TOP OF BANK
_
LEFT TOP OF BANK
- \
AS -BUILT THALWEG
762
762
760
760
O
N
NT
(D 00
O N
O
O
O
O O
T2
776
776
774
774
772
772
770
770
768
768
766
766
O
O
O
O O
O O
O O O
O O
O
O
O
O
N
1-
C0 00
O N
I- (D 00
O N
,:I-
co
00
O
O
O
O O
N N
N
N
N

Figure 5.1
Longitudinal Profile by Reach
LONGITUDINAL PROFILE- REACH
T3
and
T4
796
HORIZONTAL: 1 " = 40'
796
VERTICAL: 1 " = 4'
794
T3
794
T4
786
786
798
792
798
EMEMEMEMEME
792
790
_
790
MEMMEMEMEM
788
788
MEMEMEMEME
O N NT
+ +
CO
+ +
00 O
+ +
0 0
0 0
0
r r
O O
O
O
O
O O O
O N
It
(.0
0+0
O It
N
O O
O
O
O
LEGEND
THALWEG
WATER SURFACE
RIGHT TOP OF BANK
LEFT TOP OF BANK
AS—BUILT THALWEG
796
796
794
794
792
792
790
_
790
788
788

Table 10. Baseline Stream Summary
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No ID. 96313
Reach 1
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
BF Width (ft)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
12.3
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
12.9
----
----
----- -----
12.6
13.0
12.6
13.8
0.6
3
Floodprone Width (ft)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
>100
----- -----
-----
-----
----------
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
>100
----
----
----- -----
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
0.0
3
BE Mean Depth (ft)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
1.3
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
1.2
----
----
----- -----
0.9
1.1
1.1
1.2
0.1
3
BE Max Depth (ft)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
2.1
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
1.5
----
----
----- -----
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
0.0
3
BE 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
-----
----- 1 ----- -----
-----
1
----
----
----- -----
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
Substrate
Ri % / Ru% / P% / G% / S %
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
---------- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----
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/m2
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
25.7
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
20.3-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Additional Reach Parameters
DrainageArea (SM)
-----
----- 0.68
-----
-----
-----
----- 0.68
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
0.68
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
0.68
-----
-----
Impervious cover estimate (%)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- ---------- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
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) (It/ft)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
0.0058
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
0.0058-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
BEslope (ft/ft)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
0.0043
-----
-----
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)
December 2018, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

Table 10 continued. Baseline Stream Summary
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 (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- 10.06 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 11.0 ---- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
FloodproneWidth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- 22.1 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ---- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BFMean Depth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- 1.1 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 1.0 ---- ---- ----- -----
---- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BF Max Depth (ft)-----
----- ----- -----
----- 2.0 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 1.3 ---- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BECross-sectional Area (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- 11.1 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 11.1 ---- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Width/Depth Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
----- 9.1 ----- ----- ----- -----
10 ----- ----- 12 ----- -----
----- I I ---- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
EntrenchmentRatio
-----
----- ----- -----
----- 2.2 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- >2.2 ----- -----
----- ----- ---- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BankHeight Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
----- 2 ----- ----- ----- -----
I ----- ----- I ----- -----
----- I ---- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
d50(nun)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- 0.6 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Pattern
ChannelBeltwidth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ---------- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ------------ -----
-------- ----- ----- ----- -----
Radiusof Curvature (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
22 ----- ----- 33.0 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
2 ----- ----- 3 ----- -----
2 ----- ----- 3.0 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Meander Wavelength (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- --------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
MeanderWidth Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
3.5 ----- ----- 10 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
---- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- --------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- --------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Pool Length (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ---- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- --------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Pool to Pool Spacing (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ---------- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---- ----------
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
PoolMax Depth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
1.2 ----- ----- 2.5 ----- -----
----- 2.2 ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Pool Volume (ft')
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- -----
----- -----
Substrate and Transport Parameters
Ri % / Ru% / P% / G% / S %
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ---------- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- -----
----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----------
----- ----- ----- ----
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) W/m2
-----
----- ----- -----
----- 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----- ----- ----- -----
---------- ----- ----- ----- -----
BE 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 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)
December 2018, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

Table 10 continued. Baseline Stream Summary
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No ID. 96313
Reach 3
USGS
Reference Reach(es) Data
Parameter
Gau a
Regional Curve*
Pre -Existing Condition
Design
As -built
g
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)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
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
BE Mean Depth (ft)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
1.15
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
0.9
----
---- -----
-----
0.6
0.8
0.8
0.9
0.2
4
BE Max Depth (ft)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
1.8
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
1.2
----
---- -----
-----
1.1
1.3
1.3
1.3
0.1
4
BE 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 (min)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
---- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----------
-----
-----
-----
-----
--
-----
-----
-----
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 (ft)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
---------
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
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
Ri % / Ru% / P % / G% / S %-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----------
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
SC% / Sa% / G% / B% / Be %-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
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/m2
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
30.7
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
26.2-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Additional Reach Parameters
-----
DrainageArea (SM)
-----
----- 0.38
-----
-----
-----
----- 0.38
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
0.38 -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
0.38
-----
-----
Impervious cover estimate (%)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----------
-----
-----
-----
-----
----------
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
RosgenClassification
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
Bc
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
E5
----- -----
----- -----
-----
E5
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
C
-----
-----
BF Velocity (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-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
BEslope (ft/ft)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
0.010
-----
-----
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)
December 2018, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

Table 10 continued. Baseline Stream Summary
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No ID. 96313
Reach 4
USGS
Reference Reach(es) Data
Parameter
Regional Curve*
Pre-Existing
Condition
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 (W)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
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
-----
----- 1
----- -----
-----
1
-----
---- ----- -----
1
1
1
1
0
3
d50(nun)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
0.4
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
3042/22-43
-----
---- ----- -----
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:Bankfull 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
Riffle Length (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 (fe)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
--------- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Substrate and Transport Parameters
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
SC% / Sa% / G% / B% / Be%
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----------
-----
-----
-----
----- ----------
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
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)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
208
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
141
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m2
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
45.1
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
30.7-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Additional Reach Parameters
-----
-----
Drainage Area (SM)
-----
----- 0.22
-----
-----
-----
-----
0.22
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
0.22 ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
0.22
-----
-----
Impervious cover estimate o
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----------
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----------
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
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)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----------
-----
-----
-----
-----
---------- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
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)
December 2018, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

