20131305 Ver 1_Year 0 Monitoring Report_2015_20150414

BASELINE MONITORING
DOCUMENT AND AS -BUILT
BASELINE REPORT
Final
AGONY ACRES MITIGATION SITE
Guilford County, NC
DENR Contract 004949
NCEEP Project Number 95716
Data Collection Period: October 2014 — January 2015
Draft Submission Date: February 3, 2015
Final Submission Date: February 17, 2015
PREPARED FOR:
�tem
Lii 111c:rlt
NC Department of Environment and Natural
Resources
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652

PREPARED BY:
fir
WILDLANDS
E N G I NEE RING
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225
Raleigh, NC 27609
Jason Lorch
jlorch @wildlandseng.com
Phone: [phone]
Agony Acres Mitigation Site
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report -FINAL

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. ( Wildlands) completed a full delivery project at the Agony Acres Mitigation
Site (Site) for the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) to restore, enhance, and
preserve a total of 9,195 linear feet (LF) of perennial and intermittent stream in Guilford County, NC. The
Site generated 6,596 Stream Mitigation Units (SMUs) and 3.0 Buffer Mitigation Units (BMUs). This site is
located in the Reedy Fork Watershed within Cape Fear River Basin Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03030002
(Cape Fear 02) near Ossipee, NC (Figure 1). The streams are all tributaries to Reedy Fork and are referred
to herein as UT1, UT1A, UT113, and UT2. The Site also includes 3.0 acres of riparian buffer restoration along
Reedy Fork and UT1.
The Site is located within the Jordan Lake Water Supply Watershed which has been designated as a
Nutrient Sensitive Water. The Site's watershed is within Cape Fear local watershed HUC 03030002020070,
which was not identified as a Cape Fear 02 Targeted Local Watershed (TLW) in NCEEP's 2009 Cape Fear
River Basin Restoration Priority (RBRP) plan; however, this local watershed was later designated as a
Targeted Resource Area (TRA) in the 2011 Request for Proposals (RFP) in the Cape Fear 02. The Agony
Acres Mitigation Site fully supports the Cataloging Unit (CU) -wide functional objectives stated in the 2011
RFP to reduce and control nutrient inputs, reduce and control sediment inputs, and protect and augment
Significant Natural Heritage Areas in the Cape Fear 02 River Basin. The Project will contribute to meeting
the CU -wide Functional Improvement Objectives by establishing the following project goals:
• Reduce sediment inputs by removing cattle from streams and restoring degraded and eroding
stream channels;
• Return a network of streams to a stable form that is capable of supporting biological functions;
• Reduce fecal coliform, nitrogen, and phosphorous inputs through removing cattle from streams
and establishing and augmenting a forested riparian corridor;
• Protect existing high quality streams and forested buffers; and
• Improve and protect hydrologic inputs to the adjacent Reedy Fork Aquatic Habitat Significant
Natural Heritage Area.
The project is helping meet the goals for the watershed outlined in the RBRP and provide numerous
ecological benefits within the Cape Fear River Basin. While many of these benefits are limited to the Agony
Acres project area, others, such as pollutant removal, reduced sediment loading, and improved aquatic
and terrestrial habitat, have farther - reaching effects.
The Site construction and as -built surveys were completed between August and December 2014. Minimal
adjustments were made during construction, as needed, based on site conditions and availability of
materials. Specific changes are detailed in Section 5.1. Baseline (MYO) profiles and cross section
dimensions closely match the design parameters. The Site was built as designed and is on track to meeting
the upcoming monitoring year's success criteria.
Agony Acres Mitigation Site
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report -FINAL

AGONY ACRES MITIGATION SITE
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
APPENDICES....................................................................................................... ............................1 -1
Section 1:
PROJECT GOALS, BACKGROUND AND ATTRIBUTES ............................. ............................1 -1
1.1
Project Location and Setting .......................................................................... ............................1
-1
1.2
Project Goals and Objectives ......................................................................... ............................1
-2
1.3
Project Structure, Restoration Type and Approach ....................................... ............................1
-3
1.3.1
Project Structure .................................................................................... ............................1
-3
1.3.2
Restoration Type and Approach ............................................................ ............................1
-4
1.4
Project History, Contacts and Attribute Data ................................................ ............................1
-5
Section 2:
SUCCESS CRITERIA ............................................................................ ............................2 -1
2.1
Streams .......................................................................................................... ............................2
-1
2.1.1
Dimension .............................................................................................. ............................2
-1
2.1.2
Pattern and Profile ................................................................................. ............................2
-1
2.1.3
Substrate ................................................................................................ ............................2
-1
2.1.4
Photo Documentation ............................................................................ ............................2
-2
2.1.5
Hydrology Documentation ..................................................................... ............................2
-2
2.2
Vegetation ...................................................................................................... ............................2
-2
2.3
Schedule and Reporting ................................................................................. ............................2
-2
Section 3:
MONITORING PLAN .......................................................................... ............................3 -1
3.1
Stream ............................................................................................................ ............................3
-1
3.1.1
Dimension .............................................................................................. ............................3
-1
3.1.2
Pattern and Profile ................................................................................. ............................3
-1
3.1.3
Substrate ................................................................................................ ............................3
-2
3.1.4
Photo Reference Points ......................................................................... ............................3
-2
3.1.5
Hydrology Documentation ..................................................................... ............................3
-2
3.1.6
Visual Assessment .................................................................................. ............................3
-2
3.2
Vegetation ...................................................................................................... ............................3
-2
Section 4:
MAINTENANCE AND CONTINGENCY PLAN ......................................... ............................4 -1
4.1
Stream ............................................................................................................ ............................4
-1
4.2
Vegetation ...................................................................................................... ............................4
-1
Section 5:
AS -BUILT CONDITION ( BASELINE) ...................................................... ............................5 -1
5.1
As -Built /Record Drawings .............................................................................. ............................5
-1
5.1.1
UT1 ......................................................................................................... ............................5
-1
5.1.2
UT1A ....................................................................................................... ............................5
-1
5.1.3
UT1B ....................................................................................................... ............................5
-1
5.1.4
UT2 ......................................................................................................... ............................5
-1
5.2
Baseline Data Assessment ............................................................................. ............................5
-1
5.2.1
Morphological State of the Channel ...................................................... ............................5
-2
5.2.2
Vegetation .............................................................................................. ............................5
-2
5.2.3
Hydrology ............................................................................................... ............................5
-3
Section6:
REFERENCES ..................................................................................... ............................6 -1
KAgony Acres Mitigation Site
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report -FINAL

APPENDICES
Appendix 1 General Tables and Figures
Figure 1
Project Vicinity Map
Figure 2
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 -d Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table 6 Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters- Cross Section)
Longitudinal Profile Plots
Cross Section Plots
Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Stream Photographs
Appendix 3 Vegetation Plot Data
Table 7 Planted and Total Stem Counts
Vegetation Photographs
Appendix 4 As -Built Plan Sheets
Agony Acres Mitigation Site
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report -FINAL

Section 1: PROJECT GOALS, BACKGROUND AND ATTRIBUTES
1.1 Project Location and Setting
The Agony Acres Mitigation Site (Site) is located in northeastern Guilford County, north of Gibsonville
(Figure 1). From Gibsonville take NC 61 north 5.5 miles. Turn right on Sockwell Road. Travel 1.4 miles. The
project site is located north of Sockwell Road and is bound on the north by Reedy Fork. The Site is located
on six tracts owned by four different property owners. See Agony Acres Mitigation Plan Table 1 (2014) for
property owners, and Parcel Identification Numbers (PIN). A conservation easement was recorded on
30.78 acres within six parcels (Deed Book 7558, Pages 828, 853, 904, and 927).
The Site is located in the Reedy Fork Watershed within the Jordan Lake Water Supply Watershed which
has been designated a Nutrient Sensitive Water. The project streams flow directly into Reedy Fork which
flows into the Haw River and eventually into the Jordan Lake Reservoir. The Site's watershed is within
Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03030002020070 which was not identified as a Cape Fear 02 Targeted Local
Watershed (TLW) in NCEEP's 2009 Cape Fear River Basin Restoration Priority (RBRP) plan; however, this
HUC was later designated as a Targeted Resource Area (TRA) in the 2011 Request for Proposals (RFP) in
the Cape Fear 02. The Site connects to Reedy Fork and three separate but connected Significant Natural
Heritage areas. Reedy Fork Aquatic Habitat, Reedy Fork Slopes at NC 61, and Altamahaw Alluvial Forest
are all listed on the NC Natural Heritage GIS database immediately adjacent to the project. There are also
records for several state threatened, special concern, and significantly rare mussel species in Reedy Fork.
The Site is located in the Carolina Slate Belt of the Piedmont Physiographic Province. The Piedmont
Province is characterized by gently rolling, well- rounded hills with long low ridges, with elevations ranging
anywhere from 300 to 1500 feet above sea level. The Carolina Slate Belt consists of heated and deformed
volcanic and sedimentary rocks. Approximately 550 to 650 million years ago, this region was the site of a
series of oceanic volcanic islands. The belt is known for its numerous abandoned gold mines and
prospects. Specifically, the Site is located in the CZfv subregion within the Carolina Slate Belt. The CZfv sub
region is classified as felsic metavolcanic rock. These rock types are described as metamorphosed dacitic
to rhyolitic flows and tuffs interbedded with mafic and intermediate metavolcanic rock, meta - argillite and
metamudstone.
NCEEP completed a Local Watershed Plan (LWP) in 2008 on the HUC immediately downstream which
begins at the confluence of Reedy Fork and the Haw River and includes Travis and Tickle Creeks. The Site
is located less than one mile outside of the LWP area and has a very similar land use pattern. The 2008
Little Alamance, Travis, and Tickle Creeks LWP identified nutrient inputs from agriculture and stream bank
erosion in altered reaches as major stressors within this TLW. The Site was identified as a stream and
buffer restoration and cattle exclusion opportunity to improve water quality and buffers within the TRA.
Restoration goals for the downstream LWP area are defined in the 2008 Little Alamance, Travis, and Tickle
Creeks LWP. The primary goals for the agricultural regions of the LWP area are to promote nutrient and
sediment reduction by restoring streams and riparian buffers and excluding livestock. The Cape Fear 02
2011 RFP established three CU -wide Functional Improvement Objectives as listed below:
• To reduce and control sediment inputs;
• To reduce and control nutrient inputs; and
• To protect and augment Significant Natural Heritage Areas.
The four tributaries to Reedy Fork on the Site are located within the North Carolina Division of Water
Resources ( NCDWR) subbasin 03 -06 -02 of the Cape Fear River Basin. The NCDWR assigns best usage
Agony Acres Mitigation Site
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report -FINAL 1 -1

classifications to State Waters that reflect water quality conditions and potential resource usage. None of
the four tributaries are classified by NCDWR and therefore are required to meet standards for Class C
waters. Class C waters are protected for secondary recreation, fishing, and aquatic life. Reedy Fork
(NCDWR Index No. 16- 11 -(9)) is classified as Water Supply V — Upstream (WS -V) and Nutrient Sensitive
Waters (NSW) by NCDWR. Class WS -V waters are protected as water supplies and typically flow into other
water bodies that are directly used as sources for drinking, culinary or food processing purposes. NSW
classification represents water bodies that require nutrient management plans to reduce water quality
impacts due to excessive nitrogen and phosphorus levels and algal populations.
Prior to construction activities, the stream channels exhibited varying degrees of degradation across the
site. The site was used as agricultural and pasture land and most of the buffers had been maintained to
narrow corridors to maximize agricultural and pasture land. Cattle also had free access to the streams,
which resulted in sporadic degraded stream banks and poor bed forms.
The streams on the Site that were restored were previously severely over - enlarged channels that were
extremely deep in many locations. The alterations of the Site to promote cattle grazing and farming
resulted in elimination of many of the ecological functions of this small stream /wetland complex.
Specifically, functional losses at the Site included degraded aquatic habitat, altered hydrology (related to
loss of floodplain connection and lowered water table), and reduction of quality and amount of riparian
wetland habitats and related water quality benefits. Ongoing bank erosion was also occurring at some
locations due to high, overly steep banks and lack of bank vegetation. Table 4 in Appendix 1 and Tables
5a -d in Appendix 2 present the pre- restoration conditions in detail.
1.2 Project Goals and Objectives
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 Agony Acres Mitigation 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 as project goals and
objectives. These project goals were established and completed with careful consideration of goals and
objectives that were described in the RBRP 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 (Wildlands, 2014) include:
• Reduce sediment inputs by removing cattle from streams and restoring degraded and eroding
stream channels;
• Return a network of streams to a stable form that is capable of supporting biological functions
important to sensitive species within and adjacent to the project site;
• Reduce fecal coliform, nitrogen, and phosphorous inputs through removing cattle from streams
and establishing and augmenting a forested riparian corridor;
• Protect existing high quality streams and forested buffers that provide habitat important to
sensitive species within and adjacent to the project site;
• Improve and protect hydrologic inputs to the adjacent Reedy Fork Aquatic Habitat Significant
Natural Heritage Area; and
• Improve and protect hydrologic inputs to Reedy Fork, which is listed as impaired on the 2012 NC
303(d) list for impaired aquatic life and for elevated fecal coliform levels.
The project goals will be addressed through the following project objectives:
Agony Acres Mitigation Site
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report -FINAL 1 -2

• On -site nutrient inputs were decreased by removing cattle from streams, re- establishing
floodplain connectivity, and filtering on -site runoff through buffer zones. Off -site nutrient input
will be absorbed on -site by filtering flood flows through restored floodplain areas, where flood
flow will spread through native vegetation. Vegetation is expected to uptake excess nutrients.
• Stream bank erosion which contributes sediment load to the creeks was greatly reduced, if not
eliminated, in the project area. Eroding stream banks were stabilized using bioengineering,
natural channel design techniques, and grading to reduce bank angles and bank height. Storm
flow containing grit and fine sediment is filtered through restored floodplain areas, where flow
will spread through native vegetation. Spreading flood flows also reduces velocity and allows
sediment to settle out. Sediment transport capacity of restored reaches was improved so that
capacity balances more closely to load. Sediment load reduction will be monitored through
assessing bank stability with cross section surveys and visual assessment through photo
documentation which serves as an accepted surrogate for direct turbidity measurements.
• Restored riffle /pool sequences promote aeration of water and create deep water zones, helping
to lower water temperature. Establishment and maintenance of riparian buffers creates long-
term shading of the channel flow to minimize thermal heating. Lower water temperatures will
help maintain dissolved oxygen concentrations.
• In- stream structures were constructed to improve habitat diversity and trap detritus. Wood
habitat structures were included in the stream as part of the restoration design. Such structures
include log drops and rock structures that incorporate woody debris and native onsite rock.
• Adjacent buffer and riparian habitats were restored with native vegetation as part of the project.
Native vegetation provides cover and food for terrestrial creatures. Native plant species were
planted and invasive species treated. Eroding and unstable areas were stabilized with vegetation
as part of this project.
• The restored land is protected in perpetuity through a conservation easement.
1.3 Project Structure, Restoration Type and Approach
The design streams 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. Specifically, the site design was developed to restore a small stream complex directly
adjacent to the Reedy Fork to a naturally occurring community to create riparian habitat and improve
water quality. Other key factors addressed in the design were to create stable habitats, improve riparian
buffers, and restore the natural migration patterns for fish spawning. Figure 2 and Table 1 in Appendix 1
present the stream mitigation components for the Agony Acres Mitigation Site.
The final mitigation plan was submitted and accepted by the NCEEP in March 2014. Construction activities
were completed by Land Mechanic Designs, Inc in September 2014. The planting was completed by Bruton
Natural Systems, Inc. in December 2014. The baseline as -built survey was completed by Kee Mapping and
Surveying, in October 2014. There were no significant deviations reported in the as -built project elements
compared to the design plans. A few structures were either added, eliminated, or adjusted slightly based
on field conditions. Field adjustments made during construction are described in detail in section 5.1.
Appendix 1 provides more detailed project activity, history, contact information, and watershed /site
background information for this project.
1.3.1 Project Structure
The project will provide 6,596 stream mitigation units (SMUs) and 3.0 buffer mitigation units (BMUs).
Please refer to Figure 2 for the project component /asset map for the stream restoration feature exhibits
Agony Acres Mitigation Site
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report -FINAL 1 -3

