20120080 Ver 1_Baseline Monitoring Report_20140121

12 () © O
D
UNDERWOOD MITIGATION SITE LL_m - /Af RQUALITY
Chatham County, NC ` "@��'d � '"er_iranch
.
DENR Contract 003268
NCEEP Project Number 94641
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report
FINAL
Data Collection Period: December 2012 - February 2013
Draft Submission Date: March 5, 2013
Final Submission Date: May 7, 2013
Prepared for:
�Y
psystei I
NCDENR, EEP
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC
27699 -1652
RECEIVED
mAy 1 0 2013
NC ECOSYSTEM
ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM

Prepared by
WILDLANDS
ENC) NE=RINC,
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
1430 S. Mint Street, # 104
Charlotte, NC 28203
P - 704- 332 -7754
F - 704 - 332 -3306
Kirsten Y. Gimbert
kgimbert @wildlandseng.com

UNDERWOOD MITIGATION SITE
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................. ............................... 1
1.0 Project Goals, Background and Attributes ......... ............................... 3
11 Project Location and Setting ................................. ............................... 3
1 2 Project Goals and Objectives ................................. ............................... 4
13 Project Structure, Restoration Type and Approach .... ............................... 5
14 Project History, Contacts and Attribute Data ............ ............................... 6
2.0 Success Criteria .................................................. ............................... 6
21 Streams .............................................................. ..............................7
22 Vegetation ......................................................... ............................... 8
23 Wetlands ........................................................... ............................... 8
24 Schedule and Reporting ........................................ ............................... 8
3.0 Monitoring Plan .................................................. ............................... 9
3 1 Stream .............................................................. ............................... 9
3 2 Vegetation ....................................................... ............................... 10
33 Wetlands ......................................................... ............................... 11
4.0 Maintenance and Contingency Plans ............. ............................... 11
41 Stream ............................................................ ............................... 11
42 Vegetation 11
....................................................... ...............................
43 Wetlands ......................................................... ............................... 12
5.0 As -Built Condition (Baseline) ............................. ............................... 12
5:1 As -Built /Record Drawings ................................... ............................... 12
5 2 Baseline Data Assessment .................................. ............................... 13
6.0 References ....................................................... ............................... 15

APPENDICES
Appendix 1
General Tables and Figures
Figure 1
Project Vicinity Map
Figure 2a -c
Project Component /Asset Map
Table 1
Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Table 2
Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3
Project Contact Table
Table 4
Project Information and Attributes
Appendix 2
Morphological Summary Data and Plots
Table 5a -c
Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table 6
Morphology and Hydraulic Summary
Longitudinal Profile Plots
Cross - Section Plots
Reachwide and Cross - Section Substrate Plots
Stream Photographs
Appendix 3 Vegetation Plot Data
Table 7a -c Planted and Total Stem Counts (Species by Plot with Annual
Means)
Table 8 a -b CVS Vegetation Tables - Metadata
Table 9 a -b CVS Vegetation Tables - Vigor by Species
Table 10 a -b CVS Vegetation Tables - Damage by Species
Table 11 a -c CVS Vegetation Tables - Stem Count by Plot and Species
Vegetation Photographs
Appendix 4 As -Built Plan Sheets

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Underwood Mitigation 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) The upstream area is located along Clyde Underwood Road just west of Planfield
Church Road (Harris Site) and the downstream area is located southwest of Moon Lindley Road
between Johnny Lindley Road and Bob Clark Road (Lindley Site) north of Siler City, North
Carolina The adjacent land to the stream and wetlands is mainly used for agricultural
purposes The project goals established were completed with careful consideration of goals
and objectives that were described in the Cape Fear River Basin Restoration Priorities (CFRBRP)
and to meet the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program's (NCEEP) mitigation needs
while maximizing the ecological and water quality uplift within the watershed
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,
• 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
These objectives were achieved through restoring and enhancing 9,155 linear feet (LF) of
perennial and 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
Pre - Construction Site Conditions
The Underwood Mitigation Site is located in the Carolina Slate Belt of the Piedmont
Physiographic Province (USGS, 1998) Approximately 6o% 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, 2oo1) The
drainage areas for the Harris Site and Lindley Site are 1,051 acres (164 square miles) and 3,362
acres (5 25 square miles) respectively
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
Page i
Underwood Mitigation Site
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report —FINAL

of forest, degraded riparian buffers, loss of wetlands, and water quality problems related to
increased sediment and nutrient loadings Tables 5a, 5b, and 5c in Appendix 2 present the pre -
restoration conditions in detail
Restoration Approach and Implementation
The mitigation project is intended to provide numerous ecological benefits within the Cape
Fear River Basin 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 Expected improvements to water quality and ecological processes are
outlined below in Section 1 2 as project goals and objectives
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 designs were developed to
correct 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 project includes stream
restoration and enhancement as well as wetland restoration and creation Based on a May
18th letter and subsequent conversation, the o 42 acre portion of NRWs that was previously a
pond will be considered creation However, the rest of NRWs will be considered restoration
Figure 2 and Table 1 present the restoration, creation, and enhancement mitigation
components for the Underwood Mitigation Site
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 The baseline as -built survey was completed by Stewart- Proctor Engineering and
Surveying, PLLC between December 2012 and February of 2013 There were no significant
deviations reported in the project elements in comparison to the design plans A few
structures were either eliminated or adjusted slightly based on field conditions Field
adjustments made during construction are described in detail in section 51 Appendix 1
provides more detailed project activity, history, contact information, and watershed site
background information for this project
Monitoring
Baseline monitoring (MY -o) was conducted between December 2012 and February of 2013
The first annual monitoring assessment (MY -1) will be completed in the fall of 2013 The
streams and wetlands will be monitored for a total of five years, with the final monitoring
activities conducted in 2017 The close -out for the Underwood Mitigation Site will be
conducted in 2o18 given the success criteria are met As part of the closeout process, NCEEP
will evaluate the site at the end of the fourth year monitoring period to determine whether or
not the site is eligible to closeout following monitoring year five If the site is meeting success
criteria, NCEEP will propose to the interagency review team (IRT) to proceed with the closeout
Page 2
Underwood Mitigation Site
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report—FINAL

process If the site is not meeting success criteria, then NCEEP will close it out or amend the
contract to cover an additional two years of monitoring
Monitoring will consist of collecting morphological, vegetative, and hydrological data on an
annual basis to assess the project success based on the restoration goals and objectives The
success of the project will be assessed using measurements of the stream channel's dimension,
pattern, profile, substrate composition, permanent photographs, vegetation, surface water
hydrology, and groundwater hydrology Any areas with identified high priority problems, such
as streambank instability, aegradation /degradation, insufficient groundwater hydroperiod, or
lack of vegetation establishment will be evaluated on a case -by -case basis The problem areas
will be visually noted and remedial actions will be discussed with NCEEP staff to determine a
plan of action A remedial action plan will be submitted if maintenance is required
1.0 Project Goals, Background and Attributes
1 1 Project Location and Setting
The Underwood Mitigation Site consists of two separate areas located in western Chatham
County within the Cape Fear River Basin (USGS Hydrologic Unit 03030002) as shown in Figure
i The upstream area is located along Clyde Underwood Road just west of Planfield Church
Road (Harris Site) and the downstream area is located southwest of Moon Lindley Road
between Johnny Lindley Road and Bob Clark Road (Lindley Site) north of Siler City, North
Carolina The adjacent land to the stream and wetlands is mainly used for agriculture
purposes
The Harris Site of the Underwood Mitigation Site is located within three tracts of land The first
is an 84 acre tract owned by Mary Jean Harris (Deed Book 05E, Page Number 0102) A
conservation easement (Deed Book 3.578, Page 495) was recorded on 7 68 acres of this tract
The second and third tracts include a 46 4 acre tract owned by William Darrel Harris (Deed
Book 673, Page Number 532 and Deed Book 632, Page 796) and a 47 2 -acre tract also owned by
William Darrel Harris (Deed Book 972, Page Number 0977) A conservation easement (Deed
Book 3.578, Page 507) was recorded on 3.8 44 acres of these tracts The Lindley Site of the
project is located within two tracts of land The first is a 3.5o -acre tract owned by James Randall
Lindley (Deed Book o6E, Page Number oo98) A conservation easement (Deed Book 3.579,
Page 3.o67) was recorded on the 5 34-acre project area within this tract The second is an 82-
acre tract owned by Jonathan Marshall Lindley (Deed Book 73.6, Page Number 0707) A
conservation easement (Deed Book 73.6, Page 707) was recorded on the 6 29 -acre project area
within this tract
The South Fork of Cane Creek (North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) AU No 3.6-
28-5) is the main stream of the project and has been classified as Class WS -V, NSW waters
Class WS -V waters are water supplies which are generally upstream and draining to Class WS-
IV waters which include waters used by industry to supply their employees with drinking water
or as waters formerly used as water supply These waters are also protected for Class C uses
The Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW) classification is a supplemental classification for waters
Underwood Mitigation Site Page 3
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report —FINAL

needing additional nutrient management due to being subject to excessive growth of
microscopic or macroscopic vegetation (NCDWQ, 2011)
A local watershed plan has not been developed at this time for the Cane Creek watershed, the
14 -digit HUC in which the project is located The goals for the Haw River watershed, which
includes Cane Creek, discussed in the 2oog NCEEP planning document CFRBRP are focused on
the Jordan Lake nutrient strategy which calls for reductions in nutrient loads to the lake The
lake was designated as nutrient sensitive waters (NSW) by the NC Environmental Management
Commission (EMC) in 1983 The NCDWQ determined that the Haw River arm of the lake was
failing to meet its designated uses in 2006 due to exceedences of chlorophyll -a (chl -a) and pH
standards The entire reservoir is now on North Carolina's list of impaired waters under
Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act The specific goals for the watershed are
continued restoration and preservation work, promotion of healthy riparian corridors,
improvements to "aquatic conditions" and benthic habitats, and, because it is part of the
Jordan Lake watershed, reductions in nitrogen and phosphorous loads to help meet
established nutrient reductions for the lake The 51 cattle, dairy, and poultry operations within
the watershed are implied to be a mayor stressor to aquatic resources by the CFRBRP
Directions and a map of the Underwood Mitigation Site are provided in Figure 1
12 Project Goals and Objectives
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 Cane Creek and the Jordan Lake watersheds 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,
• 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
Underwood Mitigation Site Page 4
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report —FINAL

components of the design incorporated to better meet goals described above The project
objectives defined in the mitigation plan (2o11) 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
13 Project Structure, Restoration Type and Approach
131 Project Structure
Please refer to Figure z for the project component /asset map for the stream and wetland
restoration feature exhibits and Table 1 for the project component and mitigation credit
information for the Underwood Mitigation Site
232 Restoration Type and Approach
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 designs were
developed to correct 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 project
Includes stream restoration and enhancement as well as wetland restoration and creation
Restoration of dimension, pattern, and profile was Implemented for all or portions of SFl,
SF3, SF4, SF4A, and UTs as shown on Figures za — zc The project also includes stream
enhancement on seven reaches classified as either Enhancement I (El) or Enhancement II
(Ell) All stream restoration and El reaches (all or portions of SF3., SF3, SF4, SF4A, and UTl)
were constructed as C type streams according to the Rosgen classification system ( Rosgen,
1996) The specific values for the design parameters were selected based on designer
Underwood Mitigation Site Page S
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report —FINAL

experience and judgment and were verified with morphologic data form reference reach
data sets The design width to depth ratio for most of the reaches is approximately 12 The
expectation is that the streams will narrow over time and classify as E stream types in some
locations and, therefore, resemble the C/E morphology of the references A design width
to depth ratio of 14 was used for SF4 to raise the invert of the restored channel and
improve adjacent wetland hydrology The design channel slopes of the restoration and El
reaches range from o 0034 to 0 0141 Each of the design reaches were reconnected with
the existing floodplain (Priority 1) The restored channels were designed to have an
entrenchment ratio of greater than 2 The sinuosity for the restored channels was
designed to be near 1 2
The proposed project also included restoration, enhancement, and creation within six
distinct wetland zones, four riparian wetland zones (RW1, RW2, RW3, and RW4) and two
non - riparian wetland zones (NRW1 and NRW2) as shown on Figures 2a — 2c Within the
riparian wetland zones, in- stream structures were used to raise the channel grade and any
unstable banks were regraded, seeded, and matted This approach was implemented to
decrease the drainage effect on the surrounding historic wetlands and restore a natural
flooding regime Wetland areas were also disked to increase surface roughness and better
capture rainfall to improve connection with the water table for groundwater recharge
RW1 was restored by raising the bed elevation of UT2 RW2 was restored through a
combination of grading in the creation zone and raising the bed elevations of SF1 RW3
was restored and created using a combination of grading in the creation zones and raising
the bed elevation of SF3 RW4 was restored and created using a combination of grading in
the creation zones, plugging and filling several floodplain ditches, and raising the bed
elevation of S174 and SF4A NRW1 was restored and created by removing the dam creating
the farm pond, which restored a natural hydrologic regime to the entire wetland area
NRW2 was enhanced by planting native vegetation Based on the previously mentioned
(Executive Summary page 2) May 18th letter and subsequent conversation, the o 42 acre
portion of NRW1 that was previously a pond will be considered creation However, the rest
of NRW1 will be considered restoration All wetland areas were disked using agricultural
disking equipment to increase surface roughness and better capture rainfall with the
intention to improve connection with the watertable for groundwater recharge
14 Project History, Contacts and Attribute Data
The Underwood Mitigation Site was restored by Wildlands Engineering, Inc (Wildlands)
through a full - delivery contract with NCEEP Tables 2, 3, and 4 in Appendix 1 provide detailed
information regarding the Project Activity and Reporting History, Project Contacts, and Project
Baseline Information and Attributes
2.0 Success Criteria
The stream restoration success criteria for the Underwood Mitigation Site follow approved
performance criteria presented in the NCEEP Mitigation Plan Template (version 1 o,
11 /20/2oog) and the Stream Mitigation Guidelines issued in April 2003 by the USACE and
Underwood Mitigation Site Page 6
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report—FINAL

NCDWQ Annual monitoring and quarterly site visits will be conducted to assess the condition
of the finished project for five years for the stream areas and wetland areas, or until success
criteria are met The stream restoration and El reaches (SF1, SF3, SF4, SF4A, UT1, and UTz) of
the project have been assigned specific performance criteria components for stream
morphology, hydrology, and vegetation The Ell reaches (SFz, SF3, UTz, UTiA, and UT1B) will
be documented through photographs and visual assessments to verify that no significant
degradational changes are occurring in the stream channel or riparian corridor The wetland
restoration, enhancement, and creation sections will be assigned specific performance criteria
for hydrology and vegetation These success criteria are covered in detail in the following
paragraphs
21 Streams
211 Dimension
Riffle cross - sections on the restoration reaches should remain relatively stable, however, as
sediment moves through the project reaches, fluctuations of the riffle bed elevation over
time are expected These fluctuations should be temporary and will likely correspond to
storm events Riffle cross - sectional ratios (width -to -depth ratio, depth ratio, and bank
height ratio) should fall within the parameters defined for channels of the appropriate
Rosgen stream type If persistent changes are observed, these changes will be evaluated to
assess whether the stream channel is showing signs of long term instability Indicators of
instability include a vertically incising or aggrading thalweg or eroding channel banks
Changes in the channel that indicate a movement toward stability or enhanced habitat
include a decrease in the width -to -depth ratio in meandering channels or an increase in
pool depth Remedial action would not be taken if channel changes indicate a movement
toward stability
2 1 2 Pattern and Profile
Longitudinal profile data forthe stream restoration reaches should show thatthe bedform
features are remaining stable The riffles should be steeper and shallower than the pools,
while the pools should be deep with nearly flat water surface slopes The relative
percentage of riffles and pools should not change significantly from the design parameters
Adjustments in length and slope of run and glide features are expected and will not be
considered a sign of instability The longitudinal profile should show that the bank height
ratio remains very near to 1 o for the majority of the restoration reaches
213 Substrate
Substrate materials in the restoration and El reaches should indicate a progression towards
or the maintenance of coarser materials in the riffle features and smaller particles in the
pool features
214 Photo Documentation
Photographs should illustrate the site's vegetation and morphological stability on an
annual basis Cross - section photos should demonstrate no excessive erosion or
degradation of the banks Longitudinal photos should indicate the absence of persistent
Underwood Mitigation Site Page 7
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report—FINAL

bars within the channel or vertical incision Grade control structures should remain stable
Deposition of sediment on the bank side of vane arms is preferable Maintenance of scour
pools on the channel side of vane arms is expected Reference photos will also be taken for
each of the vegetation plots
215 Bankfull Events
Two bankfull flow events in separate years must be documented on the project within the
five -year monitoring period Bankfull events will be documented using a crest gage,
photographs, and visual assessments for physical evidence such as debris lines
22 Vegetation
The final vegetative success criteria will be the survival of 26o planted stems per acre in the
riparian corridor along restored and enhanced reaches and within the wetland restoration and
creation areas at the end of the required monitoring year (MY -5) 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 the third monitoring year The extent of invasive species coverage will also be
monitored and controlled as necessary throughout the required monitoring period (MY -5)
23 Wetlands
The final performance criteria for wetland hydrology will be 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 These success criteria were
determined through model simulations of post - restoration conditions and comparison to an
existing reference wetland system If a particular well does not meet these criteria for a given
monitoring year, rainfall patterns will be analyzed and the hydrograph will be compared to that
of the reference well to assess whether atypical weather conditions occurred during the
monitoring period
24 Schedule and Reporting
Monitoring reports will be prepared in the fall of each year of monitoring and submitted to
NCEEP Based on the NCEEP Monitoring Report Template (version 1 2 1, 12/01 /2009), the
monitoring reports will include the following
• Project background which includes project objectives, project structure, restoration
type and approach, location and setting, history and background,
• As -built topographic plans of mayor project elements including such items as grade
control structures, vegetation plots, permanent cross - sections, groundwater gages,
and crest gages,
• Photographs showing views of the restored Stream Site taken from fixed point
stations
• Assessment of the stability of the Stream Site based on the cross - sections and
longitudinal profile, where applicable,
• Assessment of the stability of the Wetland Site based on groundwater gages and
vegetation plots,
Underwood Mitigation Site Page 8
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report—FINAL

• Vegetative data as described above including the identification of any invasion by
undesirable plant species,
• A description of damage by animals or vandalism,
• Maintenance issues and recommended remediation measures will be detailed and
documented, and
• Wildlife observations
3.0 Monitoring Plan
Annual Monitoring will be conducted for the monitoring parameters as noted below for five
years for stream and wetland assessments beyond completion of construction or until
performance criteria have been met
31 Stream
In order to ensure the streams on site meet regulatory stream success criteria, stream
dimension, pattern, and profile will be monitored annually for five years for restoration and El
reaches (SF3., SF3, SF4, SF4A, UT3., and UT2) Geomorphic assessments should be performed
following guidelines outlined in the Stream Channel Reference Sites An Illustrated Guide to
Field Techniques (Harrelson et al , 1994), methodologies utilized in the Rosgen stream
assessment and classification document ( Rosgen, 1994 and 1996), and in the Stream
Restoration A Natural Channel Design Handbook (Doll et al, 2003)
311 Dimension
In order to monitor the channel dimension, a total of two permanent cross - sections were
installed along SF1, five on SF3, four on SF4, three on SF4A, two on UT2, and two on UT2
Cross - sections were located at representative riffle and pool sections on each monitored
reach Each cross - section was permanently marked with rebar pins to establish its location
Cross - section surveys will be performed annually and will include points measured at all
breaks in slope including top of bank, bankfull, edge of water, and thalweg
312 Pattern and Profile
During the as -built survey, six separate longitudinal profiles were conducted on project
streams, 874 LF on SF1, 2,3.2o LF on SF3, 1,429 LF on SF4, 866 LF on SF4A, 515 LF on UT3.,
and 418 LF on UT2 The beginning and end of each longitudinal profile have been
established such that they are able to be located either through field identification or with
the use of a GPS unit Each longitudinal profile survey following the initial as -built survey
will include re- surveying the same profile The location of bedform features, in- stream
structures, water surface, bankfull, top of bank, and permanent benchmarks will be
collected during each survey Data will be processed in CAD and analyzed using
RiverMorph and Microsoft Excel
Stream pattern was assessed and ranges of pattern parameters were defined for SF3., SF3,
SF4, SF4A, UT1, and UT2 Stream pattern assessment will not be conducted in subsequent
monitoring years unless issues in the profile and dimension indicate that pattern might be
changed
Underwood Mitigation Site Page 9
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report —FINAL

313 Substrate
A reach -wide pebble count was conducted in each restoration and El reaches (SF3., SF3,
SF4, SF4A, UT1, and UTz) for classification purposes A wetted perimeter pebble count
was conducted at each permanent riffle cross - section to characterize the pavement
Subsequent sampling will be performed annually at the same locations for the duration of
the monitoring
314 Photo Reference Points
A total of 46 permanent photograph reference points were established within the project
streams and wetland areas after construction Photographs will be taken once a year to
visually document stability for five years following construction Permanent markers were
established so that the same locations and view directions on the site are monitored each
year Photographs will be used to monitor stream restoration and enhancement reaches
and and wetland creation, restoration, and enhancement areas as well as vegetation plots
The photographer will make every effort to maintain the same view in each photo over
time The representative digital photo(s) will be taken on the same day(s) the surveys are
conducted
315 Bankfull Events
Six crest gages were installed on the site, one on SF1, one on SF3, one on SF4, one on
SF4A, one on UT1 and the other gage on UT2 The crest gages were installed onsite in a
surveyed riffle cross - section of the restored channels at a central site location The gages
will be checked during each site visit to determine if a bankfull event has occurred since the
last visit Photographs will be used to document the occurrence of debris lines and
sediment deposition as evidence of bankfull events
3 16 Visual Assessment
Visual assessments will be conducted along all reaches each year to obtain qualitative
geomorphic data Each visual assessment evaluation after the baseline survey will include
re- evaluation along the same profile
32 Vegetation
Planted woody vegetation was monitored in accordance with the guidelines and
procedures developed by the Carolina Vegetation Survey -NCEEP Level z Protocol (Lee et
al , 2oo6) to monitor and assess the planted woody vegetation A total of 42 vegetation
plots were established within the project easement areas (zg at the Harris Site, 13 at the
Lindley Site) using standard 10 meter by 10 meter vegetation monitoring plots
Vegetation plots were randomly established within the planted corridor of the streams and
wetland restoration areas to capture the heterogeneity of the designed vegetative
communities The vegetation plot corners have been marked and are recoverable either
through field identification or with the use of a GPS unit Reference photographs at the
origin looking diagonally across the plot to the opposite corner were taken during the
baseline monitoring Subsequent assessments following baseline survey will capture the
Underwood Mitigation Site Page zo
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report —FINAL

same reference photograph locations Species composition, density and survival rates will
be evaluated on an annual basis by plot and for the entire site Individual plot data will be
provided and will include diameter, height, density, vigor, damage (if any), and percent
survival Planted woody stems will be marked annually as needed, based off of a known
origin, so they can be found in succeeding monitoring years Mortality will be determined
from the difference between the baseline year's living planted stems and the current year's
living planted stems
33 Wetlands
Fifteen groundwater monitoring gages were established throughout 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 will be downloaded on a quarterly basis and will
be maintained on an as needed basis Refer to the as -built plans in Appendix 4 for the
monitoring gage locations within the Underwood Mitigation Site
4.0 Maintenance and Contingency Plans
Any identified high priority problem areas, such as streambank instability,
aggradation/degradation, lack of vegetation establishment, or failure to meet groundwater
hydrology success criteria will be evaluated on a case -by -case basis The problem areas will be
visually noted and remedial actions will be discussed with NCEEP staff to determine a plan of
action A remedial action plan will be submitted if maintenance is required
41 Stream
Stream problem areas will be mapped and included in the Current Condition Plan View (CCPV)
as part of the annual stream assessment Stream problems areas may include bank erosion,
structure failure, beaver dams, aggradation /degradation, etc Appropriate remedial actions
will be determined with NCEEP correspondence A proposal of work will be submitted if
remediation of an area is required
42 Vegetation
Vegetative problem areas will be mapped and included in the CCPV as part of the annual
vegetation assessment Vegetation problems areas may include planted vegetation not
meeting success criteria, persistent invasive species, barren areas with little to no herbaceous
cover, or grass suffocation/crowding of planted stems Appropriate remedial actions will be
determined with NCEEP correspondence A proposal of work will be submitted if remediation
of an area is required
Page 1i
Underwood Mitigation Site
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report—FINAL

