20091169 Ver 1_Year 2 Monitoring Report_20140121

,r,., w140 ­*w
a
D9 _ o 4?
LITTLE TROUBLESOME CREEK MITIGATION SITE
Rockingham County, NC
NCDENR Contract 003267
NCEEP Project Number 94640
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report
FINAL
Data Collection Period: June -July 2013
Draft Submission Date: November 22, 2013
Final Submission Date: December 13, 2013
Prepared for:
rY
11SySteII1
it1 vCT:V AM
NCDENR, NCEEP
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC
27699 -1652
RECEIVED
DEL: 1. 7 201
NC ECOSYSTEM
ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM

Prepared by:
%t
WILDLANDS
E N G I N E E R I N G
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
1430 S. Mint Street, # 104
Charlotte, NC 28203
P - 704 - 332 -7754
F - 704 - 332 -3306

LITTLE TROUBLESOME CREEK MITIGATION SITE
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report
10 Executive Summary
1 1 Project Goals and Objectives
12 Monitoring Year 2 Data Assessment
12 1 Vegetative Assessment
1 2 2 Stream Assessment
1 2 3 Hydrology Assessment
1 2 4 Wetland Assessment
13 Monitoring Year 2 Summary
20 Methodology
30 References
APPENDICES
Appendix 1
General Tables and Figures
Figure 1
Project Vicinity Map
Figures 2a -2b
Project Component /Asset Map
Table i
Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Table 2
Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3
Project Contact Table
Table 4
Project Baseline Information and Attributes
Appendix 2 Visual Assessment Data
Figure 3 0 -3 5 Integrated Current Condition Plan View
Table 5a -d Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Table 6 Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Stream Photographs
Vegetation Photographs
Appendix 3 Vegetation Plot Data
Table 7 Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Table 8a -b CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Table 9a -c Planted and Total Stem Counts (Species by Plot with Annual Means)
,,f
Appendix 4 Morphological Summary Data and Plots
Table 10a -b Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table 11 Monitoring Data — Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters —
Cross - Section)
Table 12a -d Monitoring Data — Stream Reach Data Summary
Longitudinal Profile Plots
Cross - Section Plots
Reachwide and Cross - Section Pebble Count Plots
1
1
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
6

Appendix 5 Hydrology Summary Data and Plots
Table 13 Verification of Bankfull Events
Table 14 Wetland Gage Attainment Summary
30 -70 Percentile Monthly Rainfall
Groundwater Gage Plots

1.0 Executive Summary
The Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site is a full - delivery stream and wetland restoration project for
the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) in Rockingham County, NC The stream
area, hereafter referred to as the Stream Site, is located on the southeastern side of Reidsville along
Irvin and Little Troublesome Creeks The wetland area, hereafter referred to as the Wetland Site, is
located approximately four (4) miles southeast of the Stream Site and is also adjacent to Little
Troublesome Creek The Stream Site is located south of Turner Road, east of the intersection of Turner
Road and Way Street in the City of Reidsville, North Carolina The Wetland Site is located approximately
3,000 feet southwest of the intersection of NC Highway 150 and Mizpah Church Road, south of the City
of Reidsville Little Troublesome Creek is located within the Haw River watershed (North Carolina
Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) Subbasin 03- 06 -01) of the Cape Fear River Basin (Hydrologic Unit
03030002010030)
The Stream Site is located in a mature bottomland hardwood forest within a 34 5 -acre tract owned by
Wildlands Little Troublesome Creek Holdings, LLC A conservation easement has been recorded on 33
acres of the tract (Deed Book 1411, Page Number 2458) Project streams reaches consist of Irvin Creek
reach 1 and 2, Little Troublesome Creek, and UT1 as shown in Figure 2a The wetland portion of the
Little Troublesome Creek project is located within a tract of land owned by Jerry Apple A conservation
easement has been recorded on the 19 -acre project area within the Apple tract (Deed Book 1412, Page
Number 1685) Project wetland areas consist of one (1) wetland (RW1) as shown in Figure 2b
Little Troublesome Creek (NCDWQ Index No 16 -7), which is the main creek on the project site, has been
classified as Class C, NSW waters Class C waters are protected for secondary recreation, fishing,
wildlife, fish and aquatic life propagation and survival, agriculture, and other uses The Nutrient
Sensitive Waters (NSW) classification is a supplemental classification for waters that are subject to
excessive growth of microscopic or macroscopic vegetation and therefore need nutrient management
Directions and a map of the Site are provided in Figure 1
11 Project Goals and Objectives
Prior to construction activities, the most significant watershed stressors identified during the technical
assessment were stream bank erosion and instability Other stressors included declining aquatic
habitat, loss of forest, degraded riparian buffers, loss of wetlands, lack of urban stormwater detention,
and water quality problems related to increased sediment and nutrient loadings As a result of the
aforementioned stressors, the Stream Site and Wetland Site had poor water quality due to sediment
pollution and poor habitat due to lack of riparian and wetland vegetation In particular, the Stream Site
lacked stable streambank vegetation despite being surrounded by mature vegetation The Stream Site
also lacked in- stream bed diversity and exhibited unstable geomorphic conditions Table 4 in Appendix
1 and Tables 10a, 10b, and 10c in Appendix 4 present the pre - restoration conditions in detail
The primary objectives of the project were to stabilize highly eroding stream banks, reconnect streams
to their historic floodplain, improve wetland hydrology and function, reduce nutrient levels, sediment
input, and water temperature, increase dissolved oxygen concentrations, create appropriate in- stream
and terrestrial habitat, and decrease channel velocities These objectives were achieved by restoring
4,988 linear feet (LF) of perennial stream channel, and restoring, enhancing, and creating 18 0 acres of
riparian wetland The Stream Site and Wetland Site riparian areas were also planted to stabilize
streambanks, improve habitat, and protect water quality
The following primary project goals (measured) were established in the project Mitigation Plan (2011) to
address the effects from watershed and project site stressors
ON
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report —FINAL
Page 1

• Stabilize stream dimensions;
• Stabilize stream pattern and profile;
• Establish proper substrate distribution throughout stream;
• Establish wetland hydrology for restored wetlands; and
• Restore native vegetation throughout wetlands and buffer zones.
The following secondary project goals (unmeasured) were established in the project Mitigation Plan
(2011) to address the effects from watershed and project site stressors:
• Decrease nutrient and urban runoff pollutant levels;
• Decrease sediment input;
• Decrease water temperature and increase dissolved oxygen levels;
• Create appropriate in- stream habitat;
• Create appropriate terrestrial habitat; and
• Decrease channel velocities.
The following project objectives were established to meet these primary and secondary goals:
• Riffle cross - sections of the restoration and enhancement reaches were constructed to
remain stable and will show little change in bankfull area, maximum depth ratio, and width -
to -depth ratio over time.
• The project was constructed so that the bedform features of the restoration reaches will
remain stable overtime. This includes riffles that will remain steeper and shallower than the
pools and pools that are deep with flat water surface slopes. The relative percentage of
riffles and pools will not change significantly over time. Banks will be constructed so that
bank height ratios will remain very near to 1.0 for nearly all of the restoration reaches.
• Stream substrate will remain coarse in the riffles and finer in the pools.
• A free groundwater surface will be present within 12 inches of the ground surface in the
restored wetland areas for 7 percent of the growing season measured on consecutive days
under typical precipitation conditions.
• Native vegetation appropriate for the wetland and riparian buffer zones were planted
throughout both the Wetland and Stream Sites. The planted trees will become well
established and survival criteria will be met.
• Off -site nutrient input will be absorbed on -site by filtering flood flows through restored
floodplain areas and wetlands, where flood flows can disperse through native vegetation
and be captured in vernal pools. Increased surface water residency time will provide
contact treatment time and groundwater recharge potential.
• Sediment input from eroding stream banks was reduced by installing bioengineering and in-
stream structures while creating a stable channel form using geomorphic design principles.
Sediment from off -site sources will be captured by deposition on restored floodplain areas
where native vegetation will slow overland flow velocities.
• Restored riffle /step -pool sequences where distinct points of re- aeration can occur will allow
for oxygen levels to be maintained in the perennial reaches. Creation of deep pool zones
will lower temperature, helping to maintain dissolved oxygen concentrations.
Establishment and maintenance of riparian buffers will create long -term shading of the
channel flow to minimize thermal heating.
• A channel form that includes riffle /pool sequences and gravel and cobble zones of
macroinvertebrate habitat for fish was created. Large woody debris, rock structures, root
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report —FINAL
Page 2

wads, and native stream bank vegetation were introduced to substantially increase habitat
value
• Adjacent buffer areas were restored by removing invasive vegetation and planting native
vegetation These areas will be allowed to receive more regular and inundating flows
Riparian wetland areas were restored and enhanced to provide wetland habitat
• By allowing for more overbank flooding and by increasing channel roughness, local channel
velocities can be reduced This will allow for less bank shear stress, formation of refuge
zones during large storm events and zonal sorting of depositional material
12 Monitoring Year 2 Data Assessment
The final restoration plan was submitted and accepted by NCEEP in June 2011 Construction activities
were completed by Fluvial Solutions in May 2012 The baseline monitoring and as -built survey (MY -0)
were completed between April and May 2012 Annual monitoring will be conducted on the Stream Site
fora total of five (5) years Annual monitoring will be conducted on the Wetland Site for a total of seven
(7) years The close -out for both the Stream Site and Wetland Site is anticipated to commence in 2019
Annual monitoring and quarterly site visits were conducted during monitoring year 2 (MY -2) to assess
the condition of the project The stream and wetland mitigation success criteria for the Site follow the
approved success criteria presented in the Little Troublesome Mitigation Plan (2011)
12 1 Vegetative Assessment
Vegetation assessments were conducted following the Carolina Vegetation Survey (CVS) Level 2
Protocol for Recording Vegetation (Lee et al, 2008) A total of 35 vegetation plots were established
during the baseline monitoring within the project easement areas (22 at the Wetland Site, 13 at the
Stream Site) using standard 10 meter by 10 meter vegetation monitoring plots Due to the narrow
planted corridor along UT1, vegetation plots were not established Instead, a visual assessment of
the planted corridor is used to evaluate vegetation growth success The final vegetative success
criteria will be the survival of 260 planted stems per acre in the riparian corridor of the Stream Site
at the end of MY -5, and 200 planted stems per acre within the Wetland Site at the end of year seven
monitoring (MY -7) The interim measure of vegetative success for the Stream and Wetland Sites will
be the survival of at least 320 planted stems per acre at the end of the third monitoring year (MY -3)
The MY -2 vegetation survey on the Wetland Site resulted in an average stem density of 532 stems
per acre, which is greater than the interim requirement of 320 stems /acre and approximately 24%
less than the baseline (MY -0) density recorded (701 stems /acre) There was an average of 13 stems
per plot compared to 17 stems per plot during MY -0 for the Wetland Site The average stem density
on the Stream Site was 781 stems /acre, which is also greater than the interim requirement, but
approximately 18% less than the baseline density recorded (953 stems /acre) There was an average
of 19 stems per plot compared to 24 stems per plot in MY -0 for the Stream Site
A total of 33 plots are on track to meet the interim success criteria of 320 stems per acre required
for MY -3 Vegetation plots 16 and 17 within the Wetland Site resulted in fewer surviving stems than
required to reach the interim success criteria, however the plots currently exceed the final
vegetative success criteria of 200 stems per acre density for the Wetland Site in MY -7 Invasive
species have been identified onsite at the Stream Site, including Kudzu, Murdannia, Japanese Stilt
Grass, Multiflora Rose, Air Potato, and Morning Glory However, the presence of these species does
not appear to be affecting the survivability of planted stems Please refer to Appendix 3 for
vegetation summary tables and raw data tables and Appendix 2 for vegetation plot photographs and
the vegetation condition assessment table
Oft
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report —FINAL
Page 3

Maintenance Plan
The need for supplemental plantings will be evaluated in Winter 2013/2014. Wildlands will re-
evaluate the low stem density areas from the MY -2 vegetation survey during the winter 2013 and
determine where and if supplemental planting is needed on the Site. Maintenance of invasive
vegetation areas will be assessed in Winter 2013/2014 and will be selectively treated with
herbicide in the Spring 2014. Follow up treatments will be conducted annually as necessary
to control their spread and dominance.
1.2.2 Stream Assessment
Morphological surveys for the MY -2 were conducted in June 2013. All streams within the Site met
the success criteria for MY -2. Please refer to Appendix 2 for the visual assessment table, current
condition plan view (CCPV), and photographs and Appendix 4 for morphological data and plots.
Riffle cross - sections surveyed along the restoration reaches have met success criteria for MY -2. The
cross - sections appear stable and show little to no change in the bankfull area, maximum depth ratio,
or width -to -depth ratio. All surveyed riffle cross - sections fell within the parameters defined for
channels of the appropriate Rosgen stream type. The surveyed longitudinal profile data for the
stream restoration reaches illustrates that the bedform features are maintaining lateral and vertical
stability. The riffles are remaining steeper and shallower than the pools, while the pools are
remaining deeper than riffles and maintaining flat water surface slopes. The longitudinal profiles
show that the bank height ratios remain very near to 1.0 for all of the restoration reaches.
Deposition within pools was documented in the longitudinal profile along UT1. The deposition is not
affecting channel stability but will be monitored. In- stream structures, such as root wads used to
enhance channel habitat and stability on the outside bank of meander bends are providing stability
and habitat as designed. Pattern data will only be completed in MY -5 if there are indicators from
the profile or cross - sections that significant geomorphic adjustments have occurred. No changes
were observed that indicated a change in the radius of curvature or channel belt width; therefore,
pattern data is not included in the MY -2 report.
Substrate materials in the restoration reaches indicate a progression toward and the maintenance
of coarser materials in the riffle features and smaller particles in the pool features.
1.2.3 Hydrology Assessment
At the end of the MY -5 period, two (2) or more bankfull events must occur in separate years within
the restoration reach. Bankfull events were recorded on Irvin Creek, Little Troublesome Creek, and
UT1 by crest gage or onsite observations (wrack lines) during the MY -2 data collection. Please refer
to Appendix 5 to review the hydrologic data.
1.2.4 Wetland Assessment
Groundwater monitoring gages were established throughout the wetland restoration,
enhancement, and creation areas on the Wetland Site. The gages were installed at appropriate
locations so that the data collected will provide an indication of groundwater levels throughout the
wetland project area. A total of eight (8) groundwater gages were installed. According to local
WETS station in Eden, NC, the growing season in Rockingham County runs from March 25th to
November 6th (226 days). Wildlands installed two (2) soil temperature loggers, one (1) within each
wetland, to collect additional growing season data. These probes can be used to better define the
growing season using the threshold soil temperature of 41 degrees or higher measured at a depth of
12 inches (USACE, 2010). The probes indicate a longer growing season than that defined for
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site Page 4
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report —FINAL

Rockingham County by the WETS station data. A barotroll logger and a rain gage were also installed
onsite. All monitoring gages were downloaded on a quarterly basis and will be maintained on an as
needed basis. The onsite rain gage appeared to be malfunctioning during part the growing season,
therefore daily and monthly rainfall totals beginning on May 24 are reported from a nearby weather
monitoring station (REID) at Upper Piedmont Research Station, Reidsville NC, part of the
ECONet /CRONOS database maintained by the State Climate Office of North Carolina. Monitoring
gage locations are depicted on the CCPV maps in Appendix 2.
The success criteria for wetland hydrology is to have a free groundwater surface within 12 inches of
the ground surface for 7 percent of the growing season, which is measured on consecutive days
under typical precipitation conditions. An onsite rainfall gage recorded 16.61 inches of precipitation
from January through May 2013. This is lower than the historic precipitation average of 20.02
inches from January through May collected at nearby weather station Reidsville 2 NW, NC7202
between 1971 and 2000 (USDA 2002). In addition, a nearby active weather station (REID) recorded
38.45 inches from January through October of 2013, which is more than the historic precipitation
average of 31.34 inches collected at Reidsville 2 NW NC7202 (SCONC 2013, USDA 2002). All of the
groundwater monitoring gages met the annual wetland hydrology success criteria. Please refer to
Appendix 5 for wetland hydrology data and plots.
1.3 Monitoring Year 2 Summary
Overall, all streams within the Site are stable and functioning as designed. Of the 35 vegetation plots, 33
met the success criteria required for MY -2 as seen in the CCPV. There has been at least two (2) bankfull
events recorded along each restored project reach since construction commenced, therefore, the MY5
hydrology attainment requirement has been met for the Site. Currently, all groundwater gages are
meeting success criteria for wetland hydrology.
Summary information /data related to the performance of various project and monitoring elements can
be found in the tables and figures in the report appendices. Narrative background and supporting
information formerly found in these reports can be found in the Mitigation Plan documents available on
NCEEP's website. All raw data supporting the tables and figures in the appendices is available from
NCEEP upon request.
2.0 Methodology
Geomorphic data was collected followed the standards outlined in The Stream Channel Reference Site:
An Illustrated Guide to Field Techniques (Harrelson et al., 1994) and in the Stream Restoration: A Natural
Channel Design Handbook (Doll et al., 2003). Longitudinal and cross - sectional data were collected using
a total station and were georeferenced. Reach wide pebble counts were conducted along each restored
reach for channel classification. Cross - section substrate analyses conducted in each surveyed riffle
followed the 100 count wetted perimeter methodology. Subpavement samples were collected at each
surveyed riffle cross - section and processed in an outsourced lab. All CCPV mapping was recorded using
a Trimble handheld GPS with sub -meter accuracy and processed using was Pathfinder and ArcView.
Crest gages were installed in surveyed riffle cross - sections and monitored quarterly. Hydrology
attainment installation and monitoring methods are in accordance with the United States Army Corps of
Engineers guidelines (2003). Vegetation monitoring protocols followed the Carolina Vegetation Survey -
NCEEP Level 2 Protocol (Lee et al., 2008).
ktp Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site Page 5
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report —FINAL

