20120080 Ver 1_Year 5 Monitoring Report 2017_20180105

I JY
MONITORING YEAR 5
ANNUAL REPORT
UNDERWOOD MITIGATION SITE
Chatham County, NC
NCDEQ Contract 003268
DMS Project Number 94641
FINAL Data Collection Period: March 2017 - November 2017
Draft Submission Date: December 5, 2017
Final Submission Date: January 5, 2018
PREPARED FOR:
rk�
NC Department of Environment Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652

PREPARED BY:
W
WILDLANDS
E N G I N E E R 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 9,190
linear feet (If) of stream and restore, enhance, and create 13.63 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) to South Fork. The largest of these streams; South Fork, ultimately drains to
the Haw River. At the downstream limits of the project, the drainage area is 3,362 acres (5.25 square
miles). The Underwood Mitigation Site; hereafter referred to as the Site, provides 6,752 Stream
Mitigation Units (SMUs) and 8.90 Wetland Mitigation Units (WMUs).
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 included 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 provided 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 9,190 If of perennial and intermittent stream
channel, and restoring, enhancing, and creating 13.63 ac 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
• Create appropriate terrestrial habitat.
Underwood Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 5 Annual Report — FINAL

Stream and wetland construction was 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 5 (MY5) monitoring and site visits were completed between March and November 2017
to assess the conditions of the project. Overall, the Site has met the required vegetation and stream
success criteria for MY5. The overall average planted stem density of 428 stems per acre is greater than
the 260 stems per acre density required for MY5. All restored and enhanced streams are stable and
functioning as designed. The Site has met the MY5 hydrology success criteria for bankfull events. Unlike
previous years where the majority of groundwater wells met success criteria, only four of fifteen
groundwater wells met success criteria during MY5. This trend is consistent with other piedmont and
coastal plain wetland sites in 2017.
Underwood Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 5 Annual Report — FINAL

UNDERWOOD MITIGATION SITE
Monitoring Year 5 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 5 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..............................................................................................................1-5
Cross Section Plots
1.3 Monitoring Year 5 Summary......................................................................................................1-5
Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Section2: 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
Table 5a -h
Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Table 6
Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Appendix 4
Stream Photographs
Table 10a -c
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
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
Groundwater Gage Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 5 Annual Report — FINAL iii

Monthly Rainfall Data
Pre and Post Construction Groundwater Gage Comparison Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 5 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 1,504 acres (1.64 square miles) and 3,362 acres (5.25 square
miles) respectively. The Site provides 6,752 Stream Mitigation Units (SMUs) and 8.9 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 UT1B (enhancement level II approach).
Mitigation work within the Site included restoring and enhancing 9,190 linear feet (If) of perennial and
intermittent stream channel and restoring, enhancing, and creating 13.63 acres (ac) 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 -c.
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 -c
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;
Underwood Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 5 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 2011 (Wildlands, 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 March 2013. Annual monitoring has been
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 5 Data Assessment
Annual monitoring and quarterly site visits were conducted during MY5 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 210 planted stems per acre at the end of MY7. The interim measure of vegetative
success for the Site will be the survival of at least 260 stems per acre at the end of MY5.
The MY5 vegetative survey was completed in August 2017. The 2017 annual vegetation monitoring
resulted in an average planted stem density of 428 stems per acre, which is greater than the final
Underwood Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 5 Annual Report — FINAL 1-2

requirement of 260 planted stems per acre and approximately 40% less than the baseline density of 712
stems per acre. There was an average of 10 planted stems per plot compared to 19 stems per plot
during MYO. While the Site is on track to meet the final 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, 19, 39, and 40 met the success criteria. Vegetation plot 23 falls below the
vegetation success criteria, even when volunteers are considered. This plot is in a low, wet area that has
dense herbaceous cover which has resulted in low tree establishment in this area.
An abundance of green ash volunteers have been observed along portions of SF3, SF4, SF4A and in the
wetland restoration areas. These volunteers are not competing with the planted trees and are further
promoting the desired vegetative community at the Site. They are shading out herbaceous competition
and creating a shaded forest floor. The green ash volunteers will be observed in subsequent monitoring
years to assure they are not out competing planted tree species. 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 MY5, vegetation plot 23 was observed to have a low stem density due to frequent standing
water. As mentioned above in section 1.2.1, this isolated area (0.08 acres) is located in a low spot with
dense herbaceous cover. Even though trees have not become well established in this area, no remedial
actions are recommended at this time due the small size. This area is shown on the CCPV maps (Figures
3.0-3.3 in Appendix 2).
1.2.3 Stream Assessment
Morphological surveys for MY5 were conducted in March 2017. All streams within the Site are stable
with little to no erosion and have met the success criteria for MY5. 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, UTI, SF4, and SF4A illustrate 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 at or very near to 1.0 for the restoration reaches.
Pattern data was required in MY5 only if there were indicators from the profile or dimensions that
significant geomorphic adjustments had occurred. No changes were observed during MY5 that indicated
a change in the radius of curvature or channel belt width.
1.2.4 Stream Areas of Concern
During MY5 two beaver dams were located on SF3 during different times of the year. The beaver dams
caused backwater, sediment build up in constructed riffles, and loss of some plant species on the stream
banks due to girdling. Details regarding beaver and dam removal is discussed further 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 MY5, bankfull events were
recorded on all the streams by crest gages and onsite observations (wrack lines). All streams on the Site
Underwood Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 5 Annual Report — FINAL 1-3

have had bankfull events during multiple monitoring years therefore meeting the hydrology success
criteria. Refer to Appendix 5 for hydrologic data.
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
provided an indication of groundwater hydrology 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 were 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 MY5, the
beginning of the growing season was extended by 31 days (from April 1 to March 1) based on data from
the soil temperature probes. Due to a malfunction of the onsite rain gage, precipitation data was
collected from an off-site USDA gage, SILER CITY 317924 and is shown on groundwater hydrology plots.
All monitoring gages were downloaded 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. Four of fifteen groundwater gages met the annual wetland hydrology success
criteria for MY5. Groundwater well ten malfunctioned during MY5 and the data was inconclusive. Of the
four wells that met wetland criteria, three were located in wetland creation areas and one was in a
wetland enhancement area. None of the wells in wetland restoration areas met wetland criteria.
Wildlands believes that abnormally low rainfall in the late winter and spring of 2017 was the main
reason eleven of the groundwater wells did not meet the wetland success criteria for MY5. Monthly
rain totals were compared to 30th and 701h percentile rainfall data from USDA weather station: Siler City
2S, NC7924.
During MY5, February had a total of 0.96 inches of rain, March had 2.20 inches, and April had 2.34
inches up to a large rain even that occurred on April 25th. These monthly rainfall totals are well below
normal when compared to the 301h percentile (Appendix 5). The 30th percentile for February is 2.55
inches, which is almost three times the amount of rain received in 2017. For March, the 301h percentile is
3.17 inches of rain, which is approximately one and a half times the amount of rain that fell during
March 2017. Assuming an even rainfall distribution across the month of April, the 30th percentile should
be approximately 1.78 inches which is approximately the actual rainfall in 2017. Due to these drier than
normal months, groundwater levels dropped from at or near the ground surface to below the 12 inch
threshold in February compared to May in previous years with normal rainfall. In these previous years
all groundwater gages have easily met wetland success criteria.
Along with below normal rainfall in 2017, rainfall patterns were atypical with periodic large events
followed by extended periods of no rain. April had above normal rainfall with 5.47 inches, however 3.0
inches fell during one storm on April 25th. This large event occurred near the end of April after several
months of below normal rainfall. When conditions are dry and large rainfall events occur, runoff tends
to be high relative to infiltration (Winter 1998). During this crucial period for piedmont wetlands,
rainfall was significantly below normal and did not allow the groundwater table to recharge from a dry
2016. This rainfall pattern continued throughout most of 2017.
Underwood Mitigation Site
4111100 Monitoring Year 5 Annual Report — FINAL 1-4

Groundwater wells 1 and 11 are good examples of how rainfall affected groundwater levels during 2017.
Both of these wells met wetland success criteria during the previous four years of monitoring. During
MY5 both wells had groundwater within a few inches of the surface during January, however in February
groundwater levels fell near the 12 inch threshold for wetland success criteria. With below normal
rainfall in February, March, and most of April groundwater levels fell below 12 inches, except during a
few large rain events. This pattern continued for most of 2017 and is the reason eleven groundwater
wells did not meet wetland success criteria. The reference well displayed a similar groundwater pattern
as wells 1 and 11. Along with below normal rainfall, 2017 had above average ambient temperatures in
January and February, which increased evaporation exacerbating the problem. Refer to Appendix 2 for
the groundwater gage locations and Appendix 5 for groundwater hydrology data and plots.
After multiple field observations Wildlands adjusted wetland boundaries for wetland RW1 and RW2
creation zones, based on hydrology, soils, topography, and vegetation during MY5. Hydric soils were not
forming in a portion of these wetland areas, and it was clear they weren't wet from field observations.
Therefore, these areas were removed from wetland credit and wetland mitigation credits were updated
in Table 1 as were Figures 2a -c and 3.0-3.3.
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
The USDA was contracted to trap beaver from the Site during MY5. Two beavers were successfully
removed in March and one in May from SF3. Live stakes along the banks of SF3, mainly black willow,
were gnawed down by beaver. These live stakes are expected to resprout, therefore no supplemental
planting of live stakes is expected. Two beaver dams were removed from SF3, one near the middle of
the restoration reach and one near the lower end of the reach. These dams are shown on the CCPV
maps (Figures 3.0-3.3). Wildlands will make frequent site visits to make sure beaver activity is not a
problem in the future and will continue to contract the USDA to remove beaver as necessary.
Sporadic areas of minor erosion were repaired along the outer boundary of wetland RW4 creation zone.
Runoff from the agricultural field had caused some minor rilling. These areas were graded, matted, and
seeded to prevent future erosion.
1.3 Monitoring Year 5 Summary
Overall the average planted stem density for the Site is on track to meeting the MY5 success criteria;
however, 6 individual vegetation plots out of 42 did not meet the MY5 success criteria as noted in the
Integrated Current Condition Plan View. When volunteer stems are counted in these six plots, all but
one met MY5 success criteria. All streams on the Site are stable and functioning as designed. All streams
have experienced multiple documented bankfull events, therefore, the MY5 stream hydrology
attainment requirement has been met for the Site. Unlike previous years where the majority of
groundwater wells met success criteria, only four of fifteen groundwater wells have met success criteria
during MY5. This trend is consistent with other piedmont and coastal plain wetland sites in 2017.
Beaver presence was noted onsite and successful removal of beaver and dams was completed.
Underwood Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 5 Annual Report — FINAL 1-5

Section 2: METHODOLOGY
Geomorphic data was collected following the standards outlined in The Stream Channel Reference Site:
An Illustrated Guide to Field Techniques (Harrelson et al., 1994) and in the Stream Restoration: A
Natural Channel Design Handbook (Doll et al., 2003). Cross-sectional data was collected using a total
station and was georeferenced. All data collected for the Integrated Current Condition Mapping was
recorded using a Trimble handheld GPS with sub -meter accuracy and processed using Pathfinder and
ArcGIS software. Crest gages were installed in surveyed riffle cross sections and monitored quarterly.
Hydrology attainment installation and monitoring methods are in accordance with the USACE (2003)
standards. Vegetation monitoring protocols followed the Carolina Vegetation Survey -DMS Level 2
Protocol (Lee et al., 2008). Reporting follows the DMS Monitoring Report Template and Guidance
Version 1.2.1 (DMS, 2009). Summary information and data related to the performance of various project
and monitoring elements can be found in the tables and figures in the report appendices. Narrative
background and supporting information formerly found in these reports can be found in the Mitigation
Plan documents available on DMS's website. All raw data supporting the tables and figures in the
appendices are available from DMS upon request.
Underwood Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 5 Annual Report — FINAL 2-1

Section 3: REFERENCES
Doll, B.A., Grabow, G.L., Hall, K.A., Halley, J., Harman, W.A., Jennings, G.D., and Wise, D.E. 2003. Stream
Restoration A Natural Channel Design Handbook.
Harrelson, C.C., Rawlins, C.L., Potyondy, J.P. 1994. Stream Channel Reference Sites: An Illustrated Guide
to Field Technique. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM -245. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 61 p.
Lee, M.T., Peet, R.K., S.D., Wentworth, T.R. 2008. CVS -DMS Protocol for Recording Vegetation Version
4.2. Retrieved from http://cvs.bio.unc.edu/protocol/cvs-eep-protocol-v4.2-lev1-5.pdf.
Multi -Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium (MRLC). 2001. National Land Cover Database.
http://www.mrlc.gov/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. n res. usd a.gov/ftpref/support/cl i mate/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.
Winter, Thomas C., Harvey, Judson W., Franke, O. Lehn, Alley, William M. 1998. Ground Water and
Surface Water: A Single Source.
Underwood Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 5 Annual Report — FINAL 3-1

APPENDIX 1. General Tables and Figures

■ I M I L
Hydrologic Unit Code (14)
- DMS Targeted Local Watershed
03030003070010
.n
,3030002050050
0 030003070020
Siler City
Toad �vn ,_ I
geek 3s'l-
1 er C
030300030200 76tCClub
V* CrPe4
*G�
04
iQV'%
Directions:
The two locations of the
stream and wetland mitigation sites
are located in western Chatham County
along Clyde Underwood Road just west Greek i
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.
WILDLANDS
ENGI NE E 121 N Cs rk�
ME
PxIIxIIAAY.iIb71AllG
Lindley Sitio
$1 So -,� r�' 0
10
03030002050090
` '0
03030003070030
Land%Um Creek
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
0 1 2 Miles Underwood Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 5 - 2017
Chatham County, NC

Figure 2a Project Component/Asset Map
W I L D L A IST D S Underwood Mitigation Site - Harris Site
E NG I NEER I N G 0 100 200 Feet DMS Project No. 94641
It Monitoring Year 5 - 2017
Chatham County, NC

Conservation Easement ■i■♦
UT1A
• ��
`♦� `.too%�' ■ UT1 �♦
00
Ira
2016 Aerial Photography
j � i
1 ■
■ SF2
i

Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement I
Stream Enhancement II
Stream Restoration (no credit)
Wetland Restoration
FM Wetland Enhancement
Wetland Creation
Conservation Easement
'�Ak,
ULT -
Figure 2c Project Component/Asset Map
1* W I L D L A N D S Underwood Mitigation Site - Lindley Site
ENGINEERING 0 100 200 Feet DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 5 - 2017
Chatham County, NC

Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Underwood Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year S - 2017
*Credit calculations were originally calculated along the as -built thalweg and updated to be calculated along stream centerlines for Monitoring Year 5 after discusions with NC IRT.
** Wetlands RWl and RW2 credit calculation were updated for Monitoring Year 5 based on soils, topography, and vegetation.
*** Wetland credits were reduced from as -built because stream channels were calculated as part of the wetland boundaries in the Mitigation Plan.
7Totals,6,752
Stream
Riparian Wetland
Non -Riparian Wetland
Nitrogen
Buffer Nutrient
Offset
Phosphorous
Nutrient Offset
R
RE
R
RE
R RE
7.83
1
1.07
N/A N/A
N/A
Reach ID
As -Built
StationingFootage
/
Location (LF)
Existing
LF
g ( ) /
Acreage (Ac)
q
Approach
Restoration or
Restoration Equivalent
Restoration
Footage (LF) /Acreage
(Ac)
Mitigation
Ratio
Credits
(SMU / WMU)
Streams
SF1
100+00-108+78
773
Priority 1
Restoration
878
1:1
878
SF2
300+00-303+02
302
N/A
Enhancement Level 11
302
2.5:1
121
SF3
400+00-404+87
405+08-405+34
532
N/A
Enhancement Level II
513
2.5:1
205
405+34-419+84
1,499
Priority 1
Restoration
1,450
1:1
1,450
419+84-421+37
152
N/A
Enhancement Level l
153
1.5:1
102
SF4
800+00-814+24
1,450
Priority 1
Restoration
1,424
1:1
1,424
SMA
906+09-908+68
0
Priority 1
Restoration
259
1:1
259
900+00-906+09
609
N/A
Enhancement Level l
609
1.5:1
406
UT1
500+00-509+73
510+30-514+63
1,463
N/A
Enhancement Level II
1,406
2.5:1
562
514+63-520+54
452
Priority 1
Restoration
591
1:1
591
UT1A
700+00-705+24
524
N/A
Enhancement Level 11
524
2.5:1
210
UT1B
600+00-606+60
660
N/A
Enhancement Level 11
660
2.5:1
264
UT2
200+00-204+21
421
N/A
Enhancement Level 1
421
1.5:1
281
Wetlands
RW1
N/A
1.25
N/A
Restoration
0.98
1:1
0.98
RW2
N/A
0.45
N/A
Creation
0.23
3:1
0.08
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
*Credit calculations were originally calculated along the as -built thalweg and updated to be calculated along stream centerlines for Monitoring Year 5 after discusions with NC IRT.
** Wetlands RWl and RW2 credit calculation were updated for Monitoring Year 5 based on soils, topography, and vegetation.
*** Wetland credits were reduced from as -built because stream channels were calculated as part of the wetland boundaries in the Mitigation Plan.