Table 10 continued. Baseline Stream Summary
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 (W)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- 3.2 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Width/Depth Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
----- 16.77 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
EntrenchmentRatio
-----
----- ----- -----
----- 1.6 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BankHeight Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
----- 6 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
d50 (nun)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ---- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ---------- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- --------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Radius of Curvature (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ---------- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- --------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ---------- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- --------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Meander Wavelength (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----------
----- ----- ----- --------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Meander Width Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ---------- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---- ----------
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
---- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- --------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
---- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- --------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Pool Length (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ---- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- --------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Pool to Pool Spacing (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ---- ----------
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Pool Max Depth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ---- ----------
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Pool Volume (fe)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
---------- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- --------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
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 bankfull (Rosgen Curve)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m2
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ---------- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Additional Reach Parameters
-----
-----
Drainage Area (SM)
-----
----- 0.04 -----
----- ----- ----- 0.04 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 0.04 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 0.04 ----- -----
Impervious cover estimate o
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ---------- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
RosgenClassification
-----
----- ----- -----
----- Be ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
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 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ---- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BF slope (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ---- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Bankfull 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)
December 2018, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

Table 10 continued. Baseline Stream Summary
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
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 (W)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- 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(nun)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- 0.4 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Pattern
ChannelBeltwidth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Radiusof Curvature (t)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
MeanderWavelength (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
MeanderWidth Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Profile
RiffleLength (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 0.06 ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
PoolLength (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Poolto Pool Spacing (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
30 ----- ----- 54.0 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
PoolMax Depth (It)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 1.7 ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
PoolVolume (fe)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Substrate and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----
SC%/Sa%/G%/B%/Be%
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
-----
----- ----- -----
0.2/0.3/0.4/0.9/1.8
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/ft'
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Max part size (nun) 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 (%)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Rosgen Classification
-----
----- ----- -----
----- Be ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 135c ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 135c ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BFVelocity (fps)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- 3.75 ----- ----- ----- -----
4 ----- ----- 6.0 ----- -----
----- 5.2 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BFDischarge (cfs)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- 16.5 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 16 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
ValleyLength
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 468.2 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Channel length (11)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 501.0 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 468.2 ----- -----
Sinuosity-----
----- ----- -----
----- 1.07 ----- ----- ----- -----
1.1 ----- ----- 1.3 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- 0.014 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 0.016----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BFslope (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BankfullFloodplain Area (acres)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BEHIVL% / L% / M% / H% / VH% / Eo/ -
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Biologicalor 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)
December 2018, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

Table 10 continued. Baseline Stream Summary
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No ID. 96313
Reach TI
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
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
d50 (nun)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ---------- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
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:Bankfull 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
Riffle Length (ft)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- --------- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
0.029
----- ---- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Pool Length (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 (f3)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- --------- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
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 bankfull (Rosgen Curve)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- ---------- -----
-----
-----
----- ---------- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m2
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
---------- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ---------- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Additional Reach Parameters
-----
-----
Drainage Area (SM)
-----
----- 0.09
-----
-----
-----
-----
0.09
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- 0.09 ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
0.09
-----
-----
Impervious cover estimate o
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
---------- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ---------- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
RosgenClassification
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
E
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
C5
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
C5
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
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)
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----------
-----
-----
----- ---------- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
BEHIVL % / L% / M% / H% / VH % / E %
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Biologicalor Other
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- --------------- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
1999 Regional Crave and Esit mate from Revised Regional Curve. See Mitigation Plan for more information.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
December 2018, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

Table 10 continued. Baseline Stream Summary
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 - Rif0e
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 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
FloodproneWidth (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 ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
d50 (nun)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ---- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ---- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- --------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Radius of Curvature (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ---------- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- --------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ---------- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- --------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Meander Wavelength (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----------
----- ----- ----- --------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Meander Width Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ---------- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---- ----------
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
---- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- --------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
---- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- --------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Pool Length (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ---- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- --------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Pool to Pool Spacing (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ---- ----------
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Pool Max Depth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ---- ----------
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Pool Volume (fe)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
---------- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- --------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
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 bankfull (Rosgen Curve)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m2
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ---------- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Additional Reach Parameters
-----
-----
Drainage Area (SM)
-----
----- 0.07 -----
----- ----- ----- 0.07 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 0.07 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 0.07 ----- -----
Impervious cover estimate o
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ---------- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
RosgenClassification
-----
----- ----- -----
----- F ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
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 I ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ---- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BEHIVL % / L% / M% / H% / VH % / E/
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Biological or Other
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----------
* 1999 Regional Crave and Esit mate from Revised Regional Curve. See Mitigation Plan for more information.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
December 2018, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

Table 10 continued. Baseline Stream Summary
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
Min Mean Med Max SD n
Min Mean Med Max SD n
BF Width (ft)-----
----- ----- -----
-----
2.93
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
----- 5.8 ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
FloodproneWidth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
66.5
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
----- 15.0 ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BF Mean Depth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
1.12
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
----- 0.5----- ---- ----- -----
---------- ----- ----- ----- -----
BFMax Depth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
1.76
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
----- 0.6 ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BFCross-sectional Area (W)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
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 ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
d50 (nun)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- --------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Radius of Curvature (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
---------- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- --------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
2 ----- ----- 3.0 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Meander Wavelength (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----------
-----
----- ----- ----- --------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Meander Width Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
---------- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- ---- ----------
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- --------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
----- 0.033 ----- ---- ----- -----
0.017 0.025 0.017 0.017 0.007 2
Pool Length (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- --------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Poolto Pool Spacing (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
----- 36 ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
PoolMax Depth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
----- 0.9 ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Pool Volume (fe)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- --------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Substrate and Transport Parameters
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----------
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- -----
dl6 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
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)
-----
----- 0.06 -----
-----
-----
-----
0.06 -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
----- ----- ----- 0.06 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 0.06 ----- -----
Impervious cover estimate (%)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----------
----- ----- ----- ---------- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
RosgenClassification
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
E
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
135c
----- ----- -----
-----
----- 135c ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BF Velocity (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-----
---------- -- ----- ----- -----
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 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)
December 2018, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

