20110821 Ver 1_Year 2 Monitoring Report_20140808

LYLE CREEK MITIGATION SITE
Catawba County, NC
DENR Contract 003241
NCEEP Project Number 94643
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report
FINAL
Data Collection Period: May- October 2013
Draft Submission Date: November 26, 2013
Final Submission Date: December 23, 2013
Prepared for:
em
Ei m C1 ent
FROGRh R1
NCDENR, NCEEP
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC
27699 -1652

Prepared by:
ON
WZLDLANDS
EN GIN EE RING
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
1430 S. Mint Street, # 104
Charlotte, NC 28203
P - 704 - 332 -7754
F - 704 - 332 -3306

LYLE CREEK MITIGATION SITE
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report
1.0 Executive Summary .............................................................................. ............................... 1
1.1 Project Goals and Objectives ............................................................ ............................... 1
1.2 Monitoring Year 2 Data Assessment ................................................ ............................... 3
1.2.1 Vegetative Assessment ............................................................. ............................... 3
1.2.2 Stream Assessment .................................................................. ............................... 4
1.2.3 Hydrology Assessment ............................................................. ............................... 5
1.2.4 Wetland Assessment ................................................................ ............................... 5
1.3 Monitoring Year 2 Summary ............................................................ ............................... 5
2.0 Methodology ......................................................................................... ..............................5
3.0 References ............................................................................................. ..............................7
APPENDICES
Appendix 1 General Tables and Figures
Figure 1
Project Vicinity Map
Figure 2
Project Component /Asset Map
Table 1
Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Table 2
Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3
Project Contact Table
Table 4
Project Information and Attributes
Appendix 2 Visual Assessment Data
Figure 3.0 -3.3 Integrated Current Condition Plan View
Table 5a -e 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 8 CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Table 9 Planted and Total Stem Counts (Species by Plot with Annual Means)
Appendix 4 Morphological Summary Data and Plots
Table 10a -b Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table 11 Monitoring Data — Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional
Parameters — Cross - Section)
Table 12a -e Monitoring Data — Stream Reach Data Summary
Longitudinal Profile Plots
Cross - Section Plots

Appendix 5 Hydrology Summary Data and Plots
Table 13 Verification of Bankfull Events
Table 14 Wetland Gage Attainment Summary
Hydrology Summary Data and Plots
Monthly Rainfall Data

1.0 Executive Summary
The Lyle Creek Mitigation Site, hereafter referred to as the Site, is a full - delivery stream and wetland
restoration project for the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program ( NCEEP) in Catawba
County, NC. The Site is located in the Catawba River Basin Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC)
03050101140010, and North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) Subbasin 03- 08 -32, which is
within a NCEEP Targeted Local Watershed. This HUC qualifies as a service area for an adjacent HUC; as a
result, the Lyle Creek Mitigation Site was submitted for mitigation credit in the Catawba River Basin HUC
03050103. The Site is located west of NC Highway 10/ North Main Street in the Town of Catawba, NC on
an active tree farm surrounded by woods and residential land use. The Site is bounded by Lyle Creek to
the north, NC Highway 10/ North Main Street to the east and an elevated railroad right -of -way to the
south.
The project stream reaches consist of UT1, UT1A, UT113 (stream restoration) and UT1C and UT1D
(stream enhancement level II). The project wetland areas consist of RW1 and RW2 (wetland restoration
and creation). Mitigation work within the Site included restoring and enhancing 6,795 linear feet (LF) of
perennial and intermittent stream channel and restoring and creating 9.5 acres of riparian wetland. The
stream and wetland areas were planted with native vegetation to improve habitat and protect water
quality. Construction and planting activities were completed by River Works in April 2012. The Site is
located on one (1) parcel owned by the Garmon Family. A Conservation Easement held by the State of
North Carolina has been recorded with the Catawba County Register of Deeds on the 26.62 -acre Lyle
Creek project study area within the Garmon parcel. The conservation easement protects the project
area in perpetuity.
Directions and a map of the Site are provided in Figure 1 and project components are illustrated for the
Site in Figure 2.
1.1 Project Gools and Objectives
Prior to construction activities, the project streams were regularly modified and maintained and
therefore lacked bedform diversity, habitat, and riparian buffer. The primary impacts to the project
streams were the result of mowing, ditching, vegetation maintenance, and dredging associated with
tree farming activities. As a result of the aforementioned land activities, the onsite streams were incised
and overly wide with shallow flow. The streams were unable to maintain their channel form and
subsequently filled in with sediment, organic matter, and vegetation. In- stream bedform diversity was
extremely poor and the longitudinal profile was dominated by shallow runs. The lack of bedform
diversity combined with continued anthropogenic disturbance resulted in degraded aquatic habitat,
altered hydrology (related to loss of floodplain connection and lowered water table), and water quality
concerns such as lower dissolved oxygen levels (due to shallow flow with few re- aeration points). Table
4 in Appendix 1 and Tables 10a, 10b, and 10c in Appendix 4 present the pre- restoration conditions in
detail.
The primary goals of the project were to provide ecological and water quality enhancements to the
Catawba River Basin while creating a functional riparian corridor at the site level, providing wetland
habitat and ecological function, and restoring a Piedmont Bottomland Forest as described by Schafale
and Weakley (1990). These goals were achieved by restoring 5,411 linear feet (LF) of perennial and
intermittent stream channel and 6.6 acres (ac) of wetland area, enhancing 1,384 LF of intermittent
stream channel and creating 2.9 ac of wetland area. Approximately 179 LF of stream was excluded from
the total project credit calculations from crossings (farm roads and power line easements). The Site's
riparian areas were also planted to stabilize streambanks and wetland areas, improve habitat, and
protect water quality. The ecological uplift can be summarized as starting from tree farming- impacted
streams and wetlands and moving to stable channels and wetlands in a protected riparian corridor.
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site Page i
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report —FINAL

Restoration of dimension, pattern, and profile was implemented for UT1, UT1A, and UT113;
enhancement of profile and dimension was implemented for UT1C and UT11D. Wetland restoration and
creation included RW1 and RW2. UT1A and UT1B discharge into an anastomosed wetland complex
upstream of their confluence with UT1 as depicted in Figure 2. This anastomosed wetland complex was
not proposed for stream mitigation credit. Figure 2 and Table 1 present the implemented design for the
Site.
Monitored enhancements to water quality and ecological processes established in the mitigation plan
are outlined below, followed by expected project benefits which are associated with restoration, but will
not be monitored as part of this project:
Monitored Project Goals
• Wetland areas will be disked to increase surface roughness and better capture rainfall which
will improve connection with the water table for groundwater recharge. Adjacent streams will
be stabilized and established with a floodplain elevation to promote hydrologic transfer
between wetland and stream.
• A channel with riffle -pool sequences and some rock and wood structures will be created in the
steeper project reaches and a channel with run -pool sequences and woody debris structures will
be created in the low sloped project reaches for macroinvertebrate and fish habitat.
Introduction of wood including root wads and woody 'riffles' along with native stream bank
vegetation will substantially increase habitat value. Gravel areas will be added as appropriate to
further diversify available habitats.
• Adjacent buffer areas will be restored by removing invasive vegetation and planting native
vegetation. These areas will be allowed to receive more regular and inundating flows. Riparian
wetland areas will be restored and enhanced to provide wetland habitat.
• Sediment input from eroding stream banks will be reduced by installing bioengineering and in-
stream structures while creating a stable channel form using geomorphic design principles.
Expected Project Benefits
• Chemical fertilizer and pesticide levels will be decreased by filtering runoff from adjacent tree
farm operations through restored native buffer zones and wetlands. Offsite nutrient input will
be absorbed onsite by filtering flood flows through restored floodplain areas and wetlands,
where flood flows can disperse through native vegetation and be captured in vernal pools.
Increased surface water residency time will provide contact treatment time and groundwater
recharge potential.
• Sediment from offsite sources will be captured during bankfull or greater flows by deposition on
restored floodplain areas where native vegetation will slow overland flow velocities.
• Restored riffle /step -pool sequences on the upper reach of UT1A, where distinct points of re-
aeration can occur, will allow for oxygen levels to be maintained in the perennial reaches. Small
log steps on the upstream portion of UT1B and UT1 Reach 1 Upper will also provide re- aeration
points.
• Creation of deep pool zones will lower temperature, helping to maintain dissolved oxygen
concentrations. Pools will form below drops on the steeper project reaches and around areas of
woody debris on the low- sloped project reaches. Establishment and maintenance of riparian
buffers will create long -term shading of the channel flow to minimize thermal heating.
The design streams and wetlands were restored to the appropriate type based on the surrounding
landscape, climate, and natural vegetation communities but also with strong consideration to existing
watershed conditions and trajectory.
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site Page z
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report —FINAL

The stream restoration success criteria for the Site follows the approved performance criteria presented
in the NCEEP Mitigation Plan Template (version 1.0, 11/20/2009) and the Stream Mitigation Guidelines
issued in April 2003 by the USACE and NCDWQ. Annual monitoring and quarterly site visits will be
conducted to assess the condition of the finished project for five (5) years, or until success criteria are
met. The stream restoration reaches (UT1, UT1A, and UT1B) of the project were assigned specific
performance criteria components for stream morphology, hydrology, and vegetation. The enhancement
reaches (UT1c and UT1d) were documented through photographs and visual assessments to verify that
no significant degradational changes are occurring in the stream channel or riparian corridor.
Monitoring for wetland vegetation will extend seven (7) years beyond completion of construction. The
wetland restoration and creation sections have been assigned specific performance criteria for
hydrology and vegetation. The final mitigation plan was submitted and accepted by the NCEEP in August
2011. Construction activities were completed by River Works, Inc. in April 2012. Baseline monitoring
(Year 0) and as -built survey was conducted between April and May 2012. Annual monitoring will be
conducted for seven (7) years; stream and vegetation assessment will be conducted for five (5) years
and wetland assessment will be conducted for seven (7) years. The final monitoring activities will be
conducted in 2018 with the close -out anticipated to commence in 2019 given the success criteria are
met. Appendix 1 provides more detailed project activity, history, contact information, and
watershed /site background information for this project.
1.2 Monitoring Year 2 Data Assessment
Annual monitoring and quarterly site visits were conducted during monitoring year (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 Lyle Mitigation Plan (2011).
1.2.1 Vegetative Assessment
Planted woody vegetation is being monitored in accordance with the guidelines and procedures
developed by the Carolina Vegetation Survey - NCEEP Level 2 Protocol (Lee et al., 2006). A total of 35
vegetation monitoring plots were established during the baseline monitoring within the project
easement areas using a standard 10 meter by 10 meter plot. The final vegetative success criteria
will be the survival of 260 planted stems per acre in the riparian corridor along restored and
enhanced reaches at the end of year five (5) of the monitoring period. The interim measure of
vegetative success for the Site will be the survival of at least 320 planted stems per acre at the end
of year three (3) of the monitoring period.
The MY -2 vegetative survey was completed in June 2013. The annual vegetation monitoring
resulted in an average stem density of 417 stems per acre, which is greater than the interim
requirement of 320 stems /acre, but approximately 22% less than the MY -0 density recorded (532
stems /acre) in April 2012 and 11% greater than the MY -1 density recorded (372 stems /acre). MY -2
resulted in an average of 12 stems per plot, which has remained consistent with the average of 12
stems per plot found in MY- 0 and MY -1. Due to the high mortality rates observed during the MY -1
vegetation assessment, supplemental plantings were warranted and installed during December
2012. The increase in planted stems found in MY -2 compared to MY -1 can be attributed both to the
supplemental plantings as well as to re- sprouting of previously planted stems.
A total of 31 out of 35 plots are on track to meet the success criteria required for monitoring year 3
(Table 9, Appendix 3). Additional maintenance is planned to address the low stem density observed
during MY -2 as described below. Invasive species have been identified onsite, including Kudzu,
Johnson grass, and cattails. 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
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site Page 3
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report —FINAL

raw data tables and Appendix 2 for vegetation plot photographs and the vegetation condition
assessment table.
Maintenance Plan
The Site was re- planted in late winter 2012 in response to the dead bare roots observed during the
MY -1 vegetative survey. Most likely, the mortality of the planted stems was a result of dry soil
conditions, low precipitation, and /or from grass suffocation or crowding of planted stems. To
promote better success, the planting list was modified slightly to account for species that were not
successful in the initial planting. 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. The small areas where invasive species have been noted within the Site were
treated during suitable months over the 2013 monitoring year. These areas will continue to be
monitored and treated on a regular basis.
1.2.2 Stream Assessment
Morphological surveys for the MY -2 were conducted in May 2013. The majority of the streams
within the Site have met the success criteria for MY -2 with the exception of a short length of UT1A.
Aggradation is occurring on UT1A from station 301 +50 to 304 +00. This area of concern is further
described below. 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.
In general cross - sections along UT1 and UT113 show little to no change in the bankfull area,
maximum depth ratio, or width -to -depth ratio. However due to the sand /silt nature of the
substrate throughout the project, fluctuations in bed elevations were observed and expected.
These fluctuations are temporary and seem to typically correspond to storm events. At the
downstream end of UT1, near the confluence with Lyle Creek, minor aggradation has occurred. This
aggradation is most likely attributed to backwater conditions from Lyle Creek. Surveyed riffle cross -
sections fell within the parameters defined for channels of the appropriate Rosgen stream type with
the exception of cross - sections 9 and 10 along UT1A, which experienced sedimentation from the
contributing upstream watershed. The sedimentation rate increased in MY -2 and has impacted
channel stability along UT1A. A plan to address the high sedimentation rate is discussed below in
the maintenance plan.
The surveyed longitudinal profile data for the stream restoration reaches illustrates that the
bedform features are maintaining lateral and vertical stability. The riffles and runs are remaining
steeper and shallower than the pools, while the pools are remaining deeper than the riffles and
maintaining flat water surface slopes. The longitudinal profiles show that the bank height ratios
remain very near to 1.0 for the restoration reaches. In- stream structures, such as brush mattresses
and sod mats used to enhance channel habitat and stability on the outside bank of meander bends
are providing stability and habitat as designed. Pattern data will be collected in MY -5 only if there
are indicators from the profile or dimensions that significant geomorphic adjustments have
occurred. No changes were observed during MY -2 that indicated a change in the radius of curvature
or channel belt width.
Maintenance Plan
During MY -2 sedimentation rates increased along UT1A. This sediment deposition is due to
upstream bank erosion and mass wasting occurring upstream of the Site that is outside of the
conservation easement. Since this area of erosion is outside of the easement, Wildlands proposes
to create a small sediment basin /trap to capture this sediment at the upstream limits of UT1A.
Wildlands will maintain this basin /trap by cleaning out the sediment as needed throughout the
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site Page 4
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report —FINAL

