20061152 Ver 1_Year 5 Monitoring Report_20130212

06,152
Year 5 Monitoring Report for Stream Restoration of
Silver Creek and Unnamed Tributaries
Burke County, NC
SCO # D05016 -01
Prepared for:
NCDENR — EEP
2728 Capital Blvd, Suite 1H 103
Raleigh NC 27604
1 U
20,3 r
� 7
aENVR vvtir KC�un�mr i`.,C()Systelll
'e?landc w S r wasp g
Submitted: December 2011
RECEIVED
-DEC 3 0 2011
NC ECOSYSTEM
ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM

Prepared by:
Wetlands Resource Center
3970 Bowen Road
Canal Winchester, Ohio 43110
Project Manager: Cal Miller
P: (614) 864 -7511
F: (614) 866 -3691
And
EMH &T, Inc.
5500 New Albany Road
Columbus, Ohio 43054
Project Manager: Miles F. Hebert, PE
P: (614) 775 -4205
F: (614) 775 -4802
Main: (614) 775 -4500
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tifton, Inc.
Engineers. Surveyors, Planners. Scientists

Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary 1
U. Project Background .. 3
A Location and Setting
B Project Structure, Mitigation Type, Approach and Objectives
C Project History and Background
D Monitoring Plan View
III. Project Condition and Monitoring Results . 17
A. Vegetation Assessment
1. Soil Data
2. Vegetative Problem Areas
3 Vegetative Problem Areas Plan View
4 Stem Counts
5 Vegetation Plot Photos
B. Stream Assessment
1 Hydrologic Criteria
2 Stream Problem Areas
3 Stream Problem Areas Plan View
4 Stream Problem Areas Photos
5 Fixed Station Photos
6. Stability Assessment
7 Quantitative Measures
IV. Methodology 35
List of Tables
Table I
Project Structure Table
Table II
Project Mitigation Objectives Table
Table III
Project Activity and Reporting History
Table IV
Project Contact Table
Table V
Project Background Table
Table VI
Prelmunary Soil Data
Table VII
Vegetative Problem Areas
Table VIII
Stem Counts for Each Species Arranged by Plot
Table IX
Venfication of Bankfull Events
Table X
Stream Problem Areas
Table XI
Categorical Stream Feature Visual Stability Assessment
Table X11
Baseline Geomorphic and Hydraulic Summary
Table XM
Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. December 2011
Mom toring Report — Silver Creek Monitoring Year S of 5
EEP Contract # D05016 -01 Page i

List of Appendices
Appendix A Vegetation Raw Data
1. Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos
2 Vegetation Data Tables
3 Vegetation Problem Area Plan View
4 Vegetation Problem Area Photos
5 Vegetation Installed during 2011 Remedial Planting
Appendix B Geomorphologic Raw Data
1 Fixed Station Photos
2 Table B1 Qualitative Visual Stability Assessment
3. Cross Section Plots
4 Longitudinal Plots
5 Pebble Count Plots
6 Bankfull Event Photos
7 Stream Problem Areas Plan View
8 Stream Problem Area Photos
Appendix C UT -A Cattle Crossing Agreement Documentation
1 Cattle Crossing Agreement Letter
2 UT -A Cattle Crossing Photos (2011)
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. December 2011
Monitoring Report — Silver Creek Monitoring Year 5 of S
EEP Contract # D05016 -01 Page ii

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Silver Creek stream restoration project is located near Morganton in Burke County, North
Carolina. Prior to restoration, channelization and cattle intrusion resulted in vegetative denuding
and bank destabilization due to hoof shear The vertical to undercut unstable streambanks were
contributing large volumes of suspended sediment and bedload material to the larger Silver Creek
watershed. The project reach includes the restoration of 2,905 linear feet of the Silver Creek
mamstem and 1,552 linear feet of an Unnamed Tributary (UT -A), also included is 166 linear feet
of preservation along UT -B, UT -C and UTD Restoration of the project streams, completed
during April 2007, re- established geomorphologic features consistent with natural stream channel
characteristics. Elements of the restoration included stable channel pattern, profile and dimension
consistent with reference reach conditions quantified within the Silver Creek watershed, upstream
from the project on Brindle Creek. In- stream structures were constructed to provide grade control,
streambank stabilization and aquatic habitat features Restoration reconnected project stream
channels to functional floodplams with extensive riparian plantings The following report
documents the Year 5 Annual Monitoring for this project
Vegetative monitoring was completed in September 2011 following the Carolina Vegetation
Survey methodology Stem counts completed at ten (10) vegetation plots show an average density
of 397 stems per acre for the site. This is an improvement over the Year 4 average of 324 stems
per acre for the site and reflects the remedial planting effort from the spring of 2011 (described
later in this document) This density also far exceeds the required success criteria of 260
stems /acre after five years of monitoring No plots have stem densities below the mimmum in
2011 In addition to the planted woody species, a substantial number of recruit stems have been
found in all plots The recruit stems bring the site average to 608 and results in a 53% increase in
the total stem density across the site
To address the issue of low plant stem counts seen in 2010 on those plots affected by previous
cattle intrusion, specific areas were targeted for replanting within the Silver Creek and UT -A
riparian corridors This planting effort also included the deficient sample plots and surrounding
areas within the buffer Supplemental planting occurred in the spring 2011 This Year 5
monitoring report discusses the details of this planting effort
Year 5 monitoring of the streams identified a few problem areas along the project reaches One
vegetative problem area of low concern was noted for the mainstem This included a small
section along the riparian corridor that contained sparse vegetative cover An additional vegetative
problem area for the project in Year 5 occurred along UT -A Japanese stiltgrass (Microstegium
vimineum) was observed to be colonizing bare ground on the steep slopes of the riparian corridor,
as well as the streambed This issue is discussed in further detail in the vegetation problem areas
section of this report A minor area of aggradation was noted on the mainstem at its confluence
with UT -C and is considered of low concern at this time Minor areas of bank scour that were
noted on UT -A in 2009 have been successfully stabilized using seeding efforts to establish ground
cover.
The most substantial problem from 2009 occurred along UT -A due to accidental cattle access into
both the channel and riparian corridor The cattle intrusion resulted in damage to planted and
native woody species and trampling of the herbaceous understory These areas were reseeded in
the fall of 2009 This reseeding has greatly increased ground cover in 2010 and 2011 and has
further stabilized the banks of the tributary As stated above, tree and shrub species appropriate
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. December 2011
Monitoring Report — Silver Creek Monitoring Year S of S
EEP Contract # D05016 -01 Page I

for partial shade conditions were planted in the spring of 2011 in order to replace those woody
species damaged by the cattle The disturbance to the stream channel was limited to a reach
approximately 400 feet long Minor repairs to the bed and bank of the channel were also made in
2009.
The visual stream stability assessment revealed that the majority of stream features are
functioning as designed and built on the Silver Creek mamstem. In 2009, some features along
UT -A were not performing as intended By the monitoring event of 2010, these features had been
successfully returned to a functional state by way of minor repair. The features have remained
stable in 2011 Since the majority of the feature malfunctions were associated with the cattle
intrusion (which have successfully been excluded from the riparian corridor of the tributary), the
channel features should continue to remain functional in perpetuity The number and depth of
pools along UT -A have remained stable when compared to Year 4. As described in a later section
of this report, it is expected that these shallow pools will cyclically flush and aggrade during
corresponding wet and dry seasons
Dimensional measurements of the monumented cross - sections remain stable when compared to
as -built conditions However, 2009 cattle access to the riparian corridor of UT -A destroyed many
of the original cross section monuments New monuments were installed in 2010 during the Year
4 stream survey. New monuments were also established for a few cross sections along the Silver
Creek mainstem As a result, the overlay of several cross sections monuments on the Year 5
templates in Appendix B do not precisely line up This is not a sign of instability, but rather a
result of re- setting the monumentation at selected cross sections
The comparison of the yearly long -term stream monitoring profile data show generalized stability
with rmmmal changes from as -built conditions However, as discussed in more detail in the
stream stability section of this report, two pool cross sections on Silver Creek mamstem had
notable aggradation in 2011 Also, while two pools on UT -A showed significant aggradation in
Year 5, all of the stream issues that resulted from 2009 cattle access have been corrected and
remain stable in Year 5 The substrate of the constructed riffles remains stable, with median
particle sizes ranging from coarse sand to very coarse gravel D50 particle distributions have
adjusted slightly from year to year but still remain stable after 5 years of monitoring Based on the
crest gage network installed on the project reaches, three bankfull events have occurred since
construction was completed
In addition to the monitoring protocol required by EEP, additional monitoring of Tributaries UT-
B and UT -C has been required by the NC DWQ under the Section 401 perrrut issued for the
project on May 25, 2007 Year 5 vegetation monitoring found that the average stem density for
the combined tributaries far exceeds the rmmmum criteria of 320 stems per acre Stream
monitoring found no morphological stability problems along these tributaries In the spring of
2011, however, aggradation was observed along UT -C Aggradation on this tributary had formed
a lateral bar at its confluence with Silver Creek mainstem This issue on UT -C is explained in
more detail later in this report A picture of the resultant lateral bar on the Silver Creek mamstem
is included in the Stream Problem Area Photos in Appendix A
In December 2010, an agreement was reached between Wetlands Resource Center (WRC) and the
EEP about improvements to the cattle crossing on UT -A At that time, WRC agreed to work with
the local NRCS office to provide offline watering for cattle WRC also agreed to modify the
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. December 2011
Monitoring Report — Silver Creek Monitoring Year 5 of 5
EEP Contract # D05016 -01 Page 2

existing cattle access point of the stream into a cattle crossing (with no access to water for
dnnlung) The cattle crossing was successfully constructed in the spring of 2011.
The following tables summarize the geomorphological changes along the restoration reaches for
each stream The values in the tables are the median values for each parameter.
Silver Creek Mainstem
Parameter Pre- As -built Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Restoration
Length
3,040 ft
2,905 ft
2,905 ft
2,905 ft
2,905 ft
2,905 ft
2,905 ft
Bankfull Width
60.9 ft
58.0 ft
57.5 ft
63.9 ft
55.0 ft
49.0 ft.
53.9 ft.
Bankfull Mean Depth
4.0 ft
1.6 ft
1.6 ft
1.4 ft
1.6 ft
1.5 ft.
1.5 ft.
Bankfull Max Depth
7.0 ft
3.3 ft
3.2 ft
3.4 ft
3.7 ft
3.8 ft.
4.0 ft.
Width/Depth Ratio
5.4*
38.8
36.2
45.3
34.8
27.4
31.0
Entrenchment Ratio
0.7*
1.7
1.7
1.8
1.9
2.1
2.1
Bank Height Ratio
3.9*
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1 .0
1.0
Sinuosity
1.46
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.4
1.4
*These values represent the worst case scenario for each parameter
Unnamed Tributary A
Parameter Pre- As -built Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Restoration
Length
1,508 ft
1,552 ft
1,552 ft
1,552 ft
1,552 ft
1,552 ft
1,552 ft
Bankfull Width
13.7 ft
7.5 ft
7.1 ft
6.9 ft
8.5 ft
9.1 ft.
9.5 ft.
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.3 ft
0.5 ft
0.5 ft
0.5 ft
0.6 ft
0.4 ft.
0.6 ft.
Bankfull Max Depth
0.9 ft
0.9 ft
0.8 ft
1.0 ft
10 ft
0.9 ft.
0.9 ft.
Width/Depth Ratio
52.8
15.9
14.0
14.7
14.6
20.6
17.7
Entrenchment Ratio
0.9
1.9
1.7
2.1
1.6
1.5
1.6
Bank Height Ratio
1.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Sinuosity
1.06
1.09
1.09
1.09
1.09
1.09
1.09
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. December 2011
Monitoring Report - Salver Creek Monitoring Year 5 of 5
EEP Contract # D05016 -01 Page 3

H. PROJECT BACKGROUND
A. Location and Setting
The project is located approximately 3,000 feet east of Dysartsville Road and approximately
2,500 feet south of Patton Road, west of the City of Morganton, in Burke County, North Carolina,
as shown on Figure 1. The stream channels included in this project are the Silver Creek mainstem
and four unnamed tributary streams designated UT -A, UT -B, UT -C and UT -D
The directions to the project site are as follows:
From I40, exit at Exit 94 and travel south along Dysartsville Road and turn left (east)
onto Seven Springs Lane The project spans properties owned separately by Mr. and Mrs
Frank Queen and Mr. (deceased) and Mrs Richard Conway (Seven Springs Farms, Inc )
B. Project Structure, Mitigation Type, Approach and Objectives
The primary, pre - existing land use within the immediate project site was agricultural Based on
photographic interpretation, the site had been historically utilized for agricultural row crop
production and hayland It is likely the project site had been farmed since early colonial times
The site was degraded by past land management practices including mechanical land clearing,
straightening and dredging the stream channels. Silver Creek was one of the first streams in North
Carolina to be mined for precious metals and gem stones The project site was most recently
utilized to produce hay for livestock feed The pre - existing riparian corridor along Silver Creek,
including UT -B, UT -C and UT -D, varied from wide to denuded within the project area. The wide
portion consisted of a mature forested corridor, while narrow and denuded areas were the result of
a recent pine beetle infestation. Active pasture is located to the east and west of UT -A A wooded
corridor is present along the UT -A reach and has been maintained Typical species observed
along the streams and adjacent forested areas include Pinus taeda (loblolly pine), Platanus
occidentahs (sycamore) and Ilex opaca (American holly)
Prior to restoration, agricultural land use and channel incision had altered the Silver Creek
mainstem throughout the project reach, resulting in an unstable Rosgen F4 stream type. The
incised nature of the channel was attributed to channelization and cattle intrusion, which resulted
in vegetative denuding and bank destabilization due to hoof shear The Silver Creek channel's
unstable width to depth ratio, entrenchment ratio, relatively flat average profile slope and poorly
defined active streambed resulted in a deeply incised channel disconnected from its floodplam
Mid- channel, lateral, and transverse sand and gravel bar deposits were observed at locations
throughout the reach, demonstrating the stream lacked stable pattern, profile and dimension to
entrain its bedload The locations of these depositional features in the near bank region deflected
flows from the center of the channel toward the incised vertical to undercut streambanks,
accelerating streambank erosion It is estimated that approximately 5,570 cubic yards per year (or
6,980 tons per year) of sediment was being eroded from the unstable streambanks along the
impaired mainstem reach into the Silver Creek watershed prior to restoration
The UT -A channel was a classic Type I valley confined, Al -A2 stream type transitiomng to a
Type H colluvial valley, B4 stream type in the lower third of the impaired reach The upper two-
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. December 2011
Monitoring Report — Silver Creek Monitoring Year S of S
EEP Contract # D05016 -01 Page 4

thirds of the reach exhibited some bedrock control, in- stream boulders together with flood placed
woody debris from leaning or fallen trees along the unstable, steep to undercut streambanks The
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. December 2011
Monitoring Report — Silver Creek Monitoring Year 5 of 5
EEP Contract # D05016 -01 Page 5

H
Pq rroN
ROgO
PINNACLE
CHURCH
ROAD
Queen H. Frank
& Sarah M.
Map: 89 Page: 38 811k. Lot: 4 7LI
Deed Reference: 8k. 222 Pg. 654
ELK �L
COURT ABBIE 9` <C,
COURT OFF
i
SEVEN
SPRINGS _!
LANE
Conway Elizabeth
8. Trustee
POLLARD Map: 89 Page: 38
Bilk. Lot: 4 13 `r� DOE
PATTON Deed Reference: COURT
ROAD Bk. 1111 Pg. 995 'p
Seven Springs `C
Farm Inc.
Map: 89 Page: 38 81k. Lot: 4 101-1
Deed Reference: 8k. 1083 Pg. 924 w
m
Q
tP
�G APO
MoR��SpN
0
v
0
Evans, Mechwart, Hambi�-ton & Tilton. Inc.
En.gr,i —, • Sit—yor, • F.onncr . Seiantisr -,
BURKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
SILVER CREEK RESTORATION
FIGURE 1: SITE VICINITY MAP
N.C. ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
Date: January, 2011 Not To Scale
r�
En
F�� aosn este Men
t
PROMM

unpaired riparian vegetative communities were exacerbating streambank erosion rates and down -
slope movement of colluvmm Cattle intrusion had adversely impacted the entire tributary as
evidenced by vegetative denuding and bank failure attributed to hoof shear Agricultural land use
(pastureland) adjacent to the stream corridor and uncontrolled cattle access to the stream for
watering and shade resulted in unstable, steep to undercut streambanks, and accelerated severe to
extreme streambank erosion. The unstable streambanks were contributing large volumes of
suspended sediment and bedload material to the larger Silver Creek watershed It was estimated
290 cubic yards per year (or 375 tons per year) of sediment was being eroded from the unstable
streambanks along UT -A prior to restoration
The mitigation goals and objectives for the project streams were met by restoring physical and
biological functions of the project reaches beyond pre - existing conditions Pre - restoration
conditions consisted of unpaired, channelized, eroding and entrenched stream channels. The
project restoration goal was to restore channel dimension, pattern, and profile to stable and self -
maintaining conditions utilizing natural channel design methods and techniques The rmtigation
goals and objectives were met by providing the attributes described below
• Stable stream channels with features inherent of a diverse aquatic and riparian ecosystem
• Integrated a Priority Level H restoration approach by excavating a floodplain and
reconnecting the bankfull elevation to a stable floodprone area
• Improved and created bedform and physical aquatic habitat features (nffles, runs, pools
and glides)
• Muurmzation of existing land use impacts on the stream
• Long -term protection of the stream corridors via a perpetual conservation easement
conveyed to the State of North Carolina
Restoration of the project streams re- established geomorphologic features consistent with
reference reach conditions Results achieved are listed below
• Bankfull channels constructed with the appropriate geometries to convey bankfull flows
and transport suspended sediment and bedload materials available to the streams
• Stable channel pattern, profile and dimension consistent with natural streams in the
region
• Grade control and bank stabilization in- stream structures, such as cross vanes, J -hook
vanes, rock vanes, dual - winged betties, constructed nffles, step pools, root wad
revetment, rock -toe channel protection or native revetment, that enhance environmental
attributes of the stream channels while creating stable and functional aquatic habitat
• Reconnection of project stream channels to functional floodplains
• Extensive indigenous riparian plantings and exotic vegetation control that establishes a
native forested plan community within the newly constructed and protected stream
corridor
Restoration of the streams has met the objective of the project along both the Silver Creek
mainstem and UT -A, providing the desired habitat and stability features required to improve and
enhance the ecologic health of the streams for the long -term Specifically, the completed
restoration project has accomplished the following items, considering both the pre - existing
impaired condition and the channel conditions as venfied as part of the Year 5 monitoring
Silver Creek Mainstem:
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. December 2011
Monitoring Report — Silver Creek Monitoring Year 5 of S
EEP Contract # D05016 -01 Page 7

• Reversed the effects of channel incision and entrenchment using a Priority Level II
restoration approach The restoration has increased the width/depth ratio from 5 36
(most unpaired reach) to 310 (median value) after construction completion and five
years of monitoring
• Restored natural stream pattern, profile and dimension throughout the 2,959 1 f
mainstem reach, decreasing channel sinuosity from 1.46 to 140, while creating a
stable relationship between valley, channel, water surface and bankfull slopes.
• Stabilized eroding streambanks by providing an appropriately sized channel with
stable streambank slopes using a combination of embedded stone, natural fabrics and
aggressive native streamside and riparian revetment. The average Bank Height Ratio
has been decreased from 3.98 (deeply incised) to 1.00 (stable) in Year 5.
• Provided a re- connection between the restored stream bankfull elevation and
floodprone area (Priority Level H restoration). The completed restoration changed
the entrenchment ratio from a minunum value of 0.7 to an average value of 2.1, and
restored the pre - existing unstable, incised and entrenched F4 stream channel to a
stable B4c stream type (Rosgen, 1994)
• Created mstream aquatic habitat features including deep pools, rootwad streamside
fish cover and streambank stabilization, constructed riffles, rock cross vanes, J -Hook
rock vanes, log vane — J -Hook — root wad combination structures with deep pools
and native streamside revetment to enhance outer meander bend stability, shade the
pools, provide fish cover and lower water temperature
• Revegetated the streambanks and riparian corridor with indigenous canopy and mid -
story trees, shrubs and herbaceous ground cover
• Preserved the riparian corridor within a fenced, perpetual conservation easement
conveyed to the State of North Carolina
Unnamed Tributary A (UT -A):
• Reversed the effects of channelization utilizing Priority Level H natural channel
design restoration techniques The average width/depth ratio of the restored stream
channel has been adjusted to a stable median value of 17 7
• Restored natural stream pattern, profile and dimension throughout the 1,552 1 f
stream reach providing a more stable relationship between the Rosgen Type II Valley
(Rosgen, 1994) slope and bankfull channel slopes
• Stabilized vertical to undercut, eroding streambanks by constructing an appropriately
sized channel with stable streambank slopes The average Bank Height Ratio was
decreased from 191 (deeply incised) to 100 (stable).
• Raised the streambed elevation by constructing appropriately spaced step -pools and
riffle sequences, thereby decreasing near -bank shear stress
• Restoration increased the average entrenchment ratio from 0 91 to 161, restoring the
unstable, incised and entrenched A4 stream type to a stable B4 stream type (Rosgen,
1994)
• Created mstream aquatic habitat features including step - pools, log sills, streambank
slope stabilization, constructed riffles, rock sills and rock toe channel protection
• Revegetated stabilized streambanks and the riparian corridor with indigenous
canopy, mid -story, shrubs and herbaceous plant species, where deficient
• Preserved the riparian corridor within a fenced, perpetual conservation easement
conveyed to the State of North Carolina
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. December 2011
Monitoring Report — Silver Creek Monitoring Year 5 of 5
EEP Contract # D05016 -01 Page 8

Information on the project structure and objectives is included in Tables I and H.
Table I. Project Structure Table
Silver Creek Stream Restoration / EEP Project No. D05016 -01
Project Segment/Reach ID
Linear Footage or Acreage
Silver Creek Mainstem
2,905 ft
Unnamed Tributary A (UT -A)
1,552 ft
Unnamed Tributary B (UT-13)
66 ft
Unnamed Tributary C (UT -C)
48 ft
Unnamed Tributary D (UT -D)
52 ft
TOTAL
4,623 ft
Table H. Project Mitigation Objectives
Table
Silver Creek Stream Restoration / EEP
Project No. D05016 -01
Project
Linear
Segment/
Mitigation
Footage or
Mitigation
Mitigation
Reach ID
Type
Acrea a
Ratio
Units
Comment
Silver Creek
Priority 2
2 905 ft
10
2,905 ft
Restore dimension,
Mainstem
Restoration
pattern, and profile
UT -A
Priority 2
1,552 ft
10
1,552 ft
Restore dimension,
Restoration
pattern, and profile
Preserved within the
UT-13
Preservation
66 ft
50
13 ft
conservation easement
Preserved within the
UT -C
Preservation
48 ft
50
loft
conservation easement
Preserved within the
UT -D
Preservation
52 ft
50
loft
conservation easement
TOTAL
1
1 4,623 ft
1 4,490 ft
C. Project History and Background
Project activity and reporting history are provided in Table III The project contact information is
provided in Table IV. The project background history is provided in Table V
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. December 2011
Monitoring Report — Silver Creek Monitoring Year 5 of 5
EEP Contract # D05016 -01 Page 9

