20130595 Ver 1_Year 1 Monitoring Report_2015_20160615

Upper Silver Creek Restoration Project
Year 1 Monitoring Report
Burke County, North Carolina
NCDMS Project ID Number — 94645
Catawba River Basin: 03050101-050050
Project Info: Monitoring Year: 1 of 5
Year of Data Collection: 2015
Year of Completed Construction: 2015
Submission Date: April 2016
Submitted To: NCDEQ — Division of Mitigation Services
5 Ravenscroft Drive, Suite 102
Asheville, NC 28801
NCDEQ Contract ID No. 003270

Upper Silver Creek Restoration Project
Year 1 Monitoring Report
Burke County, North Carolina
NCDMS Project ID Number — 94645
Report Prepared and Submitted by Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
797 Haywood Road, Suite 201
Asheville, NC 28806
NC Professional Engineering License # F-1084
INTERNATIONAL
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. I
UPPER SILVER CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT,
DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 94645
APRIL 2016, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 5

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................1
2.0 METHODOLOGY.........................................................................................3
2.1 Vegetation Assessment................................................................................................................................3
2.2 Stream Assessment...................................................................................................................................... 3
2.2.1 Morphologic Parameters and Channel Stability........................................................................................4
2.2.2 Hydrology..................................................................................................................................................4
2.2.3 Photographic Documentation....................................................................................................................4
2.3 Wetland Assessment.....................................................................................................................................4
3.0 REFERENCES...............................................................................................5
APPENDICES
Appendix A Project Vicinity Map and Background Tables
Figure 1 Project Vicinity Map and Directions
Figure 2 Current Conditions Plan View — MY1 Overview Map
Figure 2A Current Conditions Plan View Monitoring Year 1 Upper
Silver Creek Site — North Area
Figure 2B Current Conditions Plan View Monitoring Year 1 Upper
Silver Creek Site — South Area
Appendix B General Project Tables
Table 1 Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Table 2 Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3 Project Contacts
Table 4 Project Attributes
Appendix C Vegetation Assessment Data
Table 5 Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success Summary
Table 6 CVS Vegetation Metadata
Table 7 Stem Count Arranged by Plot and Species
Figure 3 Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos
Appendix D Stream Assessment Data
Figure
4
Stream Photos by Channel and Station
Table
8
Visual Morphological Stability Assessment
Table
9
Verification of Bankfull Events
Figure
5
Cross -Sections with Annual Overlays
Figure
6
Longitudinal Profiles with Annual Overlays
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. II
UPPER SILVER CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT,
DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 94645
APRIL 2016, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 5

Figure 7 Pebble Count Plots with Annual Overlays
Table 10 Monitoring Year 1 Stream Summary
Table 11 Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Appendix E Hydrologic Data
Figure 8 Wetland Gauge Graphs
Figure 9 Observed Rainfall versus Historic Average
Table 12 Wetland Gauge Attainment Data
Table 12a Wetland Area Well Success
Figure 10 Wetland Photo Log
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. III
UPPER SILVER CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT,
DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 94645
APRIL 2016, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 5

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. (Baker) restored or enhanced 5,186 linear feet (LF) of perennial stream
channel along Silver Creek and three unnamed tributaries (UT1,UT2, and UT3); and additionally, Baker
restored, enhanced or created approximately 9.14 acres of wetlands that had been previously disturbed in Burke
County, NC, (Appendix A). The Upper Silver Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Project (Site) is located
southeast of Morganton, NC, approximately 11 miles southeast of the intersection of Highway 64 and 1-40 and
to the north of the intersection of Highway 64 and Goldmine Road. The Site is located in the NC Division of
Water Resources (NCDWR) sub -basin 03-08-31 and the NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS)
Targeted Local Watershed (TLW) 03050101-050050 of the Catawba River Basin. The project involved the
restoration and enhancement of a Piedmont/Mountain Mixed Bottomland Hardwood Forest system (NC WAM
2010, Schafale and Weakley 1990) from impairments within the project area due to past agricultural conversion,
cattle grazing, gold mining and draining of floodplain wetlands by ditching activities.
The project goals directly addressed stressors identified in the Catawba River Basin Restoration Priority
(RBRP) Plan such as degraded riparian conditions, channel modification, and excess sediment and nutrient
inputs. The primary restoration goals, as outlined in the approved mitigation plan, are described below:
• Create geomorphically stable stream channels within the Upper Silver Creek project area including
headwater tributaries in the Catawba River basin;
• Restore, enhance, and expand wetland functions across the Site;
• Improve and restore hydrologic connections between streams and degraded riparian wetland areas
and overall ecosystem functionality;
• Improve water quality within the Upper Silver Creek project area through reduction of bank erosion,
improved nutrient and sediment removal, and stabilization of streambanks;
• Improve aquatic and terrestrial habitat.
To accomplish these goals, we recommended the following actions:
• Restore the existing incised, eroding, and channelized stream by creating a stable channel that has
access to its floodplain;
• Improve water quality by establishing buffers for nutrient removal from runoff and by stabilizing
stream banks to reduce bank erosion;
• Improve in -stream habitat by providing a more diverse bedform with riffles and pools, creating
deeper pools, developing areas that increase oxygenation, providing woody debris for habitat, and
reducing bank erosion;
• Improve terrestrial habitat by planting riparian areas with native vegetation and protecting these areas
with a permanent conservation easement. The riparian area will increase storm water runoff filtering
capacity, improve bank stability, provide shading to decrease water temperature and improve habitat.
During Year 1, our monitoring indicated that the planted acreage was functioning well with no banks, benches
or flood plain areas having bare areas of a significant size. The only invasive with significant coverage was
Chinese privet, which was located in the existing forested area on the right bank of Silver Creek, both upstream
and downstream of UT2. Chinese Privet within these areas will be treated with herbicide in the spring of 2016.
An additional issue affecting Site vegetation was mowing encroachment. There were six areas along the
easement line where the landowner encroached into the easement while attempting to mow outside of the
easement line. These areas were pointed out to the landowner and we discussed the need to avoid encroaching
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UPPER SILVER CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT,
DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 94645
APRIL 2016, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 5

into the easement. The easement line in these areas will be better marked with witness posts before the
landowner needs to mow again.
As noted in the Baseline report, we added five additional vegetation monitoring plots at the Site to increase the
total from 9 to 14. The location of these new plots can be seen on Figures 2A and 213, designated 10 through
14. The average density of total planted stems following the Year 1 growing season is 804 stems per acre
(n=14). There were no volunteer stems growing at this time. With an average density of 804 stems per acre,
the Site is on track to meet the minimum interim success criteria of 320 stems per acre by the end of Year 3,
and the final success criteria of 260 stems per acre by the end of Year 5.
Stream geomorphological stability and performance during Year 1 was assessed by surveying sixteen (16)
cross-sections (7 on Silver Creek, 2 on UT 1, 2 on UT2 and 5 on UT3) and a profile of each channel, evaluating
the bed particle size with 5 riffle pebble counts and by observation and replicating channel location photographs.
Cross-sections of all the channels indicated that high flows had deposited sediment on the floodplain and
decreased cross-sectional area slightly. Deposition was also shown on the profiles of each channel and these
indicate that some pools decreased in maximum depth. This observed deposition is not unusual during the first
year as pool depth reaches an equilibrium with sediment supply and discharge. The Visual Morphological
Stability Assessment indicates that the Site is stable and performing at 100 percent for all parameters on most
reaches. We did find that on Reach 2 of Silver Creek, 3 of the 21 structures in this reach were piping water
under a vane arm. These structures were repaired on August 27 & 28, 2015. Channel morphology is responding
as designed and meeting project goals.
There were no bankfull event recorded on the crest gauge during Year 1 and there was no physical indication
of over bank flooding. Stream pebble count data indicated a shift to smaller particle sizes at XS7 on Silver
Creek and on UT2. There was an increase in smaller particle sizes for the fraction less than D35 at XS8 of
UT3, but the fraction D50 and above was similar to that estimated in the baseline data. Pebble data from XS4
on Silver Creek and on UT 1 showed particle sizes were either the same as baseline data or slightly larger. This
indicates that the smaller particle sizes of the native bed material are being transported into, and through, the
project reaches. This indicates a properly functioning system, as there were no mid -channel bars or other
sediment transport issues.
Wetland monitoring during Year 1 demonstrated that four of the twelve groundwater monitoring wells located
on the Site met the wetland success criteria as stated in the Site Mitigation Plan. The gauges that met success
criteria (USAW1, USAW5, MSAW7 and MSAW9) demonstrated consecutive hydroperiods of 12 percent or
greater, these ranged from 17.1 to 38.7 percent of the growing season. The gauges that did not meet success
criteria (USAW2, USAW3, USAW4, USAW6, USAW8, USAW10, USAW11 and USAW12) demonstrated
consecutive hydroperiods of 12 percent or less, with a range from 1.2 percent to 10.5 percent of the growing
season. Baker will continue to monitor the groundwater hydrology of the Site wetlands into Year 2. In
December 2015, after an amendment to the Mitigation Plan was approved, one (1) additional well (USAW13)
was installed in an area of jurisdictional wetland being enhanced, designated JDWla (See CCPV). This well
was installed to document the groundwater level of this non -riparian wetland area.
To evaluate annual rainfall in the project vicinity we utilized four CRONOS data recording stations that are
within close proximity (11.5 to 17.4 miles from the site) to the project site. These stations were all different
concerning the "Type of Station", which indicates a difference in data collection methodology. However, in
spite of these differences the data collected were very similar and certainly indicate the same pattern in rainfall.
These data indicate that 2015 was relatively dry through winter, spring and summer with the exception of April,
which was normal or slightly above normal. September through December were exceptionally wet months with
rainfall that far exceeded the historic 70`h percentile of average rainfall. According to the 2015 rainfall data, a
large portion of the year experienced definitively lower than normal amounts of precipitation. Rainfall near the
project was determined to be at or below the 30`h percentile for seven of the first eight months of the year
(exception of April), through the month of August. Therefore, 2015 is considered to be below the normal range
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UPPER SILVER CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT,
DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 94645
APRIL 2016, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 5

for the growing season. The dry conditions documented in this area are likely the reason that many of our
gauges failed to meet the established success criteria.
Summary information/data related to the Site and statistics related to performance of various project and
monitoring elements can be found in the tables and figures in the report Appendices. Narrative background and
supporting information formerly found in these reports can be found in the Baseline Monitoring Report and in
the Mitigation Plan available on the NCDMS website. All raw data supporting the tables and figures in the
appendices are available from NCDMS upon request.
2.0 METHODOLOGY
The monitoring plan for the Site includes criteria to evaluate the success of the stream, wetland and vegetation
components of the project. The methodology and report template used to evaluate these components adheres
to the NCDMS monitoring guidance document dated December 1, 2009 and other mitigation guidance (NCEEP
2009 and USACE 2003), which will continue to serve as the template for subsequent monitoring years. The
specific locations of monitoring features: vegetation plots, permanent cross-sections, monitoring wells, flow
gauges, and the crest gauge, are shown on the CCPV sheets found in Appendix B.
The Year 1 monitoring data were collected between October and early December 2015. Site photographic data
was collected in February 2016.
2.1 Vegetation Assessment
In order to determine if success criteria are achieved, vegetation monitoring quadrants (veg plots) were
installed and are monitored across the Site in accordance with the CVS-NCDMS Protocol for Recording
Vegetation, Version 4.1 (CVS 2007 and Lee, Peet, Roberts and Wentworth 2007). The vegetation monitoring
plots are a minimum of two percent of the planted portion of the Site with 14 plots established randomly
within the planted riparian buffer and wetland area, per CVS Monitoring Level 2. No veg plots were
established within the undisturbed wooded areas along the right bank of Silver Creek. The sizes of individual
quadrants are 100 square meters for woody (tree) species and 1 meter for herbaceous vegetation. Herbaceous
vegetation quadrants were established in one corner of the larger woody vegetation plots and are monitored
by comparative photographs taken each year.
The existing trees were visually monitored during the annual site visits to document any mortality, due to
construction activities or changes to the water table, which could negatively impact existing forest cover or
favorable buffer vegetation. Year 1 monitoring found that all vegetation was in good condition. All
vegetation monitoring quadrants indicated that vegetation was growing and in good to excellent condition.
The average density of planted stems following the Year 1 growing season is 804 stems per acre (n=14).
There were no volunteer stems growing at this time. With an average density of 804 stems per acre, the Site
is on track to meet the minimum interim success criteria of 320 stems per acre by the end of Year 3, and the
final success criteria of 260 stems per acre by the end of Year 5.
Invasive species areas of concern were observed and documented accordingly during Year 1. Monitoring
indicated that there were two areas found to contain the invasive species, Chinese privet. To control this
invasive species, these areas are scheduled to be treated in 2016 during the appropriate treatment window by
use of the herbicide Glyphosate. There were six areas along the easement line where the landowner
encroached into the easement while attempting to mow the area outside of the easement line. The easement
line in these areas will be better marked with witness posts to make clear the line location.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UPPER SILVER CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT,
DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 94645
APRIL 2016, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 5

No other areas of concern regarding the existing vegetation was observed along Silver Creek, UTI, UT2 or
UT3. Year 1 vegetation assessment information is provided in Appendix C.
2.2 Stream Assessment
The Upper Silver Creek Site approach for the channels the restoration of a stable morphology that allows for
the transport of water and sediment through the Site and allows stream flows larger than bankfull flows to
spread onto the floodplain. Stream monitoring efforts focus on visual observations, a crest gauge to document
bankfull flooding events, surveying established stream cross-sections and channel profiles to assess channel
stability and pebble counts to assess if proper sediment transport is taking place.
Stream survey data was collected to a minimum of Class C Vertical and Class A Horizontal Accuracy using
Leica TSO6 Total Station and was georeferenced to the NAD83 State Plane Coordinate System, FIPS32OO in
US Survey Feet, which was derived from the As -built Survey. This survey system collects point data with
an accuracy of less than one tenth of a foot.
2.2.1 Morphologic Parameters and Channel Stability
Cross-sections were classified using the Rosgen Stream Classification System (Rosgen 1994) and all
cross-sections were evaluated to determine if they meet design expectations. Cross-sections were also
compared to the baseline cross-section plots to evaluate change between construction and the MY1
survey. Morphological survey data is presented in Appendix D.
A longitudinal profile was surveyed for the entire length of each channel to document changes from
the as -built baseline conditions during the first year of monitoring. The survey was tied to a permanent
benchmark and measurements included thalweg, water surface, and top of low bank. Each of these
measurements was taken at the head of each feature (e.g., riffle, pool) and at the maximum pool depth.
2.2.2 Hydrology
Two crest gauge were installed on the floodplain at the bankfull elevation along the left top of bank on
Silver Creek approximately at Station 19+00 and on the right bank of UT3 approximately at Station
9+50. No bankfull-flow events were recorded on the two Site crest gauges during the MYl data
collection period, which primarily extended from April 1, 2015 to November 30, 2015. This is
commonly a drier time of the year in this part of North Carolina, which was the case during 2015. Crest
gauge readings are presented in Appendix D.
2.2.3 Photographic Documentation
Reference transects were photographed at each permanent cross-section. The survey tape was centered
in the photograph of the bank. The water line was located in the lower area of the frame, and as much
of the bank as possible included in each photograph. Photographs were also taken at specific photo
points established along each channel during baseline reporting. Photographs from these points will be
replicated each year and used to document changes along the channel. Points were selected to include
grade control structures as well as other structural components installed during construction. Annual
photographs from the established photo points are shown in Appendix D.
2.3 Wetland Assessment
Thirteen automated groundwater -monitoring stations were installed in the wetland restoration area in
order to document the hydrologic conditions during the monitoring period. The installations followed
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UPPER SILVER CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT,
DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 94645
APRIL 2016, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 5

USACE protocols (USACE 1997). Groundwater data collected during Year 1 monitoring are located
in Appendix E.
To meet the hydrologic success criteria, the monitoring gauge data must show that for each normal
rainfall year within the monitoring period, the Site has been inundated or saturated for a certain
hydroperiod. Success criteria for wetland hydrology will be based on standards for atypical wetland
areas (USACE, 2005). Criteria have been met when the wetland is saturated within 12 inches of the
soil surface for 12 percent of the growing season when rainfall amounts mimic normal conditions.
Alternatively, when dry conditions prevail, we may use the fourteen (14) or more consecutive days
during the growing season when antecedent precipitation has been drier than normal for a minimum
frequency of 5 years in 10 to 50 percent of the monitoring period (USACE, 1987 and 2005).
Visual monitoring of wetland areas will be conducted annually. Photographs will be used to visually
document system performance and identify areas of low stem density, invasive species vegetation,
beaver activity, or other areas of concern. Reference stations will be photographed each year for a
minimum of five years following construction. Photographs will be taken from a height of
approximately five to six feet. Permanent well markers were established and used to ensure that the
same locations (and view directions) on the Site are documented in each monitoring period.
3.0 REFERENCES
Carolina Vegetation Survey (CVS) and NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP). 2007. CVS-NCEEP
Data Entry Tool v. 2.3.1. University of North Carolina, Raleigh, NC.
Lee, M., Peet R., Roberts, S., Wentworth, T. 2007. CVS-NCEEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version
4.1.
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP). 2009. Guidance and Content Requirements for
EEP Monitoring Reports Version 1.2.1. December 1, 2009.
Rosgen, D. L. 1994. A Classification of Natural Rivers. Catena 22:169-199.
Schafale, M. P., and A. S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the natural communities of North Carolina, third
approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. Division of Parks and Recreation,
NCDENR. Raleigh, NC.
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.
Technical Report Y-87-1. Environmental Laboratory. US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
Station. Vicksburg, MS.
1997. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Research Program. Technical Note VN-rs-4.1.
Environmental Laboratory. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg,
MS.
2005. "Technical Standard for Water -Table Monitoring of Potential Wetland Sites," WRAP
Technical Notes Collection (ERDC TN -WRAP -05-2), U.S. Army Engineer Research and
Development Center. Vicksburg, MS.
2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines, April 2003, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Wilmington
District.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UPPER SILVER CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT,
DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 94645
APRIL 2016, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 5

