20050734 Ver 1_Year 5 Monitoring Report_20110201

EBX
iM
i v
Aw
A�
lr
We
A(?
k Vt

I�
i
u
II
s,
�l
Il
�7
R
TABLE OF CONTENTS
10
SUMMARY
4
2 0
PROJECT BACKGROUND
6
2 1
Project Location
6
22
Mitigation Goals and Objectives
6
23
Project Description and Restoration Approach
6
24
Project History and Background
7
25
Project Plan
7
3 0
VEGETATION MONITORING
11
3 1
Soil Data
11
32
Description of Vegetation Monitoring
11
33
Vegetation Success Criteria
12
34
Results of Vegetative Monitoring
12
3 5
Vegetation Observations
13
36
Vegetation Photos
13
4 0
STREAM MONITORING
15
41
Description of Stream Monitoring
15
42
Stream Restoration Success Criteria
15
43
Bankfull Discharge Monitoring Results
16
44
Stream Monitoring Data and Photos
16
45
Stream Stability Assessment
17
46
Stream Stability Baseline
17
47
Longitudinal Profile Monitoring Results
18
48
Cross - section Monitoring Results
18
50
HYDROLOGY
20
6 0
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE MONITORING
22
61
Description of Benthic Macroivertebrate Monitoring
22
62
Benthic Macromvertebrate Sampling Results
22
63
Benthic Macromvertebrate Sampling Discussion
22
64
Habitat Assessment Results and Discussion
23
7 0
OVERALL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
27
8 0
WILDLIFE OBSERVATIONS
29
90
REFERENCES
30
Silver Creek EEP Contract No D04006 5 EBX NEUSE I LLC
January 2011 Momtonng Year 5
r /
1

APPENDICES
APPENDIX A - Project Photo Log
APPENDIX B - Stream Monitoring Data
APPENDIX C - Baseline Stream Summary for Restoration Reaches
APPENDIX D - Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
LIST OF TABLES
1
JTable
Design Approach for Silver Creek Restoration Site 4
Table 2
Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3
Project Contacts
Table 4
Project Background
Table 5
Project Soil Types and Descriptions
Table 6
Tree Species Planted in the Silver Creek Restoration Area ,
� I
Table 7
Year 5 (2010) Stem Counts for Each Species Arranged by Plot
Table 8
Verification of Bankfull Events n
Table 9
Categorical Stream Feature Visual Stability Assessment
Table 10
Comparison of Historic Average Rainfall to Observed Rainfall
Table 11
Summary of Pre - Restoration vs Post - Restoration Benthic �J
Macroinvertebrate Sampling Data n
U
Silver Creek EEP Contract No D04006 5 EBX NEUSE I LLC
January 2011 Momtonng Year 5
L1

r
Li
O
I
I'
I
I
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1
Location of Silver Creek Mitigation Site
Figure 2 (a)
As -Built Plan Sheet 4 for the Silver Creek Mitigation Site
Figure 2 (b)
As -Built Plan Sheet 5 for the Silver Creek Mitigation Site
Figure 2 (c)
As -Built Plan Sheet 6 for the Silver Creek Mitigation Site
Figure 2 (d)
As -Built Plan Sheet 7 for the Silver Creek Mitigation Site
Figure 2 (e)
As -Built Plan Sheet 8 for the Silver Creek Mitigation Site
Figure 2 (f)
As -Built Plan Sheet 9 for the Silver Creek Mitigation Site
Figure 3
Historic Average vs Observed Rainfall
Figure 4
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sampling Sites
i
Silver Creek EEP Contract No D04006 5 EBX NEUSE I LLC
January 2011 Monitoring Year 5
3

—� 10 SUMMARY
This Annual Report details the monitoring activities during the 2010 growing season
(Monitoring Year 5) on the Silver Creek Stream Restoration Site ( "Site ") In accordance with
the approved Restoration Plan for this Site, this Annual Report presents geomorphology data
from 3 longitudinal profiles, 18 cross - sections, and stem count data from 9 vegetation monitoring
stations
1� Prior to restoration, stream and buffer functions on the Site were impaired as a result of
agricultural conversion Streams flowing through the Site were channelized many years ago to
reduce flooding and provide drainage for adjacent farm fields' After construction, it was
-a determined that 4,914 linear feet (LF) of stream were restored; 1,116 LF of stream were
preserved and 3,199 LF of stream were enhanced
Rainfall data for Years 1 through Year 4 was obtained from the Morganton Weather Station
h� (Morganton, NC UCAN 14224, COOP 315838) During September 2008, the United States
Geological Survey (USGS) installed a weather and deep groundwater monitoring station along
the northern UT2 conservation easement boundary of the Bailey Fork Restoration site The
USGS weather station includes a rainfall gauge and is identified as Glen Alpine RS well (USGS
354302081433245) According to the Morganton weather station data and the Glen Alpine
station data, total rainfall during the Year 5 monitoring period, January through October 2010
E was 38 20 inches and 36 61 inches, respectively
During Year 5 monitoring the vegetation monitoring documented a range of 260 stems per acre
to 680 stems per acre with an overall average density of 509 stems per acre and an overall
survival rate of 72 percent
The Site has met the success criteria established in the Restoration Plan of the site of 260 stems
per acre after Year 5 of monitoring
The entire length of the Site was inspected during Year 5 to assess stream performance Two
rock cross vanes located on M4 were noted to have stability issues during Year 4 monitoring
Repairs to the cross vane at station 66 +75 were completed in September 10, 2010 During an on-
site inspection in October 2010, the repaired cross vane was stable and functioning as designed
During the Year 5 monitoring period, the cross vane at station 63 +50 on M4 appeared stable and
no visible changes had occurred since Year 4 of monitoring
The cross - sectional survey data documented that UT1, UT2 and M3 are performing well
The data from the Year 5 longitudinal profiles show that some pools in UT1 have filled slightly,
but have remained relatively stable since as -built conditions The longitudinal profile data for
UT2 show that the most pools and riffles have remained stable since as -built conditions The
longitudinal profile of M3 shows that there have been some minor adjustments to bed profile,
primarily around structures, but overall bed and feature slopes have remained unchanged The
longitudinal profile of M3 also shows that the channel repairsi conducted in early 2008 are stable
and functioning as designed
_J The on -site crest gauges documented the occurrence of at least one bankfull flow event at each
crest gauge during Year 5 of the post - construction monitoring period The largest on -site stream
flows documented by the crest gauges during Year 5 of monitoring was approximately 0 79 feet
above the bankfull stage on UT1, 0 50 feet above the bankfull stage on UT2 and 0 15 feet above
r -�
the bankfull stage on M3
Silver Creek EEP Contract No D04006 5 EBX NEUSE I LLC 4
January 2011 Monitoring Year 5
I �
LJ

0
The bankfull measurements collected during monitoring Years 1 through 5, documents that all o
three restored reaches have met the success criteria for bankfull events for the project For UT1,
the two highest bankfull measurements recorded were during Years 2 and 5, the readings were o
0 34 and 0 79 feet above bankfull stage, respectively For UT2, the two highest bankfull
measurements recorded were during Years 2 and 5, the readings were 0 28 and 0 5 feet above
bankfull stage, respectively For M3, the two highest bankf ill measurements recorded was {�
during Year 2 and Year 4, the readings were 143 and 0 59 feet above bankf ill stage, o
respectively
The Site has met the final stream morphology success criteria specified in the Restoration Plan 0 for the Site
In accordance with the Restoration Plan for the Site, benthic macromvertebrate monitoring was
last conducted during Year 3 of the monitoring period Year 3 benth>c macromvertebrate results
revealed that Site 1 (Silver Creek) exhibited total and EPT biotic indices similar to Year 2
values, which remain above the pre - construction indices This suggests that although more
species were present during Year 3 these species were slightly more tolerant than previous ul
communities This is a typical response after a mayor disturbance to habitat such as in- stream
construction techniques It is anticipated that Site 1 will continue to improve as the project `
matures The results for Site 2 (UT1 to Silver- Creek) exhibited a decrease in taxa richness and
an increase in biotic indices from Year 1 to Year 3 post - construction sampling This indicates
that fewer species were present and those present were more tolerant species After Year 3, Site o
2 had 0 percent DIC with the reference site The decrease in DIC from Year 2 to Year 3 may
indicate a stress on the stream during low flow conditions experienced in 2008 It is anticipated
that improvements in biotic indices and an increase in DIC will occur as communities re-
establish
In summary, the Site has met all of the vegetative and stream success criteria specified in the
Restoration Plan
i
Silver Creek EEP Contract No D04006 5 EBX NEUSE I LLC 5 0
January 2011 Monitoring Year 5

r--
I
J
I
�J
r�
II
J
I
J
i
r
�I
J
1�
J
f�
,I
r-
� I
2 0 PROJECT BACKGROUND
The project involved the restoration of 4,914 LF of stream, enhancement of 3,199 LF of stream
and the preservation of 1,116 LF of stream Figures 2(a), 2(b), 2(c), 2(d), 2(e) and 2(f)
summarize the restoration and enhancement zones on the project site A total of 9,632 LF of
stream and riparian buffer are protected through a conservation easement
21 Protect Location
The Site is located approximately nine miles southwest of the town of Morganton in Burke
County, North Carolina (Figure 1) The Site lies in US Geological Survey (USGS) Cataloging
Unit 03050101 and North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) sub -basin 03 -08 -31 of
the Catawba River Basin The existing stream channels were re- designed and constructed as
shown in Figures 2(a) through 2(f), to enhance the water quality and wildlife habitat
22 Mitigation Goals and Objectives
The specific goals for the Silver Creek Restoration Project were as follows
• Restore 5,127 LF of stream channel
• Enhance 3,428 LF of stream channel
• Preserve 1,077 LF of stream channel
• Exclude cattle from stream and riparian buffer areas
• Develop an ecosystem -based restoration design
• Improve habitat functions
• Realize significant water quality benefits
2 3 , Protect Description and Restoration Approach
The Site had a recent history of pasture, hay production and general agricultural usage The
streams on the project site were channelized, riparian vegetation had been cleared in most
locations, and cattle were allowed to graze on the banks and access the channels Stream
`functions on the Site had been severely impacted as a result of these land use changes
The restoration project provides compensatory mitigation for stream impacts associated with
construction disturbance in the resident cataloging unit The design approaches for the project are
summarized and presented in Table 1
Monitoring of the Site is required to demonstrate successful stream mitigation based on the
criteria found in the approved Restoration Plan for this Site Monitoring of stream performance
was conducted annually for five years
Construction at the Site was completed in April 2006 with all vegetation was also planted by
Apn12006
Silver Creek EEP Contract No D04006 5 EBX NEUSE I LLC
January 2011 Monitoring Year 5
0

I
Table 1 Design Approach for Silver Creek Restoration Site
Silver Creek Restoration Site EEP Contract No D04006-5
Project Segment or
Reach ID
Mitigation
Type *
Approach"
Linear Footage
or Acreage
Stream Mitigation
Units
M1
EI
P1
1,323 LF
882
M2
P
P1
1,116 LF
223
M3
R
P2
2,127 LF
2,127
M4
EI
P1
1,876 LF
1,251
UT1
R
P2
1,398 LF
1 398
UT2
R
P1
1,214 LF
1,214
UT3
R
P2
175 LF
175
Total
9,229 LF
7,271
R = Restoration ** P1 = Priority I
P = Preservation P2 = Priority II
EI = Enhancement I
0
24 Protect History and Background
The chronology of the Silver Creek Restoration Project is presented in Table 2 The contact
information for all designers, contractors, and relevant suppliers is presented in Table 3
Relevant project background information is presented in Table 4
25 Protect Plan
Plans depicting the as -built conditions of the major project elements, locations of permanent
monitoring cross - sections, and locations of permanent vegetation monitoring plots are presented
in Figures 2(a),2(b), 2(c),2(d), 2(e) and 2(f) of this report
Silver Creek EEP Contract No D04006 5 EBX NEUSE I LLC
January 2011 Momtonng Year 5
1
7

`j
�I
r
I�
�l
I�
I�
�I
�J
f
l
L
Table 2 Project Activity and Reporting History
Silver Creek Mitigation Site Project No D04006 -5
Data Actual
Scheduled Collection Completion
Activity or Report Completion Complete or Deliver
Restoration Plan Prepared
N/A
N/A
Apr 05
Restoration Plan Amended
N/A
N/A
Apr 05
Restoration Plan Approved
N/A
N/A
Jun 05
,Final Design — (at least 90% complete)
N/A
N/A
Aug -05
Construction Begins
Oct 05
N/A
Nov -05
Temporary S &E mix applied to entire project area
Mar 06
N/A
Apr 06
Permanent seed mix applied to entire project area
Mar -06
N/A
Apr 06
Planting of live stakes
Mar -06
N/A
Apr -06
Planting of bare root trees
Mar -06
N/A
Apr 06
End of Construction
Mar -06
N/A
Apr -06
Survey of As -built conditions (Year 0 Monitoring - baseline)
Mar -06
Apr 06
Apr 06
Year 1 Monitoring
Nov 06
Nov 06
Dec 06
Year 2 Monitoring
Nov 07
Nov 07
Dec 07
Year 3 Monitoring
Nov 08
Nov 08
Dec 08
Year 4 Monitoring
Nov 09
Nov -09
Dec -09
Year 5 Monitoring
Nov 10
Oct 10
Dec -10
C
L) Silver Creek EEP Contract No D04006 5 EBX NEUSE I LLC 8
January 2011 Monitoring Year 5
I

Table 3 Project Contacts
Silver Creek Restoration Site EEP Contract No D04006 -5
Full Service Delivery Contractor
EBX Neuse I LLC
909 Capability Drive Suite 3100
Raleigh NC 27606
Contact
Norton Webster Tel [phone]
Designer
Michael Baker Engineering Inc
8000 Regency Parkway Suite 200
Cary NC 27518
Contact
Eng Kevin Tweedy Tel [phone]
Construction Contractor
River Works Inc
8000 Regency Parkway Suite 200
Cary NC 27518
Contact
Will Pedersen Tel [phone]
Planting Contractor
River Works Inc
8000 Regency Parkway Suite 200
Cary NC 27518
Contact
Will Pedersen Tel [phone]
Seeding Contractor
River Works Inc
8000 Regency Parkway Suite 200
Cary NC 27518
Contact
Will Pedersen Tel [phone]
Seed Mix Sources
Mellow Marsh Farm 919 742 1200
Nursery Stock Suppliers
International Paper 1 888 888 7159
Monitoring Performers
Michael Baker Engineering Inc
8000 Regency Parkway Suite 200
Cary NC 27518
Stream Monitoring Point of Contact
Eng Kevin Tweedy Tel [phone]
Wetland and Natural Resource Consultants Inc
11 South College Ave Suite 206
Newton NC 28658
Vegetation Monitoring Point of Contact
Chris Hu sman Tel [phone]
Silver Creek EEP Contract No D04006 5 EBX NEUSE I LLC 9
January 2011 Monitoring Year 5
i

r
it
r1
L.1
(� 1
I�
l�
u
I r1
L J
'J
Table 4 Project Background
Silver Creek Restoration Site
Project No D04006 -5
Project County
Burke County NC
Drainage Area
Reach MI
6 6 miz
Reach M2
6 9 miz
Reach M3
72 miz
Reach M4
76 miz
Reach UT1
020 m12
Reach UT2
025 miz
Reach UT3
007 miz
Estimated Drainage % Impervious Cover
Reach Silver Creek
< 5%
Reach UT
<5%
Reach UT2
<5%
Reach UT3
<5%
Stream Order
Silver Creek
3
UT1
1
UT2
1
UT3
1
Ph sio ra hic Region
Piedmont
Ecore ion
Northern Inner Piedmont
Ros en Classification of As built
C
Rlverme Upper Perennial
Cowardm Classification
Unconsolidated Bottom Cobble
Gravel
Dominant Soil Types
Silver Creek
CvA,FaD2 AaA Bv13
UT1
CvA,FaD2 AaA Bv13
UT2
CvA,FaD2 AaA BvB
UT3
CvA,FaD2 AaA BvB
Reference site ID
(Tributary to Bailey Fork
USGS HUC for Project and Reference sites
03050101040020
NCDWQ Sub basin for Project and Reference
03 -08 31
NCDWQ classification for Project and Reference
C
Any portion of any project segment 303d listed?
No
Any portion of any project segment upstream of a
303d listed segment?
No
Reasons for 303d listing or stressor9
N/A
of project easement fenced
75%
Silver Creek EEP Contract No D04006 5 EBX NEUSE I LLC 10
January 2011 Monitoring Year 5

