20100010 Ver 1_Year 2 Monitoring Report_20140121

Snowbird Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project
Year 2 Monitoring Report - Final
Graham County, North Carolina
iD- c7o16
Monitoring Finn: irm: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. (Baker)
Monitoring Firm POC: Carmen McIntyre
Prepared for: North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEE
NCEEP Project Manager: Paul Wiesner J n N
ti--
_Nft Y '; 10TY
Wetlands =aHr Branch
ECO 4 W7 S te I I I
V W..01.v A.M
NCEEP Contract Number: 000613 NCEEP Proiect Number: 92764
Project Construction: 2010
Year 2 Data Collection: 2012 -2013 pc; e J�
Report Submitted: 2013 I
Report Prepared By: i
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. MAY I _ 2013
NC Engineering License F -1084
797 Haywood Road, Suite 201 EkHANCEM NTT M
Asheville, NC 28806 PROGRAM

Table of Contents
EXECUTIVESUMMARY ................................................................................. ............................... ............................III
1.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND AND ATTRIBUTES
............................................................ ..............................1
1 1 LOCATION AND SETTING
1
2.0 METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS .................................................................................... ..............................2
2 1 STREAM ASSESSMENT
2
2 1 1 Morphologic Parameters and Channel Stability
2
212 Hydrology
4
2 1 3 Photographic Documentation of Site
4
2 1 4 Stream Stability Assessment
S
22 VEGETATION ASSESSMENT
5
221 Vegetation
5
23 AREAS OF CONCERN
8
3.0 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................... ..............................9
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
SNOWBIRD CREEK TRIBUTARIES MITIGATION PROJECT
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
Tables and Exhibits
Appendix
Figure
1
Project Location Map
A
Table
1
Project Components
A
Table
2
Project Activity and Reporting History
A
Table
3
Project Contacts Table
A
Table
4
Project Attribute Table
A
Figure
2
Restoration Summary Map
B
Exhibit
1
Reference Station Photolog
B
Exhibit
2
Vegetation Plot Photolog
B
Table
5
Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment - Year 2
C
Table
6
Vegetation Metadata - Year 2
C
Table
79 7b
Stem Count Arranged by Plot - Year 2
C
Exhibit
3
Year 2 Cross - Sections with Annual Overlays
D
Exhibit
4
Year 2 Longitudinal Profile with Annual Overlay
D
Exhibit
5
Riffle Pebble Count Size Class Distribution (UT3)
D
Table
8
Cross - Section Morphology Data Table
D
Table
9
Stream Reach Morphology Data Table
D
Table
10
Verification of Bankfull or Greater than Bankfull Events
E
Figure
3
Problem Areas CCPV
F
Table
11
Visual Morphological Stability Assessment Table
F
Table
12
Vegetation Problem Areas Table
F
Exhibit
6
Vegetation Problem Areas Photolog
F
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
SNOWBIRD CREEK TRIBUTARIES MITIGATION PROJECT
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Snowbird Creek Tributaries site was restored through a full delivery contract with the North Carolina
Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) This report documents the completion of the project and
presents Year 2 monitoring data for the five -year monitoring period The goals for the restoration project
were as follows
Promote and recreate geomorphically stable conditions at the Snowbird Creek Tributaries project
site,
The reduction of sediment and nutrient inputs through restoration of riparian areas and stream
banks, and
To improve aquatic and terrestrial habitat along the project corridor
To accomplish these goals, the following objectives were implemented
• Restoration of an incised, channelized, and eroding stream by creating a stable channel that has
access to its floodplain, enhancement of a previously disturbed stream reach by replanting the
riparian corridor with native woody vegetation,
• Improve water quality by establishing buffers for nutrient removal from runoff,
• Improve in- stream habitat by providing a more diverse bedform with raffles and pools, creating
deeper pools, developing areas that increase oxygenation, providing woody debris for habitat, and
reducing bank erosion, and
• Improve terrestrial habitat by removing invasive species, planting riparian areas with native
vegetation and protecting these areas with a permanent conservation easement so that the riparian
area will increase storm water runoff filtering capacity, improve bank stability, provide shading to
decrease water temperature and improve wildlife habitat
One vegetation monitoring plot 100 square meters (m) (1 Om x 10m) in size was used to predict the survival
of the woody vegetation planted on -site The Year 2 monitoring of vegetation indicated an average survival
of 890 stems per acre The data shows that the Site is on track to meet both the interim stem survival criteria
for Year 3 (320 stems per acre) and the final success criteria of 260 trees per acre by the end of Year 5
The design implemented at the Snowbird Creek Tributaries mitigation project site involved Priority Level 1
Restoration, and Enhancement Level Il approaches, as well as Preservation Channels were built to be
consistent with, or evolve to, a stable 133 -type channel for Reach 2 of UT3 and a 134 -type channel for the
section of UT2 that was enhanced Restoration and enhancement work were completed in accordance with
the approved design approach provided in the mitigation plan for the tributaries Longitudinal profile and
cross - section data indicate that the project streams have remained stable since baseline monitoring data were
collected in February 2011 At least two bankfull events have now been documented (in two separate years)
over the course of the first two monitoring periods thereby satisfying the hydrologic success criteria During
the time of the as -built surveys, vegetation was sparse on a section of UT3 -Reach 2, however, by the time
Year 1 monitoring activities began in November 2011, a dense layer of herbaceous vegetation covered the
site Photo logs included in this report confirm the herbaceous cover at the project site is flourishing, and in
conjunction with other erosion control measures like matting, is promoting bank stability on -site while
planted, woody vegetation becomes more established Based on geomorphic and hydrologic data presented
in Appendix D and E, this Site is currently on track to meet the stream and hydrologic success criteria
specified in the Snowbird Creek Tributaries Mitigation Plan
Summary information/data related to potential threats to restoration values, such as encroachment and
statistics related to performance of various project and monitoring elements can be found in the tables and
figures in the report appendices The only area of concern observed in Year 2 is a small strip of impacted
buffer paralleling the upstream limits of UT3 -Reach 2 This buffer impact is approximately 30 feet wide by
130 feet long and is located within the left floodplain, it is caused by local residents encroaching on a portion
of the easement in order to gain vehicle access to existing logging roads (trails) that continue on the property
further upstream of the project reach/easement limits Vegetation within this impacted swath of buffer is
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
SNOWBIRD CREEK TRIBUTARIES MITIGATION PROJECT
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT

sparse from the mowing over and flattening by vehicles to the extent that a defined path has become
apparent Baker is coordinating with the contractor and land owner to correct this situation by relocating the
easement encroached portion of the vehicle access to outside of and adjacent to the easement to avoid further
encroachment The impacted buffer within the easement will be reseeded and replanted after construction of
the relocated vehicle access This is scheduled to be completed by the end of 2013 and will be documented
within the Year 3 monitoring report Supplemental information can be found in Appendix F which includes
a planview figure, photos, and a summary table
Narrative background and supporting information formerly found in these reports can be found in the
Baseline Monitoring Report (formerly Mitigation Plan) and in the Mitigation Plan (formerly Restoration
Plan) documents available on EEP's website All raw data supporting the tables and figures in the
appendices is available from EEP upon request
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING INC
SNOWBIRD CREEK TRIBUTARIES MITIGATION PROJECT
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT

1.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND AND ATTRIBUTES
The Snowbird Creek Tributaries mitigation site is located approximately one and a half miles southwest
of Robbmsville in Graham County, North Carolina (Figure 1, Appendix A) The project site is situated in
the Little Tennessee River Basin, within North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) sub -basin
04 -04 -04 and United States Geologic Survey (USGS) hydrologic unit 06010204020010 The Snowbird
Creek Tributaries mitigation project is located in a watershed that is predominantly forested that also
contains a small number of residences near the tributaries and Hooper Branch The vast majority of the
watershed is in forested cover, with less than one percent of land being in agricultural use Over the past
100 years, various parcels within the project area have been impacted by logging activities as well as
residential and agricultural land use within the valley bottom
Anthropogemc land use alteration and channelization of streams in the Snowbird Creek Tributaries
project watersheds have resulted in various stream corridor impairments Incision, bank erosion, and
other ongoing stream processes typical of adjusting streams were found in various reaches of UT3 and
other tributaries within the project area However, it was determined that the benefits of stream and
riparian enhancement further upslope in the watershed would not be significant enough to justify further
disturbance of the watershed which continues to revert to a more natural state in the absence of intensive
logging activities
In accordance with the approved mitigation plan for the site, construction activities were conducted in
August 2010 Project activity on UT2 consisted of improving bank stability and riparian conditions along
a small section of UT2 that had been degraded by previous logging activities An Enhancement II
approach was used to stabilize this reach, efforts included replacing native woody vegetation in an area
previously disturbed during logging activities and removal of debris from the channel that was
contributing to channel disturbance Re- vegetation of the riparian corridor will improve shading and
provide high quality biomass to the stream in addition to other habitat improvements
A Priority I Restoration approach was used on Reach 2 of UT3 to address prior manipulation and
relocation of the reach by restoring a channel with step -pool morphology in the low part of the valley
The restoration of this reach of UT3 eliminated the bank erosion, aggradation of fines, and lack of native
riparian vegetation and rootmass that characterized the former location of Reach 2 on UT3 The new
channel has improved connectivity to its floodplam and channel bedform was improved by constructing a
series of step -pool and riffle -pool sequences using grade control structures These grade control
structures will aid in dissipating streamflow energy, decrease pool -to -pool spacing and improve the
quality of in- stream habitat present Given the steepness of the project area, creating a step -pool channel
system was critical in achieving a more stable profile and preventing self - propagating headcuts A
vegetated riparian buffer was also planted which will support streambank stability along the new reach
while serving a variety of terrestrial and aquatic habitat functions
The project involved the restoration of 543 linear feet (LF) of UT3 (Reach 2) and the enhancement of 171
LF of UT2 (Reach 2) In addition, 7,497 LF of UT1, UT2 and UT3 were preserved with conservation
easements The restoration, enhancement, and preservation of 8,211LF of stream within this project site
has generated 2,035 stream mitigation units (SMUs) Other general information about the project is
located in Tables 1 -4 of Appendix A
1.1 Location and Setting
The Snowbird Creek Tributaries mitigation site is located approximately one and a half miles southwest
of Robbmsville in Graham County, North Carolina To reach the project site from the intersection of NC
Highways 143 and 129, turn south onto N C Highway 129 At the first stop light past the Microtel, turn
right onto East Main Street, continue for approximately 0 3 miles, and turn left onto Atoah Street Atoah
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
SNOWBIRD CREEK TRIBUTARIES MITIGATION PROJECT
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT

Street becomes Snowbird Road (both are NC Highway 143) Snowbird Road (NC 143) will come to
parallel Santeetlah Reservoir (an inundated portion of Snowbird Creek) At the intersection of IU Gap
Road and Snowbird Road, the property will be situated to the east The last house on the left before you
get to this intersection is the property owner and just before you get to this house there is a gated dirt road
that leads to UT1 and UT2 To get to UT3, turn left on IU Gap Rd, go 15 miles, the UT3 property is on
the left and the access drive is on the left dust past a small rental farm house
2.0 METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS
The five -year monitoring plan for the Snowbird Creek Tributaries mitigation project includes criteria to
evaluate the success of the geomorphic, vegetative and hydrologic components of the project The
specific locations of the cross - sections, sediment sampling location, vegetation plot, crest gauge
installation and permanent reference photo stations, are shown on the current condition plan view
submitted with this report
2.1 Stream Assessment
2.1.1 Morphologic Parameters and Channel Stability
Geomorphic monitoring of restored stream reaches is being conducted over a five year period to
evaluate the effectiveness of the restoration practices installed Monitored stream parameters
include channel dimension (cross - sections), profile (longitudinal survey), pattern (to a lesser degree
for reasons noted below), bed composition, bank stability, bankfull flows, and stability of reference
sites documented by photographs Crest gauges, as well as high flow marks, will be used to
document the occurrence of bankfull events The methods used and any related success criteria are
described below for each parameter
2.1.1.1 Dimension
Four permanent cross - sections were installed in representative riffle and pool reaches on UT3
to help evaluate the success of the mitigation project Each cross - section was established by
installing permanent pins on each bank to establish a consistent and repeatable transect from
year -to -year The cross - sectional surveys capture points at all breaks in slope and includes
typical features such as top of bank, bankfull (if different from top of bank), inner berm, edge
of water, and thalweg Cross - sections are provided in Exhibit 3 of Appendix D and are
depicted with an orientation looking downstream Riffle cross - sections are classified using
the Rosgen Stream Classification System The project was built with a larger - than - typical
entrenchment ratio for B -type channels, however Baker has determined that the B
classification is still most appropriate based on other channel characteristics, namely width -
depth ratio, sinuosity, and slope
From year -to -year, change in cross - section dimensions should typically be limited to
steepening of the banks from a gentler side -slope that they are typically constructed at, to a
steeper slope that is sustainable once complementary vegetation establishes This vegetation
of the banks and floodplain may promote further bank deposition and channel narrowing
based on the resulting increase in roughness that accompanies dense vegetation
establishment These, and any other changes, will be evaluated to determine their root cause
and whether they represent movement toward a more unstable condition (e g, down - cutting
or erosion) or movement toward increased stability (e g , settling, vegetative changes,
deposition along the banks, or decrease in width/depth ratio)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING INC
SNOWBIRD CREEK TRIBUTARIES MITIGATION PROJECT
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT

2.1.1.1.1 Results
As -built cross - section monitoring data for stream stability was collected in February 2011
The four permanent cross - sections along UT3 were re- surveyed in February 2013 to
document stream dimension for Monitoring Year 2 Cross - sectional data is presented in
Table 8 (Appendix D) and the location of cross - sections is shown on the plan sheets
submitted with this report
The cross - sections show that there has been little to no adjustment to stream dimension on
Reach 2 of UT3 since construction At this time, cross - sectional measurements do not
indicate any streambank or channel stability issues
2.1.1.2 Pattern and Longitudinal Profile
The longitudinal profile for Year 1 was surveyed during February 2013, a visualization of the
profile is provided in Exhibit 4 of Appendix D A longitudinal profile was conducted for the
entire project length on Reach 2 of UT3 This longitudinal profile will be replicated annually
during the five year monitoring period
Measurements taken along the longitudinal profile include thalweg, water surface, and top of
left and right bank The pools should remain relatively deep with flat water surface slopes,
and the riffles should remain steeper and shallower than the pools Bed form observations
should be consistent with those observed for channels of the design stream type Profile data
collected should reflect stable channel bedform and a diverse range of riffle and pool
complexes
All measurements were taken at the head of each feature (e g , riffle, run, pool, glide) and the
maximum pool depth Elevations of grade control structures were also included in the
longitudinal profiles surveyed Surveys were tied to a permanent benchmark Although
pattern adjustments were made on Reach 2 of UT3 for channel alignment considerations,
such as following the low point of the valley, pattern adjustments were not made with the
intent to greatly increase sinuosity Unnamed Tributary 3 is an A/B -type stream
characterized as having a step -pool morphology Consequently, pattern information is not
provided in Appendix D as the parameters present are generally associated with meandering,
riffle -pool channels and not step -pool channels However, as the site is monitored, reaches
will be evaluated for significant changes in pattern Any changes that occur and warrant
repair will be discussed in future monitoring reports
2.1.1.2.1 Results
The longitudinal profile shows that the bed features are stable, closely - spaced grade control
structures continue to help maintain the overall profile desired As noted in the Stream Reach
Morphology Data Tables in Appendix D (Table 9), riffle and pool characteristics do not
appear to have changed much since construction, the riffle slope and pool spacing
measurements obtained for Year 2 are acceptable when compared to design data provided for
Reach 2 of UT3 Bedform diversity, particularly max pool depths and pool spacing features,
appears to have improved with the restoration of the channel, grade control structures will
help maintain vertical stability in Reach 2 of UT3 as the channel adjusts to a more natural B-
type channel
There was also little to no change in the profile of Reach 2 of UT3 since construction The
piping that was previously observed around the structure near station 0 +95 during Monitoring
Year 1 appears to have resolved itself, there were no signs of bank or channel instability
observed during the Monitoring Year 2 survey At this time, the structure is not considered to
be an area of concern Baker will continue to monitor this structure and make any
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
SNOWBIRD CREEK TRIBUTARIES MITIGATION PROJECT
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT

adjustments that are needed No other stream problem areas were observed during
Monitoring Year 2
2.1.1.3 Substrate and Sediment Transport
Bed material analysis will consist of a pebble count taken in the same constructed riffle
during annual geomorphic surveys of the project site This sample, combined with evidence
provided by changes in cross - sectional and profile data will reveal changes in sediment
transport and bed gradation that occur over time as the stream adjusts to upstream sediment
loads and cross - sections evolve into a more permanent stable dimension Significant changes
in bed load composition will be evaluated with respect to stream stability and watershed
changes
2.1.1.3.1 Results
For this project, a pebble count was collected on UT3 Visual observations of UT3 and a
review of pebble count data collected during Year 1 monitoring did not yield any signs that
sediment transport functions have been hampered by the mitigation project, specifically, no
significant areas of aggradation or degradation within the project area were observed The
pebble count data (Exhibit 5, Appendix D) indicates that the stream is moving fines through
the system and larger pebbles are making up a greater percentage of the bed material
2.1.2 Hydrology
2.1.2.1 Streams
The occurrence of bankfull events within the monitoring period will be documented by the
use of a crest gauge and photographs A crest gauge was installed on the floodplam of UT3
at the bankfull elevation The crest gauge will record the highest watermark between site
visits and will be checked at each site visit to determine if a bankfull event has occurred
Photographs will be used to document the occurrence of debris lines and sediment deposition
on the floodplam during monitoring site visits
Two bankfull flow events must be documented on the crest gauge within the 5 -year
monitoring period The two bankfull events must occur in separate years, otherwise, the
stream monitoring will continue until two bankfull events have been documented in separate
years or we reach the end of the monitoring period If we reach the end of the monitoring
period without two bankfull events occurring, the IRT will decide how to proceed
2.1.2.1.1 Results
The site was found to have at least one bankfull event over the duration of the Year 2
monitoring period based on crest gauge readings A cumulative total of at least two bankfull
events have now been documented onsite within the first two monitoring penods /years (with
at least one event documented per monitoring period) These two bankfull events were
documented to have occurred in two separate years (between Spring 201 Minter 2012 and
Winter 2012/Winter 2013 respectively), and thus fulfills the hydrology success criteria for
this stream mitigation project site However, Baker will continue to monitor and report
subsequent bankfull events using the crest gauges throughout the course of the remaining
momtonng periods through year five Information on these events is provided in Table E10
(Appendix E)
2.1.3 Photographic Documentation of Site
Photographs will be used to document restoration success visually Reference sites were
photographed during the as -built survey, photographing these sites will be repeated for at least five
years following construction Reference photos are taken once a year, from a height of
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
SNOWBIRD CREEK TRIBUTARIES MITIGATION PROJECT
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT

approximately five to six feet Permanent markers will ensure that the same locations (and view)
are utilized during each monitoring period Selected site photographs are shown in Appendix B
Lateral and structure photographs are used to subjectively evaluate channel aggradation or
degradation, bank erosion, success of riparian vegetation, structure function and stability, and
effectiveness of erosion control measures Lateral photos should not indicate excessive erosion or
degradation of the banks A series of photos over time should indicate successive maturation of
riparian vegetation and consistent structure function Photo documentation of the site during Year 2
monitoring reflects stable site conditions in restored or enhanced areas
2.1.3.1 Lateral Reference Photos
Reference photos of transects were taken of the right and left banks at each permanent cross -
section A survey tape was shown in most photographs and represents the cross - section line
located perpendicular to the channel flow The water surface was located in the lower edge
of the frame in order to document bank and riparian conditions Photographers will make an
effort to consistently maintain the same area in each photo over time
2.1.3.2 Structure Photos
Photographs of primary grade control structures (i a vanes and weirs), along the restored
streams are included within the photographs taken at reference photo stations Photographers
will make every effort to consistently maintain the same area in each photo over time
2.1.4 Stream Stability Assessment
In- stream structures installed within the restored streams consisted of boulder steps Table 11 in
Appendix F provides a comprehensive visual assessment of morphological stability throughout the
restored area (Reach 2 of UT3) The Year 2 visual observations of these structures indicate that
little or no changes have occurred since the baseline survey was performed, structures are
functioning as designed and are holding their elevation and grade The close spacing of grade
control structures on UT3 and favorable bank heights are allowing for both vertical and lateral
energy dissipation of the stream during flood events, no structures were found to be in need of
repair at this time No stream problem areas were identified during W2
Quantitative reference reach and design data used to determine the restoration approach, as well as
the Year 2 data collected during the project's post - construction monitoring period are summarized
in Appendix D
2.2 Vegetation Assessment
2.2.1 Vegetation
Successful restoration of the vegetation on a site is dependent upon hydrologic restoration, active
planting of preferred canopy species, and volunteer regeneration of the native plant community
The restoration plan for the Snowbird Creek Tributaries Site specifies that the number of vegetation
monitoring quadrants required will be based on the species /area curve method, as described in
NCEEP monitoring guidance documents The size of individual quadrants is 100 square meters for
woody tree species, and 1 square meter for herbaceous vegetation Level 1 CVS vegetation
monitoring will occur in spring, after leaf -out has occurred, or in the fall prior to leaf fall
At the end of the first growing season during baseline surveys, species composition, density, and
survival were evaluated Individual quadrant data provided during subsequent monitoring events
will include diameter, height, density, and coverage quantities Relative values will be calculated,
and importance values will be determined Individual stems were marked to ensure that they can be
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
SNOWBIRD CREEK TRIBUTARIES MITIGATION PROJECT
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT

found in succeeding monitoring years Mortality will be determined from the difference between
the previous year's living, planted stems and the current year's living, planted stems
Photographs are used to visually document vegetation success in sample plots Reference photos of
tree and herbaceous condition within plots are taken at least once per year Photos of the plots are
included in Appendix B of this report
The interim measure of vegetative success for the site is the survival of at least 320, 3 -year old,
planted trees per acre at the end of Year 3 of the monitoring period The final vegetative success
criteria is the survival of 260, 5 -year old, planted trees per acre at the end of Year 5 of the
monitoring period
Seeding applied to streambanks beneath the erosion matting sprouted within two weeks of
application and has provided excellent ground coverage Live stakes and bare root trees planted are
also flourishing and will increasingly contribute to streambank stability and shading In general,
bare -root vegetation was planted at a target density of 680 stems per acre, in an 8 -foot by 8 -foot
gnd pattern Planting of bare -root trees was completed in late March -early Apn12011 Species
planted are listed below
Proposed Bare -Root and Live Stake Species (may also include seed or container species)
Snowbird Creek Tributaries Mitigation Plan-NCEEP Project #92764 wetness
u n i t n i n ' Plan 1 i
Tolerance '
Ripanan Buffer Plantings
Trees Overstory
Sycamore
Platanus occtdentalis
8
54
FACW-
River Birch
Betula nigra
7
48
FACW
White Oak
Quercus alba
5
34
FACU
Red Maple
Acer rubrum
5
34
FAC
Tulip Poplar
Linodendron tulipifera
5
34
FAC
Yellow Birch
Betula alleghamensis (lutea)
5
34
FACU+
Black (Sweet) Birch
Betula lenta
5
34
FACU
Northern Red Oak
Quercus rubra
5
34
FACU
Yellow Buckeye
Aesculus octandra
5
34
N/A
Mockemut Hickory
Carya alba (tomentosa)
3
20
N/A
Scarlet Oak
Quercus coccmea
2
14
N/A
Trees Understory
Highland Doghobble
Leucothoe fontanesiana
axilarrts var editorum
5
34
N/A
Mountain Laurel
Kalmia lat:folia
5
34
FACU
Flame Azalea
Rhododendron
calendulaceum
5
34
N/A
Black Willow
Salix nigra
2
14
OBL
Ironwood
Carpinus carohniana
3
20
FAC
Witch Hazel
Hamamelis virginiana
2
14
FACU
Sourwood
Oxydendrum arboreum
5
34
FACU
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
SNOWBIRD CREEK TRIBUTARIES MITIGATION PROJECT
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT

Proposed Bare -Root and Live Stake Species (may also include seed or container species)
Snowbird Creek Tributaries Mitigation Plan-NCEEP Project #92764
Common Name
Flowering Dogwood
Scientific Name
Coryus flonda
F% Planted by
5
34
FACU
Rhododendron
Rhododendron maximum
3
20
FAG
Tag Alder
Alnus serrulata
5
34
FACW+ or
OBL
Redbud
Cercis canadensis
5
34
FACU
Shrubs
Rivercane (giant
cane
Arundinana gigantea
15
102
FACW
Spicebush
Lindera benzom
15
102
FACW
Deerberry
Vaccinium stamineum
15
102
FACU
Eastern Sweetshrub,
Sweetshrub
Calycanthus flondus,
Cal canthus spp
10
68
FACU
Sweetpepperbush
Clethra spp
15
102
N/A
Wmterberry
Ilex verticillata
10
68
FACW
Virginia Sweetspire
Itea virgimea
15
102
FACW+
Chokeberry
Photima
5
34
N/A
Alternate Species
Blight - resistant
American Chestnut
Castanea dentata
N/A
N/A
N/A
American Hazelnut
Corylus amencana
N/A
N/A
FACU
Blue Ridge
Blueberry
Vaccinium pallidum
N/A
N/A
N/A
Riparian Livestake Plantings
Nmebark
Physocarpus opulifohus
15
102
FAG
Elderberry
Sambucus canadensis
20
136
FACW -
Buttonbush
Cephalanthus occidentahs
15
102
OBL
Silky Willow
Salix sencea
25
170
OBL
Silky Dogwood
Cornus amomum
25
170
FACW+
Note Species selection may have changed due to refinement or availability at the time of planting
In order to determine if the criteria were achieved, one vegetation monitoring quadrant, 10 by 10
meters in size, was installed on Reach 2 of UT3 in April 2011 This plot includes a 1 square meter
sub - quadrant for visually documenting the success of herbaceous vegetation
2.2.1.1.1 Results
Tables 5 through 7b in Appendix C present information on vegetation success criteria,
vegetation metadata, and stem counts for the vegetation monitoring plot Vegetation data was
collected in October 2012 Data from the Year 2 monitoring event indicates that approximately
80% of the stems surveyed were in fair to excellent condition and 84% of the stems in the plot
showed no signs of damage The average density of planted bare root stems, based on data
collected from the monitoring plot during Year 2 monitoring, is 890 stems per acre or 22 stems
per plot The site was originally planted with approximately 1,102 bare root stems per acre after
construction (as cited in the Baseline Monitoring Document), or 25 stems per plot Therefore,
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC 7
SNOWBIRD CREEK TRIBUTARIES MITIGATION PROJECT
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT

between the Baseline and Year 2 monitoring periods, a mortality of three stems have been
observed that accounts for this difference or decrease between the original planted stem count
(1,012 stems) from Baseline monitoring and the total stem count (890) from Year 2 monitoring
However, an average density of 890 stems per acre is still indicative that the Site is on track for
meeting the minimum interim success criteria of 320 trees per acre by the end of Year 3, and the
final success criteria of 260 trees per acre by the end of Year 5 The location of the vegetation
plot is shown on the Current Condition Plan View
The area on Reach 2 of UT3 that was identified during as -built surveys as having sparse
groundcover was found to have rebounded and is no longer considered to be a vegetation
problem area, the groundcover is now dense and appears very healthy Survival rates of planted
woody stems in the vegetation plot indicates that plantings in the restored area of UT3 are of
sufficient density to meet regulatory requirements, as well as the site stabilization and habitat
enhancement goals originally set forth in the mitigation plan
Baker had planned to install a smaller vegetation plot on Reach 2 of UT2, an Enhancement II
reach to help monitor the stability of the channel and riparian buffer where logging debris was
originally removed The Planting Contractor has re- confirmed that the Enhancement II reach
was planted However, when Baker attempted to establish a plot, it was extremely difficult to
distinguish planted stems from volunteers Rather than establish a smaller vegetation plot as
originally planned, 2 additional photograph stations, 3a and 33b, were set out in this section of
the Enhancement II reach Photographs for these stations are displayed in Exhibit 1 of Appendix
B and their locations are georeferenced in Figures 2 Photographs will be taken on an annual
basis to visually document changes in the riparian corridor over the course of the monitoring
period Based on observations during Monitoring Year 2, woody vegetation is becoming re-
established where the riparian area was disturbed, and there are no vegetation concerns at this
time
Only one vegetation problem area was identified during the Year 2 monitoring period It is a
small strip of impacted buffer paralleling the upstream limits of UT3 -Reach 2 This buffer
impact is approximately 30 feet wide by 130 (from station 0 +10 to 1 +40) feet long and is
located within the left floodplain, it is caused by local residents encroaching on a portion of the
easement in order to gain vehicle access to existing logging roads (trails) that continue on the
property further upstream of the project reach/easement limits Vegetation within this impacted
swath of buffer is sparse from the mowing over and flattening by vehicles to the extent that a
defined path has become apparent Baker is coordinating with the contractor and land owner to
correct this situation by relocating the easement encroached portion of the vehicle access to
outside of and adjacent to the easement to avoid further encroachment The impacted buffer
within the easement will be reseeded and replanted after construction of the relocated vehicle
access This is scheduled to be completed by the end of 2013 and will be documented within the
Year 3 monitoring report Supplemental information can be found in Appendix F which
includes a planview figure, photos, and a summary table
2.3 Areas of Concern
The easement encroachment and associated impacts to the vegetated buffer occurring within the left
floodplam of UT3 -Reach 2 between stations 0 +10 and 1 +40 is the only area of concern identified for the
Year 2 monitoring period As previously mentioned, Baker is coordinating with the contractor and land
owner to create an alternate vehicle access located outside the easement to avoid further encroachment
The impacted buffer within the easement will be reseeded and replanted after construction of the alternate
vehicle access This is scheduled to be completed by the end of 2013 and will be documented within the
Year 3 monitoring report
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
SNOWBIRD CREEK TRIBUTARIES MITIGATION PROJECT
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT

3.0 REFERENCES
Leopold, L B, M Wolman, and J Miller, 1964 "Fluvial Processes in Geomorphology " W H Freeman,
San Franciso, CA
Peet, R K , T R Wentworth and P S White 1998 "A flexible, multipurpose method for recording
vegetation composition and structure " Castanea 63 262 -274
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
SNOWBIRD CREEK TRIBUTARIES MITIGATION PROJECT
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT

APPENDIX A
FIGURE & GENERAL TABLES
LOCATION MAP
TABLES 1 -4

-TN -
i
Sauwbird Creek Tributaries mitigation site is located approiimateh otae and a half miles
hwest of Robbinssilk in Graham Counts. North Caro6aa. To read the project site from
be Intersection of NC Highways 143 and 129, turn south onto N.C. Hightray 129. At the first
I ligbt past the Microtel, turn right onto East Blain Street, continue for approiimateh 03
. , and torn left onto Atoah Street. Atoah Street becouses Snowhird Road (Moth are NC
hway 143} Snowbird Road INC 143)will come to parafiel Santeetlah Resenoir (an
undated portion of Smwbird Creek). At the intersection of fU Gap Road and Snowbird
Road, the property w i0 be skmated to the east. The last house on the left before yon get to this
tersectim is the property owner and just before you get to this house there is a dirt road
that leads to UT and UT2. To get to UT3, tarn kR as fU Gap Rd, as the road heads to the
right. the UT3 property is on the left and the access drier is on the left just past a small rented
arm houses
" Thesubiect projecl site is an eminwmcntal restoration site of the N(VLNR r itsxsten Enhancencnl
Pnwram (EEPt and is encompassed by a recorded conxenatitm easement. Nit is bordered M land under
i
private nssnershtp Accessing the sire troas require Irawrsmg areas near or ahwg the casenn nl honmd:tn and
therefore access M the general public is not permitted Access M- authorized per.*mncl of slats and Icakral
} '• r J I agencies or their drwenees contractors im olned in Use den dopment. onersiaht and stessardshrp of the
j - ^ restoration site is perniincd tsithin the terms and linteliamcs ofthcir defined roles. An% intended site
rrsilatiat or actin its In ans person outside of The prcsiousl% sanctioned roles and activities requires prior
/n
LITTLE TE
CO
Project Site
1
r v
R;rLake Fq- ileAno'
k
r 129 � ------- - - - - --
L-----= - ---'-
�,�
RU 06010204020010
t,XTTLE TENNESSEE--- -
C� i
csw 19 : )" MAC CO. y
'(I�NESSE
HIINASSEE ! 1 1
04 -05 -02 Nantanala Lake
i J
� 141
1N
64
CHER KEE CO. HI
04- 5-01 CLAY CO. 64
0�
Map Inset LEGEND:
Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map
NCDWQ Sub -basin
�-
[ J Counties Snowbird Creek Tributaries Project
Graham County, NC
0 USGS I lydrologic Unit
Eco Cffl Project Hydrologic Unit
Graham County
0 1 2 4 a
Graham County, NC Mlles

Figure 1 Notes
The Snowbird Creek Tributaries mitigation site is located approximately one and a half miles
southwest of Robbinsville in Graham County, North Carolina To reach the project site from the
intersection of N.0 Highways 143 and 129 in Robbinsville, turn south onto N.0 Highway 129
At the first stop light past the Microtel, turn right onto East Main Street, continue for
approximately 3 miles, and turn left onto Atoah Street Atoah Street becomes Snowbird Road
(both are N C Highway 143) Snowbird Road (N C Highway 143) will come to parallel
Santeetlah Reservoir (an inundated portion of Snowbird Creek) At the intersection of IU Gap
Road and Snowbird Road, the property will be situated to the east The last house on the left
before you get to this intersection is the property owner and dust before you get to this house
there is a dirt road that leads to UTl and UT2 To get to UT3, turn left on IU Gap Road, as the
road bends to the right, the UT3 property is on the left and the access drive is on the left dust past
a small rented farm house
The subject project site is an environmental restoration site of the NCDENR Ecosystem
Enhancement Program (EEP) 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
EEP

