20110821 Ver 1_Year 3 Monitoring Report_20150414

WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
January 13, 2015
Mr. Greg Melia
NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652
RE: Lyle Creek Mitigation Site -Year 3 Monitoring Report
Final Submittal for EEP
Contract Number 003241, RFP Number 16- 002831, EEP# 94643
Catawba River Basin — CU# 03050101; Catawba County, NC
Dear Mr. Melia:
✓A N
NANCFf,F4T
'°R, G
R,44f
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (Wildlands) has reviewed the Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP)
comments and observations from the Lyle Creek Mitigation Site Draft Year 3 Monitoring Report. The
following are Wildlands responses to your comments and observations from the report noted in italics
lettering:
1. Executive Summary — First goals Bullet. Instead of the word "elevation ", is the intent better
represented by the word "connection "?
The text was updated per your comment.
2. Section 1.2.1, page 1 -3, last paragraph — can you please add the following sentence to the end of the
paragraph "Considering total stems densities ranged from 283 —1426 stems per acre with an overall
average of 553 stems per acre. Between 2 and 9 native woody species were documented in the
vegetation plots, 22 species site wide."
The recommended text was added per your suggestion.
3. Section 1.2.3, 1st para, last sentence typo —followed
The text has been updated per your comment.
4. Page 1 -5 Maintenance Plan
What is meant by naturally "transform "?
Recommend changing "....will naturally push the sediment load downstream" to "evacuate the
sediment"
The text has been updated per your recommendation.
LIq1

WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
5. Section 1.2.6 -Can the NC Biotic Index results be included in this section comparing Pre and MY2?
Also what about abundance of EPT?
NC Biotic Index and EPT richness data comparing pre- construction and post- construction sampling
has been added to section 1.2.6.
6. Please change the top of table 7 to MY3
Table 7 has been updated per your comment above.
7. Table 1
For UT1 and UT1b where Priority 1 and 2 are both listed - was this mixed, alternating etc. or was
there a clear breakpoint in the P1 and P2 and do those breaks correspond to the design reaches in
the morph tables?
There are discrete break points on each channel as follows: )V-. - 1
�I
UT1 Reach 1 Upper is P2- 100 +00 to 107 +62;
UT1 switches again to P2 just below the culvert crossing at 127 +00 and continues as P2 until its
confluence with Lyle Creek;
UTIA is P2 from 300 +00 to roughly 303 +35; and
UT18 is P2 from 200 +00 to 205 +28. _.. C' �'pv v\
UT1c and d have as -built lengths that are less than existing, was there actually changes in
alignment for these Ell reaches?
The difference in LF is due to where the channels tie in with UT1 new alignment.
Footnote 2 indicates 306 feet within the anastomosed portion that leaves 217 feet unaccounted for
between the existing and as built footage. Are there other section that are cutout that need to be
accounted for in the table or was this simply the result of alignment changes? It would seem like a
large decrease for the latter.
The difference in LF is due to where the channels tie in with UT1 new alignment. UT1b was shifted
offline to the east, so the loss of LF is correct.
Enclosed please find three (3) hard copies of the Year 3 Final Monitoring Report and one (1) CD with the
required electronic files for EEP distribution. Please contact me at 704 - 332 -7754 x110 if you have any
questions.
Sincerely,
Kirsten Y. Gimbert
Environmental Scientist
[e-mail]
Wildlands E:nDneering, Inc. • phone 704 - 332 -7754 • fax [phone] • 1430 S. Mint Street, # 104 • Charlotte, NC 28203

DwpZ: �-oI(o ? )-%
MONITORING YEAR 3
ANNUAL REPORT
Final
LYLE CREEK MITIGATION SITE
Catawba County, NC -
DENR Contract 003241
NCEEP Project Number 94643
Data Collection Period: May 2014 -June 2014
Draft Submission Date: November 26, 2014
Final Submission Date: January 13, 2015
PREPARED FOR:
MITI
l'NOa:RRS.i
NC NC Department of Environment and NaWAiN E Yp
jR0G
Resources
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652 i1/7 ri;� q)
A"R 1 4 ?.L
Ui-i- -tW; Ektt�o�_
TRANSk9tATION PERMITi,

PREPARED BY:
WILDL.ANDS
[NGIN1 ?[RING
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 28203
Kirsten Y. Gimbert
[e-mail]
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report -FINAL

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Wildlands Engineering ( Wildlands) completed a full - delivery project for the North Carolina Ecosystem
Enhancement Program ( NCEEP) to restore and enhance 6,795 linear feet (LF) of perennial and intermittent
stream channel and to restore and create 9.5 acres (ac) of riparian wetland on a full delivery site in
Catawba County, NC. The project stream reaches consist of UT1, UT1A, UT113 (stream restoration) and
UT1C and UTiD (stream enhancement level II). The project wetland areas consist of RW1 and RW2
(wetland restoration and creation).
The Lyle Creek Mitigation Site, hereafter referred to as 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 (see Figure 1). The site is located in the Catawba River Basin Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC)
03050101140010, and North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) 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 on one parcel owned by the Garmon Family.
Prior to construction activities, the project streams were regularly modified and maintained and therefore
lacked bedform diversity, habitat, and riparian buffer. The lack of bedform diversity combined with
continued anthropogenic disturbance resulting in degraded aquatic habitat, altered hydrology, and water
quality concerns such as lowered dissolved oxygen levels. 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 LF of perennial and intermittent stream channel and 6.6 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).
Figure 2 and Table 1 present the restoration design for the site.
The following project goals were established to address the effects listed above from project site stressors:
• 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 connection 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
Construction and planting activities were completed by River Works in April 2012. A Conservation
Easement held by the State of North Carolina has been recorded with the Catawba County Register of
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
W Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report - FINAL iii

Deeds on the 26.62 -acre Lyle Creek project study area within the Garmon parcel. The conservation
easement protects the project area in perpetuity.
Monitoring Year 3 (MY3) monitoring and site visits were completed during May -June 2014 to assess the
conditions of the project. Except for GWG #6, the site has met the required hydrologic and vegetation
success criteria for MY3. All streams within the site are stable and meeting the MY3 success criteria with
the exception of the discrete location within the upstream portion of UT1A. The site's overall average
stem density of 405 stems /acre is greater than the 320 stem /acres density required for MY3 and the site
has met the MY5 stream hydrology attainment requirement as all streams have experienced at least two
bankfull events in separate years. All groundwater gages except GWG # 6 met the success criteria for
wetland hydrology.
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
w Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report - FINAL iv

LYLE CREEK MITIGATION SITE
Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section1:
PROJECT OVERVIEW .................................................................................. ............................1
-1
1.1
Project Goals and Objectives ......................................................................... ............................1
-1
1.2
Monitoring Year 3 Data Assessment .............................................................. ............................1
-3
1.2.1
Vegetative Assessment .......................................................................... ............................1
-3
1.2.2
Vegetative Areas of Concern ................................................................. ............................1
-4
1.2.3
Stream Assessment ................................................................................ ............................1
-4
1.2.4
Hydrology Assessment ........................................................................... ............................1
-5
1.2.5
Wetland Assessment .............................................................................. ............................1
-5
1.2.6
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Assessment ................................................ ............................1
-6
1.3
Monitoring Year 3 Summary .......................................................................... ............................1
-6
Section2:
METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................... ............................2
-1
Section3:
REFERENCES ............................................................................................... ............................3
-1
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
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
W Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report -FINAL v

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
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
W Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report -FINAL vi

Section 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Lyle Creek Mitigation Site is a full - delivery stream and wetland restoration project for the NCEEP in
Catawba County, NC. The Site is located in the Catawba River Basin HUC 03050101140010, and NCDWR
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 LF of perennial and
intermittent stream channel and restoring and creating 9.5 ac 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 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 Goals 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 LF of perennial and intermittent stream
channel and 6.6 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 crossings (farm roads and power line easements)
were excluded from the total project credit calculations. 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. Restoration of dimension, pattern, and profile
i Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
w Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report -FINAL 1 -1

was implemented for UT1, UT1A, and UT16; enhancement of profile and dimension was implemented for
UT1C and UT1D. Wetland restoration and creation included RW1 and RW2. UT1A and UT16 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
(approved 8/2011) 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; and
• 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 UT113 and UT1 Reach 1 Upper will also provide re- aeration
points; and
• 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.
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
w Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report -FINAL 1 -2

The design streams and wetlands were restored to the appropriate type based on the surrounding
landscape, climate, and natural vegetation communities but also with strong consideration to existing
watershed conditions and trajectory.
The 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 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and NCDWR. Annual monitoring and
quarterly site visits will be conducted to assess the condition of the finished project for five years, or until
success criteria are met. The stream restoration reaches (UT1, UT1A, and UT113) 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 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 (MYO) and as -built survey was conducted between April and May 2012. Annual monitoring
will be conducted for seven years: stream and vegetation assessment will be conducted for five years and
wetland assessment will be conducted for seven 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 3 Data Assessment
Annual monitoring and quarterly site visits were conducted during MY3 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 (approved 8/2011).
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., 2008). 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 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 of the monitoring period.
The site was re- planted in late winter 2012 in response to the dead bare roots observed during the MY1
vegetative survey. Most likely, the mortality of planted stems during year 1 was a result of dry soil
conditions, low precipitation, and /or from grass suffocation or crowding of planted stems. The MY2
vegetation survey resulted in an 11% increase in stem presence due to supplemental planting and the re-
sprout of existing bare roots. After the MY2 vegetation survey an additional supplemental planting was
warranted within the vicinity of plots 4, 6 and 19.
The MY3 vegetative survey was completed in June 2014. The annual vegetation monitoring resulted in
an average planted stem density of 405 stems per acre, which is greater than the interim requirement of
320 stems /acre. Of 35 plots assessed, five did not meet the 320 stems /acre interim requirements and only
one of the five did not meet the year 5 criteria of 260 stems /acre. Total stem densities ranged from 283 —
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
W Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report -FINAL 1 -3

1246 stems per acre with an overall average of 553 stems per acre indicating a strong presence of
volunteer species. Between two and nine native woody species were documented in the vegetation plots
with 22 species present site wide.
1.2.2 Vegetative Areas of Concern
The MY3 vegetation monitoring and visual assessment revealed few vegetation areas of concern, mostly
carrying over from MY2. Invasive species have been identified onsite, including Kudzu (Pueraria lobata),
Johnson grass (Sorghum halepense), and cattails (Typha latifolia). The presence of these species does not
currently appear to be affecting the survivability of planted stems, however, as discussed in the
maintanence plan Wildlands will perform maintenance as needed. Please refer to Appendix 3 for
vegetation summary tables and raw data tables and to Appendix 2 for vegetation plot photographs, the
vegetation condition assessment table and Figures 3.0 -3.3 for the Integrated Current Condition Plan View
which outlines these areas of concern.
Maintenance Plan
The mortality of the bare roots is likely due to crowding or suffocation as early successional weeds and
grasses are rapidly taking hold within the project area. Areas with poor stem survival will be evaluated
during Winter 2014/2015 to determine whether or not supplemental planting will be required. Currently
the invasive species identified on the site do not appear to be negatively affecting planted stems. Visual
assessment will be performed in 2014/2015 to determine if any additional maintenance is necessary to
promote survival of the remaining planted stems. In order to keep the invasive species Kudzu under
control, Wildlands treated the invasive areas around the upstream extents of UT1A and UT113 during the
Fall of 2014 using a glyphosate concentration.
1.2.3 Stream Assessment
Morphological surveys for MY3 were conducted in May 2014. The majority of the streams within the Site
have met the success criteria for MY3 with the exception of a short length of UT1A. Aggradation was
observed along UT1A from station 301 +75 to 304 +34. This area of concern is further described below.
Aggradation was also observed along UT113 from station 201 +46 to 204 +75 during the MY3 survey.
Following the survey, a field assessment was completed which showed the sediment load in UT16 had
naturally transported downstream and stream features were functioning as designed. Due to the natural
rehabilitation of the reach there are no reportable areas of concern within UT16 for MY3. Please refer to
Appendix 2 for the visual assessment table, Integrated Current Condition Plan View (CCPV), photographs,
and Appendix 4 for morphological data and plots. It should be noted that the morphological plots in
Appendix 4 show the aggradation in UT113 at the time of survey but do not depict the stream's natural
rehabilitation condition observed during a follow -up field assessment.
Surveyed riffle cross - sections fell within the parameters defined for channels of the appropriate Rogsen
stream type with the exception of cross - section 9 along UT1A and cross section 12 along UT16. Both UT1A
and UT113 experienced aggradation from the contributing upstream watershed during MY3. Aggradation
increased in MY3 and has impacted channel flow capacity along UT1A. On May 9, 2014, during MY3, an
additional cross section was installed at station 300 +94 on UT1A. This cross section has been installed
upstream of the aggraded section of UT1A to characterize the steeper, upstream section of the reach.
This cross - section will be monitored within the guidelines presented in the mitigation plan. The
sedimentation in UTiB was observed during the MY3 morphological survey but was not observed during
a site visit in July 2014. Due to the natural rehabilitation of UT16 there are no reportable areas of concern
WLyle Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report -FINAL 1 -4