3 0 VEGETATION MONITORING
31 Soil Data
The soil data for the project site are presented in Table 5
Table 5 Protect Soil Types and Descriptions
Silver Creek Restoration Site EEP Contract No D04006 -5
Soil Name
Location
Description
Colvard
Flood plains in the southern
Colvard series consists of very deep well drained soils that formed in
(CvA)
Appalachian Mountains
loamy alluvium on floodplams These soils are occasionally flooded
well drained and have slow surface runoff and moderately rapid
permeability The surface layer and subsurface layers are composed
of loamy sands
Fairview
Piedmont upland
Fairview soil type occurs on nearly level floodplains along creeks and
(FaD2)
rivers in pastureland It has a very deep soil profile and moderate
permeability The surface layer and subsurface layers are clay loams
with an increase in clay content from about one foot below the surface
Arkaqua
Nearly level flood plains
Arkaqua series consists of somewhat poorly drained soils that formed
(AaA)
in loamy alluvium along nearly level floodplains and creeks Runoff
is slow and permeability is moderate Soil texture within the profile
ranges from loam to clay loam to sandy loam to sandy clay loam
Brevard
High stream terraces foot
Brevard series consists of a very deep soil profile that is well drained
(BvB)
slopes benches fans and
with moderate permeability The series pnmanly consists of
coves
colluvium and alluvium These soils are generally found in footslopes
and toeslopes
Notes
Source From Burke County Soil Survey USDA NRCS http Uefotg nres usda gov
32 Description of Vegetation Monitoring
As a final stage of construction, the stream margins and riparian area of the Site were planted
with bare root trees, live stakes, and a seed mixture of permanent ground cover herbaceous
vegetation The woody vegetation was planted randomly six to eight feet apart from the top of
the stream banks to the outer edge of the Site's re- vegetation limits Bare -root vegetation was
planted at a target density of 680 stems per acre, in an 8 -foot by 8 -foot grid pattern The tree
species planted at the Site are shown in Table 6 The seed mix of herbaceous species applied to
the Site's riparian area included soft rush (Juncus effuses ), bentgrass (Agrostis alba) Virginia
wild rye (Elymus virginicus) switchgrass (Panacum virgatum) gamagrass, (Tripsicum
dactyloides) smartweed (Polygonum pennsylvanicum) little bluestem (Schizachyrium
scoparium) devil's beggartick (Baden frondosa) lanceleaf tickseed (Coreopsis lanceolata)
deertounge (Panacum clandestinum) big bluestem (Andropogon gerardn) and Indian grass
(Sorghastrum nutans)
This seed mixture was broadcast on the Site at a rate of 10 pounds per acre All planting was
completed in April 2006
Silver Creek EEP Contract No D04006 5 EBX NEUSE I LLC 11 O
January 2011 Monitonng Year 5

I
I
LI
Table 6 Tree Species Planted in the Silver Creek Restoration Area
Silver Creek Restoration Site EEP Contract No D04006 -5
ID
Scientific Name
Common Name
FAC Status
1
Platanus occidentahs
Sycamore
FACW-
2
Quercus phellos
Willow Oak
FACW-
3
uercus rubra
Northern Red Oak
FACU
4
N ssa s Ivatica
Black Gum
FAC
5
Diospyros vir mtana
Persimmon
FAC
6
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash
FACW
7
briodendron tuli i era
Tuli `Po lar -
FAC
r-
At the time of planting, nine vegetation plots — labeled 1 through 9 - were delineated on -site to
J monitor survival of the planted woody vegetation Each vegetation plot is 0 025 acre in size, or
10 meters x 10 meters All of the planted stems inside the plot were flagged to distinguish them
from any colonizing individuals and to facilitate locating them in the future
33 Vegetation Success Criteria
To define vegetation success criteria objectively, specific goals for woody vegetation density
have been defined Data from vegetation monitoring plots should display a surviving tree
n density of at least 320 trees per acre at the end of Year 3 and a surviving tree density of at least
J260, five - year -old trees per acre at the end of Year 5 of the monitoring period
Up to 20 percent of the site's species composition may be comprised of invaders Remedial
{� action may be required should these (i e Loblolly pine (Panus taeda), red maple (Acer rubrum),
Sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciva), etc ) present a problem and exceed 20 percent
composition
34 Results of Vegetative Monitoring
Table 7 presents stem counts of surviving individuals found at each of the monitoring stations at
f the end of Year 5 of the post - construction monitoring period Trees within each monitoring plot
are flagged regularly to prevent planted trees from losing their identifying marks due to flag
degradation It is important for trees within the monitoring plots to remain marked to ensure
(j they are all accounted for during the annual stem counts and calculation of tree survivability
Permanent aluminum tags are used on surviving stems to aid in relocation during future counts
Flags are also used to mark trees because they do not interfere with the growth of the tree
�) Few volunteer woody species were observed in any of the vegetation plots Red maple (Acer
rubrum) is the most common volunteer, though the silky dogwood (Corpus amomum) and pine
(Panus spp ) were also observed in some of the plots
�I
The Site was planted in bottomland hardwood forest species in April 2006 There were rime
vegetation - monitoring plots established throughout the planting areas During Year 5 monitoring
` the vegetation monitoring documented a range of 260 surviving stems per acre to 680 stems per
acre with an overall average density of 509 stems per acre An overall survival rate greater than
f�
Silver Creek EEP Contract No D04006 5 EBX NEUSE I LLC 12
January 2011 Momtonng Year 5
1
I
1✓

72 percent based on the initial planting of 706 stems per acre was observed during Year 5
monitoring
Supplemental planting of four- year -old stems was conducted in early 2010 around Plot 6 due to
mortality from previous drought conditions The low end survival rate found around Plot 6 was
particularly affected by the last two dry summers leaving many stems dead from lack of
moisture Plot 6 yielded 200 stems per acre at the end of Year 5, which is below the minimum
success criteria of 260 stems per acre stated in the Restoration Plan
In fall of 2010, the area around Plot 6 was evaluated to determine overall success and to
determine the likely causes for low survival Two test plots, each 10 meters x 10 meters square,
were established immediately north and south of the existing Plot 6 to validate observations
Both plots yielded 280 stems per acre The average of the three square plots, including Plot 6, is
260 stems per acre Achievement of the success criteria was further validated by establishing
two, 0 25 acre circular plots in the vicinity of Plot 6 One plot yielded 360 stems per acre and the
other 320 stems per acre It was determined that Plot 6 is an anomaly based on the four
additional plots and lack of discernable differences with other parts of the mitigation area
35 Vegetation Observations
After construction of the mitigation site, a permanent ground cover seed mixture of Virginia wild
rye (Elymus virginicus), switch grass (Pamcum virgatum), and fox sedge (Carex vulptnoidea)
was broadcast on the site at a rate of 10 pounds per acre These species are present on the site
Hydrophytic herbaceous vegetation, including rush (Juncus effusus), spike -rush (Eleocharis
obtusa), boxseed (Ludwigia spp ), and sedge (Carex spp ), were observed across the site,
particularly In areas of periodic inundation The presence of these herbaceous wetland plants
helps to confirm the presence of wetland hydrology on the site
There are quite a few weedy species occurring on the site, though none seem to be posing any
problems for the woody or herbaceous hydrophytJc vegetation Commonly seen weedy
vegetation includes fescue (Festuca spp ), goldenrod (Solidago spp ), pokeweed (Phytolacca
amertcana) honeysuckle (Lontcera spp ), ragweed (Ambrosia artemisi folia) and wild dill
(Foeniculum vulgare)
36 Vegetation Photos
Photos of the project showing the on -site vegetation are included in Appendix A of this report
Silver Creek EEP Contract No D04006 5 EBX NEUSE 1 LLC 13
January 2011 Momtonng Year 5

C::--! J Q C� �l �� C C �- t-
Table 7 Year 5 (2010) Stem Counts for Each Species Arranged by Plot
Silver Creek Restoration Site EEP Contract No D04006 5
Betula ntgra
Fraxinus pennsylvaraca
Platanus occtdentahs
Quercus phellos
Quercus rubra
Ltrtodendron tulzpiferra
Diospyros vtrgtntana
c
Nyssa sylvattca
Unknown
Stems per plot
Stems per acre
1
3
9
6
4
17
4
4
1
1
3
1
5
1 `
14
2
5
4
1
8
7
13
6
59
52
47
16
39
39
2
1
1
7
7
5
16
4
4
2
0
2
1
12
2
2
5
6
8
12
3
40
37
41
4
34
34
2
4
5
7
6
13
6
6
3
4
7
3
2
24
30
25
17
20
19
14
0
0
14
0
0
17
10
13
16
11
5
13
17
11
145
146
130
123
Ill
113
680
400
520
640
440
200*
520
680
440
706
644
578
547
493
509
*Details of vegetation plot 6 success are summanzed to Section 3 4
Silver Creek EEP Contract No D04006 5 EBX NEUSE I LLC 14
January 2011 Momtonng Year 5
72% 1

4 0 STREAM MONITORING
41 Description of Stream Monitoring
To document the stated success criteria, the following monitoring program was instituted
following construction completion on the Site
Bankfull Events Three crest gauges were installed on the Site to document bankfull events The
gauges record the highest out -of -bank flow event that occurs between site visits The gauges are
checked each month during site visits Locations of the gauges are on UT1, UT2, and M3 See
Figures 2(a), 2(d) and 2(f) respectively
Cross - sections Two permanent cross - sections were installed per 1,000 LF of stream restoration
work, with one of the locations being a riffle cross - section and one location being a pool cross -
section A total of 18 permanent cross - sections were established across the Site Each cross -
section was marked on both banks with permanent pins to establish the exact transect used
Permanent cross - section pins were surveyed and located relative to a common benchmark to
facilitate easy comparison of year -to -year data The annual cross - section surveys include points
measured at all breaks in slope, including top of bank, bankfull, inner berm, edge of water, and
thalweg Riffle cross - sections are classified using the Rosgen stream classification system
Permanent cross - sections for 2010 (Year 5) were surveyed in October 2010
Longitudinal Profiles A complete longitudinal profile was surveyed following construction
completion to record as -built conditions The profile was conducted for the entire length of the
restored channels (UT1, UT2, UT3 and M3) Measurements included thalweg, water surface,
bankfull, and/ top of low bank Each of these measurements was taken at the head of each feature
(e g , riffle, pool, glide) In addition, maximum pool depth was recorded All surveys were tied
to a single, permanent benchmark A longitudinal survey of 3,000 LF of stream channel that
included UT 1, UT2, and M3 was conducted in November 2010
Photo Reference Stations Photographs are used to visually document restoration success A
total of 29 reference stations were established to document conditions at the constructed grade
control structures across the Site, and additional photo stations were established at each of the 18
permanent cross - sections and hydrologic monitoring stations The Global Positioning System
(GPS) coordinates of each grade control structure photo station have been noted as additional
reference to ensure the same photo location is used throughout the monitoring period Reference
photos are taken at least once per year A photo log of the Site is included in Appendix A of this
report
Stream banks are photographed at each permanent cross - section photo station For each stream
bank photo, the photo view line follows a survey tape placed across the channel, perpendicular to
flow (representing the cross - section line) The photograph is framed so that the survey tape is
centered in the photo (appears as a vertical line at the center of the photograph), keeping the
channel water surface line horizontal and near the lower edge of the frame
42 Stream Restoration Success Criteria
The approved Restoration Plan requires the following criteria be met to achieve stream
restoration success
Silver Creek EEP Contract No D04006 5 EBX NEUSE I LLC
January 2011 Momtonng Year 5
15 11

r�
i
ri
Bankfull Events Two bankfull flow events must be documented within the five -year
monitoring period The two bankfull events must occur in separate years
Cross - sections There should be little change In as -built cross - sections If changes to
channel cross - sections take place, they should be minor changes representing an increase In
stability (e g , settling, vegetative changes, deposition along the banks, or decrease in
width/depth ratio) Cross - sections shall be classified using the Rosgen stream classification
method and all monitored cross - sections should fall within the quantitative parameters
defined for "C" and "B" type channels
• Longitudinal Profiles The longitudinal profiles should show that the bedform features are
remaining stable (not aggradmg or degrading) The pools should remain deep with flat water
surface slopes and the riffles should remain steeper and shallower than the pools Bedforms
observed should be consistent with those observed In "C" and "B" type channels
• Photo Reference Stations Photographs will be used to subjectively evaluate channel
aggradat>on or degradation, bank erosion, success of riparian vegetation and effectiveness of
erosion control measures Photos should indicate the absence of developing bars within the
r channel, no excessive bank erosion or increase in channel depth over time, and maturation of
! f riparian vegetation
1 43 Bankfull Discharge Monitoring Results
F
F',
The on -site crest gauge documented the occurrence of at least one bankfull flow event at each
crest gauge during Year 5 of the post - construction monitoring period, as shown in Table 8 The
values presented are the highest recorded readings on each reach during Year 5 Inspection of
conditions during site visits revealed visual evidence of out -of -bank flows, confirming the crest
gauge readings on UT I, UT2 and M3
Table 8 Verification of Bankfull Events
Silver Creek Restoration Site EEP Contract No D04006 -5
(Highest reading b y reach
Date of Data
Date of Occurrence of
Method of Data
Measurement
Collection
Bankfull Event
Collection
feet
Crest Gauge
6/28/2010
6/1/2010
UT1
079
Crest Gauge
9/30/2010
9/29/2010
UT2
050
Crest Gauge
9/30/2010
9/29/2010
M3
0 15
44 Stream Monitoring Data and Photos
Data from each permanent cross - section are included in Appendix B A photo log showing each
ofthe 18 permanent cross - section locations is also included in Appendix B of this report
i
'
_J Silver Creek EEP Contract No D04006 5 EBX NEUSE I LLC
January 2011 Monitoring Year 5
1
t '
16

45 Stream Stability Assessment
Table 9 presents a summary of the results obtained from the visual Inspection of in- stream
structures performed during Year 5 of post - construction monitoring The percentages noted are a
general overall field evaluation of the how the structures were performing at the time of the latest
photo point survey Based on visual assessments during Year 5, all structures on UT1, UT2 and
UT3 performed well
During Year 2 monitoring, features on M3 had experienced minor problems Two meanders had
stability issues, one cross vane showed lack of a scour pool and one riffle had a stability Issue at
the tail of riffle Minor repair work was completed in early 2008 to address these areas
Disturbed bank and buffer areas were replanted after repairs were completed The repaired areas
on M3 have maintained stability and have performed well throughout the five -year monitoring
period There are currently no Issues associated with this section of stream
During Year 4 monitoring, two rock cross vanes located on M4 were noted to have stability
issues The first cross vane Is located approximately at station 66 +75 on M4 The problem
noted was that the right arm of the cross vane appeared to have subsided slightly and low to
moderate stream levels were flowing over the arm To re- center the thalweg with the invert of
the structure, repairs to this cross vane were completed on September 10, 2010 During an on-
site inspection in October 2010, the repaired cross vane was stable and functioning as designed
The second cross vane Is located approximately at station 63 +50 on M4 The problem noted was
that one or two boulders appeared to have fallen off of the right arm of the cross vane into the
pool The arm is missing these boulders but appears to be stable Photos of these two cross vane
problem areas are provided in the stream photo log in Appendix A
Table 9 Categorical Stream Features Stability Assessment
Silver Creek Restoration Site Project No D04006 -5
Feature
Performance Percentage
Initial MY -01 MY -02 MY -03 MY -04 MY -05
Riffles
100%
100%
95%
100%
100%
100%
Pools
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Thalwe
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Meanders
100%
100%
95%
100%
100%
100%
Bed General
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Vanes / J Hooks etc
100%
100%
95%
100%
95%
98%
46 Stream Stability Baseline
The quantitative pre - construction, reference reach, and design data used to determine mitigation
approach and prepare the construction plans for the project, as well as the as -built baseline data
to determine stream stability during the project's post construction monitoring period are
summarized In Appendix C
Silver Creek EEP Contract No D04006 5 EBX NEUSE I LLC 17 O
January 2011 Monitonng Year 5

i
L
47 Longitudinal Profile Monitoring Results
A Year 5 longitudinal profile was completed in October 2010 and was compared to the data
collected during the as -built condition survey, Year 2, Year 3 and Year 4 of monitoring The
longitudinal profiles are presented in Appendix B During Year 5 monitoring, a total of
— approximately 3,000 LF of channel was surveyed for UT I, UT2 and M3
The data from the Year 5 longitudinal profiles show that the pools in UT have filled slightly
and have adjusted since as -built conditions The partial filling of the pools in UT is attributed
to a dense layer of vegetation throughout the channel which has likely caused accumulation of
— sediment It is likely that these sediments are present in the pools due to the reduced velocities
that are being exerted on the system by the dense vegetation layer in the channel and the low
gradient design of UT1 The reduced velocities have therefore limited scouring in the pools on
r UT1, however, the pools are maintaining depths significantly deeper than the riffles The Year 5
1`l survey data show that the riffles throughout UT have maintained elevations at or above as- buijlt
conditions During Year 5 monitoring, the UT1 riffles appear to be stable and are performing as
r designed
The longitudinal profile data for UT2 show that the pools and riffles between stations 12 +55 and
15 +00 have adjusted slightly since as -built conditions According to the Year 5 survey data, the
1 riffles in this area have been stable since Year 3 and the pools have deepened since as -built
conditions The Year 5 survey data show that UT2 appears to be stable and performing as
designed The longitudinal profile data for UT2 show that the pools and riffles at stations 15 +00
n through 22 +45 have maintained stability since as -built conditions
UThe Year 5 longitudinal profile of M3 shows some minor fluctuations and adjustments to the bed
profile, primarily around structures, but overall bed and feature slopes have remained relatively
unchanged The changes observed are typical for a larger creek with predominantly sand sized
bed load The longitudinal profile of M3 shows that the in- stream repairs conducted in early
2008 are stable and functioning as designed
48 Cross - section Monitoring Results
Ll Year 5 cross - section monitoring data for stream stability were collected during October 2010
The Year 5 cross - section data were compared to baseline stream geometry data collected in April
2006 (as -built conditions), Year 1 data collected in October 2006, Year 2 data collected in
November 2007, Year 3 data collected in October 2008 and Year 4 data collected in October
2009
The 18 permanent cross - sections along the restored channels (10 located across riffles and 8
located across pools) were re- surveyed to document stream dimension at the end of monitoring
Year 5 Data from each of these cross - sections are summarized in Appendix B and Appendix D
r The cross - sections show that there has been some slight adjustment to stream dimension since
construction, but there is no apparent instability
The 8 pool cross - sections are located on all restored reaches on the Site, except UT3 Pool cross-
sections 1 and 3 are located on UT I, cross - section 5 is located on UT2, cross - sections 9 and 11
are located on M3, cross - sections 12 and 13 are on located on M4 and cross - section 17 is located
on M1 The pool cross - sections are located across pools found at the apex of meander bends or
f Silver Creek EEP Contract No D04006 5 EBX NEUSE I LLC
18
January 2011 Monitoring Year 5
i
I

