20130595 Ver 1_Year 4 Monitoring Report_2018_20190102

Upper Silver Creek Restoration
Project Year 4 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: 4 of 5
Year of Data Collection: 2018
Year of Completed Construction: 2015
Submission Date: December 2018
Submitted To: NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services
5 Ravenscroft Drive, Suite 102
Asheville, NC 28801
NCDEQ Contract ID No. 003270

Upper Silver Creek Restoration Project
Year 4 Monitoring Report
Burke County, North Carolina
NCDMS Project ID Number — 94645
Report Prepared and Submitted by Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
797 Haywood Road, Suite 201
Asheville, NC 28806
NC Professional Engineering License # F-1084
INTERNATIONAL
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UPPER SILVER CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT,
DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 94645
DECEMBER 2018, MONITORING YEAR 4 OF 5

Innovotion Done Right ... We Moke o Difference
INTERNAT10NAE.
January 2, 2019
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 4 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 4 Monitoring Report. I have addressed the
comments that you submitted on the draft report. My responses to your comments are the
following:
Table 2
• Please add two lines under Year 4 monitoring. One for "Vegetation Monitoring" and another
for "Stream Monitoring". Include the dates that data was collected for both additional lines.
The IRT has requested this information be provided.
The additional lines and information has been added. This modification was not requested for
any of our other reports, so we are unclear as to how broadly we should apply this request.
Cross-sections and Table 11
• Please confirm that the MY4 (2018) BHRs have been calculated based on the attached DMS
technical guidance. The Abkf reported in Table 11 does not show the same area being used
as the asbuilt data. Please add note on table indicating that beginning in MY4, the bankfull
elevation and channel cross section dimensions are calculated using a fixed Abkf as
described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter provided by
NCIRT and NCDMS (9/2018). Please update table and cross-section graphs as necessary
with revised measurements.
The BHRs have been calculated based on our best understanding of the new methodology and
additional input from the Raleigh NCDMS staff (Greg Melia and Jeff Schaffer). The Abkf that is
reported in Table 11 is the Abkffor MY4 based on the MYO bankfull elevation used in each
report. The BH Ratio reported on each cross-section and in Table 11 is based on the Abkf
reported in the MYO report and requested in the new guidance. This involves adjusting an
elevation transect line until the MYO cross-sectional area is indicated under that line (call this
elevation ABKF). The BH Ratio is the ratio of the depth from the low bank of that monitoring
year (call this TOB elevation) to thatyears thalweg and the depth from the ABKF to thatyears
thalweg, BH ratio = (T0B-TW)/(ABKF/TW), where TOB and TW are for the monitoring year
797 Naywoo� K..J I Suite 201 1 Asheville NC 28806
office: 828.+12.6100 1 rax: 82 S. 350.1+09

Innovation Done Right ...We Make o Difference
and ABKF is based on the MYO Abk,0. All cross-sections and data shown in the tables are based
on this methodology and updates have been made as requested.
Profile UT2 and UT3
• The UT2 profile and sections of UT3 indicate 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. Please add a short discussion in section 2.2.1 regarding this issue.
Does Baker have any corrective action or adaptive management planned for these reaches?
We have added more information to the discussion of aggradation in section 2.2.1. We do
indicate that we will monitor the areas of aggradation indicated by the cross-sections and
general project channels, to be sure that sandy material that has moved into the project reach
due to the unusually high flows of this year, is moving through the system. We will specifically
evaluate UT2 and areas of UT3 to evaluate ways that we can enhance sediment transport or
directly remove accumulated sediment as needed. In some locations this likely will involve
removal of vegetation (cattails) or woody debris that is causing aggradation.
General
• Please include responses to comments in front of final report.
Our comments will be added to the final report.
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,
Micky Clemmons,
Project Manager
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................1
2.0 METHODOLOGY.........................................................................................2
2.1 Vegetation Assessment................................................................................................................................3
2.2 Stream Assessment.......................................................................................................................................3
2.2.1 Morphologic Parameters and Channel Stability........................................................................................3
2.2.2 Hydrology..................................................................................................................................................4
2.2.3 Photographic Documentation....................................................................................................................5
2.3 Wetland Assessment..................................................................................................................................... S
3.0 REFERENCES...............................................................................................6
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 213 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
Figure 4 Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos
Appendix D Stream Assessment Data
Figure 5 Stream Photos by Channel and Station
Table 8 Visual Morphological Stability Assessment
Table 8a Stream Problem Areas
Table 9 Verification of Bankfull or Greater than Bankfull Events
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UPPER SILVER CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT,
DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 94645
DECEMBER 2018, MONITORING YEAR 4 OF 5

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 4 Stream Summary
Table
11
Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Appendix E Wetland Assessment Data
Figure 9 Observed Rainfall vs. Historical Average
Figure 10 Wetland Gauge Graphs
Table 12 Wetland Gauge Attainment Data
Table 12a Wetland Restoration Area Well Success
Figure 11 Wetland Photo Log
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UPPER SILVER CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT,
DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 94645
DECEMBER 2018, MONITORING YEAR 4 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 (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, the following actions are recommended:
• 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 2018 there were at least four high flow events that inundated the floodplain, depositing woody
debris and other flotsam in wrack lines well away from the top of bank. These events were documented on
4/2/2018, 5/8/2018, 10/3/2018, and 10/18/2018 and do not appear to have negatively impacted constructed
banks or structures.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UPPER SILVER CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT,
DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 94645
DECEMBER 2018, MONITORING YEAR 4 OF 5

Year 4 (MY4) monitoring indicated that the planted acreage was functioning well with no bank, bench or
floodplain areas having bare areas of a significant size. Invasive Chinese privet and multiflora rose were
treated in MY3. No significant growth of these invasives was noted in 2018 and no invasive treatments
were conducted in MY4. The invasive vegetation within this area will continue to be treated with herbicide
to control new growth. Fourteen (14) vegetation plots have been established at this site for monitoring. The
average density of total planted stems following the MY4 growing season is 702 stems per acre with an
additional average of 43 volunteer stems per acre. Based on the average density of 702 planted stems per
acre, the Site is on track to meet the established success criteria.
Stream geomorphological stability and performance during MY4 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. Some of the cross-sections indicated slight aggradation in areas, but
none of these areas indicated a significant or systemic problem.
Stream pebble data indicated that the shift to smaller particles on all project reaches that was noted in MY3
had stabilized and the sediment is currently coarser overall and similar to what was seen in previous years.
Pebble counts on UT2 and UT3 in MY3 indicated that fine sediment had accumulated in the channels. The
pebble counts on these two reaches in MY4 indicate that this fine sediment has moved through the stream
channel and substrate size has increased significantly. This suggests that this aggradation was temporary
and not an ongoing trend for these tributaries. Overall, MY4 data indicate a properly functioning system,
as there were no mid -channel bars or other sediment transport issues.
Wetland monitoring during MY4 demonstrated that all thirteen groundwater monitoring wells located on
the Site met the wetland success criteria as stated in the Site Mitigation Plan. The gauges demonstrated
consecutive hydroperiods of 12 percent or greater, ranging from 16.3 to 100 percent of the growing season.
It was noted during 2018 monitoring that several of the rebar posts that were installed at each well to
indicate the ground elevation were protruding from the soil up to 0.1 feet in some cases. This could have
been due to either the soil settling around the post or upward swelling in freeze/thaw cycles since
construction. The elevation of these rebar posts was adjusted to better reflect the actual ground level, and
the calculation in the wetland data sheets was updated accordingly. In addition, it was noted that USAW4
and USAW6 were installed in fill material that did not reflect the wetland conditions of the surrounding
area. These two wells were relocated slightly (<10 feet) to more accurately gauge water levels in the
surrounding restored wetland areas. The onsite rain gauge that was installed at the Site in 2017 is
functioning and providing accurate rainfall data that is shown in the well data sheets.
Summary information/data related to the Site and statistics related to performance of various project and
monitoring elements can be found in the tables and figures in the report Appendices. Narrative background
and supporting information formerly found in these reports can be found in the Baseline Monitoring Report
and in the Mitigation Plan available on the NCDMS website. All raw data supporting the tables and figures
in the appendices are available from NCDMS upon request.
2.0 METHODOLOGY
The monitoring plan for the Site includes criteria to evaluate the success of the stream, wetland and
vegetation components of the project. The methodology and report template used to evaluate these
components adheres to the NCDMS monitoring guidance document dated December 1, 2009 and other
mitigation guidance (NCEEP 2009 and USACE 2003), which will continue to serve as the template for
subsequent monitoring years. The specific locations of monitoring features: vegetation plots, permanent
cross-sections, monitoring wells, flow gauges, and the crest gauge, are shown on the CCPV sheets found
in Appendix A.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. 2
UPPER SILVER CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT,
DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 94645
DECEMBER 2018, MONITORING YEAR 4 OF 5

The Year 4 monitoring data and site photographs were collected in October 2018.
2.1 Vegetation Assessment
To determine if vegetation success criteria are achieved, vegetation monitoring quadrants (veg plots) were
installed and 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 4 monitoring found that all vegetation was in good condition. All vegetation monitoring quadrants
indicated that most planted trees were growing and in good condition. The average density of planted
stems following the Year 4 growing season was 702 stems per acre. There was also an average of 43
volunteer stems per acre, composed of six different tree species. The total average density of both planted
and volunteer stems was 746 stems per acre. With an average density of 702 planted stems per acre, the
Site is on track to meet the final success criteria of 260 stems per acre by the end of Year 5.
The areas of invasive Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) and multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora) vegetation
that were treated in MY3 did not exhibit significant regrowth during MY4. These areas will be monitored,
and any regrowth will be treated in MY5.
No other areas of concern regarding vegetation were observed along Silver Creek or the tributaries. Year
4 vegetation assessment information is provided in Appendix C.
2.2 Stream Assessment
The Upper Silver Creek Site approach was restoration of a stable morphology that allows for the transport
of water and sediment through the Site and allows stream flows larger than bankfull flows to spread onto
the floodplain. Stream monitoring efforts focus on visual observations, a crest gauge to document
bankfull flooding events, surveying established stream cross-sections and channel profiles to assess
channel stability and pebble counts to assess if proper sediment transport is taking place.
Stream survey data was collected to a minimum of Class C Vertical and Class A Horizontal Accuracy
using Leica TS06 Total Station and was georeferenced to the NAD83 State Plane Coordinate System,
FIPS3200 in US Survey Feet, which was derived from the As -built Survey.
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 MY4 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.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UPPER SILVER CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT,
DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 94645
DECEMBER 2018, MONITORING YEAR 4 OF 5

Stream geomorphological stability and performance during MY4 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, although
a few indicated slight aggradation since construction (XS6 pool, XS9 pool, XS 11 pool, XS 12, XS 14
pool, and XS 15 pool). All but one of the cross-sections indicated as having aggraded material is a
pool where aggradation is expected. The material that is accumulating in each location is sand that
is moving through the system from upstream and likely does not indicate a long-term concern.
Sandy material has been present in each reach since construction but moves through the system
over time. This year has brought the highest rainfall on record in many areas of Western North
Carolina and almost constant high flows have moved this sandy material into the project streams.
We believe that this material will continue to move through the system and will not cause long-
term problems; however, we will continue to monitor the areas of aggradation and will take
corrective action if needed. In late winter and early spring of 2019, channels will be inspected and
where natural sediment transport processes are being interrupted by vegetation or woody debris,
these obstructions will be removed. Sediment may also be removed where possible if needed. In
general, all four reaches are maintaining bedform diversity and transporting sediment as intended.
There was also little change from past profile surveys and profiles of each channel do not indicate
any instability issues.
The Visual Morphological Stability Assessment indicates that the Site is stable and no new channel
problem areas (CPAs) were identified in MY4. The two instances of piping that were noted in the
MY3 report are still piping in MY4 but are still serving their intended function of redirecting the
thalweg away from the outer bank of the stream. These structures are called out in the CCPV as
CPA -1 and CPA -2. The one instance of bank erosion that was noted in MY3 (CPA -3) is still eroding
and will be monitored in MY5 for any further degradation or stabilization. The locations,
descriptions, and photos of these areas are included in the Stream Problem Areas Table in Appendix
D and in the MY4 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 MY4 indicates that the shift to smaller particles on Silver Creek mainstem
has stabilized at sizes similar to what was seen in previous years. In MY3, pebble counts on UT2
and UT3 indicated that fine sediment had accumulated in the channels. In MY4, there was still fine
sediment present in the channels, but it did not dominate as much of the channel as it did in MY3.
Pebble counts from UT2 and UT3 indicate that, while there is still sand and fine sediment present
in the channel, the substrate coarsened overall in MY4. This is likely a natural process for these
channels, both of which have sources of sandy material upstream of the project area. Both channels
are transporting this fine material effectively over time as intended. These reaches will continue to
be monitored to determine if this trend continues over time. Overall, the pebble 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. These dams were not rebuilt during
MY4 and there were no beaver dams found on the site in 2018.
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. The crest gauge on Silver Creek
recorded four bankfull events of 1.19 feet (documented on 4/2/2018), 1.08 feet (documented on
5/8/2018), 0.88 feet (documented on 10/3/2018), and 1.64 feet (documented on 10/18/2018). The
highest rainfall events recorded by the on-site rain gauge that likely resulted in these bankfull flows
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. 4
UPPER SILVER CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT,
DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 94645
DECEMBER 2018, MONITORING YEAR 4 OF 5

occurred on 2/11/2018 (2.07 inches), 4/15/2018 (3.3 inches), 9/16/2018 (5.39 inches), and
10/11/2018 (3.24 inches). The site has now recorded six total bankfull events since construction
and has met the success criteria. Physical indicators of bankfull flows, such as wrack lines and
debris on the bank, were also observed throughout the reach but it is difficult to determine which
bankfull event was responsible. 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. 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 with the exception of minor
piping at two structures as previously noted.
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 4 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, 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 becomes the success criteria (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 MY4 demonstrated that all thirteen groundwater monitoring wells
located on the Site met the wetland success criteria as stated in the Site Mitigation Plan. This is an
improvement since MY3, in which 4 wells did not meet the success criteria. All gauges
demonstrated consecutive hydroperiods of 12 percent or greater, ranging from 16.3 to 100 percent
of the growing season. Two wells, USAW4 and USAW6, were relocated slightly (<10 feet) because
it was determined that they had originally been installed in fill material after construction. This
material drained much faster than the surrounding soil, which has a consistent hydric layer around
0.8 feet, and resulted in inaccurate pressure gauge readings that were not representative of the
surrounding restored wetland. The rain data for the region (Figure 9) shows that rainfall was above
the monthly average for much of the year, especially during the early part of the growing season.
Baker will continue to monitor the groundwater hydrology of the Site during Monitoring Year 5.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UPPER SILVER CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT,
DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 94645
DECEMBER 2018, MONITORING YEAR 4 OF 5

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.
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.
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP). 2009. Upper Catawba River Basin
Restoration Priorities 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. 6
UPPER SILVER CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT,
DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 94645
DECEMBER 2018, MONITORING YEAR 4 OF 5

Appendix A
General Figures and Plan Views
Includes:
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

New no 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
AVERY e 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
C—s e ;% Road, travel for approximately .75 miles and turn right at a gate
F NCH BROAD i into the project site. The project site begins where Silver Creek
04-03-06 passes under US -64 and continues downstream for approximately
�C,94 % 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
a flows westward to Silver Creek from a forested area.
BROA
3-08-
it
-- — R�
BROAD
03-08-02
Map Inset
Division
of
Mitigation
Services
CATA W BA
HU 0305010105005
Upper Silver Creek
Project Site
9
Gam ell 11
C 'ah, kounta-
1 H Son
7
ND
NINE
C—i Counties
E:J USGS Hydrologic UnitW Project Hydrologic Unit�►'Burke County
Miles
Connelly Spfings
r
ie
C
Falls
r ,
CA T,
Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map
Upper Silver Creek
NCDMWS Project #94645
Monitoring Year 4 Report
Burke County, NC
AlI N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L

A
md j,,W^Z C63 SII ',T -S x- d
Michael Baker

Reach 1
UT1-
UT1-4
XS -14 .
• UT1
CPA -2 1
' o
MY3 Channel Problem Areas
Repaired Stream Banks
o Monitoring Well - Meets Criteria 3
Successful Vegetation Plot
Photo Station
® Crest Gauge 3
Cross Sections
In -Stream Structures
Stream Centerline
Stream Top of Bank
1 Conservation Easement
Wetland Components
Restoration: Non -Riparian
® Restoration: Riparian 0 -
Enhancement:
-Enhancement: Non -Riparian
Enhancement: Riparian
Creation: Riparian
i
er dams were removed
these two locations in
July 2017each 2
Reach 2
0 150 300 Figure 2A - North
Michael Baker Feet Current Conditions Plan View
1 inch = 150 feet Monitoring Year 4
1 N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L DMS Project # 94645 Upper Silver Creek Site