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Underwood Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 5 - 2017
Activity or Report
Mitigation Plan
Date Collection
September 2011
Completion
I Scheduled D -
September 2011
Final Design - Construction Plans
312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225
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
126 Circle G Lane
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
Stream Survey
Vegetation Survey
August 2013
September 2013
November 2013
Year 2 Monitoring
Land Mechanic Designs, Inc.
Stream Survey
Vegetation Survey
May 2014
May 2014
December 2014
Year 3 Monitoring
Stream Survey
Vegetation Survey
April 2015
June 2015
December 2015
Beaver Removal
Nursery Stock Suppliers
2015
Year 4 Monitoring
Bare Roots
Stream Survey
May 2016
June 2016
December 2016
Vegetation Survey
Supplemental Planting
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
January 2016
Beaver Removal
Jason Lorch
2016
Stream Repair on SMA
March 2016
Year 5 Monitoring
Stream Survey
March 2017
August 2017
December 2017
Vegetation Survey
Beaver Removal
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 5 - 2017
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 5.2017
Project Name
Project
Underwood Mitigation Site
Information
County
Chatham County
Project Area (acres)
37.8 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)
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
Parameters
60% Forest Land, 39% managed herbaceous cover/agricultural, 1% unmanaged herbaceous/open water
SFS SF2 SF3 UTI UT1A UT36 UT2 SK
7
SMA
Length of reach (linear feet) - Post -Restoration
878 302
2,116 1,997 524 660 421
1,424
868
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,
NSW C C C C
WS -V,
NSW
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
--- ---
--- --- --- --- ---
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 area
(USFWS correspondence letter)
Historic Preservation Act
X X
No historic resources were found to be impacted (letter from SHPO)
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) / Coastal Area
Management Act (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
WILDLANDS 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 Feet (Key)
ENGINEERING Underwood Mitigation Site
i I i I DMS Project No. 94641
' Monitoring Year 5 - 2017
Chatham County, NC

Figure 3.1 Integrated Current Condition Plan View
(Sheet 1 of 3)
W I LD LAND 5 0 50 100 150 200 Feet Underwood Mitigation Site - Harris Site
ENGINEERING' I I I I DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 5 - 2017
Chatham County, NC

Figure 3.2 Integrated Current Condition Plan View
(Sheet 2 of 3)
W I L D L A iS 0 100 200 300 400 Feet Underwood Mitigation Site - Harris Site
ENGlNEER IiJC+
IL I i I i I DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 5 - 2017
Chatham County, NC

Figure 3.3 Integrated Current Condition Plan View
(Sheet 3 of 3)
WILDLANDS Underwood Mitigation Site - Harris Site
ENOINEERING0 100 200 Feet DMS Project No. 94641
' I I I I I Monitoring Year 5- 2017
Chatham County, NC

Table 5a. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Underwood Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 5 - 2017
Harris Site; SF1 (878 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 Perforing as
m
Segments Footage Intended
Numberwith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footagewith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust %for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0 0 100%
Degradation
0 0 100%
(Riffle and Run units)
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
15
15
100%
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
15
15
100%
1. Bed
Condition
100%
Length Appropriate
15
15
100%
100%
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend (Run)
15
15
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend (Glide)
15
15
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured/Eroded
simply from poor growth and/or scour
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
and erosion
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
2. Bank
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, caving, or collapse
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
TOTALS
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs
10
10
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill
10
10
100%
3. Engineered
2a. Pi
Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms
10
10
100%
Structures'
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures
extent of influence does not exceed 15%
10
10
100%
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth >_ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
10
10
100%
baseflow
Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.

Table 5b. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Underwood Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 5 - 2017
Harris Site; UT2 (421 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
10 10
100%
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
10 10
100%
1. Bed
Condition
100%
Length Appropriate
10 10
100%
100%
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend (Run)
10 10
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
2a. Pi
Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms
n/a
n/a
n/a
Structures'
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures
extent of influence does not exceed 15%
n/a
n/a
n/a
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth>_ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
n/a
n/a
n/a
baseflow
Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.

Table 5c. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Underwood Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 5 - 2017
Harris Site; SF2 (302 LF)
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As -Built
Number of Amount of %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
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 5d. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Underwood Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 5 - 2017
Harris Site; SF3 (2,116 LF)
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As -Built
Number of Amount of
Unstable Unstable
Segments Footage
%Stable
Performing
Performing as
Intended
Numberwith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footagewith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust %for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0 0
100%
Degradation
0 0
100%
(Riffle and Run units)
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
19
19
100%
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
19
19
100%
1. Bed'
Condition
Length Appropriate
19
19
100%
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend (Run)
19
19
100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend (Glide)
19
19
100%
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured/Eroded
simply from poor growth and/or scour
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
and erosion
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
2. Bank
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, caving, or collapse
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
TOTALS
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs
7
7
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill
7
7
100%
3. Engineered
2a. Piping
P g
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms
7
7
100%
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 5 - 2017
Harris Site; UT3 (1,997 LF)
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As -Built
Number of Amount of
Unstable Unstable
Segments Footage
%Stable,
Perforing as
m
Intended
Inten
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
Length Appropriate
7
7
100%
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend (Run)
7
7
100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend (Glide)
7
7
100%
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured/Eroded
simply from poor growth and/or scour
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
and erosion
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
2. Bank
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, caving, or collapse
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
TOTALS
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs
15
15
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill
15
15
100%
3. Engineered
2a. Piping
P g
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms
15
15
100%
Structures2
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 5 - 2017
Harris Site; UT1A & UT113 (1,184 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
Numberwith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footagewith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust %for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0
0 100%
Degradation
0
0 100%
(Riffle and Run units)
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
n/a
n/a
n/a
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
n/a
n/a
n/a
1. Bed
Condition
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 5 - 2017
Lindley Site; SF4 (1,424 LF)
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As -Built
Number of Amount of
Unstable Unstable
Segments Footage
%Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Numberwith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footagewith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust %for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0 0
100%
Degradation
0 0
100%
(Riffle and Run units)
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
8
8
100%
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
8
8
100%
1. Bed
Condition
Length Appropriate
8
8
100%
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend (Run)
8
8
100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend (Glide)
8
8
100%
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured/Eroded
simply from poor growth and/or scour
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
and erosion
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
2. Bank
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat
10
3. Mass Wasting
JBank slumping, caving, or collapse
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. Pi
Piping
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 5 - 2017
Lindley Site; SKA (868 LF)
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As -Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
%Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Numberwith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footagewith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust %for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0
0
100%
Degradation
0
0
100%
(Riffle and Run units)
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
10
10
100%
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
9
9
100%
1. Bed'
Condition
Length Appropriate
9
9
100%
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend (Run)
9
9
100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend (Glide)
9
9
100%
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured/Eroded
simply from poor growth and/or scour
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
and erosion
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
2. Bank
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, caving, or collapse
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
TOTALS
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs
2
2
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill
2
2
100%
3. Engineered
2a. Piping
P g
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms
2
2
100%
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 SMA and riffles and pools have shifted downstream.
Although these conditions were not intended in the design, the stream has maintained a stable bedform with riffles and pools at a lower elevation.
2Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.

Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Undewood Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 5 - 2017
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
1
0.08
0.2%
criteria.
Total
1
0.08
0.2%
Areas with woody stems of a size class that are obviously small given the monitoring
Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor
0.25
0
0.0
0.0%
year.
Cumulative Total
0
0.0
0.0%
Easement Acreage 38
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Mapping
Threshold
(SF)
Number of
Polygons
Combined
Acreage
% of
Planted
Acreage
Invasive Areas of Concern
Areas of points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
1,000
0
0.0
0.0%
Easement Encroachment Areas
Areas of points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
none
0
0.0
0.0%

Stream Photographs
Underwood (Harris Site)

Photo Point 1— looking upstream (03/21/2017) 1 Photo Point 1— looking downstream (03/21/2017)
Photo Point 2 — looking upstream (03/21/2017) 1 Photo Point 2 — looking downstream (03/21/2017)
Photo Point 3 — looking upstream (03/21/2017) Photo Point 3 — looking downstream (03/21/2017) 1

A, I
14
I moo.
W`W
­eK
#1
WA f
W`Oi
Pill 1.
list' A
e
- Yid Birt
1. 041,
UK 1
T.
jj:::
WA f
W`Oi
Pill 1.
list' A
e
- Yid Birt
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
WA f
W`Oi
Pill 1.
list' A
e
- Yid Birt

Photo Point 7 — looking upstream (03/21/2017) 1 Photo Point 7 — looking downstream (03/21/2017) 1
Photo Point 8 — looking upstream (03/21/2017) 1 Photo Point 8 — looking downstream (03/21/2017) 1
Photo Point 9 — looking upstream (03/21/2017) 1 Photo Point 9 — looking downstream (03/21/2017) 1

Photo Point 10 — looking upstream (03/21/2017) 1 Photo Point 10 — looking downstream (03/21/2017)
Photo Point 11— looking upstream (03/21/2017) 1 Photo Point 11— looking downstream (03/21/2017) 1
Photo Point 12 — looking upstream (03/21/2017) 1 Photo Point 12 — looking downstream (03/21/2017) 1

4 ny�4��I'�.
aswxy
t ,kC,`
.Emwla ;
- �ppgR��ryryrygA6S
Vit" i 'N)_:
t
=qw
r"
y
� Y dt aJY
�QF
yyAt h
El
s
I fr
i
I
i
"F
r
Z
�
k
,
r �,

Photo Point 22 — looking upstream (03/21/2017) 1 Photo Point 22 — looking downstream (03/21/2017)
Photo Point 23 — looking upstream (03/21/2017) 1 Photo Point 23 — looking downstream (03/21/2017) 1
Photo Point 24 — looking upstream (03/21/2017) 1 Photo Point 24 — looking downstream (03/21/2017) 1

S
k E I
tam ammmmw�
Will
'17 VOff
1",� M;t"
k
h ? s
I� �_".y1 � i�:�.� iJl� - k Pr I,.I� � � :� ��. � ,� � I �,-�, �w,.,� �' �'•., " 1 '�' !i�,° � ,r:, J 71f
MAV
�������44 .,���� ;I; �, x � sI v� ; I:. � � w.tw�.• .. .. -�s� �' '4 � I �� ���� I�_ � I;��ldi�1 ��Ir it �
1
c
.tea
0A i
-yah ;
--. V4os .+•._�: '9 _ "c �� �i�*:.a,;4%t? ---�°
r

iNIW P -11s
¢� R
-.1 d
1 y
i
fir: �
fig°jyq41 A
'� !

s Wl
VR-
�
i
�ii9AJi W' p 1
et i�
y�AX-
�j'
I�
3 E �
L Z'n
Aii I V
J'IGI
NORM
'iA
µ �
1
s Wl
VR-
�
i
�ii9AJi W' p 1
et i�
y�AX-
�j'
I�
3 E �
L Z'n
Aii I V
J'IGI
NORM

R a,

Stream Photographs
Underwood (Lindley Site)

Photo Point 43 — looking upstream (03/21/2017) 1 Photo Point 43 — looking downstream (03/21/2017)
Photo Point 44— looking upstream (03/21/2017) 1 Photo Point 44— looking downstream (03/21/2017) 1
Photo Point 45 — looking upstream (03/21/2017) 1 Photo Point 45 — looking downstream (03/21/2017) 1

Photo Point 46 — looking upstream (03/21/2017) 1 Photo Point 46 — looking downstream (03/21/2017)
Photo Point 48 —looking upstream (03/21/2017) 1 Photo Point 48 — looking downstream (03/21/2017) 1

Vegetation Photographs
Underwood (Harris Site)

.,
M� "' ,,.
��� ; �,
.,� � .
__ �`
�� � ' *�

..k
1
AL

Vegetation Photographs
Underwood (Lindley Site)

'. S�d� '3`T � ti. � kg C \l,F T � '�E•y��irjw`' ,;�, .Y ,�' �%�. f�
l
,:;g�� � .kJ � i� i 1,��}'- +k -4 b 'f �� `' Y� rt' v+• F �lt � i f �..k .-}
\ I I
'. t
' A•-� � �,y � ri�_ac ,� s xg� � r x � _
7vope
•�-
�
A . {� � , .;. � d �0.. . tet` ,` \ ; . I_ A�� P d l.y; ' i�\ � t i •' r ..
�u
iz
ML
�L�d16 rt.�" ,`. hC• ' . '1 �4a t. F ��`. d

Vegetation Plot 42 (08/10/2017)

APPENDIX 3. Vegetation Plot Data

Table 7. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Underwood Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 5 - 2017
Harris Site
Plot Success Criteria
Met (Y/N)
Tract Mean
1 Y
86%
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 Y
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
Lindley Site
Plot Success Criteria
Met (Y/N)
Tract Mean
30 Y
85%
31 Y
32 Y
33 Y
34 Y
35 Y
36 Y
37 Y
38 Y
39 N
40 N
41 Y
42 Y

Table 8. CVS Vegetation Table - Metadata
Underwood Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 5 - 2017
Database name
Underwood MY5 cvs-eep-entrytool-v2.3.1.mdb
Database location
F:\Projects\005-02125 Underwood\Monitoring\Monitoring Year 5\Vegetation Assessment
Computer name
CAROLYN
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
1A 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
Monitorine Year 5 - 2017
Color Coding for Table
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
Pnol-S: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes,
T: Total Stems
Current Plot Data (MYS 2017)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
94641-WEI-0001
PnoLSFP-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
PnoLS P -all T
Acer negundo
boxelder
Tree
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
Baccharis
baccharis
Shrub
Baccharis halimifolia
eastern baccharis
Shrub
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
Tree
1
1
2
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
4
4
4
3
3
3
1
Gleditsia triacanthos
honeylocust
Tree
Juglans nigra
black walnut
Tree
Juniperus virginiana
eastern redcedar
Tree
Liquidambar styraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
4
20
10
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
1
1
1
Nyssa sylvatica
blackgum
Tree
Pinus
pine
Tree
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
1
1
1
5
5
5
3
3
3
4
4
4
7
7
7
4
4
4
Populus deltoides
eastern cottonwood
Tree
Quercus
oak
Tree
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
4
4
4
6
6
6
3
3
3
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
Tree
4
4
4
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
2
2
2
6
6
6
3
3
3
2
2
2
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
Tree
Salix nigra
black willow
Tree
13
Salix sericea
silky willow
Shrub
Ulmus
Jelm
Tree
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
15
6
1 607 1
15
1
0.02
6 1
607 1
15
6
607
16
5
1 647 1
16
1
0.02
5
647 1
20
6
809
14
6
567
14
1
0.02
6
1 567 1
14
6
567
12
4
1 486 1
12
1
0.02
4
486 1
12
4
486
14
4
567 1
14
1
0.02
4
567
34
1 5
11,3761
10
4
405 1
10
1
0.02
4
405
35
7
11,4161
Color Coding for Table
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
Pnol-S: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes,
T: Total Stems