below cross vanes The Year 5 data from the pool cross - sections Indicated that some pools have
adjusted slightly since as -built conditions Overall, the Year 5 survey data show that the all of
the pool cross - sections have remained relatively stable since as -built conditions
The 10 riffle cross - sections are located in riffle areas on all restored reaches on the Site Cross -
section 2 is located UT1, cross - sections 4 and 6 are located on UT2, cross - section 7 is located on
UT3, cross - sections 8 and 10 are located on M3, cross - sections 14 and 15 are located on M4 and
cross - sections 16 and 18 are located within M1 riffles areas Cross - sections 4, 6, 8, and 10 have
remained very stable since Year 2 monitoring Cross - sections 2, 7, 14, 15, 16 and 18 have
adjusted slightly since as -built conditions but the riffles appear to be stable Overall the survey
data show that the riffle cross - sections are remaining relatively stable
All monitored cross - sections fell within the quantitative parameters defined for "C ", `B" or "E"
type channels
Photographs of the channel were taken at the end of the monitoring season to document the
evolution of the restored stream geometry (see Appendix A) Herbaceous vegetation is dense
along the edges of the restored stream, making it difficult in some areas\ to photograph the stream
channel
Silver Creek EEP Contract No D04006 5 EBX NEUSE I LLC
January 2011 Monitonng Year 5
r �
19 0
J

i
�I
I
'D
C
50 HYDROLOGY
The Restoration Plan for the Site did not Included wetland areas Therefore, no hydrology
monitoring stations were Installed
Rainfall data for Years 1 through Year 4 were obtained from the Morganton Weather Station
(Morganton, NC UCAN 14224, COOP 315838) The data were used In conjunction with a
manual rain gauge located on the Site to document precipitation amounts
During September 2008, the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Installed a weather and
deep groundwater monitoring station at the Bailey Fork Restoration Site within the conservation
easement boundary This USGS weather station Includes a rainfall gauge and Is Identified as
Glen Alpine RS well (USGS 354302081433245) The data from the Glen Alpine gauge was
used In conjunction with the Morganton gauge to document rainfall data for this report
Table 10 Comparison of Historic Rainfall to Observed Rainfall inches
Silver
Creek Miti ation Site
EEP Contract No D04006 -5
Month
Average
30%
70%
Morganton Station Observed
2010 Precipitation
January
443
345
579
709
February
414
2 83
553
404
March
485
336
594
3 98
April
379
236
506
191
May
449
322
562
364
June
474
325
6 12
557
July
3 91
238
495
327
August
374
236
445
325
September
4 18
248
598
247
October
3 84
2 03
476
2 98
November
379
255
427
NA
December
3 72
248
459
NA
Total
49 62
--
--
38 20 (through October 2010
An on -site manual gauge Is used to validate observations made at the automated stations During
Year 5 monitoring, the manual gauge experienced several problems throughout the year
- Therefore, data from the manual gauge during Year 5 Is substituted with rainfall data from the
Glen Alpine station In place of the manual gauge, data from the Glen Alpine station was
compared with the Morganton gauge for this report
According to the Morganton weather station data and the Glen Alpine weather station data, total
rainfall during the Year 5 monitoring period was shown to be below the normal average from
January through October 2010 -For this period, the Morganton station measured rainfall to be
3 91 inches below the historic average For the same period, Glen Alpine weather station also
Lj measured total rainfall to be below the normal average =The Glen Alpine station measured
rainfall to be 5 50 inches below the historic average from January to October 2010
Silver Creek EEP Contract No D04006 5 EBX NEUSE I LLC
P{ 20
January 2011 Momtonng Year 5
� )
F I_

J
Above average to average rainfall occurred during the months of January, February and June
Below average rainfall dunng 2010 occurred during March, April, May, July, August, September
and October (see Table 10 and Figure 3
Figure 3 Historic Average vs Observed Rainfall
10
A
r 6
0
q
to
a
2
m
CL 0
Historic Average vs. Observed Rainfall
(2010)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
—� Historic 30%
probable -t Historic 70%
probable —#---Average --+— Morganton Observed 201
0
Silver Creek EEP Contract No D04006 5 EBX NEUSE I LLC 21
January 2011 Momtonng Year 5

I
r�
6 0 BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE MONITORING
�I
1
61 Description of Benthic Macroinvertebrate Monitoring
Benthic macromvertebrate monitoring was conducted in conjunction with the Silver Creek
Restoration Project Because of seasonal fluctuations in populations, macromvertebrate
sampling must be consistently conducted in the same season This section summarizes the
benthic macroinvertebrate samples collected during pre - construction and for Years 1, 2, and 3 of
the five -year monitoring period
The sampling methodology followed the Qual 4 method listed in NCDWQ's Standard Operating
UProcedures for Benthic Macroinvertebrates (2006) Field sampling was conducted by Carmen
McIntyre and Jake McLean of Baker Laboratory identification of collected species was
conducted by Pennington & Associates, Inc
i
J
0
F- )
U
�J
!i
LJ
For the final Year 3 monitoring event, benthic macromvertebrate samples were collected at two
sites on the Silver Creek Project on February 2, 2009 and one eco- reference site a tributary to
Bailey Fork on March 19, 2009 Sites 1 and 2 were located within the restoration area on Silver
Creek and UT1 to Silver Creek, respectively The majority of the restoration activities on Silver
Creek were enhancement and preservation Sampling Site 1 lies within the stream restoration
portion of the project Sampling Site 2 is located approximately 300 feet upstream of where UT1
flows under Morrison Road Figure 4 illustrates the sampling site locations
Benthic macroinvertebrates were collected to assess quantity and quality of life in the stream In
particular, specimens belonging to the insect orders Ephemeroptera (mayflies), Plecoptera
(stoneflies) and Tnchoptera (caddisflies) (EPT species) are useful as an index of water quality
These groups are generally the least tolerant to water pollution and therefore are very useful
indicators of water quality Sampling for these three orders is referred to as EPT sampling
Habitat assessments using NCDWQ's protocols were also conducted at each site Physical and
chemical measurements including water temperature, dissolved oxygen concentration, pH, and
specific conductivity were recorded at each site The habitat assessment field data sheets are
presented in each monitoring report for the respective year of monitoring
62 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sampling Results
Pre - restoration field samples for benthic macroinvertebrates were collected in January 2005
before construction commenced The three remaining sampling events took place each January
during monitoring years 1, 2 and 3 A comparison between the pre- and post - construction
monitoring results is presented in Table 11
63 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sampling Discussion
Site 3, the reference site, exhibited an abundance of taxa during Year 3 monitoring Overall taxa
richness was more than double that observed during pre - construction monitoring EPT richness
decreased slightly Although EPT richness dropped when compared to pre - construction values,
the EPT biotic index was lower than that recorded during pre - construction monitoring The total
biotic index for Site 3 remained slightly above the pre - construction value The higher total index
could be attributed to the decrease in overall shredder taxa observed during the recent post -
construction monitoring Despite the increase in the total biotic index at Site 2, the decrease in
Silver Creek EEP Contract No D04006 5 EBX NEUSE I LLC 22
January 2011 Momtonng Year 5

EPT biotic Index suggests that the communities are stable and that water quality is adequate to
support Intolerant species Site 3 is therefore remains a stable eco- reference site
Site 1, which underwent partial restoration, had a decrease in overall and EPT taxa richness from
Year 2 to Year 3 post construction, however, Year 3 richness values were still above pre -
construction numbers Year 3 total and EPT biotic indices were similar to Year 2 values, which
remain above the pre - construction indices This suggests that although more species were
present (presumably due to the increase variety of habitat post - provided by designed restoration),
these species were slightly more tolerant than previous communities This is a typical response
after a mayor disturbance to habitat such as the in- stream construction techniques implemented
on Site 1 It is anticipated that Site 1 will continue to improve as the project matures
Currently, Site 1 has 13 percent Dominance in Common (DIC) compared to the reference site
In Year 2 post - construction conditions, Site 1 had a DIC of 86 percent The DIC has decreased
but that doesn't necessarily indicate that conditions at Site 1 have degraded Several low
tolerance EPT species such as Acroneuria, Isoperla sp , and Pteronarcys sp , (tolerance values of
10, 2 0, and 17, respectively) are still present
Site 2, which underwent complete restoration, saw a decrease in taxa richness and an increase in
biotic Indices from Year 2 to Year 3 post - construction samples This indicates that fewer species
were present and those present were more tolerant species Although the biotic indices have
increased from Year 2 to Year 3 they remained slightly lower than pre - construction values This
indicates that overall the site is able to support less tolerant species post construction Site 2 is
located along a restored tributary to Silver Creek that has a smaller drainage area than Site 1,
which is located along the larger Silver Creek During the extreme drought conditions that
occurred across western North Carolina during late 2007, Site 2 likely experienced low flow
conditions that negatively impacted taxa richness and biotic Indices According to Year 3
sampling data, it appears the Site has not rebounded from drought conditions
Currently Site 2 has 0 percent DIC with the reference site The decrease in DIC from Year 2 to
Year 3 may Indicate a stress on the stream such as the low flow conditions previously discussed
It is anticipated that improvements in biotic indices and an Increase in DIC will occur as
communities re- establish
64 Habitat Assessment Results and Discussion
The restoration site habitat scores slightly increased from Year 2 to Year 3 (74 to 78 for Site 1
and 77 to 81 for Site 2) The Increase in score for Site 1 reflects minor streambank repair work
completed directly upstream from the monitoring location The banks were stabilized and young
vegetation is starting to establish Site 2 had very stable bed and banks but the riffle substrate
was fairly homogenous Riparian buffers on both sites have yet to mature Site 3, the reference
site, received a 75 on the habitat assessment despite having a mature forested buffer, the banks of
the channel were eroded and the substrate was embedded
The physical and chemical measurements of water temperature, pH, and specific conductivity at
the restoration sites were all relatively normal for Piedmont streams
The restoration of pattern and dimension as well as the installation of several root wads, vanes,
and armored riffles has enhanced the overall in- stream habitat throughout the project area The
immature riparian vegetation has had minimal effect on in- stream habitat at Sites 1 and 2
however future contributions from planted riparian vegetation will be evident as the woody plant
Silver Creek EEP Contract No D04006 5 EBX NEUSE I LLC 23
January 2011 Monitonng Year 5

�l
species mature Contributions will include in- stream structures such as sticks and leaf packs
F� Since no woody riparian buffer currently exists at either Site 1 or 2, it can be concluded that the
existing in- stream structures that include stick and leaf packs have originated upstream
Fj
ri
U
i
U
Ij
i
U
Silver Creek EEP Contract No D04006 5 EBX NEUSE I LLC 24 Y
January 2011 Monitoring Year 5
U
i
�d
F
U
F
U f
Silver Creek EEP Contract No D04006 5 EBX NEUSE I LLC 24 Y
January 2011 Monitoring Year 5

+ � s
ar 5.
1�z i
1
I iN
'9

Table 11
Summary of Pre Restoration vs Post Restoration Benthic Macro invertebrate Sampling Data
f
�'iLa/'eL'' FQEii�ri
3„ Y NI
EI B'� Fay'
�} l
WAS,
e r><cs
S e
ec A
T2 io -,$ ver Creek
t0 B a or efe�
Pre
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Pre
1 car 1
Year 2
Year 3
Pre
Year 1
Year 2
1 car 3
1/3/2005
1/11/2007
1/24/2008
2/2/2009
1/4/2005
1/11/2007
1/24/2008
2/2/2009
1/4/2005
1/17/2007
1/23/2008
3/19/2009
Total Taxa Richness
22
)6
4.)
.35
14
39
24
15
26
34
20
43
EPT Taxa Richness
14
2-)
2)
15
11
7
4
16
20
1.)
9
Total Biotic Index
.3 16
44
472
479
702
686
5 97
701
409
43
504
48.)
EPT Biotic index
2 59
4 16
428
4 11
6 1
6 14
498
5 67
.3 41
3 65
498
257
Dominance in
29
50
86
19
12
31
14
0
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Common ( %)
Total
Shredder /Scraper
Tncley
4/4
511
8/4
6/8
1/2
-)/3
1/3
0/3
7/.)
51.)
2/5
5/6
EPT
Shredder /Scraper
Index
j/2
26
4/4
0/1
0/2
1/1
0/2
4/2
2/2
I/.)
1/�
Habitat Assessment
58
72
74
78
24
78
77
81
63
70
72
7D
Rating
Water Temperature
n/a
74
76
64
n/a
7
8
5 1
n/a
84
79
146
( C)
-1
% Dissolved Oxygen
n/a
57 7
n/a
n/a
n/a
44
n/a
n/a
n/a
)2 1
n/a
n/a
(DO)
DO Concentration
n/a
692
n/a
n/a
n/a
5 82
62
n/a
n/a
76
11 )5
n/a
(mg/1)
pH
n/a
601
724
708
n/a
-)97
709
694
n/a
597
7 8
69.)
Conductivit}
n/a
40
60
60
n/a
J0
30
20
n/a
50
80
40
(µmhos /cm)
a
Sih er Creek EEP Contract No D04006 :) EBX NEUSE I LLC
January 2011 Monitoring Year 5
26

7 0 OVERALL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Stream Monitoring The total length of the project is 9,229 LF This entire length was inspected
during Year 5 of the monitoring period to assess stream performance Measurements of cross -
sections documented that UT1, UT2, M1, M3 and M4 are performing well Two rock cross
vanes located on M4 were noted to have stability issues during Year 4 monitoring Repairs to
the cross vane at station 66 +75 were completed in September 10, 2010 During an on -site
inspection in October 2010, the repaired cross vane was stable and functioning as designed
During the Year 5 monitoring period, the cross vane at station 63 +50 on M4 appeared stable and
no visible changes had occurred since Year 4 of monitoring
The data from the Year 5 longitudinal profiles show that some pools in UT1 have filled slightly,
but have remained stable since as -built conditions The longitudinal profile data for UT2 show
that the pools and riffles have remained stable since as -built conditions The longitudinal profile
of M3 shows that there have been some minor adjustments to the bed profile, primarily around
structures, but overall bed and feature slopes have remained unchanged The longitudinal profile
of M3 shows that the repairs conducted in early 2008 are stable and functioning as designed
All three on -site crest gauges documented the occurrence of at least one bankfull flow event
during Year 5 of the post - construction monitoring period The largest on -site stream flows
documented by the crest gauges during Year 5 of monitoring was approximately 0 79 feet above
the bankfull stage on UT1, 0 50 feet above the bankfull stage on UT2 and 0 15 feet above the
bankfull stage on M3
The bankfull measurements collected during monitoring Years 1 through 5, documents that all
three restored reaches have met the success criteria for bankfull events for the project For UTI,
the two highest bankfull measurements recorded were during Years 2 and, 5, the readings were
0 34 and 0 79 feet above bankfull stage, respectively For UT2, the two highest bankfull
measurements recorded were during Years 2 and 5, the readings were 0 28 and 0 5 feet above
bankfull stage, respectively For M3, the two highest bankfull measurements recorded was
during Year 2 and Year 4, the readings were 1 43 and 0 59 feet above bankfull stage,
respectively
The Site has met the final stream morphology success criteria specified in the Restoration Plan
for the Site
Vegetation Monitoring During Year 5 monitoring the vegetation monitoring documented a
range of 260 surviving stems per acre to 680 stems per acre with an overall average density of
509 stems per acre and an overall survival rate of 72 percent
The area around Plot 6 was supplemental planted with 4 -year old stems in early 2010 due to
mortality from the drought conditions in 2007 Plot 6 yielded 200 stems per acre at the end of
Year 5, which is below the minimum success criteria of 260 stems per acre stated in the
Restoration Plan In fall o1`2010, this area was evaluated to determine overall success and to
determine the likely causes for low survival Two test plots each 10 meters x 10 meters square
were established immediately north and south of the existing Plot 6 to validate observations
Both plots yielded 280 stems per acre The average of the three square plots, including Plot 6, is
260 stems per acre The achievement of the success criteria was further validated by establishing
by two 0 25 acre circular plots in the vicinity of Plot 6 One plot yielded 360 stems per acre and
the other 320 stems per acre It was determined that Plot 6 is an anomaly based on the four
Silver Creek EEP Contract No D04006 5 EBX NEUSE I LLC 27
January 201 1 Monitoring Year 5

r -,
pi
additional plots and lack of discernable differences with other parts of the mitigation area The
area defined by Plot 6 has therefore been determined to have met success criteria
The Site has met the vegetative success criteria specified in the Restoration Plan for the Site
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Monitoring Year 3 results revealed that Site 1 (Silver Creek)
ICJ
exhibited total and EPT biotic indices similar to Year 2 values, which remain above the pre -
construction indices This suggests that although more species were present during Year 3 these
species were slightly more tolerant than previous communities This is a typical response after a
i�
Ll
mayor disturbance to habitat such as the in- stream construction techniques It is anticipated that
Site I will continue to improve as the project matures
Site 2 (UT1 to Silver Creek) exhibited a decrease in taxa richness and an increase in biotic
Li
indices from Year 1 to Year 3 post - construction sampling This indicates that fewer species were
present and those present were more tolerant species Currently Site 2 has 0 percent DIC with
(�
the reference site The decrease in DIC from Year 2 to Year 3 may indicate a stress on the
U
stream such as low flow conditions It is anticipated that improvements in biotic indices and an
increase in DIC will occur as communities re- establish
�
In summary, the Site has met all of the vegetative and stream success criteria specified in the
}
Restoration Plan
0'
�i
u
Fl Silver Creel. EEP Contract No D04006 5 EBX NEUSE I LLC 28
�_J January 201 1 Monitoring Year 5

8 0 WILDLIFE OBSERVATIONS
i
Observations of deer and raccoon tracks are common on the Site During the past year, frogs,
turtles and fish have been observed at the Site
Silver Creek EEP Contract No D04006 5 EBX NEUSE 1 LLC
January 2011 Monitoring Year 5
U
29 0

U
i,
U
0
n_
0
0
0
0
0
r
90 REFERENCES
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) 2006 Standard Operating Procedures for
Benthic Macro invertebrates (2006) North Carolina Division of Water Quality, Raleigh,
NC
Rosgen, D L 1994 A Classification ofNatural Ravers 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 NCDEHNR Raleigh, NC
US Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS)
2006 Soil Survey of Burke County North Carolina, NC Agricultural Experiment
Station
0
Silver Creek EEP Contract No D04006 5 EBX Nf USE 1 LLC
January 201 1 Monitoring Year 5
KII

I �
I
J
n
U
�1
� J
l
L 1
I
U
4�
n
I
J
n
L
1
n5
4i
P
FIGURES
1
f

Catawba 03 -08 -04
v ^ ✓_
03050101
. -.�v -� :boa •�.�i•�++
�►�r�V1rt'�
Catawba
Local
® Envvonmental Banc and Exchange,
909 Capability Drive
Raleigh, NC 27006
Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map
Silver Creek Site
0 0.5 1 2 3
Miles
Figure 1. Location of Silver Creek Stream Restoration Site.

