20061346 Ver 1_Baseline Monitoring Report_20120823

11G i3�6
ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT
YEAR 5 (2011)
CONTRACT D06003 -1
LLOYD STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION SITE
ONSLOW COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
FULL DELIVERY PROJECT
WHITE OAK RIVER BASIN
CATALOGING UNIT 03030001
Prepared for:
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
Restoration Systems, LLC
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 211
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
0 Ra15U V fa
AUG 232012
-.. wAt'tk QUALffY
tht'tLV�� pA STORMW,W'W'C"
Prepared by:
NOV R 20 1i
"C ECOSYSTEM
ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
And
Axiom Environmental. Inc.
November 2011
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Restoration Systems, L L C has completed restoration of stream and wetlands (riverine and nonriverine)
at the Lloyd Stream and Wetland Restoration Site to assist the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program in fulfilling stream and wetland mitigation goals in the region The Site is located approximately
1 mile southeast of Richlands and 5 miles northwest of Jacksonville, in Onslow County The Site is
located in United States Geological Survey (USGS) Hydrologic Unit (HU) 03030001010030 (North
Carolina Division of Water Quality Subbasin 03- 05 -02) of the White Oak River Basin and will service the
USGS 8 -digit CU 03030001 This report serves as the Year 5 (2011) annual monitoring report
Primary activities at the Site included 1) stream restoration, 2) wetland restoration, 3) soil scarification,
and 4) plant community restoration Project restoration efforts provide a minimum of 4750 Stream
Mitigation Units, 3 3 riverme Wetland Mitigation Units, and 3 1 nonriverine Wetland Mitigation Units as
outlined in the June 2005 Technical Proposal
Five vegetation plots (10 meters by 10 meters in size) were established and permanently monumented
These plots were surveyed in August 2011 for the Year 5 (2011) monitoring season Based on the
number of stems present, the average density of all plots was 680 planted stems per acre surviving in Year
5 (2011) The dominant species identified at the Site were planted stems of sycamore (Platanus
occidentahs), sugarberry (Celtis laevigata), and green ash (Frazinus pennsylvanica) In addition, each
individual plot met success criteria with densities ranging from 486 to 850 planted stems per acre A
small area of poor vegetation growth is located near groundwater monitoring Gauge 4, most likely due to
a lack of nutrients in the soil after construction This area is expected to recover naturally No other
vegetation problem areas were noted during the Year 5 (201 1) monitoring season
Twelve cross - sections and longitudinal profiles within three reaches totaling 3442 linear feet were
measured during Year 5 (2011) monitoring As a whole, monitoring measurements indicate that there
have been minimal changes in both the longitudinal profile and cross - sections as compared to as -built
data The as -built channel geometry compares favorably with the emulated, stable E/C type stream reach
as set forth in the detailed mitigation plan and construction plans Current monitoring has demonstrated
dimension, pattern, and profile were stable over the course of the monitoring period No stream problem
areas were noted within the Site during the Year 5 (2011) monitoring year
Nine restoration Site groundwater gauges and one reference groundwater gauge were maintained for the
Year 5 (2011) monitoring season Rainfall for the Year 5 (2011) growing season was below normal with
39 3 inches of rain occurring from January to October 2011 compared to the 30 -year historic mean
rainfall of 49 1 inches occurring from January to October Therefore, success criteria of restoration
gauges are based on comparisons to reference gauge data, analysis of growing season start date, and all
gauges should be considered successful for Year 5 (2011)
Wetlands at the Site are developing well despite continued drought conditions with the development of
hydrophytic herbaceous vegetation and a presence of recent oxidized rhizospheres within the upper 12
inches of soil Based on recent field visits, gauge data, rain data, and analyses of growing season start
dates, wetlands at the Site should be considered successful Drought conditions compounded with an
uncharacteristically late growing season start have led to data results that don't consistently meet success
criteria, however, jurisdictional wetland delineations completed within the Site would undoubtedly find a
surplus of wetlands at the Site beyond minimums outlined in the June 2005 Technical Proposal (3 3
Annual Monitoring Report Executive Summary
Lloyd Stream and Weiland Restoration Site

Riparian WMUs and 3 l Nonriparian WMUs) Based on the Site as constructed, restoration activities
resulted in 8 2 acres of riparian wetland restoration, 3 1 acres of nonriparian wetland restoration, and 19
acres of riparian wetland creation
In summary, the restoration Site achieved success criteria in Year 5 (2011) and should be considered
successful over the five -year monitoring period
Annual Monitoring Report Executive Summary
Lloyd Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
i
1 0 PROJECT BACKGROUND
1
1 1 Location and Setting
1
1 2 Project Objectives
1
1 3 Project Structure, Restoration Type, and Approach
1
1 4 Project History and Background
4
20 PROJECT CONDITION AND MONITORING RESULTS
5
2 1 Vegetation Assessment
5
2 1 l Vegetation Success Criteria
5
2 1 2 Vegetative Problem Areas
6
22 Stream Assessment
6
22 1 Stream Success Criteria
6
2 2 2 Bankfull Events
7
2 2 3 Stream Problem Areas
8
2 2 4 Categorical Stream Feature Visual Stability Assessment
8
2 2 5 Quantitative Stream Measurements
9
23 Wetland Assessment
9
23 1 Wetland Success Criteria
9
2 3 2 Wetland Problem Areas
9
2 3 3 Wetland Criteria Attainment
14
3 0 CONCLUSIONS
17
40 REFERENCES
20
FIGURES
Figure 1 Site Location 2
Figure 2 Annual Climatic Data vs 30 -year Historic Data 15
Figure 3 North Carolina Drought Monitor Maps 16
TABLES
Table 1
Site Restoration Structures and Objectives
3
Table 2
Project Activity and Reporting History
4
Table 3
Project Contacts Table
4
Table 4
Project Background Table
5
Table 5
Planted Species and Reference Forest Ecosystem
6
Table 6
Verification of Bankfull Events
7
Table 7A
-7C Categorical Stream Feature Visual Stability Assessment
8
Table 8
Baseline Morphology and Hydraulic Summary
10
Table 9A
-9C Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
11 -13
Table 10
Summary of Growing Season Start Dates
17
Table 11
Summary of Defined Success Criteria
17
Table 12
Summary of Planted Vegetation Plot Results
17
Table 13
Summary of Groundwater Gauge Results
19
Annual Monitoring Report page i
Lloyd Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

APPENDICES
APPENDIX A VEGETATION DATA
1 Vegetation Survey Data Tables
2 Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos
APPENDIX B GEOMORPHOLOGIC DATA
1 Tables B1 -B3 Visual Morphological Stability Assessment
2 Cross - section Plots and Tables
3 Longitudinal Profile Plots
4 Stream Fixed Station Photos
5 Stream Problem Area Photos
6 Preconstruction Photos
APPENDIX C HYDROLOGY DATA
2011 Groundwater Gauge Data
APPENDIX D MONITORING PLAN VIEW
Annual Monitoring Report page n
Lloyd Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

10 PROJECT BACKGROUND
1 1 Location and Setting
Restoration Systems, L L C (Restoration Systems) has completed restoration of stream and wetlands
(riverine and nonriverine) at the Lloyd Stream and Wetland Restoration Site (hereafter referred to as the
"Site ") to assist the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) in fulfilling stream and
wetland mitigation goals in the region The Site is located approximately I mile southeast of Richlands and
5 miles northwest of Jacksonville, in Onslow County (Figure l) The Site is located in United States
Geological Survey (USGS) Hydrologic Unit (HU) 03030001010030 (North Carolina Division of Water
Quality [NCDWQ] Subbasin 03- 05 -02) of the White Oak River Basin and will service the USGS 8 -digit
Cataloging Unit (CU) 03030001
Directions to the Site from Richlands, North Carolina, are as follows
➢ Travel east on Highway 24 for approximately 4 miles
➢ Turn left on Northwest Bridge Road and travel approximately 2 miles
➢ The Site is on the left
12 Project Objectives
The primary components of the restoration project included 1) construction of a stable, riffle -pool stream
channel, 2) enhancement of water quality functions within, upstream, and downstream of the Site 3)
creation of a natural vegetated buffer along restored stream channels, 4) restoration of jurisdictional
riverine and nonriverme wetlands in the Site, 5) improvement of aquatic habitat and species diversity by
enhancing stream bed variability, and 6) restoration of wildlife functions associated with a riparian
corridor /stable stream
13 Project Structure, Restoration Type, and Approach
A 24 3 -acre conservation easement has been placed on the Site to incorporate all restoration activities The
Site contains 22 5 acres of hydric soil, two unnamed tributaries (UTs) to the New River (main and eastern
tributaries), riparian buffer, and upland slopes The purpose of this project was to restore stable pattern,
dimension, and profile to the UTs, restore hydrology to drained riverine and nonriverine wetlands, and
revegetate streams, floodplains, and wetlands within the Site The Site drainage area encompasses
approximately 1 4 square miles of land at the downstream Site outfall that is characterized by agricultural
land, forest, and low- density residential development
Prior to construction, the entire Site was characterized by active pasture, fallow fields, and forest stands
Pasture was grazed by livestock including cattle and horses, and livestock had access to the entire Site No
exclusionary barriers were located adjacent to onsite streams or wetlands and livestock contributed to
degradation of stream banks, unstable channel characteristics (stream entrenchment, erosion, and bank
collapse), degraded water quality, compacted hydric soils, and decreased wetland function In addition, the
eastern tributary didn't receive natural stream flows A berm had been placed near the eastern property/Site
boundary to redirect stream flows into a linear ditch that drained south along the eastern property boundary
into roadside ditches along the southern property boundary The roadside ditch tied into the main tributary
in the southwestern portion of the Site
The primary goals of this stream and wetland restoration project focused on improving water quality,
enhancing flood attenuation, and restoring aquatic and riparian habitat and were accomplished by
Annual Monitoring Report page 1
Lloyd Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

.7
Directions to the Site from Richlands, North Carolina:
- Take Highway 24 east for – 4 miles
- Turn left on Northwest Bridge Road (denoted as Gum so
Branch Road in some gazateers)
- Travel approximately 2 miles; the Site is on the left
fi--S" L—Al
h E S T
AD.
Z
e flw�
COMMA
%
H
t'v
Jill
W I-As
h,
N.
A.
Joe
Reference HOFMANN i TF FORE 5'T
-1 F6%st
?
4-1
Lloyd r
J,
Site Location
4.
v"
1 mi. -- 0 1 mi. 4 mi. 0
L - - -
1:160,000 T'
Source: 2003 North Carolina Atlas and Gaetteer , p.77. 1; � , - - *,, -1, F.
IF
MI
�.7
JASITE LOCATION Dwn. by: CLF FIGURE
Mi Spftq. NC LLOYD STREAM AND WETLAND Date:
019) �1-3839 f. RESTORATION SITE NOV 2008
Onslow County, North Carolina ProJect: 08-007

• Removing nonpoint sources of pollution associated with agricultural production including a)
removal of livestock from streams, stream banks, and floodplams, b) cessation of broadcasting
fertilizer, pesticides, and other agricultural materials into and adjacent to Site streams and wetlands,
and c) providing a vegetative buffer adjacent to streams and wetlands to treat surface runoff
• Reducing sedimentation within onsite and downstream receiving waters by a) reducing bank
erosion associated with hoof shear, vegetation maintenance, and agricultural plowing to Site
streams and b) providing a forested vegetative buffer adjacent to Site streams and wetlands
• Reestablishing stream stability and the capacity to transport watershed flows and sediment loads by
restoring stable dimension, pattern, and profile
• Promoting floodwater attenuation by a) reconnecting bankfull stream flows to the abandoned
floodplain terrace, b) restoring secondary, entrenched tributaries thereby reducing floodwater
velocities within smaller catchment basins, c) restoring depressional floodpaan wetlands and
increasing storage capacity for floodwaters within the Site, and d) revegetating Site floodplais to
increase frictional resistance on floodwaters crossing Site floodplams
• Improving aquatic habitat by enhancing stream bed variability
• Providing wildlife habitat including a forested riparian corridor within a region of the state highly
dissected by agricultural land use
Primary activities at the Site included 1) belt -width preparation and grading, 2) floodplam bench
excavation, 3) channel excavation, 4) installation of channel and ditch plugs, 5) backfilling of the
abandoned channel and ditches, 6) ditch rerouting, 7) installation of in- stream structures and a Terracell
drop structure at the Site outfall, 8) construction of a piped channel crossing, 9) floodplam soil
scarification, and 10) plant community restoration
Table 1 describes the Site restoration structures and objectives, which have provided a minimum of 4750
Stream Mitigation Units, 3 3 riverme Wetland Mitigation Units, and 3 1 nonriverine Wetland Mitigation
Units as outlined in the June 2005 Technical Proposal Site restoration activities included the following
• Restored 5858 linear feet of stream within two UTs to the New River by constructing meandering,
C/E -type channels
• Restored 3 3 acres of riverine wetland through filling ditches, removal of spoil castings,
eliminating agricultural practices, and/or planting with native forest vegetation
• Restored 3 1 acres of nonriverine wetland through filling ditches, removal of spoil castings,
eliminating agricultural practices, and /or planting with native forest vegetation
• Reforested the entire floodplam with native forest species
Table 1 Site Restoration Structures and Objectives
Restoration Segment/
Reach ID
Station Range
Restoration
T e/A roach *
Designed Linear
Footage/Acreage
SMU/WMUs
Tributary 1
0+00-27+96
Restoration/PI
2796
2796
Tributary 2
0+00-30+62
Restoration/PI
3062
3062
Riverine Wetlands
--
Restoration
3 3
33
Nonriverine Wetlands
--
Restoration
3 1
3 1
Mitigation Unit Summations
Stream
Riverine Wetland
Nonriverine Wetland
,
5858 SMU
3 3 WMU
3 l WMU
*PI= Priority I
Annual Monitoring Report page 3
Lloyd Stream and Weiland Restoration Site

