20120080 Ver 1_Year 2 Monitoring Report_20150414

-- W IZ4 _. 201Z0060 RECEIVED
JAN 1 3 2015
MONITORING YEAR 2 UNDERWOOD MITIGATION SITE
Chatham County, NC
ANNUAL REPORT DENR Contract 003268
Final NCEEP Project Number 94641
Data Collection Period: June 2014 - November 2014
Draft Submission Date: December 1, 2014
Final Submission Date: January 9, 2014
PREPARED FOR: R@- R .' 0 w F
D
��-
APR i 4 2015
DENR- VVATER RESOURCES
TRANSPORTATION PERMITTING UNIT
NC Department of Environment and Natural
Resources
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652

PREPARED BY:
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 28203
Kirsten Y. Gimbert
[e-mail]
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
W Underwood Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 2 A*
nnual Report— FINAL

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Wildlands Engineering ( Wildlands) completed a full - delivery project for the North Carolina Ecosystem
Enhancement Program (NCEEP) to restore and enhance a total of 9,133 linear feet (LF) of stream and
restore, enhance, and create 13.84 acres (ac) of wetlands in Chatham County, North Carolina. The project
streams consist of South Fork Cane Creek (South Fork) and three unnamed tributaries (UTs) of the South
Fork. The largest of these streams, South Fork, ultimately drains to the Haw River. At the downstream
limits of the project, the drainage area is 3,362 acres (5.25 square miles).
The Underwood Mitigation Site, hereafter referred to as the Site, consists of two separate areas (Harris
Site and Lindley Site) located' in western Chatham County north of Siler City, North Carolina. The Harris
site is located within the upstream area of the project watershed along Clyde Underwood Road, just west
of Planfield Church Road. The Lindley Site is located downstream from the Harris Site, southwest of Moon
Lindley Road between Johnny Lindley Road and Bob Clark Road (see Figure 1). The Site is located within
the Carolina Slate Belt of the Piedmont Physiographic Province (USGS, 1998). The Sites are located within
the North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) subbasin 03 -06 -04 of the Cape Fear River Basin
(United States Geological Survey (USGS) Hydrologic Unit 03030002050050). Approximately 60% of the
land in the project watershed is forest, 39% is classified as managed herbaceous cover or agricultural, and
the remaining 1% is split between unmanaged herbaceous and open water (MRLC, 2001). The Site is the
ownership of Mary Jean Harris, William Darrel Harris, James Randall Lindley, and Jonathan Marshall
Lindley.
Prior to construction activities, the streams and wetlands on the Harris Site were impacted by cattle
grazing, which led to stream bank erosion and instability. The Lindley site was used for row crop
agriculture and the streams were straightened and deepened and much of the riparian vegetation was
removed. Related degradation includes declining aquatic habitat, loss of forest, degraded riparian buffers,
loss of wetlands, and water quality problems related to increased sediment and nutrient loadings. The
design features of this project were developed to achieve multiple project objectives. The stream
restoration elements were designed to frequently flood the reconnected floodplain and adjacent riparian
wetlands. This design approach provides more frequent dissipation of energy from higher flows (bankfull
and above) to improve channel stability; provide water quality treatment through detention, settling, and
biological removal of pollutants; and restore a more natural hydrologic regime. These objectives were
achieved by restoring and enhancing 9,133 linear feet (LF) of perennial and intermittent stream channel,
and restoring, enhancing, and creating 13.84 acres of riparian and non - riparian wetland. The Stream Site
and Wetland Site riparian areas were also planted to stabilize streambanks, improve habitat, and protect
water quality. Figure 2 and Table 1 present design applications for the Sites.
The following project goals were established to address the effects listed above in the executive summary
from watershed and project site stressors:
• Restore and stabilize stream dimensions, pattern, and profile;
• Establish proper substrate distribution throughout restored and enhanced streams;
• Improve aquatic and benthic habitat;
• Reduce nutrient loads within the watershed and to downstream waters;
• Further improve water quality within the watershed through reductions of sediment,
bacteria, and other pollutants;
• Decrease water temperature and increase dissolved oxygen concentrations;
• Establish appropriate hydrology for wetland areas;
Underwood Mitigation Site
w Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report— FINAL iii

• Restore native vegetation to wetlands and riparian buffers /improve existing buffers; and
• Create appropriate terrestrial habitat.
Stream and wetland restoration, enhancement, and creation construction efforts were completed in
November 2012. A conservation easement is in place on 37.8 ac acres of riparian corridor and stream
resources to protect them in perpetuity.
Monitoring Year 2 (MY -2) monitoring and site visits were completed during May- December, 2014 to
assess the conditions of the project. Overall, the Site has met the required hydrologic, vegetation, and
stream success criteria for MY -2. The sites overall average stem density of 481 stems/ acre is greater than
the 320 stem/ acre density required for MY -3. With the exception of an isolated enhancement reach, all
restored and enhanced streams are stable and functioning as designed. The majority of the Site has met
the Monitoring Year 5 (MY5) hydrology success criteria. With the exception of one groundwater gage,
the Site has met the MY -2 success criteria.
WUnderwood Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report— FINAL iv

UNDERWOOD MITIGATION SITE
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1:
PROJECT OVERVIEW ............................................................................ ............................1
-1
1.1
Project Goals and Objectives ......................................................................... ............................1
-1
1.2
Monitoring Year 2 Data Assessment .............................................................. ............................1
-2
1.2.1
Vegetative Assessment .......................................................................... ............................1
-2
1.2.2
Vegetation Areas of Concern ................................................................. ............................1
-3
1.2.3
Stream Assessment ................................................................................ ............................1
-3
1.2.4
Stream Areas of Concern ....................................................................... ............................1
-3
1.2.5
Hydrology Assessment ........................................................................... ............................1
-4
1.2.6
Wetland Assessment ........................................................................... ...............................
1 -4
1.2.7
Maintenance Plan .................................................................................. ............................1
-4
1.3
Monitoring Year 2 Summary .......................................................................... ............................1
-4
Section 2:
METHODOLOGY ................................................................................ ...............................
2 -1
Section 3:
REFERENCES ..................................................................................... ...............................
3 -1
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 Contacts Table
Table 4
Project Baseline Information and Attributes
Appendix 2
Visual Assessment Data
Figure 3.0 -3.3
Integrated Current Condition Plan View
Table 5a -h
Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Table 6
Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Stream Photographs
Vegetation Photographs
Appendix 3 Vegetation Plot Data
Table 7 Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Table 8 CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Table 9 Planted and Total Stem Counts (Species by Plot with Annual Means)
Appendix 4 Morphological Summary Data and Plots
Table 10a -c Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table 11 Monitoring Data — Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters
— Cross - Section)
Underwood Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report — FINAL v

Table 12a -f Monitoring Data — Stream Reach Data Summary
Longitudinal Profile Plots
Cross - Section Plots
Reachwide and Cross - Section Pebble Count Plots
Appendix 5 Hydrology Data
Table 13 Verification of Bankfull Events
Table 14 Wetland Gage Attainment Summary
Groundwater Gage Plots
Monthly Rainfall Data
Underwood Mitigation Site
W Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report— FINAL vi

Section 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Underwood Mitigation Site, hereafter referred to as the Site, consists of two separate areas (Harris
Site and Lindley Site) located in western Chatham County within the Cape Fear River Basin (USGS
Hydrologic Unit 03030002) north of Siler City, North Carolina. The Harris site is located within the
upstream area of the project watershed along Clyde Underwood Road, just west of Planfield Church Road.
The Lindley Site is located downstream from the Harris Site, southwest of Moon Lindley Road between
Johnny Lindley Road and Bob Clark Road. The Site is located within the Carolina Slate Belt of the Piedmont
Physiographic Province (USGS, 1998). The project watersheds consist of forested, managed herbaceous,
and unmanaged herbaceous and open water (MRLC, 2001). The drainage areas for the Harris Site and
Lindley Site are 1,051 acres (1.64 square miles) and 3,362 acres (5.25 square miles) respectively.
The project stream reaches consist of SF1, SF3, SF4, SF4A, UT1, and UT2 (stream restoration and /or
enhancement level I approach) and SF2, SF3, UT1, UT1A, and UT1B (enhancement level II approach).
Mitigation work within the Site included restoring and enhancing 9,133 linear feet (LF) of perennial and
intermittent stream channel and restoring, enhancing, and creating 13.84 acres of riparian and non -
riparian wetland. The stream and wetland areas were also planted with native vegetation to improve
habitat and protect water quality. Construction activities were completed by Land Mechanics Designs,
Inc. in November 2012. Planting and seeding activities were completed by Bruton Natural Systems, Inc.
in January 2013. Four separate conservation easements have been recorded and are in place along the
riparian corridors and stream resources to protect them in perpetuity; 7.68 acres (Deed Book 1578, Page
495) within the tract owned by Mary Jean Harris, 18.44 acres (Deed Book 1578, Page 507) within the tract
owned by William Darrel Harris, 5.34 acres property (Deed Book 1579, Page 1067) within the tract owned
by James Randall Lindley, and 6.29 acres property (Deed Book 716, Page 707) within the tract owned by
Jonathan Marshall Lindley. Directions and a map of the Site are provided in Figure 1 and project
components are illustrated for the Site in Figures 2a and 2b.
1.1 Project Goals and Objectives
Prior to construction activities, the streams and wetlands on the Harris Site were impacted by cattle
grazing, which led to stream bank erosion and instability. The Lindley site was used for row crop
agriculture and the streams were straightened and deepened and much of the riparian vegetation was
removed. Related degradation includes declining aquatic habitat, loss of forest, degraded riparian buffers,
loss of wetlands, and water quality problems related to increased sediment and nutrient loadings. Table
4 in Appendix 1 and Tables 10a, 10b, and 10c in Appendix 4 present the pre- restoration conditions in
detail.
The Sites were designed to meet the over - arching goals as described in the mitigation plan (2011) to
address the effects from watershed and project site stressors. The project addresses multiple watershed
stressors that have been documented for both the Cane Creek and Jordan Lake watersheds. While many
of these benefits are limited to the .Underwood Site project area, others, such as pollutant removal and
improved aquatic and terrestrial habitat, have more far - reaching effects. The following project specific
goals established in the mitigation plan include:
• Restore and stabilize stream dimensions, pattern, and profile;
• Establish proper substrate distribution throughout restored and enhanced streams;
• Improve aquatic and benthic habitat;
• Reduce nutrient loads within the watershed and to downstream waters;
Underwood Mitigation Site
W Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report— FINAL 1 -1

• Further improve water quality within the watershed through reductions of sediment,
bacteria, and-other pollutants;
• Decrease water temperature and increase dissolved oxygen concentrations;
• Establish appropriate hydrology for wetland areas;
• Restore native vegetation to wetlands and riparian buffers /improve existing buffers; and
• Create appropriate terrestrial habitat.
The project goals were addressed through the following project objectives:
• Construct stream channels that will remain relatively stable over time and adequately transport
their sediment loads without significant erosion or aggradation;
• Construct stream channels that maintain riffles with coarse bed material and pools with finer bed
material;
• Provide aquatic and benthic habitat diversity in the form of pools, riffles, woody debris, and in-
stream structures;
• Add riffle features and structures and riparian vegetation to decrease water temperatures and
increase dissolved oxygen to improve water quality;
• Construct stream reaches so that floodplains and wetlands are frequently flooded to provide
energy dissipation, detain and treat flood flows, and create a more natural hydrologic regime;
• Construct fencing to keep livestock out of the streams;
• Raise local groundwater table through raising stream beds and removing agricultural drainage
features;
• Grade wetland creation areas as necessary to promote wetland hydrology; and
• Plant native tree species to establish appropriate wetland and floodplain communities and retain
existing, native trees were possible.
The design streams and wetlands were restored to the appropriate type based on the surrounding
landscape, climate, and natural vegetation communities but also with strong consideration to existing
watershed conditions and trajectory. The mitigation project corrected incision and lack of pattern caused
by channelization, bank instability caused by erosion and livestock access, lack of vegetation in riparian
zones, lack of riparian and aquatic habitat, and depletion of hydrology for adjacent wetlands. The final
mitigation plan was submitted and accepted by the NCEEP in September of 2011. Construction activities
were completed by Land Mechanics Designs, Inc. in November 2012. Planting and seeding activities were
completed by Bruton Natural Systems, Inc. in January 2013. Baseline monitoring (MY -0) was conducted
between December 2012 and February of 2013. Annual monitoring will be conducted for five years with
the close -out anticipated to commence in 2018 given the success criteria are met. Appendix 1 provides
more detailed project activity, history, contact information, and watershed /site background information
for this project.
1.2 Monitoring Year 2 Data Assessment
Annual monitoring and quarterly site visits were conducted during monitoring year 2 (MY -2) to assess the
condition of the project. The stream and wetland mitigation success criteria for the Site follow the
approved success criteria presented in the Underwood Mitigation Plan (2011).
1.2.1 Vegetative Assessment
Planted woody vegetation is being monitored in accordance with the guidelines and procedures
developed by the Carolina Vegetation Survey - NCEEP Level 2 Protocol (Lee et al., 2008). A total of 42 (29
at the Harris Site; 13 at the Lindley Site) vegetation plots were established during the baseline monitoring
Underwood Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report— FINAL 1 -2

within the project easement areas using standard 10 meter by 10 meter vegetation monitoring plots. The
final vegetative success criteria will be the survival of 260 planted stems per acre in the riparian corridor
along restored and enhanced reaches at the end of,MY -5. The interim measure of vegetative success for
the Stream and Wetland Sites will be the survival of at least 320 planted stems per acre at the end of the
third monitoring year (MY -3).
The MY -2 vegetative survey was completed in May 2014. The 2014 annual vegetation monitoring resulted
in an average stem density of 481 stems per acre, which is greater than the interim requirement of 320
stems /acre and approximately 32% less than the baseline (MY -0) density recorded (712 stems /acre).
There was an average of 12 stems per plot compared to 19 stems per plot during MY -0. While the Site as
a whole is on track to meet the interim requirement, seven plots are not meeting the success criteria. A
supplemental planting is scheduled for those areas identified with low survival rates. Please refer to
Appendix 2 for vegetation plot photographs and the vegetation condition assessment table and Appendix
3 for vegetation data tables.
1.2.2 Vegetation Areas of Concern
Isolated areas of low planted stem survivability were noted in MY -2 and are primarily associated with
the Harris Site. Details regarding the tentative maintenance plan are discussed below in section 1.2.7.
1.2.3 Stream Assessment
Morphological surveys for the MY -2 were conducted in May 2014. With the exception of SF4A, all streams
within the Site are stable with little to no erosion and have met the success criteria for MY -2. Please refer
to Appendix 2 for the visual assessment table, Integrated Current Condition Plan View, and reference
photographs. Refer to Appendix 4 for the morphological data and plots.
In general cross - sections show little to no change in the bankfull area, maximum depth ratio, or width -to-
depth ratio. Surveyed riffle cross - sections fell within the parameters defined for channels of the
appropriate Rosgen stream type. The surveyed longitudinal profile data for SF1, UT2, SF3, UT1, and SF4
illustrates that the bedform features are maintaining lateral and vertical stability. The riffles are remaining
steeper and shallower than the pools, while the pools are remaining deeper than the riffles and
maintaining flat water surface slopes. The longitudinal profiles show that the bank height ratios remain
very near to 1.0 for the restoration reaches. Degradation was documented in the upper portion of SF4A
(approximate STA 900 +00 - 905 +33). In this section the stream has downcut up to 0.5 ft in some locations.
Although the adjustments in SF4A's profile were not intended in the design, the stream is maintaining a
stable bedform at a lower elevation. SF4A will be closely monitored over the upcoming MY -3 to document
this trend towards stability. If during MY -3 degradation continues along SF4A, Wildlands will prepare a
maintenance plan to address the problem areas. Details regarding the tentative maintenance plan are
discussed below in section 1.2.7. Pattern data will be collected in MY -5 only if there are indicators from
the profile or dimensions that significant geomorphic adjustments have occurred. No changes were
observed during MY -2 that indicated a change in the radius of curvature or channel belt width.
1.2.4 Stream Areas of Concern
While SF4A appears to have stabilized at a lower bedform elevation, this reach will continue to be
closely monitored during subsequent monitoring years.
Underwood Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report— FINAL 1 -3

1.2.5 Hydrology Assessment
At the end of the five year monitoring period, two or more bankfull events must have occured in separate
years within the restoration reaches. Additional bankfull events were recorded on all the streams except
for UT2 with crest gages during the MY -2 data collection. Please refer to Appendix 5 for hydrologic data.
1.2.6 Wetland Assessment
Fifteen groundwater monitoring gages were established during the baseline monitoring within the
wetland restoration, creation, and enhancement zones. The gages were installed at appropriate locations
so that the data collected will provide an indication of groundwater levels throughout the site. To provide
data for the determination of the growing season for the wetland areas, two soil temperature loggers
were installed in representative areas within RW3 and RW4. A barrotroll logger (to measure barometric
pressure used in the calculations of groundwater levels with well transducer data) and a rain gage were
also installed within the wetland areas on both the Harris and Lindley Site. All monitoring gages were
downloaded on a quarterly basis and maintained on an as needed basis. The success criteria for wetland
hydrology is to have a free groundwater surface within 12 inches of the ground surface for 7.5 percent of
the growing season, which is measured on consecutive days under typical precipitation conditions. With
the exception of gage 13, all other groundwater gages met the annual wetland hydrology success criteria
for MY -2. Please refer to Appendix 2 for the groundwater gage locations and Appendix 5 for groundwater
hydrology data and plots.
1.2.7 Maintenance Plan
Wildlands is proposing a supplemental planting in the winter of 2015 to address areas noted with low
planted stem survivability. Additionally, Wildlands will continue to monitor SF4A and will develop a
maintenance plan if it becomes apparent that the stream continues to downcut or otherwise destabilize.
A maintenance plan to correct this problem would likely consist of installation of sills at the downstream
end of riffles to stabilize those features, add additional grade control, and backfill over time to raise the
bed through the riffle sections.
1.3 Monitoring Year 2 Summary
With the exception of SF4A, all streams within the Site are stable and functioning as designed.
Degradation observed on SF4A will be monitored for indications of long term instability. A maintenance
plan will be prepared after MY -3 if conditions continue to degrade. The average stem density for the Site
is on track to meeting the MY -5 success criteria; however, some individual vegetation plots did not meet
the MY -3 success criteria as noted in the Integrated Current Condition Plan View. With the exception of
UT2, there have been multiple documented bankfull events with the crest gage recordings along UT1, SF2,
SF3, SF4, and SF4A since construction completion. The MY -5 stream hydrology attainment requirement
has been partially met for the Site at this time. With the exception of one gage, the MY -2 hydrology
success criteria has been met.
Summary information and data related to the performance of various project and monitoring elements
can be found in the tables and figures in the report appendices. Narrative background and supporting
information formerly found in these reports can be found in the Mitigation Plan documents available on
NCEEP's website. All raw data supporting the tables and figures in the appendices are available from
NCEEP upon request. Summary information /data related to various project and monitoring elements can
be found in the tables and figures in the report appendices. Narrative background and supporting
information formerly found in these reports can be found in the (formerly Restoration Plan) documents
wUnderwood Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report— FINAL 1 -4

available on EEP's website. All raw data supporting the tables and figures in the appendices is available
from NCEEP upon request.
Underwood Mitigation Site
w Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report— FINAL 1 -5

Section 2: METHODOLOGY
Geomorphic data was collected followed the standards outlined in The Stream Channel Reference Site:
An Illustrated Guide to Field Techniques (Harrelson et al., 1994) and in the Stream Restoration: A Natural
Channel Design Handbook (Doll et al., 2003). Cross - sectional data were collected using a total station and
were georeferenced. All Integrated Current Condition Mapping was recorded using a Trimble handheld
GPS with sub -meter accuracy and processed using Pathfinder and ArcView. Crest gages and pressure
transducers were installed in surveyed riffle cross - sections and monitored quarterly. Hydrology
attainment installation, and monitoring methods are in accordance with the USACE (2003) standards.
Vegetation monitoring protocols followed the Carolina Vegetation Survey - NCEEP Level 2 Protocol (Lee et
al., 2008). Reporting follows the NCEEP Monitoring Report Template and Guidance Version 1.2.1(NCEEP,
2009).
Underwood Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report— FINAL 2 -1