Table M. Project Activity and Reporting History
Silver Creek Stream Restoration / EEP Project No. D05016 -01
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc
Designer
Actual
Construction
Scheduled
Contractor
Completion
Activity or Report
Completion
Data Collection Complete
or Delivery
Restoration plan
Aug 2005
Feb 2006
May 2006
Final Design - 90 %1
--
--
--
Construction
Feb 2006
N/A
A r 2007
Temporary S &E applied to
entire proiect areal
Feb 2006
N/A
A r 2007
Permanent plantings
Apr 2006
N/A
A r 2007
Mitigation plan/As-built
Jun 2006
May 2007
Sep 2007
Sept 2007 (vegetation)
Year 1 monitoring
2007
Nov 2007 (geomorphology)
Jan 2008
Sept 2008 (vegetation)
Year 2 monitoring
2008
Dec 2008 (geomorphology)
Dec 2008
Sept 2009 (vegetation)
Year 3 monitoring
2009
Nov 2009 (geomorphology)
Dec 2009
Sept 2010 (vegetation)
Year 4 monitoring
2010
Sept 2010 (geomorphology)
Feb 2011
Sept 2011 (vegetation)
Year 5 monitoring
2011
Sept 2011 (geomorphology)
Dec 2011
Full- delivery project, 90% submittal not provided
2Erosion and sediment control applied incrementally throughout the course of the project
N/A Data collection is not an applicable task for these project activities
Table IV. Project Contact Table
Silver Creek Stream Restoration / EEP Project No. D05016 -01
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc
Designer
5500 New Albany Road, Columbus, OH 43054
Construction
South Mountain Forestry
Contractor
6624 Roper Hollow, Morganton, NC 28655
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc.
Monitoring Performers
5500 New Albany Road, Columbus, OH 43054
Stream Monitoring POC
Jud M Hines, EMH &T
Vegetation Monitoring
POC
Megan F Wolf, EMH &T
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. December 2011
Monitoring Report — Silver Creek Monitoring Year 5 of 5
EEP Contract # D05016 -01 Page 10

Table V. Project Background Table
Silver Creek Stream Restoration / EEP P- oject No. D05016 -01
Project County
Burke
Drainage Area'
Mamstem -8.26 sq mi
UT -A -0 075 sq mi
Drainage hn ervious Cover Estimate
55%
Stream Order'
Mamstem -3rd
UT -A -lst
Physiograpluc Region
Blue Ridge
Mountams /Southern Inner
Piedmont
Ecore ion
Eastern Blue Ridge
Foothills
Ros en Classification of As- built'
Mainstem -B4c
UT -A -B4a
Dominant Soil Types
Colvard sandy loam,
Rhodhiss sandy loam
Reference Site ID
Brindle Creek
USGS HUC for Project and Reference
03050101
NCDW Sub -basin for Project and Reference
03050101050050
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
Reason for 303d listing or stressor
N/A
% of project easement fenced
100%
'Data for UT -B, UT -C, and UTD are not reported as they are Preservation reaches
In addition to the momtonng required by EEP protocol, monitoring has been required by the NC
DWQ under the Section 401 pernut issued for the project on May 25, 2007 The 401 permit
conditions require monitoring data collection related to bank stability and success of vegetative
plantings installed along UT -B and UT -C, which were impacted during restoration construction
along Silver Creek The additional monitoring data is summarized under the appropriate sections
of this report
D. Monitoring Plan View
The monitoring plan view is included as Figure 2
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. December 2011
Monitoring Report — Silver Creek Monitoring Year 5 of 5
EEP Contract # D05016 -01 Page I1

BURKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
FIGURE 2 - MONITORING PLAN VIEW
FOR
SILVER CREEK AND UNNAMED TRIBUTARY
2011
Ocean n. rank k Scron
N.
MW 89 Poge: 38 8k Lot: 4 7U
Geed Reference: 8k 222 Pg. 654
.0.
u°°` Av P,q. x
PATTON
UNNAAiED
ROAD
AwBur ARY C
"� SYMp
\
I i
• �• UNNAMED
DMUTARr B
,, ry
UM
TA rIr n
_
CarlYrey Ol:ebetl� B. T.
Yap: 89 Pagr. 18 BIM. 4995
Deed Reference: 84. 1111 ft
DOE 0O"
Seven Sprtnge form Ina!
c
Naps 89 Pagc J8 "I Let 4 IOU
Deed Refaanec Bk 1083 Pg. 924
LOCATION NAP
Scol e: C-400,
s`
11
t 9 rm Dt.
e9 wor. >a ar. ta:. ni
Wr�ntt &. YY! Pq OSa
LANE
OLLApp
u°°` Av P,q. x
PATTON
ot�LOl:
ea. 1�Pq
ROAD
"� SYMp
Yoc 89 Avgc 70 BW. Loy a �W
Oar1 PKMaM� a. Oflf Pq 9N
VICINITY NAP
No( To Scale
0
QpPj
ELK
� fll
I
E +
c i
F =
E i
c u rs
it
m
s CC
w E—
4 5
Z s u
L �t
m J W
c�
CL
w
I_»
w
E.
COc�,�a
W�
k-
r�
Ti"

........................ ...........
.......... .......
............
VP
H Frank-& -SbrAh' 0
z
_89_Pqom ,, . ........ ......
-22
k 2,.Fkq.
.......... ......
........ ... %' . ..........
ti
..........
................
�p , . ................
-----
........... ....... ...........
..... ......... ........ ... ....
. . . . . . . . . .
. .. .......
1.01�
..... .. ......
...........
........ 2 4t,
.. . .......... ........................... .. ...............
----------------
X-sec I
. ..................
------------
WMA ...... ...
------------- ------ . .....
. ...........
-- imits of
d
------------­----
effitwiCKA ........................
AS -BUILT %Bl�GIN AS-
0+
. ..... . ....... ................
Imp. ---------- ....
..........
..............
.......... ..
-----------
---- ------ ---
........... ................ ....
....... .....
Stream 0 L., iam. wr
Bonk : ........ 1- - ............. ...... ......
ement
Rel fore
BEGIN STREAM WORK Easement ' ...........
STA. 0+00.00 ...... .. ---------------
------- "--Springs Form Inc.
'7 EEP­Pr�f-k N(JI, D04.006- 5 ---------------- ----
....... . . . ..... Plut-OR.- - 15�� ...... Map: 89 Page: ­311 ' Bilk. Lot: 4 IOU
- - - - - - - e: a* "­im Pg. 924
Deed Reference: It.
.............. -------------- ------
----
— — — — — — — --
----- --- ------------------ ........................................................ .......
---------- - ------ ------ --------- - --------------------- ......... ..................
...........
0
C) . . ..........
+
... .........
d.... ..............
L7; ................
L.............................
UmnGmed_
T"b"t.'� y
(UT-B)
Queen H. Frank & Sarah M.
Map: 89 Page- 38 elk. Lot: 4 7U
Deed Reference: 6k. 222 Pg. 654
/-ReCO'ded C­ e'•GQn casement
NC EPP Project No. 005()76-1
Plot &. 31. P4. 249
I.Ven :3prings rarm inc.
Map: 89 Page: ge: 38 elk. Lot: 4 10U
Deed Reference: 8k. 1083 Pg. 924
C_-j
L_j
Uji
U
p
7-
LL
v"
Fig

m
a
0
A
I
— — lr
/ Queen H. Frank & Sarah M.
Map: 89 Page: 38 61k. Lot: 4 7U
Deed Reference: 8k. 222 Pg. 654 l
Prop. Bonk FBI Ilya.)
\1 tt� '•1
,1,ro An _ °ro
Queen H. Frank & Sarah M.
Recorded Conservation Easement
NC EPP Project No. 005016 -1
Plot ek. 31, Pg. 249
Prop. Bank Fill (Typ.)�
.�
.....;.
v ,
-.: �..
000
o
U ...... 7iR '
a
I '
erorde onserw on osemmi- ��
NC EPP Project No. D05016 -1
Pfo Bk. 3t, P 24
OfChiine c,
Seven Springs Form Inc.
Map: 89 Page: 38 elk. Lot: 4 1jOU
Deed Reference: Bti: 4083, Pq.`;£i24
31, nPlat G LPP Bk. 31,
Seven Springs Farm Inc-
Map: 89 Page: 38 61k. Lot: 4 10U
Deed Reference: Sk. 1083 Pg. 924
S f 0
t
/
Gui Jason do S6010
Nap: 89 oge: 20 BIk Lot: 6 168
Deed Reference: Bk -:1016 Pg. 568
1
l
4
I
I'
I
Guy(Joson do Shah
ip: 89_f ,20 BIK Lot;,. 6 165
ted R once: Bk.11016. Pg. 568
'4
Vh'
l�
o try
c
n � u
n
L 2>
- u 3
(y
H
!11
Cc
s W
f J
E
0 1
`t . -
V , _I
Q3 J L;J
Li
f l)
a�
E
L°
r�
IFS
Vegetation Plot (wP
©
Crest Gouge
Cross Section
Monument
—P \L—
E.. Property Line
._
Recorded Conservation
Easement
As -Built That..9
and Stationing
A"ugt Channel
As -Built Structure
camAs
-Built Bonk
StapiilZalbn
I--
As -Built Root Wod
i
��rr� -•
As -Built Riffle
Photo Direction and
Location
l�
o try
c
n � u
n
L 2>
- u 3
(y
H
!11
Cc
s W
f J
E
0 1
`t . -
V , _I
Q3 J L;J
Li
f l)
a�
E
L°
r�

-
LEGEND
vegetation Plot (VP)
�1
Crest Gouge
Cross Section
Monument
—P \L—
En. Property Line
Recorded Conservatbn
Easement
As -Built Tnalweg
and Stationing
As -RuiM Chonnel
l�
As -Built Structure
As -Built Bonk
Stabilization
`—
As -Built Root Wad
As -Built Riffle
Photo Direction and
Locotion
Queen H_ Frank & Sarah M.
Map: 89 Page: 38 Blk. Lot: 4 7U
Deed Reference: 8k. 222 Pg. 654
`•
.................
_ .'Ca .....
_ . "fin•.. ; \:'
try •..,���s�• -. •'-•:�,,,._ `1-��.�� �' ....... C ..., •- rnorweg •`�~:.�"c'Mi:.`"'�� -?
K -t '
y
rr
_ — — 1 `�`•` Ma • Seven
89 Page: 3388 -Blk. Lot: 4
��
"-Recorded — I . : . ...
NC PP Conner rotipn Easement = - - Oeed ReferenC� - -8tc T6
Guy Jason & Shola E Project No. 00,,46 -1 -
Map: 89 Page: 20 81k. Lot: 6 166 Plot Sk. 31. Pg. 249 Holton Land Company LLC
Deed Reference: 8k. 1016 Pg. 568
Horton Land Company LLC
Map: 89 Page: 20 BIk. Lot: 6 167
Deed Reference: 8k. 933 Pg. 624
S
Map: 89 Page: 20 81k. Lot: 6 168
Deed Reference. Bk. 933 Pg. 624 - -- - --
-
- Parnanr,e hnyng Crest ONn.inatWid aldq ar- eulyd�' f4�. Wnib,ot•tha eonsr��glfon ae..n.�t�
....
o �
b.
N III
V _
m
I:L
Q
M
L�
w �
uz
- w
ZL yj
,7 _ l G
i
CL
Y
n D LJ
w
Li
J
IJ 1
Pill)
f n�9
t
>01
L oM
ViJ
fyX;
i?5

O
ti
............
........... ........
...........
at
av
"A
VP
%
V
Thal—g
,
5
Queen H. Frank & Sarah M.
Map: 89 Page: 38 Blk. Lot: 4 7U
Deed Reference: 8k. 222 Pet 654
C
rya, 0 1L R P Plal ek. Pro - 5- ion
' '31. 5 t -"a"- '75e
C
Pro
P
2, �7
005�11156�
ny ern of
z5— j
Point or Typ.), ......
*aoss-6
- ---------
END STREAM WORK
STA. 29+59.13
END AS--5kJlLr
STA.. 2,pof:05.25
% ... ..... ......
. ...............
r. ...... ...............
-at ?(Ole Z . . ........ ......... ....... ......
"Fill
PrOo Bank, (T)v
.......... ..... . ..
.................
.......... .... ............. ................ .................... .
.... .............................. —„w_-
30 . ...... .. ................ .......................... Ekewd� Roy BrendaA
----- ..... ......... ......... — ..........
— ... . % .................... :7wp: Page: 20-Sk. at: 6.306
...... -- ---- Oeieo Re erth6ei- 81k. 759 PqZi 817
Seven Springs Form Inc.
-- -------------_------- ............ ......
Map: 89 Page: 38 81k. Lot: 4 IOU ......
.............
Deed Reference: 8k. 1083 Pg_ 924
........... .... ........
. . ---- -- - ----_---------------- ......
..
. ....... --------- . ......
......20 E k.
-Uta 135
..
......
b.
L
>
LC
M
z
LLJ
z tz a. C.L
<
LIL
it
UJ
E5
Sys
J.
LEGEND
vegetation Plot (VP)
Crest Gouge
Cross Section
Monument
P\L—
E, Property Line
Recorded C.—votin
Easement
As-Built Tr-olweg
and Stationing
As -Built Channel
As-Built Structure
As-Built Bonk
St.bilization
As -Built Root Wad
As -Built Riffle
Photo Direction and
Location
............
........... ........
...........
at
av
"A
VP
%
V
Thal—g
,
5
Queen H. Frank & Sarah M.
Map: 89 Page: 38 Blk. Lot: 4 7U
Deed Reference: 8k. 222 Pet 654
C
rya, 0 1L R P Plal ek. Pro - 5- ion
' '31. 5 t -"a"- '75e
C
Pro
P
2, �7
005�11156�
ny ern of
z5— j
Point or Typ.), ......
*aoss-6
- ---------
END STREAM WORK
STA. 29+59.13
END AS--5kJlLr
STA.. 2,pof:05.25
% ... ..... ......
. ...............
r. ...... ...............
-at ?(Ole Z . . ........ ......... ....... ......
"Fill
PrOo Bank, (T)v
.......... ..... . ..
.................
.......... .... ............. ................ .................... .
.... .............................. —„w_-
30 . ...... .. ................ .......................... Ekewd� Roy BrendaA
----- ..... ......... ......... — ..........
— ... . % .................... :7wp: Page: 20-Sk. at: 6.306
...... -- ---- Oeieo Re erth6ei- 81k. 759 PqZi 817
Seven Springs Form Inc.
-- -------------_------- ............ ......
Map: 89 Page: 38 81k. Lot: 4 IOU ......
.............
Deed Reference: 8k. 1083 Pg_ 924
........... .... ........
. . ---- -- - ----_---------------- ......
..
. ....... --------- . ......
......20 E k.
-Uta 135
..
......
b.
L
>
LC
M
z
LLJ
z tz a. C.L
<
LIL
it
UJ
E5
Sys
J.