14 Project History and Background
Completed project activities, reporting history, completion dates, project contacts, and background
information are summarized in Tables 24
Table 2 Project Activity and Reporting History
Activity or Report
Data
Collection
Completion
Actual
Completion
or Delivery
Restoration Plan
May 2006
June 2006
Construction Completion
NA
March 2007
Site Planting
NA
March 2007
Mitigation Plan/As- builts
March 2007
May 2007
amended July 2007
Year 1 Monitoring (2008)
November 2007
December 2007
Year 2 Monitoring (2008)
November 2008
November 2008
Year 3 Monitoring (2009)
November 2009
August 2009
Year 4 Monitoring (2010)
November 2010
November 2010
Year 5 Monitoring 2011)
November 2011
November W171
Table 3 Project Contacts Table
Full Delivery Provider
Restoration Systems
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 211
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
George Howard and John Preyer (919) 755 -9490
Construction Contractor
Backwater Environmental
PO Box 1654
Pittsboro, North Carolina 27312
Wes Newell (919) 523 -4375
Planting Contractor
Carolina Silvics
908 Indian Trail Road
Edenton, North Carolina 27932
Dwight McKinney 252 482 -8491
Designer and Year 2 -5 (2008 -2011)
Axiom Environmental, Inc
Monitoring Performer
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
Grant Lewis (919) 215 -1693
Year 1(2007) Monitoring Performer
ARACDIS G &M of North Carolina, Inc
801 Corporate Center Drive, Suite 300
Raleigh, NC 27607
Ben Furr and Keven Duerr (919) 854 -1282
Annual Monitonng Report page 4
Lloyd Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

Table 4. Project Background Table
Project County
Onslow County, North Carolina
Drainage Area
1.4 square miles
Drainage impervious cover estimate %)
< 5
Stream Order
First and Second
Physiographic Region
Coastal Plain
Ecore ion
Carolina Flatwoods
Ros en Classification of As -built
E-/C- type
Cowardin Classification
Riverine: PFO1J
Nonriverine: PFOIA
Dominant Soil Types
Rains, Muckalee, Goldsboro, Grifton,
Craven
Reference Site ID
Bullard Branch
USGS HUC
Site: 03030001
Reference: 03030007
NCDWQ Subbasin
Site: 03 -05 -02
Reference: 03 -06 -22
NCDWQ Classification
C NSW Stream Index # 19 -(1))
Any portion of any project segment 303d listed?
No
Any portion of project upstream of a 303d listed segment?
No
Reasons for 303d listing or stressor
Not Applicable
% of project easement fenced
100%
1.5 Monitoring Plan View
Monitoring activities for the Site, including relevant structures and utilities, project features, specific
project structures, and monitoring features are detailed in the monitoring plan view in Appendix D. Site
features including vegetation, stream dimension (cross - sections), stream profile and pattern, wetland
hydrology, and photographic documentation were monitored in Year 5 (2011).
2.0 PROJECT CONDITION AND MONITORING RESULTS
2.1 Vegetation Assessment
Following Site construction, five plots (10 meters by 10 meters in size) were established and monumented
with metal fence posts at all plot corners and PVC at each plot origin. Sampling was conducted as outlined
in the CVS -EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version 4.0 (Lee et al. 2006)
( http: / /cvs.bio.unc.edu/methods.htm); results are included in Appendix A. The taxonomic standard for
vegetation used for this document was Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, Georgia, and Surrounding Areas
( Weakley 2007). The locations of vegetation monitoring plots were placed to accurately represent the
entire Site and are depicted on the monitoring plan view in Appendix D.
2.1.1 Vegetation Success Criteria
Success criteria have been established to verify that the vegetation component supports community
elements necessary for forest development. Success criteria are dependent upon the density and growth of
characteristic forest species. Additional success criteria are dependent upon density and growth of
"Characteristic Tree Species." Characteristic Tree Species include planted species, species identified
through inventory of a reference (relatively undisturbed) forest community used to orient the planting plan,
and appropriate Schafale and Weakley (1990) community descriptions (Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp
and Nonriverine Wet Hardwoods Forest). All canopy tree species planted and identified in the reference
Annual Monitoring Report page 5
Lloyd Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

forest will be utilized to define `Characteristic Tree Species" as termed in the success criteria Table 5
below outlines planted and reference forest species
Table 5 Planted Species and Reference Forest Ecosystem
Planted Species
Reference SiDecies
Pawpaw Astmina triloba
Red ma le Acer rubrum)
River birch Betula nt a
Ironwood Warpinus carohniana
Mockernut hickory (Ca rya albs
Pignut hi kory Warya labra
Water hickory (Ca rya a uatica
Do ood Wornus s
Su arbe Celtis laevt ata)
Ash Froxtnus s
Buttonbush Ce halanthus occtdentalts)
American holly Ilex o aca
Green ash (Fraxinus enns lvanica )
Sweet um Lt uidambar s ract ua
Black walnut Ju lans nt a
Yellow novlar Ltriodendron tult t era
Black gum N ssa s lvatica
White oak uercus alba
Sycamore Platanus occtdentalts)
Water oak uercus nt a
Cher bark oak uercus pagoda)
Laurel oak uercus laurt oha
Water oak uercus nt a
Swamy chestnut oak uercus michauxtr
Willow oak uercus hellos)
Cher bark oak uercus pagoda)
American elm Ulmus americana)
,' ' - _ `'
Success criteria dictate that an average density of 320 stems per acre of Character Tree Species must be
surviving in the first three monitoring years Subsequently, 290 Character Tree Species per acre must be
surviving in year 4 and 260 Character Tree Species per acre in year 5
2 1 2 Vegetative Problem Areas
Vegetation sampling across the Site was above the required average density with an overall average of 680
planted stems per acre A small area of poor vegetation growth is located near groundwater monitoring
Gauge 4, most likely due to a lack of nutrients in the soil after construction This area is expected to
recover naturally Four small (less than 2 feet tall) privet bushes near Station 16 +00 of Tributary I were
treated with a 2% solution of glyphosate herbicide in July 2009 during the Year 3 (2009) monitoring
season No other vegetation problem areas were noted during the Year 5 (2011) monitoring season
22 Stream Assessment
Twelve permanent cross - sections within three reaches totaling 3442 linear feet were established after
construction was completed Measurements of each cross - section include points at all breaks in slope
including top of bank, bankfull, and thalweg Riffle cross - sections are classified using the Rosgen stream
classification system Longitudinal profile measurements include thalweg, water surface, and bankfull,
with each measurement taken at the head of facets (i a riffle, run, pool, and glide) in addition to the
maximum pool depth
22 1 Stream Success Criteria
Success criteria for stream restoration will include l) successful classification of the reach as a functioning
stream system ( Rosgen 1996) and 2) channel variables indicative of a stable stream system
The channel configuration will be measured on an annual basis in order to track changes in channel
geometry, profile, or substrate These data will be utilized to determine the success in restoring stream
channel stability Specifically, the width -to -depth ratio should characterize an E -type and /or a borderline
E -type /C -type channel (5 18), bank - height ratios indicative of a stable or moderately unstable channel, and
minimal changes in cross - sectional area, channel width, and /or bank erosion along the monitoring reach In
Annual Monitoring Report page 6
Lloyd Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

addition, channel abandonment and/or shoot cutoffs must not occur and sinuosity values must remain at
approximately 1 3 (thalweg distance /straight -line distance) The field indicator of bankfull will be
described in each monitoring year and indicated on a representative channel cross - section figure If the
stream channel is down - cutting or the channel width is enlarging due to bank erosion, additional bank or
slope stabilization methods will be employed
Some areas within the design channel may be expected to form low- slope, braided, stream/swamp
complexes similar to Muckalee swamps in the area These stream/swamp complexes would not be
considered unstable, however, footage of stream channel restoration in these reaches will be recalculated
from distance along the thalweg (1 3 sinuosity) to distance along the valley (1 0 sinuosity)
Stream substrate is not expected to coarsen over time, therefore, pebble counts are not proposed as part of
the stream success criteria
Visual assessment of in- stream structures will be conducted to determine if failure has occurred Failure of
a structure may be indicated by collapse of the structure, undermining of the structure, abandonment of the
channel around the structure, and/or stream flow beneath the structure
2 2 2 Bankfull Events
Five bankfull events were documented during the Year 5 (2011) monitoring period to date for a total of
twenty-one bankfull events
Table 6 Verification of Bankfull Events
Date of Data
Collection
Date of
Occurrence
Method -State Climate Office of North Carolina Precipitation Data
Precipitation
Total inches
Station
--
5/18/07
1 1
314471 - Jacksonville
--
6/3/07
l 25
--
6/30/07
1 39
--
7/21/07
205
--
8/12/07
1 52
--
8/22/07
126
--
9/20/07
1 54
314144 — Hoffman Forest
--
9/21/07
1 54
March 2009
Feb 28 -Mar 2, 2009
228
Documented at a nearby rain gauge at Jarmans Oak Restoration
Site
A nl 2009
Aril 14, 2009
301
A nl 2009
May 16 -18, 2009
305
April 2010
November 11, 2009
50
Greater than 5 inches of rain documented between November
10 -12, 2009 as the result of Tropical Storm Ida
April 2010
February 5, 2010
165
Visual observations of overbank resulting from a 165 inch
rainfall event on February 5, 2010 that occurred after numerous
rainfall events, within the 3 weeks prior, that totaled 4 32 inches
November 2011
May 16-19,2010
267
Documented at an onsite rain gauge
November 2011
June 29, 2010
261
November 2011
Jul 10 -14, 2010
459
November 2011
February 4, 2011
1 69
November 2011
Jul 23, 2011
1 73
November 2011
Jul 28 -31, 2011
3 12
November 201 L
August 6, 2011
22
November 2011
August 26 -27, 2011
774
Annual Monitoring Report page 7
Lloyd Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

223 Stream Problem Areas
No stream problem areas were noted within the Site during the Year 5 (201 1) monitoring year Beaver
continue to be controlled as necessary
224 Categorical Stream Feature Visual Stability Assessment
Each stream reach was visually inspected during the Year-5 (2011) monitoring period using eight feature
categories and various metrics within each category Assessment features included riffles, pools, thalweg,
meanders, channel bed, structures, and root wads /boulders Tables for semi- quantitative assessements of
each reach are included in Appendix B (Tables B 1 -B3) The mean percentage of performance for features
within each reach are summarized in the tables below
Table 7A Categorical Stream Feature Visual Stability Assessment
Lloyd Reach 1
Feature
As -built
Year 1
200
Year 2
2008
Year 3
2009
Year 4
2010
Year 5
2011
A Riffles
100%
100%
99%
99%
99%
99%
B Pools
100%
90%
1 100%
100%
100%
100%
C Thalwe
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
D Meanders
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
E Bed General
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
F Banks
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
G Vanes/ J Hooks, Etc
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
H Wads and Boulders
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Table 7B Categorical Stream Feature Visual Stability Assessment
Llovd (Reach 2)
Feature
As -built
Year 1
2007
Year 2
2008
Year 3
2009
Year 4
2010
Year 5
2011
A Riffles
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
B Pools
100%
100%
99%
99%
99%
99%
C Thalwe
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
D Meanders
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
E Bed General
100%
95%
100%
100%
100%
100%
F Banks
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
G Vanes/ J Hooks, Etc
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
H Wads and Boulders
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Annual Monitoring Report page 8
Lloyd Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

Table 7C Categorilcal Stream Feature Visual Stability Assessment
Lloyd Reach 3
Feature
As -built
Year 1
2007
Year 2
2008
Year 3
2009
Year 4
2010
Year 5
2011
A Riffles
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
B Pools
100%
90%
1 98%
100%
100%
100%
C Thalwe
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
D Meanders
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
E Bed General
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
F Banks
100%
90%
100%
100%
100%
100%
G Vanes/ J Hooks, Etc
100%
100%
88%
88%
88%
88%
H Wads and Boulders
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2 2 5 Quantitative Stream Measurements
During the Year 5 (2011) monitoring period 12 cross - sections and longitudinal profiles within three reaches
totaling 3442 linear feet were measured Permanent cross - sections, longitudinal profiles, and photographs
are included in Appendix B As a whole, monitoring measurements indicate minimal changes in both the
longitudinal profile and cross - sections as compared to as-built conditions Although detailed surveys of as-
built conditions weren't conducted immediately following construction, the monitored profiles and cross -
sections in Year 1 (2007) match the designed stream channel Therefore, comparisons for each subsequent
year will be made with Year 1 (2007), which accurately represents the as- built/baseline conditions The
Year 5 (2011) channel geometry compares favorably with the emulated, stable E/C type stream reach as set
forth in the detailed mitigation plan and as constructed Current monitoring has demonstrated dimension,
pattern, and profile were stable over the course of the monitoring period Tables for quantitative
assessments are included below, these tables include data from previous years
23 Wetland Assessment
Five groundwater monitoring gauges and one reference groundwater gauge were maintained and monitored
throughout the Year 5 (2011) growing season Four additional gauges and a rain gauge were installed at
the beginning of the Year 4 (2010) monitoring season and continue to be monitored Graphs of
groundwater hydrology and precipitation are included in Appendix C
2 3 1 Wetland Success Criteria
Target hydrological characteristics include saturation or inundation for at least 10 percent within Rains
soils (nonriverine wetlands) and 8 percent within Muckalee soils (riverme wetlands) of the growing season,
during average climatic conditions The growing season extends from April 8 to November 5 (212 days)
This value is based on DRAINMOD simulations for 42 years of rainfall data in an old field stage These
areas are expected to support hydrophytic vegetation If wetland parameters are marginal as indicated by
vegetation and/or hydrology monitoring, a Jurisdictional determination will be performed in these areas
(Environmental Laboratory 1987)
In atypical dry years, the hydroperiod must exceed 75 percent of the hydroperiod exhibited by the reference
gauges Reference gauge data will be used to compare wetland hydroperiods between the restoration areas
and relatively undisturbed reference wetlands This data will supplement regulatory evaluation of success
criteria and also provide information that shall allow interpretation of mitigation success in years not
supporting "normal" rainfall conditions
2 3 2 Wetland Problem Areas
No wetland problem areas were identified within the Site during Year 5 (2011) monitoring
Annual Monitoring Report page 9
Lloyd Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