Section 3: REFERENCES
Doll, B.A., Grabow, G.L., Hall, K.A., Halley, J., Harman, W.A., Jennings, G.D., and Wise, D.E. 2003. Stream
Restoration A Natural Channel Design Handbook.
Harrelson, C.C., Rawlins, C.L., Potyondy, J.P. 1994. Stream Channel Reference Sites: An Illustrated Guide
to Field Technique. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM -245. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 61 p.
Lee, M.T., Peet, R.K., S.D., Wentworth, T.R. 2008. CVS -EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation Version
4.2. Retrieved from http:// cvs. bio. unc. edu/ protocol /cvs -eep- protocol- v4.2- lev1- 5.pdf.
Multi- Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium (MRLC). 2001. National Land Cover Database.
http://www.mrlc.gov/nlcd.php
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP). 2009. Monitoring Report Template and
Guidance. Version 1.2.1. Raleigh, NC.
Rosgen, D. L. 1994. A classification of natural rivers. Catena 22:169 -199.
Rosgen, D.L. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Pagosa Springs, CO: Wildland Hydrology Books.
Rosgen, D.L. 1997. A Geomorphological Approach to Restoration of Incised Rivers. Proceedings of the
Conference on Management of Landscapes Disturbed by Channel Incision. Center For
Computational Hydroscience and Bioengineering, Oxford Campus, University of Mississippi,
Pages 12 -22.
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines. USACE, NCDENR-
DWO, USEPA, NCWRC.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2002. Natural Resources Conservation Service, Climate
Information for Catawba County, NC (1971- 2000). WETS Station: Catawba 3 NNW, NC1579.
http: / /www.wcc. nres.usda.gov /ftpref /support/climate /wetlands /nc /`37035.txt
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2009. Natural Resources Conservation Service, Soil
Survey Geographic (SSURGO) database for Catawba County, North Carolina.
http : / /Soi[DataMart.nres.usda.gov
United States Geological Survey (USGS). 1998. North Carolina Geology.
http://www.geoloky.enr.state.nc.us/usgs/carolina.htm
Wildlands Engineering, Inc (2011). Underwood Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan. NCEEP, Raleigh, NC.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 2013. Underwood Mitigation Site Baseline Monitoring Document and As-
Built Baseline Report. NCEEP, Raleigh, NC.
Underwood Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report— FINAL 3 -1

APPENDIX 1. General Tables and Figures

03030003070010
..030300020-50Q ,
�r
I
1
)NI
I me
r Harris Sibs
i
03030003020a `
.`
Her
its
Directions:
The two locations of the proposed
stream and wetland mitigation sites
are located in western Chatham County
along Clyde Underwood Road just west
of Planfield Church Road (Upstream Area)
and southwest of Moon Lindley Road
between Johnny Lindley Road and Bob
Clark Road (Downstream Area) north of
Siler City, North Carolina (Figure 1).
The sites are currently used for agriculture
and are within the Cape Fear River Basin
(HUC 03030002).
0 30003070g2F
r. '
_ 4 •l �;iil •r.
I
03030002050070
Llindley Sibs
r
i 4r;\c l'..
)2050090
03030003070030
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 mayrequire 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.
Figure 1 Project Vicinity Map
W I L D L A N D S Underwood Mitigation Site
E N G I N E E R I N G 0 0.625 1.25 Miles NCEEP Project No. 94641
I ' ' ' t Monitoring Year 2
Chatham County, NC

Figure 2a Project Component /Asset Map
�► W I L D L A N D S Underwood Mitigation Site - Harris Site
F N G IN E E R, N c 0 110 220 Feet NCEEP Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 2
Chatham County, NC

♦ `r UT1B
.� %
Q
Mi
UT1A
..
/A
r• • r ♦ 40P
,
i• • r�rlr , UT1 I i
NRW2 • •`�� • ! ■
• ��.� ^■ ■i■owe ■ •�r.
■
■
r . •fir �♦, ■ ■ �♦ 1 ■
■
1 ■
■
1 ■
■ !
RW3 ■
: !
l 1 ■
1
,�• E L
w- A _ ■
tip- ._.i■
R
jIg ►
1 �
■ �-- ----�- S F2
■
r

Figure 2c Project Component /Asset Map
tW I L D L A N D S Underwood Mitigation Site - Lindley Site
v E N GIN EE R I N G 0 100 200 Feet NCEEP Project No. 94641
I I I I Monitoring Year 2
Chatham County, NC

Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No.94641)
Monitoring Year 2
Mitigation Credits
Stream
Riparian Wetland
Non- Riparian Wetland
Buffer
Nitrogen
Nutrient
Offset
Phosphorous
Nutrient Offset
Type
R
RE
R
RE
R
RE
Totals
6,765
8.0
1.1
N/A
N/A
N/A
Project Components
Reach IQ
As -Built
Stationing/
Location (LF)
Existing•
Footage (LF)/
Acreage (Ac)
Approach •
°
Restoration or Restoration
Equivalent
Restoration Footage
Acreage (Ac)'
Mitigation Ratio
Streams
SF1
100 +00 -
108 +74
773
Priority 1
Restoration
874
1:1
SF2
300+00 -
303 +02
302
N/A
Enhancement Level II
302
2.5:1
SF3
400 +00 -
421 +20
532
N/A
Enhancement Level II
359
2.5:1
1,499
Priority 1
Restoration
1,586
1:1
152
N/A
Enhancement Level 1
153
1.5:1
SF4
800 +00 -
814 +29
1,450
Priority 1
Restoration
1,429
1:1
SF4A
900 +00 -
908 +66
0
Priority 1
Restoration
257
1:1
609
N/A
Enhancement Level 1
609
1.5:1
UT1
500 +00 -
520 +38
1,463
N/A
Enhancement Level II
1,468
2.5:1
452
Priority 1
Restoration
515
1:1
UT1A
700+00 -
705 +11
524
N/A
Enhancement Level II
511
2.5:1
UT1B
600 +00 -
606 +52
660
N/A
Enhancement Level II
652
2.5:1
UT2
0 +00 -4 +18
421
N/A
Enhancement Level 1
418
1.5:1
Wetlands
RW1
N/A
1.25
N/A
Restoration
1.12
1:1
RW2
N/A
0.45
N/A
Creation
0.30
3:1
0.50
Restoration
0.40
1:1
RW3
N/A
2°63
N/A
Creation
2.53
3:1
1.33
Restoration
1.02
1:1
RW4
N/A
3'95
N/A
Creation
3.63
3:1
3.65
Restoration
3.30
1:1
NRWi
N/A
1.20
N/A
Restoration
0.75
1:1
Creation
0.45
3:1
NRW2
N/A
0.34
N/A
Enhancement
0.34
2:1
Component Summation
Restoration Level
Stream
(LF)
Riparian Wetland
(Ac)
Non - Riparian Wetland
(acres)
Buffer
(sq.ft)
Upland
(acres)
Riverine
Non - Riverine
°
Restoration
4,661
5.84
0.75
Enhancement
° •
0.34
Enhancement 1
1,180
Enhancement 11
3,292
Creation
6.46
0.45
Preservation
High Quality Preservation
• Note that lengths do not match stationing because channel sections that do not generate credit have been removed from length calwiations

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No.94641)
Monitoring Year 2
Activity or Report
Date Collection
Complete
Completion or
Scheduled Delivery
Mitigation Plan
September 2011
September 2011
Final Design - Construction Plans
July 2012
July 2012
Construction
November 2012
November 2012
Temporary 5 &E mix applied to entire project area'
November 2012
November 2012
Permanent seed mix applied to reach /segments
November 2012
November 2012
Bare root and live stake plantings for reach /segments
January 2013
January 2013
Baseline Monitoring Document (Year 0 Monitoring - baseline)
March 2013
March 2013
Year 1 Monitoring
September 2013
November 2013
Year 2 Monitoring
December 2014
December 2014
Year 3 Monitoring
2015
December 2015
Year 4 Monitoring
2016
December 2016
Year 5 Monitoring
2017
December 2017
'Seed and mulch Is added as each section of construction is completed.
Table 3. Project Contact Table
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No.94641)
Monitoring Year 2
Designer
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225
Nicole Makaluso, PE
Raleigh, NC 27609
919.851.9986
Construction Contractor
Land Mechanic Designs, Inc.
126 Circle G Lane
Willow Spring, NC 27592
Planting Contractor
Bruton Natural Systems, Inc
P O. Box 1197
Fremont, NC 27830
Seeding Contractor
Land Mechanic Designs, Inc.
126 Circle G Lane
Willow Spring, NC 27592
Seed Mix Sources
Green Resource, LLC
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Bare Roots
ArborGlen, Inc
Live Stakes
Foggy Mountain Nursery
Monitoring Performers
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Stream, Vegetation, and Wetland Monitoring POC
Kirsten Gimbert
704.332.7754, ext. 110

Table 4. Project Baseline Information and Attributes
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No.94641)
Monitoring Year 2
° ° ° • Project Information
Project Name
Underwood Mitigation Site
County
Chatham County
Project Area (acres)
38 ac
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude)
35° 48' 05 "N, 79° 24' 10 "W (Harris Site), 35° 49'51"N, 79.22' 60 "W ( Undley Site)
° ° ° ° ° , ' ° Project °Watershed Summary Information ° ° °, ° ° ' • °
Ph siographic Province
Carolina Slate Belt of the Piedmont Physiographic Province°
River Basin
Cape Fear
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8 -digit
03030002
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14 -digit
03030002050050
DWQ Sub -basin
03 -06-04
Project Drainiage Area (acres)
1,504 ac (Harris Site) and 3,362 ac (Lindley Site)
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area
<1%
CGIA Land Use Classification
60% Forest Land, 39% managed herbaceous cover /agricultural, 1% unmanaged herbaceous/open water
° ,Reach Summary Information'
Parameters
• SF1
°,SF2 • °
SF3
°UTS
UT1A° _.
UTIS
UTZ
`SF4•
SF4A
Length of reach (linear feet) - Post - Restoration
874
302
2,098
1,983
511
652
418
1,429
866
Drainage area (acres)
134
781
1,056
230
11
11
78
3,362
637
NCDWQ stream identification score
36.0/50 5/43 3
40.0
22.8
243
380
34.5
NCDWQ Water Quality Classification
WS-V,
NSW
WS -V,
NSW
WS-V,
NSW SW
C
C
C
WS-V,
NSW
C
Morphological Desription stream type)
P
P
P
P
I
1
P
P
P
Evolutionary trend (Simon's Model) - Pre-
Restoration
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
Underlying mapped soils
Nanford -Baden Complex
Georgewlle
Silt Loam
Chewacla and Wehadkee
Drainage class
- --
- --
- --
--
--
---
- --
Soil H dric status
Slope
FEMA classification
AE
Native vegetation community
Piedmont
bottomland
forest
Percent composition of exotic invasive vegetation - Post -
Restoration
0°16
° ° ° ° ° • ° ° ° _ • Regulatory Considerations
Regulation
Applicable?
Resolved?
Supporting Documentation
Waters of the United States - Section 404
X
X
USACE Nationwide Permit No.27 and DWQ401 Water Quality Certification No 3689
Waters of the United States - Section 401
X
Division of Land Quality (Dam Safety)
N/A
N/A
N/A
Endangered Species Act
X
X
Underwood Mitigation Plan, no conical habitat for listed species exists within the project area (USFWS
correspondence letter
Historic Preservation Act
X
X
No historic resources were found to be impacted (letter from SHPO)
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) / Coastal
Area Management Act (CAMA)
N/A
N/A
N/A
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
X
X
Approved CLOMR
Essential Fisheries Habitat
I N/A
I N/A
N/A

APPENDIX 2. Visual Assessment Data

r 1 M
1�. •yam •'�`• •-- �. �,�,: ti • .,� � �� n�' � - - - - - - - - - - -
All
y 1- - 1
l
I b'' �'j►a -T - -- P t 1
IL
AL
La ;.; P 4,...'T . ^Y *' f_ ^i'i /f= 1 •...�•' 1 1
;r:. •;!.1tT11 NARRW RD - 0. ; - a.- 1 1
Sheet 3
JUL.:d'� � �_ ',!Ili r..�i� :F �y, , .�•.-�� ti i, �tr� *�- �li"��+sp+ ,1... � ��f �:.
� alas «�[ r•'` '1' t ,'t t �: .'�j��.
1 � F
.M1, ti F
I rr
fw
' -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
' 'y
1
1 ;
' '. ,•• ` ...it '% 1
I � y ti -.: I• � � 1
1 , �
RD
UNDFFWVOODRD .'1.
Sheet 2 �: 1 Restoration
• -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
-------- - - - - -1
IY
1 1 'fl
1 •' 1 1
, 1 D
, Sheet 1 I W
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - , ` R

Figure 3.1 Integrated Current Condition Plan View
(Sheet 1 of 3)
W I L D LANDS 0 50 100 150 200 Feet Underwood Mitigation Site - Harris Site
E NC- IN E E R I N G
I i I i I NCEEP Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 2
Chatham County, NC

Figure 3.2 Integrated Current Condition Plan View
(Sheet 2 of 3)
lkt� W 1 L D L A N D S 0 100 200 300 400 Feet Underwood Mitigation Site - Harris Site
ENGINEERING
I i I I I t NCEEP Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 2
Chatham County. NC

Figure 3.3 Integrated Current Condition Plan View (Sheet 3 of 3)
W 1 L D L A N D S Underwood Mitigation Site - Harris Site
\�♦ 0 100 200 Feet NCEEP Project No. 94641
ENGINEERING I I I I I J
Monitoring Year 2
Chatham County, NC

Table 5a. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
Harris Site; SF1 (874 LF)
Monitoring Year 2
'Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.
Num er
Number wit
Footage wit
A lust or
Stable,
Number of
Amount of
% Stable,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Major Channel
Performing as
Total Number
Unstable
Unstable
Performing as
Woody
Woody
Woody
Category
Channel Sub-Category
Metric
Intended
in As -Built
Segments
Footage
Intended
Vegetation
Vegetation
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0
0
100%
°
Degredation
0
0
100%
(Riffle and Run units)
`
2. Riffle Condition
Texture /Substrate
15
15
:. Po
100%
°
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
15
15
100%
a : s ° ° ° ° a
Lenth Appropriate
15
15
100%
Condition
:� ° ,
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend (Run)
15
15
100%
e _ •
°
e
,
:.
°
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend (Glide)'
15
15
100%
2. Bank
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
�°
1. Scoured /Eroded
simply from poor growth and /or scour
m ° ° m
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
and erosion
Banks undercut /overhanging to the
_
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are
°
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
modest, appear sustainable and are
o
providing habitat
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
Totals
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
3. Engineered
Structures'
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dilodged boulders or logs.
10
10
a • e e
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill
10
10
100%
0 °
s• ° ° °
a
p
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.
10
10
100%
Bank erosion within the structures
3. Bank Protection
extent of influence does not exceed
10
10
100%
Pool forming structures maintaining
m °
0
4. Habitat
"Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth ? 1.6
Rootwads /logs providing some cover at
10
10
0
100%
baseflow.
'Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.

Table 5b. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
Harris Site; UT2 (418 LF)
Monitoring Year 2
'Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.
Num er
Number wit
Footage w t
A just 9 or
Stable,
Number of
Amount of
% Stable,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Major Channel
Performing as
Total Number
Unstable
Unstable
Performing as
Woody
Woody
Woody
Category
Channel Sub-Category
Metric
Intended
in As -Built
Segments
Footage
Intended
Vegetation
Vegetation
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0
0
100%
Degredation
0
0
100%
(Riffle and Run units)
2. Riffle Condition
Texture /Substrate
10
10
100%
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
10
10
100%
Condition
Lenth Appropriate
10
10
100%
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend (Run)
10
10
100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend (Glide)
30
30
1009'0
2. Bank
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured /Eroded
simply from poor growth and /or scour
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
and erosion
Banks undercut /overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
Totals
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
3. Engineered
Structures)
1.Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dilodged boulders or logs.
n/a
n/a
n/a
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill
n/a
n/a
n/a
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.
n/a
n/a
n/a
Bank erosion within the structures
3. Bank Protection
extent of influence does not exceed
n/a
n/a
n/a
15 %.
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
—Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth Z 1.6
Rootwads /logs providing some cover at
n/a
n/a
n/a
baseflow.
'Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.

Table 5c. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
Harris Site; SF2 (302 LF)
Monitoring Year 2
Number
Number w t
Footage w t
A just or
Stable,
Number of
Amount of
% Stable,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Major Channel
Performing as
Total Number
Unstable
Unstable
Performing as
Woody
Woody
Woody
Category
Channel Sub-Category
Metric
Intended
in As -Built
Segments
Footage
Intended
Vegetation
Vegetation
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0
0
100%
Degredation
0
0
100%
(Riffle and Run units)
2. Riffle Condition
Texture /Substrate
n/a
n/a
n/a
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
n/a
n/a
n/a
°
Lenth Appropriate
n/a
n/a
n/a
Condition
° °
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend (Run)
n/a
n/a
n/a
m
a•
®,° °_
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend (Glide)
n/a
n/a
n/a
2. Bank
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured /Eroded
simply from poor growth and /or scour
'
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
and erosion
Banks undercut /overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are -
e ' ° °°
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat
e
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
° Totals
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
3. Engineered
Structures
1.Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dilodged boulders or logs.
n/a
n/a
w e e ; m
n/a
e
e
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill
n/a
n/a
n/a
°
e e
°
. e• °° °
°
° e e
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.
n/a
n/a
n/a
Bank erosion within the structures
3. Bank Protection
extent of influence does not exceed
n/a
n/a
n/a
a ;
15 %.
e.
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
-Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth >_ 1.6
Rootwads /logs providing some cover at
n/a
n/a
n/a
baseflow.

Table 5d. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
Harris Site; SF3 (2,120 LF)
Monitoring Year 2
'Number of riffles and pools are determined based on the as -built survey along Restoration and Enhancement Level I reaches.
2Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.
Num er
Number wit t
Footage wit
A lust % or
Stable,
Number of
Amount of
% Stable,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Major Channel
Performing as
Total Number
Unstable
Unstable
Performing as
Woody
Woody
Woody
Category
Channel Sub-Category
Metric
Intended
in As -Built
Segments
Footage
Intended
Vegetation
Vegetation
Vegetation
1. Bed'
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0
0
100%
Degredation
0
0
100%
(Riffle and Run units)
2. Riffle Condition
Texture /Substrate
19
19
100%
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
19
19
100%
Condition
Lenth Appropriate
19
19
100%
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend (Run)
19
19
100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend (Glide)
19
19
100%
2. Bank
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured /Eroded
simply from poor growth and /or scour
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
and erosion
Banks undercut /overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
Totals
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
3. Engineered
Structuresz
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dilodged boulders or logs.
7
7
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill
7
7
"100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.
7
7
100%
Bank erosion within the structures
3. Bank Protection
extent of influence does not exceed
7
7
100%
15%.
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
—Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth 2 1.6
Rootwads /logs providing some cover at
7
7
100%
baseflow.
'Number of riffles and pools are determined based on the as -built survey along Restoration and Enhancement Level I reaches.
2Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.

