20130595 Ver 1_Year 2 Monitoring Report_2016_20170117

Upper Silver Creek Restoration Project
Year 2 Monitoring Report
Burke County, North Carolina
NCDMS Project ID Number — 94645
Catawba River Basin: 03050101-050050
Project Info: Monitoring Year: 2 of 5
Year of Data Collection: 2016
Year of Completed Construction: 2015
Submission Date: December 2016
Submitted To: NCDEQ — Division of Mitigation Services
5 Ravenscroft Drive, Suite 102
Asheville, NC 28801
NCDEQ Contract ID No. 003270

Upper Silver Creek Restoration Project
Year 2 Monitoring Report
Burke County, North Carolina
NCDMS Project ID Number — 94645
Report Prepared and Submitted by Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
797 Haywood Road, Suite 201
Asheville, NC 28806
NC Professional Engineering License # F-1084
INTERNATIONAL
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UPPER SILVER CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT,
DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 94645
DECEMBER 2016, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 5

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

Table 10 Monitoring Year 2 Stream Summary
Table 11 Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Appendix E Hydrologic Data
Figure 9 Observed Rainfall vs. Historical Average
Figure 10 Wetland Gauge Graphs
Table 12 Wetland Gauge Attainment Data
Table 12a Wetland Restoration Area Well Success
Figure 11 U. Silver Creek Wetland Photo Log
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. III
UPPER SILVER CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT,
DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 94645
DECEMBER 2016, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 5

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. (Baker) restored or enhanced 5,186 linear feet (LF) of perennial stream
channel along Silver Creek and three unnamed tributaries (UT1,UT2, and UT3); and additionally, Baker
restored, enhanced or created approximately 9.14 acres of wetlands that had been previously disturbed in Burke
County, NC, (Appendix A). The Upper Silver Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Project (Site) is located
southeast of Morganton, NC, approximately 11 miles southeast of the intersection of Highway 64 and I-40 and
to the north of the intersection of Highway 64 and Goldmine Road. The Site is located in the NC Division of
Water Resources (NCDWR) sub -basin 03-08-31 and the NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS)
Targeted Local Watershed (TLW) 03050101-050050 of the Catawba River Basin. The project involved the
restoration and enhancement of a Piedmont/Mountain Mixed Bottomland Hardwood Forest system (NC WAM
2010, Schafale and Weakley 1990) from impairments within the project area due to past agricultural conversion,
cattle grazing, gold mining and draining of floodplain wetlands by ditching activities.
The project goals directly addressed stressors identified in the Catawba River Basin Restoration Priority
(RBRP) Plan such as degraded riparian conditions, channel modification, and excess sediment and nutrient
inputs. The primary restoration goals, as outlined in the approved mitigation plan, are described below:
• Create geomorphically stable stream channels within the Upper Silver Creek project area including
headwater tributaries in the Catawba River basin;
• Restore, enhance, and expand wetland functions across the Site;
• Improve and restore hydrologic connections between streams and degraded riparian wetland areas
and overall ecosystem functionality;
• Improve water quality within the Upper Silver Creek project area through reduction of bank erosion,
improved nutrient and sediment removal, and stabilization of streambanks; and
• Improve aquatic and terrestrial habitat.
To accomplish these goals, we recommended the following actions:
• Restore the existing incised, eroding, and channelized stream by creating a stable channel that has
access to its floodplain;
• Improve water quality by establishing buffers for nutrient removal from runoff and by stabilizing
stream banks to reduce bank erosion;
• Improve in -stream habitat by providing a more diverse bedform with riffles and pools, creating
deeper pools, developing areas that increase oxygenation, providing woody debris for habitat, and
reducing bank erosion; and
• Improve terrestrial habitat by planting riparian areas with native vegetation and protecting these areas
with a permanent conservation easement. The riparian area will increase storm water runoff filtering
capacity, improve bank stability, provide shading to decrease water temperature and improve habitat.
During the winter of 2015/2016, there were a number of high flow events. At least one of those inundated the
floodplain, depositing woody debris and other flotsam in wrack lines well away from the top of bank. This
flooding caused a number of channel and structure issues that are presented in the CCPV, tables and photos
included with the e -file. These were all repaired in March of 2016 and functioned well through the summer
with no further problems. Year 2 (MY2) monitoring indicated that the planted acreage was functioning well
with no bank, bench or flood plain areas having bare areas of a significant size. The only invasive vegetation
with significant coverage was Chinese privet, which was located in the existing forested area on the right bank
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UPPER SILVER CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT,
DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 94645
DECEMBER 2016, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 5

of Silver Creek, downstream of the confluence with UT2. We will continue to treat privet within this area with
herbicide to minimize the population. We continue to have a minor issue with mowing encroachments. Most
of the sites where mowing encroachments occurred last year were avoided this year; however, we still have
some mowing affecting the easement and will mark these areas to limit mowing access. We have established
and are monitoring fourteen (14) vegetation plots at this site. The average density of total planted stems
following the MY2 growing season is 740 stems per acre (n=14), with an additional average 43 volunteer stems
per acre. Based on the average density of 740 stems per acre, the Site is on track to meet the established success
criteria.
Stream geomorphological stability and performance during MY2 was assessed by surveying sixteen cross-
sections, a profile of each channel, evaluating the bed particle size with five riffle pebble counts and by
replicating channel location photographs. Channel cross-sections and profiles were similar to what was
observed in the past with no major instability identified and the general morphology is responding as designed
and meeting project goals. At least one significant flood event, that was greater than bankfull occurred during
MY2. This storm event caused valley wide flooding with wrack lines well away from the top of stream banks.
Stream pebble data indicated that the shift to smaller particles on Silver Creek and on the three UTs had
stabilized at sizes similar to what was seen last year. This indicates a properly functioning system, as there
were no mid -channel bars or other sediment transport issues.
Wetland monitoring during MY2 demonstrated that three of the thirteen groundwater monitoring wells located
on the Site met the wetland success criteria as stated in the Site Mitigation Plan. The gauges that met success
criteria (USAW5, USAW7 and USAW13) demonstrated consecutive hydroperiods of 12 percent or greater,
ranging from 26.7 to 37.3 percent of the growing season. The gauges that did not meet success criteria
demonstrated consecutive hydroperiods of 12 percent or less, with a range from 2.4 percent to 6.5 percent of
the growing season. Rainfall near the project (Morganton, NC) was determined to be at or below the 30th
percentile for six of the twelve months of the year. The last half of September, October, and November, were
almost completely dry at all four monitoring sites and Burke County was classified as being in a Severe Drought
throughout November (NC Drought Management Advisory Council). Therefore, 2016 is considered to be
below the normal precipitation range for the growing season. The dry conditions documented in this area are
likely the reason that many of our gauges failed to meet the established success criteria.
Summary information/data related to the Site and statistics related to performance of various project and
monitoring elements can be found in the tables and figures in the report Appendices. Narrative background and
supporting information formerly found in these reports can be found in the Baseline Monitoring Report and in
the Mitigation Plan available on the NCDMS website. All raw data supporting the tables and figures in the
appendices are available from NCDMS upon request.
2.0 METHODOLOGY
The monitoring plan for the Site includes criteria to evaluate the success of the stream, wetland and vegetation
components of the project. The methodology and report template used to evaluate these components adheres
to the NCDMS monitoring guidance document dated December 1, 2009 and other mitigation guidance (NCEEP
2009 and USACE 2003), which will continue to serve as the template for subsequent monitoring years. The
specific locations of monitoring features: vegetation plots, permanent cross-sections, monitoring wells, flow
gauges, and the crest gauge, are shown on the CCPV sheets found in Appendix A.
The Year 2 monitoring data were collected in October and November 2016. Site photographic data was
collected in August 2016.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UPPER SILVER CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT,
DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 94645
DECEMBER 2016, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 5

2.1 Vegetation Assessment
In order to determine if vegetation success criteria are achieved, vegetation monitoring quadrants (veg plots)
were installed and are monitored across the Site in accordance with the CVS-NCDMS Protocol for Recording
Vegetation, Version 4.1 (CVS 2007 and Lee, Peet, Roberts and Wentworth 2007). The vegetation monitoring
plots are a minimum of two percent of the planted portion of the Site with 14 plots established randomly
within the planted riparian buffer and wetland area, per CVS Monitoring Level 2. No veg plots were
established within the undisturbed wooded areas along the right bank of Silver Creek. The size of individual
quadrants is 100 square meters for woody (tree) species and 1 square meter for herbaceous vegetation.
Herbaceous quadrants were established in one corner of the larger woody plots and are monitored by
comparing photographs taken year to year.
Year 2 monitoring found that all vegetation was in good condition. All vegetation monitoring quadrants
indicated that vegetation was growing and in good to excellent condition. The average density of planted
stems following the Year 2 growing season was 740 stems per acre (n=14). There were also an average of
43 volunteer stems per acre, composed of seven different tree species. With an average density of 740 stems
per acre, the Site is on track to meet the minimum interim success criteria of 320 stems per acre by the end of
Year 3, and the final success criteria of 260 stems per acre by the end of Year 5.
There was only one Vegetation Problem Area observed during MY2 and it is associated with the invasive
species Chinese privet, Ligustrum sinense. Our observations indicated that the area of primary infestation by
this species was the floodplain along the right bank of Silver Creek, downstream of the confluence with UT2.
To control this invasive species, this area will be treated in 2017 during the appropriate treatment window.
We identified four Mowing Encroachment Areas. There were two areas along the easement line where the
landowner encroached into the easement while attempting to mow outside of the easement line. We think
this occurred because he is mowing with a 15 foot wide bush -hog and it crosses the line in a couple of spots
were trees (outside the easement) limit its movement. Encroachment in two other areas indicate that the
landowner did not understand where the line was located. These areas will be pointed out to the landowner
and the easement line at all encroachment areas will be better marked with witness posts before the landowner
needs to mow again.
No other areas of concern regarding the existing vegetation was observed along Silver Creek or the
tributaries. Year 2 vegetation assessment information is provided in Appendix C.
2.2 Stream Assessment
The Upper Silver Creek Site approach is for restoration of a stable morphology that allows for the transport
of water and sediment through the Site and allows stream flows larger than bankfull flows to spread onto the
floodplain. Stream monitoring efforts focus on visual observations, a crest gauge to document bankfull
flooding events, surveying established stream cross-sections and channel profiles to assess channel stability
and pebble counts to assess if proper sediment transport is taking place.
Stream survey data was collected to a minimum of Class C Vertical and Class A Horizontal Accuracy using
Leica TS06 Total Station and was georeferenced to the NAD83 State Plane Coordinate System, FIPS3200 in
US Survey Feet, which was derived from the As -built Survey. This survey system collects point data with
an accuracy of less than one tenth of a foot.
2.2.1 Morphologic Parameters and Channel Stability
Cross-sections were classified using the Rosgen Stream Classification System (Rosgen 1994) and all
cross-sections were evaluated to determine if they meet design expectations. Cross-sections were also
compared to the baseline cross-section plots to evaluate change between construction and the MY2
survey. Morphological survey data is presented in Appendix D.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UPPER SILVER CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT,
DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 94645
DECEMBER 2016, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 5

A longitudinal profile was surveyed for the entire length of each channel to document changes from
the as -built baseline conditions during the first year of monitoring. The survey was tied to a permanent
benchmark and measurements included thalweg, water surface, and top of low bank. Each of these
measurements was taken at the head of each feature (e.g., riffle, pool) and at the maximum pool depth.
Stream geomorphological stability and performance during MY2 was assessed by surveying sixteen
(16) cross-sections (7 on Silver Creek, 2 on UT1, 2 on UT2 and 5 on UT3) and a profile of these
channels as described above. The bed particle size was evaluated with five riffle pebble counts (2 on
Silver Creek and 1 on each of the tributaries) and by observation and replicating channel location
photographs. Cross-sections of all the channels were very similar to past years especially at riffle cross-
sections. Most pool cross-sections showed some level of deposition. This was likely due to prevailing
severe to extreme drought conditions that existed during the 4 to 5 months preceding our survey. There
was little change from past profile surveys and profiles of each channel do not indicate any instability
issues.
The Visual Morphological Stability Assessment indicates that the Site is stable and performing at 100
percent for all parameters on all reaches. Flooding at this site during MY2, as described below, caused
bank scour (8 locations) and damage to structures (5 locations) at the site. The locations, descriptions
and photos of this damage are included in the Stream Problem Areas Table on the MY2 data electronic
file. These sites were repaired in March 2016 and have functioned well during the rest of MY2.
Overall, channel morphology is responding as designed and meeting project goals.
Pebble count data for MY2 indicates that the shift to smaller particles on Silver Creek and on the three
UTs has stabilized at sizes similar to what was seen last year. This indicates that smaller native bed
material is being transported into project reaches and has shifted pebble size classes away from the
constructed riffle particle sizes, seen in the As -built data. This indicates a properly functioning system,
as there were no mid -channel bars or other sediment transport issues.
2.2.2 Hydrology
Two crest gauges were installed on the floodplain at this site, at the bankfull elevation. One is located
along the left top of bank on Silver Creek, at approximately Station 19+00, and the second is on the left
top of bank of UT3, at approximately Station 9+50. Crest gauges on Silver Creek and on UT3 recorded
water levels of approximately 15 inches and 5 inches above bankfull, respectively. Physical indicators
of bankfull flows, such as wrack lines and debris on the bank, were observed throughout the reach. We
present at least five possible high water events, which could have caused the high flow recorded on
project site crest gauges and shown in Table 9, the bankfull verification information. The most
significant flow recorded was on December 29, 2015 and this storm event most likely caused valley
wide flooding and the evidence of flooding that we observed in February. Crest gauge readings are
presented in Appendix D.
2.2.3 Photographic Documentation
Reference transects were photographed at each permanent cross-section. The survey tape was centered
in the photograph of the bank. The water line was located in the lower area of the frame, and as much
of the bank as possible included in each photograph. Photographs were also taken at specific photo
points established along each channel during baseline reporting. Photographs from these points will be
replicated each year and used to document changes along the channel. Points were selected to include
grade control structures as well as other structural components installed during construction. Annual
photographs from the established photo points are shown in Appendix D and do not indicate any
stability issues at the site and no failing structures.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UPPER SILVER CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT,
DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 94645
DECEMBER 2016, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 5