monitoring period. Wildlands will prepare and submit a design plan for the sediment basin /trap to
EEP for approval prior to any work being conducted.
1.2.3 Hydrology Assessment
At the end of the five (5) year monitoring period, two or more bankfull events must have occurred in
separate years within the restoration reaches. Bankfull events were recorded on UT1, UT1A and
UT16 using a crest gage during MY -2. Please refer to Appendix 5 for hydrologic data.
1.2.4 Wetland Assessment
Ten groundwater monitoring gages were established during the baseline monitoring throughout the
wetland restoration and creation areas. The gages were installed at appropriate locations so that
the data collected will provide an indication of groundwater levels throughout the wetland project
area. Historical growing season data isn't available for Catawba County therefore the growing
season currently used for success criteria was applied from nearby Iredell County growing season
data. This growing season runs from April 7th to October 28th (203 days). However, additional
growing season data is being collected by two (2) soil temperature loggers that were installed one
(1) within each wetland. These probes will 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)
in subsequent monitoring years. If the probes indicate a longer growing season than that adapted
from Iredell County, the growing season will be adjusted based on on -site soil temperature
conditions. 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 success criteria for wetland hydrology is to have a free groundwater surface within 12
inches of the ground surface for 7 percent of the growing season, which is measured on consecutive
days under typical precipitation conditions. All groundwater gages met the annual wetland
hydrology success criteria for MY -2. Please refer to Appendix 2 for the groundwater gage locations
and Appendix 5 for groundwater hydrology data and plots.
1.3 Monitoring Year 2 Summary
With the exception of the upstream portion of UT1A, all streams within the Site are stable and
functioning as designed. Aggradation observed on UT1A will be addressed to decrease the
sedimentation rates observed in MY -2. The average stem density for the Site is on track to meet the
MY -5 success criteria; however, a portion of the individual vegetation plots did not meet the current
success criteria as noted in the CCPV map. A vegetation maintenance plan will be implemented in late
winter 2013/2014. There has been two (2) bankfull events recorded in separate monitoring years along
each restored project reach since construction commenced; therefore, the Site has met the MY -5
stream hydrology attainment requirement. All groundwater gages are meeting the success criteria for
wetland hydrology.
Summary information and data related to the performance of various project and monitoring elements
can be found in the tables and figures in the report appendices. Narrative background and supporting
information formerly found in these reports can be found in the Mitigation Plan documents available on
NCEEP's website. All raw data supporting the tables and figures in the appendices are available from
NCEEP upon request.
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
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site Page 5
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report —FINAL

a total station and were georeferenced. 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 USACE (2003) standards. Vegetation monitoring
protocols followed the Carolina Vegetation Survey -NCEEP Level 2 Protocol (Lee et al., 2008).
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site Page 6
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report —FINAL

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.
Harrelson, C.C., Rawlins, C.L., Potyondy, J.P. 1994. Stream Channel Reference Sites: An Illustrated Guide
to Field Technique. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM -245. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 61 p.
Lee, M.T., Peet, R.K., S.D., Wentworth, T.R. 2008. CVS -EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation Version
4.2. Retrieved from http: / /cvs.bio.unc.edu/ protocol /cvs -eep- protocol- v4.2- lev1- 5.pdf.
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.
Simon, A. 1989. A model of channel response in disturbed alluvial channels. Earth Surface Processes and
Landforms 14(1):11 -26.
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: Catawba 3 NNW, NC1579.
http : / /www.wcc.nres.usda.gov /ftpref /support /cl i mate /wetlands /nc /37035.txt
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2009. Natural Resources Conservation Service, Soil
Survey Geographic (SSURGO) database for Catawba County, North Carolina.
http : / /SoilDataMart.nres.usda.gov
United States Geological Survey (USGS). 1998. North Carolina Geology. http: //
http: / /www. geology. enr .state.nc.us /usgs /carolina.htm
Weakley, A.S. 2008. Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, Georgia, Northern Florida, and Surrounding Areas
(Draft April 2008). University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill: Chapel Hill, NC.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 2011. Lyle Creek Mitigation Plan. NCEEP, Raleigh, NC.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 2012. Lyle Creek Mitigation Site Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built
Baseline Report. NCEEP, Raleigh, NC.
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site Page 7
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report —FINAL

APPENDIX 1. General Tables and Figures

Easement Area
Hydrologic Unit Code 14
EEP Targeted Local Watershed J or
..l �
r0-
., • L /I Ike �'* � f f �,l '
•• / i /� l Country Club ,f�✓l _
ao - 03050101150 20
la, °ere4ne D
I - I • �� /�` 70
Catawb
�remont
ty
0305010 40010 _, f l ` ° '�`'�►i��
it
✓' �� .
7 9
Project Location " P%0010 f Directions: /
From 1 -40 exit 138, follow Catawba
Oxford School Road south ; op, i
for 2.2 miles. Oxford School - u
Road becomes North Main 'o
Street (NC Highway 10) after
a bridge crossing at Lyle Creek.
From North Main Street, turn
right onto 3rd Avenue NW.
Follow 3rd Avenue NW around
and to the right to approach the ; � � � �� ,fl-,'f r.. , ,g
Catawba Tree Farm gate.
The subject project site is an environmental restoration site of the i
NCDENR Ecoysystem Enhancement Program (EEP) and is i 030501 1500 0� r
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. ake
Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
EEP Project Number 94643
Monitoring Year 2
Catawba County, NC
0 2,000 4,000 ft
lk�p
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING

Figure 2. Project Component/
Asset Map
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
EEP Project Number 94643
Monitoring Year 2
Catawba County, NC
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement
Braided Reach (no credit)
Wetland Restoration
Wetland Creation
j Conservation Easement
+* Railroad
t Power Lines
Irrigation Lines
Parcels
0 225 450 ft
I i i i I
%�W*
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING

Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No.94643)
Monitoring Year 2
Mitigation Credits
Nitrogen
Nutrient
Phosphorous
Stream
Riparian Wetland
Non - Riparian Wetland
Buffer
Offet
Nutrient Offset
Type
R
RE
R
RE
R
RE
Totals
5,965
N/A
7.6
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Project Components
As -Built
Existing
As -Built Mitigation
Stationing/
Footage
Restoration or Restoration
Length /Area
Reach ID
Location
(LF)
Approach
Equivalent
(LF /acres)
Mitigation Ratio
UT1
100 +00 -
4,071
Priority 1/2
Restoration
3,951 LF1
1:1
141 +30
300 +00 -
UT1a
1,141
Priority 1
Restoration
615 LF'
1:1
306 +15
UTlb
201+52 -
890
Priority 1/2
Restoration
845 LF'
1:1
209 +97
in- stream
UT1c
400 +00 -
695
structures,
Enhancement II
677 LF4
2.5:1
406 +77
grading,
planting
in- stream
UT1d
500 +00 -
760
structures,
Enhancement II
707 LF
2.5:1
507 +07
grading,
planting
grading,
RW1
N/A
N/A
Restoration
5.8 AC
1:1
planting
RW1
N/A
N/A
grading,
Creation
1.1 AC
3:1
planting
grading,
RW2
N/A
N/A
Restoration
0.8 AC
1:1
planting
RW2
N/A
N/A
grading,
Creation
1.8 AC
3:1
planting
Component Summation
Stream
Riparian Wetland
Non - Riparian Wetland
Buffer
Upland
Restoration Level
(linear feet)
(acres)
(acres)
(square feet)
(acres)
Riverine
Non - Riverine
Restoration
5,411
6.6
Enhancement
Enhancement I
Enhancement II
1,384
Creation
2.9
Preservation
High Quality Preservation
' Excludes 179 LF in crossings (farm road and power line easements). Includes length from station 125 +42 to 125 +60 where left bank buffer width ranges from 485 to 50'. The right bank
buffer width in this area exceeds 100'.
3 Excludes downstream 306 LF of UTla that is in the anastomosed wetland complex
' Excludes downstream 243 LF of UT1b that is in the anastomosed wetland complex
4 Includes length from station 4 +48 to 6 +11 where left bank buffer width ranges from 28.7' to 50'. The right bank buffer width in this area ranges from 65.5' to 102.6'.

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No.94643)
Monitoring Year 2
Activity or Report
Date Collection
Complete
Completion or
Scheduled Delivery
Mitigation Plan
May 2011
August 2011
Final Design - Construction Plans
October 2011
December 2011
Construction
Jan -Apr 2012
April 2012
Temporary S &E mix applied to entire project area*
April 2012
April 2012
Permanent seed mix applied to reach /segments
April 2012
April 2012
Bare root and live stake plantings for reach /segments
April 2012
April 2012
Baseline Monitoring Document (Year 0 Monitoring - baseline)
April 2012
July 2012
Year 1 Monitoring
October 2012
December 2012
Year 2 Monitoring
October 2013
November 2013
Year 3 Monitoring
2014
December 2014
Year 4 Monitoring
2015
December 2015
Year 5 Monitoring
2016
December 2016
Year 6 Monitoring
2017
December 2017
Year 7 Monitoring
2018
December 2018
*Seed and mulch is added as each section of construction is completed.
Table 3. Project Contact Table
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No.94643)
Monitoring Year 2
Designer
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
1430 S. Mint St, Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 28203
Emily Reinicker, PE, CFM
704.332.7754
Construction Contractor
River Works, Inc.
6105 Chapel Hill Rd
Raleigh, NC 27607
Bill Wright
336.279.1002
Planting Contractor
River Works, Inc.
6105 Chapel Hill Rd
Raleigh, NC 27607
George Morris
336.279.1002
Seeding Contractor
, River Works, Inc.
6105 Chapel Hill Rd
Raleigh, NC 27607
George Morris
336.279.1002
Seed Mix Sources
Green Resource
Nursery Stock Suppliers
ArborGlen
Superior Tree
Mellow Marsh Farm
Monitoring Performers
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Kirsten Y. Gimbert
Stream, Vegetation, and Wetland Monitoring POC
704.332.7754, ext. 110

Table 4. Project Information and Attributes
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No.94643)
Monitoring Year 2
Project Information
Project Name
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
County
Catawba County, INC
Project Area (acres)
26.62
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude)
35° 42' 39.218" N, 81° 4' 54.628" W
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province
Piedmont
River Basin
Catawba
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8 -digit
03050101
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14 -digit
03050101140010
DWQSub -basin
Catawba River Subbasin 03 -08 -32
Project Drainiage Area (acres)
315
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area
5%
CGIA Land Use Classification 50% Forested, 20% Developed, 17% Agricultural,
8 %Shrubland,
5% Herbaceous Uplanc
Reach Summary Information
Parameters UTi UT1A UT113
UT1C
UT1D RWl RW2
3,9411
615'
845 3
677
707
N/A
N/A
Length of reach (linear feet) - Post - Restoration
Drainage area (acres)
315
56
78
26
9
96
134
NCDWQ stream identification score
Lyle Creek - 11- 76 -(4.5)
NCDWQ Water Quality Classification
Lyle Creek - WS -IV;CA
Morphological Desription (stream type) of Pre - Existing
F5 °, F6 °, G6 °
F6 °
F6 °
F6 °
F6 °
N/A
N/A
Morphological Desription (stream type) of Design
BSc, C6
B6c, C6
C6
C6
C6
N/A
N/A
Evolutionary trend (Simon's Model) - Pre- Restoration
Stage
II - Channelized
Chewacla
Wehadkee
Chewacla
Chewacla
Congaree
loam and
Chewacla
Chewacla loam
fine sandy
loam
loam
complex
Wehadkee
loam
Underlying mapped soils
loam
fine sand
somewhat
somewhat
somewhat
poorly
somewhat
somewhat
frequently
moderately
poorly
poorly
drained and
poorly
poorly drained
flooded
well drained
drained
drained
frequently
drained
Drainage class
I
flooded
Soil Hydric status
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Slope
0 -2%
0 -2%
0 -2%
0 -2%
0 -2%
0 -2%
0 -2%
FEMA classification
AE'
Native vegetation community
Palustrine Emergent System
Percent composition of exotic invasive vegetation - Post-
0%
Restoration
Regulatory Considerations
Regulation
Applicable?
Resolved?
Supporting Documentation
Waters of the United States - Section 404
X
X
USACE Nationwide Permit No.27 and DWQ401 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
Lyle Creek Mitigation Plan: two federally listed species, the bald eagle
(Holiaeetus leucocepholus) and dwarf- flowered hearleaf (Hexastylis
naniflora ), are currently listed in Catawba County. Studies found "no
individual species, critical habitat, or suitable habitat was found to exist
on the site" (letter to USFWS; no response was received within the 30 -day
time frame from USFWS)
Endangered Species Act
X
I X
No historic resources were found to be impacted (letter from SHPO and
Historic Preservation Act
X
X
THPO)
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) /Coastal Area Management
N/A
N/A
N/A
No -rise certification and floodplain development permit approved by
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
X
X
Catawba County floodplain administrator.
Project area has warm water fisheries; found no reason to object to the
Essential Fisheries Habitat
X
X
restoration project (letter from NCWRC).
' Excludes 200 LF of crossings
'Excludes 306 LF of UT1a in the anastomosed wetlands complex
' Excludes 243 LF of UT3b in the anastomosed wetlands complex
"The Rosgen classification system is for natural streams. These channels have been heavily manipulated by man and therefore the Rosgen classification system is not applicable. These
classifications are provided for illustrative purposes only.
'The project area does not have an associate regulated floodplain; however, the project reaches and wetland areas area located within the floodway and flood fringe of Lyle Creek.

