20061152 Ver 1_Year 1 Monitoring Report_20080527

Year 1 Monitoring Report for Stream Restoration of
Silver Creek and Unnamed Tributaries
Burke County, NC
SCO # D05016-01
Prepared for:
NCDENR - EEP
n 728 Capital Blvd, Suite 1H 103
Raleigh NC 27604
MAY 2 7 2.00QZ3
DErvK - ruP', c n. ??ASER `34v.R?uH
??p,NDS AND gTORFAW'
', ,'osystelli
Submitted: January 2008
N
4% ffem
RE,,,
JAN 9, ?Cl ?;?
NC ECOSYSTEM
ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Prepared by:
Wetlands Resource Center
3970 Bowen Road
Canal Winchester, Ohio 43110
Project Manager: Cal Miller
P: [phone]
F: [phone]
And
EMH&T, Inc.
5500 New Albany Road
Columbus, Ohio 43054
Project Manager: Miles F. Hebert, PE
P: [phone]
F: [phone]
Main: [phone]
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc.
Engineers, Surveyors, Planners. Scientists
t
1

1
1

1
1

1
1
1

Table of Contents
1. Executive Summary .................................................................................................................. I
II. Project Background .................................................................................................................. 2
A. Location and Setting
B. Project Structure, Mitigation Type, Approach and Objectives
C. Project History and Background
D. Monitoring Plan View
III. Project Condition and Monitoring Results ..........................................................................17
A. Vegetation Assessment
1. Soil Data
2. Vegetative Problem Areas
3. Vegetative Problem Areas Plan View
4. Stem Counts
5. Vegetation Plot Photos
B. Stre am Assessment
1. Hydrologic Criteria
2. Stream Problem Areas
3. Stream Problem Areas Plan View
4. Stream Problem Areas Photos
5. Fixed Station Photos
6. Stability Assessment
- 7. Quantitative Measures
IV. Methodology ..................
List of Tables
.............................................................................. 22
Table I. Project Structure Table
Table Il. Project Mitigation Objectives Table
Table III. Project Activity and Reporting History
Table IV. Project Contact Table
Table V. Project Background Table
Table VI. Preliminary Soil Data
Table VII. Vegetative Problem Areas
Table VIII. Stem Counts for Each Species Arranged by Plot
Table IX. Stream Problem Areas
Table X. Categorical Stream Feature Visual Stability Assessment
Table XI. Baseline Morphology and Hydraulic Summary
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. January 2008
Monitoring Report - Silver Creek Monitoring Year I of 5
EEP Contract # D05016-01 Page i
1

' List of Ap pendices
Appendix A Vegetation Raw Data
1. Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos
2. Vegetation Data Tables
Appendix B Geomorphologic Raw Data
1. Stream Problem Areas Plan View
2. Stream Problem Area Photos
3. Fixed Station Photos
4.
5. Table B 1. Qualitative Visual Stability Assessment
Cross Section Plots
6. Longitudinal Plots
7. Pebble Count Plots

Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. January 2008
Monitoring Report - Silver Creek Monitoring Year 1 of 5
EEP Contract # D05016-01 Page ii
1
1 I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Silver Creek stream restoration project is located near Morganton in Burke County, North
Carolina. Prior to restoration, channelization and cattle intrusion resulted in vegetative denuding
and bank destabilization due to hoof shear. The vertical to undercut unstable streambanks were
contributing large volumes of suspended sediment and bedload material to the larger Silver Creek
watershed. The project reach includes the restoration of 2,905 linear feet of the Silver Creek
mainstem and 1,552 linear feet of an unnamed tributary (UT-A); also included is 166 linear feet
of preservation along UT-B, UT-C and UT-D. Restoration of the project streams, completed
during April 2007, re-established geomorphologic features consistent with natural stream channel
characteristics. Elements of the restoration included stable channel pattern, profile and dimension
consistent with reference reach conditions quantified within the Silver Creek watershed, upstream
from the project on Brindle Creek. In-stream structures were constructed to provide grade control,
streambank stabilization and aquatic habitat features. Restoration reconnected project stream
channels to functional floodplains with extensive riparian plantings The following report
' documents the Year 1 Annual Monitoring for this project.
Vegetative monitoring was completed in September 2007 following the Carolina Vegetation
Survey methodology. Stem counts completed at ten (10) vegetation plots show an average
density of 389 stems per acre for the site. This density exceeds the success criteria of 320
stems/acre after three years of monitoring. Two individual plots have stem densities below the
minimum. These plots were located in areas where the existing vegetation was not disturbed
1 during construction. The Year 1 stem counts represent 95% survival from the initial plantings.
While several of the living stems appeared stressed from lack of water due to the severe 2007
drought, the low seedling mortality is not seen as a problem at this time.
Visual stream stability assessment, conducted by EMH&T during October 19-20, 2007 revealed
in-stream structures are functioning as designed and built on Silver Creek mainstem and
' Unnamed Tributary A (UT-A). Point bars are beginning to form along the inside meander bends
on the mainstem. Cross-vanes, J-hook vanes, rock vanes, dual-winged jetties, rock-toe channel
protection and constructed riffles, step pools, root wad bank stabilization are functioning as
designed and built. Deep pools with excellent glide features, comprised of well sorted gravels, are
present throughout the restored mainstem reach. Constructed riffles remain stable, with median
particle distributions ranging from fine to very coarse gravel. The substrate in the pools also
remained stable, with median particle distributions ranging from fine sand to fine gravel. Despite
extreme drought and low flow conditions during 2007, the active channels are appropriately sized
to entrain their bedload. Minor aggradation was noted at a few isolated locations. It is anticipated
this sediment will move through the system when precipitation, runoff and discharge from the
8.26-square mile contribution watershed returns to normal conditions. Based on the crest gage
network installed on the project reaches, no bankfull events were recorded since construction was
completed during April 2007. Remedial maintenance work on the mainstem is not warranted nor
planned at this time. A portion of UT-A is exhibiting bank instability that will be addressed prior
to the Year 2 monitoring activities.
In addition to the monitoring protocol required by EEP, additional monitoring has been required
by the NC DWQ under the Section 401 permit issued for the project on May 25, 2007.
Vegetation monitoring found that the average stem density for the combined tributaries exceeds
the minimum criteria of 320 stems per acre; however, the plot on UT-B had stem densities below
the minimum. A few supplemental plantings will be added to the site in the spring of 2008 to
bring all vegetation plots back into compliance. Stream monitoring found no stability problems
along these tributaries.

Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. January 2008
Monitoring Report - Silver Creek Monitoring Year I of 5
EEP Contract 4 D05016-01 Page 1

1 II. PROJECT BACKGROUND
A. Location and Setting
The project is located approximately 3,000 feet east of Dysartsville Road and approximately
' 2,500 feet south of Patton Road, west of the City of Morganton, in Burke County, North Carolina
as shown in Figure 1. The stream channels included in this project are the Silver Creek mainstem
and four unnamed tributary streams designated UT-A, UT-B, UT-C and UT-D.
' The directions to the project site are as follows:
From I-40, exit at Exit 94 and travel south along Dysartsville Road and turn left (east)
onto Seven Springs Lane. The project spans properties owned separately by Mr. and Mrs.
Frank Queen and Mr. and Mrs. Richard Conway (Seven Springs Farms, Inc.).
B. Project Structure, Mitigation Type, Approach and Objectives
Pre-restoration land use surrounding the project streams included active cattle pasture land along
the Silver Creek mainstem. The pre-existing riparian corridor along Silver Creek, including UT-
B, UT-C and UT-D, varied from wide to denuded within the project area. The wide portion
consisted of a mature forested corridor, while narrow and denuded areas were the result of a
recent pine beetle infestation. Active pasture is located to the east and west of UT-A. A sparsely
wooded corridor is present along the reach and has been maintained. Typical species observed
along the streams and adjacent forested areas include Pinus taeda (loblolly pine), Platanus
occidentalis (sycamore) and Ilex opaca (American holly).

1
1
-Prior to restoration, agricultural land use and channel incision had altered the Silver Creek
mainstem throughout the project reach, resulting in an unstable Rosgen F4 stream type. The
incised nature of the channel was attributed to channelization and cattle intrusion, which resulted
in vegetative denuding and bank destabilization due to hoof shear. The Silver Creek channel's
unstable width to depth ratio, entrenchment ratio, relatively flat average profile slope and poorly
defined active streambed resulted in a deeply incised channel disconnected from its floodplain.
Mid-channel, lateral, and transverse sand and gravel bar deposits were observed at locations
throughout the reach, demonstrating the stream lacked stable pattern, profile and dimension to
entrain its bedload. The locations of these depositional features in the near bank region deflected
flows from the center of the channel toward the incised vertical to undercut streambanks,
accelerating streambank erosion. It is estimated that approximately 5,570 cubic yards per year (or
6,980 tons per year) of sediment was being eroded from the unstable streambanks along the
impaired mainstem reach into the Silver Creek watershed prior to restoration.
The UT-A channel was a classic Type I valley confined, Al-A2 stream type transitioning to a
Type II colluvial valley, 134-135 stream type in the lower third of the impaired reach. The upper
two-thirds of the reach exhibited some bedrock control, in-stream boulders together with flood
placed woody debris from leaning or fallen trees along the unstable, steep to undercut
streambanks. The impaired riparian vegetative communities were exacerbating streambank
erosion rates and down-slope movement of colluvium. Cattle intrusion had adversely impacted
the entire tributary as evidenced by vegetative denuding and bank failure attributed to hoof shear.
Agricultural land use (pasture land) adjacent to the stream corridor and uncontrolled cattle access
to the stream for drinking water and shade resulted in unstable, steep to undercut streambanks,
and accelerated severe to extreme streambank erosion. The unstable streambanks were
contributing large volumes of suspended sediment and bedload material to the larger Silver Creek
watershed. It was estimated 290 cubic yards per year (or 375 tons per year) of sediment was
being eroded from the unstable streambanks along UT-A prior to restoration.
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. January 2008
Monitoring Report - Silver Creek Monitoring Year 1 of 5
EEP Contract # D05016-01 Page 2

The mitigation goals and objectives for the project streams were met by restoring physical and
' biological functions of the project reaches beyond pre-existing conditions. Pre-restoration
conditions consisted of impaired, channelized, eroding and entrenched stream channels. The
mitigation goals and objectives were met by providing the attributes described below.
' • Stable stream channels with features indicative of a biologically diverse environment.
• Restored connections between the bankfull width and floodprone width of the channels by
restoring the floodprone area.
• Improved physical aquatic habitat features.
• Minimization of existing land use impacts to the stream.
• Long-term protection of the stream corridors.
1 Restoration of the project streams re-established geomorphologic features consistent with
reference reach conditions. Results achieved are listed below.
• Bankfull channels constructed with the appropriate geometries to convey bankfull flows
and transport suspended sediment and bedload materials available to the streams.
• Stable channel pattern, profile and dimension consistent with natural streams in the
region.
• Grade control and bank stabilization in-stream structures, such as cross vanes, J-hook
vanes, rock vanes, dual-winged jetties, constructed riffles, step pools, root wad
1 revetment, rock-toe channel protection that enhance environmental attributes of the
stream channels though the use of natural materials.
• Reconnection of project stream channels to functional floodplains.
• Extensive indigenous riparian plantings.
Information on the project structure and objectives is included in Tables I and II.

f

1

1
Table I. Project Structure Table
Silver Creek Stream Restoration / EEP Project No. D05016-01
Project Se ment/Reach ID Linear Footage or Acreage
Silver Creek Mainstem 2,905 ft
Unnamed Tributary A (UT-A) 1,552 ft
Unnamed Tributary B (UT-B) 66 ft
Unnamed Tributary C (UT-C) 48 ft
Unnamed Tributary D (UT-D) 52 ft
TOTAL 4,623 ft
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc.
Monitoring Report - Silver Creek
EEP Contract # D05016-01
January 2008
Monitoring Year I of 5
Page 3

PA T TO
IV
Rp
q?