Figure 2 (a)
AS BUILT PLAN VIEW
40 i 0 d0 80
SCALE (FT)
x-- -�
TMLS DocwEMr
owaw:ur ISSUED uw
sE.ur er.
MEVW L TMEEDY
NJDUST t.1WS
A FIESW11MDTT CONSIDEIIED
♦CFATIFIEO DOCUMENT
BUCKC�aa�Ne»:C�aMa I10II
x �
' r,o...,_
_.
i
� .,��.!s "`•^
mac.
\` \
N �
a
x
�'- _ ^'
_
� — � �
,
14+00
•ate-
�-...
yLla�
T�Y" ._ ��
BEGIN UT1 STA. 10 +00.00
/ %
._x ` i END: UT1 : STA. 24 +57.68
�:.
raMr
15x00
x ,r
Figure 2 (a)
AS BUILT PLAN VIEW
40 i 0 d0 80
SCALE (FT)
x-- -�
'.
� x
x �
' r,o...,_
_.
i
� .,��.!s "`•^
mac.
\` \
N �
a
x
�'- _ ^'
_
� — � �
,
14+00
•ate-
�-...
yLla�
T�Y" ._ ��
�\ 19E
�ntMmo
-�-� 'Xt�
%. //
�:.
raMr
15x00
x ,r
-
-� '
-
UrFw»ao
1
1,Q
x�x—
I
x M
�X
x —x-
x —xTx —x
X - -xJ
—x
UT1
Figure 2 (a)
AS BUILT PLAN VIEW
40 i 0 d0 80
SCALE (FT)

® SOP 20 RS NNNDE
Y ISSUED AND
\ SEALE l
`- "NfN.. \} `'"" •�"..y \' f' J. _ KEAN I TLrtcor
. \� AUGUn2:�
}\ \ \ \ \ \ \ TNI6 NEDIN SHALL NOTBE CONSIDERED
S•t �� uXk~ sy:�3`\,, �Elc'aEMeu+ \} \. - �. �� \�. \\��..��� Acfanr fo oocuNEHT
BUCK, oiweaa.w
r
\\ \\
"�`''� ell \ \ + ;, �` \• �°i �/^` \
\+ :� BOP 31 N3, .3 x~ �x� ^+ \BFP 28 RS \ \ \ \
\ �\S. \
BEGIN M1 STA. 10 +46.47 ',^ ® " y ... ''` \
jPW
=x \ \ y E
rs \. \ +\ I
xOT u � R
NEIL GBADfD � \ \
MP USED TO 6TAB LZE U NOO—ER B
SOUBOEH ENDS. -.E SET T D
Y
XSECTfON� 19 (l��L.� +\} f T •�.s Y/ ?# \ C .
\ ( }
Sop 33 MMS
cl
;
\. � �~R ._/ \...✓ \�1 �
+�} J.
�'
SEE SNEET 4 FOR UT1 \` #�
v / \ _,C.1 t�
..
\ � NS
r
�.•_
.. ..,
... .. ._ _...'! "` `"�•5'»,t .',.,
,((3
BGP 34. NS
`1
END M1 ST A 24 +37.07
ti �/ f BEGIN M2 STA. 24 +09.25....
„
f
AS -BUILT PLAN VIEW
FIGURE: 2(b)
-\
''�
40 20 0 40 80
.` •'�
SCALE (FT)

lscp 30 RS
M 83
ex
cl a �P
e +�s.2VI
r
NOTE:
M2 IS A PRESERVATION REACH ONLY.
Figure 2 (c) NO WORK WAS PERFORMED ON THIS REACH.

�.
6 STATION 48 +00 BUCK
.00 _
MATCHLINE SHEET ,..
m
� x
RCP 21 R
1 x
� 1 � yF
! � �_� IPA
i
\ r' ' l fi END M3
, 4
SCP 24 ... -o"� � `BCa Rs ._...µBEGIN M
n x,,�
r r:57v4 52
e "
Al-
BENCH UM1i5
i � )
BOP 25 RS�+, BE M2
+
EX. REBM �' / ......
Lu
\ 4.'„ty \ BECP. -W ®�1.✓ � 1� � r'I � �__� �?
% .
r _
FIGURE: 2(d)

-
Gozzz
ego
BGXR END —
TNISDDCUNENT
ORIDBMILY —ED AND
9EAlFp BY'.
NEVIN L TN£EDY
03fl T
A C�ERTIFIE0 — VIENBE CONSIDERED
BUCK„
a
U
8
„
X
emp is Rs
y
C4
M4
,B Rs .
BERCN uRRts r
�f
X
IEEcv BR
REIIAR -
r� ."
-• x X
FRRE E1O
EX
�woTo
E/ „„s, "�
W
(O # X —X_X
—X
uj
sue" -
-----
ry
Q
�X
W"'„ ...n. ..._ ....... .-... .
Lu
mss!! * ^
"t .�
.1-X�+ /
co
�.,,, ..� -:f;:, % EenON _ 141
/ ®r
x-1 /
W
w
y
%�xX�X ✓
NEl1 GRfHEp.ANX of c /JO a uV
J
%- SECTION 17 X_X_ —xi
"� '4 1110. D TO BTAB.9E DR901IM12
8011, SRg�f SET TO DON,Tk0v BADE
. ,'
� X
y✓' ON BOTH ENpBF� ',
X��X
X�
NIX_
at
AS —BUILT PLAN VIEW
a
FIGURE: 2(e)
gg�
40 20 0 10 BO
n:
SCALE (FT)

No.
TNa ooc—T
unesuEO AND
sEUED er:
KEVIN L -Dr
AUCUSrz:ooe
MEOM S NOT CONSIceftED
A CENPFIEO DOC OOCOMEN T
BEGW UT3 STA. 10 -0.00 END M4 STA. 76 +7560
�... "END -UT2 ST �22a$B.09 : ,
x *
x
z
� I
i
u
1
i �
t
-
',
�
y` ``..
.... _ .....air. « .✓ ;
No: w JN�.� o..
{�`�` �o+o�
.�.:
END UT3 STA11 +7 87 /
a
� NOr
r
BEGIN 72 SYA..i +00.+
v�
SE Ca :1
AS BUILT PLAN VIEW
i Figure 2 (f)
�.v
4 0 20 0 ,O 80
rri, f�fi - -J
,`'
SCALE (Fr)

0 1
�1
I - 1
U
APPENDIX A
PROJECT PHOTO LOG

r
VEGETATION PHOTOS

Silver Creek Vegetation Plot Photos
Silver Creek Vegetation Monitoring Plot #1
Silver Creek Vegetation Monitoring Plot #2
Silver Creek Mitigation Site 2010 (3T -5GS) I EBX / ELM

-InF'r
09,29/201
-y t

k.: n, /2010
# 09/29/2010

Silver Creek Vegetation Monitoring Plot #7
Silver Creek Vegetation Monitoring Plot #8
Silver Creek Mitigation Site 2010 (3T -5GS) 4 EBX / ELM

Silver Creek Vegetation Monitoring Plot #9
Silver Creek Mitigation Site 2010 (3T -5GS) 5 EBX / ELM

STREAM PHOTOS

UT 1 Photo Point 1
UT Photo Point 2
UT 1 Photo Point 6
UT 1 Photo Point 10
Silver Creek Stream Crossing M1
Silver Creek Cross Vane Ml

UT2 Photo Point 1
UT2 Photo Point 2
UT2 Photo Point 3
UT2 Photo Point 5
UT2 Photo Point 6
UT2 Photo Point 7

UT2 Photo Point 8
UT2 Photo Point 9
UT2 Photo Point 10
UT2 Photo Point 11
UT2 Photo Point 14
UT2 Photo Point 15

UT2 Photo Point 16
UT2 Photo Point 17
UT3 Photo Point 1
M3 Photo Point 1
M3 Photo Point 2
M3 Photo Point 3

M3 Photo Point 4
M3 Photo Point 5
M3 Photo Point 6
M3 Photo Point 7
M4 Photo Point 1
M4 Photo Point 2 — Problem cross -vane at station
66 +75

M4 Photo Point 3 — Problem cross -vane at station
63 +50
M4 Photo Point 4
M4 Photo Point 9
M4 Photo Point 10

UT1 Crest Gauge - 0.79, June 28, 2010
M3 Crest Gauge - 0.13, June 28, 2010
UT2 Crest Gauge - 0. 17, June 28, 2010

APPENDIX B
STREAM MONITORING DATA
I

1140
r_ 1135
rX
c9
d
W
Silver Creek M3 - Profile Year 5 - Station 45 +00 to 51 +00
(Data Collected October 2010)
1130 - - - - -- — ------ - - - - -- - - - - -- -- -- --- - - - - -- - - —
As -Built Thalweg —Year 2 Thalweg
Year 3 Thalweg Year 4 Thalweg
Year 5 Thalweg —Water Surface
Top of Bank
1125
4500 4550 4600 4650 4700 4750 4800 4850 4900 4950 5000 5050 5100
Station (ft)

1140
1135
c
O
d
W
1130
1125 4--
5100
Silver Creek M3 - Profile Year 5 - Station 51 +00 to 56 +00
(Data Collected October 2010)
5150 5200 5250 5300
5350
Station (ft)
As -Built Thalweg -- -Year 2 Thalweg
—Year 3 Thalweg Year 4 Thalweg
—+ —Year 5 Thalweg y- Water Surface
—Top of Bank
5400 5450 5500 5550 5600

Silver Creek UT 1 - Profile Year 5 - Station 14 +20 to 24 +80
(Data Collected October 2010)
1148
1147
_..
_ _
...... -
1146
- - - - --
-- -- - -_
1145
........... ... ....................... . . . .. .
. . .. .. . . . . .. ... ... . .....
1144
0
1143
_.._._ ................... .._. _. -
m
w
1142
- -_ -
-- - -- — --
1141
_
... .. .... .. ...... ........._- ..._.. ................
- .........
—As -Built Thalweg
— Thalweg Year 1
1140
- - - -- - -
--- Thalweg Year 3
— Thalweg Year 4
-
1139
-
—Thalweg Year 5
- Water Surface
—*—Top of Bank
1138
1400
1600
1800 2000 2200 2400
Station (ft)

Silver Creek UT 2 - Profile Year 5 - Station 12+00 to 23+00
(Data Collected October 2010)
1150
1145
. . . ............................. ....... —
E 1140
. ...... .
0
as
UJ
1135
- ----- -
1130 -
'As-Built Thalweg Thalweg year 2
Thalweg Year 3 —Thalweg Year 4
Thalweg Year 5 Water Surface
Top of bank
1125 V
1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross - section #1 UT1
(Year 5 Data - Collected October 2010)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool
9.7
15.53
0.63
1.42
24.8
1.1
5.5
1145.8
1145.89
Cross - section #1
1150
1149
1148
1147
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
c
.2
1146
1145
W
1144
As -Built
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
1143
Year 4
—•— Year 5
- -4 -- Bankfull
- -[ - -- Floodprone
1142
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
90 100 110
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross - section #2 UT1
(Year 5 Data - Collected October 2010)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Feature
I
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
1
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
1 d
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
1
TOB Elev
1
Riffle
C
i 10.8
18.97
0.57
1.34
33.24
1
1 3.7
1147
1147
1149
1148
1147
c
0
w
1146
m
W
1145
1144
Cross - section #2
------------------------------------------------------------------ - - - - -o
As -Built Year 1
Year 2 Year 3
Year 4 Year 5
Bankfull - -o-- Floodprone
0 10 20 30 40
50 60
Station (ft)
70 80 90 100 110

Permanent Cross - section #3 UT1
(Year 5 Data - Collected October 2010)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Feature
Stream
Type
1
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool
1 6.1
11.01
0.55
1.31
1 20.01
1
5.3
1148
1148.03
1151
1150
1149
c
:r c 1148
ea
d
w 1147
1146
1145
Cross - section #3
As -Built Year 1
Year Year3
Year 4 Year 5
-
- [--- Bankfull MJI
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Station (ft)
70 80 90 100 110

Permanent Cross - section #4 UT2
(Year 5 Data - Collected October 2010)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Feature
Stream
Tye
BKF Area
1
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth '
1
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
1
BH Ratio
1
ER
BKF Elev
1
TOB Elev
Riffle
C
6.6
11.46
1 0.58
1.21
19.91
1.1
4.3
1145.1
1 1145.2
1150
1149
1148
1147
0 1146
a
I> 1145
w 1144
1143
1142
0 10 20
Cross - section #4
------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -o
As -Built Year 1
Year2 Year3
Year 4 Year 5
o-- Bankfull -o- -- Floodprone
30 40
Station (ft)
50 60 70 80

Permanent Cross - section #5 UT2
(Year 5 Data - Collected October 2010)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
1
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
1
W/D
1
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool
1146
15.2
2LlL_L
0.72
2.92
29.38
0.9
3.7
1143.5
1 1143.15
Cross - section #5
1147
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -o
1146
1145
1144
`
c--------------------
0
1143
CU
>
1142
W
As -Built
Year 1
1141
Year 2
Year 3
1140
-" Year 4
Year 5
Bankfull
- 4 -- Floodprone
1139
0 10
20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross - section #6 UT2
(Year 5 Data - Collected October 2010)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
1
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
C
4.7
8.49
1 0.55
1.18
15.48
1.1
7.5
1137.7
1137.79
Cross - section #6
1141
1140
1139------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_ 1138\
c
0 1137
1136
W 1135 As -Built Year 1
Year 2 Year 3
1134 Year 4 Year 5
- o Bankfull -- - -- Floodprone
1133
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross - section #7 UT3
(Year 5 Data - Collected October 2010)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Feature
Stream
Type
I
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
1
BKF Elev
1
TOB Elev
1
Riffle
E
1.9
3.99
0.47
0.97
8.52
1.2
9
1137.4
1137.58
Cross - section #7
1141
1140
1139
$
------------------------------------------------------------
c
1138
ca
d
1137
W
As -Built
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
1136
Year 4
-Year 5
- -� -- Bankfull
Floodprone
1135
0
10 20 30
40
50 60
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross - section #8 M3
(Year 5 Data - Collected November 2010)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
1
TOB Elev
Riffle
Bc
53.5
25.23
1 2.12
3.44
11.9
1.1
2
1139.75
1 1140.05
1149
1147
1145
1143
° 1141
1139
w
1137
1135
1133
Cross - section #8
.. ............
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Station (ft)
As -Built Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
- °- Year 4
Year 5
Bankfull
-- - -- Floodprone
80 90 100 110 120 130

Permanent Cross - section #9 M3
(Year 5 Data - Collected October 2010)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool
66.9
31.42
2.13
4.83
14.76
1.1
3.7
1139.3
1139.56
1148
1146
1144
1142
= 1140
1138
2 1136
W
1134
1132
1130
Cross - section #9
------------------------------------------------------------------ - - - - -o
As -Built Year 1
Year 2 Year 3
--
--Year 4 Year 5
0 Bankfull --E? -- Floodprone
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross - section #10 M3
(Year 5 Data - Collected October 2010)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
C
56.3
28.3
1.99
3.27
14.23
0.9
2.3
1138
1137.78
c
0
:r
M
m
W
1148
1146
1144
1142
1140
1138
1136
1134
1132
1130
Cross - section #10
o-----------------------------------------------------
--------------------
As -Built Year 1
Year 2 Year 3
Year 4 --Year 5
-[ - -- Bankfull - -4 -- Floodprone
0 10 20 30 40 50
60 70
Station (ft)
80 90 100 110 120 130