Yl
3.0 References
Doll, B A, Grabow, G L, Hall, K A, Halley, J, Harman, W A, Jennings, G D, and Wise, D E, 2003 Stream
Restoration A Natural Channel Design Handbook , j
Harrelson, Cheryl C, Rawlins, C L, Potyondy, John P 1994 Stream Channel Reference Sites An
Illustrated Guide to Field Technique Gen Tech Rep RM -245 Fort Collins, CO U S Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station 61 p
Lee, Michael T, Peet, Robert K, Steven D, Wentworth, Thomas R (2008) CVS -EEP Protocol for
Recording Vegetation Version 4 0 Retrieved from http //www nceep net /business/
monitoring /veg /datasheets htm
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
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
State Climate Office of North Carolina (SCONC) 2013 CRONOS Database ECONet weather station at
Upper Piedmont Research Station (REID), in Reidsville, NC
http //nc- climate ncsu edu /cronos ?station =REID &temporal =daily ' -J
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 2003 Stream Mitigation Guidelines USACE, NCDENR-
DWO, USEPA, NCWRC
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 2010 Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of
Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region (ERDC /EL TR -10-
9) U S Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) 2002 Natural Resources Conservation Service, Climate
Information for Catawba County, NC (1971 -2000)
WETS Station Reidsville NW, NC7202
http //www wcc nres usda gov /ftpref/ support/climate /wetlands /nc/37157 txt
United States Geological Survey (USGS), 1998 North Carolina Geology http //
http / /www geology enr state nc us /usgs /carolma htm
Wildlands Engineering, Inc (2011) Little Troublesome Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan NCEEP, Raleigh,
NC
ON
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report —FINAL
Page 6

APPENDIX 1. General Tables and Figures

103220060
Wr,'t C(Mk
GoH �ws•: _
Pbnb :ion I
Coll C owse
dn,nam
030101040240.30
3010103240010 03010103
w
'010103220060 j
I
'r
AWN*n� ,o Sdwm 10
�q ` REi11 snl,e pL'II
J
r 4
0303000204,0030
0303000�1A3�Ja
03030002
i
r
03030002010020
The subject project site is an environmental restoration site of the
NCDENR Ecoysystem Enhancement Program (EEP) and is
encompassed by a recorded conservation easement, but is
bordered by land under private ownership. Accessing the site may
require traversing areas near or along the easement boundary and
therefore access by the general public is not permitted. Access by
authorized personnel of state and federal agencies or their
designees /contractors involved in the development, oversight,
and stewardship of the restoration site is permitted within the terms
and timeframes of their defined roles. Any intended site visitation or
activity by any person outside of these previously sanctioned roles
and activites requires prior coordination with EEP.
01.1
Hydrologic Unit Code (14)
- EEP Targeted Local Watershed
03010104
� A ,I nulVhau.
f lOA.
03010104021010 I
J
10 A
w J�
VMNI�nd am
I-An Pe ft
03030002010040
Directions:
The proposed stream
mitigation project area
is located south of Turner
Road, east of the
ISO
intersection of Turner
`s
Road and Way Street in
the City of Reidsville,
North Carolina. The
proposed wetland
mitigation project area
�'•►�� �! �+1
is located approximately
3,000 feet southwest of
the intersection of NC
�% #
Highway 150 and Mizpah
03030002020070
Church Road, south of
the City of Reidsville.
Figure 1 Project Vicinity Map
0 0.75 1.5 Miles Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
t I NCEEP Project Number 94640
[O)S Stem Monitoring Year 2
WILD LANDS yt„
L N G I NLL K ING ,, ,,,
Rockingham County, NC

Figure 2a Project Component /Asset Map
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
Stream Site
0 250 500 Feet NCEEP Project Number 94640
W 11, D L, A N D S I i I Monitoring Year 2
Rockingham County, NC

,/
r
n
yikA�A�''
S� i
sr
U•
2010 Aerial Photography

Table 1 Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No 94640)
Monitoring Year 2
Mrtigatwn Credos
Stream Riparian Wetland
Non - Riparian Wetland
Nitrogen Phosphorous
Buffer Nutrient Offet Nutrient Offset
Type R
RE R
RE
R
RE
®-
N/A N/A N/A
Totals 5,052
N/A 10 3
2 8
N/A
N/A
Project Components
Reach ID
As -B'udt
Stationing/
Location
E xisting
Footage 11
9 roach
Restoration or Restoration
Equivalent
Restoration Footage (LF) /
Acreage (Ac)*
Mrti anon Ratio
Irvin Creek - Reach 1
102 +10 to
123 +05
11640
Priority 1
Restoration
1,793
11
Irvin Creek - Reach 2
123 +05 to
142 +37
1,505
Priority 1
Restoration
1,882
11
Little Troublesome Creek
200 +00 to
211 +71
1,080
Priority 1
Restoration
1,080
1 1
UT1
400 +00 to
402 +33
184
Priority 1/2
Restoration
233
1 1
RW1
N/A
N/A
Restoration
Restoration
8 7
11
RW1
N/A
N/A
Creation
Restoration Equivalent
4 9
3 1
RWl
N/A
3 7
Enhancement
Restoration Equivalent
3 7
13 1 **
Component Summation
Restoration Level
Stream (linear feet)
Riparian Wetland
(acres)
Non - Riparian Wetland
(acres)
Buffer
(square feet)
Upland (acres)
Restoration
4,988
Rivenne
Non- Rivenne
8 7
Enhancement
28
Enhancement I
®�
19
Enhancement II
Creation
Preservation
High Quality Preservation
BMP Elements
Elements
Location
Purpose /Function
Notes
BR = Bioretention Cell, S F= Sand Filter, SW = Stormwater Wetland, WDP = Wet Detention Pond, DDP = Dry Detention Pond, FS = Fitter Strip, S = Grassed
Swale, LS = Level Spreader, NI = Natural Infiltration Area, FB = Forested Buffer
* Note that lengths do not match stationing because channel sections that do not generate credit have been removed from length calculations
i
* *The higher enhancement ratio was agreed to with Todd Tugwell, with the USACE, during a March 9, 2011 meeting for the several reasons The higher ratio is warranted
because of the low quality of the existing wetland enhancement zone Currently the enhancement zone, like the restoration and creation zones, is being used for farming
The hydrology of the site has been altered by a drainage ditch and a berm along Little Troublesome Creek There is no vegetation on the site except for some areas of
grasses and cultivated crops Enhancement activities performed on the site will include improving the hydrology of the enhancement zone (as well as the creation and
restoration zones) and restoring the native vegetation Therefore the functional uplift of the enhancement portion of the project will be nearly the same as that of the
restoration zone and, thus, a high ratio for enhancement is appropriate
i
�� J

Table 2 Project Activity and Reporting History
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No 94640)
Monitoring Year 2
— *t
Activity or Report
Date CollectionComplete
Completion or Scheduled
Dettvery
Mitigation Plan
June 2011
June 2011
Final Design - Construction Plans
August 2011
August 2011
Construction
Aril 2012
May 2012
Temporary S &E mix applied to entire project area'
April 2012
May 2012
Permanent seed mix applied to reach /segments
April 2012
May 2012
Bare root plantings for reach /segments
April 2012
May 2012
Baseline Monitoring Document (Year 0 Monitoring - baseline)
April/May 2012
June 2012
Year 1 Monitoring
September /October 2012
December 2012
Year 2 Monitoring
June /October 2013
December 2013
Year 3 Monitoring
2014
December 2014
Year 4 Monitoring
2015
December 2015
Year 5 Monitoring
2016
December 2016
Year 6 Monitoring2
2017
December 2017
Year 7 Monitorin 2
2018
December 2018
'Seed and mulch Is added as each section of construction is completed
'Monitoring Year 6 and 7 include monitoring the Wetland Site only
Table 3 Project Contact Table
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No 94640)
Monitoring Year 2
D.. si ne"i>& cna v ; i^. a. = 3
? _
fi _� � g R B.. ' Ta
Wildlands E_n meenn Inds a
5605 Chapel Hill Road, Suite 122
Raleigh, NC 27604
Jeff Keaton, PE
919 8519986
Cons�rudion Contracton► "7 ` `" '�
t!►q 3iFluvtal Soliitrons
PO Box 28749
Peter Jelenevsky
Raleigh, NC 28749
Pla, ntingt Contractor- St�eamSRee'"N'`�" T "" - J _'Fiuwa'I(Solutions'ET'f`r�
PO Box 28749
PeterJelenevsky
Raleigh, NC 28749
P_lantin Tp Contractor_ - WetlandjSiie"g`'�
Natural Systems, Inc - -n
PO Box 1197
Freemont, NC 27830
Charlie Bruton
9192426555
Seedm Contracto 4St °rea am ndlWetlandlrte "' '` '
S
` �., F,luwa "_IF��utlons
_
PO Box 28749
Peter lelenevsky
Raleigh, NC 28749
Seed Mix Sources
Mellow Marsh Farm
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Arborgen
Dykes and Son Nursery
NC Forestry Service, Claridge Nursery
11Aonnonn Perform_ ers17 -" _�}
_ WddlandyEng_ineennginc`k°°a� `
Stream, Vegetation, and Wetland Monitoring, POC
Kirsten Y Gimbert
704 332 7754, ext 110

Table 4 Project Baseline Information and Attributes
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No 94640)
Monitoring Year 2
Project Information
Project Name
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
County
Rockingham
Project Area (acres)
Stream Site 33 acres, Wetland Site 19 acres
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude)
36° 20' 96 "N, 79° 39'31"W
Project Watershed Summary Information
Ph siogra hic Province Inner Piedmont Belt of the Piedmont
River Basin
Cape Fear
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8 -digit
03030002
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14 -digit
03030002010030
DWQ Sub -balm
03 -06 -01
Project Draimage Area (acres)
3,254
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area
17%
CGIA Land Use Classification
55% Forest Land, 17% Cultivated Land, 28% Developed
Reach Summary
Information
Parameters
Irvin Creek
Reach 1
Irvin Creek
Reach 2
Little
Troublesome
Creek
LIT1
RW3
Length of reach (linear feet) - Post - Restoration
2,095
1,932
1,171
233
N/A
Drainage area (acres)
525
584
3,245
62
N/A
NCDWQ stream identification score
45
45
45 5
265
N/A
NCDWQ Water Quality Classification
C
C
C, NSW
C
C, NSW
Morphological Desri tion (stream e)
Perennial
Perennial
Perennial
Intermittent
N/A
Evolutions trend (Simon's Model) - Pre- Restoration
Stage IV
Stage IV
Stage IV
Stage IV
N/A
Underlying mapped sods
CsA
CsA
CsA
CsA
CsA / HcA
Drainage class
Somewhat
Poorly- Drained
Somewhat
Poorly- Drained
Somewhat
Poorly- Drained
i
Somewhat
Poorly- Drained
i
Somewhat
Poorly- Drained
/ Poorly
Drained
Soil Hydnc status
No
No
No
No
No /Yes
Slope
0 -2%
0 -2%
0 -2%
0 -2%
1 0 -2%
FEMA classification
Zone AE
Native vegetation community
Bottom -land forest
Percent composition of exotic invasive vegetation - Post - Restoration
0%
Regulatory Considerations
Regulation
Applicable?
Resolved?
Supporting Documentation
Waters of the United States -Section 404
X
X
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Plan, USACE
Nationwide Permit No 27 and DWQ 401 Water
Quality Certification No 3689
Waters of the United States - Section 401
X
X
Division of Land Quality (Dam Safety)
N/A
N/A
N/A
Endangered Species Act
X
X
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Plan, studies
found "no effect" (letter from USFWS)
Historic Preservation Act
X
X
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Plan, No
historic resources were found to be impacted
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) /Coastal Area Management Act
(CAMA)
N/A
N/A
N/A
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
X
X
Approved CLOMR
Essential Fisheries Habitat
N/A
N/A
N/A
'LF provided included portions of the stream that will be monitoring and have been reconstructed, but for which mitigation credit will not be claimed Please refer to Table 1 for
the credit summary lengths
1

APPENDIX 2. Visual Assessment Data

Figure 3.0 Integrated Current Condition Plan View
(Key)
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
Stream Site
NCEEP Project Number 94640
Monitoring Year 2
Rockingham County, NC
�'�t11�'1tl'lll 0 250 500 Feet
WILD LAN DS
I
E NC:I N t t RI NC;
(Key)
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
Stream Site
NCEEP Project Number 94640
Monitoring Year 2
Rockingham County, NC

kt�
WILDL, AND S
t N(:I N t t RI NG
Figure 3.1 Integrated Current Condition Plan View
(Sheet 1 of 4)
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
[,CO SyStCl1l 0 62.5 125 Feet Stream Site
l i I NCEEP Project Number 94640
Monitoring Year 2
Rockingham County, NC

Conservation Easement
® Duke Power R/W
Sewer Line Easement
Vernal Pools
Gas Line
t Railroad
Stream Restoration
No SMU Credit
Reduced SMU Credit
— — — Designed Bankfull
Cross - Section (XS)
Structures
Reach Breaks
Photo Points (PP)
M1 Vegetation Plot Condition - MY2
- Criteria Met
" -Criteria Not Met
Invasive Plant Population
•
Parcels
ii
2B
"y

kt� r-�l
0 62.5 125 Feet
WILD I, A N D S ,C Uti1'1t�'l 1 1
Figure 3.3 Integrated Current Condition Plan View
(Sheet 3 of 4)
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
Stream Site
NCEEP Project Number 94640
Monitoring Year 2
Rockingham County, NC

Conservation Easement
WA Duke Power R/W
in Creek Reach 2
jin
J oanese Stilt Grass Sewer Line Easement
Vernal Pools
Gas Line
+ Railroad
— No SMU Credit
-- Reduced SMU Credit
p' < - -� � Stream Restoration
— — Designed Bankfull
Crncs- Sxtion rX81
Little Troublesome vegecauon riot k,onamon - rvi r c
reek I Criteria Met
Criteria Not Met
Invasive Plant Population
Parcels
Sg
fs
t�
�. UT1
N' Murdannia }�
PF -2,
XS12
lip
•1
L1
W.
c
\I
- I
2010 Aerial hotography

ST
GG2
i
'000 o,
RG
GG4
�l
R1,
'ST2
GG
v
1
�r
2010 Aerial Photography

Table So Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No 94640)
Irvin Creek Reach 1 (1,793 LF)
Monitoring Year 2
Number
with
Footage with
Adjust %for
Total
Number of
Amount of
%StableNumber
,
Major Channel
Channel Sub Category
Metric
Stable,
Number In
Unstable
Unstable
Performing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Category
Performing
Woody
Woody
Woody
As -Built
Segments
Footage
as Intended
as intended
Vegetation
Vegetation
Vegetation
1 Bed
1 Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0
0
100%
J _
v
Riffle and Run units
( j
d
Degreation
0
0
100/ %
1 ,
2 Riffle Condition
Texture /Substrate
16
16
100%
rul
3 Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
16
16
100%
Lenth Appropriate
16
16
100%
Condition
`�
_
ly
Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
16
16
F4Thalweg Position
� -
Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide)
16
16
100%
i
� `� '
i �.5W k�iY■itYy�f�i�L +1 1 fEef_,- ��+� . a
rvi�'yr ■ �a■..3�s � �1�1'••'•J
. ,IC
iwefr
—_ _ —. Ls
2 Bank
1 Scoured /Eroded
k lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and /or scour
0 0
100%
0
0
100%
erosion
ks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears likely
2 Undercut
[Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable and are
0 0
100%
0
0
100%
wdm habtat
3 Mass Wasting
k slumping, calving, or collapse.
0 0
100%
0
0
100%
Tai._ - �pp"-ry��r
TLS 1. L1 Kam, -91
►"
T0 tals
0 0
100%
0
0
100%
C z . m r �E1 - �ifE�- ' �s r ,
=�- -• ups --�? in nr,�� v
y� yew
3 Engineered
1 Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no ddodged boulders or logs
36
36
100%
1
Structures
2 Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill
24
24
100%
2a Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms
24
24
100%
3 Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%
31
31
100°3
�- w
100%
4 Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining -Max Pool Depth Bankfull Depth L 1 6
12
12
1;
Rootwads to s providing some cover atbaseflow

Table 5b Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No 94640)
Irvin Creek Reach 2 (1,882 LF)
Monitoring Year 2
Number
with
Footage with
Adjust % for
Major Channel
Stable,
Total
Number of
Amount of
%StableNumber
,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Channel Sub-Category
ategory
Metric c
Number �n
Unstable
Unstable
Performing
Performing
Woody
Woody
Woody
As -Built
Segments
Footage
Intended
as Inten
aslntended
Vegetation
Vegetation
Vegetation
1 Bed
1 Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0
0
100%
-'
(Riffle and Run units)
N -_ ;
Degredation
0
0
100%
2 Riffle Condition
Texture /Substrate
16
16
�rc r � °�. 1000/
3 Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
15
15
100%
Condition
1005/o
Lenth Appropnate
15
15
Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
15
15
4 Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide)
15
15
H100%.
'1
O Z' ; n l r
Scoured /Eroded
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and /or scour
0 0 100%
2 Bank
0
0
and erosion
100%
Banks undercut /overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears likely
2 Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable and are
0 0 100%
0
0 1009/6
providing habitat
3 Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0 100%
0 0 100%
0
0
100%
0
0 100%
3 Engineered
1 Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no ddodged boulders or logs
35
35
100%
sl
Structures
2 Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill
19
19
100%
III
-
2a Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms
9
9
100%
_ u
-
R -
3 Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%
19
19
-
1 o
1
4 Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining -Max Pool Depth Bankfull Depth 2:16
19
19
!_ °-
100 %,
-
Rootwads to s providing some cover atbaseflow

Table 5c Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No 94640)
UTl (233 LF)
Monitoring Year 2
Number
Numberwith
Footagewith
Adjust %for
Total
Number of
Amount of
%Stable,
MalorChannel
Channel Sub Category
Metric
Stable,
Number m
Unstable
Unstable
Performing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Category
g ry
Performing
As -Built
Segments
Footage
as Intended
ed
Woody
Woody
Woody
Vegetation
Vegetation
Vegetation
1 Bed
1 Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0
0
100%
h 1 }
Degredation
0 0
100%
(Riffle and Run units)
2 Riffle Condition
Texture /Substrate
6 6
3 Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
4
4
Condition
Lenth Appropriate
4
4
Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
4
4
4 Thalweg Position
r`a
Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide)
4
4
100%
- FT- t
44 c�„�,� �1i,.;. �ni '
-
A I�:.i
'x °�
L
2 Bank
1 Scoured /Eroded
lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and /or scour
0 0
100%
0 0 100%
erosion
undercut/overhangmg to the extent that mass wasting appears likely
2 Undercut
[Bnks
NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable and are
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
d,n habitat
3 Mass Wasting
slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
i- }Y
„_ o �? _ � 6
f,' "� 'rtef.�rifi
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
_7 �- aS�,.:
�.e a'-
+� a�s�onfac�l�
3 Engineered
1 Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no ddodged boulders or logs
6
6
r
100%
s
r`
Structures
" !p
2 Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill
6
6
100%
2a Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms
0
0
100%
i
3 Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%
0
0
100%
4 Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining -Max Pool Depth Bankfull Depth 2:16
Rootwacls/loqs providing some cover atbaseflow
.