Table 9. Planted and Total Stem Counts
Underwood Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94641
Monitorine Year 5 - 2017
Color Coding for Table
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
Pnol-S: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes,
T: Total Stems
Current Plot Data (MYS 2017)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
94641-WEI-0007
PnoLSFP-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
PnoLS P -all T
Acer negundo
boxelder
Tree
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
Baccharis
baccharis
Shrub
Baccharis halimifolia
eastern baccharis
Shrub
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
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
4
4
4
1
1
2
1
3
3
5
3
3
5
115
Gleditsia triacanthos
honeylocust
Tree
Juglans nigra
black walnut
Tree
Juniperus virginiana
eastern redcedar
Tree
1
1
Liquidambar styraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
25
1
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
Nyssa sylvatica
blackgum
Tree
4
Pinus
pine
Tree
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
1
1
1
4
4
4
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
43
Populus deltoides
eastern cottonwood
Tree
Quercus
oak
Tree
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
2
2
3
2
2
3
1
1
1
4
4
5
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
6
6
7
2
2
2
1
1
1
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
Tree
1
Salix nigra
black willow
Tree
Salix sericea
silky willow
Shrub
1
1
4
4
2
Ulmus
elm
Tree
8
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
7
3
283
7
1
0.02
3
283
8
3
324
9
4
364
9
1
0.02
4
364
11
4
445
10
4
405
11
1
0.02
5
445
43
9
1,740
5
3
202
10
1
0.02
5
405
13
6
526
14
6
567 1
14
1
0.02
6
567
27
9
11,0931
6
3
243 1
6
1
0.02
3
243
163
5
16,596
Color Coding for Table
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
Pnol-S: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes,
T: Total Stems

Table 9. Planted and Total Stem Counts
Underwood Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94641
Monitorine Year 5 - 2017
Color Coding for Table
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
Pnol-S: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes,
T: Total Stems
Current Plot Data (MYS 2017)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
94641-WEI-0013
PnoLSFP-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
PnoLS P -all T
Acer negundo
boxelder
Tree
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
Baccharis
baccharis
Shrub
Baccharis halimifolia
eastern baccharis
Shrub
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
6
6
6
3
3
4
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
Tree
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
2
2
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
70
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
Gleditsia triacanthos
honeylocust
Tree
Juglans nigra
black walnut
Tree
7
Juniperus virginiana
eastern redcedar
Tree
Liquidambar styraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
27
40
13
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
4
4
5
1
1
1
Nyssa sylvatica
blackgum
Tree
Pinus
pine
Tree
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
16
16
16
5
5
5
4
4
4
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
Populus deltoides
eastern cottonwood
Tree
Quercus
oak
Tree
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
2
2
2
1
1
1
3
3
3
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
Tree
2
2
2
1
1
1
3
3
3
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
4
4
1
1
1
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
Tree
Salix nigra
black willow
Tree
1
Salix sericea
silky willow
IShrub
1
1
4
10
Ulmus
elm
ITree
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
16
1
647
16
1
0.02
1
647
113
3
4,573
13
5
526
13
1
0.02
5
526
53
6
2,145
15
5
607
16
1
0.02
6
647
16
6
647
7
4
283
13
1
0.02
6
526
34
8
1,376
12
4
486
12
1
0.02
4
486
13
4
526
10
5
405
10
1
0.02
5
405
17
6
688
Color Coding for Table
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
Pnol-S: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes,
T: Total Stems

Table 9. Planted and Total Stem Counts
Underwood Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94641
Monitorine Year 5 - 2017
Color Coding for Table
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
Pnol-S: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes,
T: Total Stems
Current Plot Data (MYS 2017)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
94641-WEI-0019
PnoLSFP-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
PnoLS P -all T
Acer negundo
boxelder
Tree
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
Baccharis
baccharis
Shrub
5
Baccharis halimifolia
eastern baccharis
Shrub
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
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
Gleditsia triacanthos
honeylocust
Tree
2
1
Juglans nigra
black walnut
Tree
14
5
Juniperus virginiana
eastern redcedar
Tree
Liquidambar styraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
2
10
1
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
1
1
1
Nyssa sylvatica
blackgum
Tree
F5
Pinus
pine
Tree
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
4
4
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
5
Populus deltoides
eastern cottonwood
Tree
Quercus
oak
Tree
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
4
4
4
1
1
1
7
7
7
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
Tree
Salix nigra
black willow
Tree
Salix sericea
silky willow
Shrub
2
2
Ulmus
elm
Tree
5
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
5
2
202
5
1
0.02
2
202
24
4
971
8
3
324
8
1
0.02
3
324
17
6
688
8
6
324
8
1
0.02
6
324
18
7
728
15
6
607
15
1
0.02
6
607
17
8
688
5
4
202
5
1
0.02
4
202
5
4
202
10
4
405
12
1
0.02
5
486 1
22
6
890
Color Coding for Table
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
Pnol-S: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes,
T: Total Stems

Table 9. Planted and Total Stem Counts
Underwood Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94641
Monitorine Year 5 - 2017
Color Coding for Table
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
Pnol-S: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes,
T: Total Stems
Current Plot Data (MYS 2017)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
94641-WEI-0025
PnoLSFP-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
PnoLS P -all T
Acer negundo
boxelder
Tree
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
Baccharis
baccharis
Shrub
Baccharis halimifolia
eastern baccharis
Shrub
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
8
8
8
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
Tree
1
1
1
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
4
4
4
2
2
3
3
3
3
1
1
3
9
9
19
Gleditsia triacanthos
honeylocust
Tree
Juglans nigra
black walnut
Tree
Juniperus virginiana
eastern redcedar
Tree
Liquidambar styraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
8
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
Nyssa sylvatica
blackgum
Tree
Pinus
pine
Tree
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
5
5
6
3
3
3
1
1
1
7
7
7
Populus deltoides
eastern cottonwood
Tree
Quercus
oak
Tree
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
1
1
1
5
5
5
2
2
2
1
1
1
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
4
4
4
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
Tree
1
1
1
Salix nigra
I black willow
Tree
1
Salix sericea
I silky willow
Shrub
2
2
1
1
Ulmus
Jelm
Tree
1
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
12
4
1 486 1
12
1
0.02
4
486 1
13
4
526
16
6 1
647 1
16
1
0.02
6 1
647 1
16
6
647
7
4
283
7
1
0.02
4
1 283 1
8
4
324
11
7
445 1
11
1
0.02
7
445 1
11
7
445
19
5
769
21
1
0.02
6
850
24
7
971
12
3
486 1
13
1
0.02
4
526
33
7
1,335
Color Coding for Table
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
Pnol-S: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes,
T: Total Stems

Table 9. Planted and Total Stem Counts
Underwood Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94641
Monitorine Year 5 - 2017
Color Coding for Table
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
Pnol-S: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes,
T: Total Stems
Current Plot Data (MYS 2017)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
94641-WEI-0031
PnoLSFP-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
PnoLS P -all T
Acer negundo
boxelder
Tree
5
2
2
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
Baccharis
baccharis
Shrub
Baccharis halimifolia
eastern baccharis
Shrub
6
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
3
3
1
1
2
2
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
2
2
19
4
4
44
3
3
14
4
4
19
1
1
16
3
3
18
Gleditsia triacanthos
honeylocust
Tree
Juglans nigra
black walnut
Tree
Juniperus virginiana
eastern redcedar
Tree
Liquidambar styraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
10
20
5
5
20
10
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
Nyssa sylvatica
blackgum
Tree
Pinus
pine
Tree
2
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
1
1
1
4
4
4
7
7
17
4
4
19
7
7
7
2
Populus deltoides
eastern cottonwood
Tree
1
Quercus
oak
Tree
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
1
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
3
3
9
2
2
3
5
5
5
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
Tree
Salix nigra
black willow
Tree
15
5
1
1
Salix sericea
silky willow
Shrub
5
5
2
2
5
5
1
3
3
Ulmus
Jelm
Tree
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species countl
Stems per ACRE
8
4 1
1 324 1
14
1
0.02
6
567
61
1 9
1 2,4691
9
3 1
364 1
12
1
0.02
5
486
77
1 7
13,1161
14
4
567
14
1
0.02
1 4
1 567
54
1 7
12,3851
77
12
4
486 1
20
1
0.02
610
809+2,428
60
11
4
445
12
1
0.02
5
486
49
7
11,983,
12
4
486 1
17
1
0.02
6
688
46
10
1 1,862
Color Coding for Table
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
Pnol-S: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes,
T: Total Stems

Table 9. Planted and Total Stem Counts
Underwood Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94641
Monitorine Year 5 - 2017
Color Coding for Table
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
Pnol-S: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes,
T: Total Stems
Current Plot Data (MYS 2017)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
94641-WEI-0037
PnoLSFP-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
PnoLS P -all T
Acer negundo
boxelder
Tree
3
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
2
Baccharis
baccharis
Shrub
Baccharis halimifolia
eastern baccharis
Shrub
5
5
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
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
10
4
4
44
1
1
46
3
15
5
Gleditsia triacanthos
honeylocust
Tree
Juglans nigra
black walnut
Tree
Juniperus virginiana
eastern redcedar
Tree
Liquidambar styraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
5
5
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
Nyssa sylvatica
blackgum
Tree
Pinus
pine
Tree
2
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
4
3
3
6
3
3
8
1
1
21
2
2
27
Populus deltoides
eastern cottonwood
Tree
Quercus
oak
Tree
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
5
5
5
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
Tree
3
3
3
1
1
1
2
2
2
4
4
41
1
1
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
Tree
Salix nigra
black willow
Tree
4
4
5
Salix sericea
silky willow
IShrub
3
3
1
1
Ulmus
elm
ITree
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
9
3
364
9
1
0.02
3
364
19
4
769
8
4
324
8
1
0.02
4
324
51
4
2,064
6
3
243
6
1
0.02
3
243
60
5
2,428
5
2
202
5
1
0.02
2
202
20
5
809
9
4
364
13
1
0.02
6
526
63
10 1
2,550
8
4
324
10
1
0.02
6
405
52
10
2,104
Color Coding for Table
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
Pnol-S: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes,
T: Total Stems

Table 9. Planted and Total Stem Counts
Underwood Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94641
Monitorine Year 5 - 2017
Color Coding for Table
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
Pnol-S: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes,
T: Total Stems
Annual Means
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
MYS (20 7)
PnoLS P -all T
MY4 (2016)
PnoLS P -all T
MY3 (2015)
PnoLS P -all T
MY2 (2014)
PnoLS P -all T
MYl (2013)
PnoLS P -all T
MYO (2012)
PnoLS P -all T
Acer negundo
boxelder
Tree
12
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
2
35
57
55
Baccharis
baccharis
Shrub
5
Baccharis halimifolia
eastern baccharis
Shrub
16
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
56
56
57
54
54
55
56
56
57
64
64
64
82
82
82
124
124
124
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
Tree
2
2
3
3
3
3
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
13
13
12
13
16
16
16
20
25
25
25
30
30
30
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
75
75
499
77
77
244
74
74
573
74
74
387
82
82
142
86
86
86
Gleditsia triacanthos
honeylocust
Tree
3
Juglans nigra
black walnut
Tree
26
1
Juniperus virginiana
eastern redcedar
Tree
2
Liquidambar styraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
241
32
170
92
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
9
9
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
15
15
16
20
20
20
35
35
35
Nyssa sylvatica
blackgum
Tree
4
Pinus
pine
Tree
4
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
131
131
255
133
133
149
140
140
221
143
143
193
144
144
204
145
145
145
Populus deltoides
eastern cottonwood
Tree
1
Quercus
oak
Tree
2
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
54
54
58
56
56
56
61
61
61
62
62
62
71
71
71
87
87
87
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
Tree
56
56
56
61
61
61
68
68
69
72
72
73
93
93
93
131
131
131
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
60
60
69
66
66
66
67
67
72
69
69
69
72
72
72
64
64
64
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
Tree
1
1
2
1
1
2
2
Salix nigra
black willow
Tree
50
Salix sericea
silky willow
Shrub
34
42
33
43
37
60
37
66
39
39
39
38
38
38
Ulmus
elm
Tree
14
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
444
9
1 428 1
491
42
1.04
11
473
1444
24
11,3911
461
9
444 1
506
42
1.04
11
488 1
769
13
741
476
7
459 1
529
42
1.04
9
510
1370
13
1 1,3201
499
7
481 1
552
42
1.04
9
532
1098
12
1 1,0581
628
9
605 1
628
42
1.04
9
605 1
748
9
721
740
9
1 712 1
740
42
1.04
9
712 1
740
9
712
Color Coding for Table
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
Pnol-S: 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 5 - 2017
Harris Site; SF1 and UT2
O���
Pre -Restoration
Condition
K
Reference
Reach DaMW ta
Design
As-Built/Baseline
Gage
SF1
UT2
Long Branch
LIT to Cane Creek
SF1
UT2
SF1
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 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)
0.011 0.0100
---
0.0130 1 0.0120
---
0.0120
---
0.0143 1 0.0255
---
0.0197 1 0.0353
11
0.0053
36
0.0283
7
0.0040
25
0.1512
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)4
Pool Length (ft)
---
---
---
---
16
34
16
51
Pool Max Depth (ft)
n/a
---
---
---
---
1.67
2.70
Pool Spacing (ft)A
Pool Volume (W)
Pattern
---
---
---
35
62
29 50
37
61
23
59
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
N/A
N/A
60
50 77
26
44
N/A
26
44
N/A
Radius of Curvature (ft)
N/A
N/A
16
87
11.3 27.1
15
25
N/A
15
25
N/A
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
n/a
---
---
1.1
4.7
1 2.5
2
3
N/A
2
3
N/A
Meander Length (ft)
N/A
N/A
66
191
29 96
62
106
N/A
62
106
N/A
Meander Width Ratio
---
---
3.2
4.1
50 77
3
5
N/A
3
5
N/A
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
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
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) Ib/ft
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (Capacity) W/m
Additional Reach Parameters
n/a
--
0.42
---
0.39
N/A
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/F4
C4
C4
C5
C5
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
3.1
2.04
3.1
3.1
3.2
1.0
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
n/a
20
45.2
---
---
13.1
30.96
--
---
---
101
124
20.6 1 53.2
---
20
---
13.1
---
20
13.1
Q-NFF regression
Q-USGS extrapolation
Q-Mannings
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
---
---
---
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 30b. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Underwood Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 5 - 2017
Harris Site; SF3 and UT1
(---): 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 Data
esign
As-Built/Baseline
Parameter
Gage
SF3
UTI
Long Branch
UT to Cane
Creek
SF3-u/s of UT1
LSFF3-d/s of UT1
UTI
SF3
UTI
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min Max
Min
Max
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
11.1
7.9 13.8
7.9
13.1
12.0
1 12.0
1
12.0
1 14.8
1
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 1.5
1.0 1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
4.7
1.0
50.6
63.3
73.8
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)---
---
---
---
12
103
11
26
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.030
0.0500
0.0130 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)^
Pool Volume (ft')
Pattern
-
---
---
---
---
---
53
166
58
76
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
51
106
31
59
60
50
77
54 91
54 90
32
54
54
91
32
54
Radius of Curvature (ft)
27
105
10
83
16 87
11.3
27.1
31 51
31 50
21
30
31
51
21
30
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
n/a
7
16
1
9
1 5
1
3
2 3
2 3
2
3
2
3
2
3
Meander Length (ft)
46
272
80
161
66 191
29
96
127 218
126 216
75
129
126
218
75
129
Meander Width Ratio
26
70
3
7
3 4
50
77
3 5
3 5
3
5
3
5
3
5
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
n/a
7.53/16.66/40.82/74.02/97.42/180
---
N/A/N/A/1/16/107.3/256
---
---
0.35
0.52
0.37
0.08/0.21/11/67.2/256/>2048
0.28
0.07/0.16/0.3/26.9/71.7/256
0.12
SC96/Sa%/G %/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) Ib/ft
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (Capacity) I
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
3.0
3.4
3.2
2.9
3.0
25.3
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
n/a
81.5
159.7
---
30.3
65.7
---
---
101 124
---
20.6
53.2
81.5
--
99.8
---
30.3
---
81.5
99.8
30.3
Q-NFF regression
Q-USGS extrapolation
Q -Mannings
---
Valley Lengtht
---
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
---
---
---
0.0047
0.0083
(---): 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 30c. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Underwood Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 5 - 2017
Lindlev Site; SF4 and SF4A
( --- ): 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 Data In
Design
As-Built/Baseline
Gage
SF4
SF4A
Long Branch
LIT to Cane Creek
SF4
SF4A
SF4
SF4A
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
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
1.5
1.0
1 1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
0.3
0.8
117.2
134.4
22.6
82.0
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
---
---
---
---
51
112
41
79
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
---
---
0.0130 1 0.0120
0.0120
0.0048 TO.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)A
Pool Volume (ft')
Pattern;
---
---
---
---
---
146
210
71
110
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%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
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
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) lb/ft"
Max part size (mm) mobilized at Bankfull
Stream Power (Capacity) W/m
Additional Reach Parameters
n/a
--
0.32 0.631
0.33
0.33
0.44
0.58
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
ES
ES
C/ E4
C/E4
C5
C5
C4
C5
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
5.9
5.26
3.9
3.7
4.2
1
3.8
2.5
1
4.2
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
n/a
247.4
432.92
---
---
1450.0
67.3
134.59
--
---
---
609.0
101
---
124
20.6 1 53.2
---
---
204
---
1,424
67.3
---
868
204
1,429
67.3
866
Q-NFF regression
Q-USGS extrapolation
Q-Mannings
Q-Mannings
Valley Length (ft)
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
Sinuosity (ft)
1.3
1.1
1.3
1.2
1.2
1.0
1.2
1.1
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.003
0.008
0.004
0.005
0.0034
0.0077
0.0033
0.0070
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
---
---
0.006
---
0.0034
0.0077
0.0034
0.0067
( --- ): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable
'Design Parameters based on revised Shields Diagram.
Channel was dry at time of baseline survey. Slopes were calculated using the channel thalweg.
3As-Built pattern measuremeants fell within the design ranges, therefore the design parameters set are still applicable.
°Slopes outside of design range are from the tie in points at the channel confluence.

