20091169 Ver 1_Year 3 Monitoring Report_20150414

MONITORING YEAR 3
ANNUAL REPORT
Final
LITTLE TROUBLESOME CREEK MITIGATION SITE
Rockingham County, NC
DENR Contract 003267
NCEEP Project Number 94640
Data Collection Period: May 2014 - November 2014
Draft Submission Date: December 1, 2014
Final Submission Date: December 19, 2014
PREPARED FOR:
stem
NC Department of Environment and Natural
Resources
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
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.
1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 28203
Kirsten Y. Gimbert
kgimbert @wildlandseng.com
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report— FINAL

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Wildlands Engineering (Wildlands) completed a full - delivery project for the North Carolina Ecosystem
Enhancement Program (NCEEP) to restore a total of 4,988 linear feet (LF) of stream and restore, enhance,
and create 17.3 acres (ac) of wetlands in Rockingham County, North Carolina. The project streams consist
of Little Troublesome Creek, Irvin Creek and one unnamed tributary (UT) to the Little Troublesome Creek.
The largest of these streams, Little Troublesome Creek, ultimately drains to the Haw River. At the
downstream limits of the project, the drainage area is 3,245 acres (5.1 square miles).
The Little Troublesome Creek Stream Mitigation Site, hereafter referred to as the Stream Site, is located
in Rockingham County on the southeastern side of Reidsville along Irvin and Little Troublesome Creeks.
The wetland area, hereafter referred to as the Wetland Site, is located approximately four (4) miles
southeast of the Stream Site and is also adjacent to Little Troublesome Creek. The Stream Site is located
south of Turner Road, east of the intersection of Turner Road and Way Street in the City of Reidsville,
North Carolina (see Figure 1). The Wetland Site is located approximately 3,000 feet southwest of the
intersection of NC Highway 150 and Mizpah Church Road, south of the City of Reidsville (see Figure 1).
The Stream and Wetland Sites are located in the Inner Piedmont Belt of the Piedmont Physiographic
Province (USGS, 1998). The Sites are located within the North Carolina Division of Water Resources
(NCDWR) subbasin 03 -06 -01 of the Cape Fear River Basin (United States Geological Survey (USGS)
Hydrologic Unit 03030002010030). Approximately 28% of the land in the project watershed has been
developed and approximately 17% of the land surface is impervious. Land uses within the watershed
include: forested land (55 %), developed (28 %), and cultivated land (17 %). The Stream Site is a tract
owned by Wildlands Little Troublesome Creek Holdings, LLC and the Wetland Site is owned by Jerry Apple.
Prior to construction activities, the most significant watershed stressors identified during the technical
assessment were stream bank erosion and instability. Other stressors included declining aquatic habitat,
loss of forest, degraded riparian buffers, loss of wetlands, lack of urban stormwater detention, and water
quality problems related to increased sediment and nutrient loadings. As a result of the aforementioned
stressors, the Stream Site and Wetland Site had poor water quality due to sediment pollution and poor
habitat due to lack of riparian and wetland vegetation. In particular, the Stream Site lacked stable
streambank vegetation despite being surrounded by mature vegetation. The Stream Site also lacked in-
stream bed diversity and exhibited unstable geomorphic conditions. The primary objectives of the project
were to stabilize highly eroding stream banks, reconnect streams to their historic floodplain, improve
wetland hydrology and function, reduce nutrient levels, sediment input, and water temperature, increase
dissolved oxygen concentrations, create appropriate in- stream and terrestrial habitat, and decrease
channel velocities. These objectives were achieved by restoring 4,988 linear feet (LF) of perennial stream
channel, and restoring, enhancing, and creating 17.3 acres of riparian wetland. The Stream Site and
Wetland Site riparian areas were also planted to stabilize streambanks, improve habitat, and protect
water quality. Figure 2 and Table 1 present design applications for the Sites.
The following project goals were established to address the effects listed above in the executive summary
from watershed and project site stressors:
• Stabilize stream dimensions;
• Stabilize stream pattern and profile;
• Establish proper substrate distribution throughout stream;
• Establish wetland hydrology for restored wetlands; and
• Restore native vegetation throughout wetlands and buffer zones.
kLittle Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report— FINAL iii

The following secondary project goals (unmeasured) were established in the project Mitigation Plan
(2011) to address the effects from watershed and project site stressors:
• Decrease nutrient and urban runoff pollutant levels;
• Decrease sediment input;
• Decrease water temperature and increase dissolved oxygen levels;
• Create appropriate in- stream habitat;
• Create appropriate terrestrial habitat; and
• Decrease channel velocities.
Stream and wetland restoration, enhancement, and creation construction efforts were completed in May
2012. A conservation easement is in place on the 33.0 ac of the Stream Site and 19.0 ac of the Wetland
Site to protect them in perpetuity.
Monitoring Year 3 (MY -3) monitoring and site visits were completed during May- November, 2014 to
assess the conditions of the project. The Site has met the required hydrologic, vegetation, and stream
success criteria for MY -3. The sites overall average stem density of 615 stems/ acre is greater than the
320 stem/ acre density required for MY -3. Overall, all restored and enhanced streams are stable and
functioning as designed and the Site has met the Monitoring Year 5 (MY5) hydrology success criteria. All
groundwater gages met the MY -3 success criteria.
kLittle Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report— FINAL iv

LITTLE TROUBLESOME CREEK MITIGATION SITE
Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report
li_T_3 � ��I���I►��1<��
Section 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW ......................................................................... ............................... 1 -1
1.1 Project Goals and Objectives ......................................................................... ............................1 -1
1.2 Monitoring Year 3 Data Assessment .............................................................. ............................1 -3
1.2.1 Vegetative Assessment .......................................................................... ............................1 -3
1.2.2 Vegetation Areas of Concern ................................................................. ............................1 -3
1.2.3 Stream Assessment ................................................................................ ............................1 -4
1.2.4 Stream Areas of Concern ....................................................................... ............................1 -4
1.2.5 Hydrology Assessment ........................................................................... ............................1 -4
1.2.6 Wetland Assessment .............................................................................. ............................1 -4
1.2.7 Maintenance Plan .................................................................................. ............................1 -5
1.3 Monitoring Year 3 Summary .......................................................................... ............................1 -5
Section 2: METHODOLOGY ................................................................................... ............................2 -1
Section3: REFERENCES ..................................................................................... ............................... 3 -1
APPENDICES
Vegetation Plot Data
Appendix 1
General Tables and Figures
Figure 1
Project Vicinity Map
Figure 2a -b
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 -d
Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Table 6
Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Stream Photographs
Vegetation Photographs
Appendix 3
Vegetation Plot Data
Table 7
Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Table 8a -b
CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Table 9
Planted and Total Stem Counts (Species by Plot with Annual Means)
Appendix 4
Morphological Summary Data and Plots
Table 10a -b
Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table 11
Monitoring Data — Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters
— Cross - Section)
Table 12a -d
Monitoring Data — Stream Reach Data Summary
Longitudinal Profile Plots
Cross - Section Plots
Reachwide and Cross - Section Pebble Count Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report— FINAL v

Appendix 5 Hydrology Data
Table 13 Verification of Bankfull Events
Table 14 Wetland Gage Attainment Summary
Groundwater Gage Plots
Monthly Rainfall Data
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report— FINAL vi

Section 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site, hereafter referred to as the Sites, is located in Rockingham
County within the Cape Fear River Basin (USGS Hydrologic Unit 03030002) near the town of Reidsville,
North Carolina. The Stream Site is located south of Turner Road, east of the intersection of Turner Road
and Way Street in the City of Reidsville, North Carolina. The Wetland Site is located approximately 3,000
feet southwest of the intersection of NC Highway 150 and Mizpah Church Road, south of the City of
Reidsville. The Sites are located in the Inner Piedmont Belt of the Piedmont Physiographic Province (USGS,
1998). The project watersheds consists of forested, developed, and cultivated lands. The drainage area
for the Stream Site is 3,245 acres at the lower end of Little Troublesome Creek.
The project stream reaches consist of Little Troublesome Creek, Irvin Creek and one unnamed tributary
(UT) to the Little Troublesome Creek (stream restoration approach). Mitigation work within the Site
included restoring 4,988 linear feet (LF) of perennial and intermittent stream channel and restoring,
enhancing, and creating 17.3 acres (ac) of riparian wetland. The stream and wetland areas were also
planted with native vegetation to improve habitat and protect water quality. Construction activities were
completed by Fluvial Solutions in May 2012. Planting and seeding activities were completed by Bruton
Natural Systems, Inc. May 2012. A conservation easement has been recorded on the Sites and is in place
along the stream and wetland riparian corridors to protect them in perpetuity; 33.0 ac (Deed Book 1411,
Page Number 2458) owned by Wildlands Little Troublesome Creek Holdings, LLC and 19.0 ac (Deed Book
1412, Page Number 1685) owned by Jerry Apple. Directions and a map of the Site are provided in Figure
1 and project components are illustrated for the Site in Figures 2a and 2b.
1.1 Project Goals and Objectives
Prior to construction activities, the most significant watershed stressors identified during the technical
assessment were stream bank erosion and instability. Other stressors included declining aquatic habitat,
loss of forest, degraded riparian buffers, loss of wetlands, lack of urban stormwater detention, and water
quality problems related to increased sediment and nutrient loadings. As a result of the aforementioned
stressors, the Stream Site and Wetland Site had poor water quality due to sediment pollution and poor
habitat due to lack of riparian and wetland vegetation. In particular, the Stream Site lacked stable
streambank vegetation despite being surrounded by mature vegetation. The Stream Site also lacked in-
stream bed diversity and exhibited unstable geomorphic conditions. Table 4 in Appendix 1 and Tables
10a, 10b, and 10c in Appendix 4 present the pre- restoration conditions in detail.
The Sites were designed to meet the over - arching goals as described in the mitigation plan (2011) to
address the effects from watershed and project site stressors. The project is intended to provide
numerous ecological benefits within the Cape Fear River Basin. While many of these benefits are limited
to the Site project area, others, such as pollutant removal and improved aquatic and terrestrial habitat,
have more far - reaching effects. The following project specific primary goals established in the mitigation
plan include:
• Stabilize stream dimensions;
• Stabilize stream pattern and profile;
• Establish proper substrate distribution throughout stream;
• Establish wetland hydrology for restored wetlands; and
• Restore native vegetation throughout wetlands and buffer zones.
kLittle Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report— FINAL 1 -1

Secondary project goals (unmeasured) established in the mitigation plan were to address the effects from
watershed and project site stressors include:
• Decrease nutrient and urban runoff pollutant levels;
• Decrease sediment input;
• Decrease water temperature and increase dissolved oxygen levels;
• Create appropriate in- stream habitat;
• Create appropriate terrestrial habitat; and
• Decrease channel velocities.
The primary and secondary project goals were addressed through the following project objectives:
• Riffle cross - sections of the restoration and enhancement reaches were constructed to remain
stable and will show little change in bankfull area, maximum depth ratio, and width -to -depth
ratio over time.
• The project was constructed so that the bedform features of the restoration reaches will
remain stable overtime. This includes riffles that will remain steeper and shallower than the
pools and pools that are deep with flat water surface slopes. The relative percentage of riffles
and pools will not change significantly over time. Banks will be constructed so that bank
height ratios will remain very near to 1.0 for nearly all of the restoration reaches.
• Stream substrate will remain coarse in the riffles and finer in the pools.
• A free groundwater surface will be present within 12 inches of the ground surface in the
restored wetland areas for 7 percent of the growing season measured on consecutive days
under typical precipitation conditions.
• Native vegetation appropriate for the wetland and riparian buffer zones were planted
throughout both the Wetland and Stream Sites. The planted trees will become well
established and survival criteria will be met.
• Off -site nutrient input will be absorbed on -site by filtering flood flows through restored
floodplain areas and wetlands, where flood flows can disperse through native vegetation and
be captured in vernal pools. Increased surface water residency time will provide contact
treatment time and groundwater recharge potential.
• Sediment input from eroding stream banks was reduced by installing bioengineering and in-
stream structures while creating a stable channel form using geomorphic design principles.
Sediment from off -site sources will be captured by deposition on restored floodplain areas
where native vegetation will slow overland flow velocities.
• Restored riffle /step -pool sequences where distinct points of re- aeration can occur will allow
for oxygen levels to be maintained in the perennial reaches. Creation of deep pool zones will
lower temperature, helping to maintain dissolved oxygen concentrations. Establishment and
maintenance of riparian buffers will create long -term shading of the channel flow to minimize
thermal heating.
• A channel form that includes riffle /pool sequences and gravel and cobble zones creating
habitat for macroinvertebrates and fish. Large woody debris, rock structures, root wads, and
native stream bank vegetation were introduced to substantially increase habitat value.
• Adjacent buffer areas were restored by removing invasive vegetation and planting native
vegetation. These areas will be allowed to receive more regular and inundating flows.
Riparian wetland areas were restored and enhanced to provide wetland habitat.
• By allowing for more overbank flooding and by increasing channel roughness, local channel
velocities can be reduced. This will allow for less bank shear stress, formation of refuge zones
during large storm events and zonal sorting of depositional material.
kLittle Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report— FINAL 1 -2

The design streams and wetlands were restored to the appropriate type based on the surrounding
landscape, climate, and natural vegetation communities but also with strong consideration to existing
watershed conditions and trajectory. The mitigation project was developed to restore a high quality of
riparian function to the streams, wetlands, and riparian corridors. The final mitigation plan was submitted
and accepted by the NCEEP in June of 2011. Construction activities were completed by Fluvial Solutions
and Land Mechanic Design, Inc in May of 2012. Planting and seeding activities were completed by Bruton
Natural Systems, Inc. in May 2012. Baseline monitoring (MY -0) was conducted between April and May
2012. Annual monitoring will be conducted for five years with the close -out anticipated to commence in
2019 given the success criteria are met. Appendix 1 provides more detailed project activity, history,
contact information, and watershed /site background information for this project.
1.2 Monitoring Year 3 Data Assessment
Annual monitoring and quarterly site visits were conducted during monitoring year 3 (MY -3) 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 Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Plan (2011).
1.2.1 Vegetative Assessment
Planted woody vegetation is being monitored in accordance with the guidelines and procedures
developed by the Carolina Vegetation Survey - NCEEP Level 2 Protocol (Lee et al., 2008). A total of 35 (22
at the Wetland Site; 13 at the Stream Site) vegetation plots were established during the baseline
monitoring within the project easement areas using standard 10 meter by 10 meter vegetation
monitoring plots. Due to the narrow planted corridor along UT1, vegetation plots were not established.
Instead, a visual assessment of the planted corridor is used to evaluate vegetation growth success. The
final vegetative success criteria will be the survival of 260 planted stems per acre in the riparian corridor
of the Stream Site at the end of MY -5, and 200 planted stems per acre within the Wetland Site at the end
of year seven monitoring (MY -7). The interim measure of vegetative success for the Stream and Wetland
Sites will be the survival of at least 320 planted stems per acre at the end of the third monitoring year
(MY -3).
The MY -3 vegetative survey was completed in June 2014. The 2014 annual vegetation monitoring resulted
in an average stem density of 498 stems per acre for the Wetland Site, which is greater than the interim
requirement of 320 stems /acre and approximately 29% less than the baseline (MY -0) density recorded
(701 stems /acre). At Wetland Site, three of the plots did not meet the interim success criteria and
averaged 135 stems per acre; however with the inclusion of volunteer species the plots do meet the
success criteria. There was an average of 12 stems per plot compared to 17 stems per plot during MY -0
for the Wetland Site. All plots at the Stream Site met the MY -3 target of 320 stems per acre. The average
stem density on the Stream Site was 732 stems /acre, which is also greater than the interim requirement,
but approximately 23% less than the baseline density recorded (953 stems /acre). There was an average
of 18 stems per plot compared to 24 stems per plot in MY -0 for the Stream Site. Please refer to Appendix
2 for vegetation plot photographs and the vegetation condition assessment table and Appendix 3 for
vegetation data tables.
1.2.2 Vegetation Areas of Concern
Isolated areas of invasive species including kudzu (Pueraria montana), multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora),
and Japanese stiltgrass (Microstegium vimineum) have been documented at the site. However, the
presence of these species do not appear to be affecting the survivability of planted stems. These areas
will be closely monitored during subsequent site visits and controlled if deemed necessary.
kLittle Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report— FINAL 1 -3

