LittleTroublesome_94640_MY5_2016

MONITORING YEAR 5
ANNUAL REPORT
Final
LITTLE TROUBLESOME CREEK MITIGATION SITE
Rockingham County, NC
NCDEQ Contract 003267
DMS Project Number 94640
Data Collection Period: April 2016 -November 2016
Draft Submission Date: November 23, 2016
Final Submission Date: December 19, 2016
PREPARED FOR:
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652

PREPARED BY:
W
WILDLANDS
E NO IN FE R I NG
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225
Raleigh, NC 27609
Jason Lorch
[e-mail]
Phone: [phone]
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 5 Annual Report— FINAL

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Wildlands Engineering Inc. (Wildlands) completed a full -delivery project for the North Carolina Division of
Mitigation Services (DMS) to restore a total of 4,968 linear feet (LF) of stream and restore, enhance, and
create 17.2 acres (ac) of wetlands in Rockingham County, North Carolina. The project streams consist of
Little Troublesome Creek, Irvin Creek and one unnamed tributary (UT1) to 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 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 (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 (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 4,968 LF of perennial stream channel,
and restoring, enhancing, and creating 17.2 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 in Appendix 1 present design applications for the Sites.
The following project goals were established to address the effects listed above from watershed and
project site stressors:
• Stabilize stream dimensions;
• Stabilize stream pattern and profile;
• Establish proper substrate distribution throughout the streams;
• Establish wetland hydrology for restored wetlands; and
• Restore native vegetation throughout wetlands and buffer zones.
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 5 Annual Report— FINAL iii

The following secondary project goals (unmeasured) were established in the project Mitigation Plan
(Wildlands, 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 33.0 ac (acres) of the Stream Site and 19.0 ac of the Wetland
Site to protect them in perpetuity.
Monitoring Year 5 (MY -5) monitoring and site visits were completed during April -November, 2016 to
assess the conditions of the Sites. Overall, the Sites have met the required hydrologic, vegetation, and
stream success criteria for MY -5. The Sites overall average stem density of 571 stems/ acre is greater than
the 260 stem/ acre density required at MY -5. Except for a few isolated bank erosion areas, the restored
and enhanced streams are stable and functioning as designed and the Stream Site has met the Monitoring
Year 5 (MY -5) hydrology success criteria. All groundwater gages met the MY -5 success criteria on the
Wetland Site.
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 5 Annual Report— FINAL iv

LITTLE TROUBLESOME CREEK MITIGATION SITE
Monitoring Year 5 Annual Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1:
PROJECT OVERVIEW.......................................................................................................1-1
Figure 1
1.1
Project Goals and Objectives.....................................................................................................1-1
Project Component/Asset Map
1.2
Monitoring Year 5 Data Assessment..........................................................................................1-3
Table 2
1.2.1
Vegetative Assessment......................................................................................................1-3
Project Contacts Table
1.2.2
Vegetation Areas of Concern.............................................................................................1-4
Appendix 2
1.2.3
Stream Assessment............................................................................................................1-4
Integrated Current Condition Plan View
1.2.4
Stream Areas of Concern...................................................................................................1-5
Table 6
1.2.5
Hydrology Assessment.......................................................................................................1-5
Stream Photographs
1.2.6
Wetland Assessment..........................................................................................................1-5
1.2.7
Maintenance Plan..............................................................................................................1-5
1.3
Monitoring Year 5 Summary......................................................................................................1-5
Section 2:
METHODOLOGY.............................................................................................................2-1
Section 3:
REFERENCES...................................................................................................................3-1
APPENDICES
Appendix 1
General Tables and Figures
Figure 1
Project Vicinity Map
Figure 2a -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 3.0-3.5
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 Table - 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 Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters — Cross Section)
Table 12a -d Monitoring Data — Stream Reach Data Summary
Longitudinal Profile Plots
Cross Section Plots
Reachwide and Cross Section Substrate Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 5 Annual Report— FINAL v

Appendix 5 Hydrology Summary Data and Plots
Table 13 Verification of Bankfull Events
Table 14 Wetland Gage Attainment Summary
Bankfull Verification Photographs
Groundwater Gage Plots
Monthly Rainfall Data
Pre and Post Construction Groundwater Gage Comparison Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 5 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 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 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 (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
(Figure 1). 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
(UT1) to Little Troublesome Creek (stream restoration approach). Mitigation work within the Sites
included restoring 4,968 linear feet (LF) of perennial and intermittent stream channel and restoring,
enhancing, and creating 17.2 acres (ac) of riparian wetland. The Stream and Wetland Sites were also
planted with native vegetation to improve habitat and protect water quality. Conservation easements
have been recorded on the Sites and are 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 maps of the Sites are provided in Figure 1 and project components are illustrated for the
Sites in Figures 2a and 2b.
The final Mitigation Plan was submitted and accepted by the North Carolina Division on Mitigation
Services (DMS) in June of 2011. Construction activities were completed by Fluvial Solutions 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. MY -5 monitoring and site visits
were completed during April -November, 2016 to assess the condition of the Sites. Close-out of the Stream
and Wetland Sites are proposed for 2017. Appendix 1 provides more detailed project activity, history,
contact information, and watershed/site background information for this project.
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, and 10b 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 (Wildlands,
2011) to address the effects from watershed and project site stressors. The project is intended to provide
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 5 Annual Report— FINAL 1-1

numerous ecological benefits within the Cape Fear River Basin. While many of these benefits are limited
to the Sites 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 the streams;
• Establish wetland hydrology for restored wetlands; and
• Restore native vegetation throughout wetlands and buffer zones.
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 were 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 success 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/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 water temperature, helping to maintain dissolved oxygen concentrations.
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 5 Annual Report— FINAL 1-2

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.
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.
1.2 Monitoring Year 5 Data Assessment
Annual monitoring and quarterly site visits were conducted during Monitoring Year 5 (MY -5) to assess the
condition of the project. The stream and wetland mitigation success criteria for the Sites follow the
approved success criteria presented in the Mitigation Plan (Wildlands, 2011).
1.2.1 Vegetative Assessment
A total of 35 (13 at the Stream Site; 22 at the Wetland Site) vegetation plots were established within the
project easement areas using standard 10 meter by 10 meter vegetation monitoring plots. UT1 was
constructed within a narrow cleared corridor to minimize disturbance to the surrounding mature
vegetation. Due to the narrow planted corridor along UTI, 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 is the survival of 260 planted stems per acre in the riparian corridor at the
end of MY -5. The MY -5 vegetative survey was completed in June 2016.
The 2016 annual vegetation monitoring resulted in an average stem density of 635 stems per acre for the
Stream Site, which is greater than the final requirement of 260 stems/acre and approximately 33% less
than the baseline (MY -0) density recorded (953 stems/acre). There was an average of 16 stems per plot
in MY -5 compared to 24 stems per plot in MY -0 for the Stream Site. All 13 plots at the Stream Site meet
the MY -5 success criteria of 260 planted stems per acre.
At the Wetland Site, three of the plots did not meet the final success criteria and averaged 189 stems per
acre; however with the inclusion of volunteer species the three plots average 499 stems per acre which is
well above the final requirement of 260 stems/acre. These three plots are located on one of the wettest
parts of the Wetland Site. In the past, Wildlands has observed higher planted tree mortality in areas with
frequently standing water, compared to the drier parts of projects. There was an average of 12 stems per
plot in MY -5 as compared to 17 stems per plot during MY -0 for the Wetland Site. Although three wetland
vegetation plots are not meeting for planted stems, the volunteer stems consist of desirable hardwood
species from the planting plan. With the inclusion of volunteer species, all 22 plots at the Wetland Site
meet the MY -5 success criteria.
Refer to Appendix 2 for vegetation plot photographs, the vegetation condition assessment table, and the
Current Condition Plan View Map, and Appendix 3 for vegetation data tables.
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 5 Annual Report— FINAL 1-3

1.2.2 Vegetation Areas of Concern
Vegetative areas of concern noted during the annual visual assessments included isolated areas of non-
native invasive species at the Stream Site. An invasive species management and control plan was initially
initiated in MY3 and has continued annually during the monitoring period. Invasive species management
has included foliar herbicidal applications.
Maintenance Plan
Visual assessments will be performed in 2017 prior to project close-out to determine if any additional
maintenance is necessary to control invasive species within the Site.
1.2.3 Stream Assessment
Morphological surveys for the MY -5 were conducted in April 2016. With the exception of a few isolated
areas of bank scour, all streams within the Stream Site are stable with little to no erosion and have met
the success criteria for MY -5. Refer to Appendix 2 for the visual assessment table, the Integrated Current
Condition Plan View Map, 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. Cross Sections on UT1 show a decrease in cross-sectional area and bankfull width. This is
due to sediment deposition from Little Troublesome Creek during bankfull events. This is normal and is
not a sign of instability. Surveyed riffle cross sections fell within the parameters defined for channels of
the appropriate Rosgen stream type. Several pool cross sections on the Stream Site have shown an
accumulation of sediment on the point bars resulting in a slight narrowing of the pool cross sections. Since
point bars are depositional features, this is fully expected. As discussed in the Mitigation Plan, narrowing
of the channel over time is expected for restored alluvial streams and is an indication of stability. 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 near 1.0 for all of the restoration reaches.
UT1 longitudinal profile data is showing deposition throughout the stream. This sediment deposition
appears to be from bankfull events on Little Troublesome Creek. This is normal and expected on small
streams that flow into large channels and is not affecting channel stability.
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. During MY -5 a few isolated areas of
bank scour were documented on Little Troublesome Creek and Irvin Creek. These areas will be repaired
during the winter of 2016/ 2017 as described below in section 1.2.4.
During MY -4 bank scour was documented in part of the meander bend at STA 207+50-208+80 on Little
Troublesome Creek. Undercutting of the rootwads resulted in an area of bank scour within this meander
bend. This was repaired at the beginning of MY -5 by lowering the rootwads and adding brush toe to fill
in any voids. Geolifts were installed with brush whips and live stakes to stabilize the stream bank. Since
the repair work, this section of Little Troublesome Creek appears stable and will continue to be monitored
for any signs of instability.
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 -5 report.
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 5 Annual Report— FINAL 1-4

1.2.4 Stream Areas of Concern
The Stream Site had a significant flow event during Hurricane Mathew, resulting in a few isolated areas
of bank scour on Little Troublesome Creek and Irvin Creek. Wildlands is currently working with a
contractor to repair these areas prior to project close-out. This repair will include installing brush toe
and soil lifts with live willow whips. Most of the repair work will be done by hand and will include
planting live stakes on the stream banks. Heavy equipment will only be used when necessary to avoid
causing any damage to the Site. The only area that will require heavy equipment is one bend on Little
Troublesome Creek. Refer to Appendix 2, Current Condition Plan View Maps for the location of bank
scour on these streams.
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 all five monitoring years, with
multiple events occurring during some of these years. The Stream Site has therefor met the hydrologic
success criteria. Please refer to Appendix 5 for hydrologic data. Trail cameras were established on Little
Troublesome and Irvin Creeks to capture hourly pictures during MY -5. Appendix 5 shows a few of the
pictures collected with the trail camera during bankfull events.
1.2.6 Wetland Assessment
Eight groundwater monitoring gages are established in 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 Wetland Site. A barotroll logger and a rain gage were
also installed onsite. To provide data for the determination of the growing season for the wetland areas,
two soil temperature probes were installed to collect growing season data. These probes are used to
better define the beginning of the growing season using the threshold soil temperature of 41 degrees or
higher measured at a depth of 12 inches (USACE, 2010). During MY -1, MY -2, and MY -3 NRCS WETS Data
was used to determine the growing season for the Wetland Site. After discussions with the United States
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), it was agreed to use on-site soil temperature data to determine the
beginning of the growing season and use NRCS WETS data to determine the end of the growing season.
During MY -5, the beginning of the growing season was extended by 15 days based on data from the soil
temperature probes. All monitoring gages were downloaded on a quarterly basis and maintained on an
as needed basis. The success criteria for wetland hydrology 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 -5. Refer to Appendix 2 for the groundwater gage locations and Appendix 5 for
groundwater hydrology data and plots.
1.2.7 Maintenance Plan
Wildlands is currently working with a contractor to repair the isolated area of bank erosion as described
in section 1.2.4 above.
1.3 Monitoring Year 5 Summary
With the exception of pool deposition on UT1 and a few isolated areas of bank scour, all streams within
the Stream Site are stable and functioning as designed. Repair work is being coordinated on Little
Troublesome Creek and will be implemented this winter. The overall, average stem density for the Sites
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 5 Annual Report— FINAL 1-5

meets the MY -5 success criteria; however, three individual vegetation plots did not meet the MY -5 success
criteria as noted in the Integrated Current Condition Plan View Map. These three vegetation plots do
meet the MY -5 success criteria when volunteer trees were included in the totals. While the stream
hydrology success criteria was met during the initial two years of monitoring, additional bankfull events
were documented in MY -5. All groundwater gages met the MY -5 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.
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 5 Annual Report— FINAL 1-6

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 section data was collected using a total station and
was georeferenced. All data collected for the Integrated Current Condition Mapping was recorded using
a Trimble handheld GPS with sub -meter accuracy and processed using Pathfinder and ArcView. Crest
gages were installed in surveyed riffle cross sections and monitored quarterly. Hydrology attainment
installation and monitoring methods are in accordance with the USACE (USACE, 2003) standards.
Vegetation monitoring protocols followed the Carolina Vegetation Survey-NCDMS Level 2 Protocol (Lee
et al., 2008). Reporting follows the NCDMS Monitoring Report Template and Guidance Version 1.2.1
(NCDMS, 2009). Narrative background and supporting information formerly found in these reports can
be found in the Mitigation Plan documents available on DMS's website. All raw data supporting the tables
and figures in the appendices are available from DMS upon request.
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 5 Annual Report— FINAL 2-1