APPENDIX 2. Visual Assessment Data

Figure 3.1 Integrated Current
r-�J Condition Plan View (key)
W I L D L A N D S Mai stem Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
ENS NEER N� ECllicht 0 125 250 ft NCEEP Project Number 94643
..o I i i i t Monitoring Year 2
Catawba County, NC

Figure 3.1 Integrated Current
qWW Condition Plan View (Sheet 1 of 3)
W I L D L A N D S �i�IIl Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
ENGINEERING LI loll Cl]ICi� 0 75 150 ft NCEEP Project Number 94643
..o I i i i I t Monitoring Year 2
Catawba County, NC

Figure 3.1 Integrated Current
Condition Plan View (Sheet 2 of 3)
W I L D L A N D S �i�IIl Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
ENGINEERING LI loll Cl]ICi� 0 75 150 ft NCEEP Project Number 94643
..o I i i i I t Monitoring Year 2
Catawba County, NC

�,.. Figure 3.1 Integrated Current
ktvv Condition Plan View (Sheet 3 of 3)
W I L D L A N D S f Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
eN�iNeeaiN� Lllllill� n 0 75 150 ft NCEEP Project Number 94643
i i i I t Monitoring Year 2
Catawba County, NC

Table 5a. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (EEP Project No. 94643)
UTl Reach 1 Upper (700 LF)
Monitoring Year 2
Major
Channel Channel
Category
Sub- Category
Metric
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
Aggradation
Degredation
Adjust %
for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
2. Riffle Condition
Texture /Substrate
0
3. Meander Pool
Condition
Depth Sufficient
Lenth Appropriate
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide)
100%
2. Bank
1. Scoured /Eroded
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth
and /or scour and erosion
0%
2. Undercut
Banks undercut /overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear
sustainable and are providing habitat
0%
3. Mass Wasting
JBank slumping, calving, or collapse
3. Engineered
1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dilodged boulders or logs.
Structures
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
3. Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
15 %.
Pool forming structures maintaining —Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth
4. Habitat > 1.6 Rootwads /logs providing some cover at baseflow.
Number
Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Total
Number in
As -Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
% Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Number
with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage
with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust %
for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
15
0%
9
0%
9
0%
9
0%
9
100%
0 1 0 1 100% 1 0 1 0 1 100%
0 0 100% 0 0 100%
0 0 100% 0 0 100%
Totals 0 0 100% 0 0 100%
40 0%
39 0%
24 0%
40 0%
6 0%

Table 5b. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (EEP Project No. 94643)
LITl Reach 1 Lower (2,558 LF)
Monitoring Year 2
Major
Channel Channel
Category
Sub- Category
Metric
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
Aggradation
Degredation
Adjust %
for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
2. Riffle Condition
Texture /Substrate
0
3. Meander Pool
Condition
Depth Sufficient
Lenth Appropriate
Totals
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide)
100%
2. Bank
1. Scoured /Eroded
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth
and /or scour and erosion
100%
2. Undercut
Banks undercut /overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear
sustainable and are providing habitat
100%
3. Mass Wasting
113ank slumping, calving, or collapse
Number
Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Total
Number in
As -Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
% Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Number
with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage
with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust %
for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
0
0
0
0
100%
100%
Totals
0
0
0
100%
24
24
34
100%
29
29
100%
29
29
100%
29
29
100%
29
29
100%
3. Engineered
Structures 1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dilodged boulders or logs. 34
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill 30
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms. 2
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
3. Bank Protection 34
15 %.
Pool forming structures maintaining —Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth
4. Habitat 4
> 1.6 Rootwads /logs providing some cover at baseflow.
0 1 0 1 100% 1 0 1 0 1 100%
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
34
100%
30
100%
2
100%
34
100%
4
100%

Table 5c. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (EEP Project No. 94643)
LITl Reach 2 (883 LF)
Monitoring Year 2
Major
Channel Channel
Category
Sub- Category
Metric
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
Aggradation
Degredation
Adjust %
for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
2. Riffle Condition
Texture /Substrate
0
3. Meander Pool
Condition
Depth Sufficient
Lenth Appropriate
Totals
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide)
100%
2. Bank
1. Scoured /Eroded
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth
and /or scour and erosion
100%
2. Undercut
Banks undercut /overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear
sustainable and are providing habitat
100%
3. Mass Wasting
113ank slumping, calving, or collapse
Number
Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Total
Number in
As -Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
% Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Number
with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage
with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust %
for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
0
0
0
0
100%
100%
Totals
0
0
0
100%
12
12
16
100%
10
10
100%
10
10
100%
10
10
100%
10
10
100%
3. Engineered
Structures 1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dilodged boulders or logs. 16
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill 13
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms. 4
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
3. Bank Protection 16
15 %.
Pool forming structures maintaining —Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth
4. Habitat 4
> 1.6 Rootwads /logs providing some cover at baseflow.
0 1 0 1 100% 1 0 1 0 1 100%
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
16
100%
13
100%
4
100%
16
100%
4
100%

Table 5d. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (EEP Project No. 94643)
LITl A (615 LF)
Monitoring Year 2
Major
Channel Channel
Category
Sub - Category
Metric
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
Aggradation
Degredation
Adjust %
for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
2. Riffle Condition
Texture /Substrate
1
3. Meander Pool
Condition
Depth Sufficient'
Lenth Appropriate
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide)
100%
2. Bank
1. Scoured /Eroded
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth
and /or scour and erosion
100%
2. Undercut
Banks undercut /overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear
sustainable and are providing habitat
85%
3. Mass Wasting
113ank slumping, calving, or collapse
Number
Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Total
Number in
As -Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
% Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Number
with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage
with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust %
for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Structures
0
1
250
59%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill
43
0
0
100%
8
8
3. Bank Protection
100%
17
20
85%
11
11
100%
11
11
100%
11
11
100%
3. Engineered
0
0
100%
0
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dilodged boulders or logs.
43
Structures
0
100%
0
0
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill
43
0
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
35
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
43
43
15%.
35
100%
43
Pool forming structures maintaining —Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth
10
60%
4. Habitat
> 1.6 Rootwads /logs providing some cover at baseflow.'
6
Pools are expected to fill in slightly and re -scour over time due to the fine - grained substrate in the system.
0 1 0 1 100% 1 0 1 0 1 100%
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
43
100%
43
100%
35
100%
43
100%
10
60%

Table 5e. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (EEP Project No. 94643)
LITl B (997 LF)
Monitoring Year 2
Major
Channel Channel
Category
Sub- Category
Metric
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
Aggradation
Degredation
Adjust %
for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
2. Riffle Condition
Texture /Substrate
0
3. Meander Pool
Condition
Depth Sufficient
Lenth Appropriate
Totals
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide)
100%
2. Bank
1. Scoured /Eroded
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth
and /or scour and erosion
100%
2. Undercut
Banks undercut /overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear
sustainable and are providing habitat
95%
3. Mass Wasting
113ank slumping, calving, or collapse
Number
Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Total
Number in
As -Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
% Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Number
with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage
with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust %
for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
0
0
0
0
100%
100%
Totals
0
0
0
100%
11
11
31
100%
18
19
95%
19
19
100%
19
19
100%
19
19
100%
3. Engineered
Structures 1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dilodged boulders or logs. 31
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill 31
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms. 21
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
3. Bank Protection 31
15 %.
Pool forming structures maintaining —Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth
4. Habitat 0
> 1.6 Rootwads /logs providing some cover at baseflow.
0 1 0 1 100% 1 0 1 0 1 100%
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
31
100%
31
100%
21
100%
31
100%
0
100%

Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (EEP Project No. 94643)
Monitoring Year 2
Planted Acreage 26.2
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Mapping
Threshold
(acres)
Number of
Polygons
Combined
Acreage
% of
Planted
Acreage"
Bare Areas
Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material
0.1
0
0
0.00%
Low Stem Density Areas^
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 4, or 5 stem count criteria.
0.1
0
0.0
0.0%
Total
0
0.0
0.0%
Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor
Areas with woody stems of a size class that are obviously small given the monitoring year.
0.25 acres
0
0
0%
Cumulative Total
0
0.0
0%
Easement Acreage 26.62
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Mapping
Threshold
(SF)
Number of
Polygons
Combined
Acreage
%o
Planted
Acreage
Invasive Areas of Concern
Areas of points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
1000
4
0.22
0.8%
Easement Encroachment Areas
Areas of points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
none
0
0
0%
^Acreage calculated from vegetation plots monitored for site.

Stream Photographs

Photo Point 1— looking upstream (05/15/2013) 1 Photo Point 1— looking downstream (05/15/2013) 1
Photo Point 2 — looking upstream (05/15/2013) 1 Photo Point 2 — looking downstream (05/15/2013)
Photo Point 3 — looking upstream (05/15/2013) 1 Photo Point 3 — looking downstream (05/15/2013) 1

Photo Point 4— looking upstream (05/21/2013)
Photo Point 4— looking downstream (05/21/2013)
"r
4CUl �, I A/ ir#p�J'tUEf1"
Photo Point 5 — looking upstream (05/21/2013)
Photo Point 5 — looking downstream (05/21/2013)
Photo Point 6 — looking upstream (05/21/2013)
Photo Point 6 — looking downstream (05/21/2013)

Photo Point 7 — looking upstream (05/21/2013)
Photo Point 7 — looking downstream (05/21/2013)
Photo Point 8 — looking upstream (05/21/2013)
Photo Point 8 — looking downstream (05/21/2013)
Photo Point 9 — looking upstream (05/21/2013)
Photo Point 9 — looking downstream (05/21/2013)

Photo Point 10 — looking upstream (05/21/2013)
Photo Point 10 — looking downstream (05/21/2013)
Photo Point 11— looking upstream (05/21/2013)
Photo Point 11— looking downstream (05/21/2013)
Photo Point 12 — looking upstream (05/21/2013)
Photo Point 12 — looking downstream (05/21/2013)

Photo Point 13 — looking upstream (05/15/2013) 1 Photo Point 13 — looking downstream (05/15/2013) 1
Photo Point 14 — looking upstream (05/15/2013) 1 Photo Point 14 — looking downstream (05/15/2013)
Photo Point 15 — looking upstream (05/15/2013) 1 Photo Point 15 — looking downstream (05/15/2013) 1

Y°
VA
y.
£r,
Photo Point 16
— looking upstream (05/15/2013)
Photo Point 16 — looking downstream (05/15/2013)
•
tI' 4 !y
.....�'i'r��
t'�
��J
Photo Point 17
— looking upstream (05/15/2013)
Photo Point 17 — looking downstream (05/15/2013)
�c
K
Photo Point 18
— looking upstream (05/15/2013)
Photo Point 18 — looking downstream (05/15/2013)

Photo Point 19 — looking upstream (05/15/2013) 1 Photo Point 19 — looking downstream (05/15/2013) 1
Photo Point 20 — looking upstream (05/15/2013) 1 Photo Point 20 — looking downstream (05/15/2013)
Photo Point 21— looking upstream (05/15/2013) 1 Photo Point 21— looking downstream (05/15/2013) 1

Photo Point 22 — looking upstream (05/15/2013) 1 Photo Point 22 — looking downstream (05/15/2013) 1
Photo Point 23 — looking upstream (05/15/2013) 1 Photo Point 23 — looking downstream (05/15/2013)
Photo Point 24 — looking upstream (05/15/2013) 1 Photo Point 24 — looking downstream (05/15/2013) 1

Photo Point 25 — looking upstream (05/15/2013) 1 Photo Point 25 — looking downstream (05/15/2013) 1
Photo Point 26 — looking upstream (05/15/2013) 1 Photo Point 26 — looking downstream (05/15/2013)
Photo Point 27 — looking upstream (05/15/2013) 1 Photo Point 27 — looking downstream (05/15/2013) 1

Photo Point 28 — looking upstream (06/27/2013) 1 Photo Point 28 — looking downstream (06/27/2013) 1
Photo Point 29 — looking upstream (05/15/2013) 1 Photo Point 29 — looking downstream (05/15/2013)
Photo Point 30 — looking upstream (05/15/2013) 1 Photo Point 30 — looking downstream (05/15/2013) 1

