20071249 Ver 1_Year 1 Monitoring Report_20100326

Year 1 Monitoring Report for Stream Restoration of
Thompsons Fork and Unnamed Tributary
McDowell County, NC
SCO # D06030 -A
Prepared for:
NCDENR — EEP
2728 Capital Blvd, Suite 1 H 103
Raleigh NC 27604
I cwstem
l loll cement
f'POORAM
Submitted: March 2010
�0

Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc.
Engineers, Surveyors, Planners, Scientists
March 15, 2010
Mr. Tim Baumgartner
Full Delivery Specialist
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
2728 Capital Blvd., Suite 1 H 103
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Subject: Response to EEP Review Comments; Year 1 Monitoring Report for Stream Mitigation
of Thompsons Fork - SCO# D06030 -A.
Dear Tim,
Please find below a response to comments from EEP dated February 15, 2010 regarding the
Year 1 Monitoring Report for Thompsons Fork (SCO# D06030 -A). We have provided three hard
copies of the final report, and have created a pdf of the full final report.
Comment: Page 1, second paragraph — The paragraph states there are 10 vegetation plots while the
plan and tables indicate 8 plots. Please revise.
Response: The paragraph on page 1 incorrectly states that there are 10 vegetation plots. This
page has been corrected to state that there are 8 vegetation plots, as shown on the plan sheets
and the data tables.
Comment: Morphology Tables — Please provide a morph table with each cross section data listed and
compared from Year 0 and subsequent years.
Response: A table providing data on the morphology of each cross section for Year 0 and Year 1
has been created. We will continue to update this table with information from subsequent
monitoring years for inclusion in annual monitoring reports.
We appreciate your acceptance of the Year 1 Monitoring Report. If you have any additional
questions, please feel free to call Cal Miller of Wetlands Resource Center at [phone] or
me at (614) 775 -4513.
Sincerely,
EVANS, MECHWART, HAMBLETON & TILTON, INC.
4 Ac,�e�
Holly Blunck
Environmental Scientist
Copies: Cal Miller, WRC
Guy Pearce, EEP
A legacy of experience A reputation for excellence
5500 New Albany Road, Columbus, OH 43054 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone]
Columbus • Atlanta • Charlotte • Cincinnati • Indianapolis
emht.com

1
Prepared by:
Wetlands Resource Center
3970 Bowen Road
Canal Winchester, Ohio 43110
Project Manager: Cal Miller
P: (614) 864 -7511
F: (614) 866 -3691
And
EMH &T, Inc.
5500 New Albany Road
Columbus, Ohio 43054
Project Manager: Miles F. Hebert, PE
P: (614) 775 -4205
F: (614) 775 -4802
Main: (614) 775 -4500
WRILVUI
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc.
Engineers, Surveyors, Planners, Scientists ��

Year 1 Monitoring Report for Stream Restoration of
Thompsons Fork and Unnamed Tributary
McDowell County, NC
SCO # D06030 -A
Prepared for:
NCDENR — EEP
2728 Capital Blvd, Suite 1H 103
Raleigh NC 27604
I�o�rstem
�'�lllE�l ('111C'11�
�'k UC.ItAA1
Submitted: March 2010

Prepared by:
Wetlands Resource Center
3970 Bowen Road
Canal Winchester, Ohio 43110
Project Manager: Cal Miller
P: (614) 864 -7511
F: (614) 866 -3691
And
EMH &T, Inc.
5500 New Albany Road
Columbus, Ohio 43054
Project Manager: Miles F. Hebert, PE
P: (614) 775 -4205
F: (614) 775 -4802
Main: (614) 775 -4500
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc.
Engineers, Surveyors, Planners, Scientists

Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary .................................................................................... ..............................1
H. Project Background .................................................................................... ..............................3
A. Location and Setting
B. Project Structure, Mitigation Type, Approach and Objectives
C. Project History and Background
D. Monitoring Plan View
III. Project Condition and Monitoring Results ............................................. .............................18
A. Vegetation Assessment
1. Soil Data
2. Vegetative Problem Areas
3. Vegetative Problem Areas Plan View
4. Stem Counts
5. Vegetation Plot Photos
B. Stream Assessment
1. Hydrologic Criteria
2. Stream Problem Areas
3. Stream Problem Areas Plan View
4. Stream Problem Areas Photos
5. Fixed Station Photos
6. Stability Assessment
7. Quantitative Measures
IV. Methodology ................................................................................................ .............................28
List of Tables
Table I.
Project Structure Table
Table II.
Project Mitigation Objectives Table
Table III.
Project Activity and Reporting History
Table IV.
Project Contact Table
Table V.
Project Background Table
Table VI.
Preliminary Soil Data
Table VII.
Vegetative Problem Areas
Table VIII.
Stem Counts for Each Species Arranged by Plot
Table IX.
Verification of Bankfull Events
Table X.
Stream Problem Areas
Table XI.
Categorical Stream Feature Visual Stability Assessment
Table XII.
Baseline Geomorphic and Hydraulic Summary
Table X1II.
Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. December 2009
Monitoring Report — Thompson Fork Monitoring Year 1 of 5
EEP Contract # D06030 -A Page i

List of Appendices
Appendix A Vegetation Raw Data
1. Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos
2. Vegetation Problem Area Plan View
3. Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos
4. Vegetation Data Tables
Appendix B Geomorphologic Raw Data
1.
Stream Problem Areas Plan View
2.
Stream Problem Area Photos
3.
Fixed Station Photos
4.
Table B1. Qualitative Visual Stability Assessment
5.
Cross Section Plots
6.
Longitudinal Plots
7.
Pebble Count Plots
8.
Bankfull Event Photos
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. December 2009
Monitoring Report — Thompson Fork Monitoring Year I of 5
EEP Contract # D06030 -A Page ii

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Thompsons Fork stream restoration project is located near the City of Marion, in Nebo
Township, McDowell County, North Carolina. Pre - restoration land use was primarily
agricultural, resulting in impaired, channelized, eroding, incised and entrenched stream channels.
The project reaches include the restoration of 2,727 linear feet of the Thompsons Fork mainstem
and 1,948 linear feet of an unnamed tributary (UT); also included is 390 linear feet of
enhancement and 356 linear feet of preservation along UT. Restoration of the project streams,
completed during May 2008, provided the desired habitat and stability features required to
improve and enhance the ecologic health of the streams for the long -term. The following report
documents the Year 1 Annual Monitoring for this project.
Vegetative monitoring was completed in September 2009 following the Carolina Vegetation
Survey methodology. Stem counts completed at eight (8) vegetation plots show an average
density of 704 stems per acre for the site. This density exceeds the success criteria of 320
stems /acre after three years of monitoring. All individual plots had stem densities meeting the
minimum requirement. Additionally, a large number of recruit stems were found in each plot. A
few vegetative problem areas of low concern were noted in the project area, included scattered
populations of problematic species and sparse vegetative cover. The problematic species have
been proactively managed by herbicide treatment, with follow -up treatment planned for the
spring; no maintenance is required for the areas of sparse vegetation at this time.
Monitoring of the streams identified some problem areas along the project reaches. A single area
of erosion has resulted in bank scour along the outside of a meander bend on the mainstem of
Thompsons Fork. Narrow bars of wetland vegetation forming along the stream banks of the
mainstem were noted under the aggradation feature category for fixture monitoring. Minor
aggradation is also occurring in a few pools associated with log sills along the unnamed tributary
to Thompsons Fork. None of the problem areas warrant maintenance at this time.
The visual stream stability assessment revealed that the majority of in- stream structures are
functioning as designed and built on the Thompsons Fork mainstem and unnamed tributary.
Bedform features are evolving along the restored reaches compared to as -built conditions, as
shown on the long -term longitudinal profiles. Dimensional measurements of the monumented
cross - sections remain stable when compared to as -built conditions. The comparison of the As-
Built and Year 1 long -term stream monitoring profile data show stability with minimal change
from as -built conditions. Constructed riffles are stable, with median particle distributions ranging
from coarse to very coarse gravel. The substrate in the pools also remained stable, with median
particle distributions of very fine silt /clay material. Based on the crest gage network installed on
the project reaches, one bankfixll event was recorded along each reach since construction was
completed.
The tables on the following page summarize the geomorphological changes along the restoration
reaches for each stream.
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. December 2009
Monitoring Report — Thompson Fork Monitoring Year I of 5
EEP Contract # D06030 -A Page I

Thompsons Fork Mainstem
Parameter
Pre - Restoration
As -built
Year 1
Length
2,530 ft
2,727 ft
2,727 ft
Bankfull Width
20.9 ft
37.7 ft
36.3 ft
Bankfull Max Depth
5.1 ft
2.5 ft
2.4 ft
Width/Depth Ratio
7.7
27.1
28.7
Entrenchment Ratio
1.5
3.0
3.0
Bank Height Ratio
2.4
1.0
1.0
Sinuosity
1.12
1.19
1.19
Unnamed Tributary to Thompsons Fork
Parameter
Pre - Restoration
As -built
Year 1
Length
1,598 ft
1,948 ft
1,948 ft
Bankfull Width
13.1 ft
14.0 ft
15.4 ft
Bankfull Max Depth
1.1 ft
1.7 ft
1.6 ft
Width/Depth Ratio
16.0
17.4
18.1
Entrenchment Ratio
3.4
6.0
5.6
Bank Height Ratio
1.6
1.0
1.0
Sinuosi.t.
1.09
1.36
1.36
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. December 2009
Monitoring Report - Thompson Fork Monitoring Year I of 5
EEP Contract # D06030 -A Page 2

II. PROJECT BACKGROUND
A. Location and Setting
The project is located near the intersection of Watson Road and South Creek Road on the north
side of Interstate 40, approximately 7 miles east of the City of Marion, in Nebo Township,
McDowell County, North Carolina as shown on Figure 1. The stream channels included in this
project are the Thompsons Fork mainstem and one unnamed tributary stream designated UT.
The directions to the project site are as follows:
Exit I -40 at Exit 94 and travel north on Dysartsville Road for 0.6 mile. Turn left and travel
west onto US -70 for 3.2 miles, then turn left onto Watson Road. Travel 1.1 miles south on
Watson Road to the intersection of South Creek Road. Zeb Lowdermilk's residence (13 94
South Creek Road, Nebo, NC 28761) is located on the right (south) side of South Creek
Road at the intersection of Watson Road. The project spans four tracts of land: (Tract 1)
owned by Zeb B. Lowdermilk and wife Francis M. Lowdermilk (deceased); (Tract 2)
owned by Francis McNeely Lowdermilk (Life Estate), Susan Delene Lowdermilk, Don
Lance Lowdermilk, and Dane Scott Lowdermilk; and (Tracts 3 and 4) owned by Zeb B.
Lowdermilk and daughter Susan Lowdermilk Walker Icard.
B. Project Structure, Mitigation Type, Approach and Objectives
Pre - restoration land use surrounding the project streams was predominantly agricultural, including
pasture/hayland with wooded and cleared hillsides. Pre - restoration land use surrounding the
Thompsons Fork restoration reach was active cattle pasture land. The pre- existing riparian
corridor was absent to extremely narrow (5 to 10 feet wide) along the Thompsons Fork mainstem,
widening for only a short distance near the downstream limits of the mainstem project reach.
Streambanks were denuded and extremely unstable, with vertical to undercut banks up to 15 feet
in height from the former farm stream crossing to the bottom of the mainstem reach.
A hayland meadow was present along the UT right bank. Along the UT left bank the riparian
corridor consists of mature hardwood forested hill slope. Along the 356 linear feet of UT
preservation reach, beginning at the granite outcrop spring from which the perennial UT emerges,
the stream exists in a mature mixed hardwood and evergreen forest with diversified herbaceous,
shrub, mid -story and canopy species present. Typical species observed along the streams and
adjacent forested areas include Alnus rugosa (tag alder), Platanus occidentalis (Eastern
sycamore), Abies species (fir), Pinus taeda (loblolly pine), Pinus elliottii (slash pine), Ostrya
virginiana (Eastern hophombeam), Diospyros virginiana (persimmon), Kalmia latifolia
(mountain laurel), Cornus amomum (silky dogwood), flex opaca (American holly), and the
invasive species Ligustrum sinense (Chinese privet) and Lonicera japonica (Japanese
honeysuckle).
Prior to restoration, a combination of historical and recent anthropogenic factors and practices
impacted the channel along the impaired mainstem reach, resulting in its unstable Rosgen G4
stream type. The deeply incised and entrenched condition of the channel prior to restoration was
attributed to management of the riparian corridor for hay production, cattle intrusion resulting in
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. December 2009
Monitoring Report — Thompson Fork Monitoring Year 1 of S
EEP Contract # D06030 -A Page 3