MY3 Channel Problem Areas
Repaired Stream Banks
Conservation Easement
o Monitoring Well - Meets Criteria ,
Successful Vegetation Plot
Photo Station
® Crest Gauge
Cross Sections
In -Stream Structures
Stream Centerline s
Stream Top of Bank
Wetland Components
EM Restoration: Non -Riparian
® Restoration: Riparian
® Enhancement: Non -Riparian
Em Enhancement: Riparian
Em Creation: Riparian
Reach 2
K
UT3-6
CPA -3
Reach 2
Ob
1
L�
M',
Reach 1
0 150 300 Figure 213 - South
Michael Baker' Feet Current Conditions Plan View
1 inch = 150 feet Monitoring Year 4
1 N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L 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
PhosphorusOffset Nutrient Offset
Type R EII R E
C
R E C
Totals 14,843 SMU 1 137 SMU 14.67 WMU1 1.43 WMU
10.33 WMU
10.21 WMU1 0.21 WMU
Project Components
Project Component
or Reach ID
Stationing/ Location
Existing Footage/
Acreage
Approach
Restoration/
Restoration
Equivalent
Restoration
Footage or
Acreage
Mitigation Ratio
STREAMS
Silver Creek
2643 LF
Reach 1 0+32 to 8+70
Restoration - PII
838 SMU
838 LF
1:1
Reach 2 8+70 to 30+48
Restoration - PI
2,178 SMU
2178 LF
1:1
UT1
478 LF
Reach 1 0+07 to 5+02
Restoration - PI
495 SMU
495 LF
1:1
UT2
187 LF
Reach 1 0+00 to 1+03
Restoration - PI
103 SMU
103 LF
1:1
Reach 2 1+03 to 3+10
Restoration - PI
207 SMU
207 LF
1:1
UT3
1,162 LF
Reach 1 0+00 to 3+43
Enhancement 1
137 SMU
343 LF
2.5:1
Reach 2 3+43 to 13+65
Restoration - PI
1,022 SMU
1,022 LF
1:1
WETLANDS See plan sheets
JDW1a NR
0.42 AC Enhancement
0.21 WMU
0.42 AC
2:1
JDW1b (Ri)
1.01 AC Enhancement
0.51 WMU
1.01 AC
2:1
JDW2 (Ri)
0.51 AC Enhancement
0.25 WMU
0.51 AC
2:1
JDW3 (Ri)
0.03 AC Enhancement
0.02 WMU
0.03 AC
2:1
JDW4 (Ri)
0.24 AC Enhancement
0.12 WMU
0.24 AC
2:1
JDW5 Ri
0.81 AC Enhancement
0.40 WMU
0.81 AC
2:1
JDW6 (Ri)
0.25 AC Enhancement
0.13 WMU
0.25 AC
2:1
R1A (NR)
0 Restoration
0.06 WMU
0.06 AC
1:1
R1 B NR
0 Restoration
0.15 WMU
0.15 AC
1:1
R2 (Ri)
0 Restoration
1.22 WMU
1.22 AC
1:1
R3 (Ri)
0 Restoration
0.18 WMU
0.18 AC
1:1
R4 (Ri)
0 Restoration
0.44 WMU
0.44 AC
1:1
R5 (Ri)
0 Restoration
1.29 WMU
1.29 AC
1:1
R6 Ri
0 Restoration
1.54 WMU
1.54 AC
1:1
C1 Ri
0 Creation
0.33 WMU
0.99 AC
3:1
Component Summation
Restoration Level Stream (LF)
Ri arian Wetland (AC) Non -riparian
Wetland (AC)
Buffer SF
Upland AC
Riverine Non-Riverine
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 4 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�
JD 9
# UT3 - Reach 2 R3 R2 10
1
o Wetland Monitoring Wells '►
Conservation Easement
Stream Mitigation Type UT3 -Reach 1 11 JDW1B� ]
Enhancement I
Restoration
Wetland Components. ' R1A 12
� ` JDW1R1B
Restoration: Non -Riparian 13
® Restoration: Riparian
® Enhancement: Non -Riparian
Enhancement: Riparian �, r �' , ••; , ``
777= Creation: Riparian
NC Center for Geographic Inf rm iii III is
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 Design — (at least 90% complete)
N/A
N/A
May -14
Construction Begins
N/A
N/A
May -14
Temporary S&E mix applied to entire project area
N/A
N/A
Dec -14
Permanent seed mix applied to entire project area
N/A
N/A
Dec -14
Planting of live stakes
Winter 2015
N/A
Feb -15
Planting of bare root trees
N/A
N/A
Feb -15
End of Construction
N/A
N/A
Dec -l4
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 -l5
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
Nov -18
Dec -18
Vegetation Monitoring
Oct -18
Stream Monitoring
Nov -18
Year 5 Monitoring
Dec -19
N/A
N/A
Vegetation Monitoring
Stream Monitoring
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 4 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 4 MONITORING REPORT
UPPER SILVER CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT
DMS PROJECT NO. 94645

Table 4. Project Attributes
Upper Silver Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 94645
Project Information
Project Name Upper Silver Creek Mitigation Project
County Burke
Project Area acres 22.0
Project Coordinates latitude and longitude) 35.6078 N, -81.81742 W
Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province
Blue Ridge (borders Piedmont)
River Basin
Catawba
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit and 14-digit
03050101 / 03050101050050
DWR Sub-basin
03-08-31
Project Drainage Area AC
Mainstem 2.7 - 3.3, UTI 0.28, UT2 0.05, UT3 0.17
Project Drainage Area Percentage of
Impervious Area
<2%
USGA Land Use Classification
Deciduous Forest (64%) Woody Wetlands (1%)
Evergreen Forest (3%) Developed, Open Space (5%)
Shrub/Scrub (5%) Pasture/Hay (14%)
Grassland/Herbaceous (6%)
NCDMS Land Use Classification for Silver
Creek Watershed
Forest (59%)
Agriculture (23%)
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
type)
E
E
Incised channel, little connection to
floodplain
Incised channel, little connection
to floodplain
Evolutionary Trend
E->G, E->C/F
EAG, ESC/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
Native Vegetation Community
Piedmont/Mtn. Mixed Bottomland
Hardwoods
Piedmont/Mtn. Mixed Bottomland
Hardwoods
Percent Composition of Exotic/Invasive
Vegetation
10%
5%
Parameters
UT1 - Reach 1
UT2 - Reach 1
UT2 - Reach 2
Length of Reach LF
495
103
207
Valley Classification (Rosgen)
III
III
III
Drainage Area AC
177
32
32
NCDWR Stream Identification Score
47.5
45
45
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
C
C
C
Morphological Description (Rosgen stream
type)
Gc
channelized B
channelized B
Incised channel, little connection to
floodplain
channelized/ditched channel
channelized/ditched channel
Evolutionary Trend
Gc->F
B-->F--).0
B--+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
Native Vegetation Community
Piedmont Dry-Mesic Oak and
Hardwoods to Mixed Bottomland
Hardwoods
Piedmont/Mtn. Mixed Bottomland
Hardwoods
Piedmont/Mtn. Mixed Bottomland
Hardwoods
Percent Composition of Exotic/Invasive
Vegetation
5%
2%
2%
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT
UPPER SILVER CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT
DMS PROJECT NO. 94645

Parameters
UT3 - Reach 1 UT3 - Reach 2
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
B/E E
Morphological Description (Rosgen stream
Aggrading at upper end then stable Incised channel, little connection
type)
to incising at lower end to floodplain
Evolutionary Trend
B/EAG EAG
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%
Vegetation
Wetland Summary Information
Parameters
JDW1
JDW2
JDW3
JDW4
JDW5
JDW6
Size of Wetland AC
1.43
0.51
0.03
0.24
0.81
0.3
Wetland Type
Riparian
Riparian
Riparian
Riparian
Riparian
Riparian
Mapped Soil Series
FnA
FnA
FnA
FnA
FnA
FnA
Somewhat poorly
Somewhat
Somewhat
Somewhat
Somewhat
Somewhat
Drainage Class
to well drained
Poorly to well
poorly to well
poorly to well
poorly to well
poorly to well
drained
drained
drained
drained
drained
Soil Hydric Status
Site-specific
Site-specific
Site-specific
Site-specific
Site-specific
Site-specific
Hillslope seepage;
Hillslope seepage;
Hillslope seepage;
Hillslope seepage;
Hillslope seepage;
Hillslope seepage;
Source of Hydrology
Baseflow;
Baseflow;
Baseflow;
Baseflow;
Baseflow;
Baseflow;
Overbank Flooding
Overbank
Overbank
Overbank
Overbank
Overbank
Flooding
Flooding
Flooding
Flooding
Flooding
Hydrologic Impairment
Partially
Yes
No
Partially t
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%
Ve etation
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-
lannin watershed- lannin -documents/catawba-river-basin
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT
UPPER SILVER CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT
DMS PROJECT NO. 94645

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

Table 5. Vegetation Plot Mitigation
Success Summary
(per acre)
Plot #
Stream/
Wetland
Stems'
Volunteers2
Tota 13
Success
Criteria Met?
1
1214
0
1214
Yes
2
1133
0
1133
Yes
3
364
121
486
Yes
4
688
0
688
Yes
5
809
0
809
Yes
6
647
40
688
Yes
7
567
0
567
Yes
8
567
324
890
Yes
9
364
40
405
Yes
10
809
0
809
Yes
11
728
0
728
Yes
12
728
0
728
Yes
13
647
81
728
Yes
14
567
0
567
Yes
Project Avg
702
43
746
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.
3 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 10/24/2018 13:33
database name MY4_94645_UpperSilver_cvs-eep-entrytool-v2.3.1.mdb
database location L:\projects\120598-Upr-Silver-FD\Monitoring\YR4 Monitoring\2.0 Monitoring
Data\App C - Vegetation Data
computer name ASHELRMYERSI
file size 64524288
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,
Vigor
Vigor by Spp
Damage
Damage by Spp
Damage by Plot
Planted Stems by Plot and Spp
JALL 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
missing, etc.).
Frequency distribution of vigor classes for stems for all plots.
Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species.
List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences and percent
of total stems impacted by each.
Damage values tallied by type for each species.
Damage values tallied by type for each plot.
A matrix of the count of PLANTED living stems of each species for each plot;
dead and missing stems are excluded.
A matrix of the count of total living stems of each species (planted and natural
volunteers combined) for each plot; dead and missing stems are 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 (MY4 2018)
Current Plot Data (MY4 2018)
Annual Means
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
94645-01-0011
94645-01-0012
94645-01-0013
Scientific Name Common Name
Species Type
94645-01-0001
94645-01-0002
94645-01-0003
94645-01-0004
94645-01-0005
94645-01-0006
94645-01-0007
94645-01-0008
94645-01-0009
MY1 (2015)
94645-01-0010
P V T P V T P V T P V T P V T P V T P V T P V T P V T P V
T
Acer rubrum red maple
Tree
1
red maple
1
6
6
1
1
1
2
2
13
1
14
12
1
3
13
3
14
14
14
12
Alnus serrulata hazel alder
Shrub
hazel alder
Shrub
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
Betula nigra river birch
Tree
Tree
3
3
6
2
3
2
3
1
1
19
1
19
1
2
20
2
19
21
21
8
1
8
1
Carpinus caroliniana American hornbeam
Tree
1
1
3
3
2
2
10
10
10
1
1
11
1
12
11
1
9
1
1
Cornus amomum
1
Cornus amomum silky dogwood
Shrub
11
3
3
2
1
4
1
1
1
6
6
4
4
2
5
2
32
32
16
16
Corylus cornuta
beaked hazelnut
Shrub Tree
Corylus cornuta beaked hazelnut
Shrub Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Diospyros virginiana
common persimmon
Tree
Diospyros virginiana common persimmon
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
2
3
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash
Tree
2
1 4
2
4
2
18
18
8
8
1
1
1
1
1
1
12
12
Liquidambar styraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
Liquidambar styraciflua sweetgum
Tree
3
3
1
1
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
Liriodendron tulipifera tuliptree
Tree
1
1
6
4
10
1
7
1
7
1
8
11
11
10
2
3
5
Tree
1
1
2
2
2
Platanus occidentalis American sycamore
Tree
9
3
9
4
2
4
1
2
3
5
62
5
4
4
3
1
4
5
5
4
4
8
2
2
5
5
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
1
1
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
1
1
8
Quercus michauxii swamp chestnut oak
Tree
1
4
1
6
33
6
1
35
32
2
32
2
2
2
3
3
3
water oak
3
2
2
1
1
Quercus nigra water oak
Tree
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
Tree
1
Quercus pagoda cherrybark oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
2
Quercus phellos willow oak
Tree
2
31
2
4
32
4
32
32
3
32
3
17
3
3
5
5
10
10
Unknown
Shrub or Tree
2
2
7
7
10
10
6
6
Vaccinium corymbosum
highbush blueberry
Shrub
1
Vaccinium corymbosum highbush blueberry
Shrub
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Viburnum dentatum
isouthern arrowwood
IShrub
21
Viburnum dentatum isouthern arrowwood
Shrub
15
20
15
3
21
3
21
21
21
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
18
0
18
18
0
18
2
2
2
1
0
1
243
15
258
249
Stem count
30
0
30
28
0
28
9
3
12
17
0
17
20
0 20
16
1
17
14
0
14
14
8
22
9
1
10
20
0
20
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
7 0 7 8 0 8 5 2 6 8 0 8 4 0 47 1 7 6 0 6 6 3 6 4 1 5 6 0
6
Stems per ACREJ
1214 1
0
1214
1133
0
1133
364
121
486
688
0
688
809
0 809
647
40
688
567
1 0 1
567
567
324
890
364
40
405
809
0
809
Table 7. Stem Count Arranged By Plot, Continued
Project: Upper Silver Creek, DMS Project #94645
Current Plot Data (MY4 2018)
Annual Means
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
94645-01-0011
94645-01-0012
94645-01-0013
94645-01-0014
MY4 (2018)
MY3 (2017)
MY2 (2016)
MY1 (2015)
MYO (2015)*
P V T P V T P V T P V T P V T P V T P V T P V T P V
T
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
1
1
13
1
14
12
1
13
13
1
14
14
14
12
12
Alnus serrulata
hazel alder
Shrub
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
3
3
6
6
3
3
1
1
19
19
20
20
19
19
21
21
8
8
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
Tree
1
1
10
10
10
1
11
11
1
12
11
11
9
9
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
11
11
3
3
2
2
4
30
2
32
30
30
32
5
37
32
32
16
16
Corylus cornuta
beaked hazelnut
Shrub Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Diospyros virginiana
common persimmon
Tree
3
1
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
2
2
1 4
4
1 18
18
18
18
18
1
19
19
1
19
12
12
Liquidambar styraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
3
3
1
1
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
6
4
10
6
7
13
7
1
8
11
11
10
10
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
1
1
2
2
3
3
2
2
50
7
57
53
9
62
54
5
59
60
60
48
48
Quercus
oak
Tree
I
1
1
1
2
2
Quercus lyrata
overcup oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
1
1
8
8
4
4
33
33
34
1
35
32
32
33
33
20
20
Quercus nigra
water oak
Tree
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
2
2
31
31
32
32
32
32
32
32
17
17
Unknown
Shrub or Tree
2
2
7
7
10
10
6
6
Vaccinium corymbosum
highbush blueberry
Shrub
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Viburnum dentatum
isouthern arrowwood
IShrub
21
21
20
20
21
21
21
21
21
21
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
18
0
18
18
0
18
16
2
18
14
0
14
243
15
258
249
22
271
256
16
272
277
0
277
189
0
189
1 1 1 1 14 14 14 14 9
0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.22
6 0 6 9 0 9 4 1 4 6 0 6 17 5 17 18 6 19 17 8 19 18 0 18 16 0
16
728 0 728 728 0 728 1 647 81 728 567 0 567 702 43 746 1 720 64 783 1 740 46 786 801 0 801 850 0
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 18, 2018).
Photo 2. Vegetation Plot 1 — Herbaceous photo
(October 18, 2018).
Photo 3. Vegetation Plot 2 — Tree photo
(October 18, 2018).
Photo 4. Vegetation Plot 2 — Herbaceous photo
(October 18, 2018).
Photo 5. Vegetation Plot 3 — Tree photo
(October 18, 2018).
Photo 6. Vegetation Plot 3 — Herbaceous photo
(October 18, 2018).