Table 5e. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
Harris Site; UTl (2,038 LF)
Monitoring Year 2
'Number of riffles and pools are determined based on the as -built survey along Restoration and Enhancement Level I reaches.
'Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.
Number
Number wit
Footage wit
A just % or
Stable,
Number of
Amount of
% Stable,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Major Channel
Performing as
Total Number
Unstable
Unstable
Performing as
Woody
Woody
Woody
Category
Channel Sub-Category
Metric
Intended
in As -Built
Segments
Footage
Intended
Vegetation
Vegetation
Vegetation
1. Bed'
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
e e
0
0
100%
Degredation
0
0
100%
(Riffle and Run units)
2. Riffle Condition
Texture /Substrate
7
7
100%
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
7
7
100%
° °
e
Lenth Appropriate
7
7
100%
Condition
e
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend (Run)
7
7
100%
e
e °
m °
;
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend (Glide)
7
7
2. Bank
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured /Eroded
simply from poor growth and /or scour
° ° °
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
and erosion
Banks undercut /overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
3. Engineered
Structures'
1. Overall integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dilodged boulders or logs.
15
15
e a
100%
,
e e
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill
15
15
100%
° ° °
m
° e
m e , a
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.
15
15
100%
Bank erosion within the structures
3. Bank Protection
extent of influence does not exceed
15
15
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
—Max Pool Depth ; Bankfull Depth 2 1.6
Rootwads /logs providing some cover at
15
15
°. e
100%
baseflow.
°
'Number of riffles and pools are determined based on the as -built survey along Restoration and Enhancement Level I reaches.
'Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.

Table 5f. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
Harris Site; UT1A & UT1B (1,163 LF)
Monitoring Year 2 -
Num er
Number wit i
Footage wit i
A just % for
Stable,
Number of
Amount of
% Stable,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Major Channel
Performing as
Total Number
Unstable
Unstable
Performing as
Woody
Woody
Woody
Category
Channel Sub-Category
Metric
Intended
in As -Built
Segments
Footage
Intended
Vegetation
Vegetation
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0
0
100%
Degredation
0
0
100%
(Riffle and Run units)
2. Riffle Condition
Texture /Substrate
n/a
n/a
n/a
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
n/a
n/a
n/a
Condition
Lenth Appropriate
n/a
n/a
n/a
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend (Run)
n/a
n/a
n/a
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend (Glide)
n/a
n/a
n/a
2. Bank
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured /Eroded
simply from poor growth and /or scour
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
and erosion
Banks undercut /overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
Totals
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
3. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dilodged boulders or logs.
n/a
n/a
n/a
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill
n/a
n/a
n/a
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.
n/a
n/a
n/a
Bank erosion within the structures
3. Bank Protection
extent of influence does not exceed
n/a
n/a
n/a
15 %.
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth � 1.6
Rootwads /logs providing some cover at
n/a
n/a
n/a
baseflow.

Table 5g. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
Lindley Site; SF4 (1,429 LF)
Monitoring Year 2
`Number of riffles and pools are determined based on the as -built survey along Restoration and Enhancement level I reaches.
2Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.
Num er
Num erwlt
Footage wit
A lust or
Stable,
Number of
Amount of
% Stable,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Major Channel
Performing as
Total Number
Unstable
Unstable
Performing as
Woody
Woody
Woody
Category
Channel Sub-Category
Metric
Intended
in As -Built
Segments
Footage
Intended
Vegetation
Vegetation
Vegetation
1. Bed'
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
°• ° ,• °
0
0
100%
Degredation
0
0
100%
(Riffle and Run units)
• °
2. Riffle Condition
Texture /Substrate
8
8
100%
. e° °
;
•,•
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
8
8
100%
Condition
j, k
Lenth Appropriate
8
8
100%
Thalweg centering at upstream of
r
meander bend (Run)
8
8
100%
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at downstream of
8
8
100%
meander bend (Glide)
-
° ,�YY- ; . -,, -jam, u•.: 'g .°. •.: ^ ° - - ° -.' - ° - - - , .. - - - ,
ati n Y ®8 ° 'T_ ° ^• °�°°°[W... . an•® • ,g . e e , 8 • . , . • . , .. • �, B® ° e ®• , • _ ° ° • _ 0 _ ° • _ _
2. Bank
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured /Eroded
simply from poor growth and /or scour
! °
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
and erosion
Banks undercut /overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are
°
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
modest, appear sustainable and are
`
;
providing habitat
° °a
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
° m a•
v °.r }"°a ',� :° u° ; ° ` ®` • Totals
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
3. Engineered
Structures physically intact with no
1.Overall Integrity
2
2
100%
°
Structuresz
dilodged boulders or logs.
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
2
2
100%
: %
• • °
°
maintenance of grade across the sill
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
2
2
100%
, . ,
r ° °
underneath sills or arms.
Bank erosion within the structures
3. Bank Protection
extent of influence does not exceed
2
2
°° °
100%
,
15 %.
°
Pool forming structures maintaining
-Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth z 1.6
4. Habitat
2
2
100%
Rootwads /logs providing some cover at
baseflow.
`Number of riffles and pools are determined based on the as -built survey along Restoration and Enhancement level I reaches.
2Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.

Table 5h. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
Lindley Site; SMA (866 LF)
Monitoring Year 2
Number of riffles and pools are determined based on the as -built survey along Restoration and Enhancement Level I reaches. Approximately 533 LF of the stream bed has downcut along SMA and riffles and pools shifted have shifted
downstream. Although these conditions were not intended in the design, the stream has maintained a stable bedform with riffles and pools at a lower elevation.
'Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.
Num er
Number wit
Footage wit
A just % or
Stable,
Number of
Amount of
% Stable,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Major Channel
Performing as
Total Number
Unstable
Unstable
Performing as
Woody
Woody
Woody
Category
Channel Sub-Category
Metric
Intended
in As -Built
Segments
Footage
Intended
Vegetation
Vegetation
Vegetation
1. Bed'
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0
0
100%
Degredation
1
533
63%
(Riffle and Run units)
2. Riffle Condition
Texture /Substrate
8
10
80%
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
7
9
78%
Condition
Lenth Appropriate
7
9
78%
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend (Run)
9
9
100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend (Glide)
9
9
100%
2. Bank
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured /Eroded
simply from poor growth and /or scour
1
533
38%
1
533
57%
and erosion
Banks undercut /overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
Totals
1
533
100%
1
533
57%
3. Engineered
Structure52
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dilodged boulders or logs.
2
2
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill
2
2
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.
2
2
100%
Bank erosion within the structures
3. Bank Protection
extent of influence does not exceed
2
2
100%
15 %.
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
—Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth 21.6
Rootwads /logs providing some cover at
2
2
100%
baseflow.
Number of riffles and pools are determined based on the as -built survey along Restoration and Enhancement Level I reaches. Approximately 533 LF of the stream bed has downcut along SMA and riffles and pools shifted have shifted
downstream. Although these conditions were not intended in the design, the stream has maintained a stable bedform with riffles and pools at a lower elevation.
'Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.

Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Undewood Mitigation Site (EEP Project No. 946411
Monitoring Year 2
Planted Acreage 38
Easement Acreage 38
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Mapping
Number
Combined
Acreage
%of
Invasive Areas of Concern
Areas of points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
Threshold
of
Combined
Planted
Vegetation Category
Definitions
(Ac)
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage"
none
0
1 0
0.0%
Bare Areas
Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material
0.1
0
0
0.0%
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 4, or 5 stem count
Low Stem Density Areas
0.1
0
0.0
0.0%
criteria.
Total
0.
0.0
0.0%
Areas with woody stems of a size class that are obviously small given the monitoring
Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor
0.25 Ac
0
0
0.0%
year.
Cumulative Total
0
O.o
0.0%
Easement Acreage 38
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Mapping
Threshold
(SF)
Number
of
Polygons
Combined
Acreage
% of
Planted
Acreage
Invasive Areas of Concern
Areas of points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
1000
0
0
0.0%
Easement Encroachment Areas
Areas of points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
none
0
1 0
0.0%

Stream Photographs
(Harris Site)

x ,-,%AA ?
Photo Point 1— looking upstream (05/18/2014) 1 Photo Point 1— looking downstream (05/18/2014)
Photo Point 2 — looking upstream (05/18/2014) 1 Photo Point 2 — looking downstream (05/18/2014)
Photo Point 3 — looking upstream (05/18/2014) I Photo Point 3 — looking downstream (05/18/2014)
Underwood Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Morphological Summary Data and Plots— Stream Photographs

BE
Photo Point 4 - looking upstream (05/18/2014) 1 Photo Point 4 - looking downstream (05/18/2014) 1
Photo Point 5 — looking upstream (05/18/2014) 1 Photo Point 5 — looking downstream (05/18/2014) 1
Photo Point 6 — looking upstream (05/18/2014) 1 Photo Point 6 — looking downstream (05/18/2014)
Underwood Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Morphological Summary Data and Plots— Stream Photographs

Photo Point 7 — looking upstream (05/18/2014) 1 Photo Point 7 — looking downstream (05/18/2014)
Photo Point 8 — looking upstream (05/18/2014) 1 Photo Point 8 — looking downstream (05/18/2014)
Photo Point 9 —looking upstream (05/18/2014) I Photo Point 9 — looking downstream (05/18/2014) I
Underwood Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Morphological Summary Data and Plots— Stream Photographs

Photo Point 10 - looking upstream (05/19/2014) 1 Photo Point 10 - looking downstream (05/19/2014)
Photo Point 11- looking upstream (05/19/2014) 1 Photo Point 11- looking downstream (05/19/2014)
Photo Point 12 - looking upstream (05/19/2014) I Photo Point 12 - looking downstream (05/19/2014)
Underwood Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Morphological Summary Data and Plots— Stream Photographs

Underwood Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Morphological Summary Data and Plots— Stream Photographs
i
F
VP
M!Alf
f > _
t
dam"
Photo Point 14 — looking downstream (05/19/2014)
Underwood Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Morphological Summary Data and Plots— Stream Photographs

Underwood Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Morphological Summary Data and Plots— Stream Photographs
Photo Point 16 — looking upstream (05/18/2014)
Photo Point 16 — looking downstream (05/18/2014)
,r
i�
Photo Point 17 — looking upstream (05/18/2014)
Photo Point 17 — looking downstream (05/18/2014)
r
Photo Point 18 — looking upstream (05/18/2014)
Photo Point 18 — looking downstream (05/18/2014)
Underwood Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Morphological Summary Data and Plots— Stream Photographs

Underwood Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Morphological Summary Data and Plots— Stream Photographs
,
r
Photo Point 19 - looking upstream (05/18/2014)
Photo Point 19 - looking downstream (05/18/2014)
x:
F+' Y_,
yM
•,
al
,h5 .Rr i
Photo Point 20 - looking upstream (05/18/2014)
Photo Point 20 - looking downstream (05/18/2014)
t .
Photo Point 21- looking upstream (05/18/2014)
Photo Point 21- looking downstream (05/18/2014)
Underwood Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Morphological Summary Data and Plots— Stream Photographs

`I
2•
Photo Point 22 - looking upstream (05/18/2014) Photo Point 22 - looking downstream (05/18/2014)
,y
i
Photo Point 23 - looking upstream (05/18/2014) Photo Point 23 - looking downstream (05/18/2014)
r �
i
Photo Point 24 - looking upstream (05/18/2014) Photo Point 24 - looking downstream (05/18/2014)
Underwood Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Morphological Summary Data and Plots— Stream Photographs

• • ' • int 25 — looking upstream (05/18/2014) • • ' • int 25 — looking • • wnstream (05/18/20
r• I ♦. wit :1� y y
No
+-- .rte � � � t -r, iifa /•��a:��•+;�k ..E�ai'ir '�� `� i
.• -t � , i. ate_ f
• • '• int 26 — looking upstream (05/18/2014) • • '• int 26 — looking •• wnstream (05/18/20
~ *' •. �_� 4 . � _ ; � f, '-G -~

Underwood Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Morphological Summary Data and Plots— Stream Photographs
Photo Point 28 - looking upstream (05/18/2014)
Photo Point 28 - looking downstream (05/18/2014)
Photo Point 29 - looking upstream (05/18/2014)
Photo Point 29 - looking downstream (05/18/2014)
T
rr' %
F Is
Photo Point 30 - looking upstream (05/18/2014)
Photo Point 30 - looking downstream (05/18/2014)
Underwood Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Morphological Summary Data and Plots— Stream Photographs

- II
Photo Point 31– looking upstream (05/18/2014)
Photo Point 31– looking downstream (05/18/2014)
14:.
Photo Point 34 – looking upstream (05/18/2014)
Photo Point 34 – looking downstream (05/18/2014)
r
4
Photo Point 35 — looking upstream (05/18/2014)
Photo Point 35 — looking downstream (05/18/2014)
Underwood Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Morphological Summary Data and Plots— Stream Photographs

Photo Point 36 — looking upstream (05/18/2014) 1 Photo Point 36 — looking downstream (05/18/2014) 1
Photo Point 37 — looking upstream (05/18/2014) 1 Photo Point 37 — looking downstream (05/18/2014)
Photo Point 38 — looking upstream (05/18/2014) I Photo Point 38 — looking downstream (05/18/2014) I
Underwood Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Morphological Summary Data and Plots— Stream Photographs

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

Stream Photographs
(Lindley Site)

Photo Point 40 — looking upstream (05/19/2014) 1 Photo Point 40 — looking downstream (05/19/2014)
Photo Point 41— looking upstream (05/19/2014) 1 Photo Point 41— looking downstream (05/19/2014)
Photo Point 42 — looking upstream (05/19/2014) I Photo Point 42 — looking downstream (05/19/2014) I
Underwood Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Morphological Summary Data and Plots— Stream Photographs

kW
i'
• ' • • • • 1 1
Photo ' • int 43 — looking • • wnstream (05/19/20
i
r �
4
�
1 '
M
• • '• int 44 — looking upstream (05/19/2014)
• • '• •• •• MINKIRIM
�t icy i r
ol
WIT 5:5
i
• • '• int 45 — looking upstream 1 1
• • '• •• •• 1 1
Underwood Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Morphological Summary Data and Plots— Stream Photographs

Underwood Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Morphological Summary Data and Plots— Stream Photographs
J -•
Photo Point 46 — looking downstream (05/19/2014)
j J <
-
• r
• • ' • int 47 — looking upstream (05/19/2014)
• . ' • int 47 — looking • • wnstream (05/19/20
I
• • Point looking
Underwood Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Morphological Summary Data and Plots— Stream Photographs

Vegetation Photographs
(Harris Site)

Vegetation Plot 1(05/21/2014) 1 Vegetation Plot 2 (05/21/2014)
Vegetation Plot 3 (05/21/2014) 1 Vegetation Plot 4 (05/21/2014)
Vegetation Plot 5 (05/21/2014) I Vegetation Plot 6 (05/21/2014) I
Underwood Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Vegetation Plot Data — Vegetation Photographs

Vegetation Plot 7 (05/21/2014) 1 Vegetation Plot 8 (05/21/2014) 1
Vegetation Plot 9 (05/21/2014) 1 Vegetation Plot 10 (05/21/2014) 1
I Vegetation Plot 11(05/21/2014) I Vegetation Plot 12 (05/21/2014)
Underwood Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Vegetation Plot Data — Vegetation Photographs

Vegetation Plot 13 (05/21/2014) 1 Vegetation Plot 14 (05/21/2014)
Vegetation Plot 15 (05/20/2014) 1 Vegetation Plot 16 (05/20/2014)
Vegetation Plot 17 (05/20/2014) I Vegetation Plot 18 (05/20/2014) I
Underwood Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Vegetation Plot Data — Vegetation Photographs

Vegetation Plot 19 (05/20/2014) 1 Vegetation Plot 20 (05/20/2014)
Vegetation Plot 21 (05/20/2014) 1 Vegetation Plot 22 (05/20/2014)
I Vegetation Plot 23 (05/20/2014) I Vegetation Plot 24 (05/20/2014)
Underwood Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Vegetation Plot Data — Vegetation Photographs

Vegetation Plot 25 (05/20/2014) 1 Vegetation Plot 26 (05/20/2014)
Vegetation Plot 27 (05/20/2014) 1 Vegetation Plot 28 (05/20/2014)
Vegetation Plot 29 (05/20/2014) I
Underwood Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Vegetation Plot Data — Vegetation Photographs

Vegetation Photographs
(Lindley Site)

Vegetation Plot 30 (05/20/2014) 1 Vegetation Plot 31(05/20/2014) 1
Vegetation Plot 32 (05/20/2014) 1 Vegetation Plot 33 (05/21/2014)
Vegetation Plot 34 (05/20/2014) I Vegetation Plot 35 (05/20/2014) I
Underwood Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Vegetation Plot Data —Vegetation Photographs

Vegetation Plot 36 (05/20/2014) 1 Vegetation Plot 37 (05/20/2014) 1
Vegetation Plot 38 (05/20/2014) 1 Vegetation Plot 39 (05/20/2014) 1
i Vegetation Plot 40 (05/20/2014) I Vegetation Plot 41(05/20/2014)
Underwood Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Vegetation Plot Data — Vegetation Photographs

Vegetation Plot 42 (05/21/2014) I
Underwood Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Vegetation Plot Data — Vegetation Photographs

APPENDIX 3. Vegetation Plot Data

Table 7. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
Monitoring Year 2
Harris Site
Plot.�
MY! Success Criteria
Met (Y /N) °
Tract Mean
1
Y
79%
2
Y
3
Y
4
Y
5
Y
6
Y
7
N
8
N
9
Y
10
N
11
Y
12
N
13
Y
14
Y
15
Y
16
N
17
Y
18
Y
19
Y
20
Y
21
Y
22
Y
23
Y
24
Y
25
Y
26
Y
27
Y
28
N
29
Y
Lindley Site
Plot o
MY2 Success Criteria
Met (Y /N)
Tract Mean
30
Y
92%
31
Y
32
Y
33
Y
34
Y
35
Y
36
Y
37
Y
38
Y
39
Y
40
N
41
Y
42
Y

Table 8. CVS Vegetation Tables - Metadata
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
Monitoring Year 2
Database name
Underwood MY2 cvs -ee -ent tool- v2.3.2.mdb
Database location
C: \Users \CMcKenzie \Deskto
Computer name
GUESTS
DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT -----------
Metadata
Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a summary of project(s) and project data.
Proj, planted
Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre, for each year. This excludes live stakes.
Proj, total stems
Each project is listed with its TOTAL stems per acre, for each year. This includes live stakes, all planted stems, and all
natural /volunteer stems.
Plots
list of plots surveyed with location and summary data (live stems, dead stems, missing, etc.).
Vigor
Frequency distribution of vigor classes for stems for all plots.
Vigor by Spp
Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species.
Damage
List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences and percent of total stems impacted by each.
Damage by Spp
Damage values tallied by type for each species.
Damage by Plot
Damage values tallied by type for each plot.
Planted Stems by Plot and Spp
A matrix of the count of PLANTED living stems of each species for each plot; dead and missing stems are excluded.
ALL Stems by Plot and spp
rA matrix of the count of total living stems of each species (planted and natural volunteers combined) for each plot; dead and
issing stems are excluded.
PROJECT SUMMARY-------------------------------------
Project Code
94641
project Name
Underwood Mitigation Site
Description
Stream and Wetland
Sampled Plots
42

Table 9. Planted and Total Stem Counts
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project Code 94641)
Mnnitnrinn Year 2
Color Coding for Table
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Falls to meet requirements, by less than 301A
Fells to most requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer specks Included in total
PnolS, Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems Including live stakes,
T: Total Stems
Current Plot Data (MY2 - 5/2014)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
94641 -WEI -0001
94641 -WEI -0002
94641 -WEI -0003
94641 -WEI -0004
94641 -WEI -0005
Pno
P -ail
T
Pno
P -all
T
Pno
P -all
T
Pno
P -all
T
Pno
P -all
T
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
Betula ni ro
river birch
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
Froxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
4
4
4
3
3
3
Juglons nigro
black walnut
Tree
Liquidambarstyracifluo
sweetgum
Tree
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
Plotonus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
5
5
5
5
5
5
3
3
3
4
4
4
7
7
7
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
4
4
4
6
6
6
4
4
4
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
Tree
4
4
4
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus phellos
willow oak
ITree
2
2
2
6
6
6
3
3
3
Solixsericea
silky willow
JShrub
Stem count
20
20
20
18
18
18
15
15
16
13
13
13
15
15
15
size (ares)
1
1
1
1
1
size (ACRES)
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
Species count
7
7
7
6
6
6
6
6
6
4
4
4
4
4
4
Stems per ACREI
809
1 809
1 809
728
1 728
1 728
1 607
1 607
1 647
526 1
526
1 526
607
1 607
1 607
Color Coding for Table
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Falls to meet requirements, by less than 301A
Fells to most requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer specks Included in total
PnolS, Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems Including live stakes,
T: Total Stems