Table 5d Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No 94640)
Little Troublesome Creek (1,080 LF)
Monitoring Year 2
Number
Total
Number of Amount of
%Stable,
Numberwith
Footagewith Adjust %for
Ma or Channel
1
Channel Sub Category
Metric
Stable,
umber m
Unstable Unstable
Performing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing Stabilizing
Category
Performing
g
As -Built
Segments Footage
as Intended
Woody
Woody Woody
as Intended
Vegetation
Vegetation Vegetation
1 Bed
1 Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0 0
100%
(Riffle and Run units)
i ' -� - -
F
M
Degredation
0 0
100%
2 Riffle Condition
Texture /Substrate
5 5
100%
3 Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
100%
4 4
Condition
Lenth Appropriate
4 4
100%
Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
4 4
100%
4 Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide)
100%
4 4
- ; IT- ' �T� �'�
�1
- Lii131L1a���'il� L�J
ILJr- i_1tiQ�L�.�
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and /or scour
and erosion
AL
2 Bank
Scoured /Eroded
7im
0
0
100%
0
0 100.10
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears likely
2 Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable and are
0
0
100%
0
0 100%
providing habitat
3 Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, orcollapse
0
0
100%
0
0 100%
r� - „,��;
;{
a *” {1•, , =='�
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0 100%
3 Engineered
1 Overall Integrity
Structures physically Intact with no ddodged boulders or logs
9
9
100%
ry
Structures
2 Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill
6
6
100%
'�
2a Piping
Structures lacking any substantial Flow underneath sills or arms
1
1
100%
yk
``
3 Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%
4
4
100%
4 Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining -Max Pool Depth Bankfull Depth 2 16
4
4
100%
Rootwads to s rovidm some cover at baseflow
;1 �,��E
'I

Table 6 Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (EEP Project No 94640)
Monitoring Year 2
Planted Acreage 337
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Mapping
Threshold
acres
Numberof
Polygons
Combined
Acreage
% of
Planted
Acreage*
Bare Areas
Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material
01
0
0
000%
Low Stem Density AreasA
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 4, or 5 stem count criteria
01
2
004
01%
Total
2
004
01%
Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor
Areas with woody stems of a size class that are obviously small given the monitoring year
0 25 acres
0
0
0%
Cumulative Total
2
00
0%
Easement Acreage 52
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Mapping
Threshold
SF
Number of
Polygons
Combined
Acreage
of
Planted
Acreage
Invasive Areas of Concern
Areas of points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale)
1000
5
031
1%
Easement Encroachment Areas
Areas of points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale)
none
0
0
0%

Stream Photographs

hj.
- fayl #4 1.. �s�1, �y��t5��� x•�
N S
i�..� , ! yr � r:yKY
l�
e - t! •�
c,�'?' .ti`s � ���_ Y
s , w . i
;r Y
Photo Point 1— looking upstream (5/29/2013)
Photo Point 1— looking downstream (5/29/2013)
i &M4
Photo Point 2 — looking upstream (5/29/2013)
Photo Point 2 — looking downstream (5/29/2013)
��
• ° Y�� � ry � �'.. ,.
'� fir; a._ ,. �,. '� +�.b�,i °� ."' i �► { �'
�
�kl' •sn yy� � s-•Y �tii
II'��� C.�✓�? 4i. a L
+•�Y��
q
��.. � �i Sl .p ;..:
fig. ...:1/'.- :ti� ?,d>r�:$. R... \ `l �(
Photo Point 3 — looking upstream (5/29/2013)
Photo Point 3 — looking downstream (5/29/2013)
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report —DRAFT

Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report —DRAFT
4
{ ik
F T4 "Ls ",r
p h ,
rte., �!^ 'rib
v
ov
r►'i A , b �t.
Photo Point 4 — looking upstream (5/29/2013)
Photo Point 4— looking downstream (5/29/2013)
4:
A '
^a Mw J
Photo Point S — looking upstream (S/29/2013)
Photo Point 5 — looking downstream (5/29/2013)
Y/
r �•
#p� Y MI
i
Photo Point 6 — looking upstream (5/29/2013)
Photo Point 6 — looking downstream (5/29/2013)
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report —DRAFT

Photo Point 7 — looking upstream (5/29/2013) 1 Photo Point 7 — looking downstream (5/29/2013)
Photo Point 8 — looking upstream (5/29/2013) 1 Photo Point 8 — looking downstream (5/29/2013)
Photo Point 9 — looking upstream (5/29/2013) I Photo Point 9 — looking downstream (5/29/2013) I
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report—DRAFT

Ate""'• _ r .,v
Photo Point 10 — looking upstream (5/29/2013) 1 Photo Point 10 — looking downstream (5/29/2013) 1
Photo Point 11— looking upstream (5/29/2013) I Photo Point 11— looking downstream (5/29/2013) I
All
Photo Point 12 — looking upstream (5/29/2013) Photo Point 12 — looking downstream (5/29/2013)
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report —DRAFT

Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report —DRAFT
Photo Point 13 — looking upstream (5/29/2013)
Photo Point 13 — looking downstream (5/29/2013)
3�
sue,
''rya `•e��'1}
� � ?'.� i � 'k:
k
•(,,,�
k y
Photo Point 14 — looking upstream (5/29/2013)
Photo Point 14 — looking downstream (5/29/2013)
R 4
Photo Point 15 — looking upstream (5/29/2013)
Photo Point 15 — looking downstream (5/29/2013)
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report —DRAFT

Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report—DRAFT
f.
F
�f T
RYES
IN
4: L..�'�• h. IT�' y
Photo Point 16 — looking upstream (5/29/2013)
Photo Point 16 — looking downstream (5/29/2013)
Cg
x a '
L
Ic
nw� v r
i. , �•'-
Photo Point 17 — looking upstream (5/29/2013)
Photo Point 17 — looking downstream (5/29/2013)
Photo Point 18 — looking upstream (5/29/2013)
Photo Point 18 — looking downstream (5/29/2013)
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report—DRAFT

QP Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report—DRAFT
TAIII
r ?
ry
w
R ,'�P py�fcy
♦;'.,.: .. 17
Photo Point 19 – looking upstream (5/29/2013)
Photo Point 19 – looking downstream (5/29/2013)
1
1
Photo Point 20 – looking upstream - Irvin (5/29/2013)
Photo Point 20 – looking upstream – LTC (5/29/2013)
1
Photo Point 20 – looking downstream - LTC (5/29/2013)
QP Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report—DRAFT

Photo Point 21— looking upstream (5/29/2013) I Photo Point 21— looking downstream (5/29/2013)
Photo Point 23 — looking upstream (5/29/2013) Photo Point 23 — looking downstream (5/29/2013)
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report—DRAFT

Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report—DRAFT

Wetland Site Vegetation Photographs

Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report —DRAFT
��yy d ♦ r
�� \ '�
"� t �•:
j _ fir.
X11 .„�'P _ •.. ' .^I'�
5
i
-r
a
• +,..
- _
' ��
tl
bra ��� � r ` 4
` -
.a l � i ter.-
� $., r• 4. '
`0.
[rh'�i! � f, 2,
%Ot
•�� tf j�
a a-r s •f, v'
''.k ZrF�
1 �` Y �
�,.1,�. v'. �� Y„�^t'- ,Z �
}
� .j.
3.�� S� ", r
o f t
Lam. �� q � I��..�K � ?, '�a
-• ir;
, «
a
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report —DRAFT

r d..
Vegetation Plot 7 (06/25/2013) Vegetation Plot 8 (06/25/2013)
kh is
I Vegetation Plot 9 (06/25/2013) I Vegetation Plot 10 (06/25/2013) I
Vegetation Plot 11 (06/26/2013) Vegetation Plot 12 (06/24/2013)
Wtvv Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report —DRAFT

Vegetation Plot 13 (06/24/2013)
C
Vegetation Plot 14 (06/24/2013)
Vegetation Plot 15 (06/26/2013) 1 Vegetation Plot 16 (06/24/2013)
Vegetation Plot 17 (06/24/2013) I Vegetation Plot 18 (06/24/2013)
tkw Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report —DRAFT

Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report —DRAFT

Stream Site Vegetation Photographs

Vegetation Plot 23 (6/27/2013) I Vegetation Plot 24 (6/27/2013) I
Vegetation Plot 25 (6/27/2013) I Vegetation Plot 26 (6/27/2013) I
Vegetation Plot 27 (6/27/2013) I Vegetation Plot 28 (6/27/2013)
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report—DRAFT

Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report—DRAFT
1
1
1
I � 1 ,r lry, �p�x,'R I �• If '�
P l+• C t •� a'41 �'L r � T1� j,F�ti,T
11 ;.
a .{.b
i -'1't 4' e �i i
iiUHM
Vegetation Plot 29 (6/27/2013)
Vegetation Plot 30 (6/27/2013)
a
Vegetation Plot 31 (6/27/2013)
Vegetation Plot 32 (6/27/2013)
IEY.��. �,td 1 �•
i
ail
` -r'1.
if ��"��'� r• M ....fez
� I
Y.,,r .r
Vegetation Plot 33 (6/27/2013)
Vegetation Plot 34 (6/27/2013)
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report—DRAFT

'NOW a t
Vegetation Plot 35 (6/27/2013)
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report—DRAFT

APPENDIX 3. Vegetation Plot Data

Table 7 Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No 94640)
Monitoring Year 2
Plot
MY2 Success Criteria Met
(Y /N)
Tract Mean
1
Y
94%
2
Y
3
Y
4
Y
5
Y
6
Y
7
Y
8
Y
9
Y
10
Y
11
Y
12
Y
13
Y
14
Y
15
Y
16
N
17
N
18
Y
19
Y
20
Y
21
Y
22
Y
23
Y
24
Y
25
Y
26
Y
27
Y
28
Y
29
Y
30
Y
31
Y
32
Y
33
Y
34
Y
35
Y

Table 8a CVS Vegetation Tables - Metadato
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No 94640)
Wetland Site
Monitoring Year 2
Report Prepared By
Alea Tuttle
Date Prepared
711712013 10 36
database name
CVS Data Table Output- Wetland Site MY2
database location
IIWILDNCSVRIPro ectslActivePro ects1005 -02114 Little Troublesome Creek FDPIMonitoringlMonitoring Year 21 Vegetation Assessment
DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT--- -
Metadata
This worksheet which is a summary of the project and the project data
Plots
List of lots surveyed
Vigor
Frequency distribution of vigor classes
Vigor b Spp
Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species
Damage
List o most re uent damage classes with number o occurrences and percent o total stems impacted by each
Damage by Spp
Damage values tallied by type for each species
Damage by Plot
Dama a values tallied by type for each plot
Stem Count by Plot and Spp
Unknown
PROJECTSUMMARY------- - - - - -- —
Project Code
94640
project Name
Little Troublesome Creek -Cotton Rd Site
Description
Wetland Mitigation Site
length ft
n/a
stream-to-edge width ft
n/a
areas m
7284342
Re wired Plots calculated
16
[Sampled Plots 122

Table 8b CVS Vegetation Tables - Metadata
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No 94640)
Stream Site
Monitoring Year 2
Report Prepared By
Alea Tuttle
Date Prepared
101212013 0 00
database name
CV5 Data Table Output- Stream Site MY2
database location
I I WILDNCSVRI Pro/ectslActiveProjects1005 -02114 Little Troublesome Creek FDPI Momtonng l Momtormg Year lWegetanon Assessment
DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT--- -
Metadata
This worksheet which is a summary o the project and the project data
Plots
List ofplots surveyed
Vigor
Frequency distribution of vigor classes
Vigor b Spp
tion of vigor classes listed by species
Damage
List o most re uent damage classes with number of occurrences and percent of total stems impacted by each
Damage by Spp
Dama a values tallied by type for each species
Damage by Plot
Damage values tallied by type for each plot
Stem Count by Plot and Spp
unknown
PROJECT SUMMARY-------- --
Project Code
94640
project Name
Little Troublesome Mitigation Site
Description
Stream Mitigation Site
length ft
n/a
stream-to-edge width ft
n/a
areas m
5099039
Required Plots calculated
13
Sam led Plots
r
13

Table 9. Planted and Total Stem Counts
Little Troublesome Creek (EEP Project No. 94640)
Wetland Site
Monitoring Year 2
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
PnoLS: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes
T: Total Stems
Current Plot Data (MY2 2013)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
94640 -WEI -0001
94640 -WEI -0002
94640 -WEI -0003
94640 -WEI -0004
94640 -WEI -0005
PnoLS
FP-all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnolS
P -all
T
PnolS
P -all
T
PnolS
P -all
T
Alnus serrulata
hazel alder
Shrub
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
4
4
4
Fraxinus americans
white ash
Tree
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
3
3
3
6
6
6
1
1
1
10
10
10
Nyssa sylvatica
blackgum
Tree
2
2
2
3
3
3
5
5
5
Plotanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
7
7
7
2
2
2
5
5
5
3
3
3
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
2
2
2
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
4
4
Unknown
Shrub/Tree
Stem count
13
13
13
10
10
10 1
19
19
19
18
18
18
20
20
20
size (ACRES)
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
Species countl
5
1 5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
7
7
7
5
5
5
Stems per ACRE
1 526
1 526
526
405
405
405
769
769
769
728
728
728
809
809
809
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
PnoLS: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes
T: Total Stems

Table 9. Planted and Total Stem Counts
Little Troublesome Creek (EEP Project No. 94640)
Wetland Site
Monitoring Year 2
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
PnoLS: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes
T: Total Stems
Current Plot Data (MY2 2013)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
94640 -WEI -0006
94640 -WEI -0007
94640 -WEI -0008
94640 -WEI -0009
94640 -WEI -0010
PnoLS
FP-all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
Pnol-S
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
Pnol-S
P -all
T
Alnus serrulata
hazel alder
Shrub
1
1
1
1
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
6
6
6
2
2
2
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
5
5
5
2
2
2
2
2
2
Fraxinus americana
white ash
Tree
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
2
2
2
8
8
8
1 1
1
1
2
2
2
Nyssa sylvatica
blackgum
Tree
3
3
3
4
4
4
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
1
1
1
3
3
3
5
5
5
4
4
4
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
4
4
4
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
5
5
1
1
1
Unknown
Shrub/Tree
Stem count
12
12
12
15
15
15
13
13
13
16
16
16
15
15
15
size (ACRES)
1 0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
Species count
5
5
S
4
4
4
5
5
5
4
4
4
6
6
6
Stems per ACRE
486
486
486
607
607
607
526
526
526
647
647
647
607
607
607
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
PnoLS: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes
T: Total Stems

Table 9. Planted and Total Stem Counts
Little Troublesome Creek (EEP Project No. 94640)
Wetland Site
Monitoring Year 2
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Falls to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
PnolS: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes
T: Total Stems
Current Plot Data (MY2 2013)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
94640 -WEI -0011
94640 -WEI -0012
94640 -WEI -0013
94640 -WEI -0014
94640 -WEI -0015
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
Pnol-S
P -all
T
Alnus serrulata
hazel alder
Shrub
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
5
5
5
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
2
2
2
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
2
2
2
1
1
1
Froxinus americano
white ash
Tree
Froxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
5
5
5
1
1
1
5
5
5
2
2
2
2
2
2
Nysso sylvatico
blackgum
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
Plotanus occidentolis
American sycamore
Tree
3
3
3
1
1
1
6
6
6
4
4
4
Quercus michouxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
5
5
5
1
1
1
Quercus phellos lwillow
oak
Tree
4
4
4
3
3
3
Unknown
Shrub/Tree
Stem count
14
14
14
12
1 12
12
14
14
14
17
17
17
8
1 8
8
size (ACRES)
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
Species count
4
4
4
7
7
7
5
5
5
6
6
6
3
3
3
Stems per ACRE
567
567
567
486
f 486
486
567
567
567
688
688
688
324
324
324
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Falls to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
PnolS: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes
T: Total Stems