U ■
n
on
� 1
1 L-
Zeb B. Lowdermilk &
Frances M. Lowdermilk
Db 171, Pg 129 �...�
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc.
Engineers • Surveyors • Planners • Scientists
0
Zeb B. Lowdermilk &
isan Lowdermilk Wolker
Icard
�Db 558, Pg 111r
0
Marion C.
Taylor &
Wife Willa R. /
Taylor /
f
/ 10-ee 0�
Frances McNeely Lowdermilk
(Life Estate), Susan Delene
Lowdermilk, Don Lance
Lowdermilk,
and Dane Scott Lowdermilk
DB 210, PG 542
MCDOWELL COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
THOMPSON FORK RESTORATION
FIGURE 1: SITE VICINITY MAP
N.C. ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
Date: July, 2009
Not To Scale
r�
E�an os� estem
En ment
E
E
-
3: 3;
546 0
L0
ai
�Na
Frances McNeely Lowdermilk
(Life Estate), Susan Delene
Lowdermilk, Don Lance
Lowdermilk,
and Dane Scott Lowdermilk
DB 210, PG 542
MCDOWELL COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
THOMPSON FORK RESTORATION
FIGURE 1: SITE VICINITY MAP
N.C. ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
Date: July, 2009
Not To Scale
r�
E�an os� estem
En ment

streambank hoof shear and vegetative denuding from grazing and browsing, combined with the
erosive nature of the discharge of "sediment hungry" water from the 30 -inch reinforced concrete
pipe outfall from Muddy Creek Flood Control Dam Number 8. Additionally, a shift in stream
base level occurred during the construction of Interstate 40 (I -40), when the invert of the culvert
carrying Thompson Fork under I -40 was set 12 to 15 feet below the pre - disturbance invert of the
streambed, triggering channel incision, head cutting, floodplain abandonment, and lowering of the
water table. The Thompsons Fork mainstem unstable bank height ratio, entrenchment ratio,
channel slope (0.0039 ft/ft) greater than valley slope (0.0031 ft /ft) and poorly defined bedform
features showed the instability of the deeply incised, unstable, degrading stream channel
disconnected from its floodplain. Mid - channel, lateral, and transverse sand and gravel bars were
present at locations throughout the mainstem reach, demonstrating the stream lacked stable
pattern, profile, dimension, capacity and competency to entrain the high sediment load. The
locations of these depositional features in the near -bank region deflected flows from the center of
the channel toward the incised vertical to undercut, steep, denuded streambanks, resulting in
accelerated erosion rates. Utilizing the near -bank stress method algorithm, it was estimated 2,076
cubic yards per year (or 2,700 tons per year) of sediment was being eroded from the streambanks
along the mainstem.
The UT channel was a classic Rosgen Type I valley confined, Al -A2 stream type transitioning to
a Type II colluvial valley, B3 stream type at the point where the stream emerges from its mixed
deciduous hardwood and evergreen forested corridor into an open meadow at the top of the
impaired reach. The forested reach segment has some bedrock control, in- stream boulders with
negligible instream woody debris accumulation. The indigenous, well established, healthy riparian
vegetative communities in the channel and in the overbank regions provide extremely stable
channel conditions for the forested reach, and are preserved within the conservation easement
recorded for the project. Agricultural land use adjacent to the stream corridor together with
aggressive vegetative management resulted in steep to undercut streambanks, accelerated
streambank erosion and channel incision along the Enhancement Level H and Priority Level I
Restoration reaches. The unstable streambanks were contributing large volumes of suspended
sediment and bedload material to the larger Thompsons Fork mainstem. It was estimated 291
cubic yards per year (or 378 tons per year) of sediment was being eroded from streambanks along
the UT under existing conditions.
The mitigation goals and objectives for the project streams are related to restoring stable physical
and biological function of the project streams beyond pre- restoration (impaired) conditions. Pre -
restoration conditions consisted of impaired, channelized, eroding, incised and entrenched stream
channels. The specific mitigation goals for the project are listed below.
• Provide stable stream channels with features inherent of ecologically diverse
environments, including appropriate stream -bed features, such as pools and riffles, and a
riparian corridor with diverse and native vegetation. Utilize reference reach information
as the foundation of the restoration design.
• Provide stream channels with the appropriate geometry and slope to convey bankfull
flows while entraining bedload and suspended sediment readily available to the streams.
• Provide a connection between the bankfull channel and the floodprone area, and stable
channel geometry and protective cover to prevent erosion.
• Provide a minimization of future land use impacts to the streams and a perpetual stream
corridor protection via livestock exclusion fencing and restrictive conservation easement
conveyances to the State of North Carolina.
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. December 2009
Monitoring Report — Thompson Fork Monitoring Year 1 of 5
EEP Contract # D06030 -A Page 5

Restoration of the streams has met the objective of the project along both the mainstem of
Thompsons Fork and the UT, providing the desired habitat and stability features required to
improve and enhance the ecologic health of the streams for the long -term. Specifically, the
completed restoration project has accomplished the items listed below.
Thompsons Fork Mainstem:
• Reversed the effects of channelization through a combination of Priority I and
Priority II restoration techniques. The restoration has changed the average
width/depth ratio from 7.7 to 28.7.
• Restored a natural and stable sinuosity to the stream channel, increasing the
sinuosity of the channel from 1.1 to 1.2, and providing a more stable relationship
between the valley and bankfull slopes (the bankfull slope was higher than the valley
slope in the pre- restoration condition and is now less than the valley slope with the
completed restoration).
• Stabilized eroding streambanks by providing an appropriately sized channel with
stable channel bank slopes with a combination of embedded stone, natural fabrics
and hearty vegetation as protective cover. The average Bank Height Ratio has been
changed from 2.36 to 1.0.
• Provided a re- connection between the restored stream channel and the adjacent
floodprone area by both raising the stream bed and excavating the adjacent
floodplain. The completed restoration changed the average entrenchment ratio from
1.53 to 3.0.
• Created instream aquatic habitat features such as deep pools supported by riffles,
including rock cross vanes with deep pools to transition the channel thalweg from
the restored reach to the downstream existing channel.
• Re- vegetated the riparian corridor with indigenous trees and shrubs and preservation
of existing riparian corridors where possible.
Unnamed Tributary (UT):
■ Reversed the effects of channelization through a combination of Priority I and
Priority II restoration techniques, as well as Enhancement Level I activities and
Preservation of a short reach at the upstream end of the project. The average
width/depth ratio of the restored stream channel is 18.1. In the restoration reach,
stable pattern, profile and dimension were all restored to the stream channel. In the
enhancement reach, a stable profile was provided and dimension of the stream
channel was modified accordingly. The preservation reach is in a stable and heavily
wooded corridor that will be protected by the conservation easement for the project.
• Restored a natural and stable sinuosity to the stream channel, increasing the
sinuosity of the channel from 1.1 to more than 1.3, and providing a more stable
relationship between the valley and bankfull slopes (the bankfull and valley slopes
were nearly identical in the pre- restoration condition and is substantially less than
the valley slope with the completed restoration).
• Stabilized eroding streambanks by providing an appropriately sized channel with
stable channel bank slopes. The average Bank Height Ratio has been changed from
1.63 to 1.0.
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. December 2009
Monitoring Report — Thompsons Fork Monitoring Year 1 of 5
EEP Contract # D06030 -A Page 6

Provided a re- connection between the restored stream channel and the adjacent
floodprone area by both raising the stream bed and excavating the adjacent
floodplain. The completed restoration changed the average entrenchment ratio from
3.4 to 5.6.
Created instream aquatic habitat features such as pools supported a combination of
riffles and step -log structures.
Re- vegetated the riparian corridor with indigenous trees and shrubs and preservation
of existing riparian corridors where possible.
Information on the project structure and objectives is included in Tables I and H.
Table I. Project Structure Table
Thompsons Fork Stream Restoration /EEP Project No. D06030 -A
Project Segment/Reach ID
Linear Footage or Acreage
Thompsons Fork Mainstem
2,727 ft
Unnamed Tributary (UT)
2,694 ft
TOTAL
5,421 ft
Table H. Project Mitigation Objectives Table
Thompsons Fork Stream Restoration / EE P Project No. D06030 -A
Project
Linear
Segment/
Mitigation
Footage or
Mitigation
Mitigation
Reach ID
Type
Acreage
Ratio
Units
Comment
Thompsons
Fork
priority Level
2'727 ft
1.0
2'727 ft
Restore dimension,
1 Restoration
pattern, and profile
Mainstem
Preserved within the
UT
Preservation
356 ft
5.0
71 ft
conservation easement
Restore profile and
UT
Enhancement
390 ft
1.5
260 ft
dimension, step -pool
Level 1
bank stabilization
UT
Priority Level
1,948 ft
1.0
1,948 ft
Restore dimension,
2 Restoration
pattern. and profile
TOTAL
5,421 ft
5,006 ft
C. Project History and Background
Project activity and reporting history are provided in Table III. The project contact information is
provided in Table IV. The project background history is provided in Table V.
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. December 2009
Monitoring Report — Thompson Fork Monitoring Year 1 of 5
EEP Contract # D06030 -A Page 7

Table III. Project Activity and Reporting History
Thompsons Fork Stream Restoration / EEP Project No. D06030 -A
Activity or Report
Scheduled
Completion
Data Collection Complete
Actual
Completion
or Delivery
Restoration plan
A r 2007
Aug 2006
Jun 2007
Final Design - 90 %'
--
-
'-
Construction
Jan 2008
N/A
May 2008
Temporary S &E applied to
entire 2rqject areal
Jan 2008
N/A
Ma 2008
Permanent plantings
Mar 2008
N/A
A r 2008
Mitigation plan/As-built
May 2008
Jun 2008
Oct 2008
Year 1 monitoring
2009
Sep 2009 (vegetation)
Jul 2009 eomo holo
Dec 2009
Year 2 monitoring
2010
Year 3 monitoring
2011
Year 4 monitoring
2012
Year 5 monitoring
2013
'Full - delivery project; 90% submittal not provided.
2Erosion and sediment control applied incrementally throughout the course of the project.
N /A: Data collection is not an applicable task for these project activities.
Table IV. Project Contact Table
Thompsons Fork Stream Restoration / EEP Project No. D06030 -A
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc.
Designer
5500 New Albany Road, Columbus, OH 43054
Construction
South Mountain Forestry
Contractor
6624 Roper Hollow, Morganton, NC 28655
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc.
Monitorin2 Performers
5500 New Albany Road, Columbus, OH 43054
Stream Monitoring POC
Warren E. Knotts EMH &T
Vegetation Monitoring
POC
Holly M. Blunck, EMH &T
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. December 2009
Monitoring Report - Thompsons Fork Monitoring Year 1 of 5
EEP Contract # D06030 -A Page 8

Table V. Project Background Table
Thomnsons Fork Stream Restoration / EEP Project No. D06030 -A
Project County
McDowell
DrainaLre Area
Mainstem -7.57 sq mi
UT -0.163 s mi
Drainage hn ervious Cover Estimate
2.36%
Stream Ord_ er
Mainstem -3rd
UT -1 st
Ph sio a hic Re 'on
Blue Ridge
Mountains /Southern Inner
Piedmont
Ecore ion
Eastern Blue Ridge Foothills
Roseen Classification of As -built
Mainstem -C4
UT- C3b
Dominant Soil Tvpes
Colvard loam,
Evard -Cowee complex,
Iotla sandv loam
Reference Site ID
Thompsons Fork Mainstem,
Brindle Creek
USGS HUC for Project and Reference
03050101
NCDWO Sub -basin for Project and Reference
03050101040010
NCDWO Classification for Project and Reference
C
Anv portion of any project segment 303d listed?
No
Any portion of any project segment upstream of a
303d listed segment?
No
Reason for 303d listing or stressor
N/A
% of project easement fenced
50%
D. Monitoring Plan View
The monitoring plan view is included as Figure 2.
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. December 2009
Monitoring Report — Thompsons Fork Monitoring Year I of 5
EEP Contract # D06030 -A Page 9

-'
Ai vineRJl a3V4VNNn CINtl
)4803 SNOSd WOHl
NdN NVId DNINDIINOW - Z 3bf1D11
�,
�.ocmc
moe Awuo
® srrols�
1
�>
W
�
as
�a
a
�
z
o_
z
z
Z
0C w
co
D
O
O
wA
Z
LL
Z
z
N
v,; �eF•' o; e� �
_r
o
a
.E4 e E
J
J
Wh
[� o'
LJ.I
N
f
v €,�4
Y67
a�
;IIE ocJ
O
0v�j
UJ
O
LL
C�� Q
€i •m ro
e• � a z
It fi
G
V
CO)
z
o
Cl)
ao
0
c .•
Oif YNX'L! a «
aafeo^ A& [[iuOSf
-
vwYAZt a x3I1M/r•.re Q31K 15Yr - .m19f'ea �[e' [ - c[ 1DA�]A'> -IO 441 AYw 314N - < 31VFXtl dY34 aM0 YLFRRI'E 10.[,�OXi foul

O
MM 4SN09dVAMU
Auvinatmi MriVNINIn ONV
NMO.A SNOSdNOHI
—V
1A
fL
00.00+� 's
E
(3o*4S SILL -S) 00'00+9 'DIS 0414040A
1:
J:Y,
rl
—V
1A
fL
00.00+� 's
E

Bic
3u
ANvinNS"IOM'ImO'9'dWmV"N'Nn ONV IMIUMISRUST159a
S INOHI
NMOA SNO d
M31A NVId SNMOII�N - Z MJnDIA
o
^sC n\ I � 9J \
..........
vo
cq•
CL
S. Cj
s,'r /1; -`� oar'. 1 1
0-4ssl :;s+n -DIS sq""
CWt PIIAV—R a3IW1 - . 19 :Ma i - 1"amwvr - ­AW-1 aril

�oeaoe emx•�o
S
y
3
X�tO3SKMMOH1
ANVInsw1 Q3NNNNn ONV
N2103 SNOSdWOHI
aai
M31A Ntlld ONI W11NOW - Z 3i!l191i
�S 1045 005) 00'OQ+fZ '015 0upippow
0
'o
'd e
,o j
§ fi
�fi s
5 3 rRE � YEEi e� i ,
«vT 1
rm
1
v a°
a 1
5
r --
��• �,i�
' ��� rod
�
�,
'•��
=__< a3 c i
'
1
o j�s•
ro z
5