2.3 Wetland Assessment
Thirteen automated groundwater -monitoring stations were installed in the wetland restoration area in
order to document the hydrologic conditions during the monitoring period. The installations followed
USACE protocols (USACE 1997). Groundwater data collected during Year 2 monitoring are located
in Appendix E.
To meet the hydrologic success criteria, the monitoring gauge data must show that for each normal
rainfall year within the monitoring period, the Site has been inundated or saturated for a certain
hydroperiod. Success criteria for wetland hydrology will be based on standards for atypical wetland
areas (USACE, 2005). Criteria have been met when the wetland is saturated within 12 inches of the
soil surface for 12 percent of the growing season when rainfall amounts approximate normal conditions.
Alternatively, when dry conditions prevail, we may use the fourteen (14) or more consecutive days
during the growing season when antecedent precipitation has been drier than normal for a minimum
frequency of 5 years in 10 to 50 percent of the monitoring period (USACE, 1987 and 2005).
Visual monitoring of wetland areas will be conducted annually. Photographs will be used to visually
document system performance and identify areas of low stem density, invasive species vegetation,
beaver activity, or other areas of concern. Reference stations will be photographed each year for a
minimum of five years following construction. Photographs will be taken from a height of
approximately five to six feet. Permanent well markers were established and used to ensure that the
same locations (and view directions) on the Site are documented in each monitoring period.
Wetland monitoring during MY2 demonstrated that three of the thirteen groundwater monitoring wells
located on the Site met the wetland success criteria as stated in the Site Mitigation Plan. The gauges
that met success criteria (USAW5, USAW7 and USAW 13) demonstrated consecutive hydroperiods of
12 percent or greater, these ranged from 26.7 to 37.3 percent of the growing season. The gauges that
did not meet success criteria (USAW1, USAW2, USAW3, USAW4, USAW6, USAW8, USAW9,
USAW 10, USAW 11, and USAW 12) demonstrated consecutive hydroperiods of 12 percent or less,
with a range from 2.4 percent to 6.5 percent of the growing season. The rain data for the region (Figure
8) shows that rainfall throughout the year was, at times, well below average. Baker will continue to
monitor the groundwater hydrology of the Site during Monitoring Year 3.
To evaluate annual rainfall in the project vicinity we utilized four USGS data recording stations that
are within close proximity (11.3 to 15.7 miles from the site) to the project site. The CHRONOS stations
that were used in the previous report had recorded several gaps in the data, and two were offline at the
time this report was developed. The data from these stations was not sufficient to use in this yearly
analysis of rainfall for the county, so the USGS stations were used instead. These data indicate that
2016 was relatively dry through winter, spring and summer with the exception of April and August,
which were both above normal. Many of the months, especially later in the year, were exceptionally
dry and were well below the 30th percentile. Rainfall near the project (Morganton, NC) was determined
to be at or below the 30th percentile for six of the twelve months of the year. The last half of September,
October, and November, were almost completely dry at all four monitoring sites and the region was
classified as being in an Extreme Drought. Therefore, 2016 is considered to be below the normal range
for the growing season. The dry conditions documented in this area are likely the reason that many of
our gauges failed to meet the established success criteria.
3.0 REFERENCES
Carolina Vegetation Survey (CVS) and NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP). 2007. CVS-NCEEP
Data Entry Tool v. 2.3.1. University of North Carolina, Raleigh, NC.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UPPER SILVER CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT,
DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 94645
DECEMBER 2016, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 5

Lee, M., Peet R., Roberts, S., Wentworth, T. 2007. CVS-NCEEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version
4.1.
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP). 2009. Guidance and Content Requirements for
EEP Monitoring Reports Version 1.2.1. December 1, 2009.
Rosgen, D. L. 1994. A Classification of Natural Rivers. Catena 22:169-199.
Schafale, M. P., and A. S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the natural communities of North Carolina, third
approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. Division of Parks and Recreation,
NCDENR. Raleigh, NC.
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.
Technical Report Y-87-1. Environmental Laboratory. US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
Station. Vicksburg, MS.
1997. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Research Program. Technical Note VN-rs-4.1.
Environmental Laboratory. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg,
MS.
2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines, April 2003, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Wilmington
District.
2005. "Technical Standard for Water -Table Monitoring of Potential Wetland Sites," WRAP
Technical Notes Collection (ERDC TN -WRAP -05-2), U.S. Army Engineer Research and
Development Center. Vicksburg, MS.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UPPER SILVER CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT,
DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 94645
DECEMBER 2016, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 5

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

A
J
1 (04-03-06
- r
WTC4L4
('�ATAWBA
'►TAWBA �v
03�Q8-30
870 a
.0
Glen to �..
S 70
I
I\
�1 1 HU 0305010105005
Upper Silver Creek
Project Site
YADKIN
03-07-01
jah' Mount ain
1 H Sort
Sawmi 1
Rutherford College
Connelly Spings
Falls
CA TA
KES
BROAD ROA Ij sar \BROAD
03-08-02 0 0 i \l O'S
_08_02
Belwood 2
I i "I
Map Inset
LEGEND:
Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map
DivisionNCDWQ
Sub -basin
Upper Silver Creek
ofcg�O
[J Counties
NCDMWS Project #94645
0 USGS Hydrologic Unit
Monitoring Year 2 Report
Mitigation
Burke County, NC
Project Hydrologic Unit
Services
0 Burke County
Burke county, NC
0 1 2 4
I o Miles
I N T E R N A T I O N A L

C.
� EVINE-1 IACI UAACo �
INTERNATIONAL
N
A
0 250 500 Figure 2
Feet Current Conditions Plan View - MY2
DMS Project # 94645 Overview Map
Upper Silver Creek Site

Includes:
Appendix B
General Project Tables
Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Figure 3. U. Silver Cr. Project Asset Map
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3. Project Contacts
Table 4. Project Attributes

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

N
Reach 1 a ! UT2 -Reach 2 UT2 - Reach 1
.r JDW6
JDW5.p. ,
JDW4
)„ Silver Creek - Reach 2
R4 �
Silver Creek - Reach 1
DW
UT3
UT3 - Reach 2 R3 �I2
�I
!iiwuuuu � R
Conservation Easement
Stream Mitigation Type UT3 - Reach 1
9 JDW1B/
Enhancement I
Restoration
R1A .uy
Wetland Type Components
JDW1A/ R16
Restoration: Non -Riparian
® Restoration: Riparian
Enhancement: Non -Riparian r
Enhancement: Riparian*, ,r
�
Creation: Riparian
NC OO neMap, NC Center for Geographic Inforimartion and Anal sis, NC 911
Board
Michael Baker0 250 500 Figure 3
Feet
U. Silver Cr. Project Asset Map
I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L DMS Project # 94645 Upper Silver Creek Site

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

Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Upper Silver Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 94645
Designer
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
797 Haywood Rd Suite 201
Asheville, NC 28806
Contact:
Micky Clemmons, Tel. [phone]
Construction Contractor
River Works, Inc.
6105 Chapel Hill Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
Contact:
Phillip Todd, Tel. [phone]
Planting Contractor
River Works, Inc.
6105 Chapel Hill Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
Contact:
Phillip Todd, Tel. [phone]
Seeding Contractor
River Works, Inc.
6105 Chapel Hill Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
Contact:
Phillip Todd, Tel. [phone]
Seed Mix Sources
Green Resources (seed), Tel. [phone]
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Mellow Marsh Farm (trees), 919-742-1200
ArborGen Inc. (trees), 843-528-3204
Dykes and Son (trees), 931-668-8833
Monitoring Performers
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
797 Haywood Rd Suite 201
Asheville, NC 28806
Contact:
Stream Monitoring Point of Contact
Micky Clemmons, Tel. [phone]
Vegetation Monitoring Point of Contact
Micky Clemmons, Tel. [phone]
Wetland Monitoring Point of Contact
Micky Clemmons, Tel. [phone]
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
UPPER SILVER CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT
DMS PROJECT NO. 94645

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

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

Includes:
Appendix C
Vegetation Assessment Data
Table 5. Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success Summary
Table 6. CVS Vegetation Metadata Table
Table 7. Stem Count Arranged by Plot and Species
Figure 4. Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos

Table S. Vegetation Plot Mitigation
Success Summary
(per acre)
Plot #
Stream/
Wetland
Stemsz
Volunteers3
Tota 14
Success
Criteria
Met?
1
1214
0
1214
Yes
2
1174
81
1255
Yes
3
567
0
567
Yes
4
809
0
809
Yes
5
850
0
850
Yes
6
647
40
687
Yes
7
607
0
607
Yes
8
526
40
566
Yes
9
486
0
486
Yes
10
769
81
850
Yes
11
728
283
1011
Yes
12
769
81
850
Yes
13
647
0
647
Yes
14
567
0
567
Yes
Project Avg
740
43
783
Stem Class characteristics
1Buffer Stems Native planted hardwood trees. Does NOT include shrubs. No pines. No vines.
2Stream/ Native planted woody stems. Includes shrubs, does NOT include live stakes. No
Wetland Stems vines
3Volunteers Native woody stems. Not planted. No vines.
n Planted + volunteer native woody stems. Includes live stakes. Excl. exotics. Excl.
Total vines.
Exceeds requirements by 10%

Table 6. Vegetation Metadata
Upper Silver Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration - Project 94645
Report Prepared By Russell Myers
Date Prepared 11/17/2016 14:25
MY2_94645_U pperSi Iver_cvs-eep-entrytool-
database name v2.3.1.mdb
L:\projects\120598-Upr-Silver-FD\Monitoring\YR2
Monitoring\2.0 - Monitoring Data\App C -
database location Vegetation Data\E-File
computer name ASHELCTOMSIC
file size 63246336
DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT ------------
A matrix of the count of total living stems of each
species (planted and natural volunteers combined)
ALL Stems by Plot and spp for each plot; dead and missing stems are excluded.
PROJECT SUMMARY -------------------------------------
Project Code 94645
project Name Upper Silver Creek
Description Full Delivery stream and wetland restoration site
River Basin Broad
length(ft) 5,169'
stream -to -edge width (ft) Minimum of 30 feet
area (sq m) 62,321 sq. m.
Required Plots (calculated) 14
Sampled Plots 14
Description of database file, the report worksheets,
Metadata
and a summary of project(s) and project data.
Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per
Proj, planted
acre, for each year. This excludes live stakes.
Each project is listed with its TOTAL stems per acre,
for each year. This includes live stakes, all planted
Proj, total stems
stems, and all natural/volunteer stems.
List of plots surveyed with location and summary
Plots
data (live stems, dead stems, missing, etc.).
Frequency distribution of vigor classes for stems for
Vigor
all plots.
Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed by
Vigor by Spp
species.
List of most frequent damage classes with number
of occurrences and percent of total stems impacted
Damage
by each.
Damage by Spp
Damage values tallied by type for each species.
Damage by Plot
Damage values tallied by type for each plot.
A matrix of the count of PLANTED living stems of
each species for each plot; dead and missing stems
Planted Stems by Plot and Spp
are excluded.
A matrix of the count of total living stems of each
species (planted and natural volunteers combined)
ALL Stems by Plot and spp for each plot; dead and missing stems are excluded.
PROJECT SUMMARY -------------------------------------
Project Code 94645
project Name Upper Silver Creek
Description Full Delivery stream and wetland restoration site
River Basin Broad
length(ft) 5,169'
stream -to -edge width (ft) Minimum of 30 feet
area (sq m) 62,321 sq. m.
Required Plots (calculated) 14
Sampled Plots 14

Table 7. Stem Count Arranged by Plot and Species
Project: Upper Silver Creek, DMS Project #94645.
Current Plot Data (MY2 2016)
Scientific Name Common Name Species Type
P
94645-01-0001
V
T
P
94645-01-0002
V
T
P
94645-01-0003
V
T
P
94645-01-0004
V
T
P
94645-01-0005
V
T
P
94645-01-0006
V
T
P
94645-01-0007
V
T
Acer rubrum red maple Tree
1
1
6
6
1
1
1
2
2
Alnus serrulata hazel alder Shrub
1
1
Betula nigra river birch Tree 1
2
2
1
1
6
6
1
1
3
3
Carpinus caroliniana American hornbeamTree
1
1
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Cornus amomum silky dogwood Shrub
1
1
1 3
5
3 1
6
6
1 4
4 1
2
2
Corylus cornuta beaked hazelnut Shrub Tree
1
1
Diospyros virginiana common persimmon Tree
1
1
1
1
Fraxinus enns Ivanica green ash Tree
2
2
8
8
1
1
2
1
1
Liriodendron tulipifera tuliptree Tree
1
1
2
2
2
1
3
1
1
Platanus occidentalis American sycamore Tree
9
1
9
4
2
6
5
1
5
7
1
7
4
4
3
3
4
4
Quercus oak Tree
1
1
Quercus I rata overcup oak Tree
1
1
Quercus michauxii swamp chestnut oak Tree
2
2
6
6
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
4
4
Quercus nigra water oak Tree
3
3
Quercus phellos willow oak Tree
2
2
3
3
11
11
3
3
1
1
3
3
2
2
Unknown Shrub or Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Vaccinium corymbosum 1highbush blueberry JShrub
1
1
1
Viburnum dentatum southern arrowwood JShrub
15
1
15
3
1
3
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species countl
Stems per ACREJ
30
7
1214
0
1
0.02
0
1 0 1
30
7
1214
29
9
1 1174
2
1
0.02
1
1 81 1
31
9 1
1255 1
14
6
567
0
1
0.02
0
1 0 1
14
6
567
20
9
1 809
0
1
0.02
0
1 0 1
20
9
809
21
5
850
0
1
0.02
0
1 0 1
21
5
850
16
7
647
1
1
0.02
1
1 40 1
17
7
688 1
15
6
60
0
1
0.02
0
1 0 1
15
6
607
P = Planted This color indicates that the number includes volunteer stems.
V = Volunteer Indicates that the stems per Acre exceeds requirements by 10%
T = Total Indicates that the stems per Acre exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Table 7. Stem Count Arranged by Plot, continued.
Project: Upper Silver Creek, DMS Project #94645.
Current Plot Data (MY2 2016)
Scientific Name Common Name Species Type
P
94645-01-0008
V
T
P
94645-01-0009
V
T
P
94645-01-0010
V
T
P
94645-01-0011
V
T
P
94645-01-0012
V
T
P
94645-01-0013
V
T
P
94645-01-0014
V
T
Acer rubrum red maple Tree
3
3
1
1
2
2
Alnus serrulata hazel alder Shrub
1
1
Betula nigra river birch Tree
3
3
6
6
2
2
1
1
Carpinus caroliniana American hornbeam Tree
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
3
Cornus amomum silky dogwood Shrub
10
5
15
3
3
3
3
Corylus cornuta beaked hazelnut Shrub Tree
Diospyros vir iniana common persimmon Tree
1
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash Tree
2
2
4
4
Liriodendron tuli ifera tuli tree Tree
1
1
2
1
3
Platanus occidentalis American sycamore Tree
4
1
5
2
2
4
1
5
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
Quercus oak Tree
1
1
Quercus I rata overcup oak Tree
1
1
Quercus michauxii swamp chestnut oak Tree
2
2
1
1
1
1
8
8
2
2
Quercus nigra water oak Tree
Quercus phellos willow oak Tree
5
5
11
11
2
2
1
1
2
2
Unknown Shrub or Tree
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
Vaccinium cor mbosum high ush blueberry Shrub
Viburnum dentatum southern arrowwood JShrub
2
1
2
1
1
1
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACREJ
13
6
526
1
1
0.02
1
40
14
6
567
12
5
486
0
1
0.02
0
0
12
5
486 1
19
5
769
2
1
0.02
2
81
21
5
850
18
6
728
7
1
0.02
3
283
25
7
1012
19
8
769
2
1
0.02
2
81
21
9
850
16
5
647
0
1
0.02
0
1 0
16
5
647
14
7
567
0
1
0.02
0
0
14
7
567
P = Planted This color indicates that the number includes volunteer stems.
V = Volunteer Indicates that the stems per Acre exceeds requirements by 10%
T = Total Indicates that the stems per Acre exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%

Table 7. Stem Count Arranged by Plot, continued.
Project: Upper Silver Creek, DMS Project #94645.
Annual Means
Scientific Name Common Name Species Type
P
MYO (2015)*
V
T
P
MY1(2015)
V
T
P
MY2 (2016)
V
T
P
MY3 (2017)
V
T
P
MY4 (2018)
V
T
P
MY5 (2019)
V
T
Acer rubrum red maple Tree
12
12
14
14
13
1
14
Alnus serrulata hazel alder Shrub
1
1
1
1
1
1
Betula nigra river birch Tree
8
8
21
21
19
19
Carpinus caroliniana American hornbeam Tree
9
9
11
11
11
1
12
Cornus amomum silky dogwood Shrub
16
16
32
32
32
5
37
Corylus cornuta beaked hazelnut Shrub Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
Diospyros virginiana common persimmon Tree
3
3
3
3
3
3
Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash Tree
12
12
19
19
18
1
19
Liriodendron tulipifera tuliptree Tree
10
10
12
12
7
1
8
Platanus occidentalis American sycamore Tree
47
47
60
60
54
5
59
Quercus oak Tree
2
2
1
1
Quercus I rata overcup oak Tree
1
1
1
1
Quercus michauxii swamp chestnut oak Tree
19
19
33
33
32
32
Quercus nigra water oak Tree
4
4
4
4
3
3
Quercus phellos willow oak Tree
17
17
32
32
32
32
Unknown Shrub or Tree
6
6
10
10
7
7
Vaccinium corymbosum 1highbush blueberry Shrub
1
1
1
1
1
1
Viburnum dentatum southern arrowwood Shrub
21
21
21
21
21
21
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
187
16
841
0
9
0.22
0
0
187
16
841
278
1 18
1 804
0
14
0.35
0
0
278
18
804
256
17
740
15
14
0.35
7
43
271
18
783
0
0
0
14
0.35
1
0
0
0
0
0
1 0
14
0.35
1
1 1
0
0
0
0
0
0
14
0.35
0
0
0
P = Planted This color indicates that the number includes volunteer stems.
V = Volunteer Indicates that the stems per Acre exceeds requirements by 10%
T = Total Indicates that the stems per Acre exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
MYO included 9 vegetation plots. However upon review it was discovered that we needed to have 14 vegetation plots to meet guidelines. Five additional plots were added in the fall of 2015 and the MY1 and later means inlcude these additional plots.