PINNACLE
CHURCH
ROAD
Queen H. Frank
& Sarah M.
Map: 89 Page: 38 Blk. Lot: 4 71.1
Deed Reference: Bk. 222 Pg. 654
ELK ?S-
9
COUR T
?!
ABBIE
COURT

SEVEN
SPRINGS
LANE
Conway Elizabeth
B. Trustee
POLLARD Map: 89 Page: 38
Blk. Lot: 4 13 sib
DOE
f
PATTON Deed Reference: -
ROAD Bk. 1111 Pg. 995 COURT

Seven Springs
Farm Inc.
Map: 89 Page: 38 Blk. Lot: 4 10IJ Q
Deed Reference: Bk. 1083 Pg. 924
W T?
Q

.L
Ln
7
-A
tPL O
P.
?
\SON
m pRR
M

O
v
0

BURKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
SILVER CREEK RESTORATION
FIGURE 1: SITE VICINITY MAP
N.C. ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM i
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. 9
tem
Engineers • Surveyors • Planners • Scientists € f h €
Dace: January, 2008 Not To Scale r'ksfr=-tim 4

1
1
1

1

1
t
Table II. Project Mitigation Ob jectives Table
Silver Creek Stream Restoration / EEP Project No. D05016-01
Project Linear
Segment/ Mitigation Footage or Mitigation Mitigation
Reach ID Type Acreage Ratio Units Comment
Silver Creek Priority 2 2
905
905 ft
1.0
2
905 ft Restore dimension,
Mainstem Restoration ,
, , pattern, and profile
UT-A Priority 2 1,552 ft 1.0 552 ft
1 Restore dimension,
Restoration , attem and profile
UT-13 Preservation 66 ft 5.0 13 ft Preserved within the
conservation easement
UT-C Preservation 48 ft 5.0 10 ft
Preserved within the
conservation easement
UT-D Preservation 52 ft 5.0 10 ft Preserved within the
conservation easement
TOTAL 4,623 ft 4,490 ft
C. Project History and Background
Project activity and reporting history are provided in Table 111. The project contact information is
provided in Table IV. The project background history is provided in Table V.
Table III. Project Activity and Reporting History
Silver Creek Stream Restoration / EEP Project No. D05016-01

Activity or Report
Scheduled
Completion

Data Collection Complete Actual
Completion
or Deliver
Restoration plan Au 2005 Feb 2006 May 2006
Final Design - 90%' -- -- --
Construction Feb 2006 N/A A r 2007
Temporary S&E applied to
entire project areal
Feb 2006
N/A
Apr 2007
Permanent plantings A r 2006 N/A A r 2007
Mitigation plan/As-built Jun 2006 May 2007 Se 2007

Year 1 monitoring
2007 Sep 2007 (vegetation)
Nov 2007 (geomorphology)
Jan 2008
Year 2 monitoring 2008
Year 3 monitoring 2009
Year 4 monitoring 2010
Year 5 monitoring 2011
Full-delivery project; 90% submittal not provided.
2Erosion and sediment control applied incrementally throughout the course of the project.
N/A: Data collection is not an applicable task for these project activities.
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc.
Monitoring Report - Silver Creek
EEP Contract # D05016-01
January 2008
Monitoring Year 1 of 5
Page 5

1

1
1
1
1

1

1

Table IV. Project Contact Table
Silver Creek Stream Restoration / EEP Project No. D05016-01
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc.
Designer 5500 New Alban Road, Columbus, OH 43054
Construction South Mountain Forestry
Contractor 6624 Roper Hollow, Morganton, NC 28655
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc.
Monitoring Performers 5500 New Albany Road, Columbus, OH 43054
Stream Monitoring POC Warren E. Knotts, PG, EMH&T
Vegetation Monitoring
POC Holly Blunck, EMH&T
Table V. Project Background Table
Silver Creek Stream Restoration / EEP Project No. D05016-01
Project Count Burke

Drainage Area' Mainstem-8.26 sq mi
UT-A-0.075 s mi
Drainage Impervious Cover Estimate 5.5%

Stream Order' Mainstem-3rd
UT-A-1st

Ph sio ra hic Region Blue Ridge
Mountains/Southern Inner
Piedmont

Ecore ion Eastern Blue Ridge
Foothills

Ros en Classification of As-built' Mainstem-134c
UT-A-134a

Dominant Soil Types Colvard sandy loam,
Rhodhiss sandy loam
Reference Site ID Brindle Creek
USGS HUC for Project and Reference 03050101
NCDWQ Sub-basin for Project and Reference 03050101050050
NCDWQ 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
Reason for 303d listing or stressor N/A
% of nJect easement fenced 100%
Data for UTB, UTC, and UTD are not reported as they are Preservation reaches.
In addition to the monitoring required by EEP protocol, monitoring has been required by the NC
DWQ under the Section 401 permit issued for the project on May 25, 2007. The 401 permit
conditions require monitoring data collection related to bank stability and success of vegetative
plantings installed along UT-B and UT-C, which were incidentally impacted during restoration
construction along Silver Creek. The additional monitoring data is summarized under the
appropriate sections of this report.
D. Monitoring Plan View
The monitoring plan view is included as Figure 2.
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc.
Monitoring Report - Silver Creek
EEP Contract # D05016-01
January 2008
Monitoring Year I of 5
Page 6

r-
0
D
m ?
O
?z
•D
r
r
pp, 'All
4?rrG
03?NN
s
,
c
y2 a?;
C2
yj
m, ?8
z n
^ ZZ
O
N
o
m D
a
>e
?gg FV \
1 i
s
i

rn
X
0
rn
? ca
M ? c
x M X
N rn
> n
Z 3 c
v Z ?
N
Q mo o Z
*4 Z 0
z Z =
c?

m r.
a ;U
o
Z ?
v < D
? m

C

D
X
1m<
BURKE -I
r M COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA Dale Job No.
FIGURE URE 2 -MONITORING PLAN VIEW
FOR January, 2008 2007-1898
sur," ors Planners "° [t SILVER CREEK AND UNNAMED TRIBUTARY
Engineers •Surveyors•Plonors Sclentlss os stem
Scale Shaa,
0o aw A a a od ?o=<
vno?e: e +zis soo 5114.115- SILVER CREEK As Noted
M En an pgement 1/6
Matchline Sta. 5+00.00 (See This Sheet)
7-
1 ?-

11 1
I
?
I 1 I I I I
? I

I, I

I i , mr
1°- 3
, I
a I/, ? E.N I

i \
I aa5?
I ?aaaS
i ?
I
I
III
\ ro
i \l ca. c?
A ?y
.\ I,?„ n tf0i go t0 t0
-oz
I' o o N -n
? N
CU p ?,
z?
tj L7
t j N m
pO O U
1 3 U"Q
cc)
4. 3'
I: I CL;
Ii
II
I I
? 1 I
;I I
Ir I
P.I
I
1
o? I
?j f A ? b
o? I
TTl
D D »D D D 0 Ho D -m x 9Q 0 < r
w m m m m rv n m
p,e °Q 1 1 1 .1 wo ?p
o p m m _ [A m CO Nm p C y w N m
,'? ° M p
e° a 0 o o m
F c
? n m
a
0
N 'U N
n
N
c,J ?'
CC0u
7? to
C1 0
qo :3
Qa . • i1
4-
4, C:
"s,A ?'.
m °? Fp
I ri \
I i ob??
I \', ? ? \ rye, °? \
I,
I ?
I u / I
1 i
Matchline
Sto.
5+p0.00 (See This She- I
Y BURKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA oet. Job No.
FIGURE 2 - MONITORING PLAN VIEW
January, 2008 2007-1898
FOR
E Mehwa,1 °mblel°° a nl
En "a ,. "" . Survey°rs • Pionnon . Sclent A o S stem SILVER CREEK AND UNNAMED TRIBUTARY
smle sneer
ss°°.vew neon a?ad, co ?mb?,. oN -A En an ement SILVER CREEK
B Hor. 1'•=40
` OCeAM PLAN & PROFILE Ver: r =4' 2/6
?z
3
0
°58
O ;o w
;K 9 px DZ /
°W
I
a
\ ? :NON
III 1 I r
II Q I. I I: I ?/ / /
o 25, 0
m - ,?,- I II I 1; ? ; I I
I CD
I I ? ? ? ?°i?? r<>
(0 CD
-U
co
I I I ?' ire
t) ? m ?
N -,
S ?x
?1
II I ?I' ? o U r.
-6 x'I
4.•:
II',
\ Am
Y
1 I ? ?
%
o \ 1
al -0 f "
?6
%
' l \
p CD
1 ? - M?'C PU?IYf;<Sl? - 1
Matchline Sta. 15+00.00 (See This Sheet)
V Z A
,`-? h I O n OR
I -o z - I W O C
IW
?G Z
" o lyo
I ^
I°0
w
IA . ? I 3
\ I 1
/ cl
T4 cj (0 OD
/ * x
I y N a _
1 ; ? / Q7 ca ,
1 ?,, d m 2 / ad s.
° P
?? •• .r
4. C_
cfDi? ? Ilk - t m 3 v ?
ry C0 N (' F1 a \
50-
CD u CD
O
t
f) Z7)
CD c'j I.
C3 ` 'o '• i I i t\ rt
> n
7O
?) 1
4. p
\L
- +
iv o
o
1 - .\ ?_ -? COD
1 \ '
-? cr
---------- ---------
P\L \
Q7 -r
n U
Q.
CD a
N - C CD ..
N a D G)
c0 N I N o
Q1 COO _ _ ro N (n
7.' Q7 C) -7
_ v Q7 >
CAC 6 / i=
-` CY Q - r C>. G9
Fn 0
fA C f a
tt]
Cn U I Ln cy)
s` I 0) rn
I
®m
Evans, M-'1-1 1-baton 8 Tilton, Inc.
Engln-rs • 5urv '_ • Hann-. Scbntls ,
5500 New AiboI,y R- C-Ibus. OM 43054
Pno?a. e..I ra.. el. s<eoo

rd
EFFrrnna°nclement
PAabRSM
S4
s ?, \ 1
1
I
f
I
I
g0Di
n
CD
CA
a7 MC13
7; N
C77 _^ lI
(? ? g R
?E)
vzA
ISO.
(0-+ On
Wc? mv?
3•C- IF?a
0
1:4
N =
3
ISO„
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
BURKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
FIGURE 2 • MONITORING PLAN VIEW
FOR
SILVER CREEK AND UNNAMED TRIBUTARY
SILVER CREEK
PLAN & PROFILE
T
0

it \
II.
/ CIL 1
Cn J*
D \ 4•C
vz?
° n*0
mQ
0
lug
o c)
IN=a
00
_--
1, ? I
I
vs
s
? •O?S
Deb Jab No.
January, 2007 2007-1098
srslo shoot
Hor. 1"=40'
Ver:,•'=4' 316
7 - A=03 WC PLAN EWDA lcue cr L> -