along this reach. In general cross - sections along UT1 show little to no change in the bankfull area,
maximum depth ratio, or width -to -depth ratio.
The surveyed longitudinal profile data for the stream restoration reaches illustrates that the bedform
features are maintaining lateral and vertical stability throughout UT1, and the lower sections of UT1A and
UT113. In UT1, UT113 and the downstream sections of UT1A 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. In the
upper sections of UT1A and UT1B aggradation has occurred due to sedimentation from the contributing
upstream watershed. In the aggraded section of UT1A, the sediment load has extended above the top of
bank. Prior to the morphological survey, UT113's riffles and runs had become less steep and deeper than
pools and pools had become steeper and less shallow and resembled meandering riffles or runs (Appendix
4, Longitudinal Profile Plots). Although this data is reported in the appendices, it is not an area of concern
due to the natural rehabilitation of the reach following the transport of the sediment downstream.
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. However due to the
sand /silt nature of the substrate throughout the project, fluctuations in bed elevations were observed
and expected. These fluctuations within UT1 are temporary and seem to typically correspond to storm
events.
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 MY5 only if there are indicators from the profile or dimensions that significant geomorphic
adjustments have occurred. No changes were observed during MY3 that indicated a change in the radius
of curvature or channel belt width.
Maintenance Plan
During MY3 aggradation rates increased along UT1A and UT1B. This aggradation is due to upstream bank
erosion and mass wasting occurring upstream of the Site that is outside of the conservation easement.
Wildlands expects UT1A to naturally transform with the input of sediment and will continue monitoring
the aggraded sections to determine if the stream will evacuate the sediment. UT16 will continue to be
monitored for increased sediment loading in future monitoring years.
1.2.4 Hydrology Assessment
At the end of the five -year monitoring period, two or more bankfull events must have occurred in separate
years within the restoration reaches. During MY3, one or more bankfull or greater events were recorded
on UT1, UT1A and UTiB using a crest gage. Bankfull events were also recorded in previous monitoring
years, therefore, the success criteria has been met for the five -year monitoring period. Due to high
sedimentation rates on UT1A, the crest gage located at cross section 9 was relocated to station 305 +16
on UT1A downstream of the aggraded section of the stream. Please refer to table 14 in Appendix 5 for
hydrologic data.
1.2.5 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 is not 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
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report -FINAL 1 -5

from April 8t1i to October 27th (202 days). However, additional growing season data are being collected by
two soil temperature loggers that were installed, one 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 groundwater 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 seven percent of the growing season, which is measured on consecutive
days under typical precipitation conditions. All groundwater gages except Groundwater Gage 6 (GWG 6)
met the annual wetland hydrology success criteria for MY3. Please refer to Appendix 2 for the
groundwater gage locations and Appendix 5 for groundwater hydrology data and plots.
1.2.6 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Assessment
Prior to site construction, three macroinvertebrate assessment locations were established at the Lyle
Creek Mitigation Site (UT1 Upper Reach, UT1 Lower Reach and UT113) as shown on Figure 3. These sites
were sampled before construction (December 2011) and during MY -2 (January 2014). Sampling was
conducted using the Standard Qualitative Method (Qual 4) in compliance with the North Carolina Rapid
Bioassessment Standard Operating Procedures for Benthic Mocroinvertebrates set by NCDENR (2012).
Samples were assessed and identified at the species level by Pennington & Associates, Inc. Sampling
results show Ephemeroptera + Plecoptera + Trichoptera (EPT) taxa richness increased from pre -
construction (Poor) to post- construction (Fair) on UT1 Lower and UT113. ETB richness scores on UT1 lower
increased from 1 to 12 from pre- construction to MY2 while UT1b increased from 6 to 7 between pre -
construction and MY2. EPT taxa richness along UT1 Upper remained fair between pre- and post -
construction with a richness score of 13 during pre- construction and 12 during MY2. The NC Biotic Index
improved for all sampling locations showing pollutant intolerant bugs have become more abundant across
the site. UT1 upper improved from 5.76 to 4.27, UT1 lower improved from 7.06 to 6.26, and UTiB
improved from 7.67 to 6.13.
1.3 Monitoring Year 3 Summary
With the exception of a short reach within the upstream portions of UT1A, the streams within the Site are
stable and functioning as designed. The average stem density for the Site is on track to meet the MY5
success criteria; however, a portion of the individual vegetation plots did not meet the current success
criteria as noted in the Integrated Current Condition Plan View map. A vegetation maintenance plan will
be implemented in late winter 2014/2015 to determine whether or not supplemental plantings will be
warranted for the portions of the site with low stem density. There have been three bankfull events
recorded in separate monitoring years along each restored project reach since construction commenced;
therefore, the Site has met the MY5 stream hydrology attainment requirement. All groundwater gages
with the exception of GWG 6 met the wetland hydrology success criteria for MY3.
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.
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report -FINAL 1 -6

Section 2: METHODOLOGY
Geomorphic data was collected following the standards outlined in The Stream Channel Reference Site:
An Illustrated Guide to Field Techniques (Harrelson et al., 1994) and in the Stream Restoration: A Natural
Channel Design Handbook (Doll et al., 2003). Longitudinal and cross - sectional data were collected using
a total station and were georeferenced. All Integrated Current Condition Plan View 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
Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report -FINAL 2 -1

Section 3: REFERENCES
Doll, B.A., Grabow, G.L., Hall, K.A., Halley, J., Harman, W.A., Jennings, G.D., and Wise, D.E. 2003. Stream
Restoration A Natural Channel Design Handbook.
Harrelson, C.C., Rawlins, C.L., Potyondy, J.P. 1994. Stream Channel Reference Sites: An Illustrated Guide
to Field Technique. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM -245. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 61 p.
Lee, M.T., Peet, R.K., S.D., Wentworth, T.R. 2008. CVS -EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation Version
4.2. Retrieved from http: / /cvs.bio.unc.edu /protocol /cvs -eep- protocol- v4.2- lev1- 5.pdf.
North Carolina Department of, Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR). 2012. Standard Operating
Procedures for Benthic Macroinvertebrates.
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 Geomorphologica) Approach to Restoration of Incised Rivers. Proceedings of the
Conference on Management of Landscapes Disturbed by Channel Incision. Center For Computational
Hydroscience and Bloengineering, 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.
United States Army Corps of Engineers ( USACE). 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines. USAGE, NCDENR-
DWCl, USEPA, NCWRC.
United States Army Corps of Engineers ( USACE). 2010. Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of
Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region (ERDC /EL TR- 10 -9).
U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2002. Natural Resources Conservation Service, Climate
Information for Catawba County, NC (1971 - 2000). WETS Station: Catawba 3 NNW, NC1579.
http : / /www.wcc.nres.usda.gov /ftpref /support/climate /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.nrcs.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.
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report -FINAL 3 -1

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
W Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report -FINAL 3 -2

APPENDIX 1. General Tables and Figures

® Easement Area �-.. _ �^
Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map
Hydrologic Unit Code (14) _ h Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
s* EEP Project Number 94643
EEP Targeted Local Watershed Monitoring Year 3
}Catawba County, NC
03050101150 20
,.
y
Y f _
F p y
0305010 40010
Project Ocation ,/' 03050101150010 /
Directions: / Ii'' : �-� ; +.
From 1-40 exit 138, follow
Oxford School Road south tr
for 2.2 miles. Oxford School I
Road becomes North Main
Street (NC Highway 10) after
a bridge crossing at Lyle Creek.
From North Main Street, turn
right onto 3rd Avenue NW. ONUS, J
Follow 3rd Avenue NW around'
and to the right to approach the
Catawba Tree Farm gate.
The subject project site is an environmental restoration site of the (�)
NCDENR Ecoysystem Enhancement Program (EEP) and is 030.501 1500 0
encompassed by a recorded conservation easement, but is 0 2,000 4,000 ft
bordered by land under private ownership. Accessing the site may I I I
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 activates requires prior coordination with EEP. / WTI. -, L !� N 17 $

A41
UT1
RVV2
RW1
UT1 c
UTla
If ell,
UTI
UTI b
71
3rd
*2010 Aerial Photography;

Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No.94643)
Monitoring Year 3
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
7.57
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Project Components
°
M Built
Existing.
e °
As -Built Mitigation
;
°
Statioriing/°
° Footage
Restoration or Restoration
'Length/Area
°
° ReaXID•
Location
(LF) .
"Approach
Equivalent
(LF acres)
Miti tion Ratio
UT3
100+00-
4,071
Priority 1/2
Restoration
3,951 LF'
1:1
141 +30
O
UTla
3
1,141
Priority 1
Restoration
615 LF2
1:1
+�
UTSb
201 +52 -
890
Priority 1/2
Restoration
845 LF3
1:1
209 +97
In-stream
UT1c
400+00-
695
structures,
Enhancement 11
677 LF'
2.5:1
406 +77
grading,
planting
In-stream
UT1d
500+00°
760
structures,
Enhancement 11
707 LF
2.5:1
507 +07
grading,
planting
RWS
N/A
N/A
grading'
Restoration
5.8 AC
1:1
planting
RW3
N/A
N/A
grading,
Creation
1.1 AC
3:1
planting
RW2
N/A
N/A
grading,
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 11
1,384
- -
Creation
2.9
Preservation
High Quality Preservation
r 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'.
Excludes downstream 306 LF of UT1a that is in the anastomosed wetland complex
s Excludes downstream 243 LF of UT1b that is in the anastomosed wetland complex
Includes length from station 4M8 to 6+11 where left bank buffer width ranges from 28.7' to Sir. The right bank buffet 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 3
Activity or Report
Date o e ion —
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
June 2014
December 2014
Year 4 Monitoring
2015
December 2015
Year S Monitoring
2016
December 2016
Year 6 Monitoring
2017
December 2017
Year 7 Monitoring
.2028
December 2018
.aaau anu muicn Is auaea as eacn section OT construction is completetl.
Table 3. Project Contact Table
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No.94643)
Monitoring Year 3
Designer
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
1430 S. Mint St, Sulte 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_ m 4 `
River_ Works, Inc.
6105 Chapel Hill Rd
Raleigh, NC 27607
George Morris------------- - - - - --
--- - - -- 336379. -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.94W)
Monitoring Year 3
P_ roject Ir_rformation
Project Name
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
County
Catawba County, NC
Project Area acres
26.62
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude)
35° 42'39,218" N, 81.4' 54,628" W
° ` a Project,Waf_er_she_
d Summary Information
Ph slogs hic Province
Piedmont
River Basin
Catawba
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8 -digit
03050101
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14 -digit
03050101140010
DWQ Sub -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,'sum_ mary5nformation• '
Parameters
UT1
UT1A
UT18
UT1C
UT11)
RW3
RW2
Length of reach (linear feet) - Post - Restoration
3,941 t
615'
845'
677
707
N/A
N/A
Drainage area (acres)
315
56
78
26
9
96
134
NCDWQ stream identification score
Lyle Creek- 11- 76 -(4.5)
NCDWQ Water Quality Classification
L IeCreek - WS -IV;CA
Morphological Desri tion stream type) of Pre-Existing
FS 4, F64, G6 °
F64
F64
F64
1 F64
N/A
N/A
Morphological Desri tion (stream a ) of Desip
BSc C6
B6c C6
C6
C6
I C6
I N/A
N A
Evolutions trend Simon's Model - Pre- Restoration
Stal
a II - Channelized
UncleUng mapped soils
Chewacla loam
Chewacla
loam
Wehadkee
fine sandy
loam
Chewacla
loam
Congaree
complex
Chewacla
loam and
Wehadkee
fine sand
Chewacla
loam
Drainage class
somewhat
poorly drained
somewhat
poorly
drained
I
frequently
flooded
somewhat
poorly
drained
moderately
well drained
somewhat
poorly
drained and
frequently
flooded
somewhat
poorly
drained
Soil H dric status
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Slope
0-2%
1 0.2%
0.2%
0 -2%
0.2%
0.2%
1 0-2%
FEMA classification
AE
Native vegetation community
Palustrine Emergent System
Percent composition of exotic invasive vegetation - Post-
Restoration
0%
ReglilatoryScipsiderations
Regulation
Applicable?
Resolved?
Supporting Documentation
Waters of the United States - Section 404
X
X
USACE Nationwide Permit No.27 and DWQ 401 Water Quality
Certification No. 3689
Waters of the United States - Section 401
X
X
Division of Land Quality (Dam Safety)
N/A
N/A
N/A
Endangered Species Ac[
X
X
Lyle Creek Mitigation Plan: two federally listed species, the bald eagle
(Holiaeetus leucocephalus) 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)
Historic Preservation Act
X
X
No historic resources were found to be impacted (letter from SHPO and
THPO)
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) /Coastal Area Management
N/A
N/A
N/A
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
X
X
No -rise certification and floodplain development permit approved by
Catawba County floodplain administrator.
Essential Fisheries Habitat
X
X
Project area has warm water fisheries; found no reason to object to the
I restoration project (letter from NCWRC).
'Excludes 200 LF of crossings
=Excludes 306 LF of UTla in the anastomosed wetlands complex
s Excludes 243 LF of UTib in the anastomosed wetlands complex
4 The aosgen 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.
$Tice 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 CreeL