Section 3: REFERENCES
Doll, B.A., Grabow, G.L., Hall, K.A., Halley, J., Harman, W.A., Jennings, G.D., and Wise, D.E. 2003. Stream
Restoration A Natural Channel Design Handbook.
Harrelson, C.C., Rawlins, C.L., Potyondy, J.P. 1994. Stream Channel Reference Sites: An Illustrated Guide
to Field Technique. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM -245. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 61 p.
Lee, M.T., Peet, R.K., S.D., Wentworth, T.R. 2008. CVS -DMS Protocol for Recording Vegetation Version
4.2. Retrieved from http://cvs.bio.unc.edu/protocol/cvs-eep-protocol-v4.2-lev1-5.pdf.
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (DMS). 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-
DWR, USEPA, NCWRC.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2002. Natural Resources Conservation Service, Climate
Information for Rockingham 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. DMS, Raleigh, NC.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 2011. Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site Baseline Monitoring
Document and As -Built Baseline Report. DMS, Raleigh, NC.
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 5 Annual Report— FINAL 3-1

APPENDIX 1. General Tables and Figures

0 7)103220060 1
`-,O c'°4 Hydrologic Unit Code (14)
DMS Targeted Local Watershed
03010104821030
03010103,7#,pgJ•o- _:•03010103 y�
1rA A
ly'
'010,1,03220060 u
a
Reidsvi Ile
i
:.� 03010104
HikeimSibsy RocW""9h �nL 7.
c+nnm N.a
Location
c
1 Y 03010104021010
-0,3030002010036 �� '1y
0303000201001.0 `i •
30101WJ201
V eftfid Sibs
03030002 Location !
03030002010020
The subject project site is an environmental restoration site of the
NCDEQ Department of Mitigation Services (DMS) and is
encompassed by a recorded conservation easement, but is
bordered by land under private ownership. Accessing the site may
require traversing areas near or along the easement boundary and
therefore access by the general public is not permitted. Access by
authorized personnel of state and federal agencies or their
designees/contractors involved in the development, oversight,
and stewardship of the restoration site is permitted within the terms
and timeframes of their defined roles. Any intended site visitation or
activity by any person outside of these previously sanctioned roles
and activites requires prior coordination with DMS.
03030002010040
03030002020070
0
Directions:
The proposed stream
mitigation project area
is located south of Turner
Now 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
��+�I, 0 0.75 1.5 Miles Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
l► I I I DMS Project Number 94640
W I L. 13 L A N 13 S Monitoring Year 5 -2016
L NG IN LL RING
Rockingham County, NC

W a ver, W 'fE
Y �
I
elle►' ,� + � _" .,• ! `-! ..
%�W W I La D L A N .D S rk� 0 250 500 Feet
ENGINEERING I I I
Conservation Easement
Duke Power R/W
Sewer Line Easement
Gas Line
{ Railroad
I Stream Restoration
No SMU Credit
Reach Break
wt:
+'t W
�11
s ,
I
7 Y 40
Figure 2a Project Component/Asset Map
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
Stream Site
DMS Project Number 94640
Monitoring Year 5 - 2016
Rockingham County, NC

Conservation Easement
Wetland Restoration
Wetland Creation
Wetland Enhancement
2014 Aerial Photography

Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 5 - 2016
mvr
Mitigation Credits
StreaMA
Type R
RE
Riparian
R
Wetland Non -Riparian Wetland
RE R RE
Buffer Nutrient
Offet
Phosphorous Nutrient
OffsetNitrogen
Totals 4,968
N/A
10.2
2.8 N/A N/A
N/A I N/A
N/A
Project Components
PReach ID
As -Built
Stationing/
Location
Existing
Footage/
Acreage
Restoration or
Approach Restoration Equivalent
Restoration Footage/
Acreage
Mitigation
Ratio (SMU/
Cred itSA
WMU)
Irvin Creek - Reach 1
103+00 to 106+69
1,640
Priority 1 Restoration
1,793
1:1
1,793
108+80 to 123+05
123+05 to 128+52
Irvin Creek - Reach 2
1,505
Priority 1 Restoration
1,866
1:1
1,866
129+19 to 142+38
Little Troublesome Creek
200+97 to 211+73
1,080
Priority 1 Restoration
1,076
1:1
1,076
UTl
400+00 to 402+33
184
Priority 1/2 Restoration
233
1:1
233
Wetlands
RW1
N/A
N/A
Restoration Restoration
8.605
1:1
8.6
RW1
N/A
N/A
Creation Restoration
4.862
3:1
1.6
RW1
N/A
3.7
Enhancement Restoration Equivalent
3.649
1.3:1**
2.8
Restoration Level
Stream
(LF)
Component Summation
Riparian Wetland Non -Riparian
(acres) Wetland
Buffer
(square
feet)
Upland
(acres)
Riverine Non-Riverine
Restoration
4,968
8.6
Enhancement
3.7
Enhancement I
-
Enhancement 11
Creation
4.9
Preservation
-
High Quality Preservation
^There is potential to gain more Stream Mitigation Units if the NC IRT Draft Regulatory Guidance for the Calculation of Stream and Buffer Mitigation Credit (March 11, 2009) is used for calculating Stream
Mitigation Units.
* Stream and wetland credits were modified during Monitoring Year 4 based on examination of as -built surveys. Stream credits were also calculated using the 2003 Stream Mitigation Guidlines instead of using
the INC IRT Draft Regulatory Guidance for the Calculation of Stream and Buffer Mitigation Credit (March 11, 2009).
**The higher enhancement ratio was agreed to with Todd Tugwell, with the USAGE, 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 (DMS Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 5 - 2016
'Seed and mulch is added as each section of construction is completed.
Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 5 - 2016
Designer
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
• M -. 11
lan
7FiinalDesign
June 2011
June 2011
- Construction Plans
August 2011
August 2011
Fluvial Solutions
April 2012
May 2012
Temporary S&E mix applied to entire project area'
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)
May 2012
June 2012
Year 1 Monitoring
October 2012
December 2012
Year 2 Monitoring
October 2013
December 2013
Year 3 Monitoring
November 2014
December 2014
Year 4 Monitoring
November 2015
December 2015
Year 5 Monitoring
November 2016
December 2016
'Seed and mulch is added as each section of construction is completed.
Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 5 - 2016
Designer
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Jeff Keaton, PE
312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225
Raleigh, NC 27609
919.851.9986
Construction Contractor
Fluvial Solutions
Peter Jelenevsky
PO Box 28749
Raleigh, NC 28749
Planting Contractor - Stream Site & 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
Jason Lorch
919.851.9986, ext. 107

Table 4. Project Baseline Information and Attributes
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 5 - 2016
*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.
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
Parameters
Reach Summary Information
Irvin Creek Irvin Creek
Reach 1 Reach 2
Little
Troublesome UT1 RWI
Length of reach (linear feet) - Post -Restoration
2,095
1,932
Creek
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 -Restoration
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
Somewhat Somewhat Poorly -
Poorly- Poorly- Drained /
Drained Drained Poorly
Drained
Soil Hydric status
No
No
No No No / Yes
Slope
0-2%
0-2%
0-2% 1 0-2% 0-2%
FEMA classification
Zone AE
Native vegetation community
Bottom -land forest
Percent composition of exotic invasive vegetation - Post -Restoration
0%
Regulation
Regulatory Considerations
Applicable? Resolved?
Supporting Documentation
Waters of the United States - Section 404
X
X
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Plan;
USACE 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

-� � -��� 1 �• ,,,� I . I . I . I . I . I . I . I .1 . I . I . I . I .
Sheet 1
WILDLANDS 1
ENGINEERING
1 �
I . 1. 17 I. I. I -
7
MI!, I.I
Sheet 2
Conservation Easement
Duke Power R/W
Sewer Line Easement
Vernal Pool
— — Gas Line
t Railroad
Stream Restoration
No SMU Credit
Cross -Section (XS)
Structure
Reach Breaks
� 1
""W
W ! Sheet 4
0 250 500 Feet
I I I
Figure 3.0 Integrated Current Condition Plan View
(Key)
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
Stream Site
DMS Project Number 94640
Monitoring Year 5 - 2016
Rockingham County, NC
f
jSh,et3�
�
ff(
'
S i
Conservation Easement
Duke Power R/W
Sewer Line Easement
Vernal Pool
— — Gas Line
t Railroad
Stream Restoration
No SMU Credit
Cross -Section (XS)
Structure
Reach Breaks
� 1
""W
W ! Sheet 4
0 250 500 Feet
I I I
Figure 3.0 Integrated Current Condition Plan View
(Key)
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
Stream Site
DMS Project Number 94640
Monitoring Year 5 - 2016
Rockingham County, NC

Figure 3.1 Integrated Current Condition Plan View
(Sheet 1 of 4)
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
Stream Site
W I L D L A N D S 0 75 150 Feet DMS Project Number 94640
ENGINEERING
Monitoring Year 5 - 2016
Rockingham County, NC

PP6
I
Irvin Cree each
All �j A
v�
y 1\
„ PP8
rim
1f.
Wn�
PP9
vi
XS3
X ' �
-Z� 40
A. vf 4'
1
J �. � - t • l — y
1 10
11 1�k
, r •'a r
� v
1 �.40
PP11 i.r•p4� rC�T y.:�'1 b.
r
\Irvin Creek Reach 2
ilk
-. �. �. ` , �• ~ 77X'7'.
,�, 2014 Aerial Photography

W I L D L A N D S 0 75 150 Feet
ENGINEERING I I I
Figure 3.3 Integrated Current Condition Plan View
(Sheet 3 of 4)
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
Stream Site
DMS Project Number 94640
Monitoring Year 5 - 2016
Rockingham County, NC

lktry
0 75 150 Feet
WIL]7I_.ANDSI i I
ENGINtE R NG rk�
Figure 3.4 Integrated Current Condition Plan View
(Sheet 4 of 4)
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
Stream Site
DMS Project Number 94640
Monitoring Year 5 - 2016
Rockingham County, NC

Conservation Easement
Wetland Restoration
Wetland Creation
Wetland Enhancement
Barotroll Gage (BG)
Rain Gage (RG)
7FSoil Temperature Gage (ST)
Parcels
Groundwater Gage (GG) - MY5
Criteria Met
Vegetation Plot Condition - MY5
Criteria Met
_ Criteria Not Met
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
21
Figure 3.5 Integrated Current Condition Plan View
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
Wetland Site
0 125 250 Feet DMS Project Number 94640
I I Monitoring Year 5 - 2016
Rockingham County, NC

Table 5a. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 5 - 2016
Irvin Creek Reach 1 (1,793 LF)
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Total
Number in
As -Built
Number of Amount of %Stable,
Unstable Unstable Performing
Segments Footage as Intended
Numberwith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footagewith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust%for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0 0 100%
Degradation
0 0 100%
(Riffle and Run units)
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
16 16
100%
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
16 16
100%
Length Appropriate
16 16
Condition
100%
100%
Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
16 16
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
6
188
90%
0
0
100%
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
sustainable and are providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, caving, or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
6
188
90%
0
0
100%
3. Engineered
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged 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
1S%
31
31
100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining -Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth
> 1.6 Rootwads los providing some cover at baseflow
12
12
100%

Table 5b. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 5 - 2016
Irvin Creek Reach 2 (1,866 LF)
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Total
Number in
As -Built
Number of Amount of %Stable,
Unstable Unstable Performing
Segments Footage as Intended
Numberwith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footagewith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust%for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0 0 100%
Degradation
0 0 100%
(Riffle and Run units)
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
16 16
100%
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
15 15
100%
Length Appropriate
15 15
Condition
100%
100%
Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
15 15
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide)
15 15
10091,
2. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroded
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth
and/or scour and erosion
2
56
97%
0
0
100%
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
sustainable and are providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, caving, or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
2
56
97%
0
0
100%
3. Engineered
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged 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 los providing some cover at baseflow.
19
19
100%

Table 5c. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 5 - 2016
UT1 (233 LF)
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Total
Number in
As -Built
Number of Amount of %Stable,
Unstable Unstable Performing
Segments Footage as Intended
Numberwith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footagewith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust%for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0 0 100%
Degradation
0 0 100%
(Riffle and Run units)
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
6 6
100%
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
4 4
100%
Length Appropriate
4 4
Condition
100%
100%
Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
4 4
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide)
4 4
10091,
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
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
sustainable and are providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, caving, 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 dislodged 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 los providing some cover at baseflow.
0
0
100%

Table 5d. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 5 - 2016
Little Troublesome Creek (1,076 LF)
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Total
Number in
As -Built
Number of Amount of %Stable,
Unstable Unstable Performing
Segments Footage 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%
Degradation
0 0 100%
(Riffle and Run units)
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
5 5
100%
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
4 4
100%
Condition
Length 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
100%
2. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroded
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth
and/or scour and erosion
1
27
97%
1
27
100%
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
sustainable and are providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, caving, or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
1
27
97%
1
27
100%
3. Engineered
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged 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 los providing some cover at baseflow.
4
4
100%

Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 5 - 2016
Planted Acreage 33.7
Easement Acreage 52
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Mapping
Numberof
Polygons
Combined
Acreage
%of
Invasive Areas of Concern
Areas of points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
1000
Number of
Combined
0.0%
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Threshold
Planted
Areas of points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
none
0
Polygons
Acreage
acres
Acreage
Bare Areas
Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material.
0.1
0
0.0
0.0%
Low Stem Density Areas
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 4, or 5 stem count criteria.
0.1
0
0.0
0.0%
Total
0
0.0
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
0.0%
Cumulative Total
0
0.0
0.0%
Easement Acreage 52
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Mapping
Threshold
SF
Numberof
Polygons
Combined
Acreage
%of
Planted
Acreage
Invasive Areas of Concern
Areas of points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
1000
0
0.0
0.0%
Easement Encroachment Areas
Areas of points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
none
0
0.0
0.0%