43 Wetlands
Wetland problem areas will be mapped and included in the CCPV as part of the annual wetland
assessment Wetland problems areas may include planted vegetation not meeting success
criteria, persistent Invasive species, barren areas with little to no herbaceous cover, grass
suffocation /crowding of planted stems, or wetland hydrology not meeting success criteria
Appropriate remedial actions will be determined with NCEEP correspondence A proposal of
work will be submitted if remediation of an area is required
5.0 As -Built Condition (Baseline)
The Underwood Mitigation Site construction and as -built surveys were completed between
December 2012 and February 2013 The survey included developing an as -built topographic
surface on both the Stream and Wetland Sites The survey also involved locating the channel
boundaries, structures, cross - sections, and monitoring features such as photo points,
vegetation plots, groundwater gages, and crest gages For comparison purposes, the baseline
monitoring divided the reach assessments in the same way they were established for design
parameters SFi, SF2, SF3, SF4, SF4A, UTi, and UT2
51 As -Built /Record Drawings
A half size as -built plan is located in Appendix.4 with the post - construction locations and
alignments for the project A record drawing has also been provided to NCEEP as a separate
document that indicates any significant field adjustments made during construction that were
different from the design plans
Minimal adjustments were made during construction, where needed, based on field
evaluation On SFs, there was a lack of wetland grasses on site that were planned to be used
as sod Therefore sod mats were not installed as designed along SFi. On certain locations
along SF3 and SF4, pool depths were constructed shallower than designed due to existing
bedrock found on site Bedrock was also discovered within the banks along SF3 Sod mats
were used as bank revetments in lieu of root wads and /or brush toe in these locations where
shallow bedrock inhibited rootwad /brush toe installation along the streambanks The original
design along SF4A proposed using constructed riffles at the tail end of shallow tangent
reaches During construction, it was determined that additional grade control was needed
Therefore, constructed riffles were installed at the head and tail ends of each tangent reach to
provide adequate grade control On UT2, log sills were added at the downstream end of each
constructed riffle to provide additional grade control to the bed which was raised in place
More specific changes include
• On SF2 at station 301 +50, a rock vane was installed Instead of a log vane due to bedrock
in the stream bed,
• On SF3 at station 420 +00, a J -hook structure was originally designed, but was not built
A brush toe was constructed at that bend,
• At the downstream end of UT1A and UT1B, constructed riffles were not installed due to
a lack of need for grade control in those locations,
Underwood Mitigation Site Page iz
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report —FINAL

• The drainage berm on the south side of SF1A was not installed It determined to be
unnecessary due to floodplain grading,
• Constructed riffle on SF3 at Station 420 +8o was not installed due to the presence of
coarse native bed material,
• Constructed riffle on UTs at station 514 +90 was not installed Existing bedrock features
were found to be providing adequate grade control, and
• Profiles, specifically on SF4 are slightly different than proposed profiles During
construction, the thalweg was over excavated to create a narrow, low flow zone for
improved habitat during baseflow conditions
The following sections further detail the as -built conditions in comparison to the design plans
52 Baseline Data Assessment
5 2 1 Morphological State of the Channel
Morphological data for the as -built profile was collected in December 2012 and January of
2013 Please refer to Appendix 2 for summary data tables, morphological plots, and stream
photographs
Profile
The baseline (MY -o) profiles closely match the profile design parameters The plotted
longitudinal profile and related summary data can be found in Appendix 2
On the design profiles, all riffles were depicted as straight lines with consistent slopes
However, at some locations (e g SF3 sta 411 +00 to 411 +70) on the as -built survey riffle
profiles are not consistent in slope due to rock and log riffle features installed during
construction for habitat variability The as -built profile reflects the installation of log and
rock sills with micro -pools interspersed in the riffle Some of the pools were not excavated
as deeply as designed due to shallow bedrock preventing excavation to the design depth
In addition, the as -built survey includes only one maximum pool depth point rather than
two deep pool points shown on the design profiles
Dimension
The baseline (MY -o) dimension numbers are closely matched to the design parameters
with the exception that UT2 was left wider than was originally planned during design
During construction of this Es component stream, a decision was made to raise the bed as
planned but to not fill in the channel to narrow it Filling in the channel would have
required placing fill around remaining mature trees on the top of one or both banks and
adding fill to a live stream channel The result was that the bed of the channel was raised
so that the stream is connected to its floodplain, adjacent riparian wetlands are hydrated,
mature trees remain along the tops of both banks but the channel is wider than designed
and the cross sectional area is somewhat larger than designed Summary data and cross -
section plots of each project reach can be found in Appendix 2
Underwood Mitigation Site Page 13
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report —FINAL

Pattern
The baseline (MY-0) pattern metrics fell within the design parameters for all six reaches
No design changes were made to any alignments during construction Pattern data will be
evaluated in monitoring year five if there are any indicators through the profile or
dimensions that significant geomorphic adjustments have occurred
Sediment Transport
As -built shear stresses and velocities are similar to design parameters and should reduce
the risk of further erosion along all three restoration reaches Prior to and following
restoration, reaches SF1, UT2, and SF3, classified as gravel bed streams Reaches UT1,
SF4, and SF4A classified as sand bed channels prior to construction, but each had a
significant gravel component to its substrate compositions as well After construction
these reaches also classified as gravel bed channels
The as -built condition for each of these reaches indicates a significant increase in substrate
particle size (Table 5a-5c) The substrate data for each constructed reach were compared
to the design shear stress parameters from the mitigation plan to assess the potential for
bed degradation The shear stress and calculated for the constructed channels are
generally within the allowable range, which indicate that the channel is not at risk to trend
toward channel degradation
52 2 Vegetation
The baseline monitoring (MY -o) vegetative survey was completed in January of 2013 The
baseline vegetation monitoring on the Site resulted in an average of 692 planted stems per
acre, which is greater than the design density required There was an average of 17 stems
per plot Please refer to Appendix 3 for vegetation summary tables, raw data tables, and
vegetation plot photographs
5 2 3 Photo Documentation
A total of 46 permanent photographs locations were installed and photographed by
Wildlands These photographs can be found in Appendix 2
5 2 4 Hydrology
Bankfull events have been observed on UT1, SF2, SF3, SF4, and SF4A following completion
of construction The bankfull event occurred following the installation of crest gages, but
was also evidenced by wrack lines Crest gage data logs will be included in the Year one
monitoring report
Page 14
Underwood Mitigation Site
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report—FINAL

r
6.0 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, Cheryl C, Rawlins, C L , Potyondy, John P 3.994 Stream Channel Reference Sites An
Illustrated Guide 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, Michael T, Peet, Robert K, Steven D , Wentworth, Thomas R (2006) CVS -EEP Protocol
for Recording Vegetation Version 4 o Retrieved from http / /www nceep net /business/
monitoring /veg /datasheets htm
Multi - Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium (MRLC), 2001 National Land Cover
Database http / /www mrlc gov/nlcd_php
North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 2005 Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Plan
http / /h2o enr state nc us /basinwide /draftCPFApril2005 htm
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
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 2003 Stream Mitigation Guidelines USACE,
NCDENR -DWQ, USEPA, NCWRC
United States Geological Survey (USGS), 1998 North Carolina Geology http
http / /www geology enr state nc us /usgs /carolina htm
Wlldlands Engineering, Inc (2011) Underwood Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan NCEEP,
Raleigh, NC
Underwood Mitigation Site Page 15
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report—FINAL

APPENDIX 1. General Tables and Figures

0 30�� 080
Hydrologic Unit Code (14)
r
EEP Targeted Local Watershed �,✓'
03030002050050
lami ntc Count} Allanifffi' Lounty
Cltatbatn Coilnt� (.ha l)i C.ounq
too
03030002050070
03030003070010
-' Undley 81%
(� I• Hants Sibs
03030002050090
VN
I ►itV 03030003070020
03030003070030
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 j 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 Planfield 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 i). site is permitted within the terms and timeframes of their defined
The sites are currently used for agriculture 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.
,��`'►�r,�I� ±f Sources: Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ, TomTom, Intermap, increment P Corp.,
GEBCO, USGS, FAO, &?:9§P R'C0AN ?GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL,
Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esn China (Hong Kong), and the GIS
User Community
Figure i. Project Vicinity Map
1 W I L D L A N D S Underwood Mitigation Site
ENGINEERING 0 0.625 1.25 Miles NCEEP Project No. 94641
I I I I I Monitoring Year o
Chatham County, NC

Figure za. Project Component /Asset Map
W I L, D LAN D S Underwood Mitigation Site - Harris Site
ENGINEERING 0 1 SO 300 Feet NCEEP Project No. 94641
i i i I Monitoring Year o
Chatham County, NC

Figure 2b. Project Component /Asset Map
Underwood Mitigation Site - Harris Site
w*w,, W I L D L A N D S 0 175 350 Feet NCEEP Project No. 94641
ENGINEERING 1 I I
Monitoring Year o
Chatham County, NC

Figure zc. Project Component /Asset Map
W I L, D LAN D S Underwood Mitigation Site - Harris Site
0 175 350 Feet NCEEP Project No. 6 1
ENGINEERING I I I I ( � 94 4
MonitoringYearo
Chatham County, NC

Appendix 1 General Tables and Figures
Table 1 Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No 94641)
Monitoring Year 0
* Note that lengths do not match stationing because channel sections that do not generate credit have been removed from length calculations
Nitrogen
Nutrient
Phosphorous
Stream
Riparian Wetland
No1 -Riparian Wetland
Buffer
Offset
Nutrient Offset
Type R
RE
R
RE
R
RE
I
Totals 4,661
2104
92
N/A
1 1
02
N/A
N/A
N/A
Project Components
Existing=
�Eootage
(LF) /
Restoration or Restoration
Restoration Footage
Reach ID
Acreage
Ac)
,Q roach E wv_a_lent
/ Acrea a Ac "
MiU anon Ratio
Streams
SFl
100 +00 -
773
Priority 1
Restoration
874
11
108 +74
SF2
300 +00 -
302
N/A
Enhancement Level II
302
25 1
303 +02
532
N/A
Enhancement Level 11
359
25 1
S173
400 +00 -
1,499
Priority 1
Restoration
1,586
11
421 +20
152
N/A
Enhancement Level I
153
1 5 1
SF4
800 +00 -
1450
Priority 1
Restoration
1429
11
900 +00 -
0
Priority 1
Restoration
257
I 1
SF4A
908 +66
609
N/A
Enhancement Level I
609
151
500 +00 -
1,463
N/A
Enhancement Level II
1,468
2 5 1
UPI
520 +38
452
Priority 1
Restoration
515
11
UT.IA
700 +00 -
524
N/A
Enhancement Level 11
511
25 1
705 +11
UTIB
600 +00 -
660
N/A
Enhancement Level If
652
251
606 +52
UT'2
0 +004+18
421
N/A
Enhancement Level 1
418
1 5 1
Wetlands
RW I
N/A
125
N/A
Restoration
t 25
1 1
045
Creation
045
3 1
RW2
N/A
050
N/A
Restoration
050
1 1
263
Creation
263
3 1
RW3
N/A
1 33
N/A
Restoration
1 33
1 1
395
Creation
395
3 1
RW4
N/A
365
N/A
Restoration
365
1 1
Restoration
075
1 1
NRW I
N/A
120
N/A
Creation
045
3 1
NRW2
N/A
034
N/A
Enhancement
034
2 1
Component Summation
Stream
(linear
Riparian Wetland
Non - Riparian Wetland
Buffer
Upland
Restoration Level
feet )
(acres
acres
(square feet
acres
Rivenne
Non- Rivenne
Restoration
4,661
1376
1 54
Enhancement
-
Enhancement 1
1,180
°
Enhancement II
3,292
Creation
-
Preservation
awl
High Quality Preservation
amp itd(N."
BMP Elements
Elements
Location
Purpose/Function
Notes
BR = Bioretention Cell, S F= Sand Filter, SW = Stormwater Wetland WDP = Wet Detention Pond, DDP = Dry Detention Pond, FS = Filter Strip,
S = Grassed Swale LS = Level Spreader, NI = Natural Infiltration Area, FB = Forested Buffer
* Note that lengths do not match stationing because channel sections that do not generate credit have been removed from length calculations

Appendix 1. General Tables and Figures
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No.94641)
Monitoring Year 0
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 area'
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 I Monitoring
2013
December 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

Appendix 1. General Tables and Figures
Table 3. Project Contact Table
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No 94641)
Monitoring Year 0
Wililla�nds iE fipering; 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 O 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
MOnitotin P- QrFf ■r ■�
Wddlands Egg' %neering,,Inc
Stream, Vegetation, and Wetland Monitoring POC
Kirsten Gimbert
704 332 7754, ext 110

Appendix 1 General Tables and Figures
Table 4 Project Baseline Information and Attributes
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No 94641)
Mondonna Year 0
U Unknown

APPENDIX 2. Morphological Summary and Data Plots

APPENDIX 2. Morphological Summary and Data Plots

Appendix 2 Morphological Summary Data and Plots
Table So Baseline Stream Data Summary
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No 94641)
Harris Site
Monitoring Year 0
NSA Not Applicable
'Design Parameters based on revised Shields Diagram
'Channel was dry at time of baseline survey Slopes were calculated using the channel thalweg
'As Built pattern measuremeants fell within the design ranges therefore the design parameters set are still applicable

i
Appendix 2 Morphological Summary Data and Plots
Table 5b Baseline Stream Data Summary
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No 94641)
Harris Site
Monitoring Year 0
a - r - 9pre•Restoratton Condition Reference Data — Dest n -
#' SF9 -, UTa -€ SFg u/s ofUTa SF3 d/z otUTa Uh
Parameter / Ga a Lon Branch UT.to Cane Creek
Min '"Max' Min Mate Mm Max�Miny �Max� #Mm °, Max �Min� Max
Dimension and Substrate Riffle
Bankfull Width(ft) 159 9. K14 186 82 118 2B2 18O 207
Flood cone Width (ft) 486 141 o+ 40+ 5o+ o o0
Bankfull Mean De th 2.8 o8 09 25 115+ 09
Bankfull Max De ih 2 4 is 2 9 1 5 2 3
Bankfull Cross sectional Area (ft) nla 28 9 7 2 34 6 B 5 10 7 27 5 171 9 6
Width /De th Rado B8 v38 7g 131
Entrenchment Rabo 31 v.6 4+ 459-
Bank Hei ht Rano 1.6 1.9 a5
D o(mm) 47
Profile
Rifflelen th(ft) -
RiffleSlo a(ft/ft) 0030 0OSao o0 00078 0o14a ..8 0210
Pool Len th (ft) n/x 9 _
Pool Max De th (ft) — _ - —
PoolSpacing (ft)- — —
Pool Volume (ft)
Pattern
As BtnhJBaselme
t SFB UTa .1�
Min Mex Min Max
126
0
02 116+ 1o8
r8
0
�5v
1.0
Tg 8
w6 018
0 LB o Bo -
00 0 26
53 ,. 166 B 1 715
Channel Beltwidth(ft)
I
n/a
51
1 ao6 1
3t
59
6o
So
77 1
54 1
9- 1
54
90 1
32
1 S4 1
54
91
32
54
30
Radius of Curvature (ft)
27
205
83
a6
87
21.3
27 v
1
Sa
31
So
22
30
31
16
v
1
5
2
3
3
a
3
2
3
Rc Bankfull Width(ft/ft)
46
26
272
70
Bo
3
162
7
66
3
19a
4
So
96
77
227
3
218
5
126
3
216
S 1
7
3
1:g
5
v6
3
nB
S
75
3
t29
5
Meander Length (ft)
Meander Width Ratio
Substrate Bed andlTransportParis
meters
Ri %/Ru%IP% /G%IS%
n/a
-
-
037
—
.081.211. 6 21 6120 8
o o /o 16 /a 316 9171.7 /z 6
SC %I5a %IG % /C%/B %/Be%
afi 66/40 8x(74 02/97 4218°
N /A/N /A/11610 312 56
d16 /d d o /d84/d d2ao
2Z
127
034
0 6
—
Reach Parameters
035
052
Reach Shear Stress (Com tent )lb/ft"
Max pan size (mm) mobdrzed a[bankfull
Stream Power (Capacity) Winn'
Additional
Drama eArea (SM)
nla
a%
o16
<1%
2.4
o28
227
<1%
<a%
036
<a%
n%
Watershed im ewiouscover Eshmate( %)
E4
E/G
C /E4
C/E
C
C
C
C4
CS
CS
Ros en Classihcabon
Bankfull velont (fps)
37
IB7
LM
30
34
3 z
41
33
B1
u4
2o6 2
B1
8
815
8
03
Bankfull Dischar e(cfs)
z-7
5
�ivoa �
�
. ... ..........
ONFF re ression
D USGSextra olation
v`�`Ra
—
�'.�
inns
O Mammn s
—
2183
-
Valle Len th
-
ua6
a 7
xo
2v
'038
Channel Thalwe Len "(ft)
:
2
2
5muosi 'ft)
004
004
0006
no56
oo8
0041
0075
Water Surface Slo (ft/ft)'
Bankfull Slo (fVft)
( ) Data was not provided
N/A Not Applicable
'Design Parameters based on revised Shields Diagram
'Channel was dry at time of baseline survey Slopes were calculated using the channel thalweg
'As Built pattern measuremeants fell within the design ranges, therefore the design parameters set are still applicable

Appendix 2 Morphological Summary Data and Plots
Table Sc Baseline Stream Data Summary
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No 94641)
Lindley Site
Monitoring Year 0
NIA Not Applicable
'Design Parameters based on revised Shields Diagram
'Channel was dry at time of baseline survey Slopes were calculated using the channel thalweg
'As Built pattern measuremeants fell within the design ranges, therefore the design parameters set are still applicable
P-- Rest- .mbon'Cond;bon
Reference Renoh Data
Den -n
Ai Bwlt/Bfisebne
r
SFy
SFA Lon �Bmnch
UTtto Cane Creek
SFp
SFA!
SFy
SFA.
i
Parameter s t
Ga e.
M!n MBX
MI'n iMaxM(n
�Maxi�[Min'
Max
Mfn Msz�
�Mm'� �M Mm Max
Min Max
Dimension and Substrate Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
1B6
148 186
82 tx8
vo
tao
2 6
1
Flood rone Width (ft)
x57
x9 4
So.
4O.
5o.
000.
o
xv8«
201.
00
2v3+
Bankfull Mean Depth
2 7
t 6
x 3
.9
.9
Bankfull Max Depth
40
x9
x9
x5
x7
a3
a7
3.
Bankfull Cross sectional Area (ft')
nla
497
16 9
a5 0
34 6
85
10 7
S3.
1B °
9 5
W!dth/De th Ratio
6 9
6 3
7 9
a3 8
7 9
x3 t
24 0
Ito
210
27
Entrenchment Ratio
35
a 9
3 4•
4 59�
Bank Hai ht Ratio
14
v8
Lx v5
x 6
0
t2 7
t.
D o (mm)
03
0 8
Profile
Riffle Len (ft)l
41
79
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
_
—
0 0048 0085
oxo8 0 0x93
o t.
o2 8
0 0001
0 a2xo
Pool Len th (ft)
n/a
—
54
a8
21
79
23
Pool Max Depth (ft)
—
—
-
_
°
Pool S aan (ft) ^
—
—
-
—
—
6
ss
Pool Volume (ft')
Pattern'
Channel Beltwidth(ft)
N/A
N/A
6o
So
77
Bx
x36
44
74
8x
x36
44
74
Radius of Curvature (ft)
NIA
N/A
16
87
27
46
76
15
4a
46
76
25
41
Rc Bankfull width (ft /ft)
n/a
—
5
3
-7
2 8
x 7
2 8
3
3
Meander Len Lh (k)
N/A
N/A
66
t9s
29
96
191
327
x03
x77
19x
3x7
x03
x77
Meander Width RanO
3
4
6
1 7
Substrate, Bad and Trans ort
Parameters
R,WRu %IP961G96/S%
SC % /Sa % /G % /C % /B % /Be%
J�IYi
ot310 6/S.3lxox
207/1208
C 12114/4417v 62�-
dx61d d5a /d84/d dxoo
NIA /NIA/o x71 8/o
-
N /A/. 1108/20 162 I62
—
—
-
0;2 063
—
04S9
Reach Shear Stress(Com eten )Ib/ft'�
n/a
Max art size(mm) mobilized at bankful
_
Hawn
Stream POwer (Ca an )W /m'
Additional Reach
Parameters
DraMClassification a (SM)
26
x 4
0 28
5x6
00
5 t6
00
rv1O
Watershed lm a us Covte( %)
<1%
<x%
—
—
<x%
a%
C5
Rosecation
E
E5
GE
CIE4
CS
C
C
Bankf (f S)
5x6
6Bankfull
a (cfs)
67
ao 2
214
6
204
Dress!on
a3 59
sagailmmmw
O USGolahon
n/a
-
—
I' la
d
i91M @ ".t.Yt
ilia
?BI
nnin s
-
0
Valle Length (ft)
—
868
1yx
866
Channel Thal Len hIft)
60 0
—
—
1 x
t1
Sinuosi (ft�
2
Water Surface Slope (ft)ft)
D 003
oo,B
0004
005
00 4
0033
°
o067
Bankfull clo e(ft/h)
—
006
00 4
( -) Data was not provided
NIA Not Applicable
'Design Parameters based on revised Shields Diagram
'Channel was dry at time of baseline survey Slopes were calculated using the channel thalweg
'As Built pattern measuremeants fell within the design ranges, therefore the design parameters set are still applicable

Appendix 2 Morphological Summary Data and Plots
Table 6 Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross - Section)
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No 94641)
Harris and Lindley Site
Monitoring Year 0

Appendix 2. Morphological Summary Data and Plots
Longitudinal Profile Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
SH
Monitoring Year 0
602
600
598
596
v
o S94
W
592
590
588
I �
♦
♦ A♦A
V� A
♦♦
e♦
I
1♦ L
A&
AA A
X X }�
10000 10100 10200 10300 10400 10500 io600 10700
Station (feet)
—o—TW (MYo - 1/2013) 0 STRUCTURES (MYo - 1/2013) ♦ RBKF /RTOB (MYo - 1/2013)
10600 10900 11000
LBKF /LTOB (MY0- 1/2013)

Appendix 2. Morphological Summary Data and Plots
Longitudinal Profile Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
UT2
Monitoring Year 0
6o5
604 -� — — — — — —
603 �� — — - -- --
602
♦ ♦
v 600
o A ♦ — —
599 -
w
598 ♦
597 --
Ln Ln
X x _
596 —
595
0 50 soo 150 zoo 250 300 350 400 45 0
Station (feet)
-
LBKF /LTOB (MYo �Izoi3)
0 (MYo- 1/2013) ♦ RBKF /RTOB (MYo - 112013)

Appendix 2. Morphological Summary Data and Plots
Longitudinal Profile Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
UT1
Monitoring Year 0
578
577
576
575
574
573
0
v 572
w
571
570
569
68
♦ a
• - -
♦ — - ♦ - ♦♦
_ ♦♦ m •
♦ a ♦♦
o H
X X
♦ ♦
♦
♦ ♦♦
5
51520 52620 51720 51820 51920 52020
Station (feet)
—s TW (MYo- 1/2013) • STRUCTURES (MYo- 2/2023) ♦ RBKF /RTOB (MYo- 1/2013) LBKF/LTOB (MYo- 1/2013)

Appendix 2. Morphological Summary Data and Plots
Longitudinal Profile Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
SF3
Monitoring Year 0
58o
578 ♦ l • — —
♦♦ ♦A L
♦ ♦ AA-
A A � ♦♦
♦ ♦i ' ♦ �♦
574 - - - - - -�' -� , - --
♦-
S72 _
o "A ♦
v
w 570
♦
568 — — — tn
X X X X
X - X - --
566 -- — —
564
39900 40400 40900 41400 41900
Station (feet)
—+—TW (MYo - 1/2013) ♦ RBKF/RTOB (MYo - 1/2013) • STRUCTURES (MYo - 1/2013) LBKF /LTOB (MYo - 1/2013)

Appendix 2. Morphological Summary Data and Plots
Longitudinal Profile Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
SF4
Monitoring Year 0
544 — - ---
542
S40
Y
538
c
0
Y
w S36
534
532
530
80000
80200 80400 80600 80800 82000
Station (feet)
-
4 —TW (MYo- 2/2023) ♦ RBKF /RTOB (MYo- 2/2023) • STRUCTURES (MYo- 2/2023)
82200 81400
LBKF /LTOB (MYo - 1/2023)

Appendix 2. Morphological Summary Data and Plots
Longitudinal Profile Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
SMA
Monitoring Year 0
544
542 ♦ � - - - - -
&A — -
540 — -� - —
♦♦ •
A,
Y _ '
Q1
v 538 - 4L aA e
A ♦ ♦ ' d
o `
> �A
w 536 -
534
n n
tn X X X
532
530
90000 90100 90200 90300 90400 90500 90600 90700 90800 90900
Station (feet)
tTW (MYo- 1/2013) ♦ RBKF /RTOB (MYo - 1/2013) 0 STRUCTURES (MYo - 1/2013) LBKF /LTOB (MYo - 1/2013)

Appendix 2. Morphological Summary Data and Plots
Cross - Section Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
SF1, Cross - Section 1 (Riffle)
Monitoring Year 0
River Basin
Cape Fear
Watershed HUC
303002050050
XS ID
1
Drainage Area
132 acres
Date
1/22/2013
Field Crew
DT, AT
Summary Data
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
Station
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area (ft2)
5.6
Bankfull Width (ft)
8.
Flood Prone Area Elevation (ft)
596.5
Flood Prone Width (ft)
o+
Max Depth at Bankfull (ft)
1.0
Mean Depth at Bankfull (ft)
o.
W/D Ratio
12.8
Entrenchment Ratio
z.z+
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
Stream Type
C
Station
Elevation
Station
Elevation
1.49
595.21
4.6
1
7.2
1
1:1.44
595.61
13-34
.6o
1S.22
1 595-49
15-70
.47
16.66
.11
18.o0
594.63.
18.65
594-59
19-44
.46
20.14
s94.46
20-34
594-47
21.10
594.68
21.87
594-55
23-I
.o
24.28
2
24.81
s9s.. 61
2S.72
SgS.65
28.36
33.65
2
39-14
8
4.00
1
8
596.oi
Cross - Section 1: View Upstream (1/2212013)
SF1
Cross - Section 1(Riffle) Station 104 +44
5975
597
s96 .s
596
w 5955
S95
w 594.5
594
593.5
593
5925
0 10
t MYo- 1/2013
Cross - Section 1: View Downstream (1/22 /2013)
20 30 40 50
Station (feet)
- Bankfull