APPENDIX 2. Visual Assessment Data

1-1 -IN -1
Sheet 3
p: 0'00' 20
40,
RP 19i
i4w
M�w 0
In I wl a I a I=$ a I WIWI =I= In IN IN IN IN 1=1= Im I W I mlmr,ri a 01 1 IIN IN am I a I J..0 I W 10 1 a 1� I a I a I W I= IN I=, M,M, m I W I= I m I= I m I a I wi�l OR. M 1-1-1-1-1— �,
'do
UT I d 00 '.00
Johnson Grass I - 14-1.11*"�P 17
PP 34
PP16 Of
—p r PP2.
Johnson G ss `-'p . . . . . . .
PP 12
PP 6
XP
PP 27
p /n PP Z6 t
"'P4 al�llwlalala 111111 a1a�w1rlala if lr:alt7ilalwl malrl_1r 1a1w1w1 71 Mill Mimi ♦
It 4: UTlc 71f,
■ RVV2 J* Kudzu
PP 2,5 RW1
UT1,p
PP 21V-.
JAP
UT1 +24Y.
14
'A.
....APP
Sheet 2
Sheet 1
�,
I
I.;,;
m in I m I m I M, W IN I a I m I I m I M. M. 0 1 M. I I a I Ilk
IN
2041wl"4-rjal Photography

i T
-LJI 1 1d `' Johnson Grass
PP 33
...... ...... ...........
Johnson Grass
".
PP
'Ilk
4p. iGWGll GVVG I
4
JA
PP
OWGB
RW2
%
PP3
UT1
PP 2
UT1
PP 11
14
r P 2<. -
UT1 c
R
UT1 b
2010 Aerial Photography

..............
I -
UT1
14
PP 27 PP 23 GWG1
GWGIO
GWG4
PP29
PP 26
GVVG3
GWG2
UT1 c
RW1
*9-�KudzL
% AVV2 mi, UTla
n
i
eP 246VVGr/ool
$F
UTlb�
II
—1A
f
W. 4 "
rr
ok
20 lox Photogr

'`�
/
f
1
10
J, ♦ 1 X11
41� 19
Resf J
UT1 .'
YY 7G PP 11
j�' ♦ •. w ,
_ PP113 1
PP 1^
1 �
R W 1
3 GWG1 s
GVVG 10
� ; � � 1 s � i•'•' ..fi^ '"lit:, • „� tr(
G,;W',4
2010 Aerial Photography

Table So. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (EEP Project No. 94643)
UT1 Reach 1 Upper (700 LF)
Monitoring Year 3
Number
Footage
Adjust %
Number
with
with
for
Major
Stable,
Total
Number of
Amount of
%Stable,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Channel
Channel
Performing
Number in
Unstable
Unstable
Performing
Woody
Woody
Woody
Category
Sub - Category
Metric
as Intended
As -Built
Segments
Footage
as Intended
Vegetation
Vegetation
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0
0
100%
°
Degredation
0
0
100%
(Riffle and Run units)
2. Riffle Condition
Texture /Substrate
15
15
100%
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
8
9
89%
Lenth Appropriate
9
9
100%
Condition
Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
9
9
100%
4. Thalweg Position
;
Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide)
9
9
100%
2. Bank
i.Scoured /Eroded
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth
and /or scour and erosion
• • ,
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Banks undercut /overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
sustainable and are providing habitat
3. Mass Wasting
lBank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dilodged boulders or logs.
40
40
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill
39
39
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
24
24
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
15 %.
40
100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining "Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth
2 1.6 Rootwads /logs providing some cover at baseflow.
6
6
100%

Table 5b. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (EEP Project No. 94643)
LITt Reach 1 Lower (2,558 LF)
Monitoring Year 3
e
Number
Footage
Number
with
with
Adjust %for
Major
Stable,
Total
Number of
Amount of
% Stable,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Channel
Channel
Performing
Number in
Unstable
Unstable
Performing
Woody
Woody
Woody
Category
Sub- Category
Metric
as Intended
As -Built
Segments
Footage
as Intended
Vegetation
Vegetation
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0
0
100%
Degredation
0
0
100%
(Riffle and Run units)
2. Riffle Condition
Texture /Substrate
24
24
100%
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
29
29
100%
Lenth Appropriate
29
29
100%
tion
L4halweg
Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
29
29
100%
Position
Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide)
29
29
100%
2. Bank
1. Scoured /Eroded
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth
and /or scour and erosion
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Banks undercut /overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
sustainable and are providing habitat
3. Mass Wasting
JBank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3. Engineered
Structures
i. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dilodged boulders or logs.
34
34
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill
30
30
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
2
2
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
15 %.
34
34
100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining -Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth
L 1.6 Rootwads /logs providing some cover at basefiow.
4
4
100%

Table Sc. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (EEP Project No. 94643)
UT1 Reach 2 (883 LF)
Monitoring Year 3
Number
Footage
Number
with
with
Adjust %for
Major
Stable,
Total
Number of
Amount of
% Stable,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Channel
Channel
Performing
Number in
Unstable
Unstable
Performing
Woody
Woody
Woody
Category
Sub- Category
Metric
as Intended
As -Built
Segments
Footage
as Intended
Vegetation
Vegetation
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0
0
100%
Degredation
0
0
100%
(Riffle and Run units)
e
2. Riffle Condition
Texture /Substrate
12
12
0
100%
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
10
10
100%
Lenth Appropriate
10
10
100%
Condition
e
Thaiweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
10
10
` °
100%
F4Thalweg Position
;
Thaiweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide)
10
10
100%
2. Bank
1. Scoured /Eroded
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth
and /or scour and erosion
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Banks undercut /overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
sustainable and are providing habitat
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
1 0
100%
0
0
100°x6
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dilodged boulders or logs.
16
16
e , ° a
100%
,
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill
13
13
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
4
4
e
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
15 %.
16
16
100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining -Max Pool Depth : Bankfuii Depth
z 1.6 Rootwads /logs providing some cover at baseflow.
4
4
100%

Table 5d. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (EEP Project No. 94643)
UT1A (615 LF)
Monitoring Year 3
I Pools ate expected to fill to slightly and re -scour over time due to the fine - grained substrate to the system.
Number
Footage
Number
with
with
Adjust %for
Major
Stable,
Total
Numberof
Amountof
%Stable,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Channel
Channel
Performing
Number in
Unstable
Unstable
Performing
Woody
Woody
Woody
Category
Sub-Category
Metric
as Intended
As -Built
Segments
Footage
as Intended
Vegetation
Vegetation
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
1
259
58%
Degredation
0
0
100%
(Riffle and Run units)
2. Riffle Condition
Texture /Substrate
8
8
100%
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient'
12
20
60%
Lenth Appropriate
11
11
100%
Condition
Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
11
11
100%
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide)
11
11
100%
2. Bank
1. Scoured /Eroded
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth
and /or scour and erosion
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Banks undercut /overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
sustainable and are providing habitat
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dilodged boulders or logs.
43
43
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill
43
43
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
35
35
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
15%.
43
43
100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining —Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth
> 1.6 Rootwads /logs providing some cover at baseflow.'
10
10
100%
I Pools ate expected to fill to slightly and re -scour over time due to the fine - grained substrate to the system.

Table Se. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (EEP Project No. 94643)
UTiB (997 LF)
Monitoring Year 3
Number
Footage
Number
with
with
Adjust %for
Major
Stable,
Total
Number of
Amount of
% Stable,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Channel
Channel
Performing
Number in
Unstable
Unstable
Performing
Woody
Woody
Woody
Category
Sub- Category
Metric
as Intended
As -Built
Segments
Footage
as Intended
Vegetation
Vegetation
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0
0
100%
°
Degredation
0
0
100%
(Riffle and Run units)
2. Riffle Condition
Texture /Substrate
11
11
100%
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
19
19
100%
Lenth Appropriate
19
19
100%
Condition
Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
19
19
100%
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide)
19
19
100%
2. Bank
1. Scoured /Eroded
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and /or
scour and erosion
°
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Banks undercut /overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
sustainable and are providing habitat
3. Mass Wasting
Bank stumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100•x6
° Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dilodged boulders or logs.
31
31
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill
31
31
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
21
21
°
100%
o
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
31
31
100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining -Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth
2 1.6 Rootwads /logs providing some cover at baseflow.
0
0
100%
e

Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (EEP Project No. 94643)
Monitoring Year 3
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
5
0.1
0.5%
Total
5
0.1
0.5%
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
5
0.1
0%
Easement Acreage 26.62
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Mapping
Threshold
SF
Number of
Polygons
Combined
Acreage
% of
Planted
Acrea e
Invasive Areas of Concern
Areas of points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
1000
4
0.23
0.9%
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 (05/05/2014) 1 Photo Point 1— looking downstream (05/05/2014) 1
<t
Photo Point 2 — looking upstream (05/05/2014) Photo Point 2 — looking downstream (05/05/2014)
I Photo Point 3 — looking upstream (05/05/2014) I Photo Point 3 — looking downstream (05/05/2014)
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Morphological Summary Data and Plots— Stream Photographs

Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Morphological Summary Data and Plots— Stream Photographs
Photo Point 4 — looking upstream (05/05/2014)
Photo Point 4 — looking downstream (05/05/2014)
Photo Point 5 — looking upstream (05/05/2014)
Photo Point 5 — looking downstream (05/05/2014)
� 1
4.
Photo Point 6 — looking upstream (05/05/2014)
Photo Point 6 — looking downstream (05/05/2014)
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Morphological Summary Data and Plots— Stream Photographs

Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Morphological Summary Data and Plots— Stream Photographs
Photo Point 7 — looking upstream (05/05/2014)
Photo Point 7 — looking downstream (05/05/2014)
Photo Point 8 — looking upstream (05/05/2014)
Photo Point 8 — looking downstream (05/05/2014)
Photo Point 9 — looking upstream (05/05/2014)
Photo Point 9 — looking downstream (05/05/2014)
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Morphological Summary Data and Plots— Stream Photographs

Photo Point 10— looking upstream (05/05/2014) 1 Photo Point 10— looking downstream (05/05/2014) 1
Photo Point 11— looking upstream (05/05/2014) 1 Photo Point 11— looking downstream (05/05/2014)
Photo Point 12 — looking upstream (05/05/2014) I Photo Point 12 — looking downstream (05/05/2014) I
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Morphological Summary Data and Plots — Stream Photographs

Photo Point 13 — looking upstream (05/05/2014) 1 Photo Point 13 — looking downstream (05/05/2014) 1
Photo Point 14 — looking upstream (05/05/2014) 1 Photo Point 14 — looking downstream (05/05/2014) 1
Photo Point 15 — looking upstream (05/05/2014) I Photo Point 15 — looking downstream (05/05/2014)
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Morphological Summary Data and Plots— Stream Photographs