Photo Point 31— looking upstream (05/21/2013) 1 Photo Point 31— looking downstream (05/21/2013) 1
Photo Point 32 — looking upstream (05/21/2013) 1 Photo Point 32 — looking downstream (05/21/2013) 1
Photo Point 33 — looking upstream (05/21/2013) 1 Photo Point 33 — looking downstream (05/21/2013) 1

Vegetation Photographs

Vegetation Plot 1 (06/27/2013)
Vegetation Plot 2 (06/27/2013)
.
i
iRiRJF�P
Vegetation Plot 3 (06/27/2013)
Vegetation Plot 4 (06/27/2013)
Vegetation Plot 5 (06/27/2013)
Vegetation Plot 6 (06/27/2013)

Vegetation Plot 7 (06/20/2013) 1 Vegetation Plot 8 (06/20/2013) 1
Vegetation Plot 9 (06/20/2013) 1 Vegetation Plot 10 (06/20/2013) 1
Vegetation Plot 11 (06/19/2013) 1 Vegetation Plot 12 (06/19/2013) 1

Vegetation Plot 13 (06/20/2013)
Vegetation Plot 14 (06/19/2013)
�F
.k
rw� 7,aa y r'
Vegetation Plot 15 (06/19/2013)
Vegetation Plot 16 (06/27/2013)
aW
Y
i
y Yf
Vegetation Plot 17 (06/27/2013)
Vegetation Plot 18 (06/27/2013)

Vegetation Plot 19 (06/27/2013)
Vegetation Plot 20 (06/27/2013)
;r
x
Vegetation Plot 21 (06/27/2013)
Vegetation Plot 22 (06/27/2013)
l •
Vegetation Plot 23 (06/19/2013)
Vegetation Plot 24 (06/19/2013)

Vegetation Plot 25 (06/19/2013)
Vegetation Plot 26 (06/19/2013)
Vegetation Plot 27 (06/19/2013)
Vegetation Plot 28 (06/19/2013)
Vegetation Plot 29 (06/27/2013)
Vegetation Plot 30 (06/27/2013)

Vegetation Plot 31 (06/20/2013)
Vegetation Plot 32 (06/27/2013)
E
} Its
Vegetation Plot 33 (06/27/2013)
Vegetation Plot 34 (06/27/2013)
4 Z
J
t
Iv p
Vegetation Plot 35 (06/27/2013)

APPENDIX 3. Vegetation Plot Data

Table 7. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94643)
Monitoring Year 2
Plot
MY2 Success Criteria Met
(Y /N)
Tract Mean
1
Y
89
2
Y
3
Y
4
N
5
Y
6
N
7
Y
8
Y
9
Y
10
Y
11
Y
12
Y
13
Y
14
Y
15
Y
16
Y
17
Y
18
Y
19
N
20
Y
21
Y
22
Y
23
Y
24
Y
25
Y
26
Y
27
Y
28
Y
29
N
30
Y
31
Y
32
Y
33
Y
34
Y
35
Y

Table 8. CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94643)
Monitoring Year 2
Report Prepared By
Alea Tuttle
Date Prepared
711512013 13:08
database name
Lyle Creek- cvs -eep- entrytool- v2.2.7 (MY- 2).mdb
database location
Q:�ActiveProjects)005 -02123 Lyle Creek Mitigation FDP) Monitoring �Monitoring Year 2�Vegetation Assessment
DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT ------------
Metadata
Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a summary of projects) and project data.
Plots
Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre, for each year. This excludes live stakes.
Stem Count by Plot and Spp
A matrix of the count of total living stems of each species (planted and natural volunteers combined) for each plot dead and missing stems are excluded.
PROJ ECT SU M MARY-------------------------------------
Project Code
94643
project Name
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
Description
Stream and Wetland Mitigation
length (ft)
stream -to -edge width (ft)
area (sq m)
Required Plots (calculated)
135
Sampled Plots
135

Table 9. Planted and Total Stem Counts (Species by Plot with Annual Means)
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94643)
Monitoring Year 2
Color Coding for Table
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
94643 -WEI -0001
94643 -WEI -0002
94643 -WEI -0003
94643 -WEI -0004
94643 -WEI -0005
94643 -WEI -0006
94643 -WEI -0007
94643 -WEI -0008
94643 -WEI -0009
Pnol-S
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
Pnol-S
P -all
T
Pnol-S
P -all
T
Pnol-S
P -all
T
Pnol-S
P -all
T
Pnol-S
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
Pnol-S
P -all
T
Acer negundo
boxelder
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
Alnus serrulata
hazel alder
Shrub
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
2
2
2
Callicarpa americana
American beautyberry
Shrub
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
Celtis laevigata
sugarberry
Tree
5
5
5
1
1
1
Cephalanthus
buttonbush
Shrub
Cephalanthus occidentalis
common buttonbush
Shrub
Cercis canadensis
eastern redbud
Tree
1
Diospyros virginiana
common persimmon
Tree
1
1
1
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
4
4
4
1
1
1
Juglans nigra
black walnut
Tree
Liquidambar styraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
3
3
3
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
Nyssa sylvatica
blackgum
Tree
4
4
4
2
2
2
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
4
4
4
1
1
1
3
3
3
2
2
2
3
3
3
Populus deltoides
eastern cottonwood
Tree
1
2
Prunus serotina
black cherry
Tree
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
4
4
4
1
1
1
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
1
1
1
3
3
3
Rosa carolina
Carolina rose
Shrub
7
Salix
lwillow
IShrub or Tree
1
2
Salix nigra
black willow
ITree
Stem count
10
1 10
1 11
10
1 10
1 17
11
1 11
11
7
1 7
8
8
8
8
7
1 7
1 7
9
1 9
1 13
10
1 10
11
10
1 10
10
size (ares)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
size (ACRES)
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
Species countl
4
4
1 5
6
6
7
5
1 5
5
5
I 5
5
4
4
4
3
1 3
3
6
6
8
5
1 5
6
6
1 6
6
Stems per ACRE
1 405
405
1 445
405
405
688
445
1 445
445
283
1 283
324
324
324
324
283
1 283
283
364
364
526
405
1 405
445
405
1 405
405
Color Coding for Table
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 (Species by Plot with Annual Meal
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94643)
Monitoring Year 2
Color Coding for Table
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
94643 -WEI -0010
94643 -WEI -0011
94643 -WEI -0012
94643 -WEI -0013
94643 -WEI -0014
94643 -WEI -0015
94643 -WEI -0016
94643 -WEI -0017
94643 -WEI -0018
Pnol-S
P -all
T
Pnol-S
P -all
T
Pri
P -all
T
Pnol-S
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
Pnol-S
P -all
T
Pri
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
Pnol-S
P -all
T
Acer negundo
boxelder
Tree
1
4
4
4
1
1
1
Alnus serrulata
hazel alder
Shrub
2
2
2
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
2
2
2
1
1
1
3
3
3
5
5
5
2
2
2
4
4
4
Callicarpa americana
American beautyberry
Shrub
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
Tree
Celtis laevigata
sugarberry
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
Cephalanthus
buttonbush
Shrub
Cephalanthus occidentalis
common buttonbush
Shrub
2
3
2
Cercis canadensis
eastern redbud
Tree
Diospyros virginiana
common persimmon
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
1
1
1
4
4
4
1
1
2
6
6
6
10
10
10
3
3
3
7
7
7
1
1
1
luglans nigra
black walnut
Tree
I
I
1
1
Liquidambar styraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
3
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
1
1
1
3
3
3
4
4
4
Nyssa sylvatica
blackgum
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
4
4
4
5
5
5
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
6
6
20
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
Populus deltoides
eastern cottonwood
Tree
Prunus serotina
black cherry
Tree
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
1
1
1
Rosa carolina
Carolina rose
Shrub
Salix
11 willow
IShrub or Tree
1
28
Salix nigra
black willow
ITree
Stem count
8
1 8
23
12
1 12
1 17
8
1 8
11
15
1 15
18
11
1 11
1 39
12
12
1 12
14
1 14
1 16
9
1 9
1 9
10
1 10
10
size (ares)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
size (ACRES)
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
Species countl
3
1 3
4
5
5
1 7
5
1 5
7
5
I 5
6
2
1 2
1 3
3
3
1 3
3
3
4
3
1 3
1 3
7
7
7
StemsperACRE
324
324
931
486
486
688
324
324
445
607
607
728
445
445
1578
486
486
486
567
567
647
364
364
364
405
405
405
Color Coding for Table
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 (Species by Plot with Annual Meal
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94643)
Monitoring Year 2
Color Coding for Table
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
94643 -WEI -0019
94643 -WEI -0020
94643 -WEI -0021
94643 -WEI -0022
94643 -WEI -0023
94643 -WEI -0024
94643 -WEI -0025
94643 -WEI -0026
94643 -WEI -0027
Pnol-S
P -all
T
Pnol-S
P -all
T
Pri
P -all
T
Pnol-S
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
Pnol-S
P -all
T
Pri
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
Pnol-S
P -all
T
Acer negundo
boxelder
Tree
1
1
1
Alnus serrulata
hazel alder
Shrub
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
1
1
4
1
1
1
3
3
3
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
Callicarpa americana
American beautyberry
Shrub
1
3
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
Tree
2
2
2
Celtis laevigata
sugarberry
Tree
1
1
1
Cephalanthus
buttonbush
Shrub
Cephalanthus occidentalis
common buttonbush
Shrub
2
Cercis canadensis
eastern redbud
Tree
Diospyros virginiana
common persimmon
Tree
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
2
2
3
2
2
2
1
1
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
luglans nigra
black walnut
Tree
Liquidambar styraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
Nyssa sylvatica
blackgum
Tree
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
4
4
4
8
8
8
6
6
21
2
2
Z
1
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
Populus deltoides
eastern cottonwood
Tree
Prunus serotina
black cherry
Tree
I
1
1
3
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
1
1
1
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
2
2
Z
7
7
7
Rosa carolina
Carolina rose
Shrub
14
3
Salix
willow
Shrub or Tree
3
Salix nigra
black willow
Tree
1
Stem count
6
6
10
12
1 12
29
10
1 10
31
11
1 11
14
10
10
10
13
13
13
11
1 11
1 14
10
1 10
10
14
1 14
17
size (ares)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
size (ACRES)
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
Species count
2
2
4
4
4
5
5
1 5
6
5
1 5
6
4
4
4
6
6
6
4
1 4
1 5
4
1 4
4
4
1 4
5
Stems per ACRE
243
243
405
486
486
1174
405
1 405
1255
445
1 445
567
405
405
405
526
526
526
445
1 445
1 567
405
1 405
405
567
T567
688
Color Coding for Table
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 (Species by Plot with Annual Meal
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94643)
Monitoring Year 2
Color Coding for Table
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
Pnol-S: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes
T: Total Stems
Current Plot Data (MY2 2013)
Annual Means
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
94643 -WEI -0028
94643 -WEI -0029
94643 -WEI -0030
94643 -WEI -0031
94643 -WEI -0032
94643 -WEI -0033
94643 -WEI -0034
94643 -WEI -0034
MY2 (20 3)
MY1 (20 2)
MYO (2012)
Pnol-S
P -all
T
Pnol-S
P -all
T
Pnol-S
P -all
T
Pnol-S
P -all
T
Pnol-S
P -all
T
Pnol-S
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
Pnol-S
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
Pnol-S
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
Acernegundo
boxelder
Tree
11
11
12
14
14
14
24
24
24
Alnus serrulata
hazel alder
Shrub
4
4
4
3
3
3
2
2
2
4
4
4
33
33
33
13
13
13
25
25
25
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
6
6
6
4
4
4
2
2
2
5
5
5
4
4
4
52
52
55
52
52
52
71
71
71
Callicarpa americana
American beautyberry
Shrub
11
1
1
14
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
Tree
4
4
4
2
2
2
17
17
17
Celtis laevigata
sugarberry
Tree
4
4
4
13
13
1 13
13
13
13
15
15
15
Cephalanthus
buttonbush
Shrub
3
3
Cephalanthus occidentalis
common buttonbush
Shrub
2
2
1
5
3
22
Cercis canadensis
eastern redbud
Tree
1
Diospyros virginiana
common persimmon
Tree
1
1
1
1
8
8
9
8
8
8
10
10
10
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
3
3
3
4
4
4
3
3
3
6
2
2
2
1
1
1
77
77
88
63
63
63
69
69
69
Juglans nigra
black walnut
Tree
1
Liquidambar styraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
3
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
20
20
21
20
20
20
52
52
52
Nyssa sylvatica
blackgum
Tree
2
2
2
3
3
3
6
6
6
41
41
41
38
38
38
48
48
48
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
1
1
1
3
3
3
4
4
4
1
68
68
97
66
66
66
88
88
88
Populus deltoides
eastern cottonwood
Tree
1
2
1
7
Prunus serotina
black cherry
Tree
I
I
I
I
I
1
1 3
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
12
12
12
12
12
12
14
14
14
Quercus phellos
willow oal<
Tree
3
3
3
5
5
5
22
22
22
21
21
21
27
27
27
Rosa Carolina
Carolina rose
Shrub
1
4
3
32
Salix
lwillow
IShrub or Tree
I
1
1
1
36
Salix nigra
black willow
ITree
1
Stem count
13
1 13
24
7
7
11
8
8
12
10
10
12
11
11
1 11
10
10
21
11
11
21
13
1 13
1 19
361
1 361
1 530
322
1 322
322
460
460
1 460
size (ares)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
35
35
35
size (ACRES)
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.86
0.86
0.86
Species count
4
4
5
2
2
5
2
2
4
4
4
5
4
4
1 4
3
1 3
8
3
3
6
4
4
1 6
12
12
23
12
12
12
12
12
12
Stems per ACREJ
526
1 526
1 971
283
1 283
1 445
324
324
1 486
405
1 405
1 486
445
1 445
1 445
405
1 405
1 850
1 445
1 445
1 850
526
526
1 769
417
417
613
372
372
372
532
532
532
Color Coding for Table
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
Pnol-S: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes
T: Total Stems

