20130595 Ver 1_Year 3 Monitoring Report 2017_20171101

Upper Silver Creek Restoration Project
Year 3 Monitoring Report
Burke County, North Carolina
NCDMS Project ID Number — 94645
Catawba River Basin: 03050101-050050
SAW ID: 2010-02157, DWR # 13-0595
Project Info: Monitoring Year: 3 of 5
Year of Data Collection: 2017
Year of Completed Construction: 2015
Submission Date: November 2017
Submitted To: NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services
5 Ravenscroft Drive, Suite 102
Asheville, NC 28801
NCDEQ Contract ID No. 003270

Innovation Done Right We Make a Difference
ference
I N T E R N AT 1 0 N A L
November 30, 2017
NC Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS)
Attn: Mr. Matthew Reid, Western Project Manager
5 Ravenscroft Drive, Suite 102
Asheville, NC 28801
Subject: Response to DMS comments on the Year 3 Monitoring Report Review for the Upper
Silver Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Project; Catawba River Basin - CU#
03050101; Burke County, North Carolina; NCEEP Project # 94645; Contract No.
003270
Dear Mr. Reid,
Please find enclosed the final Upper Silver Creek Year 3 Monitoring Report. I have addressed the
comments that you submitted on the draft report. My responses to your comments are the
following:
General
• Wetland success has improved since MY2 and appears to be trending toward success. As
a result, Task 9 will be paid in full. Please be aware that future task payments may be
reduced if wetland gauges do not show signs of trending toward success and associated
credits are deemed at risk.
o Comment is noted. We will continue to monitor the wetland gauges throughout
the winter and MY4 and record any changes in wetland performance.
Table 2
• Please add June 2017 invasive treatment to table.
o Invasive treatment was added to Table 2.
• Please add July 2017 beaver dam removal to table
o Beaver dam removal was added to Table 2.
797 Haywood Roadl Suite 2011 Asheville NC 28806
oma kasEMaN j�'SALLYPORT MBAKERINTL.CDM Off ice: 828.350.14o8IFax: 828.350.1409

CCPV or Figure 3
Table 5
Innovation Done Right ... We Make a Difference
Modify either CCPV to show wetland components (R, E, Creation, riparian/non-
riparian) or add well locations to Figure 3. The locations of the wells in relation to
wetland component is valuable information for agency reviewers.
o Both the CCPV and Figure 3 were modified to show both the wetland
components and well locations on the site. This will make it easier to draw
comparisons between the two maps in the future.
Draft hard copy was missing Table 5, but it was in the PDF. Please QA/QC finals hard
copies before submittal for completeness.
o Table 5 was added to the hard copy of the report.
Vegetation Plot Photos
• Currently labeled as Figure 3 in hard copy. Should be Figure 4 according to Table of
Contents. It is correctly labeled in PDF.
o The Vegetation Plot Photos have been labeled Figure 4 in the report as well as
the Table of Contents.
Cross-sections
• Cross-section 7 does not have MY3 data overlaid on graph. Please update and verify
morphology data is correct on graph and corresponding tables.
o MY3 data was added to Cross-section 7. Morphology data was correct on graph
and corresponding tables.
Profile
Table 11
The UT2 profile and sections of UT3 indicates significant aggradation. As Baker is
aware, the USACE will be looking at defined bed/bank and often denies credit for
channels that have become filled with sediment. I am aware of the large upstream
sediment sources from past mining activities on UT2. Does Baker have any corrective
action or adaptive management planned for these.
o No corrective actions are planned for the upcoming year. These sections of UT2
and UT3 will be monitored throughout the winter to see if high seasonal flows
clear any of the deposited sediment from the channels and reevaluated in MY4.
Consider increasing the significant digits on the Bank Height Ratio to two places. The
BHR are shown this way on the cross-section plots (ex: XS1-1.06). This will help
alleviate any problems with the IRT regarding calculating BHR and having "1.0" across
the board. The IRT does not like to see 1.0 for BHR for every monitoring year. The
IRT would like to see this number calculated for each monitoring year.
o The significant digits on all Bank Height Ratios has been increased to two
places on Tables 10 and 11. These will be presented this way going forward.

Innovation Done Right ... We Make a Difference
Table 12a
Please double check the last column of data (Number of Instances where Water Table is
12 Inches from Ground Surface). I am unable to determine how the numbers shown are
calculated when looking at the graphs. Consider removing this table from the report and
just including in electronic deliverables. If you decide to remove from report, please
update Table of Contents and Appendix E sheet.
o The data in this column was still linked to earlier versions of the spreadsheet
and had not updated. This has been corrected and the numbers now reflect data
from MY3. This table was removed from the hard copy of the report but
included in the electronic deliverables. The Table of Contents has been updated.
If you have any questions or find any issues that need to be addressed, please contact me directly
at [phone]. I am submitting an invoice for this task to Ms. Debby Davis in the Raleigh
DMS Office and will be providing you an email copy.
Sincerely,
" s
Micky Clemmons,
Project Manager
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.

Upper Silver Creek Restoration Project
Year 3 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
NOVEMBER 2017, MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 5

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................1
2.0 METHODOLOGY.........................................................................................3
2.1 Vegetation Assessment................................................................................................................................3
2.2 Stream Assessment.......................................................................................................................................3
2.2.1 Morphologic Parameters and Channel Stability ........................................................................................4
2.2.2 Hydrology..................................................................................................................................................5
2.2.3 Photographic Documentation....................................................................................................................5
2.3 Wetland Assessment.....................................................................................................................................5
3.0 REFERENCES...............................................................................................7
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 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
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. II
UPPER SILVER CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT,
DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 94645
NOVEMBER 2017, MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 5

Figure 7 Longitudinal Profiles with Annual Overlays
Figure 8 Pebble Count Plots with Annual Overlays
Table 10 Monitoring Year 3 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
Figure 11 Wetland Photo Log
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. III
UPPER SILVER CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT,
DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 94645
NOVEMBER 2017, MONITORING YEAR 3 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 (UT 1, UT2, and UT3); and additionally 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 early 2017, there was at least one high flow event that inundated the floodplain, depositing woody
debris and other flotsam in wrack lines well away from the top of bank. This event does not appear to have
significantly impacted the bank repairs that were made after the flood event in 2015, although one of the
repaired areas is beginning to show erosion and undercutting (CPA -3). Year 3 (MY3) monitoring indicated
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UPPER SILVER CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT,
DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 94645
NOVEMBER 2017, MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 5

that the planted acreage was functioning well with no bank, bench or flood plain areas having bare areas of
a significant size.
Invasive Chinese privet and multiflora rose were noted in the MY2 Monitoring Report as a problem, and
were treated in June 2017. We will continue to treat invasive vegetation within this area with herbicide to
minimize new growth. The areas of mowing encroachment noted in MY2 were marked with t -posts and
flagged early in 2017, and there were no new mowing encroachments noted when MY3 monitoring was
conducted. We have established and are monitoring fourteen (14) vegetation plots at this site. The average
density of total planted stems following the MY3 growing season is 720 stems per acre, with an additional
average of 64 volunteer stems per acre. Based on the average density of 720 planted stems per acre, the
Site is on track to meet the established success criteria.
Stream geomorphological stability and performance during MY3 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 MY3. 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 main
stem had stabilized at sizes similar to what was seen in previous years. Pebble counts on UT2 and UT3
indicate that fine sediment has accumulated in the channels since MY2. This is likely due to several factors.
Backwater from Silver Creek during high water events inundates the location of the pebble count along
UT2. It is likely that suspended fine sediment drops out of the water column in this backwater. Also, low
flows early in the year allowed herbaceous vegetation to encroach into the channel and impede flow. This
prevented fine particulates that entered from upstream of the project from moving through the system and
eventually filled sections of the streambed with a layer of fine silt and clay. Lastly, all three pebble counts
on the unnamed tributaries were taken in constructed riffles which were designed to be immobile. The
constructed riffle material is designed to be much coarser than the natural sediment load than the stream
receives. The natural, finer sediment load, is often then deposited on top of the constructed riffles, which
shifts the bed material to a finer grain size distribution as compared to the as -built condition. Overall, these
data indicate a properly functioning system, as there were no mid -channel bars or other sediment transport
issues.
Wetland monitoring during MY3 demonstrated that nine of the thirteen groundwater monitoring wells
located on the Site met the wetland success criteria as stated in the Site Mitigation Plan (up from three of
thirteen in MY2). The gauges that met success criteria (USAW1, USAW2, USAW5, USAW7, USAW8,
USAW9, USAW10, USAW11, and USAW13) demonstrated consecutive hydroperiods of 12 percent or
greater, ranging from 21.2 to 57.2 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 5.3 percent to 10.1
percent of the growing season. To rectify the wide range of rainfall data available from several nearby
weather stations, a recording rain gauge was placed on-site and will be used in future monitoring years.
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.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. 2
UPPER SILVER CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT,
DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 94645
NOVEMBER 2017, MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 5

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 (NCDMS 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 3 monitoring data and site photographs were collected in October 2017.
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 3 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 3 growing season was 720 stems per acre. There was also an average of 64
volunteer stems per acre, composed of six different tree species. With an average density of 720 planted
stems per acre, the Site has met the minimum interim success criteria of 320 stems per acre by the end of
Year 3, and is on track to meet the final success criteria of 260 stems per acre by the end of Year 5.
The Vegetation Problem Area that was observed and noted in the MY2 monitoring report was addressed
in Year 3. The Chinese privet found along the right floodplain of Silver Creek downstream of UT2 was
treated during June 2017. All existing privet and new growth was treated with glyphosate in this area,
and various other invasive vegetation was treated as necessary. Other target species included multiflora
rose and Japanese honeysuckle. At the end of MY3, invasive vegetation growth is under control and will
continue to be treated as necessary.
The four previously identified mowing encroachment areas from MY2 were marked using t -posts, PVC
pipe and flagging in March 2017 before the landowner began mowing. The easement boundary is now
easy to see and avoid encroachment. At the end of MY3 no areas of encroachment have been noted.
No other areas of concern regarding the vegetation were observed along Silver Creek or the tributaries.
Year 3 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.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UPPER SILVER CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT,
DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 94645
NOVEMBER 2017, MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 5

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.
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 MY3 survey. Morphological survey data is presented in Appendix D.
A longitudinal profile was surveyed for the entire length of each channel to document changes from
the as -built baseline conditions during the first year of monitoring. The survey was tied to a
permanent benchmark and measurements included thalweg, water surface, and top of low bank.
Each of these measurements was taken at the head of each feature (e.g., riffle, pool) and at the
maximum pool depth.
Stream geomorphological stability and performance during MY3 was assessed by surveying
sixteen (16) cross-sections (7 on Silver Creek, 2 on UT 1, 2 on UT2 and 5 on UT3) and a profile of
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 low levels of flow during dry periods of the year. 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 with only minor
CPAs identified. Two instances of piping were noted at two log vanes along the mainstem. These
structures are called out in the CCPV as CPA -1 and CPA -2. There is also one instance of bank
erosion and bank undercutting (CPA -3). The locations, descriptions and photos of this damage are
included in the Stream Problem Areas Table in Appendix D and in the MY3 data electronic file.
These sites will be monitored in the coming year and repaired if necessary. Overall, channel
morphology is responding as designed and meeting project goals.
Pebble count data for MY3 indicates that the shift to smaller particles on Silver Creek mainstem
has stabilized at sizes similar to what was seen in previous years. Pebble counts on UT2 and UT3
indicate that fine sediment has accumulated in the channels since MY2. This is likely due to several
factors. Backwater from Silver Creek during high water events inundates the location of the pebble
count along UT2. It is likely that suspended fine sediment drops out of the water column in this
backwater. Also, low flows early in the year allowed herbaceous vegetation to encroach into the
channel and impede flow. This prevented fine particulates that entered from upstream of the project
from moving through the system and eventually filled sections of the streambed with a layer of fine
silt and clay. Lastly, all three pebble counts on the unnamed tributaries were taken in constructed
riffles which were designed to be immobile. The constructed riffle material is designed to be much
coarser than the natural sediment load than the stream receives. The natural, finer sediment load is
often then deposited on top of the constructed riffles, which shifts the bed material to a finer grain
size distribution as compared to the as -built condition. We will monitor these reaches to determine
whether this problem resolves itself as the herbaceous vegetation dies back and high winter flows
begin to move through the system. Overall, these data indicate a properly functioning system, as
there were no mid -channel bars or other sediment transport issues.
Two beaver dams were removed from the site during MY3 near the lower end of Reach 2 (Station
22+50 and Station 25+50). These dams backed up water in the stream, but do not appear to have
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. 4
UPPER SILVER CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT,
DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 94645
NOVEMBER 2017, MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 5

done permanent damage to streambanks or structure. Photos of the dams can be found in the
Photolog.
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 .45 feet and .25 feet above bankfull, respectively.
Physical indicators of bankfull flows, such as wrack lines and debris on the bank, were also
observed throughout the reach. The event that occurred on 4/24/2017 was the highest flow recorded
in the area, and likely caused the high flow recorded on project site crest gauges and shown in Table
9, the bankfull verification information. There was also a high flow recorded on 10/23/2017-
10/24/2017 that left debris piles and wrack lines above bankfull level throughout the site, but did
not register on the crest gauge. 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.
2.3 Wetland Assessment
Thirteen automated groundwater -monitoring stations were installed in the wetland restoration
area to document the hydrologic conditions during the monitoring period. The installations
followed USACE protocols (USACE 1997). Groundwater data collected during Year 3
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. 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 MY3 demonstrated that nine of the thirteen groundwater monitoring
wells located on the Site met the wetland success criteria as stated in the Site Mitigation Plan.
Although four wells did not meet criteria, these data suggest a significant improvement in wetland
performance since MY2. The gauges that met success criteria (USAW1, USAW2, USAW5,
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UPPER SILVER CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT,
DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 94645
NOVEMBER 2017, MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 5