NtIOJ SMOSMOH1
M:JV-LnS1H-L M3WVNN0 (INV
NHO-A SNOSdVYOHI
my
MAJA NVIagMIHDINON � Z BW)Old
E P 0
't�4��+,� ���� � "�1;, I� � O ' I� amp
2m
— u . i — m 16 " A
A A

ANvinewl 02VIVNNn aNV
YN0=1 SNOSdV40HI
0"LiS siqL
00,00+9
K
Ef
'120
ova
Ya
cv
ggn
zi0al
ry
COMM
sLL

A10=1 SNOSMOHI
\
ct
Ea
/

919 a ::i:a — I AWIMINIMWYNNA
AUVInewl O3V4VNNn (INV
j AdO=l SNOSdAOHi
.1
oNawma" -a auncid
1,
CL
9"Is
Z CL
all
4,
\ - yy m.. 1A
WZO&

III. PROJECT CONDITION AND MONITORING RESULTS
A. Vegetation Assessment
1. Soil Data
Soil information was obtained from the NRCS Soil Survey of McDowell County, North Carolina
(USDA NRCS, September, 1995). The soils along the mainstem of Thompsons Fork and its
associated Unnamed Tributary include the Colvard Series consisting of loamy sediments ranging
from 40 to 60 inches or more in thickness over deposits of sandy, loamy gravelly to cobbly
sediments. Rock fragments range from 0 to 15 percent to a depth of 40 inches, and from 0 to 80
percent below 40 inches. Flakes of mica range from a few to common.
Data on the soils series found within and near the project site is summarized in Table VI.
Table VI. Preliminary Soil Data
Thom sons Fork Stream Restoration / EEP Pro'ect No. D06030 -A
Series
Max. Depth
in.
% Clay on
Surface
K'
T
% Organic
Matter
Colvard loam CoA
60
8 -18
0.15
4
1 -2
Evard -Cowee complex (EwE)
30
1 7 -25
0.28
2 -5
1 -5
Iotla sandy loam IoA
60
1 12 -18
0.15
5
2 -5
'Erosion Factor K indicates the susceptibility of a soil to sheet and rill erosion, ranging from 0.05 to 0.69.
2Erosion Factor T is an estimate of the maximum average annual rate of soil erosion by wind or water that.
can occur without affecting crop productivity, measured in tons per acre per year.
2. Vegetative Problem Areas
Vegetative Problem Areas are defined as areas either lacking vegetation or containing populations
of exotic vegetation. Each problem area identified during each year of monitoring is summarized
in Table VII. Photographs of the vegetative problem areas are shown in Appendix A.
Table VII. Vegetative Problem Areas
Thom sons Fork Stream Restoration / EEP Project No. D06030 -A
Feature/Issue
Station # / Range
Probable Cause
Photo #
UT: See Plan View
Native Vine: encroachment from
VPA 1
Invasive
adjacent woodland
Sericea lespedeza: encroachment from
VPA 2
Population
UT: See Plan View
pasture
FBare Floodplain
I UT: See Plan View
I Unknown: could be poor, rocky soil
I VPA 3
The most notable vegetation problem area was occurring on the left bank of the unnamed
tributary. A species of vine had spread into the riparian corridor from the adjacent wooded
hillside, with the most dense concentration located in the area of Vegetation Plot 2. The species is
a member of the pea family, likely Amphicarpaea bracteata (hog peanut), which is native to
North Carolina. However, this vine was strangling the woody vegetation in and around the
monitoring plot, where approximately 80% of the planted woody stems were suffering from vine
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. December 2009
Monitoring Report — Thompson Fork Monitoring Year 1 of 5
EEP Contract # D06030 -A Page 18

strangulation. Without control of the vine, tree mortality could be high in this area, jeopardizing
the minimum stem count criteria. Because of this, the presence of the vine within the project
corridor was considered a problem area of high priority, and management with herbicide
treatments were conducted in the fall of 2009, with follow -up planned for the spring of 2010, to
try and control the spread of this vine within the project corridor.
Several areas along the unnamed tributary were noted to have low overall herbaceous cover along
the riparian corridor on the right bank. These areas are patchy and scattered throughout the
corridor, with none of the areas showing banks that are completely bare. However, due to the
threat by invasive species in the same areas along the tributary, particularly Sericea lespedeza, the
sparse vegetation is noted as an area of concern. If the herbaceous cover does not increase, the
open patches will provide an avenue for colonization and spread of the invasive species. The
coverage of herbaceous vegetation and the spread of Sericea lespedeza along the right bank of the
tributary are considered areas of low concern at this time, and will therefore be watched during
future years of monitoring. In addition, proactive management in the form of herbicide treatments
were conducted on the lespedeza throughout the fall, with follow -up planned for the spring, to
limit the impact of this species on the vegetative success of the project.
3. Vegetation Problem Area Plan View
The location of each vegetation problem area is shown on the vegetative problem area plan view
included in Appendix A. Each problem area is color coded with yellow for areas of low concern
(areas to be watched) or red for high concern (areas where maintenance is warranted).
4. Stem Counts
A summary of the stem count data for each species arranged by plot is shown in Table VIII.
Table VIIIa provides the survival information for planted species, while Table VIIIb provides the
total stem count for the plots, including all planted and recruit stems. This data was compiled
from the information collected on each plot using the CVS -EEP Protocol for Recording
Vegetation, Version 4.0. Additional data tables generated using the CVS -EEP format are included
in Appendix A. All vegetation plots are labeled as VP on Figure 2.
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. December 2009
Monitoring Report — Thompson Fork Monitoring Year I of S
EEP Contract # D06030 -A Page 19

Table VIIIa. Stem counts for each species arranged by plot - planted stems.
Thompsons Fork Stream Restoration / EEP Project No. D06030 -A
Species
Plots
Year 0
Year 1
Totals
Survival
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 Totals
Shrubs
Aronia arbuti olia
Alnus serrulata
3
3
3
3
8
7
9
6
42
42
100
Aronia arbutifolia
2
1
2
Ilex verticillata
1
1
6
6
100
Ilex verticillata
Salix exi ua
2
5
21
2
2
100
Salix exi ua
2
2
3
5
2
Trees
7
7
100
Sambucus canadensis
1
46
Dios yros vir iniana
1
1
100
Trees
Dios vros vir iniana
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
9
1
15
9
4
2
1
1
100
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
9
20
15
9
4
2
Platanus occidentalis
59
59
100
Platanus occidentalis
5
1
2
Ouercus valustris
5
1
4
12
12
100
uercus palustris
1
1
1
l
1
1
1
1
6
6
100
Salix niQra
25
21
I
26
1
1
59
1
3
3
100
Year 1 Totals
14
24
19
18
20
21
10
13
139
139
100
Live Stem Densitv
567
972.
770 j
729
810
851
405
527
Average Live Stem Densitv
704
Table VHIb. Stem counts for each species arranged by plot - all stems.
Thompsons Fork Stream Restoration / EEP Project No. D06030 -A
Species
Plots
11 21 31 41 51 61 71 8
Shrubs
Alnus serrulata
4
3
3
61
8
7
9
6
Aronia arbuti olia
2
2
1
1
Aronia melanocar a
4
1
Ilex verticillata
1
2
Salix exi ua
5
21
1
Sambucus canadensis
1
2
2
3
11
2
Trees
Betula s .
46
Dios yros vir iniana
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
9
20
15
9
4
2
Ju lans ni ra
1
1
Platanus occidentalis
2
5
1
4
Ouercus valustris
1
1
1
1
1
1
Salix nizra
1
1
1
Year 1 Totals
16
25
21
23
26
23
13
59
Live Stem Density
648
10131
8511
932
1G—r9—�-21
5271
2390
Average Live Stem Densitv
1043
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. December 2009
Monitoring Report — Thompsons Fork Monitoring Year I of 5
EEP Contract # D06030 -A Page 20

The average stem density of planted species for the site exceeds the minimum criteria of 320
stems per acre after three years. Each individual plot also has a stem density above the minimum.
In addition, a number of recruit stems have been found in all plots. The recruit stems increase the
total stem density across the site by nearly 50 %.
5. Vegetation Plot Photos
Vegetation plot photos are provided in Appendix A.
B. Stream Assessment
1. Homologic Criteria
Two crest -stage stream gages were installed on the project reaches, each of which is located at the
bankfull stage at a riffle cross - section, one along the unnamed tributary and one along the
Thompson Fork Mainstem. The locations of the crest -stage stream gages are shown on the
monitoring plan view (Figure 2). Bankfull events were recorded during Year 1, as documented in
Table IX.
Table IX. Verification of Bankfull Events
Date of Data
Collection
Date of Occurrence
Method
Photo #
9/21/09
1/6/09- 1/8/09*
Crest gage at XS -6 on UT
BF 1
9/21/09
1/6/09- 1/8/09*
Crest gage at XS -7 on Mainstem
BF 2
*Date is approximate; based on a review of recorded rainfall data
In September 2009, the crest gage on the unnamed tributary registered a bankfull event at a height
of 3.5" above the bottom of the crest gage. The crest gage on the mainstem of Thompsons Fork
also documented a bankfull event, at a height of 5.75" above the bottom of the crest gage. These
crest gages are set at or above the bankfull elevation of each stream channel. Photographs of the
crest gages are shown in Appendix B.
The most likely date for the bankfull event was after the rain events that occurred on January 6
and January 7. On these dates, rainfall as recorded in Rutherford, NC totaled 1.91 inches, with
1.03" on January 6 and 0.88" on January 7. As this was the largest precipitation event of
significance since the completion of the as -built documentation, this is likely the bankfull event
recorded by both crest gages. This corresponds to a high discharge event on January 8, as
recorded at USGS Gage 02138500 Linville River at Nebo, NC, which lies approximately 15 miles
west of Morganton and 5 miles east of Marion, NC. Other large precipitation events occurred on
December 10 -11, 2008, with a total precipitation of 1.73" over the two days, and May 24 -26,
2009, with a total precipitation of 1.32" over the three day period. The discharge and gage height
recorded at the Nebo station are shown on the hydrographs below.
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. December 2009
Monitoring Report — Thompsons Fork Monitoring Year 1 of 5
EEP Contract # D06030 -A Page 21

2888
0
m
N
low
m
IL
a+
m
m
u
a
m
as
� 188
tr3
w
°
s
° Nov 01
2008
USGS 02138500 LINVILLE RIVER NEAR NEBO, NC
Jan 81 Mar 81 May 01 Jul 81 Sep 81
2009 2909 2889 2099 2999
- - -- Provisional Data Subject to Revision - - --
.Daily naxinun discharge — Daily nean discharge
- Daily nininun discharge — Estinated daily nean discharge
USGS Surface -Water Daily Data for North Carolina
htM://waterdata. usp,sGov /ndnwis/dv?
USGS 02138500 LINVILLE RIVER NEAR NEBO, NC
4.0
3.5
3.8
w
i
r 2.5
A
m 2.0
1.5
�d
8.5
8.8
Nov 01 Jan 81 Mar 91 May 91 Jul 81 Sep 81
2M 2809 2889 2889 2889 2889
- - -- Provisional Data Subject to Revision -
- Daily naxinun gage height — Daily nean gage height
Daily nininun gage height
USGS Surface -Water Daily Data for North Carolina
httn:llwaterdata. u sgs.p,ovinc/nwWdy?
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. December 2009
Monitoring Report — Thompson Fork Monitoring Year 1 of S
EEP Contract # D06030 -A Page 22