Table 10 continued. Baseline Stream Summary
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
Min Mean Med Max SD n
Min Mean Med Max SD
BFWidth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 5.8 ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
FloodproneWidth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 12.0 ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BFMean Depth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 0.5 ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BFMax Depth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 0.6 ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BFCross-sectional Area (W)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 2.8 ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Width/Depth Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
12.0 ----- ----- 18.0 ----- -----
----- 12.0 ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
EntrenchmentRatio
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
1.4 ----- ----- 2.2 ----- -----
----- <2.2 ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BankHeight Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
I ----- ----- I ----- -----
----- I ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
d50(nun)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Pattern
ChannelBeftwidth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Radiusof Curvature (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
MeanderWavelength (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
MeanderWidth Ratio
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Profile
RiffleLength (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Riffle Slope (11/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 ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
PoolVolume (fe)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ---------- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ---- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Substrate and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----------
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----
SC%/Sa%/G%/B%/Be%
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----
dl 6 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/ft'
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m2
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Additional Reach Parameters
DrainageArea (SM)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Impervious cover estimate (%)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Rosgen Classification
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 135c ----- ----- ----- -----
----- 135c ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 135c ----- -----
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----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BFslope (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BankfullFloodplain Area (acres)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
BEHI VL% / L% / M% / H% / VH% / Eo/(
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
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)
December 2018, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

Table l la. 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
7.0
11.6
12.8
12.3
9.5
12.49
10.6
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.9
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.58
0.7
Width/Depth Ratio
15.4
19.4
16.5
12.7
15.6
14.4
11
21.5
16.1
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft2)
3.3
3.4
3.0
10.5
10.5
10.5
8.2
7.25
6.9
BF Max Depth (ft)
0.8
0.9
0.7
2
2.5
2.7
1.6
1.21
1.1
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
31.3
58.8
46.3
-
-
-
66.2
66.1
65.6
Entrenchment Ratio (MYI will provide standard)*
4.4
5.9
6.6
7.0
5.3
6.2
Bank Height Ratio (MYI will provide standard)*
1
1.0
1.0
-
-
-
1.0
1.0
1.0
Wetted Perimeter (fi)
7.4
8.5
7.2
12.6
15.3
15.0
10.1
13.0
11.0
Hydraulic Radius (fi)
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.6
0.6
Cross Sectional Area between end pins (ft 2)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
d50 (mm)
Stream Reach
Reach 4
Reach 3
Cross-section X-4 (Riffle)
Cross-section X-5 (Riffle)
Cross-section X-6 (Pool)
Cross-section X-7 (Riffle)
Dimension and substrate
Base
MYl
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
MY+
Base
MYl
MY2 MY3 MY4
MY5 MY+
Base
MYl
MY2 MY3 MY4
MY5 MY+
Base
MYl
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
BF Width (ft)
8.7
9.16
8.8
11.8
10.93
11.6
12.5
12.9
12.4
11.2
11.5
9.7
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.8
0.73
0.6
1.1
0.75
0.7
0.9
1.1
1.1
0.6
0.5
0.5
Width/Depth Ratio
11.6
12.55
13.6
11
14.57
17.7
14
11.6
11.2
18.6
21.3
21.0
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft')
6.6
6.72
5.6
12.7
8.18
7.5
11.2
14.4
13.7
6.8
6.2
4.5
BF Max Depth (ft)
1.4
1.0
1.0
1.7
1.08
1.1
1.3
2.4
2.2
1.1
1.0
0.9
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
65.8
72.0
67.5
68.1
69.3
68.3
-
-
-
89.9
89.9
89.9
Entrenchment Ratio (MYI will provide standard)*
7.6
7.4
7.7
5.8
6.3
5.9
8
7.8
9.3
Bank Height Ratio (MYI will provide standard)*
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
-
-
-
1.0
1.0
1.0
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
9.4
6.94
9.2
12.8
11.47
12
13.0
13.92
13.4
11.6
11.8
10.1
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.7
0.7
0.6
1.0
0.71
0.6
0.9
1.03
1.0
0.6
0.5
0.4
Cross Sectional Area between end pins (ft 2)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
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
9.8
17.60
15.3
14.5
11.60
11.5
10
9.30
11.7
10.5
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.90
0.71
0.7
1.00
1.1
1.2
0.60
0.6
0.5
0.90
0.7
0.6
Width/Depth Ratio
11.5
14.15
15.1
17.7
13.5
12.1
19.2
19.2
20.8
10.8
17.2
18.5
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft)
9.8
7.16
6.4
17.5
17.2
17.3
7.0
6.9
4.8
8.1
8.0
6.0
BF Max Depth (ft)
1.30
1.05
1.1
2.20
2.4
2.5
1.30
1.1
1
1.30
1.2
1.2
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
86.6
89.5
88.3
-
-
-
51.6
67.5
50.9
65.6
87.3
65.2
Entrenchment Ratio (MYl will provide standard)*
8.2
8.5
9.0
4.4
4.5
5.1
7.0
5.5
6.2
Bank Height Ratio (MYI will provide standard)*
1.0
1.0
0.9
-
-
-
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
11.2
11.3
10.6
18.2
11.3
15.9
12.0
11.9
10.2
9.9
12.3
11.0
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.9
0.6
0.6
1.0
0.6
1.1
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.8
0.7
0.5
Cross Sectional Area between end pins (ft)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
d50 (mm)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
*Per DMS/IRT request, bank height ratio is calculated by setting
the current bankfull area to match the asbuilt bankfull area and dividing by
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
December 2018, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