APPENDIX 4. Morphological Summary Data and Plots

Table 10a. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (EEP Project No. 94643)
UT1 Reaches 1 and 2
Monitoring Year 2
( -): Data was not provided
N /A: Not Applicable
'Pre- Restoration Reaches differ from the as- built /baseline reaches.
'Channel was straightened, moved, and /or maintained to prevent pattern formation prior to restoration.
'The Rosgen classification system is for natural streams. These channels have been heavily manipulated by man and therefore theRosgen classification system is not applicable. These classifications are provided for illustrative purposes only.
4UT1 Reach 3 drops down to meet the Lyle Creek water surface elevation, which accounts for a channel slope steeper than the valley slope.
SData not provided in reference reach report (Lowther, 2008).
Data not provided in Neu -Con Umbrella Wetland and Stream Mitigation Bank Westbrook Lowgrounds Site Specific MitigationPlan (Environmental Bank and Exchange, 2002).
'Lowther reported a range of possible discharges from 46.8 to 108.9 cfs based on different Manning's W estimation techniques(Lowther, 2008).
Regional Curve
Pre - Restoration Condition
Reference Reach Data
Design
As -Built /Baseline
Parameter
Gauge
UTl Reach 1
UT3 Reach 2
UT1 Reach 3
Reach 1
Reach 2
Reach 3
UT to Lyle Creek
UT to Catawba River
UT to Lake
Wheeler
Westbrook
Lowlands
UT3 Reach 1
Upper
UT3 Reach 1
Lower
UT3 Reach 2
UT3 Reach 1
Upper
UT3 Reach 1
Lower
UT3 Reach 2
_
LL UL Eq.
LL UL Eq.
LL UL Eq.
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min I Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
23.1
31.5
19.4
10.0
15.2
13.8
10.6
9.7
8.0
15.2
12.4
11.2
12.3
22.4
14.7
Floodprone Width (ft)
43.0
48.0
62.0
34.0
38+
80+
N/A'
100+
17.6+
33.4+
27.3+
65.0
62.6
79.6
69.7
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.65
0.93
1.05
0.5
1.5
1.3
0.8
0.6
0.8
0.9
0.3
0.6
0.7
0.8
Bankfull Max Depth
1.1
1.5
1.7
1.4
2.0
2.2
1.1
1.0
1.2
1.4
0.8
1.5
1.7
1.8
Bankfull Cross - sectional Area (ft)
n/a
14.9
19.2
18.1
10.5
7.3
20.8
17.4
8.0
4.6
12.4
11.5
3.3
8.8
14.3
12.3
Width /Depth Ratio
35.8
48.8
20.8
9.5
31.7
9.1
6.5
12.0
13.9
18.6
13.4
37.5
20.8
35.0
17.6
Entrenchment Ratio
1.5
1.8
3.2
3.4
2.5+
5.8+
15.7
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
Bank Height Ratio
1.6
3.0
1.4 2.3
1.7 2.4
1.0
1.0
N /A5
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
Very Fine Sand
Silt
Silt2
Fine Sand
V.Coarse Sand
V. Fine Gravel
Coarse Sand
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
7
23
10
75
27
47
Riffle Slope (ft /ft)
0.0030 0.0260
0.0033 0.0060
0.0030 0.0110
0.0055 0.0597
0.011 0.03
0.043
N /A6
0.0167
0.0283
0.0025
0.0032
0.0000
0.0005
0.0025
0.0598
0.0000
0.0289
0.0020
0.0180
Pool Length (ft)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
6
32
12
76
19
53
10
39
6
81
15
62
Pool Max Depth (ft)
n/a
1.9
2.3
2.5
5.9
4.1
5.6
1.7
2.9
1.4
1.5
1.2
1.8
1.6
2.4
1.8
2.7
1.2
2.9
1.4
3.6
2.1
3.4
Pool Spacing (ft)*
2.2
3.2
2.5
5.9
4.1
5.6
15 28
31 60
42
16
59
14.0
41.0
55.6
114.2
62.2
96.1
23
49
51
131
48
99
Pool Volume (ft )
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
N /A2
N /A2
N /A2
N /A2
N /A2
N /A2
21
55
26
64
14
20
N/A
N/A
36
78
41
65
N/A
N/A
36
78
41
65
Radius of Curvature (ft)
N /A2
N /A2
N /A2
N /A2
N /A2
N /A2
19
32
31
8
34
15
27
N/A
N/A
27
48
27
34
N/A
N/A
27
48
27
34
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft /ft)
n/a
N /A2
N /A2
N /A2
N /A2
N /A2
N /A2
1.3
2.1
2.2 ±56
4.1
0.8
3.2
1.5
2.8
N/A
N/A
2
3
2
3
N/A
N/A
2
3
2
3
Meander Wave Length (ft)
N /A2
N /A2
N /A2
N /A2
N /A2
N /A2
39
44
65
107
40
191
50
N/A
N/A
100
166
113
161
N/A
N/A
100
166
113
161
Meander Width Ratio
N /A2
N /A2
N /A2
N /A2
N /A2
N /A2
1.3
4
6
11
1.4 2.1
N/A
N/A
2
5
3
5
N/A
N/A
2
5
3
5
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri % /Ru % /P % /G % /S%
n/a
SC96 /Sa %/G % /C % /B %/ Be %
0.013/0.08/0.12 / 0.0016/0.008/
0.3/1.2/4.8 0.019/0.13/0.26 /0.9
n/a/0.1/0.2/0.5/4.0/ 8.0
0.3/0.4/1.8/12.8 /25.2/ 90.0
N/A
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
N/A
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) Ib /ft2
Reach 1 Upper: 0.48, Reach 1 Lower: 0.06, Reach 2: 0.24
1
0.49 0.07
0.26
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Reach 1 Upper: 30, Reach 1 Lower: 4, Reach 2: 15
30 5
16
-
- -
Stream Power (Capacity) W /m2
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
0.10 0.16 0.16 0.35 0.35 0.49
0.25
1.60
0.4
0.9
Impervious Cover Estimate ( %)
5%
-
-
-
Rosgen Classification
F52
F62
G62
C5
E5
E4
E /C5
B5c
C6
C6
Bc C
C
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
0.7 0.9
0.8
2.7
3.0
1.2
2.4
- -
-
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
17
24
-
24
42
-
42
52
-
14
15
28
33
119
N /A'
N/A'
14
15
28
Q -NFF regression
37
65
79
Q -USGS extrapolation
n/a
8 15
15 31
31 49
Q- Mannings
■
■
■
Valley Length (ft)
I -
-
-
-
-
651
2012
692
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
4017
-
-
-
-
761
2369
520
700
2558 883
Sinuosity (ft)
1.2
1.0
1.1
1.7
1.3
1.6
1.2
1.1
1.3
1.3
1.1
1.3 1.3
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.012
0.0011
0.0036°
0.0048
0.0046
0.006
0.0022
0.0142
0.0013
0.0047
0.0140
0.0015 0.0047
Bankfull Slope (ft /ft)
0.012
0.0011
0.0036°
-
-
-
I -
1 0.0142
0.0013
0.0047
0.0140
0.0015 0.0049
( -): Data was not provided
N /A: Not Applicable
'Pre- Restoration Reaches differ from the as- built /baseline reaches.
'Channel was straightened, moved, and /or maintained to prevent pattern formation prior to restoration.
'The Rosgen classification system is for natural streams. These channels have been heavily manipulated by man and therefore theRosgen classification system is not applicable. These classifications are provided for illustrative purposes only.
4UT1 Reach 3 drops down to meet the Lyle Creek water surface elevation, which accounts for a channel slope steeper than the valley slope.
SData not provided in reference reach report (Lowther, 2008).
Data not provided in Neu -Con Umbrella Wetland and Stream Mitigation Bank Westbrook Lowgrounds Site Specific MitigationPlan (Environmental Bank and Exchange, 2002).
'Lowther reported a range of possible discharges from 46.8 to 108.9 cfs based on different Manning's W estimation techniques(Lowther, 2008).

Table 10b. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (EEP Project No. 94643)
UT1 A and UTl B
Monitoring Year 2
( -): Data was not provided
N /A: Not Applicable
'Pre- Restoration Reaches differ from the as- built /baseline reaches.
2Channel was straightened, moved, and /or maintained to prevent pattern formation prior to restoration.
The Rosgen classification system is for natural streams. These channels have been heavily manipulated by man and therefore theRosgen classification system is not applicable. These classifications are provided for illustrative purposes only.
°UT1 Reach 3 drops down to meet the Lyle Creek water surface elevation, which accounts for a channel slope steeper than the valley slope.
Data not provided in reference reach report (Lowther, 2008).
Data not provided in Neu -Con Umbrella Wetland and Stream Mitigation Bank Westbrook Lowgrounds Site Specific Mitigation Plan (Environmental Bank and Exchange, 2002).
7Lowther reported a range of possible discharges from 46.8 to 108.9 cfs based on different Manning's'n' estimation techniques(Lowther, 2008).
Regional Curve
Pre - Restoration Condition
Reference Reach Data
Design
As -Built /Baseline
Parameter
Gauge
UT1A
UT3B
UT1A
UT1B
UT1A Upper
UT1A Lower
UT1B 200 +00 to 203 +20
UT1B 203 +21 to
207 +18
UT1B 207 +18 to
209 +97
UT1A Upper
UT1A Lower
UT1B 200 +00 to
203 +20
UT1B 203 +21 to
207 +18
UT1B 207 +18 to
209 +97
LL UL Eq.
LL UL Eq.
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
M i n___F Max
Min Max
Min I Max
Min TMax
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
n/a
8.7
16.3
refer to table 5a
6.5
8.0
5.8
4.5
Floodprone Width (ft)
21.0
42.0
14.3+
11.0+
30.5
67.3
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.53
0.48
0.5
0.6
0.4
0.5
Bankfull Max Depth
0.8
1.0
0.8
1.0
0.8
1.0
Bankfull Cross - sectional Area (ftZ)
4.6
7,9
3.2
5.0
2.1
2.2
Width /Depth Ratio
16.5
33.6
13.3
12.8
16.0
9.0
Entrenchment Ratio
2.4
2.6
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
Bank Height Ratio
0.8
1.0
1.0
OL
Profile
1.0
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
Silt'
Silt2
Riffle Length (ft)
n /a
-
-
-
-
refer to table Sa
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
8
19
10
23
19
31
15
22
10
20
Riffle Slope (ft /ft)
0.0035
0.0320
0.0056
0.0160
0.0350
0.0571
0.0156
0.0192
0.0263
0.0309
0.0145
0.0218
0.0045
0.0079
0.0353
0.0477
0.0086
0.0290
0.0224
0.0593
0.0072
0.0323
0.0032
0.0217
Pool Length (ft)
-
-
-
-
4
14
10
25
18
64
15
22
16
20
5
12
12
34
23
40
17
41
28
42
Pool Max Depth (ft)
1.1
1.6
1.25
1.45
1.05
1.45
1.6
1.8
1.2
1.8
1.4
1.7
1.0
1.9
1.2
1.9
1.2
2.1
1.3
2.4
1.9
2.2
Pool Spacing (ft)
35 68
28 87
13
30
31
52
49
63
37
58
49
57
4
33
29
90
43
71
34
61
46
66
Pool Volume (ft')
FE
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
n/a
N /A2
N /A2
N /A2
N /A2
refer to table 5a
N/A
N/A
25
35
35
39
23
39
29
41
N/A
N/A
25
35
35
39
23
39
29
41
Radius of Curvature (ft)
N /A2
N /A2
N /A2
N /A2
N/A
N/A
14
20
19
27
16
26
19
26
N/A
N/A
14
20
19
27
16
26
19
26
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
N /A2
N /A2
N /A2
N /A2
N/A
N/A
2
3
2
3
2
3
2
3
N/A
N/A
2
3
2
3
2
3
2
3
Meander Wave Length (ft)
N /A2
N /A2
N /A2
N /A2
N/A
N/A
53
82
83
106
78
86
79
90
N/A
N/A
53
82
83
106
78
86
79
90
Meander Width Ratio
N /A2
N /A2
N /A2
N /A2
N/A
N/A
4
5
4
5
3
5
4
5
N/A
N/A
4
5
4
5
3
5
4
5
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri % /Ru % /P % /G % /S%
n/a
refer to table 5a
SC % /Sa % /G % /C % /B % /Be%
-
d16/d35/d5O/d84/d95/d100
N/A
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) Ib /ftZ
0.35 0.06
0.84
0.28
0.6
0.32
0.12
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
20 4
60
17
38
20
7
-
Stream Power (Capacity) W /mZ
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
n/a
0.05
1 0.13
refer to table 5a
Impervious Cover Estimate ( %)
Rosgen Classification
F63
F63
66
C6
C6
C E
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
2.0
1.6
2.8
2.6
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
8
13
9
13
Q -NFF regression
-
-
352
279
326
227
*201
Q -USGS extrapolation
4 9
10 18
Q- Mannings
Valley Length (ft)
-
-
190
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
1141
890
201
414
320
398
279
414032011 398 279
Sinuosity (ft)
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.1 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.2
Water Surface Slope (ft /ft)
0.0106
0.0085
0.0284
0.0095
0.0131
0.0086
0.0032
0.0296 0.0089 0.0187 0.0080 0.0039
Bankfull Slope (ft /ft)
0.0106
0.0085
0.0284
0.0095
0.0161
0.0086
0.0032
0.0294 0.0091 0.0190 0.0079 0.0039
( -): Data was not provided
N /A: Not Applicable
'Pre- Restoration Reaches differ from the as- built /baseline reaches.
2Channel was straightened, moved, and /or maintained to prevent pattern formation prior to restoration.
The Rosgen classification system is for natural streams. These channels have been heavily manipulated by man and therefore theRosgen classification system is not applicable. These classifications are provided for illustrative purposes only.
°UT1 Reach 3 drops down to meet the Lyle Creek water surface elevation, which accounts for a channel slope steeper than the valley slope.
Data not provided in reference reach report (Lowther, 2008).
Data not provided in Neu -Con Umbrella Wetland and Stream Mitigation Bank Westbrook Lowgrounds Site Specific Mitigation Plan (Environmental Bank and Exchange, 2002).
7Lowther reported a range of possible discharges from 46.8 to 108.9 cfs based on different Manning's'n' estimation techniques(Lowther, 2008).

