Underwood_94641_MY3_2015

MONITORING YEAR 3
ANNUAL REPORT
Final
UNDERWOOD MITIGATION SITE
Chatham County, NC
NCDEQ Contract 003268
DMS Project Number 94641
Data Collection Period: June 2015- October 2015
Draft Submission Date: December 1, 2015
Final Submission Date: December 14, 2015
PREPARED FOR:
T4
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652

PREPARED BY:
W
WILDLANDS
ENGiWEEkING
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225
Raleigh, NC 27609
Jason Lorch
[e-mail]
Phone: [phone]
Underwood Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report — FINAL

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Wildlands Engineering (Wildlands) completed a full -delivery project for the North Carolina Department of
Environmental Quality, Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) 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
Site provides 6,765 Stream Mitigation Units (SMUs) and 9.1 Wetland Mitigation Units (WMUs).
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 Plainfield 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 (Figure 1). The Site is located within the
Carolina Slate Belt of the Piedmont Physiographic Province (USGS, 1998). It is within the North Carolina
Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) subbasin 03-06-04 of the Cape Fear River Basin and the United
States Geological Survey (USGS) Hydrologic Unit 03030002050050. Approximately 60% of the land in the
project watershed is forested, 39% is classified as managed herbaceous cover or agricultural, and the
remaining 1% is split between unmanaged herbaceous and open water (MRLC, 2001).
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 wetlands. 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 Site.
The following project goals were established to address the effects listed above 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 riparian habitat;
• Reduce nutrient loads within the watershed and to downstream waters;
• Further improve water quality within the watershed through reductions of sediment,
bacteria, and other pollutants;
• Decrease water temperature and increase dissolved oxygen concentrations;
• Establish appropriate hydrology for wetland areas;
• Restore native vegetation to wetlands and riparian buffers/improve existing buffers; and
Underwood Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report — FINAL iii

• 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 acres of riparian corridor and wetland
resources to protect them in perpetuity.
Monitoring Year 3 (MY3) monitoring and site visits were completed between June and October 2015 to
assess the conditions of the project. Overall, the Site has met the required hydrologic, vegetation, and
stream success criteria for MY3. The overall average planted stem density of 459 stems/ acre is greater
than the 320 stem/ acre density required for MY3. 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. All groundwater wells have met MY3 success
criteria.
Underwood Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report — FINAL iv

UNDERWOOD MITIGATION SITE
Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1:
PROJECT OVERVIEW.......................................................................................................1-1
Figure 1
1.1
Project Goals and Objectives.....................................................................................................1-1
Project Component/Asset Map
1.2
Monitoring Year 3 Data Assessment..........................................................................................1-2
Table 2
1.2.1
Vegetative Assessment......................................................................................................1-2
Project Contacts Table
1.2.2
Vegetation Areas of Concern.............................................................................................1-3
Appendix 2
1.2.3
Stream Assessment............................................................................................................1-3
Integrated Current Condition Plan View
1.2.4
Stream Areas of Concern...................................................................................................1-4
Table 6
1.2.5
Hydrology Assessment.......................................................................................................1-4
Stream Photographs
1.2.6
Wetland Assessment..........................................................................................................1-4
1.2.7
Maintenance Plan..............................................................................................................1-5
1.3
Monitoring Year 3 Summary......................................................................................................1-5
Section 2:
METHODOLOGY.............................................................................................................2-1
Section 3:
REFERENCES...................................................................................................................3-1
APPENDICES
Appendix 1
General Tables and Figures
Figure 1
Project Vicinity Map
Figure 2a -c
Project Component/Asset Map
Table 1
Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Table 2
Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3
Project 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 Table - 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 Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters — Cross Section)
Table 12a -f Monitoring Data — Stream Reach Data Summary
Longitudinal Profile Plots
Cross Section Plots
Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report — FINAL v

Appendix 5 Hydrology Summary Data and Plots
Table 13 Verification of Bankfull Events
Table 14 Wetland Gage Attainment Summary
Bankfull Verification Photos
Groundwater Gage Plots
Monthly Rainfall Data
Pre and Post Construction Groundwater Gage Comparison Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 3 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 Plainfield 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,
unmanaged herbaceous, and open water areas (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 Site
provides 6,765 Stream Mitigation Units (SMUs) and 9.1 Wetland Mitigation Units (WMUs).
The project stream reaches consist of SF1, SF3, SF4, SF4A, UTI, and UT2 (stream restoration and/or
enhancement level I approach) and SF2, SF3, UT1, UT1A, and UT113 (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. 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 (Deed Book 1579, Page 1067) within the
tract owned by James Randall Lindley, and 6.29 acres (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, 2b and 2c.
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 included declining aquatic habitat, 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 Site was designed to meet the over -arching goals as described in the Mitigation Plan (Wildlands, 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 riparian 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;
Underwood Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report — FINAL 1-1

• 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;
• Install 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 where possible.
The project 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 North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality,
Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) 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 (MYO) 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 3 Data Assessment
Annual monitoring and quarterly site visits were conducted during Monitoring Year 3 (MY3) 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 (Wildlands, 2011).
1.2.1 Vegetative Assessment
A total of 42 (29 at the Harris Site; 13 at the Lindley Site) vegetation plots were established within the
project easement areas using standard 10 meter by 10 meter plots. The final vegetative success criteria
will be the survival of 260 planted stems per acre at the end of MYS. The interim measurement of
Underwood Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report — FINAL 1-2

vegetative success for the Site will be the survival of at least 320 planted stems per acre at the end of
MY3.
The MY3 vegetative survey was completed in June 2015. The 2015 annual vegetation monitoring resulted
in an average stem density of 459 stems per acre, which is greater than the interim requirement of 320
stems per acre and approximately 35% less than the baseline density of 712 stems per acre. There was
an average of 12 stems per plot compared to 19 stems per plot during MYO. While the Site as a whole is
on track to meet the interim requirement, seven plots are not meeting the success criteria. However,
when volunteers are included in the total stem counts, only one plot is not meeting the interim success
criteria. This plot will be closely monitored during subsequent monitoring years. 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
During MY3 a few isolated areas were observed to have low tree densities. These areas are shown on the
CCPV maps (Figures 3.0-3.3). These areas will be supplemented with additional trees during the beginning
of MY4. Some of these areas were graded down several feet during construction and are believed to have
poor soil conditions due to the removal of the nutrient rich top soil. Soil samples will be taken in these
graded areas and appropriate actions, such as lime or fertilizer application, will be taken to help improve
soil growing conditions. Also, most of these areas have limited herbaceous cover growing on them. A
native grass seed mix will be applied to these areas to create a well-established herbaceous ground cover.
1.2.3 Stream Assessment
Morphological surveys for MY3 were conducted in April 2015. With the exception of SF4A, all streams
within the Site are stable with little to no erosion and have met the success criteria for MY3. Refer to
Appendix 2 for the visual assessment table, the 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 enhancement section on SF4A (approximate STA 900+00-905+33)
between MYO and MY1. This section of the stream has down cut in several locations. The adjustments in
SF4A's profile were not intended in the design, but the stream has not down cut to a lower elevation since
MY1. The profiles show that SF4A bed has had little change in bed elevation since MY1. During MY3 the
decision was made to repair SF4A at the beginning MY4. Details regarding the repair work are discussed
below in section 1.2.7.
Pattern data will be collected in MY5 only if there are indicators from the profile or dimensions that
significant geomorphic adjustments have occurred. No changes were observed during MY3 that indicated
a change in the radius of curvature or channel belt width.
Underwood Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report — FINAL 1-3

1.2.4 Stream Areas of Concern
During MY3 beaver activity was observed along SF4 and on the downstream section of SF4A. Live stakes
along the banks of SF4 and SMA, mainly black willow, were gnawed down by beaver. These live stake
are expected to grow back during MY4, therefore no supplemental planting of live stakes is expected
during MY4. Two beaver dams were removed from the Lindley Site, one on the middle section of SF4
and the other from the lower section of SF4A. These beaver dams backed water up onto the floodplain
and caused vegetation to die in a few small areas. These areas will be seeded with a native grass mix to
provide herbaceous cover during MY4. Also, the USDA was contacted to trap the beaver on the Site and
is expected to remove most the beaver. Wildlands will make frequent site visits to make sure beaver
activity isn't a problem in the future. During a site walk in December another beaver dam was
discovered on the lower section of SF3. The USDA has been contacted to remove the beaver and their
dam on this section of stream. This dam does not seem to have caused damage to the floodplain, but it
will be evaluated once the beaver dam is removed.
SF4A will have repair work performed at the beginning of MY4. Details regarding the repair work are
discussed below in section 1.2.7.
1.2.5 Hydrology Assessment
At the end of MY5, two or more bankfull events must have occurred in separate years within the
restoration reaches. During MY3, Bankfull events were recorded on all the streams except for UT2 by
crest gages and onsite observations (wrack lines). All streams on the Site have had bankfull events in
multiple monitoring years, except for UT2. UT2 is the only stream on the Site that hasn't met the final
success criteria for hydrology. Refer to Appendix 5 for hydrologic data and bankfull verification
photographs.
1.2.6 Wetland Assessment
Fifteen groundwater monitoring gages were established 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. 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 Sites. To provide data
for the determination of the growing season for the wetland areas, two soil temperature probes were
installed, one on each site. These probes are used to better define the beginning of the growing season
using the threshold soil temperature of 41 degrees or higher measured at a depth of 12 inches (USACE,
2010). During MY1, and MY2 NRCS WETS Data was used to determine the growing season. After
discussions with the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), it was agreed to use on-site soil
temperature data to determine the beginning of the growing season and use NRCS WETS data to
determine the end of the growing season. During MY3, the beginning of the growing season was extended
by 24 days based on data from the soil temperature probes. All monitoring gages were downloaded on a
quarterly basis and maintained on an as needed basis. The success criteria for wetland hydrology for this
project is to have a free groundwater surface within 12 inches of the ground surface for 7.5 percent of the
growing season, which is measured on consecutive days under typical precipitation conditions. All
groundwater gages met the annual wetland hydrology success criteria for MY3. Refer to Appendix 2 for
the groundwater gage locations and Appendix S for groundwater hydrology data and plots.
The USACE requested to have the pre -construction groundwater gage data overlain with the current
monitoring year gage data to illustrate the hydrologic response of the wetlands associated with rainfall
events. Wildlands overlaid the pre -construction groundwater well data with the closest monitoring
Underwood Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report — FINAL 1-4

groundwater well data and rain data for the monitoring period. Refer to Appendix 5 for pre and post
construction groundwater gage comparison plots.
1.2.7 Maintenance Plan
During MY1 SF4A incised up to two feet in areas. During MY2 and MY3 SF4A seemed to be stable and the
incision had ceased. At the end of MY3 it was determined that SF4A's banks had active erosion and the
stream needed to be repaired. The repair work will be completed during the beginning of MY4.
Constructed riffles were originally built without sills and most of the rock from these riffles washed away
during MY1. The repair work will incorporate log and rock sills in the constructed riffles to raise the
elevation of the stream bed. Minor stream bank grading will be performed as necessary and native grass
seed and live stakes will be planted in disturbed areas.
During MY3 wetland rilling was observed at the edge of the project easement on the Lindley site. This
rilling was caused by water running off the adjacent field into the project wetlands where a lack of ground
cover resulted in erosion of the cut slope. Since this area of the wetland was graded down several feet,
the soil appears to have poor growing conditions. Soil samples will be taken in these areas to see what
can be added to the soils to help the growing conditions. Minor grading will be performed to smooth out
the areas where rilling is occurring. If topsoil is available onsite, it will be added to areas of rilling to help
the growing conditions. Also, native grass seed will be added to create a well-established herbaceous
ground cover.
As described in section 1.2.2 above, supplemental tree planting will be performed in the areas shown to
have low stem density on Figures 3.0-3.3. Also, a native grass seed mix will be applied to areas with limited
herbaceous cover.
1.3 Monitoring Year 3 Summary
All streams, except SF4A, on the Site are stable and functioning as designed. SF4A will have repair work
perfomed during the beginning of MY4 to stabilize its bed and banks. The average planted stem density
for the Site is on track to meeting the MY5 success criteria; however, seven individual vegetation plots
out of 42 did not meet the MY3 success criteria as noted in the Integrated Current Condition Plan View.
When volunteer stems are counted in these seven plots, all but one meet MY5 success criteria.
Supplemental tree planting will be performed in a few areas. With the exception of UT2, there have been
multiple documented bankfull events with the crest gage recordings along UT1, SF1, SF3, SF4, and SF4A
since MYO. The MY5 stream hydrology attainment requirement has been partially met for the Site at this
time. All groundwater gages met hydrology success criteria during MY3.
Underwood Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report — FINAL 1-5

Section 2: METHODOLOGY
Geomorphic data was collected following 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 was collected using a total
station and was georeferenced. All data collected for the Integrated Current Condition Mapping was
recorded using a Trimble handheld GPS with sub -meter accuracy and processed using Pathfinder and
ArcGIS software. Crest gages were installed in surveyed riffle cross sections and monitored quarterly.
Hydrology attainment installation and monitoring methods are in accordance with the USACE (2003)
standards. Vegetation monitoring protocols followed the Carolina Vegetation Survey -DMS Level 2
Protocol (Lee et al., 2008). Reporting follows the DMS Monitoring Report Template and Guidance
Version 1.2.1 (DMS, 2009). 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 DMS's website. All raw data supporting the tables and figures in
the appendices are available from DMS upon request.
Underwood Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 3 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 -DMS 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/nIcd.php
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (DMS). 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, NCDEQ-
DWR, 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 Geological Survey (USGS). 1998. North Carolina Geology.
http://www.geology.enr.state.nc.us/usgs/carolina.htm
Wildlands Engineering, Inc (2011). Underwood Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan. DMS, Raleigh, NC.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 2013. Underwood Mitigation Site Baseline Monitoring Document and As -
Built Baseline Report. DMS, Raleigh, NC.
Underwood Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report — FINAL 3-1

APPENDIX 1. General Tables and Figures

■IMIL
Hydrologic Unit Code (14)
- NCDMS Targeted Local Watershed
'rw
e r•�
03030003070010
03030002050Q50
tiy,r
s
Harris She
k `,•
101f,
030300030200?,b r,
\^ J
�T
s4
Directions:
The two locations of the
stream and wetland mitigation sites
are located in western Chatham County
along Clyde Underwood Road just west
of Plainfield 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.
70020
r �
PICIIIiI�IIIIY��b7llljL/]
Liindley Sitio
I,,,,,,",t,,, , "
H7/I#kII]
YL010101
The subject project site is an environmental restoration site of the
NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) and is
encompassed by a recorded conservation easement,
but is bordered by land under private ownership. Accessing the
site may require traversing areas near or along the easement
boundary and therefore access by the general public is not
permitted. Access by authorized personnel of state and
federal agencies or their designees/contractors involved in
the development, oversight,and stewardship of the restoration
site is permitted within the terms and timeframes of their defined
roles. Any intended site visitation or activity by any person
outside of these previously sanctioned roles and activites
requires prior coordination with NCDMS.
Figure 1 Project Vicinity Map
%,V q L, D L A NDS 0 1 2 Miles Underwood Mitigation Site
F N G 1 N EERI NO I I NCDMS Project No. 94641
VW Monitoring Year 3 - 2015
Chatham County, NC

Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement I
Stream Enhancement 11
Stream Restoration (no credit)
Wetland Restoration
Wetland Enhancement
Wetland Creation
Conservation Easement
—111% W-
li
i
J
VWILDLANDS
ENUINEERING 0 100 200 Feet
Figure 2a Project Component/Asset Map
Underwood Mitigation Site - Harris Site
NCDMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 3 - 2015
Chatham County, NC

30
`2014 Aerial Photography
40
•J
i
♦ i
�rUT1A
� •�♦
WIN IN I w INN
♦,00
■um■Iwoo*' 1; RW3 j
`
■
.1-SF3
■
- +rc
_ _
■
1 ■
.-;�Iossing
• . 1
1 RW3 ■
■ 1
1 ■
■ 1
i
•� ■ 1
do .�■��
WON-
1
i
i ♦ ■

Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement I
Stream Enhancement II
Stream Restoration (no credit)
Wetland Restoration
Wetland Enhancement
Wetland Creation
Conservation Easement
%,,�i
ILDLANDS
ENGINEERING 0 100 200 Feet
Figure 2c Project Component/Asset Map
Underwood Mitigation Site - Lindley Site
NCDMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 3 - 2015
Chatham County, NC

Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No.94641)
Monitoring Year 3 - 2015
Stream
Type R
RE
Riparian
R
Mitigation Credits
Wetland Non -Riparian Wetland
RE R RE
Nitrogen
Buffer Nutrient
Offset
Phosphorous
Nutrient Offset
MEN"
Totals
1 6,765
8.0
1.1
N/A N/A
N/A
Reach ID
As -Built
stationing/
Location [LF)
Existing
Footage [LF)
Acreage (Ac)
Project Components
oration or
A i Footage
JPproach L ion Equ valent
Restoration 1F
(LF) Acreage
(Ac)
Mitigation
Ratio
Credits [SMU/
WMU)
Streams
SFS
100+00-108+74
773
Priority 1 Restoration
874
1:1
874
SF2
300+00-303+02
302
N/A Enhancement Level 11
302
2.5:1
121
SF3
532
N/A Enhancement Level 11
359
2.5:1
144
400+00-421+20 1,499 Priority 1 Restoration 1,586 1:1
1,586
152 N/A Enhancement Level 1 153 1.5:1
102
SF4
800+00-814+29
1,450
Priority 1 Restoration
1,429
1:1
1,429
SMA
0
Priority 1 Restoration
257
1:1
257
900+00-908+66
609 N/A Enhancement Level 1 609 1.5:1
406
UTI
1,463
N/A Enhancement Level 11
1,468
2.5:1
587
500+00-520+38
452 Priority 1 Restoration 515 1:1
515
UT1A
700+00-705+11
524
N/A Enhancement Level 11
511
2.5:1
204
UT1B
600+00-606+52
660
N/A Enhancement Level 11
652
2.5:1
261
UT2
0+00-4+18
421
N/A Enhancement Level
418
1.5:1
279
Wetlands
RWI
N/A
1.25
N/A
Restoration
1.12
1:1
1.12
RW2
N/A
0.45
N/A
Creation
0.30
3:1
0.10
0.50
Restoration 0.40 1:1
0.40
RW3
N/A
2.63
N/A
Creation
2.53
3:1
0.84
1.33
Restoration 1.02 1:1
1.02
RW4
N/A
3.95
N/A
Creation
3.63
3:1
1.21
3.65
Restoration 3.30 1:1
3.30
NRW1
N/A
1.20
N/A
Restoration
0.75
1:1
0.75
Creation 0.45 3:10.15
NRW2
N/A
0.34
1 N/A
Enhancement
0.34
2:1
0.17
Restoration Level
Restoration=4,65.84
Stream (LF)
Component Summation
Riparian Wetland (acres) Non -Riparian
Wetland (acres)
Riverine Non-Riverine
- 0.75EnhancementEnhancement
Buffer
(sq. ft)
Upland
(acres)
1Enhancement IICreation6.46Preservation-
High Quality Preservation
-
- -
- - -
-
-
* Note that lengths do not match stationing because channel sections that do not generate credit have been removed from length calculations.