UT1
3,213LF
P
-
- 3,213 LF
5 1
643
- No channel alteration (preservation)
UT2
November 2009
Construction
-
August 2010
Temporary S &E mix applied to entire project area
-
August 2010
Reach 1
1,033 LF
P
-
- 1,033 LF
5 1
207
- No channel alteration (preservation)
Reach 2
171 LF
Ell
-
133a 171 LF
25 1
68
_ Removal of woody debris, stabilize streambanks,
replanting with native vegetation
Reach 3
675 LF
P
-
675 LF
5 1
135
- No channel alteration (preservation)
UT3
Reach 1
2,576LF
P
-
2,576LF
5 1
515
- No channel alteration (preservation)
Reach 2
543 LF
R
P1I
Aa+ 467 LF
1 1
467
Relocate channel in lowest point of the valley,
- establish a step -pool channel with stable banks
and floodplam connectivity
Stream (SMUs)l Ripanan Wetland (Ac) Nonn arian Wetland Ac Total Wetland (Ac) Buffer (Ac) Comment
2,035 1 NA NA NA 131
Total SMUs 12,035
Notes
Table 2. Protect Activity and Reporting History
Snowbird Creek Tributaries Mitigation Pro ect -NCEEP Pro ect #92764
Activity or Report
Data Collection
Complete
Completion or Delivery
Restoration Plan
-
October 2009
Final Design -90%
-
November 2009
Construction
-
August 2010
Temporary S &E mix applied to entire project area
-
August 2010
Permanent seed mix applied to project site
-
August 2010, February 2011
Containerized and B &B plantings set out
-
March 2011
Installation of crest gauges
-
March 2011
Mitigation Plan / As -built (Year 0 Monitoring — baseline)
April 2011
November 2011 (last of plantings completed in March)
Year 1 Monitoring
January 2012
March 2012
Year 2 Monitoring
February 2013
March 2013
Year 3 Monitoring
Year 4 Monitoring
Year 5 Monitoring

Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Snowbird Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project -NCEEP Project #92764
Designer
Physiograhic Region
Blue Ridge
797 Haywood Rd Suite 201, Asheville, NC 28806
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc
Project River Basin
Little Tennessee
Contact Micky Clemmons, Tel [phone] x2002
Construction Contractor
NCDWQ Sub -basin for Project
04 -04 -04
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200, Cary, NC 27511
River Works, Inc
WRC Class
Cold
Contact Bill Wright, Tel [phone]
Planting & Seeding Contractor
Beaver Activity Observed During Design Phase?
No
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200, Cary, NC 27511
River Works, Inc
UTl
13 mi
Contact George Moms, Tel [phone]
Seed Mix Sources
Green Resources
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Arborgen and Hillis Nursery
Monitoring
797 Haywood Rd Suite 201, Asheville, NC 28806
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc
Contact Carmen McIntyre, Tel [phone] x2010
Table 4. Project Attribute Table
Snowbird Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project -NCEEP Project #92764
Project County
Graham County, NC
Physiograhic Region
Blue Ridge
Ecoregion
Blue Ridge Mountains- Southern Metasedimentary
Mountains
Project River Basin
Little Tennessee
USGS HUC for Project
06010204020010
NCDWQ Sub -basin for Project
04 -04 -04
Within extent of EEP Watershed Plan?
No local or targeted watershed plans currently
available
WRC Class
Cold
% of Project Easement Fenced or Demarcated
0% (post - construction)
Beaver Activity Observed During Design Phase?
No
Drainage Area (Square Miles)
UTl
13 mi
UT2
Reach 1
05 m1

Table 4. Project Attribute Table
Snowbird Creek Tributaries Mitigation Protect -NCEEP Project #92764
Reach 2
06 mi
Reach 3
08 mi
UT3
Reach 1
15 nu
Reach 2
18 mi
Stream Order
UTI
1"(Perennial)
UT2
Reach 1
1 ' (Perennial)
Reach 2
1' (Perennial)
Reach 3
1 (Perennial)
UT3
Reach 1
1 S' (Perennial)
Reach 2
1"(Perennial)
Restored Length
UT 1
3,212 LF
UT2
Reach 1
1,033 LF
Reach 2
171 LF
Reach 3
675 LF
UT3
Reach 1
2,576 LF
Reach 2
467 LF
Watershed Type
Rural (Predominantly Forested)
Watershed LULC Distribution (Percent area)
Deciduous Forest
80 15%
Evergreen Forest
868%
Mixed Forest
11 16%
Developed Open Space
<1%
Drainage Impervious Cover Estimate ( %)
<25%
NCDWQ AU /Index #
2 -190 -9(15 5)
303d Listed
No
Upstream of 303d Listed Segment
No
Reasons for 303d Listing or Stressor
-

Table 4. Protect Attribute Table
Snowbird Creek Tributaries Mitigation Protect -NCEEP Protect #92764
Total Acreage of Easement
13 1
Total Vegetated Acreage w/m Easement
n/a (Easement vegetated with exception of stream
channel)
Total Planted Acreage within the Easement
— 86 Acres
Rosgen Classification (Pre - existing) /As -Built
UT1
Aa+ Aa+
UT2
Reach 1
133a/ 133a
Reach 2
133a/ 133a
Reach 3
133a/ 133a
UT3
Reach 1
A4a+ /A4a+
Reach 2
BB3
Valley Type
II
Valley Slope
094 (UT3)
Valley Side Slope Range
n/a
Valley Toe Slope Range
n/a
Trout Waters Designation
No
Species of Concern
No
Dominant Soil Series and Characteristics
Snowbird loam/ Thurmont - Dillard/ Soco - Stecoah/
Spivey- Whrteoak
Depth (in)
% Clay
K Factor
T Factor
UT1
>80"
5-18/5-24
10-17/
02-1
2/3
UT2
Reach 1
— 80/ >60"
5 -18
10- 17/ 1
5
Reach 2
>80"
5 -18
10 -17
5
Reach 3
>80"
5-18/5-24
10- 17/
02- 1
5
UT3
Reach 1
>80"
5 -24
02-1/
03-1
5
Reach 2
>60"
5 -25
17-24
5

El
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑ , , NIL
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑-
APPENDIX B
PROJECT REACH FIGURE AND
REFERENCE PHOTOGRAPHS
FIGURE 2 PROJECT COMPONENT MAP
EXHIBIT 1-2 REFERENCE STATION AND
VEGETATION PLOT PHOTOLOGS

CO
,nid , o 4
Ul
13 ell
A ID
err i ±9- a ! ♦ �?`' 4 y, ♦ ♦,QP
� » � +±eye,, r� tyFyt� `� w .;��'\I `� •; , s: ♦ \dr,S
4
of \ \d'- \ G
W,- C
Ak
s � \
it 44
n
�5�'yx Ai4 4
r
LEGEND: Figure 2. Restoration Summary
Project Components . Easement Boundary Map
Preservation - Streams
Snowbird ('reek Tributaries Project
Enhancement 11 ©A Photo Points (I 'I I & Preservation Reaches)* Graham County, NC
�'COSyStelll Restoration (Priority 1)
0 200 400 800 0
flMU tomb me res�.a =3 ure R,. ,� z. Feet A
pn 4 bW on lne CCPV, fgiVa 3 0l Appmbv F

UT3- Restoration Reach
Photo Log - Reference Photo Points
Notes: Photos for UT3 were taken October 2012 and February 2013.
1. Photo point locations are shown on the plan views in the actual location the picture was taken.
2. All points are marked with a wooden stake and flagging. For channel points, the stake is set up on an
adjacent bank.
Photo Point 1: looking downstream
Photo Point 2: looking downstream
Photo Point 2: looking upstream
Photo Point 3: looking downstream

Photo Point 3: looking upstream
Photo Point 4: looking downstream
Photo Point 4: looking upstream
Photo Point 5: looking downstream
Photo Point 5: looking upstream
Photo Point 6: looking downstream

Photo Point 6: looking upstream

UT1 Reach 1 (Preservation)
Photo Log - Reference Photo Points
Notes: Photos were taken February 2013.
1. Photo point locations are shown on the plan sheets in the actual location the picture was taken.
2. All points are marked with flagging tape and recorded with GPS points. For channel points, the flagging is
tied on an adjacent bank.
Photo Point 1: looking downstream
Photo Point 1: looking upstream
Photo Point 2: looking downstream
Photo Point 2: looking upstream