Stream Photographs
Monitoring Year 5

� I
� r ,
x -
e a r•1����r�� 1 ;,-fir
VVIxa - 'C* • c- SS �� ,yam-[
'r l 2af F A 4-1 g _
Iq
fr x�
,ff,
-
Oc
,
_ r

• • '• ••1q, Ill• I I • • • '• •• •• I I •
F x ,
Photo Point 5 - looking upstream (4/10/2016) Photo Point 5 - looking downstream (4/10/2016)
Photo Point 6 - looking upstream (4/10/2016) I Photo Point 6 - looking downstream (4/10/2016) I
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data- Stream Photographs

Photo Point 7 - looking upstream (4/10/2016) 1 Photo Point 7 - looking downstream (4/10/2016) 1
Photo Point 8 - looking upstream (4/10/2016) 1 Photo Point 8 - looking downstream (4/10/2016) 1
Photo Point 9 - looking upstream (4/10/2016) I Photo Point 9 - looking downstream (4/10/2016) I
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data- Stream Photographs

Photo Point 10 - looking upstream (4/10/2016) Photo Point 10 - looking downstream (4/10/2016) 1
Photo Point 11- looking upstream (4/10/2016) 1 Photo Point 11- looking downstream (4/10/2016) 1
Photo Point 12 - looking upstream (4/10/2016) I Photo Point 12 - looking downstream (4/10/2016) I
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
+' Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data- Stream Photographs

Photo Point 13 - looking upstream (4/10/2016) 1 Photo Point 13 - looking downstream (4/10/2016) 1
Photo Point 14 - looking upstream (4/10/2016) 1 Photo Point 14 - looking downstream (4/10/2016) 1
Photo Point 15 - looking upstream (4/10/2016) I Photo Point 15 - looking downstream (4/10/2016) I
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data- Stream Photographs

Photo Point 16 - looking upstream (4/10/2016) 1 Photo Point 16 - looking downstream (4/10/2016) 1
Photo Point 17 - looking upstream (4/10/2016) 1 Photo Point 17 - looking downstream (4/10/2016) 1
Photo Point 18 - looking upstream (4/10/2016) I Photo Point 18 - looking downstream (4/10/2016) I
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data- Stream Photographs

Photo Point 19 — looking upstream (4/10/2016) 1 Photo Point 19 — looking downstream (4/10/2016) 1
Photo Point 20— looking upstream - Irvin (4/10/2016) 1 Photo Point 20 — looking upstream — LTC (4/10/2016) 1
Photo Point 20 — looking downstream - LTC (4/10/2016) I
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data— Stream Photographs

Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data- Stream Photographs
k
'4
Photo Point 21-
looking upstream (4/10/2016)
Photo Point 21- looking downstream (4/10/2016)
i
_
x
Photo Point 22
- looking upstream (4/10/2016)
Photo Point 22 -
looking downstream (4/10/2016)
3
�.
`f
I
K
Photo Point 23
- looking upstream (4/10/2016)
Photo Point 23 -
looking downstream (4/10/2016)
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data- Stream Photographs

Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
t'" Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data— Stream Photographs

Vegetation Photographs
Wetland Site
Monitoring Year 5

4
} 3
2
Vegetation Plot 1(6/21/2016) Vegetation Plot 2 (6/21/2016)
Vegetation Plot 3 (6/21/2016) 1 Vegetation Plot 4 (6/21/2016) 1
Vegetation Plot 5 (6/21/2016) I Vegetation Plot 6 (6/21/2016) I
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data —Vegetation Photographs

Vegetation Plot 7 (6/21/2016) 1 Vegetation Plot 8 (6/21/2016) 1
Vegetation Plot 9 (6/21/2016) 1 Vegetation Plot 10 (6/21/2016) 1
Vegetation Plot 11 (6/21/2016) I Vegetation Plot 12 (6/21/2016) I
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
+' Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data -Vegetation Photographs

6+'' Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data —Vegetation Photographs

Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data —Vegetation Photographs
z
Y w
.j
Yn
,
-7
+"Oki..r4
k4.
�
'�
f i s r
Y
i
k.,
Y
� .x
�}�r�,y
�� �� �Y• � "5' ,Y
i�
�{ -
Vegetation Plot 19 (6/21/2016)
Vegetation Plot 20 (6/21/2016)
_
Ai Jr
�y
s.
t
1
I I
+
Vegetation Plot 21 (6/21/2016)
Vegetation Plot 22 (6/21/2016)
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data —Vegetation Photographs

Vegetation Photographs
Stream Site
Monitoring Year 5

Vegetation Plot 29 (6/20/2016) 1 Vegetation Plot 30 (6/20/2016) 1
Vegetation Plot 32 (6/20/2016) 1 Vegetation Plot 32 (6/20/2016) 1
Vegetation Plot 33 (6/19/2016) 1Vegetation Plot 34 (6/19/2016) I
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
+' Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data - Vegetation Photographs

4 Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data — Vegetation Photographs

APPENDIX 3. Vegetation Plot Data

Table 7. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 5 - 2016
MY5 Success Criteria
Plot 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 Table - Metadata
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 5 - 2016
Wetland Site
Report Prepared By
Kenton Beal
Date Prepared
8/18/2016 8:10
database name
LTC- Wetland Site MY5 cvs-eep-entrytool-v2.3.1.mdb
database location
F:\Projects\005-12700 Little Troublesome Creek\Monitoring\Monitoring Year 5\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
Pro', 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 Creek -Cotton Rd Site
Description
Wetland Mitigation Site
Required Plots (calculated)
16
Sampled Plots
22