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No.94641)
Monitoring Year 3 - 2015
Activity or Report
Mitigation Plan
Date Collection
Complete
September 2011
Completion or
Scheduled Delivery
September 2011
Final Design - Construction Plans
July 2012
July 2012
Construction
November 2012
November 2012
Temporary S&E mix applied to entire project areal
November 2012
November 2012
Permanent seed mix applied to reach/segments
November 2012
November 2012
Bare root and live stake plantings for reach/segments
January 2013
January 2013
Baseline Monitoring Document (Year 0 Monitoring - baseline)
March 2013
March 2013
Year 1 Monitoring
September 2013
November 2013
Year 2 Monitoring
December 2014
December 2014
Year 3 Monitoring
October 2015
December 2015
Year 4 Monitoring
1 2016 1
December 2016
Year 5 Monitoring
1 2017 1
December 2017
'Seed and mulch is added as each section of construction is completed.
Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No.94641)
Monitoring Year 3 - 2015
Designer
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225
Nicole Macaluso, 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
Jason Lorch
919.851.9986, ext. 107

Table 4. Project Baseline Information and Attributes
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No.94641)
Monitoring Year 3.2015
U: Unknown
Project Information
Project Name
Underwood Mitigation Site
County
Chatham County
Project Area (acres)
38 ac
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude)
35° 48' 05"N, 79.24' 10"W (Harris Site), 35' 49'51"N, 79° 22'60"W (Lindley Site)
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province
Carolina Slate Belt of the Piedmont Physiographic Province
River Basin
Cape Fear
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8 -digit
03030002
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14 -digit
03030002050050
D WQ 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
Length of reach (linear feet) - Post -Restoration
Reach Summary Information
874302 2,098 1,983 511 652 418
1,429
866
Drainage area (acres)
134 1 781 1,056 230 11 it 78
3,362
637
NCDWQ stream identification score
36.0/50.5/43.3 40.0 22.8 24.3 38.0
U
34.5
NCDWq Water Quality Classification
C C C C
NSW NSW NSW WS -V, WS -V, WS -V,
WS -V,
NSW
C
Morphological Desription (stream type)
P P P P I P
P
P
Evolutionary trend (Simon's Model) - Pre -Restoration
IV IV IV IV IV IV IV
IV
IV
Underlying mapped soils
Nanford-Baden Complex Georgeville
Silt Loam
Chewacla and
Wehadkee
Drainage class
-- -- -- --
Soil Hydric status
-- -- --
ope_-
FEMA classification
-- -- -- -- -- -- --
AE
--
Native vegetation community
Piedmont bottomland forest
Percent composition of exotic invasive vegetation -
Post -Restoration
0%
Regulatory Considerations
Waters of the United States - Section 404
Waters of the United States - Section 401
DocumentationRegulation Applicable?
X Resolved?X
X USACE Nationwide Permit No.27 and DWg401 Water Quality Certification No. 3689
Division of Land Quality (Dam Safety)
N/A N/A N/A
Endangered Species Act
Underwood Mitigation Plan; no critical habitat for listed species exists within the project area
X X (USFWS correspondence letter)
Historic Preservation Act
X X No historic resources were found to be impacted (letter from SHPO)
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) / Coastal Area
Management Act (LAMA)
N/A N/A N/A
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
X X Approved CLOMR
Essential Fisheries Habitat
I N/A I N/A N/A
U: Unknown

APPENDIX 2. Visual Assessment Data

Figure 3.0 Integrated Current Condition Plan View
I L D L A N D S0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 Feet (Key)
ENGINEERINO I i I i I Underwood Mitigation Site
NCDMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 3 - 2015
Chatham County, NC

� s. .,psi � �• ..! r •. ,;�
yy ti
a'
Oo
t
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement I
Stream Enhancement 11
Stream Restoration (no credit)
® Wetland Restoration
Wetland Enhancement
Wetland Creation
----- Designed Bankfull
Conservation Easement
Structures
Cross Section (XS)
0 Photo Point (PP)
Groundwater Gage (GWG) Condition-MY3
Criteria Met
♦ Criteria Not Met
Vegetation Plot Condition-MY3
0 Criteria Met
- Criteria Not Met
Stream Problem Areas-MY3
= Stream Scour/Degredation
Vegetation Problem Areas-MY3
Low Stem Density
� I LIQ CPINEE INO
'�► E9VGINEERIiVCr
7
Culverted
ossing
r. 9,,
Culverted
`' "•. '. ` Crossing
S#4
f �
Y
•s-3 ie��_ �; _._mss,`+•^ __J._a _, —
0 50 100 150 200 Feet
IIII II
f\`
Figure 3.1 Integrated Current Condition Plan View
(Sheet 1 of 3)
Underwood Mitigation Site - Harris Site
NCDMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 3 - 2015
Chatham County, NC

-. � � Y � � JtFY*~ `Iii '- 1 {' �� � }'. °�l�J �•T` . � .. � .���.V
• � • tpf
' r
w • r
• " 4 '� - "V .. er
rti z. -
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement I
Stream Enhancement 11
Stream Restoration (no credit)
® Wetland Restoration
Wetland Enhancement
°T Wetland Creation
----- Designed Bankfull
Conservation Easement
Structures
Cross Section (XS)
Photo Point (PP)
Groundwater Gage (GWG) Condition-MY3
c' Criteria Met
e Criteria Not Met
Vegetation Plot Condition-MY3
0 Criteria Met
- Criteria Not Met
Stream Problem Areas-MY3
Stream Scour/Degredation
Vegetation Problem Areas-MY3
Low Stem Density
ILDLANDS
EN31NEERIN0
4.
_ t'P #1:
z
i
-
CLYDEUNDERWOOC)
._
0 100 200 300 400 Feet
13
Figure 3.2 Integrated Current Condition Plan View
(Sheet 2 of 3)
Underwood Mitigation Site - Harris Site
NCDMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 3 - 2015
Chatham County, NC

- Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement I
- Stream Enhancement 11
- Stream Restoration (no credit)
Wetland Restoration
Wetland Enhancement
Wetland Creation
- Designed Bankfull
Conservation Easement
Structures
- Cross Section (XS)
$ Photo Point (PP)
Groundwater Gage (GWG) Condition-MY3
Criteria Met
♦ Criteria Not Met
Vegetation Plot Condition-MY3
® Criteria Met
= Criteria Not Met
Stream Problem Areas-MY3
= Stream Scour/Degredation
Vegetation Problem Areas-MY3
Low Stem Density
Figure 3.3 Integrated Current Condition Plan View
(Sheet 3 of 3)
T L D L A N D S Underwood Mitigation Site - Harris Site
E N G I N E E R I N O0 100 200 Feet NCDMS Project No. 94641
rkt I I I I I Monitoring Year 3- 2015
Chatham County, NC

Table 5a. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94641)
Monitoring Year 3 - 2015
Harris Site; SF1 (874 LF)
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As -Built
Number of Amount of %StableUnstable Unstable Performing as
Performing
Segments Footage Intended
Numberwith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footagewith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust %for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0 0 100%
Degradation
0 0 100%
(Riffle and Run units)
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
15 15
100%
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
15 15
100%
1. Bed
Condition
100%
Length Appropriate
15 15
100%
100%
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend (Run)
15 15
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend (Glide)
15 15
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
2. Bank
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, caving, or collapse
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
TOTALS
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs
10
10
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill
10
10
100%
3. Engineered
2a. Pi
Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms
10
10
100%
Structures'
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures
extent of influence does not exceed 15%
10
10
100%
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth >_ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
10
10
100%
baseflow
Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.

Table 5b. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94641)
Monitoring Year 3 - 2015
Harris Site; UIT2 (418 LF)
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As -Built
Number of Amount of
Unstable Unstable
Segments Footage
%Stable
Performing as
Performing
Intended
Numberwith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footagewith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust %for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0 0
100%
Degradation
0 0
100%
(Riffle and Run units)
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
10 10
100%
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
10 10
100%
1. Bed
Condition
Length Appropriate
10 10
100%
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend (Run)
10 10
100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend (Glide)
10 10
100%
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
2. Bank
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, caving, or collapse
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
TOTALS
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dislodged 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
3. Engineered
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms
n/a
n/a
n/a
Structures'
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures
extent of influence does not exceed 15%
n/a
n/a
n/a
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth >_ 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 Sc. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94641)
Monitoring Year 3 - 2015
Harris Site; SF2 (302 LF)
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As -Built
Number of Amount of
Unstable Unstable
Segments Footage
%Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Numberwith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footagewith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust %for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0 0
100%
Degradation
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
1. Bed
Condition
Length 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
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
2. Bank
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, caving, or collapse
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
TOTALS
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dislodged 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
3. Engineered
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms
n/a
n/a
n/a
Structures
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures
extent of influence does not exceed 15%
n/a
n/a
n/a
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth >_ 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 (NCDMS Project No. 94641)
Monitoring Year 3 - 2015
Harris Site: SF3 (2,120 LF)
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As -Built
Number of Amount of
Unstable Unstable
Segments Footage
%Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust % for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0 0
100%
Degradation
0 0
100%
(Riffle and Run units)
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
19
19
100%
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
19
19
100%
1. Bed'
Condition
Length 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%
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
2. Bank
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, caving, or collapse
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
TOTALS
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs
7
7
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill
7
7
100%
3. Engineered
2a. Piping
P g
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms
7
7
100%
Structuresz
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures
extent of influence does not exceed 15%
7
7
100%
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
—Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth>_ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
7
7
100%
baseflow
1Number 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 (NCDMS Project No. 94641)
Monitoring Year 3 - 2015
Harris Site: UIT1 (2,038 LF)
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As -Built
Number of Amount of
Unstable Unstable
Segments Footage
%Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust % for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0 0
100%
Degradation
0 0
100%
(Riffle and Run units)
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
7
7
100%
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
7
7
100%
1. Bed'
Condition
Length Appropriate
7
7
100%
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend (Run)
7
7
100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend (Glide)
7
7
100%
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
2. Bank
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, caving, or collapse
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
TOTALS
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs
15
15
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill
15
15
100%
3. Engineered
2a. Piping
P g
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms
15
15
100%
Structuresz
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures
extent of influence does not exceed 15%
15
15
100%
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
—Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth>_ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
15
15
100%
baseflow
1Number 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 Sf. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94641)
Monitoring Year 3 - 2015
Harris Site; UT1A & UT16 (1,163 LF)
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As -Built
Number of Amount of
Unstable Unstable
Segments Footage
%Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Numberwith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footagewith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust %for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0 0
100%
Degradation
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
1. Bed
Condition
Length Appropriate
n/a
n/a
n/a
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend (Run)
n/a
n/a
n/a
FThalwe:gcenteringat downstream ofn/a
bend (Glide)
n/a
n/a
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
2. Bank
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, caving, or collapse
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
TOTALS
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dislodged 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
3. Engineered
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms
n/a
n/a
n/a
Structures
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures
extent of influence does not exceed 15%
n/a
n/a
n/a
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth >_ 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 (NCDMS Project No. 94641)
Monitoring Year 3 - 2015
Lindley Site; SF4 (1,429 LF)
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As -Built
Number of Amount of
Unstable Unstable
Segments Footage
%Stable
Performing as
Performing
Intended
Numberwith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footagewith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust %for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0 0
100%
Degradation
0 0
100%
(Riffle and Run units)
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
8 8
100%
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
8 8
100%
1. Bed
Condition
Length Appropriate
8 8
100%
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend (Run)
8 8
100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend (Glide)
8 8
100%
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
2. Bank
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, caving, or collapse
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
Totals
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs
2
2
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill
2
2
100%
3. Engineered
2a. Piping
P g
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms
2
2
100%
Structures'
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures
extent of influence does not exceed 15%
2
2
100%
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
—Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth>_ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
2
2
100%
baseflow
Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.

Table 5h. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94641)
Monitoring Year 3 - 2015
Lindley Site; SF4A (866 LF)
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As -Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
%Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust % for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0
0
100%
Degradation
1
533
38%
(Riffle and Run units)
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
8
10
80%
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
7
9
78%
1. Bed'
Condition
Length 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%
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
2. Bank
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, caving, or collapse
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
TOTALS
1
533
100%
1
533
57%
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs
2
2
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill
2
2
100%
3. Engineered
2a. Piping
P g
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms
2
2
100%
Structures'
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures
extent of influence does not exceed 15%
2
2
100%
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
-Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth >_ 1.6
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 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.
2Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.

Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Undewood Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94641)
Monitoring Year 3 - 2015
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).
1,000
0
Combined
0.0%
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Threshold
of
Planted
Areas of points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
none
0
0.0
Acreage
(Ac)
Polygons
Acreage
Bare Areas
Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material.
0.10
0
0
0.0%
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 4, or 5 stem count
Low Stem Density Areas
0.10
6
3.2
8.4%
criteria.
Total
6
3.2
8.4%
Areas with woody stems of a size class that are obviously small given the monitoring
Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor
0.25
0
0.0
0.0%
year.
Cumulative Total
0
0.0
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).
1,000
0
0.0
0.0%
Easement Encroachment Areas
Areas of points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
none
0
0.0
0.0%

Stream Photographs
Underwood (Harris Site)

Photo Point 1— looking upstream (04/23/2015) Photo Point 1— looking downstream (04/23/2015)
y
a
Photo Point 2 — looking upstream (04/23/2015) Photo Point 2 — looking downstream (04/23/2015)
f » a(:
i9
r:
-. ✓ ,� is � r
'k
Photo Point 3 — looking upstream (04/23/2015) Photo Point 3 — looking downstream (04/23/2015)
Underwood Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data —Stream Photographs

Photo Point 4 — looking upstream (0412312015) Photo Point 4 — looking downstream (0412312015)
fv�
Photo Point 5 — looking upstream (0412312015) Photo Point 5 — looking downstream (0412312015)
- j'lm -.-,I
A. I
Photo Point 6 — looking upstream (0412312015) Photo Point 6 — looking downstream (0412312015)
Underwood Mitigation Site
kl�o Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data —Stream Photographs

Underwood Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data — Stream Photographs
AL
4�
Ar
,f'.
rg �
Photo Point 7 — looking upstream (04/23/2015)
Photo Point 7 — looking downstream (04/23/2015)
• i s
iia
_ 4
Photo Point 8 — looking upstream (04/23/2015)
Photo Point 8 — looking downstream (04/23/2015)
� `•
iF. �t i"E, t� mss`
•�!.{
t
=lr yry.`" � r _ .
Photo Point 9 — looking upstream (04/23/2015)
Photo Point 9 — looking downstream (04/23/2015)
Underwood Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data — Stream Photographs

Underwood Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data — Stream Photographs
.•`
AF,x.
•�h.
Photo Point 10 — looking upstream (04/26/2015)
Photo Point 10 — looking downstream (04/26/2015)
WW
ti
i
t .
Photo Point 11— looking upstream (04/26/2015)
Photo Point 11— looking downstream (04/26/2015)
r t
�
W
lfl.
d ,
t%ll
IVYr
he
Photo Point 12 — looking upstream (04/26/2015)
Photo Point 12 — looking downstream (04/26/2015)
Underwood Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data — Stream Photographs

Underwood Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data — Stream Photographs
. Y
� I
_
16,
[x z a
t'✓
• . '. •• / I� /
. • '. // •• I�
1 ^�
eT E
`
w
Underwood Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data — Stream Photographs

I
I
� Y4
p.
�1
A i A
Photo Point 16 — looking upstream (04/26/2015)
Photo Point 16 — looking downstream (04/26/2015)
{
.t
� '' 7, � f
r' ar •. b�.. a a'
t
S Y.
Photo Point 17 — looking upstream (04/26/2015)
Photo Point 17 — looking downstream (04/26/2015)
-t
- r
Photo Point 18 — looking upstream (04/26/2015)
Photo Point 18 — looking downstream (04/26/2015)
Underwood Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data — Stream Photographs

Underwood Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data — Stream Photographs
44*1
AL
e•
-
�1t�mx,°`' t ��`° it �j
JI .
�;
Photo Point 19 — looking upstream (04/26/2015)
Photo Point 19 — looking upstream (04/26/2015)
,I
Ir
LAL
•� .fid C � J'i3c A -iPl y� ^id �4� t• -0
� t"' } ;^�` ,.•i.� ��1 • RW^ 'SWC rRi� _
+r t
Photo Point 20 — looking upstream (04/26/2015)
Photo Point 20 — looking downstream (04/26/2015)
IY
1-
��,I' ILA I� I•-I�
Photo Point 21— looking upstream (04/26/2015)
Photo Point 21— looking downstream (04/26/2015)
Underwood Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data — Stream Photographs

Underwood Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data — Stream Photographs
.
A.
Y
+
Photo Point 22 — looking upstream (04/26/2015)
Photo Point 22 — looking downstream (04/26/2015)
mss.
x
TT
w I #
Photo Point 23 — looking upstream (04/23/2015)
Photo Point 23 — looking downstream (04/23/2015)
_ nw
Photo Point 24— looking upstream (04/23/2015)
Photo Point 24— looking downstream (04/23/2015)
Underwood Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data — Stream Photographs

Underwood Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data —Stream Photographs
G I 41b,
v
m
• • • •
• • • J'I a•
• • • • • • • •
WT
r
�
,
Y
2�_ 'n�"�'•••
IIS �.
wp,4t�
_
4!L
.
e
ik
t. 4
[`�
,yam �%
r T � •,
�
a V
�+h
3i
f J
fQy' - lSl .
}:
A
Underwood Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data —Stream Photographs

Photo Point 28 — looking upstream (04/23/2015) 1 Photo Point 28 — looking downstream (04/23/2015)
Photo Point 29 — looking upstream (04/26/2015) 1 Photo Point 29 — looking downstream (04/26/2015)
Photo Point 30 — looking upstream (04/26/2015) I Photo Point 30 — looking downstream (04/26/2015) I
Underwood Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data —Stream Photographs

Photo Point 31— looking upstream (04/26/2015) 1 Photo Point 31— looking downstream (04/26/2015)
Photo Point 34 — looking upstream (04/23/2015) 1 Photo Point 34— looking downstream (04/23/2015)
Photo Point 35 — looking upstream (04/23/2015) I Photo Point 35 — looking downstream (04/23/2015) I
1 Underwood Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data —Stream Photographs