Table 8 Baseline Morphology and Hydraulic Summary
Entire Prniect - SRSR If
Parameter
USGS Gage Data
Preprolect
Eastern Tributary
PreprojeLt
Main Tributary
Project Reterence Stream
Design
As -Built
Dimension
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
BF Width (ft)
46
72
65
63
84
71
N/A
N/A
93
77
11
94
79
79
89
Hood prone Width (ft
78
102
9
87
108
93
1 )O
250
225
150
250
225
N/A
N/A
N/A
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft2
6 1
62
61
67
72
69
N/A
N/A
116
61
12 1
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
BF Mean Depth (ft
08
1 3
1
08
1 1
1
N/A
N/A
1 2
08
1 2
1
N/A
N/A
N/A
BF Max Depth (ft
1 2
1 7
14
09
1 3
1 3
N/A
N/A
2 3
1
23
16
1 2
16
1 3
Width/Depth Rati
3 5
86
65
5 9
105
7
N/A
N/A
74
7
12
10
N/A
N/A
N/A
Entrenchment Rau
1 3
1 8
l 5
1 1
1 5
14
161
269
242
16
27
24
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bank Height Ratio
45
9
64
49
52
5 1
N/A
N/A
I
1
1 3
1
N/A
N/A
N/A
Wetted Perimeter (ft
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Hydraulic Radius (11
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft
No distinctive pattern due
No disttni tive pattern due
21
36
34
1
77
31
N/A
N/A
N/A
Radius of Curvature (ft]
to channel straightening
to channel straightening
137
186
161
15
44
21
18
53
23
Meander Wavelength (ft
activities
activities
55
82
71
46
154
75
N/A
N/A
N/A
Meander Width Ratic
2 3
39
37
2
7
4
N/A
N/A
N/A
Profile
Riffle Length (ft
No distinctive repetitive
No distinctive repetitive
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Riffle Slope (ft/ft
pattern of riffles and pools
pattern of riffles and pools
0 007
0 016
00129
00007
0 0064
00033
N/A
N/A
N/A
Pool Length (ft
due to channel I
due to channel r
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Pool Spacing (ft
straightening activities
straightening activities
32
55
43
31
77
47
N/A
N/A
N/A
Substrate
d50 (mm)
N/A
N/A
I
N/A
I
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
d84 (mm)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
I N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
I N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Additonal Reach Parameters
Valley Length (ft
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Channel Length (ft
N/A
N/A
N/A
5 858
N/A
Sinuosity
1 02
1 02
1 37
1 3-14
N/A
Water Surface Slope (ft/tl
00043
00032
0 004
00025
N/A
BF Slope (tuft
N/A
N/A
N/A
00025
N/A
Rosgen Classificatio
G5/6
G5/6
E6
E5/6
N/A
N/A = Not Available

Table 9A Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Lloyd Reach 1 0180 linear feet)
Parameter
Cross Section 5 RiMe
Cross Section 6 Max Pool
Cross Section 7 Max Pool
Cross Section 8 Riffle
Dimension
MYI
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY4
MY+
MYl
MY2
Nil
MY4
MYi
NIY+
MY1
NIV2
MY3
Ml
NIY
MY
NIYI
MY2
NIV3
NIV4
MY5
NIY+
BF Width 11)
81
86
82
76
84
115
112
108
122
116
134
146
147
16
17
74
112
69
8
79
Flood prone Width ft)
39
38
38
38
38
63
—
--
--
—
>100
—
--
—
>90
80
80
80
80
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft2 )
61
54
63
62
65
112
112
114
106
97
146
156
173
18
17
55
56
51
51
49
BF Mean Depth R)
08
06
08
08
08
1
1
1 1
09
08
11
1 1
12
1 1
1
07
05
07
06
06
BF Max Depth ft)
1 1
1
1 1
1 1
1 1
2
1 8
1 9
1 7
1 7
2 1
2
2
2 1
1 8
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1
Width/Depth Ratio
107
13 5
108
92
11
11 8
—
--
—
--
123
—
99
223
93
13
13
Entrenchment Ratio
48
44
46
5
45
55
—
--
—
—
75
—
--
—
—
122
72
12
10
10
Bank Height Ratio
10
10
10
10
10
10
—
--
—
—
10
—
—
--
10
10
101
10
10
Wetted Perimeter ft)
87
9
87
82
89
124
12
117
129
123
143
151
154
17
18
79
115
74
84
83
Hydraulic Radius ft)
07
07
07
08
07
09
09
1
08
08
1
1
11
11
1
07
05
07
06
06
Substrate
d50 (mm)
<0 I
--
—
-
<0 I
—
--
—
<0 I
—
—
—
—
<0 1
—
—
—
—
d84 (mm)
<0 1
—
—
--
<0 l
—
--
<0 l
—
—
<0 1
--
—
Parameter
MY -01 (2007)
MY -02 (2008)
MV -03 (2009)
MV -04 (2010)
NIV -05 (2011)
MV -5 +(2012)
Mtn
Max
Med
Mtn
Max
Med
Mm
Max
Med
Mm
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Pattern
Channel Beltwtdth ft)
15
61
32
15
61
32
15
61
32
15
61
32
15
61
32
Radius of Curvature ft
16
31
21
16
31
21
16
31
21
16
31
21
16
31
21
Meander Wavelength (ft)
61
111
76
61
111
76
61
111
76
61
111
76
61
111
76
Meander Width Ratio
25
102
53
25
102
53
25
102
53
25
102
53
25
102
53
Profile
Rifle Length (ft)
7
32
18
12
32
78
3
38
17
31
30
15
5
39
14
Riffle Slope ft/ft)
0 00%
0 05%
0 39%
0 00%
0 00%
0 68%
000%
137%1000%
0 00%
3 63%
0 11 %
Pool Length ft
8
47
22
13
24
34
3
20
10
91
401
24
3
47
15
Pool Spacing 11)
25
66
48
25
66
48
25
66
48
25
1 66
1 48
25
66
48
Addttonal Reach Parameters
Valley Length ft
928
928
896
912
895
Channel Length (ft)
1180
1180
1165
1186
1163
Sinuosity
13
13
13
13
13
Water Surface Slope ft /ft)
no water In c.h
00002
00003
00008
0 008
BF Slope ft/ft
00003
00003
00003
00003
00003
Ros en Classification
E5 /6
E5/6
E5/6
E 5/6
E 5/6

Table 9B Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Lloyd Reach 2 (1345 linear feet)
Parameter
Cross Section 1 Max Pool
Cross Section 2 Riffle
Cross Section 3 Max Pool I
Cross Section 4 Riffle
Dimension
MYI
MY2
IMY3
MY4
MYS
I MY+
MYI
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
IVIV+
MYI
MV2
MY3
MY4
117Y
MV4
AIYI
MY2
MY3
MV4
NIVI
MY+
BF Width R)
127
15
126
124
132
83
87
92
95
98
117
156
99
10
11
74
8
74
75
74
Flood prone Width (ft)
>100
—
--
--
--
>100
150
150
150
150
>150
--
--
-
- --
120
150
150
150
150
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
167
173
169
173
176
73
66
77
76
7
223
156
105
13
12
54
56
52
54
56
BF Mean Depth (ft)
13
12
13
14
13
09
08
08
08
07
19
1
1 1
13
1 1
07
07
07
07
08
BF Max Depth ft
27
24
25
25
23
14
12
13
12
12
33
21
17
2
19
12
12
12
12
12
Width/Depth Ratio
96
- - --
- --
- - --
--
95
1 1 4
11
11 7
14
6 1
--
--
--
- --
102
11 6
11
10
93
Entrenchment Ratio
79
--
--
--
12
173
163
159
15 31
128
--
—
—
162
186
20
20
20
Bank Height Ratio
10
--
--
- --
10
1 0
10
10
1 0
10
--
--
--
- --
1 0
10
10
10
10
Wetted Perimeter (ft
143
163
139
139
89
91
97
10
102
141
164
109
12
12
79
87
79
8l
8
H draulicRadius ft)
12
07
12
12
08
07
08
08
07
16
09
1
1 1
1
07
06
07
07
07
Substrate
L144
d50 (mm)
0 3
--
--
--
0 3
- --
- --
0 3
- --
- --
- --
--
0 3
d84 mm
6
---
--
--
6
--
--
—
--
6
--
- —
--
--
6
--
—
- --
--
V
777
5"4
Parameter
MV -01 (2007)
MY -02 (2008)
MV -03 (2009)
MV -04 (2010)
MY -05 (2011)
MV- 5+(2012)
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Nfin
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Mm
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
17
58
34
17
58
34
17
58
34
17
58
34
17
58
34
Radius of Curvature (ft)
18
31
21
1 18
31
21
18
31
21
18
31
21
18
31
21
Meander Wavelength (ft)
53
113
85
53
113
85
53
113
85
53
113
85
53
113
85
Meander Width Ratio
28
97
57
28
97
57
28
97
57
28
97
57
28
97
57
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
6
44
20
11
26
54
4
46
20
1 2
37
17
4
45
21
Riffle Slope Wft)
0
004
001
000%
2 15%
0 84%
0 00%
305%
060%
000%
2 72%10
42%
0 00%
3 12%
025%'- 25%
Pool Length (ft)
5
66
22
13
24
38
12
63
24
13
77
30
5
23
11
PoolSpacing R
24
100
54
24
100
54
24
100
54
24
100
54
24
100
54
Addttonal Reach Parameters
Valley Length (ft)
1005
1005
1056
1039
1044
Channel Length (ft)
1343
1343
1373
1351
1357
Sinuosity
13
13
13
13
13
Water Surface Slope ft/ft
00033
00033
00032
00032
00029
BF Slope ft/ft)
00033
00033
00032
00032
00029
Ros en Classification
E5
E5
E5
E5
E5

Table 9C Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Lloyd Reach 3 (917 linear feet)
Parameter
Cross Section 9 Max Pool
Cross Section 10 Riffle
Cross Section 11 Max Pool
Cross Section 12 Riffle
Dimension
MYI
MV2
MV3
MY4
MY5
Ml'+
111Y1
MV2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
MYI
MV2
MY3
MV4
MVI
MY
MV
MV2
M>
1111'
MY
MY+
BF Width (ft)
147
173
15
157
171
109
99
97
93
10
131
169
122
13
13
101
122
it
12
93
Flood prone Width (ft)
>200
--
- --
- - --
--
>110
150
150
150
150
>230
--
- --
- --
--
>170
150
150
150
150
BF Cross Sectional Area 112)
212
203
172
205
203
11 l
114
102
92
96
193
238
214
23
23
106
13 1
12
12
12
BF Mean Depth (ft)
14
12
1 1
13
1 2
1
1 2
1 1
1
1 5
14
1 8
1 8
1 7
1
1 1
1 1
1
13
BF Max Depth ft
29
24
24
24
23
17
16
l7
16
29
32
32
33
32
17
21
2
2
2
Width/Depth Ratio
101
--
--
- --
- --
108
86
92
10
88
--
--
--
--
96
113
10
11
72
Entrenchment Ratio
136
--
--
- --
--
10 1
152
15 5
d161
l5
17 6
--
- --
- --
- - --
l69
12 3
13
13
16
Bank Hei ht Ratio
1 0
--
--
- --
—
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
- --
- --
--
—
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
16 1
I8 1
16 2
16 6
17 9
l l 5
10 9
10 6
0 7
14 6
18 8
14 5
I S
16
I I
13
12
13
10
H draulic Radius ft
1 3
1 l
1 l
1 2
l 1
1 0
1 0
1 0
09
1 3
13
1 5
1 5
1 5
1 0
1 0
10
1 0
12
Substrate
d50 (mm)
01
—
- --
--
0 1
--
- --
- --
0 1
--
--
—
- --
01
--
--
- --
--
d84 (mm)
1
—
--
- --
--
I
--
--
--
--_
1
—
___
--
- —
1
--
--
--
—
Parameter
MY -01 (2007)
MV -02 (2008)
111Y -03 (2009)
NIV -04 (2010)
NIV -05 (2011)
NIV -5+ (2012)
Mm
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Mm
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
24
64
43
24
64
43
24
64
431
24
64
43
24
64
43
Radius of Curvature (ft )
19
33
23
19
33
23
19
33
23
19
33
23
19
33
23
Meander Wavelength ft
64
106
91
64
106
91
64
106
91
64
106
91
64
106
91
Meander Width Ratio
22
58
39
22
58
39
22
58
39
22
58
39
22
58
39
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
12
33
191
11
24
54
7
60
19
7
35
18
8
53
18
Riffle Slope (11/fl)
0
003
001
000%
2 15%
091%
000%
165%
059%
000%
229%
094%
010%
186%
043%
Pool Length ft)
15
64
29
24
68
38
16
62
33
161
66
34
4
291
13
Pool Spacing 11)
38
83
56
38
83
56
38
83
56
381
831
56
38
831
56
Addrtonal Reach Parameters
Valley Length ft)
649
649
649
649
730
Channel Length ft)
917
917
917
917
1022
Sinuosity
14
14
14
14
14
Water Surface Slope 11/11)
00034
00032
00033
00037
00032
BF Slope ft/ft)
00029
00029
00029
00029
00029
Ros en Classificationj
E5
E5
E5
E5
E5