i
Z_
'Zi
i, 'K
.
. . - . ..
,
.o
/ . ,;
:.,,.... "'..",/
. . /
/, , ,,, --:-.•
.•,. ,�, .
..-',-
,
__ ,'. ..., .. .... ", n
... ­* - >_ . .
.. - ............................ 77:71 ------- :: ------ :::-,;:;;, 'a, .-bg
, . _­ .......... _ 1210- . .--'
�: _. . ��.. -
" .... _­_. ..... - - - - aw .
,,--, ....*, /..''.," /-..1, '..",.1, ,,.,1, ­ ,_­ '....'.... _------------- - ---- -- ------
.. _---------- � . .
............ ......... �­-,.. ...,
.-- - .... ......
, " -, * , , .. . , ...... - - - -12(;�� -
. .. "O I I * , " .* ., , �-_-­, ', . ....... __ -----_------------ � --_---------- � ..... � ....... I ..................... -- . �Giid*--Ifth
.. . i: - - .. .. " '.'/.- -.1 .� - - ... - ---------- I ----------- - - ­. . .. =.
. : ,.I. ,/.. .. , ., -, ,� --- � ....... .......................... � ----- ................. ........ -
. . ,. . .. . . . , __ - -1 ...................................................... ----I--
,
------------ -----
. ,
,
, . �.
.�.,,, ......, /...�,. �..... ,� - I
I --
I . .
, -, ` "
.. , / .. ,�
.:."
, -
I/- , "I ` "' /
'''
I I I
" / ..
- .. .. /,:.:i
" / > _1_,;. ., .
.. ., " .. ,�. .. .1 . _��_a
, . , e.-,.,. . �
__
--- m ------- m , ...... 11"ilec
. ,­WG:�?
.- - ...... ,­ , ...01 , -3r
.. . ....- �mm�� ...., .................... m ............. - � - _=mm:7m..,:=. = ----­------------- � . f
,
M.
--
. - � ... - ...... �
- , -, ::., ..,­ ........ � ...... -.1 .......... � ................... � ..................... .....
- . I ; I �' .<,: -----..... .... ........ ................. ,_-­-.-.­--.--_ -- -,- -
. - " -, ------ -- ...... � .... I - -<_-_ ... -- --: : .. I ....... - .-II.- . �..-.-.-.-.-.-.
-1- -
� I - .
. . ,. --- :,- - - -,- ',---- - ,`-- -------- - , . -, --:::::::: ..
. .. I " .,- %200, - ..... �....... � ...... 1. . :., ..
i 5� - " I _ ..... ..... ,. _.: ----------- -- ----- �!��:. -, ,
- ...... � ... - I ........ ... .:: .... �:, .�: . ................. : ... � ..... :;::�z I -� -1. - ---- - ­-
I : : -.1. � ------- -- ,,- ....... .. I . ....'.'.,.,.� ... :. ... � - � ` . - ....... _,".. " - I
, ,; ........ ­' ,,, -,-7.7,7-,--­.., ;,-,. ,� . ...... . ... ....... * .... ­," fl, 4-sww 04sk-"
1: __ -,::::::::":::::::: ... - , =
- ---------- .- •- •- ---• - -- ... r�,;j­- ....... - .,,�. ... - ��4 Lwy
., . . ..,-":. ... - _ .... �_ � - z � . tkwoms -, - -
11 . . - ---------- - - :r��i;�,_,­ -A- �� . ," .... .. _­ - ,
77:­ Z��. . . . __ . 1: 1, ...... - --
T.- ..... � ...... ,--=. .L... - � . ...... - ......... � .... � -
i���~:��r-�.:i�­ iiw�,, - - � , :� _.- ".�1.1, I � ...... ........... _. . -
'I, .�. ------------------------ .:,., .._ ... __
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
. , � , .: I
:!�? 7��, f. �7i. " : .: . ......... � .:;.. :. -1
, . . - .......
.
."... T_
- ----:7z7:::. ________­.�.­.,..-.! --------- . ,. - - -
. . .......
, " .. - - .. .. .� ,-.., - - .­," . , . , I ­.-.­...._-_.
,
01 -1. - - --- , " _ _ , -4�-:_S,­____..... , I , - � - I .z, -
-,---,, '7-,:;a *.,:--: =-=,----­,-,- ,�t---�E- -.-� ' ��. .,: - -
--- .�
,-.-....,.7,., 4­:L---� ,*,--,*,., -, ,
--i-T. ,.: 7. _ . . -7-, .
.---.:: -------- -._ ..�HH_ftb - .. ,,.11 '.
, - , .1 � I - ­,_ %
- - . ----- ----- � .1 I ,;_ - �
,
- .... ; _ .. ---- 1,,3de\,Qt,dr,nel Bony .. - - - .1 - -
. _� --- , - - ...
-, - .. 4� .- � .. -, - & - , ` .7 .. I ------- .. ,_ .....
. *
.... .... � ------- ----- . ., _�--- , - .....
. - - .. - ---------- " . .
--___ _-, .. I �� , -
1� - ­�:�77!M�.'::�� - Roilinforc, 4,4. `F,pO;T­ � . I ... ... ..
-
-
`
Fcgrk':A jarah­i_;-:_-"�� .•.•...... �:,�:-.-.,:::--:.,-�,.,.,-:.--::-----.,� ....... _ � ...... : .. ....
lg�_ _ ---- :: ... � .... ................ ........................ .. ­­_
: i::M --:::::::, ........ � ......... _._
_. - ... :_
n*.':-W::'222_'#q.­664: --- ::_;;•..: ::'-•.::::: ......... :�- __ ..... � .................... .
_llfl� - -­._ ._­ . - - - -
- - _ .........
- ---------- - ---- � ------ � - I - - ....- ....
ervo� 7--l" ,�7 - ----- 7� , , __ .........
,, ,, �, ,, _::
''''
..... I � ---- -1. _­­ _: ------ _.. ­1111, ..... I—-
I-NG-VOIXID-1 - - .,. ........ - -,
.,., .. -, .
.... ­_:� _:
O "" .1 . .. .. ... ... ___
- .:: ­. __ _­ :::::::
..... .
, "' : ........ I- ----- ...... , ... :. ,_ ��
. 90- ­ -1- ": ........ ,Z, --
-, ..... -
r... ...... I ....... � -_!:� -11 ­ ..... ...... .., - : - a
...... .... -, lb
.... ... � --_..,­ ...... ....... 4
I,�� ­_., ..... I- * * - . ,::::::: : .................. :;:­. -,
. . ...... - ",_ __ -
, - , ""
..
I- .- :­.-::,-::.:,.::::::: ..... .... ­. .. 1. ­_1 ..
, . - (A
........ _­ __1 .,.,. _.. __ �:,--. ,. .. '. ,
11 . " '7 " - . � .
- , 77.1� " :-�
- - -lia ................... _11, , �-, ...:::":, - a
, " , � . .............. � :E
,
.. ... .... .1 . i , .. -
* �_ 4tft,
­: .1. .
R.,
, I - . •,
�­­ ..... � . .. ........ :!_Z.1_-_
.v . ,��, ,.. .. ....
. -:!--------1-- ____ ......... . - -z:::...::: ...... - .......... 'lei, I-
. . .. .. . ... .... . ...... . _� .:7_77 - : - :.::- .. ..
_ .._
.. - - .. - ... ............... , � , ,­1 ..... . _... -.".-, ... - . . .% ......... :,. -,
, _,,_ � , . . �
. . - � - - -----
- , ­_,_ . t .. , � . . .,Z� . ............. ::," -8
dr;d L: 1101h ::: ,-, . ..... � ------------ . �
x ... * _: ------ ---- --, _� ............. ......... . ........... -. ` � .
- ...... ... , I , . ,w B,o ct, Flonfingq ' . .. ... . ",­­1 ......... I - - --- ­.. � .
­..­..
.... I --
, � - - i,rj
-
- , \ _. -, ,_ - ', \ - . � � ., - Z:::----:: -------- - - - " ; ... - ... ... - �
"... . .-.:.-.'----%-�'-----�',----:::: -------- 7., ......... . - - ............ I-. "' � i '. I., 11. - - - - - - - � - .,-, :...:::::::::**"
- - - ........ .... --- :i- , __,,,�: --------- � . , , .. - - �
WORK` - -, - -----::: , - , . _:� . � __
.. . - ..-.:_,-.*:- -��:��:, , _____ -1 : : � , , i 'L , " - , ,
. ,.. .1 , ..��--7�� -7 - .,-..:7-.= - - , - , .� .. - ------- ::: .................. % .... - .
". 00.1 , ,. . ,-, - .. ; . ... ...... , - . . ,--, �,,-: ', .., ... : ---- ­ *. , ,\ �, . .., ­­_ - - - - ... , __
- . . . ,. .. _. , ... , , ------------ 1 j : . , \ �, . .......... ... � - : :. .:: - , 6
.".. ... , . _.;F�---, -,�-_-,-, .-.-, �� .. - - , .., . ,,­.., .. , - , � - . � � "-.-: .......... ... ........ _... - ... .1 , - 0
... . _ �� _6.,. � ,,_ , - ,�
DO � 11, , _�, - , .
. ... .. - .- •
�..._. . . � � - �/ ., . ... �
, , . - ; " ,�� - --;;, - �R.,.,,., , �
.� ". , . ,:... . - -, ­ .... .... �._ - ., � , - - , , , : ! .. 1. .... 1� I-, :::::::� - ". .
.., ­:,.., - , .. , . , . .-::" 4- - I I _VR , I .... 11 .... .�,­ -,
1. . I , 1: --'. ', `,>'J, eR-1011',,l:,,,1; iatiol,EQ!". ,,_ -,� -, ....- IL . � .� ­_ , �,. -
" 1,-, -1 I ......." ..... � " . . . . .. in
.., ". ,�,. ,�,_, . - I I . , I Bk, 3t; -,,, � - -- I . � � �� . .. .. .1 ., .- ..,
. . .., " -� 7 . , I : ............. -, I . ; .. .� ­­ . .
. .. , --I \ ................... � , I ­­ ....... .'� " "' �, ­- . . .
I .. � ,.,,..�,. . .1. - .: .... ...... � " _: . --'.',:-:::,::::: ...... * .. ":::::::::: ,. � , ` \''` :-- -: -
. . - -'.-'. I � * .,. -'--.: , . * 'e?", _C Usirmept'"'," _ , ,.. +
,
�� I" 1, _1* " .1 - .. : I .----.. - , P 1KPF1,Piojiep1* �. ,W � ,,� � .......... Odr-Not Dliluro) : - - L -
." .., .� . , / ,-.. - - . - --- - -P - .. : . . •. ... ,,� .�. 1. , _� , ...
, , , .0 . . .,�::� -:::.', - , . . : -7, ...... I.` -
., ,­_,,­�� , . .. " , ..". .1, ----------- I.- , � I - - :-- , ­i , - �
�
, i • .1 - 4 ,. , . .: ...... ". -, -.., _... .� . , --, . ... , � .
�11.1,1.%` ..-:,;��r, �_ , , . . .,* -,:,,:.;� ,.'. "..-:, _� - �� � . -as .. - - ...." .., . d
. . . - I . .. .. . .- ,
,, �, , . ' . * . ' .. .. ", 7 I , .. - . .. .�� __ I ..... I ....... I � � "' ., � ....... � .... VI
-...
- � , , � , � . ' " ... "' 7-:_ � ....... �::­ - '. " " .
, .. .!t,_ , - -_ "
­ ­1,11 11-11.", ,., .. , , � .... � "
,', - , . •
.. " - - - _-, - , - I ` - ....... I �� .. ..- . .-. - I... I . - ..... - ,
. -:_ ,��__ - - : .1. 1. - ., " ­. -- - --%. - ,­ "I , ..,�,, ,,.,
. .'­ / " :.. 0. ,,-`--,,., . \ " , " _
", . x". __ � ___....­_.,..�_. _ - ,:, . '...
, -,
-
- . _. � - . .
", , , .
.
- .
.0
* ...... . . - ------ _ ........ I ............................ ; ..: * , .1.
.... " -Z , ,-,.-:::---,: . . . .. - ,. - .-- .. � .� ,. ... I � '­ .. �, 11 I 16', ...... Ill Ill, � .,. - - ,
... . ........... .. , ....L. -_ ..,. ....- __ _ ..... - ..... '"', -- ._\..,,:; . , , .
-* I •,��, . ... . � ------ � _,-,-:.,--:.. .� ...�/ ... , -,. , � , , ." .�� ', .- ` - �:­ ,.:� .._ ,.� ... . . , ., -.� .... ..... , .�. .. .- : ..... .. __ - -:% �, -
- " �. - . 1. .. ., �,. -1 .. , � - - - -, _... ,4� . " . .................................................. � .. : '-..- ­_ - -- ­.;�(
- - . � � � I - .- � I '. .., ,_, _140 I � .. - .... ., ------------ --- � ..,
I ,,­­_: _Tzoc�_ � ..
.� -­ -,, - .. . - - . . . - , , ...
. . ­-, , - �< , een, . � . -
- .
. - - ,/ .. . I . .. .. 1�b I ---,. , - __ I i�i�� 4i i !91��w m: , - ... , - ____ - --- --------------_- � .......................... .." ._,� ... -------- -- 11 _... � --
. . .. .�... ... �... . -, . - - . . " ' .. - . - -:- . ........ - __ ------------­- , _ -, -, - -_2�
.,'. ,, . - bP::'89,'P49e,, 13ka-1-di _ � ..... � ....... - - - - - - - - � , _____ � , .,... " .. - 4i .
.- -1 . .L, - - -.:: --_--� .
.
-
.. .- .. 1, I - .
.. - .... ,_ - --- . ._. ._,_ -_
�. I L . .. ,:,.,.-.-------- � ----- ... .
. � ,
, .
.. 1. � .. . 1. - -- 91�. '::� - . �
% 36 - t-,'.'+'.�U�-­'. ---,, .- "
, -4 _ , '---- ', -
� -42 1 . .., - ..... 1. . - -, � ,��-, L_.
.. " .. " -_pq.-'.`6. " -,�' -- � � _/ , .
.
-
, . , .
Deed 'Aefivrs�'ce '_ - 4 , - - - - I . -1,
, -1 .. , , � ..� * ' . � . - �
. . - �, ­ 'L ­�� . "' ,_ .�:-­:­-, -0 .�i it.. "� iniomw - I . , -, . ".. ""... ---,.,, -� ­.... .-, . ....
�. - , " 1-1 1, -, 609~lt. '­_ :, - . .
", ".. _". .. .� . . . � . . - .. . - w .. _ , - � ..
. - ....
..... . ..
,�� - ­­ - - - I ' - i I iliAij . ' . ; . iii . ' . 'i . i� ......... 6 , ;i' . 1Wtlr-4t.tk*._em ....... !Ioq- , , - �, ,
. - . - .1. .....
� - - -119� - ..............
............. , ......... --:: ......... I..: .................... ......... ... ....... ...... -
_.­,..,­ _',
....... I— ...... � ........ ,--,-, .
...... � ..... ... ......... . ........ _ - . .���'-�.-.......--...........�"', ", .1, �, , " ( ............. - .
....... � . ...... ­-, - - ,11 ...... _ .,::!.. . "
_ ,
....... ............. I . . .::. - - - - ��, .. ­_ - , _� ",-..,,. --l". . '....... ,­,_ "...'. ., I& ............. . "'. ":,- - ...........
.... --------- - - ... - - , - ... '.... . - , , ­-
- ... ... .� - - ..... ­­': ........ � ... :: .............. - �_ - �7Ar-L-_-.-.,.,.,_­::_
. ...... . .. . _­ ` � - , ­ _-1. _,`.--__,__, , I- __ '. , - - ... :.,: ........... -
* ve9eiatior, pl.i (\(P) ... - , . _­ � . : .
- - - %9 � ..... I ........... . . . . I . ... :7 , .. _- ....... __ " _� - .. 13 . ---------- 1, - ..
- .. �7. �� I . .. .... -::: ................ :--� __ . -1 -
.1 .... . : .... ..
1z - . r: . ._.... . , I-- - ... .... ... . -
;; ........... .. ..., - -
Crest Gouge 4b .. ... - � . I �., - ---------- -;:�--�� - - - ----------- ------ --
....... - ......... I -_ _.. - ..... -_
O�­.,_ .1 ..... -
- , .1 z I . .1 ........
- _-, i .1, ih _. �`. .." - - ......... " z
in .-, . , . . __,. ... ­ - ,. "Quegg H , "" . - .. " � "
* .... - - . . ..... --ri� di m- - � - 11�, -,_,­­ .. ... Wo
_ ........ I . __-, ..... ,­ ., , , - - . ... .... . - , - ,. , ... ., .�. . _.. if Ul
.... _., ... I ". -- - ge" - k. Lot- i,� � " ...... - _
Cross Section ------ *11 ...... ..... "" : ..... � ------ � . ...... � .. . .. ` ­. , .... ....
a ..... . . . . I I . � ----- - . ­01 '
Monument - - ,. ,. .. .. .. :-__­ M-6p. .89 0 w, ' - ,. ' ' , ... - .. . �� - ,:,�
,�_ - - . - . ...... ;I ' ' . ­ . . ...... . �._ -, .". . - - . _,__ . . .. ... � . U,
.- - - . - ..... . - '-- - - 654 ---------- ' "' - __ ., .1 "..
-0- :E ------ � .......... � ............. - _�__, -------- - �:,_-­-,�� _,, . ,
. � .. .� - , ..."De6d R06;&iCe. Bit. 219-Pt. . . .. .. ., .. . .1. ,�E
I � .
, - ... I- . - -, ,_­1 _. , .., I � -
�
- P \ t - Ee. Property Line I - - - - _%%e,6,,- . ... _.1. -..-- . ," . . .... .. - - . - _* _. - . __ .. ­:�_
. . . � .... �_ ..
------- - L .. - ­1 ................. - - - - - ------ I ----- ...... . - ---------- � ---- ..�., .. Z '.- .. ".'----' .- - 4y ......... �
. . . - ' - ......
- - ---
.
Recorded Conservation ­ � We `"'•• ...... :- - ., E-%.V,6�nt _- . - .
,.in. - . .. - - emitia Consafvci(;�- . .., . '. . ._r , , _­ � , - -
, * .... I . . � ..:7��B _- .... , _.­ __ I.. ..., - � - . . ....
44 . . ....... : - - ... (r, t %- ., L . � ........ .,. , - - PP­Prd�ci t 6- , . I . /I " . _­ .. /1, ....... 7 ol
__ z; ......... . - ......... '...�-z-­ � . . I .... I ... , 11
" ! t� ___` . '" __ - mC E rip-DO1501_�1 _..... .. --"- . ., EIL , ......... I "
,t,:._:__-:: : - ,. __ ,:.,:.,.. ..., - " I .11 .1 ... 1,
Easement - - -,. ': . Z;�;,:,: ... :: - , '... - ., , '... _,.. . ..... � ... ... ........... � , ..... .,., ......... Plzlf"bk. �L-Pq.­249 - ,­ . ... .. ...... ;;Cl 0,-w-1 .. ,,,, .-, " .. . .. I
7 - I - - ... .... ..... ­­ ,. . . . ;; -, ` �.' - (Dp tiot� " ,iib) .� . , .. , ,., .. U)
As-BUOJ Thol.eq . , , - - - ..... - - - - . . ...... .. % , - � ..... - _... _ ..,.. .... ­_ . ...... ,,��A , . " , . Di* -1 ". -, ..."', .
,,___: - ...... � , - ... - . - ., ­ ,. � . I I , - ... -_ - - - ..
and Stationing - .... , ,.�. . ­­.: .
. -
___ _:_ ;=_, -, .I.- ., - ,:- - -::: --- __ - - __1 ..... I ............ - , - - .., " . , - . . . . . 11 , . . , : ........ 1-1- .1'.. , .
, , � , ,
I .
'r- ... :::,-.:�: 30- , -j - - . , - , , -7., a
, ��t-:t,!:�i C
0 -��, - , .- , ,_­­,:::,* ...................... �-- - - -w ....... ., "", -, - -,I ­­�-,,�,, .
-
- ,
As-BuOt Channel - ..­­ _ Umdmjw Trwt& , y , ..!l?i,. SAW , , C!"awlt - •­_ - - - .. L ling \126's - 1, , / .... "..,:::.,::::: ..... -,:,: , - � ,.:-:" � ...... __� 0
..,.. - 4&_ _­. _.., - - ::: *. ',-, -,:. ., - .. . .1 , ­ - , ." -
- .. - ­.' ��­7if .... Pools "- -.- ......,
- - ..., . ...................... - ...... �. - ..,
.., . . .. _ � , ...... -_ 1:::::)G .!N '.'-:'-'-::: ..... --------- - :r.., .... . - ,.::',
- . .. ...- _� '. Z -'-'-. ' - I - % ... �� - _.. � ...... 11 ... ­ 1. - p --- I I I /_ . , , . ... . -��­�� -,
6 ,: , ... .
0 � .7 ..� Z" , i�. �, _ .Ste ------ - .i::
-.
. , _ z,. - - " -
. _ �4 " %.... -, , .'-
, - ,­ ._­ 6' -`
.
. � . -Z I,%- - ,,� .. .. . . 7, . ::::::::::: .- ; ---- . ol,01;jprl�, .., - 12 0
.. .. ..._., 4 �.,:. ,.,-,7 . . ­ � " ­ ...... . - ___ � ...... ­ _ .. ........ * .:!�� .338116- ---. - - � -1 -.1
+ , . .� .. ­ .. - , "' .......
as -Built Structure ., s �
. . � A - ,,. . ., . - -
., ......... � " , .. - * .. � :;o� " mn,�: ... ;_��
. .0 _ . � - .". :., 0, 7 .
� k. �_ . - --------- -- - _'. -1.. ... ... I ... --- � i e - � --LW +
in � . - I'll ... � . .. .1 .., _..t,.,. , -L'." . . ... "" 0
-;;� - Proposed --!.,.I . �,-,.,.,­.-- . ­____. ... _.,:,.. ....
- ....... I - . . �
... .......... ,� ... ....... . ,_,,... - : , _ -,..,. -
;i,i;��, _ _ --Rdt- ... -------- .- __ �.: --
-1, -- --- I - - . . -
, I `­:, "'. , - - - h78 . . =. 'r -1 _,�­_­­ ... ........ ,. -. -. - .-
Stabilization . .. . ... ,, ..:. : I .;. .,� ::� �� �,��_ , " r
-------- ----. . .
. .
_­ ...... � . � ...... .. - . . . , - :
Bull Bank d ,-,-".-- ,.,�--.'-�.�.,---.-.---.--.7---,---,-..-��- � , , , , - . � �� -
....... I ... � --------- __ ....... ­.:,:..:;::. �_ --- � k4�p�,__­ - . ��__ ,.
- � _ -1115, , I- 7- -- -
I ---- � �- - .. ­i: ..,: - .. .... - .5 - - -
� ---------- - - :�� , - -- .... ..... ;�� _ - -7 ­ ............ -, U)
------- I --------------_------------ �, ­... ­_, - - . ,. : -.-- - d
,-,,,,-,::­ --------------- :, * - - --_--------- �-___-_-.-.-- ....... �,� �
As -Bull Root Wad . � .. ­­ - . yf;., - , I - 7� ........... -- - - - -------------------- liii: ... ... - ... - - -
-.::::::""-:,.,.*-
-, .... - ", ", ­­ � `.%:1 . Ex. lhdwsq*** ----- - - . 7. .. / , ----- -1165 � ...... ...
­� ................. -1185- - - __ - - - , � ,. ,.,-, .--- ... 1. _.�� - I ...... - -::-. __.: - �� -----' -­ , __ ...... �7 .. ... ... .. - -
. ..1. .-'* .,.--,-"::.--:::..-.: _. -,
� , ------- --------- -- :,_ - - _-
- . ----- :.:::......:::,�.,� ;,�s I ,,"::­. :: ... ......... __ .. .
,. !�� . . .... .. .... _7 - � . ,-. :_ - _.... . .. -, - .. ..... ---- *L��­ -:--:,-:--,-. ............ I - v
.z . ... ... � � - ... .1 ,_� - � -------- -, -
- .... - - � ;:-- .... ::: . - . "
. -
-
- ----------- 1. % ., � . , - - �. . . - .: .... .. - � '...., .:",. - - �� ------ ,-_:.--- ..... - ...... .
7m - - ::1 ------- __•_'.__._____..... . � - - . - . . . �� .:- -, -:-:-,-:. ­ ....... : .. ..... I .,
- As-Built Riffle "I - � .- ,:�:.-�: \'•, , - .-.-::.-:. _. ,,, . . ,.-- .
, . � . . .9
a-- 2 ........... - - ,.. , I . . _....�.. ,-..-,� IL ............. � ... ------ __wn ....... . __: � ,_ , -
1-1 , - ..� . ..",".. _. � .7.. I �--::: ......... -_,:!:� " -C
k , :7� ........ ..... , ., � . �, .­ ., .. . I*. -----.. .--:-:-- ., _­ < .......
. - - - - . .. 11 . , " .. ...... " __ , ��--,.-,.-J,.,i--:-.-- ::mi;f:: .... ............... � ..... : U
. ......... , . . .,. ,.� 1, .,- . - . - . . .. - - . . , , I .-.,.-.,.��,.,--,. -, Z�::- .: .............................. ........ ­­ ................ - �
. . , ,. I"', � .�.
m ..... - - . . ...., . , . :. ­ ..... " ... "I ...... . .......... :::---__ ..... --------- � ... a
" - ... 77 , . . . . N, . .. I . . . ..... - ` ,: ............ . .. . .�:l
- " . . . - ---- �
. '... L ,� . � , " .
Pnot Direction and . � .. � . .. �. , ,
� , , .. . . __ ... ­_:�- - - -
... . , � .. - � .* , - __ " ........
_+ Loi:ooi . ..... -, ., . 1, .. L, ""', "', t- ��. . . , .. � ........
I ion . . - . - . ". \ I- - I.- . - , . ,. 1, ... . , - , �,.,. ... 11 �. 1. ......... ...... _ _:� ..... � ... ­ ... ..................... ::­ ............ I .... .. :2
,. I\% ,­ .... -
C . ....... .. � - .:... , , I.:: , . . .. , - �, .... - ... ':: - ��­-- _ ....
� . ....... ............. - __.� -,
-
..... - . -1 ... � ---- � ............ :,:
s�::,­
,. ..� ". V:.:. , ...... - . .."., - ;.__� ,;;F�OTIM 449e! I.- ------ ,,� - .
....... -1. .... --- ..
.,. . 1 .... C�* ............. I --- -L ..... ___-�� �
�_ ., .. .1 -Sco-fun- r,amnel .... Reco*dOd IZ- . .................... - . .......
I. __ : - - -.-., . I � .... I � w = - - - - .
, - . I -T-r-eg ... w7to'l bangs.,- ,. -. -,..
anit& ­', ,p 2A-.9 9-1-� ......... 1. --:::-- ----- - ---- 'Wit�-:W:GnIZ -
•, \ , - - �rop - 0 � ��. -;;,
, �.,..�. ...... - ' "­�_it _-:40t;­+­7U�_
. . Ild, ­__� 7 21 *34. , I I
, ...L'��&� 3�'i;;�(
. I ,. .... 13j�. ....
"I I. -�, "I" �... ..%. � .. . .. _�4kz -'.-= 014:.-:44 _::::
.
.
I . - . .. . � . . , � --- - I ...
.
. .....
.....
. . . ..... . -
-,,I,,- .. . ­ ... .. ., -, I .1 ....... ---- - - - ­ - - � ... __ . ...........
. - .. ---- I., ---------_-- � ... � ............... f."', .."', _- - ........ - ,­­__.­,_.__­ '........... � -..-. _­. ..... '...... . - .. .. / "
----- - 9ft ��-,,:. ..- _ --- Ou6in _K­ rank-4 Sarah M ----' - �_ ___ - �, ---' . . .'. / ., : ; : /
, = I ... Ow 1 - ... ........................................ . � _____ ., ... , .1 . �, . . . .
�_ "' ... :::::,_ ---- :-: ----------- :::,:.�­ ..... ­ - -.,, 7:�_:7: ­_. - ............. " ,.!- - iu .......... ....... � __ ...... , -.---' .. �, , --*, ..". ... _, / .... ., .
. I ... - MOp!_m ­., .. - - .". ", :
� ... ........ - _,".. ,­:�::�:��::: ..--,. - - - - - _,_ft� ....... � .... ­ --- � ............ ...... . , Page"jaAlk, wt­ 4 __ __ __ _... __ - - ,.. ... " " .
-� ......... . �., _ - .... : ---------- ............... ­­ ._. . .. , - , .
- ,:: - ... - . 11-VI
..-.,-* ­------------- - - - . 5 . ..
.. ,�. - m ..... � ......... ......... 1- ------ . .. -.1. -1 - ,_­ I
­.­ ------ ---- ---- :::.,:-____��,:�_ _-� ...... - . d;ww,di�-EQSvffibv -":.,:::I('---7'----- -.---.-- ...... Deed--Kr,e­fii4*Ce-_81.C­222 Pg.---65__,+...--­__ ........ - . , . .. ... - " . I- •
: ....... 11___,� --------- .- : ...... . __ .......... 1-11". . , dew . ­ ..... 1� �,, - - - - - - - --------- I - . - __ ., .�,- "I I
".. - � .. J.-ji� ­r '"' '" , � � : ....... . .
- . - . , ­_ - "" , , -Pi�� -.005m � --- ; - ----- * .. . ..... ­ - .--- � .............. - ___� .... * ..... E _11.- " .", ... ."
- , - I ( ........... ...... - - Reg ,F I .... . .. ... ........
110-- - . " . - - ZrE p P . - - .- , --l- - 'I � �_. - .... ­ , �d ,P--- ai,4.,�. , , __ ,
..... ....... .__ .... ... - - -plot' Ok, -31. v " - �-- "T �7v � Z ------ 0. __ ..... ......... - ........ � , ., _,_
✓ ., � _�.,_. . , - - ?/ - ..,-.,. - - , - ...... ** ... - -,"Ona-Ke'n Ofce Wof*­ .... , ... .. ,�
L-14-5-1---- ­­ .. � .... - -_ .. . - I .1
. ". - � .... 1.1", ---- -_ I � I ..... � ....... I I I Ab ... ... � ........ .............. ­- I ....... - ­... ,I'- .,. I ". -,,,
__ - ..... meb y t'(060- �� __ . , "I , " �
- ------ - -, � ...... __-- _!� - 4__Ll�� -_ r__j -, .., .. , .. .............. - ... , / d`1:`­­­',", ........ . " .., I - ..". /
­__ . ­'. . . - . --- 77-- ..... -, " , I I - - - -, ,w,emT�;:6F,Uarj(_ .......... .... on' an I S .. . ............ - - , , ...... � - . ". , " .,., ... - :.� -
- I ---­---­ • . . ' ­ .... � .......... � ... I ..... � ........ .��i_ _-� ..... __ _ � ...... � ......... . � ..... � - . ... , .. , . .-
- . ". .......... _� .
. , . - - I - --- � ...
. . ..... - ... .., - ..... . . - . , ... - I .... - .... I ----- � , z . ,
. __ ...... z , .., .
, ,
. � - . ..... ....
I ­ - --- - � - ..
-1. -------- . ­ *Aforill go- I . ..... � ........... I... ­ ' ' - � ........ . . . . 1�
. .. __ - , - - -- 'I-, .:!.-"' - ;�Z,,,4,-,,,,,r,,,�,!!:L - - - - - - - :�:::: ....... ..... ­ ------ -- .. - , � , � I , .
- ......... .." .... .
- ... � ... �_ .... - � ... ... . . ---- .
- - -, _­�O­ - .11 ..... - -_ ,,.- .: , :.. :.--,-­ -�� - , �. ... _­ - ...... .... ...... ...... . ....... - - - - ".. . .,... " .,�
IU- I ... - I 1 i.4 _­ .1 "" - i .._ ....... � ........... . - ....... . L .......... - - �
.: , � , ..­ - - - ......... -1- ....... �. - . .
,
...
... - _.___
. ... 1__., . . -------- - : : ... -.1 _ - ......... � - . _�, 1. . , ,--§T�. 1,5+66.60 "' I
0 ­:T-,,­­ --- -�, .... "' ... I , ,
...... ,­�__ -*-', _",," _......--, :-- .... - ..... � -.,. z ,., . , - I
", .... . . . ­-.1 --- ­ ­ - ... . ,. , . - . -
i, ---- -­- ,�ry '... . -1150- 7:­­ - ----------------- 1_,­ - .... / ;-:^^.,,:.•' ..... . . . .
�_ ...... ... .::m, .... .." - . ------- * . "
- -------------- • - I .,
. , . .
-
.1 � . :�- -R,. - 11,,.�_-l;� - - - ...,ii ..... - .. -.. ... iii;ra .1rialw _... , r - .. .
P..... /­WHeiavy Fiac.-W� . , .., -1 �� �--__�_ _'. -s.,0 1 -.'zr--. .... 1, ..., ...... ­:.:: ---- -- ............. : I 4- . "I
-, � - , a ..­ . - ., .1 � -- ------- .-I - . 1. . 11 .. .1 �. ,. 17\ .I ,,- I ... .. _�
. __ . . - __.:.1.. /-%,451 *1 - - ..
.• -...
- A - � . -, � Proposea sor*fuir � ...... 1. �. , . .,
.. I ..... ... , .- , / ,,�
- -
to 9. _ ",So __. ____ , ,,;�� !-d1h (8-1 ....... .. - - ..... � -------- . . I -1 , * , ­_­- , I I, t 4. OA%Wt
✓
....... - - ... �� _­ /.... ­­ ,., . "I - �
. ­ ....... _.. . "" .. . ., . .
I - ,
.
w , % _�_-_ "' I - ... * - ��/�� , �,,,\, .. :'.'-" I - � �­
� - \ �.�,, \ - - ,/ , " - , •, .:. -, - " , -*�, - ___.11­. I a t.� . Seven S rinj Farm Inc. ,.
8 1 i - I - 1-k " .. 11 . - 1. Z�t -.,! 8Page: k
. 88
I ., .. - ., 1< .\1 11 .>� �Zi, . - ) _446�� ). Lot: I . - _ � N ,. - : , .
, - :..... ; � _­­::., N 1, I I - . ­,w -.0 ..... __ .. : .11 1! 1. - IOU
%co id.41(yo - . . ., 1--'. I 7. : " " "I
- ....... . . I •,��:� ,�.. � . , � - � I I . I I / 10eed . Pg. 924:'
CS - ...... :� _. , .: � . � , � ,"­�­ " � .., -.:1. �.� - 4
� ­ . ,
­- --:--- . . ,� , , . -
1�v_ ... - ., ..... ._
­,,i... -
� ":.:--:,.:. * � - .". .� " � . '' , ,,.,.r.c� ., ,.,
I ... __ _.; - , - _,�­- , G � , � _
. ;: :,:.
: . ..
.. ........... - . . ..
I- - - .:�,_ . - ------ P, -_ ­­­ den D. �, --,. . '....., ­., .,.. .. .::,\ % .. ... � .. 1, , \ .
� .. 1:0 ... �� I.. . . . I � .. - ----- 1-
. - ., :::,: �� pe C"M, , I , . . --- " ,­ ...... ,- ." -
:_,� -_-.,,.._ _� . _.,.: ­_ � , - . -.1-.", I I of�4 p I , , \ ... - Riffle .: ,. � 'I ..
- - _ _: , �.. . . , _� .E. \ '- ,. . , , , . - ., :' " .
1" 11, -1, _.:::� _::�_ -1160- .,. , . , , \
- . 11 11*1 ...-..-::-* ........... A ...... :::: �..,:�: Pr iii"Z 1�0 ..
-..,.­:::­ _;;:� , . . , - . ... ..... � 11_ - � . . . " ....... .2b.," VP-4' , %.Th;i.,�', .41 .. Reinfoice ; ; -ait . .. I /
40 ............ ;;;, I - - , - 6 , I ,� 0 �
. :: ....... :: ........ - - , . � ,..,_._1_:., ::::::77 ! , 71 k%­3r-p 'NO, ---"mart` � %P,.p., ...., , ( ------ ------ Ban - ,�., ,:.: * " .: - I I END STREAM WORK ".
.. . - ,. - ..
�
11
*
-
�Z,,_,
I
-.,., _� . , , ... - , _- . .. . 2490050Zi � . . .. ., , , .. . STA_ 15+32.71 I
L ,. �, --- I . ,
.-.,.,.-. .:7:n ----------- •
� ". ", I -:::::. ... - .. .� �. . .. . . I., , .- W/Poin�'-Bor\ : .1 - . ;
. . ,
I . . , .11 ........ :-�-.'-"-.*--,-.----"-----"-,- -, , . , , , I , . .. . �
............ - - - ____ , - � \ . . - .1 " ..
.
* - I ` . - . � � 1. ..
. I . � \1 �: I
9 .. :7:n ". . . . , I . � - - . I __ ., . -­ 'T ;
. - I ........... , .-: ... - - - �
- . � �, I - - - -
- , - __ -
.. . .. - . , .. - - /I I ; ! - ,­ Recorded C4nservotiop Ea�,�,t
:::::::::: ... ..... " , . Opeen W, frank, & Sae' m . . -_ ------ ""' -.-., . .. . __ / .. - ., � .1 , 4.
, ... _ ,
a •* _... .".. �, ­­ ---------- - ,.. .... _..: ...... ,.-_-.--,. , -
,
- . ' . �_'15k'-.Lo . 4 \ W .. `� .., : ,. : .. .. , ­:,, , I tic EEP Protect NO D04006_�t
,
A . -,.... . ;��: " " . . .- - . ,., t . -1 ., ( , -, -,- . 1� .,,,,,:,.,. -
z.............. . ::1 - - ......... • ,�, - - . ........... -4. Kjap:
I - -:7- �_ � ----- - ­­.- - . ., - __ , - / I ........ ­�� 89 liv 38 t: ', : ; 1. : - , ,
. , - _. _1 .. . �, .. : i ,:Y". -,. , " 11 - Plot Bk. ,17, Pqs. 119-120 �
0 . .. . I - I I - . OIZC . . I . ; : " . . i
, - - - . . I � : ! '. ....; : ,: " � .�. *. :
1.
­-I ­­,­ ... R a " -- Sk "22i Pg;. 654 %, %'-,. ".. ' \� : ,_ ,., ".., '. ,�� I
'a ........... - ""I -------- ............ �. ..... I ,. . I !
--ft-
:1 I-7-7- - ,
63,I .�........... " , 15� ..% . .. . \ /
EEP lI ig
r:99i ; / E,)e3s Eosen eI p I l
. \ \ \ : , along � r Springs Lo,e
:
:
I .
m
-1
. 1-0
� I
I I
;
. � t.D
,
? l I 1A
-
0
N I 11
r`, 1:
- -
t � �.
� 0.
?
2>
2 C .
1
� 3 I.
.
-.L
L'i
LLJ
CL
U
z: Cr-
- LLJ
c - >
Z Z _j
Z5 -1
�
- LLJ
� a:
5
I _j
,_-) L_
L � i - ,7D
C, - L
. � - < L
_ 'i t � , , ,
0
� - S T
, 2 <
1- Z
- I
- LT, if
- -
, fL LL
" , F-
O
- E)
W_
Ir
I . L_
-- �
I
.4-
C:
r-(1)
i
mug
1,Qp
rncl
L Oca
W2
�w
­,7, - - -
:11
2 t�
�
2.t
. ft,
­
I
g
3i �, 0
,
I -
I -
�
z y,- -
ii,:
k
.4 i, ,,, ,
�
_�:§t

