Underwood_94641_MY4_2016

MONITORING YEAR 4
ANNUAL REPORT
Final
UNDERWOOD MITIGATION SITE
Chatham County, NC
NCDEQ Contract 003268
DMS Project Number 94641
Data Collection Period: May 2016- November 2016
Draft Submission Date: December 1, 2016
Final Submission Date: January 11, 2017
PREPARED FOR:
1�
INC Department of Environment Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652

PREPARED BY:
WO.O*
WILDLANDS
E NG I NEER I N G
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225
Raleigh, NC 27609
Jason Lorch
[e-mail]
Phone: [phone]

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 Sites are 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 riparian zone and wetland 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
WUnderwood Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 4 Annual Report — FINAL

• 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 4 (MY4) monitoring and site visits were completed between May and November 2016
to assess the conditions of the project. Overall, the Site has met the required vegetation, and stream
success criteria for MY4. The overall average planted stem density of 434 stems/ acre is greater than the
260 stem/ acre density required for MY5. All restored and enhanced streams are stable and functioning
as designed. The Site has met the Monitoring Year 5 (MY5) hydrology success criteria for bankfull
events. Groundwater wells have not met MY5 criteria. Ten of 15 groundwater wells have met MY4
success criteria.
WUnderwood Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 4 Annual Report — FINAL

UNDERWOOD MITIGATION SITE
Monitoring Year 4 Annual Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW.......................................................................................................1-1
General Tables and Figures
1.1 Project Goals and Objectives.....................................................................................................1-1
Project Vicinity Map
1.2 Monitoring Year 4 Data Assessment..........................................................................................1-2
Project Component/Asset Map
1.2.1 Vegetative Assessment......................................................................................................1-2
Project Components and Mitigation Credits
1.2.2 Vegetation Areas of Concern.............................................................................................1-3
Project Activity and Reporting History
1.2.3 Stream Assessment............................................................................................................1-3
Project Contacts Table
1.2.4 Stream Areas of Concern...................................................................................................1-3
Project Baseline Information and Attributes
1.2.5 Hydrology Assessment.......................................................................................................1-3
Monitoring Data — Stream Reach Data Summary
1.2.6 Wetland Assessment..........................................................................................................1-4
Longitudinal Profile Plots
1.2.7 Maintenance Plan..............................................................................................................1-4
Cross Section Plots
1.3 Monitoring Year 4 Summary......................................................................................................1-5
Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Section 2: METHODOLOGY.............................................................................................................2-1
Hydrology Summary Data and Plots
Section3: REFERENCES...................................................................................................................3-1
Verification of Bankfull Events
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
Figure 4.1-4.3
Supplemental Planting
Table 5a -h
Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Table 6
Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Table 10a -c
Stream Photographs
Table 11
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
Appendix 5
Hydrology Summary Data and Plots
Table 13
Verification of Bankfull Events
Table 14
Wetland Gage Attainment Summary
WUnderwood Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 4 Annual Report — FINAL iii

Groundwater Gage Plots
Monthly Rainfall Data
Pre and Post Construction Groundwater Gage Comparison Plots
WUnderwood Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 4 Annual Report— FINAL

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, UT1, 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. 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;
• Decrease water temperature and increase dissolved oxygen concentrations;
WUnderwood Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 4 Annual Report— FINAL 1-1

• 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 4 Data Assessment
Annual monitoring and quarterly site visits were conducted during Monitoring Year 4 (MY4) 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 MY5.
Early in MY4, supplemental planting was performed in low stem density areas along SF1, UTI, UT1B, and
SF4 in areas shown to have low stem densities during MY3 (Figures 4.1-4.3 in Appendix 2). The MY4
vegetative survey was completed in June 2016. The 2016 annual vegetation monitoring resulted in an
WUnderwood Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 4 Annual Report — FINAL 1-2

average stem density of 434 stems per acre, which is greater than the final requirement of 260 planted
stems per acre and approximately 39% less than the baseline density of 712 stems per acre. There was
an average of 11 stems per plot compared to 19 stems per plot during MYO. While the Site is on track to
meet the interim requirement, six plots are not meeting the success criteria. However, when volunteers
and live stakes are included in the total stem counts, vegetation plots 10, 12, 16, and 40 met the success
criteria. Vegetation plots 19 and 23 fall below the vegetation success criteria, even when volunteers are
considered, and these plots 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 MY4 a few isolated areas were observed to have low tree densities. These areas are shown on
the CCPV maps (Figures 3.0-3.3 in Appendix 2). Vegetation plots 19, and 23 did not meet the MY4
success criteria as noted above in section 1.2.1. Plot 19 is in a shaded area dominated by mature trees,
and plot 23 is in a wet area which has resulted in poor growth of planted stems. Isolated areas with low
tree densities will be monitored during subsequent monitoring years.
1.2.3 Stream Assessment
Morphological surveys for MY4 were conducted in May 2016. All streams within the Site are stable with
little to no erosion and have met the success criteria for MY4. 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 stream type based on the Rosgen classification system. The surveyed longitudinal profile
data for SF1, UT2, SF3, UT1, SF4, and SF4A 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. At the beginning of MY4, SF4A was repaired and the stream has remained
stable since. 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 MY4 that
indicated a change in the radius of curvature or channel belt width.
1.2.4 Stream Areas of Concern
During MY4 beaver activity was observed along SF3 and SF4. Two beaver dams were located on SF4 and
SF3. Beaver dams caused backwater, sediment build up in constructed riffles, and death of some plant
species on the stream banks. Live stakes and some planted stems were gnawed down by beaver. Details
regarding beaver and dam removal is discussed below in section 1.2.7.
1.2.5 Hydrology Assessment
The hydrology success criteria for the site dictates that at the end of MY5, two or more bankfull events
must have occurred in separate years within the restoration reaches. During MY4, bankfull events were
recorded on all the streams by crest gages and onsite observations (wrack lines). All streams on the Site
have had bankfull events in multiple monitoring years. Refer to Appendix 5 for hydrologic data.
WUnderwood Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 4 Annual Report — FINAL 1-3

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 barotroll 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) during MY2, 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 in subsequent monitoring years. During MY4, the
beginning of the growing season was extended by 29 days (from April 1 to March 3) based on data from
the soil temperature probes. Onsite rain gage data was collected but a gage malfunction occurred in
June of MY4. MY4 rain data was collected from an off-site USDA gage, SILER CITY 317924 and is shown
on groundwater hydrology plots.
All monitoring gages were downloaded on a quarterly basis and maintained as needed. 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. Ten of fifteen groundwater gages met the annual wetland hydrology
success criteria for MY4. Wildlands believes that lower than normal rainfall was the main reason five of
the groundwater wells did not meet the wetland success criteria for MY4. Monthly rain totals were
compared to 30th and 70th percentile rainfall data from USDA weather station: Siler City 2S, NC7924.
During MY4, five of ten months were below normal rainfall amounts, suggesting a drier than normal
year at the Site. Refer to Appendix 2 for the groundwater gage locations and Appendix 5 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
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
As mentioned in Section 1.2.3, SF4A repair work was completed early in MY4. The repair work consisted
of installing seven constructed riffles with log sills to raise the elevation of the stream bed back to the
design elevation. Minor stream bank grading was also performed as necessary and native grass seed and
live stakes were planted in disturbed areas. SF4A has remained stable since repairs were performed.
The USDA was contracted to trap beaver from the Sites. Four beaver were successfully removed from
SF4 during MY4; however, the trapper was unable to locate any beaver on SF3 during MY4. Beaver
trapping will continue during the winter on SF3. Live stakes along the banks of SF4, mainly black willow,
were gnawed down by beaver. These live stakes are expected to grow back during MY5, therefore no
supplemental planting of live stakes is expected during MY5. Two beaver dams were removed from SF4,
one near the middle of the restoration reach and one near the lower end of the reach. Two beaver dams
were also removed from the lower and middle sections of SF3. These areas are shown on the CCPV
maps (Figures 3.0-3.3). Wildlands will make frequent site visits to make sure beaver activity isn't a
problem in the future and will continue to contract the USDA to remove beaver as necessary.
WUnderwood Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 4 Annual Report — FINAL 1-4

1.3 Monitoring Year 4 Summary
All streams on the Site are stable and functioning as designed. The average planted stem density for the
Site is on track to meeting the MY5 success criteria; however, six individual vegetation plots out of 42
did not meet the MY4 success criteria as noted in the Integrated Current Condition Plan View. When
volunteer stems are counted in these seven plots, all but two meet MY5 success criteria. Beaver
presence was noted onsite and successful removal of beaver and dams was completed. All streams have
experienced multiple documented bankfull events, therefore, the MY5 stream hydrology attainment
requirement has been met for the Site. Ten of 15 groundwater gages met hydrology success criteria
during MY4.
WUnderwood Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 4 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.
WUnderwood Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 4 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.mric.gov/nlcd.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.
WUnderwood Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 4 Annual Report — FINAL 3-1

APPENDIX 1. General Tables and Figures

■ I M I L
Hydrologic Unit Code (14)
DMS Targeted Local Watershed
03030003070010
Siler
City
0303000302007b Country
Club
s'1,
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 (Harris Site)
and southwest of Moon Lindley Road
between Johnny Lindley Road and Bob
Clark Road (Lindley Site) north of
Siler City, North Carolina.
03030002050050
CHAr�I
fiEft
r�xr�xr►r�r�y���7�z�rra
Lindley Site
Harris Site
0 30003,0700
I
/t'qt/p il. llr�*
,,, I � , . - . %/4
.I%
)s0
930
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 DMS.
Figure 1 Project Vicinity Map
�► W I L D L A N D S 0 1 2 Miles Underwood Mitigation Site
ENGINEERING I 1 1 1 I DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 4 - 2016
Chatham County, NC

Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement I
Stream Enhancement 11
Stream Restoration (no credit)
Wetland Restoration
_ Wetland Enhancement
Wetland Creation
Conservation Easement
UJ
Figure 2a Project Component/Asset Map
W I L D L A N D S Underwood Mitigation Site - Harris Site
E N G, N E E R, N c 0 100 200 Feet DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 4 - 2016
Chatham County, NC

00
1 NRW2 o` • - s ■
Raw 40
■ I♦a.i. ■ ■ SF3
Y.i.Y tem Ya/.Y■I■�� : ■
! 1
w RW3IP
■
■
2013 Aerial Photography
■
■
i
r.raYvr
4
i
L.,�
1 �
■ F---`—SF2
i ■
� i

13 Aerial Photography

Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Underwood Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.94641
Monitoring Year 4 - 2016
Note that lengths do not match stationing because channel sections that do not generate credit have been removed from length calculations.
Stream
Riparian
Wetland
Non -Riparian Wetland
Buffer
Nitrogen
Nutrient
Offset
Phosphorous Nutrient Offset
Type R
RE
R
RE
R RE
N/A
N/A
Totals 6,765
8.0 1.1 N/A
Mill
Project Components
Reach ID
As -Built
Stationing/
Location (LF)
Existing
Footage (LF)/
Acreage (Ac)
Approach
Restoration or
Restoration Equivalent
Restoration
Footage [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 l 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
UTIA
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
RW1
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 3:1
0.15
NRW2
N/A
0.34
N/A
Enhancement
0.34
2:1
0.17
IL L
Component
Summation
Restoration Level
Stream (LF)
Riparian Wetland (acres) Non -Riparian Buffer
Wetland (acres) (sq. ft)
Upland
(acres)
Restoration
4,661
Riverine
5.84
Non-Riverine NEENNINEM
- 0.75
-
-
Enhancement
- 0.34
-
-
Enhancement 1
Enhancement II
Creation
1,180
3,292
6.46
- 0.45
Preservation
-
-
- -
-
High Quality Preservation
-
-
- -
-
Note that lengths do not match stationing because channel sections that do not generate credit have been removed from length calculations.

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Underwood Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.94641
Monitoring Year 4 - 2016
or Report
Date Collection
Complete
Completion
DeliveryActivity
or Scheduled
Mitigation Plan
September 2011
September 2011
Final Design - Construction Plans
July 2012
July 2012
Construction
November 2012
November 2012
Temporary S&E mix applied to entire project areal
November 2012
November 2012
Permanent seed mix applied to reach/segments
November 2012
November 2012
Bare root and live stake plantings for reach/segments
January 2013
January 2013
Baseline Monitoring Document (Year 0 Monitoring - baseline)
March 2013
March 2013
Year 1 Monitoring
September 2013
November 2013
Year 2 Monitoring
December 2014
December 2014
Year 3 Monitoring
October 2015
December 2015
Year 4 Monitoring
November 2016
December 2016
Year 5 Monitoring
October 2017
December 2017
'Seed and mulch is added as each section of construction is completed.
Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Underwood Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.94641
Monitoring Year 4 - 2016
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Designer
312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225
Nicole Macaluso, PE
Raleigh, NC 27609
919.851.9986
Land Mechanic Designs, Inc.
Construction Contractor
126 Circle G Lane
Willow Spring, NC 27592
Bruton Natural Systems, Inc
Planting Contractor
P.O. Box 1197
Fremont, NC 27830
Land Mechanic Designs, Inc.
Seeding Contractor
126 Circle G Lane
Willow Spring, NC 27592
Seed Mix Sources
Green Resource, LLC
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Bare Roots
Arbor Glen, 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
DMS Project No.94641
Monitoring Year 4. 2016
Project Name
Project
Underwood Mitigation Site
Information
County
IChatham County
Project Area (acres)
138 ac
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude)
Physiographic Province
35° 48'05"N, 79° 24' 10"W (Harris Site), 35° 49'51"N, 79` 22'60"W (Lindley Site)
Project Watershed Summary Information mq��
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 Drainage 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
160% Forest Land, 39% managed herbaceous cover/agricultural, 1% unmanaged herbaceous/open water
Parameters
SF3 SF2
SF3 UTI UT1A UT3B UT2
SF4
SMA
Length of reach (linear feet) - Post -Restoration
874 302
2,098 1,983 511 652 418
1,429
866
Drainage area (acres)
134 781
1,056 230 11 11 78
3,362
637
NCDWQ stream identification score
36.0/50.5/43.3
40.0 22.8 24.3 38.0
U
34.5
NCDWQ Water Quality Classification
WS -V, WS -V,
NSW NSW
WS -V, C C C C
NSW
,
WS-VNSW
C
Morphological Desription (stream type)
P P
P P I I P
P
P
Evolutionary trend(Simon's Model) - Pre -Restoration
IV IV
IV IV IV IV IV
IV
IV
Underlying mapped soils
Nanford-Baden Complex Georgeville
Silt Loam
Chewacla and Wehadkee
Drainage class
--- ---
--- ------ --- ---
---
---
Soil Hydric status
--- ---
--- --- --- ---
--- -..
---
---
FEMA classification
--- ---
--- --- I--- -----
AE
---
Native vegetation community
Piedmont bottomland forest
Percent composition of exotic invasive vegetation -
Post -Restoration
Regulation
Applicable? Resolved?
0%
Supporting Documentation
Waters of the United States - Section 404
Waters of the United States -Section 401
X X
X
USAGE Nationwide Permit No.27 and DWQ401 Water Quality Certification
No. 3689
Division of Land Quality (Dam Safety)
N/A N/A
N/A
Endangered Species Act
X X
Underwood Mitigation Plan; no critical habitat for listed species exists within the project
(USFWS correspondence letter)
area
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
FEMAFloodplain Compliance
X X
Approved CLOMR
Essential Fisheries Habitat
I N/A I N/A
N/A