Table 9, Planted and Total Stem Counts
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project Code 94641)
Monitoring Year 2
Color Coding for Table
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Falls to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by snore than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
PnoLS. Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes,
T: Total Stems
Current Plot Data (MY2 - 5/2014)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
94641 -WEI -0006
94641 -WEI -0007
94641 -WEI -0008
94641 -WEI -0009
94641 -WEI -0010
Pno
P -all
T
Pno
P -all
T
Pno
P -all
T
Pno
P -all
T
Pno
P -all
T
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
Betulo ni ro
river birch
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
1
1
Froxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
1
1
2
3
3
3
lu lans nigra
black walnut
Tree
Liquidombor styrocifluo
sweetgum
Tree
5
2
Liriodendron tulipifero
tuliptree
Tree
Platonus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
S
5
5
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
1
1
1
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
Tree
3
3
3
1
1
1
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
2
2
2
7
7
7
Solix sericeo
silky willow
Shrub
2
2
5
S
Stem count
11
11
16
5
5
6
2
2
2
11
13
15
5
11
11
size (ares)
1
1
1
1
1
size (ACRES)
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
Species count
4
4
5
3
1 3 1
3
2
2
2 1
4
5
6
3
5
5
Stems per ACRE
445
445
1 647
202
1 202
1 243
80.9
80.9
80.9
1445
526
607
202 1
445
1 445
Color Coding for Table
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Falls to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by snore than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
PnoLS. Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes,
T: Total Stems

Table 9. Planted and Total Stem Counts
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project Code 94641)
MonRodna Year 2
Color Coding for Table
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fells to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Falb to meat requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
Pno1S: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems Including live stakes,
T* Total Stems
Current Plot Data (MY2 - 5/2014)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
94641 -WEI -0011
94641•WEI.0012
94641 -WEI -0013
94641 -WEI -0014
94641 -WEI -0015
Pno
P -all
T
Pno
P -all
T
Pno
P -ail
T
Pno
P -all
T
Pno
P -all
T
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
Betula ni ra
river birch
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
6
6
6
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
Froxinus pennsylvanico
green ash
Tree
3
3
3
20
20
1
1
21
3
3
23
Ju lens nigra
black walnut
Tree
1
Liquidamborstyracifluo
sweetgum
Tree
5
2
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
Platonus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
4
4
4
3
3
3
17
17
22
5
5
5
4
4
4
Quercus michouxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
4
4
4
2
2
2
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
2
2
2
1
1
1
4
4
4
1
1
1
Solixsericeo
silky willow
IShrub
1
1
1
Stem count
15
15
15
6
6
31
17
17
44
15
15
37
15
16
36
size (ares)
1
1
1
1
1
size (ACRES)
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
Species count 1
6
6
6
3
3
5
1
1
4
6
1 6
7
5
6
6
Stems per ACRE
1 607
607
1 607
1243
1 243
11255
688_1
688
11781
607
1 607
11497
607
1 647
11457
Color Coding for Table
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fells to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Falb to meat requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
Pno1S: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems Including live stakes,
T* Total Stems

Table 9. Planted and Total Stem Counts
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project Code 94641)
Monitoring Year 2
Color Coding for Table
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Falls to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Falls to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
PnoLS: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes,
Ti Total Stems
Current Plot Data (MY2 - 5/2014)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
94641 -WEI -0016
94641 -WEI -0017
94641 -WEI -0018
94641 -WEI -0019
94641 -WEI -0020
Pno
P -all
T
Pno
P -all
T
Pno
P -all
T
Pno
P -all
T
Pno
P -all
T
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
Betula ni ro
river birch
Tree
3
3
3
Cornus omomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
4
4
4
Froxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
20
20
3
3
7
1
1
1
luglans nigro
black walnut
Tree
Liquidambor styracifluo
sweetgum
Tree
5
20
5
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
1
4
4
4
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
Platonus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
7
7
7
3
3
3
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
1
1
1
3
3
32
2
2
5
S
5
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
Tree
3
3
3
3
3
3
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
1
1
1
6
6
6
1
1
1
1
1
1
Solix sericea
silky willow
Shrub
4
4
Stem count
7
15
41
14
14
54
10
10
18
13
13
13
12
12
17
size (ares)
1
1
1
1
1
size (ACRES)
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
Species count
4
6
9
4
4
6
5
5
6
S7
5
5
4
4
1 S
Stems per ACRE
283 1
607
116591
567
1 567
121851405
1 405 1
728
1526 1
526
1 526
1 486
1 486
1 688
Color Coding for Table
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Falls to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Falls to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
PnoLS: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes,
Ti Total Stems

Table 9. Planted and Total Stem Counts
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project Code 94641)
Monlforina Year 2
Color Coding for Table
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Falls to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Falls to meet requirements by more then 10%
Volunteer species included In total
PnoLS: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems Including live stakes,
T. Total Stems
Current Plot Data (MY2 - 5/2014)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
94641 -WEI -0021
94641 -WEI -0022
94641 -WEI -0023
94641 -WEI -0024
94641 -WEI -0025
Pno
P -all
T
Pno
P -all
T
Pno
P -all
T
Pno
P -all
T
Pno
P -all
T
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
Betula ni ro
river birch
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
Fraxinus pennsylvomca
green ash
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
21
Ju Ions ni ra
black walnut
Tree
Liquidambar styracifluo
sweetgum
Tree
20
Liriodendron tulipifero
tuliptree
Tree
1
1
1
Platanus occidentolis
American sycamore
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
6
6
6
6
6
6
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
2
2
2
8
8
8
2
2
2
1
1
1
Quercus pagoda Icherrybark
oak
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
2
2
2
Quercus phellos 1willow
oak
Tree
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
Solix sericea Isilky
willow
Shrub
2
18
Stem count
9
9
29
17
17
17
8
8
8
11
13
49
13
13
13
size (ayes)
1
1
1
1
1
size (ACRES)
0.02
1 0.02
1 0.02
0.02
1 0.02
Species count
6
6
7
1 6
6
1 6
1 5
5
5
4
5
5
1 4
4
4
Stems per ACRE
1 364
1 364
111741
6881
688
1 688
L324
1 324
1 324
445
1 526
119831
S26
1 526
526
Color Coding for Table
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Falls to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Falls to meet requirements by more then 10%
Volunteer species included In total
PnoLS: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems Including live stakes,
T. Total Stems

Table 9. Planted and Total Stem Counts
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project Code 94641)
Monitoring Year 2
Color Coding for Table
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Falls to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Falls to meat requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
PnolS: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all. Number of planted stems including live stakes,
T: Total Stems
Current Plot Data (MY2 - 5/2014)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
94641 -WEI -0026
94641 -WEI -0027
94641 -WEI -0028
94641 -WEI -0029
94641 -WEI -0030
Pno
P -all
T
Pno
P -all
T
Pno
P -all
T
Pno
P -all
T
Pno
P -all
T
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
5
Betula ni ro
river birch
Tree
1
1
1
7
7
7
1
1
1
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
4
4
4
2
2
2
3
3
3
1
1
1
9
9
14
lu lans ni ra
black walnut
Tree
Lipuidambor styrocifluo
sweetgum
Tree
5
Liriodendron tulipifero
tuliptree
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
3
3
3
7
7
7
Quercus michouxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
5
5
5
2
2
2
1
1
1
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
Tree
2
2
2
4
4
4
1
3
3
3
2
2
2
Quercus phellos
willow oak
ITree
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
Solix sericea
silky willow
IShrub
1
2
2
2
2
Stem count
16
16
16
9
9
9
6
6
7
19
21
21
13
15
30
size (ares)
1
1
1
1
1
size (ACRES)
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
Species count
6
6
6
4
1 4
4
3
1 3
4
5 6
6
4
S
7
Stems per ACRE
647
647
647
364
364
364
243
243
283
769 850
850
526
607
1214
Color Coding for Table
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Falls to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Falls to meat requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
PnolS: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all. Number of planted stems including live stakes,
T: Total Stems

Table 9. Planted and Total Stem Counts
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project Code 94641)
MnnMnrinn year 2
Color Coding for Table
Exceeds requirements by 20%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by Ie than 10X
Falls to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species Included In total
ProLS. Number of Planted stems excluding Irve stakes
P4W Number of planted stems Including live stakes,
T: Total Stems
Current Plot Data (MY2 - 5/2014)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
9I -0031
94641 -WEI -0032
94641 -WEI -0033
94641 -WEI -0034
94641 -WEI -0035
l
T
Pno
P -all
T
Pno
P -all
T
Pno
P -all
T
Pno
P -all
T
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
20
2
3
Betula ni ra
river birch
Tree
4
2
2
2
1
1
1
Corms omomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
1
1
Fraxinus pennsylvonica
green ash
Tree
2
2
22
4
4
24
4
4
4
4
4
24
1
1
1
luglans nigra
black walnut
Tree
Liquidambar styrocifluo
sweetgum
Tree
5
5
5
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
Platanus occidentolis
American sycamore
Tree
1
1
1
4
4
4
9
9
9
4
4
24
7
7
7
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
1
1
1
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
Tree
S
5
5
4
4
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
2
2
2
Salix sericea
silky willow
Shrub
5
8
2
7
1
1
1 5
5
Stem count
13
19
67
13
16
48
19
20
20
12
20
60
11
12
20
size fares)
1
1
1
1
1
size (ACRES)
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
Species count
5
1 7
1 9
4
1 6 1
8
5
1 6
1 6
4
1 6
6
4
S
7
Stems per ACRE
1 526
1 769
127111526
1
647
11942
769
1 809
1 809
486
809
2428
445
1 486
809
Color Coding for Table
Exceeds requirements by 20%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by Ie than 10X
Falls to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species Included In total
ProLS. Number of Planted stems excluding Irve stakes
P4W Number of planted stems Including live stakes,
T: Total Stems

Table 9. Planted and Total Stem Counts
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project Code 94641)
Monitoring Year 2
Color Coding for Table
Exceeds requirements by lo%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Falls to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
PnoLS: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes,
T: Total Stems
Current Plot Data (MY2 - 5/2014)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
94641 -WEI -0036
94641 -WEI -0037
94641 -WEI -0038
94641 -WEI -0039
94641 -WEI -0040
Pno
P -all
T
Pno
P -all
T
Pno
P -all
T
Pno
P -all
T
Pno
P -all
T
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
20
Betula ni ro
river birch
Tree
3
3
3
1
1
1
2
2
2
4
4
4
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
2
2
Froxinus pennsylvanico
green ash
Tree
3
3
23
4
4
24
1
1
21
2
Juglons nigra
black walnut
Tree
Liquidamborstyrocifluo
sweetgum
Tree
3
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
Platonus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
6
6
6
1
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
ITree
2
2
2
5
5
5
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
Quercus phellos
1willow oak
Tree
5
5
5
1
1
1
2
2
2
Solixsericea
Isilky willow
IShrub
3
3
1
2
Stem count
13
18
38
14
14
14
8
8
28
13
13
33
5
5
32
size (ares)
I
1
1
1
1
size (ACRES)
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
Species count
4
6
6
1 5
5
5
4
4
4
6
6
1 6
2
2
6
Stems per ACRE
1 526
1 728
1 15381
567
1 567
1 567
1 324
1 324
1 1133
526
1 526
113351
202
1 202
11295
Color Coding for Table
Exceeds requirements by lo%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Falls to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
PnoLS: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes,
T: Total Stems

Table 9. Planted and Total Stem Counts
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project Code 94641)
Mnnlfnrinn Year 2
Color Coding for Table
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requlmments, but by less than 10%
Falls to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Falb to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included In total
PnoLS: Number of Planted stems excluding We stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including We stakes,
T: Total Stems
Current Plot Data (MY2 - 5/2014)
Annual Means
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
94641 -WEI -0041
94641 -WEI -0042
MY2 (5/2014)
MY1 (9/2013)
1 MYO (1/2013)
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
Pno
P -all
T
Pnol-S
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
5
55
8etula ni ra
river birch
Tree
3
3
3
4
4
4
64 1
64
64
82
82
82
124
124
124
Cornus omomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
1
1
1
1
16
20
25
25
25
30
30
30
Froxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
20
1
1
21
74
74
387
82
82
142
86
86
86
Juglans nigra
black walnut
Tree
1
Liquidombor styrociflua
sweetgum
Tree
5
92
Liriodendron tulipifero
tuliptree
Tree
15
15
16
20
20
20
35
35
35
Plotanus occidentolis
American sycamore
Tree
1
1
6
2
2
22
143
143
193
144
144
204
145
145
145
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
62
62
62
71
71
71
87
87
87
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
Tree
4
4
4
1
1
1
72
72
73
93
93
93 -
131
131
131
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
69
69
69
72
72
72
64
64
64
Salixsericea
silky willow
IShrub
3
5
1
1
37
66
39
39
39
38
38
38
Stem count
9
13
40
9
11
61
499
552
1098
628
628
748
740
740
740
size (ares)
1
1
42
42
42
size (ACRES)
0.02
0.02
1.04
1.04
1.04
Species count
4
6
7
5 7
9
7
9
12
9
9
9
9
9
9
Stems per ACRE
364
526
1619
3641 445
1246914811
532
11OS8
605
1 605
1 721
712
1 712
1 712
Color Coding for Table
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requlmments, but by less than 10%
Falls to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Falb to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included In total
PnoLS: Number of Planted stems excluding We stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including We stakes,
T: Total Stems

APPENDIX 4. Morphological Summary Data and Plots

Table 10a. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
Harris Site; SF1 and UT2
Monitoring Year 2
Paiameter" ° °
age
Pre-Restoration
Condition °
Reference
Reach Data
Design
As-BWI
Baselhro
SFI_ °
UT2
Long Branch
UT to Cane Creek
SFi
° UT2
SFl °
-UT2
Min Maz
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min- Maz
Mm Max
Min Maz
Min Max
Dimension
and Substrate
- Riffle
Bankfull Width ft
7.6
70
8.2 11.8
8.8
71
90
166
Flood prone Width h
51.9
1332
40+
50+
200+
50+
200+
Bankfull Mean Depth
1.2
3.4
0.9
1.0
07
0.6
0.7
08
Bankfull Max Depth
2.2
118
1.5
1.7
1.0
0 7
1.1
1 1
Bankfull Cross-sectional Area hz
N/A
9.5
9.6
E32
8 5
10.7
6.5
4.2
6.3
33 6
Width De th Ratio
6.2
5.2
7.9
33.1
12.0
12 0
12 9
20 4
Entrenchment Ratio
6.8
18.9
4.6+
2.2+
2.2+
2,2+
2.2+
Bank Nal t Ratio
1.6
1.5
3.0 1 0
10
1.0
10
1.0
050 n,
4.7
6.1
1193
145.5
Profile
Riffle Length
ll
36
7
25
Riffle Slope
0.0110
010100
0.0130 0.0120
00120
0.0143 0.0255
0.0197 0.0353
0.0053
0.0283
0.0040
0.1512
Pool Length h
N/A
16
1 34
16
51
Pool Max Depth h
1.7
27
Pools ac h "
35 62
29 50
37
61
23
59
Pool Volume h
Pattern
Channel 8eltwidth h
N/A
I N/A
60
50
77
26
44
N/A
26
44
N/A
Radius of Curvature h
1 N/A
i N/A
16
87
11
27
15
25
N/A
15
25
N/A
Rc:Bankfull Width k
N/A
3.3
4 7
1.0
2.5
1.7
2.8
N/A
1 7
2.8
N/A
Meander Length N
N/A
N/A
66
191
29
96
62
106
N/A
62
106
N/A
Meander Width Ratio
3.2
4.1
50.0
77.0
30
50
N/A
10
5.0
N/A
Substra
BedandTmnsportPa
rameters
RI% Ru% P% G% S%
SC% Sa% G C% B Be%
d16 d35 d50 d84 d95 d100
N/A/0.9/4.7/20,9/87/362
N N 6 1/62/128/256
-
SC/SC/SC/46.6/100/256
SC S 8.6 111 180
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) ib
N/A
"-
-'
042
-'
039
N/A
Max part size mm mobilized at bankfull
°
Stream Power (Capacity) W mz
Additional
Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
0.21
'0.12
1.49
0.28
021
0.12
0.21
0.12
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate %
<3%
<1%
<1%
<1%
<S%
<1%
Rosgen Classification
E4
E4
E4
E4
C4
C4
CS
C5
Bankfull Velocity
3.1
2.0
°
3 1
3 1
3 2
1 0
Bankfull Discharge cfs
20
13
101 124
21 53
20
13
20
13
Q -NFF regression
N/A
45.2
310
-
Q -USGS extrapolation
Q- Mannin
Len h ft
°418
Channel Thaleg Length ft
713
421
878
421
874
Sinuosity h
1.1
10
1.3
1.2
32
30
1.2
10
Water Surface Slope (ft /ft)'
0.0110
00150
0.0040
0.0050
0.0102
00141
00104
00143
Bankfull Slope h h
00060
00104
00145
1 -1: mt. wu iwt wozaed
�D.4n Panmaters based m nvtwd Shiekis Dhgnm.
Ch.-I was dry u ti- of le-1h. >u veY. Slope: wen c.I.I .d wino the channel th."
'M -Built p- measure is Nil within Ma dasl4n nnge,tMnfen IM delgn panmeten set an stia appll.bl..
°Slope, outside of design range an from the V. In point, al the chanml conaue.ce

Table 10b. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
Hants Site; SF3 and UTl
Monitoring Year 2
Parameter
Ge
Pn- Restoration
Condition
00050 00090
Peron
Read, Date
00003
D.,Ign
00023
00385
As Rui
13-11 .
SF3
UTl
Long Branch
I UTto Cme Creek
SF3-usof UTI
SF3 d/sof UT1
UTI
SF3
Uri
Mln
Max
M{n
Max
Min I Max
MN Max
Min Mu
Min Max
Mln
Max
Mln
Max
Mln
Max
53
166
58
76
Dlmenslon
end Substrate
- Riffle
Bankfull Width /t
159
90
148 1 &6
&2 1 118
18.2
180
107
226
293
101
Flooune h ft
d t Widt
48,6
142
5G+
40+
50+
200+
100+
5p+
200+
100+
Bankfull Moen Depth
1.8
08
1.3
2.1
09
1.0
1.5
1.5
09
10
15
09
Bankfull Max Depth
N/A
2.4
1.5
19
1 29
15
1.7
21
2.1
13
23
26
36
Bankfull Cross - alonal Ana ht
289
72
250
346
&5
107
275
271
96
270
345
95
Width Deth Ratio
88
11.1
7.9
13.8
7.9
13.1
120
120
120
148
288
107
Entrenchment Ratio
31
16
34+
46+
22+
22+
22+
22+
22+
22+
Bank Hel ht RHIO
1,6
1 9
1 2 1 5
10
10
1.0
10
10
10
10
10
D50 mm
4.7
1.0
506
633
738
P.M.
Riffle Len h h
12
1 103
1 11
26
Rlhla Slo a ft
Pool Lan th It
N/A
Pool Max De th h
Pool Spacing h ^
Pool Volume It
"
Patprn
Channel Bettwidth it
N/A
51
106
31
59
60
50
77
54
91
54
90
32
54
54
91
32
54
Radiusof Curvature h
27
105
30
83
16
87
11
27
91
51
31
50
21
30
31
51
21
30
Rc:Banklull Width 1 It
72
160
1.1
9.2
3.1
4.7
3.0
2.5
1.7
2.8
17
28
20
28
1.7
30
20
28
Meander Un th h
46
272
80
161
66
191
29
96
127
218
126
236
75
129
126
218
75
129
Meander Width Ratio
26
70
3
7
33
4.1
50M
77.0
310
50
30
50
3.0
5.0
30
5.0
3.0
50
Wtistran
Bed and
Transport
PanmeMs
RI Ru G %
S Se G B ea%
tl16 d35 d50 d84 d95 d100
7 53 1666 4082 40 9742 BO
A/N 116107A 256
-
0 021/11/67 256/.2018
0.07/016 03/269 1 71256
Re.N She.. Stress Com atan lb /ft"
N/A
"-
-
0.35
052
037
028
037
Maz faire mm mobnIW at banklull
Stream Power d actt w m'
Additional
Reach P-ofen
Dnlna eArea SM
127
036
149
0.28
127
036
127
036
Watershed Im erviouf Cover Estimate
<1%
<I%
<3%
<I%
<I%
<3%
<3%
Ros en Claulllutlon
E4
GS
4
4
C4
C4
CS
C4
C5
Bankfull VNoclt 1 s
37
5.9
30
34
3.2
30
2.9
32
Bankfull DncM ads
82
30
101 124
21 53
82
100
30
82
100
30
•NFF re reulon
159.7
657
D•USGS extra latlon
N/A
Q.M.nninip
Voile Len M ft
Ch.-I Thehwt Length ft
2183
1915
2116
1997
2120
2038
Slnuoslt h
12
1.2
13
12
1.2
1.2
12
1.2
12
Water Surf- Slope MI('),
00040
00100
OAD40
00050
0.0036
00056
00084
00041
00075
Bankfull Slo a h
00060
-
-
-
-
00047
00083
1 -1• DoU wo mt Wooded
00300
00500
00130 0.0120
00120
00050 00090
00078 00140
00118 00210
00003
00169
00023
00385
23
100
20
80
2.3
2 6
2.5
53
166
58
76
'Deslpr Per- -.6.dm r.Oa ShINA Dlepam,
'M-I- dry N Ome ol Slop. wen ukW.IW uIre NerhmnN Vriwea.
'Aa -Buell
P'... mwauremxnu MI w mn the dkei r.rae., th. a. tM d p parametan aN .-H applka .
'Sieger- Wda&dadpi rq . .. hen Me Ile In pdnnN Ma -W

