20120080 Ver 1_Year 1 Monitoring Report_20140121

12- 00`0
UNDERWOOD MITIGATION SITE DA�t)6
Chatham County, NC
DENR Contract 003268
NCEEP Project Number 94641
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report
FINAL
Data Collection Period: August- September 2013
Draft Submission Date: November 15, 2013
Final Submission Date: December 12, 2013
0 \VJ12
RECEIVED
DEC: t 7 2013
Prepared for: NC ECOSYSTEM
r~ NCDENR, NCEEP ENHANCEMENT PftOOItAM
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC
4 StC111 _ 27699 -1652
ro.0 nrn

Prepared by:
kt�
WILDL.AN1)S
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
1430 S. Mint Street, # 104
Charlotte, NC 28203
P - 704 - 332 -7754
F - 704 - 332 -3306

UNDERWOOD MITIGATION SITE
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report
10 Executive Summary
11 Project Goals and Objectives
12 Monitoring Year 1 Data Assessment
12 1 Vegetative Assessment
1 2 2 Stream Assessment
1 2 3 Hydrology Assessment
1 2 4 Maintenance Plan
1 2 5 Wetland Assessment
13 Monitoring Year 1 Summary
20 Methodology
30 References
APPENDICES
r —,
Appendix 1
General Tables and Figures
Figure 1
Project Vicinity Map
Figure 2a -c
Project Component /Asset Map
j Table 1
Project Components and Mitigation Credits
` Table 2
Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3
Project Contact Table
, Table 4
I
Project Information and Attributes
Appendix 2
Visual Assessment Data
Figure 3 0 -3 3
Integrated Current Condition Plan View
Table 5a -h
Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Table 6
Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
' Stream Photographs
Vegetation Photographs
Appendix 3 Vegetation Plot Data
Table 7 Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Table 8 CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Table 9 Planted and Total Stem Counts (Species by Plot with Annual Means)
Appendix 4 Morphological Summary Data and Plots
Table 10a -c Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table 11 Monitoring Data — Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional
Parameters — Cross - Section)
Table 12a -f Monitoring Data — Stream Reach Data Summary
Longitudinal Profile Plots
Cross - Section Plots
Reachwide and Cross - Section Substrate Plots
1
1
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
5
6

Appendix 5 Hydrology Summary Data and Plots
Table 13 Verification of Bankfull Events
Table 14 Wetland Gage Attainment Summary
Groundwater Gage Plots
Monthly Rainfall Data

1.0 Executive Summary
! The Underwood Mitigation Site, hereafter referred to as the Site, consists of two separate areas (Harris
Site and Lindley Site) located in western Chatham County within the Cape Fear River Basin (USGS
Hydrologic Unit 03030002) north of Siler City, North Carolina The Harris site is located within the
upstream area of the project watershed along Clyde Underwood Road, Just west of Planfield Church
Road The Lindley Site is located downstream from the Harris Site, southwest of Moon Lindley Road
between Johnny Lindley Road and Bob Clark Road The Site is located within the Carolina Slate Belt of
the Piedmont Physiographic Province (USGS, 1998) Approximately 60% of the land in the project
watershed is forest, 39% is classified as managed herbaceous cover or agricultural, and the remaining
1% is split between unmanaged herbaceous and open water (MRLC, 2001) The drainage areas for the
Harris Site and Lindley Site are 1,051 acres (1 64 square miles) and 3,362 acres (5 25 square miles)
respectively
The project stream reaches consist of SF1, SF3, SF4, SF4A, UT1, and UT2 (stream restoration and /or
enhancement level 1 approach) and SF2, SF3, UT1, UT1A, and UT1B (enhancement level II approach)
Mitigation work within the Site included restoring and enhancing 9,133 linear feet (LF) of perennial and
7 intermittent stream channel and restoring, enhancing, and creating 13 84 acres of riparian and non-
riparian wetland The stream and wetland areas were also planted with native vegetation to improve
habitat and protect water quality Construction activities were completed by Land Mechanics Designs,
Inc in November 2012 Planting and seeding activities were completed by Bruton Natural Systems, Inc
in January 2013 Four separate conservation easements have been recorded and are in place along the
riparian corridors and stream resources to protect them in perpetuity, 7 68 acres (Deed Book 1578, Page
-- 495) within the tract owned by Mary Jean Harris, 18 44 acres (Deed Book 1578, Page 507) within the
tract owned by William Darrel Harris, 5 34 acres property (Deed Book 1579, Page 1067) within the tract
owned by James Randall Lindley, and 6 29 acres property (Deed Book 716, Page 707) within the tract
owned by Jonathan Marshall Lindley Directions and a map of the Site are provided in Figure 1 and
project components are illustrated for the Site in Figures 2a and 2b
t�
11 Project Goals and Objectives
j` Prior to construction activities, the streams and wetlands on the Harris Site were impacted by cattle
grazing, which led to stream bank erosion and instability The Lindley site was used for row crop
agriculture and the streams were straightened and deepened and much of the riparian vegetation was
removed Related degradation includes declining aquatic habitat, loss of forest, degraded riparian
buffers, loss of wetlands, and water quality problems related to increased sediment and nutrient
loadings Table 4 in Appendix 1 and Tables 10a, 10b, and 10c in Appendix 4 present the pre - restoration
conditions in detail
The Underwood Mitigation Site was designed to meet the over - arching goals as described in the
mitigation plan (2011) The project addresses multiple watershed stressors that have been documented
for both the Cane Creek and Jordan Lake watersheds While many of these benefits are limited to the
Underwood Site project area, others, such as pollutant removal and improved aquatic and terrestrial
! habitat, have more far - reaching effects The following project specific goals established in the
-' mitigation plan include
• Restore and stabilize stream dimensions, pattern, and profile,
• Establish proper substrate distribution throughout restored and enhanced streams,
Underwood Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report —FINAL
Page 1

• Improve aquatic and benthic habitat,
• Reduce nutrient loads within the watershed and to downstream waters,
• Further improve water quality within the watershed through reductions of sediment, !
bacteria, and other pollutants,
• Decrease water temperature and increase dissolved oxygen concentrations,
• Establish appropriate hydrology for wetland areas,
• Restore native vegetation to wetlands and riparian buffers /improve existing buffers, and
• Create appropriate terrestrial habitat
The design features of this project were developed to achieve multiple project objectives The stream
restoration elements were designed to frequently flood the reconnected floodplain and adjacent
riparian wetlands This design approach provides more frequent dissipation of energy from higher flows
(bankfull and above) to improve channel stability, provide water quality treatment through detention,
settling, and biological removal of pollutants, and restore a more natural hydrologic regime Existing,
restored, and created wetlands were key components of the design incorporated to better meet goals
described above The project objectives defined in the mitigation plan (2011) are as follows
• Construct stream channels that will remain relatively stable over time and adequately
transport their sediment loads without significant erosion or aggradation,
• Construct stream channels that maintain riffles with coarse bed material and pools with
finer bed material,
• Provide aquatic and benthic habitat diversity in the form of pools, riffles, woody debris, and
in- stream structures,
• Add riffle features and structures and riparian vegetation to decrease water temperatures
and increase dissolved oxygen to improve water quality,
• Construct stream reaches so that floodplains and wetlands are frequently flooded to
provide energy dissipation, detain and treat flood flows, and create a more natural
hydrologic regime,
• Construct fencing to keep livestock out of the streams, -
• Raise local groundwater table through raising stream beds and removing agricultural
drainage features,
• Grade wetland creation areas as necessary to promote wetland hydrology, and
• Plant native tree species to establish appropriate wetland and floodplain communities and
retain existing, native trees were possible
The design streams and wetlands were restored to the appropriate type based on the surrounding
landscape, climate, and natural vegetation communities but also with strong consideration to existing
watershed conditions and trajectory The mitigation project corrected incision and lack of pattern
caused by channelization, bank instability caused by erosion and livestock access, lack of vegetation in
riparian zones, lack of riparian and aquatic habitat, and depletion of hydrology for adjacent wetlands
The final mitigation plan was submitted and accepted by the NCEEP in September of 2011 Construction
activities were completed by Land Mechanics Designs, Inc in November 2012 Planting and seeding
activities were completed by Bruton Natural Systems, Inc in January 2013 Baseline monitoring (MY -0)
was conducted between December 2012 and February of 2013 Annual monitoring will be conducted
for five years with the close -out anticipated to commence in 2018 given the success criteria are met
Appendix 1 provides more detailed project activity, history, contact information, and watershed /site
background information for this project j
ON
Underwood Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report—FINAL
Page 2

12 Monitoring Year 1 Data Assessment
Annual monitoring and quarterly site visits were conducted during monitoring year 1 (MY -1) to assess
the condition of the project The stream and wetland mitigation success criteria for the Site follow the
approved success criteria presented in the Underwood Mitigation Plan (5/7/2013)
12 1 Vegetative Assessment
Planted woody vegetation is being monitored in accordance with the guidelines and procedures
developed by the Carolina Vegetation Survey -NCEEP Level 2 Protocol (Lee et al , 2006) A total of 42
vegetation plots were established during the baseline monitoring within the project easement areas
(29 at the Harris Site, 13 at the Lindley Site) using a standard 10 meter by 10 meter plot The final
vegetative success criteria will be the survival of 260 planted stems per acre in the riparian corridor
along restored and enhanced reaches at the end of year five of the monitoring period The interim
measure of vegetative success for the Site will be the survival of at least 320 planted stems per acre
at the end of year three of the monitoring period
The MY -1 vegetative survey was completed in September 2013 The 2013 annual vegetation
monitoring resulted in an average stem density of 605 stems per acre, which is greater than the
interim requirement of 320 stems /acre, but approximately 15% less than the baseline density
recorded (712 stems /acre) in January 2013 There is an average of 9 stems per plot which has
remained the same since MY -0 A total of 38 out of 40 plots are on track to meet the success
` ! criteria required for MY -5 (Table 9, Appendix 3) Although two plots are not meeting success
criteria, supplemental plantings will not be installed prior to the MY -2 survey Wildlands has
observed on other mitigation sites that bare roots which appear to be dead during the MY -1 survey
j may re- sprout in subsequent monitoring years The bare roots planted in MY -0 can also be difficult
to re- locate during the MY -1 survey where there is dense herbaceous cover Following MY -2,
Wildlands will re- evaluate low stem densities within the Site and conducted supplemental planting
as needed Please refer to Appendix 2 for vegetation plot photographs and the vegetation condition
assessment table and Appendix 3 for vegetation data tables
1 2 2 Stream Assessment
Morphological surveys for the MY -1 were conducted in August and September 2013 With the
exception of SMA, all streams within the Site are stable with little to no erosion and have met the
success criteria for MY -1 Please refer to Appendix 2 for the visual assessment table, Current
condition plan view (CCPV), and reference photographs Refer to Appendix 4 for the morphological
data and plots
In general cross - sections show little to no change in the bankfull area, maximum depth ratio, or
width -to -depth ratio Surveyed riffle cross - sections fell within the parameters defined for channels
of the appropriate Rosgen stream type The surveyed longitudinal profile data for SF1, UT2, SF3,
UT1, and SF4 illustrates that the bedform features are maintaining lateral and vertical stability The
riffles are remaining steeper and shallower than the pools, while the pools are remaining deeper
than the riffles and maintaining flat water surface slopes The longitudinal profiles show that the
bank height ratios remain very near to 10 for the restoration reaches Degradation was
documented in the upper portion of SMA (approximate STA 900 +00 - 905 +33) In this section the
stream has downcut up to 0 5 ft in some locations Although the adjustments in SMA's profile were
not intended in the design, the stream is maintaining a stable bedform at a lower elevation SF4A
will be closely monitored over the upcoming MY -2 degradation advancement If during MY -2
Oft
Underwood Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report—FINAL
Page 3

degradation continues along SMA, Wildlands will prepare a maintenance plan to address the
problem areas Details regarding the tentative maintenance plan are discussed below in section
1 2 3 Pattern data will be collected in MY -5 only if there are indicators from the profile or
dimensions that significant geomorphic adjustments have occurred No changes were observed
during MY -1 that indicated a change in the radius of curvature or channel belt width
1 2 3 Hydrology Assessment
At the end of the five year monitoring period, two or more bankfull events must have occured in
separate years within the restoration reaches Additional bankfull events were recorded on all the
streams except for UT2 with crest gages during the MY -1 data collection Bankfull events have also
been observed on UT1, SF2, SF3, SF4, and SF4A shortly after completion of construction These
bankfull events occurred prior to the installation of crest gages, but were evidenced by wrack lines
Please refer to Appendix 5 for hydrologic data
1 2 4 Maintenance Plan
No maintenance plan is necessary at this time Wildlands will continue to monitor SMA and will
develop a maintenance plan if it becomes apparent that the stream continues to downcut or
otherwise destabilize A maintenance plan to correct this problem would likely consist of installation
of sills at the downstream end of riffles to stabilize those features, add additional grade control, and
backfill over time to raise the bed through the riffle sections
1 2 5 Wetland Assessment
Fifteen groundwater monitoring gages were established during the baseline monitoring within the
wetland restoration, creation, and enhancement zones The gages were installed at appropriate
locations so that the data collected will provide an indication of groundwater levels throughout the
site To provide data for the determination of the growing season for the wetland areas, two soil
temperature loggers were installed in representative areas within RW3 and RW4 A barrotroll
logger (to measure barometric pressure used in the calculations of groundwater levels with well
transducer data) and a rain gage were also installed within the wetland areas on both the Harris and
Lindley Site All monitoring gages were downloaded on a quarterly basis and maintained on an as
needed basis The success criteria for wetland hydrology is to have a free groundwater surface
within 12 inches of the ground surface for 7 5 percent of the growing season, which is measured on
consecutive days under typical precipitation conditions All groundwater gages met the annual
wetland hydrology success criteria for MY -1 Please refer to Appendix 2 for the groundwater gage
locations and Appendix 5 for groundwater hydrology data and plots
13 Monitoring Year 1 Summary
With the exception of SMA, all streams within the Site are stable and functioning as designed
Degradation observed on SMA will be monitored for indications of long term instability A maintenance
plan will be prepared after MY -2 if conditions continue to degrade The average stem density for the
Site is on track to meeting the MY -5 success criteria, however, a few individual vegetation plots did not
meet the MY -1 success criteria as noted in the CCPV There has been one documented bankfull event
with the crest gage recorded along UT1, SF2, SF3, SF4, and SMA since construction commenced along
with visual verifications such as wrack lines The MY -5 stream hydrology attainment requirement has
been partially met for the Site at this time All groundwater gages met the MY -1 success criteria
ON
Underwood Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report—FINAL
Page 4

Summary information and data related to the 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 Mitigation Plan documents available on
NCEEP's website All raw data supporting the tables and figures in the appendices are available from
NCEEP upon request
2.0 Methodology
_ Geomorphic data was collected followed the standards outlined in The Stream Channel Reference Site
An Illustrated Guide to Field Techniques (Harrelson et al , 1994) and in the Stream Restoration A Natural
Channel Design Handbook (Doll et al , 2003) Longitudinal and cross - sectional data were collected using
a total station and were georeferenced All CCPV mapping was recorded using a Trimble handheld GPS
with sub -meter accuracy and processed using was Pathfinder and ArcView Crest gages were installed in
surveyed riffle cross - sections and monitored quarterly Hydrology attainment installation and
monitoring methods are in accordance with the USACE (2003) standards Vegetation monitoring
' protocols followed the Carolina Vegetation Survey -NCEEP Level 2 Protocol (Lee et al , 2008)
f-
i,
�i
l�
r
f
Underwood Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report—FINAL
Page 5

3.0 References
Doll, B A, Grabow, G L, Hall, K A, Halley, J , Harman, W A, Jennings, G D, and Wise, D E 2003 Stream
Restoration A Natural Channel Design Handbook
Harrelson, C C, Rawlins, C L, Potyondy, J P 1994 Stream Channel Reference Sites An Illustrated Guide i
to Field Technique Gen Tech Rep RM -245 Fort Collins, CO U S Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station 61 p
Lee, M T, Peet, R K, S D, Wentworth, T R 2008 CVS -EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation Version
4 2 Retrieved from http //cvs bio unc edu /protocol /cvs- eep- protocol -v4 2- lev1 -5 pdf
Rosgen, D L 1994 A classification of natural rivers Catena 22 169 -199
Rosgen, D L 1996 Applied River Morphology Pagosa Springs, CO Wildland Hydrology Books
Rosgen, D L 1997 A Geomorphological Approach to Restoration of Incised Rivers Proceedings of the
Conference on Management of Landscapes Disturbed by Channel Incision Center For
Computational Hydroscience and Bioengineering, Oxford Campus, University of Mississippi, Pages
12 -22
Schafale, M P and A S Weakley 1990 Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina, 3rd
approx North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, North Carolina
Simon, A 1989 A model of channel response in disturbed alluvial channels Earth Surface Processes and
Landforms 14(1) 11 -26
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 2010 Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of
Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region (ERDC /EL TR -10-
9) U S Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) 2002 Natural Resources Conservation Service, Climate
Information for Catawba County, NC (1971 -2000)
WETS Station Catawba 3 NNW, NC1579
http //www wcc nres usda gov /ftpref/ support/climate /wetlands /nc/37035 txt
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) 2009 Natural Resources Conservation Service, Soil
Survey Geographic (SSURGO) database for Catawba County, North Carolina
http //SoilDataMart nres usda gov
United States Geological Survey (USGS) 1998 North Carolina Geology http //
http //www geology enr state nc us /usgs /carolina htm
Weakley, A S 2008 Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, Georgia, Northern Florida, and Surrounding Areas
(Draft April 2008) University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Chapel Hill, NC
Wildlands Engineering, Inc 2012 Underwood Mitigation Plan NCEEP, Raleigh, NC
k
W Underwood Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report—FINAL
Page 6

(" l
Wildlands Engineering, Inc 2013 Underwood Mitigation Site Baseline Monitoring Document and As-
Built Baseline Report NCEEP, Raleigh, NC
Underwood Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report —FINAL
Page 7

APPENDIX 1. General Tables and Figures
ij
t�
i;

.IMIt
;W ! Hydrologic Unit Code (14)
= EEP Targeted Local Watershed
_ AlaRt?ncc�►rHjty
�.Chathalfi count~
03030002050050
1
,r
r 03030002050070
03030003070010 a; J
Llindlsy Sibs
Roiti► ,r
Hiffis Sibs
Countrr
Coupty
0303000
~ 'I
�'•.
-_._. � - -- _. _
_ - ---- to -- — — ---- es
filer:
0 30003070020
t.ity 03030003070030
,
� Sltefi
Otv
40 �w1
5iler City
Mu ici ai
it
030304 070
r-_
,1 ♦�w��1
Directions:
The subject project site is an environmental restoration site of the
The two locations of the proposed
NCDENR Ecoysystem Enhancement Program (EEP) and is
stream and wetland mitigation sites
encompassed by a recorded conservation easement,
are located in western Chatham County
but is bordered by land under private ownership. Accessing the
along Clyde Underwood Road just west
site mayrequire traversing areas near or along the easement
of Plainfield Church Road (Upstream Area)
boundary and therefore access by the general public is not
and southwest of Moon Lindley Road
permitted. Access by authorized personnel of state and
between Johnny Lindley Road and Bob
federal agencies or their designees /contractors involved in
Clark Road (Downstream Area) north of
,.�� the development, oversight,and stewardship of the restoration
Siler City, North Carolina (Figure 1).
���"' */` site is permitted within the terms and timeframes of their defined
The sites are currently used for agriculture
"04 1'0' roles. Any intended site visitation or activity by any person
and are within the Cape Fear River Basin
outside of these previously sanctioned roles and activites
(HUC 03030002).
requires prior coordination with EEP.
Figure 1 Project Vicinity Map
W I L D L A N D S Underwood Mitigation Site
ENGINEERING 0 0.625 1.25 Miles NCEEP Project No. 94641
l i i i l Monitoring Year 1
Chatham County, NC

Figure 2a Project Component /Asset Map
�, W I L D L A N D S Underwood Mitigation Site - Harris Site
\� 0 110 220 Feet NCEEP Project No. 94641 I I I I I t Monitoring Year 1
Chatham County, NC

♦r■aw.r
■ .,
$
UT1A
♦♦ UT1B ♦� �♦
IL
♦•
•
lit
All
I
♦r■aw.r
■ .,
$
UT1A
♦♦ UT1B ♦� �♦
IL
♦•
•
lit
I
i
NRW2 o
IL
r • r .
■
'
,
■
■ 0
RW3 ■
■
goo ok,
Ulm
■ ■
■
4x: -5
♦ ■
1
1
�"
■
SF2
■
r