USAW7, USAW8, USAW9, USAW 10, USAW 11, and USAW 13) demonstrated consecutive
hydroperiods of 12 percent or greater, these ranged from 21.2 to 57.2 percent of the growing season.
The gauges that did not meet success criteria (USAW3, USAW4, USAW6, and USAW12)
demonstrated consecutive hydroperiods of 12 percent or less, with a range from 5.3 percent to 10.1
percent of the growing season. The rain data for the region (Figure 9) shows that rainfall in the
early months of 2017 was at or below average. The early months of the growing season are
generally when wetland water tables are highest on mitigation sites. This lack of early year rainfall
may have contributed to the four unsuccessful gauges. Baker will continue to monitor the
groundwater hydrology of the Site during Monitoring Year 4.
An on-site recording rain gauge was installed at the site in August 2017. Data from this gauge will
be used to measure local precipitation in the future to eliminate reliance on the nearby CRONOS
stations. These stations often show a high level of variance across a small geographic area, which
makes it difficult to determine the actual amount of rain the site receives. Having direct access to
this data will allow accurate precipitation data to be collected and presented in future monitoring
years.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UPPER SILVER CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT,
DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 94645
NOVEMBER 2017, MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 5

3.0 REFERENCES
Carolina Vegetation Survey (CVS) and NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP). 2007. CVS-
NCEEP Data Entry Tool v. 2.3.1. University of North Carolina, Raleigh, NC.
Lee, M., Peet R., Roberts, S., Wentworth, T. 2007. CVS-NCEEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation,
Version 4.1.
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP). 2009. Guidance and Content Requirements
for EEP Monitoring Reports Version 1.2.1. December 1, 2009.
Rosgen, D. L. 1994. A Classification of Natural Rivers. Catena 22:169-199.
Schafale, M. P., and A. S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the natural communities of North Carolina,
third approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. Division of Parks and
Recreation, NCDENR. Raleigh, NC.
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation
Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1. Environmental Laboratory. US Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS.
1997. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Research Program. Technical Note VN-rs-4.1.
Environmental Laboratory. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station.
Vicksburg, MS.
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
NOVEMBER 2017, MONITORING YEAR 3 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

AVERY e
cr s
1 (04-03-06
BROA
3-08-
0f tib$ ;n�,�
0 r
BROAD
03-08-02
4 To reach the project site from Asheville, follow Interstate 40 East
and take the NC -226 exit (Exit 86). From the exit, turn left onto
NC -226 and continue for 10.5 miles before turning left to take the
US -64 ramp. Turn left onto US -64 and continue for 2.5 miles
before turning left onto Gold Mine Road. Once on Gold Mine
Road, travel for approximately .75 miles and turn right at a gate
i into the project site. The project site begins where Silver Creek
i passes under US -64 and continues downstream for approximately
01--,3,000 LF. Unnamed tributaries 1 and 3 flow to the east under Gold
- / Mine Road before converging with Silver Creek. Unnamed
tributary 2 enters Silver Creek upstream of the UT1 confluence and
flows westward to Silver Creek from a forested area.
C�y-q edar Ro _
i $
eno
1
I
CATAWBA � l
-08-31
cam e11` 9 CATAA
I 11 03-08- 2
C 'ahl kounta-
\
1 H son
8
64 l
a.re is i
2!
� Gr 't Falls
---------------
4d
----fl r
4 -J 321
Rflbdh s
u or College
pg 76 Connelly Sp_/ings
v
Glen nton
HU 0305010105005
Upper Silver Creek J
Project Site
ND
CAT,
Map Inset
LEGEND:
Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map
Division
of
Mitigation
+4
NCDWQ Sub -basin
1--iCounties
0 USGS Hydrologic Unit
Project Hydrologic Unit
Upper Silver Creek
NCDMWS Project #94645
Monitoring Year 3 Report
Burke County, NC
Services
0 Burke County
r r
Burke County, IVC
0 1 2 4
v Miles
I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L

I
3oard
Michael Baker, 0 250 500 Figure 2 - Overview
Feet Current Conditions Plan View
Monitoring Year 3
I N T E R N A T I O N A L DMS Project # 94645 Upper Silver Creek Site

2-,
Reach 1
UT1-4
r. r /.4
C� PA -2
1 : -A
CMY3 Channel Problem Areas
- Repaired Stream Banks
• Groundwater Well - Fail
o Groundwater Well - Pass
Successful Vegetation Plot '
A Photo Station
® Crest Gauge
Cross Sections
In -Stream Structures
Stream Centerline
Stream Top of Bank
Q Conservation Easement
Wetland Components
Restoration: Non -Riparian
® Restoration: Riparian
® Enhancement: Non -Riparian
Enhancement: Riparian
Creation: Riparian
CPA -1
r r
Beaver dams were removed
from these two locations in
July 2017
Reach 1
_ •: Reach 2
UTUL_ UT2-3
Reach 2
0 100 200 300 Figure 2A
Michael Baker Feet Current Conditions Plan View
INTIERNATIONA L MonitoringYear3
DMS Project # 94645 Upper Silver Creek Site

QMY3 Channel Problem Areas
- Repaired Stream Banks s
Q Conservation Easement
• Groundwater Well - Fail
o Groundwater Well - Pass
Successful Vegetation Plot
n Photo Station
® Crest Gauge
Cross Sections
In -Stream Structures
Stream Centerline
Stream Top of Bank
Wetland Components
Restoration: Non -Riparian
® Restoration: Riparian
® Enhancement: Non -Riparian
Enhancement: Riparian
Creation: Riparian
;k !; � •. > � �. '", of `....': °t
•e
Reach 2
UT3-9 UT3-8
"Reach
CPA -3
9
Reach 2
Reach 1
0 100 200 300 Figure 213
Michael Baker Feet Current Conditions Plan View
Monitoring Year 3
INTERNATIONAL
DMS Project # 94645 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 Ell
R E
C R I E C
Totals 4,843 SMU 1 137 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 I
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
R1B (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 1:1
C1 (Ri)
0 Creation
0.33 WMU
0.99 AC
3:1
Component Summation
Restoration Level Stream (LF)
Ri arian Wetland (AC) Non-riparian Wetland (AC)
Buffer (SF)
Upland (AC)
Riverine Non-Riverme
Restoration 4,843
4.67
0.21
Enhancement I
2.85
0.42
Enhancement II 343
Creation
0.99
Preservation
High Quality Preservation
BMP Elements
Element Location Purpose/Function
Notes
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 3 MONITORING REPORT
UPPER SILVER CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT
DMS PROJECT 94645

each 1 UT2 - Reach 2 UT2 - Reoil
ach 1
e.'
tr 1 R6 JDW046
JDW5 4
e JDW4
6 Silver Creek - Reach 2
• l ' R5 �O R4
7�
4k
JD 9
# UT3 - Reach 2 R3 R2 10
1
o Wetland Monitoring Wells ""bill �Ff
Conservation Easement
Stream Mitigation Type UT3 -Reach 1 11 JDW1B� ]
Enhancement I
Restoration
Wetland Components � ' R1A 12
�R1B
Restoration: Non -Riparian 13
® Restoration: Riparian
® Enhancement: Non -Riparian a
Enhancement: Riparian �, r �' , ••; , ``
777= Creation: Riparian
NC Center for Geographic Inf rm fiion &Analysis
BakerMichael 0 250 500 Figure 3
!i Feet
U. Silver Cr. Project Asset Map
I N T IE IR 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 Desi — (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
Invasive vegetation treatment
N/A
N/A
Jun-17
Beaver dam removal
N/A
N/A
Jul-17
Year 3 Monitoring
Dec-17
Oct-17
Dec-17
Year 4 Monitoring
Dec-18
N/A
N/A
Year 5 Monitoring
Dec-19
N/A
N/A
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 3 MONITORING REPORT
UPPER SILVER CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT
DMS PROJECT NO. 94645

Table 3. Project Contacts
Upper Silver Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 94645
Designer
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
797 Haywood Rd Suite 201
Asheville, NC 28806
Contact:
Micky Clemmons, Tel. [phone]
Construction Contractor
River Works, Inc.
6105 Chapel Hill Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
Contact:
Phillip Todd, Tel. [phone]
Planting Contractor
River Works, Inc.
6105 Chapel Hill Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
Contact:
Phillip Todd, Tel. [phone]
Seeding Contractor
River Works, Inc.
6105 Chapel Hill Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
Contact:
Phillip Todd, Tel. [phone]
Seed Mix Sources
Green Resources (seed), Tel. [phone]
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Mellow Marsh Farm (trees), 919-742-1200
ArborGen Inc. (trees), 843-528-3204
Dykes and Son (trees), 931-668-8833
Monitoring Performers
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
797 Haywood Rd Suite 201
Asheville, NC 28806
Contact:
Stream Monitoring Point of Contact
Micky Clemmons, Tel. [phone]
Vegetation Monitoring Point of Contact
Micky Clemmons, Tel. [phone]
Wetland Monitoring Point of Contact
Micky Clemmons, Tel. [phone]
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 3 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)
35.6078N, -81.81742W
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, UTI 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
Morphological Description (Rosgen stream
E
E
Incised channel, little connection to Incised channel, little connection
type)
floodplain
to floodplain
Evolutionary Trend
E4G, E4C/F
E—G, E— C/F
Underlying Mapped Soils
AaA, FnA, UnB
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
Ve etation
10%
5%
Parameters
UT1 - Reach 1
UT2 - Reach 1
UT2 - Reach 2
Length of Reach LF
495
103
207
Valley Classification (Rosgen)
III
III
in
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
Incised
type)
channel
channelized/ditched channel
floodplain
Evolutionary Trend
Gc4F
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
5%
2%
2%
Vegetation
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 3 MONITORING REPORT
UPPER SILVER CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT
DMS PROJECT NO. 94645

Parameters
UT3 - Reach 1
UT3 - Reach 1
Length of Reach 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
Morphological Description (Rosgen stream B/E E
Aggrading at upper end then stable
Incised channel, little connection
type)
to incising at lower end
to floodplain
Evolutions 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 Slope 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%
Veizetation
Wetland
SummarUy 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 Flooding
Overbank Flooding
Overbank Flooding
Overbank Flooding
Overbank 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.nc.gov/about/divisions/mitigation-services/dms-
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 3 MONITORING REPORT
UPPER SILVER CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT
DMS PROJECT NO. 94645

Appendix C
Vegetation Assessment Data
Includes:
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
Stems'
Volunteers2
Tota 13
Success
Criteria Met?
1
1174
121
1295
Yes
2
1133
40
1174
Yes
3
445
121
567
Yes
4
688
0
688
Yes
5
850
0
850
Yes
6
647
0
647
Yes
7
607
0
607
Yes
8
567
405
971
Yes
9
445
0
445
Yes
10
769
202
971
Yes
11
769
0
769
Yes
12
728
0
728
Yes
13
647
0
647
Yes
14
607
0
607
Yes
Project Avg
720
64
783
Stem Class characteristics
1Stream/ Wetland Native planted woody stems. Includes shrubs, does NOT
Stems include live stakes. No vines
2Volunteers Native woody stems. Not planted. No vines.
s Total Planted + volunteer native woody stems. Includes live
stakes. Excl. exotics. Excl. 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 10/19/2017 14:26
database name MY3_94645_UpperSilver_cvs-eep-entrytool-v2.3.1.mdb
database location L:\projects\120598-Upr-Silver-FD\Monitoring\YR3 Monitoring\2.0 - Monitoring
Data\App C - Vegetation Data
computer name ASHELRMYERS
file size 63311872
DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT------------
Metadata
Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a summary of
project(s) and project data.
Proj, planted
Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre, for each year. This
excludes live stakes.
Proj, total stems
Each project is listed with its TOTAL stems per acre, for each year. This includes
live stakes, all planted stems, and all natural/volunteer stems.
Plots
List of plots surveyed with location and summary data (live stems, dead stems,
missing, etc.).
Vigor
Frequency distribution of vigor classes for stems for all plots.
Vigor by Spp
Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species.
Damage
List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences and percent
of total stems impacted by each.
Damage by Spp
Damage values tallied by type for each species.
Damage by Plot
Damage values tallied by type for each plot.
Planted Stems by Plot and Spp
A matrix of the count of PLANTED living stems of each species for each plot;
dead and missing stems are excluded.
Stems by Plot and spp
PROJECT SUMMARY ---------
Project Code
project Name
Description
River Basin
length(ft)
stream -to -edge width (ft)
area (sq m)
Required Plots (calculated)
Sampled Plots
A matrix of the count of total living stems of each species (planted and natural
volunteers combined) for each plot; dead and missing stems are excluded.
94645
Upper Silver Creek
Full Delivery stream and wetland restoration site
Broad
5,169'
Minimum of 30 ft
62,321 sq. m.
14
14

