20050734 Ver 1_Year 2 Monitoring Report_20080527

SILVER CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT
ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT FOR 2007 (YEAR 2)
Project Number D04006-5
,
1
y.
a l't k .., .. .i>•
W S Ly I'?T-.1'? _ ilk
%
l 1. 1 t? b X b?I
.
g • ? ,} .1 t t r s . "Ir ? r?,.?`6,, kye.?' ,?.4b it .. -
i •
r Y ? ,} 1, ? V ? f 1'? -
1 ? ? gM? • -
t All
Submitted to: NCDENR - Ecosystem Enhancement Program
2728 Capital Blvd, Suite I H 103
Raleigh, NC 27604
'Osptem
I_;Il
Prepared for: EBX Neuse-I, LLC
909 Capability Drive
Suite 3100
Raleigh, NC 27606
Prepared by: Baker Engineering NY, Inc.
Baker Engineering NV, Inc.
- 6000 Regency Parkway
- dh S.,1. 200
-ary. Nonh Carair+a 27518
0- 919.663.5188
919.463.5490
D?
December 2007
Mq Y
?oFNR.
RECEIVED
JAN 1 6 ?008,
NC ECCSYS?' n
ENHANCED.' .. AM

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................ 1
2.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND ........................................................................................... .. 2
2.1 Project Location ............................................................................................................. .. 2
2.2 Mitigation Goals and Objectives .................................................................................... .. 2
2.3 Project Description and Restoration Approach .............................................................. .. 2
2.4 Project History and Background .................................................................................... .. 3
2.5 Project Plan .................................................................................................................... .. 3
3.0 VEGETATION MONITORING .................................................................................... .. 7
3.1 Soil Data ......................................................................................................................... .. 7
3.2 Description of Vegetation Monitoring ........................................................................... .. 7
3.3 Vegetation Success Criteria ........................................................................................... .. 8
3.4 Results of Vegetative Monitoring .................................................................................. .. 8
3.5 Vegetation Observations ................................................................................................ .. 9
3.6 Vegetation Photos .......................................................................................................... .. 9
4.0 STREAM MONITORING .............................................................................................. 10
4.1 Description of Stream Monitoring ................................................................................. 10
4.2 Stream Restoration Success Criteria .............................................................................. 10
4.3 Bankfull Discharge Monitoring Results ......................................................................... 11
4.4 Stream Monitoring Data and Photos .............................................................................. 11
4.5 Stream Stability Assessment .......................................................................................... 11
4.6 Stream Stability Baseline ............................................................................................... 12
4.7 Longitudinal Profile Monitoring Results ....................................................................... 12
4.8 Cross-section Monitoring Results .................................................................................. 13
5.0 HYDROLOGY ................................................................................................................. 14
6.0 BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE MONITORING ............................................ 15
6.1 Description of Benthic Macro invertebrate Monitoring .................................................. 15
6.2 Benthic Macro invertebrate Sampling Results and Discussion ...................................... 15
6.3 Benthic Macro invertebrate Sampling ............................................................................. 16
6.4 Habitat Assessment Results and Discussion .................................................................. 17
6.5 Photograph Log .............................................................................................................. 18
7.0 OVERALL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................... 19
8.0 WILDLIFE OBSERVATIONS ...................................................................................... 20
9.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 20
I Silver Creek EEP Contract No. D04006-5, EBX NEUSE-I, LLC
December 2007, Monitoring Year 2

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A - Project Photo Log
APPENDIX B - Stream Monitoring Data
APPENDIX C - Baseline Stream Summary for Restoration Reaches
APPENDIX D - Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary - Year 2 Monitoring
APPENDIX E - Benthic Macro invertebrate Monitoring Data
I Silver Creek, EEP Contract No. D04006-5, EBX NEUSE-I, LLC II
December 2007, Monitoring Year 2

1
1

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Design Approach for Silver Creek Restoration Site
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3. Project Contacts
Table 4. Project Background
Table 5. Project Soil Types and Descriptions
Table 6. Tree Species Planted in the Silver Creek Restoration Area
Table 7. Year 2 (2007) Stem Counts for Each Species Arranged by Plot
Table 8. Verification of Bankfull Events
Table 9. Categorical Stream Feature Visual Stability Assessment
Table 10. Comparison of Historic Average Rainfall to Observed Rainfall
Table 11. Summary of Pre-Restoration vs. Post-Restoration Benthic
Macroinvertebrate Sampling Data
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Location of Silver Creek Mitigation Site.
Figure 2 (a). As-Built Plan Sheet 4 for the Silver Creek Mitigation Site.
Figure 2 (b). As-Built Plan Sheet 5 for the Silver Creek Mitigation Site.
Figure 2 (c). As-Built Plan Sheet 6 for the Silver Creek Mitigation Site.
Figure 2 (d). As-Built Plan Sheet 7 for the Silver Creek Mitigation Site.
Figure 2 (e). As-Built Plan Sheet 8 for the Silver Creek Mitigation Site
Figure 2 (f). As-Built Plan Sheet 9 for the Silver Creek Mitigation Site
Figure 3. Historic Average vs. Observed Rainfall
I Silver Creek, EEP Contract No. D04006-5, EBX NEUSE-I, LLC
December 2007, Monitoring Year 2
1

1.0 SUMMARY
This Annual Report details the monitoring activities during the 2007 growing season
(Monitoring Year 2) on the Silver Creek Stream Restoration Site ("Site"). As per the approved
Restoration Plan for this site, this Annual Report presents data on geomorphology data from
longitudinal profiles and eighteen cross sections, and from stem count data from nine vegetation
monitoring stations.
' Prior to restoration, stream and buffer functions on the Site were impaired as a result of
agricultural conversion. Streams flowing through the Site were channelized many years ago to
reduce flooding and provide drainage for adjacent farm fields. After construction, it was
determined that 5,127 linear feet (LF) of stream were restored, 1,077 LF of stream were
preserved and 3,428 LF of stream were enhanced.

1

1

Weather station data from the Morganton Weather Station (Morganton, NC UCAN: 14224,
COOP: 315838) were used in conjunction with a manual rain gauge located on the Site to
document precipitation amounts. The manual gauge is used to validate observations made at the
automated station. For the 2007 growing season, total rainfall during the monitoring period was
well below the normal average (approximately 11.4 inches below average from January 2007
through October 2007). Much of the rain that fell during the 2007 growing season fell during the
months of June, August, and September when evapotranspiration losses were highest.
A total of 9 monitoring plots, each 100 square meters (m2) (IOM x l Om) in size, were used to
predict survivability of the woody vegetation planted on-site. The vegetation monitoring
indicated an average survivability of 578 stems per acre. These data reflect that the majority of
the Site is on track for meeting the interim success criteria of 320 trees per acre by the end of
Year 3 and the final success criteria of 260 trees per acre by the end of Year 5 as specified in the
Restoration Plan for the Site.
The entire length of the Site was inspected during Year 2 of the monitoring period (2007) to
assess stream performance. Measurements of cross sections documented that UT I, UT2 and
UT3 are performing well. Reach M3 had some minor problems with some of the meanders, one
cross vane, and one riffle.
The results of the longitudinal profile documented that the pools in UTI have aggraded slightly.
The longitudinal profile of UT2 documented that the pools and riffles have maintained stability
during Year 2. The longitudinal profile of M3 documented that some pools have aggraded and
some riffles have incised slightly. The areas of concern will be monitored during future site
visits.
The on-site crest gauge documented the occurrence of at least two bankfull flow events during
Year 2 of the post-construction monitoring period. The largest on-site stream flow documented
by the crest gauges during Year 2 of monitoring was approximately 1.43 feet (17.16 inches)
above the bankfull stage on M3.
The Site exhibited excellent riffle pool sequencing, pattern, and habitat diversity for benthic
macroinvertebrates. It is anticipated that continued improvements in biotic indices and an
increase in DIC will be seen in future monitoring reports as communities begin have time to
reestablish as long as conditions at the reference site do not continue to degrade.
Overall, the Site is on track to achieve the vegetative and stream success criteria specified in the
Site's Restoration Plan.
Silver Creek EEP Contract No. D04006-5, EBX NEUSE-I, LLC
December 2007, Monitoring Year 2

2.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND
The project involved the restoration of 5,127 LF of stream, enhancement of 3,428 LF of stream
and the preservation of 1,077 LF of stream. Figures 2(a), 2(b), 2(c), 2(d), 2(e) and 2(f)
summarize the restoration and enhancement zones on the project site. A total of 9,632 LF of
stream and riparian buffer are protected through a conservation easement.
2.1 Project Location
The Site is located approximately nine miles southwest of the town of Morganton in Burke
County, North Carolina (Figure 1). The Site lies in US Geological Survey (USGS) Cataloging
Unit 03050101 and North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) sub-basin 03-08-31 of
the Catawba River Basin. The existing stream channels were re-designed and constructed as
shown in Figures 2(a) through 2(f), to enhance the water quality and wildlife habitat.
2.2 Mitigation Goals and Objectives
The specific goals for the Silver Creek Restoration Project were as follows:
• Restore 5,127 LF of stream channel
• Enhance 3,428 LF of stream channel
• Preserve 1,077 LF of stream channel
• Exclude cattle from stream and riparian buffer areas
• Develop an ecosystem-based restoration design
• Improve habitat functions
• Realize significant water quality benefits.
2.3 Project Description and Restoration Approach
The Site had a recent history of pasture, hay production and general agricultural usage. The
streams on the project site were channelized, riparian vegetation had been cleared in most
locations, and cattle were allowed to graze on the banks and access the channels. Stream
functions on the Site had been severely impacted as a result of these land use changes.
This restoration project provides compensatory mitigation for stream impacts associated with
construction disturbance in the resident cataloging unit. The design approaches for the project are
summarized and presented in Table 1.
Monitoring of the Site is required to demonstrate successful stream mitigation based on the
criteria found in the approved Restoration Plan for this Site. Monitoring of stream performance
is conducted on an annual basis.
Construction at the Site was completed in April 2006 with all vegetation was also planted by
April 2006.
Silver Creek EEP Contract No. D04006-5, EBX NEUSE-I, LLC
December 2007, Monitoring Year 2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Table 1. Design Annroach for Silver Creek Restoration Site
Silver Creek R estoration Site: EE P Contract No. D04006-5
Project Segment or
Reach ID Mitigation
Type *
Approach"
Linear Footage
M 1 El PI 1,391 LF
M2 P PI 1,333 LF
M3 R PII 2,127 LF
M4 El PI 1,825 LF
UT1 R PII 1,398 LF
UT2 R PI 1,214 LF
UT3 R PII 175 LF
* R = Restoration ** P1 = Priority I
P = Preservation P2 = Priority II
El = Enhancement I
2.4 Project History and Background
The chronology of the Silver Creek Restoration Project is presented in Table 2. The contact
information for all designers, contractors, and relevant suppliers is presented in Table 3.
Relevant project background information is presented in Table 4.
2.5 Project Plan
Plans depicting the as-built conditions of the major project elements, locations of permanent
monitoring cross-sections, and locations of permanent vegetation monitoring plots are presented
in Figures 2(a),2(b), 2(c),2(d), 2(e) and 2(f) of this report.
Silver Creek EEP Contract No. D04006-5, EBX NEUSE-I, LLC
December 2007, Monitoring Year 2
3
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Silver Creek Mitigation Site: Project No. D04006-5
Data Actual
Scheduled Collection Completion
Activity or Report Completion Complete or Delivery
Restoration Plan Prepared N/A N/A Apr-05
Restoration Plan Amended N/A N/A Apr-05
Restoration Plan Approved N/A N/A Jun-05
Final Design - (at least 90% complete) N/A N/A Aug-05
Construction Begins Oct-05 N/A Nov-05
Temporary S&E mix applied to entire project area Mar-06 N/A Apr-06
Permanent seed mix applied to entire project area Mar-06 N/A Apr-06
Planting of live stakes Mar-06 N/A Apr-06
Planting of bare root trees Mar-06 N/A Apr-06
End of Construction Mar-06 N/A Apr-06
Survey of As-built conditions (Year 0 Monitoring-baseline) Mar-06 Apr-06 Apr-06
Year 1 Monitoring Nov-06 Nov-06 Dec-06
Year 2 Monitoring Nov-07 Nov-07 Dec-07
Year 3 Monitoring Scheduled
Nov-08 Scheduled
Nov-08 Scheduled
Nov-08
Year 4 Monitoring Scheduled
Nov-09 Scheduled
Nov-09 Scheduled
Nov-09
Year 5 Monitoring Scheduled
Nov-10 Scheduled
Nov-10 Scheduled
Nov-10
Silver Creek EEP Contract No. D04006-5, EBX NEUSE-I, LLC
December 2007, Monitoring Year 2

Table 3. Project Contacts
Silver Creek Restoration Site: EEP Contract No. D04006-5
Full Service Delivery Contractor
EBX Neuse-I, LLC 909 Capability Drive, Suite 3100
Raleigh, NC 27606
Contact:
Norton Webster, Tel. [phone]
Designer
Baker Engineering NY, Inc. 8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200
Cary, NC 27518
Contact:
En g. Kevin Tweedy, Tel. [phone]
Construction Contractor
River Works, Inc. 8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200
Cary, NC 27518
Contact:
Will Pedersen, Tel. [phone]
Planting Contractor
River Works, Inc. 8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200
Cary, NC 27518
Contact:
Will Pedersen, Tel. [phone]
Seeding Contractor
River Works, Inc. 8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200
Cary, NC 27518
Contact:
Will Pedersen, Tel. [phone]
Seed Mix Sources Mellow Marsh Farm, 919-742-1200
Nurse Stock Suppliers International Paper, 1-888-888-7159
Monitoring Performers
Baker Engineering NY, Inc. 8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200
Cary, NC 27518
Stream Monitoring Point of Contact: Eng. Kevin Tweedy, Tel. [phone]
Wetland and Natural Resource Consultants, Inc. I 1 South College Ave., Suite 206
Newton, NC 28658
Vegetation Monitoring Point of Contact: Chris Hu sman, Tel. [phone]
Silver Creek EEP Contract No. D04006-5, EBX NEUSE-I, LLC
December 2007, Monitoring Year 2
Table 4. Project Background
Silver Creek Restoration Site: Project No. D04006-5
Project Coun : Burke County, NC
Drainage Area:
Reach: M 1 6.6 mil
Reach: M2 6.9 miz
Reach: M3 7.2 miz
Reach: M4 7.6 miz
Reach: UT1 0.20 miz
Reach: UT2 0.25 miz
Reach: UT3 0.07 miz
Estimated Drainage % Impervious Cover:
Reach: Silver Creek <5%
Reach: UTI <5%
Reach: UT2 <5%
Reach: UT3 <5%
Stream Order:
Silver Creek 3
UTI I
UT2 I
UT3 I
Ph sio ra hic Region Piedmont
Ecore ion Northern Inner Piedmont
Ros en Classification of As-built C
Riverine, Upper Perennial,
Cowardin Classification Unconsolidated Bottom, Cobble-
Gravel
Dominant Soil Types
Silver Creek CvA,FaD2, AaA, BvB
UTI CvA,FaD2, AaA, Bv13
UT2 CvA,FaD2, AaA, BvB
UT3 CvA,FaD2, AaA, Bv13
Reference site ID (Tributary to Bailey Fork
USGS HUC for Project and Reference sites 03050101040020
NCDW Sub-basin for Project and Reference 03-08-31
NCDW classification for Project and Reference C
An portion of an project segment 303d listed? No
Any portion of any project segment upstream of a
303d listed segment? No
Reasons for 303d listing or stressor? N/A
% of project easement fenced 75%
Silver Creek EEP Contract No. D04006-5, EBX NEUSE-1, LLC
December 2007, Monitoring Year 2