Table 9. Planted and Total Stem Counts
Little Troublesome Creek (EEP Project No. 94640)
Wetland Site
Monitoring Year 2
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 30%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 30%
Volunteer species included in total
Pnol-S: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes
T: Total Stems
Current Plot Data (MY2 2013)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
94640 -WEI -0016
94640 -WEI -0017
94640 -WEI -0018
94640 -WEI -0019
94640 -WEI -0020
PnoLS
FP-all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
Pnol-S
P -all
T
Alnusserrulato
hazel alder
Shrub
Betulo nigra
river birch
Tree
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Fraxinus americans
white ash
Tree
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
1
1
1
5
5
5
Nyssa sylvatica
blackgum
Tree
1
1
1
Platanus occidentolis
American sycamore
Tree
1
1
1
5
5
5
1
1
1
3
3
3
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
2
2
2
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
1
1
1
5
5
5
2
2
2
Unknown
Shrub /Tree
Stem count
5
5
5
6
616
10
10
10
9
9
9
12
12
12
size (ACRES)
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
Species countl
4
1 4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
4
4
4
Stems per ACRE
202
202
202
243
243
243
405
405
405
364
364
364
486
486
486
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 30%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 30%
Volunteer species included in total
Pnol-S: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes
T: Total Stems

Table 9. Planted and Total Stem Counts
Little Troublesome Creek (EEP Project No. 94640)
Wetland Site
Monitoring Year 2
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceed requirements, but by less than 30%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
Pnol-S: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes
T: Total Stems
Current Plot Data (MY2 2013)
Annual Summary
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
94640 -WEI -0021
94640 -WEI -0022
MY2 (2013)
MY1 (2012)
MYO (2012)
PnoLS
r P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
Pnol-S
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
Alnus serrulata
hazel alder
Shrub
4
4
4
3
3
3
20
20
20
31
31
31
62
62
62
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
43
43
43
55
55
55
75
75
75
Cornus omomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
1
1
1
20
20
20
30
30
30
38
38
38
Froxinus americana
white ash
Tree
1
1
1
Froxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
2
2
2
1 2
1 2
2
64
64
64
68
68
68
71
71
71
Nyssa sylvatica
blackgum
Tree
3
3
3
1
1
1
25
25
25
27
27
27
17
17
17
Platonus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
5
5
5
8
8
8
67
67
67
75
75
75
82
82
82
Quercus michouxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
1
1
1
20
20
20
24
24
24
18
18
18
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
1
1
1
30
30
30
35
35
35
11
11
11
Unknown
Shrub/Tree
7
7
7
Stem count
16
16
16 1
15
15
15
289
289
289
346
346
1 346
381
381
381
size (ACRES)
0.02
0.02
0.54
0.54
0.54
Species count
6
6
6
5
5
5
8
8
8
9
9
9
9
9
9
Stems per ACRE
647
647
647
607
607
607
532
532
532
636
636
636
701
701
701
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceed requirements, but by less than 30%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
Pnol-S: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes
T: Total Stems

Table 9. Planted and Total Stem Counts- Stream
Little Troublesome Creek (EEP Project No. 94640)
Stream Site
Monitodna Year 2
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
PnoLS: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes
T: Total Stems
Current Plot Data (MY2 2013)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
94640 -WEI -0023
94640 -WEI -0024
94640 -WEI -0025
94640 -WEI -0026
Pnol-S
P -all
T
Pnol-S
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
Pnol-S
P -all
T
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
Tree
2
2
2
10
10
10
3
3
3
2
2
2
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
2
2
2
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
1 12
12
12
6
6
6
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
5
5
5
2
2
2
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
5
5
5
2
2
2
2
2
2
5
5
5
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
4
4
4
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
Tree
3
3
3
Unknown
Stem count
15
15
15
26
1 26
26
19
19
1 19
15
15
15
size (ACRES)
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
Species count
5
8
4
4
Stems per ACRE
1 607 607 607
1052 1 1052 1052
769 769 1 769
607 607 607
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
PnoLS: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes
T: Total Stems

Table 9. Planted and Total Stem Counts- Stream
Little Troublesome Creek (EEP Project No. 94640)
Stream Site
Monitoring Year 2
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Falls to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
PnoLS: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes
T: Total Stems
Current Plot Data (MY2 2013)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
94640 -WEI -0027
94640 -WEI -0028
94640 -WEI -0029
94640 -WEI -0030
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
1
1
1
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
Tree
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
7
7
7
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
7
7
7
4
4
4
6
6
6
2
2
2
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
4
4
4
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
12
12
12
11
11
11
10
10
10
2
2
2
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
Tree
Unknown
Stem count
21
21
21
18
18
18
19
19
19
16
16
16
size (ACRES)
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
Species count
3
3
3
5
Stems per ACRE
850 850 850
728 728 728
769 769 769
647 647 647
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Falls to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
PnoLS: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes
T: Total Stems

Table 9. Planted and Total Stem Counts- Stream
Little Troublesome Creek (EEP Project No. 94640)
Stream Site
Monitoring Year 2
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds:re4ptrements; but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
Pnol-S: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes
T: Total Stems
Current Plot Data (MY2 2013)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
94640 -WEI -0031
94640 -WEI -0032
94640 -WEI -0033
94640 -WEI -0034
PnoLS
F P -all
T
Pnol-S
P -all
T
Pnol-S
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
9
9
9
7
7
7
6
6
6
1
1
1
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
Tree
2
2
2
8
8
8
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
2
2
2
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
7
7
7
3
3
3
3
3
3
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
1 4
4
4
1
1
1 1
1
5
5
5
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
2
2
2
10
10
10
1
1
1
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
1
1
1
7
7
7
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
Tree
2
2
2
1
1
1
Unknown
Stem count
24
24
24
22
22
22
10
10
10
26
1 26
26
size (ACRES)
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
Species count
1 5
5
4
6
Stems per ACRE
1 971 971 971
890 890 1 890
405 1 405 405
1052 1 1052 1052
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds:re4ptrements; but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
Pnol-S: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes
T: Total Stems

Table 9. Planted and Total Stem Counts- Stream
Little Troublesome Creek (EEP Project No. 94640)
Stream Site
Monitoring Year 2
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
PnoLS: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes
T: Total Stems
(MY2 2013)
Annual Summary
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
94640 -WEI -0035
MY2 (2013)
MY1 (2012)
MYO (2012)
PnoLS
P -ail
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
Pnol-S
P -all
T
Pnol-S
P -all
T
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
2
2
2
33
33
33
36
36
36
36
36
36
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
Tree
2
2
2
44
44
44
50
50
50
56
56
56
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
1
1
1
5
5
5
6
6
6
8
8
8
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
2
2
2
55
55
55
63
63
63
67
67
67
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
21
21
21
31
31
31
37
37
37
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
3
3
3
65
65
65
67
67
67
68
68
68
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
5
5
5
17
17
17
20
20
20
22
22
22
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
Tree
5
5
5
11
11
11
13
13
13
11
11
it
Unknown
1
1
1
Stem count
20
20
20
251
251
251
286
286
286
306
306
306
size (ACRES)
0.025
0.321
0.321
0.321
Species count
1 7
8
8
9
Stems per ACRE
1 809 809 809
781 781 1 781
890 1 890 890
953 1 953 953
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
PnoLS: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes
T: Total Stems

APPENDIX 4. Morphological Summary Data and Plots

Table 10a Baseline Stream Data Summary
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No 94640)
Irvin Creek Reaches 1 and 2
Monitoring Year 2
y'
�,
- 1
Ii
�r� _ -
Q Gage ,
Pre - Restoration Condition
,i`_;,- ,'geference,ReacKhData-_
_ „s
, -:, D "es_igri:?-�
�Ai;Budt'/B_aseh_ne,,,_, 1_
Irvin Creek Reach 1
IrvmrCreek Reach 2, "'
�_„
kCollms,Creek
w
UPto,Belews
w;, , Creedi�
F , yc�
i, ,UT,to Rocky
-
W Creek . ,
U SpencerkCeek,
I)ulrviri Creek
Reachl -
IParameter =, _
Irvin Creek•-
�Reach�
Irvin Cr
ate, +x ,
IrvmnCreeR
Mm Max
Ivliri Max
!Mi`n_;, Mazy
Niin ' Max,+
- Miri'" Maz
Min^ ' rMax.°
Min _M_ax,
OMm �M°ax
Minim i� fvla.
iv'lin "; �MazG
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
n/a
177
152
172
119 201
144
122
87
190
190
186
197
181
209
Flood prone Width (ft)
210
180
210
600
2000
720
2290
80+
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
Bankfull Mean Depth
15
19
20
16
27
20
13
12
16
16
16
17
16
16
Bankfull Max Depth
18
24
26
33
1 42
27
18
19
22
22
24
26
24
24
Bankfull Cross - sectional Area (ft')
273
306
328
329
274
163
106
297
297
293
337
290
327
Width/Depth Ratio
115
80
86
44
12 1
76
91
73
120
120
115
119
113
133
Entrenchment Ratio
12
1 2
1 2
2 0
3 0
34 7
6 0
26 3
2 2+
2 2+
2 2+
22+
22+
22+
Bank Height Ratio
1 9 33
23
25
10
11
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
d50 (mm)
32 8
22 6
186
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
n/a
"I
" l
= s
18
92
17
73
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0 001
002S
00019
0 017
0 003 1 0 008
006061 00892
001 0 067
0 006
0 008
0 007
0 015
00039
00215
00021
0 028
Pool Len th (ft)
e_'
1227
32
141
46
85
Pool Max Depth (ft
209
365
333
24
46
22
25
28
40
29
40
37
42
36
40
Pool Spacing (ft)A
39
60
27
76
32 80
75
26 81
13 47
76
133
77
135
57
236
91
142
Pool Volume (ftr)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
n/a
39
81
46
94
31
32
24
52
57
152
58
154
52
151
49
86
Radius of Curvature (ft)
57
114
100
251
16
27
5
22
38
57
38
58
38
59
38
62
Rc Bankfull Width (ft /ft )
3 2
6 4
6 6
14 6
2 2
4 1
15
2 8
2
3
2
3
2 0
3 1
2
3
Meander Wave Length (ft)
86
175
175
348
71
101
54
196
152
228
154
231
150
235
166
229
Meander Width Ratio
2 2
4 6
3
5 5
2 15
2 22
2 8
6
3
8
3
8
2 7
7 9
3
5
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
RI % /RU % /P% /G% /S%
n/a
SC90 /Sa % /G % /C % /B % /Be%
°"'�,°,"=d
d16 /d35 /d50 /d84 /d95 /d100
0 1/0 6/15/56/98/ >2048
0 1/0 3/5/25/31/45
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
SC/SC/23/49/64/128
SC/SC/19/49/79/180
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) Ib /ftz
088
042
" l.�
'
,4 w ; �,"I"�
_
038
043
038 041
040
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
a 'f.-
v
i- '��_�_15
i
�+� -
_
f. _ y �,l x
-
d_s. "i'_ e i •' _
Lit W ,g `°
Stream Power (Capacity) W /mz
-
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM )
n/a
067 082
0 82 1 091
168
340
11
0 5
082
091
082
091
Watershed Im ervious Cover Estimate (%)
17
17
-
-
17
17
17
17
Ros en Classification
G4c
G4c
E4
E5
E4b
E4 /C4
C4
C4
C
C
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
3 3
366 336
<
K'
_
3 0
3 3
2 7 3 1
3 1 = 4
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
90
100
115 150
125
85
N/A
90
100
90
100
Q -NFFregression
110
126
>'l
3� ^E.__
_�r�� s,1
k'�.'
t= '� =.i:
,ICY ",' -A-4
Q -U5G5 extrapolation
= T
Q- Mannings
122
99 102
Valley Length ft
14909
15050
_
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
16400
15050
2057*
1919*
2095*
1932*
Sinuosity (ft)
11
10
12
11
105
13
12
13
12
Water Surface Slope ft/ft)
-
0 003
0 007
00235
00132
-
N /A'
N /A'
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
00107
0 0043
-
-
-
00045
0 0049
0 0045
00047
( -) Data was not provided
N/A Not Applicable
'Design parameters were expanded during the final design phase
*LF provided included portions of the stream that will be monitored and have been reconstructed, but for which mitigation credit will not be claimed Please refer to Table 1 in Appendix 1 for the credit summary lengths
^Pool to pool spacing calculations were measured using the most downstream pool in the meander for the as -built compared to the design pool to pool spacing, which included pools and plunge pools in the min and max values

I
Table IOb Baseline Stream Data Summary
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No 94640)
Little Troublesome Creek and UTl
Monitoring Year 2
f
,
Imo,
I ,
i
(– 1
re, ,>'
�r�r'stl',! - -• f - -_ ���
A4'�F =sir, `
A-4
r,i
7_pv,__Fne- Restoration Co`ndtion
Mint;' ",.� Max
`ce
,-, ,.. _
Little TrouBlesorrie Creek
- a= �� _
R6feie`n' leach °Da`ta
. V`�r,
2 f _
Min " ";'- _, '`fsilex�,= '-
Design� , _ ,+ls
'a�6.
UT3 UttlegTroublesome -Creek
- -r -__ -
n AT
Mm Maxti_ : fVliri, Max }
iie a i� As;Bui Baseline i
h/ - •- ° -- -_
e TroPerame_ter_w
-
} Nn- .�..,� ,- -,
Min Mwax Min ,
_'�[i -..,^ `Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
n/a
52
287
refer to table 5a
78
323
109
326 410
Flood prone Width (ft)
80
930
100+
285+
367
200+
Bankfull Mean Depth
12
26
06
27
05
22
27
Bankfull Max Depth
19
33
09
38
1
41
4 17
Bankfull Cross - sectional Area (ft)
64
736
50
866
51
774
87 1
Width/Depth Ratio
43
112
120
120
23
122
1547
Entrenchment Ratio
15
32
2 2+
22+
22+
22+
Bank Height Ratio
1 2 1 25
16 1 28
1 0
10
10
10
d50 (m-1
08
97
04
207
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
n/a
y'ti ,r:,1'
-._-
'
refer to table Sa
11
26
79
142
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)'
00072
005
00007
00110
00185 00369
00066 00088
00231
00600
00063
00126
Pool Length (ft)
.a'.!. zr -.
� _ -, - � z _ .y_ _
r? 53��„ yt
) _ � -_ . ',
18
48
88
159
Pool Max Depth (ft)
224
331
319
525
1 2
16
48
67
12
59
PoolSpacing ft)^
29
42
46
127
24
43
129
226
35
59
206
1 267
Pool Volume (ft)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
n/a
119
refer to table 5a
27
62
113
258
27
62
113
258
Radius of Curvature (ft)
103
313
16
23
65
97
16
23
65
97
Rc Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
36
109
20
30
20
30
20
30
20
30
Meander Wave Length (ft)
179
315
62
94
258
388
62
94
258
388
Meander Width Ratio
41
35
80
35
80
35
80
3 5
80
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri % /Ru % /P% /G % /S%
n/a
0 y« c� :5
���a—
refer to table 5a
1 •.�=s1
= - = ti.- ._ �c�rl!
�f eats vet oi3ar iYlc
�i i. :s ���� .t_ =mss 3 J _ _ -
SC % /Sa % /G % /C % /B % /Be%
�.r --F • a
V
� iyJ�� s � :a
.rr�n+ __ - -
� ��..�_ �
�
� �_;
E1 n��,3°' - .��1.L �' '"Cr'S'i'
� �_.c..c u_..'_ mcvl��, —�.ei
- Pr�'< 4�`"1
�� `,�. _-.,� r_�ir��-rr
T7`T—= f� „3"'- 1,"`iu ” -?5['
��:s�,o.'ta�� _ _ 5,. - •_ -,_ - -� J - - -
d16/d35/d5O/d84/d95/d100
SC /SC/SC/4/13/>2048
0 2/0 5/1/22/30/ >2048
(tr, ';
SC /SC /0 4/44/64/128
SC/C/21/62/110/180
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) lb/ft'
0 96
041
N A
3 /
N A 3
/
0 34
0 38
0 53
Max art size mm mobilized at bankfull
IjW -h F� ��r }
i� ���-�r'k�t �,' �:��
-1 - -i� -
� =�+a� <� ,'�}ia�'- � _�
_
_ �.
Stream Power (Capacity) W/m Z
' - . =-77" i 2_7
7`_�".,
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area SM
n/a
0 1
495 507
refer to table 5a
0 1
507
0 1
507
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate %
17
17
17
17
17
17
Ros en Classification
G5
C5
C5
C5
C5
C4
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
4 4
5 0
2 7
4 3
2 7
4 2 1 4 8
Bankfull Discharge cfs
14
370
14
370
14
370
Q NFF regression
422
r r - a'
�t.l�".1Y,� .�-
, - �1 .
,lbw
r✓751}A+��`�i'rr 1! �l �,
Q- USGSextrapolation
-
-�
Q Mannin s
237
Valley Length (ft)
184
982
Channel Thalweg Length ft
184
1080
240
1158*
233
1171*
Sinuosity (ft)
10
11
13
13
12
13
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
-
-
N /A'
N /A'
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)l
00183.
1 00033
00123
1 00044
00126
00038
( -) Uata was not provided
�- N/A Not Applicable
'Design parameters were expanded during the final design phase
'Restoration approach was adjusted from a priority 1 to a priority 2 during the final design phase
"The critical shear stress analysis was not perfomed on the sand bed channels
*LF provided included portions of the stream that will be monitored and have been reconstructed, but for which mitigation credit will not be claimed Please refer to Table l in Appendix 1 for the credit summary lengths
^Pool to pool spacing calculations were measured using the most downstream pool in the meander for the as -built compared to the design pool to pool spacing, which included pools and plunge pools in the min and max values
I � _