(1
.Z) cc
N L)
117 'U Cx
N a) c Al°t°hli
n??j 0 nom' 20*0p

(x) tb 0
/ _ T

cn O ° /? /
°
I( cn in
(n 0)

j
dj ci
N 7) Cl
CAco0
° p
CD o U 0 I
C I;
CJ ro [l
a, a? 03 A ?
D
0
co
O
rc7 r-
cn v ^ _

rn
? Nzo \
`,I?,
?

vm
I
l'

?
A
U I I

? W
0 #
j 8

5s z:
C) C
tD Z7 _

/
I F
CD U
0
?
• r.7
o)oc,
(O ?' Z7 I II
cc7 r- I _
cn c?- ?+ v
I cn

-_
10 m3

?7 Q
1

3

r
p; n
i q o c3 \
tf0
4+
y

ro C] r
4, C:
I

e Sto

I II- 1
c T D D V1D D D o D m? x Lf3 n r
Qo w w w w N u j' 12 C)
p, o E. w N W m m p» m rya a ppv 3 u » o Rm) L, z
]O A O ?O s ]? ]A O ._.cs Lt 4
» F 2 ] [ j A
O p c 2 R <
= a R V
n ? v
?cSheet
S?
d
cfDi?? Al
co -U
co n ?_
A -?
(,J
(0n
CI7 i-
'
to rr 0
U 0 6
rt7
4.
Cn
.;• c-
V
H
\1

X
/I
s

' •.v
?
. - %%

ieet /

III VISIONS Y BURKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA D.W Job No.
FIGURE 2 - MONITORING PLAN VIEW January, 2008 2007-1888

Evan''Ma`hwar,, MOmblarcr,anL°°'i°`. FOR
SILVER

Engineers.SUeYOrs.Pla??an.5??en,?„=

os stem CREEK AND UNNAMED TRIBUTARY

S
l

5500 New Moan Road. columdo:. OH
-54
»5
775-o

En an
m
t

SILVER CREEK ca
e
Hor: 1" =40' sheet
en
e
cROCrsaM PI AN 9 PRt7Fll F Var V-4' 4/6
9 ©?k
Tv w o m ?m w w ?w om Si ;n Q < frTi
,?„ I °Q I I I v l w? ?o w
0o w m Nm W w µm ?a 3" m
o? o z
o o ?m 2 Q 5.0 ^° 2? m
v
o E w o
o c c c4 ? ? m _<<
a
J G ? ? V
00 00
aa5
J /
AlC r?
M, -U 0 N
Zi Z ?^
CA7
in 3
o /J
Iv O ,/ ?. 1----
4, C:
0
\ :L
\ n
\ \
??------ ---- ----
?g i
g ?`o
tc" A, 1
\ NI
uY a I \;,
l
(A -U
Cnvv I
- vd--
" T + m8
E;v
CD
N Z7 -'1 . I p / re
ti
N 6 cu C7 h?. / °y
I
C) N Co',
cc, Ci) Qe 6 y?, r
U7 l N I f)) N •4r _
z
° r°So I 1270
?-
p?? i@ (Arn stn
(n `
4C b rf- - Dz n>?
c
(D M
?rtUC - ND +D
cn (o N L
Ian - - - o m p
cn c cN
? I, cn I rv? ;o
a cn \
ti
Aj?1x
C7 S.
G1? C?
?cnm
CJ co C)
h
? N
ro -1
w5
aj (n 3:
0.1 ?s
I`J (n
N 0
-U r,' n
;•
U
4. C-
M BURKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA Date Job No.
FIGURE 2 - MONITORING PLAN VIEW
January, 2008 2007-1888
E M, omPlann -Sci e, FOR
Ez nglneaa .3wveYOrs. P lonne63olant1515 OJ stem Scale bbBet
SILVER CREEK AND UNNAMED TRIBUTARY
ssoo Hew nmo? aooa, cawme„s . oM a3osa SILVER CREEK Hor: 1" =40'
En an ement
V PRO-M PLAN & PROFILE VBi 1 =4, 5/6
y0?
?0
7 '
o
5
\C, oy, ?,.
\ \ €g"off
oo>
\ 'J
C \?

'11CUHDA7A2 Q NIPRD.=20071B9B.aaaa'c Dr/MEMLk 4R 1-r,=?2 - AdQfiQ aNG P[•?? ,?^••nNk9t?, ,,-•-•. ^? _ - ..rte-. ___ -- . ?
Matchline Sta. 10+0
I
I
?I
/?I I
? I
oom `Il
?I
I)
a
c? I'Zm
t0 SO CD ? o
N , p4.
CN C3 S,,.- o
?? o as ? m3 ?
?? ? a l 3
4 S'
??.
cn
5
I \
II ?I
: ;0 Co
,acc
O 0 F
I
... CI
1 ? I1
1
1
- 1,

o mm
o -0 Z.A
m o nme
o? x
m3 =COs _m
0.00 (See This Shee4_-
I
0 A F
] I I \
3 I \
c
o \
1 \ \ \ / / /;
i n
c 4-
??
<U
r- C? I I I I {
Matchline Sta. 10+00.00 (See This Sheet) Matchline Sta. 5+00.00 (See This Sheet)
Co

\' rri

-z

??
?.
=A DV)
1 \ ?? \ O 2<
+ (

\'•
% O
O
OW
2u

X
I ?. v
wb? Matchline Sta. 5+00.00 (See This Sheet)
I0 s,? i8 \ V A? I.
?o 1p
I / / /• ' A /. 0
co v
\ ,? AI 1 ?'` I 1 / 1 / IF -0 a l
v
N=? ? q
/
o I
% 4 I
?' I / /. //. ?•/' ` ?Coai m ono
CC) %
/ UT
T
m
I I N \ ()' ? -rl CIS ? ? II'
p Q: e
g \
2, ro
5•co', t, 'U - 1 on?{, 'U.? a I - / '1
4- 3;
N I.
$ I H ?° Wei I U''= I o 1-
C.
p CO C
_ 0,3
r
W I ?pG j?y?j7' t• I ??•I nT ~?G
CL <
CID
i C m 3 NZI
o \ jj ?(?) I °•' ?$ gip- A?ro? a? I 1 c
& ?'
x r?.o
LM
- 1 I -U C I ?!m oo n 3 m N. -U I / I I I
E O w
I ) 4. J:, S a a. 0, m N $ ??? I $
el
!
I
N
o {
4? C: ? x I 'd 2' o
)I 1 L' ??' ' ?o 05 ) ..
Cn??3. ? I II IF I
4? C:
ISnn , I I $) o ? '' I'I
I
i ?
I ,, \ wives ! ? ? I I o. I,' ?
I? \
I° ?I 1 {' \
q
I Z 3 Zi A N 7 7
co 0
CC) SO
I`
1 I', o I' ' v o o I to,-U
a
a
a ?
I • .I \ ? ??_,?? N 7
m 63 5
m ? / m
r? r-
?, I I II I ???°
4,
o ?? `',I \ V 10,
N I 1 I, ?+ 4
+A) I •I by \ o
Fib
I
CC) N
-0 N V (A m
D Z A n i? \ 11/ I / r ?/4
00 CH Z+?
?n co ?y 3P`6 I \
o r. Pr I \ I I / ns/
r- :3 POW M BURKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA Dw. Job No.
FIGURE 2 - MONITORING PLAN VIEW January, 2008 2007-1898
Evans, ?naenwan °? ro,'ton a Alton, inc. FOR
En)[nee"•'°"a°°,,.F..°?°°"•5`le"I't` stem UNNAMED TRIBUTARY TO SILVER CREEK avle sm,t
5500 New __y aoa?y. ccwmo„s. or -11 ? UT-A Hor: V=40'
?/?
11- En OSan/xement Ver ,4'
PROGRAM PLAN & PROFILE

r

1
III. PROJECT CONDITION AND MONITORING RESULTS
A. Vegetation Assessment
1 . Soil Data
Soil information was obtained from the NRCS Soil Survey of Burke County, North Carolina
(USDA NRCS, January 3, 2006). The soils along the mainstem of Silver Creek include the
Colvard Series consisting of loamy sediments ranging from 40 to 60 inches or more in thickness
over deposits of sandy, loamy gravelly to cobbly sediments. Rock fragments range from 0 to 15
percent to a depth of 40 inches, and from 0 to 80 percent below 40 inches. Flakes of mica range
from a few to common.
The Rhodhiss Series is present along UT-A and is residuum from the underlying felsic crystalline
bedrock. The Rhodhiss sandy to sandy-clay loam is found on 25 to 40 percent hillside slopes with
a depth to bedrock greater than 60 inches. The depth to the top of the argillaceous (clayey)
horizon ranges from 2 to 20 inches. The depth to the base of the argillaceous horizon is 20 to 60
inches or more. The pedon contains 0 to 20 percent mica flakes throughout, with mica content
ranging up to 35 percent below a depth of 40 inches when the C horizon is present.
Data on the soils series found within and near the project site is summarized in Table VI.
'Erosion Factor K indicates the susceptibility of a soil to sheet and rill erosion, ranging from 0.05 to 0.69.
`Erosion Factor T is an estimate of the maximum average annual rate of soil erosion by wind or water that
can occur without affecting crop productivity, measured in tons per acre per year.
2. Vegetative Problem Areas
Vegetative Problem Areas are defined as areas either lacking vegetation or containing populations
of exotic vegetation. There were no problem areas identified along any of the tributaries in
Monitoring Year 1 to report in Table VII. There are a few locations where the density of planted
woody stems is not high enough to meet the required stem counts. Densities of planted woody
species are discussed in the Stem Counts section of this report.
3. Vegetation Problem Area Plan View
The location of each vegetation problem area found in future monitoring years will be shown on a
vegetative problem area plan view.
4. Stem Counts
A summary of the stem count data for each species arranged by plot is shown in Table VIII. This
data was compiled from the information collected on each plot using the CVS-EEP Protocol for
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. January 2008
Monitoring Report - Silver Creek Monitoring Year 1 of 5
EEP Contract # D05016-01 Page 17
Table VI. Preliminary Soil Data
Silver Creek Stream Restoration / EEP Project No. D05016-01
Max. Depth % Clay on % Organic
Series (in.) Surface K` T2 Matter
Colvard sand loam (CvA) 60+ 8-18 0.24 5 1-2
Rhodhiss sandy loam
(RhD) 60+ 5-20 0.24 5 0.5-2
r

r

Recording Vegetation, Version 4.0. Additional data tables generated using the CVS-EEP format
are included in Appendix A. All vegetation plots are labeled as VP on Figure 2.
Table VIII. Stem counts for each species arranged by plot.
Silver Creek Stream Restoration / EEP Project No. D05016-01
Ve etation Plots