Includes:
Appendix A
General Figures and Plan Views
Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map and Directions
Figure 2. Current Condition Plan View (CCPV) — Overview
Map
Figure 2A. CCPV North half of Project
Figure 2B. CCPV South half of Project

Be W no ` ;
� To reach the project site from Asheville, follow Interstate 40 East
g1 and take the NC -226 exit (Exit 86). From the exit, turn left onto
Linvi 11`
s ,a5 NC -226 and continue for 10.5 miles before turning left to take the
AVERY 8 US -64 ramp. Turn left onto US -64 and continue for 2.5 miles
/ before turning left onto Gold Mine Road. Once on Gold Mine
Gres e ' Road, travel for approximately .75 miles and turn right at a gate
F NCH BROAD into the project site. The project site begins where Silver Creek
04-03-06 ! passes under US -64 and continues downstream for approximately
3,000 LF. Unnamed tributaries 1 and 3 flow to the east under Gold
i
- ; Mine Road before converging with Silver Creek. Unnamed
tributary 2 enters Silver Creek upstream of the UT1 confluence and
N, flows westward to Silver Creek from a forested area.
L 221 A% 64
t N no
CATAWBA
i
C ah' Lunt.
ountain ....
\\ 1 H sort
f 64 l
Sawmi 1a �I
Gr � 2 't Falls
\\t*TAWBA � t�v, 6 \�\
03\-Q8-30
3�------
Q8 30 \--------
1
321
U870 a
Rutherford College '—��-
c. 70 Connelly ;Wi gs /
r
t, Gien.. to
70 I GSIQ
anI
1 ran
1 HU 0305010105005
CA TA
korai
—'�
`"�
Upper Silver Creek �``�---------
Project Site
R TH F
I
I
CL 'ELAND
LINCOL
BROAD
ROA I
ser
��BROAD
03-08-02
0 -0 i
0'3-08-05
Belwood 2
Map Inset
LEGEND:
Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map
N
DivisionCJ
` -
NCDWR Sub -basin
Upper Silver Creek
Counties
NCDMS Project #94645
of
Monitoring Year 1 Report
0
USGS Hydrologic Unit
Burke County, NC
Mitigation
Project Hydrologic Unit
-
Services
o
Burke County
I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L
Burke County, NC
0 1 2 4
o Miles

�r
ii
A
-47
Alk
_ 4 : R•_ NC OO neMap, NC Center for Geographic Informartion and Analysis, NC 911
- Board
0 250 500 Figure 2
Michael- Feet Current Conditions Plan View- MY1
I N T E R N A T 1 a N A L DMS Project # 94645 Overview Map
Upper Silver Creek Site

Groundwater Monitoring Wells
7
t
O Pass
;-
• Fail
3
_ Mowing Encroachment
O'"
0 Vegetation Problem Areas
OUnstable Structures
=Vegetation Plots (all Passed)
® Photo Station
G Crest Gauge
Cross Sections
,
In -Stream Structures
b 5
O
'{
Stream Centerline
�" ,
XS -5
Stream Top of Bank
'
Restored Wetland Area
NC age NC Center for Geographic Inforr
s a
-oar
0 100 200 300 Figure 2A
Michael- Feet Current Conditions Plan View
I N T E R IN A T I a N A 'L Monitoring Year 1
DMS Project # 94645 Upper Silver Creek Site

Conservation Easement N
Groundwater Monitoring Well
O Pass
O
O Fail 5
O (not installed for MY1) O Xs -5
Mowing Encroachment
Vegetation Problem Areas Reach 2
Vegetation Plot (all Passed)
i Photo Station
® Crest Gauge ' ............
Cross Sections
r.
In -Stream Structures
o
Stream Centerline
Of'
Stream Top of Bank
Restored Wetland Area
8
Reach 1
rXS-g XS -7
9
UT3-1
9 XS -12
XS -1
r
100
10
-2
#2
Reach 2
-
XS -9
XS -10 -
UT3-3
UT3-5
LT3-'
11
O
XS -8
•
11T3-9 "W7. -
012
13
� O
UT3-10
Reach 1 �,
r ;NC OneMap, NC Center for Geographic Informahion and Anal sis, NC 911 -
Board
0 100 200 300 Figure 26
MichaelBaker Feet Current Conditions Plan View
I N T E R N A T I a N A 'L Monitoring Year 1
DMS Project # 94645 Upper Silver Creek Site

Includes:
Appendix B
General Project Tables
Table 1. Project Restoration Components and Mitigation
Credits
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3. Project Contacts
Table 4. Project Attributes

Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Upper Silver Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 94645
Mitigation Credits
Stream
Riparian Wetland Non -riparian Wetland
Buffer
Nitrogen Nutrient
Offset
Phosphorus
Nutrient Offset
Type R EII
R E
C R E
C
Totals 4,843 SMU 137 SMU
4.67 WMU1 1.43 WMU
10.33 WMU 0.21 WMU1 0.21 WMU
Project Components
Project Component
or Reach ID
Stationing/ Location
Existing Footage/
Acreage
Approach
Restoration/
Restoration
Equivalent
Restoration
Footage or
Acreage
Mitigation Ratio
STREAMS
Silver Creek
2643 LF
Reach 1 0+32 to 8+70
Restoration - PII
838 SMU
838 LF
1:1
Reach 2 8+70 to 30+48
Restoration - PI
2,178 SMU
2178 LF
1:1
UT1
478 LF
Reach 1 0+07 to 5+02
Restoration - PI
495 SMU
495 LF
1:1
UT2
187 LF
Reach 1 0+00 to 1+03
Restoration - PI
103 SMU
103 LF
1:1
Reach 2 1+03 to 3+10
Restoration - PI
207 SMU
207 LF
1:1
UT3
1,162 LF
Reach 1 0+00 to 3+43
Enhancement 1
137 SMU
343 LF
2.5:1
Reach 2 3+43 to 13+65
Restoration - PI
1,022 SMU
1,022 LF
1:1
WETLANDS See plan sheets
JDW1a(NR)
0.42 AC Enhancement
0.21 WMU
0.42 AC
2:1
JDW1b (Ri)
1.01 AC Enhancement
0.51 WMU
1.01 AC
2:1
JDW2 (Ri)
0.51 AC Enhancement
0.25 WMU
0.51 AC
2:1
JDW3 (Ri)
0.03 AC Enhancement
0.02 WMU
0.03 AC
2:1
JDW4 (Ri)
0.24 AC Enhancement
0.12 WMU
0.24 AC
2:1
JDW5 (Ri)
0.81 AC Enhancement
0.40 WMU
0.81 AC
2:1
JDW6 (Ri)
0.25 AC Enhancement
0.13 WMU
0.25 AC
2:1
R1A (NR)
0 Restoration
0.06 WMU
0.06 AC
1:1
RIB (NR)
0 Restoration
0.15 WMU
0.15 AC
1:1
R2 (Ri)
0 Restoration
1.22 WMU
1.22 AC
1:1
R3 (Ri)
0 Restoration
0.18 WMU
0.18 AC
1:1
R4 (Ri)
0 Restoration
0.44 WMU
0.44 AC
1:1
R5 (Ri)
0 Restoration
1.29 WMU
1.29 AC
1:1
R6 (Ri)
0 Restoration
1.54 WMU
1.54 AC
1:1
C1 (Ri)
0 Creation
0.33 WMU
0.99 AC
3:1
Component Summation
Restoration Level Stream (LF)
Riparian Wetland (AC) Non -riparian Wetland (AC)
Buffer (SF)
Upland (AC)
Riverine Non-Riverine
Restoration 4,843
4.67
0.21
Enhancement 1
2.85
0.42
Enhancement II 342
Creation
0.99
Preservation
High Quality Preservation
BMP Elements
Element Location Purpose/Function
INotes
BMP Elements: BR= Bioretention Cell; SF= Sand Filter; SW= Stormwater Wetland; WDP= Wet Detention Pond; DDP= Dry Detention
Pond; FS= Filter Strip; S= Grassed Swale; LS= Level Spreader; NI=Natural Infiltration Area
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT
UPPER SILVER CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT
DMS PROJECT 94645

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Upper Silver Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 94645
Activity or Report
Scheduled
Completion
Data Collection
Complete
Actual
Completion or
Deliver
Mitigation Plan Prepared
Jan-13
N/A
Jan-13
Mitigation Plan Amended
Sep-13
N/A
Sep-13
MItigation Plan Approved
Oct-13
N/A
Oct-13
Final Design — (at least 90% complete)
N/A
N/A
May-14
Construction Begins
N/A
N/A
May-14
Temporary S&E mix applied to entire project area
N/A
N/A
Dec-14
Permanent seed mix applied to entire project area
N/A
N/A
Dec-14
Planting of live stakes
Winter 2015
N/A
Feb-15
Planting of bare root trees
N/A
N/A
Feb-15
End of Construction
N/A
N/A
Dec-14
Survey of As-built conditions (Year 0 Monitoring-baseline)
N/A
Mar-15
Jul-15
Repair of 3 piping structures
N/A
N/A
Aug-15
Mitigation Plan Addendum
N/A
N/A
Dec-15
Year 1 Monitoring
Dec-15
Dec-15
Apr-16
Year 2 Monitoring
Dec-16
N/A
N/A
Year 3 Monitoring
Dec-17
N/A
N/A
Year 4 Monitoring
Dec-18
N/A
N/A
Year 5 Monitoring
Dec-19
N/A
N/A
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR I MONITORING REPORT
UPPER SILVER CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT
DMS PROJECT NO. 94645

Table 3. Project Contacts
Upper Silver Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 94645
Designer
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
797 Haywood Rd Suite 201
Asheville, NC 28806
Contact:
Micky Clemmons, Tel. [phone]
Construction Contractor
River Works, Inc.
6105 Chapel Hill Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
Contact:
Phillip Todd, Tel. [phone]
Planting Contractor
River Works, Inc.
6105 Chapel Hill Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
Contact:
Phillip Todd, Tel. [phone]
Seeding Contractor
River Works, Inc.
6105 Chapel Hill Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
Contact:
Phillip Todd, Tel. [phone]
Seed Mix Sources
Green Resources (seed), Tel. [phone]
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Mellow Marsh Farm (trees), 919-742-1200
ArborGen Inc. (trees), 843-528-3204
Dykes and Son (trees), 931-668-8833
Monitoring Performers
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
797 Haywood Rd Suite 201
Asheville, NC 28806
Contact:
Stream Monitoring Point of Contact
Micky Clemmons, Tel. [phone]
Vegetation Monitoring Point of Contact
Micky Clemmons, Tel. [phone]
Wetland Monitoring Point of Contact
Micky Clemmons, Tel. [phone]
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT
UPPER SILVER CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT
DMS PROJECT NO. 94645

Table 4. Project Attributes
Upper Silver Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 94645
Project Information
Project Name
Upper Silver Creek Mitigation Project
County
Burke
Project Area acres
22.0
Project Coordinates latitude and longitude)
35.6078 N, -81.81742 W
Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province
Blue Ridge (borders Piedmont)
River Basin
Catawba
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit and 14-digit
03050101 / 03050101050050
DWR Sub-basin
03-08-31
Project Drainage Area AC
Mainstem 2.7 - 3.3, UT1 0.28, UT2 0.05, UT3 0.17
Project Drainage Area Percentage of
<2%
Impervious Area
Deciduous Forest (64%)
Woody Wetlands (1%)
Evergreen Forest (3%)
Developed,
Open Space (5%)
USGA Land Use Classification
Shrub/Scrub (5%)
Pasture/Hay (14%)
Grassland/Herbaceous (6%)
Forest (59%)
NCDMS Land Use Classification for Silver
Agriculture (23%)
Creek Watershed
Impervious Cover (2.9%)
Stream Reach Summary Information
Parameters
Mainstem - Reach 1
Mainstem - Reach 2
Length of Reach LF
838
2,178
Valley Classification (Rosgen)
VIII
VIII
Drainage Area (AC)
1,746
2,147
NCDWR Stream Identification Score
49.5
49.5
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
C
C
E
E
Morphological Description (Rosgen stream
Incised
Incised channel, little connection to Incised channel, little connection to
type)
floodplain
Evolutionary Trend
E4G, ESC/F
E—G, E—C/F
Underlying Mapped Soils
AaA, FnA, UnB
Drainage Class
Somewhat poorly to well drained Somewhat
poorly to well drained
Soil Hydric Status
Site-specific
Site-specific
Average Channel Slope ft/ft
0.004
0.004
FEMA Classification
Zone AE
Zone AE
Piedmont/Mtn. Mixed Bottomland Piedmont/Mtn. Mixed Bottomland
Native Vegetation Community
Hardwoods
Hardwoods
Percent Composition of Exotic/Invasive
10%
5%
Vegetation
Parameters
UT1 - Reach 1
UT2 - Reach 1
UT2 - Reach 2
Length of Reach (LF)
495
103
207
Valley Classification (Rosgen)
III
III
III
Drainage Area AC
177
32
32
NCDWR Stream Identification Score
47.5
45
45
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
C
C
C
Gc
channelized B
channelized B
Morphological Description (Rosgen stream
Incised channel, little connection to
type)
channelized/ditched
channel
channelized/ditched channel
floodplain
Evolutionary Trend
GC->F
13—.F—C
13—F—C
Underlying Mapped Soils
AaA, FnA
UnB
UnB, FnA
Drainage Class
Somewhat poorly to well drained Somewhat poorly to well drained
Somewhat poorly to well drained
Soil Hydric Status
Site-specific
Site-specific
Site-specific
Average Channel Slope ft/ft
0.016
0.037
0.037
FEMA Classification
N/A
N/A
N/A
Piedmont Dry-Mesic Oak and
Piedmont/Mtn. Mixed Bottomland
Piedmont/Mtn. Mixed Bottomland
Native Vegetation Community
Hardwoods to Mixed Bottomland
Hardwoods
Hardwoods
Hardwoods
Percent Composition of Exotic/Invasive
Vegetation
5%
2%
2%
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT
UPPER SILVER CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT
DMS PROJECT NO. 94645

Parameters
UT3 - Reach 1
UT3 - Reach 1
Length ofReach LF 342 1,006
Valley Classification (Ros en) III III
Drainage Area AC 123 123
NCDWR Stream Identification Score 49.75 49.75
NCDWR Water Quality Classification C C
B/E E
Morphological Description (Rosgen stream
Aggrading at upper end then stable
Incised channel, little connection to
type)
to incising at lower end
floodplain
Evolutionary Trend B/E— G E— G
Underlying Mapped Soils AaA AaA, FnA
Drainage Class Somewhat poorly to well drained Somewhat poorly to well drained
Soil Hydric Status Site-specific Site-specific
Average Channel Sloe (ft/ft) 0.015 0.015
FEMA Classification N/A N/A
Piedmont Dry-Mesic Oak and Piedmont/Mtn. Mixed Bottomland
Native Vegetation Community
Hardwoods
Hardwoods
Percent Composition of Exotic/Invasive 2% 2%
Vegetation
Wetland Summary Information
Parameters
JDW1
JDW2
JDW3
JDW4
JDW5
JDW6
Size of Wetland (AC)
1.43
0.51
0.03
0.24
0.81
0.3
Wetland Type
Riparian
Riparian
Riparian
Riparian
Riparian
Riparian
Mapped Soil Series
FnA
FnA
FnA
FnA
FnA
FnA
Somewhat poorly
Somewhat
Somewhat
Somewhat
Somewhat
Somewhat
Drainage Class
to well drained
poorly to well
poorly to well
poorly to well
poorly to well
poorly to well
drained
drained
drained
drained
drained
Soil Hydric Status
Site-specific
Site-specific
Site-specific
Site-specific
Site-specific
Site-specific
Hillslope seepage;
Hillslope seepage;
Hillslope seepage;
Hillslope seepage;
Hillslope seepage;
Hillslope seepage;
Source of Hydrology
Baseflow;
Baseflow;
Baseflow;
Baseflow;
Baseflow;
Baseflow;
Overbank Flooding
Overbank
Overbank
Overbank
Overbank
Overbank
Flooding
Flooding
Flooding
Flooding
Flooding
Hydrologic Impairment
Partially
Yes
No
Partially
Partially
Partially
Piedmont/Mountain Mixed Bottomland Hardwood Forest. Successional Deciduous Forest Land was once
Native Vegetation Community
also present near Wetlands 2 & 5.
Percent Composition of Exotic/Invasive
—30%
55%
10%
—40%
55%
35%
Vegetation
Regulatory Considerations
Regulation
Applicable
Resolved
Supporting Documentation
Waters of the United States — Section 404
Yes
Yes
Categorical Exclusion
Waters of the United States — Section 401
Yes
Yes
Categorical Exclusion
Endangered Species Act
Yes
Yes
Categorical Exclusion
Historic Preservation Act
Yes
Yes
Categorical Exclusion
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)/
No
N/A
N/A
Coastal Area Management Act CAMA
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
Yes
Yes
Categorical Exclusion
Essential Fisheries Habitat
No
N/A
N/A
Notes:
1. See Figure 2.3 of Mitigation Plan for key to
soil series symbols.
2. All wetlands had been disturbed to some degree at the time the project was initiated. As a result, only remnants of native
vegetative communities exist
in the wetland areas.
3.
Fescue is considered as invasive vegetation; it
and other field grasses were the dominant
nonnative wetland vegetation observed. 4.
USGS Land Use Data (2001) used rather than CGIA Land Use Classification data which is more outdated (1996).
5. Source: Upper Catawba River Basin Restoration Priorities (NCEEP 2009) (https:Hdeq.ne.gov/about/divisions/mitigation-services/dms-
planning/watershed-planning-documents/catawba-river-basin)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT
UPPER SILVER CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT
DMS PROJECT NO. 94645