1.2.3 Stream Assessment
Morphological surveys for the MY -1 were conducted in May 2014. With the exception of some isolated
areas of bank erosion and pool deposition, all streams within the Site are stable with little to no erosion
and have met the success criteria for MY -3. Please refer to Appendix 2 for the visual assessment table,
Integrated Current Condition Plan View, and reference photographs. Refer to Appendix 4 for the
morphological data and plots.
In general, cross - sections show little to no change in the bankfull area, maximum depth ratio, or width -
to -depth ratio. Surveyed riffle cross - sections fell within the parameters defined for channels of the
appropriate Rosgen stream type. The surveyed longitudinal profile data for the stream restoration
reaches illustrates that the bedform features are maintaining lateral and vertical stability. The riffles are
remaining steeper and shallower than the pools, while the pools are remaining deeper than riffles and
maintaining flat water surface slopes. The longitudinal profiles show that the bank height ratios remain
very near to 1.0 for all of the restoration reaches. Deposition within pools was documented in the
longitudinal profile along UT1. The deposition is not affecting channel stability but will be monitored.
Overall in- stream structures, such as root wads used to enhance channel habitat and stability on the
outside bank of meander bends are providing stability and habitat as designed. Bank scour was
documented in one outside meander bend on Little Troublesome Creek (approximate STA 208 +00 -
208+50). This area will be repaired in the winter of 2015. Details regarding the maintenance plan are
discussed below in section 1.2.7.
Pattern data will only be completed in MY -5 if there are indicators from the profile or cross - sections that
significant geomorphic adjustments have occurred. No changes were observed that indicated a change
in the radius of curvature or channel belt width; therefore, pattern data is not included in the MY -3
report.
1.2.4 Stream Areas of Concern
An isolated area of bank erosion was documented on Little Troublesome Creek and is scheduled to be
stabilized in the winter of 2015. A small beaver was noted on Irvin Creek Reach 1 (approximate STA
19 +10) during a site walk with EEP on December 11, 2014. Details regarding the tentative maintenance
plan are discussed below in section 1.2.7. Depositional areas observed on UT1 will be monitored for
indications of long term instability and a maintenance plan will implemented if deemed necessary.
1.2.5 Hydrology Assessment
At the end of the five year monitoring period, two or more bankfull events must have occurred in separate
years within the restoration reaches. Bankfull events were recorded on Irvin Creek, Little Troublesome
Creek, and UT1 by crest gage or onsite observations (wrack lines) during the MY -1, MY -2 and M -3 data
collection. The Site has met the hydrologic success criteria. Please refer to Appendix 5 for hydrologic
data.
1.2.6 Wetland Assessment
Eight groundwater monitoring gages were established during the baseline monitoring within the wetland
restoration, enhancement, and creation zones. The gages were installed at appropriate locations so that
the data collected will provide an indication of groundwater levels throughout the site. To provide data
for the determination of the growing season for the wetland areas, two soil temperature loggers were
installed; one within each wetland, to collect additional growing season data. These probes can be used
to better define the growing season using the threshold soil temperature of 41 degrees or higher
kLittle Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report— FINAL 1 -4

measured at a depth of 12 inches (USACE, 2010). The probes indicate a longer growing season than that
defined for Rockingham County by the WETS station data. A barotroll logger and a rain gage were also
installed onsite. All monitoring gages were downloaded on a quarterly basis and maintained on an as
needed basis. The success criteria for wetland hydrology is to have a free groundwater surface within 12
inches of the ground surface for 7 percent of the growing season, which is measured on consecutive days
under typical precipitation conditions. All groundwater gages met the annual wetland hydrology success
criteria for MY -3. Please refer to Appendix 2 for the groundwater gage locations and Appendix 5 for
groundwater hydrology data and plots.
1.2.7 Maintenance Plan
The isolated area of bank erosion documented on Little Troublesome Creek will be stabilized in the winter
of 2015. Existing root wads will be lowered and geo lifts will be installed with willow whips and stakes.
EEP has provided contacts for Wildlands to address beaver activity along Irvin Creek. Wildlands will
provide results in the MY -4 report.
1.3 Monitoring Year 3 Summary
With the exception of an isolated area of bank erosion on Little Troublesome Creek and pool deposition
on UT1, all streams within the Site are stable and functioning as designed. Deposition observed on UT1
will be monitored for indications of long term instability. The isolated area of bank erosion documented
on Little Troublesome Creek will be stabilized in the winter of 2015. The average stem density for the Site
is on track to meeting the MY -5 success criteria; however, a few individual vegetation plots did not meet
the MY -3 success criteria as noted in the Integrated Current Condition Plan View. The MY -5 stream
hydrology attainment requirement was met in MY -2. However, there have been two additional bankfull
events documented with the crest gauges on the restoration reaches in MY -3. All groundwater gages met
the MY -3 success criteria.
Summary information and data related to the performance of various project and monitoring elements
can be found in the tables and figures in the report appendices. Narrative background and supporting
information formerly found in these reports can be found in the Mitigation Plan documents available on
NCEEP's website. All raw data supporting the tables and figures in the appendices are available from
NCEEP upon request. Summary information /data related to various project and monitoring elements can
be found in the tables and figures in the report appendices. Narrative background and supporting
information formerly found in these reports can be found in the (formerly Restoration Plan) documents
available on EEP's website. All raw data supporting the tables and figures in the appendices is available
from EEP upon request.
kLittle Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report— FINAL 1 -5

Section 2: METHODOLOGY
Geomorphic data was collected following the standards outlined in The Stream Channel Reference Site:
An Illustrated Guide to Field Techniques (Harrelson et al., 1994) and in the Stream Restoration: A Natural
Channel Design Handbook (Doll et al., 2003). Cross - sectional data were collected using a total station and
were georeferenced. All Integrated Current Condition Mapping was recorded using a Trimble handheld
GPS with sub -meter accuracy and processed using Pathfinder and ArcView. Crest gages and pressure
transducers were installed in surveyed riffle cross - sections and monitored quarterly. Hydrology
attainment installation and monitoring methods are in accordance with the USACE (2003) standards.
Vegetation monitoring protocols followed the Carolina Vegetation Survey -NCEEP Level 2 Protocol (Lee et
al., 2008). Reporting follows the NCEEP Monitoring Report Template and Guidance Version 1.2.1 (NCEEP,
2009).
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report— FINAL 2 -1

Section 3: REFERENCES
Doll, B.A., Grabow, G.L., Hall, K.A., Halley, J., Harman, W.A., Jennings, G.D., and Wise, D.E. 2003. Stream
Restoration A Natural Channel Design Handbook.
Harrelson, C.C., Rawlins, C.L., Potyondy, J.P. 1994. Stream Channel Reference Sites: An Illustrated Guide
to Field Technique. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM -245. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 61 p.
Lee, M.T., Peet, R.K., S.D., Wentworth, T.R. 2008. CVS -EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation Version
4.2. Retrieved from http: / /cvs.bio.unc.edu/ protocol /cvs -eep- protocol- v4.2- lev1- 5.pdf.
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP). 2009. Monitoring Report Template and
Guidance. Version 1.2.1. Raleigh, NC.
NC Interagency Review Team (IRT). 2009. DRAFT (For Public Review and Comment) Regulatory
Guidance for the Calculation of Stream and Buffer Mitigation Credit for Buffer Widths
Different From Standard Minimum Widths. Version 4.4.
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.
State Climate Office of North Carolina (SCONC). 2013. CRONOS Database ECONet weather station at
Upper Piedmont Research Station (REID), in Reidsville, NC.
http: / /nc- climate. ncsu. edu /cronos ?station =REID &temporal =daily
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines. USACE, NCDENR-
DWQ, USEPA, NCWRC.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2002. Natural Resources Conservation Service, Climate
Information for Catawba County, NC (1971- 2000). WETS Station: Reidsville NW, NC7202.
http : / /www.wcc.nres.usda.gov /ftpref /support /climate /wetlands /nc /37157.txt
United States Geological Survey (USGS). 1998. North Carolina Geology.
http: / /www. geology. enr .state.nc.us /usgs /carolina.htm
Wildlands Engineering, Inc (2011). Little Troublesome Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan. NCEEP, Raleigh,
NC.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 2011. Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site Baseline Monitoring
Document and As -Built Baseline Report. NCEEP, Raleigh, NC.
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report— FINAL 3 -1

APPENDIX 1. General Tables and Figures

03/'17)103220060
:nII l,Iub
03010103240010 03010103
�010J,Q3220060
i
l
i
Stream Site
'4MOP Location �I
f 0303000200030
6
03030002010010
r
f
,t
610 1•'�I%�1� 1
�♦ 1
,t
03030002
J
The subject project site is an environmental restoration site of the
NCDENR Ecoysystem Enhancement Program (EEP) and is
encompassed by a recorded conservation easement, but is
bordered by land under private ownership. Accessing the site may
require traversing areas near or along the easement boundary and
therefore access by the general public is not permitted. Access by
authorized personnel of state and federal agencies or their
designees /contractors involved in the development, oversight,
and stewardship of the restoration site is permitted within the terms
and timeframes of their defined roles. Any intended site visitation or
activity by any person outside of these previously sanctioned roles
and activites requires prior coordination with EEP.
03010
t
k
' In
Hydrologic Unit Code (14)
- EEP Targeted Local Watershed
kQ
1030
r
03010104
03010104021010
Wetland Sibs
Location
" _,k 03030002010040
03030002020070
O'
y
'010104032010
Directions:
The proposed stream
mitigation project area
is located south of Turner
W11010111 Road, east of the
intersection of Turner
Road and Way Street in
the City of Reidsville,
North Carolina. The
proposed wetland
mitigation project area
is located approximately
3,000 feet southwest of
` the intersection of NC
Highway 150 and Mizpah
Church Road, south of
the City of Reidsville.
Figure 1 Project Vicinity Map
0 0.75 1.5 Miles Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
I 1 I NCEEP Project Number 94640
W I L 13 L A N 13 S "Ulrelellu Monitoring Yea r 3
t NG I N LLRI NG �1.�ll
�• ° °^^^^ Rockingham County, NC
03030002010020
J
The subject project site is an environmental restoration site of the
NCDENR Ecoysystem Enhancement Program (EEP) and is
encompassed by a recorded conservation easement, but is
bordered by land under private ownership. Accessing the site may
require traversing areas near or along the easement boundary and
therefore access by the general public is not permitted. Access by
authorized personnel of state and federal agencies or their
designees /contractors involved in the development, oversight,
and stewardship of the restoration site is permitted within the terms
and timeframes of their defined roles. Any intended site visitation or
activity by any person outside of these previously sanctioned roles
and activites requires prior coordination with EEP.
03010
t
k
' In
Hydrologic Unit Code (14)
- EEP Targeted Local Watershed
kQ
1030
r
03010104
03010104021010
Wetland Sibs
Location
" _,k 03030002010040
03030002020070
O'
y
'010104032010
Directions:
The proposed stream
mitigation project area
is located south of Turner
W11010111 Road, east of the
intersection of Turner
Road and Way Street in
the City of Reidsville,
North Carolina. The
proposed wetland
mitigation project area
is located approximately
3,000 feet southwest of
` the intersection of NC
Highway 150 and Mizpah
Church Road, south of
the City of Reidsville.
Figure 1 Project Vicinity Map
0 0.75 1.5 Miles Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
I 1 I NCEEP Project Number 94640
W I L 13 L A N 13 S "Ulrelellu Monitoring Yea r 3
t NG I N LLRI NG �1.�ll
�• ° °^^^^ Rockingham County, NC

Figure 2a Project Component /Asset Map
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
4r ,� Stream Site
0 250 500 Feet NCEEP Project Number 94640
W I L D� L A N D S i' ftaFe 1 1ITLIl'd Monitoring Year 3
ENGINEERING
rrnn�
Rockingham County, NC

Figure 2b Project Component /Asset Map
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
Wetland Site
0 125 250 Feet NCEEP Project Number 94640
WI L D I_, A N D S�'� le eilt Monitoring Year 3
E N I N t E it1 NG t
1'MM'.fwM
Rockingham County, NC

Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 3
Mitigation Credits
StreaMA
Riparian Wetland
Non - Riparian Wetland
Buffer
Nitrogen
Nutrient Offet
Phosphorous
Nutrient Offset
Type
R
RE
R
RE
R
RE
Totals
5,052
N/A
10.3
2.8
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Project Components
Reach ID
As -Built
Stationing/
Location
Existing
Footage (LF) /
Acreage (Ac)
Approach
Restoration or Restoration
Equivalent
Restoration Footage (LF) /
Acreage (Ac)*
Mitigation Ratio
Irvin Creek -Reach 1
102 +10 to 123+05
1,640
Priority 1
Restoration
1,793
1:1
Irvin Creek -Reach 2
123 +05to 142 +37
1,505
Priority 1
Restoration
1,882
1:1
Little Troublesome Creek
200 +00 to
211 +71
1,080
Priority 1
Restoration
1,080
1:1
UT1
400 +00 to
402 +33
184
Priority 1/2
Restoration
233
1:1
RW1
N/A
N/A
Restoration
Restoration
8.7
1:1
RW1
N/A
N/A
Creation
Restoration Equivalent
4.9
3:1
RW1
N/A
3.7
Enhancement
Restoration Equivalent
3.7
1.3:1 **
Component Summation
Restoration Level
Stream (linear feet)
Riparian Wetland
(acres)
Non - Riparian Wetland
(acres)
Buffer
(square feet)
Upland (acres)
Riverine
Non - Riverine
Restoration
4,988
8.7
Enhancement
3.7
Enhancement I
-
Enhancement II
Creation
4.9
Preservation
High Quality Preservation
BMP Elements
Elements
Location
Purpose /Function
Notes
OR = Bioretention Cell; 5 F= Sand Filter; SW = Stormwater Wetland; WDP = Wet Detention Pond; DDP = Dry Detention Pond; FS = Filter Strip; S = Grassed
Swale; LS = Level Spreader; NI = Natural Infiltration Area; FB = Forested Buffer
AStream Mitigation Units were calculated following the NC IRT Draft Regulatory Guidance for the Calculation of Stream and Buffer Mitigation Credit (March
11, 2009).
* Note that lengths do not match stationing because channel sections that do not generate credit have been removed from length calculations.
* *The higher enhancement ratio was agreed to with Todd Tugwell, with the USACE, during a March 9, 2011 meeting for several reasons. The higher ratio is warranted
because of the low quality of the existing wetland enhancement zone. Previously the enhancement zone, like the restoration and creation zones, was used for farming.
The hydrology of the site has been altered by a drainage ditch and a berm along Little Troublesome Creek. There is no vegetation on the site except for some areas of
grasses and cultivated crops. Enhancement activities performed on the site will include improving the hydrology of the enhancement zone (as well as the creation and
restoration zones) and restoring the native vegetation. Therefore the functional uplift of the enhancement portion of the project will be nearly the same as that of the
restoration zone and, thus, a high ratio for enhancement is appropriate.