Figure 3. Upper Silver Creek - Vegetation Plot Photos, DMS Project #94645
Photo 1. Vegetation Plot 1 — Tree photo (November 1, 2016).
Photo 2. Vegetation Plot 1 — Herbaceous photo (November 1,
2016).
Photo 3. Vegetation Plot 2 — Tree photo (November 1, 2016).
Photo 4. Vegetation Plot 2 — Herbaceous photo (November 1,
2016).
Photo 5. Vegetation Plot 3 — Tree photo (November 1, 2016).
Photo 6. Vegetation Plot 3 — Herbaceous photo (November 1,
2016).

Photo 7. Vegetation Plot 4 — Tree photo (November 1, 2016).
Photo 8. Vegetation Plot 4 — Herbaceous photo (November 1,
2016).
Photo 9. Vegetation Plot 5 — Tree photo (November 1, 2016).
Photo Point 10, Vegetation Plot 5 — Herbaceous photo
(November 1, 2016).
Photo 11. Vegetation Plot 6 — Tree photo (November 1,
2016).
Photo 12. Vegetation Plot 6 — Herbaceous photo (November
1, 2016).

Photo 13. Vegetation Plot 7 — Tree photo (November 1,
2016).
Photo 14. Vegetation Plot 7 — Herbaceous photo (November
1, 2016).
Photo 15. Vegetation Plot 8 — Tree photo (November 1,
2016).
Photo 16. Vegetation Plot 8 — Herbaceous photo (November
1, 2016).
Photo 17. Vegetation Plot 9 — Tree photo (November 1,
2016).
Photo 18. Vegetation Plot 9 — Herbaceous photo (November
1, 2016).

Photo 19. Vegetation Plot 10 — Tree photo (November 1,
2016).
Photo 20. Vegetation Plot 10 — Herbaceous photo (November
1, 2016).
Photo 21. Vegetation Plot 11 — Tree photo (November 1,
2016).
Photo 22. Vegetation Plot 11 — Herbaceous photo (November
1, 2016).
Photo 23. Vegetation Plot 12 — Tree photo (November 1,
2016).
Photo 24. Vegetation Plot 12 — Herbaceous photo (November
1, 2016).

Photo 25. Vegetation Plot 13 — Tree photo (November 1,
2016).
Photo 26. Vegetation Plot 13 — Herbaceous photo (November
1, 2016).
Photo 27. Vegetation Plot 14 — Tree photo (November 1,
2016).
Photo 28. Vegetation Plot 14 — Herbaceous photo (November
1, 2016).

Includes:
Appendix D
Stream Assessment Data
Figure 5. Stream Photos by Channel and Station
Table 8. Visual Morphological Stability Assessment
Table 9. Verification of Bankfull or Greater than Bankfull Events
Figure 6. Cross -Sections with Annual Overlays
Figure 7. Longitudinal Profiles with Annual Overlays
Figure 8. Pebble Count Plots with Annual Overlays
Table 10. Monitoring Year 2 Stream Summary
Table 11. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary

Figure 5. Upper Silver Creek Stream Photos by Channel and Station — MY2 (2016)
Photo 1. Mainstem Photo Point 1 — Station 29+26
(August 30, 2016) downstream view from left bank.
Photo 2. Mainstem Photo Point 1 — Station 29+26
(August 30, 2016) upstream view from left bank.
Photo 3. Mainstem Photo Point 2 — Station 26+44
(August 30, 2016) downstream view from left bank.
Photo 4. Mainstem Photo Point 2 — Station 26+44
(August 30, 2016) upstream from left bank.
Photo 5. Mainstem Photo Point 3 — Station 24+70
(August 30, 2016) upstream from right bank.
Photo 6. Mainstem Photo Point 3 — Station 24+70
(August 30, 2016) downstream from right bank.

Photo 7. Mainstem Photo Point 4 (PP4) — Station 20+30
(August 30, 2016) downstream from left bank.
Photo 8. Mainstem Photo Point 4 (PP4) — Station 20+30
(August 30, 2016) upstream from left bank.
Photo 9. Mainstem Photo Point 5 — Station 16+03
(August 30, 2016) upstream from right bank.
Photo 10, Mainstem Photo Point 5 — Station 16+03
(August 30, 2016) downstream from right bank.
Photo 11. Mainstem Photo Point 6 — Station 13+03
(August 30, 2016) upstream from right bank.
Photo 12. Mainstem Photo Point 5 — Station 13+03
(August 30, 2016) downstream from right bank.

Photo 13. Mainstem Photo Point 7 — Station 10+11
(August 30, 2016) downstream from left bank.
Photo 14. Mainstem Photo Point 7 — Station 10+11
(August 30, 2016) upstream from left bank.
Photo 15. Mainstem Photo Point 8 — Station 5+06
(August 30, 2016) upstream from right bank.
Photo 16. Mainstem Photo Point 8 — Station 5+06
(August 30, 2016) downstream from right bank.
Photo 17. Mainstem Photo Point 9 — Station 3+87
(August 30, 2016) downstream from left bank.
Photo 18. Mainstem Photo Point 9 — Station 3+87
(August 30, 2016) upstream from left bank.

Photo 19. Mainstem Photo Point 10 — Stat. 1+22
(August 30, 2016) downstream from left bank.
Unnamed Tributary 1 Photos - Monitoring Year 1
Photo 21. UTI Photo Point 1 — Station 4+82
(August 30, 2016) upstream from left bank.
Photo 20. Mainstem Photo Point 10 — Stat. 1+22
(August 30, 2016) upstream from left bank.
Intentionally Left Blank
Photo 22. UT1 Photo Point 2 — Station 4+07
(August 30, 2016) downstream from left bank.
Photo 23. UTI Photo Point 2 — Station 4+07
(August 30, 2016) upstream from left bank.

Photo 24. UT1 Photo Point 3 — Station 2+55
(August 30, 2016) upstream from right bank.
Photo 25. UTI Photo Point 3 — Station 2+55
(August 30, 2016) downstream from right bank.
Photo 26. UTI Photo Point 4 — Station 0+55
(August 30, 2016) downstream from left bank.
Unnamed Tributary 2, Photos — Monitoring Year 1 (2016)
Photo 27. UTI Photo Point 4 — Station 0+55
(August 30, 2016) upstream from left bank.
Photo 28. UT2 Photo Point 1 — Station 2+15
(August 30, 2016) downstream from left bank.
Photo 29. UT2 Photo Point 1 — Station 2+15
(August 30, 2016) upstream from left bank.

Photo 30. UT2 Photo Point 2 — Station 0+96
(August 30, 2016) upstream from right bank.
Photo 31. UT2 Photo Point 2 — Station 0+96
(August 30, 2016) downstream from right bank.
Photo 32. UT2 Photo Point 3 — Station 0+02
(August 30, 2016) downstream from right bank.
Unnamed Tributary 3, Photos — Monitoring Year 2 (2016)
Photo 33. UT2 Photo Point 3 — Station 0+02
(August 30, 2016) upstream from right bank.
Photo 34. UT3 Photo Point 1 — Station 12+10
(August 30, 2016) downstream from left bank.
Photo 35. UT3 Photo Point 1 — Station 12+10
(August 30, 2016) upstream from left bank.

Photo 36. UT3 Photo Point 2 — Station 10+66
(August 30, 2016) upstream from right bank.
Photo 37. UT3 Photo Point 2 — Station 10+66
(August 30, 2016) downstream from right bank.
Photo 38. UT3 Photo Point 3 — Station 8+10
(August 30, 2016) downstream from left bank.
Photo 39. UT3 Photo Point 3 — Station 8+10
(August 30, 2016) upstream from left bank.
Photo 40. UT3 Photo Point 4 — Station 7+05
(August 30, 2016) downstream from left bank.
Photo 41. UT3 Photo Point 4 — Station 7+05
(August 30, 2016) upstream from left bank.

Photo 42. UT3 Photo Point 5 — Station 5+95
(August 30, 2016) downstream from left bank.
Photo 43. UT3 Photo Point 5 — Station 5+95
(August 30, 2016) upstream from left bank.
Photo 44. UT3 Photo Point 6 — Station 4+55
(August 30, 2016) upstream from right bank.
Photo 45. UT3 Photo Point 6 — Station 4+55
(August 30, 2016) downstream from right bank.
Photo 46. UT3 Photo Point 7 — Station 3+60
(August 30, 2016) upstream to structure.
Photo 47. UT3 Photo Point 8 — Station 2+70
(August 30, 2016) upstream to structure.

Photo 48. UT3 Photo Point 9 — Station 1+90
(August 30, 2016) upstream to structure.
Photo 49. UT3 Photo Point 10 — Station 0+60
(August 30, 2016) downstream to structure.

Table 8. Visual Morphological Stability Assessment
Upper Silver Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 94645
Silver Creek, Reach 1 (838 LF)
Feature
Category
Metric (per As -Built and reference baselines)
(# Stable) Number
Performing
as Intended
Total Number
Total number / feet in unstable
per As -Built state
% Performing
in Stable
Condition
Feature
Perfomance
Mean or Total
A. Riffles
1. Present?
4
4
0
100
2. Armor stable (e.g. no displacement)?
4
4
0
100
3. Facet grades appears stable?
4
4
0
100
4. Minimal evidence of embedding/fining?
4
4
0
100
5. Length appropriate?
4
4
0
100
100%
B. Pools
1. Present? e.. not subject to severe aggradation or migration?)
4
4
0
100
2. Sufficient) dee Max Pool D:Mean Bid >1.6?)
4
4
0
100
3. Length appropriate?
4
4
0
100
100%
C. Thalweg
1. Upstream of pool structure centering? %
100
100
0
100
2. Downstream of pool structure centering? %
100
100
0
100
100
D. Meanders
1. Outer bend in state of limited/controlled erosion?
4
4
0
100
2. Of those eroding, # w/concomitant point bar formation?
4
4
0
100
3. Apparent Rc within spec?
4
4
0
100
4. Sufficient floodplain access and relief?
4
4
0
100
100%
E. Bed
1. General channel bed aggradation areas bar formation
838
838
0
100
General
2. Channel bed degradation - areas of increasing down
cutting or head cuttin ?
838
838
0
100
100%
F. Vanes,
1. Free of back or arm scour?
6
6
0
100
Rock/Log
2. Height appropriatel6
6
0
100
Drop
3. Angle and geometry appear appropriate?
6
6
0
100
Structures
4. Free of piping or other structural failures?
6
6
0
100
100%
G. Wads/
1. Free of scour?
4
4
0
100
Boulders
2. Footing stable?
4
4
0
100
100%
Silver Creek,
Reach 2 (2,178 LF)
Feature
Category
Metric (per As -Built and reference baselines)
(# Stable) Number
Performing
as Intended
Total Number
Total number / feet in unstable
per As -Built state
% Performing
in Stable
Condition
Feature
Perfomance
Mean or Total
A. Riffles
1. Present?
17
17
0
100
2. Armor stable (e.g. no displacement)?
17
17
0
100
3. Facet grades appears stable?
17
17
0
100
4. Minimal evidence of embedding/fining?
17
17
0
100
5. Length appropriate?
17
17
0
100 1
100%
B. Pools
1. Present? e.. not subject to severe aggradation or migration?)
16
16
0
100
2. Sufficient) dee Max Pool D:Mean Bkf>1.6?
16
16
0
100
3. Length appropriate?
16
16
0
100
100%
C. Thalweg
1. Upstream of pool structure centering? %
100
100
0
100
2. Downstream of pool structure centering? %
100
100
0
100
100%
D. Meanders
1. Outer bend in state of limited/controlled erosion?
16
16
0
100
2. Of those eroding, # w/concomitant point bar formation?
16
16
0
100
3. Apparent Rc within spec?
16
16
0
100
4. Sufficient floodplain access and relief?
16
16
0
100
100%
E. Bed
1. General channel bed aggradation areas bar formation
2,178
2,178
0
100
General
2. Channel bed degradation - areas of increasing down
cutting or head. cuttin ?
2,178
2,178
0
100
100%
F. Vanes,
1. Free of back or arm scour?
21
21
0
100
Rock/Log
2. Height aro riate?
21
21
0
100
Drop
3. Angle and geometry appear appropriate?
21
21
0
100
Structures
4. Free of piping or other structural failures?
21
21
3
100
100%
G. Wads/
1. Free of scour?
14
14
0
100
Boulders
2. Footing stable?
14
14
0
100
100%
Feature
Category
Metric (per As -Built and reference baselines)
UTI (5U 2,LF
(# Stable) Number
Performing
as Intended
Total Number
Total number / feet in unstable
per As -Built state
% Performing
in Stable
Condition
Feature
Perfomance
Mean or Total
A. Riffles
1. Present?
7
7
0
100
2. Armor stable (e.g. no displacement)?
7
7
0
100
3. Facet grades appears stable?
7
7
0
100
4. Minimal evidence of embeddin flnin ?
7
7
0
100
5. Len th apDropriatel
7
1 7
0
100 1
100%
B. Pools
1. Present? e.. not subject to severe aggradation or migration?)
10
10
0
100
2. Sufficient) dee Max Pool D:Mean Bkf>1.6?
10
10
0
100
3. Length appropriate?
10
10
0
100
100%
C. Thalweg'
1. Upstream of pool structure centering? %
100
100
0
100
2. Downstream of pool structure centering? %
100
100
0
100
100
D. Meanders 1. Outer bend in state of limited/controlled erosion?
7
7
0
100
2. Of those eroding, # w/concomitant point bar formation?
7
1 7
0
100
3. Apparent Rc within spec?
7
7
0
100
4. Sufficient floodplain access and relief?
7
7
0
100
100%
E. Bed
1. General channel bed aggradation areas bar formation
502
502
0
100
General
2. Channel bed degradation - areas of increasing down
cutting or head cuttin ?
502
502
0
100
100%
F. Vanes,
1. Free of back or arm scour?
11
11
0
100
Rock/Log
2. Height appropriate?
11
11
0
100
Drop
3. Angle and geometry appear appropriate?
11
1 11
0
1 100
Structures
4. Free of piping or other structural failures?
11
11
0
100
100%
G. Wads/
1. Free of scour?
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Boulders
2. Footing stable?
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
100%

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

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

Table 9. Verification of Bankfull or Greater than Bankfull Events
Upper Silver Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 94645
Date of Data
Collection
Date of Event
Method of Data
Collection
Gauge Watermark Height (inches)*
Silver Creek
Station 19+00
UT3
Station 8+10
2/29/2016
See table below
Crest gauge
15.0"
5.0"
4.11
76
1.00
12/24/2015
1,710
* height indicates the highest position of cork shavings on the dowel and the height above
bankfull, as 0" on the dowel is set at bankfull.
Dates of high flows during the winter of 2015 - 2016.
Date
Discharge (cfs)
Gage Height (ft)
Mean
Discharge (cfs)
of daily means
for 56 yrs
Mean Gage
Height (ft) of
daily means for
56 yrs
11/19/2015
1,170
3.18
56
0.86
12/2/2015
1,700
4.11
76
1.00
12/24/2015
1,710
2.99
99
1.20
12/29/2015
2,690
4.5
78
1.02
2/3/2016
2,470
3.14
127
1.07
Data from Cleveland Co. NC, USGS Gage 02152100 First Broad River Near Casar, NC
Photo 1. Silver Creek crest gauge staff
Photo 2. UT3 crest gauge staff showing cork
showing cork deposition in red circle at deposition in red circle at 5.0 ft above the
15.0 above the bottom of the staff, which bottom of the staff, which is at the bankfull
is at the bankfull elevation. elevation.