Table 11. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross - Section)
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (EEP Project No. 94643)
UT1 Reaches 1 and 2, UT1A and UT1B
Monitoring Year 2
Parameter
UT1 Reach 1 Upper
UT1 Reach 1 Lower
Cross - Section 1 (Riffle)
Cross- Section 2 (Pool)
Cross- Section 3 (Riffle)
Cross- Section 4 (Pool)
Dimension and Substrate
Base MY3 MY2 MY3 MY4 MYS
Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MYS
Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MYS
Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MYS
based on fixed bankfull elevation
Bankfull Width (ft)
11.2
6.1
6.0
13.6
9.8
10.3
22.4
17.1
20.5
1 20.7
17.3
17.7
Floodprone Width (ft)
65.0
63.8
65.2
N/A
N/A
N/A
62.6
63.4
55.7
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.3
0.4
0.4
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.6
1.1
1.0
1.0
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
0.8
0.8
0.8
2.4
1.9
1.9
1.7
1.3
1.5
2.4
2.2
2.3
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area (ftz)
3.3
2.2
2.3
14.2
9.8
8.2
14.3
9.7
11.5
22.5
16.8
18.5
Bankfull Width /Depth Ratio
37.5
17.2
15.4
13.0
12.0
13.0
35.0
30.1
36.8
19.0
17.9
17.0
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
N/A
N/A
N/A
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
N/A
N/A
N/A
1.0
1.0
1.1
1 N/A
N/A
N/A
UT1 Reach 1 Lower
UT1 Reach 2
Cross - Section 5 (Pool)
Cross- Section 6 (Riffle)
Cross- Section 7 (Riffle)
Cross- Section 8 (Pool)
based on fixed bankfull elevation
Base
MY3
MY2
MY3
MY4
MYS
Base
MY3
MY2
MY3
MY4
MYS
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MYS
Base
MYi
MY2
MY3
MY4
MYS
Bankfull Width (ft)
16.6
16.9
18.0
12.3
13.3
13.5
14.7
11.5
14.7
22.1
21.0
28.1
Floodprone Width (ft)
N/A
N/A
N/A
79.6
80.3
76.9
69.7
70.8
65.9
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.9
0.8
1.2
1.0
0.9
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
2.1
1.9
1.9
1.5
1.3
1.5
1.8
1.7
1.8
2.9
2.1
2.8
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area (ft)
16.5
13.4
14.8
9.0
9.5
8.8
12.3
10.6
11.8
27.0
21.4
26.5
Bankfull Width /Depth Ratio
16.7
16.6
21.9
16.8
18.5
1 20.8
17.6
12.5
18.4
18.1
20.5
29.8
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
N/A
N/A
N/A
2.2+
2.2+
1 2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2::2:+:::j
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
N/A
N/A
N/A
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
N/A
N/A
N/A
UT1A
UT1B
Cross - Section 9 (Riffle)
Cross - Section 10 (Pool)
Cross - Section 11 (Riffle)
Cross - Section 12 (Pool)
Dimension and Substrate
Base MY3 MY2 I MY3 I MY4 MYS
Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MYS
Base MY1 MY2 MY3 I MY4 MYS
Base MY1 I MY2 MY3 MY4 MYS
based on fixed bankfull elevation
Bankfull Width (ft)
5.8
2.5
2.1
6.3
*
2.8
4.5
6.1
5.7
7.8
7.4
8.8
Floodprone Width (ft)
30.5
31.4
27.0
N/A
N/A
N/A
67.3
66.5
64.2
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.5
*
0.3
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.6
0.5
0.4
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
0.8
0.4
0.6
1.0
*
0.6
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.2
1.0
0.7
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area (ft)
2.1
0.7
0.8
2.9
*
1.0
2.2
2.8
2.3
4.6
4.0
3.1
Bankfull Width /Depth Ratio
16.0
9.4
5.2
13.6
*
8.1
9.0
13.3
13.7
13.1
13.9
25.1
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
2.2+
1 2.2+
1 2.2+
i
i
i
N/A
I N/A
I N/A
1
2.2+
1 2.2+
1 2.2+
1
i
i
I N/A
N/A
N/A
Bankfull Bank Height Ratiol
1.0
1 1.0
1 1.2
1
1
1
N/A
I N/A
I N/A
I
I
I
1 1.0
1 1.0
1 1.0
1
1
1
1 N/A
N/A
I N/A
*In MY1 (2012) sediment deposition occurred within cross - section 10 filling in the majority of the channel. Storm flows have flushed out the sediment flows and the channel dimensions appear to be adjusting back toward the as -built channel dimensions.

Table 12a. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (EEP Project No. 94643)
UT1 Reach 1 Upper
Monitoring Year 2
Parameter
As -Built /Baseline
MY -1
MY -2
MY -3
MY -4
MY -5
Min
Max
Min
Med
Max
Min
Med
Max
Min
Med
Max
Min
Med
Max
Min
Med
Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
11.2
6.1
6.0
Floodprone Width (ft)
65.0
63.8
65.2
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.3
0.4
0.4
Bankfull Max Depth
0.8
0.8
0.8
Bankfull Cross - sectional Area (ft)
3.3
2.2
2.3
Width /Depth Ratio
37.5
17.2
15.4
Entrenchment Ratio
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
7
23
3
12
26
4
10
23
Riffle Slope (ft /ft)
0.0025
0.0598
0.0043
0.0230
0.0518
0.0100
0.0260
0.0505
Pool Length (ft)
10
39
10
16
26
8
20
28
Pool Max Depth (ft)
1
3
0.3
0.7
2.4
0.3
0.8
1.1
Pool Spacing (ft)
23
49
17
29
61
12
39
61
Pool Volume (ft)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
N/A
Radius of Curvature (ft)
N/A
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft /ft)
N/A
Meander Wave Length (ft)
N/A
Meander Width Ratio
N/A
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
Bc
Bc
Bc
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
700
700
700
Sinuosity (ft)
1.1
1.1
1.1
Water Surface Slope (ft /ft)
0.0140
0.0147
0.0147
Bankfull Slope (ft /ft)
0.0140
0.0146
0.0150
Ri % /Ru % /P % /G % /S °%
SC % /Sa % /G % /C % /B % /Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
N/A
N/A
N/A
%of Reach with Eroding Banks
0%
0%
( -): Data was not provided
N /A: Not Applicable

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (EEP Project No. 94643)
UT1 Reach 1 Upper
Monitoring Year 2
778
776
774
772
v
770
c
o
v
.+
X
Y
♦
768
V
766
x
764
762
760
10000 10100 10200 10300 10400 10500 10600 10700
Station (feet)
tTW (MYO- 4/2012) TW (MY1- 10/2012) tTW (MY2- 5/2013) WS(MY2- 5/2013) ♦ BKF/TOB • LOGVANE

Cross - Section Plots
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (EEP Project No. 94643)
UTl Reach 1 Upper
Monitoring Year 2
River Basin
Catawba 03050101
Watershed
NCDWQSubbasin03 -08 -32
XS ID
XS1 (Riffle)
Drainage Area
315 Acres
Date
5/21/2013
Field Crew
Wildlands, IE, AKT
Summary Data
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
771.7
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area (ft2)
2.3
Bankfull Width (ft)
6.0
Flood Prone Area Elevation (ft)
772.5
Flood Prone Width (ft)
65.2
Max Depth at Bankfull (ft)
0.8
Mean Depth at Bankfull (ft)
0.4
W/D Ratio
15.4
Entrenchment Ratio
2.2+
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
Stream Type
Bc
Cross - Section 1: View Upstream
Cross - Section 1: View Downstream
UT1 Reach 1 Upper
Cross - Section 1(Riffle) Station 103 +91
775
774
773
v
v
o...................
772
................................................................................. ............................... ................ ............................... .............
771
770
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Station (feet)
t MYO- 4/2012 t MY1- 10/2012 0 MY2- 5/2013 ......• Bankfull ......• Floodprone

Cross - Section Plots
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (EEP Project No. 94643)
UTl Reach 1 Upper
Monitoring Year 2
River Basin
Catawba 03050101
Watershed
NCDWQ Subbasin 03-08-32
XS ID
XS2 (Pool)
Drainage Area
315 Acres
Date
5/21/2013
Field Crew
Wildlands, IE, AKT
Summary Data
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
769.4
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area (ft2)
8.2
Bankfull Width (ft)
10.3
Flood Prone Area Elevation (ft)
N/A
Flood Prone Width (ft)
N/A
Max Depth at Bankfull (ft)
1.9
Mean Depth at Bankfull (ft)
0.8
W/D Ratio
13.0
Entrenchment Ratio
N/A
Bank Height Ratio
N/A
Stream Type
N/A
0
v
775
774
773
772
771
770
769
768
767
766
r
Cross - Section 2: View Upstream
Cross - Section 2: View Downstream
UT1 Reach 1 Upper
Cross - Section 2 (Pool) Station 105 +37
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Station (feet)
+ MYO- 4/2012 MYl- 10/2012 + MY2- 5/2013 ......• Bankfull

Table 12b. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (EEP Project No. 94643)
LIT1 Reach 1 Lower
Monitoring Year 2
Parameter
As -Built /Baseline
MY -1
MY -2
MY -3
MY -4
MY -5
Min
Max
Min
Med
Max
Min
Med
Max
Min
Med
Max
Min
Med
Max
Min
Med
Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
12.3
22.4
13.3
15.2
17.1
13.5
17.0
20.5
Floodprone Width (ft)
62.6
79.6
63.4
71.9
80.3
55.7
66.3
76.9
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.5
0.7
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.7
Bankfull Max Depth
1.5
1.7
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.5
1.5
1.5
Bankfull Cross - sectional Area (ft)
10.1
14.3
9.5
9.6
9.7
8.8
10.1
11.5
Width /Depth Ratio
36.8
35.0
18.5
24.3
30.1
20.8
28.8
36.8
Entrenchment Ratio
2.2+
2.2+
2,2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
Bank Height Ratio
1L4
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.1
D50 (mm)
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
10
75
8
28
70
12
31
81
Riffle Slope (ft /ft)
0.000
0.029
0.000
0.005
0.025
0.001
0.005
0.026
Pool Length (ft)
6
81
12
56
95
5
54
81
Pool Max Depth (ft)
1.4
3.6
0.7
1.2
2.0
0.4
1.2
1.9
Pool Spacing (ft)
51
131
29
82
118
35
80
117
Pool Volume (ft )
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
36
78
Radius of Curvature (ft)
27
48
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft /ft)
2
3
Meander Wave Length (ft)
100
166
Meander Width Ratio
2
5
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
C
C
C
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
2558
2558
2558
Sinuosity (ft)
1.3
1.3
1.3
Water Surface Slope (ft /ft)
0.0015
0.0024
0.0025
Bankfull Slope (ft /ft)
0.0015
0.0024
0.0023
Ri % /Ru % /P % /G % /S%
SC % /Sa % /G % /C % /B % /Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
N/A
N/A
N/A
% of Reach with Eroding Banks
0%
0%
( -): Data was not provided
N /A: Not Applicable

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (EEP Project No. 94643)
UT1 Reach 1 Lower
Monitoring Year 2
772
770
768
766
v
♦
w 764
.... ........
'w
...... .. ........
..
762
w
N
X
�
X
N
X
760
758
756
754
10700 10900 11100 11300 11500 11700 11900 12100
Station (feet)
+TW (MYO- 4/2012) t TW (MYl- 10/2012) t TW (MY2- 5/2013) ......• WS (MY2- 5/2013) ♦ BKF/TOB • LOG VANE