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 3
Activity or Report
Date Collection
Complete
Completion or
Scheduled Delivery
Mitigation Plan
June 2011
June 2011
Final Design - Construction Plans
August 2011
August 2011
Construction
April 2012
May 2012
Temporary S &E mix applied to entire project areal
April 2012
May 2012
Permanent seed mix applied to reach /segments
April 2012
May 2012
Bare root plantings for reach /segments
April 2012
May 2012
Baseline Monitoring Document (Year 0 Monitoring - baseline)
April /May 2012
June 2012
Year 1 Monitoring
Sept /Oct 2012
December 2012
Year 2 Monitoring
June /October 2013
December 2013
Year 3 Monitoring
May /November 2014
December 2014
Year 4 Monitoring
2015
December 2015
Year 5 Monitoring
2016
December 2016
Year 6 MonitoringZ
2017
December 2017
Year 7 MonitoringZ
2018
December 2018
'Seed and mulch is added as each section of construction is completed.
Monitoring Year 6 and 7 include monitoring the Wetland Site only.
Table 3. Project Contact Table
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 3
Designer
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225
Jeff Keaton, PE
Raleigh, NC 27609
919.851.9986
Construction Contractor
Fluvial Solutions
Peter Jelenevsky
PO Box 28749
Raleigh, NC 28749
Planting Contractor - Stream Site
Fluvial Solutions
Peter Jelenevsky
PO Box 28749
Raleigh, NC 28749
Planting Contractor - Wetland Site
Bruton Natural Systems, Inc.
PO Box 1197
Charlie Bruton
Freemont, NC 27830
919.242.6555
Seeding Contractor - Stream and Wetland Site
Fluvial Solutions
Peter Jelenevsky
PO Box 28749
Raleigh, NC 28749
Seed Mix Sources
Mellow Marsh Farm
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Arborgen
Dykes and Son Nursery
NC Forestry Service, Claridge Nursery
Monitoring Performers
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Stream, Vegetation, and Wetland Monitoring POC
Kirsten Y. Gimbert
704.332.7754, ext. 110

Table 4. Project Baseline Information and Attributes
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 3
Project Information
Project Name
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
County
Rockingham
Project Area (acres)
Stream Site: 33 acres, Wetland Site: 19 acres
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude)
36° 20'96"N, 79° 39' 31 "W
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province
Inner Piedmont Belt of the Piedmont
River Basin
Cape Fear
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8 -digit
03030002
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14 -digit
03030002010030
DWQ Sub -basin
03 -06 -01
Project Drainiage Area (acres)
3,245
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area
17%
CGIA Land Use Classification
55% Forest Land,17% Cultivated Land, 28% Developed
Reach Summary Information
Parameters
Irvin Creek
Reach 1
Irvin Creek
Reach 2
Little
Troublesome
Creek
UT1
RW1
Length of reach (linear feet) - Post - Restoration
2,095
1,932
1,171
233
N/A
Drainage area (acres)
525
584
3,245
62
N/A
NCDWQ stream identification score
44.5
44.5
45.5
26.5
N/A
NCDWQ Water Quality Classification
C
C
C; NSW
C
C; NSW
Morphological Desription (stream type)
Perennial
Perennial
Perennial
Intermittent
N/A
Evolutionary trend (Simon's Model) - Pre - Restoratior
Stage IV
Stage IV
Stage IV
Stage IV
N/A
Underlying mapped soils
CsA
CsA
CsA
CsA
CsA / HcA
Drainage class
Somewhat
Poorly- Drained
Somewhat
Poorly- Drained
Somewhat
Poorly- Drained
Somewhat
Poorly- Drained
Somewhat
Poorly- Drained
/ Poorly
Drained
Soil Hydric status
No
No
No
No
No / Yes
Slope
0 -2%
0 -2%
0 -2%
0 -2%
0 -2%
FEMA classification
Zone AE
Native vegetation community
Bottom -land forest
Percent composition of exotic invasive vegetation - Post - Restoratior
0%
Regulatory Considerations
Regulation
Applicable?
Resolved?
Supporting Documentation
Waters of the United States - Section 404
X
X
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Plan; USAGE
Nationwide Permit No.27 and DWQ 401 Water
Quality Certification No. 3689
Waters of the United States - Section 401
X
X
Division of Land Quality (Dam Safety)
N/A
N/A
N/A
Endangered Species Act
X
X
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Plan; studies
found "no effect" (letter from USFWS)
Historic Preservation Act
X
X
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Plan; No
historic resources were found to be impacted
(letter from SHPO)
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) /Coastal Area Management Act
(CAMA)
N/A
N/A
N/A
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
X
X
Approved CLOMR
Essential Fisheries Habitat
N/A
N/A
N/A
*LF provided includes portions of the stream that will be monitored and has been reconstructed, but for which mitigation credit will not be claimed. Please refer to Table 1 for the
credit summary lengths.

APPENDIX 2. Visual Assessment Data

Figure 3.0 Integrated Current Condition Plan View
(Key)
ktvv Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
0 250 500 Feet Stream Site
S 1W I L D L A N D 111 1 NCEEP Project Number 94640
ENGINEERING "p w f
Monitoring Year 3
Rockingham County, NC

Figure 3.1 Integrated Current Condition Plan View
'.— t (Sheet 1 of 4)
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
0 75 150 Feet Stream Site
W I L D LA N D S +, ft11I 11t I I NCEEP Project Number 94640
ENGINEERING
" ^°"� Monitoring Year 3
Rockingham County, NC

Figure 3.2 Integrated Current Condition Plan View
(Sheet 2 of 4)
kv Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
0 75 150 Feet Stream Site
W I L D L A N D S +, Ja , I R1 I I NCEEP Project Number 94640
ENGINEERING
pp.w " Monitoring Year 3
Rockingham County, NC

Figure 3.3 Integrated Current Condition Plan View
(Sheet 3 of 4)
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
Stream Site
NCEEP Project Number 94640
Monitoring Year 3
Rockingham County, NC
0 75 150 Feet
WILDLANDS'�
I I
ENGINEERING
1� IilCtlt i
..f...
(Sheet 3 of 4)
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
Stream Site
NCEEP Project Number 94640
Monitoring Year 3
Rockingham County, NC

Figure 3.4 Integrated Current Condition Plan View
`� (Sheet 4 of 4)
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
0 75 150 Feet Stream Site
W I I� I7 L A N D S r +e fta 1 i�11t I I NCEEP Project Number 94640
ENGINEERING JFL�
" ^°"� Monitoring Year 3
Rockingham County, NC

� Figure 3.5 Integrated Current Condition Plan View
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
Wetland Site
W I L D L A N D S , ft fe— NCEEP Project Number 94640
1 ➢iL11t 0 125 250 Feet
ENGINEERING s I i I
rraaaw.` Monitoring Year 3
Rockingham County, NC

Table 5a. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94640)
Irvin Creek Reach 1 (2,095 LF)
Monitoring Year 3
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. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0
0
100%
Degredation
0
0
100%
(Riffle and Run units)
2. Riffle Condition
Texture /Substrate
16
16
100%
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
16
16
100%
Lenth Appropriate
16
16
100%
Condition
Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
16
16
100%
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide)
16
16
100%
2. Bank
1. Scoured /Eroded
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and /or scour
and erosion
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Banks undercut /overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable and are
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
providing habitat
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3. Engineered
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dilodged boulders or logs.
36
36
100%
Structures
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill
24
24
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
24
24
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15 %.
31
31
100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining `Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth ? 1.6
Rootwads /lo s providing some cover at baseflow.
12
12
10091-

Table 5b. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94640)
Irvin Creek Reach 2 (1,932 LF)
Monitoring Year 3
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub- Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
performing
as Intended
Total
Number in
As -Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
%Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust % for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0
0
100%
Degredation
0
0
100%
(Riffle and Run units)
2. Riffle Condition
Texture /Substrate
16
16
100%
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
15
15
100%
Condition
Lenth Appropriate
15
15
100%
Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
15
15
100%
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide)
15
15
100%
2. Bank
1. Scoured /Eroded
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and /or scour
and erosion
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Banks undercut /overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable and are
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
providing habitat
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3. Engineered
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dilodged boulders or logs.
35
35
100%
Structures
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill
19
19
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
9
9
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15 %.
19
19
100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining -Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth ? 1.6
Rootwads /lo s providing some cover at baseflow.
19
19
100%

Table 5c. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94640)
UTl (233 LF)
Monitoring Year 3
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub - Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
performing
as Intended
Total
Number in
As -Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
%Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust % for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0
0
100%
Degredation
0
0
100%
(Riffle and Run units)
2. Riffle Condition
Texture /Substrate
6
6
100%
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
4
4
100%
Condition
Lenth Appropriate
4
4
100%
Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
4
4
100%
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide)
4
4
1
F,00%_]
2. Bank
1. Scoured /Eroded
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and /or scour
and erosion
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Banks undercut /overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable and are
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
providing habitat
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3. Engineered
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dilodged boulders or logs.
6
6
100%
Structures
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill
6
6
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
0
0
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15 %.
0
0
100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining -Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth ? 1.6
Rootwads /lo s providing some cover at baseflow.
0
0
100%

Table 5d. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94640)
Little Troublesome Creek (1,171 LF)
Monitoring Year 3
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub - Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
performing
as Intended
Total
Number in
As -Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
%Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust % for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0
0
100%
Degredation
0
0
100%
(Riffle and Run units)
2. Riffle Condition
Texture /Substrate
5
5
100%
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
4
4
100%
Condition
Lenth Appropriate
4
4
100%
Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
4
4
100%
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide)
4
4
1
F,00%_]
2. Bank
1. Scoured /Eroded
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and /or scour
and erosion
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Banks undercut /overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable and are
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
providing habitat
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
1
80
96%
0
0
96%
Totals
1
80
96%
0
0
96%
3. Engineered
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dilodged boulders or logs.
9
9
100%
Structures
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill
6
6
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
1
1
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15 %.
4
4
100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining -Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth ? 1.6
Rootwads /lo s providing some cover at baseflow.
4
4
100%

Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (EEP Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 3
Planted Acreage 33.7
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Mapping
Threshold
(acres)
Number of
Polygons
Combined
Acreage
% of
Planted
Acreage
Bare Areas
Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material
0.1
0
0
0.00%
Low Stem Density Areas
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 4, or 5 stem count criteria.
0.1
0
0.00
0.0%
Total
0
0.00
0.0%
Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor
Areas with woody stems of a size class that are obviously small given the monitoring year.
0.25 acres
0
0
0%
Cumulative Total
0
0.0
0%
Easement Acreage 52
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Mapping
Threshold
(SF)
Number of
Polygons
Combined
Acreage
% of
Planted
Acreage
Invasive Areas of Concern
Areas of points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
1000
8
1.23
4%
Easement Encroachment Areas
Areas of points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
none
0
0
0%

Stream Photographs

TV,
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report —DRAFT
a L
5
�
K z1 } t5
" Y$_�
i art
t -
i'
�}
yr{ g�.Y
Aa
Photo Point I — looking downstream (5/13/2014)
k r
1
�
!fs
A
5
• • Point looking • ,
• • Point looking • •
if a 1 9ti1 I Y Y
dtt
L,,22 C14 1�
;, 8.
FA A pi
1 f -
L 9 4i
o
4i', _a E �'` `s6 4'. .a-F�s i'•y'9'
/( v
,'j
d IS' 1•'
_ y�'>lFg. _
a
�
Photo Point 3 — looking upstream (5/13/2014)
Photo Point 3 — looking downstream (5/13/2014)
TV,
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report —DRAFT

Photo Point 4 — looking upstream (5/13/2014) 1 Photo Point 4 — looking downstream (5/13/2014) 1
Photo Point 5 — looking upstream (5/13/2014) 1 Photo Point 5 — looking downstream (5/13/2014)
Photo Point 6 — looking upstream (5/13/2014) I Photo Point 6 — looking downstream (5/13/2014)
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report —DRAFT

Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report —DRAFT
I d
i
1�41
t
y�
i
6 1
der.
t
g�
'
I
�.""� �' '� k .. fro. yz r
= -
•
Photo Point 7 — looking upstream /
downstream /
~1t -TU. i etF .d,+. 9 L .o ff .T:l
� • ..' _ -• �
S 4t�-
� �
a ��� �
; r � •
� �
r ! �
, lr.•
J Pte.
E � .�
• s „.g3• a c b
s#� s
�
h t
T
f'
...�fu �E d
I�AI• �°`•.
a. '�4 do �;.`
Photo Point 8 — looking upstream (5/13/2014)
Photo Point 8 — looking downstream (5/13/2014)
i
0
IRA
•'E 'sTi��
� iA n � � .� tl
: fa..' zt�, 55
s y � 58V x b`:..
b -
_
y
*
Y4
p
yg_ 6x y N!
i e '°tkYa2 ,�
yes•
Photo Point 9 — looking upstream (5/13/2014)
Photo Point 9 — looking downstream (5/13/2014)
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report —DRAFT

Photo Point 10 — looking upstream (5/13/2014) 1 Photo Point 10 — looking downstream (5/13/2014) 1
Photo Point 11— looking upstream (5/13/2014) 1 Photo Point 11— looking downstream (5/13/2014)
Photo Point 12 — looking upstream (5/13/2014) 1 Photo Point 12 — looking downstream (5/13/2014) I
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report —DRAFT

Photo Point 13 — looking upstream (5/13/2014) 1 Photo Point 13 — looking downstream (5/13/2014) 1
Photo Point 14 — looking upstream (5/13/2014) 1 Photo Point 14 — looking downstream (5/13/2014)
Photo Point 15 — looking upstream (5/13/2014) I Photo Point 15 — looking downstream (5/13/2014) I
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report —DRAFT

Photo Point 16 — looking upstream (5/13/2014) 1 Photo Point 16 — looking downstream (5/13/2014) 1
Photo Point 17 — looking upstream (5/13/2014) 1 Photo Point 17 — looking downstream (5/13/2014)
Photo Point 18 — looking upstream (5/13/2014) I Photo Point 18 — looking downstream (5/13/2014) I
NWLittle Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report —DRAFT

Photo Point 19 – looking upstream (5/13/2014) 1 Photo Point 19 – looking downstream (5/13/2014) 1
Photo Point 20– looking upstream - Irvin (5/13/2014) 1 Photo Point 20 – looking upstream – LTC (5/13/2014)
Photo Point 20 – looking downstream - LTC (5/13/2014) I
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report —DRAFT

Photo Point 21— looking upstream (5/13/2014) 1 Photo Point 21— looking downstream (5/13/2014) 1
Photo Point 22 — looking upstream (5/13/2014) 1 Photo Point 22 — looking downstream (5/13/2014)
Photo Point 23 — looking upstream (5/13/2014) 1 Photo Point 23 — looking downstream (5/13/2014) I
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report —DRAFT

Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report —DRAFT

Wetland Site Vegetation Photographs

Vegetation Plot 1 (06/12/2014) 1 Vegetation Plot 2 (06/12/2014) 1
Vegetation Plot 3 (06/12/2014) 1 Vegetation Plot 4 (06/12/2014) 1
Vegetation Plot 5 (06/12/2014) I Vegetation Plot 6 (06/12/2014) I
4W* Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report —DRAFT

Vegetation Plot 7 (06/12/2014) 1 Vegetation Plot 8 (06/12/2014) 1
Vegetation Plot 9 (06/12/2014) 1 Vegetation Plot 10 (06/12/2014) 1
Vegetation Plot 11 (06/12/2014) I Vegetation Plot 12 (06/12/2014) I
qww Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report —DRAFT

• xi9�k E,l, .y
Vegetation Plot 13 (06/12/2014) Vegetation Plot 14 (06/12/2014)
-
a` I
Vegetation Plot 15 (06/12/2014) 1 Vegetation Plot 16 (06/12/2014) 1
Vegetation Plot 17 (06/12/2014) I Vegetation Plot 18 (06/12/2014) I
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report —DRAFT

w
Vegetation Plot 19 (06/12/2014) Vegetation Plot 20 (06/12/2014)
Ipw
i :.
Vegetation Plot 21 (06/12/2014) I Vegetation Plot 22 (06/12/2014) I
I1r
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report —DRAFT

Stream Site Vegetation Photographs

S 3
`,,�
Vegetation Plot 23 (6/4/2014) Vegetationg Plot 24 (6/4/2014)
Vegetation Plot 25 (6/4/2014) 1 Vegetation Plot 26 (6/4/2014) 1
Vegetation Plot 27 (6/4/2014) I Vegetation Plot 28 (6/4/2014)
qwv Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report —DRAFT

Vegetation Plot 29 (6/4/2014) 1 Vegetation Plot 30 (6/4/2014) 1
Vegetation Plot 31 (6/4/2014) 1 Vegetation Plot 32 (6/4/2014) 1
Vegetation Plot 33 (6/4/2014) I Vegetation Plot 34 (6/4/2014) I
qww Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report —DRAFT

Vegetation Plot 35 (6/4/2014)
qww Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report —DRAFT

APPENDIX 3. Vegetation Plot Data

Table 7. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 3
Plot
MY3 Success Criteria Met
(Y /N)
Tract Mean
1
Y
91%
2
Y
3
Y
4
Y
5
Y
6
Y
7
Y
8
Y
9
Y
10
Y
11
Y
12
Y
13
Y
14
Y
15
N
16
N
17
N
18
Y
19
Y
20
Y
21
Y
22
Y
23
Y
24
Y
25
Y
26
Y
27
Y
28
Y
29
Y
30
Y
31
Y
32
Y
33
Y
34
Y
35
Y