2. Stream Problem Areas
A summary of the areas of concern identified during the visual assessment of the stream for Year
1 is included in Table X.
Table X. Stream Problem Areas
Thom sons Fork Stream Restoration / EEP Project No. D06030 -A
Feature
Issue
Station Numbers
Suspected Cause
Photo Number
Bank Scour
9 +80 Mainstem
Scour at outside meander bend
SPA 1
Scattered areas along
Low flows allow wetland vegetation
Mainstem and UT;
to colonize the stream channel, which
Other
See SPA Plan View
1 could contribute to sedimentation
SPA 2,3
One small area of bank scour was noted along the outside bank of a meander along the
Thompson Fork Mainstem. The scour is isolated to a small area, and given the robust vegetation
of the riparian corridor, this area is expected to remain isolated. This problem area is considered
low concern at this time, as the scour area itself will likely become vegetated, providing natural
bank stabilization without the need for mechanical intervention.
There are scattered areas throughout the project reaches that are developing wetland vegetation
within the stream channel, particularly along the unnamed tributary. While the wetland
vegetation is beneficial for water quality, there is the potential that the vegetation will decrease
flows, particularly during times of low flow, thereby allowing sediment to drop into the channel.
This type of problem tends to exacerbate itself, as continuing sedimentation allows for further
colonization and growth of wetland plants. These areas are therefore included in the problem area
table as low concern areas that will be watched in future years to ensure the channel remains
viable as a stream, and does not aggrade into a linear wetland type feature.
3. Stream Problem Areas Plan View
The locations of problem areas are shown on the stream problem area plan view included in
Appendix B. Each problem area is color coded with yellow for areas of low concern (areas to be
monitored) or red for high concern (areas where maintenance is warranted).
4. Stream Problem Areas Photos
Photographs of the stream problem areas are included in Appendix B.
5. Fixed Station Photos
Photographs were taken at each established photograph station on September 17 and September
18, 2009. These photographs are provided in Appendix B.
6. Stability Assessment Table
The visual stream assessment was performed to determine the percentage of stream features that
remain in a state of stability after the first year of monitoring. The visual assessment for each
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. December 2009
Monitoring Report — Thompsons Fork Monitoring Year I of 5
EEP Contract # D06030 -A Page 23

reach is summarized in Table XIa and Table XIb. This summary was compiled from the more
comprehensive Table B1, included in Appendix B. Only those structures included in the as -built
survey were assessed during monitoring and reported in the tables.
Table XIa. Categorical Stream Feature Visual Stability Assessment
Thompsons Fork Stream Restoration / EEP Project No. D06030 -A
Se ment/Reach: Mainstem
Feature
Initial
MY -01
MY -02
MY -03
MY -04
MY -05
A. Riffles'-
100%
100%
B. Poolsz
100%
100%
C. Thalwe
100%
100%
D. Meanders
100%
99%
E. Bed General
100%
99%
F. Vanes / J Hooks etc.'
100%
100%
G. Wads and Boulders4
N/A
N/A
Table XIa. Categorical Stream Feature Visual Stability Assessment
Thompson Fork Stream Restoration / EEP Project No. D06030 -A
Se ment/Reach: UT
Feature
Initial
MY -01
I MY -02
MY -03
MY -04
MY -05
A. Riffles'
100%
100%
B. Poolsz
100%
96%
C. Thalwe
100%
100%
D. Meanders
100%
100%
E. Bed General
100%
100%
F. Vanes / J Hooks etc. 4
N/A
N/A
G. Wads and Boulders
N/A
N/A
H. Log Sills'
100%
95%
'Riffles are assessed using the longitudinal profile. A riffle is determined to be stable based on a comparison
of location and elevation with respect to the as -built profile.
zpools are assessed using the longitudinal profile. A pool is determined to be stable based on a comparison
of location and elevation with respect to the as -built profile and a consideration of appropriate depth.
'Physical structures such as vanes, J- hooks, and log sills are assessed using the as -built plan sheets to define
the location of such features. A structure is considered stable if the feature remains functional in the same
location as shown in the as -built plan.
4Those features not included in the stream restoration were labeled N /A. This includes structures such as
rootwads and boulders.
The visual stream stability assessment revealed that the majority of in- stream structures are
functioning as designed and built on the Thompsons Fork mainstem and unnamed tributary. One
meander along the mainstem reach has a minor amount of scouring around an outside bend. The
only other category on the mainstem reach that includes features performing in a state unlike that
of the as -built include areas of wetland formation. It appears that narrow bars forming along the
stream banks are becoming vegetated with wetland species. Wetland plants are excellent for
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. December 2009
Monitoring Report — Thompsons Fork Monitoring Year I of 5
EEP Contract # D06030 -A Page 24

water quality, but these areas have been noted under the aggradation feature category for future
monitoring.
Minor aggradation is also occurring in a few locations along the unnamed tributary to Thompson
Fork. Sedimentation has occurred in a few of the pools located near the log sills installed for
grade control, thus decreasing the maximum pool depth. All pools and associated log sills are still
present and functional throughout the stream channel, including those with noted sedimentation.
7. Quantitative Measures
Graphic interpretations of cross - sections, profiles and substrate particle distributions are presented
in Appendix B. A summary of the baseline morphology for the site is included in Tables XII and
X1II for comparison with the monitoring data shown in the tables in the appendix.
The stream pattern data provided for As -Built and Year 1 is the same as the data provided from
the As -Built survey, as pattern has not changed based on the Year 1 stream surveys and visual
field assessment.
Bedform features continue to evolve along the restored reaches as shown on the long -term
longitudinal profiles. Dimensional measurements of the monumented cross - sections remain stable
when compared to as -built conditions. The comparison of the As -Built and Year 1 long -term
stream monitoring profile data show stability with minimal change from as -built conditions, after
consideration of a software anomaly that resulted in a shift in the locations of profile features in
Year 1 versus Year 0. RiverMorph uses the shortest straight line distance between the
consecutive survey points to create the stationing for the profile. The Year 1 survey represents a
larger number of collected survey points which will lead to a higher cumulative length of stream
profile, particularly affected by the number of points collected around each meander bend. The
lengthening of the stream profile in Year 1 also affects the locations of each pool and riffle with
respect to the Year 0 profile. In fact, the pool and riffle features remain in the same locations
shown on the as -built mitigation plan, with only slight adjustments. As such, we have evaluated
stability from the standpoint of comparing features between the Year 0 and Year 1 profiles with
the understanding of the `shift' in these features between the profiles.
For the unnamed tributary, riffle lengths and slopes are stable. While the median pool to pool
spacing is stable, the maximum pool spacing has decreased in Year 1. The same trend is true for
the mainstem profile data, where the median values are stable, but the maximum values have
decreased. This is a result of the shorter length of profile analyzed for the Year 1 monitoring,
since only a portion of each stream was surveyed, as compared to the entire length of both reaches
surveyed for the as -built documentation.
The substrate of the constructed riffles on the unnamed tributary has stabilized, with a median
particle size of coarse gravel as compared to a median particle distribution of fine to very coarse
gravel reported for the as -built condition. On the Thompsons Fork mainstem, there was a minor
shift to a more stable median distribution of coarse to very coarse gravel as compared to the as-
built distribution of fine to medium gravel. The pool substrate remains stable as well, with
median particle sizes consisting of very fine particles in the silt /clay category, based on the Year 1
substrate analysis. Remedial maintenance work on the restored reaches is not warranted at this
time.
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. December 2009
Monitoring Report — Thompson Fork Monitoring Year I of S
EEP Contract # D06030 -A Page 25

O
O N
O � �
y
U ❑❑ N M
s � a
~ S O
o yy� ,y b abi
C Y
C p
a o v
w
o
�.b o
vh N r- q 0 O M ^ 'n '!ii "O -q In --I IM1 N C' 10 ' — O, gD
C,
�j
~ M O V ^' [V N M .-. M~ M QOi N N •--• m 'A N 1� N N '" O
O V'
O
�N+ .
O
O U
o, �o r', v�P Qtv, ric oo C, ao0o"I: c;rncl NIA
AM � � '~ N <+Ml C •-- t01'1 .•-' d' M i � _ � � N .-. M �p .r M 00
O
W
--
o m• a%
M o0 m� �.
G
N N �O
-t
h m Vl O N M1 O Q V 00 Vt M 0 0 'n 7 N �c M 00 1' 7 -^ -
�'
I I N 01 �
O
N
N
++II
�bO
o
opo
exa m v0ii .-. N con et V '_ V M
R
M
,-•
V O� 00 — N M N— V^ V N O o0 V— O -N N ty/i
O
C p
Q
z
i�i
O O (D O,
O O o0 O I� C O M oG b
'l�
C-4
h O\ N-
a D\ N M
E Gi C
h f V O+ M N M 00
V •-� 10 .--' OO V C oo O v1 N p 7 1O
N N a N
•Mi-
(may
N N O O
E Py. o
.�
Q
° Cl
u W
6A
O. .�..
i< O-
O O O w V tt O N
O Q\ 'n a; N yJ M
•
N
!G O
V O o0 O� v1 M ~O O o0
Cl
L
p
I O
7
_ .
.
a Fi
CD
Cl O '/i M 0, �D
�
�Or
•�
CrU
- I: -1
�
0-0
.J.
h O O O
h T O vl 777
�^ a0.'
^ "' Y
c
9'. n O N v N h [� .-. fV V N 4'J
M
.--i
N
�O M .- m
N M O O
'.'_"
�O Y ai
O
'N M V1 N N
N N O O 'U
O i
E a y
c
U
to
s
w
,
c 1
6 y
V
h 00 q� O Vl CT N M o0 O O o0 ry'..
�1 M oD 00 Vi O O. (�1 •�
O' O O I tit ^ e�1 •-�
V �
q
'+
O O 7 7
O O M M N
S
n�j
'r� W cV Oti WN. I N'
M N V N C N [�
N
O
O
m a O
C
d G
cJ
_—
pp
pp
Np
F F
a
h�aM'
nl'.n
u
o
w
��+
s�
0010
oao^
v
in p p
Cam' .
y
�
o
a
uCi
� r-a
��
U y
C
O
Im w
A o
CA M
g
o
a7
""
u
3 z
ca
W. o
w
W
n
=
d
E
O
O N
O � �
y
U ❑❑ N M
s � a
~ S O
o yy� ,y b abi
C Y
C p
a o v
w
o
�.b o

O
M
>
N �
a o
v
a�
�a
N
O >.
O �
b
3
3�
M1 eni N
'p M �0 O oo u•� v1 O A w i N M V� �n
D\ y V;1�
n �:
�:ww '.�o O ;I,'.
N
eq
N N h
Cl O V
co
O O
'�y
� C n—.. O ...- A h .--• Ct O vl M � O� M
A C V .-• Vl
0 N N w M1 d' O O r 0o M V1 M N d' a A N
M [F M V1 V
q
N 10 0 10 01
x
r4
b
C 7 r 000 M 1,0 O n
[ o0
O
Q
.A. h ^ O V�j ct O M �D m 00,6
q
M N
Q�z
N
O
M
10
O O O IO O 0 1.
0, O
O
r N o m NSA
U
o
ono
o �o olo
0
•L
.�.
W 7
n O 7 N h ISO O
b
C:7
V! M V V M N oO�M
N
'a
b
00 O �
O O OIN N w'N M V m�O�iM:
n
Vl d;
�n'r 0, M 7
O O
O
U
d a
w
d �
a
w o
10 O m 10 N h
A
lV
t` p
00
pp
LQ
^
�'
N
ACA Om ,� .-, oo T .-. �D .-. Q, !'rl
Y/
l�
~
N
N
[�
M
M
in
� O W
a}
ro o
as t�,.
N
CD
�
:'�
� tl'v. �
� � � •�7 � v'� v:�
d".. � � t�t�
C C.�C�.'
�
�
�
Yv. -� .��. c: ci O'C �
.»
� cy
,-b •-. _^. (�,' '. K a? y
.G LI J7 Yr
.0 � Op
.0 O ��w is
Q "�`��A�A�
� v'C P��. �.,.�''
3 � �v
a0i p w Ow
h°�°
�v rig p �'y =°• o.
U 3
rA
^
•.O'3
" L ` 'Y7 a L� O
u r3 .tl
r i Q
O P,= C '
'g�caca
w
i
GC
e
O
M
>
N �
a o
v
a�
�a
N
O >.
O �
b
3
3�

~
O
C�
Cr
r
• �•
00
\O
M
Vl
N
00
V1
I-0
4;•
N
rn
V'
s`
..
00
n
\0
—
�D
%D
O
V)
cl)
m
cA
r0•
pv��Y
y O
oo
m
a0
O�
O�
It
V1
#
it
(J
,
d
O
10
•--�
C�
T.,i
d
0
r
h
U
v
o
r
,-:
M
N
'IT
GO
O
00
�0
d
C,
00
Vl
vl
oo
r
M
h
•
t-
r-
00
Q`
N
M
h
lCI
00
N
d
•
C1
00
M
O
V
M
d
[�
O
M
r
y
M
00
M
.Ml
r
y
O
r-
_
M
M.
r
,--i
Q1
g
O
V ...+
Ci
r
oo
C;
d
N
N
000
N
C,
O
Cr
01
O
M
Cr
b
O
O
yj
M �0
i. '7-'
V ��++
%' :1 � � ^'
N
N
d
I
M
^-' N D
d
O
� Q
�'
r
\
T
G
�D
M
00.
oo•
m ,y
_
;7;
a
O Ri
C n I� . d
n
d
T
d
a
U
In 00
'
N
N
V
h
M~
W
C
rdn
CC>
C:
a1
C W
O. C
In In
L
y
r N M
N N
a1
N
7 d
a
O
O
v
p
[�
M
r
�D
L C
U V
y'yr
oo
.-r
�
.--i
N
N
N
M
•--�
O 'n
,
N
0
i0
Oo
�T$,!
^ M
r
09
y
v',
O
N
C1
M
M
N
M
r• O
G
C•O
L
O
�� M
O
�D
N
d
O.
C!
L
O T:
ul
O
N
000
N~
N
N
N
O
O
V y
a
V•1
Qi
W
FA
rn
N
O
h
} C�
00
C�
-�
C\
N
N
,-.
O
•--�
jt
k
a
m Pr
O `••'
M
U
O
y
l�
O
O�
N
N
N
d
M
d
N
N
,--�
,--�
C
�, lC ►`�
[jyi
G
O
rn
a\
�D
C,
�
N
;g
.-.
r
o0
C',
d ai
_
U r
Q1
i'
00
ON
00
N
Q\
N
D
L�
�:
00
�� M
00
d
V'1
�•-�
LY
N
Cl)
,-•
M
{�
E w
y
M
Q
C
�
O
N
�'!oo
00
'.
M
yj
N
O
N
4
C
U
00
ON
M
•--�
N
t-
N.
00
�
+D
C
M
00
V)
N
M
y
a
N'7�
00
C�
•--i
U
06
N
33�QA�
a
oCC'
C
G
O
�a
N
_
un
r
Y
d
O
,n
O
C
C
O X
N
y
--�
N
N
N
•--�
N
3m
.-.
d
--�
O
Lt
0
U
oo
O
In
r
l�
oo
h
N
h
�D
C�
—,
.0
r�
rn
V1
�r
as•
�,
0.
O `•-'
w
H
C
d
C
U
•C
F`cf
lC
J
Fi
PG
tI
F"
aL+
b
dr
tk
y
3.3�AA
e.
ca'A
~
O
C�
Cr
r
•�
vii
N
M
O
06
4;•
y
�
d
�
V'
s`
..
[�
n
n.
M
Qom�•.
V)
cl)
m
cA
r0•
pv��Y
m
h
N
P
(J
,
d
O
C�
•--�
C�
V•,
d
0
r
h
GO
,
00
�0
d
C,
00
Vl
vl
oo
r
M
h
•
oo
C�
r
Oy
O
h
N
C,
O
O
C+
O
[�
M
[�
O
O
C>
Gn
vl
,--i
--�
r-
00
Cc
M.
r
,--i
Q1
g
Pv.
1
d
N
0
O
.-
01
O
Q
r
N
I
d
N
r
\
T
G
�D
M
00.
oo•
oo
0
i0
"R
DO
O
DO
T
d
h
M
r
C
a1
L
y
a1
rr,
r-
O
v
p
[�
M
r
�D
C4
r
O
r
.--i
COD
a
,
N
0
i0
Oo
�T$,!
M
v',
N
N
C1
M
M
N
M
r• O
G
C•O
^I
V1
N
O
(=>
O.
C!
L
_
N
000
N~
N
N
N
O
O
V y
Gn O
N
N
C\
r
0)
,-.
h
r
jt
k
V
Ri '•�
m Pr
O `••'
O
'b �•' F
U
O
y
l�
O
O�
Do
N
N
N
N
l�
M
d
N
N
,--�
,--�
�, lC ►`�
[jyi
b
r
,--i
M
CCi
�
O
N
�'!oo
NN
d
d
N
yj
N
O
N
4
N'7�
00
C�
•--i
U
06
N
^-�
O
C
G
O
�a
N
_
un
r
Y
d
O
,n
O
C
C
O X
N
--�
N
N
N
•--�
N
oo
.-.
d
--�
O
cc
F L
En
D
,-.
M
oo
O
In
r
l�
oo
h
N
h
�D
C�
—,
.0
r�
rn
V1
�r
as•
�,
0.
O `•-'
CyY
H
d
F`cf
J
04
PG
tI
F"
b
tk
3.3�AA
e.
ca'A
q
Q
cg
g
A
x
i
G�CI
"Wm
0
Q,�m'3
y
0
U
w
m
Cl
y
r
L
C6 19
ct
I
I
rn