Photo Point 36 — looking upstream (04/23/2015) 1 Photo Point 36 — looking downstream (04/23/2015)
Photo Point 37 — looking upstream (04/23/2015) 1 Photo Point 37 — looking downstream (04/23/2015)
Photo Point 38 — looking upstream (04/23/2015) I Photo Point 38 — looking downstream (04/23/2015) I
Underwood Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data —Stream Photographs

1 Underwood Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data —Stream Photographs

Stream Photographs
Underwood (Lindley Site)

Photo Point 40 — looking upstream (04/21/2015) 1 Photo Point 40 — looking downstream (04/21/2015)
Photo Point 41— looking upstream (04/21/2015) 1 Photo Point 41— looking downstream (04/21/2015) 1
Photo Point 42 — looking upstream (04/21/2015) Photo Point 42 — looking downstream (04/21/2015) I
Underwood Mitigation Site
W Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data —Stream Photographs

Underwood Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data — Stream Photographs
5
r
Js �
p,
p
Photo Point 43
— looking upstream (04/21/2015)
Photo Point 43 —
looking downstream (04/21/2015)
may._
Photo Point 44
— looking upstream (04/21/2015)
Photo Point 44 —
looking downstream (04/21/2015)
ely ,
Photo Point 45
— looking upstream (04/21/2015)
Photo Point 45 —
looking downstream (04/21/2015)
Underwood Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data — Stream Photographs

a'7' ft f: r ` 7 i r %fit `Zo 1141rte 4!�
4 .e' a Y f 111• .,a :. ai. n�. i s y-'t��q4
r di
�"��1 -.: R' -�• - - - 'R:-� t Q � tom{. +p�, 1 -
n �
p
-A 1S ��
Y i
1'U
I,t
k' awli F
_ Ifo
� f
' 11 p4
1_
s �5 ILA
w•. �.
+ F_
.fir
MPL
-A 1S ��
Y i
1'U
I,t
k' awli F
_ Ifo
� f
' 11 p4
1_
s �5 ILA

Vegetation Photographs
Underwood (Harris Site)

R ,4
t
I ..
Vegetation Plot 1(06/22/2015)
Vegetation Plot 2 (06/22/2015)
* "
.
w.k
�A(
type
cc,,LL
Y SIA
Vegetation Plot 3 (06/22/2015)
Vegetation Plot 4 (06/22/2015)
. r ..
i
Vegetation Plot 5 (06/22/2015)
Vegetation Plot 6 (06/22/2015)
Underwood Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data —Vegetation Photographs

Vegetation Plot 7 (06/22/2015) 1 Vegetation Plot 8 (06/22/2015)
Vegetation Plot 9 (06/22/2015) 1 Vegetation Plot 10 (06/22/2015)
Vegetation Plot 11 (06/22/2015) I Vegetation Plot 12 (06/22/2015)
Underwood Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data —Vegetation Photographs

Vegetation Plot 13 (06/22/2015) Vegetation Plot 14 (06/22/2015)
Vegetation Plot 15 (06/22/2015) Vegetation Plot 16 (06/22/2015)
Vegetation Plot 17 (06/22/2015) I Vegetation Plot 18 (06/22/2015)
Underwood Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data — Vegetation Photographs

Vegetation Plot 19 (06/22/2015) 1 Vegetation Plot 20 (06/22/2015)
Vegetation Plot 21 (06/22/2015) 1 Vegetation Plot 22 (06/22/2015)
Vegetation Plot 23 (06/22/2015) I Vegetation Plot 24 (06/22/2015)
Underwood Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data —Vegetation Photographs

a
Vegetation Plot 25 (06/22/2015) Vegetation Plot 26 (06/22/2015)
Vegetation Plot 27 (06/22/2015) Vegetation Plot 28 (06/22/2015)
Vegetation Plot 29 (06/22/2015)
Underwood Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data — Vegetation Photographs

Vegetation Photographs
Underwood (Lindley Site)

Underwood Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data — Vegetation Photographs
*i
i,
Vegetation Plot 30 (06/22/2015)
Vegetation Plot 31 (06/22/2015)
M
4
y
r'
Vegetation Plot 32 (06/22/2015)
Vegetation Plot 33 (06/22/2015)
a
Vegetation Plot 34 (06/22/2015)
Vegetation Plot 35 (06/22/2015)
Underwood Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data — Vegetation Photographs

Underwood Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data —Vegetation Photographs
•4�' y r
iaA'"
961
�a
.. 1
j,
,f
r
1r
,
Vegetation Plot 41 (0612212015)
Underwood Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data —Vegetation Photographs

Vegetation Plot 42 (06/22/2015)
Underwood Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data — Vegetation Photographs

APPENDIX 3. Vegetation Plot Data

Table 7. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94641)
Monitoring Year 3 - 2015
Harris Site
MY3 Success Criteria
Plot
Met (Y/N)
Tract Mean
1 Y
79
2 Y
3 Y
4 Y
5 Y
6 N
7 Y
8 Y
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 N
24 Y
25 Y
26 Y
27 Y
28 N
29 Y
Lindley Site
MY3 Success Criteria
Plot
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 Table - Metadata
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94641)
Monitoring Year 3 - 2015
Database name
lUnderwood MY3 cvs-eep-entrytool-v2.3.1.mdb
Database location
I FAProjects\005-02125 Underwood\Monitoring\Monitoring Year 3\Vegetation Assessment
Computer name
IKENTON
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
A matrix of the count of total living stems of each species (planted and natural volunteers combined) for each plot; dead and missing stems are
excluded.
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 (NCDMS Project Code 94641)
Monitoring Year 3 - 2015
Color Coding for Table
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
Pnol-S: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes,
T: Total Stems
Current Plot Data (MY3 2015)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
94641-WEI-0001
Pnol-S P -all T
94641-WEI-0002
PnoL5 P -all T
94641-WEI-0003
PnoLS P -all T
94641-WEI-0004
Pnol-S P -all T
94641-WEI-0005
PnoLS P -all T
94641-WEI-0006
Pnol-S P -all T
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
1
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
2
2
3
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
4 4
4
3
3
3
2
Juglans nigra
black walnut
Tree
Liquidambar styraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
5
10
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
1
1
2
5
5
5
3
3
3
4 4
4
7
7
7
3
3
3
Quercus
oak
Tree
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
4
4
4
6
6
6
4 4
4
Quercus pagoda
Icherrybark oak
ITree
4
4
4
2
2
2
1
1
1
1 1
1
3
3
3
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
2
2
3
6
6
6
3
3
3
1
1
1
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
Tree
Salix sericea
silky willow
Shrub
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
15
6
607 1
15
1
0.02
6
607
18
6
1728.41
17
6
688 1
17
1
0.02
6
688 1
17
6
688
14 14 20 13 13 13 14 14 14 7 �7#20
1 1 1 1
0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
6 6 7 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 6
1566.61566.6 1809.41526.11526.11526.11566.61566.6 1566.61283.3 1283.3 1809.4
Color Coding for Table
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
Pnol-S: 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 (NCDMS Project Code 94641)
Monitoring Year 3 - 2015
Color Coding for Table
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
Pnol-S: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes,
T: Total Stems
Current Plot Data (MY3 2015)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
94641-WEI-0007
Pnol-S P -all T
94641-WEI-0008
PnoL5 P -all T
94641-WEI-0009
PnoLS P -all T
94641-WEI-0010
Pnol-S P -all T
94641-WEI-0011
PnoLS P -all T
94641-WEI-0012
Pnol-S P -all T
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
6
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
2 2
2
1 1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
1
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
3
3
3
1
1
1
10
3 3
3
3
3
3
100
Juglans nigra
black walnut
Tree
Liquidambar styraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
5
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
3
3
3
5
5
5
1 1
1
4
4
4
3
3
13
Quercus
oak
Tree
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
5
5
5
2
2
2
1 1
1
4
4
4
Quercus pagoda
Icherrybark oak
ITree
1 1
1
1
1
1
Quercus phellos
1willow oak
Tree
1
1
1
5 5
9
2
2
2
1
1
1
Quercus rubra
Inorthern red oak
Tree
Salix sericea
Isilky willow
IShrub
2
2
5
5
Stem count 13 13 13 11 11 11 9 11
size (ares) 1 1 1
size (ACRES) 0.02 0.02 0.02
Species count 4 4 4 5 5 5 4 5
Stems per ACRE 526.1 1526.11526.11445.2 1445.21445.21364.2 1445.2 1
36
8
1457
5 11 11
1
0.02
3 5 5
1202.3 1445.21445.21
15
6
607 1
15
1
0.02
6
607 1
15
6
607
6 6
1
0.02
3 3
1242.81242.81
116
4
4694
Color Coding for Table
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
Pnol-S: 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 (NCDMS Project Code 94641)
Monitoring Year 3 - 2015
Color Coding for Table
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
Pnol-S: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes,
T: Total Stems
Current Plot Data (MY3 2015)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
94641-WEI-0013
Pnol-S P -all T
94641-WEI-0014
PnoL5 P -all T
94641-WEI-0015
PnoLS P -all T
94641-WEI-0016
Pnol-S P -all T
94641-WEI-0017
PnoLS P -all T
94641-WEI-0018
Pnol-S P -all T
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
6
6
6
3
3
3
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
4
4
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
100
1
1
1
3
3
3
100
3
3
3
Juglans nigra
black walnut
Tree
Liquidambar styraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
20
50
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
4
4
4
1
1
1
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
16 16
16
5
5
5
4
4
4
2
2
7
1
1
1
2
2
2
Quercus
oak
Tree
2
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
2
2
2
1
1
1
3
3
3
Quercus pagoda
Icherrybark oak
ITree
2
2
2
1
1
1
3
3
3
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
6
6
1
1
1
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
Tree
Salix sericea
silky willow
Shrub
1
4
4
4
Stem count 16 16
size (ares) 1
size (ACRES) 0.02
Species count 1 1
Stems per ACRE 647.5 647.5 15504
136
3
14 14 14
1
0.02
5 5 5
1566.6 1566.61566.61
15
5
607
16 21 7
1
0.02
6 7 4
1647.5 1849.81283.3-1
15
1
0.02
6
607 16880
170
8
14 14 14 10 10 10
1 1
0.02 0.02
4 4 4 5 5 5
1566.61566.6 1566.61404.7 1404.71404.71
Color Coding for Table
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
Pnol-S: 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 (NCDMS Project Code 94641)
Monitoring Year 3 - 2015
Color Coding for Table
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
Pnol-S: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes,
T: Total Stems
Current Plot Data (MY3 2015)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
94641-WEI-0019
Pnol-S P -all T
94641-WEI-0020
PnoL5 P -all T
94641-WEI-0021
PnoLS P -all T
94641-WEI-0022
Pnol-S P -all T
94641-WEI-0023
PnoLS P -all T
94641-WEI-0024
Pnol-S P -all T
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Juglans nigra
black walnut
Tree
Liquidambar styraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
10
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
7
7
7
3
3
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
6
6
Quercus
oak
Tree
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
2
2
2
4
4
4
1
1
1
7
7
7
Quercus pagoda
Icherrybark oak
ITree
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
Tree
Salix sericea
silky willow
Shrub
2
2
Stem count 11 11 11 10 10 10 8 8 18
size (ares) 1 1 1
size (ACRES) 0.02 0.02 0.02
Species count 4 4 4 3 3 3 6 6 7
Stems per ACRE 445.2 1445.2 1445.21404.7 1404.71404.71323.71323.7 1728.41
15
6
607 1
15
1
0.02
6
607 1
15
6
607
5 5 5 11 13 13
1 1
0.02 0.02
4 4 4 4 5 5
202.3 202.3 202.3 445.2 1526.11526.1
Color Coding for Table
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
Pnol-S: 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 (NCDMS Project Code 94641)
Monitoring Year 3 - 2015
Color Coding for Table
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
PnoLS: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes,
T: Total Stems
Current Plot Data (MY3 2015)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
94641-WEI-0025
PnoLS P -all T
94641-WEI-0026
PnoL5 P -all T
94641-WEI-0027
PnoLS P -all T
94641-WEI-0028
PnoLS P -all T
94641-WEI-0029
PnoLS P -all T
94641-WEI-0030
PnoLS P -all T
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
10
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
1
1
1
7
7
7
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
4
4
4
2
2
5
2
2
5
1
1
1
8
8
33
Juglans nigra
black walnut
Tree
Liquidambar styraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
1
1
1
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
5
5
5
3
3
3
2
3
7
7
7
Quercus
oak
Tree
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
1
1
1
5
5
5
2
2
2
Quercus pagoda
Icherrybark oak
Tree
2
2
2
1
1
1
4
4
5
3
3
3
2
2
2
Quercus phellos
1willow oak
Tree
4
4
4
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus rubra
Inorthern red oak
Tree
1
2
Salix sericea
Isilky willow
IShrub
2
2
2
2
Stem count 12 12 12
size (ares) 1
size (ACRES) 0.02
Species count 4 4 4
Stems per ACRE 485.6 485.6 1485.61
15
6
607 1
15
1
0.02
6 1
607 1
15
6
607
8
3
8 14
1
0.02
3 4
323.7 1566.6
4
2
4 12 19 21 21 11 13
1 1 1
0.02 0.02 0.02
2 4 5 6 6 3 4
161.9 485.6 76U 849.8 1849.81445.21526.11
48
5
1942
Color Coding for Table
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
PnoLS: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes,
T: Total Stems

Table 9. Planted and Total Stem Counts
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project Code 94641)
Monitoring Year 3 - 2015
Color Coding for Table
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
Pnol-S: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes,
T: Total Stems
Current Plot Data (MY3 2015)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
94641-WEI-0031
Pnol-S P -all T
94641-WEI-0032
PnoL5 P -all T
94641-WEI-0033
PnoLS P -all T
94641-WEI-0034
Pnol-S P -all T
94641-WEI-0035
PnoLS P -all T
94641-WEI-0036
Pri P -all T
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
4
4
4
1 1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
1
1
2
2
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
2
2
2
4
4
4
4 4
4
4 4
4
1
1
1
3
3
3
Juglans nigra
black walnut
Tree
Liquidambar styraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
1
1
1
4
4
4
9 9
9
4 4
4
7
7
7
Quercus
oak
Tree
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
1 1
1
Quercus pagoda
Icherrybark oak
ITree
5
5
5
4
4
4
2 2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
3 3
3
2 2
5
5
5
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
Tree
Salix sericea
silky willow
Shrub
5
5
2
2
5
gl
3
3
Stem count 13 19 19 13 16 16 18 19 19 12 20 12 12 12
size (ares) 1 1 1 1 1
size (ACRES)i 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
Species counti 5 1 7 1 7 4 6 1 6 5 6 1 6 4 6 6 1 4 5 5 4
Stems per ACREI 526.1 768.9 1768.91526.11647.5 1647.51728.41768.9 1768.91485.6 1809.41809.41445.2 1485.6 1485.61485.6 1
17
1
0.02
6
688
17
6
688
Color Coding for Table
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
Pnol-S: 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 (NCDMS Project Code 94641)
Monitoring Year 3 - 2015
Color Coding for Table
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
Pnol-S: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes,
T: Total Stems
Current Plot Data (MY3 2015)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
94641-WEI-0037
Pnol-S P -all T
94641-WEI-0038
PnoL5 P -all T
94641-WEI-0039
PnoLS P -all T
94641-WEI-0040
Pnol-S P -all T
94641-WEI-0041
PnoLS P -all T
94641-WEI-0042
Pnol-S P -all T
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
20
20
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
1
1
1
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
4
4
39
1
1
1
20
100
1
1
1
Juglans nigra
black walnut
Tree
Liquidambar styraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
70
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
3 3
13
1
1
21
2
2
32
Quercus
oak
Tree
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
6
6
6
Quercus pagoda
Icherrybark oak
ITree
5
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
2 2
2
4
4
4
1
1
1
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
Tree
Salix sericea
silky willow
Shrub
20
3
3
1
1
Stem count 13 13 13 8 8
size (ares) 1 1
size (ACRES) 0.02 0.02
Species count 4 4 4 4 4
Stems per ACRE 526.1 1526.11526.11323.7 1323.71
43
4
1740
9 9 9 5 5
1 1
0.02 0.02
5 S 5 2 2
1364.21364.2 1364.21 202.3- 202.3 13035
75
5
9 13
1
0.02
4 6
1364.21526.11
223
9
9024
9 11
1
0.02
S 7
1364.2 1445.211659
41
7
Color Coding for Table
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
Pnol-S: 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 (NCDMS Project Code 94641)
Monitoring Year 3 - 2015
Color Coding for Table
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
PnoLS: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes,
T: Total Stems
Annual Means
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
MY3 (2015)
PnoLS P -all T
MY2 (2014)
PnoL5 P -all T
MYl (2013)
PnoLS P -all T
MYO (2012)
PnoLS P -all T
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
57
55
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
56
56
56
64
64
64
82
82
82
124
124
124
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
16
16
16
20
25
25
25
30
30
30
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
74
74
573
74
74
387
82
82
142
86
86
86
Juglans nigra
black walnut
Tree
1
Liquidambar styraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
170
92
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
10
10
10
15
15
16
20
20
20
35
35
35
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
140
140
221
143
143
193
144
144
204
145
145
145
Quercus
oak
Tree
2
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
61
61
61
62
62
62
71
71
71
87
87
87
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
ITree
68
68
69
72
72
73
93
93
93
131
131
131
Quercus phellos
willow oak
ITree
67
67
72
69
69
69
72
72
72
64
64
64
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
ITree
2
Salix sericea
silky willow
IShrub
37
60
37
66
39
39
3938
38
38
Stem count 476 529
size (ares) 42
size (ACRES) 1.04
Species count 7 9
Stems per ACRE1458.61509.7
1369
13
1319
499 552
42
1.04
7 9
480.8 531.9
1098
12
1058
628
9
628 748
42
1.04
9 9
605.1 720.7
740
9
712 1
740
42
1.04
9
712 1
740
9
712
Color Coding for Table
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
PnoLS: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes,
T: Total Stems