Photo Point 16 — looking upstream (05/05/2014) 1 Photo Point 16 — looking downstream (05/05/2014)
Photo Point 17 — looking upstream (05/05/2014) 1 Photo Point 17 — looking downstream (05/05/2014)
Photo Point 18 — looking upstream (05/05/2014) I Photo Point 18 — looking downstream (05/05/2014
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Morphological Summary Data and Plots —Stream Photographs

Photo Point 19 — looking upstream (05/05/2014) 1 Photo Point 19 — looking downstream (05/05/2014) 1
Photo Point 20 — looking upstream (05/05/2014) I Photo Point 20 — looking downstream (05/05/2014)
Photo Point 21— looking upstream (05/05/2014) I Photo Point 21— looking downstream (05/05/2014) I
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Morphological Summary Data and Plots —Stream Photographs

Photo Point 22 — looking upstream (05/05/2014) 1 Photo Point 22 — looking downstream (05/05/2014) 1
Photo Point 23 — looking upstream (05/05/2014) 1 Photo Point 23 — looking downstream (05/05/2014)
Photo Point 24 — looking upstream (05/05/2014) I Photo Point 24 — looking downstream (05/05/2014) I
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Morphological Summary Data and Plots —Stream Photographs

Photo Point 25 — looking upstream (05/05/2014) 1 Photo Point 25 — looking downstream (05/05/2014)
Photo Point 26 — looking upstream (05/05/2014) I Photo Point 26 — looking downstream (05/05/2014)
I Photo Point 27 — looking upstream (05/05/2014) 1 Photo Point 27 — looking downstream (05/05/2014)
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Morphological Summary Data and Plots— Stream photographs

Photo Point 28 — looking upstream (05/05/2014) 1 Photo Point 28 — looking downstream (05/05/2014)
Photo Point 29 — looking upstream (05/05/2014) 1 Photo Point 29 — looking downstream (05/05/2014)
Photo Point 30 — looking upstream (05/05/2014) I Photo Point 30 — looking downstream (05/05/2014) I
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Morphological Summary Data and Plots —Stream Photographs

Photo Point 31— looking upstream (05/05/2014) 1 Photo Point 31— looking downstream (05/05/2014) 1
E'.
r
3y� 2w
Photo Point 32 — looking upstream (05/05/2014) I Photo Point 32 — looking downstream (05/05/2014) I
I Photo Point 33 — looking upstream (05/05/2014) I Photo Point 33 — looking downstream (05/05/2014) 1
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Morphological Summary Data and Plots— Stream Photographs

Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Morphological Summary Data and Plots— Stream Photographs

Vegetation Photographs

Vegetation Plot 1(06/26/2014) 1 Vegetation Plot 2 (06/26/2014) 1
Vegetation Plot 3 (06/26/2014) 1 Vegetation Plot 4 (06/26/2014)
Vegetation Plot 5 (06/26/2014) I Vegetation Plot 6 (06/26/2014) I
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Morphological Summary Data and Plots Vegetation Photographs

Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Morphological Summary Data and Plots— Vegetation Photographs
.y
Vegetation Plot 7 (06/26/2014)
Vegetation Plot 8 (06/26/2014)
Vegetation Plot 9 (06/26/2014)
Vegetation Plot 10 (06/26/2014)
Vegetation Plot 11 (06/26/2014)
Vegetation Plot 12 (06/26/2014)
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Morphological Summary Data and Plots— Vegetation Photographs

Vegetation Plot 13 (06/26/2014) 1 Vegetation Plot 14 (06/26/2014)
Vegetation Plot 15 (06/26/2014) 1 Vegetation Plot 16 (06/26/2014)
Vegetation Plot 17 (06/26/2014) I Vegetation Plot 18 (06/26/2014) I
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Morphological Summary Data and Plots— Vegetation Photographs

Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Morphological Summary Data and Plots— Vegetation Photographs
Vegetation Plot 19 (06/26/2014)
Vegetation Plot 20 (06/26/2014)
Vegetation Plot 21(06/26/2014)
Vegetation Plot 22 (06/26/2014)
Vegetation Plot 23 (06/26/2014)
Vegetation Plot 24 (06/26/2014)
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Morphological Summary Data and Plots— Vegetation Photographs

Vegetation Plot 25 (06/26/2014) 1 Vegetation Plot 26 (06/26/2014)
Vegetation Plot 27 (06/26/2014) 1 Vegetation Plot 28 (06/26/2014)
Vegetation Plot 29 (06/26/2014) I Vegetation Plot 30 (06/26/2014) I
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Morphological Summary Data and Plots— Vegetation Photographs

Vegetation Plot 31(06/26/2014) 1 Vegetation Plot 32 (06/26/2014) 1
Vegetation Plot 33 (06/26/2014) 1 Vegetation Plot 34 (06/26/2014)
Vegetation Plot 35 (06/26/2014) I
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Morphological Summary Data and Plots— Vegetation Photographs

APPENDIX 3. Vegetation Plot Data

Table 7. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (NCEEP Project No. 94643)
Monitoring Year 3
Plot
MY3 Success Criteria Met
(Y /N)
Tract Mean
1
Y
86%
2
Y
3
Y
4
Y
5
Y
6
Y
7
Y
8
Y
9
Y
10
Y
11
Y
12
N
13
Y
14
Y
15
Y
16
Y
17
Y
18
N
19
N
20
Y
21
Y
22
Y
23
Y
24
Y
25
Y
26
Y
27
Y
28
Y
29
N
30
N
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 3
Report Prepared By
Kenton Beal
Date Prepared
71312014 13:08
database name
Lyle MY3 cvs- eep- entrytool- v2.3. 1.mdb
database location
Q: JActiveProjects�005 -02123 Lyle Creek Mitigation FDPIMonitoringIMonitoring Year 31 Vegetation Assessment
DESCRIPTION Of WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT --- --------
Metadata
Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a summary of project(s) and project data.
Plots
Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre, for each year. This excludes Eve 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.
PROJECT SUMMARY--------------------------------
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 7. Planted and Total Stem Counts
Lyle Creek MBigation Stte(NCEEP Project No. 94643)
Monitoring Year 3
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
PnoLS: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes
T: Total Stems
••.• rrt
••.• rrr
•..• rrr
•..• trr•
•..• rtr
••.• rrt.
•,.' rrt
••.• rtr•
••.• trt•
••.• rr r
••.• rt
••.• rr
••.• rt
Prunus serotina
all
��a
©aaa0000a�o
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
PnoLS: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes
T: Total Stems

Table 7. Planted and Total Stem Counts
Lyle Creek Mitigation Slte(NCEEP Project No. 94643)
Monitoring Year 3
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
PnoLS: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes
T: Total Stems
•.•
..,. rr
...• rr
••.• rr
••.• •r
••.• r•
••.• rr
•r r
••,. ,r
...• 1•
••.• ri
••.• rr
••.• r•
••.• rr
Acernegundo
MI Ill IMP Iffil r
corntisAciricia
INPrunus
serotina
size
rr
,•
••
r,
of
r•
�•
•r
,•
••
r,
�,
,•
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
PnoLS: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes
T: Total Stems

Table 7. Planted and Total Stem Counts
Lyle Creek Mitigation Stfe(NCEEP Project No. 94643)
Monitoring Year 3
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than SO%
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 (MY3 2014)
Annual Means
94643 -WEI -0027
94643 -WEI- 0028
94643 -WEI-0029
94643- WEI-0030
94643 -WEI- 0031
94643 -WEI- 0032
94643 -WEI- 0033
94643 -WEI- 0034
94643- WEI-0035
MY3 (2014)
MY2 (213)
MY1 (2012)
MYO (2012)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
PnaLS
P -all
T
Pnol-S
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
Pall
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
Acernegundo
boxelder
Tree
10
10
11
11
11
12
14
14
14
24
24
24
Alnusserrulata
hazel alder
Shrub
1
1
1
4
4
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
4
4
1
1
33
33
33
331
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
51
51
55
521
52
55
52
52
52
71
71
71
Callicarpa americana
American beautyberrV
Shrub
1
15
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
Tree
4
4
4
41
4
4
2
2
2
17
17
17
Celtislaevigata
sugarberry
Tree
3
3
3
1
1
1
I1
ill
11
13
13
131
13
131
13
151
15
15
Cephalanthus
buttonbush
Shrub
3
Cephalanthus occidentalis
common buttonbush
Shrub
5
15
51
1
1
35
19
Cercis canadensis
eastern redbud
Tree
1
Corpus florida
flowering dogwood
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
2
Diospyros virginiana
common persimmon
Tree
1
1
1
8
8
8
8
8
9
8
8
8
10
10
10
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
74
74
84
77
77
88
63
63
63
69
69
69
Hibiscus
rosemallow
Shrub
1
Juglans nigra
black walnut
Tree
1
Liquidambar styraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
2
3
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
17
17
19
20
20
21
20
20
20
52
52
52
Nyssa sylvatica
blackgum
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
6
6
6
38
38
38
40
40
40
38
38
38
48
48
48
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
5
5
5
1
1
1
3
3
3
4
4
4
65
65
96
68
68
97
66
6666
88
88
88
Populus
cottonwood
7
Populus deltoides
eastern cottonwood
Tree
3
3
7
Prunus serotina
black cherry
Tree
3
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
14
14
14
12
12
12
12
12
12
14
14
14
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
7
7
7
1
1
2
5
5
5
23
23
24
22
22
22
21
21
21
27
27
27
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
Tree
1
1
1
Rosa carolina
Carolina rose
Shrub
2
12
32
Salix
willow
Shrub or Tree
36
Salix nigra
black willow
Tree
1
Salix sericea
silky willow
Shrub
1
1
1
13
Ulmus alata
winged elm
Tree
5
Stem count
141
141
14
111
111
17
7
71
7
71
71
25
10
10
16
9
91
9
91
13
12
121
12
13
131
14
350
350
478
360
360
527
322
322
322
4601
4601
460
size (ares)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
35
35
35
35
size (ACRES)
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
1 0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
1 0.02
0.86
0.86
0.86
0.86
Species count
41
41
4
41
4
5
2
2
2
2
2
41
41
41
41
31
31
6
4
4
41
41
41
51
141
141
22
12
12
23
12
12
12
121
121
12
Stems per ACRE
566.6
566.6
S66 61445.21
AAq 2
l 688
283.3
283.3
283.3
283.3
283.3
1012
404.7
404.7
647.5
364.2
364.2
364.2
364.2
364.2
526.1
485.6
485.6
485.6
526.1
526.1
566.6
404.7
404.7
552.7
416.2
416.2
609.3
372.3
372.3
372.3
531.9
1 531.91
531.9
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than SO%
Volunteer species included in total
PnoLS: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes
T: Total Stems

