20110821 Ver 1_401 Application_20110911

4
Wit*
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
September 1, 2011
Mr. Ian McMillan
NC DENR
Division of Water Quality, Wetlands Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
20110821
TPA I
•
GC ROle C p
SEP - 2 2011
OENR - WATER QN0
IMETLANOS AND SM MUTS BRANCH
Subject: Pre-Construction Notification Pursuant to Nationwide Permit No. 27
and Water Quality Certification No. 3689
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
Catawba, North Carolina
Dear Mr. McMillan:
Please find enclosed five copies of our PCN package for the subject project. We have included the
following supporting data:
• PCN form,
• Lyle Creek Mitigation Plan and EEP approval letter,
• USACE Approved Jurisdictional Determination, and
• 11"x 17" copy of the 60% plan set.
The goals of the project are to
• restore and enhance appropriate in-stream, terrestrial, and wetland habitat,
• improve water quality by reducing nutrient levels and sediment deposition,
• stabilize the stream banks with native vegetation, and
• excavate a floodplain bench.
This same information has been submitted to the Asheville Regulatory Field Office of the US Army
Corps of Engineers. If you have any questions, please call me at [phone].
Sincerely,
Mat enkins, PWS
Environmental Scientist
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Tyler Crumbley
US Army Corps of Engineers
wildlan& 4'.nginccrin?. Inc. • phunc 704-332-7754 • lax 704-332-3,306 • 1430 S_ Mint Street. # 104 • C'hadolte. NC 23203
0,, Vq AT F?9 ?G
oNiii? -<
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.3 Dec 10 2008
Pre-Construction Notification (PCN) Form
A. Applicant Information
1. Processing
1 a. Type(s) of approval sought from the
Corps:
®Section 404 Permit El Section 10 Permit
1b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: No. 27 or General Permit (GP) number:
1 c. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps? ? Yes ® No
1d. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
[1401 Water Quality Certification - Regular ? Non-404 Jurisdictional General Permit
? 401 Water Quality Certification - Express ? Riparian Buffer Authorization
1 e. Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required? For the record only for DWQ 401
Certification:
? Yes ® No For the record only for Corps Permit:

? Yes ® No
If. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in-lieu fee program proposed for mitigation
of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank or in-lieu
fee program. ? Yes ® No
1 g. Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1 h
below. ? Yes ® No
1h. Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)? ? Yes ® No
2. Project Information
2a. Name of project: Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
2b. County: Catawba County
2c. Nearest municipality / town: Catawba, NC
2d. Subdivision name: N/A
2e. NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state
project no:
3. Owner Information
3a. Name(s) on Recorded Deed: Joseph S. and Kathy T. Garmon
3b. Deed Book and Page No. Deed Book 03057, Page No. 1320 and Plat Book 70, Page No. 90
3c. Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable): Wildlands Engineering, Inc.(EEP Stream Mitigation Full-Delivery Provider)
Contact: Emily Reinicker
3d. Street address: 1430 S. Mint Street, Suite 104
3e. City, state, zip: Charlotte, NC 28203
3f. Telephone no.: 704-332-7754
3g. Fax no.: 704-332-3306
3h. Email address: [e-mail]
Page 1 of 10
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
4. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a. Applicant is: ? Agent ® Other, specify: Engineer/Consultant
4b. Name: Matt Jenkins, PWS
4c. Business name
(if applicable): Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
4d. Street address: 1430 S. Mint Street, Suite 104
4e. City, state, zip: Charlotte, NC 28203
4f. Telephone no.: 704-332-7754
4g. Fax no.: 704-332-3306
4h. Email address: [e-mail]
5. Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a. Name:
5b. Business name
(if applicable):
5c. Street address:
5d. City, state, zip:
5e. Telephone no.
5f. Fax no..
5g. Email address:
Page 2 of 10
B. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Property Identification
1a. Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID): PIN 3782-1710-3129
1 b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees): Latitude: 35.712843 Longitude: 81.079538
1c. Property size: 111-acre tract
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc.) to Lyle Creek
proposed project:
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water: WS-IV; CA
2c. River basin: Catawba 03050101
3. Project Description
3a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application: The project area is located within an active tree farm in Catawba County, NC. The on-site unnamed
tributaries to Lyle Creek have been continuously maintained as straightened, ditched channels to assist with irrigation and
drainage of the surrounding commercial tree farm.
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
Portions of the unnamed, ditched tributaries were verified as linear wetland areas; total on-site wetland acreage is
approximately 2.79 acres.
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property:
Approximately 3,785 linear feet of perennial channel. This calculation does not include linear footage of ditches that have
been verified as linear wetland areas.
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
The primary goal for the project is to reclaim the natural and beneficial functions of the floodplain and stream channel
within the unnamed tributaries to Lyle Creek through enhancement and restoration activities. As well as provide terrestrial
wetland habitat adjacent to portions of these tributaries through restoration and creation activities.
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
Grading and planting bank slopes with native riparian species, excavation of new channel and floodplain, excavation of
riffle and pool bedform features and installation of in-stream structures. A trackhoe will be used for in-stream work.
4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
®Yes ? No ? Unknown
project (including all prior phases) in the past?
Comments:
4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
? Preliminary [A Final
of determination was made?
4c. If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas? Agency/Consultant Company: Wildlands Engineering
Name (if known): Matt L. Jenkins, PWS Other:
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
Action Id. 2010-01009, dated April 6, 2011 (enclosed in Appendix 2 of the report)
5. Project History
5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for ? Yes ® No ? Unknown
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
5b. If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project? ? Yes ® No
6b. If yes, explain.
Page 3 of 10
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1 a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
® Wetlands ® Streams - tributaries ? Buffers
? Open Waters ? Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a. 2b. 2c. 2d. 2e. 2f.
Wetland impact Type of jurisdiction
number - Type of impact Type of wetland Forested (Corps - 404, 10 Area of impact
Permanent (P) or (if known) DWQ - non-404, other) (acres)
Temporary T
Fill - construction ? Yes ® Corps
UT1 ® P ? T of restored stream Linear/ditched ® No ® DWQ 0.6
channel
Fill - construction ? Yes ® Corps
UT1a ® P ? T of restored stream Linear/ditched ® No ® DWQ 0.4
channel
Fill - construction ? Yes ® Corps
UT1c ®P ? T of restored stream Linear/ditched ® No ® DWQ 0.3
channel
UT1d ? P ® T Enhancement Linear/ditched ? Yes
® No ® Corps
® DWQ 0.3
WL-1 ? P ®T Enhancement Linear/ditched ? Yes
® No ® Corps
® DWQ 0.48
WL-2 ? P ® T Enhancement Emergent ? Yes
® No ® Corps
® DWQ 0.43
WL-3 ? P ® T Enhancement Linear/ditched ? Yes
® No ® Corps
® DWQ 0.15
WL-4 ? P ® T Enhancement Linear/ditched ? Yes
® No ® Corps
® DWQ 0.04
WL-5 ? P ® T Enhancement Linear/ditched ? Yes
® No ® Corps
® DWQ 0.03
2g. Total wetland impacts 2.73
2h. Comments: Permanent impacts will occur where linear wetland ditches have been redesigned and will be constructed as
restored stream channel. Temporary impacts to remaining wetland areas will involve temporary grading from adjacent stream
and wetland restoration activities; these areas will be planted with native vegetation in post-construction.
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a. 3b. 3c. 3d. 3e. 3f. 3g.
Stream impact Type of impact Stream name Perennial Type of jurisdiction Average Impact
number - (PER) or (Corps - 404, 10 stream length
Permanent (P) or intermittent DWQ - non-404, width (linear
Temporary (T) (INT)? other) (feet) feet)
UT1 ? P ®T Restoration UT1 to Lyle Creek ® PER
? INT ® Corps
® DWQ 5-10 2,819
UT1 b ? P ®T Restoration UT1 b to Lyle ® PER . ® Corps 5-8 966
Creek ? INT ® DWQ
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts 3,785
3i. Comments: All impacts to on-site streams include temporary restoration activities. Post-construction stream footage will
total 6,747 linear feet for a net gain of 2,962 linear feet of restored and enhanced stream channel.
Page 4 of 10
4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then individual) list all open water im pacts below.
4a. 4b. 4c. 4d. 4e.
Open water Name of waterbody
impact number - (if applicable) Type of impact Waterbody type Area of impact (acres)
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T
01 ?P?T
02 ?P?T
03 ?P?T
04 ?P?T
4f. Total open water impacts
4g. Comments:
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If and or lake construction proposed, then complete the chart below.
5a. 5b. 5c. 5d. 5e.

Pond ID
Proposed use or purpose Wetland Impacts (acres) Stream Impacts (feet) Upland

number (acres)
of pond
Flooded Filled Excavated Flooded Filled Excavated Flooded
P1
P2
5f. Total
5g. Comments:
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
? Yes ? No If yes, permit ID no:
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres):
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres):
5k. Method of construction:
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If an impacts re uire mitigation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a.
? Neuse ? Tar-Pamlico ? Other:
Project is in which protected basin? ? Catawba ? Randleman
6b. 6c. 6d. 6e. 6f. 6g.
Buffer impact
number -
Permanent (P) or Reason
for
Stream
name Buffer
mitigation Zone 1 impact
(square feet) Zone 2 impact
(square feet)
Temporary T impact required?
B1 ?P?T ?Yes
? No
B2 ?P?T ?Yes
? No
B3 ?P?T ?Yes
? No
6h. Total buffer impacts
6i. Comments:
Page 5 of 10
D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
The project constitutes a positive impact, enhancing and restoring stream function and habitat by improving bed features
in the streams and establishing flood storage. Wetland habitat will also be restored and created through improved
hydrologic function and vegetation. Biodegradable coir fiber matting and native vegetation will be used to stabilize the
newly graded banks throughout the project.
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
Construction practices will follow guidelines from the NC Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and Design Manual.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State? ? Yes ® No
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply): ? DWQ ? Corps

2c.
If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this
project? ? Mitigation bank

F1 Payment to in-lieu fee program
? Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank:
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter) Type Quantity
3c. Comments:
4. Complete if Making a Payment to In-lieu Fee Program
4a. Approval letter from in-lieu fee program is attached. ? Yes
4b. Stream mitigation requested: linear feet
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature: ? warm ? cool ?cold
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only): square feet
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested: acres
4f. Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested: acres
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested: acres
4h. Comments:
5. Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a. If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
Page 6 of 10
PCN Form -Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian, Buffer Rules) -required by DWQ
6a. Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires
buffer mitigation? ? Yes ® No
6b. If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calculate the
amount of mitigation required.

Zone 6c.
Reason for impact 6d.
Total impact
(square feet)
Multiplier 6e.
Required mitigation
(square feet)
Zone 1 3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2 1.5
6f. Total buffer mitigation required:
6g. If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e.g., payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in-lieu fee fund).
6h. Comments:
Page 7 of 10
E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
1a. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified ? Yes ® No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1 b. If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
? Yes ? No
Comments:
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a. What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project? 0%
2b. Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan? ? Yes ® No
2c. If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why: This project involves the restoration and
enhancement of on-site jurisdictional stream channels and wetlands, no increase in impervious cover will result from the
construction of this project.
2d. If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative description of the plan:
? Certified Local Government
2e. Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan? ? DWQ Stormwater Program
? DWQ 401 Unit
3. Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a. In which local government's jurisdiction is this project?
? Phase II
? NSW
3b. Which of the following locally-implemented stormwater management programs ? USMP
apply (check all that apply): ? Water Supply Watershed
? Other:
3c. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been ? Yes ? No
attached?
4. DWQ Stormwater Program Review
? Coastal counties
? HQW
4a. Which of the following state-implemented stormwater management programs apply ? ORW
(check all that apply): ? Session Law 2006-246
? Other:
4b. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
? Yes ? No
attached?
5. DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a. Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements? ? Yes ? No
5b. Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met? ? Yes ? No
Page 8 of 10
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
F. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1 a. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the ® Yes ? No
use of public (federal/state) land?
1 b. If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State ® Yes ? No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1c. If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
letter.) ® Yes ? No
Comments: The approved Categorical Exclusion is attached in Appendix 3.
2. Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a. Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards, ? Yes ® No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?
2b. Is this an after-the-fact permit application? ? Yes ® No
2c. If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s):
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a. Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in

additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality? ® Yes No
?
3b. If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
This is a stream and wetland restoration project and will not cause an increase in development nor will it negatively
impact downstream water quality.
4. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a. Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
Page 9 of 10
PCN Form -Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or ? Yes ® No
habitat?
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act ® Yes ? No
impacts?
? Raleigh
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
® Asheville
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
Utilized the NC Natural Heritage Program's element occurrence GIS data layer as well as contact the USFWS Asheville
office for any additional information on the presence of endangered or protected species or critical habitat (Appendix 3).
Wildlands Engineering also performed a pedestrian survey of the site on February 26, 2010.
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat? ? Yes ® No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
Contacted NC Wildlife Resource Commission (see enclosed letter in Appendix 3).
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation ? Yes ® No
status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
The NC State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) was contacted regarding the presence historic properties or cultural
resources within the project area. SHPO conducted a review of the area and "are aware of no historic resources which
would be affected by the project" (see enclosed letter, Appendix 3).
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA-designated 100-year floodplain? ® Yes ? No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements:
The project stream channels do not have an associated regulated floodplain; however, the project reaches and wetland
areas are located within the floodway and flood fringe of Lyle Creek. Lyle Creek is a mapped Zone AE floodplain. A no-
rise certification for mapped flood elevations on Lyle Creek will be completed for review and approval by the Town of
Catawba floodplain administrator.
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination? FIRM Panels 3781 K and 3782K effective March 18,
2008.
Matt L. Jenkins, PWS _
' September 1,
?-
7!
? 2011
!
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name IpplicaintlAgqentt's Signature
Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant
is provided.)
Page 10 of 10
Ecolsystem
PROGRAM
August 31, 2011
Shawn Wilkerson
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104
Charlotte, North Carolina 28203
Subject: Mitigation Plan Approval for I.,yle Creek Mitigation Site
Yadkin River Basin - CU# 03040105, Stanly County
Contract No. 002030 EEP IMS 94643
Dear Mr. Wilkerson:
This memorandum confirms the responsibility for compliance with the Sedimentation
Pollution Control Act of 1973 and North Carolina Administrative Code Title 15A, Chapter 4
on the project that is the subject of the above-referenced contract between the Ecosystem
Enhancement Program (EEI') and Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Pursuant to the contract, the above-referenced project is a full delivery project. This means
that Wildlands Engineering, Inc. has full operational control over the project. As the
"developer or other person who has or holds himself out as having ... operational control
over the land-disturbing activity" Wildlands Engineering, Inc. will be responsible for
compliance with or any violation of the Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 or
North Carolina Administrative Code Title 15A, Chapter 4. See 15A NCAC 04A .0105(8)
and (9). Accordingly, any plan, revised plan, compliance request, notice of violation, fine,
penalty or other enforcement action associated with this project remains the responsibility of
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. to resolve with regulatory or permitting agencies.
Please sign below and attach this memorandum to the financial Responsibility/ Ownership
form of the erosion and sedimentation control plan application in order to obtain plan
approval and responsibility for erosion and sedimentation control solely in your name.
Respectively,
Jeff IuK
Project Control and Research Director
LV
MCDEWR
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 / 919-715-047
6 / www.nceepmet
To DENR Land Quality Section
Wildlands Engineering, Inc hereby certifies that it has full operation control of this project
for all matters pertaining to the construction of this project and that it constitutes the "Person
Who Violates" and the "Person Conducting Land Disturbing Activity" as defined in 15A
NCAC 4A.0105(8) and (9). Wildlands Engineering, Inc also understands that it is
responsible for implementing any actions or measures necessary to comply with the
Sedimentation Pollution Control Act.
Signed,
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
[Person with Authority to Bind Contract Signature, Printed Name and Title]
NCDENR
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 / 919-715-0476 / www.nceep.net
'I*-
August 31, 2011 Ecosptem
PROGRAM
Shawn Wilkerson
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104
Charlotte. North Carolina 28203
Subject: Mitigation Plan Approval for Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
Yadkin River Basin - CU# 03040105, Stanly County
Contract No. 002030 IEP iMS 94643
Dear Mr. Wilkerson:
On August 31, 2011, the Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) received the Lyle Creek
Mitigation Site Restoration Plan from Wildlands Engineering, Inc. The Plan proposes the
Restoration of 5,410 linear feet (If), the Enhancement II of 1,337 If. Of stream, restoration of 6.6
ac., and creation of 2.9 ac. of riparian wetlands for anticipated Stream Mitigation Units (SMIJ) of
5,945 and Wetland Mitigation Units (WMIJ) of 7.6. An onsite review of the Restoration Plan
was completed on July 20, 2011.
The EEP has completed its review of the restoration plan and has no additional comments at this
time. Please proceed with acquiring all necessary permits and/or certifications and complete the
implementation of the earthwork portion of the mitigation project (Task 4). A copy of this letter
should be included with your 401/404 permit applications.
For the purpose of obtaining approval of the erosion and sedimentation control plan for this
project, i have also attached a memorandum confirming that Wildlands Engineering, Inc is the
Owner and Financially Responsible Party, and has full operational control for all matters
pertaining to construction of this project. Please sign and attach this memorandum to the
Financial Responsibility/Ownership florm of the erosion and sedimentation control plan
application. Failure to do so may delay approval of the plan.
If you have any questions, or wish to discuss this matter further, please contact rue at any time. i
can be reached at [phone], or email me at mikc.mc(lonald("ir)ncdenr.g_ov.
cerely,
Michael M McDonald
EEP Project Manager
cc: file
NCDENR
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 21699-1652 / 919-715-0476 / www.nceep.net
LYLE CREEK MITIGATION SITE
Catawba County, NC
DENR Contract No. 003241
Mitigation Plan
August 2011
Prepared for:
NCDENR, NCEEP
1652 Mail Service Center
?,(()5lll Raleigh, NC
27699-1652
LYLE CREEK MITIGATION SITE
Mitigation Plan
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................... i
1.0 Project Site Identification and Location .................................................. 1
1.1 Directions to Project Site ................................................................... 1
1.2 USGS Hydrologic Unit Code and NCDWQ River Basin Designations........ 1
1.3 Project Components and Structure ..................................................... 2
2.0 Watershed Characterization .................................................................. 3
2.1 Project Area and Easement Acreage ................................................... 3
2.2 Surface Water Classification and Water Quality ................................... 3
2.3 Onsite Stream Position and Watershed Drainage Area ......................... 4
2.4 Watershed Assessment ..................................................................... 5
2.5 Historical Land Use and Development Trends ..................................... . 6
2.6 Watershed Planning .......................................................................... 6
2.7 Physiography, Geology, and Soils ...................................................... . 7
2.8 Endangered and Threatened Species ................................................. . 8
2.9 Cultural Resources ........................................................................... 10
2.10 Physical Constraints ......................................................................... 10
3.0 Project Site Streams - Existing Conditions ............................................. 11
3.1 Existing Conditions Survey ................................................................ 11
3.2 Channel Classification ....................................................................... 13
3.3 Valley Classification .......................................................................... 17
3.4 Discharge ........................................................................................ 17
3.5 Channel Morphology ........................................................................ 19
3.6 Channel Evolution ............................................................................ 19
3.7 Channel Stability Assessment ............................................................ 19
3.8 Bankfull Verification ......................................................................... 19
3.9 Vegetation Community Types Descriptions ......................................... 20
4.0 Reference Streams .............................................................................. 21
4.1 Watershed Characterization .............................................................. 21
4.2 Channel Classification ....................................................................... 22
4.3 Discharge ........................................................................................ 25
4.4 Channel Morphology ........................................................................ 25
4.5 Channel Stability Assessment ............................................................ 26
4.6 Bankfull Verification ................................................. 26
4.7 ........................
Vegetation Community Types Description .......................................... 26
5.0 Project Site Wetlands - Existing Conditions and Model Development ....... 27
5.1 Jurisdictional Wetlands ..................................................................... 27
5.2 Hydrological Characterization ............................................................ 27
5.3 Soil Characterization ............................................ 31
5.4 ............................
Vegetation Community Type and Disturbance History ......................... 32
6.0 Reference Wetlands ............................................ 32
6.1 ................................
Hydrological Characterization ............................................................ 32
6.2 Soil Characterization ..................................................
33
6.3 ......................
Vegetative Community Type ..........................................
33
7.0 ...................
Project Site Mitigation Plan .....................................
34
7.1 .............................
Overarching Goals and Applications of Mitigation Plans ....................... 34
7.2 Mitigation Project Goals and Objectives ............................................. 34
7.3 Stream Project and Design Justification ............................................. 37
7.4 Site Construction ................................................. 46
8
0 ............................
Monitoring Plan
. ................................................................................... 50
8.1 Streams ................................................ 50
..........................................
8.2 Vegetation ............................................... 51
8
3 .......................................
Wetlands
. ........................................................................................ 52
9.0 Performance Criteria ....................................... 52
1
9 ....................................
Streams
. .......................................................................................... 52
9.2 Vegetation ..................................................... 53
.................................
9.3 Wetlands ................................................... 53
10.0 .....................................
Site Protection and Adaptive Management Strategy ............................... 53
11.0 Financial Assurances .................................................... 54
12
0 .......................
R
f
. e
erences ......................................................................................... 55
TABLES
Table ES.1 Project Goals and Objectives
Table ES.2a Project Components
Table ES.2b Summary of Mitigation Levels
Table 1a Project Components
Table 1b Summary of Mitigation Levels
Table 2 Drainage Areas
Table 3 Project Soil Types and Descriptions
Table 4 Listed Threatened and Endangered Species in Catawba County, NC
Table 5a Project Attributes
Table 5b Mitigation Component Attributes
Table 6a Restoration Reaches Existing Conditions
Table 6b Enhancement Reaches Existing Conditions
Table 7 Summary of Design Discharge Analysis
Table 8 HEC-RAS Bankfull Elevations
Table 9 Summary of Reference Reach Geomorphic Parameters
Table 10 Summary of Reference Reach Discharge Analysis
Table 11a Water Balance for Well 1
Table 11b Water Balance for Well 2
Table 11c Water Balance for Well UW
Table 12a Design Geomorphic Data - UT1
Table 12b Design Geomorphic Data - UTia
Table 12c Design Geomorphic Data - UT1b
Table 13a Summary of Existing and Proposed Dimensional Critical Shear Stress
Table 13b Summary of Existing Dimensional Critical Shear Stress and Unit
Stream Power Calculations - Reference Sites
Table 13c Summary of Proposed Unit Stream Power Calculations - Project
Reaches
Table 14 Permanent Herbaceous Seed Mixture
Table 15 Riparian and Wetland Woody Vegetation
FIGURES
Figure 1 Vicinity Map
Figure 2 Site Map
Figure 3 Aerial Watershed Map
Figure 4 USGS Watershed Map
Figure 5 Hydrologic Features
Figure 6 Wetland Delineation
Figure 7 Soils Map
Figure 8 FEMA Flood Map
Figure 9 Regional Curve Data
Figure 10 Channel Evolution Model
Figure 11 Stream and Wetland Reference Vicinity Map
Figure 12 UT to Lyle Reference Topographic Map
Figure 13 UT to Catawba Reference Topographic Map
Figure 14 UT to Lake Wheeler Reference Topographic Map
Figure 15 Westbrook Lowgrounds Reference Topographic Map
Figure 16 Wetland Soil Boring Locations
Figure 17 Stream and Wetland Design
APPENDICES
Appendix 1 Project Site Photographs
Appendix 2 Wetland and Stream Documentation
Appendix 3 Agency Communication and Approved Categorical Exclusion
Appendix 4 Existing Conditions Data
Appendix 5 Historical Aerial Photographs
Appendix 6 FEMA Floodplain Checklist
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Lyle Creek Mitigation Site is a full-delivery stream and wetland restoration project
for the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) in Catawba County,
NC. The project includes work on and adjacent to several unnamed tributaries (UTs) to
Lyle Creek: restoration of 4,961 existing linear feet (LF) of perennial stream, restoration
of 1,141 existing LF of intermittent stream, enhancement of 1,455 existing LF of
intermittent stream, restoration of 6.6 acres of wetlands, and creation of 2.9 acres of
wetlands. Buffer restoration will also take place but is not intended for mitigation credit
at this time.
The streams proposed for restoration and enhancement include one second order UT and
four first order UTs to Lyle Creek. Lyle Creek is a tributary to the Catawba River. The
project is located in the Catawba River Basin Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC)
03050101140010, which is a NCEEP Targeted Local Watershed. This HUC qualifies as
a service area for an adjacent HUC; therefore, the Lyle Creek Mitigation Site is being
submitted for mitigation credit in the Catawba River Basin HUC 03050103.
The proposed project will provide numerous benefits within the Catawba River Basin.
While many of these benefits are limited to the project area, others, such as pollutant
removal and improved aquatic and terrestrial habitat have more far-reaching effects.
Expected improvements to water quality and ecological processes are outlined below in
Table ES. I. This table is broken into two sections, Monitored Project Goals, which
include goals that will be monitored for success, and Expected Project Benefits, which
include project benefits that are not directly monitored for success but are associated with
restoration activities.
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
Mitigation Plan
Table ES.1. Project Goals and Objectives
We Creek Mitiqation Site
Goal /Benefit How project will seek to reach oal ben_ fit
Improve hydrologic Wetland areas will be disked to increase surface roughness and
connectivity better capture rainfall which will improve connection with the
water table for groundwater recharge. Adjacent streams will be
stabilized and established with a floodplain elevation to promote
hydrologic transfer between wetland and stream.
Create appropriate A channel with riffle-pool sequences and some rock structures
w in-stream habitat will be created in the steeper project reaches and a channel with
M run-pool sequences and woody debris structures will be created
c9 in the low sloped project reaches for macroinvertebrate and fish
habitat. Introduction of wood including brush toe, root wads, and
o woody 'riffles' along with native stream bank vegetation will
a` substantially increase habitat value. Gravel areas will be added
as appropriate to further diversify available habitats.

0
Decrease sediment Sediment input from eroding stream banks will be reduced by
0 input installing bioengineering and in-stream structures while creating a
stable channel form using geomorphic design principles.
Create appropriate Adjacent buffer areas will be restored by removing invasive
terrestrial habitat vegetation and planting native vegetation. These areas will be
allowed to receive more regular and inundating flows. Riparian
wetland areas will be restored and enhanced to provide wetland
habitat.
Decrease water Restored riffle/step-pool sequences on the upper reach of UT1a,
temperature and where distinct points of re-aeration can occur, will allow for
increase dissolved oxygen levels to be maintained in the perennial reaches. Small
oxygen log steps on the upstream portion of UT1 b and UT1 Reach 1
concentrations Upper will also provide re-aeration points.
Creation of deep pool zones will lower temperature, helping to
maintain dissolved oxygen concentrations. Pools will form below
drops on the steeper project reaches and around areas of woody
debris on the low-sloped project reaches. Establishment and
m maintenance of riparian buffers will create long-term shading of
the channel flow to minimize thermal heating.
m
o Decrease nutrient Chemical fertilizer and pesticide levels will be decreased by
a and adverse filtering runoff from adjacent tree farm operations through
°
m chemical levels restored native buffer zones and wetlands. Offsite nutrient input
will be absorbed onsite by filtering flood flows through restored

a floodplain areas and wetlands, where flood flows can disperse
w through native vegetation and be captured in vernal pools.
Increased surface water residency time will provide contact
treatment time and groundwater recharge potential.
Decrease sediment Sediment from offsite sources will be captured during bankfull or
input greater flows by deposition on restored floodplain areas where
native vegetation will slow overland flow velocities.
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
Mitigation Plan
Table ES.2a Project Components
Lvle Creek Mitioation Site

}?
V s
\
cs C
O s =
O a c cn
1 O C ,.,
L O -0 C
O O C
O O
I

^y
W C i p
I S
G
(a O
t: f0
O t -4-.;1 _
O M -a
57< D CL , -
a
E Q °E J j
aE? Q ag a?