Appendix 2. Morphological Summary Data and Plots
Cross - Section Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
SF1, Cross - Section 2 (Pool)
Monitoring Year 0
River Basin
Cape Fear
Watershed HUC
303002050050
XS ID
2
Drainage Area
132 acres
Date
1/22/2013
Field Crew
DT, AT
Summary Data
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
4.
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area (ftz)
12.8
Bankfull Width (ft)
11.
Flood Prone Area Elevation (ft)
N/A
Flood Prone Width (ft)
N/A
Max Depth at Bankfull (ft)
1.
Mean Depth at Bankfull (ft)
o.
W/D Ratio
12.8
Entrenchment Ratio
N/A
Bank Height Ratio
1.2
Stream Type
N/A
Station
Elevation
Station
Elevation
1.76
.1
41.16
7.61
595.28
44.83
14.38
595.29
47-SO
8
17.48
.1
18.2
.1
19-31
4.87
20.2
4.78
21.27
594-58
23-01
4.26
z.8
593.52
z
1
26.12
593 z1
27-49
-20
28.32
593.22
29-13
z
.74
0.10
594-34
30-98
4.86
2.04
.1
33.22
4
77
35.27
596.12
36.42
596.10
8.2
•77
Cross - Section z: View Upstream (1122/2013)
SFi
Cross - Section z (Pool) Station 104 +64
597
597
596 -
596
w 595
2 595
y 594
i
594 -
593
593
592
0.00 3.0.00
MYo -2/2c
i
20.00 30.00
Station (feet)
-Water Surface
Cross - Section z: View Downstream (1/22/203.3)
40.00
Bankfull

Appendix 2. Morphological Summary Data and Plots
Cross - Section Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
UT2, Cross - Section 3 (Pool)
Monitoring Year 0
River Basin
Cape Fear
Watershed HUC
303002050050
XS ID
3
Drainage Area
78 acres
Date
1/22/2013
Field Crew
DT, AT
Summary Data
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
600.2
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area (ft2)
24.2
Bankfull Width (ft)
15.0
Flood Prone Area Elevation (ft)
N/A
Flood Prone Width (ft)
N/A
Max Depth at Bankfull (ft)
2.
Mean Depth at Bankfull (ft)
1.6
W/D Ratio
1. 5 2
Entrenchment Ratio
N/A
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
Stream Type
N/A
Station
Elevation
Station
Elevation
0.93
599-93
12.77
600.20
2.6.88
600.
1. 5 2
600.
4.2.
1
6.17
qq8.00
8.18
597-56
40-52
597-51
42..1
.7
43.21
8.4
45-13
0
47-04
600.21
48.21
600. 1
2.1
600.1
8.8
0
68.02
599.85
Cross - Section 3: View Upstream (1/22/2013)
UT2
Cross - Section 3 (Pool) Station 200 +51
603
6o2
6o1
Z 600 -
o
u 599
w
598
597
5g6
o.o0 10.00 20.00
-4-- MYo- 1/2013
30.00 40.00
Station (feet)
-Water Surface
Cross - Section 3: View Downstream (1/22/2013)
50.00 6o.00 70.00
Bankfull

Appendix 2. Morphological Summary Data and Plots
Cross - Section Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
UT2, Cross - Section 4 (Riffle)
Monitoring Year 0
River Basin
Cape Fear
Watershed HUC
303002050050
XS ID
4
Drains a Area
78 acres
Date
112212013
Field Crew
DT, AT
Summary Data
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area (ft2)
13.6
Bankfull Width (ft)
16.6
Flood Prone Area Elevation (ft)
611.6
Flood Prone Width (ft)
zoo+
Max Depth at Bankfull (ft)
1.1
Mean Depth at Bankfull (ft)
0.8
W/D Ratio
20.
Entrenchment Ratio
2.2+
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
Stream Type
C
Cross - Section 4: View U stream (112212013)
UT2
Cross- Section 4 (Riffle) Station 200+87
603
602 --
I
v
w 600
c
0
m _
599
w 598
597
6
59
0
Cross - Section 4: View Downstream (1122/2013)
10 20 30 40 5"
Station (feet)
�— MYo- 112013 — Bankfull
J
J
I
I
i
WIMM
Cross - Section 4: View U stream (112212013)
UT2
Cross- Section 4 (Riffle) Station 200+87
603
602 --
I
v
w 600
c
0
m _
599
w 598
597
6
59
0
Cross - Section 4: View Downstream (1122/2013)
10 20 30 40 5"
Station (feet)
�— MYo- 112013 — Bankfull
J
J
I
I
i

Appendix 2. Morphological Summary Data and Plots
Cross - Section Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
SF3, Cross - Section 5 (Riffle)
Monitoring Year 0
River Basin
Cape Fear
Watershed H_UC
303002 50
_
XS ID
S
Drainage Area
i,oS6 acres
Date
i/22/2013
Field Crew
DT, AT
Summary Data
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
576.8
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area (ft2)
30.5
Bankfull Width (ft)
2 .
Flood Prone Area Elevation (ft)
579.1
Flood Prone Width (ft)
zoo+
Max Depth at Bankfull (ft)
2.
Mean Depth at Bankfull (ft)
W/D Ratio
12.
Entrenchment Ratio
2.z+
Bank Height Ratio
Stream Type
C
Cross - Section s: View Upstream (1/22/2013)
SF3
Cross - Section 5 (Riffle) Station 402 +86
580
579 - -
57B
d
m
0
576 - —
i
w
575
574
573 0 10 20
t- MYO- 4/2012
Cross - Section 5: View Downstream (1/2212013)
30 40 50 ao
Station (feet)
Water Surface - Bankfull
70

Appendix 2. Morphological Summary Data and Plots
Cross - Section Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
SF3, Cross - Section 6 (Pool)
Monitoring Year 0
River Basin
Cape Fear
Watershed HUC
303002050050
XS ID
6
Drainage Area
1,056 acres
Date
1/22/2013
Field Crew
DT, AT
Summary Data
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
575.0
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area (ft2)
30.5
Bankfull Width (ft)
19.7
Flood Prone Area Elevation (ft)
N/A
Flood Prone Width (ft)
N/A
Max Depth at Bankfull (ft)
2.
Mean Depth at Bankfull (ft)
1.6
W/D Ratio
12.
Entrenchment Ratio
N/A
Bank Height Ratio
1.o
Stream Type
N/A
Station
Elevation
Station
Elevation
O-S3
S74.86
11.16
574.66
6.27
.1
02
6o.07
574.22
66.4
72.0
6q.47
S71.19
70.88
71.
72.4
70.
73.48
572A6
74-77
S72.95
7.0
7.0
77-45
.8
80.12
S7S.29
82.z
.6
87.14
575.87
93-45
575-83
10.8
7.7
Cross - Section 6: View Upstream (1/2z/2o12)
SF3
Cross - Section 6 (Pool) Station 4o8 +8i
579
578 -
577 -
5j6
I
575
a
574 - -
0
573 .
w 572
571 -
570
569
568
0 10 20 30 40 5o 6o
Station (feet)
�- MYo -4/2012 - Water Surface
Cross - Section 6: View Downstream (1/22/2012)
70 8o 90 100 110
Bankfull

Appendix 2. Morphological Summary Data and Plots
Cross - Section Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
SF3, Cross - Section 7 (Riffle)
Monitoring Year 0
Summary Data
Cape Fear
303002050050
20.6
7
M
1,056 acres
6•
1122/2
200+
DT, AT
Summary Data
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area (ft2)
20.6
Bankfull Width (ft)
16.
Flood Prone Area Elevation (ft)
6•
Flood Prone Width (ft)
200+
Max Depth at Bankfull (ft)
2.2
Mean Depth at Bankfull (ft)
1.2
W/D Ratio
1
Entrenchment Ratio
2 -2+
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
Stream Type
C
Cross - Section 7: View Upstream (1/22/2012)
SF3 _.
Cross. Section 7: View Downstream (1/22/2012)

Appendix 2. Morphological Summary Data and Plots
Cross - Section Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
SF3, Cross - Section 8 (Pool)
Monitoring Year 0
River Basin
Cape Fear
Watershed HUC
303002050050
XS ID
8
Drains a Area
i,oS6 acres
Date
1/22 12013
Field Crew
DT, AT
Summary Data
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
2•
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area (ft2)
28.0
Bankfull Width (ft)
1
Flood Prone Area Elevation (ft)
N/A
Flood Prone Width (ft)
N/A
Max Depth at Bankfull (ft)
1.0
Mean Depth at Bankfull (ft)
1•
W/D Ratio
1
Entrenchment Ratio
N/A
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
Stream Type
N/A
Cross - Section 8: View Upstream (1/22/2013)
SF3
Cross- Section 8 (Pool) Station 413 +97
578
577 - - — - - - - -
576 -- — — --
575 — —
574
v
w
573
0
572
_v
w 571
570 - —
569 — — --
566 - -
567 "
0 10 20 30
- -- - —+— MYO-4 /2012
Cross - Section B: View Downstream (1/22/2013)
40 50 00 N .... �-
Station (feet)
— Water Surface — Bankfull
.o
f_
_E
Cross - Section 8: View Upstream (1/22/2013)
SF3
Cross- Section 8 (Pool) Station 413 +97
578
577 - - — - - - - -
576 -- — — --
575 — —
574
v
w
573
0
572
_v
w 571
570 - —
569 — — --
566 - -
567 "
0 10 20 30
- -- - —+— MYO-4 /2012
Cross - Section B: View Downstream (1/22/2013)
40 50 00 N .... �-
Station (feet)
— Water Surface — Bankfull
.o

Appendix 2. Morphological Summary Data and Plots
Cross - Section Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
SF3, Cross - Section 9 (Riffle)
Monitoring Year 0
Summary Data
Cape Fear
2•
303002050050
19.0
9
MHUC
i,o56 acres
1/22/2 013
200+
DT, AT
Summary Data
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
2•
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area (ft2)
19.0
Bankfull Width (ft)
1
Flood Prone Area Elevation (ft)
Flood Prone Width (ft)
200+
Max Depth at Bankfull (ft)
1.8
Mean Depth at Bankfull (ft)
1.2
W/D Ratio
1
Entrenchment Ratio
2.2+
Bank Hei ht Ratio
1.0
Stream T pe
C
Station
Elevation Station
Elevation
18.46
2. 1
6
.00
1
o6
4 .88
2.
1. 8
6.41
7o.6
7.81
7o.6
6o.64
70.72
62. 2
7o.87
6
1.82
67.20
2.4
7.1
2.
.14
2.0
6. 2
1.6
11 . 8
1.
1 .8
2.20
579
577
575
I
v
573
c
0
w 571
II
w
569
567
I� 565
0
Cross - Section 9: View Upstream (1/22/2013)
SF3
Cross - Section 9: View Downstream (1/22/2013)
20 40 bo �� - --
Station (feet)
Surface - Bankfuil
t MYo 4/2012
I
,o

Appendix 2. Morphological Summary Data and Plots
Cross - Section Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
UT1, Cross - Section 10 (Riffle)
Monitoring Year 0
River Basin
Cape Fear
Watershed HUC
303002050050
XS ID
10
Drainage Area
230 acres
Date
1122/2013
Field Crew
DT, AT
Summary Data
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
.0
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area (ft2)
10.5
Bankfull Width (ft)
12.6
Flood Prone Area Elevation (ft)
Flood Prone Width (ft)
100+
Max Depth at Bankfull (ft)
1.
Mean Depth at Bankfull (ft)
o.8
W/D Ratio
I .1
Entrenchment Ratio
2.2+
Bank Height Ratio
100
Stream Type
C
Cross - Section 1o: View Upstream (1/22/2013)
UT1
Cross - Section 10 (Riffle) Station 517 +63
sn
576
575
574
0
w 573
W
572
571
570
0 10
t MYo- 412012
20 30 40
Station (feet)
— Water Surface
Cross - Section io: View Downstream (1122/2013)
50 6o 70
— Bankfull

Appendix 2. Morphological Summary Data and Plots
Cross - Section Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
UTI, Cross - Section 11 (Pool)
Monitoring Year 0
River Basin
Cape Fear
Watershed HUC
303002050050
XS ID
11
Drains a Area
230 acres
Date
1/2z12013
Field Crew
DT, AT
Summary Data
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
573.8
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area (ftz)
17.7
Bankfull Width (ft)
14.2
Flood Prone Area Elevation (ft)
N/A
Flood Prone Width (ft)
N/A
Max Depth at Bankfull (ft)
2.6
Mean Depth at Bankfull (ft)
1.
W/D Ratio
11.
Entrenchment Ratio
N/A
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
Stream Type
N/A
Station
Elevation
Station
Elevation.
0.00
575-07
S7.o8
.62
1.27
574.6L_
66.12
573.65
6.84
574.28
12.
18.17
574.26
zo. 0
74•
22.27
574-58
23.65
74.07
24-43
573.69
2q.10
2.4
2.0
-2S.48
26.11
S71.14
26.84
571.29
28.6
571.22
28.8
1.7
0.2
2.0
31-S'
72.4
2.28
72.6
34-30
573-13
35.76
8
16.96
573.62
38-40
1. 8
8.22
1
Cross - Section 11: View Upstream (1122/2013)
UTl
Cross - Section 11: View Downstream (1/2 212 013)
m
576 - -
575 _
o 574
'>
573
w
572
571
570 0 6o 70
0 10 20 30 yO 5
Station (feet)
-Water Surface - Bankfull
t MYo- 4/2012

Appendix 2. Morphological Summary Data and Plots
Cross - Section Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
SF4, Cross - Section 12 (Pool)
Monitoring Year 0
River Basin
Cape Fear
Watershed HUC
303002050050
XS ID
12
Drainage Area
3,362 acres
Date
1/22/2013
Field Crew
DT, AT
Summary Data
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area (ft2)
74.4
Bankfull Width (ft)
Flood Prone Area Elevation (ft)
N/A
Flood Prone Width (ft)
N/A
Max Depth at Bankfull (ft)
Mean Depth at Bankfull (ft)
2.2
W/D Ratio
14.9
Entrenchment Ratio
N/A
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
Stream Type
N/A
Cross - Section 12: View Upstream (1/22/2013)
Cross - Section 12: View Downstream (1/22/2013)
SFr,
Cross - Section 12 (Pool) Station 804 +83
546
544
542
540
538
_v
w 536
534
532
530
0 10 20 30 40 50 6o 70 80 go 100 110 120 130 240 150 16o
Station (feet)
—+— MYo- 1/2013 — Water Surface — Bankfull

Appendix 2. Morphological Summary Data and Plots
Cross - Section Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
SF4, Cross - Section 13 (Riffle)
Monitoring Year 0
River Basin
Cape Fear
Watershed HUC
303002050050
XS ID
13
Drainage Area
3,362 acres
Date
1/2212013
Field Crew
DT, AT
Summary Data
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
539.6
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area (ft2)
49.5
Bankfull Width (ft)
2
Flood Prone Area Elevation (ft)
S42.6
Flood Prone Width (ft)
200+
Max Depth at Bankfull (ft)
Mean Depth at Bankfull (ft)
W/D Ratio
Entrenchment Ratio
E2.2
Bank Hei ht Ratio
Stream Type
544
542
540
0
538
W
536
534
532
Cross - Section 13: View Upstream (1/22/2013)
SF4
Cross - Section 1:t (Riffle) STA 8o5 +o1
Cross - Section 13: View Downstream (1122/2013)
o 10 20 30 40 50 6o 70 8o 90 loo 110 120
Station (feet)
—� MYo- 112013
—Water Surface —Bankfull

Appendix 2. Morphological Summary Data and Plots
Cross - Section Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
SF4, Cross - Section 14 (Pool)
Monitoring Year 0
River Basin
Cape Fear
Watershed HUC
303002050050
XS ID
14
Drainage Area
3,362 acres
Date
1 /22 /2013
Field Crew
DT, AT
Summary Data
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
.8
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area (ft2)
7o.6
Bankfull Width (ft)
38.7
Flood Prone Area Elevation (ft)
N/A
Flood Prone Width (ft)
N/A
Max Depth at Bankfull (ft)
74.62
Mean Depth at Bankfull (ft)
1.8
W/D Ratio
21.2
Entrenchment Ratio
N/A
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
Stream Type
N/A
Station
Elevation
Station
Elevation
q.SI
41-30
74.62
538.ig
86.08
86
8
2.01
1 537-12
97-35
536.o3
105.86
534-31
107-39
6
110.09
533-95
123.87
.28
117-80
536.5o
_119-83
121.1
.8o
122.11
.8
142.o6
537-98
155-72
.1
15 .81
.18
544
542
540
w 538
v
g 536
_w
534
532
530
528
Cross - Section 14: View Upstream (1/22/ZO13)
SF4
Cross - Section 14 (Pool) STA 811 +57
Cross - Section 14: View Downstream (1/22 /2013)
0 10 20 30 40 50 6o 70 80 go 100 110 120 130 140 150 16
Station (feet)
—+— MYo- 1/2013 — Water Surface —Bankfull

Appendix 2. Morphological Summary Data and Plots
Cross - Section Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
SF4, Cross - Section 15 (Riffle)
Monitoring Year 0
River Basin
Cape Fear
Watershed HUC
303002050050
XS ID
15
Drainage Area
3,362 acres
Date
1/22/2013
Field Crew
DT, AT
Summa Data
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
Station
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area (ftz)
51.2
Bankfull Width (ft)
27.6
Flood Prone Area Elevation (ft)
S4o.8
Flood Prone Width (ft)
zoo+
Max Depth at Bankfull (ft)
3.2
Mean Depth at Bankfull (ft)
1.
W/D Ratio
1 .
Entrenchment Ratio
2.2+
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
Stream Type
C
Station
Elevation
Station
Elevation
o.16
.6
7.30
537.58
.6
63.2S
1
81.05
537.68
81.7
1 S37. 6
82.67
537-56
85.:Lg
536.64
88.42
.o
o.
.10
94.22
4.
97-70
.14
101.
.10
104-52
536.44
106-gs
S37.23
108.12
.4
109-79
537.68
125-01
537.61
13S.99
538-78
Cross - Section 15: View Upstream (1/22/2013)
SF4
Cross - Section 15 (Riffle) STA 812 +23
S43 -
541
539
S37
0
0
i 535
v
w
533
531
529
Cross - Section 15: View Downstream (1/22/2013)
0 10 20 30 40 50 6o 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140
Station (feet)
-�- MYO- 1/2013 - Water Surface - Bank-full

Appendix 2. Morphological Summary Data and Plots
Cross - Section Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
SMA, Cross - Section 16 (Riffle)
Monitoring Year 0
River Basin
Cape Fear
Watershed HUC
303002050050
XS ID
16
Drainage Area
637 acres
Date
1/22/2013
Field Crew
DT, AT
Summary Data
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
540.4
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area (ft2)
20.4
Bankfull Width (ft)
23.7
Flood Prone Area Elevation (ft)
542.8
Flood Prone Width (ft)
zoo+
Max Depth at Bankfull (ft)
2.
Mean Depth at Bankfull (ft)
o.
W/D Ratio
z .
Entrenchment Ratio
z.z+
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
Stream Type
C
Station Elevation Station Elevation
15-30 40.
22.]6 540.70
25.52
28.12
10
7 4b y. s S
4�
Cross - Section 16: View Upstream (1/22/2013)
SF4A
Cross - Section 16 (Riffle) STA 902 +44
543
542
541
540
v
539
_v
538
537
536
535
0 20 20 30
Cross - Section 16: View Downstream (1/22/2013)
40 50 6o 70 ao
Station (feet)
t MYo- 2/2013 - Water Surface - Banktull

Appendix 2. Morphological Summary Data and Plots
Cross - Section Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
SMA, Cross - Section 17 (Riffle)
Monitoring Year 0
Summary Data
Cape Fear
303002050050
17.5
17
MeArea
637 acres
1/2212013
200+
DT, AT
Summary Data
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area (ft2)
17.5
Bankfull Width (ft)
1
Flood Prone Area Elevation (ft)
Flood Prone Width (ft)
200+
Max Depth at Bankfull (ft)
2.1
Mean Depth at Bankfull (ft)
1•
W/D Ratio
11.0
Entrenchment Ratio
2.2+
Bank Hei ht Ratio
1.0
Stream Type
E
v
w
c
O
I �
_v
w
543
542
541
540
539
538
537
536
535
534
533
532
Cross - Section 17: View Upstream (1./22/2013)
SF4A
Cross - Section 17: View Downstream (1122/2013)
Lo
0 10 20 30 40 50 00
Station (feet)
- + -MYo- 11201.3
Water Surface - Bankfull

Appendix 2. Morphological Summary Data and Plots
Cross - Section Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
SF4A, Cross - Section 18 (Pool)
Monitoring Year 0
River Basin
Cape Fear
Watershed HUC
303002050050
XS ID
18
Draina a Area
637 acres
Date
1/22/2013
Field Crew
DT, AT
Summary Data' =
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
s36.9
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area ft)
22.9
Bankfull Width (ft)
16.o
Flood Prone Area Elevation (ft)
N/A
Flood Prone Width (ft)
N/A
Max Depth at Bankfull (ft)
2.8
Mean Depth at Bankfull (ft)
1.
W/D Ratio
11.1
Entrenchment Ratio
N/A
Bank Height Ratio
l.o
Stream Type
NIA
Cross - Section .8: View Upstream (1 /22/2023)
SF4A
Cross - Section 28 (Pool) STA go6 +87
Cross - Section 28: View Downstream (1/22/2023)
542 — -
540 —
538 — —
w
0 536
w 534
532
530
0 20 20 30 40 50 6o 70 80 go loo 110 120 230
Station (feet)
—MYO- 2/2023 —Water Surface — Bankfull
Eta
--
Cross - Section .8: View Upstream (1 /22/2023)
SF4A
Cross - Section 28 (Pool) STA go6 +87
Cross - Section 28: View Downstream (1/22/2023)
542 — -
540 —
538 — —
w
0 536
w 534
532
530
0 20 20 30 40 50 6o 70 80 go loo 110 120 230
Station (feet)
—MYO- 2/2023 —Water Surface — Bankfull

Appendix 2. Morphological Summary Data and Plots
Reachwide and Cross - Section Pebble Count Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
SF1, Reachwide
Monitoring Year 0
1 1261 4LI 11. ne O.zz 0.z o 6 edium 0.z O o. oo 6 arse o. z.0 6 Coarse z.o z.o 6
i.: WINE Very Fine 2.0 2.8 z z z 66
1)A31 }'r ?i ? ?? Very Fine 2.8 4.0 66
;?Ijussill.ui� ;_.g �1 Fine 4.0 i i i 6
z z 68
Fine 8.0 z
Medium 8.o zz. 3 z z z 6
1•••1's`^ ?31 Medium 11. z6.o z z 2 z
'(a ;x 1!1).} Coarse 16.o 22.6 z z z 6
.
Coarse 22.6 z S 5 7
Very Coarse 32 45 7 7 7 8
;} ?=g _•
Very Coarse 45 64 7 7 7 go
Small 64 W 4 4 4 94
Small go 128 3 3
: Lar a 128 18o
i3 i i
z z zoo
Medium I S12 102 100
Large /Very Large 3.024 2048 100
BEDROCK Bedrock 2048 f 12048 zoo
Total 62 40 102 zoo zoo
:iii ?i's'ai3 �i 3� e3 ?3 }33 ?.
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
V
silt /clay
siltlday
silt /clay
46.6
ioo.o
256.0
SFz, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
zoo — r
90 ve
obbl I r
80
� 70
v
60
E So
v'
� 40
u
a. 30
o_
20
zo i
0
0.02 0.3 z za zoo i000 20000
Part
icle Class Size (mm)
�— MYo -z /2023
SFz, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
10094
good
8094
c
709b — —
a 6094
m
50% —
V
� 4094 - —
> 3094 —
v
3094 — _ --
094
p� �(p�' by yO�y Otj
O' O'
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYo -21202
3 �
Diameter (mm) P
Particle Count S
SFi Reach Summary
Particle Class D
ass P
Percent
min m
max R
Riffle P
Pool T
Total P
Percentage C
Cumulative
SILT /CLAY S
Silt/Clay 0
0.000 o
o.o62 2
26 0
0 6
66 6
6 6
6
fne o
o.o6 z o
o.zz 6
6S I 1
:iii ?i's'ai3 �i 3� e3 ?3 }33 ?.
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
V
silt /clay
siltlday
silt /clay
46.6
ioo.o
256.0
SFz, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
zoo — r
90 ve
obbl I r
80
� 70
v
60
E So
v'
� 40
u
a. 30
o_
20
zo i
0
0.02 0.3 z za zoo i000 20000
Part
icle Class Size (mm)
�— MYo -z /2023
SFz, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
10094
good
8094
c
709b — —
a 6094
m
50% —
V
� 4094 - —
> 3094 —
v
3094 — _ --
094
p� �(p�' by yO�y Otj
O' O'
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYo -21202
3 �
silt /clay
siltlday
silt /clay
46.6
ioo.o
256.0
SFz, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
zoo — r
90 ve
obbl I r
80
� 70
v
60
E So
v'
� 40
u
a. 30
o_
20
zo i
0
0.02 0.3 z za zoo i000 20000
Part
icle Class Size (mm)
�— MYo -z /2023
SFz, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
10094
good
8094
c
709b — —
a 6094
m
50% —
V
� 4094 - —
> 3094 —
v
3094 — _ --
094
p� �(p�' by yO�y Otj
O' O'
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYo -21202
3 �
icle Class Size (mm)
�— MYo -z /2023
SFz, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
10094
good
8094
c
709b — —
a 6094
m
50% —
V
� 4094 - —
> 3094 —
v
3094 — _ --
094
p� �(p�' by yO�y Otj
O' O'
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYo -21202
3 �
SFz, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
10094
good
8094
c
709b — —
a 6094
m
50% —
V
� 4094 - —
> 3094 —
v
3094 — _ --
094
p� �(p�' by yO�y Otj
O' O'
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYo -21202
3 �

Appendix 2. Morphological Summary Data and Plots
Reachwide and Cross - Section Substrate Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
SH, Cross - Section 1
Monitoring Year 0
Cross - Section 1
Diameter (mm)
Particle
Cross - Section i Summary
D35 =
15.1
Count
23.3
Particle Class
66.8
D =
143.4
Di.0 =
256.o
50%
Class
Percent
min
max
Total
Percentage
Cumulative
SILT /CLAY
JSilt/Clay
0.000
o.o62
Very fine
o.o62
0.125
3
Fine
0.125
0.250
3
hpC��
Medium
0.250
0.500
3
Coarse
0.5
1.0
3
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
3
3
6
xxE =3 -
1313_ 1?
Very Fine
2.0
z.8
6
l
Very Fine
2.8
4.o
z
2
8
1,
Fine
4.0
5.7
1
1
9
I
3 II Fine
S.7
8.0
6
6
15
�14r, Medium
8.o
11.3
7
7
22
Medium
Coarse
11.3
16.o
15
15
37
-� 1 _?
3H333 ' 3•
16.0
22.6
1z
12
49
Coarse
22.6
32
12
12
61
Very Coarse
i
32
45
12
1z
73
9
Very Coarse
y
6
10
10
8
Small
Small
64
go
go
128
8
3
8
3
91
94
Large
128
18o
3
3
97
Lar e
180
z 6
100
Small
256
362
loo
�
Small
362
512
100
i
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/very Large/very Large
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK 113edrock
1 2048
>2048
1
100
Totall
1o0
1 100
100
Cross - Section 1
Channel materials (mm)
Da6 =
8.4
D35 =
15.1
D5. =
23.3
DB =
66.8
D =
143.4
Di.0 =
256.o
Cross - Section i
Individual Class Percent
10%
Cross - Section 1
3044
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
-- • — .....-
70%
So%
50%
40%
3o °A
20%
10%
044
silul
Ii I
go
Ve
obbt
Ild
r
B d
c'.
80
70
�
6o
i
-
50
_ft
40
20
—
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 loo 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO- 2/2013
Cross - Section i
Individual Class Percent
10%
3044
3o%
70%
So%
50%
40%
3o °A
20%
10%
044
a�3 yti otih
0 c0 ti ti yti yrOry �0 2ti �� �v cO yti0 y�0 ry�rO ��ti by yoy ryo�����0
O' O'
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYo - 2/2013

Appendix 2. Morphological Summary Data and Plots
Reachwide and Cross - Section Pebble Count Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
UT2, Reachwide
Monitoring Year 0
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
UT2 Reach Summary
100
silt /clay
silt /clay
RD_silt
ass
Percent
.z
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Percentage
Cumulative
SILT /CLAY JSilt/Clay
o.000 I
o.o62
20
50
70
70
0
90
Very fine
o.o62
0.125
70
Fine
0.12
0.250
1
1
1
1
Medium
0.250
0.500
w
E
V
80
70
50
71
Coarse
0.5
l.o
71
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
71
=ii =3 n } == i';iiiziix3 ==
�;1R���� 8 }�3i'zls }i�i3
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
- -
1
=}
Ve Fine
2.8
4.0
71
i331 }�E i
Fine
1
zip. _ . 3_„.a }i,i
.o
j
R, pi si,ii7'ix;3x ='
iljlulttl ?jisi;: „`3i
Fine
Medium
8.0
8.0
1
1
1
40
30
20
10
11.
-
1
7z
:= i = 3= 3ii33?s33
Medium
11.
16.0
3
1 3
ii
Coarse
16.o
22.6
z
2
z
=
;?i}3 =�I7•7�
i i _:
• l• l :_ I r
Coarse
22.6
z
3
--
3
80
,j
ll
Ve Coarse
2
4
1
1
1
81
'3
Ve Coarse
4
64
4
4
4
8
i == 'M
= :.::
�
Small
64
0
7
O -I
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 2000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
- - MYO- 2/2013
7
7
2
`Z
} }' �IH
Small
0
128
5
5
Lar a
128
180
3
3
loo
ar a
18o
z 6
loo
11111-arge/Very
Small
z 6
62
zoo
Small
62
12
zoo
Medium
12
102
100
Large
1024
2048
zoo
BEDROCK
Bedrock
2048
1 >2048
1
1
1
1
loo
Totall
50
1 50
1 zoo
1 100
1 zoo
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
UT2, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
/clay
100
silt /clay
silt /clay
RD_silt
58.6
.z
s80.o
100%
90%
8o%
70%
a 6o%
U 50%
v
40%
v 30%
20%
30%
o%
UT2, Reachwide
Ind ividual Class Percent
ro9 tiy0 O y oh ti ti 0 y 0 yti ti0 ry �o ,5ti �h fit,. �o x,-. ��0 ryyb 3�ti yyti �oyMryo�O �09�0
00 o
Particle Class Size (mm)
■MVO- z /zo13
UT2, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90
ve
obbl
uld
r
w
E
V
80
70
50
-
-
- -
j
d
40
30
20
10
-r -
-
-
—
--
--
O -I
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 2000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
- - MYO- 2/2013
100%
90%
8o%
70%
a 6o%
U 50%
v
40%
v 30%
20%
30%
o%
UT2, Reachwide
Ind ividual Class Percent
ro9 tiy0 O y oh ti ti 0 y 0 yti ti0 ry �o ,5ti �h fit,. �o x,-. ��0 ryyb 3�ti yyti �oyMryo�O �09�0
00 o
Particle Class Size (mm)
■MVO- z /zo13

Appendix 2. Morphological Summary Data and Plots
Reachwide and Cross - Section Substrate Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
UT2, Cross - Section 4
Monitoring Year 0
Cross - Section 4
Diameter (mm)
Particle
Cross - Section 4
D =
23.3
Count
Summary
Particle Class
70.2
:D=
FD
107.3
90
min
max
Class
Percent
Total
Percentage
Cumulative
SILT /CLAY [Silt/Clay
0.000
o.o62
1
1
1
E
Very fine
o.o62
0.125
1
Fine
0.125
0.250
1
5
Medium
0.250
0.500
1
Coarse
0.5
1.0
1
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
c
1
z.o
2.8
-
1
z.8
y.o
1
1
z
il34.0
:3s^7x-nag}
5.7
z
Kne
i, }3"�,gig
5.7
8.0
z
z
y
S.o
11.3
7
7
11
11.3
16.0
1z
1z
z3
cila'1 gniimg =$i16.0
Coarse
zz.6
22.6
3z
d20
11
12
34
46
j3ry 3�"ei ? „• ? > "g•uii£i Very Coarse
3z
45
20
66
�1)B ai31141,1 ti Ve Coarse
6y
1.
81
" its Small
64
go
11
11
92
3' gigi jig:
r:��i??.• Small
i`i
Large
go
128
6
6
98
128
180
z
z
100
Lar a
180
2S6
I-
100
6o
256
362
100
lSmall
Small
362
512
100
512
1024
100
Medium
Large/VeryLarge
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK JBedrock
2048
>2048
100
Totall
ioo
I loo
I loo
Cross - Section 4
Channel materials (mm)
Di6 =
i2.g
D =
23.3
D, =
34x3
DB =
70.2
:D=
FD
107.3
90
100%
90%
80%
c
u 70 %
a 6o%
�Iv
50%
40%
> 3o°h
v
200A
10%
0%
Cross - Section 4
Individual Class Percent
0. �0ry, o q 0y ti ti 0 w y 0 titi ,sO ;” b „ uh .- 90 "% X00 �yrO gyro �1ti �0tia ryow0 Moto
Particle Class Size (mm)
- -- ■MYo- 212013
Cross - Section 4
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100 -
-- -. i. I*
sl u I
90
obbl
E
I
r
B
d
c
80
-
70
v
'-
I-
6o
E
50
V
I
W
40
W
o.
30
I
III
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 loo 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
— —MYO- 2/2023
100%
90%
80%
c
u 70 %
a 6o%
�Iv
50%
40%
> 3o°h
v
200A
10%
0%
Cross - Section 4
Individual Class Percent
0. �0ry, o q 0y ti ti 0 w y 0 titi ,sO ;” b „ uh .- 90 "% X00 �yrO gyro �1ti �0tia ryow0 Moto
Particle Class Size (mm)
- -- ■MYo- 212013

Appendix z. Morphological Summary Data and Plots
Reachwide and Cross - Section Pebble Count Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
SF3, Reachwide
Monitoring Year o
SF3, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100%
90%
80% ZD 70% — —
o_
60%
50% — — — —
v' 40%
30% - -- —
20%
20%
°%
oy'� ', 0ryy oy h 1 0 W b 11 1,o 1ry1b �ti by �W c° yry0 y'° ryy�0 �y'Y y1ti 1oyW ry0�� �Q�O
o' o•
Particle Class Size (mm)
6 MY0 -z /2023
Particle Class Diameter (mm) Particle Count SF3 Reach Summary
Class Percent
min max Riffle Pool Total Percentage Cumulative
SILT /CLAY Silt /Cla 0.000 o.o62 7 7
Ve fine o.o62 0.22 18 7 25 z z
Fine 0.22 0.2 50 2 4 6
9P�o Medium 0.2 50 0.500 4 0
Coarse o. 1.0 z 5 4
Very Coarse 1.0 2.0 i i 2 46
�' °Iii'• "I I�I{I£�li�•i 6
ii� 1. Very Fine 2.0 2.8
:,.;:3a:'•�jil „� II > Ve Fine 2.8 4.0 46
iI:_Ii��•;3II ��
Fine .o 6
Fine 8.0
iiI &111111 �I�•I
Medium 8.o ii. 1 z 3 0
iii�Il II ' j
'I,i� Medium ii. 16.o 4 9 5
i�a Coarse 26.0 22.6 4 z 6 6 6
}II •� III � Coarse zz.6 z 8 8 8 7
'•�1� I I �� .
ery Coarse z 7 So
Iii���l�; I I•-I
Very Coarse 4 6y 3 8
Small 6y o 7 7 7 0
Small 0 228 3
Ii�• " "..\i" Lar e 228 280 z z z
Lar a 280 z 6
Small 2S6 62 2 i 2 6
Small 62 22 6
Medium 22 ioz 6
Large/Very Large cozy 2048 96
BEDROCK Bedrock 2048 >204
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
SF3, Reachwide
0.08
D =
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
D u =
200
Da
67.2
D =
I
Duo =
9 0
obbl
I
r
�.
�
t3c
Bo
I
d
60
V0
S
I
I
8
4
a
y
200
Total
60
40
200
200
200
SF3, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100%
90%
80% ZD 70% — —
o_
60%
50% — — — —
v' 40%
30% - -- —
20%
20%
°%
oy'� ', 0ryy oy h 1 0 W b 11 1,o 1ry1b �ti by �W c° yry0 y'° ryy�0 �y'Y y1ti 1oyW ry0�� �Q�O
o' o•
Particle Class Size (mm)
6 MY0 -z /2023
Particle Class Diameter (mm) Particle Count SF3 Reach Summary
Class Percent
min max Riffle Pool Total Percentage Cumulative
SILT /CLAY Silt /Cla 0.000 o.o62 7 7
Ve fine o.o62 0.22 18 7 25 z z
Fine 0.22 0.2 50 2 4 6
9P�o Medium 0.2 50 0.500 4 0
Coarse o. 1.0 z 5 4
Very Coarse 1.0 2.0 i i 2 46
�' °Iii'• "I I�I{I£�li�•i 6
ii� 1. Very Fine 2.0 2.8
:,.;:3a:'•�jil „� II > Ve Fine 2.8 4.0 46
iI:_Ii��•;3II ��
Fine .o 6
Fine 8.0
iiI &111111 �I�•I
Medium 8.o ii. 1 z 3 0
iii�Il II ' j
'I,i� Medium ii. 16.o 4 9 5
i�a Coarse 26.0 22.6 4 z 6 6 6
}II •� III � Coarse zz.6 z 8 8 8 7
'•�1� I I �� .
ery Coarse z 7 So
Iii���l�; I I•-I
Very Coarse 4 6y 3 8
Small 6y o 7 7 7 0
Small 0 228 3
Ii�• " "..\i" Lar e 228 280 z z z
Lar a 280 z 6
Small 2S6 62 2 i 2 6
Small 62 22 6
Medium 22 ioz 6
Large/Very Large cozy 2048 96
BEDROCK Bedrock 2048 >204
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
SF3, Reachwide
0.08
D =
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
D u =
200
Da
67.2
D =
I
Duo =
9 0
obbl
I
r
�.
�
t3c
Bo
I
d
60
V0
S
I
I
V
40
I
u
a
3O
20
10
I
I
0
0.02 0.2 2 20 200 2000 20000
Particle Class Size (mm)
tMYO- 2/2023
L-
SF3, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100%
90%
80% ZD 70% — —
o_
60%
50% — — — —
v' 40%
30% - -- —
20%
20%
°%
oy'� ', 0ryy oy h 1 0 W b 11 1,o 1ry1b �ti by �W c° yry0 y'° ryy�0 �y'Y y1ti 1oyW ry0�� �Q�O
o' o•
Particle Class Size (mm)
6 MY0 -z /2023
Particle Class Diameter (mm) Particle Count SF3 Reach Summary
Class Percent
min max Riffle Pool Total Percentage Cumulative
SILT /CLAY Silt /Cla 0.000 o.o62 7 7
Ve fine o.o62 0.22 18 7 25 z z
Fine 0.22 0.2 50 2 4 6
9P�o Medium 0.2 50 0.500 4 0
Coarse o. 1.0 z 5 4
Very Coarse 1.0 2.0 i i 2 46
�' °Iii'• "I I�I{I£�li�•i 6
ii� 1. Very Fine 2.0 2.8
:,.;:3a:'•�jil „� II > Ve Fine 2.8 4.0 46
iI:_Ii��•;3II ��
Fine .o 6
Fine 8.0
iiI &111111 �I�•I
Medium 8.o ii. 1 z 3 0
iii�Il II ' j
'I,i� Medium ii. 16.o 4 9 5
i�a Coarse 26.0 22.6 4 z 6 6 6
}II •� III � Coarse zz.6 z 8 8 8 7
'•�1� I I �� .
ery Coarse z 7 So
Iii���l�; I I•-I
Very Coarse 4 6y 3 8
Small 6y o 7 7 7 0
Small 0 228 3
Ii�• " "..\i" Lar e 228 280 z z z
Lar a 280 z 6
Small 2S6 62 2 i 2 6
Small 62 22 6
Medium 22 ioz 6
Large/Very Large cozy 2048 96
BEDROCK Bedrock 2048 >204
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
p,b =
0.08
D =
o.n
D u =
u.o
Da
67.2
D =
z56.o
Duo =
>zog8

Appendix 2. Morphological Summary Data and Plots
Reachwide and Cross - Section Substrate Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
SF3, Cross - Section 5
Monitoring Year o
Cross - Section 5
Diameter (mm)
Particle
Cross - Section 5 Summary
D35 =
1s 3
Count
20.7
Dg =
49.7
D =
73.1
Dio
Particle Class
Class
Percent
min
max
Total
Percentage
Cumulative
SILT /CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
6
J! 70
Very fine
o.062
0.125 1
1
1
6
Fine
0.125
0.250
6
hP�o
Medium
0.250
o.Soo
6
Coarse
o.5
1.0
1
1
7
Ver y Coarse
1.0
2.0
2
2
?):
,3111 � Very Fine
2.0
z.
z
z
? „; Very Fine
i13i3i ?
)mild ni' ' z1” Fine
} : '`
z.8
4.0
4.0
5.7
1
4
1
4
15
Fine
;; Medium
5.7
8.0
8.0
11.3
5
6
5
5
zo
25
Is'.i:j'
`, $}3:
3 ?„ 3„;j3j § ?l Medium
11.3
16.0
12
11
36
igxli !xl ?ill ?'}
22.6
20
18
5S
Coarse
16.0
i
65
33s33ii93g.i 13 Coarse
3x i iii 3"
22.6
32
12
11
81
3,1 jli Very Coarse
32
45
17
1 S
6
12
11
z
Ve Coarse
d'= Small
64
go
9
8
100
i i ? ?:........, Small
z
go
128
2 50
v
loo
"` Large
g
128
180
i
100
Large
180
z 6
100
Small
256
362
100
362
512
40
100
Small
512
1024
100
Medium
1024
2048
100
Large/Very Large/Very Large
BEDROCK Bedrock
2048
>2048
loo
Totall
iio
loo
loo
Cross - Section 5
Channel materials (mm)
D�6 =
s.e
D35 =
1s 3
D, =
20.7
Dg =
49.7
D =
73.1
Dio
Cross - Section 5
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
loo
i i - — �♦
go
- ave obbl r
8 d
80
J! 70
w
i
I
>- 60
i
2 50
v
i
40
a 30
20
10
I
�
O
0.01
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
[7—:�MYO- -/2013

Appendix 2. Morphological Summary Data and Plots
Reachwide and Cross - Section Substrate Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
SF3, Cross - Section 7
Monitoring Year o
Cross - Section 7
Diameter (mm)
Particle
Cross - Section 7 Summary
D =
25.7
Count
354
Particle Class
80.3
80
115.x
180.0
I
Class
Percent
min
max
Total
Percentage
Cumulative
SILT /CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
o.o62 1
0
Very fine
o.o62
0.125 1
2
2
2
Fine
0.125
0.250
1
1
3
yPC�O
Medium
0.250
0.5oo
3
Coarse
o.5
1.0
>-
3
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
1
1
4
3
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
4
I IIj§ gpl� �JN 1.1
�IrI3
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
1
1
5
6o
Fine
4.0
5.7
5
I} }m ??t# `
Fine
5.7
8.o
z
z
7
1
IIlgl ?' I
Medium
Medium
8.0
11.3
11.3
16.o
3
7
3
7
10
17
II=
i3 } ;' 31 11113 1
Coarse
16.0
22.6
12
16
12
16
zg
45
I3
21 II§
Coarse
22.6
32
�I3�:� 1'•I 31
')g73 I� 31Ig'3 B..
Very Coarse
32
45
17
17
62
#3%3313'13 iI
33°
Very Coarse
4S
64
14
76
"iii iii€ 3131 'sll s33111s
Small
64
go
1 12
12
1 88
Small
go
128
10
10
98
1�:�z::3s1 iil Large
128
180
z
z
100
. . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lar e
..
18o
z 6
100
Small
256
362
100
362
512
100
Small
512
1024
loo
Medium
Lar e /Ve Lar e
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK Bedrock
2048
>2048
1
10o
Total
100
100
1 100
Cross - Section 7
Channel materials (mm)
D :6 =
25.2
D =
25.7
Do=
354
DrD=
80.3
80
115.x
180.0
Cross-Section Cross - Section 7
Individual Class Percent
100 °.6 _ - - -_
90 % - - -
80% -
JO% - -
`v
a 6o% - - --
LJ 50%
40%
v ,
> j0% — - - -
20% — __ — - -- - - - - - -- —
10%
0%
'ti0 0
-
04,� titi5 ti5 05 ti ti 0 a h 0 titi ti0 ry �o .fro �„h 30�+ oo o ryt�° toti ti "` ryo1„ �oo�O
0 0 0
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYo - 2/2013
Cross - Section 7
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
- �-
I
go
veI obbl r
B d c
80
I
70
>-
6o
Ej 50
v
I
c 40
u
a 30
20
I
�I
10
tt
_LL
0
0.01 0.1
1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
YO-2/20-13
Cross-Section Cross - Section 7
Individual Class Percent
100 °.6 _ - - -_
90 % - - -
80% -
JO% - -
`v
a 6o% - - --
LJ 50%
40%
v ,
> j0% — - - -
20% — __ — - -- - - - - - -- —
10%
0%
'ti0 0
-
04,� titi5 ti5 05 ti ti 0 a h 0 titi ti0 ry �o .fro �„h 30�+ oo o ryt�° toti ti "` ryo1„ �oo�O
0 0 0
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYo - 2/2013

Appendix z. Morphological Summary Data and Plots
Reachwide and Cross - Section Substrate Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94643.)
SF3, Cross - Section 9
Monitoring Year o
Cross - Section 9
Diameter(mm) Particle
Cross- Section Summary
6.g
D, o =
Sys
Count
55 3
D =
983
D,o =
Cross - Section 9
Particle Class
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
Class
Percent
min max Total
Percentage
Cumulative
100
♦ .
- �-
SILT /CLAY Silt /Cla
0.000 o.o6z 5
go
rave obbl
I r
Very fine
o.o6z o.1z5
5
B d cc
Fine
o.1z5 o.z5o z
z
7
SP�o Medium
o.z5o 0.500
7
v
'-
Coarse
o.5 1.0
7
60
Very Coarse
1.o z.o 3
10
?
So
;:ii> •i ;- '•• =:3'_: gVery Fine
i,13'£,1�:- ��i•i�g9 }„��� Very Fine
z.o z.8 1
z.8 4.0
1
11
11
v
c
V
40
i ?ml�?:�
z
z
13
a
30
i)•;�i�1i Fine
13$•.�. ?�liiill � 3.3'
y.o 5.7
i i���i� �'�;j� Fine
i i) i�3?'x i 'li�
Medium
5.7 8.0 5
8.0 13..3 9
5
9
3.8
z7
20 —
1
10 —
}')�� Medium
3.1.3 16.0 1z
3.z
39
1},$1�3�
S•3.:
Coarse
16.0 zz.6 18
18
00.02
100
1000 3.0000
�. Coarse
zz.6 3z 10
10
67
0.1
1 10
i��:i is i•�,.�.I
Very Coarse
3z 45 10
10
77
Particle Class Size (mm)
;l� Very Coarse
6 1z
1z
8
t MYo- zlzol3
�� ;�����`•\ Small
go 1z8 4
4
98
1oz4
zoy8
Large
•,' }i }�i5ics } } }a� }��� 3.3
1z8 180 z
z
100
zoy8
>zo48
Cross- Section 9
100
180 z 6
100
100
100
Individual Class Percent
Small
z56 36z
100
100%
Small
36z 51z
100
Medium
51z 1oz4
100
90%
Boob
-
Lar e /Ve Large
c
v
70%
— -
6o%
iD
50`%b
v
40%
a
3oOA
c
_
30�Ib
10%
0%
O�7, hry4, ,y(.� 0(� 1
'Y 0 H q'r y`o ry �O �'L �yh faN p�0 h1� 1Q0
,tic.�o ,��p'l• yq'Y h0,,.b ry0O �DO�o
0 0 0'
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYo- 112013
Cross - Section 9
Channel materials (mm)
Di6 =
6.g
D, o =
Sys
DB =
55 3
D =
983
D,o =
3.80.0
1oz4
zoy8
100
BEDROCK Bedrock
zoy8
>zo48
100
Total
100
100
100
Cross - Section 9
Channel materials (mm)
Di6 =
6.g
D, o =
Sys
DB =
55 3
D =
983
D,o =
3.80.0

Appendix z. Morphological Summary Data and Plots
Reachwide and Cross - Section Pebble Count Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
UT3., Reachwide
Monitoring Year o
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
UT1 Reach Summary
D =
o.z6
D, =
0.3
Da =
26.9
Dqs =
na
D,o =
Class
Percent
�,�o max Riffle
Pool
Total
Percentage
Cumulative
Ve
SILT /CLAY Silt /Cla
o.062
8
r
1
1
1
Very fine
o.o62 0.125
5
6
11
11
26
Fine
0.125 0.2 50
8
16
z4
z
o
Bo
yPC�O Medium
0.2 50 o. oo
y
4
Coarse
o. 1.0
1
1
1
Very Coarse
1.0 2.0
-.3 °� • Very Fine
2.0 2.8
3: i i•�x
?9 I
Ve Fine
2.8 4.0
z
z
z
7
1
z
Fine
.o
1
z
Fine
8.0
3
z
5
64
60
Medium
8.0 11.
3
3
67
-I' Medium
11. 16.o
z
1
3
0
Ir 3 if Coarse
16.0 22.6
to
40
to
10
80
Coarse
zz.6 z
13
8
8
88
I��� )93, ��'' Very Coarse
z y
4
y
z
# Ve Coarse
6y
z
z
z
y
Small
6 0
3
7
V
iiii�'� ;iii; •::.�:::::
I ±�'�" °•• Small
o 128
Large
128 180
1
1
1
6
�
c
40
UTi, Reachwide
Lar e
l8o 2S6
z
z
z
loo
Individual Class Percent
Small
2S6 62
loo
100%
Small
62 lz
loo
g0%
-
Medium
lz loz
loo
B0%
3o
Large/Very Large
lozy 2048
loo
c
°
70%
i
BEDROCK Bedrock
2048 12o4
a
6o%
50%
— - -- —
10
>
30%
2C:%
o% -
10
—
-
Obi yr(z o,YC, Oy 'r
0' O'
•L 0 h h 0 titi ti� ry �o ,�'L �5 �b
�O x,10 yO0 ryy�o ��'Y yy'l 10,1•Nry0q, NO,�
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYo- 2/2023
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
Di6 =
0.07
D =
o.z6
D, =
0.3
Da =
26.9
Dqs =
na
D,o =
256.o
Ve
obbl
r
Bo
v
>-
60
8
loo
Total
65
40
loo
100
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
Di6 =
0.07
D =
o.z6
D, =
0.3
Da =
26.9
Dqs =
na
D,o =
256.o
UTl, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
—
9 0
Ve
obbl
r
Bo
v
>-
60
V
�
c
40
i
m
a
3o
i
10
10
—
-
0
0.01
O.1 1 10 300 1000 310000
Particle Class Size (mm)
—� MYo- 2/2013 �

Appendix 2. Morphological Summary Data and Plots
Reachwide and Cross - Section Substrate Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
UT1, Cross - Section 10
aA-- i4 —,,..- v_nr n

Appendix 2. Morphological Summary Data and Plots
Reachwide and Cross - Section Pebble Count Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
SF4, Reachwide
Monitoring Year 0
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
SF4 Reach Summary
0.36
D °=
63
pe
102.5
Dgs =
320.7
Dioo =
Class
Percent
min max Riffle
Pool
Total
Percentage
Cumulative
ve
SILT /CLAY Silt/Clay
o.000 o.o62
z
g
r
Very fine
o.a62 0.125
3
6
6
is
Fine
0.125 0.2 50
5
6
11
a
26
Medium
0.2 50 0.500
z
16
i8
18
SPao
Coarse
o. i.o
Ve Coarse
2.0 2.0
i
i
i
6
g7
3i�a ?r- ,i ?`?j�•3t; 3�3 Very Fine
2.0 2.8
i
z
1
,})xi•��'g' } � Ve Fine
2.8 4.0
i
i
i
48
Fine
1
z
3
0
.o
Fine
?i�b��.l.��•. '� Medium
8.0
8.o
i
i
z
z
z
6
iz.
3
i
4
4
?)3�'?g ) ��jxI•• Medium
ii. 16.o
3
z
5
61
3i)� ?=9-999• 33�� Coarse
26.o 22.6
z
z
z
6
22.6
4
z
6
6
6
i3�Coarse
; Very Coarse
z
A64
i
i
z
z
i
very Coarse
4
i
6
6
77
�
Small
64 o
5
8z
;;iii: }i`y��.; Small
o 128
y
i
5
8
• ••�� "•' Large
iz8 18o
i
4
y
i
SF4, Reachwide
Lar e
18o 2S6
z
z
z
Individual Class Percent
Small
256 62
3
3
6
Small
62 zz
40
i
6
i00%
Medium
iz zozy
6
go °b
Large/Very Large
cozy 2048
96
c
So%
V
70%
BEDROCK Bedrock
2048 >2048
q
a
y
ioo
W
Total
52
50
30
a
60% -
O
v
50%
a
40%
zo
v
30%
s
20%
i
io
zo%
O%
0
o.oi
Off', hryy o y O4� �r
'Y U� B .>y ,rho �ry�0 ,�'4 wy (zb o�0 h,}� ry0O ryC.}o 'b'L yy'L
Particle Class Size (mm)
tMYo- 2/2023
0 0
1O,LPryOy,O kO9�o
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO -z /2023
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
Ds6 =
013
D =
0.36
D °=
63
pe
102.5
Dgs =
320.7
Dioo =
>2048
ve
bl
I
r
8a
I
70
I "
ar
'-
60
E
�
So
V
ioi
ioo
ioo
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
Ds6 =
013
D =
0.36
D °=
63
pe
102.5
Dgs =
320.7
Dioo =
>2048
SF4, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
ioo
90
ve
bl
I
r
8a
I
70
I "
ar
'-
60
E
�
So
V
V
40
i
u
a`,
a
30
i
zo
io
0
o.oi
o.i a io ioo i000 i0000
Particle Class Size (mm)
tMYo- 2/2023

Appendix 2. Morphological Summary Data and Plots
Reachwide and Cross - Section Substrate Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
SF4, Cross - Section 13
Monitoring Year 0
Cross - Section 13
Diameter (mm)
Particle
Cross - Section 1 Summa ry
3
D =
na
Count
29.1
D8 =
70.5
ve obbl
I r B d c
D,o =
Particle Class
Class
Percent
min
max
Total
Percentage
Cumulative
SILT /CLAY
t /Cla
0.000
o.o62
2
2
2
Very fine
o.o62
0.125
2
7E,
Fine
0.125
0.250
1
1
3
Med ium
..250
0.500
3
Coarse
o.5
1.0
3
3
6
Ve ry Coarse
1.0
2.0
7
7
1
pi ?xia3 " ? ?13. Very Fine
1"' =i �•�•!�'� Very Fine
2.0
2.8
2.8
4. 0
1
3
1
3
14
17
? ?, Fine
4.0
5.7
17
Fine
5.7
8.0
1
1
18
Medium
8.0
11.3
7
7
2S
Medium
11.3
16.0
8
8
33
=3:
�;) "; 1, • •3 � Coarse
Coarse
16.0
22.6
12.6
32
8
13
8
13
41
53
Very Coarse
Very Coarse
32
4S
45
64
1
15
13
1
66
81
~;;•3; i;i; 'si:33 Small
64
90
10
10
91
Small
9 0
128
6
6
97
Z ZZ,
Large
128
180
z
2
99
ZM
::....._ ::......:::..
Lar e
180
z 6
1
1
100
Small
256
362
100
362
512
100
Small
512
1024
100
Medium
1024
2048
100
Lar e/Ve Lar e
BEDROCK 113edrock
2048
1 >2048
Particle Class Size (mm)
loo
Totall
101
100
100
Cross - Section 13
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
3.6
D =
na
D, =
29.1
D8 =
70.5
ve obbl
I r B d c
D,o =
256.0
Cross - Section 13
Individual Class Percent
10045
90 °r6 - - -- - - - - - -
c
70% — - - --
m
N6o% - - -
600 — -- – – –
400 – – – – –
v –
v300/6 - - –
c 20°.5 – – - -- – - - -– – --
0%
�� tih tih oy h ti h 1ti ti� ry �ti �y �u �0 1ry� 1�o ryyy ��ry ytiry �0ti?, ryo0'e
0 0~
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYo - 2/1013
I
Cross - Section 13
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
loo
—
I1
90
ve obbl
I r B d c
8o
0 70
a,
> 6o
I..
so
c 40
u
I
a 30
20
!
I
_
_!
00.01
0.1 1 10 100
1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYo- 212013
Cross - Section 13
Individual Class Percent
10045
90 °r6 - - -- - - - - - -
c
70% — - - --
m
N6o% - - -
600 — -- – – –
400 – – – – –
v –
v300/6 - - –
c 20°.5 – – - -- – - - -– – --
0%
�� tih tih oy h ti h 1ti ti� ry �ti �y �u �0 1ry� 1�o ryyy ��ry ytiry �0ti?, ryo0'e
0 0~
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYo - 2/1013
I

Appendix 2. Morphological Summary Data and Plots
Reachwide and Cross - Section Substrate Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
SK Cross - Section 15
Monitoring Year 0
Cross - Section 15
Diameter (mm)
Particle
Cross - Section 15 Summary
D =
16.o
Count
35.6
D8 =
104.5
D =
lna
D,00 =
Particle Class
B d c
Class
Percent
min
max
Total
Percentage
Cumulative
SILT /CLAY
Silt/Cla
0.000
o.o62
8
8
8
yeryfine
o.o62
0.125
2
2
to
Fine
0.125
0.250
to
Medium
0.250
0.500
3
3
13
Coarse
0.5
1.0
13
Ve Coarse
1.0
2.0
5
17
1. Very Fine
iai a k' i . ry
2.o
z.8
1
1
18
3..
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
1
1
19
Fine
Fine
4. o
5.7
5-7
8.0
3
3
3
3
2z
25
i.�
Medium
8.0
11.3
4
4
29
6
6
35
Medium
3k 3�1 3
11.3
16.0
16.o
22.6
8
B
43
j Coarse
' Coarse
22.6
32
5
5
48
Very Coarse
32
45
8
8
55
Very Coarse
6
12
12
6
:: ;:;;a:;:;•;;:;; Small
64
90
12
12
79
\
:, Small
90
128
13
13
gl
`(i'i "''' Large
i
128
180
4
4
95
18o
2q6
5
loo
:.....:..:.:....:..
Small
2 56
362
loo
Small
362
512
loo
512
1024
loo
Medium
1024
2048
loo
Lar e /Ve La r e
BEDROCK lBedrock
2048
1 >2048
loo
Totall
103
loo
loo
Cross - Section 15
Channel materials (mm)
D 6 =
1.6
D =
16.o
D o =
35.6
D8 =
104.5
D =
lna
D,00 =
z56.o
i
Z00%
900A
80%
70%
0 60%
U 50%
400b
v
:a 30%
1096
20%
0%
Cross - Section iS
Individual Class Percent
lb �w y l y1 ,yam ry, b '> _', b" Oj ,y1° , ryy _, ' 4h' 0 -•, �.
o h o•
O' O'
Particle Class Size (mm)
■MYO- 2/2013
Cross - Section 15
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
200
lit/ I
90
—vel bbl
r
B d c
70
6o
0
E 50
V
m 40
`
T.. .._
20
20
0
0.01
0.1 1 20 loo
loco 20000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO-2/2023
i
Z00%
900A
80%
70%
0 60%
U 50%
400b
v
:a 30%
1096
20%
0%
Cross - Section iS
Individual Class Percent
lb �w y l y1 ,yam ry, b '> _', b" Oj ,y1° , ryy _, ' 4h' 0 -•, �.
o h o•
O' O'
Particle Class Size (mm)
■MYO- 2/2013

Appendix 2. Morphological Summary Data and Plots
Reachwide and Cross - Section Pebble Count Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
SF4A, Reachwide
Monitoring Year 0
Reachwide
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
SF4A Reach Summary
Bo%
o.iz
7096
Particle Class
UDD100
yq.o
go
�avel i obbl r
ass
Percent
3094
zo94
1094
—
—
70
min max Riffle
Pool
Total
Percentage
Cumulative
SILT /CLAY Silt/Clay
o.000 o.o62
y
3
3
3
29
1
F Ill
o.o6z o.3z
7
33
38
38
6
o.3z o.z o
3
3
3
o.z o o. oo
z
6
8
8
>—
m
o. 3.0
3
48
3.0 2.0
z
z
y
z
��� Ve Fine
� . Fine
z.o z.8
2.8 y.o
3
3
3
3
z
z
z
z
6
5o
li •���a�:3�?
Fine
6
)a ��• ! •�a � Fine
4.0
8.0
4
4
60
c
u
40
33 }�� t� i Medium
8.o u.
z
z
z
62
i��3g3j'I ( Medium
3'a
33. 36.0
3
3
6
m
30 -
tli 1'
!r��;•;�� � � ' Coarse
36.o 22.6
7
7
Coarse
22.6 z
8
8
8
7
Coarse
z
6
8
�i �• �
10
� i. Ve Coarse
4 64
9
Small
64 90
6
6
6
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 3000 10000
`Small
0 3z8
—� M— Yo- zlzoa3 -,
••*' "i Lar e
328 380
Lar e
38o 2r6
loo
loo
SF4A, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
Small
2;6 6z
3
3
3
loo
1
Small
62 3z
300
Medium
lz 3024
300
Large/Very Large
1024 2048
300
C
a,
BEDROCK Bedrock
2048 12046
300
a
Total
62
40
102
N
m
v
A
i v
v
c
0%
(p .y4) h
1 0 1. 0 y'r y� .y'k uh fps" p0 ,Yry� ,yQO ,14b ,�('1ti y1ti
tiyh O(�
0 0'
h0'YN ryOp� NOpb
ry
09
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO•z/m13
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
SF4A, Reachwide
silt /clay
Bo%
o.iz
7096
loo
UDD100
yq.o
go
�avel i obbl r
400,4
36z.o
3094
zo94
1094
—
—
70
>—
m
6o
�
U
5o
c
u
40
m
30 -
zo
10
- _-
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 3000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
—� M— Yo- zlzoa3 -,
loo
loo
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
SF4A, Reachwide
silt /clay
Bo%
o.iz
7096
loo
UDD100
yq.o
go
�avel i obbl r
400,4
36z.o
oo9i
SF4A, Reachwide
Bo%
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
7096
loo
6094
go
�avel i obbl r
400,4
Bo
3094
zo94
1094
—
—
70
>—
m
6o
�
U
5o
c
u
40
m
30 -
zo
10
- _-
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 3000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
—� M— Yo- zlzoa3 -,
oo9i
go96
Bo%
7096
6094
5096
400,4
3094
zo94
1094
—
—

Appendix 2. Morphological Summary Data and Plots
Reachwide and Cross - Section Substrate Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
SMA, Cross - Section 16
Monitoring Year 0
Cross - Section 16
Diameter (mm) Particle
Cross-Section 16 Summary
:.a
D =
7.2
D, =
iz7
Count
33.1
D =
50.6
p,o =
90.0
Particle Class
90
—
Class
Percent
ve
min max Total
Percentage
Cumulative
r
B
d
c i.
SILT /CLAY Silt /Cla
0.000 o.o62 y
Bo
Very fine
o.o62 0.125
y
Fine
0.125 0.250 z
z
6
yPCY� Medium
0.250 0.500
6
Coarse
o.5 1.0 3
3
9
Very Coarse
1.0 2.0 z
z
11
Very Fine
Very Fine
,•
2.0 2.8 5
2.8 4.0 6
5
6
16
zz
70
t Fine
1
4.0 5.7 8
8
30
��)�� i� =�3• Fine
5.7 8.0 7
7
37
Medium
8.0 11.3 7
7
44
li�� 3c "tji, Medium
u.3 16.0 16
16
60
III 3ylf�i�a��1� Coarse
16.o zz.6 12
12
7 z
22.6 z 11
3
11
8 3
�
60
.�1�
3 -;x'i
z 10
3 4S
10
93
���;� ' � Ve Coarse
y 6 6
6
i,��' =��i:•iia3ta��; Small
64 go 1
1
100
Small
go 128
100
Large
1z8 180
8
100
100
Total
100
Lar e
180 2S6
100
Cross - Section 16
�
50
Individual Class Percent
Small
256 362
100
Small
362 512
100
100%
I
Medium
512 lozy
100
]Large/very Large
lozy 2o48
100
BEDROCK Bedrock
2048 >204
a
v
uyo
a
v
v
a
3o
0%
�O�ryh
�ti Hy b4
�O yeti
ryyb
Oryh
OD
ryry�
��1
�o,�,N ryOW� ��ro
M1,yO h�0
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYo- z /zo13
Cross - Section 16
Channel materials (mm)
p,b =
:.a
D =
7.2
D, =
iz7
DB =
33.1
D =
50.6
p,o =
90.0
zoob
1096
90
—
ve
obbl
r
B
d
c i.
Bo
I
70
—
-
�
60
8
100
Total
100
100
100
Cross - Section 16
Channel materials (mm)
p,b =
:.a
D =
7.2
D, =
iz7
DB =
33.1
D =
50.6
p,o =
90.0
Cross - Section 16
7o°rb
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
6096
100
5096
yo9b
-
3096
zoob
1096
90
—
ve
obbl
r
B
d
c i.
Bo
I
70
—
-
�
60
�
50
�
V
uyo
a
3o
I
zo
�
10
o
0.01 0.1 1 10
100 loo0 l0000
Particle Class Size (mm)
+MYo- z /zo13
go96
8o9b
7o°rb
6096
5096
yo9b
-
3096
zoob
1096
—

Appendix 2. Morphological Summary Data and Plots
Reachwide and Cross - Section Substrate Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
SF4A, Cross - Section 17
Monitoring Year 0
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Particle
Count
Cross - Section 17 Summary
min
max
Total
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
SILT /CLAY
JSilt/Clay
0.000
o.o62
0
Very fine
o.o62
0.12S
6
6
6
Fine
0.125
0.250
7
7
13
5
Medium
0.250
0.500
11
11
24
Coarse
0.5
1.0
3
3
27
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
7
7
4
, sl ;i d ,•{ i 1.. Very Fine
??3 =iai, ^= ', Very Fine
I;II; ?xii ; 11 Fine
u�xj•? ?
ii ?P?313i =ice
a=u:= iai Fine
?I.i Medium
Medium
2.0
2.8
4.0
5.7
8.o
2.8
4.0
S•7
8.0
u.3
z
3
3
6
4
z
3
3
6
4
36
39
42
48
52
u.3
16.0
12
12
64
Coarse
16.0
22.6
7
7
71
Coarse
22.6
32
8
8
79
Very Coarse
32
45
10
10
89
Ve Coarse
6
70
2
Small
Small
ica .'` ?"_ ?? ? := Large
64
go
z
z
94
9 o
128
328
18o
6
6
Soo
Soo
"3 ::`:i83:ii?3? Lar e
180
z 6
Soo
Small
362
Soo
Small
512
Soo
Medium
�re
L36
lozy
Soo
Lar e /Ve
zo48
100
BEDROCK lBedrock
2048
>2048
1
1
loo
Totall
Soo
I loo
Soo
Cross - Section 17
Channel materials Inn
D,6 =
°3
p =
1.4
D5. =
9.4
D8 =
379
D =
95.4
D_
Cross - Section 17
Individual Class Percent
300%
90%
8045
c
70% -
v
0 6o%
cj SO% —
40% —
30%
20% —
30%
0%
0��011y 01� 0(� h 1 0 =x h 0 11 ,yiO 1� �1 wy 10" C0 hry0 1V 1011, 10w0181b
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYo- 3/1033
Cross - Section 17
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
Soo
•
_I
90
Ve
obbl
r
B
c
Bo
—
I
70
'-
6o
—
E 5o
v
c
40
a 30
i
20
I
30
_
I
o
0.03 0.1 1 10 loo 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
—0 -MYo- 2/2013
Cross - Section 17
Individual Class Percent
300%
90%
8045
c
70% -
v
0 6o%
cj SO% —
40% —
30%
20% —
30%
0%
0��011y 01� 0(� h 1 0 =x h 0 11 ,yiO 1� �1 wy 10" C0 hry0 1V 1011, 10w0181b
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYo- 3/1033

Stream Photographs (Harris Site)

Photo Points — looking upstream (01/22/2013)
Photo Point 1— looking downstream (01/22/2013)
Photo Point 2 — looking upstream (01/22/2013)
Photo Point 2 — looking downstream (01/22/2013)
Photo Point 3 — looking upstream (01/22/2013) I Photo Point 3— looking downstream (01/22/2013)
Underwood Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Morphological Summary Data and Plots— Stream Photographs

ELM C.>7W iW =�IW
I
Photo Point 4 — looking upstream (01/22/2013)
Photo Point q— looking downstream (01/22 /2013)
Photo Point 5— looking upstream (05/17/2012)
�ry ',� 11� .j• �Y J
Zi
P
Photo Point 6 — looking upstream (01/22/2013)
Photo Point 5 — looking downstream (05/17/2012)
✓ t ��'M t PIG _� t
Photo Point 6 — looking downstream (01/22/2013)
Underwood Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Morphological Summary Data and Plots— Stream Photographs

Photo Point 7—looking upstream (01/22/2013) I Photo Point 7 — looking downstream (01/22/203.3)
Photo Point 8 —looking upstream (01/22/2013)
I- I ® &M Lk:}I
Photo Point 8— looking downstream (01/22/2013)
F_ Photo Point 9 — looking upstream (01/22/2013) Photo Point 9 — looking downstream (03./22/2013)
Underwood Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Morphological Summary Data and Plots— Stream Photographs

St
I
ml
I 1
Iw
'I In

Underwood Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Morphological Summary Data and Plots— Stream Photographs
t
qf
z
• F
Photo Point 3.3 — looking upstream (2/22/2013)
@%kW&&ktv
d 1
t.
6: -.
•p �1i� F �l �
^•��_
i �
x.4.,1 -�
y'
f
NOW
't
a
Underwood Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Morphological Summary Data and Plots— Stream Photographs

Underwood Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Morphological Summary Data and Plots— Stream Photographs

Photo Point 19 — looking upstream (01/22/2013)
Photo Point 20 — looking upstream (01/22/2013)
Photo Point 19 — looking upstream (01/22/2013)
� D
Photo Point 20— looking upstream (01/22/2013)
Photo Point 21— looking upstream (1/22/2013)
Photo Point 21— looking downstream (1/22/2013)
Underwood Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Morphological Summary Data and Plots— Stream Photographs

Photo Point 22 — looking upstream (1/22/2013) I Photo Point 22 — looking downstream (1/22/2013)
5 W15 7 v
Photo Point 23 — looking upstream (1/22/2013) Photo Point 23— looking downstream (1/22/2013)
i ;�!4 nil ._,
Photo Point 24— looking upstream (01/22/2013) I Photo Point 24— 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

Photo Point 28 — looking upstream (01/22/2013)
Photo Point 28 — looking downstream (01/22/2013)
Photo Point 29 — looking upstream (01/22/2013)
r
Photo Point 30— looking upstream (01/22/2013)
Photo Point 29 — looking downstream (01/22/2013)
- x
VIN
f
'r ry Ifs
� t
Photo Point 30 — 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
.
!X 7 r,
•��s }` S.._. SI 'Yi!R Fes,.. ,. �
..
Photo Point 31 —looking upstream (02/12/2013)
Photo Point 33. — looking downstream (02/12 /2013)
yr- ... � '� ,° �y '-. i ;� � v * A y 4. _ ♦v. ' "
e i� tt
- ' '
d
VIC
ti F A/ G
S
Y
.Y
Photo Point 34— looking upstream (02/12/2013)
Photo Point 34 — looking downstream (02/12/2013)
� ti..
=.i..
-
..
'+ J
f .A Jr 4 IT'. {, 1^ ` �
:.i.
�T j '. � �S6 . -�tt�f f•.
Y �,�,.;., •S :
J�—�� x+i rc S`.
c s a� � '�: ra �� �
c
Photo Point 35— looking upstream (02/12/2013)
Photo Point 35— looking downstream (02/12/2013)
Underwood Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Morphological Summary Data and Plots— Stream Photographs

Photo Point 36 — looking upstream (02/12 /2013) I Photo Point 36 — looking downstream (02 /22/2013) I
Photo Point 37— looking upstream (02/12/2013)
Photo Point 37— looking downstream (02/22/2023)
Photo Point 38— looking upstream (02/12/2013) I Photo Point 38 — looking downstream (02/22/2013)
Underwood Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Morphological Summary Data and Plots— Stream Photographs

Photo Point 39 — looking downstream (02112/2013)
Underwood Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Morphological Summary Data and Plots— Stream Photographs

Stream Photographs (Lindley Site)

Underwood Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Morphological Summary Data and Plots— Stream Photographs

Underwood Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Morphological Summary Data and Plots— Stream Photographs
n
Photo Point 43 —looking upstream (01/22/201-.
n
r
U �
q
v
l
i
!
1 QQ _
T .i ♦
'.. ��� -f5
4
�
T
k. � �$� f
���� �
W -
`.�. f, ��r`i)S4`•.` - i
tit
:•f'j+F�W � .��.�� i.
G t.4�..
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
k'/i}
�{��?37
5
,pp
y
k+
3'`
l
'tire'
4
t
• • • • • • • • • • •
• • • • • • • • • • •
.
r
L`iy'
��4, `,�%1 i'•+ti P *Z.,,Qiys
Y a'
i
�aI ./
hpK w,e t�yl t -'�✓'
:+ 7 'y` N'i f ,.�
x
-�-}
• • • • • • • • • •
• • • • • • • • • • •
a .a
i -{
l �ll�0i
f
fi
f Ike.
_
err —
}•'
}.
1.R. i..
3
7
Photo Point 48 — looking upstream(Ol/22/2013)
Underwood Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Morphological Summary Data and Plots— Stream Photographs

APPENDIX 3. Vegetation Plot Data

APPENDIX 3. Vegetation Plot Data

Appendix 3 Vegetation Plot Data
Table 7a Planted and Total Stem Counts (Species by Plot with Annual Means)
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No 94641)
Harris Site
Monitoring Year 0
Name
Type =Shrub or Tree
P = Planted
T = Total
Tree
Species Count
Stem Count
ii

Appendix 3 Vegetation Plot Data
Table 7b Planted and Total Stem Counts (Species by Plot with Annual Means)
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No 94641)
Harris Site
Monitoring Year 0
Type =Shrub or Tree
P = Planted
T = Total
Current Data (MYo- 1/2013) I
Annual Means
Species Common Name Type
Betula ni r0 river birch Tree
Plot 16 Plot 17 1 Plot 18 Plot 19 1 Plot 20 Plot 21 Plot 22 Plot 23 Plot 24 Plot 25 Plot 26 Plot 27 Plot 28 Plot 29
P T P T P T P I T J P T P T P T P T P T P T P T P T
z 2 1 1 2 z 1 1 1 1 2 8
Current Mean
P T
Corpus amomum silky dogwood Shrub
6 6 2 z
Frawnus enns lvanica
Linodendron tub i era
green ash
tuli tree
Tree
Tree
z
2
1
2
1
z
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
Platanus ocodentatis
Americans camore
Tree
1
1
2
2
1
1
6
6
2
Quercus michauwi
Quercus o oda
Quercus hellos
swam chestnut oak
Cher bark oak
willow oak
Tree
Tree
Tree
2
2
2
z
6
z
z
6
6
1
6
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
z
2
1
2
z
1
8
2
8
S
2
2
6
1
2
6
1
1
z
1
z
z
z
BE
8
Sabxserncea sd willow Tree
2 z z
Plot Area (acres)
Speue!s=
Stem Count
Stems per Acrel
00247
6
6
6
6
6
6
8
8
6
6
6
6
6
6
1 '19
19
18
18
1 17
1 17
1 3,7
17
1
-17
1 16
1 16
1 21
1 21
1 18
1 18
1 15
1 15
1 17
17
17
1 17
1 16
1 16
1 18
1 18
1 24
1 24
1
1
Z62
6
2 9
729
1688
1688
1688
688
688
1688
1 64816481
85o 85ol
85o[7291
72
6071
6o7
L6881
688168816881648
1648
1729
1729
2
2
6^2
1 698
Type =Shrub or Tree
P = Planted
T = Total