Species MS

1
I MS

2 MS

3 MS

4
? MS

5
? MS

6 U

1 UTA

2 UTA

3 UTA

4 Year 0

Totals Year 1

Totals Survival

%
Shrubs
Alnus serrulata 1 1 1 2 5 5 100
Aronia melanocar a 3 1 2 1 1 8 8 100
Cornus amomum 2 2 5 5 4 1 4 2 31 25 81
Trees
Acer rubrum 2 2 2 100
Acersaccharum 2 4 10 2 18 18 100
Fraxinus ennsylvanica 3 1 1 2 4 4 15 15 100
Liriodendron tuli ifera 2 1 1 4 4 100
Platanus occidentalis 1 4 3 3 16 11 69
uercus michauxii 1 2 3 3 100
Salix ni ra 1 3 1 5 5 100
Totals 8 9 11 9 19 5 5 9 12 9 107 96 95
Live Stem Density
(stems per acre)
324
365
446
365
770
203
203
365
486
365
Average Live Stem
Density (stems per
acre)

389
The average stem density for the site exceeds the minimum criteria of 320 stems per acre after
three years. Two individual plots had stem densities below the minimum. These two plots were
located in areas where the existing vegetation was not disturbed during construction, and
plantings were placed into openings in the existing vegetation.
The Year 1 stem counts represent 95% survival from the initial plantings. Several of the living
stems appeared stressed due to lack of water, and it is assumed that any seedling death was caused
by dryness. The low seedling mortality is not seen as a problem at this time. If future monitoring
' shows that seedling mortality from dry site conditions is causing stem densities to fall below the
threshold, supplemental plantings will be recommended.
Section 401 Permit Monitoring
In addition to the vegetative monitoring plots on the Silver Creek Mainstem and UT-A, one
vegetation monitoring plot each has been placed on UT-13 and UT-C, as required by the NC DWQ
under the Section 401 permit. Monitoring for these plots includes simple stem counts by species,
and does not follow the full methodology of the CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation,
Version 4.0. A summary of the stem count data for these plots is shown in Table VIIIa.
I
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. January 2008
Monitoring Report - Silver Creek Monitoring Year 1 of 5
EEP Contract # D05016-01 Page 18
r

1

1

Table VIIIa. Stem counts for the additional plots on UT-B and UT-C
Plots
Species UT-B UT-C Year 1 Totals
Shrubs
Corms amomum 1 1 2
Trees
Acer saccharum 7 7
Fraxinus enns lvanica 6 6
Liriodendron tidi ifera 2 2
uercus alba 2 2
Year 1 Totals 7 12 19
Live Stem Density (stems per acre) 284 486
Average Live Stem Density (stems per acre) 385
The average stem density for these tributaries combined exceeds the minimum criteria of 320
stems per acre after three years. However, the plot on UT-13 had stem densities below the
minimum. A few supplemental plantings will be added to the site in the spring of 2008, which
will bring the stem counts on this plot, and Plots MS6 and UTA1, back into compliance.
5. Vegetation Plot Photos
Vegetation plot photos, including photos for the additional plots on UT-B and UT-C, are provided
in Appendix A.
B. Stream Assessment
1. Hydrologic Criteria
Two crest-stage stream gages were installed on the project reaches, one each of the Silver Creek
Mainstem and UT-A. The locations of the crest-stage stream gages are shown on the monitoring
plan view (Figure 2). No bankfull events were documented for this site during the first year of
monitoring.
2. Stream Problem Areas
A summary of the areas of concern identified during the visual assessment of the stream for the
1 first year of monitoring is included in Tables IX.
r

Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. January 2008
Monitoring Report - Silver Creek Monitoring Year I of 5
EEP Contract # D05016-01 Page 19
r

1

Table IX. Stream Problem Areas
Silver Creek Stream Restoration / EEP Project No. D05016-1
Feature Issue Station Numbers Suspected Cause Photo Number
Stressed/failing Natural log sill - concern for long-
structure 5+75 UT-A term stability SPA 1
Nearly vertical banks - need to be
11+00 - 13+00 stabilized with matting and
Other UT-A vegetation SPA 2
Areas of instability were not observed along the Silver Creek Mainstem. On UT-A, a natural log
sill was preserved during construction; the long-term stability of this feature was a noted concern
during a site visit with the EEP. This structure will be monitered to further assess stream stability
in this area. An additional area of concern exists along UT-A concerning the steep slopes of the
stream banks. These banks are in need of reshaping to decrease the slopes and need revegetating
to further enhance stability, as requested by EEP. Erosion control matting should be applied to
protect the stream banks along this stream segment while vegetation is reestablished.
3. Stream Problem Areas Plan View
The locations of problem areas are shown on the stream problem area plan view included in
Appendix B. Each problem area is color coded with yellow for areas of low concern (areas to be
¦ watched) or red for high concern (areas where maintenance is warranted).
4. Stream Problem Areas Photos
Photographs of the stream problem areas are included in Appendix B.

5. Fixed Station Photos
Photographs were taken at each established photograph station on October 19, 2007. These
' photographs are provided in Appendix B. Photographs of UT-13 and UT-C are also provided, as
required by the NC DWQ under the Section 401 permit.

6. Stability Assessment Table
The visual stream assessment was performed to determine the percentage of stream features that
remain in a state of stability after the first year of monitoring. A summary of the visual
assessment for each reach is included in Table Xa and Table Xb. This summary was compiled
from the more comprehensive Table B1, included in Appendix B. Only those structures included
in the as-built survey were assessed during monitoring and reported in the tables.
I
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. January 2008
Monitoring Report - Silver Creek Monitoring Year I of 5
EEP Contract 4 D05016-01 Page 20

I
1
1

1

1
Table Xa. Categorical Stream Feature Visual Stability Assessment
Silver Creek Stream Restoration / EEP Project No. D05016-01
Segment/Reach: Mainstem
Feature Initial MY-01 MY-02 MY-03 MY-04 MY-05
A. Riffles 1 100% 100%
B. Pools2 100% 100%
C. Thalwe 100% 100%
D. Meanders 100% 100%
E. Bed General 100% 100%
F. Vanes / J Hooks etc. 3 100% 100%
G. Wads and Boulders4 N/A N/A
Table Xa. Categorical Stream Feature Visual Stability Assessment
Silver Creek Stream Restoration / EEP Project No. D05016-01
Segment/Reach: Tributary A
Feature Initial MY-01 MY-02 MY-03 MY-04 MY-05
A. Rifflesl 100% 100%
B. Pools2 100% 66%
C. Thalwe 100% 100%
D. Meanders 100% 100%
E. Bed General 100% 100%
F. Vanes / J Hooks etc. 3 100% 98%
G. Wads and Boulders4 :: t N/A N/A
'Riffles are assessed using the longitudinal profile. A riffle is determined to be stable based on a comparison
of location and elevation with respect to the as-built profile.
'`Pools are assessed using the longitudinal profile. A pool is determined to be stable based on a comparison
of location and elevation with respect to the as-built profile and a consideration of appropriate depth.
'Physical structures such as vanes, J-hooks, and root wads are assessed using the as-built plan sheets to
define the location of such features. A structure is considered stable if the feature remains functional in the
same location as shown in the as-built plan.
4Those features not included in the stream restoration were labeled N/A. This includes structures such as
rootwads and boulders.
Visual stream stability assessment, conducted by EMH&T during October 19-20, 2007 revealed
in-stream structures are functioning as intended on the Silver Creek mainstem and UT-A. Point
bars are beginning to form along the inside meander bends on the mainstem. Cross-vanes, J-hook
vanes, rock vanes, dual-winged jetties, rock-toe channel protection, root wad bank stabilization,
step pools and constructed riffles are functioning as constructed. One natural log sill has been
noted as an area of concern and will continue to be monitored for long-term stability on Tributary
A. Deep pools with excellent glide features, comprised of well sorted gravels, are present
throughout the restored mainstem reach. Some aggradation is shown on the long-term monitoring
profile and cross-section plots for UT-A. Aggradation is primarily observed at pool locations.
This is attributed to extended drought during the summer of 2007 and minimal flushing of sand-
sized particles through the project reach. It is anticipated this sediment will move through the
system when precipitation, runoff and discharge return to normal conditions. Constructed riffles
remain stable, with median particle distributions ranging from fine to very coarse gravel. The
substrate in the pools also remained stable, with median particle distributions ranging from fine
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc.
Monitoring Report - Silver Creek
EEP Contract # D05016-01
January 2008
Monitoring Year 1 of 5
Page 21

sand to fine gravel. Despite extreme drought and low flow conditions during 2007, the active
channels are appropriately sized to entrain their bedload. Repairs requested by EEP, as
documented in the Stream Problem Areas, will be addressed during Year 2 maintenance of project
reaches.
Section 401 Permit Monitoring
Monitoring is required by the NC DWQ under the Section 401 permit to ensure that stability is
achieved along the restored portions of Unnamed Tributaries B and C. These streams were
visually assessed for stability at the same time that the visual stream stability assessment was
performed for the Silver Creek Mainstem and UT-A. Both UT-B and UT-C appeared to be stable
during this assessment. Photographic documentation of the stability of the preserved portions of
Tributaries B and C is included with the Fixed Station Photographs in Appendix B.
7. Quantitative Measures
Graphic interpretations of cross-sections, profiles and substrate particle distributions are presented
in Appendix B. A summary of the baseline morphology for the site is included in Table XI for
comparison with the monitoring data shown in the tables in the appendix.
The stream pattern data provided for As-Built and Year 1 is the same as the data provided from
the As-Built survey, as pattern has not changed based on the Year 1 stream surveys and visual
field assessment.
Bedform features continue to evolve along the restored reaches as shown on the long-term
longitudinal profiles. Riffle lengths and slopes are stable. Pool to pool spacings are representative
-of reference reach conditions, adjusted for drainage area and bankfull width. The pools have
developed excellent glide features, providing spawning habitat for native fishes and riffle
substrates conducive for benthic macro-invertebrate populations to re-emerge. Comparison of
As-Built and Year 1 long-term stream monitoring data show stability with minimal change from
as-built conditions.
The constructed riffles remain stable, with a median particle distributions ranging from fine to
very coarse gravel. The pool substrate remains stable as well, with median particle sizes ranging
from fine sand to fine gravel based on Year 1 substrate analysis.
IV. METHODOLOGY
Vegetation monitoring was conducted in September 2007 using the CVS-EEP Protocol for
Recording Vegetation, Version 4.0 (Lee, M.T., Peet, RK., Roberts, S.R., Wentworth, T.R. 2006).
Stream monitoring was conducted in November 2007 to provide adequate time between the as-
built survey (completed in May 2007) and the Year 1 monitoring survey. Subsequent stream
monitoring will occur in the fall of Years 2 through 5 to provide a full year between surveys.
Vegetation monitoring will continue to be conducted in the fall of each subsequent year of
monitoring, providing a full year between vegetative surveys.
t
1
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc.
Monitoring Report - Silver Creek
EEP Contract # D05016-01
January 2008
Monitoring Year I of 5
Page 22

