LittleTroublesome_94640_ MY4_2015

MONITORING YEAR 4
ANNUAL REPORT
Final
LITTLE TROUBLESOME CREEK MITIGATION SITE
Rockingham County, NC
NCDEQ Contract 003267
NCDMS Project Number 94640
Data Collection Period: May 2015 -November 2015
Draft Submission Date: November 30, 2015
Final Submission Date: January 28, 2016
PREPARED FOR:
INCI N'
Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652

PREPARED BY:
W
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225
Raleigh, NC 27609
Jason Lorch
[e-mail]
Phone: [phone]
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 4 Annual Report— FINAL

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Wildlands Engineering (Wildlands) completed a full -delivery project for the North Carolina Division of
Mitigation Services (NCDMS) to restore a total of 4,968 linear feet (LF) of stream and restore, enhance,
and create 17.2 acres (ac) of wetlands in Rockingham County, North Carolina. The project streams
consist of Little Troublesome Creek, Irvin Creek and one unnamed tributary (UT1) to Little Troublesome
Creek. The largest of these streams, Little Troublesome Creek, ultimately drains to the Haw River. At
the downstream limits of the project, the drainage area is 3,245 acres (5.1 square miles).
The Little Troublesome Creek Stream Mitigation Site, hereafter referred to as the Stream Site, is located
in Rockingham County on the southeastern side of Reidsville along Irvin and Little Troublesome Creeks.
The wetland area, hereafter referred to as the Wetland Site, is located approximately four miles
southeast of the Stream Site and is also adjacent to Little Troublesome Creek. The Stream Site is located
south of Turner Road, east of the intersection of Turner Road and Way Street in the City of Reidsville,
North Carolina (Figure 1). The Wetland Site is located approximately 3,000 feet southwest of the
intersection of NC Highway 150 and Mizpah Church Road, south of the City of Reidsville (Figure 1). The
Stream and Wetland Sites are located in the Inner Piedmont Belt of the Piedmont Physiographic
Province (USGS, 1998). The Sites are located within the North Carolina Division of Water Resources
(NCDWR) subbasin 03-06-01 of the Cape Fear River Basin, United States Geological Survey (USGS)
Hydrologic Unit 03030002010030. Approximately 28% of the land in the project watershed has been
developed and approximately 17% of the land surface is impervious. Land uses within the watershed
include: forested land (55%), developed (28%), and cultivated land (17%). The Stream Site is a tract
owned by Wildlands Little Troublesome Creek Holdings, LLC and the Wetland Site is owned by Jerry
Apple.
Prior to construction activities, the most significant watershed stressors identified during the technical
assessment were stream bank erosion and instability. Other stressors included declining aquatic
habitat, loss of forest, degraded riparian buffers, loss of wetlands, lack of urban stormwater detention,
and water quality problems related to increased sediment and nutrient loadings. As a result of the
aforementioned stressors, the Stream Site and Wetland Site had poor water quality due to sediment
pollution and poor habitat due to lack of riparian and wetland vegetation. In particular, the Stream Site
lacked stable streambank vegetation despite being surrounded by mature vegetation. The Stream Site
also lacked in -stream bed diversity and exhibited unstable geomorphic conditions. The primary
objectives of the project were to stabilize highly eroding stream banks, reconnect streams to their
historic floodplain, improve wetland hydrology and function, reduce nutrient levels, sediment input, and
water temperature, increase dissolved oxygen concentrations, create appropriate in -stream and
terrestrial habitat, and decrease channel velocities. These objectives were achieved by restoring 4,968
LF of perennial stream channel, and restoring, enhancing, and creating 17.2 acres of riparian wetland.
The Stream Site and Wetland Site riparian areas were also planted to stabilize streambanks, improve
habitat, and protect water quality. Figure 2 and Table 1 in Appendix 1 present design applications for
the Sites.
The following project goals were established to address the effects listed above from watershed and
project site stressors:
• Stabilize stream dimensions;
• Stabilize stream pattern and profile;
• Establish proper substrate distribution throughout the streams;
• Establish wetland hydrology for restored wetlands; and
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 4 Annual Report — FINAL iii