Includes:
Appendix C
Vegetation Assessment Data
Table 5. Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success Summary
Table 6. CVS Vegetation Metadata Table
Table 7. Stem Count Arranged by Plot and Species
Figure 3. Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos

Table 5. Vegetation Plot Mitigation
Success Summary
(per acre)
Plot #
Stream/
Wetland
Stem
Success
Criteria
Volunteers3 Tota 14 Met?
1
1457
0 1457 Yes
2
1214
0 1214 Yes
3
688
0 688 Yes
4
850
0 850 Yes
5
850
0 850 Yes
6
647
0 647 Yes
7
647
0 647 Yes
8
647
0 647 Yes
9
647
0 647 Yes
10
688
0 688 Yes
11
769
0 769 Yes
12
769
0 769 Yes
13
688
0 688 Yes
14
688
0 688 Yes
Project Avg
804
0 804 Yes
Stem Class characteristics
1Buffer Stems Native planted hardwood trees. Does NOT include shrubs. No pines. No vines.
2Stream/ Native planted woody stems. Includes shrubs, does NOT include live stakes. No
Wetland Stems vines
3Volunteers Native woody stems. Not planted. No vines.
Planted + volunteer native woody stems. Includes live stakes. Excl. exotics. Excl.
4Total vines.
Exceeds requirements by 10%

Table 6. Vegetation Metadata
Upper Silver Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration - Project 94645
Report Prepared By Katie McKeithan
Date Prepared 12/28/2015 14:47
database name 94645_UpperSilver_cvs-eep-entrytool-v2.3.1.mdb
database location L:\Users\kmckeithan\Silver_Creek
computer name CARYLSHUNT
file size 60067840
DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT ------------
Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a summary of
Metadata project(s) and project data.
Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre, for each year.
Proj, planted This excludes live stakes.
Each project is listed with its TOTAL stems per acre, for each year. This
Proj, total stems includes live stakes, all planted stems, and all natural/volunteer stems.
List of plots surveyed with location and summary data (live stems, dead
Plots stems, missing, etc.).
Vigor Frequency distribution of vigor classes for stems for all plots.
Vigor by Spp Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species.
List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences and
Damage percent of total stems impacted by each.
Damage by Spp Damage values tallied by type for each species.
Damage by Plot Damage values tallied by type for each plot.
A matrix of the count of PLANTED living stems of each species for each
Planted Stems by Plot and Spp
plot; dead and missing stems are excluded.
A matrix of the count of total living stems of each species (planted and
natural volunteers combined) for each plot; dead and missing stems are
ALL Stems by Plot and spp
excluded.
PROJECT SUMMARY -------------------------------------
Project Code
94645
project Name
Upper Silver Creek
Description
Full Delivery stream and wetland restoration site
River Basin
Broad
length(ft)
5,169 feet
stream -to -edge width (ft)
Minimum of 30 feet
area (sq m)
62,321.6 sq.m.
Required Plots (calculated)
14
Sampled Plots
14

Table 7. Stem Count Arranged by Plot
Project: Upper Silver Creek, EEP Project # 94645.
Current Plot Data (MY12015)
Current Plot Data (MY12015)
Scientific Name Common Name Species Type
Scientific Name Common Name
Species Type
P
94645-01-0001
V
T
P
94645-01-0002
V
T
P
94645-01-0003
V
T
P
94645-01-0004
V
T
P
94645-01-0005
V
T
P
94645-01-0006
V
T
P
94645-01-0007
V
T
Acer rubrum red maple
Tree
1
1
6
6
2
2
2
Alnus serrulata hazel alder Shrub
Alnus serrulata hazel alder
Shrub
1
1
Betula nigra river birch Tree
Betula nigra river birch
Tree 1
3
3
6
6
3
3
1
1
Carpinus caroliniana American hornbeam Tree
1
1
3
3
Carpinus caroliniana American hornbeamTree
2
2
2
3
3
1
Cornus amomum silky dogwood Shrub 1
1
1
1
1
10
1
Cornus amomum silky dogwood
Shrub
3
3
3
1
1
1 3
3 1
6
6
1 4
4 1
2
2
Corylus cornuta beaked hazelnut
Shrub Tree
Diospyros virginiana common persimmon Tree
1
1
1
1
Diospyros virginiana common persimmon
Tree
1
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash Tree
1
1
1
1
2
2
Fraxinus enns Ivanica green ash
Tree
4
Liriodendron tulipifera tuliptree Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
8
8
1
1
1
1
Liriodendron tulipifera tuliptree
Tree
3
5
3
2
2
4
4
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
Platanus occidentalis American sycamore
Tree
12
12
4
4
6
6
7
1
7
4
4
3
2
3
4
Quercus michauxii swamp chestnut oak Tree
4
Quercus sp. Oak sp.
1
1
1
1
8
8
3
3
Quercus nigra water oak Tree
Quercus michauxii swamp chestnut oak
Tree
6
6
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
4
4
Quercus nigra water oak
Tree
10
2
2
1
3
3
2
2
Unknown Shrub or Tree
1
1
3
1
1
Quercus phellos willow oak
Tree
2
1
2
3
3
1
2
3
2
3
3
3
Unknown
Shrub or Tree
2
2
Viburnum dentatum southern arrowwood JShrub
2
2
1
1
1
Vaccinium cor mbosumhi hbush blueberry
Shrub
1
1
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
16 0
1
0.02
7
6471
16
7
647
16
6
647
1
0.02
16
6
647
17
4
688
1
0.02
17
4
688
19
7
769
1
0.02
19
7
769
19
8
769
1
0.02
Viburnum dentatum southern arrowwood
Shrub
15
17
5
688
15
3
1
3
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
36
7
1457
1
0.02
36
7
1457
30
9
1214
1
0.02
30
9
1214
17
7
688
1
0.02
17
7
688
21
9
850
1
0.02
21
9
850
21
5
850
1
0.02
21
5
850
16
7
647
1
0.02
1
16
7
647
16
7
647
1
0.02
16
7
647
P = Planted This color indicates that the number includes volunteer stems.
V = Volunteer Indicates that the stems per Acre exceeds requirements by 10%
T = Total Indicates that the stems per Acre exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Table 7. Stem Count Arranged by Plot, continued.
Project: Upper Silver Creek, EEP Project # 94645.
Current Plot Data (MY12015)
Scientific Name Common Name Species Type
94645-01-0008
P V
T
P
94645-01-0009
V
T
P
94645-01-0010
V
T
P
94645-01-0011
V
T
P
94645-01-0012
V
T
P
94645-01-0013
V
T
P
94645-01-0014
V
T
Acer rubrum red maple Tree
3
3
2
2
Alnus serrulata hazel alder Shrub
Betula nigra river birch Tree
3
3
6
6
3
3
1
1
Carpinus caroliniana American hornbeam Tree
1
1
2
2
Cornus amomum silky dogwood Shrub 1
10
10
3
3
3
3
Corylus cornuta beaked hazelnut Shrub Tree
Diospyros virginiana common persimmon Tree
1
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash Tree
1
1
2
2
4
4
Liriodendron tulipifera tuliptree Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
Platanus occidentalis Americansycamore Tree
5
5
3
3
4
4
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
Quercus sp. Oak sp.
1
1
2
2
Quercus michauxii swamp chestnut oak Tree
2
2
1
1
1
1
8
8
3
3
Quercus nigra water oak Tree
Quercus phellos willow oak Tree
6
6
10
10
2
2
1
1
2
2
Unknown Shrub or Tree
1
1
3
3
1
1
1
1
2
2
Vaccinium cor mbosum hi hbush blueberry Shrub
Viburnum dentatum southern arrowwood JShrub
2
2
1
1
1
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
16 0
1
0.02
7
6471
16
7
647
16
6
647
1
0.02
16
6
647
17
4
688
1
0.02
17
4
688
19
7
769
1
0.02
19
7
769
19
8
769
1
0.02
19
8
769
17
5
688
1
0.02
17
5
688
17
7
688
1
0.02
17
7
688
P = Planted This color indicates that the number includes volunteer stems.
V = Volunteer Indicates that the stems per Acre exceeds requirements by 10%
T = Total Indicates that the stems per Acre exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%

Table 7. Stem Count Arranged by Plot, continued.
Project: Upper Silver Creek, EEP Project # 94645.
Annual Means
Scientific Name Common Name Species Type
P
MYO (2015)*
V
T
P
MY1(2015)
V
T
MY2 (2016)
P V
T
MY3 (2017)
P V
T
MY4 (2018)
P V
T
P
MY5 (2019)
V
T
Acer rubrum red maple Tree
12
12
14
14
Alnus serrulata hazel alder Shrub
1
1
1
1
Betula nigra river birch Tree
8
8
21
21
Carpinus caroliniana American hornbeam Tree
9
9
11
11
Cornus amomum silky dogwood Shrub
16
16
32
32
Corylus cornuta beaked hazelnut Shrub Tree
1
1
1
1
Diospyros virginiana common persimmon Tree
3
3
3
3
Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash Tree
12
12
19
19
Liriodendron tulipifera tuliptree Tree
10
10
12
12
Platanus occidentalis American sycamore Tree
47
47
60
60
Quercus sp. Oak sp.
3
3
Quercus michauxii swamp chestnut oak Tree
19
19
33
33
Quercus nigra water oak Tree
4
4
4
4
Quercus phellos willow oak Tree
17
17
32
32
Unknown Shrub or Tree
6
6
10
10
Vaccinium cor mbosum 1highbush blueberry Shrub
1
1
1
1
Viburnum dentatum southern arrowwood Shrub
21
21
211
21
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
187
16
841
9
0.22
187
16
841
278
17
804
14
0.35
278
17
804
0
9
0.22
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
0.22
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
0.22
0 1 1
0 1 1
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
0.22
0
0
0
P = Planted This color indicates that the number includes volunteer stems.
V = Volunteer Indicates that the stems per Acre exceeds requirements by 10%
T = Total Indicates that the stems per Acre exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
" MYO included 9 vegetation plots. However upon review it was discovered that we needed to have 14 vegetation plots to meet guidelines. Five additional plots were added in the fall of 2015 and the MY1 and later means inlcude these additional plots.

Figure 3. Upper Silver Creek - Vegetation Plot
Photos, DMS Project #94645
Photo 1. Vegetation Plot 1 — Tree photo (taken December 3,
2015).
Photo 2. Vegetation Plot 1 — Herbaceous photo (taken
December 3, 2015).
Photo 3. Vegetation Plot 2 — Tree photo (taken December 3,
2015).
Photo 4. Vegetation Plot 2 — Herbaceous photo (taken
December 3, 2015).
Photo 5. Vegetation Plot 3 Tree photo (taken December 3,
2015).
Photo 6. Vegetation Plot 3 — Herbaceous photo (taken
December 3, 2015).

Photo 7. Vegetation Plot 4 - Tree photo (taken December 3,
2015).
Photo 8. Vegetation Plot 4 - Herbaceous photo (taken
December 3, 2015).
Photo 9. Vegetation Plot 5 - Tree photo (taken December 3,
2015).
Photo Point 10, Vegetation Plot 5 - Herbaceous photo (taken
December 3, 2015).
Photo 11. Vegetation Plot 6 - Tree photo (taken December 3,
2015).
Photo 12. Vegetation Plot 6 - Herbaceous photo (taken
December 3, 2015).

Photo 13. Vegetation Plot 7 — Tree photo (taken December 3,
2015).
Photo 14. Vegetation Plot 7 — Herbaceous photo (taken
December 3, 2015).
Photo 15. Vegetation Plot 8 — Tree photo (taken December 3,
2015).
Photo 17. Vegetation Plot 9 — Tree photo (taken December 3,
2015).
Photo 16. Vegetation Plot 8 — Herbaceous photo (taken
December 3, 2015).
Photo 18. Vegetation Plot 9 — Herbaceous photo (taken
December 3, 2015).

Photo 19. Vegetation Plot 10 — Tree photo (taken December
3, 2015).
Photo 21. Vegetation Plot 11— Tree photo (taken December
3, 2015).
Photo 20. Vegetation Plot 10 — Herbaceous photo (taken
December 3, 2015).
Photo 22. Vegetation Plot 11 — Herbaceous photo (taken
December 3, 2015).
Photo 23. Vegetation Plot 12 — Tree photo (taken December
3, 2015).
Photo 24. Vegetation Plot 12 — Herbaceous photo (taken
December 3, 2015).

Photo 25. Vegetation Plot 13 — Tree photo (taken December
3, 2015).
Photo 26. Vegetation Plot 13 — Herbaceous photo (taken
December 3, 2015).
Photo 27. Vegetation Plot 14 — Tree photo (taken December
3, 2015).
Photo 28. Vegetation Plot 14 — Herbaceous photo (taken
December 3, 2015).

Includes:
Appendix D
Stream Assessment Data
Figure 4. Stream Photos by channel and station
Table 8. Visual Morphological Stability Assessment
Table 9. Verification of Bankfull Events
Figure 5. Cross -Sections with annual overlays
Figure 6. Longitudinal Profiles with annual overlays
Figure 7. Pebble Count plots with annual overlays
Table 10. Stream Summary
Table 11. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary

Figure 4. Upper Silver Creek Mainstem Photos —
Monitoring Year 1 (2015)
Photo 1. Mainstem Photo Point 1 — Station 29+26 (February Photo 2. Mainstem Photo Point 1 — Station 29+26 (February
2, 2016) downstream view from left bank. 2, 2016) upstream view from left bank.
ILI
Photo 3. Mainstem Photo Point 2 — Station 26+44
(February 2, 2016) downstream view from left bank.
Photo 4. Mainstem Photo Point 2 — Station 26+44
(February 2, 2016) upstream from left bank.
Photo 5. Mainstem Photo Point 3 — Station 24+70
(February 2, 2016) upstream from right bank.
aQ, ,
Photo 6. Mainstem Photo Point 3 — Station 24+70
(February 2, 2016) downstream from right bank.

�4
's.'Seav:.rs
Photo 7. Mainstem Photo Point 4 (PP4) — Station 20+30
(February 2, 2016) downstream from left bank.
Photo 8. Mainstem Photo Point 4 (PP4) — Station 20+30
(February 2, 2016) upstream from left bank.
Photo 9. Mainstem Photo Point 5 — Station 16+03
(February 2, 2016) upstream from right bank.
r
Photo 11. Mainstem Photo Point 6 — Station 13+03
(February 2, 2016) upstream from right bank.
Photo Point 10, Mainstem Photo Point 5 — Station 16+03
(February 2, 2016) downstream from right bank.
Photo 12. Mainstem Photo Point 5 Station 13+03
(February 2, 2016) downstream from right bank.

Photo 13. Mainstem Photo Point 7 — Station 10+11
(February 2, 2016) downstream from left bank.
Photo 14. Mainstem Photo Point 7 — Station 10+11
(February 2, 2016) upstream from left bank.
Photo 15. Mainstem Photo Point 8 — Station 5+06
(February 2, 2016) upstream from right bank.
Photo 16. Mainstem Photo Point 8 — Station 5+06
(February 2, 2016) downstream from right bank.
Photo 17. Mainstem Photo Point 9 — Station 3+87
(February 2, 2016) downstream from left bank.
Photo 18. Mainstem Photo Point 9 — Station 3+87
(February 2, 2016) upstream from left bank.