I

1

e

t

s

Exhibit Table XII. Baseline Morphology and Hydraulic Summary
Silver Creek Stream Restoration / EEP Project No. D05016-01
Station/Reach: Mainstem {Long-Term Monitoring Profile Station 0+00 to 18+71.14 (1871.1 4 feet)}
Parameter Reference Reach Pre-Existing Condition Design As-Built Year I Sta. 0+00 - 18+71
Dimension Min Max Med Min Max Med Min Max Med Min Max Med Min Max Med
Drainage Area (mi) 1.16 8.26 8.26 8.26 --,- 826
F Width ft O 24.02 29.22 122
.47 60.86 30.00 46.18 69.81 58.00 46.14 68.80 57.47
Flood rove Width ft 232.00 -
37.00 84.00 60.00 54.0 145.0 99.5 82.81 '
114.45

98.63
_
82.93
--
114.2
5

98.59
-
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft2) - -
30.77 139.70 230.44_ 176.46 90.00 83.59 103.55
93.57
83.97 .
100.15
92.06

BF Mean Depth (ft)
1.28
1.88 5.45 3.95
? i
1.59
1.29
1.81 I
1.55 }
1.461
_
_
1.82
1.64
BF Max Depth ( (ft) - - 1..7 72 6
7.04
..57 7
_.6622 - 3.00 2.80 3.75
3
.
15

Width/Depth ft
18.77 -
65.
5.36 25.78
18.87 -
25.5 1
52.16
38.84
25.35 ?2
47 _
_
36.24

Entrenchment Ratio --
9.66
0.69 1.91
1.29 _

1.80 4.83

3.32

1.59 j

1.79i

1.69

1.661

1.80

1.73

Bank Height Ratio
1.00 -
3.89 4.07 3.98 -
1.00
0.93
102'

0.97

030
?
50'
0

0
40
Wetted Perimeter 26.58 - -
35.78 152.95-,
75.32 -
__ 33.18 46.981 70.20 _
58.9 -
46.5 .
61 .
58.07

-
Hydraulic Radius ft
y_ O
-- -
1.16
-
1.51 4.28
3.23
-f
i
i
-
--
2.71
--
-
1.271

1.7
8

-
53

4
.
-
..
.79.

1.62
Pattern

*Channel O
_
4
.501 45.22
37 84
60 54.6-1-45.0 93.9 82 81 181.94' 109.79 82
931 114
25 102
73

Radius
of Curvature (ft)
* 2.97y 24.441 7.67
'
- - - 45.0 75.0 _
60.0
- 46.07 L
185.401 68.70 _
.
4
07 .
185.40 .
68.70
Mean
der Wavelength (ft.)
* 88.23115.70
' ? 104.80
1 - - -- - 191.8 73.79 191.70 - 124.86 733. 1
91.70 124.86

Meander Width Ratio
1.84
1.94 1.88 0.61 1.38
0.99
- - 1.80 4.83 3.13 1.79 2.61 1.89 1.66 180 1.79
Profile
Riffle Length ft 190
25.7
6.5 10.5 12.5
32.9
9.4
47.7 ?
28
4
7
3
47
3
27
8

- Riffle Slop/ft)
0.0125, 0
0362
- _ 00045 0

1 0. 069
I--0096

00056

0.0039,

0.1787 .

0.0242 .

0.0084 .
?

0.0
8
? .

0.0165

Pool Length (ft)
-

?
11.01: 31.6 1 17.4
? -
-
20
.1 36. 1
26.3
--
--

?
?
-- 65.7 17.1 56.9 35.7 28.11

.
?

1.3

Pool S

___ - - -
pacmft g O
67.6 77.5 71.4

1
_
101.1 149.0 129.1
- -
1
--1-

131.4

36.4

388 3

145.5

61.5
!

257.31 -

161.2

Substrate _ _-
_ ____ __ - ---- -
-

m_m
-? - -
38.5

2.9 38.51
26.6

2.9 38.5

5.,

15.5

1

26 .9

2 1 .2
-
-7.-7
- 1 6
.5 1
- - 1
12.

d84 (mm)
---

60.2
_ _ 20.6 _ 60.2 52.3 20.6
60.2
-
40.1
- -
21.2
-- _.._
30.41
- ?-
25.8
---- ?
10.9
- ?-
-
--21.3i

---16.1

Additional Reach Parameters

? T om - - - - -
Valle
ft
Y Length O
- --- _ ?-294.00 2077
' 207 2077 T - 2077
Channel Length (ft)

- 353.00

- -- _
?
3040 - - - -

951
r-
-

905 -

+

-

905
Sinuosity

t
1.2
1.2
_
1.46
1
, 46
I
_
r
1.43
1.43
1.40
1.40
- ?
1
1
40
40
)
Surface Slope (ft/ft)
----- Water -
0 0106
Y -- -
0 00218 0.00299 0 00259
-_ --
--- --
-
0.0025 - - - 0.0026 -
-I -
- .
.
0.0028
BF Slope (ft/ft)

- - --
- - - 0.0115

- ?

_
-- -
- - - - **

i
- _- - 0.0026
0.0027

_ -

- --

0.0028
Rosgen Classification C4
- -- -
F4
134c C4
C4 - - - - -
134c - - - - , -
134c

Habitat Index - - -

Notes: * Inclusion will be project specific and determined primarily by As-built monitoring plan/success criteria
"Insufficient field indicators to estimate bankfull slope under altered F4 channel conditions.
Blank fields = Historic project documentation necessary to provide these data were unavailable at the time of this report submission.
Where no min/max values provided, only one value was measured or computed and is presented as the mean value.

Exhibit Table XH. Baseline Morphology and Hydraulic Summary
Silver Creek Stream Restoration / EEP Project No. D05016-01
Station/Reach: Tributary A {Long-Term Monitoring Profile Station 0+00 to 11+42. 65 (1142.65 feet)}
Parameter Reference Reach Pre-Existing Condition Design As-Built Year 1 Sta 0+00 -11+43
Dimension
Drainage Area (mi Min Max Med Min Max Med Min Max Med _ Min Max Med Min Max Med

- -
BF Width (ft) 1.16
- 0.08 0.08
24.02 13
72
0.08
0.08

Flood prone Width O ft .
8.00
232
.00 Confined 15.00
15.00 Confined 15.00 15.00 6.81

13.28 8.11

14
57 7.46

13
93 6.78

10
45 7.32

13
35 7.05

11

BF Cross Sectional Area ft2
( )
- - -
30.77
54 -
3

_ . . . .

- .90
- --
BF Mean Depth (ft) .
- ---- - - 3.50
28 -
1 3.511 3.59 3.55 3.52 3.57' 3.55
-
BF Max Depth (ft) .
0.26
72 - - -
1 0.51
-
Width/Depth (ft) .
0.90 1.00
77 - -
18 '
0.81 1.01 0.91 0.63 1.01 0.82
-

Entrenchment Ratio .

- - - --
52.77 , 16
9
66
0 12.85
-

6
1
18
_15.86
_ 12.79,
-
15.251
-
14.02
-
Bank Height Ratio .
1.09 1
-
. 8
8
- -
1
00 I 1
.80
-- 1.95
, 1.88
-
- - 1.43 1.971 1.70

---

Wetted Perimeter (ft) .
1.91
00

- -
-
26
58
1.00 i

1.00

1.00

00! _-

1.00

ydraulic Radius (ft) 1
.
.00
i 1 L16 97 9
? - _ .._
t
-
6.97 8.281 7.63 7.08
-
- 1-
756

7.32
-
Pattern - - -
- - --- 0.25 0.39
e
- --- -----? O A2 0.501
0.46
_0.47.
0.50'
0.49

*Channel Be_
(ft)
- -
-
44-.17,' 46.50 , 45.22
10
80
1 -
- _ -

*Radius
* aius of Curvature ft O

12.97 24.44 17
67
67
---
-7-
-
.

` - 1
4.57

-
1
2.95

10.801 14

.57,
?
-

2.95

*
- -
Meander Wavelength (ft)
- - - _
.
.
1
- - - - - G -- -_
--
88.23 115.70fi; 104.80 - 9.32
-
5
1 124.901
- 23.59
- - 9321 124
.90 23.59

_ Meander Width Ratio
__ -?

- -
- - - -
1.84 1.94 1.88

.82

06 3D

73.72
--

8.82
-
f 106.30' 73.72
Profile
1.45
195
1.74
1.59
- 1.99:
1.84

Riffle Len
_ ft
gth)
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
19.0 1--
01251 3 LO 25.7
0
0
0362 0
0211 - -
1.34

r
47.90
.30
2.351
49.5
84

'

Pool -

-
L ?h O ft - .
._
.

- -T
11.0
31.6 - 17.4
'
-
8 ,

i
0 630

-
022079 .1389

012 43 -

.0
409
i --

01278
0•
- -
1
Pool S

- Pool (ft)
- (
- - - -- - -
- - - -

,
67.6 77.5 71.4
1 1 -

10
19

143
20!

55
63 6
- 4.21
-t- 13.81
-

Substrate -- -

---- . . . 10.92! 150.25 38.78

- d50 (mm)
- -
d84 (mm)
'i 38.5
2 ? I ? -
60
6.9'
- --?
15.8
?-
11.4
- T
2.4 --?
8.2
? =
5.3
- . 202E -42.4 31.3 9.2t _
14.3 11.8
Additional Reach Parameters --
+

----- -
Valley Length (ft)
T 294.00 1426
1426 _ - 8

?

t

Channel Length (ft)
- - _
-
353.00
?I ? 1 1508
- - -
- 1426
- 1426
Sinuosit
y
- - - 1533
1.2
1.06
1
07
1552

-
1552
-

_ Water Surface Slope
ft/ft

B
(
) -
.
_
0.0106 50
,
0.0500
1 0.0425 0.0350 0.0500 0.0425
-

+- 1.09

-- -
0
0427

- _ 1.09

_
0
03850
F Slope (
ft/ft)

os en

g Classification **

.0115
_
0.0375 0.0535; 0.0455
-
-
-- .
-
0.0469 - -
-

' .
- -
0.03670
- - -
-
*Habitat Index C4
- -_. ! - - - A2 --> 134a
- - - - - _ _ -
B4a - 134a
Notes: * Inclusion will be project specific and determined primarily by As-built monitoring plan/success criteria
**Insufficient field indicators to estimate bankfull slope under altered A-->B channel conditions.
Blank fields = Historic project docu mentation necessary to provide these data were unavailable at the time of this report su bmission

Where no min/max values provided
, only one value was measured or computed and is presented as the mean value. .