Figure 2c Project Component /Asset Map
W I L D L A N D S Underwood Mitigation Site - Lindley Site
F N c I N F F R I N C 0 100 200 Feet NCEEP Project No. 94641
I ' ' ' _J t Monitoring Year 1
Chatham County, NC

Table 1 Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Underwood Mitigation Sde (NCEEP Project No 94641)
Monitoring Year 1
'Note that lengths do not match stationing because channel sections that do not generate credit have been removed from length calculations
JJJJJJKLMrtigatio Credits
Stream
Riparian Wetland
Non - Riparian Wetland
Nitrogen
Nutrient
Buffer Offset
Phosphorous
Nutrient Offset
Type R
RE
R
RE
R
RE
Totals 6,764
0
8 0
N/A
09
0 2
N/A N/A
N/A
Project Components
As -Built M S1 Stationing/ Mestoration Restoration Footage each ID Location (LF) Equivalent Acreage (Ac)' Mitigation Ratio
Streams
SF1
100+00-
108 +74
773
Priority 1
Restoration
874
11
SF2
300+00-
303 +02
302
N/A
Enhancement Level I I
302
2 5 1
SF3
400+00-
421 +20
532
N/A
Enhancement Level I I
359
2 5 1
1,499
Priority 1
Restoration
1,586
11
152
N/A
Enhancement Level 1
153
1 5 1
SF4
800+00-
814 +29
1,450
Priority 1
Restoration
1,429
11
SF4A
900+00-
908 +66
0
Priority 1
Restoration
257
11
609
N/A
Enhancement Level 1
609
1 5 1
UTI
500+00-
520 +38
1,463
N/A
Enhancement Level 11
1,468
25 1
452
Priority 1
Restoration
515
11
UT1A
700+00-
705 +11
524
N/A
Enhancement Level 11
511
25 1
UT1B
600+00-
606 +52
660
N/A
Enhancement Level II
652
25 1
UT2
0 +00 -4 +18
421
N/A
Enhancement Level 1
418
15 1
Wetlands
RW3
N/A
125
N/A
Restoration
112
11
RW2
N/A
045
N/A
Creation
030
3 1
050
Restoration
040
11
RW3
N/A
263
N/A
Creation
253
3 1
133
Restoration
102
1 1
RW4
N/A
395
N/A
Creation
363
3 1
36S
Restoration
330
11
NRWS
N/A
120
N/A
Restoration
075
11
Creation
045
3 1
NRW2
N/A
034
N/A
Enhancement
034
2 1
Component Summation
Restoration Level
Stream
(LF)
Riparian Wetland
(Ac)
Non - Riparian Wetland
(acres)
Buffer
(sq ft)
Upland
(acres)
Riverine
Non- Riverne
Restoration
4,661
584
075
Enhancement
034
Enhancement 1
1,180
®®
r
Enhancement II
3,292
Creation
646
045
Preservation
High Quality Preservation
'Note that lengths do not match stationing because channel sections that do not generate credit have been removed from length calculations

Table 2 Project Activity and Reporting History
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No 94641)
Monitoring Year 1
Activity or Report
DateC011ectlon
Complete
6ompletion or
Scheduled Delivery
Mitigation Plan
September 2011
September 2011
Final Design - Construction Plans
July 2012
July 2012
Construction
November 2012
November 2012
Temporary S &E mix applied to entire project areal
November 2012
November 2012
Permanent seed mix applied to reach /segments
November 2012
November 2012
Bare root and live stake plantings for reach /segments
January 2013
January 2013
Baseline Monitoring Document (Year 0 Monitoring - baseline)
March 2013
March 2013
Year 1 Monitoring
September 2013
November 2013
Year 2 Monitoring
2014
December 2014
Year 3 Monitoring
2015
December 2015
Year 4 Monitoring
2016
December 2016
Year 5 Monitoring
2017
December 2017
'Seed and mulch is added as each section of construction is completed
Table 3 Project Contact Table
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No 94641)
Monitoring Year 1
Designer
Wild lands Engineering, Inc
5605 Chapel Hill Road, Suite 122
Raleigh, NC 27604
Nicole Makaluso, PE
919 851 9986
Construction Contractor
Land Mechanic Designs, Inc
126 Circle G Lane
Willow Spring, NC 27592
Planting Contractor
Bruton Natural Systems, Inc
P 0 Box 1197
Fremont, NC 27830
Seeding Contractor
Land Mechanic Designs, Inc
126 Circle G Lane
Willow Spring, NC 27592
Seed Mix Sources
Green Resource, LLC
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Bare Roots
ArborGlen, Inc
Live Stakes
Foggy Mountain Nursery
Monitoring Performers
Wddlands Engineering, Inc
Stream, Vegetation, and Wetland Monitoring, POC
Kirsten Gimbert
704 332 7754, ext 110

Table 4 Project Baseline Information and Attributes
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No 94641)
Monitoring Year 1
Project Information
Project Name Underwood Mitigation Site
County Chatham County
Project Area (acres) 38 ac
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude) 35° 48'05"N, 79° 24'10"W (Harris Site), 35° 49'51"N, 79° 22'60"W (Lindley Site)
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province
Carolina Slate Belt of the Piedmont Physiographic Province
River Basin
Cape Fear
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8 -digit
03030002
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14 -digit
03030002050050
DWQSub -basin
0306-04
Project Drainiage Area (acres)
1,504 ac (Harris Site) and 3,362 ac (Lindley Site)
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious
Area
<1%
CGIA Land Use Classification
60% Forest Land, 39% managed herbaceous cover
/agricultural, 1% unmanaged herbaceous /open water
Parameters
Reach Summary Information
SFi SF2 SF3 UT3
UT1A
UT38
UTr2 SF4
SF4A
Length of reach (linear feet) - Post - Restoration
874
302
2,098 1,983
511
652
418
1,429
866
Drainage area (acres)
134
781
1,056 230
11
11
78
3362
637
NCDWQ stream identification score
36/50 5/43 25
40
22 75
2425
38
U
345
NCDWQ Water Quality Classification
WS -V,
NSW
WS -V,
NSW
WS -V,
NSW
C
C
C
C
WS -V,
NSW
C
Morphological Desription (stream type)
P
P
P
P
I
I
P
P
P
Evolutionary trend (Simon's Model) - Pre -
Restoration
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
Underlying mapped soils
Nanford -Baden Complex
Georgeville
Silt Loam
Chewacla and Wehadkee
Drainage class
- --
---
- --
- --
- --
—
---
---
Sod Hydnc status
—
—
Slope
---
- --
-
---
FEMA classification
AE
- --
Native vegetation community
Piedmont bottomland forest
Percent composition of exotic Invasive vegetation
- Post - Restoration
0%
Regulatory Considerations
Regulation
Applicable?
Resolved?
Supporting Documentation
Waters of the United States - Section 404
x
X
USACE Nationwide Permit No 27 and DWQ 401 Water Quality Certification No
3689
Waters of the United States - Section 401
X
Division of Land Quality (Dam Safety)
N/A
N/A
N/A
Endangered Species Act
X
X
Underwood Mnigation Plan, no critical habitat for listed species exists within the
project area (USFWS correspondence letter)
Historic Preservation Act
X
X
No historic resources were found to be impacted (letter from SHPO)
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) /Coastal
Area Management Act (LAMA)
N/A
N/A
N/A
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
X
X
Approved CLOMR
Essential Fisheries Habitat
N/A
N/A
N/A
U Unknown

APPENDIX 2. Visual Assessment Data

�,r -!�;.1 'df � '. '�'�`r t�Lt. SS �` � M �q ti i >��! •'
tio(F% r —— — — — — — — — —
,�`.:/ Y r •�. M11. ? �i� <r •- fill r. ry .•� � '\��` � ,' -� }
,I<
1 Z
SMRN HARMS RD t 1
ISheet
- - - - - - - - - - - 1
e' r
v - 1.9,•'..1. w ' ,.� '_ j
,l
.t .
i \
.-
r „�� I' I. S•7+i r N r�� I;.,Tr it - - ""'ly�ytw�F �1 ♦'r/ - .
<a
�'�L'.T�}�♦ L
vU_� .t 1
eft" 54'••.::.4. •r �- � ""•�S�E ��� �,i�'!a'. =' ,e`
1
V. lip
I
1—- ———- ——— ————— — — — — ——,
I 1
1 1 1 1 -+CKNE}PSPRrNGS RD
1 ■1 im14 ,
1
iCL UNDEf�vCiOD RD * .*
1 •1 p •� 1i
Sheet 2 :Y t
--------------------
,— — — — — — — — — — — — — 1
ova
1 I �
, � r
1 1 U
Sheet 1 1 w 1
-—-——-——--—- — ". z • •
a

Figure 3.1 Integrated Current Condition Plan View
(Sheet 1 of 3)
W I L D L A N D S 0 50 100 200 Feet Underwood Mitigation Site - Harris Site
F N G 1 N F F K 1 N G
I i i i i i I i i i i i I NCEEP Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 1
Chatham County, NC

Figure 3.2 Integrated Current Condition Plan View
(Sheet 2 of 3)
kt� W I L D L A N D S 0 100 200 400 Feet Underwood Mitigation Site - Harris Site
F N(; I N F E R I N G
i i i i l NCEEP Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 1
Chatham County, NC

Figure 3.3 Integrated Current Condition Plan View
�WILDLANDS (Sheet3of3)
0 75 150 300 Feet
E N G—, N e F k, NC, Underwood Mitigation Site - Lindley Site
l i i i i i I i i i i i I NCEEP Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 1
Chatham County, NC

Table 5a Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Underwood Mitigation Site (EEP Project No 94641)
Harris Site, SF1 (874 LF)
Monitoring Year 1
'Excludes constructed rittles since they are evaluated in section 1
Number
Number wit Footage wit A lust % or
Stable,
Number of
Amount of
%Stable,
Stabilizing Stabilizing Stabilizing
Major Channel
Performing as
Total Number
Unstable
Unstable
Performing as
Woody Woody Woody
Category
Channel Sub-Category
Metric
Intended
in As -Built
Segments
Footage
Intended
Vegetation Vegetation Vegetation
1 Bed
1 Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0
0
100%
Degredation
0
0
100%
(Riffle and Run units)
2 Riffle Condition
Texture /Substrate
15
15
100%
3 Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
15
15
100%
Lenth Appropriate
15
15
100%
Condition
4 Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend (Run)
15
15
10090
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend (Glide)
15
15
1009a
2 Bank
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1 Scoured /Eroded
simply from poor growth and /or scour
0
0
100%
n/a n/a n/a
and erosion
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely
2 Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are
0
0
100%
n/a n/a n/a
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat
3 Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
n/a n/a n/a
Totals 0
0
100%
n/a n/a n/a
3 Engineered
Structures)
1 Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dilodged boulders or logs
10
10
100%
2 Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill
10
10
100%
2a Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms
10
10
100%
3 Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures
extent of influence does not exceed 15%
10
10
100%
Pool forming structures maintaining
4 Habitat
"'Max Pool Depth Bankfull Depth 2 1 6
Rootwads /logs providing some cover at
10
10
100%
baseflow
'Excludes constructed rittles since they are evaluated in section 1

Table 5b Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Undewood Mitigation Site (EEP Project No 94641)
Harris Site, UT2 (418 LF)
Monitoring Year 1
"Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated In section 1
Num r
Number wit f
Footage wit
Adjust % for
Stable,
Number of
Amount of
%Stable,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Major Channel
Performing as
Total Number
Unstable
Unstable
Performing as
Woody
Woody
Woody
Category
Channel Sub-Category
Metric
Intended
in As -Built
Segments
Footage
Intended
Vegetation
Vegetation
Vegetation
1 Bed
1 Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0
0
100%
Degredatlon
0
0
100%
(Riffle and Run units)
2 Riffle Condition
Texture /Substrate
10
10
100%
3 Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
10
10
100%
Condition
Lenth Appropriate
10
10
100%
4 Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend (Run)
10
10
100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend (Glide)
10
10
100%
2 Bank
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1 Scoured /Eroded
simply from poor growth and /or scour
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
and erosion
Banks undercut /overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely
2 Undercut
Does NOT Include undercuts that are
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat
3 Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
Totals
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
3 Engineered
Structures'
1 Overall Integrity
Structures physically Intact with no
dllodged boulders or logs
n/a
n/a
n/a
2 Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill
n/a
n/a
n/a
2a Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms
n/a
n/a
n/a
3 Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures
extent of influence does not exceed 159'%
n/a
n/a
n/a
Pool forming structures maintaining
4 Habitat
—Max Pool Depth Bankfull Depth 2 1 6
Rootwads /logs providing some cover at
n/a
n/a
n/a
baseflow
"Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated In section 1

Table 5c Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Undewood Mitigation Site (EEP Project No 94641)
Harris Site, SF2 (302 LF)
Monitoring Year 1
Num r
Num erwt
Footage wit A just% or
Stable,
Number of
Amount of
%Stable,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing Stabilizing
Major Channel
Performing as
Total Number
Unstable
Unstable
Performing as
Woody
Woody Woody
Category
Channel Sub-Category
Metric
Intended
in As -Built
Segments
Footage
Intended
Vegetation
Vegetation Vegetation
1 Bed
1 Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0
0
100%
Degredation
0
0
100%
(Riffle and Run units)
2 Riffle Condition
Texture /Substrate
n/a n/a
n/a
3 Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
n/a n/a
n/a
Lenth Appropriate
n/a n/a
n/a
Condition
Thalweg centering at upstream of
n/a n/a
n/a
meander bend (Run)
4 Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at downstream of
n/a n/a
n/a
meander bend (Glide)
2 Bank
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1 Scoured /Eroded
simply from poor growth and /or scour
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a n/a
and erosion
Banks undercut /overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely
2 Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a n/a
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat
3 Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a n/a
'
1 11
Totals 0
0
100%
n/a
n/a n/a
3 Engineered
Structures physically intact with no
Structures
1 Overall Integrity
dilodged boulders or logs
n/a
n/a
n/a
2 Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
n/a
n/a
n/a
maintenance of grade across the sill
2a Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
n/a
n/a
n/a
underneath sills or arms
3 Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures
n/a
n/a
n/a
extent of influence does not exceed 15%
Pool forming structures maintaining
4 Habitat
—Max Pool Depth Bankfull Depth Z 1 6
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rootwads /logs providing some cover at
baseflow

Table 5d Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Undewood Mitigation Site (EEP Project No 94641)
Harris Site, SF3 (2,120 LF)
Monitoring Year 1
'Number of riffles and pools are determined based on the as -built survey along Restoration and Enhancement Level I reaches
Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1
l i - - -�
Number
Numberwith Footagewith Adjust %for
Stable,
Numberof Amount of
%Stable,
Stabilizing Stabilizing Stabilizing
Major Channel
Performing as
Total Number
Unstable Unstable
Performing as
Woody Woody Woody
Category
Channel Sub-Category
Metric
Intended
in As -Built
Segments Footage
Intended
Vegetation Vegetation Vegetation
1 Bed'
1 Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0 0
100%
Degredation
0 0
100%
(Riffle and Run units)
2 Riffle Condition
Texture /Substrate
19
19
100%
3 Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
19
19
100%
Lenth Appropriate
19
19
100%
Condition
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend (Run)
19
19
100%
4 Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend (Glide)
19
19
100%
r T n ♦�:i'J.��
�11��� 1- .,?rie: =.t
ZU1_ L
2 Bank
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1 Scoured /Eroded
simply from poor growth and /or scour
0 0
100%
n/a n/a n/a
and erosion
Banks undercut /overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely
2 Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are
0 0
100%
n/a n/a n/a
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat
3 Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0 0
100%
n/a n/a n/a
Totals
0 0
100%
n/a n/a n/a
3 Engineered
Structures physically intact with no
Structures'
1 Overall Integrity
chlodged boulders or logs
100%
2 Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
7
7
100%
maintenance of grade across the sill
Structures lacking any substantial flow
2a Piping
underneath sills or arms
7
7
100%
3 Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures
7
100%
extent of influence does not exceed 15%
Pool forming structures maintaining
4 Habitat
—Max Pool Depth Bankfull Depth z 16
7
7
100%
Rootwads /logs providing some cover at
baseflow
'Number of riffles and pools are determined based on the as -built survey along Restoration and Enhancement Level I reaches
Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1
l i - - -�

Table Se Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Undewood Mitigation Site (EEP Project No 94641)
Harris Site, UTl (2,038 LF)
Monitoring Year 1
`Number of riffles and pools are determined based on the as -built survey along Restoration and Enhancement Level I reaches
'Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated In section 1
Num er
Number wit
Footage wit
A just % or
Stable,
Number of
Amount of
% Stable,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Major Channel
Performing as
Total Number
Unstable
Unstable
Performing as
Woody
Woody
Woody
Category
Channel Sub-Category
Metric
Intended
in As -BuiR
Segments
Footage
Intended
Vegetation
Vegetation
Vegetation
1 Bed'
1 Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0
0
100%
Degre lation
0
0
100%
(Riffle and Run units)
2 Riffle Condition
Texture /Substrate
7
7
100%
3 Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
7
7
100%
Lenth Appropriate
7
7
100%
Condition
4 Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend (Run)
7
7
1001,
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend (Glide)
7
7
100%
2 Bank
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1 Scoured /Eroded
simply from poor growth and /or scour
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
and erosion
Banks undercut /overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely
2 Undercut
Does NOT Include undercuts that are
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat
3 Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
Totals
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
3 Engineered
Structuresz
1 Overall Integrity
Structures physically Intact with no
dilodged boulders or logs
15
15
10010
2 Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill
15
15
100%
2a Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms
15
15
100%
3 Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures
extent of Influence does not exceed 15%
15
15
100%
Pool forming structures maintaining
4 Habitat
—Max Pool Depth Bankfull Depth z 1 6
Rootwads /logs providing some cover at
15
15
100%
baseflow
`Number of riffles and pools are determined based on the as -built survey along Restoration and Enhancement Level I reaches
'Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated In section 1

Table 5f Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Undewood Mitigation Site (EEP Project No 94641)
Harris Site, UT1A & UT1B (1,163 LF)
Monitoring Year 1
Num er
Num erwit
Footage wit
A just % or
Stable,
Number of
Amount of
%Stable,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Major Channel
Performing as
Total Number
Unstable
Unstable
Performing as
Woody
Woody
Woody
Category
Channel Sub-Category
Metric
Intended
in As -Built
Segments
Footage
Intended
Vegetation
Vegetation
Vegetation
1 Bed
1 Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0
0
100%
Degredation
0
0
100%
(Riffle and Run units)
2 Riffle Condition
Texture /Substrate
n/a
n/a
n/a
3 Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
n/a
n/a
n/a
Lenth Appropriate
n/a
n/a
n/a
Condition
4 Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend (Run)
n/a
n/a
n/a
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend (Glide)
n/a
n/a
n/a
2 Bank
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1 Scoured /Eroded
simply from poor growth and /or scour
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
and erosion
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extentthat mass wasting appears likely
2 Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat
3 Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
Totals
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
3 Engineered
Structures
1 Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dilodged boulders or logs
n/a
n/a
n/a
2 Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill
n/a
n/a
n/a
2a Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms
n/a
n/a
n/a
3 Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures
extent of influence does not exceed 15%
n/a
n/a
n/a
Pool forming structures maintaining
4 Habitat
Max Pool Depth Bankfull Depth 2 16
Rootwads /logs providing some cover at
n/a
n/a
n/a
baseflow

Table 5g Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Undewood Mitigation Site (EEP Project No 94641)
Lindley Site, SF4 (1,429 LF)
Monitoring Year 1
- Number or ritties ana pools are oeterminea oases on the as -ount survey along nestorauon ana ennancement Level i reacnes
'Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1
Num er
Number w it
Footagewrt
A just % or
Stable,
Numberof
Amount of
%Stable,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Major Channel
Performing as
Total Number
Unstable
Unstable
Performing as
Woody
Woody
Woody
Category
Channel Sub-Category
Metric
Intended
in As -Built
Segments
Footage
Intended
Vegetation
Vegetation
Vegetation
1 Bed'
1 Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0
0
100%
Degredation
0
0
100%
(Riffle and Run units)
2 Riffle Condition
Texture /Substrate
8
8
100%
3 Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
8
8
100%
Lenth Appropriate
8
8
100%
Condition
4 Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meanderbend(Run)
8
8
100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend (Glide)
8
8
100%
2 Bank
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1 Scoured /Eroded
simply from poor growth and /or scour
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
and erosion
Banks undercut /overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely
2 Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat
3 Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
Totals
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
3 Engineered
Structuresz
1 Overall
Structures physically intact with no
dilodged boulders or logs
2
2
100%
2 Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill
2
2
100%
2a Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms
2
2
100%
3 Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures
extent of influence does not exceed 15%
2
2
100%
Pool forming structures maintaining
4 Habitat
—Max Pool Depth Bankfull Depth z 1 6
Rootwads /logs providing some cover at
2
2
100%
baseflow
- Number or ritties ana pools are oeterminea oases on the as -ount survey along nestorauon ana ennancement Level i reacnes
'Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1