3.0 VEGETATION MONITORING
3.1 Soil Data
The soil data for the project site are presented in Table 5.
Table 5. Project Soil Types and Descriptions
Silver Creek Restoration Site: EEP Contract No. D04006-5
Soil Name Location Description
Colvard Flood plains in the southern Colvard series consists of very deep, well drained soils that formed in
(CvA) Appalachian Mountains loamy alluvium on floodplains. These soils are occasionally flooded,
well drained, and have slow surface runoff and moderately rapid
permeability. The surface layer and subsurface layers are loamy sands
in texture.
Fairview Piedmont upland Fairview soil type occurs on nearly level floodplains along creeks and
(FaD2) rivers in pastureland. It has a very deep soil profile and moderate
permeability. The surface layer and subsurface layers are clay loams
in texture, with an increase in clay content starting at about one foot
below the surface.
Arkaqua Nearly level flood plains Arkaqua series consists of somewhat poorly drained soils that formed
(AaA) in loamy alluvium along nearly level floodplains and creeks. Runoff
is slow, and permeability is moderate. Soil texture within the profile
ranges from loam to clay loam to sandy loam to sandy clay loam.
Brevard High-stream terraces, foot Brevard series consists of a very deep soil profile that is well drained
(BvB) slopes, benches, fans, and with moderate permeability. The series primarily consists of
coves colluvium and alluvium. These soils are generally found in footslopes
and toeslopes.
Notes:
Source: From Burke County Soil Survey, USDA-NRCS, httv:Hefotg.nres.usda.gov
3.2 Description of Vegetation Monitoring
As a final stage of construction, the stream margins and riparian area of the Site were planted
with bare root trees, live stakes, and a seed mixture of permanent ground cover herbaceous
vegetation. The woody vegetation was planted randomly six to eight feet apart from the top of
the stream banks to the outer edge of the Site's re-vegetation limits. Bare-root vegetation was
planted at a target density of 680 stems per acre, in an 8-foot by 8-foot grid pattern. The tree
species planted at the Site are shown in Table 6. The seed mix of herbaceous species applied to
the Site's riparian area included soft rush (Juncus effuses ), bentgrass (Agrostis alba), Virginia
wild rye (Elymus virginicus), switchgrass (Panicum virgatum), gamagrass, (Tripsicum
dactyloides), smartweed (Polygonum pennsylvanicum), little bluestem (Schizachyrium
scoparium), devil's beggartick (Bidens frondosa), lanceleaf tickseed (Coreopsis lanceolata),
deertounge (Panicum clandestinum), big bluestem (Andropogon gerardii), and Indian grass
(Sorghastrum nutans).
This seed mixture was broadcast on the Site at a rate of 10 pounds per acre. All planting was
completed in April 2006.
Silver Creek EEP Contract No. D04006-5, EBX NEUSE-I, LLC 7
December 2007, Monitoring Year 2
Table 6. Tree Species Planted in the Silver Creek Restoration Area
Silver Creek Restoration Site: EEP Contract No. D04006-5
ID Scientific Name Common Name FAC Status
1 Platanus occidentalis Sycamore FACW-
2 uercus hellos Willow Oak FACW-
3 uercus rubra Northern Red Oak FACU
4 N ssa s Ivatica Black Gum FAC
5 Dios ros vir iniana Persimmon FAC
6 Frazinus enns lvanica Green Ash FACW
7 Liriodendron tuli i era Tulip Poplar FAC
At the time of planting, nine vegetation plots - labeled 1 through 9 - were delineated on-site to
monitor survival of the planted woody vegetation. Each vegetation plot is 0.025 acre in size, or
10 meters x 10 meters. All of the planted stems inside the plot were flagged to distinguish them
from any colonizing individuals and to facilitate locating them in the future.
3.3 Vegetation Success Criteria
To define vegetation success criteria objectively, specific goals for woody vegetation density
have been defined. Data from vegetation monitoring plots should display a surviving tree
density of at least 320 trees per acre at the end of the third year of monitoring, and a surviving
tree density of at least 260, five-year-old trees per acre at the end of the five-year monitoring
period.
Up to 20 percent of the site's species composition may be comprised of invaders. Remedial
action may be required should these (i.e. Loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), red maple (Ater rubrum),
Sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua), etc.) present a problem and exceed 20 percent
composition.
3.4 Results of Vegetative Monitoring
Table 7 presents stem counts of surviving individuals found at each of the monitoring stations at
the end of Year 2 of the post-construction monitoring period. Trees within each monitoring plot
are flagged regularly to prevent planted trees from losing their identifying marks due to flag
degradation. It is important for trees within the monitoring plots to remain marked to ensure
they are all accounted for during the annual stem counts and calculation of tree survivability.
Permanent aluminum tags are used on surviving stems to aid in relocation during future counts.
Flags are also used to mark trees because they do not interfere with the growth of the tree.
Volunteer woody species were observed in some of the vegetation plots, but all were deemed too
small to tally. If these trees persist into the next growing season, they will be flagged and added
to the overall stems per acre assessment of the Site. Red maple is the most common volunteer,
and silky dogwood (Cornus amomum) was also observed in some of the plots.
Silver Creek EEP Contract No. D04006-5, EBX NEUSE-I, LLC g
December 2007, Monitoring Year 2

I
The area around Plot 6 was particularly affected by the dry summer leaving many of the stems
' dead from lack of moisture. This area, less than one acre in size, will need to have some
supplemental planting to meet the initial vegetation survival criteria at the end of 2008.

1
3.5 Vegetation Observations
After construction of the Site, a permanent ground cover seed mixture of Virginia wild rye
(Elymus virginicus), switch grass (Panicum virgatum), and fox sedge (Carex vulpinoidea) was
broadcast at a rate of 10 pounds per acre. These species are currently present on the Site.
Hydrophytic herbaceous vegetation, including rush (Juncus effusus), spike-rush (Eleocharis
obtusa), Boxseed (Ludwigia sp.), and sedge (Carex sp.), are observed across the Site, particularly
in areas of periodic inundation. The presence of these herbaceous wetland plants helps to
confirm the presence of wetland hydrology on the Site.
There are numerous weedy species occurring on the Site, though none seem to be impacting the
woody or herbaceous hydrophytic vegetation. The weedy species are mostly annuals and seem
to pose very little threat to survivability on-site. Commonly seen weedy vegetation includes
ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia) and wild dill (Foeniculum vulgare).
3.6 Vegetation Photos
Photos of the project showing the on-site vegetation are included in Appendix A of this report.
Table 7. Year 2 Stem Counts for Each Species Arranged by Plot Initial a
/o

Silver Creek Restoration Site: EEP Contract No. D04006-3
Totals iL [i
Survival
Plots
Betula nigra 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 9 6 4 N/A
Fraxinus pennsylvanica 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 N/A
Platanus occidentalis 4 1 4 8 9 2 0 13 6 59 52 47 N/A
Quercus phellos 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 1 0 7 7 5 N/A
Quercus rubra 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 1 N/A
Liriodendron tulipiferra 7 10 0 8 0 0 13 0 3 40 37 41 N/A
Diospyros virginiana 2 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 7 6 N/A
Unknown 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 N/A
N ssa s lvatica 3 4 10 0 3 0 0 0 5 24 30 25 N/A
Stems/ lot 17 15 19 16 12 5 14 17 15 159 146 130 81.8
Stems/acre 680 600 760 640 480 200 560 680 600 578 Avera e
Silver Creek EEP Contract No. D04006-5, EBX NEUSEA LLC
December 2007, Monitoring Year 2
4.0 STREAM MONITORING
4.1 Description of Stream Monitoring
To document the stated success criteria, the following monitoring program was instituted following
construction completion on the Site:
Bankfull Events: Three crest gauges were installed on the Site to document bankfull events. The
gauges record the highest out-of-bank flow event that occurs between site visits. The gauges are
checked each month during site visits. Locations of the gauges are on UT I, UT2, and M3. See
Figures 2(a), 2(d) and 2(f) respectively.
Cross-sections: Two permanent cross-sections were installed per 1,000 LF of stream restoration
work, with one of the locations being a riffle cross-section and one location being a pool cross-
section. A total of 18 permanent cross-sections were established across the Site. Each cross-section
was marked on both banks with permanent pins to establish the exact transect used. Permanent
cross-section pins were surveyed and located relative to a common benchmark to facilitate easy
comparison of year-to-year data. The annual cross-section surveys include points measured at all
breaks in slope, including top of bank, bankfull, inner berm, edge of water, and thalweg. Riffle
cross-sections are classified using the Rosgen stream classification system. Permanent cross-
sections for 2007 (Year 2) were surveyed in November 2007.
Longitudinal Profiles: A complete longitudinal profile was surveyed following construction
completion to record as-built conditions. The profile was conducted for the entire length of the
restored channels (UT I, UT2, UT3 and M3). Measurements included thalweg, water surface,
bankfull, and top of low bank. Each of these measurements was taken at the head of each feature
(e.g., riffle, pool, glide). In addition, maximum pool depth was recorded. All surveys were tied to a
single, permanent benchmark. A longitudinal survey of 3,000 LF of stream channel that included
UT I, UT2, and M3 was conducted in November 2007.
Photo Reference Stations: Photographs are used to visually document restoration success. A total of
29 reference stations were established to document conditions at the constructed grade control
structures across the Site, and additional photo stations were established at each of the 18 permanent
cross-sections and hydrologic monitoring stations. The GPS coordinates of each grade control
structure photo station have been noted as additional reference to ensure the same photo location is
used throughout the monitoring period. Reference photos are taken at least once per year. A photo
log of the Site is included in Appendix A of this report.
Stream banks are photographed at each permanent cross-section photo station. For each stream bank
photo, the photo view line follows a survey tape placed across the channel, perpendicular to flow
(representing the cross-section line). The photograph is framed so that the survey tape is centered in
the photo (appears as a vertical line at the center of the photograph), keeping the channel water
surface line horizontal and near the lower edge of the frame.
4.2 Stream Restoration Success Criteria
The approved Restoration Plan requires the following criteria be met to achieve stream restoration
success:
• Bankfull Events: Two bankfull flow events must be documented within the five-year monitoring
period. The two bankfull events must occur in separate years.
Silver Creek EEP Contract No. D04006-5, EBX NEUSE-I, LLC 10
December 2007, Monitoring Year 2
• Cross-sections: There should be little change in as-built cross-sections. If changes to channel
' cross-sections take place, they should be minor changes representing an increase in stability (e.g.,
settling, vegetative changes, deposition along the banks, or decrease in width/depth ratio). Cross-
sections shall be classified using the Rosgen stream classification method and all monitored
' cross-sections should fall within the quantitative parameters defined for "C" and "B" type
channels.

1

1

1
• Longitudinal Profiles: The longitudinal profiles should show that the bedform features are
remaining stable (not aggrading or degrading). The pools should remain deep with flat water
surface slopes and the riffles should remain steeper and shallower than the pools. Bedforms
observed should be consistent with those observed in "C" and "B" type channels.
• Photo Reference Stations: Photographs will be used to subjectively evaluate channel aggradation
or degradation, bank erosion, success of riparian vegetation and effectiveness of erosion control
measures. Photos should indicate the absence of developing bars within the channel, no
excessive bank erosion or increase in channel depth over time, and maturation of riparian
vegetation.
4.3 Bankfull Discharge Monitoring Results
The on-site crest gauge documented the occurrence of at least two bankfull flow events during Year
2 of the post-construction monitoring period, as shown in Table 8. Inspection of conditions during
site visits revealed visual evidence of out-of-bank flow, confirming the crest gauge readings. The
largest on-site stream flow documented by the crest gauge on the mainstem of Silver Creek (M3)
during Year 2 of monitoring was approximately 1.43 feet (17.16 inches) above the bankfull stage.
Table 8. Verification of Bankfull Events
Silver Creek Restoration Site: EEP Contract No. D04006-3

Date of Data Collection Method of Data
Collection Measurement
(Feet)
1/11/2007 Crest Gauge UT1 0.29
1/11/2007 Crest Gauge UT2 0.16
1/11/2007 Crest Gauge M3 0.4
3/13/2007 Crest Gauge UT1 0.34
3/13/2007
F Crest Gauge UT2 0.28
3/13/2007 Crest Gauge M3 1.43
4.4 Stream Monitoring Data and Photos
Data from each permanent cross-section are included in Appendix B of this report. A photo log
showing each of the eighteen permanent cross-section locations is also included in Appendix B of
this report.
4.5 Stream Stability Assessment
Table 9 presents a summary of the results obtained from the visual inspection of in-stream structures
performed during Year 2 of post-construction monitoring. The percentages noted are a general
Silver Creek EEP Contract No. 004006-5, EBX NEUSE-I, LLC 11
December 2007, Monitoring Year 2
1
overall field evaluation of the how the structures were performing at the time of the latest photo
point survey. The visual assessment for structures on UTI, UT2 and UT3 all performed well. The
features on M3 had some minor problems. Some meanders had stability issues, one cross vane
showed lack of a scour pool and one riffle had a stability issue at the tail of riffle. These issues are
noted in Table 9 and presented with photos in Appendix A. Minor repair work is scheduled for early
2008 to address these areas. Eroding meanders and bank sections will be stabilized by re-grading
banks to a reduced angle, and repairing any degraded in-stream structures. Disturbed bank and
buffer areas will be replanted after completing repairs.
Table 9. Categorical Stream Features Stabilitv Assessment
Silver Creek Restoration Site: Project No. D04006-5
Performance Percentage
Feature Initial MY-01 MY-02 MY-03 MY-04 MY-05
Riffles 100% 100% 95%
Pools 100% 100% 100%
Thalwe 100% 100% 100%
Meanders 100% 100% 95%
Bed General 100% 100% 100%
Vanes / J Hooks etc. 100% 100% 95%
4.6 Stream Stability Baseline
The quantitative pre-construction, reference reach, and design data used to determine mitigation
approach and prepare the construction plans for the project, as well as the as-built baseline data to
determine stream stability during the project's post construction monitoring period are summarized
in Appendix C.
4.7 Longitudinal Profile Monitoring Results
A Year 2 longitudinal profile was completed in November 2007 and was compared to the data
collected during the as-built condition survey and Year 1 data. The longitudinal profile is presented
in Appendix B.
During Year 2 monitoring, a total of 3000 LF of channel was surveyed for UTI, UT2 and M3..The
results of the longitudinal profile show that the pools in UTI have aggraded slightly due to
accumulated sediment. This accumulation of sediment has not resulted in instability in this section
of channel. It is likely that these sediments are present in the pools due to the below normal rainfall
conditions during 2007 and the low gradient design of UTI. The longitudinal profile of UT2 shows
that the pools and riffles have maintained stability during Year 2. The longitudinal profile of M3
shows that there has been some adjustment to bed profile, primarily around structures, but overall
bed and feature slopes have remained unchanged.
Areas of noted channel adjustments on UTI and M3 will be monitored during future site visits
Silver Creek EEP Contract No. D04006-5, EBX NEUSE-I, LLC
December 2007, Monitoring Year 2
12

4.8 Cross-section Monitoring Results
' Year 2 cross-section monitoring data for stream stability were collected during November 2007.
The Year 2 cross-section data are compared to baseline stream geometry data collected in April 2006
' (as-built conditions) and Year 1 data collected in October 2006.
The 18 permanent cross-sections along the restored channels (12 located across riffles and 6 located
across pools) were re-surveyed to document stream dimension at the end of monitoring Year 2. Data
1 from each of these cross-sections are summarized in Appendix D. The cross-sections show that
there has been some slight adjustment to stream dimension since construction.
Cross-sections 1, 3, 5, 9, 12, 13 and 17 are located across pools found at the apex of meander bends
or below cross vanes. Survey data from cross-sections 1, 3, 9 and 13 indicate that these pools have
aggraded slightly during Year 2. The observed collection of finer sediments in these locations is
' believed to primarily the result of low rainfall and flow conditions for much of the summer of 2007.
Cross-sections 12 and 17 were unchanged during Year 2 while cross-section 5 deepened during Year
2.
' Cross-sections 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16 and 18 are located in riffles areas. Cross-sections 2, 7
and 11 aggraded slightly during Year 2 monitoring. Cross-sections 4, 6, 8, 10, 14, 15 and 18
remained unchanged during Year 2. However, cross-section 16 aggraded significantly during Year
' 2. The observed collection of finer sediments in this location is believed to be primarily the result of
low rainfall and flow conditions for much of the summer of 2007.
All monitored cross-sections fell within the quantitative parameters defined for "C" or "B" type
' channels.
In-stream structures installed within the restored streams included constructed riffles, rock cross
vanes, rock step-pools, log vanes, rock vanes, log weirs, and root wads. A constructed riffle and a
rock step-pool were installed on the lower end of UT I, and a rock cross vane was installed at the
lower end of UT2 to step down the elevation of the restored stream bed to match the existing channel
invert at the confluences of the restored channels and Silver Creek. Visual observations of these
' structures throughout the Year 2 growing season have indicated that these structures are functioning
as designed and holding their elevation grade. Log vanes placed in meander pool areas have
provided scour to keep pools deep and provide cover for fish. However, due to below normal
rainfalls, some pools have aggraded and most riffle areas have maintained elevations and provided a
downstream scour hole which provides habitat. Root wads placed on the outside of meander bends
have provided bank stability and in-stream cover for fish and other aquatic organisms.
Photographs of the channel were taken at the end of the monitoring season to document the
evolution of the restored stream geometry (see Appendix A). Herbaceous vegetation is dense along
the edges of the restored stream, making it difficult in some areas to photograph the stream channel.
1

I Silver Creek EEP Contract No. D04006-5, EBX NEUSE-I, LLC
December 2007, Monitoring Year 2
13

5.0 HYDROLOGY
The Restoration Plan for the Site did not included wetland areas, therefore, no hydrology
monitoring stations were installed.
Weather station data from the Morganton Weather Station (Morganton, NC UCAN: 14224,
COOP: 315838) were used in conjunction with a manual rain gauge located on the Site to
document precipitation amounts. The manual gauge is used to validate observations made at the
automated station. For the 2007 growing season, total rainfall during the monitoring period was
well below the normal average (approximately 11.4 inches less from January 2007 through
October 2007). Much of the rain that fell during the 2007 growing season fell during the months
of June, August, and September when evapotranspiration losses were highest. Table 10 and
Figure 3 summarize the rainfall data for the 2007 monitoring period.
Table 10. Com arison of Historic Avera a Rainfall to Observed Rainfall (inches)
Month Average 30% 70% Observed 2007 Precipitation
January 4.43 3.45 5.79 5.18
February 4.14 2.83 5.53 1.39
March 4.85 3.36 5.94 4.85
April 3.79 2.36 5.06 2.32
May 4.49 3.22 5.62 0.87
June 4.74 3.25 6.12 6.01
Jul 3.91 2.38 4.95 0.79
August 3.74 236 4.45 2.71
September 4.18 2.48 5.98 2.75
October 3.84 2.03 4.76 0.1
November 3.79 2.55 4.27 NA
December 3. 72 2.48 4.59 NA
Total: 49.62 Total: 26.87
Figure 3. Historic Average vs. Observed Rainfall
Silver Creek Restoration Site
Historic Average vs. Observed Rainfall
d 7
n 6
c 5

c 4
0
3

2
CL 1
0
a
DOS

t ?p1 ?p? 0?1 ?1 0?1 '1
$:p opt O?? o?? o?? 001
ti
ti
IV ry
?
?
?
?
?
ac an
Jc
?
e0
?
??
a?
Od
pe°
Q ?` PQ ?S > > PJ S?Q ?°
-? Historic 30% probable -? Historic 70% probable -w-Observed 2007
Silver Creek EEP Contract No. D04006-5, EBX NEUSE-I, LLC 14
December 2007, Monitoring Year 2
6.0 BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE MONITORING
6.1 Description of Benthic Macroinvertebrate Monitoring
' Benthic macroinvertebrate monitoring was conducted in conjunction with the Silver Creek
Restoration Project. Because of seasonal fluctuations in populations, macroinvertebrate
sampling must be consistently conducted in the same season. Benthic sampling for the Site was
conducted during January 2007. This report summarizes the benthic samples collected during
' the first year post-construction monitoring phase.
The sampling methodology followed the Qual 4 method listed in NCDWQ's Standard Operating
Procedures for Benthic Macroinvertebrates (2006). Field sampling was conducted by Christine
Miller and Anna Cathey of Baker Engineering. Laboratory identification of collected species
was conducted by Chris Outlaw and Bobby Louque, biologists with the City of Durham.
Benthic macroinvertebrate samples were collected at two locations on the Site on January 11,
2007 and one eco-reference site a tributary to Bailey Fork on January 17, 2007. Sites 1 and 2
were located within the restoration area in Silver Creek and UT1 to Silver Creek, respectively.
' The majority of the restoration activities on Silver Creek were enhancement and preservation.
Site 1 is located at the last constructed riffle on M3 approximately 300 feet upstream from the
beginning of M4. Site 2 is located approximately 300 feet upstream of the confluence of UTl
' and Silver creek at upstream of Morrison Road. Figure 1 in Appendix E illustrates the sampling
site locations.
Benthic macroinvertebrates were collected to assess quantity and quality of life in the stream. In
particular, specimens belonging to the insect orders Ephemeroptera (mayflies), Plecoptera
(stoneflies) and Trichoptera (caddisflies) are useful as an index of water quality. These groups

' are generally the least tolerant to water pollution and therefore are very useful indicators of water
quality. Sampling for these three orders is referred to as EPT sampling.
Habitat assessments using NCDWQ's protocols were also conducted at each site. Physical and
chemical measurements including water temperature, percent dissolved oxygen, dissolved
oxygen concentration, pH, and specific conductivity were recorded at each site. The habitat
assessment field data sheets are presented in Appendix E.
6.2 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sampling Results and Discussion
A comparison between the pre- and post-construction monitoring results is presented in Table 11
' with complete results presented in Appendix E.