Table 11 Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross-Section)
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No 94640)
Irvin Creek Reaches 1 and 2, Little Troublesome Creek, UTI
Monitoring Year 2
vin Creek,Reach
1-
Cross-Sictionlf(Riffle)-
Cross-,Sect OWN,
1WV(P05
-,Cross- cti6n Z;
_JMGKdsV;S7ectI
L.Ig _bn'4 (Rdfle)tM_,�tn-
Dimensiori7i6dM5'61!it-ta-fe�:.Ei,'Eit'r
Base M aIVIYZ, I MY3 I MY4 -'I MW�
Y1 1' MY2 WJ&�MWJ!WY4�1 J MY5
Wasi'
based on fared bankfull elevation
Bankfull Width (ft)
186
177
175
199
180
183
311
311
345
197
202
255
Flood prone Width (ft)
200+
200+
200+
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
200+
200+
200+
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
16
15
15
19
22
24
19
19
16
17
17
13
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
24
25
24
37
40
39
42
42
45
26
27
26
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area (ft)
293
272
260
368
386
431
5716
576
565
337
344
330
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
118
116
118
107
84
78
168
168
211
115
119
198
Bank-full Entrenchment Ratio
iL
L
2 271­1
N/A I
N/A
N/A I
1
N/A
N/A I
N/A 1
22+
22+ 1
+
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10 1
10
10
10
10
2'
Cross
-ion 8,(PCoQL_,
based on fxed bonkfull elevation
.Bgs-iX
UMY1J
910ft2
�,IQ1Y3:�J,"PAY4y_J
MYS
Wiese ;,
FVY W,�
r WY
_2V
J,�KIYV,
101-40 WKWS
j"giis&
I1-M7Y,_ZJ
WM-Y37i
RMYCh-
"1VIYSF,1J'WA-eF,
FTRY13
WW2k)
_,IVIY3J�
qMW
410t,
Bankfull Width (ft)
353
356
369
181
186
180
209
209
323
292
320
357
Flood prone Width (ft)
N/A
N/A
N/A
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
14
13
13
16
15
17
-
16
14
11
17
16
15
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
40
41
42
24
25
26
24
24
27
36
36
39
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area (ft)
479
460
492
290
278
307
327
287
351
501
500
548
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
260
275
276
113
124
106
133
1 152
29 7
170
2O 5
23 3
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
N/A
N/A
N/A
22+
22+
22+
22+
22+
22+
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
10
10
11
10
10
08
10
10
09
10
10
09
"'yLittldLTroubleWme)CFeekl,_-.-
L -Cfd§5'S6EfldF,110J(P qQLS!,1f&j-,7t&*
�o
-Cross!5ectticn,�l:li(Riffie),-�,�
tiras-dl �M*A',J
JEMWV14KY_S
ffY4,'1l'_TK4YS,_,
Wlasel
based on fared bankfull elevation
Bankfull Width (ft)
109
80
83
93
96
89
326
330
319
410
422
421
Flood prone Width (ft)
367
357
343
N/A
N/A
N/A
200+
200+
200+
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
05
05
05
07
06
05
27
26
26
31
31
32
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
10
10
10
12
12
11
41
40
39
S9
65
74
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area (ft)
51
41
37
64
56
40
871
846
828
1253
1288
1334
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
230
155
185
135
166
197
122
129
123
134
138
133
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
+
22+
iL
22+
1 22+
N/A
I N/A
N/A
22+
22+
+
IL
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
10
10
1 10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
1 10
1
tIQJCqObIe7some,CifgW
Z:
_�J _� ,
'-,'!ili'5—ssXe'Cbon'13 (11&16)�;7
ciiMidsidiff'a-ndTS-ub-st-r-at-el�.v'�,,
based onfaed bankfull elevation
Bankfull Width (ft)
346
357
337
Flood prone Width (ft)
200+
200+
200+
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
22
21
22
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
42
39
39
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area (ft)
774
748
744
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
155
171
153
Ratio
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
IL+
IL+
22+
Bankfull Bank �Eg�t
10
1 10
10
1

r-,
Table 12a Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No 94640)
Irvin Creek Reach 1
Monitoring Year 2
Pairam'eter,-7 ", 7 -r - ' - ' - _
As -Built /Baseline
MY -1 1 ,j,
M ,MY -2
MY -3
MY-4 1
_� _ -,,MY -5
Min Max
Min - Med �Maxo,"'
I= °Mm Med Max
Min Med Max
Min, Med -'-Max
�:Min 'Med Ma'x�
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
186
197
177
190
202
175
215
255
Flood prone Width (ft)
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
Bankfull Mean Depth
16
17
15
16
17
13
14
15
Bankfull Max Depth
24
26
25
26
27
24
25
26
Bankfull Cross - sectional Area (ft)
293
337
272
308
344
260
295
330
Width/Depth Ratio
115
118
116
117
119
118
158
198
Entrenchment Ratio
22+
22+
22+
22+
22+
22+
22+
22+
Bank Height Ratio
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
D50 (mm)
i "i
350
442
237
411
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
18
92
11
41
79
33
47
98
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
00039
00215
00008
00075
00174
0 0038
0 0060
0 0117
Pool Length (ft)
32
141
33
63
153
42
64
141
Pool Max Depth (ft)
37
42
35
42
63
39
46
59
Pool Spacing (ft)
57
236
63
105
227
86
120
203
Pool Volume (W)
?:` k_ t
*tR;
r4-. '
'
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
52
151
,u��
E=30
�� ,
���
�`` -
xsn
LOLM
I_ i
Radius of Curvature (ft)
38
59
r_ �
_
4TX
ISO=
Rc Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
20
31
" �
_ _ _
4` ' s
rTZ�
Meander Wave Length (ft)
150
235
I
Meander Width Ratio
27
79
, ,j�� a'
� -
wry
._�
� -ah_L
.7!_�$
Additional Reach Parameters
Ros en Classification
C
C
C
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
2095
2095
2095
Sinuosity (ft)
13
13
13
Water Surface Slope ft/ft)
N/A
00044
00039
Bankfull Slope (ft /ft)
00045
00048
00043
Ri9'o /Ru % /P % /G %/S %I`LL
SC90 /Sa % /G % /C % /B % /Be90
'r,',t:
dl6/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
SC/SC/23/49/64/128
02/0 7/10/38/58/362
0 1/0 5/2/47/80/128
%of Reach with Eroding Banks
Y ' `
0%
0%
( -) Data was not provided
N/A Not Applicable

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94640)
Irvin Creek Reach 2
Monitoring Year 2
730
-
725
-- -
720
-------
715
0 710
Iwo
w
705
OD
700
695
690
12300 12500 12700
12900 13100 13300 13500 13700 13900 14100
Station (feet)
—�— TW (MYO- 412012) -- TW (MY1- 1012012)
— s TW (MY2- 6/2013) - - - - - -- WS (MY2- 6/2013) ♦ BKF/TOB (MY2 - 6/2013) • STRUCTURES (MY2- 6/2013)

Cross - Section Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94640)
Irvin Creek Reach 2, Cross - Section 5 (Pool)
Monitoring Year 2
River Basin
Cape Fear
Watershed HUC
3030002
XSID
5
Drainage Area
0.9 sq.mi
Date
6/27/2013
Field Crew
Wildlands Engineering
Summary Data
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
713.7
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area (ft2)
49.2
Bankfull Width (ft)
36.9
Flood Prone Area Elevation (ft)
N/A
Flood Prone Width (ft)
N/A
Max Depth at Bankfull (ft)
4.2
Mean Depth at Bankfull (ft)
1.3
W/D Ratio
27.6
Entrenchment Ratio
N/A
Bank Height Ratio
1.1
Stream Type
N/A
v
w
c
0
v
w
Irvin Creek Reach 2
Cross - Section 5 (Pool) Station 130 +91
717
716
715
714
713
712
711
710
709
Cross - Section 5: View Upstream
Cross - Section 5: View Downstream
.............................. ............................................. .............................._ .
�F-
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Station (feet)
—� MYO- 4/2012 MYl- 10/2012 — o—MY2- 6/2013 ......• Bankfull
70

Cross - Section Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94640)
Irvin Creek Reach 2, Cross - Section 6 (Riffle)
Monitoring Year 2
River Basin
Cape Fear
Watershed HUC
3030002
XS ID
6
Drainage Area
0.9 sq.mi
Date
6/27/2013
Field Crew
Wildlands Engineering
Summary Data
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
713.9
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area (ft2)
30.7
Bankfull Width (ft)
18.0
Flood Prone Area Elevation (ft)
716.5
Flood Prone Width (ft)
200+
Max Depth at Bankfull (ft)
2.6
Mean Depth at Bankfull (ft)
1.7
W/D Ratio
10.6
Entrenchment Ratio
2.2+
Bank Height Ratio
0.8
Stream Type
E
Cross - Section 6: View Upstream
Cross - Section 6: View Downstream
I
Irvin Creek Reach 2
Cross - Section 6 (Riffle) Station 131 +48
717 -
.............. ................................................................................................................................ ...............................
716
715
714
.................. .................. ................................................................................................................
0
w
713
0
712
-
W
711
-
710
709
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Station (feet)
—+— MYO- 4/2012 MYt- 10/2012 —+— MY2- 6/2013 Bankfull Floodprone Area

Cross - Section Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94640)
Irvin Creek Reach 2, Cross - Section 7 (Riffle)
Monitoring Year 2
River Basin
Cape Fear
Watershed HUC
3030002
XS ID
7
Drainage Area
0.9 sq.mi
Date
6/27/2013
Field Crew
Wildlands Engineering
Summary Data
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
710.5
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area (ft2)
35.1
Bankfull Width (ft)
32.3
Flood Prone Area Elevation (ft)
713.2
Flood Prone Width (ft)
200+
Max Depth at Bankfull (ft)
2.7
Mean Depth at Bankfull (ft)
1.1
W/D Ratio
29.7
Entrenchment Ratio
2.2+
Bank Height Ratio
0.9
Stream Type
C
Cross - Section 7: View Upstream
Cross - Section 7: View Downstream
Irvin Creek Reach 2
Cross - Section 7 (Riffle) Station 138 +52
714
............................................................................................................................................................ ............. ... .. .... ... ......
713
712
711
.................... ............................... ..... r...p .......................................... ........................ ...............................
C 710
7
w
m
709
W
709
707
706
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Station (feet)
— —MYO- 4/2012 - MY1- 10/2012 — + -MY2- 6/2013 ....... Bankfull ....... FloodproneArea

Cross - Section Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94640)
Irvin Creek Reach 2, Cross - Section 8 (Pool)
Monitoring Year 2
River Basin
Cape Fear
Watershed HUC
3030002
XSID
8
Drainage Area
0.9 sq.mi
Date
6/27/2013
Field Crew
Wildlands Engineering
Summary Data
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
710.2
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area (ft2)
54.8
Bankfull Width (ft)
35.7
Flood Prone Area Elevation (ft)
N/A
Flood Prone Width (ft)
N/A
Max Depth at Bankfull (ft)
3.9
Mean Depth at Bankfull (ft)
1.5
W/D Ratio
23.3
Entrenchment Ratio
N/A
Bank Height Ratio
0.9
Stream Type
N/A
Cross - Section 8: View Upstream
Cross - Section 8: View Downstream
Irvin Creek Reach 2
Cross - Section 8 (Pool) Station 139 +09
714
-
713
712
m
d
711
c
710
709
W
708
707
706
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Station (feet)
� MYO- 4/2012 MY1- 10/2012 t MY2- 6/2013 ......• Bankfull

Reachwide and Cross - Section Substrate Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94640)
Irvin Creek Reach 2, Reachwide
Monitoring Year 2
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Irvin Creek Reach 2 Summary
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
S14TICLAY. ' .
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
13
1 13
13
13
'Medium
very fine
0.062
0.125
5
6
11
11
24
Fine
0.125
0.250
4
3
7
7
32
■■rR�!II
0.250
0.500
5
11
16
16
48
Coarse
0.5
1.0
_ —
,.l ri�l���lll�i,
5
5
5
53
Ve Coarse
1.0
2.0
2
2
4
4
57
Ve Fine
2.0
2.8
57
Ve Fine
2.8
4.0
■�IL37
; .-
57
Fine
4.0
5.7
4
4
4
61
Fine
5.7
8.0
2
2
2
63
Medium
8.0
11.3
2
2
4
4
67
Medium
11.3
16.0
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111_w
67
Coarse
16.0
22.6
3
3
3
70
Coarse
22.6
32
3
3
3
73
Ve Coarse
32
45
7
7
7
81
Very Coarse
45
64
4
4
4
85
Small
64
90
5
5
5
90
Small
90
128
5
■
5
5
95
Large
128
180
3
3
3
98
Large
180
256
1
1
1
99
■1111111
Small
256
362
1
1
1
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Large /Very Large
1024
2048
■■
1111111
100
•960RbCK
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Totall
50
1 48
1 98
1 100
1 100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
0.1
D35 =
0.3
D50 =
0.7
D6, =
60.3
D95 =
129.5
D100 =1
362.0
Irvin Creek Reach 2, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100%
90%
80%
aa, 70%
d 60%
H 50%
U
405/
30%
20%
10%
0%
00� O \,y5 OR'•> b5 \ 'L ry� A �1 6 \ \"� \b ,L,Lb •,'L p5 �' q0 `r14 \,b0 ,Lhb „b'L \'L \O,1A�Ob4
Particle Class Size (mm)
•MYO- 5/2012 *MY1- 10/2012 ■MY2- 6/2013
■iii'Napo,ll
UFO
■■rR�!II
■i�11u11
■
■1�1w�
.
_ —
,.l ri�l���lll�i,
IIIII
■■
1111111■■1111111■■111111"■!�'
■
■�IL37
; .-
■
■a,!!
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111_w
11111
■■1111111■■1111111
■
■1111111
■
■1111111■■1!''�r
.1111111■
■1111111■
■1111111
"'�'i�i�llllf�
■■
1111111
■
■1!!'
■1111111■
■1111111■
■1111111
■■1111111OU
111■
■1111111!
■1111111■
■1111111■
■1111111
■■1111111FA
111111
■
■1111��I■
■1111111■
■1111111■
■1111111
•
■
■11l:11��
Illlll���iilllll■
■1111111■
■1111111■
■1111111
'
■
■1111!!!!!!!I:iilll■
■1111111■
■1111111■
■1111111■
■1111111
■■
1111111■
■1111111■
■1111111■
■1111111■
■1111111■
■1111111
Irvin Creek Reach 2, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100%
90%
80%
aa, 70%
d 60%
H 50%
U
405/
30%
20%
10%
0%
00� O \,y5 OR'•> b5 \ 'L ry� A �1 6 \ \"� \b ,L,Lb •,'L p5 �' q0 `r14 \,b0 ,Lhb „b'L \'L \O,1A�Ob4
Particle Class Size (mm)
•MYO- 5/2012 *MY1- 10/2012 ■MY2- 6/2013

Reachwide and Cross - Section Substrate Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94640)
Irvin Creek Reach 2, Cross - Section 6 (Riffle)
Monitoring Year 2
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Particle
Count
Cross - Section 6 Summary
min
max
Total
,ass
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
•SILT CLAY •
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
180.0
�1111�.
0
��,■
Very fine
0.062
0.125
■■■���yi�illlllli
0
• �•
Fine
0.125
0.250
0
Medium
0.250
0.500
8
8
8
Coarse
0.5
1.0
5
5
13
60%
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
m
50%
13
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
13
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
1
1
14
Fine
4.0
5.7
2
2
16
Fine
5.7
8.0
2
2
18
Medium
8.0
11.3
1
1
19
Medium
11.3
16.0
2
2
21
Coarse
16.0
22.6
6
6
27
Coarse
22.6
32
12
12
39
Very Coarse
32
45
13
13
52
Very Coarse
45
64
19
19
71
Small
64
90
18
18
89
Small
90
128
8
8
97
Large
128
180
3
3
100
Large
180
256
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
■1111111■
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Lar fe/y�ta Large
1024
2048
100
BED90CK'•
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
100
100
100
Cross - Section 6
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
5.6
D35 =
28.5
D5o =
42.7
D. =
81.9
D95 =
117.2
D1. =
180.0
Cross - Section 6
„
Individual Class Percent
100%
-
.....,,.......
90
�1111�.
��,■
������
■■■���yi�illlllli
..
c
80%
c2i
70%
a
60%
m
50%
■�illlll
■
■1111111■
■1111111
40%
■
■Illllll�i
30%
■1
�
■il�[31:IiWr?
v
20%
c
iii
Till
0
O �'L \,yh tih p5
O• O• O•
\ �, ,ti4 a �� 4 \"� \b ,Lb ^ti a5 ba °IO \'L� \,b0 ,tihb nlb`L •1 \�L Orlb Op4
\ ti \ ti
Particle Class Size (mm)
VIII■
■MYO- 5/2012 MY1- 10/2012 ■MY2- 6/2013
■
■1111111■
■1111111■
■1111111
■■
■1111111■
■1111111
��
•
■
■1111111■
■1111111■
■1111
HIM
■
■111111
1■
■1111111■
■1111
111■
�I■
III■1111111■
■1111111
■
■1111111■
■1111111
■
■Illllllr�
/111111■
■1111111■
■1111111
■
■1111111■
■1111111
■
■illllll.''
�illllll■
■1111111■
■1111111
■
■1111111■■1111111
11POPIErP
11111111■
■1111111■
■1111111
'
■
■1111111
■
■1111����
■1111111■
■1111111■
■1111111
s�.����i
°II..:-
■
■Ilt,1
,1111
1111111■■1111111■■1111111■
■111111
off ��� ��� ��� ��i Hof
Cross - Section 6
Individual Class Percent
100%
-
90
..
c
80%
c2i
70%
a
60%
m
50%
�
40%
30%
�
v
20%
c
10%
0
O �'L \,yh tih p5
O• O• O•
\ �, ,ti4 a �� 4 \"� \b ,Lb ^ti a5 ba °IO \'L� \,b0 ,tihb nlb`L •1 \�L Orlb Op4
\ ti \ ti
Particle Class Size (mm)
■MYO- 5/2012 MY1- 10/2012 ■MY2- 6/2013