Photo 3. Silver Creek stream bank showing
accumulated debris of wrack line and bent over
vegetation well above bankfull. Verifies crest
gauge measurement.
Photo 5. Floodplain along Silver Creek showing
accumulated debris of wrack line indicating high
flows that were out of bank and filling the valley.
Photo 4. Stream bank along UT3 showing
accumulated debris along wrack line in
vegetation well above bankfull. Verifies
crest gauge measurements.
Photo 6. Stream bank along Silver Creek showing
accumulated debris at the top of bank where flood
waters were leaving the channel.

Permanent Cross-section 1
(MY2 Data - collected November, 2016)
Based on fixed baseline BKF
Stream
Feature Type BKF Area
BKF BKF Max BKF
Width Depth Depth W/D
BH Ratio
ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle C 45
24.91 1 1.81 3.24 13.77
1 1.1
3.8 1197.38 1197.6
Looking at the Left Bank Looking at the Right Bank
Silver Creek Cross-section 1, Station 27+24
Monitoring Year 2
1201
1200
1199
c
1198
0
1197
............................
a�
LU
1196
--9---
Floodprone
1195
.........
Bankfull
AB 2015
1 194
MY1 2015
MY2 2016
1193
0 20 40 60 80
100
Station (ft)
Looking at the Left Bank Looking at the Right Bank

Permanent Cross-section 2
(MY2 Data - collected November, 2016)
Based on fixed baseline BKF
Stream
Feature Type BKF Area
BKF BKF Max BKF
Width Depth Depth W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool 49.6
34.01 1 1.46 4.32 23.3
1
2.6
1 1198.2
1198.29
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Silver Creek Cross-section 2, Station 26+36
Monitoring Year 2
1203
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------0
1202
1201
1200
c
1199
�
1198
----------------------------- --
w
1197
-- o---Floodprone
1196
------- Bankfull
1195
AB 2015
1194
MY1 2015
MY2 2016
1193
0 20 40 60
80 100
Station (ft)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank

Permanent Cross-section 3
(MY2 Data - collected November, 2016)
Based on fixed baseline BKF
Stream
Feature Type BKF Area
BKF BKF Max BKF
Width Depth Depth W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool 50.2
42.01 1 1.19 3.95 35.15
1 0.9
2.2
1 1202.34
1202.03
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Silver Creek Cross-section 3, Station 18+98
Monitoring Year 2
1208
1206
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------o
1204
0
>
1202
..............................................................................
0
w
---0---
Floodprone
1200
•••••••••••••
Bankfull
AB 2015
1198
�
MY12015
MY2 2016
1196
0 20 40 60
80
100
Station (ft)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank

Permanent Cross-section 4
(MY2 Data - collected November, 2016)
Based on fixed baseline BKF
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
C
41.1
23.52
1 1.75
3.08
13.46
1
3.7
1 1203.01
1203.09
Looking at the Left Bank Looking at the Right Bank
Silver Creek Cross-section 4, Station 17+94
Monitoring Year 2
1207
1206
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
^ 1205
1204
0
1203
-----------------------
a�
LLI 1202
---0--- Floodprone
1201
------- Bankfull
— AB 2015
1200
— MY12015
MY2 2016
1199
0 20 40 60 80 100
Station (ft)
Looking at the Left Bank Looking at the Right Bank

Permanent Cross-section 5
(MY2 Data - collected November, 2016)
Based on fixed baseline BKF
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
C
42.3
25.21
1 1.68
2.8
15.04
1
3.5
1 1204.82
1204.7
1208
1207
1206
c
1205
ca
w 1204
1203
1202
1201
Silver Creek Cross-section 5, Station 12+07
Monitoring Year 2
0 20 40 60 80 100
Station (ft)
Looking at the Left Bank Looking at the Right Bank

Permanent Cross-section 6
(MY2 Data - collected November, 2016)
Based on fixed baseline BKF
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool
1211
58.3
34.57
1 1.69
3.78
20.5
1
2
1 1208.14
1208.15
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Silver Creek Cross-section 6, Station 3+57
Monitoring Year 2
1213
1212
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------o
1211
.-, 1210
� 1209
1208
------------------------------------------
> 1207
m
W 1206
---0-- Floodprone
1205
------- Bankfull
1204
— AB 2015
1203
— MY12015
MY2 20 16
1202
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Station (ft)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank

Permanent Cross-section 7
(MY2 Data - collected November, 2016)
Based on fixed baseline BKF
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
C
47.6
25.82
1 1.84
2.95
14.02
1
4.9
1 1208.23
1208.36
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Silver Creek Cross-section 7, Station 3+02
Monitoring Year 2
1212
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------o
1211
1210
1209
0
1208
------------------
a,
W 1207
---0--- Floodprone
1206
------- Bankfull
AB 2015
1205
MY1 2015
MY2 2016
1204
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Station (ft)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank

Permanent Cross-section 8
(MY2 Data - collected November, 2016)
Based on fixed baseline BKF
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle
C
4.7
9.22
1 0.51
1.13
18.05
1 5.9 1 1215.38 1215.42
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
* Note: Stationing for Cross-section 8 has been changed to 6+22; this was the surveyed location last year and
this year and is changed from what is shown in the As -built survey and the MY1 report.
UT3 Cross-section 8, Station 6+22*
1217
1216.5 4
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------o
1216
c
0
:.
> 1215.5
..............
LU
1215
---0--- Floodprone
••••••••• Bankfull
AB 2015
1214.5 -
_MY1 2015
MY2 2016
1214
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Station (ft)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
* Note: Stationing for Cross-section 8 has been changed to 6+22; this was the surveyed location last year and
this year and is changed from what is shown in the As -built survey and the MY1 report.

Permanent Cross-section 9
(MY2 Data - collected November, 2016)
Based on fixed baseline BKF
Stream BKF
Feature Type BKF Area Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool 4.3 9.36
1 0.46
1.16 20.37
1 1.2
6.7
1 1212.81
1213.1
1214.5
1214
1213.5
c
1213
71M
w 1212.5
1212
1211.5
1211
UT3 Cross-section 9, Station 8+12*
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Station (ft)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
* Note: Stationing for Cross-section 9 is being changed to 8+12 which is the surveyed location for the
last two years and changes from what was indicated in the As -built survey and the MY1 report.

Permanent Cross-section 10
(MY2 Data - collected November, 2016)
Based on fixed baseline BKF
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
E
5.31
7.19
1 0.74
1.08
9.7
1 1.1
9.6
1212.9
1213.08
1214.5
1214
1213.5
1213
ca
w 1212.5
1212
1211.5
1211
0
UT3 Cross-section 10, Station 8+33*
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------0
---o--- Floodprone
------- Bankfull
AB 2015
— MY1 2015
MY2 2016
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Station (ft)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
* Note: Stationing for Cross-section 10 is being changed to 8+33 which is the surveyed location for the
last two years and changes from what was indicated in the As -built survey and the MY1 report.

Permanent Cross-section 11
(MY2 Data - collected November, 2016)
Based on fixed baseline BKF
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF
BKF Area Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Pool
6.9 11.35
1 0.61
1.7
18.73
1 1.1 6.4 1 1209.27 1209.39
UT3 Cross-section 11, Station 11+53*
1212
1211
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------o
1210
0
> 1209
.....................
m
W
---o--- Floodprone
1208
••••.•.••••.. Bankfull
AB 2015
1207
MY1 2015
MY2 2016
1206
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Station (ft)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
* Note: Stationing for Cross-section 11 is being changed to 11+53 which is the surveyed location for the
last two years and changes from what was indicated in the As -built survey and the MY1 report.

Permanent Cross-section 12
(MY2 Data - collected November, 2016)
Based on fixed baseline BKF
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
E
5
7.69
1 0.66
0.93
11.72
1 1.3
7.3
1 1208.77
1209.07
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
* Note: Stationing for Cross-section 11 is being changed to 11+53 which is the surveyed location for the
last two years and changes from what was indicated in the As -built survey and the MY1 report.
UT3 Cross-section 12, Station 11+84*
1211
1210.5
1210
1209.5
0
1209
W 1208.5
---0--- Floodprone
......••• Bankfull
1208
AB 2015
1207.5
MY12015
MY2 2016
1207
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Station (ft)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
* Note: Stationing for Cross-section 11 is being changed to 11+53 which is the surveyed location for the
last two years and changes from what was indicated in the As -built survey and the MY1 report.

Permanent Cross-section 13
(MY2 Data - collected November, 2016)
Based on fixed baseline bankfull
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF BKF Max BKF
Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER
BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle
C
7
9.2 1 0.76 1.09 12.15 1 1.1 5.5
1 1203.99 1204.12
UT1 Cross-section 13, Station 1+57
1205.5
1205
1204.5
0
ca
m 1204 ....................
w
1203.5 ---0--" Floodprone
•.......• Bankfull
AB 2015
1203
MY1 2015
MY2 2016
1202.5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Station (ft)
Looking at the Left Bank Looking at the Right Bank

Permanent Cross-section 14
(MY2 Data - collected November, 2016)
Based on fixed baseline bankfull
Stream
Feature Type BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Pool 9
6.59
1 1.36
2.59 4.84 1 1.2 12.3 1201.59 1202.16
UT1 Cross-section 14, Station 3+28
W4111
1204 t--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------0
1203
c 1202
1201
LU
1200
1199
1198
1197
0 20 40 60 80
Station (ft)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank

Permanent Cross-section 15
(MY2 Data - collected November, 2016)
Based on fixed baseline BKF
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool
2.5
5.55
1 0.45
0.69
12.28
1 1.4
12.11
1201.91
1202.17
UT2 Cross-section 15, Station 2+15
1203 —
1202.5
1202
......
0
1201.5
LU
1201 ---0--- Floodprone
......••• Bankfull
1200.5 AB 2015
MY1 2015
MY2 2016
1200
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Station (ft)
Rte "rV P.
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank

Permanent Cross-section 16
(MY2 Data - collected November, 2016)
Based on fixed baseline BKF
Stream
Feature Type BKF Area
BKF BKF Max BKF
Width Depth Depth W/D
BH Ratio
ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle C 1.5
4.68 1 0.32 0.63 14.47
1 1.2
8.7 1201.21 1201.32
UT2 Cross-section 16, Station 2+53
1202.5
1202
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
o 1201.5
M
> --------
2
LU 1201
---o--- Floodprone
------- Bankfull
1200.5 AB 2015
MY1 2015
MY2 2016
1200
0 10 20 30 40 50
Station (ft)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank

Monitoring Year 2 Profile of U. Silver Creek,
Station 0+00 to 32+00
Data collected November,
2016
1213
Low Bank
1212
---------------------------------------------__
■ Structures
1211
--------------------------
- -
1210X-7
_.._........ .............. ...................... .............. ...................... .............. ...................... .............. ...................... ..............
...................... .............. ...................... .............. ......................
.............. ..............
AB 2015
1209
X-6 --
MY12015
X-5
MY2 2016
1208
_._._.-.
_ ._.-:-.-._._.._
-- _._.._.._ _.._.._._._
1207
_.__._._._._
.._._._._ _...._._.._._._._._.._
._._ ...-
X-4
X-3
1206
_ _
_._._._-- _._._._. _._._. _._._.._ _._._._._.._.._.
1205
_._ _.__.
_.._.. _ ...__. _.._.._..__
1204
- -
- ------------------------.._._._.
1203
_._._.-._._._.._.._._.__
....... _ _
1202
C
V
0
1201
- --- ._.._..- ----- ._.._.._.__._._._._. V
X-2 X-1
>
1200
-_..___._.__..._..._...__..___._.__..._..._...__..___._.__..._........
.............. ...................... _._._._.._.._.._. ._._._.._.._._._.
W
1199
1198
_..._.._.._.._.._..._.._.._..._.._.._.._.._..._.._.._..._.._.._.._.._..._.._.._..._.._.._.._.._..._.._.._..._.._.._.._.._..._.._.._..._.._.._.._.._..._.._.._..._.._.._.._.._..._.._.._..._.._.._.._.._..._.._.._..._.._.._.._.._..._.._.._..._.._.._.._.._..._.._.._..._.._.._.._.._..._.._.._..._.._..._.._..._.._..
1197
1196
--._._._.._.._._._.-._._._.._.._._._.-._._._.._.._._._.-._._._.._.._._._.-._._._.._.._._._.-._._._.._.._._._.-._._._.._.._._._.-._._._.._.._._._.-._._._.._.._._._.-._._._.._.._._._.-._._._.._.._._._.-._._._.._.._._._.-._._._.._.._._._._._._._.._.._._._._._._._.
-
1195
----__ _._.__ _..__.. _.__._ _._.__
._.._.. _._._._._ ._.._._._ ............. _
_._.__........ .............. ...................... ........
1194
_
_ _ _ _ _ ____ ------- -------------
1193
_..._.._._._.._..._.._.._..._.._._._..__._.._.._.__.._._._..__._.._.._.__.._._._..__._.._.._.__.._._._..__._.._.._.__.._._._..__._.._.._.__.._._._..__._.._.._.__.._._._.._..._.._.._..._..
--- .._..._.._.._..._..--- ..__._.._..--- ..--- ..__._.._..--- ..--- ..__._.._..---
..--- ..__._.._..--- ..--- ..--- .._..--- ..--- ..--- .._.._.__.._._._..__._....__._._._._._
.. _..._.._ ._._.
1192
--_._._._._.._.._._.._._._._._.._.._._.._._._._._.._.._._.._._._._._.._.._._.._._._._._.._.._._.._._._._._.._.._._.._._._._._.._.._._.._._._._._.._.._._.._._._._._.._.._._.._._._._._.._.._._.._._._._._.._.._._.._._._._._.._.._._.._._._._._.._.._._.._._._._._.._.._._.._._._._._.._.._._.._._._._._..___._._._._._._.._.._._._._._._._.._.._._._.
_._. _.._._._._. .
1191
-_._._._.._.._._._._._._._.._.._._._._._._._.._.._._._._._._._.._.._._._._._._._.._.._._._._._._._.._.._._._._._._._.._.._._._._._._._.._.._._._._._._._.._.._._._._._._._.._.._._._._._._._.._.._._._._._._._.._.._._._._._._._.._.._._._._._._._.._.._._._._._._._.._.._._._._._._._.._.._._._._._._._.._.._._._._._._._.._.._._._._._._._
...... .............. ............
1190
1189
0
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
2000 2200 2400
2600 2800 3000 3200
Station (ft)