Permanent Cross - section #11 M3
(Year 5 Data - Collected October 2010)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
1 j
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
1
BKF Elev
1 1
TOB Elev
Pool
75.5
28.56
2.64
4.47
10.81
1 1
4.4
1137.2
1137.06
1146
1144
1142
r
1140
0 1138
a 1136
a�
w 1134
1132
1130
1128
Cross - section #11
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ - - - - -- -W-0
\ /
As -Built Year 1
Year 2 Year 3
Year 4 Year 5
o- -- Bankfull - -0 -- Floodprone
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross - section #12 M4
(Year 5 Data - Collected October 2010)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
1
BH Ratio
ER
1 1
BKF Elev
1
TOB Elev
Pool
62.1
23.7
2.62
5.94
9.04
1 2
2.4
1133.77
1139.62
Cross - section #12
1143
1141
1139
----------------------------------------------------------------
1137
Year 1
c
0
1135
Year 2
c�
>
Year 3 ------------------------------------
1133
i
W
Year 4
1131
-Year 5
- -4 -- Bankfull
1129
-- - -- Floodprone
1127
0
10 20 30 40
50 60 70
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross - section #13 M4
(Year 5 Data - Collected October 2010)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool
1
33.7
1 12.43
2.71
3.43
4.58
2.5
2.6
1132
1137.14
Cross - section #13
1144
1142
1140
1138
1136
----------------------------------------------
0
1134
>
1132
----------------
m
w
1130
Year 1
Year 2
1128
Year 3
Year 4
1126
�- Year 5
- -o -- Bankfull
-- o- -- Flood prone
1124
0
10
20 30 40 50 60 70
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross - section #14 M4
(Year 5 Data - Collected October 2010)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
1
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
1 j
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
1
TOB Elev
Riffle
Cc
1 76.5
32.74
2.34
4.98
14.01
1
1 1.7
1134.2
1134.07
Cross - section #14
1144
1142
1140
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ - - - - -o
_ 1138
c
1136
° 1134
---------------------------------------
a
> 1132
w 1130
Year 1 Year 2
1128 Year 3 Year 4
1126 Year 5 o Bankfull
-- - -- Flood prone
1124
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross - section #15 M4
(Year 5 Data - Collected October 2010)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Feature
I
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
1
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
Bc
1 74.2
25.94
1 2.86
1 4.38
1 9.07
1.8
2
1131.82
1135.14
Cross - section #15
1144
1142
1140
1138
1136 --------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -o
c 1134
a1132 ----------------------------- - - - - -- Year 1
Year 2
w 1130 Year 3
Year
1128 Year 5
----- Bankfull
1126 - -o- --
Flood prone
1124
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross - section #16 M1
(Year 5 Data - Collected October 2010)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area 1,
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
1
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev=
Riffle
E
62.5
1 24.64
2.54
4.21
9.71
1.1
3.1
1144.65
1 1144.98
Cross - section #16
1152
1150
1148
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
1146
:r
1144
-------------------------
W
Year1
Year2
1142
Year3
Year4
1140
— +—Year 5
- -o -• Bankfull
- -o -- Floodprone
1138
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
80 90 100
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross - section M1 #17
(Year 5 Data - Collected October 2010)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool
76.2
25.95
2.94
4.9
8.84
1 1.5
2.1
1144.03
1146.69
Cross - section #17
1151
1149 _ — ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -o
1147 '
c 1145
r ° -------------------------------------
ID
1143
w 1141
Year Year
Year 2 Year 4
1139 -Year 5 ­D­ Bankfull
- o -- Floodprone
1137
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross - section #18 M1
(Year 5 Data - Collected November 2010)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Feature
L;i�
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
1
TOB Elev
Riffle
75.9
27.08
2.8
4.1
9.66
2.3
1.6
1146.9
1 1152.08
Cross - section #18
1154
1152
1150
0 1148
Year 1
-----------------------------------------
> 1146 Year 2
LL Year 3
1144 Year 4
-- Year 5
1142 - -- Bankfull
- -[� - Floodprone
1140
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Station (ft)

U
APPENDIX C
a BASELINE STREAM SUMMARY FOR
RESTORATION REACHES

Baseline Stream Summary for Restoration Reaches
Baseline Stream Summary
Scher Creck Site Reach UTI
Pir in of r
USGS
Gang
Region I Curve
Pre E st ng Co id t o i
R fer i cc Reach(es) D to
Design
As bu It
I it al
Di nenstoi
R fOc
Jacob
N n od
LL UL Eq
Min Mean Ma
MI
Mca
Max
M
Med
Max
Min
Mean
Max
Bankfull Width (ft)
61 3
32
3 3 147 68
75 7 7 7 8
54 1
79 1
104
9
ISO
ISO
22 l
Floodprone Width (ft)
963
13 0 160 190
900
1000
1100
70 9
709
883
Bankft II Mca D pith (h)
47
3 1
065
47
076
073
0 73
074
Banktull Mix Depth (tt)
5 8
1 3 1 36 1 40
5 8
1 5
1 9
3
1 5
1 5
23
Ba ktull Cro s ect onal Arei (f(2)
90
99
/ 5 0
61 1
2903
307 8
70
1 2
13 1
13 2
R idth/Depth Ratio
13
103
11 4 11 9 1 3
11
1 0
142
1 0
246
300
246
Entrenchi lent Rat o
1 6
1 7 1 2 5
1 2
1 6
2 1
98
109
120
9
3 9
40
Bank Hellht Ratio
1 3
24 2 7 0
1 0
1 3
1 8
1 0
09
09
09
Bankfull Veloc tv (tps)
3 9
16
1 6
5 7
3 4
P-itte
Chanel Belt dth (ft)
32
5 5
73
R d s of C r at i e (ft)
23
27 5
32
—
Meander Wmel r_11 (ft)
64
87
110
?,Ica der W dth Rat o
3 5
5 7�
8
Profile
R file Le 6th (try
R ffle Slope(tt/tt)
0006
000815
00103
Pool Le th (ft)
Pool Spac e (ft)
—
45 8
55
641
—
Substrate
ad T a spo t P amet s
dl( / d 5/ d50/ d84/ d)5
01/02/04/64/21
01/(79/190
/8889/274959
01/02/04/64/212
Reach Sheai Sure (competency ) Ib /f2
—
0 069
0 069
Stream Power (transport c p c ty) W /m'
1 4
1 4
Additional
Reich Parameters
Cha el le 6th (fl)
850
1 171
1 579
1 467
Dra a6e Area ISM)
15 7
72
0'
15 7
02
02
Ras en Classification
C4
E
FS/E5
F/C4
C5
C5
B nkt It D s ha e (cis)
1 140
254
8 1
092
165546
3310
14
Sinuosity
106
102
106
1 34
—
1 3
BF sloe ft /it)
1 00075
1 00008
1
1 0 008
1
1
00017
0 007

a
(
O O C�O O O O CO O (O OO OO O O O O O O (O O
Sdver Creek Site
Reach UT2
P irin et r
USGS
Gauge
Reg onnl Curve
Pre Existing Cond t on
R ter i c
R ach(es) D M
D s -i
As b It
Ii ter al
fD me is o i
R file
Jacob
Norwo d
11 UL Eq
Min Mean
Ma
Mn
Mean
Max
Mtn
Mean
Max
Mn
Mean
Max
Bankf It Width (ft)
61
20
5 2 144 98
44 66
8 8
542
79 1
104
10 5
10 2(
1103
11 81
Floodprone Width (ft)
96 3
11 0 14 5
is 0
800
1150
1500
52 5
64 7
586
Ba kft I I Mea Depth (tt)
47
1
07 1 4
, 1
47
09
060
073
066
Ba Hull Max Depth (ft)
5 8
1 4 0
26
5 8
1 9
24
29
1 36
1 38
1 40
Banktull Cross sect nai Area (ft2)
1900
990
62 77
9 1
161 1
901
307 8
95
62
74
86
11 dth/Depth Ratio
13 0
103
1 7 3
114
11 3
13 0
141
100
162
16 7
17 1
Entre i h lent Rat o
1 6
1 4 2 8
4 1
1
1(
I l
8)
11 8
154
44
54
63
Bi k Hecht Rat o
1 3
24
1 5
10
1 3
1 8
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
Bankh II l elocity (fps)
3 9
6
5 7
4 1
—
P tt
Channel Beltnv dth (h)
t
34
51
68
Radius of Curiatuie (tt)
24
29
4
—
Meander Waiele gth (ft)
68
9,5
117
—
—
Meander Width Rat o
3 5
5 75
7
—
P orle
R ffle Len,th (ft)
R file Slope (fit/ft)
00194
002455
00 07
—
Pool Len th (tt)
Pool Spacing (ft)
49
58
68
S last ate a
it T a ispo t Parameters
d1(, / d35/ d50/ d84/ d9D
0 ?/ 08/ 37/ 783/
43
0 /679/190 /8889/774959
0/08/37/
83 /43 1
Reicl Shear St ess (co pete c}) Ib /r
—
087
Strea i Powe (t a spo t capac ty) W /m'i
Addihomil
Reich Parin ete s
Cha nel lenoth(ft)
850
1150
1256
1234
Dra aye A ea (SM)
25 7
71
015
25 7
025
Rose Classificit o i
C4
E
E4 / C4 / G4
E/C4
C4
Banktull D schai Le (cts)
1 140
254
092
165546
310
39
S uos ty
1 06
1 07
1 06
1 14
1 15
BF slope (ft/tt)
1 00015
1 00008
1
1 0016
1
1
0018
1
0015
(
O O C�O O O O CO O (O OO OO O O O O O O (O O

Silver Crcck Srtc Rcach U7 3
Piri tct
USGS
G i ge
Reg onal C rvc
P by h C i diti i
R let
cc Reach(es) Diti
De gn
As buds
I tterval
D me siot
Riffle
I cob
Norwood
1 L UL Eq
Mtn Mean M x
M n
Mcan
Max
Mtn
Mcd
Max
Min
Mc n
Max
Bankfull Width (ft)
61
32 0
46
54 2
79 1
104
6 5
7 66
7 66
766
Floodpronc W dth (It)
963
15 0
1) 0
12 5
0 0
32 9
329
32 9(
Ba ktul l Mean Depth 111)
4 7
3 1
044
47
054
04
04
04
Ba ktull Max Depth (ft)
5 4
095
5 8
1 6
1 9
2 2
09
09
09
B nkf II Cr s sect (nal Area (111)
1900
990
2 0
261 1
2903
307 8
3 5
3 3
3 3
3 3
St dih/Depth Ratio
13 0
103
104
11 3
13 0
142
1 0
17 7
177
177
Entrenchment Rat o
1 6
3
1
1 6
1
3
3 5
46
43
43
43
Ba k He ht Riho
1 3
3 3
1 0
1
1 8
1 0
1 0
Ba kfull Veloc tv (fps)
3 9
6
5
5 7
'7 0
Patte n
Cha ul Belt dth (ft)
Rad t s of C1 r atu a (It)
Meande Wi elenath (it)
hlea der W dtl Rat o
—
Profile
R tfle Le uh (ft)
R III Slop (tuft)
00558
007445
00931
—
—
Pool Le th (it)
1 ool Spa inb (ft)
161
1945
» 7
—
—
Substrate
td T a [sport P r etc s
d16/ d35/ d50/d84/d9�
0 /05/09/80/204
07/679/190 /8889/1749
D9
0 /05/09/80/104
Reach Shea St e s (contpetenc} ) lb/t`2
—
0 31
0 231
Stream Powe (transport capac t}) W/ n�
78
—
7 8
Additional
Reich Pirgn etet
Channel Ien6tl (it)
850
191
157
Dia naLe Area (SM)
5 7
7 2
007
25 7
007
092
Ro r,enCli itcauoi
C4
E
E5b
E/C4
B4
C5
Ba kth II D sd a 6e (cts)
1 140
254
7 0
092
165546
to
7 0
54
S nuo itv
I of
I IS
1 06
1 01
1 0
BF slope (ft /ft )
1 000 5
1 00008
1
1 0 047
1
1
0 008
1
0 054

l
'J
Silver Creek Site
Reach Ml
^
Pirimeter
USGS
Ga ge
Regionil Curve
Pre Existing
Condition
Reference Reach(es) Dati
Design
As built
1 rter al
Dim i si a
R M
Jacob
Norwood
LL UL Eq
MIA
Mean
Max
Mu
Mean
Max
M n
Med
Max
Min Mean Max
Bankfull Width (tt)
61 3
20
20
2; 9
17 5
542
79 1
104
300
Floodpione Width (ft)
96
WO
57 5
85 0
35 0
575
Soo
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
47
3 1
1 7
3 4
4 1
47
2 5
Ba ktull Max Depth (ft)
5 8
42
5 2
6 1
5 8
3
5
7 5
Ba kfull Cross sect onal A ea (tt2)
2900
990
698
769
83 9
261 1
290 3
307 8
75 0
N dth/Depth Rat o
130
101
7 5
8 7
98
11 3
13 0
141
120
E t e chi e t Ratio
1 6
1 3
6
3 8
1 2
1 6
, 1
1 2
'0
27
Bank He �ht Ratio
1 3
1 6
1
5
1 0
1 3
1 8
1 0
Ba ktull % elocan (tp )
3 9
6
5 7
47
Pattern
f
Cho i el Beltw dth (ft)
105
142 5
180
R d i of Cr r t e (ft)
75
90
105
Meander Wav lenoli (tt)
210
285
360
N lea ider W dth Rat o
3 5
475
6
P orl
Riffle Le it (ft)
R tfle Slope (ft/tt)
00034
00045
00056
Pool Le Lth (ft)
Pool Spac n (ft)
150
180
210
Substrite and Transport Pa amete s
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95
019/113/410/1457 /2465
0/679/1902/8889
/274959
02/ 12/41/146/247
Reach Shear Stre (competent}) Ib /1`2
04
Sir n Pow (t n sport capac t) ) W /m�
25 0
Additional
Reach Paramete s
Cha el le th (ft)
850
1 9�
1 92
Dra nane Area (SM)
5 7
7 1
66
25 7
66
Rosben Class ficatio
C4
E
E /G4
E /C4
C4
—
Bankfull Discharge (cis)
1140
X54
09
1655 46
3310
350
Smuosav
106
104
106
BF slope (tt /ft )
1 00025 1
00008 1
1
0 002
'J

O O O OO COQ � O O OJ O O O OO COI O O (O� OJ O OO OO C O OO
Silver Creel. Site Reach M2
Parameter
USGS
Gang
Regt nil C r e
Pre E st g Co d tt
Referer cc Reach(es) Data
Des g t
As bu It
Interval
D mens on R foe
Jacob
Norwood
LL UL Eq
M i Mein Max
Mil Mea t Max
M n M d AI x
Mtn Mean Max
Ba ktull Width (h)
61
3 0
54 9 79 1 104
Floodp o ie �k dth (h)
)6
B kfi II Men Depth (try
47
31
47
Bankroll Max Deptl (tt)
58
58
B kf I I Cross sect o al A ea (ft )
1900
99 0
261 1 903 307 8
—
N idth/Depth Rat
1 3 0
103
11 1 1 3 0 142
Ent ench rent Rat o
1 6
1 2 1 6 2 1
Bank He &ht Rat o
1 3
1 0 1 3 1 8
Banktull % elocm (tps)
3 9
2 6
7
Patte n
Channel Belt vtdth (tt)
Rad u of C urvature (ft)
Mea de Wa ele th (ft)
— —
Men ider W dth Rat o
—
P fie
R hle Leni.th (ft)
—
RttFle Slope (ft/tt)
Pool Len th (ft)
Pool Spacm (ft)
—
Substrnte and Tr anspo t Pi met s
d16/03 /d50/d84/d95
0 /679/190 /8889/274959
Reach Shea Stress (co npetenc\ ) It X)
Strea Power (tra spo t capac ty) W/ ii
Additional Reach Pi n to s
CI a net len th (tt)
850
Drvnaye Area ISM)
5 7
7 0
5 7
Ro Len Clas ihcahcn
C4
E
E/C4
Banktull D char e (cts)
1 140
254
091 165546 3310
S r os tv
1 06
1 06
BF sloe tt /tt
0 0025
1 0 0008

1
0
If-
l
Silver Ci eek Site
Reach M3
Parameter
USGS
G ig
Regim al C r e
Pre Existing Cord t on
Reference Rea h(es) Data
Design
A built
Inter al
D men ton
R M
Jacob
Norwood
LL UL Eq
Mu
Mean
Max
Mu
Mean
Max
Min
Med
Max
M n
Mean
Max
Banki 11 W dth (It)
61 3
320
203
23 9
17 5
542
79 1
104
31 0
266
27 0
381
Floodpione Width (ft)
96
00
57 5
850
1000
2500
4000
48 5
57 5
126 5
Bankf 11 Mea Depth (ft)
47
1
27
3 4
4 1
47
258
23
23
2 5
Banktull Max Depth (try
5 8
42
5 2
6 1
t
5 8
1
540
7 7
3 4
3 5
5 3
Bankfull Cros Section d Area (ft)
900
990
698
769
83 9
61 1
190 3
307 8
800
62 6
63 2
937
R dth/Depth Rat
13 0
10 3
49
7 3
97
11 3
13 0
142
120
11 3
11 6
15 6
E itre ichme it Rat o
1 6
1 3
2 6
3 8
I
1 6
I
3 1
8 1
119
18
2 1
3
Ba k He Lht Rat o
1 3
I
1 5
1 7
1 0
1 3
1 8
1 0
1 0
Bankfull Veloc ty (fps)
3 9
6
3
9
7
5 7
48
Patte
Cha el Belt. dtl (ft)
108
147
186
Rad us of Curvature (ft)
77
9 5
108
Mea de Wavelenbth (h)
217
2945
372
N lea tder Width Ratio
3 5
475
6
P fle
R ffle Le th (ft)
R ffle Slope (ft/ft)
00019
000255
00031
Pool Le &th (tt)
Pool Spacma (ft)
1549
185 9
2169
S bst to
d Transpo t Pa amete s
d16/ d35/ d50/ d44 /d95
0
/055/085/363/873
02/679/1902/8889 /274959
0 /06/08/36/87
Reach Shea St ess (competencl ) lb/f?
0 76
St a Po ve (t i sport capacity) W /m1
13
Addrt nil
R a h Pa an etc s
Cha el len th (ft)
850
100
100
2 193
—
D a nave Area (SM)
2� 7
72
7 1
25 7
72
—
7
RosLe Cl ss f cat o
C4
E
ES
E/C4
C5
C5
Banktull D scl i Se (cfs)
1140
254
226
092
165546
— 3310
385
S t os tv
1 06
14
1 06
14
1 480
BF slope (it/ft)
1 00025
1 00008
1
1
0 002
1
1
00016
0 002
1
0
If-