UT1 4,LOF 1 Restoration Priority 1/2 3,950 LF' 100+00- 14.2 1:1 3,950
141+50 SMU
UT1 a 1,141
LF 1
Restoration
Priority 1
615 LF3
30
+003
3.2
1:1
615
6
306
+15 VI
SI
MU
UT1b 890 Restoration Priority 1/2 845 LF4 201+524 4.6 1:1 845
209+97 SMU
in-stream

UT1c 695 Enhancement structures,
630 LF 400+00-
1
8
2
5:1 252
LF II grading, 406+30 . . SMU
planting
in-stream

UT1d 760 Enhancement structures,
707 LF 500+00-
1
7
2
5:1 283
LF II grading, 507+07 . . SMU
planting
RW1 N/A Restoration grading, 5.8 AC N/A N/A 1:1 5.8
v
U
RW1 N/A Creation grading, 1.1 AC N/A N/A 3:1 0.4
planting WMU
RW2 N/A Restoration gradi, 0.8 AC N/A N/A 1:1 WM
U
RW2 N/A Creation grading, 1
8 AC N/A N/A 3:1 WM
. U
Excludes 200 LF in crossings
2 Buffer restoration will take place but is not intended for mitigation
3 Excludes downstream 306 LF of UT1a that is in the anastomosed wetland complex
4 Excludes downstream 243 LF of UT1 b that is in the anastomosed wetland complex
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
Mitigation Plan
Table ES.2b Summary of Mitigation Levels
Lvle Creek Mitiaation Site
Q y 3 E ?] V? L O 61 e
'
tC
g?
'a O
+W
? ta
O
10 13 W o 3a co
a
a'AR
?
f a a ? a E E

Stream Restoration 5,410 LF* 23.1 AC 1:1 5,410 SMU
Stream Enhancement 1,337 LF 3.5 AC 2.5:1 535 SMU
Stream Preservation N/A N/A 5:1 N/A
Wetland Restoration 6.6 AC 1:1 6.6 WMU
Wetland Creation 2.9 AC 3:1 1.0 WMU
Wetland Preservation N/A 5:1 N/A
TOTAL 6,747 LF 9.5 AC N/A 26.6 AC 5,945 SMU, 7.6
WMU
*Excludes 200 LF in crossings, 306 LF of UT1 a and 243 LF of UT1 b in the anastomosed
wetlands complex
** Buffer restoration will take lace but is not intended for mitigation
This document is consistent with the requirements of the federal rule for compensatory
mitigation project sites as described in the Federal Register Title 33 Navigation and
Navigable Waters Volume 3 Chapter 2 Section 332.8 paragraphs (c) (2) through (c) (14).
Specifically the document addresses the following requirements of the federal rule:
(2) Objectives. A description of the resource type(s) and amount(s) that will be
provided, the method of compensation (i.e., restoration, establishment,
enhancement, and/or preservation), and the manner in which the resource
functions of the compensatory mitigation project will address the needs of the
watershed, Ecoregion, physiographic province, or other geographic area of
interest.
(3) Site selection. A description of the factors considered during the site selection
process. This should include consideration of watershed needs, onsite alternatives
where applicable, and the practicability of accomplishing ecologically self-
sustaining aquatic resource restoration, establishment, enhancement, and/or
preservation at the compensatory mitigation project site (see §332.3(d)).
(4) Site protection instrument. A description of the legal arrangements and
instrument, including site ownership, that will be used to ensure the long-term
protection of the compensatory mitigation project site (see §332.7(a)).
(5) Baseline information. A description of the ecological characteristics of the
proposed compensatory mitigation project site and, in the case of an application
for a DA permit, the impact site. This may include descriptions of historic and
existing plant communities, historic and existing hydrology, soil conditions, a
map showing the locations of the impact and mitigation site (s) or the geographic
coordinates for those sites (s), and other site characteristics appropriate to the type
of resource proposed as compensations. The baseline information should also
include a delineation of waters of the United States on the proposed compensatory
mitigation project site. A prospective permittee planning to secure credits from
an approved mitigation bank or in-lieu fee program only needs to provide baseline
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site iv
Mitigation Plan
information about the impact site, not the mitigation bank or in-lieu fee project
site.
(6) Determination of credits. A description of the number of credits to be provided,
including a brief explanation of the rationale for this determination (see
§332.3(f)).
(7) Mitigation work plan. Detailed written specifications and work descriptions for
the compensatory mitigation project; construction methods, timing, and sequence;
source(s) of water, including connections to existing waters and uplands; methods
for establishing the desired plant community; plans to control invasive plant
species; the proposed grading plan, including elevations and slopes of the
substrate; soil management; and erosion control measures. For stream
compensatory mitigation projects, the mitigation work plan may also include
other relevant information, such as plan form geometry, channel form (e.g. typical
channel cross-sections), watershed size, design discharge, and riparian area
plantings.
(8) Maintenance plan. A description and schedule of maintenance requirements to
ensure the continued viability of the resource once initial construction is
completed.
(9) Performance standards. Ecologically-based standards that will be used to
determine whether the compensatory mitigation project is achieving its objectives
(see §332.5).
(10) Monitoring requirements. A description of parameters to be monitored in order
to determine if the compensatory mitigation project is on track to meet
performance standards and if adaptive management is needed. A schedule for
monitoring and reporting on monitoring results to the district engineer must be
included (see §332.6).
(11) Long-term management plan. A description of how the compensatory mitigation
project will be managed after performance standards have- been achieved to
ensure the long-term sustainability of the resource, including long-term financing
mechanisms and the party responsible for long-term management (see §332.7(d)).
(12) Adaptive management plan. A management strategy to address unforeseen
changes in site conditions or other components of the compensatory mitigation
project, including the party or parties responsible for implementing adaptive
management measures. The adaptive management plan will guide decisions for
management measures. The adaptive management plan will guide decisions for
revising compensatory mitigation plans and implementing measures to address
both foreseeable and unforeseen circumstances that adversely affect
compensatory mitigation success (see §332.7(c)).
(13) Financial assurances. A description of financial assurances that will be
provided and how they are sufficient to ensure a high level of confidence that the
compensatory mitigation project will be successfully completed, in accordance
with its performance standards (see §332.3(n)).
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site V
Mitigation Plan
r
1.0 Project Site Identification and Location
The Lyle Creek Mitigation Site is a full-delivery stream and wetland restoration project for the
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) in Catawba County, NC. The
project includes work on and adjacent to several unnamed tributaries (UTs) to Lyle Creek:
restoration of 4,961 existing linear feet (LF) of perennial stream, restoration of 1,141 existing LF
of intermittent stream, enhancement of 1,455 existing LF of intermittent stream, restoration of
6.6 acres of wetlands, and creation of 2.9 acres of wetlands. Buffer restoration will also take
place but is not intended for mitigation credit at this time.
The streams proposed for restoration and enhancement include one second order UT and four
first order UTs to Lyle Creek. Lyle Creek is a tributary to the Catawba River. The project is
located in the Catawba River Basin Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03050101140010, which
qualifies as a service area for an adjacent HUC; therefore, the Lyle Creek Mitigation Site is
being submitted for mitigation credit in the Catawba River Basin HUC 03050103.
Photographs of the project site are included in Appendix 1.
1.1 Directions to Project Site
The Lyle Creek Mitigation Site is located west of NC Highway 10/ North Main Street in the
Town of Catawba, NC (Figure 1). The site is 18 miles east of Hickory, 15 miles southwest of
Statesville, and approximately 2 miles south of I-40. The site is located on an active tree farm
surrounded by woods and residential land use. The site is bounded by Lyle Creek to the north,
NC Highway 10/ North Main Street to the east, and an elevated railroad right-of-way to the
south.
From I-40 exit 138, follow Oxford School Road south for 2.2 miles. Oxford School Road
becomes North Main Street (NC Highway 10) after a bridge crossing at Lyle Creek. From North
Main Street, turn right onto 3rd Avenue NW. Follow 3rd Avenue NW around and to the right to
approach the Catawba Tree Farm gate.
1.2 USGS Hydrologic Unit Code and NCDWQ River Basin Designations
The Lyle Creek Mitigation Site is located within the NCEEP targeted watershed for the Catawba
River Basin (HUC 03050101140010) and North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ)
Subbasin 03-08-32. Lyle Creek flows into the Catawba River less than a mile downstream of the
proposed mitigation site.
The NCDWQ assigns best usage classifications to State Waters that reflect water quality
conditions and potential resource usage. Lyle Creek (NCDWQ Index No. 11-76-4.5) is the main
receiving tributary of the project reaches and has been classified as Class WS-IV; CA waters.
Class WS-IV waters are used as sources of water supply for drinking or food processing
purposes where a more restrictive WS-1, WS-II, or WS-III classification is not feasible. These
waters are also protected for Class C uses such as secondary recreation, fishing, wildlife, fish and
aquatic life propagation and survival, and agriculture. WS-IV waters are generally in moderately
to highly-developed watersheds or Protected Areas. This portion of Lyle Creek is also located
within the Critical Area (CA) of the Catawba River/ Lake Norman.
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site Page 1
Mitigation Plan
1.3 Project Components and Structure
Table is Project Components
We Creek Mitiqation Site
o ?j o
a 0 m? a ?.ati °a0I- ?
? a
57<
LU 0 Z; o
_J Q 0. a?? Q D.g a.g
J
UT1 4,071 Restoration Priority 1/2 3,950 LF' 100+00- 14.2 1:1 3,950
LF 141+50 SMU
UT1a 1,141 Restoration Priority 1 615 LF3 300+00- 3.2 1:1 615
LF 306+15 SMU
UT1b 890 Restoration Priority 1/2 845 LF4 201+52- 4.6 1:1 845
LF 209+97 SMU
in-stream

UT1c 695 Enhancement structures,
630 LF 400+00-
1
8
2
5:1 252
LF II grading, 406+30 . . SMU
planting
in-stream

UT1d 760 Enhancement structures,
707 LF 500+00-
1
7
2
5:1 283
LF II grading, 507+07 . . SMU
planting
RW1 N/A Restoration grading, 8 AC
5 N/A N/A 1:1 5.8
.
RW1 N/A Creation grading, 1
1 AC N/A N/A 3:1 W
. MU
RW2 N/A Restoration grading, 0.8 AC N/A N/A 1:1 W0.8
RW2 N/A Creation g
di
g 1
8 AC N/A N/A 3:1 W
ra
n . MU
Excludes 200 LF in crossings
2 Buffer restoration will take place but is not intended for mitigation
3 Excludes downstream 306 LF of UT1 a that is in the anastomosed wetland complex
4 Excludes downstream 243 LF of UT1 b that is in the anastomosed wetland complex
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site Page 2
Mitigation Plan
Table 1b. Summary of Mitigation Levels
Lvle Creek Mitigation Site

E- C
0 o
F o
_ °a cm a oa 01 y
m c
L a +
+
E a?J a3 a ag a?
?
Stream Restoration 5,410 LF* 23.1 AC 1:1 5,410 SMU
Stream Enhancement 1,337 LF 3.5 AC 2.5:1 535 SMU
Stream Preservation N/A N/A 5:1 N/A
Wetland Restoration 6.6 AC 1:1 6.6 WMU
Wetland Creation 2.9 AC 3:1 1.0 WMU
Wetland Preservation N/A 5:1 N/A
TOTAL 747 LF
6 9.5 AC N/A 26.6 AC 5,945 SMU, 7.6
, WMU
*Excludes 200 LF in crossings, 306 LF of UT1 a and 243 LF of UT1 b in the anastomosed
wetlands complex
** Buffer restoration will take lace but is not intended for mitigation
2.0 Watershed Characterization
The following sections describe the existing conditions at the Lyle Creek Mitigation Site in terms
of stream and wetland jurisdiction, stream position in the valley, watershed conditions, soils,
geology, cultural resources, species of concern, regulated floodplain zones, and site constraints.
2.1 Project Area and Easement Acreage
The Lyle Creek Mitigation Site is located within a 111-acre tract of land west of NC Highway 10
and the Town of Catawba in the Catawba River Basin. The parcel is owned by Joseph S. and
Kathy T. Garmon (PIN 3782-1710-3129) and a conservation easement was recorded on
December 29, 2010 on 26.62 acres of the tract, defining the limits of the project area (Deed Book
03057, Page Number 1320 and Plat Book 70, Page Number 90). The conservation easement
excludes two specified easement crossing areas and one utility right-of-way/easement crossing
area. The conservation easement allows for the stream and wetland restoration work to occur
and protects the project area in perpetuity. Figure 2 depicts the conservation easement and the
project streams.
2.2 Surface Water Classification and Water Quality
On February 26, 2010, Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (WEI) investigated onsite jurisdictional
waters of the U.S. using the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) Routine Onsite
Determination Method. This method is defined in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands
Delineation Manual. Determination methods included stream classification utilizing the
NCDWQ Stream Identification Form and the USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet.
Potential jurisdictional wetland areas as well as typical upland areas were classified using the
USACE Routine Wetland Determination Data Form. Onsite jurisdictional wetland areas were
also assessed using the North Carolina Wetland Assessment Method (NCWAM). All stream and
wetland data forms, representative of onsite jurisdictional waters are included in Appendix 2.
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site Page 3
Mitigation Plan
The results of the onsite field investigation indicate that five channels including UTI to Lyle
Creek, UT 1 a, UT 1 b, UT 1 c, and UT 1 d are jurisdictional within the project limits (Figures 5 and
6). Past maintenance and ditching efforts throughout the project area have resulted in large
sections of these onsite channels exhibiting linear wetland indicators, specifically a domination
of herbaceous vegetation, low flow velocities, and a lack of stream substrate. Onsite channels
exhibiting these indicators include UT 1 a, UT 1 c, UT 1 d, and portions of UT 1. These channels
continue to function as linear conveyances, exhibit intermittent to perennial flow, and act as key
drainages to the site during storm flow events. Additionally there are five jurisdictional wetland
areas (WL-l, WL-2, WL-3, WL-4, and WL-5) located within the proposed project area. These
wetlands are typically ditched features located in conjunction with onsite jurisdictional channels
and function to drain adjacent upland areas. Each of the described tributaries and wetland
features are protected under the conservation easement that was placed on the property. A copy
of the Jurisdictional Determination is included in Appendix 2.
2.3 Onsite Stream Position and Watershed Drainage Area
Figure 4 depicts the Catawba USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle and the project area.
The project lies predominately within the low-slope floodplain of Lyle Creek with some areas of
steeper topography along the southern project boundary. Within the project boundaries, UTI
flows from the southwestern corner of the project north, then turns east and runs parallel to Lyle
Creek for the length of the project. At the downstream extent of the project area, UT1 turns
north to join Lyle Creek. UT 1 a, UT 1 b, and UT 1 c flow from the south and join UT I within the
project limits. UTId flows from the western project boundary to join UT1. Figure 4 suggests
that UT1 was once mapped as running perpendicular into Lyle Creek. During site investigations,
WEI looked for a remnant channel path that would support the alignment suggested by the
USGS hydrography. The area has been heavily farmed and no alignment was observed;
however, WEI did note a levee along the length of Lyle Creek within the project boundaries.
Because of the project's history of agricultural use, it is difficult to know if this formation is
natural or man-made. Vegetation on the levee is at least 30 years old. If the levee was formed
by Lyle Creek, UTI's alignment may have historically flowed parallel to Lyle Creek. WEI also
reviewed historic aerial photography to gain more information about the streams' historic
placement in the valley. The oldest available aerial, dated 1938, depicts all of the tributaries in a
similar landscape position as they are today. Historic aerials are included in Appendix 5.
A reference reach identified just upstream of the project area, UT to Lyle Creek reference,
exhibits a similar stream position as UT1. This stream drains a small portion of the left valley of
Lyle Creek. A levee is present along the banks of Lyle Creek, and UT to Lyle Creek flows down
the hillside, then turns and flows parallel to Lyle Creek for approximately 2,000 LF before it
joins the main stem (Figure 13). This small tributary may not have the stream power to maintain
a path through the levee. Instead, it flows through the floodplain until the valley pinches, forcing
it to join Lyle Creek. This suggests that a tributary with an alignment parallel to the main stem is
not unusual in the Lyle Creek watershed. See Section 4.0 for further discussion of the reference
reach.
Drainage areas for the project reaches were delineated using the Catawba County topographic
mapping (Figure 3). Current aerial imagery and a watershed walk were used to confirm
watershed land uses. The watershed areas and land uses are summarized in Table 2.
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site Page 4
Mitigation Plan
Table 2. Drainage Areas
We Creek Mitigation Site
Project Reach Drainage Area Predominant Land Use

(acres) 1
Forested 50%, Developed 20%,
UT1 315 Agriculture 17%, Shrubland 8%, and
Herbaceous Upland 5%
Forested 46%, Developed 38%,
UT1a 56 Agriculture 8%, Shrubland 6%, and
Herbaceous Upland 2%
Forested 58%, Developed 15%,
UT1 b 78 Agriculture 18%, Shrubland 4%, and
Herbaceous Upland 5%
Forested 58%, Agriculture 15%,
UT1c 26 Shrubland 15%, and Herbaceous
Upland 12%
UT1 d g Forested 50%, Agriculture 25%, and
Shrubland 25%
2.4 Watershed Assessment
On July 15, 2011, WEI conducted a watershed walk to verify land uses observed from the aerial
photography and to identify potential sediment sources.
Consistent with that depicted in aerial photography, watersheds to UT 1, UT 1 a, UT 1 b, and UT 1 c
upstream of the project site are predominately forested. Development within the watersheds
exists in the headwaters and consists primarily of residential lots with homes from the 1940's
and 1950's. No areas of floodplain or overland erosion were noted within the watersheds.
Stream banks throughout the watershed are eroded and appear to be the sole source of sediment
to the downstream reaches.
The project's watershed is bisected by the Norfolk Southern Railroad (Figure 3 and 4). The
railroad embankment is approximately 20 feet high and culverts through the embankment are
approximately 3 feet high by 2.5 feet wide. The watershed above the railroad embankment
primarily drains to UT1 and UTlb. Upstream of the railroad embankment, stream bed substrate
is colluvial cobble, fractured bedrock, and some finer sands. UTIb is impounded just upstream
of the railroad culvert. A pump was observed on the bank of the impoundment and a spillway or
riser was not evident. An accumulation of fines at the inlet of the impounded area and a distinct
decrease in coarse stream bed substrate below the pond suggest that most of the sediment
generated from the upstream watershed settles out in the pond. Downstream of the railroad
embankment, there is noticeable substrate fining on both UT I and UT 1 b. Substrate shifts to
primarily sand with few small cobbles and some coarse gravels. The railroad embankment and
culverts appear to act as a barrier to sediment transport.
Within the Lyle Creek project site but outside of the easement, a gravel road follows the southern
edge of the fields. UT1 flows under this road through a 36" RCP culvert to enter the easement
area. Just upstream of this culvert, there is a large sediment bar of coarse gravels. One isolated
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site Page 5
Mitigation Plan
sand bar is present just downstream of this culvert, beyond which UT1's bed is dominated by
silts and organic detritus. UT 1 b flows under the road through an approximate 30" CMP culvert
and follows the right valley wall before entering another 24" RCP culvert just upstream of the
project easement. UTIb's bed is also dominated by silts and organics below both farm culverts.
Based on watershed conditions observed during the assessment, it appears that the project
streams have low sediment supply primarily due to blockage from the railroad and the farm
culverts.
The USEPA's STEPL pollutant loading watershed model was used to estimate sediment load
from the watershed. The model uses the revised Universal Soil Loss Equation, rainfall data for
the county, watershed stream conditions, and land use data to estimate sediment load from the
watershed. The model estimates that the watershed supplies 7.4 tons of sediment per year. A
significant portion of this supply is trapped at the railroad embankment, dropping out of the
system before the channels reach the project site. This sediment supply will be further
considered in the sediment transport analysis of the project site.
2.5 Historical Land Use and Development Trends
The Catawba 03050101 watershed includes developing areas such as the cities of Conover,
Hickory, Lenoir and Morganton as well as the I-40 transportation corridor. Population growth
and the associated development and infrastructure projects create the necessity for mitigation
projects in this region.
The project site includes three first-order streams (UT 1 a, UT 1 c, and UT 1 d), one second-order
stream (UTIb), and one stream which changes from first- to second- to third-order through the
project site (UT1). The offsite watersheds are small and provide a limited footprint where
development could impact the site. The watershed area is partially located in the Town of
Catawba and partially outside the town limits in Catawba County. Land use within the
watershed is historically rural and dominated by forest and agriculture and is approximately 50%
forested, 20% developed, and 17% agricultural. WEI interviewed Mr. John R. Kinley, the Town
Planner for the Western Piedmont Council of Governments, which includes the Town of
Catawba, to determine whether development plans were in place for the surrounding areas.
While a small amount of development is occurring in Catawba County along the I-40 corridor
between Hickory and Statesville, there is no evidence of increased development pressure in the
project watershed. Mr. Kinley stated that downtown Catawba is not on the verge of a re-
development effort, and that while a future land-use plan was published in 2000, it is now
outdated and no further planning documents are available (2011).
The Lyle Creek site is also located in the mapped 100-year floodplain of Lyle Creek, which will
discourage future development on the site due to associated flooding risks.
2.6 Watershed Planning
NCEEP develops local watershed plans (LWP) for specific priority areas where critical
watershed issues need to be addressed. These LWPs describe projects and management
strategies to restore, enhance, or protect local water resources. The Lyle Creek Mitigation Site is
not currently located within an area covered by an LWP. However, Lyle Creek is listed as a
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site Page 6
Mitigation Plan
Protection Priority within the Upper Lake Norman watershed according to the 2010 Catawba
River Basinwide Water Quality Plan. Biological communities within Lyle Creek have been
stable and of moderate quality over the last decade with recent macrobenthic communities
scoring Good-Fair (2007) and fish communities scoring Excellent (2004). Despite the stable in-
stream habitat, Lyle Creek is considered a Protection Priority due to the chain of lakes into which
it drains and the potential for accumulation of pollutants to these downstream waters.
NCEEP also develops River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP) to guide its restoration
activities within each of the State's 54 cataloging units. RBRPs delineate specific watersheds
that exhibit both the need and opportunity for wetland, stream and riparian buffer restoration.
These watersheds are called Targeted Local Watersheds (TLWs) and receive priority for NCEEP
planning and restoration project funds. The 2004 and 2007 Catawba River Basin RBRP
identified HUC 03050101140010 as a TLW, which contains the Lyle Creek Mitigation Project.
The main goals of the RBRP are to protect and enhance water quality, wildlife habitat,
recreational opportunities, and flood prevention. The restoration of the UTs to Lyle Creek will
correspond with the goals identified in the RBRP by increasing bank stability, reducing erosion,
and eliminating a direct sediment source to the stream and downstream recreational areas by
establishing riparian vegetation, and enhancing aquatic and terrestrial habitat.
2.7 Physlography, Geology, and Soils
The Lyle Creek Mitigation Site is located in the Kings Mountain Belt of the Piedmont
physiographic province. The Piedmont province is characterized by gently rolling, well-rounded
hills and long, low ridges ranging in elevation from 300 to 1,500 feet above sea level. The Kings
Mountain Belt consists of moderately deformed and metamorphosed volcanic and sedimentary
rocks, approximately 400 to 500 million years old. The lithium deposits found within the belt
provide raw materials for chemical compounds, ceramics, glass, greases, batteries, and television
glass. Specifically, the project site is located in the Battleground Formation (Zbt) mapped unit of
the Kings Mountain Belt. This mapped unit consists of quartz-sericite schist with metavolcanic
rock, quartz-pebble metaconglomerate, kyanite-sillimanite quartzite, and garnet-quartz rock.
The floodplain areas of the proposed project are mapped by the Catawba County Soil Survey.
Soils in the project area floodplain are primarily mapped as Chewacla loam, Congaree complex,
and Wehadkee fine sandy loam. These soils are described in Table 3 and depicted in Figure 7.
Soil borings were performed in the proposed wetland zones by an NC registered soil scientist.
The soil profiles and a boring location map are included in Appendix 2. Additional soil profiles
and boring locations within the proposed wetland areas, performed by WEI, have also been
included.
Borings taken by the soil scientist vary in depth from 14 to 36 inches. Borings taken by WEI
vary in depth up to 24 inches. No bedrock was encountered during boring activities. The
landowners have not encountered shallow bedrock while farming the site. Based on this
information, shallow bedrock does not appear to be present within the project areas.
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site Page 7
Mitigation Plan
Table 3. Project Soil Types and Descriptions
Lvle Creek Mitigation Site
Soil Name Description
Chewacla soils are found in valleys and floodplains. They are nearly
Chewacla loam level and somewhat poorly drained. Shrink-swell potential is low.
These soils are frequently flooded.
Congaree complex Congaree soils are nearly level and moderately well drained. Shrink-
swell potential is low. These soils are frequently flooded.
Wehadkee loam soils are typically found on valleys and depressions
Wehadkee fine on floodplains. Slopes are 0 to 2 percent. The drainage class for
sandy loam these soils is poorly drained. Shrink swell potential is low. These soils
are frequently flooded.
Notes:
Source: Catawba County Soil Survey, USDA-NRCS, http://efotg.nres.usda.gov
2.8 Endangered and Threatened Species
2.8.1 Site Evaluation Methodology
The Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), defines
protection for species with the Federal Classification of Threatened (T) or Endangered (E).
An "Endangered Species" is defined as "any species which is in danger of extinction
throughout all or a significant portion of its range" and a "Threatened Species" is defined as
"any species which is likely to become an Endangered Species within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range" (ESA, 1973).
WEI utilized the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and North Carolina Natural
Heritage Program (NHP) databases in order to identify federally listed Threatened and
Endangered plant and animal species for Catawba County, NC (USFWS, 2008 and NHP,
2009). Two federally listed species, the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) and dwarf-
flowered heartleaf (Hexastylis naniflora), are currently listed in Catawba County (Table 4).
Table 4. Listed Threatened and Endangered Species in Catawba County, NC
i via rrank Mitinatinn Sita
Species Federal Status Habitat
Vertebrate
Bald eagle BGPA Near large open water bodies: lakes,
Haliaeetus leucoce halus marshes, seacoasts, and rivers
Vascular Plant
North facing slopes, bluffs, boggy
Dwarf-flowered heartleaf E areas with acidic sandy loam soils in
(Hexastylis naniflora) deciduous forests
E = Endangered; T=Threatened; BGPA=Bald & Golden Eagle Protection Act
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site Page 8
Mitigation Plan
2.8.2 Threatened and Endangered Species
2.8.2.1 Species Description
Bald Eagle
The bald eagle is a very large raptor species, typically 28 to 38 inches in length. Adult
individuals are brown in color with a very distinctive white head and tail. Bald eagles
typically live near large bodies of open water with suitable fish habitat including: lakes,
marshes, seacoasts, and rivers. This species generally requires tall, mature tree species
for nesting and roosting. Bald eagles were de-listed from the Endangered Species List in
June 2007; however, this species remains under the protection of the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGPA). This species is
known to occur in every U.S. state except Hawaii.
Dwarf-Flowered Heardeaf
Dwarf-flowered heartleaf is a low-growing, evergreen perennial herb that spreads via
rhizomes. This herb exhibits heart-shaped, leathery leaves supported by long thin
petioles. These plants are found along north-facing slopes, bluffs, and boggy areas
containing acidic sandy loam soils within deciduous forests. Known population
occurrences of dwarf-flowered heartleaf have been observed in Catawba County within
the past 20 years.
2.8.2.2 Biological Conclusion
A pedestrian survey of the site was performed on February 26, 2010. Onsite habitats
include active pastures and streamside thickets. There is no suitable nesting or breeding
habitat for bald eagles located within the site, as they require tall, mature trees. There is
also no suitable habitat for the Dwarf-flowered heartleaf in the project area.
Based on a pedestrian survey of the project area, no individual species, critical habitat, or
suitable habitat was found to exist on the site. It is WEI's position that in regard to the
federally-listed species for Catawba County, the Lyle Creek Mitigation Site will have "no
effect."
2.8.3 USFWS Concurrence
WEI requested review and comment from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) on July 12, 2010, regarding the results of the site investigation of the Lyle Creek
Mitigation Site and its potential impacts on threatened or endangered species. Since no
response was received from the USFWS within a 30-day time frame, it is assumed that the
site determination is correct and that no additional, relevant information is available for this
site. A further review of the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program's (NCNHP) element
occurrence GIS data layer shows that no natural heritage elements occur within two miles of
the proposed project area. All correspondence is included in Appendix 3.
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site Page 9
Mitigation Plan
29 Cultural Resources
2.9.1 Site Evaluation Methodology
The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, amended (16 U.S.C. 470), defines
the policy of historic preservation to protect, restore, and reuse districts, sites, structures, and
objects significant in American history, architecture, and culture. Section 106 of the NHPA
mandates that federal agencies take into account the effect of an undertaking on any property,
which is included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places.
Letters were sent to the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and to the
Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO) on July 12, 2010, requesting review and
comment for the potential of cultural resources potentially affected by the Lyle Creek
Mitigation Site.
2.9.2 SHPO/THPO Concurrence
In a letter dated August 11, 2010 (see Appendix 3), the SHPO stated that they have
conducted a review of the project and are, "...aware of no historic resources which would be
affected by the project." Additionally, no response has been received from the THPO within
a 30-day time frame and it is assumed that no cultural resources will be affected by this
project.
2.10 Physical Constraints
2.10.1 Property Ownership, Boundary, and Utilities
The recorded easement allows the mitigation project to occur, and restricts the land use of the
site in perpetuity.
Within the project area, there is an overhead electric line with no recorded utility easement.
The conservation easement was designed to exclude a 30-foot wide area under this line in
anticipation of potential future maintenance requirements. Irrigation lines that serve the tree
farm will be relocated outside the easement area. There are no additional utilities onsite.
2.10.2 Site Access
The project area is accessed from 3`d Avenue NW off North Main Street (NC Highway 10),
as shown in Figure 2.
Within the site, there will be three easement breaks with crossings over UT1 to maintain
access to all portions of the parent tract. One of these easement breaks is associated with the
30-foot wide overhead electric line. These easement breaks are shown on Figure 17.
2.10.3 FEMA and Hydrologic Trespass
The project stream channels do not have an associated regulated floodplain; however, the
project reaches and wetland areas are located within the floodway and flood fringe of Lyle
Creek (Figure 8). Lyle Creek is a mapped Zone AE floodplain with an associated floodway.
A detailed hydraulic study was originally performed by the Soil Conservation Service, but
this model is no longer available in the local, state, or federal repositories. The most recent
FIRM panel is a re-delineation of the original flood elevations. The site is located on Panels
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site Page 10
Mitigation Plan
3781 and 3782 of the Catawba County FIRM panels. The site is primarily under backwater
effects from Lake Norman on the Catawba River. The project grading is being designed so
that there is no net fill in the regulated floodplain of Lyle Creek. Earthwork calculations and
grading plans will be submitted with a no-rise certification for the Town of Catawba
floodplain administrator. The NC Emergency Management (NCEM) Floodplain Mapping
Program Engineer has approved this approach for the Lyle Creek Mitigation Site. Appendix
6 contains the NCEEP Floodplain Requirements Checklist.
3.0 Project Site Streams - Existing Conditions
The following sections describe the existing conditions at the Lyle Creek Mitigation Site in terms
of geomorphology, discharge, channel evolution and stability, and the existing vegetated
community.
3.1 Existing Conditions Survey
The onsite existing conditions data were collected by WEI in August 2010. This survey included
the assessment of approximately 7,557 LF of UTs to Lyle Creek. The locations of the project
reaches and surveyed cross-sections are shown in Figure 5. Existing geomorphic survey data is
included in Appendix 4. Tables 5a and 5b summarize the attributes of the overall project and of
the project reaches.
Table Sa. Project Attributes
Lyle Creek Mitiqation Site
Project Count Catawba Count
Ph sio ra hic Region Kin s Mountain Belt of the Piedmont Ph sio ra hic Province
Ecore ion Piedmont
River Basin Catawba
USGS HUC 14 digit) 03050101140010
NCDWQ Sub-basin Catawba River Subbasin 03-08-32
Within NCEEP
Watershed Plan? No, however, Lyle Creek is located in an EEP targeted
watershed.
WRC Class Warm
Percent of Easement
Fenced or Demarcated The easement has been recorded and will be demarcated with
witness posts and signage. No fencing is necessary since the
surrounding area is a tree farm.
Beaver Activity
Observed During
Design Phase?
No
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site Page 11
Mitigation Plan
Table 5b. Mitigation Component Attributes
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
(onsite streams are tributaries to Lvle Creek)
UT1 UT1a UT1b UT1c UT1d RW1 RW2
Drainage Area acres 315 56 78 26 9 96 134
Stream Order Reach 1 -1s'
Reach 2 - 2nd 1 St 2nd 1 St 1 St N/A N/A
Reach 3 - 3`d
Restored Length LF 3,950 615 845 630 707 N/A N/A
Perennial (P) or