Table 11. Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross Section)
Underwood Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 5 - 2017
Harris and Lindlev Site
Dimension and Substrate
BaseMY1
Cross
Section
MY2 I
1 (Riffle)
MY3 I
MY4
��
MY5
-1
Base
Cross
MY1
Section
MY2
2 (Pool)
I MY3
MY4
E�
MYS
1
Base
cross
M71
section
MY2
3 (Pool���
I MY3
I MY4
MYS
r2
Base
Cross
MY1
Section
MY2 I
4 (Riffle)
MY3
MY4
MY5
based on fixed bankfull elevation
595.5
594.9
600.2
599.5
Bankfull Width (ft)
8.4
9.0
8.2
7.8
8.2
7.8
11.7
13.9
10.9
10.4
11.3
11.2
15.0
19.4
15.7
14.2
15.2
15.0
16.6
18.6
17.4
16.9
16.5
15.9
Floodprone Width (ft)
50+
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
N/A
N/A
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.8
1.0
0.9
1.6
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.6
1.6
0.8
0.9
0.8
0.8
1.0
0.9
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.0
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.9
1.0
1.7
2.1
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.8
2.7
2.7
2.6
2.6
2.8
2.6
1.1
1.4
1.2
1.2
1.5
1.4
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
5.6
6.3
4.8
4.6
4.8
4.5
12.8
12.2
9.9
8.8
11.4
9.9
24.2
26.2
23.1
22.5
24.7
23.3
13.6
18.6
14.1
13.9
16.6
14.2
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
12.8
12.9
14.2
13.5
14.1
13.4
N/A
N/A
12.0
12.3
11.2
12.8
N/A
N/A
10.7
9.0
9.4
9.7
20.4
25.4
21.4
20.6
16.5
17.7
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
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
1.2
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
1.0
1.0
Dimension and Substrate
Base
MY3
MY2
MY3
MY4
MYS
Base
MY3
MY2
MY3
MY4
SF3
MYS Base
MY3
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
21.3
19.7
24.8
22.7
23.5
23.4
23.5
16.7
29.3
15.8
16.5
18.5
16.9
19.7
22.3
15.9
17.0
17.4
16.0
Floodprone Width (ft)
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.6
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.6
2.0
1.9
1.8
1.8
1.9
1.2
1.0
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.7
1.6
1.6
1.7
1.6
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
2.3
2.5
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.5
2.3
4.1
3.7
3.7
3.7
4.0
2.2
2.6
2.2
2.2
2.1
2.2
3.0
3.5
3.0
3.0
3.1
2.9
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
30.5
34.5
29.9
28.3
28.6
32.7
30.5
50.2
43.1
41.4
43.4
45.2
20.6
29.8
19.2
19.5
21.4
22.2
28.0
36.9
26.2
27.6
28.8
26.3
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
12.7
14.8
12.5
12.5
12.4
13.9
12.7
12.1
12.0
13.3
12.7
12.2
13.5
28.8
12.9
14.0
16.0
12.8
13.9
13.5
9.7
10.5
10.5
9.8
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
SF3
I
UT1
SF4
Dimension and Substrate
Base
Cross
MY3
Section
MY2 I
9 (Riffle)
MY3
MY4
71MYS
Base
Cross
MY1
Section
MY2
i (Riffle)
I MY3
MY4
MY5
Base
Cross
MY3
Section
MY2
11 (Pool)
I MY3
MY4
MY5
Base
Cross
MY1
Section
MY2 I
12 (Pool)
MY3
MY4
MY5
based on fixed bankfull elevation
572.5
574.0
573.8
539.7
Bankfull Width (ft)
15.9
24.2
14.9
15.4
14.9
14.6
12.6
10.1
11.3
10.6
10.8
10.9
14.2
19.4
12.0
13.4
14.0
13.2
33.3
34.1
29.8
29.6
33.2
31.0
Floodprone Width (ft)
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
100+
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
N/A
N/A
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.2
1.1
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.1
0.8
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.9
0.8
1.3
0.9
1.2
1.1
1.2
1.2
2.2
2.1
2.4
2.4
2.2
2.4
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.8
2.3
1.8
1.7
1.9
1.8
1.5
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.6
1.5
2.6
2.5
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.4
4.9
4.7
4.9
4.8
4.9
5.0
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
19.0
27.0
15.5
16.2
18.1
15.6
10.5
9.5
9.5
8.1
9.7
8.9
17.7
17.0
14.6
15.0
17.4
15.7
74.4
72.2
70.7
71.7
72.5
74.5
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
13.3
21.6
14.4
14.6
12.2
13.6
15.1
10.7
13.4
13.8
11.9
13.4
11.3
22.1
10.0
12.0
11.2
11.1
14.9
16.2
12.5
12.2
15.2
12.9
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
2.2+
2.2+
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
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
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Dimension and Substrate
Base
Cross
MY3
Section
MY2
13 (Rif-��
MY3
MY4
MY5
Base
MY1
SF4
MY2 I MY3
MY4
MY5
Base
MY1
W -
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
Base
MY1
SF4A
MY2 I MY3
MY4
MY5
based on fixed bankfull elevation
539.6
537.8
537.7
540.4
Bankfull Width (ft)
27.3
26.7
26.0
28.8
28.4
25.7
38.7
44.4
45.4
47.6
45.7
40.7
27.6
27.3
26.2
28.3
29.2
28.5
23.7
17.3
13.9
14.9
17.3
16.8
Floodprone Width (ft)
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.8
2.9
1.9
1.8
1.9
1.9
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
2.1
2.2
1.9
2.0
2.1
1.9
1.9
1.8
0.9
1.6
1.8
1.7
1.7
1.6
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
3.0
2.9
2.9
3.1
3.1
3.1
4.3
4.6
5.0
5.0
5.7
5.5
3.2
3.0
3.2
3.1
3.5
3.2
2.3
2.8
3.0
3.1
3.4
3.0
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
49.5
49.0
49.7
51.8
54.3
49.5
70.6
78.1
82.2
86.0
96.0
89.8
51.2
53.8
53.9
53.3
56.6
51.5
20.4
27.1
25.2
25.5
30.3
26.2
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
15.1
14.6
13.6
16.0
14.8
13.4
21.2
25.3
25.1
26.4
21.8
18.4
14.9
13.8
12.8
15.0
15.1
15.8
27.5
11.1
7.7
8.7
9.9
10.8
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2.2+
2.2+
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
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Dimension and Substrate
based on fixed bankfull elevation
Bankfull Width (ft)
Floodprone Width (ft)
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)17.5
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio2.2+
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio!
atio
Base
13.9
200+
1.3
2.1
11.0
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
MYS Base
12.4 16.0
200+ N/A
1.5 1.4
2.5 2.8
18.2 22.9
8.5 11.1
2.2+ N/A
1.0 1.01.0
Cross
MY3
13.5
N/A
1.6
3.4
21.0
8.6
N/A
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 1.0
MY4
11.6
N/A
2.1
3.3
24.3
5.5
N/A
1.0
MYS
10.4
N/A
1.9
2.8
19.2
5.6
N/A
1.0

Table 12a. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Underwood Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 5 - 2017
Harris Site; SF1
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
8.4
9.0
8.2
7.8
8.2
7.8
Floodprone Width (ft)
50+
50+
50+
50+
50+
50+
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
Bankfull Max Depth
1.0
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.9
1.0
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
5.6
6.3
4.8
4.6
4.8
4.5
Width/Depth Ratio
12.8
12.9
14.2
13.5
14.1
13.4
Entrenchment Ratio
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
23.3
27.8
31.0
34.6
23.9
35.9
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
11
36
13
38
11
37
13
37
13
38
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
0.0125
0.0428
Pool Length (ft)
16
34
15
30
15
33
18
36
13
29
16
29
Pool Max Depth (ft)
1.7
2.1
1.9
1.7
1.9
2.3
Pool Spacing (ft)
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
37
26
15
1.7
62
3.0
61
44
25
2.8
106
5.0
36
59
37
59
41
64
35
62
37
58
Rosgen Classification
C5
C5
C5
C5
C5
C5
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
874
874
874
874
874
874
Sinuosity (ft)
1.2
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
0.0103
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
0.0104
SC/SC/SC/46.6/100/256
0.0108
SC/SC/SC/91.6/202.4/362
0.0104
SC/0.2/9.7/42.0/128/256
0.0099
SC/0.25/13.3/52.9/77.8/128
0.0086
SC/ 9.0/23.9/96.6/180/320
0.0111
SC/0.25/11.0/109.5/172.5/512
% of Reach with Eroding Banks
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%

Table 12b. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Underwood Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 5 - 2017

Table 12c. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Underwood Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 5 - 2017
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
14.6
21.3
Floodprone Width (ft)
200+
200+
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
1.1
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
1.8
2.5
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
19.0
30.5
27.0
34.5
15.5
29.9
16.2
28.3
18.1
28.6
15.6
32.7
Width/Depth Ratio
12.7
13.5
14.8
28.8
12.5
14.4
12.5
14.6
12.2
16.0
12.8
13.9
Entrenchment Ratio
2.2+
2.2+
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
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
17.1
50.3
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
12
103
29
100
18
102
17
100
13
95
15
96
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.0003
0.0169
0.0019
0.0129
0.0008
0.0131
0.0012
0.0128
0.0004
0.0188
0.0003
0.0197
Pool Length (ft)
23
100
45
74
21
72
19
78
22
77
14
76
Pool Max Depth (ft)
2.3
2.5
2.8
5.0
3.0
3.7
3.4
2.9
3.5
Pool Spacing (ft)
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
53
54
31
1.7
126
3.0
166
91
51
3.0
218
5.0
50
151
42
156
41
155
42
153
39
173
Rosgen Classification
C4
C4
C5
C5
C5
C5
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
2,120
2,120
2,120
2,120
2,120
2,120
Sinuosity (ft)
1.2
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
0.0042
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
0.0047
0.08/0.21/11/67.2/256/>2048
0.0047
0.50/16.47/26/66.8/119.3/180
0.0042
0.42/9.38/17.3/53.7/90/>2048
0.0043
1.41/8/17/70.2/111.2/256
0.0040
1.15/9.09/16.5/73.8/119.3/180
0.0042
SC/0.35/7..8/82.0/149.6/256
%of Reach with Eroding Banks
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%

Table 12d. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Underwood Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 5 - 2017
Harris Site; UT1
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
10.9
Floodprone Width (ft)
100+
100+
100+
100+
100+
100+
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.8
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.9
0.8
Bankfull Max Depth
1.5
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.6
1.5
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
10.5
9.5
9.5
8.1
9.7
8.9
Width/Depth Ratio
15.1
10.7
13.4
13.8
12
13
Entrenchment Ratio
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
21.1
40.8
39.3
33.9
32.9
32.9
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
11
39
19
36
14
36
14
36
18
36
16
33
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.0023
0.0185
0.0016
0.0258
0.0025
0.0407
0.0012
0.0299
0.0031
0.0218
0.0087
0.0203
Pool Length (ft)
20
80
18
51
25
53
23
52
23
48
22
1
51
Pool Max Depth (ft)
2.6
1
2.5
2.3
2.7
2.4
2.8
Pool Spacing (ft)
Pool Volume (ft)
Pattern
58
76
39
76
43
73
52
77 1
52
82
1 50
84
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
5.0
Rosgen Classification
C5
C5
C5
C 5
C 5
C5
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
2,038
2,038
2,038
2,038
2,038
2,038
Sinuosity (ft)
1.2
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
0.0079
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d5D/d84/d95/d1D0
0.0083
0.07/0.16/0.3/26.9/71.7/256
0.0058
SC/1.15/11/67.2/87.8/180
0.0077
SC/0.20/6.7./45.0/84.1/362
0.0091
SC/0.30/8.0/78.5/128.0/180.0
0.0078
SC/.25/4.0/80.3/151.8/362
0.0057
SC/1.88/7.2/42.9/98.7/180
% of Reach with Eroding Banks
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%