Table 7. Stem Count Arranged By Plot
Project: Upper Silver Creek, DMS Project #94645
Current Plot Data (MY3 2017)
Current Plot Data (MY3 2017)
Annual Means
Scientific Name Common Name Species Type
P
Scientific Name Common Name
Species Type
94645-01-0001
P—F V T
94645-01-0002
P 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
P
94645-01-0008
V
T
P
94645-01-0009
V
T
Acer rubrum red maple
Tree
1
1
1
6
6
1
1
1
1
12
1
13
13
1
14
3
3
12
12
Alnus serrulata hazel alder
Shrub
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
Betula nigra river birch Tree
Betula nigra river birch
Tree
1
3
3
6
2
3
2
3
1
1
20
1
19
1
3
21
3
21
8
8
Carpinus caroliniana American hornbeam Tree
Carpinus caroliniana American hornbeam
Tree
1
1
3
3
2
2
1
1
1
11
1
12
1
1
9
9
1
1
Cornus amomum silky dogwood
Shrub
11
3
3
2
1
2
1
1
1
6
30
6
4
37
4
2
32
2
16
Coryluscornuta beaked hazelnut Shrub Tree
Coryluscornuta beaked hazelnut
Shrub Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Diospyros virginiana common persimmon Tree
Diospyros virginiana common persimmon
Tree
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash
Tree
2
4
2
4
2
18
18
8
19
8
1
19
1
1
12
1
Liquidambar styraciflua sweetgum
Tree
3
3
3
1
1
Liriodendron tulipifera tuliptree Tree
2
2
4
Liriodendron tulipifera tuliptree
Tree
1
1
6
7
13
1
1
1
11
11
10
10
Platanus occidentalis American sycamore Tree
5
2
5
7
1
2
Platanus occidentalis American sycamore
Tree
9
3
12
4
1
5
2
62
2
6
59
6
4
60
4
3
48
3
5
5
4
5
9
2
2
Quercus oak
Tree
1
1
2
2
Quercus lyrata overcup oak Tree
1
1
Quercus lyrata overcup oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus michauxii swamp chestnut oak Tree
1
1
2
1
1
8
Quercus michauxii swamp chestnut oak
Tree
1
4
1
6
35
6
1
32
1
2
33
2
2
20
2
3
3
3
3
2
2
Quercus nigra water oak
Tree
3
3
3
3
4
3
4
4
4
Quercus pagoda cherrybark oak Tree
1
Quercus pagoda cherrybark oak
Tree
1
1
Quercus phellos willow oak Tree
10
10
2
2
1
1
2
Quercus phellos willow oak
Tree
2
32
2
4
32
4
32
17
3
17
3
3
3
5
5
Unknown
Shrub or Tree
2
7
7
10
10
6
6
Vaccinium corymbosum 1highbush blueberry Shrub
2
2
Vaccinium corymbosum highbush blueberry
Shrub
1
1
1
1
1
1
Viburnum dentatum Isouthern arrowwood Shrub
20
Viburnum dentatum isouthern arrowwood
Shrub
14
21
14
3
21
3
21
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
19
5
769
5
1
0.02
4
1 202
24
7
971
19
6
769
0
1
0.02
0
0
19
6
769
18
9
1 728
0
1
0.02
0
1 0
18
9
728
16
4
647
0
1
0.02
0
0
16
4
647
2
0
1
0.02
0
0
2
1
22
14
0.35
6
64
1
256
17
740
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
29
7
1174
3
1
0.02
1
121
32
7
1295
28
8
1133
1
1
0.02
1
40
29
8
1174
11
6
445
3
1
0.02
1
121
14
7
567
17
8
688
0
1
0.02
0
0
17
8
688
21
5
850
0 t21
1
0.02
0
0
5
850
16
7
647
0
1
0.02
0
0
16
7
647
15
6
607
0
1
0.02
0
0
15
6
607
14
6
567
10
1
0.02
2
405
24
6
971
11
5
445
0
1
0.02
0
0
11
5
445
Table 7. Stem Count Arranged By Plot, Continued
Project: Upper Silver Creek, DMS Project #94645
Current Plot Data (MY3 2017)
Annual Means
Scientific Name Common Name Species Type
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
P
MY3 (2017)
V
T
P
MY2(2016)
V I
T
P
MY1(2015)
V
T
P
MYO(2015)*
V
T
Acer rubrum red maple Tree
1
1
1
1
12
1
13
13
1
14
14
14
12
12
Alnus serrulata hazel alder Shrub
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
Betula nigra river birch Tree
1
1
3
3
6
6
3
3
1
1
20
20
19
19
21
21
8
8
Carpinus caroliniana American hornbeam Tree
1
1
1
1
10
1
11
11
1
12
11
11
9
9
Cornus amomum silky dogwood Shrub
11
11
3
3
2
2
30
30
32
5
37
32
32
16
16
Coryluscornuta beaked hazelnut Shrub Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Diospyros virginiana common persimmon Tree
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash Tree
2
2
4
4
18
18
18
1
19
19
19
12
12
Liquidambar styraciflua sweetgum Tree
3
3
1
1
Liriodendron tulipifera tuliptree Tree
2
2
4
6
7
13
7
1
8
11
11
10
10
Platanus occidentalis American sycamore Tree
5
5
1
1
2
2
3
3
3
3
53
9
62
54
5
59
60
60
48
48
Quercus oak Tree
1
1
2
2
Quercus lyrata overcup oak Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus michauxii swamp chestnut oak Tree
1
1
2
1
1
8
8
4
4
34
1
35
32
32
33
33
20
20
Quercus nigra wateroak Tree
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
Quercus pagoda cherrybark oak Tree
1
1
1
1
Quercus phellos willow oak Tree
10
10
2
2
1
1
2
2
32
32
32
32
32
32
17
17
Unknown Shrub or Tree
2
2
7
7
10
10
6
6
Vaccinium corymbosum 1highbush blueberry Shrub
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Viburnum dentatum Isouthern arrowwood Shrub
20
20
21
21
21
21
21
21
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
19
5
769
5
1
0.02
4
1 202
24
7
971
19
6
769
0
1
0.02
0
0
19
6
769
18
9
1 728
0
1
0.02
0
1 0
18
9
728
16
4
647
0
1
0.02
0
0
16
4
647
15
6
607
0
1
0.02
0
0
15
6
607
249
18
720
22
14
0.35
6
64
271
19
783
256
17
740
16
14
0.35
8
46
272
19
786
277
18
801
0
14
0.35
0
0
277
18
801
189
16
850
0
9
0.22
0
0
189
16
850
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 plots to meet guidelines. Five additional plots were added in the Fall of 2015 and the MY1 and later means include these additional plots

Figure 4. Upper Silver Creek - Vegetation Plot Photos, DMS Project #94645
Photo 1. Vegetation Plot 1 — Tree photo (October 17, 2017).
Photo 2. Vegetation Plot 1 — Herbaceous photo (October 17,
2017).
Photo 3. Vegetation Plot 2 — Tree photo (October 17, 2017). Photo 4. Vegetation Plot 2 — Herbaceous photo (October 17,
2017).
t 4-
Photo 5. Vegetation Plot 3 — Tree photo (October 17, 2017). Photo 6. Vegetation Plot 3 — Herbaceous photo (October 17,
2017).

41
ai
TL
jx
I
4, . 71DOMP

1#01, 01
6%
- ; `7• 4^��i.
Photo 13. Vegetation Plot 7 — Tree photo (October 17, 2017). Photo 14. Vegetation Plot 7 — Herbaceous photo (October 17,
2017).
W711 717M I
Photo 15. Vegetation Plot 8 — Tree photo (October 17, 2017)
Photo 16. Vegetation Plot 8 — Herbaceous photo (October 17,
2017).
Photo 17. Vegetation Plot 9 — Tree photo (October 17, 2017). Photo 18. Vegetation Plot 9 — Herbaceous photo (October 17,
2017).

Photo 19. Vegetation Plot 10 — Tree photo (October 17,
2017).
Photo 20. Vegetation Plot 10 — Herbaceous photo (October
17, 2017).
Photo 21. Vegetation Plot 11 — Tree photo (October 17,
2017).
Photo 22. Vegetation Plot 11 — Herbaceous photo (October
17, 2017).
Photo 23. Vegetation Plot 12 — Tree photo (October 17,
2017).
Photo 24. Vegetation Plot 12 — Herbaceous photo (October
17, 2017).

s hs�-..? S ..J`11.. Y�iJ�' � � S xv::i.-.. •�.;�' �; �: •' . >v. _6h� . ,
- �.? �•'��� •. r',�,rq`. r4:. ..6+:5°'� '. r�F".
I —'+
� ��� .'�y1:.Y.�r.i.- �.�Z� t•
FU-
�:? ,f�� •moi: N: i n �+•j �y�:
•:ti's ..�i - - F1.I-�'� �t.:. _ �!'::.Y��. _ _-
+� 'I: its Y —•q'` €� , • �:r 4_►:
•-q°:r.. a i', :• ' s
M1 � •'t h .' ... Wil'+. :'� "4r.
_ • J � � -� • �k.e A _ .. ').ems � roc
�k � '"(fir .r'x�, ::�� y't' � � ��.:.� , y - � - •i'� w� ��
�:..: ,`: gig}=•: t .'3: •�, - '�;v
. ... - rr�a. y '. +.1p'� zn1�, ,T 4 �� •. yCiM•' -. • " -

Appendix D
Stream Assessment Data
Includes:
Figure 5. Stream Photos by Channel and Station
Table 8. Visual Morphological Stability Assessment
Table 9. Verification of Bankfall 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 3 Stream Summary
Table 11. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary

Figure 5. Upper Silver Creek Stream Photos by Channel and Station — MY3 (2017)
Photo 1. Mainstem Photo Point 1 — Station 29+26
(October 18, 2017) downstream view from left bank.
Photo 2. Mainstem Photo Point 1 — Station 29+26
(October 18, 2017) upstream view from left bank.
Photo 3. Mainstem Photo Point 2 — Station 26+44
(October 18, 2017) downstream view from left bank.
Photo 4. Mainstem Photo Point 2 — Station 26+44
(October 18, 2017) upstream from left bank.
Photo 5. Mainstem Photo Point 3 — Station 24+70
(October 18, 2017) upstream from right bank.
Photo 6. Mainstem Photo Point 3 — Station 24+70
(October 18, 2017) downstream from right bank.

Photo 7. Mainstem Photo Point 4 (PP4) — Station 20+30
(October 18, 2017) downstream from left bank.
Photo 8. Mainstem Photo Point 4 (PP4) — Station 20+30
(October 18, 2017) upstream from left bank.
Photo 9. Mainstem Photo Point 5 — Station 16+03
(October 18, 2017) upstream from right bank.
Photo 10, Mainstem Photo Point 5 — Station 16+03
(October 18, 2017) downstream from right bank.
Photo 11. Mainstem Photo Point 6 — Station 13+03
(October 18, 2017) upstream from right bank.
Photo 12. Mainstem Photo Point 6 — Station 13+03
(October 18, 2017) downstream from right bank.

Photo 13. Mainstem Photo Point 7 — Station 10+11
(October 18, 2017) downstream from left bank.
Photo 14. Mainstem Photo Point 7 — Station 10+11
(October 18, 2017) upstream from left bank.
Photo 15. Mainstem Photo Point 8 — Station 5+06
(October 18, 2017) upstream from right bank.
Photo 16. Mainstem Photo Point 8 — Station 5+06
(October 18, 2017) downstream from right bank.
Photo 17. Mainstem Photo Point 9 — Station 3+87
(October 18, 2017) downstream from left bank.
Photo 18. Mainstem Photo Point 9 — Station 3+87
(October 18, 2017) upstream from left bank.

Photo 19. Mainstem Photo Point 10 — Stat. 1+22
(October 18, 2017) downstream from left bank.
Unnamed Tributary 1 - Monitoring Year 3 (2017)
Photo 21. UT 1 Photo Point 1 — Station 4+82
(October 18, 2017) upstream from left bank.
Photo 20. Mainstem Photo Point 10 — Stat. 1+22
(October 18, 2017) upstream from left bank.
Intentionally Left Blank
Photo 22. UTI Photo Point 2 — Station 4+07
(October 18, 2017) downstream from left bank.
Photo 23. UTI Photo Point 2 — Station 4+07
(October 18, 2017) upstream from left bank.

Photo 24. UTI Photo Point 3 — Station 2+55
(October 18, 2017) upstream from right bank.
Photo 25. UTI Photo Point 3 — Station 2+55
(October 18, 2017) downstream from right bank.
Photo 26. UTI Photo Point 4 — Station 0+55
(October 18, 2017) downstream from left bank.
Unnamed Tributary 2 — Monitoring Year 3 (2017)
Photo 27. UTI Photo Point 4 — Station 0+55
(October 18, 2017) upstream from left bank.
Photo 28. UT2 Photo Point 1 — Station 2+15
(October 18, 2017) downstream from left bank.
Photo 29. UT2 Photo Point 1 — Station 2+15
(October 18, 2017) upstream from left bank.

Photo 30. UT2 Photo Point 2 — Station 0+96
(October 18, 2017) upstream from right bank.
Photo 31. UT2 Photo Point 2 — Station 0+96
(October 18, 2017) downstream from right bank.
Photo 32. UT2 Photo Point 3 — Station 0+02
(October 18, 2017) downstream from right bank.
Unnamed Tributary 3 — Monitoring Year 3 (2017)
Photo 34. UT3 Photo Point 1 Station 12+10
(October 18, 2017) downstream from left bank.
Photo 33. UT2 Photo Point 3 — Station 0+02
(October 18, 2017) upstream from right bank.
Photo 35. UT3 Photo Point 1 Station 12+10
(October 18, 2017) upstream from left bank.