Photo 19. Mainstem Photo Point 10 — Stat. 1+22
(February 2, 2016) downstream from left bank.
Unnamed Tributary 1 Photos - Monitoring Year 1
Photo 21. UTI Photo Point 1 — Station 4+82
(February 2, 2016) upstream from left bank.
Photo 20. Mainstem Photo Point 10 — Stat. 1+22 (February 2,
2016) upstream from left bank.
Intentionally Left Blank
Photo 22. UTI Photo Point 2 — Station 4+07
(February 2, 2016) downstream from left bank.
Photo 23. UTI Photo Point 2 — Station 4+07
(February 2, 2016) upstream from left bank.

Photo 24. UTI Photo Point 3 — Station 2+55
(February 2, 2016) upstream from right bank.
Photo 25. UTI Photo Point 3 — Station 2+55
(February 2, 2016) downstream from right bank.
Photo 26. UTI Photo Point 4 Station 0+55
(February 2, 2016) downstream from left bank.
Unnamed Tributary 2 Photos — Monitoring Year 1
Photo 27. UTI Photo Point 4 — Station 0+55
(February 2, 2016) upstream from left bank.
Photo 28. UT2 Photo Point 1 — Station 2+15
(February 2, 2016) downstream from left bank.
Photo 29. UT2 Photo Point 1 — Station 2+15
(February 2, 2016) upstream from left bank.

Photo 30. UT2 Photo Point 2 — Station 0+96 Photo 31. UT2 Photo Point 2 — Station 0+96
(February 2, 2016) upstream from right bank. (February 2, 2016) downstream from right bank.
Photo 32. UT2 Photo Point 3 — Station 0+02
(February 2, 2016) downstream from right bank.
Unnamed Tributary 3 Photos — Monitoring Year 1
Location for photo points on UT3 has been changed to align
Photo 33. UT2 Photo Point 3 — Station 0+02
(February 2, 2016) upstream from right bank.
Photo 34. UT3 Photo Point 1 — Station 12+10
(February 2, 2016) downstream from left bank.
Photo 35. UT3 Photo Point l — Station 12+10
(February 2, 2016) upstream from left bank.

Photo 36. UT3 Photo Point 2 — Station 10+66
(February 2, 2016) upstream from right bank.
Photo 37. UT3 Photo Point 2 — Station 10+66
(February 2, 2016) downstream from right bank.
Photo 38. UT3 Photo Point 3 — Station 8+10
(February 2, 2016) downstream from left bank.
Photo 39. UT3 Photo Point 3 — Station 8+10
(February 2, 2016) upstream from left bank.
Photo 40. UT3 Photo Point 4 — Station 7+05
(February 2, 2016) downstream from left bank.
Photo 41. UT3 Photo Point 4 — Station 7+05
(February 2, 2016) upstream from left bank.

it ,.. �af �.. N•?+�
Photo 42. UT3 Photo Point 5 — Station 5+95
(February 2, 2016) downstream from left bank.
� }AVrw-wlvl IV -'KY Wr
s-
.•wig`. `r�''. _ -
Photo 44. UT3 Photo Point 6 — Station 4+55
(February 2, 2016) upstream from right bank.
Photo 43. UT3 Photo Point 5 — Station 5+95
(February 2, 2016) upstream from left bank.
Photo 45. UT3 Photo Point 6 — Station 4+55
(February 2, 2016) downstream from right bank.
Photo 46. UT3 Photo Point 7 — Station 3+60
(February 2, 2016) upstream to structure.
Photo 47. UT3 Photo Point 8 — Station 2+70
(February 2, 2016) upstream to structure.

Photo 48. UT3 Photo Point 9 — Station 1+90
(February 2, 2016) upstream to structure.
Photo 49. UT3 Photo Point 10 — Station 0+60
(February 2, 2016) downstream to structure.
1
may.
i- rr ,+
•.��'..�
Photo 49. UT3 Photo Point 10 — Station 0+60
(February 2, 2016) downstream to structure.

Table 8. Visual Morphological Stability Assessment
Upper Silver Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 94645
Silver Creek, Reach 1 (838 LF)
Feature
Category
Metric (per As -Built and reference baselines)
(# Stable) Number
Performing
as Intended
Total Number
Total number / feet in unstable
per As -Built stale
% Performing
in Stable
Condition
Feature
Perfomance
Mean or Total
A. Riffles
1. Present?
4
4
0
100
2. Armor stable (e.g. no displacement)?
4
4
0
100
3. Facet grades appears stable?
4
4
0
100
4. Minimal evidence of embedding/fining?
4
4
0
100
5. Length appropriate?
4
4
0
100
100
B. Pools
1. Present? e.. not subject to severe aggraclation or migration?)
4
4
0
100
2. Sufficiently dee Max Pool D:Mean Bkf>1.6?
4
4
0
100
3. Length appropriate?
4
4
0
100
100
C. Thalweg
1. Upstream of pool structure centering? %
100
100
0
100
2. Downstream of pool structure centering? %
100
100
0
100
100%
D. Meanders
1. Outer bend in state of limited/controlled erosion?
4
4
0
100
2. Of those eroding, #w/concomitant point bar formation?
4
4
0
100
3. Apparent Rc within spec?
4
4
0
100
4. Sufficient floodplain access and relief?
4
4
0
100
100%
E. Bed
1. General channel bed aggradation areas bar formation
838
838
0
100
General
2. Channel bed degradation - areas of increasing down -
cutting or head cutting?
838
838
0
100
100%
F. Vanes,
1. Free of back or arm scour?
6
6
0
100
Rock/Log
2. Height aro riate?
6
6
0
100
Drop
3. Angle and geometry appear appropriate?
6
6
0
100
Structures
4. Free of piping or other structural failures?
6
6
0
100
100%
G. Wads/
1. Free of scour?
4
4
0
100
Boulders
2. Footing stable?
4
4
0
100
100%
Silver Creek,
Reach 2 (2,178 LF)
Feature
Category
Metric (per As -Built and reference baselines)
(# Stable) Number
Performing
as Intended
Total Number
Total number / feet in unstable
per As -Built state
% Performing
in Stable
Condition
Feature
Perfomance
Mean or Total
A. Riffles
1. Present?
17
17
0
100
2. Armor stable (e.g. no displacement)?
17
17
0
100
3. Facet grades appears stable?
17
17
0
100
4. Minimal evidence of embedding/fining?
17
17
0
100
5. Len th appropriate.
17
17
0
100
1001/6
B. Pools
1. Present? e.. not subject to severe aggradation or migration?)
16
16
0
100
2. Sufficiently dee Max Pool D:Mean Bkf>1.6?
16
16
0
100
3. Length appropriate?
16
16
0
100
1001/6
C. Thalweg
1. Upstream of pool structure centering? %
100
100
0
100
2. Downstream of pool structure centering? %
100
100
0
100
1001/6
D. Meanders 1. Outer bend in state of limited/controlled erosion?
16
16
0
100
2. Ofthose eroding, #w/concomitant point barformation?
16
16
0
100
3. Apparent Rc within spec?
16
16
0
100
4. Sufficient flood Iain access and relief?
16
16
0
100
100%
E. Bed
1. General channel bed aggradation areas bar formation
2,178
2,178
0
100
General
2. Channel bed degradation - areas of increasing down -
cutting or head cutting?
2,178
2,178
0
100
100%
F. Vanes,
1. Free of back or arm scour?
21
21
0
100
Rock/Log
2. Height aro riate?
21
21
0
100
Drop
3. Angle and geometry appear appropriate?
21
21
0
100
Structures
4. Free of piping or other structural failures?
18
21
3
86
96%
G. Wads/
1. Free of scour?
14
14
0
100
Boulders
2. Footing stable?
14
14
0
100
100%
Feature
Category
Metric (per As -Built and reference baselines)
(# Stable) Number
Performing
as Intended
Total Number
Total number / feet in unstable
per As -Built state
% Performing
in Stable
Condition
Feature
Performance
Mean or Total
A. Riffles
1. Present?
7
7
0
100
2. Armor stable (e.g. no displacement)?
7
7
0
100
3. Facet grades appears stable?
7
7
0
100
4. Minimal evidence of embeddin finin ?
7
7
0
100
5. Length appropriate?
7
1 7
0
100
100
B. Pools
1. Present? e.. not subject to severe aggradation or migration?)
10
10
0
100
2. Sufficiently dee Max Pool D:Mean Bkf>1.6?
10
10
0
100
3. Length appropriate?
10
10
0
100
100%
C. Thalweg'
1. Upstream of pool structure centering? %
100
100
0
100
2. Downstream of pool structure centering? %
100
100
0
100
100
D. Meanders 1. Outer bend in state of limited/controlled erosion?
7
7
0
100
2. Of those eroding, # w/concomitant point bar formation?
7
1 7
0
100
3. Apparent Rc within spec?
7
7
0
100
4. Sufficient floodplain access and relief?
7
7
0
100
100%
E. Bed
1. General channel bed aggraclation areas bar formation
502
502
0
100
General
2. Channel bed degradation - areas of increasing down -
cutting or head cutting?
502
502
0
100
100%
F. Vanes,
1. Free of back or arm scour?
11
11
0
100
Rock/Log
2. Height appropriate?
11
11
0
100
Drop
3. Angle and geometry appear appropriate?
11
11
0
100
Structures
4. Free of piping or other structural failures?
11
11
0
100
100
G. Wads/
1. Free of scour?
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Boulders
2. Footing stable?
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
100

Table 8. Visual
Upper Silver Creek
Morphological Stability Assessment- Continued
Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 94645
UT2, Reach
1 (103 LF)
Feature
Category
Metric (per As -Built and reference baselines)
(# Stable) Number
Performing
as Intended
Total Number
Total number / feet in unstable
per As -Built state
% Performing
in Stable
Condition
Feature
Perfomance
Mean or Total
A. Riffles
1. Present?
4
4
0
100
2. Armor stable (e.g. no displacement)?
4
4
0
100
3. Facet grades appears stable?
4
4
0
100
4. Minimal evidence of embedding/fining?
4
4
0
100
5. Length appropriate?
4
4
0
100
100%
B. Pools
1. Present? e.. not subject to severe aggradation or migration?)
5
5
0
100
2. Sufficiently dee Max Pool D:Mean Bkf>1.6?
5
5
0
100
3. Length appropriate?
5
5
0
100
100%
C. Thalweg
1. Upstream of pool structure centering? %
100
100
0
100
2. Downstream of pool structure centering? %
100
100
0
100
100 as -
D. Meanders
1. Outer bend in state of limited/controlled erosion?
N/A
N/A
N/A
100
2. Ofthose eroding, #w/concomitant point barformation?
N/A
N/A
N/A
100
3. Apparent Rc within spec?
N/A
N/A
N/A
100
4. Sufficient floodplain access and relief?
N/A
N/A
N/A
100
100%
E. Bed
1. General channel bed aggradation areas bar formation
103
103
0
100
General
2. Channel bed degradation - areas of increasing down -
cutting or head cult ing?
103
103
0
100
100%
F. Vanes,
1. Free of back or arm scour?
5
5
0
100
Rock/Log
2. Height aro riate?
5
5
0
100
Drop
3. Angle and geometry appear appropriate?
5
5
0
100
Structures
4. Free of piping or other structural failures?
5
5
0
100
100%
G. Wads/
1. Free of scour?
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Boulders
2. Footing stable?
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Feature
Category
UT2, Reach
Metric (per As -Built and reference baselines)
2 (207 LF)
(# Stable) Number
Performing
as Intended
Total Number
Total number / feet in unstable
per As -Built state
% Performing
in Stable
Condition
Feature
Perfomance
Mean or Total
A. Riffles
1. Present?
4
4
0
100
2. Armor stable (e.g. no displacement)?
4
4
0
100
3. Facet grades appears stable?
4
4
0
100
4. Minimal evidence of embedding/fining?
4
4
0
100
5. Length appropriate?
4
4
0
100
100%
B. Pools
1. Present? e.. not subject to severe aggradation or migration?)
3
3
0
100
2. Sufficiently dee Max Pool D:Mean Bkf>1.6?
3
3
0
100
3. Length appropriate?
3
3
0
100
100%
C. Thalweg
1. Upstream of pool structure centering? %
100
100
0
100
2. Downstream of pool structure centering? %
100
100
0
100
100%
D. Meanders
1. Outer bend in state of limited/controlled erosion?
3
3
0
100
2. Ofthose eroding, #w/concomitant point barformation?
3
3
0
100
3. Apparent Rc within spec?
3
3
0
100
4. Sufficient floodplain access and relief?
3
3
0
100
100%
E. Bed
1. General channel bed aggradation areas bar formation
207
207
0
100
General
2. Channel bed degradation - areas of increasing down -
cutting or head cutting?
207
207
0
100
100%
F. Vanes,
1. Free of back or arm scour?
1
1
0
100
Rock/Log
2. Height aro riate?
1
1
0
100
Drop
3. Angle and geometry appear appropriate?
1
1
0
100
Structures
4. Free of piping or other structural failures?
1
1
0
100
100%
G. Wads/
1. Free of scour?
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Boulders
2. Footing stable?
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
NIA

Table 8. Visual
Upper Silver Creek
Morphological Stability Assessment- Continued
Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 94645
UT3 Reach 1 (343
LF) (Enhancement 11 reach)
Feature
Category
Metric (per As-Built and reference baselines)
(# Stable) Number
Performing
as Intended
Total Number
Total number / feet in unstable
per As-Built state
% Performing
in Stable
Condition
Feature
Perfomance
Mean or Total
A. Riffles
1. Present?
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2. Armor stable (e.g. no displacement)?
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
3. Facet grades appears stable?
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
4. Minimal evidence of embeddin /linin ?
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
5. Length appropriate?
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
B. Pools
1. Present? e.. not subject to severe aggradation or migration?)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2. Sufficiently dee Max Pool D:Mean Bkf>1.6?
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
3. Length appropriate?
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
C. Thalweg
1. Upstream of pool structure centering? %
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2. Downstream of pool structure centering? %
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
D. Meanders
1. Outer bend in state of limited/controlled erosion?
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2. Of those eroding, # w/concomitant point bar formation?
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
3. Apparent Rc within spec?
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
4. Sufficient floodplain access and relief?
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
E. Bed
1. General channel bed aggradation areas bar formation
343
343
0
100
General
2. Channel bed degradation - areas of increasing down-
cutting or head cutting?
343
343
0
100
100%
F. Vanes,
1. Free of back or arm scour?
3
3
0
100
Rock/Log
2. Height appropriate?
3
3
0
100
Drop
3. Angle and geometry appear appropriate?
3
3
0
100
Structures
4. Free of piping or other structural failures?
3
3
0
100
100%
G. Wads/
1. Free of scour?
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Boulders
2. Footing stable?
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Feature
Category
UT3 Reach
Metric (per As-Built and reference baselines)
2 (1,022 LF)
(# Stable) Number
Performing
as Intended
Total Number
Total number / feet in unstable
per As-Built state
% Performing
in Stable
Condition
Feature
Perfomance
Mean or Total
A. Riffles
1. Present?
22
22
0
100
2. Armor stable (e.g. no displacement)?
22
22
0
100
3. Facet grades appears stable?
22
22
0
100
4. Minimal evidence of embedding/fining?
22
22
0
100
5. Len th appropriate.
22
22
0
100
1001/6
B. Pools
1. Present? e.. not subject to severe aggradation or migration?)
21
21
0
100
2. Sufficiently dee Max Pool D:Mean Bkf>1.6?
21
21
0
100
3. Length appropriate?
21
21
0
100
100%
C. Thalweg
1. Upstream of pool structure centering?
100
100
0
100
2. Downstream of pool structure centering?
100
100
0
100
100%
D. Meanders
1. Outer bend in state of limited/controlled erosion?
17
17
0
100
2. Of those eroding, # w/concomitant point bar formation?
17
17
0
100
3. Apparent Rc within spec?
17
17
0
100
4. Sufficient floodplain access and relief?
17
17
0
100
100%
E. Bed
1. General channel bed aggraclation areas bar formation
1,022
1,022
0
100
General
2. Channel bed degradation - areas of increasing down-
cutting or head cutting?
1,022
1,022
0
100
100%
F. Vanes,
1. Free of back or arm scour?
15
15
0
100
Rock/Log
2. Height appropriate?
15
15
0
100
Drop
3. Angle and geometry appear appropriate?
15
15
0
100
Structures
4. Free of piping or other structural failures?
15
15
0
100
100%
G. Wads/
1. Free of scour?
4
4
0
100
Boulders
2. Footing stable?
4
4
0
100
100%

Table 9. Verification of Bankfull or Greater than Bankfull Events
Upper Silver Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 94645
Date of Data
Collection
Date of Event
Method of Data Collection
Gauge Watermark Height
(inches)*
Silver Creek UT3
Station 19+00 Station 8+10
12/202/2015
N/A
N/A
0 0
* height indicates the highest position of cork shavings on the dowel.