Intermittent I P I P I I N/A N/A
Watershed Type Rural
Watershed Land Use
Forested 50% 46% 58% 58% 50% 65% 52%
Developed 20% 38% 15% 0% 0% 5% 24%
Agricultural 17% 8% 18% 15% 25% 5% 12%
Shrubland 8% 6% 4% 15% 25% 0% 4%
Herbaceous Upland 5% 2% 50/6 12% 0% 23% 3%
Watershed Impervious 5% 10% 4% 0% 0% 2% 5%
Cover
NCDWQ Index Number Lyle Creek - 11-76-(4.5)
NCDWQ Classification Lyle Creek - WS-IV;CA
303d Listed No
Upstream of 303d No
Stream
303d Listing Reason N/A
Total Acreage of 26
62 acres
Easement .
Total Existing Vegetated
26.0 acres (excludes existing roads)
Acreage within Easement
Total Planted Acreage as
26.3 acres (excludes stream beds)
art of Restoration
Rosgen Classification of F5 4 F6 4 G6 4 F6 4 F6 4 F6 4 F6 4 N/A N/A
Pre-Existing
Rosgen Classification of 135c
C6 136c, C6 C6 C6 N/A N/A
Design , C6
Valley Type Alluvial Colluvial Alluvial Alluvial Alluvial Alluvial Alluvial
/alluvial
Valley Slope (feet/ foot) Reach 1 Upper:
0.0153 0.0115 0.0037
Reach 1 Lower: to to 0.0006 0.0041 0.0017 0.01
0.0017 0.0324 0.0185
Reach 2: 0.0063
Cowardin Classification N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Palustrine Palustrine
Trout Waters Designation No
Endangered or No Effect
Threatened Species
Dominant Soil Series and Chewacla Chewacla Wehadkee Chewacla Congaree Chewacla Chewacla
Characteristics loam, loam, fine sandy loam, complex, loam and loam,
0-2% 0-2% loam, 0- 0-2% 0-2% Wehadkee 0-2%
slopes slopes 2% slopes slopes slopes fine sand slopes
Excludes 200 LF of crossings
2 Excludes 306 LF of UT1a in the anastomosed wetlands complex
3 Excludes 243 LF of UT1 b in the anastomosed wetlands complex
4 The Rosgen classification system is for natural streams. These channels have been heavily manipulated by man and
therefore the Rosgen classification system is not applicable. These classifications are provided for illustrative purposes
only.
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site Page 12
Mitigation Plan
3.2 Channel Classification
The site consists of one main tributary (UT I to Lyle Creek) fed by four smaller tributaries
(UT 1 a, UT 1 b, UT 1 c, and UT 1 d). Each of the UTs on the Lyle Creek Mitigation Site have been
continuously maintained as straightened, ditched channels to assist with irrigation and drainage
of the surrounding commercial tree farm. Past maintenance and ditching efforts of these
tributaries have resulted in large, overly wide channel cross-sections, contributing to extremely
low flow velocities and a buildup of fine sediments and plant detritus within the channel bottom.
Over time, these linear conveyances have become choked out with herbaceous vegetation and
more closely resemble linear wetlands with no substrate or bed form, and little to no aquatic
habitat. Historical aerials of the site, provided in Appendix 5, show active channel maintenance
since at least 1961. A reproduction of a 1938 historical aerial also suggests that channel was in
its current alignment in the 1930's as well, although due to the age of this aerial, whether the
channel was actively maintained or not is difficult to decipher.
It is important to note that Rosgen's natural channel classification system (1994) cannot be fully
and accurately applied to such manipulated channels. Sinuosity cannot be used as a valid
classification characteristic because the channels are straightened. All of the streams are incised
with bank height ratios ranging from 1.4 to 3.4. These maintained channels also have low bank
slopes which often allow for entrenchment ratios greater than 2.2. High entrenchment ratios
lead to classification of stream types with good floodplain connectivity; however, these channels
have minimal access to an actual floodplain because bankfull is so far below the true top of bank.
For this reason, entrenchment ratio also cannot be used as a valid classification characteristic.
For determining an illustrative classification for the onsite channels, bank height ratio was used
as an indicator for floodplain access as opposed to entrenchment ratio.
The following sections discuss the reaches proposed for restoration including UT1, UTIa, and
UTlb, as well as the reaches proposed for enhancement including UTIc and UTld. A photo log
of the project reaches is included in Appendix 1.
3.2.1 Restoration Reaches
UT1 is a perennial channel that flows onto the site from a steep, wooded area to the
southwest. UT1 was divided into three separate reaches for classification due to slight
differences in stream morphology and drainage area sizes. Please note that the reach breaks
established for classification purposes (Reach 1, Reach 2, and Reach 3) differ from the reach
breaks established for restoration (Reach 1 Upper, Reach 1 Lower, and Reach 2). This
section reviews reaches established for classification. Figure 5 shows the reach locations.
Reach 1 of UT1 is 1,522 LF long and drains an approximate 0.16-square mile watershed.
This portion of the channel is located in an area of the project with a slightly steeper valley.
Ditching and maintenance has created an overly wide channel, which is reflected in the
width-to-depth ratios of 35 to 50. The section is incised with bank height ratios ranging from
1.6 to 3.0. Very fine sand and silt dominate the substrate. Due to the high width-to-depth
ratio and deep incision, Reach 1 shows some similarities to a Rosgen F stream type.
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site Page 13
Mitigation Plan
Reach 2 of UTI is 1,729 LF long and extends from the confluence with UTld downstream to
the confluence with UTIb. Reach 2 drains a 0.35-square mile watershed. This reach is
somewhat deeper than Reach 1 with narrower bankfull widths, resulting in a lower width-to-
depth ratio of 21. This section is incised with bank height ratios ranging from 1.4 to 2.3.
Flow velocities are very low on this reach and silt dominates the substrate. Reach 2, like
Reach 1, shows similarities to a Rosgen F stream type.
Reach 3 of UT I is approximately 820 LF and extends from the confluence of UT 1 b
downstream to the confluence with Lyle Creek. This portion of UT1 exhibited narrowed
bankfull widths resulting in a low width-to-depth ratio of 9.5. The section is incised with
bank height ratios ranging from 1.7 to 2.4. Silt dominates the substrate. The lower width-
depth ratio combined with incision is similar to a Rosgen G stream type.
UT 1 a is an intermittent channel that enters the site from the steep, wooded property to the
south. UT 1 a is approximately 1,141 LF and drains a 0.08 square mile watershed. UT 1 a,
despite being an intermittent drainage, exhibits strong flow conditions. This channel has
been heavily ditched and maintained and exhibits a width-to-depth ratio of 16.5 and bank
height ratios ranging from 2.3 to 3.4. Silt dominates the substrate. The high width-to-depth
ratio combined with deep incision is similar to a Rosgen F stream type.
UTIb is a perennial channel that enters the project area from the steep, wooded property
south of the site, flowing north into UT1. UTIb has a drainage area of approximately 0.12
square miles. UTIb is similar to the other onsite streams in that it has been heavily ditched
and maintained in the past making accurate classification difficult. This channel is relatively
shallow with wide bankfull widths resulting in a width-to-depth ratio of 33.6. Bank height
ratios range from 2.0 to 2.5. Silt dominates the substrate. UTlb, like UTla, shows
similarities to a Rosgen F stream type.
Existing geomorphic conditions for UT 1, UT 1 a, and UT 1 b to Lyle Creek are summarized in
Table 6a.
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site Page 14
Mitigation Plan
Table 6a. Restoration Reaches Existing Conditions
Lyle Creek Stream Mitigation Project
UT1
Reach 1 UT1
Reach 2 UT1
Reach 3 UT1b UT1a
Notation Units min max min max min max min max min max
stream type F5' F6' G6' F6' F6'
drainage area DA sq mi 0.10 0.16 0.16 0.35 0.35 0.49 0.12 0.08
Discharge
Q- NC Rural Regional
Curve Q cfs 17 24 24 42 42 52 20 14
Q2_y, NFF regression Q cfs 37 65 79 30 23
Q- USGS extrapolation
1.2 r-1.5 r Q cfs 8 15 15 31 31 49 9 17 6 13
selected bankfull design
discharge
Qbkf
cfs
14
15
28
13
9
Cross-Section Features
bankfull cross-sectional
area Abkf SF 14.9 19.2 18.1 10.5 7.9 4.6
average velocity during
bankfull event
Vbkf
fps
0.7
0.9
0.8
2.7
1.6
2.0
width at bankfull Wbkf feet 23.1 31.5 19.4 10.0 16.3 8.7
maximum depth at
bankfull
dmax
feet
1.1
1.5
1.7
1.0
0.8
mean depth at bankfull dbkf feet 0.65 0.93 1.05 0.48 0.53
bankfull width-to-depth
ratio
Wbkf/dbkf
35.8
48.8
20.8
9.5
33.6
16.5
depth ratio dm-Mbkr 1.6 1.6 1.7 2.1 1.5
low bank height 1.7 3.1 2.1 3.5 3.0 4.2 2.1 2.6 1.8 2.7
bank height ratio BHR 1.6 3.0 1.4 2.3 1.7 2.4 2.0 2.5 2.3 3.4
floodprone area width Wfpa feet 43 48 62 34 42 21
entrenchment ratio ER 1.5 1.8 3.2 3.4 2.6 2.4
Valley and Channel Slope
valley slope2 Salley
feet/
f
oot

0.0137

0.0020

0.0020

0.0124

0.0110
channel slope Schannel feet/
foot 0.0120 0.0011 0.00363 0.0085 0.0106
Run/Riffle Features
run/riffle slope Sra.ffle feet/
foot 0.003 0.026 0.0033 0.006 0.0030 0.011 0.0056 0.016 0.0035 0.032
run/riffle slope ratio Srlfffe/Schannel 0.3 2.2 3.0 5.4 0.8 2.9 0.7 1.9 0.3 3.1
Pool Features
pool slope S
p°°' feet/
foot
0.0005
0.0035
0.002
0.003
0.000
0.005
0.001
I

.004

.001

.004
pool slope ratio Spool/Schannel 0.0 0.3 1.9 2.5 0.1 1.4 0.2 0.5 0.1 0.4
pool-to-pool spacing Lp_p feet 50 100 49 115 41 56 28 87 35 68
pool spacing ratio Lp_p/Wbkf 2.2 3.2 2.5 5.9 4.1 5.6 1.7 5.3 4.0 7.8
maximum pool depth at
bankfull
dpool
feet
1.9
2.3
3.1
2.8
1.6
1.1
pool depth ratio dpool/dbkf 3.0 3.6 3.3 2.7 3.2 2.0
pool width at bankfull wpo°l feet 13.8 29.6 23.7 12.2 14.9 10.3
pool width ratio `/pool/Wbkf 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.2 0.9 1.2
pool cross-sectional area
at bankfull
Apool
SF
11.3
17.8
27.0
20.0
7.8
4.9
pool area ratio Apool/Abkf 0.8 0.9 1.5 1.9 1.0 1.1
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site Page 15
Mitigation Plan
UT1
Reach 1 UT1
Reach 2 UT1
Reach 3 UT1b UTla
Notation Units min max min max min max min max max
Pattern Features
belt width Wbh feet N/AS N/A5 N/A5 N/A5 N/A5
meander width ratio Wbh/Wbkf N/A5 N/A5 N/A5 N/A5 N/A5
meander length Lm feet N/A5 N/A5 N/A5 N/A5 N/A,
meander length ratio Lm/Wbkf N/A5 N/A5 N/A5 N/A5 N/A5
radius of curvature R? feet N/A, N/A5 N/A5 N/A, N/A5
radius of curvature ratio Rc/ Wbkf N/AS N/A5 N/A5 N/A, N/A5
Sinuosity` K 1.2 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.0
Sediment
% Composition from Bulk Sample
d50 Very fine sand Silt Silts Silt, silt,
Clay <0.004 mm % 11 24 -
Silt 0.004-0.062 mm % 19 47 - - -
Very Fine Sand 0.062-0.125 mm % 20 12 - - -
Fine Sand 0.125-0.25 mm % 30 12 - - -
Medium Sand 0.25-0.50 mm % 10 4 - - -
Coarse Sand 0.50-1.0 mm % 4 1 -
Very Coarse Sand 1.0-2.0 mm % 2 0 -
Very Fine Gravel 2.0-4.0 mm % 4 0 - -
The Rosgen classitication system is Tor natural streams. i nese cnanneis nave oeen neavny mampuiateu oy man anu ufefeiufe uie
Rosgen classification system is not applicable. These classifications are provided for illustrative purposes only.
2Reported valley slopes are specific to the representative section of longitudinal profile survey only.
' UT1 Reach 3 drops down to meet the Lyle Creek water surface elevation, which accounts for a channel slope steeper than the
valley slope.
4K calculated from channel and valley lengths; channel slopes are actively maintained by dredging and therefore valley
sloe/channel slope overestimates sinuosity.
N/A : Channel has been straightened, moved, and/or maintained to prevent pattern formation.
6 Composition of bulk samples for these reaches were similar to the UT1 Reach 2 sample.
3.2.2 Enhancement Reaches
UT 1 c and UT 1 d are small intermittent drainages to UT I with small drainage areas (0.04 to
0.01 square mile in size, respectively). While Rosgen classification is not considered suited
for drainage areas of this small size or for channels this manipulated, these streams have
some similarities to the Rosgen F stream type. These relatively shallow channels exhibited
wide bankfull widths with very high width-to-depth ratios ranging from 27 to 46.5. The
streams are incised with bank height ratios ranging from 1.9 to 2.0. Existing geomorphic
conditions for UT 1 c and UT 1 d to Lyle Creek are summarized below in Table 6b.
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site Page 16
Mitigation Plan
Table 6b. Enhancement Reaches Existing Conditions
We Creek Stream Mitinatinn Drnixbe+
Notation Units UT1c UT1d
stream type F6' F5/6'
drainage area DA sq mi 0.04 0.01
bankfull cross-sectional area Abkf SF 10.8 5.6
width at bankfull wbkf feet 22.4 12.3
mean depth at bankfull dbkf feet 0.5 0..5
bankfull width-to-depth ratio wbkf/dbkf 46.5 27.0
bank height ratio BHR 2.0 1.9
entrenchment ratio ER feet/foot 2.2 3.6
.-u- oy„Vill 1? iui iiaruim 511earns. inese cnanneis nave been neaviiy
manipulated by man and therefore the Rosgen classification system is not applicable. These
classifications are provided for illustrative purposes only.
3.3 Valley Classification
Lyle Creek flows along the northern edge of the project limits and the majority of the Lyle Creek
project area is located within the larger alluvial floodplain of Lyle Creek. As Trimble notes,
Piedmont streams and floodplains in this region were filled with erosional runoff from
agricultural fields in the watershed after the Civil War (1974). The erosional debris may have
filled the Lyle Creek floodplain. Active tree farming activities in the floodplain have further
manipulated the valley with tilling, grading, and filling. Slightly entrenched and meandering
Rosgen C or E channels are the typical stream types found in lower gradient alluvial valleys
(Rosgen, 1996). Historical straightening, dredging, adjacent tree farm activities, and channel
modifications of project streams have resulted in a total departure from natural stream form on
the site. The valley steepens towards the southern project limits. The upper reach of UT1 a flows
through this steeper valley before entering the alluvial valley formed by Lyle Creek.
3.4 Discharge
Several methods were used to evaluate bankfull discharge and choose a design discharge for
each of the separate restoration reaches. The regional curve relating bankfull discharge to
drainage area for rural watersheds in the Piedmont region of North Carolina were used to provide
an estimate the bankfull discharge for each reach (Harman, et al., 1999) (Figure 9). In addition,
WEI evaluated several nearby gages to determine their bankfull return interval. Three gages that
were part of the original NC Piedmont Regional curve were selected; the Norwood Creek near
Troutman, NC gage (USGS #0214253830), the Jacob Fork near Ramsey, NC gage (USGS
#2143040), and the Humpy Creek near Fork, NC gage (USGS #2117030). Using the bankfull
discharge established in the regional curve dataset, the bankfull return intervals for these gages
are 1.24-year, 1.42-year, and 1.85-yr, respectively. WEI then used the U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS) flood frequency equations for rural watersheds in the North Carolina Piedmont to
estimate peak discharges for floods with a recurrence interval of two years for each of the project
reaches (Weaver, et al., 2009). Based on the distribution of bankfull return intervals for the
nearby gages, the 2-year discharge provides a reasonable upper limit of bankfull discharge, but is
generally larger than the discharge predicted by the appropriate regional curve. Due to this
higher estimation, WEI extrapolated the 1.2- and 1.5-year discharges for each reach using the 2-,
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site Page 17
Mitigation Plan
5-, 10-, and 25-year USGS flow predictions. This was accomplished by plotting the USGS flow
predictions for each reach on a logarithmic scale and fitting a linear regression, which was then
used to estimate the smaller return interval storms.
The lack of either reliable bankfull features along the project reach or an onsite gaging station
makes selection of a design bankfull discharge difficult. The rationale for selecting the design
discharges shown in Table 7 was developed based on the best available information as well as
the experience and professional judgments of the designers. Due to the lack of smaller-sized
drainage areas among the NC rural Piedmont regional curve channels, this data was not heavily
relied upon for accurate determination of bankfull discharge. Based on the return intervals for
the three gage stations evaluated, better estimates of a bankfull discharge are provided by the
USGS flood frequency linear regression equations for 1.2- to 1.5-year peak flows. Therefore, the
design discharges for the restoration reaches were selected near those predicted by the USGS
rural regression models, but lower than those predicted by the rural regional curve. WEI also
used the bankfull discharge calculated for the UT to Lyle Creek reference site, which has a
drainage area of 0.25 square miles and is fully connected to its floodplain, to inform the bankfull
discharge selection for the site. See Section 4.0 for more information about the UT to Lyle
Creek reference site.
Table 7 summarizes the results of each of the discharge analyses described in this section and
includes the bankfull discharge for the UT to Lyle Creek reference site.
Table 7. Summary of Design Discharge Analysis
Lvle Creek Mitigation Site
UT1 UTi UT to Lyle
Reach 1 Reach 1 UT1 UT1b UTia Creek
Upper Lower Reach 2 Reference
Drainage Area (mil) 0.15 0.25 0.49 0.13 0.05 0.25
Rural Piedmont Regional 23
0 33
0 53
0 20
0 10
0 33
0
Curve cfs . . . . . .
Rural USGS 1.2-year 11 18 32 10 4 18
Extrapolation cfs
Rural USGS 1.5-year 20 30 51 18 9 30
Extrapolation cfs
Selected Bankfull Discharge 14 15 28 13 9 14
cfs
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site Page 18
Mitigation Plan
3.5 Chanel Morphology
Due to on-going modification of the channels by mechanical straightening and dredging, the
channels are incised and lack bedform features such as riffles and defined pools. The channels
are each a consistent width and depth without developed in-stream habitat. Although meander
geometry is expected for these streams, it has not been allowed to form. Vegetation is
consistently mechanically removed or sprayed on the banks, so no woody habitat is available
from bank vegetation. The channels are each very flat due to the location of the site in the wide,
flat Lyle Creek floodplain. Due to the low slope of each channel, stream power is low and
vertical incision has not been a problem.
3.6 Channel Evolution
Onsite stream channels are being maintained at Stage II - Channelized of Simon's evolution
model (1989), illustrated in Figure 10. Ditching of the project's channels resulted in deep,
overly-wide channel cross-sections which have filled in with dense, herbaceous vegetation
growth and fine silts. The ditching maintenance has resulted in wider channels than represented
in the Simon model. Due to the low slope, if maintenance stopped on these reaches, the streams
would likely remain vertically stable but would slowly aggrade with fines and dead organic
material. Stage III - Degradation and Stage IV - Degradation and Widening would be
circumvented and the stream would move directly to evolutionary Stage V- Aggradaton and
Widening. During this stage, pattern may form through stream erosion and deposition as the
stream advances towards equilibrium. Because of the low sediment supply observed during the
watershed analysis, the onsite streams would likely remain in Stage V for a long time before
achieving Stage VI - Quasi Equilibrium.
3.7 Channel Stability Assessment
The onsite UTs to Lyle Creek are regularly modified and maintained and therefore lack bedform
diversity, habitat, and riparian buffer. The primary impacts to the project channels are the result
of mowing, ditching, and vegetation maintenance (dredging) associated with tree farming
activities. UT1 exhibits incision throughout its length and in large part, artificially maintained
vertical and horizontal stability through constant maintenance. Despite this, the banks are well
vegetated and exhibit low to moderate erosion. The discontinuation of riparian maintenance and
the establishment of a stable cross-section and woody vegetation for bank protection will help to
protect these reaches from further bank erosion.
3.8 Bankfull Verification
Bankfull stage on the UTs to Lyle Creek was attributed to a slight break in slope on the stream
banks. However, due to extensive modifications of onsite streams, bankfull field indicators were
not strong. Throughout the majority of the project reaches, the break in slope may be remnant
from past grading activities and not from natural stream processes. In an attempt to verify the
bankfull field calls, the surveyed bankfull cross-sectional areas for the project reaches were
overlain on the NC rural regional curve (Figure 9). Bankfull cross-sectional areas for the project
reaches consistently plotted at or just above the NC rural Piedmont regional curve data, except
for the intermittent streams UT 1 c and UT 1 d, which plotted higher than predicted by the regional
curve regression equation. It is important to note that the data used to develop the regional curve
is predominately larger drainage-area streams. Only one stream surveyed for the regional curve
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site Page 19
Mitigation Plan
has a drainage area less than 1 square mile, and the average drainage area for the data set is 27.7
square miles (median is 9.6 square miles, maximum is 128 square miles). Because of this, the
regional curve is not a reliable tool for verifying bankfull cross-sectional area or discharge for
streams this size. To further verify bankfull field indicators, WEI developed a HEC-RAS model
to route the estimated bankf ill discharge (determined from regression relationships) through the
UT1 existing conditions cross-sections. The modeled bankfull stage and the identified field
indicators were within a few tenths of a foot. The largest deviation was found in XS 2 at the
upstream project extent. This steep section is subject to supercritical flows and an upstream
boundary is difficult to accurately define in the hydraulic model. These data were considered in
combination with gage discharge and USGS regression equation determined bankfull flow.
Model results and field-called bankfull elevations are presented in Table 8.
Table 8. HEC-RAS Bankfull Elevations
Lvle Creek Mitigation Site
Existing HEC-RAS Field Called
Reach Name Cross- Discharge Bankfull Bankfull
Elevation Elevation
section -
cfs ft ft
Reach 1-