1
' Silver Creek EEP Contract No. D04006-5, EBX NEUSE-I, LLC 15
December 2007, Monitoring Year 2

6.3 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sampling
Table 11. Summary of Pre-Restoration vs. Post-Restoration Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sampling Data

Metrics Site 1
Silver Creek Site 2
UTl to Silver Creek Site3
UTl to Bailey Fork
(Reference)
Pre
113105 Post
1/11/07 Pre
1/4/05 Post
1/11/07 Pre
1/4/05 Post
1/17/07
Total Taxa Richness 22 36 14 39 26 34
EPT Taxa Richness 14 23 3 11 16 20
Total Biotic Index 3.16 4.40 7.02 6.86 4.09 4.30
EPT Biotic Index 2.59 4.16 6.1 6.14 3.41 3.65
Dominance in Common (%) 29 50 12 31 N/A N/A
Total Shredder/Scraper Index 4/4 513 1/2 3/3 7/3 513
EPT Shredder/Scraper Index 3/2 2/3 0/1 0/2 4/2 2/2
Habitat Assessment Rating 58 72 24 78 65 70
Water Temperature (°C) n/a 7.4 n/a 3.7 n/a 8.4
% Dissolved Oxygen (DO) n/a 57.7 n/a 44.0 n/a 32.1
DO Concentration (mg/1) n/a 6.92 n/a 5.82 n/a 3.76
pH n/a 6.01 n/a 5.97 n/a 5.97
Conductivity (pmhos/cm) n/a 40 n/a 30 n/a 50
n/a - Data not available
The post-construction results at all three sites revealed an increase in total and EPT taxa richness.
At Site 3, the reference site, the post-construction community structure and ecological habitat
appears to be similar to that observed during the pre-construction monitoring period. Site 3
showed a slight increase in both overall and EPT taxa richness as well as a slight increase in total
and EPT biotic indices. The higher indices could be attributed to the slight decrease in overall
shredder taxa observed during the post-construction monitoring. Many of the shredders present
in the pre-construction sample that were not present in the post-construction sample had very low
tolerance values. Despite the increase in biotic indices at Site 3, several of the EPT species that
were common or abundant in the pre-construction sample, such as Ephemerella spp., Stenonema
pudicum, Eccoptera xanthenes, Diploperla duplicate, and Pycnopsyche spp. (tolerance values of
2.0, 2.0, 3.7, 2.7, and 2.5, respectively) were also common or abundant in the post-construction
sample. This suggests that the communities have not been disturbed and that water quality is
adequate to support intolerant species. Site 3 therefore, remains a stable eco-reference site.
Site 1, which underwent partial restoration, exhibited increased overall and EPT taxa richness, as
well as increased overall and EPT biotic indices in the post-construction sample. This suggests
that although more species were present (assumedly from increase variety of habitat as provided
by designed restoration), these species were slightly more tolerant than previous communities.
This is a typical response after a major disturbance to habitat such as the in-stream construction
techniques implemented on Site 1. However, there were indicators that water quality and habitat
Silver Creek EEP Contract No. D04006-5, EBX NEUSE-I, LLC 16
December 2007, Monitoring Year 2
1

were improved from the pre-construction conditions. Official bioclassifications cannot be
assigned to the sample because Qual 4 sampling methods were used. Had standard sampling
methods been used, the increase in EPT taxa would have raised a pre-construction rating of
"Fair" to a post-construction rating of "Good-Fair". These classifications may be considered the
i
i
i
f
hi
i
' m
n
mum rat
ng
or t
s s
te until classifications are developed for these smaller samples.
Currently Site 1 has 50 percent Dominance in Common (DIC) compared to the reference site,
which indicates that 50 percent of the dominant communities at the reference site are also
dominant at Site 1. Site 1 has undisturbed areas located upstream and downstream of the
sampling location, and therefore has excellent sources of refugia. The proximity of undisturbed
benthic communities may be why the DIC is high at Site 1 shortly after construction. Several
' very intolerant species represented in the sample, including Dicranota spp., Paraleptophlebia
spp., and Rhyachophila spp. (tolerance values of 0.0, 0.9, and 0.0, respectively) suggest that drift
is occurring and that water quality is adequate to support intolerant species. It is anticipated that
i
i
bi
i
mprovements
n
ot
c indices and an increase in DIC will be seen in future monitoring reports
as communities begin to recolonize.
' Site 2, which underwent complete restoration, saw improvements in both taxa richness and biotic
indices in the post-construction sample. The overall and EPT taxa richness increased and the
overall and EPT biotic indices dropped. This indicates that less tolerant species have already
begun colonizing post-construction. The EPT biotic index was relatively the same for pre-
construction to the post-construction samples. The number of shredder taxa increased, indicating
that more organic material is available within the constructed reach.
Currently Site 2 has 31 percent DIC with the reference site. Several intolerant species were
present in the sample, including Paraleptophlebia spp., Ephemerella spp., and Microcyloepus
pusillus (tolerance values of 0.9, 2.0, and 2. 1, respectively). This suggests that water quality is
adequate to support intolerant species. It is anticipated that continued improvements in biotic
indices and an increase in DIC will be seen in future monitoring reports as communities have
time to reestablish.
6.4 Habitat Assessment Results and Discussion
The difference in the Site habitat scores (72 for Site 1 versus 78 for Site 2) was related to bank
stability and substrate embeddedness. Site 1 had a good diversity of substrate sizes but minor
bank erosion was noted directly upstream from the monitoring location. Site 2 had very stable
bed and banks but the riffle substrate was fairly homogenous. Neither site had mature riparian
buffers. Site 3, the reference site, received a 70 on the habitat assessment despite having a
mature forested buffer; the banks of the channel were eroded and the substrate was embedded.
The physical and chemical measurements of water temperature, percent dissolved oxygen,
' dissolved oxygen concentration, pH, and specific conductivity at the restoration sites were all
relatively normal for Piedmont streams. Site 1's higher dissolved oxygen concentration can be
attributed to the faster current due to greater channel slope. The difference in water temperature
is attributable to the time of day monitoring was conducted; Site 2 was monitored in the early
morning and Site 1 was monitored in the afternoon. The dissolved oxygen reading at Site 3 was
relatively low (32.1 percent) and the conductivity reading was relatively high (50 µS/cm)
' compared to the restoration reaches. The macroinvertebrate community at Site 3 appeared stable
and therefore external influences are not suspected for the rise in conductivity at this time.
Silver Creek EEP Contract No. D04006-5, EBX NEUSE-I, LLC 17
December 2007, Monitoring Year 2
The restoration of pattern and dimension as well as the addition of several root wads, vanes, and
armored riffles has enhanced the overall in-stream habitat throughout the project area. Newly
planted riparian vegetation has had minimal effect on in-stream habitat at Sites 1 and 2; however
future contributions from planted riparian vegetation will be evident as the woody plant species
mature. Contributions will include in-stream structures such as sticks and leaf packs. Since no
woody riparian buffer currently exists at either Site 1 or 2, it can be concluded that the existing
in-stream structures, which include stick and leaf packs, have originated from upstream.
6.5 Photograph Log
The photograph log for the benthic macroinvertebrate sampling event is attached as Appendix E.
As shown in photos P-1 through P-4, both sites exhibit well defined riffle pool sequences. Due
to recent project construction, both sites lack a forested canopy. Both sites are stable, however
an unstable meander bend is visible in the background of the upstream view of Site 1. P-5 and P-
6 are views of the eco-reference site.
Silver Creek EEP Contract No. D04006-5, EBX NEUSE-I, LLC 18
December 2007, Monitoring Year 2

7.0 OVERALL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
' Stream Monitoring: The total length of the project is 9,632 LF. This entire length was inspected
during Year 2 of the monitoring period (2007) to assess stream performance. Measurements of
cross sections documented that UT1, UT2 and UT3 are performing well. Minor problems were
identified along reach M3 at several meanders, one cross vane, and one riffle. These areas will
be repaired during early 2008, as described in Section 4.5.
' The results of the longitudinal profile show that the pools in UT1 have aggraded slightly. This
accumulation of sediment has not resulted in instability in this section of channel, and it is likely
that these sediments are present in the pools due to the below normal rainfall conditions during
' 2007. The longitudinal profile of UT2 shows that the pools and riffles have remained mostly
unchanged during Year 2. The longitudinal profile of M3 shows that some pools have aggraded
and some riffles have incised slightly. The areas of concern will be monitored during future site
visits.
The on-site crest gauges documented the occurrence of at least two bankfull flow events during
Year 2 of the post-construction monitoring period. The largest on-site stream flow documented
by the crest gauge during on Reach M3 in Year 2 of monitoring was approximately 1.43 feet
(17.16 inches) above the bankfull stage.
Overall, the site is on track to achieve the stream morphology success criteria specified in the
' Restoration Plan for the Site
Vegetation Monitoring: The vegetation monitoring documented a survivability range of 200
' stems per acre to 760 stems per acre with an overall average of 578 stems per acre, which is a
survival rate of 82 percent based on the initial planting count of 706 stems per acre. The area
around Plot 6 was particularly affected by the dry summer, leaving many of the stems dead from
lack of moisture. This area, less than one acre in size, will need to be supplemental planted
before the start of the 2008 growing season.
Overall, the Site is on track to achieve the vegetative success criteria specified in the Restoration
' Plan for the Site.
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Monitoring: The post-construction results at all three sites revealed
an increase in total and EPT taxa richness. The physical and chemical measurements of water
' temperature, percent dissolved oxygen, dissolved oxygen concentration, pH, and specific
conductivity at the sampling sites were all relatively normal for Piedmont streams. It is
anticipated that continued improvements in biotic indices and an increase in DIC will be seen in
' future monitoring reports as communities continue to reestablish.
Silver Creek EEP Contract No. D04006-5, EBX NEUSE-I, LLC 19
December 2007, Monitoring Year 2
8.0 WILDLIFE OBSERVATIONS
Observations of deer and raccoon tracks are common on the Site. During the past year, frogs,
turtles, fish, and also wild turkeys, have been observed at the site.
9.0 REFERENCES
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2006. Standard Operating Procedures for
Benthic Macroinvertebrates (2006). North Carolina Division of Water Quality, Raleigh,
NC.
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. NCDEHNR. Raleigh, NC.
US Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS).
2006. Soil Survey of Burke County, North Carolina, NC Agricultural Experiment
Station.
Silver Creek EEP Contract No. D04006-5, EBX NEUSE-I, LLC 20
December 2007, Monitoring Year 2
a
L7
w
m m m m m m! m m m m m m m m m m m m

Figure 1. Location of Silver Creek Stream Restoration Site.
r r r r ?r r r rr r?r r r r r r r r r_ r
c
N
0
x
x
r
1 ?r
J 1?
l
Cl
I
' I
I
-X-X
I
S
o
to 0
F[Ln7 y

N
I c
8
YI
?i
{
x yy?? I E
1
r xx,
i' f
is
4 x i
I x
zi.00
I x f f % )
r? 1
l
9CT16N
a
r
e
i
?f r
t
s? I ti?
I I
I
x
f
?I I
x
I
I
x
1 ?
x
\\ I
x\ I I
f o Ll
l?
I

Jill
11111
R
I I
!
\Deeign\As-Built\R8222-AB-EBX-PSH-85.dgn
k r? ; /?f p
.n Z dS'
J
ell %
ti ; ' rJ
x 11 +
m , ( \
m
to .?
3 _r^1 _?\ b k
jp /M
14
Jr,
+
r c l / ,
1 f?_? ( +
G) 0
1 ti
,• ? j 9` ?
cny n m?
0 i .?
S ° °? r
It\R0222_AB_EBJ(_PSH_06.dgn

(D
C
N
A
ONTO
?D
M
X?
a co)
M
;?
OZ
m;u
0=
z
z
X
0
\-? N
\ ? .? • \ \
\ \ Z
%
W
v
l
1
Q x?r s a
o
y
W
'e
12/1 ?iYRT
ri\ \Design\As-Built\R0222_AB-EBX-PSH-07.dgn
i
` - r
<aF_ m
i r~ E -_ Z
x - - - - m
-ODWW
1 111 I ?
f J f = '4
x?
'n I
0 Ole
1 / ?f? 0
?m
a
\+ 1 Ii X
X ' -
\ ? \ t r
? t
+ ,p.
L/ ; oo m
x CA)
?x
N
x
x ti x`
1
will
C
m
N
N
o?
'•l
S
MATCHLINE SHEET 7 STq 61,00.00
x
x
i
8
x ?, d
I x 1'' x
x 1 e
i
t x ;
4
x
x ?? I
x
x i ? % rM
Y x ?C
fin, 1 -® T
l n x
I
x ^N_?r t? ? I ?
a x 4
MATCHLINE SHEET 9 STA 72+00.00 off
if
_I
I
r r r r w¦ rr r r? ¦r r r r r
Rs\?0222R`Oeasgn111e-Bu11t\R0222_AB_EBX_PSH_09.dgn
P
1 v/ t ?
;. P
f
k
x
?r
4
t
F
?? - w p
o t`+ '7j '?, , ? N g
I APPENDIX A
I PROJECT PHOTO LOG

1
1
I VEGETATION PHOTOS

1

a ?r -w°M. ''y sz

S.,? 4 e? t i
' s t

?
!A

ua

Vegetation Plot 5
NOW
.A P a, ?:: k? ? ?d ski
Vegetation Plot 4
Vegetation Plot 3
Vegetation Plot 6
IML
r? 1. .- -' c r? r z
Vegetation Plot 7

Y
4
4 + t' i '. ` i yw j

Vegetation Plot 8

40 51

?y i

t
? ..G?Lyi?.s.\? ? r •?
Vegetation Plot 9
I STREAM PHOTOS

1

N
04
i14i }? +"%s IRC ^?•& .? ri i. h`T {.4p a:
r ;- P
r
in K ! S ?2r '.?
-0i 44?
UTI Photo Point l
.?, At st 1 '141 S ! {^? ? R.4. ?'
? •n
rt ) ty k
.: , 011 q
f 1 Y?
UTI Photo Point 5

w ,

1,4
J

' i
?'?l
E ?y) °??` i y+,pei?
((
UT I Photo Point 13
r fir' Y?
w
,qs j4147?y+p+ 40Y
L
u a
?p1 r n a`?l C y
UTI Photo Point 4
t,

?
c
d

?
?
?• ,? y 1""pzi -e «+°it ? i iii` F ?
p ? }
.
z

Silver Creek Cross Vane Upstream of UTI
UTI Photo Point 7
UT2 Photo Point 1
UT2 Photo Point 2
UT2 Photo Point 3
UT2 Photo Point 5
UT2 Photo Point 6
UT2 Photo Point 7
;_ f' ?? + ,
"At, 7
4'. # Y
g ?
J }g 1.
.4 ? 1 F ? l
1. 1 WE
R l4 ? .T*? y
w ? f a ?
t ?
t1 ? v l
7.4

UT2 Photo Point 10
s b w ,
a
r e m -y" y.a, Y
d
t?...
4. 3 ??/SJt
i! 4 .7
UT2 Photo Point 14
UT2 Photo Point 11
w?
{ ! fa i
Fief :`? S :. ?}?I srr ?y ° i:. ,?.'i,.
UT2 Photo Point 15
UT2 Photo Point 8
UT2 Photo Point 9

OiN
??*,?s ? d(tt?'?rPysw? ? yea? :. ?! s If . ,,P` .r
r ?.. S?itly rC3' iQert
'i.: t 4` a?a+se'' 9 . A : . - , .:141; . It e a -.tJK,4 " .
UT2 Photo Point 16
T.
r]
??k?te 1- ':f x
rr ,
4?
p ?h

UT3 Photo Point 1
r,
Wli?" r
M3 Photo Point 2
j . ; J v
Iw 'A a'=L t p =ir'
F * ;y.
UT2 Photo Point 17
$ b>r4
?y rot ?.tirtt i?t,, t 3; `a

M3 Photo Point 1
1 C ?'
m
le IM
M3 Photo Point 3

r
b
.
*?. ?
?,? •
'? ??.
? k S? .'fir >? ?d, `M

M3 Photo Point 7

e, p 9r i ? 4 i
a,
a?
71
M3 Problem Area 2 M3 Problem Area 3
M3 Photo Point 4
M3 Photo Point 5
M3 Problem Area 1
APPENDIX B
I STREAM MONITORING DATA
M M M M M M M M M r r M M M M M M M M