2.3.3 Wetland Criteria Attainment
Monitoring results and factors that should be considered when evaluating Site wetlands are discussed
below and include regional rainfall and drought analyses, Site landscape position, and the growing season.
Regional Rainfall and Drought Analyses
A thorough analysis of precipitation and drought conditions at the Site was completed by Restoration
Systems (Analysis of Issues Related to the Lloyd Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site), Year 1 (2007) -
Year 3 (2009). Based on the resulted of the analysis Year 1 (2007) - Year 3 (2009) are considered to be
atypically dry years. In addition, rainfall for the Year 5 (2011) growing season was below normal with
39.3 inches of rain occurring from January to October 2011 compared to the 30 -year historic mean rainfall
of 49.1 inches occurring from January to October (Figures 2 and 3). Therefore, all restoration area gauges
are compared to the reference gauge, which is located within a jurisdictional wetland. The value obtained
for each restoration area gauge was compared to the value obtained for the reference gauge. If the
restoration area gauge value exceeded 75 percent of the value exhibited for the reference gauge for that
monitoring year, the restoration gauge was then considered successful.
Landscape Position
Site tributaries are first- and second -order streams that drain an approximately 1.4- square mile watershed at
the Site outfall. Site physiography is characterized by a relatively broad, nearly level alluvial valley and an
interstream divide located between Site streams. As a result of the relatively low slope, hydration of
wetlands is primarily driven by stream overbank flooding and upland runoff within riparian wetlands, and
direct precipitation within nonriparian wetlands. Lateral groundwater migration plays a lesser role than
typical within riparian wetlands due to the low slope and a lack of springs and seeps. Therefore, all
wetlands within the Site are highly dependent on rainfall and are affected to a greater extent by drought.
As documented within Analysis of Issues Related to the Lloyd Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site, the Site
has continued to be in a drought since before Site construction.
Growing Season
According to the Soil Survey of Onslow County, North Carolina, the growing season extends from April 8
to November 5 (212 days). However, the start date for the growing season is not typical for the Coastal
Plain region and should start earlier as evidenced by bud development noted consistently in February. The
following are photographs taken at the Site on February 15, 2011 showing leaf -out on buttonbush plants
(Cephalanthus occidentalis). In addition, soil temperatures were taken on February 22, 2011 by digging
multiple pits using a hand trowel. Recorded temperatures ranged from 50 -55 degrees at a depth of 12
inches from the soil surface.
Annual Monitoring Report page 14
Lloyd Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

16
14
12
Figure 2, Annual Climatic Data vs. 30 -year Historic Data
Month
300A*
70'/*
2010 **
2011 * **
Jan
3.88
5.92
2.35
2.91
Feb
2.37
4.65
2.42
4.35
Mar
3.54
5.31
3.27
2.95
Apr
1.84
3.77
0.61
0.68
May
2.99
4.69
1 3.35
0.62
Jun
3.2
5.82
4.84
3.36
Jul
4.81
7.95
6.11
6.5
Aug
4.62
8.15
5.11
11.57
Sep
1 3.28
7.87
17.03
2.8
Oct
1.85
4.46
1.28
3.55
Nov
2.56
1
4.42
1 1.18
Dec
2.33
4.4
1 3.32
* Hoffman Forest, NC 30 -year Historic Data (NOAA 2004)
* *Onsite rain gauge data for April- December 2010, a nearby rain gauge at
Jarmon's Oaks Restoration Site for March 2010, and from a weather station
at the Jacksonville Airport (KOAJ) for January-February 2010
B (Weatherunderground 2010)
* * *Onsite rain gauge data
6
4
2 -
f
0
J40
t l
r �
Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug $ep Cxt Nov Dec
k.wJ2010 ** X2011 "* + 3096' • 70%1
Annual Monitoring Report page 15
Lloyd Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

,�t+t�,�.i71tIL�r /���:,i� ��'y ��E / ►�,'//���`�•�1 �'�.�rlS'"�-i�r.> �,a Q7'�!� �i� � +,�
isyb► � y�1i 4 � ^"� ' r t
March 13, 2007 May 29, 2007 July 17, 2007 September 4, 2007 October 23, 2007
,��'�^"�w'
�4 ai+ 4x 1q . Qtl f�lY+ .V14
�1
r.
December 18, 2007 February 5. 2008 April 1, 2008 June 10, 2008 July 1, 2008
w's �a x +sr •_var�N's rs• ., :ter a {,R ors+ ,err N{ r :� � ! y��s,
�-r �j�►'�'�� ��� �.r� �1►. � i�,R V � Milt �4..v, r�111:�� •'��e ��''
.'[I'�! rp .a' i i'm+,► y l-� . _ a} �'A�r'�fit ^: _ � >,e. ��l�s� to �{ � � tir s�'�I
'a,��M' "- +.+i��a�►' f�?�S'+,►",�y;i�a,���r' , : ������+- ��1�+ra,3��YS���RyE''"
September 2, 2008 November 4, 2008 January 6, 2009 March 3, 2009 May 5, 2009
�':i�1 /►��Ai'".i -�r' �"'M`�� /l��J��' • ��i s•w 4„ ��7/s/��Y�►`iv4�, � -aA�NL ~�N��1
y,. �'•4• � .bra 1 ! !�� rac�l/Y� /�!�''y'tyj ���r*/�Nf ♦�,+� �rN / / ►���1�,.,+r
�sv"� i�i�•s Jt'y+�; . - �si��ia t''.'�1Y�,, r_��"�►; �.r.13�•+�.s �tj� =it��'•�f� - ��►�:ii��� u
July 7. 2009 September 1, 2009 November 3. 2009 January 5, 2010 March 9, 2010
r!!r� ; + /..��w =s •S':m�l��t�/y`��" �^���•Ca / ►+�.r.�' ,Y- *rM'!4�"arr. �_,.rvea/ M+'r.
� '��. ♦ +a:. v i +iNn� �•f�. r « wN,l_`y�1±v � ^rlr #1��►"x /rt'.yr!V
�.��.�i�rd;�MJ+`r� <. •�e�w�:il�t +Iqi • +,4�:1.�1�+► � � t+ 1•:'� ��3Kt <� �' Q:�►'�iEi�;,�wagi�8�
- ��sN�►+tw�t.� *.a>�1�;�� �ase�.��.��� sl�irr�� : y� ►r�.��rh� �y• tiys���af�4��� - ��r►�/�-•�.RSe'►�
�,� Y�/t,� ,. ay " ` �yej+/ r -• �M �+ �'ta* ,w� *sy" �w Y� +M`.
May 4. 2010 JUIy 6, 2010 September 7 2010 November 30, 2010 January 11, 2011
yr,�r,src.x.r��i9''''. as +ya►a4j�'•.. s�f,,,�ia�e,''%'• �� �rgp'�ii��
�r s.fY -': /.s1�t+r�s �r rr W- ►�a + /s!~.ry r Ali► ~�i``"'�'�'' l�Y � r rti '.p�.1�Y`S�V
March 15, 2011 May 10, 2011 July 19. 2011 September 13. 2011 November 8, 2011

Therefore we have analyzed the gauge data three different ways as follows
1 Using the Onslow County start date of April 8
2 Based on an average regional start date of March 17 for adjacent counties including Pender, Lenoir,
Carteret, Jones, and Dupltn (see table below, which gives the growing season start dates for
adjacent counties as reported in the corresponding county soil survey)
3 A start date of March 1, which occurred well -after the beginning of the actual growing season for
2011 as noted by bud development and soil temperatures
Table 10 Summary of Growing Season Start Dates
County
Growing Season Start Date
28 degrees 5 years in 10
Onslow
Aril 8
Pender
March 19
Lenoir
March 12
Carteret
February 27
Jones
March 15
Du lin
April 9
Utilizing an earlier start date extends the length of the growing season and subsequently the number of days
required for success The following table gives the required number of consecutive days based on the
growing season used, wetland type, and percent consecutive inundation/saturation required for success
followed by a table outlining gauge results
Table 11 Summary of Defined Success Criteria
Growing Season/Total Days
Riparian Wetland 8 percent)
Nonri arian Wetland 10 percent)
Onslow County/212 days
17 days
21 days
Regional/234 days
19 days
23 days
March 1/250 days
20 days
25 days
30 CONCLUSIONS
Stream monitoring has demonstrated dimension, pattern, and profile were stable over the course of the five -
year monitoring period In addition, all vegetation plots across the Site were above the required 260 stems
per acre with an average of 680 tree stems per acre in the Fifth Monitoring Year (Year 201 1) (Table 12)
Table 12 Summary of Planted Vegetation Plot Results
Plot
Planted Stems/Acre Counting Towards Success Criteria
Year 1 2007
Year 2 2008
Year 3 2009
Year 4 2010
Year 5 2011
1
728
607
607
607
647
2
728
809
769
850
850
3
809
769
891
688
647
4
445
445
810
769
769
5
364
364
364
405
486
Average of All
Plots (1 -5)
615
599
688
656
680
Annual Monitoring Report page 17
Lloyd Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

Success criteria of restoration gauges are based on comparisons to reference gauge data, analysis of
growing season start date, and all gauges should be considered successful for Year 5 (2011). Hydrographs
containing groundwater and precipitation data for each gauge can be found in Appendix C. A summary of
groundwater gauge data is included in Table 13.
As documented in Section 2.3.3, all monitoring years are considered to be atypically dry; therefore,
restoration area gauges are compared to the reference gauge located within a jurisdictional wetland.
Consecutive inundation or saturation within 12 inches of the soil surface was analyzed for each gauge for
three separate growing season start scenarios. The longest period of consecutive inundation/saturation
during the growing season is reported in Table 12 as a number of days followed by a percentage of the total
growing season. The value obtained for each restoration area gauge was compared to the value obtained
for the reference gauge. If the restoration area gauge value exceeded 75 percent of the value exhibited by
the reference gauge for that monitoring year, the restoration gauge was then considered successful. In
addition, the success of each restoration gauge is given based on consecutive days alone followed by
comparisons to the reference gauge.
Wetlands at the Site are developing well despite continued drought conditions with the development of
hydrophytic herbaceous vegetation and a presence of recent oxidized rhizospheres within the upper 12
inches of soil. Based on recent field visits, gauge data, rain data, and analyses of growing season start
dates, wetlands at the Site should be considered successful. Drought conditions compounded with an
uncharacteristically late growing season start have led to data results that don't consistently meet success
criteria; however, jurisdictional wetland delineations completed within the Site would undoubtedly find a
surplus of wetlands at the Site beyond minimums outlined in the June 2005 Technical Proposal (3.3
Riparian WMUs and 3.1 Nonriparian WMUs). Based on the Site as constructed, restoration activities
resulted in 8.2 acres of riparian wetland restoration, 3.1 acres of nonriparian wetland restoration, and 1.9
acres of riparian wetland creation.
Annual Monitoring Report
Lloyd Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
page 18