IV. METHODOLOGY
Vegetation monitoring was conducted in September 2009 using the CVS EEP Protocol for
Recording Vegetation, Version 4.0 (Lee, M.T., Peet, RK., Roberts, S.R., Wentworth, T.R. 2006).
Stream monitoring was conducted in July 2009 to provide adequate time between the as -built
survey (completed in June 2008) and the Year 1 monitoring survey. Subsequent stream
monitoring will occur in the summer of Years 2 through 5 to provide a full year between surveys.
Vegetation monitoring will continue to be conducted in the fall of each subsequent year of
monitoring, providing a full year between vegetative surveys.
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. December 2009
Monitoring Report — Thompson Fork Monitoring Year I of S
EEP Contract # D06030 -A Page 28

APPENDIX A
Vegetation Raw Data
1. Vegetation Problem Area Photos
Vegetation Problem Area Plan View
Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos
4. Vegetation Data Tables

VPA I
View of the dominance by a vine in Vegetation Plot 2, considered a problem area of high
concern. The planted woody vegetation is facing strangulation by the vine in this area.
(EMH &T, Inc. 9/18/09)
VPA 2
Overview of the patchy spread of Sericea lespedeza along UTI, considered a problem area.
of low concern.
(EMH &T, Inc. 9/18/09)

VPA 3
View of the patchy vegetation along the right bank of UT1. This is only considered a
problem due to the threat of spread by Sericea lespedeza in the same area of the project.
(EMH &T, Inc. 9/18/09)

M31A NVId V3W halSONd NOl1V1203A
VXION3ddY
)aivinsiul aaWVNNn C1NV
.. A10:1 SNOSdWOHl
'N "I
C,
C:
(U
W E
0
LLJ u
m
x 0)
Ld Of w <
LO
N.
O'A
a
Jill
I J,l I I I
I L7
A

Vegetation Plot 1
Monitoring Year 1
(EMH &T, Inc. 9/18/09)
Vegetation Plot 2
Monitoring Year 1
(EMH &T, Inc. 9/18/09)

Vegetation Plot 3
Monitoring Year 1
(EMH &T, Inc. 9/18/09)
Vegetation Plot 4
Monitoring Year 1
(EMH &T, Inc. 9/18/09)

Vegetation Plot 5
Monitoring Year 1
(EMH &T, Inc. 9/18/09)
Vegetation Plot 6
Monitoring Year 1
(EMH &T, Inc. 9/18/09)

Vegetation Plot 7
Monitoring Year 1
(EMH &T, Inc. 9/18/09)
Vegetation Plot S
Monitoring Year 1
(EMH &T, Inc. 9/18/09)

u
u
E
N
�
L
0
(6
_�
L
l0
Q
E
N
—
C
E
U
Y
M
--.
NC
E
O
u
aJ
f6
N
U
O
(n
Y
N
4+
> >
N
C
C
N
a)
C
0
7
to
v
41
O
vCA
U
X
N
O
al
O
O
u
L
7
�
.N
U
C
1
�
a
a
�
a
-
a
f6
N
>
L M
N
N
�
all
E
>
v
C
L
U
N
cu
O_
+�+
a)
N
N
a)
U
O
>
4-
O
O
N
O
a)
�'
G
U
m
+'
f6
a1
L
_
m
N
.T
O
4--
U
w
�
lC
D
vi
U
,�
a1
gym.,
"a
O
N
O
CL
C
+•�
aJ
f0
L
L
t
i
0
Q..
N
C
t0
t
a)
m
N
E
E
Vi
U
C
a)
Y
CL
L
C
a)
v
N
C
L
N
E
CW
Q
E
C3
N
•U
O
o
>
3
+�
N
E
N
L
++
N
L
+-
v
Q,
0
a
N -W
'a
E
E
L
p�
c�
-
w
3
s
t
a,
D_
W
W
N
J
m
N
N
N
f0
(0
N U
X
O
LL
�I
j
�
Z
Q
N
f0
N
(O
N
a)
L
aJ
L
Mo aj
O
N
��
L
O
-
E
u
o
o
a,
v—
n.
r
0
°
N
N aJ
O
—
ha
dc'
to
a.
a.
m
�O E
E
d
C
aJ
� N
>
>
�p
+1
4 .
lD
`�
+�—+
ate—+ L
+'
O
O
A>
L
4-
3
a
O
c
c
ox,
fV
Q
'a
a
O
++
O
*;-
a)
.—
W
.—
C •O
of
O
N
M
Z
a+
N
O
N >
E
Y
+O
O
LU
—
•�
— --
•N
++
N
++
N
a!
N
N
a)
W
=
L
+
as
Y
ri
c-I
>
G
Z
Z
U
fL0
U
a
�
,}
7
—
O
m
LL
O
++
L)
O
p
LLI
O
7
W
N
O
u
++
O
>>
O
;
V)
00
v
o
aJ
OC
.�
m
u
m�
v
O
U
'�
-
m
E
Z
>>
io
p
O
O
p
to
M
E
;
lD
0
aJ
O
i
>
l>D
N
N
fUC C
N
N
(O
fC
O
O
2
01
U
N
(D
V)
O
w
w M—j
LL�—i
a1
in
0
Q a,
�
0
N
00
2
�
H
�
Z
;
H
W
�
W_
i
DC
_
0
�
u
>
3
oc
co
O
O
y
LL
a
a
4a
O
...
=
N
a
H
m
o
c£
a
a
a'
a
—°
L
c
vai
o
•�
a
i
as
V)
FA
N
4I
a,
a
m
m
O
>�
as
ar
ar
E
a,
V
u
+�
Z
a-+
+�
a.
m
m
a
m.0
a
N
cc
a.
+�
m
W
Oli
ORS
fo
a
•L
•o.
N
L
L
m
E
m
E
Vf
a
'o'
'o'
y>
L
a.
a
+'
-W
E
a
vUi
a
0
0
o°a
o°c�
J
O
c'
v
s
E
a%
M
ro
ro
'a
O
W
2
L
L
a
>
>
ro
coo
m
m
J
Q
OC
a
L
a
L
n.
ai
o
oc
ar
+,
IA
L
to
d
oc
M
-
ce
o
'a
v
4-
o
a
a

Table 2. Vegetation Vigor by Species
Species
4
3
2
1
0
Missing
Unknown
Alnus serrulata
40
2
Aronia arbutifolia
2
4
Diospvros virsiniana
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
5130
17
71
1
Ilex verticillata
11
1
Quercus palustris
4
2
Salix nigra
2
1
Sambucus canadensis
1
Platanus occidentalis
6,
5
1
Salix exigua
7
TOT:
110 j
671
18
7

Table 3. Vegetation Damage by Species
_
IA
a�
L
O
M
M
d
C
C
M
M
Gw
M
M
'O
N
a
O
C
Alnus serrulata
42
38
4
Aronia arbutifolia
6
6
Diospvros virginiana
11
1
Fraxinus vennsvlvanica
59
41
18
Ilex verticillata
2
2
Platanus occidentalis
12
12
Quercus palustris
6
6
Salix exigua
71
7
Salix nigra
3
3
Sambucus canadensis
1
1
TOT:
10
139
117
22

Table 4. Vegetation Damage by Plot
a�
L
cc
U
-
10
j
t
M
C
i
M
M
M
V1
a
a
O
6
C
D06030A -01- 0001 -yea r:1
14
14
D06030A -01- 0002 - year:l
24
5
19
D06030A -01- 0003 -yea r:1
19
19
D06030A -01- 0004 -yea r:l
18
18
D06030A -01- 0005 - year:l
20
20
D06030A -01- 0006 -yea r:1
211
21
D06030A -01- 0007 - year:l
10
7
3
D06030A -01- 0008 -yea r:1
13
13
TOT: Is
139
117
22

Table 5. Stem Count by Plot and Species - Planted Stems
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
�C
G
O
9
O
0
O
9
O
9
O
0
O
9
O
0
O
9
w
!'I
O
rl
O
rl
O
rl
O
ri
O
r I
O
rl
rl
O
VO
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
C
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
M
a
o
a
0
0
0
_0
0
0
_o
_o
N
H
U
f0
C_
0-1
C.
C.
I C_
j C.
CL
I C.
Alnus serrulata
42
8
5.25
3
3
3
31
81
7
9
6
Aronia arbutifolia
6
4
1.5
2
2
1
1
Diospvros virginiana
1
1
1
1
Fraxinus Pennsvlvanica
591
6
9.83
9
20
15
9
4
21
1
Ilex verticillata
21
1
2
1
2
Platanus occidentalis
12
4
3
2
5
1
4
Quercus palustris
6
6
1
1
1
1
1
1
Salix exieua
7
2
3.5
5
2
Salix nigra
3
3
1
111424
1
1
1
Sambucus canadensis
1
1
1
1
TOT:
10
139
10
191
181
20
21
10
13

Table 6. Stem Count by Plot and Species - All Stems
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
9
9
9
0
9
9
9
0
H
E
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
„
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
N
U
jp
O
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
a
.n
o
a
ft
�
M
a
o
c
c
o
j a
IQ
a
Alnus serrulata
46
8
5.75
4
3
3
6
8
7
9
6
Aronia arbutifolia
6
4
1.5
2
2
1
1
Aronia melanocaroa
51
2
2.5
4
1
Diospyros virginiana
1
1 11
1
1
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
59
6
9.83
9
20
15
91
4
2
Ilex verticillata
2
1
2
1
2
Juglans nigra
2
2
1
1
1
Quercus palustris
6
6
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Salix niera
3
31
1
1
1
1
1
Sambucus canadensis
11
6
1.83
11
2
2
3
1
2
Betula
46
1
46
1
46
Platanus occidentalis
12
4
3
1
1
1 2
5
1
4
Salix exigua 1
71
2
3.5
1
1
1
5
2
TOT:
13 12061
13
1
161
251
211
23
26
23
13
59

APPENDIX B
Geomorphologic Raw Data
1. Stream Problem Areas Plan View
2. Stream Problem Area Photos
3. Fixed Station Photos
4. Table B1. Qualitative Visual Stability Assessment
5. Cross Section Plots
6. Longitudinal Plots
7. Pebble Count Plots
8. Banlfull Event Photos

U m
W
w w y
0
7'
'Oft
_ 6 „
f -
-a
u
-wr
PW * K 1
a
YI;[ioi &xvo-i;W7 I wow AB aviow - Ow MYN[! &W-VVC4017 4MMW A/ MMS JS" - SiWWO :lilt f - <! 1n01VO —V mYm �mi to
M31A NVId V38V W31908d WV2UIS
_
8 XION3ddV
)wvins Il 03WVNNn ONV
B6° "9002
8002 ° °' °O
«a
NNOA SNOSdWOHl
vrvnoaeo esao aow
_
UI
�
-
L
O
O �
� o
0
"
Q
n
U
=
o_
•
•
-. -
.0
V
1
-.. _
�—
m
U m
W
w w y
0
7'
'Oft
_ 6 „
f -
-a
u
-wr
PW * K 1
a
YI;[ioi &xvo-i;W7 I wow AB aviow - Ow MYN[! &W-VVC4017 4MMW A/ MMS JS" - SiWWO :lilt f - <! 1n01VO —V mYm �mi to