Table l la. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No ID. 96313
Table lla continued. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No ID. 96313
Stream Reach
Reach T1
Reach 1
Cross-section X-12 (Riffle)
Cross-section X-13 (Pool)
Cross-section X-14 (Riffle)
Cross-section X-15 (Pool)
Dimension and substrate
Base
MY
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
MY+
Base
MYl
MY2 MY3 MY4
MY5 MY+
Base
MY
MY2 MY3 MY4
MY5 MY+
Base
MY
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Based on fixed baseline bankfuB elevation
BF Width (ft)
7.7
6.7
6.4
19.6
18.7
17.3
13.80
14.7
13.1
29.4
24.3
22.8
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.7
0.6
0.5
1.2
0.9
0.6
0.90
0.9
0.9
1.1
0.9
0.7
Width/Depth Ratio
11.7
11
12.1
16.4
20.6
29
15.2
17.3
14
26.1
28.3
31.8
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft')
5.1
4.1
3.4
23.5
17.1
10.3
12.5
12.5
12.3
33.2
20.8
16.3
BF Max Depth (ft)
1.2
1.1
0.8
2.8
1.7
2.0
1.70
1.6
0.9
2.80
2.5
1.8
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
39.9
49.4
34.7
-
-
-
100.0
73.1
73.2
100.0
93.8
92.5
Entrenchment Ratio (MYI will provide standard)*
5.2
5.4
5.4
5.3
5.0
5.6
-
-
-
Bank Height Ratio (MYI will provide standard)*
1.0
1.0
1.0
-
-
-
1.0
1.0
1.0
-
-
-
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
8.5
7.18
6.7
21.0
19.4
18.1
14.4
15.4
13.9
30.5
25.7
23.7
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.6
0.57
0.5
1.1
0.9
0.6
0.9
0.8
0.9
1.1
0.8
0.7
Cross Sectional Area between end pins (ft)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
d50 (mm)
Stream Reach
Reach 1
Cross-section X-16 Riffle
Cross-section X-17(Riffle)
Dimension and substrate
Base
MY
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
MY+
Base
MYl
MY2 MY3 MY4
MY5 MY+
Based on fixed baseline bankfuB elevation
BF Width (ft)
12.6
11.9
19.7
12.60
12.2
12.1
BF Mean Depth (ft)
1.1
1.09
0.7
1.20
1.2
1.1
Width/Depth Ratio
12.0
10.9
26.6
10.9
10.3
10.6
BF Cross-sectional Area (ftp)
13.2
13
14.6
14.5
14.6
13.9
BF Max Depth (ft)
1.70
1.8
1.8
1.70
2
2.1
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
100.0
71.4
71.3
100.0
68.6
68.5
Entrenchment Ratio (MYI will provide standard)*
5.7
6
3.6
5.4
5.6
5.7
Bank Height Ratio (MYI will provide standard)*
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
13.5
13.0
20.4
13.3
13.1
13.2
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.1
1.1
1.1
Cross Sectional Area between end pins (ft 2)
-
-
-
-
-
-
d50 (mm)
-
-
-
-
Per DMS/IRT request, bank height ratio is calculated by setting the current bankfull area to match the asbuilt bankfull area and dividing by
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
December 2018, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

Table l lb. Stream Reach Morphology Summary
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No ID. 96313
Reach 4
Parameter Baseline
MY-1
MY-2
MY- 3 MY- 4 MY- 5
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle only Min Mean Med Max SD n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD'
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD'
n Min Mean Med Max SD' n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n
Bankfull Width (ft) 7.2 9.3 9.1 11.8 1.7 4
8.1
10.2
10.0
12.5
1.7
4
7
9.5
9.7
11.6
1.8
4
Floodprone Width (ft) 31.3 57.9 66.0 68.1 15.4 4
58.8
66.6
67.7
72.0
4.9
4
46.3
61.93
66.55
68.3
9.1
4
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 0.5 0.8 0.9 1.1 0.2 4
0.4
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.1
4
0.4
0.6
0.65
0.7
0.1
4
1Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 0.8 1.4 1.5 1.7 0.3 4
0.9
1.1
1.1
1.2
0.1
4
0.7
0.975
1.05
1.1
0.2
4
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (fe) 3.3 7.7 7.4 12.7 3.4 4
3.4
6.4
7.0
8.2
1.8
4
3
5.75
6.25
7.5
1.7
4
Width/Depth Ratio 11.0 12.3 11.3 15.4 1.8 4
12.6
1 17.0
17.0 1
21.5 1
3.6
4
13.6
15.98
16.3
17.7
1.5
4
Entrenchment Ratio (MYI will provide standard)* 4.4 6.2 6.4 7.6 1.2 4
5.3
6.2
6.1
7.4
0.8 1
4
5.9
6.6
6.4 1
7.7
0.7 1
4
Bank Height Ratio (MY 1 will provide standard)* 1 1 1 1 0 4
1
1
1
1
0
4
1
1
1
1
0
4
Profile
Riffle Length (ft
Riffle Slope (ft/ft
Pool Length (ft
Pool Max depth (ft
Pool Spacing (ft
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft
Radius of Curvature (ft)
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft
Meander Wavelength (ft)
Meander Width Ratio
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classificatio
Channel Thalweg length (ft
Sinuosity (ft
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft
BE slope (ft/ft
3Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S°/
s SC% / Sa% / G% / C% / B% / Be
3dl6 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
2% of Reach with Eroding Bank
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Othe
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
Per DMS/IRT request, bank height ratio is calculated by setting the current bankfull area to match the asbuilt bankfull area and dividing by
the current max depth.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
December 2018, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