Table 5h Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Undewood Mitigation Site (EEP Project No 94641)
Lindley Site, SF4A (866 LF)
Monitoring Year 1
'Number of riffles and pools are determined based on the as -built survey along Restoration and Enhancement Level I reaches Approximately 533 LF of the stream bed has downcut along SF4A and riffles and pools shifted have shifted
downstream Although these conditions were not intended in the design, the stream has maintained a stable bedform with riffles and pools at a lower elevation
'Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1
Num er
Num erwit
Footage with
Adjust or
Stable,
Number of Amount of
%Stable,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Major Channel
Performing as
Total Number
Unstable Unstable
Performing as
Woody
Woody
Woody
Category
Channel Sub-Category
Metric
Intended
in As -Built
Segments Footage
Intended
Vegetation
Vegetation
Vegetation
1 Bed'
1 Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0 0
100%
Degredation
(Riffle and Run units)
1 533
63%
2 Riffle Condition
Texture /Substrate
8
10
80%
3 Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
7
9
78%
Lenth Appropriate
7
9
78%
Condition
4 Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend (Run)
9
9
10050
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend (Glide)
9
9
100%
2 Bank
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1 Scoured /Eroded
simply from poor growth and /or scour
1 533 38%
1 533
57%
and erosion
Banks undercut /overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely
2 Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are
0 0 100%
n/a n/a
n/a
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat
3 Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0 0 100%
n/a n/a
n/a
Totals
1 533 100%
1 533 57%
100%
3 Engineered
Structures'
1 Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
ddodged boulders or logs
2
2
2 Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill
2
2
100%
2a Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms
2
2
100%
3 Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures
extent of influence does not exceed 15%
2
2
100%
Pool forming structures maintaining
4 Habitat
—Max Pool Depth Bankfull Depth a 16
Rootwads /logs providing some cover at
2
2
1009'
baseflow
'Number of riffles and pools are determined based on the as -built survey along Restoration and Enhancement Level I reaches Approximately 533 LF of the stream bed has downcut along SF4A and riffles and pools shifted have shifted
downstream Although these conditions were not intended in the design, the stream has maintained a stable bedform with riffles and pools at a lower elevation
'Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1

Table 6 Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Undewood Mitigation Site (EEP Project No 94641)
Monitoring Year 1
Planted Acreaee 38
Easement Acreaee 38
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Mapping
Number
Combined
Acreage
%of
Invasive Areas of Concern
Areas of points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale)
Threshold
of
Combined
Planted
Vegetation Category
Definitions
(Ac)
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage"
Bare Areas
Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material
01
0
0
000%
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 4, or 5 stem count
Low Stem Density Areas
0 1
0
0 0
00%
criteria
Total
0
0 0
00%
Areas with woody stems of a size class that are obviously small given the monitoring
Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor
0 25 Ac
0
0
0%
year
Cumulative Total
0
00
1%
Easement Acreaee 38
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Mapping
Threshold
(SF)
Number
of
Polygons
Combined
Acreage
%of
Planted
Acreage
Invasive Areas of Concern
Areas of points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale)
1000
0
0
00%
Easement Encroachment Areas
Areas of points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale)
none
0
0
0%

L'
Stream Photographs
(Harris Site)
IFS

Photo Point 1— looking upstream (08/08/2013) 1 Photo Point 1— looking downstream (08/08/2013) 1
Photo Point 2 — looking upstream (08/08/2013) 1 Photo Point 2 — looking downstream (08/08/2013) 1
Photo Point 3 — looking upstream (08/08/2013 I Photo Point 3 — looking downstream (08/08/2013) I
Underwood Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Morphological Summary Data and Plots— Stream Photographs

Photo Point 4 — looking upstream (08/08/2013) 1 Photo Point 4 — looking downstream (08/08/2013)
Aj".
Photo Point 5 — looking upstream (08/08/2013) Photo Point 5 — looking downstream (08/08/2013)
r
Photo Point 6 — looking upstream (08/08/2013) Photo Point 6 — looking downstream (08/08/2013)
Underwood Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Morphological Summary Data and Plots— Stream Photographs

Photo Point 7 — looking upstream (08/08/2013) 1 Photo Point 7 — looking downstream (08/08/2013) 1
Photo Point 8 — looking upstream (08/08/2013) 1 Photo Point 8 — looking downstream (08/08/2013) 1
Photo Point 9 — looking upstream (08/08/2013) I Photo Point 9 — looking downstream (08/08/2013)
Underwood Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Morphological Summary Data and Plots— Stream Photographs

Photo Point 10 — looking upstream (08/01/2013) 1 Photo Point 10 — looking downstream (08/01/2013)
I
}
Photo Point 11— looking upstream (08/01/2013) Photo Point 11— looking downstream (08/01/2013)
Photo Point 12 — looking upstream (08/01/2013) I Photo Point 12 — looking downstream (08/01/2013)
Underwood Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Morphological Summary Data and Plots— Stream Photographs

Underwood Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Morphological Summary Data and Plots— Stream Photographs
a
i
t
Photo Point 13
— looking upstream (08/01/2013)
Photo Point 13 — looking downstream (08/01/2013)
Photo Point 14
— looking upstream (08/01/2013)
Photo Point 14 — looking downstream (08/01/2013)
'x
Photo Point 15
— looking upstream (08/01/2013)
Photo Point 1S — looking downstream (08/01/2013)
Underwood Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Morphological Summary Data and Plots— Stream Photographs

Underwood Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Morphological Summary Data and Plots— Stream Photographs
i
Uif �r-
^4 a
ti its
Photo Point 16 - looking upstream (08/01/2013)
Photo Point 16 - looking downstream (08/01/2013)
If
fir_ t.
F• ,
Photo Point 17 - looking upstream (08/01/2013)
Photo Point 17 - looking downstream (08/01/2013)
' ice, '� ;�'. - .'i•��fF
Photo Point 18 - looking upstream (08/01/2013)
Photo Point 18 - looking downstream (08/01/2013)
Underwood Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Morphological Summary Data and Plots— Stream Photographs

Photo Point 19 — looking upstream (08/01/2013)
Photo Point 19 — looking upstream (08/01/2013)
Photo Point 20 — looking upstream (08/01/2013) 1 Photo Point 20 — looking upstream (08/01/2013) 1
Photo Point 21— looking upstream (08/01/2013) I Photo Point 21— looking downstream (08/01/2013)
Underwood Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Morphological Summary Data and Plots— Stream Photographs

Underwood Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Morphological Summary Data and Plots— Stream Photographs
T 4
t
'�,.
I
•�,t � �,� 7. }., 'i!"
{{
a � - ,�'{.�
.jr
�ry F Ali A
y
-
t
Photo Point 22 — looking upstream (08/01/2013)
Photo Point 22 — looking downstream (08/01/2013)
G..
4
ST
)
ti�l'....w. i' 1.. -
f��. P ""Y n ` 4a. �`1.�• �`• 4tir
Photo Point 23 — looking upstream (08/08/2013)
Photo Point 23 — looking downstream (08/08/2013)
a
6
Photo Point 24 — looking upstream (08/08/2013)
Photo Point 24 — looking downstream (08/08/2013)
Underwood Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Morphological Summary Data and Plots— Stream Photographs

r
9
Photo Point 25 — looking upstream (01/22/2013)
Photo Point 25 — looking downstream (01/22/2013)
i
f
t y
i } Sam-
-
t-
_. r� ,•.`� x '. ;�
i77A
!
f�.gFyr t
?59,�
,ate
Photo Point 26 — looking upstream (08/08/2013)
Photo Point 26 — looking downstream (08/08/2013)
a s ?
5 y.
t•iJ` - 11
`
M ww
Photo Point 27 – looking upstream (08/08/2013)
Photo Point 27 – looking downstream (08/08/2013)
Underwood Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Morphological Summary Data and Plots— Stream Photographs

Underwood Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Morphological Summary Data and Plots— Stream Photographs
R
e
M
i
a ✓C v,
t-
„n
Photo Point 28 — looking upstream (08/08/2013)
Photo Point 28 — looking downstream (08/08/2013)
Ys
y8,ba.
Photo Point 29 — looking upstream (08/01/2013)
Photo Point 29 — looking downstream (08/01/2013)
SL
M� L
r
Photo Point 30 — looking upstream (08/01/2013)
Photo Point 30 — looking downstream (08/01/2013)
Underwood Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Morphological Summary Data and Plots— Stream Photographs

Photo Point 31— looking upstream (08/01/2013) 1 Photo Point 31— looking downstream (08/01/2013) 1
Photo Point 34 — looking upstream (08/08/2013) 1 Photo Point 34 — looking downstream (08/08/2013)
Photo Point 35 — looking upstream (08/08/2013) I Photo Point 35 — looking downstream (08/08/2013) I
Underwood Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Morphological Summary Data and Plots— Stream Photographs

Underwood Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Morphological Summary Data and Plots— Stream Photographs
« � - f
4.
b'
Photo Point 36 — looking upstream (08/08/2013)
Photo Point 36 — looking downstream (08/08/2013)
..s
Vhf., •.
r V
I: Ml "Q F
y/y�yr�t y _
y
1` 4L m'a I JIBS. (✓/
SI, %iS''
F yy
d t�Y�.14E11fi � ��
Photo Point 37 — looking upstream (02/12/2013)
Photo Point 37 — looking downstream (02/12/2013)
M
Photo Point 38 — looking upstream (08/08/2013)
Photo Point 38 — looking downstream (08/08/2013)
Underwood Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Morphological Summary Data and Plots— Stream Photographs

Photo Point 39 — looking upstream (08/08/2013) I Photo Point 39 — looking downstream (08/08/2013) I
Underwood Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Morphological Summary Data and Plots— Stream Photographs

� l
1_
7
Stream Photographs
(Lindley Site)
r--
I

a
y
dr. �.
Photo Point 40 — looking upstream (01/22/2013)
Photo Point 40 — looking downstream (01/22/2013)
I�
� r
Photo Point 41— looking upstream (01/22/2013)
Photo Point 41— looking downstream (01/22/2013)
y
Photo Point 42 — looking upstream (01/22/2013)
Photo Point 42 — looking downstream (01/22/2013)
Underwood Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Morphological Summary Data and Plots— Stream Photographs

Underwood Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Morphological Summary Data and Plots— Stream Photographs
4
y;
es
Photo Point 43 — looking upstream (01/22/2013)
Photo Point 43 — looking downstream (01/22/2013)
n
Yv
1
c�
Photo Point 44 — looking upstream (01/22/2013)
Photo Point 44 — looking downstream (01/22/2013)
I� t
y
i
, .'
t3
hA�ai�
Photo Point 45 — looking upstream (01/22/2013)
Photo Point 45 — looking downstream (01/22/2013)
Underwood Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Morphological Summary Data and Plots— Stream Photographs

i� t
L J +.Z T. lit. 441 pp
Photo Point 46 — looking upstream (01/22/2013) Photo Point 46 — looking downstream (01/22/2013)
Photo Point 47 — looking upstream (01/22/2013) 1 Photo Point 47 — looking downstream (01/22/2013) 1
L Photo Point 48 — looking upstream (01/22/2013) I Photo Point 48 — looking downstream (01/22/2013)
Underwood Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Morphological Summary Data and Plots— Stream Photographs

f
Vegetation Photographs
(Harris Site)

4 �
a
r
Vegetation Plot 1 (01/22/2013) Vegetation Plot 2 (01/22/2013)
Vegetation Plot 3 (01/22/2013) 1 Vegetation Plot 4 (01/22/2013)
Vegetation Plot 5 (01/22/2013) I Vegetation Plot 6 (01/22/2013)
Underwood Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Vegetation Plot Data — Vegetation Photographs

Underwood Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Vegetation Plot Data — Vegetation Photographs

Underwood Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Vegetation Plot Data —Vegetation Photographs

1"Im�,s.
Vegetation Plot 19 (01/22/2013) 1 Vegetation Plot 20 (01/22/2013)
Vegetation Plot 21 (01/22/2013) I Vegetation Plot 22 (01/22/2013)
Vegetation Plot 23 (01/22/2013) I Vegetation Plot 24 (01/22/2013)
Underwood Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Vegetation Plot Data —Vegetation Photographs

Underwood Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Vegetation Plot Data — Vegetation Photographs

Vegetation Photographs
(Lindley Site)

Underwood Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Vegetation Plot Data —Vegetation Photographs

Vegetation Plot 36 (09/25/2013) 1 Vegetation Plot 37 (09/25/2013)
Vegetation Plot 38 (09/25/2013) 1 Vegetation Plot 39 (09/25/2013)
Vegetation Plot 40 (09/25/2013) I Vegetation Plot 41(09/25/2013) I
Underwood Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Vegetation Plot Data —Vegetation Photographs

Vegetation Plot 42 (09/25/2013)
Underwood Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Vegetation Plot Data —Vegetation Photographs

APPENDIX 3. Vegetation Plot Data

Table 7 Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No 94641)
Monitoring Year 1
Harris Site
Plot
MY3 Success Criteria Met
(Y /N)
Tract Mean
1
Y
93%
2
Y
3
Y
4
Y
5
Y
6
Y
7
N
8
N
9
Y
10
Y
11
Y
12
Y
13
Y
14
Y
15
Y
16
Y
17
Y
18
Y
19
Y
20
Y
21
Y
22
Y
23
Y
24
Y
25
Y
26
Y
27
Y
28
Y
29
Y
Lindley Site
Plot
MY1 Success Criteria Met
(Y /N)
Tract Mean
30
Y
100%
31
Y
32
Y
33
Y
34
Y
35
Y
36
Y
37
Y
38
Y
39
Y
40
Y
41
Y
42
Y

Table 8 CVS Vegetation Tables - Metadato
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No 94641)
Monitoring Year 1
database name
Underwood MYl- cvs- eep- entrytool -v2 3 0 mdb
database location
Q \ActiveProjects \005 -02125 Underwood Mitigation FDP \Monitoring \Monitoring Year 1 \Vegetation Assessment
computer name
KIRSTEN
file size
51187712
DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT ------------
Metadata
Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a summary of protect(s) and protect data
Prof, planted
Each protect is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre, for each year This excludes live stakes
Prol, total stems
Each protect is listed with its TOTAL stems per acre, for each year This includes live stakes, all planted stems, and all
natural /volunteer stems
Plots
List of plots surveyed with location and summary data (live stems, dead stems, missing, etc )
Vigor
Frequency distribution of vigor classes for stems for all plots
Vigor by Spp
Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species
Damage
List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences and percent of total stems impacted by each
Damage by Spp
Damage values tallied by type for each species
Damage by Plot
Damage values tallied by type for each plot
Planted Stems by Plot and Spp
A matrix of the count of PLANTED living stems of each species for each plot, dead and missing stems are excluded
ALL Stems by Plot and spp
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
PROJ ECT S U M MARY-------------------------------------
ProJect Code
94641
protect Name
Underwood Mitigation Site
Description
Stream and Wetland
River Basin
length(ft)
stream -to -edge width (ft)
area (sq m)
Required Plots (calculated)
Sampled Plots
42

Table 9. Planted and Total Stem Counts
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project Code 94641)
Monitorina Year 1
Color Coding for Table
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but try Iwstlmn 10%...
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more then 10%
Volunteer species included in total
PnoLS: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes,
T: Total Stems
Current Plot Data (MY1 - 9/2013)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
94641 -WEI -0001
94641 -WEI -0002
94641 -WEI -0003
94641 -WEI -0004
94641 -WEI -0005
Pno
P -all
T
Pno
P -all
T
Pno
P -all
T
Pno
P -all
T
Pno
P -all
T
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
2
2
2
3
3
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
Froxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
4
4
4
3
3
3
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
Plotanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
4
4
4
5
5
5
3
3
3
4
4
4
8
8
8
Quercus michouxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
4
4
4
7
7
7
4
4
4
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
Tree
3
3
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
2
2
2
6
6
6
4
4
4
Solixsericeo
silky willow
Shrub
Stem count
17
17
17
20
20
20
16
16
16
14
14
14
17
17
17
size (ares)
1
1
1
1
1
size (ACRES)
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
Species count
7
7
1 7
6
1 6
1 6
6
1 6
6
5
1 5
1 5
4
1 4
1 4
Stems per ACRE
688
688
1688
8091
809
1 809
647
1 647
1 647
5671
5671
567
688
6881
688
Color Coding for Table
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but try Iwstlmn 10%...
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more then 10%
Volunteer species included in total
PnoLS: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes,
T: Total Stems

Table 9. Planted and Total Stem Counts
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project Code 94641)
Mnnitnrinn Year 1
Color Coding for Table
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
PnoLS: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes,
T: Total Stems
Current Plot Data (MY3 - 9/2013)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
94641 -WEI -0006
94641 -WEI -0007
94641 -WEI -0008
94641 -WEI -0009
94641 -WEI -0010
Pno
P -all
T
Pno
P -all
T
Pno
P -all
T
Pno
P -all
T
Pno
P -all
T
Betula nigro
river birch
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
3
3
3
1
1
1
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
1
1
1
Froxinus pennsylvanico
green ash
Tree
3
3
3
1
1
1
3
3
3
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
Platanus occidentolis
American sycamore
Tree
5
5
5
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
Quercus michouxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
1
1
1
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
Tree
3
3
3
1
1
1
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
2
2
2
7
7
7
Salixsericea
silky willow
Shrub
2
2
2
5
5
5
Stem count
11
11
11
7
7
7
4
4
4
14
14
14
11
11
11
size (ares)
1
1
1
1
1
size (ACRES)
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
Species count
4
4
1 4
3
3
1 3
3
3
3
5
5
5
5
5
5
Stems per ACRE
445
445
1 445
283
283
1 283
162
162
162
567
1 567
1 567
445
445
445
Color Coding for Table
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
PnoLS: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes,
T: Total Stems

Table 9. Planted and Total Stem Counts
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project Code 94641)
Monitorina Year 1
Color Coding for Table
Exceeds requirements by 10%
EXC4edSi 'e�(t[ue6�utfgtliiaikia`109Z .
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Falls to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
PnoLS: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes,
T: Total Stems
Current Plot Data (MY1 - 9/2013)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
94641 -WEI -0011
94641 -WEI -0012
94641 -WEI -0013
94641 -WEI -0014
94641 -WEI -0015
Pno
P -all
T
Pno
P -all
T
Pno
P -all
T
Pno
P -all
T
Pno
P -all
T
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
2
2
2
3
3
3
1
1
1
5
5
5
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
3
3
3
Plotanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
4
4
4
2
2
2
16
16
16
5
5
5
4
4
4
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
5
5
5
1
1
1
2
2
2
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
1
1
1
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
2
2
2
1
1
1
4
4
4
1
1
1
Salixsericea
silky willow
Shrub
1
1
1
Stem count
18
18
18
13
13
13
16
16
16
16
16
16
15
15
15
size (ares)
1
1
1
1
1
size (ACRES)
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
Species count
6
6
1 6
7
1 7
1 7
1
1
1
6 —F
6
6
6
1 6
6
Stems per ACRE
728
728
728
526
526
526
647
647
647
647
647
647
607
607
607
Color Coding for Table
Exceeds requirements by 10%
EXC4edSi 'e�(t[ue6�utfgtliiaikia`109Z .
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Falls to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
PnoLS: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes,
T: Total Stems