Permanent Cross -Section 1
(MY1 Data - collected October, 2015)
Based on develonina BKF
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
C
45.1
26.22
1 1.72
2.99
15.23
1
3.7
1197.45
1197.44
Based on fixed baseline BKF
Stream
Feature Type BKF Area
BKF BKF Max BKF
Width Depth Depth W/D
BH Ratio
ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle C 43.4
24.58 1 1.76 2.92 13.93
1
3.9 1197.38 1197.44
Silver Creek Cross -Section 1, Station 27+24
Monitoring Year 1
1201
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1200
1199
.2 1198
w 1197
---o--- Floodprone
1196 -- 9--- Dev BKF
••• Fixed BKF
1195 t AB 2015
T MY1 2015
1194
0 20 40 60 80 100
Station (ft)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank

Permanent Cross -Section 2
(MY1 Data - collected October, 2015)
Based on fixed baseline BKF
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool
51.9
29.5
1 1.76
3.92
16.76
1
3
1 1198.2
1198.23
Silver Creek Cross -Section 2, Station 26+36
Monitoring Year 1
1203
1202------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------o
1201
1200
c 1199
� 1198 ---------------------------
w 1197
1 196 ---0--- Floodprone
1195 ---0--- Bankfull
t AB 2015
1194 —�— MY1 2015
1193
0 20 40 60 80 100
Station (ft)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank

Permanent Cross -Section 3
(MY1 Data - collected October, 2015)
Based on develonina BKF
Feature
Stream
Type BKF Area
BKF BKF Max BKF
Width Depth Depth W/D
BH Ratio ER
BKF Elev TOB Elev
Pool
61.8
42.55 1 1.45 4.15 29.31
1 0.7 2.1
1 1202.45 1201.26
Based on fixed baseline BKF
Feature
Stream
Type BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool
57.3
39.53
1 1.45
4.04
27.28
1 0.7
2.3
1 1202.34
1201.26
1208
1206
$ 1204
r_
0
1202
a�
W 1200
IIlli PRON
1196 --
0
Silver Creek Cross -Section 3, Station 18+98
Monitoring Year 1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------e
20 40 60
Station (ft)
-- 9--- Floodprone
---0-- Dev BKF
Fixed BKF
�— AB 2015
■ MY1 2015
80 100
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank

Permanent Cross -Section 4
(MY1 Data - collected October, 2015)
Based on fixed baseline BKF
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
C
44.2
23.45
1 1.89
3.22
12.44
1
3.7
1 1203.01
1203.03
Silver Creek Cross -Section 4, Station 17+94
Monitoring Year 1
1207
1206-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------�
1205
c 1204
o
1203 ----------------------- .�
a�
Lu 1202
-- a- Floodprone
1201
---0--- Bankfull
1200 AB 2015
■ MY1 2015
1199
0 20 40 60 80 100
Station (ft)
Looking at the Left Bank Looking at the Right Bank

Permanent Cross -Section 5
(MY1 Data - collected October, 2015)
Based on fixed baseline BKF
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
C
43.4
26.08
1 1.66
2.81
15.69
1
3.3
1 1204.82
1204.81
1208
1207
1206
c
ro
1205
ca
w 1204
1203
1202
1201
Silver Creek Cross -Section 5, Station 12+07
Monitoring Year 1
0 20 40 60 80 100
Station (ft)
Looking at the Left Bank Looking at the Right Bank

Permanent Cross -Section 6
(MY1 Data - collected October, 2015)
Based on fixed baseline BKF
Stream
Feature Type BKF Area
BKF BKF Max BKF
Width Depth Depth W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool 73.5
41.92 1 1.75 4.98 23.92
1 0.9
1.6
1 1208.14
1207.74
Silver Creek Cross -Section 6, Station 3+57
Monitoring Year 1
1214
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------o
1212
1210
c
0
e1208 -------------------------------------------- ------ �►
a�
w 1206
---0--- Floodprone
---o--- Bankfull
1204 t AB 2015
MY12015
1202
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Station (ft)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank

Permanent Cross -Section 7
(MY1 Data - collected October, 2015)
Based on fixed baseline BKF
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
C
50.6
25.9
1 1.95
3.15
13.26
1
4.9
1 1208.23
1208.26
Silver Creek Cross -Section 7, Station 3+02
Monitoring Year 1
1212
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------o
1211
1210
c 1209
1208 -----------------
a, --
w 1207
-
--o---Floodprone
1206
—4 AB 2015
1205
1204
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Station (ft)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank

Permanent Cross -Section 8
(MY1 Data - collected October, 2015)
Based on develot)ina BKF
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle
C
6.2
11.68
1 0.53
1.14
22.03
1 4.6 1 1215.47 1215.47
Based on fixed baseline BKF
Stream
Feature Type BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF Max BKF
Depth Depth W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle C 5.3
8.81
1 0.61 1.05 14.53
1 1.1
6.1
1 1215.38
1215.47
1217
1216.5
UT3 Cross -Section 8, Station 6+26
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------o
1216
c
0
> 1215.5
---
:-------.----
m
W 1215
---0-- Floodprone
---0--- Dev BKF
Fixed BKF
1214.5
—.— AB 2015
■ MY1 2015
1214
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Station (ft)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank

Permanent Cross -Section 9
(MY1 Data - collected October, 2015)
Based on develonina BKF
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool
10.6
12.1
1 0.87
1.86
13.84
1
5.2
1 1213.08
1213.09
Based on fixed baseline BKF
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool
7.8
9.5
1 0.82
1.59
11.64
1 1.2
6.6
1 1212.81
1213.09
UT3 Cross -Section 9, Station 8+19
1215
1214.5
1214
r_
c 1213.5
0
4.0 1213 111 ----------------
> ........................ .
a)
W 1212.5 ---o--- Floodprone
---0--- Dev. BKF
1212 0••••• Fixed BKF
1211.5 —�- AB 2015
■ MY1 2015
1211
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Station (ft)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank

Permanent Cross -Section 10
(MY1 Data - collected October, 2015)
Based on develooina BKF
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
E
5.7
7.47
1 0.76
1.07
9.83
1 1.1
9.2
1213.02
1213.1
Based on fixed baseline BKF
Stream
Feature Type BKF Area
BKF BKF Max BKF
Width Depth Depth W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle E 4.8
6.95 1 0.68 0.94 10.16
1 1.2
9.9
1212.89
1213.1
1214.5
1214
- 1213.5
0 1213
ca
1212.5
LU
1212
1211.5
1211
UT3 Cross -Section 10, Station 8+41
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Station (ft)
ar
� 1
b *rk'i
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank

Permanent Cross -Section 11
(MY1 Data - collected October, 2015)
Based on develoaina BKF
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool
11.9
13.02
1 0.92
2.06
14.21
1
5.6
1 1209.45
1209.42
Based on fixed baseline BKF
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool
9.7
11.53
1 0.85
1.88
13.65
1 1.1
6.3
1 1209.27
1209.42
1212
1211
1210
r_
0
1209
a�
W 1208
1207
UT3 Cross -Section 11, Station 11+73
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------o
-- 9--- Floodprone
---0--- Dev. BKF
o••• Fixed BKF
t AB 2015
MY1 2015
1206 - '
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Station (ft)
Looking at the Left Bank Looking at the Right Bank
*Stationing was 10+55 in Baseline Plan, corrected in MY1 with more complete profile.

Permanent Cross -Section 12
(MY1 Data - collected October, 2015)
Based on develonina BKF
Stream
Feature Type BKF Area
BKF BKF Max BKF
Width Depth Depth W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle E 8
9.13 1 0.87 1.34 10.45
1
8.5
1209.04
1209.06
Based on fixed baseline BKF
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
E
5.8
7.8
0.74
1.07
10.57
1 1.3
7
1 1208.77
1209.06
A
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
UT3 Cross -Section 12, Station 12+01
1211
1210.5
1210
=
1209.5
0
1209
----------
>
w
1208.5
---0--- Floodprone
........
---0--- Dev. BKF
1208
o••• Fixed BKF
1207.5
+ AB 2015
MY1 2015
1207
0 10
20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Station (ft)
A
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank

Permanent Cross -Section 13
(MY1 Data - collected October, 2015)
Based on develonina bankfull
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF BKF Max BKF
Width Depth Depth W/D
BH Ratio ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
C
7.9
9.75 1 0.81 1.23 12.04
1 5.2
1 1204.05
1205.28
Based on fixed baseline BKF
Feature
Stream
Type BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
C 7
9.28
1 0.75
1.13
12.32
1 1.1
5.4
1 1203.99
1204.08
1205.50
1205.00
1204.50
C
O
1204.00
a�
LU
1203.50
UT1 Cross -Section 13, Station 1+57
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---0--- Floodprone
---0--- Dev. BKF
o••. Fixed BKF
AB 2015
t MY1 2015
- ................: _
1203.00
1202.50
0 10 20
30
Station (ft)
40 50 60
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank

Permanent Cross -Section 14
(MY1 Data - collected October, 2015)
Based on develonina bankfull
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool
15
10.96
1 1.36
2.89
8.03
1
7.4
1202
1202.14
Based on fixed baseline BKF
Stream
Feature Type BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Pool 10.9
8.59
1 1.27
2.48 6.75 1 1.2 9.4 1201.59 1202.14
UT1 Cross -Section 14, Station 3+28
1206
1205--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------o
1204
1203
c
1202 .................
ca............
1201
LU
1200 -- o--- Floodprone
1199 Dev BKF
o••• FIXED BKF
1198 t AB 2015
—.— MY1 2015
1197
0 20 40 60 80
Station (ft)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank

Permanent Cross -Section 15
(MY1 Data - collected October, 2015)
Based on develooina bankfull
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool
4
8.35
1 0.48
0.98
17.41
1 1.1
8.1
1 1202.05
1202.11
Based on fixed baseline BKF
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool
3
6.42
1 0.46
0.84
13.87
1 1.2
10.5
1 1201.91
1202.11
1204
1203.5
1203
c 1202.5
0
1202
a�
w 1201.5
1201
1200.5
1200
0
UT2 Cross -Section 15, Station 2+15
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Station (ft)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank

Permanent Cross -Section 16
(MY1 Data - collected October, 2015)
Based on developing bankfull
Stream
Feature Type BKF Area
BKF BKF Max BKF
Width Depth Depth W/D
BH Ratio
ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle Cb 2.2
5.82 1 0.37 0.77 15.71
1
7.1 1201.21 1201.19
Based on fixed baseline BKF
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
Cb
2.2
5.82
1 0.37
0.77
15.71
1
7.1
1201.21
1201.19
UT2 Cross -Section 16, Station 2+53
1202.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1202
c 1201.5
w 1201
-- o---Floodprone
1200.5 u Bankfull
AB 2015
MY1 2015
1200
0 10 20 30 40 50
Station (ft)
Looking at the Left Bank Looking at the Right Bank

1210
1209
1208
1207
1206
1205
1204
1203
1202
= 1201
O
1200
_4)
W 1199
1198
1197
1196
1195
1194
1193
1192
1191
X-7
X-6
Monitoring Year 1 Profile of U. Silver Creek, Station 0+00 to 32+00
Data collected October, 2015
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Station (ft)
Low Bank
■ Structures
WSF
T MY1 2015
AB 2015
a* �
1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000 3200

1207
1206
1205
1204
1203
c
O
c�
> 1202
a)
W
1201
well]
1199
1198
1197
Monitoring Year 1 Profile of UT2, Station 0+00 to 3+20
Data collected October, 2015
0.0 50.0 100.0 150.0 200.0 250.0 300.0
Station (ft)

iNCII7
1225
1220
C
0
1215
W
1210
1205
1200
0
Monitoring Year 1, Profile of UT3, Station 0+00 to 14+00
Data collected October, 2015
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400
Station (ft)

Cross -Section Pebble Count; Monitoring Year 1
U. Silver Creek Mitigation Project, DMS# 94645
SITE OR PROJECT:
U. Silver Cr
REACH/LOCATION:
Riffle at XS4
FEATURE:
Riffle
DATE:
23 -Oct -15
MATERIALI
PARTICLE
ISIZE(mm)l
Mainstem at XS4
MY12015
% Co.
Distribution
Plot Size (mm)
Silt/Clay
I Silt / Clay
1 <.063
90
■ All 2015
0%
0.063
Very Fine
.063-125 .125
80%
0%
0.125
Fine
.125-.25
1
1%
1%
0.25
Sand
Medium
.25-.50
2
2%
3%
0.50
Coarse
.50 - 1.0
3%
1.0
Very Coarse
1.0-2.0
4
4%
7%
2.0
y 40%
m
Very Fine
2.0-2.8
U
7%
2.8
Very Fine
2.8-4.0
1
1%
8%
4.0
20%
Fine
4.0-5.6
2
2%
10%
5.6
Fine
5.6-8.0
3
3%
13%
8.0
Medium
8.0 - 11.0
3
3%
16%
11.0
Gravel
Medium
11.0 - 16.0
6
6%
22%
16.0
Coarse
16-22.6 1
9
1 9%
31%
22.6
Coarse
22.6-32
7
7%
38%
32
Very Coarse
32-45
16
16%
54%
45
Very Coarse
45-64
30
30%
84%
64
Small
64-90
10
10%
94%
90
Small
90-128
3
3%
97%
128
Cobble
Large
128-180
1
1 %
98%
180
Large
180-256
2
2%
100%
256
Small
256-362
100%
362
Small
362-512
100%
512
Boulder
Medium
1512- 1024
100%
1024
Large -Very Large
1024 - 2048
100%
2048
Bedrock
Bedrock
> 2048
100%
5000
I Total % ofwhole count I I 100 I 100%
Largest particle= 235
Summary Data
Channel materials
D16= 11.0 D84= 64.0
D35 = 27.6 D95 = 101.2
D50= 41.3 DIN= 180-256
U. Silver Creek Site
Mainstem at XS4
Reach Pebble Count Size Class Distribution
100%
90
■ All 2015
■ MYl 2015
80%
70%
60%
d
y
50%
D-
y 40%
m
U
30%
20%
10
0%
Particle Size Class (mm)

Cross -Section Pebble Count; Monitoring Year 1
U. Silver Creek Mitigation Project, DMS# 94645
SITE OR PROJECT:
U. Silver Cr
REACRILOCATION:
Riffle at XS7
FEATURE:
Riffle
DATE:
23 -Oct -15
MATERIAL
PARTICLE
SIZE (nun)
Total
MY12015
Class %
% Cum
Distribution
Plot Size (mm)
Silt/Clay
Silt / Clay
<.063
m AB 2015
0%
0.063
■ MYl 2015
Very Fine
.063-125 .125
60%
0%
0.125
70%
Fine
.125-.25
0%
0.25
Sand
Medium
.25-50 .50
5
5%
5%
0.50
Coarse
.50-1.0
8
8%
13%
1.0
y
Very Coarse
1.0-2.0
4
4%
17%
2.0
Very Fine
2.0-2.8
17%
2.8
Very Fine
2.8-4.0
3
3%
20%
4.0
0%
Fine
4.0-5.6
7
7%
27%
5.6
Fine
5.6-8.0
3
3%
30%
8.0
Gravel
Medium
8.0 - 11.0
7
7%
37%
11 0
Medium
11.0 - 16.0
15
15%
52%
16.0
Coarse
16 - 22.6
6
6%
58%
22.6
Coarse
22.6-32
5
5%
63%
32
Very Coarse
32-45
6
6%
69%
45
Very Coarse
45-64
12
12%
81%
64
Small
64-90
12
12%
93%
90
Cobble
Small
90-128
3
3%
96%
128
Large
128-180
2
2%
98%
180
Large
180-256
2
2%
100%
256
Small
256-362
100%
362
Small
362-512
100%
512
Boulder
Medium
512-1024
1 10 100 1000 10000
100%
1024
Large -Very Large
1024 - 2048
100%
2048
Bedrock
Bedrock
>2048
100%
5000
Total % ofwhole count I 1 100 1 100%
Summary Data
Channel materials
D16-1 1.7 1 D84=69.7
D35 = 10.0 D95 = 113.8
D50= 15.2 D100= 180-256
100
--E--AB 2015
90
tMY1 2015
U. Silver Creek Site
Riffle at XS7
Pebble Count Particle Size Distribution
Riffle at XS7
80%
70%
Reach Pebble Count Size Class Distribution
100
90%
m AB 2015
80%
■ MYl 2015
=
60%
70%
60%
c
t°ti
50%
`w
a 40%
N
y
50%
30%
U
20%
CL
10%
0%
Particle Size Class (mm)
40
—°
30%
E
U
20%
10%
0%
0.01 0.1
1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
U. Silver Creek Site
Riffle at XS7
Reach Pebble Count Size Class Distribution
100
90%
m AB 2015
80%
■ MYl 2015
70%
60%
c
50%
`w
a 40%
N
m
30%
U
20%
10%
0%
Particle Size Class (mm)