U XS 2 14 766.71 767.26
pper
Reach 1- XS 4 15 762.18 762.29
Lower XS 7 15 760.63 760.94
Reach 2 XS 15 28 758.28 758.13
3.9 Vegetation Community Types Descriptions
Vegetation habitats within the project area are comprised of open pastures dominated by various
graminoid species, in addition to adjacent planted hardwood species for tree farming. The
project stream beds are dominated by herbaceous species including rice cutgrass (Leersia
oryzoides) and pockets of cattail (Typha latifolia). The remaining riparian vegetation areas are
of poor quality and are heavily maintained and devoid of any shrub or tree species. Typical
farmed hardwood tree species include red maple (Acer rubrum), willow oak (Quercus phellos),
water oak (Quercus nigra), laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia), American holly (Ilex opaca), and
southern magnolia (Magnolia grandiflora).
Vegetation habitat adjacent to the proposed project easement includes Bottomland Hardwood
Forests of moderate to good quality. Typical canopy tree species within these areas include red
oak (Quercus rubra), white oak (Quercus alba), shagbark hickory (Carya ovata), tuliptree
(Liriodendron tulipifera), and red maple. Sub-canopy and shrub species include sassafras
(Sassafras albidum), red elm (Ulmus rubra), ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), flowering
dogwood (Corpus Florida), paw paw (Asimina triloba), red maple, sweetgum (Liquidambar
styraciflua), and Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense). Typical species within the herbaceous
stratum include poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera
japonica), Nepalese browntop (Microstegium vimineum), giant river cane (Arundinaria
gigantea), dogfennel (Eupatorium capillifolium), and wingstem (Verbesina alternifolia).
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site Page 20
Mitigation Plan
Lyle Creek exhibits a very narrow, wooded stream bank zone across the north end of the
property boundary. This sparse forested area is of moderate to poor quality and includes box
elder (Acer negundo), persimmon (Diospyros virginiana), American sycamore (Platanus
occidentalis), black cherry (Prunus serotina), black walnut (Juglans nigra), winged elm (Ulmus
alata), tag alder (Alnus serrulata), sweetgum, willow oak, and red maple.
4.0 Reference Streams
Two (2) reference reach sites were evaluated and surveyed for the Lyle Creek Mitigation Site,
the UT to Lyle Creek and the UT to Catawba River site. These reference streams were chosen
because of their proximity to the project site (Figure 11) and similarities to the project streams
including drainage area, valley slope, and landscape position. Dimensionless ratios were
developed from these surveyed reference reaches and used to verify selected design parameters.
The riparian vegetation communities observed at these sites were also used to develop the
riparian planting plan.
In addition to conducting site searches, WEI also conducted a review of published reference
reach sources and published NCEEP mitigation plans. Two additional sites surfaced that
informed the Lyle Creek mitigation design. These sites include the UT to Lake Wheeler site
presented in the Lowther review of geomorphic relationships for reference reaches throughout
the North Carolina Piedmont (2008) and the Westbrook Lowgrounds site presented in the
Environmental Bank and Exchange Neu-Con MBI (Westbrook) site (2002). Full watershed
assessments and stream surveys were not performed by WEI for either the UT to Lake Wheeler
or the Westbrook Lowgrounds site.
4.1 Watershed Characterization
The UT to Lyle Creek watershed is located approximately 3 miles upstream of the Lyle Creek
project area, just north of Interstate 40 (Figure 11). At the downstream limits of this unnamed
tributary, the drainage area is 160 acres (0.25 square miles). Topography within this area
exhibits a distinct similarity to the Lyle Creek project conditions where the smaller tributary
flows across the top of the floodplain of a much larger river. Land uses within this watershed are
approximately 70% forested and 30% open pasture and active agriculture.
The UT to Catawba River watershed is located north of Interstate 40 and east of NC Highway 10
in the Catawba River Basin. At the downstream extent of this reference reach, where the stream
joins the Catawba River, the drainage area is 1,024 acres (1.6 square miles). Topography within
this area is similar to the Lyle Creek project area with moderately steep topography dropping
into a low-slope floodplain of a larger drainage system. The land use within this watershed is
predominately forested with small areas of active agricultural fields.
The UT to Lake Wheeler watershed is located in Wake County within the Neuse 01 basin and is
reported to have approximately 52% forested, 37% developed, 9% active pasture, and 2%
herbaceous cover with an overall 5.5% impervious cover. The drainage area is 0.40 square
miles. UT to Lake Wheeler empties into a lake approximately one quarter mile downstream of
the reference site (Lowther, 2008). This is similar to the Lyle Creek Mitigation site, which joins
a portion of Lyle Creek that is backwatered from Lake Norman. The Westbrook Lowgrounds
watershed is located on the Coastal Plain/Piedmont fall line and is described as predominately
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site Page 21
Mitigation Plan
forested with some agriculture in the uplands. The drainage area is 0.9 square miles. This reach
is similar to the Lyle Creek Mitigation site because of the low valley slope of 0.0027 ft/ft
(Environmental Bank and Exchange, 2002).
4.2 Channel Classification
UT to Lyle Creek is a perennial stream located in the floodplain of Lyle Creek. Similar to the
project reaches, the stream receives drainage from the adjacent wooded uplands (Figure 12).
This stream is fully connected to the floodplain with a bank height ratio of 1.0 and an
entrenchment ratio over 2.5. The width-to-depth ratio is 31.7 and the overall channel slope is
approximately 0.4%. UT to Lyle Creek has a sinuosity of 1.7. In-stream habitat structures
within this reach included short, shallow pools and small sections of tree roots. This channel
classifies as a Rosgen C5 stream type (1994). UT to Lyle has a similar particle size distribution,
including percent silt/clay, to UT1 to Lyle Creek Reach 1 as seen in Tables 6a and 9.
UT to Catawba River is a perennial stream that flows into the relatively flat Catawba River
floodplain from the adjacent steep wooded valley, east of NC Highway 10 (Figure 13). The
channel is well connected to the floodplain with an entrenchment ratio over 5.8 and a bank
height ratio of 1.0. This reach exhibited a sinuosity of 1.3, well-established pools at the outside
of channel bends, several well-developed riffles, and habitat features such as woody debris jams,
fallen logs across the channel (log `sills'), and root mats along the banks. This stream classifies
as a Rosgen E5 stream type.
UT to Lake Wheeler is a perennial, low slope (0.6%) stream that flows into a lake approximately
one quarter mile downstream from the reference site and experiences backwater effects similar to
the UTs to Lyle Creek (Figure 14). This stream is very well connected to its floodplain with an
entrenchment ratio of 15.7. The stream exhibits a low bankfull width-to-depth ratio of 6.5 and a
high sinuosity of 1.6. UT to Lake Wheeler has a d50 of 2.6 mm, which corresponds to very fine
gravel. Despite the difference in bed material from this site to the project site, WEI included UT
to Lake Wheeler in the reference reach review because of its excellent pattern including broad
meanders. This stream classified as a Rosgen E4 stream type (Lowther, 2008).
Westbrook Lowlands is a perennial, very low slope (0.2%) stream (Figure 15). The stream flows
through a very flat valley (0.0027 ft/ft) similar to the UT to Lyle Creek site. The stream is well
connected to the floodplain with a bank height ratio of 1.0. The stream has a width-to-depth
ratio of 12.0. Westbrook Lowlands is classified as a Rosgen E/C5 stream type (EBX, 2002).
Geomorphic conditions for all the reference sites are summarized below in Table 9.
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site Page 22
Mitigation Plan
Table 9. Summary of Reference Reach Geomorphic Parameters
Lyle Creek Stream Mitiaation Proiect
o
14
c UT to Lyle
Creek UT to
Catawba
River UT to Lake
Wheeler Westbrook
Lowlands
z min max min max min max min max
stream type C5 E5 E4 E/C5
drainage area DA sq mi 0.25 1.60 0.40 0.9
Discharge
Q- NC Rural Regional
Curve Q cfs 33 119 N/A' N/A5
-Q2-y, NFF regression Q cfs 51 188 N/A' N/A5
Q- USGS extrapolation
1.2- r - 1.5- r Q cfs 18 30 85 125 N/A' N/A5
Q Manning's Qbkf cfs 14 73 N/A' N/A5
Cross-Section Fea tures
bankfull cross-sectional

area
Abkf
SF
7.3
20.8
17.4
8.0
average velocity during
bankfull event vbkf =
Qbkf/Abkf fps 1.9 3.5 N/A" N/A5
width at bankfull wbkf feet 15.2 13.8 10.6 9.7
maximum depth at
bankfull d_ feet 1.4 2.0 2.2 1.1
mean depth at bankfull dbkf feet 0.5 1.5 1.6 0.8
bankfull width-to-depth ratio wbkf/dbkf 31.7 9.1 6.5 12.0
depth ratio d.../dbkf 2.8 1.3 1.4 1.4
low bank height 1.4 2.0 N/Aa 1.1
bank height ratio BHR 1.0 1.0 N/A` 1.0
floodprone area width wfpa feet 38+ 80+ N/A° 100+
entrenchment ratio ER 2.5+ 5.8+ 15.7 2.2+
Valley and Channel Slope
valley slope Salley
1
feet/
foot
0.0082
0.0060
0.0100
0.0027
channel slope S
channel
1 feet/

foot

.0048

.0046

.0060

.0022
Run/Riffle Features
run/riffle slope S".f"e feet/
foot 0.0055 0.0597 0.011 0.060 0.0430 N/A5
run/riffle slope ratio Srlffle/
Schannel 1.1 12.4 2.5 13.3 7.2 N/A5
-Pool Features
pool slope S
p°°' feet/
foot
0.0000
0.0013
0.0012
0.0030
0.000
0.0005
pool slope ratio Spool/
Schannel 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.7 0.0 0.2
pool-to-pool spacing Lp_p feet 15 28 31 60 42 16 59
pool spacing ratio Lp_p/wbkf 1.0 1.8 2.8 5.4 4.0 1.6 6.1
maximum pool depth at
bankfull
dp°a
feet
1.7
2.9
1.40
1.5
pool depth ratio dpool/dbkf 3.4 1.9 0.9 1.9
pool width at bankfull wpool feet 8.6 21.8 15.4 8.0 10.0
pool width ratio pool/wbk 0.6 1.6 1.5 0.8 1.0
pool cross-sectional area
at bankfull
Apool
SF
6.9
24.5
20.6
N/A5
pool area ratio Apool/Abkf 0.9 1.2 1.2 N/A5
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site Page 23
Mitigation Plan
C

o

= UT to Lyle

Creek CatLIT to
awba
River
UT to Lake
Wheeler
Westbrook
Lowlands
z min max min max min max min max
Pattern Features
belt width Wb8 feet 21 55 26 64 14 20
meander width ratio Wblt/Wbkf 1.3 4.0 6.0 11.0 1.4 2.1
meander length Lm feet 39 44 65 107 40 191 50
meander length ratio Lm/Wbkf 2.6 2.9 4.7 7.8 3.8 18.0 5.2
radius of curvature Rc feet 19 32 31 56 8 34 15 27
radius of curvature ratio Rj Wbkf 1.3 2.1 2.2 4.1 0.8 3.2 1.5 2.8
sinuosity K 1.7 1.3 1.6 1.2
Sediment d5a Fine Sand V. Coarse Sand V. Fine Gravel Coarse Sand
d1e mm - 0.3 N/A' N/A5
d35 mm 0.1 0.4 N/A` N/A5
R
h
id d5o mm 0.2 1.8 2.6 0.7
eac
w
e d84 mm 0.5 12.8 N/A` N/AS
d94 mm 4.0 25.2 N/A4 N/AS
d99 mm 8,0 90.0 N/A' N/A5
Silt/Clay % 32 4 N/A4 N/A5
Very Fine Sand % 12 1 N/A` N/A5
Fine Sand % 14 10 N/A4 N/A5
Medium Sand % 25 25 N/A4 N/AS
Coarse Sand % 9 4 N/A4 N/A5
Percent
iti V. Coarse Sand % 0 8 N/A' N/A5
compos
on
from reach wide
Very Fine Gravel
%
3
2
N/A'
N/AS
Fine Gravel % 5 14 N/A4 N/A5
Medium Gravel % 0 21 N/A4 N/A5
Coarse Gravel % 0 9 N/A` N/A5
V. Coarse Gravel % 0 2 N/A4 N/A5
Small Cobble % 0 1 N/A4 N/A5
X2 X3
d18 mm N/A2 1.4 0.4 N/A4 N/AS
d35 mm N/A2 4.7 4.0 N/A' N/AS
Pavement d5o mm N/A2 6.7 5.9 N/A4 N/AS
d84 mm N/A2 11.0 11.0 N/A4 N/A4
d95 mm N/A2 14.8 14.8 N/A4 N/A4
dloo mm N/A2 22.6 32.0 N/A4 N/A4
d18 mm N/A2 0.4 0.5 N/A4 N/A4
d35 mm N/A2 0.9 1.2 N/A4 N/A4
d5o mm N/A2 1.3 2.1 N/A4 N/A4
Sub-pavement
dea
mm 2
N/A
6.0
9.5 a
N/A 4
N/A
d94 mm N/A2 10.3 14.3 N/A4 N/A4
d99 mm N/A2 22.6 32.0 N/A4 N/A4
N/A': Pool cross-section not surveyed for this reach.
N/A 2: Pavement and subpavement analysis not performed on this reach.
N/A3: Lowther reported a range of possible discharges from 46.8 to 108.9 cfs based on different Manning's 'n' estimation techniques
(Lowther, 2008).
N/A4: Data not provided in reference reach report (Lowther, 2008).
N/A5: Data not provided in Neu-Con Umbrella Wetland and Stream Mitigation Bank Westbrook Lowgrounds Site Specific Mitigation
Plan (Environmental Bank and Exchange, 2002).
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site Page 24
Mitigation Plan
4.3 Discharge
Regional curves relating bankfull discharge to drainage area for rural watersheds in the Piedmont
region of North Carolina were used to estimate the bankfull discharge for each reference reach
(Harman, et al., 1999). In addition, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) flood frequency
equations for rural watersheds in the North Carolina Piedmont were used to estimate peak
discharges for floods with a recurrence interval of two years (Weaver, et al., 2009). The two-
year discharge provides a reasonable upper limit of bankfull discharge, but is generally larger
than the discharge predicted by the appropriate regional curve. Due to this higher estimation, the
1.2- and 1.5-year recurrence interval flows were extrapolated as described in Section 3.4.
Manning's equation was ultimately utilized to estimate the bankfull discharge for the reference
reaches since the streams are stable and connected to their floodplains. As with the onsite
project reaches, the discharges for the reference reaches were identified near the predicted USGS
rural regression models, but lower than those predicted by the rural regional curve. Table 10
summarizes the results of the discharge analyses described in this section.
Table 10. Summary of Reference Reach Discharge Analysis
Lvle Creek Mitinatinn Site
UT to Lyle
Creek UT to
Catawba
River
Drainage Area (mi) 0.25 1.60
Rural Piedmont Regional Curve (cfs) 32.7 119.3
Rural USGS 1.2-year Extrapolation (cfs) 18 85
Rural USGS 1.5-year Extrapolation (cfs) 30 125
Bankfull (Manning's) discharge (cfs) 14 73
4.4 Channel Morphology
UT to Lyle Creek is also located entirely within a mature forested area. This stream has sinuous
pattern and is vertically and laterally stable. Riffle structures were primarily comprised of small
woody debris jams with shallow, interspersed pools. These structures, in conjunction with the
adjacent wetland system, create an excellent aquatic floodplain habitat.
The UT to Lyle Creek reference stream occupies a remarkably similar landscape position to UT1
to Lyle on the Lyle Creek mitigation site. As seen in Figure 12, UT to Lyle Creek reference
flows out of the steep valley onto Lyle's floodplain and then turns to flow down valley parallel to
Lyle for approximately 2,000 linear feet before joining Lyle. A levee was observed along the
bank of Lyle Creek, similar to that seen on the project reach. The landscape positioning of UT to
Lyle Creek (reference) within Lyle's floodplain suggests that UT1 to Lyle Creek's (project)
landscape position may be close to the historic placement, prior to disturbance.
UT to Catawba River is located in a mature, forested area with 20-to 50-year-old forest growth.
The stream exhibited vertical and horizontal stability, a sinuosity of 1.3, established pools in the
outside of bends, aeration points in the form of both riffles and woody debris jams, and overall
diverse habitat. Similar to UT to Lyle Creek, this stream demonstrates the placement of a small
stream within the floodplain of a larger stream system.
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site Page 25
Mitigation Plan
Despite the difference in bed material, UT to Lake Wheeler is a valuable reference site due to its
landscape position upstream of an impoundment and excellent pattern morphology including a
high sinuosity of 1.6, broad meander widths ranging up to 11.0, radius of curvature ratios from
0.8 to 3.2 and meander lengths ranging from 3.8 to 18.0. WEI recognizes the influence of bed
material on channel form, and therefore the UT to Lake Wheeler data was used to inform pattern
parameters while more appropriate sites, such as UT to Lyle Creek, were weighted more heavily
in the parameter selection process.
The Westbrook Lowgrounds site was included as a reference for single thread morphology in a
very low sloped valley (0.27%). The radius of curvature ratio range of 1.5 to 2.8 and the
meander width ratio range of 1.4 to 2.1 indicates that the Westbrook Lowlands has tight, sinuous
pattern. The EBX 2002 report stated that the floodplain appeared relatively undisturbed with
vegetation over 50 years old. The tight pattern may be influenced by the mature vegetation.
This report also stated that the stream had shallow pools in meander bends and deeper pools
below woody debris and around roots, which is ideal reference morphology for the onsite
streams.
4.5 Channel Stability Assessment
UT to Lyle Creek and UT to Catawba River both exhibit excellent stream bed and bank stability.
Stream banks are heavily supported by mature canopy tree roots and shrub species. An overall
Bank Erosion Hazard Index for these reaches would be considered low with minimal
sedimentation and low Near Bank Stress. The channel bed within UT to Catawba River is
supported with stable riffle cross-sections and no aggradation or degradation is occurring within
the pools. UT to Lyle Creek is a predominately sandy substrate system and shows no signs of
vertical incision or bank erosion from high flow events.
4.6 Bankfull Verification
Bankfull stage was equal to the top of bank for UT to Lyle Creek and UT to Catawba River.
Bankfull data for the project reaches were compared with the NC rural Piedmont regional curves.
The surveyed cross-sectional areas for the reference reaches are shown overlaid with the NC
rural regional curve in the attached Figure 9. Analysis of the bankfull cross-sectional areas for
the reference reaches reveal plotting of the data just below the NC rural Piedmont regional curve
data, indicating that bankfull stage was adequately selected throughout the reference reach sites.
4.7 Vegetation Community Types Description
Vegetation surrounding the two surveyed reference reaches includes mature Bottomland
Hardwood Forests of good quality, which is typical habitat for forested Piedmont floodplains.
Typical canopy tree species within these areas include American sycamore, red oak, water oak,
shagbark hickory, tuliptree, sweetgum, and red maple. Sub-canopy and shrub species include
red elm, ironwood, flowering dogwood, red maple, sweetgum, and a small amount of Chinese
privet. Typical species within the herbaceous and vine stratum include poison ivy, green catbriar
(Smilax rotundifolia), giant river cane, wingstem, and Christmas fern (Polystichum
acrostichoides).
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site Page 26
Mitigation Plan
5.0 Project Site Wetlands - Existing Conditions and Model Development
5.1 Jurisdictional Wetlands
On February 26, 2010 and August 24, 2010, WEI delineated jurisdictional waters of the U.S.
within the project easement area. Jurisdictional areas were delineated using the USACE Routine
Onsite Determination Method. This method is defined by the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands
Delineation Manual and the Eastern Mountain and Piedmont Regional Supplement Guide. The
results of the onsite jurisdictional determination indicate that there are 5 jurisdictional wetland
areas (WL-1, WL-2, WL-3, WL-4, and WL-5) located within the floodplain of Lyle Creek within
the project easement. These wetland areas are primarily the result of past ditching activities
associated with the tree farming operation (Figure 6). These jurisdictional areas exhibited low
chroma soils (2.5Y 4/1 and IOYR 4/2), many distinct mottles (7.5YR 4/6), strong inundation (1-
12 inches) from groundwater sources, high water marks, water-stained leaves, and oxidized root
channels. Dominant hydrophytic vegetation includes rice cutgrass (Leersia oryzoides),
woolgrass (Scirpus cyperinus), smartweed (Polygonum pensylvanicum), soft stem rush (Juncus
effusus), strawcolored flatsedge (Cyperus strigosus), and broadleaf cattail (Typha latifolia).
Wetland Determination Data Forms representative of these jurisdictional wetland areas have
been enclosed in Appendix 2 (DP 1 - DP9).
Based on the nearby reference area, it was determined that portions of the project site, including
these jurisdictional areas, historically functioned as a Bottomland Hardwood Forest prior to the
site's conversion to a tree farm. An assessment of these wetlands was performed according to
the recent North Carolina Wetland Assessment Method (NCWAM) in order to determine their
level of hydrologic function, water quality, and habitat condition. Due to heavy tree-farming
activities over the past several decades along with aggressive vegetation management, these
wetland areas scored out as low functioning systems when compared to reference conditions.
Particularly low scoring parameters include the effects from grading and ditching on decreased
surface and subsurface hydrology. Additionally, vegetation management has reduced aquatic
and terrestrial habitat along with eliminating the systems' connections to adjacent natural
habitats. NCWAM Wetland Rating Sheets representative of these jurisdictional wetland areas
are enclosed in Appendix 2 (WL-1 - WL-5).
5.2 Hydrological Characterization
In order to develop a wetland restoration and creation design for the Lyle Creek Site, an analysis
of the existing and proposed conditions groundwater hydrology was necessary. DrainMod
(version 6.0) was used to model existing and proposed groundwater hydrology at the site.
DrainMod simulates water table depth over time and produces statistics describing long term
water table characteristics and an annual water budget. DrainMod was selected for this
application because it is a well documented modeling tool for assessing wetland hydrology
(NCSU, 2010) and is commonly used in wetland creation/restoration projects. For more
information on DrainMod and its application to high water table soils, see Skaggs (1980).
5.2.1 Groundwater Modeling
For the Lyle Creek Mitigation Site, three total models were developed and calibrated to
represent the existing and proposed conditions at three different well locations across the site.
Resulting model output was used to validate and refine the proposed grading plan for wetland
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site Page 27
Mitigation Plan
restoration and creation onsite and to develop a water budget for the site. The modeling
procedures are described below.
5.2.1.1 Data Collection
DrainMod models are built using site hydrology, soil, climate, and crop data. Prior to
building the models, soil cores were taken to validate existing mapped soils across the site.
Further explanation of the site soils can be found in Section 5.3 of this report. Appropriate
soil input files for the models were obtained from North Carolina State University (NCSU)
and were selected and modified by NCSU based on Natural Resources Conservation Service
(MRCS) soils mapping. Rainfall and temperature data were obtained from nearby weather
stations. Short term rainfall and temperature data for model calibration were obtained from
station KNCCONOV4 from the Weather Underground website
(http://www.wunderground.com/). This weather station was used for calibration because it
was the only nearby station with available data extending through the 2010 groundwater
monitoring period. Long term weather data were used for simulations of the proposed
conditions. Rainfall data from nearby station 311579: Catawba 3 NNW - operated by the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Weather Service -
were used for the proposed conditions models; however no temperature data were available
for this station. The nearest long term temperature data were obtained from NOAA station
318292 in Statesville. The data sets for these stations were obtained from the North Carolina
State Climate Office for August of 1975 (the first month of rainfall record) through
November of 2010. Information to develop model inputs for crops previously grown on the
site was obtained through interviews with the landowner.
5.2.1.2 Existing Conditions Base Model Set up and Calibration
Models were created to represent three monitoring well locations on the site at as shown on
Figure 6. The models were developed using the conventional drainage water management
option with contributing surface water runoff to best simulate the drainage of the site. Each
of the three wells was installed in July 2010 and recorded groundwater depth twice per day
with In-situ Level TROLL® 100 or 300 pressure transducers through early December 2010.
This period during which the wells were active was used as the calibration period for the
groundwater models.
The first step in developing the model was to prepare input files from various data sources.
The soil input files obtained from NCSU, which have similar characteristics to the soils on
the site, were used as a base soil input file for each model. The soil files were refined by
adjusting the lateral saturated conductivity values for each of the mapped soils found onsite
from published soil survey data (NRCS, 2010). Temperature and precipitation data from
nearby weather stations, described above, were used to produce weather input files for each
model.
Once the necessary input files were created, the project settings were adjusted for this
application and then calibration runs were conducted. To calibrate the model, parameters not
measured in the field were adjusted within the limits typically encountered under similar soil
and geomorphic conditions until model simulation results closely matched observed well
data. After calibration of each of the models was complete, the calibrated models were used
as the basis for the proposed conditions models. Plots showing the calibration results are
included in Appendix 2. Trends in the observed data are well-represented by the calibration
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site Page 28
Mitigation Plan
simulations. Although hydrographs between plots of observed and simulated data do not
match exactly, relative changes in water table hydrology as a result of precipitation events
correspond well between observed data and model results.
5.2.1.3 Proposed Conditions Model Setup
The proposed conditions models were developed based on the calibrated existing conditions
models to predict whether wetland criteria would be met over a long period of recorded
climate data. Proposed plans for the site include grading portions of the site to lower
elevations, removing multiple existing ditches that currently drain portions of the site, raising
the bed of four existing channels so that they flood the wetlands more frequently, planting
native wetland plants, and roughing the surface soil to increase surface water storage through
disking. Proposed grading is shown in the plans. Areas proposed for wetland restoration
credit will have less than 6 inches of excavation, except in isolated areas where berms and
spoil piles will be removed. These proposed plans were developed to increase the wetland
hydrology onsite and settings for the proposed conditions models were altered to reflect these
changes to the site. Filling of the existing ditches on the site was simulated by increasing the
surface storage for the nearby well rather than increasing ditch spacing. This method was
used because most of the existing ditches to be filled are very shallow and do not likely
contribute significantly to subsurface drainage. Surface storage values were also increased at
all wells to account for proposed disking to the site. The drain depths were decreased to
account for raising the elevations of the channel beds. Changes in the vegetation on the site
were simulated by altering the rooting depth of plants on the site from relatively shallow for
grasses and sedges to deeper values representative of hardwood tree species. Once the
proposed conditions models were developed, each model was run for a 35-year period from
October 1975 through October 2010.
5.2.1.4 Modeling Results and Conclusions
DrainMod was used to compare calibrated existing conditions models with proposed
conditions scenarios to determine the effect of proposed practices onsite hydrology. Each
well location was evaluated to establish how often annual wetland criteria would be met over
the 35-year simulation period. The wetland criteria are that the water table must be within 12
inches of the ground surface at each well for a minimum of 7% of the growing season (April
7 through October 28). The modeling results show that Well 1 would meet that criteria 26
years out of the 35-year period following restoration activities. Well 2 would meet criteria
31 of the 35 years simulated and Well UW would meet criteria 29 of 35 years. Wells 1 and
UW represent wetland restoration zones of the site and Well 2 is located in a creation zone.
5.2.2 Surface Water Modeling at Restoration Site
No surface water modeling was performed for the wetland design analysis.
5.2.3 Hydrologic Budget for Restoration Site
DrainMod computes daily water balance information and outputs summaries that describe
the loss pathways for rainfall over the model simulation period. Tables 11 a, 11 b, and l 1 c
summarize the average annual amount of rainfall, infiltration, drainage, runoff, and
evapotranspiration estimated for the three modeled locations onsite. Infiltration represents
the amount of water that percolates into the soil. Runoff is water that flows overland and
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site Page 29
Mitigation Plan
reaches the drainage ditches before infiltration. Evapotranspiration is water that is lost by the
direct evaporation of water from the soil or through the transpiration of plants. Drainage is
the loss of infiltrated water that travels through the soil profile and is discharged to the
drainage ditches or to underlying aquifers. The water balance results in Tables 11 a, 11 b, and
11 c are similar for each well. From these results, it is clear that most rainfall on the existing
site is lost via evapotranspiration and drainage rather than runoff. Once the project is
complete, runoff will decrease and corresponding values of infiltration will increase. A
smaller portion of the infiltrated water will leave through subsurface drainage, which will be
slowed by the removal of some of the ditches and decrease in depth of others.
Evapotranspiration will increase because trees planted on the site will consume more water
than the grasses and sedges currently growing in the proposed wetland areas.
Table 11a. Water Balance for Well 1
Lvle Creek Mitigation Site
Existln 'Conditions Proposed Conditions

Hydrologic
Parameter Average
Annual
Amount Average
Annual
Amount Average
Annual
Amount Average
Annual
Amount
(cm of
water) (% of
rainfall) (cm of
water) (% of
rainfall)
Precipitation 109.17 100.0% 109.17 100.0%
Infiltration 103.93 95.2% 106.62 97.7%
Evapotranspiration 55.11 50.5% 70.16 64.3%
Drainage 50.78 46.5% 37.2 34.1%
Runoff 5.24 4.8% 2.49 2.3%
Table 11b. Water Balance for Well 2
1 vle Creek Mitigatinn Site
Existing Conditions Proposed Conditions

Hydrologic
Parameter Average
Annual
Amount Average
Annual
Amount Average
Annual
Amount Average
Annual
Amount
(cm of
water) (% of
rainfall) (cm of
water) (% of
rainfall)
Precipitation 109.17 100.0% 109.17 100.0%
Infiltration 103.93 95.2% 106.23 97.3%
Evapotranspiration 55.11 50.5% 68.81 63.0%
Drainage 50.78 46.5% 38.23 35.0%
Runoff 5.24 4.8% 2.87 2.6%
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site Page 30
Mitigation Plan

Table 11c. Water Balance for Well UW
Lvle rrppk Mitinntinn Cita
Existin C onditions Proposed Conditions