Table 9. Planted and Total Stem Counts
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project Code 94641)
Monitorina Year 1
Color Coding for Table
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but.by less than 10,96
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
PnoLS: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes,
T: Total Stems
Current Plot Data (MY3 - 9/2013)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
94641 -WEI -0016
94641 -WEI -0017
94641 -WEI -0018
94641 -WEI -0019
94641 -WEI -0020
Pno
P -all
T
Pno
P -all
T
Pno
P -all
T
Pno
P -all
T
Pno
P -all
T
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
3
3
3
2
2
2
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
5
5
5
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
3
3
3
1
1
1
Liriodendron tulipifero
tuliptree
Tree
4
4
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
7
7
7
3
3
3
Quercus michouxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
1
1
1
5
5
5
3
3
3
5
5
5
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
Tree
3
3
3
1
1
1
3
3
3
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
2
2
2
6
6
6
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
Salixsericea
silky willow
Shrub
5
5
5
Stem count
18
18
18
16
16
16
13
13
13
16
16
16
13
E13
13
size (ares)
1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1
size (ACRES)
0.02
1 0.02
1 0.02
1 0.02
1 0.02
Species count
6
1 6
1 6
1 5
1 5
1 5
1 5
1 5
1 5
1 6
1 6
6
1 5
1 5
1 5
Stems per ACRE
728
1 728
1 728
1 647
1 647
1 647
1 526
1 526
1 526
1 647
1 647
647
1 526
1 526
1 526
Color Coding for Table
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but.by less than 10,96
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
PnoLS: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes,
T: Total Stems

Table 9. Planted and Total Stem Counts
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project Code 94641)
Monitorina Year 1
Color Coding for Table
Exceeds requirements by 10% -
ExCa2ds t�ull� 6ttt Wt±r>�.ttpai°.�13r _ _ _
Falls to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meat requirements by more ftn 10%
Volunteer species included in total
PnoLS: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes,
T: Total Stems
Current Plot Data (MYS - 9/2013)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
94641 -WEI -0021
94641 -WEI -0022
94641 -WEI -0023
94641 -WEI -0024
94641 -WEI -0025
Pno
P -all
T
Pno
P -all
T
Pno
P -all
T
Pno
P -all
T
Pno
P -all
T
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
1
1
1
Froxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
1
1
1
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
6
6
6
6
6
6
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
2
2
2
7
7
7
3
3
3
2
2
2
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
4
4
2
2
2
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
Solixsericea
silky willow
Shrub
2
2
2
Stem count
11
11
11
16
16
16
10
10
10
14
14
14
16
16
16
size (ares)
1
1
1
1
1
size (ACRES)
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
Species count
6
1 6
1 6
6
1 6
6
5
5
5
6
1 6
1 6
S
1 5
1 5
Stems per ACRE
445
445
445
647
1 647
647
405
1 405
405
567
1 567
1 567
647
1 647
1 647
Color Coding for Table
Exceeds requirements by 10% -
ExCa2ds t�ull� 6ttt Wt±r>�.ttpai°.�13r _ _ _
Falls to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meat requirements by more ftn 10%
Volunteer species included in total
PnoLS: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes,
T: Total Stems

Table 9. Planted and Total Stem Counts
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project Code 94641)
Monitorina Year 1
Color Coding for Table
Exceeds requirements by 10%
6ceaed�1^SKJ�et1»nd4lK -. _.. __, ,
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Falls to meet hquirementsWmore than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
PnoLS: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes,
T: Total Stems
Current Plot Data (MY1 - 9/2013)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
94641 -WEI -0026
94641 -WEI -0027
94641 -WEI -0028
94641 -WEI -0029
94641 -WEI -0030
Pno
P -all
T
Pno
P -all
T
Pno
P -all
T
Pno
P -all
T
Pno
P -all
T
Betula nigro
river birch
Tree
1
1
1
9
9
9
1
1
1
Cornus omomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
1
1
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
4
4
4
2
2
2
3
3
3
1
1
1
10
10
10
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
Platonus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
3
3
3
1
1
1
6
6
6
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
5
5
S
3
3
3
1
1
1
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
Tree
2
2
2
5
5
5
3
3
3
4
4
4
3
3
3
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
Solix sericeo
silky willow
Shrub
2
2
2
1
1
Stem count
16
16
16
11
11
11
10
10
10
23
23
23
17
size (ares)
1
1
1
1
1
size (ACRES)
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
Species count
6
1 6
1 6
4
1 4
1 4
4
4
4
6
6
6
6
6
1 6
Stems per ACRE
6471
647
1 647
445
1 445
1 445
405
1 405
1 405
9311
931
1 931
688
1 688
1 688
Color Coding for Table
Exceeds requirements by 10%
6ceaed�1^SKJ�et1»nd4lK -. _.. __, ,
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Falls to meet hquirementsWmore than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
PnoLS: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes,
T: Total Stems

Table 9. Planted and Total Stem Counts
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project Code 94641)
Monitoring Year 1
Color Coding for Table
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Ezcaeds ' m" erros�tiuE'9y!'d(�a'rhwr:YB91f� - ..
ret)uke
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Falb to most requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species Included in total
PnoLS: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes,
T: Total Stems
Current Plot Data (MY3 - 9/2013)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
94641 -WEI -0031
94641 -WEI -0032
94641 -WEI -0033
94641 -WEI -0034
94641 -WEI -0035
Pno
P -all
T
Pno
P -all
T
Pno
P -all
T
Pno
P -all
T
Pno
P -all
T
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
4
4
4
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
4
4
1
1
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
24
4
4
4
1
1
1
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
Platonus occidentolis
American sycamore
Tree
1
1
1
4
4
4
9
9
29
4
4
4
8
8
8
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
Tree
6
6
6
4
4
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
1
1
1
3
3
3
2
2
2
Salixsericea
silky willow
Shrub
5
5
5
2
2
2
6
6
6
Stem count
21
21
21
16
16
16
20
20
60
22
22
22
15
15
15
size (ares)
1
1
1
1
1
size (ACRES)
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
Species count
6
6
1 6
7
1 7
1 7
5
1 5
1 5
6
6
6
5
5
5
Stems per ACRE
8S0
850
1 850
647
1 647
1 647
1 8091
809
124281
890
1 890
1 890
607
1 607
1 607
Color Coding for Table
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Ezcaeds ' m" erros�tiuE'9y!'d(�a'rhwr:YB91f� - ..
ret)uke
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Falb to most requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species Included in total
PnoLS: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes,
T: Total Stems

Table 9. Planted and Total Stem Counts
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project Code 94641)
Monitorina Year 1
Color Coding for Table
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceadanqutrente�e,_�'' .
Falls to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fags to meatregolremeats- byinon than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
PnoLS: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes,
T: Total Stems
Current Plot Data (MY3 - 9/2013)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
94641 -WEI -0036
94641 -WEI -0037
94641 -WEI -0038
94641 -WEI -0039
94641 -WEI -0040
Pno
P -all
T
Pno
P -all
T
Pno
P -all
T
Pno
P -all
T
Pno
P -all
T
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
3
3
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
5
5
5
1
1
1
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
2
2
2
1
1
1
Froxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
3
3
3
6
6
6
1
1
1
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
Quercus michouxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
6
6
6
2
2
2
2
2
2
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
Tree
2
2
2
5
5
5
5
5
5
3
3
3
5
5
5
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
5
5
5
2
2
2
1
1
1
Salixsericeo
silky willow
Shrub
4
4
4
Stem count
19
19
19
14
14
1 14
15
15
1 15
16
16
1 16
11
Ell
11
size (ares)
1
1
1
1
1
size (ACRES)
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
Species count
6
1 6
1 6
4
4
4
5
1 5
1 S
—6--F6
6
5
1 5
1 5
Stems per ACRE
769
1 769
1 769
5671
5671
567
607
1 607
1 607
647
1 647
1 647
445
1 4451
445
Color Coding for Table
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceadanqutrente�e,_�'' .
Falls to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fags to meatregolremeats- byinon than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
PnoLS: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes,
T: Total Stems

Table 9. Planted and Total Stem Counts
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project Code 94641)
Monitorina Year 1
Color Coding for Table
Exceeds requirements by 10%
F�tt¢4edq�,1», 4utEli�'nX13fk .
Falls to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Falls to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
PnoLS: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes,
T: Total Stems
Current Plot Data (MY1 - 9/2013)
Annual Means
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
94641 -WEI -0041
94641 -WEI -0042
MY1 (9/2013)
MYO (1/2013)
Pno
P -all
T
Pno
P -all
T
Pnoi-S
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
4
1 4
4
4
4
4
82
82
82
124
124
124
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
4
4
4
1
1
1
25
25
25
30
30
30
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
20
1
1
21
82
82
142
86
86
86
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
20
20
20
35
35
35
Plotanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
2
2
22
2
2
22
144
144
204
145
145
145
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
71
71
71
87
87
87
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
Tree
6
6
6
1
1
1
93
93
93
131
131
131
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
1
1
1
72
72
72
64
64
64
Salixserlceo
silky willow
Shrub
3
3
3
1
1
1
39
39
39
38
38
38
Stem count
19
19
59
11
11
51
628
628
748
740
740
740
size (ares)
1
1 1
1 42
42
size (ACRES)
0.02
0.02
1.04
1 1.04
Species count
5
5
6
7
7
7
9
9
9
1 9
9
9
Stems per ACRE
769
769
2388
445
1 445
120641
605
1 605
1 721
1 712
1 712
1 712
Color Coding for Table
Exceeds requirements by 10%
F�tt¢4edq�,1», 4utEli�'nX13fk .
Falls to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Falls to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
PnoLS: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes,
T: Total Stems

",
APPENDIX 4. Morphological Summary Data and Plots

i
I
I
�i
i
Er
I
Table 1 Oa Baseline Stream Data Summary
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Protect No 94641)
Harris Site, SFl and UT2
Monitoring Year 1
Pre - Restoration Condition Reference ReachIData Uesign� As_Builf.Basehne
UT Cane Creek SFi UT2 SFi UT2
Parameter Gage SFi UT2 Long Branch to
® Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Mm Max Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
76
70
148 1 186
82 1 118
88
71
90
166
Floodprone Width (ft)
519
1332
50+
40+
50+
200+
50+
200+
Bankfull Mean Depth 12 14 13 21 09 10 07 06 07 08
Bankfull Max Depth 22 18 19 29 15 17 10 07 11 11
Bankfull Cross - sectional Area (fe) n/a 95 96 250 346 85 107 65 42 63 136
Width /Depth Ratio 62 52 79 138 79 131 120 120 129 204
Entrenchment Ratio 68 189 34+ 459+ 22+ 22+ 22+ 22+
Bank Height Ratio 16 15 12 1 15 10 1 10 10 10 10 10
D50 (mm) 47 61 1193 1455
Profile
Riffle Length (ft) 11 36 7 25
Riffle Slope (ft /ft) 0 011 00100 — 0 0130 0 0120 00120 00143 0 0255 0 0197 0 0353 0 0053 0 0283 00040 01512
Pool Length (ft) -- - -- 16 34 16 51
n/a -- -- 1 67 2 70
Pool Max Depth —
Pool Spacing (ft)A - -- - -- — 35 62 29 50 37 61 23
Pool Volume (ft )
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
n/a
N/A
N/A
60
50
77
26
44
N/A
26
44
N/A
Radius of Curvature (ft)
N/A
N/A
16
87
113
271
15
25
N/A
15
25
N/A
Rc Bankfull Width (ft /ft)
- --
—
11
47
1
25
2
3
N/A
2
3
N/A
Meander Length (ft)
N/A
N/A
66
191
29
96
62
106
N/A
62
106
N/A
Meander Width Ratio
- --
- --
32
41
50
77
3
5
N/A
3
5
N/A
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru% /P % /G°/u /S%
SC% /Sa% /G % /C% /B% /Be%
d16 /d35 /d50 /d84/d95/d100 N /A /0 9/4 7/20 9/87/362 N /A /N /A /6 1/62/128/256 - -- - -- SC /SC /SC /46 6/100/256 SC /SC /SC /58 6/1112/180
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) Ib /fe 1 n/a - -- -- 042 - -- 039 N/A
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (Capacity) W /mz
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
021
012
149
028
021
012
021
012
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
<1%
<1%
--
- --
<1%
<i%
<1%
<1%
Rosgen Classification
E4
E4
C /E4
C /E4
C4
C4
C5
C5
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
31
204
31
31
32
10
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
20
131
101 124
20 6 F 53 2
20
131
20
131
Q -NFF regression
452
3096
Q -USGS extrapolation
n/a
- --
- --
d®
Q- Mannings
- --
- --
---
--
Valley Length
- --
- --
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
773
421
- --
--
878
421
874
418
Sinuosity (ft)
11
10
130
1 120
1 12
10
12
10
Water Surface Slope (ft /ftf
0 011
0 015
0 004
0 005
00102
00141
00104
00143
Bankfull Slope (ft /ft)
- --
--
0 006
- --
- --
- --
00104
00145
i --- ) uata was not proviaeo
'-- N/A Not Applicable
1Design Parameters based on revised Shields Diagram
E
ZChannel was dry at time of baseline survey Slopes were calculated using the channel thalweg
3As -Built pattern measuremeants fell within the design ranges, therefore the design parameters set are still applicable
°Slopes outside of design range are from the tie in points at the channel confluence
i

Table l Ob Baseline Stream Data Summary
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No 94641)
Harris Site, SF3 and UT1
Monitoring Year 1
Pre_Re'storati n(Condition Reference
Parameter Gag.
® Min Max Mln Max Mm Max
Dimension
RechlDatal Design As Budt',Baseline
f.UE911 SFMUJsJ of UTS SF3 -d /s of UTi UTS SF3 UT3
Mln Max ®® Mm 11111111111VAaffS Min Max Min Max Min Max
and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
159
90
148 1 186
82 F 118
182
180
107
226
293
41
Floodprone Width (ft)
486
142
50+
40+
50+
200+
>100
50+
200+
100+
Bankfull Mean Depth 18 08 13 21 09 10 15 15 09 10 is 03
Bankfull Max Depth 24 15 19 29 15 17 21 21 13 23 26 05
Bankfull Cross - sectional Area (ff) n/a 289 72 250 346 85 107 275 271 96 270 345 12
Width /Depth Ratio 88 111 79 138 79 131 120 1 120 1 120 148 28 8 142
Entrenchment Ratio 31 16 34+ 459+ 22+ 22+ >2 2 22+ 22+ 22+
Bank Height Ratio 16 19 12 T 15 1 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
D50 (mm) 47 10 50 6 63 3 738
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
®®
- --
- --
- --
---
12
103
11
26
Riffle Slope (ft /ft)
0 030
00500
00130 00120
00120
0 005 1 0 009
00078T 00140
00118 00210
00003
00169
00023
00185
Pool Length (ft)
n/a
— �
--
"'
--
_ --
—
23
100
20
80
Pool Max Depth (ft)
—
- --
- --
- --
23
26
31
Pool Spacing (ft)^
- --
--
---
---
--
- --
- --
53
166
58
76
Pool Volume (ft)
®
®® 11 ®�
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
n/a
51
106
31
59
60
50
77
54
91
54
90
32
54
54
91
32
54
Radius of Curvature (ft)
27
105
10
83
16
87
11 3
271
31
51
31
50
21
30
31
51
21
30
Rc Bankfull Width (ft /ft)
7
16
1
9
1
5
1
3
2
3
2
3
2
3
2
3
2
3
Meander Length (ft)
46
272
80
161
66
191
29
96
127
218
126
216
75
129
126
218
75
129
Meander Width Ratio
26
70
3
7
3
4
50
77
3
5
3
5
3
5
3
5
3
5
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
RI % /Ru% /P% /G % /S%
—
—
— —
— —
035
0 07/0 16/0 3/26 9/717/256
SC % /Sa % /G % /C'Ya /B % /Be%
052
0 08 /0 21/11/67 2/256/ >2048
d16 /d35 /d50 /d84 /d95 /d100
7 53/16 66/40 82/74 02/97 42/180
N /A /N /A/1/16/107 3/256
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) Ib /ftz 1
n/a
- --
—
037
028
012
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankful
— —
■—
Additional Reach Parameters
Stream Power (Capacity) W/M21
I
Drainage Area (SM)
n/a
127
036
149
028
127
036
127
036
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate ( %)
<1%
<1%
- --
- --
<1%
<1%
<1%
<1%
<1%
Rosgen Classification
E4
E /G5
C /E4
C /E4
C4
C4
C5
C4
C5
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
37
587
101 1 124
206 532
30
34
32
30
29
253
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
815
303
815
998
303
815
998
303
Q -NFF regression
1597
657
' --
Q -USGS extrapolation
Q- Mannings
- --
- --
Valley Length
- --
- --
- --
2120
2038
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
2183
1915
- --
—
2116
1997
Sinuosity (ft)
12
12
1 13
12
12
12
12
12
12
Water Surface Slope (ft /ftf
0 004
1 001
0 004
0 005
00036
00056
00084
00041
00075
Bankfull Slope (ft ft)
- --
--
0 006
00047
00083
( - - -) Data was not provided
N/A NotApplicabie
'Design Parameters based on revised Shields Diagram
2Channel was dry at time of baseline survey Slopes were calculated using the channel thalweg
3As -Built pattern measuremeants fell within the design ranges, therefore the design parameters set are still applicable
°Slopes outside of design range are from the tie in points at the channel confluence

Table 1 O Baseline Stream Data Summary
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No 94641)
Lindley Site, SF4 and SKA
Monitoring Year 1
P,re,Resto[atid—RCondition jillilliiiiiiiiii ReterencelReach Data Designer AS,B'udf,Basehne
Parameter Gage SF4 SFA Long Branch UT to Cane Creek SF4 SFA SF4 SFA
® Min W I {� _Max Min Max Mm Max Mln Max Min Max Mln Max Mm Max Mln Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
186
103
148 1 186
82 118
140
120
267
273
136
173
Floodprone Width (ft)
1573
294
50+
40+
50+
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
Bankfull Mean Depth
27
16
13
21
09
10
19
12
20
29
12
16
Bankfull Max Depth
40
22
19
29
15
17
23
17
29
30
21
28
Bankfull Cross - sectional Area (ftz)
n/a
497
169
250
346
85
107
530
180
490
538
161
271
Width /Depth Ratio 69 63 79 138 79 13 1 1 140 120 138 146 111 115
Entrenchment Ratio 35 29 34+ 459+ 22+ 22+ 22+ 22+ 22+ 22+
Bank Height Ratio 14 18 12 1 15 10 1 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
D50 (mm) 1 03 08 1 1172 1344 226 820
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
- --
---
--
- --
51
112
41
79
Riffle Slope (ft /ft)
- --
- --
0 0130 1 0 0120
00120
00 0 0085
0 0108 0 0193
00010
00098
00001
00210
Pool Length (ft)
®�
54
123
28
79
n/a
Pool Max Depth (ft) - -- --- 29 30 21 28
— — — —
Pool Spacing (ft)A -- — — — — 146 210 71 110
Pool Volume (ft),
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
n/a
N/A
N/A
60
50
77
82
136
44
74
82
136
44
74
Radius of Curvature (ft)
N/A
N/A
16
87
11
27
46
76
25
41
46
76
25
41
Rc Bankfull Width (ft /ft)
- --
- --
1
5
1
3
17
28
17
28
2
3
2
3
Meander Length (ft)
N/A
N/A
66
191
29
96
191
327
103
177
191
327
103
177
Meander Width Ratio
—
3
4
6
7
3
5
3
5
3
5
3
5
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
RI% /Ru % /P% /G% /S%
SC % /Sa% /G % /C % /B% /Be% —�
d16 /d35 /d50 /d84 /d95 /d100 N /A /N /A /0 3/17 9/45 8/90 N /A /01 /0 8/204 /62 9/362 - -- — 013/0 36/5 3/102 5/320 7/ >2048 SC /0 12/14/44/713/362
032 - -- 033 033 044 058
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) Ib /ftz 1 n/a - -- --- 0 63
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (Capacity) 21 1
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
526
100
149
028
526
100
526
100
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate ( %)
<1%
<1%
- --
- --
<1%
<1%
<1%
<1%
Rosgen Classification
E5
E5
C /E4
C /E4
C5
C5
C4
C5
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
59
526
39
37
42 38
42 25
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
2474
673
101 124
20 6 53 2
204
673
204
673
43292
13459
Q -NFF regression
Q -USGS extrapolation
n/a
- --
- --
- --
Q- Mannings
Valley Length (
- --
- --
---
--
- --
--
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
14500
6090
1
- --
1,424
868
1429
866
Sinuosity (ft)
13
11
13
1 12
1 12
1 10
1 12
11
Water Surface Slope (ft /ftf
0 003
0 008
0 004
0 005
1 00034
00077
0003
00070
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0 006
1 - --
1 00034
00077
00034
00067
l - -) Data was not proviaeo
- N/A Not Applicable
1Design Parameters based on revised Shields Diagram
2Channel was dry at time of baseline survey Slopes were calculated using the channel thalweg
3As -Built pattern measuremeants fell within the design ranges, therefore the design parameters set are still applicable
°Slopes outside of design range are from the tie in points at the channel confluence