Table llb continued. Stream Reach Morphology Summary
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No ID. 96313
Reach 3
Parameter Baseline
MY -1
MY -2
MY- 3 MY- 4 MY- 5
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle only Min Mean Med Max SD' n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD'
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD'
n Min Mean Med Max SD' n Min Mean Med Max SD' n Min Mean Med Max SD' n
Bankfull Width (ft) 9.3 10.7 10.9 11.6 0.9 4
10.1
11.2
11.5
11.7
0.7
4
9.7
10.0
9.9
10.5
0.3
4.0
Floodprone Width (ft) 51.6 73.4 76.1 89.9 15.7 4
67.5
83.5
88.4
89.9
9.3
4
50.9
73.6
76.8
89.9
16.3
4.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.2 4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.1
4
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.1
4.0
IBankfull Max Depth (ft)1.1 1.3 1.3 1.3 0.1 4
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.2
0.1
4
0.9
1.1
1.1
1.2
0.1
4.0
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2) 6.8 7.9 7.6 9.8 1.2 4
6.2
7.1
7.0
8.0
0.6
4
4.5
5.4
5.4
6.4
0.8
4.0
Width/Depth Ratio 10.8 15.0 15.1 19.2 3.9 4
14.2
18.0
18.2
21.3
2.6
4
15.1
18.9
19.7
21.0
2.4
4.0
Entrenchment Ratio (MYI will provide standard)* 4.4 6.9 7.5 8.2 1.5 4
4.5
6.6
6.7
8.5
1.6
4
5.1
7.4
7.6
9.3
1.8
4.0
Bank Height Ratio (MYI will provide standard)* 1 1 1 1 0 4
1
1
1
1
0
4
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
4.0
Profile
Riffle Length (ft
Riffle Slope (ft/ft
Pool Length (ft)
Pool Max depth (ft)
Pool Spacing (ft)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft
Radius of Curvature (ft)
ILL
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft
Meander Wavelength (ft )
Meander Width Ratio
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classificatio
Channel Thalweg length (ft
Sinuosity (fr
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft
BF slope (ft/ft,
3Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S°/
3SC% / Sa% / G% / C% / B% / Be°/
3d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
2% of Reach with ErodingBank
Channel Stability or Habitat Metri
Biological or Othe
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
Per DMS/IRT request, bank height ratio is calculated by setting the current bankfull area to match the asbuilt bankfull area and dividing by
the current max depth.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
December 2018, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

Table l lb continued. Stream Reach Morphology Summary
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No ID. 96313
Reach 1
Parameter Baseline
MY-1
MY-2
MY- 3 MY- 4 MY- 5
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle only Min Mean Med Max SD' n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD'
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD'
n Min Mean Med Max SD' n Min Mean Med Max SD' n Min Mean Med Max SD' n
Bankfull Width (ft 12.6 13.0 12.6 13.8 0.6 3
11.9
12.9
12.2
14.7
1.3
3
12.1
15.0
13.1
19.7
3.4
3.0
Floodprone Width (ft 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 0.0 3
68.6
71.0
71.4
73.1
1.9
3
68.5
71.0
71.3
73.2
1.9
3.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 0.9 1.1 1.1 1.2 0.1 3
0.9
1.1
1.1
1.2
0.1
3
0.7
0.9
0.9
1.1
0.2
3.0
Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 0.0 3
1.6
1.8
1.8
2.0
0.2
3
0.9
1.6
1.8
2.1
0.5
3.0
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area ftZ 12.5 13.4 13.2 14.5 0.8 3
12.5
13.4
13.0
14.6
0.9
3
12.3
13.6
13.9
14.6
1.0
3.0
Width/Depth Ratio 10.9 12.7 12.0 15.2 1.8 3
10.3
12.8
10.9
17.3
3.2
3
10.6
17.1
14.0
26.6
6.9
3.0
Entrenchment Ratio (MY1 will provide standard)* 5.3 5.5 5.4 5.7 0.2 3
5.0
5.5
5.6
6.0
0.4
3
3.6
5.0
5.6
5.7
1.0
3.0
Bank Height Ratio (MY1 will provide standard)* 1 1 1 1 0 3
1
1
1
1
0
3
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
3.0
Profile
Riffle Length (ft
Riffle Slope (fUft
Pool Length (ft
Pool Max depth (ft
Pool Spacing (ft)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft
Radius of Curvature (ft)
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft
Meander Wavelength (ft)
Meander Width Ratio
Additional Reach Parameters Tr
Rosgen Classificatio
Channel Thalweg length (ft
Sinuosity (ft
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft
BE slope (ft/ft
3Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S°/
s SC% / Sa% / G% / C% / B% / Be°/
3dl6 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
Z% of Reach with ErodingBank
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Othe
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
Per DMS/IRT request, bank height ratio is calculated by setting the current bankfull area to match the asbuilt bankfull area and dividing k
the current max depth.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
December 2018, MONITORING YEAR 2 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 bankful
I on-site rain gaupa
Collection
Year 1 Monitoring (2017)
Crest Gauge
6/7/2017
0.46
4/25/2017
Measurement
Crest Gauge
10/3/2017
0.22
8/17/2017
Measurement
Year 2 Monitoring (2018)
Crest Gauge
3/22/2018
0.35
2/7/2018
Measurement
Crest Gauge
10/22/2018
0.4
9/16/2018 (Hurricane Florance)
Measurement
Crest Gauge
11/16/2018
0.78
10/26/2018
Measurement
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
DECEMBER 2018, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

Table 13. Flow Gauge Success (MY2-2018)
Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 96313
Flow Gauge ID Consecutive Days of Flowl Cumulative Days of Flow
R4 Gauge
B SFL 1 122 248
T3 Gauge
BSFL2
158 303
T1 Gauge
B SFL3
319
319
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.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
DECEMBER 2018, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

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
2018
Year 3
2019
Year 4
2020
Year 5
2021
1 Year 6
2022
Year 7 Year 1
2023 2017
Year 2
2018
Year 3
2019
Year 4
2020
Year 5
2021
1 Year 6
2022
Year 7
2023
Flow Gauges (Installed March 4, 2017)
BSFLI
127.0
122.0
171.0
248.0
BSFL2
166.0
158.0
173.0
303.0
BSFL3
263.0
319.0
263.0
319.0
Notes:
'Indicates the number of consecutive days within the monitoring year where flow was measured.
Indicates 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 TI and T3 during a normal rainfall year."
Surface water flow is estimated to have occurred when the pressure transducer reading is equal to or above 0.05 feet in depth.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
DECEMBER 2018, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