APPENDIX 4. Morphological Summary Data and Plots

Table 10a. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94641)
Monitoring Year 3 - 2015
Harris Site; SF3 and UT2
Parameter
Gage
Pre -Restoration Condition
SFI LIT2
Min Max Min Max
Long
Min
Reference Reach Data
Branch LIT to Cane Creek
Max Min Max
SFI
Min
Design
LIT2
F_IW57 Min I Max
Min
SF1
As-Built/Baseline
Max Min
UIT2
Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
7.6
7.0
14.8
18.6
8.2
11.8
8.8
7.1
9.0
16.6
Floodprone Width (ft)
51.9
133.2
50+
40+
50+
200+
50+
200+
Bankfull Mean Depth
1.2
1.4
1.3
2.1
0.9
1.0
0.7
0.6
0.7
0.8
Bankfull Max Depth
2.2
1.8
1.9
2.9
1.5
1.7
1.0
0.7
1.1
1.1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
n/a
9.5
9.6
25.0
34.6
8.5
10.7
6.5
4.2
6.3
13.6
Width/Depth Ratio
6.2
5.2
7.9
13.8
7.9
13.1
12.0
12.0
12.9
20.4
Entrenchment Ratio
6.8
18.9
3.4+
4.59+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
Bank Height Ratio
1.6
1.5
1.2
1
1.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
4.7
6.1
119.3
145.5
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
---
---
---
---
11
36
7
25
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.011 0.0100
--
0.0130 0.0120
0.0120
0.0143
0.0255
0.0197 0.0353
0.0053
0.0283
0.0040
0.1512
Pool Length (ft)
---
---
---
---
16
34
16
51
Pool Max Depth (ft)
n/a
---
---
---
---
---
1.67
2.70
Pool Spacing (ft)A
Pool Volume (ft')
Pattern
---
---
---
---35
62
29 50
37
61
23
59
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
N/A
N/A
60
50
77
26
44
N/A
26
44
N/A
Radius of Curvature (ft)
N/A
N/A
16
87
11.3
27.1
15
25
N/A
15
25
N/A
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
n/a
---
---
1.1
4.7
1
2.5
2
3
N/A
2
3
N/A
Meander Length (ft)
N/A
N/A
66
191
29
96
62
106
N/A
62
106
N/A
Meander Width Ratio
---
---
3.2
4.1
50
77
3
5
N/A
3
5
N/A
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
n/a
N/A/0.9/4.7/20.9/87/362
N/A/N/A/6.1/62/128/256
---
0.42
SC/SC/SC/46.6/100/256
0.39
SC/SC/SC/58.6/111.2/180
N/A
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) Ib/ft
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (Capacity) W/m
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
0.21
0.12
1.49
0.28
0.21
0.12
0.21
0.12
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
<1%
<1%
---
<1%
<1%
<1%
<1%
Rosgen Classification
E4
E4
C/E4
C/E4
C4
C4
C5
C5
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
3.1
2.04
3.1
3.1
3.2
1.0
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
n/a
20
45.2
---
---
---
773
13.1
30.96
---
---
---
421
101
1
---
---
124
20.6
53.2
---
20
878
13.1
421
20
874
F
13.1
F41Sinuosity
Q-NFF regression
Q-USGS extrapolation
Q-Mannings
Valley Length (ft)
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
(ft)
1.1
1.0
1.30
1.20
1.2
1.0
1.2
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.011
0.015
0.004
0.005
0.0102
0.0141
0.0104
0.0143
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
---
0.006
---
---
0.0104
0.0145
(---): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable
'Design Parameters based on revised Shields Diagram.
Channel was dry at time of baseline survey. Slopes were calculated using the channel thalweg.
3As-Built pattern measuremeants fell within the design ranges, therefore the design parameters set are still applicable.
°Slopes outside of design range are from the tie in points at the channel confluence.

Table 10b. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94641)
Monitoring Year 3 - 2015
marris bite; brs ana u i i
Parameter
Gage
Min
SF3
Pre -Restoration Condition
AM
Max Min
UT1
Max
Long
Min
Reference Reach Data
Branch UTtoCaneCreek
Max Min
Max
SF3-u/sofUT1
SF3-d/s
Min
of
7
Design
UT1
AW
Max
Min
UTI
M
Max ­__7
"11L
Min
SF3
-
As-Built/Baseline
Max Min
r
#
Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
15.9
9.0
14.8
18.6
8.2
11.8
18.2
18.0
10.7
0.0
0.0
10.1
Floodprone Width (ft)
48.6
14.2
50+
40+
50+
200+
>100
50+
0.0
100+
Bankfull Mean Depth
1.8
0.8
1.3
2.1
0.9
1.0
1.5
1.5
0.9
0.0
0.0
0.9
Bankfull Max Depth
2.4
1.5
1.9
2.9
1.5
1.7
2.1
2.1
1.3
0.0
0.0
1.6
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
n/a
28.9
7.2
25.0
34.6
8.5
10.7
27.5
27.1
9.6
0.0
0.0
9.5
Width/Depth Ratio
8.8
11.1
7.9
13.8
7.9
13.1
12.0
12.0
12.0
0.0
0.0
10.7
Entrenchment Ratio
3.1
1.6
3.4+
4.59+
2.2+
2.2+
>2.2
0.0
0.0
2.2+
Bank Height Ratio
1.6
1.9
1.2
1 1.5
1.0 1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
DSO (mm)
4.7
1.0
50.6
63.3
73.8
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
Pool Length (ft)
Pool Max Depth (ft)
n/a
0.030
---
0.0500
---
---
0.0130 1 0.0120
---
---
---
0.0120
---
---
0.005
0.009 0.0078 0.0140
0.0118
---
1
---
---
0.0210
12
0.0003
23
0.0
103
0.0169
100
0.0
11
0.0023
20
2.5
26
0.0185
80
Pool Spacing (ft)A
Pool Volume (ft')
Pattern
---
---
---
---
53
166
58
76
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
51
106
31
59
60
50
77
54
91
54
90
32
54
54
91
32
54
Radius of Curvature (ft)
27
105
10
83
16
87
11.3
27.1
31
51
31
50
21
30
31
51
21
30
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
n/a
7
16
1
9
1
5
1
3
2
3
2
3
2
3
2
3
2
3
Meander Length (ft)
46
272
80
161
66
191
29
96
127
218
126
216
75
129
126
218
75
129
Meander Width Ratio
26
70
3
7
3
4
50
77
3
5
3
5
3
5
3
5
3
5
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
n/a
7.53/16.66/40.82/74.02/97.42/180
N/A/N/A/l/16/107.3/256
---
---
0.35
0.52
0.37
0.08/0.21/11/67.2/256/>2048
#DIV/01
0.07/0.16/0.3/26.9/71.7/256
0.37
SC%/Sa %/G %/C%/B%/Be %
d16/d35/d5O/d84/d95/d100
Reach Shear Stress(Competency)lb/ft
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (Capacity) W/m
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
1.27
0.36
1
1.49
0.28
1
1.27
0.36
1.27
0.36
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
<1%
<1%
--
<1%
<1%
<1%
<1%
<1%
Rosgen Classification
E4
E/G5
C/E4
C/E4
C4
I
C4
C5
C4
C5
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
3.7
5.87
3.0
1
3.4
3.2
#DIV/01
#DIV/0!
3.2
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
n/a
81.5
159.7
---
---
2,183
30.3
65.7
---
---
---
1,915
101
1 124
---
20.6 1
---
---
53.2
81.5
2,116
99.8
30.3
1,997
81.5
2,120
99.8
30.3
2,038
Q-NFF regression
Q-USGS extrapolation
Q-Mannings
Va ey Length
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
Sinuosity (ft)
1.2
1.2
1.3
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.004
0.01
0.004
0.005
0.0036
0.0056
0.0084
0.0041
0.0075
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
---
0.006
---
0.0047
0.0083
(--): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable
rDesign Parameters based on revised Shields Diagram.
Channel was dry at time of baseline survey. Slopes were calculated using the channel thalweg.
3As-Built pattern measuremeants fell within the design ranges,. therefore the design parameters set are still applicable.
°Slopes outside of design range are from the tie in points at the channel confluence.

Table 10c. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94641)
Monitoring Year 3 - 2015
Lindley bite; bF4 ana 51-4A
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
Min
Floodprone Width (ft)
Min
Bankfull Mean Depth
Min
Bankfull Max Depth
Min
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
n/a
Width/Depth Ratio
Max
Entrenchment Ratio
Max
Bank Height Ratio
E5
D50 (mm)
C/E4
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
C5
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
C5
Pool Length (ft)
5.26
Pool Max Depth (ft)
n/a
Pool Spacing (ft)^
3.7
Pool Volume (ft')
10.3
Pattern;
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
8.2
Radius of Curvature (ft)
14.0
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
n/a
Meander Length (ft)
432.92
Meander Width Ratio
0.0
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
157.3
dl6/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) Ib/ft '
n/a
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
50+
Stream Power (Capacity) W/m
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
0.0
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
0.0
Rosgen Classification
2.7
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
1.3
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
0.9
Q-NFF regression
1.9
Q-USGS extrapolation
n/a
Q -Mannings
0.003
Valley Length (ft)
0.0
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
0.0
Sinuosity (ft)
2.2
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
2.9
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
1.7
Pre -Restoration Condition I Reference Reach Data I Design I As-Built/Baseline
Min I Max
Min I Max
Min
I Max
Min
I Max
Min
I Max
Min
I
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
<1%
E5
E5
C/E4
C/E4
C5
C5
C4
C5
5.9
5.26
3.9
3.7
18.6
10.3
14.8
18.6
8.2
11.8
14.0
67.3
204
12.0
432.92
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
157.3
29.4
50+
40+
50+
200+
---
---
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.7
1.6
1.3
2.1
0.9
1.0
1.9
1.0
1.2
1.2
0.003
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.0
2.2
1.9
2.9
1.5
1.7
2.3
0.0034
0.0077
1.7
0.0067
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
49.7
16.9
25.0
34.6
8.5
10.7
53.0
18.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
6.9
6.3
7.9
13.8
7.9
13.1
14.0
12.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.5
2.9
3.4+
4.59+
2.2+
2.2+
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.4
1.8
1.2
1.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.8
117.2
134.4
22.6
82.0
---LO.O120
---
---
51
112
41
79
---
0.0130 0.01200.0048
0.0085
0.0108 0.0193
0.0010
0.0098
0.0001
0.0210
---
---
---
54
123
28
79
---
---
---
---
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
---
---
---
---
---
146
210
71
110
N/A
N/A
60
50
77
82
136
44
74
82
136
44
74
N/A
N/A
16
87
11
27
46
76
25
41
46
76
25
41
---
---
1
5
1
3
1.7
2.8
1.7
2.8
2
3
2
3
N/A
N/A
66
191
29
96
191
327
103
177
191
327
103
177
3
4
6
7
3
5
3
5
3
5
3
5
V/A/N/A/0.3/17.9/45.8/90
N/A/0.1/0. 8/204./62.9/362
---
0.32
0.63
0.13/0.36/5.3/102.5/320.7/,2048
#DIV/0! #DIV/0!
SC/0.12/1.4/44/71.3/362
#DIV/0! #DIV/0!
5.26
1.00
1 1.49
1 0.28 1
5.26
1.00
5.26
1.00
<1%
<1%
---
---
<1%
<1%
<1%
<1%
E5
E5
C/E4
C/E4
C5
C5
C4
C5
5.9
5.26
3.9
3.7
#DIV/0! I #DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
247.4
67.3
101 1 124
20.6 1 53.2
204
67.3
204
67.3
432.92
134.59
---
---
---
---
---
1,424
---
868
1,429
866
---
1450.0
---
609.0
1.3
1.1
1.3
1.2
1.2
1.0
1.2
1.1
0.003
0.008
0.004
0.005
0.0034
0.0077
0.0033
0.0070
0.006
---
0.0034
0.0077
0.0034
0.0067
(---): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable
'Design Parameters based on revised Shields Diagram.
'Channel was dry at time of baseline survey. Slopes were calculated using the channel thalweg.
3As-Built pattern measuremeants fell within the design ranges, therefore the design parameters set are still applicable.
°Slopes outside of design range are from the tie in points at the channel confluence.

Table 11. Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross Section)
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94641)
Monitoring Year 3 - 2015
Harris and Lindlev Site
Dimension and Substrate
Base
MY1
A
MY2 MY3 MY4
MY5 Base
MY1
MY2
MY3 MY4
MY5 Base
92
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4 MYS Base
MY1
MY2
MY3 MY4 MY5
based on fixed bankfull elevation
595.5
594.9
600.2
599.5
Bankfull Width (ft)
8.4
9.0
8.2
7.8
11.7
13.9
10.9
10.4
15.0
19.4
15.7
14.2
16.6
18.6
17.4
16.9
Floodprone Width (ft)
50+
50+
50+
50+
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
200+
200+
200+
200+
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.8
1.6
1.4
1.5
1.6
0.8
0.9
0.8
0.8
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.0
1.1
1.0
0.9
1.7
2.1
1.9
1.9
2.7
2.7
2.6
2.6
1.1
1.4
1.2
1.2
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
5.6
6.3
4.8
4.6
12.8
12.2
9.9
8.8
24.2
26.2
23.1
22.5
13.6
18.6
14.1
13.9
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
12.8
12.9
14.2
13.5
N/A
N/A
12.0
12.3
N/A
N/A
10.7
9.0
20.4
25.4
21.4
20.6
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
L.
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0 1
1.0 1
1.0
Dimension and Substrate
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5 Base
MY1
MY2
MY3 MY4
SF3
MY5 Base
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4 MY5 Base
MY1
MY2 I
MY3 MY4 MY5
based on fixed bankfull elevation
567.8
575.0
574.7
572.9
Bankfull Width (ft)
19.7
22.6
19.4
18.8
19.7
24.8
22.7
23.5
16.7
29.3
15.8
16.5
19.7
22.3
15.9
17.0
Floodprone Width (ft)
200+
200+
200+
200+
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
200+
200+
200+
200+
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.6
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.6
2.0
1.9
1.8
1.2
1.0
1.2
1.2
1.4
1.7
1.6
1.6
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
2.3
2.5
2.4
2.4
2.3
4.1
3.7
3.7
2.2
2.6
2.2
2.2
1 3.0
3.5
3.0
3.0
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
30.5
34.5
29.9
28.3
30.5
50.2
43.1
41.4
20.6
29.8
19.2
19.5
1 28.0
36.9
26.2
27.6
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
12.7
14.8
12.5
12.5
12.7
12.1
12.0
13.3
13.5
28.8
12.9
14.0
13.9
13.5
9.7
10.5
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
2.2+
2.2+ 1
2.2+ 1
2.2+ 1
N/AN/A
N/A
N/A
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
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
I 1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Dimension and Substrate
Base
Cross
MY3
SF3
Section 9 (Riffle)
MY2 MY3
MY4
MYS Base
Cross
MY3
Section
MY2
i (Riffle)
MY3 MY4
UT1
MY5 Base
Cross
MY1
Section
MY2
11 (Pool)
MY3
_jE.....&,oss
MY4 MY5 Base
MY1
SF4
Section 12 (Pool,
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
based on fixed bankfull elevation
572.5
574.0
573.8
539.7
Bankfull Width (ft)
15.9
24.2
14.9
15.4
12.6
10.1
11.3
10.6
14.2
19.4
12.0
13.4
33.3
34.1
29.8
29.6
Floodprone Width (ft)
200+
200+
200+
200+
100+
100+
100+
100+
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.2
1.1
1.0
1.1
0.8
0.9
0.8
0.8
1.3
0.9
1.2
1.1
2.2
2.1
2.4
2.4
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.8
2.3
1.8
1.7
1.5
1.6
1.5
1.4
2.6
2.5
2.3
2.4
4.9
4.7
4.9
4.8
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
19.0
27.0
15.5
16.2
10.5
9.5
9.5
8.1
17.7
17.0
14.6
15.0
74.4
72.2
70.7
71.7
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
13.3
21.6
14.4
14.6
15.1
10.7
13.4
13.8
11.3
22.1
10.0
12.0
14.9
16.2
12.5
12.2
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+ 1
1 2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
N/A
N/A
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
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Dimension and Substrate
Base
MY3
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5 Base
MY3
SF4
MY2 I MY3 MY4
MY5 Base
MY3
MY2
MY3
MY4 MY5 Base
MY3
SF4A
MY2 I MY3 MY4 MY5
based on fixed bankfull elevation
539.6
537.8
537.7
540.4
Bankfull Width (ft)
27.3
26.7
26.0
28.8
38.7
44.4
45.4
47.6
27.6
27.3
26.2
28.3
1 23.7
17.3
13.9
14.9
Floodprone Width (ft)
200+
200+
200+
200+
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.8
2.9
1.9
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.9
2.0
2.1
1.9
0.9
1.6
1.8
1.7
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
3.0
2.9
2.9
3.1
4.3
4.6
5.0
5.0
3.2
3.0
3.2
3.1
2.3
2.8
3.0
3.1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
49.5
49.0
49.7
51.8
70.6
78.1
82.2
86.0
51.2
53.8
53.9
53.3
20.4
27.1
25.2
25.5
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
15.1
14.6
13.6
16.0
21.2
25.3
25.1
26.4
14.9
13.8
12.8
15.0
27.5
11.1
7.7
8.7
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
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
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Dimension and Substrate
based on fixed bankfull elevation
Bankfull Width (ft)
Floodprone Width (ft)
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
Iff
Base
13.9
200+
1.3
2.1
17.5
11.0
2.2+
1.0
Cross
MY3
13.6
200+
1.2
2.1
16.1
11.5
2.2+
1.0
Section 17 (Riffle)
MY2 I MY3
537.3
12.8 11.5
200+ 200+
1.2 1.2
2.4 2.3
15.2 13.9
10.7 9.5
2.2+2.2+
1.0 1.0
MY4
MY5 Base
16.0
N/A
1.4
1 2.8
22.9
11.1
N/A
1.0 1
MY3
13.5
N/A
1.6
3.4
21.0
8.6
N/A
1.0 1
MY2 MY3 MY4
536.9
10.6 11.1
N/A N/A
1.9 1.6
3.0 2.7
20.5 18.3
5.4 6.7
N/A N/A
1.0 1.0
MY5_

Table 12a. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94641)
Monitoring Year 3 - 2015
Harris Site; SF]
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max Min Max Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
8.4
9.0
8.2
7.8
Floodprone Width (ft)
50+
50+
50+
50+
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
Bankfull Max Depth
1.0
1.1
1.0
0.9
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
5.6
6.3
4.8
4.6
Width/Depth Ratio
12.8
12.9
14.2
13.5
Entrenchment Ratio
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
23.3
27.8
31.0
34.6
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
11
36
13
38
11
37
13
37
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.0053
0.0283
0.0008
0.0376
0.0077
0.0426
0.0111
0.0362
Pool Length (ft)
16
34
15
30
15
33
18
36
Pool Max Depth (ft)
1.7
2.1
1.9
1.7
Pool Spacing (ft)
37
61
36
59
37
59
41
64
Pool Volume (ft)
_
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
Meander Width Ratio
3.0
5.0
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
C5
CS
C5
C5
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
874
874
874
874
Sinuosity (ft)
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.0104
0.0104
0.0111
0.0101
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.0104
0.0108
0.0104
0.0099
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
SC/0.25/13.3/52.9/77.8/128
% of Reach with Eroding Banks
0%
0%
0%