APPENDIX 4. Morphological Summary Data and Plots

Table 10a. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (EEP Project No. 94643)
UTl Reaches 1 and 2
Monitoring Year 3
°
'.. d` - 5.Y`�s .'E` ' "f ".
:'E'-
- -
3 ,
_ - ivy; <�..
s -= `»'
-
g
E` v --R eg nal Cury - -
`'s :
G4
-.
�h3"
S Read%2= ' Ti`Reac
a
.UL� E ` yLl- �U L' KE "`
':Pre= Restor i ton- ° %„a - ` %',r -
•'it ' -
w N4 "-
' Reat h h ✓: ';
..Minty' 'ir "'
Mai ''Min „ - 'Max
'' ^i.4 r' i Ri -� .
", e� w, ^•:'
fir.'%"' r N� ",= �
r.,, tR f F�,r'' �,% f
s�, a erence:R o%
^ each ?Da ta""
x'ss'" , ^,,caw,
-
%qY =a^ •amt •. aM
S'•', iji;•.5 SC "!t �- �'1;�',n v,Z
�,;,1, mow,
n`f' a �•Y .
: 'mod, � :;�a'ai
';:�'' .�. n'r
UT'to;lake �,,.
"..• %;,;- ,•,�7,.�•', -Aa ^ail: _,v�., -, ,a. sttir'oo '
`Xr r^
e t
Y e
-
, r. ;� : /'Y
� , ,
Maii•�
a s: .1 a AAin` "i
ds <.�., d n<� ,Mazy .Maz "; °'
r �.�'
`+ DI
a, -'r nr
rk g n:<
^.x
' +1 , ?'i
�b �'•` < " r
" r r•U Re'ach l
r sir =.
e L :
x, Nli" : �
" ^. >,, Min' "` `= lNax's
; , <AS Built i
/' ✓'• "" Basel rier''
_ _ _ _
5
-
T -
U 1'IyReadi' 1 UT3` Readrvl: '
PP "-U eacti,2s -'
. 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
46
11.9
19.1
11.8
Floodprone Width (ft)
,"
s;`s'3
';r;j;,:
;:�_,;,
43.0
48.0
62.0
34.0
38+
80+
N/A'
100+
17.6+
33.4+
27.3+
66.7
62.6
79.6
69.7
Bankfull Mean Depth
'r,
p,; ;, ^a',
„,
`;';
,Sr,
0.65
1.1
0.93
1.5
1.05
1.7
0.5
1.4
15
2.0
1.3
2.2
0.8
1.1
0.6
1.0
0.8
1.2
0 9
14
0.6
0.9
0.6
1.4
0.7
1.6
1.0
1.8
Bankfull Max Depth
Bankfull Cross - sectional Area (ftz)
n/a
";
=•.r
,' -
--
- -
s
""
I,fl:
^'`r^
_
r: 'x
""
14.9
35.8
1.5
19.2
48.8
1.8
181
208
3.2
10.5
9.5
3.4
7.3
31.7
2.5+
20.8
9.1
5.8+
17.4
6.5
15 7
8.0
120
2.2+
4.6
13.9
2.2+
12.4
18.6
2.2+
11.5
13.4
2.2+
2.7
7,7
2.2+
8.8
208
2.2+
13.1
27.7
2.2+
11.7
11.8
2Z+
Width /Depth Ratio
Entrenchment Ratio
Bank Height Ratio
g
E
i=
r
°'
1.6 3.0
Very Fine Sand
1.4 2.3
Silt
1.7 2.4
silt'
1 0
Fine Sand
1 0
V .Coarse Sand
s
N/A
V. Fine Gravel
1.0
Coarse Sand
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
050 (mm)
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
''
E r,'',"
"F,
y'';y.
^AqD
0.0030 0.0260
0.0033 0.0060
0 0030 0.0110
0.0055 0.0597
0.011 0.03
0.043
N/A'
-
0.0167
-
0.0283
-
0.0025
-
0.0032
-
0.0000
-
0.0005
7
0.0025
23
0.0598
10
0.0000
75
00289
21
0.0020
47
0.0180
Riffle Slope (ft /ft)
Pool Length (ft)
n/a
_
°
', z
n `
a:`ti,.�"
�Y
_
-? -:�;�, _
-
1.9 2.3
2.2 3.2
-
2.5 5.9
2.5 5.9
-
4.1 5.6
4.1 5.6
-
1.7
15 28
-
2.9
31 60
-
1.4
42
-
1.5
16 59
6
1.2
14.0
32
1.8
41.0
12
1.6
55.6
76
2.4
114.2
19
1.8
62.2
53
2.7
96.1
10
1.2
23
39
2.9
49
6
1.4
51
81
3.6
131
15
2.1
48
62
3.4
99
Pool Max Depth (ft)
Pool Spacing (ft)*
Pool Volume )
1 ft
:Y "<.
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
n/a
_
_
-
^ °' ";',7,w
s'��``=
N/A'
N /Az
N /A'
N /A'
N /A'
N /Az
N /A'
N /A'
N /A'
N /A'
N /A'
N /A'
N /A=
N /A'
N /A'
N /A'
N /Az
N/A'
N /AZ
N /A'
N /A'
N /A'
N /A2
N /A'
21
19 32
1.3 2.1
39 44
55
31 56
2.2 4.1
65 107
26
8
0.8
40
64
34
3.2
191
14 20
15 27
1.5 2.S
50
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
36
27
100
78
48
166
41
27
113
65
34
161
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
36
27
100
78
48
166
41
27
2
113
65
34
3
161
5
• Radius of Curvature (ft)
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft /ft)
Meander Wave Length (ft)
Meander Width Ratio
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
R`O R % /°
n a
/
-
'
-
_
-
-
- -
-
0.013J0.08/0.12/ 0.0016/0.008/
0.3/1.2/4.8 0.019/0.13/0.26 /0.9 -
Reach 1 Upper. 0.48 Reach 1 Lower. 0. 06 Reach 2• 0.24
P
Reach pP Reach 1 Lower: 4 Reach 2:15
s "Y `,
n /a /0 1/0.2/0.5/4.0/ 8.0
,','in,,
`'r''�
r'
si;-
n "
ru=
- .+.�. ..'',r,:
0.3/0.4/1.8/12.8 /25.2/ 90.0
.
t _
' ^ +'; =� ;,'s.. ,Pt. ";i39•;,; ir'd ,`t,r
f
b '; ":��-
raj. "A.
N/A
-
i�� %'' . r
a
d� iii
N/A
- H4:q -'
ar;;°
r
a
'vl
.,•�' �
R "` -'''' �,`
.9
30
:, `fir•;'.°
�"• �- =
0
5
f`r .
ti,'"
�., r' "�{`,`.< ,
16
r, ,'
'. "�.. ✓'F.
.�'�'s �,
- -
a,
_
S.`.
1
-
-
SC S
% a% G% C% B% Be
/ / / / /
d16 d35 d50 d84 d95 d100
/ / / / /
Stress om a enc lb ft
Reach Shear Sties (Competency) /
( P Y)
Max art size mm mobilized at bankfull
2
Stream Power Ca aci W m
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
- - '' "••
r•.
_
- -
Impervious s Cover Estimate
- -
s,
-
S%
FS' F6= '
G6
0.7 0.9 0.8 2.7
C5
X33
ES
>':? 1� ",r.c,•=.- " „:;„',= .S,l;ri
^119
E4
�;;`ti,::yc ` °;„ ,
E /CS
C', t•.: j ^`a,= ;'tjr,'; �::
85c
3.0
:i
C6
1.2
C6t
2.4
Bc C C
Rosgen Classification
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
na
17
-
24
_
-
-
_
' °,';
s , =1`'
r,-
•L:.:
24
- -
_-
-
.*
`�
':
42
_
- _
-
`
;'s :?'
-
_ =
'��
-
42
- -
_
- -
-
-
52
-
#'-
_''-_
-
-
fir'
_ -
r °,?i,
r r
_
14 15 28
37 65 79
49
_
4017
1.2 1.0 1.1
0 012 0.0011 0.0036 °
0.012 0.0011 0.0036'
-
ta"
.nl.
_
1.7
0.0048
r"
;j .r�r'
-
1.3
0.0046
N /A'
n: -
ii4�r
ns .
-
-
1.6
0006
-
NIA
- _
c
12
00022
14
�S3' - n
651
761
1.1
0.0142
0.0142
15
� <�- ^�•�
.���•; -.
.•c�n
2012
2369
1.3
0.0013
0.0013
28Y'
iT `
.,y5 rte. _
i'.
692
520
1.3
0.0047
0 0047
"'`
r M.. -
`- c'.`
700 2558 883 `
f88
1.1 1.3 1.3
0.0140 0.0015 p,0pg7
0.0140 0.0015 O,OOg9
F r
NF egression
G
-US S extrapolation
ion
Mannin s
Valley Length ft
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
Sinuosity (ft)
Water Surface Slope (ft /ft)
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
1 -1: 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
4UT3 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)
6Data 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 UT1 B
Monitoring Year 3
Re ion
"i aLCu w'Pre- s o s =, -
rve': Re toratiori Conditi n
^ C +'.4 +R f Aa
r.. 8_ �y a erence Re hiD a =r.��� -
hr^ 'ice :h'S._,b ma.: "' '.2. -..:r+
:.i. �F,xHd:
- . "' e51 n=" �.':""x -' :gip
s
- x
4'B`Y, "/ -
- -
m'Sr AS =Boil
``!pi' ), .Yr• 64 r.vr'�' -' ,�_.,... .'N'.r
_ rvt,I'7 "'ir ti
> , - t.'r.4,e _v � Rry �« - .v-i .._ _ '"'r Y'r•
.>ti •ik 'i f' - - _ ' "`r'4: f :'.yT�,�'� _ h ^ft"
Vtr- `alt`zF -
� ,
F 5' • _
'h" sr�.,_p, M. >,�•!„
4fu'r.x �,p, "_ ' +
� .,R as iY..
- � ^Y'rr
Ct: �, S
t •' S`.r'' •: t,�,,, «,..:t - +w,. ; • -' - �Y,.
d (. f pn :.M1:',: "';'rte 'F' ^'.. d t
t S. ^t't:
< € +,� fi �. `€-"A wx"vo-e• toi''� -'`
'7 °' fir. = - , "i�t'•':e�., - .2 -
<t. .,,2 *1' - - 5`a.' UT1B''207 18 t
`:'f'mF . •A ± kw 1< . £+k'�r
s'- i�: "�vw ..�•'a -
.�., n a3 e.4 "sE�'
� .3. ' =+
� ' "'.F"i ` >"
,rjr
_ .n -,
t,ep- ¢ y ,,�..;,...:.,:,_ x 4 �s'_r:� -' -:rte: z;' �,,.... "
"•� = °.UTiB � lA.: >,: " #UT•18 +�::.'�" � *� ,
1< , _� 1 � =mss �i'= ,UilA,
- - - PPUT1A'wn„_ o e ',UT1B`200+00to203 +20, + �
n� 18• "� ";�-,�
H „o: r 203 2T to= eUT1B207
� s . ..~r�
3.�,"`� Pr r :'�° ;�r - ",,. *`" ( F
UTl'A U F �� -"
'U � =:;r.
-•� - rT - -
��• � -«sty' 'LL UL' E ` 't' - -
LL' s` ' i:a -
r.,i„ t ^�� •�.- E ;Min. NNlax` F.:- -'- - �'�
s x . ��Miii'`' - -
tt_
x:: axt. (
- - ``Minn^ ""s
= �IVlax
e� Ti 4 rn. + ,z���''`'''
Lower' 2 ;�
° 03 20 +
P "2 7
P 2 t h 0 18
- - - - <-` h
,<. t .:. s i
:rr' Ivla'x" -
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
8.7
16.3
6.5
8.0
4.6
12.8
Floodprone Width (ft)
°s. ,
. •
^�
r, -',
n "
w•,
Ems,;,
r<r
f,�
r,r
L,.,�
21.0
420
14.3+
11.0+
30.5
671
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.53
0.48
0.5
0.6
0.4
0.1
Bankfull Max Depth
_3
t;
='
Ni
;t„a':
P'1
0.8
1.0
n/a
_1
refer to table Sa
0.8
1.0
0.8
1.0
Bankfull Cross - sectional Area ft'
( )
4.6
(mm)
7,9
3.2
5.0
21
Width /Depth Ratio
--
a. �i`
,�
t-' -.t
;.,;.�
�';.
Cxi?,x
-
i.
s�"
�, .,
7r
165
2.a
33.6
z.6
13.3
12 8
10.4
122.2
Entrenchment Ratio
2.2+
2.2+
N/A
22.
N/A
Bank Height Ratio
`-`;?
t_ ?.
}t,; *'
:5p
;>:;~
0.8
1.0
1.0
- - -_ - --
1.0
':�;>: - -
N/A
N/A
050
L'A.4
SdtZ
Sdtz
- r 1t.
_--
_
"✓ t
(
Profile
Riffle Length ft'''
8 19 30 23 19 31 15 22 SO 20
Riffle Slope (ft/ft) ; ++�;; �'�`: ;;s�. 0.0035 0.0320 0.0056 0.0160 0.0350 0.0571 0.0156 0.0192 0.0263 0.0309 0.0145 0.0218 0.0079
0 0353 0 0477 0.0086 0.0290 0.0224 0.0593 0.0072 0.0323 0.0032 0.0217
Pool Len h ft¢ ? `' S" �' ` -
gt ( ) "8
, -
vk :ai ik•�a's 4 14 10 25 18 64 15 22 20 5 12 12 34 23 40 17 41 28 42
efer to table Sa
Yt
m.. ti' (aid �"„ 1.1 1.6
Pool Max Depth (ft) 3' ��' "' f - 1.25 1.45 1.05 1.45 1.6 1.8 1.2 1.8 1.7
P49
1.0 1.9 1.2 1.9 1 2 2.1 1.3 2.4 1.9 2.2
Pool Spacing (ft) j�4 ��, ; Ew `§vui 35 68 28 87 13 30 31 52
49 63 37 58 57 4 33 29 90 43 71 34 61 46 66
Pool Volume ft • -
..anr,s.y' Ivy
l stir fir:
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft) ii - }i �'�.",�`,'• %„''z ;tz'm.k5.:'� N /A' N /A' N /AZ N /A' 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) " "f r;,';� (,`,r:a `t;y 7i;;; N /A' N /A' N /A' N /A' 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/a §" c fl;';1 `fi "' t"'''' r''1` R "yf / / / refer to table 5a N/A N/A 2
r:r3 �r•„a en ^n N /A' N A' N A' N A'
w- 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 N/A N/A 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3
Meander Wave Length (ft) (; �? % ik,, 9" lac e& �V' N /A' N /A' N /A' N /A= 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 ''; §�:yy' '' I; , "d' N /A' N /A' N /A' N /A' N/A N/A 4 5
4 5 3 5 4 5 N/A N/A 4 5 4 5 3 5 4 S
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
% u% P% G% S%
r
,i.
SC% Sa G C B Be° �'-
k, a
^> r, V,z
9 *s
d16 d35 d 0 d84 d d100 �(*• -,;"^
5 95
/ / / / °t
�
_ _ _ �xk"k
��� r, +�• ��
^c k,r /'y,✓` +f�""?� nr a•>i'9n `n,,.a
z n/a .yyy ,;gs y. p.w ,K S? ; refer to table Sa N/A
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) Ib /ft ; „F °r ✓, -, ,¢ , 5 3 0.35 0.06 0.84 0.28 0.6 0.32 0.12
_
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull ':> OR n ;.? �'" �? 7§'p 20 4 60 17 38 20
7 -
Stream Power (Ca pa City) W m 2 c..
r J
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area SM
"Sr
�';`
:''
�ds-
0.05
0.13
t
- _
71"7'77 77
'b' „YLN
_
=r +r•
n.L
M. t'n r
pp y�
' ,.F a2az>
Impervious Co v er Estimate
1
'�f
m
t "ry
Rosgen Classification
j;��,?'�r
�`t
) "iTP
�(;Fg',,
B6
C6�
C6
C
E
;"
y, „��,
it',{°
F6
F6'
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
2 0
1.6
2.8
2 6
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
8
13
9
13
:a> , >. ,, a felr :;;', „!- fi =.; : r "V. •:,r s +x °;`; <: <':,:,
,,�';� °q.r ;,.;;,<'k•,,�:e, ,'`f;,a. :t" ;':._ ;.E,�
t'
p
Ct -NF r e ression
g
n/ a
.,t r
,
t i
� t
refer to table Sa
�
-
190 352
.yk�, / ".
a
- _ � fi
:.xy, n . : ".�r, „ra,o.
•t _ a
sin t:=�w s
§ ..;;:..0 to w
Q -USGS extrapolation
•, w
4 9
SO 18
Q - Mannin s
ld'
max:
Valley Length (ft)
en
279
326
227
r,K i.'f:. „...F::
x!.In, ,n�kM„ §:&� i:%'�, „rr'sd�'<",ar'Y ^,;±:;
-
", ", - _•,.x
•I(398
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
)°
'�y
1141
890
201
a14
320
398
279
201
414
320
279
Sinuosity
tY ( )
:
r'
s,.y
_ ;
N"
n,.
`.
W
>• °;
1.0
1.0
1.1
1,2
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.1
1.2
1.1
1 2
11
0.0106
0.0085
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.0284
0.0095
00131
0.0086
0.0032
0.0296
0.0089
0.0187
00080
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
+rF
`G
-;t
T"
y
t
0.0106
0.0085
0.0284
0.0095
0.0039
Data was not provided
0.0161
0.0086
0.0032
0.0294
0.0091 1
00190
0.0079
0.0039
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.
4UTI 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)
6Data not provided in Neu -Con Umbrella Wetland and Stream Mitigation Bank Westbrook Lowgrounds Site Specific MitigahonPlan (Environmental Bank and Exchange, 2002)
'Lowther 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)
UTI Reaches I and 2, LITI A and LITI B
Monitoring Year 3
Parameter. '
Dimension -and i4
Sutist ate"
based on fixed bankfull elevation
,,UTtReac V pper
­h J
'11�1 ross- Ct n C
-Se
"C 1,,(Riffle), �Ois_s "n' "o
ectio �2, ol
B Y 1%
- �77 -,MY2i M
'-Aftl'Riach�t,
.Cross Se 4,(
ctioii, Riffl t" 0660Q�"
Section -Cross' 4(
MYb
Bankfull Width (ft)
4.6
5.8
6.1
5.1
13.6
10.8
10.3
10.6
19.1
13.7
18.2
15.5
21.6
15.3
17.4
16.4
Floodprone Width (ft)
66.7
65.4
65.4
65.4
---
---
---
---
62.6
63.4
55.7
55.7
---
---
---
---
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.5
0.7
0.7
0.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area (ft)
0.9
2.7
0.8
2.7
0.8
2.3
0.9
1.7
2.4
14.2
1.9
9.8
1.8
8.1
1.1
5.1
1.6
13.1
1.3
9.0
-0.6
1.5
10.8
1.5
8.1
2.4
22.0
2.2
16.1
2.2
17.9
2.2
17.0
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
7.7
12.8
16.0
15.2
13.0
12.0
13.0
22.2
27.7
20.9
30.7
29.6
21.1
14.6
16.9
15.8
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
Bankfull Bank Heig
Height Ratio
2.2+ 2.2+ 2.2+ 2.2+ N/A N/A N/A N/A
1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A
TI,Rea owes
2.2+ 2.2+ 2.2+ 22+ N/A N/A N/A N/A
1.0
1.0 1.0 1.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Reach-2
based on fixed bankfull elevation
Bankfull Width (ft)
e-,",,Iiase'�' ,,N!Yi,'��`
15.6 14.4 18.0 -
n 5�' woblv,
15.9
Cross -Sectidrifi (Riffle),
ase_�
-B �--"Jvifi, - PA�2, Wft,
11.9 12.4 13.5 13.4
Mys
T, V� Base
11.8 8.7 14.7 12.1
-�MY4"'_ M*5
ros -
Gros sSect on 8,(P�661
asi MYC�
23.6 16.9 22.7 21.0
Floodprone Width (ft)
---
---
---
---
79.6
80.3
76.9
76.9
69.7
70.8
65.9
65.9
-
---
---
---
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.9
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.6
1.0
1.1
0.8
0.9
1.2
1.3
1.1
1.0
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
2.1
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.4
1.2
1.4
1.4
1.8
1.7
1.8
1.7
3.0
2.1
2.7
2.9
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area (ft)
16.4
13.7
14.8
13.8
8.1
8.5
8.8
7.6
11.7
9.4
11.8
10.9
27.4
21.3
24.4
20.9
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
14.9
15.1
21.9
18.3
17.3
18.0
20.8
23.6
11.8
8.0
18.3
13.5
20.3
13.4
21.0
21.1
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
Dim nticin"';indtubstiate"�,�,,�,,-,,
4
based on fixed bankfull elevation
N/A N/A N/A N/A 2.2+ 2.2+ 2.2+ 2.2+ 2.2+ 1 2.2+ 2.2+ 2.2+ N/A N/A N/A N/A
_N/A J N/A N/A N/A 1.0 -1-0 1:0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Ic ross-Sectio.. on
C r6is�-Sectl lf(R Cr s-Se i
dt a 2: Pool
�,,iiase, I M*r ivivi", Wil -,,, 'I � -' � I ' -'--
K4YZ,'; M MY2 , - IVIYI'� s a 7 W mys-""
Bankfull Width (ft)
4.6
1.9
2.1
0.2
5.9
---
2.7
0.0
12.8
3.1
4.8
2.8
1
6.0
6.4
8.5
4.7
Floodprone Width (ft)
30.5
31.4
27.0
200+
---
---
67.3
66.5
64.2
53.8
---
---
---
---
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.1
0.6
---
0.3
0.0
0.1
0.3
0.5
OA
0.8
-
0.6
0.4
0.3
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
0.8
0.4
0.6
0.1
1.0
---
0.5
-0.1
1.0
1.1
1.0
0.7
1.2
1.0
0.7
0.5
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area (ft')
2.1
0.6
0.8
0.0
3.3
---
0.9
0.0
1.3
1.0
2.3
1.2
4.5
3.9
3.1
1.3
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
10.4
6.2
5.2
2.5
10.7
8.0
0.0
122.2
9.8
10.0
6.4
8.0
10.6
23.4
17.9
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N
NA
N/A
N/A
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
N/A N/A N/A N/A
bT1A J 'r,
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
S,r �'13
ss (Ri
A ection Iff'!
Dinrien`skiwi6d(tiilisti
rate
MYV
based on fixed bankfull elevation
Bankfull Width (ft)
---
---
---
5.7
Floodprone Width (ft)
---
---
---
54.9
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
---
---
---
0.4
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
---
---
1.0
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area (ft , )
---
---
---
2.0
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio,
---
---
---
16.3
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio l
---
---
2.2+
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio l
___ , I
--- 1
1.0