Cross -Section Pebble Count; Monitoring Year 1
U. Silver Creek Mitigation Project, DMS# 94645
SITE OR PROJECT: U. Silver Cr
REACH/LOCATION: UTI XS13
FEATURE: Riffle
OATF- 23 -Oct -15
MATERIAL
PARTICLE
SIZE (mm)
Total
MY12015
I Class % I
% Cum
Distribution
riot Size (mm)
Silt/Clay
I Silt / Clay
1 <.063
0%
0.063
Very Fine
.063-125 .125
0%
0.125
Fine
.125 - .25
0%
0.25
Sand
Medium
.25-50 .50
0%
0.50
Coarse
.50 - 1.0
0%
1.0
Very Coarse
1.0-2.0
2
2%
2%
2.0
Very Fine
2.0-2.8
2%
2.8
Very Fine
2.8-4.0
2%
4.0
Fine
4.0-5.6
1
1 %
3%
5.6
Fine
5.6-8.0
3%
8.0
Medium
8.0 - 11.0
3
3%
6%
11.0
Gravel
Medium
11.0 - 16.0
14
14%
20%
16.0
Coarse
16 - 22.6
4
4 %
24 %
22.6
Coarse
22.6-32
6
6%
30%
32
Very Coarse
32-45
22
22%
52%
45
Very Coarse
45-64
30
30%
82%
64
Small
64-90
9
9%
91%
90
Small
90- 128
6
6%
97%
128
Cobble
Large
128-180
3
3 %
100%
180
Large
180-256
100%
256
Small
256-362
100%
362
Small
362-512
100%
512
Boulder
Medium
512-1024
100%
1024
Large -Very Large
1024 - 2048
100%
2048
Bedrock
Bedrock
> 2048
100%
5000
Total% ofwhole count 1 100 1 100%
Largest particle= 180
Summary Data
Channel materials
D16= 1 14.4 D84= 1 69.0
D35= 1 34.6 1 D95=1 113.8
D50= 1 43.6 1 D100=1 128-180
U. Silver Creek Site
UT1 at XS13
Reach Pebble Count Size Class Distribution
100%
■ AB 2015
90%
■ MY 1 2015
80%
70%
60%
c
50%
d
a ao%
N
two 30%
V
20%
10%
0%
Particle Size Class (mm)

Cross -Section Pebble Count; Monitoring Year 1
U. Silver Creek Mitigation Project, DMS# 94645
SITE OR PROJECT:
U. Silver Cr
REACH/LOCATION:
UT2 XS16
FEATURE:
Riffle
DATE:
23 -Oct -15
MATERIAL
PARTICLE
SIZE (mm)
Total
MY12015
Class %
% Cum
Distribution
Plot Size (mm)
Silt/Clay
Silt / Clay
<.063
0%
0.063
Very Fine
.063-125 .125
l00%
0%
0.125
Fine
.125-.25
3
3%
3%
0.25
Sand
Medium
.25-.50
9
9%
12%
0.50
Coarse
.50-1.0
6
6%
18%
1.0
80%
Very Coarse
1.0-2.0
18%
2.0
Very Fine
2.0-2.8
18%
2.8
Very Fine
2.8-4.0
2
2%
20%
4.0
Fine
4.0-5.6—
7
7%
27%
5.6
Fine
5.6-8.0
14
14%
41%
8.0
Medium
8.0 - 11.0
18
18%
58%
11.0
Gravel
Medium
11.0 - 16.0
18
18%
76%
16.0
Coarse
16-22.6
11
11%
87%
22.6
Coarse
22.6-32
6
6%
93%
32
41,
Very Coarse
32-45
2
2%
95%
45
Very Coarse
45-64
2
2%
97%
64
Particle Size (mm)
Small
64-90
UT2 at XS16
97%
90
100%
Small
90-128
1
1 %
98%
128
Cobble
Large
128-180
2
2%
100%
180
Large
180-256
80
100%
256
Small
256-362
100%
362
c
Small
362-512
d
CL
100%
512
Boulder
Medium
512-1024
30%
100%
1024
20%
Large -Very Large
1024 - 2048
100%
2048
Bedrock
Bedrock
> 2048
0%
100%
5000
Total % ofwhole count 101 1 100%
Largest particle=
Summary Data
Channel materials
D16= 0.8 D84= 20.5
D35 = 1 6.9 D95 = 44.6
D50= 1 9.5 1 D100= 128-180
U. Silver Creek Site
UT2 at XS16
Pebble Count Particle Size Distribution
l00%
+`B 2015
90%
tMYI 2015
80%
70%
60%
d
m 50%
CL
> 40%
10 30%
E
20/
U
0-4
10%
41,
-.-0000
0%
0.01 0.1
1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
U. Silver Creek Site
UT2 at XS16
Reach Pebble Count Size Class Distribution
100%
■ AB 2015
90%
■ MY1 2015
80
70%
60
c
v 50%
d
CL
40%
N
yo
30%
U
20%
10%
0%
Particle Size Class (mm)

Cross -Section Pebble Count; Monitoring Year 1
U. Silver Creek Mitigation Project, DMS# 94645
SITE OR PROJECT:
U. Silver Cr
REACHILOCATION:
UT3 XS8
FEATURE:
Riffle
DATE:
23 -Oct -15
MATERIAL
PARTICLE
SIZE (mm)
Total
MY12015
Class %
% Cum
Distribution
Plot Size (mm)
Silt/Clay
Silt / Clay
<.063
■ AB 2015
0%
0.063
■ MY 1 2015
Very Fine
.063-125 .125
80%
0%
0.125
Fine
.125-.25
10
10%
10%
0.25
Sand
Medium
.25-.50
20
20%
30%
0.50
Coarse
.50-1.0
30%
30%
1.0
20%
Very Coarse
1.0-2.0
30%
2.0
Very Fine
2.0-2.8
0%
11-6L.1
30%
2.8
Very Fine
2.8-4.0
30%
4.0
Fine
4.0-5.6
30%
5.6
Fine
5.6-8.0
30%
8.0
Medium
8.0 - 11.0
2
2%
32%
11.0
Gravel
Medium
11.0-16.0
11
11%
43%
16.0
Coarse
16-22.6
10
10%
53%
22.6
Coarse
22.6-32
2
2%
55%
32
Very Coarse
32-45
13
13%
68%
45
Very Coarse
45-64
19
19%
87%
64
Small
64-90
9
9%
96%
90
Small
90-128
2
2%
98%
128
Cobble
Large
128-180
1
1 %
99%
180
Large
180-256
1
1 %
100%
256
Small
256-362
100%
362
Small
362-512
100%
512
Boulder
Medium
512-1024
100%
1024
Large -Very Large
1024 - 2048
100%
2048
Bedrock
Bedrock
> 2048
100%
5000
Total % of whole count I I 100 I 100%
Largest particle= 190
Summary Data
Channel materials
D16= 0.3 D84= 60.5
D35 = 12.2 D95 = 86.7
D50= 1 20.4 D100= 180-256
U. Silver Creek Site
UT3 at XS8
Reach Pebble Count Size Class Distribution
100
90%
■ AB 2015
■ MY 1 2015
80%
70%
60%
c
50%
d
a.
40%
tll
m
30%
U
20%
10%
1.11..
0%
11-6L.1
Particle Size Class (mm)

Table 10. Monitoring Year 1 Stream Summary
Under Silver Creek Restoration Proiect: DMS Protect IU No. 9464,
Creek Mainstern
Pre-ExistingSilver
,
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
mi.
Mean
Mad Max
Mo.
Max
Max
Mo.
Max
BE Width (ft)
ao®aa®aaa
aaa®�®
®0®
®
�0
aaaa�aa�ao®aa�aa�aa®aaa
FloodproneBF
aaaaa
aaaa
BE Mcan Depth HH a®®a��a�ao®aa®aaa®aaaa®��®moo®����o
Max Depth Hit
BE Cmas_sectional Area (ft)
WidthDepth Ratio aaaa®aa�ao®aa�aaa®aaaa��®®moo®��®®©
EntrenclonentRatin aaaa�aamao®aa�aa®aa®aa®®®®�®®����o
aaaa®aa®ao®aa®aaoaa®aa®®�®®o����
o
• aaaaa�aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Pattern
Channel Belmidth(ffi aaaa®aa�aaaaaaaa®aa�aa�®®��®�®®®�®
Radius ofCcavature (it) aaaa®aa®aaaaaaaa®aamaa®®�®®©�®��®e
aaaaoaa®aaaaaaaa®aa�aa�®�®�®�®�®moo
MearderWacdenliffi Hit) aaaa�aa®aaaaaaaa®aa®aa��®®�o�®���o
MeanderWidthRatio aaaa®aa®aaaaaaaa®aa�aa®®®®moo®�®®moo
Pi ofil,
Riffle Length HH aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa®�®�®
®
��®m
Riffle slope Ht/JL
Pool Length (ft) aaaa®aa®aaaaaaaamaa®aa������®����m
"Pool SpPool acing Ho aaaamaa®aamaa®aa�aa�aa®����®�®���m
D •
Volumeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Substrate and Transport Parameters
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaa
Show Stress (competency) aStre—
aaa
®aaaaaaaaaa®aaaaaaaa/107.5Reach
aaa
Max part size (mm) mobiliwd at bankfall (Roagen Curve) aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Power (transport capacity) W/ni aaaa®aa®aaaaaaaamaa®aaaaaaaaaaaaaa
a
DrainageRoagen
®aa®aaa�aaaa®aa®aa®aa®aa®aa®aa
Impervious cover estimate (%) aaaaa�aaaaaaaaaaa®aaaaa®aaaaa�aaa
Classification aaaaa©aaaaa®aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
' aaaa�aa�aoaoaaaaa®aaaaa®aaaaa�aaa
F a®
®�aa�aaa®aaaaa�aaaaa®aaaaa�aaa
Valley Lcngt� aaaaa�aaaaaaaaaaa�aaaaa®aaaaa�aaa
Channel length (11), aaaaa�aaaaaaaaaaa�aaaaa�aaaaa�aaa
Sinuosity aaaaa�aaaaaaaaaaa�aaaaa®aaaaa®aaa
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft) aaaaa
aaaaa®aaaa
as®aaa
aaaaa
aaa
BE slope (ft/ft) a-aaaaaaaaaaaaaa
as®aaa®aaaaa
aaa
Bankfiall Floodplain Area (acres) aaaaa®aaaaaaaaaaa®aaaaa®aaaaa®aaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Biological r OtherI aaaaaaaaaaaaeaaaaeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
H.., W.A., G D J.i.gl. J- m. D.R. Clm—, L O819,A.G, k ­p, J.R, E—tiln, R E S.iffi1999. Bailooll hyloclil Vm," lial—hip, F., N- C—i-o— Wildld Hyd.1,U. AwaA Slap.,,i. �­dmg,. D.S. Cia,l,, lrd J.P. ll.tyrdy, Aalioai W- R—1,
WA, R1 Will, NIA. Wnelr, a. Mixtic MA (71,111, M* Cll--, G*O* saial,,, 0,� Coll— I M, Pl—* 11sia, 131.1 algi� Caw, Fm N-1, C—im M.mMffi Salrow. lic AWTA Cmfalm, Po,—ftp, D1. wlitm Aaerillia Wal, R,w,,, Spmrdty Cortialus, la
Alllli.li MT
Wicc, R-- m Fll,,,, Elluxiatracial, Arlh gl, Ansel.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT
UPPER SILVER CREEK STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION PROJECT
DMS PROJECT NO. 94645

Table 10. Monitoring Year 1 Stream Summary
Upper Silver Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 94645
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT
UPPER SILVER CREEK STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION PROJECT
DMS PROJECT NO. 94645
Pre -Existing Condition'
,.
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
BE Width (ft) a��a®aa®a®®aa®aaa®aaaaa®aaaoa®aaao
FloodpromeWidth aaaa�aa®a®®aa�aa�aa®aaa�aaaoa�aaao
BE Me' a®�a�aa�ao�aa�aaa�aaaaa�aaaoa�aaao
BF Max Depth (it) aaaa®aa�ao�aa®aaa®aaaaa®aaaoa®aaao
BE a®�a©aa�a0®aa�aaa�aaaaa�aaaoa�aaao
"�Width/Depth
aaaaoaa�ao®aa®aaamaaaaa�aaaoa®aaao
RatioBank
EntrencbmentRalio aaaa®aamao�aa�aa®aa�aaa®aaaoa®aaao
Height Ratio aaaa®aa�ao�aa�aa®aa�aaa
aaaoa
aaao
aaaaa�aaaaa®aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (11) aaaa�aamaaaaaaaa®aamaa®�®��®®��
Radius ofCureature (ft) aaaaoaa®aaaaaaaamaamaa®��®�®��®®®®
aaaa®aa®aaaaaaaa®aa�aa®�®®®®®�®®®®
Meander Wavelength (ft) aaaa�aa�aa®aa®aa®aa®aa��
�©��
�a
Meander Width Ratio
Profile
Riffle Length (ft) aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa�®�®®®���®®v
Riffle Slope aaaa
„
as
„
as
as
as „ .
as
as
„ :
„ ,
„ .
, ,.
0
„•
„ ,
„ „
„ :
„ ,
v
Pool Length (ft) aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa��®®�®��®��o
aaaa®aamaa�aa�aamaamaa����®oma®���o
Pool Spacing�aaaaaaa®a��aa�aa®aa®aaa®aaaoa®aaao
Pool Max
Pool Volume (f?) aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Substrate, and Transport Parameters
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
5 aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa—aaaaaaaaaaaaaa
• � �' • aaaa
aaaaaaaaa�aa
43.6 69.0Stream
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f aaaa®aa®a
Visec part size (non) mobilized atbankfull (Rosgen Curve) aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Power (traraport capacity) W/m' aaaaa®aaaa®aa®aaa®aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
a
DrainageReagen
Baa®a
a®aaaa�aa®aa®aa®aa®a
a
Impervious cover estimate (%) a
aaa
a
®aaaa
a
®aaaa
a
aaaa
a�aaaa
a
aaaa
Classification a
as a
a
a as
a
s
�aaaa
a
aaaa
aoaaaa
a
o
a
aaa
BE a
as a
a
a �a
®a®aaa
a
®aaaa
a�aaaa
a
s
aaa
F a®�a®aa®aaamaaaaa®aaaaa�aaaaa®aaaa
ValleyLength a—aaa®aaaaaaaaaaa�aaaaa®aaaaa�aaaa
a-aaa®aaaaa®aaaaa®aaaaa®aaaaa�aaaa
• aaaaa��aaaa�aaaaa®�aaaa®�aaaa®�aaa
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft) aaaaa�aaa�a
aaaaa
aaaa��a�aa�
a�aa
BE aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaa��a�aa�
a�aa
Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres) aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa®aaaaa®aaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Channel Stability orHabitatMetric aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa—
Biological or Other aaaaaaaaaaaaaeaeaeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT
UPPER SILVER CREEK STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION PROJECT
DMS PROJECT NO. 94645

Table 10. Monitoring Year 1 Stream Summary
Under Silver Creek Restoration Proiect: DMS Proiect ID No. 94645
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT
UPPER SILVER CREEK STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION PROJECT
DMS PROJECT NO. 94645
Pre -Existing Condition'
i. .
Dim-sion and Substrate - Riffle
mi.
Med Max
mi.
Me.
Max
me.
Mad Max
Mean
Max
Me-
Max
BE Width Hfl a�®a®Mean
aa
a
aaa
aaa
a
aoa
a
ao
aaaa®aa�ao®aamaa��a
Floodpocre13F
aaa
aaaoa
aaao
BE Mean D pth (ft) a��a�aa
a©�aa�aaa�aaaaa�aaaoa�aaao
Max D:ptli Hit aaaa®aa®aa�aa®aaa�aaaaa�aaaoa�aaao
BE Cross-sectional Area (ft) a®®a�aa�ao®aa®aaa�aaaaa®aaaoa®aaao
aaaa®aa�ao®aa®aaa�aaaaa�aaaoa®aaao
Rati.Bank
Entrenchment Ratio aaaa�aa�aa�aa®aa0aa�aaa�aaaoa®aaao
Height Ratio aaaa®aa®aaaaaaaaa®aaaaa®aaaoa®aaao
• aaaaa�aaaaa®aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Pattern
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa®aa�aa��®®®®��®®�®
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa®aamaa®®�®tea®®�®�®
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa�aa®aa®®���®®����©
aaaaaaaaaa®aa®aa�aa®aa®��®�®®��®�®
MearderWidthRatio aaaaaaaaaa®aa®aa®aa�aa®®��®a�����a
Riffle Length Hit) aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa®®®�®®�®®®�©
Riffle Slope aaaa
aa�aa
aa�aa�aa
as
®
•
•
v
aaaa®aa®aaaaaaaa®aa�aa®®���©�®�®moo
" '� aaaa�aa®aa�aa�aaoaamaa��®�®©�����o
• aaaaaaaaaaa�aaaaa®aaaaa®aaaoa�aaao
Pool Volume (ft') aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Substrate and Transport Parameters
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa—aaaaaaaaaaaaaa
•5� d8 •• aaaa
Reach Shear Stmas (competency) UP aaaaaaa5.6
aa
®aa®aaa®aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
size (mm)
Max part urnobillwdatbankfull(RosgeriCurve) aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaa®aa®aa®aa®aaa®aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
a
DrainageRosgen
a®aaaaa®aaaa®aa®aa®
as®a
a
Impervious cover estimate (%) aaaaaaaaa
a®aaaaa®aaaaa�aaaaa®aaaa
Classification aaaaa�aaaaa�aaaaa�aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
a
aaa
®a
a ®a
a
®a
®aaa
a
®aaaa
a
s
aaa
a®a
aaa
Discharge aa®a®aamaaamaaaaa�aaaaa�aaaaa®aaaa
a
aaa
a®a
as
a
a
a
a aaa
a
�aaaa
a�
a
aaa
a�
a
aaa
aaaaa�aaaaa®aaaaa®aaaaa�aaaaa�aaaa
• a—aaa�aaaaa�aaaaa®aaaaa®aaaaa®aaaa
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft) aaaa®aa®aaa
aaaa
®aa®
a®aaa�aaaa
BE aaaaa
aaaaaaaaaa�
��aa
a®aaa®aaaa
Bankfiall Floodplain Area (acres) aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa®aaaaa®aaaa
a—aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa—
Biological or Other
eeaeaaaeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaI
H- W.A., G.D. Jmj.gl, 1- Paul,., D.R. Cl.W., L.O. Slua, A,0. J WjR.E,,iaa­da_E.Sah. 1999. B.�lhydWi�g�"Illtim,Wplfl�N,�CM]iw,nm,.WiididHyftl,U. AWRASoup­ruo� diupD.S. 01— ard J P. P,uy,,dyd.,. A—um W-, R,,.=,, A­ufiu,3a July 2, 1"9. 13—narn, W.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT
UPPER SILVER CREEK STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION PROJECT
DMS PROJECT NO. 94645