Table 12e. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Underwood Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 5 - 2017
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
25.7
28.5
Floodprone Width (ft)
200+
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
1.8
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
3.1
3.2
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
49.5
51.5
Width/Depth Ratio
14.9
15.1
13.8
14.6
12.8
13.6
15.0
16.0
14.8
15.1
13.4
15.8
Entrenchment Ratio
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
29.1
35.6
19.0
25.0
26.9
28.1
28.5
40.5
52.3
59.0
10.2
75.9
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
51
112
31
111
46
115
50
119
22
110
46
119
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.0010
0.0098
0.0034
0.0119
0.0028
0.0075
0.0032
0.0072
0.0017
0.0185
0.0025
0.0132
Pool Length (ft)
54
123
27
169
26
123
24
135
28
122
24
130
Pool Max Depth (ft)
4.3
4.9
4.6
4.7
4.9
5.0
4.9
1
5.3
4.9
Pool Spacing (ft)
Pool Volume (ft')
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
Radius of Curvature (ft)
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
Meander Wave Length (ft)
Meander Width Ratio
146
82
46
1.7
191
3.0
210 1
136
76
2.8
327
5.0
151
211
150
210
1 138
221
106
236
140
227
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
C4
C4
C4
C4
C4
C4
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
1,429
1,429
1,429
1,429
1,429
1,429
Sinuosity (ft)
1.2
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
0.0030
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d 100
0.0034
0.13/0.36/5.3/102.5/320.7/>2048
0.0034
SC/0.25/5.1/72.7/139.4/256
0.0035
SC/1.41/16/69.7/115.7/>2048
0.0031
.17/4.98/18.2/135.2/246.5/>204
0.0031
.25/4.89/15/117.2/214.7/512
0.0040
SC/11.71/35.4/120.7/
174.0/2048
%of Reach with Eroding Banks
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%

Table 12f. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Underwood Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 5 - 2017
me; Jr -
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
12.4
16.8
Floodprone Width (ft)
200+
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
1.5
1.6
Bankfull Max Depth
2.1
2.3
2.1
2.8
2.4
3.0
2.3
3.1
2.6
3.4
2.5
3.0
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
18.2
26.2
Width/Depth Ratio
11.0
27.5
9.0
11.5
7.7
10.7
8.7
9.5
7.1
9.9
8.5
10.8
Entrenchment Ratio
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
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
30.2
32.6
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
41
79
6
75
5
52
5
67
4
30
8
62
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.0001
0.0210
0.0177
0.0321
0.0063
0.0577
0.0004
0.0483
0.0087
0.0554
0.0066
0.0809
Pool Length (ft)
28
79
15
46
16
68
16
61
23
82
20
49
Pool Max Depth (ft)
2.1
2.8
2.8
3.8
3.0
3.8
4.1
4.0
Pool Spacing (ft)
71
110
32
111
35
104
35
109
46
107
37
112
Pool Volume (ft)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
44
74
Radius of Curvature (ft)
25
41
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
1.7
2.8
solo
"WO
Meander Wave Length (ft)
103
177
Meander Width Ratio
3.0
5.0
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
C5
C5
C5
C5
C5
C5
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
866
866
866
866
866
866
Sinuosity (ft)
1.1
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
0.0059
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.0067
0.0077
0.0066
0.0067
0.0067
0.0071
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G %/C%/B%/Be
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
SC/0.12/1.4/44/71.3/362
SC/0.10/0.3/48.8/123.6/256
0.93/5.6/12.8/42.0/85.0/180
SC/0.71/18.0/64.0/121.7/512
SC/0.45/16.8/64.0/112.2/180.0
0.16/5.24/14.1/74.5/137.0/256
%of Reach with Eroding Banks
43%
43%
50%
0%
0%

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 5 - 2017
Harris Site; SF1

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 5 - 2017
Harris Site; SF3
590
585
580
575
v
0 570
.m
iu
w
565
560
555
550
40250
40450 40650 40850 41050 41250 41450 41650 41850 42050
Station (feet)
$TW (MYO-1/2013) $TW (MY1-8/2013) $ TW (MY2-5/2014) $ TW (MY3-4/2015) TW (MY4-5/2016)
A, TW (MY5-3/2017)------- WS (MY5-3/2017) ♦ BKF/TOB (MY5-3/2017) 0 STRUCTURES
-- ---- __--
N"-�-
---- -
,n
00
m
X X
X
X
X
40450 40650 40850 41050 41250 41450 41650 41850 42050
Station (feet)
$TW (MYO-1/2013) $TW (MY1-8/2013) $ TW (MY2-5/2014) $ TW (MY3-4/2015) TW (MY4-5/2016)
A, TW (MY5-3/2017)------- WS (MY5-3/2017) ♦ BKF/TOB (MY5-3/2017) 0 STRUCTURES

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 5 - 2017
Lindley Site; SF4
560
555
550
545
v
v
c
.m
540
W
535
530
525
520
80000
80200 80400 80600 80800 81000 81200 81400
Station (feet)
t TW (MYO-1/2013) * TW (MY1-8/2013) * TW (MY2-5/2014) $ TW (MY3-4/2015) TW (MY4-5/2016)
* TW (MY5-3/2017)------- WS (MY5-3/2017) ♦ BKF/TOB (MY5-3/2017) 0 STRUCTURES
-- -- ----
--- ----- _ __y -___A
A
N
Cn
N
c�
N
X
N
X
X
Ln
X
80200 80400 80600 80800 81000 81200 81400
Station (feet)
t TW (MYO-1/2013) * TW (MY1-8/2013) * TW (MY2-5/2014) $ TW (MY3-4/2015) TW (MY4-5/2016)
* TW (MY5-3/2017)------- WS (MY5-3/2017) ♦ BKF/TOB (MY5-3/2017) 0 STRUCTURES

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 5 - 2017
Lindley Site; SF4A
555
550
545
540
v
0 535
v
w
530
525
520
90000
90100 90200 90300 90400 90500 90600 90700 90800 90900
Station (feet)
4 TW (MYO-1/2013) —* TW (MY1-8/2013) —4 TW (MY2-5/2014) 4 TW (MY3-4/2015) TW (MY4-5/2016)
* TW (MY5-3/2017)------- WS (MY5-3/2017) ♦ BKF/TOB (MY5-3/2017) 0 STRUCTURES
♦
-- -----
-
000
X
X
X
90100 90200 90300 90400 90500 90600 90700 90800 90900
Station (feet)
4 TW (MYO-1/2013) —* TW (MY1-8/2013) —4 TW (MY2-5/2014) 4 TW (MY3-4/2015) TW (MY4-5/2016)
* TW (MY5-3/2017)------- WS (MY5-3/2017) ♦ BKF/TOB (MY5-3/2017) 0 STRUCTURES

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 5 - 2017
Harris Site: UT1
590
585
580
v
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) TW (MY3-4/2015) TW (MY4-5/2016)
t TW (MY5-3/2017)------- WS (MY5-3/2017) ♦ BKF/TOB (MY5-3/2017) • STRUCTURES
♦
♦
-------- ----- ---------------- ----------------
i
---- --------------------
o
�
N
X
x
X
51620 51720 51820 51920 52020
Station (feet)
TW (MYO-1/2013) $ TW (MY1-8/2013) $ TW (MY2-5/2014) TW (MY3-4/2015) TW (MY4-5/2016)
t TW (MY5-3/2017)------- WS (MY5-3/2017) ♦ BKF/TOB (MY5-3/2017) • STRUCTURES

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 5 - 2017
Harris Site; UT2
610
608
606
604
602
Cu
600
c
0
598
v
w
596
594
592
590
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
Station (feet)
t TW (MYO-1/2013) 0 TW (MY1-8/2013) * TW (MY2-5/2014) --4-- TW (MY3-4/2015) 4 TW (MY4-5/2016)
+TW (MY5-3/2017) ♦ BKF/TOB (MY5-3/2017) ----- WS (MY5-3/2017) • STRUCTURES
171V
ew
m
x
x
v
X
x
t TW (MYO-1/2013) 0 TW (MY1-8/2013) * TW (MY2-5/2014) --4-- TW (MY3-4/2015) 4 TW (MY4-5/2016)
+TW (MY5-3/2017) ♦ BKF/TOB (MY5-3/2017) ----- WS (MY5-3/2017) • STRUCTURES

Cross Section Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 5
Cross Section 1 - SH
104+44 Riffle
598
596
0 Oa
>
v
w
594
0 10 20 30 40 50
Width (ft)
t MYO (1/2013) s MY1 (8/2013) s MY2 (5/2014) +MY3 (4/2015)
+MY4(5/2016) tMY5(3/2017) —Bankfull—FloodproneArea
Bankfull Dimensions
4.5
x -section area (ft.sq.)
7.8
width (ft)
0.6
mean depth (ft)
1.0
max depth (ft)
8.1
wetted parimeter (ft)
0.6
hyd radi (ft)
13.4
width -depth ratio
50.0
W flood prone area (ft)
6.4
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 3/2017
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 5
Cross Section 2 - SH
104+64 Pool
598
596
c
0
w 594
w
592
0 10 20 30 40 50
Width (ft)
tMYO(1/2013) tMYl(8/2013) 4 MY2(5/2014) tMY3(4/2015) tMY4(5/2016) tMY5(3/2017) -Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
9.9
x -section area (ft.sq.)
11.2
width (ft)
0.9
mean depth (ft)
1.8
max depth (ft)
12.3
wetted parimeter (ft)
0.8
hyd radi (ft)
12.8
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 3/2017
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 5
Cross Section 3 - UT2
2+51 Pool
602
600
c
0
ww 598
596
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Width (ft)
tMYO(1/2013) tMYl(8/2013) 0 MY2(5/2014) tMY3(4/2015) tMY4(5/2016) tMY5(3/2017) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
23.3
x -section area (ft.sq.)
15.0
width (ft)
1.6
mean depth (ft)
2.6
max depth (ft)
17.2
wetted parimeter (ft)
1.4
hyd radi (ft)
9.7
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 3/2017
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 5
Cross Section 4 - UT2
2+87 Riffle
14.2
602
15.9
width (ft)
0.9
mean depth (ft)
1.4
max depth (ft)
16.5
wetted parimeter (ft)
0.9
hyd radi (ft)
17.7
width -depth ratio
200.0
W flood prone area (ft)
12.6
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
600
goo
c
0
v
598
w
596
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Width (ft)
MYO (1/2013) +MYI (8/2013) MY2 (5/2014) +MY3 (4/2015)
tMY4(5/2016) +MY5(3/2017) -Bankfull-FloodproneArea
Bankfull Dimensions
14.2
x -section area (ft.sq.)
15.9
width (ft)
0.9
mean depth (ft)
1.4
max depth (ft)
16.5
wetted parimeter (ft)
0.9
hyd radi (ft)
17.7
width -depth ratio
200.0
W flood prone area (ft)
12.6
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 3/2017
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 5
Cross Section 5 - SF3
402+86 Riffle
580
578
0
w 576
w
574
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Width (ft)
t MYO (1/2013) s MY1 (8/2013) s MY2 (5/2014) +MY3 (4/2015)
+MY4(5/2016) tMY5(3/2017) —Bankfull—FloodproneArea
Bankfull Dimensions
32.7
x -section area (ft.sq.)
21.3
width (ft)
1.5
mean depth (ft)
2.5
max depth (ft)
22.2
wetted parimeter (ft)
1.5
hyd radi (ft)
13.9
width -depth ratio
100.0
W flood prone area (ft)
4.7
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 3/2017
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 5
Cross Section 6 - SF3
Bankfull Dimensions
45.2
x -section area (ft.sq.)
23.5
width (ft)
1.9
mean depth (ft)
4.0
max depth (ft)
25.7
wetted parimeter (ft)
1.8
hyd radi (ft)
12.2
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 3/2017
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 5
Cross Section 7 - SF3
Bankfull Dimensions
22.2
x -section area (ft.sq.)
16.9
width (ft)
1.3
mean depth (ft)
2.2
max depth (ft)
17.6
wetted parimeter (ft)
1.3
hyd radi (ft)
12.8
width -depth ratio
200.0
W flood prone area (ft)
11.9
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
I�IIIAI�II�IIIIu��II1111�IIlAlIl1111e111��1�1
lmimimiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillillillillI
111111111111111111111111111
I 1!
Sim
Bankfull Dimensions
22.2
x -section area (ft.sq.)
16.9
width (ft)
1.3
mean depth (ft)
2.2
max depth (ft)
17.6
wetted parimeter (ft)
1.3
hyd radi (ft)
12.8
width -depth ratio
200.0
W flood prone area (ft)
11.9
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 03/2017
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 5
Cross Section 8 - SF3
II■�ii�lllll�li�
Bankfull Dimensions
26.3
x -section area (ft.sq.)
16.0
width (ft)
1.6
mean depth (ft)
2.9
max depth (ft)
18.2
wetted parimeter (ft)
1.4
hyd radi (ft)
9.8
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 3/2017
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 5
Cross Section 9 - SH
Bankfull Dimensions
15.6
x -section area (ft.sq.)
14.6
width (ft)
1.1
mean depth (ft)
1.8
max depth (ft)
15.4
wetted parimeter (ft)
1.0
hyd radi (ft)
13.6
width -depth ratio
200.0
W flood prone area (ft)
13.7
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
.1'�=�"-�Illl�q■111■■IAI��
MENOMONEE
Z;
Bankfull Dimensions
15.6
x -section area (ft.sq.)
14.6
width (ft)
1.1
mean depth (ft)
1.8
max depth (ft)
15.4
wetted parimeter (ft)
1.0
hyd radi (ft)
13.6
width -depth ratio
200.0
W flood prone area (ft)
13.7
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 3/2017
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 5
Cross Section 10 - UT1
517+63 Riffle
8.9
576
10.9
width (ft)
0.8
mean depth (ft)
1.5
max depth (ft)
12.1
wetted parimeter (ft)
0.7
hyd radi (ft)
13.4
width -depth ratio
200.0
W flood prone area (ft)
18.3
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
� 574
0
v
w
20
572
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Width (ft)
+MYO (1/2013) +MYI (8/2013) +MY2 (5/2014) +MY3 (4/2015)
tMY4(5/2016) +MY5(3/2017) -Bankfull-FloodproneArea
Bankfull Dimensions
8.9
x -section area (ft.sq.)
10.9
width (ft)
0.8
mean depth (ft)
1.5
max depth (ft)
12.1
wetted parimeter (ft)
0.7
hyd radi (ft)
13.4
width -depth ratio
200.0
W flood prone area (ft)
18.3
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 3/2017
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 5
Cross Section 11 - UT1
518+10 Pool
576
574
c
0
w 572
w
570
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Width (ft)
tMYO(1/2013) tMYl(8/2013) 4 MY2(5/2014) tMY3(4/2015) tMY4(5/2016) tMY5(3/2017) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
15.7
x -section area (ft.sq.)
13.2
width (ft)
1.2
mean depth (ft)
2.4
max depth (ft)
15.0
wetted parimeter (ft)
1.0
hyd radi (ft)
11.1
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 3/2017
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 5
Cross Section 12 - SF4
�!"=�IIIIII,III�IIIIIIIIIA�1
Bankfull Dimensions
74.5
x -section area (ft.sq.)
31.0
width (ft)
2.4
mean depth (ft)
5.0
max depth (ft)
35.4
wetted parimeter (ft)
2.1
hyd radi (ft)
12.9
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 3/2017
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
..if
AMMM
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 5
Cross Section 13 - SF4
�n�mnnnn�mn�
111111111111111111111611111112dilill�lllll��l
Bankfull Dimensions
49.5
x -section area (ft.sq.)
25.7
width (ft)
1.9
mean depth (ft)
3.1
max depth (ft)
27.0
wetted parimeter (ft)
1.8
hyd radi (ft)
13.4
width -depth ratio
200.0
W flood prone area (ft)
7.8entrenchment
ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 3/2017
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 5
Cross Section 14 - SF4
�■, 1�SAm�mi���im■�
Bankfull Dimensions
89.8
x -section area (ft.sq.)
40.7
width (ft)
2.2
mean depth (ft)
5.5
max depth (ft)
44.0
wetted parimeter (ft)
2.0
hyd radi (ft)
18.4
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 3/2017
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 5
Cross Section 15 - SF4
Bankfull Dimensions
51.5
x -section area (ft.sq.)
28.5
width (ft)
1.8
mean depth (ft)
3.2
max depth (ft)
29.4
wetted parimeter (ft)
1.8
hyd radi (ft)
15.8
width -depth ratio
200.0
W flood prone area (ft)
7.0
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 3/2017
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 5
Cross Section 16 - SF4A
��I __ 1111111-
Bankfull Dimensions
26.2
x -section area (ft.sq.)
16.8
width (ft)
1.6
mean depth (ft)
3.0
max depth (ft)
18.7
wetted parimeter (ft)
1.4
hyd radi (ft)
10.8
width -depth ratio
200.0
W flood prone area (ft)
11.9
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 3/2017
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 5
Cross Section 17 - SF4A
■i■�■■i■■■i■n■pis
Bankfull Dimensions
18.2
x -section area (ft.sq.)
12.4
width (ft)
1.5
mean depth (ft)
2.5
max depth (ft)
13.7
wetted parimeter (ft)
1.3
hyd radi (ft)
8.5
width -depth ratio
200.0
W flood prone area (ft)
16.1
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 3/2017
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 5
Cross Section 18 - SF4A
�lI.IIIIIIII!!!ylll
all
Bankfull Dimensions
19.2
x -section area (ft.sq.)
10.4
width (ft)
1.9
mean depth (ft)
2.8
max depth (ft)
12.7
wetted parimeter (ft)
1.5
hyd radi (ft)
5.6
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 3/2017
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 5 - 2017
SF1, 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
11.0
28
28
28
28
D300 =
Very fine
Fine
Medium
Coarse
Very Coarse
0.062
0.125
0.25
0.5
1.0
0.125
0.250
0.50
1.0
2.0
1
6
4
1
7
4
1
7
4
1
28
35
39
40
40
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
40
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
3
3
3
43
70
Fine
4.0
5.6
W
u
3
3
3
46
w
Fine
5.6
8.0
3
3
3
49
Medium
8.0
11.0
1
1
1
50
Medium
11.0
16.0
2
2 1
2
52
Coarse
16.0
22.6
5
S
S
57
Coarse
22.6
32
2
1
3
3
60
Very Coarse
32
45
5
S
S
65
0
Very Coarse
45
64
8
8
8
73
•MYO-02/2013
Small
64
90
6
6
6
79
Small
90
128
9
9
9
88
Large
128
180
8
8
8
96
Large
180
256
1
1
1
97
--I„
Small
256
362
2
2
2
99
Small
362
512
1
1
1
100
€
Medium
512
1024
100
-
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Totall
50
1 50 1
100 1
100
100
100
90
80
70
60
3 50
E
�? 40
w 30
a 20
10
SF1, Reachwide
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 --O-MY3-06/2015 --41 MY4-05/2016 MYS-03/2017
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
Silt/Clay
D35 =
0.25
D50 =
11.0
Da4 =
109.5
D95 =
172.5
D300 =
512.0
100
90
80
70
60
3 50
E
�? 40
w 30
a 20
10
SF1, Reachwide
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 --O-MY3-06/2015 --41 MY4-05/2016 MYS-03/2017
SF1, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
C
70
W
u
w
60
a
N
50
u
40
'R
3
30
a
20
10
0
ooeLotily otih oy
ti v ti$ a e� titi tie �ti� �ti ah bo Co tiy, '90 tiyp 3�ti ytiti yoyo �o�ro deo
Particle Class Size (mm)
•MYO-02/2013
•MY1-10/2013 MVJ-05/)014 -3-04/2015 •MY4-05/2016 •MYS-03/2017