Monitoring Year 2, Profile of UT1, Station 0+00 to 5+00
Data collected November, 2016
1208
Low Bank
■ Structures
1207
-
WSF
— AB 2015
1206
MY12015
--
— — —
MY2 2016
X-13 X-14
1205
----------- - ---- -----_
1204
-
- - - - -------------
-- --
- - - -
1203
-
- --- -- - - - -
- -
c
O
1202
W
1201
1200 -
-- ---
---- --- ---- --- ---- --- ---- --- ---- --- ---- --- ---- --- ---- --- ---- --- ---- --- -- -..._
1199
1198
- -
1197 -
1196
-
1195
0
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
450 500
Station (ft)

1207
1206
1205
1204
1203
c
O
c�
> 1202
a)
W
1201
well]
`fiLOR
`fiL9I:3
"RIN
Monitoring Year 2 Profile of UT2, Station 0+00 to 3+20
Data collected November, 2016
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Station (ft)

Monitoring Year 2, Profile of UT3, Station 0+00 to 14+00
Data collected November 2016
1227
—Low Bank
1226–
■ Structure
—WSF
1225
—AB 2015
—MY1 TWG
1224
_
1222
1221-
1220
- -
X-8
1219
-----_--
--- -
1218
X-9
.-.
1217
r
0
1216
- - -
X-10 -
1215
-_
m
W
1214
X-11
1213
-
--
-_ -
1212
----------------- _
X-12
1211
— --- --- -
1210
1209
1208
1207
-
1206
-
1205
1204
1203
1202
0
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
1000 1100 1200 1300 1400
Station (ft)

Cross -Section Pebble Count; Monitoring Year 2
U. Silver Creek Mitigation Project, DMS# 94645
SITE OR PROJECT: U. Silver Cr
REACH/LOCATIOM Riffle at XS4
FEATURE:
Riffle
DATE: 2 -Nov -16
MATERIALI
PARTICLE
SIZEmm)
Total
MY2 2016
Class %
% Cum
Distribution
Plot Size (mm)
Silt/ClaySilt
/Cla
<.063
• AB 2015
0%
0.063
■ MY 2015
Very Fine
.063-.125
0%
0.725
70
Fine
.125-25 .25
c 60%
0%
0.25
Sand
Medium
.25-.50
7
7%
7%
0.50
W
ea
Coarse
.50 - 1.0
1
1 %
8%
1.0
Very Coarse
1.0-2.0
20
8%
2.0
VeryFine
2.0-2.8
10%
8%
2.8
Very Fine
2.8-4.0
8%
4.0
Fine
4.0-5.6
1
1%
9%
5.6
Fine
5.6-8.0
5
5%
14%
8.0
Gravel
Medium
8.0-11.0
4
4%
18%
11.0
Medium
11.0 - 16.0
17
17%
35%
16.0
Coarse
16-22.6
12
12%
47%
22.6
Coarse
22.6 - 32
10
10%
57%
32
Ve Coarse
32 - 45
16
16/.
733.
45
Very Coarse
45-64
16
16%
89%
64
Small
64-90
6
6%
95%
90
Cobble
Small
90-128
4
4%
99%
128
Large128-180
1
1%
100 %
180
Lar a
180 - 256
100%
256
Small
256-362
100%
362
Boulder
Small
362-512
100%
512
Medium
512- 1024
100%
1024
Large -Very Large
1024-2048
100%
2048
Bedrock
I Bedrock
1 >2048
100%
5000
Total % of whole count 100 1 100%
Largest particle= 130
Summary Data
Channel materials
D16= 9.4 D84=
D35 = 16.0 D95 =
D50= 25.1 D100= 128-9180
U. Silver Creek Site
Mainstem at XS4
Reach Pebble Count Size Class Distribution
100%
90%
• AB 2015
■ MY 2015
80%
m MY2 2016
70
c 60%
at
y
50%
a
40%
W
ea
U
30%
20
10%
0%
Particle Size Class (mm)

Cross -Section Pebble Count; Monitoring Year 2
U. Silver Creek Mitigation Project, DMS# 94645
SITE OR PROJECT:
U. Silver Cr
Riffle at XS7
Reach Pebble Count Size Class Distribution
REACH/LOCATION:
Riffle at XS7
90% AB 2015
■ MY1 2015
FEATURE:
Riffle
70%
DATE:
2 -Nov -16
60%
MATERIAL
PARTICLE
SIZE mm
Total
MY2 2016
Class %
% Cum
Distribution
Plot Size (mm)
Silt/Clay
Silt/ Clay
<.063
40%
In
A
0%
0.063
U
Very Fine
.063-125 .125
20%
0 %
0.125
Fine
.125-25 .25
3
3%
3%
0.25
Sand
Medium
25-.50
5
59
8%
0.50
Coarse
.50 - 1.0
5
5%
13%
1.0
Very Coarse
1.0-2.0
13%
2.0
Very Fine
2.0 - 2.8
13%
2.8
Very Fine
2.8-4.0
13%
4.0
Fine
4.0-5.6
2
2%
15%
5.6
Fine
5.6-8.0
8
8%
23%
8.0
Gravel
Medium
8.0-11.0
12
12%
35%
11.0
Medium
11.0 - 16.0
15
15%
50%
16.0
Coarse
16-22.6
8
8%
58%
22.6
Coarse
22.6-32 1
44
/
62 /
32
Coarse
32-45
3
3%
65%
45
HVe
VeCoarse
45 - 64
13
13%
78%
64
Small
64-90
11
11%
89%
90
Cobble
Small
90-128
4
4%3
%
128
Large
128-180
6
6%
99%
180
Large
180-256
1
1%
100 %
256
Small
256-362
100%
362
Boulder
Small
362-512
1221%
512
Medium
512-10241
100%
1024
Large -Very Large
1024 - 2048
100%
2048
Bedrock
Bedrock
> 2048
100%
5000
Total % ofwhole count
100
100%
Largest particle= 160
Summary Data
Channel materials
D16= 5.9 D84= 77.1
D35 = 11.0 D95 = 143.4
D50= 1 16.0 1 D100= 180-256
U. Silver Creek Site
Riffle at XS7
Reach Pebble Count Size Class Distribution
100
90% AB 2015
■ MY1 2015
80%
■ MY2 2016
70%
60%
c
u 50%
d
IL
40%
In
A
30%
U
20%
10%
0% 4.
Particle Size Class (mm)

Cross -Section Pebble Count; Monitoring Year 2
U. Silver Creek Mitigation Project, DMS# 94645
SITE OR PROJECT: U. Silver Cr
REACH/L,OCATION: UTl XS13
FEATURE: Riffle
DATE: 2 -Nov -16
MATERIALI
PARTICLE
SIZE(mm)
Total
MY2 2016
I Class % I
% Cum
Distribution
Piot Size (mm)
Silt/Clay
Silt / Clay
<.063 1
■ AB 2015
0%
0.063
Very Fine
.063-125 .125
80%
MY2 2016
0%
0.125
Fine
.125 - .25
1
1 %
1 %
0.25
Sand
Medium
.25-.50
2
2%
3%
0.50
m 30%
Coarse
50- 1.0
2
2 %
5%
1.0
VeryCoarse
1.0 - 2.0
5%
2.0
0%
Very Fine
2.0-2.8
1
1 %
6%
2.8
Very Fine
2.8 - 4.0
2
2%
8%
4.0
Fine
4.0-5.6
1
1 %
9%
5.6
Fine
5.6-8.0
6
6%
15%
8.0
Gravel
Medium
8.0 - 11.0
8
8%
23%
11.0
Medium
11.0-16.0
17
17%
40%
16.0
Coarse
16-22.6
7
7%
47%
22.6
Coarse22.6-32
2
2%
49%
32
Very Coarse
32 - 45
Ve Coarse
45-64
21
21%
83%
64
Small
64- 9010
10%
93 %
90
Cobble
Small
90 - 128
5
5 %
98 %
128
Laze
128-180
1
1%
99%
180
Laze
180-256
1
1%
100%
256
Small
256-362
100%
362
Boulder
Small
362-512
100%
512
M edium
512-1024
100%
1024
Large -Very Laze
1024-2048
100%
2048
Bedrock
Bedrock
> 2048
100%
5000
Total % of whole count 100 1 100
Largest particle= 210
Summary Data
Channel materials
216= 8.3 D84 = 66.2
D35 = 14.3 1 D95 = 1 103.6
D50 = 32.9 1 D100 = 1 180-256
U. Silver Creek Site
UTI at XS13
Reach Pebble Count Size Class Distribution
100
■ AB 2015
90
in MY1 2015
80%
MY2 2016
70%
60%
c
50%
d
EL
40%
N
m 30%
V
20
l0%
0%
Particle Size Class (mm)

Cross -Section Pebble Count; Monitoring Year 2
U. Silver Creek Mitigation Project, DMS# 94645
SITE OR PROJECT: U. Silver Cr
REACWLOCATION: UT2 XS16
FEATURE: Riffle
DATE: 2 -Nov -16
MATERIALI
PARTICLE
SIZE mm
Total
MY2 2016
Class %
% Cum
Distribution
Plot Size (mm)
Silt/Clay
Silt / Clay
<.063 1
16
16%
16%
0.063
Very Fine
063 - .125
-f"AB 2015
16 %
0.125
Fine
.125 - .25
tMY1 2015
16%
0.25
Sand
Medium
.25-50 .50
1
1%
17%
0.50
Coarse
.50-1.0
4
4%
21%
1.0
Very Coarse
1.0-2.0
21%
2.0
Very Fine
2.0-2.8
30%
21%
2.8
E
Very Fine
2.8-4.0
2
2%
23%
4.0
Fine
4.0-5.6
1
1 %
24%
5.6
Fine
5.6-8.0
7
7%
31%
8.0
Gravel
Medium
8.0 - 11.0
8
8%
39%
11.0
Particle Size (mm)
Medium
11.0 - 16.0
20
20%
58%
16.0
Coarse
16-22.6
14
14%
72%
22.6
Coarse22.6
- 32
16
16%
88%
32
Ve Coarse
32 - 45
2
2%
90%
45
Very Coarse
1 45-64
8
8%
98%
64
Small
64-90
98%
90
Cobble
Small
90-128
1
1 %
99%
128
d
Q. 40%
Laze
128-180
1
1 %
100%
180
Large
180-256
100%
256
Small
256-362
100%
362
Boulder
Small
362-512
100%
512
Medium
512-10241
1
100%
1024
Particle Size Class (mm)
Large -Very Large
1024 - 2048
100%
2048
Bedrock
Bedrock
1 >2048
100%
5000
Total % ofwhole count i i 101 i 100% i
Largest particle= 165
Summary Data
Channel materials
D16= 0.3 D84= 29.2
D35 = 9.5 D95 = 56.0
D50= 13.6 D100= 128-180
U. Silver Creek Site
UT2 at XS16
Pebble Count Particle Size Distribution
100%
-f"AB 2015
90%
tMY1 2015
80 %
-ir-MY2 2016
70%
� 60f
m
50%
m
a
> 40%
30%
E
U 20%
10%
0%
0.01
0.1
1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
U. Silver Creek Site
UT2 at XS16
Reach Pebble Count Size Class Distribution
100
•AB 2015
90%
■ MY1 2015
80%
•MY22016
70
60
c
50%
d
Q. 40%
N
30%
U
20
10%
0%
Particle Size Class (mm)

Cross -Section Pebble Count; Monitoring Year 2
U. Silver Creek Mitigation Project, DMS# 94645
SITE OR PROJECT: U. Silver Cr I
REACH/LOCATION: UT3 XS8 I9
FEATURE: Riffle
DATE- 2 -Nov -16
MATERIAL
PARTICLE
ISIZE(mml
Total
MY2 2016
Class %
% Cum
oistr�nt,li­
Plot Size (mm)
Silt/Clay
I Silt / Clay
<.063
6
6%
6%
0.063
Pebble Count Particle Size Distribution
Very Fine
063-125 .125
100%
6%
0.125
Sand
Fine
.125-25 .25
3
3%
9%
0.25
Medium .25-50 .50 14 14% 22%0.50
90%
Coarse
50 - 1.0
3
3%
25 %
1.0
tMYI 2015
Very Coarse
1.0-2.0
25%
-
2.0
Very Fine
2.0-2.8
70
25%
2.8
Ve Fine
2.8-4.0
2
2%
27%
4.0
Fine
4.0-5.6
27%
5.6
Fine
5.6-8.0
27%
8.0
Gravel
Medium
8.0 - 11.0
6
6%
33%
11.0
Medium
11.0 - 16.0
17
17%
50%
16.0
R
Coarse
16-2 .6
7
7 %
56%
22.6
Coarse
22.6 - 32
5
5%
1 %
32
Ve Coarse
32 - 45
7
7 %
UN/10
68 %
45
Ve Coarse
45-64
19
18%
86%
64
Small
64-90
11
11%
97%
90
Cobble
Small
90:128
2
2%
99%
128
100
Large
128 - 180
99%
180
Large
180 - 256
99%
256
80%
Small
256-362
1
1 %
100%
362
Boulder
Small
362-512
70
100%
512
Medium
512-10241
1
100%
1024
Large -Very Laze
1024-2049
N
IL
100%
2048
Bedrock
Bedrock
I > 2048
R
100%
5000
Total % ofwhole count 1 1 103 1 100%
Largest particle= 320
Summary Data
Channel materials
1316= 0.4 D84= 61.1
D35 = 11.5 D95 = 84.2
D50 = 1 16.4 13100 = 256-362
U. Silver Creek Site
UT3 at XS8
Pebble Count Particle Size Distribution
100%
-w-AB 2015
17111
90%
tMYI 2015
80 %
-j1r-MY2 2016
70
60%
d
2 50%
d
CL
> 40%
R 30%
E
L4�
R
rj 20%
10%
0% -
0.01 0.1
1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
U. Silver Creek Site
UT3 at XS8
Reach Pebble Count Size Class Distribution
100
0 A 2015
90%
■MYI 2015
80%
■MY22016
70
60
c
50%
N
IL
40%
N
R
30%
U
20%
10%
0%
Particle Size Class (mm)