SPA 1
Minor bank slumping along the left bank of Thomspons Fork near station 9 +80.
(EMH &T, Inc. 9/18/09)
SPA 2
Wetland vegetation forming within the stream channel on UT1. There are several wetland
areas found along this stream.
(EMH &T, Inc. 9/18/09)

SPA 3
Wetland vegetation forming within the stream channel on Thompsons Fork near station
8 +75, causing a narrowing of the channel.
(EMH &T, Inc. 9/18/09)

Fixed Station 1
Overview of valley along UT1 near the upstream terminus of the project, approximately
Station 4 +00, facing downstream.
(EMH &T, Inc. 9/18/09)
Fixed Station 2
Overview of valley along UT1 near the midpoint of the project, approximately Station
10 +75, facing upstream.
(EMH &T, Inc. 9/18/09)

Fixed Station 3
Overview of valley along UTl near the midpoint of the project, approximately Station
10 +75, facing downstream.
(EMH &T, Inc. 7/18/09)
Fixed Station 4
Overview of valley along UT1 near the downstream terminus of the project, just north of
South Creek Road, facing upstream.
(EMH &T, Inc. 9/18/09)

Fixed Station 5
Overview of valley along UTl at the downstream terminus of the project, facing upstream.
(EMH &T, Inc. 9/17/09)
Fixed Station 6
Overview of valley along the mainstem near the downstream terminus of the project, facing
upstream.
(EMH &T, Inc. 9/17/09)

Fixed Station 7
Overview of valley along the mainstem near the midpoint of the project, approximately
Station 12 +00, facing downstream.
(EMH &T, Inc. 9/17/09)
Fixed Station 8
Overview of valley along the mainstem near the midpoint of the project, approximately
Station 11 +50, facing upstream.
(EMH &T, Inc. 9/17/09)

Fixed Station 9
Overview of valley along the mainstem near the upstream terminus of the project, facing
downstream.
(EMH &T, Inc. 9/18/09)

_
o
�•
o
Q
z
L
O
O
O
O
�.
O
Z
0)
7 p C
ca ca
r
r
r
r
a)
L d H
00000
0.00
00
00000
O
O
0000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
0
T
0
T
0
T
0
T
C)
T
Z
Z
C
� O
T
T
T
T
T
r
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
a
O
CC)0000C'o00To,OO
o00�Q
N
,a?
Z
Z
LO
O
7 C
0
Z
M
C
o is
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
NI
N
Ni
N
N
Q'
0
0
0
0
0
C,
O
.Nrt
Q
G
Cy �O
A
H C Q
N
N
N
N
N
NI
N
N
N
N
T
N
N
N
Q
0
0
0
0
0
Q;
Q
y z
d
��
It
't
It
It
Z
Z
T
T
r
T
Z:
Z
(6
a y
Za co
�
C
lw
Cl.
C7
(�•
C
O
O
U
C
O y
i� 0
L
C
CC)
?i
cO
oar
O
`
C:
.0
..�
Cp
U
a)
Cn
`
Cd Q C/�
to
cu
/�
C
U'
a)
mo
ma
N
C-'
�•
CD
C
O
4-
m
O
U
C
N
+
U)
L
C
a)
Cn
0
CU
7
Cl.
a)
�
U
N
O
O
•�
N
'�
p.
m
m
m
c
C
C
cu
c
rn
N
O
C
>
U
O
Q
Q
(Cf
a)
m
rn
0
Cd
N
C
C�aU
+7
� +
C.
a)
W
°
o
70al0
0
C
U)
U
�•
)
mo
ca
0
O
d
C
L
m
p
C
U
Q
p
C
O
o
o
N
X
L
C1
0�
C6
0
cc
ma
C
cu
C6
l6
C"
()
C
O
C
CO
O
to
♦+
y
C
a)
a)
*k
C
•C
a)
L
E
L
a)
w
O
±'
a
O
V
CO
Q
.O
Q_
a,
A��
f6
E
Q.
C
C3.
O
O
a)
c
a)
O
.O
L]
N
O
i
a)
i
�'
a)
C6
N
a)
-O
OL
a.
'O
O`
n.
p
C
p
U
p
4--C
O
0 C'
o 0)
Y
0
C)
o
O
n_.
p
coo
>
>,
a)
O
a
"O
•
U
�
.0
cu
ca
Q.
C`
O
fCf
C
a)
y
u0i
N
•a)
m
e U
O
O
O
Cu
00)
CE
V
'�
C�
N
C�
+O.
w
Q.
>
CC N
0)
cl
p
L
a<
L
cu
LL
a)
�
L
acne
�
a)
iZ
�o
O
�
OOQcn
4"
Q
�
�
cD
� a)
L
LL
�
2QIi
C
L
L
LL
O
LL
D
L
T
N
CO) 1,T
I
lCi
T
N
Cl)
T
N
T
N
M-4
T
N O
N
M;zt
T
N
U)
()
a)
W
a)
O
cu
N
�
N
U
m
N
a)
wr
3
c
O
(
c
iv
cu
aN
LC-0
m
>
LL
Q
U
C]
LL]
Lt_
L7

/e
a
y U
f
11111 11'1111'
00 0 �, QQQQ QQ oti
�' 40-) ZZZZ Z
0 0
0 0
I®®®®®®®HOWWWW®®
M ®ra ra `"
rn
c
+ C.. C O U
DC C-. 7 O _ C
L C E O O
C O C L EO 'a
�co U N v> ��
(0 r U O C0
C9 -0 N C-. C..
O + U L N co
CY N U N 'Q O C •c6
Q c0 m O '� O •—
m C C c0 C vO +' N O
m O
C C U6 L p U
N 7 N 0 O ._ C0 O N
U a) S Cl) p v0 E m�
C0 N O C U 1 N U cn CU ` c
L
O Q -0 U o O L C �• N O;C 7 Q+L+
N E ) a U N U U O L
L CU X L C `� Q U0 c0 fn f0 0
c�o� N2� -0a�i aoi cc a) E� Z
f0 +� y w, C N L L 0 0
a o a� Co o c0 c0 E c0 t rn (D M E o
N d U 'L C •C N y !- N N L 'i
��a�oa.E0 c�3o c onoo
�o Qai�QOE a °� °sa�i�oQ�.n
Q v> Q `. > Q, c0 c a� �, U a c c0 Q_
L C.. 5 cLo a� t6 c c co E" a� o c c c n
O c L _U, c0 �_ C _O t N N U N •N U O co O O
aa)) E u 'E c � C: U) E w a > � a aoi a' � aoi
'L L L ( O L O O Q O �r- Cl di i O O C L
(D a_< —j dU-1 5o ooQU CDUr U"- IQIL
L
r N M4 IL6 r IN M r N r N M-4 JN O r N M d'
O
cm
a) ` O
V D C
N
N cn tq 3 C 0 ti
L O MO (0 -0 c
O i O O U0
CL H m >
LL Q C6 0 101 111 ILO
0
9
O
O
O_
c
O
U
w
C
C
O
ca
C
N
O
C O
O U
U p
N m
0MIN lm
U
L
N
7
� (n
E
'30:1 O
0
0
L
O
O
0
01
U0 U0
W
^, ^ CCO IY C L
0
o
0
o
0
0
m
O]
C)
00000
0000
0
� � O
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
a (a
-0 o .E 0
a)
00000
o,d'0
0
Z
cu
E cn
D
Z
c
o N cu
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
O_
L ±+
E
O 7
C Q
U')
W
Un
U
In
Lr
r
LCD
W
0
CO
M n
C M
M
M
co)
CO
M
M
i
O O E N
cu -0 O c
E —
a
7 N
F.
Z d c0
11111 11'1111'
00 0 �, QQQQ QQ oti
�' 40-) ZZZZ Z
0 0
0 0
I®®®®®®®HOWWWW®®
M ®ra ra `"
rn
c
+ C.. C O U
DC C-. 7 O _ C
L C E O O
C O C L EO 'a
�co U N v> ��
(0 r U O C0
C9 -0 N C-. C..
O + U L N co
CY N U N 'Q O C •c6
Q c0 m O '� O •—
m C C c0 C vO +' N O
m O
C C U6 L p U
N 7 N 0 O ._ C0 O N
U a) S Cl) p v0 E m�
C0 N O C U 1 N U cn CU ` c
L
O Q -0 U o O L C �• N O;C 7 Q+L+
N E ) a U N U U O L
L CU X L C `� Q U0 c0 fn f0 0
c�o� N2� -0a�i aoi cc a) E� Z
f0 +� y w, C N L L 0 0
a o a� Co o c0 c0 E c0 t rn (D M E o
N d U 'L C •C N y !- N N L 'i
��a�oa.E0 c�3o c onoo
�o Qai�QOE a °� °sa�i�oQ�.n
Q v> Q `. > Q, c0 c a� �, U a c c0 Q_
L C.. 5 cLo a� t6 c c co E" a� o c c c n
O c L _U, c0 �_ C _O t N N U N •N U O co O O
aa)) E u 'E c � C: U) E w a > � a aoi a' � aoi
'L L L ( O L O O Q O �r- Cl di i O O C L
(D a_< —j dU-1 5o ooQU CDUr U"- IQIL
L
r N M4 IL6 r IN M r N r N M-4 JN O r N M d'
O
cm
a) ` O
V D C
N
N cn tq 3 C 0 ti
L O MO (0 -0 c
O i O O U0
CL H m >
LL Q C6 0 101 111 ILO
0
9
O
O
O_
c
O
U
w
C
C
O
ca
C
N
O
C O
O U
U p
N m
0MIN lm
U
L
N
7
� (n
E
'30:1 O

Y
,!
O
LL
� ;
S
N
C
Y
co C
M Q
-�
3
o
O
z
(L
U
x
LU
0
a
CL
Os
Q H W
V h C) U7
W
LL
R
T
�
x
Y v LU
u� Q
'o
S
i
�
O
II
m x
x a ZI
N -- -- N 00 --
a
I
O
o •�
CL
A
�
\ U
�?
cn
73
C/1
W

�
f
�
O
LL
¢ I
H
'
x
CL o
M
a I
H D
N
V
� I
CL
:+
N NO
I
I
i
R
fyA r O V% F-
H of oc w
■ o I
"
I
1
!
R
J
I
ej
C4 4 4i
a.+
--
[� [- r- M M
cV "C 't "t (31� r—
qC
oo N to N W
C
o
o
� • Vi
rl � � ^
A
ri Q
GgGq�WU

Y
LL
Q
Q
V
ci W
OM
�
fl
V
LU
O
i
1
O
a
in Z
x
s
Np
~
. �
1
i
LU
w�.
t
3M r
"1
09
CJ
N M M
O N CN
N N N rl
,t i
--
o
�
rl y
ii0.0 M
ct m

V
I
O
V.
y a
CL
E o w
d
Y
o to 5
H 93 r
W
_ P
d
W
O
C
c
I.
I
=
a
N 3_0
I i
c aU Q
I
U n U u7 ti
*tea
LL
I
s
z �
■
i
r
I'
i�
00 �O O� N [� �
� ate•_ xw ;�
CL
a
1
_
w
�
CC 0
Cd
Cd
Cl) .� O �
.,
A
" •� T,'
CC'
�. 'r
In
rn
C�
Cd
i
:1

0
I:
U)
L I.
COL
\ f
I
Q
E o W
O }
o
t
o
Ln
O
a
j
x
x
a
_
�
w
CL
Z
N N O
W
----- --- -- -- - ±.. ..... � :........ :..............
I,
a rn N
0
FL w
v > n c) v)
w
w
,�
s
s
LLI
LU
F
�
f
I
E T R g `
r
RS
�i--I
Gn
00 ke)
[� 00 a, O W
0�
-
d
p
O
C� L;
cC
Q U
�

0
LL
N
0 a N
CL M V aS
CLi
E o w d
W C iI
e
F W LU W '" $
V O n LJ u1 LL
cli
°a
a p
x
�a
�i
*:
W)
00 vl N ' x•. 3!
112 2
gn
co

O
LL
O Q
-'q
E o
O co
w a
}
F-
i
H
~�
LUO
.. ..
..
-
CL
en
....
I
.;
..
N N O
N C O O U Q
_.. ..
.. .i
�.
U r V N LL
[
l
r
x
-
I
1
7
F
I �
p
I
I
1^^
l�
cq
OD M ~ CO M
v) M -- N N N U
i i
O
•'
f:
a
gz
ar
V7
d
Ly
Cd m
U
��
aa�a3wu

Y
O
0.
g
LL
_
C
O Q
CL
M Q
0
�_
c }
F- D
a7
a
a
O
Rf
a
a�i E z
m U) O
W
j
d
y C O 0 V
Iv o;
-
e
W W
U n u to
W
IL
r ,
s
rg
a
s
01 01 0� N —
'� ••' 4
�O M N N
!.
O
N
o
a
a •
� rx
,'..y"
i-•1
,.see
� V ,.y a)
ti
cn