Reachwide and Cross - Section Substrate Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94640)
Irvin Creek Reach 2, Cross - Section 7 (Riffle)
Monitoring Year 2
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Particle
Count
Cross-Section 7 Summary
min
max
Total
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
SILT ELAY• 'Isiit/Clay
Dvs =
80.3
Di. =1
256.0
0
Very fine
0.062
0.125
'U����I����,
0
Fine
0.125
0.250
0
Medium
0.250
0.500
1
1
1
Coarse
0.5
1.0
6
6
7
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
2
2
9
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
3
3
12
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
3
3
15
Fine
4.0
5.7
2
2
17
Fine
5.7
4
21
Medium
8.0
11.3
9
9
30
0%
Medium
11.3
16.0
14
14
44
Coarse
16.0
22.6
8
8
52
Coarse
22.6
32
9
9
61
Very Coarse
32
45
19
19
80
Very Coarse
45
64
11
11
91
■1111111■
Small
64
90
6
6
97
Small
90
128
2
2
99
Large
128
180
99
Lar e
180
256
1
1
100
Small
255
362
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Lar a /Ve Lar e
1024
2048
■1111111■
1 100
'BEDYWOT.'
Bedrock
2048
>2048
■r
100
Totall
100
100
100
Cross - Section 7
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
4.7
D35 =
12.6
D50 =
20.7
D � =
51.1
Dvs =
80.3
Di. =1
256.0
Cross - Section 7
Individual Class Percent
100%
90
'U����I����,
c
80%
■��}����III
2
70%
�ii�n~'
a.
%ii�■�i��lllll����
60%
Ul
�
50 %
U
IIIII
.,
■
■1111111■
■1111111
■
■IIIIIII�i1�1
30%
ili��ill[3�;D�LiWr���siii
v
20%
10%
0%
O O
Particle Class Size (mm)
—am—YO-5/2012
MY1- 10/2012 0 MY2- 6/2013
■
■1111111■
■1111111■
■1111111
■�
IIII■
■1111111■
■1111111
,
..
■
■1111111■
■1111111■
■1111111
■r
111111■
■1111111■
■1111111
,
■■1111111■
■1111111
■
■Illllllr'
1111111
■■1111111
■■1111111
■
■1111111■
■1111111■
■1111111''
111111100111111011
1111
■
■1111111■■111111I■■1111�!%
•
■
■1111111■
■1111111
■
■!_�'%
■1111111■
■1111111■
■1111111
■
■1111111■
■111111.!
■:'
II■
■1111111■
■1111111■
■1111111
■
■11l�!!!!!��''�
11111■
■1111111■
■1111111■
■1111111
r
Cross - Section 7
Individual Class Percent
100%
90
c
80%
2
70%
a.
60%
Ul
�
50 %
U
40%
m
30%
v
20%
10%
0%
O O
Particle Class Size (mm)
—am—YO-5/2012
MY1- 10/2012 0 MY2- 6/2013

Table 12b Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No 94640)
Irvin Creek Reach 2
Monitoring Year 2
Parameter
As- Built /Baseline
MY -1
_ MY -2_
MY�3_ ,_ _z
_„ MY-4_ --3
1 MY -5
Mui Max
Min Med Max° '
-'Min Med Max
Min Med "" F" Maz`
'Min I Med °'Max' "
-'Min I Med I Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
181
209
186
198
209
180
251
323
Flood prone Width (ft)
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
Bankfull Mean Depth
16
16
14
15
15
11
14
17
Bankfull Max Depth
24
24
24
25
25
26
26
27
Bankfull Cross - sectional Area (ft)
290
327
278
283
287
307
329
351
Width/Depth Ratio
11 3
13 3
124
138
152
106
201
297
Entrenchment Ratio
2 2+
2 2+
22+
22+
22+
22+
22+
22+
Bank Height Ratio
10
10
1 0
1 0
10
08
08
09
D50 mm
t
18 6
398
207
427
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
17
73
21
59
72
286
589
724
Riffle Slope ft/ft
00021
00280
00026
00087
00149
00016
00078
00169
Pool Length (ft)
46
85
52
64
89
42
66
109
Pool Max Depth (ft)
36
40
31
38
60
3S
40
51
Pool Spacing (ft)
91
142
89
123
139
88
126
140
Pool Volume (ft)
, _ „% ` T
t- k'_
-
•. v� , -
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth ft
49
86
W, :i
spa )a sga
— -
�
,a
r- rr�?J
W 4:.,
L"'
Radius of Curvature (ft)
38
62
(
_'
92=
BE=
—
KrAm
Rc Bankfull Width (ft /ft )
2
3
F
-
Meander Wave Length ft
166
229
_—
�
c ry
M
X1=1
F
Meander Width Ratio
3
5
��a�°7�
�i'�
�' =';i_ ,
_
a�3'���
!. _
� °.'�'_'�� °-
- i�
� - r.= i
v`- ➢�
F�v= t
k_i
_.�.�_r
�_s�'
Additional Reach Parameters
Ros en Classification
C
C
C
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
1932
1932
1932
Sinuosity ft
12
12
12
Water Surface Slope ft/ft)
N/A
0004S
00048
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
00047
00049
00046
Ri% /Ru% /P'Y. /G % /S%
f
i
SC % /Sa % /GV. /C % /B % /BeYa
dl6/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
SC/SC/19/48/79/180
1 0 1/0 4/6/66/104/512
5/13/21/51/80/256
% of Reach with Eroding Banks
0%
0%
( -) Data was not provided
N/A Not Applicable

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94640)
Irvin Creek Reach 2
Monitoring Year 2
730
725
720
--` - --
715
m
CID
- - - - -- ----
0 710
:_
;
—
>
d
_
W
N
X
f0
X
705
N
10
700
695
690
12300 12500 12700
12900 13100 13300
13500 13700 13900 14100
Station (feet)
�– TW (MYO- 4/2012) TW (MY1- 10/2012)
s TW (MY2- 6/2013) - -- - - -- WS (MY2 - 6/2013)
♦ BKFIrOB (MY2- 6/2013) • STRUCTURES (MY2 - 6/2013)

Cross - Section Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94640)
Irvin Creek Reach 2, Cross - Section 5 (Pool)
Monitoring Year 2
River Basin
Cape Fear
Watershed HUC
3030002
XS ID
5
Drainage Area
0.9 sq.mi
Date
6/27/2013
Field Crew
Wildlands Engineering
Summary Data
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
713.7
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area (ftZ)
49.2
Bankfull Width (ft)
36.9
Flood Prone Area Elevation (ft)
N/A
Flood Prone Width (ft)
N/A
Max Depth at Bankfull (ft)
4.2
Mean Depth at Bankfull (ft)
1.3
W/D Ratio
27.6
Entrenchment Ratio
N/A
Bank Height Ratio
1.1
Stream Type
N/A
Irvi n
C ro
717
716
715
w
714
v
0 713
a2i 712
w
711
710
709
Cross - Section 5: View Upstream
Cross - Section 5: View Downstream
Creek Reach 2
ss- Section 5 (Pool) Station 130 +91
T
................................................................................................................................. ...............................
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Station (feet)
— +— MYO- 4/2012 MY1- 10/2012 - -MY2- 6/2013 •••••• Bankfull

Cross - Section Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94640)
Irvin Creek Reach 2, Cross - Section 6 (Riffle)
Monitoring Year 2
River Basin
Cape Fear
Watershed HUC
3030002
XS ID
6
Drainage Area
0.9 sq.mi
Date
6/27/2013
Field Crew
Wildlands Engineering
Summary Data
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
713.9
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area (ft2)
30.7
Bankfull Width (ft)
18.0
Flood Prone Area Elevation (ft)
716.5
Flood Prone Width (ft)
200+
Max Depth at Bankfull (ft)
2.6
Mean Depth at Bankfull (ft)
1.7
W/D Ratio
10.6
Entrenchment Ratio
2.2+
Bank Height Ratio
0.8
Stream Type
E
Cross - Section 6: View Upstream
Cross - Section 6: View Downstream
Irvin Creek Reach 2
Cross - Section 6 (Riffle) Station 131 +48
717
................................................................................................................................................. ...............................
716
715
714
m
w
.................. .�............... .. .... ................................................................................................... ...............................
c 713
a
m
m
712
W
711
710
709
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Station (feet)
�MY04/2012 MY1- 10/2012 tMY2- 6/2013 ....... Bankfull Floodprone Area

Cross - Section Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94640)
Irvin Creek Reach 2, Cross - Section 7 (Riffle)
Monitoring Year 2
River Basin
Cape Fear
Watershed HUC
3030002
XS ID
7
Drainage Area
0.9 sq.mi
Date
6/27/2013
Field Crew
Wildlands Engineering
Summary Data
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
710.5
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area (ft2)
35.1
Bankfull Width (ft)
32.3
Flood Prone Area Elevation (ft)
713.2
Flood Prone Width (ft)
200+
Max Depth at Bankfull (ft)
2.7
Mean Depth at Bankfull (ft)
1.1
W/D Ratio
29.7
Entrenchment Ratio
2.2+
Bank Height Ratio
0.9
Stream Type
C
Cross - Section 7: View Upstream
Cross - Section 7: View Downstream
Irvin Creek Reach 2
Cross - Section 7 (Riffle) Station 138 +52
714
............................................................................................................................................................ ...............................
713
712
711
......................... ............................... r .a. ..... ............................... ..............................
c 710
4
m
709
W
708
707
706
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Station (feet)
�- MY04/2012 MY1- 10/2012 — + —MY2- 6/2013 ......• Bankfull - Floodprone Area

Cross - Section Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94640)
Irvin Creek Reach 2, Cross - Section 8 (Pool)
Monitoring Year 2
River Basin
Cape Fear
Watershed HUC
3030002
XS ID
8
Drainage Area
0.9 sq.mi
Date
6/27/2013
Field Crew
Wildlands Engineering
Summary Data
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
710.2
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area (ft2)
54.8
Bankfull Width (ft)
35.7
Flood Prone Area Elevation (ft)
N/A
Flood Prone Width (ft)
N/A
Max Depth at Bankfull (ft)
3.9
Mean Depth at Bankfull (ft)
1.5
W/D Ratio
23.3
Entrenchment Ratio
N/A
Bank Height Ratio
0.9
Stream Type
N/A
Irvin Creek Reach 2
Cross - Section 8 (Pool) Station 139 +09
714
713
712
m
711
d
0 710
'm 709
w
708
707
706
0
Cross - Section 8: View Upstream
Cross - Section 8: View Downstream
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Station (feet)
MYO- 4/2012 MY1- 10/2012 tMY2- 6/2013 ....... Bankfull
100

Reachwide and Cross - Section Substrate Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94640)
Irvin Creek Reach 2, Reachwide
Monitoring Year 2
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Irvin Creek Reach 2 Summary
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
ass
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
57tT/•CLAY•'.
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
■■■e:��
13
13
13
13
Very fine
0.062
0.125
5
6
11
11
24
Fine
0.125
0.250
4
3
7
7
32
Medium
0.250
0.500
5
11
16
16
48
:Very
Coarse
0.5
1.0
5
5
5
53
Coarse
1.0
2.0
2
2
4
4
57
Ve Fine
2.0
2.8
°wKlliiiii■
57
Ve Fine
2.8
4.0
57
Fine
4.0
5.7
iiiiiii
4
4
4
61
Fine
5.7
8.0
2
2
2
63
Medium
8.0
11.3
2
2
4
4
67
Medium
11.3
16.0
1111111
■
67
Coarse
16.0
22.6
3
3
3
70
Coarse
22.6
32
3
3
3
73
Very Coarse
32
45
7
■
7
7
81
Very Coarse
45
64
4
■■
4
4
85
Small
Small
Large
Large
64
90
5
5
5
90
90
128
5
5
5
95
128
180
3
3
3
98
180
256
1
1
1
99
Small
256
362
1
1
1
100
Small
Medium
362
512
■11l:�i
100
512
1024
100
Large /Very Large
1024
2048
■1111111■
100
- a6DRbCK • Bedrock
2048
.2048
■
■11
...
100
Totall
50
1 48
1 98
1 100
1 100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D1fi =
0.1
D35 =
0.3
D50 =
0.7
D. =
60.3
D95 =
129.5
D1w =
362.0
Irvin Creek Reach 2, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
90%
80
(D 70%
a 60
y 50%
m
U 0 4
7i 30
'0%
10% —
0°k
O Obti ♦ry5 ti5 05 ♦ ti ti� b h'� Y+ ♦"� \b ,Lb .,y dc1 bp, qp ♦R6 ♦�O �5b �b`L h \'L OrlA Od4
O. O. O \ 'L ♦ 'L
Particle Class Size (mm)
■MYO- 5/2012 MY1- 10/2012 ■MY2- 6/2013
.■.■•■..n��...
■B���I�.1
■��mi�
■■■e:��
:�M���Ill�i
IIIII
■■
1111111■
■1111111
■
■Illllll�il�'''
i�
■�11[31:G
■WR�s�iyi
°wKlliiiii■
-.
■■
iiiiiii
■
■iiiii
■
■ii�11
■iiiiiii■
■iiiiiii
■■
1111111
■
■1!!'
",��i�11111i�
■1111111■
■1111111■
■1111111
■
■1111111
■�
III
■■
1111111!
■1111111■
■1111111■
■1111111
.
■
■111111111
111111
■
■11����I■
■1111111■
■1111111■
■1111111
■
■11l:�i
111111����111111■
■1111111■
■1111111■
■1111111
■
■11
...
■■
1111111■
■1111111■
■1111111■
■1111111■
■1111111■
■1111111
,
Irvin Creek Reach 2, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
90%
80
(D 70%
a 60
y 50%
m
U 0 4
7i 30
'0%
10% —
0°k
O Obti ♦ry5 ti5 05 ♦ ti ti� b h'� Y+ ♦"� \b ,Lb .,y dc1 bp, qp ♦R6 ♦�O �5b �b`L h \'L OrlA Od4
O. O. O \ 'L ♦ 'L
Particle Class Size (mm)
■MYO- 5/2012 MY1- 10/2012 ■MY2- 6/2013

Reachwide and Cross - Section Substrate Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94640)
Irvin Creek Reach 2, Cross - Section 6 (Riffle)
Monitoring Year 2
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Particle
Count
Cross - Section 6 Summary
min
max
Total
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
•SILT dAY' •
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
180.0
������
0
■■■����r�M�Illllli��illlll
Very fine
0.062
0.125
«
c
80%
0
'
SP
Fine
0.125
0.250
0
Medium
0.250
0.500
8
8
8
Coarse
0.5
1.0
5
5
13
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
50%
13
U
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
40%
13
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
1
1
14
Fine
4.0
5.7
2
2
16
■■
Fine
5.7
8.0
2
2
18
Medium
8.0
11.3
1
1
19
■1111111
Medium
11.3
16.0
2
2
21
Coarse
16.0
22.6
6
6
1 27
Coarse
22.6
32
12
12
39
Very Coarse
32
45
13
13
52
Very Coarse
45
64
19
19
71
■
Small
64
90
18
18
89
Small
90
128
8
8
97
Large
128
180
3
3
100
Large
180
256
100
■
Small
256
362
■1111111
100
Small
362
512
100
/111111■
Medium
512
1024
■1111111■
100
Lar e/Very Large
1024
2048
100
Ublt= '•
Bedrock
2048
>2048
■1111111■
100
Totall
100
100
100
Cross - Section 6
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
5.6
D35 =
28.5
D50 =
42.7
D. =
81.9
D9s =
117.2
D,m =
180.0
Cross - Section 6
......,.
�.....
Illli�.■■
90%
������
■■■����r�M�Illllli��illlll
«
c
80%
u
70%
a
60%
N
�
50%
U
40%
m
■
1111111
■■
1111111
■■
1111111
■�11/��II■
■1111111■
■1111111
•
■
■1111111■
■1111111■
JIL
■1111111
■��
I,IIII■
0%
■1111111■
p b'L ti� ti5 Oh ♦ 'L 6 R 1 4 ? \b b „�'L p5 ba �O ,ti4 .b0 5b b'L \'L ,ya �
p0 O� p. ti' h' \ \ ,1'L• ♦ \ ti 'S 5 \O ,y0a
■1111111
Particle Class Size (mm)
■
■1111111■
■1111111■
■1111111■
111111■
■1111111■
■1111111
■
■1111111■
■1111111
■
■Illllllr�
/111111■
■1111111■
■1111111
■
■1111111■
■1111111■
■1111111.'
�illllll■
■1111111■
■1111111
.
■
■1111111■
■1111111
■
■_
11_��'
.illlllll■
■1111111■
■1111111
' ,
■
■1111111
■_
■Illlll�i
��.iiili
■1111111■
■1111111■
■1111111
■■11,Illlu��.�llllll■
■1111111■
■1111111■
■1111111
Cross - Section 6
Individual Class Percent
100%
90%
«
c
80%
u
70%
a
60%
N
�
50%
U
40%
m
30%
20%
10%
JIL
IL ...mzmm_LF11111L11d11.O
0%
p b'L ti� ti5 Oh ♦ 'L 6 R 1 4 ? \b b „�'L p5 ba �O ,ti4 .b0 5b b'L \'L ,ya �
p0 O� p. ti' h' \ \ ,1'L• ♦ \ ti 'S 5 \O ,y0a
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO- 5/2012 MY1- 10/2012 ■MY2- 6/2013