1
Silver CI eck Site Reach M4
Pirimetet
USGS
G g
Re onil C rvi
Pre E st ng Cond t on
Reference Reach(es) Dati
Design
A bu It
1 iter nl
D in ns n R file
Jacob
Norwood
LL UL Eq
Mm Mean Ma
Mtn Mean Max
Min Mcd Max
Min Mean M x
Bankf 11 Width (fry
bl 3
10
70 73 9 7 5
542 79 1 104
Flo dpron Width (ft)
96
00 57 5 85 0
Ba kful I Mea Depth (ft)
4 7
3 1
n 7 3 4 4 1
47
Ba kfull Nla Depth (ft)
) 8
41 5 2 6 1
5 8
BankfulI C ros sectional A ea (ft )
1900
990
698 769 83 9
261 1 90 3 307 8
R dth/Depth Rat o
13 0
10 3
49 7 3 97
11 3 13 0 141
E to cl e t Rat o
1 6
1 3 26 38
12 16 21
Bank He ht Rat
1 3
1
10 1 3 1 8
BanktulI % eloc R (tps)
3 9
6
5 7
Palte
Cl a el Belt% dtl (ft)
R d us of Cu n (h)
M ander Wa le tl (try
Mea ider W dill Rat o
Profle
R file Le it (ft)
R Me Slope (ft/tt)
Pool Len th (ft)
Pool Spa i (ft)
Sub I nite a it T i spo t Pa imete s
d16/03 /d50/184/d9)
071/ 77/1091/ 987/3950
0 /679/190 /8889/174959
—
Reach Shea St ess (compete c} ) lb/f')
—
—
St eim Powe It port c pact)) W/
Addit I R ch P I s
Ch on I I th (ti)
8�0
036
0 6
D A (Sm)
57
7a
76
157
76
— —
Ros�ei Class feat on
C4
E
E4 —
E /C4
`
Ba kt II D scl , ( f )
1140
254
0 9� 165546 3310
Smn05 n
1 06
1 07
1 06
— —
BF slope (ft /tt)
00025
1 00008
1
0 002

II
I�
II
I'
iJ
a
_J
If
1�
U
Im " 1 1
MORPHOLOGY AND HYDRAULIC
MONITORING SUMMARY
0

J
Silver Cru k Restoration Site Prop ct No D04006 5
i
a Resell Unnamed Trributit" I( Tsi I
Cross section I
Cross section 2
Cross section
1 Cross section Parameters
Pool
Riffle
Pool
MYI
MY2
MY MY4
MY5
MY1 MY2 M1 MY4
MY5
MY1 MY2
MN�
MY4
MY5
Dimension
Bankfull Width (ft)
2408
20 6�
2171 1905
1) 5
1199 1646 1 � 66 1806
1897
1027 1024
10 1
25 51
1101
Bankroll dean Depth (It)
06
0 56
0 59 0 53
063
083 06 0 54 0 56
057
085 0 59
064
0 6
0 55
Width/Depth R3no
8 7
7 0
6 6 5 65
�4 8
144 7 6 29 1 2(,6
3 24
12 0 17 5
16 4
98 2?
2001
BF Cross sectional Ar a (sq it)
1499
11 5
12 9 102
97
999 981 84 10
10 8
8 77 604
66
663
6 1
Bdnktull Mai Depth (ft)
2 33
1 57
1 63 1 67
1 4�
1 38 1 3 1 �8 118
134
1 57 1 16
1 04
I 7
1 31
Width of Floodpi one Area (ft)
969
9694
91 30 9691
964
708 70 47 7087 7083
7088
� 67 53 67
53 67
56 13
�7 9
EnbenchmentRatio
401
417
37 45
55
591 4 1 45 39
37
943 947
5
2
53
Wetted Pennietei (ft)
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
Substrate
d50 (nnn)
d84 nun)
MY 1 (2006
My 2 (2007)
MY
(2008)
MY 4 2009)
Ml 5 2010
11 Reachwide Parameters
Min
Ma\
Med
Mill
Max Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max Med
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
Radius ofCurvanue (ft)
Meander WavelenLth (ft)
Meander Width Ratio
_
Pi ofile
Riffle len,th (ft)
Riffle Slope (tt/ft)
Pool Lentth (ft)
Pool Spacmo (ft)
Additional Reach Parameters
Valley Lentth (ft)
1 108 53
1108 53
1108 5
1108 53
1108 53
Channel Len6th (ft)
1467
1467
1467
1467
1467
SinuosiR
1 32
1 32
1 32
1 32
1 32
W ater Surface Slope (ft /ft)
00054
0 004
0 0055
00057
00058
BF Slope (ft/tt)
00071
00071
00071
00075
00076
Rosaen C lassificabon
C
C
C
C
C

a Reach Unnamed Tributary
2163T
Ma
F i
Cross
section 4
Cross section
Cross section 6
l Cross section Parameters
Rtfflc
Pool
Riffle
M11
NlY2
M1 PIY4
M15
MY1
MY2 MY
MY4
MY5
M11 MY?
MY3
M14
MY5
Dimension
BF Width (fi)
1411
1'96
1 6 U33
1146
19)1
X429 X06
1987
2113
114 1014
1101
980
849
Bankfull Mean Depth (fi)
068
061
06 051
058
063
069 079
080
07
058 0�5
053
053
055
N tdth/Depth Rit10
09
1 1
�0 IS �9 99
1991
31 �8
3� � 1 6 18
�4 78
938
198 18 5
1
18 5
U 48
BF Cross sectional Area (sq It)
9 53
796
7 9 7 8
66
1 56
1676 16
1� 9
15
660 5 56
5 8
5
47
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1 44
1 1
1 31 129
1 21
t 75
9 8D 7 76
9
2 9�
1 27 1 17
1 1
114
1 18
Width of Floodptone Aica (ft)
640
6406
6402 64 0
6404
78 11
78 17 70 8�
78 18
7810
64 7� 64 74
6465
6466
6471
Entrenchment Ratio
1 75
401
41 3 4
43
3 93
3 3 4
3 9
3 7
5 67 627
5 9
64
7 5
AA etted Pet nneter (tp
Hvdrauhc Radius (ft)
Substr rte
d >0 (mm)
d84 (nun)
MY 1
(2006 )
MY 2
2007
MY
2008
MY 4 (1009)
MY 5 2010)
11 Reachwrde P u amctet s
Mtn
Max
Mid
Mtn
Max
Med
Mtn
Max
Med
Mtn
Max
Med
Mtn Max Med
Pattern
Channel Beltutdth (h)
Radius of Cmvatuie (ft)
Meandei Wdvelenath (ft)
Meandei Width Ratio
Profile
Riffle len&th (it)
Riffle Slope (tt /tt)
Pool Len.th (ft)
I ool Sp tun& (ft)
Additional Reach Parameters
A alles Leni-th (h)
1068 85
1068 8)
1068 85
1068 85
1068 85
Channel Len.lh (h)
12 4 2
124 ?
124
12 42
12342
Sumosnt
11�
1 15
1 15
1 15
1 15
1A ater Surface Slope (It/11)
00151
00165
0 016
00167
00175
BF Slope (h /ft)
00174
00191
00195
00195
00207
Ros enClasstttctuon
C
C
C
C
C

�a
m4 IM
i
Rcach Unnamed WAtar t1T3 y le
Cross section 7
1 C1oss section Paiameteis
Riffle
MY1
MY2 M) 1`114
MYe
Dimension
BF Width (ti)
6 4
7 67 86
4JJ
Bankfull Mean D pth (ft)
0 9
0 32 0 25 0 1
047
\\ idth /Depth Ratio
1 � 9
11 71 �6 46 404
v �
BF Cro s sectional Ar a (sq ft)
4)
l� 1 7 1 8
1 9
Bankfull Mai Depth (fl)
098
0 64 068 087
0 n
Width of Floodpionc At a (it)
47 »
4 53 4113 46 78
47
Entrenchment Ratio
D81
8 1 4 5 4 1
90
R etted Perimeter (ft)
Hvdtauhc Radius (h)
Substr rte
d50 (mm)
d84 (nun)
MY 1 2006
Mt 2 (1007)
MY (2008
MY 4 (2009)
MY 5 (1010
II ReacheidePaiametero
Min
Nla\ Med
Min Max Ned
Mm Mai Med
Min Max Med
Min Max Med
Patti n
C hannel Belts idth (ft)
Radius of Curvature (ft)
Kleandei Waveleinth(ft)
Meandei Width Ratio
t
Pi ohle
Riffle length (ft)
Riffle Slope (ft /ft)
Pool Length (ft)
1 001 Spacm (h)
Additional Reach Pat ametei s
Valley Len>_th (ft)
1!,4 l
Channel Length (ft)
I�7 79
Suntosit}
1 01
l ater Surface Slope (ft /ft)
005 6
BF Slope (ft /ft)
0 042)
RosLen Classification
Ba

Y
d J `
�'V
Reach Silver Creepi"A l
Cross section
16
Ciosc section 17
Cross section 18
1 Cioss section Paiametels
RAN
Pool
Rittic
Ml 1
M) I
MY
AI14
M15
Ml I
MY? MY
1`114
MY5
M1 1
MY2
MY
M14
M15
Dimension C -
BF Width (h)
25 96
2486
25 99
7 61
1464
24 54
7 84 2864
9 17
5 95
I4 04
7 3
27 35
2763
27 08
Floodpiouc Width (1)
8630
78 S4
7994
81 98
79 55
58 15
58 16 58 3
58 11
58 �7
S247
5 34
51 56
54 52
5456
\
BF Cross sectional Arca (tt2 )
78 6
61 1
64 8
68
6 5
84 1
78 75 850
85 1
76 2
77 5
704
71 7
77 0
75 9
BF Mean Depth (ft)
3 0
246
249
246
2 54
295
? 83 297
2 92
294
276
2 58
27 35
2 79
2 8
BF Max Depth (ft)
5 84
3 9
4 17
4 56
4 1
5 11
4 58 5 1
5 6
49
3 68
64
3 96
4 16
4 1
Width /Depth Ratio
4 57
10 1
104
11
971
969
9 84 9 r5
10
8 84
10 17
1054
10 15
991
966
Entrenchment Ratio
3 30
293
9
2 8
3 1
180
1 8 0
1
1 40
1 47
1 5
1 6
1 6
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
Hydiduk Radius (h)
Substrate
d50 (mm)
l d84 Qnm)
II
MN 1 (006
MY 2 2007)
MY
2008)
MN 4 (2009)
MY 5 2010)
ReachltideParameters
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Yin
Aldr
Med
Min
Max
Med
Ain Max Med
Patter n
Channel Beltwidth (h)
Radius of Cui%attire (ft)
Meander WaVelenL[h (ft)
Meander Width Ratio
Profile
Ritfe length (ft)
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
Pool LenSth (ft)
Pool Spacut (ft)
Additional Reach Paiameters
ValleN LeriLgh (ft)
Channel LenLth (tt)
Smuosm
Water Surtace Slope ( ft/ft)
BF Slope (h /h)
Ros en Classiticltion
1
C
C
C
I
C
C

C^-D C—_ -j � _J �D 11-3 ____1
fs
64 Ft 0"
to
Reach Sdvcr Ck 1113
119NOW
7
Cross section 8
Cross section
9
Cioss
section
10
Cross
section
l l
I Cross section Parameters
Riffle
Pool
Riffle
Pool
Ill
Ml
MYj \114
\115
MN
Ml NlI
Ml4
Ml>
\111 M12
Ml3
M14
MY5
Mll
MY2
M1a
MY4 MY5
Dimension
BF \\ idth (fi)
�6 43
25 03
b 6 ?5 3
?5 13
6 81
6 U 9 7�
1 8
It 4
6 10 5 86
5 2
9 8
28 3
9 85
37 09
4208
43 09 28 56
Floodpione Width (ft)
57 05
5601
56 � 1 5962
(0 55
12240
1224 1 �1 44
1 17 8
11676
72 52 72 37
72 94
7418
73 49
126 40
1226
12643
12639 12644
BF Crotis sectional Xrea (ft2 )
)8 0
5446
55 4 53 8
53 �
9540
8205 8
80
669
5940 58 7
57 3
58
56 3
88 90
824
94
89 75 5
BF Mean D pth (h)
1 0
2 18
16 2 1
1
2 59
�7 07
10
13
227 ?7
227
1 95
1 99
2 13
2
223
2 07 264
BD Max Depth (it)
3 16
3 1
3 18 3 28
144
5 35
444 5 34
� 24
48
3 14 3 04
3 14
3
3 27
443
4 18
487
468 447
Width /Depth Ratio
1 0
11 )
11 85 11 9
11 9
14
15 9 19
19 75
1476
11 � 11 9
11 09
U 8
1423
179
1(69
1884
1078 1081
Entrenchment R2tto
1 70
1 76
1 8 1 7
30
9 1
0
3 7
140 4
1
3 0
3 31
3
9 44
Wetted Pennietei (fl)
Hydraulic Radius (h)
Substrate
d50 (nun)
d84 nun)
Ml 1 (2006 )
MY 2 (2007)
MY
2008)
MY 4 (2009)
MY 5
2010)
II Reach ride Pararoeten
Min
Ma\
Med
Min
1`tax
Med
i,hn
MaK
Med
Mm
flax
Med
i,hn
Max
Med
Pattei n
Channel Beltwidth (h)
Radius of Cut vature (h)
Meandei Wavelencth (ft)
Meander Width Ratio
Ptotdc
Rithe length (ft)
Riffle Slope (h /tt)
I ool Length (ft)
Pool Spacing (h)
Additional Reach Paiameters
Vallet Lenph (h)
1481 1
1481 1
1481 1
1481 1
1481 1
Channel Length (h)
2192 �7
192 57
119 57
119 57
219257
SmuosM
1 48
1 48
1 48
1 48
1 48
W atei Sui face Slope (ft /h)
00022
0 002
00025
0 002
00025
BF Slope (ti/11)
0 003
000 6
000 6
000 6
00036
Ros en Classification
I
C
C
C
C
C
i

Reach Srver Creek MA
ago"
Cross s�chon 12
Cross section I
Cross section 14
Cross section 15
1 Cross section Parameters
Riffle
Rittle
Rifle
Riffle
NlI I
Nl12 Ml MN4
\Il)
M1 1
MY) MY�
M) 4
MY5
MN I
MY2
MA 3
N114
M15
Nll I
MY2
Ml
MY4
MY5
Dimension
BF Width (11)
2 56
23 45 447 ?4 63
3 7
1974
17 92 1 7
1) 45
1? 4
3607
3 64
3643
3686
32 74
2808
2649
28 18
27 8
25 94
Floodpiom. Width (ft)
57 93
57 49 59 s0 s9 15
6038
[I 44
6 94 58 97
57 9i
5� 6�
56 �9
57 ?7
57 ?8
57 28
57 �3
50 83
4994
50 52
5074
5072
BF Cross sectionil Ai . i (ft2 )
55 0
4) 7 661 596
(1 1
4640
�4 86 49 1
40 8
33 7
7800
73 54
76 3
834
76 5
72 70
686
65 8
702
742
BF Nle in Depth (ft)
2 34
2 1 2 7 242
262
2 35
06 86
3 27
2 71
2 16
2 �5
209
2 26
2 4
2 59
2 59
2 33
252
2 86
BD Max Depth (it)
4 58
4 55 5 9 5 �8
5 94
42
� 11 48
4
3 43
465
5 13
5 29
5 68
498
90
3 7
3 74
99
4 8
'A idth /Depth Ratio
10 7
1 116 9 05 10 18
904
84
5 85 3 'r9
3 8
4 58
167
14 52
17 39
16 9
1401
109
1023
11 07
11 01
907
Entrenchment Ratio
1 60
1 54 1 8 1 6
4
2 10
3 0
? 9
2 6
1 60
1 75
1 6
1 6
1 7
1 80
1 89
1 8
1 8
1 8
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
Hydiduhc R idlllS (h)
Substrate
d50 (nim)
d84 mm)
Nll 1 (1006 )
NIA 2 ( 007)
MY 2008)
MY 4 2009
Ml 5 (20 10)
11 Reachrrrde Parameters
Min
Mis Nled
Min
Nla\
Med
Mm
Mix
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Patter n
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
Rados of Curvature (ft)
Meander Wavelength (ft)
Meandei Width Ratio
Profile
Riffle lenr_th (ft)
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
Pool I eni,th (ft)
Pool Splcmi� (ft)
Additional Reach Par ameters
Valley LenLth (ft)
Channel LenLth (it)
Smuosm
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
BF Slope (11/11)
Ros en CI issiticahon
(4
1
C4
I
C4
C4
C4