Table 10. Monitoring Year 1 Stream Summary
Upper Silver Creek Restoration Proiect: DMS Proiect ID No. 94645
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT
UPPER SILVER CREEK STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION PROJECT
DMS PROJECT NO. 94645
Pre -Existing Condition'
,.
,
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
BE Width (ft)
Floodprone
WidthBE
aaaa®aa�aa�aa�aaaaaaaa������������
Me'
BF Max Depth (ft)
aaaa®aa�aa�aa�aa®aa®aa®®®®�a��®®tea
BFCwss-sectio
'Bank
• � � •
aaaa®aa©aa®aa®aaa�aaaa�®���a�����a
Entrenchment Ratio
aaaa®aa®aa�aa®aaaaaaaa®��®�®�®��®
Height Ratio
aaaa�aa®aaaaaaaa®aa�aa�®®®�®®®®®�®
aaaaa�aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaa®aamaaaaaaaa®aa�aa���®
o��®
•
v
aaaamaamaaaaaaaa®aa®aam��®
om��®
•
a
aaaa®aa�aaaaaaaa�aa®aa�����o
•••
����o
aaaamaa®aa®aa®aa®aamaa®�®�
o��®�
v
MeanderWidthRatio
aaaa�aa�aa®aa®aaaaa®aa���
�o���
�o
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa®®���m��®®®®
Riffle Slope
aaaa
, ,,
as
„ , as
, ,
as
as „ ,
as
„ as
, ,, .
„ :
„ „ :
, ,,
m
, ,,
„ .
„ •
„ .
, ,,
Pool Length (ft)
aaaa®aamaa®aamaamaamaa���®©m®���®m
Pool Spacing (to
aaaa�aa�aa�aa�aamaa®aa�m®�®®®®���m
Pool Max Depth
Pool Volume (f�)
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Substrate, and Transport Parameters
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaa10
8 4 17143 57a
.2 57.0 78
0 •�
Reach Shea, Stress (competency) lb/f
aaaa®aa®aaaaaaaaa�aaaa®aaaaaaaaa
Max part size (traff no"bili-datbankfull(RosgenCurve)
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Stream Pcover(transport capacity)
aaaa®aa®aa�aa®aaa®aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Drainage
a
Baa®aaa®aaaa�aa®aa®aa®aa®aa®aa
Impervious cover estimate (%)
aaaaa�aaaa
aaaaaaa�aaaaaaaaaaaaaeaa
Rosgest Classification
aaaaa©aaaaa�aaaaa©aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
BE Velocity ops�
aaaa®aa®aa
®a®aaaa®aaaaa®aaaaa®aaaa
�
Fa®®a®aa®aaa®aaaaa®aaaaa®aaaaa®aaaa
aaaaa®aaaaaaaaaaa�aaaaa®aaaaa�aaaa
Channel length (ft) 2
aaaaa®aaaaa®aaaaa®aaaaa�aaaaa�aaaa
aaaaa®aaaa
a�aaaaa®aaaaa®aaaaa®aaaa
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
aaaaa�aaaaa�aaaaa
aaaaa�aaaaa
aaaa
BE
aaaaa�aaaa
aaaaaaa�aaaaa®aaaaa�aaaa
Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
a-aaa®aaaa
aaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Channel Stability orHabitatMetric
a aaa
as
a as a
a
a
as
a a a
aaaaa
aaaaaa
as
a
aaa
Biological or0ther
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa2.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT
UPPER SILVER CREEK STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION PROJECT
DMS PROJECT NO. 94645

Table 11. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Upper Silver Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 94645
Silver Creek (3,016 LF)
Cross-section X-1, Station 2724.3 (Riffle)
Cross-section X-2, Station 2636.7 (Pool)
Cross-section X-3, Station 1898.2 (Pool)
Cross-section X-4, Station 1793.8 (Riffle)
Dimension and substrate
Base
MY1
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
MY+ Base
MYl
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
MY+ Base
MYI
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
MY+ Base
MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
BF Width ft
29.1
24.6
35.7
29.5
43.5
39.5
23.8
23.5
BF Mean Depth fr
1.7
1.8
1.6
1.8
1.7
1.5
2.0
1.9
Width/Depth Ratio
17.2
13.9
21.8
16.8
25.2
27.3
11.8
12.4
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft2
49.2
43.4
58.3
51.9
74.9
57.3
48.0
44.2
BF Max Depth(ft)
3.0
2.9
4.0
3.9
5.2
4.0
3.3
3.2
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
>300
>300
>300
>300
>300
90.6
>300
87.3
Entrenchment Ratio
3.3
3.9
2.5
3.0
2.1
2.3
3.7
3.7
Bank Height Ratio
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.7
0.7
1.0
1.0
Wetted Perimeter ft
32.4
28.1
38.9
33.0
46.9
42.4
27.8
27.3
Hydraulic Radius ft
1.5*
1.5
1.5*
1.6
1.6*
1.4
1.7*
1.6
Fixed baseline bankfull elevatio
1197.4
1197.4
1198.2
1198.2
1202.3
1202.3
1203.0
1203.0
Based on current/developing bankfull feature
BF Width (ft)
29.1
26.2
35.7
29.5
43.5
42.55
23.8
23.5
BF Mean Depth ft
1.7
1.7
1.6
1.8
1.7
1.45
2.0
1.9
Width/Depth Ratio
17.2
15.2
21.8
16.8
25.2
29.31
11.8
12.4
BF Cross-sectional Area ft
49.2
45.1
58.3
51.9
74.9
61.8
48.0
44.2
BF Max Depth (ft)
3.0
3.0
4.0
3.9
5.2
4.15
3.3
3.2
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
>300
>300
>300
>300
>300
>300
>300
87.3
Entrenchment Ratio
3.3
3.7
2.5
3.0
2.1
2.1
3.7
3.7
Bank Height Ratio
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.7
0.7
1.0
1.0
Wetted Perimeter ft
32.4
29.7
38.9
33.0
46.9
45.5
27.8
27.3
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.6
1.6
1.4
1.7
1.6
Cross Sectional Area between end pins (d)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
d50 (mm)
36.6
41.3
* Corrected from baseline report.
Cross-section X-5, Station 1206.9 (Riffle)
Cross-section X-6, Station 357.2 (Pool)
Cross-section 7, Station 302.5 (Riffle)
Dimension and substrate
Base
MYl
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
MY+ Base
MYl
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
MY+ Base
MYl
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
MY+ Base
MY I MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
BF Width (ft)
28.4
26.1
43.5
41.9
26.6
25.9
BF Mean Depth (ft)
1.7
1.7
1.8
1.8
2.1
2.0
Width/Depth Ratio
17.3
15.7
23.6
23.9
13.0
13.3
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft
46.9
43.4
80.1
73.5
54.5
50.6
BF Max Depth (ft)
2.9
2.8
5.3
5.0
3.3
3.2
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
>300
>300
>300
>300
>300
>300
Entrenchment Ratio
3.1
3.3
1.6
1.6
4.8
4.9
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
31.7
29.4
47.2
45.4
30.7
29.8
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
2
2
1.7
1.7
1.8
1.7
Fixed baseline bankfiill elevatior
1208.8
1208.8
1208.1
1208.1
1208.2
1208.2
Based on current/developing bankfull feature
BF Width (ft)
28.4
26.1
43.5
41.9
26.6
25.9
BF Mean Depth (ft)
1.7
1.7
1.8
1.8
2.1
2.0
Width/Depth Ratio
17.3
15.7
23.6
23.9
13.0
13.3
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft
46.9
43.4
80.1
73.5
54.5
50.6
BF Max Depth (ft)
2.9
2.8
5.3
5.0
3.3
3.2
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
>300
>300
>300
>300
>300
>300
Entrenchment Ratio
3.1
3.3
1.6
1.6
4.8
4.9
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
31.7
29.4
47.2
45.4
30.7
29.8
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
2
2
1.7
1.7
1.8
1.7
Cross Sectional Area between end pins (ft )
d50 (mm)
33.4
15.2
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
MONITORING YEAR 1 REPORT
UPPER SILVER CREEK STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION PROJECT
DMS PROJECT NO. 94645

Table 11. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Upper Silver Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 94645
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
MONITORING YEAR 1 REPORT
UPPER SILVER CREEK STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION PROJECT
DMS PROJECT NO. 94645
StationCross-section X-13,
„ .,
Base
MYI MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
MY+ Base
MYI MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MYI MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MYI MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
BF Mean Depth
Width/Depth Ratio
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft2l
BF Max Depth (ft)
Width ofFloodprone Area (11)
Entrenchment
Wetted Perieter (ft)
Hydraulic Radius (11)
Fixed baseline bankfull elevatior
Based on current/developing bankfull feature
BF Width (fl)
BF Mean Depth (ft)
Width/Depth Ratio
BF Cross-sectional Area (11',
BF Max Depth (ft)
Width ofFloodprone Area (ft)
Entrenchment Ratit
Bank Height tWetted
��-----
®0
------------ -------
Perimeter (ft)
Hydraulic Radius
-------
--------------
-------
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
MONITORING YEAR 1 REPORT
UPPER SILVER CREEK STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION PROJECT
DMS PROJECT NO. 94645
Cross-section X- 15, Station 2+15 (Pool)
Cross-section X- 16, Station 2+53 (Riffle)
Base
MYI MY2 W3 MY4 MY5
MY+ Base
wi MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base Myl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MYI MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Based on current/developing bankfull feature
BF Width (ft)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
MONITORING YEAR 1 REPORT
UPPER SILVER CREEK STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION PROJECT
DMS PROJECT NO. 94645

Table 11. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Upper Silver Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 94645
UT3 (1,348 LF)
Cross-section X-8, Station 5+29 (Riffle)
Cross-section X-9, Station 7+16 (Pool)
Cross-section X-10, Station 7+37 (Riffle)
Cross-section X-11, Station 10+55 (Pool)
Dimension and substrate
Base
MYI
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
MY+ Base
MYI MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
MY+ Base
MYI MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
MY+ Base
MYI MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
BF Width (ft)
10.1
8.8
10.7
9.5
8.1
7.0
13.0
11.5
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.65
0.61
1.0
0.82
0.78
0.68
1.0
0.85
Width/Depth Ratio
15.5
14.5
10.5
11.6
10.3
10.2
12.8
13.7
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft)6.5
5.3
10.9
7.8
6.3
4.8
13.2
9.7
BF Max Depth (ft)
1.1
1.1
1.7
1.6
1.1
0.9
2.2
1.9
Width of Flood roneArea(ft)
>150
>150
>150
>150
>150
>150
>150
>150
Entrenchment Ratio
5.4
6.1
5.8
6.6
8.5
9.9
5.6
6.3
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.2
1.1
1.2
1.0
1.1
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
11.4
10.0
12.8
11.1
9.6
8.3
15.1
13.2
Hydraulic Radius (ft
0.6
0.5
0.9
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.9
0.7
Fixed baseline bankfull elevatio
1215.4
1215.4
1212.8
1212.8
1212.9
1212.9
1209.3
1209.3
Based on current/developing bankfull feature
BF Width (ft)
10.1
11.68
10.7
12.1
8.1
7.47
13
13.02
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.65
0.53
1.0
0.87
0.78
0.76
1.0
0.92
Width/Depth Ratio
15.5
22.03
10.5
13.84
10.3
9.83
12.8
14.21
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft
6.5
6.2
10.9
10.6
6.3
5.7
13.2
11.9
BF Max Depth (ft)
1.1
1.14
1.7
1.86
1.1
1.1
2.2
2.06
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
>150
>150
>150
>150
>150
>150
>150
Entrenchment Ratio
5.4
4.6
5.8
5.2
8.5
9.2
5.6
5.6
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1
1.0
1
1.1
1.1
1.0
1.0
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
11.4
12.7
12.7
13.8
9.7
9.0
15.0
14.9
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.6
0.5
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.9
0.8
Cross Sectional Area between end pins (d)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
d50 (mm)
31.2
20.4
Cross-section X-12, Station 10+81 (Riffle)
Dimension and substrate
Base
MYI
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
MY+ Base
MYI MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
MY+ Base
MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
MY+ Base
MYI MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
BF Width (ft)
8.2
7.8
BF Mean Depth ft
0.9
0.7
Width/Depth Ratio
9.1
10.6
BF Cross-sectional Area ftp
7.3
5.8
BF Max Depth (ft
1.4
1.1
Width of Floodprone Area ft
>150
>150
Entrenchment Ratio
9.4
7.0
Bank Height Ratio
1.2
1.3
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
10.0
9.3
Hydraulic Radius ft
0.7
0.6
Fixed baseline bankfull elevatio
1208.8
1208.8
Based on current/developing bankfull feature
BF Width (ft)
8.2
9.13
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.9
0.87
Width/Depth Ratio
9.1
10.45
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft)
7.3
8
BF Max Depth (ft)
1.4
1.34
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
>150
>150
Entrenchment Ratio
9.4
8.5
Bank Height Ratio
1.2
1
Wetted Perimeter ft
10.0
10.9
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.7
0.7
Cross Sectional Area between end pins (d)
-
-
d50 (mm)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
MONITORING YEAR 1 REPORT
UPPER SILVER CREEK STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION PROJECT
DMS PROJECT NO. 94645

Includes:
Appendix E
Wetland Assessment Data
Figure 8. Observed Rainfall vs. Historical Average
Figure 9. Wetland Gauge Graphs
Table 12. Wetland Gauge Attainment data
Table 12a. Wetland Area Well Success
Figure 10. Wetland Photo Log

Figure 8. Observed Rainfall at four nearby recording stations and historic average at the Casar
(311538) station near the U. Silver Creek Project, with 30th and 70th percentiles of monthly
averages from 1958 to 2012.
Upper Silver Creek Project, MY1
Observed Rainfall versus Historic Average
10.0
8.0
U
c 6.0 _ ---------------
4.0
-- -----4.0 '
2.0
0.0
tiX10 100
------- Historic 70th percentile Rutherfordton Airport (KFQD)
— — Historic Average Ruth, NC (NRUT)
-------Historic 30th percentile Casar (311538)
Union Mills NC -RT -8
Rainfall data source for KGQD:
http://climate.ncsu.edu/cronos?station=KFQD&temporal=monthly
Rainfall data source for NRUT:
http://climate.ncsu.edu/cronos?station=NRUT&temporal=monthly
Rainfall data source for NC -RT -8:
http://climate.ncsu.edu/cronos/?station=NC-RT-8&temporal=monthly
Rainfall data source for 311538:
http://climate.ncsu.edu/cronos/?station=311538&temporal=monthly

I
Upper Silver Creek Rain
I
1/1/2015
2/15/2015 4/1/2015
5/16/2015 6/30/2015 8/14/2015 9/28/2015
11/12/2015 12/27/2015
0.0
I
GROWING SEASON
(4/3 - 10/29)
c
I
-
1.0
m
w
c
2.0
3.0
Rainfall data from NC CRONOS Data Station-
Casar. NC IID 3115381.
Upper Silver Creek Wetland Restoration Well
(USAW1)
10
Ground
5Well
inAstalled - 3/31/2015
Surface
I A.
I
-12 inches
S
-5
L
N
w
-10
USAW1
-15
0"-20
—
—Begin
Growing
�.
25
Season
End
=
d
p
-30
Growing
Season
-35
-40
-45
-50
1/1/2015
2/15/2015 4/1/2015
5/16/2015 6/30/2015 8/14/2015 9/28/2015
11/12/2015 12/27/2015
Date
I
I
I
YR1 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
CRITERIA MET - 36.5 (17.5%)
(4/3/2015-5/9/2015)
1
I
I
GROWING SEASON
(4/3 - 10/29)
I