and Table 1 for the project component and mitigation credit information for the Agony Acres Mitigation
Site.
1.3.2 Restoration Type and Approach
The design streams 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 Site consists of stream restoration, enhancement, and preservation
(Figure 2). The specific proposed stream types are described below.
The stream restoration portion of this project includes six reaches:
• UT1 -Reach 2: UT1 from approximately 1100 feet downstream of Sockwell Road to a sharp
bend due east, approximately 1200 feet in length;
• UT1 -Reach 5: UT1 beginning at the confluence with UT1A to its terminus with Reedy Fork,
approximately 1500 feet in length;
• UT1A -Reach 1: UT1A beginning at Sockwell Road for a length of approximately 850 feet;
• UT1A -Reach 4: UT1A beginning approximately 700 feet upstream of the confluence with UT1
to its terminus with UT1;
• UT113: UT113 beginning at the conservation easement to its terminus with UT1, approximately
200 feet; and
• UT2: UT2 beginning at an existing fence line to its terminus with Reedy Fork, approximately
1000 feet.
The project also includes stream enhancement on four reaches classified as either enhancement I (El)
or enhancement II (Ell):
• UT1 -Reach 1, Ell: UT1 beginning at Sockwell Road for a length of approximately 1100 feet;
• UT1 -Reach 2, El: UT1 beginning near a sharp bend due east for a length of approximately 100
feet;
• UT1 -Reach 4, El/Ell: UT1 beginning at an existing ford crossing to the confluence with UT1A,
approximately 700 feet in length; and
UT1A -Reach 2, Ell: UT1A beginning approximately 800 feet downstream of Sockwell Road to a sharp
change in channel slope and bedrock material, approximately 300 feet in length. Additionally, there
are two preservation reaches:
• UT1 -Reach 3: UT1 beginning approximately 100 feet after a sharp bend due east to an existing
ford crossing, approximately 1400 feet in length;
• UT1A -Reach 3: UT1A beginning at a sharp change in channel slope and bedrock material for a
length of approximately 500 feet.
For UT1 -Reach 3 and UT1A -Reach 3, the streams have not been heavily impacted by cattle and overall
stream health is relatively good. For these reaches, preservation was proposed; mainly consisting of
fencing out cattle.
The restoration reaches were designed to be similar to C -type streams according to the Rosgen
classification system (Rosgen, 1996). Type C streams are slightly entrenched, meandering streams with
access to the floodplain (entrenchment ratios >2.2) and channel slopes of 2% or less. They occur within a
wide range of valley types and are appropriate for the project landscape.
The morphologic design parameters are shown in Appendix 2, Tables 5a through 5d for the restoration
reaches, and fall within the ranges specified for C streams (Rosgen, 1996). The specific values for the
Agony Acres Mitigation Site
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report -FINAL 1 -4

design parameters were selected based on designer experience and judgment and were verified with
morphologic data form reference reach data sets.
1.4 Project History, Contacts and Attribute Data
The 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.
Agony Acres Mitigation Site
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report -FINAL 1 -5

Section 2: SUCCESS CRITERIA
The stream and buffer performance criteria for the project site will follow approved performance criteria
presented in the NCEEP Mitigation Plan Template (version 2.1, 09/01/2011), the NCEEP Monitoring
Requirements and Performance Standards for Stream and /or Wetland Mitigation (11/7/2011), and the
Stream Mitigation Guidelines issued in April 2003 by the United States Army Corps of Engineers ( USACE)
and NCDWR. Annual monitoring and semi - annual site visits will be conducted to assess the condition of
the finished project. The stream restoration and enhancement sections and the buffer restoration
sections of the project will be assigned specific performance criteria components for stream morphology
(stream only), hydrology (stream only), and vegetation (stream and buffer). Performance criteria will be
evaluated throughout the seven year post- construction monitoring period. If all performance criteria have
been successfully met and two bankfull events have occurred during separate years, Wildlands may
propose to terminate stream and /or vegetation monitoring. An outline of the performance criteria
components follows.
2.1 Streams
2.1.1 Dimension
Riffle cross sections on the restoration and El reaches should be stable and should show little change in
bankfull area, maximum depth ratio, and width -to -depth ratio. Per NCEEP guidance, bank height ratios
shall not exceed 1.2 and entrenchment ratios shall be at least 2.2 for restored channels to be considered
stable. Reach riffle means should fall within the parameters defined for channels of the appropriate
Rosgen stream type. If any changes do occur, these changes will be evaluated to assess whether the
stream channel is showing signs of instability. Indicators of instability include a trend in vertical incision
or eroding channel banks over the monitoring period. 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 surveys will not be conducted during the seven year monitoring period unless other
indicators during the annual monitoring indicate a trend toward vertical and lateral instability. If a
longitudinal profile is deemed necessary, monitoring will follow standards as described in the NCEEP
Monitoring Requirements and Performance Standards for Stream and /or Wetland Mitigation (11/7/2011)
and the 2003 USACE and NCDWR Stream Mitigation Guidance for the necessary reaches. Visual
assessments and photo documentation should indicate that streams are remaining stable and do not
indicate a trend toward vertical or lateral instability.
2.1.3 Substrate
A reach -wide pebble count will be performed in each restoration and El reach each year for classification
purposes. A pebble count will be performed at each surveyed riffle to characterize the pavement.
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.
kAgony Acres Mitigation Site
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report -FINAL 2 -1

2.1.4 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 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.
2.1.5 Hydrology Documentation
Two bankfull flow events must be documented on the restoration and enhancement reaches within the
seven -year monitoring period. The two bankfull events must occur in separate years. Stream monitoring
will continue until success criteria in the form of two bankfull events in separate years have been
documented. In addition, the presence of baseflow must be documented along portions of UT1B
constructed with a Priority I restoration approach. Baseflow must be present for at least some portion of
the year (most likely in the winter /early spring) during years with normal rainfall conditions.
2.2 Vegetation
The final vegetative success criteria for the stream restoration and enhancement areas will be the survival
of 210 planted stems per acre in the riparian corridor at the end of the required monitoring period (year
seven). The interim measure of vegetative success will be the survival of at least 320 planted stems per
acre at the end of the third monitoring year and at least 260 stems per acre at the end of the fifth year of
monitoring. Planted vegetation must average 10 feet in height in each plot at the end of the seventh year
of monitoring. If this performance standard is met by year five and stem density is trending towards
success (i.e., no less than 260 five year old stems /acre), monitoring of vegetation on the site may be
terminated with written approval by the USACE in consultation with the NC Interagency Review Team.
The extent of invasive species coverage will also be monitored and controlled as necessary throughout
the required monitoring period. The final vegetative success criteria for the buffer restoration areas will
be the survival of 320 planted stems per acre in the riparian corridor at the end of the required monitoring
period (year five).
2.3 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 1.4, 11/7/2011), 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 major project elements including such items as grade control
structures, vegetation plots, permanent cross sections, crest gages, and pressure transducers;
• Photographs showing views of the restored Site taken from fixed point stations;
• Assessment of the stability of the Site based on the cross sections and longitudinal profile, where
applicable;
• Vegetative data as described above including the identification of any invasion by undesirable
plant species;
• Stream flow gage attainment;
Agony Acres Mitigation Site
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report -FINAL 2 -2

• A description of damage by animals or vandalism;
• Maintenance issues and recommended remediation measures will be detailed and documented;
and
• Wildlife observations.
Agony Acres Mitigation Site
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report -FINAL 2 -3

Section 3: MONITORING PLAN
Monitoring will consist of collecting morphological, vegetative, and hydrological data to assess the project
success based on the restoration goals and objectives on an annual basis or until success criteria is met.
The success of the project will be assessed using measurements of the stream channel's dimension,
pattern, substrate composition, permanent photographs, vegetation, and surface water hydrology. Any
areas with identified high priority problems, such as streambank instability, aggradation /degradation, 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. The monitoring period will extend seven
years beyond completion of construction or until performance criteria have been met.
3.1 Stream
Geomorphic assessments will follow 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). Please refer to Appendix 4 for monitoring locations
discussed below.
3.1.1 Dimension
A total of 16 cross sections were installed along the stream restoration and El reaches. Two cross sections
were installed per 1,000 linear feet of stream restoration work, with riffle and pool sections in proportion
to NCEEP guidance. The mitigation plan (Wildlands, 2014) called for thirty two cross sections, but after
discussions with NCEEP, it was determined that the wrong formula was used to calculate the number of
cross sections needed on the Site. Therefore, with verbal approval from NCEEP, the correct number of
cross sections were calculated and installed on the Site. Each cross section was permanently marked with
pins to establish its location. Cross section surveys include points measured at all breaks in slope, including
top of bank, bankfull, edge of water, and thalweg to monitor any trends in bank erosion. If moderate bank
erosion is observed at a stream reach during the monitoring period, a series of bank pins will be installed
in representative areas where erosion is occurring for reaches with a bankfull width of greater than three
feet. Bank pins will be installed in at least three locations (one in upper third of the pool, one at the mid-
point of the pool, and one in the lower third of the pool). Bank pins will be monitored by measuring
exposed rebar and maintaining pins flush to bank to capture bank erosion progression. Annual cross
section and bank pin surveys (if applicable) will be conducted in monitoring years one (MY1), two (MY2),
three (MY3), five (MY5), and seven (MY7). Photographs will be taken annually of the cross sections looking
upstream and downstream.
3.1.2 Pattern and Profile
Longitudinal profile surveys will not be conducted during the seven year monitoring period unless other
indicators during the annual monitoring show a trend toward vertical and lateral instability. If a
longitudinal profile is deemed necessary, monitoring will follow standards as described in the NCEEP
Monitoring Requirements and Performance Standards for Stream and /or Wetland Mitigation (11/7/2011)
and the 2003 USACE and NCDWR Stream Mitigation Guidance for the necessary reaches. Stream pattern
and profile will be assessed visually as described below in section 3.1.6.
Agony Acres Mitigation Site
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report -FINAL 3 -1

3.1.3 Substrate
A reach -wide pebble count will be performed in each restoration reach each year for classification
purposes. A pebble count will be performed at each surveyed riffle to characterize the pavement.
3.1.4 Photo Reference Points
A total of 42 permanent photograph reference points were established within the project area after
construction. Photographs will be taken once a year to visually document stability for seven 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. 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.
3.1.5 Hydrology Documentation
Four manual crest gages and four pressure transducer automated gages were installed on the Site
(Appendix 4). The crest gages and transducers were installed at four surveyed riffle cross sections along
UT1 reach 2, UT1A Reach 4, UT1B, and UT2 and 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. Additionally, the pressure transducer
data will be plotted and included in the annual monitoring reports.
Baseflow in UT113 will be confirmed by two pressure transducer automated gages installed at the thalweg
elevation of the channel. One transducer is located at the upper end of the reach, and one at the
downstream end. The transducers are equipped with auto logging gages that are capable of monitoring
stream stage. A rating curve has been developed for each of the transducer locations to correlate stage
to discharge. Discharge data will be provided annually in the monitoring reports to demonstrate
intermittent aquatic function has been maintained in the restored channel.
3.1.6 Visual Assessment
Visual assessments will be performed along all stream and buffer restoration areas on a semi - annual basis
during the seven year monitoring period. Problem areas will be noted such as channel instability (i.e.
lateral and /or vertical instability, in- stream structure failure /instability and /or piping, headcuts),
vegetated health (i.e. low stem density, vegetation mortality, invasive species or encroachment), beaver
activity, or livestock access. Areas of concern will be mapped and photographed accompanied by a written
description in the annual report. Problem areas will be re- evaluated during each subsequent visual
assessment. Should remedial actions be required, recommendations will be provided in the annual
monitoring report.
3.2 Vegetation
Planted woody vegetation will be monitored in accordance with the guidelines and procedures developed
by the Carolina Vegetation Survey -NCEEP Level 2 Protocol (Lee et al., 2006) to monitor and assess the
planted woody vegetation. A total of 16 standard 10 meter by 10 meter vegetation plots were established
within the project easement area.
Vegetation plots were randomly established within the planted corridor of the 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.
Agony Acres Mitigation Site
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report -FINAL 3 -2

Reference photographs were taken at the origin looking diagonally across the plot to the opposite corner
during the baseline monitoring in January 2015. Subsequent annual assessments following baseline survey
will capture the 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 height, density, vigor, damage (if any), and 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.
Agony Acres Mitigation Site
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report -FINAL 3 -3

Section 4: MAINTENANCE AND CONTINGENCY PLAN
Any identified high priority problem areas, such as streambank instability, aggradation /degradation, lack
of vegetation establishment, or failure to meet 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.
4.1 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.
4.2 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.
Agony Acres Mitigation Site
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report -FINAL 4 -1

Section 5: AS -BUILT CONDITION (BASELINE)
The Site construction and as -built surveys were completed between June 2014 and December 2014. The
survey included developing an as -built topographic surface, locating the channel boundaries, structures,
and cross - sections. For comparison purposes, the baseline monitoring divided the reach assessments in
the same way they were established for design parameters: UT1 Reach 2, UT1 Reach 4, UT1 Reach 5, UT1A
Reach 1, UT1A Reach 4, UT1B, and UT2.
5.1 As -Built /Record Drawings
A half size baseline plan set is located in Appendix 4 with the post- construction survey and alignments for
the project. A record drawing has also been provided to NCEEP as a separate document that redlines any
significant field adjustments made during construction. Minimal adjustments were made during
construction, where needed, based on field evaluation.
5.1.1 UT1
• Station 122 +83 logs replaced with boulder toe to avoid excavating into hill slope;
• Station 143 +44 brush toe replaced with boulder toe to avoid impact to nearby trees;
• Station 143 +64 log sill not installed due to existing boulder providing grade control;
• Station 144 +31 boulder sill replaced with log sill due to onsite availability;
• Station 147 +45 rock outlet added to prevent erosion from overland flow;
• Station 151 +26 log sills replaced with boulder sills due to onsite availability;
• Station 158 +26 boulder sill replaced with log sill due to onsite availability; and
• Station 159 +00 boulder toe added to provide additional bank stability.
5.1.2 UT1A
• Station 203 +17 brush toe replaced with boulder toe to avoid impacts to existing trees;
• Station 210 +88 it was determined during construction that boulder toe was not necessary; and
• Station 220 +06 log sill replaced with boulder sill due to onsite availability.
5.1.3 UT1B
• No field adjustments were made during construction.
5.1.4 UT2
• No field adjustments were made during construction.
5.2 Baseline Data Assessment
Baseline monitoring (MYO) was conducted between October 2014 and December 2014. The first annual
monitoring assessment (MY1) will be completed in the fall of 2015. The streams will be monitored for a
total of seven years, with the final monitoring activities concluding in 2021. The buffers will be monitored
Agony Acres Mitigation Site
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report -FINAL 5 -1

for a total of five years, with the final monitoring activities concluding in 2019. The close -out for the Agony
Acres Mitigation Site will be conducted in 2022 given the success criteria has been 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 process. If the Site is not meeting success criteria, then an additional two years of monitoring will
be conducted by Wildlands.
5.2.1 Morphological State of the Channel
Morphological data for the as -built profile was collected between October 2014 and December 2014.
Please refer to Appendix 2 for summary data tables, morphological plots, and stream photographs.
Profile
The MYO profiles closely match the profile design parameters. On the design profiles, riffles were depicted
as straight lines with consistent slopes. However, at some locations 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. The plotted longitudinal profiles and related summary data can be found in Appendix 2.
Dimension
The MYO dimension numbers closely match the design parameters with some minor variability for all
reaches. Summary data and cross - section plots of each project reach can be found in Appendix 2.
Pattern
The MYO pattern metrics fell within the design parameters for all seven reaches. No major design changes
were made to 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 calculations and should reduce the risk of
further erosion along all restoration reaches. The as -built condition for each of these reaches indicates an
overall increase in substrate particle size (Table 5a — 5d). The substrate data for each constructed reach
was compared to the design shear stress parameters from the mitigation plan to assess the potential for
bed degradation. The shear stresses calculated for the constructed channels are within the allowable
range, which indicates the channel is not at risk to trend toward channel degradation.
Although a few streams have smaller particle sizes than were designed for, this is not a concern. The riffles
were constructed with rock material mined on the Site which contained a greater variation in substrate
size than material that has been subjected to flushing flows within an active stream channel. The streams
had very little flow during construction, and there was minimal rainfall between completion of
construction and baseline monitoring assessment. Once the streams reach baseflow and a few rain events
occur, most of this smaller sediment should flush out of the riffles and into the pools. During monitoring
year one (MY1) it is fully expected that the riffles will show a larger particle size than what was observed
at baseline monitoring.
5.2.2 Vegetation
The MYO vegetation survey was complete in January 2015. The MYO planted density is 650 stems /acre,
which exceeds the MY5 density requirement. Summary data and photographs of each plot can be found
in Appendix 3.
Agony Acres Mitigation Site
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report -FINAL 5 -2