Fig=ure 6. Flow Gauge Graphs
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
DECEMBER 2018, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7
Daily Rain
1/1/2018
2/15/2018
4/1/2018
5/16/2018 6/30/2018 8/14/2018
9/28/2018 11/12/2018 12/27/2018
0.0
0.5
1.0
ITI
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
Rain data from onsite rain gauge at the Browns Summit site
Browns Summit Restoration Site
In -channel Flow Gauges -ALL
1.00
0.95
—Min Flow - 0.05 feet
0.90
—BSFL1
0.85
—BSFL2
0.80
1111
-.—
-
0.75
BSFL3
0.70
--
t
0.65
`I
CL
0.60
-
G
0.55
d
0.50
0.45
-
0.40
-
N
0.35
•-
C
0.30
—
Ali7
(q
0.25
0.20
1
0.15_.__"t,�
0.10
0.05
0.00
1/1/2018
2/15/2018
4/1/2018
5/16/2018 6/30/2018 8/14/2018
9/28/2018 11/12/2018 12/27/2018
Date
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
DECEMBER 2018, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

Figure 6. Flow Gauge Granhs Continued
*Surface water flow is estimated to have occurred when the pressure transducer reading is equal to or above 0.05 feet in depth.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
DECEMBER 2018, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7
Daily Rain
1/1/2018
2/15/2018 4/1/2018 5/16/2018 6/30/2018 8/14/2018
9/28/2018 11/12/2018 12/27/2018
0.0
0.5
=
1.0
1.5
w
2.0
=
2.5
3.0
Rain data from onsite rain gauge at the Browns Summit site
Browns Summit Restoration Site
In -channel Flow Gauge BSFL1
1.00
0.95
-Min Flow - 0.05 feet
0.90
0.85
-BSFL1
YR1 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
0.80
CRITERIA MET -122
0.75
(1/12/2018 - 5/13/2018)
0.70
0.65
a
0.60
0.55
0.50
0.45
?�
0.40
N
0.35
0
0.30
0.25
U)
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
1/1/2018
2/15/2018 4/1/2018 5/16/2018 6/30/2018 8/14/2018
9/28/2018 11/12/2018 12/27/2018
Date
*Surface water flow is estimated to have occurred when the pressure transducer reading is equal to or above 0.05 feet in depth.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
DECEMBER 2018, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

Figure 6. Flow Gauge Granhs Continued
*Surface water flow is estimated to have occurred when the pressure transducer reading is equal to or above 0.05 feet in depth.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
DECEMBER 2018, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7
Daily Rain
1/1/2018
2/15/2018 4/1/2018 5/16/2018 6/30/2018 8/14/2018
9/28/2018 11/12/2018 12/27/2018
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
w
2.0
2.5
IX
3.0
Rain data from onsite rain gauge at the Browns Summit site
Browns Summit Restoration Site
In -channel Flow Gauge BSFL2
1.00
0.95
-Min Flow - 0.05 feet
0.95
0.85
YR1 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
-BSFL2
0.80
CRITERIA MET -158
0.75
(1/11/2018-6/17/2018)
0.70
0.6s
a
0.60
IN
0.55
0.50
0.45
?�
0.40
N
0.35
00.30
4!
to
0.25
0.20
RA 11
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
1/1/2018
2/15/2018 4/1/2018 5/16/2018 6/30/2018 8/14/2018
9/28/2018 11/12/2018 12/27/2018
Date
*Surface water flow is estimated to have occurred when the pressure transducer reading is equal to or above 0.05 feet in depth.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
DECEMBER 2018, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

Figure 6. Flow Gauge Granhs Continued
*Surface water flow is estimated to have occurred when the pressure transducer reading is equal to or above 0.05 feet in depth.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
DECEMBER 2018, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7
Daily Rain
1/1/2018
2/15/2018 4/1/2018 5/16/2018 6/30/2018 8/14/2018
9/28/2018 11/12/2018 12/27/2018
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
w
2.0
2.5
3.0
Rain data from onsite rain gauge at the Browns Summit site
Browns Summit Restoratoin Site
In -channel Flow Gauge BSFL3
1.00
0.95
0.90
ow - 0.05 feet
o.6s
YR1 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS'�,.A��_BSFL3
o.6o
0.75
CRITERIA MET- 319
0.70
(1/1/2018-11/15/2018)
0.6s
a 0.60
0.55
0.50
0.45
?�
0.40
N
0.35
0.30
0.25
N
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
1/1/2018
2/15/2018 4/1/2018 5/16/2018 6/30/2018 8/14/2018
9/28/2018 11/12/2018 12/27/2018
Date
*Surface water flow is estimated to have occurred when the pressure transducer reading is equal to or above 0.05 feet in depth.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
DECEMBER 2018, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

Figure 7. Wetland Restoration Graphs (2018) Continued
Rain
1/1/2018 2/15/2018 4/1/2018 5/16/2018
6/30/2018
8/14/2018 9/28/2018 11/12/2018
12/27/2018
0.0
5
1.0
2.0
3.0
�a
Q�
4.0
5.0
Rain data from onsite rain gauge at the Browns Summit site
Browns Summit Wetland Restoration Well
(BSAW1)
10
Ground
5
Surface
o
I
-12 inches
S
-5
L
0
-10
BSAW1
kNw 45,
-15
I
I
2
— — Begin
(9
-20
Growing
C
Season
w
-25
— — End
Q-30
Growing
I
-35
I
YR2 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
Season
CRITERIA MET - 106.5 (45.1%)
-40
7/31/2018 - 11/13/2018
GROWING SEASON
-45 (3/22 - 11/13)
I
I
-50
1/1/2018 2/15/2018 4/1/2018 5/16/2018
6/30/2018
8/14/2018 9/28/2018 11/12/2018
12/27/2018
Date
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
DECEMBER 2018, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

Figure 7. Wetland Restoration Graphs (2018) Continued
Rain
1/1/2018 2/15/2018 4/1/2018 5/16/2018
6/30/2018 8/14/2018 9/28/2018
11/12/2018 12/27/2018
0.0
F
1.0
2.0
R
3.0
M
W
4.0
5.0
Rain data from onsite rain gauge at the Browns Summit site
Browns Summit Wetland Restoration Well
(BSAW2)
10
Ground
5
Surface
o
I
-12 inches
c
AAL A
-5
L
;?
-10
BSAW2
-15
I
I
— — Begin
0
-20
Growing
w
Season
-25
-30
End
Q
Growing
I
I Season
-35
YR2 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
-40
CRITERIA MET - 16 (6.8%)
GROWING SEASON
7/30/2018 - 8/15/2018
-45 (3/22 - 11/13) I
I
I
I
-50
1/1/2018 2/15/2018 4/1/2018 5/16/2018
6/30/2018 8/14/2018 9/28/2018
11/12/2018 12/27/2018
Date
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
DECEMBER 2018, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