1147
0
w
R
>
W
Silver Creek UT1 - Year 2- Station 14+00 to 20+00
(data collected November 2007)
- As-Built Thalweg Water Surface
-- Year 2 Thalweg - Left Top of Bank
11424-
1400
1500 1600 1700
Station (ft)
1800
1900
2000
Silver Creek UT1 - Year 2- Station 20+00 to 25+00
(data collected November 2007)
1148 ,
w
c
° 1143
R
d
W - As-Built Thalweg --- Water Surface
--s- Year 2 Thalweg Left Top of Bank
1138
2000 2050 2100 2150 2200
2250 2300 2350 2400 2450 2500
Station (ft)
M M M M M M M M M M r r M M M M M M M
Silver Creek UT2 - Year 2- Station 12+00 to 17+00
(data collected November 2007)
1150
- As-Built Thalweg - Water Surface
1 145 - Year 2 Thalweg Left Top of Bank
c _-
c?
v 1140
W
1135
1200 1250 1300 1350 1400 1450 1500 1550 1600 1650 1700
Station (ft)
1140
1135
C
O
C?0
1130
W
1125
1700
1800
Silver Creek UT2 - Year 2- Station 17+00 to 23+00
(data collected November 2007)
- As-Built Thalweg Water Surface
- Year 2 Thalweg Left Top of Bank
-?---- ------ -------------------
1900
2000
Station (ft)
2100
2200
2300
Silver Creek M3- Year 2 - Station 19+00 to 25+00
(data collected November 2007)
1145
-As-Built Thalweg Water Surface
- - - Year 2 Thalweg Left Top of Bank
1140
1135
W
1130
1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 2500
Station (ft)
1140
1135
0
R
1130
W
1125
2500 2550
Silver Creek M3- Year 2 - Station 25+00 to 30+00
(data collected November 2007)
---------
-As-Built Thalweg - Water Surface
- Year 2 Thalweg Left Top of Bank
2600 2650 2700 2750 2800 2850 2900 2950 3000
Station (ft)
Permanent Cross-section UT1 #1
(Year 2 Data - collected Nov. 2006)
C {?
C ?
? ysav .?,?r
Y ?
?f

f ALI
a t

4
'
L t A
iY h
1
x? f `
^y
:?t . ?,
?yam ' "S?r ?? P " +, , ` ey! t'fF s ed , ;
Looking at the Left Bank Looking at the Right Bank
Stream BKF BKF Max BKF
Feature Type BKF Area Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Pool 11.5 20.65 0.56 1.57 37.02 1 4.2 1146 1146.01
Cross-section #1
1150
1148
r-
0
1146
0
m
w
-----------------------------------------------------•-------------0
1144 d ti%
Year 2 - o Bankfull - - o - • Floodprone -- -- Year I As-Built
1142
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Station (ft)
Permanent Cross-section UT1 #2
(Year 2 Data - collected Nov. 2006)
r'

Riffle C 9.8 1 16.46 0.6 1 1.3 1 27.62 0.9 4.3 1 1147 1 1146.91
Cross-section #2
1149 -- --
--- . . . .. .................... .........
1148
r 1147
0
M
1146
w
1145
Year 2 - 0 Bankfull - - a - - Floodprone - Year 1 -? As-Built
1144
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Station (ft)
Looking at the Right Bank
Looking at the Left Bank
Permanent Cross-section UT1 #3
(Year 2 Data - collected Nov. 2006)
i?hY
fi3 f<
?A"
a

Feature Stream
Type
BKF Area BKF
Width BKF
Depth Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool 6 10.24 0.59 1.16 17.35 1 9.5 1148 1148.01
Cross-section #3
1151 -
1150 ------------------------------------------------------------------o
1149
c
0 1148
m
W 1147
1146
Year 2 > Bankfull - - o - Floodprone - - - Year 1 t As-Built
1145
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Station (ft)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Permanent Cross-section UT2 #4
(Year 2 Data - Collected Nov. 2007)
4%
'r
gl?L(
1
'??

4
f
`
4
1 4li
k T.
r
+
t
i-
Oki
1?'($y ?.yJ e
Riffle 1 8 12.96 0.61 1 1.31 1 21.1 1 4 1145.2 1 1145.24 j
Cross-section #4
1150
1148
Year 2 - (> Bankfull - - o - - Floodprone - --- Year 1 * As-Built
_ o
1146
w
1144 ? -1*4.mtf
1142 ?
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Station (ft)
Looking at the Right Bank
Looking at the Left Bank
Permanent Cross-section UT2 #5
(Year 2 Data - Collected Nov. 2007)

fi .
All

Feature Stream
Type
BKF Area BKF
Width BKF
Depth Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool - 16 8 24 29 0 69 - 2.85 35.21 0.9 3.2 1143.7 1143.31
Cross-section #5
1147
-----------------•--...............------------------......---------------------0 1
1145
o -
1143
W
w
1141
Year 2 0 - Bankfull - - o - - Floodprone -- -- Year 1 -+- As-Built
1139
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Station (ft)
80
Looking at the Right Bank
Looking at the Left Bank
Permanent Cross-section UT2 #6
(Year 2 Data - Collected Nov. 2007)

?,4 I
,r.

Feature Stream
Type
BKF Area BKF
Width BKF
Depth Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle 5.6 10.14 0.55 1.27 18.5 1 6.3 1137.83 1137.84
Cross-section #6
1139
0
ea
1137
w
Year 2 o Bankfull - - o - - Floodprone --- Year 1 -0 As-Built
1135
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Station (ft)
.v
w ?z
,
k
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Permanent Cross-section UT3 #7
(Year 2 Data - Collected Nov. 2007)

?.Ys
yy 4
A
1 1 8.1 1 1137.4
Cross-section #7
1143
Year 2 - Bankfull - - o - - Floodprone - Year 1 -? As-Built
1141
c
0
1139
as
W
1137
1135 1
0 10 20 30 40 50
Station (ft)
60
Looking at the Right Bank
Looking at the Left Bank
Permanent Cross-section M3 #8
(Year 2 Data - Collected Nov. 2007)
1 a a ` „X
VK t7
a f J - ` to .y' f ?.. a
3. •?.?.? S. -AML ?1 Y? .. X.. ?F°??h?~.. ?. ?? ?E??I.C•:.
Looking at the Left Bank
k
a ?.b
r, WON "ALI
wL
l ` I
,???? 4': ?'X:?calry.,' - :?. c'b'??K .:.`i•'?t.G.'h -? c:,'?i ,-':•LS y..:F:
Looking at the Right Bank

Feature Stream
Type
BKF Area BKF
Width BKF
Depth Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF E
=TOB
Riff
le
Bc
54.5
25.03
2.18
3.12
11.5
1.9
1.8
1139.75
1142.42
Cross-section #8
1149-
1147-
11451
c 1143 ----------------------------
0
M 1141
w 1139
i
1137 I
1135 Year 2 - o Bankfull - - o - - Floodprone - Year 1 -0 As-Built
1133
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130
Station (ft)
Permanent Cross-section M3 #9
(Year 2 Data - Collected Nov. 2007)
.s"Y k, 5
y ti
A, T,
? G' ',Y r¢yg Y i.: y
?J",' i? r+y?' ..r{ r?•r?`? rd?!`,.b';y+,§°'a-1' '<? i` tA?s'¢
Looking at the Left Bank
r" y
0*? Y' ?4 Syr
1 4M '' P 41?
1k
t
r
k !
' a„c' s s
s $s +• r
q. ry a
Looking at the Right Bank

Feature Stream
Type
BKF Area BKF
Width BKF
Depth Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool 82 36.15 2.27 4.44 15.93 1 3.4 1139.3 1139.34
Cross-section #9
E
c
0
R
d
w
1148
1146 ..........................•-------------------------......-•----------------o
1144
1142
1140
1138
1136
1134
1132 Year 2 Bankfull - - o Floodprone - Year 1 0 As-Built
1130
0 10 20 30 40 50
60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130
Station (ft)
Permanent Cross-section M3 #10
(Year 2 Data - Collected Nov. 2007)
S 4? .F
i?
?y Xqi
f W L
J w,
?e 4 R :4
44 AA
_y 4
'. ra 4p
«0 74 3li
Looking at the Right Bank

Feature Stream
Type
BKF Area BKF
Width BKF
Depth Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle E 58.7 25.86 2.27 3.08 11.39 1 2.4 1138.1 1138.11
Cross-section #10
1148
1146
1144
1142
c 1140
1138
m
w 1136
1134
1132
1130
0
Year 2 " - o - - Bankfull - - o - - Floodprone -- Year 1 0 As-Built
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Station (ft)
Looking at the Left Bank
Permanent Cross-section M3 #11
(Year 2 Data - Collected Nov. 2007)

vtfi , ,
? `: i?3 F' a m
mr
+ x'
i1s r
?

Looking at the Left Bank
*'_* 61? N it A 1 27
r a "='r
4
ay
44
Looking at the Right Bank

Feature Stream
Type
BKF Area BKF
Width BKF
Depth Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle C 82.4 37.09 2.22 4.18 16.69 1 3.3 1137.2 1137.32
Cross-section #11
1146
1144
1142 ------------------------------------------------------------------
1140
c 1138 -
1136
m
w 1134
1132
1130 Year 2 O Bankfull - - o - - Floodprone - Year 1 -0 As-Built
1128
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130
Station (ft)
Permanent Cross-section M4 #12
(Year 2 Data - Collected Nov. 2007)

? 'k ' ,.a„? x, ? ?? .,? •P f jJ ? rt?.4rr ?, sr ?' ? .l?i? S?'? kS'L'r+ q
r r.t„? ?„y tom[ Ti'?T r J; l:• ? '^ i? x?, I?~ Y (!??"?
Looking at the Left Bank Looking at the Right Bank
Pool 1 1 49.3 1 23.45 I 2.1 I 4.55 I 11.16 I 2.3 I 1.5 I 1133.78 I 1139.79
Cross-section #12
1144
1142 Year 2 o Bankfull - - o - - Floodprone --- Year 1 -$ As-Built
1140
1138 .......................................
1138 1136
°-' 1134 ..............
1132
1130
1128
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Station (ft)
Permanent Cross-section M4 #13
(Year 2 Data - Collected Nov. 2007)

/

j x
Looking at the Left Bank
10.

Looking at the Right Bank
Feature I Type BKF Area I Width I Depth I Depth I W/D I BH Ratio I ER I BKF Elev I TOB Elev
Pool 54.9 17.92 3.06 5.21 5.85 2.1 2.5 1133 1138.52
Cross-section #13
1144
1142
1140
1138
1136
1134
v
m 1132
w 1130
1128
1126
1124
0
Year 2 c, Bankfull • • o - • Floodprone e-- Year 1 -6 As-Built
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Station (ft)
Permanent Cross-section M4 #14
(Year 2 Data - Collected Nov. 2007)
Cross-section #14

_
0
A
a?
w
1126 Year 2 - c, Bankfull - - o Floodprone - Year 1 -? As-Built
1124
0 10 20
1144
1142
1140
---------------------------------------------------------o
1138
1136
1134
1132
1130 - -
1128
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
30 40 50 60 70
Station (ft)
Permanent Cross-section M4 #15
(Year 2 Data - Collected Nov. 2007)

Feature Stream
Type
BKF Area BKF
Width BKF
Depth Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle 68.6 26.49 2.59 3.7 10.23 1 1 1.9 1131 82 1132.05
Cross-section #15
1144-
1142-
1140-
1138-
1136
----------- ------------------
-------------
r
1134
a'? 1132 - - --------- ------------
w 1130
1128
1126 Year 2 Bankfull o - Floodprone Year 1 0 As-Built
1124
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Station (ft)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Permanent Cross-section M1 #16
(Year 2 Data - Collected Nov. 2007)

?"-

?r"?

# f 88 a?e? t +c j, Y Rim
'4J
? ..1 ..,
f r
t T 'i .?. se '?,. ??!9°J
j tE t•
Y ?
. ? k
06 ;
Y¢gq{y,',ryigf'

Feature Stream
Type
6FArea BKF
Width BKF
Depth Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle E 61 1 24 86 2.46 3.93 10.12 1.1 2.9 1144.65 1144.9
Cross-section #16
1155 -
1153
1151
1147-
0
1145
m 1143
U' 1141
1139
1137 Year 2 • a Bankfull - - o Floodprone ------ Year 1 0 As-Built
1135
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Station (ft)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Permanent Cross-section M1 #17
(Year 2 Data - collected Nov. 2007)
+-'?9 ?. ? •?16?"., c'we?. rya' ?qpy?.; ?.#
n„ ? ?9t & ter #+"9 +kL 5s'
t '0
r, ? f z

M yx

Looking at the Left Bank

Pool 1 1 78.7 27.84 1 2.83 1 4.58 1 9.84 1.5 1.8 1144.03 1146.52
Cross-section #17
1149-
....................................................
,i
1147
$ 1145
............................
c 1143
R
m 1141
w
1139
1137 Year 2 o Bankfull o Floodprone --- Year l As-Built
1135
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Station (ft)

? k
Y?jf T9 a
t
a it
a a < ?k
p t.
y
' r
ri, b

Looking at the Right Bank
Permanent Cross-section M1 #18
(Year 2 Data - collected Nov. 2007)

Feature Stream
Type
BKF Area BKF
Width BKF
Depth Max BKF
Depth
W!D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle Bc 70.4 27.23 2.58 3.64 10.54 1.9 1.5 1146.9 115 0 02
Cross-section #18
1154
1152 --- -
w 1150
c
c 1148
m 1146
1144
1142 Year 2 o Bankfull • - o - - Floodprone -- - Year 1 • As-Built
1140
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Station (ft)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank

1

I
I
? APPENDIX C
? BASELINE STREAM SUMMARY FOR
? RESTORATION REACHES
Baseline Stream Summary for Restoration Reaches
Baseline Stream Summary
Silver Creek Site - Reach UTl
Parameter USG S Gauge Regional Curve Pre-Existing Condition Reference Reach(es) Data Design As-built
Interval
Dimension - Riffle Jacob Norwood LL UL Eq. Min Mean Max Min Mean Max Min Med Max Min Mean Max
Bankfull Width (ft) 61.3 32 3.3 14.7 6.8 7.5 7.7 7.8 54.2 79.1 104 ---- 9.2 - --- 18.0 18.0 22.1
Floodprone Width (ft) 96.3 ----- ----- ----- ----- 13.0 16.0 19.0 ----- ---- ----- 90.0 100.0 110.0 70.9 70.9 88.3
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 4.7 3.1 ----- ----- ---- ----- 0.65 ----- ----- 4.7 ----- ---- 0.76 ----- 0.73 0.73 0.74
Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 5.8 ----- ----• ----- ----- 1.32 1.36 1.40 ----- 5.8 ----- 1.5 1.9 2.3 1.5 1.5 2.3
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2) 290 99 ---- --- ----- 5.0 ----- 261.1 290.3 307.8 ---- 7.0 ----- 13.2 13.2 13.2
Width/Depth Ratio 13 10.3 ----- ---- ---- 11.4 11.9 12.3 11.3 13.0 14.2 ---- 12.0 ----- 24.6 30.0 24.6
Entrenchment Ratio 1.6 ----- ----- ---- ----- 1.7 2.1 2.5 1.2 1.6 2.1 9.8 10.9 12.0 3.9 3.9 4.0
Bank Height Ratio 1.3 ----- ----- ----- ----- 2.4 2.7 3.0 1.0 1.3 1.8 ---- 1.0 ----- 0.9 0.9 0.9
Bankfull Velocity (fps) 3.9 2.6 ---- ---- ----- ----- 1.6 ---- ----- 5.7 ----- ----- 3.4 ---- ----- ----- -----
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft) ----- ---- ---•- ----- ----- 32 52.5 73 ----- ----- -----
Radius of Curvature (ft) ----- ---- ----- 23 27.5 32 ----- ---- -.---
Meander Wavelength (ft) ----- ---- ----- 64 87 110 ----- ----- -----
Meander Width Ratio ---- - ----- ----- ----- ----- ---•• 3.5 5.75 8 ----- ----- -----
Profile
Riffle Length (ft) ----- ----- ----- ---- --- ---- ----- ----- ----
Riffle Slope (ft/ft) ---- --- ----- ----- ---- - ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- 0.0062 0.00825 0.0103 ----- --- ----
Pool Length (ft) ----- ---- ---- ----- ----- ----- ---- ---- --- ----
Pool Spacing (ft) ----- ----- --- ---- ----- ---- --- --- ---- ----- - - 45.8 55 64.2 ----- -----
Substrate and Transport Parameters
d16 / d35 I d50 l d84 / d95 ----- ----- ----- ---- 0.1 / 0.2 / 0.4 l 6.4 121.2 0.2 / 6.79 19.02 / 88.89 2749.59 0.1 l 0 .2 / 0.4 16.4 121.2 ---- ----- ----
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f2 ---- - ---- ---- - 0.069 - ---- ---- ----- ----- 0.069 ---- ---- ----- ----
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m2 ---- ----- ----- ---- ----- ----- 1.4 ---- ----- ---- ----- ---- 1.4 ---- ---- ----- ----
Additional Reach Parameters
Channel length (ft) 850 ----- ----- ----- ---- ---- 1,171 ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- 1,579 ----- ---- 1,467 -----
Drainage Area (SM) 25.7 7.2 ----- ----- 0.2 ----- ----- 25.7 ---- ----- 0.2 --- --- 0.2 ----
Rosgen Classification C4 E ----- ----- ----- ---- F5/E5 ---- ----- E/C4 ----- ----- C5 ----- ----- C5 -----
Bankfull Discharge (cfs) 1140 254 ----- ----- ---- ---- 8.1 ----- 0.92 1655.46 3310 ----- 24 ---- ---- --- - -
Sinuosity 1.06 ----- 1.02 ---- ---- 1.06 ---- ----- 1.34 ---- ----- 1.3 ----
BF slope (ft/ft) 0.0025 0.0008 ---- ---- ----- ---- 0.008 ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.0017 ----- ----- 0.007 ----
Silver Creek Site - Reach UT2
Parameter USG S Gauge Regional Curve
Interval Pre-Existing Condition Reference Reach(es) Data Design As-built
Dimension - Riffle Jacob Norwood LL UL Eq. Min Mean Max Min Mean Max Min Mean Max Min Mean Max
Bankfull Width (ft) 61.3 32.0 5.2 14.4 9.8 4.4 6.6 8.8 54.2 79.1 104 --- 10.5 ----- 10.26 11.03 11.81
Floodprone Width (ft) 96.3 ---- ----- ----- ----- 11.0 14.5 18.0 ----- ----- 80.0 115.0 150.0 52.5 64.7 58.6
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 4.7 3.1 ----- ----- ---- 0.7 1.4 2.1 ----- 4.7 --- ----- 0.9 ----- 0.60 0.73 0.66
Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 5.8 ----- ---- ---- ---- 1.4 2.0 2.6 ---- 5.8 ---- 1.9 2.4 2.9 1.36 1.38 1.40
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2) 290.0 99.0 ----- ---- ----- 6.2 7.7 9.1 261.1 290.3 307.8 ----- 9.5 ----- 6.2 7.4 8.6
Width/Depth Ratio 13.0 10.3 ----- ----- ----- 2.1 7.3 12.4 11.3 13.0 14.2 ---- 10.0 ----- 16.2 16.7 17.1
Entrenchment Ratio 1.6 ---- ----- ----- ----- 1.4 2.8 4.1 1.2 1.6 2.1 8.2 11.8 15.4 4.4 5.4 6.3
Bank Height Ratio 1.3 ----- ---- ----- -_-- 2.2 2.4 2.5 1.0 1.3 1.8 ---- 1.0 ----- 1.0 1.0 1.0
Bankfull Velocity (fps) 3.9 2.6 ---- ---- . ----- ----- ----- ----- 5.7 ----- ----- 4.1 ----- --- ----- ----
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft) ----- ----- ----- ---- ----- ---- ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- 34 51 68 ----- ---- ----
Radius of Curvature (ft) ---- ---- ---- ----- ----- ---- ---- ----- ----- --- ----- 24 29 34 ----- ----- __--
Meander Wavelength (ft) ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- ---- ---- ----- ----- ---- ----- 68 92.5 117 ----- ---- ----
Meander Width Ratio ----- ----- ---- ---- ----- ----- ----- ---- ---- 3.5 5.25 7 ----- ----- ----
Profile
Riffle Length (ft) ---- ---- ---- ----- ---- -- ----- ---- ---- ----- ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- ---- ----
Riffle Slope (f /ft) ----- ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.0184 0.02455 0.0307 ---- ---- ----
Pool Length (ft) ---- ----- ---- ----- ---- --- ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- ---- ----- ----- ---- ----
Pool Spacing (ft) ---- --- ----- ---- ---- ---- ---- --- ----- 49 58 68 ----- -----
Substrate and Transport Parameters
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 l d95 --- --- ---- ---- ----- 0.2 / 0.8 / 3.7 128.3 / 43.2 0.216.79 / 19.02 l 88.89 / 2749.59 0.2 / 0. 8 / 3.7 / 28.3 / 43.2 ----- -----
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f2 --- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.87 ---- ----- ---- ----
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m2 ----- --- ---- --- ----- ---- ---- ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- ---- ----- ----- ---- ----
Additional Reach Parameters
Channel length (ft) 850 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1250 ----- ----- ---- ----- ----- 1256 ----- --- 1234 -----
Drainage Area (SM) 25.7 7.2 --- ---- ----- --- 0.25 ----- ----- 25.7 ----- ---- 0.25 ---- ----- ---- -----
Rosgen Classification C4 E ----- ---- ---- ---- E4 / C4 / G4 ----- ---- E/C4 ---- ----- C4 ----- ----- ----- ----
Bankfull Discharge (cfs) 1140 254 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.92 1655.46 3310 ----- 39 ---- --- ----- ----
Sinuosity 1.06 ----- ----- ---- ---- ---- 1.07 ----- ---- 1.06 ----- ----- 1.14 ---- --- 1.15 -----
BF slope ft/ft) 0.0025 0.0008 ----- ----- ----- ---- 0.016 ----- ---- ----- ----- ---- 0.018 ----- ---- 0.015 ----
Silver Creek Site - Reach UT3
Parameter USG S Gauge Regional Curve Pre-Existing Condition Reference Reach(es) Data Design As-built
Interval
Dimension - Riffle Jacob Norwood LL UL Eq. Min Mean Max Min Mean Max Min Med Max Min Mean Max
Bankfull Width (ft) 61.3 32.0 ----- ----- ----- ---- 4.6 ---- 54.2 79.1 104 ----- 6.5 ----- 7.66 7.66 7.66
Floodprone Width (ft) 96.3 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 15.0 ----- ----- ----- ----- 15.0 22.5 30.0 32.9 32.9 32.9
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 4.7 3.1 ---- ----- --..- ----- 0.44 ---- ----- 4.7 ---- ----- 0.54 ----- 0.4 0.4 0.4
Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 5.8 ---- ---- ----- ----- ----- 0.95 ----- ----- 5.8 ----- 1.6 1.9 2.2 0.9 0.9 0.9
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2) 290.0 99.0 ----- ----- ---- ---- 2.0 ----- 261.1 290.3 307.8 ----- 3.5 --- 3.3 3.3 3.3
Width/Depth Ratio 13.0 10.3 ----- ----- ---- ----- 10.4 ----- 11.3 13.0 14.2 ----- 12.0 ----- 17.7 17.7 17.7
Entrenchment Ratio 1.6 ---- ---•- --•-- 2.3 12 1.6 2.1 2.3 3.5 4.6 4.3 4.3 4.3
Bank Height Ratio 1.3 ----- ----- ----- --- ---- 3.3 ---- 1.0 1.3 1.8 ----- 1.0 ----- 1.0
Bankfull Velocity (fps) 3.9 2.6 ----- _ ----- 3.5 ----- ----- 5.7 ----- ----- 2.0 ----- ----- ----- -----
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft) ----- ----- ----- ---- --- ----- ----- ----- ---- ---- ----- --- ----- ---- --- -----
Radius of Curvature (ft) ----- ----- - -- ----- --- ----- ----- --- ----- ----- ---- ----- --- ----- ----- ----- -----
Meander Wavelength (ft) ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -_---
Meander Width Ratio ---- ----- ----- ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----
Profile
Riffle Length (ft) ---- ---- ----• ----- ----- ---- ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----
Riffle Slope (ft/ft) ---- ---- ----- ----- _._. ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- ---- 0.0558 0.07445 0.0931 ---- ---- ----
Pool Length (ft) ---- -- ---- ---- ----- --- ----- ---- ----- ----- -----
Pool Spacing (ft) ---- ----- ---- ----- ----- ---- ---- --- ---- ----- ----- 16.2 19.45 22.7 ----- ----- ----
Substrate and Transport Parameters
d16 / d35 l d50 / d84 / d95 ----- ----- ---- ---- ---- 0.2 / 0.5 / 0.9 / 8.0 / 20.4 0.2 / 6.79 l 19.02 / 88.89 / 2749.59 0.2 10 .5 10.9 / 8.0 l 20.4 ---- ----- ---
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f2 ----- -•-- ---- ----- ----- 0.231 ---- --- ----- ---- ----- 0.231 ----- ---- ----- ----
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m2 ---- ----- ----- ----- 7.8 ----
-----
-----
7.8
-----
-----
-----
-----
Additional Reach Parameters
Channel length (ft) 850 ----- -- ----- 191 ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- 157 ----- ----- ---- ----
Drainage Area (SM) 25.7 7.2 ----- ---- ---- ---- 0.07 ----- ----- 25.7 --- ----- 0.07 ----- ---- 0.92 ----
Rosgen Classification C4 E ---- ---- --- ---- E5b ----- ---- E/C4 ---- ----- B4 --- ----- C5 ----
Bankfull Discharge (cfs) 1140 254 ---• .___ ___ ----- 7.0 ----- 0.92 1655.46 3310 ---- 7.0 --- ----- 54 ----
Sinuosity 1.06 ----- ----- ----- ---- ---- 1.18 ----- ----- 1.06 ----- ---- 1.01 ----- ----- 1.0 ----
BF slope ft/ft) 0.0025 0.0008 ---- ---- ---- - 0.047 --- ---- ----- ----- ---- 0.008 ---- ----- 0.054 -----
Silver Creek Site - Reach Ml
Parameter USG S Gauge Regional Curve
Interval Pre-Existing Condition Reference Reach(es) Data Design As-built
Dimension - Riffle Jacob Norwood LL UL Eq. Min Mean Max Min Mean Max Min Med Max Min Mean Max
Bankfull Width (ft) 61.3 32.0 ----- ----- --- 20.3 23.9 27.5 54.2 79.1 104 ---- 30.0 ----- ---- ---- -----
Floodprone Width (ft) 96.3 ---- ----- ----- ---•- 30.0 57.5 85.0 ----- ----- ----- 35.0 57.5 80.0 ----- ---- -----
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 4.7 3.1 ----- ---- ----- 2.7 3.4 4.1 ----- 4.7 ----- ----- 2.5 ----- ----- ---- -_-
Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 5.8 ----- ----- ----- ---- 4.2 5.2 6.1 ----- 5.8 ----- 3 5.3 7.5 ----- ---
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2) 290.0 99.0 ----- ---- ---- 69.8 76.9 83.9 261.1 290.3 307.8 ----- 75.0 ----- ---- ---- -----
Width/Depth Ratio 13.0 10.3 ----- --- ----- 7.5 8.7 9.8 11.3 13.0 14.2 ---- 12.0 ----- ----- ---- ----
Entrenchment Ratio 1.6 ---- ----- ---- ----- 1.3 2.6 3.8 1.2 1.6 2.1 1.2 2.0 2.7 ---- ---- ----
Bank Height Ratio 1.3 ----- --- ---- ----- 1.6 2.1 2.5 1.0 1.3 1.8 ---- 1.0 ---- ---- ---- ----
Bankfull Velocity (fps) 3.9 2.6 ---- ---- -- -- ---- ----- ----- 5.7 ----- ----- 4.7 ----- ---- ---- ----
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft) ----- ---- --- ---- ----- ----- ----- ---- ---- ----- ----- 105 142.5 180 ---- ----- ----
Radius of Curvature (ft) ---- ---- ----- ----- ---- ----- ---- ---- ----- ----- ----- 75 90 105 ---- ---- ----
Meander Wavelength (ft) ---- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ..... ----- ----- ..... ----- 210 285 360 ---- --- ----
Meander Width Ratio ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 3.5 4.75 6 ---- --- ----
Profile
Riffle Length (ft) ----- ----- ----- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----- ----- ---- ----- ---- ---- ---- --.. ----
Riffle Slope (ft/ft) ----- ---- ----- ---- ---- --- ----- ---- ----- ---- ----- 0.0034 0.0045 0.0056 ---- ---- ----
Pool Length (ft) --- --- --- ----- ---- ----- -- ---- ----- ----- ---- ----- ---- ----- ----- ---- ----
Pool Spacing (ft) ----- ---- ----- ---- ----- ----- ---- ----- ---- ----- ----- 150 180 210 ---- --- ----
Substrate and Transport Parameters
d16 l d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 ----- ---- ---- ----- ----- 0.19 / 1.23 4.20 / 14.57 124.65 0.2 / 6.79 119.02 / 88.89 / 2749.59 0.2 / 1.2 14.2 / 14.6 124.7 ----- --- -----
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f2 ----- ----- ----- ---- ----- ----- 0.4 ---- ---- ---- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m2 ----- -- ---- ---- ---- ----- 25.0 ---- ----- --- ----- ---- ---- ----- ----- ---- .-.-
Additional Reach Parameters
Channel length (ft) 850 ----- ----- ----- ---- ----- 1,392 ----- ----- ---- ---- ---- 1,392 ----- ----- --- ----
Drainage Area (SM) 25.7 7.2 ----- ----- ---- ----- 6.6 ----- ----- 25.7 ---- ----- 6.6 ----- ----- ----- ----
Rosgen Classification C4 E ----- ----- ---- ---- E/G4 ---- ---- E/C4 ----- ----- C4 ----- ----- ---- ----
Bankfull Discharge (cfs) 1140 254 ---- ---- ---- ----- ----- ----- 0.92 1655.46 3310 ----- 350 ----- ----- ----- ----
Sinuosity 1.06 ---- ----- ---- ----- ----- 1.04 ---- ---- 1.06 ----- ----- --- ---- ----- --- -----
BF sloe (ft/ft 0.0025 0.0008 ---- ---- ---- ---- 0.002 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- ---- --- ----
Silver Creek Site - Reach M2
Parameter USG S Gauge Regional Curve Pre-Existing Condition Reference Reach(es) Data Design As-built
Interval
Dimension - Riffle Jacob Norwood LL UL Eq. Min Mean Max Min Mean Max Min Med Max Min Mean Max
Bankfull Width (ft) 61.3 32.0 ----- --•-- ----- ---- ----- ----- 54.2 79.1 104 ---- ---- ----- ---- ----- -----
Floodprone Width (ft) 96.3 ••-•- ---- •-•• --•- ----- -----
Bankfull Mean Dept () 4.7 3.1 ----- ----- ----- --- ----- ----- ----- 4.7 ----- ----- •--- ----- ----- ----- ----
Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 5.8 ---- ----- ----- ---- ---- ----- ----- ---•- 5.8 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----- --•-
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2) 290.0 99.0 ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- ---- 261.1 290.3 307.8 ----- ----- ---- ---- ---- ----
Width/Depth Ratio 13.0 10.3 ----- ---- ----- ---- ----- ----- 11.3 13.0 14.2 ---- ---- --- ----- ---- -----
Entrenchment Ratio 1.6 ----- ---- ----- ---- ----- ---- ----- 1.2 1.6 2.1 ---- --- ----- ----- ----- -----
Bank Height Ratio 1.3 ----- ---- ----- ---- ----- ---- ---- 1.0 1.3 1.8 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----.
Bankfull Velocity (fps) 3.9 2.6 ---- ----- ---- ----- ---- ---- ---- 5.7 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft) ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- ---- ---- ----- ---- ---- ----- ---- ---- ----- ----- --- -----
Radius of Curvature (ft) ----- ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- ---- ----- --- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----- ----- ---- -----
Meander Wavelength (ft) ---- ----- ----- ---- ---- ----- ---• ----- ---- --- ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- --- -----
Meander Width Ratio ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- --- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----
Profile
Riffle Length (ft) ----- ----- ---• •---- ----- ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Riffle Slope (ft/ft) ---• ---- ---- ----- ----- ----- ---- ----- ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- ----- ----
Pool Length (ft) ---- --- ----- ---- ---- ---- ----- ---- ----- ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- -----
Pool Spacing (ft) ----- ----- ---- ----- ----- ---- ----- ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- ---- ----- ----
Substrate and Transport Parameters
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 ---- ---- ----- ----- ----- ---- ----- ----- 0.2 / 6.79 / 19.02 / 88.89 / 2749.59 ----- ----- ---- ---- ----- ---
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f2 ----- ---- ----- ---- ---- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- ---- ---- -----
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m2 ---- •---- ---- ----- --•-- ----- ----
-----
---- ---- -----
Additional Reach Parameters
Channel length (ft) 850 ----- ---- ----- ---- ---- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- --- ---- ---- ----- ----- ----
Drainage Area (SM) 25.7 7.2 ----- ----- ---- ----- ---- ----- ----- 25.7 ----- ----- ----- ---- ----- ---- ----
Rosgen Classification C4 E ---- ---- --- ----- ----- --- ----- E/C4 ----- ---- ---- --- ---- ---- -•---
Bankfull Discharge (cfs) 1140 254 ---- ---- ---- ----- ----- ---- 0.92 1655.46 3310 ----- ---- ---- ----- ----- -----
Sinuosity 1.06 ---- ---- ---- ----- ----- ----- ---- ----- 1.06 ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- ----- -----
BF slope ft/ft 0.0025 0.0008 --- ---- ----- ----- ----- -----
= = = = = = = m = m = = m = = m = = m
Silver Creek Site - Reach M3
Parameter USG S Gauge Regional Curve Pre-Existing Condition Reference Reach(es) Data Design As-built
Interval
Dimension - Riffle Jacob Norwood LL UL Eq. Min Mean Max Min Mean Max Min Med Max Min Mean Max
Bankfull Width (ft) 61.3 32.0 ----- ----- ----- 20.3 23.9 27.5 54.2 790 104 ----- 31.0 ----- 26.6 27.0 38.2
Floodprone Width (ft) 96.3 ----- ----- ----- --- 30.0 57.5 85.0 ----- ----- ----- 100.0 250.0 400.0 48.5 57.5 126.5
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 4.7 3.1 --- ----- ----- 2.7 3.4 4.1 ---- 4.7 ----- ----- 2.58 ----- 2.3 2.3 2.5
Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 5.8 ----- ---- ---- ----- 4.2 5.2 6.1 ----- 5.8 ---- 3.1 5.40 7.7 3.4 3.5 5.3
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2) 290.0 99.0 ----- ----- ----- 69.8 76.9 83.9 261.1 290.3 307.8 ----- 80.0 ---- 62.6 63.2 93.7
Width/Depth Ratio 13.0 10.3 -•--- ---- ---- 4.9 7.3 9.7 11.3 13.0 14.2 ----- 12.0 --- 11.3 11.6 15.6
Entrenchment Ratio 1.6 ---- ---- ---- ----- 1.3 2.6 3.8 1.2 1.6 2.1 3.2 8.1 12.9 1.8 2.1 3.3
Bank Height Ratio 1.3 ---- ----- ----- ----- 1.2 1.5 1.7 1.0 1.3 1.8 ----- 1.0 ----- 1.0
Bankfull Velocity (fps) 3.9 2.6 ----- ----- ----- 3.2 2.9 2.7 ---- 5.7 ----- ---- 4.8 ----- ---- ----- ----
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft) ----- ----- ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- ---- ----- ---- ---- 108 147 186 ----- ----- ----
Radius of Curvature (ft) ---- ---- ---- ----- ----- ---- - --- ----- ----- ----- 77 92.5 108 ----- ---- ----
Meander Wavelength (ft) ----- ---- ---- ----- ---- ---- ----- --- ----- ----- ----- 217 294.5 372 ---- -----
Meander Width Ratio ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 3.5 4.75 6 ----- ----- ----
Profile
Riffle Length (ft) ----- ----- ---- ----- ----- ---- ----- ----- ---- ----- ----- ---- ---- ----- ----- ----- -_--
Riffle Slope (ft/ft) ----- --- ---- ----- ---- --- ----- -- ---- ---- ----- 0.0019 0.00255 0.0032 ----- ----- ----
Pool Length (ft) ---- ---- ----- ----- -•_- ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- -- ---- ---- ---- -----
Pool Spacing (ft) ---- ---- ----- -•- ----- ---- ----- ----- ---- ----- ----- 154.9 185.9 216.9 ----- ----
Substrate and Transport Parameters
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 ----- ----- --=-- ---- ----- 0. 3 10.55 / 0.85 13.63 18.73 0.2 16.79 / 19.02 / 88.89 / 2749.59 0.3 10.6 / 0.8 13.6 / 8.7 ---- ----- ----
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/t2 ----- ---- ---- ----- ---- ----- 0.276 ----- ----- ---- ---- ---- ----- ---- ----- ----
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m2 ---- -- ----- --- ---- ---- 13. ----- ----- ----- -----
----
----
-----
----
-----
----
Additional Reach Parameters
Channel length (ft) 850 ---- ----- ---- ----- ---- 2,100 ----- ---- ---- ----- ----- 2,100 ----- ----- 2,193 ---
Drainage Area (SM) 25.7 7.2 ----- ----- ----- ----- 7.2 ---- ---- 25.7 ----- ----- 7.2 ----- ---- 7.2 -----
Rosgen Classification C4 E ----- ---- ---- ----- E5 ----- ----- E/C4 ----- ----- C5 ---- ---- C5 ----
Bankfull Discharge (cfs) 1140 254 ----- ----- 226 --- 0.92 1655.46 3310 ----- 385 ----- ----- -----
Sinuosity 1.06 ----- ----- ----- 1.4 --- ---- 1.06 ---- ---- 1.4 ----- ----- 1.480 ---
BF slope ft/ft 0.0025 0.0008 ---- ---- ---- ---- 0.002 ---- ---- ---- ----- ---- 0.0016 ----- ----- 0.002 ----
r rr ? r ? ? r r ? r ? ? ? ? ? ¦¦? ? ? ?
Silver Creek Site - Reach M4
Parameter USG S Gauge Regional Curve Pre-Existing Condition Reference Reach(es) Data Design As-built
Interval
Dimension - Riffle Jacob Norwood LL UL Eq. Min Mean Max Min Mean Max Min Med Max Min Mean Max
Bankfu 1 Width (ft) 61.3 32.0 ----- ----- 20.3 23.9 27.5 54.2 79.1 104 ----- ----- ----- .---
Floodprone Width (ft) 96.3 ----- ----- ----- 30.0 57.5 85.0 ----- ----- ----- ---•• ---- ---- ---- --- - --
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 4.7 3.1 ---- ----- ----- 2.7 3.4 4.1 ----- 4.7 ----- ---- ---- ----- ---- --- -----
Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 5.8 ----- ---- ----- ---- 4.2 5.2 6.1 ----- 5.8 ----- ----- ----- ---- --- ---- -----
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2) 290.0 99.0 ----- ----- ---- 69.8 76.9 83.9 261.1 290.3 307.8 ----- ---- ----- ---- -----
Width/Depth Ratio 13.0 10.3 ---- ---- ----- 4.9 7.3 9.7 11.3 13.0 14.2 ----- ----- ---- ----- ---- ----
Entrenchment Ratio 1.6 ----- ---- ----- ----- 1.3 2.6 3.8 1.2 1.6 2.1 ----- ---- ----- ---- ----- ---
Bank Height Ratio 1.3 ----- ---- ----- ---- ----- 1.2 ---- 1.0 1.3 1.8 ----- ---- ----- ---- ---- -
Bankfull Velocity (fps) 3.9 2.6 ----- ---- ----- -•--- ---- ---- 5.7 ---- ---- ----- ----- ---- ----- ----
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft) ---- ----- ---- ----- ---- ----- ----- ---- ----- ---- ----- ----- ---- ----- ---- ---- -----
Radius of Curvature (ft) ----- ----- ---- ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- --- ----- ----- ---- ---- ----- --- -----
Meander Wavelength (ft) ---- ----- ----- ---- ---- -----
Meander Width Ratio -•--- ----- ----- ----- --- ---- -----
---- ----
---- ---- -----
Profile
Riffle Length (ft) ----- ----- ----- ---- ---- ----- ----- ---- ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Riffle Slope (ft/ft) ---- ---- ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Pool Length (ft) ---- ---- ----- ---- ----- ----- ---- ---- ----- --- ---- ----- ----- ----
Pool Spacing (ft) ---- ---- ----- ----- ----- ---- ----- ----- •---- ----- ---- ---- ----- ----- ---- -----
Substrate and Transport Parameters
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- 0.71 / 2.77 10.91 / 29.87 39.50 0.2 / 6.79 / 19.02 / 88.89 2749.59 ----- ----- ---- ---- •---- -----
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f2 ----- ----- ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- _--- -----
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m2 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----
----- ----
---- ----- ----
Additional Reach Parameters
Channel length (ft) 850 ---- ---- ---- ---- ----- 2,036 ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- 2,036 ----- ----- --- -----
Drainage Area (SM) 25.7 7.2 ----- ----- ----- ----• 7.6 ---- ----- 25.7 ----- ----• 7.6 ----- ---•- ---- -----
Rosgen Classification C4 E ----- ---- ----- ----• E4 ---- ----- E/C4 ----- --•-- ---- ---- ---• ---- -----
Bankfull Discharge (cfs) 1140 254 ----- ---- ---- ----- ----- ---- 0.92 1655.46 3310 -•-- ---- ---- ---- ---- -----
Sinuosity 1.06 - ---- ----- 1.07 ---- ---- 1.06 ----- ---- ----- ----- ---- ---- ----
BF slope ft/ft 0.0025 0.0008 ---- ---- ---- ----- 0.002 ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- ----- ---• ----- ----
m m m m m m = = m = m = m = m = m m m