5.2.3 Hydrology
No bankfull events have been observed following completion of construction and baseline monitoring
assessments. Bankfull events recorded will be included in the year one monitoring report.
Agony Acres Mitigation Site
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report -FINAL 5 -3

Section 6: 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. 1994. 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 4.0. Retrieved from http: / /www.nceep.net /business/
monitoring /veg /datasheets.htm.
Multi- Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium (MRLC). 2001. National Land Cover Database.
http: / /www.mric.gov /nlcd.php
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2011. Surface Water Classifications.
http: // portal. ncdenr. org /web /wq /ps /csu /classifications
North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 2005. Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Plan.
http: / /h20.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.
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: / /www. geology. enr .state.nc.us /usgs /carolina.htm
Wildlands Engineering, Inc (2014). Agony Acres Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan. NCEEP, Raleigh, NC.
Agony Acres Mitigation Site
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report -FINAL 6 -1

APPENDIX 1. General Tables and Figures

03030002010
l
1
03030002020060
' � I
1 T
Hydrologic Unit Code (14)
EEP Targeted Local Watersheds
Iroxief Ivyrl
r - Project Area
c ,
'1,,,,/
t�
f
%O-`
N
I
0
I
�S�1 O300 M050 f
I
f
Gtlir' rM Chutc;W -d
I
(
I
I
)
I
I
l.r.`
!
03030002020070
I
♦
_.;
The subject project site is an environmental restoration site of the
NCDENR Ecoysystem Enhancement Program (EEP) and is
encompassed by a recorded conservation easement, but is
bordered by land under private ownership. Accessing the site may
require traversing areas near or along the easement boundary and
therefore access by the general public is not permitted. Access by
authorized personnel of state and federal agencies or their
designees /contractors involved in the development, oversight,
and stewardship of the restoration site is permitted within the terms
and timeframes of their defined roles. Any intended site visitation or
activity by any person outside of these previously sanctioned roles
and activites requires prior coordination with EEP.
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
03030002030010
03030002030020
Stoney Creek GV310"
to
EC
Y
C3
H
U
A
I' Ossl 'k'
Directions:
From 1 -40 take exit147 and turn north on NC 87. Follow NC 87
north for approximately 12 miles, and turn left onto Old NC 87.
Take a left onto Gibsonville Ossipee Road, then stay striaght in .3
mile onto Sockwell Road. The site will be on the right side
approximately 2 miles down the road.
:.� Figure 1 Project Vicinity Map
I,rw „elc,:r Agony Acres Mitigation Site
- 0 0.5 1 Miles NCEEP Project No. 95716
' Monitoring Year 0 - 2014
Guilford County, NC

Figure 2 Project Component/ Asset Map
V I L L i ] S
Agony Acres Mitigation Site
E NGINEE RING 250 500 Feet NCEEP Project No.95716
t'a mt 0
Monitoring Year 0 - 2014
Guilford County, NC

Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Agony Acres Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No.95716)
Monitoring Year 0 - 2014
MITIGATION CREDITS
qua
Stream
Riparian
Wetland
Non-Riparian Wetland
Nitrogen
Buffer Nutrient
Phosphorous
Nutrient Offset
Type
R
RE
R
RE
R RE
Offset
Totals
6,235
361
N/A
N/A
N/A N/A
3.0 1 N/A
N/A
PROJECT COMPONENTS
Reach ID
11 64
As.-Bu.ilt
ationing/
Klocation
Existing
Footage/
Acreage
Approach
Restoration or Restoration
Equivalent
Restoration Footage/
Acreage
Mitigation
Ratio
Credits (SMU/
WMU)
STREAMS
UT1 -Reach 1
Enhancement
100 +00 to 100 +14
14
Ell
14
- --
- --
(DOT ROW)
(No Credit)
100 +14 to 103 +62;
UT1 -Reach 1
1,079
Ell
Enhancement
1,079
2.5
432
103 +93 to 111 +24
UT1 -Reach 1
Enhancement
103 +62 to 103 +93
31
Ell
31
- --
- --
( Easement Break )
(No Credit)
UT1 -Reach 2
111 +24 to 122 +61
1,039
Pi
Restoration
1,137
1
1137
UT1 -Reach 2
122 +61 to 123 +54
93
El
Enhancement
93
1.5
62
123 +54 to 128 +73;
UT1 -Reach 3
1,350
Preservation
1,350
5
270
129 +29 to 137 +60
UT1 -Reach 3
Preservation
128 +73 to 129 +29
56
56
- --
- --
( Easement Break )
(No Credit)
UT1 -Reach 4
137 +60 to 141 +15
355
Ell
Enhancement
355
2.5
142
141 +15 to 142 +90;
UT1 -Reach 4
260
El
Enhancement
260
1.5
173
143 +44 to 144 +29
UT1 -Reach 4
Enhancement
142 +90 to 143 +44
54
El
54
- --
- --
(Easement Break)
(No Credit)
144 +29 to 150 +08;
UT1 -Reach 5
1,355
P1/2
Restoration
1,481
1
1481
150 +62 to 159 +64
UT1 -Reach 5
Restoration
150 +08 to 150 +62
65
Pi
54
- --
- --
( Easement Break )
(No Credit)
UT1A -Reach 1
Restoration
200 +00 to 200 +05
5
P1
5
(DOT ROW)
(No Credit)
200 +05 to 202 +69;
UT1A -Reach 1
738
P1
Restoration
812
1
812
203 +09 to 208 +57
UT1A -Reach 1
Restoration
202 +69 to 203 +09
32
P1
40
(Easement Break)
(No Credit)
UT1A -Reach 2
208 +57 to 211 +49
292
Ell
Enhancement
292
2.5
117
UT1A -Reach 3
211 +49 to 216 +06
457
Preservation
457
5
91
UT1A -Reach 3
Enhancement
216 +06 to 216 +36
30
Ell
30
- --
- --
(Easement Break)
(No Credit)
UT1A -Reach 4
216 +36 to 223 +02
461
P1
Restoration
666
1
666
UT1B
300 +00 to 302 +32
243
P1
Restoration
232
1
232
400 +00 to 404 +19;
UT2
404 +70 to 410 +32
975
P1
Restoration
981
1
981
UT2
Restoration
404 +19 to 404 +70
53
P1/2
51
(Easement Break)
(No Credit)
COMPONENT SUMMATION
Riparian Wetland Non-Riparian
Wetland Buffer
Upland
L;to.rabon Level
Stream [LF)
(acres)
Riverine
(acres)
Ron- Riverine
(acres)
(acres)
Restoration
5,309
3.0
Enhancement
-
Enhancement 1
353
Enhancement 11
1,726
Creation
1111111111111M
-
- -
Preservation
1,807
-
- -
-
High Quality Preservation
N /A: not applicable

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Agony Acres Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No.95716)
Monitoring Year 0 -2014
Activity or Report
Date Collection
Completion or
Delivery
Designer
Complete
October 2013 -
Scheduled
Mitigation Plan
March 2014
March 2014
919.851.9986
April 2014 -
Land Mechanic Designs, Inc.
Final Design - Construction Plans
June 2014
June 2014
Willow Spring, NC 27592
June 2014 - September
Bruton Natural Systems, Inc
Construction
September 2014
2014
Fremont, NC 27830
Temporary S &E mix applied to entire project area 1
September 2014
September 2014
Permanent seed mix applied to reach /segments
September 2014
September 2014
Bare root and live stake plantings for reach /segments
December 2014
December 2014
October 2014 -
Green Resource, LLC
Baseline Monitoring Document (Year 0)
Nursery Stock Suppliers
February 2015
December 2014
Dykes and Son Nursery
Year 1 Monitoring
2015
December 2015
Year 2 Monitoring
2016
December 2016
Year 3 Monitoring
2017
December 2017
Year 4 Monitoring
2018
December 2018
Year 5 Monitoring
2019
December 2019
Year 6 Monitoring
2020
December 2020
Year 7 Monitoring
2021
December 2021
Seed and mulch is added as each section of construction is completed.
Table 3. Project Contact Table
Agony Acres Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No.95716)
Monitoring Year 0 - 2014
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Designer
312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225
Nicole Macaluso, PE, CFM
Raleigh, NC 27609
919.851.9986
Land Mechanic Designs, Inc.
Construction Contractor
126 Circle G Lane
Willow Spring, NC 27592
Bruton Natural Systems, Inc
Planting Contractor
P.O. Box 1197
Fremont, NC 27830
Land Mechanic Designs, Inc.
Seeding Contractor
126 Circle G Lane
Willow Spring, NC 27592
Seed Mix Sources
Green Resource, LLC
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Bare Roots
Dykes and Son Nursery
Live Stakes
Bruton Natural Systems, Inc
Monitoring Performers
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Monitoring, POC
Jason Lorch
919.851.9986, ext. 107

Table 4. Project Information and Attributes
Agony Acres Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No.95716)
Monitoring Year 0 - 2014
PROJECT INFORMATION
Project Name
Agony Acres Mitigation Site
County
Guilford County
Project Area (acres)
31 acres
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude)
36° 10'40" N, 79° 33'02- W
PROJECT WATERSHED SUMMARY INFORMATION
Physiographic Province
Piedmont
River Basin
Cape Fear River
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8 -digit
03030002
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14 -digit
03030002020070
DWR Sub -basin
03 -06 -02
Project Drainiage Area (acres)
358 acres
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area
<1%
CGIA Land Use Classification
65% Managed Herbaceous Cover, 30% Mixed Upland Hardwoods, 3% Cultivated,
2% Southern Yellow Pine, <1% Low Intensity Development
REACH SUMMARY INFORMATION
Length of reach (linear feet) - Post - Restoration 3,760 2,204 2,302 232 1,032
Drainage area (acres)
228 358 103 61 61
NCDWR stream identification score
42.5 46.5 41 29.25 32.25
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
WS -V
Morphological Desription (stream type)
P
P
P/I
P
Evolutionary trend (Simon's Model) - Pre- Restoration
1,111
III, IV
1,11/111
II /III
II /III
Underlying mapped soils
Cecil sandy loam, Congaree loam, Coronaca clay loam, Enon fine sandy loam, Enon clay loam, Madison clay
loam, Mecklenburg sandy clay loam, Wehadkee loam
Drainage class
- --
Soil Hydric status
- --
Slope
- --
- --
---
FEMA classification
N/A
Native vegetation community
Piedmont bottomland forest
Percent composition exotic invasive vegetation -Post-
Restoration
0%
REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS
Documentation Regulation Applicable? Resolved? ME&M-Pporting
Waters of the United States - Section 404
Yes
Yes
USACE Nationwide Permit No.27 and DWQ401 Water Quality
Certification No. 3885.
Waters of the United States - Section 401
Yes
Yes
Division of Land Quality (Dam Safety)
No
N/A
N/A
Endangered Species Act
Yes
Yes
Agony Acres Mitigation Plan; Wildlands determined "no
effect" on Guilford County listed endangered species.
Historic Preservation Act
Yes
Yes
No historic resources were found to be impacted (letter from
SHPO dated 1/15/13).
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) /Coastal Area
Management Act (CAMA)
No
N/A
N/A
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
N/A
N/A
The project streams do not have an associated regulatory
floodplain; however portions of UTl, UT1A, and UT2 are
located within the floodway and flood fringe of Reedy Fork
(FEMA Zone AE, FIRM panels 8838 and 8848).
Essential Fisheries Habitat
i No
i N/A
N/A

APPENDIX 2. Morphological Summary Data and Plots

Table Sa. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Agony Acres Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 95716)
Monitoring Year 0 - 2014
UT1
PRE - RESTORATION CONDITION
REFERENCE REACH DATA DESIGN AS- BUILT /BASELINE
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
I
0.33/1.88/3.47/
0.18/3.2/14.6/
I Min
I Max
I Min I Max I
Min
I Max I
Min
I Max
I Min I
Max
Min I
Max
Min
I Max
I Min
I Max
I Min I
Max
Min I
Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
0.43
1.26
0.49
0.63
0.38
0.56
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Bankfull Width (ft)
6.5
13.9
16.0
11.1
5.3
10.9
10.7
11.2
6.3
9.3
11.5
12.3
10.2
12.8
10.2
10.4
11.9
13.6
Floodprone Width (ft)
0.25
0.56
10
0.41
20
>50
25
25
65
60
>114
14
125
31
<1%
22
1 51
28
1 64
60.0
100.0
200.0
<1%
Bankfull Mean Depth
Rosgen Classification
0.8
E4, G4
1.5
4.3
0.7
1.0
1.1
1.6
1.8
0.8
1.0
0.8
1.0
2.7
0.8
4.9
0.9
0.6
0.9
0.8
0.9
Bankfull Max Depth
2.6
3.4
1.4
3.6
1.9
5.2
1.0
1.4
1.7
2.1
2.6
1
1.2
1.2
1.6
1.0
1 1.2
1.2
1.5
1.1
1.4
1.3
1.6
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
N/A
5.2
24.6
59.0
7.4
5.4
12.4
17.8
19.7
6.6
8.7
8.9
12.2
7.9
12.0
6.2
9.0
9.1
11.9
Width /Depth Ratio
---
8.2
3.3
10.4
16.6
5.2
9.6
5.8
7.1
7.9
9.3
12.3
14.4
- --
13.1
- --
13.6
12.0
16.8
15.5
15.7
Entrenchment Ratio
1,132
1.5
- --
1.2
>3.6
2
3.2
8.3
5.5
>10.2
1.7
4.3
>2.5
1.14
2.2
5.0
2.2
5.0
5.9
9.6
14.7
16.8
Bank Height Ratio
1.2
Water Surface Slope (ft /ft)
2.3
---
1.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
- --
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0122
Bankfull Slope (ft /ft)
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0047
1.0
0.015
D50 (mm)
0.0054 1 0.0172
0.0096
3.47
14.60
silt/ Clay
0.11
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
- --
- --
- --
- --
---
- --
- --
13.9
73.2
23.7
81.3
Riffle Slope (ft /ft)
- --
- --
N/A
0.004
1 0.047
0.013
0.0184 1
0.0343
0.0188 1
0.0704
0.0148
1 0.0453
0.0118
1 0.0363
0.0078
0.0317
0.0090
0.0304
Pool Length (ft)
- --
- --
- --
- --
- --
---
- --
17.2
42.8
17.6
76.6
N/A
Pool Max Depth (ft)
2.4
2.5
1.6
1.8
3.3
1.2
1.8
2.6
0.9
3.2
1.1
3.9
1.6
3.7
2.0
4.9
Pool Spacing (ft)
- --
- --
N/A
34
52
71
9
46
27
73
13
67
17
84
31
78
35
103
Pool Volume (ft)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
12
20
48
157
N/A
28
50
38
41
10
50
102
16
74
20
93
20
68
34
72
Radius of Curvature (ft)
6
18
13
86
N/A
19
50
11
15
12
85
23
38
18
31
23
38
is
26
23
38
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft /ft)
N/A
0.8
2.3
1.6
10.9
N/A
2.0
5.3
1.3
1.4
1.9
9.1
2.0
3.1
1.8
3.0
1.8
3.0
1.8
2.5
1.9
2.8
Meander Length (ft)
27
45
176
260
N/A
--
--
--
--
53
178
--
--
31
151
38
192
70
120
97
160
Meander Width Ratio
1.5
2.5
6.1
19.9
N/A
3.0
5.3
3.4
3.6
1.6
5.4
8.3
8.9
1.6
7.3
1.6
7.3
2.0
6.5
2.9
5.3
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
0.33/1.88/3.47/
0.18/3.2/14.6/
SC /SC /SC/
SC/SC/0.11/
N/A
45.0/117/256
128/234/ >2048
41.3/79.2/128.0
45.0/104.7/180.0
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) Ib /ftz
0.43
1.26
0.49
0.63
0.38
0.56
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (Capacity) W /mz
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
0.25
0.56
0.15
0.41
0.96
0.37
0.29
0.25
0.56
0.25
0.56
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate ( %)
<1%
<1%
- --
- --
- --
- --
<1%
<1%
<1%
<1%
Rosgen Classification
G4
E4, G4
B3
E4
E4
E4
C4 /E4
C4
C4
C4
C4
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
2.7
1.7 5.7
4.9
2.2 1 3.5
4.9 5.4
5.0 1 5.6
3.8
2.5 -5
2.5 -5
2.6
3.4
3.3
3.6
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
14
129
37
20
97
35
40
25.0
46.0
17.0
30.9
30.3
42.9
Q -NFF regression
- --
- --
Q-USGS extrapolation
N/A
- --
--
Q-Mannings
---
---
I
Valley Length (ft)
- --
- --
- --
- --
- --
- --
- --
907
1,232
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
1,132
1,417
- --
- --
- --
- --
- --
1,114
1,488
1,137
1,535
Sinuosity,
1.14
1.24
1.04
1.4
2.3
1.0 1.3
1.4
1.20 1 1.30
1.20 1.30
1.2
1.2
Water Surface Slope (ft /ft)
---
---
---
---
- --
- --
- --
0.0111
0.0122
Bankfull Slope (ft /ft)
0.0093 1 0.019
0.0005 1 0.013
0.0490
0.012
0.0047
0.019 1 0.022
0.015
0.007 1 0.015
0.0054 1 0.0172
0.0096
0.0104
( - - -): Data was not provided
N /A: Not Applicable