Table 10e. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
Undley Site; SF4 and SMA
Monitoring Year Z
Parameter.° ° °
Ga a
°° Pre - Restoration
SFI
Condition
SFA ° °
Reference
Lo Branch °
Reach Data °
UTWCalm Creek
Dasi
°SF4
n
° SFA
As-BU0
SFC °
BaselMa
° SFA
°
0.0210
Min Maz
Mm Max
Min .Max
Min Max
Min' Max
Mm Max
Min Max
Min Max
123
28
79
Dimension
and Substrate
- Riffle
41
46
76
25
Bankfull Width it
2.9
18.6
10.3
14.8 18.6
8.2 11.8
14.0
120
267
273
13.6
173
Flood prone Width it
146
157.3
29.4
50,
40+
50+
200+
200+
200+
200+
200,
Bankfull Mean Depth
1 191
2.7
16
1.3
2.1
0.9
1.0
1.9
1.2
20
29
1.2
16
Bankfull Max Depth
6.1
4.0
2.2
1.9
2.9
1.5
1.7
2.3
17
29
30
2.1
28
Bankfull Cross - sectional Area hz
N/A
49.7
16.9
25.0
346
8.5
107
530
180
490
538
16.1
271
Width/Depth Ratio
6.9
63
7.9
13.8
7.9
131
140
12.0
138
146
111
115
Entrenchment Ratio
3.5
29
3.4+
4.6+
N A/0. 0.8 104. 62.9 362
2.2+
2 2+
22+
22+
2.2+
22+
Bank Hei t Ratio
N/A
1 4
18
1.2 1.5
1.0 1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
10
1.0
10
D50 mm
0.3
0.8
117.2
1344
1 22.6
82.0
Profile
Riffle i eneth Ifrl - I - I I -- I <t
Riffle Slcps h h
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.0130 0.0120
0.0120
0 0048 0 0085
0.0108 0 0193
0 0010
0.0098
00001
0.0210
Pool Length it
1 44
1 74
-
-
-
-
54
123
28
79
Pool Max Depth it
76
--
41
46
76
25
--
2.9
30
1 21
28
Pool Spacing ft "
47
-
25
17
28
17
-
146
210
1 71
110
Channel Beitwidth H
N/A
N/A
b0
1 50
1 77
1 82
1 136
1 44
1 74
1 82
1 136
1 44
1 74
Radius of Curvature h
N/A
N/A
16
87
11
27
46
76
25
41
46
76
25
41
R[.Bankfull Widthfth
N/A
-
i.I
47
1.0
25
17
28
17
2.8
1.7
28
1.7
28
Meander Length fi
N/A
N/A
1 66
1 191
29
96
1 191
327
103
177
191
1 327
1 103
1 177
Meander Width Ratio
1 3.2
1 4.1
6.1
6.5
1 3.0
50
30
50
30
1 5.0
1 3.0
1 5.0
Substrate
Red and
Transport
Parameters
RI% Ru% P% G% S%
SC% Sa% G C% B% Be%
d16 d35 d50 d84 d95 d700
N N 03 17.9 45.8 90
N A/0. 0.8 104. 62.9 362
-
-
°
013/0.36/5.3/102 5/320.7/>2048
S 0.12/1.4/44/713 /362
Reach Shear Stress Com eten ",/, z. z
N/A
32 0 63
0 33 033
044 058
Max part size mm mobilized at bankfull
°
Stream Power (Capacity) W mz
° °
Additional
Reach Parameters
Drainage Area ISM)
5.26
1.00
1.49
0.28
5.26
100
5.26
1.00
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate %
<1%
Q%
<1%
<1%
<1%
<1%
Rosgen Classification
E5
ES
E4
E4
C5
CS
C4
C5
Bankfull Velocity 5
5.9
53
3.9
3.7
42 1 38
4.2 1 2.5
Bankfull Discha a cfs
N/A
247
67
101 124
20.6 53.2
204
67
204
67
Q -NFF regression
432.9
134.6
-
-
Q -USGS extrapolation
°
_ Q -Mamm� s
valley Len h h
Channel Thalweg Length (it
1 450
609
1,424
868
1,429
866
Sinuosity it
1.3
111
1.3
1.2
1.2
1 0
1.2
1.1
Water Surface Slope h h z
O,Q030
010080
0,0040
0.0050
0 0034
00077
00033
00070
Bankfull Slope ft ft
0.0060
00034
00077
00034
p.tlp67
( -)i Dote was nos provided
•Design Panmasm based on nviesd Shlelrh Ola4nm.
•Chemwl was dry at time of beeline whey. 51op.e wen calculated aunt the channel thalwq.
./..guilt petnm meuunmeants fall wlthln the dedan ranges, tharaftwe the det4n Penmum rat m ads applicable.
"Se;,at ounlde of design range an from the tie In points at the channel confluence.

Table 11. Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross-Section)
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
Harris and Lindley Site
Monitoring Year 2
11MIK ~ Iffa RNA
W
r
METS-S-6-pt-Jon-8
,:431 *V�117
�11 lWyOul,"JOW
140197 112MY RMYNDOWIROV
IMMMIMY 11MMOR 0106 1 YS
based on fixed bankfull elevation
Bankfull Width (ft)
-8.4
9.0
8.2
11.7
13.9
10.9
15.0
19.4
15.7
16.6
18.6
17.4
Floodprone Width (ft)
50+
50+
50+
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
200+
200+
200+
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.9
09
0.9
1.6
1.4
1.5
0.8
0.9
0.8
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.7
2.1
1.9
2.7
r24.2
2.7
2.6
1.1
1.4
1.2
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area (ft2 )
5.6
6.3
4.8
12.8
12.2
9.9
26.2
23.1
13.6
18.6
14.1
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
12.8 1
12.9 1
14.2 1
1
1
N/A
N/A
12.0
N/A
N/A 1
10.7
1
20.4
25.4
21.4
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.0
1.0
1 1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
based on fixed bankfull elevation
W
M
ON&
FW
!�"Wffl
MW
"MY_ IN"
j*Vfl
!RM
Mal
DWI"'
Qw
Np
I
Bankfull Width (ft)
19.7
22.6
19.4
19.7
24.8
22.7
16.7
29.3
15.8
19.7
22.3
15.9
Floodprone Width (ft)
200+
200+
200+
N/A
N/A
N/A
200+
200+
200+
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.6
1.5
1.5
1.6
2.0
1.9
1.2
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.7
1.6
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
2.3 ---
2.5-
2.4
2.3
4.1
3.7
2.2
2.6
2.2
3
3.5
3.0
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area (ft2 )
30.5
34.5
29.9
1
30.5
50.2
43.1
20.6
1 29.8
1 19.2
28.0
36.9
26.2
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
12.7
14.8
12.5
12.7
12.1
12.0
13.5
28.8
12.9
1
1
13.9
13.5
9.7
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
N/A
N/A
N/A
2.2+
2.2+
1 2.2+
N/A -
N/A
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1 1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1 1.0
4N/A
1.0
1.0
1.0
0 0, a,
N FITS
0 WzI III
'Grasps OR
Rh
!Y
W�7,oks
=S_eqI
i e sign and Substrate
,A.E�,Jf
t-11
ION(
IF*_-
,�3 jig
-
�7,MY_51
U8wak4qJJEM:YaIJJM::Y-2JJJ
Is
III
rp
�Ii&
I J@Yffl
_7 :Y 43 1 F& MYS
I rfq'VAZ JrI*.3 J=:M
based on fixed bankfull elevation
Bankfull Width (ft)
15.9
24.2
14.9
12.6
10.1
11.3
14.2
19.4
12.0
33.3
34.1
29.8
Floodprone Width (ft)
200+
200+
200+
100+
100+
100+
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.2
1.1
1.0
0.8
0.9
0.8
1.3
0.9
_N/A
1.2
2.2
2.1
2.4
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.8
2.3
1.8
1.5
1.6
1.5
2.6
2.5
2.3
4.9
4.7
4.9
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area (ft)
19.0
27.0
15.5
10.5
9.5
9.5
17.7
17.0
14.6
74.4
72.2
70.7
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
13.3
21.6
1 14.4
15.1
1 10.7
1 13.4
1
11.3
22.1
1 10.0
1
14.9
1 16.2
12.5
1
1
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
sir,..
INW11,1"Wl
-TIAV,
. .......
1__�
-AMI
11'111=110"'�­&.I/
S
ss�if'6_Rf
(fif
mat
I WON'
(M-fff
f,111 ...... WWI
based on fixed bankfull elevation
Bankfull Width (ft)
27.3
26.7
26.0
38.7
44.4
45.4
27.6
27.3
26.2
23.7
17.3
13.9
Floodprone Width (ft)
200+
200+
200+
N/A
N/A
N/A
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.8
2.9
1.9
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.9
2.0
2.1
0.9
1.6
1.8
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
3.0
2.9
2.9
4.3
4.6
5.0
3.2
3.0
3.2
2.3
2.8
3.0
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area (ft2 )
49.5
49.0
49.7
70.6
78.1
82.2
51.2
53.8
53.9
20.4
27.1
25.2
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
15.1
14.6
13.6
21.2
25.3
25.1
14.9
13.8
12.8
27.5
11.1
7.7
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
N/A
N/A
N/A
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio.
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
;+-a;
NOT
V
W
C g§6
W;'
,
W66 J�Qlgf-
Lqm
RAM
based on fixed bankfull elevation
Bankfull Width (ft)
13.9
13.6
12.8
16.0
13.5
10.6
Floodprone Width (ft)
200+
200+
200+
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.3
1.2
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.9
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
2.12
2.1
2.4
2.8
1 3.4
3.0
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area (ft)
17.5
16.1
15.2
22.9
21.0
20.5
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
11.0
11.5
10.7
11.1
8.6
5.4
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
2.2
2.2+
2.2+
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0

Table 12a. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
Halls Site; SFl
Monitoring Year 2
Parameter
As- Built /Baseline
MY1
MY2
MY3 °
MY_ 4
M_ YS
Min 177Max °
M_ in • ',Max °
Min -Max
Min -..Max
Min Max
Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
8.4
9.0
8.2
Floodprone Width (ft)
50+
50+
50+
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.7
0.7
0.6
Bankfull Max Depth
1.0
1.1
1.0
Bankfull Cross - sectional Area (it 2)
5.6
63
4.8
Width /Depth Ratio
12.8
12.9
14.2
Entrenchment Ratio
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
°
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
it
36
13
38
11
37
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.0053
0.0283
0.0008
0.0376
0.0077
0.0426
Pool Length (ft)
16
34
15
30
15
33
Pool Max Depth (ft)
1.7
2.1
1.9
Pool Spacing (ft)
37
61
36
59
37
59
Pool Volume (fl?)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
26
44
Radius of Curvature (ft)
15
25
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
1.7
2.8
Meander Wave Length (ft)
62
106
e ° • _
_ °
Meander Width Ratio
3.0
5.0
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
CS
CS
CS
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
874
874
874
Sinuosity (ft)
1.2
1.2
1.2
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.0104
0.0104
0.0111
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.0104
0.0108
0.0104
Ri % /Ru% /P % /G % /S%
`
SC % /Sa % /G % /C % /B % /Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
SC /SC/SC/46.6/100/256
SC/SC/SC/91.6/202.4/362
SC/0.2/9.7/42.0/128/256
%of Reach with Eroding Banks
° °
0%
0%

Table 12b. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
Harris Site; UM
Monitoring Year 2
Parameter
As- Built /Baseline
MYi
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
Min Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
16.6
21.6
17.4
Floodprone Width (ft)
200+
200+
200+
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.8
0.9
0.8
Bankfull Max Depth
1.1
1.4
1.2
Bankfull Cross - sectional Area (ft')
13.6
18.6
14.1
Width /Depth Ratio
20.4
25.4
21.4
Entrenchment Ratio
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
7
25
3
24
4
13
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.0040
0.1512
0.004S
0.077S
0.0117
0.0373
Pool Length (ft)
16
S1
11
46
18
47
Pool Max Depth (ft)
2.7
2.7
2.6
Pool Spacing (ft)
23
59
21
60
21
55
Pool Volume (ft)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
N/A
Radius of Curvature (ft)
N/A
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
N/A
Meander Wave Length (ft)
N/A
Meander Width Ratio
N/A
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
CS
C5
CS
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
418
418
418
Sinuosity (ft)
1.0
1.0
1.0
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.0143
0.0149
0.0152
Bankfull Slope ( ft/ft)
0.0145
0.0141
0.0141
Ri % /Ru % /P % /G % /S%
SC% /Sa % /G % /C % /B % /Be%
d16 /d35 /d50 /d84 /d95 /d100
SC/SC/SC/110.1/163.3/256
SC /SC/SC/58.6/111.2/181
SC/0.5/17.4/58.6/99.5/128
% of Reach with Eroding Banks
0%
0%

Table 12c. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
Harris Site; SF3
Monitoring Year 2
Parameterf a ,
.As- Built / *asellre
MYI °
�MY2 m
` ^'MY3,
MY4
a eMY5 °
Min .Max
Min Max °
ivliri Max °
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max .
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
15.9
19.7
22.6
35.6
14.9
19.4
Floodprone Width (ft)
200+
200+
50+
200+
200+
200+
-
Bankfull Mean Depth
1.2
1.6
0.8
1.5
1.0
1.5
Bankfull Max Depth
1.8
2.3
2.3
2.5
1.8
2.4
Bankfull Cross - sectional Area (ft2)
19.0
30.5
27.0
34.5
15.5
29.9
Width /Depth Ratio
12.7
13.5
14.8
44.2
12.5
14.4
Entrenchment Ratio
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
12
103
29
100
18
102
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.0003
0.0169
0.0019
0.0129
0.0008
0.0131
Pool Length (ft)
23
100
45
74
21
72
Pool Max Depth (ft)
2.3
3.0
3.5
4.1
3.0
3.7
Pool Spacing (ft)
53
166
50
151
42
156
Pool Volume (ft)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
54
91
'
Radius of Curvature (ft)
31
51
•$_
Rc:Bankfull Width ( ft/ft)
1.7
3.0
a°
Meander Wave Length (ft)
126
218
Meander Width Ratio
3.0
5.0
°
m
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
C4
C4
C4
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
2,120
2,120
2,120
Sinuosity (ft)
1.2
1.2
1.2
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.0041
0.0045
0.0043
Bankfull Slope ( ft/ft)
0.0047
0.0047
0.0042
Ri % /Ru % /P % /G % /S%
°_
' °
•, ° °'•
SC% /Sa % /G % /C % /B % /Be%
dl6 /d35 /d50 /d84/d95/d100
0.08/0.21/11/67.2 /256/ >2048
0.50/16.47/26/66.8 /119.3/180
0.42/9.38/17.3/53.7/90/>2048
% of Reach with Eroding Banks l*
a ° ° ° `'
0%
0%

Table 12d. Monitoring Data • Stream Reach Data Summary
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
Harris Site; UT1
Monitoring Year 2
Parameter
As -Built /Baseline
MYi
MY2
MY3
MY4
MYS
Min Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
12.7
10.1
11.3
Floodprone Width (ft)
100+
100+
100+
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.8
1.5
0.8
Bankfull Max Depth
1.5
2.1
1.5
Bankfull Cross - sectional Area (ft')
10.5
14.9
9.5
Width /Depth Ratio
15.1 -
6.8
13.4
Entrenchment Ratio
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
Proflle
Riffle Length (ft)
11
39
19
36
14
36
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.0023
0.0185
0.0016
0.0258
0.0025
0.0407
Pool Length (ft)
20
80
18
S3
25
53
Pool Max Depth (ft)
2.6
2.5
2.3
Pool Spacing (ft)
58
76
39
76
43
73
Pool Volume (ft)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
32
54
Radius of Curvature (ft)
21
30
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft /ft)
2.0
2.8
Meander Wave Length (ft)
75
129
Meander Width Ratio
3.0
5.0
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
C5
CS
CS
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
2038
2038
2038
Sinuosity (ft)
1.2
1.2
1.2
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.0075
0.0078
0.0070
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.0083
0.0058
0.0077
Ri % /Ru % /P % /G % /S%
SC % /Sa % /G % /C % /B % /Be%
d16 /d35 /d50 /d84 /d95 /d100
0.07/0.16/0.3/26.9 /71.7/256
SC/1.15/11/67.2/87.8/180
SC/0.20/6.7/45.0/84.1/362
% of Reach with Eroding Banks
0%
i
0%

Table 12e. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94441)
Lindley Site; SK
Monitoring Year 2
Parameters„
As -Buck /Baseline°
-
° °MY3 °
a
MY2 °° °
MY3,° a
MY4°
Mn,
'Ma. _
Min =
Max
Min
Max'
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max.
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
27.3
27.6
26.7
27.3
26.0
26.2
floodprone Width (ft)
200+
200+
200+
Bankfull Mean Depth
1.8
1.9
2.0
2.9
1.9
3.2
Bankfull Max Depth
3.0
3.2
2.9
3.0
2.9
3.2
Bankfull Cross - sectional Area (ft2)
49 °5
51.2
49.0
53.8
49.7
53.9
Width /Depth Ratio
14.9
15.1
13.8
14.6
12.8
13.6
Entrenchment Ratio
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
"
m
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
51
112
31
111
46
115
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.0010
0.0098
0.0034
0.0119
0.0028
0.0075
Pool Length (ft)
54
123
27
169
26
123
Pool Max Depth (ft)
4.3
4.9
4.6
4.7
4.9
5.0
Pool Spacing (ft)
146
210
151
211
150
210
Pool Volume
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
82
136
a a
Radius of Curvature (ft)
46
76
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
1.7
2.8
Meander Wave Length (ft)
191
327
Meander Width Ratio
3.0
5.0
s
EC4
PI"429
°
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
C4
C4
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
1,429
1,429
Sinuosity (ft)
1.2
1.2
1.2
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.0033
0.0031
0.0031
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0,0034
0.0034
0.0035
Ri % /Ru % /P % /G % /S%
SC % /Sa % /G % /C % /B % /Be%
d16/ d35/ d50/ d8 4/ d95/ d100.13/0.36/53/102.5/320.7/>20
SC/0.25/5.1/,72.7/139.4/256
SC/1 °41/16/693/115.7/>2048
%of Reach with Eroding Banks
m ' '`
°° % �1
0%
0%