APPENDIX E
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE
MONITORING DATA
S

P 1 Site 1 —Facing Upstream
P2 Site 1 — Facing Downstream
P3 Site 2 — Facing Upstream
P5 Site 3 — Facing Upstream
P4 Site 2 — Facing Downstream
P6 Site 3 — Facing Downstream

Benthos Data for Silver Creek Project Collected on February 2 and March 19, 2009
SRECIES
Toieran a
Values
unction
Grou
it Silver
ere k
2/2/20_09
Sit 2
UTl to fiver
Creek
2/2/2009
SIL 3
UT to alley
Fork Reference
3/t19/200
PLATYHELMINTHES
Turbellana
R
MOLLUSCA
Gastro oda
Meso astro oda
Pleurocendae
Ehmia sp
25
SC
C
A
ANNELIDA
Oh ochaeta
Tubificida
Enchytraeidae
98
CG
R
Lumbncidae
Naididae
8
CG
C
Nais sp
89
CG
A
Nais behntn i
89
CG
R
Slavina appendiculata
71
CG
R
Tubificidae w h c
71
CG
R
Limnodrilus hoffinetsteri
95
CG
R
Lumbnculida
Lumbnculidae
7
CG
R
R
R
ARTHROPODA
Arachnoidea
Acardormes
55
Lebertudae
55
Lebertha sp
55
A
Crustacea
C clo oida
C
Insects
Collembola
R
E hemero tera
Baehdae
Heterocloeon sp
35
SC
A
Baetiscidae
Baeusca carohna
35
R
E hemerellidae
E hemerella sp
2
SC
R
A
Eurylophella sp
43
SC
A
C
E hemendae
CG
Ephemera sp
2
CG
R
He to emidae
Macca ertium Stenonema sp
4
SC
C
R
Macca ernum Stenonema modestum
55
SC
C
Le to hlebudae
CG
R
Le to hlebia sp
62
CG
A
R
Odonata
Aeshmdae
P
Bo eria vmosa
59
P
R
Calopterygidae
P
Calopteryx maculata
78
P
C
Cordule astndae
P
Cordule aster sp
57
P
C
1 of 3 f

Benthos Data for Silver Creek Project Collected on February 2 and March 19, 2009
PE® S
oler
Values
unct►o
t
(Gr up
i 1
r e
/:0009
rte
UT to d er
C *rleek
2'/2�/206"9
to
o alley
F.or efere, nce
31!1912009
Gom hidae
Gom hus sp
58
P
R
O hto om hus sp
55
P
C
R
Stylogomphus albistylus
47
P
R
Pleco tera
Nemoundae
Prostow sp
58
A
Perlidae
Acroneurta sp
1
P
R
Ecco tura xanthenes
37
P
C
Perlodidae
Iso erla sp
2
P
A
Pteronarcidae
16
SH
Pteronar s Allonar s sp
17
SH
R
Pleronarcys sp
17
SH
R
Hemi tera
Veludae
P
Microveha sp
P
R
Me alo tern
Corydalidae
Nigroma serricorms
5
P
R
Tricho tera
Calamocerathdae
SH
Hetero lectron americanum
32
-
R
H dro s chidae
Cheumatopsyche sp
62
FC
C
Di lectrona modesta
22
FC
A
Hydropsyche bettem gp
78
FC
C
Le idostomathdae
SH
Le idostoma sp
09
FC
R
Limn hilidae
P cno s the sp
25
SH
R
C
Uenoidae
Neophylax sp
22
SC
R
R
Coleo tera
Dryopidae
Hehchussp
46
SC
R
R
Elmidae
O tioservus sp
24
SC
C
Ouhmmus latiusculus
18
CG
C
Stenelmis sp
51
SC
R
Ptilodactylidae
SH
Anchytarsus bicolor
36
SH
R
A
Di tera
Cerato 0 omdae
P
R
Chironomidae
Concha elo is sp
84
P
R
Corynoneura sp
6
CG
R
Cricoto us sp
7
CG
A
R
Di locladius cultri er
7 4
CG
C
Eukte eriella clan enms
56
CG
R
R
2 of 3

Benthos Data for Silver Creek Project Collected on February 2 and March 19, 2009
SPECIES
olerance
Values
ctioa
Grou P
S� er
Gr k
2 1`2/2009
on
2/2/2009
e nce
WEorR 3
3119%200_9
H drobaenus sp
95
SC
A
Orthocladius sp
6
CG
R
R
R
Parametriocnemus sp
37
CG
C
Polypeddumfallax
64
SH
R
Polypeditum illinoense
9
SH
C
Pseudorthocladius sp
15
CG
R
Rheocricoto us glabricoffis
R
Stenochironomus sp
65
SH
R
Trtbelos ucundum
63
R
Tvetenta paucunca
37
CG
C
Dixidae
CG
Dora sp
26
CG
C
Em ididae
76
P
Hemerodromia sp
6
P
R
Sunuludae
Simulium sp
6
FC
C
A
R
Prosimuhum s r
6
FC
A
Tabamdae
PI
Chrysops sp
67
PI
R
Ti ulidae
Antocha sp
43
CG
C
Hexatoma sp
43
P
R
Pseudolimno hda sp
72
P
C
Ptychoptera sp
R
Ti ula sp
73
SH
A
A
3 of 3

J
3/05 Revision 6
Habitat Assessment Fledd Data Sheet
Mountain/ Piedmont Streams
r Biological Assessment Unit, DWQ IrOTAL SCORE
U Directions for use The observer a to survey a minimum of 100 meters with 200 meters preferred of stream6 preferably in an
upstream direction starting above the bridge pool and the road right -of -way The segment which is assessed should represent average
stream conditions To perform a proper habitat evaluation the observer needs to got into the strearn. To complete the fonat, select the
description winch best fits the observed habitat$ and then circle the score If the observed habitat falls in between two descriptiom
select an intermediate score _ jA final habitat score is determined by adding the results from the different rnetrms
(� Stream Location/road S, 1 (Road Now r kC'
Date 2� 1 CCdI Basin C.a��iw� 4 Subboun 11-,3 '% - 7
J Observers uPr= _ Type of Study O Fish *entltus O Basmwide OSpxral Study (Describe)
Latitude Longitude Ecoregton. E3 MT P( P O Slate Belt O Triassic Basin
r Water Quality Teaz�ahira�_ °C DO � g• . ih' (�) SSl Sleet PH �08
f tom ! Physical C harecterizatlon Visible land user rs u see ti�om sampling location - Include what
you estimate driving thru the watershed in watershed land use.
Visible Land Use 2S %Forest %Resident al ;a_% Active Pasture % Active Crops
_15 %Fallow Fields °iii Corrmiercial %Industrial %Other - Describe
Watershed land use $Forest OWculture DUrban 0 Animal operations upstream
—5 1
•
Width (i ts) Stream f0 Chasms) (at top of bank)_J-':E Stream Depth (00 AvgJ_Max
O Widthvanable 0 Large nver >25m wide S
Bank Height (tkom deepest part of stile to top of bank -fast flat surface you stand on) (ri� _
OBank Angle - ° or E3 NA (Vertical is 900, horizontal is 0° Angles > 90° indicate slope is towards raid- chatmel, < 90°
indicate slope is away from channel NA if bank is boo low for bank angle to matter)
O 0 Channelized Ditch
Meeply incised steep, straight banks DBoth banks undercut at bend ClC hannel filled in with sediment
• Recent overbank deposits OBar development OBuned struchires DExposed bedrock
• Excessive penphyton growth E3 Heavy Slantientous algae growth OGreen tinge 0 Sewage swell
Manmade Stabilization ON OCY ORip -rap, cement, gabions 0 Sedunent/grade- control structure OBenn/levee
O Flow conditions OHigh *ormal OLow
Turbidity- WIcar O Slightly Turbid E3Twbid OTannic i3Mi kv Motored (from dyes)
Good potential for wetlands Restoration Project?? 0 YES O Details M s
Channel Flow Status
Useful especially under abnormal or low flow conditions.
A Water reaches base of both lower banks, minimal channel substrate exposed
B Water fills >75% of available cbastael, or <2516/o of channel substrate is exposed. ..
(-� C. Water fills 25-75% of available channel, many logs/snags exposed O
D Root mats out of water 0
E Very little water in channel, nwsdy present as standing pools. - .... 0
r Weather Conditions qP�v C'w4 Photos ON OY KDigiW Mim n i � j
R..iu. r 1. , — _ `9 i 7 _ cz r . � c . !t Bar -.. c .. - 1J a r� f`a l�/, r., % w^� A J _.
�+r.t", eb�`�•'/ o fu4l"e, , tur Mw•f ,#— 'M r. " �"� i`?,�%c-. . t %. DA
r-,
1t+n�'�o • t 1� -"ra V 1�i 40 II 11
0 39

I Channel Modification
channel A 1 natural, fm+equent bends ..
B channel natural, m&equeat bends (charmelizateon could be old) ..
Q some channelrzation present _ 3
D more extensive channelmahon, >40% of stream disrupted _ 2 n
B no bends, completely cbaunel zed or np rapped or gabtoned, etc- 0 LEI
O Evidence of dredging DEvtdence of desnagguug —no large woody debris ma stream P(Panks of uniform shape/height
xerrmrlts P, "j�A+rL.,..t, s; t' Subtotal
H Instmut Habitats Consider the percentage of the reach that is favorable for benthos colonization or fish cover If >70% of the O
reach is rocks, 1 type is present, circle the score of 17 .Definition. leafpwks consist of older leaves that are packed together and have
begun to decay (not piles of leaves in pool areas) Mark as Rare, Common otAbund/�A*!t.
Racks _,Maerophytes R Sticks and leafpacks _ Songs and logs A- Undercut banks or root mats
AMOUNT OF REACH FAVORABLE FOR COLONIZATION OR COVER
>70% 40-701% 20-40% <20% 0
Soom score scow Sc
4 or 5 types present _ 20 1 12
8
3 types present 19 5 11
7
2 types present 18 14 10
6 O
1 We present 17 13 9
s
No types present 0
Subtotal I6
0 No woody vegetation in riparian zone Remarks
III Bottom Substrate (sill, sand, detritus, gravel, cobble, boulder) Look at entire reach for substrate scoring, but only look at tittle
for embeddedness, and use rocks ftom all parts of mile -look for `bard [me" or ddliculty extracting rocks.
A. substrate with good mix of gravel, cobble and boulders
score
i embeddedness <20% (very htde sand. usually only behind large boulders)
is
2 embeddedness 2040%
12
3 embeddedness 40 80%. . _ _
8
4 embeddedness >80% _
3
B. substrate gravel and cobble
1 cinbeddedness <2M _
2 embeddedoess 20.40%
11
3 embeddedness 40 VA .
{�
4 embeddedntas >80%. .. .. _ _
2
C substrate mostly gravel
-N ul
1 embeddedness <5M
8
2 embeddedness >50%
4
D substrate homogeneous
1 substrate nearly all bedrock
3
2 substrate nearly all sand
3
3 substrate nearly all detritus _
2
4 substrate nearly all silt/ clay
i
O
Remarks
Subtotal
IV Pool Variety Pools are areas of deeper than average maxim urn depths with little or no surface turbulence water velocities
asp crated with pools are always slow Pools may take the form of "pocket water", small pools behind boulders or obstnuhons, in
large high gradient steams, or side eddies
A. Pooh present
1 Pools Frequent (>30% of 200m area surveyed) I
a variety of pool sins - lJ
b pools about the same size (indicates pools filling inn)
2 Pools Inftequent (<300/a of the 200m area surveyed)
a. variety of pool sizes _ 6
b pools about the saim size . 4
B. Pools absent 0
Subtotal �y
D Pool bottom boulder-cobble--hard D Bottom sandy -sunk as you walk 0 Silt bottom D Some pools over wader depth
Rer>arirs
Page Total
40

i
J
0
Ll
v
I�
V Rift Habitats
Definition. Riffle is area of reaerat on can be debris dam, or narrow channel aces Riffles Frequent Riffles Infrequent
S= son
A well defined riffle and run, of le as wide as stream and extends 2X width of stream. (16) l2
B riffle as wide as stream but nffle length is not 2X stream width � 7
C nflle not as wide as stream and rifle length is not 2X stream width 10 3
D riffles absent » 01
Channel Slope OTypical for area OStmp -fast flow OLow -like a coastal stream Subtotal
VI Bank Stability and Vegetation
FACE UPSTREAM Left Bank Rt Bank
scom &M
A. Banks stable
I Imle evidence of erosion or bank fanhire(except outside of bends). little potential for erosion. 7 7
B. Erosion areas present
I diverse trees, shrubs, grass, plants healthy with good root systems 6 6
2 few trees or small trees and shrubs, vegetation appears generally healthy
3 sparse mixed vegetation, plant types and conditions suggest poorer soil binding 3 3
4 mostly grasses, few if airy trees and sbrubs, high erosion and failure potential at high flow 2 2
5 little or no bank vegetation, mass erosion and bank failure evident » 0 0
I Total%
Remarks o {'
vee..��s. +..sk:• y vi
VII Light Pert>;Edon Canopy is defined as tree or vegetative cover directly abode the stream's surface. Canopy would block out
sunlight when the sun is directly overhead Note shading fiom mountains, but not use to scare this metric
A. Stream with good canopy with some breaks for light penetration » » 10
B Stream with full canopy - breaks far light penetration absent. » ~ » 8
C Stream with partial canopy - sunlight and shading are essentially equal » 7
D Stream with ndnlnrat canopy -Bill sun in all but a few areas. ~ M » 2
E. No campy and no shading. » »
q.".. T�6oa� �,L.�A VPA Aae4^ 4 wO&'ti Subtotal_
VIII Riparian Vegetative Zone Width
Defmitwn. Riparian zone for this form is area of natural vegetation adjacent to atream (can go bgwd floodplam) Definition A break
in the riparian zone is any place on the stream banks which allows sediment or pollutants to dmx*. enter the stream such as paths
down to skews, storm drams uprooted trees, otter slides, etc
FACE UPSTREAM LfL Bank Rt. Bank
Dominant vegetation O Trees D Shrubs O Grasses O Weedslold field OExotics (kudzu. etc) Score Score
A Ripanan zone intact (no breaks)
p�
I width > 18 meters » ~
V
2 width 12 -18 meters. » » ...
4
3 width 6-12 meters. _
3
3
4 width < 6 metm » »
2
2
B Riparian icon not intact (breaks)
I breaksrara
a width > 18 meters »
4
4
b width 12.18 meters ~ »
3
3
c width 6-12 met=
2
2
d width < 6 meters,
l
1
2 breaks corniron
a width> 18 meters
3
3
b width 12 -18 meters. ~
2
2
c width 6-12 meters
1
1
d. width < 6 mnetem »
0
0
Remarks
Totxal /L�
Page
Total
D Disclanner- form filled out, but score doesn't match subjective optnion- atypical stream
TOTAL SCOR$
41

Supplement for Habitat Assessment Fleld Data Sheet
Diagram to determine bank angle
1 �
1
90° 45°
Site Sketch.
Other comments
42
135°
This side is 45" bank angle

J
3106 Revision 6
Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet
Mountain/ Pledmont Streams
Biological Assessment Unit, DWQ DOTAL SCORE 91 1
Directions for use The observer is to survey a minimum of 100 meters with 200 meters preferred of stream, preferably in an
upstream direction starting above the bridge pool and the road nght -of -way The segment which is assessed should represent average
stream conditions. To perform a proper habitat evahmnon the observer needs to get into the stream. To complete the form, select the
description which best fits the observed habitats and then circle the score. If the observed habitat falls in between two descriptions,
select an mtermediate score A final habitat snore is determined by adding the remits from the difibr+ent metrics
Stream t!C 1 A. S i lvar Ct•adk Location/road. _ 4e- at (Road Name M.!, 1,..-&J-)County. 9"Al- t
Dace a�a- O9 cca sasm bC4 Subbasin f1 -3=4— 0 5
COON
Observer(s)_M�p,`, Type of Study O Fish *emhos D Basinwrde ©Spectal Study (Describe)
0 Latitude Longitude Ecoregion. D MT )AP D Slate Belt O Triassic Balm
Water Qna[[tys Temperature 5• ► °C DO ;i 07- mg/i Conductivity (rnrr) �µWcm pH -L
{ T Physical Characterisation Visible land use refers to immediate area that you can see from sampling location - Include what
UUU
you estimate driving thru the watershed in watershed land use
Visible Land Use 140 %Forest %Reatderwal 30 9bActive Pasture % Active Crops
- 0 %fallow, Fields % Commercfal %Indusinal %Other - Describe -
Watershed land use Forest JgAgticulture (3tJrban D Animal operations upstream
Width 1M) stream 1-L' Ciharuhel(attapofbank) 3 -5 Stream Depth (k1) Avg 0 25 max I •
O Width variable D Large river >25m wide
Bank Relght (from deepest part of mile to top of bank first flat surface you stand on)
OBank Angle 30 - 6 0 ° or ❑ NA (Vertical is 900, horizontal is 0° Angles > W indicate side is towards mid - channel. <90'
indicate slope is away from channel NA rf bank is too low for bank angle to rr am )
O Cbatiaelnsed Ditch
[]Deeply incised - ,steep, straight banks DBoth barks urAercut at bend OChannet filled to with sediment
O Recent ovecbank deposits OBar developmesit []Buried structures Dbtposed bedrock
O Excessive peiVhyton growth O Heavy filamentous algae growth ❑Green tinge O Sewage smell
Maruaade Stabihratmni ON OY ORip -rap, cement. gabions O Sediment/grade- control structure OBemtllevee
O Flow conditions ORtgh Plormal OLow
Turbidity 13clear O Slightly Turbid OTurbid OTannic OMutky OCotored (from dyes)
Good potential for Wetlands Restoration Project?? OYES ONO Details t rMj w tp tyre
Channel Flow Status
Use especially under abnormal or low flow conditions.
A. Waco reaches base of both lower banks, niimnial channel substrate exposed
B Water fills >75% of available channel, or QS% of channel substrate is exposed. O
0 C Water fills 25-75% of available channel, marry logs/snags exposed. out of water O
M _ _ M D
D Root mats
E Very little water in charnel, mostly present as standing pools. O
,q-
Weather Conditions 0��__► � w �.� y S_Photos; ON FdY ;YDigttd D3Smm
*O'D MCAW f &O�hA� Svsp9C+ 0
39