M. PROJECT CONDITION AND MONITORING RESULTS
A. Vegetation Assessment
1 Soil Data
Soil information was obtained from the NRCS Soil Survey of Burke County, North Carolina
(USDA NRCS, January 3, 2006) The soils along the mamstem of Silver Creek include the
Colvard Series consisting of loamy sediments ranging from 40 to 60 inches or more in thickness
over deposits of sandy, loamy gravelly to cobbly sediments. Rock fragments range from 0 to 15
percent to a depth of 40 inches, and from 0 to 80 percent below 40 inches Flakes of mica range
from a few to common.
The Rhodhiss Series is present along UT -A and is residuum from the underlying felsic crystalline
bedrock The Rhodhiss sandy to sandy -clay loam is found on 25 to 40 percent hillside slopes with
a depth to bedrock greater than 60 inches The depth to the top of the argillaceous (clayey)
horizon ranges from 2 to 20 inches The depth to the base of the argillaceous horizon is 20 to 60
inches or more The pedon contains 0 to 20 percent mica flakes throughout, with mica content
ranging up to 35 percent below a depth of 40 inches when the C horizon is present
Data on the soils series found within and near the project site is summarized in Table VI
Table VI. Preliminary Soil Data
Silver Creek Stream Restoration / EEP Project No. D05016 -01
Max. Depth
% Clay on
% Organic
Series
in.
Surface
K'
T
Matter
Colvard sandy loam CvA
60+
8 -18
024
5
1 -2
Rhodhiss sandy loam
60+
1 5 -20
1 024
5
05-2
'Erosion Factor K indicates the susceptibility of a soil to sheet and rill erosion, ranging from 0 05 to 0 69
2Erosion Factor T is an estimate of the maximum average annual rate of soil erosion by wind or water that
can occur without affecting crop productivity, measured in tons per acre per year
2 Vegetative Problem Areas
Vegetative Problem Areas are defined as areas either lacking vegetation or containing populations
of exotic vegetation Each problem area identified during each year of monitoring is summarized
in Table VII Photographs of the vegetative problem areas are shown in Appendix A
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. December 2011
Monitoring Report — Silver Creek Monitoring Year 5 of 5
EEP Contract # D05016 -01 Page 18

Table VU. Vegetative Problem Areas
Silver Creek Stream Restoration / EEP Project No. D05016 -1
Feature/Issue
Station # / Range
Probable Cause
Photo #
Bare
Mainstem: 12 +00-
Sparse vegetation along riparian corridor; likely
VPA 1
Floodplam
16 +50
due to poor soil
Bare, disturbed, and moist soil along UT -A has
Invasive
UT -A
provided appropriate growing conditions for
VPA 2
Population
2 +40 -14 +40
Japanese Stilt ass Microste ium vimineum
There are a few areas with a population of sencea lespedeza along the Silver Creek mamstem.
This species is a common component of pasture mixes, and as this project is adjacent to pasture
lands, it likely spread into the project area from the surrounding landscape. Because this species is
limited to isolated patches of small plants, it does not appear to be impacting the survival of
woody stems and is therefore considered a problem of low concern at this time Proactive
management in the form of herbicide treatments was conducted throughout the spring of 2010 in
order to limit the impact of this species on the vegetative success of the project
A few areas along the Silver Creek mamstem were noted to have low overall herbaceous cover
along the riparian corridor These areas are patchy and scattered throughout the corridor, with
none of the areas showing banks that are completely bare Along the majority of the riparian
corridor, vegetation cover has increased since Year 4 monitoring, as is depicted in the fixed
station photos (Appendix B) Because of extensive vegetation growth, all other areas along the
riparian corridor have been removed from Table VII and the Vegetation Problem Area Plan view
(Appendix A) Between stations 12 +00 and 16 +50, bare soil remains evident on both sides of the
corridor It is apparent that the density of vegetation in this area has increased since 2010
monitoring, however It is fully expected that vegetation will continue to spread into this section
in future years Accordingly, this stretch of the mainstem remains on Table VII and is mapped on
the Vegetation Problem Area Plan View as an area of low concern
The soil along this project is a crux of sand and gravel, and as such, provides very dry conditions
in which seed must germinate and grow In 2009, fencing was placed across the stream near the
upstream terminus of the project in order to prevent cattle access from the adjoining property
Now that the cattle have been excluded, it is expected the permanent ground cover growing in the
corridor will spread to fill the bare areas
Cattle had unintentional access to UT -A through the early part of September 2009 due to a fallen
tree across the protective fencing The cattle intrusion into the riparian corridor resulted in
several areas of bare ground and sparse vegetation These areas were reseeded in the fall of 2009
using a seed nux appropriate for shady, partial canopied woodland areas As is observed in the
fixed station photos in Appendix B, ground cover has significantly increased in Years 4 and 5
The increase in vegetation cover has further stabilized the banks along UT -A
In Year 5, it was observed that Japanese stiltgrass had infiltrated the corridor along the majority of
UT -A Shade from the secondary growth canopy along UT -A allows soil on the floodplain to
remain damp and periodic downpours provide an avenue for natural disturbance These conditions
are prime for Japanese stiltgrass because it prefers moist and disturbed soils Although it is
invasive, its spread along UT -A does not appear to be affecting the survival of planted species It
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. December 2011
Monitoring Report — Silver Creek Monitoring Year 5 of S
EEP Contract # D05016 -01 Page 19

is also providing a moderate amount of bank stabilization for many of the naturally steep banks of
the tributary Herbicide treatment has been recommended to help control the spread of this plant.
Spraying is scheduled for the spring of 2012. The stiltgrass population along UT -A is mapped on
the Vegetation Problem Area Plan View (Appendix A) as a problem area of low concern
3 Vegetation Problem Area Plan View
The location of each vegetation problem area is shown on the vegetative problem area plan view
included in Appendix A Each problem area is color coded with yellow for areas of low concern
(areas to be watched) or red for high concern (areas where maintenance is warranted)
4. Stem Counts
A summary of the stem count data for each species arranged by plot is shown in Table VIII
Table VIIIa provides the survival information for planted species, while Table VIUb provides the
total stem count for the plots, including all planted and recruit stems This data was compiled
from the information collected on each plot using the CVS -EEP Protocol for Recording
Vegetation, Version 4 0 Additional data tables generated using the CVS -EEP format are included
in Appendix A All vegetation plots are labeled as VP on Figure 2
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. December 2011
Monitoring Report — Silver Creek Monitoring Year S of S
EEP Contract # D05016 -01 Page 20

Table VIIIa. Stem counts for each species arranged by plot - planted stems.
Silver Creek Stream Restoration / EEP Project No. D05016 -1
Plots
I
Year
Year 0
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
4
Year 5
Survival
Species
1
2
F3
4
5
1 6
1 7
1 8
9
10
Totals
Totals
Totals
Totals
Totals
Totals
Shrubs
Alnus
serrulata
3
1
1
1
2
5
5
7
9
8
8
100
Aroma
arbutt olta
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
100
Aroma
melanocarpa
2
5
2
6
2
3
1
8
8
4
7
10
21
210
Cornus
amomum
2
2
4
4
2
3
1
2
3
31
25
20
24
22
23
105
Cornus
sencea
3
0
0
0
0
0
3
NA
Trees
Acer rubrum
3
2
2
2
2
3
3
100
Acer
saccharum
1
3
1
18
18
13
8
6
5
83
Fraxinus
enns lvantca
1
1
2
2
3
15
15
9
10
11
9
82
Linodendron
tuli t era
I
1
1
1
4
4
4
3
2
4
200
Platanus
o- ' -ntahs
1
4
16
11
8
8
5
5
100
its alba
1
3
3
3
4
1
1
100
Quercus
coccinea
2
1
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
7
NA
Quercus
michauxtt
1
3
0
0
1
1
4
4
100
Quercus
alusms
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
100
Quercus
velutina
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
Salix nt ra
1
2 1
1
1
1
1
3
3
2
1 67
Sambucus
canadensis
I
0
0
0
1
1
1
100
Year 5 Totals
9
12
15
8
7
8
12
8
12
7
102
96
74
81
80
98
123
Live Stem
Density
365
486
608
324
284
324
486
324
486
284
Average Live
Stem Density
397
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. December 2011
Monitoring Report — Silver Creek Monitoring Year S of 5
EEP Contract # D05016 -01 Page 21

Table VHlb. Stem counts for each species arranged by plot - all stems.
Silver Creek Stream Restoration / EEP Project No. D05016 -1
Species
Plots
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Shrubs
Alnus serndata
6
1
9
1
2
Aroma melanocar a
2
5
2
4
6
7
3
1
Cornus amomum
2
2
5
4
2
3
1
2
3
Cornus sencea
3
Trees
Acer rubrum
3
1
4
Acer saccharum
1
5
1
Cercts canadensts
2
Celtts occtdentalts
1
Fraxtnus pennsylvanica
1
1
3
4
5
Ju lans nt ra
t
1
Ltrtodendron tult t era
1
2
1
1
2
1
Platanus occtdentalts
1
4
1
uercus alba
1
uercus cocctnea
2
1
2
2
uercus mtchauxtt
1
3
uercus palustris
1
t
Rhus typhina
1
6
1
1
Sahx nt ra
2
Sambucus canadensts
1
Year 5 Totals
16
14
16
11
20
11
22
15
14
11
Live Stem Density
648
567
648
446
810
446
891
608
567
446
Average Live Stem Density
608
The average stem density for the site in Year 5 meets the nummum criteria of 260 stems per acre
after five years No vegetation plots fall below this threshold number The woody stem deficit
observed in 2010 occurred along the UT -A where, in 2009, cattle intrusion had killed several trees
and severely damaged others In previous years, seedling mortality had been an issue along the
entire length of UT -A While the woody plantings of 2010 were focused on areas of open canopy
in the existing tree cover, the presence of large trees and the well- developed existing vegetative
cover shaded the smaller seedlings and provided substantial competition for resources
In Year 4, plots 4 and 5 along the mamstem exhibited good survivability when compared to 2009,
however, both plots remained slightly under the woody stem count goal of 288 stems /acre The
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. December 2011
Monitoring Report — Silver Creek Monitoring Year 5 of 5
EEP Contract # D05016 -01 Page 22

presence of dry sandy soil could also have partially explained the lower stem counts of Plots 4 &
5 To address the issue of low planted stem counts for those plots affected by cattle intrusion,
shade competition and dry, sandy soils, specific areas were targeted for replanting within the
Silver Creek and UT -A riparian corridors, in the spring of 2011. Areas to be planted included the
deficient sample plots and surrounding areas within the buffer. All deficient portions of the
riparian corridors were supplemented with additional native tree and shrub plantings These
supplemental plantings followed the specifications of the project proposed in the project
Restoration Plan and Mitigation Plan documents. Consideration was given to using larger woody
stock, such as three- gallon potted material versus bare root specimen in performing the remedial
plantings. These larger saplings have a more developed root system than bare root stock and thus
will be better able to compete with the existing vegetation.
Species more suitable for full or partial shade were included in the species mix to provide better
survivability under the existing canopy of UT -A. A table describing the species and approximated
quantities of vegetation installed in the spring of 2011 is included in Appendix A
These additional trees brought the average live stem density to 398 stems per acre in Year 5, an
increase over the average live stem density of 324 stems per acre in Year 4 In addition to the
planted woody species, a substantial number of recruit stems have been found in all plots in Year
5. The recruit stems result in nearly a 53% increase in the total stem density across the site, and
bring all plots into compliance with the Year 5 nummum criteria.
Section 401 Permit Monitoring
In addition to the vegetative monitoring plots on the Silver Creek Mamstem and UT -A, one
vegetation monitoring plot each has been placed on both UT-13 and UT -C, as required by the NC
DWQ under the Section 401 permit Monitoring for these plots includes simple stem counts by
species, and does not follow the full methodology of the CVS -EEP Protocol for Recording
Vegetation, Version 4 0 A summary of the stem count data for these plots is shown in Table
VII1c
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. December 2011
Monitoring Report — Silver Creek Monitoring Year 5 of 5
EEP Contract # D05016 -01 Page 23

Table VMc. Stem counts for the additional plots on UT -B and UT -C
Species
Plots
Year 1
Totals
Year 2
Totals
Year 3
Totals
Year 4
Totals
Year 5
Totals
UT-
B
UT-
C
Shrubs
Aroma melanocarpa
4
0
0
1
3
3
4
Cephalanthus
occidentahs
1
2
0
2
1
3
3
Cornus amomum
7
2
2
6
7
9
9
111ex verticallata
0
3
0
0
0
3
3
Trees
Acer saccharum
2
5
7
8
2
7
7
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
0
0
6
1
0
0
0
Liriodendron tuh i era
2
1
2
4
2
3
3
Platanus occidentahs
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
uercus alba
0
2
2
3
0
2
2
Sakx m ra
0
1
0
1
1
Year 5 Totals
17
16
19
26
16
32
33
Live Stem Density
689
648
Average Live Stem
Density
668
The average stem density for UT-13 and UT -C far exceeds the nummum criteria of 260 stems per
acre after five years The few supplemental plantings added to the site in 2009 and 2011
successfully contributed to the large stem count total, and no further plantings are anticipated for
these tributaries
5 Vegetation Plot Photos
Vegetation plot photos, including photos for the additional plots on UT-13 and UT -C, are provided
in Appendix A
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. December 2011
Monitoring Report — Silver Creek Monitoring Year 5 of 5
EEP Contract # D05016 -01 Page 24

B. Stream Assessment
1 Hydrologic Criteria
Two crest -stage stream gages were installed on the project reaches, one each for the Silver Creek
Mainstem and UT -A. The locations of the crest -stage stream gages are shown on the monitoring
plan view (Figure 2) Both crest gages are set at or above the bankfull elevation of each stream
channel Photographs of the crest gages are shown in Appendix B No bankfull events were
documented for this site during the first or second years of monitoring Bankfull events were
recorded during Years 3, 4 and 5, as documented in Table IX.
Table IX. Verification of Bankfull Events
Date of Data
Collection
Date of Occurrence
Method
Photo #
9/21/09
1/6/09- 1/8/09*
Crest gage on UT -A
BF 1
9/21/09
1/6/09 - 1/8/09*
Crest gage on Mamstem
BF 2
5/12/10
1/24/10- 1/25/10*
Crest gage on UT -A
BF 3
5/12/10
1/24/10 - 1/25/10*
Crest ga eon Mainstem
BF 4
5/20/11
4/16/11-4/17/11 *
Crest gage on Mamstem
BF 5
*Date is approximate, based on a review of recorded rainfall data
In May 2011, the crest gage on UT -A was inconclusive Cork in the gage had been washed off of
the wooden lathe inside the gage Because of this, the level of Year 5 bankfull events could not
be determined for this reach The crest gage on the mamstem of Silver Creek documented a
bankfull event at a height of 3 4 ft above the bottom of the crest gage This observation highlights
the fact that there was a signifcant flooding event for the Silver Creek mainstem between
September 2010 and May 2011
The most likely date for the bankfull event was after the rain events that occurred on April 16 and
17th, 2011 As this was the largest precipitation event of significance since the completion of the
Year 4 monitoring documentation, this is likely the bankfull event recorded by the crest gage on
the Silver Creek mamstem. These dates correspond to high discharge and gage height readings,
as recorded at USGS Gage 02138500 at Nebo, NC, which lies approximately 15 miles west of
Morganton and 5 miles east of Marion, NC On these two days, maximum daily discharge was
recorded to be 6,130 ft3 /s (April 16`h) and 1,150 ft3 /s (April 17`h) Maximum daily gage height
was 6 61 ft ( April 161h) and 2 91 ft. (April 17`h)
On two additional sets of dates, large -scale precipitation events occurred These dates are
November 30 - December 1, 2010 and March 6 - March 7`h, 2011. The discharge and gage height
recorded at the Nebo station are shown on the hydrographs below
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. December 2011
Monitoring Report — Silver Creek Monitoring Year 5 of 5
EEP Contract # D05016 -01 Page 25