I
I �
i
Table 11 Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross - Section)
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Protect No 94641)
Harris and Lindley Site
Monitoring Year 1
Cross,Section 1(Riffle)
0 CUT
CrossySectia i 2 (PP@oo_I)
Cross - Section 3 ( P=ool)
Cross- Section 4 (Riffle)
Dimension and Substrate
Base MY3 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
Base MY3 MYr2 MY3 MY4 MY5
Base _MY3 MY2 MY3 MlY�4 MYS
Base MY3 MY2 MY3 MY4 MYS
based on fixed bankfull elevation
Bankfull Width (ft)
84
90
117
139
1
150
194
166
186
Floodprone Width (ft)
50+
50+
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
200+
200+
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
07
07
09
09
16
14
08
09
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
10
11
17
21
27
27
11
14
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area (ftZ)
56
63
1
128 1
122
242
262
136
186
Bankfull Width /Depth Ratio
128
129 1
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
204
254
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
22+
22+
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2 2+
2 2+
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
10
10
12
12 1
1
10
10
10
3 0
SF3
Cross
- Section 5 (Riffle)
Cross-Section 6 (=Pool)
Cross- Section 7 (Riffle)
Cross - Section 8 (P=ool)
based on fixed bankfull elevation
IM
MYl
MY2
MY3 JEM7YJ4
IRM
KBM
MY3 MY2 MY3 MY4 MYS
Base
IM MY2 MY3 MY4 MYS
Base
MYl
MY2 MY3 MY4 Mg
Bankfull Width (ft)
1967
226
1967
248
167
293
1968
223
Floodprone Width (ft)
200+
200+
N/A
N/A
200+
200+
N/A
N/A
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
16
15
16
20
12
10
14
17
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
234
25
234
41
218
26
1 3
35
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area (ftZ)
3054
345
1 1
30541
502
11 1
2064
1 298
1 1 1
2796
369
Bankfull Width /Depth Ratio
1267
148
1267
121
1351
288
1385
135
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
22+
22+
N/A
N/A
22+
22+
N/A
N/A
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
10
10
10
10
1 0
10
10
10
SF3
UTl
SF4
Cross
- Section 9 (Riffle)
Cross - Section 10 (Riffle)
Cross
- Section it (P-ooi�'
Cross - Section 12 (Pool)
Dimension and Substrate
Base FRY i M7y MY3 MY4
MYS
Base MY3 MY2 MY3 MY4 MYS
Base MY3 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
Base
MYi MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
based on fixed bankfull elevation
Bankfull Width (ft)
159
242
1257
41
1418
94
3327
341
Floodprone Width (ft)
200+
200+
100+
100+
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
12
11
083
03
125
20
224
21
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
18
23
15
05
26
31
49
47
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area (ft)
190
270
1045
12
1773
183
7439
722
Bankfull Width /Depth Ratio
1329
1 216
1
1
1 15121
142
1
1134
1 48 1
1488
162
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
22+
22+
22+
1 22+
1
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
10
10
1
1 10
11
10
10
10
1 10
SF4
SF4A
Cross
- Section 13 (Riffle)
Cross - Section 14 (P=ool)
Cross-section
15 (Riffle)
Cross
- Section 16 (Riffle)
Dimension and Substrate
Base
MY3
MY2 MY3 MY4
INO
Base
MYl
MY2
no MY4
MY5
Base MY3 MY2
MY3 MY4
MYS
Base
MY3
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
based on fixed bankfull elevation
Bankfull Width (ft)
2734
267
3871
444
2761
273
2371
173
Floodprone Width (ft)
200+
200+
N/A
N/A
200+
200+
200+
200+
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
181
29
182
18
185
20
086
16
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
30
29
43
1 46
1
1
32
30
23
28
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area (ftZ)
4949
49 0
7k5878
51 19
53 8
20 43
27 1
Bankfull Width /Depth Ratio
15 11
14 6
2
14 89
13 8
27 51
11 1
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
2 2+
2 2+
N
2 2+
2 2+
2 2+
2 2+
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
10
10
10
10
10
10
SF4A
Cross - Section P7 (Riffle)
Cross
- Section LS (P=ool)
Dimension and Substrate
Base
MYl
MY2 MA no
MY5
Base
MYl MY2 MY3 MY4
MY5
based on fixed bankfull elevation
Bankfull Width (ft)
1387
136
1597
135
Floodprone Width (ft)
200+
200+
N/A
N/A
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
126
12
143
16
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
212
21
282
1 34
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area (ft)
1746
16 1
229
210
Bankfull Width /Depth Ratio
1102
11 5
11141
86
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
22+
2 2+
N/A
N/A
Bankfull Bank Height Ratiol
1
10
1
10

Table 12a Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No 94641)
Harris Site, SFl
Monitoring Year 1
Parameter
As_Built /,Baseline
MY -1
MY -2
MY -3
MY -4
MRS
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Mm Max
Mm Max
Mm Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Bankfull Width (ft)
84
90
Floodprone Width (ft)
50+
50+
Bankfull Mean Depth
07
07
Bankfull Max Depth
10
11
Bankfull Cross - sectional Area (ft)
56
63
Width/Depth Ratio
128
129
Entrenchment Ratio
2 2+
22+
Bank Height Ratio
10
10
D50(mm)��
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
11
36
13
38
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
00053
00283
00008
00376
Pool Length (ft)
16
34
15
30
Pool Max Depth (ft)
17
16
Pool Spacing (ft)
37
61
36
59
Pool Volume (ft)
��----
-
®��
-�
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
26
44
----
_
-
-
-
-®
Radius of Curvature (ft)
15
25
----
-
-
-
-
-�
Rc Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
17
28
----
-
-
-
-
-�
Meander Wave Length (ft)
62
106
-
S_-
-
-
-a
-�
Meander Width Ratio
30
50
-�
a---
-
®
®
®
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
C5
C5
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
8741
8741
Sinuosity (ft)
12
12
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
00104
00104
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
00104
00108
Ri % /Ru % /P % /G % /S%
SC % /Sa % /G % /C % /B%o /Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
SC /SC /SC/46 6/100/256
SC /SC /SC /91 6/202 4/362
% of Reach with Eroding Banks
0%

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
Harris Site; SF1
Monitoring Year 1
605
603
601
599
597
595 -
c
O
593
v
591
589
587 —
585
10000
10100 10200 10300 1U4UU 1V!)UU lubUU lU /UU lUCUU 1U9UU 11000
Station (feet)
—+— TW (MYO -1 /2013) TW (MYl- 8/2013) - - - - - -- WS (MYi- 8/2013) ♦ BKF/TOB (MY3- 8/2013) • STRUCiURES(MY -1- 8/2013)

Cross - Section Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
Harris Site; SF1, Cross - Section 1 (Riffle)
Monitoring Year 1
River Basin
Cape Fear
Watershed HUC
303002050050
XS ID
1
Drainage Area
132 acres
Date
08/05/2013
Field Crew
1L, CM
Summary Data
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
596.6
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area (ft2)
6.3
Bankfull Width (ft)
9.0
Flood Prone Area Elevation (ft)
597.7
Flood Prone Width (ft)
50+
Max Depth at Bankfull (ft)
1.1
Mean Depth at Bankfull (ft)
0.7
W/D Ratio
12.9
Entrenchment Ratio
2.2+
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
Stream Type
C
SF1
Cross- Section 1 (Riffle) Station 104 +44
598.5
.......... ...............................
597.5
596.5
v
d
`2 595.5
w
w 594.5
593.5
5925
0 10
MYO- 1/2013
Cross - Section 1: View Upstream
20
Station (feet)
MYl- 8/2013
Cross - Section 1: View Downstream
30 40
•.••••• Bankfull ......• Floodplain
50

Cross - Section Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
Harris Site; SF1, Cross - Section 2 (Pool)
Monitoring Year 1
River Basin
Cape Fear
Watershed HUC
303002050050
XS ID
2
Drainage Area
132 acres
Date
08/05/2013
Field Crew
JL, CM
Summary Data
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
594.9
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area (ft2)
12.2
Bankfull Width (ft)
13.9
Flood Prone Area Elevation (ft)
N/A
Flood Prone Width (ft)
N/A
Max Depth at Bankfull (ft)
2.1
Mean Depth at Bankfull (ft)
0.9
W/D Ratio
15.8
Entrenchment Ratio
N/A
Bank Height Ratio
1.2
Stream Type
N/A
Cross - Section 2: View Upstream
Cross - Section 2: View Downstream
SF1
Cross - Section 2 (Pool) Station 104 +64
597 - - --- -._ - - -
597 - - - - - --
596 - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - - * - - -~
w595
....... ...............................
c
a 595
i
W 594
- --
594
- - --
593
-
593
- —
592
0.00
x
s
....... ............................... .......................................... �i.................................................. ...............................
10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00
Station (feet)
—+— MYO- 1/2013 MYl- 8/2013 Bankfull
50.00

Reachwide and Cross - Section Pebble Count Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
Harris Site; SFI, Reachwide
Monitoring Year 1
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
SFI Reach Summary
min
I max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
SILT /CLAY
Silt /Clay
0.000
0.062
3
45
48
48
48
S
Very fine
0.062
0.125
48
Fine
0.125
0.250
48
Medium
0.250
0.500
1
1
1
49
Coarse
0.5
1.0
49
Very Coarse
1.0
1 2.0
ae
49
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
49
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
49
Fine
4.0
5.7
2
2
2
51
Fine
5.7
8.0
51
Medium
8.0
11.3
1
1
1
52
Medium
11.3
16.0
1
1
1
53
3* Coarse
16.0
22.6
1
1
1
54
i Coarse
22.6
32
4
4
4
58
Very Coarse
32
45
5
5
5
63
Very Coarse
45
64
10
2
12
12
75
Small
Small
64
90
90
128
5
7
3
8
7
8
7
83
90
i Large
128
180
4
4
4
94
Large
180
256
3
3
3
97
Small
256
362
3
1
3
3
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
1 512
1 1024
1
100
Large /Very Large
1024
2048
�.
100
BEDROCK Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
50
50
100
100
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
silt /clay
D35 =
silt /clay
DSO =
silt /clay
Dg =
94.6
D95 =
202.4
D100 =
362.0
100%
90%
80%
c 70%
d
as
60%
a
m
50%
40%
30%
v
20%
10%
0%
i
SF3' Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
OO� 0�.1h 01,0 Oh 1 I. ,L0 b 01 4 �,'b ti6 ry�b �ti ah 0b �O 1.1,0 ��O vyb �bti y,5'L�O1b ry�O
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO- 2/2013 MYI- 10/2013
SF3, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
11111 L
90 i
80
Tavel obbl-
Sul �r edi= ,.-4...
i
ae
70
60 .
U
�.
40
u
a
30
20
30
I
_.
0
0.01 0.1
1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
--0-- MYD- 2/2013 MYl- 10/2013
100%
90%
80%
c 70%
d
as
60%
a
m
50%
40%
30%
v
20%
10%
0%
i
SF3' Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
OO� 0�.1h 01,0 Oh 1 I. ,L0 b 01 4 �,'b ti6 ry�b �ti ah 0b �O 1.1,0 ��O vyb �bti y,5'L�O1b ry�O
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO- 2/2013 MYI- 10/2013

Reachwide and Cross - Section Substrate Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
Harris Site; SR Cross - Section 1
Monitoring Year 1
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Particle
Count
Cross - Section 1 Summary
min
max
Total
ass
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
SILT /CLAY Silt /Clay
0.000
0.062
6
6
6
Very fine
Fine
0.062
0.125
6
0.125
0.250
6
SP�10 Medium
Coarse
Very Coarse
0.250
0.500
6
0.5
1.0
2
2
8
1.0
2.0
2
2
10
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
6
6
16
i Very Fine
2.8
4.0
16
Fine
4.0
5.7
8
8
24
Fine
5.7
8.0
2
1 2
26
Medium
Medium
8.0
11.3
6
6
32
11.3
16.0
8
8
40
Coarse
16.0
22.6
4
4
44
Coarse
22.6
32
10
10
54
Very Coarse
Very Coarse
32
45
1 4
4
58
45
64
10
10
68
Small
64
90
8
8
76
Small
Large
`. Large
90
128
10
10
86
128
180
8
8
94
180
256
2
2
96
256
362
4
4
100
362
512
100
512
1024
100
ry Large
PEBedr.ck�
1024
2048
100
2048
>2048
40
v
100
Totall
10 0
100
100
Cross - Section 1
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
4.0
D35 =
12.7
D50 =
27.8
Ds4 =
119.3
D95 =
214.7
D100 =
362.0
100%
90%
80%
c
2 70%
v
60%
U 50%
40%
c 30%
20%
10%
o%
Cross - Section 1
Individual Class Percent
O b'L .y5 ,tih Oh 'ti ti ,ti0 a y1 0 ti� ,yro ,Lro �ti a5 ya �O .y0 �O h0 �ti titi ,tia a4
09 oy o ti ti ti ti ti� h do .yo
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO- 2/2013 MYl- 10/2013
Cross - Section 1
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90
milt: Goa
;. ...:... ...... _ _ _ .. ...
Sand
Gravel
.Co6hlc Bo -
#, ulder
80
_. .... 8�lrock -..
70
—
I
'-
I�
60
E 50
-
40
v
i
v 30
I
II
a
I
i
10
I
X10
I
0
0.01 0.1
1 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Site (mm)
—M— MYO- 2/2013 MYl- 10/2013
100%
90%
80%
c
2 70%
v
60%
U 50%
40%
c 30%
20%
10%
o%
Cross - Section 1
Individual Class Percent
O b'L .y5 ,tih Oh 'ti ti ,ti0 a y1 0 ti� ,yro ,Lro �ti a5 ya �O .y0 �O h0 �ti titi ,tia a4
09 oy o ti ti ti ti ti� h do .yo
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO- 2/2013 MYl- 10/2013

i
Table 12b Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No 94641)
Harris Site UT2
Monitoring Year 1
Parameter
As- Built /,Basehne
M,
KM4
MY -3
MY -4
M S M
h
Mm Max
Mm Max
Mm Max
_Mm Max
0 Min M Max
E ffM_, n Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
166
186
Floodprone Width (ft)
200+
200+
Bankfull Mean Depth
08
09
Bankfull Max Depth
11
14
Bankfull Cross - sectional Area (ft 2)
136
186
Width /Depth Ratio
204
254
Entrenchment Ratio
2 2+
22+
Bank Height Ratio
10
10
D50 (mm)
®�
_
MENU
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
7
J 25
3
24
Riffle Slope (ft /ft)
00040
01512
00045
00775
Pool Length (ft)
16
51
11
46
Pool Max Depth (ft)
27
06
Pool Spacing (ft)
23
59
21
60
Pool
®-
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
N/A
---
-
-
-
-
-®
Radius of Curvature (ft)
N/A
----
®
-
-
-
-®
Rc Bankfull Width(ft /ft)
N/A
----
-_
-
-
-�
Meander Wave Length (ft)
N/A
®
®
®-
-
-
-�
-�
Meander Width Ratio
N/A
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
C5
C5
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
41787
41787
Sinuosity (ft)
10
10
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
00143
00149
Bankfull Slope (ft /ft)
00145
00141
Ri % /Ru % /P% /G% /S%
SC % /Sa % /G% /C% /B % /Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
SC /SC /SC /110 1/163 3/256
SC /SC /SC /58 6/1112/181
% of Reach with Eroding Banks
0%

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
Harris Site; UT2
Monitoring Year 1

Cross - Section Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
Harris Site; UT2, Cross - Section 3 (Pool)
Monitoring Year 1
River Basin
Cape Fear
Watershed HUC
303002050050
XS ID
3
Drainage Area
78 acres
Date
08/05/2013
Field Crew
JL, CM
Summary Data
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
600.2
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area (ft2)
26.2
Bankfull Width (ft)
19.4
Flood Prone Area Elevation (ft)
N/A
Flood Prone Width (ft)
N/A
Max Depth at Bankfull (ft)
2.7
Mean Depth at Bankfull (ft)
1.4
W/D Ratio
14.3
Entrenchment Ratio
N/A
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
Stream Type
N/A
Cross - Section 3: View Upstream
ui2
Cross - Section 3 (Pool) Station 200 +51
603
602 - - - - - - - -
601
w .......... _...... ..... .........................................
600 ..... `
v
C
O
597
Cross- Section 3: View Downstream
1
0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00
Station (feet)
s MYG- 1/2013 MYl- 8/2013 ......• Bankfull

Cross-Section Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
Harris Site; UT2, Cross-Section 4 (Riffle)
Monitoring Year 1
River Basin
Cape Fear
Watershed HUC
303002050050
XS ID
4
Drainage Area
78 acres
Date
08/05/2013
Field Crew
A, CM
Summary Data
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
599.5
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area (ft2)
18.6
Bankfull Width (ft)
21.8
Flood Prone Area Elevation (ft)
600.9
Flood Prone Width (ft)
200+
Max Depth at Bankfull (ft)
1.4
Mean Depth at Bankfull (ft)
0.9
W/D Ratio
25.4
Entrenchment Ratio
2.2+
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
Stream Type
C
0
F_ Cross-Section 4: View Upstream I I Cross-Section 4: View Downstream
UT2
Cross-Section 4 (Riffle) Station 200+87
603
602
.............................................................................................................................................................................
601
600 --- ------ ----
.... . ............. ...... . ................. .
599
598
597
goo
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
MYO-1/2013
Station (feet)
MYl-8/2013
......• Bankfull
•••••• Floodplain

Reachwide and Cross - Section Pebble Count Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
Harris Site; UT2, Reachwide
Monitoring Year 1
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
UT2 Reach Summary
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
SILT /CLAY
Silt /Clay
0.000
0.062
41
41
41
41
Sp$�0
Very fine
0.062
0.125
bbl
I
41
Fine
0.125
0.250
41
Medium
0.250
0.500
41
Coarse
0.5
1.0
41
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
41
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
2
2
1 2
43
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
43
Fine
4.0
5.7
2
2
2
45
Fine
5.7
8.0
45
s
Medium
8.0
11.3
3
1
4
4
49
Medium
113
16.0
3
1
4
4
53
Coarse
16.0
22.6
2
2
4
4
57
Coarse
22.6
32
4
4
4
61
Very Coarse
32
45
3
3
3
64
Very Coarse
45
64
2
2
2
66
:i
Small
64
90
8
2
10
10
76
zZ �c4 .Small
;Large
90
128
13
1 1
14
1 14
90
128
180
5
2
7
7
97
Large
180
256
3
3
3
100
Small
256
362
E
U
100
Small
362
512
j
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Large /Very Large
1024
2048
U
40
100
BEDROCK
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Totall
50
1 SO
1 100
1 100
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
silt /clay
D35 =
silt /clay
D50 =
silt /clay
D84 =
110.1
D95 =
163.3
D100 =
256.0
UT2, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90%
I
80%
v 70%
`w
60%
U 50%
40%
v 30%
20%
10` a
0%
O pti by ti5 '� ti ti 0 P cO .y4 �O y'o
Q,
y'L ,y'L .yP aW
OO O~ . O' ti' S• tit' titi' ti ti ti 3 h ,y0 ,ti0
i Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO- 2/2013 MYl- 10/2013
UT2, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
:
90
Si La
80
avel
bbl
I
r
d
0 70
m
60
50
E
U
j
U
40
I
d 30
I
20
L
lit
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
�MYO- 2/2013 MYI- 10/2013
UT2, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90%
I
80%
v 70%
`w
60%
U 50%
40%
v 30%
20%
10` a
0%
O pti by ti5 '� ti ti 0 P cO .y4 �O y'o
Q,
y'L ,y'L .yP aW
OO O~ . O' ti' S• tit' titi' ti ti ti 3 h ,y0 ,ti0
i Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO- 2/2013 MYl- 10/2013