Table 13 Summary of Groundwater Gauge Results
1 Regional rainfall from January through October for the Year 1 (2007) was 33 04 inches 17 )4 inches (33 20/i) below the WETS mean of SO 98 therefore success cntena are based on the reference Gauge
2 Regional rainfall from January throu6h October for the It ear 2 ('_ale) was 42 :,8 Inches 8 40 inches (16 4 ) below the WETS mean therefore success cntena are based on compansons to reference gouge data
3 Regional rainfall from January throublh October for the Year 3 (2019) was 41 31 inches 967 inches (190%) below the WETS mean therefore success cntena are based on comparisons to reference gaube data
4 Site rumfall from Januan through October for the Year 4 (2010) nos 46 37 inches 4 61 inches (90/) below die WETS mean uhth > 17 inches occumn6 In September 2010 therefore success criteria we based on comparisons to reference Gauge data
5 Site rainfall from January through October for the Year 4 (201u) uas 39 29 inches 11 69 inches (22 9, ) below the WETS mean with >I 1 inches occumng in August 2011 therefore success cntena are based on comparisons to reference gaube data
• The reference gaube malfunctioned at die beginnin6 of the brouang season therefore the maximum possible period of inundanon/smureuon was reported and is most hleh breath oseresuinated
Annual NlonBOdng Repotl page 19
Lloyd Saeam and Welland Restoration Site
Success Criteria Achieved/Success Criteria based on Reference Achieved
Max Consecutive Days During Growing Season (% Max Consecutive Days of Growing Season)
Gauge
Year 1 (2007)'
Year 2 2008 =
Year 3 2009
Year 4 2010
Year 5 (2011)
March 1
March 17
A rd 8
March I
March 17
A rd 8
March I
March 17
April 8
March 1
I March 17
April 8
March 1
March 17
April 8
No/Yes
No/No
No/No
No/Yes
No/Yes
Yes/Yes
No/Yes
No/Yes
Yes/%es
Yes/%es
1es/Yes
Yes(Yes
Yes/%n
Yes/Yes
8 days
5 days
17 days
12 days
12 days
38 days
22 days
14 days
37 days
25 days
25 days
60 days
44 days
22 days
Riverine
(34X)
(23%)
(68%)
(S1 %)
(57 %)
(15.2 %)
(94%)
(66 %)
(148 %)
(107X)
(118X)
(240 %)
(188X)
(104 %)
No/Yes
No/Yes
Yes/Yes
NO/Yes
No/Yes
YesA es
No/Yes
No/Yes
Yes/Yes
Yes/Yes
No/No
Yes/Yes
Yes(Yes
No/Yes
2
Nonm ertne
16 days
10 days
24 days
12 days
1 I days
24 days
9 days
9 days
39 days
23 days
I days
45 days
29 days
7 days
(68 %)
(47X)
(967)
(51 A)
(5.2 %)
(96%)
(38 A)
(42X)
(156 %)
(108%)
(05%)
(180 %)
(123 %)
(33%)
m
No /No
No/No
No/No
No /No
No/No
No/No
No /No
No/No
Yes/Yes
Yes/Yes
Yes/Yes
No/Yes
No /Yes
No/Yes
3
Nonm Brine
o
2 days
2 days
I 1 days
I 1 days
6 days
3 days
3 days
3 days
21 days
18 days
18 days
16 days
8 days
8 days
A
(09 %)
(09%)
(44%)
(47X)
(28%)
(12 %)
(13X)
(14 %)
(84%)
(8; %)
(84X)
(64X)
(34X)
(38X)
No/No
No(Yes
No/Yes
%esn es
No/%es
No/Yes
No/No
No/No
No/No
No/Yes
No/No
No/Yes
4
Riverine
Not available
12 days
12 days
8 days
33 days
17 days
9 days
10 days
10 days
10 days
14 days
6 days
5 days
(48%)
(51 /.)
(38%)
(13.2%)
(73 A)
(4Z %)
(40 %)
(43 A)
(47 %)
(56%)
(26%)
(24%)
iu
No/Yes
No/Yes
Yes/Yes
Yes/Yes
Yes/Yes
%es(Yes
Yes/Yes
%es/Yes
Yes/Yes
Yes/Yes
No/Y!a
Yes(Yes
Yes/Yes
Yes/Yes
5
Riverine
s
18 days
18 days
113 days
97 days
75 days
64 days
64 days
64 days
49 days
33 days
13 days
48 days
32 days
23 days
g
(77•/.)
(85 %)
(452X)
(415•/.)
(35.4•/.)
(256•/.)
(274•/.)
(302•/.)
(196Ye)
(141%)
(61•/.)
(192•/.)
(137%)
(108• /.)
6
N
m
t
Yes/Yes
No/No
Yes/Yes
No/Yes
No/Yes
No/Yes
Riverine
36 days
20 days
20 days
19 days
13 days
13 days
i
c
0
(144 %)
(85 %)
(94%)
(76%)
(56 %)
(61X)
7
Yes/%es
Yes/%"
%es/Yes
Yes/Yes
Yes/Yes
Yes/Yes
Riverine
60 days
44 days
39 days
69 days
53 days
31 days
u
These Gauges were installed at the bebinning of the % ear 4 (2010) monitoring season
(240%)
(188%)
(184%)
(276%)
(226%)
(146%)
8
Yes/Yes
Yes/Yes
Yes(Yes
Yes/Yes
Yes/Yes
Yes/Yes
Riverine
m
67 days
51 days
41 days
27 days
27 days
27 days
(268X)
(218%)
(193 %)
(108 %)
(115 %)
(127X)
9
Yes/Yes
Yes/Yes
No/Yes
Yes/Yes
Yes/Yes
No/Yes
Rivenne
40 days
24 days
14 days
24 days
18 days
7 days
(160X)
(103 %)
(66X)
(96X)
(77 %)
(33 %)
8 days
8 days
26 days
15 days
9 day
13 days
8 days
8 day
52 days"
36 ddvs"
14 day'
17 days
9 days
0 days
Reference
(34 %)
(33%)
(104X)
(64 %)
(43 %)
(52X)
(34 %)
(39 %)
(208%
(154•/.)
(66X)
1 (68X)
(38 %)
(OX)
1 Regional rainfall from January through October for the Year 1 (2007) was 33 04 inches 17 )4 inches (33 20/i) below the WETS mean of SO 98 therefore success cntena are based on the reference Gauge
2 Regional rainfall from January throu6h October for the It ear 2 ('_ale) was 42 :,8 Inches 8 40 inches (16 4 ) below the WETS mean therefore success cntena are based on compansons to reference gouge data
3 Regional rainfall from January throublh October for the Year 3 (2019) was 41 31 inches 967 inches (190%) below the WETS mean therefore success cntena are based on comparisons to reference gaube data
4 Site rumfall from Januan through October for the Year 4 (2010) nos 46 37 inches 4 61 inches (90/) below die WETS mean uhth > 17 inches occumn6 In September 2010 therefore success criteria we based on comparisons to reference Gauge data
5 Site rainfall from January through October for the Year 4 (201u) uas 39 29 inches 11 69 inches (22 9, ) below the WETS mean with >I 1 inches occumng in August 2011 therefore success cntena are based on comparisons to reference gaube data
• The reference gaube malfunctioned at die beginnin6 of the brouang season therefore the maximum possible period of inundanon/smureuon was reported and is most hleh breath oseresuinated
Annual NlonBOdng Repotl page 19
Lloyd Saeam and Welland Restoration Site

4.0 REFERENCES
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-
87-1. United States Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Lee, Michael T., R.K. Peet, S.D. Roberts, and T.R. Wentworth. 2006. CVS -EEP Protocol for Recording
Vegetation, Version 4.0. (online). Available: http : / /cvs.bio.unc.edu /methods.htm
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2004. Climatography of the United States
No. 20; Monthly Station Climate Summaries, 1971 -2000. National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service, National
Climatic Data Center, Asheville, North Carolina.
Rosgen, D. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology (Publisher). Pagosa Springs,
Colorado.
Weakley, Alan S. 2007. Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, Georgia, and Surrounding Areas (online).
Available: http : / /www.herbarium.unc.edu/Weakle sFy Iora.pdf [February 1, 2008]. University of
North Carolina Herbarium, North Carolina Botanical Garden, University of North Carolina, Chapel
Hill, North Carolina.
Weather Underground. 2010. Station at Jacksonville Airport (KOAJ), North Carolina. (online). Available:
http• / /www wunderground. com /weatherstation/WXDailyHistory .asp ?ID =KOAJ [November 9,
2010]. Weather Underground.
Annual Monitoring Report page 20
Lloyd Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

Living planted stems, excluding live stakes, per acre
Project Code
Project Name
River Basin
Year 5
Lloyd
Lloyd Restoration Site
White Oak
67987
Total stems, including planted stems of all kinds (including live
stakes) and natural /volunteer stems
Project Code
Project Name
River
Basin
Year 5
Lloyd
Lloyd Restoration Site
White Oak
1586 367721
E
W
a
N
E
W
L
a
W
m
N
X
a�
06
'"
'" �
N
d
w
E
00
w
L
y
a
m (j
l=
O7
Gl v1
d
N
E
4.0
VI Cn
l:
IA
V
s
+r
H
ho
4A
-W
�+
ut
ho
N d
ba
++
a�
d
O
W GJ
C
C
=
Vf
VI J
C
C J
3
(%
(% J
C
W
?
w
J
N
C
C Z_
J Z
W
C
C Z
7C
J
+�'
N
y
f0
d
d
f0 U
3
O
O
M
a+
C
a+
4+
M
7
f+
r
J
M U
►+ W
J W
U
3 Q
a+ OC
W
r cc
J W
a+ U w
a
a}
3
0
J
1°
D
M
G
a
w
C
1°
Z
O
F-
Ox
H uw
a Q
xU
a u, Q
MW
Z a
OU
F- Q
0 X U
F- y.w Q
LV1
1 2
1 5
34951949'
77°- 30 441'
NAD83 /WGS84
7/2/2010
16
0
21
37
37
647
647
850
1497
1497
3
LV2
2
5
349 52 036'
779 30 531'
NAD83 /WGS84
7/2/2010
21
2
51
72
72
850
850
2064
2914
2914
4
LV3
2
5
349 51877'
779 30 697'
NAD83 /WGS84
7/2/2010
16
5
29
45
45
647
647
1174
1821
1821
6
LV4
2
5
349 51794'
779 38 651'
NAD83 /WGS84
7/2/2010
19
1
4
23
23
769
769
162
931
931
4
LV5
2
5
34251658-
779 30 621'
NAD83 /WGS84
7/2/2010
12
0
7
19
19
486
486
283
769
769
5

Planted Stems by Plot and Species
rl
J
N
J
M
J
J
Ln
J
LL
Z M
LL
Z M
LLL.
Z M
LL
Z M
LL
Z M
O
O
Total
J
J
J
J
J
Planted
#
avg#
a
c.
c.
c.
c.
Species
CommonName
Stems
plots
stems
Betula nigra
river birch
6
2
3
4
2
Carya
hickory
8
1
8
8
Celtis laevigata
sugarberry
12
3
4
7
1
4
Cephalanthus occidentalis
common buttonbush
5
1
5
5
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
10
1
10
10
Nyssa aquatica
water tupelo
7
2
35
4
3
Nyssa sylvatica
blackgum
1
1
1
1
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
12
2
6
8
4
Quercus nigra
water oak
5
2
25
4
1
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
2
1
2
2
Quercus phellos
willow oak
1
1
1
1
Salix nigra
black willow
1
1
1
1
Ulmus
elm
8
2
4
7
1
Ulmus americana
American elm
6
2
3
5
1
14
14
84
14
16
21
16
19
12

All Stems by Plot and Species
Species
CommonName
Total
Stems
#
plots
avg#
stems
LL
Z M
CO
O
O J
a
LL
Z M
00
O y'
N
O J
a
LL
Z M
Ca
O
J fn
O J
a
LL
Z M
Do
J
O J
a
LL
Z M
CO
?'
J Ln
O J
a
Acer rubrum
red maple
31
3
1033
27
3
1
Baccharis halimifolia
eastern bacchans
8
3
267
3
2
3
Betula nigra
river birch
6
2
3
4
2
Carya
hickory
8
1
8
8
Celtis laevigata
sugarberry
12
3
4
7
1
4
Cephalanthus occidentalis
common buttonbush
5
1
5
5
Cercis canadensis
eastern redbud
1
1
1
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
10
1
10
10
Juglans nigra
black walnut
2
1
2
2
Liquidambar styraciflua
sweetgum
33
5
66
13
11
5
3
1
briodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
4
1
4
4
Nyssa aquatica
water tupelo
7
2
35
4
3
Nyssa sylvatica
blackgum
1
1
1
1
Pinus taeda
loblolly pine
15
3
5
3
11
1
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
22
2
11
18
4
Prunus serotina
black cherry
1
1
1
1
Quercus nigra
water oak
5
2
25
4
1
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
2
1
2
2
Quercus phellos
willow oak
2
1
2
2
Salix nigra
black willow
6
1
6
6
Ulmus
elm
10
2
5
7
3
Ulmus americana
American elm
6
2
3
5
1
22
22
197
22
37
72
46
23
19

Lloyd Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Year 5 (2011) Annual Monitoring
Vegetation Plot Photos
Taken August 2011
Annual Monitoring Report Appendices
Lloyd Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

APPENDIX B
GEOMORPHOLOGIC DATA
1 Tables B1 -B3 Qualitative Visual Stability Assessment
2 Cross - section Plots and Tables
3 Longitudinal Profile Plots
4 Stream Fixed Station Photos
Annual Monitoring Report Appendices
Lloyd Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

River Basin:
Cape Fear/White Oak
Watershed:
Lloyd Property
XS ID
XS -1 Pool
Drainage Area (sy mi):
0.67
Date:
2/15/2011
Wield Crew:
Dean, Perkinson
Station
Elevation
16.88
25.39
22.61
25.56
24.67
25.53
26.32
24.96
27.65
24.90
28.80
24.56
29.63
24.14
32.30
23.28
33.59
23.17
35.74
23.49
36.56
24.28
37.95
25.51
46.31
25.63
52.52
25.74
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
25.5
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area:
17.6
Bankfull Width:
13.2
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
Flood Prone Width:
Max Depth at Bankfull:
2.3
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.3
NV/ D Ratio:
24
Entrenchment Ratio:
1
Bank Ileight Ratio:
Sfream Ty E/C
Cape Fear /White Oak River Basin, Lloyd Property, XS- 1, Pool
. ---- ---- - - - - --
20 30
Station (feet)
ER
- - - - Bankfull
- - - - Flood Prone Area
t MY -01 9/7/07
t MY-02 11/7/08
MY -03 6/30/09
MY4 4/7/10
MY -05 2/15/11
26
- -
-------------
c
0
0
24
1
w
22
0 10
Sfream Ty E/C
Cape Fear /White Oak River Basin, Lloyd Property, XS- 1, Pool
. ---- ---- - - - - --
20 30
Station (feet)
ER
- - - - Bankfull
- - - - Flood Prone Area
t MY -01 9/7/07
t MY-02 11/7/08
MY -03 6/30/09
MY4 4/7/10
MY -05 2/15/11

River Basin:
Elevation
32.16
Cape Feaz/WhiteOak
37.26
25.26
39.80
Watershed:
42.73
/2011
Lloyd Property
Dean, Perl:inson
46.83
24.17
ACS ID
24.29
48.71
XS - 2, Riffle
50.37
25.55
55.01
Drainage Area (s mi):
59.63
0.67
62.13
25.48
Date:
2/I5
Strearn Type C/C
Cape Fear/White Oak River Basin, Lloyd Property, XS - 2, Riffle
27
d
_
_
------------- -----� -
EA
25 -
-
-
- - -- Bankfull
0
-- -- Flood Prone Area
t MY -01 9/7/07
" MY-02 11 /7/08
-� MY-03 6/30/09
23
Mv-oa anno
30
40
50
Station (feet)
MY -05 2/13/11
Station
Elevation
32.16
25.23
37.26
25.26
39.80
25.35
42.73
/2011
Field Crew:
Dean, Perl:inson
Station
Elevation
32.16
25.23
37.26
25.26
39.80
25.35
42.73
24.64
45.52
24.13
46.83
24.17
47.60
24.29
48.71
24.75
50.37
25.55
55.01
25.50
59.63
25.49
62.13
25.48
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
25.3
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area:
7.0
Bankfull Width:
9.8
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
26.5
Flood Prone Width:
150.0
11as Depth at Bankfull:
1.2
S1can Depth at Bankfull:
0.7
�� / D Ratio:
13.7
Entrenchment Ratio:
15.3
Bank height Ratio:
1.0