Table 8a. CVS Vegetation Tables - Metadata
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94640)
Wetland Site
Monitoring Year 3
Report Prepared By
Coy McKenzie
Date Prepared
9/9/2014 8:59
database name
LTC - Wetland Site MY3 cvs- eep- entrytool- v2.3.1.mdb
database location
F: \Projects \005 -12700 Little Troublesome Creek \Monitoring \Monitoring Year 3 \Vegetation Assessment
DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT ------------
Metadata
Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a summary of project(s) and project data.
Proj, planted
Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre, for each year. This excludes live stakes.
Proj, total stems
Each project is listed with its TOTAL stems per acre, for each year. This includes live stakes, all planted stems, and all natural /volunteer stems.
Plots
List of plots surveyed with location and summary data (live stems, dead stems, missing, etc.).
Vigor
Frequency distribution of vigor classes for stems for all plots.
Vigor by Spp
Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species.
Damage
List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences and percent of total stems impacted by each.
Damage by Spp
Damage values tallied by type for each species.
Damage by Plot
Damage values tallied by type for each plot.
Planted Stems by Plot and Spp
A matrix of the count of PLANTED living stems of each species for each plot; dead and missing stems are excluded.
ALL Stems by Plot and spp
A matrix of the count of total living stems of each species (planted and natural volunteers combined) for each plat; dead and missing stems are excluded.
PROJECT SUMMARY-------------------------------------
Project Code
94640
project Name
Little Troublesome Creek - Cotton Rd Site
Description
Wetland Mitigation Site
Required Plots (calculated)
16
Sampled Plots
22

Table 8b. CVS Vegetation Tables - Metaclata
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94640)
Stream Site
Monitoring Year 3
Report Prepared By
Coy McKenzie
Date Prepared
9/9/20149:03
database name
LTC - Stream Site MY3 cvs- eep- entrytool- v2.3.1.mdb
database location
F: \Projects \005 -12700 Little Troublesome Creek \Monitoring \Monitoring Year 3 \Vegetation Assessment
DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT ------------
Metadata
Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a summary of project(s) and project data.
Proj, planted
Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre, for each year. This excludes live stakes.
Proj, total stems
Each project is listed with its TOTAL stems per acre, for each year. This includes live stakes, all planted stems, and all natural /volunteer stems.
Plots
List of plots surveyed with location and summary data (live stems, dead stems, missing, etc.).
Vigor
Frequency distribution of vigor classes for stems for all plots.
Vigor by Spp
Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species.
Damage
List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences and percent of total stems impacted by each.
Damage by Spp
Damage values tallied by type for each species.
Damage by Plot
Damage values tallied by type for each plot.
Planted Stems by Plot and Spp
A matrix of the count of PLANTED living stems of each species for each plot; dead and missing stems are excluded.
ALL Stems by Plot and spp
A matrix of the count of total living stems of each species (planted and natural volunteers combined) for each plot; dead and missing stems are excluded.
PROJECT SUMMARY-------------------------------------
Project Code
94640
project Name
Little Troublesome Mitigation Site
Description
Stream Mitigation Site
Required Plots (calculated)
13
Sampled Plots
13

Table 9. Planted and Total Stem Counts
Little Troublesome Creek (EEP Project No. 94640)
Wetland Site
Monitoring Year 3
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
PnoLS: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes
T: Total Stems
Current Plot Data (MY3 2014)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
94640 -WEI -0001
94640 -WEI -0002
94640 -WEI -0003
94640 -WEI -0004
94640 -WEI -0005
PnoLS
7P-all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
Acerrubrum
red maple
Tree
5
Alnusserrulata
hazel alder
Shrub
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
Cephalonthus occidentalis
common buttonbush
Shrub
20
12
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
4
4
4
Fraxinus omericana
white ash
Tree
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
3
3
15
7
7
7
3
3
14
11
11
11
Liquidombarstyracifluo
sweetgum
Tree
14
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
2
Nysso sylvatica
blackgum
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
5
5
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
7
7
7
2
2
2
5
5
5
3
3
3
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
2
2
2
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
4
4
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
Tree
Sombucus conodensis
Common Elderberry
IShrub
5
20
unknown
Shrub /Tree
Stem count
13
13
34
10
10
28
18
18
58
18
18
29
21
21
33
size (ACRES)
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
Species count
1 5
5
8
5
5
7
6
6
8
7
7
111 7
5
5
6
Stems per ACRE
1 526
526
1 1376
405
405
1133
728
728
2347
728
728
1 1174
850
850
1335
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
PnoLS: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes
T: Total Stems

Table 9. Planted and Total Stem Counts
Little Troublesome Creek (EEP Project No. 94640)
Wetland Site
Monitoring Year 3
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
Pnol-S: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes
T: Total Stems
Current Plot Data (MY3 2014)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
94640 -WEI -0006
94640 -WEI -0007
94640 -WEI -0008
94640 -WEI -0009
94640 -WEI -0010
Pnol-S
P--all
T
Pnol-S
P -all
T
Pnol-S
P -all
T
Pnol-S
P -all
T
Pnol-S
P -all
T
Acerrubrum
red maple
Tree
3
3
Alnus serruloto
hazel alder
Shrub
1
1
1
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
6
6
6
2
2
2
Cepholonthus occidentalis
common buttonbush
Shrub
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
5
5
5
2
2
2
2
2
2
Fraxinus americans
white ash
Tree
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
2
2
8
8
8
8
3
3
11
2
2
2
Liquidamborstyrociflua
sweetgum
Tree
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
Nysso sylvotico
blackgum
Tree
3
3
3
2
2
2
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
1
1
3
3
3
3
5
5
5
4
4
4
Quercus michouxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
2
2
2
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
5
5
Quercus rubro
northern red oak
Tree
Sambucus canadensis
ICommon Elderberry
Shrub
unknown
Shrub /Tree
Stem count
12
12
15
15
15
13
13
16
16
16
24
12
12
15
size (ACRES)
0.02
W809
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
Species count
5
5
4
4
4
5
5
6
4
4
4
5
5
6
Stems per ACRE
486
486
607
607
607
526
526
647
647
1 647
1 971
486
1 486
1 607
Color for Density
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
Little Troublesome Creek (EEP Project No. 94640)
Wetland Site
Monitoring Year 3
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
Pnol-S: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes
T: Total Stems
Current Plot Data (MY3 2014)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
94640 -WEI -0011
94640 -WEI -0012
94640 -WEI -0013
94640 -WEI -0014
94640 -WEI -0015
Pnol-S
P--all
T
Pnol-S
P -all
T
Pnol-S
P -all
T
Pnol-S
P -all
T
Pnol-S
P -all
T
Acerrubrum
red maple
Tree
8
Alnus serruloto
hazel alder
Shrub
1
1
1
2
2
2
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
4
4
4
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
2
2
3
Cepholonthus occidentalis
common buttonbush
Shrub
9
2
5
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
2
2
2
1
1
1
Fraxinus americans
white ash
Tree
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
5
5
5
1
1
6
5
5
11
2
2
14
2
2
5
Liquidamborstyrociflua
sweetgum
Tree
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
Nysso sylvotico
blackgum
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
3
3
3
1
1
3
6
6
6
Quercus michouxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
S
5
S
1
1
1
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
4
4
4
2
2
2
Quercus rubro
northern red oak
Tree
Sambucus canadensis
Common Elderberry
Shrub
unknown
Shrub /Tree
Stem count
13
13
W890
12
12
29
14
14
20
16
16
28
4
4
13
size (ACRES)
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
Species count
4
4
6
6
8
5
5
5
6
6
6
2
2
3
Stems per ACRE
526
526
486
486
1 1174
1 567
1 567
1 809
1 647
1 647
1 1133
162
162
526
Color for Density
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
Little Troublesome Creek (EEP Project No. 94640)
Wetland Site
Monitoring Year 3
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
Pnol-S: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes
T: Total Stems
Current Plot Data (MY3 2014)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
94640 -WEI -0016
94640 -WEI -0017
94640 -WEI -0018
94640 -WEI -0019
94640 -WEI -0020
Pnol-S
P--all
T
Pnol-S
P -all
T
Pnol-S
P -all
T
Pnol-S
P -all
T
Pnol-S
P -all
T
Acerrubrum
red maple
Tree
5
5
Alnus serruloto
hazel alder
Shrub
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
Cepholonthus occidentalis
common buttonbush
Shrub
10
6
2
2
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Fraxinus americans
white ash
Tree
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
1
1
3
1
1
3
3
3
5
2
2
2
5
5
11
Liquidamborstyrociflua
sweetgum
Tree
3
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
Nysso sylvotico
blackgum
Tree
1
1
1
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
1
1
1
4
4
4
1
1
12
1
1
1
Quercus michouxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
5
5
5
1
1
1
Quercus rubro
northern red oak
Tree
1
Sambucus canadensis
ICommon Elderberry
Shrub
unknown
Shrub /Tree
Stem count
5
5
17
1
1
9
9
9
18
10
10
31
9
9
16
size (ACRES)
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
Species count
4
4
5
1
1
2
4
4
6
5
5
8
4
4
5
Stems per ACRE
202
202
688
40
40
364
364
364
728
405
1 405
1 1255
364
364
647
Color for Density
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
Little Troublesome Creek (EEP Project No. 94640)
Wetland Site
Monitoring Year 3
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
Pnol-S: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes
T: Total Stems
Current Plot Data (MY3 2014)
Annual Summary
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
94640 -WEI -0021
94640 -WEI -0022
MY3 (2014)
MY2 (2013)
MY1 (2012)
MYO (2012)
PnoL5
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
Acerrubrum
red maple
Tree
4
33
Alnusserrulata
hazel alder
Shrub
4
4
4
2
2
2
17
17
17
20
20
20
31
31
31
62
62
62
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
41
41
42
43
43
43
55
55
55
75
75
75
Cepholonthus occidentalis
common buttonbush
Shrub
5
73
Corpus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
1
1
1
20
20
20
20
20
20
30
30
30
38
38
38
Fraxinus americana
white ash
Tree
1
1
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
2
2
7
2
2
22
70
70
170
64
64
64
68
68
68
71
71
71
Liquidombarstyracifluo
sweetgum
Tree
3
20
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
2
Nysso sylvatica
blackgum
Tree
3
3
3
1
1
1
21
21
21
25
25
25
27
27
27
17
17
17
Plotonus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
5
5
13
8
8
11
60
60
86
67
67
67
75
75
75
82
82
82
Quercus michouxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
1
1
1
16
16
16
20
20
20
24
24
24
18
18
18
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
1
1
1
26
26
27
30
30
30
35
35
35
11
11
11
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
Tree
1
Sombucus canadensis
Common Elderberry
Shrub
25
unknown
Shrub /Tree
7
7
7
Stem count
16
16
41
14
14
37
271
271
553
289
289
289
346
346
346
381
381
381
size (ACRES)
0.02
0.02
0.54
0.54
0.54
0.54
Species countl
6
1 6
1 9
1 5
5
1 5
1 8
1 8
1 14
1 8
8
8
9
9
9
9
9
9
Stems per ACRE
1 647
1 647
1 1659
1 567
1 567
1 1497
1 498
1 498
1 1017
1 532
532
532
636
636
636
701
701
701
Color for Density
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- Stream
Little Troublesome Creek (EEP Project No. 94640)
Stream Site
Monitorina Year 3
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
Pnol-S: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes
T: Total Stems
Current Plot Data (MY3 2014)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
94640 -WEI -0023
94640 -WEI -0024
94640 -WEI -0025
94640 -WEI -0026
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
Pnol-S
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
4
4
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
Tree
9
9
9
2
2
2
2
2
2
Corpus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
2
2
2
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
12
12
12
6
6
6
Liriodendron tulipifera
Ituliptree
ITree
3
3
3
1 2
2
2
Platanus occidentalis
JAmerican sycamore
ITree
5
1 5
5
2
2
1 2
2
1 2
2
5
5
5
Quercus phellos
1willow oak
ITree
4
4
1 4
Quercus rubra
I northern red oak
ITree
2
2
2
unknown
Shrub /Tree
Stem count
13
13
13
25
25
25
18
18
18
15
15
1 15
size (ACRES)
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
Species count
4
8
4
4
Stems per ACRE
526 1 526 526
1012 1012 1012
728 1 728 728
607 607 1 607
Color for Density
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- Stream
Little Troublesome Creek (EEP Project No. 94640)
Stream Site
Monitorina Year 3
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
Pnol-S: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes
T: Total Stems
Current Plot Data (MY3 2014)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
94640 -WEI -0027
94640 -WEI -0028
94640 -WEI -0029
94640 -WEI -0030
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
Pnol-S
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
1
1
1
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
7
7
7
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
7
7
7
3
3
3
6
6
6
2
2
2
Liriodendron tulipifera
Ituliptree
ITree
1
4
4
4
Platanus occidentalis
JAmerican sycamore
Tree
12
1 12
12
10
10
10
10
1 10
10
2
2
1 2
Quercus phellos
1willow oak
Tree
Quercus rubra
Inorthern red oak
Tree
unknown
Shrub/Tree
Stem count
21
21
21
15
15
15
19
19
19
16
16
1 16
size (ACRES)
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
Species countl
3
3
3
5
Stems per ACRE
1 850 1 850 850
607 607 607
769 1 769 769
647 647 1 647
Color for Density
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- Stream
Little Troublesome Creek (EEP Project No. 94640)
Stream Site
Monitorina Year 3
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
Pnol-S: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes
T: Total Stems
Current Plot Data (MY3 2014)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
94640 -WEI -0031
94640 -WEI -0032
94640 -WEI -0033
94640 -WEI -0034
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
Pnol-S
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
9
9
9
7
7
7
6
6
6
1
1
1
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
Tree
2
2
2
8
8
8
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
2
2
2
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
7
7
7
2
2
2
2
2
2
Liriodendron tulipifera
Ituliptree
ITree
4
4
4
1
1
1
5
5
5
Platanus occidentalis
JAmerican sycamore
Tree
2
1 2
2
10
10
10
1
1
1
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
1
1
1
6
6
6
Quercus rubra ::::::::dn.rthern
red oak
Tree
unknown
Shrub/Tree
Stem count
22
22
22
20
20
20
10
10
10
24
24
1 24
size (ACRES)
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
Species countl
4
1 4
4
6
Stems per ACRE
1 890 1 890 1 890
1 809 809 809
1 405 1 405 1 405
1 971 1 971 971
Color for Density
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- Stream
Little Troublesome Creek (EEP Project No. 94640)
Stream Site
Monitorina Year 3
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
PnoLS: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes
T: Total Stems
Current Plot Data (MY3 2014)
Annual Summary
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
94640 -WEI -0035
MY3 (2014)
MY2 (2013)
MYl (2012)
MYO (2012)
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
Pnols
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
2
2
2
36
36
36
33
33
33
36
36
36
36
36
36
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
Tree
2
2
2
39
39
39
44
44
44
50
50
50
56
56
56
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
4
4
4
5
5
5
6
6
6
8
8
8
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
2
2
2
1 52
52
52
55
55
55
63
63
63
67
67
67
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
ITree
19
19
19
21
21
21
31
31
31
37
37
37
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
ITree
3
3
3
64
64
64
65
1 65
65
67
67
67
68
68
68
Quercus phellos
willow oak
ITree
5
5
5
16
16
16
17
17
17
20
20
20
22
22
22
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
ITree
3
3
3
5
5
5
11
it
11
13
13
13
11
11
11
unknown
Shrub /Tree
1
1
1
Stem count
17
17
17
235
235
235
251
251
251
286
286
286
306
306
306
size (ACRES)
0.02
0.321
0.321
0.321
0.321
Species count
6
8
8
8
9
Stems per ACRE
688 1 688 688
732 732 732
781 1 781 781
890 890 890
953 953 953
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
PnoLS: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes
T: Total Stems