Fillure 7. Wetland Restoration Graphs
2018 Continued
Rain
1/1/2018 2/15/2018
4/1/2018 5/16/2018
6/30/2018
8/14/2018 9/28/2018 11/12/2018
12/27/2018
0.0
1.0
2.0
JT
3.0
M
W
4.0
5.0
Rain data from onsite rain gauge at the Browns Summit site
Browns Summit Wetland Restoration Well
(BSAW3)
10
Ground
5
Surface
-12 inches
c
-5
v IvyL
;?
-10
BSAW3
�
-15
I
I
— —Begin
0
-20
Growing
p
Season
-25
CL
-30
End
p
p
I
YR2 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS I
Growing
Season
-35
CRITERIA MET - 115 (48.7%)
7/22/2018 - 11/13/2018
-40 GROWING SEASON
-45 (3/22 - 11/13)
I
I
-50
1/1/2018 2/15/2018
4/1/2018 5/16/2018
6/30/2018
8/14/2018 9/28/2018 11/12/2018
12/27/2018
Date
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
DECEMBER 2018, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

Figure 7. Wetland Restoration Graphs (2018) Continued
Rain
1/1/2018 2/15/2018 4/1/2018 5/16/2018
6/30/2018 8/14/2018 9/28/2018
11/12/2018 12/27/2018
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
W
4.0
5.0
Rain data from onsite rain gauge at the Browns Summit site
Browns Summit Wetland Restoration Well
(BSAW4)
10
Ground
5
Surface
0
-12 inches
c
-5
L
;?
-10
BSAW4
-15
I
I
— — Begin
C7
-20
Growing
C
Season
-25
CL
-30
End
YR2 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
I Growing
-35
CRITERIA MET - 236 (100%)
Season
3/22/2018 - 11/13/2018
-40 GROWING SEASON
-45 (3/22 - 11/13)
I
I
-50
1/1/2018 2/15/2018 4/1/2018 5/16/2018
6/30/2018 8/14/2018 9/28/2018
11/12/2018 12/27/2018
Date
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
DECEMBER 2018, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

Figure 7. Wetland Restoration Graphs (2018) Continued
Rain
1/1/2018 2/15/2018 4/1/2018 5/16/2018
6/30/2018
8/14/2018 9/28/2018 11/12/2018
12/27/2018
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
W
4.0
5.0
Rain data from onsite rain gauge at the Browns Summit site
Browns Summit Wetland Restoration Well
(BSAW5)
10
Ground
5
Surface
0
-12 inches
c
-5
L
;?
-10
BSAW5
-15
I
I
0_20
— — Begin
0
Growing
C
Season
-25
End
Q-30
YR2 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
Growing
I
-35
I
CRITERIA MET - 115 (48.7%)
Season
7/22/2018 - 11/13/2018
-40 GROWING SEASON
-45 (3/22 - 11/13)
I
I
-50
1/1/2018 2/15/2018 4/1/2018 5/16/2018
6/30/2018
8/14/2018 9/28/2018 11/12/2018
12/27/2018
Date
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
DECEMBER 2018, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

Figure 7. Wetland Restoration Graphs (2018) Continued
Rain
1/1/2018 2/15/2018 4/1/2018 5/16/2018
6/30/2018
8/14/2018 9/28/2018 11/12/2018
12/27/2018
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
W
4.0
5.0
Rain data from onsite rain gauge at the Browns Summit site
Browns Summit Wetland Restoration Well
(BSAW6)
10
Ground
5
Surface
0
I _
12 inches
c
-5
L
;?
-10
BSAW6
-15
I
I
o
— — Begin
0
-20
Growing
C
Season
-25
End
Q-30
Growing
I
-35
I
YR2 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
Season
11
CRITERIA MET - 115 (48.7%)
-40
7/22/2018 - 11/13/2018
GROWING SEASON
-45 (3/22 - 11/13)
I
I
-50
1/1/2018 2/15/2018 4/1/2018 5/16/2018
6/30/2018
8/14/2018 9/28/2018 11/12/2018
12/27/2018
Date
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
DECEMBER 2018, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

Figure 7. Wetland Restoration Graphs (2018) Continued
Rain
1/1/2018 2/15/2018 4/1/2018 5/16/2018
6/30/2018
8/14/2018 9/28/2018 11/12/2018
12/27/2018
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
W
4.0
5.0
Rain data from onsite rain gauge at the Browns Summit site
Browns Summit Wetland Restoration Well
(BSAW7)
10
Ground
5
Surface
0
-12 inches
c
-5
L
;?
-10
11 L
BSAW7
-15
I
I
— — Begin
C7
-20
Growing
C
Season
-25
CL
-30
End
p
I
YR2 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS I
Growing
g
-35
CRITERIA MET - 115 (48.7%)
Season
7/22/2018 - 11/13/2018
-40 GROWING SEASON
-45 (3/22 - 11/13)
I
I
-50
1/1/2018 2/15/2018 4/1/2018 5/16/2018
6/30/2018
8/14/2018 9/28/2018 11/12/2018
12/27/2018
Date
—11
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
DECEMBER 2018, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

Figure 7. Wetland Restoration Graphs (2018) Continued
Rain
1/1/2018 2/15/2018 4/1/2018 5/16/2018
6/30/2018 8/14/2018 9/28/2018
11/12/2018 12/27/2018
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
W
4.0
5.0
Rain data from onsite rain gauge at the Browns Summit site
Browns Summit Wetland Restoration Well
(BSREF)
10
I
I
Ground
5
Surface
I
-12 inches
c
-5
-10
BSREF
c
-15
o
— — Begin
_20
Growing
C
Season
-25
s
Q
I
-30
I
— — End
YR2 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
Growing
-35
CRITERIA MET - 237 (100%)
Season
3/22/2018 - 11/13/2018
-40 GROWING SEASON
-45 (3/22 - 11/13)
-50
1/1/2018 2/15/2018 4/1/2018 5/16/2018
6/30/2018 8/14/2018 9/28/2018
11/12/2018 12/27/2018
Date
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
DECEMBER 2018, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