Table 12b. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94641)
Monitoring Year 3 - 2015
Harris Site; UT2
Min
Max
Min
Max
r Min
Max
Min
Max Min Max Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
16.6
18.6
17.4
16.9
Floodprone Width (ft)
200+
200+
200+
200+
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.8
0.9
0.8
0.8
Bankfull Max Depth
1.1
1.4
1.2
1.2
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
13.6
18.6
14.1
13.9
Width/Depth Ratio
20.4
25.4
21.4
20.6
Entrenchment Ratio
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
34.3
77.3
27.6
29.3
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
7
25
3
24
4
13
4
27
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.0040
0.1512
0.0045
0.0775
0.0117
0.0373
0.0098
0.0387
Pool Length (ft)
16
51
11
46
18
47
17
45
Pool Max Depth (ft)
2.7
2.7
2.6
2.3
Pool Spacing (ft)
23
59
21
60
21
55
23
58
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
C5
C5
C5
C5
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
418
418
418
418
Sinuosity (ft)
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.0143
0.0149
0.0152
0.0141
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.0145
0.0141
0.0141
0.0128
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
IL
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
SC/0.2/6.7/62.2/83.1/256
% of Reach with Eroding Banks 1
0%
0%
0%

Table 12c. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94641)
Monitoring Year 3 - 2015
Harris Site; SF3
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max Min Max Min T Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
15.9
19.7
22.6
29.3
14.9
19.4
16.5
18.8
Floodprone Width (ft)
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
Bankfull Mean Depth
1.2
1.6
1.0
1.5
1.0
1.5
1.1
1.5
Bankfull Max Depth
1.8
2.3
2.3
2.6
1.8
2.4
1.7
2.4
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
19.0
30.5
27.0
34.5
15.5
29.9
16.2
28.3
Width/Depth Ratio
12.7
13.5
14.8
28.8
12.5
14.4
12.5
14.6
Entrenchment Ratio
2.2+2.2+
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
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
19.8
35.4
22.6
39.8
18.6
38.7
13.9
35.5
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
12
103
29
100
18
102
17
100
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.0003
0.0169
0.0019
0.0129
0.0008
0.0131
0.0012
0.0128
Pool Length (ft)
23
100
45
74
21
72
19
78
Pool Max Depth (ft)
2.3
2.5
2.8
5.0
3.0
3.7
3.4
Pool Spacing (ft)
53
166
50
151
42
156
41
155
Pool Volume (ft)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
54
91
Radius of Curvature (ft)
31
51
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
1.7
3.0
Meander Wave Length (ft)
126
218
Meander Width Ratio
3.0
5.0
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
C4
C4
C5
C5
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
2,120
2,120
2,120
2,120
Sinuosity (ft)
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.0041
0.0045
0.0043
0.0043
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.0047
0.0047
0.0042
0.0043
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/N4/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
1.41/8/17/70.2/111.2/256
%of Reach with Eroding Banks
0%
0%
0%

Table 12d. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94641)
Monitoring Year 3 - 2015
Harris Site: UTI
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
10.6
Floodprone Width (ft)
100+
100+
100+
100+
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.8
0.9
0.8
0.8
Bankfull Max Depth
1.5
1.6
1.5
1.4
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
10.5
9.5
9.5
8.1
Width/Depth Ratio
15.1
10.7
13.4
13.8
Entrenchment Ratio
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
21.1
40.8
39.3
33.9
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
11
39
19
36
14
36
14
36
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.0023
0.0185
0.0016
0.0258
0.0025
0.0407
0.0012
0.0299
Pool Length (ft)
20
80
18
51
25
53
23
52
Pool Max Depth (ft)
2.6
2.5
2.3
2.7
Pool Spacing (ft)
58
76
39
76
43
73
52
77
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
1:
Meander Width Ratio
3.0
5.0
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
C5
C5
C5
C 5
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
2,038
2,038
2,038
2,038
Sinuosity (ft)
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.0075
0.0078
0.0070
0.0077
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.0083
0.0058
0.0077
0.0091
Ri5,/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
SC/0.30/8.0/78.5/128.0/180.0
% of Reach with Eroding Banks
0%
0%
0%

Table 12e. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94641)
Monitoring Year 3 - 2015
Lindley Site; SF4
Min
Max
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
28.3
28.8
Floodprone Width (ft)
200+
200+
200+
200+
Bankfull Mean Depth
1.8
1.9
2.0
2.9
1.9
2.1
1.8
1.9
Bankfull Max Depth
3.0
3.2
2.9
3.0
2.9
3.2
3.1
3.1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft')
49.5
51.2
49.0
53.8
49.7
53.9
51.8
53.3
Width/Depth Ratio
14.9
15.1
13.8
14.6
12.8
13.6
15.0
16.0
Entrenchment Ratio
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
29.1
35.6
19
25
26.9
28.1
28.5
40.5
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
51
112
31
111
46
115
50
119
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.0010
0.0098
0.0034
0.0119
0.0028
0.0075
0.0032
0.0072
Pool Length (ft)
54
123
27
169
26
123
24
135
Pool Max Depth (ft)
4.3
4.9
4.6
4.7
4.9
5.0
4.9
Pool Spacing (ft)
146
210
151
211
150
210
138
221
Pool Volume (ft')
_
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
82
136
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
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
C4
C4
C4
C4
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
1,429
1,429
1,429
1,429
Sinuosity (ft)
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.0033
0.0031
0.0031
0.0030
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.0034
0.0034
0.0035
0.0031
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d5D/d84/d95/d100
0.13/0.36/5.3/102.5/320.7/>2048
SC/0.25/5.1/72.7/139.4/256
SC/1.41/16/69.7/115.7/>2048
.17/4.98/18.2/135.2/246.5/>204
%of Reach with Eroding Banks
0%
0%
1
0%

Table 12f. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94641)
Monitoring Year 3 - 2015
Lmaiey Site; Jr4A
Min
Min
C5
Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
200+
1.2 1.7
2.1
Bankfull Width (ft)
13.9
26.3
23.7
Floodprone Width (ft)
2.2+
200+
1.0
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.9
1.3
Bankfull Max Depth
2.1
0.0321
2.3
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
17.5
3.8
20.4
Width/Depth Ratio
11.0
27.5
Entrenchment Ratio
2.2+
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
9.4
12.7
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
41
79
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.0001
0.0210
Pool Length (ft)
28
79
Pool Max Depth (ft)
2.1
2.8
Pool Spacing (ft)
71
110
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
C5
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
866
Sinuosity (ft)
1.1
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.0070
Bankfull Slooe (ft/ft)
0.0067
Min
Max
C5
866
13.6 15.4
200+
1.2 1.7
2.1
2.8
16.1
26.3
9.0
11.5
2.2+
1.0
1.0
4.4
17.1
6 75
0.0177
0.0321
15
46
2.8
3.8
32
111
Min Max
12.8 13.9
200+
1.2 1.8
2.4 3.0
15.2 25.2
7.7 10.7
2.2+
1.0 1.0
31.4 32
5 52
0.0063 0.0577
16 68
3.0
35 1 104
Min Max
11.5 14.9
200+
1.2 1.7
2.3 3.1
13.9 25.5
8.7 9.5
2.2+
1.0 1.0
17 25.1
5 67
0.0004 0.0483
16 61
3.8
35 1 109
C5
C5
C5
866
866
866
1.1
1.1
1.1
0.0047
0.0049
0.0046
0.0077
0.0066
0.0067
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100 SC/0.12/1.4/44/71.3/362 SC/0.10/0.3/48.8/123.6/256 0.93/5.6/12.8/42.0/85.0/180 SC/0.71/18.0/64.0/121.7/512
of Reach with Eroding Banks 1 43% 43% 50%
Min I Max I Min I Max

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94641)
Monitoring Year 3 - 2015
Harris Site; SF1
605
603
601
599
597
v
595
c
0
593
v
UJ
7Y� �-
591
A
A —
--
589
587
585
10000 10100 10200
10300
10400 10500 10600 10700 10800 10900
Station (feet)
—�— TW (MYO-1/2013) —*— TW (MYl-8/2013)
TW (MY2-5/2014)
+TW (MY3-4/2015)------- WS (MY3-4/2015) ♦ BKF/TOB (MY3-4/2015) 9 STRUCTURES

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94641)
Monitoring Year 3 - 2015
Harris Site; UT2
610
608
M
N
V
Vf
606
604
602
v
600
c
0
598
>
v
w
596
594
X
X
592
590
0 50 100 150
200 250
300 350 400 450
Station (feet)
s TW (MYO-1/2013) —4— TW (MY1-8/2013) 4 TW (MY2-5/2014)
t TW (MY3-4/2015) ♦
BKF/TOB (MY3-4/2015) -- WS (MY3-4/2015) ® STRUCTURES
M
N
V
Vf

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94641)
Monitoring Year 3 - 2015
Harris Site; SF3
590
585
580
X
X
X
X
X
575
----------------
-------------
Cu
I
0
v
570
w
565
560
�
N
N
00
0)
555
550
40250
40450
40650
40850
41050 41250
41450 41650 41850
42050
Station (feet)
TW (MYO-1/2013)
TW (MY1-8/2013)
TW (MY2-5/2014) TW (MY3-4/2015)------- WS (MY3-4/2015) ♦ BKF/TOB (MY3-4/2015)
0 STRUCTURES
X
X
X
X
X

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94641)
Monitoring Year 3 - 2015
Harris Site; LIT1
590
585
580
v
v
A
575
A .
A
Aw ------------ ----- -
'-- ---------------------
570
-
-- -- -
ti
ti ti
565
x x
x x
560
51520 51620 51720
51820 51920 52020
Station (feet)
�—TW (MYO-1/2013) 0 TW (MY1-8/2013) TW (MY2-5/2014)
$ TW (MY3-4/2015)------• WS (MY3-4/2015) ♦ BKF/TOB (MY3-4/2015) 0 STRUCTURES

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94641)
Monitoring Year 3 - 2015
Lindley Site; SK
81200 81400
BKF/TOB (MY3-4/2015) 0 STRUCTURES
-----------------
1
- - -
vLn
ti
x
x
ti
X
x
81200 81400
BKF/TOB (MY3-4/2015) 0 STRUCTURES

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94641)
Monitoring Year 3 - 2015
Lindley Site; SF4A
555
550
545
540
.
cu
.---
A
--- - -- - -----------
♦
C
----------
------------ ----------------
535
_v
Lo
In
x
n
Ln
x
ao
In
x
530
525
520
90000 90100 90200
90300 90400 90500 90600
90700 90800 90900
Station (feet)
TW (MYO-1/2013) -- TW (MY1-8/2013)
s TW (MY2-5/2014) 4 TW (MY3-4/2015)------- WS (MY3-4/2015)
♦ BKF/TOB (MY3-4/2015) 0 STRUCTURES

Cross -Section Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94641)
Monitoring Year 3 - 2015
Cross Section 1 - SF1AiM
104+44 Riffle
598
597
c
0
�
w
--
596
593
0 10 20 30 40 50
Width (ft)
+MYO (1/2013) +MY1 (8/2013) tMY2 (5/2014) +MY3 (4/2015) -Bankfull-Floodprone Area
v
595
594
Bankfull Dimensions
4.6 x -section area (ft.sq.)
7.8 width (ft)
0.6 mean depth (ft)
0.9 max depth (ft)
8.1 wetted parimeter (ft)
0.6 hyd radi (ft)
13.5 width -depth ratio
50.0 W flood prone area (ft)
6.4 entrenchment ratio
1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 4/2015
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream
c
0
�
w
--
593
0 10 20 30 40 50
Width (ft)
+MYO (1/2013) +MY1 (8/2013) tMY2 (5/2014) +MY3 (4/2015) -Bankfull-Floodprone Area

Cross -Section Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94641)
Monitoring Year 3 - 2015
Cross Section 2 - SF1
104+64 Pool
597
596ll
J
595
c
0
�
w593
594
E
592
0 10 20 30 40 50
Width (ft)
tMYO (1/2013) tMY1 (8/2013) �MY2 (5/2014) tMY3 (4/2015) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
8.8 x -section area (ft.sq.)
10.4 width (ft)
0.8 mean depth (ft)
1.9 max depth (ft)
11.5 wetted parimeter (ft)
0.8 hyd radi (ft)
12.3 width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 4/2015
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream
w593
592
0 10 20 30 40 50
Width (ft)
tMYO (1/2013) tMY1 (8/2013) �MY2 (5/2014) tMY3 (4/2015) —Bankfull

Cross -Section Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94641)
Monitoring Year 3 - 2015
Section 3 - UT2
2+51 Pool
603
602
601
IL
w 600
c
° 599
bL
v
598
t
597
-- —
— — —
596
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Width (ft)
tMYO (1/2013) 0 MY1 (8/2013) A MY2 (5/2014) tMY3 (4/2015) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
22.5 x -section area (ft.sq.)
14.2 width (ft)
1.6 mean depth (ft)
2.6 max depth (ft)
15.6 wetted parimeter (ft)
1.4 hyd radi (ft)
9.0 width -depth ratio �.
�I4 �,k_ 4 T�,3 nr i _•y �,.
Survey Date: 4/2015 d i
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94641)
Monitoring Year 3 - 2015
Cross Section 4 - UT2
2+87 Riffle
603
602
601
w
600
c
°
599
v
598
597
596
0 10
20
30 40 50
60 70
Width (ft)
+MYO (1/2013)
+MY1 (8/2013)
tMY2 (5/2014) +MY3 (4/2015) —Bankfull
—Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
13.9 x -section area (ft.sq.)
16.9 width (ft)
0.8 mean depth (ft)
1.2 max depth (ft)
'
17.3 wetted parimeter (ft)
0.8 hyd radi (ft)
20.6 width -depth ratio
4.
200.0 W flood prone area (ft)
11.8 entrenchment ratio
—.
1.0 low bank height ratio
Surrey Date: 4/2015
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
r
11
View Downstream
w
c
°
599
v
598
597
596
0 10
20
30 40 50
60 70
Width (ft)
+MYO (1/2013)
+MY1 (8/2013)
tMY2 (5/2014) +MY3 (4/2015) —Bankfull
—Floodprone Area

Cross -Section Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94641)
Monitoring Year 3 - 2015 too
402+86 Riffle
580
579
578
w
577
c
°
576
v
575
574
573
0 10 20
30
40 50 60 70
Width (ft)
+MYO (1/2013) +MY1 (8/2013)
tMY2 (5/2014) +MY3 (4/2015)-eankfull-Floodprone Area
• •
10 r� S
,jii ', .
•
y
.Y
Z.
aI F

Cross -Section Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94641)
Monitoring Year 3 - 2015 t I t 1-17
408+81 Pool
578
577
576
575
w
574
c
573
a,
W
572
571
570
569
0 10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80 90 100 110
Width (ft)
tMYO(1/2013)
0MY1(8/2013)
�MY2(5/2014)
tMY3(4/2015)—Bankfull
44
#�
•-•
TR
4 -
e- 0 ,ry
.i 3:
. f,r

Cross -Section Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94641)
Monitoring Year 3 - 2015amem
409+15 Riffle
578
577
576
w
575
c
°
574
Cu
"'
573
572
571
0 10 20 30 40
50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Width (ft)
+MYO (1/2013) +MY1 (8/2013)
tMY2 (5/2014) +MY3 (4/2015)-eankfull-Floodprone Area
1
• •
4 "i f
nG
�
.Y f`

Cross -Section Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94641)
Monitoring Year 3 - 2015
413+97 Pool
576
575
574
573
-
w
572
c
571
a,
w
570
569
568
567
0 10 20 30 40
50 60 70
80 90 100 110 120
Width (ft)
tMYO(1/2013) 0
MY1(8/2013)
�MY2(5/2014) tMY3(4/2015)—Bankfull
;z
MY1(8/2013)
�MY2(5/2014) tMY3(4/2015)—Bankfull

Cross -Section Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94641)
Monitoring Year 3 - 2015
mill
�
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIEL���IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
.
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Z200
2 ON igm1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII`�Ill�rllllll�lllll���������.■■■■■■■■�■d
�
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIEL���IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
.
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

Cross -Section Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94641)
Monitoring Year 3 - 2015
Cross Section I1UTI
517+63 Riffle
577
576
575
w 574
c
° 573
v
572
571
570
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Width (ft)
+MYO (1/2013) +MY1 (8/2013) tMY2 (5/2014) +MY3 (4/2015)-eankfull-Floodprone Area
517+63 Riffle
577
576
575
w 574
c
° 573
v
572
571
570
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Width (ft)
+MYO (1/2013) +MY1 (8/2013) tMY2 (5/2014) +MY3 (4/2015)-eankfull-Floodprone Area

Cross -Section Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94641)
Monitoring Year 3 - 2015m Eft Few mp Li 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 I—E 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i
Cross Section 11 - UTI
518+10 Pool
577
576
575
574
c
573
0
>
CU
572
W
571
570
569
0 10 20 30
40 50 60 70 80
Width (ft)
tMYO(1/2013) 0MY1(8/2013)
�MY2(5/2014) tMY3(4/2015)—Bankfull
1
1
4
_
r;
D•

ft v
.1 4

Cross -Section Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94641)
Monitoring Year 3 - 2015
Cross Section 13 - SF4
544
543
542
541
w 540
c
539
v 538
w
537
536
1-
535
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130
Width (ft)
+MYO (1/2013) +MY1 (8/2013) tMY2 (5/2014) +MY3 (4/2015)—eankfull —Flood prone Area
.
°td
805+01 Riffle
544
543
542
541
w 540
c
539
v 538
w
537
536
1-
535
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130
Width (ft)
+MYO (1/2013) +MY1 (8/2013) tMY2 (5/2014) +MY3 (4/2015)—eankfull —Flood prone Area

9 _3�

:31111 !!�.-
4-16

Cross -Section Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94641)
Monitoring Year 3 - 2015
Cross Section 16 - SF4A
902+44 Riffle
544
542
c
v
540
w
538
536
0 10
20
30 40 50
60 70 80
Width (ft)
+MYO (1/2013) +MY1 (8/2013)
tMY2 (5/2014) +MY3 (4/2015) —Bankfull—Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
25.5 x -section area (ft.sq.)
14.9 width (ft)
1.7 mean depth (ft)
3.1 max depth (ft)
16.6 wetted parimeter (ft)
1.5 hyd radi (ft)
8.7 width -depth ratio
200.0 W flood prone area (ft)
13.5 entrenchment ratio
1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 4/2015
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering`
View Downstream
c
v
w
538
536
0 10
20
30 40 50
60 70 80
Width (ft)
+MYO (1/2013) +MY1 (8/2013)
tMY2 (5/2014) +MY3 (4/2015) —Bankfull—Floodprone Area