1
I
t

1

I

f
1

APPENDIX A
Vegetation Raw Data
1. Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos
2. Vegetation Data Tables

Vegetation Plot 1 on Mainstem
Monitoring Year I
(EMH&T, Inc. 9/18/07)
Vegetation Plot 2 on Mainstem
Monitoring Year I
(EMH&T, Inc. 9/18/07)
Y S a. l ' ? k
lob
3. a ?y Yd6.+? ? P
3 ti ; L
r'
"x
R
11 < w 3e t :la < ?f3'a t ?' S a ?!' cep!
t, .!'A;i k ''ts $'d t i r r Sn a x °4,i,=N ?N 3'
Vegetation Plot 3 on Mainstem
Monitoring Year 1
(EMH&T, Inc. 9/18/07)

S.S .aFry

Vegetation Plot 4 on Mainstem
Monitoring Year 1
(EMH&T, Inc. 9/18/07)
Vegetation Plot 5 on Mainstem
Monitoring Year 1
(EMH&T, Inc. 9/18/07)
Vegetation Plot 6 on Mainstem
Monitoring Year 1
(EMH&T, Inc. 9/18/07)

r
Vegetation Plot 2 on Tributary A
Monitoring Year 1
(EMH&T, Inc. 9/18/07)

1
Vegetation Plot 1 on Tributary A
Monitoring Year 1
(EMH&T, Inc. 9/18/07)

1

1

1
Vegetation Plot 4 on Tributary A
Monitoring Year I
(EMH&T, Inc. 9/18/07)

1
Vegetation Plot 3 on Tributary A
Monitoring Year 1
(EMH&T, Inc. 9/18/07)

1

1
1

1

1

1
{j °
04
i
Vegetation Plot on Tributary B
Monitoring Year 1
(EMH&T, Inc. 9/18/07)
Vegetation Plot on Tributary C
Monitoring Year 1
(EMH&T, Inc. 9/18/07)
1
M M = M = = = i = = = = M = M = = M
Table 1. Vegetation Metadata
Report Prepared B Holly Blunck
Date Prepared 11/14/2007 8:16

database name CVS_EEP Data Ent v202.mdb
database location Q:\ENVIRONMENTAL\Monitoring\EEP Vegetation Database

DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT------------
Metadata This worksheet, which is a summary of the project and the project data.
Plots List of plots surveyed.
Vigor Frequency distribution of vigor classes.
Vigor b Spp Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed b species.
Damage List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences and percent of total stems impacted b each.
Damage b Spp Damage values tallied b type for each species.
Damage b Plot Damage values tallied b type for each plot.
Stem Count b Plot and Spp Count of living stems of each species for each plot; dead and missing stems are excluded.

PROJECT SUMMARY-------------------------------------
Project Code D0501601
project Name Silver Creek
Description Restoration of Silver Creek Mainstem and Unnamed Tributary A.
length (ft)
stream-to-edge width (ft)
area (sq m)
Required Plots (calculated)
Sampled Plots 10

1
1

1
1

1

Table 2. Vegetation Vigor by Species
Species 4 3 2 1 0 Missing
Acer saccharum 2 7 8 1
Alnus serrulata 5
Aronia melanocarpa 2 6
Corpus amomum 13, 8 4 6
Fraxinus penns Ivanica 9 4 2
Quercus michauxii 2 1
Salix nigra 4 1
Liriodendron tulipifera 1 3
Platanus occidentalis 8 1 2 5
Acer rubrum 2
TOT: 10 44 26 21 5 11 0
1

1
1

1

1
1
Table 3. Vegetation Damage b Species
E
o
E i=
Q
U

°' m 0
Y
o to
E

ayi l0
E 0 'C
ai C
?
o C
o t0
a

a

-
O

L

y d

N p

o V

0 C1 ~ C

_ 0

tq _
Q
c
l
i
_
o
u.
v
i
c
0
fn
Acer rubrum 2 2
Acer saccharum 18 17 1
Alnus serrulata 5 5
Aronia melanocarpa 8 5 2 1
Cornus amomum 31 30 1
Fraxinus penns Ivanica 15 13 2
Liriodendron tulipifera 4 4
Platanus occidentalis 16 16
Quercus michauxii 3 3
Salix nigra 5 5
TOT: 10 107 100 0 0 0 0 3 0 4 0 0
1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

1

1
Table 4. Vegetation Damage b Plot
?
L ?
d co
E
O
a
E c
a
a
U 1°
?

? m` O
Y
o c
v
E
cc
E
E
L m
N
y
C
3

ar
'C
rr
i
d
O
d
O
~ 0
C
d
O
CL -_
Q O L j
i y
o N_
o _O
a: v! -
o
cn
>
.?+
D0501601-01-0001 11 11
D0501601-01-0002 10 10
D0501601-01-0003 12 11 1
D0501601-01-0004 11 11
D0501601-01-0005 20 19 1
D0501601-01-0006 6 6
D0501601-01-0007 5 5
D0501601-01-0008 9 8 1
D0501601-01-0009 13 9 1 3
D0501601-01-0010 16 16
IT 10 113 106 0 0 0 0 3 0 4 0 0

1

1

1
1

1

1
1

Table 5. Stem Count b Plot and Species
0 0 0 0 0 LO w 0 0 0 0
°o °O °O °o °o °O °O °O °O O°
T-
9 [-
9 r
° r
° r
° r
° r
° r
° T
° I-
OI
T- r r
CD r-
0 r
0 %-
0 r
0 r
0 r r
N t0 t0 t
0 tC t0
d O O O O O O O O O O

N r
N
U)
N
LO
N
to
u)
LO
Ln
N
C1 fA N
0

Q
r
O O

a
*k
>
.+
O
r
O
r+
O
?+
O
rr
O
.+
O
.+
O
r+
O
?.
O
r+
O
to H ?t to c. e. a. c. c. a M Q. Q. Q.
Acer rubrum 2 1 2 2
Asaccharum 18 4 4.5 2 4 10 2
Alnus serrulata 5 4 1.25 1 1 1 2
Aronia melanocarpa 8 5 1.6 3 1 2 1 1
Cornus amomum 25 8 3.13 2 2 5 5 4 1 4 2
Fraxinus pennsylvanica 15 6 2.5 3 1 1 2 4 4
Liriodendron tulipifera 4 3 1.33 2 1 1
Platanus occidentalis 11 4 2.75 1 4 3 3
Quercus michauxii 3 2 1.5 1 2
Salix nigra 5 3 1.67 1 3 1
TOT: 16 96 16, 8 91 111 91 19 5 5 9 12 9
1
1

' APPENDIX B
Geomorphologic Raw Data
1. Stream Problem Areas Plan View
' 2. Stream Problem Area Photos
3. Fixed Station Photos

' 4. Table B1. Qualitative Visual Stability Assessment
5. Cross Section Plots
6. Longitudinal Plots
7. Pebble Count Plots

1
1

1
1
1

tit Aw"
«t NW011
L:Imm
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc.
Engineers • Surveyors • Planners • Scientists
5500 New Albany Road, Columbus, OH 43054
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
BURKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
SILVER CREEK AND UNNAMED TRIBUTARY
MONITORING
APPENDIX B
STREAM PROBLEM AREA PLAN VIEW

Date: January, 2008
Scale: 1" = 100'
M C M X X V
Job No: 2007-1898

I

1
1
t

SPA 1

r

1
1
SPA 2
Steep banks in need of stabilization along Unnamed Tributary A near station 13+00.
(EMH&T, Inc. 10/22/07)

Natural log sill along Unnamed Tributary A near station 5+75.
(EMH&T, Inc. 10/22/07)

I

Fixed Station I
Overview of the Silver Creek Mainstem, facing downstream from the downstream project
terminus.
(EMH&T, Inc. 10/22/07)

Fixed Station 2
I Overview of the Silver Creek Mainstem at Riffle #3, facing downstream.
(EMH&T, Inc. 10/22/07)
1
1

Pig,
?9 ?i 'aa?`I .? t? ..? .. ..fir F1?'`.a}• 'f? _
Fixed Station 3
Overview of the Silver Creek Mainstem at Riffle #1, facing downstream.
(EMH&T, Inc. 10/22/07)

Fixed Station 4
Overview of the Silver Creek Mainstem at Riffle #1, facing upstream.
(EMH&T, Inc. 10/22/07)

r

1

1

Fixed Station 5
Overview of the Silver Creek Mainstem, facing downstream near station 2+60.
(EMH&T, Inc. 10/22/07)
Fixed Station 6
Overview of UT-A, facing upstream near station 0+50.
(EMH&T, Inc. 10/22/07)

f

1

1

Fixed Station 7
Fixed Station 8
Overview of UT-A, facing upstream near station 11+00.
(EMH&T, Inc. 10/22/07)

Overview of UT-A, facing upstream near station 8+00.
(EMH&T, Inc. 10/22/07)
Fixed Station 9
Overview of UT-B, facing upstream from the confluence of UT-B with Silver Creek.
(EMH&T, Inc. 10/22/07)
Fixed Station 10
Overview of UT-B, facing downstream towards the confluence of UT-B with Silver Creek.
(EMH&T, Inc. 10/22/07)
?, as
Fixed Station 11
Overview of UT-C, facing upstream from the confluence of UT-C with Silver Creek.
(EMH&T, Inc. 10/22/07)
Fixed Station 12
Overview of UT-C, facing downstream towards the confluence of UT-C with Silver Creek.
(EMH&T, Inc. 10/22/07)
r M M M M' M M M= M= M M= W==
Table B1. Visual Morphological Stability Assessment
Silver Creek Stream Restoration / EEP project No. D05016-1
Se ment/Reach: Mainstem

eature Category

etric (per As-built and reference baselines a e
Number
Performing
as Intended
Total
number per
As-built
Total Number/
feet in unstable
state
% Perform
in Stable
Condition Feature
Perform.
Mean or
Total
A. Riffles 1. Present?
2
Armor
t
bl 25 25 0 100
.
s
a
e (e.g.. no displacement)?
3
Facet
d 25 25 0 100
.
gra
e appears stable?
4
Minimal
id
f 25 25 0 100
.
ev
ence o
embedding/fining?
5
Len
th
i
t
? 25 25 0 100