APPENDIX D
? MORPHOLOGY AND HYDRAULIC
' MONITORING SUMMARY -YEAR 2
MONITORING

1
and
Summarv - Year 1
Silver Creek Restoration Site: Project No.
Reach: Unnamed Tributary 1 (UT
Cross Section I Cross Section 2 Cross Section 3
Parameter Pool Riffle Pool
MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MYI MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
Dimension
Bankfull Width (ft) 24.08 20.65 11.99 16.46 10.27 10.24
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 0.62 0.56 0.83 0.6 0.85 0.59
Width/Depth Ratio 38.7 37.02 14.4 27.62 12.0 17.35
Bankfull Area (sq ft) 14.99 11.52 9.99 9.81 8.77 6.04
Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 2.33 1.57 1.38 1.3 1.57 1.16
Width of Floodprone Area (ft) 96.46 86.2 70.82 70.87 96.81 96.89
Entrenchment Ratio 4.01 4.17 5.91 4.31 9.43 9.47
Wetted Perimeter (ft) - - _
Hydraulic Radius (ft) -
Substrate
d50 (mm)
d84 mm
Parameter MY-] (2006) MY-2 (2007) MY-3 2008) MY-4 2009) MY-5 2010)
Min Max Med Min Max Med Min Max Med Min Max Med Min Max Med
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft) -
Radius of Curvature (ft) -
Meander Wavelength (ft) -
Meander Width Ratio -
Profile
Riffle length (ft) -
Riffle Slope (ft/ft) -
Pool Length (ft) -
Pool Spacing (ft) -
Additional Reach Parameters
Valley Length (ft) 1108.53 1108.53
Channel Length (ft) 1467 1467
Sinuosity 1.32 1.32
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft) 0.0054 0.0072
BF Slope (ft/ft) 0.0071 0.0054
Ros en Classification C C
Reach; Unnamed Tributar?y 2 T2
Cross Section 4 Cross Section 5 Cross Section 6
1. Cross-Section Parameters Riffle Pool Riffle
MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY] MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
Dimension
BF Width (ft) 14.11 12.96
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 0.68 0.61
Width/Depth Ratio 20.9 21.1
Bankfull Area (sq ft) 9.53 7.96
Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 1.44 1.31
Width of Floodprone Area (ft) 52.94 51.95
Entrenchment Ratio 3.75 4.01
Wetted Perimeter (ft) -
Hydraulic Radius (ft) -
53.60 24.29 11.42 10.14
0.55 0.69 0.58 0.55
97.0 35.21 19.8 18.5
29.62 16.76 6.60 5.56
1.88 2.85 1.27 1.27
78.21 78.27 64.70 63.65
1.46 3.22 5.67 6.27
Substrate
d50 (mm)
d84 mm
11
R
h
i MY-1 2006) MY-2 2007) MY-3 (2008) MY-4 (2009) MY-5 2010)
.
eac
w
de Parameters
Min Max Med Min Max Med Min Max Med Min Max Med Min Max Med
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft) -
Radius of Curvature (ft) -
Meander Wavelength (ft) -
Meander Width Ratio -
Profile
Riffle length (ft) -
Riffle Slope (ft/ft) -
Pool Length (ft) -
Pool Spacing (ft) -
Additional Reach Parameters
Valley Length (ft) 1068.85 1068.85
Channel Length (ft) 1234.2 1234.2
Sinuosity 1.15 1.15
m m m m = = w m = m = = ' = = = = m
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft) 0.0151
BF Slope (ft/ft) 0.0174
Ras en Classification C

Cross Section 7
1. Cross-Section Parameters Riffle
MY I MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
Dimension
BF Width (ft) 6.24 3.7
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 0.39 0.32
Width/Depth Ratio 15.9 11.71
Bankfull Area (sq ft) 2.45 1.2
Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 0.98 0.64
Width of Floodprone Area (ft) 36.28 45
Entrenchment Ratio 5.81 8.1
Wetted Perimeter (ft) -
Hydraulic Radius (ft) -
Reach:
0.0191
0.0165
C
Substrate
d50 (mm)
d84 mm
IL Reachwide Parameters MY-1(2006) MY-2 (2007) MY-3 (2008) MY-4 2009 MY-5 2010)

Min Max Med Min Max Med Min Max Med Min Max Med Min Max Med
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft) -
Radius of Curvature (ft) -
Meander Wavelength (ft) -
Meander Width Ratio -
Profile
Riffle length (ft) -
Riffle Slope (ft/ft) -
Pool Length (ft) -
Pool Spacing (ft) -
Additional Reach Parameters
Valley Length (ft) 154.1 154.1
Channel Length (ft) 157.79 157.79
Sinuosity 1.02 1.02
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft) 0.0536
BF Slope (ft/ft) 0.0545
Ros en Classification -
Reach: Silver Creek Ml
Cross Section 16 Cross Section 17 Cross Section 18
Parameter Riffle Pool Riffle
MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
Dimension
BF Width (ft) 25.96 24.86 28.54 27.84 28.08 27.23
Floodprone Width (ft) 86.30 2.46 52.78 2.83 40.47 2.58
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft2 ) 78.6 10.12 84.1 9.84 77.5 10.54
BF Mean Depth (ft) 3.03 61.06 2.95 78.75 2.76 70.36
BD Max Depth (ft) 5.84 3.93 5.11 4.58 3.68 3.64
Width/Depth Ratio 8.57 72.76 9.69 50.16 10.17 39.99
Entrenchment Ratio 3.30 2.93 1.80 1.8 1.40 1.47
Wetted Perimeter (ft) - - -
Hydraulic Radius (ft) -
Substrate
d50 (mm)
d84 mm
Parameter MY-] 2005) MY-2 (2006) MY-3 (2007) MY-4 (2008)
Min Max Med Min Max Med Min Max M ed Min Max Med
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft) -
Radius of Curvature (ft) -
Meander Wavelength (ft) -
Meander Width Ratio -
Profile
Riffle length (ft) -
Riffle Slope (ft/ft) -
Pool Length (ft) -
Pool Spacing (ft) -
Additional Reach Parameters
Valley Length (ft) -
Channel Length (ft) -
Sinuosity -
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft) -
MY-5 (2009)
Min Max Med
BF Slope (ft/ft) -
Ros en Classification C
Reach: Silver Creek M3
Cro ss Section 8 Cross Section 9 Cross Section 10 Cross Section 11
Parameter Riffle Pool Riffle Pool
MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
Dimension
BF Width (ft) 26.43 25.03 36.81 36.15 26.10 25.86 39.85 37.09
Floodprone Width (ft) 45.80 2.18 122.40 2.27 63.31 2.27 126.40 2.22
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft2 ) 58.20 11.5 95.40 15.93 59.40 11.39 88.90 16.69
BF Mean Depth (ft) 2.20 54.46 2.59 82.05 2.27 58.68 2.23 82.43
BD Max Depth (ft) 3.16 3.12 5.35 4.44 3.14 3.08 4.43 4.18
Width/Depth Ratio 12.0 44.09 14.2 122.43 11.5 62.95 17.9 122.63
Entrenchment Ratio 1.70 1.76 3.30 3.39 2.40 2.43 3.20 3.31
Wetted Perimeter (ft) - - _ _
Hydraulic Radius (ft) -
Substrate
d50 (mm)
d84 mm
Parameter MY-1 2005) MY-2 (2006) MY-3 (2007) MY-4 2008) MY-5 (2009)
Min Max Med Min Max Med Min Max Med Min Max Med Min Max Med
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft) -
Radius of Curvature (ft) -
Meander Wavelength (ft) -
Meander Width Ratio -
Profile
Riffle length (ft) -
Riffle Slope (ft/ft) -
Pool Length (ft) -
Pool Spacing (ft) -
Additional Reach Parameters
Valley Length (ft) 1481.1 1481.1
Channel Length (ft) 2192.57 2192.57
Sinuosity 1.48 1.48
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft) 0.0022 0.0023
BF Slope (ft/ft) 0.0032 0.0036
r r M -M M -M r r w r M ---M r r m r m r r
Ros en Classification C C
Ruch: Silver Creek M4
Cross Section 12 Cross Section 13 Cross Section 14 Cross Section 15
Parameter Riffle Riffle Riffle Riffle
MYI MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MYI MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MYI MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MYI MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
Dimension
BF Width (ft) 23.56 23.45 19.74 17.92 36.07 32.68 28.08 26.49
Floodprone Width (ft) 37.13 2.1 42.06 3.06 56.29 2.25 50.83 2.59
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft2 ) 55.20 11.16 46.40 5.85 78.00 14.52 72.70 10.23
BF Mean Depth (ft) 2.34 49.27 2.35 54.86 2.16 73.54 2.59 68.6
BD Max Depth (ft) 4.58 4.55 4.23 5.21 4.65 5.13 3.90 3.7
Width/Depth Ratio 10.1 36.04 8.4 45.26 16.7 57.27 10.9 49.94
Entrenchment Ratio 1.60 1.54 2.10 2.53 1.60 1.75 1.80 1.89
Wetted Perimeter (ft) - - _ _
Hydraulic Radius (ft) -
Substrate
d50 (mm)
d84 (mm)
Parameter MY-1 2006) MY-2 (2007) MY-3 2008) MY-4 (2009 MY-5 2010)