7888
0
m
m
a
m 1888
m
w
v
a
m
188
s
0
a
0
USGS 02138500 LINVILLE RIVER NEAR NEBO, NC
M 28
2
Sep Nov Jan Mar May Jul Sep
2818 2818 2811 2811 2811 2811 2811
— Daily naxinun discharge Estinated daily nean discharge
— Daily nininun discharge — Period of approved data
-- Daily nean discharge
7.8
6.8
m
5.8
ai
54.0
..,
m
t
y 3.8
J 2.8
¢N
O
1.8
8.8 L__
Sep
2818
USGS Surface -Water Daily Data for North Carolina
htip://waterdata.usys.gov/nc/nwis/dv'?
USGS 02138500 LINVILLE RIVER NEAR NEBO, NC
Nov Jan Mar May Jul Sep
2818 2811 2811 2811 2811 2811
— Daily naxinun gage height -- Daily nean page height
— Daily nininun gage height — Period of approved data
USGS Surface -Water Daily Data for North Carolina
htq2:Hwaterdata.usp-s.gov/nc/nwis/dv?
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. December 2011
Monitoring Report — Silver Creek Monitoring Year 5 of 5
EEP Contract # D05016 -01 Page 26

2 Stream Problem Areas
A summary of the areas of concern identified during the visual assessment of the stream for Years
1 through 4 is included in Tables Xa through Xc
Table Xa. Stream Problem Areas — Year 1
Silver Creek Stream Restoration / EEP Project No. D05016 -1
Feature Issue
Station Numbers
Suspected Cause
Photo Number
Stressed/failing
Station Numbers
Natural log sill - concern for long -term
Number
structure
5 +75 UT -A
stability
SPA 1
structure
11 +00 - 13 +00 UT-
Nearly vertical banks - need to be
SPA 1
Other
A
stabilized with matting and vegetation
SPA 2
Table Xb. Stream Problem Areas — Year 2
Silver Creek Stream Restoration / EEP Project No. D05016 -1
Photo
Feature Issue
Station Numbers
Suspected Cause
Number
Stressed/failing
12 +20 Mainstem
Natural log sill — removed due to concern
structure
5 +75 UT -A
for long-term stability, channel stabilized
SPA 1
2 +50 UT -A
Bank scour/ sloughing on left bank
3 +55 UT -A
Bank scour/ sloughing on right bank
Bank scour
2 +40 — 2 +60 UT-
Bank scour/ sloughing by log vane along
SPA 2
5 +60 UT -A
Bank scour/ sloughing on left bank
Bank scour
10 +50 UT -A
Bank scour/ sloughing
SPA 2,3
5 +60 UT -A
Nearly vertical banks — have been
Other
11 +00 - 13 +00
reshaped, still in need of matting and
SPA 3
UT -A
revetment
Table Xc. Stream Problem Areas — Year 3
Silver Creek Stream Restoration / EEP Project No. D05016 -1
Photo
Feature Issue
Station Numbers
Suspected Cause
Number
12 +20 Mainstem
Mid - channel bar downstream of J -hook
Aggradation
SPA 1
19 +50 Mainstem
Mid - channel bar downstream of J -hook
0 +25 UT -A
Bank scour/ sloughing on right bank
2 +40 — 2 +60 UT-
Bank scour/ sloughing by log vane along
A
left bank
Bank scour
3 +55 UT -A
Bank scour/ sloughing on right bank
SPA 2,3
5 +60 UT -A
Bank scour/ sloughing on left bank
8 +50 UT -A
Vertical bank along then ht bank
10 +50 UT -A
Bank scour/ sloughing
11 +00 - 13 +00
Nearly vertical banks — have been
UT -A
reshaped, damaged by cattle intrusion
Throughout UT-
Other
A, most extensive
SPA 4,5
from 11 +00 to
downstream
Cattle intrusion into stream channel and
project terminus
along stream banks
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. December 2011
Monitoring Report — Silver Creek Monitoring Year S of 5
EEP Contract # D05016 -01 Page 27

Table Xd. Stream Problem Areas — Year 4
Silver Creek Stream Restoration / EEP Project No. D05016 -1
Feature Issue
Station Numbers
Suspected Cause
Photo
Number
Aggradation
19 +50 Mamstem
Mid - channel bar downstream of J -hook
SPA 1
Scour
28+ 50Mamstem
Bank scour hole - left bank
SPA 2
Table Xe. Stream Problem Areas — Year 5
Silver Creek Stream Restoration / EEP Project No. D05016 -1
Photo
Feature Issue
Station Numbers
Suspected Cause
Number
Bank Scour
28+ 50• Mamstem
Water flow cutting into left bank
SPA 1
Aggradation
26 +25 -26 +75 (left
SPA 2,3,4
bank ) Mamstem
Excessive sedimentation on UT -C
Bank Failure
19 +50 Mainstem
Lack of stabilizing vegetation
SPA 5
In Year 5, a small scour hole continues to be evident at station 28 +50 on the mamstem This left -
bank scour is minor and appears to be well vegetated and stable. A new area of minimal bank
failure was observed on the mamstem in 2011 (see Table Xe above) This issue is localized and
does not appear to be expanding It is expected that vegetation will colonize the newly exposed
soil in this area and assist in stabilizing the bank This erosion will be re- checked in the spring of
2012 in order to assess stability of the area If need be, bank stabilization with be completed at
that time Areas of bank scour noted on UT -A in 2009 included a few small areas of minor bank
erosion These areas of scour were not observed during the 2010 or 2011 stream surveys The
bed and bank repairs along the tributary have further enhanced channel stability
One small area of aggradation was noted along the Silver Creek Mainstem in 2011 A lateral bar
has formed along the left bank at the confluence of UT -C and the mainstem of Silver Creek at
station 26 +50 (see Stream Problem Area Photos, Appendix B) The lateral bar is a result of
excessive sediment loading on UT -C In the spring of 2011 a cattle access point was constructed
on UT -C, outside of the conservation easement, in order to supplement watering of cattle It is
hypothesized that this access point was built as a direct response to the closure of the watering
access point and eventual exclusion of cattle from UT -A (see Cattle Crossing Photos, Appendix
C)
It is important to note that the watering point was removed in the fall of 2011 and base flow has
returned to normal for UT -C Sedimentation has decreased and it is expected that UT -C will
cease its deposition of sand and silt into the mamstem At the present time, the resultant lateral
bar on Silver Creek is being considered a problem area of low concern as it does not appear to be
affecting stream stability.
An additional area of concern which existed along UT -A in Year 4 concerned the steep slopes of
the stream banks, also noted by EEP during the construction completion site visit This is one of
the areas impacted by the cattle intrusion of 2009 These banks had been re- graded to stable slope
conditions As is depicted in the fixed station photos in Appendix B, vegetation has begun to
provide cover on the steep slopes This has provided more stability and less threat of erosion
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. December 2011
Monitoring Report — Silver Creek Monitoring Year 5 of 5
EEP Contract # D05016 -01 Page 28

As a result of the cattle intrusion inside the conservation easement of UT -A, the cattle also
accessed the stream channel itself, causing hoof shear along the downstream portion of the
restored channel. Minor repairs of the bed and bank of the channel were made in the late fall of
2009 and have successfully addressed and remedied the disturbance One riffle was rebuilt to
restore the designed grade. This riffle has remained stable in 2010 and 2011
3 Stream Problem Areas Plan View
The locations of problem areas are shown on the stream problem area plan view included in
Appendix B. Each problem area is color coded with yellow for areas of low concern (areas to be
monitored) or red for high concern (areas where maintenance is warranted).
4 Stream Problem Areas Photos
Photographs of the stream problem areas are included in Appendix B
5 Fixed Station Photos
Photographs were taken at each established photograph station on September 16, 2011 These
photographs are provided in Appendix B. Photographs of UT -B and UT -C are also provided, as
required by the NC DWQ under the Section 401 permit
6 Stability Assessment Table
The visual stream assessment was performed to determine the percentage of stream features that
remain in a state of stability after the fifth year of monitoring The visual assessment for each
reach is summarized in Table XIa and Table Xlb This summary was compiled from the more
comprehensive Table B1, included in Appendix B Only those structures included in the as -built
survey were assessed during monitoring and reported in the tables
Table XIa. Categorical Stream Feature Visual Stability Assessment
Silver Creek Stream Restoration / EEP Project No. D05016 -01
Segment/Reach: Mainstem
Feature
Initial
MY -01
MY -02
MY -03
MY -04
MY -05
A. Riffles'
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
B. Pools
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
97%
C. Thalwe
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
D. Meanders
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
E. Bed General
100%
100%
100%
99%
99%
99%
F. Vanes / J hooks etc. 3
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
G. Wads and Boulders4
N/A I
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Evans, Mechwart, Ilambleton & Tilton, Inc. December 2011
Monitoring Report — Silver Creek Monitoring Year 5 of 5
EEP Contract # D05016 -01 Page 29

Table XIa. Categorical Stream Feature Visual Stability Assessment
Silver Creek Stream Restoration / EEP Project No. D05016 -01
Segment/Reach: Tributary A
Feature
Initial
MY -01
MY -02
MY -03
MY -04
MY -05
A. Riffles'
100%
100%
100%
96%
100%
100%
B. Pools2
100%
66%
100%
51%
100%
91%
C. Thalwe
100%
100%
100%
100%
51%
100%
D. Meanders
100%
100%
100%
79%
92%
96%
E. Bed General
100%
100%
100%
99%
99%
99%
F. Vanes / J Hooks etc. 3
100%
98%
100%
98%
100%
100%
G. Wads and Boulders4
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
`Rifles are assessed using the longitudinal profile. A raffle is determined to be stable based on a comparison
of location and elevation with respect to the as -built profile
2Pools are assessed using the longitudinal profile A pool is determined to be stable based on a comparison
of location and elevation with respect to the as -built profile and a consideration of appropriate depth
3Physical structures such as vanes, J- hooks, and root wads are assessed using the as -built plan sheets to
define the location of such features A structure is considered stable if the feature remains functional in the
same location as shown in the as -built plan
4Those features not included in the stream restoration were labeled N/A This includes structures such as
rootwads and boulders
The visual stream stability assessment revealed that the majority of in- stream structures are
functioning as designed and built on the Silver Creek mainstem All meanders and pools are
performing as intended In Year 5, however, significant aggradation was observed at cross
sections 2 and 5 (see cross section templates in Appendix B and Table XIa, above) The
aggradation at cross section 2 is a direct result of the beaver dam which was built on the cross
vane feature at this cross section m2010 The dam was deconstructed in the fall of 2010, but has
left the stream bed aggraded at cross section 2 There is no evidence of present or future
instability issues at this cross section, however Aggradation at cross section 5 is relatively minor
and is not a sign of instability
In Year 5, only minor erosion is occurring along a few meander bends along the UT -A The
growth of vegetation after seeding can be witnessed in the fixed station and cross section
photographs in Appendix B In 2011, all instream structures were functioning as designed on UT-
A Two constructed pools were observed to have aggraded over the past year (Appendix B) This
aggradation is localized to these two pools and does not appear to be affecting channel stability
for the tnbutary In Year 3, there was a noticeable decrease in the number and depth of pools
along UT -A The depth of pools along the tributary have remained stable in Years 4 and 5 The
pools were designed to be shallow, but due to this design, sediment tends to collect and essentially
fill these pools during extended low -flow periods It is expected that these shallow pools will
cyclically flush and aggrade during corresponding wet and dry seasons
Cattle Crossing Agreement (UT - -A)
In December 2010, an agreement was reached between Wetlands Resource Center (WRC) and the
EEP about improvements to the cattle crossing on UT -A At that time, WRC agreed to work with
the local NRCS office to provide offline watering for cattle WRC also agreed to modify the
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. December 2011
Monitoring Report — Silver Creek Monitoring Year S of S
EEP Contract # D05016 -01 Page 30

existing cattle access point of the stream into a cattle crossing (with no access to water for
drinking). The cattle crossing was successfully constructed in the spring of 2011. The 2010 cattle
crossing agreement letter, along with 2011 photos of the new crossing are included in Appendix
C
Section 401 Permit MomtonnQ
Monitoring is required by the NC DWQ under the Section 401 permit to ensure that stability is
achieved along the restored portions of UT -B and UT -C These streams were visually assessed for
stability at the same time that the visual stream stability assessment was performed for the Silver
Creek Mamstem and UT -A. UT -B appeared to be stable during the Year 5 assessment.
As described above, it appears that a new cattle watering point on UT -C (see Stream Problem
Area Photos, Appendix B) had previously resulted in sedimentation along the tributary channel
and excess sediment, in the form of sand and silt, being washed into the Silver Creek mamstem at
the confluence of the 2 streams. This has created the formation of a lateral bar along the left bank
of the mamstem at station 26 +25 — 26 +75 At the present time, this lateral bar on Silver Creek is
being considered a problem area of low concern as it does not appear to be affecting stream
stability The cattle access point along UT -C has been removed and it is expected that this
channel will again become stable. Photographic documentation of the preserved portions of
Tributaries B and C is included with the Fixed Station Photographs in Appendix B
7 Quantitative Measures
Graphic interpretations of cross - sections, profiles and substrate particle distributions are presented
in Appendix B A summary of the baseline morphology for the site is included in Table XII for
comparison with the monitoring data shown in the tables in the appendix
The stream pattern data provided for Years 1 -5 is sumlar to the data provided from the As -Built
survey, as pattern has not changed based on the Year 5 stream surveys and visual field assessment
Bedform features continue to evolve along the restored reaches as shown on the long -term
longitudinal profiles Dimensional measurements of the monumented cross - sections remain stable
when compared to previous years Many of the cross sections on the mamstem show aggradation
on the point bars and in the floodprone area This is not a sign of instability, dust the natural
evolution of the stream over the years
It should be noted that overall stream classification has remained the same for UT -A throughout
all five years of monitoring The stream was initially constructed as a B -type stream and remains
that in Year 5 The Silver Creek mamstem was initially constructed as and continues to function
as a B- channel In Years 1 -4, however, dimensional measurements re- classified it as a B -type
channel In Year 5 the stream is again a B -type channel consistent with years 1 -4 The mainstem
is adjusting slightly but still remains a very stable channel
Riffle lengths, riffle slopes and pool to pool spacings are stable The comparison of the As- Built,
Years 1 -4, and Year 5 long -term stream monitoring profile data show stability with nummal
change from as -built conditions The water surface and bankfull slopes are consistent throughout
the 5 years of monitoring
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. December 2011
Monitoring Report — Silver Creek Monitoring Year 5 of 5
EEP Contract # D05016 -01 Page 31

ft
The constructed riffles remain stable, although some of the Year 5 particle distributions show
larger substrate than previous years The substrate in the mamstem of Silver Creek has increased
in size slightly since Year 3 and remains stable in Years 4 and 5 Year 5 particle distribution
along UT -A resulted in a B4 stream classification with medium gravel sized substrate Year 3
resulted in a B5 classification (coarse sand) while all other years were a B4 classification. The
change in the substrate size was minimal and could be a result of higher flows that cleaned out the
aggradation that had occurred in previous years. It is assumed that fine particulates are settlmg
during low flows, both in the pools, and to a smaller extent, in nffle features The bankfull events
in years 3 and 4 flushed these finer materials through the system Pool depths for both reaches
have remained stable. The small change in particle distributions is considered as a natural
byproduct of the flow regime, rather than an indication of instability. Remedial maintenance
work is not warranted or suggested.
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc.
Monitoring Report — Silver Creek
EEP Contract # D05016 -01
December 2011
Monitoring Year 5 of 5
Page 32

Table XUa. Baseline Geomorphic and Hydraulic Summary
Silver Creek Stream Restoration / EEP Project No. D05016 -01
Station/Reach: Mainstem (Long -Term Monitoring Profile Station 0+00 to 20+71.94 (2071.94 linear feet))
Parameter
Reference Reach
Pre - Existing Condition
Design
As -Built
Year 1 Sta. 0+00 - 18 +71
Year 2 Sta 0+00 - 20+72
Year 3 Sta. 0+00 - 20+72
Year 4 Sta. 0+00 - 20+72
Year 5 Sta 0+00 - 20+72
Dimension
Mm
Max
Med
Mm
Max
Med
Mm
Max
Med
Mm
Max
Med
Mm
Max
Med
Mm
Max
Med
Mm
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Mod
Drainage Area (m f)
1 16
826
826
826
826
826
826
826
826
BF Width (ft)
2402
2922
12247
6086
3000
4618
6981
5800
4614
6880
5747
4386
6844
6390
4385
6108
5501
4060
6238
4896
4107
5917
5394
Floodprone Width (ft)
23200
3700
8400
6000
540
1450
995
8281
11445
9863,
8293
11425
9859
8198
11411
10189
7396
12600
10503
8354
11959
10606.
8441
12131
10457
BF Cross Sectional Area (112)
3077
13970.
230 44
17646
9000
8359
10355
9357
83 97
100 15
92.06
7369
9539
89.90
8272
9144
8688
6011
10020
9105
6285
93.76
82 32
BF Mean Depth (ft)
1 128
1881
545
395
1591
129
181
155
146
182
164
1391
168
141
150,
189
158
146,
205
148
139
174
153.
BF Max Depth (11)
172
6571
762
704
300
280
375
328
281
3481
3 15
308
415
3.35
354
421
373
362
459
383
356
430
403
Width/Depth (ft)
1877
536
6514
2578
1887
2551
52 16
3884
2535
4712
3624
2611
4924
4532
2320
4072
3482
2388
4273
2743
2684
4257
3100
Entrenchment Ratio
966
069
191
1291
1801
483
332
159
179,
169
166
1 80
173
160
187
179
169
206
191
192
217
206
194
206
205
Bank Height Ratio
100
389
407
398
100
100
102
1011
100
100
1 00
100
100
100
100
100
1 00
100
100
100
100
100
100
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
2658
3578
15295
7532
33 18
4698
7020
5859
4696
6918
5807
4462
69801
5958
44 85
61 64
5603
4187
6356
5032
42481
6130
5602
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
1 161
151
428
323
2711
127
178
153
145
179
162
137
165
147,
148,
1 84
155
143,
199
144
1 34
1 67
148
Pattern
*Channel Beltwidth (ft)
4417
4650
4522
37
84
60
540
1450
939
8281
181 94
10979
8293
11425
10273
8293
11425
10273
8293
11425
10273
8293
11425
10273
82931
11425
10273
*Radius of Curvature (ft)
1297
2444
1767
450
750
600
4607
18540
6870
4607
18540
6870
4607
18540
6870
4607
18540
6870
4607
18540
6870
46071
18540
6870
*Meander Wavelength (ft)
8823
11570
10480
600
19181
1259
7379
19170
12486
7379
191 70
12486
7379
19170
12486
7379
19170
12486
7379
19170
12486
7379
19170
12486
*Meander Width Ratio
1 84
1 94
1 88
061
138
099
180
4 R31
3 13
179
261
189
1 66
1 80
1 79
1 57
189
161
1 87
1 89
187
204
183
210
202
193
190
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
190
310
257
65
00045
201
105
0 0096
361
125
0 0069
263
329
94
477
284
73
473
278
75
686
296
5 1
49_8
207
11 2
491
261,
78
454
21 0
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
00125
00362
00211
0.0056
00039
01787
00242
00084
0 0318
0 0165
00080
00218
00131
00031
062
00085
0 0009
00239
00100
00017
21 7
00203
00076
Pool Length (ft)
110
676
316
775
174
714
657
171
569
357
28 1
707
513
178
899
474
237
863
54 5
23 3
1087
586
121 1
620
Pool Spacing (ft)
101 1
1490
129 1
1314
364
3883
1455
61 5
2573
1612
491
2459
_
1149
388
2179
894
37 8
2187
830
409
2056
893
Substrate
-3851
d50 (min)
385
1291
383F
266
1291
385
257
1551
2691
212
771
1651
121
981
2141
189
6 OF
167
74
57
221
137
5921
311
d84 (mm)
602
2061
60 2
52 3
2061
6021
404
2121
3041
258
1091
2131
161
1531
2981
276
1141
384
254
7291
8831
806
3091
139261
1242
Additional Reach Parameters
Valley Length (ft)
29400
2077
2077
2077
2077
2077
2077
2077
2077
Channel Length (ft)
353001
3040
2959
2905
2905
2905
2905
2905
2905
Sinuosity
1 2
146
143
140
140
140
140
140
140
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
00106
0 0022
0 0030
0 0026
00025
00026
00028
00027
00029
00041
00029
BF Slope (ft/ft)
00115
**
00026.
00027
00028
00027
00028
00030
00027
Rosgen Classification
C4
F4
B4c
C4
C4
B4c
B4c
B4c
B4c
B4c
B4c
*Habitat Index
*Macrobenthos
Notes * Inclusion will be project specific and determined primarily by As -built monitoring plan/success criteria
* *Insufficient field indicators to estimate bankfull slope under impaired F4 channel conditions
Blank fields = Historic project documentation necessary to provide these data were unavailable at the tune of this report submission
Where no min/max values are provided, only one value was measured or computed and is presented as the median value

Table XIIb. Baseline Geomorphic and Hydraulic Summary
Silver Creek Stream Restoration / EEP Project No. D05016 -01
Station/Reach: Tributary A {Long -Term Monitoring Profile Station 0+00 to 10+49.79 (1049.79 feet)}
Parameter
Reference Reach
Pre - Existing Condition
Design
As -Built
Year 1 Sta 0+00 - 10+43
Year 2 Sta 0+00 - 10+50
Year 3 Sta 0+00 - 10+50
Year 4 Sta 0+00 - 10+50
Year 5 Sta 0+00 - 10+50
Dimension
Mm
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Mm
Max
Med
Mm
Max
Med
Mm
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Mm
Max
Med
Drainage Area (mi`)
1 16
008
008
008
008
008
008
008
008
BF Width (ft)
2402
1372
800
681
8 11
746
678
732
705
662
720
691
751
942
847
861
949
905
910
986
948
Floodprone Width (ft)
23200.
1000
1500
1250
1000
15 00
1250
1328
1457
1393
1045
1335
1190,
1215
1783
1471
1193
1483
1338
1276
1435
1356
1487
1531
1509
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft=)
30771
354
350
3 51
359
355
-352
357
355
329
408
369
410
5 78
4 94
391
408
400
412
620
516
BF Mean Depth (ft)
128
026
050
043
053
048
048
053
051
0501
057
0541
055
061
0581
043
045
044
045
064
055.
BF Max Depth (ft)
172
1 090
100
0 81
1 Ol
0 91
063
101
082
100
102
101
0981
099
099
084
085
085
088
096
092
Width/Depth (ft)
1877
5277
1600
12851
1886
1586
1279
1525
1402
1263
1713
1471
1365
1544
1455
1913
2207
2060
15 13
2022
1768
Entrenchment Ratio
966
091
1 56
1 80
195
1881
-143
197,
170
184
248
213
158
159
159
148
151
150
154
168
161
Bank Height Ratio
100
191
100
100
100
1001
100
1001
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Wetted Perimeter (11)
2658,
1397
900
697
828
7631
7 08
7561
732
697
750,
724
780
968
874
884
966
925
9341
9 96
965
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
1 16
025
1
039
042
050
046
0471
050
049,
047
0541
051
053
060
057,
042,
044
043
0441
062
053.
Pattern
*Channel Beltwidth (ft)
4417
4650
4522
1080
1457
1295
1080
1457
1295
1080
14571
1295
1080
1457
1295
1080
1457
1295
1080
1457
1295
*Radius of Curvature (ft)
1297
2444
1767
932
12490
2359
932
12490
2359
932
12490
2359
932
12490
2359
932
12490
2359,
932
12490
2359
*Meander Wavelength (ft)
8823
11570
10480
5882
10630
7372
5882
10630
7372
5882
10630
7372
5882
10630
7372
5882
10630
7372
5882
10630
7372
*Meander Width Ratio
184
194
1881
145
195
174
159
199
1 84
163
202
187
144
155
153
125
154
143
1 19
148
137
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
190
31 0 � 257
1
1 34
0 0344
47901 1530
0 6094 ` 0 1389
235
00401
659
1092
49501 1284
0 4593 0 1278
2421 1381
150 25 38 78
1 85
0 0373
48701
0 53441
2350
14670
1407
0 1334
4 08
No flow
40 46
No flow
1728
2 29, 5761
19 48
2 80
51 80
2090
No Flow
1260
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0 0125
110
676
0 0362 0 0211
3161 174
775 r 71 4
No flow
0 0097 0 4165
0 1090
No Flow
No Flow
Pool Length (ft)
607
1019
2279 1243
14320 5563
630
1310
527
1825
11 77
624, 2335
1365
640
2570
Pool Spacing (ft)
1
1060
47201
1592
14941
63 19
16 17i 14215
605,
i 8 00
144 00
56 00
Substrate
d50 (min)
385
69
158; 114
24
82
53
24
118
71
04
19
12
071
213
110
091
88
49
d84 (nun)
602
202
[ 42 41 313
921
1431
118
161
179
107
IR 71
234
107
6321
1033
833
1551
822
489
Additional Reach Parameters
Valley Length (ft)
29400
1426
1426
1426
1426
1426
1426
1426
1426
Channel Length (ft)
353 00
1508
1533
1552
1552
1552
1552
1552
1552
Sinuosity
12
106
1 07
1091
109
109,
109,
109
109
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
00106,
00350
00500
00425
00350
00500
00425
00427
00385
00386
No flow
00399
No Flow
BF Slope ( ft/ft)
00115
**
0 0375
0 0535
0 0455
00469
00367
00386
00389
00400
00425
Rosgen Classification
C4
A--+B
Al
/A2 —> B4a
B4a
B4
B4
B5
B4
B4a
*Habitat Index
*Macrobenthos
Notes * Inclusion will be project specific and determined primarily by As -built monitoring plan/success criteria
* *Insufficient field indicators to estimate bankfull slope under altered A—+ B channel conditions
Blank fields = Historic project documentation necessary to provide these data were unavailable at the time of this report submission
Where no min/max values provided, only one value was measured or computed and is presented as the mean value