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 5 - 2017
SR, Cross Section 1
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Riffle 100-
Count
Summary
ClassPercent
Percentage Cumulative
16.9
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
35.9
D84 =
0
D95 =
Very fine
Fine
Medium
Coarse
Very Coarse
0.062
0.125
0.25
0.5
1.0
0.125
0.250
0.50
1.0
2.0
90
0
0
0
0
0
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
0
80
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
0
Fine
4.0
5.6
1
1
1
Fine
5.6
8.0
1
1
2
Medium
8.0
11.0
5
5
7
Medium
11.0
16.0
7
7
14
50
Coarse
16.0
22.6
12
1 12
26
Coarse
1 22.6
32
18
18
44
Very Coarse
32
45
18
18
62
Very Coarse
45
64
20
20
82
Small
64
90
10
10
92
Small
90
128
6
6
98
Large
128
180
•MYI-10/2013 •MY2-05/2014 0MY3-04/2015 0MY"5/2016 0MY-3/2017
98
Large
180
256
98
Small
256
362
2
2
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
-----
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Totall
100
1 100
100
100
90
80
a^e 70
60
M
3 50
E
u 40
C 30
u
W 20
IL
10
SF1, Cross Section 1
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0TH
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
--0-- WO -02/2013 tMYI-10/2013 --4--MY3-W/2015 --0-MY4-05/2016 AMY -3/2017
Cross Section 1
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
16.9
Di5 =
26.9
D50 =
35.9
D84 =
68.5
D95 =
107.3
D100 =
362.0
100
90
80
a^e 70
60
M
3 50
E
u 40
C 30
u
W 20
IL
10
SF1, Cross Section 1
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0TH
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
--0-- WO -02/2013 tMYI-10/2013 --4--MY3-W/2015 --0-MY4-05/2016 AMY -3/2017
SF3, Cross Section 1
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
iu
60
a
H
50
N
m
u
40
m
3
30
20
=
10
0
00 oti o•
6b 00 ,l'6 �o y0 ,lA a0 90
titi' ti ti ti 3 e do yo o-0
Particle Class Size (mm)
•MY"2/2013
•MYI-10/2013 •MY2-05/2014 0MY3-04/2015 0MY"5/2016 0MY-3/2017

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 5 - 2017
UT2, Reachwide
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Particle Count
Riffle I Pool Total
each Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
Silt/Clay
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
19.4
24
24
24
24
D100 =
Very fine
Fine
Medium
Coarse
Very Coarse
0.062
0.125
0.25
0.5
1.0
0.125
0.250
0.50
1.0
2.0
1
2
2
1
9
1
2
11
3
2
11
3
24
26
37
40
40
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
40
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
40
70
Fine
4.0
5.6
2
2
2
42
w
Fine
5.6
8.0
a
42
Medium
8.0
11.0
1
1
1
43
Medium
11.0
16.0
2
2 1
2
45
Coarse
16.0
22.6
2
7
9
9
54
Coarse
22.6
32
4
3
7
7
61
Very Coarse
32
45
6
2
8
8
69
0
Very Coarse
45
64
11
11
11
80
•MYO-02/2013
Small
64
90
10
10
10
90
Small
90
128
7
7
7
97
Large
128
180
2
2
2
99
Large
180
256
99
Small
256
362
1
1
1
100
Small
362
512
100
€
Medium
512
1024
100
-
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Totall
50
1 50 1
100 1
100
100
100
90
80
70
60
3 50
E
�? 40
w 30
a 20
10
UT2, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO-02/2013 �MYl-10/2013 tMY2-05/2016 MY3-W/2015 tMY4-05/2016 tMY-3/2017
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
Silt/Clay
D35 =
0.44
D50 =
19.4
Ds4 =
73.4
D95 =
115.7
D100 =
362.0
100
90
80
70
60
3 50
E
�? 40
w 30
a 20
10
UT2, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO-02/2013 �MYl-10/2013 tMY2-05/2016 MY3-W/2015 tMY4-05/2016 tMY-3/2017
UT2, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
C
70
W
u
w
60
a
N
50
u
40
'R
3
30
a
2
20
10
0
ooeLotily otih oy
ti v ti$ a e� titi tie �ti� �ti ah bo Co tiyw tiwo tiy� 3�ti ytiti yoyo �o�ro deo
Particle Class Size (mm)
•MYO-02/2013
•MY1-10/2013 MVJ-05/)014 •MY3-06/2015 •MY4-05/2016 •MYS-03/2017

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 5 - 2017
UT2, Cross Section 4
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Riffle 100-
Count
Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
13.27
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
47.7
D84 =
0
D95 =
Very fine
Fine
Medium
Coarse
Very Coarse
0.062
0.125
0.25
0.5
1.0
0.125
0.250
0.50
1.0
2.0
90
0
0
0
0
0
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
4
4
4
80
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
4
4
8
Fine
4.0
5.6
8
Fine
5.6
8.0
8
Medium
8.0
11.0
4
4
12
Medium
11.0
16.0
8
8
20
50
Coarse
16.0
22.6
10
1 10
30
Coarse
22.6
32
8
8
38
Very Coarse
1 32
45
10
10
48
Very Coarse
45
64
12
12
60
Small
64
90
16
16
76
Small
90
128
8
8
84
Large
128
180
8
8
92
Large
180
256
6
6
98
Lj
Small
256
362
2
2
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
- - - -----
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Totall
100
1 100
100
100
90
80
a^e 70
60
m 50
3
E
u 40
C 30
u
W 20
IL
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 t MYI-10/2013 t --05/2014 --4-- MY3-W/2015 -4-- MY405/2016 A MY$ -03/2017
Cross Section 4
Channel materials (mm)
D1fi=
13.27
Di5 =
28.09
D50 =
47.7
D84 =
128.0
D95 =
214.7
D100 =
362.0
100
90
80
a^e 70
60
m 50
3
E
u 40
C 30
u
W 20
IL
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 t MYI-10/2013 t --05/2014 --4-- MY3-W/2015 -4-- MY405/2016 A MY$ -03/2017
UT2, Cross Section 4
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
iu
60
a
H
50
N
m
u
40
m
3
30
20
=
10
Lj
0
00 oti o•
0 titi 1y 0 ,5'L "" ,ab 00 ,l , �o y0 01' ;', ,lA a0 90
it ti ti ti 3 e do yo �o
Particle Class Size (mm)
•MY"2/2013
•MYI-10/2013 •MY2-05/2014 0MY3-04/2015 0MY"5/2016 0MY-3/2017

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 5 - 2017
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
7.8
20
20
20
17
D100 =
Very fine
Fine
Medium
Coarse
Very Coarse
0.062
0.125
0.25
0.5
1.0
0.125
0.250
0.50
1.0
2.0
5
9
1
5
9
1
20
5
9
1
33
33
37
45
45
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
45
a ro
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
45
70
Fine
4.0
5.6
2
4
6
45
w
Fine
5.6
8.0
1
2
3
6
50
Medium
8.0
11.0
1
2
3
3
53
E
Medium
11.0
16.0
4
1 4
8
3
55
Coarse
16.0
22.6
5
4
9
8
62
Coarse
22.6
32
8
20
8
9
69
Very Coarse
32
45
6
6
8
76
Very Coarse
45
64
5
4LLotily otih oy
S
6
81
Particle Class Size (mm)
•MY3-10/2013 •M-5/2014 •MY3-04/2015 0MY-5/2016 •M-3/2017
Small
64
90
4
4
S
85
Small
90
128
8
8
4
88
Large
128
180
6
Particle Class Size (mm)
6
8
95
Large
180
256
6
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
100
E.
€
Medium
512
1024
100
e
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
50
51
101
120
100
SF3, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
Silt/Clay
Das =
0.35
D50 =
7.8
Da4 =
82.0
D95 =
179.6
D100 =
256.0
SF3, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90
Silt/clay
Sandavel
Individual Class Percent
100
bble
r
90
80
80
a ro
0 70
C
70
W
u
60
w
60
a
3 50
N
50
E
u
40
U= 40
Ta
3
30
a
w 30
20
a 20
10
0
4LLotily otih oy
ti It, tie �ti� �ti ah bo Co tiyw tiwo tiyp 31ti ytiti yoyo �o�ro deo
10
Particle Class Size (mm)
•MY3-10/2013 •M-5/2014 •MY3-04/2015 0MY-5/2016 •M-3/2017
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
AMY -2/2013 MYI-10/2013 M-5/3014 MY3-04/2015 M-/2016 ---a-M-3/301)
SF3, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
C
70
W
u
w
60
a
N
50
u
40
Ta
3
30
a
2
20
10
0
4LLotily otih oy
ti It, tie �ti� �ti ah bo Co tiyw tiwo tiyp 31ti ytiti yoyo �o�ro deo
0MY-2/2013
Particle Class Size (mm)
•MY3-10/2013 •M-5/2014 •MY3-04/2015 0MY-5/2016 •M-3/2017

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 5 - 2017
SF3, Cross Section 5
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Riffle 100-
Count
Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
2.00
Silt/Clay
Very fine
Fine
Medium
Coarse
Very Coarse
0.000
0.062
0.125
0.25
0.5
1.0
0.062
0.125
0.250
0.50
1.0
2.0
9
1
1
5
9
1
1
5
9
9
10
11
11
16
D95 =
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
90
16
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
16
80
Fine
4.0
5.6
3
3
19
Fine
5.6
8.0
1
1
20
C
Medium
8.0
11.0
2
2
22
Medium
11.0
16.0
4
4
26
Coarse
16.0
22.6
2
2
28
50
Coarse
1 22.6
32
7
7
35
Very Coarse
32
45
9
9
44
Very Coarse
45
64
19
19
63
Small
64
90
15
15
78
Small
90
128
12
12
90
Large
128
180
7
7
97
•-2/2013
Large
180
256
3
3
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
100
—.. ----_�
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Totall
100
1 100
100
100
90
80
70
60
50
E
�? 40
d
30
U
a 20
10
SF3, Cross Section 5
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
--*--MYO-02/2013 �MYI-10/2013 --*-M-5/2014 --*---/2015 AMY -5/2016 ---&-MYS-03/3017
Cross Section 5
Channel materials (mm)
D1fi=
2.00
Di5 =
32.00
D50 =
50.3
D84 =
107.3
D95 =
163.3
D100 =
256.0
100
90
80
70
60
50
E
�? 40
d
30
U
a 20
10
SF3, Cross Section 5
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
--*--MYO-02/2013 �MYI-10/2013 --*-M-5/2014 --*---/2015 AMY -5/2016 ---&-MYS-03/3017
SF3, Cross Section 5
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
C
70
W
u
iu
60
a
vI
50
m
u
40
m
3
30
v
20
10
0
o0ti ytih by Oh
o, o, o
'Y ti ti� P 5� 0 yti y0 ,tiro ,,,L by 6b 00 01' y'ti ,tiA a0 90
ti tip ti 00 y0
ti 3 e do do �o
•-2/2013
Particle Class Size (mm)
•MY3-10/2013 .--/2014 •MY3-04/2015 •M-/2016 •MY -3/2017

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 5 - 2017
SF3, Cross Section 7
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Riffle 100-
Count
Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
4.73
Silt/Clay
Very fine
Fine
Medium
Coarse
Very Coarse
0.000
0.062
0.125
0.25
0.5
1.0
0.062
0.125
0.250
0.50
1.0
2.0
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
D95 =
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
1
1
10
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
3
3
13
80
Fine
4.0
5.6
6
6
19
Fine
5.6
8.0
1
1
20
C
Medium
8.0
11.0
W
u
20
Medium
11.0
16.0
9
9
29
Coarse
16.0
22.6
8
8
37
50
Coarse
22.6
32
9
9
46
Very Coarse
32
45
12
12
58
Very Coarse
45
64
14
14
72
Small
64
90
18
18
90
Small
90
128
7
7
97
Large
128
180
3
3
100
•-2/2013
Large
180
256
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
100
— --- ----_�
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Totall
100
1 100
100
100
90
80
70
60
50
E
�? 40
d
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)
AMY -2/2013 MY140/2013 M-5/2014 AMY -/2015 AMY -5/2016 --/201)
Cross Section 7
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
4.73
Di5 =
20.73
D50 =
35.9
D84 =
80.3
D95 =
115.7
D100 =
180.0
100
90
80
70
60
50
E
�? 40
d
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)
AMY -2/2013 MY140/2013 M-5/2014 AMY -/2015 AMY -5/2016 --/201)
SF3, Cross Section 7
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
C
70
W
u
iu
60
a
H
50
m
u
40
m
3
30
v
20
10
0
00ti ytih by Oh
'Y ti ti� P 5� 0 yti y0 ,tiro ,,,'L by 6b 00 ,14b 00 y0 01' y'L ,yA yo a0 90
ti ti ti 3 e 10 ,to
•-2/2013
Particle Class Size (mm)
•MY3-10/2013 •M-5/2014 •MY3-04/2015 •M-/2016 •MY -3/2017