APPENDIX 2. Visual Assessment Data

Figure 3.0 Integrated Current Condition Plan View
ON WILDLANDS 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 Feet (Key)
ENGINEERINGUnderwood Mitigation Site
I I I I I DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 4 - 2016
Chatham County, NC

177W -
r
8 A 1
1 .
g
r .`X
J.
C)
5 317
e
c—
O
a A
00
xQ5 —
z�
Stream Restoration ".
Stream Enhancement I go
y�
Stream Enhancement 11
- r ,
Stream Restoration (no credit) � - j•
® Wetland Restoration
� r
Wetland Enhancement
Wetland Creation
Designed Bankfull�
Conservation Easement AJ 4 i•,�
i,
Structures> t ;
s
Cross Section (XS) !
+ Photo Point (PP) j Y
Groundwater Gage (GWG) Condition-MY4( ` y i '
4) Criteria Met
♦ Criteria Not Met
Vegetation Plot Condition-MY4 ' �' tM1
Criteria Met Z
- Criteria Not Met
Vegetation Problem Areas-MY4 ~
Low Stem Density
Stream Problem Areas-MY4
- Beaver Dam
2013 Aerial Photography
WILDLANDS 0 50 100 150 200 Feet
ENGINEERING
Figure 3.1 Integrated Current Condition Plan View
(Sheet 1 of 3)
Underwood Mitigation Site - Harris Site
DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 4 - 2016
Chatham County, NC

a
_
70
y � xv's 'f/ /, r �%i ,f:."�� { .l.n4� ,'�'I A4' /,Y , r, f' r v "•'V- s. -y ::;-"
.'l y r
r
i/ r'�i"r, � /r y�,. � ;:9 �/ t -•C � `t+ xt , t -.>� _ ':.$� a �f.Y �' ', :iyy9
x Al
f;' 1 /'rti l/^:. , / , :,,'_'�' S. %� ,}¢'•' ,',r1�R,.` / f . 1•..�„ ",,`'. ;:$1 s, r{q.,- - ;a
,t;l/" 4"!
'A^ w �+�
a as A y
0 25
,101, rrF 17
60/x00
1'If at
i
A 24
0626
o ` ■
_ oo 22pp
o t
70500 51�_%if. I" /
p�
�GWIO 15
E
q�.
W I L D L A N D S 0 100 200 300 400 Feet
ENGINEERING
I i I i I
Figure 3.2 Integrated Current Condition Plan View
(Sheet 2 of 3)
Underwood Mitigation Site - Harris Site
DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 4 - 2016
Chatham County, NC
13'
a pyx. ',�
Stream
Cq%sin .
Stream Restoration
-
Stream Enhancement I�'
Stream Enhancement II
Stream Restoration (no credit)
® Wetland Restoration
Wetland Enhancement
a
Wetland Creation
.
rz
----- Designed Bankfull
•
77
Conservation Easement
Structures
-
a ,
Cross Section (XS)
-
+ Photo Point (PP)
Groundwater Gage (GWG) Condition-MY4
- r
t
♦ Criteria Met
;t
♦ Criteria Not Met
Vegetation Plot Condition-MY4
' �1
0 Criteria Met
'
- Criteria Not Met
Vegetation Problem Areas-MY4
Low Stem Density
Stream Problem Areas-MY4
= Beaver Dam
W I L D L A N D S 0 100 200 300 400 Feet
ENGINEERING
I i I i I
Figure 3.2 Integrated Current Condition Plan View
(Sheet 2 of 3)
Underwood Mitigation Site - Harris Site
DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 4 - 2016
Chatham County, NC

r 36 35 GWG 1 34 `
33
' •' /� / +''snn..nD, 'smart -
31
4 �� �r - o•
t30"GWG 1 4
32 ' t
-GR�?61
WG
G15
fig#
. •J%���'�.R, r _ Vis'
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement I
Stream Enhancement II
Stream Restoration (no credit)
Wetland Restoration
Wetland Enhancement
Wetland Creation
---- Designed Bankfull
Conservation Easement •
Structures
— Cross Section (XS)
p ;
Photo Point (PP)
Groundwater Gage (GWG) Condition-MY4
Criteria Met
37
Criteria Not Met
Vegetation Plot Condition-MY4
'•°
Criteria Met
`.
Criteria Not Met
Vegetation Problem Areas-MY4
Low Stem Density
Stream Problem Areas-MY4
Beaver Dam
Figure 3.3 Integrated Current Condition Plan View
(Sheet 3 of 3)
WILDLANDS Underwood Mitigation Site -Harris Site
ENGINEERING , 0 100 200 Feet DMS Project No. 94641
I Monitoring Year 4 - 2016
Chatham County, NC

Supplemental Planting
at 125 Stems/ Acre
�•.•�• RW2
wr
�•'•. - GWG 4
of
i
_.
•• r
i
1
r � •.
s •
• ` (!) Supplemental Planting
at 125 Stems/ Acre
inn
1
Supplemental Planting
at 22 Stems/ Acre -41,
i
2014 Aerial Photography
Ak

A
Supplemental Planting
at 61 Stems/ Acre
PP #25 PP #36L I
N
RV PP #27
rIP #2 UT1
OPP #23•
—rp
..........
�P #28
P PO�,e
Supplemental Planting '�•' %a�'
at 20 Stems/ Acre
PP #29
PP #30
•
Supplemental Planting-MY4
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement I
Stream Enhancement 11
Stream Restoration (no credit) ..........
Wetland Restoration
—7
/ /� %A/.,tl;inrl Fnhpnrpmpnt
7
Z,
PP#181..M
4W
U.
2014 A erial Photography
Ar,
-V
PP #17
")(S6
RW3
GWG
PP #16
Pp #15'.
11
n PP #14
P#130
#134,
1
4�
•
AP #12
PP #11
LL
PF,
2014 A erial Photography
Ar,

GWG i 34
0 Supplemental Planting-MY4
— 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)
m Photo Point (PP)
Groundwater Gage (GWG) Condition-MY4
Criteria Met
♦ Criteria Not Met
Vegetation Plot Condition-MY4
0 Criteria Met
Criteria Not Met
txw.*� WILDLANDSrk 1�
0 100 200 Feet
ENGINEERING
�I I I II I I
t
Qo
Figure 4.3 Supplemental Planting
(Sheet 3 of 3)
Underwood Mitigation Site - Harris Site
DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 4 - 2016
Chatham County, NC

Table Sa. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Underwood Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 4 - 2016
Harris Site; SF3 (874 LF)
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As -Built
Number of Amount of %Stable,
Unstable Unstable Performing as
Segments Footage 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
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
DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 4 - 2016
Harris Site; UT2 (418 LF)
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As -Built
Number of Amount of %Stable,
Unstable Unstable Performing as
Segments Footage 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
10
10
100%
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
10
10
100%
1. Bed
Condition
100%
Length Appropriate
10
10
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend (Run)
10
10
100%
100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend (Glide)
10
10
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
Piping
2a. Pi
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 5c. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Underwood Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 4 - 2016
Harris Site; SF2 (302 LF)
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As -Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of %Stable,
Unstable Performing as
Footage 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
n/a
n/a
n/a
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
n/a
n/a
n/a
1. Bed
Condition
n/a
Length Appropriate
n/a
n/a
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend (Run)
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander 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 Scl. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Underwood Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 4 - 2016
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 %Stable,
Unstable Unstable Performing as
Segments Footage 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
100%
Length Appropriate
19 19
100%
100%
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend (Run)
19 19
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend (Glide)
19 19
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured/Eroded
simply from poor growth and/or scour0
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%
StructureS2
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
DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 4 - 2016
Harris Site; UT1 (2,038 LF)
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As -Built
Number of Amount of %Stable,
Unstable Unstable Performing as
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
7 7
100%
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
7 7
100%
1. Bed'
Condition
100%
Length Appropriate
7 7
100%
100%
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend (Run)
7 7
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend (Glide)
7 7
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
'Number of riffles and pools are determined based on the as -built survey along Restoration and Enhancement Level I reaches.
2Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.

Table 5f. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Underwood Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 4 - 2016
Harris Site; UT1A & UT1B (1,163 LF)
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As -Built
Number of Amount of %Stable,
Unstable Unstable Performing as
Segments Footage 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
n/a
n/a
n/a
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
n/a
n/a
n/a
1. Bed
Condition
n/a
Length Appropriate
n/a
n/a
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend (Run)
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander 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
DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 4 - 2016
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 %Stable,
Unstable Unstable Performing as
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
8
8
100%
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
8
8
100%
1. Bed
Condition
100%
Length Appropriate
8
8
100%
100%
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend (Run)
8
8
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend (Glide)
8
8
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
10
3. Mass Wasting
JBank slumping, caving, or collapse
1 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
Piping
2a. Pim
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
DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 4 - 2016
Lindley Site; SMA (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 %Stable,
Unstable Performing as
Footage 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
10
10
100%
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
9
9
100%
1. Bed'
Condition
100%
Length Appropriate
9
9
100%
100%
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend (Run)
9
9
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend (Glide)
9
9
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
10
3. Mass Wasting
JBank slumping, caving, or collapse
1 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%
Structures2
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
1Number of riffles and pools are determined based on the as -built survey along Restoration and Enhancement Level I reaches. Approximately 533 LF of the stream bed has downcut along SF4A and riffles and pools 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
DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 4 - 2016
Planted Acreage 38
Easement Acreage 38
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Mapping
Number of
Polygons
Combined
Acreage
%of
Invasive Areas of Concern
Areas of points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
1,000
Number of
Combined
0.0%
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Threshold
Planted
Areas of points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
none
0
Polygons
Acreage
(Ac)
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
3
0.5
1.4%
criteria.
Total
3
0.5
1.4%
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)

T � h
I.
I.

Photo Point 7 — looking upstream (05/08/2016) 1 Photo Point 7 — looking downstream (05/08/2016)
Photo Point 8 — looking upstream (05/08/2016) 1 Photo Point 8 — looking downstream (05/08/2016) 1
Photo Point 9 — looking upstream (05/08/2016) 1 Photo Point 9 — looking downstream (05/08/2016) 1

`r
.d
�. �`'? � z , _ *� sE �- � Vis•
_ � ? L i }+.f 1i' `' 'lam• � � \ S �. �, a', �y�,
WT-
��.
• • • •int 11 — looking upstreamI I : I . Photo Point 11 — looking• • (0510812016)
"L all
t - low, !t
OF 'lei
k � _
a. isq

8Y1�
►: '' : -Q
Photo Point 13 — looking upstream (05/08/2016) Photo Point 13 — looking downstream (05/08/2016)
Photo Point 14 — looking upstream (05/08/2016) j Photo Point 14 — looking downstream (05/08/2016)
Photo Point 15 — looking upstream (05/08/2016) 1 Photo Point 15 — looking downstream (05/08/2016) 1

Photo Point 16 — looking upstream (05/08/2016) 1 Photo Point 16 — looking downstream (05/08/2016)
Photo Point 17 — looking upstream (05/08/2016) 1 Photo Point 17 — looking downstream (05/08/2016) 1
Photo Point 18 — looking upstream (05/08/2016) 1 Photo Point 18 — looking downstream (05/08/2016) 1

Photo Point 19 — looking upstream (05/08/2016) 1 Photo Point 19 — looking upstream (05/08/2016)
Photo Point 20 — looking upstream (05/08/2016) 1 Photo Point 20— looking downstream (05/08/2016) 1
Photo Point 21— looking upstream (05/08/2016) 1 Photo Point 21— looking downstream (05/08/2016) 1

Photo Point 22 — looking upstream (05/08/2016) 1 Photo Point 22 — looking downstream (05/08/2016)
Photo Point 23 — looking upstream (05/08/2016) 1 Photo Point 23 — looking downstream (05/08/2016) 1
Photo Point 24 — looking upstream (05/08/2016) 1 Photo Point 24 — looking downstream (05/08/2016)

Photo Point 25 — looking upstream (05/08/2016) 1 Photo Point 25 — looking downstream (05/08/2016)
Photo Point 26 — looking upstream (05/08/2016) 1 Photo Point 26 — looking downstream (05/08/2016) 1
Photo Point 27 — looking upstream (05/08/2016) 1 Photo Point 27 — looking downstream (05/08/2016)

/w r w ��, a '�.T"y.'` IR � , �,•. .x.
� pR�41 Y
"k a
� �' � ��, � a "lam' h-+` � -.f•
lei
i
i
H •i

Photo Point 31— looking upstream (05/08/2016) 1 Photo Point 31— looking downstream (05/08/2016)
Photo Point 34— looking upstream (05/08/2016) 1 Photo Point 34— looking downstream (05/08/2016) 1
Photo Point 35 — looking upstream (05/08/2016) 1 Photo Point 35 — looking downstream (05/08/2016) 1

Photo Point 36 — looking upstream (05/08/2016) 1 Photo Point 36 — looking downstream (05/08/2016)
Photo Point 37 — looking upstream (05/08/2016) 1 Photo Point 37 — looking downstream (05/08/2016) 1
Photo Point 38 — looking upstream (05/08/2016) 1 Photo Point 38 — looking downstream (05/08/2016)

Stream Photographs
Underwood (Lindley Site)

I Photo Point 40 — looking upstream (05/08/2016) 1 Photo Point 40 — looking downstream (05/08/2016)
Photo Point 41— looking upstream (05/08/2016) 1 Photo Point 41— looking downstream (05/08/2016) 1
Photo Point 42 — looking upstream (05/08/2016) 1 Photo Point 42 — looking downstream (05/08/2016) 1

Photo Point 43 — looking upstream (05/08/2016) 1 Photo Point 43 — looking downstream (05/08/2016)
Photo Point 44— looking upstream (05/08/2016) 1 Photo Point 44— looking downstream (05/08/2016) 1
Photo Point 45 — looking upstream (05/08/2016) 1 Photo Point 45 — looking downstream (05/08/2016)

Photo Point 46 — looking upstream (05/08/2016) Photo Point 46 — looking downstream (05/08/2016)
Photo Point 47 — looking upstream (05/08/2016) Photo Point 47 — looking downstream (05/08/2016)
Photo Point 48 — looking upstream (05/08/2016) 1 Photo Point 48 — looking downstream (05/08/2016)

Vegetation Photographs
Underwood (Harris Site)

104
f a
1414
`
Z
� r
77717,
r
11 7
i
a�1
y
`
y
71

yn �
n.
• �q E:
.r
h`
fF �"ry}4i `srf
b b -
I Lsrt,
>,->s
i v �
XA 4�
a A1[ r ., .. ✓ r r
.'�
e
�
� 1
a
a� �` �c
!
�`
�`•
yR
.o xa �� �
\
u

ti
Fl,
Val
4A A1&114�
,62,
Aw
4"A J1�

Vegetation Plot 25 (06/07/2016) 1 Vegetation Plot 26 (06/07/2016)
Vegetation Plot 27 (06/07/2016) 1 Vegetation Plot 28 (06/07/2016)
Vegetation Plot 29 (06/07/2016)

Vegetation Photographs
Underwood (Lindley Site)