Photo 7. Vegetation Plot 4 — Tree photo
(October 18, 2018).
Photo 8. Vegetation Plot 4 — Herbaceous photo
(October 18, 2018).
Photo 9. Vegetation Plot 5 — Tree photo
(October 18, 2018).
Photo Point 10, Vegetation Plot 5 — Herbaceous photo
(October 18, 2018).
Photo 11. Vegetation Plot 6 — Tree photo
(October 18, 2018).
Photo 12. Vegetation Plot 6 — Herbaceous photo
(October 18, 2018).

Photo 13. Vegetation Plot 7 — Tree photo
(October 18, 2018).
Photo 14. Vegetation Plot 7 — Herbaceous photo
(October 18, 2018).
Photo 15. Vegetation Plot 8 — Tree photo
(October 18, 2018).
Photo 16. Vegetation Plot 8 — Herbaceous photo
(October 18, 2018).
Photo 17. Vegetation Plot 9 — Tree photo
(October 18, 2018).
Photo 18. Vegetation Plot 9 — Herbaceous photo
(October 18, 2018).

Photo 19. Vegetation Plot 10 — Tree photo
(October 18, 2018).
Photo 20. Vegetation Plot 10 — Herbaceous photo
(October 18, 2018).
Photo 21. Vegetation Plot 11 — Tree photo
(October 18, 2018).
Photo 22. Vegetation Plot 11 — Herbaceous photo
(October 18, 2018).
Photo 23. Vegetation Plot 12 — Tree photo
(October 18, 2018).
Photo 24. Vegetation Plot 12 — Herbaceous photo
(October 18, 2018).

Appendix D
Stream Assessment Data
Includes:
Figure 5. Stream Photos by Channel and Station
Table 8. Visual Morphological Stability Assessment
Table 9. Verification of Bankfull or Greater than Bankfull Events
Figure 6. Cross -Sections with Annual Overlays
Figure 7. Longitudinal Profiles with Annual Overlays
Figure 8. Pebble Count Plots with Annual Overlays
Table 10. Monitoring Year 4 Stream Summary
Table 11. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary

Figure 5. Upper Silver Creek Stream Photos by Channel and Station — MY4 (2018)
Photo 1. Mainstem Photo Point 1 — Station 29+26
(November 18, 2018) downstream view from left bank.
Photo 2. Mainstem Photo Point 1 — Station 29+26
(November 18, 2018) upstream view from left bank.
Photo 3. Mainstem Photo Point 2 — Station 26+44
(November 18, 2018) downstream view from left bank.
Photo 4. Mainstem Photo Point 2 — Station 26+44
(November 18, 2018) upstream from left bank.
Photo 5. Mainstem Photo Point 3 — Station 24+70
(November 18, 2018) upstream from right bank.
Photo 6. Mainstem Photo Point 3 — Station 24+70
(November 18, 2018) downstream from right bank.

Photo 7. Mainstem Photo Point 4 (PP4) — Station 20+30
(November 18, 2018) downstream from left bank.
Photo 8. Mainstem Photo Point 4 (PP4) — Station 20+30
(November 18, 2018) upstream from left bank.
Photo 9. Mainstem Photo Point 5 — Station 16+03
(November 18, 2018) upstream from right bank.
Photo 10, Mainstem Photo Point 5 — Station 16+03
(November 18, 2018) downstream from right bank.
Photo 11. Mainstem Photo Point 6 — Station 13+03
(November 18, 2018) upstream from right bank.
Photo 12. Mainstem Photo Point 6 — Station 13+03
(November 18, 2018) downstream from right bank.

Photo 13. Mainstem Photo Point 7 — Station 10+11
(November 18, 2018) downstream from left bank.
Photo 14. Mainstem Photo Point 7 — Station 10+11
(November 18, 2018) upstream from left bank.
Photo 15. Mainstem Photo Point 8 — Station 5+06
(November 18, 2018) upstream from right bank.
Photo 16. Mainstem Photo Point 8 — Station 5+06
(November 18, 2018) downstream from right bank.
Photo 17. Mainstem Photo Point 9 — Station 3+87
(November 18, 2018) downstream from left bank.
Photo 18. Mainstem Photo Point 9 — Station 3+87
(November 18, 2018) upstream from left bank.

Photo 19. Mainstem Photo Point 10 — Stat. 1+22
(November 18, 2018) downstream from left bank.
Unnamed Tributary 1 - Monitoring Year 4 (2018)
Photo 21. UTI Photo Point 1 — Station 4+82
(November 18, 2018) upstream from left bank.
Photo 20. Mainstem Photo Point 10 — Stat. 1+22
(November 18, 2018) upstream from left bank.
Intentionally Left Blank
Photo 22. UTI Photo Point 2 — Station 4+07
(November 18, 2018) downstream from left bank.
Photo 23. UT 1 Photo Point 2 — Station 4+07
(November 18, 2018) upstream from left bank.

Photo 24. UTI Photo Point 3 - Station 2+55
(November 18, 2018) upstream from right bank.
Photo 25. UT 1 Photo Point 3 — Station 2+55
(November 18, 2018) downstream from right bank.
Photo 26. UTI Photo Point 4 — Station 0+55
(November 18, 2018) downstream from left bank.
Unnamed Tributary 2 - Monitoring Year 3 (2017)
Photo 27. UT Photo Point 4 — Station 0+55
(November 18, 2018) upstream from left bank.
Photo 28. UT2 Photo Point 1 — Station 2+15
(November 18, 2018) downstream from left bank.
Photo 29. UT2 Photo Point 1 — Station 2+15
(November 18, 2018) upstream from left bank.

Photo 30. UT2 Photo Point 2 — Station 0+96
(November 18, 2018) upstream from right bank.
Photo 31. UT2 Photo Point 2 — Station 0+96
(November 18, 2018) downstream from right bank.
Photo 32. UT2 Photo Point 3 — Station 0+02
(November 18, 2018) downstream from right bank.
Unnamed Tributary 3 — Monitoring Year 4 (2018)
Photo 33. UT2 Photo Point 3 — Station 0+02
(November 18, 2018) upstream from right bank.
Photo 34. UT3 Photo Point 1 Station 12+10
(October 18, 2018) downstream from left bank.
Photo 35. UT3 Photo Point 1 Station 12+10
(October 18, 2018) upstream from left bank.

a hQ �@;', � m F �x➢ w �;,e ��a s a l,,'c�,�',� � � ,:_ � ➢ � '��1" -, � - a _M y�'�+;..
�-; ti _ -'S. "�"� tf3�'�'`'' g � � M 6'� i h z�, t y � a •- i1 jy
7r of
s; - - � - r fix:• spa - >�
_ C 1
'Aw.. 4-

Photo 42. UT3 Photo Point 5 — Station 5+95
(October 18, 2018) downstream from left bank.
Photo 43. UT3 Photo Point 5 — Station 5+95
(October 18, 2018) upstream from left bank.
Photo 44. UT3 Photo Point 6 — Station 4+55
(October 18, 2018) upstream from right bank.
Photo 45. UT3 Photo Point 6 — Station 4+55
(October 18, 2018) downstream from right bank.
Photo 46. UT3 Photo Point 7 Station 3+60
(October 18, 2018) upstream to structure.
Photo 47. UT3 Photo Point 8 — Station 2+70
(October 18, 2018) upstream to structure.

Photo 48. UT3 Photo Point 9 — Station 1+90
(October 18, 2018) upstream to structure.
Photo 49. UT3 Photo Point 10 — Station 0+60
(October 18, 2018) downstream to structure.

Table 8. Visual Morphological Stability Assessment
Upper Silver Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 94645
Silver Creek, Reach 1 (838 LF)
Feature
Category
Metric (per As -Built and reference baselines)
(# Stable) Number
Performing
as Intended
Total number
per As -Built
Total Number
/feet in unstable
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.g. not subject to severe aggradation or migration?)
4
4
0
100
2. Sufficiently deep (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 floodplain access and relief?
4
4
0
100
94%
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
per As -Built
Total Number
/feet in unstable
state
% Performing
in Stable
Condition
Feature
Perfomance
Mean or Total
A. Riffles
1. Present?
17
17
0
100
2. Armor stable (e.g. no displacement)?
17
17
0
100
3. Facet grades appears stable?
17
17
0
100
4. Minimal evidence of embedding/fining?
17
17
0
100
5. Length appropriate?
17
17
0
100
100%
B. Pools
1. Present? (e.g. not subject to severe aggradation or migration?)
16
16
0
100
2. Sufficiently deep (Max Pool D:Mean Bkf >1.6?)
16
16
0
100
3. Length appropriate?
16
16
0
100
100%
C. Thalweg
1. Upstream of pool (structure) centering? (%)
100
100
0
100
2. Downstream of pool (structure) centering? (%)
100
100
0
100
100%
D. Meanders
1. Outer bend in state of limited/controlled erosion?
16
16
0
100
2. Of those eroding, # w/concomitant point bar formation?
16
16
0
100
3. Apparent Rc within spec?
16
16
0
100
4. Sufficient floodplain access and relief?
16
16
0
100
100%
E. Bed
1. General channel bed aggradation areas (bar formation)
2,178
2,178
0
100
General
2. Channel bed degradation - areas of increasing down -
cutting or head 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
100
Structures
4. Free of piping or other structural failures?
19
21
2
90
98%
G. Wads/
1. Free of scour?
14
14
0
100
Boulders
12. 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.g. not subject to severe aggradation or migration?)
10
10
0
100
2. Sufficiently deep (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 floodplain access and relief?
7
7
0
100
100%
E. Bed
1. General channel bed aggradation areas (bar formation)
502
502
0
100
General
2. Channel bed degradation - areas of increasing down -
cutting or head cutting?
502
502
0
100
100%
F. Vanes,
1. Free of back or arm scour?
11
11
0
100
Rock/Log
2. Height appropriate?
11
11
0
100
Drop
3. Angle and geometry appear appropriate?
11
11
0
100
Structures
4. Free of piping or other structural failures?
11
11
0
100
100%
G. Wads/
1. Free of scour?
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Boulders
2. Footing stable?
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
100%
UT2, Reach 1 (103 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?
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.g. not subject to severe aggradation or migration?)
5
5
0
100
2. Sufficiently deep (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 Rc within spec?
N/A
N/A
N/A
100
4. Sufficient floodplain access and relief?
N/A
N/A
N/A
100
100%
E. Bed
1. General channel bed aggradation areas (bar formation)
103
103
0
100
General
2. Channel bed degradation - areas of increasing down -
cutting or head 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
12. Footing stable?
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

Table 8. Visual Morphological Stability Assessment - Continued
Upper Silver Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 94645
UT2, Reach 2 (207 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?
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.g. not subject to severe aggradation or migration?)
3
3
0
100
2. Sufficiently deep (Max Pool D:Mean Bkf >1.6?)
3
3
0
100
3. Length appropriate?
3
3
0
100
100%
C. Thalweg
1. Upstream of pool (structure) centering? (%)
100
100
0
100
2. Downstream of pool (structure) centering? (%)
100
100
0
100
100%
D. Meanders
1. Outer bend in state of limited/controlled erosion?
3
3
0
100
2. Of those eroding, # w/concomitant point bar formation?
3
3
0
100
3. Apparent Rc within spec?
3
3
0
100
4. Sufficient floodplain access and relief?
3
3
0
100
100%
E. Bed
1. General channel bed aggradation areas (bar formation)
207
207
0
100
General
2. Channel bed degradation - areas of increasing down -
cutting or head cutting?
207
207
0
100
100%
F. Vanes,
1. Free of back or arm scour?
1
1
0
100
Rock/Log
2. Height 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
I N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Table 8. Visual Morphological Stability Assessment - Continued
Upper Silver Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 94645
UT3 Reach 1 (343 LF) (Enhancement II reach)
Feature
Category
Metric (per As -Built and reference baselines)
(# Stable) Number
Performing
as Intended
Total number
per As -Built
Total Number
/feet in unstable
state
% Performing
in Stable
Condition
Feature
Perfomance
Mean or Total
A. Riffles
1. Present?
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2. Armor stable (e.g. no displacement)?
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
3. Facet grades appears stable?
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
4. Minimal evidence of embedding/fining?
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
5. Length appropriate?
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
B. Pools
1. Present? (e.g. not subject to severe aggradation or migration?)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2. Sufficiently deep (Max Pool D: Mean Bkf >1.6?)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
3. Length appropriate?
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
C. Thalweg
1. Upstream of pool (structure) centering? (%)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2. Downstream of pool (structure) centering? (%)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
D. Meanders
1. Outer bend in state of limited/controlled erosion?
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2. Of those eroding, # w/concomitant point bar formation?
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
3. Apparent Rc within spec?
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
4. Sufficient floodplain access and relief?
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
E. Bed
1. General channel bed aggradation areas (bar formation)
343
343
0
100
General
2. Channel bed degradation - areas of increasing down -
cutting or head cutting?
343
343
0
100
100%
F. Vanes,
1. Free of back or arm scour?
3
3
0
100
Rock/Log
2. Height appropriate?
3
3
0
100
Drop
3. Angle and geometry appear appropriate?
3
3
0
100
Structures
4. Free of piping or other structural failures?
3
3
0
100
100%
G. Wads/
1. Free of scour?
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Boulders
2. Footing stable?
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

Table 8. Visual Morphological Stability Assessment - Continued
Upper Silver Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 94645
UT3 Reach 2 (1,022 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?
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.g. not subject to severe aggradation or migration?)
21
21
0
100
2. Sufficiently deep (Max Pool D:Mean Bkf >1.6?)
21
21
0
100
3. Length appropriate?
21
21
0
100
100%
C. Thalweg
1. Upstream of pool (structure) centering?
100
100
0
100
2. Downstream of pool (structure) centering?
100
100
0
100
100%
D. Meanders
1. Outer bend in state of limited/controlled erosion?
17
17
0
100
2. Of those eroding, # w/concomitant point bar formation?
17
17
0
100
3. Apparent Rc within spec?
17
17
0
100
4. Sufficient floodplain access and relief?
17
17
0
100
100%
E. Bed
1. General channel bed aggradation areas (bar formation)
1,022
1,022
0
100
General
2. Channel bed degradation - areas of increasing down -
cutting or head 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/
11. Free of scour?
4
4
0
100
Boulders
12. Footing stable?
4
4
0
100
100%

Table 9. Verification of Bankfull or Greater than Bankfull Events
Upper Silver Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 94645
Date of Data
Collection
Approximate Date of
Event
Method of
Data
Collection
Gauge Watermark Height (inches)1
Silver Creek Station 19+00
UT3 Station 8+10
MY2
2/29/2016
Unknown
Crest gauge
15.0
5.0
MY3
—7 5/2/2017
Unknown
Crest Gauge
5.4
3.0
MY4
4/2/2018
2/11/2018
Crest Gauge
14.28
0 2
5/8/2018
4/15/2018
Crest Gauge
12.96
0 2
10/3/2018
9/16/2018
Crest Gauge
10.56
0 2
10/18/2018
10/11/2018
Crest Gauge
19.68
0 2
' 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
2 Crest gauge along UT3 was impacted by an ant hill and did not record a bankful event. The crest gauge was cleaned out repeatedly and
refilled with cork in 2018 but the ant hill was rebuilt from cork from the crest gauge, so the events documented on 5/8/2018, 10/3/2018,
and 10/18/2018 were not recorded. The crest gauge was cleaned out again in November 2018 after the ants left for the winter. They will
be treated and eradicated if they return in spring.
Photo 1. Silver Creek mainstem crest gauge staff showing Photo 2. Silver Creek mainstem crest gauge staff showing
cork deposition in red circle at 1.19' above the bottom of cork deposition in red circle at 1.19' above the bottom of
the staff, which is at the bankfull elevation (4/2/2018) the staff, which is at the bankfull elevation (4/2/2018)

V M C
Photo 3. Silver Creek mainstem crest gauge staff showing
cork deposition in red circle at 1.08' above the bottom of
the staff, which is at the bankfull elevation (5/8/2018)
Photo 4. Silver Creek mainstem crest gauge staff showing
cork deposition in red circle at 1.08' above the bottom of
the staff, which is at the bankfull elevation (5/8/2018)
;ILILikikiklillso I I III
IN I I I IF
Photo 5. Silver Creek mainstem crest gauge staff showing
cork deposition in red circle at 0.88' above the bottom of
the staff, which is at the bankfull elevation (10/3/2018)
Photo 6. Silver Creek mainstem crest gauge staff showing
cork deposition in red circle at 0.88' above the bottom of
the staff, which is at the bankfull elevation (10/3/2018)
Photo 7. Silver Creek mainstem crest gauge staff showing
cork deposition in red circle at 1.64' above the bottom of
the staff, which is at the bankfull elevation (10/18/2018)
Photo 8. Silver Creek mainstem crest gauge staff showing
cork deposition in red circle at 1.64' above the bottom of
the staff, which is at the bankfull elevation (10/18/2018)
*: x 2018 5- 8 13:48
Photo 4. Silver Creek mainstem crest gauge staff showing
cork deposition in red circle at 1.08' above the bottom of
the staff, which is at the bankfull elevation (5/8/2018)
;ILILikikiklillso I I III
IN I I I IF
Photo 5. Silver Creek mainstem crest gauge staff showing
cork deposition in red circle at 0.88' above the bottom of
the staff, which is at the bankfull elevation (10/3/2018)
Photo 6. Silver Creek mainstem crest gauge staff showing
cork deposition in red circle at 0.88' above the bottom of
the staff, which is at the bankfull elevation (10/3/2018)
Photo 7. Silver Creek mainstem crest gauge staff showing
cork deposition in red circle at 1.64' above the bottom of
the staff, which is at the bankfull elevation (10/18/2018)
Photo 8. Silver Creek mainstem crest gauge staff showing
cork deposition in red circle at 1.64' above the bottom of
the staff, which is at the bankfull elevation (10/18/2018)

Figure 6. Cross-sections with Annual Overlays
Permanent Cross-section 1
(MY4 Data - collected October, 2018)
Based nn fixed haseline BKF
Stream BKF
Feature Type BKF Area Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth W/D
BH Ratio
ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Low TOB
Depth
Riffle C 38.27 1 20.28
1.89
3.39 10.73
1.00
4.87 1 1197.38 1197.73
3.74
1202
1201
1200
1199
c
° 1198
1197
W
1196
1195
1194
1193
0
Silver Creek Cross-section 1, Station 27+24
Monitoring Year 4
---o--- Floodprone
••.••.•.• Bankfull
ABKF`
AB 2015
MY1 2015
MY2 2016
MY3 2017
MY4 2018
20 40 60 80 100
Station (ft)
Looking at the Left Bank Looking at the Right Bank
Note: *ABKF stands for as -built bankfull which represents the bankfull line held at the as -built cross sectional area.