Table 8b. CVS Vegetation Table - Metadata
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 5 - 2016
Stream Site
Report Prepared By
Kenton Beal
Date Prepared
8/18/2016 8:04
database name
LTC - Stream Site MY5 cvs-eep-entrytool-v2.3.1.mdb
database location
F:\Projects\005-12700 Little Troublesome Creek\Monitoring\Monitoring Year 5\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
Pro', 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 Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 5 - 2016
Stream Site
Current Plot Data (MY5 2016)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
94640-WEI-0001
PnoLS P -all T
94640-WEI-0002
Pnol-S P -all T
94640-WEI-0003
Pnol-S P -all T
94640-WEI-0004
Pnol-S P -all T
94640-WEI-0005
PnoLS P -all T
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
94640-WEI-0010
PnoLS P --al IT T
94640-WEI-0011
Pnol-S P -all T
94640-WEI-0012
Pnol-S P -all T
94640-WEI-0013
Pnol-S P -all T
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
1
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
4
4
4
7
7
7
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
1
1
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
Tree
1
1
Tree
4
4
4
silky dogwood
Shrub
7
7
7
1
1
1
1
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
2
2
2
1
1
5
5
5
1
1
1
6
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
12
12
12
6
6
6
5
5
5
Liquidambar styraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
10 1
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
3
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
5 1
5 1
5
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
11
11
11
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
3
Salix sericea
3
3
3
1Shrub
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
Tree
Unknown
15hrub or Tree
IShrub or Tree
2
2
2
Salix sericea
isilky willow
1Shrub
15
1
0.02
6
607 1
15
6
607
Unknown
IShrub or Tree
Stem count 11 11 11 24 24 24 18 18 18 13 13 13 18 18 18
size (ares) 1 1 1 1 1
size (ACRES) 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
Species count 4 4 4 8 8 8 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4
Stems per ACRE 445.2 445.2 445.2 971.2 971.2 971.2 728.4 728.4 728.4 526.1 526.1 526.1 728.4 728.4 728.4
Stream Site I Current Plot Data (MY5 2016)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
94640-WEI-0006
PnoLS P -all T
94640-WEI-0007
Pnol-S P -all T
94640-WEI-0008
Pnol-S P -all T
94640-WEI-0009
Pnol-S P -all T
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
94640-WEI-0010
PnoLS P --al IT T
94640-WEI-0011
Pnol-S P -all T
94640-WEI-0012
Pnol-S P -all T
94640-WEI-0013
Pnol-S P -all T
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
1
1
1
5
5
5
9
9
9
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
Tree
2 2
4
4
3
3
3
1
1
1
Tree
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
7
7
7
1
1
1
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
1
1
1
5
5
5
1
1
1
6
6
6
Liquidambar styraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
1
Liquidambar styraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
10 1
10 1
10
10
10
10
2
2
2
2
2
2
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
3
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
1
1 1
5
5
5
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
Tree
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
Tree
3
Salix sericea
isilky willow
1Shrub
isilky willow
1Shrub
Unknown
Unknown
15hrub or Tree
IShrub or Tree
Stem count 12 12 12 18 18 18 11 11 11 19 19 19
size (ares) 1 1 1 1
size (ACRES) 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
Species count 3 3 3 3 3 3 5 5 5 4 4 4
Stems per ACRE 485.6 485.6 485.6 728.4 728.4 728.4 445.2 445.2 445.2 768.9 768.9 768.9
Stream Site
Current Plot Data (MY5 2016)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
94640-WEI-0010
PnoLS P --al IT T
94640-WEI-0011
Pnol-S P -all T
94640-WEI-0012
Pnol-S P -all T
94640-WEI-0013
Pnol-S P -all T
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
4
4
4
2
2 2
4
4
4
3
3
3
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
Tree
6
6 6
7
7
7
1
1
1
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
1
1
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
Liquidambar styraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
5
5
5
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
8 1
8
1 8
1
1 1
3
3
3
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
1
1 1
5
5
5
4
4
4
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
Tree
3
3
3
Salix sericea
isilky willow
1Shrub
Unknown
IShrub or Tree
Stem count 13 13 13 10 10 10 22 22 22
size (ares) 1 1 1
size (ACRES) 0.02 0.02 0.02
Species count 3 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 5
Stems per ACRE 526.1 526.1 526.1 404.7 1404.7 1404.7 890.3 890.3 1890.3
15
6
607 1
15
1
0.02
6
607 1
15
6
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
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 Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 5 - 2016
Stream Site
Annual Means
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
MYS (2016)
PnoLS P -all T
MY4 (2015)
Pnol-S P -all T
MY3 (20 4)
Pnol-S P -all T
MY2 (20 3)
PnoLS P -all T
MY1(2012)
PnoLS P -all
T
MYO (20 2)
Pnol-S P -all T
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
18
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
48
48
48
53
53
64
36
36
36
33
33
33
36
36
36
36
36
36
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
Tree
23
23
23
24
24
24
39
39
39
44
44
44
50
50
50
56
56
56
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
6
6
6
8
8
8
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
41
41
41
49
49
51
52
52
52
55
55
55
63
63
63
67
67
67
Liquidambarstyraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
82
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
12
12
12
17
17
22
19
19
19
21
21
21
31
31
31
37
37
37
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
59
59
59
64
64
85
64
64
64
65
65
65
67
67
67
68
68
68
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
13
13
13
15
15
17
16
16
16
17
17
17
20
20
20
22
22
22
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
Tree
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
11
11
11
13
13
13
11
11
11
Salix sericea
silky willow
Shrub
7
Unknown
IShrub or Tree
1
1
1
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
species count
Stems per ACRE
204
8
635
204
13
0.32
8
635
204
8
635
230
8
716
230
13
0.32
8
716
378 235 235 235 251 251 251 286 286 286 306 306 306
13 13 13 13
0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32
11 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 9 9 9
1177 731.5 731.5 731.5 ;:4, 781.41781.41890.31890,
4 781.4 890.3 890.3 890.3 952.6 952.6 952.6
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 Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 5 - 2016
Wetland Site
Current Plot Data (MYS 2016)
Current Plot Data (MY5 2016)
Scientific Name
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
94640-WEI-0001
PnoLSP-all T
94640-WEI-0002
PnoLS P -all T
94640-WEI-0003
PnoLS P -all T
94640-WEI-0004
PnoLS P -all T
94640-WEI-0005
Pnol-S P -all T
94640-WEI-0006
PnoLS P -all T
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
2
5
5
2
2
5
4
Alnus serrulata
hazel alder
Alnus serrulata
hazel alder
Shrub
2 2
2
2 2
2
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
3 3
3
2 2
8
6
6
6
3 3
3
1
Cephalanthus occidentalis
4
4
7
Cephalanthus occidentalis
common buttonbush
Shrub
10
1
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
2 2
2
2
2
4 4
4
white ash
Tree
3
3
3
Fraxinus americana
white ash
Tree
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
9 9
29
5
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
7
2
3 3
23
7
7
7
3 3
13
12 12
12
2
2
4
Liquidambar styraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
12
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
12
Nyssa sylvatica
blackgum
Tree
3 3
3
1 1
1
Nyssa sylvatica
blackgum
Tree
2
2
2
Platanus occidentalis
1
1
1
1 1
1
5 5
5
1
4 4
4
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
7 7
7
2 2
6
5
5
5
3 3
3
1
1
3
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
1 1
1
2 2
2
1 1
1
1 1
1
1 1
1
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
1 1
1
Tree
1
1
1
4 4
4
1
1
1
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
Tree
black willow
Tree
Salix nigra
black willow
Tree
Shrub
2
2
Sambucus canadensis
common elderberry
Shrub
Unknown
Stem count 16 16
size (ares) 1
size (ACRES) 0.02
Species count 4 4
Stems per ACRE 647.51 647.5 1
Shrub or Tree
29 16 16
1
0.02
8 4 4
1174 1647.5 1647.5 1
45 12 12 19 11 11 19 12 12
1 1 1
0.02 0.02 0.02
6 5 51 6 1 3 1 3 1 5 1 6 1 6
1821 485.6 1485.6 1768.91445.2 1445.2 1768.91485.6 1485.6
28
8
1133
Stem count 14 14
size (ares) 1
size (ACRES) 0.02
Species count 5 5
Stems per ACRE 566.6 566.6
40 9 9
1
0.02
8 4 4
1619 364.2 364.2
44 20 20
1
0.02
5 5 5
1781 809.4 1809.4
30 18 18
1
0.02
6 7 7
1214 728.4 728.4
30 21 21 Z1 11 11 20
1 1
0.02 0.02
8 4 4 4 5 5 6
1214 849.8 849.81 849.8 445.2 445.2 809.4
Wetland Site
Current Plot Data (MYS 2016)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
94640-WEI-0007
PnoLS P -all T
94640-WEI-0008
PnoLS P -all T
94640-WEI-0009
PnoLS P -all T
94640-WEI-0010
PnoLS P -all T
94640-WEI-0011
PnoLS P -all T
94640-WEI-0012
PnoLS P -all T
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
2
5
2
2
5
4
Alnus serrulata
hazel alder
Shrub
1 1
1
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
3 3
3
2 2
2
6 6
7
2 2
2
3 3
3
1
1
1
Cephalanthus occidentalis
common buttonbush
Shrub
2
1
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
2 2
2
2 2
2
2
2
2
Fraxinus americana
white ash
Tree
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
9 9
29
5
4 4
29
2 2
7
5 5
7
1
1
11
Liquidambar styraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
6
1
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
Nyssa sylvatica
blackgum
Tree
3 3
3
1 1
1
2
2
2
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
3 3
4
5 5
5
1
4 4
4
3 3
3
1
1
2
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
2 2
2
5
5
5
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
1 1
1
5 5
5
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
Tree
Salix nigra
black willow
Tree
Sambucus canadensis
common elderberry
Shrub
Unknown
Shrub or Tree
Stem count 16 16
size (ares) 1
size (ACRES) 0.02
Species count 4 4
Stems per ACRE 647.51 647.5 1
41 13 13
1
0.02
6 5 5
1659 1526.11526.11
29 16 16
1
0.02
8 4 4
1174 1647.5 1647.5 1
45 12 12 19 11 11 19 12 12
1 1 1
0.02 0.02 0.02
6 5 51 6 1 3 1 3 1 5 1 6 1 6
1821 485.6 1485.6 1768.91445.2 1445.2 1768.91485.6 1485.6
28
8
1133
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 Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 5 - 2016
Wetland Site
Current Plot Data (MYS 2016)
Current Plot Data (MY5 2016)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
94640-WEI-0019
PnoLSP-all T
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
94640-WEI-0013
PnoLS P -all T
94640-WEI-0014
PnoLS P -all T
94640-WEI-0015
Pnol-S P -all T
94640-WEI-0016
PnoLS P -all T
94640-WEI-0017
PnoLS P -all T
94640-WEI-0018
PnoLS P -all T
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
1
Alnus serrulata
hazel alder
Shrub
1
4
8
Alnus serrulata
hazel alder
Shrub
2
Betula nigra
2
2
2
2 2
2
1 1
1
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
2 2
2
3
3
3
2 2
2
2 2
2
1 1
1
Cephalanthus occidentalis
common buttonbush
Shrub
1
1
5
1
12
white ash
1
4
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
1
1
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
2 2
2
14
5 5
25
2
Fraxinus americana
white ash
Tree
2
12
Liquidambar styraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
1
3
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
7 7
27
1
1
21
2 2
3
1 1
1
2 2
4
4 4
6
Liquidambar styraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
1
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
1 1
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
1
5
11
8
8
10
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
Nyssa sylvatica
blackgum
Tree
1
1
1
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
5 5
5
1 1
1
1
1
1
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
6
6
8
1 1
2
1 1
1
5 5
5
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
1 1
1
Sambucus canadensis
common elderberry
Shrub
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
4 4
4
2
2
2
Unknown
Shrub or Tree
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
Tree
L
Stem count 10 10
size (ares) 1
size (ACRES) 0.02
Species count 5 5
Stems per ACRE 404.7 404.7
39 9 9
1
0.02
8 4 4
1578 364.2 364.2
30
5
1214
15
16
1 607
15
1
0.02
6
1 607 12550
63
9
6
607
Salix nigra
black willow
Tree
Sambucus canadensis
common elderberry
Shrub
Unknown
Shrub or Tree
Stem count 14 14
size (ares) 1
size (ACRES) 0.02
Species count 44
Stems per ACRE 566.6 566.6
36
5
1457
15
6
607
15
1
0.02
6
607
38 5 5 12 6 6 18 3 3 7 10 10 24
1 1 1 1
0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
7 3 3 4 4 4 5 2 2 4 3 3 5
1538 1202.3 1202.3 1485.61242.8 1242.8 1728.41121.41121.4 1283.3 404.7 404.7 971.2
Wetland Site
Current Plot Data (MYS 2016)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
94640-WEI-0019
PnoLSP-all T
94640-WEI-0020
PnoLS P -all T
94640-WEI-0021
PnoLS P -all T
94640-WEI-0022
JPnoLS P -all T
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
10
12
Alnus serrulata
hazel alder
Shrub
4
4
4
2
2
2
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
2 2
2
Cephalanthus occidentalis
common buttonbush
Shrub
3
7
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
1 1
1
1
1
1
1
Fraxinus americana
white ash
Tree
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
2 2
14
5 5
25
2
2
22
2
2
12
Liquidambar styraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
1
3
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
Nyssa sylvatica
blackgum
Tree
1 1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
1 1
4
1 1
1
5
5
11
8
8
10
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
5 5
5
1 1
1
1
1
1
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
Tree
Salix nigra
black willow
Tree
Sambucus canadensis
common elderberry
Shrub
Unknown
Shrub or Tree
L
Stem count 10 10
size (ares) 1
size (ACRES) 0.02
Species count 5 5
Stems per ACRE 404.7 404.7
39 9 9
1
0.02
8 4 4
1578 364.2 364.2
30
5
1214
15
16
1 607
15
1
0.02
6
1 607 12550
63
9
6
607
15g2l
1
0.02
6
607 1
6
1093
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 Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 5 - 2016
Wetland Site
Annual Means
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
MYS (2016)
PnoLSP-all T
MY4 (2015)
PnoLS P -all T
MY3 (20 4)
Pnol-S P -all T
MY2 (20 3)
Pnol-S P -all T
MY3 (20 2)
Pnol-S P -all T
MYO (2012)
Pnol-S P -all T
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
56
45
33
Alnusserrulata
hazel alder
Shrub
14
14
14
17
17
17
17
17
17
20
20
20
31
31
31
62
62
62
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
47
47
57
46
46
61
41
41
42
43
43
43
55
55
55
75
75
75
Cephalanthus occidentalis
common buttonbush
Shrub
45
50
73
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
18
18
19
21
21
26
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
76
76
284
74
74
197
70
70
170
64
64
64
68
68
68
71
71
71
Liquidambarstyraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
26
35
20
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
12
2
Nyssa sylvatica
blackgum
Tree
17
17
17
21
21
21
21
21
21
25
25
25
27
27
27
17
17
17
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
62
62
85
62
62
80
60
60
86
67
67
67
75
75
75
82
82
82
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
15
15
15
16
16
16
16
16
16
20
20
20
24
24
24
18
18
18
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
27
30
30
30
35
35
35
11
11
11
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
Tree
1
Salix nigra
black willow
Tree
4
Sambucus canadensis
common elderberry
Shrub
L25
Unknown
Shrub or Tree
7
7
7
Stem count 275 275
size (ares) 22
size (ACRES) 0.54
Species count 8 8
Stems per ACRE 505.9 505.9
660 283 283
22
0.54
13 8 8
1214 520.6 520.6
574 271 271
22
0.54
11 8 8
1056 498.5 498.5
553 289 289 289 346 346 346 381 381 381
22 22 22
0.54 0.54 0.54
14 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 9
1017 531.6 531.6 531.6 636.5 636.5 636.5 700.8 700.8 700.8
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 (DMS Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 5 - 2016
Irvin Creek Reaches 1 and 2
(-): Data was not provided
'Design 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
Gage
Irvin
Min
Creek Reach
Pre -Restoration Condition
I Irvin Creek
Max Min
Reach
2
Max
Collins
Min
Creek
Max
Reference Reach Data
UT to UT to
RockyParameter
Belews Creed
Min I Max Min I Max
SpencerCreek
Min I Max
Design'
Irvin Creek Irvin Creek
Min I Max Min I Max
Irvin
Min
Creek Reach
As-Built/Baseline
I Irvin
Max Min
Creek Reach
2
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
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 2)
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
F
3.3
2.3
2.5
1.0
F 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
F 80
75
26 81
13 1 47
76
133
77
135
57
236
91
142
Pool Volume (ft3)
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
N/A
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
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
1
3.3
3.0
3.3
2.7
3.1
3.1
3.4
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
90 100 115 150 125 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)
1 0.0030
0.0070
0.0235
0.0132
N/A'
N/Al
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.0107 0.0043 1 - - - - 0.0045 0.0049 0.0045 0.0047
(-): Data was not provided
'Design 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 (DMS Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 5 - 2016
Little Troublesome Creek and UT1
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
N/A
5.2
28.7
refer to table 5a
1
7.8
32.3
10.9
32.6
1 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 z)
6.4 73.6
5.0 86.6 5.1 77.4
87.1
Width/Depth Ratio
4.3 11.2
112.0 1 12.0 1 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 1 2.5 1.6 1 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)l
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)A
29 42 46 127
24
43 129 226 35
59 206
267
Pool Volume (ft 3)
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/ft'
0.96 0.41
N/A' N/A' 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
1
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
CS 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/Al
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.0183 1 0.0033
1 0.0123 1 0.0044 1 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.
3The 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 (DMS Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 5 - 2016
Irvin Creek Reaches 1 and 2, Little Troublesome Creek, & UT1
•..(Pool)
Irvin Creek Reach 1
Dimension and Substrate
Base
Cross
MY1
Section
MY2 I
1 (Riffle)
MY3 I
MY4
MY5
Base
Cross
MY1
Section
I MY2 I
2
MY3
MY4
MY5
Base
MY1
MY2 I
MY3
MY4
MY5
Base
Cross
MY1
Section
MY2
4 (Riffle)
I MY3
MY4
MY5
based on fixed bankfull elevation
722.4
722.1
718.7
718.1
Bankfull Width (ft)
18.6
17.7
17.5
17.5
17.5
15.2
19.9
18.0
18.3
16.5
14.7
14.6
31.1
31.1
34.5
31.0
28.9
29.3
19.7
20.2
25.5
20.5
19.3
19.2
Floodprone Width (ft)
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.6
1.5
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.5
1.9
2.2
2.4
2.7
2.9
3.3
1.9
1.9
1.6
1.7
1.6
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.3
1.4
1.4
1.4
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
2.4
2.5
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
3.7
4.0
3.9
4.0
4.2
4.7
4.2
4.2
4.5
4.4
4.3
4.5
2.6
2.7
2.6
2.5
2.6
2.6
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft')
29.3
27.2
26.0
24.5
22.4
22.2
36.8
38.6
43.1
44.0
42.7
48.2
57.6
57.6
56.5
51.2
46.4
48.5
33.7
34.4
33.0
28.8
27.3
27.5
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
11.8
11.6
11.8
12.6
13.6
10.4
10.7
8.4
7.8
6.2
5.0
4.4
16.8
16.8
21.1
18.8
18.0 1
17.8
11.5
11.9
19.8
14.6
13.6
13.4
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.2
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
1.0
1.1
1.1
•..
Irvin Creek Reach 2
•..
Dimension and Substrate
Base
Cross
MY1
Section
MY2
5
MY3
MY4
MY5
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
Base
MY1
MY2
M73
MY4
MY5
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
based on fixed bankfull elevation
713.7
713.9
710.5
710.2
Bankfull Width (ft)
35.3
35.6
36.9
34.2
32.9
32.9
18.1
18.6
18.0
18.2
17.9
18.6
20.9
20.9
32.3
19.5
18.8
18.5
29.2
32.0
35.7
26.6
27.8
24.4
Floodprone Width (ft)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.2
1.2
1.1
1.6
1.5
1.7
1.5
1.5
1.4
1.6
1.4
1.1
1.4
1.4
1.3
1.7
1.6
1.5
1.7
1.6
1.7
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
4.0
4.1
4.2
4.1
4.0
4.1
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.7
2.4
2.4
2.3
3.6
3.6
3.9
3.7
3.8
3.8
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft')
47.9
46.0
49.2
42.3
40.6
35.9
29.0
27.8
30.7
27.8
27.1
26.7
32.7
28.7
35.1
27.3
26.6
23.8
50.1
50.0
54.8
45.5
45.5
42.3
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
26.0
27.5
27.6
27.6
26.7
30.1
11.3
12.4
10.6
11.9
11.8
12.9
13.3
15.2
29.7
13.9
13.3
14.3
17.0
20.5
23.3
15.5
16.9
14.0
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.8
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.0
1.0 1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
Cross
Section
9 (Riffle)
UTI
Cross
Section
10 •..
Little Troublesome Creek
•..
Dimension and Substrate
Base
MY1
MY2 I
MY3
MY4
MY5
Base
MY1
MY2 I
MY3
MY4
MY5
Base
MY1
MY2
M- -Y3T
MY4
MY5
Base I
MY1 I
MY2
I MY3
MY4
MY5
based on fixed bankfull elevation
707.5
707.2
708.9
707.5
Bankfull Width (ft)
10.9
8.0
8.3
6.9
5.8
5.3
9.3
9.6
8.9
7.9
6.0
2.7
32.6
33.0
31.9
32.1
32.6
31.6
41.0
42.2
42.1
40.4
39.2
29.1
Floodprone Width (ft)
36.7
35.7
34.3
33.9
34.0
32.4
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.8
2.7
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.5
2.5
3.1
3.1
3.2
3.5
3.0
3.7
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.9
1.2
1.2
1.1
1.2
1.1
1.0
4.1
4.0
3.9
3.9
4.0
3.9
5.9
6.5
7.4
8.3
6.6
6.4
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
5.1
4.1
3.7
3.3
2.8
2.4
6.4
5.6
4.0
3.1
2.7
2.1
87.1
84.6
82.8
82.4
80.7
80.0
125.3
128.8
133.4
139.8
116.4
108.7
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
23.0
15.5
18.5
14.2
12.2
11.7
13.5
16.6
19.7
19.9
13.S
3.5
12.2
12.9
12.3
12.5
13.2
12.5
13.4
13.8
13.3
11.7
13.2
7.8
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.2
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
Dimension and Substrate
based on fixed bankfull elevation
Bankfull Width (ft)
Floodprone Width (ft)
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
Base
34.6
200+
2.2
4.2
77.4
15.5
2.2+
1.0 1
Little Troublesome Creek
Cross Section 13 (Riffle)
MY1 MY2 I MY3 MY4
707.3
35.7 33.7 31.8 31.4
200+ 200+ 200+ 200+
2.1 2.2 2.3 2.3
3.9 3.9 3.9 4.0
74.8 74.4 73.6 70.7
17.1 15.3 13.8 13.9
2.2+ 2.2+ 2.2+ 2.2+
1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
MY5
31.2
200+
2.2
4.3
69.9
13.9
2.2+
1.0