Table 10. Monitoring Year 2 Stream Summary
Unner Silver Creek Restoration Protect: DMS Protect ID No. 94645
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
UPPER SILVER CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT
DMS PROJECT NO. 94645
a
�a�aa®ao®aa®aaaaaaaa®�®��o®�®��o®�®®moo
aaaa�aa�ao®aa�aa�aa�aaa®aaaaa�aaaaa�aaaa
BF MRA Depth (ft)
aaaa®aa®aaaaaaaa■a®aaaaa®®®aa®��®®a®��®aa
a
��—®aa®as®aaaaa■aataaaaa®�®aaa®���®����®a
Whfth/Depth&,k.fhrklleightft,tiaaaa®a—�—a®aaaaa■a®aa—a®�®®®a®��®®a®aaaaa
•.•aaa—aaamaa®a—aaa■®aaaaaaa®aaa®aaaaa®aaaaa
iaaa—®aa®aaaaaaaa■aaa®aaa®�®aaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa■aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
i�
aaaa®aaaaaaaaaaa■aaaaaaa®®��®�®®��®�®®��®
a
aaamaaaaaaaaaaa■maa®aa®®®aaaa®��®aa®®�®a
a
aa—aaa®aa—a—aaa■aaaaaaa®�®aaa®�®aaa®�®aa
aaaa®a—aaaaaaaaa■®aa®aaa®aaaaaaaaaaa®®aaa
aaaa®aa®aaaaaaaa■aaaaaaa®®®®aaaa®aaaaa®aa
i
a
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa■aaaaaaa®��®�®aaaam®�®�®®
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa■aaaaaa
� �
��������®amasses®
aaa—®aa®aa—aaaaa■maa®aaaaaaaa®aaaamaaaaam
a
aaamaaaaa®aa®aa■aaaaaa®��®�®�®®��®���®am
aaaaaaaaaa®aa®aa■®aaaaaaa®®aaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa■aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa■aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa■aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaa
a
a
a
aaa—aaa®aaaaaaaa■a�—aaaaaaaaa—aaaaaaaaaaa
•ataaaaaaaaa—aaaaa■aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaamaamaaaaaaaa■maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
-
a
®aa®aaaaaaaa■®aa®aa®aa®aa®aa®aa®aa®aa
aaa—aaa—aa—aaaaaa®a—aa—aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaa®aaaa■aataaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaa—aaaaaa—aaaaa■aataaaa—®aaaaa®aaaaa®aaaa
a
®�®aaaaaaaaaaaa■a®a--aa®aaaa—®aaa—a®aaaa
aaa—aaaaaaaaaaaa■a�a_aa—�—aaa—aaaaaaaaaaa
Channel 1e.g1h
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa■ate-aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa■aataaaaa®aaaaa®aaaaa®aaaa
aaa—aaaaaaaaaaaa■®aa®aa—aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaa®aaaaaa—a—aaa■aaaaaa—aaaaa—aaaaaaaaaaa
aaa—a®—a—aaaaaaaa®aa—aa®aaaa—®aaa—a®aaaa
aaa—aaaaaa—aa—aaaaaaaa—aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa■aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa■aaaaaa—aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
BF Width (11�
a
�®aaaa®a0�aa®aa■aaaaaaaaaoa®aaaaa�aaao
aaaaaaa®as®aamaa■aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
•
ate®aaaa®aaaaa®aa■a�aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaa®aaaaaaaa®aaa®aaaaa®aaaaa®aaaaa®aaaa
a��—aaaaaa®a—aaa■a�aaaa—aaaaaaaaaaaa®aaaa
aaa—aaaaaa®a—®aa■amaaaa—aaaaaa®aaaaa®aaaa
•
aaaa®a—maaaaaaaa■®a—aaaa®aaaaa®aaaaa®aaaa
aaaa®aaaaaaaaaaa■aaa®aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa■aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
partem
a
aaaaaamaaaaaaaa■®aamaa®����a®����a®���®®
aaa—aaa®as—aaaaaaaa®aa®aaaaaaaa®aa®aaaaa
Re: B-Ifill width (fVft,
aaaa®aa®aaaaaaaa®aaaaa®�®��a®�®��a®�®�®©
aaa—masses®aamaa■maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaa®aamaa®aa®aa■®aaaaa®®®��a®�®��a®�®®®®
Riffle •
aaa—aaaaaa—aaaaa■aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa®�®a
•
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa■aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa■aaaaaaaa®��®��®aaaa®��®m
aaaa®aamaaaaaaaa■maamaa®���®aa®aaaaaaaa®®
aaa—®aaaaaaaa®aa■aaa®aa—aaaaaa®aaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa■aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
S.Ii-ste ad T,—p- P—uteftts
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa■aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaa—aaaaaa—aaaaaaaaaaa—aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaa
aaaaaa■aaaaaa
aaa—®aa®aaaaaaaa■a�aaaa—aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
ataaaaaaaaaaaaaaa■aaa—aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa■aata—aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
,, ,, .,,.. o .
a�aaaaaaaaaaaaaa■aaaaa®aa®aa®aa®aa®aa®aa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa■ate—aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa■a�aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaa—aaa®aa®aaaaa■a®aaaa—aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
a��—aaa®aa—a—aaaa®aaaaaa—aaa—aaaaaa®aaaa
aaaaa®aa—aaaaaaa■a�—a—aaaaaaa—aaaa—aaaaaa
aaaaa®aaaaa®aaaaa®aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaa®aaaaa®aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaa—aaa—aa—aaaa—■aaa—aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
13F Ape (fi/ft)
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa■a�aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaa—aaaaaa—aaaaaaaaaaa—®aaaaa®aaaaa®aaaa
aaa—aa—aaaaaaaaaaa---aaaaaaa—aaaa—aa—aaa
aaa®aaaaaaaa—aaaaaa
aaaa—aaa—aa®aaa—aaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa■aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
UPPER SILVER CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT
DMS PROJECT NO. 94645

Table 10. Monitoring Year 2 Stream Summary
Upper Silver Creek Restoration Proiect: DMS Proiect ID No. 94645
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
UPPER SILVER CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT
DMS PROJECT NO. 94645
Mt- Mi.
a®®a®aa®as®aa�aa■a
aaaa
aaaoaM—aaaaaaaaao
aaaa®aa®aa®aa®aa■a�a®aaaaaaaaa®aaaaa®aaaa
aataaaaaa—aaaaaaa■aataaaaa®aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
FM�Dqah it)
aaaa®aaaaaaaa®aa■aataaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aataaaaaa—a®aaaaa■aataa—asaaaaaaaaaaaa®aaaa
Width/Dqth Ra,
aaaa®aa®asaaaaaa■aataaaaaaaaaaa®aaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaa®aaaaa®aa0aaaaaa®aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
,aaaa®aa®aaaaaaaa■a®aaaaa®aaaaaaaaaaa®aaaa
aaaaaaaaaaa®aaaaaaaaaaa®aaaaa®aaaaaaaaaa
aaaa
aaaa aaaaaa aaaaaa aaamaa ®®®®aa ®®�®�©�®�®aa
aaaaaaaaaa®aaaaa®aamaa®aaaaa®aaaaa®aaaaa
Rai,aaaaaaaaaa®aaaaa®aa®aaaa®aaaaaaa®aaa®aaa
aaaa
aaaaaa
aaaaaa
aaaaaa
����®©��®��©�®®®aa
• ,•t
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa■aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaa
®aa®aaaa®aaa
®aaa—a
®®aaaa
���®®a
a®�®®a
a a—aaa—®aa
aaaaaa■
aaa®—aaa®�®a
a®aaaa
®aaaaa
'
aaaaaaaaaaa®aaaaaataaaaa®aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa■aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaa—aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa—aaaaaaaaaaaa—aaaaaa
aaaa aaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaataaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
sesames®as®aaaaaa®aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
a aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa®aa®aa®aa®aa®aa®aa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaataaaaaaaaa—aaaaaaaaaaaa
•
aaaaa�aaaaa�aaaaa�aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa®aaaa
aaaa®aaaaa®aaaaaaataaaaaaaaaaa®aaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaam—aamaaaaaataaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa®aaaaa®aaaaaaaaaa
aaaaa�aaaaa�aaaaa®aaaaa�aaaaa�aaaaa�aaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa®aaaaa®aaaaa®a—a—a®aaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa■aataaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa®aaaa—a®aaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa®aaaaa®aaaaa®aaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa■aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa—aaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa■a—aa—aaaaaaaaaa—aaaa—aaa
•
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa■aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
s —
Mai SDa SDa Mi. M.
BF Width (ft)
a at®aaaa®aa
aaa®aa
aaaaa
a�
�
®Xf—®M.
®®
�SDa
aaaaaaa®aa®aa®aaaaaaaaa®aaaaaaaaaaa®aaaa
aataaaaa®aaaaaaaa■aataaaaaaaaaaa®aaaaaaa®®a
BF Mm Dpth (ft)
aaaaaaaaaaaaa®aa®aa®aa®®®®®aaa®®aa®®®®®a
aataaaaaaaa®aaaaaaataaaa®a®a®aa®®aaaa®a®aa
Width/D,pth Rai,
aaaa®aaaaa®aaaaaa®aaaa®a®®®a®aaa®aaaaa®a
•
aaaa®aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa®aa®aaaaaaaaaa®®a
aaaa®aa®aaaaaaaa■aaaaaaa®®®aa®a®®®a®®®®®a
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa■aaaaaaa®aaaaaaaaaaa®aaaa
aaaaaaa®aaaaaaaa®aamaaaaa®®aaaa®®aa®a®®a
aaaaaaamaaaaaaaa®aaaaa®aa®®aaaa®®aaaa®®a
aaaa®aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa®aaaaaa®aaaa®®aaa
aaaamaaaaamaamaa■maamaaa®a®aa®a®a®a®a®®®a
Mmal,' Width Rai,
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa®a®aaaaa®aaa®a®a
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa®®seams®aa®®®®aaam
aaaaaaaaaa®aaaaaaaaaaaaaa®aaaaaaa®a
aaam
aaaa®aamaa®aaaaamaamaaaaa®amaaaaaa®a®aaa
aaaamaaaaaaaaaaa■maaaaaaa®a®®®®aaaaaaaaa®
D�pth
aaaa®aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa®®aaaaa®a®aa®aa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa■aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa■aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaa
aaaa ®aaaaa aaaaaa■ aataaaa ®aaaa aaaaaa aaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa■aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaa®aaaaaaaa®aaa®aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
a aaaaaaaaaaaa■aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa®aa
aaaaa®aaaaaaaaaaaataaaaa®aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa©aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaa®a®aaaa®aaaaa®aaaaa®aaaaa®aaaa
BF
"S—hy
a area mea®aaa®aaaaa®aaaaa®aaaa
aaaaa— aaaaaa
aaa—aaaa_aaa—aaaaataa—aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa—aaa
Cha -1 hagth
aaaaaaaaaa®aaaaa®aaaaa�aaaaa�aaaaa�aaaa
aaaaa®aa—aa®aaaaa®aa—aa®aaaaa®aaaaa®aaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa■a�aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaa aaa—aaaaaaa■setas—aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa■aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
131
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa■aaaa—aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
—aaaaaa—aaaaaaa—■aaa--aaaaaa—aaaaaaa—aaaa
•
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa■aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
UPPER SILVER CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT
DMS PROJECT NO. 94645

Table 11. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Upper Silver Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 94645
Silver Creek (3,016 LF)
Cross-section X-1, Station 2724.3 (Riffle)
Cross-section X-2, Station 2636.7 (Pool)
Cross-section X-3, Station 1898.2 (Pool)
Cross-section X-4, Station 1793.8 (Riffle)
Dimension and substrate
Base
MY1
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
MY+ Base
MYl
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
MY+ Base
wi
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
MY+ Base
MYl
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
BF Width ft
29.1
24.6
24.9
35.7
29.5
34.0
43.5
39.5
42.0
23.8
23.5
23.5
BF Mean Depth (ft)
1.7
1.8
1.8
1.6
1.8
1.5
1.7
1.5
1.2
2.0
1.9
1.8
Width/Depth Ratio
17.2
13.9
13.8
21.8
16.8
23.3
25.2
27.3
35.2
11.8
12.4
13.5
BF Cross-sectional Area ft2
49.2
43.4
45.0
58.3
51.9
49.6
74.9
57.3
50.2
48.0
44.2
41.1
BF Max Depth ft
3.0
2.9
3.2
4.0
3.9
4.3
5.2
4.0
4.0
3.3
3.2
3.1
Width of Flood rove Area (ft)
>300
>300
>300
>300
>300
>300
>300
>300
>300
>300
>300
>300
Entrenchment Ratio
3.3
3.9
3.8
2.5
3.0
2.6
2.1
2.3
2.2
3.7
3.7
3.7
Bank Height Ratio
1.1
1.0
1.1 1
1.0
1.0
1.0 1
0.7 1
0.7
0.9
1.0
1 1.0
1.0
Wetted Perimeter ft
32.4
28.1
28.5
38.9
33.0
36.9
46.9
42.4
44.4
27.8
1 27.3
27.0
Hydraulic Radius (ft
1.51.5
1.6
1.5
1.6
1.3
1.6
1.4
1.1
1.7
1.6
1.5
Fixed baseline bankfull elevatio
1197.4
1197.4
1197.4
1198.2
1198.2
1198.2
1202.3
1202.3
1202.3
1203.0
1203.0
1203.0
Based on current/developing bankfull feature
BF Width ft
29.1
26.2
26.2
35.7
29.5
35.3
43.5
42.6
42.0
23.8
23.5
23.5
BF Mean Depth (ft)
1.7
1.7
1.8
1.6
1.8
1.5
1.7
1.5
1.2
2.0
1.9
1.8
Width/Depth Ratio
17.2
15.2
14.4
21.8
16.8
23.5
25.2
29.3
35.2
11.8
12.4
13.5
BF Cross-sectional Area (ftp
49.2
45.1
47.6
58.3
51.9
53.1
74.9
61.8
50.2
48.0
44.2
41.1
BF Max Depth ft
3.0
3.0
3.3
4.0
3.9
4.4
5.2
4.2
4.0
3.3
3.2
3.1
Width of Flood rove Area (11)
>300
>300
>300
>300
>300
>300
>300
>300
>300
>300
87.3
>300
Entrenchment Ratio
3.3
3.7
>3.7
2.5
3.0
>2.5
2.1
2.1
2.2
3.7
3.7
3.7
Bank Height Ratio
1.1
1.0
1
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.7
0.7
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
Wetted Perimeter ft
32.4 1
29.7
29.8
38.9
33.0
38.3
46.9
45.5
44.4
27.8
27.3
27.0
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
1.5
1.5
1.6
1.5
1.6
1.4
1.6
1.4
1.1
1.7
1.6
1.5
Cross Sectional Area between end pins (ff)
-
-
d50 (mm)
36.6
41.3
25.1
* Corrected ftom baseline report.
Cross-section X-5, Station 1206.9 (Riffle)
Cross-section X-6, Station 357.2 (Pool)
Cross-section 7, Station 302.5 (Riffle)
Dimension and substrate
Base
MYl
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
MY+ Base
MYl
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
MY+ Base
MYl
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
MY+ Base
MY1
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
BF Width (ft)
28.4
26.1
25.2
43.5
41.9
34.6
26.6
25.9
25.8
BF Mean Depth (ft)
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.8
1.8
1.7
2.1
2.0
1.8
Width/Depth Ratio
17.3
15.7
15.0
23.6
23.9
20.5
13.0
13.3
14.0
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft
46.9
43.4
42.3
80.1
73.5
58.3
54.5
50.6
47.6
BF Max Depth (ft)
2.9
2.8
2.8
5.3
5.0
3.8
3.3
3.2
3.0
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
>300
>300
>300
>300
>300
>300
>300
>300
>300
Entrenchment Ratio
3.1
3.3
1 3.5 1
1.6
1.6
2.0
4.8
4.9
4.9
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1 0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
31.7
29.4
28.6 1
47.2
45.4
38.0
30.7
29.8
29.5
Hydraulic Radius (ft
1.5
1.5
1.5 1
1.7
1 1.7
1.5
1.8
1.7
1.6
Fixed baseline bankfull elevatio
1208.8
1208.8
1208.8 1
1208.1
1208.1
1208.1
1208.2
1208.2
1208.2
Based on current/developing bankfull feature
BF Width (ft)
28.4
26.1
25.8
43.5
41.9
34.6
26.6
25.9
26.8
BF Mean Depth (ft)
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.8
1.8
1.7
2.1
2.0
1.8
Width/Depth Ratio
17.3
15.7
15.3
23.6
23.9
20.5
13.0
13.3
14.1
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft
46.9
43.4
43.3
80.1
73.5
58.3
54.5
50.6
51.0
BF Max Depth (ft)
2.9
2.8
2.8
5.3
5.0
3.8
3.3
3.2
3.1
Width of Flood rone Area (ft)
>300
>300
>300
>300
>300
>300
>300
>300
>300
Entrenchment Ratio
3.1
3.3
>3.4
1.6
1.6
2.0
4.8
4.9
>4.7
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
31.7
29.4
29.1
47.2
45.4
38.0
30.7
29.8
30.5
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.7
1.7
1.5
1.8
1.7
1.7
Cross Sectional Area between end pins (f[)
-
-
-
-
-
-
d50 (mm)
33.4
15.2
16.0
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
MONITORING YEAR 2 REPORT
UPPER SILVER CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT
DMS PROJECT NO. 94645