� ��� a �'.� �`'.,•'�„ �� y f
"m-
+, ^Air �-
�.4Iv
Fi+iyi
't t u
[Y,,m7; ,gyF - e ,Y f
I � A,_ e -
R
� O. ,f
i
ti
Fi+iyi
't t u
[Y,,m7; ,gyF - e ,Y f
I � A,_ e -

lop
F
i j1r
t
I
_
'
as

Vegetation Plot 42 (06/08/2016)

APPENDIX 3. Vegetation Plot Data

Table 7. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Underwood Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 4 - 2016
Plot MY4 Success Criteria
Met (Y/N)
Tract Mean
1 Y
83°%
2 Y
3 Y
4 Y
5 Y
6 Y
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 N
20 Y
21 Y
22 Y
23 N
24 Y
25 Y
26 Y
27 Y
28 Y
29 Y
MY4 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 - Metaclata
Underwood Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 4 - 2016
Database name
Underwood MY4 cvs-eep-entrytool-v2.3.1.mdb
Database location
F:\Projects\005-02125 Underwood\Monitoring\Monitoring Year 4\Vegetation Assessment
Computer name
KENTON
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
DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 4 - 2016
Current Plot Data (MY4 2016)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
94641-WEI-0001
Pnol-S P -all T
94641-WEI-0002
PnoLS P -all T
94641-WEI-0003
PnoLS P -all T
94641-WEI-0004
PnoLS P -all T
94641-WEI-0005
PnoLS P -all T
94641-WEI-0006
Pnol-S P -all T
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
Tree
2
2
2
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
2 1
Z 1
2
2
2
2
1
1 1
1 1
4
4
1 4
3
3
3
1 1
1
1
Juglans nigra
black walnut
Tree
Liquidambar styraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
6
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
1
1
1
5
5
5
3
3
3
4
4
4
7
7
7
4
4
5
Quercus
oal<
Tree
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
4
4 1
4 1
1
6
1 6
6
3
3
3
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oal<
Tree
4
4
4
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
2
Z
2
6
6
6
3
3
3
2
2
Z
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
Tree
Salix sericea
silky willow
Shrub
Stem count
15
15
15
17
17
17
13
13
13
12
12
12
14
14
14
12
12
19
size (ares)
1
1
1
1
1
1
size (ACRES)
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
Species count
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
6
Stems per ACRE
607
607
607
688
688
688
526.1
526.1
526.1
485.6
485.6
485.6
566.6
566.6
566.6
485.6
485.6
768.9
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
DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 4 - 2016
Current Plot Data (MY4 2016)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
94641-WEI-0007
Pnol-S P -all T
94641-WEI-0008
PnoLS P -all T
94641-WEI-0009
PnoLS P -all T
94641-WEI-0010
PnoLS P -all T
94641-WEI-0011
PnoLS P -all T
94641-WEI-0012
Pnol-S P -all T
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
Tree
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
1
1
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
3
3
1 3
3
3 1
3
11
100
Juglans nigra
black walnut
Tree
Liquidambar styraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
1
1
1
4
4
4
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
Quercus
oal<
Tree
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
4
4
4 1
2
2
1 2
1
1
1
1
4
1 4
4
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oal<
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
6
6
6
2
2
2
1
1
1
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
Tree
Salix sericea
silky willow
Shrub
1
1
4
4
Stem count
9
9
9
9
9
9
10
11
12
5
10
10
14
14
14
6
6
106
size (ares)
1
1
1
1
1
1
size (ACRES)
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
Species count
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
5
6
3
5
5
6
6
6
3
3
4
Stems per ACRE
364.2
364.2
364.2
364.2
364.2
364.2
404.7
445.2
485.6
202.3
404.7
404.7
566.6
566.6
566.6
242.81
242.8
4290
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
DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 4 - 2016
Current Plot Data (MY4 2016)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
94641-WEI-0013
Pnol-S P -all T
94641-WEI-0014
PnoLS P -all T
94641-WEI-0015
PnoLS P -all T
94641-WEI-0016
PnoLS 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
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
Tree
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
3
3
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
1
1
1
3
1 3
3 1
1
3 1
3
3
Juglans nigra
black walnut
Tree
Liquidambar styraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
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
2
2
2
2
Quercus
oal<
Tree
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
1
1
2
2
1 2
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
1 3
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oal<
Tree
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
6
6
1
1
1
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
Tree
Salix sericea
silky willow
Shrub
1
1
4
4
Stem count
16
16
16
13
13
13
15
16
16
7
14
14
12
12
12
10
10
10
size (ares)
1
1
1
1
1
1
size (ACRES)
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
Species count
1
1
1
5
5
5
5
6
6
4
6
6
3
3
3
5
5
5
Stems per ACRE
647.5
647.5
647.5
526.1
526.1
526.1
607
647.5
647.5
283.3
566.6
566.6
485.6
485.6
485.6
404.7
404.71
404.7
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
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
DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 4 - 2016
Current Plot Data (MY4 2016)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
94641-WEI-0019
Pnol-S P -all T
94641-WEI-0020
PnoLS P -all T
94641-WEI-0021
PnoLS P -all T
94641-WEI-0022
PnoLS 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
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
Tree
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
1
1 1
4 1
1
1
1 1
1
1
1
1 1
1
1
Juglans nigra
black walnut
Tree
Liquidambar styraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
1
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
1
1
1
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
4
4
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
6
6
Quercus
oal<
Tree
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
1
1
4
4
1 4
1
1 1 1
1
7
7
7
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oal<
Tree
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
1
Salix sericea
silky willow
Shrub
2
2
Stem count
5
5
S
9
9
10
8
8
11
15
15
15
5
5
6
11
13
13
size (ares)
1
1
1
1
1
1
size (ACRES)
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
Species count
2
2
2
3
3
4
6
6
6
6
6
6
4
4
5
4
5
5
Stems per ACRE
202.3
202.3
202.3
364.2
364.2
404.7
323.7
323.7
445.2
607
607
607
202.3
202.3
242.8
445.2
526.11
526.1
Color Coding for Table
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
PnoLS: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes,
T: Total Stems

Table 9. Planted and Total Stem Counts
Underwood Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 4 - 2016
Current Plot Data (MY4 2016)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
94641-WEI-0025
Pnol-S P -all T
94641-WEI-0026
PnoLS 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
Pnol-S P -all T
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
8
8
9
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
Tree
1
1
1
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
4
4
4
2
1 2
5 1
3
3
1 3
1
1
3
9 1
9
9
Juglans nigra
black walnut
Tree
Liquidambar styraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
5
5
6
3
3
3
1
1
2
7
7
7
Quercus
oal<
Tree
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
1
1 1
1 1
5
5
1 5
2
1 2
2
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oal<
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
1
1
1
3
3
3
2
2
2
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
4
4
4
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
Tree
1
1
1
Salix sericea
silky willow
Shrub
2
2
2
2
Stem count
12
12
13
16
16
16
8
8
11
11
11
12
20
22
25
12
14
14
size (ares)
1
1
1
1
1
1
size (ACRES)
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
Species count
4
4
4
6
6
6
4
4
4
7
7
7
5
6
6
3
4
4
Stems per ACRE
485.6
485.6
526.1
647.51
647.51
647.5
323.71
323.71
445.2
445.21
445.21
485.6
809.41
890.3
1012
485.61
566.61
566.6
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
DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 4 - 2016
Current Plot Data (MY4 2016)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
94641-WEI-0031
Pnol-S P -all T
94641-WEI-0032
PnoLS P -all T
94641-WEI-0033
PnoLS P -all T
94641-WEI-0034
PnoLS P -all T
94641-WEI-0035
PnoLS P -all T
94641-WEI-0036
Pnol-S P -all T
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
20
5
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
Tree
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
2
2
22
4
4
4
3
3 1
3
4 1
4
1 4
1
1
5
3 1
3
3
Juglans nigra
black walnut
Tree
Liquidambar styraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
20
5
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
oal<
Tree
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oal<
Tree
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
3
3
3
2
2
2
5
5
5
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
Tree
Salix sericea
silky willow
Shrub
4
4
2
2
4
4
3
3
Stem count
9
14
74
9
12
12
16
16
16
12
18
18
10
10
24
12
17
17
size (ares)
1
1
1
1
1
1
size (ACRES)
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
Species count
4
6
8
3
5
5
4
4
4
4
6
6
4
4
6
4
6
6
Stems per ACRE
364.2
566.6
2995
364.2
485.6
485.6
647.5
647.5
647.5
485.6
728.4
728.4
404.7
404.7
971.2
485.6
688
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
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
DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 4 - 2016
Current Plot Data (MY4 2016)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
94641-WEI-0037
Pnol-S P -all T
94641-WEI-0038
PnoLS P -all T
94641-WEI-0039
PnoLS P -all T
94641-WEI-0040
PnoLS P -all T
94641-WEI-0041
PnoLS P -all T
94641-WEI-0042
Pnol-S P -all T
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
10
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
2
2
2
1
1
1
3
3
3
4
4
4
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
Tree
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
1
1
1
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
15
4
4
14
1
1 1
1 1
1 10
1
1
1
Juglans nigra
black walnut
Tree
Liquidambar styraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
4
3
3
3
3
3
13
1
1
1
2
2
2
Quercus
oal<
Tree
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
6
6 1
6
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oal<
Tree
4
4
4
1
1
1
2
2
2
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
10
3
3
1
1
Stem count
12
12
27
8
8
21
9
9
9
5
5
45
9
13
13
9
11
11
size (ares)
1
1
1
1
1
1
size (ACRES)
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
Species count
4
4
5
4
4
4
5
5
5
2
2
5
4
6
6
5
7
7
Stems per ACRE
485.6
485.6
1093
323.7
323.7
849.8
364.2
364.2
364.2
202.3
202.3
1821
364.2
526.1
526.1
364.2
445.2
445.2
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
FW