15. Wetland Restoration Area Success (2018)
ad Restoration Area Success
is Summit Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95019
Percentage of Percentage of
Most Consecutive Minimum
Well ID Consecutive Days Days Meeting Consecutive Days Cumulative Days <12 Cumulative Days Meeting
<12 inches from inches from Ground
Ground Surface' Criteria' for Success Surface'
Groundwater Monitorine Wells (Installed March 2017)
W3 (12% Criteria) 48.7 1 115.0 1 28 1 97.9 1 231.0
W4 (12% Criteria) 100.0 236.0 28 100.0 236.0
W5 (12% Criteria) 48.7 115.0 28 86.0 203.0
W6 (12% Criteria) 48.7 115.0 28 91.9 217.0
W7 (12% Criteria) 48.7 115.0 28 91.7 216.5
s:
cates the percentage of most consecutive or cumulative number of days within the monitored growing season with a water 12 inches or less
the soil surface.
cater the most consecutive number of days within the monitored growing season with a water table 12 inches or less from the soil surface.
cafes the cumulative number of days within the monitored growing season with a water table 12 inches or less from the soil surface.
cates the number of instances within the monitored growing season when the water table rose to 12 inches or less from the soil surface.
rrding to the Site Mitigation Plan, the growing season for Guilford County is from March 22 to November 13 and is 236 days long. 12% of the
ing season is 28 days and 9% of the growing season is 21 days.
HLIGHTED indicates wells that did not meet the success criteria for the most consecutive number of days within the monitored growing
m with water 12 inches or less from the soil surface.
season for Guilford County is 3/22 - 11/13
season is 236 days long; 12% of 236 days = 28 days
season is 236 days long; 9% of 236 days = 21 days
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
DECEMBER 2018, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7
BSAW1 (9% Criteria)
3SAW2 (12% Criteria)
3SAW3 (12% Criteria)
3SAW4 (12% Criteria)
3SAW5 (12% Criteria)
3SAW6 (12% Criteria)
3SAW7 (12% Criteria)
% Consective Days <12" from Ground Surface
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
■■■.■■111111
r r .r •r
■ DAYS

Table 16. Wetland Restoration Area Success
Browns Summit Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 96313
Percentage of Consee ive Days <12 inches from Ground Surface'
Most Consecutive Days Meeting Criteria'
Percentage of Cumulative Days <12 inches from Ground Surface'
Cumulative Days Meeting Criteria'
Well ID
Year 1
(2017)
Year 2
(2018)
Year 3
(2019)
le -1
(2020)
Year 5
(2021)
Year 6"'
(2022)
7
(2023)
Year 1
(2017)
Year 2
(2018)
Year 3
(2019)
Year 4
(2020)
Year 5
(2021)
Year 6
(2022)
Year 7
(2023)
Year 1
(2017)
Year 2
(2018)
Year 3
(2019)
Year 4
(2020)
Year 5
(2021)
Year 6
(2022)
Year 7
(2023)
Year 1
(2017)
Year 2
(2018)
Year 3
(2019)
Year 4
(2020)
Year 5
(2021)
Year 6
(2022)
Year 7
(2023)
Type 5 (3.5:1 Ratio - Success Criteria 9 % of Growing Season)
BSAWI 44.7 45.1 105.5
106.5 1 1 1 1 1 74.8 1 80.5
176.5
190.0
Type 4 (1:1 Ratio - Success Criteria 12% of Growing Season
BSAW2 3.2 6.8 7.5
16.0 1 1 1 1 1 13.8 1 38.8
32.5
91.5
T e 2 (1.5:1 Ratio - Success Criteria 12 % of Growin Season
BSAW3 47.7 48.7 112.5
115.0 91.7 9Z9
216.5
231.0
Type 3 (1.5:1 Ratio - Success Criteria 12% of Growing Season)
BSAW4 100.0 100.0 236.0
Dii 100.0 100.0
236.0
236.0
BSAWS 34.1 40.0 50.5
115.0 73.7 86.0
174.0
203.0
BSAW6 46.0 48.7 108.5
115.0 89.4 91.9
211.0
217.0
BSAW7 51.1 48.7 120.5
115.0 91.1 91.7 1
215.0
216.5
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.
'Indicates the most consecutive number of days within the monitored growing season with a water table 12 inches or less from the soil surf e.
'Indicates 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)
DECEMBER 2018, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

7. Wetland Restoration
Rain
1/1/2018 1/31/2018 3/2/2018 4/1/2018 5/1/2018 5/31/2018 6/30/2018 7/30/2018 8/29/2018 9/28/2018 10/28/2018 11/27/2018 12/27/2018
0.0
S 1.0
,! 2.0 1
c
LL 3.0
Rain data from onsite rain gauge at the Browns Summit site
5
0
5
C
N -10
C -15
7
O
0 -20
O
t
G -25
d
D
-30
-35
Browns Summit Wetland Restoration Wells
(BSAW1 -BSAW7)
4°` ^rw'"'•�,I'� � -^SMI
to
Vi - I-
I
1 r
— Ground Surface
12 inches
BSAW1
BSAW2
BSAW3
BSAW4
BSAW5
BSAW6
BSAW7
Begin Growing
Season
End Growing
Season
1/1/2018 2/10/2018 3/22/2018 5/1/2018 6/10/2018 7/20/2018 8/29/2018 10/8/2018 11/17/2018 12/27/2018
Date
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313)
DECEMBER 2018, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project — Hydrology Monitoring Stations
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, Reading 11/16/18
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96313)
DECEMBER 2018, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7
Manual Crest Gauge — Reading 10/22/18

Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project — Hydrology Monitoring Stations
Photos take November 16, 2018 unless otherwise noted
Manual Crest Gauge — Reading 3/23/18
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96313)
DECEMBER 2018, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

Appendix F
Longitudinal Profile