APPENDIX 4. Morphological Summary Data and Plots

Table 10a. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94640)
Irvin Creek Reaches 1 and 2
Monitoring Year 3
( -): Data was not provided
1Design parameters were expanded during the final design phase.
*LF provided includes portions of the stream that will be monitored and has been reconstructed, but for which mitigation credit will not be claimed. Please refer to Table 1 in Appendix 1 for the credit summary lengths.
^Pool to pool spacing calculations were measured using the most downstream pool in the meander for the as -built compared to the design pool to pool spacing, which included pools and plunge pools in the min and max values
Pre - Restoration Condition
Reference Reach Data
Design
As -Built /Baseline
Parameter
Gage
Irvin Creek Reach 1
Irvin Creek Reach 2
Collins Creek
UT to Belews
Creed
UT to Rocky Creek
Spencer Creek
Irvin Creek Reach 1
Irvin Creek Reach 2
Irvin Creek Reach 1
Irvin Creek Reach 2
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min I Max
Min I Max
Min Max
Min I Max
Min I Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
17.7
15.2
17.2
11.9
20.1
14.4
12.2
8.7
19.0
19.0
18.6
19.7
18.1
20.9
Floodprone Width (ft)
21.0
18.0
21.0
60
200
72
229
80+
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
Bankfull Mean Depth
1.5
1.9
2.0
1.6
2.7
2.0
1.3
1.2
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.7
1.6
1.6
Bankfull Max Depth
1.8
2.4
2.6
3.3
1 4.2
2.7
1.8
1.9
2.2
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.4
2.4
Bankfull Cross - sectional Area (ft')
N/A
27.3
30.6
32.8
32.9
27.4
16.3
10.6
29.7
29.7
29.3
33.7
29.0
32.7
Width /Depth Ratio
11.5
8.0
8.6
4.4
12.1
7.6
9.1
7.3
12.0
12.0
11.5
11.8
11.3
13.3
Entrenchment Ratio
1.2
1.2
1.2
2.0
3.0
34.7
6.0
26.3
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
Bank Height Ratio
1.9
3.3
2.3
2.5
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
d50 (mm)
32.8
24.2
22.6
18.6
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
-
-
18
92
17
73
Riffle Slope (ft /ft)
0.0010
0.0250
0.0019
0.0170
0.0030
0.0080
0.0606 0.0892
0.0100 0.0670
0.0060
0.0080
0.0070
0.0147
0.0039
0.0215
0.0021
0.0280
Pool Length (ft)
-
32
141
46
85
Pool Max Depth (ft)
N/A
2.1
3.7
2.3
3.3
2.4
4.6
2.2
2.5
2.8
4.0
2.9
4.0
3.7
4.2
3.6
4.0
Pool Spacing (ft)^
39
60
27
76
32
80
75
26 81
13 47
76
133
77
1 135
57
236
91
142
Pool Volume (ft)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
39
81
46
94
31
32
24
52
57
152
58
154
52
151
49
86
Radius of Curvature (ft)
57
114
100
251
16
27
5
22
38
57
38
58
38
59
38
62
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft /ft)
N/A
3.2
6.4
6.6
14.6
2.2
4.1
1.5
2.8
1.8
3.1
1.8
3.1
2.0
3.1
2.0
3.2
Meander Wave Length (ft)
86
175
175
348
71
101
54
196
152
228
154
231
150
235
166
229
Meander Width Ratio
2.2
4.6
3.0
5.5
2.15
2.22
2.8
6.0
3.0
8.0
3.0
8.0
2.7
7.9
2.6
4.5
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri % /Ru % /P % /G % /S%
SC% /Sa % /G% /C% /B% /Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
0.1/0.6/15/56/98 / >2048
0.1/0.3/5/25/31 /45
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
SC/SC/23/49/64/128
SC/SC/19/49/79/180
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) Ib /ftz
N/A
0.88
0.42
0.38
0.43
0.38
0.41
0.40
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (Capacity) W /mZ
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
0.67
0.82
0.82
0.91
1.68
3.40
1.10
0.50
0.82
0.91
0.82
0.91
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate ( %)
17
17
-
-
-
-
17
17
17
17
Rosgen Classification
G4c
G4c
E4
E5
E4b
E4 /C4
C4
C4
C
C
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
3.3
3.0
F
3.3
3.0
3.3
2.7
1
3.1
3.1
1
3.4
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
90
100
11S 150
125
85
N/A
90
100
90
100
Q-NFF regression
N/A
110
126
Q -USGS extrapolation
-
-
Q- Mannings
122
99
1
102
Valley Length (ft)
1,491
1,505
-
-
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
1,640
1,505
-
-
-
2,057*
1,919*
2,095*
1,932*
Sinuosity (ft)
1.1
1.0
1.2
1.1
1.1
1.3
1.2
1.3
1.2
Water Surface Slope (ft /ft)
-
-
0.0030
0.0070
0.0235
0.0132
-
-
N /Al
N /Al
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)l
0.0107
0.0043
-
-
-
-
0.0045
0.0049
0.0045
0.0047
( -): Data was not provided
1Design parameters were expanded during the final design phase.
*LF provided includes portions of the stream that will be monitored and has been reconstructed, but for which mitigation credit will not be claimed. Please refer to Table 1 in Appendix 1 for the credit summary lengths.
^Pool to pool spacing calculations were measured using the most downstream pool in the meander for the as -built compared to the design pool to pool spacing, which included pools and plunge pools in the min and max values

Table 10b. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94640)
Little Troublesome Creek and UTl
Monitoring Year 3
( -): Data was not provided
1Design parameters were expanded during the final design phase.
2Restoration approach was adjusted from a priority 1 to a priority 2 during the final design phase.
'The critical shear stress analysis was not perfomed on the sand bed channels.
*LF provided includes portions of the stream that will be monitored and has been reconstructed, but for which mitigation credit will not be claimed. Please refer to Table 1 in Appendix 1 for the credit summary lengths.
^Pool to pool spacing calculations were measured using the most downstream pool in the meander for the as -built compared to the design pool to pool spacing, which included pools and plunge pools in the min and max values
Pre - Restoration Condition
Reference Reach Data
Design
As -Built /Baseline
Parameter
Gage
UT3
Little Troublesome Creek
UTI'
Little Troublesome Creek
UT1'
Little Troublesome Creek
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
N/A
5.2
28.7
refer to table 5a
7.8
32.3
10.9
32.6
41.0
Floodprone Width (ft)
8.0
93.0
100+
285+
36.7
200+
Bankfull Mean Depth
1.2
2.6
0.6
2.7
0.5
2.2
2.7
Bankfull Max Depth
1.9
3.3
0.9
3.8
1.0
4.1
4.17
Bankfull Cross - sectional Area (ft)
6.4
73.6
5.0
86.6
5.1
77.4
87.1
Width /Depth Ratio
4.3
11.2
12.0
12.0
23.0
12.2
15.47
Entrenchment Ratio
1.5
3.2
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
Bank Height Ratio
1.2 2.5
1.6 2.8
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
d50 (mm)
0.8
9.7
0.4
20.7
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
N/A
refer to table 5a
11
26
79
142
Riffle Slope (ft /ft)1
0.0072
0.0500
0.0007
0.0110
0.0185 0.0369
0.0066 0.0088
0.0231
0.0600
0.0063
0.0126
Pool Length (ft)
18
48
88
159
Pool Max Depth (ft)
2.2
3.3
3.2
5.3
1.2 1.6
4.8
6.7
1.2
5.9
Pool Spacing (ft)^
29
42
46
127
24 43
129
226
35
59
206
267
Pool Volume (ft),
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
N/A
119
refer to table 5a
27
62
113
258
27
62
113
258
Radius of Curvature (ft)
103
313
16
23
65
97
16
23
65
97
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft /ft)
3.6
10.9
2.0
3.0
2.0
3.0
2.0
3.0
2.0
3.0
Meander Wave Length (ft)
179
315
62
94
258
388
62
94
258
388
Meander Width Ratio
4.1
3.5
8.0
3.5
8.0
3.5
8.0
3.5
8.0
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri % /Ru % /P % /G % /S%
N/A
refer to table Sa
SC % /Sa % /G % /C % /B % /Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
SC /SC/SC/4/13/ >2048
0.2/0.5/1/22/30 / >2048
SC/SC/0.4/44/64/128
SC/C/21/62/110/180
Reach Shear Stress (Competency)lb /ftZ
0.96
0.41
N/A'
N /A3
0.34
0.38
0.53
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (Capacity) W /mZ
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
N/A
0.10
4.95
5.07
refer to table 5a
0.10
5.07
0.10
5.07
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate ( %)
17
17
17
17
17
17
Rosgen Classification
G5
C5
C5
C5
C5
C4
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
4.4
5.0
2.7
4.3
2.7
4.2 1
4.8
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
14
370
14
370
14
370
Q -NFF regression
-
422
Q -USGS extrapolation
-
Q- Mannings
-
237
Valley Length (ft)
184
982
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
184
1,080
240
1,158*
233
1,171*
Sinuosity (ft)
1.0
1.1
1.3
1.3
1.2
1.3
Water Surface Slope (ft /ft)
-
-
-
-
N /Al
N/A'
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.0183
0.0033
0.0123
0.0044
0.0126
0.0038
( -): Data was not provided
1Design parameters were expanded during the final design phase.
2Restoration approach was adjusted from a priority 1 to a priority 2 during the final design phase.
'The critical shear stress analysis was not perfomed on the sand bed channels.
*LF provided includes portions of the stream that will be monitored and has been reconstructed, but for which mitigation credit will not be claimed. Please refer to Table 1 in Appendix 1 for the credit summary lengths.
^Pool to pool spacing calculations were measured using the most downstream pool in the meander for the as -built compared to the design pool to pool spacing, which included pools and plunge pools in the min and max values

Table 11 Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross - Section)
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94640)
Irvin Creek Reaches 1 and 2, Little Troublesome Creek, UT1
Monitoring Year 3
Irvin Creek Reach 1
Cross - Section 1 (Riffle)
Cross - Section 2 (Pool)
Cross - Section 3 (Pool)
Cross - Section 4 (Riffle)
Dimension and Substrate
Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MYS
Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
based on fixed bankfull elevation
Bankfull Width (ft)
18.6
17.7
17.5
17.5
19.9
18.0
18.3
16.5
31.1
31.1
34.5
39.1
19.7
20.2
25.5
20.5
Floodprone Width (ft)
200+
200+
200+
200+
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
200+
200+
200+
200+
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.6
1.5
1.5
1.4
1.9
2.2
2.4
2.7
1.9
1.9
1.6
1.3
1.7
1.7
1.3
1.4
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
2.4
2.5
2.4
2.4
3.7
4.0
3.9
4.0
1 4.2
4.2
4.5
4.4
2.6
2.7
2.6
2.5
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area (ft')
29.3
27.2
26.0
24.5
36.8
38.6
43.1
44.0
57.6
57.6
56.5
51.4
33.7
34.4
33.0
28.8
Bankfull Width /Depth Ratio
11.8
11.6
11.8
12.6
10.7
8.4
7.8
6.2
16.8
16.8
21.1
29.8
11.5
11.9
19.8
14.6
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
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
Irvin Creek Reach 2
Cross - Section 5 (Pool)
Cross - Section 6 (Riffle)
Cross - Section 7 (Riffle)
Cross - Section 8 (Pool)
based on fixed bankfull elevation
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MYS
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
Bankfull Width (ft)
35.3
35.6
36.9
34.2
18.1
18.6
18.0
18.2
20.9
20.9
32.3
19.5
29.2
32.0
35.7
26.6
Floodprone Width (ft)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.2
1.6
1.5
1.7
1.5
1.6
1.4
1.1
1.4
1.7
1.6
1.5
1.7
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
4.0
4.1
4.2
4.1
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.7
2.4
3.6
3.6
3.9
3.7
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area (ft')
47.9
46.0
49.2
42.3
29.0
27.8
30.7
27.8
32.7
28.7
35.1
27.3
50.1
50.0
54.8
45.5
Bankfull Width /Depth Ratio
26.0
27.5
27.6
27.6
11.3
12.4
10.6
11.9
13.3
15.2
29.7
13.9
17.0
20.5
23.3
15.5
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.8
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
UTl
Little Troublesome Creek
Cross - Section 9 (Riffle)
Cross - Section 10 (Pool)
Cross - Section 11 (Riffle)
Cross - Section 12 (Pool)
Dimension and Substrate
Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MYS
Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MYS
Base MY1 I MY2 I MY3 I MY4 MY5
based on fixed bankfull elevation
Bankfull Width (ft)
10.9
8.0
8.3
6.9
9.3
9.6
8.9
7.9
32.6
33.0
31.9
32.1
41.0
42.2
42.1
40.4
Floodprone Width (ft)
36.7
35.7
34.3
33.9
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
200+
200+
200+
200+
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
2.7
2.6
2.6
2.6
3.1
3.1
3.2
3.5
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.2
1.2
1.1
1.2
4.1
4.0
3.9
3.9
5.9
6.5
7.4
8.3
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area (ft')
5.1
4.1
3.7
3.3
6.4
5.6
4.0
3.1
87.1
84.6
82.8
82.4
125.3
128.8
133.4
139.8
Bankfull Width /Depth Ratio
23.0
15.5
18.5
14.2
13.5
16.6
19.7
19.9
12.2
12.9
12.3
12.5
13.4
13.8
13.3
11.7
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1 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
Little Troublesome Creek
Cross - Section 13 (Riffle)
Dimension and Substrate
Base MY3 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
based on fixed bankfull elevation
Bankfull Width (ft)
34.6
35.7
33.7
31.8
Floodprone Width (ft)
200+
200+
200+
200+
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
2.2
2.1
2.2
2.3
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
4.2
3.9
3.9
3.9
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area (ft')
77.4
74.8
74.4
73.6
Bankfull Width /Depth Ratio
15.5
17.1
15.3
13.8
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0

Table 12a. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94640)
Irvin Creek Reach 1
Monitoring Year 3
Parameter
As -Built /Baseline
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
Min
Max
Min
Med
Max
Min
Med
Max
Min
Med
Max
Min
Med
Max
Min
Med
Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
18.6
19.7
17.7
19.0
20.2
17.5
21.5
25.5
17.5
19.0
20.5
Floodprone Width (ft)
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
Bankfull Mean Depth
1.6
1.7
1.5
1.6
1.7
1 1.3
1.4
1.5
1.4
1.4
1.4
Bankfull Max Depth
2.4
2.6
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.4
2.5
2.5
Bankfull Cross - sectional Area (ftz)
29.3
33.7
27.2
30.8
34.4
26.0
29.5
33.0
1 24.5
26.7
28.8
Width /Depth Ratio
11.5
11.8
11.6
11.7
11.9
11.8
15.8
19.8
12.6
13.6
14.6
Entrenchment Ratio
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
D50 (mm)
35.0
-
44.2
23.7
-
41.1
13.1
-
29.3
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
18
92
11
41
79
33
47
98
26
47
87
Riffle Slope (ft /ft)
0.0039
0.0215
0.0008
0.0075
0.0174
0.0038
0.0060
0.0117
0.0023
0.0102
0.0142
Pool Length (ft)
32
141
33
63
153
42
64
141
45
65
146
Pool Max Depth (ft)
3.7
4.2
4.0
4.2
4.3
3.9
4.2
4.5
4.0
4.2
4.4
Pool Spacing (ft)
57
236
63
105
227
86
120
203
81
115
278
Pool Volume (ft')
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
52
151
Radius of Curvature (ft)
38
59
Rc:Banl<full Width (ft /ft)
2.0
3.1
Meander Wave Length (ft)
150
235
Meander Width Ratio
2.7
7.9
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
C
C
C
C
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
2,095
2,095
2,095
2,095
Sinuosity (ft)
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
Water Surface Slope (ft /ft)
N/A
0.0044
0.0039
0.0038
Bankfull Slope (ft /ft)
0.0045
0.0048
0.0043
0.0043
Ri % /Ru % /P % /G % /S%
SC % /Sa % /G % /C % /B % /Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
SC/SC/23/49/64/128
0.2/0.7/10/38/58 /362
0.1/0.5/2/47/80 /128
0.2/0.7/2.0/26.9 /43.1/256
% of Reach with Eroding Banks
0%
0%
0%
( -): Data was not provided

Table 12b. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94640)
Irvin Creek Reach 2
Monitoring Year 3
Parameter
As -Built /Baseline
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
Min
Max
Min
Med
Max
Min
Med
Max
Min
Med
Max
Min
Med
Max
Min
Med
Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
18.1
20.9
18.6
19.8
20.9
18.0
25.1
32.3
18.2
18.9
19.5
Floodprone Width (ft)
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
Bankfull Mean Depth
1.6
1.6
1.4
1.5
1.5
1 1.1
1.4
1.7
1.4
1.5
1.5
Bankfull Max Depth
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.5
2.5
2.6
2.6
2.7
2.4
2.4
2.4
Bankfull Cross - sectional Area (ftz)
29.0
32.7
27.8
28.3
28.7
30.7
32.9
35.1
1 27.3
27.6
27.8
Width /Depth Ratio
11.3
13.3
12.4
13.8
15.2
10.6
20.1
29.7
11.9
12.9
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+
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
18.6
-
39.8
20.7
-
42.7
11.3
-
14.8
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
17
73
21
59
72
29
59
72
35
59
79
Riffle Slope (ft /ft)
0.0021
0.0280
0.0026
0.0087
0.0149
0.0016
0.0078
0.0169
0.0040
0.0081
0.0151
Pool Length (ft)
46
85
52
64
89
42
66
109
52
64
87
Pool Max Depth (ft)
3.6
4.0
3.6
3.9
4.1
3.9
4.1
4.2
3.7
3.9
4.1
Pool Spacing (ft)
91
142
89
123
139
88
126
140
87
124
162
Pool Volume (ft')
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
49
86
Radius of Curvature (ft)
38
62
Rc:Banl<full Width (ft /ft)
2
3
Meander Wave Length (ft)
166
229
Meander Width Ratio
3
5
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
C
C
C
C
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
1,932
1,932
1,932
1,932
Sinuosity (ft)
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
Water Surface Slope (ft /ft)
N/A
0.0045
0.0048
0.0047
Bankfull Slope (ft /ft)
0.0047
0.0049
0.0046
0.0050
Ri % /Ru % /P % /G % /S%
SC % /Sa % /G % /C % /B % /Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
SC/SC/19/48/79/180
0.1/0.4/6/66/104 /512
5/13/21/51/80/256
0.1/1.1/3.6/64/113.8 /362
% of Reach with Eroding Banks
0%
0%
0%
( -): Data was not provided