Appendix 3 Vegetation Plot Data
Table 7c Planted and Total Stem Counts (Species by Plot with Annual Means)
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No 94641)
Lindley Site
Monitoring Year 0
Type =Shrub or Tree
P = Planted
T = Total
Current Data (MYo- 1/2013)
Annual Means
Species
Common Name
Type
Plot 30
Plot 31
Plot 32
Plot 3
Plot 34
Plot 35
Plot 36
Plot 37
Plot 38
Plot g
Plot 40
Plot 41
Plot 42
Current Mean
P
T
P
T
P
T
P
T
P
T
P
T
P
T
P
T
P
T
P
T
P
T
P
T
P
T
P
T
Betula ni ra
river birch
Tree
z
z
1
1
2
2
1
1
4
4
4
4
Corpus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
2
z
2
2
1
1
2
z
4
4
1
1
z
2
1
1
4
4
1
1
Fraxmus perinsylvanica
green ash
Tree
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
1
10
10
4
4
1
1
1
1
Linodendron tuli i era
tuh tree
Tree
1
1
2
z
1
1
4
4
z
2
Platanusoccidentabs
Americansycamore
Tree
1
1
1
1
5
5
6
6
4
4
8
8
1
1
1
1
1 1
1
z
z
Quercusmchauxu
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
4
4
6
6
3
3
2
z
Quercus o oda
cherrybark oak
Tree
4
6
6
3
1
1
z
z
2
2
6
6
2
z
Quercus hellos
willow oak
Tree
6
6
2
z
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
Salixsencea
silk willow
Tree
z
2
6
6
1
1
1
1
Plot Area (acres)
Species Count
Stem Count
Stems erAcre
00247
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
p8iol
�891
22
18
18
z2
22
2
2
1
1
20
20
1
1
1
1
20
20
1
1
20
20
1
1
1
1
0
893.
1 729
z
8911
8911
1
1 93j-
1 6o7
I 6o7
I 810
I 810
1 769
6
6 9
1 769
1 810
1 810
1 526
1 526
1 810
I 810
I c26
I r26
698
6 8
Type =Shrub or Tree
P = Planted
T = Total

Appendix 3. Vegetation Plot Data
Table Ba. CVS Vegetation Tables - Metadata
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No 94641)
Harris Site
Monitoring Year 0
Report Prepared By
Alea Tuttle
Date Prepared
2/11 /201315 02
database name
Underwood MYo- cvs -ee -ent tool-v2 3 o mdb
database location
��WILDNCSVR�ProjectslActiveProjects�ooS-02125 Underwood Mitigation FDPJMorntonn Baseline Morntonn lVegetation Assessment
DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS
DOCUMENT ------------
Metadata
This worksheet, which is a summary of the project and the project data
Plots
List of lots surveyed
Vigor
FrequencV distnbution of vigor classes
Vigor b S
Fre uenc distribution of vigor classes listed by species
Dama a
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
Stem Count by Plot and Spp
Unknown
PROJECT SUMMARY-------------------------------------
Project Code
94641
Project Name
Underwood Mitigation Site
Description
Stream and Wetland
length (ft)
n/a
stream-to-edge width (ft)
n
area (s m)
Plots (calculated)
.Required
Sampled Plots
z

Appendix 3. Vegetation Plot Data
Table 8b. CVS Vegetation Tables - Metadata
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No 94641)
Lindley Site
Monitoring Year 0
Report Prepared By
Alea Tuttle
Date Prepared
211112013 IS o6
database name
Underwood Wo- cvs -ee -ent tool -v2 3 o mdb
database location
l�WILDNCSVR�ProjectslActiveProjectsloo.5-02125 Underwood Mitigation FDPIMonitorm lBaselme Monitonn �Vegetation Assessment
DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS
DOCUMENT --------- - --
Metadata
This worksheet which is a summary of the project and the project data
Plots
List ofplots surveyed
Vigor
Frequency distnbution o w orclasses
Vigor b Spp
Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species
Dama e
List o most re vent damage classes with number of occurrences and percent o 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
Stem Count by Plot and Spp
Unknown
PROJECT SUMMARY------------------------------- - - - - -- .•
Project Code 94641
Project Name Underwood Mitigation Site
Description
Stream and Wetland
len th (ft)
n/a
stream-to-edge width (ft)
n/a
area (s m)
Required Plots (calculated)
,Sampled Plots
1

Appendix 3. Vegetation Plot Data
Table 9a CVS Vegetation Tables - Vigor by Species
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
Harris Site
Monitoring Year 0
vi or
Species
CommonName
4
3
2
1
o
Missing,
2
eetula nl ra
river birch
91
0
0
4
496
100
TOT
Corpus amomum
silky dogwood
10
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
51
Quercus michauxu
swamp chestnut oak
72
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
78
Quercus phellos
willow oak
4
Salixsencea
silky willow
16
brnodendron tuli i era
tuli tree
z
Platanus ocndentabs
Americansycamore
so6
TOT
I
i
1 496
vi or
Count
Percent
0
0
0
1
o
0
2
0
0
3
0
0
4
496
100
TOT
496
ioo
Notes Vigor Scores
4 Excellent
3 Good
z Fair
s Unlikely to survive year
2 Dead

Appendix 3. Vegetation Plot Data
Table 9b. CVS Vegetation Tables - Vigor by Species
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
Lindley Site
Monitoring Year 0
vi or
Species
CommonName
4
3
2
i
o
Missing
2
eetula ni ra
river birch
33
0
0
4
244
loo
TOT
Corpus amomum
silky dogwood
20
Fraxinus perinsylvanica
green ash
3
Quercus michauxn
swamp chestnut oak
i5
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
53
Quercus phellos
willow oak
19
Salixsencea
silky willow
22
brnodendron tuli i era
tuli tree
i 8
Platanus ocadentalis
Americansycamore
3
TOT
I
1
244
vi or
Count
Percent
0
0
0
i
o
0
2
0
0
3
0
0
4
244
loo
TOT
244
100
Notes Vigor Scores
4 Excellent
3 Good
2 Fair
i Unlikely to survive year
2 Dead

Appendix 3. Vegetation Plot Data
Table lOa CVS Vegetation Tables -Damage by Species
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
Harris Site
Monitoring Year 0
_kI
mac, F O
eetula ni ra
river birch
91
Corpus amomum
silky dogwood
10
Fraxmus pennsylvanica
green ash
51
Linodendron tuli i era
tuli tree
z
Platanus occidentahs
Americansycamore
1o6
Quercus michauwi
swamp chestnut oak
72
Quercus pagoda
cher bark oak
78
Quercus phellos
willow oak
4S
Salixsencea
silk willow
16
TOT
496
Damage
Count
Percent Of Stems
No Damage
1
496
100
TOT
496
100

Appendix 3. Vegetation Plot Data
Table 10b. CVS Vegetation Tables - Damage by Species
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
Lindley Site
Monitoring Year 0
0
eetula ni ra
river birch
33
Corpus amomum
silk do wood
20
Frawnus pennsylvanica
green ash
3S
brnodendron tuli i era
tuli tree
8
Platanus occidentahs
Americansycamore
Quercus michaun
swamp chestnut oak
1
Quercus pagoda
Cher bark oak
Quercus phellos
willow oak
1
Salixsencea
silky willow
22
TOT
244
Damage
Count
Percent Of Stems
No Damage
244
ioo
TOT
244
100

0
Appendix 3. Vegetation Plot Data
Table 11 a. CVS Vegetation Tables - Stem Count by Plot and Species
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
Harris Site
Monitoring Year 0
oh o o� o o°)
OR y
`Qy , 0 y OO O O O O O O O O O p
mac. ^a
Q .. .. .,� .x v%
%00 OOy�Y OOy� OOHS 0
r 4 w w
V. w
h�
ci
Betula nl ra
river birch
35
10
4
2
1
2
2
3
1
7
9
3
1
3
S
3
6
Corpus amomum
silky dogwood
2
1
2
2
Fraxlnus pennsylvanica
green ash
ig
8
2
1
2
1
4
4
1
3
4
1
1
briodendron tuli i era
tuli tree
7
1
2
2
z
Platanus ocadentalis
Americansycamore
8
8
6
3
4
1
4
S
-17
4
Quercus michauxu
swamp chestnut oak
17
3
4
7
3
1
2
6
2
2
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
20
1
1
1
2
Quercus hellos
willow oak
1
6
M20
1
2
1
SalixSencea
silk willow
6
2
2
1
TOT
1
1
1
1
12
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
18
16

Appendix 3. Vegetation Plot Data
Table 11 b. CVS Vegetation Tables - Stem Count by Plot and Species
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
Harris Site
Monitoring Year 0
0
o
Oy Oy^ O� O ~� Ory Oryy Oryry O41 O O~y Ory O~^ O
O O O O O O O O O O O O O
F w w w � �n •n w .r w vy. w
<o �o to to ro 'o �o ro ro to co <o <o 'c
O� �� ��. Cr Cr Cr Oi v. 0i 0i
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8, 0 0 0 0 0/
vl-
Betula ni ra
W
river birch
6
18
•a
3
.t
3
.t
3
.K
z
'%
1
F "-.I
3
<
4
F <
z
<
S
1
3
-
1
z
-
1
-
8
Corpus amomum
silk dogwood
8
z
4
6
z
Fraxlnus enns lvanlca
green ash
2
14
2
1
1
2
1
4
4
1
Linodendron tull I era
tull tree
20
11
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
z
Platanus ocadentalis
Americansycamore
68
16
4
3
7
4
3
z
1
6
3
3
z
Quercus michauxit
swamp chestnut oak
s5
16
3
3
z
6
z
8
z
1
z
5
4
z
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
S8
16
4
z
z
3
z
6
z
1
1
S
4
8
TOT
Quercus phellos
Salixsencea
willow oak
silky willow
z
10
14
4
z
3
z
S
29
6
18
1
1
1 17
1
17417
1
i
16
z
21
1
18
3
z
15
3
17
17
16
z
18
z
2

Appendix 3. Vegetation Plot Data
Table 11 c. CVS Vegetation Tables - Stem Count by Plot and Species
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
Lindley Site
Monitoring Year 0
O H N O'-j
V` �O ^ W
� O M N
O OO� � OO eO
O� O�
O O
O O O O O O O O O O O
S
Q
Q Q Q Q Q Q Q
river birch
33
11
2
1
2
S
1
4
Betula ni ra
Corpus amomum
silk dogwood
20
10
2
2
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
9 reen ash
715
10
1
10
4
1
1
Fraxmus perinsylvanica
Linodendron tuli i era
tuli tree
Americansycamore
swamp chestnut oak
cherrybark oak
8
39
1
53
4
13
'13
2
3
4
1
4
1
6
3
6
1
4
2
1
8
z
1
3
2
1
6
6
1
1
1
2
3-
2
2
Platanus occidentalis
Quercus michauxn
Quercus
pagoda
willow oak
Iq
9
2
6
2
3
1
1
1
Quercus
phellos
silky willow
22
7
z
6
1
1
Salixsencea
TOT
2!�
20
22
18
22
2
1
20
19,
1
20
1
20
1

Vegetation Photographs (Harris Site)

Underwood Mitigation Site
Appendix 3: Vegetation Plot Data — Vegetation Photographs

Vegetation Plot 7 (01/22/2013) I Vegetation Plot 8 (01/22/2013)
Vegetation Plot 9 (01/22/2013)
Vegetation Plot 10 (01/22/2013)
Vegetation Plot 11(01/22/2013) I Vegetation Plot 12 (01/22/2013)
Underwood Mitigation Site
Appendix 3: Vegetation Plot Data — Vegetation Photographs

Vegetation Plot 13 (01/22/2013)
Vegetation Plot 14 (01/22/2013)
Vegetation Plot 15 (01/22/2013) I Vegetation Plot 16 (01122/2013)
�- OP
Vegetation Plot 17 (01/22/2013)
Underwood Mitigation Site
Appendix 3: Vegetation Plot Data — Vegetation Photographs
Vegetation Plot 18 (01/22/2013)

Underwood Mitigation Site
Appendix 3: Vegetation Plot Data — Vegetation Photographs

Vegetation Plot 25 (01/22/2013)
Vegetation Plot 26 (01/22/2013)
Vegetation Plot 27 (01/22/2013) 1 Vegetation Plot 28 (01/22/2013) I
Vegetation Plot 29 (01/22/2013) I
Underwood Mitigation Site
Appendix 3: Vegetation Plot Data — Vegetation Photographs

Vegetation Photographs (Lindley Site)

Vegetation Plot 30 (01/22/2013) 1 Vegetation Plot 31 (01/22/2013) I
Vegetation Plot 32 (01/22/2013)
Vegetation Plot 33 (01/22/2013)
Vegetation Plot 34 (01/22 /2013) I Vegetation Plot 35 (01/22/2013)
Underwood Mitigation Site
Appendix 3: Vegetation Plot Data — Vegetation Photographs

Vegetation Plot 36 (01/22 /2013)
Vegetation Plot 37 (01/22/2013)
Vegetation Plot 38 (01/22/2013) 1 Vegetation Plot 39 (01/22/2013)
Vegetation Plot 40 (01/22/2013) I Vegetation Plot 41(01/22/2013)
Underwood Mitigation Site
Appendix 3: Vegetation Plot Data — Vegetation Photographs

Vegetation Plot 42 (01/22/2013)
Underwood Mitigation Site
Appendix 3: Vegetation Plot Data — Vegetation Photographs

APPENDIX 4. As -Built Plan Sheets

10
A
L�
Y
0.
Underwood Mitigation Site
Chatham County, NC
Cape Fear River Basin CCataloing Unit
Vicinity Map
Not to Scale
To Clyde Underwood Road access:
0
BEFORE YOU DIQI
CALL 1 -800- 632 -4949
N.C. ONE –CALL CENTER
fl'8 THE LAWI
From the intersection of US 64 and Artbur Teague Rd, travel north approximately 3.25 miles
to the intersection of Silk Hope Rd. Turn right on Silk Hope Road. After going north
approximately 0.3 miles, turn left onto Silk Hope Liberty Rd. Travel west approximately 1.8 miles
and turn right on Plainfield Church Rd. Travel north approximately 1.1 miles and turn right onto
Clyde Underwood Rd. The temporary construction entrances will be located approximately
0.15 miles on the right and 0.25 miles on the left of Clyde Underwood Road.
To Moon Lindley Road Access:
Leaving the intersection of Plainfield Church Rd and Clyde Underwood Rd, travel north on
Plainfield Church Rd. approximately 0.5 miles and turn right on Johnny Lindley Rd. At the
intersection of Johnny Lindley Rd and Moon Lindley Rd, turn left. The construction entrance
will be on the left in approximately 0.25 miles.
for
North Carolina Ecosystem
Enhancement Program
rb-19-
En4aon'
PROGRAM
RECORD DRAWING
ISSUED MAY 6s 2013
RECEIVED
�.4 AY 1 0 ?_ 013
NC ECOSYSTEM
ENHAMICEMENT PROGRM.11
SheetIndex
Cover Sheet
Legend
Stream Overlay Overview
Stream Overlay Plans
Wetland Overlay Overview
Wetland Overlay Plans
Planting Tables
Overlay Planting
Project Directory
Engineering.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc
License No. F -0831
5605 Chapel Hill Road
Suite 122
Raleigh, NC 27607
Nicole Macaluso, PE
919 - 851 -9986
Surveying:
Stewart Proctor Engineering and
Surveying, PLLC
322 Chapanoke Road, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27603
Herbert Proctor Jr., PLS
919 -779 -1855
0.1
0.2
1.0 -1.1
1.2 -1.18
2.0 -2.1
2.2 -2.8
3.0
3.1 -3.3
Owner:
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
NC Department of Environment and
Natural Resources
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652
Guy Pearce
919- 715 -1157
Contractor:
Land Mechanic Designs, Inc
126 Circle G Lane
Willow Springs, NC 27592
919 - 639 -6132
DENR Contract No. 003268
EEP Project No. 94641
ipft
WILDLANDS
ENG�� +EENiNG
5605 CWP J Hill R.ud, auiro 122
R Th. N(' 71607
Tcl: 919.851.9986
F... 919.851.9987
Firm Lw—No. P-0831
oP-FE88jo'•�y
�: os /� /r3 7L •.7
SEAL
'ro
b
® �1
b �
r
U
® 0
�U
e
DO
0
i
REACH ORGINS
F�
Reach
Latitude
Longitude
UT 2
N 35" 48' 03.53"
W 79" 24' 03.73"
SF 1
N 35'48'05.05"
W 79" 24' 10.08"
SF IA
N 35'48'08.81"
W 79° 24'09.9D"
SF 2
N 3S" 48' 24.94"
W 79" 24' 06.04"
SF 3
N 35'48'27.95"
W 79'24'06.91"
UT I
N 35° 48'37.68"
W 79" 24'26.44"
UT IA
N 35" 48'44.41"
W 79" 24' 17.20"
UT IB
N 35'4843.07"
W 79" 24'23.09"
SF 4
N 35'49'50.67"
W 79" 22'59.63"
SF 4A
N 35'49'45.25"
W79-22'50.37-
RECEIVED
�.4 AY 1 0 ?_ 013
NC ECOSYSTEM
ENHAMICEMENT PROGRM.11
SheetIndex
Cover Sheet
Legend
Stream Overlay Overview
Stream Overlay Plans
Wetland Overlay Overview
Wetland Overlay Plans
Planting Tables
Overlay Planting
Project Directory
Engineering.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc
License No. F -0831
5605 Chapel Hill Road
Suite 122
Raleigh, NC 27607
Nicole Macaluso, PE
919 - 851 -9986
Surveying:
Stewart Proctor Engineering and
Surveying, PLLC
322 Chapanoke Road, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27603
Herbert Proctor Jr., PLS
919 -779 -1855
0.1
0.2
1.0 -1.1
1.2 -1.18
2.0 -2.1
2.2 -2.8
3.0
3.1 -3.3
Owner:
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
NC Department of Environment and
Natural Resources
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652
Guy Pearce
919- 715 -1157
Contractor:
Land Mechanic Designs, Inc
126 Circle G Lane
Willow Springs, NC 27592
919 - 639 -6132
DENR Contract No. 003268
EEP Project No. 94641
ipft
WILDLANDS
ENG�� +EENiNG
5605 CWP J Hill R.ud, auiro 122
R Th. N(' 71607
Tcl: 919.851.9986
F... 919.851.9987
Firm Lw—No. P-0831
oP-FE88jo'•�y
�: os /� /r3 7L •.7
SEAL
'ro
b
® �1
b �
r
U
® 0
�U
e
DO
0
i
S1��cl
" s-1
`I ®al
].,b Niimbn: 'Ip15'lt_I25
F�
Pmj«e Erypnm: \1131
" y
L> —Rv: JTL
]wr
E�
Re.�sions
t1
p
01
COVER
9-1
SHEET
S1��cl
" s-1
`I ®al

LEGEND
kt�
WILDLANDS
en+GinifFR• +(:
i
10 +00
— — --r— — —
As -Built Channel Centerline (Restoration)
"
NVILDLANDS
Wetland Restoration
�•�
ENGINEERING, INC.
r
As -Built Channel Centerline (Enhancement 1)
F.Awtl Reetontxm
ar. 1TL
'0.00
denim
— P L E C PAY Una
clkaea ar pry
-- — --+— — ---
1M00
As-Built Channel Centerline (Enhancement II)
(hp.e Hw It— S.H. i..
wl�yla w : err
Conservation Easement
E>dchny Power Pals
is
As -Built Channel Centerline
Tel: 914R5I,9VM.
Fe.- 919151 99117
Fmmua,�.., rnMn
-s -- Proposed Channel Centerline
Proposed Root Wads
+
A6 -Built Bankfutl
Welland Creation
Proposed Bankfull
�I
As- BuiRContour
//
— Proposed Major Contour
- Proposed Log Vane
`Cll'/R�,
��0�'FE88j�•z /y
®
Zone 4 Permanent Seeding Outside Easement
— SEAL
— Proposed Minor Contour
As -Built Constructed Riffle
ihen
Proposed Constructed Riffle
1NE�a
�,
—
As -Buifl Log Vane
!
4 M AC,h;
1
Proposed Log Sill
1
I 1
As -Built Log Sill
Proposed J -Hook
As- BuiltJ -Hook
�7
As -Buirc Rode Vane
Proposed Drainage Berm
V
As -Bain Root Wads
Qj
Proposed Brush Toe Protection
f 1
®
As -Built Brush Toe
Proposed Sod Mat
rti
As -Built Rip Rap
.tea
;:�
.�
eeeee
fU�
Q id
eeeee
As -Built Sod Mat
�
eee
�y
a
Q%
M�
pU
i
"
Zone 1 - Streambank Planting Zone
Wetland Restoration
1� �umea w5.mine
ar. 1TL
Zone 2 - Floodplain Planting Zone
wetland Enhancement r�
clkaea ar pry
is
+
Zone 3 - Wetland Planting
Welland Creation
�I
Q
LEGEND
®
Zone 4 Permanent Seeding Outside Easement
-
ihen
//�T
NOTE: FEATURES IN RED INDICATE DEVIATION w
�,
FROM DESIGN PLANS.