Hydrologic
Parameter Average
Annual
Amount Average
Annual
Amount Average
Annual
Amount Average
Annual
Amount
(cm of
water) (% of
rainfall) (cm of
water) (% of
rainfall)
Precipitation 109.17 100.0% 109.17 100.0%
Infiltration 104.31 95.5% 106.2 97.3%
Evapotranspiration 59.3 54.3% 70.5 64.6%
Drainage 47 43.1% 36.36 33.3%
Runoff 4.85 4.4% 2.9 2.7%
5.3 Soil Characterization
An investigation of the existing soils within the proposed wetland restoration/creation areas was
performed by WEI staff on August 24, 2010. This investigation supplemented the soils analysis
performed by a licensed soil scientist (LSS) on March 3, 2010, prior to the full delivery proposal.
Soil cores were collected at locations across the site to provide data to refine NRCS soils
mapping units, establish areas suitable for wetland restoration and creation, and aid in
developing a wetland grading plan. 45 soil cores were taken at approximately 100- to 200-foot
grid spacing across the site at varying depths. Additionally, 6 soil cores were taken by the
licensed soil scientist in March. The cores were taken to a depth at which either hydric soil
features or groundwater was encountered. Soil texture; Munsell chart hue, chroma, and value;
and hydric soil characteristics were recorded for each core. The depth to hydric indicators and
groundwater table was then measured at each core. Soil boring locations and mapped soil units
are shown in Figures 6 and 7. The data for each core is also included in Appendix 2 along with
the soil core profiles from the March investigation.
5.3.1 Taxonomic Classification
Two soils are mapped within the boundaries of the proposed wetland areas in the NRCS Soil
Survey (NRCS, 2009). Much of the site is mapped as Chewacla loam (Cw) and Wehadkee
fine sandy loam (Wd). The taxonomic class of Chewacla soils is fine-loamy, mixed, active,
thermic Fluvaquentic Dystrudepts while the taxonomic class of Wehadkee soils is fine-
loamy, mixed, active, nonacid, thermic Fluvaquentic Endoaquepts. Analysis of the soil core
samples collected from the project site along with consideration of site topography indicated
that the soils classified at the 51 core locations agreed with the mapped soil units. The
Chewacla and Wehadkee soil types are both listed on the NC hydric soils list. These soil
types are found in valleys, depressions, and floodplains, are frequently flooded, and are poor
to somewhat poorly-drained.
5.3.2 Profile Description
The Chewacla series is described by the NRCS official series description as a Piedmont
floodplain soil that is very deep, somewhat poorly-drained found on 0 to 2 percent slopes.
The typical texture profile for Chewacla soil is a medium granular loam at 0 to 4 inches, a
silty clay loam at 4 to 14 inches, a clay loam from 14 to 26 inches, and a loam from 26 to 38
inches. Low chroma iron depletions become common throughout the profile at depths below
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
Mitigation Plan
Page 31
4 inches. The Wehadkee series is similarly described as a Piedmont floodplain and lower
valley soil that is also very deep and poorly-drained. The typical texture profile for
Wehadkee soil is a low chroma fine sandy loam from 0 to 8 inches, a dark gray loam from 8
to 17 inches, and a sandy clay loam from 17 to 40 inches. A low chroma matrix of 1 and 2 is
typical of this soil profile with higher chroma soft masses of iron exhibited at depths of 8
inches and deeper.
5.3.3 Hydraulic Conductivity
The Chewacla series has a moderately high to high Ksat value ranging from 0.57 to 1.98
in/hr. This soil is somewhat poorly-drained with water table depths ranging from 6 to 24
inches. The Wehadkee series has a similar moderately high to high Ksat value ranging from
0.57 to 1.98 in/hr. The drainage class for this soil is poorly-drained and typically exhibits
water table depths of 0 to 12 inches.
5.4 Vegetation Community Type and Disturbance History
The existing wetlands are heavily ditched and maintained systems primarily comprised of
various graminoid and low growth herbaceous species. Due to this heavy maintenance, a natural
wetland classification can be difficult to assign, however these systems most nearly represent a
Palustrine Emergent system (Cowardin, 1979). Based on historical aerial photographs, tree-
farming and associated activities have been prevalent in this area since at least 1961 (Appendix
5). Dominant hydrophytic vegetation includes rice cutgrass (Leersia oryzoides), woolgrass
(Scirpus cyperinus), smartweed (Polygonum pennsylvanicum), soft stem rush (Juncus effusus),
strawcolored flatsedge (Cyperus strigosus), and pockets of broadleaf cattail (Typha latifolia).
6.0 Reference Wetlands
A reference wetland was identified immediately adjacent to the reference channel UT to Lyle
Creek (Figure 12). The property is a good condition, mature Piedmont Bottomland Forest
(Schafale & Weakley, 1990) and is located within the floodplain of Lyle Creek. Because this
reference site is located within close proximity to the project area and is located within the Lyle
Creek watershed, it provides the best reference information to use in restoring and creating
wetlands on the project site. Exhibiting the same soil types and similar topographic form, this
area may represent the original condition of the project site. The vegetation at the reference site
will be used as a basis to develop the planting plan for the wetland restoration and creation on the
project site. A groundwater monitoring gage has also been installed on the reference site to
document the reference wetland hydrology. This information will be used during the design of
the wetland restoration and creation and to provide a comparison for the restored and created
wetland hydrology throughout the monitoring period.
6.1 Hydrological Characterization
The two-inch diameter reference groundwater monitoring gage was installed on November 11,
2010, and continually recorded groundwater levels through April 20, 2011 (time of data
analysis). The reference site is a jurisdictional wetland and is therefore expected to meet the
established wetland hydrology criteria for the project site: water table elevation within 12 inches
of the soil surface for a continuous 7% of the growing season. The gage utilizes a LevelTrollTM
pressure transducer to measure and record water table depth twice a day. Although the gage
continues to record data, at the time this report, approximately five months of groundwater level
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site Page 32
Mitigation Plan
data were available for review for the reference wetland of which 14 days were during the
growing period. Analysis of the gage data collected shows that the portion of the reference site
represented by the gage met wetland hydrology criteria for the 14 days of the growing. period,
April 7, 2011, through April 20, 2011. The 14-day period represents 7% of the growing season,
which is the minimum number of consecutive days that the well must meet criteria to verify
wetland hydrology. Therefore, the reference well has already met criteria for the year as of the
end of April. These data confirm that the reference site has the appropriate hydrologic regime to
serve as the reference condition. The reference gage as well as the groundwater monitoring
gages on the project site will continue to record water table depth throughout the post-
construction monitoring period. In the event of unusual weather during the post-construction
monitoring period, the reference well performance will be used as a check for the mitigation site
performance.
6.2 Soil Characterization
The soils on the reference site are mapped the same as those on the project site according to the
NRCS soil mapping. The wetland areas of the property are predominately Chewacla series soils.
The soils immediately adjacent to Lyle Creek, which include the natural levee features within
this floodplain, are comprised of Buncombe loamy sand (Bn). The areas mapped as Buncombe
soils are largely comprised of silt and deposition from large flooding events and are not likely to
be jurisdictional; the areas mapped as Chewacla series will be the prime reference wetland.
6.2.1 Taxonomic Classification (including series)
The dominant soil on the reference wetland site is Chewacla loam which is listed on the NC
hydric soils list. As described in Section 5.3.1, the taxonomic class of Chewacla loam is
fine-loamy, mixed, active, thermic Fluvaquentic Dystrudepts.
6.2.2 Profile Description
A detailed profile description of the Chewacla series is described in Section 5.3.2.
6.3 Vegetative Community Type
Historical aerials reveal no recent disturbances to the reference property and no disturbances
were observed in the field. The existing vegetation communities are typical of a Bottomland
Hardwood Forest and include mature canopy tree species, moderate subcanopy and shrub
species, as well as a somewhat sparse herbaceous layer. Dominant canopy species include
willow oak, water oak, red oak, sweetgum, American sycamore, tuliptree, and red maple. Sub-
canopy and shrub species include ironwood, red elm, red maple, sweetgum, and few small
pockets of Chinese privet along perimeter upland areas. The herbaceous layer through the
wetland is relatively sparse due to dense overhead canopy and sub-canopy species, however the
reference wetland maintained small amounts of strawcolored flatsedge, soft stem rush, and green
arrow arum (Peltandra virginica).
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site Page 33
Mitigation Plan
7.0 Project Site Mitigation Plan
71 Overarching Goals and Applications of Mitigation Plans
The intent of this Mitigation Plan is to present project information to achieve the following
objectives:
• Outline the goals and objectives of the project.
• Link project specific goals to goals identified in watershed planning documents.
• Address how project goals and objectives address stressors identified in watershed
characterization section of this mitigation plan (which includes those stressors
identified in the watershed planning documents).
• Provide a pre-restoration baseline for comparing to future monitoring data and
demonstrating achievement of goals and objectives.
• Articulate that the proposed design/approach is both proportional to the existing
deficiencies and optimized to deliver a timely, cost effective project.
• Demonstrate that identified factors of influence both onsite and in the watershed
(stressors) and observed deficiencies in the onsite streams converge, and justify the
project design/approach.
• Provide information necessary to obtain regulatory permits for the project, including
potential impacts to onsite waters.
• Document whether or not the project will result in a rise in flood elevations.
72 Mitigation Project Goals and Objectives
The major goals of the proposed stream mitigation project are to provide ecological and water
quality enhancements to the Catawba River Basin while creating a functional riparian corridor at
the site level, providing wetland habitat and ecological function, and restoring a Piedmont
Bottomland Forest as described by Schafale and Weakley (1990). Monitored enhancements to
water quality and ecological processes are outlined below, followed by expected project benefits
which are associated with restoration, but will not be monitored as part of this project:
Monitored Project Goals
• Wetland areas will be disked to increase surface roughness and better capture
rainfall which will improve connection with the water table for groundwater recharge.
Adjacent streams will be stabilized and established with a floodplain elevation to promote
hydrologic transfer between wetland and stream.
• A channel with riffle-pool sequences and some rock and wood structures will be created
in the steeper project reaches and a channel with run-pool sequences and woody debris
structures will be created in the low sloped project reaches for macroinvertebrate and fish
habitat. Introduction of wood including brush toe, root wads, and woody `riffles' along
with native stream bank vegetation will substantially increase habitat value. Gravel areas
will be added as appropriate to further diversify available habitats.
• Adjacent buffer areas will be restored by removing invasive vegetation and planting
native vegetation. These areas will be allowed to receive more regular and inundating
flows. Riparian wetland areas will be restored and enhanced to provide wetland habitat.
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site Page 34
Mitigation Plan
• Sediment input from eroding stream banks will be reduced by installing bioengineering
and in-stream structures while creating a stable channel form using geomorphic design
principles.
Expected Project Benefits
• Chemical fertilizer and pesticide levels will be decreased by filtering runoff from
adjacent tree farm operations through restored native buffer zones and wetlands. Offsite
nutrient input will be absorbed onsite 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 from offsite sources will be captured during bankfull or greater flows by
deposition on restored floodplain areas where native vegetation will slow overland flow
velocities.
• Restored riffle/step-pool sequences on the upper reach of UTIa, where distinct points of
re-aeration can occur, will allow for oxygen levels to be maintained in the perennial
reaches. Small log steps on the upstream portion of UT 1 b and UT I Reach 1 Upper will
also provide re-aeration points.
• Creation of deep pool zones will lower temperature, helping to maintain dissolved
oxygen concentrations. Pools will form below drops on the steeper project reaches and
around areas of woody debris on the low-sloped project reaches. Establishment and
maintenance of riparian buffers will create long-term shading of the channel flow to
minimize thermal heating.
7.2.1 Designed Channel Classification
The design streams and wetlands will be restored to the appropriate type based on the
surrounding landscape, climate, and natural vegetation communities but with also strong
consideration to existing watershed conditions and trajectory. The specific proposed stream
and wetland types are described below.
72.1.1 Designed Channel Classification
The stream restoration portion of this project includes seven reaches (Figure 17):
UT1 - Reach 1 Upper: UT1 from the southwestern corner of the project to the break in
valley slope and beginning of RW2 (sta: 100+00 to 108+15, design length =
815 LF)
UT1 - Reach 1 Lower: UT1 from the upstream extent of RW2 to the confluence with
UTIa and UTIb (sta: 108+15 to 132+69, design length = 2,454 LF, 118 LF of
which is outside the easement for crossings)
UT I - Reach 2: UT I from the confluence with UT 1 a and UT 1 b to the confluence with
Lyle Creek (sta: 132+69 to 141+50, design length = 881 LF, 82 LF of which
is outside the easement for a crossing and the downstream connection to Lyle
Creek)
UTla - Upper: UTla from the southern project limits to the break in valley slope and
beginning of RW1 (sta: 300+00 to 302+01, design length = 201 LF))
UT 1 a - Lower: UT 1 a from upstream extent of RW 1 to the beginning of anastomosed
wetland complex in RW1 (sta: 302+01 to 306+15, design length = 414 LF)
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site Page 35
Mitigation Plan
UT l b: UT 1 b from southern project limits to the beginning of anastomosed wetland
complex in RW1 (sta: 200+00 to 209+97, design length = 997 LF, 152 LF of
which is outside the easement)
UT 1 c: UT 1 c from the outfall of a farm culvert to the confluence with UT 1 (sta: 400+00
to 406+30, design length = 630 LF)
UTld: UTId from the outfall of a farm culvert on the western project limit to the
confluence with UT1 (sta: 500+00 to 507+07, design length = 707 LF)
All stream reaches have been designed as the optimal stream type for their valley types
and slopes. UT1 - Reach 1 Upper flows through a slightly steeper valley before entering
the larger alluvial floodplain of Lyle Creek. This reach will be constructed as a Bc type
stream according to Rosgen's classification system (1994). Bc stream types have
dimensions and patterns similar to B stream types; however they have the lower slope of
C stream types. UT 1 a - Upper flows through a steep valley before entering the Lyle
Creek floodplain and will be constructed as a B type stream. B stream types are
moderately entrenched, have low channel sinuosity and higher channel slopes, and have
bedforms dominated by steep riffles and debris constrictions. Due to the high channel
slope on this reach (2.8%) and low watershed sediment supply, these structures will be
constructed as immobile grade control structures, mimicking geologic grade control.
UT 1 - Reach 1 Lower, UT 1 - Reach 2, UT 1 a - Lower, and UT 1 b all flow through the
larger alluvial floodplain of Lyle Creek and will be constructed as C type streams
according to Rosgen's classification system. Type C streams are slightly entrenched,
meandering streams with well developed floodplains and gentle gradients of 2% or less.
UTIc will be enhanced by modifying the channel dimension. Alternate banks will be
filled to create a narrower, more diverse channel. Logs and rock sills will also be
installed to provide habitat diversity. By filling alternate banks, some pattern will be
restored to this stream as well. UTId will be enhanced in place by installing instream
structures to raise the bed, reconnecting the stream with the left floodplain. A bankfull
bench will be constructed on the right bank, and the buffer will be planted.
The morphologic design parameters for the design reaches fall within the ranges specified
for Rosgen's B, Bc, and C stream types. The specific values for the design parameters
were selected based on designer experience and judgment. Selected ratios were
compared to the reference reaches to ensure they were within the range seen in similar,
natural streams. Finally, existing conditions stream power was compared to design
stream power. Each of the design restoration reaches will be reconnected with the
existing floodplain (Priority 1) except along portions of the design reaches where
excavation of a new floodplain at a lower level is necessary due to stream and floodplain
grade transitions (Priority 2). In either case, the restored C channels will have
entrenchment ratios of greater than 2.2.
7.2.1.2 Designed Wetland Type
The wetland elements of this project include the following (Figure 17):
RWI: This wetland component of the project is located in the eastern portion of the
project area and is fed by the drainage areas of UT 1 a and UT l b. RW 1 will
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site Page 36
Mitigation Plan
encompass the lower floodplain area of these newly restored reaches and
consists of 5.8 acres of wetland restoration and 1.1 acres of wetland creation.
This wetland area will be restored to a Piedmont Bottomland Hardwood
Forest (Schafale and Weakley, 1990).
RW2: This wetland component is located in the western portion of the project area
and will receive the majority of its hydrology from the newly restored UT1
Reach 1 Lower. RW2 will include a small portion of the adjacent UT1
floodplain area and will consist of 0.8 acre of wetland restoration and 1.8
acres of wetland creation. As with RW1, RW2 will also be restored to a
Piedmont Bottomland Hardwood Forest.
Vernal Pools and Pocket Wetlands: The restoration of the streams described above will
include reconnecting the stream to the natural floodplain in some sections and
creating a new lower floodplain for other sections. This will allow for some
wetlands to be created or restored, including vernal pool features where
portions of the existing channel will be filled to an elevation lower than that of
the surrounding floodplain. Other pocket wetlands are likely to be created or
enhanced simply by raising the existing stream beds to a degree that the
floodplain will be frequently inundated. No mitigation credit will be claimed
for either of these conditions. Communities planted in these zones will be
appropriate for Piedmont Bottomland Hardwood Forests.
7.2.2 Target Buffer Communities
The target communities for the restored and created wetlands (including RW1, RW2, and the
vernal pools and pocket wetlands) and riparian buffer zones will be based on reference
conditions. The main reference site is a Piedmont Bottomland Hardwood Forest located
upstream on Lyle Creek. Because most of the wetland restoration and creation areas as well
as the riparian buffer will have hydrology similar to the Piedmont Bottomland Hardwood
Forest, that community will be the primary target. Stream buffers will also be restored to a
Piedmont Bottomland Hardwood Forest community as described in the natural plant
community restoration plan in Section 7.4.
7.3 Stream Project and Design Justification
The existing conditions assessment of the onsite streams revealed incised streams that are
periodically dredged and maintained. Dredging activities left the onsite streams overly wide
with shallow flow. As a result, many of the onsite streams are unable to maintain channel form
and have filled in with sediment, organic matter, and vegetation. In-stream bedform diversity is
extremely poor and the longitudinal profile is dominated by shallow runs. The lack of bedform
diversity combined with continued anthropogenic disturbance has resulted in degraded aquatic
habitat, altered hydrology (related to loss of floodplain connection and lowered water table), and
water quality concerns such as lower dissolved oxygen levels (due to shallow flow with few re-
aeration points). Continued maintenance (mowing) has also prevented woody growth along the
stream banks. A maintained, herbaceous riparian zone does not provide adequate shade to the
channel, which can result in higher in-stream temperatures. Additionally, nutrients from
fertilizer application on the adjacent farm may be able to runoff to the stream channel more
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site Page 37
Mitigation Plan
quickly due to the lack of mature buffer vegetation. Direct sun exposure combined with high
nutrient levels creates suitable conditions for algal blooms. Algal blooms can further deplete
dissolved oxygen as algae die and decompose. In addition to direct water quality issues, these
streams also contribute some sediment to Lyle Creek each year from their actively maintained
banks.
Due to active maintenance, the onsite streams are not free-formed or self-maintaining. As
discussed in detail in Section 3.6, the onsite reaches are currently in Simon's evolutionary Stage
II - Constructed. The streams have been excavated so that they are incised and overly wide with
shallow flow. Left alone, these streams would likely move into Stage V- Aggradation and
Widening where the banks would erode and sediment bars would develop until a stable channel
with a lower floodplain and base level formed (Stage VI - Quasi-Equilibrium). Due to the low
observed sediment supply from these watersheds, the sediment accumulation necessary to reform
a stable channel at a lower elevation may take a very long time.
The objectives described in Section 7.2 were partially developed to deal with the issues
described in the paragraphs above. The key factors driving the need for this intervention are:
• Without intervention, lateral erosion and deposition cycles on all project reaches will
occur until quasi-equilibrium is reached, resulting in downstream sedimentation.
• Treatment and storage of farm runoff is needed. The restored floodplain and created and
restored wetland complex will help provide the necessary treatment.
• Restoration of aquatic habitat is needed. Restored bedform diversity will increase
available habitats as well as nutrient retention in the stream.
Geomorphic design parameters for UT1 are detailed in Table 12a.
Table 12a. Design Geomorphic Data - UT1
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
Notation Units UT1
Reach 1 Upper UTi
Reach 1 Lower UTi
Reach 2
min max min max min max
stream type 135c C6 C6
drainage area DA sq rm 0.15 0.25 0.49
bankfull design discharge Qbkf cfs 14 15 28
Cross-Section Features
bankfull cross-sectional area Abkf SF 4.6 12.4 11.5
average bankfull velocity Vbkf - Qbkf/Abkf fps 3.0 1.2 2.4
width at bankfull Wbkf ft 8.0 15.2 12.4
max depth at bankfull dma: ft 1.0 1.2 1.4
mean depth at bankfull dbkf ft 0.6 0.8 0.9
bankfull width-to-depth ratio Wbkf/dbkf 13.9 18.6 13.4
depth ratio dmax/dbkf 1.7 1.5 1.5
low bank height ft 1.0 1.2 1.4
bank height ratio BHR 1.0 1.0 1.0
floodprone area width wfpa ft 17.6+ 33.4+ 27.3+
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site Page 38
Mitigation Plan
Notation Units UT1
Reach 1 Upper UT1
Reach 1 Lower UT1
Reach 2
min max min max min max
entrenchment ratio ER 2.2+ 2.2+ 2.2+
Valley and Channel Slope
valley slope Svalley ft/ft 0.0153 0.0017 0.0063
channel slope Schannel ft/ft 0.0142 0.0013 0.0047
Riffle/Run Features
riffle/run slope SHM. ft/ft 0.0167 0.0283 0.0025 0.0032 0.0079 0.0132
riffle/run slope ratio S,lme/Schannel 1.2 2.0 1.9 2.5 1.7 2.8
Pool Features
pool slope Spool ft/ft 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0003 0.0000 0.0005
pool slope ratio Spool/Schannel 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.11
pool-to-pool spacing Lp_p ft 14.0 41.0 55.6 114.2 62.2 96.1
pool spacing ratio Lp_p/Wbkf 1.8 5.1 3.7 7.5 5.0 7.8
max pool depth at bankfull dpool ft 1.2 1.8 1.6 2.4 1.8 2.7
pool depth ratio dpool/dbkf 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0
pool width at bankfull wpool ft 11.0 17.1 17.0
pool width ratio Wpool/Wbkf 1.4 1.1 1.4
Pattern Features
belt width Wblt ft N/A N/A 35.9 78.3 40.8 65.2
meander width ratio Wblt/Wbkf N/A N/A 2.4 5.2 3.3 5.3
meander length Lm ft N/A N/A 99.6 165.8 113.4 160.9
meander length ratio Lm/Wbkf N/A N/A 6.6 10.9 9.1 13.0
radius of curvature Ro ft N/A N/A 27.4 47.6 27.4 34
radius of curvature ratio Rc/Wbkf N/A N/A 1.8 3.1 2.2 2.7
sinuosity K 1.1 1.3 1.3
Note: Values presented in this table are rounded; however, ratios are calculated before rounding.
Geomorphic design parameters for UTIa are detailed in Table 12b.
Table 12b. Design Geomorphic Data - UTia
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site

Notation
Units UTia
300+00 to
302+01 UTia
302+01 to
306+15
min max min max
stream type B6 C6
drainage area DA sq mi 0.05
bankfull design discharge Qbkf cfs 9
Cross-Section Features
bankfull cross-sectional area
T

Abkf

SF

3.2
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site Page 39
Mitigation Plan

Notation
Units UTla
300+00 to
302+01 UTia
302+01 to
306+15
min max min max
average bankfull velocity ubkf fps 2.8
width at bankfull Wbkf ft 6.5
max depth at bankfull dma. ft 0.75
mean depth at bankfull dbkf ft 0.5
bankfull width-to-depth ratio Wbkddbkf 13.3
depth ratio dma./dbkf 1.5
low bank height ft 0.75
bank height ratio BHR 1.0
floodprone area width Wfpa ft 14.3+
entrenchment ratio ER 2.2+
Valley and Channel Slope
valley slope Svalley ft /ft 0.0324 0.0115
channel slope Schannel ft/ft 0.0284 0.0095
Riffle/Run Features
riffle/run slope Sriffle ft/ft 0.0350 0.0571 0.0156 0.0192
riffle/run slope ratio Sriffle/Schannel 1.2 2.0 1.6 2.0
Pool Features
pool slope Spool ft/ft 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0004
pool slope ratio Spool/Schannel 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.04
pool-to-pool spacing Lp_p ft 13.0 30.0 31.4 52.1
pool spacing ratio Lp-p/Wbkf 2.0 4.6 4.8 8.0
max pool depth at bankfull dpoo, ft 1.25 1.45 1.05 1.45
pool depth ratio dpool/dbkf 2.5 2.9 2.1 2.9
pool width at bankfull wpool ft 9.2 9.2
pool width ratio Wpool/Wbkf 1.4 1.4
Pattern Features
belt width Wb,t ft N/A N/A 25.4 34.8
meander width ratio Wblt/Wbkf N/A N/A 3.9 5.4
meander length Lm ft N/A N/A 53.0 81.6
meander length ratio Lm/Wbkf N/A N/A 8.2 12.6
radius of curvature Rc ft N/A N/A 13.9 19.9
radius of curvature ratio RdWbkf N/A N/A 2.1 3.1
sinuosity K 1.1 1.2
Note: Values presented in this table are rounded; however, ratios are calculated before rounding.
Geomorphic design parameters for UT 1 b are detailed in Table 12c.
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site Page 40
Mitigation Plan
Table 12c. Design Geomorphic Data - UTib
We Creek Mitigation Site

Notation
Units UTib
200+00 to
203+20 UT1b
203+20 to
207+18 UT1b
207+18 to
209+97
min max min max min max
stream type C6
drainage area DA sq mi 0.13
bankfull design discharge Qbkf cfs 13
Cross-Section Features
bankfull cross-sectional area Abkf SF 5.0
average bankfull velocity Vbkf fps 2.6
width at bankfull Wbkf ft 8.0
max depth at bankfull dmax ft 1.0
mean depth at bankfull dbkf ft 0.6
bankfull width-to-depth ratio Wbkf/dbkf 12.8
depth ratio dma./dbkf 1.6
low bank height ft 1.0
bank height ratio BHR 1.0
floodprone area width wfpa ft 11.0+
entrenchment ratio ER 2.2+
Valley and Channel Slope
valley slope Svalley ft/ft 0.0185 0.0105 0.0037
channel slope Schannel ft/ft 0.0161 0.0086 0.0032
Riffle Features
riffle slope Sri le ft/ft 0.0263 0.0309 0.0145 0.0218 0.0045 0.0079
riffle slope ratio Srlflle/Schannel 1.6 1.9 1.7 2.5 1.4 2.5
Pool Features
pool slope Spool ft/ft 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0010 0.0005 0.0007
pool slope ratio Spoo,/Sohannel 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2
pool-to-pool spacing Lp_p ft 48.6 62.5 36.8 57.6 49.2 56.7
pool spacing ratio Lp_p/Wbkf 6.1 7.8 4.6 7.2 6.2 7.1
max pool depth at bankfull dpoo, ft 1.6 1.8 1.2 1.8 1.4 1.7
pool depth ratio dpool/dbkf 2.7 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.3 2.8
pool width at bankfull wpool ft 11.6
pool width ratio Wpool/Wbkf 1.5
Pattern Features
belt width Wblt ft 34.6 38.9 23.0 38.6 28.6 41.4
meander width ratio Wb,f/wbkf 4.3 4.9 2.9 4.8 3.6 5.2
meander length Lm ft 83.3 105.7 78.1 86.3 79.1 90.3
meander length ratio Lm/Wbkf 10.4 13.2 9.8 10.8 9.9 11.3
radius of curvature Ro ft 19.0 26.6 16.3 25.5 19.1 25.7
radius of curvature ratio RdWbkr 2.4 3.3 2.0 3.2 2.4 3.2
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site Page 41
Mitigation Plan

Notation
Units UT1b
200+00 to
203+20 UT1b
203+20 to
207+18 UT1b
207+18 to
209+97
min max min max min max
sinuosity K 1.1 1.2 1.2
Note: Values presented in this table are rounded; however, ratios are calculated before rounding.
As depicted in the grading plans, UTIa and UTIb are designed to discharge into an anastomosed
wetland complex upstream of their confluence with UT1. Upon completion of the adjacent
wetland restoration/creation, this area will most closely resemble a Valley Type XI (Rosgen,
1996) and WEI anticipates a stable DA stream type will naturally form through this area over
time. Several stabilized low flow outlet points are designed along the right bank of UTI to carry
flow from this complex and protect against potential degradation at the outlets. Because a
baseflow channel will not be defined through this area, this area is not proposed for stream
mitigation credit.
7.3.1 Sediment Transport Analysis
Sediment transport analyses are performed to evaluate the stability of the proposed channel.
Two separate questions should be addressed with sediment transport studies:
1) What size bed material particles will become entrained at flows at or near the bankfull
discharge (competence) and
2) Does the stream have the ability to pass the sediment load supplied to it (capacity)?
7.3.1.1 Competence
Sediment competence is an extremely important analysis to perform for stream channels
with larger sized particles (gravels, cobbles, and boulders); however, streams with
predominately fine grained particles generally have enough competence to move the
supplied sediment. Because some of the onsite reaches have very low slopes, WEI
analyzed sediment competence despite the fine-grained nature of the onsite substrate to
ensure that the stream could mobilize the particles.
One way to analyze sediment competence is to look at the dimensional shear stress of a
channel. Dimensional shear stress (i) is equal to the specific weight of water (y = 62.4
lbs/ft3) times the hydraulic radius of the bankfull channel (R (ft)) times the average water
surface slope of the reach (S (ft/ft)): ,
T = y*R*S
The Shield's curve describes the critical shear stress required to mobilize particles of a
particular size. Flume studies with homogenous bed particles were used to develop the
original Shield's curve. This curve has since been supplemented by others, including
Dave Rosgen with the Colorado data from natural, heterogeneous bedded streams
(Rosgen, 2006). The Colorado data suggests that natural, heterogeneous bedded rivers
can move larger particles than homogeneous bedded flumes with the same amount of
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site Page 42
Mitigation Plan
shear stress. Because of the relatively homogeneous sized sediment found in the onsite
stream beds, WEI used the calculated shear stresses for the onsite channels with the more
conservative Leopold, Wolman, and Miller 1964 Shield's relationship presented in the
National Engineering Handbook to predict the largest mobile particle size during a
bankfull event (USDA, 2007). This size was then compared to the largest particle size of
the bulk samples to determine if the channel has enough shear stress to mobilize the
sediment supplied by the watershed and observed in the channel.
Existing and proposed dimensional shear stresses for the project reaches are presented in
Table 13a. In all cases, both the existing and the proposed stream channels are able to
mobilize the largest particles sampled at the site; therefore, aggradation due to lack of
competence is not a concern. Existing and proposed shear stresses are close in value for
the entire length of UT1. There is no evidence of bed degradation in the existing channel.
Because the design shear stress is nearly the same as the existing shear stress, degradation
is not expected to be a concern. Grade control structures will be built along the reach to
protect against degradation as a conservative measure of safety.
Table 13a. Summary of Existing and Proposed Dimensional Critical Shear Stress
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site

Hydraulic
Radius
Channel
Slope
Shear
Stress Largest
Particle in
Rep. Bulk
Sample Movable
Particle Per
Shield's
Curve*
Reach R (ft) S (ft/ft) T (Ibs/ft2) dloa (mm) (mm)
UT1 Reach 1 Existing 0.65 0.0120 0.48 4 30
Upper Proposed 0.56 0.0142 0.49 4 30
UT1 Reach 1 Existing 0.93 0.0011 0.06 0.9 4
Lower Proposed 0.80 0.0013 0.07 0.9 5