Table 5b. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Agony Acres Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 95716)
Monitoring Year 0 - 2014
UT1A
PRE - RESTORATION CONDITION I REFERENCE REACH DATA I DESIGN I AS- BUILT /BASELINE
( - - -): Data was not provided
N /A: Not Applicable
Min Max
Min
Max
Min
I
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
I
Max
Min
I
Max
Min ) Max
Min
I Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
5.8
9.3
11.1
5.3
10.9
10.7
11.2
6.3
9.3
11.5
12.3
8.0
8.2
8.0
8.1
Floodprone Width (ft)
15
>80
25
25
65
60
>114
14
125
31
18
1
40
18
41
50.0
200.0
Bankfull Mean Depth
1.1
1.0
0.7
1.0
1.1
1.6
1.8
0.8
1.0
0.8
1.0
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.6
Bankfull Max Depth
1.4
1.5
1.0
1.4
1.7
2.1
2.6
1
1.2
1.2
1.6
0.7
0.9
0.8
1.0
0.9
1.8
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
N/A
6.3
9.3
7.4
5.4
12.4
17.8
19.7
6.6
8.7
8.9
12.2
4.8
5.0
4.0
5.0
Width /Depth Ratio
1
5.3
9.0
16.6
5.2
9.6
5.8
7.1
7.9
9.3
12.3
14.4
13.4
13.6
15.9
13.2
Entrenchment Ratio
2.6
>8.6
2
3.2
8.3
5.5
>10.2
1.7
4.3
>2.5
2.2
5.0
2.2
5.0
6.3
24.8
Bank Height Ratio
1.7
1.5
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
-
--
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
4.31
5.06
1.41
0.25
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
- --
--
- --
- --
- --
- --
- --
15.5 42.0
20.5
51.9
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
---
- --
N/A
0.004
1
0.047
0.013
0.0184 1
0.0343
0.0188 1
0.0704
0.0148
1
0.0453
0.0212
0.0652
0.0077 0.0505
0.0109 0.0449
Pool Length (ft)
- --
- --
- --
- --
- --
- --
- --
5.4 52.2
9.1
35.5
N/A
Pool Max Depth (ft)
1.8
3.6
1.6
1.8
3.3
1.2
1.8
2.6
0.7
2.4
0.7
2.5
1.6 3.5
1.4
3.1
Pool Spacing (ft)
- --
- --
N/A
34
52
71
9
46
27
73
10
53
11
54
20 85
45
82
Pool Volume (ft)
MENEM
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
30
35
N/A
N/A
N/A
28
50
38
41
10
50
102
13
58
13
60
24
60
35
55
Radius of Curvature (ft)
12
57
N/A
N/A
N/A
19
50
11
15
12
85
23
38
14
24
15
25
14
23
15
23
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
N/A
1.5
7.2
N/A
N/A
N/A
2.0
5.3
1.3
1.4
1.9
9.1
2.0
3.1
1.8
3.0
1.8
3.0
1.8
2.9
1.9
2.8
Meander Length (ft)
89
104
N/A
N/A
N/A
53
178
24
120
25
123
70
112
96
117
Meander Width Ratio
3.8
4.4
N/A
N/A
N/A
3.0
5.3
3.4
3.6
1.6
5.4
8.3
8.9
1.6
7.3
1.6
7.3
3.0
7.5
4.3
6.8
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri% /Ru % /P ° /a /G % /5%
SC9'./Sa % /G % /C % /B % /Be
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
"16/139/25667
.06/
SC /SC /1.41/
5C /SC /0.25/
N/A
62
33.4/64.0/128.0
26.2/75.9/180.0
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) Ib /ftZ
0.48
034
0.38
0.49
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (Capacity) W /mZ
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
0.12
0.16
0.15
0.37
0.29
0.12
0.16
0.12
0.16
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate ( %)
<1%
<1%
- --
- --
- --
<1%
<1%
<1%
<1%
Rosgen Classification
E4
E4
B3
E4
C4 /E4
C4
C4
C4
C4
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
3.3
5.2
4.9
5.0
5.6
3.8
2.5 -5
2.5 -5
2.6
3.0
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
21
50
37
35
40
14.0
17.0
15.9
15.0
Q -NFF regression
Q-USGS extrapolation
N/A
- --
- --
Q- Mannings
Valley Length (ft)
- --
- --
- --
- --
- --
- --
- --
673
530
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
770
461
- --
--
- --
- --
849
650
857
666
Sinuosity,
1.12
1.03
1.04
1.4
2.3
1.0
1.3
1.4
1.20
1.30
1.20
1.30
1.2
1.2
Water Surface Slope (ft ft)
- --
- --
- --
- --
- --
-
- --
0.0126
N/A
Bankfull Slope (ft /ft)
0.0095
0.015
0.0490
0.012
0.0047
0.019 1
0.022
0.015
0.0103
0.0176
0.0141
0.0153
0.0137
0.0129
( - - -): Data was not provided
N /A: Not Applicable

Table 5c. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Agony Acres Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 95716)
Monitoring Year 0 - 2014
UT1B
PRE -
RESTORATION
REFERENCE REACH DATA
DESIGN AS- BUILT/
BASELINE
( - - -): Data was not provided
N /A: Not Applicable
Min I Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
I
Max
Min I Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
4.9
11.1
5.3
10.9
10.7
11.2
6.3
9.3
11.5
12.3
7.3
7.7
Floodprone Width (ft)
36
25
25
65
60
>114
14
125
31
16
F
37
70.0
Bankfull Mean Depth
1.1
0.7
1.0
1.1
1.6
1.8
0.8
1.0
0.8
1.0
0.6
0.5
Bankfull Max Depth
1.9
1.0
1.4
1.7
2.1
2_6
1
1.2
1.2
1.6
0.7
0.9
0.7
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
N/A
5.4
7.4
5.4
12.4
17.8
19.7
6.6
8.7
8.9
12.2
5.2
3.5
Width /Depth Ratio
4.4
16.6
5.2
9.6
5.8
7.1
7.9
9.3
12.3
14.4
12.6
17.0
Entrenchment Ratio
7.5
2
3.2
8.3
5.5
110.2
1.7
4.3
>2.5
2.2
5.0
9.1
Bank Height Ratio
1.6
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
-
1.0
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
--
silt /clay
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
- --
- --
- --
- --
- --
- --
12.1 24.4
Riffle Slope (ft /ft)
N/A
0.004
1
0.047
0.013
0.0184
1 0.0343
0.0188 0.0704
0.0222
1
0.068
0.0219 0.0425
Pool Length (ft)
- --
- --
- --
- --
- --
11.9 30.9
N/A
Pool Max Depth (ft)
2.5
1.6
1.8
3.3
1.2
1.8
2.6
0.7
2.4
1.7 2.5
Pool Spacing (ft)
N/A
34
52
71
9
46
27
73
9
48
30 45
Pool Volume (ft3)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
N/A
N/A
N/A
28
50
38
41
10
50
102
12
53
25
40
Radius of Curvature (ft)
N/A
N/A
N/A
19
50
11
15
12
85
23
38
13
22
14
20
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft /ft)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2.0
5.3
1.3
1.4
1.9
9.1
2.0
3.1
1.8
3
1.8
2.6
Meander Length (ft)
N/A
N/A
N/A
--
--
--
--
53
178
--
--
22
110
60
72
Meander Width Ratio
N/A
N/A
N/A
3.0
5.3
3.4
3.6
1.6
5.4
8.3
8.9
1.6
7.3
3.2
5.2
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri % /Ru % /P% /G % /S%
SC % /Sa %/G % /C % /B % /Be%
d 16/d 3 5/d 5 0/d 84/d 95 /d 100
IN=
sc /sc /sc/
N/A
19.5/40.2/90.0
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) Ib /ft2
- --
- --
0.21
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (Capacity) W /mZ
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
0.10
0.15
0.41
0.96
0.37
0.29
0.10
0.10
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate ( %)
<1%
- --
- --
- --
- --
- --
<1%
<1%
Rosgen Classification
E4
B3
E4
E4
E4
C4 /E4
C4
C4
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
4.6
4.9
2.2
1
3.5
4.9
5.4
s.o
s.6
3.8
1.5 -4
1.9
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
25
37
20
97
35
40
11.0
6.6
Q -NFF regression
- --
Q-USGS extrapolation
N/A
- --
Q-Mannings
- --
Valley Length (ft)
- --
- --
--
- --
- --
- --
199
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
243
- --
- --
- --
- --
- --
219
232
Sinuosity,
1.06
1.04
1.4
2.3
1.0
1.3
1.4
1.20
1.30
1.3
Water Surface Slope (ft /ft)z
- --
- --
- --
- --
- --
- --
0.0095
Bankfull Slope (ft /ft)
0.020
0.0490
0.012
0.0047
0.019
1 0.022
0.015
0.010
0.020
0.0181
( - - -): Data was not provided
N /A: Not Applicable

Table 5d. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Agony Acres Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 95716)
Monitoring Year 0 - 2014
UT2
PRE -
RESTORATION
REFERENCE REACH DATA
DESIGN AS- BUILT/
BASELINE
Drainage Area (SM)
0.09
0.15
Min Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min I
Max
Min I Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
- --
<1%
<1%
Rosgen Classification
E4
B3
E4
E4
E4
C4 /E4
C4
C4
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
Bankfull Width (ft)
4.9
6.2
1 9.6
11.1
5.3
10.9
10.7
11.2
6.3
9.3
11.5
12.3
6.6
35
6.7
Floodprone Width (ft)
11.5
Q -NFF regression
>20
25
25
65
60
>114
14
125
31
Q-USGS extrapolation
15
33
50.0
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.6
1.1
0.7
1.0
1.1
1.6
1.8
0.8
1.0
0.8
1.0
0.5
0.5
Bankfull Max Depth
1.0
2.0
1.0
1.4
1.7
2.1
2.6
1
1.2
1.2
1.6
0.6
0.8
0.7
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
N/A
5.2
7.0
7.4
5.4
12.4
17.8
19.7
6.6
8.7
8.9
12.2
3.4
Water Surface Slope (ft /ft)z
3.4
Width /Depth Ratio
- --
5.5
15.5
1 16.6
5.2
9.6
5.8
7.1
7.9
9.3
12.3
14.4
12.8
0.019 1 0.022
12.9
Entrenchment Ratio
0.0195
>2.4
2
3.2
8.3
5.5
>10.2
1.7
4.3
>2.5
2.2
5.0
7.5
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
2.1
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
-
1.0
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
2.11
Silt /Clay
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
- --
- --
- --
- --
13.9 51.7
Riffle Slope (ft /ft)
- --
N/A
0.004
0.047
0.013
0.0184
0.0343
04
0.0179
0.0549
0.0146 0.0525
Pool Length (ft)
- --
- --
- --
- --
- --
10.0 28.4
N/A
22.6
Pool Max Depth (ft)
1.4
1.6
1.8
3.3
1.2
1.8
0.6
2.1
1.0 2.4
Pool Spacing (ft)
- --
N/A
34
52
71
9
46
3
9
44
25 66
Pool Volume (ft)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
32
54
N/A
28
50
38
41
10
50
102
11
48
19
50
Radius of Curvature (ft)
12
43
N/A
19
50
11
15
12
85
23
38
12
20
12
20
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft /ft)
N/A
1.5
5.4
N/A
2.0
5.3
1.3
1.4
1.9
9.1
2.0
3.1
1.8
3.0
1.8
3.0
Meander Length (ft)
102
103
N/A
--
--
--
--
53
178
--
--
20
99
58
98
Meander Width Ratio
4.1
6.8
N/A
3.0
5.3
3.4
3.6
1.6
5.4
8.3
8.9
1.6
7.3
2.8
7.5
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri % /Ru % /P % /G % /S%
SC % /Sa %/G % /C % /B % /Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
0.2/0.68/2.11/
sc /sc /sc/
N/A
20.7/98.3/256
30.2/64.0/128.0
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) Ib /ft2
-
0.64
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (Capacity) W /mZ
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
0.09
0.15
0.41
0.96
0.37
0.29
0.09
0.09
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate ( %)
<1%
- --
- --
- --
- --
- --
<1%
<1%
Rosgen Classification
E4
B3
E4
E4
E4
C4 /E4
C4
C4
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
3.0 5.1
4.9
2.2 1 3.5
4.9 1 5.4
5.0 5.6
3.8
2.5 -5
3.4
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
23
37
20
97
35
40
11.0
11.5
Q -NFF regression
- --
Q-USGS extrapolation
N/A
--
Q-Mannings
- --
Valley Length (ft)
- --
- --
- --
- --
- --
- --
905
- --
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
1,028
- --
- --
- --
- --
- --
1,023
1,032
Sinuosity,
1.06
1.04
1.4
2.3
1.0 1.3
1.4
1.20 1.30
1.2
Water Surface Slope (ft /ft)z
- --
- --
- --
- --
- --
0.0207
Bankfull Slope (ft /ft)
0.013 0.022
0.0490
0.012
0.0047
0.019 1 0.022
0.015
0.0121 0.0231
0.0195
( - - -): Data was not provided
N /A: Not Applicable

Table 6. Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross Section)
Agony Acres Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 95716)
Monitoring Year 0 - 2014
Dimension and Substrate
Base MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
Base MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
Base MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
Base MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
_ _ .- '
®
_______
®_______®_______
®_______
'
®
_______®_______®_______®_______
Dimension and Substrate
Base MY1 MY2• MY3 • MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
Base MY1 MY2• MY3 • MY4 MYS MY6 MY7
•Mean
Bankfull Depth
Bankfull Max Depth
Bankfull •
. r 'M_______®_______®_______
'®_______
- - '. .
®
_______®_______m_______
®_______
Bankfull Bank
Dimension and Substrate
Base MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
Base MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
Base MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
Base MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
Floodprone
Bankfull Mean Depth
Bankfull Max Depth
Bankfull •
. r . '
®
_______®_______®_______®_______
Dimension and Substrate
Section Cross
Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
Base MY1 MY2 MY3 Section MY4 (Pool)
MY5 MY6 MY7
Base MY1 MY2 MY3 Section MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
Base MY1 MY2 MY3 Section MY4 (Pool) MY6 MY7