Table 12a. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 5 - 2016
Irvin Creek Reach 1
(-): Data was not provided
Min
Max
Min
T 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.S
21.5
2S.S
17.5
19.0
20.5
17.5
18.4
19.3
15.2
17.2
19.2
Floodprone Width (ft)
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
Bankfull Mean Depth
1.6
1.7
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.3
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.5
1.5
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
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.4
2.5
2.6
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft')
29.3
33.7
27.2
30.8
34.4
26.0
29.5
33.0
24.5
26.7
28.8
22.4
24.9
27.3
22.2
24.9
27.5
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
13.6
13.6
13.6
10.4
11.9
13.4
Entrenchment Ratio
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
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
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.1
1.2
1.2
D50 (mm)
35.0
-
44.2
23.7
-
41.1
13.1
-
29.3
16.9
-
19.2
10.3
-
15.5
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
18
92
11
41
79
33
47
98
26
47
87
26
45
89
25
42
75
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
0.0020
0.0071
0.0181
0.0050
0.0077
0.0205
Pool Length (ft)
32
141
33
63
153
42
64
141
45
65
146
39
60
139
43
62
142
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
4.2
4.3
4.3
4.5
4.6
4.7
Pool Spacing (ft)
57
236
63
105
227
86
120
203
81
115
278
78
108
216
86
96
217
Pool Volume (ft)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
52
151
Radius of Curvature (ft)
38
59
Rc:Bankfull 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
C
C
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
2,095
2,095
2,095
2,095
2,095
2,095
Sinuosity (ft)
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
N/A
0.0044
0.0039
0.0038
0.0037
0.0039
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.0045
0.0048
0.0043
0.0043
0.0041
0.0042
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
0.3/1.0/5.6/28.5/58.6/180
0.4/0.9/2.8/27.6/53.7/90
% of Reach with Eroding Banks
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
(-): Data was not provided

Table 12b. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 5 - 2016
Irvin Creek Reach 2
(-): Data was not provided
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
17.9
18.4
18.8
18.5
18.6
18.6
Floodprone Width (ft)
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
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
1.4
1.7
1.4
1.5
1.5
1.4
1.5
1.5
1.3
1.4
1.4
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
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.3
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
27.3
27.6
27.8
26.6
26.9
27.1
23.8
25.3
26.7
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
11.8
12.6
13.3
12.9
13.6
14.3
Entrenchment Ratio
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
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
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.1
D50 (mm)
18.6
-
39.8
20.7
-
42.7
11.3
-
14.8
14
-
18.4
13.3
-
16.9
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
17
73
21
59
72
29
59
72
35
59
79
30
59
79
35
57
80
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
0.0041
0.0085
0.0137
0.0043
0.0078
0.0136
Pool Length (ft)
46
85
52
64
89
42
66
109
52
64
87
44
58
83
49
64
94
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
3.8
3.9
4.0
3.8
3.9
4.0
Pool Spacing (ft)
91
142
89
123
139
88
126
140
87
124
162
88
122
156
69
123
146
Pool Volume (ft)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
49
86
Radius of Curvature (ft)
38
62
Rc:Bankfull 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
C
C
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
1,932
1,932
1,932
1,932
1,932
1,932
Sinuosity (ft)
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
N/A
0.0045
0.0048
0.0047
0.0046
0.0046
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.0047
0.0049
0.0046
0.0050
0.0047
0.0045
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
0.1/1.3/5.0/84.6/128/362
0.1/0.4/1.2/69.7/115/180
% of Reach with Eroding Banks
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
(-): Data was not provided

Table 12c. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 5 - 2016
UT1
(-): Data was not provided
MEMMEMI
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
5.8
5.3
Floodprone Width (ft)
36.7
35.7
34.3
33.9
34.0
32.4
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
Bankfull Max Depth
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.9
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft')
5.1
4.1
3.7
3.3
2.8
2.4
Width/Depth Ratio
23.0
15.5
18.5
14.2
12.2
11.7
Entrenchment Ratio
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.2
D50 (mm)
13.3
42.4
36.7
36.7
50.2
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
11
26
14
20
31
9
17
28
21
25
27
9
33
36
5
12
69
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
0.0119
0.0172
0.0423
0.0084
0.0177
0.0209
Pool Length (ft)
18
48
15
23
36
20
28
43
17
27
31
17
25
26
8
18
34
Pool Max Depth (ft)
1.2
1.2
1.1
1.2
1.1
1.0
Pool Spacing (ft)
35
59
43
52
62
47
58
60
36
-
67
36
44
52
16
24
58
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
C5
CS
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
233
233
233
233
233
233
Sinuosity (ft)
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
N/A
0.0120
0.0136
0.0093
0.0106
0.0123
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.0126
0.0121
0.0108
0.0113
0.0108
0.0103
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
SC/1.2/1.8/34.3/57.6/90
0.2/0.6/4.2/86.2/180/256
% of Reach with Eroding Banks
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
(-): Data was not provided

Table 12d. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 5 - 2016
Little Troublesome Creek
(-): Data was not provided
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
31.4
32.0
32.6
31.2
31.4
31.6
Floodprone Width (ft)
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
Bankfull Mean Depth
1.6
2.7
2.1
2.4
2.6
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.3
2.5
2.6
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.5
2.4
2.5
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
4.0
4.0
4.0
3.9
4.1
4.3
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ftz)
79.6
87.1
74.8
79.7
84.6
74.4
78.6
82.8
73.6
78.0
82.4
70.7
75.7
80.7
69.9
75.0
80.0
Width/Depth Ratio
12.2
30
12.9
15.0
17.1
12.3
13.8
15.3
12.5
13.2
13.8
13.2
13.6
13.9
12.5
13.2
13.9
Entrenchment Ratio
2.2+
0.0
-
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
d50 (mm)
32.7
-
39.7
41.8
-
47.3
34.5
-
35.0
40.2
-
44.2
40.2
-
44.3
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
79
142
74
107
147
77
100
141
71
112
146
71
102
135
63
92
122
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
0.0045
0.0095
0.0153
0.0055
0.0085
0.0106
Pool Length (ft)
88
159
88
121
168
83
127
162
89
121
155
85
113
164
85
121
164
Pool Max Depth (ft)
5.9
6.5
7.4
8.3
6.6
6.4
Pool Spacing (ft)
206
267
194
219
297
208
242
289
218
223
316
249
258
265
220
230
270
Pool Volume (ft)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
113
258
Radius of Curvature (ft)
65
97
Rc:Bankfull 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
C4
C4
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
1,171
1,171
1,171
1,171
1,171
1,171
Sinuosity (ft)
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
N/A
0.0039
0.0038
0.0034
0.0038
0.0039
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.0038
0.0039
0.0037
0.0030
0.0034
0.0034
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
SC/0.5/5.6/90.0/157.1/362
0.2/0.6/1.8/93.2/147/362
% of Reach with Eroding Banks
0%
0%
4%
0%
3%
(-): Data was not provided

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 5 - 2016
Irvin Creek Reach 1
730
725
-----
-------
720
d
w
C
2
715
d
LU
x
x
x
710
705
700
10900 11100
11300
11500
11700 11900
12100 12300
Station (feet)
t TW (MYO-4/2012)
TW (MY1-10/2012)
t TW (MY2-6/2013)
t TW (MY3-5/2014)
TW (MY4-5/2015)
t TW (MY5-4/2016)
------- WS (MY5-4/2016)
♦ BKF/TOB (MY5-4/2016)
0 STRUCTURES (MY5-4/2016)
-----
-------
x
x
x
x

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 5 -2016
Irvin Creek Reach 2
730
725
720
715
-------
d
d
---- --
c
3
710
d
UJ
705
X
X
700
695
690
� m
x x
12300 12500
12700 12900
13100 13300
13500
13700
13900 14100
Station (feet)
TW (MYO-4/2012)
—�- TW (MYt-10/2012)
t TW (MY2-6/2013)
t TW (MY3-5/2014)
TW (MY4-5/2015)
t TW (MY5-4/2016)
------- WS (MY5-4/2016)
• BKF/TOB (MY5-4/2016)
• STRUCTURES (MY5-4/2016)
-------
---- --
X
X
� m
x x

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 5 - 2016
UT1
708
707
706
m
r
0
d
W 705
704
703
40000

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 5 - 2016
Little Troublesome Creek
715
710
N_
M
-------------
705
w
X
c
0
m
UJ
700
X
695
690
20000 20200 20400 20600 20800 21000 21200
Station (feet)
TW (MYO-4/2012) t TW (MY1-10/2012) t TW (MY2-6/2013) t TW (MY3-5/2014) TW (MY4-5/2015)
t TW (MY5-4/2016) -----• WS (MY5-4/2016) ♦ BKF/TOB (MY5-4/2016) • STRUCTURES (MY5-4/2016)
N_
M
X