Table 9. Planted and Total Stem Counts
Underwood Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 4 - 2016
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
MY4 (2016)
PnoLS P -all T
MY3 (2015)
PnoLS P -all T
MY2 (2014)
PnoLS P -all T
MY1 (2013)
Pri P -all T
MYO (2012)
PnoLS P -all T
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
35
57
55
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
53
53
56
56
56
57
64
64
64
82
82
82
124
124
124
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
Tree
1
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
12
13 1
16
16
16
20
25
25
25
30
30
30
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
76
76
245
74
74
573
74 1
74 1
387
82 1
82
142 1
86 1
86
86
Juglans nigra
black walnut
Tree
1
Liquidambar styraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
32
170
92
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
10
10
10
10
10
10
15
15
16
20
20
20
3S
35
3S
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
131
131
148
140
140
221
143
143
193
144
144
204
145
145
145
Quercus
oak
Tree
2
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
56
56
56 1
61
61
61
62 1
62 1
62
71 1
71
71 1
87 1
87
87
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
Tree
60
60
61
68
68
69
72
72
73
93
93
93
131
131
131
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
64
64
66
67
67
72
69
69
69
72
72
72
64
64
64
Quercus rubra
Inorthern red oak
I Tree
2
2
Salix sericea
Isilky willow
I Shrub
33
43
37
60
37
66
39
39
39
38
38
38
Stem count
450
495
768
476
529
1370
499
552
1098
628
628
748
740
740
740
size (ares)
42
42
42
142
142
size (ACRES)
1.04
1.04
1.04
1.04
1
1.04
Species count
71
9T
13
71
9
13
71
91
12191
91
91
9
9
9
Stems per ACRE
433.61
4771
740
458.61
509.71
1320
480.81
531.91
1058
605.11
605.11
720.71
7121
7121
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
DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 4 - 2016
Harris Site; SF3 and UT2
Parameter
Gage
Pre -Restoration
SF1
Condition
UT2
J.1elLrenice
Long Branch
Reach D.
UT to Cane Creek
SH
)-
E
UT2
SFl
UT2
Min Max
Min Max
Min
Max
Min Max
Min I
Max
Min I Max
Min
Max
Min
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
1.5
1.0 1 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
---
---
--
---
35
62
29 50
37
61
23
59
Pool Volume (ft')
Pattern
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/0.9/4.7/20.9/87/362
N/A/N/A/6.1/62/128/256
SC/SC/SC/46.6/100/256
SC/SC/SC/58.6/111.2/180
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) Ib/ft
n/a
---
0.42
0.39
N/A
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
nommommommom
3.1
3.1
3.2
1.0
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
20
13.1
101
1 124
20.6 53.2
20
13.1
20
13.1
Q-NFF regression
n/a
45.2
---
---
30.96
---
---
---
---
---
Q-USGS extrapolation
Q-Mannings
Valley Length (ft)
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
773
421
---
---
878
421
874
418
Sinuosity (ft)
1.1
1.0
1.30
1.20
1.2
1.0
1.2
1.0
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
---
I
---
I
---
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
DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 4 - 2016
Harris Site; SF3 and UT3
(---1: 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.
Pre
-Restoration
Condltion��&
Reference Reach
Data
Desig
Parameter
Gage
SF3
UT1
Long Branch
UT to
Cane
Creek
SF3-u/s of UTl
SF3-d/s of UTl
UT1
SF3
UT1
Mi -____F
Max
Min
Max
Min I Max
I Min
I
Max
Min I Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
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
22.6
29.3
4.1
Floodprone Width (ft)
48.6
14.2
50+
40+
50+
200+
>100
50+
200+
100+
Bankfull Mean Depth
1.8
0.8
1.3 2.1
0.9
1.0
1.5
1.5
0.9
1.0
1.5
0.3
Bankfull Max Depth
2.4
1.5
1.9 2.9
1.5
1.7
2.1
2.1
1.3
2.3
2.6
0.5
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
27.0
34.5
1.2
Width/Depth Ratio
8.8
1
11.1
7.9 13.8
7.9
13.1
12.0
12.0
12.0
1 14.8
28.8
1
14.2
Entrenchment Ratio
3.1
1.6
3.4+
4.59+
2.2+
2.2+
>2.2
2.2+
2.2+
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
1.0
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
4.7
1.0
MENEEM
SIMENJEM
50.6
63.3
73.8
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
---
---
---
---
---
12
103
11
26
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.030
0.0500
0.0130 1 0.0120
0.0120
0.005 1 0.009
0.0078 0.0140
0.0118
1
0.0210
0.0003
0.0169
0.0023
0.0185
Pool Length (ft)
---
---
---
---
--
23
100
20
80
Pool Max Depth (ft)
n/a
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
0.0
0.0
2.5
Pool Spacing (ft)A
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
53
166
58
76
Pool Volume (ft')
Pattern
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
16-1 87
11.3
27.1
31 51
31 50
21
30
31
51
21
30
Rc:Bankfu(I 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%
7.53/16.66/40.82/74.02/97.42/180
N/A/N/A/1/16/107.3/256
0.08/0.21/11/67.2/256/>2048
0.07/0.16/0.3/26.9/71.7/256
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) Ib/ft
n/a
---
---
0.35
0.52
0.37
0.28
0.12
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (Capa(ity) W/m
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
1.27
0.36
1.49
0.28
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
C4
C5
C4
C5
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
3.7
5.87
11111111MEM11111MIJIMM
3.0
3.4
3.2
2.9
3.0
25.3
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
81.5
30.3
101 124
81.5
99.8
30.3
81.5
99.8
30.3
Q-NFF regression
159.7
65.7
NEEMEMENNEEM
Q-USGS extrapolation
n/a
---
---
---
--
---
i2O.M653.2
--
---
---
Q-Mannings
Valley
Va ey Length--
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
2,183
1,915
---
2,116
1,997
2,120
2,038
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
---
---
I --- I
---
0.0047
0.0083
(---1: 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 10c. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Underwood Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 4 - 2016
Lindlev Site; SF4 and SMA
(---): 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.
Pre -Restoration
Condition
Reference Reach
DIA.
Design
As-Built/Baseline
Gage
SH
SFA
Long Branch
UT to Cane Creek
SF4
SFA
SF4
SFA
Min Max
Min Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
18.6
10.3
14.8
1 18.6
8.2
1 11.8
14.0
12.0
26.7
27.3
13.6
17.3
Floodprone Width (ft)
157.3
29.4
50+
40+
50+
200+
200+
200+
2..+
200+
Bankfull Mean Depth
2.7
1.6
1.3
2.1
0.9
1.0
1.9
1.2
2.0
2.9
1.2
1.6
Bankfull Max Depth
4.0
2.2
1.9
2.9
1.5
1.7
2.3
1.7
2.9
3.0
2.1
2.8
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft')
n/a
49.7
16.9
25.0
34.6
8.5
10.7
53.0
18.0
49.0
53.8
16.1
27.1
Width/Depth Ratio
6.9
6.3
7.9
13.8
7.9
13.1
14.0
12.0
13.8
14.6
11.1
11.5
Entrenchment Ratio
3.5
2.9
3.4+
4.59+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
Bank Height Ratio
1.4
1.8
1.2
1.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
Profile
0.3
0.8
117.2
134.4
22.6
82.0
Riffle Length (ft)
-
---
51
112
41
79
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
---
---
0.0130 0.0120
0.0120
0.0048 0.0085
0.0108 0.0193
0.0010
0.0098
0.0001
0.0210
Pool Length (ft)
---
---
---
---
54
123
28
79
Pool Max Depth (ft)
n/a
---
---
---
---
---
---
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Pool Spacing (ft)^
---
---
---
---
---
---
146
210
71
110
Pool Volume (ft)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
N/A
N/A
60
50
77
82 136
44 74
82
136
44
74
Radius of Curvature (ft)
N/A
N/A
16
87
11
27
46 76
25 41
46
76
25
41
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
n/a
---
---
1
5
1
3
1.7 2.8
1.7 2.8
2
3
2
3
Meander Length (ft)
N/A
N/A
66
191
29
96
191 327
103 177
191
327
103
177
Meander Width Ratio
---
---
3
4
6
7
3 5
3 5
3
5
3
5
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
MINNIMEEMOMmom
N/A/N/A/0.3/17.9/45.8/90
N/A/0.1/0.8/204./62.9/362
0.13/0.36/5.3/102.5/320.7/>2048
SC/0.12/1.4/44/71.3/362
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d1DD
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) Ib/ft"
n/a
---
---
0.32 0.63
0.33
0.33
0.44
0.58
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (Capacity) W/mz
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
5.26
1.00
1.49
0.28
5.26
1.00
5.26
1.00
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
<1%
<1%
---
---
<1%
<1%
<1%
<1%
Rosgen Classification
E5
E5
C/E4
C/E4
C5
C5
C4
C5
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
5.9
5.26
mommommommom
3.9
3.7
4.2
1
3.8
2.5
1
4.2
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
247.4
67.3
101
124
20.6
53.2
204
67.3
204
67.3
Q-NFF regression
n/a
432.92
---
---
134.59
---
---
Q-USGS extrapolation
Q-Mannings
Valley Length (ft)
---
---
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
1450.0
609.0
-
1,424
868
1,429
866
Sinuosity (ft)
1.3
1.1
1.3
1.2
1.2
1.0
1.2
1.1
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)z
0.003
0.008
0.004
0.005
0.0034
0.0077
0.0033
0.0070
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.006
--- 1
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
DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 4 - 2016
Harris and Lindley Site
OEM- -,M
Dimension and Substrate
Base
Cross
MY1
Section
MY2 I
1 (Riffle)
MY3
MY4
�=
MY5
Base
Cross
MY1
Section
MY2
2 (Pool)
I MY3
MY4
WJULL�
MYS Base
Cross
MY1
Section
MY2
3 (Pool)
I MY3
MY4
UT2
MBase
Cross
MY1
Section
MY2 I
4 (Riffle)
MY3
MY4
MYS
based on fixed bankfull elevation
595.5
594.9
600.2
599.5
Bankfull Width (ft)
8.4
9.0
8.2
7.8
8.2
11.7
13.9
10.9
10.4
11.3
15.0
19.4
15.7
14.2
15.2
16.6
18.6
17.4
16.9
16.5
Floodprone Width (ft)
50+
50+
50+
50+
50+
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.8
1.0
1.6
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.6
0.8
0.9
0.8
0.8
1.0
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.0
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.9
1.7
2.1
1.9
1.9
1.9
2.7
2.7
2.6
2.6
2.8
1.1
1.4
1.2
1.2
1.5
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (W)
5.6
6.3
4.8
4.6
4.8
12.8
12.2
9.9
8.8
11.4
24.2
26.2
23.1
22.5
24.7
13.6
18.6
14.1
13.9
16.6
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
12.8
12.9
14.2
13.5
14.1
N/A
N/A
12.0
12.3
11.2
N/A
N/A
10.7
9.0
9.4
20.4
25.4
21.4
20.6
16.5
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
SFe-
Dimension and Substrate
Base
I MY1
Section
FMY2
5 (Riffle)
MY3
MY4
MY5
Base
Cross
MYl
Section
MY2
6 (Pool)
MY3
MY4
MYS Base
MYI
MY2
MY3
MY4
MYS Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MYS
based on fixed bankfull elevation
567.8
575.0
574.7
572.9
Bankfull Width (ft)
19.7
22.6
19.4
18.8
18.8
19.7
24.8
22.7
23.5
23.4
16.7
29.3
15.8
16.5
18.5
19.7
22.3
15.9
17.0
17.4
Floodprone Width (ft)
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.6
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.6
2.0
1.9
1.8
1.8
1.2
1.0
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.4
1.7
1.6
1.6
1.7
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
2.3
2.5
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.3
4.1
3.7
3.7
3.7
2.2
2.6
2.2
2.2
2.1
3.0
3.5
3.0
3.0
3.1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
30.5
34.5
29.9
28.3
28.6
30.5
50.2
43.1
41.4
43.4
20.6
29.8
19.2
19.5
21.4
28.0
36.9
26.2
27.6
28.8
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
12.7
14.8
12.5
12.5
12.4
12.7
12.1
12.0
13.3
12.7
13.5
28.8
12.9
14.0
16.0
13.9
13.5
9.7
10.5
10.5
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
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
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Dimension and Substrate
Base
Cross
MY1
SF3
Section 9 (Riffle)
MY2 I MY3
MY4
7MYS
Base
Cross
MY3
Section
MY2
10 (Riffle)
I MY3
MY4
UTI
"W
MYS Base
Cross
MY3
Section
MY2
11 (Pool)
I MY3
MY4
FIMY5 Base
Cross
MY1
SF4
Section 12 (Pool)
MY2 I MY3
MY4
MYS
based on fixed bankfull elevation
572.5
574.0
573.8
539.7
Bankfull Width (ft)
15.9
24.2
14.9
15.4
14.9
12.6
10.1
11.3
10.6
10.8
14.2
19.4
12.0
13.4
14.0
33.3
34.1
29.8
29.6
33.2
Floodprone Width (ft)
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
100+
100+
100+
100+
100+
N/A
N/A
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
1.2
0.8
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.9
1.3
0.9
1.2
1.1
1.2
2.2
2.1
2.4
2.4
2.2
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.8
2.3
1.8
1.7
1.9
1.5
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.6
2.6
2.5
2.3
2.4
2.5
4.9
4.7
4.9
4.8
4.9
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (W)
19.0
27.0
15.5
16.2
18.1
10.5
9.5
9.5
8.1
9.7
17.7
17.0
14.6
15.0
17.4
74.4
72.2
70.7
71.7
72.5
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
13.3
21.6
14.4
14.6
12.2
15.1
10.7
13.4
13.8
11.9
11.3
22.1
10.0
12.0
11.2
14.9
16.2
12.5
12.2
15.2
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
N/A
N/A
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
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Dimension and Substrate
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
Base
MY1
SF4
MY2 I MY3
MY4
MYS Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MYS Base
MY1
SF4A
MY2 MY3
MY4
MYS
based on fixed bankfull elevation
539.6
537.8
537.7
540.4
Bankfull Width (ft)
27.3
26.7
26.0
28.8
28.4
38.7
44.4
45.4
47.6
45.7
27.6
27.3
26.2
28.3
29.2
23.7
17.3
13.9
14.9
17.3
Floodprone Width (ft)
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.8
2.9
1.9
1.8
1.9
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
2.1
1.9
2.0
2.1
1.9
1.9
0.9
1.6
1.8
1.7
1.7
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
3.0
2.9
2.9
3.1
3.1
4.3
4.6
5.0
5.0
5.7
3.2
3.0
3.2
3.1
3.5
2.3
2.8
3.0
3.1
3.4
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft')
49.5
49.0
49.7
51.8
54.3
70.6
78.1
82.2
86.0
96.0
51.2
53.8
53.9
53.3
56.6
20.4
27.1
25.2
25.5
30.3
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
15.1
14.6
13.6
16.0
14.8
21.2
25.3
25.1
26.4
21.8
14.9
13.8
12.8
15.0
15.1
27.5
11.1
7.7
8.7
9.9
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2.2+
2.2+
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
1.0
1.0
1.0
11.0
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
Base
13.9
200+
1.3
2.1
17.5
11.0
2.2+
1.0
Cross
MY1
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
11.4
200+
1.6
2.6
18.3
7.1
2.2+
1.0
SF4A
MY5 Base
16.0
N/A
1.4
2.8
22.9
11.1
N/A
1.0
Cross
MY3
13.5
N/A
1.6
3.4
21.0
8.6
N/A
1.0
Section 18 (Pool)
MY2 I MY3
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
MY4
11.6
N/A
2.1
3.3
24.3
5.5
N/A
1.0
7MYS

Table 12a. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Underwood Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 4 - 2016
Harris Site: SF3
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
I
Max Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
8.4
9.0
8.2
7.8
8.2
Floodprone Width (ft)
50+
50+
50+
50+
50+
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.6
Bankfull Max Depth
1.0
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.9
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
5.6
6.3
4.8
4.6
4.8
Width/Depth Ratio
12.8
12.9
14.2
13.5
14.1
Entrenchment Ratio
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
23.3
27.8
31.0
34.6
23.9
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
11
36
13
38
11
37
13
37
13
38
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.0053
0.0283
0.0008
0.0376
0.0077
0.0426
0.0111
0.0362
0.0080
0.0496
Pool Length (ft)
16
34
15
30
15
33
18
36
13
29
Pool Max Depth (ft)
1.7
2.1
1.9
1.7
1.9
Pool Spacing (ft)
37
61
36
59
37
59
41
64
35
62
Pool Volume (ft')
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
Radius of Curvature (ft)
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
Meander Wave Length (ft)
Meander Width Ratio
Additional Reach Parameters
26
15
1.7
62
3.0
44
25
2.8
106
5.0
Rosgen Classification
C5
C5
C5
C5
C5
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
874
874
874
874
874
Sinuosity (ft)
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.0104
0.0104
0.0111
0.0101
0.0112
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.0104
0.0108
0.0104
0.0099
0.0086
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
SC/9.0/23.9/96.6/180/320
% of Reach with Eroding Banks
0%
0%
0%
0%

Table 12b. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Underwood Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 4 - 2016
Harris Site: UT2
Mn
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
16.6
18.6
17.4
16.9
16.5
Floodprone Width (ft)
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.8
0.9
0.8
0.8
1.0
Bankfull Max Depth
1.1
1.4
1.2
1.2
1.5
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
13.6
18.6
14.1
13.9
16.6
Width/Depth Ratio
20.4
25.4
21.4
20.6
16.5
Entrenchment Ratio
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
34.3
77.3
27.6
29.3
20.1
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
7
25
3
24
4
13
4
27
4
16
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.0040
0.1512
0.0045
0.0775
0.0117
0.0373
0.0098
0.0387
0.0049
0.0637
Pool Length (ft)
16
1
51
11
46
18
47
17
45
17
43
Pool Max Depth (ft)
2.7
2.7
2.6
2.3
2.3
Pool Spacing (ft)
23
59
21
60
21
55
23
58
20
58
Pool Volume (ft')
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
Radius of Curvature (ft)
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
Meander Wave Length (ft)
Meander Width Ratio
Additional Reach Parameters
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Rosgen Classification
C5
C5
C5
C5
C5
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
418
418
418
418
418
Sinuosity (ft)
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.0143
1
0.0149
0.0152
0.0141
0.0147
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.0145
0.0141
0.0141
0.0128
0.0133
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
SC/SC/SC/110.1/163.3/256 I
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
SC/10.04/20.1/69/160.7/362
%of Reach with Eroding Banks IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIJIM
0%
0%
0%
0%

Table 12c. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Underwood Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 4 - 2016
Harris Site; SF3
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
15.9
19.7
22.6
29.3
14.9
19.4
16.5
18.8
14.9
18.8
Floodprone Width (ft)
200+
200+
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
1.2
1.5
Bankfull Max Depth
1.8
2.3
2.3
2.6
1.8
2.4
1.7
2.4
1.9
2.4
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (W)
19.0
30.5
27.0
34.5
15.5
29.9 1
16.2
28.3
18.1
28.6
Width/Depth Ratio
12.7
13.5
14.8
28.8
12.5
14.4
12.5
14.6
12.2
16.0
Entrenchment Ratio
2.2+
2.2+
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
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
19.8
35.4
22.6
39.8
18.6
38.7
13.9
35.5
29.2
46.5
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
12
103
29
100
18
102
17
100
13
95
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.0003
0.0169
0.0019
0.0129
0.0008
0.0131 1
0.0012
0.0128
0.0004
0.0188
Pool Length (ft)
23
100
45
74
21
72
19
78
22
77
Pool Max Depth (ft)
2.3
2.5
2.8
5.0
3.0
3.7
3.4
2.9
Pool Spacing (ft)
53
166
50
151
42
156
41
155
42
153
Pool Volume (ft)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
Radius of Curvature (ft)
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
Meander Wave Length (ft)
Meander Width Ratio
Additional Reach Parameters
54
31
1.7
126
3.0
91
51
3.0
218
5.0
Rosgen Classification
C4
C4
C5
C5
C5
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
2,120
2,120
2,120
2,120
2,120
Sinuosity (ft)
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.0041
0.0045
0.0043
0.0043
0.0044
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.0047
1
0.0047
0.0042
0.0043
0.0040
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d5D/d84/d95/d100
0.08/0.21/11/67.2/256/>2048
1 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
1.15/9.09/16.5/73.8/119.3/180
% of Reach with Eroding Banks
0%
0%
0%
0%