River Basin:
Cape Fear/WhiteOak
Watershed:
Lloyd Property
XS ID
XS - 3, Pool
Drainage Area (sq mi):
0.67
Date:
2/15/2011
Field Crew:
Dean, Perkinson
Station
Elevation
21.49
23.45
33.85
23.70
35.63
23.42
36.25
23.06
36.59
22.57
39.04 1
21.59
40.95
21.88
43.55
22.46
44.82
23.25
45.81
23.50
56.14
23.86
65.31
24.01
26
.� 24
m
5
e
0
w 22
20 4-
20
SUMMARY DATA
R9IY1i�ElEvarro'n:
23.5
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area:
11.7
Bankfull Width:
10.2
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
Flood Prone Width:
-
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.9
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.1
%N'/ D Ratio:
-
Entrenchment Ratio:
-
Bank height Ratio:
-
Stream "type C
Cape Fear /White Oak River Basin, Lloyd Property, XS -3, Pool
30
40
Station (feet)
•---------------------
- - -- Bankfull
�- MY -019/7/07
t MY -02 11/7/08
— MY -03 6130/09
50 MY-04 4/7/10
MY -05 2115/11

River Basin:
Elevation
32.41
]Cape Fear/White Oak
35.98
t
Watershed:
22.65
41.01
Llo d roperty
42.83
q
XS ID
21.41
45.05
XS -4, Riffle
45.78
.,
Drainage Area Is m
22.30
0.67
22.65
52.24
Date:
57.30
22.52
-12/15/2011
Field Crew:
; Deaq Perkinson
Station
E/C
Cape Fear/White Oak River Basin, Lloyd Property, XS - 4, Riffle
I
a
--------------------------------------------------------------------
23
d
0
ti
- - -- BaWWI
W
- - -- Flood Prone Area
-+- MY -01 9/7/07
-+- MY -02 11/7/08
21
-� MY -03 6/30/09
30
40 50
MY -04 4/7/10
Station (feet)
MY -05 2/15/11
Elevation
32.41
22.48
35.98
22.53
3721
22.65
41.01
22.69
42.83
21.52
44.13
21.41
45.05
21.35
45.78
21.33
47.24
22.30
48.96
22.65
52.24
22.58
57.30
22.52
SUMMARY DATA
Aankiult ElevaRo�:
22.5
Bankroll Cross - Sectional Area:
5.6
Bankroll Width:
7.4
Flood Prune Area Elevation:
23.7
Flood Prone Width:
150.0
Max Dc th at Bankroll:
1.2
Mean De Hh at Bankroll:
0.8
W' / U Ratio:
9.8
Entrenchment Ratio:
20.3
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

River Basin: Ca Fear/White Oak
Watershed: Lloyd Pro
XS ID XS - 5 Riffle
Drainage Area (s mi): 0.55
Date: 2/15/2011
Field Crew: Dean, Perkinson
Station
Elevation
4.5
22.86
6.6
22.65
11.9
22.03
16.3
21.57
20.1
21.24
25.3
21.21
29.5
21.19
31.3
21.35
32.9
20.37
33.6
20.14
34.9
20.07
35.9
20.12
37.2
20.27
38.4
20.42
39.0
20.89
40.0
21.19
41.7
21.1
42.7
21.0
43.9
21.0
MY -04 4/7/10
19
20 30 40
-MY-054/26/11
50
Station (feet)
SUMMARY DATA
B9dkfull F.16fiion:
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area:
21.2
6.5
Bankfull Width:
8.4
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
Flood Prone Width:
22.3
38.0
Max De that Bankfull:
1.1
Mean Depth at Bankfull :; ^
W / D Ratio:
Entrenchment Ratio:
0.8
10.9
4.5
ank height Ratio: 77 '
1.0
1.0
f' ;M
Cape Fear/White Oak River Basin, Lloyd Property, XS - 5, Riffle
23
----------------
o,
5
21
a
- - -- Bankfull
- ---Flood Prone Area
20
t MY -01 9/7/07
t MY -02 11/18/08
MY -03 6/29/09
MY -04 4/7/10
19
20 30 40
-MY-054/26/11
50
Station (feet)

River Basin:
Elevation
Cape Fear/White Oak
23.75
13.83
Watershed:
Area (s mi):
Lloyd Pro
Date:
r �
XS ID
Perkinson
XS - 6, Pool
19.27
s4>
Drainage
32.55
20.40
34.26
20.90
37.17
21.07
41.30
21.15
45.92
21.01
tream . C/E
Cape Fear/White Oak River Basin, Lloyd Property, XS - 6, Pool
23
22
d
5
e
0 21 - - -- Ba7ProneArea
- - - --
---- ----- -- ----
01 - - -- Ft20
M
�— MY -02 11/7/08
—rte MY -03 6/29/09
19
10 MY -04 4/7/t0
30 40 50
MY -05 2/2011
Station (feet)
Station
Elevation
3.21
23.75
13.83
21.63
Area (s mi):
0.55
Date:
2/15/2011
Field Crew: 'Dean,
Perkinson
Station
Elevation
3.21
23.75
13.83
21.63
21.67
21.49
24.32
21.05
25.67
19.99
27.39
19.27
28.77
19.59
32.55
20.40
34.26
20.90
37.17
21.07
41.30
21.15
45.92
21.01
SUMMARY DATA
Baix-Yu71T`, %viliion:
21.0
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area:
11.6
Bankfull Width:
12.3
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
Flood Prone Width:
Jlax De th at BankfulN
�tcau Depth at Bankfull:'
-
1.7
0.8
N' / D Ratio:
-
EnU•enchmcut Ratio:
-
Bauk I leight Ratio:...
-

River Basin:
Elevation
Cape Fear/White Oak
22.31
14.19
21.74
Watershed:
21.35
Lloyd Property
Field Crew:
Dean, Parkinson
XS ID
21.73
XS - 7, Pool
21.52
39.12
21.20
Drainage Area (s mi):
0.55
42.30
20.92
43.93
20.34
45.28
20.02
46.82
►,
1
Date:
50.96
2/15/2011
52.04
19.63
53.31
20.33
54.50
20.67
56.32
21.42
60.36
21.23
66.46
21.41
5tr" E/C
- -
-
Cape Fear/White Oak River
Basin, Lloyd Property, XS - 7, Pool
22
0
.�
- - - _Bankfull
0
W20
- - -- Flood Prone Area
t MY -01 9/7/07
�- MY -02 11/7/08
MY -03 6/29/09
18
20 30
40
50 60
MY -04 4/7/10
Station (feet)
MY -OS 2/15/11
Station
Elevation
0.7
22.31
14.19
21.74
22.53
21.35
26.23
Field Crew:
Dean, Parkinson
Station
Elevation
0.7
22.31
14.19
21.74
22.53
21.35
26.23
21.45
28.39
21.63
31.35
21.73
35.83
21.52
39.12
21.20
41.27
21.07
42.30
20.92
43.93
20.34
45.28
20.02
46.82
19.67
48.85
19.43
50.96
19.43
52.04
19.63
53.31
20.33
54.50
20.67
56.32
21.42
60.36
21.23
66.46
21.41
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
2 12
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area:
16.9
Bankfull Width:
17.1
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
-
Flood Prone Width:
-
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.8
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.0
VV' I D Ratio:
-
Eutreuchment Ratio:
-
Bank Height Ratio:
-

River Basin:
Elevation
+
Cape Fear/White Oak
21.69
20.99
Watershed:
0.55
Date
Field Crew:
Lloyd Property
34.42
21.07
XS ID
20.92
38.94
XS - 8, Riffle
39.82
20.13
Drainage Area
19.89
42.27
19.82
44.51
20.29
45.44
20.66
45.93
20.86
50.61
20.82
56.37
21.03
E
- - -
Cape Fear/White Oak River Basin, Lloyd Property, XS - 8, Riffle
23
_..
.-------------------------------------------------------
c
��
0
- - -- Bankfull
W
- - - - Flood Prone Area
-� MY-01 9/7/07
MY -02 11/7/08
19
20
30
40 50
--�-� MY-03 6/29/09
MY-04 4n /10
Station (feet)
MY -05 2/15/11
Station
Elevation
16.26
21.59
21.69
20.99
(s mi): '•
0.55
Date
Field Crew:
2/15/2011
Dean, Perkinson
Station
Elevation
16.26
21.59
21.69
20.99
25.74
20.99
29.77
20.85
34.42
21.07
37.61
20.92
38.94
20.73
39.82
20.13
41.50
19.89
42.27
19.82
44.51
20.29
45.44
20.66
45.93
20.86
50.61
20.82
56.37
21.03
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
20.9
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area:
4.9
Bankfull Width:
7.9
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
21.9
Flood Prone 'Width:
80.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.0
Mean Depth of Bankfull:
0.6
�'1' / D Ratio:
12.7
Entrenchment Ratio:
10.1
Bank Height Ratio:
l .0

River Basin, -° "''` """` •
Cape Fear/White Oak
Watershedi:.
Lloyd Pro
XS ID
XS - 9, Pool
Drainage Area (Sq mi):
1.2
Date:
2/15 /2011
Field Crew:
Dean, Perkinson
Station
Elevation
149.0
20.8
156.9
20.6
162.6
20.7
163.7
20.7
164.7
20.2
165.5
19.7
166.1
19.3
166.3
19.1
167.0
18.9
167.3
18.8
167.7
18.6
168.2
18.5
169.2
18.3
169.8
18.3
170.4
18.5
171.7
18.8
173.0
19.1
174.2
19.4
175.1
19.6
176.0
19.9
177.0
20.1
179.7
20.7
183.6
20.9
SUMMARY DATA
BanktulFElevation:
20.8
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area: '
20.3
Bankfull Width:
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
17.1
Flood Prone Width:
Max Depth at Bankfull: "
2.3
Mean Depth at Bankfull[ ' " "`'
W / D Ratio:
1.2
Entrenchment Ratio:
-
Bank Height Ratio:
21
5
0
fi
w 19
17
I!il'
Cape Fear /White Oak River Basin, Lloyd Property, XS - 9, Pool
- - -- -- - - ------ ------- ---- - - - - -- --
- - -- Bankfull
- - -- Flood Prone Area f
t MY- 019/7/07 - - - - -
MY -02 11/7/08
�- MY -03 7/l/09
MY -04 4/20/10
145 MY -05 2/2011 155 165 175 I x
Station (feet)

River Basin:
Elevation
Cape Fear/WhiteOak
20.45
y
:'4
Watershed:
20.99
Lloyd Property
Field Cron:
Dean, Parkinson
XS ID
19.96
XS - 10, Ritlle
19.79
80.53
19.54
Drainage :area
(s mi):
1.2
18.73
82.54
18.81
Date:
18.75
2/15/2011
18.86
85.97
19.14
86.63
19.45
86.90
19.74
87.32
20.06
88.30
20.29
90.62
20.31
92.79
20.34
98.85
20.37
104.64
20.45
109.48
20.60
1
Stream T _ , .
E/C
Cape Fear/White
Oak River Basin, Lloyd Property, XS - 10, Riffle
23
22 - - - -° ------------------------------------------------------------------
5 21
-
0
___ - --------
-_-- -_
d 20
W - - -- Bankfull
- - -- Flood Prone Area
19 MY- 019/7/07
-� MY -02 1 1/7/08
18 -ate MY -03 7/1/09
60 MY- 044/20/10 70
80
90 t00
Station (feet)
MY -05 2/2011
Station
Elevation
61.95
20.45
71.94
20.68
75.85
20.99
77.56
Field Cron:
Dean, Parkinson
Station
Elevation
61.95
20.45
71.94
20.68
75.85
20.99
77.56
20.61
78.70
20.37
79.71
19.96
80.18
19.79
80.53
19.54
81.09
18.97
81.90
18.73
82.54
18.81
83.39
18.75
85.04
18.86
85.97
19.14
86.63
19.45
86.90
19.74
87.32
20.06
88.30
20.29
90.62
20.31
92.79
20.34
98.85
20.37
104.64
20.45
109.48
20.60
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
20.3
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area:
9.6
Bankfull Width:
10.0
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
21.9
Flood Prone Width:
150.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.6
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.0
�1' / D Ratio:
10.4
Entrenchment Ratio:
15.0
Bank Height Ratio:
l 0

River Basin:
Cape Fear/WhiteOak
Watershed:
Lloyd Property
XS ID
XS -11, Pool
Drainage Area (sq mi):
1.2
Date:
2/15/2011
Field Crew:
Dean, Perkinson
Station
Elevation
119.14
18.84
123.41
18.72
126.10
18.82
127.93
18.92
128.81
18.85
129.48
18.61
130.33
17.14
131.05
16.66
131.54
16.06
133.07
15.64
133.98
15.49
134.62
15.48
134.97
1536
135.41
15.91
136.34
16.24
137.23
16.86
137.89
17.56
139.07
17.79
140.67
18.17
142.08
18.69
146.57
19.00
150.1
19.1
152.9
19.3
MY -05 2/2011
Station (feet)
SUMMARY DATA
R6 afu' ft'Elovsi'1166:
1 18.7
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area:
23.1
Bankfull Width:
13.4
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
Flood Prone Width:
-
Max Depth at Bankfull:
3.2
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.7
NN'/ D Ratio:
18
Entrenchment Ratio:
---- Beokfull
Bank height Ratio:
d
w 17
Cape Fear /White Oak River Basin, Lloyd Property, XS - 11, Pool
21
20
19
18
---- Beokfull
d
w 17
- - - - Flood Prone Area
t MY- 019/7/07
16
t MY -02 11/7/08
15
�--K -� MY -03 7/1/09
120 130 140
MY -04 4/20/10
1 `-
MY -05 2/2011
Station (feet)