Y
LL
R
N
C
-
NO
... -.. - . -.. -i . .. ... .. .. . ... ... ..
0 to
xi
o
r
a
d
d E z w
y a U)�
`
I
x
g
r
. LL
V r UN
F M
s -
I
I
S
I •�
g
w 11r
�
. .
-s
�
x
t
• x
q
f.
•
x
a
O
CQ
�
N�}+
Cr4 C�i
= r:
iA
i
tn
M
.�
� kn N N
�
,,t M .--i N N M U
O
O
(D
I
�
Q
di

)
-!
@
S
.
( j
--
{■
■ o
a B
_
�
o
■
..
: .
§
j
�
\!
■ @ 2 2
s
U } k § �
�
j
\}
-
|i
[-
i
�
§
■
e
0
M
? _ C-4 CIA U
2
�
0
2
k
o
�
$
2
)
q
a
Q .2
O q
R•- � c ƒ § 2
-
§
_•-
® a �
_
d U
V

0
'
\
k
■
§ «
.
k k {
_ §
~'■
\�
�
§
§
',
; z
2 2
.
.. ......�.
. >... . ...� .G..
.... ......�
. ....
,
s
k ) k§ U.
!
� .
p
/
:2 .
�
§ w
��
-
-
,|
�3
.-
!
�
.,
§
c"I C14
? � n
M M_
• ,
�
■ '-
3 q
tj
k •
2 .\ \
§
§

i
a
O
LL
y
\
\
N Q
E o
W
-
o co
°c
o
- s
�
a°
3E
a
F-
LY
W
C
)
o
.Yk
CL
ate, E z
to E m _O
�
-
fq C O N
o U
c v
LU
~
2 iz co
LL
1
• G
�
'A
g
�i
•
4-1 a::
C{--1
00 01
i �
�
• N
.
O
�.1 cd a/
• Jam-.

aW3
a m
W
m
am
a
r
m
J
t
m
d
3�
0
d
a
U
•
1
r 1
oozz
r
r r
NALSxa1l1!a_ -
--
—
—
— ——
- - -
V
- - --
OoLz
L JA 8SX Ioad
J p
000z
r r
r'
0064
© © M
Oo84
0014
� n
II to
'
d u a
f
►
r
1
a •H e
W.
0094
'C•I N
'I►
N Ld
-
UI -W
-
.W d -M ii m U.
J
►
—OOSL
a+ u IA
-
d m m
►
m ''
o .y
►
—OOYL
N H N
-
J
f
!
t W m
►�
—00£4
v a m
r
►
00z4
0044
1
r
1
►
0004
J
r
► �
r
�
—006
►
�'
---- - -
- -
--
r,
-------
4J SxaUi!U
- -
- - --
008
L ilk o4sx aIMM
r►
001
r
r
_
►J
009
r
1
005
1►
!
oot
►
r
r
4]AItsxa13)!
--
--------
- -
- - --
00£
i'A Li,%A W—Cl r
R
'
►
'
—ooz
i
►
004
0
0 0 0
o o
m
o ch
CD
a
r
aW3
a m
W
m
am
a
r
m
J
t
m
d
3�
0
d
a
U
•

O a
V
1
d d
a W 3
d)
d d
J W
L
ED
a'm
4
Y
A
J m
d
H
d
� C
Ip A
V

d
e�
ru
and
x
and
m�
wS
OI =
07
4
Y
A
J 07
C
W
m
3UP)
0
d
r e
A �
} V

d
e=
V�
d d
a
Of
x M J
m
C
am
4
Y
F
J m
�6
C
m
d
H
O
d
c
A
�V

1-A9SXa!dl!a - - - - -- --------- - - - --�
0011
a
N
x o
Ln
& n
N
© m
. c
© o
II N
cu 4.1
a •,4
e U.
N iW
N
i 01
.+ m
L6
m
Ld U
R
a,
d 4.
m L
0
d N
C L
C Qi
m a
V �
LIA 6S%X 1
1 JA ESX Iol
q�eaa !! dWOUd dol
Ch
M ! N N N N h Y1 M
0091
0551
0051
05p1
OM
05£1
00£1
09Z1
OUZ1
0511
0011
0501
0001
056
058
— — — 008
05L
OOL
059
009
055
005
05ti
— -- — OR
05E
m�
a W 3
x
m
LUW
+ G
~L =
:a
am
4
Y
C
m
�i
J
Y
lV
m
d
}a`; W
3 �
0
m
c
a
�v
z
V

d
o�
Y V
d d
a a iO
aW�
x
d�
m�
W3
+
a�
0
Y
m
C
A
m
d
V
d A
�y y333
O
d
� C
C
}� V

d
o=
} V
d d
ma m
awl
x
's
d
m
J W
+
m
C
m
O
Y
A
J m
C
A
m
V
m
O
m
� C
C
lO
}�V

R
l
d
o =
a
V
d
aW3
x
J W }
s
m
am
Y
A
J m
7
d
m
V
°
d
r=
yV

0
O
A
0
z
v U�.
a�
w
w
0
d O
L
Sr
0
w
y
O
F
C0
tu
z
�O N O 00 �c 7 N O
asuuu UI
4
0
N
In
10
N
�E
d
N N
M (/�
d
a
00
N
O
N
O
0
iiii■ liiii
MMMIMMIMIMMIMM
w
�I
O
M
M
00
N
N
M
M
M
�
�O
Vl
l�
�O
,--i
l
al
l
01
l
^�
00
U
00
V1
O)
[-
a1
00
D\
O
O
O•
O
O
O
6
O
O
L}
e�
a
RI
a;
O
M
O
in
'-';
,'-',
to
00
O
N
00
"C
Cl
cV
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
C:
p
C�
N
O
M
0,
r•
�
00
l
cn
tf)
O
tf)
-
O
o
O
O
O
c.
a..
at
y
N
O
V
�
cq
O
O
kn
N
N
,--i
V'1
N
O
O
.�
V'1
O
O
N
O
�--i
O
4
O
N
l�
V1
O
dt
Cl
00
[�
in
M
0
o0
�--i
M
.�..
N
N
o
�y
M
i
N
N
7
M
V
',C•
V
Ci
C�
4,
N
o
�
O•
oC•
--�
N
—
�O
v1
N
oO>
r-'
N
11C
M
N
N
—
"
M
N
O
N
tn
00
�
O
N
N
O
Cl
U
i.
W
O
cl
N
•p
C/]
C
cC
COO
D
N
J
�"
�"'
o
r
cC
cy
cc
V1
cC1
O
U
cC
O
U
C�
O
U
�
O
U-1
O
�
O
�+
O
N
C'

c
o N +
M
0
0
Q
0
z
U z
'o
a >C
a
w
w
Fri
O
R<
0
Vl Q�
R<
Ya
aw
L
O
y
� a A
O
sy
H
0
i.i
O
y
W.
C, O O o 0 0 0
C14 C) 00 10 Zt a21ue21 U! N
/o
O
N
cq
7
N
E
�CD
N
N (n
M d
1
a
00
N
O
N
O
0
a
—
■E■■!
loom■
iii�i�iiii
l���ISrI.■M..���
C�
C�
C5
c
O
O
O
O
O
O
C
o:
C�
C�
O
O
O
O
o
o
MEMEMEMEN
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
o
O
O
O
o
O
o
Cr
C,
O
O
O
O
O
O
C>
C:
o
o
0
U
■■■■■■■■■■
_
■■■■■■■■■■
a'
RS
G�
O
O
O
O
C�
O
O
O
O
O
O
o
O
O
o
O
O
C)
O
O
o
C5
MEMEEMEam
0
O
a:
■■■■■■■■■■ •
a
C�
C�
C5
c
O
O
O
O
O
O
C
o:
C�
C�
O
O
O
O
o
o
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
o
O
O
O
o
O
o
Cr
C,
O
O
O
O
O
O
C>
C:
o
o
0
U
a'
RS
G�
O
O
O
O
C�
O
O
O
O
O
O
o
O
O
o
O
O
C)
O
O
o
C5
O
0
O
a:
c�
`O
O
o
O
C,
O
O
O
O
O
O
o
O
O
O
o
O
C)
O
O
O
C)
c�
Ei
E1
Cd.
Vi
y
Li
N
v,
O
D
p
O
N
C
VI
O
N
p
O
,--i
O
N
O
O
R
O
O
O
00
M
oo
O
,--�
r-
��
P:
�[:
N
M
N
N
M
d'
V1
O
00
rq
'
00
00
N
'�
Cs
00
"o
l0
v1
N
N
ID
M
O
'
N�
00
�.
C '
�'
nl
O
cq
a
0
�
o
o
y
ee
>
o
a
b
O
"
o
N
C7
0
(1)
"
(1)
°
;�
b
>
Ol
c~a
>
N
c�a
co
o
U
o
U
�
U
U
�s
Cd
"Ei
C
ds
ar
b

rn
O M +
M
00
O
b
O
A
0
z
o
z
CIO
CIOa O
a
w
w
F;
O
Lam+
0
y �
SV
I�1
o x o
E-�
a
Sa
O
y
W
o 0
'• '• a2lugH ul
oo
0
N
N
N
�E
d
N
cl
M y
d
a
N
O
N
O
O
a
iiiii■ i�i�
iiiii■ lii�
O
O
O
O
C
O
O
O•
C
o
C.
O
C
O
O
O
Ca
O
C:
C
O
C�
O
O
Ci
O
O
O
O
C
o
O
C•
C
o
C,
o
O'
O
O
O
C;
O
C
C
O
C�
O
O
ee
LI
■■■■■■■■■■
a
�
o•
�iiiii�i�i
o
o•
o
O
o
O
C,
o•
O
o
O
C
C.
o
O
C,
o
O
O
o
■■■■■■■■■■
o
0
0
C.
o
a
O
O
O
O
C
O
O
O•
C
o
C.
O
C
O
O
O
Ca
O
C:
C
O
C�
O
O
Ci
O
O
O
O
C
o
O
C•
C
o
C,
o
O'
O
O
O
C;
O
C
C
O
C�
O
O
ee
LI
a
�
o•
o
o•
o
O
o
O
C,
o•
O
o
O
C
C.
o
O
C,
o
O
O
o
O
o
0
0
C.
o
o:
0
0
0
0
o
O
o
o
O
o
0
0
o
Cr
C)
o
o
O
O
C>
O
o
o
o•
a�
N
V
N
\O
o
C
V
O
i
o
O
N
O
'
N
o
O
'
N
C
O
i
O
O
N
i
O
O
4
i
O
(V
v
i
O
O
oo
i
V�
M
,~-�
O
O
a
i
M
.-i
N
N
i
O
�p
N
M
�p
N
N
to
et
i
cN+i
Z
i
"�
O
5
i
oo
N
^'
O
O•
o0
r.,
i
oo,
�O
V't
N
i
O
N
�O
M
i
,O
N
(NI
to
i
N
Mi
N
C
�.."
N
in
oc
O
cV1
i
4
O
N
V
i
Fn
CC
y
�
O
O
�
o
w
cye
U
w
a�
O
n
U:
a�
a�
a
�.
i�
^C
°'
S
b
°'
5
O
r�
ai
O
�;
U
sue.
N
U
U,
U
U
U
(n
U'
°
ro
al
mE
m
a
a�
M

o � +
O 00
ci
0
A
0
z
z
CIS
a 5C
W
W
0
s.,
0
a � o
0
a � �
O
E�
5
CIS
0
10 7 N O w 10 7 N O
a8uug ul %
C>
0
N
N_
N
cli
d
N_
N M
M �
CL
N
a
0
w•�wr�wiw liiii
!!!i! liiii
i•�SMM INM��
MEMO! I■■■■
i� ►��iii iii
_-III■_IIII♦III■IIII♦__� �
C•
O
O
v7
01
.�-i
N
M1
It
v-^,
z
O-
00
«i
c7N
O
U
w
a
0
O
O
O
v:
v1
O
N
1c
01
v,
01
N
oc:
00
M
p�
O
O
O
M
M
M
O
M
10
oc:
v':
W
N
O
O
Cl
O
O
O
a
O
�.
W
IN
rA
v
N
C5
O
V
O
O
O
N
N
r'
CD
v)
N
O
O
.--i
v)
O
O
N
O
,--�
O
O
N
l�
v1
O
4
O
00
v1
M
O
00
O
M
N
N
O
10
N
M
N
N
v)
crn
10
O
01
0o
N
O
01
o0
,--i
N
,�
v1
N
000
1D
M
�
N
v1
1N0
M
N
N
O
N
N
N CD
V
L
VS
RS
y
G
w
y
Ce
co
CA
cn
COO
o
NI
u
a�
03
C7
N
c>d
N
ro
b
�
r0
r i
y
0
rA
0
'�
p:
O'
C�
rc,
O
_ �
O
cc
7c1
C,
cCi
'2
O
q
rr,
'C
O
Lr
"d
O
'C
O
�:

d O1
�-
M �
o ^"
0
A
0
z
u u z Ld
a
w
W
q
C�
s
� o
x �
0
y
S.'
V
Rr y R
O a A
E
CC
H
x
0 0 o O O o O
N O 00 �o 7 N
- - asUBZ( UI
0
N
N
�E
d
N N
M (n
d
a.
R
N
O
cq
O
O
ris�s�r:� RR�RiSRi
iiii■ IMM
■E■ ■1 INS■ -
Ri Ri Ri Ri Ri R� R� R� RRRRRR# Ri
i��RiRi��t•t•t•
RiRiRiR��RRRRRR:RRR�RiR�Ri
�MM
-
iii _
d
O
O
O
o
C
c
O
o
O
o
O
Ca
O
CS
O
o
O
o
O
c
O�
o
O•
CS
O
o
O
O
O
o
O
c
C:
o
O
O
O
o
O
C:
O
C.
C•
O
O
o
O
0
O
U
a�
a
eai
o
c>
0
0
o
c:
o
0
0
0
0
o
c.
o
c,
o
0
o
c>
o
0
0
o
c5
o
a
F;
(Dz
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
C
O
O
O
Cs
O
C•
O
C.
C)
.3
O
E:
y,
Ci
N
O
O
,N.,
O
Vl
N
O
O
�!1
O
O
O
O
O
N
�
t/1
O
O
00
[�
v'3
M
,�
'
O
00
O
to
M
N
N
O
N
N
N
v')
N
M
V'1
O
01
�
�
N
'
O
oo
N
�;
N
O
ocs
N
M
v1
N
N
V1.
N
\ON..,
M
N
o
'
d0
n1
d•
N
O
pct
�.
V
L,
RC
d
�
�
O
-r
O
a
v�
a�
d
V
^o
n
b
3~
cu
y
v
,
C7
u
>
0
>
(5
>
ca
s,
C7
M
�
cd
s..
C7
y
v1
~i cc
o
>
sue.
c
0
rj
a�
un
Cd
U
(D
�
Cd
U
�"
O
U
cC
U
d
G
o
U
0
o b�cC f
s
si
a
sL O dos f f
a�
b
Oa
0 co �
a�
b
Pa
co
�,
O
9
a:
"Cl
3
0. :
M

c � +
M �
0
A
0
z
U z
o v�
a �
a
w
w
q
0
R
R
s.
0
y
V
� � A
O
Jry
F
R
0
H
x
O 00 �D 7 N O 00 10 V N O
N
33UCH UI %
oo
0
N
I
I
E
1
N N
M U)
d
(Q
a
N
O
N
O
O
i•i■■i�N•���r��
NNE
mmmmmm
■■■■■`■■ ■■ _
■■■■■■■■■■
a�
R
O
O
O
O
O
O
M
N
,�
IC:
M
V'1
�
t�
�
l�
�.
O�
�
O
�
\�c
(ON
C�
O'\
o
O
c
Cs
o
O
0
O
0
O
o
O
c
C
q
U
as
R
O
O
O
O
O
O
M
a1
00
CD
cq
Cl
O
�D
M
Cs
CI
O
O
O
C"
O
q
.y
p
O
O
O
O
O
O
N
�C
M
N
r-
00
�
00
[l-
�
N
O
O
O
O
Ul
w
C/�
y
V
N
O
tn
�N N p i
O
O
N p
N
�
pII'1
N
O
O i
N
O i
4
O N i
O i
00
[� i
V
M
•"--' i '
06
�M p i
N
O 1
O
N
M
N
N i
l
CD
01
4
00
N
'
00
O •--�
�
N i
Of
N
�
i
kri
r
N
1
M
N O
N
O
~
. :
0�G c
,;
O
F
O
V
cOa
V]
'O
S~
�y
�S
r
a�
rn
cO
'�
'1
''
cc
c;
j
�•
Cd
�•
°
r 1
cci
�•
C .1
v.
R
1,
a�
9-1
u..
cd�
U>>
L.
a�
O
R
1
O
cC
aD
'm
O
as
_7
0
b
R's
u
O
V3
a
CI
Ri
O
(D
a' i
O
a�

d
C l +
M N
cu 0
O
A
0
z
z
a �
a
w
w
q
0
%V
ryn U
O
a�
s.l
O
�I
.q
y � �
c a A
E�
a
C%
L
0
y
w
w IO R N O
32uel[ u!
00
0
N
N
V1
V
1
N_
N U)
M d
v
�a
N
O
O
0
NOME! I■■■E
MEMEMEMEME
■■■■■■■■■■
�
O
O�
O
O
O
M
l�
00
00
a
o
^-.
In
N
-
r.,.i
o,
�
v
�
o,
�
o
�
�
o0
�
c�
O
o
O
o
O
cl
G
c•
C•
o
O
r-I
O
U
a�
O
O
O
O
M
M
N
O
N
[-
a:
l
«'
`_,
_,
,�
[�
N
N
c,
O
CI
C�
O
O
q
O
O
O
O
N
Ni
7
O
r
EC
E,
6t
ni
Z
N
O
O
N
O
,�
CIA
OI
N
O
to
O
N
O
�--I
1
A
O
N
O
O
O
r
I!1
O
O'
06
1
r
M
�~-1
O
oo
\O
�--i
1
M
CN
N
1
O
N
M
N
V'I
N
�
Vl
O
0�
d'
o0
O
CD.
oC.
�--�
o0•
kn
N
I
oo
M
N
t
M
N
W)
00
O
N
O
a1
�•
Ci
U•.
a
Y
a
a
�,
as
-�
o
vi
R=
(1)
>
>
+v
""
>
5
>
5
r
r
(U'
>
a�•
>
o
0
v
o
v
a�•
a,
c
a
o
as
o
S"
cp
m

c 00 +
M O
O N
O
A
0
z
V u z
(U
W
W
Q
cl
Fil Q�
cc
i.l
O
°i W
C a A
F
E
CO
L
Gn
z
00 .O 7 N 0
0
ague -d UI
O
N
71
N
00
E
N_
N (n
M �
b
m
a
W
Y
In
N
O
O
O
■E■ ■t ■■■■ - -
�i!!li viii
■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■
c�
S
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
o
c�
c�
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0•
0
o
o
c�
5
o
0
0
0
Cl
o
c,
ca
O
o
O
0
O
0
o•
0
o
0
U
0
bbl'
q
c�
a
oo
O
o
0
o
O
O
O
o
c�
o
o
c)
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
c)
O
00
0
c
O
O
o
o
c:
o
o
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
o
O
O
o
0
0
o
c,
o
C)
U
N1-0
vV
O
v
N
tn
O
N
O
N
O
O
in
O
o0
l
V'�
'"
O
M
N
O
M
N
N
M
�•
tA,
d'
4
N
O
�Ny
'-2
o0
N'
c.
M
�
N
v,•
N
K:
O
N
'�
00
O
Cq
O
a�f
N
V
L
C�
a
CD
ab
C4•
a�
>
w
b
o
U
GO
>>
C7
a�
w
C7
a�
w
>
E
b
>
Cd
E
b
�,
U
a
U
�
>
�
>
�n
a:
v�
v
�'
a
°
a
i
V
b
i
(
�"
�
o
-�
m
c

M [�
O
O
A
0
z
u z
a �
a
W
W
ii
O
C�
0
0
y
O
E
O
y
00 10 ,T N O
a3U6u UI %
00
kn
0
N
kn
N
�E
N ui
M d
v
a.
N
O
N
O
O
s�ml�
mmmmmmmmmm
iiiii■i■i■iii
L
C�
O•
O
O
N
�O
,_,
^,
00
00
^,
00
�
�
t`
�
00
O�
v.�
Q'•
O
O
O
O
O
O
Cr
O
O
V
a�
a
of
c�
kn
In
K,
oo•
o,
00
ON
N
In.
o
o
ca
C:,
o
o
'
rS
O
O
O
M
M
N
O
�--�
�O
a,
�
00
Ln
I.C.
to
IZ%
M
O
O
O
O
O
O
-•�
y
;
L
N
O
V
N
O
o
wl
N
N
°
N
O
O
O
O
O
N
[
O
00
N
00
N
N
M
In
:
C',
Q,,
00
00
N
trI
64
O
oc:
M
�O
v1
N
--i
W)
N
110
M
N
N
-
00
�
O
cV
N
O
oa
p
CV
V
s,
CC
rr,
cd:
C
F+�
C
UC�
C''
r�
>~
b
a�
ri
o
al
V.I
;
s0.
r�r�r��
V
b
ID
��r�r��
V
C
a�
TO
Ri
>-
RI
o
N
a
�
o
N
�
a�
N
y
�.'
a�
U
�
aD
�
U
�
Qi
�
U
�
Cd
Qi,
-1
�1
�
b
O
�
b
O
�
MQ
w
tii
CI

o +
M l�
0
0
A
0
z
V V%'
a � L
a
W
W
q
0
a�
s.
0
�I
V
6�
a � a
o a A
iy
a
L
OD
O
y
t
0
N
N
cc
N
N
M �
� R
a
N
O
0
N r{
22U6H UI %
i
�I
ii ii. ■iiii
i
it
i
i
0
N
N
cc
N
N
M �
� R
a
N
O
0
N r{
22U6H UI %
ii ii. ■iiii
L
C�
C
I-,
C�
O
O
O
�•
l�
M_,
,�_,
N
N
_
l�
00
a..
0�
0�
O
O
O
O
O
C>
O
O
O
CD
O
O
C{
C�
O
�i�
►�i��i
ii
U
as
b
O
O
O
O
M
M
,M-i
N
m
oc,
'T
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
C
■■■■■■■■■■
L
C�
C
I-,
C�
O
O
O
�•
l�
M_,
,�_,
N
N
_
l�
00
a..
0�
0�
O
O
O
O
O
C>
O
O
O
CD
O
O
C{
C�
O
U
as
b
O
O
O
O
M
M
,M-i
N
m
oc,
'T
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
C
O
O
O
C,
N
N
�
M
M
V•1
0�
01
00
�o
M
O
O
O
O
O
O
C
�.
y.
Vj.
u•
N
�p
O
V
kn
�--�
O
o
tn
N
O
N
O
O
N
O
O
,-,
O
N
O
4
N
V'{
O
00
'
00
�D
—
N
N
M
V'1
M
tA
d
O
C.
'
�O�
00
N
00
�--�
N
W)
N
0
00
ID
M
�
.N-i
in
M
N
N
�
00
p
N
O
OC
N
V
1:+
cd
w
O
d
a
c
U
v
>
�
v
q
�
coo
v
o
rn
o
�.
U
o.
U
v
C7
w
v
�
�.
�
�.
�.
v
w
v
�
C7
o
r
�
C7
o
V{
V,
u
v
cn-0
v,
o
u
v
-0
0
0
u
0
u
0
m
bb
0
0
Cd
°'
5
0
d
�,

M N
O
O
A
0
z
U z
o
a �
a
w
w
:i
O
0
C)
x � a
0
w
y
.Li
y � R
H
G
0
bA
Lam+
y
x
a8usli u!
00
0
N
N_
N
N
�E
N
N ui
M �
v
a
0
N
O
0
v
i
a8usli u!
00
0
N
N_
N
N
�E
N
N ui
M �
v
a
0
N
O
0
v
C i',
O
O
C
l�
oO
l0
D1
CSl
M
OC:
00
01
O,
C,
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
U
d
a
O
O
O
M
M
vl
M
M
M
00
•'�_,
O�
00
O
O
O
O
O
0
O
.-r
4i
O
O
O
•--�
N
N
N
c`
N
�O
rte-+
00
[�
\D
•--�
O
O
O•
O
O
O
O
.....
Q
U
N
oV
•--
O
N
O
O
Irl
O
O
O
O
N
O
4
N
l
V'1
O
00
i/'i
�--i
o6
•--�
N
N
M
N
V1
�'
M
�O
O
O\
oc
N
00
•-r
co
N
V'�
(�I
a�
M
N
W
M
O'
�,
O
N
4
NO
00
�
L
M
�
A.-
O
W
ro
.•
�.y
>
.D
aJ
�
a)
cc
vi
o
ca
o.
N•
>
�.
N
a)
>
ca
`"
>
ca
`"
G
6:i
>
°
a.i
N
>
C7
O
D
C7
O
as
C ;
C�
cc l
0
M
o
U
> :
e
N
cd
o
U
4]
as
o
U
ACC
^
a:,
ci
U)
=
i
au
o
U
Q)
cC
a.)
0
U
cC
w
a�
0
Cq
C*
^
�"
a�
0
GG
C*
p
b•
a�
o
G7
x
o
.�
M

Q 00
o � +
M N
ca
0
0
A
0
z
" zv
a � y
w
w
O
0
o
a � a
0
y
..b
u A
E-�
it
E�
y
x
00 �o -It N O 00 10 7 N Cl
a8ue1f ut %
oo
0
N
I
d
N_
N
M
v
�a
N
O
N
O
0
W
O
it
O
O
N
v'>
00
N
M
�
�D
V�
N
C'-
oo
l�
00
00
00
Oq
01
00
C
01
o
O
0
O
o
O
c
C.
o
O
0
O
o
O
cr
O
o
O
U
ap
O'
O
f"E
M
M
Ic�
�D
M
',C
N
in
O
O
G
O
O
O
C>
O
O
C
a
o0
M
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
(U
W
u
p
v
O
N
\.0
O
N
O
N
N
kl1
00
'--�
.—�
N
i
N
M
kn�
01
a>
^�
oo
N
C\I
OO a
M
�v0 )
N
U)
M
0
V'1
N
O
�
oc
C.
O
E-�
0
i
a
'S
a
r�
'i
0
'i
>
C7
>
cz
V
v
b
C5
b
`
m
�
'�
�
v
'�
o
v
0
v
o
u
ci
c:k
o
o
4
o

BF 1
Crest Gage at XS -6 on UT.
(EMH &T, Inc. 9/21/09)
BF 2
Crest Gage at XS -7 on Mainstem.
(EMH &T, Inc. 9/21/09)