Upper Silver Creek Rain
1/1/2015 2/15/2015 4/1/2015 5/16/2015 6/30/2015 8/14/2015 9/28/2015 11/12/2015
0.0
c
1.0
R
c
R 2.0
30
Rainfall data from NC CRONOS Data Station: Casar. NC IID 3115381.
Upper Silver Creek Wetland Restoration Well
(USAW2)
10
5
0
c -5
L
;; -10
R
3a -15
c
° -20
C7
° -25
Y
CL
-30
-35
-40
-45
-50
Well installed - 3/31/2015
I I
ow L
I
I I
I
YR1 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
21.8 (10.5%)
(4/13/2015-5/3/2015)
IF
I
GROWING SEASON
(4/3 - 10/29)
12/27/2015
1/1/2015 2/15/2015 4/1/2015 5/16/2015 6/30/2015 8/14/2015 9/28/2015 11/12/2015 12/27/2015
Date
Ground
Surface
-12 inches
USAW2
Begin
Growing
Season
End
Growing
Season

I
I
Upper Silver Creek Rain
1/1/2015
2/15/2015 4/1/2015
5/16/2015 6/30/2015 8/14/2015 9/28/2015
11/12/2015 12/27/2015
0.0
I
I
YR1 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
20.3 (9.7%)
(4/13/2015 -5/3/2015)
c
=
1.0
R
c
R
2.0
3.0
Rainfall
data from NC CRONOS Data Station: Casar.
NC IID 3115381.
Upper Silver Creek Wetland Restoration Well
(USAW3)
10
Ground
5
Well installed - 3/31/2015
Surface
-12 inches
c
-5
L
ID
-10
USAW3
3a
, q-%6
c
-15
p_20
— — Begin
(D
Growing
25
Season
Y
Q
— — End
r-30
Growing
�
Season
-35
-40
-45
-50
1/1/2015
2/15/2015 4/1/2015
5/16/2015 6/30/2015 8/14/2015 9/28/2015
11/12/2015 12/27/2015
Date
I
I
I
I
I
YR1 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
20.3 (9.7%)
(4/13/2015 -5/3/2015)
GROWING SEASON
(4/3 - 10/29)

Upper Silver Creek Rain
1/1/2015 2/15/2015 4/1/2015 5/16/2015 6/30/2015 8/14/2015 9/28/2015 11/12/2015
0.0
c
1.0
R
c
R 2.0
10
5
0
-5
`m 10
tv
-15
'o -20
L
(D
o -25
s
a -30
m
O
-35
-40
-45
50
Rainfall data from NC CRONOS Data Station: Casar. NC IID 3115381.
Upper Silver Creek Wetland Restoration Well
(USAW4)
Well installed - 3/31/2015 YR1 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
5.5(2.6%)
(10/1/2015-10/6/2015) URI
I
I I
I I
GROWING SEASON
(4/3 -10/29)
I
12/27/2015
1/1/2015 2/15/2015 4/1/2015 5/16/2015 6/30/2015 8/14/2015 9/28/2015 11/12/2015 12/27/2015
Date
Ground
Surface
-12 inches
USAW4
Begin
Growing
Season
End
Growing
Season

Well installed - 3/31/2015
I
I
Upper Silver Creek Rain
1/1/2015
2/15/2015 4/1/2015 5/16/2015 6/30/2015 8/14/2015 9/28/2015 11/12/2015
12/27/2015
I
0.0
c
I
I
GROWING SEASON I
(4/3 -10/29) I
=
1.0
R
c
R
2.0
3.0
Rainfall data from NC CRONOS Data Station: Casar. NC IID 3115381.
Upper Silver Creek Wetland Restoration Well
(USAW5)
10
Ground
5
Surface
0
-12 inches
-5
Na
m
-10
USAW5
R
-15
O
20
— — Begin
Growing
O
25
Season
.c
a
30
— —End
y
Growing
O
Season
35
-40
-45
-50
1/1/2015
2/15/2015 4/1/2015 5/16/2015 6/30/2015 8/14/2015 9/28/2015 11/12/2015
12/27/2015
Date
Well installed - 3/31/2015
I
I
I
I
YR1 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
CRITERIA MET - 80.5 (38.7%)
(4/3/2015-6/22/2015)
I
I
I
I
GROWING SEASON I
(4/3 -10/29) I

Upper Silver Creek Rain
1/1/2015 2/15/2015 4/1/2015 5/16/2015 6/30/2015 8/14/2015 9/28/2015 11/12/2015
0.0
c
1.0
R
c
R 2.0
30
Rainfall data from NC CRONOS Data Station: Casar. NC (ID 3115381.
Upper Silver Creek Wetland Restoration Well
(USAW6)
10
5
0
-5
`m 10
R
-15
c
o -20
L
(D
o -25
.c
a -30
m
O
-35
-40
-45
-50
Well installed - 3/31/2015
I
I
GROWING SEASON
(4/3 - 10/29)
12/27/2015
YR1 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
19.5(9.4%)
(9/25/2015-10/14/2015)
I
1/1/2015 2/15/2015 4/1/2015 5/16/2015 6/30/2015 8/14/2015 9/28/2015 11/12/2015 12/27/2015
Date
Ground
Surface
-12 inches
USAW6
Begin
Growing
Season
End
Growing
Season

Upper Silver Creek Rain
1/1/2015 2/15/2015 4/1/2015 5/16/2015 6/30/2015 8/14/2015 9/28/2015 11/12/2015
0.0
c
1.0
R
c
R 2.0
10
5
0
-5
`m 10
tv
-15
'o -20
L
(D
o -25
a -30
m
O
-35
-40
-45
50
Rainfall data from NC CRONOS Data Station: Casar. NC IID 3115381.
Upper Silver Creek Wetland Restoration Well
(USAW7)
Well installed - 3/31/2015
I I
fA
I I
I I
YR1 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
CRITERIA MET - 74.5 (35.8%)
(4/3/2015-6/16/2015)
GROWING SEASON
(4/3 - 10/29)
12/27/2015
1/1/2015 2/15/2015 4/1/2015 5/16/2015 6/30/2015 8/14/2015 9/28/2015 11/12/2015 12/27/2015
Date
Ground
Surface
12 inches
USAW7
Begin
Growing
Season
End
Growing
Season

Upper Silver Creek Rain
1/1/2015 2/15/2015 4/1/2015 5/16/2015 6/30/2015 8/14/2015 9/28/2015 11/12/2015
0.0
c
1.0
R
c
R 2.0
10
5
c
0
d
r
3 -5
3 -10
O
LD -15
O
Y
r -20
CL
o -25
-30
-35
-40
-45
50
Rainfall data from NC CRONOS Data Station: Casar. NC (ID 3115381.
Upper Silver Creek Wetland Restoration Well
(USAW8)
Well installed
-3/31/2015 if YR1 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
1
2.51(1.2%) 1
1 (9/26/2015-9/28/2015
777
I I
I I
GROWING SEASON
(4/3 -10/29)
I
12/27/2015
1/1/2015 2/15/2015 4/1/2015 5/16/2015 6/30/2015 8/14/2015 9/28/2015 11/12/2015 12/27/2015
Date
Ground
Surface
12 inches
USAW8
Begin
Growing
Season
End
Growing
Season

1
I
Upper Silver Creek Rain
1/1/2015
2/15/2015 4/1/2015 5/16/2015 6/30/2015 8/14/2015 9/28/2015
11/12/2015 12/27/2015
I
0.0
I
I
c
I
GROWING SEASON
(4/3 - 10/29)
I
=
1.0
R
c
R
2.0
3.0
Rainfall
data from NC CRONOS Data Station: Casar. NC (ID 311538).
Upper Silver Creek Wetland Restoration Well
(USAW9)
10
Ground
5Well
installed - 3/31/2015
Surface
c
0
y
-12 inches
3
-5
NN
3
-10
USAW9
LD
-15
0
Y
r
-20
— — Begin
Q-
Growing
p
Season
_25
— — End
-30
Growing
-35
YR1 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
Season
-40
-45
-50
1/1/2015
2/15/2015 4/1/2015 5/16/2015 6/30/2015 8/14/2015 9/28/2015
11/12/2015 12/27/2015
Date
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
CRITERIA MET - 35.5 (17.1%)
(4/3/2015 - 5/8/2015)
I
I
GROWING SEASON
(4/3 - 10/29)
I

1
Upper Silver Creek Rain
1/1/2015
2/15/2015 4/1/2015 5/16/2015 6/30/2015 8/14/2015 9/28/2015
11/12/2015
12/27/2015
I
I
0.0
I
I
I
I
1
GROWING SEASON
(4/3 - 10/29)
c
=
1.0
R
c
R
2.0
3.0
Rainfall
data from NC CRONOS Data Station: Casar. NC (ID 3115381.
Upper Silver Creek Wetland Restoration Well
(USAW10)
10
Ground
5Well
installed - 3/31/2015
Surface
c
0
CD
-12 inches
3
-5
I 1A
3
0
-10
4�k
USAW10
-15
0
Y
r
-20
— — Begin
=-
CD
Growing
-25
Season
— — End
-30
Growing
-35
YR1 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
Season
19.8(9.5%)
-40
(4/13/2015-4/28/2015)
-45
-50
1/1/2015
2/15/2015 4/1/2015 5/16/2015 6/30/2015 8/14/2015 9/28/2015
11/12/2015
12/27/2015
Date
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
GROWING SEASON
(4/3 - 10/29)

Upper Silver Creek Rain
1/1/2015 2/15/2015 4/1/2015 5/16/2015 6/30/2015 8/14/2015 9/28/2015 11/12/2015
0.0
cTT
1.0
R
c
R 2.0
30 -
Rainfall data from NC CRONOS Data Station: Casar. NC (ID 3115381.
Upper Silver Creek Wetland Restoration Well
(USAW11)
10
5
0
c -5
L
-10
m
a 15
c
3
-20
C7
-25
r
CL
t
Y
-30
-35
-40
-45
-50
12/27/2015
Well installed - 3/31/2015 1 1
I
I I
I I
I I
YR1 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
18.5(8.9%)
(4/14/2015 - 5/2/2015) GROWING SEASON
(4/3 - 10/29)
1/1/2015 2/15/2015 4/1/2015 5/16/2015 6/30/2015 8/14/2015 9/28/2015 11/12/2015 12/27/2015
Date
Ground
Surface
12 inches
USAW11
Begin
Growing
Season
End
Growing
Season

Upper Silver Creek Rain
1/1/2015
2/15/2015 4/1/2015 5/16/2015 6/30/2015 8/14/2015 9/28/2015 11/12/2015
12/27/2015
0.0 -
c
—Begin
YR1 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
17.5 (8.4%)
(4/14/2015-5/1/2015)
-
1.0
Growing
Season
— —End
Growing
Season
I
GROWING SEASON
(4/3 - 10/29)
�v
w
I
c
co
2.0
3.0
Rainfall data from NC CRONOS Data Station: Casar. NC (ID 311538) -
Upper Silver Creek Wetland Restoration Well
(USAW12)
10
I
I
Well installed - 3/31/2015
Ground
5
Surface
0
I
I
-12 inches
c
-5
R
3
-10
USAW 12
-15--
°
-20
-25
G
30
-35
-40
-F
-45
-50
1/1/2015
2/15/2015 4/1/2015 5/16/2015 6/30/2015 8/14/2015 9/28/2015
11/12/2015
12/27/2015
Date
—Begin
YR1 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
17.5 (8.4%)
(4/14/2015-5/1/2015)
I
I
Growing
Season
— —End
Growing
Season
I
GROWING SEASON
(4/3 - 10/29)
I

Table 12. Wetland gauge attainment data, summary of groundwater gauge results for MY 1
through 5 at the U. Silver Creek Project Site, DMS Project #94645.
Success Criteria Achieved/Max Consecutive Days During Growing Season
Gauge
(Percentage)
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Year 1 (2015)
Year 2 (2016)
Year 3 (2017)
Year 4 (2018)
Year 5 (2019)
Yes/36.5 days
USAW1
(17.5%)
No/21.8 days
USAW2
(10.5%)
No/20.3 days
USAW3
(9.7 %)
No/5.5 days
USAW4
(2.6 %)
Yes/80.5 days
USAW5
(38.7%)
No/19.5 days
USAW6
(9.4 %)
Yes/74.5 days
USAW7
(35.8%)
No/2.5 days
USAW8
(1.2%)
Yes/35.5 days
USAW9
(17.1%)
No/19.8 days
USAW10
(9.5%)
No/18.5 days
USAW11
(8.9 %)
No/17.5 days
USAW12
(8.4%)

Table 12. Wetland Restoration Area Well Success
Upper Silver Creek Restoration Project: Project ID No. 94645
Percentage of
Most Consecutive
Percentage of
Number of Instances where
Well ID
Consecutive Days <12
Days Meeting
Cumulative Days <12
Cumulative Days
Water Table is 12 inches
inches from Ground
Criteria '
inches from Ground
Meeting Criteria 3
from Ground Surface 4
Surface'
Surface'
Cross-sectional Well Arrays
USAW 1
17.5 36.5 27.9 58.0 8
USAW2
10.5 21.8 29.9 62.3 10
USAW3
9.7 20.3 22.6 47.0 7
USAW4
2.6 5.5 9.3 19.3 5
USAW5
38.7 80.5 57.7 120.0 9
USAW6
9.4 19.5 19.4 40.3 9
USAW7
35.8 74.5 55.3 115.0 8
USAW8
1.2 2.5 5.4 11.3 10
USAW9
17.1 35.5 27.0 56.3 10
USAW10
9.5 19.8 24.9 51.8 11
USAW 11
8.9 18.5 20.4 42.5 7
USAW12
8.4 17.5 13.8 28.8 4
Notes:
'Indicates the percentage of most consecutive number of days within the monitored growing season with water table 12 inches or
less from the soil surface.
21ndicates the most consecutive number of days within the monitored growing season with a water table 12 inches or less from the
soil surface.
;Indicates the cumulative number of days within the monitored growing season with a water table 12 inches or less from the soil
surface.
4Indicates the number of instances within the monitored growing season when the water table rose to 12 inches or less from the soil
surface.
Growing season for Burke County is from April 3 to October 29 and is 208 days long.
Growing season percentage for success is 12% of 208 days = 25 days; where water table is 12 inches or less from the ground surface
HIGHLIGHTED indicates wells that did not meet the success criteria for the most consecutive number of days within the
monitored growing season with a water 12 inches or less from the soil surface. Following Year 1 wetland monitoring, eight of
twelve wells did not exhibit a hyrdroperiod of 12% or greater during the growing season. These wells will be observed closely
throughout monitoring Year 2.
All In -Situ groundwater monitoring dataloggers were installed on 3/17/2015. Installation of the dataloggers was completed
following construction in spring 2015 when groundwater levels are normally closer to the ground surface.

Figure 10. Upper Silver Creek Wetland Photos
Monitoring Year 1 (2015)
Photo 1. Wetland Photo Point — WI, replicates photo 50 in
Baseline Report (taken March 2016).
Photo 2. Wetland Photo Point — W2, replicates photo 51 in
Baseline Report (taken March 2016).
Photo 3. Wetland Photo Point — W3 replicates photo 52 in
Baseline Report (taken March 2016).
Photo 4. Wetland Photo Point — W4, replicates photo 53 in
Baseline Report (taken March 2016).
Photo 5. Wetland Photo Point — W5, replicates photo 54 it
Baseline Report (taken March 2016).
hoto 6. Wetland Photo Point — W6, replicates photo 55 i
Baseline Report (taken March 2016).

Photo 7. Wetland Photo Point — W7, replicates photo 56 in Photo 8. Wetland Photo Point — W8, replicates photo 57 in
Baseline Report (taken March 2016). Baseline Report (taken March 2016).
'hoto 9. Wetland Photo Point — W9, replicates photo 58 in Photo 10. Wetland Photo Point — W10, replicates photo 59 in
Baseline Report (taken March 2016). Baseline Report (taken March 2016).
LLY
Photo 11. Wetland Photo Point— W 11, replicates photo 60 in Photo 12. Wetland Photo Point — W12, replicates photo 61 in
Baseline Report (taken March 2016). Baseline Report (taken March 2016).

Photo 13. Wetland Photo Point — W 13 added between time of photo 14. Wetland Photo Point — downstream of deer -stand.
baseline and MY survey, (April 1, 2015) Replicates photo 62 in Baseline Report (taken March 2016).
Photo 15. Wetland Photo Point — upstream of deer -stand. Photo 16. Wetland Photo Point — left bank cross-section 7 pin
Replicates photo 63 in Baseline Report (taken March 2016). to veg plot 5. Replicates photo 64 in Baseline Report (taken
March 2016).
Photo 17. Wetland Photo Point — left bank cross-section 7 pin Photo 18. Wetland Photo Point upstream of well 2 toward
to veg plot 4. Replicates photo 65 in Baseline Report (taken vegetation plot 3. Replicates photo 66 in Baseline Report
March 2016). (taken March 2016).
Ary
-
Photo 17. Wetland Photo Point — left bank cross-section 7 pin Photo 18. Wetland Photo Point upstream of well 2 toward
to veg plot 4. Replicates photo 65 in Baseline Report (taken vegetation plot 3. Replicates photo 66 in Baseline Report
March 2016). (taken March 2016).

Photo 19. Wetland Photo Point — up valley from left bank at
station 22+00. Replicates photo 67 in Baseline Report (taken
March 2016).