Reachwlde and Cross - Section Substrate Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
Harris Site; UT2, Cross - Section 4
Monitoring Year 1
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Particle
Count
Cross-Section 4 Summary
min
max
Total
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
SILT /CLAY
Silt /Clay
0.000
0.062
4
4
4
SP�O
Very fine
0.062
0.125
4
Fine
0.125
0.250
4
Medium
0.250
0.500
1
4
Coarse
0.5
1.0
4
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
4
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
4
I l
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
4
I
Fine
4.0
5.7
2
2
6
Fine
5.7
8.0
4
4
10
Medium
8.0
11.3
4
4
14
Medium
11.3
16.0
6
6
20
Coarse
16.0
22.6
6
6
26
q
Coarse
22.6
32
4
4
30
Very Coarse
32
45
30
Very Coarse
45
64
10
10
40
`=
:Small
T' ACC\ x`.Yt.O
Small
64
90
18
18
58
Large
Large
90
128
180
128
180
256
20
16
6
20
16
6
78
94
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
Medium
362
512
512
1024
100
100
Large /Very Large
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
100
100
100
Cross - Section 4
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
12.5
D35 =
53.7
D50 =
77.3
Da4 =
145.5
D95 =
190.9
D100 =
256.0
100%
90%
80%
70%
d
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Cross - Section 4
Individual Class Percent
, O -V 1,14 o yh Oh 1 ti ,r4 b h^ 4 1,y'3 16 1ryb 4ti Ay raa 40 1,1,4 1� ryy4 46ti y1ti 1O,lb ry�4
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO- 2/2013 MYl- 10/2013
Cross - Section 4
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
— -
90
- - " -' -G n v
cobble I er
ill
80
--
-- edra
2� 70
— -
—' 60
-
50
E
—
u
c 40
u
—
.-30
20
10
-
11000.000
0
0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000 100.000
10000.000
Particle Class Size (mm)
r —1— MYO- 2/2013 MYI- 10/2013
100%
90%
80%
70%
d
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Cross - Section 4
Individual Class Percent
, O -V 1,14 o yh Oh 1 ti ,r4 b h^ 4 1,y'3 16 1ryb 4ti Ay raa 40 1,1,4 1� ryy4 46ti y1ti 1O,lb ry�4
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO- 2/2013 MYl- 10/2013

Table 12c Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No 94641)
Harris Site, SF3
Monitoring Year 1
Parameter
As_Buik /Baseline
MY -1
MY -2
MY -3
MY -4
MY -5
1111 NMI
Min Max
1101111Mm Max
Min 1 ax
EMin ImMax
NMm I Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
159
197
226
356
Floodprone Width (ft)
200+
200+
50+
200+
Bankfull Mean Depth
12
16
08
15
Bankfull Max Depth
18
23
23
25
Bankfull Cross - sectional Area (ft)
190
305
270
345
Width /Depth Ratio
127
13 5
148
442
Entrenchment Ratio
22+
22+
22+
22+
Bank Height Ratio
10
10
10
10
D50 (mm:
ON 0 ONE
MUM
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
12
103
29
100
Riffle Slope (ft /ft)
00003
00169
00019
00129
Pool Length (ft)
23
100
45
74
Pool Max Depth (ft)
23
25
28
so
Pool Spacing (ft)
53
166
50
151
Pool Volume (ft)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
54
91
Radius of Curvature (ft)
31
51
----
-
-
-_
®®
Rc Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
17
30
---
-
-
-
-_®
Meander Wave Length (ft)
126
218
®
-
®®
--
-
-
Meander Width Ratio
30
50
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
C4
C4
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
211999
211999
Sinuosity (ft)
12
12
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
00041
00045
Bankfull Slope (ft /ft)
00047
00047
Ri % /RU % /P % /G % /S%
SC % /Sa % /G % /C% /B % /Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
0 08 /0 21/11/67 2/256/>2048
0 50/16 47/26/66 8/119 3/180
% of Reach with Eroding Banks
0%

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
Harris Site; SF3
Monitoring Year 1

Cross - Section Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
Harris Site; SF3, Cross- Section 5 (Riffle)
Monitoring Year 1
River Basin
Cape Fear
Watershed HUC
303002050050
XS ID
5
Drainage Area
1,056 acres
Date
08/05/2013
Field Crew
JL, CM
Summary Data
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
576.8
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area (ft2)
34.5
Bankfull Width (ft)
22.6
Flood Prone Area Elevation (ft)
579.3
Flood Prone Width (ft)
200+
Max Depth at Bankfull (ft)
2.5
Mean Depth at Bankfull (ft)
1.5
W/D Ratio
14.8
Entrenchment Ratio
2.2+
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
Stream Type
C
580
579
578
577
576
575
574
573
Cross - Section 5: View Upstream
Cross- Section 5: View Downstream
SF3
Cross - Section 5 (Riffle) Station 402 +86
d
I
0 10 20 30 40 so 60 70
Station (feet)
- +— MYO-1 /2012 MYl- 8/2013 ......• Bankfull •••.•• Floodplain

Harris Site; SF3, Cross - Section 6 (Pool)
Monitoring Year 1
River Basin
Cape Fear
Watershed HUC
303002050050
XSID
6
Drainage Area
1,056 acres
Date
08/05/2013
Field Crew
A, CM
Summary Data
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
575.0
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area (ft2)
50.2
Bankfull Width (ft)
24.8
Flood Prone Area Elevation (ft)
N/A
Flood Prone Width (ft)
N/A
Max Depth at Bankfull (ft)
4.1
Mean Depth at Bankfull (ft)
2.0
W/D Ratio
12.1
Entrenchment Ratio
N/A
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
Stream Type
N/A
Cross - Section 6: View Upstream
SF3
Cross - Section 6 (Pool) Station 408 +81
579 -
578 --
577
576 -- — - --
575 «. « «.. ......
c
574 - - -- - -- - - -- \ +i
O
m 573
'., 572 — - -- -- —- --
571
570
569 — - — - -- - -- - - -
moo a 10 20 30 40 50 60
t MYO- 1/2012
Station (feet)
MY1- 8/2013
Cross - Section 6: View Downstream
70 80 90 100 110
•.••••• Bankfull

Cross - Section Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
Harris Site; SF3, Cross - Section 7 (Riffle)
Monitoring Year 1
River Basin
Cape Fear
Watershed HUC
303002050050
XS ID
7
Drainage Area
1,056 acres
Date
08/05/2013
Field Crew
JL, CM
Summary Data
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
574.7
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area (ft2)
29.8
Bankfull Width (ft)
29.3
Flood Prone Area Elevation (ft)
577.3
Flood Prone Width (ft)
200+
Max Depth at Bankfull (ft)
2.6
Mean Depth at Bankfull (ft)
1.0
W/D Ratio
28.8
Entrenchment Ratio
2.2+
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
Stream Type
C
580
578
576
v
v
`0 574
i
v
w 572
570
568
SF3
Cross - Section 7 (Riffle) Station 409 +15
Cross - Section 7: View Upstream
Cross - Section 7: View Downstream
............................................................................................................................................................ ...............................
..... .. ........................�. .......................................................... ...............................
0 10 20 30 40 so 60 70 80 90 100 110 1:
Station (feet)
t MYO-1 /2012 MYi-8 /2013 ......• Bankfull •••••• Floodplain

Cross - Section Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
Harris Site; SF3, Cross - Section 8 (Pool)
Monitoring Year 1
River Basin
Cape Fear
Watershed HUC
303002050050
XS ID
8
Drainage Area
1,056 acres
Date
08/05/2013
Field Crew
JL, CM
Summary Data
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
572.9
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area (ft2)
36.9
Bankfull Width (ft)
22.3
Flood Prone Area Elevation (ft)
N/A
Flood Prone Width (ft)
N/A
Max Depth at Bankfull (ft)
3.5
Mean Depth at Bankfull (ft)
1.7
W/D Ratio
13.5
Entrenchment Ratio
N/A
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
Stream Type
N/A
SF3
Cross - Section 8 (Pool) Station 413 +97
578
577 — —
576
575
574 0--
v-
573 - .:.................................
:::
o_
i
572
v
L 571
570
569 -
568
567
0 10 21
Cross - Section 8: View Upstream
30 40
—�— MYO- 1/2012
Cross - Section 8: View Downstream
50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Station (feet)
MYl- 8/2013 ......• Bankfull

Cross- Section Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
Harris Site; SF3, Cross- Section 9 (Riffle)
Monitoring Year 1
River Basin
Cape Fear
Watershed HUC
303002050050
XS ID
9
Drainage Area
1,056 acres
Date
08/05/2013
Field Crew
A, CM
Summary Data
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
572.5
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area (ft2)
27.0
Bankfull Width (ft)
24.2
Flood Prone Area Elevation (ft)
574.8
Flood Prone Width (ft)
200+
Max Depth at Bankfull (ft)
2.3
Mean Depth at Bankfull (ft)
1.1
W/D Ratio
21.6
Entrenchment Ratio
2.2+
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
Stream Type
C
SF3
Cross - Section 9 (Riffle) Station 414 +48
579
577
575 .............................. ...............................
w 573
`o_
571
v
569
567
565
0 20 40
nevn.1 77nt7
Cross - Section 9: View Upstream
Cross - Section 9: View Downstream
. ............................................................................... ...............................
..........�. .. ........................ ................... ....
60
Station (feet)
MYI- 8/2013
80 100
Bankfull
•••••• Floodplain
120
140

Reachwide and Cross - Section Pebble Count Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
Harris Site; SF3, Reachwide
Monitoring Year 1
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
SF3 Reach Summary
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
SILT /CLAY
Silt /Clay
0.000
0.062
13
13
13
13
S
Very fine
0.062
0.125
fl0
1
1
1
14
Fine
0.125
0.250
14
Medium
0.250
0.500
2
2
2
16
Coarse
0.5
1.0
1
1
1
17
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
1
1
1
18
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
18
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
1
1
1
19
Fine
4.0
5.7
2
2
2
21
Fine
5.7
8.0
3
3
3
24
i'
Medium
8.0
11.3
3
3
6
6
30
Medium
11.3
16.0
2
2
1 4
4
34
Coarse
16.0
22.6
9
3
12
12
46
c
Coarse
22.6
32
5
5
10
10
56
Very Coarse
32
45
6
11
17
17
73
Very Coarse
45
64
8
2
10
10
83
Small
64
90
7
1
8
8
91
'
.. ..............
Small
90
128
4
1
5
5
96
Large
128
180
3
1
4
4
100
Large
180
256
0.01
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
1
1
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Large /Very Large
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
50
50
100
100
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
0.50
D35 -
16.47
D50 =
26.0
D84 =
66.8
D95 =
119.3
D100 =
180.0
SF3, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100%
90%
c 80%
v
a` 70%
a
60%
7. u
50% - -- - -- -- - - -.
a
30%
20%
10%
0%
O p p by 5 'Y 'L W b "� ti� O ,6'L bc� roh 00 ,y0 �O y0 by
OO O'ti O. O• ti• h' titi' 1ti' ti 1 ti '�
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO- 2/2013 MYl- 10/2013
SF3, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90 iV 1 y
H-
.Sand- -- -- - Pavel .
- - - -- -
„(
ob BoulUer
d
80 —
- .. /r
0 70
i
fl0
_ ..
E SO
U
40
-
— -
-
I
20
10
—
i
0
0.01
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
f MYO- 2/2013 MY1- 10/2013
SF3, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100%
90%
c 80%
v
a` 70%
a
60%
7. u
50% - -- - -- -- - - -.
a
30%
20%
10%
0%
O p p by 5 'Y 'L W b "� ti� O ,6'L bc� roh 00 ,y0 �O y0 by
OO O'ti O. O• ti• h' titi' 1ti' ti 1 ti '�
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO- 2/2013 MYl- 10/2013

Reachwide and Cross - Section Substrate Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
Harris Site; SF3, Cross - Section 5
Monitoring Year 1
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Particle
Count
Cross - Section 5
Summary
min
max
Total
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
SILT /CLAY Silt /Clay
0.000
0.062
D100 =
256.0
0
Very fine
Fine
0.062
0.125
0
0.125
0.250
4
4
4
Medium
Coarse
Very Coarse
0.250
0.500
14
14
18
0.5
1.0
2
2
20
1.0
2.0
8
8
28
Very Fine
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
28
2.8
4.0
28
Fine
Fine
4.0
5.7
28
5.7
8.0
28
Medium
8.0
11.3
12
12
40
Medium
11.3
16.0
8
8
48
Coarse
16.0
22.6
2
2
50
3
Coarse
22.6
32
2
2
52
i Very Coarse
Very Coarse
32
45
6
6
58
45
64
2
2
60
Small
\\ \\;Small
.
Large
Large
64
90
128
180
90
128
180
256
8
12
14
6
8
12
14
6
68
80
94
100
362
100
362
512
50
100
W256
512
1024
100
Large
1024
2048
100
2048
>2048
100
Total
100
100
100
Cross - Section 5
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
0.5
D35 =
9.6
D50 =
22.6
Dg4 =
141.1
D95 =
190.9
D100 =
256.0
100%
90%
80%
v
m 70%
a
m
60%
v
— 50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Cross - Section 5
Individual Class Percent
O OOti �.yh .yh Oh
O C� ''L by q? -,-b ti cO 56 �ti 1ti ,tiP a'b
O, O, ti L
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO- 2/2013 -- MYl- 10/2013
Cross - Section 5
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
- - — --
90 st t1�I
80
avel obbl ECLIi r
i.'
70
...
60
E
50
u'
v
40
30
a
10
o _
--
0.01
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
+ MY0- 2/2013 MYl- 10/2013
100%
90%
80%
v
m 70%
a
m
60%
v
— 50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Cross - Section 5
Individual Class Percent
O OOti �.yh .yh Oh
O C� ''L by q? -,-b ti cO 56 �ti 1ti ,tiP a'b
O, O, ti L
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO- 2/2013 -- MYl- 10/2013

Reachwide and Cross - Section Substrate Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
Harris Site; SF3, Cross - Section 7
Monitoring Year 1
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Particle
Count
Cross-Section 7 Summary
min
max
Total
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
SILT /CLAY
Silt /Clay
0.000
0.062
90.0
0
Very fine
0.062
0.125
0
Fine
0.125
0.250
0
Medium
0.250
0.500
r
0
Coarse
0.5
1.0
0
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
0
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
2
2
2
1 i Very Fine
2.8
4.0
2
Fine
Fine
4.0
5.7
2
5.7
8.0
2
2
4
Medium
Medium
8.0
11.3
2
2
7
11.3
16.0
2
2
9
Coarse
16.0
22.6
16
17
26
I
Coarse
22.6
32
8
9
35
Very Coarse
32
45
22
24
59
Very Coarse
45
64
24
26
85
Small
64
90
14
15
100
Small
90
128
100
Large
Large
128
180
180
256
100
100
Small
Small
Medium
256
362
512
362
512
1024
100
100
100
Large /Very Large
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
92
100
100
Cross- Section 7
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
18.5
D35 =
32.1
D50 =
39.8
D84 =
63.3
D95 =
80.5
D100 =
90.0
Cross - Section 7
Individual Class Percent
100% —
90%
80%
c
70%
v
60%
m
50%
40%
v
30%
20%
10%
0%
Oy'6 �tih O.th Oh 1 'L ,L� a yto 0 ti~ tib �,y6 .�'L ph Ob 00 ,y.LO ,y60 ,tyro �bti ytiti 10.1D �OpO A000
O' O'
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO- 2/2013 MYl- 10/2013
Cross - Section 7
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
�-
i
90
80
avelobbl
Bc
I
r
�
I
60
y,
E
E
U
50
U
40
a
30
20
10
0
I i
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10,000
Particle Class Size (mm)
–t- MYO- 2/2013 MYl- 10/2013
Cross - Section 7
Individual Class Percent
100% —
90%
80%
c
70%
v
60%
m
50%
40%
v
30%
20%
10%
0%
Oy'6 �tih O.th Oh 1 'L ,L� a yto 0 ti~ tib �,y6 .�'L ph Ob 00 ,y.LO ,y60 ,tyro �bti ytiti 10.1D �OpO A000
O' O'
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO- 2/2013 MYl- 10/2013

Reachwide and Cross - Section Substrate Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
Harris Site; SF3, Cross - Section 9
Monitoring Year 1
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Particle
Count
Cross - Section 9
Summary
min
max
Total
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
SILT /CLAY
Silt /Clay
0.000
0.062
>2048
0
SOHO
Very fine
0.062
0.125
0
Fine
0.125
0.250
aVel
0
Medium
0.250
0.500
I
0
Coarse
0.5
1.0
0
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
0
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
0
s -
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
6
6
6
Fine
4.0
5.7
2
2
8
I
i
Fine
5.7
8.0
8
Medium
8.0
11.3
10
10
18
Medium
11.3
16.0
10
10
28
Coarse
16.0
22.6
16
16
44
70
Coarse
22.6
32
19
19
63
Very Coarse
32
45
17
17
80
Very Coarse
45
1 64
12
12
1 92
Small
64
90
4
4
96
Small
90
128
2
2
98
�zzl_arge
128
180
98
Large
180
256
98
Small
256
362
1
1
99
Small
362
512
99
Medium
512
1024
99
Large /Very Large
1024
2048
99
BEDROCK Bedrock
2048
>2048
1
1
100
Total
100
100
100
Cross - Section 9
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
10.3
D35 =
18.6
Dso =
25.2
Dg4 =
50.6
D95 =
82.6
Dloo =
>2048
I
100%
90%
80%
`w
w 70%
a
60%
m
U
-jj 50%
v
•; aa%
�o
305A
20%
10%
0%
Cross - Section 9
Individual Class Percent
4Z, -V <, Q. cp ti ti ,ti0 a h1 'b �ti3 'Yb ry , .ti1, ay roa + "4 * ryyb * ytiti soya
.00
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO- 2/2013
MYS- 10/2013
Cross - Section 9
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
' --
i
90
aVel
obble
I
r
80
70
i
60
E
U
50
40
U
n
30
20
10
�I
i
0
0.01
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
-w— MYO- 2/2013 MY1- 10/2013
I
100%
90%
80%
`w
w 70%
a
60%
m
U
-jj 50%
v
•; aa%
�o
305A
20%
10%
0%
Cross - Section 9
Individual Class Percent
4Z, -V <, Q. cp ti ti ,ti0 a h1 'b �ti3 'Yb ry , .ti1, ay roa + "4 * ryyb * ytiti soya
.00
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO- 2/2013
MYS- 10/2013

Table 12d Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No 94641)
Harris Site, UTl
Monitoring Year 1
Parame_ ter
AS-Built /.Baseline
MY -1
MY -2
MY -3
MY -4
MY -5
Mm Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
127
101
Floodprone Width (ft)
100+
100+
Bankfull Mean Depth
08
15
Bankfull Max Depth
15
2 1
Bankfull Cross - sectional Area (ft')
10 5
149
Width /Depth Ratio
151
68
Entrenchment Ratio
22+
22+
Bank Height Ratio
10
10
DSO (mm)
®--
0-
-
-
®
®�®
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
11
39
19
36
Riffle Slope (ft /ft)
00023
00185
00016
00258
Pool Length (ft)
20
80
18
51
Pool Max Depth (ft)
31
28
Pool Spacing (ft)
58
16
39
76
Pool Volume (ft)
®
®---
-
-
-
-_®
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
32
54
----
-
-_
-
-®
Radius of Curvature (ft)
21
30
----
-
-
-
-
--
Rc Bankfull Width (ft /ft)
20
28
----
-
-_
-
--
Mea rider Wave Length (ft)
75
129
-
__-
-
-
-
-
--
Meander Width Ratio
30
50
----
-
-
-
-
--
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
C5
C5
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
20382
20382
Sinuosity (ft)
12
12
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
00075
00078
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
00083
00058
Ri% /Ru % /P% /G% /S%
SC % /Sa % /G % /C% /B % /Be%
d16 /d35 /d50 /d84 /d95 /d100
0 07/0 16/0 3/26 9/717/256
SC /1 15/11/67.2/87 8/180
% of Reach with Eroding Banks
0%

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
Harris Site; UT1
Monitoring Year 1
590
585
580
m
a
c
575
O
w 570
565
560
5
^. .�------------------ ----- - - - --- _- ____�
♦
0
x
x
x
x
.520 51620
51720
51820 51920 52020
Station (feet)
—�- TW (MYO- 1/2013) TW (MYl- 8/2013)
- - - - - -- WS (MYl -8 /2013)
♦ BKF/TOB (MYl- 8/2013) • STRUCTURES(MYl- 8/2013)