Table 12a. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (EEP Project No. 94643)
UTI Reach I Upper
Monitoring Year 3
Parameter:-,
-Built/Baseline--
in,,,
MI
4�,,
MY-
Med
l' ax
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
- Bankfull Width (ft)
4.6
5.8
6.1
5.1
Floodprone Width (ft)
66.7
65.4
65.4
65.4
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
- Bankfull Max Depth
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.9
Bankfull Cross-sectional Area (ft)
2.7
2.7
2.3
1.7
Width/Depth Ratio
7.7
12.8
16.0
15.2
Entrenchment Ratio
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
DSO (mm)
7, 17-
717,7,7
Profile
Riffle Length (it)
7
23
3
12
26 -
4
10
23
2
13
34
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.0025
0.0598
0.0043
0.0230
0.0518
0.0100
0.0260
0.0505
0.0096
0.0307
0.0879
Pool Length (ft)
10
39
10
16
26
V2.4
8
20
28
4
13
so
Pool Max Depth (it)
1
3
0.3
0.7
0.3
0.8
1.1
0.5
1.3
2.5
Pool Spacing (it)
23
49
17
29
61
12
39
61
8
27
68
Pool V o I Jme(ft)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (it)
N/A
Radius of Curvature (it)
N/A
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
N/A
W
Meander Wave Length (it)
Meander Width Ratio
N/A
N/A
xy
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
Bc
Bc
Bc
Bc
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
700
700
700
700
Sinuosity (ft)
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.0140
0.0147
0.0147
0.0150
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
Ri%/Ru%/P%/GIA/S%
SC%/Sa%/G*A/0/`/B%/Be%
0.0140
0.0146
0.0150
0.0150
d16/d35/d50 /d84/d95/d100
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
% of Reach with Eroding Ban
00/0
0%
0%
t-1. U­ - I-L PMIVI E
N/A: Not Applicable

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (EEP Project No. 94643)
UTl Reach 1 Upper
Monitoring Year 3
•
776
- • -
— - - - - -- - -- —
-- -- - —
-
774
- _— -
- ---A, •
~
• •
S
• •
772
x 's
�Y�' i .... .... • ♦
_
Y
770
A •
-
c
o
^'
•
A
W 768
X
•
• _.
766
764
762
— - - - - - -- - - - -- --
-- —
760
10000
10100
10200
10300 10400
10500
10600 10700
Station (feet)
- - -•
- -- TW (MYO- 4/2012)
TW (MYI- 10/2012)
—+— TW (MY2- 5/2013) — TW (MY3- 5/2014) ......
WS (MY3- 5/2014)
♦ BKF/TOB • LOG VANE

Cross - Section Plots
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (EEP Project No. 94643)
Monitoring Year 3
ross Section 1- UTS Reach 1 Upper
130+91 riffle
774
0
>
d
W
772
Aba
—
770
0 10
20
30 40 50 60 70 80
Width (ft)
+MYO (4/2012)
MY3 (10/2012)
+- MY2 (5/2013) --*--Width
Bankfull Dimensions
(5/2014) — Bankfull
1.7 x- section area (ft.sq.)
5.1 width (ft)
0.3 mean depth (ft)
0.9 max depth (ft)
6.0 wetted parimeter (ft)
0.3 hyd radi (ft)
15.2 width -depth ratio
Survey Date: May -14
Field Crew: KB, AT
View Downstream (5/2014)
(5/2014) — Bankfull
— Floodprone Area