B. Pools .
g
appropr
a
e
1. Present? (e.g. not subject to severe a grad. or migrat.?)
2
Suffi
i
tl
d 25
24 25
24 0
0 100
100 100%
.
c
en
y
eep (Max Pool D:Mean Bkf>1.6?)
3
Len
th
i
t
? 24 24 0 100

C. Thalweg .
g
appropr
a
e
1. Upstream of meander bend (run/inflection) centering?
2
Down
t
f 24
25 24
25 0
0 100
100 100%

D. Meanders .
s
ream o
meander (glide/inflection) centering?
1. Outer bend in state of limited/controlled erosion?
2
Of th
di 25
25 25
25 0
0 100
100 100%
.
ose ero
ng, # w/concomitant point bar formation?
3
A
ar
t R
ithi
? 25 25 0 100
.
pp
en
c w
n spec
4
Sufficient fl
d
l
i 25 25 0 100

E. Bed General .
oo
p
a
n access and relief?
1. Geveral channel bed ag radation areas (bar formation)
2
hannel bed de
radation - area
i 25
N/A 25
N/A 0
0/ 0 feet 100
100 100%

F. Vanes .
g
s o
ncreasing owncutting
or headcutting?
1. Free of back or arm scour?
2
H
i
ht
i
?
N/A
15
N/A
15
0/ 0 feet
0
100
100
100%
.
e
g
appropr
ate
3
An
l
d 15 15 0 100
.
g
e an
geometry appear appropriate?
4
Free of
i
i
th 15 15 0 100

G. Wads/ Boulders .
p
p
ng or o
er structural failures?
1
Free of scour? 15 15 0 100 100%
.
2
Footin
st
bl
? N/A 0 N/A N/A
.
g
a
e N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A
M M M M ¦s r M r M ? = r r r r = M==
Table B1. Visual Morphological Stability Assessment
Silver Creek Stream Restoration / EEP'Project No. D05016-1
Se ment/Reach: Tributar A

eature Category

etric (per As-built and reference baselines Stable)
Number
Performing
as Intended
Total
number per
As-built
Total Number /
feet in unstable
state
% Perform
in Stable
Condition Feature
Perform.
Mean or
Total
A. Riffles 1. Present? 25 25 0 100
2. Armor stable (e.g. no displacement)? 25 25 0 100
3. Facet grade appears stable? 25 25 0 100
4. Minimal evidence of embedding/fining? 25 25 0 100
5. Length appropriate? 25 25 0 100 100%
B. Pools 1. Present? (e. g. not subject to severe a grad. or migrat.?) 11 15 4 73
2. Sufficient) deep (Max Pool D:Mean Bkf>1.6?) 8 15 7 53
3. Length appropriate? 11 15 4 73 66%
C. Thalweg 1. Upstream of meander bend (run/inflection) centering? 12 12 0 100
2. Downstream of meander (glide/inflection) centering? 12 12 0 100 100%
D. Meanders 1. Outer bend in state of limited/controlled erosion? 12 12 0 100
2. Of those eroding, # w/concomitant point bar formation? 12 12 0 100
3. Apparent Rc within spec? 12 12 0 100
4. Sufficient floodplain access and relief? 12 12 0 100 100%
E. Bed General 1. Geveral channel bed aggradation areas (bar formation) N/A N/A 0/ 0 feet 100
2. Channel bed degradation - areas o increasing owncutting
or headcutting?
N/A
N/A
0/ 0 feet
100
100%
F. Vanes 1. Free of back or arm scour? 17 17 0 100
2. Height appropriate? 16 17 1 94
3. Angle and geometry appear appropriate? 17 17 0 100
4. Free of piping or other structural failures? 17 17 0 100 98%
G. Wads/ Boulders 1. Free of scour? N/A 0 N/A N/A
2. Footing stable? N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A
M M = M M M = = M M = M = M = = ? s M
Summary Data PROJECT Silver Creek
All dimensions in feet.
805016-1
1-YEAR
Bankfull Area 83.97 TASK Cross-Section
Bankfull Width 46.14 REACH Mainstem
Mean Depth 1.82
DATE 12/10/07
Maximum Depth 3.48
Width/Depth Ratio 25.35

Entrenchment Ratio
1
8 CROSS 1
. SECTION:
Classification 134C II
L'
( UtiVSIL'lll
,
FEATURE: Riffle at Cross Vane # 1

Silver Creek Riffle XS1 - Year 1
o

113B X51 Y 1 B.wo Indlt t- T Water Surface Points _ %S1 - 2.35 30 CV-1 Vfi 0
kbkf - k6.1 Dbkf - 1.8 Bbkf - BY
1137
1135

1135

1
1139
1133

W
1131
„j
1130
1179
1128-
1127-
1126
-
-

Cross-section photo - looking downstream 1175
0 1D 20 30 00 50 6C 70 Bo 90 100
Horizontal Distance (ft)
r M M s== M M r= M= r==== i
Summary Data PROJECT Silver Creek
All dimensions in feet. D05016-1
1-YEAR
Bankfull Area 81.53 TASK Cross-Section
Bankfull Width 42
89

Mean Depth .
1.9 REACH Mainstem

Maximum Depth
4.02 DATE 12/10/07
Width/Depth Ratio 22.57
Entrenchment Ratio 1
9 CROSS 2

Classification .
B SECTION:

SyStEIll FEATURE: Pool at Cross Vane # 1

Silver Creek Pool XS2 - Year 1
O k 2 POOL YRI 4 Sanxtut Indicators TWater Surface Points '. %82 2-59 27 CV-1 - YR 0

113 YDkf - 42.9 DDkf - 1.9 k4kf - 81.5
y 1138
I
1137
1136

m: 1135-
1134-
?^ 1133
p 1132
y 1131
l1J 113 ,,(//
?Y
112
3 _.
-••-• e1`?- '+`
-J:..
1118
-. 1127
112
1125-

Cross-section photo - lookin
g downstream 1124-
1123 -
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Horizontal Distance (ft) 90 100 110
11
11
rte,
I
I
U
1
1
J
1
1
F�
1
v
Y
m r
U
> v�1
O
3F
W O
a
I ,
I
f
Co
fn O
O
r Cl) a
�
U
I
_
W
O
c
a'
mE r z
I
NC N ~
r O U
0� w w
U U cn LLt
C;
X�
awe
I
vei Q FW-
Q w
o Y�
iv)
�
8
S2
I
I
I
I
m
-
_
o
(8) uogena13
W)6 o 00
W)o
O
C;,,tn --� d N M U
b�
-
O
O
y
�
_t'
I
O
A . �
� •
� �
�
1]y
� cz
v�¢
a w��3wv
�• �
v
zw

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~�
k kL
&
°
«
3 2
-
\
�
§
2
k E
� $ 1-w
%
# _ § § u
u § § $ ±
7i{
°
X!
§
m►
�
In
-
I
\
k ui
o\LU110,$
\!�
,
w � Q
mi=
� p
�
2
&�13
§
■
�
(
_
6 02 k � \
2
�
■
2
«
0
J
2
�
2
I
o
%
2
)
.G
a
c.2
/•- Q + §
� §
ƒ�
o
\
on
t§
2

1
Y
0
-
Y
mIF
U co R
Q
m o W
ea
m
o
a
I �
C }
a
in o
to
U
I
_
W
p
c
°
I
w
a
d E z W
N :) O
`- a
a�
m
N c
Q iy N IY W W'
U r2 r U (n LL
U)
w
xw
HBe
I
c
Y
N
I
o
.y
Q
cA m
I
m
I
I
I
o
(S) UOIIB-13
g
al
RI
U
00
I
a�
r
�^
RS i.
uevi
Al
z
�¢
a� (�y
#-
U
rctaa��3wv

1
i7
1
1
1
F
1
1
LI
1
C�
co
Y I _
Y O
O O
m
IF I
� r
U co d' I
> c
in o r
m a I
I _
� I �
LLI o
a
m E
y o cn0 `m
U)
c c O U Q a) c
N IX Lu LU cO m
U r U fn LL t
XU
I �
d • I N
I N
C) I _
a W
g I
.I
0 0
(g) UO!Ienal3
M
O N `n O
lr-
b�
O
O
O
° I
4. o •° c
Le Q Q ° rA
cC iG Cf) , c vIi
n:

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
E
I
�
�
I
I
I
J9
§
�
�
a�s
w
\
§
t
0
a
-
k � :i§
«
S « § 0 § a
§ § § ƒ
®
U)
o!
!
_
\
�
k
w
k � r
0!
i
� w
|
�
�
�
°
o
`
m _B
----....-------.....-
........................................
. ..
§
«
w m
CA
a
S ©9 C 2
m a a - - _ m
■
2
k
\
4Q.
�
3
c
/•� n � §
�
.§
2
ƒS4�•)
(
�`
-
k
§
t k
m
c
(z U z
§ \
6

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
11
I
I
�
I
I
I
�
�
§ _
�
°
} G
G
6
^
co
_ a
§
�z
f �o §
�^
}
®
® ' U) w
§ J \ ) w
=
w
u e _ u ch LL
°
\»�
2
0
*
�
!
(
e
i
�
�
�
+ _e
# \��
`� &'
■
`a
©
0 9 9 8 9
. 2
0
,c �
!.
\Fj
Ell

u
1
1
1
1
1
Y
I
I
I
U to
Q
I
I
> LO
o
_
} o
I
-
fn
-
I
I
-
w
� H Nd'W W
I
U O UN W
X$
I
YJ
o�n
t1
<
I
`o
S
f I
I
/ I
o
I
(g) uoilena13
CC
�r
bA
O
O
O
�
p p
I
O
in,4 FLi
Q
L"
>~Q
•--� •--• 3
� � U
CSC CU
Q
�
Cj
X c
xco
U

7
1
1
Y
i
r
I
>
w m
b
I
I
U
E
I
w
°
I
'
0
K
ao
v
I
NO M
}
I
o D
o p
c U
'
rUw w
U :3U N U.
cr t
I
Nie
N
au
LU
�
cn
� LU
U
/
I
r
I
0
(8) uoiIen913
t�
N N oo M N
M
M l� O O '-+ .•—� pa
'C3
•
�
'
i�
I
'
4a:
O
O
O
CC
t1.:
�.
�s >~
7�165
d ) c
a
U
N
CC
O Q U
U
rA
1
(/ad
CQt:A���WU
c
�
V
1