Min Max Med Min Max Med Min Max Med Min Max Med Min Max Med
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft) -
Radius of Curvature (ft) -
Meander Wavelength (ft) -
Meander Width Ratio -
Profile
Riffle length (ft) -
Riffle Slope (ft/ft) -
Pool Length (ft) -
Pool Spacing (ft) -
Additional Reach Parameters
Valley Length (ft) -
Channel Length (ft) -
Sinuosity -
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft) -
BF Slope (ft/ft) -
Ros en Classification C4
r m m r m= m r r r = m m r m m m m r

t
1
APPENDIX E
? BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE
MONITORING DATA
.. b4xr..
IL oil
A. R!t
7'a-
LegendMacrobenthic Sampling s
Stream Enhancement Level 1 ^ ti+!#^ r
4 41
Stream Preservation '
Stream Restorations
Stream Buffer o`
%
® Figure 1.
Environmental Banc and Exchange, LLC 0 500 1,000 Benthic Macroinvertebrate
2530 Meridian Parkway, Suite 200 Feet Sampling Sites
Durham, NC 27713
Silver Creek Site
P-1
Site 1 - looking upstream
%
P-3
Site 2 - looking upstream
P-2
Site I - looking downstream
P-4
Site 2 - looking downstream
P-5 Site 3 - looking upstream
Eco-reference reach - UT to Bailey's Fork
P-6 Site 3 - looking downstream
Eco-reference reach - UT to Bailey's Fork
Appendix A. Benthos Data for Silver Creek Project Collected on January 11-17, 2007
A5 i ' ?'?`{ Nl ?
?7 { { O'sr ? 7 t s C
t `VI
NNELIDA
Oligchaeta
Lumbriculidae 7.0 GC R
Naididae
Nais s pp. 8.9 GC R
Tubificidae 7.1 GC R
RTHROPODA
Arachnida
H dracarina 5.5 PR R
Insecta
Coleoptera
Dryopidae
Helichus spp. 4.6 SH R
Dytiscidae
Lacco hilus s pp. 10.0 PR R
Elmidae
Microcylloepus pusillus 2.1 GC R
Optioservirs ovalis 2.4 SC R
Stenelmis s pp. 5.1 SC R
H dro hilidae
Tro isternus s pp. 9.7 PR R
Ptilodactylidae
Anchytarsus bicolor 3.6 SH A
Di tera
Cerato 0 onidae
Pal om is complex 6.9 PR R
Chironomidae
Brillia spp. 5.2 SH R
Clinotanypus pinguis 8.7 PR R
Conchapelopia grp 8.4 PR A R
Corynoneura spp. 6.0 GC R
Cricotopus bicinctus 8.5 SH A C
Diamesa spp. 8.1 GC A
Dicrotendipes spp. 8.1 GC C
Microtendipes spp. 5.5 FC R R
Nanocladius spp. 7.1 GC R
Parametriocnemus
lundbecki 3.7 GC C R C
Polypedilum fallax grp 6.4 SH R
Polypedilum illinoensegrp 9.0 SH R
Procladius spp. 9.1 PR C
Rheocricotopus spp. 7.3 GC R
Rheotanytarsus spp. 5.9 FC A
Tanytarsus spp. 6.8 FC R
f •, f
k? * L 3 '?l ?,
t Y ?'G' Gs a.
?F .tiy •1 T
?t
" - as ..-} J.
r- 'Yr
Tvetenia bavarica 3.7 GC R
Dixidae
Dixa spp. 2.6 GC R C C
Simulidae
Simulium spp. 6.0 FC A A A
Tipulidae
Antocha spp 4.3 GC A
Dicranota spp 0.0 PR R
Erioptera spp. 4.6 GC R
Hexatoma spp. 4.3 PR R
Tipula spp. 7.3 SH R C
Ephemeroptera
Baetidae
Acentrella spp. 4.0 GC R
Acerpenna pygmaea 3.9 OM R R
Baetis pluto 4.3 R
Callibaetis s 9.8 GC R C
Centro tilum s 6.6 GC R R
Baetiscidae
Baetisca carolina 3.5 OM R
Caenidae
Caenis spp. 7.4 GC C
Ephemerellidae
Ephemerella spp. 2.0 GC A R A
Eurylophella funeralis 2.1 GC C C
Serratella deficiens 2.8 GC C
Ephemera spp. 2.0 GC R
Heptageniidae
Epeorus spp 1.3 SC R
Stenonema modestum 5.5 SC A A A
Stenonema pudicum 2.0 SC C
Le to hlebiidae
Le to hlebia cu ida 6.0 C
Le to hlebia spp. 6.2 GC R
Paraleptophlebia spp 0.9 GC R R
Megaloptera
Corydalidae
Nigronia serricornits 5.0 PR R
Odonata
Aeshnidae
Boyeria vinosa 5.9 PR R R
Calopterygidae
Calopteryx spp. 7.8 PR R
Coenagrionidae
Argia spp. 8.2 PR A
?? 1 1 Y .y ii"f.
Cordulegastridae
Cordulegaster spp. 5.7 PR R
Gomphidae
Ophiogomphus spp 5.5 PR R
Libellulidae
Libellula s 9.6 PR R
Pleco tera
Chlo erlidae
Suwallia s 1.2 PR R
Pelto erlidae
Talla erla s 1.2 R
Perlidae
Acroneuria abnormis 2.1 PR R
Eccoptura xanthenes 3.7 C
Perlodidae
Clio erla Clio 4.7 R
Diploperla duplicata 2.7 C C
Iso erla bilineata 5.4 A C A
Pteronarc idae
Pteronarc s s 1.7 SH R
Taeniopterygidae
Strophopteryx spp. 2.7 A R
Trichoptera
Brachycentridae
Brachycentrus spp 2.1 FC R
Hydropsychidae
Cheumatopsyche spp. 6.2 FC C A R
Diplectrona modesta 2.2 FC R C
H dro s the betteni 7.8 FC A C R
Le idostomatidae
Le idostoma s pp. 0.9 SH R
Limne hilidae
P cno s the s. 2.5 SH C C
Philo tamidae
Chimarra spp. 2.8 FC
Polycentropodidae
Polycentropus spp. 3.5 PR R
Rhyachophilidae
Rhyachophila s pp 0.0 R
Uenoidae
Neo hylax s pp 2.2 SC R
MOLLUSCA
Gastropods
Lymnaeidae
Pseudosuccinea columella 7.7 SC R
8ft, Al
M {( w
yy

Total Taxa Richness 36 39 34
PT Taxa Richness 23 11 20
Total Biotic Index 4.40 6.86 430
PT Biotic Index 4.16 6.14 3.65
Dominant in Common Taxa
50 31 N/A
Notes: Tolerance Values: ranges from 0 (least tolerant to pollution) to 10 (most tolerant to pollution).
Functional Feeding Group: CG = Collector-Gatherer, FC = Filterer-Collector, OM = Omnivore, PR = Predator, SC = Scraper, SH =
Shredder.
Abundance: R = Rare (1-2 individuals); C = Common (3-9 individuals); A = Abundant (10 or more individuals).
3/06 Revision 6
Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet
Mountain/ Piedmont Streams
Biological Assessment Unit, DWQ AL SCORE .
Directions for use: The observer is to survey a minimum of 100 meters with 200 meters preferred of stream, preferably in an
upstream direction starting above the bridge pool and the road right-of-way. The segment which is assessed should represent average
stream conditions. To perform a proper habitat evaluation the observer needs to get into the stream To complete the form, select the
1 description which but fits the observed habitats and then circle the score. If the observed habitat falls in between two descriptions,
select an intermediate score. A fatal habitat score is determined by adding the results from flp.ditf'erent metrics.
Stream Locationtroad: (Road N 59 v-J-vN )County ?ALA?-k-4-
Date 1 I ° CC# Basin C v,J' Subbasin
A 11C, T F
observer(s)CO M Type o? Study: ? Fish JHBenthos
?j??;itik•? ?,y,,,?l•,
I,atit a ?'o 5rs- • ?. &ngmA G c t`''Ecoregion
'54.4 era
Water Quality: Temperature ?' ? °C DO ? • °(2 mg/l
? Basinwide ?Special Study (Describe)
? MT j?P ? Slate Belt ? Triassic Basin
Conductivity (corr.) yO pS/cm px 1
Physical Characterization: Visible land use refers to Immediate area that you can we from sampling location - include what
you estimate driving thru the watershed in watershed land use.
Visible Land Use: ?Pr5 %Forest %Residential Se -/.Active Pasture % Active Crops
25 %Fallow Fields % Commercial %Industrial %Uther - Describe:
Watershed land use : ?Forest ?Agriculture ?Urban ? Animal operations upstream I T4 Width: (meters) Stream rl-r" Channel (at top of bank) ? Stream Depth: (m) AvgMax
? Width variable ? Large river >25m wide
Bank Height (from deepest part of riffle to top of bank first flat surface you stand on): (m) 3 `s
L4 P-+
Bank Angle: 3 o - or ? NA (Vertical is W, horizontal is 00 Angles > 900 indicate slope is towards mid-charne), < 900
indicate slope is away from channel. NA if bank is too low for bank angle to matter.)
? Channelized Ditch
?Deeply incised-steep, straight banks ?Both banks undercut at bend ?Chmnt:l filled in with sediment
Recent ov erbank deposits ?Bar devclopment ?Buried structures ?Exposed bedrock
? Excessive periphytat wth ? Heavy filamentous algae growth ?Green tinge ? Sewage. smell
Manmade Stabilization IN ?Y: ?Rip-rap, cement, gabions ? Sedirnoutlgrade-corerol structure ?Berm4evee
Flow conditions : ?High '19Nor al ?Low
Turbidity: ?Clear A Slightly Turbid ?Turbid ?Tannic ?Milky ?Colored (from dyes)
Good potential for Wetlands Restoration Project?? ? YES )4NO Details ?-,,-
Channel Flow States
Useful especially under abnormal or low flow conditions.
A. Water reaches base of both lower banks, minimal channel substrate exposed ............................
B. Water fills >75% of available channel, or <25% of channel substrate is exposed ....................... ?
C. Water tlih 25-75% of available channel, rrmny logs/snags exposed .» .......................................... ?
D. Root mats out of water ................................................................................................................... ?
E. Very little water in channel, mostly present as standing pools ..................................................... ?
Weather Conditions: 5 V tU!Lj1 , c, 1 ) Photos: ?N )4Y )(Digital ?35mm
Remarks:
39
I. Channel Modification Score
A. channel natural, frequent bends .......................................... .....................................................
B. channel natural, infrequent bends (ciannelization could be old) ...................................................... 4
C. some channelization present. .................................................................................................... 3
D. more extensive channelization, >40% of stream disrupted .... » ......................................................... 2
E. no bends, completely channelized or rip rapped or gabioned, etc .....................................................
C3 Evidence of dredging OEvidence of demagging=no large woody debris in stream OBanks of uniform shapelheight
Remarks Subtotal S
[I. Instream Habitat: Consider the percentage of the reach that is favorable for benthos colonization or fish cover. If >70% of the
reach is rocks, I type is present, circle the score of 17. Definition: kafpacks consist of older leaves that are packed together and have
begun to decay (not piles of leaves in pool areas). Mark N Rare. Common. or Abundant.
A Rocks r?.Macrophytes 4$ticks antl [eafpacks 19 Snags and logs A Undercut banks or root mats
AMOUNT OF R19ACH FAVORABLE FOR COLONIZATION OR COVER
>70% 40-700/9 20-40% <20%
score score Score Score
4 or 5 types present ................. 20 16 12 8
3 types present ......................... 19 ? 11 7
2 types present ....................»... 18 l0 6
1 type present. .......................... 17 13 9 5
No types present ....................... 0 r
V 5
O No woody vegetation in riparian zone Remarks Subtotal
M. Bottom Substrate (slit, sand, detritus, gravel, cobble, boulder) Look at entire reach for substrate scoring, but only look at riffle
for mss, and use rocks from all parts of ritfie-look for "mad line" or difficulty extracting rocks.
A. substrate with good mix of gravel, cobble and boulders
1. embeddedness Q0% (very little and, usually only behind large boulders) .........................
2. embeddedness 20-40% .....................................................».............................................».... 12
3. embeddedness 40-Wlo ..........................................................................................................
4. embeddedness >80% .......................................................................................................».... 3
B. substrate gravel and cobble
1. embeddedness QO% ........................................................................................................ 14
2. embeddedness 20-40% ......................................................................................................... it
3. embeddedness 40-80% ........................................................................................................ 6
4. embeddednness >8M ........................................................................................................... 2
C. substrate mostly gravel
1. embeddedness <500/6 ....................... ............................................................................».. 8
2. embeddedness >50% ............................................................................................................ 4
D. substrate homogeneous
1. substrate nearly all bedrock ................................................................................................... 3
2. substrate nearly all sand ........................................................................................................ 3
3. substrate nearly all detritus .................................................................................................... 2
4. substrate nearly all silt/ clay ................................................................................................... I
Remarks Subtotal l
[V. Pool Variety Pools are areas of deeper than average maximum depths with little or no surface turbulence. Water velocities
associated with pools are always slow. Pools may take the form of "pocket water", small pools behind boulders or obstructions, in
large high gradient streams, or side eddies.
A. Pools present
1. Pools Frequent (>30% of 200m area surveyed)
a. variety of pool sizes .............................................................................................»............... 4
b. pools about the same size (indicates pools filling in) ........................................................... 8
2. Pools Infrequent (<30% of the 200m area surveyed)
a. variety of pool sizes. .............................................................................................................. 6
b. pools abort the same size ..........................................».................................... ?.................. 4
B. Pools absent ............................................................................................................................................ 0
Subtotal
O Pool bottom boulder-cobbleAwd X Bottom sandy-sink as you walk O Silt bottom O Some pools over wader depth
Remarks Page. Total qa
40 ?/s
t
' V. Riffle Habitats
Definition: piffle is area ofmaeration-can be debris dam, or narrow channel area Riffles Frequent
Riffles Infrequent

A. well defined riffle and run, riffle as wide as stream and extends 2X width of stream.... (161 Score
12
' B. riffle as wide as stream but rifle length is not 2X stream width .........» ......................... 4 7
C. riffle not as wide as stream and riffle length is not 2X stream width . 1.0 3

' D. riffles absent. ........................................................................................»».................. 0
Charnel Slope: OWical for area OSteep-fast flow OLow-like a coastal stream
Subtotal

' VI. Bank Stability and Vegetation
FACE UPSTREAM Left Bank Rt. Bank

_SSW
score
A. Banks stable
1. little evidence of erosion or bank failure(except outside of bends), little potential for erosion.. 7 7

' B: Erosion areas present
1. diverse trees, shrubs, grass; plants healthy with good root systems ..................................... 6 6
2. few trees or small trees and shrubs; vegetation appears generally healthy ........................... 5 5
3. sparse mixed vegetation; plant types and conditions suggest poorer soil binding .................
4. mostly grasses; few if any sites and shrubs, high erosion and failure potential at high flow.. 2
5. little or no bank vegetation, mass erosion and bank failure evident ........................................... 0 0
Total s
Remarks
I VII. Light Penetration Canopy is defused as tree or vegetative cover directly above the stream's surface. Canopy would block out
1 surdialit when the sun is directly overhead. Note shading from mountains, but not use to score this metric.

1
t

1
1

&me
A. Stream with good canopy with some breaks for light penetration ............................................. 10
B. Stream with full canopy - breaks for light penetration absent ................»................................... 8
C. Stream with partial canopy - sunlight and shading are essentially equal .................................... 7
D. Stream with minimal canopy - full sun in all but a few areas .......................................................
E. No canopy and no shading. ........................... . ........................ . ................... . ............ . .. . ..............
Remarks Subtotal d
VIII. Riparian Vegetative Zone Width
Definition: Riparian zone for this fors is area of natural vegetation adjacent to stream (can go beyond floodplain). Defmition: A break
in the riparian zone is any place on the stream banks which allows sediment or pollutants to directly enter the stream, such as paths
down to stream, storm drains, uprooted trees, otter slides, etc.
FACE UPSTREAM Lit. Bank Rt. Back
Dominant vegetation: D Trees '13. Shrubs XGrasses AWeedslold field 17Exotics (kudzu, etc) Score Score
A. Riparian zone intact (no breaks)
1. width > 18 meters ..................».....................„..........................................
5
5
2
width 12-18 meters ? I
...................................................................................
.
3. width 6-12 meters ...................... »....................................................... _.... fir.! 3 '
4. width < 6 meters ...................................................................................... 2 2
8. Riparian zone not intact (breaks)
1. breaks rare
a. width > 18 meters. .................... . .................................................. 4 4
b. width 12-18 meters ....................................................................... 3 3
c. width 6-12 meters ....................................................................... 2 2
d. width < 6 meters ..........................»............................................. 1 1
2. breaks common
a. width > 18 meters ......................................................................... 3 3
b. width 12-18 meters ...................................................................... 2 2
c. width 6-12 meters ....» ................................................................. 1 1
d. width < 6 meters. .... ................................................................... 0 0
Remarks Total
Page Total 34)
O Disclaimer-form filled out, but scone doesn't match subjective opinion-atypical stream TOTAL SCORE
41

Supplement for Habitat Assessment l?'ield Data Sheet
Diagram to determine bank angle:
F?
? II
?w rte r 'i.r? wr r
90° 45°