Cross -Section Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94641)
Monitoring Year 3 - 2015 4.17 i.il—ti I __01
Cross Section I SF4A
542
541
540
539
w 538
c
537
a, 536
w
535
534
533
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Width (ft)
+MYO (1/2013) +MY1 (8/2013) tMY2 (5/2014) +MY3 (4/2015)-eankfull -Flood prone Area
.
!4
906+63 Riffle
542
541
540
539
w 538
c
537
a, 536
w
535
534
533
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Width (ft)
+MYO (1/2013) +MY1 (8/2013) tMY2 (5/2014) +MY3 (4/2015)-eankfull -Flood prone Area

Cross -Section Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94641)
Monitoring Year 3 - 2015zw
Cross Section 18 - SF4A
907+18 Pool
541
540
-
539
538
537
c
0
�
536
535
Cu
'w
534
533
532
531
0 10 20 30 40
50 60 70
80 90 100 110 120
Width (ft)
tMYO(1/2013) 0
MY1(8/2013)
�MY2(5/2014)
tMY3(4/2015)—Bankfull
ID .
,
• • • . —
MY1(8/2013)
�MY2(5/2014)
tMY3(4/2015)—Bankfull

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94641)
Monitoring Year 3 - 2015
SI Reachwide
Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
Particle Class
Diameter (mm) Particle
min max Riffle
Count
Pool
Total
Reach Summary
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
100
90 SIIUClay
g0
a 70
60
3 50
E
40
y 30
u
a 20
10
SI Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
Sand avel
bble
r
a ro
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay 0.000 0.062 20 20 20 20
Very fine 0.062 0.125 7 7 7 27
Fine 0.125 0.250 8 8 8 35
Medium 0.25 0.50 2 2 2 37
SQC`O
Coarse 0.5 1.0 5 5 5 42
Very Coarse 1.0 2.0 42
Very Fine 2.0 2.8 42
Very Fine 2.8 4.0 1 1 1 43
Fine 4.0 5.6 1 1 1 44
Fine 5.6 8.0 3 3 3 47
JAS'
Medium 8.0 11.0 1 1 1 48
(�Q'P
Medium 11.0 16.0 3 1 4 4 52
Coarse 16.0 22.6 7 1 8 8 60
Coarse
22.6 32 4
4
4
64
0
0.01 0.1
tMYO-02/2013
1 10 100
Particle Class Size (mm)
MY1-10/2013 MY2-05/2014 tMY3-04/2015
1000 10000
Very Coarse 32 45 14 14 14 78
Very Coarse 45 64 13 13 13 91
Small 64 90 7 7 7 98
ASF'
Small
90 128 2
2
2
100
Large
128 180
100
SI
180 256 100
Small 256 362 100
rLarge
Small
362 512
100
100
Medium
512 1024
100
90
Large/Very Large
1024 2048
100
80
70
Bedrock
2048 >2048
100
v
u 60
Total 50 50 100 100 100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16 = Silt/Clay
D35 - 0.25
Dso = 13.3
D%0. = 52.9
D9s = 77.8
D1oo = 128.0
v
a
50
-° 40
U
m 30
20
c
10
0
pO o
00 oti o titi' ti ti ti
Particle Class Size (mm)
•MYO-02/2013 MYI-10/2013 MY2-05/2014
�'L ,y'L �,b aW A6
3 h yo yo �o
•MY3-0 /2015
Reachwide
Individual Class Percent

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94641)
Monitoring Year 3 - 2015
SF3, Cross Section 1
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Riffle 100-
Count
Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000 1
0.062 1
34.6
D84 =
0
D95 =
Very fine
0.062
0.125
0
Fine
0.125
0.250
ble
H 50
0
r
Medium
0.25
0.50
m
0
SPO
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
ll�Fine
4.0
5.6
2
2
2
Fine
5.6
8.0
5
5
7
Medium
8.0
11.0
12
12
18
GQ
Medium
11.0
16.0
13
13
31
Coarse
16.0
22.6
6
6
37
Coarse
22.6
32
11
11
47
Very Coarse
32
45
13
13
60
Very Coarse
45
64
17
16
76
Small
64
90
12
12
88
Small
90
128
6
6
93
Large
128
180
5
5
98
Large
180
256
2
2
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
100
SOJ
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10(
Particle Class Size (mm)
100
BEDROCK
JBedrock
1 2048 1
>2048 1
100
Total 1
104
100
100
SF1, Cross Section 1
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
90
Cross Section 1
Channel materials (mm)
D1fi=
10.3
Di5 =
20.6
D50 =
34.6
D84 =
81.2
D95 =
144.7
D100 =
256.0
SF1, Cross Section 1
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
90
SIIVClay
100
Sand
90
avel
80
70
d
�
60
iu
a
ble
H 50
r
u 40
80
m
30
3
20
a r
a; 70
0
s 60
50
E
i? 40
y 30
u
a 20
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10(
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYM2/2013 —0—MYl-10/2013 MY2-05/2014 tMY3-04/2015
SF1, Cross Section 1
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
d
�
60
iu
a
H 50
N
u 40
m
30
3
20
c 10
0
p, p by Oy S 'ti ,tib b 5� W 1ti y6 6 ,y'ti b� 6b CO ,ti'6 �O yO b'ti y'ti ,tib b4 90
00 01 o titi ti ti ti 3 e yo yo bo
Particle Class Size (mm)
0MYO-02/2013 MY1-10/2013 .MY2-05/2014 0WM4/2015
)00

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94641)
Monitoring Year 3 - 2015
UT2, Reachwide
60
a- 50
Reachwide 40
Channel materials (mm)
D16 = Silt/Clay
D35 - 0.21
Dso = 8.0
D80. = 62.4 0
icle Class
UT2, Reachwide
avel
gp
E
30
min max
Riffle Pool Total
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
17
17
17
17
Dloo =
Diameter (mm) Particle Count Reach Summary
Part
0.062
0.125
8
8
8
25
Fine
0.125
0.250
14
14
14
39
Medium
0.25
0.50
7
7
7
46
SQC`O
13
0.5
1.0
70
oti titi tia a$ e6
3 h yo ,yo �o
0MY3-09/2015
46
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
60
46
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
1
1
1
47
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
2
2
2
49
Fine
4.0
5.6
49
Fine
5.6
8.0
1
1
1
50
JAS'
Medium
8.0
11.0
1
1
1
51
(�Q'P
Medium
11.0
16.0
3
3
3
54
Coarse
16.0
22.6
4
4
4
58
Coarse
22.6
32
8
8
8
66
Very Coarse
32
45
5
5
5
71
Very Coarse
45
64
14
14
14
85
Small
64
90
13
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
13
13
98
Small
90
128
1
1
1
100
Large
128
180
99
Large
180
256
1
90
1
100
Small
256
362
100
b�
Small
362
512
80
70
100
BOJ
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
v
u
`w
2048
100
BEDROCK
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
50
50
100
N
'—°
100
U
m 30
20
c
10
icle Class
UT2, Reachwide
avel
gp
E
30
min max
Riffle Pool Total
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
17
17
17
17
Dloo =
Very fine
0.062
0.125
8
8
8
25
Fine
0.125
0.250
14
14
14
39
Medium
0.25
0.50
7
7
7
46
SQC`O
Coarse
0.5
1.0
70
oti titi tia a$ e6
3 h yo ,yo �o
0MY3-09/2015
46
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
60
46
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
1
1
1
47
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
2
2
2
49
Fine
4.0
5.6
49
Fine
5.6
8.0
1
1
1
50
JAS'
Medium
8.0
11.0
1
1
1
51
(�Q'P
Medium
11.0
16.0
3
3
3
54
Coarse
16.0
22.6
4
4
4
58
Coarse
22.6
32
8
8
8
66
Very Coarse
32
45
5
5
5
71
Very Coarse
45
64
14
14
14
85
Small
64
90
13
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
13
13
98
Small
90
128
1
1
1
99
Large
128
180
99
Large
180
256
1
1
1
100
Small
256
362
100
b�
Small
362
512
100
BOJ
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
50
50
100
100
100
�
3
�
y
u
a
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
D95 =
83.2
Dloo =
256.0
�
3
�
y
u
a
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90
SIIUCIay
Sand
bble
r
a ro
oti by ,ye oy ti titi$
oti o
0MYO-02/2013
70
oti titi tia a$ e6
3 h yo ,yo �o
0MY3-09/2015
60
50
40
20
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
tMVO-02/2013 MV1-10/2013 MY2-05/2014 � MY3-04/2015
00
UT2, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
oti by ,ye oy ti titi$
oti o
0MYO-02/2013
a 5� v titi ti� 0 3ti o`� ya oo ti$ �o ho
titi' ti ti ti
Particle Class Size (mm)
MV3-10/2013 MY2-05/2014
oti titi tia a$ e6
3 h yo ,yo �o
0MY3-09/2015

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94641)
Monitoring Year 3 - 2015
UT2, Cross Section 4
Cross Section 4
Diameter (mm)
D1fi =
Summary
Das =
17.44
Particle Class
Riffle 100-
Class
Percent
D95 =
111.2
Dloo =
180.0
Count
90
UT2, Cross Section 4
min max
Percentage Cumulative
70
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000 0.062
0
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
Very fine
0.062 0.125
a
0
100
H
50
Fine
0.125 0.250
0
90 SIIMay
Sand avel
b le
SQ�O
Medium
0.25 0.50
0
80
r
a ro
17
Coarse
0.5 1.0
0
a; 70
Very Coarse
1.0 2.0
c
0
s 60
Very Fine
2.0 2.8
0
50
Very Fine
2.8 4.0 2
2
2
E
Fine
4.0 5.6 3
3
5
i? 40
Fine
5.6 8.0 S
5
10
C 30
Medium
8.0 11.0 10
10
20
u
a 20
GQ'
Medium
11.0 16.0 12
12
32
Coarse
16.0 22.6 12
12
44
10
Coarse
22.6 32 8
8
52
0
�Small
128
S5
0.01 0.1
1 10 100 1000 10000
Very Coarse
32 45 12
12
64
100
Large
Very Coarse
45 64 14
14
78
100
Particle Class Size (mm)
Small
Small
362
t MYM2/2013 �•MYl-10/2013 MY2-05/2014 tMY3-04/2015
�
Small
362
512
100
BOJ
Medium
E64
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
100
100
100
p p by Oh S
00 01 o
'ti ,tib b 5� W 1ti y6 6 ,y'ti b� 6b �O ,ti'6 �O yO b'ti y'ti ,tib b4 90
titi ti ti ti 3 e yo yo bo
Particle Class Size (mm)
•MYO-02/2013
MY1-10/2013 u•MY2-05/2014 0WM4/2015
Cross Section 4
Channel materials (mm)
D1fi =
9.68
Das =
17.44
Dso =
29.3
D84 =
74.1
D95 =
111.2
Dloo =
180.0
90
80
70
�
d
�
60
a
H
50
N
u
40
m
3
30
20
c
10
0
90
14
14
92
�Small
128
S5
97
���Large
180
33
100
Large
256
100
Small
256
362
100
�
Small
362
512
100
BOJ
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
100
100
100
Cross Section 4
Channel materials (mm)
D1fi =
9.68
Das =
17.44
Dso =
29.3
D84 =
74.1
D95 =
111.2
Dloo =
180.0
UT2, Cross Section 4
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
�
d
�
60
a
H
50
N
u
40
m
3
30
20
c
10
0

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94641)
Monitoring Year 3 - 2015
SF3, Reachwide
u 60
50
Reachwide 40
Channel materials (mm)
D16 = 1.41
D35 - 8.00
Dso = 17.0
D80. = 70.2 0
avel
gp
70
SI Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
10
10
10
10
Very fine
Particle Class
Diameter
min
(mm)
max
Particle
Riffle
Count
Pool
Total
Reach Summary
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
Fine
0.125
0.250
SI Reachwide
1
1
1
12
bbl e
Medium
0.25
0.50
12
SQC`O
Coarse
0.5
1.0
P 5� 0 ,ti'v ,oto 10 �O ,tiO ti�O tiy<o
titi' ti
Particle Class Size (mm)
MV3-10/2013 MY2-05/2014
3
3
3
15
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
2
2
2
17
60
HM L
E
y 30
100
90
80
70
v
`w
a
N
'—°
U
m 30
20
c
10
avel
gp
70
SI Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
10
10
10
10
Very fine
0.062
0.125
1
1
1
11
Fine
0.125
0.250
1
1
1
12
bbl e
Medium
0.25
0.50
12
SQC`O
Coarse
0.5
1.0
P 5� 0 ,ti'v ,oto 10 �O ,tiO ti�O tiy<o
titi' ti
Particle Class Size (mm)
MV3-10/2013 MY2-05/2014
3
3
3
15
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
2
2
2
17
60
E
y 30
D95 = 111.2
Dloo = 256.0
Very Fine 2.0 2.8 3 3 3 20
Very Fine 2.8 4.0 2 2 2 22
Fine 4.0 5.6 1 5 6 6 28
Fine 5.6 8.0 2 5 7 7 35
SI Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
Very Fine 2.0 2.8 3 3 3 20
Very Fine 2.8 4.0 2 2 2 22
Fine 4.0 5.6 1 5 6 6 28
Fine 5.6 8.0 2 5 7 7 35
SI Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
bbl e
�5 0 5 1 ti ,ti0
oti o
0MYO-02/2013
P 5� 0 ,ti'v ,oto 10 �O ,tiO ti�O tiy<o
titi' ti
Particle Class Size (mm)
MV3-10/2013 MY2-05/2014
�ti 1ti ,tib p A�
3 h yo ,yo to
0MY3-09/2015
60
E
y 30
00
SI Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
�5 0 5 1 ti ,ti0
oti o
0MYO-02/2013
P 5� 0 ,ti'v ,oto 10 �O ,tiO ti�O tiy<o
titi' ti
Particle Class Size (mm)
MV3-10/2013 MY2-05/2014
�ti 1ti ,tib p A�
3 h yo ,yo to
0MY3-09/2015

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94641)
Monitoring Year 3 - 2015
SF3, Cross Section 5
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Riffle 100-
Count
Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000 1
0.062 1
35.5
D84 =
0
D95 =
Very fine
0.062
0.125
0
Fine
0.125
0.250
r
0
N
Medium
0.25
0.50
m
0
SPO
Coarse
0.5
1.0
a ro
0
a; 70
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
0
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
1
1
1
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
2
2
3
Fine
4.0
5.6
1
1
4
Fine
5.6
8.0
4
4
8
Medium
8.0
11.0
5
5
13
GQ
Medium
11.0
16.0
11
11
24
Coarse
16.0
22.6
10
10
34
Coarse
22.6
32
12
12
46
Very Coarse
32
45
13
13
59
Very Coarse
45
64
13
13
72
Small
64
90
14
14
86
Small
90
128
10
10
96
CO0
Large
128
180
4
4
100
La rge
180
256
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
3 62
512
0
100
SOJ
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK
113edrock
1 2048 1
>2048 1
100
Totall
100
100
1 100
SF3, Cross Section 5
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
90
Cross Section 5
Channel materials (mm)
D1fi=
12.18
Di5 =
23.26
D50 =
35.5
D84 =
85.7
D95 =
123.6
D100 =
180.0
SF3, Cross Section 5
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
90
SIIVClay
100
Sand
avel
80
70
d
�
60
iu
b le
a
r
N
gp
u 40
m
30
3
20
a ro
a; 70
c 10
0
s 60
50
E
i? 40
y 30
u
at. 20
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10c
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYM2/2013 MYl-10/2013 MY2-05/2014 tMY3-04/2015
SF3, Cross Section 5
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
d
�
60
iu
a
H 50
N
u 40
m
30
3
20
c 10
0
o, p by Oy S 'ti ,tib b 5� W 1ti y6 6 ,y'ti b� 6b CO ,ti'6 �O yO b'ti y'ti ,tib b4 90
00 01 o titi ti ti ti 3 e yo yo bo
Particle Class Size (mm)
0MYO-02/2013 MY1-10/2013 .MY2-05/2014 0WM4/2015
)00

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94641)
Monitoring Year 3 - 2015
SF3, Cross Section 7
III -
Cross Section 7
Diameter (mm)
D1fi =
Summary
Das =
13.85
Particle Class
Riffle 100-
Class
Percent
D95 =
90.0
Dloo =
128.0
Count
90
SF3, Cross Section 7
min max
Percentage Cumulative
70
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000 0.062
0
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
iu
Very fine
0.062 0.125
a
0
100
H
50
Fine
0.125 0.250
0
90 SIIUCIay
nd avel
bble
SQ�O
Medium
0.25 0.50
0
80
r
a ro
Coarse
0.5 1.0
0
a; 70
Very Coarse
1.0 2.0
0
s 60
Very Fine
2.0 2.8
7
0
50
Very Fine
2.8 4.0 3
3
3
E
GQ'
Fine
4.0 5.6 9
9
12
i? 40
16.0
22.6
8
8
y 30
22.6
32
10
10
u
a 20
e
32
45
12
12
70
e
45
64
16
16
10
Small
VFn
90
9
9
95
Small
90
128
5
5
0
Large
128
180
0.01 0.1
1 10 100 1000 10000
Large
180
256
100
Small
256
362
100
Particle Class Size (mm)
Small
362
512
100
BOJ
Medium
512
1024
t MYM2/2013 �MYl-10/2013 MY2-05/2014 tMY3-04/2015
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
100
100
100
p by Oh S
00 01 o
'ti ,tib b 5� W 1ti y6 6 ,y'ti b� 6b �O ,ti'6 �O yO b'ti y'ti ,tib b4 90
titi ti ti ti 3 e yo yo bo
Particle Class Size (mm)
•MYO-02/2013
MY1-10/2013 u•MY2-05/2014 0WM4/2015
III -
Cross Section 7
Channel materials (mm)
D1fi =
6.87
Das =
13.85
D50 =
24.2
D84 =
61.2
D95 =
90.0
Dloo =
128.0
90
80
70
�
d
�
iu
60
a
H
50
N
u
40
m
3
30
20
M
5.6
8.0
7
7
19
8.0
11.0
8
8
27
GQ'
11.0
16.0
13
13
40
16.0
22.6
8
8
48
22.6
32
10
10
58
e
32
45
12
12
70
e
45
64
16
16
86
Small
64
90
9
9
95
Small
90
128
5
5
100
Large
128
180
100
Large
180
256
100
Small
256
362
100
�
Small
362
512
100
BOJ
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
100
100
100
III -
Cross Section 7
Channel materials (mm)
D1fi =
6.87
Das =
13.85
D50 =
24.2
D84 =
61.2
D95 =
90.0
Dloo =
128.0
SF3, Cross Section 7
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
�
d
�
iu
60
a
H
50
N
u
40
m
3
30
20
M
10
0