Cross Section Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.94640
Monitoring Year 5
Cross Section 1 - Irvin Creek Reach 1
1•
22.2
x -section area (ft.sq.)
15.2
width (ft)
1.5
mean depth (ft)
2.4
max depth (ft)
16.8
wetted parameter (ft)
1.3
hydraulic radius (ft)
10.4
width -depth ratio
'''''��!1�11�1�IIIIIIIIIIIWIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIW
W flood prone area (ft)
13.1
entrenchment ratio
1.2
low bank height ratio
iiiii■iii■iiiiii���■■i�f�lmlirii■ii■■iiriiilii
11111111111111111!!���'�11111111111111111111111111
.11111111111111111111�1111111111111111111111111111
Bankfull Dimensions
22.2
x -section area (ft.sq.)
15.2
width (ft)
1.5
mean depth (ft)
2.4
max depth (ft)
16.8
wetted parameter (ft)
1.3
hydraulic radius (ft)
10.4
width -depth ratio
200.0
W flood prone area (ft)
13.1
entrenchment ratio
1.2
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 4/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 5
Cross Section 2 - Irvin Creek Reach 1
Bankfull Dimensions
48.2
x -section area (ft.sq.)
14.6
width (ft)
3.3
mean depth (ft)
4.7
max depth (ft)
19.9
wetted perimeter (ft)
2.4
hydraulic radius (ft)
4.4
width -depth ratio
---
W flood prone area (ft)
---
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 4/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.94640
Monitoring Year 5
Cross Section 3 - Irvin Creek Reach 1
Bankfull Dimensions
48.5
x -section area (ft.sq.)
29.3
width (ft)
1.7
mean depth (ft)
4.5
max depth (ft)
33.5
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.4
hydraulic radius (ft)
17.8
width -depth ratio
---
W flood prone area (ft)
---
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
IN IN INIINIII
I12hpka. IIIIII IN III IN IN milli
mill
III
Bankfull Dimensions
48.5
x -section area (ft.sq.)
29.3
width (ft)
1.7
mean depth (ft)
4.5
max depth (ft)
33.5
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.4
hydraulic radius (ft)
17.8
width -depth ratio
---
W flood prone area (ft)
---
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 4/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.94640
Monitoring Year 5
Cross Section 4 - Irvin Creek Reach 1
121+14 Riffle
721
720
719
718
0
N1
w 717
w
716
715
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Width (ft)
+MYO (4/2012) MY1 (10/2012) MY2 (6/2013) +MY3 (5/2014)
tMY4(5/2015) +MY5(4/2016) —Bankfull—FloodproneArea
Bankfull Dimensions
27.5
x -section area (ft.sq.)
19.2
width (ft)
1.4
mean depth (ft)
2.6
max depth (ft)
21.4
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.3
hydraulic radius (ft)
13.4
width -depth ratio
200.0
W flood prone area (ft)
10.4
entrenchment ratio
1.1
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 4/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.94640
Monitoring Year S
Cross Section 5 - Irvin Creek Reach 2
130+90 Pool
718
x -section area (ft.sq.)
32.9
width (ft)
1.1
717
4.1
max depth (ft)
37.4
716
1.0
hydraulic radius (ft)
30.1
715
---
W flood prone area (ft)
---
,K 714
c
1.0
low bank height ratio
713
v 712
w
711
710
709
LI
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Width (ft)
—o= MYO (4/2012) MY1 (10/2012) 4 MY2 (6/2013) tMY3 (5/2014) 4 MY4 (5/2015) tMY5 (4/2016) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
35.9
x -section area (ft.sq.)
32.9
width (ft)
1.1
mean depth (ft)
4.1
max depth (ft)
37.4
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.0
hydraulic radius (ft)
30.1
width -depth ratio
---
W flood prone area (ft)
---
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date:
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.94640
Monitoring Year S
Cross Section 6 - Irvin Creek Reach 2
131+47 Riffle
717
x -section area (ft.sq.)
18.6
width (ft)
1.4
mean depth (ft)
2.4
max depth (ft)
20.1
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.3
hydraulic radius (ft)
12.9
width -depth ratio
200.0
W flood prone area (ft)
716
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
715
714
° 713
v
712
711-
11-710
710
0 10 20 30 40 50
Width (ft)
+MYO (4/2012) t MY1 (10/2012) t MY2 (6/2013) +MY3 (5/2014)
�MY4(5/2015) MY5(4/2016) —Bankfull—FloodproneArea
Bankfull Dimensions
26.7
x -section area (ft.sq.)
18.6
width (ft)
1.4
mean depth (ft)
2.4
max depth (ft)
20.1
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.3
hydraulic radius (ft)
12.9
width -depth ratio
200.0
W flood prone area (ft)
10.8
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 4/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.94640
Monitoring Year S
Cross Section 7 - Irvin Creek Reach 2
Bankfull Dimensions
23.8
x -section area (ft.sq.)
18.5
width (ft)
1.3
mean depth (ft)
2.3
max depth (ft)
19.6
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.2
hydraulic radius (ft)
14.3
width -depth ratio
■■■m■■■■
W flood prone area (ft)
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■�■�:!
entrenchment ratio
1.1
1111
�: ���Y__�.s�■■■■■■■■■1�111�!!..■■.■�1
,.11111111111111111111.Qi1;■111����111111111111■11■
��.�IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
,:111111111111111111111:=-
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIWIIIII��i11111111111111111111
Bankfull Dimensions
23.8
x -section area (ft.sq.)
18.5
width (ft)
1.3
mean depth (ft)
2.3
max depth (ft)
19.6
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.2
hydraulic radius (ft)
14.3
width -depth ratio
200.0
W flood prone area (ft)
10.8
entrenchment ratio
1.1
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 4/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.94640
Monitoring Year S
Cross Section 8 - Irvin Creek Reach 2
Bankfull Dimensions
42.3
IIIWIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
24.4
11111111111111111111
1.7
mean depth (ft)
3.8
max depth (ft)
29.7
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.4
hydraulic radius (ft)
14.0
�1111�����!...._`�11111
---
1111111111111�111111NNW
111�!!
1
1.1
low bank height ratio
1111111111111111111111.,�.��1111�`�1�111111111�1�1
,: 1111111111111111111111111►.l111111111111111111111
111111111111111111111111111`�1!IIIi1111111111111111
,. 1111111111111111111111111111������111111111111
111
1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
W
Bankfull Dimensions
42.3
x -section area (ft.sq.)
24.4
width (ft)
1.7
mean depth (ft)
3.8
max depth (ft)
29.7
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.4
hydraulic radius (ft)
14.0
width -depth ratio
---
W flood prone area (ft)
---
entrenchment ratio
1.1
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 4/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.94640
Monitoring Year S
Cross Section 9 - UT1
400+67 Riffle
710
x -section area (ft.sq.)
5.3
width (ft)
0.5
mean depth (ft)
0.9
max depth (ft)
6.2
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.4
hydraulic radius (ft)
11.7
width -depth ratio
32.4
W flood prone area (ft)
709
entrenchment ratio
1.2
low bank height ratio
708
0
v
w 707 -
706
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Width (ft)
+MYO (4/2012) tMY1 (10/2012) tMY2 (6/2013) +MY3 (5/2014)
--*-- MY4 (5/2015) MY5(4/2016) —Bankfull—FloodproneArea
Bankfull Dimensions
2.4
x -section area (ft.sq.)
5.3
width (ft)
0.5
mean depth (ft)
0.9
max depth (ft)
6.2
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.4
hydraulic radius (ft)
11.7
width -depth ratio
32.4
W flood prone area (ft)
6.1
entrenchment ratio
1.2
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 4/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.94640
Monitoring Year S
Cross Section 10 - UT1
400+94 Pool
710
x -section area (ft.sq.)
2.7
width (ft)
0.8
mean depth (ft)
1.0
max depth (ft)
4.2
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.5
hydraulic radius (ft)
3.5
width -depth ratio
---
W flood prone area (ft)
---
entrenchment ratio
1.2
low bank height ratio
70900
708
x
c
0
a 707
v
w
706
70S
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Width (ft)
+MYO (4/2012) MY1 (10/2012) 4 MY2 (6/2013) —�—MY3 (5/2014) — MY4 (5/2015) tMY5 (4/2016) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
2.1
x -section area (ft.sq.)
2.7
width (ft)
0.8
mean depth (ft)
1.0
max depth (ft)
4.2
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.5
hydraulic radius (ft)
3.5
width -depth ratio
---
W flood prone area (ft)
---
entrenchment ratio
1.2
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 4/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.94640
Monitoring Year S
Cross Section 11- Little Troublesome Creek
Bankfull Dimensions
80.0
x -section area (ft.sq.)
31.6
width (ft)
2.5
mean depth (ft)
3.9
max depth (ft)
33.5
wetted perimeter (ft)
2.4
hydraulic radius (ft)
12.5
width -depth ratio
200.0
W flood prone area (ft)
6.3
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
1.0
low bank height ratio
Bankfull Dimensions
80.0
x -section area (ft.sq.)
31.6
width (ft)
2.5
mean depth (ft)
3.9
max depth (ft)
33.5
wetted perimeter (ft)
2.4
hydraulic radius (ft)
12.5
width -depth ratio
200.0
W flood prone area (ft)
6.3
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 4/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.94640
Monitoring Year S
Cross Section 12 - Little Troublesome Creek
IS '11
108.7
x -section area (ft.sq.)
29.1
width (ft)
viii■ii■■■i����■iii■■iiii����� iii■■■■■ii■ii■i■iii
mean depth (ft)
6.4
.
34.5
wetted perimeter (ft)
3.2
hydraulic radius (ft)
7.8
width -depth ratio
---
W flood prone area (ft)
---
entrenchment ratio
1.1
low bank height ratio
11
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■��►�►i1�i■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■
1 1 1 1 •1 1 .1 1 :1 •1
11
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Bankfull Dimensions
108.7
x -section area (ft.sq.)
29.1
width (ft)
3.7
mean depth (ft)
6.4
max depth (ft)
34.5
wetted perimeter (ft)
3.2
hydraulic radius (ft)
7.8
width -depth ratio
---
W flood prone area (ft)
---
entrenchment ratio
1.1
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 4/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.94640
Monitoring Year S
Cross Section 13 - Little Troublesome Creek
209+25 Riffle
712
x -section area (ft.sq.)
31.2
width (ft)
2.2
mean depth (ft)
4.3
max depth (ft)
33.6
711
2.1
hydraulic radius (ft)
13.9
710
200.0
W flood prone area (ft)
6.4
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
709
708
x
707
0
a 706
>
v
w 705
704
703
702
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Width (ft)
+MYO (4/2012) t MY1 (10/2012) t MY2 (6/2013) +MY3 (5/2014)
--*-- MY4 (5/2015) MY5(4/2016) -Bankfull-FloodproneArea
Bankfull Dimensions
69.9
x -section area (ft.sq.)
31.2
width (ft)
2.2
mean depth (ft)
4.3
max depth (ft)
33.6
wetted perimeter (ft)
2.1
hydraulic radius (ft)
13.9
width -depth ratio
200.0
W flood prone area (ft)
6.4
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 4/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Reachwide and Cross Section Substrate Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94640
Monitoring Year 5 - 2016
Irvin Creek Reach 1, Reachwide
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Particle Count
Riffle Pool Total
Irvin Creek Reach 1 Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
2.8
2
2
2
2
Very fine
0.062
0.125
80
0
a
2
Fine
0.125
0.250
4
4
4
6
Medium
0.250
0.500
1
16
17
17
23
Coarse
0.5
1.0
1
13
14
14
37
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
1
11
12
12
49
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
1
1
1
50
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
50
Fine
4.0
5.7
50
Fine
5.7
8.0
50
Medium
8.0
11.3
4
2
6
6
56
Medium
11.3
16.0 1
11
1
12
12
68
Coarse
16.0
22.6
11
1
12
12
80
Coarse
22.6
32
7
7
7
87
Very Coarse
32
45
5
5
5
92
Very Coarse
45
64
6
6
6
98
Small
64
90
2
2
2
100
Small
90
128
100
Large
128
180
100
Large
180
256
100
..................................................
Small
256
362
100
I"
Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Totall
50
I 50
1 100
1 100
1 100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
0.38
D35 =
0.91
D50 =
2.8
D84 =
27.6
1395 =
53.7
13100 = 1
90.0
Irvin Creek Reach 1, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100%
90%
80%
y 70%
a 60%
m
50%
U 40%
m
30%
v
20%
c
10%
0%
O O6'L ytih O.th zp 1 'L ,ti`b P 1^ *0 yy'? ,y0116 361 yyti yO,tb
0 0
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO-5/2012 E MY1-10/2012 ■ MY2-6/2013 ■ MY3-5/2014 ■ MY4-5/2015 0 MY5-4/2016
Irvin Creek Reach 1, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90
�� I
Cob le Eloil er
80
0
a
70
ad
60
E
3
50
u
c
40
v
30
a
20
10
0
0.010
0.100 1.000 10.000 100.000 1000.000 10000.000
Particle Class Size (mm)
--a— MYO-5/2012
t MYI-10/2012 --*— MY2-6/2013 + MY3-5/2014 -- — MY4-5/2015 t MYS-4/2016
Irvin Creek Reach 1, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100%
90%
80%
y 70%
a 60%
m
50%
U 40%
m
30%
v
20%
c
10%
0%
O O6'L ytih O.th zp 1 'L ,ti`b P 1^ *0 yy'? ,y0116 361 yyti yO,tb
0 0
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO-5/2012 E MY1-10/2012 ■ MY2-6/2013 ■ MY3-5/2014 ■ MY4-5/2015 0 MY5-4/2016

Reachwide and Cross Section Substrate Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94640
Monitoring Year 5 - 2016
Irvin Creek Reach 1, Cross Section 1
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Particle
Count
Total
Cross Section 1 Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
D35 =
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
D84 =
59.2
0
95.4
Very fine
0.062
0.125
70%
0
IL
Fine
0.125
0.250
2
2
2
40%
Medium
0.250
0.500
3
3
5
Coarse
0.5
1.0
4
4
9
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
6
6
15
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
1
1
16
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
4
4
20
■ MYO-5/2012 ■ MY1-10/2012 ■ MY2-6/2013 ■ MY3-5/2014 ■ MY4-5/2015 ■MY5 4/2016
Fine
4.0
5.7
4
4
24
Fine
5.7
8.0
6
6
1 30
Medium
8.0
11.3
10
10
40
Medium
11.3
16.0
11
11
51
Coarse
16.0
22.6
6
6
57
Coarse
22.6
32
11
11
68
Very Coarse
32
45
9
9
77
Very Coarse
45
64
9
9
86
Small
64
90
8
8
94
Small
90
128
6
6
100
Large
128
180
100
Large
180
256
100
..................................................
Small
256
362
100
Small
Medium
Large/Very Large
362
512
1024
512
1024
2048
100
100
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Totall
100
1 100
1 100
Cross Section 1
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
2.8
D35 =
9.4
D50 =
15.5
D84 =
59.2
D95 =
95.4
D100 =1
128.0
Cross Section 1
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90
Grav I Cob le
80 I er
70
m
60
E 50
0
40
a
m 30
a
20
10
0
0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000 100.000 1000.000 10000.000
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-5/2012 —9— MYl-10/2012 —&--- MY2-6/2013 t MY3-5/2014 --*— MY4-5/2015 --o---MY5-4/2016
Cross Section 1
Individual Class Percent
100%
90%
c
80%
70%
IL
60%
N
50%
U
7V
40%
30%
'a
20%
c
10%
0%
0 ,y5 oy ti ti ti0 y1 4 y3 y6 tib 3ti p5 0b �o yW yo 56 dti yti yo 0
og 1p
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO-5/2012 ■ MY1-10/2012 ■ MY2-6/2013 ■ MY3-5/2014 ■ MY4-5/2015 ■MY5 4/2016

Reachwide and Cross Section Substrate Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94640
Monitoring Year 5 - 2016
Irvin Creek Reach 1, Cross Section 4
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Particle
Count
Total
Cross Section 4 Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
D35 =
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
1
1
1
43.1
Very fine
0.062
0.125
1
70%
1
a
a
Fine
0.125
0.250
1
1
2
50%
Medium
0.250
0.500
2
2
4
Coarse
0.5
1.0
1
1
1 5
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
9
9
14
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
4
4
18
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
4
4
22
Fine
4.0
5.7
6
6
28
Fine
5.7
8.0
11
11
39
Medium
8.0
11.3
14
14
53
Medium
11.3
16.0
13
13
66
Coarse
16.0
22.6
14
14
80
Coarse
22.6
32
8
8
88
Very Coarse
32
45
8
8
96
Very Coarse
45
64
4
4
100
Small
64
90
100
Small
90
128
100
Large
128
180
100
Large
180
256
100
.................................................
Small
256
362
100
...
Small
Medium
Large
362
512
10242048
512
1024
100
100
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Totall
100 1
100
1 100
Cross Section 4
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
2.4
D35 =
7.0
D50 =
10.3
D9 =
26.9
D95 =
43.1
D100 =
64.0
Cross Section 4
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90
Grav I Cob le
80 Ider
70
d
60
a
£ 50
40
C
u 30
w
a 20
l0
0
0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000 100.000 1000.000 10000.000
Particle Class Size (mm)
F-- MYO-5/2012 —*—. MY1-10/2012 MY2-6/2013 t MY3-5/2014 --*— MY4-5/2015 t MY5-2016
Cross Section 4
Individual Class Percent
100%
90%
80%
ii
70%
a
a
60%
u
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
O tih Oy 'y ti ,ti0 b �1 'b ,y?� y6 ti� 3ti by �A CO .yW
Opti yti5
O, O• O• y ,y
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO-5/2012 ■ MYS-10/2012 ■ MY2-6/2013 ■ MY3-5/2014 ■ MY4-5/2015 ■ MY5-2016