Table 12f. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
Lindley Site; SMA
Monitoring Year 2
Parameter
As- Built /Baseline
MY3
MY2
MY3
MY4
MYS
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
13.9
23.7
13.6
15.4
12.8
13.9
Floodprone Width (ft)
200+
200+
200+
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.9
1.3
1.2
1.7
1.2
1.8
Bankfull Max Depth
2.1
2.3
2.1
2.8
2.4
3.0
Bankfull Cross - sectional Area (ft)
17.5
20.4
16.1
26.3
15.2
25.2
Width /Depth Ratio
11.0
27.5
9.0
11.5
7.7
10.7
Entrenchment Ratio
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
41
79
6
75
5
52
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.0001
0.0210
0.0177
0.0321
0.0063
0.0577
Pool Length (ft)
28
79
15
46
16
68
Pool Max Depth (ft)
2.8
3A
3.0
Pool Spacing (ft)
71
110
32
111
35
104
Pool Volume (ft)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
44
74
Radius of Curvature (ft)
25
41
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft /ft)
1.7
2.8
Meander Wave Length (ft)
103
177
Meander Width Ratio
3.0
5.0
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
CS
CS
CS
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
866
866
866
Sinuosity (ft)
1.1
1.1
1.1
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.0070
0.0047
0.0049
Bankfull Slope ( ft/ft)
0.0067
0.0077
0.0066
Ri % /Ru % /P % /G % /S%
SC % /Sa % /G % /C % /B % /Be%
dl6/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
SC/0.12/1.4/44/71.3/362
SC/0.10/03/48.8/123.6/256
0.93/5.6/12.8/42.0 /85.0/180
% of Reach with Eroding Banks
1
43%
43%

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
Harris Site; SF1
Monitoring Year 2
605
603
601
599
597
1 595
w
I c
593
w
W
591
589
587
585
10000
10100 10200 10300
— 4— TW (MYO- 1/2013) TW (MY3- 8/2013) s— N
♦
♦
10100 10200 10300
— 4— TW (MYO- 1/2013) TW (MY3- 8/2013) s— N

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
Harris Site; UT2
Monitoring Year 2
610
608
606
604
602
v 600
2
> 598
w
596
594
592
590
0
- - - - -- ----- - - - - --
------- -- - - --
Not
A
a
�
50 100 IS0 200 250
Station (feet)
—+— TW (MYO- 1/2013) TW (MY1- 8/2013) TW (MY2- 5/2014) - - - - - -- WS (MY2- 5/2014)
300 350 400 450
BKF/TOB (MY2 - 5/2014) • STRUCTURES

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
Harris SNe; SF3
Monitoring Year 2
590
585
580
575
s 570
A
to
W
565
560
555
550
40250 40450 40650 40850 41050 41250 41450 41650 41850 42050
Station (feet)
- �- TW (MYO -1 /2013) +— TW (MYl- 8/2013) TW (MY2- 5/2014) - - - - - -- WS (MY2 - 5/2014) • BKF/TO8 (MY2- 5/2014) • STRUCTURES
♦ • •
- -- - -- - -- - - -- -
•
- -- •
x

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
Harris Site; UT1
Monitoring Year 2
590
585
580
575
0
W
570
565
560
51520
51620 51720 51820 51920 52020
Station (feet)
—�— TW (MYO -1 /2013) TW (MYl- 8/2013) TW (MY2- 5/2014) - - - - - -• WS (MY2- 5/2014) ♦ BKF/TOB (MY2 - 5/2014) • STRUCTURES

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
Lindley Site; SM
Monitoring Year 2
550
555
550
545
540
C
535
W
530
525
520
515
•
- -
-- -- ----
- ---
X
�
X
510
80000 80200 80400 80600 80800 81000 81200 81400
Station (feet)
TW (MYO- 1/2013) TW (MYl- 8/2013) —+r TW (MY2- 5/2014) - - -- - -- WS (MY2- 5/2014) • BKF/TOB (MY2- 5/2014) • STRUCTURES

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
Lindley Site; SMA
Monitoring Year 2
555
550
545
540
VN�1
X
X
V�1
X
`0
535
d
W
MD
530
525
520
90000 90100
90200
90300 90400 90500
90600 90700 90800 90900
Station (feet)
0 TW (MYO. 1/2013)
TW (MYI- 8/2013)
- TW (MY2- 5/2014) - - - - - -- WS (MY2 - 5/2014)
♦ BKF/TOB (MY2 - 5/2014) • STRUCTURES 1
VN�1
X
X
V�1
X

Cross - Section Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
Monitoring Year 2
Cross Section 1- SFl
104 +44 Riffle
598
S97
596
-+
° 595
W
594
593
0 10 20 30 40 50
Width (ft)
MYO (1 /2013) MY1 (8/2013) MY2 (5/2014) - Bankfull - Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
4.8 x- section area (ftsq.)
8.2 width (ft)
s
0.6 mean depth (ft)
1.0 max depth (ft)
8.5 wetted parimeter (ft) }
0.6 hyd radi (ft)
14.2 width -depth ratio
50.0 W flood prone area (ft)
6.1 entrenchment ratio
- -- low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 5/2014
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross-Section Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No, 94641)
Monitoring Year 2
Cross Section 2 - SF3
104 +64 Pool
598
597
596
,K
595
� -- -�--- -+- --
c
0
v
W
594
593
592
0 10 20 30 40 so
Width (ft)
—� MYO (1/2013) MY1 (8/2013) MY2 (5/2014) Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
9.9 x- section area (ft.sq.) {
10.9 width (ft)
0.9 mean depth (ft)
1.9 max depth (ft)
11.9 wetted parimeter (ft)
0.8 hyd radi (ft) y
12.0 width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 5/2014
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross - Section Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
Monitoring Year 2
Cross Section 3 - UT2
2 +51 Pool
603
602
601
600
x
Q
599
A
598
597
596
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Width (ft)
A MYO (1/2013) MY1 (8/2013) MY2 (5/2014) — Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
23.1 x- section area (ft.sq.)
15.7 width (ft)
a
1.5 mean depth (ft)
2.6 max depth (ft)
17.0 wetted parimeter (ft)
1.4 hyd radi (ft)
10.7 width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 5/2014 r
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross - Section Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No, 94641)
Monitoring Yeor 2
Cross Section 4 - UT2
2 +87 Riffle
603
602
601
^ 600
_-
x
0 599
-
M 598
_.
597
596
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Width (ft)
a MYO (1/2013) MYl (8/2013) MY2 (5/2014) Bankfull Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
14.1 x- section area (ft.sq.)
17.4 width (ft)
0.8 mean depth (ft)
1.2 max depth (ft) 1
17.7 wetted parimeter (ft)
0.8 hyd radi (ft)
21.4 width -depth ratio
200.0 W flood prone area (ft)
11.5 entrenchment ratio
- -- low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 5/2014
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross - Section Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
Monitoring Year 2
Cross Section 5 - SF3
402 +86 Riffle
580
579
578
577
0 576
—° 575
574
.
573
0 10
20 30
40 50 60 70
Width (ft)
s MYO (1/2013)
MYl (8/2013)
MY2 (5/2014) — Bankfull Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
29.9 x- section area (ft.sq.)
y 5
19.4 width (ft)
1.5 mean depth (ft)
2.4 max depth (ft)
20.1 wetted parimeter (ft)
1.5 hyd radi (ft)
12.5 width -depth ratio
- -- W flood prone area (ft)
- -- entrenchment ratio
'r r J
- -- low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 5/2014
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross - Section Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
Monitoring Year 2
Cross Section 6 - SF3
408+81 Pool
578
577
576
575
rt
574
573
572
W
571
570
569
0 10 20 30
40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Width (ft)
s MYO (1/2013)
MY1 (8/2013) -+- MY2 (5/2014) — Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
43.1 x- section area (ft.sq.)
22.7 width (ft)
1.9 mean depth (ft)
r
3.7 max depth (ft)
±_ -
24.8 wetted parimeter (ft)
1.7 hyd radi (ft)
12.0 width -depth ratio
y_* p
Survey Date: 5/2014
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross- Section Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
Monitoring Year 2
Cross Section 7 - SO
409 +15 Riffle
578
577
-
- - -- -
576
575
0 574
°-M 573
572
571
0
10 20 30
40 50 60 70
80 90
100 110 120
Width (ft)
MYO (1/2013)
MY1 (8/2013) MY2 (5/2014)
- Bankfull
Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
19.2
x- section area (ft.sq.)
15.8
width (ft)
1.2
mean depth (ft)
a -'
2.2
max depth (ft)
,
16.6
wetted parimeter (ft)
1.2
12.9
200.0
hyd radi (ft)
width -depth ratio
W flood (ft)
J.
prone area
12.7
- --
entrenchment ratio
low bank height ratio
`r
kd
Survey Date:
5/2014
Field Crew:
Wildlands Engineering
-
View Downstream

Cross - Section Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
Monitoring Year 2
Section 8 - SF3
576
575
574
573
572
4 571
570
w
569
568
567
413 +97 Pool
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Width (ft)
MYO (1/2013) MY1 (8/2013) MY2 (5/2014) — Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
26.2
x- section area (ft.sq.)
15.9
width (ft)
1.6
mean depth (ft)
3.0
max depth (ft)
17.4
wetted parimeter (ft)
1.5
hyd radi (ft)
9.7
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 5/2014
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross - Section Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
Monitoring Year 2
Cross Section 9 - SF3
414 +48 Riffle
576
575
574
573
0 572
w 571
570 .
569
0 10 20 30
40 50 60 70 80
90 100 110 120 130 140
Width (ft)
a MYO (1 /2013)
MY1 (8/2013) MY2 (5/2014)
Bankfull Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
15.5 x- section area (ft.sq.)
r
14.9 width (ft)
1.0 mean depth (ft)
1.8 max depth (ft)
15.5 wetted parimeter (ft)
1.0 hydradi(ft)�
14.4 width -depth ratio
W flood prone area (ft)
t '
- -- entrenchment ratio
- -- low bank height ratio.
.
Survey Date: 5/2014
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross - Section Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
Monitoring Year 2
Cross Section 10 - UT1
517 +63 Riffle
577
576
i
575
574
0
573
°—;
„
572
571
570
0 10
2D 30
40 50 60
70 80
Width (ft)
MYO (1/2013)
MYl (8/2013)
MY2 (5/2014) — Bankfull
Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
9.5 x- section area (ft.sq.)
11.3 width (ft)
0.8 mean depth (ft).
1.5 max depth (ft)
11.7 wetted parimeter (ft)
0.8 hyd radi (ft)
"
13.4 width -depth ratio
- -- W flood prone area (ft)
- -- entrenchment ratio
- -- low bank height
;
ratio
Survey Date: 5/2014
c `'•
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream
i
0
573
°—;
„
572
571
570
0 10
2D 30
40 50 60
70 80
Width (ft)
MYO (1/2013)
MYl (8/2013)
MY2 (5/2014) — Bankfull
Floodprone Area

Cross - Section Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
Monitoring Year 2
Cross Section 11 - UT1
518 +10 Pool
577
576
575
574
573
C
4
A
572
_a
'
571
570
569
0 10 20
30 40
50 60 70 80
Width (ft)
- +— MYO (1/2013)
MY1 (8/2013)
MY2 (5/2014) Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
14.6 x- section area (ft.sq.)
12.0 width (ft)
1.2 mean depth (ft)
i.
2.3 max depth (ft)
13.8 wetted parimeter (ft)
1.1 hyd radi (ft)
10.0 width -depth ratio
-
II
r'
Survey Date: 5/2014
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross - Section Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
Monitoring Year 2
Cross Section 12 - SF4
804 +13 Pool
544
543
542
541
540
539
538
c
°
537
v
536
`
535
534
533
532
0 10 20 30 40
SO 60 70 80 90
100 110 120 130 140 150 160
Width (ft)
- +-MYO(1 /2013)
MYl(8 /2013)
Bankfull Dimensions
70.7 x- section area (ft.sq.)
29.8 width (ft)
2.4 mean depth (ft)
4.9 max depth (ft)
32.7 wetted parimeter (ft)
2.2 hyd radi (ft)
12.5 width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 5/2014
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream
539
538
c
°
537
v
536
`
535
534
533
532
0 10 20 30 40
SO 60 70 80 90
100 110 120 130 140 150 160
Width (ft)
- +-MYO(1 /2013)
MYl(8 /2013)
MY2(5/2014) Bankfull

Cross - Section Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
Monitoring Year 2
Cross Section 13 - SF4
805 +01 Riffle
544
543
S42
541
540
- —
4
539
538
W
537
536
535
0 10 20 30
40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130
Width (ft)
+ MYO (1/2013)
MY1 (8/2013) MY2 (5/2014) Bankfull Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
49.7 x- section area (ft.sq.)
26.0 width (ft)
1.9 mean depth (ft)
2.9 max depth (ft)
27.1 wetted parimeter (ft)
1.8 hyd radi (ft)
116 width -depth ratio
200.0 W flood prone area (ft)
-
7.7 entrenchment ratio
''' de
- -- low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 5/2014
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross- Sectlon Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
Monitoring Year 2
Cross Section 14 - SR
811 +S7 Pool
S42
541
540
539
538
- -
,�
537
4
536
535
w
S34
533
532
531
0 10 20 30 40 50
60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160
Width (ft)
+MYO (1/2013)
MY1 (8/2013) MY2 (5/2014) — Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
82.2 x- section area (ft.sq.)
45.4 width (ft)
1.8 mean depth (ft)
5.0 max depth (ft)
47.4 wetted parameter (ft)
1.7 hyd radi (ft)
r
_
25.1 width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 5/2014
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross - Section Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
Monitoring Year 2
Cross Section 15 - SF4
812 +23 Riffle
542
541
540
539
538
c
537
v
536
W
535
534
533
0 10 20 30 40
50 60
70 80 90 100 110
120 130 140 150
Width (ft
MYO (1/2013)
MYl {8/2013)
MY2 (5/2014)
— Bankfull Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
53.9 x- section area (ft.sq.)
T
26.2 width (ft),
2.1 mean depth (ft)
3.2 max depth (ft)
27.3 wetted parimeter (ft)
2.0 hyd radi (ft)
12.8 width -depth ratio
- -- W flood prone area (ft)
- -- entrenchment ratio
- -- low bank height ratio
_-
Survey Date: 5/2014
Field Crew: Wildiands Engineering
i
View Downstream
)
MYO (1/2013)
MYl {8/2013)
MY2 (5/2014)
— Bankfull Floodprone Area

Cross - Section Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
Monitoring Year 2
Cross Section 16 - SF4a
902 +44 Riffle
545
544
543
542
541
c
540
—
�,
539
? -
W
538
537
536
0 10 20 30
40 50 60 70 80
Width (ft)
MYO (1/2013) MY1 (8/2013)
MY2 (5/2014) — Bankfull — Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
25.2 x- section area (ft.sq.)
13.9 width (ft)
1.8 mean depth (ft)
3.0 max depth (ft)
15.6 wetted parimeter (ft)
1.6 hyd radi (ft)
7.7 width -depth ratio
- -- W flood prone area (ft)
- -- entrenchment ratio
- -- low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 5/2014
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross - Section Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
Monitoring Year 2
Cross Section 17 - SF4a
906 +63 Riffle
saz
541
540
539
538
�
4
537
v
536
_ .
w
535
_ .
534
533
0 10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80 90
100 110
Width (ft)
+ MYO {1/2013)
MYl {8/2013)
MY2(5 /2014)
- Bankfull -
Bankfull Dimensions
15.2 x- section area (ft.sq.)
f
FloodproneArea
12.8 width (ft)
1.2 mean depth (ft)
2.4 max depth (ft)
14.1 wetted parimeter (ft);^
1.1 hyd radi (ft)
n -
�_
10.7 width -depth ratio
.,
%�0}
W flood prone area (ft)
y`~
- -- entrenchment ratio
- -- low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 5/2014
Field Crew: Wiidlands Engineering
View Downstream
FloodproneArea

Cross - Section Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
Monitoring Year 2
Cross Section 18 - SF4a
907 +18 Pool
541
540
539
538
_
537
�~
536
° 535
°— 534
W
533
532
531
0 10 20 30
40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Width (ft)
s MYO(1/2013)
MY1 (8/2013) MY2 (5/2014) — Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
20.5 x- section area (ft.sq.)
10.6 width (ft)
1.9 mean depth (ft)
3.0 max depth (ft)
12.8 wetted parimeter (ft)
1.6 hyd radi (ft)
s
5.4 width -depth ratio
r.
t
Survey Date: 5/2014
t'
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Reachwide and Cross - Section Pebble Count Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
Harris Site; SFI, Reachwide
Monitoring Year 2
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
SFI Reach Summary
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt /Clay
0.000
0.062
2
20
22
22
22
SP�O
Very fine
0.062
0.125
9
9
9
31
Fine
0.125
0.250
10
10
10
41
Medium
0.250
0.500
41
Coarse
0.5
1.0
41
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
41
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
41
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
5
5
5
46
Fine
4.0
5.7
46
Fine
5.7
8.0
1
1
1
47
Medium
8.0
11.3
5
5
5
52
Medium
Coarse
11.3
16.0
16.0
22.6
6
6
1
6
7
6
7
58
65
Coarse
22.6
32
8
3
11
11
76
Very Coarse
Very Coarse
Small
Small
C0� Large
Large
32
45
64
45
64
90
9
3
3
1
10
3
3
10
3
3
86
89
92
90
128
3
3
3
95
128
180
1
1
1
96
180
256
4
4
4
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
Large/very Large
..
10 24
....
2048
100
100
BEDROCK
Bedrock
2048
X2048
100
Total
50
SO
100
100
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm]
D16 =
Silt /Clay
D35 =
0.2
D50 =
9.7
Ds, =
42.0
D95 =
128.0
D100 =1
256.0
SFI, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100%
90% - -
80%
70% -
V
a
50%
U 40%
M.
30%
v
c 20%
10% -
D%
1
0 ryryd 9ti Ph 11� 140 ryy0 ��ti y,�'L 1O.1b ryoy0
0 0
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO- 2/2013 ■ MY1- 10/2013 ■ MY2- 5/2014

Reochwide and Cross - Section Substrate Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
Harris Site: SFI, Cross- Section 1
Monitoring Year 2
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Particle
Count
Cross - Section 1 Summary
min
max
Total
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
SILT /CLAY
Silt /Clay
0.000
0.062
128.0
0
SP�O
Very fine
0.062
0.125
SiIVClay..
0
Fine
0.125
0.250
0
Medium
0.250
0.500
Gravel i
Cobble er
0
Coarse
0.5
1.0
0
Very Coarse
1.0
1 2.0
0
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
70
0
is
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
;
0
Fine
4.0
5.7
60
0
I
Fine
5.7
8.0
0
Medium
8.0
11.3
4
4
4
Medium
11.3
16.0
10
10
14
Coarse
16.0
22.6
16
16
30
Coarse
22.6
32
22
22
1 52
Very Coarse
32
45
20
20
72
Very Coarse
45
64
14
14
86
Small
64
90
SO
10
96
Small
90
128
4
4
100
Large
128
180
0
30
100
Large
ISO
256
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Large /Very Large
1024
2048
4-4
100
BEDROCK JBedrock
30
2048
>2048
100
Total
Soo
100
100
Cross - Section 1
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
16.7
D35 =
24.5
D50 =
31.0
D84 =
60.9
D95 =
87.0
D100 =
128.0
100%
90%
80%
c
70%
d
a 60%
A
u 50%
A
v 40%
c 30%
20%
10%
0%
Cross - Section 1
Individual Class Percent
00�'LO,.yh oyh O`•' ti ti ti� b y� 0 �,ti?, ,tiro ryryd q% ,ti40 ryyb ,bro�. h~tiyOtiA,yO°�
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO- 2/2013 - MY3- 10/2013 ■ MY2- 5/2014
Cross - Section 1
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
I
- -
90
SiIVClay..
Gravel i
Cobble er
_
rOCk
70
is
;
2
60
I
•! ,'
E
50
!li
Is
P
0
30
20
4-4
30
0
i
0.010
0.100
1.000 10.000 100.000 1000.000
30000.000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO- 2/2013 MYl- 10/2013 - MY2- 5/2014
100%
90%
80%
c
70%
d
a 60%
A
u 50%
A
v 40%
c 30%
20%
10%
0%
Cross - Section 1
Individual Class Percent
00�'LO,.yh oyh O`•' ti ti ti� b y� 0 �,ti?, ,tiro ryryd q% ,ti40 ryyb ,bro�. h~tiyOtiA,yO°�
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO- 2/2013 - MY3- 10/2013 ■ MY2- 5/2014