Photo 36. UT3 Photo Point 2 — Station 10+66
(October 18, 2017) upstream from right bank.
Photo 37. UT3 Photo Point 2 — Station 10+66
(October 18, 2017) downstream from right bank.
Photo 38. UT3 Photo Point 3 — Station 8+10
(October 18, 2017) downstream from left bank.
Photo 39. UT3 Photo Point 3 — Station 8+10
(October 18, 2017) upstream from left bank.
Photo 40. UT3 Photo Point 4 — Station 7+05
(October 18, 2017) downstream from left bank.
Photo 41. UT3 Photo Point 4 — Station 7+05
(October 18, 2017) upstream from left bank.

Photo 42. UT3 Photo Point 5 — Station 5+95
(October 18, 2017) downstream from left bank.
Photo 43. UT3 Photo Point 5 — Station 5+95
(October 18, 2017) upstream from left bank.
Photo 44. UT3 Photo Point 6 — Station 4+55
(October 18, 2017) upstream from right bank.
Photo 45. UT3 Photo Point 6 — Station 4+55
(October 18, 2017) downstream from right bank.
Photo 46. UT3 Photo Point 7 — Station 3+60
(October 18, 2017) upstream to structure.
Photo 47. UT3 Photo Point 8 — Station 2+70
(October 18, 2017) upstream to structure.

Photo 48. UT3 Photo Point 9 — Station 1+90
(October 18, 2017) upstream to structure.
Photo 49. UT3 Photo Point 10 — Station 0+60
(October 18, 2017) downstream to structure.
Beaver dam located at Station 25+50 (6/28/2017)
Beaver dam located at Station 22+50 (6/28/2017)

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. Sufficiently dee Max Pool D:Mean Bkf >1.6?
4
4
0
100
3. Length appropriate?
4
4
0
100
100%
C. Thalweg
1. Upstream of pool structure centering? %
100
100
0
100
2. Downstream of pool structure centering? %
100
100
0
100
100%
D. Meanders
1. Outer bend in state of limited/controlled erosion?
3
4
0
75
2. Of those eroding, # w/concomitant point bar formation?
4
4
0
100
3. Apparent Rc within spec?
4
4
0
100
4. Sufficient flood Iain access and relief?
4
4
0
100
100%
E. Bed
1. General channel bed aggradation areas bar formation
838
838
0
100
General
2. Channel bed degradation - areas of increasing down -
cutting or head cutting?
838
838
0
100
100%
F. Vanes,
1. Free of back or arm scour?
6
6
0
100
Rock/Log
2. Height appropriate?
6
6
0
100
Drop
3. Angle and geometry appear appropriate?
6
6
0
100
Structures
4. Free of piping or other structural failures?
6
6
0
100
100%
G. Wads/
1. Free of scour?
4
4
0
100
Boulders
2. Footing stable?
4
4
0
100
100%
Silver Creek, Reach 2 2,178 LF)
Feature
Category
Metric (per As -Built and reference baselines)
(# Stable) Number
Performing
as Intended
Total Number
Total number / feet in unstable
per As -Built state
% Performing
in Stable
Condition
Feature
Perfomance
Mean or Total
A. Rif0es
1. Present?
17
17
0
100
2. Armor stable (e.g. no displacement)?
17
17
0
100
3. Facet grades appears stable?
17
17
0
100
4. Minimal evidence of embedding/fining?
17
17
0
100
5. Len th appropriate?
17
17
0
100
100%
B. Pools
1. Present? e.. not subject to severe aggradation or migration?)
16
16
0
100
2. Sufficiently dee Max Pool D:Mean Bkf >1.6?
16
16
0
100
3. Length appropriate?
16
16
0
100
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 Re 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 cutting?
2,178
2,178
0
100
100%
F. Vanes,
1. Free of back or arm scour?
21
21
0
100
Rock/Log
2. Height appropriate?
21
21
0
100
Drop
3. Angle and geometry appear appropriate?
21
21
0 1
100
4, Free of piping or other structural failures?
19
21
3
90
98%
rStructures
WGads/
1. Free of scouR
14
14
0
100
ders
2. Footing stable?
14
14
0
100
100%

Table 8. Visual Morphological Stability Assessment - Continued
Upper Silver Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 94645
UT1 (502 LF)
Feature
Category
Metric (per As -Built and reference baselines)
(# Stable) Number
Performing
as Intended
Total number
per As -Built
Total Number
/feet in unstable
state
% 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 embedding/fining?
7
7
0
100
5. Length appropriate.
7
7
0
100
100%
B. Pools
1. Present? e.. not subject to severe aggradation or migration?)
10
10
0
100
2. Sufficiently dee Max Pool D:Mean Bkf >1.6?
10
10
0
100
3. Length appropriate?
10
10
0
100
100%
C. Thalweg'
1. Upstream of pool structure centering? %
100
100
0
100
2. Downstream of pool structure centering? %
100
100
0
100
100%
D. Meanders
1. Outer bend in state of limited/controlled erosion?
7
7
0
100
2. Of those eroding, # w/concomitant point bar formation?
7
7
0
100
3. Apparent Rc within spec?
7
7
0
100
4. Sufficient flood Iain 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 cutting?
502
502
0
100
100%
F. Vanes,
1. Free of back or arm scour?
11
11
0
100
Rock/Log
2. Height appropriate?
11
11
0
100
Drop
3. Angle and geometry appear appropriate?
11
11
0
100
Structures
4. Free of piping or other structural failures?
11
11
0
100
100%
G. Wads/
1. Free of scour?
N/A
N/A
N/AN/A
Boulders
2. Footing stable?
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
100
Feature
Category
UT2, Reach 1 (103 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. Rif0es
1. Present?
4
4
0
100
2. Armor stable (e.g. no displacement)?
4
4
0
100
3. Facet grades appears stable?
4
4
0
100
4. Minimal evidence of embedding/fining?
4
4
0
100
5. Length appropriate?
4
4
0
100
100%
B. Pools
1. Present? e.. not subject to severe aggradation or migration?)
5
5
0
100
2. Sufficiently dee Max Pool D:Mean Bkf >1.6?
5
5
0
100
3. Length appropriate?
5
5
0
100
100%
C. Thalweg
1. Upstream of pool structure centering? %
100
100
0
100
2. Downstream of pool structure centering? %
100
100
0
100
100
D. Meanders
1. Outer bend in state of limited/controlled erosion?
N/A
N/A
N/A
100
2. Of those eroding, # w/concomitant point bar formation?
N/A
N/A
N/A
100
3. Apparent Re within spec?
N/A
N/A
N/A
100
4. Sufficient flood Iain access and relief?
N/A
N/A
N/A
100
100%
E. Bed
1. General channel bed aggradation areas bar formation
103
103
0
100
General
2. Channel bed degradation - areas of increasing down -
cutting or head 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
5
0
100
Structures
4, Free of piping or other structural failures?
5
5
0
100
100%
G. Wads/
1. Free of scour?
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Boulders
2. Footing stable?
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
NIA

Table 8. Visual Morphological Stability Assessment - Continued
Upper Silver Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 94645
Feature
Category
UT2, Reach
Metric (per As-Built and reference baselines)
2 207 LF
(# Stable) Number
Performing
as Intended
Total Number
Total number /feet in unstable
per As-Built state
% Performing
in Stable
Condition
Feature
Perfomance
Mean or Total
A. Rif0es
1. Present?
4
4
0
100
2. Armor stable (e.g. no displacement)?
4
4
0
100
3. Facet grades appears stable?
4
4
0
100
4. Minimal evidence of embedding/fining?
4
4
0
100
5. Length appropriate?
4
4
0
100
100%
B. Pools
1. Present? e.. not subject to severe aggradation or migration?)
3
3
0
100
2. Sufficiently dee Max Pool D:Mean Bk` >1.6?
3
3
0
100
3. Length appropriate?
3
3
0
100
100%
C. Thalweg
1. Upstream of pool structure centering? %
100
100
0
100
2. Downstream of pool structure centering? %
100
100
0
100
100%
D. Meanders
1. Outer bend in state of limited/controlled erasion?
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 flood Iain 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-
I cutting or head cutting?
207
207
0 1
100
100%
F. Vanes,
1. Free of back or arm scour?
1
1
0
100
Rock/Log
2. Height appropriate?
1
1
0
100
Drop
3. Angle and geometry appear appropriate?
1
1
0
100
Structures
4. Free of piping or other structural failures?
1
1
0
100
100%
G. Wads/
1. Free of scour?
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Boulders
2. Footing stable?
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
NIA
Table 8. Visual 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 unstablePerfomance
per As-Built state
YNIA
Feature
Mean or Total
A. Riffles
1. Present?
N/A
N/A
N/A
2. Armor stable (e.g. no displacement)?
N/A
N/A
N/A
3. Facet grades appears stable?
N/A
N/A
N/A
4. Minimal evidence of embedding/fining?
N/A
N/A
N/A
5. Len th appropriate?
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
NIA
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
N/A
C. Thalweg
1. Upstream of pool structure centering? %
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2. Downstream of pool structure centering? %
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
NIA
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 flood Iain access and relief?
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
E. Bed
1. General channel bed aggraclation areas bar formation
343
343
0
100
General
2. Channel bed degradation - areas of increasing down-
cutting or head cutting?
343
343
0
100
100%
F. Vanes,
1. Free of back or arm scour?
3
3
0
100
Rock/Log
2. Height appropriate?
3
3
0
100
Drop
3. Angle and geometry appear appropriate?
3
3
0
100
Structures
4, Free of piping or other structural failures?
3
3
0
100
100%
rG-ads/
1. Free of scouR
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
ders
2. Footing stable?
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
NIA

Table 8. Visual Morphological Stability Assessment - Continued
Upper Silver Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 94645
Feature
Category
UT3 Reach
Metric (per As -Built and reference baselines)
2 (1,022 LF
(# Stable) Number
Performing
as Intended
Total Number
Total number /feet in unstable
per As -Built state
% Performing
in Stable
Condition
Feature
Perfomance
Mean or Total
A. Rif0es
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. Sufficiently dee Max Pool D:Mean Bk` >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 erasion?
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 flood Iain 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 -
I cutting or head cutting?
1,022
1,022
0
100
100%
F. Vanes,
1. Free of back or arm scour?
15
15
0
100
Rock/Log
2. Height appropriate?
15
15
0
100
Drop
3. Angle and geometry appear appropriate?
15
15
0
100
Structures
4. Free of piping or other structural failures?
15
15
0
100
100
G. Wads/
1. Free of scour?
4
4
0
100
Boulders
2. Footing stable?
4
4
0
100
100%

Table 9. Verification of Bankfull or Greater than Bankfull Events
Upper Silver Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 94645
Gauge Watermark Height (inches)*
Date of Data
Collection
Date of Event
Method of Data
Collection
Silver Creek
UT3
Station 19+00
Station 8+10
2/29/2016
See table below
Crest gauge
15.0
5.0
5/2/2017
See table below
Crest Gauge
5.4
3.0
* 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.
Photo 1. Silver Creek mainstem crest gauge
staff showing cork deposition in red circle at
0.45' above the bottom of the staff, which
is at the bankfull elevation. (5/2/2017)
Photo 2. UT3 crest gauge staff showing cork
deposition in red circle at 0.25' above the
bottom of the staff, which is at the bankfull
elevation (5/2/2017).
Photo 3. Silver Creek stream bank showing
accumulated debris of wrack line and bent over
vegetation well above bankfull. Verifies crest
Photo 4. Silver Creek stream bank showing
accumulated debris of wrack line and bent over
vegetation well above bankfull. Verifies crest
gauge measurement. (11/1/2017) crest gauge measurements (11/1/2017).