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Agony Acres Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 95716)
Monitoring Year 0 - 2014
UT1 Reach 2 - Sta 111 +24 to Sta 123 +54
650
649
655
647
654
645
644
653
643
♦
♦ •
w
642
652
• AA
A
641
A AA
♦
651
A it
•
•
m
640
650
_v
a
♦ •
•
639
638
649
x
x
637
• !
w 648
636
♦
635
12200 12250 12300 12350 12400 12450 12500 12550 12600 12650 12700 12750 12800 12850 12900 12950 13000 13050 13100 13150 13200
Station (feet)
TW (MYO- 10/2014) - WS (MY)- 10/2014) _ LBKF /LTOB (MYO- 10/2014) ♦ RBKF /RTOB (MYO- 10/2014) • STRUCTURE (MYO- 10/2014)
647
.0 646
_
• • •
•
�
•
v
�
X
N
X
_ _
W
AA
645
LL,
644
643
♦ ♦_
♦
_A,
♦ a
642
04F
16 Or
_
641
640
11200 11250 11300 11350 11400 11450 11500 11550 11600 11650 11700 11750 11800 11850 11900 11950 12000 12050 12100 12150 12200
Station (feet)
0 TW (MYO- 10/2014) - -- WS (MYO- 10/2014) A LBKF /LTOB (MYO- 10/2014) ♦ RBKF /RTOB (MYO- 10/2014) O STRUCTURE (MYO- 10/2014)
650
649
648
647
646
645
644
643
w
642
641
A AA
♦
m
640
_v
639
638
637
636
635
12200 12250 12300 12350 12400 12450 12500 12550 12600 12650 12700 12750 12800 12850 12900 12950 13000 13050 13100 13150 13200
Station (feet)
TW (MYO- 10/2014) - WS (MY)- 10/2014) _ LBKF /LTOB (MYO- 10/2014) ♦ RBKF /RTOB (MYO- 10/2014) • STRUCTURE (MYO- 10/2014)

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Agony Acres Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 95716)
Monitoring Year 0 - 2014
UT1 Reach 4 - Sta 141 +15 to Sta 144 +29
UT1 Reach 5 - Sta 144 +29 to Sta 159 +64
oua
607
606
605
604
603
602
a° 601
600
°— 599
> 598
"' 597
596
595
594
593
618
617
616
615
614
613
612
611
QJ
610
°—
609
608
X
a'
"'
607
606
605
iX
LD
604
603
14100 14150 14200 14250 14300 14350 14400 14450 14500 14550 14600 14650 14700 14750 14800 14850 14900 14950 15000 15050 15100
Station (feet)
0 TW (MYO- 10/2014) ® ®® - WS (MY)- 10/2014) LBKF /LTOB (MYO- 10/2014) ♦ RBKF /RTOB (MYO- 10/2014) O STRUCTURE (MYO- 10/2014)
oua
607
606
605
604
603
602
a° 601
600
°— 599
> 598
"' 597
596
595
594
593
A AA Ak 4L AWL AA A
A AA
•
°in° ♦ ♦
x x ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦♦
15100 15150 15200 15250 15300 15350 15400 15450 15500 15550 15600 15650 15700 15750 15800 15850 15900 15950 16000 16050 16100
Station (feet)
• TW (MYO- 10/2014) — — — - WS (MY)- 10/2014) LBKF /LTOB (MYO- 10/2014) ♦ RBKF /RTOB (MYO- 10/2014) 0
STRUCTURE (MYO- 10/2014)
X
•
°in° ♦ ♦
x x ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦♦
15100 15150 15200 15250 15300 15350 15400 15450 15500 15550 15600 15650 15700 15750 15800 15850 15900 15950 16000 16050 16100
Station (feet)
• TW (MYO- 10/2014) — — — - WS (MY)- 10/2014) LBKF /LTOB (MYO- 10/2014) ♦ RBKF /RTOB (MYO- 10/2014) 0
STRUCTURE (MYO- 10/2014)
STRUCTURE (MYO- 10/2014)

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Agony Acres Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 95716)
Monitoring Year 0 - 2014
UT1A Reach 1 - Sta 200 +00 to Sta 208 +57
665
664
663
662
661
660
659
v 658
657
°- 656
v 655
`J 654
653
652
651
650
20000 20050 20100 20150 20200 20250 20300 20350 20400 20450 20500 20550
Station (feet)
+ TW (MYO- 10/2014) — — — WS (MYO- 10/2014) A LBKF /LTOB (MYO- 10/2014)
UT1A Reach 4 - Sta 216 +36 to Sta 223 +02
20600 20650 20700 20750 20800 20850 20900 20950 21000
♦ RBKF /RTOB (MYO- 10/2014) O STRUCTURE (MYO- 10/2014)
625
624
♦ a
623
♦
� r
.•
♦
622
621
AA
4, M
♦♦
A
♦
•••
♦♦
Y ♦
♦ A
_ •♦
620
N
3&
♦♦
♦
••
619
x
••
v 618
!AAA
•
♦ :
•
617
=
°-
—
fa 616
615
x
x Nx
o
•
r
v
LU
♦
20000 20050 20100 20150 20200 20250 20300 20350 20400 20450 20500 20550
Station (feet)
+ TW (MYO- 10/2014) — — — WS (MYO- 10/2014) A LBKF /LTOB (MYO- 10/2014)
UT1A Reach 4 - Sta 216 +36 to Sta 223 +02
20600 20650 20700 20750 20800 20850 20900 20950 21000
♦ RBKF /RTOB (MYO- 10/2014) O STRUCTURE (MYO- 10/2014)
625
624
623
♦
622
621
AA
♦
•••
♦♦
Y ♦
♦ A
620
N
3&
♦♦
♦
619
x
v 618
!AAA
•
617
°-
fa 616
615
r
v
LU
♦
614
—
••
613
612
611
610
21600 21650 21700 21750 21800 21850 21900 21950 22000 22050 22100 22150 22200 22250 22300 22350 22400 22450 22500 22550 22600
Station (feet)
4 TW (MYO- 10/2014) - - _ WS (MY)- 10/2014) LBKF /LTOB (MYO- 10/2014) ♦ RBKF /RTOB (MYO- 10/2014) 0 STRUCTURE (MYO- 10/2014)

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Agony Acres Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 95716)
Monitoring Year 0 - 2014
UT1B - Sta 300 +00 to Sta 302 +32
655
654
653
652
X
X
651
650
649
':AAA
w 648
®
. �
647
646
;
645
v
"'
644
643
642
641
640
30000 30050 30100 30150 30200 30250 30300 30350 30400 30450 30500 30550 30600 30650 30700 30750 30800 30850 30900 30950 31000
Station (feet)
TW (MYO- 10/2014) — — — WS (MYO- 10/2014) A LBKF /LTOB (MYO- 10/2014) ♦ RBKF /RTOB (MYO- 10/2014) O STRUCTURE (MYO- 10/2014)

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Agony Acres Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 95716)
Monitoring Year 0 - 2014
UT2 - Sta 400 +00 to Sta 407 +00
UT2 - Sta 407 +00 to Sta 410 +32
608
618
A
617
14
606
N
616
615
614
605
x
x
♦
604
♦ ,
AA
613
6 12
41
Ai
A IA A
v 611
603
♦♦
♦ •
♦
602
♦
♦
•
.A♦
610
°— 609
601
600
v 608
'L
♦ •
°— 599
607
606
�♦
598
605
v
"' 597
604
603
596
40000 40050 40100 40150 40200 40250 40300 40350 40400 40450 40500 40550 40600 40650 40700
Station (feet)
t TW (MYO- 10/2014) — — — WS (MYO- 10/2014) . LBKF /LTOB (MYO- 10/2014) . RBKF /RTOB (MYO- 10/2014) O STRUCTURE (MYO- 10/2014)
UT2 - Sta 407 +00 to Sta 410 +32
608
607
606
N
605
x
x
♦
604
♦ ,
♦ •
Ai
603
♦♦
♦ •
♦
602
♦
♦
•
.A♦
601
600
♦ •
°— 599
�♦
598
v
"' 597
♦ •
596
595
594
593
40700 40750 40800 40850 40900 40950 41000 41050 41100 41150 41200 41250 41300 41350 41400
Station (feet)
--4--TW (MYO- 10/2014) WS (MY)- 10/2014) LBKF /LTOB (MYO- 10/2014) . RBKF /RTOB (MYO- 10/2014) 0 STRUCTURE (MYO- 10/2014)

Cross Section Plots
Agony Acres Mitigtion Site (NCEEP Project No. 95716)
Monitoring Year 0 - 2014
Cross Section 1 -UT1 Reach 2
656
654
652
c
650
a',
-
w
648
–
646
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Width (ft)
+MYO(10 /2014) — Bankfull — FloodproneArea
Bankfull Dimensions
-
9.0 x- section area (ft.sq.)
'sue.
10.4 width (ft)
0.9 mean depth (ft)
1.4 max depth (ft)
10.9 wetted parimeter (ft)
0.8 hyd radi (ft)
12.0 width-depth ratio
100.0 W flood prone area (ft)
9.6 entrenchment ratio
1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 10/2014
Field Crew: Kee Mapping & Surveying
View Downstream
113 +58 Riffle
656
654
652
c
650
a',
-
w
648
–
646
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Width (ft)
+MYO(10 /2014) — Bankfull — FloodproneArea

Cross Section Plots
Agony Acres Mitigtion Site (NCEEP Project No. 95716)
Monitoring Year 0 - 2014
Cross Section 2 -UT1 Reach 2
113 +88 Pool
656
654
c
m
v
650
652
w
648
646
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Width (ft)
tMYO (10/2014) — Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
's
11.6 x- section area (ft.sq.)
,^
9.6 width (ft)
1.2 mean depth (ft)
2.1 max depth (ft)
10.7 wetted parimeter (ft)
1.1 hyd radi (ft)
7.9 width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 10/2014
Field Crew: Kee Mapping & Surveying
View Downstream
c
m
v
650
w
648
646
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Width (ft)
tMYO (10/2014) — Bankfull

Cross Section Plots
Agony Acres Mitigtion Site (NCEEP Project No. 95716)
Monitoring Year 0 - 2014
Cross Section 3 -UT1 Reach 2
120 +19 Riffle
650
648
646
c
O
'�
644
v
w
642
640
0 10 20 30 40 SO 60 70 80
Width (ft)
tMYO(10 /2014) — Bankfull
— FloodproneArea
Bankfull Dimensions
6.2 x- section area (ft.sq.)
}
10.2 width (ft)
0.6 mean depth (ft)
1.1 max depth (ft)
10.5 wetted parimeter (ft)
0.6 hyd radi (ft)
16.8 width-depth ratio
«-
60.0 W flood prone area (ft)
5.9 entrenchment ratio
1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 10/2014
Field Crew: Kee Mapping & Surveying
View Downstream
120 +19 Riffle
650
648
646
c
O
'�
644
v
w
642
640
0 10 20 30 40 SO 60 70 80
Width (ft)
tMYO(10 /2014) — Bankfull
— FloodproneArea

Cross Section Plots
Agony Acres Mitigtion Site (NCEEP Project No. 95716)
Monitoring Year 0 - 2014
Section 4 -UT1 Reach 2
120 +45 Pool
x- section area (ft.sq.)
650
width (ft)
1.1
mean depth (ft)
648
max depth (ft)
14.2
wetted parimeter (ft)
1.0
hyd radi (ft)
12.4
width -depth ratio
646
c
O
M 644
�
–
a',
w
642
640
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Width (ft)
tMYO (10/2014) — Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
14.7
x- section area (ft.sq.)
13.5
width (ft)
1.1
mean depth (ft)
1.9
max depth (ft)
14.2
wetted parimeter (ft)
1.0
hyd radi (ft)
12.4
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 10/2014
Field Crew: Kee Mapping & Surveying

Cross Section Plots
Agony Acres Mitigtion Site (NCEEP Project No. 95716)
Monitoring Year 0 - 2014
Cross Section 5 -UT1 Reach 5
148+78 Pool
615
613
c
O
w
611
�
607
605
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Width (ft)
tMYO (10/2014) — Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
y
18.5 x- section area (ft.sq.)
li a
15.9 width (ft)
' .
_
1.2 mean depth (ft)
2.4 max depth (ft)
16.9 wetted parimeter (ft)
1.1 hyd radi (ft)
13.6 width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 10/2014
Field Crew: Kee Mapping & Surveying
,
View Downstream
c
O
w
609
�
607
605
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Width (ft)
tMYO (10/2014) — Bankfull

Cross Section Plots
Agony Acres Mitigtion Site (NCEEP Project No. 95716)
Monitoring Year 0 - 2014
Cross Section 6 -UT1 Reach 5
149 +06 Riffle
615
613
i
611
c
O
v
609
w
607
�
605
0 10 20
30 40 50
60 70 80 90 100
Width (ft)
tMYO(10 /2014) — Bankfull
— Flood
Bankfull Dimensions"
11.9 x- section area (ft.sq.)
01 0
13.6 width (ft)
0.9 mean depth (ft)
1.6 max depth (ft)
14.2 wetted parimeter (ft)
I
0.8 hyd radi (ft)
15.5 width -depth ratio
200.0 W flood prone area (ft)
14.7 entrenchment ratio
1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 10/2014
Field Crew: Kee Mapping & Surveying
r. =
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Agony Acres Mitigtion Site (NCEEP Project No. 95716)
Monitoring Year 0 - 2014
Cross Section 7 -UT1 Reach 5
156 +20 Riffle
605
603
c
O
599
601
v
w
597
595
0 10 20 30 40 SO 60 70 80
Width (ft)
tMYO(10 /2014) — Bankfull — FloodproneArea
Bankfull Dimensions
9.1 x- section area (ft.sq.)
-
11.9 width (ft)
•7' +r ' �rl
0.8 mean depth (ft)
"
1.3 max depth (ft)
12.4 wetted parimeter (ft)
0.7 hyd radi (ft)
—`
15.7 width-depth ratio
200.0 W flood prone area (ft)
16.8 entrenchment ratio
1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 10/2014
Field Crew: Kee Mapping & Surveying
View Downstream
c
O
599
v
w
597
595
0 10 20 30 40 SO 60 70 80
Width (ft)
tMYO(10 /2014) — Bankfull — FloodproneArea

Cross Section Plots
Agony Acres Mitigtion Site (NCEEP Project No. 95716)
Monitoring Year 0 - 2014
Cross Section 8 -UT1 Reach 5
156 +60 Pool
605
603
c
O
v
601
w
597
599
595
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Width (ft)
tMYO (10/2014) — Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
21.3 x- section area (ft.sq.)
15.2 width (ft)
1.4 mean depth (ft)
2.7 max depth (ft)
-
16.5 wetted parimeter (ft)
1.3 hyd radi (ft)
10.9 width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 10/2014
Field Crew: Kee Mapping & Surveying
w
View Downstream
c
O
v
w
597
595
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Width (ft)
tMYO (10/2014) — Bankfull

Cross Section Plots
Agony Acres Mitigtion Site (NCEEP Project No. 95716)
Monitoring Year 0 - 2014
Cross Section 9 -UT1A Reach 1
205+70 Riffle
662
660
658
c
O
v
656
w
654
652
0 10 20
30
40 50 60
Width (ft)
tMYO(10 /2014)
— Bankfull
— Flood
Bankfull Dimensions
4.0 x- section area (ft.sq.)
8.0 width (ft)
t
°'
0.5 mean depth (ft)
0.9 max depth (ft)
-r
8.2 wetted parimeter (ft)
0.5 hyd radi (ft)
15.9 width -depth ratio
50.0 W flood prone area (ft)
6.3 entrenchment ratio
1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 10/2014
Field Crew: Kee Mapping & Surveying
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Agony Acres Mitigtion Site (NCEEP Project No. 95716)
Monitoring Year 0 - 2014
Cross Section 10 -UT1A Reach 1
205+96 Pool
662
c
O
660
656
v
w
654
658
i
652
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Width (ft)
tMYO (10/2014) — Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
7.8 x- section area (ft.sq.)
10.4 width (ft)
0.7 mean depth (ft)
1.5 max depth (ft)
10.9 wetted parimeter (ft)
0.7 hyd radi (ft)
13.9 width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 10/2014
Field Crew: Kee Mapping & Surveying:
View Downstream
c
O
656
v
w
654
i
652
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Width (ft)
tMYO (10/2014) — Bankfull