Photo Point 3: looking downstream
Photo Point 3: looking upstream
Photo Point 4: looking downstream
Photo Point 4: looking upstream

UT2 (Preservation & Enhancement II)
Photo Log - Reference Photo Points
Notes: Photos were taken February 2013.
1. Photo point locations are shown on the plan sheets in the actual location the picture was taken.
2. All points are marked with flagging tape and recorded with GPS points. For channel points, the flagging is
tied on an adjacent bank.
3. Photo point 3, 3a, and 3b are located in the Enhancement II Reach.
Photo Point 1: looking downstream
Photo Point 1: looking upstream
Photo Point 2: looking downstream
Photo Point 2: looking upstream

Photo Point 3: looking downstream
Photo Point 3: looking upstream
Photo Point 3a: looking down valley along right bank
Photo Point 3a: looking up valley along right bank
Photo Point 3b: looking down valley along right bank
Photo Point 3b: looking up valley along right bank

Photo Point 4: looking downstream
Photo Point 4: looking upstream

UT3 (Preservation)
Photo Log - Reference Photo Points
Notes: Photos were taken February 2013.
1. Photo point locations are shown on the plan sheets in the actual location the picture was taken.
2. All points are marked with flagging tape and recorded with GPS points. For channel points. the flagging is
tied on an adjacent bank.
Photo Point 1: looking downstream
Photo Point 1: looking upstream
Photo Point 2: looking downstream
Photo Point 2: looking upstream

Photo Point 3: looking downstream
Photo Point 3: looking upstream

Snowbird Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project
Photo Log - Vegetation Plot Photos
Notes: Photos for Vegetation Plots were taken October 2012.
1. Vegetation plots marked by t -posts at comers; herbaceous plot marked by stake within larger plot.
2. Planted vegetation flagged and tagged for future identification.
Photo l: Veg Plot 1
Photo 2: Veg Plot 1- Herbaceous Plot

APPENDIX C
VEGETATION SUMMARY DATA
TABLES 5 -7

Table 5. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment -Year 2
Snowbird Creek Tributaries Mitigation Protect- #92764
Vegetation Plot ID Vegetation Survival Threshold Mete
1 Y
Table 6. Vegetation Metadata- Year 1
Snowbird Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project-#92764
Report Prepared By Carmen Horne- McIntyre
Date Prepared 11/21/2012 16 00
database name cvs- eep- entrytool -v2 3 1 mdb
database location L \Monrtormg\Mon►tonng Guidance \Vegetathon\2012 Updates_V2 3
computer name ASHEWCMCINTYR
file size 60428288
PTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT------- --
a Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a summary of project(s) and project data
Stem Count Total and Planted by
and Species Displays Plot and Stem Count Mertrics as well as Stems Planted Per Acre
ROJECT SUMMARY- --- ------- - 92764
rolect Code Snowbird Tributaries
rolect Name Restoration 466 LF, Enhancement 11 171 LF, Preservation 7,497 LF
lescription Little Tennessee
;fiver Basin 466
!ngth(ft) 30
tream -to -edge width (ft) 259731
rea (sq m) 1
required Plots (calculated) 1
ampled Plots 1

Table 7 Stem Count Arranged by Plot -Year 2
Snowbird Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project-#92764
Current Pllot Date MZYp2
2012_)
Current Data
Yr 2 2012
Current Mean
Annual Means Previous Years
��
Scientific Name Common Name S sties Tj ,
I MG.m..n
92663- 01-000
P,°aB
Plot 1
PnoLS
AB
MYl
MY3
MY4
MYS
ree S Iles
2
2
P
T
P
T
P
T
P
T
P
T
P
T
P
T
Acer nibrum
Red Maple
Tree
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
3
3
3
Platanus occidentahs Sycamore Tree
7
7
Abms serrulata
Taiz Alder
Tree
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Shrub S tes
Benda lenta
Sweet Birch
Tree
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
18
Benda m ra
River Birch
Tree
0
0
0
0
2
2
2
0
9
9
9
9
728
1 890
Ca rya alba
Mockernut Hickory
Tree
1 3
3
3
1 3
3
3
3
3
uercus nebra
Red Oak
Tree
2
2
2
2
3
3
2
2
Platmtus occtdentalis
Nmebark
Tree
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
6
Understo; %Shub7S cies
�
®
®
-
®®
®fie
®r���
Ceras canadensts
Redbud
Tree
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
Hamamelis vii uuana
Witch Hazel
Shrub
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
Volunteers
0
0
0
0
P= Planted
T =Total
Plot Area acres
0 025
Species Count
9
7
9
7
9
9
9
7
Planted Stems/Plot
22
22
22
22
25
25
25
21
Stems/Plot
25
21
25
21
25
25
25
21
Planted Stems /Acre
890
890
890
890
1012
1012
1 1012
1 850
Table 7b Stem Count Arranged by Plot
Snowbird Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project- #92764
Current Pllot Date MZYp2
2012_)
Au_nus!
Means
��
Scientific Name Common Name S sties Tj ,
PLuoLS�
92663- 01-000
P,°aB
T
PnoLS
2 (20112)
Pysll T
Acer rubrum Red Maple Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
Alnus serrulata Tag Alder Tree
3
3
3
3
3
3
Benda lenta Sweet Birch Tree
0
4
4
0
4
4
Benda m ra River Birch Tree
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ca rya alba Mockernut Hickory Tree
3
3
3
3
3
3
Platanus occidentahs Sycamore Tree
7
7
7
7
7
7
nercus rubra Red Oak Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
Shrub S tes
Cercts canadensts lRedbud Tree
0
0
1 0
0
0
0
Hamamehs vtrguuana lWitch Hazel Shrub
1
1
1
1
1
1
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
18
1 22
22
18
22
22
1
1
0 025
0 025
9
1 9
9
9
9
9
728
1 890
890
1 728
890
890

APPENDIX D
MORPHOLOGICAL SUMMARY DATA
EXHIBIT 3 -Year 2 CROSS - SECTIONS (WITH ANNUAL OVERLAYS)
EXHIBIT 4- Year 2 LONGITUDINAL PROFILE (WITH ANNUAL OVERLAY)
EXHIBIT 5 RIFFLE PEBBLE COUNT SIZE CLASS DISTRIBUTION (UT3)
TABLE 8- CROSS - SECTION MORPHOLOGY DATA TABLE
TABLE 9- STREAM REACH MORPHOLOGY DATA TABLE

Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
De
Max BKF
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
B3
4.3
8.15
1 0.53
0.83
1 15.34
1
5
204523
2045.23
c
2
M
.m
W
2047
2046.5
2046
2045.5
2045
2044.5
2044
100
Cross- Section X1 - Longitudinal Station 1 +13
110 120 130 140 150 160
Station (ft)
2013 Monitoring 2012 Monitoring 2011 Asbuilt v --. Bankfull
Photo l XS -I facing right bank
Photo 2: XS -1 facing left bank
Photo 3: XS -1 facing upstream Photo 4: XS -I facing downstream

Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
1
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
1
BH Ratio
ER
1
BKF Elev
1
TOB Bev
Riffle
B3
1 8.7
1247
0.7
1 1.29
17.79 1
09
4
2030
1 2029.81
c
0
:r
to
a�
w
2030.6
2030.4
2030.2
2030
2029.8
2029.6
2029.4
2029.2
2029
2028.8
2028.6
2028.4
100
Cross - Section X2 - Longitudinal Station 2 +82
110 120 130 140 150 160
Station (ft)
2013 Monitoring 2012 Monitoring 2011 Asbuilt Banktull
Photo I XS -2 facing right bank Photo 2: XS -2 facing left bank
Photo 3 XS -2 facing upstream Photo 4. XS -2 facing downstream

Feature
Stream
T
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Max BKF
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Ekv
TOB Ekv
Pool
I B3
1 9.1
10.23
0.89
1.94
I1.45
09
5.6
2020.94
2020.76
Cross - Section X3 - Longitudinal Station 3 +81
Photo 1: XS -3 facing right bank
Photo 2: XS -3 facing left bank-
Photo 3 : XS -3 facing upstream Photo 4: XS -3 facing downstream

Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
I TOB Elev
Riffle
I B3
1 9.5
1 12.22
0.77
1,21
15.79
1 1
4.6
2015.06
2015.06
2017
2016.5
2016
0 2015.5
> 2015
m
U' 2014.5
2014
2013.5
100
Cross - Section X4 - Longitudinal Station 4 +47
110
2013 Monitoring
120 130
Station (ft)
2012 Monitoring
140 150 160 170
2011 Asbuilt Bankfull
Photo l XS -4 facing right bank Photo 2: XS -4 facing left bank
Photo 3 : XS -4 facing upstream Photo 4: XS -4 facing downstream

Longitudinal Profile - UT3 (Reach 2)
Sta: 0 +00 - 1 +00
2060
1
1
f
2055
c �
0
2050
� I
w
I
2045
2040
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Station (ft)
t2013TWG —2012TWG —. -2011 TWG —LTB ®WSF

Longitudinal Profile - UT3 (Reach 2)
Sta: 1 +00 - 2 +00
2050 _ - - - -- - -- - - �.. —,..- -- - - -- -
- -1
2045
X1 - Riffle
o Sta: 1 +13
2040
d
W
2035
2030
100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200
Station (ft)
— t- 2013TWG —w�--2012TWG -- .- 2011TWG —LTB —W—WSF

Longitudinal Profile - UT3 (Reach 2)
Sta: 2 +00 - 3 +00
2040
i
i
2035
c
O
v 2030
d
W
X2 - Riffle
Sta: 2 +82
2025 I
2020
200 210 220 230 240 250 260 270 280 290 300
Station (ft)
12013 TWG —* -2012 TWG — .-2011 TWG LTB WSF

Longitudinal Profile - UT3 (Reach 2)
Sta: 3 +00 - 4 +00
2030
2025
c
0
a►
W
2020
X3 - Pool
Sta: 3 +81 !
2015
300 310 320 330 340 350 360
370 380 390 400
Station (ft)
12013 TWG - _, 2012 TWG —o-2011 TWG — LTB
— WSF

Longitudinal Profile - UT3 (Reach 2)
2025 - Sta: 4 +00 - 5 +00
2020
i
I
1
i
I
2015
>
w
X4 - Riffle
Sta: 4 +47
2010
I
I
I
i
2005
400 410 420 430 440 450 460 470 480 490 500
Station (ft)
12013 TWG - 2012 TWG -m --2011 TWG - LTB -- WSF

Longitudinal Profile - UT3 (Reach 2)
Sta: 5 +00 - 5 +66
2015
E
2010
m
>
W
2005
2000
500 510 520 530 540 550 560 570 580 590 600
Station (ft)
12013 TWG -w-- 2012 TWG -o- -2011 TWG -- LTB .-WSF

Exhibit 5. Cross - Section Pebble Count (UT3 to Hooper Branch)
Snowbird Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project, EEP# 92764
SITE OR PROJECT: Snowbird Creek Tributaries Project
REACH/LOCATION: UT3 to Hooper Branch (Reach 2)
FEATURE: Riffle
MY 2 (2012)
MATERIAL
PARTICLE
SIZE (mm)
Total
Class %
% Cum
Silt/Clay
Silt / Clay
< .063
10
10.00
10.00
Sand
Very Fine
.063-125
10.00
Fine
.125 - .25
80%
10.00
Medium
.25-.50
2
2.00
12.00
Coarse
.50 - 1.0
2
2.00
14.00
Very Coarse
1.0-2.0
14.00
Gravel
Very Fine
2.0-2.8
14.00
Very Fine
2.8-4.0
14.00
Fine
4.0-5.6
v
v
50%
14.00
Fine
5.6 - 8.0
4
4.00
18.00
Medium
8.0 - 11.0
4
4.00
2100
Medium
11.0 - 16.0
80%
22.00
Coarse
16-22.6
2
2.001
24.00
Coarse
22.6-32
2
2.00
26.00
Very Coarse
32-45
10
10.00
36.00
Very Coarse
45-64
14
14.00
50.00
Cobble
Small
64-90
12
12.00
62.00
Small
90-128
18
18.001
80.00
Large
128-180
12
12.00
92.00
Large
180-256
2
2.00
94.00
Boulder
Small
256-362
6
6.00
100.00
Small
362-512
100.00
Medium
512- 1024
0%
100.00
Large -Very Large
1024-2048
"�
CO
100.00
Bedrock
Bedrock
> 2048
b�0�
100.00
Total % of whole count
I
1 100
100
100%
Summary Data
Channel materials
1350 - 64.00
D84 = 143.40
1395 = 271.22
UT3 to Hooper Branch
Pebble Count Particle Size Distribution
100% _ - - --
90%
Riffle Pebble Count Size Class Distribution
100%
-
90%
80%
70%
-
60%
a
v
v
50%
a
40%
80%
c"e
30%
U
20%
10%
0%
"�
CO
\q t` �4b
y 70%
oobo
b�0�
Particle Size Class (mm)
AB (201 1) MY 1 (201 1)
■ MY 2 (2012)
c
d
i
60%
a
> 50%
a+
R
E 40%
0
U 30%
20%
i
10%
0%
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Particle Size (mm)
t AB (2011) + MY 1 (2011) --,k- MY 2 (2012)
UT3 to Hooper Branch
Riffle Pebble Count Size Class Distribution
100%
-
90%
80%
70%
-
60%
a
v
v
50%
a
40%
c"e
30%
U
20%
10%
0%
"�
CO
\q t` �4b
oobo
b�0�
Particle Size Class (mm)
AB (201 1) MY 1 (201 1)
■ MY 2 (2012)

Table 8 Cross - Section Morphology Data Table
Snowbird Creek Tributaries Mitigation Protect #92764
Parameter
Cross Section 1
Riffle
Cross Section 2
Riffle
Cross Section 3
Pool
Cross Section 4
Riffle
AB MY1 I MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
AB MY1 I MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
AB I MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
AB I MY1 I MY21 MY31 MY41 MY5
Dimension
BF Width ft
85
88
82
95
118
125
97
105
102
124
129
122
Flood prone Width ft
41 5
451
407
500
500
500
491
504
572
625
631
567
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft2
45
51
43
63
77
87
1 81
85
91
1 107
112
95
BF Mean Depth ft
053
058
053
066
065
070
084
081
089
087
087
077
BF Max Depth ft
083
089
083
1 05
1 11
129
164
171
194
131
135
121
Width/Depth Ratio
163
154
153
143
181
178
116
129
115
143
148
158
Entrenchment Ratio
49
5 1
50
53
42
40
51
48
5 6
51
49
46
Wetted Perimeter ft
96
100
92
108
131
139
114
12 1
12 0
141
1 146
1 138
Hydraulic Radius ft
05
05
05
06
06
06
07
1 07
1 08
08
1 08
1 07
Substrate
d50 mm
d84 mm
Parameter
AB 2010
MY -1 2011
MY -2 2012
MY -3 2013
f
S
MY-4 2014
Mm 1 Max I Med
MY -5 2015
Min I Max I Med
Min Max Med
Min Max
Med
Min Max Med
Min Max Med
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth ft
Radius of Curvature
(ft)-
Meander Wavelength
Meander Width Ratio
(ft)-
-
-
-
Profile
Riffle length ft
24
33
26
23
27
27
23
0 047
4
28
0 118
10
26
0 092
4
G `9
Riffle Slope ft/ft
Pool Length ft
0 058
3
0 102
6
0 072
4
0 044
3
0 120
7
0 104
7
Pool Spacing ft
Substrate
8 41 35
8 47 29
8 55 349
A
d50 mm
28
53
64
^�
$`y
3
a
d84 mm
78
113
143
Additional Reach Parameters
Valley Length ft
445
445
445
Channel Length ft
467
467
467
Sinuosity
1 05
1 07
1 05
Water Surface Slope ft/ft
0 089
0 087
0 088
BF Slope ft/ft
0 090
0 088
0 092
Ros en Classification
133a
133a
133a
Notes