Cross - Section Plots
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (EEP Project No. 94643)
Monitoring Year 3
Cross Section 2 - UT1 Reach 1 Upper
105+37 pool
772.5
770.5
a
a� 768.5
w
766.5
0 10 20
30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Width (ft)
MYO(4 /2012)
MY1(10 /2012) +- MY2(5/2013) — +— MY3(5/2014) — Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
5.1 x- section area (ft.sq.)
10.6 width (ft)
0.5 mean depth (ft)
1.1 max depth (ft)
11.4 wetted parimeter (ft)
0.4 hyd radi (ft)
22.2 width -depth ratio
,Y
Survey Date: May -14
Field Crew: KB, AT
View Downstream (5/2014)

Table 12b. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (EEP Project No. 94643)
UT1 Reach 1 Lower
Monitoring Year 3
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
13.4
15.7
16.4
Floodprone Width (ft)
62.6
79.6
63.4
71.9
80.3
55.7
66.3
76.9
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
0.5
0.7
1.0
Bankfull Max Depth
1.5
1.7
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.4
1.7
2.2
Bankfull Cross - sectional Area (ft')
10.1
14.3
9.5
9.6
9.7
8.8
10.1
11.5
7.6
10.9
17.0
Width /Depth Ratio
36.8
35.0
18.5
24.3
30.1
20.8
28.8
36.8
15.8
21.0
29.6
Entrenchment Ratio
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
10
75
8
28
70
12
31
81
15
35
80
Riffle Slope (ft /ft)
0.000
0.029
0.000
0.005
0.025
0.001
0.005
0.026
0.0006
0.0051
0.0283
Pool Length (ft)
6
81
12
56
95
5
54
81
5
46
79
Pool Max Depth (ft)
1.4
3.6
0.7
1.2
2.0
0.4
1.2
1.9
1.9
23
4.0
Pool Spacing (ft)
51
131
29
82
118
35
80
117
39
86
124
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
C
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
2558
2558
2558
2558
Sinuosity (ft)
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.0015
0.0024
0.0025
0.0024
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.0015
0.0024
0.0023
0.0024
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%
0%
( -): Data was not provided
N /A: Not Applicable

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (EEP Project No. 94643)
UTt Reach 1 Lower
Monitoring Year 3
772
770-
- - -- - - -- - - - - -- -- - - -- -
766
766
A,
IV---.eww•
764
1
'w
..................
762
x H
760
758
-- - - - - - -- - - - --
756
-- - - -- - - -
754
10700 10900 11100 11300 11500 11700 11900 12100
Station (feet)
♦ TW (MYO. 4/2012) TW (MYl•10/2012) —+— TW (MY2- 5/2013) — TW (MY3- 5/2014) . . . . . . WS (MY3 - 5/2014) ♦ BKF/TOB • LOG VANE

Cross - Section Plots
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (EEP Project No. 94643)
Monitoring Year 3
Cross Section 3 - UT3 Reach 1 Lower
110+80 riffle
766
c
0
764
v
w
! -
762
0 10 20
30 40 50 60
Width (ft)
s MYO (4/2012) MY1 (30/2012)
—+ MY2 (5/2013) tMY3 (5/2014) — Bankfull — Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
8.1 x- section area (ft.sq.)
15.5 width (ft)
sus �►��,_
0.5 mean depth (ft)
1.5 max depth (ft)
16.2 wetted parimeter (ft)
u'
0.5 hyd radi (ft)
29.6 width -depth ratio
Survey Date: May -14
Field Crew: KB, AT
View Downstream (5/2014)

Cross - Section Plots
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (EEP Project No. 94643)
Monitoring Year 3
Cross Section 4 - UT3 Reach 1 lower
111+22 pool
766.5
764.5
-
�
a,
c
0
w x2762.5
760.5
0 10 20
30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Width (ft)
— +— MYO(4/2012)
MY1 (10 /2012) —MY2(5 /2013) i MY3(5 /2014) — Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
17.0 x- section area (ft.sq.)
16.4 width (ft)
1.0 mean depth (ft)
2.2 max depth (ft)
18.2 wetted parimeter (ft)
0.9 hyd radi (ft)
15.8 width -depth ratio
Survey Date: May -14
Field Crew: KB, AT
View Downstream (5/2014)

Cross - Secflon Plots
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (EEP Project No. 94643)
Monitoring Year 3
Section 5 - LITS Reach 1 Lower
116+43 pool
764.5
F
c
0
`M'7 6 2. 5
a
w
760.5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Width (ft)
tMYO(4 /2012) MY1(10 /2012) * - MY2(5/2013) — *--MY3(5/2014) — Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
13.8
x- section area (ft.sq.)
15.9
width (ft)
0.9
mean depth (ft)
1.9
max depth (ft)
16.8
wetted parimeter (ft)
0.8
hyd radi (ft)
18.3
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: May -14
Field Crew: KB, AT
f
ty..,
View Downstream (5/2014)

Cross - Section Plots
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (EEP Project No. 94643)
Monitoring Year 3
Section 6 - UT3 Reach 1 Lower
111+22 riffle
765
r 764 —
c
0
w
w 763
762
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Width (ft)
t MYO (4/2012) MY3 (10/2012) MY2 (5/2013) MY3 (5/2014) — Bankfull — Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
7.6
x- section area (ft.sq.)
13.4
width (ft)
0.6
mean depth (ft)
1.4
max depth (ft)
14.1
wetted parimeter (ft)
0.5
hyd radi (ft)
23.6
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: May -14
Field Crew: KB, AT
View Downstream (5/2014)

Table 12c. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (EEP Project No. 94643)
UTl Reach 2
Monitoring Year 3
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)
11.8
8.7
14.7
12.1
Floodprone Width (ft)
69.7
70.8
65.9
65.9
Bankfull Mean Depth
1.0
1.1
0.8
0.9
Bankfull Max Depth
1.8
1.7
1.8
1.7
Bankfull Cross - sectional Area (ft)
11.7
9.4
11.8
10.9
Width /Depth Ratio
11.8
8.0
18.3
13.5
Entrenchment Ratio
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
27
47
11
24
48
27
34
48
20
37
64
Riffle Slope (ft /ft)
0.002
0.018
0.002
0.013
0.021
0.000
0.008
0.016
0.0003
0.0071
0.0231
Pool Length (ft)
15
62
20
46
68
28
44
58
20
44
63
Pool Max Depth (ft)
2
3
0.9
1.3
1.8
1.0
1.5
2.5
0.8
1.8
4.0
Pool Spacing (ft)
48
99
37
78
96
26
78
108
54
79
105
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
C
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
883
883
883
883
Sinuosity (ft)
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.0047
0.0049
0.0049
0.0039
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.0049
0.0049
0.0046
0.0035
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%
0%

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (EEP Project No. 94643)
UT1 Reach 2
Monitoring Year 3
763
762
761
- -A- - A
-
-
..• ..... ..... A
•
•
760
- - --
- --
FIT
.............
Alf
I
•
— 759
-
-
.. — •
v
•
• •
4 758
_t . ..
\ ...... yf.`y.. ... ............
757
-_ _
-- -
- - dL
n ap
6a
756
-
- - --
755
754
753 -
13258 13358
13458
13558 13658 13758 13858 13958 14058
Station (feet)
- TW(MYO- 4/2012)
TW(MYI- 10/2012)
— TW(MY2- 5/2013) — TW(MY3- 5/2014) •••••••WS(MY3- 5/2014) • BKF/TOB O LOG VANE

Cross - Section Plots
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (EEP Project No. 94643)
Monitoring Year 3
Cross Section 7 - UT1 Reach 2
135+95 riffle
762.5
760.5
c
O
x+758.5
w
756.5
0 10 20
30 40 50 60
70 80
Width (ft)
MYO (4/2012) MYl (10/2012)
MY2 (5/2013) —s MY3 (5/2014) Bankfull
Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
IlL t
10.9 x- section area (ftsq.)
12.1 width (ft)
0.9 mean depth (ft)
i
1.7 max depth (ft)
12.8 wetted parimeter (ft)
0.8 hyd radi (ft)
I
13.5 width -depth ratio
Y
r
Survey Date: May -14
Field Crew: KB, AT
`° 64p
View Downstream (5/2014)

Cross - Section Plots
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (EEP Project No. 94643)
Monitoring Year 3
Cross Section 8 - UTl Reach 2
111+22 pool
762
760
c
O
aN 758
W
756
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Width (ft)
— MYO(4/2012) MYl(10/2012)— MY2(5/2013) — *--MY3(5/2014) — Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
20.9 x- section area (ft.sq.)
21.0 width (ft)
1.0 mean depth (ft)
2.9 max depth (ft)
22.6 wetted parimeter (ft)
0.9 hyd radi (ft)
21.1 width -depth ratio
Survey Date: May -14
Field Crew: KB, AT
View Downstream (5/2014)

Table 12d. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (EEP Project No. 94643)
UTl A
Monitoring Year 3
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
I
Max
Min Max
Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
4.6
1.9
2.1
0.2
Floodprone Width (ft)
30.5
31.4
27.0
0
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.1
Bankfull Max Depth
0.8
0.4
0.6
0.1
Bankfull Cross - sectional Area (ft)
2.1
0.6
0.8
0.0
Width /Depth Ratio
10.4
6.2
5.2
2.5
Entrenchment Ratio
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bank Height Ratio
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
DSO (mm)
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
8
19
10
23
4
27
9
31
8
46
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.035
0.048
0.009
0.029
0.000
0.056
0.007
0.046
0.0032
0.0442
Pool Length (ft)
S
12
12
34
4
31
4
30
7
22
Pool Max Depth (ft)
1.0
1.9
1.2
1.9
0.2
1.1
0.2
1.0
1.3
3.2
Pool Spacing (ft)
4
33
29
90
12
55
5
88
7
185
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
1
82
Meander Width Ratio
N/A
N/A
4
S
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
C
E
C/E
C/E
N /A'
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
201
414
615
615
615
Sinuosity (ft)
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
Water Surface Slope (ft /ft)
0.0296
0.0089
0.0162
0.0159
0.0154
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.0294
0.0091
0.0160
0.0159
0.0168
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
N/A
% of Reach with Eroding Banks
0%
0°%
CIA
N/A: Not Applicable

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (EEP Project No. 94643)
UTl A
Monitoring Year 3
774
772 ♦
no - -- - - - - -- --
768 - - - +- - -- - - -
s 766
X
W �►- •• ......
O
762 x X '�( .....
760
758
30000 30100 30200 30300 30400 30500 30600
Station (feet)
-� - TW (MYO.4/ 2012) TW (MYI- 10/2012) — TW (MY2- 5/2013) —TW (MY3- 5/2014) ......• WS (MY3- 5/2014) ♦ BKF/TOB • LOG VANE /SILL

Cross - Section Plots
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (EEP Project No. 94643)
Monitoring Year 3
Cross Section 9 - UT1A
302+19
riffle
766.5
O
;, 765.5
v
w
764.5
�
0 5
10
15 20 25
Width (ft)
30 35
MYO (4/2012)
MYl (10/2012)
MY2 (5/2013) tMY3 (5/2014) - Bankfull
- Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
ti
0.0
x- section area (ft.sq.)
0.2
width (ft)
0.1
mean depth (ft)
�'
w
0.1
max depth (ft)
0.2
wetted parimeter (ft)
0.1
hyd radi (ft)
"
2.5
width -depth ratio
:4>
bV.,
Survey Date:
May -14
Field Crew:
KB, AT
-"
View Downstream (5/2014)
O
;, 765.5
v
w
764.5
�
0 5
10
15 20 25
Width (ft)
30 35
MYO (4/2012)
MYl (10/2012)
MY2 (5/2013) tMY3 (5/2014) - Bankfull
- Floodprone Area

Cross - Section Plots
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (EEP Project No. 94643)
Monitoring Year 3
Cross Section 10 - UT1A
302+40 pool
768
x
766
0
a
w
764
0 10
20 30 40
Width (ft)
tMYO(4 /2012)
MY3(10 /2012) MY2(5/2013) tMY3(5 /2014) — Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
0.0 x- section area (ft.sq.)
0.0 width (ft)
0.0 mean depth (ft)
-0.1 max depth (ft)
0.0 wetted parimeter (ft)
0.0 hyd radi (ft)
0.0 width -depth ratio
Survey Date: May -14
Field Crew: KB, AT
._
View Downstream (5/2014)