Cross Section Plots
Agony Acres Mitigtion Site (NCEEP Project No. 95716)
Monitoring Year 0 - 2014
ross Section 11 -UT1A Reach 4
221 +33 Riffle
x- section area (ft.sq.)
620
width (ft)
0.6
mean depth (ft)
1.8
max depth (ft)
618
wetted parimeter (ft)
0.6
hyd radi (ft)
13.2
width -depth ratio
200.0
W flood prone area (ft)
24.8
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
616
c
0
614
v
w
612
—
610
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Width (ft)
+MYO(10 /2014) — Bankfull —Flood prone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
5.0
x- section area (ft.sq.)
8.1
width (ft)
0.6
mean depth (ft)
1.8
max depth (ft)
8.5
wetted parimeter (ft)
0.6
hyd radi (ft)
13.2
width -depth ratio
200.0
W flood prone area (ft)
24.8
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 10/2014
Field Crew: Kee Mapping & Surveying

Cross Section Plots
Agony Acres Mitigtion Site (NCEEP Project No. 95716)
Monitoring Year 0 - 2014
Cross Section 12 -UT1A Reach 4
221 +74 Pool
620
618
c
O
v
614
616
w
612
610
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Width (ft)
tMYO (10/2014) — Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
12.3 x- section area (ft.sq.)
10.6 width (ft)
1.2 mean depth (ft)
2.7 max depth (ft)
12.6 wetted parimeter (ft)
1.0 hyd radi (ft)
9.1 width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 10/2014
Field Crew: Kee Mapping & Surveying
View Downstream
c
O
v
614
w
612
610
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Width (ft)
tMYO (10/2014) — Bankfull

Cross Section Plots
Agony Acres Mitigtion Site (NCEEP Project No. 95716)
Monitoring Year 0 - 2014
Cross Section 13 -UT1B
301 +39 Riffle
654
652
c
O
648
v
w
650
646
644
0 10 20 30 40 SO 60 70 80
Width (ft)
tMYO(10 /2014) — Bankfull — FloodproneArea
Bankfull Dimensions
3.5 x- section area (ft.sq.)
7.7 width (ft)
0.5 mean depth (ft)
0.7 max depth (ft)
7.9 wetted parimeter (ft)
0.4 hyd radi (ft)
f_ {
-
17.0 width-depth ratio
70.0 W flood prone area (ft)
_
9.1 entrenchment ratio
1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 10/2014
Field Crew: Kee Mapping & Surveying
View Downstream
c
O
648
v
w
646
644
0 10 20 30 40 SO 60 70 80
Width (ft)
tMYO(10 /2014) — Bankfull — FloodproneArea

Cross Section Plots
Agony Acres Mitigtion Site (NCEEP Project No. 95716)
Monitoring Year 0 - 2014
Cross Section 14 -UT1B
301 +58 Pool
652
650
648
Bankfull Dimensions
7.8 x- section area (ft.sq.)
9.7 width (ft)
0.8 mean depth (ft)
1.4 max depth (ft)—
10.3 wetted parimeter (ft)�
0.8 hyd radi (ft) - -_
12.1 width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 10/2014
Field Crew: Kee Mapping & Surveying
View Downstream
c
O
v
646
w
644
642
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Width (ft)
tMYO (10/2014) — Bankfull

Cross Section Plots
Agony Acres Mitigtion Site (NCEEP Project No. 95716)
Monitoring Year 0 - 2014
Cross Section 15 -UT2
608
606
604
c
O
602
v
w
600
598
0 10 20 30 40 SO 60
Width (ft)
tMYO(10 /2014) — Bankfull — FloodproneArea
Bankfull Dimensions
3.4 x- section area (ftsq.)
6.7 width (ft)
VIA
0.5 mean depth (ft)
0.7 max depth (ft)
6.9 wetted parimeter (ft)
0.5 hyd radi (ft)
12.9 width-depth ratio
50.0 W flood prone area (ft)
7.5 entrenchment ratio
1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 10/2014
Field Crew: Kee Mapping & Surveying
View Downstream
408 +02 Riffle
608
606
604
c
O
602
v
w
600
598
0 10 20 30 40 SO 60
Width (ft)
tMYO(10 /2014) — Bankfull — FloodproneArea

Cross Section Plots
Agony Acres Mitigtion Site (NCEEP Project No. 95716)
Monitoring Year 0 - 2014
Cross Section 16 -UT2
408+20 Pool
608
606
,
c
604
O
v
602
w
600
598
0 10 20 30 40 SO 60
Width (ft)
tMYO (10/2014) — Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
5.8 x- section area (ft.sq.)
9.5 width (ft)
0.6 mean depth (ft)
1.3 max depth (ft)
9.9 wetted parimeter (ft)
0.6 hyd radi (ft)
15.5 width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 10/2014
Field Crew: Kee Mapping & Surveying
.. K
View Downstream
,
c
O
v
602
w
600
598
0 10 20 30 40 SO 60
Width (ft)
tMYO (10/2014) — Bankfull

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Agony Acres Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 95716)
Monitoring Year 0 - 2014
UT1 Reach 2, Reachwide
Reach Summary
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Particle Class
Class
Percent
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Percentage
Cumulative
UT1 Reach 2, Reachwide
Silt /Clay
0.000
0.062
25
34
59
59
59
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
Very fine
0.062
0.125
2
6
8
8
67
100
Fine
0.125
0.250
67
90
silt/clay
avel
bble
er
Medium
0.25
0.50
67
g0
e ro
Coarse
0.5
1.0
67
a 70
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
67
� 60
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
67
M
5 50
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
1
1
1
68
E
Fine
4.0
5.6
68
40
Fine
5.6
8.0
2
2
2
70
v 30
Medium
8.0
11.0
2
2
2
72
a 20
Medium
11.0
16.0
2
2
2
74
10
f±i
Coarse
16.0
1 22.6
4
4
4 1
78
Coarse
22.6
32
3
3
3
81
0
0.01 0.1
1 10 100
1000 10000
Very Coarse
32
45
4
4
4
85
Particle Class Size (mm)
Very Coarse
45
64
5
5
5
90
Small
64
90
8
8
8
98
trevo- to /zola
Small
90
128
2
2
2
100
Large
128
180
100
Large
180
256
100
UT1 Reach 2, Reachwide
Small
256
362
100
Individual Class Percent
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
90
I I I I i
Large /Very Large
1024
2048
100
80
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
� 70
Total
60
40
100
100
100
QJ 60
w
a 50
Reachwide
6 40
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
Silt /Clay
3 30
D35=
Silt /Clay
2 20
D50=
Silt /Clay
c 10
D. =
41.3
0
Dy 1
'L ,tiW P 56 4 titi y�o ,�'L G5 0 �o
D95 =
79.2
o��'LOyyh O,yS
�,L6
tiyw tiro �y�
��ti �titi yotia ti�a$ a�0
Di00 =
128.0
Particle Class Size (mm)
• MVO- 10/2014

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Agony Acres Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 95716)
Monitoring Year 0 - 2014
UT1 Reach 2, Cross Section 1
UT1 Reach 2, Cross Section 1
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Riffle 100-
Count
Summary
min
max
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
Silt /Clay
0.000
0.062
27
27
27
Very fine
0.062
0.125
1
1
28
100
90
80
SIISan'
VCIay
r
cl
avel
Fine
0.125
0.250
2
2
30
bble
Medium
0.25
0.50
30
e r
k
Coarse
0.5
1.0
30
70
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
30
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
2
2
32
2 60
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
3
3
35
E 50
E
Fine
4.0
5.6
4
4
39
u 40
y 30
Fine
5.6
8.0
3
3
42
Medium
8.0
11.0
4
4
46
a 20
Medium
11.0
16.0
3
3
49
MEL
Coarse
16.0
22.6
3
3
52
10
Coarse
22.6
32
7
7
59
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
MYO- IO /zol4
Very Coarse
32
45
6
6
65
Very Coarse
45
64
7
7
72
Small
64
90
17
17
8g—
Small
90
128
8
8
97
UT1 Reach 2, Cross Section 1
Individual Class Percent
Large
128
180
3
3
100
Large
180
256
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
100
loo
Medium
512
1 1024
100
90
Large /Very Large
1024
2048
100
80
115 70
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
60
Totall
100
100
100
Cross Section 1
Channel materials (mm)
D16 = Silt /Clay
D85 = 4.00
Dso = 18.0
D84 = 81.4
Dgs = 117.2
D100 = 180.0
w
a 50
16
40
30
3
v
20
c
10
0
o�y'LO1.yh 0.1,5 Oy 'v ti ,y4 b 5b 4 y'v yoo �-,- 3ti P, ,J` " 1,ti', y,O e ,�yti �,ti'L ye
Particle Class Size (mm)
• MYO- 10/2014

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Agony Acres Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 95716)
Monitoring Year 0 - 2014
UT1 Reach 2, Cross Section 3
UT1 Reach 2, Cross Section 3
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Riffle 100-
Count
Summary
min
max
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
Silt /Clay
0.000
0.062
30
30
30
Very fine
0.062
0.125
2
2
32
100
90
80
SIISan'
VCIay
r
cl
avel
Fine
0.125
0.250
32
bble
Medium
0.25
0.50
32
e r
k
Coarse
0.5
1.0
32
70
7
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
4
4
36
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
4
4
40
2 60
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
2
2
42
E 50
E
Fine
4.0
5.6
42
u 40
y 30
Fine
5.6
8.0
42
Medium
8.0
11.0
4
4
46
a 20
Medium
11.0
16.0
8
8
54
Coarse
16.0
22.6
6
6
60
10
Coarse
22.6
32
8
8
68
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
—MYO- 10/2014
Very Coarse
32
45
4
4
72
V
Very Coarse
45
64
6
6
78
Small
64
90
8
8
86
Small
90
128
8
8
94
UT1 Reach 2, Cross Section 3
Individual Class Percent
Large
128
180
4
4
98
Large
180
256
2
2
100
1111111 Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
100
loo
111111' ". Medium
512
1 1024
100
90
Large /Very Large
1024
2048
100
80
115 70
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
60
Totall
100
100
100
Cross Section 3
Channel materials (mm)
D16 = Silt /Clay
D35 = 1.68
D50 = 13.3
D84 = 82.6
D95 = 139.4
D100 = 256.0
w
a 50
40
30
3
v
20
c
10
0
o�yLO1�h O Ly Oy y ti y0 b y o 0 yv 1° �y6 1 Py oC 00 110 100 �y0 �yti �tiL yoyb �0p b��0
Particle Class Size (mm)
• MYO- 10/2014

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Agony Acres Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 95716)
Monitoring Year 0 - 2014
UT1 Reach 4, Reachwide
Reach Summary
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Particle Class
Class
Percent
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Percentage
Cumulative
UT1 Reach 4, Reachwide
Silt /Clay
0.000
0.062
13
23
36
36
36
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
Very fine
0.062
0.125
6
2
8
8
44
100
Fine
0.125
0.250
3
3
3
47
90
silt/clay
avel
bble
er
Medium
0.25
0.50
3
3
3
50
g0
e ro
Coarse
0.5
1.0
3
3
3
53
a 70
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
4
4
4
57
60
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
57
M
3 50
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
1
1
1
58
E
Fine
4.0
5.6
2
2
4
4
62
u 40
Fine
5.6
8.0
1
1
1
63
v 30
Medium
8.0
11.0
2
2
2
65
a 20
Medium
11.0
16.0
1
1
1
66
10
Coarse
16.0
22.6
3
3
3
69
Coarse
22.6
32
3
3
3
72
0
0.01 0.1
1 10 100
1000 10000
Very Coarse
32
45
6
6
6
78
Particle Class Size (mm)
Very Coarse
45
64
9
9
9
87
Small
64
90
7
7
7
94
trev0- l0 /z01a
Small
1 90
128
5
5
5
99
Large
128
180
99
Large
180
256
1
1
1
100
UT1 Reach 4, Reachwide
Small
256
362
100
Individual Class Percent
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
90
Large /Very Large
1024
2048
100
80
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
70
Total
60
40
100
100
100
QJ 60
d
a 50
Reachwide
40
Channel materials (mm)
u
D16 =
Silt /Clay
3 30
D35=
Silt /Clay
20
D50 =
0.5
c 30
D.=
56.9
0
Oy Y
ti b 5� titi yo �L p5 0� �O 1t0
L
D95 =
96.6
Op 1p Op
0 0
L0 �L6 1�0 ryy0
�6L yOyb tip b�0
D100 =
256.0
Particle Class Size (mm)
• MVO- 10/2014

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Agony Acres Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 95716)
Monitoring Year 0 - 2014
UT1 Reach 5, Reachwide
Reachwide
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Reach Summary
Particle Class
Silt /Clay
D50 =
0.1
D. =
45.0
Class
Percent
D100 =
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Percentage
Cumulative
Silt /Clay
0.000
0.062
16
28
44
44
44
Very fine
0.062
0.125
1
6
7
7
51
Fine
0.125
0.250
51
Medium
0.25
0.50
3
3
3
54
Coarse
0.5
1.0
1
1
1
55
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
1
1
1
56
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
1
1
1
57
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
57
Fine
4.0
5.6
4
1
5
5
62
Fine
5.6
8.0
2
2
2
64
Medium
8.0
11.0
3
1
4
4
68
Medium
11.0
16.0
4
4
4
72
Coarse
16.0
22.6
5
5
5
77
Coarse
22.6
32
5
5
5
82
Very Coarse
32
45
2
2
2
84
Very Coarse
45
64
2
2
2
86
Small
64
90
6
6
6
92
Small
90
128
7
7
7
99
Large
128
180
1
1
1
100
Large
180
256
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Large /Very Large
1024
2048
100
Bedrock
1 2048 1
>2048
1
1 1
1
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
Silt /Clay
D35=
Silt /Clay
D50 =
0.1
D. =
45.0
D95 =
104.7
D100 =
180.0
UT1 Reach 5, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90 Silt /Clay Sand avel
bble er
80 a ro
70
j 60
5 50
E
u 40
y 30
u
a 20
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO- 10/2014
UT1 Reach 5, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
90
80
70
v
P 60
w
a 50
16 40
u
A 30
3
20
c 30
0
41, p by py S 'L ,y0 P h� 4 ,�5 y0 6 ,5'L b5 pG pp ,10 0p y0 0'L ,y'L .yb p p0
p0 p1 p -yti '1 1 'L "� h y0 -p tp
Particle Class Size (mm)
• MYO- 10/2014

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Agony Acres Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 95716)
Monitoring Year 0 - 2014
UT1 Reach 5, Cross Section 6
UT1 Reach 5, Cross Section 6
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Riffle 100-
Count
Summary
min
max
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
Silt /Clay
o.000
0.062
0
Very fine
0.062
0.125
0
100
90
80
SIIVCIay
r
Sand
avel
Fine
0.125
0.250
3
3
3
bble
Medium
0.25
0.50
3
3
6
e r
k
Coarse
0.5
1.0
6
70
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
5
5
11
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
8
8
19
2 60
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
9
9
28
E 50
E
Fine
4.0
5.6
2
2
30
u 40
y 30
Fine
5.6
8.0
4
4
34
Medium
8.0
11.0
7
7
41
a 20
Medium
11.0
1 16.0
10
10
51
Coarse
16.0
22.6
12
12
63
10
Coarse
22.6
32
20
20
83
1
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
—MYO- 10/2014
Very Coarse
32
45
4
4
87
V
Very Coarse
45
64
4
4
91
Small
64
90
2
2
93
Small
90
128
4
4
97
UT1 Reach 5, Cross Section 6
Individual Class Percent
Large
128
180
3
3
100
Large
180
256
100
1111111 Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
100
loo
111111' ". Medium
512
1 1024
100
90
Large /Very Large
1024
2048
100
80
115 70
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
60
Totall
100
1 100
100
Cross Section 6
Channel materials (mm)
D16 = 2.47
D85 = 8.37
Dso = 15.4
D84 = 34.8
D9s = 107.3
D100 = 180.0
w
a 50
16
40
30
3
v
20
c
10
0
AE E
o�oLOyyS OLy Oh S L y4 b 5� 4 yv yo �y6 3ti Py oC 00 1ti0 y$O � �yti L ye
Particle Class Size (mm)
• MYO- 10/2014