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94641)
Monitoring Year 3 - 2015
SF3, Cross Section 9
SF3, Cross Section 9
Individual Class Percent
100
Diameter (mm)
Summary
Particle Class
Riffle 100-
Class
Percent
Count
SF3, Cross Section 9
min max
Percentage Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000 0.062
0
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
Very fine
0.062 0.125
0
100
_
Fine
0.125 0.250
2.8
4.0
0
90
SIIVClay
Sand avel 77a
bble
SQ�O
Medium
0.25 0.50
1
1
0
80
Fine
r
a ro
8.0
Coarse
0.5 1.0
9
0
a; 70
11.0
7
7
Very Coarse
1.0 2.0
Medium
11.0
0
s 60
13
29
Very Fine
2.0 2.8
1
1
1
50
Coarse
22.6
Very
11
11
52
E
32
45
12
12
64
Very Coarse
45
i? 40
12
12
76
Small
64
90
13
y 30
89
Small
90
128
7
7
96
u
a 20
Large
128
180
4
4
100
Large
180
256
100
Small
256
362
10
100
�
Small
362
512
100
BOJ
Medium
512
1024
100
0
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK
Bedrock
2048
0.01
0.1
1 10 100 1000 10000
100
Total
100
100
100
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYM2/2013 � MYl-10/2013 MY2-05/2014 t MY3-04/2015
hL 11 IL
SF3, Cross Section 9
Individual Class Percent
100
60
50
Fine
2.8
4.0
1
1
2
Fine
4.0
5.6
1
1
3
Fine
5.6
8.0
6
6
9
Medium
8.0
11.0
7
7
16
GQ'
Medium
11.0
16.0
13
13
29
Coarse
16.0
22.6
12
12
41
Coarse
22.6
32
11
11
52
Very Coarse
32
45
12
12
64
Very Coarse
45
64
12
12
76
Small
64
90
13
13
89
Small
90
128
7
7
96
CO0
Large
128
180
4
4
100
Large
180
256
100
Small
256
362
100
�
Small
362
512
100
BOJ
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 = 11.00 3
Das = 19.02
Dso = 30.0
D84 = 78.9
D95 = 121.7
Dloo = 180.0
90
80
� 70
d
�
iu
a
H
N
u 40
m 30
20
c 10
0
p p 't, Oh S 'ti ,tib b 5� W 1ti y6 6 ,y'ti b� 6b �O ,ti'6 �O yO b'ti y'ti ,tib b4 90
00 01 0titi ti ti ti 3 e yo .yo bo
Particle Class Size (mm)
0MYO-02/2013 MVI -10/2013 u•MY2-05/2014 0MY3-04/2015
60
50

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94641)
Monitoring Year 3 - 2015
UT1, Reachwide
u 60
50
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm) u
D16 = Silt/Clay
D35 = 0.30
Dso = 8.0
D80. = 78.5 0
icle Class
min max
Riffle Pool Total
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
3
22
25
25
25
SIIUCIay
Diameter (mm) Particle Count Reach Summary
0.062
0.125
ParIle
3
3
3
28
Fine
0.125
0.250
5
5
5
33
m
oti o
0MYO-02/2013
titi' ti ti ti
Particle Class Size (mm)
MV3-10/2013 MY2-05/2014
UT1, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
40
30
'1—At
100
90
80
70
v
v
a
—° 40
m 30
20
c
10
icle Class
min max
Riffle Pool Total
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
3
22
25
25
25
SIIUCIay
Very fine
0.062
0.125
avel
3
3
3
28
Fine
0.125
0.250
5
5
5
33
m
oti o
0MYO-02/2013
titi' ti ti ti
Particle Class Size (mm)
MV3-10/2013 MY2-05/2014
3 h yo ,yo �o
0MY3-09/2015
40
30
D95 = 128.0
Dloo = 180.0
SQC`O Medium 0.25 0.50 8 8 8 41
Coarse 0.5 1.0 41
Very Coarse 1.0 2.0 41
Very Fine 2.0 2.8 1 1 1 42
Very Fine 2.8 4.0 1 1 1 43
Fine 4.0 5.6 1 1 1 44
Fine 5.6 8.0 3 3 6 6 SO
UT1, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
90
gp
SIIUCIay
SQC`O Medium 0.25 0.50 8 8 8 41
Coarse 0.5 1.0 41
Very Coarse 1.0 2.0 41
Very Fine 2.0 2.8 1 1 1 42
Very Fine 2.8 4.0 1 1 1 43
Fine 4.0 5.6 1 1 1 44
Fine 5.6 8.0 3 3 6 6 SO
UT1, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
90
gp
SIIUCIay
Sand
avel
m
oti o
0MYO-02/2013
titi' ti ti ti
Particle Class Size (mm)
MV3-10/2013 MY2-05/2014
3 h yo ,yo �o
0MY3-09/2015
40
30
00
UT1, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
m
oti o
0MYO-02/2013
titi' ti ti ti
Particle Class Size (mm)
MV3-10/2013 MY2-05/2014
3 h yo ,yo �o
0MY3-09/2015

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94641)
Monitoring Year 3 - 2015
UTI, Cross Section 10
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Riffle 100-
Count
Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000 1
0.062 1
4
4
1 4
D95 =
Very fine
0.062
0.125
4
90
Fine
0.125
0.250
4
Medium
0.25
0.50
1
1
5
SPO
Coarse
0.5
1.0
d
�
5
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
5
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
3
3
8
N
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
5
5
13
E
Fine
4.0
5.6
3
13
Fine
5.6
8.0
1
1
14
20
Medium
8.0
11.0
10
10
24
GQ
Medium
11.0
16.0
5
5
29
Coarse
16.0
22.6
6
6
35
Coarse
22.6
32
13
13
48
Very Coarse
32
45
12
12
60
Very Coarse
45
64
11
11
71
Small
64
90
7
7
78
t MYM2/2013 —0—MYl-10/2013 MY2-05/2014 tMY3-04/2015
Small
90
128
8
8
86
C00
Large
128
180
10
10
96
La rge
180
256
2
2
98
Small1
256
362
2
1 2
100
Sma
1 362
512
1
100
SOJ
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK
JBedrock
1 2048 1
>2048 1
100
Total 1
100
100
100
UTI, Cross Section 10
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
90
Cross Section 10
Channel materials (mm)
D1fi=
8.53
Di5 =
22.60
D50 =
33.9
D84 =
117.2
D95 =
174.0
D100 =
362.0
UTI, Cross Section 10
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
90
SIIVClay
UTI, Cross Section 10
Sand avel
Individual Class Percent
100
ble
r
90
gp
80
a ro
a; 70
d
�
s 60
60
a
H
50
N
u
40
E
m
3
30
i? 40
20
c
y 30
u
10
0
at. 20
'ti ,tib b 5� W 1ti y6 6 ,y'ti b� 6b CO ,ti'6 �O y0 b'ti y'ti ,tib b4 90
titi ti ti ti 3 e yo .yo bo
Particle Class Size (mm)
•MYM2/2013
MY1-10/2013 .MY2-05/2014 EWM4/2015
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10(
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYM2/2013 —0—MYl-10/2013 MY2-05/2014 tMY3-04/2015
UTI, Cross Section 10
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
d
�
60
a
H
50
N
u
40
m
3
30
20
c
10
0
o, p by Oy S
00 01 0
'ti ,tib b 5� W 1ti y6 6 ,y'ti b� 6b CO ,ti'6 �O y0 b'ti y'ti ,tib b4 90
titi ti ti ti 3 e yo .yo bo
Particle Class Size (mm)
•MYM2/2013
MY1-10/2013 .MY2-05/2014 EWM4/2015

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94641)
Monitoring Year 3 - 2015
SF4, Reachwide
SF4, Reachwide
�
3
E
�
y
u
a
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
0.17
Das =
4.98
Dso =
18.2
D80. =
135.2
D95 =
246.5
Dloo =
>2048
Particle Class
Diameter
min
(mm)
max
Particle
Riffle
Count
Pool
Total
Reach Summary
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
r
gp
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay 0.000 0.062 13 13 14 14
Very fine
0.062
0.125
a ro
70
P 5� 0 ,ti'v ,oto 10 ,1�'L p5 yb �O ,tiO �O y<o
titi' ti ti ti
Particle Class Size (mm)
MV3-10/2013 MY2-05/2014
14
60
Fine 0.125 0.250 3 2 5 5 19
50
Medium 0.25 0.50 1 2 3 3 22
SQC`O
Coarse 0.5 1.0 1 1 1 23
Very Coarse 1.0 2.0 3 3 6 6 29
Very Fine 2.0 2.8 1 1 1 31
Very Fine 2.8 4.0 1 1 1 32
40
Fine 4.0 5.6 2 3 5 5 37
Fine 5.6 8.0 3 2 5 5 42
J�cS'
Medium 8.0 11.0 3 3 3 45
(1
Q'P
Medium
11.0
16.0
1
2
3
3
48
Coarse
16.0
22.6
2
2
4
4
53
Coarse
22.6
32
3
6
9
9
62
Very Coarse
32
45
2
6
8
8
71
0
Very Coarse
45
64
3
3
3
74
Small
64
90
4
4
4
78
Small
90
128
5
5
5
83
Large
128
180
5
5
5
88
Large
180
256
7
100
7
96
Small
256
362
2
2
2
98
b�
Small
362
512
1
90
1
1
99
BOJ
Medium
512
1024
99
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
80
70
99
BEDROCK
Bedrock
2048
>2048
1
1
1
100
v
u 60
`w
50
45
95
100
100
a
50
N
—° 40
U
m 30
20
E 10
0
SF4, Reachwide
�
3
E
�
y
u
a
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
0.17
Das =
4.98
Dso =
18.2
D80. =
135.2
D95 =
246.5
Dloo =
>2048
SIIUCIay
Sand
avel
le
r
gp
a ro
70
P 5� 0 ,ti'v ,oto 10 ,1�'L p5 yb �O ,tiO �O y<o
titi' ti ti ti
Particle Class Size (mm)
MV3-10/2013 MY2-05/2014
�ti 1ti ,tib aW A�
3 h yo ,yo to
0MY3-09/2015
60
50
40
30
Q'P
Medium
11.0
16.0
1
2
3
3
48
Coarse
16.0
22.6
2
2
4
4
53
Coarse
22.6
32
3
6
9
9
62
Very Coarse
32
45
2
6
8
8
71
0
Very Coarse
45
64
3
3
3
74
Small
64
90
4
4
4
78
Small
90
128
5
5
5
83
Large
128
180
5
5
5
88
Large
180
256
7
7
7
96
Small
256
362
2
2
2
98
b�
Small
362
512
1
1
1
99
BOJ
Medium
512
1024
99
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
99
BEDROCK
Bedrock
2048
>2048
1
1
1
100
Total
50
45
95
100
100
SF4, Reachwide
�
3
E
�
y
u
a
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
0.17
Das =
4.98
Dso =
18.2
D80. =
135.2
D95 =
246.5
Dloo =
>2048
SF4, Reachwide
�
3
E
�
y
u
a
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90
SIIUCIay
Sand
avel
le
r
gp
a ro
70
P 5� 0 ,ti'v ,oto 10 ,1�'L p5 yb �O ,tiO �O y<o
titi' ti ti ti
Particle Class Size (mm)
MV3-10/2013 MY2-05/2014
�ti 1ti ,tib aW A�
3 h yo ,yo to
0MY3-09/2015
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
tMVO-02/2013 MVl-10/2013 MY2-05/2014 � MY3-04/2015
00
SF4, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
�'L �h �5 05 1 ti ,ti0
oti o
0MYO-02/2013
P 5� 0 ,ti'v ,oto 10 ,1�'L p5 yb �O ,tiO �O y<o
titi' ti ti ti
Particle Class Size (mm)
MV3-10/2013 MY2-05/2014
�ti 1ti ,tib aW A�
3 h yo ,yo to
0MY3-09/2015

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94641)
Monitoring Year 3 - 2015
SF4, Cross Section 13
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Riffle 100-
Count
Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000 1
0.062 1
40.5
D84 =
0
D95 =
Very fine
0.062
0.125
0
ble
V
Fine
0.125
0.250
0
Medium
0.25
0.50
70
0
SPO
Coarse
0.5
1.0
a; 70
d
�
0
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
0
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
50
0
N
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
u
40
0
ll�Fine
m
4.0
5.6
3
0
Fine
5.6
8.0
5
5
5
20
Medium
8.0
11.0
5
5
10
Q
'JE
Medium
11.0
16.0
8
8
18
Coarse
16.0
22.6
6
6
24
Coarse
22.6
32
15
15
39
Very Coarse
32
45
16
16
55
Very Coarse
45
64
10
10
65
Small
64
90
10
10
75
�V�
Small
90
128
15
15
90
CO0
Large
128
180
5
5
95
La rge
180
256
1
1
96
0
Small
256
362
3
3
99
Smal�ry
362
512
1
1
100
SOJ
Medi
512
1024
100
Largee
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK
113edrock
1 2048 1
>2048 1
100
Totall
100
100
1 100
SF4, Cross Section 13
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
90
Cross Section 13
Channel materials (mm)
D1fi=
14.57
Di5 =
29.17
D50 =
40.5
D84 =
111.2
D95 =
180.0
D100 =
512.0
SF4, Cross Section 13
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
90
SIIVClay
SF4, Cross Section 13
Sand
avel
100
ble
V
r
80
80
70
a ro
a; 70
d
�
iu
60
a
s 60
H
50
N
u
40
50
m
3
30
E
20
c
i? 40
0
p p by pS
00 01 o
'ti ,tib b 5� W 1ti y6 6 ,y'ti b� 6b CO ,ti'6 �O yO b'ti y'ti ,tib b4 90
titi ti ti ti 3 e yo yo bo
Particle Class Size (mm)
y 30
U
MY1-10/2013 .MY2-05/2014 0WM4/2015
a 20
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10(
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYM2/2013 MYl-10/2013 MY2-05/2014 tMY3-04/2015
SF4, Cross Section 13
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
d
�
iu
60
a
H
50
N
u
40
m
3
30
20
c
10
0
p p by pS
00 01 o
'ti ,tib b 5� W 1ti y6 6 ,y'ti b� 6b CO ,ti'6 �O yO b'ti y'ti ,tib b4 90
titi ti ti ti 3 e yo yo bo
Particle Class Size (mm)
0MYO-02/2013
MY1-10/2013 .MY2-05/2014 0WM4/2015

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94641)
Monitoring Year 3 - 2015
SF4, Cross Section 15
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Riffle 100-
Count
Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000 1
0.062 1
7
7
1 7
D95 =
Very fine
0.062
0.125
7
90
Fine
0.125
0.250
2
2
9
Medium
0.25
0.50
2
2
11
SPO
Coarse
0.5
1.0
d
�
11
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
11
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
50
11
N
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
5
5
16
E
Fine
4.0
5.6
9
9
25
Fine
5.6
8.0
5
5
30
20
Medium
8.0
11.0
5
5
35
GQ
Medium
11.0
16.0
7
7
42
00' p by Oh S
00 01 0
Coarse
16.0
22.6
4
4
46
MY1-10/2013 .MY2-05/2014 EWM4/2015
Coarse
22.6
32
6
6
52
Very Coarse
32
45
6
6
58
Very Coarse
45
64
7
7
65
Small
64
90
8
8
73
N�
Small
90
128
7
7
80
CO0
Large
128
180
8
8
88
La rge
180
256
7
7
95
Small
256
362 1
3
3
98
Small
362
512
2
2
100
SOJ
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK
JBedrock
2048
>2048
100
Totall
100
100
100
SF4, Cross Section 15
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
90
Cross Section 15
Channel materials (mm)
D1fi=
4.00
Di5 =
11.00
D50 =
28.5
D84 =
151.8
D95 =
256.0
D100 =
512.0
SF4, Cross Section 15
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
90
SIIVClay
SF4, Cross Section 15
Sand avel
Individual Class Percent
100
b e
r
90
80
80
a ro
a; 70
d
�
60
iu
60
a
H
50
N
u
40
E
m
3
30
i? 40
20
c
y 30
U
10
0
00' p by Oh S
00 01 0
'ti ,tib b 5� W 1ti y6 6 ,y'ti b� 6b �O ,ti'6 �O yO b'ti y'ti ,tib b4 90
titi ti ti ti 3 e yo .yo bo
a 20
Particle Class Size (mm)
•MYO-02/2013
MY1-10/2013 .MY2-05/2014 EWM4/2015
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10c
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYM2/2013 —0—MYl-10/2013 MY2-05/2014 tMY3-04/2015
SF4, Cross Section 15
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
d
�
iu
60
a
H
50
N
u
40
m
3
30
20
c
10
0
00' p by Oh S
00 01 0
'ti ,tib b 5� W 1ti y6 6 ,y'ti b� 6b �O ,ti'6 �O yO b'ti y'ti ,tib b4 90
titi ti ti ti 3 e yo .yo bo
Particle Class Size (mm)
•MYO-02/2013
MY1-10/2013 .MY2-05/2014 EWM4/2015

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94641)
Monitoring Year 3 - 2015
SI Reachwide
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Particle Count
Riffle Pool Total
Reach Summary
Class F Percent
Percentage Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
4
13
17
17
17
D100 =
Very fine
0.062
0.125
Sand
avel
bble
17
Fine
0.125
0.250
11
11
11
28
Medium
0.25
0.50
1
5
6
6
34
SQC`O
Coarse
0.5
1.0
2
2
2
36
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
36
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
2
2
2
38
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
E
v40
38
rA
Fine
4.0
5.6
1
1
1
39
Fine
5.6
8.0
1
2
3
3
42
JAS
Medium
8.0
11.0
3
3
3
45
(AQP
Medium
11.0
16.0
2
1
3
3
48
Coarse
16.0
22.6
5
1
6
6
54
Coarse
22.6
32
6
2
8
8
62
tMYO-02/2013 MY1-10/2013 MY2-05/2014 tMY3-04/2015
Very Coarse
32
45
10
2
12
12
74
Very Coarse
45
64
8
2
10
10
84
Small
64
90
3
2
5
5
89
Small
90
128
4
3
7
7
96
Large
128
180
2
1
3
3
99
Large
180
256
20
99
Small
256
362
a by by o5 1 ti ,ti0 P 5� 0 ,ti'v ,oto 10 ,,,'L by yb �O ,tiO �O y<o �ti 1ti ,tib " A6
Q0 Q, o titi' ti ti ti 3 h yo yo �o
Particle Class Size (mm)
•MYO-02/2013 MYI-10/2013 MY2-05/2014 •MY3-0 /2015
99
Small
362
512
1
1
1
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK
Bedrock
1 2048 1
>2048 1
1 1
1
100
Totall
50
1 50 1
100 1
100 1
100
SI Reachwide
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
Silt/Clay
D35 -
0.71
D50 =
18.0
D%0. =
64.0
D95 =
121.7
D100 =
512.0
SI Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90
SIIUClay
Sand
avel
bble
I TM
r
gp
a ro
a 70
60
5 50
E
v40
rA
y 30
u
a 20
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
tMYO-02/2013 MY1-10/2013 MY2-05/2014 tMY3-04/2015
SI Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
v
u
60
v
a
50
—° 40
U
m 30
20
c
10
0
a by by o5 1 ti ,ti0 P 5� 0 ,ti'v ,oto 10 ,,,'L by yb �O ,tiO �O y<o �ti 1ti ,tib " A6
Q0 Q, o titi' ti ti ti 3 h yo yo �o
Particle Class Size (mm)
•MYO-02/2013 MYI-10/2013 MY2-05/2014 •MY3-0 /2015