Permanent Cross-section 2
(MY4 Data - collected October, 2018)
Based on fixed baseline BKF
Feature
Stream BKF
Type BKF Area Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth I
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
Low TOB
TOB Elev Depth
Pool
- 51.28 1 33.02
1.55
5.24
1 21.30
0.98
2.67
1 1198.20
1198.28 5.32
1204
1202
1200
0
1198
as
LU
1196
1194
1192
0
Silver Creek Cross-section 2, Station 26+36
Monitoring Year 4
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Station (ft)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Note: 'ABKF stands for as -built bankfull which represents the bankfull line held at the as -built cross sectional area.

Permanent Cross-section 3
(MY Data - collected October, 2018)
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
Low TOB
Depth
Pool
-
43.51
38.31
1.14
1 3.61
33.61
0.93
2.36
1202.34
1202.56
3.83
Silver Creek Cross-section 3, Station 18+98
Monitoring Year 4
1207
1206 -----------------------------------------------------------------
1205
1204
1203 --------- -------------------------------
0 ................................................
1202
1201
W
1200
1199
1198
1197
1196
0 10 20 30 40 50
-------------------------------------o
Station (ft)
---0--- Floodprone
-----ABKF'
......••• Bankfull
AB 2015
MY1 2015
MY2 2016
MY3 2017
MY5 2018
60 70 80 90 100
Looking at the Left Bank Looking at the Right Bank
Note: ABKF stands for as -built bankfull which represents the bankfull line held at the as -built cross sectional area.

Permanent Cross-section 4
(MY4 Data - collected October, 2018)
Based on fixed baseline BKF
Stream BKF BKF BKF
Feature Type Area Width Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
Low TOB
TOB Elev Depth
Riffle C 41.81 1 37.72 1.11
3.17
33.98
0.95
12.31
1203.01
1203.0 3.16
1207
1206
r
1205
1204
0
1203
LU 1202
1201
1200
1199
0
Silver Creek Cross-section 4, Station 17+94
Monitoring Year 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------o
10 20 30 40 50 60
Station (ft)
Looking at the Left Bank
---0--- Floodprone
ABKF*
......••• Bankfull
AB 2015
MY1 2015
MY2 2016
MY3 2017
MY4 2018
70 80 90 100
Looking at the Right Bank
Note: ABKF stands for as -built bankfull which represents the bankfull line held at the as -built cross sectional area.

Permanent Cross-section 5
(MY4 Data - collected October, 2018)
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
Low TOB
Depth
Riffle
C
39.5
25.0
1.58
2.75
15.8
0.97
3.77
1204.82
1204.99
2.92
Silver Creek Cross-section 5, Station 12+07
Monitoring Year 4
1208
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1207
r 1206
w
0 1205 -------------------
;r ................................
R
w 1204
1203
1202
1201
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Station (ft)
X
---0--- Floodprone
ABKF'
......••• Bankfull
AB 2015
MY1 2015
MY2 2016
MY3 2017
MY4 2018
90 100
Looking at the Left Bank Looking at the Right Bank
Note: ABKF stands for as -built bankfull which represents the bankfull line held at the as -built cross sectional area.
'* Previously reported years had the transect orientation backwards. We are correcting this with this report.

Permanent Cross-section 6
(MY4 Data - collected October, 2018)
BacPd nn fixed hacPlinP RKF
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth I
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Low TOB
Depth
Pool
68.54
1 44.93
1.53
3.75
29.37
0.94
11.51
1208.14
1208.16
3.77
Looking at the Left Bank
l�
70 80
Looking at the Right Bank
Note: "ABKF stands for as -built bankfull which represents the bankfull line held at the as -built cross sectional area.
Silver Creek Cross-section 6, Station 3+57
Monitoring Year 4
1213
1212
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1211
1210
+,
= 1209
1208
---------------------------------------
---0--- Floodprone
> 1207
ABKF'
W 1206
""""' Bankfull
1205
AB 2015
MY12015
1204
MY2 2016
1203
MY3 2017
MY4 2018
1202
0 10
20 30 40 50 60
Station (ft)
Looking at the Left Bank
l�
70 80
Looking at the Right Bank
Note: "ABKF stands for as -built bankfull which represents the bankfull line held at the as -built cross sectional area.

Permanent Cross-section 7
(MY4 Data - collected October, 2018)
Based on fixed baseline BKF
Feature
Stream BKF BKF
Type BKF Area Width Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev
Low TOB
TOB Elev Depth
Riffle
C 37.16 1 22.23 1.67
3.04
13.31 1.00 5.71 1208.23
1208.71 3.52
c
0
W
Silver Creek Cross-section 7, Station 3+02
Monitoring Year 4
1212
1211
1210
1209
1208 -------------- J i
1207
1206
1205 1
1204 r
0
---a--- Floodprone
-----ABKF`
------- Bankfull
AB 2015
MY1 2015
MY2 2016
MY3 2017
MY4 2018
20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Station (ft)
I V -CD -CV I a
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Note: ABKF stands for as -built bankfull which represents the bankfull line held at the as -built cross sectional area.

Permanent Cross-section 8
(MY4 Data - collected October, 2018)
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
Low TOB
Depth
Riffle
C
3.74
1 8.50
0.44
1.06 1 19.32 0.86 16.32
1215.38
1215.41
1.09
UT3 Cross-section 8, Station 6+22*
Monitoring Year 4
1217
1216.5 �-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- o
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.
** Note: ABKF stands for as -built bankfull which represents the bankfull line held at the as -built cross sectional area.
1216
0
1215.5
---------------w
---0--- Floodprone
W
ABKF**
1215
......... Bankfull
AB 2015
MY1 2015
1214.5
MY2 2016
MY3 2017
MY4 2018
1214
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Station (ft)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Note: Stationing for Cross-section 8 has been changed to 6+22; this was the surveyed location last year
and this year and is changed from what is shown in the As -built survey and the MY1 report.
** Note: ABKF stands for as -built bankfull which represents the bankfull line held at the as -built cross sectional area.

Permanent Cross-section 9
(MY4 Data - collected October, 2018)
Based on fixed baseline BKF
Stream BKF
Feature Type BKF Area Width
BKF Max BKF
Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER
Low TOB
BKF Elev TOB Elev Depth
Pool - 2.40 6.54
0.37 1.14 17.68 1.02 9.59
1212.81 1213.28 1.61
1214.5
1214
1213.5
1213
�a
w 1212.5
1212
1211.5
1211
UT3 Cross-section 9, Station 8+12*
Monitoring Year 4
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Looking at the Left Bank
Station (ft)
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.
Note: **ABKF stands for as -built bankfull which represents the bankfull line held at the as -built cross sectional area.

Permanent Cross-section 10
(MY4 Data - collected October, 2018)
Based on fixed baseline BKF
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
1
W/D
BH Ratio I
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Low TOB
Depth
Riffle
E
4.85
1 7.34
0.66
1.1
1 11.12
0.99
1 9.35
1212.89
1213.05
1.262
. 4-25-0
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.
Note: **ABKF stands for as -built bankfull which represents the bankfull line held at the as -built cross sectional area.
UT3 Cross-section 10, Station 8+33*
Monitoring Year 4
1214.5
1214
o -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------o
r 1213.5
c
° 1213-----
""""""" -- o--- Floodprone
1212.5
-- ABKF"
W
••••••••• Bankfull
1212
AB 2015
MY1 2015
1211.5
MY2 2016
MY3 2017
1211
MY4 2018
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Station (ft)
. 4-25-0
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.
Note: **ABKF stands for as -built bankfull which represents the bankfull line held at the as -built cross sectional area.

Permanent Cross-section 11
(MY4 Data - collected October, 2018)
Based on fixed baseline BKF
Stream BKF Max BKF
Feature Type BKF Area BKF Width Depth Depth
W/D
BH Ratio ER BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Low TOB
Depth
Pool - 6.12 11.51 0.53 1 1.56
21.72
0.92 1 6.34 1209.27
1209.37
1.65
1212
1211
1210
c
0
> 1209
0
W
TWIN
1207
UT3 Cross-section 11, Station 11+53*
Monitoring Year 4
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Station (ft)
Looking at the Left Bank
X11 -R
10-26-2018
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.
Note: ""ABKF stands for as -built bankfull which represents the bankfull line held at the as -built cross sectional area.

Permanent Cross-section 12
(MY4 Data - collected October, 2018)
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
Low TOB
Depth
Riffle
C
3.59
7.79
0.46
0.89
16.93
0.95
6.83
1208.77
1209.04
1.16
r
c
0
r
d
LU
1211
1210.5
1210
1209.5
1209
1208.5
1208
1207.5
1207
0
UT3 Cross-section 12, Station 11+84*
Monitoring Year 4
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Station (ft)
Looking at the Left Bank
102 8-2018
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.
Note: **ABKF stands for as -built bankfull which represents the bankfull line held at the as -built cross sectional area.

Permanent Cross-section 13
(MY4 Data - collected October, 2018)
Based on fixed baseline bankfull
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF BKF Max BKF
BKF Area Width Depth Depth
W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Low TOB
Depth
Riffle
C
5.87 1 11.49 0.51 1.2
1 22.53 0.99 4.38 1 1203.99
1204.16
1.37
1205.5
1205
c
1204.5
0
0
> 1204
LU
1203.5
1203
1202.5
UT1 Cross-section 13, Station 1+57
Monitoring Year 4
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Station (ft)
Looking at the Left Bank Looking at the Right Bank
Note: *ABKF stands for as -built bankfull which represents the bankfull line held at the as -built cross sectional area.

Permanent Cross-section 14
(MY4 Data - collected October, 2018)
Based on fixed baseline bankfull
Stream BKF BKF
Feature Type BKF Area Width Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Low TOB
Depth
Pool - 3.91 5.46 0.72
1.58
7.58 0.92
1 14.83
1201.59
1202.41
2.40
1204
1203 ------------
1202
ca
1201
d
D 1200
1199
1198
1197
0 10 20 30
UT1 Cross-section 14, Station 3+28
Monitoring Year 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- e
40 50
Station (ft)
Z
ie
MY3 2017
MY4 2018
70 80
Looking at the Left Bank Looking at the Right Bank
Note: *ABKF stands for as -built bankfull which represents the bankfull line held at the as -built cross sectional area.

Permanent Cross-section 15
(MY4 Data - collected October, 2018)
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
Low TOB
Depth
Pool
-
1.17
1 5.01
0.23
0.37
1 21.78
0.92
1 11.39
1201.91
1202.14
0.60
1203
1202.5
1202
0
Y
m 1201.5
w
1201
1200.5
1200
UT2 Cross-section 15, Station 2+15
Monitoring Year 4
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Looking at the Left Bank
Station (ft)
Looking at the Right Bank
Note: *ABKF stands for as -built bankfull which represents the bankfull line held at the as -built cross sectional area.

Permanent Cross-section 16
(MY4 Data - collected October, 2018)
Based on fixed baseline 13KF
Stream BKF BKF
Feature Type BKF Area Width Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev
Low TOB
TOB Elev Depth
Riffle C 1.72 1 5.55 0.31
0.80
1 17.90 0.97 1 8.29 1201.21
1201.33 0.92
1202.5
1202
0 1201.5
�a
d
W 1201
1200.5
1200
0
UT2 Cross-section 16, Station 2+53
Monitoring Year 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------- ---0--- Floodprone
ABKF'
------- Bankfull
AB 2015
MY1 2015
MY2 2016
MY3 2017
MY4 2018
10 20 30 40 50
Looking at the Left Bank
Station (ft)
Looking at the Right Bank
Note: ABKF stands for as -built bankfull which represents the bankfull line held at the as -built cross sectional area.

Figure 7. Longitudinal Profiles with Annual Overlay
1215
1214
1213
1212
1211
1210
1209
1208
1207
1206
C
0 1205
1204
W
1203
1202
1201
1200
1199
1198
1197
1196
1195
0
Monitoring Year 4 Profile of U. Silver Creek, Station 0+00 to 16+00
Data collected October, 2018
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Station (ft)

1208
1207
1206
1205
1204
1203
1202
1201
1200
1199
C
0 1198
ca
1197
W
1196
1195
1194
1193
1192
1191
1190
1189
1188
1600
Monitoring Year 4 Profile of U. Silver Creek, Station 16+00 to 32+00
Data collected October, 2018
1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000 3200
Station (ft)

Monitoring Year 4, Profile of UT1, Station 0+00 to 5+00
Data collected October, 2018
1209
Low Bank
1208
— WSF
-
AB 2015
1207
_...._...._...._.._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._..--
MY1 2015
-
MY2 2016
1206
----
_..- --- --- --- ---- ---- ---- ---- --- --- --- --- ---- ---- ---- ---- --- --- --- --- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
--- ---
MY32017
-
X-13 X-14
MY4 2018
1205
1204
----
-- -
-- -- -- --
1203
------ ... _... _ _... _... _
... _... _... ... _... _... ... _... _... ... ... _... _... ... _...
_
C
1202
-- -
- - -- -
cv
W
1200
_...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._...._..........._
.._....
1199
- -
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
1199
1198
1197
Monitoring Year 4 Profile of UT2, Station 0+00 to 3+20
Data collected October, 2018
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Station (ft)

C
O
m
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
100
200
300 400
Monitoring Year 4, Profile of UT3, Station 0+00 to 14+00
Data collected October 2018
500
m
X -s
700
Station (ft)
m
X-10
Low Bank
WSF
— AB 2015
MY1 TWG
MY2 TWG
MY3 2017
MY4 2018
X-12
900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400