Table 12c. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94640)
UT1
Monitoring Year 3
Parameter
As -Built /Baseline
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
Min
Max
Min
Med
Max
Min
Med
Max
Min
Med
Max
Min
Med
Max
Min
Med
Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
10.9
8.0
8.3
6.9
Floodprone Width (ft)
36.7
35.7
34.3
33.9
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
Bankfull Max Depth
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
Bankfull Cross - sectional Area (ft2)
5.1
4.1
3.7
3.3
Width /Depth Ratio
23.0
15.5
18.5
14.2
Entrenchment Ratio
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
13.3
42.4
36.7
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
11
26
14
20
31
9
17
28
21
25
27
Riffle Slope (ft /ft)
0.0231
0.0600
0.0089
0.0217
0.0448
0.0225
0.0274
0.0446
0.0070
0.0173
0.0235
Pool Length (ft)
18
48
15
23
36
20
28
43
17
27
31
Pool Max Depth (ft)
1.2
1.2
1.1
1.2
Pool Spacing (ft)
35
59
43
52
62
47
58
60
36
-
67
Pool Volume (ft)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
27
62
Radius of Curvature (ft)
16
23
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft /ft)
2.0
3.0
Meander Wave Length (ft)
62
94
Meander Width Ratio
3.5
8.0
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
C5
C5
C5
C5
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
233
233
233
233
Sinuosity (ft)
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
Water Surface Slope (ft /ft)
N/A
0.0120
0.0136
0.0093
Bankfull Slope (ft /ft)
0.0126
0.0121
0.0108
0.0113
Ri % /Ru % /P % /G % /S%
SC % /Sa % /G % /C % /B % /Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
SC/SC/0.4/44/64/128
SC/0.1/0.5/501/90/128
SC/0.4/0.9/43/76/180
SC/0.3/0.4/50.6/90/180
% of Reach with Eroding Banks
0%
0%
0%
( -): Data was not provided

Table 12d. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94640)
Little Troublesome Creek
Monitoring Year 3
Parameter
As -Built /Baseline
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
Min
Max
Min
Med
Max
Min
Med
Max
Min
Med
Max
Min
Med
Max
Min
Med
Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
32.6
48.8
33.0
34.4
35.7
31.9
32.8
33.7
31.8
32.0
32.1
Floodprone Width (ft)
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
Bankfull Mean Depth
1.6
2.7
2.1
2.4
2.6
1 2.2
2.4
2.6
2.3
2.5
2.6
Bankfull Max Depth
4.1
4.2
3.9
4.0
4.0
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.9
Bankfull Cross - sectional Area (ftz)
79.6
87.1
74.8
79.7
84.6
74.4
78.6
82.8
1 73.6
78.0
82.4
Width /Depth Ratio
12.2
30
12.9
15.0
17.1
12.3
13.8
15.3
12.5
13.2
13.8
Entrenchment Ratio
2.2+
0.0
-
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
d50 (mm)
32.7
-
39.7
41.8
-
47.3
34.5
-
35.0
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
79
142
74
107
147
77
100
141
71
112
146
Riffle Slope (ft /ft)
0.0063
0.0126
0.0061
0.0071
0.0178
0.0056
0.0080
0.0127
0.0056
0.0080
0.0139
Pool Length (ft)
88
159
88
121
168
83
127
162
89
121
155
Pool Max Depth (ft)
5.9
6.5
7.4
8.3
Pool Spacing (ft)
206
267
194
219
297
208
242
289
218
223
316
Pool Volume (ft)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
113
258
Radius of Curvature (ft)
65
97
Rc:Banl<full Width (ft /ft)
2.0
3.0
Meander Wave Length (ft)
258
388
Meander Width Ratio
3.5
8.0
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
C4
C4
C4
C4
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
1,171
1,171
1,171
1,171
Sinuosity (ft)
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
Water Surface Slope (ft /ft)
N/A
0.0039
0.0038
0.0034
Bankfull Slope (ft /ft)
0.0038
0.0039
0.0037
0.0030
Ri % /Ru % /P % /G % /S%
SC % /Sa % /G % /C % /B % /Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
SC/SC/21/62/110/180
SC/0.3/8/74/165/512
0.1/0.3/0.7/60/130 /362
0.3/1.2/73.4/196.6 /362
% of Reach with Eroding Banks
0%
0%
4%
( -): Data was not provided

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94640)
Irvin Creek Reach 1
Monitoring Year 3
730
725
720
d
m
c
2 715
d
w
710
705
700
10900
11100 11300 11500 11700 11900 12100 12300
Station (feet)
s TW (MYO- 4/2012) s TW (MY1- 10/2012) —TW (MY2- 6/2013) TW (MY3- 5/2014)
- - - - - -- WS (MY3 - 5/2014) ♦ BKFfTOB (MY3 - 5/2014) • STRUCTURES (MY3 - 5/2014)

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94640)
Irvin Creek Reach 2
Monitoring Year 3
730
725
720
715
♦
—
m
--
V
- -- - --
-
A
2
710
4F
- - -
%
IF
--
W
705
X
X
N
700
695
690
12300
12500 12700 12900 13100
13300 13500 13700 13900 14100
Station (feet)
t TW (MYO- 4/2012) t TW (MY1- 10/2012)
t TW (MY2- 6/2013) t TW (MY3- 5/2014)
- - - - - -- WS (MY3 - 5/2014) ♦ BKF/TOB (MY3 - 5/2014)
s STRUCTURES (MY3 - 5/2014)

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94640)
UT1
Monitoring Year 3
708
707
706
r
0
W
w 705
704
703
40000
40040 40080 40120 40160 40200 40240
Station (feet)
t TW (MYO- 4/2012) --*-- TW (MY 1-10/2012) t TW (MY2- 6/2013) t TW (MY3- 5/2014) - - - - - -- WS (MY3 - 5/2014) ♦ BKF/TOB (MY3 - 5/2014)

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94640)
Little Troublesome Creek
Monitoring Year 3
715
710
♦
705
---- --------- - - - - -- - -- - --- - -"
m-----------------
c
-------- ------- -------
------ -- ---- ---
0
m
�
_m
w
700
N M
V) W
x x
695
690
20000
20200 20400 20600 20800 21000 21200
Station (feet)
t TW (MYO- 4/2012) —r— TW (MY1- 10/2012) t TW (MY2- 6/2013) t TW (MY3- 5/2014)
- - - - - -- WS (MY3 - 5/2014) • BKF/TOB (MY3 - 5/2014) • STRUCTURES (MY3 - 5/2014)

Cross - Section Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 3
Cross Section 1- Irvin Creek Reach 1
109 +86 Riffle
726
725
x- section area (ft.sq.)
17.5
width (ft)
1.4
mean depth (ft)
2.4
max depth (ft)
18.9
wetted parimeter (ft)
1.3
hyd radi (ft)
12.6
width -depth ratio
- --
W flood prone area (ft)
- --
entrenchment ratio
- --
low bank height ratio
724
w 723
c
722
v
"' 721
720
719
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Width (ft)
—�MYO (4/2012) MY1 (10/2012) MY2 (6/2013) —0---MY3 (5/2014) Bankfull Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
24.5
x- section area (ft.sq.)
17.5
width (ft)
1.4
mean depth (ft)
2.4
max depth (ft)
18.9
wetted parimeter (ft)
1.3
hyd radi (ft)
12.6
width -depth ratio
- --
W flood prone area (ft)
- --
entrenchment ratio
- --
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 5/2014
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross - Section Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 3
lCross Section 2 - Irvin Creek Reach 1
110 +23 Pool
725
724
16.5
width (ft)
2.7
mean depth (ft)
4.0
max depth (ft)
20.4
wetted parimeter (ft)
2.2
hyd radi (ft)
6.2
width -depth ratio
723
722
721
c
0
> 720
v
w
719
718
717
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Width (ft)
—0--MYO (4/2012) MY1 (10/2012) MY2 (6/2013) MY3 (5/2014) Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
44.0
x- section area (ft.sq.)
16.5
width (ft)
2.7
mean depth (ft)
4.0
max depth (ft)
20.4
wetted parimeter (ft)
2.2
hyd radi (ft)
6.2
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 5/2014
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross - Section Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 3
lCross Section 3 - Irvin Creek Reach 1
120 +46 Pool
721
720
39.1
width (ft)
1.3
mean depth (ft)
4.4
max depth (ft)
41.9
wetted parimeter (ft)
1.2
hyd radi (ft)
29.8
width -depth ratio
719
718
w
c 717
0
> 716
v
w
715
714
713
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Width (ft)
�MYO (4/2012) MY1 (10/2012) MY2 (6/2013) MY3 (5/2014) Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
51.4
x- section area (ft.sq.)
39.1
width (ft)
1.3
mean depth (ft)
4.4
max depth (ft)
41.9
wetted parimeter (ft)
1.2
hyd radi (ft)
29.8
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 5/2014
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross - Section Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 3
Cross Section 4 - Irvin Creek Reach 1
121 +14 Riffle
720
719
718
w
c 717
0
—°J 716 -
w
715 -
714
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Width (ft)
—�MYO (4/2012) MY1 (10/2012) MY2 (6/2013) —0---MY3 (5/2014) Bankfull Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
28.8
x- section area (ft.sq.)
20.5
width (ft)
1.4
mean depth (ft)
2.5
max depth (ft)
21.7
wetted parimeter (ft)
1.3
hyd radi (ft)
14.6
width -depth ratio
- --
W flood prone area (ft)
- --
entrenchment ratio
- --
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 5/2014
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross - Section Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 3
lCross Section 5 - Irvin Creek Reach 2
130 +90 Pool
718
717
34.2
width (ft)
1.2
mean depth (ft)
4.1
max depth (ft)
38.1
wetted parimeter (ft)
1.1
hyd radi (ft)
27.6
width -depth ratio
716
715
w 714
—
-
c
713
712
—2
w
711
710
709
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Width (ft)
tMYO (4/2012) MY1 (10/2012) MY2 (6/2013) MY3 (5/2014) Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
42.3
x- section area (ft.sq.)
34.2
width (ft)
1.2
mean depth (ft)
4.1
max depth (ft)
38.1
wetted parimeter (ft)
1.1
hyd radi (ft)
27.6
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 5/2014
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross - Section Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 3
Cross Section 6 - Irvin Creek Reach 2
131 +47 Riffle
717
27.8
x- section area (ft.sq.)
18.2
width (ft)
1.5
mean depth (ft)
2.4
max depth (ft)
19.3
wetted parimeter (ft)
1.4
hyd radi (ft)
11.9
width -depth ratio
- --
W flood prone area (ft)
- --
entrenchment ratio
- --
low bank height ratio
716
715
-
w 714
c
713
v
"' 712
711
710
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Width (ft)
�MYO (4/2012) MY1 (10/2012) MY2 (6/2013) —0---MY3 (5/2014) Bankfull Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
27.8
x- section area (ft.sq.)
18.2
width (ft)
1.5
mean depth (ft)
2.4
max depth (ft)
19.3
wetted parimeter (ft)
1.4
hyd radi (ft)
11.9
width -depth ratio
- --
W flood prone area (ft)
- --
entrenchment ratio
- --
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 5/2014
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross - Section Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 3
Cross Section 7 - Irvin Creek Reach 2
138 +52 Riffle
714
713
x- section area (ft.sq.)
19.5
width (ft)
1.4
mean depth (ft)
2.4
max depth (ft)
20.4
wetted parimeter (ft)
1.3
hyd radi (ft)
13.9
width -depth ratio
- --
W flood prone area (ft)
- --
entrenchment ratio
- --
low bank height ratio
712
w 711
c
710
v
"' 709
708
707
—
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Width (ft)
—�MYO (4/2012) MY1 (10/2012) MY2 (6/2013) —0---MY3 (5/2014) Bankfull Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
27.3
x- section area (ft.sq.)
19.5
width (ft)
1.4
mean depth (ft)
2.4
max depth (ft)
20.4
wetted parimeter (ft)
1.3
hyd radi (ft)
13.9
width -depth ratio
- --
W flood prone area (ft)
- --
entrenchment ratio
- --
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 5/2014
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross - Section Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 3
lCross Section 8 - Irvin Creek Reach 2
139 +08 Pool
713
712
26.6
width (ft)
1.7
mean depth (ft)
3.7
max depth (ft)
30.4
wetted parimeter (ft)
1.5
hyd radi (ft)
15.5
width -depth ratio
711
710
709
c
0
> 708
-
v
w
707
706
70S
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Width (ft)
—0--MYO (4/2012) MY1 (10/2012) MY2 (6/2013) MY3 (5/2014) Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
45.5
x- section area (ft.sq.)
26.6
width (ft)
1.7
mean depth (ft)
3.7
max depth (ft)
30.4
wetted parimeter (ft)
1.5
hyd radi (ft)
15.5
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 5/2014
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross - Section Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 3
Cross Section 9 - UT1
400 +67 Riffle
710
3.3
x- section area (ft.sq.)
6.9
width (ft)
0.5
mean depth (ft)
0.9
max depth (ft)
7.3
wetted parimeter (ft)
0.5
hyd radi (ft)
14.2
width -depth ratio
33.9
W flood prone area (ft)
4.9
entrenchment ratio
- --
low bank height ratio
709
Rio
ZAIII�I_
w
c 708
0
v
w
707
706
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Width (ft)
—�MYO (4/2012) MY1 (10/2012) MY2 (6/2013) —0---MY3 (5/2014) Bankfull Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
3.3
x- section area (ft.sq.)
6.9
width (ft)
0.5
mean depth (ft)
0.9
max depth (ft)
7.3
wetted parimeter (ft)
0.5
hyd radi (ft)
14.2
width -depth ratio
33.9
W flood prone area (ft)
4.9
entrenchment ratio
- --
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 5/2014
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross - Section Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 3
across Section 10 - UT1
400 +94 Pool
710
x- section area (ft.sq.)
7.9
width (ft)
0.4
mean depth (ft)
1.2
max depth (ft)
8.7
wetted parimeter (ft)
0.4
hyd radi (ft)
19.9
width -depth ratio
709
708
Ale
Y
Q
> 707
0)
LL
706
-
-
705
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Width (ft)
MYO (4/2012) MY1 (10/2012) MY2 (6/2013) MY3 (5/2014) Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
3.1
x- section area (ft.sq.)
7.9
width (ft)
0.4
mean depth (ft)
1.2
max depth (ft)
8.7
wetted parimeter (ft)
0.4
hyd radi (ft)
19.9
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 5/2014
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross - Section Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 3
Cross Section 11 - Little Troublesome Creek
204 +53 Riffle
714
713
—
—
712
711
710
6/2013) +MY3 (5/2014) — Bankfull —Flood prone Area
c
0
�
709
708
v
'w
707
706
705
704
0 10 20 30
40 50 60 JO 80 90
Width (ft)
tMYO (4/2012) 0 MY1 (10/2012)
tMY2 (
•
�
..fit .I
•-•
�" ` _ '..
Vii•. � r
6/2013) +MY3 (5/2014) — Bankfull —Flood prone Area

Cross - Section Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 3
Cross Section 12 - Little Troublesome Creek
208 +21 Pool
709
708
707
-
706
705
704
700
699
-
698
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Width (ft)
tMYO (4/2012) —�s— MYl (10/2012) +MY2 (6/2013) +MY3 (5/2014) — Bankfull
0
703
>
v
702
w 70
If
�
�
e
700
699
-
698
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Width (ft)
tMYO (4/2012) —�s— MYl (10/2012) +MY2 (6/2013) +MY3 (5/2014) — Bankfull