Cross - Section Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
Harris Site; UTI, Cross - Section 10 (Riffle)
Monitoring Year 1
River Basin
Cape Fear
Watershed HUC
303002050050
XS ID
10
Drainage Area
230 acres
Date
08/05/2013
Field Crew
JL, CM
Summary Data
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
574.0
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area (ft2)
1.2
Bankfull Width (ft)
4.1
Flood Prone Area Elevation (ft)
574.5
Flood Prone Width (ft)
100+
Max Depth at Bankfull (ft)
0.5
Mean Depth at Bankfull (ft)
0.3
W/D Ratio
14.2
Entrenchment Ratio
2.2+
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
Stream Type
C
Cross - Section 10: View Upstream
Cross - Section 10: View Downstream
UTI
Cross - Section 10 (Riffle) Station 517 +63
577
576 — --
575 —
v 574 .�` ....................__Y '..._.._........-- -..........:~ .. ` ...... ............. ............. ..............._...............
573 /
W �
572 —
571
570
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Station (feet)
�— MYO- 1/2012 MY1- 8/2013 ......• Bankfull •••••• Floodplain

Cross - Section Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
Harris Site; UTI, Cross - Section 11 (Pool)
Monitoring Year 1
River Basin
Cape Fear
Watershed HUC
303002050050
XS ID
11
Drainage Area
230 acres
Date
08/05/2013
Field Crew
A, CM
Summary Data
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
573.8
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area (ft2)
18.3
Bankfull Width (ft)
9.4
Flood Prone Area Elevation (ft)
N/A
Flood Prone Width (ft)
N/A
Max Depth at Bankfull (ft)
3.1
Mean Depth at Bankfull (ft)
2.0
W/D Ratio
4.8
Entrenchment Ratio
N/A
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
Stream Type
N/A
Cross - Section 11: View Upstream
Cross - Section 11: View Downstream
UT1
Cross - Section 11 (Pool) Station 517 +96
577 - - - - - -- — - -- -- - - - - - - --
- _.. -- -- - - - - -- -
576 - -- — - --
575
,v 574
........................................ ............................... ... ............................... ...�.�...
........
w 573
572
571
570
0 10 20 30 40
50 60 70
Station (feet)
— + —MYO- 1/2012 MY3-8 /2012
......• Bankfull

Reachwide and Cross - Section Pebble Count Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
Harris Site; UTI, Reachwide
Monitoring Year 1
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
UTI Reach
Summary
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
SILT /CLAY
Silt /Clay
0.000
0.062
28
28
28
28
Very fine
0.062
0.125
20
28
Fine
0.125
0.250
28
SPl�O
Medium
0.250
0.500
Particle Class Size (mm)
- •— MYO- 2/2013 MYl- 10/2013 -
28
Coarse
0.5
1.0
6
6
6
34
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
5
5
5
39
s , Very Fine
2.0
2.8
39
S
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
39
Fine
4.0
5.7
4
4
4
43
)' Fine
5.7
8.0
43
Medium
8.0
11.3
4
3
7
7
50
Medium
11.3
16.0
2
2
2
52
Coarse
16.0
22.6
2
3
5
5
57
Coarse
22.6
32
4
4
8
8
65
Very Coarse
Very Coarse
32
45
10
10
10
75
45
64
6
1
7
7
82
+ I
.
Small
64
90
14
14
14
96
Small
90
128
2
2
2
98
Large
128
180
2
2
2
100
Large
180
256
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Large /Very Large
1024 1
2048
1
100
BEDROCK 113edrock
2048
>2048
1
i
1
100
Totall
50
50 1
100 1
100 1
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
Silt /Clay
D35 =
1.15
D50 =
11.0
D8 =
67.2
D95 =
87.8
D1oo =
180.0
100%
90%
80%
c
u 70%
v
° 60%
0 50%
40%
a 30%
20%
10%
0%
UT1, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
O ro'L .1 -y? h 1 'L W a'\ 6 '�i N. �o 'L h P O 0 O 'o ti ti b O
pp O,, p. O' ti h' ,�y titi' "� Q y 0 ti'L ,tiW ,L'y ,Sro yy �Oti �Op
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO- 2/2013 MYI- 10/2013
UTI, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100 — -
11
- -- _ •
i
80 — —
Gravei
iCobble I'
...... _ ' BoulUgr Beds -1, _.
60
?
so
i
20
0
0.01 0.1
1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
- •— MYO- 2/2013 MYl- 10/2013 -
100%
90%
80%
c
u 70%
v
° 60%
0 50%
40%
a 30%
20%
10%
0%
UT1, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
O ro'L .1 -y? h 1 'L W a'\ 6 '�i N. �o 'L h P O 0 O 'o ti ti b O
pp O,, p. O' ti h' ,�y titi' "� Q y 0 ti'L ,tiW ,L'y ,Sro yy �Oti �Op
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO- 2/2013 MYI- 10/2013

Reachwide and Cross - Section Substrate Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
Harris Site; UT1, Cross - Section 10
Monitoring Year 1
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Particle
Count
Cross - Section 10
Summary
min
max
Total
Class Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
SILT /CLAY
Silt /Clay
0.000
0.062
180.0
0
SQ�O
Very fine
0.062
0.125
Tavel
0
Fine
0.125
0.250
I
0
Medium
0.250
0.500
1
0
Coarse
0.5
1.0
0
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
0
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
0
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
0
Fine
4.0
S.7
4
8
8
Fine
5.7
8.0
3
6
14
Medium
8.0
11.3
2
4
18
Medium
11.3
16.0
5
10
28
Coarse
16.0
22.6
3
6
34
Coarse
Very Coarse
22.6
32
3
6
40
32
4S
7
14
54
Very Coarse
45
64
10
20
74
64
90
12
24
98
90
128
98
128
180
1
2
100
180
256
- 60
E 50
100
256
362
100
Ok
362
512
100
512
1024
100
ery Large
1024
2048
100
2048
>2048
100
Totall
50
100
100
Cross - Section 10
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
9.4
D35 =
23.9
D50 =
40.8
D,, =
73.8
D95 =
86.2
D100 =
180.0
100%
90%
80%
c
u 70%
v
60%
A
U 50%
0 40%
s
c 30%
20%
10%
0%
Cross - Section 10
Individual Class Percent
Cross - Section 10
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
Y_ _
90 So y
80
OO�o'LO�p O.th Oh 'Y 'L ,y4 b h1 0 �,y'h ,ti6 ryti6 3ti Rh bP 00 ti,L$ �$ ryyb 3bti ytiti �O,yb ��6
Particle Class Size (mm)
�■ MYO- 2/2013 MYl- 10/2013
Tavel
obbl
I
r7e
der'"
1
70
-
-
—
">
- 60
E 50
�-
I
40
30
a
20
-
10
_
o
0.01 0.1
1 10 100 10o0 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
7-- MYO- 2/2013 IVI - 10/2013
100%
90%
80%
c
u 70%
v
60%
A
U 50%
0 40%
s
c 30%
20%
10%
0%
Cross - Section 10
Individual Class Percent
OO�o'LO�p O.th Oh 'Y 'L ,y4 b h1 0 �,y'h ,ti6 ryti6 3ti Rh bP 00 ti,L$ �$ ryyb 3bti ytiti �O,yb ��6
Particle Class Size (mm)
�■ MYO- 2/2013 MYl- 10/2013

Table 12e Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No 94641)
Lindley Site, SF4
Monitoring Year 1
Parameter
As- Bwlt /�Basehne
ININIMMI, Max
MY -1
Mm Max
MY -2
Min Max
MY -3
Min Max
MY -4
Min Max
MY -S
Min Max
I _
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
273
276
267
273
Floodprone Width (ft)
200+
200+
200+
200+
Bankfull Mean Depth
18
19
20
29
Bankfull Max Depth
30
32
29
30
Bankfull Cross - sectional Area (ft)
495
512
490
538
Width /Depth Ratio
149
15 1
138
146
Entrenchment Ratio
22+
22+
22+
22+
Bank Height Ratio
10
10
10
10
D50(mm)�
®
®
-�����
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
51
112
31
111
Riffle Slope (ft /ft)
00010
00098
00034
00119
Pool Length (ft)
54
123
27
169
Pool Max Depth (ft)
29
30
31
52
Pool Spacing (it)
146
210
151
211
Pool Volume (ft)
®----
®�
-
-
-�
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
82
136
---
-
-
-
-
--
Radius of Curvature (ft)
46
76
----
-
-
-
-
--
Rc Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
17
28
-
--
----
-
-_
Meander Wave Length (ft)
191
327
----
-
-
-�
--
Meander Width Ratio
30
50
----
-_�
-
-�
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
C4
C4
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
142875
142875
Sinuosity (ft)
12
12
Water Surface Slope (ft /ft)
00033
00031
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
00034
00034
Ri % /Ru% /P % /G % /S%
SC % /Sa % /G % /C% /B % /Be%
0 13/0 36/5 3/102 5/320 7/ >2048
SC /0 25/5 1/72 7/139 4/256
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
% of Reach with Eroding Banks
0%

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
Lindley Site; SF4
Monitoring Year 1
560
555
550
545
S40
w
°- 535
w
530
525
520
515
510
80000 80200
--*-- TW (MYO- 1/2013)
80400 80600 80800
Station (feet)
TW (MYl- 8/2013) - - - - - -- WS (MYl- 8/2013)
81000 81200 81400
♦ BKF/TOB (MYl- 8/2013) • STRUCTURES(MYl- 8/2013)
------
_
----- - --
- - --
, a _ _
_
M
X
K
X
X
80000 80200
--*-- TW (MYO- 1/2013)
80400 80600 80800
Station (feet)
TW (MYl- 8/2013) - - - - - -- WS (MYl- 8/2013)
81000 81200 81400
♦ BKF/TOB (MYl- 8/2013) • STRUCTURES(MYl- 8/2013)

Cross - Section Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
Lindley Site; SF4, Cross - Section 12 (Pool)
Monitoring Year 1
River Basin
Cape Fear
Watershed HUC
303002050050
XS ID
12
Drainage Area
3,362 acres
Date
08/05/2013
Field Crew
JL, CM
Summary Data
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
539.7
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area (ft2)
72.2
Bankfull Width (ft)
34.1
Flood Prone Area Elevation (ft)
N/A
Flood Prone Width (ft)
N/A
Max Depth at Bankfull (ft)
4.7
Mean Depth at Bankfull (ft)
2.1
W/D Ratio
16.2
Entrenchment Ratio
N/A
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
Stream Type
N/A
Cross - Section 12: View Upstream
Cross - Section 12: View Downstream
SF4
Cross - Section 12 (Pool) Station 804 +83
546 .- - -- - - -... - - - - -- -- - - --
544
542 -- -- - - - - -- -
540 -
.......................... ............................... ....................................... _ V. __.__. 0_ ... ..... ........ .kc.
.....
0 538 • _
v
w 536 Y
534 -
532
530
0 10 20 3
- - -
40 50
+ MYO- 1/2013
60 70 80 90
Station (feet)
MYI- 8/2013
100 110 120
......• Bankfull
130 140
150 160
I
i

Cross - Section Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
Lindley Site; SF4, Cross - Section 13 (Riffle)
Monitoring Year 1
River Basin
Cape Fear
Watershed HUC
303002050050
XS ID
13
Drainage Area
3,362 acres
Date
08/05/2013
Field Crew
A, CM
Summary Data
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
539.6
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area (ft2)
49.0
Bankfull Width ft
26.7
Flood Prone Area Elevation (ft)
542.5
Flood Prone Width (ft)
200+
Max Depth at Bankfull (ft)
2.92
Mean Depth at Bankfull (ft)
2.92
W/D Ratio
14.6
Entrenchment Ratio
2.2+
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
Stream Type
C
544
542
m 540
c
538
v
536
534
SF4
Cross - Section 13 (Riffle) STA 805+01
Cross- Section 13: View Upstream
Cross - Section 13: View Downstream
................................................................................_..................................................................... ...............................
................ w� ................. ................f.,.- ......:.:— .......................................................
.......................... ......
532
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130
Station (feet)
�— MYO-1 /2013 MYl- 8/2013 ......• Bankfull •••••• Floodplain

Cross - Section Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
Lindley Site; SF4, Cross - Section 14 (Pool)
Monitoring Year 1
River Basin
Cape Fear
Watershed HUC
303002050050
XS ID
14
Drainage Area
3,362 acres
Date
08/05/2013
Field Crew
JL, CM
Summary Data
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
537.8
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area (ft2)
78.1
Bankfull Width (ft)
44.4
Flood Prone Area Elevation (ft)
N/A
Flood Prone Width (ft)
N/A
Max Depth at Bankfull (ft)
4.6
Mean Depth at Bankfull (ft)
1.8
W/D Ratio
25.3
Entrenchment Ratio
N/A
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
Stream Type
N/A
Cross - Section 14: View Upstream
SF4
Cross - Section 14 (Pool) STA 811 +57
544 - -
542
540
v538 ........ — ..w...........
w
0 536
w 534
532
530
Cross - Section 14: View Downstream
— -I
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160
Station (feet)
MYO- 1/2013 MYl- 8/2013 • . • • • • • Bankfull

Cross - Section Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
Lindley Site; SF4, Cross - Section 15 (Riffle)
Monitoring Year 1
River Basin
Cape Fear
Watershed HUC
303002050050
XS ID
15
Drainage Area
3,362 acres
Date
08/05/2013
Field Crew
JL, CM
Summary Data
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
537.7
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area (ft2)
53.8
Bankfull Width (ft)
27.3
Flood Prone Area Elevation (ft)
540.7
Flood Prone Width (ft)
200+
Max Depth at Bankfull (ft)
3.0
Mean Depth at Bankfull (ft)
2.0
W/D Ratio
13.8
Entrenchment Ratio
2.2+
Bank Height Ratio
0.9
Stream Type
C
Cross - Section 15: View Upstream
Cross - Section 15: View Downstream
SF4
Cross - Section 15 (Riffle) STA 812 +23
543 — – –
541
539
.................
v537 .�.... _ .. ... ..............................✓ ..........».. .......�.�j.:.
0
> 535.'
533
531
I
529
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140
Station (feet)
+ MYO-1 /2013 MY3- 8/2013 ••••••• Bankfull
...... Floodplain

Reachwide and Cross - Section Pebble Count Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
Lindley Site; SF4, Reachwide
Monitoring Year 1
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
SF4 Reach
Summary
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
SILT /CLAY
Silt /Clay
0.000
0.062
1
27
28
28
28
Very fine
0.062
0.125
1
2
3
3
31
Fine
0.125
0.250
2
2
4
4
35
5
Medium
0.250
0.500
2
2
2
37
Coarse
0.5
1.0
1
1
1
38
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
2
2
4
4
42
#
g
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
1
1
1
43
.3
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
43
Fine
4.0
5.7
8
2
10
10
53
Fine
5.7
8.0
1
1
1
54
Medium
8.0
11.3
7
7
14
14
68
Medium
11.3
16.0
68
Coarse
16.0
22.6
6
2
8
8
76
Coarse
22.6
32
1
2
3
3
79
Very Coarse
32
45
2
2
2
81
Very Coarse
45
64
81
Small
64
90
8
8
8
89
,Large
Small
90
128
5
5
5
94
128
180
4
4
4
98
Large
180
256
2
2
2
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
100
IBEODHOCKBedrock
Medium
512
1024
100
Large /Very Large
1024
2048
100
2048
>2048
100
Total
50
1 50
1 100
1 100
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
Silt /Clay
D35 =
0.25
D5o =
5.1
D. =
72.7
Dys =
139.4
Dlao =
256.0
SF4, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100 11 FI
90 Si V i $�
6ravel obbl
SO d ac
�• - - -,
60
E 50
V
40 L.
d 30
10 - — __T4 -- — - -r�
fi
I i
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
—� MYO- 2/2013 MYl- 10/2013
SF4, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100%
90%
80% --
70% -- i
60% — —
A
U SO%
v
40%
30%
20%
10%
0% it a
odo o1.yhpryyppyp0 ,ti0 ,ti0 ry% ap yA ", yti?, bp 'p". �, ah q. oP -'% ��O ryy6 3yti yti'L�pydv��ry�0
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO- 2/2013 MYl- 10/2013

Reachwide and Cross - Section Substrate Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
Lindley Site; SF4, Cross - Section 13
Monitoring Year 1
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Particle
Count
Cross - Section 13 Summary
min
max
Total
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
SILT /CLAY
Silt /Clay
0.000
0.062
2
2
2
Very fine
0.062
0.125
3
3
5
!p
SP
Fine
0.125
0.250
1
1
6
Medium
0.250
0.500
6
6
12
Coarse
0.5
1.0
2
2
14
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
1
1
15
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
15
t Very Fine
2.8
4.0
15
Fine
Fine
4.0
5.7
10
10
25
5.7
8.0
4
4
29
Medium
8.0
11.3
16
16
45
Medium
11.3
16.0
1 2
2
47
Coarse
16.0
22.6
6
6
53
Coarse
Very Coarse
22.6
32
5
5
58
32
45
11
11
69
Very Coarse
45
64
5
5
74
'.Small
Small
Large
Large
:..::� r:.• :....., g
64
90
90
128
4
8
4
8
78
86
128
180
180
256
5
5
5
5
91
96
Small
Small
256
362
4
4
100
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Large /Very Large
1024
2048
-
60
100
BEDROCK Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
100
100
100
Cross - Section 13
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
4.1
D35 -
9.0
D50 =
19.0
D, =
117.2
D95 =
238.6
D10 =
362.0
Cross - Section 13
Individual Class Percent
Cross - Section 13
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
—
�� T
90 i t♦
avel
�obbl
g
I
r
A
80
70
-
60
so
U
c
40
v
v
a
30
20
10
0
0.01
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
MYO- 2/2013 MYl- 10/2013
Cross - Section 13
Individual Class Percent

Reachwide and Cross - Section Substrate Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
Lindley Site; SF4, Cross- Section 15
Monitoring Year 1
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Particle
Count
Cross- Section 15
Summary
min
max
Total
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
SILT /CLAY
Silt /Clay
0.000
0.062
4
4
4
70
Very fine
0.062
0.125
1 2
2
6
Fine
0.125
0.250
2
2
8
SP�1�
Medium
0.250
0.500
10
10
18
Coarse
0.5
1.0
4
4
22
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
2
2
24
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
24
}
Very Fine
2.8
1 4.0
I
24
Fine
4.0
5.7
4
4
28
Fine
5.7
8.0
2
2
30
Medium
8.0
11.3
5
5
35
Medium
11.3
16.0
7
7
42
Coarse
16.0
22.6
6
6
48
Coarse
22.6
32
7
7
55
Very Coarse
32
45
4
4
59
Very Coarse
45
64
2
2
61
";
Small
64
90
it
11
72
Small
90
128
11
11
83
Large
128
180
7
7
90
Large
180
256
7
7
97
affilflUmmum
Small
256
362
3
3
100
c
u
Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Large /Very Large
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK
JBedrock
2048
>2048
100
Totall
100
100
100
Cross - Section 15
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
0.4
D35 =
11.0
D50 =
25.0
D, =
134.4
D95 =
231.5
D100 =
362.0
100%
90%
80%
`w
v 70%
a
60%
V
50%
40%
v
—` 30%
20%
10%
0%
Cross - Section 15
Individual Class Percent
O 'L .L5 by Oh 1 'L 4 d 5� 0 3 ,ti 0 ,Lro .,'L bh yb cp �.V% �O � �y6 �yti y1ti O,tib Oaf
O
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO- 2/2013 MYI- 10/2013
Cross - Section 15
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90
80
1 - avel - .. 6b ...
C,bla Boulf r
} ..
1
70
--
>—
60
I
50
I
E
J
V
c
u
40
a
30
20
—
- —
- --
-
to
a --
C
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO- 2/2013 MYl- 10/2013
100%
90%
80%
`w
v 70%
a
60%
V
50%
40%
v
—` 30%
20%
10%
0%
Cross - Section 15
Individual Class Percent
O 'L .L5 by Oh 1 'L 4 d 5� 0 3 ,ti 0 ,Lro .,'L bh yb cp �.V% �O � �y6 �yti y1ti O,tib Oaf
O
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO- 2/2013 MYI- 10/2013