Figure 8. Pebble Count Plots with Annual Overlays
Cross -Section Pebble Count; Monitoring Year 4
U. Silver Creek Mitigation Project, DMS# 94645
SITE OR PROJECT: U. Silver Cr
REACH/LOCATION: Riffle at XS4
FEATURE: Riffle
DATE: 19 -Oct -18
MATERIAL
PARTICLE
SIZE (mm)
Total
MY4 2018
Class %
% Cum
Distribution
Plot Size (mm)
Silt/Clay
Silt / Clay
<.063
Creek
Site
0%
0.063
Sand
Very Fine
.063 -.125
0%
0.125
Fine .125 - .25 0%
0.25
Medium .25-.50 0%
0.50
Coarse .50 - 1.0 2 2% 2%
1.0
Very Coarse 1.0 - 2.0 2%
2.0
Gravel
Very Fine
2.0-2.8
Mainstem
2%
2.8
Very Fine 2.8-4.0 2%
4.0
Fine 4.0-5.6 2%
5.6
Fine 5.6-8.0 5 5% 7%
8.0
Medium 8.0 - 11.0 9 9% 16%
11.0
Medium 11.0 - 16.0 12 12% 28%
16.0
Coarse 16-22.6 14 14% 42%
22.6
Coarse 22.6-32 13 13% 55%
32
Very Coarse 32-45 17 17% 72%
45
Very Coarse 45-64 21 21% 93%
64
Cobble
Small
64-90
3
3%
96%
90
Small 90- 128 3 3% 99%
128
Large 128-180 1 1 % 100%
180
Large 180-256 100%
256
Boulder
Small
256-362
100%
362
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 100 100%
Largest particle— 128
Summary Data
Channel materials
1)16= 11.0 D84 = 55.0
D35 = 19.0 D95 — 80.3
D50 = 28.0 D100= 128- 180
0.01
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
U. Silver Creek Site
U.
Silver
Creek
Site
Reach Pebble Count Size Class Distribution
100%
90%
NAB 2015
■ MY1 2015
80%
Mainstem
at XS4
70%
MY3 2017
60%
■ MY4 2018
c
v
Pebble
Count
Particle
L
d
IL
Size
Distribution
40%
N
100%
30%
U
20%
SAB 2015
10%
90%
0%
0�cb
`b' ti ti ti tiCS
--r MY1 2015
Particle Size Class (mm)
80% _A MY2 2016
70% MY3 2017
--E—MY4 2018
60%
a�
50%
a
> 40%
R 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%
90%
NAB 2015
■ MY1 2015
80%
■ MY2 2016
70%
MY3 2017
60%
■ MY4 2018
c
v
50%
L
d
IL
40%
N
30%
U
20%
10%
0%
0�cb
`b' ti ti ti tiCS
Particle Size Class (mm)

Cross -Section Pebble Count; Monitoring Year 4
U. Silver Creek Mitigation Project, DMS# 94645
E OR PROJECT: U. Silver Cr
ACH/LOCATION: Riffle at XS7
kTURE: Riffle
TE: 18 -Oct -18
MATERIAL
PARTICLE
SIZE mm
Total
MY4 2018
Class %
% Cum
Distribution
Plot Size (mm)
Silt/Clay
Silt / Clay
< .063
Site
0%
0.063
Sand
Very Fine
.063-.125
80%
■ MY2 2016
0%
0.125
Fine .125-.25 0%
0.25
Medium .25-.50 1 1 % 1 %
0.50
Coarse .50-1.0 1 1 % 2%
1.0
Very Coarse 1.0-2.0 2% 1
2.0
Gravel
Very Fine
2.0-2.8
Riffle
2%
2.8
Very Fine 2.8-4.0 2%
4.0
Fine 4.0-5.6 3 3% 5%
5.6
Fine 5.6-8.0 8 8% 13%
8.0
Medium 8.0 - 11.0 11 11% 24%
11.0
Medium 11.0-16.0 20 20% 44%
16.0
Coarse 16-22.6 19 19% 62%
22.6
Coarse 22.6-32 5 5% 67%
32
Very Coarse 32-45 12 12% 79%
45
Very Coarse 45-64 6 6% 85%
64
Cobble
Small
64-90
4
4%
89%
90
Small 90-128 4 4% 93%
128
Large 128-180 5 5% 98%
180
Large 180-256 2 2% 100%
256
Boulder
Small
256-362
100%
362
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 I 1 101 100%
Largest particle= 180
Summary Data
Channel materials
D16 = 8.8 D84 = 59.8
D35 = 13.6 D95 = 146.2
D50 = 18.0 D100 = 180 - 256
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%
U.
Silver
90%
Creek
Site
■MY1 2015
80%
■ MY2 2016
70%
■ MY3 2017
60%
fi ■ MY4 2018
Riffle
at
XS7
v 50%
L
CL
40%
N
cNo 30%
V
20%
Pebble
Count
Particle
Size
Distribution
10%
100%
0%
L'0��• ��c�' �c�' �p gyp' gyp' fig' gyp' h(o' ��1\O (o y��b �L tK � CP' q�' \��' �h�' y'��� -7L
Particle Size Class (mm)
--W–AB 2015
�
7
90%
--*--MY1 2015
80%
—A W22016
70%
f MY3 2017
fMY4 2018
60%
d
d 50%
CL
40%
30%
E
U 20%
10%
0%
M
160
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%
■ MY3 2017
60%
fi ■ MY4 2018
c
v 50%
L
CL
40%
N
cNo 30%
V
20%
10%
41L—
0%
L'0��• ��c�' �c�' �p gyp' gyp' fig' gyp' h(o' ��1\O (o y��b �L tK � CP' q�' \��' �h�' y'��� -7L
Particle Size Class (mm)

Cross -Section Pebble Count; Monitoring Year 4
U. Silver Creek Mitigation Project, DMS# 94645
SITE OR PROJECT: U. Silver Cr
REACH/LOCATION: UTI XS13
FEATURE: Riffle
DATE: 19 -Oct -18
MATERIAL
PARTICLE
SIZE mm
Total
MY4 2018
Class %
% Cum
Distribution
Plot Size (mm)
Silt/Clay
Silt / Clay
<.063
Creek
0%
0.063
Sand
Very Fine
.063-.125
■ AB 2015
0%
0.125
Fine .125-.25 2 2% 2%
0.25
Medium .25-.50 6 6% 8%
0.50
Coarse .50-1.0 1 1 % 9%
1.0
Very Coarse 1.0-2.0 9%
2.0
Gravel
Very Fine
2.0-2.8
UT1
9%
2.8
Very Fine 2.8-4.0 9%
4.0
Fine 4.0-5.6 1 1 % 10%
5.6
Fine 5.6-8.0 2 2% 12%
8.0
Medium 8.0-11.0 3 3% 15%
11.0
Medium 11.0-16.0 13 13% 28%
16.0
Coarse 16-22.6 7 7% 35%
22.6
Coarse 22.6-32 8 8% 43%
32
Very Coarse 1 32-45 1 16 16% 1 59% 1
45
Very Coarse 45-64 20 20% 79%
64
Cobble
Small
64-90
15
15%
94%
90
Small 90-128 2 2% 96%
128
Large 128- 180 3 3% 99%
180
Large 180-256 1 1 % 100%
256
Boulder
Small
256-362
U
100%
362
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 100 100%
Largest particle= 180
Summary Data
Channel materials
D16= 11.3 D84= 71.7
D35 = 22.6 D95 = 107.3
D50 = 37.1 D100 = 180- 256
0.01
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
U. Silver Creek Site
UT1 at XS13
U. Silver
Creek
Site
100%
■ AB 2015
90%
■ MY1 2015
80%
m MY2 2016
UT1
■ MY3 2017
at XS13
60%
■ MY4 2018
c
v
50%
L
a
Pebble
40%
Count
Particle
N
Size
Distribution
U
100%
20%
10%
SAB 2015
7TT
M
I
90%
0%
L'
�,�• • `�h' ��' • �O
gyp' gyp' ��' �O' h(�' 0 1 O � �� ti �� �ti�`'����O' ��' �O' ��' �,y �,� �;�' �`L
Particle Size Class (mm)
–4 ---MY 12015
80%
MY2 2016
70%
f MY3 2017
—�—MY4 2018
60%
Q
2
50%
a
40%
30%
E
20%
V
10%
0%
0.01
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
U. Silver Creek Site
UT1 at XS13
Reach Pebble Count Size Class Distribution
100%
■ AB 2015
90%
■ MY1 2015
80%
m MY2 2016
70%
■ MY3 2017
60%
■ MY4 2018
c
v
50%
L
a
40%
N
30%
U
20%
10%
0%
L'
�,�• • `�h' ��' • �O
gyp' gyp' ��' �O' h(�' 0 1 O � �� ti �� �ti�`'����O' ��' �O' ��' �,y �,� �;�' �`L
Particle Size Class (mm)

Cross -Section Pebble Count; Monitoring Year 4
U. Silver Creek Mitigation Project, DMS# 94645
SITE OR PROJECT:
U. Silver Cr
REACH/LOCATION:
UT2 XS 16
FEATURE:
Riffle
DATE:
19 -Oct -18
MATERIALI
PARTICLE
SIZE mm
Total
MY4 2018
Class %
% Cum
Distribution
Plot Size (mm)
Silt/Clay
Silt / Clay
<.063
3
3%
3%
0.063
Sand
Very Fine
.063-125 .125
100%
3%
0.125
Fine .125-.25 3%
0.25
Medium .25-.50 13 12% 15%
0.50
Coarse .50-1.0 1 9 8% 23%
1.0
Very Coarse 1.0-2.0 23%
2.0
Gravel
Very Fine
2.0-2.8
3
3%
26%
2.8
Very Fine 2.8-4.0 8 7% 34%
4.0
Fine 4.0-5.6 6 6% 39%
5.6
Fine 5.6-8.0 5 5% 44%
8.0
Medium 8.0 - 11.0 9 8% 52%
11.0
Medium 11.0-16.0 16 15% 67%
16.0
Coarse 16-22.6 11 10% 78%
22.6
Coarse 22.6-32 9 8% 86%
32
Very Coarse 32-45 3 3% 89%
45
Very Coarse 45-64 4 4% 93%
64
Cobble
Small
64-90
1
1 %
93%
90
Small 90-128 5 5% 98%
128
Large 128-180 2 2% 100%
180
Large 180-256 1 1 1 100%
256
Boulder
Small
256-362
■ MY3 2017
100%
362
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 107 100%
Largest particle= 128
Summary Data
Channel materials
D16 = 0.5 D84 = 29.5
D35 = 4.3 D95 = 101.1
D50 = 10.1 D100 = 128-1801
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%
90%
■ AB 2015
■ MY1 2015
80%
■ MY2 2016
70%
■ MY3 2017
60%
■ MY4 2018
c
v
50%
L
d
a.
40%
N
30%
V
20%
10%
0%
Particle Size Class (mm)
AB 2015
A"T
SAW
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%
90%
■ AB 2015
■ MY1 2015
80%
■ MY2 2016
70%
■ MY3 2017
60%
■ MY4 2018
c
v
50%
L
d
a.
40%
N
30%
V
20%
10%
0%
Particle Size Class (mm)

Cross -Section Pebble Count; Monitoring Year 4
U. Silver Creek Mitigation Project, DMS# 94645
SITE OR PROJECT: U. Silver Cr
REACH/LOCATION: UT3 XS8
FEATURE: Riffle
DATE: 19 -Oct -18
MATERIAL
PARTICLE
SIZE (mm)
Total
MY4 2018
Class %
% Cum
Distribution
Plot Size (mm)
Silt/Clay
Silt / Clay
< .063
0%
0.063
Sand
Very Fine
.063-.125
0%
0.125
Fine .125 - .25 1 1 % 1 %
0.25
Medium .25 -.50 1 %
0.50
Coarse .50 - 1.0 1 6 6% 7%
1.0
Very Coarse 1.0-2.0 7%
2.0
Gravel
Very Fine
2.0-2.8
0 MY2 2016
7%
2.8
Very Fine 2.8-4.0 7%
4.0
Fine 4.0-5.6 7%
5.6
Fine 5.6-8.0 7%
8.0
Medium 8.0 - 11.0 5 5% 12%
11.0
Medium 11.0 - 16.0 10 10% 22%
16.0
Coarse 16-22.6 19 19% 41%
22.6
Coarse 22.6-32 5 5% 46%
32
Very Coarse 32-45 7 7% 52%
45
Very Coarse 45-64 30 30% 82%
64
Cobble
Small
64-90
11
11%
93%
90
Small 90-128 1 1 % 94%
128
Large 128-180 5 5% 99%
180
Large 180-256 1 1 % 100%
256
Boulder
Small
256-362
100%
362
Small 362-512 100%
512
Medium 512-1024 100%
1024
Large -Very Large 1 1024 - 2048 100%
2048
Bedrock
Bedrock
> 2048
100%
5000
Total % of whole count I 1 101 100%
Largest particle= 180
Summary Data
Channel materials
D16 = 12.86 D84- 67.76
D35 = 20.39 D95 = 136.57
D50 = 39.84 1 D100 = 180-2-561
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
■ MY1 2015
80%
0 MY2 2016
70%
■ MY3 2017
60%
■ MY4 2018
oil
c
v
50%
L
4)
d
awl M
N
cT
fill
Mir
ap.
U
20%
10%
L,
0% -lid
MYI 2015
Particle Size Class (mm)
--Ar-MY2 2016
di
-G�-MY4 2018
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
■ MY1 2015
80%
0 MY2 2016
70%
■ MY3 2017
60%
■ MY4 2018
c
v
50%
L
4)
d
40%
N
cT
30%
U
20%
10%
L,
0% -lid
Particle Size Class (mm)

Table 10. Monitoring Year 4 Stream Summary
A., G. O. I- IN!, Patterson, O.R. 0-., LO.Slab, AG. lessnp, I R, Everhart, and R.E. S -,1999. a—M1ydroulic geomeM1y relationships-­
elationships for NOM Caroline streams. wars
Hydrology. —RASymposium Proceedings.O.S.Olsen-al.P. Poryontly,etls. Ana-
-,W.A.,
merican W&er Resowces Association.lune 30.luly 2, 1999. Bozeman, MT.
2. Flaeman, W.A., D.E Wise, M.A. Walker, R. Moms, MA Cantrell, M. Clcmm ....1—ings, O.R. Climm�, ].M. Pattemon. le.. BatdrNll Regional Curvca fm NOM Carolina Monnbin Shams. In: AWRA Conittmce Proceedings, D.L. Kanc, editor. American Water Reeourcca Specislry CONdrcna on Wattt Reaoarces w Extreme Envirovm<nvs. Anchorage, Alaska
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
MONITORING YEAR 4 REPORT
UPPER SILVER CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT
DMS PROJECT NO. 94645
l
BF Width (ft)
a��a�aa�a0�aa�aaaaaaaaaaaoaaaaoaaaaoaaaaoa®aaao
aaaa�aa�ao�aa�aa�aa�aaa�aaaoa�aaaoa�aaaoa�aaaoa�aaao
a
l l
a�aa�ao
I I
as
I I
aaa�aaaaa�aaaoa�aaaoa�aaaoa�aaaoa�aaao
:
aaaa®aa®ao�aa�aaa®aaaoa®aaaoa®aaaoa®aaaoa®aaaoa®aaao
a��a�aa�ao®aa�aaa�aaaaa�aaaoa�aaaoa�aaaoa�aaaoa�aaao
wi—epth -in
aaaa�aa�ao®aa®aaamaaaaa�aaaoa®aaaoa®aaaoa®aaaoa®aaao
Entrenchment Ratio
aaaa®aa
II
ao�aa�aa®aa�aaa®aaaoa®aaaoa®aaaoa
aaaoa®aaao
Bank Height Ratio
aaaa®aa�ao�aa�aa�aa�aaa
aaaoa
aaaoa�aaaoa�aaaoa�aaao
eeeee�eeeee�eeeeeeeeeee�eeeee�eeeee�eeeoe�eeeoe®eeeo
Channel Beltvvidth (ft)
aaaa
II
as
•11 aaaaaaaa�aa�aa®���®®®���®®®���®®®���®®®����®
Radius mr—amr, (ft)
Rc:Bankfuli Width (ft/ft)
Meander Wa,elegth (ft)
Meander Width Ratio
•
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa����®0�����o��®�®o����®oma®�®moo
•- ;
aaaa
1 I
as
11 •
aaaa
11
as
11
as
11 as
11
11 1
11
11 1
11
0
11 1
11
11 1
11
11
0
11 1
11
11 1
1 I.•
11 .
0'
111:
11 1
11
11
111'
0'
111.
11
11
11.
11 1
0'
Pool Length
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa��®®�©��®��o�����m®����m
II®gym
aaaa�aa®a��aa�aa�aa®aaa®aaaoa®aaaoa
aaaoa®aaaoa®�®tea
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
��
�■
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
�-' d
aaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaa
Reach She., Strc,6 (competency)
aaaa�aaaa�aa�aaa�aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Max part si�c(onmenbili.ed tbmdomll��
Stream Pow
aaaoa®aaaa�aa�aaamaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
,,
,, .ranveters
•
a����aa�aaa�aaaa�aa�aa®aa®aa®aa®aa®aa®aa®aa®aa®aa®aa
lenpecsions
aaaaa�aaaaa�aaaaa�aaaaa�aaaaa�aaaaa�aaaaa�aaaaa�aaaa
R.agen Classification
aaaaa�aaaaa�aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
BF
aaaa�aa�a�®a�aaaa®aaaaa�aaaaa�aaaaa�aaaaa�aaaaa�aaaa
F
a��amaamaaamaaaaa®aaaaa�aaaaa�aaaaa�aaaaa�aaaaa�aaaa
Valley Length
aaaoa®aaaaaaaaaaa�aaaaa�aaaaa�aaaaa�aaaaa�aaaaa�aaaa
Channel
lengthBF
aaaaa�aaaaa�aaaaa®aaaaa�aaaaa�aaaaa�aaaaa�aaaaa�aaaa
aaaaa��aaaa�aaaaa®�aaaa��aaaa��aaaa��aaaa��aaaa��aaa
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (filft)
aaaoa
I I .I
aaaa
I I :•
aaaoa
I I I
aaaa
I I•
a�aa�
I I•
a�aa�
I I•
a�aa�
I I•
a�aa�
I I•
aaaa
slopeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
II
aaaa
II
a�aa�
II
a�aa�
II
a�aa�
II
a�aa�
II
aaaa
Bankroll Floodplam Area (acres)
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa®aaaoa®aaaoa®aaaoa®aaaoa®aaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Cb_el Stability or Habitat Metric
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Biological a, Otheraaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
A., G. O. I- IN!, Patterson, O.R. 0-., LO.Slab, AG. lessnp, I R, Everhart, and R.E. S -,1999. a—M1ydroulic geomeM1y relationships-­
elationships for NOM Caroline streams. wars
Hydrology. —RASymposium Proceedings.O.S.Olsen-al.P. Poryontly,etls. Ana-
-,W.A.,
merican W&er Resowces Association.lune 30.luly 2, 1999. Bozeman, MT.
2. Flaeman, W.A., D.E Wise, M.A. Walker, R. Moms, MA Cantrell, M. Clcmm ....1—ings, O.R. Climm�, ].M. Pattemon. le.. BatdrNll Regional Curvca fm NOM Carolina Monnbin Shams. In: AWRA Conittmce Proceedings, D.L. Kanc, editor. American Water Reeourcca Specislry CONdrcna on Wattt Reaoarces w Extreme Envirovm<nvs. Anchorage, Alaska
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
MONITORING YEAR 4 REPORT
UPPER SILVER CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT
DMS PROJECT NO. 94645