UT1 Re
h 2 Existing 1.05 0.0036 0.24 0.9 15
ac Proposed 0.89 0.0047 0.26 0.9 16
Existing 0.53 0.0106 0.35 0.9 20
UT1a 300+00 -
302+01 (Upper) Proposed
0.47
0.0284
0.84
0.9
60
UT1 a 302+01 - Existing 0.53 0.0106 0.35 0.9 20
306+15 (Lower) Proposed 0.47 0.0095 0.28 0.9 17
UT1 b 200+00 - Existing N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
203+20 (Upper) Proposed 0.60 0.0161 0.60 0.9 38
UT1 b 203+20 - Existing 0.48 0.0020 0.06 0.9 4
207+18 (Middle) Proposed 0.60 0.0086 0.32 0.9 20
UT1 b 207+18 - Existing 0.48 0.0020 0.06 0.9 4
209+97 (Lower) Proposed 0.60 0.0032 0.12 0.9 7
*Drawn from best-fit line for Leopold, Wolman, and Miller 1964 data on Shield's curve (Figure 11-11) presented in
the Rosgen Geomorphic Channel Design section of the National Engineering Handbook (USDA, 2007).
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site Page 43
Mitigation Plan
73.1.2 Capacity
Unit Stream Power
Sediment capacity can be looked at as unit stream power. Unit stream power ((0) is equal
to shear stress (T) times mean velocity (Vbkf):
n = T*Vbkf
Bledsoe et al.'s 2002 study on sand bed stream equilibrium notes, "Specific stream power
appears to be an excellent predictor of channel stability, with most streams attaining a
relative stability at specific stream power less than 30 W/m2" for the two-year recurrence
interval storm. As discussed in Section 3.4, the two-year return interval is a reasonable
upper limit for potential bankfull discharges, which suggests that 30 W/m2 may also be
an upper limit for stable bankfull sand bed channels. To verify, WEI calculated the
stream powers for the two surveyed reference reach sites, which are stable streams with
similar bed material, to get a range of stable stream powers for comparison to the project
design reaches. Table 13b presents the results, which fall below the 30 W/m2 value and
range from 3.8 to 18.1 W/m2. In addition, from the HEGRAS hydraulic model
developed for the site, stream power during the two-year event was noted to be in the
range of 1.5 to 2 times the bankfull event stream power. This observation indicates that
stream power can be expected to decrease with smaller, more frequent storm events and
so the Bledsoe finding of stability at 30 W/m2 during the two-year event may have a
related lower stream power for lesser storm flow events.
Table 13b. Summary of Existing Dimensional Critical Shear Stress and Unit Stream Power
Calculations - Reference Sites
Hydraulic Channel Shear Average Stream
Site Cross Radius Slope Stress Bankfull Power
Section Velocity
R (ft) S (ft/ft) T (Ibs/ft2) Vbkf (ft/S) W (W/m2)
UT to Lyle Creek XS1 0
45 0
0048 14
0 1
9 3.8
Reference . . . .
UT to Catawba XS2 1
2 0
0046 0
36 3.5 18.1
River . . .
Table 13c shows the calculated bankfull shear stress and unit stream power values for the
designed stream reaches.
Table 13c. Summarv of Proposed Unit Stream Power Calculations - Proiect Reaches
Bankfull Average Stream
Shear Bankfull Power
Stress Velocity
Reach T (Ibs/ft2) Vbkf (ft/s) w (W/m2)
UT1 Reach 1 Upper 0.49 3.0 21.9
UT1 Reach 1 Lower 0.07 1.2 1.2
UT1 Reach 2 0.26 2.4 9.3
UT1a 300+00 - 302+01 (Upper) 0.84 2.8 34.5
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site Page 44
Mitigation Plan
Bankfull Average Stream
Shear Bankfull

Stress
Veloci Power
Reach T (lbs/ft2) Vbkf (ft/s) w (W/mz),
UT1a 302+01 - 306+15 (Lower) 0.28 2.8 11.6
UT1 b 200+00 - 203+20 (Upper) 0.60 2.6 22.9
UT1 b 203+20 - 207+18 (Middle) 0.32 2.6 12.2
UT1 b 207+18 - 209+97 (Lower) 0.12 2.6 4.5
The proposed design stays under the 30 W/m2 upper limit for all reaches except UTIa upper,
which is the highest sloped reach on the project site (2.8%). This reach has been designed
with many log steps to prevent against degradation. The proposed stream power on UTI
Reach I Lower is near but slightly below the stable stream power for the UT to Lyle Creek
reference site. The existing conditions assessments and analysis do not indicate a high
sediment supply to any of the onsite reaches, and sediment competency analysis indicates
that the stream has the ability to move the sediment supplied. Despite this, the low gradient
of both the existing and the proposed channel cause low stream power so the potential for
sediment deposition over time may be a concern. Therefore, WEI designed a two-stage
riffle/run cross-section with inner berms on both sides. The inner berms provide a place for
sediment to accumulate over time while maintaining a low flow channel. As riffle/runs
transition to meander pools, the inner berm feature will be maintained on the outside of the
bends while the inner berm will taper into the point bar on the interior of the bends. The low
flow channel is 1.2 SF in area and carries the baseflow. Low flow channel dimensions have
been designed with the climax stream form in mind. As deposition occurs on the inner berm
features and as vegetation establishes on the banks, UT I Reach 1 Lower may narrow, which
would result in a lower width-to-depth ratio. As floodplain and bank vegetation matures it
will be able to withstand the more frequent floodplain interaction expected with a smaller
cross-sectional area. Excavated ephemeral pools may also provide additional sediment
storage during large storm events.
Sediment Transport Capacity from HEGRAS Model
Using the HEC-RAS hydraulic model developed for the site, the sediment transport capacity
computations using the Laursen (Copeland) or Yang equations are most applicable to the
sediment and channel characteristics of the Lyle Creek site. A bankfull storm runoff
hydrograph was developed in HMS using watershed characteristics resulting in a peak flow
equal to bankfull design discharge at the upstream project extent. This representative
hydrograph was routed through the RAS model to estimate the design reach's available
capacity for sediment transport during a bankfull event.
A representative water year was selected from a nearby USGS gage station. Flows for this
gage were transformed to the project site based on a ratio of drainage areas. The sum of
flows provides a representation of the volume of water per year that is moving sediment
through the watershed. The Reach 1 Upper watershed sediment supply is estimated at 7.4
tons per year, but this supply was reduced by 30% to account for sediment storage due to the
railroad embankment and culverts upstream of the site. A sediment rating curve was
developed from the range of flows in the watershed. The available capacity based on the
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site Page 45
Mitigation Plan
design channel parameters in the RAS model exceeds the supply of sediment from the
watershed. The channel will be protected from degradation with bank vegetation and in-
stream log and rock structures.
7.3.2 HEC-RAS Floodplain Analysis
7..3 2.1 No-Rise in Regulated Floodplain
The project stream channels do not have an associated regulated floodplain; however, the
project reaches and wetland areas are located within the floodway and flood fringe of Lyle
Creek (Figure 8). Lyle Creek is a mapped Zone AE floodplain with an associated floodway.
A detailed hydraulic study was originally performed by the Soil Conservation Service, but
this model is no longer available in the local, state, or federal repositories. The most recent
FIRM panel is a re-delineation of the original flood elevations. The site is located on Panels
3781 and 3782 of the Catawba County FIRM panels. The site is primarily under backwater
effects from Lake Norman on the. Catawba River. The project grading is being designed so
that there is no net fill in the regulated floodplain of Lyle Creek. Earthwork calculations and
grading plans will be submitted with a no-rise certification for the Town of Catawba
floodplain administrator. The NC Emergency Management (NCEM) Floodplain Mapping
Program Engineer has approved this approach for the Lyle Creek Mitigation Site. Appendix
6 contains the NCEEP Floodplain Requirements Checklist.
73.2.2 Hydrologic Trespass
HEC-RAS modeling is being performed as part of the design iterations and floodplain
grading to ensure that flooding will not be worsened on adjacent farm fields or other
upstream property owners.
7.4 Site Construction
7.4.1 Site Grading, Structure Installation and Other Project Related Construction
7.4.1.1 Narrative
For restoration components requiring new channel alignment, the channel will be
constructed off-line and stabilized with seed, mulch, and matting prior to the introduction
of water into the restoration reach. For restoration components requiring modification of
the existing alignment, the channel will be dewatered as necessary to construct and
stabilize the reach prior to reintroduction of water into the restoration reach. Through the
duration of construction, the site will be protected with erosion and sedimentation control
measures, consistent with the requirements of the NC Sedimentation and Pollution
Control Act of 1973, as regulated by the NCDENR Division of Land Resources Land
Quality Section.
7.4.1.2 Scaled Schematic of Grading
The proposed grading is included in the 60% plan set. The Priority 2 floodplain bench on
UTI Reach 1 Upper, UT1 Reach 2, and UTIb will be excavated below existing grade.
These reaches are transitional zones to/from Priority 1 restoration reaches. The project as
a whole has been designed so that no net fill will be placed within the larger floodplain of
Lyle Creek. The remainder of the project streams will be constructed as a Priority I
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site Page 46
Mitigation Plan
restoration. Wetland grading along the restoration reaches will be performed
concurrently with channel construction. Wetland areas will be disked as preparation for
planting, and furrows will not exceed 6 to 9 inches in depth.
7.4.1..3 In-Stream Structures and Other Construction Elements
The in-stream structures proposed on the
Lyle Creek project are designed to mimic
natural habitat features found in mature
streams, particularly on the reference sites
after which the project streams were
designed. Habitat features observed on
reference sites included log steps, root mats,
undercut banks, debris jams, and riffles
dominated by woody material. In an effort
to mimic these structures, log, brush, and
rock sills, constructed riffles, and brush toe
are proposed on the Lyle Creek site. Log
vanes will be used in select locations on
UT 1 to help turn water and protect the bank
while vegetation establishes. Rock and log
cross vanes are also proposed in select
locations to protect against bed degradation.
There are no mature trees to be removed
A'amrulli.ior,ned log step (background) and wood within the construction area; therefore, trees
debris sill (foreground) at UT to Lyle Reference Site
may be selectively harvested from the
adjacent hillside outside of the easement area to use in the stream system.
The addition of wood provides habitat and
cover for fish and macroinvertebrates, in
addition to adding a carbon source to the
stream system. Structures, including
brush toe, will increase the channel
roughness and provide areas for leaf packs
to catch and form over time. These leaf
packs provide habitat for shredders and
scrapers, important feeders in the
continuum of the ecological community.
WEI anticipates that the structures will
provide an initial ecological uplift to the
newly constructed stream channel.

?• ? k i L KS,

- T}
j

Log step at UT to Catawba River
WEI noted colluvial cobble riffles upstream of the project reach on UT1 (see Section
2.4). The substrate does not reach the project site because of the railroad
embankment/culverts and the farm culverts; however, some of the smaller gravels would
naturally occur on steeper reaches of the project were these man-made obstructions not in
place. To provide this habitat, some rock riffles will be built in the upstream reaches of
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site Page 47
Mitigation Plan
the project to recreate the habitat. Because upstream supply is limited, these structures
will be sized appropriately so they remain in place as grade control. These structures will
mimic geologic grade control.

Other construction elements on the UT to Lyle
Creek Mitigation Site include three culvert
crossings to be installed on UT I at easement
breaks. Additionally, irrigation lines that
currently run through the conservation
easement will be relocated outside of the
easement boundaries. Several planted
ornamental trees are currently within the
conservation easement, and these will also be
relocated prior to earth moving activities in
these areas.
7.4.2 Natural Plant Community Restoration
7.4.2.1 Narrative of Plant Community Restoration
As a final stage of construction, riparian stream buffers will be planted and restored to the
dominant natural plant community that exists in the floodplain of Lyle Creek. This
natural community within and adjacent to the project easement is classified as Piedmont
Bottomland Forest and was determined based on existing canopy and herbaceous species
(Schafale and Weakley, 1990). Proposed plant and seed materials will be placed on
stream banks and bench areas as well as from the tops of banks out to the projects
easement limits. These areas will be planted with bare root trees and live stakes. A
permanent seed mixture of native herbaceous and grass species will be applied to all
disturbed areas within the project easement. Temporary seed will be applied at the same
time as the permanent seed as a nurse crop. The temporary seed will germinate quickly
to stabilize the soil and provide shade while the permanent seed germinates. Proposed
herbaceous species are shown in Table 14.
Table 14. Permanent Herbaceous Seed Mixture
1 -IA r-II Mi}inntinn Cito
Scientific Name Common Name
Permanent Seeding
EI mus vir inicus Virginia wild rye
Panicum vir atum Switch grass
A rostis stolonifera Creeping bent grass
Rudbeckia hirta NC ecotype Black-eyed susan
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site Page 48
Mitigation Plan
Collu vial riffle, UTl upstream of railroad culvert
Scientific Name Common Name
Coreo sis lanceolata Coreo sis
Panicum clandestinum Deer tongue
Andro 0 on erardii Big bluestem
Juncus effusus Soft rush
Echinochloa muricata Awned barnyard grass
Schizach rium sco arium Little bluestem
Sor hastrum nutans Indian grass
Tri sacum dact loides Gamma
Temporary Seeding
Lolium multiflorum Rye Grain Nov 1- Apr 30
Panicum ramosum Brownto Millet Ma 1 - Oct 31
Individual tree and shrub species will be planted throughout the project easement
including stream banks, benches, tops of banks, floodplain, and wetland zones. These
species will be planted as bare roots and live stakes and will provide additional
stabilization to the outside of constructed meander bends and side slopes. Bare roots will
be planted to achieve the year three targeted density of 320 woody stems per acre. Live
stakes will be planted at 3 to 5 feet on center on most channel banks throughout the
project, and will be planted at 2 to 3 feet on center on select meander bends on UTIa and
UTlb. Proposed tree and shrub species, shown in Table 15, are representative of Lyle
Creek's floodplain vegetation communities and are typical of Piedmont Bottomland
Forest.
Table 15. Riparian and Wetland Woody Vegetation
Lvle Creek Mitigation Site
Scientific Name Common Name
Stream Bank Live Stakes
Corpus amomum Silk Dogwood
Sambucus canadensis Elderberry
Salix sericea Silk Willow
Riparian and Wetland Bare Roots
Plantanus occidentalis Sycamore
N ssa s lvatica Black um
Dios ros vir iniana Persimmon
Quercus michauxii* Swam Chestnut Oak*
Fraxinus enns Ivanica Green Ash
Quercus hellos Willow Oak
Linodendron tuli fera Tulip Poplar
Ca inus caroliniana Ironwood
Alnus serrulata Tag Alder
Celtis laevi ata Su arber
Betula ni ra River Birch
Acer ne undo Box Elder
*Species may be substituted with Quercus bicolor, Swamp White Oak,
if Quercus michauxii is not available.
7.4.2.2 Narrative of Invasive Species Management
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site Page 49
Mitigation Plan
During the onsite field investigation, few occurrences of invasive species were identified
throughout the project reaches. Kudzu (Pueraria montana var. lobata) was observed
along UTIa just upstream of the project easement and cattails (Typha latifolia) were
observed sporadically along streams throughout the site. Kudzu is an aggressive trailing
semi-woody perennial vine that was originally planted in the 1930's for soil erosion
control. Kudzu grows quickly in a wide range of conditions and can choke out
competing vegetation in sunny areas. Cattails are a native species; however they can
dominate in recently disturbed, wet environments and can threaten the viability of planted
wetland seeds. Herbicide will be applied to both kudzu and cattails during the growing
season of 2011, and mechanical extraction of kudzu and cattails within the project area
will be performed in tandem with stream restoration activities. Much of the existing
channel areas dominated by cattails will be abandoned and backfilled after new channels
are constructed, thus burying the seed supply of cattail plants. Long term management of
these species with herbicide should be applied prior to the fruiting season of adjacent
native shrubs and trees to avoid damage.
8.0 Monitoring Plan
A baseline monitoring plan report and an as-built record drawing of the project documenting the
stream and wetland restoration, enhancement, and creation will be developed within 60 days of
the planting completion and monitoring installation on the restored site. Monitoring reports will
be prepared in the fall of each year of monitoring and submitted to NCEEP. These reports will
be based on the NCEEP Monitoring Report Template (version 1.3, 1/15/2010). The monitoring
period will extend five years beyond completion of construction or until performance criteria
have been met. Monitoring for wetland vegetation will extend seven years beyond completion of
construction.
8.1 Streams
8.1.1 Dimension
In order to monitor the channel dimension, a total of 10 permanent cross-sections will be
installed along the UT to Lyle Creek; 6 on UT 1, 2 on UT 1 a, and 2 on UT 1 b. Cross-sections
will be located at representative riffle/run and pool sections on each monitored reach. Each
cross-section will be permanently marked with pins to establish its location. Cross-section
surveys will be performed annually and will include points measured at all breaks in slope,
including top of bank, bankfull, edge of water, and thalweg.
8.1.2 Pattern and Profile
A longitudinal profile will be completed for the 4,460 LF of the restoration reaches (3,000
LF on UT 1, and 615 LF on UT 1 a, and 845 LF on UT 1 b) on the Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
immediately post-construction and annually throughout the five year monitoring period. The
initial as-built survey will be used for baseline comparisons. Measurements in the survey
will include thalweg, water surface, bankfull, and top of low bank. These profile
measurements will be taken at the head of each riffle, run, pool, and glide, as well as at the
maximum pool depth. The survey will be tied to a permanent benchmark and NC State Plane
coordinates.
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site Page 50
Mitigation Plan
8.1.3 Photo Documentation
Approximately 40 permanent photographs will be established within the project stream and
wetland areas after construction. Photographs will be taken once a year to visually document
stability for five years following construction. Permanent markers will be established so that
the same locations and view directions on the site are monitored each year. Photographs will
be used to monitor restoration, enhancement, and creation stream and wetland areas as well
as vegetation plots. The photographer will make every effort to maintain the same area in
each photo over time. Reference photos will also be taken for each of the vegetation plots
and cross-sections. The representative digital photo(s) will be taken on the same day the
surveys are conducted.
8.1.4 Substrate
Because the streams through the project site are dominated by sand and silt-size particles,
pebble count and/or bulk sampling procedures would not show a significant change in bed
material size or distribution over the monitoring period; therefore, bed material analyses will
not be conducted for this project. Channel substrate distribution will not be a component of
project success criteria.
8.1.5 Bankfull Events
Bankfull events will be documented using a crest gage, photographs, and visual assessments
such as debris lines. Three crest gages will be installed; one on UT 1, one on UT 1 a, and the
other gage on UTlb. The crest gages will be installed onsite in a riffle cross-section
floodplain of the restored channels at a central site location. The gages will be checked at
each site visit to determine if a bankfull event has occurred. Photographs will be used to
document the occurrence of debris lines and sediment deposition.
8.2 Vegetation
A total of 35 vegetation monitoring plots will be installed and evaluated within the restoration,
enhancement, and creation areas to measure the survival of the planted trees. The number of
monitoring quadrants required is based on the NCEEP monitoring guidance documents (version
2.0, 10/14/10). The size of individual quadrants will be 100 square meters for woody tree
species and shrubs. Vegetation assessments will be conducted following the Carolina Vegetation
Survey (CVS) Level 2 Protocol for Recording Vegetation (Lee et al., 2008).
The initial baseline survey will be conducted within 21 days from completion of site planting and
used for subsequent monitoring year comparisons. The first annual vegetation monitoring
activities will commence at the end of the first growing season, during the month of September.
The restoration and enhancement sites will then be evaluated each subsequent year between June
1 and September 31. Species composition, density, and survival rates will be evaluated on an
annual basis by plot and for the entire site. Individual plot data will be provided and will include
diameter, height, density, vigor, damage (if any), and survival. Planted woody stems will be
marked annually as needed and given a coordinate, based off of a known origin, so they can be
found in succeeding monitoring years. Mortality will be determined from the difference between
the previous year's living planted stems and the current year's living planted stems.
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site Page 51
Mitigation Plan
8.3 Wet/ands
Groundwater monitoring gages will be established throughout the wetland restoration,
enhancement, and creation areas. Generally, the gages will be installed at appropriate locations
so that the data collected will provide an indication of groundwater levels throughout the wetland
project area.
9.0 Performance Criteria
The stream restoration success criteria for the project site will follow approved performance
criteria presented in the NCEEP Mitigation Plan Template (version 1.0, 11/20/2009) and the
Stream Mitigation Guidelines issued in April 2003 by the USACE and NCDWQ. Annual
monitoring and quarterly site visits will be conducted to assess the condition of the finished
project for five years, or until success criteria are met. The stream restoration reaches (UT1,
UTla, and UTIb) of the project will be assigned specific performance criteria components for
stream morphology, hydrology, and vegetation. The enhancement reaches (UT 1 c and UT 1 d)
will be documented through photographs and visual assessments to verify that no significant
degradational changes are occurring in the stream channel or riparian corridor. The wetland
restoration and creation sections will be assigned specific performance criteria for hydrology and
vegetation. These success criteria are covered in detail as follows.
9.1 Streams
9.1.1 Dimension
Riffle/run cross-sections on the restoration reaches should remain relatively stable; however,
due to the sand/silt nature of the substrate throughout the project reaches, fluctuations of the
riffle/run bed elevation over time are expected plus or minus 6 inches. These fluctuations
should be temporary and will likely correspond to storm events. Riffle/run cross-sectional
ratios (width-to-depth, depth ratio, and bank height ratio) should fall within the parameters
defined for channels of the appropriate Rosgen stream type. If persistent changes are
observed, these changes will be evaluated to assess whether the stream channel is showing
signs of long term instability. Indicators of instability include a vertically incising thalweg or
eroding channel banks. Changes in the channel that indicate a movement toward stability or
enhanced habitat include a decrease in the width-to-depth ratio in meandering channels or an
increase in pool depth. Remedial action would not be taken if channel changes indicate a
movement toward stability.
9.1.2 Pattern and Profile
Longitudinal profile data for the stream restoration reaches should show that the bedform
features remain relatively stable however they may fluctuate some due to the fine nature of
sediments from the watershed. The riffles/runs should be steeper and shallower than the
pools. Pools in meander bends are expected to be deeper than riffles however the bed
elevation may fluctuate up or down over time depending on the amount of sand contributed
from the watershed. Deeper pools will likely develop in areas with woody debris or below
step structures. Adjustments in length and slope of run and glide features are expected and
will not be considered a sign of instability. The longitudinal profile should show that the
bank height ratio remains very near to 1.0 for the majority of the restoration reaches.
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site Page 52
Mitigation Plan
9.1.3 Photo Documentation
Photographs should illustrate the site's vegetation and morphological stability on an annual
basis. Cross-section photos should demonstrate no excessive erosion or degradation of the
banks. Longitudinal photos should indicate the absence of vertical incision or bank erosion.
Grade control structures should remain stable. Deposition of sediment on the bank side of
vane arms is preferable. Maintenance of scour pools on the channel side of vane arms is
expected. Reference photos will also be taken for each of the vegetation plots.
9.1.4 Bankfull Events
Two bankfull flow events in separate years must be documented on the project within the
five-year monitoring period. Bankfull events will be documented using a crest gage,
photographs, and visual assessments such as debris lines.
9.2 Vegetation
The final vegetative success criteria will be the survival of 260 planted stems per acre in the
riparian corridor along restored and enhanced reaches at the end of year five monitoring, and 200
planted stems per acre within the wetland restoration and creation areas at the end of year seven
monitoring. The interim measure of vegetative success for the entire site will be the survival of
at least 320 planted stems per acre at the end of the third monitoring year. The extent of invasive
species coverage will also be monitored and controlled as necessary throughout the five-year
monitoring period for streams and seven-year monitoring period for wetlands.
9.3 Wetlands
The final performance criteria for wetland hydrology will be 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. This success criteria was determined
through model simulations of post restoration conditions and comparison to an immediately
adjacent existing wetland system. If a particular well does not meet this criteria for a given
monitoring year, rainfall patterns will be analyzed and the hydrograph will be compared to that
of the reference well to assess whether atypical weather conditions occurred during the
monitoring period.
10.0 Site Protection and Adaptive Management Strategy
The Lyle Creek Mitigation Site is located on one parcel owned by the Garmon Family. A
Conservation Easement held by the State of North Carolina has been recorded with the Catawba
County Register of Deeds on the 26.62-acre Lyle Creek project study area within the Garmon
parcel. The conservation easement allows the restoration work to occur and protects the project
area in perpetuity. Signage and demarcation will be placed along the easement per current
NCEEP guidance at the time the proposal was submitted.
Upon completion of site construction, WEI shall monitor the project in keeping with the
monitoring plan. Post-construction monitoring activities will be conducted to evaluate site
performance, to identify maintenance and/or repair concerns, and to maintain the integrity of the
project boundaries. If during the post-construction monitoring period it is determined project
compliance is jeopardized, WEI shall take the necessary action to resolve the project concerns
and bring the project back into compliance. At the conclusion of the post-construction
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site Page 53
Mitigation Plan
monitoring period, the project shall be presented to the regulatory authority for project
acceptance and close-out. Upon close-out, the project shall be transferred to the NCDENR
Division of Natural Resource Planning and Conservation and Stewardship Program for long-
term management and stewardship.
11.0 Financial Assurances
Pursuant to Section IV H and Appendix III of the Ecosystem Enhancement Program's In-Lieu
Fee Instrument dated July 28, 2010, the NCDENR has provided the USACE-Wilmington District
with a formal commitment to fund projects to satisfy mitigation requirements assumed by
NCEEP. This commitment provides financial assurance for all mitigation projects implemented
by the program.
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site Page 54
Mitigation Plan
12.0 References
Bledsoe, B. P., C. C. Watson, D. S. Biedenharn, 2002. Quantification of Incised Channel
Evolution and Equilibrium. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 38(3):
861-870.
Endangered Species Act of 1973, Public Law 93-205, 87 Stat. 884, 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544.
Environmental Bank and Exchange, Buck Engineering, 2002. Neu-Con Umbrella Wetland and
Stream Mitigation Bank Westbrook Lowgrounds Site Specific Mitigation Plan. Cary, NC.
Harman, W.H., et al. 1999. Bankfull Hydraulic Geometry Relationships for North Carolina
Streams. AWRA Wildland Hydrology Symposium Proceedings. Edited By: D.S. Olsen and
J.P. Potyondy. AWRA Summer Symposium. Bozeman, MT.
Harrelson, C.C., C.L Rawlins, J.P.Potyondy. 1994. Stream Channel Reference Sites: An
Illustrated Guide to Field Technique. USDA Forest Service. General Technical Report RM-
245.
Kinley, John. Telephone interview. 19 May 2011.
Lee, Michael T., Peet, Robert K., Steven D., Wentworth, Thomas R. (2006). CVS-EEP Protocol
for Recording Vegetation Version 4.0. Retrieved from
http://www.nceep.net/business/monitoring/veg/datasheets.htm.
Lowther, Brian C. Stream Channel Geomorphology Relationships for North Carolina Piedmont
Reference Streams. North Carolina State University Thesis, 2008.
http://www.lib.ncsu.edu/resolver/I 840.16/1211
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Public Law 89-665, U.S.C. 470 et seq.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS), 2009. Web Soil Survey. Retrieved from
http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/HomePage.htm
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ), Catawba River Basin Plan, 2010.
Retrieved from http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/basinwide/documents/Chapter1-03050101.pdf
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP), Local Watershed Planning
Documents. Accessed February 7, 2010, at
http://www.nceep.net/services/lwps/pull_down/by_basin/Catawba RB.html
North Carolina Geological Survey (NCGS), 2009. Mineral Resources.
http://www.geology.enr. state.nc.us/Mineral%20resources/mineralresources.html
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP), 2009. Natural Heritage Element Occurrence
Database, Chatham County, NC. http://149.168.1.196/nhp/county.html
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site Page 55
Mitigation Plan
North Carolina State University (NCSU), 2010. DrainMod Related Publications. Accessed May
10, 2010, at: http://www.bae.ncsu.edu/soil_water/drainmod/draimnod_papers.html4wetland
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.
Rosgen, D.L., H. L. Silvery. 2005. The Reference Reach Field Book. Fort Collins, Colorado.
Wildland Hydrology, Inc.
Rosgen, D. L. 2006. Watershed Assessment of River Stability and Sediment Supply. Fort
Collins, Colorado. Wildland Hydrology.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina, 3rd approx. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Simon, A. 1989. A model of channel response in disturbed alluvial channels. Earth Surface
Processes and Landforms 14(l):11-26.
Simon, A., Rinaldi, M. 2006. Disturbance, stream incision, and channel evolution: The roles of
excess transport capacity and boundary materials in controlling channel response.
Geomorphology 79: 361-383.
Simon, A. 2006. Flow energy, time, and evolution of dynamic fluvial systems: implications for
stabilization and restoration of unstable systems. In: Proceedings of the 2006 World
Environmental and Water Resources Congress (R. Graham, Ed.), May 21-25, 2006, Omaha,
Nebraska. CDROM.
Skaggs, R. W. 1980. DrainMod Reference Report: Methods for design and evaluation of
drainage-water management systems for soils with high water tables. U. S. Department of
Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 329 pp.
Trimble, S. W. 1974. Man-Induced Soil Erosion on the Southern Piedmont, 1700-1970. Soil and
Water Conservation Society.
Weaver, J.C., et al. 2009. Magnitude and Frequency of Rural Floods in the Southeastern United
States, through 2006: Volume 2, North Carolina. U.S. Geological Survey Scientific
Investigations Report 2009-5158, 111 p.
Wilcock, P., et al., 2009. Sediment Transport Primer: Estimating Bed-Material Transport in
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site Page 56
Mitigation Plan
Gravel Bed Rivers. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-226. Fort Collins, Co: U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 78 p.
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands
Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1. Environmental Laboratory. US Army
Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service. 2011. Fire Effects
Information: Typha latifolia
http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/graminoid/typlat/all.html, 13 May 2011
USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS). 2009. Soil Survey Geographic
(SSURGO) database for Catawba County, North Carolina.
http://SoilDataMart.nrcs.usda.gov
USDA, NRCS. 2011. The PLANTS Database. National Plant Data Center, Baton Rouge, LA
70874-4490 USA. http://plants.usda.gov, 13 May 2011
USDA, 2007. National Engineering Handbook, Part 654 Stream Restoration Design: Chapter 11
Rosgen Geomorphic Channel Design.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2010. Spreadsheet Tool for Estimating
Pollutant Load, version 4.1. http://it.tetratech-ffx.com/steplweb/models$docs.htm
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2008. Endangered Species, Threatened
Species, Federal Species of Concern and Candidate Species, Catawba County, NC.
http://www.fws.gov/nc-es/es/countyfr.html
United States Geological Survey (USGS), 1998. North Carolina Geology.
http://www.geology.enr.state.nc.us/usgs/carolina.htm
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site Page 57
Mitigation Plan

r N
Hydrologic Unit Code (14)
EEP Targeted Local Watershed
03 0 tt02(
r r 20
9" 1
44-1PO-00 al
w
"i

I 'Catawba, 7.5 minute topographic quadrangle
WILDLANDS Figure 1 Vicinity Map
E N G 1 N F F R (N (; 0 0.75 1.5 Miles Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
l I Catawba River Basin (03050101)
Catawba County, NC
VA

01.
*?
...
4 . _
....._ • ............. .
..