Reachwide and Cross - Section Substrate Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94640)
Irvin Creek Reach 2, Cross - Section 7 (Riffle)
Monitoring Year 2
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Particle
Count
Cross- Section 7 Summary
min
max
Total
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
SILT ELAY-
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
256.0
0
Very fine
0.062
0.125
c
80%
0
!�
Fine
0.125
0.250
���1�l�IlLiii�ne
0
Medium
0.250
0.500
1
1
1
Coarse
0.5
1.0
6
6
7
Ve Coarse
1.0
2.0
2
2
9
i1�1
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
3
3
12
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
3
3
15
Fine
4.0
5.7
2
2
17
Fine
5.7
8.0
4
4
21
Medium
8.0
11.3
9
9
30
Medium
11.3
16.0
14
14
44
Coarse
16.0
22.6
8
8
52
Coarse
22.6
32
9
9
61
Very Coarse
32
45
19
19
80
Very Coarse
45
64
11
11
91
,
Small
64
90
6
6
97
Small
90
128
2
2
1 99
Large
128
180
■1111111■
99
Large
180
256
1
1
100
■■111111■■1111111■■11111��-�
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
■1111111■
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large/Very Large
1024
2048
■
100
•BEDNOCK•'
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
100
100
1 100
Cross - Section 7
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
4.7
D35 =
12.6
D50 =
20.7
D. =
51.1
D9s =
80.3
D1. =J
256.0
�,
■
Individual Class Percent
100%
'eii����lllll����'U��i�����i.
90%
c
80%
u
11111
���1�l�IlLiii�ne
70%
n.
■
■1111111■
N
■1111111
■
■IIIIIII
50 %
i1�1
Ali
'm
40%
rim
,
■
■1111111■
■1111111■
v
■1111111
■�
10%
1111■
■1111111■
■1111111
■
■1111111■
0%
■1111111■
'b �b
■1111111
\`'S
o• o•
■r
Particle Class Size (mm)
111111■
■ MYO- 5/2012 - MY1- 10/2012 ■ MY2- 6/2013
■1111111■
■1111111
,
E1111111011111111011111111
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
1111111■
■1111111■
■1111111
■■111111■■1111111■■11111��-�
■1111111■
■1111111■
■1111111
■
■1111111■
■1111111■
■1111,
■1111111■
■1111111■
■1111111
■
■1111111■
■1111111
■
■!�'%
■1111111■
■1111111■
■1111111
■
■1111111■
■111111!x:'"
II■
■1111111■
■1111111■
■1111111
■
■11l�!1!!!�.,-
..dill
11111■
■1111111■
■1111111■
■1111111
Cross - Section 7
Individual Class Percent
100%
90%
c
80%
u
70%
n.
60%
N
�
50 %
U
'm
40%
�
30%
v
20%
10%
0%
'b �b
\`'S
o• o•
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO- 5/2012 - MY1- 10/2012 ■ MY2- 6/2013

Table 12c Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No 94640)
UTl
Monitoring Year 2
Parameter
As -Built /Baseline
MY -1
MY -2
- MY -3
a "MY-4 -
�MY-5_
Min Max
Min Med Maxj
Min Med Max
Min Med Max
Min i '- Med . Max
Min JJM9d Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
109
80
83
Flood prone Width (ft)
367
357
343
Bankfull Mean Depth
05
05
05
Bankfull Max Depth
10
10
10
Bankfull Cross - sectional Area (ft)
51
41
37
Width/Depth Ratio
230
155
185
Entrenchment Ratio
22+
22+
2 2+
Bank Height Ratio
10
10
10
D50 mm
E -
133
424
Profile
Riffle Length ft
11
26
14
20
31
9
17
28
Riffle Slope ft/ft
00231
00600
00089
00217
00448
00225
00274
00446
Pool Length ft
18
48
15
23
36
20
28
43
Pool Max Depth ft
12
12
1 3
14
105
119
144
Pool Spacing (ft)
35
-
59
43
52
62
47
58
60
Pool Volume (fta),�
y
;. _"
-_' .t�.31
G'.
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
27
62
�" Y
a i °fa
"ar
Sul
[`
'r''d1
k*,-- .,
Radius of Curvature (ft)
16
23
own
V=m
mam
NOWROMW
LOWS955M
ORM
OVAWI
W
Rc Bankfull Width ft/ft
20
30
v
,:'
za ti's
''
��
�i '' _.l�
��
'
Meander Wave Length (ft)
62
94
-
��
',Y ,»
;-`�
JY��
r...__Jc�
X ,sl
ma- e�
i�®fit�i�
Jr: •+0
�����
._
r�_`�fa.k,�
� ,��
�i J .. JT
� � h _- �
�
� v
M " 071
p�g�
FurA{1F E
q E � -��
�3' -t4.as
Meander Width Ratio
3 5
8 0
'_
�`
r -° 1'
I r
-4
1
- .- _
7
r,_
��_
r,* x•
Additional Reach Parameters
Ros en Classification
C5
C5
C5
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
233
233
233
Sinuosity ft
12
12
12
Water Surface Slope ft/ft
N/A
00120
00136
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
00126
00121
00108
RI % /RU % /P% /G % /S%
F
- -
`n
SC% /Sa % /G% /C % /B % /Be%
:. ;. v
- -,S
- _
at
R %:i`4�` _" �
o. L`►cy¢e
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
SC /SC /0 4/44/64/128
SC /0 1/0 5/501/90/128
SC /0 4/0 9/43/76/180
%of Reach with Eroding Banks
0%
0%
( ) Data was not provided
N/A Not Applicable

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94640)
UT1
Monitoring Year 2
708
707
- — —
- - --------------
CD
706
— --------------------
o
♦
d
w
-
705
X
o
�
704
703
40000 40020
40040 40060 40080 40100 40120 40140 40160 40180 40200 40220 40240
Station (feet)
— TW (MYO- 4/2012)
TW (MY1- 10/2012) —TW (MY2- 6/2013) - - -- - -- WS (MY2- 10/2013) ♦ BKF(TOB (MY2 - 10/2013)

Cross - Section Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94640)
UT1, Cross- Section 9 (Riffle)
Monitoring Year 2
River Basin
Cape Fear
Watershed HUC
3030002
XS ID
9
Drainage Area
0.1 sq.mi
Date
6/27/2013
Field Crew
Wildlands Engineering
Summary Data
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
707.5
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area (ft2)
3.7
Bankfull Width (ft)
8.3
Flood Prone Area Elevation (ft)
708.4
Flood Prone Width (ft)
34.3
Max Depth at Bankfull (ft)
1.0
Mean Depth at Bankfull (ft)
0.5
W/D Ratio
18.5
Entrenchment Ratio
2.2+
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
Stream Type
C
m
v
C
O
d
W
UT1
Cross - Section 9 (Riffle) Station 400 +68
710
709 -
708 } -
707
706
705
0
Cross - Section 9: View Upstream
...................... ..•............................
10
20
- -*-- MYO- 412012 MYl- 10/2012
Cross - Section 9: View Downstream
30 40 50
Station (feet)
- �- MY2- 6/2013 ....... Bankfull • • • • . • • Floodprone Area
60

Cross - Section Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94640)
UTI, Cross - Section 10 (Pool)
Monitoring Year 2
River Basin
Cape Fear
Watershed HUC
3030002
XS ID
10
Drainage Area
0.1 sq.mi
Date
6/27/2013
Field Crew
Wildlands Engineering
Summary Data
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
707.2
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area (ft2)
4.0
Bankfull Width (ft)
8.9
Flood Prone Area Elevation (ft)
N/A
Flood Prone Width (ft)
N/A
Max Depth at Bankfull (ft)
1.1
Mean Depth at Bankfull (ft)
0.5
W/D Ratio
19.7
Entrenchment Ratio
N/A
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
Stream Type
N/A
UT1
Cross - Section 10 (Pool) Station 400 +94
710 1
Cross - Section 10: View Upstream
Cross - Section 10: View Downstream
709 _
708
C
0
.................... ............................... ....... k..:.................................................................. ...............................
A 707
W
706 t
705
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Station (feet)
MYO- 4/2012 MY1- 10/2012 MY2- 6/2013 ....... Bankfull

Reachwide and Cross - Section Pebble Count Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94640)
UTI, Reachwide
Monitoring Year 2
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
UT1 Summary
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
Sit T/•CI.AY' .
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
5
15
20
20
20
c1'
t+° ' :'
9P
Very fine
0.062
0.125
4
4
4
24
Fine
0.125
0.250
1
5
6
6
30
Medium
0.250
0.500
4
6
10
10
40
Coarse
0.5
1.0
4
7
11
11
51
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
5
7
12
12
63
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
7
4
11
11
74
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
1
2
3
3
77
■1111111
Fine
4.0
5.7
77
Fine
5.7
8.0
77
Medium
8.0
11.3
77
Medium
11.3
16.0
77
Coarse
16.0
22.6
77
Coarse
22.6
32
1
1
1
78
Very Coarse
32
45
7
7
7
85
Very Coarse
45
64
9
9
9
94
Small
64
90
2
2
2
96
Small
90
128
2
2
2
98
Large
128
180
2
2
2
100
Large
180
256
■1111111
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
■11
Large /Very Large
1024
2048
IIIIIII■
100
BEbROCK
Bedrock
2048
>2048
■1111111■
100
Totall
50
1 50
1 100
1 100
1 100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
Silt/ Clay
D35 _
0.4
D50 =
0.9
D. =
42.9
D95 =
75.9
D100 =
180.0
UT1, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100% - - - -
90
80%
m 70%
IL 60%
y 50%
0 40%
U
30%
20%
C 10%
0%
Particle Class Size (mm)
■MYO- 5/2012 MY1- 10/2012 ■MY2- 6/2013
■
...... ■.,.....;����.�,�� ■�� ■�
_ .wriMllllllli 11111
.
■ ■1111111■ ■1111111 ■ ■1111111�� Ilia ■illt�I:CiWrti"�Ilii
■
■1111111■
■1111111
■aiiii�il�r
11111■
■1111111■
■1111111
■
■1111111
■
■Illllla�■11
1111111■
■1111111■
■1111111
Ell
■
■1111,1l1,,��111■■1111III
■1111111■
■1111111■
■1111111
■
■11
IIIIIII■
■1111111■
■1111111■
■1111111■
■1111111
■
■11
�mr■
1111111
■■
1111111■
■1111111■
■1111111■
■1111111
■■
1111111
■■
1111111
■■
1111111■
■1111111■
■1111111■
■1111111
■■
1111111
■■
1111111
■■
1111111■
■1111111■
■1111111■
■1111111
UT1, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100% - - - -
90
80%
m 70%
IL 60%
y 50%
0 40%
U
30%
20%
C 10%
0%
Particle Class Size (mm)
■MYO- 5/2012 MY1- 10/2012 ■MY2- 6/2013

Reachwide and Cross - Section Substrate Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94640)
UTI, Cross - Section 9 (Riffle)
Monitoring Year 2
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Particle
Count
Cross - Section 9 Summary
min
max
Total
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
SITE
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
128.0
0
'tad
Very fine
0.062
0.125
1
1
1
Fine
0.125
0.250
5
5
6
Medium
0.250
0.500
2
2
8
Coarse
0.5
1.0
2
2
10
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
a
10
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
10
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
1
1
11
Fine
4.0
5.7
11
Fine
5.7
8.0
,11�i11■
11
Medium
8.0
11.3
■1111111
11
Medium
11.3
16.0
2
2
13
Coarse
16.0
22.6
3
3
16
Coarse
22.6
32
10
10
26
Very Coarse
32
45
29
29
55
Very Coarse
45
64
35
35
90
Small
64
90
5
5
95
Small
90
128
5
5
100
Large
128
180
■1111111
100
Large
180
256
■1111111■
100
Small
256
362
■1111
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
■
Lar e/Very Large
1024
2048
■1111111
100
BED R CK•
Bedrock
2048
>2048
�llllllllll■
100
Totall
100
1 100
1 100
Cross - Section 9
Channel materials (mm)
D36 =
22.6
D35 =
35.6
D56 =
42.4
D�4 =
60.2
D95 =
90.0
D
128.0
„
■�
.....u��....�lllli���������-
t00o/
moon"
��nr�.x��L.1�
■■
���Illlli
I
IIIII
c
80%
u
r
■
■1111111
■
■1111111■■lllllll�i■
60%
a
VIII
+!ice
■���t�:v�WR��iI�I
U
■
■1111111■
■1111111■
30%
■1111111
�
■■
,11�i11■
■1111111■
20%
■1111111
r
. ,
■
■1111111■
■1111111■
■1111111■
0% 4M
►
I1111■
■1111111■
■1111111
• ,
■
■1111111■
■ MYO- 5/2012 MY1- 10/2012 ■ MY2- 6/2013
■1111111■
■1111111
��IIIIII■
■1111111■
■1111111
,
■
■1111111■
■1111111■
■1111
J�1111111■
■1111111■
■1111111
■
■1111111■
■1111111
■
■1
�llllllllll■
■1111111■
■1111111
• ,
' ,
■
■1111111■
■111111
,�il�lll!■
��III
■�IIIIIII■
■1111111■
■1111111
■
■1111111
■■
■1111111■
■1111111■
■1111111
■■11!""�"�iiiii�iill�llll■
■1111111■
■1111111■
■1111111
Cross - Section 9
Individual Class Percent
t00o/
90%
c
80%
u
700/
a
60%
a
50%
�
U
40%
m
30%
�
20%
r
10%
0% 4M
a
Oo�bLO\yh Olh o5 \ y ti4 b 4 \\ \b �tib �1 b5 bb qo \1e \�o �5b �bti \L \�1b��6
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO- 5/2012 MY1- 10/2012 ■ MY2- 6/2013

Table 12d Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCEEP Protect No 94640)
Little Troublesome Creek
Monitoring Year 2
Parameter
As -Built /Baseline
MY -1
MY -2
MY-3,
,MY 4 -_
MY =5
Mm Max
Min Med Max,
;Min Med Max
Mm Med { $'Max
fvhn ' Med'�' r Nleiit
Min, ` , `M'ed "Mix
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width ft
326 488
330
344
3S7
319
328
337
Flood prone Width (ft)
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
Bankfull Mean Depth
16
27
21
24
26
22
24
26
Bankfull Max Depth
41
42
39
40
40
39
39
39
Bankfull Cross - sectional Area (ft 2)
79 6
87 1
748
797
846
744
786
828
Width/Depth Ratio
12 2
30
129
150
171
123
138
15 3
Entrenchment Ratio
22+
00 1
-
22+
22+
22+
2 2+
Bank Height Ratio
10
10
1 0
10
10
10
10
d50 (mm)
CI_'.,T_
32 7
397
418
-
473
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
79
142
74
107
147
77
100
141
Riffle Slope (ft/ft )
000 3
00126
00061
0 0071
0 0178
0 0056
0 0080
0 0127
Pool Length (ft)
88
1 159
88
121
168
83
127
162
Pool Max Depth (ft)
59
60
63
77
60
67
79
Pool Spacing (ft)
206
267
194
219
297
208
242
289
Pool Volume (ft3)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
113
258
;1ini
Ql=i
n.
d,L'a
L 11-;
'I'LliVA
1aska�
VA:r .4
teL
L
Radius of Curvature (ft)
65
97
rte'
ice:
Rc Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
20
30
O
fi-".INM
Meander Wave Length (ft)
258
388
017 1� <<
ti "- `x
'!
_=
e_
M
,� iiw
Meander Width Ratio
35
80
l
Imo. 7
°May
Additional Reach Parameters
Ros en Classification
C4
C4
C4
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
1171
1171
1171
Sinuosity (ft)
13
13
13
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
N/A
00039
00038
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
00038
00039
00037
Ri% /Ru9'o /P% /G % /S %'
- — -_
- - -_-
�e .a
a�St
�S •A�G1ivY x.� .�r.�
�ii2 ^s' L.1
SC 9/./Sa % /G % /C % /B9'o /Be %'
s` - ,
+
^' �s
r_.�- r ° _ ;`t
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
SC /SC/21/62/110/180
SC /0 3/8/74/165/512
1 0 1/0 3/0 7/60/130/362
%of Reach with Eroding Banks
' -
0%
1 0%
( -) Data was not provided
N/A Not Applicable

Monthly Rainfall Data
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 2
' 2013 monthly rainfall collected by onsite rainfall gage, and the ECONet weather station "REID" at Upper Piedmont Research Station, Reidsville, NC (NCSCO, 2013)
2 30th and 70th percentile rainfall data collected from weather station NC7202, in Reidsville, NC (USDA, 2002).
Little Troublesome Creek 30 -70 Percentile Graph for Rainfall in 2013 Reidsville, NC
10
9
8
F
7
c
0
6
.Q
'u
d
5
a`
4
3
2
1
0
Jan -13 Feb -13 Mar -13 Apr -13 May -13 Jun -13 Jul -13 Aug -13 Sep -13 Oct -13 Nov -13 Dec -13
Date
2013 Rainfall Data (onsite gage) 2013 Rainfall Data (weather station) 30th Percentile -70th Percentile
' 2013 monthly rainfall collected by onsite rainfall gage, and the ECONet weather station "REID" at Upper Piedmont Research Station, Reidsville, NC (NCSCO, 2013)
2 30th and 70th percentile rainfall data collected from weather station NC7202, in Reidsville, NC (USDA, 2002).