Table 10. Monitoring Year 4 Stream Summary
A., G.O. lemm�gs, I.M. Patterson, O.R. Climoq L O. Slate, A G. -1-,J R Everhart, and R.E. --, 1999. a— —.-go— relationships Ior NOM Carolina streams. Wildland Hydrology. AWRA Symposium Proceedings. O.S. Olsen and 11.Poryontly, etls. American Wa[er Resoarces Association. -1-1, 2, 1999. Ba.— MT.
2.Harman, W.A., O.E Wise, M.A. Walker, R.Moms, MA Can[rc11,M. Clemmore,G.D. lemiags, O.R. Climm�, ].M. PaRemoa.2000. BaNrNll Regional Curvca fm NOM Carolina Mountain Shams. la: AWRA Coafttmce Proceedings, D.L.Kaac,editor.Americsa Water Reeourcca Specislry Coafercma on Wattt Resoarcee w Extreme Envirovm<nvs. Anchorage, Alaska
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
MONITORING YEAR 4 REPORT
UPPER SILVER CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT
DMS PROJECT NO. 94645
Mi.
Mean
toted
Mi.
toted
Mi.
Mi.
Mean
Mi.
Mi.
Md
Mi.
M�d
MM
SD
BF Width (it)
a�®aMa'
aa®a©
®aa
aaa
�®
��©
aaaa®aa�aa�aa�aaaaaaaa��aaaaa�aaaaa�aaa©aaaa©aaaa©
BF Mo. Depth
BFM :
aaaa®aa�aa�aa�aa�aa®aa®®®��©��®®
II•
o®®®®
II
©��®®�©��®®
II
o
Widd,/Dcptb Ratio
Entrenchment Ratio
- •
aaaa�aa®aaaaaaaa�aa�aa�®®®
II:
o®®®®
II:
©�®®®moo®®®®
II
©����
II
o
aaaaa�aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa®aaaaa�aaaaa�aaaaa®aaaaa
aaaa
ReMankfill width (ft/ft)
aaaa®aa�aaaaaaaa�aa®aa�®®�®oma®®�®oma®®�®oma®®�®oma®®�®v
Meander W-1-gul, (ft)
Meander Width Ratio
RifflePrattle
Length•.
•-
aaaa
I II
as
I I aaaa
I I
as
I I •
as
I I
as
I II•
11 .
11
11
I I
I II
11
11 •
11
11 1
®
I II
11
11
11 I
11
®'
1 III
11 .
11
11
11
I II
11 I
11
11
11
Pool Length (it)
aaaa
• I I
as
• I I aa�aa�aa�aa�aa�����®®®���m�
I I
��m�����m���®gym
pood Zax Depth (ft)
Pool Volume (it')
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
��
��
r
�W
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
1 I
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
•'I
-/1.2/3.0 /77/800
78.3
•I
39.
aaaa
�aI
aaa�aaaa�a�I
aaaI
aI
aaaI
aaaI
aaa0.39
aaa
Stream Power (tunsp.rt-Pacity)
aaaa®aa®aa�aa�aaa®aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
•
a��aa�aaa�aaaa�aa�aa�aa�aa�aa�aa�aa�aa�aa
®aa�aa�aa
Inapercuma
aaaaa�aaaaaaaaaaa�aaaaa�aaaaa�aaaaa�aaaaa�aaaaa�aaaa
aaaaa©aaaaamaaaaa©aaaaa©aaaaa©aaaaa©aaaaa©aaaaa©aaaa
aaaa�aa�aa®aaaaa®aaaaa
aaaaa®aaaaa®aaaaa®aaaaa®aaaa
:I
a��amaamaaamaaaaa®aaaaamaaaaa�aaaaa�aaaaa�aaaaa�aaaa
Valley Length
aaaaa�aaaaaaaaaaa�aaaaa�aaaaa�aaaaa�aaaaa�aaaaa�aaaa
Channel length (ft)2
aaaaa
aaaaa®aaaaa®aaaaa�aaaaa�aaaaa�aaaaa�aaaaa�aaaa
aaaaa®aaaaa
aaaaa®aaaaa®aaaaa®aaaaa®aaaaa®aaaaa®aaaa
Water Surfuce Slope (Chamel) (ft/ft)
aaaaa
I I
aaaaa
I I I
aaaaa
I I
aaaaa
I I
aaaaa
I I
aaaaa
I I
aaaaa
I I
aaaaa
I I
aaaa
BF ••
aaaaa
II
aaaaaaaaaaa
II
aaaaa
II
aaaaa
II
aaaaa
II
aaaaa
II
aaaaa
II
aaaa
aaaaa�aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Channel Stability oullabitat Metric
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Biological •
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
A., G.O. lemm�gs, I.M. Patterson, O.R. Climoq L O. Slate, A G. -1-,J R Everhart, and R.E. --, 1999. a— —.-go— relationships Ior NOM Carolina streams. Wildland Hydrology. AWRA Symposium Proceedings. O.S. Olsen and 11.Poryontly, etls. American Wa[er Resoarces Association. -1-1, 2, 1999. Ba.— MT.
2.Harman, W.A., O.E Wise, M.A. Walker, R.Moms, MA Can[rc11,M. Clemmore,G.D. lemiags, O.R. Climm�, ].M. PaRemoa.2000. BaNrNll Regional Curvca fm NOM Carolina Mountain Shams. la: AWRA Coafttmce Proceedings, D.L.Kaac,editor.Americsa Water Reeourcca Specislry Coafercma on Wattt Resoarcee w Extreme Envirovm<nvs. Anchorage, Alaska
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
MONITORING YEAR 4 REPORT
UPPER SILVER CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT
DMS PROJECT NO. 94645

Table 11. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Upper Silver Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 94645
Silver Creek (3,016 LF)
Cross-section X-1, Station 2724.3 (Riffle)
Cross-section X-2, Station 2636.7 (Pool)
Cross-section X-3, Station 1898.2 (Pool)
Cross-section X-4, Station 1793.8 (Riffle)
Dimension and substrate
Base
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
29.06
24.58
24.91
24.91
20.28
35.67
29.50
34.01
34.54
33.02
43.45
39.50
42.01
39.84
38.31
23.81
23.50
23.52
24.00
37.72
BF Mean Depth ft
1.69
1.76
1.81
1.68
1.89
1.63
1.76
1.46
1.51
1.55
1.72
1.45
1.19
1.17
1.14
2.01
1.89
1.75
1.75
1.11
Width/Depth Ratio
17.16
13.90
13.77
14.83
10.73
21.82
16.76
23.30
22.87
21.30
25.20
27.30
35.15
34.05
33.61
11.82
12.44
13.46
13.71
33.98
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft)
49.20
43.40
45.00
41.90
38.27
58.30
51.90
49.60
52.03
51.28
74.90
57.30
50.20
46.81
43.51
48.00
44.20
41.10
41.90
41.81
BF Max Depth(ft)
3.04
2.92
3.24
3.11
3.39
3.98
3.92
4.32
4.48
5.24
5.16
4.00
3.95
3.81
3.61
3.34
3.22
3.08
3.13
3.17
Width of Flood rove Area(ft)
>300
>300
>300
>300
>300
>300
>300
>300
>300
>300
>300
>300
>300
>300
>300
>300
>300
>300
>300
>300
Entrenchment Ratio
3.30
3.90
3.80
3.85
4.87
2.50
3.00
2.60
2.55
2.67
2.10
2.30
2.20
2.27
2.36
3.70
3.70
3.70
3.63
2.31
Bank Height Ratio
1.10
1.00
1.10
1.06
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.98
0.70
0.70
0.90
1.07
0.93
1.00
1 1.00
1.00
1.02
0.95
Wetted Perimeter ft
32.44
28.10
28.53
28.27
22.63
38.93
33.02
36.93
37.56
37.84
46.89
42.40
44.39
42.18
40.68
27.83
27.28
27.02
27.50
39.65
Hydraulic Radius ft
1.52
1.54
1.58
1.48
1.69
1.50
1.57
1.34
1.39
1.36
1.60
1.35
1.13
1.11
1.07
1.72
1.62
1.52
1 1.52
1.05
Fixed baseline bankfull elevatio
1197.40
1197.40
1197.40
1197.38
1197.38
1198.20
1198.20
1198.20
1198.20
1198.20
1202.34
1202.34
1202.34
1202.34
1202.34
1203.00
1 1203.00
1203.01
1 1203.01
1203.01
Based on current/developing bankfull feature
BF Width (ft)
29.06
26.22
26.20
-
35.67
29.50
35.29
-
43.45
42.55
42.01
23.81
23.50
23.52
-
-
BF Mean Depth (fr)
1.69
1.72
1.82
1.63
1.76
1.50
1.72
1.45
1.19
2.01
1.89
1.75
Width/Depth Ratio
17.16
15.23
14.40
21.82
16.76
23.50
25.20
29.31
35.15
11.82
12.44
13.46
BF Cross-sectional Area ft�
49.20
45.10
47.60
58.30
51.90
53.09
74.90
61.80
50.20
48.00
44.20
41.10
BF Max Depth ft
3.04
2.99
3.34
3.98
3.92
4.42
5.16
4.15
3.95
3.34
3.22
3.08
Width of Flood rove Area ft
>300
>300
>300
>300
>300
>300
>300
>300
>300
>300
87.26
>300
Entrenchment Ratio
3.30
3.70
>3.70
2.50
3.00
>2.50
2.10
2.10
2.20
3.70
3.70
3.70
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
32.44
29.66
29.84
38.93
33.02
38.29
46.89
45.45
44.39
27.83
27.28
27.02
Hydraulic Radius(ft
1.52
1.52
1.60
1.50
1.57
1.39
1.60
1.36
1.13
1.72
1.62
1.52
Cross Sectional Area between end pins (d)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
d50 (mm)
36.60
41.30
25.10
27.80
28.00
* 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)
28.43
26.08
25.21
25.01
25.02
43.48
41.92
34.57
35.96
44.93
26.61
25.90
25.80
25.75
22.23
BF Mean Depth (ft)
1.65
1.66
1.68
1.66
1.58
1.84
1.75
1.69
1.59
1.53
2.05
1.95
1.84
1.80
1.67
Width/Depth Ratio
17.25
15.69
15.04
15.07
15.84
23.59
23.92
20.50
22.62
29.37
12.98
13.26
14.00
14.31
13.31
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft
46.90
43.40
42.30
41.56
39.53
80.10
73.50
58.30
57.16
68.54
54.50
50.60
47.60
46.23
37.16
BF Max Depth (ft)
2.91
2.81
2.80
2.77
2.75
5.25
4.98
3.78
4.63
3.75
3.30
3.15
2.95
3.20
3.04
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
>300
>300
>300
>300
>300
>300
>300
>300
>300
>300
>300
>300
>300
>300
>300
Entrenchment Ratio
3.10
3.30
3.50
3.48
3.49
1.60
1.60
2.00
1.89
1.51
4.80
4.90
4.90
4.93
5.71
Bank Height Ratio
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.01
0.97
1.00
0.90
1.00
1.01
0.94
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.04
1.00
Wetted Perimeter (11)
31.73
29.40
28.57
28.33
26.42
47.16
45.42
37.95
39.14
48.74
30.71
29.80
29.48
29.35
24.01
Hydraulic Radius (ft
1.48
1.48
1.48
1.47
1.50
1.70
1.70
1.54
1.46
1.41
1.77
1.70
1.61
1.58
1.55
Fixed baseline bankfull elevatio
1208.80
1208.80
1208.80
1208.82
1204.82
1208.14
1208.14
1208.14
1208.14
1208.14
1208.23
1208.23
1208.23
1208.23
1208.23
Based on current/developing bankfull feature
BF Width (ft)
28.43
26.08
25.75
-
43.48
41.92
34.57
26.61
25.90
26.80
-
-
BF Mean Depth (ft)
1.65
1.66
1.68
1.84
1.75
1.69
2.05
1.95
1.84
Width/Depth Ratio
17.25
15.69
15.30
23.59
23.92
20.50
12.98
13.26
14.10
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft
46.90
43.40
43.29
80.10
73.50
58.30
54.50
50.60
50.98
BF Max Depth (ft)
2.91
2.81
2.84
5.25
4.98
3.78
3.30
3.15
3.08
Width ofFloodprone Area (ft)
>300
>300
>300
>300
>300
>300
>300
>300
>300
Entrenchment Ratio
3.10
3.30
>3.40
1.60
1.60
2.00
4.80
4.90
>4.70
Bank Height Ratio
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.90
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
31.73
29.40
29.11
47.16
45.42
37.95
30.71
29.80
30.48
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
1.48
1.48
1.49
1.70
1.70
1.54
1.77
1.70
1.67
Cross Sectional Area between end pins (fl)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
d50 (mm)
-
-
-
-
33.40
15.20
16.00
23.20
18.00
Note: Per DMSART request, the bank height ratio for MY4 has been calculated using the as -built bankfull area. All other values were calculated using the as -built bankfull elevation, as was done for previous monitoring reports.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
MONITORING YEAR 4 REPORT
UPPER SILVER CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT
DMS PROJECT NO. 94645