Table XHla: Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Silver Creek and Unnamed Tributary Stream Restoration / EEP Project No. D05016 -01
Reach: Silver Creek Mainstem
Parameter
Cross Section (Riffle 1)
Cross Section (Pool 2)
Cross Section (Pool 3)
Dimension
MY 0
MY 1
MY 2
MY 3
MY 4
MY 5
MY 0
MY 1
MY 2
MY 3
MY 4
MY 5
MY 0
MY 1
MY 2
MY 3
MY 4
MY 5
BF Width (ft)
48 18
4541
4386
4385
406
4107
4209
4289
4313
4146
42 14
3937
5122
5034
472
4907
4857
3769
_
Floodprone Width (ft)
8277
82 18
8198
7396
8354
8441
8436
8148
8654
766
7481
725
18193
13373
17679
1256
1217
11574
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft)
8359
83 18
7369
8272
6011
6285
8964
8153
9399
8281
7584
6347
9581
91 1
8495
8942
9037
7481
BF Mean Depth (ft)
181
183
1.68
189
148
153
213
19
218
2
18
161
187
181
18
18
186
198
BF Max Depth (ft)
341
348
335
421
383
4.03
484
4.02
541
503
431
362
539
454
5.33
5.83
556
5.6
Width/Depth Ratio
2551
24.81
2611
23.2
2743
2684
1976
2257
1978
2073
2341
2445
2739
2781
2622
27.59
2611
1904
Entrenchment Ratio
179
181
187
169
206
206
2
19
201
185
178
184
355
266
375
253
251
307
Bank Height Ratio
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
4698
4627
4462
4485
4187
4248
4343
4385
448
4312
43 35
4303
5285
1 5151
4895
5181
1 51 19
4131
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
178
18
165
184
144
148
2 06
186
21
192
175
147
181
177
174
173
177
181
Substrate
D50 (mm)
045
1647
1886
603
385
1365
067
083
044
043
57
091
105
125
1 14
039
83
869
D84 (mm )
20 92
2128
2757
1135
1 8827
1 3087
297
16
1 106
095
1 7291
1126071
34
176
173
098
1798
197
Table XIHa: Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Silvei Creek and Unnamed Tributary Stream Restoration/ EEP Project No. D05016 -01
Reach: Silver Creek Mainstem
Parameter
Cross Section (Riffle 4)
Cross Section (Riffle 5)
Cross Section (Pool 6)
Dimension
MY 0
MY 1
MY 2
MY 3
MY 4
MY 5
MY 0
MY 1
MY 2
MY 3
MY 4
MY 5
MY 0
MY 1
MY 2
MY 3
MY 4
MY 5
BF Width (ft)
6981
688
639
6108
6238
5917
6728
6715
6844
5501
4896
5394
7469
7228
7224
6954
7567
6295
_
Floodprone Width (ft)
11436
11368
11411
126
11959
12131
10692
11101
10957
10503
10606
10457
11273
11279
13497
14287
1194
11928
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft)
10355
10015
899
9144
9105
8232
8655
8946
9539
8688
1002
9376
1071
10903
12032
12199
14904
12299
BF Mean Depth (ft)
148
146
141
15
146
139
129
133
139
158
205
174
143
151
167
175
197
195
BF Max Depth (ft)
28
281
308
354
362
356
375
404
415
373
459
43
387
391
448
48
496
606
Width/Depth Ratio
4717
4712
4532
4072
1 4273
4257
52 16
5049
4924
3482
2388
31
5223
4787
4326
3974
3841
3228
Entrenchment Ratio
164
165
179
206
192
205
1 59
165
16
191
217
194
151
156
187
205
1 58
1 89
Bank Height Ratio
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
702
6918
6431
6164
6356
613
6834
6832
698
5603
5032
5602
761
7355
7309
7047
7727
6603
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
148
145
14
148
143
134
127
131
137
1 55
199
167
141
048
1 165
173
193
1 86
Substrate
D50 (mm)
425
776
975
1666
385
3106
251
1365
214
724
57
5924
301
25
183
059
4
188
D84 (mm)
269
1093
1 1533
1 3839
1 8827
1 124 2
1547
1 1985
298
1 2542
1 7291
1392641
1245
514
489
273
1 1864
1 1412

Table XIHb: Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Silver Creek and Unnamed Tributarys Stream Restoration / EEP Project No. D05016 -01
Reach: UT -A
Parameter
Cross Secrion (Riffle 1)
Cross Section (Pool 2)
Cross Section (Pool 3)
Cross Section (Riffle 4)
Dimension
MY
MY
MY
MY
MY
MY
MY
MY
MY
MY
MY
MY
MY
MY
MY
MY
MY
MY
MY
MY
MY2
MY3
MY
MY
BF Width (ft)
681
678
662
942
861
986
95
1079
1077
1202
1155
10
805
986
1079
1025
101
715
8 11
732
72
7.51
949
91
Floodprone Width (ft)
1328
1335
13.12
1483
1276
14 87
1637
1726
1783
1714
1785
142
1454
1506
1575
15 17
1654
113
1457
1045
12 15
1193
1435
1531
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft)
359
357
329
578
391
62
701
705
736
823
8 29
477
6.97
695
683
684
769
4.9
351
352
408
41
—055T
408
412
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.53
0.53
0 5
0 61
0 45
064
0 74
0 65
0 68
068
0 72
048
087
071
063
067
076
069
043
048
057
0.43
0.45
BF Max Depth (ft)
1.01
101
102
098
084
096
137
1.02
108
101
1 32
0 84
1.64
1 02
1 1
0 99
1 33
1
081
068
1
099
085
088
Width/Depth Ratio
1285
1279
1324
1544
1913
15 13
1284
166
1584
1768
1604
2083
9.25
1389
1713
153
1329
1036
18.86
1525
1263
1365
2207
2022
Entrenchment Ratio
195
197
198
158
148
154
172
16
166
143
155
142
181
153
146
148
164
158
18
143
169
159
15
1 68
Bank Height Ratio
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
100
1
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
712
708
697
968
884
996
991
11 13
11 11
123
1192
1016
8.7
102
1104
1053
1048
761
828
756
75
78
966
934
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
05
05
047
06
044
062
071
063
066
067
069
047
08
068
062
065
073
064
042
047
054
053
042
044
Substrate
D50 (mm)
685
2.4
235
042
071
092
067
4
39
005
141
062
05
078
078
017
1
171
1577
924
925
192
2128
882
D84 (mm)
2022
822
8
1865
10329
82 19
1 19
1161
1172
0.22
1 1033
097
151
1 62
164
053
2089
3059
1 4235
1433
1431
2336
6323
15 53

&WO I BII1I [I] 1Zi1 14VA
Year 1 vegetation monitoring was conducted in September 2007 using the CVS - -EEP Protocol for
Recording Vegetation, Version 4 0 (Lee, M T, Peet, RK , Roberts, S R, Wentworth, T R 2006)
Year 5 vegetation monitoring was conducted in September 2011 using the same protocol as used
in Years 1, 2, 3 and 4 Year 1 stream monitoring was conducted in November 2007 to provide
adequate time between the as -built survey (completed in May 2007) and the Year 1 monitoring
survey Stream monitoring for Years 2, 3 and 4 occurred in the fall of 2008, 2009 and 2010
respectively, providing a full year between monitoring events Year 5 monitoring occurred in the
fall of 2011 in order to provide a full year between surveys.
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. December 2011
Monitoring Report — Silver Creek Monitoring Year 5 of 5
EEP Contract # D05016 -01 Page 36

APPENDIX A
Vegetation Raw Data
1 Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos
2 Vegetation Data Tables
3 Vegetation Problem Area Plan View
4 Vegetation Problem Area Photos
5 Vegetation Installed during 2011 Remedial Planting

Vegetation Plot 1 on Mainstem
Year 5 — top photo (EMH &T, 9/16/11)
Year 1- bottom photo (EMH &T, 9/20/06)

Vegetation Plot 2 on Mainstem
Year 5 — top photo (EMH &T, 9/16/11)
Year 1- bottom photo (EMH &T, 9/20/06)

Vegetation Plot 3 on Mainstem
Year 5 — top photo (EMH &T, 9/16/11)
Year 1- bottom photo (EMH &T, 9/20/06)

Vegetation Plot 4 on Mainstem
Year 5 — top photo (EMH &T, 9/16/11)
Year 1- bottom photo (EMH &T, 9/20/06)

Vegetation Plot 5 on Mainstem
Year 5 — top photo (EMH &T, 9/16/11)
Year 1- bottom photo (EMH &T, 9/20/06)

Vegetation Plot 6 on Mainstem
Year 5 — top photo (EMH &T, 9/16/11)
Year 1- bottom photo (EMH &T, 9/20/06)

Vegetation Plot 1 on Tributary A
Year 5 — top photo (EMH &T, 9/16/11)
Year 1- bottom photo (EMH &T, 9/20/06)

Vegetation Plot 2 on Tributary A
Year 5 — top photo (EMH &T, 9/16/11)
Year 1- bottom photo (EMH &T, 9/20/06)

Vegetation Plot 3 on Tributary A
Year 5 — top photo (EMH &T, 9/16/11)
Year 1- bottom photo (EMH &T, 9/20/06)

Vegetation Plot 4 on Tributary A
Year 5 — top photo (EMH &T, 9/16/11)
Year 1- bottom photo (EMH &T, 9/20/06)

Vegetation Plot on Tributary B
Year 5 — top photo — facing upstream on Trib. B (EMH &T, 9/16/11)
Year 1- bottom photo — facing downstream on Trib. B toward Silver Creek (EMH &T, 9/20/06)

Vegetation Plot on Tributary C
Year 5 — top photo (EMH &T, 9/16/11)
Year 1- bottom photo (EMH &T, 9/20/06)

Table 1 Vegetation Metadata
Report Prepared By
Megan Wolf
Date Prepared
10/27/201115 04
database name
cvs-eep-entrytool,2 2 6 mdb
database location
Q \ENVIRONMENTAL Monitorin EEP Vegetation Database
computer name
H %1N941
file size
49823744
DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT
Metadata
Description of database file the report worksheets and a summary of project(s) and project data
Proj, planted
Each project is listed with Its PLANTED stems per acre for each year This excludes live stakes
Pro], total stems
Each project is listed with Its TOTAL stems per acre for each year This includes live stakes all planted stems and all natural volunteer stems
Plots
List of plots surveyed with location and summary data live stems dead stems m,ssing, etc
Vigor
Frequency distribution ofvi or classes for stems for all plots
Vigor b Spp
Frequency distribution ofvi or classes listed by species
Damage
List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences and percent of total stems Impacted by each
Damage by Spp
Damage values tallied by e for each species
Damage by Plot
Damage values tallied by e for each plot
ALL Stems by Plot and spp
A matrix of the count of total Irving stems of each species (planted and natural volunteers combined for each plot, dead and missing stems are excluded
PROJECT SUMMARY•
Project Code
D0501601
project Name
silver Creek
Description
Restoration of Silver Creek Mainstem and Unnamed Tributary A
River Basin
length(ft)
stream-to-edge width ft
areas m
Required Plots calculated
Sampled Plots 110

Table 2. Vegetation Vigor by Species
Species
4
3
2
1
0
Missing
Acer saccharum
3
2
5
Alnus serrulata
7
1
1
Aronia arbutifolia
1
Aroma melanocarpa
16
3
1
1
Cornus amomum
20
2
1
1
3
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
6
2
1
3
Quercus alba
1
Quercus coccinea
4
3
Quercus michauxii
4
Quercus palustris
1
Salix nigra
2
1
Sambucus canadensis
1
Corpussencea
3
Uriodendron tulipifera
3
1
2
Platanus occidentalis
3
1
1
3
Acer rubrum
3
TOT: 116
75
15
6
1
1
19

Table 3. Vegetation Damage by Species
H
G!
L
O
ba
0
U
M
co
C
.a
M
M
0
c
..�
C
_
IA
Q
_
c'n
Acer rubrum
3
3
Acer saccharum
10
10
Alnus serrulata
9
9
Aronia arbutifolia
1
1
Aronia melanocarpa
21
19
1
1
Cornus amomum
27
26
1
Cornus sericea
3
3
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
13
13
Unodendron tulipifera
6
6
Platanus occidentalis
8
71
1
Quercus alba
1
1
Quercus coccinea
7
7
Quercus michauxii
4
4
Quercus palustris
1
1
Salix nigra
3
3
Sambucus canadensis
1
1
1
TOT:
16
1 118
1121
4
2

Table 4. Vegetation Damage by Plot
2L
0
d
m
U
`°
m
c
o
E
c
3
CL
Q
o
_.
(n
Silver Creek Mainstem Plot 1(year 5)
11
8
3
Silver Creek Mainstem Plot 2 (year 5)
12
12
Silver Creek Mainstem Plot 3 (year 5)
17
16
1
Silver Creek Mainstem Plot 4 (year 5)
9
9
Silver Creek Mainstem Plot 5 (year 5)
13
13
Silver Creek Mainstem Plot 6 (year 5)
12
11
1
UT -A Plot 1(year 5)
12
12
UT -A Plot 2 (year 5)
81
7
1
UT -A Plot 3 (year 5)
121
12
UT -A Plot 4 (year 5)
12
12
TOT:
10
1181
1121
4
2

Table 5. Stem Count by Plot and Species
Ln
Ln
1
Ln
Ln
Ln
L
L
L
L
L
L
ei
N
M
CT
1n
to
O
O
O
O
O
O
a
a
a
a
a
a
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
N
H
N
1-W/1
N
{40/1
M
In
1n
in
y
C
C
C
C
C
C
L
M
L
M
L
M
L
M
d
Y
G�
Y
N
Y
w
Y
N
Y
0
Y
0
a-I
N
M
q*
a
y
L
V
L
U
L
V
L
U
L
v
L
V
O
a
O
a
O
a
O
a
.Q
4+
°
N
L
L
L
L
L
L
c
a
00
>
>
>
>
>
>
F-
I"
F .
Vf
H
f
I M
V)
V)
N
Vf
N
N
>
Acer rubrum
3
1
3
1
3
Acer saccharum
5
3
167
1
3
1
Alnus serrulata
8
5
16
3
1
1
1
2
Aronia melanocarpa
21
7
3
2
5
2
6
2
3
1
Cornus amomum
23
9
2.56
2
2
41
4
2
3
1
2
3
Cornus sencea
3
1
3
3
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
9
5
18
1
1
21
2
3
briodendron tulipifera
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
Platanus occidentalis
5
2
25
1
4
Quercus alba
1
1
1
1
Quercus coccinea
7
4
175
2
1
2
2
Quercus michauxii
4
2
2
1
3
Quercus palustris
1
1
1
1
Salix nigra
2
1
2
2
mbucus canadensis
1
1
1
1
J7
T
971
151
1
9
12
1-51
81
71
81
121
7
12

Table 6. Stem Count
by Plot and
Species - All Stems
L
L
L
L
L
L
a-1
N
M
I f1
'M
O
O
O
O
O
O
a
a
a
a
a
a
a�Ei
Vl
d
N
d
H
V)
Vl
CA
CA
W
W
IP1
—
111
.�
IA
.M
IA
C
.CM
C
.CM
C
.CCM
C
.CM
C
.ccM
C
.M
L
L
L
L
Y
N
Y
OJ
Y
N
Y
O
Y
GJ
Y
O
ri
N
M
H
t0.
U
i
U
L
U
i
U
i
U
L.
U
O
a
O
a
O
a
O
a
.a
4-0
o
L
>
L
>
L
L
L
L
c
a
b
>
>
>
>
H
tl
t=
N
N
Acer saccharum
6
3
2
1
3
2
Alnus serrulata
19
5
3.8
6
1
9
1
2
Aronia melanocarpa
30
8
375
2
5
2
4
6
7
3
1
Celtis occidentalis
1
1
1
1
Cornus amomum
24
9
267
2
2
5
4
2
3
1
2
3
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
14
5
2.8
1
1
3
4
5
Quercus alba
1
1
1
1
Quercus coccinea
7
4
175
2
1
2
2
Quercus michauxii
4
2
2
1
3
Quercus palustris
2
2
1
1
1
Rhus typhina
9
4
225
1
6
1
1
Salix nigra
2
1
2
2
Sambucus canadensis
1
1
1
1
Cornussencea
3
1
3
3
briodendron tulipifera
8
6
133
1
2
1
1
2
1
Platanus occidentalis
6
3
2
1
4
1
Acer rubrum
8
3
267
3
1
4
TOT:
17
145
17
1 16
141
161
11
18
12
20
14
141
10

1
t \$
• ;i
't,
9
�)c
YV
Ili ►
\X00
7�
1)�0 06,
let GAG
Of
1 1 451
...
..w
jl$ .
LEGEN D
� High Concern _
0 Low Concern
Invasive Population x
Bare Floodplain L
Oth air
Bare Bank ---- PU- Ilk
,.
-- SEVEN SPRINGS, LANE i
omm BURKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA Date: December, 2011
SILVER CREEK AND UNNAMED TRIBUTARY
Scole: j = 200
Evans, Mechwart, Harnblvton & Tilton, Inc. MONITORING
Engineers • Surveyors • Planners • Sclenfists Job No: 2007-1898
5500 New Albany R000, Columbus, OH 43054 APPENDIX A-2
Phone: [phone] Fax; 614.115.4800
M c M x x V I VEGETATION PROBLEM AREA PLAN VIEW Sheet: 112

i
1 Mt
1 ell 4
I Yk
jt
•y I
` ` 1
�.' f
t• }
+6 1.
�aY
'f
Z 7"
7
n .1
1�►00
r / �
_ L
P° L _ q
• L y `
)Id _ P \L _
Q — P \L_
r.�\
t r v �. mil' \ � /.ice r� ! _ i � � �f _ r, :. �+ •. �.� / „`�r 1 i / 1..
omm BURKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA Dote: December, 2011
SILVER CREEK AND UNNAMED TRIBUTARY Scale: 1 = 200'
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. MONITORING
Engineers • Surveyors • Planners • Scienlisis
5500 New Albany R000. Columbus, OH 43054 APPENDIX A-1 Job No: 2007 -1898
Phone; 614.775.4500 Fax; 614.775.4800
M C M x x v I VEGETATION PROBLEM AREA PLAN VIEW I Sheet: 2/2

VPA 1
View of sparse vegetation in the floodplain along the mainstem at station 13 +50.
(EMH &T, 9/16/11)
VPA 2
View of Japanese stiltgrass (Wicrostegium vimineum) infiltration along the Unnamed Tributary 1 (UT -1) at station 8 +25.
Photo direction faces downstream.
(EMH &T, 9/16/11)

Table 7. Vegetation Installed du ing
2011 Remedial Plantin
Ceh halanthus occidentalis
Buttonbush
500
bare root
Cornus amomum
Silky dogwood
500
bare root
Quercus cocanea
Scarlet oak
500
bare root
Sambucus canadensis
Elderberry
500
bare root
Ulmus amencana
Amencan elm
500
bare root

APPENDIX B
Geomorphologic Raw Data
1 Fixed Station Photos
2 Table B1 Qualitative Visual Stability Assessment
3 Cross Section Plots
4 Longitudinal Plots
5 Pebble Count Plots
6 Bankfull Event Photos
7 Stream Problem Areas Plan View
8 Stream Problem Area Photos

Fixed Station 1
Overview of the Silver Creek Mainstem, facing upstream from the downstream project
terminus.
Yea: 5 — top photo (EMH &T, 9/16/11)
Year 2- bottom photo (EMH &T, 8/21/08)

t;
Fixed Station 2
Overview of the Silver Creek Mainstem near Riffle #3, facing downstream.
Year 4 — top photo (EMH &T, September 20 10)
Year 2- bottom photo (EMH &T, 8/8/08)

Fixed Station 3
Overview of the Silver Creek Mainstem at Riffle #1, facing downstream.
Year 5 — top photo (EMH &T, 9/16/11)
Year 2- bottom photo (EMH &T, 8/8/08)

Fixed Station 4
Overview of the Silver Creek Mainstem at Riffle #1, facing upstream.
Year 5 — top photo (EMH &T, 9/16/11)
Year 2- bottom photo (EMH &T, 8/8/08)

Fixed Station 5
Overview of the Silver Creek Mainstem, facing downstream near station 2 +60.
Year 5 — top photo (EMH &T, 9/16/11)
Year 2- bottom photo (EMH &T, 8/8/08)

Fixed Station 6
Overview of UT -A, facing upstream near station 0 +50.
Year 5 — top photo (EMH &T, 9/16/11)
Year 2- bottom photo (EMH &T, 8/8/08)

Fixed Station 7
Overview of UT -A, facing upstream near station 8 +00.
Year 5 — top photo (EMH &T, 9/16/11)
Year 2- bottom photo (EMH &T, 8/8/08)

Fixed Station 8
Overview of UT -A, facing upstream near station 11 +00.
Year 5 — top photo (EMH &T, 9/16/11)
Year 2- bottom photo (EMH &T, 8/8/08)

Fixed Station 9
Overview of UT -B, facing upstream from the confluence of UT -B with Silver Creek.
Year 5 — top photo (EMH &T, 9/16/11)
Year 2- bottom photo (EMH &T, 8/8/08)

.x
od`�s � �i'• ` �l�,�i+. �i
41W
i�ylt
rt
Fixed Station 10
Overview of UT -B, facing downstream towards the confluence of UT -B with Silver Creek.
Year 5 — top photo (EMH &T, 9/16/11)
Year 2- bottom photo (EMH &T, 8/8/08)