Figure 6. Cross-sections with Annual Overlays
Permanent Cross-section 1
(MY3 Data - collected October, 2017)
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
41.90
1 24.91
1.68
3.11
14.83
1.06
3.85
1197.38
1197.96
1201
1200
1199
0 1198
w
m
1197
W 1196
1195
1194
1193
Silver Creek Cross-section 1, Station 27+24
Monitoring Year 3
0 20 40 60 80 100
Station (ft)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank

Permanent Cross-section 2
(MY3 Data - collected October, 2017)
Based on fixed baseline BKF
Feature
Stream
Type BKF Area
Width
BKF
Depth
ax
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool
- 52.03
34.54
1 1.51
4.48
22.87
1 1.00
2.55
1198.20
1198.21
Silver Creek Cross-section 2, Station 26+36
Monitoring Year 3
1204
1203
1202
1201
1200
ca
1199
1198 ......................
---o--- Floodprone
W 1 197 - • • • • • Bankfull
1196 AB 2015
1195 MY1 2015
1194 MY2 2016
1193 I MY3 2017
0 20 40 60 80 100
Station (ft)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank

Permanent Cross-section 3
(MY3 Data - collected October, 2017)
Based on fixed baseline BKF
Feature
tream
Type
BKF Area
Width
Depth
ax
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool
-
46.81
39.84
1 1.17
3.81
34.05
1 1.07
2.27
1202.34
1202.51
1207
1206
1205
1204
1203
0
1202
1201
Iw
1200
1199
1198
1197
1196
Silver Creek Cross-section 3, Station 18+98
Monitoring Year 3
0 20 40 60 80 100
Station (ft)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank

Permanent Cross-section 4
(MY3 Data - collected October, 2017)
Based on fixed baseline BKF
tream BK Max
Feature Type BKF Area Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle C 1 41.90 24.00 1 1.75 3.13 1 13.71 1 1.02 3.63 1 1203.01 1203.07
Looking at the Left Bank Looking at the Right Bank
Silver Creek Cross-section 4, Station 17+94
Monitoring Year 3
1207
—
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------o
1206
1205
^
1204
0
1203
...................
- --o--- Floodprone
LLl
1202
• • • • • Bankfull
1201
AB 2015
MY1 2015
1200
MY2 2016
MY3 2017
1199
0 20 40 60
80 100
Station (ft)
Looking at the Left Bank Looking at the Right Bank

Permanent Cross-section 5
(MY3 Data - collected October, 2017)
Based on fixed baseline BKF
tream BK BKF Max BKF
Feature Type BKF Area Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle C 1 41.56 25.01 1 1.66 2.77 15.07 1 1.01 3.48 1 1204.82 1204.82
1208
1207
1206
c
0 1205
ca
w 1204
1203
1202
1201
0
Silver Creek Cross-section 5, Station 12+07
Monitoring Year 3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------o
---o--- Floodprone
•••••• Bankfull
AB 2015
MY1 2015
MY2 2016
MY3 2017
20
40 60
Station (ft)
80 100
Looking at the Left Bank Looking at the Right Bank

Permanent Cross-section 6
(MY3 Data - collected October, 2017)
Based on fixed baseline BKF
tream BK BKF Max
Feature Type BKF Area Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Pool - 1 57.16 35.96 1 1.59 4.63 1 22.62 1 1.01 1.89 1 1208.14 1208.14
1214
1212
1210
r_
0
m 1208
m
LU 1206
1204
1202
0
Silver Creek Cross-section 6, Station 3+57
Monitoring Year 3
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Station (ft)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank

Permanent Cross-section 7
(MY3 Data - collected October, 2017)
Based on fixed baseline BKF
tream BK BKF Max BKF
Feature Type BKF Area Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle C 1 46.23 25.75 1 1.80 3.20 14.31 1 1.04 4.93 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 3
1212
1211
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------�
1210
1209
c
1208
------------------
m
W
1207
- -o--- Floodprone
------- Bankfull
1206
AB 2015
MY1 2015
1205
MY2 2016
M Y3 2017
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
(MY3 Data - collected October, 2017)
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
4.61
9.28
1 0.50
1.10
18.56 1 1.18 5.83 1 1215.38 1215.58
1217
1216.5
1216
0
> 1215.5
a�
w
1215
1214.5
1214
UT3 Cross-section 8, Station 6+22*
Monitoring Year 3
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
(MY3 Data - collected October, 2017)
Based on fixed baseline BKF
tream ax
Feature Type BKF Area Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Pool - 1 5.30 10.57 1 0.50 1 1.47 1 21.14 1 1.24 5.93 1 1212.81 1213.17
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.
UT3 Cross-section 9, Station 8+12*
Monitoring Year 3
1214.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- o
1214
$
1213.5
c
1213
1212.5
W
---o--- Floodprone
1212
------- Bankfull
AB 2015
MY1 2015
1211.5
MY2 2016
MY3 2017
1211
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
(MY3 Data - collected October, 2017)
Based on fixed baseline BKF
Feature
tream
Type
IBKFAreal
Width
Depth
ax BKF
Depth
I W/D
I BH Ratio
I ER
I BKF Elev
I TOB Elev
Riffle
E
1 5.27
1 7.29
0.72
1.09
1 10.13
1 1.06
1 9.42
1 1212.89
1 1212.96
1214.5
1214
1213.5
1213
ca
w 1212.5
1212
1211.5
1211
UT3 Cross-section 10, Station 8+33*
Monitoring Year 3
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 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
(MY3 Data - collected October, 2017)
Based on fixed baseline BKF
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool
-
7.12
11.35
1 0.63
1.65
18.02
1.10
6.43 1209.27
1209.40
1212
1211
1210
c
0
> 1209
m
LU
1208
1207
1206
0
UT3 Cross-section 11, Station 11+53*
Monitoring Year 3
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
(MY3 Data - collected October, 2017)
Based on fixed baseline BKF
tream ax
Feature Type BKF Area Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle C 1 4.40 7.62 1 0.58 1 0.87 13.14 1 1.17 6.94 1 1208.77 1208.93
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*
Monitoring Year 3
1211
1210.5
1210
$
-------------------------------------------------------------------
1209.5
0
1209 --
--- Floodprone
- - . - -
W
1208.5
- ... - . Banktull
1208
AB 2015
MY1 2015
1207.5
MY2 2016
MY3 2017
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
(MY3 Data - collected October, 2017)
Based on fixed baseline bankfull
Feature
Stream
Type
IBKFAreal
Width
Depth
ax
Depth
W/D
I BH Ratio
I ER
I BKF Elev
I TOB Elev
Riffle
E
1 6.96
1 9.02
0.77
1.11
1 11.71
1 1.10
15.59
1 1203.99
1 1204.11
1205.5
1205
$ 1204.5
0
c�
1204
W
1203.5
1203
1202.5
UT1 Cross-section 13, Station 1+57
Monitoring Year 3
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Station (ft)
Looking at the Left Bank Looking at the Right Bank

Permanent Cross-section 14
(MY3 Data - collected October, 2017)
Based on fixed baseline bankfull
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF BKF
Width Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Pool
-
7.01
6.43 1 1.09
1.76
5.90 1 1.34 12.59 1201.59 1202.19
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
UT1 Cross-section 14, Station 3+28
Monitoring Year 3
1204
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- o
1203
$ 1202
c
1201
ca
M 1200
---o--- Floodprone
...... Bankfull
1199
AB 2015
MY1 2015
1198
MY2 2016
MY3 2017
1197
0 20 40 60 80
Station (ft)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank

Permanent Cross-section 15
(MY3 Data - collected October, 2017)
Based on fixed baseline BKF
Feature
tream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool
-
2.02
5.46
1 0.37
0.69
14.76
1 1.30
12.34
1 1201.91
1202.12
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
UT2 Cross-section 15, Station 2+15
Monitoring Year 3
1203
1202.5
1202
0
m 1201.5
LU
1201
---o--- Floodprone
...... Bankfull
AB 2015
1200.5
MY1 2015
MY2 2016
MY3 2017
1200
11
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Station (ft)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank

Permanent Cross-section 16
(MY3 Data - collected October, 2017)
Based on fixed baseline BKF
Feature
tream
Type
BKF Area
Width
Depth
ax
Depth W/D
BH Ratio
ER BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
C
1.37
5.11
1 0.27
0.66 18.93
1 1.23
7.97 1201.21
1201.36
1202.5
1202
0 1201.5
_m
UJ 1201
1200.5
1200
UT2 Cross-section 16, Station 2+53
Monitoring Year 3
0 10 20 30 40 50
Station (ft)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank

Figure 7. Longitudinal Profiles with Annual Overlay

Monitoring Year 3, Profile of UT1, Station 0+00 to 5+00
Data collected October, 2017
1209
Low Bank
1208
WSF
--
AB 2015
1207
MY1 2015
1206
_...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._..
MY2 2016
X-13 X-14
MY3 2017
1205 --------
-- --
- ------
1204
----
_..._... _ _... _.._.._...._..._.. _...._ _.._.._. _.._.._. _.._.._.. _.._.._ _.._..._
_... _... _ _... _... _ _... _... _ _... _... _
_... _... _.. _
1203
-
- - - - -- - - - - --.._.._.. _..---
c
.2
1202
_......
4-0
c�
a)
1201
_ _.._.._ ................. ..... ..... ..... _... _... _ ... _... _... ... _...
_... _... -- _.._.._ _.._.._.._.._
W
1200
-
- --- --- ---
-------------------------------------------------
1199
1 99
- _...._...
_.... _.... _...._ _...._ _...._ _...._. _...._.. _...._.. _.._.._.. _.._.._ _.._.._ _.._.._ _.._.._ _.._.._ _.._.._. _.._.._. _.._.._.. _.._.._ _.._.._ _
1198
- ---
--- ---
1197
.. ............
1196
1195
1194
1193
0
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
450 500
Station (ft)

1207
1206
1205
1204
1203
c
O
> 1202
a)
W
1201
1200
1199
1198
1197
Monitoring Year 3 Profile of UT2, Station 0+00 to 3+20
Data collected October, 2017
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Station (ft)

W
1226
1225
1224
1223
1222
1221
1220
1219
1218
1217
1216
1215
1214
1213
1212
1211
1210
1209
1208
1207
1206
1205
1204
1203
1202
0
Monitoring Year 3, Profile of UT3, Station 0+00 to 14+00
Data collected October 2017
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
Station (ft)
1000 1100 1200 1300 1400

Figure 8. Pebble Count Plots with Annual Overlays
Cross -Section Pebble Count; Monitoring Year 3
U. Silver Creek Mitigation Project, DMS# 94645
SITE OR PROJECT: U. Silver Cr
REACH/LOCATION: Riffle at XS4
FEATURE: Riffle
DATE: 17 -Oct -17
MATERIAL
PARTICLE
SIZE mm
Total
MY3 2017
Class %
%Cum
Distribution
Plot Size (mm)
Silt/Clay
Silt / Clay
<.063
0%
0.063
Very Fine
.063 -.125
0%
0.125
Pebble Count
Fine
.125-.25
4
4%
4%
0.25
Sand
Medium
.25-.50
3
3%
7%
0.50
Coarse
.50 - 1.0
5
5%
12%
1.0
Very Coarse
1.0-2.0
12%
2.0
Very Fine
2.0-2.8
12%
2.8
---MY22016
Very Fine
2.8-4.0
12%
4.0
Fine
4.0-5.6
2
2%
13%
5.6
Fine
5.6-8.0
4
4%
17%
8.0
Gravel
Medium
8.0 - 11.0
9
9%
26%
11.0
Medium
11.0 - 16.0
10
10%
36%
16.0
50%
Coarse
16-22.6
9
9%
44%
22.6
Coarse22.6-32
10
10%
54%
32
Ve Coarse
32-45
17
16 /
70 %
45
Very Coarse
45-64
18
17%
88%
64
Cobble
Small
64-90
7
7%
94%
90
Small 90-128 1 1 % 95%
128
Lar e
128-180
5
5%
100 %
180
Laze 180 - 256 100%
256
Boulder
Small
256-362
100%
362
Small 362-512 100%
512
Medium
512-1024
1
100%
1024
Large -Very Large
1024-2048
100%
2048
Bedrock
Bedrock
1 >2048
100% 1
5000
Total % ofwhole count 1 104 1 100% 1
Largest particle= 180
Summary Data
Channel materials
D16: 7.1 D84= 59.6
D35 = 15.6 D95 = 119.3
D50= 27.8 D100= 128 -180
U.
Silver Creek Site
Mainstem
at XS4
Pebble Count
Particle Size Distribution
100%
90%
--*--AB 2015
�MY1 2015
80%
---MY22016
70%
fMY32017
=
60
v
�
50%
IL
>
40%
W
30%
E
U
20%
10%
0%
0.01 0.1
1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
U. Silver Creek Site
Mainstem at XS4
Reach Pebble Count Size Class Distribution
100
901/.
AB 2015
■ MY1 2015
80
■ MY2 2016
70%
• MY3 2017
60%
c
50%
d
Il
N
40%
m
30%
U
20%
�
10%
0%
1ry�h ry�°1 �Op �Op ryOp ���
�Op ebb �O ~~ ~b0 �� A� �ry� ��o rybb �bti h1ti
b�p''> �
L�b�
tirybb ti�ryb ry�6 ry�6
ti b �
Noryp;
Particle Size Class (mm)

Cross -Section Pebble Count; Monitoring Year 3
U. Silver Creek Mitigation Project, DMS# 94645
SITE OR PROJECT: U. Silver Cr
REACH/LOCATION: Riffle at XS7
FEATURE: Riffle
DATE: 17 -Oct -17
MATERIAL
PARTICLE
I SIZE mm
Total
MY3 2017
I Class % I
% Cum
Distribution
Plot Size (mm)
Silt/Clay
Silt / Clay
<.063 1
1 1
0%
0.063
Very Fine
.063-125 .125
100%
0 %
0.125
Fine
.125-25 .25
1
1 %
1 %
0.25
Sand
Medium
.25-50 .50
10
10%
11%
0.50
Course
.50-1.0
2
2%
13%
1.0
70%
Very Coarse
1.0-2.0
13%
2.0
Very Fine
2.0-2.8
13%
2.8
Very Fine
2.8-4.0
a
13%
4.0
Fine
4.0-5.6
2
2%
15%
5.6
Fine
5.6-8.0
5
5%
20%
8.0
Gravel
Medium
8.0 - 11.0
6
6%
25%
11.0
U 20%
Medium
11.0 - 16.0
13
13%
38%
16.0
-
Coarse
16-22.6
11
11%
49%
22.6
Coarse
22.6 - 32
13
13%
62%
32
0.01
Ve Course
32-45
10
10%
72%
45
Ve Coarse
45-64
7
7%
78%
64
Riffle at XS7
Small
64-90
11
11%
89%
90
Cobble
Small
90-128
6
6%
95 %
128
Laze
128-180
3
3%
98%
180
Large
180-256
2
2%
100 %
256
C
Small
256-362
u 50%
v
100%
362
Boulder
Small
362-512
100%
512
Medium
512-1024
20%
100%
1024
Large -Very Large
1024 - 2048
100 %
2048
Bedrock
I Bedrock
> 2048
0%
100%
5000
Total % ofwhole count 1 1 102 1 100% I
Largest particle= 210
Summary Data
Channel materials
D16= 6.2 D84= 76.3
D35 = 14.5 D95 = 127.3
D50= 1 23.2 1 D100 = 180-2561
U. Silver Creek Site
Riffle at XS7
Pebble Count Particle Size Distribution
100%
90%
-""AB 2015
-4-MY]. 2015
80%
-Ar -W2 2016
70%
tMY32017
60%
d
d 50%
a
40%
21.
30%
E
U 20%
L__A
10%
-
---
EM
0%
0.01
0.1
1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
U. Silver Creek Site
Riffle at XS7
Reach Pebble Count Size Class Distribution
100
90%
• AB 2015
■ MY1 2015
80%
■ MY2 2016
70%
■MY32017
60%
C
u 50%
v
IL 40%
N
A
30%
U
20%
10%
0%
titi�� 'L5E y0o N"'
'1O 'yb� t�0o ybb'bO ,y'Lbb ,��' p5 �` q0 ,�,y`b ��O ry5b �bti ��ti 4 �
`ob"1
�, 1b0 �oyD.
ti 40' '�o' ry
Particle Size Class (mm)