Table 11. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Upper Silver Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 94645
UTI (495 LF)
Cross-section X-13, Station 1+57 (Riffle)
Cross-section X-14, Station 3+28 (Pool)
Dimension and substrate
Base
MYl
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
MY+ Base
MYl
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
BF Width (ft)
9.6
9.3
9.2
9.3
8.6
6.6
BF Mean Depth ft
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.9
0.8
0.8
2.0
1.3
1.4
8.9
Width/Depth Ratio
10.3
12.3
12.2
4.7
6.8
4.8
3.0
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft
8.9
7.0
7.0
18.5
10.9
9.0
0.7
BF Max Depth (ft)
1.3
1.1
1.1
3.7
2.5
2.6
>100
Width ofFlood rone Area (ft)
>150
>150
>150
>150
>150
>150
7.1
Entrenchment Ratio
5.3
5.4
5.5
8.7
9.4
12.3
1.2
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.2
1.2
Hydraulic Radius(ft)
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
11.5
10.8
10.7
13.3
11.1
9.3
1201.9
Hydraulic Radius (ft
0.8
0.6
0.7
1.4
1.0
1.0
Fixed baseline bankfull elevatio
1204.01
1204.0
1204.0
1201.6
1201.6
1201.6
6.4
Based on current/developing bankfull feature
5.8
5.5
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.8
0.5
0.5
BF Width (ft)
9.6
9.8
10.0
9.3
11.0
8.3
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.9
0.8
0.82
2.0
1.4
1.6
Width/Depth Ratio
10.3
12.0
12.1
4.7
8.0
5.3
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft
8.9
7.9
8.2
18.5
15.0
13.1
BF Max Depth (ft)
1.3
1.2
1.2
3.7
2.9
3.2
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
>150
>150
>150
>150
>150
>150
Entrenchment Ratio
5.3
5.2
5.1
8.7
7.4
9.7
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.0
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
11.5
11.4
11.6
13.3
13.7
11.5
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.8
0.7
0.7
1.4
1.1
1.1
29.3
9.5
13.6
Cross Sectional Area between end pins (d)
-
-
-
-
d50 (mm)
38.8 1
43.6
32.9
UT2 (3101,F)
Cross-section X-15, Station 2+15 (Pool)
Cross-section X-16, Station 2+53 (Riffle)
Dimension and substrate
Base
MYl
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
MY+ Base
MYl
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MYI MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
BF Width (ft)
7.3
6.4
5.6
6.6
5.8
4.7
BF Mean Depth ft
0.8
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.3
Width/Depth Ratio
8.9
13.9
12.3
16.0
15.7
14.5
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft2)
6.1
3.0
2.5
2.7
2.2
1.5
BF Max Depth ft
1.7
0.8
0.7
0.9
0.8
0.6
Width of Floodprone Area ft
>100
>100
>100
>100
>100
>100
Entrenchment Ratio
9.2
10.5
12.1
7.0
7.1
8.7
Bank Height Ratio
1.1
1.2
1.4
1.2
1.0
1.2
Wetted Perimeter ft
9.0
7.3
6.5
7.4
6.6
5.3
Hydraulic Radius(ft)
0.7
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
Fixed baseline bankfull elevatior
1201.9
1201.9
1201.9
1201.2
1201.2
1201.2
Based on current/developing bankfull feature
BF Width ft
7.3
8.4
6.4
6.6
5.8
5.5
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.8
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
Width/Depth Ratio
8.9
13.9
12.3
16.0
15.7
14.5
BF Cross-sectional Area (ftp)
6.1
4
3.3
2.7
2.2
2.1
BF Max Depth ft
1.7
1.0
0.8
0.9
0.8
0.7
Width of Floodprone Area (11)
>100
>100
>100
>100
>100
>100
Entrenchment Ratio
9.2
8.1
10.5
7.0
7.1
8.1
Bank Height Ratio
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.2
1.0
1.1
Wetted Perimeter ft
9.0
9.3
7.5
7.4
6.6
6.2
Hydraulic Radius (ft
0.7
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
Cross Sectional Area between end pins (ft-)
-
-
-
-
d50 (mm)
29.3
9.5
13.6
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
MONITORING YEAR 2 REPORT
UPPER SILVER CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT
DMS PROJECT NO. 94645

Table 11. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Upper Silver Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 94645
UT3 (1,348 LF)
Cross-section X-8, Station 6+22 (Riffle)
Cross-section X-9, Station 8+12 (Pool)
Cross-section X-10, Station 8+33 (Riffle)
Cross-section X-11, Station 11+53 (Pool)
Dimension and substrate
Base
MYl
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
MY+ Base
MYl
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
MY+ Base
MYl
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
MY+ Base
MYl
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
BF Width (ft)
10.1
8.8
9.2
10.7
9.5
9.4
8.1
7.0
7.2
13.0
11.5
11.4
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.65
0.61
0.5
1.0
0.8
0.5
0.8
0.7
0.7
1.0
0.9
0.6
Width/Depth Ratio
15.5
14.5
18.1
10.5
11.6
20.4
10.3
10.2
9.7
12.8
13.7
18.7
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft
6.5
5.3
4.7
10.9
7.8
4.3
6.3
4.8
5.3
13.2
9.7
6.9
BF Max Depth (ft)
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.7
1.6
1.2
1.1
0.9
1.1
2.2
1.9
1.7
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
>150
>150
>150
>150
>150
>150
>150
>150
>150
>150
>150
>150
Entrenchment Ratio
5.4
6.1
5.9
5.8
6.6
6.7
8.5
9.9
9.6
5.6
6.3
6.4
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.2
1.2
1.1
1.2
1.1
1.0
1.1
1.1
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
11.4
10.0
10.2
12.8
11.1
10.3
9.6
8.3
8.7
15.1
13.2
12.6
Hydraulic Radius (ft
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.9
0.7
0.4
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.9
0.7
0.5
Fixed baseline bankfull elevatio
1215.4
1215.4
1215.4
1212.8
1212.8
1212.8
1212.9
1212.9
1212.9
1209.3
1 1209.3
1209.3
Based on current/developing bankfull feature
BF Width (ft)
10.1
11.7
12.2
10.7
12.1
12.1
8.1
7.5
8.0
13
13.0
12.3
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.7
0.5
0.5
1.0
0.9
0.6
0.8
0.8
0.8
1.0
0.9
0.7
Width/Depth Ratio
15.5
22.0
24.5
10.5
13.8
19.8
10.3
9.8
9.9
12.8
14.2
18.4
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft
6.5
6.2
6.1
10.9
10.6
7.4
6.3
5.7
6.4
13.2
11.9
8.3
BF Max Depth (ft)
1.1
1.1
1.3
1.7
1.9
1.4
1.1
1.1
1.2
2.2
2.1
1.8
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
>150
>150
>150
>150
>150
>150
>150
>150
>150
>150
>150
>150
Entrenchment Ratio
5.4
4.6
4.4
5.8
5.2
5.2
8.5
9.2
8.6
5.6
5.6
5.9
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1
1
1.0
1
1
1.1
1.1
1
1.0
1.0
1
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
11.4
12.7
13.2
12.7
13.8
13.3
9.7
9.0
9.6
15.0
14.9
13.7
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.9
0.8
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.7
0.9
0.8
0.6
Cross Sectional Area between end pins (d)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
d50 (mm)
31.2
20.4
16.4
Cross-section X-12, Station 11+84 (Riffle)
Dimension and substrate
Base
MYl
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
MY+ Base
MYl
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
MY+ Base
MYI
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
MY+ Base
MYl
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Based on Fixed baseline bankfull elevation
BF Width (ft)
8.2
7.8
7.7
BF Mean Depth ft
0.9
0.7
0.7
Width/Depth Ratio
9.1
10.6
11.7
BF Cross-sectional Area L
7.3
5.8
5.0
BF Max Depth ft)
1.4
1.1
0.9
Width of Floodprone Area ft
>150
>150
>150
Entrenchment Ratio
9.4
7.0
7.3
Bank Heigbt Ratio
1.2
1.3
1.3
Wetted Perimeter ft
10.0
9.3
9.0
Hydraulic Radius ft
0.7
0.6
0.6
Fixed baseline bankfull elevatio
1208.8
1208.8
1208.8
Based on current/developing bankfull feature
BF Width ft
8.2
9.1
9.2
BF Mean Depth ft
0.9
0.9
0.8
Width/Depth Ratio
9.1
10.5
11.1
BF Cross-sectional Area (ftp
7.3
8.0
7.5
BF Max Depth ft
1.4
1.3
1.2
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
>150
>150
>150
Entrenchment Ratio
9.4
8.5
8.5
Bank Height Ratio
1.2
1.0
1.0
Wetted Perimeter ft
10.0
10.9
10.8
Hydraulic Radius (ft
0.7
0.7
0.7
Cross Sectional Area between end pins (ft)
-
d50 (mm)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
MONITORING YEAR 2 REPORT
UPPER SILVER CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT
DMS PROJECT NO. 94645

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

Figure 9. umervea Kaimall verses mistoncal Average
Upper Silver Creek Project, MY2
Observed Rainfall versus Historic Average
10.0
8.0
AO
0.0
MEMENEEN',
MENE
:kV
-VIVA 0
------- Historic 70th percentile USGS 2143040 in Ramsey, NC
— — Historic Average 'USGS 354133082042245 in Marion, NC
------- Historic 30th percentile USGS 2150495 in Ruth, NC
USGS 354353081410545 in Morganton, NC
Note: Observed rainfall at four nearby USGS recording stations and historic average in Burke County near the U. Silver Creek
project, with 30th and 70th percentiles of monthly averages from 1958 to 2012.
Rainfall data source for Ramsey, NC: http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/uv?site_no=02143040
Rainfall data source for Marion, NC: http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/uv?site_no=354133082042245
Rainfall data source for Ruth, NC: http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/uv?site_no=02150495
Rainfall data source for Morganton, NC: http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/uv?site_no=354353081410545

Figure 10. Wetland gauge graphs for each well, showing depth to groundwater and rainfall during MY2.
Upper Silver Creek Rain
1/1/2016 2/15/2016 3/31/2016 5/15/2016 6/29/2016 8/13/2016 9/27/2016 11/11/2016 12/26/2016
0.0
c
w
1.0
c
W 2.0
10
5
0
' -5
-10
to
c
-15
-20
C7
-25
-30
O
-35
-40
-45
50
Rainfall data from USGS Station 354353081410545 in Morganton, NC
Upper Silver Creek Wetland Restoration Well
(USAW1)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Well installed - 3/31/2015
1
1
1
YR2 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
CRITERIA NOT MET - 9.5 (4.6%)
(5/1/2016-5/10/2016)
1
GROWING SEASON
(4/3 -10/29)
1
1/1/2016 2/15/2016 3/31/2016 5/15/2016 6/29/2016 8/13/2016 9/27/2016 11/11/2016 12/26/2016
Date
Ground
Surface
12 inches
USAW1
— Begin
Growing
Season
End
Growing
Season

Upper Silver Creek Rain
1/1/2016 2/15/2016 3/31/2016 5/15/2016 6/29/2016 8/13/2016 9/27/2016 11/11/2016 12/26/2016
0.0
c
M 1.0
M
X 2.0
10
5
0
c -5
L
-10
cc
c
-15
-20
C7
° -25
t
ami -30
0
-35
-40
-45
50
Rainfall data from USGS Station 354353081410545 in Morganton, NC
Upper Silver Creek Wetland Restoration Well
(USAW2)
I
Well installed - 3/31/2015
1
1
1
V VW
I
I
1
I
YR2 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
1
CRITERIA NOT MET - 12.3 (5.9%)
(4/3/2016-4/15/2016)
1
1
GROWING SEASON 1
(4/3 - 10/29)
1
1
1/1/2016 2/15/2016 3/31/2016 5/15/2016 6/29/2016 8/13/2016 9/27/2016 11/11/2016 12/26/2016
Date
Ground
Surface
-12 inches
USAW2
— Begin
Growing
Season
End
Growing
Season

Upper Silver Creek Rain
1/1/2016 2/15/2016 3/31/2016 5/15/2016 6/29/2016 8/13/2016 9/27/2016 11/11/2016 12/26/2016
0.0
c
M 1.0
M
X 2.0
10
5
0
S -5
L
-10
cc
c
-15
-20
C7
° -25
t
ami -30
O
-35
-40
-45
50
Rainfall data from USGS Station 354353081410545 in Morganton, NC
Upper Silver Creek Wetland Restoration Well
(USAW3)
Well installed - 3/31/2015 1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
YR2 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
CRITERIA NOT MET - 7.0 (3.4%)
(5/1/2016-5/7/2016)
1
1
F GROWING SEASON
(4/3 - 10/29)
1
1/1/2016 2/15/2016 3/31/2016 5/15/2016 6/29/2016 8/13/2016 9/27/2016 11/11/2016 12/26/2016
Date
Ground
Surface
-12 inches
USAW3
Begin
Growing
Season
End
Growing
Season