Table 11. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Upper Silver Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 94645
UTI (495 LF)
Cross-section X-13, Station 1+57 (Riffle)
Cross-section X-14, Station 3+28 (Pool)
Dimension and substrate
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4 MY5
MY+ Base
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
BF Width (ft)
9.59
9.28
9.20
9.02
11.49
9.32
8.59
6.59
6.43
5.46
BF Mean Depth(ft)
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.93
0.75
0.76
0.77
0.51
1.98
1.27
1.36
1.09
0.72
8.88
Width/Depth Ratio
10.33
12.32
12.15
11.71
22.53
4.71
6.75
4.84
5.90
7.58
3.00
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft
8.90
7.00
7.00
6.96
5.87
18.50
10.90
9.00
7.01
3.91
0.69
BF Max Depth (ft)
1.30
1.13
1.09
1.11
1.20
3.70
2.48
2.59
1.76
1.58
>100
Width of Flood roneArea(ft)
>150
>150
>150
>150
>150
>150
>150
>150
>150
>150
11.39
Entrenchment Ratio
5.30
5.40
5.50
5.59
4.38
8.70
9.40
12.30
12.59
14.83
1.20
Bank Height Ratio
1.00
1.10
1.10
1.10
0.99
1.10
1.20
1.20
1.34
0.92
6.56
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
11.45
10.78
10.72
10.56
12.13
13.28
11.13
9.31
8.61
6.69
0.28
Hydraulic Radius (ft
0.78
0.65
0.65
0.66
0.48
1.39
0.98
0.97
0.81
0.59
1201.21
Fixed baseline bankfall elevatior
1203.99
1203.99
1203.99
1203.99
1203.99
1201.60
1201.60
1201.60
1201.59
1201.59
Based on current/developing bankfull feature
7.33
8.35
6.43
-
6.60
5.82
5.46
-
BF Width (ft)
9.59
9.75
9.96
9.30
10.96
8.31
Width/Depth Ratio
8.88
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.93
0.81
0.82
15.99
15.71
1.98
1.36
1.58
BF Cross-sectional Area (ftp
6.10
4.00
3.30
Width/Depth Ratio
10.33
12.04
12.11
2.10
4.71
8.03
5.26
0.98
0.83
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft
8.90
7.90
8.20
Width of Floodprone Area ft
18.50
15.00
13.10
>100
>100
BF Max Depth (ft)
1.30
1.23
1.22
9.20
8.10
3.70
2.89
3.16
7.00
7.10
8.10
Width of Flood roneArea(ft)
>150
>150
>150
1.10
>150
>150
>150
1.10
Wetted Perimeter ft
Entrenchment Ratio
5.30
5.20
5.10
7.42
8.70
7.40
9.70
Hydraulic Radius (ft
0.68 1
0.43
Bank Height Ratio
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.34
0.34
1.10
1.00
1.00
-
_
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
11.45
11.37
11.60
13.26
13.68
11.47
29.30
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.78
0.69
0.71
1.40
1.10
1.14
Cross Sectional Area between end pins (d)
-
-
-
-
-
-
d50 (mm)
38.80
43.60
32.90
26.90
37.10
-
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 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
BF Width ft
7.33
6.42
5.55
5.46
5.01
6.60
5.82
4.68
5.11
5.55
BF Mean Depth(ft)
0.83
0.46
0.45
0.37
0.23
0.41
0.37
0.32
0.27
0.31
Width/Depth Ratio
8.88
13.87
12.28
14.76
21.78
15.99
15.71
14.47
18.93
17.90
BF Cross-sectional Area ftp
6.10
3.00
2.50
2.02
1.17
2.70
2.20
1.50
1.37
1.72
BF Max Depth fr
1.66
0.84
0.69
0.69
0.37
0.91
0.77
0.63
0.66
0.80
Width of Floodprone Area ft
>100
>100
>100
>100
>100
>100
>100
>100
>100
>100
Entrenchment Ratio
9.20
10.50
12.10
12.34
11.39
7.00
7.10
8.70
7.97
8.29
Bank Height Ratio
1.10
1.20
1.40
1.30
0.92
1.20
1.00
1.20
1.23
0.97
Wetted Perimeter (ft
8.99
7.34
6.45
6.20
5.14
7.42
6.56
5.32
5.65
6.15
Hydraulic Radius ft
0.68
0.41
0.39
0.33
0.23
0.36
0.34
0.28
0.24
0.28
Fixed baseline bankfull elevatio
1201.90
1201.90
1201.90
1201.91
1201.91
1201.21
1201.21
1201.21
1201.21
1201.21
Based on current/developing bankfull feature
BF Width ft
7.33
8.35
6.43
-
6.60
5.82
5.46
-
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.83
0.46
0.52
0.41
0.37
0.38
Width/Depth Ratio
8.88
13.87
12.33
15.99
15.71
14.50
BF Cross-sectional Area (ftp
6.10
4.00
3.30
2.70
2.20
2.10
BF Max Depth (ft)
1.66
0.98
0.83
0.91
0.77
0.74
Width of Floodprone Area ft
>100
>100
>100
>100
>100
>100
Entrenchment Ratio
9.20
8.10
10.50
7.00
7.10
8.10
Bank Height Ratio
1.10
1.10
1.10
1.20
1.00
1.10
Wetted Perimeter ft
8.99 1
9.27
7.47
7.42
6.56
6.22
Hydraulic Radius (ft
0.68 1
0.43
0.44
0.36
0.34
0.34
Cross Sectional Area between end pins (fi?)
-
_
-
-
_
d50 (mm)
- 1
29.30
9.50
13.60
10.10
Note: F'er DMS/IK I request, the banK height ratio Tor MY4 has been calculated using the as-bullt banKtull area. All other Values were calculated using the as-bullt banKtull elevation, as was done Tor previous monitoring reports.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
MONITORING YEAR 4 REPORT
UPPER SILVER CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT
DMS PROJECT NO. 94645

Table 11. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Upper Silver Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 94645
UT3 (1,348 LF)
Cross-section X-8, Station 6+22 (Riffle)
Cross-section X-9, Station 8+12 (Pool)
Cross-section X-10, Station 8+33 (Riffle)
Cross-section X-11, Station 11+53 (Pool)
Dimension and substrate
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4 MY5
MY+ Base
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4 MY5
MY+ Base
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4 MY5
MY+ Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4 MY5 MY+
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
BF Width (ft)
10.05
8.81
9.22
9.28
8.50
10.73
9.50
9.36
10.57
6.54
8.1
6.95
7.19
7.29
7.34
13.03
11.53
11.35
11.35
11.51
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.65
0.61
0.51
0.50
0.44
1.02
0.82
0.46
0.50
0.37
0.8
0.68
0.74
0.72
0.66
1.01
0.85
0.61
0.63
0.53
Width/Depth Ratio
15.46
14.53
18.05
18.56
19.32
10.53
11.64
20.37
21.14
17.68
10.3
10.16
9.70
10.13
11.12
12.80
13.65
18.73
18.02
21.72
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft
6.50
5.30
4.70
4.61
3.74
10.90
7.80
4.30
5.30
2.40
6.3
4.80
5.31
5.27
4.85
13.22
9.70
6.90
7.12
6.12
BF Max Depth (ft)
1.13
1.05
1.13
1.10
1.06
1.74
1.59
1.16
1.47
1.14
1.1
0.94
1.08
1.09
1.10
2.17
1.88
1.70
1.65
1.56
Width of Floodprone Area (11)
>150
>150
>150
>150
>150
>150
>150
>150
>150
>150
>150
>150
>150
>150
>150
>150
>150
>150
>150
>150
Entrenchment Ratio
5.40
6.10
5.90
5.83
6.32
5.80
6.60
6.70
5.93
9.59
8.5
9.90
9.60
9.42
9.35
5.60
6.30
6.40
6.43
6.34
Bank Height Ratio
1.00
1.10
1.00
1.18
0.86
1.00
1.20
1.20
1.24
1.02
1.10
1.20
1.10
1.06
0.99
1.00
1.10
1.10
1.10
0.92
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
11.35
10.03
10.24
10.28
9.09
12.77
11.14
10.28
11.57
7.73
9.6
8.31
8.67 1
8.73
7.85
15.05
13.23
12.57
12.61
12.48
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.57
0.53
0.46
0.45
0.41
0.85
0.70
0.42
0.46
0.31
0.7
0.58
0.61 1
0.60
0.62
0.88
0.73
0.55
0.56
0.49
Fixed baseline bankfull elevatior
1215.38
1215.38
1215.38
1215.38
1215.38
1212.81
1212.81
1212.81
1212.81
1212.81
1212.89
1212.89
1212.89 1
1212.89
1212.89
1209.27
1209.27
1209.27
1209.27
1209.27
Based on current/developing bankfull feature
BF Width (ft)
10.10 T
11.68
12.21
-
10.70
12.10
12.07
-
-
8.10
7.47
7.99
-
-
13.00
13.02
12.34
-
-
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.65 1
0.53
0.50
1.02
0.87
0.61
0.78
0.76
0.81
1.01
0.92
0.67
Width/Depth Ratio
15.46
22.03
24.49
10.53
13.84
19.78
10.34
9.83
9.89
12.80
14.21
18.43
BF Cross-sectional Area (W)
6.50
6.20
6.10
10.90
10.60
7.40
6.30
5.70
6.40
13.22
11.90
8.30
BF Max Depth (ft)
1.13
1.14
1.26
1.74
1.86
1.44
1.09
1.07
1.23
2.17
2.06
1.82
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
>150
>150
>150
>t50
>150
>150
>150
>150
>150
>150
>150
>150
Entrenchment Ratio
5.40
4.60
4.40
5.80
5.20
5.20
8.50
9.20
8.60
5.60
5.60
5.90
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)
11.40
12.74
13.21
12.74
13.84
13.29
9.66
8.99
9.61
15.02
14.86
13.68
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.57
0.49
0.46
0.86
0.77
0.56
0.65
0.63
0.67
0.88
1 0.80
0.61
Cross Sectional Area between end pins (d)
d50 (mm)
31.20
20.40
16.40
0.34
39.84
Cross-section X-12, Station 11+84 (Riffle)
Dimension and substrate
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4 MY5
MY+ Base
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4 MY5
MY+ Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4 MY5
MY+ Base
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4 MY5 MY+
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
BF Width ft
8.17
7.80
7.69
7.62
7.79
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.90
0.74
0.66
0.58
0.46
Width/Depth Ratio
9.12
10.57
11.72
13.14
16.93
BF Cross-sectional Area ftp
7.30
5.80
5.00
4.40
3.59
BF Max Depth ft
1.38
1.07
0.93
0.87
0.89
Width of Floodprone Area ft
>150
>150
>150
>150
>150
Entrenchment Ratio
9.40
7.00
7.30
6.94
6.83
Bank Height Ratio
1.20
1.30
1.30
1.17
0.95
Wetted Perimeter ft
9.97
9.28
9.01
8.78
8.41
Hydraulic Radius (ft
0.73
0.63
0.55
0.50
0.43
Fixed baseline bankfull elevatio
1208.77
1208.77
1208.77
1208.77
1208.77
Based on current/developing bankfull feature
BF Width ft
8.20
9.13
9.15
-
BF Mean Depth ft
0.90
0.87
0.82
Width/Depth Ratio
9.12
10.45
11.11
BF Cross-sectional Area E
7.30
8.00
7.50
BF Max Depth ft
1.38
1.34
1.23
Width of Floodprone Area ft
>150
>150
>150
Entrenchment Ratio
9.40
8.50
8.50
Bank Height Ratio
1.20
1.00
1.00
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
10.00
10.87
10.79
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.73
0.74
0.70
Cross Sectional Area between end pins (ft)
-
d50 (mm)
Note: Per DMS/IRT request, the bank height ratio for MY4 has been calculated using the as -built bankfull area. All other values were calculated using the as -built bankfull elevation, as was done for previous monitoring reports.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
MONITORING YEAR 4 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
Table 12a. Wetland Restoration Area Well Success
Figure 11. Wetland Photo Log

Figure 9. Observed Rainfall vs. Historical Average
10.0
9.0
8.0
7.0
6.0
s
U
C
c 5.0
0
M
a 4.0
a
3.0
go
1.0
0.0
Upper Silver Creek Project, MY4
Observed Rainfall vs. Historic Average
January February March April May June July August September October November December
— •— • Historic Average — •— -Historic 30% probable — •- -Historic 70% probable t Upper Silver Rain Gauge
Rutherfordton, NC (KFQD) --*—Marion, NC (NGRF) --*—Morganton, NC (KMRN)
Note: Rainfall data from Marion (NGRF) and Morganton (KMRN) was incomplete for some months and only data that was
available is presented.
Historic rainfall data from Burke County Soil Survey, NRCS, pg. 420
Rainfall data source for Upper Silver Rain Gauge: Onsite HOBO tipping bucket rain gauge with Pendant Data Logger
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 Morganton, NC: http://climate.ncsu.edu/cronos?station=KMRN&temporal=hourly
Rainfall data source for historic averages: Morganton, NC WETS Table (1971-2016)
-•�
ti's
,�•--
..
.0
% '00
'0
oeo—
ft
ke.
..•
January February March April May June July August September October November December
— •— • Historic Average — •— -Historic 30% probable — •- -Historic 70% probable t Upper Silver Rain Gauge
Rutherfordton, NC (KFQD) --*—Marion, NC (NGRF) --*—Morganton, NC (KMRN)
Note: Rainfall data from Marion (NGRF) and Morganton (KMRN) was incomplete for some months and only data that was
available is presented.
Historic rainfall data from Burke County Soil Survey, NRCS, pg. 420
Rainfall data source for Upper Silver Rain Gauge: Onsite HOBO tipping bucket rain gauge with Pendant Data Logger
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 Morganton, NC: http://climate.ncsu.edu/cronos?station=KMRN&temporal=hourly
Rainfall data source for historic averages: Morganton, NC WETS Table (1971-2016)

vigure lu. wetiana gauge grapns, snowing aeptn to grounawater ana rainraii auring NIY4.
Upper Silver Creek Rain
1/1/2018 2/15/2018 4/1/2018 5/16/2018 6/30/2018 8/14/2018 9/28/2018 11/12/2018 12/27/2018
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
Rainfall data from on-site rain gauge.
10
5
0
S -5
L
(D -10
N
-15
c
3
-20
C9
° -25
� -30
D
-35
-40
-45
50
Upper Silver Creek Wetland Restoration Well
(USAW1)
1/1/2018 2/15/2018 4/1/2018
5/16/2018 6/30/2018 8/14/2018
Date
9/28/2018 11/12/2018 12/27/2018
Ground
Surface
12 inches
USAW1
Begin
Growing
Season
End
Growing
Season
I 1
Ll
1IA. I1
1
1
YR4 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS 1
CRITERIA MET - 42 (20.2%) 1
(4/3/2018-5/12/2018)
GROWING SEASON
1 (4/3 - 10/29)
FWell installed -3/31/2015 1
1/1/2018 2/15/2018 4/1/2018
5/16/2018 6/30/2018 8/14/2018
Date
9/28/2018 11/12/2018 12/27/2018
Ground
Surface
12 inches
USAW1
Begin
Growing
Season
End
Growing
Season

Figure 10. Wetland gauge graphs (continued)
Upper Silver Creek Rain
1/11/2018 2/15/2018 4/1/2018 5/16/2018 6/30/2018 8/14/2018 9/28/2018
11/12/2018 12/27/2018
)
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --
4.0
5.0
6.0
Rainfall data from on-site rain gauge.
Upper Silver Creek Wetland Restoration Well
(USAW2)
10
1
Ground
5
I
Surface
0
77%�111% AL A
-12 inches
_
-5 1,^A ILI I
III AM
I
a�
-10
- USAw2
-15
1
1
c
—
— Begin
LO
-20
a
Growing
p
I
I
Season
w
-25
t
1
-30
1
End
YR4 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
I
Growing
-35 CRITERIA MET - 38 (18.3%)
Season
(4/3/2018-5/8/2018)
-40
GROWING
-45
- 3/31/2015(4/3-1
:SEASONWellinstalled
-50
1/1/2018 2/15/2018 4/11/20118 5/16/2018 6/30/2018 8/14/2018 9/28/2018
11/12/2018 12/27/2018
Date
)

figure :Lu. wetiana gauge grapns (continuea
Upper Silver Creek Rain
1/11/2018 2/15/2018 4/1/2018 5/16/2018 6/30/2018 8/14/2018 9/28/2018 11/12/2018 12/27/2018
0.0
1.0
2.0 - ---
3.0 - - --------------- ---------------------------------- ------------ -----
4.0
5.0 - - -
6.0
Rainfall data from on-site rain gauge.
Upper Silver Creek Wetland Restoration Well
(USAW3)
10
5
0
S -5
-10
co
c
-15
° -20
(7
° -25
w
CL
-30
-35
-40
-45
-50
YR4 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
CRITERIA MET - 41 (19.7%)
(4/3/2018-5/11/2018)
GROWING SEASON
Well installed - 3/31/2015 1 (4/3- 10/29)
1/1/2018 2/15/2018 4/1/2018 5/16/2018
6/30/2018 8/14/2018 9/28/2018 11/12/2018
Date
12/27/2018
Ground
Surface
-12 inches
USAW3
Begin
Growing
Season
End
Growing
Season

re iu. wetiana
1/11/2018 2/15/2018 4/11/20118
0.0
1.0
JT
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
60
10
5
0
-5
-10
-15
o -20
o -25
s
Q. -30
a�
0
-35
-40
-45
50
Rainfall data from on-site rain gauge.
Upper Silver Creek Rain
5/16/2018 6/30/2018 8/14/2018 9/28/2018 11/12/2018 12/27/2018
Upper Silver Creek Wetland Restoration Well
(USAW4)
-12 inche
1/1/2018 2/15/2018 4/1/2018 5/16/2018 6/30/2018 8/14/2018 9/28/2018 11/12/2018 12/27/2018
Date
MLI
YR4 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
GROWING SEASON
-12 inche
1/1/2018 2/15/2018 4/1/2018 5/16/2018 6/30/2018 8/14/2018 9/28/2018 11/12/2018 12/27/2018
Date