Reachwide and Cross - Section Pebble Count Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
Harris Site; UT2, Reachwlde
Monitoring Year 2
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
UT2 Reach Summary
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
SILT /CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
17
17
17
17
SPt��
Very fine
0.062
0.125
10
10
10
27
Fine
0.125
0.250
2
2
4
4
31
Medium
0.250
0.500
4
4
4
35
Coarse
0.5
1.0
5
5
5
40
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
40
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
40
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
40
Fine
Fine
4.0
5.7
5.7
8.0
3
3
3
43
43
Medium
Medium
Coarse
8.0
113
16.0
11.3
16.0
22.6
1
4
5
3
1
4
8
1
4
8
44
48
56
Coarse
22.6
32
9
■riJi
9
1 9
65
Very Coarse
Very Coarse
Small
@Vti�;g` Small
C01 Large
Large
32
45
64
45
64
90
11
6
6
2
2
1
13
8
7
13
8
7
78
86
93
90
128
6
1
7
7
100
128
180
100
180
256
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
s.�ss��
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK
Bedrock
2048
>2048
1111■
■111111
100
Total
5o
50 1
100
100
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm]
D16 =
Silt /Clay
D35 =
0.5
D50 =
17.4
D84 =
58.6
D9s =
99.5
Di00 =
128.0
100%
90%
80%
c
$ 70%
u
d 60%
50%
:2 40%
v 30%
S
20%
10%
0%
4 1 NV A5 J, -J N,% ,� ryyb �6'L yy'L,O.1Pry�O
V' Particle Class Sue (mm)
a MYO.2/2013 2 MY1- 10/2013 0 MY2- 5/2014
UT2, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
■riJi
III■
■111111
■■11
��■
III■
■'11111
��'�'
111■
■111111
s.�ss��
��
1111■
■111111
■p�N■1■
■
111■
■111111
■1�111■1■
111■
■111111
■ ■p1■1■
III■
■111111
100%
90%
80%
c
$ 70%
u
d 60%
50%
:2 40%
v 30%
S
20%
10%
0%
4 1 NV A5 J, -J N,% ,� ryyb �6'L yy'L,O.1Pry�O
V' Particle Class Sue (mm)
a MYO.2/2013 2 MY1- 10/2013 0 MY2- 5/2014
UT2, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent

Reachwide and Cross - Section Substrate Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
Harris Site; UT2, Cross - Section 4
Monitoring Year 2
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Particle
Count
Cross - Section 4
Summary
min
Fmax
Total
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
SILT /CLAY
Silt /Clay
0.000
0.062
128.0
0
Very fine
0.062
0.125
0
Fine
0.125
0.250
0
Medium
0.250
0.500
0
SP�O
Coarse
0.5
1.0
0
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
0
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
0
0
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
Fine
4.0
5.7
1
!
1
Fine
5.7
8.0
4
z!
5
5
Medium
8.0
11.3
5
10
Medium
11.3
16.0
20
20
30
Coarse
16.0
22.6
12
12
42
Coarse
22.6
32
14
14
56
Very Coarse
32
45
14
14
70
Very Coarse
45
64
13
13
83
Small
""-w"': Small
Large
Large
64
90
128
90
128
180
15
2
15
2
98
100
100
180
256
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK Bedrock
2048
>2648
100
Total
100
100
100
Cross - Section 4
Channel materials (mm)
Dl6 =
12.3
D35 =
18.5
D50 =
27.6
D84 =
65.5
D95 =
84.1
D10 =
128.0
Cross - Section 4
Individual Class Percent

Reachwide and Cross - Section Pebble Count Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
Harris Site; SF3, Reachwide
Monitoring Year 2
Particle Clan
Diameter (mm)
Partk a Count
SF3 Reach Summary
min
max
Rift
Pool
Total
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
SILT /CLAY Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
8
8
8
8
Very fine
Fine
Medium
Coarse
Very Coarse
0.062
0.125
":r:i�riiiiii
8
0.125
0.250
5
S
5
13
0.250
0.500
�r
4
4
4
17
0.5
1.0
3
3
3
20
1.0
2.0
3
3
3
23
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
1
1
1
24
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
1
3
4
4
28
Fine
Fine
4.0
5.7
5.7
8.0
3
3
3
28
31
Medium
8.0
11.3
3
5
8
8
39
Medium
11.3
16.0
7
2
9
9
48
Coarse
16.0
22.6
5
4
9
9
57
Coarse
22.6
32
13
3
16
16
73
Very Coarse
32
45
6
2
8
8
81
Very Coarse
45
64
5
1
6
6
87
Small
64
90
6
2
8
8
95
Small
Large
90
128
2
2
2
97
128
180
97
Large
180
256
111111
97
Small
256
362
1
1
1
98
Small
362
512
■
■1■■
98
Medium
Large/Very Large
512
1024
1024
2048
98
98
BEDROCK Bedrock
2048
>2048
1
1
2
2
100
Total
SO
So
100
1 100
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm]
D16 =
0.42
Di5 =
9.38
D50 =
17.3
D84 =
53.7
D95 =
90.0
D100 =1
>2048
100%
90%
w 80%
`u 70%
a
60%
n 50%
s 40%
v
30%
20%
10%
0%
SF3, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
O �L 1yh otih Oy 1 ti y0 A y1 0 yti� ti0 �ryd �ti A� AO - ti% tiOO tiyb �bti h1~ y01A y0�
O• O'
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO- 2/2013 MYI- 10/2013 ■ MY2- 5/2014
• - - -•
■
G�!!'
■.nnlla�
■ ■
■1111��
! �hIII�GII��;!.
":r:i�riiiiii
%GI■
.
��lIIILa�■
�r
.,
l�.
■
■11111
111111■■
111111G�1���111�I�I4y�11
:�i�4n�.��,
0011�111
1111111■■IIw111■
siIIIIII■
■1111111■
■1■■
■
■IIiINI■
111111
■
■II�IIIr�
/1111111■
■1111111
■
■1■■
;
■■
1111111
■IIIIIII��II�Rlriilllllll■
■1111111
■
■1■■
■
■IIIIAI�1.�11�11..1■��II;�J
■1111111■
■1111111
■
■1■
■
■11!!!II.�1111111
■
■1111��1�
■1111111■
■1111111
■
■1■■
■
■11111�1��1111_II!�Gf��illl■
■1111111■
■1111111
■
■1■
■
■11lu,:�i�iiii�iilldlll■
■1111111■
■1111111
■
■11■
■
■Ili�ll■1■
1111■
■11111■
■1111111■
■1111111
■
■1■
oil
100%
90%
w 80%
`u 70%
a
60%
n 50%
s 40%
v
30%
20%
10%
0%
SF3, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
O �L 1yh otih Oy 1 ti y0 A y1 0 yti� ti0 �ryd �ti A� AO - ti% tiOO tiyb �bti h1~ y01A y0�
O• O'
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO- 2/2013 MYI- 10/2013 ■ MY2- 5/2014

Reachwide and Cross - Section Substrate Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
Harris Site; SF3, Cross - Section S
Monitoring Year 2
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Particle
Count
Cross - Section 5
Summary
FmTinmax
27.7
Total
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
Sf1T /CLAY
Silt /Clay
0.000
0.062
128.0
0
Very fine
0.062
0.125
0
Fine
0.125
0.250
0
Medium
0.250
0.500
0
Coarse
0.5
1.0
0
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
0
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
0
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
0
Fine
4.0
5.7
0
Fine
5.7
8.0
4
4
4
Medium
8.0
11.3
6
6
10
Medium
11.3
16.0
8
8
18
Coarse
16.0
22.6
10
10
28
Coarse
22.6
32
12
12
40
Very Coarse
32
45
18
18
58
Very Coarse
45
64
20
20
78
cy
LOOS
Small
64
90
16
16
94
Small
90
128
6
6
100
Large
128
180
100
Large
180
256
100
Small
256
362
100
mall
362
512
100
lk
edium
512
1024
100
rge/VeryLarge
1024
2048
100
BEDRdrock
20 48
>2048
100
Totall
100
100
100
Cross - Section 5
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
14.6
Di5 =
27.7
D50 =
38.7
D84 =
72.7
D9s =
95.4
D100 =
128.0
100%
90%
c 80%
70%
a
A 60%
50%
g 40%
c
30%
20%
10%
0%
Cross - Section 5
Individual Class Percent
O �'L �1h by Oh ti ti ti� b 01 0
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO- 2/2013 ■ MYl- 10/2013 ■ MY2- S/2014

Reachwide and Cross - Section Substrate Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
Harris Site; SF3, Cross - Section 7
Monitoring Year 2
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Particle
Count
Cross - Section 7 Summary
min
max
Total
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
SILT /CLAY
Silt /Clay
0.000
0.062
128.0
0
SP�O
Very fine
0.062
0.125
0
Fine
0.125
0.250
0
Medium
0.250
0.500
0
Coarse
0.5
1.0
0
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
0
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
0
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
2
2
2
Fine
4.0
5.7
SO
10
12
Fine
5.7
8.0
6
6
18
Medium
8.0
11.3
12
12
30
Medium
11.3
16.0
14
14
44
Coarse
16.0
22.6
14
14
58
Coarse
22.6
32
12
12
70
Very Coarse
32
45
10
SO
80
Very Coarse
45
64
12
12
92
Small
Small
Large
_.1 \ Large
64
90
6
6
98
90
128
128
180
2
2
100
100
180
256
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
362 1
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Totall
100
100
100
Cross - Section 7
Channel materials (mm)
Dl6 =
7.1
D35 =
12.6
Dso =
18.6
Dfl4 =
50.6
D95 =
75.9
Dion =
128.0
100%
90%
80%
c
70%
`w
60%
2
50%
72 40%
c 30%
20%
10%
0%
Cross - Section 7
Individual Class Percent
p p ,ye 5 ti ti a 0 ,ti tie e �ti a5 �a �o yw �o �e �ti titi tia a� a°
pO p1 p• p' ti' y' �1'' 1 1 'L "� h ,y0 .y0 QO
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO- 2/2013 MYl- 10/2013 ■ MY2- 5/2014

Reachwide and Cross - Section Substrate Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
Harris Site; SF3, Cross - Section 9
Monitoring Year 2
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Particle
Count
Cross - Section 9
Summary
min
max
Total
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
SILT /CLAY Silt /Clay
0.000
0.062
D100 =
128.0
0
Very fine
Fine
!O
SP Medium
Coarse
Very Coarse
0.062
0.125
0
0.125
0.250
0
0.250
0.500
0
0.5
1.0
0
1.0
2.0
0
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
0
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
0
Fine
4.0
5.7
0
Fine
5.7
8.0
0
Medium
8.0
11.3
4
4
4
Medium
11.3
16.0
6
6
10
Coarse
16.0
22.6
20
20
30
Coarse
22.6
32
20
20
50
Very Coarse
32
45
26
26
76
Very Coarse
45
64
12
12
88
OBE
Small
64
90
8
8
96
Small
90
128
4
4
100
`00
IVA III!' —
Large
128
180
100
Large
180
256
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Large /Very Large
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
100
100
100
Cross - Section 9
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
17.7
D35 =
24.7
D5o =
32.0
D84 =
56.9
D95 =
86.2
D100 =
128.0
100
90
80
70
m
> 60
q
E 50
1?
40
a
d 30
a
20
10
0
0.010
Cross - Section 9
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100%
90%
80%
c
v
70%
a
m
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0.100 1.000 10.000 100.000 1000.000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MY0 2/2013 #— MVl- 10/2013 —• —.MYZ- 5/2014
Cross - Section 9
Individual Class Percent
10000.000 I
0 1tiy ,1re ryryb 9ti Py FP 1,y0 1Op tih`O �bti ytiti tiO�p rypa0
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO- 2/2013 a MYl- 10/2013 ■ MY2- 5/2014

Reachwide and Cross - Section Pebble Count Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
Harris Site; UTI, Reachwide
Monitoring Year 2
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
UTI Reach
Summary
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
SILT /CLAY Silt /Clay
0.000
0.062
1
25
26
26
26
Very fine
Fine
1,01 Medium
Coarse
Very Coarse
0.062
0.125
2
2
2
28
0.125
0.250
10
10
10
38
0.250
0.500
a�����a
4
4
4
42
0.5
1.0
42
1.0
2.0
1
2
3
3
45
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
.,
■
■111111
45
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
2
2
2
47
Fine
4,0
53
1
1
1
48
Fine
5.7
8.0
2
2
4
4
52
Medium
8.0
11.3
3
1
4
4
56
Medium
11.3
16.0
10
10
10
66
Coarse
16.0
22.6
3
1
a
4
70
Coarse
22.6
32
6
■■
6
6
76
Very Coarse
32
45
8
8
8
84
Very Coarse
45
64
7
■111■
7
91
Small
64
90
5
5
96
Small
Large
90
128
2
J
2
98
128
180
98
Large
180
256
■■
98
Small
256
362
2
2
2
100
Small
362
512
■1111111■
100
Medium
512
1024
1
,
100
Large /Very Large
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Totall
SO I
50
100
100
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm]
D,6=
1 Silt /Clay
D35 =
0.20
D50 =
6.7
Dfl4 =
45.0
D95 =
84.1
D100 =
362.0
100%
90%
80%
c
0 70%
v
60%
A
U 50%
40%
s
v 30%
20%
10%
0%
UT1, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
,-,Z, ,'L :p 01h Oy - V ,ti% P 5� % �,ti'?� .tiro'CL .;'L Py 0p " "' X9,0 e "- �ti e p
' O' 'ti ti
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO-2/2013 ■ MYI- 10/2013 ■ MY2- 5/2014
'
■
�!!}
■•••
rlw■
�■■
1111..����n��
■��•.:j�Mhlllllii
■111■
.1
�}
a�����a
■it•
■r
}P'11it•itfll►on���r
i
.,
■
■111111
■■
1111111
■
■111111r�!111�I��l�Il
±:Lin
*.�
. ,
■■
1111111
■■
1111111
■
■IIIIIA�II��IIIIII■
■1111111■
■111■
■■
1111111
■��IIIIII��II�����JIIIIIII■
■1111111■
■111■
,
■■
111111
■�..�1111�i���!��
�
■111111■
■1111111■
■111■
"r_�!,1i■
■■
1111111
%1!!!!!II,��
■1111111■
■1111111■
■11■
■
■IIII�sIi�/�
+iii�ii111111■
■1111111■
■111111■
■11■
■
■111�i1ii�■�IIIIiII■
■111111■
■1111111■
■111111■
■11■
■■
1111111
■■
111111■
■111111■
■1111111■
■111111■
■11■
■■
1111111
■■
11111■
■111111■
■1111111■
■111111■
■11■
100%
90%
80%
c
0 70%
v
60%
A
U 50%
40%
s
v 30%
20%
10%
0%
UT1, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
,-,Z, ,'L :p 01h Oy - V ,ti% P 5� % �,ti'?� .tiro'CL .;'L Py 0p " "' X9,0 e "- �ti e p
' O' 'ti ti
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO-2/2013 ■ MYI- 10/2013 ■ MY2- 5/2014

Reachwide and Cross- Section Substrate Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
Harris Site; UT1, Cross - Section 10
Monitoring Year 2
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Particle
Count
Cross- Section 30
Summary
min
max
Total
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
SILL• /CLAY
Silt /Clay
0.000
0.062
256.0
0
5
Very fine
0.062
0.125
0
Fine
0.125
0.250
0
Medium
0.250
0.500
0
Coarse
0.5
1.0
0
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
2
2
2
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
2
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
2
2
4
Fine
4.0
5.7
4
Fine
5.7
8.0
4
4
8
Medium
8.0
11.3
8
8
16
Medium
11.3
16.0
12
12
28
Coarse
16.0
22.6
6
6
34
Coarse
22.6
32
10
10
44
Very Coarse
32
45
10
10
54
Very Coarse
45
64
16
16
70
Small
0�0 Small
�D0 Large
large
64
90
24
24
94
90
128
2
2
96
128
180
96
180
256
4
4
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
BFDR"K 113edrock
2048
>2048
100
Totall
100
1 100
1 100
Cross - Section 10
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
11.0
D35 =
23.4
D5o =
39.3
D84 =
78.1
D95 =
1073
D100 =
256.0
100%
90%
80%
C
$ 70%
m
a 60%
m
u 50%
A
v' 40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Cross - Section 10
Individual Class Percent
OQlzbi'LQ�,L'� Q1h Oh 'ti ti ry0 p �'� 6 ,,�'� .y�o �,ti�o '�1' py �' 4% .yOQ .lh�o ��1 yti'y �Q,yp �QpO
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO- 2/2013 ■ MYl- 10/2013 ■ MY2- 5/2014

Reachwide and Cross - Section Pebble Count Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
Lindley Site; SF4, Reachwide
Monitoring Year 2
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
SF4 Reach
Summary
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
SILT /CLAY
Silt /Clay
0.000
0.062
2
18
241
20
20
Very fine
0.062
0.125
2
5
7
7
27
Fine
SP�o Medium
Coarse
Very Coarse
0.125
0.250
1
3
4
4
31
0.250
0.500
31
0.5
1.0
3
1
3
34
1.0
2.0
2
2
2
36
Very Fine
Very Fine
Fine
2.0
2.8
4.0
2.8
4.0
5.7
2
1
2
1
4
1
4
37
37
41
Fine
5.7
8.0
41
Medium
Medium
Coarse
8.0
11.3
16.0
11.3
16.0
22.6
2
1
5
3
3
3
a
8
5
4
8
46
50
58
Coarse
22.6
32
5
2
7
65
Very Coarse
Very Coarse
32
45
45
64
5
8
4
9
8
9
8
74
82
Small
Small
Large
64
90
7
1
8
8
90
90
128
7
7
7
97
128
180
97
Large
180
256
97
Small
256
362
1
1
1
98
Small
362
512
1
1
1
99
Medium
512
1024
99
Large /Very Large
1024
2048
99
BEDROCK Bedrock
2048
>2048
1
1
100
Totall
50 I
so
100
100
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
DiG =
Silt / Clay
D3S =
1.41
D50 =
16.0
D84 =
69.7
D95 =
115.7
D100 =
>2048
100%
90%
c
80%
u 70%
`w
a 60%
50%
v 40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
SF4, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
od° �titi`'�ti`'�p�i ►� ti� ti� P� h� �� titi� ti6� titib J' -A titre 411, ti`'`O +11 hti , 11 ��a- ticp-
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO- 2/2013 ■ MYi- 10/2013 ■ MY2- 5/2014