Table 12d. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Underwood Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 4 - 2016
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
10.8
Floodprone Width (ft)
100+
100+
100+
100+
100+
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.8
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.9
Bankfull Max Depth
1.5
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.6
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
10.5
9.5
9.5
8.1
9.7
Width/Depth Ratio
15.1
10.7
13.4
13.8
12
Entrenchment Ratio
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
21.1
40.8
39.3
33.9
32.9
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
11
39
19
36
14
36
14
36
18
36
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.0023
0.0185
0.0016
0.0258
0.0025
0.0407
0.0012
0.0299
0.0031
0.0218
Pool Length (ft)
20
80
18
51
25
53
23
52
23
48
Pool Max Depth (ft)
2.6
2.5
2.3
2.7
2.4
Pool Spacing (ft)
58
76
39
76
43
73
52
77
52
82
Pool Volume (ft)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
Radius of Curvature (ft)
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
Meander Wave Length (ft)
Meander Width Ratio
Additional Reach Parameters
32
21
2.0
75
3.0
54
30
2.8
129
S.0
Rosgen Classification
C5
C5
C5
C 5
C 5
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
2,038
2,038
2,038
2,038
2,038
Sinuosity (ft)
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.0075
0.0078
0.0070
0.0077
0.0079
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.0083
0.0058
0.0077
0.0091
0.0078
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
0.07/0.16/0.3/26.9/71.7/256
SC/1.15/11/67.2/87.8/180
SC/0.20/6.7./45.0/84.1/362
SC/0.30/8.0/78.5/128.0/180.0
SC/.25/4.0/80.3/151.8/362
%of Reach with Eroding Banks
0%
0%
0%
0%

Table 12e. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Underwood Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 4 - 2016
Lindlev 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
28.4
29.8
Floodprone Width (ft)
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
Bankfull Mean Depth
1.8
1.9
2.0
2.9
1.9
2.1
1.8
1.9
1.9
1.9
Bankfull Max Depth
3.0
3.2
2.9
3.0
2.9
3.2
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.5
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft')
49.5
51.2
49.0
53.8
49.7
53.9
51.8
53.3
54.3
56.6
Width/Depth Ratio
14.9
15.1
13.8
14.6
12.8
13.6
15.0
16.0
14.8
15.1
Entrenchment Ratio
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
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
29.1
35.6
19
25
26.9
28.1
28.5
40.5
52.3
59
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
51
112
31
111
46
115
50
119
22
110
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.0010
0.0098
0.0034
0.0119
0.0028
0.0075
0.0032
0.0072
0.0017
0.0185
Pool Length (ft)
54
123
27
169
26
123
24
135
28
122
Pool Max Depth (ft)
4.3
4.9
4.6
4.7
4.9
5.0
4.9
5.3
Pool Spacing (ft)
146
210 1
151
211
150
210
138
221
106
236
Pool Volume (ft)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
Radius of Curvature (ft)
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
Meander Wave Length (ft)
Meander Width Ratio
Additional Reach Parameters
82
46
1.7
191
3.0
136
76
2.8
327
5.0
Rosgen Classification
C4
C4
C4
C4
C4
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
1,429
1,429
1,429
1,429
1,429
Sinuosity (ft)
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.0033
0.0031
0.0031
0.0030
0.0033
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.0034
0.0034
0.0035
0.0031
0.0031
RiV/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa9l/G%/C%/8%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
0.13/0.36/5.3/102.5/320.7/>2048 I
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
.25/4.89/15/117.2/214.7/512
%of Reach with Eroding Banks
0%
0%
0%
0%

Table 12f. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Underwood Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 4 - 2016
Lindley Site; SF4A
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
13.9
23.7
13.6
15.4
12.8
13.9
11.5
14.9
11.4
17.3
Floodprone Width (ft)
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.9
1.3
1.2
1.7
1.2
1.8
1.2
1.7
1.6
1.7
Bankfull Max Depth
2.1
2.3
2.1
2.8
2.4
3.0
2.3
3.1
2.6
3.4
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
17.5
20.4
16.1
26.3
15.2
25.2
13.9
25.5
18.3
30.3
Width/Depth Ratio
11.0
27.5
9.0
11.5
7.7
10.7
8.7
9.5
7.1
9.9
Entrenchment Ratio
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
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
9.4
12.7
4.4
17.1
31.4
32
17
25.1
20
33
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
41
79
6
75
5
52
5
67
4
30
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.0001
0.0210
0.0177
0.0321
0.0063
0.0577
0.0004
0.0483
0.0087
0.0554
Pool Length (ft)
28
79
15
46
16
68
16
61
23
82
Pool Max Depth (ft)
2.1
2.8
2.8
3.8
3.0
3.8
4.1
Pool Spacing (ft)
71
110
32
111
35
104
35
109
46
107
Pool Volume (ft)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
Radius of Curvature (ft)
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
Meander Wave Length (ft)
Meander Width Ratio
Additional Reach Parameters
44
25
1.7
103
3.0
74
41
2.8
177
5.0
Rosgen Classification
C5
C5
C5
C5
C5
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
866
866
866
866
866
Sinuosity (ft)
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.0070
0.0047
0.0049
0.0046
0.0060
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.0067
1
0.0077
0.0066
0.0067
1
0.0067
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
c116/cI35/d5O/d84/cI95/d100
SC/0.12/1.4/44/71.3/362 I
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
I SC/0.45/16.8/64.0/112.2/180.0
% of Reach with Eroding Banks MENNEEMEM
43%
43%

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 4 - 2016
Harris Site; SF1
605
603
601
599
597
Cu 595
c
0
593
v
w
591
589
587
585
♦
♦
--
--
♦ ♦
i'
H N
X X
WF
1000 10100 10200
10300 10400 10500
10600 10700 10800 10900
Station (feet)
0 TW (MYO-1/2013)
+TW (MY1-8/2013) $ TW (MY2-5/2014)
tTW (MY3-4/2015)
t TW (MY4-5/2016)
------- WS (MY4-5/2016) ♦ BKF/TOB (MY4-5/2016)
• STRUCTURES

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 4 - 2016
Harris Site; UT2
610
608
606
604
602
♦
w
600
o
-----
♦
>
v
598
–� --:
596
'
m v
'—
594
X X
592
590
0 50 100
150 200 250 300 350 400 450
Station (feet)
--* TW (MYO-1/2013)
—4 TW (MY1-8/2013) TW (MY2-5/2014) ♦ TW (MY3-4/2015)
4 TW (MY4-5/2016)
♦ BKF/TOB (MY4-5/2016) ----- WS (MY4-5/2016) 0 STRUCTURES

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 4 - 2016
Harris Site; SF3
590
585
580
575
v
v
0 570
v
w
565
560
555
550
40250
40450 40650 40850 41050 41250 41450 41650
Station (feet)
t TW (MYO-1/2013) c$ TW (MY1-8/2013) * TW (MY2-5/2014) * TW (MY3-4/2015)
f TW (MY4-5/2016)------- WS (MY4-5/2016) ♦ BKF/TOB (MY4-5/2016) • STRUCTURES
41850 42050

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 4 - 2016
Harris Site; UTI
590
585
580
Zr
v
c
575
0
m
v
w
570
565
560
51520
51620 51720 51820 51920 52020
Station (feet)
TW (MYO-1/2013) TW (MY1-8/2013) TW (MY2-5/2014) 0 TW (MY3-4/2015)
—s— TW (MY4-5/2016)------- WS (MY4-5/2016) ♦ BKF/TOB (MY4-5/2016) • STRUCTURES

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 4 - 2016
Lindley Site; SF4
560
555
550
545
v
v
c
540
m
AL
- --
v-
---
-----
------
-
535
------- --------
-- --
530
ti
ti
N
Ln
X
X
X
X
525
520
80000
80200 80400
80600
80800
81000
81200 81400
Station (feet)
t TW (MYO-1/2013)
s TW (MY1-8/2013)
s TW (MY2-5/2014)
s TW (MY3-4/2015)
TW (MY4-5/2016)
------- WS (MY4-5/2016)
♦ BKF/TOB (MY4-5/2016)
0 STRUCTURES

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 4 - 2016
Lindley Site; SF4A
555
550
545
X
X
X
540
v
0
m
535
i
v
w
ti
N
00
530
525
520
90000
90100 90200
90300 90400 90500
90600 90700
90800 90900
Station (feet)
+TW (m 0-1/2013)
— TW (MY1-8/2013) * TW (MY2-5/2014)
4 TW (MY3-4/2015)
TW (MY4-5/2016)
------- WS (MY4-5/2016) ♦ BKF/TOB (MY4-5/2016)
0 STRUCTURES
X
X
X

Cross -Section Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 4
Cross Section 1 - SH
104+44 Riffle
4.8
x -section area (ft.sq.)
8.2
width (ft)
0.6
mean depth (ft)
0.9
max depth (ft)
8.5
wetted parimeter (ft)
0.6
hyd radi (ft)
14.1
width -depth ratio
50.0
W flood prone area (ft)
6.1
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
597
0
595
'm
w
593
0 10 20 30 40 50
Width (ft)
4 MYO (1/2013) 0 MY1(8/2013) +MY2 (5/2014) tMY3 (4/2015) +MY4 (5/2016) —Bankfull—Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
4.8
x -section area (ft.sq.)
8.2
width (ft)
0.6
mean depth (ft)
0.9
max depth (ft)
8.5
wetted parimeter (ft)
0.6
hyd radi (ft)
14.1
width -depth ratio
50.0
W flood prone area (ft)
6.1
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 5/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 4
Cross Section 2 - SH
104+64 Pool
x -section area (ft.sq.)
11.3
width (ft)
1.0
mean depth (ft)
1.9
max depth (ft)
12.1
wetted parimeter (ft)
0.9
hyd radi (ft)
11.2
width -depth ratio
=
596
c
m 594
'm
w
592
0 10 20 30 40 50
Width (ft)
+MYO (1/2013) 6 MY1 (8/2013) 4 MY2 (5/2014) +MY3 (4/2015) tMY4 (5/2016) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
11.4
x -section area (ft.sq.)
11.3
width (ft)
1.0
mean depth (ft)
1.9
max depth (ft)
12.1
wetted parimeter (ft)
0.9
hyd radi (ft)
11.2
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 5/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 4
Cross Section 3 - UT2
2+51 Pool
602
600 4 mom 00
— -
c
0
m
v
w 598
596
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Width (ft)
tMYO (1/2013) 6 MY1 (8/2013) 4 MY2 (5/2014) +MY3 (4/2015) tMY4 (5/2016) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
24.7
x -section area (ft.sq.)
15.2
width (ft)
1.6
mean depth (ft)
2.8
max depth (ft)
16.6
wetted parimeter (ft)
1.5
hyd radi (ft)
9.4
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 5/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 4
Cross Section 4 - UT2
2+87 Riffle
16.6
x -section area (ft.sq.)
16.5
width (ft)
1.0
mean depth (ft)
1.5
max depth (ft)
17.2
wetted parimeter (ft)
1.0
hyd radi (ft)
16.5
width -depth ratio
200.0
W flood prone area (ft)
12.1
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
602
600
4=
c
0
v
w 598
596
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Width (ft)
+MYO (1/2013) --*-- MY1(8/2013) t—MY2 (5/2014) +MY3 (4/2015) t—MY4 (5/2016) —Bankfull—Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
16.6
x -section area (ft.sq.)
16.5
width (ft)
1.0
mean depth (ft)
1.5
max depth (ft)
17.2
wetted parimeter (ft)
1.0
hyd radi (ft)
16.5
width -depth ratio
200.0
W flood prone area (ft)
12.1
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 5/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 4
Cross Section 5 - SF3
402+86 Riffle
579
too wall Ott
577
c
m
v
w 575
573
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Width (ft)
I MYO (1/2013) 4 MY1(8/2013) +MY2 (5/2014) tMY3 (4/2015) +MY4 (5/2016) —Bankfull—Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
28.6
x -section area (ft.sq.)
18.8
width (ft)
1.5
mean depth (ft)
2.4
max depth (ft)
19.7
wetted parimeter (ft)
1.4
hyd radi (ft)
12.4
width -depth ratio
100.0
W flood prone area (ft)
5.3
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 5/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 4
Cross Section 6 - SF3
Bankfull Dimensions
43.3
x -section area (ft.sq.)
23.4
width (ft)
1.8
mean depth (ft)
3.7
max depth (ft)
24.9
wetted parimeter (ft)
1.7
hyd radi (ft)
12.7
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 5/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 4
Cross Section 7 - SF3
Bankfull Dimensions
21.4
x -section area (ft.sq.)
18.5
width (ft)
1.2
mean depth (ft)
2.1
max depth (ft)
19.2
wetted parimeter (ft)
1.1
hyd radi (ft)
16.0
width -depth ratio
200.0
W flood prone area (ft)
10.8
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 5/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
-1 h6k, lll��
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 4
Cross Section 8 - SF3
mull
RINE11 IN, ISI
Bankfull Dimensions
28.8
x -section area (ft.sq.)
17.4
width (ft)
1.7
mean depth (ft)
3.1
max depth (ft)
19.2
wetted parimeter (ft)
1.5
hyd radi (ft)
10.5
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 5/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 4
Cross Section 9 - SF3
Bankfull Dimensions
18.1
1111111111'111'11,1111111'111'111111111111111'111'11111'1'111111"
14.9
width (ft)
1.2
mean depth (ft)
1.9
max depth (ft)
15.6
wetted parimeter (ft)
1.2
hyd radi (ft)
12.2
width -depth ratio
200.0
W flood prone area (ft)
13.5
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
111111111
Jill
II��I•IiI�IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
0-
Bankfull Dimensions
18.1
x -section area (ft.sq.)
14.9
width (ft)
1.2
mean depth (ft)
1.9
max depth (ft)
15.6
wetted parimeter (ft)
1.2
hyd radi (ft)
12.2
width -depth ratio
200.0
W flood prone area (ft)
13.5
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 5/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 4
Cross Section 10 - UT1
517+63 Riffle
576
x -section area (ft.sq.)
10.8
width (ft)
0.9
mean depth (ft)
1.6
max depth (ft)
11.2
wetted parimeter (ft)
0.9
hyd radi (ft)
11.9
width -depth ratio
200.0
W flood prone area (ft)
18.6
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
574
c
0
v
w 572
570
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Width (ft)
t MYO (1/2013) 4 MYI (8/2013) MY2 (5/2014) +MY3 (4/2015) --;­ MY4 (5/2016) —Bankfull—Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
9.7
x -section area (ft.sq.)
10.8
width (ft)
0.9
mean depth (ft)
1.6
max depth (ft)
11.2
wetted parimeter (ft)
0.9
hyd radi (ft)
11.9
width -depth ratio
200.0
W flood prone area (ft)
18.6
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 5/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 4
Cross Section 11 - UT1
518+10 Pool
577
575
c
573
0
m
v
w
571
569
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Width (ft)
tMYO (1/2013) s MY1 (8/2013) 4 MY2 (5/2014) +MY3 (4/2015) tMY4 (5/2016) -Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
17.4
x -section area (ft.sq.)
14.0
width (ft)
1.2
mean depth (ft)
2.5
max depth (ft)
16.0
wetted parimeter (ft)
1.1
hyd radi (ft)
11.2
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 5/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream
tF�

Cross -Section Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 4
Cross Section 12 - SF4
Bankfull Dimensions
72.5
x -section area (ft.sq.)
33.2
width (ft)
2.2
mean depth (ft)
4.9
max depth (ft)
36.1
wetted parimeter (ft)
2.0
hyd radi (ft)
15.2
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 5/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream
OWN