Fixed Station 11
Overview of UT -C, facing upstream from the confluence of UT -C with Silver Creek.
Year 5 — top photo (EMH &T, 9/16/11)
Year 2- bottom photo (EMH &T, 8/8/08)

Fixed Station 12
Overview of UT -C, facing downstream towards the confluence of UT -C with Silver Creek.
Year 5 —top photo (EMH &T, 9/16/11)
Year 2- bottom photo (EMH &T, 8/8/08)

Table Bl. Visual Morphological Stability Assessment
Silver Creek Stream Restoration / EEP Project No. D05016 -1
Segment/Reach- Mainstem
Feature Category
Metric (per As -built and reference baselines
Stable)
Number
Performing
as Intended
Total
number per
As -built
Total Number /
feet in unstable
state
% Perform
in Stable
Condition
Feature
Perform
Mean or
Total
A Riffles
1 Present?
25
25
0
100
2 Armor stable a g no displacement)?
25
25
0
100
3 Facet grade appears stable?
25
25
0
100
4 Minimal evidence of embedding/fining?
25
25
0
100
5 Length appropriate?
25
25
0
100
100%
B Pools
1 Presents a g not subject to severe aggrad or mi rat
22
24
0
92
2 Sufficient) deep Max Pool D Mean Bkf>l 6?
24
24
0
100
3 Length appropriate?
24
24
0
100
97%
C Thalweq
1 Upstream of meander bend run /inflection centering?
25
25
0
100
2 Downstream of meander (glide /inflection) centering?
25
25
0
100
100%
D Meanders
1 Outer bend in state of limited /controlled erosion?
24
25
0
96
2 Of those eroding, # w /concomitant point bar formation?
25
25
0
100
3 Apparent Rc within spec?
25
25
0
100
4 Sufficient floodplain access and relief?
25
25
0
100
99%
E Bed General
1 Geveral channel bed aggradation areas bar formation
N/A
N/A
1/ 10 feet
99
2 Channel bed degradation - areas of increasing downcutting
or headcutting?
N/A
N/A
0/ 0 feet
100
99%
F Vanes
1 Free of back or arm scour?
15
15
0
100
2 Height appropriate?
15
15
0
100
3 Angle and geometry appear appropriate?
15
15
0
100
4 Free of piping or other structural failures?
15
15
0
100
100%
G Wads/ Boulders
1 Free of scour?
N/Al
01
N/A I
N/A
2 Footing stable?
N/Al
01
N/A
N/A
N/A

Table Bl. Visual Morphological Stability Assessment
Silver Creek Stream Restoration / EEP Project No. D05016 -1
Segment/Reach: TributaryA
Feature Category
Metric (per As -built and reference baselines
Stable)
Number
Performing
as Intended
Total
number per
As -built
Total Number/
feet in unstable
state
% Perform
in Stable
Condition
Feature
Perform
Mean or
Total
A Riffles
1 Present?
25
25
0
100
2 Armor stable a g no displacement)?
25
25
0
100
3 Facet grade appears stable?
25
25
0
100
4 Minimal evidence of embedding/fining?
25
25
0
100
5 Length appropriate?
25
25
0
100
100%
B Pools
1 Present?(eg not subject to severe aggrad or mi rat
13
15
0
87
2 Sufficient) deep Max Pool D Mean Bkf >l 6?
13
15
0
87
3 Length appropriate?
15
15
0
100
91%
C Thalwea
1 Upstream of meander bend run /inflection centering?
12
12
0
100
2 Downstream of meander (glide /inflection) centering?
12
12
0
100
100%
D Meanders
1 Outer bend in state of limited /controlled erosion?
12
12
0
100
2 Of those eroding, # w /concomitant point bar formation?
12
12
0
100
3 Apparent Rc within spec?
12
12
0
100
4 Sufficient floodplain access and relief?
10
12
2
83
96%
E Bed General
1 Geveral channel bed aggradation areas bar formation
N/A
N/A
0/ 0 feet
100
2 Channel bed degradation - areas of increasing downcutting
or headcuttmg?
N/A
N/A
1/ 5 feet
99
99%
F Vanes
1 Free of back or arm scour?
17
17
0
100
2 Height appropriate?
17
17
0
100
3 Angle and geometry appear appropriate?
17
17
0
100
4 Free of piping or other structural failures?
17
17
0
100
100%
G Wads/ Boulders
1 Free of scour?
N/A
01
N/A I
N/A
2 Footing stable?
N/A
01
N/A
N/A
N/A

PROJECT Silver Creek
Summary Data
D05016 -1
Bankfull Area (sq ft) 62.85
5 -YEAR
Bankfull Width (ft) 41.07
TASK Cross - Section
Mean Depth (ft) 1.53
REACH Mainstem
Maximum Depth (ft) 4.03
DATE 09/20/2011
Width /Depth Ratio 26.84
Entrenchment Ratio 2.06
Classification B4
~. . CROSS 1
SECTION:
1'.c osystoll FEATURE: Riffle at Cross Vane # 1
Silver Creek Mainstem XS1 - riffle (Year 5)
r
1
g
-. x�
a
I nlDe xR aY�A1U11 14aler rSl JW YR u \yl RIF vRl '„ 111 RIF YR2 v31 RAF vR7 n� t H�F 1'Ra
D10k:a1a8 5Y1ialD
Pants
1110
"R. - .1.1 DUkt 1.50 IIUkI - 4f.tl
��
- -- — -----------------FleedprGne--
41'
�
iy
Bankfull
A
i_
µ(pm
1126
1120
Riffle Cross - Section 1, looking downstream
10 20 .) w w 10 DD DD 100
Horizontal Distance (N)

PROJECT Silver Creek
Summary Data
D05016 -1
Bankf ill Area (sq ft) 63.47
5 -YEAR
Bankfull Width (ft) 39.37
TASK cross- Section
Mean Depth (ft) 1.61
REACH Mainstem
Maximum Depth (ft) 3.62
DATE 09/20/2011
Width/Depth Ratio 24.45
Entrenchment Ratio 1.84
CROSS 2
SECTION:
1',cowstoII FEATURE: Pool at Cross Vane # 1
Silver Creek Mainstem XS2 - pool (Year 5)
� •_ 6 *i .b/J- { y- �•:
.;; TS2Doa YR 46.dwl V VIA. XSIPOOL A XS2PCa � X52POa VXSi POOL -x52 POOL NW�lo,a 5�eti:c YRO YRt YR2 YR3 1R4
3•
Mkf - 36.6 DDkf • 1.59 DDkf - 61.1
1a% /-A Y�...
1110
Y.
T �1 ��� s
1•
S�w1 Z!
1136
\
Floodprone
- -- -- ----------------
- - -�
...r
1132
.3
>a -
iu
..
LU
A
r 4-
Bankfull
-
1124
1120
Pool Cross - Section 2, looking upstream
Horizontal Distance (ft)

PROJECT
Silver Creek
Summary Data
D05016 -1
Bankfull Area (sq ft)
74.81
5 -YEAR
Bankfull Width (ft)
37.69
TASK
Cross - Section
Mean Depth (ft)
1.98
REACH
Mainstem
Maximum Depth (ft)
5.6
DATE
09/20/2011
Width/Depth Ratio
19.04
Entrenchment Ratio
3.07
CROSS
3
SECTION:
1',cosytitCI I I
FEATURE:
Pool at J -Hook # 4
Silver Creek Mainstem XS3 - pool (Year 5)
,3 ? 0001 YR 0 8_n l V ... KV_ POOL JL AS? Pp i A 3 POOL V ASJ POOL
A`? POOL
• Y'
k101CYG15 SuRJCe YRo
WMr - 77.7
YR 1 YRi YR3 YRJ
oakr - 1.93 N4k7 - 7 4.8
Floodprone
- v
i
:1
_
- •.,.c�
� 1119
1�
A
CO
_
V�1
''
`
d
w
i
Bankfull
1
F
u w
200
Pool Cross - Section 3, looking downstream
Honzo^tal
Distance ttt;

PROJECT
Silver Creek
Summary Data
D05016 -1
Bankfull Area (sq ft)
82.32
5 -YEAR
Bankfull Width (ft)
59.17
TASK
Cross- Section
Mean Depth (ft)
1.39
REACH
Mainstern
Maximum Depth (ft)
3.56
DATE
09/20/2011
Width/Depth Ratio
42.57
Entrenchment Ratio
2.05
Classification
$4
�
CROSS SECTION:
4
kcosy tclll
FEATURE:
Riffle
Silver Creek Mainstem XS4 - riffle (Year 5)
�y
�+
i,XS<rA
YR ♦FanMUli V1'-rb 1_a RIFYR';
k,y�a1G15 .aorta[
A1S4RWYR1 V X56RIFYR2 VXS RIFYR3 YRa RIF %Sa
_�.
1
Wk{ 59 - S9
ppkf 7.89 ppki 42.8
J �
.rr�
112e
.2
C
11 ?2
Floodprone
C
— —�
- - - - -- — —
— — — — -
w
,Y' Bankfull
...
cy,
n15'J11�.
_ �...
`
ZL
Riffle Cross - Section 4, looking across channel,
sU BU 12U t�;�
Nl
from left bank to right bank
Honzontal
Distance (ft)

PROJECT
Silver Creek
Summary Data
D05016 -1
Bankfull Area (sq ft)
93.76
5 -YEAR
Bankfull Width (ft)
53.94
TASK
Cross - Section
Mean Depth (ft)
1.74
REACH
Mainstem
Maximum Depth (ft)
4.3
DATE
09/20/2011
Width/Depth Ratio
31.0
Entrenchment Ratio
1.94
Classification
B4�
CROSS SECTION:
5
Fc
FEATURE:
Riffle at J -Hook #
w,Itclll
8
' b{� r T
=XS'.
5
Silver Creek Mainstem XS5 -riffle (Year 5)
Al1e YR �13nM, VKaNr _: All VRL A.S?WF YRi `: A5 ?R6 YR, VxS'R1F Yri? x5 ?RIF 1R4
nm:llae .9.1
VDkr 53.9
DDki 1.74 PDkr 93.8
y./
tll0
Floodprone
— ��--------
--- ---- --- -- - - --
T1_
tic >e �
��
,�
...•
•
/
tlsa
O
�'.
W
4
Bankfull
r
111e
""
•�` �'i�i�
Riffle Cross - Section 5, looking downstream
o „C
Horizontal
Distance (ft)

PROJECT Silver Creek
Summary Data
D05016 -1
Bankfull Area (sq ft)
122.99
5 -YEAR
Bankfull Width (ft)
62.95
TASK
Cross - Section
Mean Depth (ft)
1.95
REACH
Mainstem
Maximum Depth (ft)
6.06
DATE
09/20/2011
Width/Depth Ratio
32.28
Entrenchment Ratio
1.89
r-d�j
CROSS SECTION: 6
1',�U�1'�ll'lll
FEATURE: Pool at J -Hook # 8
Silver Creek Mainstem XS6 - pool (Year 5)
+ .,' ,I _
_
� .l � i Y�.'.�t'.
C 1�60mY116
�LYaii �urtllt6l�u .i 161001 Y1O � I�WOLY111 � 1m6I001 Wt1 �]�6�OOLYIp i J�LLOOIMI
^
'' _ ,<<.
_
- •'•
1130
. Wbkf - 20
Dbkf - 2.17 Rbkf - 43.3
Floodprone
1127 --
z
,> Awl(
_
..
c
1124--
>
full
y',E+ r f j_y
,tlZ�i� W
W
1121
1110;
\
1115
0 30 60
90 120 150
Pool Cross - Section 6, looking
downstream
Horizontal
Distance (ft)

PROJECT
Silver Creek
Summary Data
D05016 -1
Bankfull Area (sq ft)
6.2
5 -YEAR
Bankfull Width (ft)
9.86
TASK Cross - Section
Mean Depth (ft)
0.64
REACH UT -A
Maximum Depth (ft)
0.96
DATE 09/20/2011
Width/Depth Ratio
15.13
Entrenchment Ratio
1.54
CROSS SECTION:
1
Classification
B5
FEATURE:
Riffle
`
UTA XS1 -riffle (Year 5)
� -
_
:. siiRra
��anx �rnrarx >si�r rxo ��i ��r�r G'%S1 IIf Vl1} �si n�v�> >¢i w•vRr
WDkf 9.66 DDkF = .64 PDkf
= 6.2
1195.3
�
WFre
1193.6
. � .
�
a
1191.9
° 1
LW
1190.1
V, r'(/
V.
\,
Ploodprone
1 165.0
Bankfull
UTA Cross - Section 1, looking upstream
o 12 24 36
as 60
Horizontal Distance (ft)

PROJECT Silver Creek
Summary Data
D05016 -1
Bankfull Area (sq ft) 4.77
5 -YEAR
Bankfull Width (ft) 10.0
TASK Cross- Section
Mean Depth (ft) 0.48
REACH UT -A
Maximum Depth (ft) 0.84
DATE 09/20/2011
Width/Depth Ratio 20.83
Entrenchment Ratio 1.42
CROSS 2
SECTION:
1
1 "CoS}'StelII FEATURE: Pool
UTA XS2 - pool (Year 5)
. .' d.� �E' '� «'r �7.
1SiGmiM6
�M� �✓le9Nn �iDOLMO Ll6'I IOOI YIIt v%6t I001Y11} �JC.Y /OOLYIU IIQIOOI YII{
WDkf = 10 Dbkf = .48 ADkf - 11.77
1178.1
tY
r t
.. pl
c 11744
is
Simi
W 1172.6
F;.
11701
Floodprone
1
Bankfall
1168.8
1167.0
0 8 16 24 32 60
UTA Pool Cross - Section 2, looking across
Horizontal Distance (ft)
channel. from left to rip-ht bank

PROJECT
Silver Creek
Summary Data
D05016 -1
Bankfull Area (sq ft) 4.90
5 -YEAR
Bankfull Width (ft) 7.15
TASK
Cross - Section
Mean Depth (ft) 0.69
REACH
UT -A
Maximum Depth (ft) 1.00
DATE
09/20/2011
Width/Depth Ratio 10.36
Entrenchment Ratio 1.58
CROSS SECTION:
3
FEATURE:
Pool
'
UTA XS3
- pool (Year 5)
lc y `.-y .'�ib� y,/�K �. h ;•!
tV`
•�.,Zt
:': %Aped
Y115 �� 116 VYM+! %p I00LY110
A WLV91 '...'=V00LYR2 V=100 —1001YRl
- �L �iq,� ,�L.
A ;Rttrr .i .,w
1156
Wbkf�- 7.15
Dbkf - .69 Nbkf
- 4.9
1156--
� • `
`\,
`.
C
O
1151
�,t
LLI
1152`
Floodprone
Bankfull
+Q
7148
UTA Pool Cross - Section 3, looking from right to
0 12
24 36
4 60
left bank
Horizontal
Distance (ft)

PROJECT
Silver Creek
Summary Data
Bankfull Area (sq ft)
4.12
D05016 -1
Bankfull Width (ft)
9.10
5 -YEAR
Mean Depth (ft)
0.45
TASK
Cross- Section
Maximum Depth (ft)
0.88
REACH
UT -A
Width/Depth Ratio
20.22
DATE
09/20/2011
Entrenchment Ratio
1.68
Classification
B4
CROSS
4
SECTION:
1'k(osystclll
FEATURE:
Riffle
�e
UTA XS4 - riffle (Year 5)
_
: ?ua
me rRS ♦�an� ♦w�is.r,. . ��r
vno �x ns r�i -;'asa■e r�r ♦uu nr v�
ru •gym
VbkF = 9.1
DbkF - .45 NbkF = 4.12
1W.
w
\\
-
---- - - - - --- --- -- ---- --
- - -- --- -- - -- '`� -- ----------
---Floodprone------
1151
Bankfull
1149
UTA Riffle Cross - Section
4, looking downstream
6 12
24 36
49 60
Horizontal
Distance (ft)

I
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
r
V
oa Silver Creek mainstem - Year 5 Profile - 20 Sep 2011
oau ddu IIUU 1320 1540 1760 1980 2200
# Year 5 0 Water 1► Bankfull + Left Bank Q Right Bank + Left Edge of X Right Edge
Channel Surface Water of Water

Silver Creep mainstem - Year 5 Profile - 20 Sep 2011
1130
CD a l
11291)
co ro
1128-- I
�1
1127 I
1120
-0 -If T
1125-- ZN
1124--
IL i j
1123--
I{
I I �
1122--[— I I
r
1121 —�—
1129 L
a
105 210 315 420 525 030 735 8�0
• var 5 0 'A tl! r si roc# v 8aim II Ult Balk < R � It Balk fi Ult Edq� tY ;.,� R I It BC�g¢ 4t Year 0 year 1 War 2 War 3 roar 4
Giabbel Ulktr MIA ciablel Ciarkel Ciabbel Clarrel Ciarbel
945 1050

1124
1123—
1122—
1121
1120—
1119—
1118 1-
1050
Silver Creek mainstem - Year 5 Profile - 20 Sep 2011
LO LD
O'd I
0
cn
7 rl
f
CN
T
�I �
1155 1260
1865 1470
1575
16 i 80
17 1 85
♦ Year 5 0 Wftrgiroc* V Balm
lift Balk > R Ig it Balk -t- 1*1t "t of
X R Ig It Ed)t Oy
War 0 War I
War 2
cMlkel
MA r
utut r
clablel Claikel
Cbakiel
I I I
1890 1995 2100
war 3 war i
Ciatiel clabbel

0
•
1.&UU
1178
1167
1155
1145
Silver Creek Unnamed Tributary A -Year 5 Profile - 20 Sep 2011
._
u 260 520 730 1040
i
1
1
1
1300
+ Year5 Channel
0 Water Surface
V Bankfull
* Left Bank
* Right Bank
+ Left Edge of Water
Right Edge of Water

• 1200
1195
1190
1185
ifir-111
1175
Silver Creek Unnamed Tributary A -Year 5 Profile - 20 Sep 2011
,n
+
u flu 240 360 480 600
Year 5 o Water w Bankfull + Left Right + Left , Right L Year 2
Channel Surface Bank Bank Edge of Edge of Channel
Water Water
Year 0 Year 3 Year 4
Channel Channel Channel

.,
1173
1166
1159
1152
1145
Silver Creek Unnamed Tributary A -Year 5 Profile - 20 Sep 2011
IWM-
UUU r,Jv 8bu 990 1120
• Year 5 o ',Hater v Bankfull + Left Right + Left rx Right Year 2 Year 0 Year 3 v Year 4
Channel Surface Bank Bank Edge of Edge of Channel Channel Channel Channel
Water dater
1 250

Pebble Count - Rifile
Material
Particle Size mm
Count
% in Range
% Cumulative
Silt/Clay
<0.062
0
0
0
Very Fine Sand
0.062- 0.125
0
0
0
ine Sand
0.125 -0.25
1
2
2
edium Sand
0.25 -0.5
6
10
12
oarse Sand
0.5 -1.0
1
2
13
Very Coarse Sand
1.0 -2.0
5
8
22
Very Fine Gravel
2.0 -4.0
0
0
22
ine Gravel
4.0 -5.7
0
0
22
ine Gravel
5.7 -8.0
3
5
27
edium Gravel
8.0 -11.3
8
13
40
edium Gravel
11.3 -16.0
12
20
60
Coarse Gravel
16.0 -22.6
10
17
77
Coarse Gravel
22.6 -32
5
8
85
Very Coarse Gravel
32 -45
0
0
85
Very Coarse Gravel
45 -64
0
0
85
Small Cobble
64 -90
4
7
92
Small Cobble
90 -128
3
5
97
Large Cobble
128 -180
0
0
97
ar a Cobble
180 -256
2
3
100
Small Boulder
256 -362
0
0
100
mall Boulder
362 -512
0
0
100
edium Boulder
512 -1024
0
0
100
are Boulder
1024 -2048
0
0
100
edrock
<2048
0
0
100
Totals
60
100
Silver Creek Stream Restoration EEP Project No. D05016 -1
Reach
Mainstem
X Sec
1
Date
9/16/11
Sta No.
2 +05
Histogram
25
20
d
15
ao
e
X10
e
S
0 1 I ! ! ! ! ! -I i !! ; ! T -I ! ! T 1 ,1T1
0.062 0.25 1 4 8 16 32 64 128 256 512 2048
Particle Size (mm)
Particle Size Distribution
�,
■
11111111
■Illlllllr�ltllll�!�IIIIIIII
■11111111
■
11111111
■11111111►�1�:����11
■11111111
■11111111
:,
■
11111111
■1111111
/;11111111
■11111111
■11111111
,
■
11111111
■111111.1
/ 11111111
■1111111111111111
,
■11111111
■Illl,illll�lllllllll
■111
Year 1
II
■
11111111
■I�I�1111NII11111111
■111
Year 2
II
■111���11�1
■111
-
II
.11111,11111111111
_
■
111���II�����;
■IIL____.---
���I111111111
___.II
,
■1;1...,,�11111�1�,
�IIIIIIII
■11111111
■11111111
,
/��IIIIII ■Illl�:t�illllllll ■11111111 ■11111111
t t t� ttt tttt

Pebble Count - Pool
Material
Particle Size mm
Count
% in Range
% Cumulative
Silt/Clay
<0.062
0
0
0
ery Fine Sand
0.062 -0.125
0
0
0
ine Sand
0.125 -0.25
10
17
17
edium Sand
0.25 -0.5
16
27
43
oarse Sand
0.5 -1.0
8
13
57
Very Coarse Sand
1.0 -2.0
2
3
60
Very Fine Gravel
2.0 -4.0
0
0
60
Fine Gravel
4.0 -5.7
0
0
60
ine Gravel
5.7 -8.0
2
3
63
edium Gravel
8.0 -11.3
1
2
65
edium Gravel
11.3 -16.0
4
1 7
72
Coarse Gravel
16.0 -22.6
5
8
80
oarse Gravel
22.6 -32
1
2
82
Very Coarse Gravel
32-45
1
2
83
Very Coarse Gravel
45 -64
0
0
83
mall Cobble
64 -90
1
2
85
mall Cobble
90 -128
1
2
87
are Cobble
128 -180
0
0
87
ar a Cobble
180 -256
1
2
88
mall Boulder
256 -362
1
2
90
mall Boulder
362 -512
0
0
90
edium Boulder
512 -1024
0
0
90
are Boulder
1024 -2048
6
10
100
edrock
<2048
5
8
108
Totals
60
100
Silver Creek Stream Restoration EEP Project No. D05016 -1
Reach
Mainstem
X Sec
2
Date
9/15/11
Sta No.
2 +30
30
25
20
d
00
15
C
°- 10
e
5
0
Histogram
0.062 0.25 1 4 8 16 32 64 128 256 512 2048
Particle Size (mm)
�, ■111111111 111111111 ■111��III�11111111►IIIIIIIII
:, ■111111,/ 111111111 ■1�!.,1����lllllll ■11111111
■illl�,lll /IIIII��IIIIIillll ■11111111 ■11111111
■111 �III_/1111�,,1�11111111 ■11111111 ■11111111
. � , ■II�iIP!i/ 11111111 ■11111111 ■IIIIIP'� ■!! "'ll
- , , ■11�1�� ill ■11111111 ■11111111 ■11111 : _ II
■Ill�llll ■11111111 ■11111111 ■11111 __ II
■;/ 1111111■ 11111111 ■11111111 ■11111��� ■������II
, � /1111111■ 11111111 ■11111111 ■11111111 ■11111111
, / /llllllll■ 11111111 ■11111111 ■11111111 ■11111111