Reachwide and Cross Section Substrate Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94640
Monitoring Year 5 - 2016
Irvin Creek Reach 2, Reachwide
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Particle Count
Riffle PoolTotal
Irvin Creek Reach 2 Summary
Class Percent
Percentage a Cumulative
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
1.2
14
14
14
14
Very fine
0.062
0.125
2
2
2
16
Fine
0.125
0.250
7
7
7
23
Medium
0.250
0.500
1
14
15
15
38
Coarse
0.5
1.0
2
9
11
11
49
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
3
1
4
4
53
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
1
1
1
54
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
1
2
3
3
57
Fine
4.0
5.7
57
Fine
5.7
8.0
5
5
5
62
Medium
8.0
11.3
2
2
2
64
Medium
11.3
16.0
4
4
4
68
Coarse
16.0
22.6
4
4
4
72
Coarse
22.6
32
2
2
2
74
Very Coarse
32
45
1
1
1
75
Very Coarse
45
64
7
7
7
82
Small
64
90
8
8
8
90
Small
90
128
7
7
7
97
Large
128
180
3
3
3
100
Large
180
256
100
..................................................
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
I�MBedrock
2048
>2048
100
Totall
50
1 50
1 100
1 100
1 100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
0.1
Di5 =
0.4
D50 =
1.2
D80. =
69.7
D95 =
115.7
D100 =
180.0
Irvin Creek Reach 2, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100%
90%
80%
v 70%
a° 60%
ra
50%
u 40%
m
30%
' 20%
v
— 10% J1 K
o%
0 obti titi5 y5 oy ti ti ti$ a �� tig y� ti6 3ti rxh �o yw $0 5o yti titi ya a$
o. o. o• ti ti ti ti ti 3 h do do
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO-5/2012 0 MYl-10/2012 ■ MY2-6/2013 ■ MY3-5/2014 ■ MY4-5/2015 ■MY5-4/2016
Irvin Creek Reach 2, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90
rave
Cob le I er
80
0 70
v
� 60
3 50
1*7
E
u 40
30
v
a 20
TiGr
10
0
0.010
0.100 1.000 10.000 100.000 1000.000 10000.000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO-5/2012 —a-- MYl-10/2012 —A— MY2-6/2013 $ MY3-5/2014 —*— MY4-5/2015 t MY5-4/2016
Irvin Creek Reach 2, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100%
90%
80%
v 70%
a° 60%
ra
50%
u 40%
m
30%
' 20%
v
— 10% J1 K
o%
0 obti titi5 y5 oy ti ti ti$ a �� tig y� ti6 3ti rxh �o yw $0 5o yti titi ya a$
o. o. o• ti ti ti ti ti 3 h do do
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO-5/2012 0 MYl-10/2012 ■ MY2-6/2013 ■ MY3-5/2014 ■ MY4-5/2015 ■MY5-4/2016

Reachwide and Cross Section Substrate Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94640
Monitoring Year 5 - 2016
Irvin Creek Reach 2, Cross Section 6 (Riffle)
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Particle
Count
Total
Cross Section 6 Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
1
1
1
Very fine
0.062
0.125
180.0
1
Fine
0.125
0.250
60%
1
Medium
0.250
0.500
1
Coarse
0.5
1.0
1
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
1
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
6
6
7
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
4
4
11
Fine
4.0
5.7
3
3
14
Fine
5.7
8.0
7
7
21
Medium
8.0
11.3
10
10
31
Medium
11.3
16.0
17
17
48
Coarse
16.0
22.6
13
13
61
Coarse
Very Coarse
22.6
32
32
45
13
5
13
5
74
79
Very Coarse
45
64
8
1 8
87
Small
64
90
9
9
96
Small
90
128
2
2
98
Large
128
180
2
2
100
Large
180
256
100
..................................................
Small
256
362
100
IN Small
362
512
100
Medium
I
512
1024
1
100
Large/Very large
1024
2048
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Totall
100
1 100 1
100
Cross Section 6
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
6.2
D35 =
12.0
DS0 =
16.9
D80. =
56.1
D95 =
86.7
D100 =l
180.0
Cross Section 6
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90
rav
80 Cob le
13 I er
0 70
v
> 60
50
E
3
u 40
c
30
v
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 fMYl-10/2012 —&�-MY2-6/2013 tMY3-5/2014 --*—MY4-5/2015 tMYS-4/2016
Cross Section 6
Individual Class Percent
100%
90%
c
80
2
70
W
60%
N
50%
U
40%
R
30%
20%
C
10%
0%
'L• h'
0 oti O• ��titi ti ti ti � � �o ti0�`
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO-5/2012 ■ MY1-10/2012 ■ MY2-6/2013 ■ MY3-5/2014 ■ MY4-5/2015 ■ MYS-4/2016

Reachwide and Cross Section Substrate Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94640
Monitoring Year 5 - 2016
Irvin Creek Reach 2, Cross Section 7 (Riffle)
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
ParticleCross
Count
Total
Section 7 Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
13.3
D84 =
0
Very fine
0.062
0.125
5
5
5
Fine
0.125
0.250
3
3
8
Medium
0.250
0.500
7
7
15
Coarse
0.5
1.0
2
2
17
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
4
4
21
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
3
3
24
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
2
2
26
Fine
4.0
5.7
26
Fine
5.7
8.0
5
5
31
Medium
8.0
11.3
10
10
41
Medium
11.3
16.0
18
1 18
59
Coarse
16.0
22.6
8
8
67
Coarse
22.6
32
11
11
78
Very Coarse
32
45
4
4
82
Very Coarse
45
64
11
11
93
Small
64
90
2
2
95
Small
90
128
3
3
98
Large
128
180
2
2
100
Large
180
256
100
..................................................
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
'
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Totall
100
1 100
1 100
Cross Section 7
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
0.7
Das =
9.1
D50 =
13.3
D84 =
48.0
D95 =
90.0
13100 =
180.0
Cross Section 7
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90 rav
Cob le I er
80
70
60
50
E
U 40
c
30
d
a 20
10
0
0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000 100.000 1000.000 10000.000
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-5/2012 —*— MYl-10/2012 &-- MY2-6/2013 t MY3-5/2014 --*— MY4-5/2015 tMY5-4/2016
Cross Section 7
Individual Class Percent
100%
90%
a
80%
u
v
70%
a
60%
a
u
50%
40%
3
30%
20%
41
10%
0%
0 op .y5 oy ti - 'b
a 5� y3 tie tib 3ti ah e° �o yyti oyo ��
�p
�. �. ,
tiy6 ti$o �y6 �bti
1 'L 1 'L
Particle Class Size mm
■ MYO-5/2012 0 MYl-10/2012
0 MY2-6/2013 ■ MY3-5/2014 ■ MY4-5/2015 ■ MY5-4/2016

Reachwide and Cross Section Substrate Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94640
Monitoring Year 5 - 2016
UT1, Reachwide
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Particle Count
Riffle Pool Total
UT1 Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
4.2
6
6
6
6
Very fine
0.062
0.125
80
0
6
Fine
0.125
0.250
4
11
15
15
21
Medium
0.250
0.500
2
11
13
13
34
Coarse
0.5
1.0
1
4
5
5
39
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
0.010
0.100 1.000 10.000 100.000 1000.000 10000.000
39
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
t MYO-5/2012
3
3
3
42
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
2
4
6
6
48
Fine
4.0
5.7
4
9
13
13
61
Fine
5.7
8.0
1
1
1
62
Medium
8.0
11.3
4
9
13
13
75
Medium
11.3
16.0
75
Coarse
16.0
22.6
1
1
1
76
Coarse
22.6
32
76
Very Coarse
32
45
76
Very Coarse 1
45
64
1
1 1
1
77
Small
64
90
8
8
8
85
Small
90
128
7
7
7
92
Large
128
180
3
3
3
95
Large
180
256
5
5
5
100
.................................................
Small
256
1 362
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
Bedrock
2048
1 >2048
100
Totall
40
1 60
1 100 1
100
1 100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
0.2
D35 =
0.6
D50 =
4.2
D84 =
86.2
D95 =
180.0
D100 =
256.0
UT1, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100%
90%
80%
v 70%
a 60%
m
50%
40%
30%
'v
20%
c. . . . . . . . . . .
o%
0 obti 1tih by oy ti ti tiw a h� � yg yo tib 3ti ah e° �o ,y� �o y;a oti titi tia a
o. o. o• ti ti ti ti ti 3 h do ,yo°`
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO-5/2012 ■ MYl-10/2012 ■ MY2-6/2013 ■ MY3-5/2014 ■ MY4-5/2015 ■ MY5-4/2016
UT1, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90
rav
Cob le I or
80
0
70
a
60
50
E
u
40
c
`w
30 In
20
- —
10
0
Ll U--
0.010
0.100 1.000 10.000 100.000 1000.000 10000.000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO-5/2012
t MYl-10/2012 t MY2-6/2013 t MY3-5/2014 ter— MY4-5/2015 t MYS-4/2016
UT1, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100%
90%
80%
v 70%
a 60%
m
50%
40%
30%
'v
20%
c. . . . . . . . . . .
o%
0 obti 1tih by oy ti ti tiw a h� � yg yo tib 3ti ah e° �o ,y� �o y;a oti titi tia a
o. o. o• ti ti ti ti ti 3 h do ,yo°`
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO-5/2012 ■ MYl-10/2012 ■ MY2-6/2013 ■ MY3-5/2014 ■ MY4-5/2015 ■ MY5-4/2016

Reachwide and Cross Section Substrate Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94640
Monitoring Year 5 - 2016
UT1, Cross Section 9
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
ParticleCross
Count
Total
Section 9 Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
1
1
1
Very fine
0.062
0.125
256.0
v
� 60
M
1
Fine
0.125
0.250
4
4
5
Medium
0.250
0.500
9
9
14
Coarse
0.5
1.0
3
3
17
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
—F MYl-10/2012. —A— MY2-6/2013 t MY3-5/2014 —� MY4-5/2015 --0— MY5-4/2016
40%
17
Very fine
2.0
2.8
1
1
18
Very fine
2.8
4.0
3
3
21
Fine
4.0
5.7
5
5
26
Fine
5.7
8.0
4
4
30
Medium
8.0
11.3
8
8
38
Medium
11.3
16.0
2
2
40
Coarse
16.0
22.6
40
Coarse
22.6
32
1
1
41
Very Coarse
32
45
5
5
46
Very Coarse
45
64
13
13
59
Small
64
90
17
17
76
Small
90
128
15
15
91
Large
128
180
8
8
99
Large
180
256
1
1
100
..................................................
..................................................
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
NEENJBedrock
2048
1 >2048
100
Totall
100
1 100
1 100
Cross Section 9
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
0.8
Das =
9.8
D50 =
50.2
D. =
108.6
D95 =
151.8
D100 =
256.0
Cross Section 9
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90
111 Ills.
rav
ob le I er
80
0 70
90%
v
� 60
M
3 50
80%
E
3
u 40
70%
c
30
v
a 20
60%
10
0
0.010
0.100 1.000 10.000 100.000 1000.000 10000.000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO-5/2012
—F MYl-10/2012. —A— MY2-6/2013 t MY3-5/2014 —� MY4-5/2015 --0— MY5-4/2016
40%
Cross Section 9
Individual Class Percent
100%
90%
c
80%
u
`w
70%
a
60%
u
50%
40%
3
30%
20%
10%
0%
O Doti ytih by Oy 1 'L ,y`b
b 01 'b I? 1O tiyro tiro ,eye �bti ytiti otic o°$
o. o. o•
y ti ti ti
Particle Class Size mm
0 MYO-5/2012 ■ MY1-10/2012
■ MY2-6/2013 ■ MY3-5/2014 ■ MY4-5/2015 ■ MY5-4/2016

Reachwide and Cross Section Substrate Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94640
Monitoring Year 5 - 2016
Little Troublesome Creek, Reachwide
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Particle Count
Riffle Pool Total
Little Troublesome Creek
Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
D50
4
4
4
4
Very fine
0.062
0.125
1
1
1
5
Fine
0.125
0.250
12
12
12
17
Medium
0.250
0.500
2
12
14
14
31
Coarse
0.5
1.0
1
12
13
13
44
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
2
5
7
7
51
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
51
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
51
Fine
4.0
5.7
1
1
1
52
Fine
5.7
8.0
52
Medium
8.0
11.3
1
2
3
3
55
Medium
11.3
16.0
1
1
55
Coarse
16.0
22.6
1
1
1
56
Coarse
22.6
32
3
1
4
4
60
Very Coarse
32
45
6
6
6
66
Very Coarse
45
64
7
7
7
73
Small
64
90
9
1
10
10
83
Small
90
128
10
10
10
93
Large
128
180
4
1
5
5
98
Large
180
256
1
1
1
99
..................................................
Small
256
362
1
1
1
100
I
:::::::: Small
Medium
362
512
512
1024
100
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Totall
48
1 52
1 100 1
100 1
100
Little Troublesome Creek, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
loo
90 rave
Cob le 13 1 or
80 B1 le McIl
0 70
v
60
3 5o
E
3
u 40
c
30
m
a 20
10
0
0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000 100.000 1000.000 10000.000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO-5/2012 t MY1-10/2012 —A— MY2-6/2013 t MY3-5/2014 .? MY4-5/2015 t MY5-4/2016
Little Troublesome Creek, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100%
90%
80%
aci 70%
a 60%
50%
u 40%
m
30%
v
20%
c
— 10%
o%
O o�ti ytih .yh Oh 'y ti ti$ A �1 � ,y?� y0 ,tib ,6'ti ph �P �O yti'b y�0 ��0 ��'ti yy'L O,tiP oaf
o. o. o• y ti ti ti
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO-5/2012 ■ MY1-10/2012 ■ MY2-6/2013 ■ MY3-5/2014 ■ MY4-5/2015 ■ MY5-4/2016
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16
= 0.2
Das
= 0.6
D50
= 1.8
D94
= 93.2
D95
= 146.7
D100
= 362.0
Little Troublesome Creek, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
loo
90 rave
Cob le 13 1 or
80 B1 le McIl
0 70
v
60
3 5o
E
3
u 40
c
30
m
a 20
10
0
0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000 100.000 1000.000 10000.000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO-5/2012 t MY1-10/2012 —A— MY2-6/2013 t MY3-5/2014 .? MY4-5/2015 t MY5-4/2016
Little Troublesome Creek, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100%
90%
80%
aci 70%
a 60%
50%
u 40%
m
30%
v
20%
c
— 10%
o%
O o�ti ytih .yh Oh 'y ti ti$ A �1 � ,y?� y0 ,tib ,6'ti ph �P �O yti'b y�0 ��0 ��'ti yy'L O,tiP oaf
o. o. o• y ti ti ti
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO-5/2012 ■ MY1-10/2012 ■ MY2-6/2013 ■ MY3-5/2014 ■ MY4-5/2015 ■ MY5-4/2016