Famal
T T
T
CD
co
s
LL -
m
C]
T T T T T T T T T T T
(4) UOIIEA913
0
0
rn
0
0
0
0
CD
ti
T
CD
0
La
T
0
0
u-,
0
0
v
0
o
M
T
0
v
T
0
0
T
T
0
Q
CD
T
0
CD
cm
CD
CD
00
0
I—
CD
O
(9
O
O
LJ
O
0
O
0
0
r
W
L 7
L
0
cz
w
cz
y i
rim
m m m m m m m r= m m= m m m= m ■■■

m
r
r
cr
r
rr
aCD
_Co
V
V
_
r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r
(4) UOIIEAa l3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
r
0
�n
rn
0
0
a
4-?
co
O
O
O
O
1l)
ti
O
O
F�-
a
Ln
co
0
a
co
0
Lt?
Ln
0
0
u�
0
4)
O
O
'r
0
Ln
m
0
0
a
Ln
SV
0
a
Com!
i=
Ln
O
a
a
4O
0
I&
r r m m m m m r No= m m m m m m m m i

rm
T T
T
�Oyy
LL
I
rIn
C�?
F2
V
A
L.L •�
2
m
1►
(4) UOIIenal3
m
M
O
O
M
O
47
N
I
ZD
r
I
7
n
cn
O
�r
r m m m m m""*a so wo m� m r m m m m

C'4 T o a� ao r� LO 4-) t M kN c. M CO r,. s kL) M cv o 6? a r-- (D 4-) r Cl)
N i7D 1- f� t~ r� Fti r~ r� Fti r-rti i0 tQ {v i£� iJ Cts to t£� (� tS 4� 47 4i tIi U -i 4, tf?
T T
T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T r r T T T T
T T
T
co
S
LL.
m C)
0
0
t�
rn
u-,
OD
OD
0
M
(3j) UOIIEAal3
O
Lr,
LD
LD
0
O
m r m m am m m m" mftm m m m r m r m r

I
asuey m
v
U
0
v
bD
O
p
N
00O
�
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
C
V
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
oo
`O
N
O
c}
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
N
O
O
�
N
Q
O
O
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
VDD
O
V
v1
M
"6
M
N
M
N
v)
M
O
o0
00p
N
o0o
N
N
N
cV
W
O
O
a
d
o
C
CLc%�
ca
>
[%
U
c
7
a�
i
k,
G%
U
U
7
>
rn
U
-C
U
—j
m
rA
Ln
g
m

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
AURID ui %
O
a+
�O
O
O
1:1
c,
�
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
U
0
mm
a
c
0
C
E
y
u
L
o
v
N
O
p
N
O
N
M
N
M
V
I
^
N
opo
N
10^
�
N
N
p
O
O
a
v7
O
a°>
a+
pcOd
^J
v
y
U
'b
y
N
.O
R
V]
C
cn
7
�
O
O
U
vii
�"'.�0
O
U
N
>
>
Lt
>
(7
G
W.
C7
f%
t%
F
7
ti
O
2
>
U
N
p
U
>
CJ
LIM,
N
p
U
>
N
00
U
>
O
U
FcC>
rii
N
O
U
�
O
U
a
N
O
U
,Oy
O
0]
rn
2y
O
0]
v�
O
O
'O
O
Q]
aui

1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
ri
i
E
E
o—�
aJuea ul
v
>
o
0
0
o
m
m
o
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
o
o
O
O
o
O
0
O
0
O
o
o
O
O
O
o
o
O
o
O
O
O
o
O
7
U
0
V
a
0
0
U
8
C~aj
L
NO
O
O
O
O
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
cV
l�
O
O
vi
^M',
p
00
M
N
O
N
N
N
N
m
Vl
IO
O
O
N
�
N
0oc 00
N
Ic
M
N
N
oc
O
C�4
.T
p
00
V
ON
O
O
0.
CQ
O
c
F
o
U
-O
O
ani
>
J
cz
0
c
fz
yam,
C7
c
cz.
C7
F'
i
V
2
t
i
U
m
a
U
O
U
=
O
U
J
—c
O
U
ro
cn
O
U
cn
O
o o
J
O
eto
.�
O
O
b
O
m
oo
o
F-

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
W
0
aSuea u
�n
oo
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
V
e
O
O
a
e
G,
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
o0
0o
O
oo
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
�
V
d
N
�
4w
UCA00
LL
---
V
pi
O
Oi
O
C
O
O
O
O
O
N
�t
O
vi
M
oo
N
N
O,
N
N
o0
N
10
V-)O
N
N
N
N
oc
O
N
O
E C
O
O
O
O
•
GC
m
O
>
« f
C
Li
ro
F
'O
C
n7
VJ
cCi
U
C
N
"
O
�'
>
N
C
�'
>
>
M
s.
N
J.
N
cd
s.
f%
_�Qj
'O
y
sem.
v
F
'C7
>
O
F.
U
�'
OO
U
>
O
s..
i
U
>
cz
N
ctl
p
N
>
°
O
cC
p
>
O
O
•—'
va
N
O
'_'
F
cn
N
O
N
N
O
N
co
a
N
O
—_
O
on
O
LZ
ai
O
'O
N
O
p
O
M
O
Oa

1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
E
E
N
� u
a
M
v'1
00
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
C
7
U
a
L
C
O
O
O
O
�O
O
O
O
O
oo
N
O
N
M
M
M
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
C
0
p
O
N
�
U
E
E
m
N
�
aj
�
a
V
N
O
O
v
O
O
O
O
O
O
—
O
N
[�
O
vj
m
o0
O
�
N
N
N
In7
M
O�
'O
N
O
N
N
000N
N
N
N
U1
N
O
N
00
O
N
O
00
O
N
E
O
fx
p
U
a
CU
U
'n
O
Z
w
>
'
C
cu
�
=
cC
U
CIO
rOi,
O
U
>
O
C
LL
>
>
v
v:
U
U>>�
>
U
>
U
U
U
U
U
a
W
un F
W
E
�
y
m
E

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
abuea ul
C
In
N
II
LO
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c o 0
JaUlA % aniaelnwnj
cu
O
O
O
O
vl
�'
knM
d'
rD
V
of
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
7
7
U
0
c
O
C
0
C
7
O
M
N
10
�
U
E
E
Q
N
In
u
L
d.
p110
O
V
N
O
v
N
N
O
In
O
'—'
In
O
N
V
O
N
Vl
O
ocr.
t`
vi
O
oo
O
M
p
O
N
Ln
m
7
Q`
00
N
O
2
N
N
N
N
N
;7)
00
O
N
O
O
N
N
R
O
0,
a
(�
y
T
U
c
'-
ani
v
c
cn
c
')
m
�?
o
C
C
CIO
ca
U
ani
co
u
c
w
ani
ro
C7
c
C7
c
ami
o
U
Uo ani
5
m
U
>>
3
U
0
0
va
0
a
0
.a
0
0
c
u
0
cam
�
[--

1
1
1
a8uua ul %
o �
0
— - E
E
O N
O N
O
W
0
- —
� o E
r
u
u
N V
� � L
v a
u
L
a
E
v
N
I I
to
O
lau! j % an!Ielnwn3
v
7
a+
ca
C
�c
oc
ol
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
U
0
v
on
c
�a
CG
C
o
0
o
p
N
N
o
o
o
N
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
U
E
E
N
V
y
p
O
O
O
O
O
N
O
O
O
O
O
N
O
V
v'�
O
oo
.-.
N?
N
M
N
1
M
c
tt
a`
00O
cV
oo
N
N
000
N
N
V�j16.
N
M
NO
N
V
O
N
O
o0
O
0.
C
w
ro
U
d
CC
•y
�
�,
U
�.•
_
�'
�
C
V]
G
7
�
Co
O
Qj
p
U
C
Ci,
73
ro
U
a
C7
C7
U
>
>
O
U
O
U
O
UCZ
a
2
O
.a
J
O
O
O
-
m

1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
E
E
x
93URN m
>
N
M
M
v�
[`
oo
C,
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
p
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
W
C
E
C
U
0
on
C
LC
p
o
o
o
N
o
t`
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
a
0
O
U
E
E
u
N
U
N
n
N
kr)
00
M
00
M
N
N
N
N
n
N
M
V
v7
O
7
N
O
p
O
N
N
opo
N
N
N
InN
M
N
N
00
O
N
O
00
O
N
ro
O
a+
7Qj
iSl
RS
•�
G
T
U
C/1
b
O
�.
,
C
Li.
G
V1
U
)al
p
U
Q
7
_i
CL
N
eco
C_
C.L.
ai
i"
La.
'�CCV
G
ccv
G
(��
V
0
U
N
cu
,
O
cz
O
U
�'
Cn
O
U
E0
cz
.j
O
U
.j
0
m
0
m
E
U

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
iE
I
E
00
_ o
u
LO
11710
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
-lam j % an!)elnwnj
d
O
O
O
M
M
c
c
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
7
7
U
e
C
O
M
M
M
O
�i
C
e
O
7
O
O
O
O
O
oo
O
O
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
�
U
E
E
v
�C
4
p
V
N
O
O
O
rA
O
cV
O
Ln
N
O
v1
O
O
O
N
O
�
00
n
v1
.-.
p
00
M
N
O
M
C 4
N
V
M
V
�D
r)
O
O�
00
N
p
00
N
O
'o
N
N
ICM
N
00
N
O
00
O
N
O
o
U
4
_
ai
a
�y
U
%>
u
�'•
>
O
v,
c
%
d
v
c
a
o
U
O
U
v
u
w
ani
J
a�
C17
i„
c
[%
v
CG
c
fi
rr,
9
r^
V
ro
�-'
C7
o
U
Ri
L
C7
�?
o
U
v
CLG
Q
U
ani
�
V
U
v
>
n
.fl
O
U
.Q
O
U
a
.D
O
U
.a
�
O
U
_
a
=3
O
m
cz
cn
7
O
aq
m
cnc
CQ
bi
Q
O
m
°°
o

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
0
0
O
O O O O O O O O
aamLj % aA!JLjnwnj
E
00
M
Q,
E
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
m
N
i
O
O
O
O
O
O
fp
m
a
a
a8ueg
m
0
0
O
O O O O O O O O
aamLj % aA!JLjnwnj
E
E
N
C131, II
LO
0
O
O
00
M
Q,
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
7
U
0
C
N
ai
O
e
7
O
U
E
v
N
Y
(�
VIqO
L
R1
O
N
�O
O
In
O
N
O
vi
N
O
V1
O
N
O
O
7
O
t`
O
O
00
1�
^M',
—
`�
M
N
N
O
N
M
�O
N
V
M
V
�O
vi
7
O
O�
IO
N 00
O
Ol
O
oc
N
N
O
X
N
M
h
N
N
N
M
1=
O
N
vi
00N
Cl
N
N
O
o0
O
N
V
w
�+
O
d
G.L—jr�
>
ani
>
b
c
i%
al
v'
ami
r.ro
`)
o
U
V
o
>
c>�C
U
O
ani
>
>
c
w
>
ro
c
i
c>�C
s_
C7
ami
r
C7
a°i
^y
>
m
C7
o
U
>
aj
C7
o
U
>
u
z�
Ca
ani
>
>
ani
>cn
N
0
F
N
0
UUUMME
O
0
a4
O
fl
0
°q
°
0
N
b
0
a
+
3
O
o
>•.
a�
C7
IQx
ao
b
m
E
E
N
C131, II
LO
0
O
O