7
I
PL —p
ld ld ld
ld ld ld
ld ld
A
A
BEGIN UT 1
STA. 500 +00
A
ro
ld ld
ld ld
ld ld
ld ld
ld ld
ld ld
PL PL—PL—PL —PL
I END UT
STA. sos +so.20 zo
9
I �
BEGIN SF 1
STA. 100 +00
I SF 1A
STA.200 +00 -PL -PL
STA. 20
ld PL��PL PL
a
SHEET 1.10
D.w I(- 6.2017
V�
I of
]&Num6o.: (*54)2125
(�
Pg-E.O.— Nm.m
sb
BEGIN UT 1B
m
STA. 600+00
�J \
Rev�eions
\ m �
%
SHEET 1.13
�I
SHEET 1.14
SHEET 1.11
D
SHEET 1.3
/ CE
3J
�30 —
D �
�CE�CE�CE
V
\ 3J
CL
SHEET 1.2
BEGIN UT 2
STA. 0+00
U ,
I I3
m
U I 6-
LP P L _-4 —
c
�J
\ _ BEGI UT 1A
�+\ END UT IA \ Jlm /u
END SF 2 STA. 705 +24.08
J L
iHEET 1.5 STA. 303 +01.55
SHEET 1.12
END UT 1 I
/ STA. 520 +38.20 I
SHEET 1.9
n mn SHEET 1.6 m
STA. 201 +69.99 SHEET 1.7 SHEET 1.8 CE
D �
m
y /CE � GE CF
m SHEET 1.4 �_
n —_ CE CE CE —Cl CE CE _
m 1
�ld �� m
l d l d ld �'J
l d
END SF1 Ao 3o���a�
a
STA. 108 +74.10 END SF 3
STA. 421 +19.99
END UT 2 BEGIN SF 2 9
STA. 4 +17.87 STA. 300 +00 BEGIN SF 3 l d d
STA. 400 +00
L T PL
PL PL
a ld
a p
I L _
PL
a � �
a
I 0' 100' 200' 300' 400'
I HORIZONTAL)
WILDLANDS
ENG(NEER�NG
W5 Chvpd Hill Rad. Ruin 122
R�kiXn Nc nao7
Tcl: 919.851.99X6
U
Fr 919.X51.99-7
F'va Li.o.m No F4W31
= SEAL �' c
u
U0
�I
W
O
cl
P.
P.
>~
co
D.w I(- 6.2017
bj
]&Num6o.: (*54)2125
(�
Pg-E.O.— Nm.m
sb
D.-8, JTL
_
C6atad e.: 7µl{
�
Rev�eions
�I
STREAM
OVERLAY
OVERVIEW
,�
ii,ecl

v
\ WILDLANDS
ENG�NEFRiNG
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING! INC.
Eanloginl Restoration
Senices
56115 CL<pkF id g H' /l.. R m.d F
,
*
c 1_2
Nr6w
Y. i8C 519986
Fa: e91985999
F Liu No
F0831
Q %i CARS iii
CE G E C
CE CE \ = =r*os/�h3 4 .7
-- CE SEAL �.
/ A
SHEET 1.16
G- X02 END SF 4
STA. 814 +28.75
O!
yv CE CE CE CE
�0
� 90
SHEET 1.18
r
\ 4A SF END � \
b
\ STA. 908 +66.44
m
% 30 �C I •@
BEGIN SF 4
� a
STA.800 +00
p
® cq
m
SHEET 1.15 J �
w
U
n
m
a Iw
U
m SHEET 1.17
)lay 6,.'013
Job Numbs: W5.02125
J Prvjnt Engineee NNMI
BEGIN SF 4A Q Jn e� D °u 0, JTL
STA.900 +00 cm JRft
�� / F� Revtstons
0' 50' 100' 150' 200' Q STREAM
d l d (HORIZONTAL) OVERLAY
�— l d l d l d— OVERVIEW
A Sheet
44 101

r
r
r
BEGIN UT I
0+00.00
605
600
595
590 4—
0 +00
W
U
I
•dry
0 +50
1 +00
�.
� �_
�__
WINOW-1
605 tv
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING, INC.
Emlogipl Restorarion
Services
SKIS ki
R C HiB r, Slim 1 ?Z
akieb, \C C .9986
600 T<1: 91').851.4986
t SEAL
595 '���` M.' M A�'���`•
I i I . . I i . . I I ! I . . I I I I . . I 1 590
1 +50 2 +00 2 +50 3 +00 3 +50 4 +00 4 +17.87
b
CE
E -� CE 0. 2. 4. 6. 8.
- CE CE 2 (VERTICAL) ��
_ CE --- CE 6� 0' 20' 40' 60' 80'
b
CE CE 603 601 (HORIZONTAL)
600
602
END UT 2
601 STA.4 +17.87
4 +00
\ZOOQ
)SSING
) � 30 � 30) 3O 3C
D —
NOTE: CONSTRUCTED RIFFLES WERE MOVED OR NOT BUILT DUE TO WORKING AROUND EXISTING TREES.
LOG SILLS ADDED FOR ADDITIONAL STABILITY, LOG J -HOOKS AT 3 +75 & 4 +05 REMOVED IN LIEU OF LOG SILLS.
601
i6b 30
t3 r
0
ez
E P-1
c
v
a
q� r7
Dam: Star 4.201 I
Jab numb.: 005 -02125
Vml.et F:no••..r. �em<
STREAM
g
OVERLAY
PLANS
c:qi
Sheet
}ICI {�
:i o 2

�YEPI
595
590 4—
100 +00
fiiiiiiii�l
T
600
595
590
100 +50 101 +00 101 +50 102 +00 102 +50 103 +00 103 +50 104 +00 104 +50
BEGIN SF 1A
\60 J STA. 200 +00.001 /"
o �
III �"O \
4 o
603 ScP 1
602 SF 1A
SEE SHEET 1.5 I \
CE C CE 1 CE / \so
BEGIN SF 1
STA. 100 +00.00
FORD CROSSING
r
� rr
,rr
r rr
f
i
v `6p'
602 3
so
a�
30
J
�y
. 2ol�
0
`597
104+00 J \ \ l
595 Z
m
33
NOTE: DUE TO LACK OF SUITABLE SOD MATERIAL, BANKS WERE MATTED, AND ADDITIONAL LIVE STAKES AND JUNCUS PLUGS WERE INSTALLED.
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
5lAIS C T
m l_2
U No.
Fa 919.tlN. F
P'um Limnee a18J1
x�SH
OQ:'FE88 /0 � /�i
=�EAL
_gyp �y
9L
�i
a O
a
> r
Q
P-,
Dac: 81ay 6, :01J
J.e \umf.e.: Iq5- 11?I ?5
(� P.J- Erydneer.
•b D.— By. ,TL
W
i�
R-Wowe
°3
0' 2' 4' 6' 8
(VERTICAL)
0' 20' 40' 60' 80'
—1
c��y
M
b
44
STREAM
OVERLAY
OVERVIEW
Sheet
13
(HORIZONTAL)

104 +65 105 +00
o�
Ln
(-
O
r
F-
Cn
LLI
Z
2
1
Al
�C
C
105 +50
106 +00 106 +50
J
107 +00
107 +50 108 +00
fly
59�
596 59T
596—
-TL-
NOTE: DUE TO LACK OF SUITABLE SOD MATERIAL, BANKS WERE MATTED, AND ADDITIONAL LIVE STAKES AND JUNCUS PLUGS WERE INSTALLED.
t�92�
108 +50 108 +'
cli
END SF 1
STA. 108 +74.10
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
WILDLA"DS
ENGINEERING, INC.
Ew0.gic+l Restoration
Sen ices
NAS CluPel Hi0 R.ud, Sure 1'__'
A.Icigll. 0:,.2�
p•. �faa /0. �,i
t: os/rh3 •i=;s=
SEAL r
a°
H
a
�b
> r
Q
ro,
P b
i-1
d oae: nhya,.mo
Job N—b.: 1105 -0;125
PA. EMi— NMM
s b D.— Ry: JTL
51 K1;AM
OVERLAY
0 2' 4' 6'
8' P4
PLANS
(VERTICAL)
bl
Sh-1
0' 20' 40' 60'
80' �1
(HORIZONTAL)
yqA�F
u u

L:L
600
595
11
200+00
/ r
BEGIN SF 1A
STA. 200+00.00
PROPOSED T ALWEG -
AS -BUILT THALWEG
200+50 201+00
600
595
590
201+50 201+69.99
END SF 1A
STA. 201+69.99
E CE CE — CE
C
—595-
iMT cr) r
z;
0 00IN
AD
to
6.1
0--
U
595
SF 1
SEE SHEET 1.3
:70
co
01
NOTE: DUE TO LACK OF SUITABLE SOD MATERIAL, BANKS WERE MATTED, AND ADDITIONAL LIVE STAKES AND JUNCUS PLUGS WERE INSTALLED.
DRAINAGE BERM NOT NEEDED DUE TO GRADING.
-F rn
L0
45 4,
1100,
Ay
4p
yoo
C7-
WILDLANDS
E.01.EER-G
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING, INC.
Emlogical Restoration
S-
5605 Chapd it, 122
JV�NC 2767
a 0
F— 919.851.9997
, Li— N. F-0931
'%J11111111"
CA,?O!iii
04A01
SEAL
ar &it
I Ca,
4P
li
U0
E
E
1p Niq 6, 2017
Job Number: 00542125
l3re iTi.
", By: IMH
RcrWom
71
STREAM
OVERLAY
ol 2' 4 6-
81
PLANS
(VERTICAL)
Sheet
0. 20' 40' 60'
80,
1.5
(HORIZONTAL)

U�
P L 30
APL -
J
EL BEGIN SF 2
1 STA. 300 +00.00
CL
a
580
575
mmmmmmm
NNEMENEENE ■■■■■■■■ ■�■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■ - ■■�■
ONE ■■■■■ /■■■■■■■■■■■
■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■v■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
580
575
570 570
400 +00 400 +50 401 +00 401 +50 402 +00
r CE \
CE CE - CE C CE � CE � CE GE CE CF
582 Lwi \ �F
n
m EXISTING 9' X 6' CMP
r ti
581 h0
w
�588�� 5118 n � U/ BEGIN 0+3 REACH 1 /
/ 587 586 578 m I 0 STA 400 +00.00
585 580
58'T �� 579
302 +00 577
576 _ - Q
576 4
CP
579 lF =577 _ 577 t1; ap1
578 • ._ ,
579 ,
ENDSF2 c1 C
STA. 303 +01. 1.SSy m b79}- y18t
"� w sso
m m \ 519
I
n r
30 m O
—
30
L� -3�- O
PL —PL= 30 30 Q �j
P L — P 30 L 30 —7 f
—PL v
— P L r �0
PL��0
a
NOTE: DUE TO LACK OF SUITABLE SOD MATERIAL, BANKS WERE MATTED, AND ADDITIONAL LIVE STAKES AND JUNCUS PLUGS WERE INSTALLED.
LOG VANE WAS CHANGED TO ROCK DUE TO BEDROCK IN THE STREAM BED.
J
a
I
7
dr-
0' 2' 4' 61 8' 10,
(VERTICAL)
0' 25' 50' 75' 100,
mmmmd
(HORIZONTAL)
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING INC
13 14 1 RE6toMt-
Scnim
5605 Cah .'Hill R—d, Swim IJ1
Adcigh
NC 2760;
Td: )1'9.8.1.9986
Fy- 919 51.9997
=SEAL �•
Q
C) b�
Q1
9
rn �
1~ �
a
C CJ
f3
v
E
Cf) Cfi
N
CFA
Dne:
biny b, -`OIJ
JabK..:
1105.IL'] ?5
Pmjeal E, pi—.
\'NN
Drawn By:
ITL
Chadad E..:
J-11
STREAM
p4
OVERLAY
PLANS
e�
Sheet /j�
1.6

580
575
570
seo
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERINGf INC.
Ecological Restoration
575 Fen ices
WS C1 pd HIR R�.d, �ni,e 122
Raklgb.I�C Z/fiR:
Td� 919.R51.99P6
F..: 91985199r
Li— N. F-0831
570 SEAL 7� —
565 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I- I I I I I I 1 I I I I I i I I
I I F 565
402 +00 402 +50 403 +00 403 +50 404 +00 404 +50 405 +00 405 +50 406 +00 406 +50 407 +00 407 +50 408 +00
408+50
7
cF
DO
x cF
Ory
0' 2' 4' 6'
81 10'
�
(VERTICAL)
C-2 00 \
CF 0' 25' 50'
S
75' 100'
\ (HORIZONTAL)
2
CE CE CE CE
CF
CE CE CE CE CE CE CE 577
576—
w
raj
M
S)�
U
Fy
I
m
y1�/
✓a
577
U 575
I
yob �\
\`\ m
FORD CROSSING
F�
J
ka
c�13
U
� 41
>ti
� M
CFA
.b l —u.: JTL
chn&d k, JNH
C% R-Wo.
k�
1
l
STREAM
OVERLAP'
PLAITS
c�
1o/

580
580
ON
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
WILDLt�N
ENGINEERIEsNG! INC.
Eanlogir+ toranon
575
575
Senicex
56115 C1uPe1 Hill R.vd, SNIe 1'_T
Rekigh.NC• n6o;
I
AS -BUILT
THALWEG
ra: 9iv.as,.99e6
Fxa: 919.851.998^
Firm Li.mu N. F-PM31
CARD
J`�th �G
570
570
PROPOSED
THALWEG
SEAL
565
I
I
!
I
565
408 +50
409 +00 409 +50 410 +00 410 +50 411 +00
411 +50 412 +00
412 +50 413 +00 413 +50 414 +00
414 +50 415 +00
415 +25
GE /
7
G
0' 2' 4 6'
8' 10'
(VERTICAL)
�
+4
0' 25' 50'
75' 100'
.
..4 cn U
(HORIZONTAL)
F_y `�
cz
I
N
�crs
; a
CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE
G I
CE CE CE
cc
574
415
1A _,
�-_. - {.�,..r4
p
'
.: \
L
� / '
_
CSI
`•
573
574
_! \. \
/ /
C3i
1
57
573 2
CD 5
+ / ° — — 572
57
/ 4
/
O
Job Numb.:
Project Eegm— N im
Un. B� ] TL
JA H
/i
e eJ
Rcrixionx
C3
_Z r.,
—� 515
V
5;3
F" D s
\ _ �_ -- ._ — -- '3 — 572_
S7 5
:)74 - - - - - - - 573_ _ ._ - __ ,, ,
30 30
STREAM
OVERLAY
3� 30 3O 30 30
30
30 3 30
PLANS
30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30
0
e�
st,eel
NOTE: ROOTWADS CHANGED TO SOD MATS DUE TO ROCKY SOIL.
L8
SOD MATS CHANGED TO BRUSHTOE DUE TO ADD MORE STABILITY DUE TO UNCONSOLIDATED MATERIAL.

575
I
PROPOSEDTHALWEG
570 ✓ ( I - 570
AS -BUILT THALWEG ?
565 I 565
560
415 +25 415 +50 416 +00 416 +50 417 +00 417 +50 416 +00 418 +50 419 +00 419 +50 420 +00 420 +50 421 +00 421 +19.99
575
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING, INC.
Ec°IuRical Restoration
Senices
W5 Chapel Hill Rd. Suite I'_3
Ralelkdl. NC' '2'16DT
Tel: '/1'/.851.9956
Faa: 91v1W'
— NoF R
Fim Li
X11
Z• o�1,ha y :ss
4r SEAL
UT 1
SEE SHEET 1.12
CE — —
5772 2 CF
Oe 2' 4e 6e 8e 10' 9d
W 573 C. (VERTICAL)
CEI
i
/'�.•`'6� -570
0' 25' 50' 75' 100'
C 572 C' (HORIZONTAL)
\ e�
cF
F
sss \
In
Ok, }�
r
an
5>0 J \.
: V�c,
572 > 7
571 — -' 570 \ �.� / S\
1�i I END REACH 1 .•� \ 420 +pp -
1 � / I BEGIN REACH 2 SF3 _
LJJ ^ / END UT 1 \ X568
Z ° / ' I STA. 520 +38.20 568
55
_ /
� � � � � 577 � 5it
I 571 571— \�
5� 1
�
8O � s
5T2 d0 p
5 S >0
D s' b \
-
'573 so
NOTE: BRUSHTOE AND ROOTWADS CHANGED TO SOD MATS DUE TO ROCK IN SOIL. \ �0
LOG J•HOOK CHANGED TO BRUSHTOE DUE TO LACK OF AVAILABLE MATERIAL.
A
END SF 3
STA. 421 +19.99
ry
U old
� U
W
STREAM
OVERLAY
PLAINS
shed
a9
Jab Number:
RRS4025
Rajm E.O.
NbIM
Lhavn Be:
JTL
Checked By:
JN'H
Recisions
STREAM
OVERLAY
PLAINS
shed
a9

Gam/ �m
� GE
/ m
G
GE
\ GE /
G� GE /
GE /
m / GEC
\ GE
w
WILD LANDS
ENGINEERING
0' 2' 4 6' 8' 10'
(VERTICAL) WILDLANDS
0' 25' 50' 75' 100' EN EI I.gk 1R mi INC.
(HORIZONTAL)
SMS Clued Hill C r O- 122
Td: 914.951.9986
NF.
N. F. 919.851.99r
Firm Liernu N. P-0971
CARS
04- •FESB��•� /yam
t• Os /ohs
SEAL
INS
Al.I MPG��`�
E LIT 113
SEE SHEET 1.13
m/ ce .
1
VOL _ 503 +p0 /
3 c > <
30 oo.
BEGIN UT 1
STA. 500 +00.00
— I I
130 30 30 30 30 30
ld ld ld
ld ld
SO
Sc /
�j
�O
�j
�O
30
/ SO 30 30 30
ld
Id ld ld
ld --�
a
I
D
n
2
r
Z
T
cn
O
J
t
O
O
NOTE: CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE WAS REMOVED BECAUSE THE BED WAS STABLE IN THIS LOCATION
6
b �
cp
a
� C
v
cu
ee
Ea
m
r~
m �
D­:
M.- 6,2013
Job N..te
Wsm -'125
PT-j— C.O.—
L o . B�:
xmm
JTL
Ch-ke B. -:
JWH
R-6io-
.1
Q
STREAM
OVERLAY
.—I
PLANS
c�
9
.1
Slno
�
191®

O
t/
h
Q
co )
,-100
s
�U
�Q
� U 1
I J \
Q, r
m UT 11
SEE SHEET 1.14
UT 18 U
1 SEE SHEET 1.13 \
c m
. m G� •� /
J
` m 4 / C'� 00
I / y13
CUL'
m 1 @ 48..
\ CF\
CF
Cf �
C
SO
00
\ SO%0
�C \C)
SID
\ zJ \m
V
150
40
m
5, t
N
car
Q
k
NOTE: CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE WAS REMOVED BECAUSE THE BED WAS STABLE IN THIS LOCATION
v
. rm
1�
t�
r4
W
1«
� Q
v �
O
Ea
►: h
U]
Ute: hl-b, 2017
01 2' 4' 6' g' 101
WILDLANDS
(VERTICAL)
Projm Et O.— NMN
. ey�A11
0' 25' 50' 75' 100'
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING, mI II somt
ChnUd Br: JN'H
Sen•ica
WS CU 111i8 Rind, 8,dte 122
PXigh.NC 27507
1'A 114.851.9985
F— 919.851.9987
Fi— Li— N. P-0831
SH ! C"Ro -'/,.
� SEAL
!n0jp;r INKY:• ��
" M.1
PLANS
150
40
m
5, t
N
car
Q
k
NOTE: CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE WAS REMOVED BECAUSE THE BED WAS STABLE IN THIS LOCATION
v
. rm
1�
t�
r4
W
1«
� Q
v �
O
Ea
►: h
U]
Ute: hl-b, 2017
JwN —b .: IW4 125
1�
Projm Et O.— NMN
. ey�A11
Umm� 1h: JTL
1�
/�
ChnUd Br: JN'H
Rer%ions
STREAM
OVERLAY
PLANS
pil
Shec1
}}IIC�II
1011

580
575
570
565
580
ON
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING, INC.
575 Ecological Reatoranon
Sen ices
5M5 Ch.PeI Hitl R,wl, Suia I'_2
Rakla, NC' 2U
Tcl, 919.851.9986
Fss: 919.851.998;
Firm Li— N. FA831
0 8 8 fto�%
570
SEAL;
565
560 I I I I I I I i I ' 1 ' ' I ' ' 1 1 ' I 1 1 1 560
515 +23.27 515 +50 516 +00 516 +50 517 +00 517 +50 518 +00 518 +50 519 +00 519 +50 520 +00 520 +38.20
CE CE
CE
CE CE
N
t
0' 2' 4' 6' 8 10r
(VERTICAL)
0' 25' 50' 75' 100'
(HORIZONTAL)
v
ld�
b
� O
a
cl
a
Ch-k d 8.: 1µ H
C�
Re.isions
STREAM
OVERLAP'
PLANS
f3
+r*
Slmet
1.12

0' 4' 8' 12' 16' 20'
(VERTICAL)
0' 25' 50' 75' 100'
(HORIZONTAL) iiiiiiia
t
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING, INC.
Emlopm] Ratmlion
t re�
56115 CI.,I Hill RMd, Sure 123
Pilk'Kh, NC n60i
TO 919.851.9986
Faa: 919.851.9987
Fbm Li— N. F"31
•�iF SEt AML N
Wo, 4�Gl
a� `
Ge GE \ CF /
CF
CF
GE CF
CF �
� CF
GE / Ct;
CF
BEGIN UT 1B GE / 604'00 CE
STA.600 +00.00 e
G
GE
Li E CE CE CE / f.. ` _
U �-� -J 60g *00 r.
�0 . ~ p r
W
U so / •� P J
so
�. Fe
U
�G v UT 1
SEE SHEET 1.10 END UT 1B f-1
STA. 606 +60.20
e
3D 30 30 30 SG
LQ
Poo
U �. 506+00 /
U �7
Dnc bby 6,!017
VIob Numbm: (05 -02125
PI P.4- ERRincm NNM
• PPCgI V.— Hy: ITL
Cbaied R.: INN
Rcrisions
�I
STREAM
OVERLAY
PLANS
s 0
SI-1
"Ll
IIC�II
1.13
IIC�II

0' 4' 8' 12' 16' 20'
(VERTICAL)
0' 25' 50' 75' 100'
(HORIZONTAL)
d \
BEGIN UT 1A
STA. 700 +00.00
`.2
Cdr
U"
�j
\ �J
\ 3
I 11
U i
I
LU i
UT 1 U
SEE SHEET 1.12
END UT 1A I
STA.705 +24.08 U °o
CE CE CE CE
CE CE
CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE
I d T Oa,00 as
\ 701 +00 702 +00
703 +00
d
�— 3C 30 � 3J �ilv
30 30 3J 30 3C 3� 30 30 30 3� 3� -- go \
U
�d \
\ V
�d \
J IL . �
7 /
CSt�
m
I
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
INC.I
5605 C ,l Hill Ruud, Suin 1 22
Raleigh, NC' 276(r
T<L 919.851.9986
J:_ 919.851.9987
Fhm U.— N. F-0831
! CAR110'/,///
4 SEAL
i�G•;r 1�•`l``�
11111 \\
Q
CIOsb
.b
>� O
a s21
c�
W �
9
Q �
I 1 i \ •
D.<:
A6y 6,'_013
lob Numb.:
0054CI25
-
(b
Pmj- E.O.—
NU11
U.— By:
Che<k<d 6•:
in
JwH
s 1eb1�
1,
tS
Rerj .—
w
STREAM
OVERLAP
PLANS
I b I Sheer
1.14

545
545
WILDLANDS
ENGINlEEING
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING, INC.
Ecological Restoration
I
$CrnICCY
540
540
5615 Ch. 0 Hill R-d, SWI. 122
I
I
I
Rai la i. nc nm7
I
AS
-BUILT
THALWEG
Td: 912851.9986
Faa: 919.851.9987
_
_ . _
.
I
-
Fiim License No. F-0831
CARO
,�
��•iE88jO ��S
��
or/� /�E i :sue
PROPOSEDTHALWEG
_�:
SEA
535
11
535
_
r
530
-
530
800 +00 800 +50 801 +00 801 +50 802 +00 802 +50
803 +00 803 +50
804 +00 804 +50
805 +00
805 +50 806 +00 806 +50
807 +00
0. 8. 4' 6' S' 10'
I(VERTICAL)
LU
0' 25' 50' 75'
100'
(HORIZONTAL)
w*�
I
541
,4
Q R
73
E
l^ 804 +00 590_
7
BEGIN SF 4 GE
STA.800 +00.00
538\
GE
U
I \
5D
^- 8p7.p0�
bnos6n2rs
6 00�
"' l' iy'l.
�
J bNumber
Fmjnt Enain \bI.N
1TL
D
- _
806 +00
CTc�Yed Br IW'H
y
" 0 542
I3
540
C
\ \ \\
539
ryA
�I
STREAM
OVERLAP'
PLANS
so 543
30
Sheet
30
30 30 30
---'�
30 30 30
1 3 -30 90
30 ao
0
Fy
1.15
��saa
�

545
W
WILDLANDS
ENGINEE KING
_
i
I
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING, INC.
540
F.rological Rntorallon
Sen ka
—
_
—
SMi Qvki Hi0Ro.d,07, 1_'2
x,l]lab. xc
—
- —
—
—
—
9986
i<I: LIY.8i1.99LK
i
F.a: 91Y.851.YYN7
1i Liaosc Via. F V31
PROPOSED
THALWEG
�.
OQ`.FESS�p,`y
535
SEAL �
-
f
\�
Fyc /NEi�-. Jh
AS
-BUILT
THALWEG
530
I
I
525
807 +10 807 +50 808 +00 808 +50 809+00 809 +50 810 +00 810 +50 811 +00 811 +50 812 +00 812 +50 813 +00
813 +50 814 +00
814 +28.75
1 CE
CE 542 �� sQ
CE
CE
CE
b
� °4
€� 44
®
�° e
b.
ea3 'F9
W eke
v�
541 CE
r
CE
540 E CE o
E
Q
R r
539 .. ---- -� - ---- -_ --- E
CE
CE
CEi
` (7 �E
a,y,
O
cl
� I=
.s, �
C!l CFa
535 \ END SF 4
—� st STA 814 +28.75
7 A / 35 o�
536'
k�
�'
rn 53
®
Sys
Is eZ7xn
b�
/
[Aw. Flay 5.'_'013
Job X —b— WS -0 2125
P.4 —E.— NM
,aNIJTL
s0�
o _ � 535 534 . %
\
. b
t3rwn By
- o — 533
O
cb•.6n1 e. JWH
Revia,om
n
I
�
A
_ SF 4A -\ END SF 4A
30 SEE SHEET 1.18 STA. 908 +66.44
164
STREAM
8.
/
���//
OVERLAY
(VERTICAL)
P11.A11' a7
0' 25' 50' 75' 100'
(HORIZONTAL) �j 1 y
m
4-4
1.1}}IIC�II
6

i
O-
O-
545 545
f
PROPOSEDTHALWEG
540 I 540
AS -BUILT THALWEG
535 535
I
530 530
900+00 900 +50 901 +00 901 +50 902 +00 902 +50 903+00 903 +50 904 +00 904 +50 905 +00
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
5605 Qup<1 Hill Ruud, Suirc L'2
Rakip1, NC' 27th
Td: 91'9.8`I.9986
Fss 919.8_ 1.998'
Fi Li—No F-V.31
CARS
t: O�JY /t3 y
=SEAL 7:7� , '
a
ro
a a
F C3
17 �"
Ea
D<I<: Mw 6, 7013
Job Numb.: 005-02125
PNjM EnRlneer NMM
JTL
STREAM
OVERLAY
2- 3
PLANS
. b
1.17
b
�
U0
0
2' 4' 6' 8' 10'
(VERTICAL)
5
25' 50' 75' 100'
�d�J
E!Tsiiiiiiiiiiiil (HORIZONTAL)
J-yy
a
ro
a a
F C3
17 �"
Ea
D<I<: Mw 6, 7013
Job Numb.: 005-02125
PNjM EnRlneer NMM
JTL
STREAM
OVERLAY
�1
PLANS
1.17

545
540
535
545
I
540
AS -BUILT THALWEG
535
I I
I I
PROPOSED THALWEG
530 530
905 +00 905 +50 906 +00 906 +50 907 +00 907 +50 908 +00 908 +50 908 +66.44
SF 4
ti
4A
6 +66.44
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING INC.
Ecologial Reatoratlon
Sen Ica
SfA15 Clu�l Hill Rawl, 8ui¢ 122
R,I�R, Nc• n,or
F— 919..851.998,
F N
919 i . o F
Li�mee
Fvm I. N. F-0.871
yCAlppl
Z: Og/Y /t3 4• :7%
*SEAL
0' 2' 4' 6' B. 10'
(VERTICAL)
O' 25' 50' 75' 100'
(HORIZONTAL)
0°
b �
U
�U
v
NOTE: CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE WAS ADDED AT TAIL OF POOL ON SF 4A
a
a a
R�
Q
E a
M �
C�
U�
l�
Proj- F.nai—
\MN
s cy
L — Hy.
JTL
cl—W Hy:
JW-R
R-ISiona
A
161
Q ISTREAM
OVERLAY
1418