River Basin:
Elevation
Cape Fear/White Oak
18
73.2
Watershed:
77.4
Lloyd Property
Date:
Field Crew:
2/15/2011
Dean, Parkinson
YS ID
18.5
XS- 12, Riffle
18.3
80.2
Drainage Arcs (s mil-
80.9
17.5
81.7
17.4
82.1
17.3
82.4
17.0
82.9
16.8
84.2
16.7
85.0
16.7
85.8
16.9
86.4
17.3
86.7
17.4
87.6
17.7
88.0
18.1
89.2
18.4
91.6
18.8
94.8
18.8
100.1
18.8
E/C
Cape Fear/White Oak River Basin, Lloyd Property, XS -12, Riffle
21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
20
v
19
- - - - -- --
- ------ -------- - - - - -- - --
o-------
SL 18
- Bankfuu
---- Flood Prone Area
17
-�- MY- 019/7/07
- a MY -02 11/7/08
16�
My -03 7/1/09
65
75 85
MY -04 4/20/10
Station (feet)
MY -05 2/14/2010
Station
Elevation
65.0
18
73.2
18.5
77.4
1.2
Date:
Field Crew:
2/15/2011
Dean, Parkinson
Station
Elevation
65.0
18
73.2
18.5
77.4
18.7
78.2
18.6
78.9
18.5
79.5
18.3
80.2
17.9
80.9
17.5
81.7
17.4
82.1
17.3
82.4
17.0
82.9
16.8
84.2
16.7
85.0
16.7
85.8
16.9
86.4
17.3
86.7
17.4
87.6
17.7
88.0
18.1
89.2
18.4
91.6
18.8
94.8
18.8
100.1
18.8
SUMMARY DATA
Banktull ('rocs- Sectional :*,rea:
18.7
11.9
Banktull Width:
9.3
Flood Prune Area F.Icvatimc
20.7
Flood Prune Width:
150.0
Max Depth at Banktull:
2.0
Mean Depth at Banktull:
1.3
��' ; D Ratio:
7.3
Entrenchment Ratio:
16.1
1.0

6.5
172
253
31.9
39.3
$0.1
603
69.6
76.7
90 9
1111.2
117.7
1463
160.1
1614
190 6
2062
2322
2316
207.7
233.7
272.8
2904
244.5
299.7
301.4
I
Pd6b
3/27/11
F. i-. D..
2087
Yser 1 AlmilwMe 1.9urvrr
Bd FJWeam l{'ar
200
194
20 0
20 1
10.0
195
19.9
100
19.8
19.6
19.8
20.1
196
19.9
20.0
19.6
190
19.1
194
IH.H
194
19.9
19.9
190
18.6
19.6
19.2
am"
2eM
t'ed4M
8b1m
Vor2
hS.Mi fa51.4-y
chum
ad El..Om
W.-81r
1430.4
19 963
957
19.5
1022.0
19.089303
193
1014.4
19098637
2310
1005.5
19306372
21.0
9976
19.890162
21.0
979.5
19586749
1205.8
959A
19224303
1131.5
911.2
19.67157
21.1
9363
19210102
210
9253
19.049415
21.0
915.6
19.711067
21.0
897.7
19.527771
201
W2.1
19.332744
210
as
19.171506
209
871.3
11.833257
1114.9
865.3
19.127M
20.9
859.3
19724494
21.0
8453
19.649321
20.9
837.9
19 043837
21.0
828.5
19229998
21.1
820.4
19.746595
21.0
808.7
19.5267.4/
21.0
802.8
19.01968
21.1
7871
19267396
21
776.7
19.971352
21.1
763.0
19629819
189
749.3
19.482602
21.1
am"
1069
Yed3 Mm161ria8\911n'ry
BW Ekvdb- N11W Fk-"
t'ed4M
8b1m
2"'
d-i g58mvry
W F3n.tlm WNW ll-.em
chtlm
20"
Year 5 Almitwlu{ \5u1sry
and F.I -S.. Wa6
11994
19.4
200
12173
19.5
20.1
11863
193
1195.8
19.6
2310
1211.4
192
20.1
1159.8
197
1188.0
19.0
20U
1205.8
193
10.0
1131.5
193
111.38
19.1
20.0
1200.0
194
20.1
1142.7
19.3
1178.9
19.6
201
1192's
191
201
1134.7
19.0
:172.6
19A
2110
1193.7
196
201
1114.9
18.3
1166.5
192
2011
1175.0
19A
20.1
1111.3
18.6
11612
192
200
1168.7
18.7
201
IIOOA
19.4
1145.3
19.1
211 U
11612
19.1
201
1086.9
19.3
1144.0
19.1
611
11540
197
20.1
1011.1
189
11307
18.8
2011
1150.8
19.2
201
:0111
189
11347
1131.8
'_II II
1141.8
18.9
20.1
1067.7
19.5
1124.1
It.l
200
IIR4
la7
20.1
1062.7
19.6
1117.0
18.3
20 0
1124.0
18.3
20.1
1058.3
19.0
11137
18.5
20.0
11193
183
20.1
1055.3
193
11069
19.3
10.0
1111.1
19.2
202
1053.6
20.0
10974
195
200
1096.6
19.3
201
IU39.0
202
10899
18.8
200
1089.7
16.6
20.1
1026.3
19.9
10816
IBA,
200
1085.6
18.4
20.1
1016.6
192
111902
19.0
200
IWI.0
19.3
20.1
1003.6
193
107610
19.3
200
1071.1
196
20.1
993.3
197
10716
19.6
20.1
10679
19.0
202
9tl2
19.8
10669
19.6
201
1062.6
20.1
20.3
969.9
193
10616
192
2110
1054.7
20.1
20.4
9559
19.1
10620
19.1
200
1041A
198
20.5
947.7
193
1060.1
19.3
201
1035.0
198
9366
197
1045.1
192
10..3
WAS
19.1
205
927.7
192
204
204
104
264
20.4
204
205
204
204
204
204
20.4
204
20.5
20.7
20.7
104
SO 7
208
20.8
208
20.8
20.9
208
Lloyd Prorde- Reach 1
2007
IM
IDM
2010
2011
\�6 W.". 9m Lcc clops
00002
00003
00008
0.0008
mm I.mR111
18.0
32.0
170
15.6
14
1.61L01esb0a
TMVWkA-A AA K
OOM
oOOW
00000
00tn1
1
Pool renelh
22.0
240
10.0
25.8
15
1­ F,ad elo
V, Ivv
0.0020
00022
00007
0
Lloyd Prorde- Reach 1
21.5 -
21.0
20.5
•
t 20.0
a
w
TMVWkA-A AA K
193
A/ iQ
919.0
V, Ivv
Y
W 183
18.0
17.5
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Distance (feet)
-Year 1 (2007) Bed -Year 2 (2008) Bed -Year 3 (2009) Bed - Year 4 (2010) Bed - -Year S (2011) Bed +Year S (2011) Water Su1Lce

W7
AA
491
699
BI 1
92.7
103.2
114.1
119.7
135.2
145.5
ISOA
165.D
173.0
179.(2
1878
193b
2577
231.1
2321
2433
249.4
257.7
27.9
283
290.7
2
PrvOk
3123:11
Prlk -. r-
2507
V_ l AlmlfuraK l.s a
w BbrAflm W.f
240
236
23.9
23.5
24.0
234
23.0
232
24.0
22.
223
233
22.5
23A
23.1
22.7
233
23.5
233
23.6
23.1
23.1
233
23.6
23.5
23.1
2_2.9
47(27725
2868
Y-2 M.W.-ft \9nse)
Bd ©,."- W+Irr F2rrM1m
shm.
2001
\'- 3M- InAtl�q
Bd 1➢erAllm W -Ek-lm
ab4m
2UIU
\'nrJ 3laMwf�g \9une2
Brd rbn� U.", l3n�
shwm
2011
\'nr3 tlm.a g "
Brd rk-"
1146.9
19.4
m 1
1353 9
193
2D.2
13514
194
vi 2
13.11.6
19.2
1335.0
193
252
13W 1
19.3
251
1339.4
19.5
25.2
1333.3
16.1
1325.9
14.7
m.1
13332
119
20.2
13329
19.0
252
1324.7
I&A
1317.6
18.7
m l
13257
16.7
252
13217
11.4
252
13142
19.1
1309.5
194
25.2
1317.1
19.3
252
13126
193
202
1299.5
193
1276.6
mA
1298.7
19.7
2U2
12930
19.7
252
1269.6
196
1261.6
19.6
252
1240.9
25.0
202
1267.0
19.5
25.3
1261.6
19A
1252.1
19.2
253
1271.0
19.9
253
1234.4
11.6
253
1250.9
19.0
1232.6
191
1259.5
19A
25.4
1249.4
12.3
203
12392
19.6
1213.5
190
202
1249.9
19.0
1242,6
190
253
1221.7
19.6
1237.7
19.7
25.2
12.499
19.9
253
1237.5
19.7
253
12069
19.1
12173
19.1
25.5
122.5
19.9
105
12252
25.0
mA
Im33
19.6
1212.)
194
70.5
1215.E
19.7
25.5
IS16.1
191
mA
11952
19.1
1197.6
19A
20
12047
19.6
2.
11993
25.0
M.
1173.3
19.7
1188.4
199
20
1196b
25.0
205
1161.1
20.1
256
1163.7
19.7
1165.1
199
20
TINA
25.2
207
11619
19.7
25.5
11553
193
11612
19.5
11$9.7
19A
207
IIS3.8
19.3
20.6
1113.1
19.6
1115.1
201
25.6
1133.7
19.3
25.7
1145.0
20
297
113.1
25.5
1129.1
253
20
1148.8
253
25.7
IU19
3D
21.1
1121.2
19.6
1122.0
19.5
21.0
1134.9
25.6
21 U
11262
19.9
21.1
1114.0
19.6
1112.7
19.6
21.0
11259
19.8
210
1117.6
196
21.1
1106.9
250
11013
252
21.0
1119.1
18.2
259
!10'1.6
19.7
21.1
1100.3
19.9
10943
25.0
'_I.0
11053
25.2
210
11010
2DA
212
IW3.5
19.7
1091.1
19.1
21.0
10971
19.9
21.0
11020
20.2
211
1033.3
25.3
1010.9
ZD5
25.9
1093.7
20
310
1096.0
19.7
21.2
10645
25.4
loan/
25.6
1013
ms
210
10330
25.4
222
10550
m.l
1053.
253
107.7
25.7
21.0
1066.1
25.5
21.2
1046.9
253
25.2
203
2D 3
252
253
203
2D 3
25.4
M
25.4
25,4
254
mfi
256
mt
256
210
21U
EI4
310
21 0
11 0
21 1
210
21.1
21.1
Loyd Profile- Reach 2
2087
5608
100f
2510
are. \1 .1ec Swt.cr 9a
U W33
00033
0.0032
00033
23.0
W1ar I.W
25.0
26.0
19.7
116
Ij 22.0
.1.e 14125. 9g1r
0.0110
0.W14
0.0006
00067
L..7
P.4I -oh
23.0
24.0
23.7
M 2
.1, .Ibi490
0W11
O.,
OW19
19.0
Loyd Profile- Reach 2
25.0
- --
24.0
23.0
w
V V--
Ij 22.0
21.0
•a
20.0
~f
-
19.0
13.0
0 200 400 400 Soo 1000 1200 1000
B1R.ate (feet)
-Year I (2W!) Bed -Year 2 (2(M) Bed -Ww3 (2009) Bed �Yea.4 (2030) Bed -l»-Yv 2 (2011) Bed -Y .5 (2011) W MrSBt ..