Cross - Section Plots
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (EEP Project No. 94643)
Monitoring Year 3
Cross Section 13 - UT1A
0+44 riffle
nos
F769.5
c
0
� -MY3 (5/2014) Bankfull — Floodprone Area
v
x+768.5
767.5
0
5 10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45 50 SS
Width (ft
Bankfull Dimensions
2.0
5.7
x- section area (ft.sq.)
width (ft)
0.4
1.0
mean depth (ft)
max depth (ft)
`
1
zr 1r
7.1
wetted parimeter (ft)
0.3
hyd radi (ft)
lc
''
y
16.3
width-depth ratio
L
Survey Date:
May -14
Field Crew:
KB, AT
View Downstream (5/2014)
Cross Section was installed during MY3
)
� -MY3 (5/2014) Bankfull — Floodprone Area

Table 12e. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (EEP Project No. 94643)
UT1B
Monitoring Year 3
Parameter
As-Built/Baseline
MY -1
MY -2
MY -3
MY -4
MY -5
UT1B 200+00 to
203 +20
UT18 203 +21 to
207 +18
UT113 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)
12.8
3.1
4.8
2.8
Floodprone Width (ft)
67.3
66.5
64.2
53.8
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.1
0.3
0.5
0.4
Bankfull Max Depth
1.0
1.1
1.0
0.7
Bankfull Cross - sectional Area (ft)
1.3
1.0
2.3
1.2
Width /Depth Ratio
122.2
9.8
10.0
6.4
Entrenchment Ratio
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bank Height Ratio
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
D50 (mm)
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
19
31
15
22
10
20
15
35
9
40
15
112
Riffle Slope (ft /ft)
0.0224
0.0593
0.0072
0.0323
0.0032
0.0217
0.0048
0.0589
0.0020
0.0340
0.0046
0.0164
Pool Length (ft)
23
40
17
41
28
42
11
44
14
55
6
52
Pool Max Depth (ft)
1.2
2.1
1.3
2.4
1.9
2.2
0.4
1.5
0.1
1.5
1.7
3.1
Pool Spacing (ft)
43
71
34
61
46
66
28
77
32
79
51
140
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
C/E
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
320
398
279
997
997
997
Sinuosity (ft)
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
Water Surface Slope (ft /ft)
0.0187
0.0080
0.0039
0.0085
0.0086
0.0085
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.0190
0.0079
0.0039
0.0081
0.0083
0.0085
Ri % /Ru % /P % /G % /S%
S C % /Sa % /G % /C%/ B % /Be %
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
%of Reach with Eroding Banks
I 1
0%
0%
0%
( -): Data was not provided
N /A: Not Applicable

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (EEP Project No. 94643)
UTiB
Monitoring Year 3
no-
- -- -
- - - - -- - --
- - — - - - - - --
•
768
1 •
•
766
,.
•
0
•
764
-
• - - - - -�i
m
n r
•
•
�,
•..........• • •
y
• •
762
--
................ •
`
760
--
--- - - - - -- -- -- -
i
758
20000
20100 20200 20300
20400 20500
20600 20700 20800 20900 21000
Station (feet(
+ TW (MYO- 4/2012) TW (MYI- 10/2012)
�TW (MY2- 5/2013)
-TW (MY3- 5/2014) • ^•••• WS(MY3- 5/2014) • BKF/TOB

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (EEP Project No. 94643)
UTiB
Monitoring Year 3
no-
- -- -
- - - - -- - --
- - — - - - - - --
•
768
1 •
•
766
,.
•
0
•
764
-
• - - - - -�i
m
n r
•
•
�,
•..........• • •
y
• •
762
--
................ •
`
760
--
--- - - - - -- -- -- -
i
758
20000
20100 20200 20300
20400 20500
20600 20700 20800 20900 21000
Station (feet(
+ TW (MYO- 4/2012) TW (MYI- 10/2012)
�TW (MY2- 5/2013)
-TW (MY3- 5/2014) • ^•••• WS(MY3- 5/2014) • BKF/TOB

Cross - Section Plots
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (EEP Project No. 94643)
Monitoring Year 3
Cross Section 11- UTiB
205+30 riffle
766
764
c
0
a
W
762
0 10
20
30 40 50
60 70
Width (ft)
Bankfull Dimensions
tMYO (4 /2012)
1.2 x- section area (ft.sq.)
+ —MY2 (5/2013) +MY3 (5 /2014) — Bankfull
— Floodprone Area
2.8 width (ft)
0.4 mean depth (ft)
t
0.7 max depth (ft)
3.6 wetted parimeter (ft)
0.3 hyd radi (ft)
6.4 width -depth ratio
Survey Date: May -14
Field Crew: KB, AT
View Downstream (5/2014)
c
0
a
W
762
0 10
20
30 40 50
60 70
Width (ft)
tMYO (4 /2012)
MYl (30 /2012)
+ —MY2 (5/2013) +MY3 (5 /2014) — Bankfull
— Floodprone Area

Cross - Section Plots
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (EEP Project No. 94643)
Monitoring Year 3
Cross Section 11- UTiB
205+30 riffle
766
764
c
0
a
W
762
0 10
20
30 40 50
60 70
Width (ft)
Bankfull Dimensions
tMYO (4 /2012)
1.2 x- section area (ft.sq.)
+ —MY2 (5/2013) +MY3 (5 /2014) — Bankfull
— Floodprone Area
2.8 width (ft)
0.4 mean depth (ft)
t
0.7 max depth (ft)
3.6 wetted parimeter (ft)
0.3 hyd radi (ft)
6.4 width -depth ratio
Survey Date: May -14
Field Crew: KB, AT
View Downstream (5/2014)
c
0
a
W
762
0 10
20
30 40 50
60 70
Width (ft)
tMYO (4 /2012)
MYl (30 /2012)
+ —MY2 (5/2013) +MY3 (5 /2014) — Bankfull
— Floodprone Area

Cross - Section Plots
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (EEP Project No. 94643)
Monitoring Year 3
Cross Section 12 - UT113
205+63 pool
765
764
0
763
Bankfull Dimensions
1.3 x- section area (ft.sq.)
4.7 width (ft) >
n a.
0.3 mean depth (ft)
0.5 max depth (ft) , •`
4.9 wetted parimeter (ft) •s^ '� ti's
0.3 hyd radi (ft) `r w
17.9 width -depth ratio i
Survey Date: May -14 �r
Field Crew: KB, AT
View Downstream (5/2014)
c
m
v
w ,y
762
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Width (ft
)
MYO (4/2012)
MYl (10/2012)
MY2 (5/2013)
+MY3 (5/2014)
- Bankfull

APPENDIX 5. Hydrology Summary Data and Plots

Table 13. Verification of Bank-full Events
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (EEP Project No. 94643)
UTI, UTI A, and UT1B
Monitoring Year 3
Reach
Date of Data
Collection
Date of
Occurrence
MY of
Occurrence
Method
UTI
5/11/2012
U
1
Crest Gage
Year 7 (2018)
10/31/2013
U
2
Crest Gage
1
UT1A
7/10/2012
U
I
Crest Gage
3/7/2013
U
2
Crest Gage
Yes /113.5
6/30/2014
5/15/2014
3
Crest Gage
2
(0%)
(46%)
Days (56 %)
UT18
711012012
U
1
Crest Gage
Yes /49 Days
3/7/2013
U
2
Crest Gage
6/30/2014
5/15/2014
3
Crest Gage
Table 14. Weiland Gage Attainment Summary
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (EEP Project No. 94643)
Wetlands RW1 and RW2
Monitoring Year 3
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
Yes /47 Days
1
(2.5%)
(24%)
(23%)
No /O Days
Yes /93 Days
Yes /113.5
2
(0%)
(46%)
Days (56 %)
Yes /29 Days
Yes /49 Days
Yes /52.5 Days
3
(14%)
(24%)
26%)
Yes /27 Days
Yes /54.5 Days
Yes /47 Days
4
(13 %)
(27%)
(23%)
No /11 Days
Yes /41.5 Days
Yes /52.5 Days
5
(5 %)
(20.3%)
(26%)
No /5 Days
Yes /16 Days
No /10 Days
6
(2.5 %)
(7.8 %)
(5 %)
Yes /22 Days
Yes /179 Days
Yes /49.5 Days
7
(11 %)
(88%)
(25 %)
No /12 Days
Yes /53 Days
Yes /44.5 Days
8
(6%)
(26%)
(22%)
Yes /180 Days
Yes /45.5 Days
10
N/A
(88%)
1
(23%)
Yes /80 Days
Yes /50.5 Days
11
N/A
(39%)
(25%)
N /A: gages were installed after MYl

Groundwater Gage Plots
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site(EEP Project No. 94643)
Wetland Number: RW 1
Monitoring Year 3
20
10
0
c
-10
J
Y
3 -20
-30
-40
-50
C
i a i a 9i i o
t� Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage N1 Water Depth — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
i
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site(EEP Project No. 94643)
Wetland Number: RW1
Monitoring Year 3
20
10
0
c
-10
X -20
3
-30
-40
-50
LL < ^
75 CL < O Z
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage /2 Water Depth — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
30 w
c
2.0
1.0
0.0
u
g

Groundwater Gage Plots
Lyle Creek Mitigation Slte(EEP Project No. 94643)
Wetland Number: RW 1
Monitoring Year 3
20
'00
10
d �-
m -20 --
3
I
-30
-40
i
-s0
0
0
v
N
my
o 00
C7 �
to I
Creek Groundwater Gage #3
Monitoring Year 3
'J LLl --
ia° i <' o z
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage U3 Water Depth — — Criteria Level

Groundwater Gage Plots
Lyle Creek Mitigation Siie(EEP Project No. 94643)
Wetland Number: RW1
Monitoring Year 3
20
j 30
0
c
_ -10
a,
d
m
-20
3
-30
i
-40
-50

Groundwater Gage Plots
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site(EEP Project No. 94643)
Wetland Number: RW1
Monitoring Year 3
20
10
0
c 11
-10
v
i
d
N
m -20
3 i
-30
-40
-50 P
Lyle Creek Groundwater Gage #5
Monitoring Year 3
a
in a
� o
a `a m c m a >
a a' O i
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 3
20
10
0
c
-10
Y
v
-20
3
-30
-40
50
d > C .5 3 O. O d
o Z o
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #6 Water Depth — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
A
3.0 ,e
c
OC
s
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Lyle Creek Mitigation Sffe(EEP Project No. 94643)
Wetland Number: RW2
Monitoring Year 3
20
10
0
-10
a
J
3 -20
-30
-40
-50 -9
c
0
d
N
m�
3 0
o �
Lyle Creek Groundwater Gage #7
Monitoring Year 3
i a " - a' 1% CL
o i
i
[, 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 3
20
i
10
0
c
-10
a
a>i
d
-20
3
-30
-40
-50
a m` > c m a >
g ¢' 0 Z
f� Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #8 Water Depth — — Criteria Level
0
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0 m
`c
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site(EEP Project No. 94643)
Wetland Number: RW2
Monitoring Year 3
20
10
0
-_ -10
v
v
J
d
ie -20
3
-30
-40
i
-50

Groundwater Gage Plots
Lyle Creek Mitigation Sffe(EEP Project No. 94643)
Wetland Number: RWl
Monitoring Year 3
20
10
0
c
-10
d
i
I
3 -20
1 -30
-40
50
c m a ti O >
c d a u
i a i a' o Z g
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #11 Water Depth — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0 ,€
2.0
1.0
0.0

Monthly Rainfall Data
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (EEP Project No. 94643)
Monitoring Year 3
12014 rainfall collected by onslte rainfall gage and USGS station 354616081085145
'30th and 70th percentile rainfall data collected from weather station Catawba 3 NNW, NC1579 (USDA, 2002)
' Onsite rainfall gage malfunctioned in September and October, 2014
Figure 7. Lyle Creek 30 -70 Percentile Graph for Rainfall in 2014 Catawba, NC
13
11
9
S
7
c
D
r
.a
5
0
a`
3
1
Iff 7M
1
Jan -14 Feb -14 Mar -14 Apr -14 May -14 Jun -14 Jul -14 Aug -14 Sep -14 Oct -14 Nov -14 Dec -14
Date
Its On -Site Gage Data
USGS Station 354616081085145
—30th Percentile
—70th Percentile
12014 rainfall collected by onslte rainfall gage and USGS station 354616081085145
'30th and 70th percentile rainfall data collected from weather station Catawba 3 NNW, NC1579 (USDA, 2002)
' Onsite rainfall gage malfunctioned in September and October, 2014