Reachwide and Cross - Section Substrate Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
Lindley Site; SF4, Cross-Section 13
Monitoring Year 2
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Particle
Count
Cross - Section 13
Summary
rmT!nmax
19.0
Total
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt /Clay
0.000
0.062
362.0
0
Very fine
0.062
0.125
0
Fine
0.125
0.250
0
�P`10
Medium
0.250
0.500
0
Coarse
0.5
1.0
2
2
2
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
2
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
2
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
2
Fine
4.0
5.7
2
2
4
Fine
5.7
8.0
6
6
10
Medium
8.0
11.3
12
12
22
Medium
11.3
16.0
8
8
30
Coarse
16.0
22.6
10
SO
40
Coarse
22.6
32
16
16
56
Very Coarse
32
45
8
8
64
Very Coarse
45
64
10
10
74
*_
M11 i IV.
iA A"IN Z .
Small
64
90
10
10
84
Small
90
128
12
12
96
Large
128
180
96
Large
180
256
2
2
98
Small
256
362
2
2
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK
JBedrock
2048 1
>2048
100
Totall
100
100
100
Cross - Section 13
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
9.4
D35 =
19.0
Dso =
28.1
D84 =
90.0
D9s =
124.3
D100 =
362.0
100%
90%
80%
d 70%
t2
n 60%
v
50%
a
40%
a' 30%
c
20%
10%
0%
Cross- Section 13
Individual Class Percent
01,�?a .tiro alto .0' ph oQ yti0 X00 'Lys "s~ y~~.ti01p,t�
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO- 2/2013 ■ MYl- 10/2013 ■ MY2- 5/2014

Reachwide and Cross - Section Substrate Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
Lindley Site; SF4, Cross - Section 15
Monitoring Year 2
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Particle
Count
Cross - Section 15
Summary
min
max
Total
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
SILT /CLAY
Silt /Clay
0.000
0.062
256.0
0
SP�O
Very fine
0.062
0.125
0
Fine
0.125
0.250
0
Medium
0.250
0.500
0
Coarse
0.5
1.0
0
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
2
2
2
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
2
2
4
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
6
6
10
Fine
4.0
5.7
6
6
16
Fine
5.7
8.0
4
4
20
Medium
8.0
11.3
4
4
24
Medium
11.3
16.0
10
10
34
Coarse
16.0
22.6
10
10
44
Coarse
22.6
32
12
12
56
Very Coarse
32
45
10
10
66
Very Coarse
45
64
12
12
78
Small
Small
Large
Large
64
90
90
128
10
4
10
4
88
92
128
180
92
180
256
8
8
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
S12
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
100
100
100
Cross - Section 15
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
5.6
D35 =
16.6
D50 =
26.9
D84 =
78.5
D95 =
205.4
D100 =
256.0
100%
90%
80%
70%
v
a
m
60%
—�, 50%
j 40%
—` 30%
20%
10%
0%
Cross - Section 15
Individual Class Percent
0 , 0
dtiv
• h
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO- 2/2013 6 MYl- 10/2013 MY2- 5/2014

Reachwide and Cross - Section Pebble Count Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
Lindley Site; SF4A, Reachwide
Monitoring Year 2
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
SF4A Reach
Summary
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
SILT /CLAY
Silt /Clay
0.000
0.062
7
7
7
7
�Pt�Q
Very fine
0.062
0.125
7
Fine
0.125
0.250
7
Medium
0.250
0.500
1
1
1
8
Coarse
0.5
1.0
2
7
9
9
17
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
9
9
9
26
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
26
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
4
4
4
30
Fine
Fine
4.0
5.7
5.7
8.0
2
5
S
5
35
7
9
9
44
Medium
8.0
11.3
2
2
4
4
48
Medium
11.3
16.0
3
2
S
5
53
Coarse
16.0
22.6
8
S
13
13
66
Coarse
Very Coarse
22.6
32
32
10
10
10
76
45
10
10
10
86
Very Coarse
45
64
4
4
4
90
Small
0yti - Small
coe Large
Large
64
90
5
1
6
6
96
90
128
3
3
3
99
128
180
1
1
1
100
180
256
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
Large/Very Large
512
1024
100
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK Bedrock
2048
-2048
100
Total
SO
S0
100
100
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
Dl6 =
0.93
Djs =
5.60
Dso =
12.8
D, =
42.0
Dvs =
85.0
D100 =1
180.0
100%
90%
80%
c
u 70%
Y
a 60%
50%
a
40%
v 30%
20%
10%
0%
SF4A, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
od, o�tih otiy oy ti ti ti� o e^ ��^, ti6 titi`° �ti ah Fp ,1e ti0° tih`° ,eti ,titi1oti °tioo�
Particle Class Size (mm)
MYO- 2/2013 ■ MYI- 10/2013 ■ MY2- 5/2014

Reachwide and Cross-Section Substrate Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
Lindley Site; SFAIA, Cross•Section 16
Monitoring Year 2
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Particle
Count
Cross-Section 16
Summary
FmTinm
ax
Total
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt /Clay
0,000
0.062
128.0
0
Very fine
0.062
0.125
11 ider
0
Fine
0.125
0.250
0
Medium
0.250
0.500
0
Coarse
0.5
1.0
4
4
4
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
4
4
8
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
8
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
8
Fine
4.0
5.7
I J
8
Fine
5.7
8.0
60
8
Medium
8,0
11.3
8
Medium
11.3
16.0
8
8
16
Coarse
16.0
22.6
17
17
33
Coarse
22.6
32
18
18
51
Very Coarse
32
45
21
21
72
Very Coarse
45
64
16
16
88
Small
Small
'tog, a x Large
a a A-Large
64
90
10
10
98
90
128
2
2
100
128
180
100
180
256
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK 1Bedrock
2048
>2049
100
Total l
100
100
1 1
Cross-Section 16
Channel materials (mm)
D16
16.0
D3S
23.5
Dso =
31.4
D84
58.6
Dqs =
81.3
1310.0 =
128.0
100%
90%
80%
2 70%
iu
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
Cross-Section 16
Individual Class Percent
11 lb
IZP � 4P T
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO-2/2013 a MYl-10/2013 ■ MY2-5/2013
Cross-Section 16
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
— — — — — — — — —
71
90
11 ider
80
70
I J
60
E
50
E
40
iLd
30
211
10
0
0.010
0.100 1-000 10.000 100.000 1000.000 10000.000
Particle Class Size (mm)
--0-- MYD-2/2013 MYl-10/2013 MY2-5/2013
100%
90%
80%
2 70%
iu
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
Cross-Section 16
Individual Class Percent
11 lb
IZP � 4P T
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO-2/2013 a MYl-10/2013 ■ MY2-5/2013

Reachwide and Cross - Section Substrate Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94641)
Lindley SBe; SMA, Cross - Section 17
Monitoring Year 2
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Particle
Count
Cross- Section 17
Summary
rmTInmax
26.2
Total
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
SILT /CLAY
Silt /Clay
0.000
0.062
2
2
2
Very fine
0.062
0.125
2
Fine
0.125
0.250
2
!o
SP
Medium
0.250
0.500
2
Coarse
0.5
1.0
2
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
2
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
2
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
2
Fine
4.0
5.7
2
Fine
5.7
8.0
2
Medium
8.0
11.3
2
2
4
Medium
11.3
16.0
8
8
12
Coarse
16.0
22.6
12
12
24
Coarse
22.6
32
26
26
50
Very Coarse
32
45
24
24
74
Very Coarse
45
64
16
16
90
Small
Small
64
90
2
2
92
90
128
2
2
94
L0� Large
gt" ` Large
128
180
6
6
100
180
256
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
S12
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Totall
100
100
100
Cross - Section 17
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
18.0
D35 =
26.2
Dso =
32.0
DB4 =
56.1
D95 =
1 135.5
D100 =
180.0
Cross - Section 17
Individual Class Percent
100% -
90% — - -- - - - - - _ - -
80% - - - - - - - - - - -- - -- - — -
c
70%
d
a
60%
_A
SO%
40%
.S 30% - --
20%
10%
0%
00�'1.01,tih Otih Oh ti ti ti� A y1 1,ti'�i 16 �,�!o .,�'►. ph ,� ,p ,.y0 ,�O 'o �bti y1ti 10tia ti0a�
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO- 2/2013 ■ MYS- 10/2013 ■ MY2- 5/2014

APPENDIX 5. Hydrology Summary Data and Plots

Table 13. Verification of Bankfull Events
Underwood Mitigation Site (EEP Project No. 94641)
Monitoring Year 2
Reach
Date of Data
Collection
Approximate
Date of
Occurrence
Method
SF1
11/12/2014
5/2014- 11/2014
Crest Gage
UT2
`
SF3
11/12/2014
5/2014- 11/2014
Crest Gage
UT1
11/12/2014
5/2014- 11/2014
Crest Gage
SF4
5/19/2014
1/2014- 5/2014
Visual
11/12/2014
5/2014- 11/2014
Crest Gage
SF4A
5/19/2014
1/2014- 5/2014
Crest Gage
'data collected, but level was below bankfull elevation
Table 14. Wetland Gage Attainment Summary
Underwood Mitigation Site (EEP Project No. 94641)
Monitoring Year 2
Summary of Groundwater Gage Results for Years 1 through 7
Success Criteria Achieved /Max Consecutive Days During Growing Season (Percentage)
Gage
Year 1(2013)
Year 2 (2014)
Year 3 (2015)
Year 4 (2016)
Year 5 (2017)
Year 6 (2018)
Year 7 (2019)
Yes /44.5 Days
Yes /35.5 Days
1
(20.6%)
(16.4%)
Yes /51.5 Days
Yes /38.5 Days
2
(23.8%)
(17.8%)
Yes /23.5 Days
Yes /31.5 Days
3
(10.9 %)
(14.6%)
Yes /19.5 Days
Yes /31.5 Days
4
(9.0%)
(14.6%)
Yes /25 Days
Yes /32.5 Days
5
(11.6 %)
(15.0%)
Yes /22.5 Days
Yes /21 Days
6
(10.4%)
(9.7%)
Yes /44.5 Days
Yes /31.5 Days
7
(20.6%)
(14.6%)
Yes /22 Days
Yes /23 Days
8
(10.2%)
(14.6%)
Yes /98 Days
Yes /41.5 Days
9
(45.4 %)
(10.6%)
Yes /96.5 Days
Yes /36 Days
10
(44.7%)
(16.7%)
Yes /66 Days
Yes /40.5 Days
11
(30.6%)
(18.8 %)
Yes /23 Days
Yes /32.5 Days
12
(10.6 %)
(15.0 %)
Yes /22 Days
No /12.5 Days
13
(10.2 %)
(5.8 %)
Yes /21 Days (9.7
Yes /32 Days
14
%)
(14.8%)
Yes /163 Days
Yes /57 Days
15
(75.5%)
(26.4%)

20
10
(J
-10
-20
eo
3
-30
-40
-50
c
cc
�
a c�a m aai o m
g ¢ U) 8 Z o
Rainfall Reference Well Depth Well #1 Water Depth — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
C
3.0 %
c
cc
cc
2.0
igom
0.0

c
Underwood Groundwater Well #2
Monitoring Year 2 - 2014
20
T
3 cc\I
2 T
0
0
c
v
— —
— — — —
y�
J
— — —
— — —
0-20
-
-
3
-30
-- - -
-
-40
——
-
-
-50
0
0
chi
T
C N
�3
2 Q
(L _
0
a
c
w
m a 7 7 a) 0 0
N Q)i
LL Q Q cA 0 Z 0
Rainfall Reference Well Depth Well #2 Water Depth — — Criteria Level
Mull
5.0
4.0
c
3.0 Z
c
0
m
2.0
1.0
m

20
10
0
c
d -10
-20
3
-30
-40
-50
L Q g Q cn z o
Rainfall Reference Well Depth Well #3 Water Depth — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0 'R
m
2.0
dim
[1I1�

Underwood Groundwater Well #4
Monitoring Year 2 - 2014
C
O
N
Ca
- - - -- - -- 6.0
v
rn�
C N
o�
5.0
0
v
c
w -- - --
..
LL < Q U) O z
Rainfall Reference Well Depth Well #4 Water Depth — — Criteria Level
4.0
c
3.0 w
c
is
oc
2.0
1.0
Me
C
0
20
- o,
c
3 Cm
10
--
2 �, T
c7
- -- -
-
0
r
c�
0
e
-10
- --
---
- - - - --
-20
- - -- - -- -
�a
3
-40
- --
-
--
-50
Underwood Groundwater Well #4
Monitoring Year 2 - 2014
C
O
N
Ca
- - - -- - -- 6.0
v
rn�
C N
o�
5.0
0
v
c
w -- - --
..
LL < Q U) O z
Rainfall Reference Well Depth Well #4 Water Depth — — Criteria Level
4.0
c
3.0 w
c
is
oc
2.0
1.0
Me

Underwood Groundwater Well #5
0
c
Monitoring Year 2 - 2014
20
_ - - - -- --
- - - - -- -
v
.3 N
N
5.0
o�
L T
6
10
- - --
c
LU
04
4.0
0
II
�
0
------
cn
- - - - --
- -
c
m -10
111
- --
-- -
J
- - -
- - - - - -
- - -
d -20
i0
i3
-30
—
-- --
-40
-50
Underwood Groundwater Well #5
0
Monitoring Year 2 - 2014
_ - - - -- --
T
r-
— 6.0
.3 N
o�
0T
T
5.0
6
- - --
c
LU
--
4.0
3.0 „g
C
111
A.
2.0
LL Q m 0 o 44)
a cn z o
Rainfall Reference Well Depth Well #5 Water Depth — — Criteria Level
1.0
El

20
10 -
0
c
zr_
y -10 -
d
J
+; -20 {
3
-30
-40
-50
o
Underwood Groundwater Well #6
Monitoring Year 2 - 2014
c�
_ cm�
- -- - -- -
in
- - r - --
6.0
c—
me
O
-04
2 M
- Ur - - - -�
c
o
5.0
c
- cn
- - - - - -- -
- - w - —
4.0
c
3.09
S
- -
- - - - - -- -
W
m
LA
2.0
U. Q U) O z a
Rainfall Reference Well Depth Well #6 Water Depth — — Criteria Level
1.0
0.0

o
Underwood Groundwater Well #7
0
Monitoring Year 2 - 2014
u
(� v
20
-
( v
3 N
- — -- - - - -
- -
rno
C V
- -- - —
6.0
10
- - --
- --
O
C7v
--
- --
3
0CCOO
0
-
0
0
5.0
c
0
- - —
- 55
-
- -
- -- -- - — --
w
_
,
4.0
- - - - -- -- --
-- -
- — —
--
— — —
— — — — — — — —
-20
- -
-
- - -- -
-
- ..
-- - -- -
-
3
2.0
-30
-
-
- -
-
WWI
-40
1.0
-50
0.0
cca
O-
LL ¢
_
coo 3 (1) O
g a cn
Y 'o m
z o
Rainfall
Reference Well Depth Well #7 Water Depth
— — Criteria Level

99
10
L
E
y -10
d
J
a; -20
�o
-30
-40
o
Underwood Groundwater Well #8
0
U)
Monitoring Year 2 - 2014
Cn
o>�
a,�
6.0
3N
N
3
2 C
C7 a
0 7
5.0
0
0
r
�
�j
w
— — — — — — — — — -- I — .. -Of I — .—■n, — — — — — — — — —
-50 .1111 III 1 L I.L4 L AN I& _ Y I ALAL ILLlL I IL .l .l i LJ _illL
r- in Cm LL 75 aai o aUi
¢ g ¢ U) z o
Rainfall Reference Well Depth Well #8 Water Depth — — Criteria Level---',
4.0
c
3.0
C
2.0
1.0
111111

20
10
Y
c
� -10
J
ki -20
3
-30
-40
-50
coo �i a 3 (D o
LL 2 a g a cn Z o
Rainfall Reference Well Depth Well #9 Water Depth — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
v
3.0
C
♦x
2.0
[KIM

20 -
10 -
Ell
c
-10
m
J
0-20
W
3
-30
-40
-50
c
cC
FUnderwood Groundwater Well #10 o
rnimmo-) Monitoring Year 2 - 2014
r T
N
2,
2 M
0 4
C7 T
0
O's
c
-_
'IV
W
— — — — — — — — —
— — — —
— — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — —
eILI
JL
.-
I I 11 .1 -L 1. 11
-T
'1
, -1
li 2 Q Q cn O Z o
Rainfall Reference Well Depth Well #10 Water Depth — — Criteria Level
.m
5.0
4.0
c
3.04
C
2.0
1.0
0.0

C Underwood Groundwater Well #11
Monitoring Year 2 - 2014
20
r-
0
co
.3 N
oM
L�
0
v
c
-- - w
—
� Q n �L Z a
Rainfall Reference Well Depth Well #11 Water Depth — — Criteria Level
.e
5.0
4.0
C
3.0 s
c
W
m
F 2.0
1.0
0.0
�v
c r-
N
10
-
0
c�
Q-
- - - --
- -
-
— - --
c
- -10
- -
- - - -- -
- --
- --
J
«; -20
lC
3
-30
-40
-50
r-
0
co
.3 N
oM
L�
0
v
c
-- - w
—
� Q n �L Z a
Rainfall Reference Well Depth Well #11 Water Depth — — Criteria Level
.e
5.0
4.0
C
3.0 s
c
W
m
F 2.0
1.0
0.0

Underwood Groundwater Well #12
Monitoring Year 2 - 2014
C
0
0
0
U)
rn�
C N
.3
o�
0
w. 5.0
0
v
c
w
cCV a N 0 N
LL Q Q (A Z D
Rainfall Reference Well Depth Well #12 Water Depth — — Criteria Level
4.0
C
v
3.0
C
W
2.0
1.0
0.0
C
�a
rn
20
- - - --
o,v
--
c
3 N
10
O T
C7
0
c�
0
-
—
C
v
-10
______
___
J
*; -20
- -
W
-30
-40
-50
Underwood Groundwater Well #12
Monitoring Year 2 - 2014
C
0
0
0
U)
rn�
C N
.3
o�
0
w. 5.0
0
v
c
w
cCV a N 0 N
LL Q Q (A Z D
Rainfall Reference Well Depth Well #12 Water Depth — — Criteria Level
4.0
C
v
3.0
C
W
2.0
1.0
0.0

20
10
C
-10
m
J
-20
m
3
30
40
-50
cc 8
LL 2
C/) z o
Rainfall Reference Well Depth Well #13 Water Depth — — Criteria Level
.e
5.0
4.0
c
3.0 w
C
2.0
1.0
WE

C
2
Underwood Groundwater Well #14
Monitoring Year 2 - 2014
20
_.
- -
M
cT
N
o�
` T
10
0 v
-
0
r
c�
0
c
-10
--
— — — — — —
— — —
d
J
-20
-
-
3
-30
-40
-50
c
I �
C
0
CO
C%
rnT
c Q
•3 N
C) CV)
�+ T
0
v
c
w
7 U
LL Q g ¢ (n 0 z o
Rainfall Reference Well Depth Well #14 Water Depth — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
C
CO
2.0
1.0
II

Underwood Groundwater Well #15 o
Monitoring Year 2 - 2014
co
3N
o�
0
c
- n -- W
C 75 ccc �i m a) w o aUi
Rainfall Reference Well Depth Well #15 Water Depth — — Criteria Level
m
5.0
4.0
C
3.0 ,M
C
m
F 2.0
1.0
Nt
C
0
ca
20
v
-
�
cT
cSN
10
C7
0
0
in
c
— -10
aa
— — —
— — — — — —
— — — —
J
R
3
-40
- - --
—
-50
Underwood Groundwater Well #15 o
Monitoring Year 2 - 2014
co
3N
o�
0
c
- n -- W
C 75 ccc �i m a) w o aUi
Rainfall Reference Well Depth Well #15 Water Depth — — Criteria Level
m
5.0
4.0
C
3.0 ,M
C
m
F 2.0
1.0
Nt

Monthly Rainfall Data
Underwood Mitigation Site (EEP Project No. 94641)
Monitoring Year 2
Underwood 30 -70 Percentile Graph for Rainfall in 2014 Siler City, NC
13
11
9
C
_ 7
C
0
5
3
1
Jan -14 Feb -14 Mar -14 Apr -14 May -14 Jun -14 Jul -14 Aug -14 Sep -14 Oct -14 Nov -14 Dec -14
-1
Date
a>, 2014 Rainfall 30th Percentile 70th Percentile
' 2014 rainfall collected by onsite rainfall gage.
2 30th and 70th percentile rainfall data collected from weather station Siler City 2 S, NC7924 (USDA, 2002).