Reachwide and Cross - Section Substrate Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94640)
Irvin Creek Reach 1, Reachwide
Monitoring Year 3
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Irvin Creek Reach 1 Summary
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
43.1
Silt /Clay
Very fine
0.000
0.062
0.062
0.125
1
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
14
Fine
0.125
0.250
1
6
7
7
21
Medium
0.250
0.500
10
10
10
31
Coarse
0.5
1.0
1
7
8
8
39
Cob
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
3
8
11
11
50
70
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
1
2
3
3
53
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
2
2
2
55
♦�����Fine
Fine
4.0
5.7
1
1
1
56
5.7
8.0
3
3
3
59
Medium
8.0
11.3
5
1
6
6
65
Medium
11.3
16.0
5
5
5
70
��� •������
Coarse
16.0
22.6
10
10
10
80
Coarse
22.6
32
8
8
8
88
♦����������
Very Coarse
32
45
7
1
8
8
96
Ve Coarse
ry
45
64
0
0
96
Small
64
90
1
1
1
97
Small
90
128
2
2
2
99
Large
128
180
99
Large
180
256
1
1
1.00
100
■■■■■■
Small
256
362
100
■ ■
Small
362
512
100
■ ■ ■
Medium
512
1024
1
1
100
1
■ own ■ ■
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
1
100
Bedrock
1 2048
1 >2048
1
1
1
1
1 100
Totall
50
I 50
1 100
1 100
1 100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
0.2
D35 =
0.7
D50 =
2.0
D80. =
26.9
D95 =
43.1
D100 =
l 256.0
100
Irvin Creek Reach 1, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
90
80
Grav
I
Cob
le
I or
70
0
> 60
50
E
40
tj
a 30
aL 20
10
0
0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000 100.000 1000.000 10000.000
Particle Class Size (mm)
f MYO- 5/2012 —f MY1- 10/2012 MY2- 6/2013 --f— MY3 -2014
Irvin Creek Reach 1, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100%
90%
80
70%
U
a 60%
y 50%
R
v 40%
3 30%
z
'> 20
10%
0% Ilk h1momw I, 'W"alaff1m .1
000&O�t o y5 05 ♦ ti �$ R 5^ �1^� ti6 �tib �ti C5 qo �y� X40 Lyb �bL htiti ��yP �ob�
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO- 5/2012 ■ MYl- 10/2012 ■ MY2 - 6/2013 ■ MY3 -2014

Reachwide and Cross - Section Substrate Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94640)
Irvin Creek Reach 1, Cross - Section 1 (Riffle)
Monitoring Year 3
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Particle
Count
Cross-Section 1 Summary
min
max
Total
Cass
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
75.0
Silt /Clay
0.000
0.062
0
0
0
Very fine
0.062
0.125
le
0
Fine
0.125
0.250
3
3
3
Medium
0.250
0.500
5
5
8
Coarse
0.5
1.0
1
1
9
I or
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
5
5
14
♦���♦
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
1
1
15
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
2
2
17
Fine
4.0
5.7
4
4
21
Fine
5.7
8.0
1
1
22
♦����
Medium
Medium
8.0
11.3
11.3
16.0
5
11
5
27
38
11
Coarse
16.0
22.6
3
3
41
Coarse
22.6
32
12
53
YCo Coarse
32
45
15
68
Very Coarse
45
64
9
77
Small
64
90
15
15
92
Small
90
128
8
8
100
Large
Large
128
180
100
180
256
100
■ ■ ■ ■ ■
Small
256
362
100
■ ■
Small
362
512
100
■ ■ ■ ■
Medium
512
1024
100
■ ■ ■ ■ ■
Large /Very Large
1024
2048
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Totall
100
1 100
1 100
Cross - Section 1
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
3.3
D35 =
14.4
D50 =
29.3
D84 =
75.0
D95 =
102.7
D100 =
l 128.0
100
Cross - Section 1
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
90
80
Cob
le
Grav
I
I or
.7-70
>
60
Z
50
E
040
w 30
a 20
10
0
0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000 100.000 1000.000 10000.000
Particle Class Size (mm)
--o—MYO- 5/2012 —FMY1- 10/2012 - --MY2- 6/2013 MY3- 5/2014
100%
90%
80 %
70%
m
a 60
N
@ 50%
U
40%
m
y 30%
T 20%
c 10%
0%
Cross - Section 1
Individual Class Percent
Particle Class Size (mm)
■MY0- 5/2012 ■MY1- 10/2012 MY2- 6/2013 ■MY3 - 5/2014

Reachwide and Cross - Section Substrate Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94640)
Irvin Creek Reach 1, Cross - Section 4 (Riffle)
Monitoring Year 3
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Particle
Count
Cross- Section 4 Summary
min
max
Total
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
31.4
Silt /Clay
0.000
0.062
1
1
1
if
Very fine
0.062
0.125
1
1
2
Fine
Medium
Coarse
0.125
0.250
0.5
0.250
0.500
1.0
5
5
6
5
5
6
7
12
18
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
1
1
19
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
2
2
21
.�.�.�.�.�.
Very Fine
Fine
2.8
4.0
4.0
5.7
2
3
2
3
23
26
Fine
5.7
8.0
5
5
31
♦�♦ ♦♦
Medium
Medium
8.0
11.3
11.3
16.0
12
15
12
15
43
58
Coarse
Coarse
16.0
22.6
22.6
32
9
18
9
18
67
85
♦ ♦
Very Coarse
32
45
7
7
92
Very Coarse
45
64
1 6
6
98
Small
Small
Large
Large
64
90
1
1
99
90
128
99
128
180
1
1
100
180
256
100
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Small
6
362
100
■ ■ ■ ■
■■ ■■
Small
�13 2
5 12
100
■ ■ ■
�■
Medium
512
1024
100
■ ■ ■ ■
Large /Very Large
1024
2048
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
40
100
Totall
100
1 100
1 100
Cross - Section 4
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
0.8
D35 =
8.9
D50 =
13.1
D80. =
31.4
D95 =
53.7
D100 =1
180.0
100
Cross - Section 4
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
90
if
80
G ve
Cobble
I er
70
e
> 60
50
40
L4
lj
30
a 20
AK
10
0
0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000 100.000 1000.000 10000.000
Particle Class Size (mm)
�MYO- 5/2012 fMY1- 10/2012 — - -MY2- 6/2013 tMY3-5/2014
Cross - Section 4
Individual Class Percent
100%
90%
c
80 %
2 70%
a 60%
50%
U 40°%
m
y 30%
a 20%
10%
0% Fill J
Ooobl o y5 O,tib IP ti ti 4 D 5^ 'b 'I', 1b 4, L "1 lye 01
Particle Class Size (mm)
■MYO- 5/2012 ■MY1- 10/2012 ■MY2- 6/2013 ■MY3- 5/2014

Reachwide and Cross - Section Substrate Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94640)
Irvin Creek Reach 2, Reachwide
Monitoring Year 3
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Irvin Creek Reach 2 Summary
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
C ass
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
113.8
Silt /Clay
0.000
0.062
16
16
16
16
Very fine
0.062
0.125
5
5
5
21
Fine
0.125
0.250
21
Medium
0.250
0.500
1
3
4
4
25
Coarse
0.5
1.0
1
7
8
8
33
cobble
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
1
14
15
15
48
♦���♦
♦��� ����
Very Fine
Very Fine
Fine
2.0
2.8
4.0
2.8
4.0
5.7
2
1
1
3
1
3
1
48
51
52
Fine
Medium
5.7
8.0
8.0
11.3
1
2
1
2
1
2
53
55
Medium
Coarse
Coarse
11.3
16.0
22.6
16.0
22.6
32
3
8
4
2
1
5
9
4
5
9
4
60
69
73
Very Coarse
32
45
6
1
7
7
80
Ver Coarse
Y
45
64
4
4
4
84
Small
64
90
7
7
7
91
a
� 50
Small
90
128
6
6
6
97
Large
128
180
97
Large
180
256
1
1
1
98
E
40
Small
256
362
2
2
2
100
Small
Medium
362
512
512
1024
100
100
Large /Very Large
1024
2048
100
Bedrock
2048
-2048
100
Totall
s0
I s0
1 100
1 100
1 100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
0.1
D35'
1.1
Dso =
3.6
DS4 =
64.0
D95 =
113.8
D100 =
362.0
100
Irvin Creek Reach 2, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
90
80
raw
cobble
I er
70
0
> 60
a
� 50
wan
E
40
�j
30
u
a 20
10
0
0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000 100.000 1000.000 10000.000
Particle Class Size (mm)
+MYO- 5/2012 fMY1- 10/2012 A MY2- 6/2013 +MY3- 5/2014
Irvin Creek Reach 2, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100%
90
80
m 70
i 60%
y 50%
�o
V 40
30%
V
> 20%
c 10%
0%
000�LO ♦y5 otih o5 ♦ Y �� A h1 ♦ ♦� ♦b 413 be` 10 ;moo ryyb ��L h ♦L ♦otiP fop
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO- 5/2012 ■ MY1- 10/2012 ■ MY2- 6/2013 ■ MY3- 5/2014

Reachwide and Cross - Section Substrate Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94640)
Irvin Creek Reach 2, Cross - Section 6 (Riffle)
Monitoring Year 2
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Particle
Count
Cross- Section 6 Summary
min
max
Total
Cass
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
1
Silt /Clay
0.000
0.062
D100 =
362.0
0
Very fine
0.062
0.125
2
2
2
Fine
0.125
0.250
2
2
4
Medium
0.250
0.500
2
2
6
Coarse
0.5
1.0
5
5
11
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
11
11
22
♦���♦ Very Fine
�.�.�.�.�. Very Fine
Fine
2.0
2.8
3
3
25
2.8
4.0
4.0
5.7
3
2
3
2
28
30
Fine
5.7
8.0
6
6
36
Medium
Medium
Coarse
Coarse
8.0
11.3
16.0
22.6
11.3
16.0
22.6
32
6
10
4
10
6
10
4
10
42
52
56
66
Very Coarse
♦ ♦ Very Coarse
32
45
45
64
10
12
10
12
76
88
Small
Small
Large
Large
64
90
6
6
94
90
128
4
4
98
128
180
98
180
256
1
1
99
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Small
256
362
1
1
100
Small
362
512
100
■� ■■ Medium
512
1024
100
■ ■ ■ ■ Large /Very Large
1024
2048
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Totall
100
1 100
1 100
Cross - Section 6
Channel materials (mm)
Di6 =
1.4
D35 =
7.5
D50 =
14.8
D,, =
56.9
D95 =
98.3
D100 =
362.0
100
Cross - Section 6
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
90
Individual Class Percent
100%
90
c
80%
v
70
a
60%
a
V)
50%
U
40
m
y
30%
80
G
—
rav
10%
d
Cob
le
a
I or
0%
70
Ooob'LO�y`'� �';> ti ti �6 P 5^ 6 �b �✓b �, �''� b0. q0 �,y6 ��O �b`b ��'y�O�A��4
O,tiS ll ry,,�b
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO- 5/2012 ■ MY1- 10/2012 ■ MY2- 6/2013 ■ MY3 - 5/2014
a
> 60
50
E
40
Lj
30
0
o.2
10
F4.4
0
0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000 100.000 1000.000 10000.000
Particle Class Size (mm)
MYO- 5/2012 f MY1- 10/2012 —� MY2- 6/2013 t MY3- 5/2014
Cross - Section 6
Individual Class Percent
100%
90
c
80%
v
70
a
60%
a
V)
50%
U
40
m
y
30%
20%
G
—
10%
0%
Ooob'LO�y`'� �';> ti ti �6 P 5^ 6 �b �✓b �, �''� b0. q0 �,y6 ��O �b`b ��'y�O�A��4
O,tiS ll ry,,�b
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO- 5/2012 ■ MY1- 10/2012 ■ MY2- 6/2013 ■ MY3 - 5/2014

Reachwide and Cross - Section Substrate Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94640)
Irvin Creek Reach 2, Cross - Section 7 (Riffle)
Monitoring Year 3
Cross - Section 7
Diameter (mm)
Particle
Cross- Section 7 Summary
Particle Class
6.0
Count
11.3
D.4 =
40.2
D95 =
Class
Percent
362.0
min
max
Total
Percentage
Cumulative
Silt /Clay
0.000
0.062
0
Very fine
0.062
0.125
1
1
1
Fine
0.125
0.250
5
5
6
Medium
0.250
0.500
4
4
10
Coarse
0.5
1.0
9
9
19
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
10
10
29
♦�� *♦
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
1
1
30
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
1
1
31
Fine
4.0
5.7
3
3
34
Fine
5.7
8.0
5
5
39
Medium
8.0
11.3
10
10
49
Medium
11.3
16.0
16
16
65
M
Z 50
Coarse
16.0
22.6
8
8
73
Coarse
22.6
32
5
5
78
Very Coarse
32
45
9
9
87
♦ ♦
Very Coarse
45
64
5
5
92
Small
64
90
4
4
96
Small
90
128
2
2
98
Large
128
180
98
Large
180
256
1
1
99
■ ■ ■ ■u■ ■
Small
256
362
1
1
100
20
Small
362
512
100
■ ■ ■ ■
Medium
512
1024
100
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
Large /Very Large
1024
2048
100
Bedrock 2048 >2048
CL
10
100
Totall
100
1 100
1 100
Cross - Section 7
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
0.8
D35 =
6.0
D5o =
11.3
D.4 =
40.2
D95 =
82.6
D100 =1
362.0
100
Cross - Section 7
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
90
80
rav
Cob
le
I er
70
a
> 60
M
Z 50
E
Z 40
30
oo
20
CL
10
0
0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000 100.000 1000.000 10000.000
Particle Class Size (mm)
--o—MYO- 5/2012 fMY1- 10/2012 MY2- 6/2013 tMY3- 512014
Cross - Section 7
Individual Class Percent
100%
90%
c
80%
2 70%
d
a 60
w
m
50%
U 40%
a 30%
a 20%
10%
0%
o bti y5 y5 05 ti �� a 3 �b n,° ti 0.5 b� �o y� �0 5� bti �ti y0.
� �
Particle Class Size mm
■ MYO- 5/2012 ■ MY1- 10/2012 ■ MY2- 6/2013 ■ MY3- 5/2014

Reachwide and Cross - Section Pebble Count Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94640)
UT1, Reachwide
Monitoring Year 3
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
UT1 Summary
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
90.0
Silt /Clay
0.000
0.062
2
5
7
7
7
Very fine
0.062
0.125
1
4
5
5
12
Fine
0.125
0.250
3
13
16
16
28
Medium
0.250
0.500
8
18
26
26
54
Coarse
0.5
1.0
2
10
12
12
66
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
4
4
4
70
♦���������
���•!������
Very Fine
Very Fine
Fine
2.0
2.8
4.0
2.8
4.0
5.7
1
1
70
70
71
1
Fine
Medium
5.7
8.0
8.0
11.3
71
71
::�� .♦::
Medium
11.3
16.0
71
Coarse
16.0
22.6
1
1
1
72
Coarse
22.6
32
1
1
1
73
+ f
Very Coarse
32
45
7
7
7
80
Very Coarse
45
64
12
12
12
92
Small
Small
64
90
3
3
3
95
90
128
2
2
2
97
Large
128
180
3
3
3
100
Large
180
256
a
30
100
MEN
Small
256
362
100
Small
Medium
362
512
512
1 1024
1
1
1
1
100
100
Large /Very Large
1024
2048
20
100
Bedrock 2048 >2048
Totall
50
1 50
1 100
1 100
100
1 100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
1316 =
Silt/ Clay
D35 =
0.3
D50 =
0.4
D84 =
50.6
D95 =
90.0
13100 =1
180.0
100
UT1, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
90
80
raw
Cobble
I er
70
e
60
.W
S50
U 40
a
30
20
10
0
0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000 100.000 1000.000 10000.000
Particle Class Size (mm)
fMYO- 5/2012 — a —MY1- 1012012 —A MY2- 6/2013 MY3- 5/2014
UT1, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90%
80%
WD 70%
a 60
N 50%
m
U 40%
30%
Z
> 20%
c
10%
0%
O ©pb`LO ♦ti5 orti`'� �'^,� ♦ 'L p R �� 4 ♦\"� '1�O �D „�`L t5 �` °l0 ♦,y4 ♦ ..O ti5b b�L y ♦`L ♦�rtib tx4
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO- 5/2012 ■ MYl- 10/2012 ■ MY2- 6/2013 OW 3- 5/2014