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 5 - 2017
SF3, Cross Section 9
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Riffle 100-
Count
Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
0.30
Silt/Clay
Very fine
Fine
Medium
Coarse
Very Coarse
0.000
0.062
0.125
0.25
0.5
1.0
0.062
0.125
0.250
0.50
1.0
2.0
13
2
4
1
13
2
4
1
13
13
15
19
20
20
D95 =
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
90
20
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
20
80
Fine
4.0
5.6
6
6
26
Fine
5.6
8.0
7
7
33
C
Medium
8.0
11.0
6
6
39
Medium
11.0
16.0
9
9
48
Coarse
16.0
22.6
10
10
58
50
Coarse
1 22.6
32
10
10
68
Very Coarse
32
45
8
8
76
Very Coarse
45
64
6
6
82
Small
64
90
6
6
88
Small
90
128
4
4
92
Large
128
180
7
7
99
10
Large
180
256
1
1
100
'Y ti ti� P 5� 0 yti y0 ,tiro ,b'y by 6b 00 tiyob , 4' y0 ,yA a0 90
ti ti 3 e do yo �o
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
100
— --- ----_�
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Totall
100
1 100
100
100
90
80
70
a 60
-23 50
E
�? 40
d
30
U
a 20
10
SF3, Cross Section 9
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0 i I I I 1 61 1 1 ir�i♦mo0 y,qr�1-' ' ,
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
--*- MY -2/3013 --*-MYI-10/3013 --*--M-5/2014 --G--M-4/2015 --*-- M-/2- ---&- M-3/2017
Cross Section 9
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
0.30
Di5 =
8.90
D50 =
17.1
D84 =
71.7
D95 =
148.1
D100 =
256.0
100
90
80
70
a 60
-23 50
E
�? 40
d
30
U
a 20
10
SF3, Cross Section 9
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0 i I I I 1 61 1 1 ir�i♦mo0 y,qr�1-' ' ,
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
--*- MY -2/3013 --*-MYI-10/3013 --*--M-5/2014 --G--M-4/2015 --*-- M-/2- ---&- M-3/2017
SF3, Cross Section 9
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
C
70
W
u
iu
60
a
H
50
m
u
40
m
3
30
v
20
10
0
00ti ytih by Oh
'Y ti ti� P 5� 0 yti y0 ,tiro ,b'y by 6b 00 tiyob , 4' y0 ,yA a0 90
ti ti 3 e do yo �o
•-2/2013
Particle Class Size (mm)
•MY3-10/2013 •M-5/2014 •MY3-04/2015 •M-/2016 •MY -3/2017

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 5 - 2017
UTI, 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
7.2
22
22
22
22
D100 =
Very fine
Fine
Medium
Coarse
Very Coarse
0.062
0.125
0.25
0.5
1.0
0.125
0.250
0.50
1.0
2.0
Slit/Clay
11
1
3
2
3
4
1
3
2
3
4
1
3
2
3
4
23
26
28
31
35
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
2
3
5
5
40
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
a ro
40
0 70
Fine
4.0
5.6
3
3
3
43
w
Fine
5.6
8.0
5
4
9
9
53
Medium
8.0
11.0
2
4
6
6
59
Medium
11.0
16.0
8
8
8
67
E
Coarse
16.0
22.6
7
1
8
8
75
Coarse
22.6
32
2
2
4
4
79
Very Coarse
32
45
5
1
6
6
85
0
Very Coarse
45
64
7
7
7
92
a 20
Small
64
90
2
2
2
94
Small
90
128
4
4
4
98
Large
128
180
2
2
2
100
Large
180
256
100
Small
256
362
100
H 31-.111 1
Small
362
512
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
MYO-02/2013 MYI-10/2013 --*- M-5/2014 MY3-04/2015 MY -5/2016 ---a-MYS-03/3017
100
€
Medium
512
1024
100
e
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
49
50
99
100
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
Silt/Clay
D35 =
1.88
D50 =
7.2
Ds4 =
42.9
D95 =
98.7
D100 =
180.0
UTI, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
Individual Class Percent
100
90
Slit/Clay
11
Sand
17[avol
bble
r
80
80
a ro
C
0 70
W
u
w
60
60
a
N
50
3 50
u
40
E
Ta
3
30
a
�? 40
2
20
10
w 30
0
ooeLotily otih Oh
ti ti ti$ b 5� 0 1ti y0 �Lo 5L Qh bb �� ytib y�0 e "V ytiti ye tib"$ �06
0MY-2/2013
Particle Class Size (mm)
•MY3-10/2013 •M-5/2014 •MY3-04/2015 0MY-5/2016 •M-3/2017
a 20
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
MYO-02/2013 MYI-10/2013 --*- M-5/2014 MY3-04/2015 MY -5/2016 ---a-MYS-03/3017
UTI, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
C
70
W
u
w
60
a
N
50
u
40
Ta
3
30
a
2
20
10
0
ooeLotily otih Oh
ti ti ti$ b 5� 0 1ti y0 �Lo 5L Qh bb �� ytib y�0 e "V ytiti ye tib"$ �06
0MY-2/2013
Particle Class Size (mm)
•MY3-10/2013 •M-5/2014 •MY3-04/2015 0MY-5/2016 •M-3/2017

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 5 - 2017
UT1, Cross Section 10
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Riffle 100-
Count
Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
2.00
Silt/Clay
Very fine
Fine
Medium
Coarse
Very Coarse
0.000
0.062
0.125
0.25
0.5
1.0
0.062
0.125
0.250
0.50
1.0
2.0
10
2
2
2
10
2
2
2
10
10
10
12
14
16
D95 =
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
10
10
26
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
1
1
27
80
Fine
4.0
5.6
12
12
39
Fine
5.6
8.0
4
4
43
C
Medium
8.0
11.0
10
10
53
Medium
11.0
16.0
6
6
59
Coarse
16.0
22.6
7
7
66
50
Coarse
1 22.6
32
9
9
75
E
Very Coarse
32
45
6
6
81
Very Coarse
45
64
5
5
86
Small
64
90
2
2
88
Small
90
128
5
5
93
Large
128
180
7
7
100
Large
180
256
0
100
Small
256
362
4�
Particle Class Size (mm)
•MY3-10/2013 •M-5/2014 •MY3-04/2015 •M-/2- •MYS-03/2017
100
— --- ----_�
Small
Medium
Large/Very Large
362
1 512
1024
512
1024
2048
100
100
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Totall
100
1 100
1 100
UTI, Cross Section 10
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
Cross Section 10
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
2.00
Di5 =
5.01
D50 =
10.0
D84 =
55.6
D95 =
141.1
D100 =
180.0
UTI, Cross Section 10
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90
SIIUCIaySandavel
Individual Class Percent
100
le
er
gp
80
a ro
70
C
70
W
u
W 60
60
a
50
H
50
m
E
u
40
�? 40
m
3
30
v
d 30
U
20
10
at 20
All
0
Doti ytih by Oh
o, o, o
10
4�
Particle Class Size (mm)
•MY3-10/2013 •M-5/2014 •MY3-04/2015 •M-/2- •MYS-03/2017
0 0-
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
--6- MY -2/2013 MY340/2013 M-5/3014 --4-- MY3-04/2015 MY -5/2016 MYS-03/2017
UTI, Cross Section 10
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
C
70
W
u
60
a
H
50
m
u
40
m
3
30
v
20
10
All
0
Doti ytih by Oh
o, o, o
'r 'ti ,tib P 5� 47 yti y0 ,tiro ,,,L by 6b O ,l<b 46o y0 01' y'ti ,tiA p 90
ti ti ti ti 3 e do 10 �o
•MYO-02/2013
Particle Class Size (mm)
•MY3-10/2013 •M-5/2014 •MY3-04/2015 •M-/2- •MYS-03/2017

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 5 - 2017
SF4, 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
7
20
27
27
27
D100 =
Very fine
Fine
Medium
Coarse
Very Coarse
0.062
0.125
0.25
0.5
1.0
0.125
0.250
0.50
1.0
2.0
1
1
1
2
2
3
3
1
3
3
1
27
30
33
34
34
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
34
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
34
70
Fine
4.0
5.6
34
w
Fine
5.6
8.0
a
34
Medium
8.0
11.0
N
10
34
Medium
11.0
16.0
2
4
6
6
40
Coarse
16.0
22.6
3
2
5
5
45
Coarse
22.6
32 1
2
20
2
2
47
Very Coarse
32
45
3
7
10
10
57
0
Very Coarse
45
64
6
6
6
63
•MYI-10/2013 •MY2-05/2014 •MY3-04/2015 •MY"5/2016 0MY5-03/2017
Small
64
90
10
1
11
11
74
Small
90
128
10
2
12
12
86
Large
128
180
10
10
10
96
Large
180
256
2
2
2
98
---- -- -- ==Small
256
362
98
Small
362
512
98
€
Medium
512
1024
98
---------______€
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
2
2
2
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
60
40
100
100
100
100
90
80
70
60
3 50
3 40
v
30
v 20
a
10
SF4, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0 I
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
�MYO-02/2013 tMYl-10/2013 MY2-05/2014 --4-MY3-W/2015 MY4-05/2016 AMY$ -03/2017
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
Silt/Clay
D35 =
11.71
D50 =
35.4
D84 =
120.7
D95 =
174.0
D100 =
2048.0
100
90
80
70
60
3 50
3 40
v
30
v 20
a
10
SF4, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0 I
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
�MYO-02/2013 tMYl-10/2013 MY2-05/2014 --4-MY3-W/2015 MY4-05/2016 AMY$ -03/2017
SF4, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
w
60
a
N
50
N
10
u
40
Ti
3
30
a
20
10
0
ooetiotiyh otih oy ti ti tiw o- �� � titi tie �ti6 3ti ah 6o- �o tiyw 1�o tiy� 3�ti ytitiyoyo<�o�ro ��o
Particle Class Size (mm)
•MYO-02/2013
•MYI-10/2013 •MY2-05/2014 •MY3-04/2015 •MY"5/2016 0MY5-03/2017

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 5 - 2017
SF4, Cross Section 13
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Riffle 100-
Count
Summary
ClassPercent
Percentage Cumulative
4.47
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
10
10
10
D95 =
Very fine
Fine
Medium
Coarse
Very Coarse
0.062
0.125
0.25
0.5
1.0
0.125
0.250
0.50
1.0
2.0
2
2
2
2
10
12
14
14
14
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
14
80
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
1
1
15
Fine
4.0
5.6
3
3
18
C
Fine
5.6
8.0
6
6
24
Medium
8.0
11.0
5
5
29
Medium
11.0
16.0
1
1
30
50
Coarse
16.0
22.6
N
m
1
30
Coarse1
22.6
32
2
2
32
Very Coarse
32
45
6
6
38
Very Coarse
45
64
9
9
47
Small
64
90
6
6
53
Small
90
128
10
10
63
Large
128
180
16
16
79
La rge
180
256
7
7
86
a€
Small
256
362
6
6
92
Small
362
512
8
8
100
Medium
512 1
1024
100
----- :Large/Very
Large
1024
2048
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Totall
100
1 100
100
100
90
80
a^e 70
60
m 50
3
E
u 40
C 30
u
W 20
IL
10
SF4, Cross Section 13
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0 i i yii,i I
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
�MYO-02/2013 tMYl-10/2013 �--05/2014 --4--MY3-W/2015 --*-MY4-05/2016 AMY$ -03/2017
Cross Section 13
Channel materials (mm)
D1fi=
4.47
Di5 =
37.95
D50 =
75.9
D84 =
231.5
D95 =
412.3
D100 =
512.0
100
90
80
a^e 70
60
m 50
3
E
u 40
C 30
u
W 20
IL
10
SF4, Cross Section 13
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0 i i yii,i I
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
�MYO-02/2013 tMYl-10/2013 �--05/2014 --4--MY3-W/2015 --*-MY4-05/2016 AMY$ -03/2017
SF4, Cross Section 13
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
C
70
iu
60
a
H
50
N
m
u
40
m
3
30
20
=
10
0
01L �h 1h Oy
00 oti o•
1r 1L ,L� b 5� 0 1y1 1y 0 ,5'L by 0b 00 ,l'6 00 y0 01' y'L 17A a0 90
titi. ti ti ti 3 e 10 10 to
Particle Class Size (mm)
•MY"2/2013
•MYI-10/2013 •MY2-05/2014 0MY3-04/2015 0MY"5/2016 0MY-3/2017

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 5 - 2017
SF4, Cross Section 15
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Riffle 100-
Count
Summary
ClassPercent
Percentage Cumulative
0.30
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
6
6
6
D95 =
Very fine
Fine
Medium
Coarse
Very Coarse
0.062
0.125
0.25
0.5
1.0
0.125
0.250
0.50
1.0
2.0
4
4
6
2
2
4
4
6
2
2
10
14
21
23
25
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
25
80
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
4
4
29
Fine
4.0
5.6
8
8
37
C
Fine
5.6
8.0
8
8
45
Medium
8.0
11.0
6
6
52
Medium
11.0
16.0
4
4
56
50
Coarse
16.0
22.6
4
1 4
60
Coarse1
22.6
32
60
Very Coarse
32
45
m
3
60
Very Coarse
45
64
2
2
62
Small
64
90
6
6
68
10
Small
90
128
10
10
78
Large
128
180
11
11
90
La rge
180
256
2
2
92
a€
Small
256
362
4
4
96
Small
362
512
4
4
100
MUSEUM 1110-
Medium
512 1
1024
100
----- :Large/Very
Large
1024
2048
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Totall
97
1 100
100
100
90
80
a^e 70
60
m 50
3
E
u 40
C 30
u
W 20
IL
10
SF4, Cross Section 15
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0 bl — 0 do - 0 T I I I 1 1111 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i I I I I I I I I I
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
--*--MYO-02/2013 �MYI-10/2013 �--05/2014 --d�-MY3-04/2015 --4—MY4-05/2016 AMY -3/2017
Cross Section 15
Channel materials (mm)
D1fi=
0.30
Di5 =
5.14
D50 =
10.2
D84 =
151.7
D95 =
336.3
D100 =
512.0
100
90
80
a^e 70
60
m 50
3
E
u 40
C 30
u
W 20
IL
10
SF4, Cross Section 15
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0 bl — 0 do - 0 T I I I 1 1111 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i I I I I I I I I I
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
--*--MYO-02/2013 �MYI-10/2013 �--05/2014 --d�-MY3-04/2015 --4—MY4-05/2016 AMY -3/2017
SF4, Cross Section 15
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
C
70
iu
60
a
H
50
N
m
u
40
m
3
30
20
=
10
0
o'L .�h 1h oh
00 oti o•
'Y ti ti� b y�o ,y'y 16 6 3ti by 6b �O ,l'b 4' y0 ,lA
titi. ti ti ti 3 e 10 ,yo �o
Particle Class Size (mm)
•MY"2/2013
•MYI-10/2013 •MY2-05/2014 0MY3-04/2015 0MY"5/2016 0MY-3/2017