Cross -Section Pebble Count; Monitoring Year 3
U. Silver Creek Mitigation Project, DMS# 94645
SITE OR PROJECT: U. Silver Cr
1!j EACH/LOCATION: UTl XS13
FEATURE: Riffle
DATE: 17 -Oct -17
MATERIALI
PARTICLE
SIZE mm
Total
MY3 2017
I Class % I
% Cum
Distribution
Plot Size (mm)
Silt/Clay
I Silt / Clay
<.063
6
1 6%
6%
0.063
■ AB 2015
■ MY 2015
Very Fine
.063-125 .125
6%
0.125
Fine
.125 - .25
■MY32017
6%
0.25
Sand
Medium
.25-50 .50
2
2 %
8%
0.50
Coarse
.50 - 1.0
5
50/6
13%
1.0
d
IL
Very Coarse
1.0 - 2.0
40%
w
1
13%
2.0
Very Fine
2.0-2.8
13%
2.8
V
Very Fine
2.8-4.0
1
1 %
13%
4.0
Fine
4.0-5.6
1
1 %
14%
5.6
Fine
5.6-8.0
5
5%
19%
8.0
Gravel
Medium
8.0 - 11.0
6
6%
25%
11.0
Medium
11.0 - 16.0
15
14%
39%
16.0
Coarse
16-22.6
9
9%
48%
22.6
Coarse22.6
- 32
4
4%
52%
32
Ve Coarse
32 - 45
10
62%
45
Ve Coarse
45-64
19
128%
80 %
64
Small
64 - 90
14
13 %
93 %
90
Cobble
Small
90 - 128
4
4 %
97 %
128
Laze
128-180
2
2%
99%
180
Laze
180-256
1
1%
100%
256
Small
256-362
100%
362
Boulder
Small
362- 512
100%
512
Medium
512_ 1024
100%
1024
Large -Very Laze
1024-2048
100%
2048
Bedrock
Bedrock
>2048
100%
5000
Total % of whole count 104 1 100
Largest particle= 220
Summary Data
Channel materials
D16= 6.3 D84= 71.2
D35 = 14.3 1 D95 = 1 105.5
D50 = 26.9 1 D100 = 1 180-256
U. Silver Creek Site
UT1 at XS13
Reach Pebble Count Size Class Distribution
100
90%
■ AB 2015
■ MY 2015
80%
m MY2 2016
70%
■MY32017
60
c
50%
d
IL
40%
w
A
30%
V
20
10%
fmt..
0%
k.A.Aut.
LMI
pbM �ti5 tis 5p �o 'Lo ti� ap 5b �p �,o �bO �'yb �ti b5 b°` 9p titin ti6p ry5b �bti btiti ,pti5` rypp� rypp4
L'Z1.1 ' 1TS' ,tis' Sp' ,,p' ryO' ti� bp' yb' gyp' 11p' b' ryryb n�'Y C,`'� b6` op' ,ry6' p' r�hC�' „�brL �1rL 1pryp,, �7
Particle Size Class (mm)

Cross -Section Pebble Count; Monitoring Year 3
U. Silver Creek Mitigation Project, DMS# 94645
SITE OR PROJECT: U. Silver Cr
REACH/LOCATION: UT2 XS16
FEATURE: Riffle
DATE: 17 -Oct -17
MATERIAL
PARTICLE
SIZE mm
Total
MY3 2017
I Class % I
% Cum
Distribution
Plot Size (mm)
Silt/Clay
Silt / Clay
<.063 1
86
86% 1
86% 1
0.063
Very Fine
.063-125 .125
86 %
0.125
Fine
.125-25 .25
100%
86%
0.25
Sand
Medium
.25-50 .50
90%
86 %
0.50
Coarse
.50-1.0
86%
1.0
Very Coarse
1.0-2.0
8671
2.0
Very Fine
2.0-2.8
86%
2.8
� 60%
d
Ve Fine
2.8-4.0
1
1%
87%
4.0
Fine
4.0-5.6
1
1%
88%
5.6
Fine
5.6-8.0
88%
8.0
Gravel
Medium
8.0 - 11.0
3
3%
91%
11.0
Medium
11.0 - 16.0
30%
91%
16.0
Course
16-22.6
2
2%
93%
22.6
Coarse
22.6 - 32
2
2 %95%
32
Ve Coarse
32-45
95%
45
10%
Ve Coarse
45-64
2
2%
97%
64
Small
64-90
1
1%
98%
90
Cobble
Small
90-128
98%
128
1000 10000
Laze
128-180
1
1%
99%
180
Large
180-256
1
1%
100%
256
Small
256-362
100%
362
Boulder
Small
362-512
100%
512
Medium
512-10241
1
100%
1024
Lar e-Ve Lar e
1024-2048
100%
2048
Bedrock
Bedrock
> 2048
■MY3 2017
100%
5000
Total % ofwhole count 1 100 1 100% I
Largest particle= 190
Summary Data
Channel materials
D16= D84=
D31:
D95 = 45.0
550= 13100 = 180 - 256
U. Silver Creek Site
UT2 at XS16
Pebble Count Particle Size Distribution
100%
90%
80
70%
� 60%
d
d 50%
a
> 40%
30%
—a—AB 2015
E 20%
+MY12015
—r�MY2 2016
10%
fMY3 2017
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
■ MYl 2015
80%
■ MY2 2016
70%
■MY3 2017
60%
c
50%
`m
Q.
40%
yr
A
30%
U
20%
10%
NAL
0%
IJA
ob^1
�ti5 tis 5� ti� ti� ti� a� 5b 4� 1 bo ,yb ��' p5 01 �p 41
liO rybb �bti b�ti otia ��
� • �,
• ,yq' ,Ly' gyp' ��gyp' ryg' bp' bb' �;� 0 � b;L b ,S,y' �5• �' o, �• o• b• ,y ti ti �ti
ti `b' 1 q `l`'1 nib
ob
1ti. ryti' titi
tib c'ti'L �p'Lb
Particle Size Class (mm)

Cross -Section Pebble Count; Monitoring Year 3
U. Silver Creek Mitigation Project, DMS# 94645
SITE OR PROJECT: U. Silver Cr
REACH/LOCATION, UT3 XS8
FEATURE: Riffle
DATF.: 17 -Oct -17
MATERIALI
PARTICLE
SIZE mm
Total
MY32017
Class %
=
% Co.
Distribution
Plot Size (mm)
Silt/Clay
Silt / Clay
<.063
14
13%
13%
0.063
at XS8
Very Fine
.063-.125
13%
0.125
Fine
.125-25 .25
22
21%
35%
0.25
Sand
Medium
.25-50 .50
35
34%
68%
0.50
Coarse
.50 - 1.0
6
6%
74 %
1.0
Very Coarse
1.0-2.0
747/,
2.0
Very Fine
2.0-2.8
74%
2.8
Very Fine
2.8-4.0
80%
74%
4.0
Fine
4.0-5.6
1
1 %
75%
5.6
70%
Fine
5.6-8.0
1
1 %
76%
8.0
Gravel
Medium
8.0 - 11.0
2
2%
78%
11.0
Medium
11.0 - 16.0
1
1 %
79%
16.0
Coarse
16-22.6
1
1 %
80%
22.6
Coarse
22.6 - 32
1
1 %
81%
32
Ve Coarse
32 - 45
3
3%
84%
45
A
Very Coarse
45-64
11
11%
94%
64
Hill
Small
64-90
2
2%
96%
90
Cobble
Small
90-128
3
3%
99%
128
Large
128-180
1
1 %
100 %
180
M 20%
U
Large
180-256
100%
256
Small
256-362
10%
100%
362
Boulder
Small
362-512
100%
512
Medium
512-1024
100 %
1024
Large -Very Large
1024-2048
100%
2048
Bedrock
Bedrock
> 2048
100%
5000
Total % of whole count 1 1 104 1 100
Largest particle= 200
Summary Data
U.
Silver
Channel materials
D16 =
0.14 D84 =E28
2
D35 =
0.25 D95 =5
D50 =
0.34 D100 =80
at XS8
U.
Silver
Creek Site
UT3
at XS8
Pebble Count
Particle
Size Distribution
100%
90
_111111—All 2015
+MYI 2015
80%
---MY2 2016
70%
fMY32017
ti;
60%
d
d 50%
CL
> 40%
A
1 11
Hill
m 30%
E
M 20%
U
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
90
■ AB 2015
■ MYl 2015
80%
0MY22016
70%
■ MY3 2017
60
c
50%
4)
IL
40%
N
R
30%
U
20%
10%
0%
b0' 0y' °• °' fib' tib n1`y b5Fi' �o' ry4moo' yy' dry' ,y p,' '7
Particle Size Class (mm)