L PL
—p
ld ld ld
ld d—ld._— ld�ld
ld—ld_ —ld-
lC " I d ld
ld ld
v PL PL PL —PL
I T
T
I e
I
SHEET 2.6
a
U
a
CF
\ J m
i \
a�
�J
`\ m
G /
L i m
LIT 1--i�
37
41 PL PL PL
/—I d
;D RW 2
M NN
EN
i
i
SHEET 2.3
SF to
NRW 1
CLYDE UNDERWOOD ROAD
fJ SF 2
V
A4 RW 2
ld_—ld I �Z
ld a
r
i
RW 1 '
' n
C L,PL
' PL a
4
PLC^
NRW 2
UT ie
6 j I cF
30 PL —PL
UT 1A
c�
I
m
U I
SHEET 2.5
SF 3
CE SHEET 2.4
CF RW 3
CF — CE CE CE — CE
l ,
V
J e�7 �.
\ dJ ' LL LL
m 30
c
y/ F
C
3� �
RW 3
30 30r, — 30 30
n
ld� jd
TPL PL
I PL T"' ld_
n
n O
100' 200' 300' 400' I
HORIZONTAL 1
WILDLANDS
I. i'HEE RING
.NAS C'hapd 3110 Rort. 1Wi. 12:
RddR4%'C 7:607
Td 91Y. 11.9436
91'1.8519w"
1•'mn I.iaen.e \u. F -11031
1 ��R�'�'�
= SEAL
%�O �'V 1NE�Q'•�:Jy
0
.r
ko
Ind
A
J
0
U
r.
Cd
, J
O
a.
b
t
I>_i.
bhv 6, 1013
J.A. �uv.b�r
005JL'733
Pmjn. E+
NXIM
L4— By
(FL
Chnkw By
)tPEI
Resini-
0 WETLAND
OVERLAY
OVERVIEW
P
wl 2.0

WILDLAN13S
/
n*C|
=
F­ 919851,9987
CE
SHEET 2.8
SO
SF 4A LU
CL 0
(HORZONTAL) OVERLAY
d Id OVERVIEW
r
/ ~�U
u� '� � |
U .1 |

i
r
I
I 30 3D
30
D
CE
0' 2' 4' 6' 8'
(VERTICAL) !!5mmmmmmmmd
20 4
HORIZONTAL
3D 3D
kt
WIL,DLANDS
�NG�N�fkiNC:
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING, INC.
NC r.17
T:a�lugical Rnuxarum
SMIC ('halKl lldl Nad 17ii,. I__
"Eel, 91')N$1.99`�h
Pna 919x;1 aiK;
Plan Ll.eme G. P�4vA
CAR-'//
:*-SEAL �•
INS
� U
oz
U
Q
pU'
cl
ox
V
c
cl
L
b
id
Q 0 WETLAND
OVERLAY
PLANS
"1 2.2
.NCI
Ilnwn It..
I1'1.
cnN�ruti.-
Iwv
R-ki —,
b
id
Q 0 WETLAND
OVERLAY
PLANS
"1 2.2

�C4
c
/ �0 'oo
CE -i•
_o
CE
NRW 1
0, 25' 50' 75' 100'
2 (HORIZONTAL)
EDGE OF OLD POND
C,
OLD DAM THAT WAS REMOVED DURING CONSTRUCTION
---- Ce
CE
CE ---7Z-CE
m
30 X30 30 - 30 1 30 1 \ 90
RW2
SF 1
Lu
ul
SF 1A
RW2 uj
0
rn
595
r$7
5g6
597 Fg
0
r?7
C- Ct
T
e�l
iI
w
ipm
WILDLANDS
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING, INC.
W (h—1 I till R—d
W 27147
Td
Fmm Lk— N., F-)1
o_r
CA,?O"iii
Sa
SEAL
U
00!!i4
u �
U
11", n , 20,1
1,," F N%Ill
Cf—kr,l 11,
R-rw.,
CC
WETLAND
OVERLAY
--4
PLANS
ihecl
2.3

�
W
WILDLANDS
ENGINEEkING
2- 4- lo'
...........
WILDLAINDS
—
(VERTICAL)
ENGINMERZ��,'!NC.
i,cobg cal
0. 25' 50 75' 100'
Jmim
SW; (1 - I—�
(HORIZONTAL)
F- 919A519987
N,. F4MA
RWV3
CF
LLJ CE — CE — CE — CE — CE — CE — CE — CE CE — E CE CE
76 CE — CE — CE — CE — CE — CE — CE — c
xA C A)?
-SEAL
,�w G
U0
o
5
U
cq3
P-4
;01
1-- —� I'
1
"02125
).bN—b-, 005
...........
HY. Jfl.
WETLAND
OVERLAY
PLANS
She
2.4

W -
U
CF CE CE CE CE CE CE -- w
- - - - -- - -- - -- CE M
-� CE � S 3 :�
CE
t 573 � CE
t
t 513 - - - - - - _•
t
s
J
`j 1
CIS
I /
I � �
S .
i 1
{ Q 414*00
415_
`- 413 �/ / /�L� 572 \`` �� `•� ` �/ \� ,I /' % 'J' S�
�' L,
572`
� ;�• ���� �.\ 41S /
SF 3 " 572 \.
571
/ S�2 572 \
\ 572
i4
WILDLANDS
E.G- N E Efts O
WILDLANDS
/ 0' 20 40' ENGINEERING INC.
ul r-1 gkal Reatun6.
(HORIZONTAL) '4—* ae
K�kigll NC ki Hill Rind , 1
m Td: 919A51.99h''
m Fu 91� N,, F ;
I F-vm I.w. ��� 1'JVI31
.I
C A
ss,o.liti
m ^SEAL
0 7 w
'iM.t MA\���
rn \m
�-- CE �-
CE
----- CE
\ — J
o{
�\ v
CE \
CIO
U�
U0
s
Q
4
v
Fy M
G!
�a
U \
1'
571
` • �. _ Q wka EOSinw: __. \MM
TL
S _ 573 ~- ZL5 �p73 - - - - - ZL9 - 572 - - - - - - - - - - - 517 Sj� ` \ 'a cnKtaaer 1
\ 4 _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Re9mioo.
\ 3C 30 30 3C 33 33 -�� 04 33 3 30 571 —
v WETLAND
g OVERLAY
RW 3 v
PLANS
e��E
�r- Sheet
w 2.5

G�\
NRW 2 �/ \
G
m
G� \
G4,
/ m
ce
GE
L) m of
/
I
fl
v m /
G� G
w
WILDLANDS
Er�GiN FFRi r��
2' 4' 6' S' 10'
VERTICAL WILDLAN DS
0' 25' 50' 75' 120, ENGI � ERING� INC.
HORIZONTAL
56111(k.kWNI, I.:r
IT.I: 9, AS T.Afr
F.,919x51.99Yf�
Fn. 419x5I.99N�
CARO
��p�'FE88 %0•��y
?: os/�h3 •t t�-
=SEAL �
v m/ ce / UT 1
0
w
U
13G
3J
U
1 X590
U
1
w
U
ld ld ld ld '3G d
ld ld l
30
h
�J
58
w' 7jJ
i8g �) 587
8 .
5909 � -ap /
'
1 �
S8g / '
33 37 -'
I I I ld
I ld I
ld
UQ U
o Z
.�M Z
U
0
qU
i
J
_cl
Q+
N
u
�z
G
r+
i
y,�..ml,� w5•m1u
m.
IievW-
C�
imI
i-I
WETLAND
�s
OVERLAY
®,
c�ly
PLANS
sh-
2.6
• rl
�'

CE
G CE ,35rF --
/ � CE -CE �_
30
' 37
0' 25' 50' 75' 100'
HORIZONTAL
l$;,
WILDLANDS
EFI tiINf Ewir�(;
WILDLANDS
ENGINEER INC.
rw,logicaI R! ntING 4irn
tlmicw
5w. (lwFd1101fstl Sun. 1.2
Wkia6, \C YM17
F.. 919A51.9
FaI 919A51, 111
Fvm I..�. +ue \o. 1''atlJi
�Q'.FESS�O,I�y
=SEAL
NL
%O�•.,•INE•• �J
4)
cn U
V.z
U
O .is
U
G
a
cis
cl
M �
d
ga
b
c
v
I1..1 b6�6, :;
--- ........._.. -00.nnss
��.c �um�
N. Fw ,,: .11'mm
...1
I'—ur. In.
JWH
WETLAND
�s
OVERLAY
PLANS
--4
c�
•.r
2.7

V
1 SF 4
— CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE
5p1
C '
Lu
W
o .
47
>
Z 538
C) 5 /
538
5-
�J
� Slo
�U
8�
S�eW
I � r
Rw 4
U
W
U f/
W
U
U
/ 8
U
539
co
U
SF 4A
U
I r.,
LW
E CE CE CE CE \
O�
n�
538
S3) �w • �
533
m
�n
m
�1G.
m
so'
m
o
I
I m
I
n
m
I
O
m
m
I
n
m
n
lib
WILDLANDS
E.01. EE RI 0
WILDLAINDS
ENGINEERINGI INC.
Gcolopial Ratonvm,
ttrrvim
SM5 ('Mpel11111 c r m 1
Td 911 A5 .9 M7
Tei. 919.851.9"',
T
pQ:��iSB %�y
?SEAL
O 1Nfc�P: Jb
� U
o Z!
nblo �
� U
q U
a
cis
u
oa
b
G
i
51 'm!
J�p\ Mr. q fl.tZi
P'1
Prvp Firs4m: \51 \I
I,nwn Nr. JU
•e.a
y:
I'--Br 1Nl1
Rc.w!um
C/C
WETLAND
P,
OVERLAY
PLANS
CIS
sh-
L. [)
0' 25' 50' 75' 100' �
HORIZONTAL

i
. r
Planting Slunmary Table
Wetland Planting -Zune3
Acres
20.1
App, Ind
Species Name
Ma%
lktit
Indiv.
Indiv.
# of
Taml
Species
Coniston Name
S i
Spacilrg
Type•
Caliper
SlreNm
Spacing
Stems
Ik
� �
Size
Size
Snlic srrieea
Quercur
Cherrybatk Oak
12 h.
R
WILDLANDS
Canopy
612 ft.
1700
Camu.s
agnda
Sit.
L
0.25'• -1.0"
Shmb
68 fi.
Ilfq
Qurrru., phrllnc
Linndendron
Tulip Wplar
i20.
R
ENGINEERING
WILDLANDS
612 ft.
13IXI
Planru.e
rulipijem
8ft.
R
Canopy
68ft.
UR1U
rcfJenralic
Qurrcua phelln.c
Wgluw Oak
I20.
R
0.8 " -L0"
Canopy
ENGINEERING, INC.
130!1
Brtu /u nigra
Planrus
Sycannrc
I'_f1
R
0.25 " -1.0"
Canopy
612 ft.
?'YU
Qurrcu.c
cridrnruli.s
g0.
R
0.?5 " -I.U"
Canopy
68ft.
Ecological Restotalion
mirhau
Berulu niAnt
River Buch
12 ft.
R
0.:5 " -I.0"
Canopy
(+120.
IUMI
Fraxinus
gnrrc�us
Swalry Chestnut
I'ft.
R
QS " -L0"
Canopy
Seances
UW
prnngxlvunira
»ich »urii
oak
PLANTING ZONES:
Fra.rinus
(}een Ash
120.
R
O.S" -I.D'
5fi05 NZII nc n6or'" 122
R.
612 ft.
IAOU
pin rile»
Tel: 91Y.85, 9916
saNOlal
IB$BB
a
Fr r: 919.851.9987
Firm Livmu N. F•ORSI
Zone 1 - Sireambank Planting Zone
CARo l/�
®
Zone 2 - Floodplain Planting Zone
OQ� FE68j0
•T: Oy/Y /t3 4�
:7
=SEAL �
=par {`Q;.
W W
W W
Zone 3 - Wetland Planting Zone
/�l7
�i�C��I i IAAG�����
® Zone 4 - Permanent Seeding Outside Easement
CND �
•
a y
VEGETATION
TABLES
Planting
Slily®
Tade
Sfnambank Planting •Zane 1
Acres 7.9
Species Corrmnn Name
Mex L4u1
M1Gn.Size
Svatum
Indv.
#of
Total
Spring Type•
Spoiog
Stems
Ilts
Salix nigru
Black Willow
8f1. L
0.5 " -IA "cal.
Shnrb
28 fi.
G62
Comur Sgky Wgwuod
Bft. L
Shrub
' -$R.
1324
Salix serireu
Silly W glow
B 0. L
OS " -1.0" cal.
Shmb
2 -8 0.
1724
lunru.c rffusu.
Soft Rush•`
50. P
herb
Suholal
hAIJU
0
• L = Live Stake; P
= Herh scenux Plug; R = Ban Rnor
•• Sall Ru,ch.,hall be
installed at theme
fa ceatnbank only
na all rexmratinn rrache.c
Planting
Slmulla
Table
P'loodplain Plaraing• Zone 1
Acres 18$
Due blay 6.' -'013
Max Unit
fob Number: M5 -0.123
Pl•n E.,irum `11N
Species Conran Name
L = L -e Stake; P = Herbaceous
Plug; R = Bare Root
s
D.- B`� JTL
rbr�
Cbaied B. JWH
1�
1�
Revisions
PLANTING
TABLF,S
t
Sheet
•L =Live Stake;P= Herharrau.c
Plug; R =Bare Rom
3o®
Planting Slunmary Table
Wetland Planting -Zune3
Acres
20.1
App, Ind
Species Name
Ma%
lktit
Indiv.
Indiv.
# of
Taml
Species
Coniston Name
S i
Spacilrg
Type•
Caliper
SlreNm
Spacing
Stems
Ik
� �
Size
Size
Snlic srrieea
Quercur
Cherrybatk Oak
12 h.
R
O.S' -I.0"
Canopy
612 ft.
1700
Camu.s
agnda
Sit.
L
0.25'• -1.0"
Shmb
68 fi.
Ilfq
Qurrru., phrllnc
Linndendron
Tulip Wplar
i20.
R
0.'3 " -L0"
Canopy
612 ft.
13IXI
Planru.e
rulipijem
8ft.
R
Canopy
68ft.
UR1U
rcfJenralic
Qurrcua phelln.c
Wgluw Oak
I20.
R
0.8 " -L0"
Canopy
bl +2 ft.
130!1
Brtu /u nigra
Planrus
Sycannrc
I'_f1
R
0.25 " -1.0"
Canopy
612 ft.
?'YU
Qurrcu.c
cridrnruli.s
g0.
R
0.?5 " -I.U"
Canopy
68ft.
IJW
mirhau
Berulu niAnt
River Buch
12 ft.
R
0.:5 " -I.0"
Canopy
(+120.
IUMI
Fraxinus
gnrrc�us
Swalry Chestnut
I'ft.
R
QS " -L0"
Canopy
612 ft.
UW
prnngxlvunira
»ich »urii
oak
Fra.rinus
(}een Ash
120.
R
O.S" -I.D'
Canopy
612 ft.
IAOU
pin rile»
saNOlal
IB$BB
a
Planting Slunmary Table
Wetland Planting -Zune3
Acres
20.1
App, Ind
Species Name
Ma%
lktit
M1Bn"
Indiv.
#of
Total
Species
Coniston Name
S i
Tom•
Caliper
Stratum
Sparing
Stems
Ihs
nd .I
� �
Size
Snlic srrieea
Sgky Wglow
Sh.
L
0.25 " -1.0"
Co,opy
680.
IIW
Camu.s
Silky Dogwood
Sit.
L
0.25'• -1.0"
Shmb
68 fi.
Ilfq
Qurrru., phrllnc
Wgbw Oak
80.
ft
0.3 " -I.0"
Croupy
68 fi.
12W
Planru.e
Sycamore
8ft.
R
Canopy
68ft.
UR1U
rcfJenralic
Brtu /u nigra
River Birch
Bft.
R
0.3 " -1.0"
Canopy
68 fi.
IS()U
Qurrcu.c
SwartQ Chestnut
g0.
R
0.?5 " -I.U"
Canopy
68ft.
IJW
mirhau
Owls
Fraxinus
Green Ash
8ft.
R
U.?S " -1.0"
Canopy
680.
1!fN1
prnngxlvunira
SuMotal
9b0U
0
Permanent Seeding Outside Easement - 2nre 4
Acres
4.6
App, Ind
Species Name
Stratum
Comm�n Nrune
Density
Dote
H1a /arrel
Auve:,r
L'rerar"
uem
raueesrae
4B
nd .I
Perll®renl Seeding - 2ore 1, 2, & 3
Acres 3
37$
A �� d S
Species Name S
Slroton C
Canon Name (
(De
Te la See - Zore 1, 2, & 3
Acres 37$
Approsed Species Name Slrolum Common Name Density
Dao (Ihs /octet
Aug 15- Seralrrrrralr Herb Rye Grain I4U
May 1
May I - Srmria imliru Herb Gemmn MOlet 50
Au I$

Y
S
x
F
vM1
0' 50' 100' 150' 200' W I L D L A N D S
ENGINEERING
(HORIZONTAL)
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING, I I INC
SAS %7u FM Rd Sure 122
Raleigh 7.0 2]607
y Tc1 9198519986
y y y F- 9198519W
y y y F— L—.. N F-0871
y y y
y y yy y yy y y yy y y yh• y yy y y y \�
y y y y y y y y 'h' y y y `h' y y y ` \ \\ .�� CAROI�I'�i
y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y OQ' ��6`s1O.
_� -SEAL 'y •.9
y y y y y y 'hv y y `hv y y y y `h' y S E A L 9' _
y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y v, y y vv y y y y y y y y y `✓ y y y y y y y y y y y
Wo rA JN Jq�
y `h'
M M xq pv, ,
y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y
y y y y y y y y y r, y y y y
y y y y y y y y y y y y y vv
y y y ry y y vv y yy y y yJ' y y r, y y y `h' yy y y y 'Y yy y
y •Y d' y y 'V y y y y
y `Y y y y y 'h• y y y y y y y `h'
y y y
y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y
y y y y y y y y y y y y -✓ y y y
y y y
y y y y y y y y
y y y y y y y y yy y y y y y y vv
y y y y y y y •V y y y
y �• y y y y y ���
y y y
y y y
y
SF 1
b
.v y y y y yy y �� r/ r
y y y yy yy yy y y y y�
y y y y y y y y (sMil
P4 A
y y
•y y y
y y y y y y y lJ vv
yy y y y y yy y y y � W W W W W
y 'V y y y .V y •h' �� I W W W W W W F�
'Fv y y y y +' y y •Y ��`\\;� W W W W 1 W W W W W � � �
S F 1 A yy
V
W W W W
�X),
W W W W W W W W W
W W W W
W W W W W W W W
W W W W W W W W W
W W W W W W W W
W .✓ W W W W W W
W W W W W W W W
W W W W W W W
W W W W W W W W
W W W Dale M.v 6 2325
W W W Job E. WS -02325
W W W W W W W
Fpm- - Cvglnccr \"MM
Fy Unml Rr JTL
W W W W W W W W
Chnhd Rv �µH
W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W ReSISio}I5
UT 2 W W W W W W W
\\ W W W W W W W W
W W W W W W W
W W W W W W W
W W W W W W W PLANTING
W W W W W W
W W W W W
W W W W I W W
W W W W d
P L F L � $heel
P L P L 3.1
I� I

fi
I--1 d— Id,-Id
a
i
� —ld--T
_j
7k
a
i
r
r
J W W W
d W W W W
W W W W
W W W W
W W W W
W W W
a
PL — PL —APL__ — PL —APL
FARM
r ——A
PL_PL
PL PL PL
UT1-
v
r
r
r
SF 3
—7
PL — PL
UT 1B
W W W W
W W W W W
W W W W W
W W W W W W W W W
W W W W W W W W W W W W
W W W W W W W W W W W
W W W W W W W W W W W
W W W W W W W W W
1. /J WW W WW W`11WW W W.
r
&0�04
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
Mm 6 'HU
r
WILDLANDS
wls H2II5
ENGINEER NC
INroG/
PmJatE__
o n
EmI.V;: l
s ey
D.—H,
HAa Chapel Fh➢R. Same122
RaWgh.M Y]6W
F. 919 8519986
Fu 9198519997
�O
r
vn� L�a�ue C BJI
F N. IF 0
�CARQ
Ro.ISions
2�o`�c�/blt3�y '.y9
SEAL
v
r
r
cc
�— PLC —PL ,®
b �
UT 1A
ld I
r r
r
r
N
�i
z
G
P
.-ti
H
M
N
w
'p
Dm
Mm 6 'HU
r
Job Number
wls H2II5
r
F�
PmJatE__
VM11
s ey
D.—H,
JTL
(Tnhed H.-
IN H
E3
Ro.ISions
' r
— PLANTING
7
e� Sheet
r 0' 100' 200' 300' 400'
I (HORIZONTAL) oY

�1
11
D
Ij
n
W W W W
W W y y W W W y W W W W W y W W W W W y W W W W W W W W y W W y W
W I L D L A N D S
W W y W W W W y W W W W y W 't' W y y W `t' W W W W W W W W W W ENGINEERING
W WWW WWW WW WWW yWW WW WyW WWW WW WyW yWW WW WyW WWW WW WW WWW WWW WW
Wy W W W W W yW W W W W W WW WW W W y W W W W yW WW y W W WW W W W W W WW W W y W W W W W W W W W W W y W 1:1Vti11�1.L'LAN INC
W W W W W y W W W W W W y W W W W W W y W W W W W W y W W W W W W y W W W W W W y W W W W Ccologlcal Resto.tiun
W y W Sen —
W y W W y W W W W W W W y W W W W W W
5685
W W W W y W W W W y W W W y W W W W W W W W y W W W y W y W W y W C e HARud9m
le 122
y y W R k, h rC 2D7
W W g
9198519986
W y W W y W W W W W W W y W W W W W W W y W W W'y W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W `t' W W W W y W 'f' W W W W W W W W W W W y W W W Fum G 9198 \lo FINJI
W W W W y W W W W W W W y W W W W W y W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W
Wr.WWW'y WWWWy Wy WW WWW WW WW WW WWWWy WW WW WWWWy WW WW yWWWy WW W`Y WWW Wy WW.4.41 yWW WWW yWW WW WW WW yWWWV. WW WWW W W WWWWWW'L yWWW'U WWy `\ \ \�CARO,
W `t' W W W W W W W W W W W W y
WW J, WWWyWWWyyWWWWW` t' WWWyyWWW` t'WWWWyWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW WWWWy WW WWV,WWWWWWWWW WW WW WW WW WWW`I'W W W W WWWWW 'in FSEALQ -�4��
W WW yW WW y. yW WW WW WWWW'V WW WW WWy WW WW yW WWWWW WW WW WWW WW yW WW WW WW't'WW WW`1 WyWw WW'Y WW yW WW WW WW'V y,W WW WWw WWW V,W WW WW WW`Y / /�OM'MP P \\"o
yW WW WW WW WyW WW WW WW WWWWWWW W WWW y�W WW Wy WW yWW WW WW Wy WW WWWW W WWW W`t' WW WW WW WWW yW Wy WW WW W yWWW WW WWW WW WW WW / /Illll���
W W W y W W W y W W W W y W W y W W W W W y W W W W W W W
W W W W W W W W W WW y W W W W W y 'y W W W y y W W W W W W W W W W W W W y W W W y y W W W W y
W W W y W W W W y W W W W y W W W W W W W W W W
W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W y W W W y W W W y W W W W y W W W y W
yyWW W W WWWW y W WWWW W W WW WWW W W yWWW W W W WW W W W WW W W W Wy W W W Wy W W W W WW
W y W W W W y W W W W W W W W W y W y W W W W y W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W
W W y W W W W 'y W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W
W y W W W W W y W W W W W W y W W W W'y W W 'Y W W W y W W W W W y W W W W W W y W W W W W W W W W W W y W W W W W y W W
W � W W W
n W W y W yWWW y W W WWWW W W WyWW W W Wy W W W W W W W W WWWW W W WWWW W y 41 -V
W y W
W W W W W W W W W W W W y W W W
y W W W y W W W y W W W W W W W W W W W y W W W y W W W
W W y y W W W y W W W W y W W W y W W W W W W W W
y W W W W W W W W W W y W W W y W W W W W W W y W W W y W
W W W y W VL
y W W J W W `t' y `t' W y W ��/�/��
W W W l/'�
W'Y y W W W W W y
W W W W y W 'Y W y W
W W W y W W W y W W W `V W W W `t' W W W y
W W W W W W W W W W
SF 4 W W W W W W W W y W W W W W W •t� !�
y W W y W W W W W W W W W W W
W W r,W W W W W yW W W
a.J
W W SF 4A WW yW WW WW yW W WW WW W
W W y W y W
J W W W cf
Dalc bfa, 6
Job Vumba U5 U2725
Rgy Ennr \m
• 1 L n— tl. JTL
�� Chcctd BY
J.11
PLANTING
Sheet
0' 50' 100' 150' 200' 44
(HORIZONTAL) 3.3