Cross - Section Plots
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (EEP Project No. 94643)
UTl Reach 1 Lower
Monitoring Year 2
River Basin
Catawba 03050101
Watershed
NCDWQSubbasin03 -08 -32
XS ID
X53 (Riffle)
Drainage Area
315 Acres
Date
5/21/2013
Field Crew
Wildlands, IE, AKT
Summary Data
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
764.7
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area (ft2)
11.5
Bankfull Width (ft)
20.5
Flood Prone Area Elevation (ft)
766.1
Flood Prone Width (ft)
55.7
Max Depth at Bankfull (ft)
1.5
Mean Depth at Bankfull (ft)
0.6
W/D Ratio
36.8
Entrenchment Ratio
2.2+
Bank Height Ratio A
1.1
Stream Type
C
,►a' _ - _ .;.L saki -::
Cross - Section 3: View Upstream
Cross - Section 3: View Downstream
UT1 Reach 1 Lower
Cross - Section 3 (Riffle) Station 110 +80
768
767
766
.......................................................................................................................................................................................... ...............................
2 765
v
w 764
.......It H ............ .... ...................... ............................... ..
763
--
762
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Station (feet)
—r— MYO- 4/2012 MYl- 10/2012 t MY2- 5/2013 ......• Bankfull ......• Floodprone Area

Cross - Section Plots
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (EEP Project No. 94643)
UTl Reach 1 Lower
Monitoring Year 2
River Basin
Catawba 03050101
Watershed
NCDWQSubbasin03 -08 -32
XS ID
XS4 (Pool)
Drainage Area
315 Acres
Date
5/21/2013
Field Crew
Wildlands, IE, AKT
Summary Data
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
764.4
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area (ft2)
18.5
Bankfull Width (ft)
17.7
Flood Prone Area Elevation (ft)
N/A
Flood Prone Width (ft)
N/A
Max Depth at Bankfull (ft)
2.3
Mean Depth at Bankfull (ft)
1.0
W/D Ratio
17.0
Entrenchment Ratio
N/A
Bank Height Ratio
N/A
Stream Type
N/A
Cross - Section 4: View Upstream Cross - Section 4: View Downstream
UT1 Reach 1 Lower
Cross - Section 4 (Pool) Station 111 +22
767
766
765
2
764
v
w
763
762
761
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Station (feet)
t MYO- 4/2012 MY1- 10/2012 t MY2- 5/2013 - - - -- - -- Bankfull

Cross - Section Plots
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (EEP Project No. 94643)
UTl Reach 1 Lower
Monitoring Year 2
River Basin
Catawba 03050101
Watershed
NCDWQSubbasin03 -08 -32
XS ID
XS5 (Pool)
Drainage Area
315 Acres
Date
5/21/2013
Field Crew
Wildlands, IE, AKT
Summary Data
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
763.9
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area (ft2)
14.8
Bankfull Width (ft)
18.0
Flood Prone Area Elevation (ft)
N/A
Flood Prone Width (ft)
N/A
Max Depth at Bankfull (ft)
1.9
Mean Depth at Bankfull (ft)
0.8
W/D Ratio
21.9
Entrenchment Ratio
N/A
Bank Height Ratio
N/A
Stream Type
N/A
Cross - Section 5: View Upstream
Cross - Section 5: View Downstream
UT1 Reach 1 Lower
Cross - Section 5 (Pool) Station 116 +43
767
766
765
v
v
0
764
w
763
........... .............................. .............. ..................... ...........................
762
761
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Station (feet)
MYO- 4/2012 MY1- 10/2012 MY2- 5/2013 ....... Bankfull

Cross - Section Plots
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (EEP Project No. 94643)
UTl Reach 1 Lower
Monitoring Year 2
River Basin
Catawba 03050101
Watershed
NCDWQSubbasin 03 -08 -32
XS ID
XS6 (Riffle)
Drainage Area
315 Acres
Date
5/21/2013
Field Crew
Wildlands, IE, AKT
Summary Data
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
763.8
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area (ft2)
8.8
Bankfull Width (ft)
13.5
Flood Prone Area Elevation (ft)
765.3
Flood Prone Width (ft)
80+
Max Depth at Bankfull (ft)
1.5
Mean Depth at Bankfull (ft)
0.7
W/D Ratio
20.8
Entrenchment Ratio
2.2+
Bank Height Ratio Au
1.0
Stream Type
C
Cross - Section 6: View Upstream
Cross - Section 6: View Downstream
UT1 Reach 1 Lower
Cross - Section 6 (Riffle) Station 116 +81
767
766
........................................................................................................................................................................................ ...............................
765
a
a
`0 764
. . . . . .. ............................. ............................... ..
.............. .. .......................
w a
763
762
761
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Station (feet)
t MYO- 4/2012 - MY1- 10/2012 --*-- MY2- 5/2013 ......• Bankfull ......• Floodprone Area

Table 12c. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (EEP Project No. 94643)
UTl Reach 2
Monitoring Year 2
Parameter
As -Built /Baseline
MY -1
MY -2
MY -3
MY -4
MY -5
Min
Max
Min
Med
Max
Min
Med
Max
Min
Med
Max
Min
Med
Max
Min
Med
Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
14.7
11.5
14.7
Floodprone Width (ft)
69.7
70.8
65.9
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.8
0.9
0.8
Bankfull Max Depth
1.8
1.7
1.8
Bankfull Cross - sectional Area (ft)
12.3
10.6
11.8
Width /Depth Ratio
17.6
12.5
18.4
Entrenchment Ratio
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
27
47
11
24
48
27
34
48
Riffle Slope (ft /ft)
0.002
0.018
0.002
0.013
0.021
0.000
0.008
0.016
Pool Length (ft)
15
62
20
46
68
28
44
58
Pool Max Depth (ft)
2
3
0.9
1.3
1.8
1.0
1.5
2.5
Pool Spacing (ft)
48
99
37
78
96
26
78
108
Pool Volume (ft')
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
41
65
Radius of Curvature (ft)
27
34
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft /ft)
2
3
Meander Wave Length (ft)
113
161
Meander Width Ratio
3
5
_
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
C
C
C
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
883
883
883
Sinuosity (ft)
1.3
1.3
1.3
Water Surface Slope (ft /ft)
0.0047
0.0049
0.0049
Bankfull Slope (ft /ft)
0.0049
0.0049
0.0046
Ri % /Ru % /P % /G % /S%
SC % /Sa % /G % /C % /B % /Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
N/A
N/A
N/A
%of Reach with Eroding Banks
0%
0%

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (EEP Project No. 94643)
UTl Reach 2
Monitoring Year 2
763
762
761
............
760
.....
759
•........,
.
........
c
.. .......
............... .......................... ....
v
w
757
n
x
�
x
756
755
754
753
13258 13358
13458 13558 13658 13758 13858 13958 14058
Station (feet)
t TW (MYO- 4/2012)
t TW (MYl- 10/2012) t TW (MY2- 5/2013) ......• WS (MY2- 5/2013) ♦ BKF/TOB • LOG VANE

Cross-Section Plots
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (EEP Project No. 94643)
UTI Reach 2
Monitoring Year 2
River Basin
Catawba 03050101
Watershed
NCDWQSubbasin03-08-32
XS ID
X57 (Riffle)
Drainage Area
315 Acres
Date
5/21/2013
Field Crew
Wildlands, IE, AKT
Summary Data
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
760.1
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area (ft2)
11.8
Bankfull Width (ft)
14.7
Flood Prone Area Elevation (ft)
761.8
Flood Prone Width (ft)
65.9
Max Depth at Bankfull (ft)
1.8
Mean Depth at Bankfull (ft)
0.8
W/D Ratio
18.4
Entrenchment Ratio
2.2+
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
Stream Type
C
lill N
F_ Cross-Section 7: View Upstream
ICross-Section 7: View Downstream I
UT1 Reach 2
Cross-Section 7 (Riffle) Station 135+95
763
762
..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................
761
760
.... .......... ....... .............................. 7 ..... ..... ..
.2
759
758
757
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Station (feet)
4 MYO-4/2012 MYI-10/2012 --#-- MY2-5/2013 ......• Bankfull ......• Floodprone Area

Cross - Section Plots
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (EEP Project No. 94643)
UT1 Reach 2
Monitoring Year 2
River Basin
Catawba 03050101
Watershed
NCDWQSubbasin03 -08 -32
XS ID
XS8 (Pool)
Drainage Area
315 Acres
Date
5/21/2013
Field Crew
Wildlands, IE, AKT
Summary Data
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
759.7
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area (ft2)
26.5
Bankfull Width (ft)
28.1
Flood Prone Area Elevation (ft)
N/A
Flood Prone Width (ft)
N/A
Max Depth at Bankfull (ft)
2.8
Mean Depth at Bankfull (ft)
0.9
W/D Ratio
29.8
Entrenchment Ratio
N/A
Bank Height Ratio
N/A
Stream Type
N/A
Cross - Section 8: View Upstream
Cross - Section 8: View Downstream
UT1 Reach 2
Cross - Section 8 (Pool) Station 136 +31
763
762
761
v
w 760
o....................................
v 759
-
............................... ........ ............................... ........................................ ...............................
758
757
756
-.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Station (feet)
— MYO- 4/2012 t MYl- 10/2012 + MY2- 5/2013 ......• Bankfull

Table 12d. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (EEP Project No. 94643)
UTl A
Monitoring Year 2
Parameter
As -Built /Baseline
MY -1
MY -2
MY -3
MY -4
MY -5
UT1A Upper
UT1A Lower
Min Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
I
Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
5.8
2.5
2.1
Floodprone Width (ft)
30.5
31.4
27.0
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.4
0.3
0.4
Bankfull Max Depth
0.8
0.4
0.6
Bankfull Cross - sectional Area (ft)
2.1
0.7
0.8
Width /Depth Ratio
16.0
9.4
5.2
Entrenchment Ratio
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.2
D50 (mm)
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
8
19
10
23
4
27
9
31
Riffle Slope (ft /ft)
0.035
0.048
0.009
0.029
0.000
0.056
0.007
0.046
Pool Length (ft)
5
12
12
34
4
31
4
30
Pool Max Depth (ft)
1.0
1.9
1.2
1.9
0.2
1.1
0.2
1.0
Pool Spacing (ft)
4
33
29
90
12
55
5
88
Pool Volume (ft')
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
N/A
N/A
25
35
Radius of Curvature (ft)
N/A
N/A
14
20
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
N/A
N/A
2
3
Meander Wave Length (ft)
N/A
N/A
53
82
Meander Width Ratio
N/A
N/A
4
5
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
C
E
C/E
C/E
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
201
414
615
615
Sinuosity (ft)
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.2
Water Surface Slope (ft /ft)
0.0296
0.0089
0.0162
0.0159
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.0294
0.0091
0.0160
0.0159
Ri % /Ru % /P % /G % /S%
SC % /Sa %/G % /C % /B % /Be%
d16 /d35 /d50 /d84 /d95 /d100
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
% of Reach with Eroding Banks
0%
0%
N /A: Not Applicable

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (EEP Project No. 94643)
UT1 A
Monitoring Year 2
774
772
770
768
v
a
c
9 766
v
♦
w
♦
764
n
v
x
x
762
760
758
30000 30100
30200 30300 30400 30500 30600
Station (feet)
tTW (MYO- 4/2012)
TW (MY1- 10/2012) tTW (MY2- 5/2013) ......• WS (MY2- 5/2013) ♦ BKF/TOB • LOG VANE /SILL

Cross - Section Plots
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (EEP Project No. 94643)
UT1 A
Monitoring Year 2
River Basin
Catawba 03050101
Watershed
NCDWQSubbasin03 -08 -32
XS ID
XS9 (Riffle)
Drainage Area
56 Acres
Date
05/2013
Field Crew
Wildlands IJE, AKT
Summary Data
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
765.8
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area (ft2)
0.8
Bankfull Width (ft)
2.1
Flood Prone Area Elevation (ft)
766.2
Flood Prone Width (ft)
27.0
Max Depth at Bankfull (ft)
0.6
Mean Depth at Bankfull (ft)
0.4
W/D Ratio
5.2
Entrenchment Ratio
2.2+
Bank Height Ratio
1.2
Stream Type
E
Cross - Section 9: View Upstream
Cross - Section 9: View Downstream
UT1A
Cross - Section 9 (Riffle) Station 302 +19
768
767
0
766
a...................
v
.... .... ............. ........ ............ ............ ................ ...............................
765
764
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Station (feet)
MYO- 4/2012 MY1- 10/2012 t MY2- 5/2013 ......• Bankfull ......• Floodprone Area

Cross - Section Plots
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (EEP Project No. 94643)
UT1 A
Monitoring Year 2
River Basin
Catawba 03050101
Watershed
NCDWQSubbasin03 -08 -32
XS ID
XS10 (Pool)
Drainage Area
56 Acres
Date
05/2013
Field Crew
Wildlands IJE, AKT
Summary Data
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
765.5
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area (ft2)
1.0
Bankfull Width (ft)
2.8
Flood Prone Area Elevation (ft)
N/A
Flood Prone Width (ft)
N/A
Max Depth at Bankfull (ft)
0.6
Mean Depth at Bankfull (ft)
0.3
W/D Ratio
8.1
Entrenchment Ratio
N/A
Bank Height Ratio
N/A
Stream Type
N/A
Cross - Section 10: View Upstream
Cross - Section 10: View Downstream
UT1A
Cross - Section 10 (Pool) Station 302 +40
767
766
a
w
o.....
v
w
................... ... ... .... ....... ..... ... .
765
764
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Station (feet)
+ MYO- 4/2012 t MY1- 10/2012 + MY2- 5/2013 ......• Bankfull