Pebble Count - Pool
Material
Particle Size mm
Count
% in Range
% Cumulative
Silt/Clay
<0.062
0
0
U
Very Fine Sand
0.062 -0.125
0
0
0
Fine Sand
0.125 -0.25
4
6
6
Medium Sand
0.25 -0.5
2
3
10
oarse Sand
0.5 -1.0
10
16
25
Very Coarse Sand
1.0 -2.0
0
0
25
Very Fine Gravel
2.0 -4.0
4
6
32
ine Gravel
4.0 -5.7
2
3
35
Fine Gravel
5.7 -8.0
7
11
46
edium Gravel
8.0 -11.3
12
19
65
edium Gravel
11.3 -16.0
h
13
78
Coarse Gravel
16.0 -22.6
7
11
89
Coarse Gravel
22.6 -32
5
8
97
Very Coarse Gravel
32 -45
1
2
98
cry Coarse Gravel
45 -64
0
0
98
Small Cobble
64 -90
1
2
100
Small Cobble
90 -128
0
0
100
Large Cobble
128 -180
0
0
100
Large Cobble
180 -256
0
0
100
Small Boulder
256 -362
0
0
100
Small Boulder
362 -512
0
0
100
Medium Boulder
512 -1024
0
0
100
Large Boulder
1024 -2048
0
0
100
Bedrock
<2048
0
0
100
Totals
63
100
Silver Creek Stream Restoration EEP Project No. D05016 -1
Reach
Mainstem
X Sec
3
Date
9/15/11
Sta No.
11 +18
Histogram
20
18
16
14
d 12
00
10 -
a 8 - - - —
c
0
6 - -
4 - -
2
0
0.062 0.25 1 4 8 16 32 64 128 256 512 2048
�, ■11111111 /1ii111111■ .I I ■11111111 ■11111111
■IIII�II,IIIIIIIIIII 1111111 ■IIIIIIII ■11111111
■11W111111111111I 11111111 ■11111111 ■11111111
,, ■111�i1111 illlllll 11111111 ■11111111 ■11111111
NEAR 111 111111' 1111111101 "" "' " "" 91
. , ■11111111 ��I, I ■11111111 ■1 - II
�1�11111�I .111 ■IIIIIIII ■I 11
IIIIII �� IIIIII ■IIIIIIII ■1 Year 5 II
, ■11 IIIIIiIII ■11111111 ■11111111 ■IIIIIIII
_.�IIIII■ 11111111 ■11111111 ■11111111 ■11111111
t� ��I fill

Pebble Count - Riffle
Material
Particle Size mm
Count
% in Range
% Cumulative
Silt/Clay
<0.062
0
0
0
Very Fine Sand
0.062 -0.125
0
0
0
ine Sand
0.125 -0.25
0
0
0
ediurn Sand
0.25 -0.5
0
0
0
oarse Sand
0.5 -1.0
0
0
0
Very Coarse Sand
1.0 -2.0
0
0
0
Very Fine Gravel
2.0 -4.0
1
2
2
ine Gravel
4.0 -5.7
0
0
2
ine Gravel
5.7 -8.0
3
5
7
Medium Gravel
8.0 -11.3
3
5
12
Medium Gravel
11.3-16.0
4
7
18
oarse Gravel
16.0 -22.6
10
17
35
oarse Gravel
22.6 -32
10
17
52
Very Coarse Gravel
32 -45
4
7
58
Very Coarse Gravel
45 -64
7
12
70
mall Cobble
64 -90
3
5
75
mall Cobble
90 -128
6
10
85
are Cobble
128 -180
3
5
90
are Cobble
180 -256
2
3
93
mall Boulder
256 -362
0
0
93
mall Boulder
362 -512
2
3
97
edium Boulder
512 -1024
0
0
97
r e Boulder
1024 -2048
1
2
98
edrock
<2048
1
2
100
Totals
60
100
Silver Creek Stream Restoration EEP Project No. D05016 -1
Reach
Mainstem
X Sec
4
Date
9/30/10
Sta No.
12 +25
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
c
4
2
0
0.062 0.25 1 4 8 16 32 64 128 256 512 2048

Pebble Count - Riffle
Material
Particle Size mm
Count
% in Range
% Cumulative
Silt/Clay
<0.062
0
0
0
ery Fine Sand
0.062 - 0.125
0
0
0
ine Sand
0.125- 0.25
0
0
0
edium Sand
0.25 -0.5
0
0
0
oarse Sand
0.5 -1.0
4
7
7
Very Coarse Sand
1.0 -2.0
1
2
8
Very Fine Gravel
2.0 -4.0
0
0
8
ine Gravel
4.0 -5.7
1
2
10
ine Gravel
5.7 -8.0
5
8
18
edium Gravel
8.0 -11.3
2
3
22
Medium Gravel
11.3-16.0
4
7
28
Coarse Gravel
16.0 -22.6
5
8
37
Coarse Gravel
22.6 -32
2
3
40
Very Coarse Gravel
32 -45
3
5
45
Very Coarse Gravel
45 -64
4
7
52
Small Cobble
64 -90
4
7
58
mall Cobble
90 -128
5
8
67
are Cobble
128 -180
3
5
72
-arge, Cobble
180 -256
1
2
73
mall Boulder
256 -362
1
2
75
mall Boulder
362 -512
0
0
75
edium Boulder
512 -1024
0
0
75
Large Boulder
1024 -2048
15
25
100
edrock
<2048
0
0
100
Totals
60
100
Silver Creek Stream Restoration EEP Project No. D05016 -1
Reach
Mainstem
X Sec
5
Date
9/15/11
Sta No.
27 +62
30
25
20
0
15
c
e
10
5
0
Histogram
0.062 0.25 1 4 8 16 32 64 128 256 512 2048
Particle Size (mm)

Pebble Count - Pool
Material
Particle Size mm
Count
% in Range
% Cumulative
Silt/Clay
<0.062
1
2
2
ery Fine Sand
0.062 -0.125
0
0
2
ine Sand
0.125 -0.25
0
0
2
edium Sand
0.25 -0.5
6
10
12
oarse Sand
0.5 -1.0
9
15
27
Very Coarse Sand
1.0 -2.0
16
27
53
Very Fine Gravel
2.0 -4.0
3
5
58
Fine Gravel
4.0 -5.7
7
12
70
Fine Gravel
5.7 -8.0
4
7
77
Medium Gravel
8.0 -11.3
2
3
80
Medium Gravel
11.3 -16.0
4
7
87
Coarse Gravel
16.0 -22.6
1
2
88
Coarse Gravel
22.6 -32
1
2
90
Very Coarse Gravel
3245
2
3
93
Very Coarse Gravel
45 -64
0
0
93
Small Cobble
64 -90
1
2
95
Small Cobble
90 -128
0
0
95
-arge Cobble
128 -180
U
0
95
ar a Cobble
180 -256
1
2
97
mall Boulder
256 -362
0
0
97
mall Boulder
362 -512
0
0
97
edium Boulder
512 -1024
0
0
97
are Boulder
1024 -2048
0
0
97
<2048
2
0
97
rOcl
Totals
60
97
Silver Creek Stream Restoration EEP Project No. D05016 -1
Reach
Mainstem
X Sec
6
Date
9/15/11
Sta No.
27 +75
30
25
20
00
x
15
e
10
5
0
Histogram
0.062 0.25 1 a h 16 32 64 128 256 512 2048
Particle Size (mm)
■11111111 ■�11!iiii /� ■1■11111111
■11111111�.I11111 111111 ■11111111 ■11111111
■IIIIIIIII /II, i� 111111111 ■11111111 ■11111111
■IIIIIIIIIII, III X11111111 ■11111111 ■11111111
. � ; � �, . gill ■1111111 ■111111 "� " " "11
- ■Illl�e' I
■11 �IIII,>, .1111111 ■11111111 ■111111 - II
■� /�:ii'� 11111111 ■11111111 ■111111 _:.I
��Illl 11111111 ■11111111 ■111111_________JI
II I � � II■ 11111111 ■11111111 ■11111111 ■11111111
11111■ 11111111 ■11111111 ■11111111 ■11111111
of lit
,.

Pebble Count - Pool
Material
Particle Size mm
Count
% in Range
% Cumulative
Silt/Clay
<0.062
2
3
3
Very Fine Sand
0.062 -0.125
0
0
3
ine Sand
0.125 -0.25
6
10
13
edium Sand
0.25 -0.5
16
26
39
oarse Sand
0.5 -1.0
30
48
87
Very Coarse Sand
1.0 -2.0
0
0
87
Very Fine Gravel
2.0 -4.0
0
0
87
ine Gravel
4.0 -5.7
4
6
94
Fine Gravel
5.7 -8.0
2
3
97
Medium Gravel
8.0 -11.3
0
0
97
Medium Gravel
11.3 -16.0
0
0
97
Coarse Gravel
16.0 -22.6
2
3
100
oarse Gravel
22.6 -32
0
0
100
Very Coarse Gravel
32-45
0
0
100
Very Coarse Gravel
45 -64
0
0
100
mall Cobble
64 -90
0
0
100
mall Cobble
90 -128
0
0
100
are Cobble
128 -180
0
0
100
are Cobble
180 -256
0
0
100
mall Boulder
256 -362
0
0
100
mall Boulder
362 -512
0
0
100
edium Boulder
512 -1024
0
0
100
are Boulder
1 1024 -2048
0
0
100
edrock
1 <2048
0
0
100
Total.
62
100
Silver Creek Stream Restoration EEP Project No. D05016 -1
Reach
UTA
X Sec
DS of 1
Date
9/15/11
Sta No.
3 +45
Histogram
60
50 -
40
30 — — - - --
F
20
10
0
0.062 0.25 1 4 8 16 32 64 128 256 512 2048
Particle Size (mm)
:;
■Ir_�!!;���II
..�������
■■1111
,
/IIIIIIIII
�IIIIII
IIII!
■11111111
■11111111
:,
■11111
■�111!��I
■11111111
■11111111
■11111111
■1111
It,.��IIII
■11111111
■11111111
■11111111
,,
'11111
■111
or /1lllllll■IIIIIIII
■r
-Year 1
■11
�I
lllllll
■11111111
■I
IIIII
- . ,
��
■1
/lllllll
■11111111
■i
= : IIIII
■Year
�I;il�
5
..IIIII■
11111111
■11111111■IIIIIIII
■11111111
� lllllll■ 11111111 ■11111111 ■11111111 ■11111111
,

Pebble Count - Pool
Material
Particle Size mm
Count
% in Range
% Cumulative
ilt /Cla
<0.062
0
0
0
Very Fine Sand
0.062 -0.125
0
0
0
ine Sand
0.125 -0.25
0
0
0
Medium Sand
0.25 -0.5
15
25
25
oarse Sand
0.5 -1.0
10
17
42
Very Coarse Sand
1.0 -2.0
7
12
53
Very Fine Gravel
2.0 -4.0
0
0
53
ine Gravel
4.0 -5.7
4
7
60
ine Gravel
5.7 -8.0
3
5
65
edium Gravel
8.0 -11.3
2
3
68
edium Gravel
11.3 -16.0
3
5
73
oarse Gravel
16.0 -22.6
3
5
78
oarse Gravel
22.6 -32
4
7
85
Very Coarse Gravel
32 -45
3
5
90
Very Coarse Gravel
45 -64
2
3
93
mall Cobble
64 -90
4
7
100
Small Cobble
90 -128
0
0
100
are Cobble
128 -180
0
0
100
ar a Cobble
180 -256
0
0
100
mall Boulder
256 -362
0
0
100
Small Boulder
362 -512
0
0
100
edium Boulder
512- 1024
0
0
100
are Boulder
1024 -2048
U
0
100
Bedrock
<2048
0
0
100
Totals
60
100
11111111�11111111�11111111
Silver Creek Stream Restoration EEP Project No. D05016 -1
Reach
UTA
X Sec
2
Date
9/15/11
Sta No.
7 +80
Histogram
30 —
25
20
cc
15
cc
E 10
0
5
0.062 0.25 1 4 8 16 32 64 128 256 512 2048
Particle Size (mm)
��
�111111!I
/
■.�IIIII��I
IIII
,
�III,,t1111/11111111��
IIIII�11111111�11111111
:,
MR111111/�1111����
1111111
■11111111
■11111111
MIN
111 /
H
11111111�11111111�11111111
-,
/111111,
IIII
■11111111�11111111�11111111
,
X1111,1
IIIIIIII�IIIIIIII�Ir
Year 1
IIII
X111,
�11111111�11111111�11
Year 2
III
�1I
III�11111111�11111111
■11
_ —Year
IIII
ear.L.1111
IIIIII�I1111111��1111111�11111111�11111111
,

Pebble Count - Riffle
Material
Particle Size mm
Count
% in Range
% Cumulative
ilt/Cla
<0.062
2
3
3
Very Fine Sand
0.062 -0.125
0
0
3
ine Sand
0.125 -0.25
4
6
9
edium Sand
0.25 -0.5
6
9
17
oarse Sand
0.5 -1.0
0
0
17
Very Coarse Sand
1.0 -2.0
0
0
17
Very Fine Gravel
2.04.0
0
0
17
ine Gravel
4.0 -5.7
2
3
20
ine Gravel
5.7 -8.0
10
14
34
edium Gravel
8.0 -11.3
2
3
37
edium Gravel
11.3 -16.0
10
14
51
oarse Gravel
16.0 -22.6
12
17
69
Coarse Gravel
22.6 -32
10
14
83
Very Coarse Gravel
3245
4
6
89
Very Coarse Gravel
45 -64
4
6
94
mall Cobble
64 -90
4
6
100
mall Cobble
90 -128
0
0
100
r e Cobble
128 -180
0
0
100
-arge Cobble
180 -256
0
0
100
mall Boulder
256 -362
0
0
100
mall Boulder
362 -512
0
0
100
edium Boulder
512 -1024
0
0
100
r e Boulder
1024 -2048
0
0
1 100
edrock
<2048
0
0
100
Totals
70
100
Silver Creek Stream Restoration EEP Project No. D05016 -1
Reach
UTA
X Sec
3
Date
9/15/11
Sta No.
1 1 180
18
16
14
12
d 10
en
W 8
sY
e 6
e 4
2
0
Histogram
0.062 0.25 1 4 8 16 32 64 128 256 512 2048
Particle Size (mm)
1 �
.,
■11111111■11111111��1
'100, I
1111
: ,
■11111111
■11111�II1/.
�I,III
■11111111
■11111111
■11111111
■11111,11��
�IIIII
■11111111
■11111111
,
�
■11111111
■11.��IIII
1111111
■11111111
■11111111
,,
"
" "—'" "III
■11111111
■�IIIIII
/llllllll
■Ir
■11111111
�illlllll
■11
III
/IIIIIII�I
■I�IIIIII�II�II
I /11111111
■11
-
III
�1�
�all.ii.
II ■11111111
■IL_....._____.11l
_
./
IIII
■11111111
■11111111
■11111111
�,
1111111 IIIIIIIII ■11111111 ■11111111 ■11111111
1 11 111 1111
as . . .:

Pebble Count - Riffle
Material
Particle Size mm
Count
%inRange
%Cumulative
ildCla
<0.062
2
3
3
Very Fine Sand
0.062 - 0.125
0
0
3
-me Sand
0.125 -0.25
4
6
9
edium Sand
0.25 -0.5
6
9
17
oarse Sand
0.5 -1.0
0
0
17
Very Coarse Sand
1.0 -2.0
0
0
17
Very Fine Gravel
2.0 -4.0
0
0
17
ine Gravel
4.0 -5.7
2
3
20
ine Gravel
5.7 -8.0
10
14
34
edium Gravel
8.0 -11.3
2
3
37
edium Gravel
11.3 -16.0
10
14
51
oarse Gravel
16.0 -22.6
12
17
69
Coarse Gravel
22.6 -32
10
14
83
Very Coarse Gravel
32 -45
4
6
89
Very Coarse Gravel
45 -64
4
6
94
mall Cobble
64 -90
4
6
100
mall Cobble
90 -128
0
0
100
r e Cobble
128 -180
0
0
100
r e Cobble
180 -256
0
0
100
mall Boulder
256 -362
0
0
100
mall Boulder
362 -512
0
0
100
edium Boulder
1 512 -1024
0
0
100
r e Boulder
1024 -2048
0
0
100
edrock
<2048
0
0
100
Totals
1 70
1 100
Silver Creek Stream Restoration EEP Project No. D05016 -1
Reach
UTA
X Sec
DS of 4
Date
9/15/11
Sta No.
12 +00
18
16
14
12
c 10
e
a 8
6
4
2
0
Histogram
0.062 0.25 1 4 8 16 32 64 128 256 512 2048
., ■11111111 ■IIIIIIIIr�I � , IIII
;, ■11111111 ■11111�I11/. �I,III ■11111111 ■11
1 111111
, ■11111111 ■1111,���/ � �IIIII ■11111111 ■11111111
,, ■11111111 ■IL�i1111 1111111 ■11111111 ■11111111
■IIIIIIIMl NIE Illllllll ■Ilr " "' - -Year I ill
■(IIIIIIII /illlll�i (IIIIIIII ■111 III
■I�IIIIII�II�II It�11111111 ■111 _ : 111
, ■�� ����� ���, II ■11111111 ■IIL_....__— _..11l
// � � IIII ■IIIIIIII ■11111111 ■IIIIIIII
1111111 111111111 ■11111111 ■11111111 ■11111111
Year 5
1 11 111 1111

BF 1
Crest Gage on Silver Creek UT (Year 3).
(EMH &T, 9/21/09)
BF 2
Crest Gage on Silver Creek Mainstem (Year 3).
(EMH &T, 9/21/09)

BF 3
Crest Gage on Silver Creek UT (Year4).
(EMH &T, 5/12/10)
BF 4
Crest Gage on Silver Creek Mainstem (Year 4).
(EMH &T, 5/12/10)

BF 5
Crest Gage on Silver Creek Mainstem (Year 5).
(EMH &T, 5/20/11)

'Ric •
tx
1 ..
3
1
e
ti
N
�rr �
A
f.
-mod.. +,•• l•C
. f
I �
w
a'
C
t
kit l
� b
1
y
\ ,r
C
I
fl
i
i
Z
1
2-
W ;
,
-r'
r • r *I 4f l.. ,`• .
y
k
p
7 44
4*�
7
BURKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA Date: December, 2011
SILVER CREEK AND UNNAMED TRIBUTARY Sale: 1" = 200'
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. MONITORING
Engineers • Surveyors • Planners • Scienlists Job Na: 2007 -1898
5500 New Albany Roac. Columbus, OH 43054 APPENDIX B —
Phone: [phone]W Fax: [phone]
to C M x x v I STREAM PROBLEM AREA PLAN VIEW Sheet: 1/2
y
7
�
7
Z
1
2-
W ;
,
-r'
r • r *I 4f l.. ,`• .
y
k
p
7 44
4*�
7
BURKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA Date: December, 2011
SILVER CREEK AND UNNAMED TRIBUTARY Sale: 1" = 200'
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. MONITORING
Engineers • Surveyors • Planners • Scienlists Job Na: 2007 -1898
5500 New Albany Roac. Columbus, OH 43054 APPENDIX B —
Phone: [phone]W Fax: [phone]
to C M x x v I STREAM PROBLEM AREA PLAN VIEW Sheet: 1/2

Y
1 ,
A
— P \L
Y n
\ A
x 5 �'
liNk .:
\ \0b
U1..
k
\\ °o
z
�k
\00
Evans, Mechwart, Harnblcion & Tilton, Inc.
Engineers • Surveyors • Planners • Scientists
5500 New Albany R000, Columbus, OH 43054
Phone: 614, 115.4500 hox:614.//5.4800
M C M X X v I
N
100 100
60
7
7p b,
3�
> p.
\x;
Wf
s = ` \�
~{ J
x
ztAl /
��: n. ---- SEVEN SPRINGS LANE
BURKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA Date: December, 2011
SILVER CREEK AND UNNAMED TRIBUTARY Scale: 1 = 200'
MONITORING
APPENDIX B -2 Job No: 2007 -1898
STREAM PROBLEM AREA PLAN VIEW Sheet: 2/2
LEGEND
j
High Concern
Low Concern
Other
OOD
Bank Scour
Stressed Failing
Structure
Evans, Mechwart, Harnblcion & Tilton, Inc.
Engineers • Surveyors • Planners • Scientists
5500 New Albany R000, Columbus, OH 43054
Phone: 614, 115.4500 hox:614.//5.4800
M C M X X v I
N
100 100
60
7
7p b,
3�
> p.
\x;
Wf
s = ` \�
~{ J
x
ztAl /
��: n. ---- SEVEN SPRINGS LANE
BURKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA Date: December, 2011
SILVER CREEK AND UNNAMED TRIBUTARY Scale: 1 = 200'
MONITORING
APPENDIX B -2 Job No: 2007 -1898
STREAM PROBLEM AREA PLAN VIEW Sheet: 2/2

SPA 1
Area of scour on the right bank of Silver Creek near station 28 +50.
(EMH &T, 9/16/11)
{i
aJa..A
SPA 2
New cattle watering access point located immediately upstream of the upstream terminus of
UT -C within project boundaries. Photo taken facing upstream on UT -C at the nexus of the
cattle watering access point and the limit of the project boundary.
(EMH &T, 5/20/11)

wS
SPA 3
New cattle watering access point located immediately upstream of the upstream terminus of
UT -C within project boundaries. Photo taken facing downstream on UT -C at the nexus of
the cattle watering access point and the limit of the project boundary (fence). The rerouting
of the UT -C flow around the project fence can be seen in the above photograph.
(EMH &T, 5/20/11)
SPA 4
Sedimentation along the left bank of Silver Creek mainstem at station 26 +25 (at the
confluence of Silver Creek and Unnamed Tributary C (UT —C). This aggradation is being
caused by excessive sediment loading on UT -C which has resulted from a new cattle
watering access point located further upstream on the tributary.
(EMH &T, 9/16/11)

0.�
y.
� *ley a
SPA 5
Bank failure and sloughing along the right bank at station 10 +00
on the Silver Creek mainstem.
(EMH &T, 9/16/11)

APPENDIX C
UT -A Cattle Crossing Agreement Documentation
1 Cattle Crossing Agreement Letter
2 UT1 Cattle Crossing Photos (2011)

Wetlands Resource Center
3970 Bowen Road
Canal Winchester, Ohio 43110
December 10, 2010
I& Guy Pearce
NC EEP
165,2 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652
Re: Silver Creek Stream Restoration
Dear Mr. Pearce:
Please allow this letter to confirm that Wetlands Resource Center is in the process of
making the fdllowing improvements to the above referenced project.
4S• Provide offline watering for cattle. WRC will work with the local NRCS office to
provide offline watering that meets their recommended specifications.
❖ The existing cattle watering/crossing located on the tributary, stream will be
modified so that it can only be utilized as a cattle crossing. After the
modifications are complete the cattle will no longer have direct access to the
stream.
❖ WRC will continue invasive,species controt and supplemental planting in the
tributary stream corridor.
It is out belief that these improvements while not technically required as part of the
project will provide additional benefits to the project.
If you have any questions or require any additional information please feel free to give
me a call at (614) 864- 7511.
Thank you,
`cal ller
Managing Member

Cattle Crossing Photo - 1
UT1 as it enters culvert of newly constructed cattle crossing.
(EMH &T, 9/16/11)
Cattle Crossing Photo - 2
UT1 as it exits culvert of newly constructed cattle crossing.
(EMH &T, 9/16/11)