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 5 - 2017
SF4A, Reachwide
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Particle Count
Riffle Pool Total
each Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
0.16
Silt/Clay
Very fine
Fine
Medium
Coarse
Very Coarse
0.000
0.062
0.125
0.25
0.5
1.0
0.062
0.125
0.250
0.50
1.0
2.0
1
14
6
7
14
6
8
14
6
8
14
14
20
28
28
28
D100 =
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
28
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
3
3
3
31
Fine
4.0
5.6
1
4
5
5
36
70
Fine
5.6
8.0
4
4
8
8
44
w
Medium
8.0
11.0
4
4
4
48
Medium
11.0
16.0
3
3
3
51
Coarse
16.0
22.6
3
2
5
5
56
Coarse
22.6
32 1
8
8
8
64
Very Coarse
32
45
3
1
4
4
68
Very Coarse
45
64
11
1
12
12
80
0
Small
64
90
8
1
9
9
89
•MYM2/2013
Small
90
128
4
1
5
5
94
Large
128
180
4
1
5
5
99
Large
180
256
1
1
1
100
---- -- -- ==Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
100
-?
Medium
512
1024
100
--------- - -€
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
50
50
100
100
100
SF4A, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
0.16
D35 =
5.24
D50 =
14.1
Ds4 =
74.5
D95 =
137.0
D100 =
256.0
SF4A, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
SF4A, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
w
60
a
N
50
N
10
u
40
Ta
3
30
a
20
10
Ad
0
ooetiotiyh otih oy
ti ti tiw o- �� � titi tie �ti� 3ti Qy 6o- �,o tiyw 1�o tiy� 3�ti ytiti yoyo� ti��$ ��o
Particle Class Size (mm)
•MYM2/2013
•MYI-10/2013 •MY2-05/2016 •MY3-06/2015 •MY"5/2016 0MY5-03/2017

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 5 - 2017
SF4A, Cross Section 16
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Riffle 100-
Count
Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
0.32
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
12
13
13
D95 =
Very fine
Fine
Medium
Coarse
Very Coarse
0.062
0.125
0.25
0.5
1.0
0.125
0.250
0.50
1.0
2.0
10
10
13
13
23
23
23
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
23
80
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
23
Fine
4.0
5.6
4
4
27
C
Fine
5.6
8.0
4
4
31
Medium
8.0
11.0
2
2
33
Medium
11.0
16.0
4
4
38
50
Coarse
16.0
22.6
2
1 2
1 40
Coarse
22.6
32
12
13
52
Very Coarse
32
45
12
13
65
Very Coarse
45
64
10
10
75
Small
64
90
17
18
93
Small
90
128
5
5
98
Large
128
180
2
2
100
0
Large
180
256
0b 00 ,l'6 00 y0 0'L y'L ,lA a0 90
titi. ti ti ti 3 e 10 ,yo to
100
a€
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
----- :Large/Very
Large
1024
2048
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Totall
96
1 100
100
100
90
80
a^e 70
60
M
3 50
E
u 40
C 30
u
W 20
IL
10
SF4A, Cross Section 16
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0 b l— e I @ice+�LlI I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
-4--MYO-02/2013 �MYI-10/2013 -0-MY2-05/2014 --&-MY3-06/2015 -4--MY405/2016 AMY -3/2017
Cross Section 16
Channel materials (mm)
D1fi=
0.32
Di5 =
12.78
D50 =
30.2
D84 =
76.1
D95 =
105.1
D100 =
180.0
100
90
80
a^e 70
60
M
3 50
E
u 40
C 30
u
W 20
IL
10
SF4A, Cross Section 16
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0 b l— e I @ice+�LlI I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
-4--MYO-02/2013 �MYI-10/2013 -0-MY2-05/2014 --&-MY3-06/2015 -4--MY405/2016 AMY -3/2017
SF4A, Cross Section 16
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
C
70
iu
60
a
H
50
N
m
u
40
m
3
30
20
=
10
0
00 oti o•
0b 00 ,l'6 00 y0 0'L y'L ,lA a0 90
titi. ti ti ti 3 e 10 ,yo to
Particle Class Size (mm)
•MY"2/2013
•MYI-10/2013 •MY2-05/2014 0MY3-04/2015 0MY"5/2016 0MY-3/2017

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 5 - 2017
SF4A, Cross Section 17
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Riffle 100-
Count
Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
5.09
Silt/Clay
Very fine
Fine
Medium
Coarse
Very Coarse
0.000
0.062
0.125
0.25
0.5
1.0
0.062
0.125
0.250
0.50
1.0
2.0
2
11
2
10
0
0
0
0
2
12
D95 =
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
90
12
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
12
80
Fine
4.0
5.6
6
6
18
Fine
5.6
8.0
5
5
22
C
Medium
8.0
11.0
6
6
28
Medium
11.0
16.0
5
5
32
Coarse
16.0
22.6
8
7
40
50
Coarse
1 22.6
32
10
9
49
Very Coarse
32
45
18
17
66
Very Coarse
45
64
15
14
80
Small
64
90
13
12
92
Small
90
128
6
6
97
Large
128
180
3
3
100
10
Large
180
256
100
'r 'L ,L� P 5� 0 yti y0 ro ,5'L by 6b 00 ti ti ti y0 90
p 0o 01' y'L ,yA a0
3 e do yo �o
Small
256
362
•MYO-02/2013
100
Small
362
512
100
—.. ----_�
Medium
512 1
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Totall
108
1 100
1 100
100
90
80
70
60
50
E
�? 40
d
30
U
a 20
10
SF4A, Cross Section 17
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0 I
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
�MYO-02/2013 �-1-10/2013 �MY2-05/2014 ---&—MY3-06/2015 tMY4-05/2016 AMY5-03/2017
Cross Section 17
Channel materials (mm)
D1fi=
5.09
Di5 =
18.06
D50 =
32.6
D84 =
72.4
D95 =
111.2
D100 =
180.0
100
90
80
70
60
50
E
�? 40
d
30
U
a 20
10
SF4A, Cross Section 17
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0 I
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
�MYO-02/2013 �-1-10/2013 �MY2-05/2014 ---&—MY3-06/2015 tMY4-05/2016 AMY5-03/2017
SF4A, Cross Section 17
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
C
70
W
u
60
a
H
50
m
u
40
m
3
30
v
20
1.
10
0
00ti ytih by Oh
'r 'L ,L� P 5� 0 yti y0 ro ,5'L by 6b 00 ti ti ti y0 90
p 0o 01' y'L ,yA a0
3 e do yo �o
Particle Class Size (mm)
•MYO-02/2013
•MYI-10/2013 MVJ-OS/JOIa —3-04/2015 •MY4-05/2016 •MY -3/2017

APPENDIX 5. Hydrology Summary Data and Plots

Table 13. Verification of Bankfull Events
Underwood Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 5 - 2017
Reach
Approximate
Date of Data Date of
Collection Occurrence
Method
SFl
3/21/2017 1/3/2017
Crest
Gage/Visual
(Rack Lines)
6/27/2017 4/25/2017
UT2
3/21/2017 1/3/2017
SF3
3/21/2017 1/3/2017
6/27/2017 4/25/2017
UT1
3/21/2017 1/3/2017
6/27/2017 4/25/2017
SF4
3/21/2017 1/3/2017
6/27/2017 1 4/25/2017
SF4A
3/21/2017 1/3/2017
6/27/2017 4/25/2017
Table 14. Wetland Gage Attainment Summary
Underwood Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 5 - 2017
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
No/7 Days
1
(20.6%)
(16.4%)
(27.1%)
(36.7%)
(2.8%)
Yes/51.5 Days
Yes/38.5 Days
Yes/59 Days
No/13 Days
No/0 Days
2
(23.8%)
(17.8%)
(24.6%)
(5.3%)
(0.0%)
Yes/23.5 Days
Yes/31.5 Days
Yes/29 Days
Yes/19 Days
Yes/31 Days
3
(10.9%)
(14.6%)
(12.1%)
(7.8%)
(12.6%)
Yes/19.5 Days
Yes/31.5 Days
Yes/59 Days
Yes/19 Days
No/30 Days
4
(9.0%)
(14.6%)
(24.6%)
(7.8%)
(4.0%)
Yes/25 Days
Yes/32.5 Days
Yes/65 Days
Yes/47 Days
No/11 Days
5
(11.6%)
(15.0%)
(27.1%)
(19.2%)
(4.5%)
Yes/22.5 Days
Yes/21 Days
Yes/28 Days
No/12 Days
No/7 Days
6
(10.4%)
(9.7%)
(11.7%)
(4.9%)
(2.8%)
Yes/44.5 Days
Yes/31.5 Days
Yes/32 Days
Yes/38 Days
Yes/80 Days
7
(20.6%)
(14.6%)
(13.3%)
(15.5%)
(32.4%)
Yes/22 Days
Yes/23 Days
Yes/61 Days
Yes/23 Days
No/15 Days
8
(10.2 %)
(14.6%)
(25.4%)
(9.4%)
(6.1%)
Yes/98 Days
Yes/41.5 Days
Yes/68 Days
Yes/49 Days
Yes/47 Days
9
(45.4%)
(10.6 %)
(28.3%)
(20%)
(19.0%)
Yes/96.5 Days
Yes/36 Days
Yes/67 Days
Yes/23Days
Well
10
(44.7%)
(16.7 %)
(27.9%)
(9.4%)
Malfunctioned
Yes/66 Days
Yes/40.5 Days
Yes/61 Days
Yes/38 Days
No/5 Days
11
(30.6%)
(18.8%)
(25.4%)
(15.5%)
(2.0 %)
Yes/23 Days
Yes/32.5 Days
Yes/28 Days
No/9 Days
No/4 Days
12
(10.6 %)
(15.0%)
(11.7%)
(3.7%)
(1.6%)
Yes/22 Days
No/12.5 Days
Yes/27 Days
No/10 Days
No/6 Days
13
(10.2 %)
(5.8 %)
(11.3%)
(4.1%)
(2.4%)
Yes/21 Days
Yes/32 Days
Yes/29 Days
No/16 Days
No/2 Days
14
(9.7%)
(14.8 %)
(12.1%)
(6.5%)
(0.8%)
Yes/163 Days
Yes/57 Days
Yes/80 Days
Yes/104 Days
Yes/79 Days
15
(75.5%)
(26.4%)
(33.3%)
(42.4%)
(32.0%)
* 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 5 - 2017
Wetland Harris Site; RW1
20
10
0
-10
v
3 -20
v
m
3 -30
-40
-50
-60
C -0 > c W Q - >
cu LL m =3 OJ UQ
� > Q Ln 0 Z
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #1 — — 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 5 - 2017
Wetland Harris Site; RW2
20
10
0
-10
v
-20
v
m
3 -30
-40
-50
-60
c
nm ? � aa) U o v
°' g Q g a 0 z o
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 5 - 2017
Wetland Harris Site; NRW1
20
10
0
-10
v
-20
v
m
3 -30
-40
-50
-60
C -0 > c W Q - >
cu LL m =3 OJ UQ
� > Q Ln 0 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 5 - 2017
Wetland Harris Site; RW2
20
10
0
-10
v
3 -20
v
m
3 -30
-40
-50
-60
C -0 > c W Q - >
cu LL Q m =3 OJ Ucn 0 o
� > Q 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 5 - 2017
Wetland Harris Site; RW3
20
10
0
-10
v
-20
v
m
3 -30
-40
-50
-60
C -0 > c W Q - >
cu LL m =3 OJ UQ
� > Q Ln 0 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 5 - 2017
Wetland Harris Site; RW3
20
10
0
-10
v
3 -20
v
m
3 -30
-40
-50
-60
C -0 > c W Q - >
cu LL m =3 OJ UQ
� > Q Ln 0 Z
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #6 — — 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 5 - 2017
Wetland Harris Site; RW3
20
10
0
-10
v
-20
v
m
3 -30
-40
-50
-60
C -0 > c W Q - >
cu LL m =3 OJ UQ
� > Q Ln 0 Z
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #7 — — 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 5 - 2017
Wetland Harris Site; RW3
20
10
0
-10
v
-20
v
m
3 -30
-40
-50
-60
C -0 i ? C W Q +-' > U
i Q > Q cn O z
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #8 — — 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 5 - 2017
Wetland Harris Site; NRW2
20
10
0
-10
v
-20
v
m
3 -30
-40
-50
-60
C -0 > c W Q - >
cu LL m =3 OJ UQ
� > Q Ln 0 Z
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 5 - 2017
Wetland RW4
20
10
0
-10
v
3 -20
v
m
3 -30
-40
-50
-60
C n a Con Q +'� > U
LL c� =3Q
� > Q Ln 0 Z
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 5 - 2017
Wetland RW4
20
10
0
-10
v
-20
v
m
3 -30
-40
-50
-60
C -0 i T C to Q a'' > U
cu m
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 5 - 2017
Wetland RW4
20
10
0
-10
v
3 -20
v
m
3 -30
-40
-50
-60
C -0i T C to Q a"' > U
cu m
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 5 - 2017
Wetland RW4
20
10
0
-10
v
.0) -20
v
m
-30
-40
-50
-60
C -0 a c W a - >
Cu Q > Q to O z
� Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #13 — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0
c
ac
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Underwood Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 94641)
Monitoring Year 5 - 2017
Wetland RW4
20
10
0
-10
v
-20
v
m
3 -30
-40
-50
-60
C -0 a c to a +'� > U
i f6 Q m � V) O o
Q Z
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 5 - 2017
Wetland RW4
20
10
0
-10
v
-20
v
m
3 -30
-40
-50
-60
c -0 > c no a + > U
cu m�g a z
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
DMS Project No. 94641
Monitoring Year 5 - 2017
1 2017 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).
Underwood 30-70 Percentile Graph for Rainfall in 2017 Siler City, NC
10
9
8
7
S
6
c
0
m
Y
5
.Q
u
GJ
a
4
3
2
1
0
Jan -17
Feb -17 Mar -17 Apr -17 May -17 Jun -17 Jul -17 Aug -17 Sep -17 Oct -17
Date
2017 Rainfall 30th Percentile 70th Percentile
1 2017 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 5 - 2017
Wetland RW1
30
20
10
0
c
Underwood Groundwater Gage #1
Monitoring Year 5 - 2017
-30
-40
-50
-60
C -0 i TC -5 b0 Q �"' > V
i Q 2 Q to O Z p
Pre -Construction Rainfall Rainfall Pre -Construction Gage Depth Gage #1 — — Criteria Level
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
E
2.5
C
M
2.0 0�
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 5 - 2017
Wetland RW2
30
20
10
0
c
Underwood Groundwater Gage #4
Monitoring Year 5 - 2017
-30
-40
-50
-60
C -0 i TC -5 b0 Q �"' > V
ii Q Q V) O Z
Pre -Construction Rainfall Rainfall Pre -Construction Gage Depth Gage #4 — — Criteria Level
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
E
2.5
C
M
2.0 0�
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 5 - 2017
Wetland RW4
30
20
10
0
c
Underwood Groundwater Gage #12
Monitoring Year 5 - 2017
-30
-40
-50
-60
C -0 i Q T C -5 W Q - > V
ii Q V O Z
Pre -Construction Rainfall Rainfall Pre -Construction Gage Depth Gage #12 — — Criteria Level
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
E
2.5
C
M
2.0 0�
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 5 - 2017
Wetland RW4
30
20
10
0
c
a, -10
J
_w -20
-30
-40
-50
-60
Underwood Groundwater Gage #15
Monitoring Year 5 - 2017
C -0 i TC -5 W Q �"' > V
i Q 2 Q to O Z p
Pre -Construction Rainfall Rainfall Pre -Construction Gage Depth Gage #15 — — Criteria Level
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
E
2.5
C
M
2.0 0�
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0