I Channel Modlfkatton
A channel oatural, frequent leads »�5
B channel natural, infrequent beads (channeltzanon could be old) 4
C some charineLxatron present » 3
D more extensive ebannelu:atton. >40% of stream disrupted 2
E. no beads, completely channel>zed or rip rapped or gabtoned, etc 0
O Evidence of died g OEvidence of d=agging=no large woody debris to stream 14Baoks of uniform shape/hngbt
Remarks Qes+�r�l ...Arn Subtoffil_J__
Q. Iastream Habitat. Consider the percentage of the reach that is favorable for benthos colotuzation or fish cover If >70% of the
reach is rocks. 1 type is present, circle the score of 17 )Definition leafpacks c=Lst of older leaves that are packed together and have
begun to decay (not piles of leaves to pool areas) Mark as Rare, Common. or Abundant.
C- Rocks- C Macrophytea Sticks and leatpacks Snags and logs !~ Undercut banks or root mats
AMOUNT OF REACH FAVORABLE FOR COLONIZATION OR COVER
Score 'i
>70%
40-70%
20-400A <20%
Score
4 or 5 types present
Score
20
Score
16
Score
12 8
3 types present »
19
IS
11 7
2 types present
18
14
10 6
1 type present
17
13
9 5
No types present
0
8
15
O No woody vegetation in riparian zone Remarks
D substrate homogeneous
Subtotal
lH Bottom Substrate (silt, sand, detritus, gravel, cobble, boulder) Look at entire reach for substrate sconng, but only took at riffle
for embeddedness, and use rocks from all parts of nffle -look for "mud lute" or difficulty extracting rocks
A. substrate with good mix of gravel, cobble and boulders
Score 'i
I embeddedness <20% (very little sand, usually only behind large boulders)
_ 15
2 embeddedriess 2040%. » .. _ ..
12
3 embeddedness 40-80% » »
8
4 embeddedness >80% _ _
_ 3
B substrate gravel and cobble
1 embeddedness <209/6. » ..
14
2. embeddedness 20-40% _
3 embeddedness 40-80%
4 embeddedness; >80°/..
2
C substrate mostly gravel
1 embeddedness <50% _
8
2 embeddedness >50%
4
D substrate homogeneous
1 substrate nearly all bedrock. _
3
2 substrate nearly all sand
3
3 substrate nearly all detritus » ».
2
4 substrate nearly all silt/ clay .. » _
I
Remarks
1J !!
Subtotal U
IV Pool Vaddy Pools are areas of deeper than average maximum depths with little or no surface turbulence. Water velocities
associated with pools are always slow Pools may take the form of *pocket water ", small pools behind boulders or obstructions, in
large high gm&ent streams, or side eddies
A. Pools present
1 Pools Frequent (>300A of 200m area surveyed)
a variety of pool sizes. »
b pools about the same size (mdtcates pools filling in) 8
2 Pools Infroquent (<30% of the 200m area surveyed)
a vanity ofpool sizes. » 6
b pools about the same size 4
6 Pools absent » 0
Subtoml_LQ_
O Pool bottom boulder- cobble4ard O Bottom sandy -sink as you walls O Silt bottom O Some pools over wader depth
Reanerks
Page Total
40

I V RiMe Habitats
VIII Riparian Vegetative Zone Width
L ) Definition Riffle is area of reaeration -can be debris dam; or narrow channel area Riffles Frequent
Riffles Infrequent
sm
8=
A. well def tad riffle and run, riffle as wide as stream and extends 2X width of stream. ®
12
B riffle as wide as stream but riffle length is not 2X stream width 14
7
Q rdne not as wide as stream and riffle length to not 2X stream width 10
3
D riffles absent 0
Channel Slope ;RIWucal for area OSteep—fast flow OLow=hke a coastal stream
Subtotal
VI Bank Stability and Vegetation
Lft Bank
Score
FACE UPSTREAM Left Bank Rt Bank
(�
A Riparian zone Intact (no breaks)
l A. Banks stable
lJ 1 little evidence of erosion or bank fBrhue(except outside of bends) little potential for eresmn.4
B Erosion areas present
1 width > 18 meters
1 diverse trees, shrubs, grass, plants healthy with good root systems.
6 6
2 few trees or small trees and shrubs, vegetation appears generally healthy
S 5
3 sparse mized vegetation, plant types and conditions suggest poorer soil binding
3 3
4 mostly grasses, fbw if any trees and shrubs, }ugh erosion and failure potential at high flow
2 2
S little or no bank vegetation, mass erosion and bank failure evident.
0
/r'
Remarks e,1 � a., << ate►
Total
VII Light Penetration Canopy is defined as tree or vegetative cover directly above the stream's surface Canopy would block out
sunlight when the sun is directly overhead. Note shading from mountains, but not use to score this metric
itfm
A. Stream with good canopy with some breaks for light penetration » 10
B Stream with Poll canopy - breaks for light penetration absent. » » 8
C Stream with partial canopy - sunlight and shading are essentially equal 7
D Scream with ndnhnsl canopy - hill on in all but a few areas 2
E. No canopy and no shading. » » » Q
ORemarks Subtotal_-
0 41
J
VIII Riparian Vegetative Zone Width
Definition. Riparian rose for this form is area of natural vegetation adjacent to stream (can go beyond
floodplam) Definition. A break
J
J
in the riparian zone is any place on the stream hunks which allom sediment or pollutants to directly eater the stream, such as paths
down to si m00% storm drains, oplooted trees, otter slides, etc
FACE UPSTREAM
Dominant vegetation. O Trace O Shrubs 0 Grasses O Weeds/old field OExotics (kudzu. err)
Lft Bank
Score
Rt. Bank
Score
(�
A Riparian zone Intact (no breaks)
1 width > 18 meters
SCi
2 width 12 -18 meters
4
4
r�
3 width 6.12 meters.
3
3
1
4 width < 6 meters. » M
2
2
B Riparian zone not intact (breaks)
I breaks rare
a width > 18 meters,
4
4
b width 12 -18 meters
3
3
e width 6-12 meters
2
2
(
d width < 6 meters. » _
1
1
2 breaks common
a. width> 18 meters
3
3
b width 1248 hers
2
2
c width 6 -12 meters. _
1
1
l i
J
d width < 6 meters.
Remarks
0 0
Total 1 r)
Page Total
U0
Disclauner -form tilled out; but score docsn't match subjective opinion- atypical stream. TOTAL SCORR
0 41
J

Supplement for Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet
Diagmm to detemne bank angle
1 1 \J—�/
90° 45°
J
Site Sketch
Other comments
42
135°
This side m 4S° bank angle

Id
9
(n
U
I
J
3/06 Revision 6
Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet
Mountain/ Piedmont Streams
Biological Assessment Unit, DWQ JrOTAL SCORE
Directions for use The observer is to surrey a mintrmmt of 100 meters with 200 meters preferred of stream. preferably in an
upstream direction smmng above the bridge pool and the road right -of way The segment which is assessed should represent average
stream camdrtrons To perform a proper habitat evaluation the observer needs to get into the stream. To complete the form select the
description which best fits the observed habitats and then circle the score If the observed habttat falls in between two desenptions,
select an miennediate score A final habitat score is determined by adding the results from the different metncs
Strea Location/road Z (Road Name P )Colinty 8vrt� c
Date 3 —19- Ok CCtI Basin Subbasfn
Obsesver(s)�„ Type of Study O Fish %3enthos O Basinwide OSpocral Study (Describe)
Latitude Longitude Ecoregron O MT 1$ P O Slate Belt O Tnasste Basin
water Quality: Temperature °c DO q•3 b mgn conductivity (corr ) acm PH AB
Physical Characterkation Visible land use refers to immediate area that you can see from sampling location - include what
you estimate driving thru the watershed in watershed land use
Visible Land Use %Forest 15 _%Residentml %Active Pasture % Active Crops
9wauow Fields % Commercial %Industrial ,_%Other - Describe A,, 4.,T-
Watershed
land use unrest 01(gnculture Oman 17 Ammal operations upstream
Width (meters) Stream_ Channel (at top of bank) Stream Depth (m>) Avg_j,_'�_Max Qs�f
O Width variable O Large nver >25m wide
Bank Height (from deepest part of riffle to top of bank -first flat surface you stand on) (rn)_L.�_
Bank Angle 3 0-'Q ° or O NA (Vertical is W, horizontal is 0° Angles > 90' indicate slope is towards mid-channel, < 90°
indicate slope is away from channel NA if bank is too low for bank angle to matter)
O Channelized Ditch
ODeep2y mcise"teep, straight banks OBothi banks undercut at bend OWiaanel filled in with 8edmient
O Recent overbank deposits Mar development OBuned strueWres OFxposed bedrock
O Excessive periphyton grgwtit O Heavy filasiuiitons algae growth QGreea tinge O Sewage smell
Maiutiade Stabilization 16OY ORip -sap, cement, gabion�s O Sediment/ grade - control structure CJBemillevee
Flow cond OHigh C3Noimal OL,ow
Turbldity -� O Slightly Turbid OTurbid OTarmrc OMilky OColored (i}om dyes)
Good potential for Wetlands Restoration Project?? O WS ONO Details
Channel Flow Status
Usefiil especially wider abnormal or low flow conditions
A Water reaches base of both lower batiks. n mrmal channel substrate exposed [�
B Water fills >75% of available- channel, or d5% of channel substrate is exposed - - _ O
C Water tills 25-75% of available channel, many logs/snags exposed ❑
D Root mats out of water
E. Very little water in channel, mostly present as starting pools O
weather Conditions PA., firp° CNPhotos ON B3 F O Digital Bf5rnm
Remarks Fro - rp-4cl S,}L ` ,,r �.�" t s% --& t Sil,er C- zg, S%A,S
39

J I T `rr` }} l U
t („r 1
I Channel Modilication (�
A channel natural, frequent bends » » (� JI
B channel natural, mkequent bends (ebanneltmon could be old) 4
C some channelizatton present » 3
D more extensive channelmhoo, >40% of stream disrupted 2 O
E no bends, completely channehzed or np rapped or gabwned, etc 0
0 Evidence of dredgnig OEvideaoe of desuaggwS== large woody debns m stream. DBanks of umfoam dmpe&etght
Remarks Subtotal
IL lnstream Habitat- Consider the percentage of the reach that is favorable for benthos colonization or fish cover If >70% of the 0
reach is rocks, l type is present, circle the score of 17„Defmitton lea£packs consist of older leaves that are packed togetber and have
begun to decay (not piles of leaves m pool areas) aM rk as Rare- Common, or Abundant.
C- Rocks A. Macrophytes C Sticks and leafjiacla IL-C- Snags and logs - Undercut banks or root mats
AMOUNT OF REACH FAVORABLE FOR COLONIZATION OR COVER
>70% 40-70% 20AOVo Q0% 0
Score Score Score
Score
4 or 5 types present 20 16 12
8
3 types presets. _ 19 11
7
I4
2 types present. 18 10
6
1 type present 17 13 9
5
No types present. » 0
D No woody vegetation in rep span zone Remarks
Subtotal /S
M Bottom Substrate (414 sand, detritus, gravel, cobble, boulder) look at entire reach for substrate sconng, but only look at nftle
for embeddedness, and use rocks from all parts of nffie -look for "mud lore" or difficulty extracting racks
A. substrate with good n t of gravel, cobble and boulders
cgig
I embeddedness <109b (very tittle sand, usually only WmW large boulders).
15
2 embeddednew 20 -M » .. » » ».». ».
12
3 embeddedness 40.80% » »
8
4 embeddedness >80% ». » » -
3
B substrate gravel and cobble
1 embeddedness <2M » » » » »
14
2 embeddedness 204096. » » »» ..
11
3 embeddedness 40480% » »
(9) (�
4 embeddedness >800,4..»» » » » » »
2
C substrate mostly travel
1 embeddedness <W*. »
a
2 embeddedness >5096. » »
4
D substrate homogeneous
U
1 substrate nearly all bedrock.
3
2. substrate nearly all sand » »
3
3 substrate nearly all detnais . »
2
4 substrate nearly all add clay » » » .. ..
I
O
Remarks
Subtotal G
IV Pool Variety Pools are areas of deeper than average max nwrn depths with Indoor no surface turbulence Water velocities a
associated with pools are always slow Pools may take the form of `pocket water °, small pools beburd boulders or obstructions, m
large high gradient streams, or side eddies
A. Pools p t
1 Pools Frequent (>30% of 200m area surveyed)
a. variety of pool sizes.. » 10
b pools about the same size (indicates pools filling m)
2 Pools bd equent (<30% of the 200m area surveyed)
a. variety of pool sits. » » 6
b pools about the same sire 4
B Pools absent » .. 0
Subtotal
O Pool bottom boulder-cobbler--bard O Bottom sandy -sink as you walk 0 Silt bottom O Some pools over wader depth
Remarks
Page Total
40 J U

0 S,;, Z
O V Riffle Habitats
=light when the sun is directly overhead Note shading fiam mountains, but not use to score this metric
0
Defuimon. Riffle is area of maeration -can be debris dai; or narrow channel area Riffles Frequent
Riffles Infrequent
Score
rg4 =
A well defbied riffle and run, riffle as wide as stream and extends 2X width of stream OF
12
D. riffle as ande as stream but riffle length is not 2X stream width 14
0
7
C. nine not as wide as stream and riffle lentil is not 2X stream width to
3
D. riffles absent » 0
nChannel Slope OTypical for area flSteep4ast flow OLow! -I&e a coastal stream
Subtotal
LJ Vi Bank Stability and Vegetation
Subtotal 10
FACE UPSTREAM Left Bank Rt. Bank
0 Definition: Riparian z= for this form is area of natural vegetation adjacent to stream (can go beyond
I�JI A. Banks stable
in the riparian zone is any place on the stream banks which allows sedunent or pollutants to directly enter the stream, such as paths
1 little evidence of erosion or bank failure(except outside of bends), little potential for erosion.
7 7
B Erosion areas present
I& Bank Rt. Bank
Score Score
(� 1 diverse trees, shrubs, grass, plants healthy with good root systems
6 6
2 few trees or small trees and shrubs, vegetation appears generally healthy
(3) m
JJ
3 sparse mixed vegetation, plant types and conditions suggest poorer soil binding
3 3
4 mostly grasses, few if any trees and shrubs, high erosion and failure potential at high flow
2 2
5 little or no bank vegetation, mass erosion and bank fbihme evident
0 0
/t)
B Riparian zone not Intact (breaks)
Total
`- Remarks
Vll Light Penetration Canopy is defined as tree or vegetative cover directly above the atream's surface Canopy would block out
=light when the sun is directly overhead Note shading fiam mountains, but not use to score this metric
0
breaks for light
A. Stream with good canopy with some penetration
»
B Stream with full canopy - breaks for light penetration absent. »
8
O C Stream with partial canopy - sunlight and shading are essentially equal »
» 7
D Stream with ndninid canopy - hill sun in all but a few areas
» 2
E No canopy and no shading » »
6
Remarks
Subtotal 10
VIIL Riparian Vegetative Zone Wldth
0 Definition: Riparian z= for this form is area of natural vegetation adjacent to stream (can go beyond
floodplain) Defiuniom A break
in the riparian zone is any place on the stream banks which allows sedunent or pollutants to directly enter the stream, such as paths
down to stream% storm drains, uprooted trees, otter stiles. etc
��_/ FACH UPSTREAM
ri Doinmant vegetation. 1/I'reeS U Shrubs [brasses 0 Weeds/old field OExotics (kudzu, etc)
I& Bank Rt. Bank
Score Score
A RVarlant zone intact (no breaks)
1 wndth> 18 meters
S 5
1 2 width 12 -18 meteor »
4 4
J 3 width 6-12 meet= »
3 3
4 width < 6 meters »
2 2
B Riparian zone not Intact (breaks)
(� I breaks rare
a wridth > 18 meters
§1
b width 12 -18 meters
3
c width 6.12 meters »
2 2
(� d_ width < 6 meters
1 1
L 2 breaks earnrwu
a width > 18 meters _
3 3
b width 12 -18 meters.
2 2
c. width 6.12 meters.
© I
d width < 6 maters » »
U 0
Remarks
Total_
(�
Page Total
O Disclaimer form filled out, but score doesn't match subjective opmnon- atypical stream. TOTAL SCORE
41

0
S. 6,L
Suppknmeot for Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet
Diagram to determine bank angle
1�
90° 45°
Site Sketch
Other comments
42
135°
T w side is W bankaqgl&
9