9.3
17.1
246
301
312
53.0
61.5
740
85.9
93.6
1123
1266
133.0
146.1
151.9
163.9
180.8
193.3
206.8
216.7
230.7
709.0
273.5
291.8
302.1
3159
3
Profile
3/21 I I
Ikon. Pertlnwo
2007
Y.,18lodt,r sl9urvn,
Ild E1.7'g0- Wg6
192
186
192
19.7
19.1
19.3
192
100
171
Its
192
197
18.8
18.6
18.9
190
I A.7
17.6
192
182
19.1
17.7
11.7
:1319
11.0
116
S18am
290
Y- 281mlbr1a8VAlrrry
Sd O2gndm W- Ek.1-
Sb 1.
2009
Ytlr3 Maalm,eg38m7ry
Brd Elrr.lbn W.- El_."
S,"_
2010
Yev48M'tai'g\Su 'ry
Bed El-d- W- Ek.M�
91�tlo6
2011
Yr.r581udwn
Srd El-..
9120
160
17.0
10170
15.3
17.0
9180
159
180
IOM
10217
165
8784
164
173
1009A
13.3
16.9
917.1
159
170
10115
14.7
863.1
158
173
9922
163
16.9
9138
166
17.1
10112
14.6
8552
158
173
9787
163
17.0
8910
166
111
1001.6
157
a"7
166
173
9714
162
17.0
8809
164
172
9898
16.0
831.3
167
173
9612
15.7
170
8659
15.7
172
972.8
16.4
am
15.1
173
932A
14.8
16.9
859.1
15.9
172
958.8
15.1
816.1 1
152
173
9414
15.2
17.0
648.5
16.7
172
9171
146
802.7
168
173
9354
16.1
17.0
836.0
16.5
17.3
9437
14.8
7962
15.3
173
9202
16.1
16.9
830.1
15.9
11.3
9354
16.1
7641
151
173
906.8
16.7
17.0
823.7
10.8
913.4
16.1
777.2
162
173
889.7
16.6
17.1
814.9
15.7
17A
893.6
16.8
763.3
17.0
170
175.1
16.3
17.1
806.7
16.7
17.3
8823
16.5
753.4
16.3
i7.5
868.5
16.1
17.1
798.9
132
17.1
8674
IS.B
742.2
16.1
860.2
15.8
17.1
789.1
15.0
17 3
861.8
15.7
729.8
14.9
174
857.9
16.0
17.1
7911.6
16.7
172
8558
161
719.4
177
850.6
16.6
17.1
763.8
16.7
17.5
8382
17.1
712.0
17.1
17.5
837.5
16.7
17.1
751.6
16.1
17.5
8302
16.0
7059
16.1
1716
VA 9
15 4
16.7
736.5
145
17.5
820.1
15.0
7022
16.2
ITS
8+313
147
16.9
730.1
15.0
ITS
813.3
13.3
696.8
16.6
17.5
8171
15.1
16.8
722.9
17A
173
8060
16.7
673.6
172
806.8
16.5
16.8
7210
166
17.5
796.5
15.9
6688
172
179
799.7
16.2
169
7U.1
16.8
17.5
792.7
15.3
659.7
16.6
17.9
792.3
13.3
17.0
7083
15.9
17.5
7172
HA
630.0
163
17.9
786.8
14.9
172
696.1
16.8
17.5
775A
17.0
640A
6171
173
178
17.9
7814
7ldt
164
17.1
177
678.4
171
176
761.4
16.9
174
175
174
174
175
17A
174
174
17.5
17.5
17.5
17.3
17.5
173
17.5
17.6
17.6
176
17.6
17.7
17.6
176
I7b
VA
17.9
Uoyd Profile. Reach 3
207
290
290
2019
2911
19.0
0.0031
000#
0.0033
0.0037
0.0032
E
190
24.0
192
180
IOM
180
0.0001
0.0091
0.0059
00063
00043
290
310
32.6
341
130
ui 51n
0.0011
0.0001
14
0.
Uoyd Profile. Reach 3
21.0
20.0
19.0
t
■
1B.o
17.0
16.0
15.0
14.0
13.0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 000 900 1000
f)ietae a feet
-Year 1(2007) Bed -Year 2 (2008) Bed - -Year 3 (2009) Bed tYY 4(2010)Bed + Year S ( 2011) Bed �Yeer S (2011) W81er SulfBee

Appendix B: Preconstruction
Photographs
Looking upstream on abandoned channel
at Site infall.
Looking downstream on abandoned channel.
Looking downstream on abandoned channel from
Site infall.
Looking upstream on abandoned channel.
Looking across the abandoned channel
toward the main tributary adjacent to the tree tine.

Appendix B: Preconstruction
Photographs (continued)
Looking across the abandoned channel toward the area of Rains soils
proposed for nonriverine wetland restoration.
Looking upstream at the main channel adjacent to
the tree line.
Looking downstream at the confluence of the main channel and the
abandoned channel.
Looking towards the abandoned channel
near the location of the culverted crossing that will bisect the easement.
Looking upstream towards the confluence of the main channel
and the existing eastern channeUroadside ditch.

M'rA IR,
037-
LP5 r.
10
L
LP ,

Lloyd Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Year 5 (2011) Annual Monitoring
Stream Fixed Photo Stations
Taken November 22, 2011 (continued)
Annual Monitoring Report Appendices
Lloyd Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

APPENDIX C
HYDROLOGY DATA
2011 Groundwater Gauge Graphs
Annual Monitoring Report Appendices
Lloyd Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

3/1/2011
Water Level (inches)
W W WNNNNN����� i i !
A N O 00 O A N O OD 0) A N O OD Q1 N O N A CO O N A
O 00 O
LM
3/11/2011
—
3/21/2011
CD
o
d
a
0
3/31/2011
jV
A
_
w
v
4/10/2011
'
D
4/20/2011
a:
—
w
H
4/30/2011 -
5/10/2011
5/20/2011
5/30/2011
6/9/2011
6/19/2011
6/29/2011
v
7/9/2011
7/19/2011
7/29/2011
8/8/2011
8/18/2011
8/28/2011
9/7/2011
9/17/2011
a 0
9/27/2011
o e�
Cr
10/7/2011
10/17/2011
N
c�
d
10/27/2011
c
11/6/2011
- -- -- - - -
- --
--
O N W A
O
v
CO
Precipitation (inches)
r
0
CL
X
c�
y
O
a�
O
cm
N
L
O
vC
rt C.
c�
c
c�
CD
r

Water Level (inches)
W W W N N N N N Ll Ll Ll Ll 8� � r 0 O N
A N0OD0)ANOOD0)ANOODO) I�NONA W OOON4"b O)ODO
3/1/2011
3/11/2011
3/21/2011
3/31/2011
4/10/2011
4/20/2011
4/30/2011
5/10/2011
5/20/2011
5/30/2011
6/9/2011
6/19/2011
v 6/29/2011
m
7/9/2011
7/19/2011
7/29/2011
8/8/2011
8/18/2011
8/28/2011
9/7/2011
9/17/2011
9/27/2011
10 /7/2011
10/17/2011
10/27/2011
11/6/2011
old„
1
m
O N w A Cn D) v OD
Precipitation (inches)
r
O
a
X
CD
0
O
Im
mO
=
d N
cn
N'
L
—L O
v=
CL
c�
c
cc
CD
r-
0
N

Water Level (inches)
ANOODO�NOODO�NOOD� �NON�OODON�O
3/1/2011
- - - - - -- -- - -
--
rn
3/11/2011
- -� - -- —i - -- - -
- -�
3/21/2011
m
3/31/2011
_4
4/10/2011
D
�
a
4/20/2011
•°'c
CD
4/30/2011
5/10/2011
5/20/2011
5/30/2011
6/9/2011
Iwo
6/19/2011
6/29/2011
v
m 7/9/2011
7/19/2011
7/29/2011
8/8/2011
8/18/2011
8/28/2011
9/7/2011
9/17/2011
a
N
a o
9/27/2011
o
%
C�
O
10/7/2011
:E Cn
3
10/17/2011
N
CD
10/27/2011
0
11/6/2011
- - - - -- — — — — — — — —
— —
O N W A CT O -4 00
Precipitation (inches)
r-
0
Q.
CD
y
O
m
rr
M N
Cn D
N'
o�
�o
v�
I
m
C
CD
r
W

Water Levei ;"inches
O) NOODO -D, N C5 O.A N000 NO N A O) 00O tV -N DODO
3/l/2011
CL
3/11/2011 d ~114
N �
3/21/2011
� a
3/31/2011
4/10/2011
4/20/2011 00
4/30/2011
5/10/2011
5/20/2011
5/30/2011
6/9/2011
6/19/2011
6/29/2011
v
m 7/9/2011
7/19/2011
7/29/2011
8/8/2011
8/18/2011
Cn
8/28/2011 I�
N
9/7/2011
m
9/17/2011
CL <
o CD
9/27/2011
CD
0
10/7/2011 f'
m'
10/17/2011 cn
CD
10/27/2011 0
3
11/6/2011
O N W A M O v CO
Precipitation (inches)
r
O
Q.
X
m
N
O
O
CCD O
d Co
cn p
N'
L
�O
vC
O
m
O.
�. so
c
ca
O
r
G)
-A

Water Level (inches)
A N O O m A N O w O A N O OD O) N O V A O) OD O N A O OD O
3/1/2011
�d
3/11/2011
3/21/2011 I w oo
ti Q cS
m
3/31/2011
iN
4/10/2011 C D
4/20/2011 y
4/30/2011
N
W
5/10/2011 Q-
m
IF
N
5/20/2011
5/30/2011
6/9/2011
6/19/2011
6/29/2011
v
7/9/2011
7/19/2011
7/29/2011
8/8/2011
8/18/2011a -_
8/28/2011
9/7/2011
�a
m
9/17/2011 a <
o c�
9/27/2011 �j
0
10/7/2011 :. Cn
m
10/17/2011
m
10/27/2011 0
11/6/2011
ao
Co N W A to O v
Precipitation (inches)
r
O
CL
X
(D
N
O
O
c�D M
N
C p
N'
oC)
L Is
O
v�
rt Q
Su
Sm
c
cc
cD
r

Water Level (inches)
Precipitation (inches)
N000OANOOCAANO
0N)40)OD0
3/1/2011
3/11/2011
3/21/2011
IF
n�
3/31/2011
?
4/10/2011
,>
4/20/2011
CO
4/30/2011
a- C)
5/10/2011
r
O
5/20/2011
Q'
c
5/30/2011
O
6/9/2011
0
rt
°°
O
6/19/2011
=
Ca
6/29/2011
�
N �
CD 7/9/2011
O
7/19/2011
a
d
v m
7/29/2011
8/8/2011
8/18/2011
O
O
8/28/2011
9/7/2011
w
m
9/17/2011
= o
a<
o
~' 3
9/27/2011
Cr
I CD
o
10/7/2011
f
10/17/2011
cn
10/27/2011
obi
0
11/6/2011
- - - -- -----
— -
- - --
O N W A
Cn O)
V CO
Precipitation (inches)

Lloyd Restoration Site - Groundwater Gauge LG7
Year 5 (2011 Data)
r1
c�
�a
March 17
20
I
8
18
April 8
November 5
16
End of Growing Season
14
'
7
12
I Gauge thought to
18
struck lightning.
6
I Base
Base on data this gauge
2
24 days
6
4
69 days likely would have remained
�---� I
2
N 0
m
53
a y
5
u,
-2
31 days
�
c -4
4
0
-10
m -12
. .............�.................
............ .. ......................... ...............................
...
..
.............. .......................JL,.
................ ...
.
3
a
E
-14
-16
a`
-18
I
2
-22
I
-24
I
I
I
1
-28
-30
-32
-34
0
CD O
N N
o O o O o o O O o
N N N N N N N N N
O o O o o O O O o
N N N N N N N N N
O O O o O o
N N N N N N
M `
O O O O O O O
N CO \ N M ` N M
�V
O 01 O O O M O CO f--
- N r \ N W \ N �
f- f-
M
M M I' IT to LO In
(O W f- Il- CO 00
O O O O
r r
Date

Lloyd Restoration Site - Groundwater Gauge LG8
Year 5 (2011 Data)
r1
March
1';
20
'
I
8
18
April 8
November 5
16
g
End of Growing Season I
14
i
r
7
18
I
I
6
24 da s
I
6
4
Gauge thought to
21 days
27 days
~�
2
be struck by lightning
aNi 0
5
m
I
c -4
I
> -8
4
0
-j -10
a; -12
............
.............�
.. .... ............................... ............................... ..
............
........
...............
a
3
-16
a
-18
I
-20
6
2
-22
-24
-26
-28
1
-30
-32
-34
0
0 0
N N
\ \
0
N
\
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N N N N N N N N N N N N N
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
0 0
N N
\ \
0 0
N N
\ \
0 0
N N
\ \
0 0 0 0
N N N N
\ \ \ \
CO `
N
0 0 0 0 0 0 rn rn rn rn rn rn
M \ N Cr) \ N c` � \ N \ N
a0 00
\
00 r`
N
r r,
\ N
C r r co
N
CO
M
CO cp It 't tf) U1 t() (D (O I� ti
00
00
� M
O O
� r
Date

Water Level (inches)
8 N� 8 8 ti
? NO ODO)ANOODO.A N000� �NON�OOOON PD)OOC
3/1/2011
3/11/2011
3/21/2011
3/31/2011
4/10/2011
4/20/2011
4/30/2011
5/10/2011
5/20/2011
5/30/2011
6/9/2011
6/19/2011
6/29/2011
v
7/9/2011
7/19/2011
7/29/2011
8/8/2011
8/18/2011
8/28/2011
9/7/2011
9/17/2011
9/27/2011
10/7/2011
10/17/2011
10/27/2011
11/6/2011
O N W A M O v OD
Precipitation (inches)
nd^
1
3
m
s
i
y
r
O
K
a
X
m
W
O
11
O
tJf p
N
o�
O
v�
Su �
Im
0
m
c
co
r
m

Water Level (inches)
N) -D, W ODO NOODO74 NO ODOANO
3/1/2011
V
3/11/2011 d
3/21/2011 —
3/31/2011 c°
CL
4/10/2011 - -- - - -� - -- D
-a
4/20/2011 oD
4/30/2011
5/10/2011
5/20/2011
5/30/2011
6/9/2011
6/19/2011
6/29/2011
v
7/9/2011
7/19/2011
7/29/2011
8/8/2011
8/18/2011
8/28/2011
9/7/2011
m
9/17/2011
a<
o
9/27/2011 ~' C Cr
0
10 /7/2011 Cn
to
10/17/2011 to
d
10/27/2011 0
11/6/2011
CO
CO N w .ta cn rn �
Precipitation (inches)
�a,.
1
M
V
r
O
M
O
O
CD =
tv �
CD
N �
o�
o
va
a
CD
0
c
to
CD
m
n

APPENDIX D
MONITORING PLAN VIEW
Annual Monitoring Report Appendices
Lloyd Stream and Wetland Restoration Sde