* i IN,
y;w

j.
i
.,
i i

A`
1 I
1 1
;?
F

i`

j 1
i I I it
I v.?? ro
gt

• d
i

c U
Z ?
U
Y [O ..

N L1 cn w

m

y

(D

c

M
r, z
ri .,.
r0 v
O
2 Z3
o m
J d
U) ¢ o
m Z_:z
U.
iR
In t
V

m G

o N
: L:.

C)
(n 7 .21 0 m

m o d

m o

°

°
E

m

ca
° d
LO

I

.?
J a-+ O

o
41

Z a s

i w a` (A
v U i, ! o
i
r:
Alit,
t
s
tt? UT1d
T 9 Acres
fP
I +lR
` ry>i
{
UT1 to Lyle Creel
315 Acres
r
t
rd
< X27 l\?
'AID ,?
r3 k S?f ynfiF;t?4
•?r„?},? ^w ..a ? .r..: ? .grad
Iwo''
l n? r
11(( 'fY. f _ d? y?gg
UT1c UT1a
26 Acres 56 Acres
UT 1 b
78 Acres
4. tr
Vgi
RIZ
r .} ar
??4a1
aft
,
r
"2010 Aerial Photograph
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
0 500 1,000 Feet
I i I
Figure 3 Aerial Watershed Map
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
Catawba River Basin (03050101)
Catawba County, NC
Catawba County, NC
WILDLANDS Figure 4 USGS Watershed Map
0 500 1,000 Feet Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
ENGINEERING I i I Catawba River Basin (03050101)
?
s w? •
? ??
IJW

0
000

5

w,`?w?? `. J ;t ??? ? 'dpi,°? ?;? ?
0
•
K
N
E?+ :t x ? . ? to ?,?, f
1 1 ° '?,I
I-
-1 • ° 1
to ?IJ ?''•.?
24,% 0-
i rte,, . - •- -
?%
'? d J
a
F

i
i ?
i ?

C
ro
b1
O
O
t
o?
o?
N
C C
O fn ? w
a ?
a? _ -
J
rl
N ,C (n G ? `' Q N N Z' o
L
C O
? N L O O
U
O
U m c
a o
m c
d E a
m A ?
m a
o
m
7
+.+ L!1
U Ol O

p m
E .Ec
m
d d
.- ?'°
a =
v E
$ _.i
?' 7
fu C) IL
U V
1
''
• • i 7
I

r? Cy
Easement Area
Project Streams `
Project Wetlands CmB2
Streams
Af -Altavista fine sandy loam, clayey variant (Dogue) . Cw
CmB2 - Cecil sandy loam
Cw - Chewacla loam
Cy - Congaree complex Cw
Wd - Wehadkee fine sandy loam
I I A ,!
Cy Af
C
Cy

i
j C i
y i
i

C ?.
y i

CmB2

• i
0
'
? i

1

\t j
I
L i ,
Cw j ! 1
i

Wd ....?
1'd / o ?
1 1 j ,
i
Cy"
j

+e
y i
201
W 1 LDLA N DS 0 175 350 Feet
ENGINEERING I I

Cm62
Figure 7 Soils Map
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
Catawba River Basin (03050101)
Catawba County, NC
i Easement Area ZONE X ,oaa?
AEr
ar x tJ.a? J .`'
IF 44 Lk
ebb ' • .'".1/
ZONE AE ? r
ZONE•X •
v00
- - ----dam - '' j j
•` 'r y•.•r .I.
?'.. J
? eONE - ..........ZONE X ZONE X ZONE AE
/raD* c;.,..
FIRM aneis: 3782 and 3781, dated Mar 18, 2008.
WILDLANDS Figure 8 FEMA Flood Map
0 225 450 Feet Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
ENG 1 N E R I N 1 Catawba River Basin (03050101)
Catawba County, NC
North Carolina Piedmont Regional Curve: Bankfull Area
1000 _
1
e0 100
_.i.' I _ .._
N 1
•• f I I y= 60.164xo6473
10 of?l? X ?'???; ?:±-? R2=0.5739
21.433xaFrR?
R2 09491
M 1
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Drainage Area (square miles)
Rural Data • Urban Data 6 UT1 R1-X2
x UTi R1-X4 + UT1 R2-X7 O UT1 R3-X.15
+ UT1a X14 x UT1b X12 A UTtc X.9
i UT1d X6 • UT to Catawba ref UT to Lyle ref
L--UT to Lake Wheeler ref ?Y Power (Rural Data) -Power (Urban Data) .__.._?
North Carolina Piedmont Regional Curve: Discharge
10000
Drainage Area (square miles)
• Rural Data • Urban Data a UT1 (Upper R1)
x UT1 R1 o UT1 R2 + UT1a
x UT1 b --°- Power (Rural Date) PrnJer (Urban Data)
WILDLANDS
ENGINFFRING
Figure 9 Regional Curve Data
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
Catawba River Basin (03050101)
Catawba County, NC
Class I. Sinuous, Premodified
h<h,:
h
Class II. Channeiized
h<hc
fioodplain
ah'
4 - F
hc = critical bank height
= direction of bank or
bed tTloveme t
Class Ill. Degradation
h<hc
1
h
Class V. Aggradation and Widening
h>hc
f
slumped
material
aggraded material
Class IV. Degradation and Widening
h>hc
terrace
3.
h
1
slumped material
Class VI. Quasi Equilibrium
h<hc fig
Class I Class III
prImar.Y
nrckpo'i Class IV
10
Class V
plunge
precursor
nickpoint pool clirectrorl o ow Class VI
secondary
ovcisLeep. ned reach nickpoint C -"-------?
aggradation zone jggraded material
E
Source: Simon, 1989; US Army Corps of Engineers, 1990.
Fig. 7.14 - Channel evolution model..
In Stream Corridor Restoration: Principles, Processes, and Practices, 10195.
Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group (FISRWGX(15 Federal agencies of the US).
Source: Simon, 1989
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
Figure 10 Channel Evolution Model
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
Catawba River Basin (03050101)
Catawba County, NC
aclgraded material
re < (f) z
a r z
O , O
Q (1) a? ..
LL Z
¢ I ?
----------------
__/ ^! r•
co (f)
Z
----- -----r----- W ~ Q
I I a Y J I /'
x I a l a -' --'? -
m co
----- __ - _ j '? , j
I
U
LLJ
DL i w
L -------------! a I co
O p
\
I
I I ¢ ?` 1 l Ix
I_ fx i
' J L--------------r- Y
I v .I
I Cl) z
U I Q I I w
------------- < I O
----------- I' \ E-
O i
'
x I
I
Y i J I O i W i U
? ? cx7 I Q ? ? ? ? „\ I
I i I ' z I ?` I
I I O \ i '
x Z - I y Q
OY i U) l i U)
Q r•J IQ- -- _- --- I
l (`i - I \ U 1 ---i
1 J I Q ep, Q rt O I
I O !' y Q i `? Z
Of ` y ------- ,O \ I
U
I I Q o _ 1
I f --
- ti--------I w \.i
(if
I ' Z ?\ J? O I OJ- J -
w ! c U I I
J t \ Z
W I I U ' t
¢\\ J i I I
c V
C S C j J a I :.:
SLO U r!
D "a?U O4.1
?tE6 tY V O w
N >J ?? w '-
fa 4M-
N ? ? z
u U
-?--? Reference Reach
?U
,
j y •:*.- ? v
900
r
r
f 7
I
--_ of := llb It?

t ? •
:--.--
%
0
r
o '? 800.
r,
WILDLANDS Figure 12 UT to Lyle Reference Topographic Map
F N C;1 I'? F F R 1 N G 0 500 1,000 Feet Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
I I Catawba River Basin (03050101)
Catawba County, NC
y,
1 ? ' ? f I
I

teach

?C

-°--?- Reference Reach

fiam
r
f
nt
p
t
872-
-77
1.? ?? vp i, 1 i j r ?y

' ?.
t, '+r
a .• .:
X /
UT to Ca tawba Reference Reach

1 `
{ 1 O ? `\\ V
i ?, •

?? ?.

' o * `Catawba and Stony Point, 7.5 minute topo g phic quadrangles
WI LDLA NDS
ENGINEERING
Figure 13 UT to Catawba Reference Topographic Map
500 1,000 Feet Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
I I Catawba River Basin (03050101)
Catawba County, NC
-Reference Reach ?

* ?(. ?1? f 1 7•,,1 ?. .......?`. 't ? ? t/ ; ? •f `.f! ? ?I ? fr"? ?r 4 ? .l i f? Cam.
10
w? If 1.0
.?. ?o ? .F.x • p ` t\ `? } 1 f t'om' 't\ /` i.• \ + ` _y `.J, f ?)
"?? 11,t ?.'/ ?°+` k'y^! "`? ?''?"` m w.n? r? I,,( i? t ??' __:' ? ??l`? t, r? ?1 ijf?,. ? ? ?..?
ttr;?? ', \ ,'UT to-Lake Wheeler, Reference
/ ' r'•" t a ... • _'} i i i 1 s ?t t.J r r' - d
am Q
94 oy
777'???p \\\ ?v _ y
a 'f
? ? R' l ? ` •:?, a? f JtJ r . + ? w
•
? if
'y 1 I? ? r k' !' :\ •' J , rte ? ? F'1y ? ...
A Overflow SPILL Wig Y iELE+k/ 2$.? .. _
`Trailer park
a.Vllfi'g l?r7. 'inut6,topographoquadl-angle
WILDLANDS Figure 14 LIT to Lake Wheeler Reference
0 500 1,000 Feet Topographic Map
ENG 1 NFER I N ( i I Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
Catawba River Basin (03050101)
Catawba County, NC
WI LDLANDS Figure 15 Westbrook Lowgrounds Reference
0 500 1,000 Feet Topographic Map
F N C IN F F R I N (-j l l Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
Catawba River Basin (03050101)
Catawba County, NC
-,
•? yr, r t r„n
?X1 j ...,.., , ,.
wx 2N
? t?? ;x ??,..,?; a +?a rc. ,? tea; ->
? w? ?yam - ? v M
a
4 71
1
w..
?B. M rYµ • n.
r ?
Y ? ?•J
Y •c''r**? ' ? r y,'
,cur rx ?« r i
C LJ ?
Ln V o
ro ?LO ^ 7
,o '0 Z, (/1 L E c
-0 U C )
Q) 0 0 C)
'i C.7 U a m U1p to t ?
7 (D Z
pl +? Q1 N Ol (O O (p E in o w v 3 .N- ~' z
m rL u w a in m° c3i 3
U V JI 4' 2 p W
v
.a
6
mmm wLL' 1l ...:. L n. w dfi: U
Herr a"k? ^, o
Y ; ) w
4 ro
MW`

b

c
4- CO .. U
o ?
°
Z

+?
C N In Q1 O
= m y E o ?
y u m ° o
'u
C
LL (D fa
J' O ,? y o.
m o
I
` .? m E m m m
2 d m 2 _ C..
?
^
4+ w a in in 3 3 U) .
?
U U ! @ o
c
rn U) u
Z
= x
o
a) M
?
A
Y

? _
d
00 ro
cn
a a) o
::3
N
U o
O 0I OI
i
I
V N >_
O O
U ?. LL O

`r
Q
N L

m w C V C N
N 'O 10 t`
a' N A (7 0 m 'a

'O Ul ""'

°

O) Vf Q) Ol f0 O
1E 0
'Z
E
° m
m 'v _`m
m m l() (
?
/.
c)
3 .i w 2
a in CM
o °r N 3 3 in
O fu
4.1
fl- 4m.

U

? x

c_
U ? o
APPENDIX 1
Site Photographs

v
x..
Photo 2-View of downstream portion of Perennial UT1, facing
downstream.

?i
'CRY jvrc p a'89? F ?„} ; _ 4

i
yy
4 dr
!
, I t J

Photo 3-View of Intermittent UTIa, facing downstream near
confluence with UT1.

AA%

:.
Photo 4-View of Perennial UTl b, facing upstream from
existinp- culvert.

? j q+A ?•,. ?•.Nne °` i 'pF:? v'?. +, D ?w4 5'.' .6T
t i
i

Photo 7-View of Wetland WL-1, west of UT1a. Photo 8-View of Wetland WL-l, west of UT1 a.

;Ak
«. r . Y

Photo 9-View of riparian Wetland WL-2, adjacent to UTIa. Photo ]0-View of Wetland WL->, facing west.

,;

Photo 11-View of Wetland WL-4, facing west. Photo 12-View of Wetland WL-5, facing west.
APPENDIX 2
Wetland and Stream Documentation
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action I.D.: SAW 2010-02102 County: Catawba U.S.G.S. Quad: NC Catawba
NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
Property Owner/Agent: Matt Jenkins; Wildlands Engineering Inc.
Address: 1430 South Mint Street,
Suite 104 Charlotte, NC 28203
Telephone No.: 704-332-7754
Property description:
Size (acres): 4045 LF of stream and 1.85 acres
Nearest Waterway: Lyle Creek
Coordinates: 35.711674 N/ -81.081496 W'
Nearest Town: Catawba
River Basin: Catawba
Hydrologic Unit Code: 03050101
Location Description:
Indicate Which of the Following Apply:
A. Preliminary Determination
Based on preliminary information, there may be waters on the above described property. We strongly suggest you have
this property inspected to determine the extent of Department of the Army (DA) jurisdiction. To be considered final, a
jurisdictional determination must be verified by the Corps. This preliminary determination is not an appealable action
under the Regulatory Program Administrative Appeal Process ( Reference 33 CFR Part 331).
B. Approved Determination
There are Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described property subject to the permit requirements of
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Unless there is a change in the law or
our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this
notification.
X There are waters on the above described property subject to the permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(CWA)(33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this determination may be
relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
We strongly suggest you have the waters on your property delineated. Due to the size of your property and/or our
present workload, the Corps may not be able to accomplish this wetland delineation in a timely manner. For a more timely
delineation, you may wish to obtain a consultant. To be considered final, any delineation must be verified by the Corps.
X The waters on your property have been delineated and the delineation has been verified by the Corps. We strongly
suggest you have this delineation surveyed. Upon completion, this survey should be reviewed and verified by the Corps.
Once verified, this survey will provide an accurate depiction of all areas subject to CWA jurisdiction on your property
which, provided there is no change in the law or our published regulations, may be relied upon for a period not to exceed
five years.
The waters have been delineated and surveyed and are accurately depicted on the plat signed by the Corps Regulatory
Official identified below on Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this determination may
be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
There are no waters of the U.S., to include wetlands, present on the above described property which are subject to the
permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our
published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this
notification.
Action Id.: 2010-01009
This delineation/determination has been conducted to identify the limits of COE's Clean Water Act jurisdiction for the
particular site identified in this request. The del ineation/determination may not be valid for the wetland conservation
provisions of the Food Security Act of 1985. If you or your tenant are USDA Program participants, or anticipate participation
in USDA programs, you should request a certified wetland determination from the local office of the Natural Resources
Conservation Service, prior to starting work.
Placement of dredged or fill material within waters of the US and/or wetlands without a Department of the Army permit may
constitute a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC § 1311). If you have any questions regarding this
determination and/or the Corps regulatory program, please contact Tyler Crumbley at 828-271-7980.
C. Basis For Determination
The site contains wetlands as determined by the USACE 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual and they directly abut stream
channels located on the property that exhibit indicators of ordinary high water marks. The stream channel on the property is an
unnamed tributary to Lyle Creek which flows into the Catawba River which is Section 10 Navigable at the Mountain Island
Lake dam on the Mecklenburg/Gaston county line in NC.
D. Remarks
E. Appeals Information (This information applies only to approved jurisdictional determinations as indicated in
B. above)
Attached to this verification is an approved jurisdictional determination. if you are riot in agreement with that approved
jurisdictional determination, you can make an administrative appeal under 33 CFR 331. Enclosed you will find a Notification
of Appeal Process (NAP) fact sheet and request for appeal (RFA) form, if you request to appeal this determination you must
submit a completed RFA form to the following address:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Program
Attn: Tyler Crumbley; Project Manager
151 Patton Avenue. Room 208
Asheville. North Carolina :',8801
In order for an RFA to be accepted by the Corns, the Corps must determine that it is complete, that it meets rile criteria for
appeal under 33 CFR part 331.5, and that it has been received by the Division Office within 60 days of the (:fate of the NAP.
Should you. decide to submit an RFA form, it must be received at the above address within 60 of the issue (late.
**It is not necessary to sobnrit. an RFA form to the Division Office. if you do not object to the determination in thi:..
c0t7esp0ndence. * *
Corps RCgLIlator)1 Official: rvlcr C't,ui ri) cy_
Issue Date: E April, 2011
C
Expiration Date: 6.April, 2016
'file Wilmington District is cornmitred to providing the highest level of support to the public. ; o help us ensure we continue to
do so. please- complete the Cw?lomer Satisfaction Survey located A our website at htt?/'pct ?.r_w??,iisace.?rtr,rv ?r?iti?urvcy?.htir?i
to complete the survey online. -
SURVEY PLATS, FIELD SK ]'CH, WETLAND DELINEATION FORMS, PROJECT PLANS, ETC., MUST RF
ATTACI TH) TO TI-IE FILE COPY OF THIS FORM, I. RT;Q[TIR[-.D OR AVAILABLE.
C;1:.

Stream and Wetland Data Forms
Available Upon Request
c
O
I
L
u
a,
Y
G1
L
u
a?

N ri
a
Lr)
r-I
O
e-I
a
Z cu :3
v _a E
a O in
(ul) Ile;idea
N 00 lD d N
r-I O O O O O
O
ri
N

" \
m
r?

0
r?
O
N
N
\
O
.1

0
r?
0
N
0
O

o
c
o
O
O
N
\

O
C)
Ln
N
0-0

O
ri
\
.-+..+"... r 00
.........

tD

L n O
ri
Ln p
ri N ri
(w3) y;dao algel aa;eM

u
v c;
CL Z m
v E
0- O in
n
.Q
u
N
3
Y
L
u
J
00
N e-1
(ui) Ile}uiea
lD N 00 l0 d' N
r1 1-1 -4 r-I O O O O O
? O
r-1
O
N

00

O

O
N

Q1
as???
O
e-i
O
.4
O
N

O
e-i
O)
f0
O C
O
N
01
a--I
O
e-i
O
N
O
M
00
O
X
O

O
- e-1

_ co
O O
i
PV C 0 0 CD 0
tOD 00 O N ct l0 00 O N
ri r-I r-1 e-1 a--I N
(w:)) yldaa angel aaleM

C
O
c?
L
v
Q?
-a
c
a,
a
L
V
J
N
O
N
CL
U ? E
CL O in
(ul) Ile;ulell
? ?' N 00 l0 of N
O O O O O
O
00
\
= o
. °- O
00
0
O
\
e-1
O
O
m
O
0
N
1 0)
O
e--I
S N
Cl
00
i
O
". O
? N
m
...? o
0
e-1
O O O O O O O O O
N d' l0 OP O N lD Op \
ri '-I i-I e-1 c? N
(w:)) 43daa algel aaleM
a--1
O
Soil Profile Descriptions Wildlands Project Sites
Soils Descriptions performed by Mike Ortosky (NC Licensed Soil Scientist 4 1-075) a
Garnun Property - 3/3/10
V r
Profile #I
Depth c_'olor (Munsell Mottles Texture Notes
(} 8
8-18 10 l'R 4?2
7.5 Yk 5/4 C2D '%.5 YF. 5/4
Ci2D 10 YR 412 Loain
Clay Loam
-------^-- -- ---
-
----
- Free water at 14" ---
-
'rofile #2
Depth !I Color (Mull SO1) ? Mottles E Texture Notes
u-}-----a- - r} y_R 4,-- - ' ---- -- ---L ]_oam -- I
---- - - -
4-14 IO YR 512 C20 7.5 YR 5/4 Clay I_,oanI
1 + 10 YR 5,'2 MUD 7-5 YR 5/4 Clay Mangat)e?;e -.---
- ---------------
1 y ater at 6"
rofile 4
De th color (Munscll) 4lottl.es Texture Notes
0 16 ? 10 IT 4i.?4 ? Clay loam Blm-ky Structure t111 rr iter "11
G fir. 1 lt) YR C71) 10 }'R 7;4 C1av 1 oam Blocks Structuzc Fill matcr4d
No free xkatea tr 2 `
e
Depth Color ?Mun4e.il1 i NIOtUes ? "lexture Nauss ?
fl-6 YR 4/1
.4 Loan)
C-9 10 YR, 4 2 ? FUD 19 YR 4?! C Ian i Darn i
4 16 10 l• r ci2 CTH 5 YR 5/4 C',ay 1. (yam Manganese
--- .._-L------- --- _. ...?- --- ----1----- -- 17,aturated in upper 6 ---------
Profiie #
Depth Color (hlunscli) Mottles Fcxturc Notes
4-10 7.5 YR:4/3 Loam - ---- --
I0-14 1,5 YR 51 _
C2F 7.5 YR ,'4- May Loam --
Profile #6
Depth Color (Munsell) Mottles Texture Notes
0-24 7.5 YR 4/3 C2D 10 YR. 5/2 l_c?ar) Obvious fill over hydric soil
24-32+ 7.5 YR 7.5/1 SC:L _ Original hydzic nail surface
r?
17
y?m ! [
• ? t? .R ,. ?' .f yF f. ?"'1?' ' tf ,may l„?n +. •1
MA? v ? _ wMn .t"
Ile(
+ir
¢ioo- a' ..
Y
1$
l'
5 U ?i
;er
_ m
sl -
1 ) P ? ?, pCy ? a C . 01 `? i
k ? w
h: ? y 0 C ?
C-
I " 9 76
Y N m b M CD
0) Q
_q t
U N m m O rp °? a? O
C r?
1?? Cl
Lyle Creek Soil Borings
01
Depth Color Mottles Texture Notes
0-12 7.5YR 4/6 silt loam
12-20 7.5YR 5/4 7.5YR 4/6 silt loam
20-24 10YR 4/3 7.5YR 4/6 clay loam
02
Depth Color Mottles Texture Notes
0-12 7.5YR 4/6 silt loam
12-20 7.5YR 5/4 7.5YR 4/6 silt loam
20-24 10YR 4/3 5YR 4/4 clay loam
03
Depth Color Mottles Texture Notes
0-18 5YR 416 silt loam
18-24 7.5YR 4/3 5YR 4/6 silt loam
04
Depth Color Mottles Texture Notes
0-18 5YR 4/6 silt loam
18-24 7.5YR 4/4 5YR 4/6 silt loam concretions, saturation
05
Depth Color Mottles Texture Notes
0-24 5YR 4/6 silt loam
06
Depth Color Mottles Texture Notes
0-3 5YR 4/6 silt loam
3-20 7.5YR 4/4 5YR 4/6 silt loam
20-24 10YR 4/3 5YR 4/6 silt loam
07
Depth Color Mottles Texture Notes
0-12 7.5YR 4/6 silt loam
12-20 10YR 4/3 5YR 4/6 silt loam
20-24 7.5YR 4/3 5YR 4/6 clay loam
08
Depth Color Mottles Texture Notes
0-16 5YR 4/6 silt loam
16-24 7.5YR 4/3 5YR 4/6 clay loam groundwater at 20-24"
09
Depth Color Mottles Texture Notes
0-12 7.5YR 4/4 silt loam
12-24 10YR 4/3 7.5YR 4/6 clay loam roundwater at 22-24"
10
Depth Color Mottles Texture Notes
0-16 7.5YR 4/6 silt loam
16-24 1 0YR 4/3 7.5YR 4/4 cla loam
11
Depth Color Mottles Texture Notes
0-6 7.5YR 4/6 silt loam
6-20 7.5YR 4/4 5YR 476 silty clay loam
20-24 7.5YR 4/3 5YR 4/6 cla loam groundwater
12
Depth Color Mottles Texture Notes
0-16 7.5YR 4/6 silt loam
16-24 10YR 5/3 7.5YR 4/6 clay loam
13
Depth Color Mottles Texture Notes
0-18 7.5YR 4/4 silt loam
18-24 10YR 4/3 7.5YR 4/6 clay loam
14
Depth Color Mottles Texture Notes
0-14 7.5YR 4/6 silt loam
14-20 5YR 4/6 7.5YR 473 silt loam
20-24 7.5YR 4/2 7.5YR 4/6 silt loam
15
Depth Color Mottles Texture Notes
0-12 7.5YR 4/3 7.5YR 4/4 silt loam
12-20 7.5YR 4/2 7.5YR 4/6 silt loam concretions
20-24 7.5YR 4/1 7.5YR 4/6 silt loam concretions
16
Depth Color Mottles Texture Notes
0-14 7.5YR 4/3 silt loam
14-24 10YR 5/2 7.5YR 4/6 silty clay loam
17
Depth Color Mottles Texture Notes
0-14 7.5 YR 4/4 silt loam
14-24 7.5YR 4/2 7.5YR 4/4 silty clay loam
18
Depth Color Mottles Texture Notes
0-5 7.5YR 4/3 silty cla loam
5-10 2.5Y 4/2 5YR 4/6 clay loam
10-24 10YR 4/1 5YR 4/6 cla loam oxidized root channels
19
Depth Color Mottles Texture Notes
0-6 7.5YR 4/3 10YR 4/3 silt loam
8-24 2.5Y 4/2 7.5YR 4/6 silt clay loam
20
Depth Color Mottles Texture Notes
0-18 10YR 4/4 silt loam
18-24 7.5YR 4/6 loam sand groundwater at 22"-24"
21
Depth Color Mottles Texture Notes
0-6 10YR 4/3 2 7.5YR 4/6 silt loam
6-20 7.5YR 4/3 7.5YR 4/6 clay loam
20-24 7.5YR 4/2 7.5YR 4/4 clay loam
22
Depth Color Mottles Texture Notes
0-5 7.5YR 4/3 silt loam
5-24 5YR 4/2 5YR 4/4 silt loam
23
Depth Color Mottles Texture Notes
0-2 10YR 4/2 7.5YR 4/6 silt loam oxidized root channels
2-10 10YR 5/3 7.5YR 4/6 silt loam oxidized root channels
10-24 7.5YR 4/3 5YR 4/6 silt loam concretions
24
Depth Color Mottles Texture Notes
0-8 7.5YR 4/3 cla loam
8-22 7.5YR 4/2 5YR 4/6 clay loam
22-24 10YR 4/2 7.5YR 4/6 loam clay
25
Depth Color Mottles Texture Notes
0-12 7.5YR 4/6 sand silt loam
12-24 7.5YR 4/4 5YR 4/6 silt loam
26
Depth Color Mottles Texture Notes
0-6 5YR 4/6 silt loam
6-18 7.5YR 4/2 7.5YR 4/6 clay loam
18-24 7.5YR 4/2 5YR 4/6 clay loam concretions
27
Depth Color Mottles Texture Notes
0-8 10YR 4/3 7.5YR 4/6 silt loam
8-20 10YR 4/3 5YR 4/6 silt loam
20-24 2.5Y 5/3 7.5YR 4/6 clay loam
28
Depth Color Mottles Texture Notes
0-10 7.5YR 3/3 silt loam
10-24 10YR 5/3 7.5YR 5/6 silty clay loam
29
Depth Color Mottles Texture Notes
0-3 10YR 4/2 5YR 4/6 silt loam
3-8 10YR 4/3 7.5YR 5/6 sand silt loam
8-20 coarse sand/ ravel layer
20-24 10YR 5/3 7.5YR 5/6 sand silt loam
30
Depth Color Mottles Texture Notes
0-6 10YR 4/3 7.5YR 4/6 silt loam
6-12 7.5YR 4/6 silt loam
12-18 10YR 5/3 7.5YR 4/6 sand silt loam
18-24 7.5YR 4/4 7.5YR 5/6 sand clay loam
31
Depth Color Mottles Texture Notes
0-10 10YR 5/4 .5YR 4/6 sand silt loam
10-14 10YR 5/3 .5YR 4/6
F silty clay loam oxidized root channels
14-24 10YR 4/3 7.5YR
4/6 loam sand
32
Depth Color Mottles Texture Notes
0-3 10YR 3/2 silt loam
3-10 10YR 4/2 7.5YR 4/4 silt loam
10-16 10YR 4/2 7.5YR 4/6 silt clay loam
16-24 2.5Y 5/2 10YR 4/4 silt clay loam
33
Depth Color Mottles Texture Notes
0-12 7.5YR 4/4 silt loam
12-20 7.5YR 4/2 5YR 4/6 silt loam
20-24 10YR 5/3 7.5YR 4/6 cla loam
34
Depth Color Mottles Texture Notes
0-12 5YR 4/4 silt loam
12-20 7.5YR 4/2 7.5YR 4/6 sand silt loam
20-24 2.5Y 4/2 7.5YR 4/4 sand clay loam
35
Depth Color Mottles Texture Notes
0-16 7.5YR 3/4 silt loam
16-18 7.5YR 4/2 7.5YR 4/6 silty clay loam
18-24 7.5YR 4/6 sand
36
Depth Color Mottles Texture Notes
0-4 7.5YR 4/4 silt loam
4-12 10YR 4/3 7.5YR 4/6 silt loam
12-24 2.5Y 4/2 7.5YR 4/6 clay silt loam
37
Depth Color Mottles Texture Notes
0-6 7.5YR 4/4 silt loam
6-14 7.5YR 4/3 5YR 4/4 silt loam
14-24 2.5Y 5/2 7.5YR 4/6 clay loam
38
Depth Color Mottles Texture Notes
0-20 7.5YR 4/6 silt
20-24 7.5YR 5/6 sand
39
Depth Color Mottles Texture Notes
0-6 7.5YR 4/3 7.5YR 3/4 silt loam
6-12 10YR 4/1 7.5YR 4/6 silt clay loam
12-24 2.5Y 4/2 7.5YR 4/6 sand cla loam
40
Depth Color Mottles Texture Notes
0-3 7.5YR 4/4 silt loam
3-8 10YR 4/2 7.5YR 4/6 clay silt loam
8-14 10YR 4/3 7.5YR 4/4 cla loam
14-22 7.5YR 5/6 sand
22-24 10YR 5/2 10YR 5/8 clay sand
41
Depth Color Mottles Texture Notes
0-14 10YR 4/4 7.5YR 4/6 silt loam
14-20 10YR 4/2 7.5YR 4/6 silt loam
20-24 2.5Y 4/2 7.5YR 4/6 silt clay loam
42
Depth Color Mottles Texture Notes
0-8 7.5YR 4/3 cla loam
8-22 7.5YR 4/2 5YR 4/6 clay loam
22-24 10YR 4/2 7.5YR 4/6 loam clay
43
Depth Color Mottles Texture Notes
0-7 7.5YR 4/3 sand silt loam
7-24 7.5YR 413(2) 5YR 4/6 silt loam groundwater at 12"
44
Depth Color Mottles Texture Notes
0-3 7.5YR 4/4 clay loam
3-8 10YR 4/3 7.5YR 4/4 clay loam
8-24 10YR 4/2 7.5YR 4/4 clay loam
45
Depth Color Mottles Texture Notes
0-6 10YR 4/3 silt loam
6-24 10YR 4/2 5YR 4/4 clay loam
46
Depth Color Mottles Texture Notes
0-12 7.5YR 4/3 sand silt loam
12-16 10YR 4/2 7.5YR 4/6 sand silt loam
47
Depth Color Mottles Texture Notes
0-6 10YR 3/3 CF ay
6-12 2.5Y 4/2 5YR 4/4 clay loam
48
Depth Color Mottles Texture Notes
0-7 10YR 4/3 sand clay loam
7-12 10YR 4/2 7.5YR 4/6 cla loam
49
Depth Color Mottles Texture Notes
0-7 10YR 4/3 sand clay loam
7-12 10YR 4/2 7.5YR 4/6 cla loam
SO
Depth Color Mottles Texture Notes
0-4 10YR 4/3
4-12 2.5Y 4/2 7.5YR 4/6 clay loam
51
Depth Color Mottles Texture Notes
0-4 2.5Y 4/2
P
i
;
4-12 10YR 4/2 7.5YR 4/6 loam
c
a
52
Depth Color Mottles Texture Notes
0-2 10YR 4/2 silty clay loam
2-12 10YR 4/2 7.5YR 4/6 clay loam
53
Depth Color Mottles Texture Notes
0-3 2.5Y 3/3 silt loam
3-8 10YR 4/3 silt loam
8-14 2.5Y 5/2 7.5YR 4/6 clay loam
54
Depth Color Mottles Texture Notes
0-4 10YR 4/2 silt loam
4-12 10YR 5/2 10YR 4/6 clay loam
55
Depth Color Mottles Texture Notes
0-5 10YR 4/2 10YR 4/6 F clay loam
5-12 10YR 5/1 7.5YR 4/4 cla loam oxidized roots
56
I_ Depth Color i Mottles Texture Notes
L 0-6_ I 10YR 4/2 I 7.5YR 4/6 clay loam oxidized roots
57
Depth Color Mottles Texture Notes
0-3 10YR 4/4 clay loam
3-12 2.5Y 4/1 10YR 4/6 clay loam oxidized roots
58
Depth Color Mottles Texture Notes
0-4 10YR 4/2 7.5YR 4/4 silt loam
4-12 10YR 4/1 7.5YR 4/6 clay loam oxidized roots
59
Depth Color Mottles Texture Notes
0-3 10YR 4/3 silt loam
3-12 10YR 4/2 5YR 4/4 clay loam
60
Depth Color Mottles Texture Notes
0-4 7.5YR 414 silt loam
4-12 10YR 4/2 5YR 3/6 silty clay loam
APPENDIX 3
Agency Communication and
Approved Categorical Exclusion
Categorical Exclusion Form for Ecosystem Enhancement
Program Projects
Version 1.4
Note: Only Appendix A should to be submitted (along with any supporting documentation) as the
environmental document.