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
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
29.1
24.6
24.9
24.9
35.7
29.5
34.0
34.5
43.5
39.5
42.0
39.8
23.8
23.5
23.5
24.0
BF Mean Depth ft
1.7
1.8
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.8
1.5
1.5
1.7
1.5
1.2
1.2
2.0
1.9
1.8
1.8
Width/Depth Ratio
17.2
13.9
13.8
14.8
21.8
16.8
23.3
22.9
25.2
27.3
35.2
34.1
11.8
12.4
13.5
13.7
BF Cross-sectional Area ft
49.2
43.4
45.0
41.9
58.3
51.9
49.6
52.0
74.9
57.3
50.2
46.8
48.0
44.2
41.1
41.9
BF Max Depth ft
3.0
2.9
3.2
3.1
4.0
3.9
4.3
4.5
5.2
4.0
4.0
3.8
3.3
3.2
3.1
3.1
Width of Floodprone Area ft
>300
>300
>300
>300
>300
>300
>300
>300
>300
>300
>300
>300
>300
>300
>300
>300
Entrenchment Ratio
3.3
3.9
3.8
3.9
2.5
3.0
2.6
2.6
2.1
2.3
2.2
2.3
3.7
3.7
3.7
3.6
Bank Height Ratio
1.10
1.00
1.10
1.06
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.70
0.70
1 0.90
1.07 1
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.02
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
32.428.1
28.5
28.3
38.9
33.0
36.9
37.6
46.9
42.4
44.4
42.2
27.8
27.3
27.0
27.5
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
1.5
1.5
1.6
1.5
1.5
1.6
1.3
1.4
1.6
1.4
1.1
1.1
1.7
1.6
1.5
1.5
Fixed baseline bankfull elevation
1197.4
1197.4
1197.4
1197.4
1198.2--F
1198.2
1198.2
1198.2
1202.3
1202.3
1202.3
1202.3
1203.0
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 ft
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 Floodprone Area ft
>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
1.10
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.70
0.70
0.90
1.00
1.00
1.00
Wetted Perimeter ft
32.4
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 (ft )
d50 (mm)
36.6
41.3
25.1
* Corrected from baseline report.
Cross-section X-5, Station 1206.9 (Riffle)
Cross-section X-6, Station 357.2 (Pool)
Cross-section 7, Station 302.5 (Riffle)
Dimension and substrate
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3 MY4 MY5
MY+ Base
MYl
MY2
MY3 MY4 MY5
MY+ Base
MYl
MY2
MY3 MY4 MY5
MY+ Base
MYl
MY2
MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
BF Width (ft)
28.4
26.1
25.2
25.0
43.5
41.9
34.6
36.0
26.6
25.9
25.8
25.8
BF Mean Depth (ft)
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.8
1.8
1.7
1.6
2.1
2.0
1.8
1.8
Widtb/Depth Ratio
17.3
15.7
15.0
15.1
23.6
23.9
20.5
22.6
13.0
13.3
14.0
14.3
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft2)
46.9
43.4
42.3
41.6
80.1
73.5
58.3
57.2
54.5
50.6
47.6
46.2
BF Max Depth (ft)
2.9
2.8
2.8
2.8
5.3
5.0
3.8
4.6
3.3
3.2
3.0
3.2
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
>300
>300
>300
>300
>300
>300
>300
>300
>300
>300
>300
>300
Entrenchment Ratio
3.1
3.3
1 3.5
3.5
1.6
1.6
2.0
1.9
1 4.8
4.9
4.9
4.9
Bank Height Ratio
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.01
1.00
0.90
1.00
1.01
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.04
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
31.7
29.4
28.6
28.3
47.2 1
45.4
38.0
39.1
30.7
29.8
29.5
29.4
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.7
1.7
1.5
1.5
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.6
Fixed baseline bankfull elevation
1208.8
1208.8
1208.8
1208.8
1208.1
1208.1
1208.1
1208.1
1208.2
1208.2
1208.2
1208.2
Based on current/developing bankfull feature
If
I
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
Widtb/Depth Ratio
17.3
15.7
15.3
23.6
23.9
20.5
13.0
13.3
14.1
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft2)
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 Floodprone 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
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.90
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
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 (ft)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
d50 (mm)
33.4
15.2
16.0
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
MONITORING YEAR 3 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 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
BF Width(ft)
9.6
9.3
9.2
9.0
9.3
8.6
6.6
6.4
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.8
0.5
0.5
BF Mean Depth ft
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.8
2.0
1.3
1.4
1.1
14.8
16.0
15.7
14.5
Width/Depth Ratio
10.3
12.3
12.2
11.7
4.7
6.8
4.8
5.9
1.4
BF Max Depth (ft)
1.7
0.8
BF Cross-sectional Area (ftp)
8.9
7.0
7.0
7.0
18.5
10.9
9.0
7.0
>100
>100
>100
>100
BF Max Depth (ft)
1.3
1.1
1.1
1.1
3.7
2.5
2.6
1.8
8.7
8.0
Bank Height Ratio
1.10
Width ofFlood rone Area (ft)
>150
>150
>150
>150
>150
>150
>150
>150
7.3
6.5
6.2
7.4
Entrenchment Ratio
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
8.7
9.4
12.3
12.6
0.3
0.3
0.2
Fixed baseline bankfull elevation
Bank Height Ratio
1.00
1.10
1.10
1.10
1.10
1.20
1.20
1.34
Wetted Perimeter 11
11.5
10.8
10.7
10.6
13.3
11.1
9.3
8.6
6.6
5.8
5.5
-
Hydraulic Radius ft
0.8
0.6
0.7
0.7
1.4
1.0
1.0
0.8
Width/Depth Ratio
8.9
13.9
12.3
Fixed baseline bankfull elevation
1204.0
1204.0
1204.0
1204.0
1201.6
1201.6
1201.6
1201.6
2.7
2.2
2.1
Based on current/developing bankfull feature
BF Max Depth (ft)
1.7
1.0
0.8
0.9
0.8
0.7
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
10.5
2.0
1.4
1.6
8.1
Width/Depth Ratio
10.3
12.0
12.1
1.10
4.7
8.0
5.3
1.10
BF Cross-sectional Area (ftp)
8.9
7.9
8.2
7.5
18.5
15.0
13.1
6.2
BF Max Depth ft
1.3
1.2
1.2
0.4
3.7
2.9
3.2
0.3
Width of Flood roneArea ft
>150
>150
>150
-
>150
>150
>150
-
Entrenchment Ratio
5.3
5.2
5.1
-
8.7
7.4
9.7
13.6
Bank Height Ratio
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.10
1.00
1.00
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
Cross Sectional Area between end pins (ft)
-
-
-
-
-
-
d50 (mm)
38.8
43.6
32.9
UT2 (310 LF)
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 MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
BF Width (ft)
7.3
6.4
5.6
5.5
6.6
5.8
4.7
5.1
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.8
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
Widtb/Depth Ratio
8.9
13.9
12.3
14.8
16.0
15.7
14.5
18.9
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft2)
6.1
3.0
2.5
2.0
2.7
2.2
1.5
1.4
BF Max Depth (ft)
1.7
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.9
0.8
0.6
0.7
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
>100
>100
>100
>100
>100
>100
>100
>100
Entrenchment Ratio
9.2
10.5
12.1
12.3
7.0
7.1
8.7
8.0
Bank Height Ratio
1.10
1.20
1.40
1.30
1.20
1.00
1.20
1.23
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
9.0
7.3
6.5
6.2
7.4
6.6
5.3
5.7
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.7
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.2
Fixed baseline bankfull elevation
1201.9
1201.9
1201.9
1201.9
1201.2
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 (ft2)
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 (ft)
>100
>100
>100
>100
>100
>100
Entrenchment Ratio
9.2
8.1
10.5
7.0
7.1
8.1
Bank Height Ratio
1.10
1.10
1.10
1.20
1.00
1.10
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 3 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
MYI
MY2
MY3 MY4 MY5
MY+ Base
MYI
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
9.3
10.7
9.5
9.4
10.6
8.1
7.0
7.2
7.3
13.0
11.5
11.4
11.4
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.65
0.61
0.5
0.5
1.0
0.8
0.5
0.5
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.7
1.0
0.9
0.6
0.6
Width/Depth Ratio
15.5
14.5
18.1
18.6
10.5
11.6
20.4
21.1
10.3
10.2
9.7
10.1
12.8
13.7
18.7
18.0
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft2)
6.5
5.3
4.7
4.6
10.9
7.8
4.3
5.3
6.3
4.8
5.3
5.3
13.2
9.7
6.9
7.1
BF Max Depth (ft)
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.7
1.6
1.2
1.5
1.1
0.9
1.1
1.1
2.2
1.9
1.7
1.7
Width ofFloodprone Area (ft)
>150
>150
>150
>150
>150
>150
>150
>150
>150
>150
>150
>150
>150
>150
>150
>150
Entrenchment Ratio
5.4
6.1
5.9
5.8
5.8
6.6
6.7
5.9
8.5
9.9
9.6
9.4
5.6
6.3
6.4
6.4
Bank Height Ratio
1.00
1.10
1.00
1.18 1 1
1 1.00 1
1.20
1.20
1.24
1.10
1.20
1.10
1.06
1.00
1.10
1.10
1.10
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
11.4
10.0
10.2
10.3
12.8
11.1
10.3
11.6
9.6
8.3
8.7
8.7
15.1
13.2
12.6
12.6
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.9
0.7
0.4
0.5
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.6 1
0.9
0.7
0.5
0.6
Fixed baseline bankfull elevation
1215.4 1
1215.4
1215.4
1215.4
1212.8
1212.8
1212.8
1212.8
1212.9
1212.9
1212.9
1212.9 1 1
1209.3
1209.3
1209.3
1209.3
Based on current/developing bankfuB 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 (ftp)
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 ofFloodprone 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
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.10
1.10
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
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 (ft')
d50 mun)l
31.2
20.4
16.4
Cross-section X-12, Station 11+84 (Riffle)
Dimension and substrate
Base
MYI
MY2
MY3 MY4 MY5
MY+ Base
MYI
MY2
MY3 MY4 MY5
MY+ Base
MYI
MY2
MY3 MY4 MY5
MY+ Base
MY]
MY2
MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
BF Width (ft)
8.2
7.8
7.7
7.6
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.9
0.7
0.7
0.6
Width/Depth Ratio
9.1
10.6
11.7
13.1
BF Cross-sectional Area (ftp)
7.3
5.8
5.0
4.4
BF Max Depth (ft)
1.4
1.1
0.9
0.9
Width ofFloodproneArea (ft)
>150
>150
>150
>150
Entrenchment Ratio
9.4
7.0
7.3
6.9
Bank Height Ratio
1.20
1.30
1.30
1.17
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
10.0
9.3
9.0
8.8
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.5
Fixed baseline bankfull elevation
1208.8
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 (ft2)
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
1.20
1.00
1.00
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 3 REPORT
UPPER SILVER CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT
DMS PROJECT NO. 94645

Appendix E
Wetland Assessment Data
Includes:
Figure 9. Observed Rainfall vs Historical Average
Figure 10. Wetland Gauge Graphs
Table 12. Wetland Gauge Attainment data
Figure 11. Wetland Photo Log

Figure 9. Observed Rainfall vs. Historical Average
Upper Silver Creek Project, MY3
Observed Rainfall vs. Historic Average
10.0
9.0
8.0
zor
7.0
v 6.0
v
c 5.0
r
- -r
4.0
`.
.•
.EL
a
L
- -r'
�'
- -•''
a
3.0
�
•f
.
2.0
10,
�- -
1.0
0.0
January February March April May June July August September October November December
— •- • Historic Average — •— • Historic 30% probable --6- • Historic 70% probable Rutherfordton, NC (KFQD)
t Spindale, NC (SPIN) --*—Marion, NC (NGRF) --*—Morganton, NC (KMRN)
Historic rainfall data from Burke County Soil Survey, NRCS, pg. 420
Rainfall data source for Rutherfordton, NC: http://climate.ncsu.edu/cronos?station=KFQD&temporal=hourly
Rainfall data source for Spindale, NC: http://climate.ncsu.edu/cronos?station=SPIN&temporal=hourly
Rainfall data source for Marion, NC: http://climate.ncsu.edu/cronos?station=NGRF&temporal=hourly
Rainfall data source for Morganton, NC: http://climate.ncsu.edu/cronos?station=KMRN&temporal=hourly
Rainfall data source for historic averages: Morganton, NC WETS Table (1971-2016)

Figure 10. Wetland gauge graphs for each well, showing depth to groundwater and rainfall during MY3.
Upper Silver Creek Rain
1/1/2017 2/15/2017 4/1/2017 5/16/2017 6/30/2017 8/14/2017 9/28/2017
11/12/2017 12/27/2017
0.0
c
1.0
w
R
IX
2.0
Rainfall data from CRONOS Station KQFD in Rutherfordton, NC
Upper Silver Creek Wetland Restoration Well
(USAW1)
10
Ground
5
Surface
0
� V r
1'111\�11�1►�" 111\�►II I���I���� I
' NNN
-12 inches
r
-5
i��l�11�17
m
-10
1111L �I�ll�►'�ii111\A�II�I� I��III►I�ilr�
��'��I�il■ I�11� ���■
USAW1
m
il����l�llr�l r��l
C_
-15
p20
M
—
— Begin
OLGrowing
25
SeasonL
YR3 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
End
Q
y
-30
Growing
�
Season
-35
(4/3/2017-5/15/2017)
-40
-45Well
1
installed
-50
1/1/2017 2/15/2017 4/1/2017 5/16/2017 6/30/2017 8/14/2017 9/28/2017
11/12/2017 12/27/2017
Date
1

Figure 10. Wetland gauge graphs (continued)
I
1
Upper Silver Creek Rain
1
1
1/1/2017 2/15/2017 4/1/2017 5/16/2017 6/30/2017 8/14/2017 9/28/2017
11/12/2017
12/27/2017
0.0
1
YR3 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
CRITERIA MET - 71 (34.1%)
(5/20/2017-7/29/2017)
1
1
1
I
Well installed - 3/31/2015
I
c
w
1.0
R
2.0
Rainfall data from CRONOS Station KQFD in Rutherfordton, NC
Upper Silver Creek Wetland Restoration Well
(USAW2)
10
5
Ground
Surface
0
-12 inches
-5
i IVA I
I& oil
USAW2
-15
c
— Begin
Q
-20
—
0
Growing
C
Season
t
�'
-25
-30
—
— End
Q
Growing
-35
Season
-40
-45
-50
1/1/2017 2/15/2017 4/1/2017 5/16/2017 6/30/2017 8/14/2017 9/28/2017
11/12/2017
12/27/2017
Date
I
1
1
1
1
I
1
YR3 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
CRITERIA MET - 71 (34.1%)
(5/20/2017-7/29/2017)
1
1
1
I
Well installed - 3/31/2015
I
GROWING SEASON
(4/3 - 10/29)

Figure 10. Wetland gauge graphs (continued)
Upper Silver Creek Rain
1/1/2017 2/15/2017 4/1/2017 5/16/2017 6/30/2017 8/14/2017 9/28/2017
11/12/2017 12/27/2017
0.0
c
1.0
w
R
IX
2.0
Rainfall data from CRONOS Station KQFD in Rutherfordton, NC
Upper Silver Creek Wetland Restoration Well
(USAW3)
10
Ground
5
Surface
0
-12 inches
r
-5
m
-10
USAW3
m
C_o
-15
-20
—
— Begin
Growing
C
25
OL
Season
Q
—
— End
y
-30CRI
Growing
O
-35
Season
-40
GROWING SEASON
-45
-50
1/1/2017 2/15/2017 4/1/2017 5/16/2017 6/30/2017 8/14/2017 9/28/2017
11/12/2017 12/27/2017
Date
■1`■I■I■I�'lli■■11■��I�11� � IL�IIII��r�
1 ,

10. Wetland
Upper Silver Creek Rain
1/1/2017 2/15/2017 4/1/2017 5/16/2017 6/30/2017 8/14/2017 9/28/2017 11/12/2017 12/27/2017
0.0
c
1.0
w
R
IX 2.0
10
5
0
-5
a, -10
-15
o -20
-25
Q -30
m
0
-35
-40
-45
50
Rainfall data from CRONOS Station KQFD in Rutherfordton, NC
Upper Silver Creek Wetland Restoration Well
(USAW4)
1/1/2017 2/15/2017 4/1/2017 5/16/2017 6/30/2017 8/14/2017 9/28/2017 11/12/2017 12/27/2017
Date
I
I I1it��_��III ����I■1� I.IIII�-I�III
\i\1■■l��lllll�ri■►�'�ll■alb ��■�� 11'�■IIIII�■■��
I KIM 11 R if fil ILI Li in 1
11
LIN
M
1��& 11W
mills
MOST • DAYS
CRITERIA NOT
GROWING•
IWell installed •
'
1/1/2017 2/15/2017 4/1/2017 5/16/2017 6/30/2017 8/14/2017 9/28/2017 11/12/2017 12/27/2017
Date