Figure 10. Wetland gauge graphs (continued)
I
1
1
Upper Silver Creek Rain
1
1/1/2018 2/15/2018 4/1/2018
5/16/2018 6/30/2018 8/14/2018 9/28/2018
11/12/2018 12/27/2018
0.0
1
1
1.0
1
1
I
Well installed - 3/31/2015 1
YR4 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
CRITERIA MET - 208 (100.0%)
(4/3/2018-10/29/2018)
1
GROWING SEASON
(4/3 -10/29)
2.0
---- --- --- - --
3.0 3.0
------------------------- --------
---4.0
4.0
-
5.0
-----
------ ----- ------ ------ ------------- ------------- ------- -----
6.0
Rainfall data from on-site rain gauge.
Upper Silver Creek Wetland Restoration Well
(USAW5)
10
Ground
5
Surface
0
-12 inches
-5
-10
USAW5
c
-15
O
—
— Begin
L
-20
Growing
Season
o
-25
Q.
-30
—
— End
Growing
y
D
Season
-35
-40
-45
-50
1/1/2018 2/15/2018 4/1/2018
5/16/2018 6/30/2018 8/14/2018 9/28/2018
11/12/2018 12/27/2018
Date
I
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
Well installed - 3/31/2015 1
YR4 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
CRITERIA MET - 208 (100.0%)
(4/3/2018-10/29/2018)
1
GROWING SEASON
(4/3 -10/29)

Figure 10. Wetland gauge graphs (continued)
Upper Silver Creek Rain
1/1/2018 2/15/2018 4/1/2018
5/16/2018 6/30/2018 8/14/2018 9/28/2018
11/12/2018 12/27/2018
0.0
1.0
I
Well installed - 3/31/2015 1
CRITERIA MET - 98 (47.1%)
(4/3/2018-7/9/2018)
1
GROWING SEASON
(4/3 - 10/29)
JT
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
Rainfall data from on-site rain gauge.
Upper Silver Creek Wetland Restoration Well
(USAW6)
10
I
I
Ground
5
Surface
I
I
HA Ai
ry
-12 inches
-5
1
0
-10
USAW6
c
-15
1
1
O-20
—
— Begin
Growing
Season
o
-25
cL-30
1
I
End
�
I
Growing
p
YR4 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
Season
-35
-40
-45
-50
1/1/2018 2/15/2018 4/1/2018
5/16/2018 6/30/2018 8/14/2018 9/28/2018
11/12/2018 12/27/2018
Date
I
Well installed - 3/31/2015 1
CRITERIA MET - 98 (47.1%)
(4/3/2018-7/9/2018)
1
GROWING SEASON
(4/3 - 10/29)

re iu. wetiana
Upper Silver Creek Rain
1/1/2018 2/15/2018 4/1/2018 5/16/2018 6/30/2018 8/14/2018 9/28/2018 11/12/2018 12/27/2018
0.0
5 1.0
2.0 - - ----- - - --- -- -
3.0 - -- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- - ---- -
4.0
5.0 - - - -- - -- -- - - -- -- - - -- - -- - - -- -- - - --
6.0
Rainfall data from on-site rain gauge.
Upper Silver Creek Wetland Restoration Well
(USAW7)
10
5
0
-5
`m -10
r
ca
-15
c
o -20
(7
o -25
t
a -30
m
-35
-40
-45
-50
1 1
1 I
I I
I 1
I I
YR4 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
CRITERIA MET -208 (100.0%)
(4/3/2018-10/29/2018)
1 GROWING SEASON
Well installed - 3/31/2015 1 (4/3- 10/29)
1/1/2018 2/15/2018 4/1/2018 5/16/2018 6/30/2018 8/14/2018 9/28/2018 11/12/2018 12/27/2018
Date
Ground
Surface
-12 inches
USAW7
Begin
Growing
Season
End
Growing
Season

re w. wetiana
1/1/2018 2/15/2018 4/1/2018
0.0
5 1.0
M 2.0
4-
•r- 3.0 - - - -
4.0
5.0
60
10 -
5-
c
0-
a�
3 -5
-10 -
0
C9 -15 -
0
-
o -25 -
-30 -
-35 -
-40 -
-45
50
Rainfall data from on-site rain gauge.
Upper Silver Creek Rain
5/16/2018 6/30/2018 8/14/2018 9/28/2018 11/12/2018
Upper Silver Creek Wetland Restoration Well
(USAW8)
12/27/2018
1/1/2018 2/15/2018 4/11/2018 5/16/2018 6/30/2018 8/14/2018 9/28/2018 11/12/2018 12/27/2018
Date
Ground
Surface
-12 inches
USAW8
Begin
Growing
Season
End
Growing
Season
NAN--
0 k' ILM Kul k", NE
YR4 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
Well installed - 3/31/2015
GROWING SEASON
(4/3 -10/29)
1/1/2018 2/15/2018 4/11/2018 5/16/2018 6/30/2018 8/14/2018 9/28/2018 11/12/2018 12/27/2018
Date
Ground
Surface
-12 inches
USAW8
Begin
Growing
Season
End
Growing
Season

Figure 10. Wetland gauge graphs (continued)
1
1
1
Upper Silver Creek Rain
I
1
1/1/2018 2/15/2018 4/1/2018 5/16/2018 6/30/2018 8/14/2018 9/28/2018
11/12/2018 12/27/2018
0.0
1
5
1.0
1
1
1
Well installed - 3/31/2015
GROWING SEASON
(4/3 - 10/29)
2.0 - - ----- - - ---
-- -
3.0 - -- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- - ----
-
4.0
5.0 - - - -- - -- -- - - -- -- - - -- - -- - - --
-- - - --
6.0
Rainfall data from on-site rain gauge.
Upper Silver Creek Wetland Restoration Well
(USAW9)
10
5
Ground
Surface
c
0
asN.-12
inches
3
-5
-10
USAW9
0
0
0
-15
1114 1W
r
-20
—
— Begin
Q-
Growing
D-25
Season
-30
—
— End
Growing
Season
-35
-40
-45
-50
1/1/2018 2/15/2018 4/11/2018 5/16/2018 6/30/2018 8/14/2018 9/28/2018
11/12/2018 12/27/2018
Date
I
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
YR4 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
CRITERIA MET - 80 (38.5%)
(4/3/2018-6/21/2018)
1
1
1
Well installed - 3/31/2015
GROWING SEASON
(4/3 - 10/29)

Figure 10. Wetland gauge graphs (continued)
1
1
1
1
1
1
Upper Silver Creek Rain
1
1/1/2018 2/15/2018 4/1/2018 5/16/2018 6/30/2018 8/14/2018 9/28/2018
11/12/2018 12/27/2018
1
0.0 11 v
1
=
1.0
GROWING SEASON
(4/3 - 10/29)
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
Rainfall data from on-site rain gauge.
Upper Silver Creek Wetland Restoration Well
(USAW10)
10
5
Ground
Surface
c
.L
0
d
-12 inches
3
-5
P
-10
USAW10
-15
AA
0
r
-20
—
—Begin
?
p-25
Growing
Season
-30
—
— End
Growing
-35
Season
-40
-45
-50
1/1/2018 2/15/2018 4/1/2018 5/16/2018 6/30/2018 8/14/2018 9/28/2018
11/12/2018 12/27/2018
Date
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
YR4 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
CRITERIA MET - 36 (17.3%)
(4/3/2018-5/8/2018)
1
1
Well installed - 3/31/2015
1
GROWING SEASON
(4/3 - 10/29)

re 10. Wetland gauge graphs (continued
Upper Silver Creek Rain
1/1/2018 2/15/2018 4/1/2018 5/16/2018 6/30/2018 8/14/2018 9/28/2018 11/12/2018
0.0
1.0
M
2.0
4-
7 3.0
4.0
5.0
60
Rainfall data from on-site rain gauge.
Upper Silver Creek Wetland Restoration Well
(USAW11)
10
5
0
F -5
L
-10
ca
-�a -15
c
-20
(7
-25
-30
-35
-40
-45
50
12/27/2018
*P�lh1
I IV
1
1
1
YR4 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS 1
CRITERIA MET - 42 (20.2%) 1
(4/3/2018-5/13/2018)
1
Well installed - 3/31/2015 1
GROWING SEASON
(4/3 - 10/29)
1/1/2018 2/15/2018 4/1/2018 5/16/2018 6/30/2018 8/14/2018 9/28/2018 11/12/2018 12/27/2018
Date
Ground
Surface
12 inches
USAW 11
Begin
Growing
Season
End
Growing
Season

Figure 10. Wetland gauge graphs (continued)
I
I
Upper Silver Creek Rain
1
1/1/2018 2/15/2018 4/1/2018 5/16/2018 6/30/2018 8/14/2018 9/28/2018
11/12/2018 12/27/2018
0.0
1.0
1
1
M
4-
2.0
YR4 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS 1
CRITERIA NOT MET - 40 (19.2%) 1
(4/3/2018-5/11/2018)
1
Well installed - 3/31/2015 1
c
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
Rainfall data from on-site rain gauge.
Upper Silver Creek Wetland Restoration Well
(USAW12)
10
Ground
Surface
5
0
TV
-12
"Ape
inches
5
L
-10
USAW12
A—
-15
c
O
_20
— Begin
Growing
o
Season
.r
-25
cL
m
-30
End
Growing
Season
-35
-40
-45
-50
1/1/2018 2/15/2018 4/1/2018 5/16/2018 6/30/2018 8/14/2018 9/28/2018
11/12/2018 12/27/2018
Date
I
I
1
1
1
1
YR4 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS 1
CRITERIA NOT MET - 40 (19.2%) 1
(4/3/2018-5/11/2018)
1
Well installed - 3/31/2015 1
GROWING SEASON
(4/3 - 10/29)

re 10. Wetland gauge graphs (continued
Upper Silver Creek Rain
1/1/2018 2/15/2018 4/1/2018 5/16/2018 6/30/2018 8/14/2018 9/28/2018 11/12/2018
0.0
1.0
M
2.0
4-
7 3.0
4.0
5.0
60
10
5
0
c -5
L
+; -10
ca
-15
c
-20
C7
-25
CL
-30
D
-35
-40
-45
50
Rainfall data from on-site rain gauge.
Upper Silver Creek Wetland Restoration Well
(USAW13)
12/27/2018
1 1
1
1
1
YR4 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
CRITERIA MET - 94 (45.2%) 1
(4/3/2018-7/5/2018)
1
Well installed - 12/3/2015 1
GROWING SEASON
(4/3 - 10/29)
1/1/2018 2/15/2018 4/1/2018 5/16/2018 6/30/2018 8/14/2018 9/28/2018 11/12/2018 12/27/2018
Date
Ground
Surface
-12
inches
USAW13
Begin
Growing
Season
End
Growing
Season

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
Yes/42 days
USAW1
(17.5%)
(4.6%)
(21.2%)
(20.2%)
No/21.8 days
No/12.3 days
Yes/71 days
Yes/38 days
USAW2
(10.5%)
(5.9%)
(34.1%)
(18.3%)
No/20.3 days
No/7 days
No/21 days
Yes/41 days
USAW3
(9.7%)
(3.4%)
(10.1%)
(19.7%)
No/5.5 days
No/5 days
No/11 days
Yes/34 days
USAW4
(2.6%)
(2.4%)
(5.3%)
(16.3%)
Yes/80.5 days
Yes/77.5 days
Yes/119 days
Yes/208 days
USAW5
(38.7%)
(37.3%)
(57.2%)
(100.0%)
No/19.5 days
No/7 days
No/16 days
Yes/98 days
USAW6
(9.4%)
(3.4%)
(7.7%)
(47.1%)
Yes/74.5 days
Yes/72.5 days
Yes/110 days
Yes/208 days
USAW7
(35.8%)
(34.9%)
(52.9%)
(100.0%)
No/2.5 days
No/5.8 days
Yes/46 days
Yes/44 days
USAW8
(1.2%)
(2.8%)
(22.1%)
(21.2%)
Yes/35.5 days
No/13.5 days
Yes/44 days
Yes/80 days
USAW9
(17.1%)
(6.5%)
(21.2%)
(38.5%)
No/19.8 days
No/9.8 days
Yes/44 days
Yes/36 days
USAW10
(9.5%)
(4.7%)
(21.2%)
(17.3%)
No/18.5 days
No/11.5 days
Yes/44 days
Yes/42 days
USAW11
(8.9%)
(5.5%)
(21.2%)
(20.2%)
No/17.5 days
No/7.3 days
No/20 days
Yes/40 days
USAW12
(8.4%)
(3.5%)
(9.6%)
(19.2%)
Yes/55.5 days
Yes/87 days
Yes/94 days
USAW13
(26.7%)
(41.8%)
(45.2%)

Table 12a. Wetland Restoration Area Well Success
Upper Silver Creek Restoration Project:
Project ID No. 94645
*Percentage of
*Percentage of
Most Consecutive
Number of Instances where
Well ID
ID'
Consecutive Days <12
Cumulative Days <12 Cumulative Days
Days Meeting
Water Table is 12 inches
inches from Ground
inches from Ground Meeting Criteria 3
4
Surface'
Criteria Z Surface'
from Ground Surface
Cross-sectional Well Arrays
USAW1
20.2
42.0 62.0 129.0 8
USAW2
18.3
38.0 63.9 133.0 13
USAW3
19.7
41.0 60.1 125.0 10
USAW4
16.3
34.0 56.7 118.0 11
USAW5
100.0
208.0 101.0 210.0 1
USAW6
47.1
98.0 83.2 173.0 6
USAW7
100.0
208.0 101.0 210.0 1
USAW8
21.2
44.0 66.3 138.0 12
USAW9
38.5
80.0 71.2 148.0 11
USAW10
17.3
36.0 68.8 143.0 15
USAW 11
20.2
42.0 62.5 130.0 9
USAW 12
19.2
40.0 52.9 110.0 5
USAW 13
45.2
94.0 72.1 150.0 3
Notes:
'Indicates the percentage of most consecutive number of days within the monitored growing season with a water 12 inches or less
from the soil surface.
2Indicates the most consecutive number of days within the monitored growing season with a water table 12 inches or less from the
soil surface.
3Indicates the cumulative number of days within the monitored growing season with a water table 12 inches or less from the soil
surface.
4Indicates the number of instances within the monitored growing season when the water table rose to 12 inches or less from the soil
surface.
5USAW 13 was installed in December of 2015.
Growing season for Burke County is from April 3 to October 29 and is 208 days long.
Growing season percentage for success is 12% of 208 days = 25 days; where water table is 12 inches or less from the ground surface
HIGHLIGHTED indicates wells that did not meet the success criteria for the most consecutive number of days within the
monitored growing season with a water 12 inches or less from the soil surface. Following Year 3 of wetland monitoring, ten of
thirteen wells did not exhibit a hyrdroperiod of 12% or greater during the growing season. These wells will be observed closely
throughout monitoring Year 3.
12 In -Situ groundwater monitoring dataloggers (1-12) were installed on 3/17/2015. Installation of the dataloggers was completed
following construction in spring 2015 when groundwater levels are normally closer to the ground surface. USAW 13 was installed in
December of 2015
% Consective Days <12" from Ground Surface
USAW1
USAW2
USAW3
USAW4
USAWS
USAW6
USAW7
USAW8 ■ DAYS
USAWS
USAW10
USAW11
USAW12
USAW13
0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60 66 72 78 84 90 96

Figure 11. U. Silver Creek Wetland Photo Log, MY4 (2018)
Photo 1. Wetland Photo Point — WI, replicates photo 50 in
Baseline Report (November 18, 2018).
Photo 2. Wetland Photo Point — W2, replicates photo 51 in
Baseline Report (November 18, 2018).
Photo 3. Wetland Photo Point — W3 replicates photo 52 in
Baseline Report (November 18, 2018).
Photo 4. Wetland Photo Point — W4, replicates photo 53 in
Baseline Report (November 18, 2018).
Photo 5. Wetland Photo Point — W5, replicates photo 54 in
Baseline Report (November 18, 2018).
Photo 6. Wetland Photo Point — W6, replicates photo 55 in
Baseline Report (November 18, 2018).

Photo 7. Wetland Photo Point — W7, replicates photo 56 in
Baseline Report (November 18, 2018).
Photo 8. Wetland Photo Point — W8, replicates photo 57 in
Baseline Report (November 18, 2018).
Photo 9. Wetland Photo Point — W9, replicates photo 58 in
Baseline Report (November 18, 2018).
Photo 10. Wetland Photo Point — W 10, replicates photo 59 in
Baseline Report (November 18, 2018).
Photo 11. Wetland Photo Point — W 11, replicates photo 60 in
Baseline Report (November 18, 2018).
Photo 12. Wetland Photo Point — W12, replicates photo 61 in
Baseline Report (November 18, 2018).

Photo 13. Wetland Photo Point — W 13 added between time of
baseline and MY survey, (November 18, 2018)