Reachwide and Cross - Section Substrate Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94640)
UTI, Cross - Section 9 (Riffle)
Monitoring Year 3
Cross - Section 9
Diameter (mm)
Particle
Cross-Section 9 Summary
Particle Class
29.7
Count
36.7
Dg4 =
60.5
D95 =
Class
Percent
128.0
min
max
Total
Percentage
Cumulative
Silt /Clay
0.000
0.062
0
Very fine
0.062
0.125
0
Fine
0.125
0.250
1
1
1
Medium
0.250
0.500
4
4
5
Coarse
0.5
1.0
3
3
8
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
11
11
19
♦���♦ Very Fine
2.0
2.8
11)
I er
19
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
1
1
20
Fine
4.0
5.7
20
Fine
5.7
8.0
20
Medium
8.0
11.3
20
Medium
11.3
16.0
20
Coarse
16.0
22.6
4
4
24
Coarse
22.6
32
14
14
38
>
50
Very Coarse
32
45
30
30
68
Very Coarse
45
64
19
19
87
Small
64
90
11
11
98
Small
90
128
2
2
100
Large
128
180
100
Large
180
256
100
Small
256
362
100
O
362
512
100
RHSmall
■
Medium
512
1024
100
■
Large /Very Large
1024
2048
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Totall
100
1 100
1 100
Cross - Section 9
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
1.7
D35 =
29.7
D50 =
36.7
Dg4 =
60.5
D95 =
82.0
D100 =
128.0
100
Cross - Section 9
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
90
80
1H
rav
Cob
le
11)
I er
o7,70
60
>
50
3
40
U
,530
Q)
220
0 10
0
0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000 100.000 1000.000 10000.000
Particle Class Size (mm)
fMYO- 5/2012 MY1- 10/2012 —MY2- 6/2013 tMY3- 5/2014
Cross - Section 9
Individual Class Percent
100%
90%
c
80%
2 70%
m
a 60
N
N 50%
_m
V 40%
m
a' 30%
y 20%
c
10%
0%
0 obti �ti5 tih oh ti ti ti6 a �� 4 1�
Z. 11 410 1'1. a5 6a �O 4, 14O �yb �bti htiti otia oa4
o. o. � 1 ti
Particle Class Size (mm)
■MYO- 5/2012 MY1- 10/2012 ■MY2- 6/2013 ■MY3 - 5/2014

Reachwide and Cross - Section Substrate Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94640)
Little Troublesome Creek, Reachwide
Monitoring Year 3
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Little Troublesome Creek
Summary
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
196.6
Silt /Clay
0.000
0.062
1
6
7
7
7
Very fine
0.062
0.125
16
16
16
23
Fine
0.125
0.250
9
9
9
32
Medium
0.250
0.500
14
14
14
46
Coarse
0.5
1.0
1
2
3
3
49
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
2
2
4
4
53
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
53
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
53
Fine
4.0
5.7
1
0
> 60
1
1
54
Fine
5.7
8.0
54
����•��
Medium
8.0
11.3
54
Medium
11.3
16.0
3
.m
50
3
3
57
Coarse
16.0
22.6
3
3
3
60
Coarse
22.6
32
1
1
1
61
Very Coarse
32
45
12
1
13
13
74
Very Coarse
45
64
8
8
8
82
Small
64
90
5
5
5
87
Small
90
128
7
7
7
94
Large
128
180
94
Large
180
256
4
4
4
98
■ENNEN
MGM
Small
256
362
2
2
2
100
Small
362
512
100
M� M:
■■■
Medium
512
1024
100
R ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
Large /Very Large
1024
2048
100
Bedrock
1 2048
1 >2048
1
1
1
1
100
Totall
s0
I s0
1 100
1 100
1 100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
Silt/ Clay
D35 =
0.3
D50 =
1.2
D84 =
73.4
D95 =
196.6
D100 =
362.0
100
Little Troublesome Creek, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
90
80
rav
Cob
le
I er
70
0
> 60
.m
50
'47
-IrtiII
40
�j
30
W
W 20
10
0
0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000 100.000 1000.000 10000.000
Particle Class Size (mm)
f MYO- 5/2012 f MY1- 10/2012 MY2- 6/2013 —0--- MY3- 5/2014
Little Troublesome Creek, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90%
80%
a� 70%
U
L 60
w 50%
m
U 40%
3 30%
'>
20%
c 10%
In ON E A 16
0%
oo�bLO ♦tih o� �5 ♦ L ti� R 4 ♦♦ ♦b yyo 5� b5 b� °o ♦�4 ♦�o ��b �b1 ♦l ♦��R��b
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO- 5/2012 ■ MY1- 10/2012 ■ MY2- 6/2013 ■ MY3 - 5/2014

Reachwide and Cross - Section Substrate Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94640)
Little Troublesome Creek , Cross - Section 11 (Riffle)
Monitoring Year 2
Cross - Section 11
Diameter (mm)
Particle
Cross - Section 11 Summary
Particle Class
26.9
Count
35.0
D84 =
70.2
D95 =
Cass
Percent
362.0
min
max
Total
Percentage
Cumulative
Silt /Clay
0.000
0.062
1
1
1
Very fine
0.062
0.125
2
2
3
Fine
0.125
0.250
30%
3
Medium
0.250
0.500
3
3
6
Coarse
0.5
1.0
2
2
8
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
4
4
12
♦����♦ Very Fine
2.0
2.8
1
1
13
.�.�`�.�.�. Very Fine
2.8
4.0
1
1
14
Fine
4.0
5.7
3
3
17
Fine
♦���♦
Medium
5.7
8.0
8.0
11.3
1
1
18
18
Particle Class Size (mm)
-UM
Y-0 -5/2012 ■ MY1- 10/2012 ■ MY2 - 6/2013 ■ MY3 - 5/2014
Medium
11.3
16.0
3
3
21
Coarse
16.0
22.6
5
5
26
Coarse
22.6
32
18
18
44
Very Coarse
32
45
23
23
67
♦ i ♦ Very Coarse
45
64
14
14
81
Small
64
90
11
11
92
90
128
3
3
95
Small
Large
128
180
95
180
256
3
3
98
Large
■ ■ ■ ■■ 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
1 100
Cross - Section 11
Channel materials (mm)
D16=
5.0
D35 =
26.9
D50 =
35.0
D84 =
70.2
D95 =
180.0
D100 =1
362.0
100
Cross - Section 11
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
90
80
URI
100
90
c
80%
v
70
n�
Cob
le
y
50%
U
40
m
30%
Grave
I
20
I er
a
70
c
AN
10%
0%
e
>
qO $ ,140 fhb ,�b`L �titi
tiOry� tiO�4
Particle Class Size (mm)
-UM
Y-0 -5/2012 ■ MY1- 10/2012 ■ MY2 - 6/2013 ■ MY3 - 5/2014
60
3
50
E
M 40
u 30
ID 20
10
0
0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000 100.000 1000.000 10000.000
Particle Class Size (mm)
MYO- 5/2012 --11— MY1- 10/2012 —A— MY2- 6/2013 t MY3- 5/2014
Cross - Section 11
Individual Class Percent
100
90
c
80%
v
70
n�
60%
y
50%
U
40
m
30%
20
a
c
AN
10%
0%
IN iL.
qO $ ,140 fhb ,�b`L �titi
tiOry� tiO�4
Particle Class Size (mm)
-UM
Y-0 -5/2012 ■ MY1- 10/2012 ■ MY2 - 6/2013 ■ MY3 - 5/2014

Reachwide and Cross - Section Substrate Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94640)
Little Troublesome Creek, Cross - Section 13 (Riffle)
Monitoring Year 3
Cross - Section 13
Diameter (mm)
Particle
Cross- Section 13 Summary
Particle Class
28.1
Count
34.5
D84 =
57.3
D95 =
Class
Percent
362.0
min
max
Total
Percentage
Cumulative
Silt /Clay
0.000
0.062
U
0
Very fine
0.062
0.125
a
0
Fine
0.125
0.250
>
0
Medium
0.250
0.500
Cob
1 0
Coarse
0.5
1.0
70
c
0
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
3
3
3
♦���♦ Very Fine
2.0
2.8
1
1
4
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
3
3
7
Particle Class Size (mm)
7--my-0-5/2012 ■MY1- 10/2012 ■MY2- 6/2013 ■MY3- 5/2014
e
> 60
Fine
4.0
5.7
2
2
9
Fine
5.7
8.0
1
1
10
Medium
8.0
11.3
2
2
12
���•
11.3
16.0
4
4
16
���� Medium
Coarse
16.0
22.6
4
4
20
Coarse
22.6
32
24
24
44
Very Coarse
32
45
27
27
71
♦ ♦ Very Coarse
45
64
19
19
90
Small
64
90
6
6
96
90
128
3
3
99
Small
Large
128
180
99
Large
180
256
U
30
99
■ ■ ■ ■■ Small
256
362
1
1
100
■ ■■ ■
Small
362
512
100
• NNEIMedium
512
1024
100
• ■ ■ ■ Large /Very Large
1024
2048
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Totall
100
1 100
1 100
Cross - Section 13
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
16.0
D35 =
28.1
D50 =
34.5
D84 =
57.3
D95 =
85.0
D100 =1
362.0
100
Cross - Section 13
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
90
80
Individual Class Percent
100%
90%
c
80%
v
70%
m
a
60
le
N
50%
U
Hd
R
a
30%
>
20%
Grey
I
Cob
1 der
70
c
10%
0%
T
ti' S' 1 1 ti ^> �7
O O� O• tit' ti� ,�O �O�
Particle Class Size (mm)
7--my-0-5/2012 ■MY1- 10/2012 ■MY2- 6/2013 ■MY3- 5/2014
e
> 60
.lc�
'550
E
40
U
30
a)
20
IL
10
—A
0
0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000 100.000 1000.000 10000.000
Particle Class Size (mm)
—0-- MYO- 5/2012 —1111111— MY1- 10/2012 f MY2- 6/2013 t MY3-5/2014
Cross - Section 13
Individual Class Percent
100%
90%
c
80%
v
70%
m
a
60
N
50%
U
40%
R
a
30%
>
20%
c
10%
0%
T
ti' S' 1 1 ti ^> �7
O O� O• tit' ti� ,�O �O�
Particle Class Size (mm)
7--my-0-5/2012 ■MY1- 10/2012 ■MY2- 6/2013 ■MY3- 5/2014

APPENDIX 5. Hydrology Summary Data and Plots

Table 13. Verification of Bankfull Events
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 3
Monitoring Year
Reach
Date of Data
Collection
Date of
Occurrence
Method
MYl
Irvin Creek
5/21/2012
U
Crest Gage
Little
Troublesome
Creek
6/28/2012
U
Wrack Lines
UT3
5/21/2012
U
Crest Gage
MY2
Irvin Creek
11/7/2013
U
Crest Gage
Little
Troublesome
Creek
11/7/2013
U
Crest Gage
UT1
11/7/2013
U
Crest Gage
MY3
Irvin Creek
5/12/2014
U
Crest Gage
11/5/2014
U
Little
Troublesome
5/12/2014
U
Crest Gage
11/5/2014
U
UTl
Yes /195.5 Days
Yes /98.5 Days
Crest Gage
11/5/2014
U
u: unknown
Table 14. Wetland Gage Attainment Summary
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 3
Summary of Groundwater Gage Results for Years 1 through 7
Success Criteria Achieved /Max Consecutive Days During Growing Season (Percentage)
Gage
Year 1 (2012)
Year 2 (2013)
Year 3 (2014)
Year 4 (2015)
Year 5 (2016)
Year 6 (2017)
Year 7 (2018)
No /5.5 Days
Yes /18.0 Days
Yes /17.0 Days
1
(2.4 %)
(8.0 %)
(7.5 %)
Yes /26/5 Days
Yes /61.5 Days
Yes /50.5 Days
2
(11.7 %)
(27.2 %)
(22.3 %)
Yes /87.5 Days
Yes /195.5 Days
Yes /98.5 Days
3
(38.7 %)
(86.5 %)
(43.6 %)
Yes /65.5 Days
Yes /165.5 Days
Yes /74.0 Days
4
(29 %)
(73.2 %)
(32.7 %)
Yes /60.5 Days
Yes /24.0 Days
Yes /45.5 Days
5
(26.8 %)
(10.6 %)
(20.1 %)
No /6.0 Days
Yes /17.5 Days
Yes /19.5 Days
6
(2.7 %)
(7.7 %)
(8.6 %)
Yes /83.0 Days
Yes /70.0 Days
Yes /60.0 Days
7
(36.7 %)
(31.0 %)
(26.5 %)
No /11.5 Days
Yes /31.5 Days
Yes /44.5 Days
8
(5.1 %)
(13.9 %)
(19.7 %)

Groundwater Gage Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Wetland (EEP Project No. 94640)
Wetland RW1
Monitoring Year 3 - 2014
20
10
0
-10
a
3 -20
-30
-40
-50
`m a T c on a >
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #1 Water Depth — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0
c
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Wetland (EEP Project No. 94640)
Wetland RW1
Monitoring Year 3 - 2014
20
10
0
�–. -10
a
3 -20
-30
-40
-50
C
c
v Little Troublesome Creek Groundwater Gage #2
v
Monitoring Year 3- 2014
b o
0
N
0
N
2 -
6.0
m
0
ro
0
c
in
w
5.0
4.0
c
3.0
c
2.0
1.0
0.0
cu u° 2 ¢ Q �
O Z o
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #2 Water Depth — —
Criteria Level

Groundwater Gage Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Wetland (EEP Project No. 94640)
Wetland RW1
Monitoring Year 3 - 2014
20
10
0
�—. -10
a
3 -20
-30
-40
-50
C
c
v Little Troublesome Creek Groundwater Gage #3
v
W Monitoring Year 3 - 2014
Ln
a
c O
N
—
2
6.0
w m
0
0
w
5.0
N
WV N
4.0
c
3.0 m
c
2.0
1.0
C T c Oo a
> u
0.0
u° ¢ Q v
O Z o
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #3 Water Depth — —
Criteria Level

Groundwater Gage Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Wetland (EEP Project No. 94640)
Wetland RW1
Monitoring Year 3 - 2014
20
10
0
-10
a
3 -20
-30
-40
-50
`m a T c on a >
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #4 Water Depth — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0
c
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Wetland (EEP Project No. 94640)
Wetland RW1
Monitoring Year 3 - 2014
C
C
v Little Troublesome Creek Groundwater Gage #5
v
W ti Monitoring Year 3- 2014
W o
0
3 rJ
3
20
0 \
2 �O
6.0
0
0
10
w
5.0
0
4.0
-10
J
3.0 m
C
cc
3 -20
z.o
-30
1
.0
-40
50
G T C bn a
> u
0.0
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #5 Water Depth — —
Criteria Level

Groundwater Gage Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Wetland (EEP Project No. 94640)
Wetland RW1
Monitoring Year 3 - 2014
20
10
0
-10
a
v
J
d
3 -z0
-30
-40
-50
>. c no a > u
N d to 7 W " O Ul
LL Q Q in O z o
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #6 Water Depth — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0
C
M
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Wetland (EEP Project No. 94640)
Wetland RW1
Monitoring Year 3 - 2014
v Little Troublesome Creek Groundwater Gage #7
v
In o Monitoring Year 3- 2014
N
J
3
20
°N
��
6.0
m
0
o
20
10
w
5.0
0
4.0
c -10
-
`w
3.0 w
c
3 -20
z.o
-30
.0
1
-40
-50
G T C 00 d
> V
0.0
CL
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #7 Water Depth
Criteria Level

Groundwater Gage Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Wetland (EEP Project No. 94640)
Wetland RW1
Monitoring Year 3 - 2014
20
10
0
�–r -10
w
w
J
d
3 -20
-30
-40
-50
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #8 Water Depth — — Criteria Level
z° o
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0
C
2.0
1.0
0.0

Monthly Rainfall Data
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 3
Little Troublesome Creek 30 -70 Percentile Graph for Rainfall in 2013 Reidsville, NC
10
9
g _
7
c 6
c
0
m 5
.Q
V
N
3
2
1
0 f iA.
Jan -14 Feb -14 Mar -14 Apr -14 May -14 Jun -14 Jul -14 Aug -14 Sep -14 Oct -14 Nov -14 Dec -14
Date
2014 Rainfall Data (weather station) 30th Percentile 70th Percentile
1 2014 monthly rainfall collected by Weather Underground Station KNCBROWN2 (Reidsville, NC).
2 30th and 70th percentile rainfall data collected from weather station NC7202, in Reidsville, NC (USDA, 2002).