Table 12e. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (EEP Project No. 94643)
UT1B
Monitoring Year 2
Parameter
As -Built /Baseline
MY -1
MY -2
MY -3
MY -4
MY -5
'
UT1B 200 +00 to
203 +20
UT1B 203 +21 to
207 +18
UT1B 207 +18 to
209 +97
Min Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
4.5
6.1
5.7
Floodprone Width (ft)
67.3
66.5
64.2
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.5
0.5
0.4
Bankfull Max Depth
1.0
1.1
1.0
Bankfull Cross - sectional Area (ft)
2.2
2.8
2.3
Width /Depth Ratio
9.0
13.3
13.7
Entrenchment Ratio
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
19
31
15
22
10
20
15
35
9
40
Riffle Slope (ft /ft)
0.0224
0.0593
0.0072
0.0323
0.0032
0.0217
0.0048
0.0589
0.0020
0.0340
Pool Length (ft)
23
40
17
41
28
42
11
44
14
55
Pool Max Depth (ft)
1.2
2.1
1.3
2.4
1.9
2.2
0.4
1.5
0.1
1.5
Pool Spacing (ft)
43
71
34
61
46
66
28
77
32
79
Pool Volume (ft')
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
35
39
23
39
29
41
Radius of Curvature (ft)
19
27
16
26
19
26
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft /ft)
2
3
2
3
2
3
Meander Wave Length (ft)
83
106
78
86
79
90
_
Meander Width Ratio
4
5
3
5
4
5
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
E
C/E
C/E
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
320
398
279
997
997
Sinuosity (ft)
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
Water Surface Slope (ft /ft)
0.0187
0.0080
0.0039
0.0085
0.0086
Bankfull Slope (ft /ft)
0.0190
0.0079
0.0039
0.0081
0.0083
Ri % /Ru % /P % /G % /S%
SC % /Sa % /G % /C % /B % /Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
N/A
N/A
N/A
% of Reach with Eroding Banks
0%
0%
( -): Data was not provided
N /A: Not Applicable

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (EEP Project No. 94643)
UT1B
Monitoring Year 2
772
770
768
w
766
w
o
♦
w
764
..........,
762
N
....
N
H
X
N
X
760
758
20000 20100 20200 20300
20400
20500 20600 20700 20800 20900 21000
Station (feet)
tTW (MYO- 4/2012) 6 TW (MYl-
10/2012)
tTW (MY2- 5/2013) ......• WS (MY2- 5/2013) ♦ BKF/TOB

Cross - Section Plots
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (EEP Project No. 94643)
UT1B
Monitoring Year 2
River Basin
Catawba 03050101
Watershed
NCDWQSubbasin03 -08 -32
XS ID
XS11 (Riffle)
Drainage Area
78 Acres
Date
05/2013
Field Crew
Wildlands IJE, AKT
Summary Data
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
764.0
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area (ft2)
2.3
Bankfull Width (ft)
5.7
Flood Prone Area Elevation (ft)
765.1
Flood Prone Width (ft)
64.2
Max Depth at Bankfull (ft)
1.0
Mean Depth at Bankfull (ft)
0.4
W/D Ratio
13.7
Entrenchment Ratio
2.2+
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
Stream Type
C/E
Cross - Section 11: View Upstream
Cross - Section 11: View Downstream
UT18
Cross - Section 11 (Riffle) Station 205 +30
766
.......................................................................................................................................................................................... ...............................
765
v
v
0
-
764
763
762
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Station (feet)
4 MYO- 4/2012 MY1- 10/2012 --*-- MY2- 5/2013 ......• Bankfull ......• Floodprone Area

Cross - Section Plots
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (EEP Project No. 94643)
UT1B
Monitoring Year 2
River Basin
Catawba 03050101
Watershed
NCDWQSubbasin03 -08 -32
XS ID
X512 (Pool)
Drainage Area
78 Acres
Date
05/2013
Field Crew
Wildlands IJE, AKT
Summary Data
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
763.5
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area (ft2)
3.1
Bankfull Width (ft)
8.8
Flood Prone Area Elevation (ft)
N/A
Flood Prone Width (ft)
N/A
Max Depth at Bankfull (ft)
0.7
Mean Depth at Bankfull (ft)
0.4
W/D Ratio
25.1
Entrenchment Ratio
N/A
Bank Height Ratio
N/A
Stream Type
N/A
Cross - Section 11: View Upstream
„n
Cross - Section 11: View Downstream
UT18
Cross - Section 12 (Pool) Station 205 +63
766
765
v
v
`0
764
v
763
762
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Station (feet)
MYO- 4/2012 MYl- 10/2012 MY2- 5/2013 ......• Bankfull

APPENDIX 5. Hydrology Summary Data and Plots

Table 13. Verification of Bankfull Events
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (EEP Project No. 94643)
UTI, UTIA, and UTIB
Monitoring Year 2
Reach
Date of Data
Collection
Date of
Occurrence
Method
UT1
10/31/2013
U
Crest Gage
UT1A
3/7/2013
U
Crest Gage
UT1B
10/31/2013
U
Crest Gage
u: unknown
Table 14. Wetland Gage Attainment Summary
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (EEP Project No. 94643)
Wetlands RWI and RW2
Monitoring Year 2
Summary of Groundwater Gage Results for Years 1 through 7
Success Criteria Achieved /Max Consecutive Days During Growing Season (Percentage)
Gage
Year 1 (2012)
Year 2 (2013)
Year 3 (2014)
Year 4 (2015)
Year 5 (2016)
Year 6 (2017)
Year 7 (2018)
No /5 Days
Yes /49 Days
1
(2.5%)
(24%)
No /0 Days
Yes /93 Days
2
(0 %)
(46%)
Yes /29 Days
Yes /49 Days
3
(14 %)
(24%)
Yes /27 Days
Yes /54.5 Days
4
(13 %)
(27%)
No /11 Days
Yes /41.5 Days
5
(5 %)
(20.3%)
No /5 Days
Yes /16 Days
6
(2.5%)
(7.8%)
Yes /22 Days
Yes /179 Days
7
(11 %)
(88 %)
No /12 Days
Yes /53 Days
8
(6 %)
(26%)
N/A
Yes /180 Days
10
(88%)
Yes /80 Days
11
N/A
(39%)
N /A: gages were installed after MY1

Groundwater Gage Plots
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site(EEP Project No. 94643)
Wetland Number: RWl
Monitoring Year 2
v
Lyle Creek Groundwater Gage #1
N
Monitoring Year 2
V) ,
m
20
3°N
�N
6.0
2 ^
3
(9
N
l7 O
w N
10
O
w
5.0
0
4.0
c
–
-10
c
ML
— —
3.0
c
v
3
-20
z.o
-30
1.0
-40
_
0.0
-50
C
li Q
> C to d
Q N
> U
O Z
Rainfall
Reference Gage Depth Gage #1 Water Depth —
— Criteria Level

Groundwater Gage Plots
Lyle Creek Mitigation Slte(EEP Project No. 94643)
Wetland Number: RWl
Monitoring Year 2
�
o
0 '~
c
w
f`o
�
Lyle Creek Groundwater Gage #2
v
m
Monitoring Year 2
v
N
�o
�o
20
3 ^
o
3
a �
6.0
o
10
5.0
0
4.0
c
w
-10
c
a
J
3.0 �
c
3
-20
2.0
-30
1.0
-40
Hi
0.0
-50
C
> C b0 Q
> U
-a
w Q
Q O
z 0
Rainfall
Reference Gage Depth Gage #2 Water Depth — — Criteria Level
�
o
0 '~
c
w
f`o
�

Groundwater Gage Plots
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site(EEP Project No. 94643)
Wetland Number: RWl
Monitoring Year 2
20
10
0
c
-10
v
J
d
� -20
3
-30
-40
-50
v
Lyle Creek Groundwater Gage #3
M Monitoring Year 2
L on CL N C- N 7 a) U O a1
w g a g a V) O Z o
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #3 Water Depth — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0
C
2.0
1.0
0.0
n
a
O
t'-
O N
L7 O
O
c
w
fo
�
W
I I
-W LFI I llj�
I.
I
I I I-L,
L on CL N C- N 7 a) U O a1
w g a g a V) O Z o
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #3 Water Depth — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0
C
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site(EEP Project No. 94643)
Wetland Number: RWl
Monitoring Year 2
Lyle Creek Groundwater Gage #4
2
v
m
Monitoring Year 2
v
N
20
c o
0
m o
3
6.0
0 00
O v
0
o
0 ~
10
c
V)
w
5.0
0
-
�"w'Mw
r'►rww +wwl w
4.0
c
�=
-10
-
_
c
-
a_
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ — _ _ _ _ _ _
3.0 w
c
2M
-20
M cc
3
2.0
-30
1.0
-40
0.0
-50
c
> 0 0o a
> u
g ¢
z
Rainfall
Reference Gage Depth Gage #4 Water Depth —
— Criteria Level

Groundwater Gage Plots
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site(EEP Project No. 94643)
Wetland Number: RWl
Monitoring Year 2
Lyle Creek Groundwater Gage #5
2
v
Monitoring Year 2
v
N
m
c o
o
20
0
3
0
6.0
O a
o
o
~
0
10
0
°c
n
w
5.0
0
—
4.0
c
-10
_
_ _
_
_ _
_ _ _ _ _ _
c
–
3.0 w
S
-20
s
3
2.0
-30
1.0
-40
0.0
-50
c
> to a
i
> u
-+ �i ¢
�
� 'n
g ¢
O o p
z
Rainfall
Reference Gage Depth Gage #5 Water Depth
— — Criteria Level

Groundwater Gage Plots
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site(EEP Project No. 94643)
Wetland Number: RW2
Monitoring Year 2
20
10
0
c
-10
w
J
d
-20 '
3
-30
-40
-50
v
Lyle Creek Groundwater Gage #6
M Monitoring Year 2
L L on CL N C- N 7 (U U O 41
w g a g ¢ V) O Z o
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #6 Water Depth — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0
C
2.0
1.0
0.0
n
O
t'-
00
O N
O
Y
�
�
w
L L on CL N C- N 7 (U U O 41
w g a g ¢ V) O Z o
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #6 Water Depth — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0
C
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site(EEP Project No. 94643)
Wetland Number: RW2
Monitoring Year 2
Lyle Creek Groundwater Gage #7
2
v
m
Monitoring Year 2
v
N
20
c o
0
m o
3 �
6.0
0
O v
o
o
0 '~
10
c
n
w
5.0
0
4.0
c
-10
c
–
a_
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
3.0 w
S
M
-20
M
3
2.0
-30
1.0
-40
0.0
-50
c
> ° to a
> u
QJ
g ¢
z
Rainfall
Reference Gage Depth Gage #7 Water Depth —
— Criteria Level

Groundwater Gage Plots
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site(EEP Project No. 94643)
Wetland Number: RW2
Monitoring Year 2
Lyle Creek Groundwater Gage #8
2
v
Monitoring Year 2
v
N
m
c o
m o
20
3 �
0
6.0
0
O v
o
o
0 '~
10
c
n
w
5.0
0
4.0
c
- -10
c
-
-
a
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _
_ _ _
_ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _
3.0 w
S
2M -20
s
3
2.0
-30
1.0
-40
11.w.,L
0.0
-50
c > to a > u
¢ � 'n O o p
� g ¢ z
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #8 Water Depth — — Criteria Level

Groundwater Gage Plots
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site(EEP Project No. 94643)
Wetland Number: RW2
Monitoring Year 2
20
10
0
c
a
J
d
-20
3
-30
-40
50
Lyle Creek Groundwater Gage #10
v v
m Monitoring Year 2 N
c > c nn a >
LL Q Q v°ii O z o
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #10 Water Depth — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
r-
3.0 w
C
2.0
1.0
0.0
O
a
o
co
in
Q
o
~
0
c
w
yy,
r
Al.wL11J.
.
i
c > c nn a >
LL Q Q v°ii O z o
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #10 Water Depth — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
r-
3.0 w
C
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site(EEP Project No. 94643)
Wetland Number: RWl
Monitoring Year 2
20
10
0
c
-10
a
J
d
-20
3
-30
-40
50
Lyle Creek Groundwater Gage #11
v v
m Monitoring Year 2 N
c > c nn a
LL Q Q v°ii O >
z o
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #11 Water Depth — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
r-
3.0 w
r-
2.0
1.0
0.0
o �
a
o
t
A
a 00
o
~
0
c
w
co
in
r , "19
-
"-. -
i
c > c nn a
LL Q Q v°ii O >
z o
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #11 Water Depth — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
r-
3.0 w
r-
2.0
1.0
0.0

Monthly Rainfall Data
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (EEP Project No. 94643)
Monitoring Year 2
1 2013 rainfall collected by onsite rainfall gage from 1/1/2013 to 6/24/2013. 6/25/2013 to 12/31/2013 rainfall data was collected from USGS station 354616081085145
2 30th and 70th percentile rainfall data collected from weather station Catawba 3 NNW, NC1579 (USDA, 2002)
Figure 7. Lyle Creek 30 -70 Percentile Graph for Rainfall in 2013 Catawba, NC
13
11
9-
c
7
0
M
'a
�5
a`
3
1
1 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
2012 Rainfall -30th Percentile -70th Percentile
1 2013 rainfall collected by onsite rainfall gage from 1/1/2013 to 6/24/2013. 6/25/2013 to 12/31/2013 rainfall data was collected from USGS station 354616081085145
2 30th and 70th percentile rainfall data collected from weather station Catawba 3 NNW, NC1579 (USDA, 2002)