Figure 10. Wetland gauge graphs (continued)
I
1
Upper Silver Creek Rain
1
I
1
1/1/2017 2/15/2017 4/1/2017 5/16/2017 6/30/2017 8/14/2017 9/28/2017
11/12/2017 12/27/2017
0.0
1
I
I
c
I
YR3 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
CRITERIA MET - 119 (57.2%)
(4/3/2017-7/29/2017)
I
1.0
1
I
Well installed - 3/31/2015
w
GROWING SEASON
(4/3 -10/29)
R
IX
2.0
Rainfall data from CRONOS Station KQFD in Rutherfordton, NC
Upper Silver Creek Wetland Restoration Well
(USAW5)
10
Ground
5
Surface
0
12 inches
-5
S
d
-10
USAW5
R
-15
c
O
—
— Begin
-20
Growing
25
Season
Q -30
—
— End
m
Growing
Season
-35
-40
-45
-50
1/1/2017 2/15/2017 4/1/2017 5/16/2017 6/30/2017 8/14/2017 9/28/2017
11/12/2017 12/27/2017
Date
I
1
I
1
I
1
I
1
I
I
I
YR3 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
CRITERIA MET - 119 (57.2%)
(4/3/2017-7/29/2017)
I
1
I
Well installed - 3/31/2015
GROWING SEASON
(4/3 -10/29)

Figure 10. Wetland gauge graphs (continued)
Upper Silver Creek Rain
1/1/2017 2/15/2017 4/1/2017 5/16/2017 6/30/2017 8/14/2017 9/28/2017
11/12/2017 12/27/2017
0.0
c
1.0
it
w
R
IX
2.0
Rainfall data from CRONOS Station KQFD in Rutherfordton, NC
Upper Silver Creek Wetland Restoration Well
(USAW6)
10
Ground
5
Surface
0-
-12 inches
-5
-10
l■is■VAI►Nww�imi ■iwllwEullwi�� �iwwlwlw■Iw■
USAW6
-15
00 WN AN ram
O
20
—
—Begin
Growing
25
Season
w
t
— End
-30
Growing
p
Season
-35 -
• CONSECUTIVE
YR3 MAYS
-40
(9/1/2017 - 9/16/2017)
GROWING SEASON
-45 -
-50
1/1/2017 2/15/2017 4/1/2017 5/16/2017 6/30/2017 8/14/2017 9/28/2017
11/12/2017 12/27/2017
Date
it

10. Wetland
Upper Silver Creek Rain
1/1/2017 2/15/2017 4/1/2017 5/16/2017 6/30/2017 8/14/2017 9/28/2017 11/12/2017 12/27/2017
0.0
c
1.0
w
R
IX 2.0
10
5
0
-5
a, -10
R
-15
c
o -20
-25
t
Q -30
m
-35
-40
-45
50
Rainfall data from CRONOS Station KQFD in Rutherfordton, NC
Upper Silver Creek Wetland Restoration Well
(USAW7)
I 1
I 1
I 1
I 1
I I
I I
1 YR3 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS 1
CRITERIA MET -110 (52.9%)
(4/3/2017-7/20/2017) 1
GROWING SEASON
Well installed - 3/31/2015 (4/3 - 10/29)
1/1/2017 2/15/2017 4/1/2017 5/16/2017 6/30/2017 8/14/2017 9/28/2017 11/12/2017 12/27/2017
Date
Ground
Surface
12 inches
USAW7
Begin
Growing
Season
End
Growing
Season

10. Wetland
1/1/2017
0.0
c
1.0
w
R
W 2.0
10
5
c
0
L
d
M -5
3
3 -10
0
L
0 -15
0
s -20
G
m
o -25
-30
-35
-40
-45
50
uge graphs (continued)
2/15/2017 4/1/2017
Upper Silver Creek Rain
5/16/2017 6/30/2017 8/14/2017 9/28/2017 11/12/2017 12/27/2017
Rainfall data from CRONOS Station KC.FD in Rutherfordton, NC
Upper Silver Creek Wetland Restoration Well
(USAW8)
I 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1
YR3 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
CRITERIA MET - 46 (22.1%)
(4/3/2017-5/17/2017)
1
1 GROWING SEASON
Well installed - 3/31/2015 1 (4/3 -10/29)
1/1/2017 2/15/2017 4/1/2017 5/16/2017 6/30/2017 8/14/2017 9/28/2017 11/12/2017 12/27/2017
Date
Ground
Surface
12 inches
USAW8
Begin
Growing
Season
End
Growing
Season

Figure 10. Wetland gauge graphs (continued)
Upper Silver Creek Rain
��ll►�1i1►11�"►I►1�\11111111�11�1� 11��1111��7'
1/1/2017 2/15/2017 4/1/2017 5/16/2017 6/30/2017 8/14/2017 9/28/2017
11/12/2017 12/27/2017
0.0
c
w
1.0
R
2.0
Rainfall data from CRONOS Station KQFD in Rutherfordton, NC
Upper Silver Creek Wetland Restoration Well
(USAW9)
10
5
Ground
Surface
c
0
d
-12 inches
3
-5
3
-10
USAW9
L
C7
-15
s
-20
—
— Begin
a
25
Growing
Season
30
—
— End
Growing
CRITERIA ME' -
Season
-35
-40
GROWING SEASON
-45
-50
1/1/2017 2/15/2017 4/1/2017 5/16/2017 6/30/2017 8/14/2017 9/28/2017
11/12/2017 12/27/2017
Date
��ll►�1i1►11�"►I►1�\11111111�11�1� 11��1111��7'

Figure 10. Wetland gauge graphs (continued)
Upper Silver Creek Rain
1/1/2017 2/15/2017 4/1/2017 5/16/2017 6/30/2017 8/14/2017 9/28/2017
11/12/2017 12/27/2017
0.0
c
w
1.0
R
IX
2.0
Rainfall data from CRONOS Station KQFD in Rutherfordton, NC
Upper Silver Creek Wetland Restoration Well
(USAW10)
10
Ground
5
Su ace
c
0
AVAII is
d
-12 inches
3
-5
-10
USAW10
0
0
-15
s
-20
—
— Begin
Q
m
p
Growing
Season
-25
30
—
— End
Growing
-35CRITERIA
M
Season
(4/3/2017 5/15/2017)
-40
GROWING SEASON
-45
1/1/2017 2/15/2017 4/1/2017 5/16/2017 6/30/2017 8/14/2017 9/28/2017
11/12/2017 12/27/2017
Date

w. wetiana
1/11/20117
0.0
c
w
1.0
W 2.0
age grapns icontinuea)
2/15/2017 4/1/2017
Upper Silver Creek Rain
5/16/2017 6/30/2017 8/14/2017 9/28/2017 11/12/2017 12/27/2017
Rainfall data from CRONOS Station KQFD in Rutherfordton, NC
Upper Silver Creek Wetland Restoration Well
(USAW11)
10
5
0
JE -5
-10
io
3a -15
c
° -20
C7
-25
s
CL -30
-35
-40
-45
50
1/1/2017 2/15/2017 4/1/2017 5/16/2017 6/30/2017 8/14/2017 9/28/2017 11/12/2017 12/27/2017
Date
Ground
Surface
-12
inches
USAW 11
Begin
Growing
Season
End
Growing
Season
J � �
WHIM ni��ii�����►�����i�i����iiii���
Lq
YR3 MOST CON;ECUTIVE DAYS
15/15/2017)
GROWING•
1
Well installed - 1
1/1/2017 2/15/2017 4/1/2017 5/16/2017 6/30/2017 8/14/2017 9/28/2017 11/12/2017 12/27/2017
Date
Ground
Surface
-12
inches
USAW 11
Begin
Growing
Season
End
Growing
Season

w. wetiana
1/11/20117
0.0
c
w
1.0
W 2.0
10
5
0
c -5
2) -10
io
3a -15
c
3
° -20
C7
-25
s
CL -30
0
-35
-40
-45
50
age grapns icontinuea)
2/15/2017 4/1/2017
Upper Silver Creek Rain
5/16/2017 6/30/2017 8/14/2017 9/28/2017 11/12/2017 12/27/2017
Rainfall data from CRONOS Station KQFD in Rutherfordton, NC
Upper Silver Creek Wetland Restoration Well
(USAW12)
1
1
Ground
Surface
1
1
-12
inches
1
USAW12
Begin
1
1
Growing
Season
I 1
End
YR3 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS V
Growing
Season
CRITERIA NOT MET - 20 (9.6%)
1
(4/20/2017-5/9/2017) 1
GROWING SEASON
Ew, installed - 3/31/2015 I
(4/3 - 10/29)
1/1/2017 2/15/2017 4/1/2017 5/16/2017 6/30/2017 8/14/2017 9/28/2017 11/12/2017 12/27/2017
Date

w. wetiana
1/11/20117
0.0
c
w
1.0
2.0
10
5
0
JE -5
io
3a -15
c
3
° -20
C7
-25
s
CL
-30
-35
-40
-45
50
age grapns icontinuea)
2/15/2017 4/1/2017
Upper Silver Creek Rain
5/16/2017 6/30/2017 8/14/2017 9/28/2017 11/12/2017 12/27/2017
Rainfall data from CRONOS Station KQFD in Rutherfordton, NC
Upper Silver Creek Wetland Restoration Well
(USAW13)
1/1/2017 2/15/2017 4/1/2017 5/16/2017 6/30/2017 8/14/2017 9/28/2017 11/12/2017 12/27/2017
Date
1
Ground
Surface
I
1
12
inches
1 Il- kill1
USAW13
Begin
1
1
Growing
Season
1
YR3 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
— — End
Growing
CRITERIA MET - 87 (41.8%)
1
Season
(4/3/2017-6/27/2017)
1
1
GROWING SEASON
Well installed - 12/3/2015
(4/3 - 10/29)
1
1/1/2017 2/15/2017 4/1/2017 5/16/2017 6/30/2017 8/14/2017 9/28/2017 11/12/2017 12/27/2017
Date

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
Yes/44 days
USAW1
(17.5%)
(4.6%)
(21.2%)
No/21.8 days
No/12.3 days
Yes/71 days
USAW2
(10.5%)
(5.9%)
(34.1%)
No/20.3 days
No/7 days
No/21 days
USAW3
(9.7%)
(3.4%)
(10.1%)
No/5.5 days
No/5 days
No/11 days
USAW4
(2.6%)
(2.4%)
(5.3%)
Yes/80.5 days
Yes/77.5 days
Yes/119 days
USAW5
(38.7%)
(37.3%)
(57.2%)
No/19.5 days
No/7 days
No/16 days
USAW6
(9.4%)
(3.4%)
(7.7%)
Yes/74.5 days
Yes/72.5 days
Yes/110 days
USAW7
(35.8%)
(34.9%)
(52.9%)
No/2.5 days
No/5.8 days
Yes/46 days
USAW8
(1.2%)
(2.8%)
(22.1%)
Yes/35.5 days
No/13.5 days
Yes/44 days
USAW9
(17.1%)
(6.5%)
(21.2%)
No/19.8 days
No/9.8 days
Yes/44 days
USAW10
(9.5%)
(4.7%)
(21.2%)
No/18.5 days
No/11.5 days
Yes/44 days
USAW11
(8.9%)
(5.5%)
(21.2%)
No/17.5 days
No/7.3 days
No/20 days
USAW12
(8.4%)
(3.5%)
(9.6%)
Yes/55.5 days
Yes/87 days
USAW13
(26.7%)
(41.8%)

Figure 11. U. Silver Creek Wetland Photo Log, MY3 (2017)
Photo 1. Wetland Photo Point — W1, replicates photo 50 in
Baseline Report (November 1, 2017).
Photo 2. Wetland Photo Point — W2, replicates photo 51 in
Baseline Report (November 1, 2017).
Photo 3. Wetland Photo Point — W3 replicates photo 52 in
Baseline Report (November 1, 2017).
Photo 4. Wetland Photo Point — W4, replicates photo 53 in
Baseline Report (November 1, 2017).
Photo 5. Wetland Photo Point — W5, replicates photo 54 in
Baseline Report (November 1, 2017).
Photo 6. Wetland Photo Point — W6, replicates photo 55 in
Baseline Report (November 1, 2017).

Photo 7. Wetland Photo Point — W7, replicates photo 56 in
Baseline Report (November 1, 2017).
Photo 8. Wetland Photo Point — W8, replicates photo 57 in
Baseline Report (November 1, 2017).
Photo 9. Wetland Photo Point — W9, replicates photo 58 in
Baseline Report (November 1, 2017).
Photo 10. Wetland Photo Point — W 10, replicates photo 59 in
Baseline Report (November 1, 2017).
Photo 11. Wetland Photo Point — WI 1, replicates photo 60 in
Baseline Report (November 1, 2017).
Photo 12. Wetland Photo Point — W 12, replicates photo 61 in
Baseline Report (November 1, 2017).

Photo 13. Wetland Photo Point — W 13 added between time of
baseline and MY1 survey, (April 1, 2015)