Table 9 Stream Reach Morphology Data Table
Snowbird Creek Tnbularies Maigaton Project #92784
Stream Reach Data Summary
UT3
Parameter
Regional Curve
E uall on
Reference Reach(ea)
Data
Design
(Ae BuIR)
Yr 1
Yr 2
Yr 3
Yr 4
Yr 5
DimertsionnRiffie
EMIna
MMeanl
■Maxi
■Mina
M earl
(Maxi
®Min!
MMeanl
=MaxM
IllillMlniiiiiii
IM ear11
(M ax=
ROMinlMl
A earl
MMaxik
1 In3F
WMean4E
M axlla
Mk'MinIN
6QMeanl
as ax®
OMMa3
0 Gant
®Max®
Bankfull Width fl
101
74
175
278
99
85
101
124
88
112
129
82
109
125
Flood mne Width ft
122
254
386
200
350
500
415
514
625
451
527
631
407
491
567
Bankfull Mean Depth it
085
087
099
110
088
053
089
087
058
070
087
053
087
077
Bankfull Max Depth ft
109
135
180
Goo
083
108
131
09
1 12
14
083
1 11
129
Bankfull Cmss Sectional Area ft2
87
70
200
330
85
45
71
107
51
80
112
43
75
95
Width/Depth Rath
7e
173
270
151
143
149
183
148
let
181
153
183
178
Entrenchment Ratio
13
16
20
20
35
50
49
5 1
53
42
47
5 1
40
45
50
Bank Height Redo
7 1
1 1
12
10
10
10
10
10
10
1 0
09
10
10
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
--
--
– -
—
--
4 e
--
34
–
--
30
--
—
32
--
Paid
as
Channel Beitwkllh it
--
—
—
--
—
--
—
Radius of Curvature ft
—
--
--
--
—
--
--
-- -- --
--
—
Meander Wavelength (it)
Meander Width Rath
Profile
Riffle Length fl
23 28 27
23
28 28
Rdfle Slo a fl/fl
0 138
0 152 0 107
0048
0 101
0 753
0 044 0094 0 120
0 0487
0 0884 0 1177
�27
3 7 7
4
Pools ad ft
42
99 157
5
27
48
8 20 47
8
29 55
Subitnt6TandlTWn rtlPnameb "7
die / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
5 e/9
5/11/100/200
ti 8119/281781150
7/39/53/113/180
a 7/43/84/1431271
Reach Sheer Stress (competency) Ib /f2
--
—
--
--
—
—
--
- -- -- --
- -- —
--
-- --
Stream Power (transport capacity) W 1m2
—
-
AAdttiomllRaichlPar masa�
®
Channel length it
488
4e7
4e7
487
Drainage Area (SM)
013
087
180
018
0 18
Ole
018
Ro en Classification
Bda
B3
B3
B3
B3
Bankfull Discharge ch'
Bankfull
27
20
30
40
24
24
—
2Z
1 10
1 10
1 OS
1 07
105
BF slope Nfl
0090
1
0 088
1 0 092

APPENDIX E
TABLE 10- VERIFICATION OF BANKFULL EVENTS

Table E10. Verification of Bankfull or Greater than Bankfull Events
Snowbird Creek Tributaries Mitigation Pro ect- #92764
Gauge Watermark Height (feet
Date of Data
Date of Event
Method of Data Collection
above bankfull
UT3 (Reach 2)
Collection
April 8` , 2011 (crest
MY 1 (January
gauge installation for
Gauge measurement
0 15
6"i, 2012
asbuilt) January 6h,
2012
MY 2 (February
6'', 2013
January 6h, 2012 —
February 6`h, 2013
Gauge measurement
0 22

APPENDIX F
PROJECT PROBLEM AREAS
FIGURE 3 - PROBLEM AREAS CCPV
TABLE 11- VISUAL MORPHOLOGICAL STABILITY ASSESSMENT
TABLE 12 - VEGETATION PROBLEM AREAS
EXHIBIT 6 - VEGETATION PROBLEM AREAS PHOTOLOG

N
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
DESIGNED CENTERLINE
DESIGNED STREAM BANK
CROSS SECTION
PHOTO POINT
PROJECT CONDITION
VEG PLOT CRITERIA MET
VEG PLOT CRITERIA UNMET
(NO PLOTS CURRENTLY MEETING THIS CRITERIA)
VEGETATION PROBLEM AREA (VPA)i
(BARE FLOOD PLAIN)
STREAM PROBLEM AREAS
(NO STREAM PROBLEM AREAS)
SNOWBIRD UT3 REACH 2
CURRENT CONDITION
PLAN VIEW
YEAR 2 MONITORING
IMAGE SOURCE: NC STATEWIDE UKINUIMAGLRT, ZULU
u
c h! m
tip
m
p �tiq�a qo
4
OI
U^
LL
i zi'52 aI
F]
10
me
F-
0
uj Q
�0
W U Ln
LLJ
�OW Q
Of
_�
Y �_ J
Z
Lu w0u-0
U U cc:
w Q d
O 0
z
Ov
w
Ila
W
92764
Baker Project No.
113112
3/26/2013
DESIGNED: PEM
DRAWN: ld1?@
APPROVED: k1MC
25 4 25 50
Monitoring Year.
2 of 5

co
6l
7
C.31
—_� C)
«v% miVA
4 t15 \
\
0
A \
7 - -- 7 -- 1
\ GZ \ I
F t
U
ray ,
\ � W
DZ
o °
D � \
\ w Z > A
\ a % sv D ------
\ vim \
O /
yFy N Z O \ /
\ A
\
$ R
q
.
Prepared for
SNOWBIRD CREEK TRIBUTARIES PROJECT
o
w
W 1
a
N
N 9
Ecimyellem ,� p �
2M Capitol Blvd. 1H1W
R�
�-
GRAHAM COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Michael Baker Engineering Inc.
® NC Engineering utense F•1084
797 Haywood Road Suite 201
N
o
z
o
FIGURE 3
Asheville, North Carolina 28809
�!
s-e
Foos stem
Fax [phone]
Fax 828
REP
���� clt�thi
PROBLEM AREAS

Table 11 Visual Morphological Stability Assessment
Snowbird Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project Project No 92764
UT3 Reach 2 (467 LF)
Feature
Category
Metric (per As -Built and reference baselines
(# Stable) Number
Performing
as Intended
Total number
r As -Built
Total Number
/ feet in unstable
state
% Performing
in Stable
Condition
Feature
Perfomance
Mean or Total
A Riffles
1 Present?
14
14
N/A
100
2 Armor stable a g no displacement)?
14
14
WA
100
3 Facet grades appears stable?
14
14
WA
100
4 Minimal evidence of embedding/fining?
14
14
WA
100
5 Length appropriate?
14
14
WA
100
100%
B Pools
1 Present? a g not subject to severe aggradation or migration?)
24
24
WA
100
2 Sufficient deep Max Pool D Mean Bkf >1 6?
24
24
WA
100
3 Length appropriate?
24
24
WA
100
100%
C Thalweg'
1 Up stream of pool structure centering?
36
36
WA
100
2 Downstream of pool structure centering?
36
36
WA
100
100%
D Meanders
1 Outer bend in state of limited /controlled erosion?
N/A
WA
WA
N/A
2 Of those eroding # w /concomitant point bar formation?
N/A
WA
WA
N/A
3 Apparent Rc within spec?
N/A
WA
WA
N/A
4 Sufficient flood lain access and relief?
N/A
WA
WA
N/A
N/A
E Bed
1 General channel bed aggradation areas bar formation
N/A
WA
0/0
100
General
2 Channel bed degradation - areas of increasing down-
cutting or head cutting?
N/A
N/A
0/0
100
100%
F Bank
1 Actively eroding, wasting, or stumping bank
N/A
WA
0/0
100
100%
G Rock/Log
1 Free of back or arm scour?
24
24
WA
100
Drop
2 Height appropriatel
24
24
1 WA
100
Structures2
3 Angle and geometry appear appropriate?
24
24
WA
100
4 Free of piping or other structural failures?
24
24
WA
100
100%
H Wads/
1 Free of scourer
I N/A
WA
WA
N/A
Boulders
12 Footing stables I
N/A
WA
WA
N/A
N/A
i narweg feature is scorea accoramg to the centering of the tnaiweg over inverts or arop structures aoove pools ana mrougn me constructea retie oeiow pools since tnis
reach is a step -pool channel without meander bends
2 Vane feature category was replaced with rock/log drop structures since there are no vanes present on this reach
•

EXHIBIT 6 — Vegetation Problem Area (VPA) Photos
VPA 1 — Easement encroachment/buffer impact from
access road paralleling the upstream limits of UT3-
Reach 2 (looking downstream from left floodplain)
A
VPA l — Easement encroachment/buffer impact from
access road paralleling the upstream limits of UT3-
Reach 2 (looking downstream from left floodplain)

Table 12 Vegetation Problem Areas
Snowbird Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project Project No 92764
UT2 Reach 2 (171 LF
Feature Issue
Station No
Suspected Cause
Photo Number
Easement encroachment by vehicles accessing
existing forest road located further upstream of
project reach limits Baker is coordinating with
the contractor and land owner to create an
Bare Floodplain
0+10 to 1 +40 (left tloodplam)
alternate vehicle access located outside the
VPAI
easement to avoid further encroachment The
impacted buffer within the easement will be
reseeded and replanted during construction of
the alternate vehicle access