Cross -Section Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 4
Cross Section 13 - SF4
Bankfull Dimensions
54.3
x -section area (ft.sq.)
28.4
width (ft)
1.9
mean depth (ft)
3.1
max depth (ft)
29.5
wetted parimeter (ft)
1.8
hyd radi (ft)
14.8
width -depth ratio
200.0
W flood prone area (ft)
7.1entrenchment
ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 5/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 4
Cross Section 14 - SF4
Bankfull Dimensions
96.0
x -section area (ft.sq.)
45.7
width (ft)
2.1
mean depth (ft)
5.7
max depth (ft)
49.1
wetted parimeter (ft)
2.0
hyd radi (ft)
21.8
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 5/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 4
Cross Section 15 - SF4
pill if
Jill
Bankfull Dimensions
56.6
x -section area (ft.sq.)
29.2
width (ft)
1.9
mean depth (ft)
3.5
max depth (ft)
30.9
wetted parimeter (ft)
1.8
hyd radi (ft)
15.1
width -depth ratio
200.0
W flood prone area (ft)
6.9entrenchment
ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 5/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 4
Cross Section 16 - SF4A
902+44 Riffle
544
542
c
540
0
m
v
w
538
536
-20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Width (ft)
+MYO (1/2013) t MY1(8/2013) +MY2 (5/2014) tMY3 (4/2015) +MY4 (5/2016) -Bankfull-Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
30.3
x -section area (ft.sq.)
17.3
width (ft)
1.7
mean depth (ft)
3.4
max depth (ft)
19.5
wetted parimeter (ft)
1.6
hyd radi (ft)
9.9
width -depth ratio
200.0
W flood prone area (ft)
11.5
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 5/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 4
Cross Section 17 - SF4A
Bankfull Dimensions
18.3
x -section area (ft.sq.)
11.4
width (ft)
1.6
mean depth (ft)
2.6
max depth (ft)
13.7
wetted parimeter (ft)
1.3
hyd radi (ft)
7.1
width -depth ratio
200.0
W flood prone area (ft)
17.6
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 5/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
MORE MEMO
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 4
Cross Section 18 - SF4A
Bankfull Dimensions
24.3
x -section area (ft.sq.)
11.6
width (ft)
2.1
mean depth (ft)
3.3
max depth (ft)
14.3
wetted parimeter (ft)
1.7
hyd radi (ft)
5.5
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 5/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 4 - 2016
SF3, Reachwide
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Particle Count
Riffle Pool Total
each Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
Silt/Clay
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
23.9
16
16
16
16
D300 =
Very fine
0.062
0.125
90
16
Fine
0.125
0.250
16
Medium
0.25
0.50
1
1
1
17
70
Coarse
0.5
1.0
m
`w
60
17
a
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
1
1
1
18
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
2
2
2
20
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
1
1
1
21
Fine
4.0
5.6
3
3
6
6
27
20
Fine
5.6
8.0
1
5
6
6
33
c
Medium
8.0
11.0
2
3
5
5
38
Medium
11.0
16.0
2
2
4
4
42
Coarse
16.0
22.6
4
2
6
6
48
Coarse
22.6
32
8
4
12
12
60
Very Coarse
32
45
4
4
8
8
68
Very Coarse
45
64
4
3
7
7
75
Small
64
90
7
1
8
8
83
Small
90
128
4
1
5
5
88
Large
128
180
6
1
7
7
95
Large
180
256
3
3
3
98
................................................
Small
256
362
2
2
2
100
Small
Medium
Large/Very Large
362
512
1024
512
1024
2048
100
100
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
50
50
100
100
100
100
90
80
2' 70
j 60
3 50
E
40
y 30
u
a 20
10
SF1, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0 , I
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
�MYO02/2013 �MYl-10/2013 -MYZ-05/2014 ---*—MY3-04/2015 —41--MY"5/2016
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16=
Silt/Clay
D35 =
9.09
D50 =
23.9
D84 =
96.6
D95 =
180.0
D300 =
362.0
100
90
80
2' 70
j 60
3 50
E
40
y 30
u
a 20
10
SF1, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0 , I
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
�MYO02/2013 �MYl-10/2013 -MYZ-05/2014 ---*—MY3-04/2015 —41--MY"5/2016
SR, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
m
`w
60
a
50
M
40
u
m
30
20
10
c
r
0
r
o�ti titi5 tih oy
ti ti ti� 11 e� lb titi do �� 3Vay 6a -yw h6 oti yti yo p 0
o ti tip ti 3 h 10
Particle Class Size (mm)
•MYM2/2013
•MYI-10/2013 •MY2-05/2014 •MYM4/2015 MY4-05/2016

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 4 - 2016
SF1, Cross Section 1
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Riffle 100-
Count
Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
4.4
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
2
2
2
D95 =
Very fine
0.062
0.125
2
Fine
0.125
0.250
2
Medium
0.25
0.50
80
2
Coarse
0.5
1.0
2
2
4
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
2
2
6
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
2
2
8
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
6
6
14
50
Fine
4.0
5.6
8
8
22
Fine
5.6
8.0
11
11
33
Medium
8.0
11.0
9
9
42
Medium
11.0
16.0
7
7
49
Coarse
16.0
22.6 1
6
1 6
55
Coarse
22.6
32
9
9
64
Very Coarse
32
45
5
5
69
Very Coarse
45
64
11
11
80
Small
64
90
8
8
88
Small
90
128
2
2
90
Large
128
180
8
8
98
Large
180
256
2
2
100
Small
256
362
100
Small362
Medium
Large/Very Large
512
1024
5 12
1024
2048
100
100
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
100
100
100
100
90
80
ae 70
60
m 50
3
E
u 40
C 30
u
a 20
a
10
SF1, Cross Section 1
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
�MYO02/2013 MYl-10/2013 — MY2-05/2014 --*--MYM4/2015 --O--MY405/2016
Cross Section 1
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
4.4
D35 =
8.6
D50 =
16.9
D84 =
75.9
D95 =
158.4
D100 =
256.0
100
90
80
ae 70
60
m 50
3
E
u 40
C 30
u
a 20
a
10
SF1, Cross Section 1
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
�MYO02/2013 MYl-10/2013 — MY2-05/2014 --*--MYM4/2015 --O--MY405/2016
SF3, Cross Section 1
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
V
60
d
a
N
50
N
40
u
m
30
20
10
0
4ZIC3 - ' Qti oy
1 ti ti� a e� 11 1� �ti� 3ti ah fo , -O 1,p 'p �y�o ��ti y1ti yO�b �ObO ":0
Particle Class Size (mm)
Particle
• MYO-02/2013
• MYl-10/2013 • MY2-05/2014 • MY3-04/2015 • MY4-05/2016

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 4 - 2016
UT2, Reachwide
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Particle Count
Riffle Pool Total
each Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
Silt/Clay
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
1
16
17
17
17
D300 =
Very fine
0.062
0.125
17
80
Fine
0.125
0.250
17
Medium
0.25
0.50
4
4
4
21
Coarse
0.5
1.0
M 40
21
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
21
m 30
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
21
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
1
LM
1
1
22
c 10
Fine
4.0
5.6
1� Rh rod` AO yti� 140 tihfo �d'k ytiti y�1,b It 0
Particle Class Size (mm)
22
• MYl-10/2013 • MY2-05/2014 • MYM4/2015 • MY4-05/2016
Fine
5.6
8.0
2
6
8
8
30
Medium
8.0
11.0
3
4
7
7
37
Medium
11.0
16.0
3
6
9
9
46
Coarse
16.0
22.6
3
3
6
6
52
Coarse
22.6
32
9
5
14
14
66
Very Coarse
32
45
5
2
7
7
73
Very Coarse
45
64
8
1
9
9
82
Small
64
90
8
1
9
9
91
Small
90
128
1
1
2
2
93
Large
128
180
2
1
3
3
96
Large
180
256
3
3
3
99
................................................
Small
256
362
1
1
1
100
.....
Small
Medium
Large/Very Large
362
512
1024
512
1024
2048
100
100
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Totall
50
1 50 1
100 1
100 1
100
100
90
80
2' 70
j 60
3 50
E
40
y 30
u
a 20
10
UT2, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0 , I
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
�MYO02/2013 �MYl-10/2013 -MYZ-05/2014 ---*—MY3-04/2015 —41--MY"5/2016
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16=
Silt/Clay
D35 =
10.04
D50 =
20.1
D80. =
69.0
D95 =
160.7
D300 =
362.0
100
90
80
2' 70
j 60
3 50
E
40
y 30
u
a 20
10
UT2, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0 , I
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
�MYO02/2013 �MYl-10/2013 -MYZ-05/2014 ---*—MY3-04/2015 —41--MY"5/2016
UT2, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
C 70
m
60
`w
a
50
M 40
u
m 30
20
v
LM
c 10
0
1� Rh rod` AO yti� 140 tihfo �d'k ytiti y�1,b It 0
Particle Class Size (mm)
• MYM2/2013
• MYl-10/2013 • MY2-05/2014 • MYM4/2015 • MY4-05/2016

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 4 - 2016
UT2, Cross Section 4
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Riffle 100-
Count
Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
12.46
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
1
1
1
D95 =
Very fine
0.062
0.125
1
Fine
0.125
0.250
1
Medium
0.25
0.50
80
1
Coarse
0.5
1.0
1
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
2
2
3
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
3
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
3
50
Fine
4.0
5.6
1
1
4
Fine
5.6
8.0
2
2
6
Medium
8.0
11.0
8
8
14
Medium
11.0
16.0
6
6
20
Coarse
16.0
22.6
8
8
28
Coarse
22.6
32
8
8
36
Very Coarse
32
45
4
4
40
Very Coarse
45
64
15
15
55
Small
64
90
13
13
68
Small
90
128
4
4
72
Large
128
180
10
10
82
Large
180
256
12
12
94
Small
256
362
6
6
100
Sma II
Medium
Large/Very Large
362
512
1024
512
1024
2048
100
100
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
100
100
100
100
90
80
ae 70
60
m 50
3
E
u 40
C 30
a 20
a
10
UT2, Cross Section 4
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
—&--MYO-02/2013 — MYl-10/2013 — MY2-05/2014 --S--MYM4/2015 --*--MY405/2016
Cross Section 4
Channel materials (mm)
D1fi=
12.46
Di5 =
30.64
D50 =
56.9
D84 =
190.9
D95 =
271.2
D100 =
362.0
100
90
80
ae 70
60
m 50
3
E
u 40
C 30
a 20
a
10
UT2, Cross Section 4
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
—&--MYO-02/2013 — MYl-10/2013 — MY2-05/2014 --S--MYM4/2015 --*--MY405/2016
UT2, Cross Section 4
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
V
60
d
a
N
50
N
40
u
m
30
20
10
0
oo�tiotiyh otih oy
ti ti ti� a e� a titi ti� �ti� 3ti ah o� �O 11b 1�0 �y0 ��ti ytiti yO�b �ObO �o
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO-02/2013
■ MYl-10/2013 ■ MY2-05/2014 ■ MY3-04/2015 ■ MY4-05/2016

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 4 - 2016
SF3, Reachwide
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Particle Count
Riffle Pool Total
each Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
1.15
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
16.5
8
8
8
8
D100 =
Very fine
0.062
0.125
1
1
1
9
Fine
0.125
0.250
2
2
2
11
j 60
Medium
0.25
0.50
11
70
Coarse
0.5
1.0
m
4
4
4
15
`w
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
5
5
S
20
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
M
40
20
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
y 30
u
1
1
1
21
Fine
4.0
5.6
1
3
4
4
2S
Fine
5.6
8.0
1
5
6
6
31
O
Medium
8.0
11.0
2
8
10
10
41
0 P
Medium
11.0
16.0
2
1 6
8
8
49
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Coarse
16.0
22.6
7
5
12
12
61
Coarse
22.6
32
5
2
7
7
68
Very Coarse
32
45
4
4
4
72
Very Coarse
45
64
7
7
7
79
Small
64
90
12
12
12
91
Small
90
128
5
5
5
96
Large
1 128
180 1
4
4
4 1
100
ENIMMI-arge
180 1
256 1
1 1
100
................................................
Small
256
362
100
iiiiiii
Small
Medium
Large/Very Large
362
512
1024
512
1024
2048
100
100
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
50
50
100
100
100
SF3, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
90
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
1.15
D35 =
9.09
D50 =
16.5
D80. =
73.8
D95 =
119.3
D100 =
180.0
SF3, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
90
SIR/clay
T Sandave'
Individual Class Percent
r
bble
80
a ro
90
2' 70
80
j 60
C
70
3 50
m
60
`w
E
0
50
-
40
M
40
u
y 30
u
m
30
a 20
20
10
O
c
10
Id A
0 P
o�6'Loyt5 otih oh
1 'L ,y� b h� 0 1ti yb,,ti6 15 Ah roA Ao yti� ,410 e "V�1e�o','o
Particle Class Size (mm)
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
--0— YO -02/2013 --.e -MY1-10/2013 � MY2-05/2014 tMYM4/2015 --0— MY -5/2016
SF3, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
C
70
m
60
`w
0
50
-
M
40
u
m
30
20
O
c
10
Id A
0 P
o�6'Loyt5 otih oh
1 'L ,y� b h� 0 1ti yb,,ti6 15 Ah roA Ao yti� ,410 e "V�1e�o','o
Particle Class Size (mm)
• MYO-02/2013
MYl-10/2013 •MY2-05/2014 •MY3-04/2015 •MY4-05/2016

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 4 - 2016
SF3, Cross Section 5
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Riffle 100-
Count
Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
6.46
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
4
4
4
D95 =
Very fine
0.062
0.125
90
4
Fine
0.125
0.250
2
2
6
80
Medium
0.25
0.50
2
2
8
Coarse
0.5
1.0
8
as
�
a
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
a
r,
8
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
8
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
8
Fine
4.0
5.6
6
6
14
Fine
5.6
8.0
5
5
19
Medium
8.0
11.0
6
6
25
Medium
11.0
16.0
7
7
32
Coarse
16.0
22.6
7
7
39
m
Coarse
22.6
32
15
15
54
Very Coarse
32
45
13
13
67
Very Coarse
45
64
10
10
77
Small
64
90
9
9
86
Small
90
128
6
6
92
Large
128
180
6
6
98
Large
180
256
2
2
100
................................................
Small
256
362
100
.....
Small362
Medium
::Large/Very Large
512
1024
5 12
1024
2048
100
100
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
100
100
100
100
90
80
70
60
50
E
�? 40
y 30
u
a 20
10
SF3, Cross Section 5
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0 , Y -i --, 01 . 6. 10 i =X -I
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO-02/2013 � MYI-10/2013 MY2-05/2014 --0- MY3-04/2015 tMY4-05/2016
Cross Section 5
Channel materials (mm)
D1fi=
6.46
Di5 =
18.55
D50 =
29.2
D84 =
83.4
D95 =
151.8
D100 =
256.0
100
90
80
70
60
50
E
�? 40
y 30
u
a 20
10
SF3, Cross Section 5
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0 , Y -i --, 01 . 6. 10 i =X -I
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO-02/2013 � MYI-10/2013 MY2-05/2014 --0- MY3-04/2015 tMY4-05/2016
SF3, Cross Section 5
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
C
70
as
�
a
60
a
r,
50
u
40
m
3
30
v
20
-O10
C0
e
m
ro'L by .y0 Oh
00 oti o
1 'L ,L0 b 0�O 41 yh y�o t00j0 ,l , p hp n, 1ti ,yP a0 A�
VIti ti ti 5 do ,yo �o
Particle Class Size (mm)
•MYO-02/2013
• MYI-10/2013 •MY2-05/2014 0MY3-04/2015 •MU -/2016.