Table 12f Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No 94641)
Lindley Site, SF4A
Monitoring Year 1
Parameter
As -Built /.Baseline
MY -1
MY -2
MY -3
MY -4
MY-
k.--
Mm Max
Min Max
Mm Max
Min Mill ax
Min NIMILMga,
Min 3WI
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
13 9
237
136
154
Floodprone Width (ft)
200+
200+
200+
200+
Bankfull Mean Depth
09
13
12
17
Bank-full Max Depth
21
23
21
28
Bankfull Cross - sectional Area (ft)
175
204
161
263
Width /Depth Ratio
110
275
90
115
Entrenchment Ratio
22+
22+
22+
22+
Bank Height Ratio
10
10
10
10
DSO (mm)��
®
®
®®
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
41
79
6
75
Riffle Slope (ft /ft)
00001
00210
00177
00321
Pool Length (ft)
28
79
15
46
Pool Max Depth (ft)
2 1
28
28
38
Pool Spacing (ft)
71
110
32
111
Pool Volume (ft)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
44
74
Radius of Curvature (ft)
25
41
----
-
®
-
-��
Rc Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
17
28
---
-
-
-
-
®®
Meander Wave Length (ft)
103
177
----
-
-
-
-
®�
Meander Width Ratio
30
50
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
C5
C5
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
86644
86644
Sinuosity (ft)
11
11
Water Surface Slope (ft /ft)
00070
00047
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
00067
00077
Ri % /RU % /P% /G % /S%
SC % /Sa % /G % /C% /B % /Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
SC /0 12/14/44/713/362
SC /0 30 /0 3/48 8/123 6/256
% of Reach with Eroding Banks
1
43%

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
Lindley Site; SF4A
Monitoring Year 1
m
0
i
w
it
555
550
-- - - -- — -
545
540
♦ ♦
♦
535
_ _
♦
� � m
530
K X
- -- - - -- — —
525
— -
- - — -- - -
520
90000 90100 90200 90300 90400 90500 90600 90700 90800 90900
Station (feet)
t TW (MYO- 1/2013) - TW (MY1- 8/2013) - - - ---- WS (MYl- 8/2013) ♦ BKF/rOB (MYl- 8/2013) • STRUCTURES(MYl- 8/2013)

Cross- Section Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
Lindley Site; SMA, Cross - Section 16 (Riffle)
Monitoring Year 1
River Basin
Cape Fear
Watershed HUC
303002050050
XS ID
16
Drainage Area
637 acres
Date
08/05/2013
Field Crew
JL, CM
Summary Data
Tankful[ Elevation (ft)
540.4
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area (ft2)
27.1
Bankfull Width (ft)
17.3
Flood Prone Area Elevation (ft)
543.2
Flood Prone Width (ft)
200+
Max Depth at Bankfull (ft)
2.8
Mean Depth at Bankfull (ft)
1.6
W/D Ratio
11.1
Entrenchment Ratio
2.2+
Bank Height Ratio
0.9
Stream Type
C
544
543
542
541
540
539
538
537
536
535
Cross - Section 16: View Upstream
Cross - Section 16: View Downstream
SF4A
Cross - Section 16 (Riffle) STA 902 +44
........................................................................................................................................................... ...............................
......................................... p..rr............. . .. ............................... ......... c...:.:: ..................:............
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Station (feet(
MYO- 1/2013 MYl- 8/2013 •••••• Bank-full •••••• Floodplain

Cross - Section Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
Lindley Site; SF4A, Cross - Section 17 (Riffle)
Monitoring Year 1
River Basin
Cape Fear
Watershed HUC
303002050050
XS ID
17
Drainage Area
637 acres
Date
08/05/2013
Field Crew
A, CM
Summary Data
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
537.3
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area (ft2)
16.1
Bankfull Width ft
13.6
Flood Prone Area Elevation (ft)
539.4
Flood Prone Width (ft)
200+
Max Depth at Bankfull (ft)
2.1
Mean Depth at Bankfull (ft)
1.2
W/D Ratio
11.5
Entrenchment Ratio
2.2+
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
Stream Type
E
543
542
541
540
539
w
v
538
0
537
v
536
535
534
533
532
I
Cross - Section 17: View Upstream
Cross - Section 17: View Downstream
SF4A
Cross - Section 17 (Riffle) STA 906 +63
........................................................................................................................................................... ...............................
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Station (feet)
F- +- MYO- 1/2013 MY1- 8/2013 ......• Bankfull •••••• Floodplain

Cross - Section Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
Lindley Site; SF4A, Cross - Section 18 (Pool)
Monitoring Year 1
River Basin
Cape Fear
Watershed HUC
303002050050
XSID
18
Drainage Area
637 acres
Date
08/05/2013
Field Crew
A, CM
Summary Data
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
536.9
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area (ft2)
21.0
Bankfull Width (ft)
13.5
Flood Prone Area Elevation (ft)
N/A
Flood Prone Width (ft)
N/A
Max Depth at Bankfull (ft)
3.4
Mean Depth at Bankfull (ft)
1.6
W/D Ratio
8.6
Entrenchment Ratio
N/A
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
Stream Type
N/A
Cross - Section 18 (Pool) STA 906 +87
542
Cross - Section 18: View Upstream
Cross - Section 18: View Downstream
Soo
538 -
v -- - -- - -ice - - -- -- ---
....................c ................................................................ ...............................
c
536
> t
w
w
534
532 -- - -- - —
530
0 10 20
30 40 5o 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130
Station (feet)
MYO- 1/2013 MY1-8 /2013 ......• Bankfull

Reachwide and Cross - Section Pebble Count Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
Lindley Site; SF4A, Reachwide
Monitoring Year 1
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
SF4A Reach
Summary
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
SILT /CLAY
Silt /Clay
0.000
0.062
5
13
18
20
20
Very fine
0.062
0.125
8
12
20
23
43
5
Fine
0.125
0.250
1
1
1
44
Medium
0.250
0.500
2
10
12
14
58
Coarse
0.5
1.0
58
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
58
€f I I•
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
1
1
1
59
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
59
I ! •' I
Fine
4.0
5.7
10
10
it
70
Fine
5.7
8.0
2
2
2
73
Medium
8.0
11.3
2
2
2
75
Medium
11.3
16.0
2
2
2
77
((
Coarse
16.0
22.6
1
1
2
2
80
Coarse
22.6
32
1
1
1
81
60
Very Coarse
32
45
1
1
2
2
83
Very Coarse
45
64
4
4
5
88
.:'
Small
Small
64
90
90
128
3
4
3
4
3
5
91
95
Large
128
180
2
2
2
98
Large
180
256
2
2
2
100
Small
256
362
E 50
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Large /Very Large
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK
JBedrock
2048
1 >2048
100
Totall
50
38
1 88
1 100
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm]
D16 =
silt /clay
D35 =
0.10
DSO =
0.3
D. =
48.8
D95 =
123.6
D100 =
256.0
100%
90%
80%
p 70%
`w
a 60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
SF4A, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
O �'1. titiy O.yO Oh ti ti ,ti0 a y1 113 10 �tid 0ti ph da o,0 '� 100 ryy0 00ti 51~,�0�'p.t
o• o•
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO- 2/2013 MYl- 10/2013
SF4A, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
- 1177 - -- - - -- - - a w -- -
ICI
90
a�
so,.
avel
obbl
2° 70
60
E 50
--
U
40
i
30
d
I
20
7
10
0
0.01
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO- 2/2013 2P MYl- 10/2013
100%
90%
80%
p 70%
`w
a 60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
SF4A, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
O �'1. titiy O.yO Oh ti ti ,ti0 a y1 113 10 �tid 0ti ph da o,0 '� 100 ryy0 00ti 51~,�0�'p.t
o• o•
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO- 2/2013 MYl- 10/2013

Reachwide and Cross - Section Substrate Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
Lindley Site; SMA, Cross - Section 16
Monitoring Year 1
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Particle
Count
Cross - Section 16 Summary
min
max
Total
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
SILT /CLAY Silt /Clay
0.000
0.062
6
6
6
Very fine
Fine
a� Medium
SP
Coarse
Very Coarse
0.062
0.125
1
1
7
0.125
0.250
1
1
8
0.250
0.500
5
5
13
0.5
1.0
2
2
15
1.0
2.0
6
6
21
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
1
21
# Very Fine
2.8
4.0
_ 30%
21
Fine
4.0
5.7
11
11
32
l Fine
5.7
8.0
3
3
35
Medium
8.0
11.3
9
9
44
Medium
11.3
16.0
4
4
48
Coarse
16.0
22.6
10
10
58
J Coarse
22.6
32
7
7
65
Very Coarse
Very Coarse
32
45
4
4
69
45
64
7
7
76
Small
64
90
11
11
87
Small
90
128
6
6
93
Large
: Large
:'E:
128
180
5
5
98
180
256
2
2
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
1 100
Medium
512
1024
100
PSEDROCKBedrock
Large /Very Large
1024
2048
100
2048
>2048
100
Total
100
100
100
Cross - Section 16
Channel materials (mm)
Dlb =
1.1
D35 =
8.0
D50 =
17.1
Day =
82.0
D95 =
146.7
D100 =
i 256.0
Cross - Section 16
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90%
90
70%
a
avel
a
60%
obbl
I
50%
A
M5 40%
_ 30%
r
20%
°d
so
10%
0%
43�'bo1.lh o lh Oy
e
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO- 2/2013 M MYI- 10/2013
70
'-
60
E 50
U
40
a 30
L-4
I
20
-
10
i
I _TTH
0!
-E
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
--W- MYO- 2/2013 - -- MYl- 10/2013
Cross - Section 16
Individual Class Percent
100%
90%
80%
70%
a
-
a
60%
50%
A
M5 40%
_ 30%
20%
10%
0%
43�'bo1.lh o lh Oy
1 'L ,L� b hb 4 .tit ,y0 ,1,f° 3ti Qh roC` AO ,y'LQ ,,OO .ly(° .6ro1' ytiti'e'e bit°
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO- 2/2013 M MYI- 10/2013

Reachwide and Cross - Section Substrate Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
Lindley Site; SF4A, Cross - Section 17
Monitoring Year 1
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Particle
Count
Cross - Section 17
Summary
min
max
Total
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
SILT /CLAY
Silt /Clay
0.000
0.062
1 12
12
12
Very fine
0.062
0.125
20
20
32
Fine
0.125
0.250
1
32
Medium
0.250
0.500
6
6
38
SP
Coarse
0.5
1.0
38
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
4
4
42
I
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
4
4
46
l
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
2
2
48
so
Fine
4.0
5.7
1 8
8
56
44
Fine
5.7
8.0
2
2
58
Medium
8.0
11.3
12
12
70
I €
Medium
11.3
16.0
6
6
76
i
Coarse
16.0
22.6
8
8
84
Coarse
22.6
32
12
12
96
i
Very Coarse
Very Coarse
32
45
70
96
45
64
96
Small
z` Small
:..
64
90
90
128
4
4
100
100
Z" Large
128
180
180
256
100
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Large /Very Large
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
100
100
100
Cross - Section 17
Channel materials (mm)
D36 =
0.1
D35 =
0.4
D5o =
4.4
Dg4 =
22.6
D95 =
31.1
D100 =
90.0
100%
90%
80%
70%
v
a 60%
m
u 50%
m
M 40%
M
—` 30%
2O%
10%
0%
Cross - Section 17
Individual Class Percent
Oo�ytio1,lh O,y'� Dy ti ti ,ti0 b h1 0 � y�D ry,Lro ,y'L 0 6p �O $ $ �y6 3�ti yy1-�O,ybry�0
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO- 2/2013 - MYS- 10/2013
Cross - Section 17
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90
vel
I
A7
obbl
47,1
so
iL
ae
70
60
E
50
u
ft
u
40
a
r'
30
20
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
�- MYO- 2/2013 MY1- 10/2013
100%
90%
80%
70%
v
a 60%
m
u 50%
m
M 40%
M
—` 30%
2O%
10%
0%
Cross - Section 17
Individual Class Percent
Oo�ytio1,lh O,y'� Dy ti ti ,ti0 b h1 0 � y�D ry,Lro ,y'L 0 6p �O $ $ �y6 3�ti yy1-�O,ybry�0
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO- 2/2013 - MYS- 10/2013

�7
f�
APPENDIX 5. Hydrology Summary Data and Plots
I'
-7
a
i [I
� ri

i
I
I
Table 13 Verification of Bankfull Events
Underwood Mitigation Site (EEP Project No 94641)
Monitoring Year 1
Reach
Date of Data
Collection
Approximate Date of
Occurrence
Method
SH
10/13/2013
6/2013- 10/2013
Crest Gage
UT2
Year 6 (2018)
SF3
7/1/2013
5/2013- 6/2013
Crest Gage
8/8/2013
7/2013
Crest Gage
10/13/2013
8/2013- 10/2013
Crest Gage
UT1
7/1/2013
5/2013- 6/2013
Crest Gage
8/1/2013
7/2013
Crest Gage
10/13/2013
8/2013- 10/2013
Crest Gage
SK
8/1/2013
7/2013
Visual
10/13/2013
8/2013- 10/2013
Crest Gage
SMA
8/1/2013
7/2013
Visual
10/13/2013
8/2013- 10/2013
Crest Gage
'data collected, but level was below bankfull elevation
Table 14 Wetland Gage Attainment Summary
LI Underwood Mitigation Site (EEP Project No 94641)
Monitoring Year 1
� I
f� I
I
I�1
l�
Summary of Groundwater Gage Results for Years 1 through 7
Success Criteria Achieved /Max Consecutive Days During Growing Season (Percentage)
Gage
Year 1(2013)
Year 2 (2014)
Year 3 (2015)
Year 4 (2016)
Year 5 (2017)
Year 6 (2018)
Year 7 (2019)
Yes /44 5 Days
1
(206%)
Yes /51 5 Days
2
(238%)
Yes /23 5 Days
3
(109 %)
Yes /19 5 Days
4
(90%)
Yes /25 Days
5
(116%)
Yes /22 5 Days
6
(104 %)
Yes /44 5 Days
7
(206%)
Yes /22 Days
8
(102 %)
Yes /98 Days
9
(454%)
Yes /96 5 Days
10
(447%)
Yes /66 Days
11
(306%)
Yes /23 Days
12
(106%)
Yes /22 Days
13
(102%)
Yes /21 Days (9 7
14
%)
Yes /163 Days
15
(75 5 %)

Groundwater Gage Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (EEP Project No 94641)
Harris Site, RW1
Monitoring Year 1
0
0
�
v
Underwood Groundwater Gage #1
v
�'
m M
Monitoring Year 1
m
20
3
60
10
50
D
LIM
11
40
c
-10
30 w
c
::
20
3
20
-30
10
-40
N
Mal
00
-50
y m n m w
LL Q Q ,n
o w
O Z D
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #1 Water Depth
— — Criteria Level
�
I
�'
y

__mi
Groundwater Gage Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (EEP Project No 94641)
Harris Site, RW2
Monitoring Year 1
0
0
v
Underwood Groundwater Gage #2
Monitoring Year 1
o
20
�
o ti
t
N
o
60
0
0
10
v
S0
0
40
c
_ -10
'c
_
_
30 w
c
d
3
VJ-m
zo
-30
10
-40
-50
00
>
ao
a
> u
c
a
LL ¢
c
¢ ,n
O Z D
Rainfall
Reference Gage Depth Gage #2 Water Depth
— Criteria Level

Groundwater Gage Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (EEP Project No. 94641)
Harris Site; NRW1
Monitoring Year 1
20
10
0
c
-10
d
-20
3
-30
-40
-50
� LL
a > c m a >
O Z
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #3 Water Depth — — Criteria level
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0 w
S
s
2.0
11.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (EEP Project No 94641)
Harris Site, RW2
Monitoring Year 1
C
vUnderwood
Groundwater Gage #4
Monitoring Year 1
m
20
0-
c o
3
60
om
0
6
C
10
0
�+
W
50
0
40
c
-10
'c
_
w
J
30 m
C
d
m -20
�
3
io
-30
10
-40
-50
00
>
m
a
> u
C
=°.
�i ¢
C ^
Q v01i
O Z
Rainfall
Reference Gage Depth Gage #4 Water Depth
— — Criteria Level

Groundwater Gage Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (EEP Project No. 94641)
Harris Site; RW3
Monitoring Year 1
mUnderwood Groundwater Gage #5
Monitoring Year 1 m
3 N C N
20 o c\ — 6.0
O p
t-
10 0 _
5.0
4.0
e -10 _ c
w
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — V,— IV 3.0 „?
S
-20
- z
3
2.0
-30
-40 -
-50 -
-I �_d 11
c > c m n >
LL
< m 0 0
-2 < o z o
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #5 Water Depth — — Criteria Level
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (EEP Project No. 94641)
Harris Site; RW3
Monitoring Year 1
20
10
0
S
-10
`w
-20
3
-30
-40
-50
LL 1C Q tT0 ^ Q N O O d
0
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #6 Water Depth — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0 m
c
m
a
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (EEP Project No 94641)
Harris Site, RW3
Monitoring Year 1
c
c
v
Underwood Groundwater Gage #7
v
Ln
Monitoring Year 1
0
20
- N
60
10
50
0
40
c
-10
J
- 30
,
S
m 20
3
- zo
-30
- 10
-40
00
50 + –
-� , LC
C ^ m n u >
CI- m U QJ ii Q Q ,n O Z
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #7 Water Depth — — Criteria Level

Groundwater Gage Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (EEP Project No 94641)
Harris Site, RW3
Monitoring Year 1
� O
i v
m m
c �
20 ; o
i
10 -
0
-10
J
m -20
3
-30
-40
50
C
Underwood Groundwater Gage #8
Monitoring Year 1 m
C o
N
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #8 Water Depth — — Criteria Level
60
50
40
30 3
20
10
00

Groundwater Gage Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (EEP Project No. 94641)
Harris Site; NRW2
Monitoring Year 1
20
10
0
c
-10
v
>
v
-20
3
-30
-40
-50
C L > c ^ no a u > u
-f0 i ¢ Q v°1i O Z O
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #9 Water Depth — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0 i
C
m
z
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (EEP Project No. 94641)
Lindley Site; RW4
Monitoring Year 1
20
10
0
c
10
a
v
-20
3
-30
-40
-50
00 O. > u
li Q Q %f 0 Z
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #10 Water Depth — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0 w
c
z
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (EEP Project No 94641)
Lindley Site, RW4
Monitoring Year 1
C
O
C
Underwood Groundwater Gage #11
p
m
Monitoring Year 1
m "'
20
c
0
c o
o
60
0
0
C
v
10
50
_
0
-
40
c
'c
-10
_
_
v
J
30 �
C
d
-20
3
oC
20
-30
10
-40
00
-50
c .0 > c 75 m a
Q Q vi
> u
O Z
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #11 Water Depth —
— Criteria Level

Groundwater Gage Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (EEP Project No 94641)
Lindley Site, RW4
Monitoring Year 1
CO
O
v
Underwood Groundwater Gage #12
v
to M
Monitoring Year 1
m
C N
20
0
0
o
60
0
6
10
;
v
'
50
40
C
-_-
-10
— —
— — —
c
d
A
30
`c
w
A-1
m -20
3
o10e
zo
-30
1 0
-40
-50
00
no
75 v
LL g a g a .
" o v
o Z o
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #12 Water Depth
— — Criteria Level

Groundwater Gage Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (EEP Project No 94641)
Lindley Site, RW4
Monitoring Year 1
C
vUnderwood
Groundwater Gage #13
c
MO M
Monitoring Year 1
v
� m
oC0
C ~O
O
20
0
om
60
0 a
0
0
t=
�
10
w
50
0
40
S
= -10
c
-
J
30
d
-20
-JA I
C
z
3
20
-30
30
-40
-50
00
to
u
c
ii Q
> c n
Q �n
>
O Z D
Rainfall
Reference Gage Depth Gage #13 Water Depth
— — Criteria Level

Groundwater Gage Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (EEP Project No 94641)
Lindley Site, RW4
Monitoring Year 1
c
�
o
v
Underwood Groundwater Gage #14
°
9
to
Monitoring Year 1
v
m
p
c 0
20
60
a
0
l7 ti
t
0
10
O
c
u
50
0
40
c
-10
_
_ _ _ _
s _ — — — —
e
-
_°;
30
c
v
-JAI
-20
3
z0
-30
10
-40
0
00
-50
uv. O Z o
_
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #14 Water Depth Criteria Level
I

Groundwater Gage Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (EEP Project No. 94641)
Lindley Site; RW4
Monitoring Year 1
0
a
pp M
C 0
0
20 0
a
I o
10 11 -n L k A IVi'
0
c
— -10
01
Underwood Groundwater Gage #15
Monitoring Year 1
— — `_ U. — 1.J —11- — UL I- UJI _U 1 _ I-
00
_
pia
0
v
h M
C 0
3 �
o M
L
o ~
w
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0
c
3 -cu � � _fir __ � cc
�I 2.0
-30 !
1.0
-40
ta<_l��i . >< l l 1 111 - _�_ 1�
50 0.0
a a - o z o
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #15 Water Depth — — Criteria Level