Groundwater Gage Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Wetland (EEP Project No. 94640)
Wetland RWt
Monitoring Year 2
20
10
0
I
j
-10
a
u
m -20
3
-30
-40
-50
z° o
i� Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #8 Water Depth Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0
c
z
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Wetland (EEP Project No. 94640)
Wetland RW 1
Monitoring Year 2
20
10
0
-10
i
d
9 -20
-30
-40
i
-50
c
m
LL
f a o Z
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage u7 Water Depth Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
e
3.0
e
2.0
1.0
0.0
0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Wetland (EEP Project No. 94640)
Wetland RW1
Monitoring Year 2
20
10
0
z
-10
Y
-20
-30
-40
-50

Groundwater Gage Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Wetland (EEP Project No. 94640)
Wetland RW1
Monitoring Year 2
20
10
0
-10
a
v
m -20
3
-30
-40
-50 yy;
0 c d
o z
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage p5 Water Depth Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
e
3.0 ,O
e
92
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Wetland (EEP Project No. 94640)
Wetland RW1
Monitoring Year 2
20
10
0
`- -10
m
`a
-20
3
-30
-40
-50
Z O
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage N4 Water Depth Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0
e
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Wetland (EEP Project No. 94640)
Wetland RW1
Monitoring Year 2
20
10
0
10
d
3 -i0
-30
-40
-50

Groundwater Gage Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Wetland (EEP Project No. 94640)
Wetland RW1
Monitoring Year 2
20
10
0
10
v
`a
-20
3
-30
-40
-50
W Q ^ Q n Z O
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #2 Water Depth Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
C
3.0
e
m
s
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Wetland (EEP Project No. 94640)
Wetland RW1
Monitoring Year 2
v
Little Troublesome Creek Groundwater Gage #1
a
g
3 ry
Monitoring Year 2
o
3 \
20
P
0
6 m
o
��
-
6.0
r
0
o
c
10
N
w
5.0
4.0
-10
a—
- -
-
- - - -- -- --
—
— — — — —
— — — — —
— .
�
`u
3.0
c
3 -20
-- —
2.0
-30
1.0
-40
I.L
1�.,L_1.��_ 1
6 �
�.
-50 M
�i
1.1t�rl
Y
L1
.� ILIA_.
'!
j- I
l
:lji,.
0.0
0 'o v
O Z
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #1 Water Depth —
— Criteria Level

I 9
r-
I
{ 1
r -�
f �
I I
o '
I
s
Table 13 Verification of Bankfull Events
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No 94640)
Monitoring Year 2
Reach
Date of Data
Collection
Date of
Occurrence
z�
Method '
Irvin Creek
11/7/2013
U
Crest Gage
Little Troublesome Creek
11/7/2013
U
Crest Gage
UT1
11/7/2013
U
Crest Gage
u unknown
Table 14 Wetland Gage Attainment Summary
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No 94640)
Monitoring Year 2
Summary of Groundwater Gage Results for Years 1 through 7
Gage
Success Criteria Achieved /Max Consecutive Days During Growing Season (Percentage)
Year 1 (2012)
Year 2 (2013)
Year 3 (2014)
Year 4 (2015)
Year 5 (2016)
Year 6 (2017)
Year 7 (2018)
No /5 5 Days
Yes /18 0 Days
_
®_
1
(24%)
(80%)
Yes/26/5 Days
Yes/61 5 Days
2
(117
(1179'0)
(27
(27 29'0)
Yes 5 Days
Yes /195 5 Days
®
�
3
(38 79'0)
(38
(865%)
Yes / 5 Days
Yes 5 Days
®
�
4
(299'0)
(2
(73 (73 29'0)
Yes 5 Days
Yes 0 Days
5
(26
(26 89'0)
(10 (10 69'0)
No Days
Yes /17 5 Days
®
®®
®
6
(2 7
(2 79'0)
(77%)
Yes 0 Days
Yes 0 Days
®®
_
7
(36
(36 79'0)
(31 (3109'0)
No /115 Days
Yes 5 Days
®
®
8
(51%)
(13 (13 99'0)

I APPENDIX 5. Hydrology Summary Data and Plots

Reachwide and Cross- Section Substrate Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94640)
Little Troublesome Creek, Cross - Section 13 (Riffle)
Monitoring Year 2
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Particle
Count
Cross - Section 13 Summary
min
max
Total
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
SILT CLAY •
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
362.0
■�111�!'�■i11111i
--
0
Very fine
0.062
0.125
c
80%
0
IIIII
Fine
0.125
0.250
u
0
Medium
0.250
0.500
■1111111
0
:
Coarse
0.5
1.0
N
�
0
Ve Coarse
1.0
2.0
0
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
40%
0
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
�
0
Fine
4.0
5.7
1
1
1
Fine
5.7
8.0
1
1
2
Medium
8.0
11.3
1
1
3
1111111■
Medium
11.3
16.0
3
Coarse
16.0
22.6
5
5
8
Coarse
22.6
32
20
20
28
Very Coarse
32
45
28
28
56
Very Coarse
45
64
26
26
82
Small
64
90
9
9
91
Small
90
128
6
6
97
■
Large
128
180
1
1
98
Large
180
256
1
1
99
IIIII■
Small
256
362
1
1
100
Small
362
512
1
■
100
Medium
512
1024
■1111111
100
Large/Very Large/Very Large
1024
2048
111111■
100
'BEDRO'CK • '
Bedrock
2048
>2048
1
1 100
Totall
100 1
100
1 100
Cross - Section 13
Channel materials (mm)
DI6 =
26.0
D35 =
34.8
D50 =
41.8
D. =
69.0
D95 =
113.8
D
362.0
Cross - Section 13
■
C....•••
��ae�ul
Individual Class Percent
w■■■
{a>•fifl
100%
■��m���111111�
_ --
-
■�111�!'�■i11111i
--
c
80%
IIIII
■f*•'l1•Rt�11111•f1
u
.
■■
1111111■
■1111111
■
■IIIIIII�i�11�:
— —
N
�
• •
�` ��[31EO�Wn�!1
_
U
%11i
40%
�
30%
�r
9
c
20%
• �
■■
1111111
■■
1111111■
■1111111
■
■I
1111■
■1111111
0%
■
■1111III
oO�•LO ♦iy''> 0,1,5 �5 ♦ 'L ,ti4 ? y1 � ♦ ♦•9 �b �,Lb „'L a5 bb q0 ♦,ti4 ♦�o ry�b �b1. � ♦y ♦O,tib ��4
■
■1111111■
■MYO- 5/2012 MY1- 1012012 ■MY2- 6/2013
■1111111■
■1111111
■t"
IIIII■
■1111111■
■1111111
■
■1111111■
■1111111■
■1111111
■I,i
IIIII■
■1111111■
■1111111
■
■1111111■
■1111111■
■1111111
■
%
111111■
■1111111■
■1111111
■
■1111111■
■1111111■■1111111M
11111011111111M
1111111
■
■1111111
■
■1111111�MME11N1
1111111■
■1111111■
■1111111
■
■IIUIII
■�IIII�
_•
.�!■
■1111111■
■1111111■
■1111111
1 i
r 1
Cross - Section 13
Individual Class Percent
100%
90%
c
80%
u
70%
n�
60%
— —
N
�
50%
U
40%
�
30%
9
c
20%
10%
0%
oO�•LO ♦iy''> 0,1,5 �5 ♦ 'L ,ti4 ? y1 � ♦ ♦•9 �b �,Lb „'L a5 bb q0 ♦,ti4 ♦�o ry�b �b1. � ♦y ♦O,tib ��4
Particle Class Size mm
■MYO- 5/2012 MY1- 1012012 ■MY2- 6/2013

Reachwide and Cross - Section Substrate Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94640)
Little Troublesome Creek, Cross - Section 1l (Riffle)
Monitoring Year 2
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Particle
Count
Cross - Section 11 Summary
min
max
Total
ass
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
516T •Liiy ' •
silt/clay
180.0
Dl. =
362.0
0
Very fine
0.062
0.125
0
'
A
:,very
Fine
0.125
0.250
u
0
Medium
0.250
0.500
4
4
4
Coarse
0.5
1.0
3
3
7
Coarse
1.0
2.0
■
7
►VIII
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
A
50%
7
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
1
1
8
Fine
4.0
5.7
8
m
Fine
5.7
8.0
v
1 8
Medium
8.0
11.3
8
Medium
11.3
16.0
■
8
Coarse
16.0
22.6
2
2
10
Coarse
22.6
32
11
11
21
Very Coarse
32
45
26
26
47
Very Coarse
45
64
21
21
68
Small
64
90
12
12
80
Small
90
128
15
15
95
Large
128
180
95
Large
180
256
2
2
97
1111111
Small
256
362
3
3
100
Small
362
512
■11111111■
100
Medium
512
1024
■1111111
100
Lar a /Ve Lar e
1024
2048
■
■1111111■
100
.866ROCX •
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
100
100
100
Cross - Section 11
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
27.3
D35 =
38.4
D50 =
47.3
D_ =
98.9
DTs =
180.0
Dl. =
362.0
Cross - Section 11
>n...Mylllllli■
.,
■ iii! �se�uilr r>• l..' I,! !,��rw��nn�■���n IIIII
■ ■1111111■ ■1111111 ■ ■Illllll�i ■1 ,�il� ■I�illo ■i��11111�
—
90%
c
80%
u
70%
■
■�IIIIII
a
■
■�IIIIII
■
■�IIIIII
■
■�
►VIII
■
■�IIIIII■
A
50%
■1111111
V
_ _
40%
m
v
30%
■
■1111111■
■1111111■
10%
■1111111
■
■�
��IIIII■
■1111111■
0%
■1111111
,
O Obti lyy ptiy 05
O• O
♦ '1, ,ti'Z A y^ 4 ``'9 'b
Particle Class Slze (mm)
■MYO- 5/2012 MY1- 10/2012 ■MY2- 6/2013
' ,
■■
1111111
■■
1111111
■■
1111111
■11111111■
■1111111■
■1111111
■
■1111111■
■1111111■
■1111111
■!
illllll■
■1111111■
■1111111
,
■
■1111111■
■1111111■
■1111111■
11111111■
■1111111■
■1111111
,
• ,
■
■1111111■
■1111111■
■1111111
11111111■
■1111111■
■1111111
,
■
■1111111��11111.,�1■�IIW.;!,�
�
■1111111■
■1111111■
■1111111
■ ■111�����1• -- ■1111111■ ■1111111■ ■1111111
I�iiii`ii�l�
Cross - Section 11
Individual Class Percent
100%
—
90%
c
80%
u
70%
a
60%
a
A
50%
V
40%
m
v
30%
v
20%
10%
0%
O Obti lyy ptiy 05
O• O
♦ '1, ,ti'Z A y^ 4 ``'9 'b
Particle Class Slze (mm)
■MYO- 5/2012 MY1- 10/2012 ■MY2- 6/2013

Reachwide and Cross - Section Substrate Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94640)
Little Troublesome Creek, Reachwide
Monitoring Year 2
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Little Troublesome Creek
Summary
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
ass
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
'SILTICtAY.
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
2
1
17
10
10
:
.
Very fine
0.062
0.125
3
3
2
12
Fine
0.125
0.250
1
12
13
8
20
Medium
0.250
0.500
2
4
6
4
24
Coarse
0.5
1.0
1
2
3
2
26
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
1
5
6
4
30
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
2
2
1
31
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
4
8
12
7
38
Fine
4.0
5.7
2
2
1
40
Fine
5.7
8.0
"I�;I�ir
1
1
1
40
Medium
8.0
11.3
1
1
1
41
Medium
11.3
16.0
■1111111■
41
Coarse
16.0
22.6
3
6
9
6
46
Coarse
22.6
32
2
4
6
4
50
Ve Coarse
32
45
8
16
24
15
65
Very Coarse
45
1 64
3
6
9
6
70
Small
64
90
3
6
9
6
76
Small
90
128
6
12
18
11
87
Large
128
180
3
3
2
89
Large
180
256
3
6
9
6
94
Small
256
362
3
6
9
6
100
Small
362
512
■1111111■
100
Medium
512
1024
■1111111
100
I ;irLP/Vpry LarIze
1024
2048
II■
■1111111■
100
J DhdGk••
Bedrock
2048
>2048
■1111111■
100
Totall
50
1 112
1 162
1 100
1 100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16=
Silt/ Clay
D35 =
3.4
D50 =
32.0
Dm =
116.3
D95 =
265.0
D100 =
362.0
Little Troublesome Creek, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100° / -
90
80%
0 70%
U
v 60%
a
w 50%
�j 40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
OOOb O ♦.1'7 ORh 05 ♦ 'L ,tip A �1 4 ♦ ♦"� 1b ,L,yb ,,'L p5 Qi ♦14 ♦40 ,L�b ,'b'L ♦'L ♦�rldryoA4
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO- 5/2012 MY1- 10/2012 ■MY2- 6/2013
.
■
�1f!
��l1
111��
■rn!!u�■i��llll��
■
■�Il�il.�r—
"��Illli
IIIII
^�
"�
■■
1111111■
■1111111
■
■IIIIIII�r1
. ,
����3�:D�WR�����1
,
■
■1111111■
■1111111■
■1111111
■�J
II■
■1111111■
■1111111
■■1111111
■■1111111
■�!!
"I�;I�ir
IIIII■
■1111111■
■1111111
■
■1111111■
■1111_!!;x"
1111111■
■1111111■
■1111111
■
■1111111
■1!�
,li
■1111111■
■1111111■
■1111111
■
■11111111
.�
1111
■1111111■
■1111111■
■1111111■
■1111111
■
■Ili��'
�IIIIIII
■■
1111111■
■1111111■
■1111111■
■1111111
■
■Ilia
II■
■1111111■
■1111111■
■1111111■
■1111111■
■1111111
■■
1111111
■■
1111111■
■1111111■
■1111111■
■1111111■
■1111111
,
r r r
Little Troublesome Creek, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100° / -
90
80%
0 70%
U
v 60%
a
w 50%
�j 40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
OOOb O ♦.1'7 ORh 05 ♦ 'L ,tip A �1 4 ♦ ♦"� 1b ,L,yb ,,'L p5 Qi ♦14 ♦40 ,L�b ,'b'L ♦'L ♦�rldryoA4
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO- 5/2012 MY1- 10/2012 ■MY2- 6/2013

Cross - Section Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94640)
Little Troublesome Creek, Cross - Section 13 (Riffle)
Monitoring Year 2
River Basin
Cape Fear
Watershed HUC
3030002
XS ID
13
Drainage Area
5.1 s .mi
Date
6/27/2013
Field Crew
Wildlands Engineering
Summary Data
Bankfull Elevation ft
707.3
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area (ft2)
74.4
Bankfull Width (ft)
33.7
Flood Prone Area Elevation ft
711.2
Flood Prone Width (ft)
200+
Max Depth at Bankfull (ft)
3.9
Mean Depth at Bankfull (ft)
2.2
W/D Ratio
15.3
Entrenchment Ratio
2.2+
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
Stream Type
C
Cross - Section 13: View Upstream
Cross - Section 13: View Downstream
Little Troublesome Creek
Cross - Section 13 (Riffle) Station 209 +26
712
............................................................................................................................................ ...............................
711
710
v
709
,
v
w
708
-
707
W
706
705
704
703
702
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Station (feet)
—+ – MYO- 4/2012 MY1- 10/2012 —s MY2- 6/2013 ......• Bankfull ....... Floodprone Area

Cross - Section Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94640)
Little Troublesome Creek, Cross - Section 12 (Pool)
Monitoring Year 2
River Basin
Cape Fear
Watershed HUC
3030002
XS ID
12
Drainage Area
5.lsq.mi
Date
6/27/2013
Field Crew
Wildlands Engineering
Summary Data
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area (ft2)
Bankfull Width (ft)
NNA
Flood Prone Area Elevation (ft)
Flood Prone Width (ft)
Max Depth at Bankfull (ft)
Mean Depth at Bankfull (ft)
.
W/D Ratio
13.3
Entrenchment Ratio
N/A
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
Stream Type
N/A
Cross - Section 12: View Upstream
Cross - Section 12: View Downstream LI
Little Troublesome Creek
Cross - Section 12 (Pool) Station 208 +22
709
.I
708
.. ..................... .
Cross - Section 12: View Upstream
Cross - Section 12: View Downstream LI
Little Troublesome Creek
Cross - Section 12 (Pool) Station 208 +22
709
708
.. ..................... .
707
706
m
m
705
c
a
>
704
m
703
W
702
701
700
699
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Station (feet)
t MYO- 4/2012 MY1- 10/2012 —s MY2- 6/2013 ......• Bankfull

Cross - Section Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94640)
Little Troublesome Creek, Cross - Section 11 (Riffle)
Monitoring Year 2
River Basin
Cape Fear
Watershed HUC
3030002
XS ID
11
Drainage Area
5.1 s .mi
Date
6/27/2013
Field Crew
Wildlands Engineering
Summary Data
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
708.9
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area (ft2)
82.8
Bankfull Width (ft)
31.9
Flood Prone Area Elevation (ft)
712.8
Flood Prone Width (ft)
200+
Max Depth at Bankfull (ft)
3.9
Mean Depth at Bankfull (ft)
2.6
W/D Ratio
12.3
Entrenchment Ratio
2.2+
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
Stream Type
C
Cross - Section 11: View Upstream
Cross- Section il: View Downstream
Little Troublesome Creek
Cross - Section 11 (Riffle) Station 204 +53
714
713
............................................................................................................................................................. ...............................
712
711
m
d
710
0
709
.............................. ................................... ............................... .. ...............................
d
708
w
707
,
706
705
+ —
704
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Station (feet)
— . —MYO- 4/2012 MY1- 10/2012 - MY2- 6/2013 ....... Bankfull ....... FloodproneArea

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94640)
Little Troublesome Creek
Monitoring Year 2
715 - - - --
710
♦ ♦
♦ ♦
m 705
--------------------------
O
a
X
X
'
m
w 700
695
690
20000 20200 20400 20600
20800 21000 21200
Station (feet)
t TW (MYO- 4/2012) + TW (MY1- 10/2012) —#-- TW (MY2- 6/2013) - - - - - -- WS (MY2 - 6/2013)
♦ BKF/TOB (MY2 - 612013) • STRUCTURES (MY2 - 6/2013)