Site Sketch:
Stream Wutk
135°
,;?-- F umw ands
LQWW
Deal
't his side is 45° bank angle.
Other cormnents:
s
42
3/06 Revision 6
Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet
Mountain/ Pdedmont Streams
Biological Assessment Unit, DWQ TAL.SCORE
Directions for use: The observer is to survey a minimum of 1100 meters with 200 meters preferred of stream, preferably in an
upstream direction starting above the bridge pool and the road right-of-way. The segment which is assessed should represent average
stream conditions. To perform a proper habitat evaluation the observer needs to get into the stream. To complete the form, select the
description which best fits the observed habitats and then circle the score. If the observed habitat falls in between two descriptions,
select an inwawdiate score. A feral habitat score is determined by adding the results from the different metrics.
av r i Sri'.
Stream ?J-(1 Ve- CV' k, Location/road: 61Iz L _(Road Name )County_
Date 1 ! 1 ?? CC# Basin Subbasin_ "its , r
?w,r_ f ca?+M
Observer(s} _ Type of Study. O Fish tbenthos O Basinwide OSpecial Study (Describe)
--i ds 03 i r ? 9 G Ecoregion: O MT E3 P O Slate Belt O Triassic Basin
Water Quality: Temperature g 7 °C 60L.82 _mg/l Conductivity (corr.) 3,b pS/em pH 5.9 --
Physical Characterization: Visible land use refers to immediate area that you can see from sampling location - Include what
you estimate driving thru the watershed in watershed land use.
Visible Land Use: 5D °loir'orest 9'.Residential 7-0 %Active Pasture % Active Crops
32_%Fallow Fields % Commercial %Industrial %0ther - Describe
Watershed land use : OPorest OAgriculture OUrban O Animal operations upstream
Width: (meters) Stream 1.5 Channel (at top of bank) 3. m Stream Depth: (m) Avg a i SMax b 5
O Width variable O Large river >25m wide
Bank Height (fi;om deepest part of riffle to top of bank-fast flat surface you stand on): (m) 0, -7
Bank Angle: 15 ° or O NA (Vertical is 90°, horizontal is 00. Angles > 90° indicate slope is towards mid-channel, < 9(r
indicate slope is away from channel. NA if bank is too low for bank angle to nutter.)
O Channelized Ditch
ODwply incised-steep, straight banks OBoth banks undercut at bend OChannel filled in with sediment
O Recent overbank deposits Mar development OBwried structures OF.xposed bedrock
O Excessive periphyton growtFl „ O Heavy filamentous algae growth OCmeu tinge O Sewage smell
Manmade Stabilization: ON Y: ORip-rap, cement, gabions O Sediment/grade-control structure OBetr&tevee A try /
' Flow conditions : OHigh Normal Mow Gtr" 7v? `
Turbidity: OCkar O Slightly Turbid ©Turbid OTannic DMilky OColored (from dyes) ?
Good potential for Wetlands Restoration Project?? 17 YES W0 Details
' Channel Flow Status
Useful especially under abnormal or tow flow conditions.
A. Water reaches base of both lower banks, minimal channel substrate exposed ............................
B. Water fills >75% of available charnel, or <25% of channel substrate is exposed........ ................ O
....logs/snags exposed .............. O
C. Water !ills 25-7596 of available channel, many
D. Root mats out of water.. O
E. Very little water in channel, mostly present as standing pools .............................................. O
Weather Conditions:: ynn S p Photos: ON f Y )dDigital 035mm
Remarks:
S
39?
a
t
I. Channel Modification
A. channel natural, frequent bends. ........................................»...........................................».............. ?j
B. channel natural, infrequent bends (channelization could be old) ...................................................... 4
C. some channelization present ........................................................................................................... 3
D. more extensive channelization, >40% of stream disrupted .............................................................. 2
E. no bends, completely channelized or rip rapped or gabioned, etc ....................»............................... 0
O Evidence of dredging ElEvidence of desnaggingsno large woody debris in stream Banks of uniform shape/height
Remarks Subtotal
It. Instream Habitat. Consider the percentage of the reach that is favorable for benthos colonization or fish cover. If >70% of the
reach is rocks, 1 type is present, circle the score of 17. Definition: leafpacks consist of older leaves that are packed together and have
begun to decay (not piles of leaves in pool areas). Mark as Rare. Comrnm or Abundant.
Rocks _&Macrophytes __&Atieks and leafpacks ?. Snags and logs ? Undercut banks or root mats
AMOUNT OF REACH FAVORABLE FOR COLONIZATION OR COVER
>700/0 40-70% 20-406/6 <20%
Score Score Score Score
4 or 5 types present ................ 20 16 12 8
3 types present ......................... 19 1? 11 7
2 types present ........................ 18 14 10 6
1 type present. .......................... 17 13
No V?pes present ?No woody vegetation inripsrum zone Remarks 0
III. Bottom Substrate (slit, sand, detritus, gravel, cobble, boulder) Look at entire reach for substrate scoring,
for embeddedness, and use rocks fiom all parts of riffle-look for "mud line" or difficulty extracting rocks.
A. substrate with good mix of gravel, cobble and boulders
1. embeddedness <20% (very little sand, usually only behind large boulders) .........................
2. embeddedness 20-400/a .........................................................................................................
3. embeddedness 404W6 ...........................................................
4. embeddedness >80% ............................................................................»...............................
B. substrate gravel and cobble
1. embeddedness <20% ................................................................
2. embeddedness 20.40% .........................................................................................................
3. embeddedness 40-80'/0 ........................................................................................................
4. embeddedness >800/9 ............................................................................................................
C. substrate mostly gravel
1. enrnbeddedness <SO% ............................................................................................................
2. embeddedness >50% ...........................................................................................................
D. substrate homogeneous
1. substrate nearly all bedrock. ..................................................................................................
2. substrate nearly all sand ........................................................................................................
3. substrate nearly all detritus ................................................_..................................................
4. substrate nearly all silt/ clay ...................................................................................................
Subtotal
but only look at riffle
Score
15
12
8
3
14
li
6
2
so
4
3
3
2
1 q
Remarks Subtotal u
IV. Pool Variety Pools are areas of deeper than average maximum depths with little or no surface turbulence. Water velocities
associated with pools are always slow. Pools may take the form of "pocket water", small pools behind boulders or obstructions, in
large high gradient streams, or side eddies.
A. Pools present Erm
1. Pools Frequent (>300/6 of 200m area surveyed)
a. variety of pool sizes .......... ............................................................................................... (1?'
b. pools about the same size (indicates pools filling in) ............................................................ 8
2. Pools Infrequent (<30% of the 200m area surveyed)
a. variety of pool sizes ............................................................................................................... 6
b. pools about the same size ................................................................................ .................. 4
B. Pools absent ............................................................................................................................................ 0
Subtotal b
O Pool bottom boulder-cobble=hard Bottom sandy-sink as you walk O Silt bottom 0 Some pools over wader depth
Remarks
Page Total
40
i
V. Riffle Habitats
Definition: Riffle is area of reaeration-can be debris dam, or narrow channel area
Riffles Frequent
A. well defined riffle and nun, riffle as wide as stream and extends 2X width of stream.... (6)
B. riffle as wide as stream but riffle length is not 2X stream width .................................. ''
C. riffle not as wide as stream and riffle length is not 2X stream width ............................. 10
D. riffles absent ... ............................................... ..................................................... 0
Channel Slope: DTypical for area DSteep-fast flow i]Low=tike a coastal sham
Riffles Infrequent
Score
12
7
3
Subtotal,
VT. Bank Stability and Vegetation
FACE UPSTREAM LtR Bask
A. Banks stable
I_ little evidence of erosion or bank failure(except outside of bends), little potential for crcei . 7
B. Erosion areas present
1. diverse trees, shrubs, grass; plants healthy with good root systems ..................................... 6
2. few trees or small trees and shrubs; vegetation appears generally healthy ........................... 5
3. sparse mixed vegetation; plant types and conditions suggest poorer soil binding ................. 3
4. mostly grass; few if any trees and shrubs, high erosion and failure potential at high flow.. 2
5. little or no bank vegetation, mass erosion and bank failure evident .............»............................ 0
Remarks
Rt. Bank
Sm
CJ7
6
5
3
2
Total ILI
I VII. Light Penetration Canopy is defined as tree or vegetative cover directly above the stream's surface. Canopy would block out
i sunlight when the sun is directly overbead. Note shading from mountains, but not use to score this metric.

WW=
A. Stream with good canopy with some breaks for light penetration ............................................. 10
B. Stream with fall canopy - breaks for light penetration absent ..................................................... 8
C. Stream with partial canopy - sunlight and shading are essentially equal .................................... 7
D. Stream with minfnai canopy - full sun in all but a few areas ......................................................
E. No canopy and no shading ...........................»............................................................................... 0
Remarks Subtotal 0
VIII. Riparian Vegetative Zone Width
Definition: Riparian zone for this form is area of natural vegetation adjacent to stream (can go beyond tloodplain). Definition: A bmak
in the riparian zone is any place on the stream banks which allows sediment or pollutants to directly entea the stream, such as paths
down to stream, storm drains, uprooted trees, otter slides, etc
f4CE UPSTREAM Lft. Bank Rt. Bank
Dominant vegetation: © Trees O Shrubs /{'Grasses D Weedstold field OExoties (kudzu, etc) Score Score
A. Riparian Zone intact (no breaks)
1. width > 18 meters .....................................................................................
2. width 12-18 meters ...................................................................................
3. width 6-12 meters .....................................................................................
4. width < 6 meters_ ....................................................................................
B. Riparian zone not intact (breaks)
1 breaks rare
a. width > 18 meters .........................................................................
b. width 12-18 meters................................».....................................
c. width 6-12 meters .......................................................................
d. width < 6 n?cters .........................................................................
2. breaks cornnron
a. width > 18 meters .........................................................................
b. width 12-18 meters ......................................................................
c. width 6.12 meters. .............................. . ......................................
d. width < 6 meters .........................................................................
5
CiV
0
4.
3 3
z 2
4 4
3 3
z 2
1 1
3 3
2 2
1 1
0 0
,,?
Remarks Total
Page Total ?d
? Disclaimer-form filled out, but score doesn't match subjective opinion-atypical stream. TOTAL SCORE,
41
Supplement for Habitat Amt Field Data Sheet
Diagram to determine bank angle:
O
?w w .? ?? w s
90° 45°
135°
Typical &M Qwk= on
teatime M-Lh w,ea - -
n? wd w„?
IAww
Mwk
Strewn wear
This side is 4r bank angle.
Site Sketch:
Other coa nwft:
4
42
THIS IS SITE 3 FOR THE SILVER CREEK PROJECT
3/06 Revision 6
Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet
Mountain/ Piedmont Streams
' Biological Assessment Unit, DWQ COTAL SCORE !Te-, 7
Directions for use: The observer is to survey a minimum of 100 meters with 200 meters preferred of stream, preferably in an
upstream direction starting above the bride pool and the road right-of-way. The segment which is assessed should represent average
stream conditions. To perform a proper habitat evaluation the observer needs to get into the stream. To complete the form, select the
' description which best fits the observed habitats and then circle the score. If the observed habitat falls in between two descriptions,
select an intermediate score. A final habitat score is determined by adding the results from the Z metrics.
R ?
(Road Name '1 r0 ty
Stream j r-0-4 k 1_ocatioa/road jC Z vc
pate V i? CC# Basin Cs?c 4NOl>A Subbasin
AtAc
observer(s)C" 13M Type of Study: D Fish IRBenthos D Basinwide OSpecial Study (Describe)
Eati -4 S ?Ecoregion: D MT D P O Slate Belt O Triassic Basin
3Z. I °.w
Water Quality: Temperature 8.4 °C DO ?mg/1 Conductivity (corr.)4y pftm pH 5.
Physical Characterization: Visible land use refers to Immediate area that you can see from sampling location _ include what
you estimate driving thru the watershed in watershed land use.
Visible Land Use: .-15 %Forest a5 %Residential %Active Pasture % Active Crops
%Fallow Fields % Commercial %Industrial °YoOther - Describe:
' Watershed land use : )PorestAgriculture ]urban D Animal operations upstream
Width: (meters) Stream Charnel (at top of bank) I - S Stream Depth: (m) Avg Max
13 Width variable D Large river >25m wide
Bank Height (from deepest part of riffle to top of bank-first flat surface you stand on): (m)
Bank Angle: f 0 ° or D NA (Vertical is 9(r, horizontal is 0*, Angles > 90° indicate slope is towards mid-channel, < 90°
indicate slope is away from channel. NA if bans: is too low for bank angle to matter.)
D C hamrelized Ditch
Deeply incised-steep, straight banks'pOoth banks undercut at bend W3 anocl frilled in with sediment
D Recent overbank deposits DBar development DBuried structures DExposed bedrock
D Excessive periphyton growth D Heavy filamentous algae growth 00reen tinge D Sewage smell
' Marinade Stabilization:* OY: Mip-rap, cement, gabions 17 Sedimont/gmde-control structure DBerrdlevice
Flow conditions Dili Normal OLow
Tarbldlty: OClear Slightly Turbid DTurbid OTamic OMilky OColored (fi_ d?)
Good potential for Wetlands Restoration Project?? O YES OHO Details khn +nkS14 ?..Gn
' Channel Flow Status /
Useful especially under abnormal or low flow conditions.
A. Water reaches base of both lower banks, minimal charnel substrate exposed ............................
B. Water fills >75% of available channel, or <25% of channel substrate is exposed ........................ O
' C. Water fills 25-75% of available channel, many logs/snags exposed D
D ................................... D. Root mats out of water..
E. Very little water in channel, mostly present as standing pools ..................................................... O
Weather Conditions: ? Photos: 13N )lY )W ftital 035mm
Remarks:
39
I. Channel Moditleation &on
A. channel natural, frequent bends ................ ................... ._.................................................... 0-
B. channel natural, infrequent bends (channelization could be old) ...................................................... 4
C. some channelization present ...... » ............................................................................................ 3
D. more extensive channelb ation, >40% of stream disrupted .............................................................. 2
E. no bends, completely channelized or rip rapped or gabioned, etc.................................................... 0
O Evidence of dredging OEvidence of desnagging=na large woody debris in stream OBanks of uniform sbape/beight
Remarks Subtotal 5
U. Instream Habitat: Consider the percentage of the reach that is favorable for benthos colonization or fish cover. If >70% of the
reach is rocks, 1 type is present, circle the score of 17. Definition: kafpacks consist of older leaves that are packed together and have
bmin to decay (not piles of leaves pool areas). Mark as Rare. Cgummm or Abundant.
G; 4C
Rocks Macrophytes > Sticks and teafpacks Snags and logs Undercut banks or root mats
AMOUNT OF REACH FAVORABLE FOR COLONIZATION OR COVER
>70% 40-700/a 20-40% <20%
kgm Score Score sm
4 or 5 types present................. 20 16 Qjq 12 8
3 types present .......... ............... 19 15 11 7
2 types present .......... ............... 18 14 10 6
1 type No types present ..................... 0 i
? 9 5
d
i
i
i
O N
i SYblQs.i
R
k
? Subtotal {y
y vegetat
an zone
on
n r
par
o woo emar
s
III. Bottom Substrate (silt, sand, detritus, gravel, cobble, bonder) Look at entire reach for substrate scoring, but only look at riffle
for embeddedness, and use rocks from all parts of riffle-look for "mud line" or difficulty extracting rocks.
A. substrate with good mix of gravel, cobble and boulders amm
1. emboddedness <20% (very little sand, usually only behind large boulders) ......................... 15
2. embeddedness 20400A .......................................................................................................... 12
3. embeddedness 40-80% .......................................................................................................... 8
4. embeddedness >80% ..............................................................................................»............. 3
B. substrate gravel and cobble
1. embeddedness <20°/a ........................................................................................................... 14
2. embeddedness 20.40% ......................................................................................................... 11
3. embeddedness 40-80% ........................................................................................................ 6
4. embeddedness >80% ..........................................»...............»............................................... 2
C. substrate mostly gravel
1. en*cddedness <50%...........» .......... ................................................................................
2. embeddeduess >50% ........................................................................................................... 4

D. substrate homogeneous
1. substrate nearly all bedrock. .. . .............................................................................................. 3
2. substrate nearly all sand ........................................................................................................ 3
3. substrate nearly all detritus ................................................................... _............................... 2
4. substrate nearly all silt/ clay ............................................................................................. .
Remarks t..n..r. C-.- j 'r -clam Subtotal
IV. Pool Variety Pools are areas of deeper than average maximum depths with little or no surface turbulence. Water velocities
associated with pooh are always slow. Pools may take the form of "pocket water", small pools behind boulders or obstructions,
large high gradient streams, or side eddies.
A. Pools present
1. Pools Frequent (>30%a of 200m area surveyed)
a. variety of pool sizes ...............................................................................................................
b. pools about the same size (indicates pools filling in) .......................................................».. 8
2. Pools Infrequent (<30% of the 200m area surveyed)
a. variety of pool sizes. ................................... . ......................................................................... 6
b. pools about the same size ................................................................................ ?.................. 4
B. Pools absent ............................................................................................................................................ 0
Subtotal
D Pool bottom boulder-cobble=nard•V Bottom sandy sink as you walk O Silt bottom O Some pools over wader depth
40

3/
in
Page Total 5
V. Billie Habitats
Definition: Riffle is area of reacration-can be debris dam, or narrow channel area. Riffles Frequent Riffles Infrequent
Score &M
A. well defined riffle and ruk riffle as wide as stream and extends 2X width of stream.... 16 12
B. riffle as wick as stream but riffle length is not 2X stream width ..................»................ QD 7
.....
.
C. riffle not as wide as steam and riffle length is not 2X stream width .. 3
...
..... 0
D. riffles absent.. .... ..... ... .......
Channel Slope: OT ypieal for area OSteep-fast flow OLow-Bice a coastal stream
Subtotal

VI. Bank Stability and Vegetation
FACE UPSTREAM Leff Bank Rt. Bank
Scor
A. Banks stable
1. little evidence of erosion or bank failure(exeept outside of bends), little potential for erosion .. 7 7
B. Erosion areas present
1 diverse trees, shrubs, grass; plants healthy with good root systems ....... .:...........................
G
2. few trees or small trees and shrubs; vegetation appears generally healthy ...» ...................... 5
3. sparse mixed vegetation; plant "wand conditions suggest poorer soil binding ................. 3 3
4. mostly grasses, few if any trees and shnibs, high erosion and failure potential at high flow.. 2 2
'
5. little or no bank vegetation, now erosion and bank failure evident ........................................... 0 0
Total
Remarks
' - VII. Light Penetration Canopy is defined as tree or vegetative cover directly above the stream's surface. Canopy would block out
sunlight when the sun is directly overhead. Note shading from mountains, but not use to score this metric.
A. Stream with good canopy with some breaks for light penetration ...........................................» 10
B. Stream with fill canopy - breaks for light penetration absent ..................»................................. 8,
G Stream with partial canopy - sunlight and shading are essentially equal ....................................
D. Stream with minimal canopy - fidi sun in all but a few areas ...................».................................. 2
E. No canopy and no shading ................................................»........................................................... 0
Remarks Subtotal -3
VIII. Riparian Vegetative Zone Width
Definition: Riparian zone for this form is area of natural vegetation adjacent to stream (can go beyond floodplain). Definition: A break
in the riparian zone is any palace on the stream banks which allows sediment or pollutants to directly enter the stream, such as paths
clown to stream, storm drains, uprooted trees, otter slides, etc.
FACE UPSTREAM Lft. Bank Rt. Bank
Dominant vegetation: A Trees 19 Shrubs A Grasses ? Weeds/old field DExotics (kudzu, etc) Score Score
A. Riparian zone intact (no breaks)
1. width > 18 meters, ....................................................................................
S
5
2. width 12-18 meters .......................................................... _...................... 4
3. width 6-12 meters. . ............................. I .................................................... 3 3
4. width < 6 meters ...................................................................................... 2 2
B. Riparian zone not intact (breaks)
1. breaks rare
a. width > 18 meters, ................».....................................................» 4 4
b. width 12-18 meters ....................................................................... 3
c. width 6-12 meters .... » ................................................................. 2 2
d. width < 6 meters ........................................................................ 1 1
2. breaks common
a. width > 18 meters ......................................................................... 3 3
b. width 12-18 meters ...................................................................... 2 2
c. width 6-12 meters ....................................................................... 1 1
d. width < 6 meters ......................................................................... 0 0
Remarks Total
Page Total ?il_
Cl Disclaimer form filled out, but score doesn't match subjective opinion-atypical stream. TOTAL SCORKao. ,,
41
Supplement for Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet
Diagram to detennine bank angle:
J?
90° 45°
Site Sketch:
This aide is 450 bank angle.
Other comments:
W
42
Zook
135°