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Agony Acres Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 95716)
Monitoring Year 0 - 2014
UT1 Reach 5, Cross Section 7
Summary
Diameter (mm)
Particle Class
Riffle 100-
Class
Percent
Count
UT1 Reach 5, Cross Section 7
min
max
Percentage
Cumulative
Silt /Clay
0.000
0.062
16
16
16
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
Very fine
0.062
0.125
16
100
Fine
0.125
0.250
16
90
SIISan'
VCIay
cl
avel
bble
Medium
0.25
0.50
2
2
18
80
r
e r
k
Coarse
0.5
1.0
2
2
20
70
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
4
4
24
2 60
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
24
E 50
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
6
6
30
E
Fine
4.0
5.6
4
4
34
u 40
Fine
5.6
8.0
4
4
38
y 30
Medium
8.0
11.0
2
2
40
a 20
Medium
11.0
16.0
10
10
50
10
Coarse
16.0
22.6
4
4
54
Coarse
22.6
32
10
10
64
0
0.01 0.1
1 10 100 1000 10000
Very Coarse
32
45
10
10
74
Particle Class Size (mm)
Very Coarse
V
45
64
4
4
78
Small
64
90
4
4
82—
MYO -10 /2014
Small
90
128
14
14
96
Large
128
180
4
4
100
Large
180
256
100
UT1 Reach 5, Cross Section 7
1111111 Small
256
362
100
Individual Class Percent
100
Small
362
512
100
111111' ". Medium
512
1 1024
100
90
Large /Very Large
1024
2048
100
80
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
115 70
Totall
100
100
100
60
w
a 50
Cross Section 7
" 40
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
Silt /Clay
3 30
Dss =
6.12
v 20
D50 =
16.0
c 10
D84 =
94.6
0
op 1
ti a 5� 11 16 3ti a5 oC 00
D95 =
124.8
ooyLOtiyS op
yro Ly6 110 100 �y0 �yti �1ti 1Olb �0p boo
D100 =
180.0
Particle Class Size (mm)
• MYO- 10/2014

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Agony Acres Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 95716)
Monitoring Year 0 - 2014
UT1A Reach 1, Reachwide
Reach Summary
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Particle Class
Class
Percent
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Percentage
Cumulative
UT1A Reach 1, Reachwide
Silt /Clay
0.000
0.062
12
23
35
35
35
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
Very fine
0.062
0.125
3
3
3
38
100
Fine
0.125
0.250
2
2
2
40
90
silt/clay
avel
bble
er
Medium
0.25
0.50
1
6
7
7
47
80
e ro
Coarse
0.5
1.0
47
a 70
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
3
3
6
6
53
� 60
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
3
2
5
5
58
3 50
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
1
1
1
59
E
Fine
4.0
5.6
2
1
3
3
62
u 40
Fine
5.6
8.0
1
1
1
63
v 30
Medium
8.0
11.0
3
3
3
66
a 20
Medium
11.0
16.0
4
4
4
70
10
Coarse
16.0
22.6
6
6
6
76
Coarse
22.6
32
7
7
7
83
0
0.01 0.1
1 10 100
1000 10000
Very Coarse
32
45
8
8
8
91
Particle Class Size (mm)
Very Coarse
45
64
4
4
4
95
Small
64
90
3
3
3
98
tMYO- 10/2014
Small
90
128
2
2
2
100
Large
128
180
100
Large
180
256
100
UT1A Reach 1, Reachwide
11111111 Small
256
362
100
Individual Class Percent
loo
111111 Small
362
512
1o0
Medium
512
1024
100
90
1... Large /Very Large
1024
2048
100
80
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
70
T tall
60
1 40 1
100 1
100
100
QJ 60
w
a 50
Reachwide
6 40
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
Silt /Clay
3 30
D35=
Silt /Clay
2 20
D50 =
1.4
c 10
D. =
33.4
0
oy ti
ti o- h� titi ti� 3ti a5 �� oO
D95 =
64.0
1p Op
O• O•
ti� �tib titiw tiro �y�
��ti �titi ye tiOb$ ao��
D100 =
128.0
Particle Class Size (mm)
• MYO- 10/2014

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Agony Acres Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 95716)
Monitoring Year 0 - 2014
UT1A Reach 1, Cross Section 9
UT1A Reach 1, Cross Section 9
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Riffle 100-
Count
Summary
min
max
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
Silt /Clay
0.000
0.062
2
2
2
Very fine
0.062
0.125
2
100
90
80
SIIVCIay
r
a d
avel
Fine
0.125
0.250
2
bble
Medium
0.25
0.50
2
e r
k
Coarse
0.5
1.0
3
3
5
70
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
6
6
11
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
5
5
16
> 60
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
4
4
20
E 50
E
Fine
4.0
5.6
4
4
24
u 40
y 30
Fine
5.6
8.0
4
4
28
Medium
8.0
11.0
7
7
35
a 20
Medium
11.0
16.0
12
12
47
Coarse
16.0
22.6
9
9
56
10
Coarse
1 22.6
1 32
1 13
13
69
1
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
MVO- to /zola
Very Coarse
32
45
9
9
78
Very Coarse
45
64
8
8
86
Small
64
90
14
14
100
Small
90
128
100
Large
128
180
100
UT1A Reach 1, Cross Section 9
Individual Class Percent
Large
180
256
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
100
loo
Medium
512
1 1024
100
90
Large /Very Large
1024
2048
100
80
115 70
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
60
Totall
100
1 100
100
Cross Section 9
Channel materials (mm)
D16 - 2.80
D35 = 11.00
D50 = 18.0
D84 = 58.6
D95 = 79.7
D100 = 90.0
w
50
16
40
m 30
3
v
� 20
c
10
0
ooytiotiy5 O•Ly Oy S 'L ,y4 b 5� 4 y'v y�o 6 3ti Py ,oC` 00 1,ti0 y$O � ti �,ti'L yO,tib �0p
Particle Class Size (mm)
• MYO- 10/2014

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Agony Acres Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 95716)
Monitoring Year 0 - 2014
UT1A Reach 4, Reachwide
Reach Summary
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Particle Class
Class
Percent
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Percentage
Cumulative
UT1A Reach 4, Reachwide
Silt /Clay
0.000
0.062
11
38
49
49
49
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
Very fine
0.062
0.125
49
100
Fine
0.125
0.250
1
1
1
50
90
silt/clay
avel
bble
er
Medium
0.25
0.50
50
g0
e ro
Coarse
0.5
1.0
so
a 70
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
50
> 60
Very fine
2.0
2.8
2
2
2
52
3 50
Very fine
2.8
4.0
1
1
1
53
E
Fine
4.0
5.6
53
u 40
Fine
5.6
8.0
53
v 30
Medium
8.0
11.0
4
4
4
57
a 20
N
14;-[
Medium
11.0
16.0
14
14
14
71
10
Coarse
16.0
22.6
10
10
10
81
Coarse
22.6
32
7
7
7
88
p
0.01 0.1
1 10 100
1000 10000
Very Coarse
32
45
2
2
2
90
Particle Class Size (mm)
Very Coarse
45
64
4
4
4
94
Small
64
90
2
2
2
96
tMYO- 10/2014
Small
90
128
2
2
2
98
Large
128
180
2
2
2
100
Large
180
256
100
UT1A Reach 4, Reachwide
111111111 Small
256
362
100
Individual Class Percent
loo
1111111 Small
362
512
100
11111 Medium
512
1024
100
90
111111 Large /Very Large
1024
2048
100
80
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
70
Total
60
40
100
100
100
QJ
60
w
a 50
Reachwide
6 40
Channel materials (mm)
u
D16 =
Silt /Clay
3 30
D35=
Silt /Clay
2 20
D50 =
0.25
c 10
D.=
26.2
0
Dy ti
ti ,tiW P 56 0 titi
D95 =
75.9
o�to'LOyt'� O.Lh
D100 =
180.0
Particle Class Size (mm)
• MYO- 10/2014

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Agony Acres Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 95716)
Monitoring Year 0 - 2014
UT1A Reach 4, Cross Section 11
UT1A Reach 4, Cross Section 11
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Riffle 100-
Count
Summary
min
max
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
Silt /Clay
o.000
0.062
0
Very fine
0.062
0.125
0
100
90
80
SIIVCIay
r
a d
avel
Fine
0.125
0.250
0
bble
Medium
0.25
0.50
0
e r
k
Coarse
0.5
1.0
6
6
6
70
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
2
2
8
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
2
2
10
� 60
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
5
5
15
E 50
E
Fine
4.0
5.6
3
3
18
u 40
y 30
Fine
5.6
8.0
4
4
22
Medium
8.0
11.0
9
9
31
a 20
Medium
11.0
16.0
14
14
45
Coarse
16.0
22.6
13
13
58
10
Coarse
22.6
32
17
17
75
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
Very Coarse
32
45
12
12
87
Very Coarse
45
64
2
2
89
Small
64
90
7
7
96
Small Small
90
128
2
2
98
UT1A Reach 4, Cross Section 11
Individual Class Percent
Large
128
180
1
1
99
Large
180
256
1
1
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
100
loo
Medium
512
1 1024
100
90
Large /Very Large
1024
2048
100
80
115 70
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
60
Totall
100
1 100
100
Cross Section 11
Channel materials (mm)
D16 = 4.47
D35 - 12.24
D50 = 18.3
D84 = 41.3
D95 = 85.7
D100 = 256.0
w
a 50
40
m 30
3
v
� 20
c
10
0
o�co'L p Op Op S 'L ,y4 b 5� 4 y'v yoo �,y6 3ti Py ,oC` 00 1.1,0 y$O �y0 ,�yti �titi ye
Particle Class Size (mm)
• MYO- 10/2014

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Agony Acres Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 95716)
Monitoring Year 0 - 2014
UT1B, Reachwide
Reach Summary
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Particle Class
Class
Percent
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Percentage
Cumulative
UT16, Reachwide
Silt /Clay
0.000
0.062
27
36
63
63
63
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
Very fine
0.062
0.125
6
4
10
10
73
100
Fine
0.125
0.250
2
2
2
75
90
silt/clay
avel
bble
er
Medium
0.25
0.50
7S
g0
e r
o
Coarse
0.5
1.0
75
a 70
1
IT
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
75
� 60
Very fine
2.0
2.8
75
3 50
Very fine
2.8
4.0
75
Fine
4.0
5.6
75
40
Fine
5.6
8.0
75
v 30
Medium
8.0
11.0
1
1
1
76
a 20
Medium
11.0
1 16.0
4
4
4
80
10
Coarse
16.0
22.6
7
7
7 1
87
Coarse
22.6
32
6
6
6
93
p
0.01 0.1
1 10 100
1000 10000
Very Coarse
32
45
3
3
3
96
Particle Class Size (mm)
Very Coarse
45
64
3
3
3
99
Small
64
90
1
1
1
100
tMVO- to /zola
Small
90
128
100
Large
128
180
100
Large
180
256
100
UT16, Reachwide
Small
256
362
100
Individual Class Percent
loo
l Small
362
512
100
' Medium
512
1024
100
90
iiiiiiiiii i: Large /Very Large
1024
2048
100
80
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
70
Total
60
40
100
100
100
60
w
a 50
Reachwide
16 40
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
Silt /Clay
3 30
D35=
Silt /Clay
2 20
D50=
Silt /Clay
c 10
D. =
19.5
0
Dy ti
ti ,tiW P 56 0 titi y�o ,S'L b5 d� �o
D95 =
40.2
O�r�'LO,yyh Otih
�,L6
tiyw tiro �y�
��ti �titi yotia
D100 =
90.0
Particle Class Size (mm)
• MVO- 10/2014

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Agony Acres Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 95716)
Monitoring Year 0 - 2014
UT16, Cross Section 13
Summary
Diameter (mm)
Particle Class
Riffle 100-
Class
Percent
Count
UT16, Cross Section 13
min
max
Percentage
Cumulative
Silt /Clay
0.000
0.062
24
24
24
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
Very fine
0.062
0.125
24
100
Fine
0.125
0.250
24
90
SIIVCIay
San'
a d
avel
bble
Medium
0.25
0.50
24
80
r
e r
k
Coarse
0.5
1.0
24
70
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
4
4
28
2 60
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
4
4
32
50
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
32
E
Fine
4.0
5.6
32
u 40
Fine
5.6
8.0
32
y 30
Medium
8.0
11.0
32
a 20
Medium
11.0
1 16.0
8
8
40
10
Coarse
16.0
22.6
12
12
52
Coarse
22.6
32
8
8
60
0
0.01 0.1
1 10 100 1000 10000
Very Coarse
32
45
12
12
72
Particle Class Size (mm)
Very Coarse
45
64
12
12
84
Small
64
90
12
12
96—
MYO -10 /2014
Small
90
128
4
4
100
Large
128
180
100
Large
180
256
100
UT16, Cross Section 13
1111111 Small
256
362
100
Individual Class Percent
100
Small
362
512
100
111111' ". Medium
512
1 1024
100
90
Large /Very Large
1024
2048
100
80
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
115 70
Totall
100
1 100
100
60
w
a 50
Cross Section 13
40
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
Silt /Clay
3 30
D35 =
12.66
v 20
D50 =
21.3
c 10
D84 =
64.0
0
f. 1, S
Op 'v
ti ,y4 b 5� 0 yti ,y0o 3ti Py ,oC` 00 ,�yti
D95 =
87.5
Op
�,y6 1,ti0 y$O ��� �,ti'L ye �0�4 bo�1O
D100 =
128.0
Particle Class Size (mm)
• MYO- 10/2014

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Agony Acres Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 95716)
Monitoring Year 0 - 2014
UT2, Reachwide
Reach Summary
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Particle Class
Class
Percent
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Percentage
Cumulative
UT2, Reachwide
Silt /Clay
0.000
0.062
12
39
51
51
51
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
Very fine
0.062
0.125
1
1
1
52
100
Fine
0.125
0.250
52
90
silt/clay
avel
bble
er
Medium
0.25
0.50
52
g0
e ro
Coarse
0.5
1.0
4
4
4
56
a 70
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
56
2 60
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
2
2
2
58
3 50
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
1
1
1
59
E
Fine
4.0
5.6
2
2
2
61
40
Fine
5.6
8.0
1
1
1
62
v 30
Medium
8.0
11.0
1
1
1
63
a 20
Medium
11.0
1 16.0
7
7
7
70
10
Coarse
16.0
22.6
9
9
9
79
Coarse
22.6
32
6
6
6
85
p
0.01 0.1
1 10 100
1000 10000
Very Coarse
32
45
5
5
5
90
Particle Class Size (mm)
Very Coarse
45
64
5
5
5
95
Small
64
90
2
2
2
97
tMYO- 10/2014
Small
90
128
3
3
3
100
Large
128
180
100
Large
180
256
100
UT2, Reachwide
111111111 Small
256
362
100
Individual Class Percent
loo
1111111 Small
362
512
100
111111 Medium
512
1024
100
90
Large /Very Large
1024
2048
100
80
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
70
Total
60
40
100
100
100
60
w
a 50
Reachwide
16 40
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
Silt /Clay
3 30
D35=
Silt /Clay
2 20
D50=
Silt /Clay
c 10
D. =
30.2
0
05 ti
ti o- 5� titi yo 3ti o5 �� �o
D95 =
64.0
oo0tiotiyh oti5
ti$ �tib tiyw tiro �y�
��ti �titi soya
D100 =
128.0
Particle Class Size (mm)
• MYO- 10/2014