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94641)
Monitoring Year 3 - 2015
SF4A, Cross Section 16
SF4A, Cross Section 16
Individual Class Percent
100
Diameter (mm)
Summary
Particle Class
Riffle 100-
Class
Percent
Count
SII Cross Section 16
min max
Percentage Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000 0.062
8
8
8
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
Very fine
0.062 0.125
8
100
Fine
0.125 0.250
2.8
4.0
8
90
SIIVClay
Sand avel
bble
SQ�O
Medium
0.25 0.50
1
1
9
80
Fine
r
a ro
8.0
Coarse
0.5 1.0
34
9
a; 70
11.0
7
7
Very Coarse
1.0 2.0
4
4
13
s 60
7
48
Very Fine
2.0 2.8
3
3
16
50
Coarse
22.6
Very
10
10
69
E
32
45
7
7
76
Very Coarse
45
i? 40
6
6
82
Small
64
90
9
y 30
91
w�
Small
90
128
7
7
98
u
a 20
Large
128
180
2
2
100
Large
180
256
100
Small
256
362
10
100
�
Small
362
512
100
BOJ
Medium
512
1024
100
0
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK
Bedrock
2048
0.01
0.1
1 10 100 1000 10000
100
Total
100
100
100
Particle Class Size (mm)
tMYO-02/2013 �MYl-10/2013 MY2-05/2014 tMY3-04/2015
SF4A, Cross Section 16
Individual Class Percent
100
60
50
Fine
2.8
4.0
5
5
21
Fine
4.0
5.6
6
6
27
Fine
5.6
8.0
7
7
34
Medium
8.0
11.0
7
7
41
GQ'
Medium
11.0
16.0
7
7
48
Coarse
16.0
22.6
11
11
59
Coarse
22.6
32
10
10
69
Very Coarse
32
45
7
7
76
Very Coarse
45
64
6
6
82
Small
64
90
9
9
91
w�
Small
90
128
7
7
98
Large
128
180
2
2
100
Large
180
256
100
Small
256
362
100
�
Small
362
512
100
BOJ
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
100
100
100
Cross Section 16
Channel materials (mm)
D16 = 2.80 3
Das = 8.37
Dso = 17.0
D84 = 69.0
D95 = 110.1
Dloo = 180.0
90
80
� 70
d
�
a
H
N
u 40
m 30
20
c 10
0
p p 't, Oh S 'ti ,tib b 5� W 1ti y6 6 ,y'ti b� 6b �O ,ti'6 �O yO b'ti y'ti ,tib b4 90
00 01 0titi ti ti ti 3 e yo .yo bo
Particle Class Size (mm)
0MYO-02/2013 MVI -10/2013 u•MY2-05/2014 0MY3-04/2015
60
50

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94641)
Monitoring Year 3 - 2015
SF4A, Cross Section 17
Cross Section 17
Diameter (mm)
D1fi =
Summary
Das =
14.57
Particle Class
Riffle 100-
Class
Percent
D95 =
151.8
Dloo =
256.0
Count
90
SII Cross Section 17
min max
Percentage Cumulative
70
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000 0.062 1
1
1
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
i"u
Very fine
0.062 0.125
a
1
100
H
50
Fine
0.125 0.250 6
6
7
90 SIIMay
Sand avel
bble
SQ�O
Medium
0.25 0.50 4
4
11
g0
r
a ro
Fine
Coarse
0.5 1.0
11
a; 70
Fine
Very Coarse
1.0 2.0
3
11
60
Fine
Very Fine
2.0 2.8
7
11
50
Medium
Very
11.0
8
8
E
GQ'
Medium
11.0
16.0
8
8
i? 40
Coarse
16.0
22.6
10
10
y 30
Coarse
22.6
32
10
10
U
a 20
Very Coarse
32
45
10
10
67
Very Coarse
45
64
9
9
10
Small
64
90
10
10
86
�V�
Small
90
128
5
5
0
CO0
Large
128
180
8
8
0.01 0.1
1 10 100 1000 10000
Large
180
256
1
1
100
Small
256
362
100
Particle Class Size (mm)
Small
362
512
100
BOJ
Medium
512
1024
t MYM2/2013 �MYl-10/2013 MY2-05/2014 tMY3-04/2015
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
100
100
100
6'ti p by Oh S
00 01 0
'ti ,tib b 5� W 1ti y6 6 ,y'ti b� 6b �O ,ti'6 �O yO o, y'ti ,tib b4 90
titi ti ti ti 3 e yo .yo bo
Particle Class Size (mm)
•MYO-02/2013
MY1-10/2013 u•MY2-05/2014 0WM4/2015
Cross Section 17
Channel materials (mm)
D1fi =
6.20
Das =
14.57
Dso =
25.1
D84 =
84.1
D95 =
151.8
Dloo =
256.0
90
80
70
�
d
�
i"u
60
a
H
50
N
u
40
m
3
30
Fine
2.8
4.0
20
11
Fine
4.0
5.6
3
3
14
Fine
5.6
8.0
7
7
21
Medium
8.0
11.0
8
8
29
GQ'
Medium
11.0
16.0
8
8
37
Coarse
16.0
22.6
10
10
47
Coarse
22.6
32
10
10
57
Very Coarse
32
45
10
10
67
Very Coarse
45
64
9
9
76
Small
64
90
10
10
86
�V�
Small
90
128
5
5
91
CO0
Large
128
180
8
8
99
Large
180
256
1
1
100
Small
256
362
100
�
Small
362
512
100
BOJ
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
100
100
100
Cross Section 17
Channel materials (mm)
D1fi =
6.20
Das =
14.57
Dso =
25.1
D84 =
84.1
D95 =
151.8
Dloo =
256.0
SF4A, Cross Section 17
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
�
d
�
i"u
60
a
H
50
N
u
40
m
3
30
20
c
10
0

APPENDIX 5. Hydrology Summary Data and Plots

Table 13. Verification of Bankfull Events
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94641)
Monitoring Year 3 - 2015
Reach
Approximate
Date of Data Date of
Collection Occurrence
Method
SF1
4/28/2015 1/2015-4/2015
Crest
Gage/Visual
(Rack Lines)
10/14/2015 7/2015-10/2015
UTZ
Year 5 (2017)
SF3
4/28/2015 1/2015-4/2015
10/14/2015 7/2015-10/2015
UTI
4/28/2015 1/2015-4/2015
10/14/2015 7/2015-10/2015
SF4
4/28/2015 1/2015-4/2015
10/14/2015 7/2015-10/2015
SF4A
4/28/2015 1/2015-4/2015
10/14/2015 7/2015-10/2015
*data collected, but level was below bankfull elevation
Table 14. Wetland Gage Attainment Summary
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94641)
Monitoring Year 3 -2015
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
Yes/65 Days
1
(20.6%)
(16.4%)
(27.1%)
Yes/51.5 Days
Yes/38.5 Days
Yes/59 Days
2
(23.8%)
(17.8%)
(24.6%)
Yes/23.5 Days
Yes/31.5 Days
Yes/29 Days
3
(10.9%)
(14.6 %)
(12.1%)
Yes/19.5 Days
Yes/31.5 Days
Yes/59 Days
4
(9.0 %)
(14.6 %)
(24.6%)
Yes/25 Days
Yes/32.5 Days
Yes/65 Days
5
(11.6 %)
(15.0%)
(27.1%)
Yes/22.5 Days
Yes/21 Days
Yes/28 Days
6
(10.4%)
(9.7%)
(11.7%)
Yes/44.5 Days
Yes/31.5 Days
Yes/32 Days
7
(20.6%)
(14.6 %)
(13.3%)
Yes/22 Days
Yes/23 Days
Yes/61 Days
8
(10.2%)
(14.6%)
(25.4%)
Yes/98 Days
Yes/41.5 Days
Yes/68 Days
9
(45.4 %)
(10.6 %)
(28.3%)
Yes/96.5 Days
Yes/36 Days
Yes/67 Days
10
(44.7%)
(16.7%)
(27.9%)
Yes/66 Days
Yes/40.5 Days
Yes/61 Days
11
(30.6%)
(18.8%)
(25.4%)
Yes/23 Days
Yes/32.5 Days
Yes/28 Days
12
(10.6%)
(15.0%)
(11.7%)
Yes/22 Days
No/12.5 Days
Yes/27 Days
13
(10.2%)
(5.8%)
(11.3%)
Yes/21 Days
Yes/32 Days
Yes/29 Days
14
(9.7 %)
(14.8%)
(12.1%)
Yes/163 Days
Yes/57 Days
Yes/80 Days
15
(75.5%)
(26.4%)
(33.3%)
* NRCS WETS data was used to determine the growing season for monitorg years 1 and 2. After discussions with the US
Army Corps of Engineers, on-site soil temperature probe data is being used to determine the beginning of the growing season.

BANKFULL VERIFICATION PHOTOGRAPHS
Monitoring Year 3

SF1— (10/14/2015) 1 SF3 — (10/14/2015)
UT1— (10/14/2015)
SF4A — (10/14/2015)
SR — (10/14/2015)
F Underwood Mitigation Site
Appendix 5: Hydrology Summary Data and Plots — Bankfull Verification Photographs

Groundwater Gage Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94641)
Monitoring Year 3 - 2015
Wetland Harris Site; RW1
Underwood Groundwater Gage #1
o
m
Monitoring Year 3 - 2015
N
m
cu
20
20
N
W Ln
V'
ao Ln6.0
.3 CD
c o
N
2 0p
M
10
m
c7 -1
-
°
0
5.0
ro
c
0
n
w
4.0
10
— — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — —K
— — — —
— — — — — —
— — — — — —
v
–
>
-20
3.0 °.
c
v
m
m
3
-30
2.0
-40
1.0
-50
-60
0.0
C -
? C 75 Wfl.
> U
�<
> Q
Ln 0z
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #1
— — Criteria Level

Groundwater Gage Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94641)
Monitoring Year 3 - 2015
Wetland Harris Site; RW2
20
10
0
-10
v
-20
v
c�
3 -30
-40
-50
-60
C -0 >? C W 0. > U
cu U
2 < > Q Ln 0Z
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #2 — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0 o
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94641)
Monitoring Year 3 - 2015
Wetland Harris Site; NRW1
20
10
0
-10
v
-20
v
c�
3 -30
-40
-50
-60
C -0 >? C 75 to fl. +'' > U
2 < > Q Ln 0Z
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #3 — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0 o
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94641)
Monitoring Year 3 - 2015
Wetland Harris Site; RW2
20
10
0
-10
v
-20
v
c�
3 -30
-40
-50
-60
C -0 >? C W 0. +'' > U
2 < > Q Ln 0Z
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #4 — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0 o
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94641)
Monitoring Year 3 - 2015
Wetland Harris Site; RW3
20
10
0
-10
v
-20
v
c�
3 -30
-40
-50
-60
C -0 >? C W 0. > U
LL � Q � Q c6 —' � N 0 O
� Z
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #5 — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0 o
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94641)
Monitoring Year 3 - 2015
Wetland Harris Site; RW3
20
10
0
-10
v
-20
v
c�
3 -30
-40
-50
-60
C -0 >? C CO Q +'' > U
LL � Q c6 —Ci —' C N 0 O
2 Z
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #6 — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0 o
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94641)
Monitoring Year 3 - 2015
Wetland Harris Site; RW3
20
10
0
-10
v
-20
v
c�
3 -30
-40
-50
-60
C -0 >? C W Q > U
2 < > Q Ln 0Z
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #7 — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0 o
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94641)
Monitoring Year 3 - 2015
Wetland Harris Site; RW3
o
Underwood Groundwater Gage #8
m
Monitoring Year 3 - 2015
N
m
cu
N
W r
V)
�'
ao Ln
6.0
.3 CD
c o
N
2 0
p M
10
(D-
°
0
5.0
�
c
0
n
—
w
4.0
-10
v
—
>
-20
3.0 °.
c
°J
'm
3
-30
2.0
-40
N
1.0
-50
IIJ
-60
0.0
C -0
? C75 OA
�
0. +'' > U
°
Q O
� Q z
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #8 —
— Criteria Level

Groundwater Gage Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94641)
Monitoring Year 3 - 2015
Wetland Harris Site; NRW2
20
10
0
-10
v
-20
v
c�
3 -30
-40
-50
-60
C -0 >? C W Q > U
LL � Q � Q c6 —' � N 0 O
� Z
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #9 — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0 o
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (EEP Project No. 94641)
Monitoring Year 3 - 2015
Wetland RW4
20
10
0
-10
v
-20
v
c�
3 -30
-40
-50
-60
C -0 i ? C > U
Q
LL f9 c6 C
2 > Q N 0 Z
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #10 — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0 o
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (EEP Project No. 94641)
Monitoring Year 3 - 2015
Wetland RW4
o
Underwood Groundwater Gage #11
m
Monitoring Year 3 - 2015
N
m
a)
v
20
N
W Ln
ao Ln
6.0
.3 C)
c o
N
2 Wp
M
10
—gym
c7�-
0
0
5.0
�
c
0
n
—
LU
4.0
10
_
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _
_ _ _
_
_ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _
v
—
-20
3.0 °.
c
°J
'm
3
-30
2.0
-40
1.0
-50
IIJ
-60
0.0
�
> U
Q � Q
Ln O z
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #11
— — Criteria Level

Groundwater Gage Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (EEP Project No. 94641)
Monitoring Year 3 - 2015
Wetland RW4
20
10
0
-10
v
-20
v
c�
3 -30
-40
-50
-60
C -0 i ? C GA Q +'' > U
LL � Q f9 Q c6 C N 0
� Z
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #12 — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0 o
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (EEP Project No. 94641)
Monitoring Year 3 - 2015
Wetland RW4
20
10
0
-10
v
-20
v
c�
3 -30
-40
-50
-60
C -0 i ? C > U
Q
LL f9 c6 C
2 > Q N 0 Z
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #13 — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0 o
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (EEP Project No. 94641)
Monitoring Year 3 - 2015
Wetland RW4
Underwood Groundwater Gage #14
o
C
m
Monitoring Year 3 - 2015
N
m
a)
v
20
N
W Ln
00 Ln
6.0
.3 c:)
c o
N
2 Wp
M
10
—gym
c7�-
0
0
5.0
�
c
0
w
4.0
-10
— — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
—
— —
— — — — — —
v
–
>
-20
3.0 °.
c
°J
'm
m
3
-30
2.0
-40
1.0
-50
-
I
0.0
-60
C -0 i
? C OA Q
�
°
Q � Q Ln O
z
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #14 — — Criteria Level

Groundwater Gage Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (EEP Project No. 94641)
Monitoring Year 3 - 2015
Wetland RW4
20
10
0
-10
v
-20
v
c�
3 -30
-40
-50
-60
C -0 i ? C� Q GA Q '�' > U
LL f9 Q c6 C N 0
2 Z
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #15 — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0 o
2.0
1.0
0.0

Monthly Rainfall Data
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94641)
Monitoring Year 3 -2015
Underwood 30-70 Percentile Graph for Rainfall in 2015 Siler City, NC
s
7
6
5
c
c
0
0 4
a
a
L
CL 3 _
2
1 -
0
Jan -15 Feb -15 Mar -15 Apr -15 May -15 Jun -15 Jul -15 Aug -15 Sep -15 Oct -15
Date
2015 Rainfall 30th Percentile 70th Percentile
1 2015 rainfall collected by onsite rainfall gage.
2 30th and 70th percentile rainfall data collected from weather station Siler City 2 S, NC7924 (USDA, 2002).

Pre and Post Construction Groundwater Gage Comparison Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94641)
Monitoring Year 3 - 2015
Wetland RW1
30
20
10
0
c
m -10
J
(v -20
-30
-40
-50
-60
Underwood Groundwater Gage #1
Monitoring Year 3 - 2015
to Q > U
LL Q Q of O Z
Pre -Construction Rainfall Rainfall Pre -Construction Gage Depth Gage #1 — — Criteria Level
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
E
2.5 w
C
M
2.0 °C
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0

Pre and Post Construction Groundwater Gage Comparison Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94641)
Monitoring Year 3 - 2015
Wetland RW2
Underwood Groundwater Gage #4
Monitoring Year 3 - 2015
30
c
00
5.0
20
v
bO Ln C
M
a,
Sao �
4.5
o
o
C o
CO
2
4.0
10
c� m
0
0
t
a
3.5
0
;°
N
C
UJ
3.0
a, -10
_
2.5 w
(v
-20
2.0 °C
-30
1.5
-40
1.0
-50
0.5
60
I I . I I _ II _.�_ �IL� _ � .�_ IIII
0.0
C 9 i
LL c� Q
C
T C— to
�V1
� Q
2 > U
O O D
Z
Pre -Construction Rainfall
Rainfall Pre -Construction Gage Depth
Gage #4 — — Criteria Level

Pre and Post Construction Groundwater Gage Comparison Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94641)
Monitoring Year 3 - 2015
Wetland RW4
30
20
10
0
c
Underwood Groundwater Gage #12
Monitoring Year 3 - 2015
-30
-40
-50
-60
to 2 t > U
LL Q O O
la) 0
Q Z
Pre -Construction Rainfall Rainfall Pre -Construction Gage Depth Gage #12 — — Criteria Level
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
E
2.5 w
C
M
2.0 °C
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0

Pre and Post Construction Groundwater Gage Comparison Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94641)
Monitoring Year 3 - 2015
Wetland RW4
30
20
10
0
c
m -10
J
a(+ -20
-30
-40
-50
-60
Underwood Groundwater Gage #15
Monitoring Year 3 - 2015
C 9 i T C -5 to Q t> U
) Q M aiO O 0
2 Q Z
Pre -Construction Rainfall Rainfall Pre -Construction Gage Depth Gage #15 — — Criteria Level
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
C
2.5 w
C
M
2.0 °C
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0