Reachwide and Cross Section Substrate Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94640
Monitoring Year 5 - 2016
Little Troublesome Creek, Cross Section 11
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Particle
Count
Total
Cross Section 11 Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
44.3
D80. =
0
Very fine
0.062
0.125
256.0
0
Fine
0.125
0.250
1
1
1
Medium
0.250
0.500
50%
1
Coarse
0.5
1.0
1
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
2
2
3
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
3
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
1
1
4
Fine
4.0
5.7
4
Fine
5.7
8.0
3
3
7
Medium
8.0
11.3
3
3
10
Medium
11.3
16.0
1
1
11
Coarse
16.0
22.6
4
4
15
Coarse
22.6
32
13
13
28
Very Coarse
32
45
23
23
51
Very Coarse
45
64
25
25
76
Small
64
90
10
10
86
Small
90
128
8
8
94
Large
128
180
4
4
98
Large
180
256
2
2
100
..................................................
..................................................
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
IIIIIIIILarge/Very Large
1024
2048
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Totall
100 1
100 1
100
Cross Section 11
Channel materials (mm)
D1fi =
23.2
D35 =
35.5
D50 =
44.3
D80. =
84.1
D95 =
139.4
0100 =
256.0
Cross Section 11
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90
Grav 1 Cob le
80 -17 I der
0 70
v
> 60
3 50
E
3
V 40
c
30
`w
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 MYI-10/2012 MY2-6/2013 —4--- MY3-5/2014 --*-- MY4-5/2015 t MYS-0/2016
Cross Section 11
Individual Class Percent
100%
90%
c
80%
u
70%
v
a
60%
u
50%
40%
3
-°
2
30%
20%
10%
0%
O o61, titih ye O`' ti ti ti� rx 01 tig tiro tib 3ti ah 60 00 11b y�0 �bti yyti OyP ��
'L
�y0
O• O• O' 1 h 'L
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO-5/2012 ■ MY1-10/2012 ■ MY2-6/2013 ■ MY3-5/2014 0 MY4-5/2015 ■ MYS-4/2016

Reachwide and Cross Section Substrate Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94640
Monitoring Year 5 - 2016
Little Troublesome Creek, Cross Section 13
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
ParticleCross
Count
Total
Section 13 Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
D35 =
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
5
5
5
122.5
Very fine
0.062
0.125
2
2
7
E
Fine
0.125
0.250
1
1
8
Medium
0.250
0.500
5
5
1 13
0.010
Coarse
0.5
1.0
t MYO-5/2012
—11-- MY5-10/2012 —A—MY2-6/2013 s MY3-5/2014 --*— MY4-5/2015 t MY5-4/2016
13
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
13
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
13
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
13
Fine
4.0
5.7
1
1
14
Fine
5.7
8.0
14
Medium
8.0
11.3
1
1
15
Medium
11.3
16.0
1
1
16
Coarse
16.0
22.6
6
6
22
Coarse
22.6
32
14
14
36
Very Coarse
32
45
21
21
57
Very Coarse
45
64
22
22
79
Small
64
90
9
9
88
Small
90
128
8
8
96
Large
128
180
3
3
99
Large
180
256
99
..................................................
Small
256
362
99
Small
Medium
362
512
512
1024
1
1
100
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Totall
100 1
100
1100
Cross Section 13
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
16.0
D35 =
31.2
D50 =
40.2
Dgy =
77.3
D95 =
122.5
13100 =1
512.0
Cross Section 13
Individual Class Percent
100%
90%
c
80%
u 70%
`w
a 60%
A 50%
u
40%
30%
2
20%
10% A.
0%
o Doti 1tih by o`' ti ti tiro e^ tig tib tib 3ti �y e� oo tiy� 1�o tiye �yti yy� oya �ro
o. o. o ti ti ti ti
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO-5/2012 ■ MY5-10/2012 ■.MY2-6/2013 ■ MY3-5/2014 ■ MY4-5/2015 ■ MYS-4/2016
Cross Section 13
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90
Gra v I
Cob le 41der
80
0 70
v
60
50
E
3
U 40
r
30
v
a 20
10
0
0.010
0.100 1.000 10.000 100.000 1000.000 10000.000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO-5/2012
—11-- MY5-10/2012 —A—MY2-6/2013 s MY3-5/2014 --*— MY4-5/2015 t MY5-4/2016
Cross Section 13
Individual Class Percent
100%
90%
c
80%
u 70%
`w
a 60%
A 50%
u
40%
30%
2
20%
10% A.
0%
o Doti 1tih by o`' ti ti tiro e^ tig tib tib 3ti �y e� oo tiy� 1�o tiye �yti yy� oya �ro
o. o. o ti ti ti ti
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO-5/2012 ■ MY5-10/2012 ■.MY2-6/2013 ■ MY3-5/2014 ■ MY4-5/2015 ■ MYS-4/2016

APPENDIX 5. Hydrology Summary Data and Plots

Table 13. Verification of Bankfull Events
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 5 - 2016
Reach
Date of Data Date of
Collection Occurrence
Method
Irvin Creek
4/11/2016 2/24/2016
Crest Gage/ Trail
Camera
8/30/2016 8/5/2016
Little Troublesome Creek
4/11/2016 2/24/2016
Crest Gage/ Trail
Camera
8/30/2016 8/5/2016
UTI
4/11/2016 2/24/2016
Crest Gage/ Trail
Camera
8/30/2016 8/5/2016
Table 14. Wetland Gage Attainment Summary
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 5 - 2016
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)
No/5.5 Days
Yes/18.0 Days
Yes/17.0 Days
Yes/25.0 Days
Yes/30.0 Days
1
(2.4%)
(8.0%)
(7.5%)
(10.3%)
(12.4%)
Yes/26.5 Days
Yes/61.5 Days
Yes/50.5 Days
Yes/59.0 Days
Yes/39.0 Days
2
(11.7%)
(27.2%)
(22.3%)
(24.4%)
(16.2%)
Yes/87.5 Days
Yes/195.5 Days
Yes/98.5 Days
Yes/84.0 Days
Yes/183.0 Days
3
(38.7%)
(86.5%)
(43.6%)
(34.7%)
(75.9%)
Yes/65.5 Days
Yes/165.5 Days
Yes/74.0 Days
Yes/62.0 Days
Yes/17.0 Days
4
(29%)
(73.2%)
(32.7%)
(25.6%)
(7.1%)
Yes/60.5 Days
Yes/24.0 Days
Yes/45.5 Days
Yes/29.0 Days
Yes/36.0 Days
5
(26.8%)
(10.6%)
(20.1%)
(12.0%)
(14.9%)
No/6.0 Days
Yes/17.5 Days
Yes/19.5 Days
Yes/24.0 Days
Yes/32.0 Days
6
(2.7%)
(7.7%)
(8.6%)
(9.9%)
(13.3%)
Yes/83.0 Days
Yes/70.0 Days
Yes/60.0 Days
Yes/65.0 Days
Yes/44.0 Days
7
(36.7%)
(31.0%)
(26.5%)
(26.9%)
(18.3%)
No/11.5 Days
Yes/31.5 Days
Yes/44.5 Days
Yes/26.0 Days
Yes/31.0 Days
8
(5.1%)
(13.9%)
(19.7%)
(10.7%)
(12.9%)

Bankfull Verification Photographs
Monitoring Year 5
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
Appendix 5: Hydrology Summary Data and Plots— Bankfull Verification Photographs
MO4LTIIIE O 61°F 29.12inHg MOULTRIECAM 03 FEB 2016 04:09 pm
MoaErxiE Q 33°F 28.90inHg
MOULTRIECAM 16 FEB 2016 08:39 am
01 I—W 'JIM WIM
-
/ 1
MnuET•ie 0 70°F 28.59inHg MOULTRIECAM 24 FEB 2016 05:07 pm
O 74T 29.29in
Hg MOULTRIECAM 02 AUG 2016 07:D7 pin
al -
_I
Ma{iLT111E O 73°F 29.31inHg MOULTRIECAM 05 AUG 2016 09:07 am
MnIILTniF © 74°F 29.22in
Hg MOULTRIECAM 07 AUG 2016 08:07 am
Bankfull Event 5 — Little Troublesome Creek (81512016)
Bankfull Event 6 —
Little Troublesome Creek (81712016)
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
Appendix 5: Hydrology Summary Data and Plots— Bankfull Verification Photographs

i
Bankfull Event 7 — Little Troublesome Creek (8/8/2016) Bankfull Event 1— Irvin Creek (2/24/2016)
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
r+' Appendix 5: Hydrology Summary Data and Plots — Bankfull Verification Photographs

Groundwater Gage Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Wetland (DMS Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 5 - 2016
Wetland RW1
20
10
0
-10
v
-20
v
Y
f6
3 -30
-40
-50
-60
C >, C 75nn Q Y >
ii 2:Q –3+ Q vii O z O
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #1 — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0
c
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Wetland (DMS Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 5 - 2016
Wetland RW1
20
10
0
-10
v
-20
v
Y
f6
3 -30
-40
-50
-60
c > c 75nn a >
ii 2: Q –3+ Q vii O z O
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #2 — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0
c
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Wetland (DMS Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 5 - 2016
Wetland RW1
20
10
0
-10
v
-20
v
Y
f6
3 -30
-40
-50
-60
c > c 75nn a + >
ii 2: Q –3+ Q vii O z O
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #3 — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0
c
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Wetland (DMS Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 5 - 2016
Wetland RW1
20
10
0
-10
v
-20
v
Y
f6
3 -30
-40
-50
-60
c > c 75nn a >
ii 2: Q —3+ Q vii O z O
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #4 — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0
c
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Wetland (DMS Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 5 - 2016
Wetland RW1
20
10
0
-10
v
-20
v
Y
f6
3 -30
-40
-50
-60
c > c 75nn a >
ii 2: Q —3+ Q vii O z O
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #5 — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0
c
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Wetland (DMS Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 5 - 2016
Wetland RW1
20
10
0
-10
v
-20
v
Y
f6
3 -30
-40
-50
-60
c > c 75nn a >
ii 2: Q –3+ Q vii O z O
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #6 — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0
c
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Wetland (DMS Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 5 - 2016
Wetland RW1
20
10
0
-10
v
-20
v
Y
f6
3 -30
-40
-50
-60
C >, C 75nn Q Y >
ii 2:Q –3+ Q vii O z O
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #7 — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0
c
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Wetland (DMS Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 5 - 2016
Wetland RW1
20
10
0
-10
v
-20
v
Y
f6
3 -30
-40
-50
-60
ii 2: Q –3+ Q vii O z O
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #8 — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0
c
2.0
1.0
0.0

Monthly Rainfall Data
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 5 -2016
12016 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).
10
Little Troublesome Creek 30-70 Percentile Graph for Rainfall in 2016 Reidsville, NC
9
8
7
F
6
c
2
m
5
'a
U
W
4
a`
3
2
1
0
Jan -16
Feb -16 Mar -16 Apr -16 May -16 Jun -16 Jul -16 Aug -16 Sep -16 Oct -16
Date
2016 Rainfall Data (weather station) 30th Percentile -70th Percentile
12016 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).

Pre and Post Construction Groundwater Gage Comparison Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 5 - 2016
Wetland RW1
30
20
10
0
c
m -10
J
(v -20
-30
-40
-50
-60
C 4 i >_C -5 00 Q �' > U
N f6 Q N 7 - 7 U1 U O N
LL g a Z o
mmmmmi Pre -Construction Rainfall Rainfall Pre -Construction Gage Depth Gage #2 — — Criteria Level
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
C
2.5 w
C
M
2.0 °C
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0

Pre and Post Construction Groundwater Gage Comparison Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 5 - 2016
Wetland RW1
30
20
10
0
c
-30
-40
-50
-60
4 i>? C -5 Oz Q U > U
p1 Q ro 7 7 N O N
LL g a a � o Z o
mmmmmi Pre -Construction Rainfall Rainfall Pre -Construction Gage Depth Gage #6 — — Criteria Level
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
C
2.5 w
C
2.0 °C
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0

Pre and Post Construction Groundwater Gage Comparison Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 5 - 2016
Wetland RW1
30
20
10
0
c
-30
-40
-50
-60
4 i>? C -5 Oz Q U > U
p1 Q ro 7 7 N O N
LL g a a � o Z o
mmmmmi Pre -Construction Rainfall Rainfall Pre -Construction Gage Depth Gage #7 — — Criteria Level
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
C
2.5 w
C
2.0 °C
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0