Upper Silver Creek Rain
1/1/2016 2/15/2016 3/31/2016 5/15/2016 6/29/2016 8/13/2016 9/27/2016
11/11/2016 12/26/2016
0.0
c
1.0
c
2.0
Rainfall data from USGS Station 354353081410545 in Morganton, NC
Upper Silver Creek Wetland Restoration Well
(USAW4)
10
Ground
5
1
1
Surface
1
1
0
-12 inches
1 1
-5
`y
-10
1
USAW4
R
-15
1
c
O-20
—
— Begin
Growing
25
1
1
Season
w
End
30
Well installed - 3/31/2015 I
1
Growing
Season
-35
YR2 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
-40
CRITERIA NOT MET - 5.0 (2.4%)
GROWING SEASON
-45
(8/8/2016-8/12/2016)
(4/3-10/29)
-50
1/1/2016 2/15/2016 3/31/2016 5/15/2016 6/29/2016 8/13/2016 9/27/2016
11/11/2016 12/26/2016
Date

Upper Silver Creek Rain
1/1/2016 2/15/2016 3/31/2016 5/15/2016 6/29/2016 8/13/2016 9/27/2016 11/11/2016 12/26/2016
0.0
c
1.0
c
2.0
10
5
0
-5
a, -10
R
-15
c
o -20
0
w -25
s
Q- -30
d
-35
-40
-45
50
Rainfall data from USGS Station 354353081410545 in Morganton, NC
Upper Silver Creek Wetland Restoration Well
(USAW5)
1
Well installed - 3/31/2015
1
1
1
Ty
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
YR2 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
CRITERIA MET - 77.5 (37.3%)
(4/3/2016-6/19/2016)
GROWING SEASON
1
(4/3-10/29)
1/1/2016 2/15/2016 3/31/2016 5/15/2016 6/29/2016 8/13/2016 9/27/2016 11/11/2016 12/26/2016
Date
Ground
Surface
12 inches
USAW5
— Begin
Growing
Season
End
Growing
Season

Upper Silver Creek Rain
1/1/2016 2/15/2016 3/31/2016 5/15/2016 6/29/2016 8/13/2016 9/27/2016 11/11/2016 12/26/2016
0.0
c
1.0
c
2.0
10
5
0
-5
a, -10
-15
o -20
w -25
Q -30
d
-35
-40
-45
50
Rainfall data from USGS Station 354353081410545 in Moreanton. NC
Upper Silver Creek Wetland Restoration Well
(USAW6)
1/1/2016 2/15/2016 3/31/2016 5/15/2016 6/29/2016 8/13/2016 9/27/2016 11/11/2016 12/26/2016
Date
Ground
Surface
12 inches
USAW6
— Begin
Growing
Season
End
Growing
Season
I�� �I111�ii��■\�■1
�Y'�7Ll������I1���1►�1
'`��� �11Lll11&1l�1
■L�f11L
M
MOST • 1A
,
1/1/2016 2/15/2016 3/31/2016 5/15/2016 6/29/2016 8/13/2016 9/27/2016 11/11/2016 12/26/2016
Date
Ground
Surface
12 inches
USAW6
— Begin
Growing
Season
End
Growing
Season

Upper Silver Creek Rain
1/1/2016 2/15/2016 3/31/2016 5/15/2016 6/29/2016 8/13/2016 9/27/2016 11/11/2016 12/26/2016
0.0
c
1.0
c
2.0
Rainfall data from USGS Station 354353081410545 in Morganton, NC
Upper Silver Creek Wetland Restoration Well
(USAW7)
10
5
0
-5
a, -10
R
-15
c
o -20
w -25
s
Q -30
d
-35
-40
-45
50
Well installed - 3/31/2015LW
1
1
1
1
I
1
1TV1
1
1
1
1
YR2 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
1
1
CRITERIA MET - 72.5 (34.9%)
(4/3/2016-6/14/2016)
1
1
GROWING SEASON
(4/3 - 10/29)
1/1/2016 2/15/2016 3/31/2016 5/15/2016 6/29/2016 8/13/2016 9/27/2016 11/11/2016 12/26/2016
Date
Ground
Surface
12 inches
USAW7
Begin
Growing
Season
End
Growing
Season

Upper Silver Creek Rain
1/1/2016 2/15/2016 3/31/2016 5/15/2016 6/29/2016 8/13/2016 9/27/2016 11/11/2016 12/26/2016
0.0
c
1.0
X 2.0
10
5
0
w
-5
3
3 10
0
6 -15
0
w -20
o -25
-30
-35
-40
-45
50
Rainfall data from USGS Station 354353081410545 in Morganton, NC
Upper Silver Creek Wetland Restoration Well
(USAW8)
r7ellMinstalled - 3/31/2015
in Will
�I�If■�1��1�� ��1� ���1■I INS �■■1
1110=►.I�1,.�,.��„l. ���►L�,�;I
IN INN
YKZ •') I CONSECUTIVE DAYS
CRITERIA NOT
(8/8/2016-8/13/2016
�• •
1/1/2016 2/15/2016 3/31/2016 5/15/2016 6/29/2016 8/13/2016 9/27/2016 11/11/2016 12/26/2016
Date
Ground
Surface
12 inches
USAW8
Begin
Growing
Season
End
Growing
Season

Upper Silver Creek Rain
1/1/2016 2/15/2016 3/31/2016 5/15/2016 6/29/2016 8/13/2016 9/27/2016 11/11/2016 12/26/2016
0.0
c
M 1.0
M
X 2.0
10
5
c
0
d
-5
3
3 -10
O
i
0 -15
O
w -20
o -25
-30
-35
-40
-45
50
Rainfall data from USGS Station 354353081410545 in Morganton, NC
Upper Silver Creek Wetland Restoration Well
(USAW9)
Well installed - 3/31/2015 I
I
1
I
I
1
1
qF
1
1
1
ry
1
I
YR1 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
CRITERIA NOT MET - 13.5 (6.5%)
1
(4/3/2016 - 4/16/2016)
GROWING SEASON
(4/3 - 10/29) 1
I
1
1/1/2016 2/15/2016 3/31/2016 5/15/2016 6/29/2016 8/13/2016 9/27/2016 11/11/2016 12/26/2016
Date
Ground
Surface
-12 inches
USAW9
Begin
Growing
Season
End
Growing
Season

Upper Silver Creek Rain
1/1/2016 2/15/2016 3/31/2016 5/15/2016 6/29/2016 8/13/2016 9/27/2016 11/11/2016 12/26/2016
0.0
c
M 1.0
2.0
10
_ 5
= 0
3 -5
3 -10
O
-15
0
w -20
m
o -25
-30
-35
-40
-45
50
Rainfall data from USGS Station 354353081410545 in Morganton, NC
Upper Silver Creek Wetland Restoration Well
(USAW10)
Weill installed - 3/31/20
JAL
���►�1 I MI I� L�1*II l� �� i� 11
VLi'lT� l7►
E YR2 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
CRITERIA •
• •16) • '
1/1/2016 2/15/2016 3/31/2016 5/15/2016 6/29/2016 8/13/2016 9/27/2016 11/11/2016 12/26/2016
Date
Ground
Surface
12 inches
USAW10
Begin
Growing
Season
End
Growing
Season

Upper Silver Creek Rain
1/1/2016 2/15/2016 3/31/2016 5/15/2016 6/29/2016 8/13/2016 9/27/2016 11/11/2016 12/26/2016
0.0
JT
1.0
E
2.0
Rainfall data from USGS Station 354353081410545 in Morganton, NC
Upper Silver Creek Wetland Restoration Well
(USAW11)
10
5
0
S -5
-10
R
�a 15
-20
° -25
ami -30
-35
-40
-45
50
,
Well installed - 15
-91M
SAT
7�t 1
vIIVMYILI%
■1■� I� I�■1■
AEA=KI■
MILIM&
11, VF
KTLVAA'TM
ow7
'YR2 MOST• DAYS
CRITERIA •
1
OWING,SEASON I
• '
1/1/2016 2/15/2016 3/31/2016 5/15/2016 6/29/2016 8/13/2016 9/27/2016 11/11/2016 12/26/2016
Date
Ground
Surface
-12
inches
USAW 11
— Begin
Growing
Season
End
Growing
Season

Upper Silver Creek Rain
1/1/2016 2/15/2016 3/31/2016 5/15/2016 6/29/2016 8/13/2016 9/27/2016 11/11/2016 12/26/2016
0.0
c
1.0
c
2.0
10
5
0
S -5
L
-10
R
c
-15
° -20
(7
° -25
t
C -30
-35
-40
-45
50
Rainfall data from USGS Station 354353081410545 in Morganton, NC
Upper Silver Creek Wetland Restoration Well
(USAW12)
Well installed - 3/31/2015 1
I
Ground
Surface
1
1
12
inches
V1 U11
USAW12
11 IN
— Begin
Growing
1
Season
1
1
End
Growing
YR2 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
I
Season
CRITERIA NOT MET - 7.3 (3.5%)
(5/1/2016 - 5/8/2016)
GROWING SEASON
(4/3 - 10/29)
I
1
1/1/2016 2/15/2016 3/31/2016 5/15/2016 6/29/2016 8/13/2016 9/27/2016 11/11/2016 12/26/2016
Date

Upper Silver Creek Rain
1/1/2016 2/15/2016 3/31/2016 5/15/2016 6/29/2016 8/13/2016 9/27/2016
11/11/2016 12/26/2016
0.0
I
I
c
USAW13
1.0
Growing
c
I
Season
1
1
2.0
End
Rainfall data from USGS Station 354353081410545 in Morganton, NC
YR2 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
I
Season
Upper Silver Creek Wetland Restoration Well
(4/3/2016 - 5/28/2016)
GROWING SEASON
(USAW13)
I
1
10
1
I
Ground
5
Well installed - 12/3/2015
surface
1
1
0
-12
c
inches
-5
L
R
-10
c
-15
°
(7
-20
°
t
-25
o-30
-35
-40
-45
-50
1/1/2016 2/15/2016 3/31/2016 5/15/2016 6/29/2016 8/13/2016 9/27/2016
11/11/2016 12/26/2016
Date
I
I
USAW13
—Begin
Growing
I
Season
1
1
End
Growing
YR2 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
I
Season
CRITERIA MET - 55.5 (26.7%)
(4/3/2016 - 5/28/2016)
GROWING SEASON
(4/3 - 10/29)
I
1

Table 12. Wetland gauge attainment data, summary of groundwater gauge results for MY 1
through 5 at the U. Silver Creek Project Site, DMS Project #94645.
Success Criteria Achieved/Max Consecutive Days During Growing Season
(Percentage)
Gauge
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Year 1 (2015)
Year 2 (2016)
Year 3 (2017)
Year 4 (2018)
Year 5 (2019)
Yes/36.5 days
No/9.5 days
USAW1
(17.5%)
(4.6%)
No/21.8 days
No/12.3 days
USAW2
(10.5%)
(5.9%)
No/20.3 days
No/7 days
USAW3
(9.7%)
(3.4%)
No/5.5 days
No/5 days
USAW4
(2.6%)
(2.4%)
Yes/80.5 days
Yes/77.5 days
USAW5
(38.7%)
(37.3%)
No/19.5 days
No/7 days
USAW6
(9.4%)
(3.4%)
Yes/74.5 days
Yes/72.5 days
USAW7
(35.8%)
(34.9%)
No/2.5 days
No/5.8 days
USAW8
(1.2%)
(2.8%)
Yes/35.5 days
No/13.5 days
USAW9
(17.1%)
(6.5%)
No/19.8 days
No/9.8 days
USAW10
(9.5%)
(4.7%)
No/18.5 days
No/11.5 days
USAW11
(8.9%)
(5.5%)
No/17.5 days
No/7.3 days
USAW12
(8.4 %)
(3.5%)
Yes/55.5 days
USAW13
(26.7%)

Table 12. Wetland Restoration Area Well Success
Upper Silver Creek Restoration Project: Project ID No. 94645
*Percentage of
Most Consecutive
*Percentage of
Number of Instances where
Well ID
Consecutive Days <12
Days Meeting
Cumulative Days <12
Cumulative Days
Water Table is 12 inches
inches from Ground
Criteria 2
inches from Ground
3
Meeting Criteria a
from Ground Surface
Surface'
Surface'
Cross-sectional Well Arrays
USAW I 4.6 9.5 23.1 48.0 15
USAW2 5.9 12.3 32.1 66.8 26
USAW3 3.4 7.0 15.4 32.0 9
USAW4 2.4 5.0 10.7 22.3 9
USAW5 37.3 77.5 86.9 180.8 29
USAW6 3.4 7.0 22.1 46.0 11
USAW7 34.9 72.5 76.6 159.3 17
USAW8 2.8 5.8 16.5 34.3 22
USAW9 6.5 13.5 29.1 60.5 21
USAW10 4.7 9.8 34.0 70.8 22
USAW l l 5.5 11.5 27.2 56.5 20
USAW12 3.5 7.3 11.9 24.8 10
USAW 135 1 26.7 55.5 43.5 1 90.5 1 11
Notes:
'Indicates the percentage of most consecutive number of days within the monitored growing season with a water 12 inches or less
from the soil surface.
2Indicates the most consecutive number of days within the monitored growing season with a water table 12 inches or less from the
soil surface.
3Indicates the cumulative number of days within the monitored growing season with a water table 12 inches or less from the soil
surface.
4Indicates the number of instances within the monitored growing season when the water table rose to 12 inches or less from the soil
surface.
5USAW 13 was installed in December of 2015.
Growing season for Burke County is from April 3 to October 29 and is 208 days long.
Growing season percentage for success is 12% of 208 days = 25 days; where water table is 12 inches or less from the ground surface
HIGHLIGHTED indicates wells that did not meet the success criteria for the most consecutive number of days within the
monitored growing season with a water 12 inches or less from the soil surface. Following Year 2 of wetland monitoring, ten of
thirteen wells did not exhibit a hyrdroperiod of 12% or greater during the growing season. These wells will be observed closely
throughout monitoring Year 3.
12 In-Situ groundwater monitoring dataloggers (1-12) were installed on 3/17/2015. Installation of the dataloggers was completed
following construction in spring 2015 when groundwater levels are normally closer to the ground surface. USAW 13 was installed in
December of 2015

Figure 11. U. Silver Creek Wetland Photo Log, MY2 (2016)
Photo 1. Wetland Photo Point — W 1, replicates photo 50 in
Baseline Report (November 1, 2016).
Photo 2. Wetland Photo Point — W2, replicates photo 51 in
Baseline Report (November 1, 2016).
Photo 3. Wetland Photo Point — W3 replicates photo 52 in
Baseline Report (November 1, 2016).
Photo 4. Wetland Photo Point — W4, replicates photo 53 in
Baseline Report (November 1, 2016).
Photo 5. Wetland Photo Point — W5, replicates photo 54 in
Baseline Report (November 1, 2016).
Photo 6. Wetland Photo Point — W6, replicates photo 55 in
Baseline Report (November 1, 2016).

Photo 7. Wetland Photo Point — W7, replicates photo 56 in
Baseline Report (November 1, 2016).
Photo 8. Wetland Photo Point — W8, replicates photo 57 in
Baseline Report (November 1, 2016).
Photo 9. Wetland Photo Point — W9, replicates photo 58 in
Baseline Report (November 1, 2016).
Photo 10. Wetland Photo Point — W 10, replicates photo 59 in
Baseline Report (November 1, 2016).
Photo 11. Wetland Photo Point — W11, replicates photo 60 in
Baseline Report (November 1, 2016).
Photo 12. Wetland Photo Point — W 12, replicates photo 61 in
Baseline Report (November 1, 2016).

Photo 13. Wetland Photo Point — W 13 added between time of
baseline and MY survey, (April 1, 2015)