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Agony Acres Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 95716)
Monitoring Year 0 - 2014
UT2, Cross Section 15
UT2, Cross Section 15
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Riffle 100-
Count
Summary
min
max
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
Silt /Clay
0.000
0.062
2
2
2
Very fine
0.062
0.125
2
100
90
80
SIIVCIay
r
San'
d
avel
Fine
0.125
0.250
2
bble
Medium
0.25
0.50
2
e r
k
Coarse
0.5
1.0
10
10
12
70
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
12
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
12
� 60
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
12
50
E
Fine
4.0
5.6
4
4
16
u 40
y 30
Fine
5.6
8.0
2
2
18
Medium
8.0
11.0
8
8
26
a 20
Medium
11.0
16.0
18
18
44
Coarse
16.0
22.6
10
10
54
10
Coarse
22.6
32
18
18
72
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
�MVOao /zola
Very Coarse
32
45
10
10
82
Very Coarse
45
64
6
6
88
Small
64
90
6
6
94
Small
90
128
6
6
100
UT2, Cross Section 15
Individual Class Percent
Large
128
180
100
Large
180
256
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
100
loo
Medium
512
1 1024
100
90
Large /Very Large
1024
2048
100
80
70
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
60
Totall
100
100
100
Cross Section 15
Channel materials (mm)
D16 = 5.60
D35 = 13.27
D50 = 19.7
D84 = 50.6
D95 = 95.4
D100 = 128.0
w
a 50
"
40
m 30
v
20
c
10
0
ooytiotiy5 O,Ly Oy 'v ti ,y0 b 5� 4 y'v y�o �,y6 3ti Py ,oC` �O 1,ti0 e e ,�yti �,ti'L ye
Particle Class Size (mm)
• MYO- 10/2014

STREAM PHOTOGRAPHS
UT2

PHOTO POINT 1— looking upstream (1011312014) 1 PHOTO POINT 1— looking downstream (1011312014) 1
PHOTO POINT 2 — looking upstream (1011312014) 1 PHOTO POINT 2 — looking downstream (1011312014) 1
PHOTO POINT 3 — looking upstream (1011312014)
PHOTO POINT 3 — looking downstream (1011312014)
Agony Acres Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Morphological Summary Data and Plots — Stream Photographs

PHOTO POINT 4 — looking upstream (1011312014) 1 PHOTO POINT 4 —looking downstream (1011312014) 1
PHOTO POINT 5 — looking upstream (1011312014) 1 PHOTO POINT 5 — looking downstream (1011312014) I
Agony Acres Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Morphological Summary Data and Plots — Stream Photographs

STREAM PHOTOGRAPHS
Reedy Fork (Buffer)
PHOTO POINT 6 — looking upstream (1011312014) 1 PHOTO POINT 6 — looking downstream (1011312014)
PHOTO POINT 7 — looking upstream (1011312014)
PHOTO POINT 7 — looking downstream (1011312014)

STREAM PHOTOGRAPHS
UT1 Reach 5

Agony Acres Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Morphological Summary Data and Plots — Stream Photographs
y
PHOTO POINT 8 — looking upstream (1011312014)
PHOTO POINT 8 — looking downstream (1011312014)
a
fF
PHOTO POINT 9 — looking upstream (1011312014)
PHOTO POINT 9 — looking downstream (1011312014)
PHOTO POINT 10 — looking upstream (1011312014)
PHOTO POINT 10 — looking downstream (1011312014)
Agony Acres Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Morphological Summary Data and Plots — Stream Photographs

Agony Acres Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Morphological Summary Data and Plots — Stream Photographs
PHOTO POINT 11— looking upstream (1011312014)
PHOTO POINT 11— looking downstream (1011312014)
- 4 f
-
PHOTO POINT 12 — looking upstream (1011312014)
PHOTO POINT 12 — looking downstream (1011312014)
-44
PHOTO POINT 13 — looking upstream (1011312014)
PHOTO POINT 13 — looking downstream (1011312014)
Agony Acres Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Morphological Summary Data and Plots — Stream Photographs

Agony Acres Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Morphological Summary Data and Plots — Stream Photographs
.a
PHOTO POINT 14 — looking upstream (1011312014)
PHOTO POINT 14 — looking downstream (1011312014)
PHOTO POINT 15 — looking upstream (1011312014)
PHOTO POINT 15 — looking downstream (1011312014)
Agony Acres Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Morphological Summary Data and Plots — Stream Photographs

STREAM PHOTOGRAPHS
UT1 Reach 4

PHOTO POINT 16 — looking upstream (1011312014)
PHOTO POINT 16 — looking downstream (1011312014)
PHOTO POINT 17 — looking upstream (1011312014) 1 PHOTO POINT 17 — looking downstream (1011312014)
PHOTO POINT 42 — looking upstream (1011312014)
PHOTO POINT 42 — looking downstream (1011312014)
Agony Acres Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Morphological Summary Data and Plots — Stream Photographs

STREAM PHOTOGRAPHS
UT1 Reach 3

PHOTO POINT 18 — looking upstream (1011312014) 1 PHOTO POINT 18 — looking downstream (1011312014) 1
PHOTO POINT 19 — looking upstream (1011312014)
PHOTO POINT 19 — looking downstream (1011312014)
PHOTO POINT 20 — looking upstream (1011312014)
PHOTO POINT 20 — looking downstream (1011312014)
Agony Acres Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Morphological Summary Data and Plots — Stream Photographs

STREAM PHOTOGRAPHS
UT1B
PHOTO POINT 21— looking upstream (1011312014)
PHOTO POINT 21— looking downstream (1011312014)

STREAM PHOTOGRAPHS
UT1 Reach 2

PHOTO POINT 22 — looking upstream (1011312014) 1 PHOTO POINT 22 — looking downstream (1011312014) 1
PHOTO POINT 23 — looking upstream (1011312014) 1 PHOTO POINT 23 — looking downstream (1011312014) 1
PHOTO POINT 24 — looking upstream (1011312014)
PHOTO POINT 24 — looking downstream (1011312014)
Agony Acres Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Morphological Summary Data and Plots — Stream Photographs

Agony A @s Mitigation Si
Appendix 2: Morphological Summary Data and Plots — Stream Photographs
.\ �.-
.
PHOTO POINT 25 — lookingu&lram R01132 !%
PHOTO POINT 2 — looking downstream R01132 !%
>��
-
.-
�
PHOTO P INT2 — looking upstream R01132 !%
PHOTO POINT 2 — looking downstream R01132 !%
PHOTO POINT 27— looking upstream (10132 Jy PHOTO POINTS — looking downstream R01132 Jy
Agony A @s Mitigation Si
Appendix 2: Morphological Summary Data and Plots — Stream Photographs

STREAM PHOTOGRAPHS
UT1 Reach 1

Al # ::
�• +y3 A"- lE ;dI
• • POINT 28 — looking • - am (1011312014) • • - 7 1111 1 / I F
a 5'' �� }
it
• • •• .. king upstream (1011312014) • • •• .. .. I I
ij
' L
• • '• 1 •• • I 1 • • •• 1 •• •• I I

PHOTO POINT 31— looking upstream (1011312014) 1 PHOTO POINT 31— looking downstream (1011312014) 1
PHOTO POINT 32 — looking upstream (1011312014) I PHOTO POINT 32 — looking downstream (1011312014) I
Agony Acres Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Morphological Summary Data and Plots — Stream Photographs

STREAM PHOTOGRAPHS
UT1A Reach 1

Agony Acres Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Morphological Summary Data and Plots — Stream Photographs
4�
• +4
PHOTO POINT 33 — looking upstream (1011312014)
PHOTO POINT 33 — looking downstream (1011312014)
PHOTO POINT 34 — looking upstream (1011312014)
PHOTO POINT 34 — looking downstream (1011312014)
k 3x
PHOTO POINT 35 — looking downstream (1011312014)
PHOTO POINT 35 — looking upstream (1011312014)
Agony Acres Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Morphological Summary Data and Plots — Stream Photographs

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

STREAM PHOTOGRAPHS
UT1A Reach 2

STREAM PHOTOGRAPHS
UT1A Reach 3

STREAM PHOTOGRAPHS
UT1A Reach 4

Agony Acres Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Morphological Summary Data and Plots — Stream Photographs
PHOTO POINT 39 — looking upstream (1011312014)
PHOTO POINT 39 — looking downstream (1011312014)
PHOTO POINT 40 — looking upstream (1011312014)
PHOTO POINT 40 — looking downstream (1011312014)
x
PHOTO POINT 41— looking upstream (1011312014)
PHOTO POINT 41— looking downstream (1011312014)
Agony Acres Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Morphological Summary Data and Plots — Stream Photographs

APPENDIX 3. Vegetation Plot Data

Table 7. Planted and Total Stem Counts
Agony Acres Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No.95716)
Monitoring Year 0 -2014
Color Coding for Table
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
PnoLS: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes,
T: Total Stems
Current Plot Data (MYO 2015)
Scientific Name Common Name Species Type
95716 -WEI -0001
95716 -WEI -0002
95716 -WEI -0003
95716 -WEI -0004
95716 -WEI -0005
95716 -WEI -0006
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
Pri
P -all
T
Alnus serrulata tag alder Shrub
2
1 2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
4
4
Betula nigra river birch Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
4
4
4
1
1
1
5
5
5
Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash Tree
5
5
5
4
4
4
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Platanus occidentalis JAmerican sycamore ITree
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
2
2
2
Quercus michauxii swamp chestnut oak Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
5
5
5
2
2
2
Quercus pagoda cherrybark oak Tree
2
2
2
5
5
5
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1 1
1
1
1
1
Quercus phellos willow oak Tree
2
2
2
4
4
4
2
2
2
1
1 1
1
2
2
2
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
16
16
16
16
16
1 16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
5
5
5
5
5
5
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
6
6
6
647.5
647.51647
. S
647.5
1647.5
1647.5
1647.5
1647.5
1647.5
1647.5
1647.5
1647.5
1647.5
1647 .5
647.5
647.5
1647.5
647.5
Color Coding for Table
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
PnoLS: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes,
T: Total Stems

Table 7. Planted and Total Stem Counts
Agony Acres Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No.95716)
Monitoring Year 0 -2014
Color Coding for Table
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
PnoLS: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes,
T: Total Stems
Current Plot Data (MYO 2015)
Scientific Name Common Name Species Type
95716 -WEI -0007
95716 -WEI -0008
95716 -WEI -0009
95716 -WEI -0010
95716 -WEI -0011
95716 -WEI -0012
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
Pri
P -all
T
Alnus serrulata tag alder Shrub
1
1 1
1
1
1
1
4
4
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
Betula nigra river birch Tree
4
4
4
1
1
1
2
2
2
Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash Tree
4
4
4
5
5
5
6
6
6
2
2
2
8
8
8
3
3
3
Platanus occidentalis JAmencan sycamore ITree
3
3
3
6
6
6
7
7
7
1
1
1
3
3
3
5
5
5
Quercus michauxii swamp chestnut oak Tree
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
Quercus pagoda cherrybark oak Tree
2
2
2
1
1
1
Quercus phellos willow oak Tree
2
2
2
6
6
6
1
1
1
3
3
3
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
16
16
16
16
16
16
17
17
17
16
16
16
16
1 16
1 16
16
16
16
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
5
5
5
4
4
4
5
5
5
6
6
6
5
5
5
6
6
6
647.5
647.5
647.5
647.5
1647.5
1647.5
688
1 688
1 688
1647.5
1647.5
1647.51647.5
1647.51647.51647.5
647.5
647.5
Color Coding for Table
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
PnoLS: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes,
T: Total Stems

Table 7. Planted and Total Stem Counts
Agony Acres Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No.95716)
Monitoring Year 0 -2014
Color Coding for Table
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
PnoLS: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes,
T: Total Stems
Current Plot Data (MYO 2015)
Annual Means
Scientific Name Common Name Species Type
95716 -WEI -0013
95716 -WEI -0014
95716 -WEI -0015
95716 -WEI -0016
MYO (2015)
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
Alnus serrulata tag alder Shrub
1
1 1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
27
27
27
Betula nigra river birch Tree
4
4
4
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
28
28
28
Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
2
2
2
55
55
55
Platanus occidentalis JAmencan sycamore ITree
1
1
1
3
3
3
5
5
5
3
3
3
56
56
56
Quercus michauxii swamp chestnut oak Tree
6
6
6
4
4
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
36
36
36
Quercus pagoda cherrybark oak Tree
2
2
2
3
3
3
1
1
1
3
3
3
25
25
25
Quercus phellos willow oak Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
4
1 4
4
30
30
30
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
257
257
257
1
1
1
1
16
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.40
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
647.5
647.51647
. S
647.5
1647.5
1647.5
647.5
1647.5
1647.51647.5
1647.5
1647.51
650
1 650
1 650
Color Coding for Table
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
PnoLS: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes,
T: Total Stems

VEGETATION PHOTOGRAPHS
Agony Acres

VEG PLOT 1 (0110612015)
VEG PLOT 2 (0110612015)
VEG PLOT 3 (0110612015)
VEG PLOT 4 (0110612015)
VEG PLOT 5 (0110612015)
VEG PLOT 6 (0110612015)
Agony Acres Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Morphological Summary Data and Plots — Vegetation Photographs

VEG PLOT 7 (0110612015) 1 VEG PLOT 8 (0110612015) 1
VEG PLOT 9 (0110612015)
• � I 1. I
"t"'W"Aw.�m,tH 1
l
VEG PLOT 11 (0110612015)
VEG PLOT 12 (0110612015)
Agony Acres Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Morphological Summary Data and Plots — Vegetation Photographs

VEG PLOT 13 (0110612015) 1 VEG PLOT 14 (0110612015) 1
VEG PLOT 15 (0110612015) 1 VEG PLOT 16 (0110612015)
Agony Acres Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Morphological Summary Data and Plots — Vegetation Photographs

APPENDIX 4. As -Built Plan Sheets

Agony Acres Mitigation Site
Cape Fear River Basin 03030002
Guilford County, North Carolina
for
7,ckie
87
I � _
R do
Ile
a — L—bm
l
At ah v�ss
Il 1
�. m ac
\
Vicinity Map
Not to Scale
North Carolina Ecosystem
Enhancement Program
liffillo,
'110.1—
PROGRAM
BASELINE DRAWING
Issued February 2015
Sheet Index
Title Sheet 0.1
Legend 0.2
Streams Baseline Overview 1.0
StT'eanm Baseline ]Plans 2.1 -2.23
Project Directory
Surveying:
Kee Mapping & Surveying, ]PA
111 Central Avenue
Asheville, NC 28801
Brad Kee, ]PLS
828 - 645 -8275
Engineering:
Wildlamds Engineering, Inc
License No. F -0831
312 West Milllbrook Road, Suite 225
Raleigh, NC 27609
Nicole Macalmso, PE
919 - 851 -9986
Owner:
Ecosystems Enhancement ]Pro,gram
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652
Jeff Schaffer
919 - 707 -8976
DENR Contract No. 004949
EEF 1D No. 95716
e®
U
i
0
0
F�f Z
y O
'� •.- L0001 N
t
! M
Stream Origins
Stream
Latitude
Longitude
UT1
N 36° 10'27.15"
W 790
33' 03.90"
UT1A
N 36° 10'29.43"
W 790
32' 37.10"
UT1B
N 36° 10'40.87"
W 790
33'03.05"
UT2
N 360 10'46.12"
W 790
32'27.79"
Sheet Index
Title Sheet 0.1
Legend 0.2
Streams Baseline Overview 1.0
StT'eanm Baseline ]Plans 2.1 -2.23
Project Directory
Surveying:
Kee Mapping & Surveying, ]PA
111 Central Avenue
Asheville, NC 28801
Brad Kee, ]PLS
828 - 645 -8275
Engineering:
Wildlamds Engineering, Inc
License No. F -0831
312 West Milllbrook Road, Suite 225
Raleigh, NC 27609
Nicole Macalmso, PE
919 - 851 -9986
Owner:
Ecosystems Enhancement ]Pro,gram
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652
Jeff Schaffer
919 - 707 -8976
DENR Contract No. 004949
EEF 1D No. 95716
e®
U
i
0
0
F�f Z
y O
'� •.- L0001 N
t
! M
Q
8