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 4 - 2016
SF3, Cross Section 7
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Riffle 100-
Count
Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
11.00
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
4
4
4
D95 =
Very fine
0.062
0.125
90
4
Fine
0.125
0.250
4
80
Medium
0.25
0.50
2
2
6
Coarse
0.5
1.0
3
3
9
as
�
a
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
3
3
12
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
12
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
12
Fine
4.0
5.6
m
3
30
12
Fine
5.6
8.0
1
1
13
Medium
8.0
11.0
3
3
16
0
Medium
11.0
16.0
6
6
22
Particle Class Size (mm)
Coarse
16.0
22.6
4
4
26
Coarse
1 22.6
32
10
10
36
Very Coarse
32
45
13
13
49
Very Coarse
45
64
11
11
60
Small
64
90
12
12
72
Small
90
128
10
10
82
Large
128
180
7
7
89
Large
180
256
9
9
98
................................................
Small
256
362
2
2
100
IISma
Medium
Large/Very Large
36 2
512
1024
5 12
1024
2048
100
100
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
100
100
100
100
90
80
70
60
50
E
�? 40
y 30
u
a 20
10
SF3, Cross Section 7
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO-02/2013 � MYI-10/2013 MY2-05/2014 --0- MY3-04/2015 tMY4-05/2016
Cross Section 7
Channel materials (mm)
D1fi=
11.00
Di5 =
30.91
D50 =
46.5
D84 =
141.1
D95 =
227.6
D100 =
362.0
100
90
80
70
60
50
E
�? 40
y 30
u
a 20
10
SF3, Cross Section 7
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO-02/2013 � MYI-10/2013 MY2-05/2014 --0- MY3-04/2015 tMY4-05/2016
SF3, Cross Section 7
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
C
70
as
�
a
60
a
r,
50
u
40
m
3
30
v
20
_
10
0
0'L by by Oh
00 oti o.
'ti ti ti� a 5� 0 til ,y0 0 ,y'L ah 0b 00 ,y'b 00 y0 0'L titi ,ya a0 00
titi. ti ti ti � 5 do ,yo ao
Particle Class Size (mm)
•MYO-02/2013
• MYI-10/2013 •MY2-05/2014 0MY3.04/2015 •MY4-05/2016.

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 4 - 2016
SF3, Cross Section 9
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Riffle 100-
Count
Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
5.60
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
4
4
4
D95 =
Very fine
0.062
0.125
90
4
Fine
0.125
0.250
4
80
Medium
0.25
0.50
4
Coarse
0.5
1.0
4
4
8
a
�
a
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
a
H
8
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
8
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
2
2
10
Fine
4.0
5.6
6
6
16
Fine
5.6
8.0
4
4
20
Medium
8.0
11.0
6
6
26
Medium
11.0
16.0
8
8
34
0
Coarse
16.0
22.6
7
7
41
Particle Class Size (mm)
Coarse
1 22.6
32
10
10
51
Very Coarse
32
45
6
6
57
Very Coarse
45
64
11
11
68
Small
64
90
6
6
74
Small
90
128
8
8
82
Large
128
180
10
10
92
Large
180
256
8
8
100
................................................
Small
256
362
100
HHHHHHHH11
Small362
I: Medium
Large/Very Large
512
1024
5 12
1024
2048
100
100
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
100
100
100
100
90
80
70
60
50
E
�? 40
y 30
u
a 20
10
SF3, Cross Section 9
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO-02/2013 � MYl-10/2013 MV2-05/2014 --0- MY3-06/2015 tMY4-05/2016
Cross Section 9
Channel materials (mm)
D1fi=
5.60
Di5 =
16.81
D50 =
30.9
D84 =
137.0
D95 =
205.4
D100 =
256.0
100
90
80
70
60
50
E
�? 40
y 30
u
a 20
10
SF3, Cross Section 9
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO-02/2013 � MYl-10/2013 MV2-05/2014 --0- MY3-06/2015 tMY4-05/2016
SF3, Cross Section 9
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
C
70
a
�
a
60
a
H
50
u
40
m
3
30
v
20
_
10
0
0'L by by Oh
00 oti o.
'ti ti ti� a 5� 0 til tib 0 ,y'L ah 0b 00 ,yw 00 y0 0'L titi ,ya a0 00
titi. ti ti ti 3 h do ,yo ao
Particle Class Size (mm)
•MYO-02/2013
• MY3-10/2013 • MU -05/2014 0MY3-04/2015 • MV4-05/2016

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 4 - 2016
UT1, Reachwide
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Particle Count
Riffle Pool Total
each Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
Silt/Clay
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
4
25
29
29
29
D100 =
Very fine
0.062
0.125
2
2
2
31
Fine
0.125
0.250
4
4
4
35
Medium
0.25
0.50
8
8
8
43
70
Coarse
0.5
1.0
m
60
43
`w
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
2
2
4
4
47
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
M
40
47
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
3
3
3
50
Fine
4.0
5.6
1
1
1
51
Fine
5.6
8.0
2
20
2
2
53
v
Medium
8.0
11.0
4
2
6
6
59
0
Medium
11.0
16.0
2
2
2
61
w MYO-02/2013
Coarse
16.0
22.6
4
2
6
6
67
Coarse
22.6
32
67
Very Coarse
32
45
4
4
4
71
Very Coarse
45
64
4
3
7
7
78
Small
64
90
7
2
9
9
87
Small
90
128
6
6
6
93
Large
128
180
4
4
4
97
Large
180
256
2
2
2
99
................................................
Small
256
362
1
1
1
100
Small
Medium
Large/Very Large
362
512
1024
512
1024
2048
100
100
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
50
50
100
100
100
100
90
80
2' 70
j 60
3 50
E
40
y 30
u
a 20
10
UT1, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0 , I
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
--0—MYO02/2013 - -MY1-10/2013 � MY2-05/2014 tMYM4/2015 tMYb05/2016
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16=
Silt/Clay
D35 -
0.25
D50 =
4.0
D80. =
80.3
D95 =
151.8
D100 =
362.0
100
90
80
2' 70
j 60
3 50
E
40
y 30
u
a 20
10
UT1, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0 , I
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
--0—MYO02/2013 - -MY1-10/2013 � MY2-05/2014 tMYM4/2015 tMYb05/2016
UT1, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
m
60
`w
a
50
-
M
40
u
m
30
20
v
c
10
0
OO�'LOyyS O.yh Oh
1 'L ti� b h� 0 1,' 16 �,L�o .�'L Rh /off` AO till 1420 tihfo �d'k y1ti y�1,b tip o
Particle Class Size (mm)
w MYO-02/2013
• MYI-10/2013 •MY2-05/2014 •MY3-04/2015 •MY4-05/2016

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 4 - 2016
UTI, Cross Section 10
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Riffle 100-
Count
Summary
class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
4.00
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
3
3
3
D95 =
Very fine
0.062
0.125
90
3
Fine
0.125
0.250
2
2
5
80
Medium
0.25
0.50
2
2
7
Coarse
0.5
1.0
7
as
�
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
a
r,
7
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
3
3
10
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
6
6
16
Fine
4.0
5.6
m
3
30
16
Fine
5.6
8.0
16
Medium
8.0
11.0
10
10
26
10
Medium
11.0
16.0
4
4
30
Coarse
16.0
22.6
6
6
36
Coarse
1 22.6
32 1
13
1 13
49
Very Coarse
32
45
12
12
61
Very Coarse
45
64
4
4
65
Small
64
90
10
10
75
Small
90
128
6
6
81
Large
128
180
10
10
91
Large
180
256
7
7
98
................................................
Small
256
362
2
2
100
IISma
Medium
Large/Very Large
36 2
512
1024
5 12
1024
2048
100
100
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Totall
100
100
100
100
90
80
70
60
50
E
�? 40
y 30
u
a 20
10
UTI, Cross Section 10
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO-02/2013 � MYI-10/2013 MY2-05/2014 --0- MY3-04/2015 tMY4-05/2016
Cross Section 10
Channel materials (mm)
D1fi=
4.00
Di5 =
21.34
D50 =
32.9
D84 =
141.8
D95 =
220.1
D100 =
362.0
100
90
80
70
60
50
E
�? 40
y 30
u
a 20
10
UTI, Cross Section 10
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO-02/2013 � MYI-10/2013 MY2-05/2014 --0- MY3-04/2015 tMY4-05/2016
UTI, Cross Section 10
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
C
70
as
�
60
a
r,
50
u
40
m
3
30
v
20
10
_
0
�ti by tih o`'
p0 Oy p
ti ti ti� a e° a yti tie 0 3ti ay 6a �o yro �o y6 �ti titi ya ae �5o
ryti' ti ti ti 5 yp ,tip a0
Particle Class Size (mm)
•MYO-02/2013
• MYI-10/2013 •MY2-05/2014 •MY3.04/2015 •MU -/2016.

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 4 - 2016
SF4, Reachwide
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Particle Count
Riffle Pool Total
each Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
0.25
Silt/Clay
Very fine
0.000
0.062
0.062
0.125
15.0
12
12
12
12
12
D100 =
Fine
0.125
0.250
4
90
4
4
16
Medium
0.25
0.50
80
16
Coarse
0.5
1.0
1
1
1
17
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
6
5
11
11
28
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
M
40
28
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
4
4
4
32
Fine
4.0
5.6
1
4
5
5
37
Fine
5.6
8.0
2
2
4
4
41
0
Medium
8.0
11.0
4
4
4
45
MY1-10/2013 MY2-05/2014 •MY3-04/2015 •MY4-05/2016
Medium
11.0
16.0
1
5
6
6
51
Coarse
16.0
22.6 1
3
5
8
8
59
Coarse
22.6
32
2
6
8
8
67
Very Coarse
32
45
1
6
7
7
74
Very Coarse
45
64
3
3
3
77
Small
64
90
4
4
4
81
Small
90
128
4
4
4
85
Large
128
180
6
6
6
91
Large
180
256
8
8
8
99
Small
256
362
99
Small
Medium
Large/Very Large
362
512
1024
512
1024
2048
1
1
1
100
100
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Totall
50
1 50 1
100 1
100 1
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
0.25
Das =
4.89
D50 =
15.0
D80. =
117.2
D95 =
214.7
D100 =
512.0
SF4, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
u
60
v
a
50
M
40
u
m
30
20
10
c
0
00 oti o ti ti ti ti 3 5 10 .yo �o
Particle Class Size (mm)
•MYO-02/2013
MY1-10/2013 MY2-05/2014 •MY3-04/2015 •MY4-05/2016

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 4 - 2016
SF4, Cross Section 13
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Riffle 100-
Count
Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
16.00
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
52.3
D84 =
0
D95 =
Very fine
0.062
0.125
0
Fine
0.125
0.250
0
Medium
0.25
0.50
80
0
Coarse
0.5
1.0
0
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
V
0
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
0
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
0
50
Fine
4.0
5.6
2
2
2
Fine
5.6
8.0
4
4
6
m
Medium
8.0
11.0
4
4
10
Medium
11.0
16.0
6
6
16
Coarse
16.0
22.6 1
4
1 4
20
Coarse
22.6
32
14
14
34
'1 'L ,y� b 5� yti ,y�o ,L,yt° ,5'L bh fo , -O 1,ti`b 'p �o 'p, ytiti yO,�b �O0 tp0
Very Coarse
32
45
13
13
47
Very Coarse
45
64
7
7
54
Small
64
90
14
14
68
Small
90
128
12
12
80
Large
128
180
10
10
90
Large
180
256
3
3
93
Small
256
362
6
6
99
S mail
Medium
Large/Very Large
36 2
512
1024
5 12
1024
2048
1
1
1 00
100
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Totall
100
1 100
1 100
100
90
80
ae 70
60
m 50
3
E
u 40
C 30
u
a 20
a
10
SF4, Cross Section 13
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0 i I I I I .F�� 1.W1
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
—&--MYO-02/2013 � MYl-10/2013 — MY2-05/2014 �MY3-04/2015 --*--MY405/2016
Cross Section 13
Channel materials (mm)
D1fi=
16.00
Di5 =
32.85
D50 =
52.3
D84 =
146.7
D95 =
287.3
D100 =
512.0
100
90
80
ae 70
60
m 50
3
E
u 40
C 30
u
a 20
a
10
SF4, Cross Section 13
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0 i I I I I .F�� 1.W1
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
—&--MYO-02/2013 � MYl-10/2013 — MY2-05/2014 �MY3-04/2015 --*--MY405/2016
SF4, Cross Section 13
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
V
60
d
a
N
50
N
40
u
m
30
20
10
0
oO5'Loy,�h O,lh Oh
'1 'L ,y� b 5� yti ,y�o ,L,yt° ,5'L bh fo , -O 1,ti`b 'p �o 'p, ytiti yO,�b �O0 tp0
Particle Class Size (mm)
• MYO-02/2013
• MYl-10/2013 • MY2-05/2014 • MY3-04/2015 • MY4-05/2016

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 4 - 2016
SF4, Cross Section 15
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Riffle 100-
Count
Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
16.00
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
5
5
5
D95 =
Very fine
0.062
0.125
5
Fine
0.125
0.250
1
1
6
Medium
0.25
0.50
1
1
7
Coarse
0.5
1.0
1
1
8
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
2
2
10
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
10
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
10
50
Fine
4.0
5.6
N
40
10
Fine
5.6
8.0
10
m
Medium
8.0
11.0
2
2
12
Medium
11.0
16.0
4
4
16
Coarse
16.0
22.6 1
4
1 4
20
Coarse
22.6
32
9
9
29
ti ti ti� a e� ' titi ti��tiq 3ti ah � -,0 'p 'p �o 'p, ytiti yoyo
Very Coarse
32
45
it
11
40
Very Coarse
45
64
13
13
53
Small
64
90
14
14
67
Small
90
128
9
9
76
Large
128
180
12
12
88
Large
180
256
12
12
100
Small
256
362
100
Small362
Medium
Large/Very Large
512
1024
5 12
1024
2048
100
100
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Totall
100
100
100
100
90
80
ae 70
60
m 50
3
E
u 40
C 30
u
a 20
a
10
SF4, Cross Section 15
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
—&--MYO-02/2013 —H MYl-10/2013 — MY2-05/2014 �MY3-04/2015 --*--MY405/2016
Cross Section 15
Channel materials (mm)
D1fi=
16.00
Di5 =
38.54
D50 =
59.0
D84 =
160.7
D95 =
221.1
D100 =
256.0
100
90
80
ae 70
60
m 50
3
E
u 40
C 30
u
a 20
a
10
SF4, Cross Section 15
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
—&--MYO-02/2013 —H MYl-10/2013 — MY2-05/2014 �MY3-04/2015 --*--MY405/2016
SF4, Cross Section 15
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
V
60
d
a
N
50
N
40
u
m
30
20
10
0
oo�tiotiyh otih oy
ti ti ti� a e� ' titi ti��tiq 3ti ah � -,0 'p 'p �o 'p, ytiti yoyo
Particle Class Size (mm)
• MYO-02/2013
• MYl-10/2013 • MY2-05/2014 • MY3-04/2015 • MY4-05/2016