Part 1: General Project Information
Project Name: Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
Count Name: Catawba County
EEP Number: 003241
Project Sponsor: Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Project Contact Name: Andrea M. Spangler
Project Contact Address: 1430 S. Mint Street, Suite 104, Charlotte, NC 28203
Project Contact E-mail: [e-mail]
EEP Project Mana er: Guy Pearce
Project Description
The Lyle Creek Mitigation Site is a stream and wetland mitigation project located in Catawba
County, NC. The project is located on Lyle Creek and its tributaries immediately west of NC
Highway 10. The project will. provide stream and wetland mitigation units to NCEEP in the Catawba
River Basin (03050103). The mitigation project involves a combination of stream restoration and.
•
Reviewed Ely: ry
CI i 13)a 'o 4
Date EE

Pr a Manager
10 -
Conditional Approved By:

Date For Division Administrator
FHWA
? Check this box if there are outstanding issues
Final Approval By:

Date For Division Administrator
FHWA
Part 2: All Projects
• R esponse
_ xr
1. Is the project located in a CAMA county e
?
Yes

2. Does the project involve ground-disturbing activities within a CAMA Area of (.7
? No
Yes
Environmental Concern (AEC)? ? No
N/A
3. Has a CAMA permit been secured? ? Yes
? No
N/A
4. Has NCDCM agreed that the project is consistent with the NC Coastal Management ? Yes
Program? ? No
N/A
Com t ehe ive Environme taLRes ` onsb Cotn ensatiori and t-iabili Act it A, C IAI
1. Is this .a "full-delivery" project? [] Yes
? No
2. Has the zoning/land use of the subject property and adjacent properties ever been ? Yes
designated as commercial or industrial? Q No
? N/A
3. As a result of a limited Phase I Site Assessment, are there known or potential ? Yes
hazardous waste sites within or adjacent to the project area? No
? N/A
4. As a result of a Phase 1 Site Assessment, are there known or potential hazardous Yes
waste sites within or adjacent to the project area? ? No
[E] N/A
5. As a result of a Phase II Site Assessment, are there known or potential hazardous ? Yes
waste sites within the project area? ? No
? N/A
6. Is there an approved hazardous mitigation plan? ? Yes
? No
N/A
National Historic Preservation Act Section 1Q6
1. Are there properties listed on, or eligible for listing on, the National Register of Yes
Historic Places in the project area? Q No
2. Does the project affect such properties and does the SHPO/THPO concur? ? Yes
? No
N/A
3. If the effects are adverse, have they been resolved? ? Yes
? No
?? NIA
Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Pro e Ac uisition € olicies Act uni form Act
1. Is this a "full-delivery" project? F v1
? No
2. Does the project require the acquisition of real estate? P-1 Yes
? No
? N/A
3. Was the property acquisition completed prior to the intent to use federal funds? ? Yes
2] No
? N/A
4. Has the owner of the property been informed: 0 Yes
* prior to making an offer that the agency does not have condemnation authority; and ? No
* what the fair market value is believed to be? ? N/A
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site Categorical Exclusion Documentation
Part 3. Ground-Disturbing Activities
Regulation/Question Response

1. Is the project located in a county claimed as "territory" by the Eastern Band of r Yes
Cherokee Indians? ? No
2. Is the site of religious importance to American Indians? Yes
0 No
? N/A
3. Is the project listed on, or eligible for listing on, the National Register of Historic ? Yes
Places? ? No

4. Have the effects of the project on this site been considered? N/A
? Yes
? No
-- -
N/A
?
- AntiAuitie-s Act MAl
1. Is the project located on Federal lands? Yes
[?] No
2. Will there be loss or destruction of historic or prehistoric ruins, monuments or objects ? Yes
of antiquity?
? No

3. Will a permit from the appropriate Federal agency be required? N/A
? Yes
? No

4. Has a permit been obtained? N/A
Yes
? No
N/A
Archaeological Resources Protection Act. ARPA
1. Is the project located on federal or Indian lands (reservation)? ? Yes

2. Will there be a loss or destruction of archaeological resources? E
? l No
Yes
? No

3. Will a permit from the appropriate Federal agency be required? E]
? N/A
Yes
? No
[D N/A
4. Has a permit been obtained? Yes
? No
N/A
Endan eyed S ecies Act ,ESA
1. Are federal Threatened and Endangered species and/or Designated Critical Habitat [?] Yes
listed for the count ? ? No
2. Is Designated Critical Habitat or suitable habitat present for listed species? Yes-
-n No

3. Are T&E species present or is the project being conducted in Designated Critical ?
? N/A
Yes
Habitat? ? No
N/A
4. Is the project "likely to adversely affect" the species and/or "likely to adversely modify" ? Yes
Designated Critical Habitat? ? No

5. Does the USFWS/NOAA-Fisheries concur in the effects determination?
? N/A
Yes
? No
E] N/A
6. Has the USFWS/NOAA-Fisheries rendered a "jeopardy" determination? ? Yes
? No
0 N/A
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site Categorical Exclusion Documentation

1. Is the project located on Federal lands that are within a county claimed as "territory" Yes
b the EBCI? [] No
2. Has the EBCI indicated that Indian sacred sites may be impacted by the proposed ? Yes
project?
? No
? N/A
3. Have accommodations been made for access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred ? Yes
sites? ? No
N/A
_ Fai tja€td F?fWetion FkWley Act'(FPPA _
1. Will real estate be acquired? Yes
? No
2. Has NRCS determined that the project contains prime, unique, statewide or locally Yes
important farmland? ? No
? N/A
3. Has the completed Form AD-1006 been submitted to NRCS? Yes
? No
- ? N/A
Fislt._aod WildI&',,Cabirdination Adt tFWCA)
1. Will the project impound, divert, channel deepen, or otherwise control/modify any Yes
water body? ? No
2. Have the USFWS and the NCWRC been consulted? Yes
? No
? N/A
Land and Water Conservation Fund Act Section 6
1. Will the project require the conversion of such property to a use other than public, ? Yes
outdoor recreation? El No
2. Has the NPS approved of the conversion? ? Yes-
[] No
P1 N/A
Magnuson-Stevens Fishe Conservation and Milria ement Act Essential Fish ' Ha bitat
1. Is the project located in an estuarine system? ? Yes
R No
2. Is suitable habitat present for EFH-protected species? ? Yes
? No
N/A
3. Is sufficient design information available to make a determination of the effect of the ? Yes
project on EFH? ? No
El N/A
4. Will the project adversely affect EFH? ? Yes
? No
Q N/A
5. Has consultation with NOAA-Fisheries occurred? ? Yes
? No
N/A
Min rato Bird Trea Act MBTA
1. Does the USFWS have any recommendations with the project relative to the META? ? Yes
No
2. Have the USFWS recommendations been incorporated? ? Yes
? No
? N/A
Wilderness Act
1. Is the project in a Wilderness area? ? Yes
0 No
2. Has a special use permit and/or easement been obtained from the maintaining ? Yes
federal agency?
? No
N/A
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site Categorical Exclusion Documentation
July 12, 2010
Renee Gledhill-Earley
State Historic Preservation Office
4617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-4617
Subject: EEP Wetland and Stream mitigation project in Catawba County.
Lyle Creek Mitigation Project
Dear Ms. Gledhill-Earley
The Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) requests review and comment on any possible
issues that might ernerge with respect to archaeological or cultural resources associated with a
potential wetland and stream restoration project on the attached site (a USGS site map using the
Catawba, NC 7.5 Minute Topographic Quadrangle is enclosed). The figure shows the parcel
boundary and areas of potential ground disturbance.
The Lyle Creek Mitigation site has been identified for the purpose of providing in-kind
mitigation for unavoidable stream channel and wetland impacts. Several sections of channel
have been identified as significantly degraded.
No architectural structures or archeological artifacts have been observed or noted during
preliminary surveys of the site for restoration purposes. The majority of the site has historically
been disturbed due to agricultural purposes such as tilling. Enclosed are current photos of the
site.
In addition, Wildlands contracted New South Associates to perform an "in-office" historical and
archaeological screening of the Lyles Creek site. Maps from 1886, 1902, and 1938 showed no
buildings on the site. Their findings indicate that there are no previously recorded archaeological
sites in the tract, and that the area in general has a low potential for archaeological sites. More
importantly, the North Carolina Office of State Archaeology (OSA) reviewed the entire area
when it was being considered for development for sewer facilities. The OSA review (CH09-
2771) recommended clearance without survey, based on the fact that the likelihood of
encountering archaeological sites in these areas is extremely low. New South Associates'
professional opinion is that more detailed surveys would not be required.
We ask that you review this site based on the attached information to determine the presence of
any historic properties.
We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. Please feel free to contact
us with any questions that you may have concerning the extent of site disturbance associated
with this project.
Sincerely,
Andrea M. Spangler
Senior Environmental Planner
cc:
Donnie Brew
EEP Project Manager
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
V,a. SUTE Q.
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Peter B. Sandbeck, Administrator
Beverly Eaves Perdue, Governor
Linda A. Carlisle, Secretary
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
August 11, 2010
Andrea Spangler
Wildlands Engineeruig, Inc.
1430 South Mint Street, #104
Charlotte, NC 28203
Re: Lyle Creek Mitigation Proejct, Catawba County, ER 10-1315
Dear Ms. Spangler:
Thank you for your letter of July 12, 2010, concerning the above project.
Office of Archives and F listory
Division of Historical Resources
David Brook, Director
We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no historic resources which would be affected by
the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the project as proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-807-6579. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above-referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
20 -4-az
a.}
Peter Sandbeck
Location: 109 Lust Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Set-vice Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6599
July 12, 2010
Tyler Howe
Tribal Historic Preservation Specialist
Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians
Tribal Historic Preservation Office
P.O. Box 455
Cherokee. NC 28719
Subject: EEP Wetland and Stream mitigation project in Catawba County.
Lyle Creek Mitigation Project
Dear Mr. Howe,
The Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) requests review and comment on any
possible issues that might emerge with respect to archaeological or religious resources
associated with a potential wetland and stream restoration project on the attached site (a
USGS site map using the Catawba, NC 7.5 Minute Topographic Quadrangle is enclosed).
The figure shows the parcel boundary and areas of potential ground disturbance.
A similar letter has been sent to the North Carolina State Preservation Office for
compliance with Section 106 of the Historic Preservation Act.
The Lyle Creek Mitigation site has been identified for the purpose of providing in-kind
mitigation for unavoidable stream channel and wetland impacts. Several sections of
channel have been identified as significantly degraded. No architectural structures or
archeological artifacts have been observed or noted during preliminary surveys of the site
for restoration purposes. The majority of the site has historically been disturbed due to
agricultural purposes such as tilling. Enclosed are current photos of the site.
In addition, Wildlands contracted New South Associates to perform an "in-office"
historical and archaeological screening of the Lyles Creek site. Maps from 1886, 1902,
and 1938 showed no buildings on the site. Their findings indicate that there are no
previously recorded archaeological sites in the tract, and that the area in general has a low
potential for archaeological sites. More importantly, the North Carolina Office of State
Archaeology (OSA) reviewed the entire area when it was being considered for
development for sewer facilities. The OSA review (CH09-2771) recommended
clearance without survey, based on the fact that the likelihood of encountering
archaeological sites in these areas is extremely low. New South Associates' professional
opinion is that more detailed surveys would not be required.
We ask that you review this site based on the attached information to determine if you
know of any existing resources that we need to know about. In addition, please let us
know the level your future involvement with this project needs to be (if any).
We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. Please feel free to
contact the below referenced EEP Project Manager with any questions that you may have
concerning the extent of site disturbance associated with this project.
Sincerely,
Andrea M. Spangler
Senior Environmental Planner
cc:
Donnie Brew
EEP Project Manager
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699

July 12, 2010
Marella Buncick
US Fish and Wildlife Service
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, NC 28801
Subject: Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
Catawba County, North Carolina
Dear Ms. Buncick,
The Lyle Creek Mitigation Site has been identified for the purpose of providing in-kind
mitigation for unavoidable stream channel and wetland impacts. Several sections of
channel throughout the site have been identified as significantly degraded as a result of
current agricultural activities. Additionally, several on-site areas have been identified for
wetland creation and restoration.
We have already obtained an updated species list for Catawba County from your web site
(http://nc-es.fws.gov/es/countyfr.litml). The threatened or endangered species for this
county are: the bald eagle (Haliaeeius leucocephalus) (BGPA) and the dwarf-flowered
heartleaf (Plihinnium nodosum). We are requesting that you please provide any known
information for each species in the county. The USFWS will be contacted if suitable
habitat for any listed species is found or if we determine that the project may affect one
or more federally listed species or designated critical habitat.
Please provide comments on any possible issues that might emerge with respect to
endangered species, migratory birds or other trust resources from the construction of a
stream and wetland restoration project on the subject property. A USGS map (Figure 1)
showing the approximate property lines and areas of potential ground disturbance is
enclosed. Figure 1 was prepared from the Catawba, NC 7.5-Minute Topographic
Quadrangle.
If we have not heard from you in 30 days we will assume that our species list and site
determination are correct, that you do not have any comments regarding associated laws,
and that you do not have any information relevant to this project at the current time.
We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. Please feel free to
contact us with any questions that you may have concerning the extent of site disturbance
associated with this project.
Sincerely.
Matt L. Jenkins, PWS
Environmental Scientist
Attachment:
Figure 1. USGS Topographic Map

July 12, 20 10
Shannon Deaton
North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission
Division of Inland Fisheries
1721 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
Subject: Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
Catawba County, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Deaton,
The purpose of this letter is to request review and comment on any possible issues that
might emerge with respect to fish and wildlife issues associated with a potential stream
and wetland restoration project on the attached site. A USGS map (Figure 1) showing the
approximate property lines and areas of potential ground disturbance is enclosed. Figure
1 was prepared from the Catawba, NC 7.5-Minute Topographic Quadrangle.
The Lyle Creek Mitigation Site has been identified for the purpose of providing in-kind
mitigation for unavoidable stream channel and wetland impacts. Several sections of
channel throughout the site have been identified as significantly degraded as a result of
current agricultural activities. Additionally, several on-site areas have been identified for
wetland creation and restoration.
We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. Please feel free to
contact us with any questions that you may have concerning the extent of site disturbance
associated with this project.
Sincere)y,
r
Matt L. Jenkins, PWS
Environmental Scientist
Attachment:
Figure 1. USGS Topographic Map
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 9
Gordon Myers, Executive Director
July 19, 2010
Mr. Matt L. Jenkins, PWS
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104
Charlotte, North Carolina 28203
RE: Lyle Creek Mitigation Site, Catawba County
Dear Mr. Jenkins:
This correspondence is in response to your letter of July 12, 2010 requesting wildlife site determinations.
Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) are familiar with habitat
values in the area. The NCWRC is authorized to comment and make recommendations which relate to
the impacts of this project on fish and wildlife pursuant to pursuant to the Clean Water Act of 1977, North
Carolina Environmental Policy Act, US National Environmental Policy Act, Endangered Species Act (16
U. S. C. 1531-1543; 87 Stat 884), and Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended.
The proposed project is proposed to restore an unspecified amount of stream. Based on our review, the
project area has warm water fisheries. Lyle Creek Wetland, Significant Natural Heritage Area # 607 is
located to the northeast. The Santee chub, Cyprinella zanema (NCSR) is known from the area.
Based on our review of your letter and the map provided, we find no reason to object to the restoration
project providing Clean Water Act permits and certifications are obtained prior to beginning any
restoration work. These comments should not be construed as pre-approval of mitigation credits.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project during its early planning stages. If you have
any questions regarding these comments, please contact me at 336-769-9453.
Sincerely,
Ro inville
Regional Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries - 1721 Mail Service Center - Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] - Fax: [phone]
APPENDIX 4
Existing Conditions Data
Existing Stream Geomorphology
Survey Data Available Upon Request
APPENDIX 5
Historical Aerial Photographs
i
Lyle Creek
109 3rd Ave NW
Catawba, NC 28609
Inquiry Number: 2827697.4
July 28, 2010
EDR''
44010Jheee,s`=ai F?oej
Milfom,. CT C?6461
800.352.0050
EDR Aerial Photo Decade Package
Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) Aerial Photo Decade Package is a screening tool designed to assist
environmental professionals in evaluating potential liability on a target property resulting from past activities. EDR's
professional researchers provide digitally reproduced historical aerial photographs, and when available, provide one photo
per decade.
When delivered electronically by EDR, the aerial photo images included with this report are for ONE TIME USE
ONLY. Further reproduction of these aerial photo images is prohibited without permission from EDR. For more
information contact your EDR Account Executive.
Thank you for your business.
Please contact EDR at 1-800-352-0050
with any questions or comments.
- Copyri
This Report contains certain information obtained from a variety of public and other sources reasonably available to Environmental Data Resources, Inc.
It cannot be concluded from this Report that coverage information for the target and surrounding properties does not exist from other sources. NO
WARRANTY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, IS MADE WHATSOEVER IN CONNECTION WITH THIS REPORT. ENVIRONMENTAL DATA
RESOURCES, INC. SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS THE MAKING OF ANY SUCH WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION,
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR USE OR PURPOSE. ALL RISK IS ASSUMED BY THE USER. IN NO EVENT SHALL
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. BE LIABLE TO ANYONE, WHETHER ARISING OUT OF ERRORS OR OMISSIONS, NEGLIGENCE,
ACCIDENT OR ANY OTHER CAUSE, FOR ANY LOSS OF DAMAGE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL,
CONSEQUENTIAL, OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES. ANY LIABILITY ON THE PART OF ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. IS STRICTLY
LIMITED TO A REFUND OF THE AMOUNT PAID FOR THIS REPORT. Purchaser accepts this Report AS IS. Any analyses, estimates, ratings,
environmental risk levels or risk codes provided in this Report are provided for illustrative purposes only, and are not intended to provide, nor should the)
be interpreted as providing any facts regarding, or prediction or forecast of, any environmental risk for any property. Only a Phase I Environmental Site
Assessment performed by an environmental professional can provide information regarding the environmental risk for any property. Additionally, the
information provided in this Report is not to be construed as legal advice.
Copyright 2010 by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in any media or format, in whole or in part, of any report or
of Environmental Data Resources, Inc., or its affiliates, is prohibited without prior written permission.
EDR and its logos (including Sanborn and Sanborn Map) are trademarks of Environmental Data Resources, Inc. or its affiliates. All other trademarks
used herein are the property of their respective owners.

Date EDR Searched Historical Sources:
Aerial Photography July 28, 2010
Target Property:
109 3rd Ave NW
Catawba, NC 28609
Year Scale
1961 Aerial Photograph. Scale: V= I OW'
1983 Aerial Photograph. Scale: I "=1000'
1993 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1 "=750'
1998 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1 "=750'
2006 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1 "=604'
Details Source
Panel #: 35081-F1, Catawba, NC;/Flight Date: August 29, EDR
1961
Panel #: 35081-F1, Catawba. NC;/Flight Date: March 03, EDR
1983
Panel #: 35081-F1, Catawba, NC;/Flight Date: January 30, EDR
1993
Panel #: 35081-F1, Catawba, NCt/Flighl Date: March 13, EDR
1998
Panel #: 35081-F1, Catawba, NCRlight Date: January 01, EDR
2006
2827697.4
2

,Fn - I
Col.
zi,
,r
? a
? 5 K
s
J&A
l
A ?
¦Oi
INQUIRY #: 2827697.4
YEAR: 1983
=10 E

A
L

Y
Y
/ant ? .. } ? ? Wx
tiV 1 # 16, 1 F
R
'.:
} g
INQUIRY #: 2827697.4 ` ""tl f •°
YEAR: 1998 1 N
= 750'
{
H?
t
?a
k'

6•.
?n- r

:,
N
CIS
r
i
APPENDIX 6
FEMA Floodplain Checklist
r
sten. }:.
"osT -
I "'IC
EEP Floodplain Requirements Checklist
This form was developed by the National Flood Insurance program, NC Floodplain
Mapping program and Ecosystem Enhancement Program to be filled for all EEP projects.
The form is intended to summarize the floodplain requirements during the design phase
of the projects. The form should be submitted to the Local Floodplain Administrator
with three copies submitted to NFIP (attn. Edward Curtis), NC Floodplain Mapping Unit
(attn.- John Gerber) and NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program.
Project Location
Name of project: Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
Name of stream or feature: Unnamed tributaries (UTs) in floodplain of Lyle Creek
County: Catawba
Name of river basin: Catawba
Is project urban or rural? rural
Name of Jurisdictional Town of Catawba ETJ
municipality/county:
DFIRM panel number for Community: Town of Catawba
entire site: Community No. 370052
FIRM Panel: 3782, 3781
Map Number: 3710378200K, 3710378100K
Effective Date: March 18, 2008
Consultant name: Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Emil Reinicker, PE, CFM
Phone number: 704-332-7754
Address: 1430 S. Mint Street, Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 28203
FEMA_Floodplain_Checklist Page 1 of 4

V
i
Design Information
Provide a general description ofproject (one paragraph). Include project limits on a
reference orthophotograph at a scale of 1 " = 500'.
Please see attached Figure 7 FEMA Flood Map and Figure 13 Proposed Stream
Restoration Design from the Restoration Plan report.
Summarize stream reaches or wetland areas according to their restoration priority.
No work is proposed on Lyle Creek, the FEMA-mapped stream; however, grading is
taking place on tributary channels and wetlands that are located within the mapped
floodplain of Lyle Creek.
The construction on four unnamed tributaries (UTs) to Lyle Creek will be comprised of
Rosgen Priority 1 restoration of dimension, pattern, and profile. A stable cross-section
will be designed to flood onto the surrounding topography at flows greater than the 1.5-
year bankfull event. A meandering pattern will be restored, and the channel profile
elevation will be raised approximately 6" to 12" to connect the channel to the
surrounding floodplain topography. Low profile in-stream habitat structures comprised
of logs and rocks will be used to help stabilize the channel. Native vegetation will be
planted within the conservation easement boundary to establish a riparian buffer. This
vegetation will replace tree farm fields of 1-inch to 6-inch caliper nursery stock and
fescue. Wetland work will include grading and planting.
Floodplain Information
Is project located in a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA)?
YES- Grading will take place in the Lyle Creek SFHA.
FEMA_Floodplain_Checklist Page 2 of 4
If project is located in a SFHA, check how it was determined:
Rr Detailed Study
r- Limited Detail Study
1" Approximate Study
1"- Don't know
List flood zone designation:
Check if applies:
F AE Zone
04 Floodway
0 Non-Encroachment
F A Zone
0 Local Setbacks Required
0 No Local Setbacks Required
If local setbacks are required, list how man feet: n/a
Does proposed channel boundary encroach outside floodway/non-
encroachment/setbacks?
® Yes No
Land Acquisition (Check)
F State owned (fee simple)
F Conservation easment (Design Bid Build)
Conservation Easement (Full Delivery Project)
Note: if the project property is state-owned, then all requirements should be addressed to
the Department of Administration, State Construction Office (attn: Herbert Neily,
[phone]
Is community/county participating in the NFIP program?
F) Yes 11 No
FEMA_Floodplain Checklist Page 3 of 4
I
W
v+
Name of Local Floodplain Administrator: Mr. John Kinley
Phone Number: 828-485-4238
John Kinley
Planner
Western Piedmont Council of Governments
PO Box 9026
Hickory, NC 28603
828-485-4238
828-322-5991 fax
Floodplain Requirements
This section to be filled by designer/applicant following verification with the LFPA
F No Action
jr7 No Rise
F Letter of Map Revision
Conditional Letter of Map Revision
,?T?.m\
F Other Requirements
List other requirements:
Comments:
Earthwork calculations and grading plan to be submitted showing no net fill in Lyle
Creek floodplain.
Name: Emily G. Reinicker, PE, CFM Signature:
Title: Senior Water Resources Engineer Date: '? ZS )Zol
FEMA_Floodplain_Checklist Page 4 of 4