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 4 - 2016
SF4A, Reachwide
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Particle Count
Riffle Pool Total
each Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
Silt/Clay
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
5
14
19
19
19
D100 =
Very fine
0.062
0.125
90
19
Fine
0.125
0.250
80
10
10
10
29
Medium
0.25
0.50
1
6
7
7
36
Coarse
0.5
1.0
a
50
36
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
M
40
36
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
m
36
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
20
36
Fine
4.0
5.6
6
6
6
42
c
Fine
S.6
8.0
4
4
4
46
Medium
8.0
11.0
•MYO-02/2013
1
1
1
47
Medium
11.0
16.0
2
2
2
49
Coarse
1 16.0
22.6
4
3
7
7
56
Coarse
22.6
32
2
1
3
3
59
Very Coarse
32
45
10
1
11
11
70
Very Coarse
45
64
10
4
14
14
84
Small
64
90
2
4
6
6
90
Small
90
128
4
4
8
8
98
Large
128
180
2
2
2
100
Large
180
256
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
Medium
Large/Very Large
362
512
1024
512
1024
2048
100
100
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Totall
50
1 50 1
100 1
100 1
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16=
Silt/Clay
D35 —
0.45
D50 =
16.8
D80. =
64.0
D95 =
112.2
D100 =
180.0
SF4A, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
u
60
v
a
50
M
40
u
m
30
20
10
c
0
eti by by oy
ti ti tiw o- 5� titi ti� ti� 3ti ay 6o- 0o yw �o h6 �ti titi n� p a°
Particle Class Size (mm)
•MYO-02/2013
MY1-10/2013 MY2-05/2014 •MYM4/2015 •MY4-05/2016

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 4 - 2016
SF4A, Cross Section 16
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Riffle 100-
Count
Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
6.68
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
4
4
4
D95 =
Very fine
0.062
0.125
4
Fine
0.125
0.250
4
Medium
0.25
0.50
80
4
Coarse
0.5
1.0
4
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
2
2
6
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
6
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
2
2
8
50
Fine
4.0
5.6
5
5
13
Fine
5.6
8.0
6
6
19
m
Medium
8.0
11.0
8
8
27
Medium
11.0
16.0
14
14
41
Coarse
16.0
22.6 1
13
1 14
55
Coarse
22.6
32
12
12
67
Very Coarse
32
45
9
9
76
• MYO-02/2013
Very Coarse
45
64
10
10
86
Small
64
90
7
7
93
Small
90
128
5
5
98
Large
128
180
2
2
100
Large
180
256
100
Small
256
362
100
S mail
Medium
Large/Very Large
36 2
512
1024
5 12
1024
2048
1 00
100
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Totall
99
1 101
1 100
100
90
80
ae 70
60
m 50
3
E
u 40
C 30
u
a 20
a
10
SF4A, Cross Section 16
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0 i I I I I ✓t�� I � --,6—,I
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
—&--MYO-02/2013 � MYl-10/2013 — MY2-05/2014 --S--MYM4/2015 --*--MY405/2016
Cross Section 16
Channel materials (mm)
D1fi=
6.68
Di5 =
13.61
D50 =
20.0
D84 =
59.7
D95 =
103.7
D100 =
180.0
100
90
80
ae 70
60
m 50
3
E
u 40
C 30
u
a 20
a
10
SF4A, Cross Section 16
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0 i I I I I ✓t�� I � --,6—,I
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
—&--MYO-02/2013 � MYl-10/2013 — MY2-05/2014 --S--MYM4/2015 --*--MY405/2016
SRA, Cross Section 16
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
V
60
d
a
N
50
N
40
u
m
30
20
10
0
oo�tiotiyh otih oy
ti ti ti� a e� a2 titi ti� �ti� 3ti ah �o�` �O 1,1`b 1�0 �y0 ��ti ytiti yO,�b �ObO ��b
Particle Class Size (mm)
• MYO-02/2013
• MYl-10/2013 • MY2-05/2014 • MY3-04/2015 • MY4-05/2016

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 4 - 2016
SF4A, Cross Section 17
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Riffle 100-
Count
Summary
class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
10.04
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
3
3
3
D95 =
Very fine
0.062
0.125
90
3
Fine
0.125
0.250
4
4
7
80
Medium
0.25
0.50
7
Coarse
0.5
1.0
3
3
10
a
�
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
a
H
10
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
10
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
10
Fine
4.0
5.6
m
3
30
10
Fine
5.6
8.0
1
1
11
Medium
8.0
11.0
7
7
18
Medium
11.0
16.0
9
9
27
_
Coarse
16.0
22.6
10
10
37
000�OtiIy c1t, Oh
Coarse
1 22.6
32
12
12
49
• MYI-10/2013 0 MY2-05/2014 0 MY3-04/2015 0 MY4-05/2016
Very Coarse
32
45
11
11
60
Very Coarse
45
64
7
7
67
Small
64
90
8
8
7S
Small
90
128
10
10
85
Large
128
180
6
6
91
Large
180
256
7
7
98
................................................
Small
256
362
2
2
100
IISma
Medium
Large/Very Large
36 2
512
1024
5 12
1024
2048
100
100
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Totall
100
100
100
100
90
80
70
60
50
E
�? 40
y 30
u
a 20
10
SF4A, Cross Section 17
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0 i I I I I -
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYp 2/2013 � MY1-10/2013 MY2-05/2014 --@-- MY3-04/2015 --*-• MY4-05/2016
Cross Section 17
Channel materials (mm)
D1fi=
10.04
Di5 =
21.09
D50 =
33.0
D84 =
123.6
D95 =
220.1
D300 =
362.0
100
90
80
70
60
50
E
�? 40
y 30
u
a 20
10
SF4A, Cross Section 17
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0 i I I I I -
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYp 2/2013 � MY1-10/2013 MY2-05/2014 --@-- MY3-04/2015 --*-• MY4-05/2016
SF4A, Cross Section 17
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
C
70
a
�
60
a
H
50
u
40
m
3
30
v
20
10
_
0
000�OtiIy c1t, Oh
'Y ti ,y4 b 5� y1 y0 �,L�o ,5'L by 0b 00 yti4� y00 �y0 001- yti1-yO,yA �ObO �00
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-02/2013
• MYI-10/2013 0 MY2-05/2014 0 MY3-04/2015 0 MY4-05/2016

APPENDIX 5. Hydrology Summary Data and Plots

Table 13. Verification of Bankfull Events
Underwood Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 4 - 2016
Reach
Approximate
Date of Data Date of
Collection Occurrence
Method
SH
5/8/2016 3/28/2016
Crest
Gage/Visual
(Rack Lines)
11/15/2016 10/9/2016
UT2
11/15/2016 10/9/2016
SF3
5/8/2016 3/28/2016
11/15/2016 10/9/2016
UT1
5/8/2016 3/28/2016
11/15/2016 10/9/2016
SF4
5/8/2016 3/28/2016
11/15/2016 1 10/9/2016
SF4A
5/8/2016 3/28/2016
11/15/2016 10/9/2016
Table 14. Wetland Gage Attainment Summary
Underwood Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 4 -2016
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
Yes/45 Days
1
(20.6%)
(16.4%)
(27.1%)
(36.7%)
Yes/51.5 Days
Yes/38.5 Days
Yes/59 Days
No/13 Days
2
(23.8%)
(17.8%)
(24.6%)
(5.3%)
Yes/23.5 Days
Yes/31.5 Days
Yes/29 Days
Yes/19 Days
3
(10.9%)
(14.6%)
(12.1%)
(7.8%)
Yes/19.5 Days
Yes/31.5 Days
Yes/59 Days
Yes/19 Days
4
(9.0 %)
(14.6%)
(24.6%)
(7.8 %)
Yes/25 Days
Yes/32.5 Days
Yes/65 Days
Yes/47 Days
5
(11.6%)
(15.0%)
(27.1%)
(19.2%)
Yes/22.5 Days
Yes/21 Days
Yes/28 Days
No/12 Days
6
(10.4%)
(9.7%)
(11.7%)
(4.9%)
Yes/44.5 Days
Yes/31.5 Days
Yes/32 Days
Yes/38 Days
7
(20.6%)
(14.6 %)
(13.3%)
(15.5 %)
Yes/22 Days
Yes/23 Days
Yes/61 Days
Yes/23 Days
8
(10.2 %)
(14.6%)
(25.4%)
(9.4%)
Yes/98 Days
Yes/41.5 Days
Yes/68 Days
Yes/49 Days
9
(45.4%)
(10.6%)
(28.3%)
(20%)
Yes/96.5 Days
Yes/36 Days
Yes/67 Days
Yes/23Days
10
(44.7%)
(16.7%)
(27.9%)
(9.4%)
Yes/66 Days
Yes/40.5 Days
Yes/61 Days
Yes/38 Days
11
(30.6%)
(18.8%)
(25.4%)
(15.5%)
Yes/23 Days
Yes/32.5 Days
Yes/28 Days
No/9 Days
12
(10.6%)
(15.0%)
(11.7%)
(3.7%)
Yes/22 Days
No/12.5 Days
Yes/27 Days
No/10 Days
13
(10.2%)
(5.8 %)
(11.3%)
(4.1%)
Yes/21 Days
Yes/32 Days
Yes/29 Days
No/16 Days
14
(9.7%)
14.8%
(12.1%)
(6.5%
Yes/163 Days
Yes/57 Days
Yes/80 Days
Yes/104 Days
15
(75.5%)
(26.4%)
(33.3%)
(42.4%)
* 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.

Groundwater Gage Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 94641)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2016
Wetland Harris Site; RW1
Underwood Groundwater Gage #1
o
Monitoring Year 4 - 2016
N
cu
(J
20
N
no
6.0
3 O
N
10
o m
m
2 m
(D
-
°0
5.0
t-
-°
2
0
n
"'
4.0
At
WL
-10
v
–
3.0
-20
c
m
3
-30
2.0
-40
1.0
-50
0.0
-60
c -0 > c On a + > U
2! <g a 0z
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #1 — — Criteria Level

Groundwater Gage Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 94641)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2016
Wetland Harris Site; RW2
20
10
0
-10
v
-20
v
Y
f6
3 -30
-40
-50
-60
c > c on a +- > U
Q � n O0 cu
2!g a z
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #2 — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0
c
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 94641)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2016
Wetland Harris Site; NRW1
20
10
0
-10
v
-20
v
Y
f6
3 -30
-40
-50
-60
c > c on a + > U
Q � n O0 cu
2!g a z
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #3 — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0
c
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 94641)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2016
Wetland Harris Site; RW2
20
10
0
-10
v
-20
v
Y
f6
3 -30
-40
-50
-60
c > c on a + > U
Q � n O0 cu
2!g a z
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #4 — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0
c
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 94641)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2016
Wetland Harris Site; RW3
20
10
0
-10
v
-20
v
Y
f6
3 -30
-40
-50
-60
c > c on a > U
Q � n O0 cu
2!g a z
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #5 — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0
c
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 94641)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2016
Wetland Harris Site; RW3
20
10
0
-10
v
-20
v
Y
f6
3 -30
-40
-50
-60
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0
c
2.0
C75 W a + > U
Q � n 0 cu
O
2!g a z
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #6 — — Criteria Level

Groundwater Gage Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 94641)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2016
Wetland Harris Site; RW3
20
10
0
-10
v
-20
v
Y
f6
3 -30
-40
-50
-60
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0
c
2.0
to a + > U
Q ° n O ° cu
2!g a z
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #7 — — Criteria Level

Groundwater Gage Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 94641)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2016
Wetland Harris Site; RW3
20
10
0
-10
v
-20
v
Y
f6
3 -30
-40
-50
-60
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0
c
2.0
to a > U
�i Q ° n O ° cu
2:g a z
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #8 — — Criteria Level

Groundwater Gage Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 94641)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2016
Wetland Harris Site; NRW2
20
10
0
-10
v
-20
v
Y
f6
3 -30
-40
-50
-60
c > c on a + >
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #9 — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0
c
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 94641)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2016
Wetland RW4
20
10
0
-10
v
-20
v
Y
f6
3 -30
-40
-50
-60
c > c 75 on a + > U
2: < g a 0z
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #10 — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0
c
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 94641)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2016
Wetland RW4
20
10
0
-10
v
-20
v
Y
f6
3 -30
-40
-50
-60
c > c 75 on a + > U
2: < g a 0z
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #11 — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0
c
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 94641)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2016
Wetland RW4
20
10
0
-10
v
-20
v
Y
f6
3 -30
-40
-50
-60
c > c 75 on a + > U
2: < g a 0z
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #12 — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0
c
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 94641)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2016
Wetland RW4
20
10
0
-10
v
-20
v
Y
f6
3 -30
-40
-50
-60
c > c on a + > U
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #13 — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0
c
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 94641)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2016
Wetland RW4
20
10
0
-10
v
-20
v
Y
f6
3 -30
-40
-50
-60
c > c 75 on a + > U
2: < g a 0z
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #14 — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0
c
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 94641)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2016
Wetland RW4
20
10
0
-10
v
-20
v
Y
f6
3 -30
-40
-50
-60
c > c 75 on a + > U
2: < g a 0z
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #15 — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0
c
2.0
1.0
0.0

Monthly Rainfall Data
Underwood Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94641)
Monitoring Year 4 -2016
Underwood 30-70 Percentile Graph for Rainfall in 2016 Siler City, NC
10
9
8
7
S
6
c
0
0 5
1+
.Q
u
Cu
4
CL
3
2
1
0
Jan -16 Feb -16 Mar -16 Apr -16 May -16 Jun -16 Jul -16 Aug -16 Sep -16 Oct -16
Date
2016 Rainfall 30th Percentile 70th Percentile
1 2016 rainfall from USDA Station SILER CITY (317924)
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 (DMS Project No. 94641)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2016
Wetland RW1
30
20
10
0
c
Z -10
J
(v -20
-30
-40
-50
-60
Underwood Groundwater Gage #1
Monitoring Year 4 - 2016
C Q i T C -5 Oz Q> U
a � a (n o z° o
mmmmmi Pre -Construction Rainfall Rainfall Pre -Construction Gage Depth Gage #1 — — Criteria Level
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
C
2.5 w
C
2.0 °C
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0

Pre and Post Construction Groundwater Gage Comparison Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 94641)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2016
Wetland RW2
30
20
10
0
c
Underwood Groundwater Gage #4
Monitoring Year 4 - 2016
-30
-40
-50
-60
C Q i T C -5 ho d> U
a � a o z° o
mmmmmi Pre -Construction Rainfall Rainfall Pre -Construction Gage Depth Gage #4 — — Criteria Level
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
C
2.5 w
C
2.0 °C
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0

Pre and Post Construction Groundwater Gage Comparison Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 94641)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2016
Wetland RW4
30
20
10
0
c
Underwood Groundwater Gage #12
Monitoring Year 4 - 2016
-30
-40
-50
-60
C i T C -5Oo CL +"' > U
to
�0
� 3;Q Z
Pre -Construction Rainfall Rainfall Pre -Construction Gage Depth Gage #12 — — Criteria Level
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
C
2.5 w
C
2.0 °C
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0

Pre and Post Construction Groundwater Gage Comparison Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 94641)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2016
Wetland RW4
30
20
10
0
c
Z -10
J
(v -20
-30
-40
-50
-60
Underwood Groundwater Gage #15
Monitoring Year 4 - 2016
C i T C -5 ho d > U
� � Q0 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
2.0 °C
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0