• Restore native vegetation throughout wetlands and buffer zones.
The following secondary project goals (unmeasured) were established in the project Mitigation Plan
(Wildlands, 2011) to address the effects from watershed and project site stressors:
• Decrease nutrient and urban runoff pollutant levels;
• Decrease sediment input;
• Decrease water temperature and increase dissolved oxygen levels;
• Create appropriate in -stream habitat;
• Create appropriate terrestrial habitat; and
• Decrease channel velocities.
Stream and wetland restoration, enhancement, and creation construction efforts were completed in
May 2012. A conservation easement is in place on 33.0 ac (acres) of the Stream Site and 19.0 ac of the
Wetland Site to protect them in perpetuity.
Monitoring Year 4 (MY -4) monitoring and site visits were completed during May -November, 2015 to
assess the conditions of the Sites. The Sites have met the required hydrologic, vegetation, and stream
success criteria for MY -4. The Sites overall average stem density of 618 stems/ acre is greater than the
260 stem/ acre density required for MY -5. All restored and enhanced streams are stable and
functioning as designed and the Stream Site has met the Monitoring Year 5 (MY -5) hydrology success
criteria. All groundwater gages met the MY -4 success criteria on the Wetland Site.
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 4 Annual Report — FINAL iv

LITTLE TROUBLESOME CREEK MITIGATION SITE
Monitoring Year 4 Annual Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1:
PROJECT OVERVIEW.......................................................................................................1-1
Figure 1
1.1
Project Goals and Objectives.....................................................................................................1-1
Project Component/Asset Map
1.2
Monitoring Year 4 Data Assessment..........................................................................................1-3
Table 2
1.2.1
Vegetative Assessment......................................................................................................1-3
Project Contacts Table
1.2.2
Vegetation Areas of Concern.............................................................................................1-4
Table 12a -d
1.2.3
Stream Assessment............................................................................................................1-4
Longitudinal Profile Plots
1.2.4
Stream Areas of Concern...................................................................................................1-5
1.2.5
Hydrology Assessment.......................................................................................................1-5
1.2.6
Wetland Assessment..........................................................................................................1-5
1.2.7
Maintenance Plan..............................................................................................................1-5
1.3
Monitoring Year 4 Summary......................................................................................................1-6
Section2:
METHODOLOGY.............................................................................................................2-1
Section3:
REFERENCES...................................................................................................................3-1
I_T17�1►I7L�I�''.
Appendix 1
General Tables and Figures
Figure 1
Project Vicinity Map
Figure 2a -b
Project Component/Asset Map
Table 1
Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Table 2
Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3
Project Contacts Table
Table 4
Project Baseline Information and Attributes
Appendix 2
Visual Assessment Data
Figure 3.0-3.5
Integrated Current Condition Plan View
Table 5a -d
Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Table 6
Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Appendix 4
Stream Photographs
Table 10a -b
Vegetation Photographs
Appendix 3
Vegetation Plot Data
Table 7
Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Table 8a -b
CVS Vegetation Table - 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
Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters — Cross Section)
Table 12a -d
Monitoring Data — Stream Reach Data Summary
Longitudinal Profile Plots
Cross Section Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 4 Annual Report — FINAL v

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Appendix 5 Hydrology Summary Data and Plots
Table 13 Verification of Bankfull Events
Table 14 Wetland Gage Attainment Summary
Bankfull Verification Photographs
Groundwater Gage Plots
Monthly Rainfall Data
Pre and Post Construction Groundwater Gage Comparison Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 4 Annual Report — FINAL vi

Section 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site, hereafter referred to as the Sites, is located in Rockingham
County within the Cape Fear River Basin (USGS Hydrologic Unit 03030002) near the town of Reidsville,
North Carolina. The Little Troublesome Creek Stream Mitigation Site, hereafter referred to as the
Stream Site, is located in Rockingham County on the southeastern side of Reidsville along Irvin and Little
Troublesome Creeks. The wetland area, hereafter referred to as the Wetland Site, is located
approximately four miles southeast of the Stream Site and is also adjacent to Little Troublesome Creek.
The Stream Site is located south of Turner Road, east of the intersection of Turner Road and Way Street
in the City of Reidsville, North Carolina (Figure 1). The Wetland Site is located approximately 3,000 feet
southwest of the intersection of NC Highway 150 and Mizpah Church Road, south of the City of
Reidsville (Figure 1). The Sites are located in the Inner Piedmont Belt of the Piedmont Physiographic
Province (USGS, 1998). The project watersheds consists of forested, developed, and cultivated lands.
The drainage area for the Stream Site is 3,245 acres at the lower end of Little Troublesome Creek.
The project stream reaches consist of Little Troublesome Creek, Irvin Creek, and one unnamed tributary
(UT1) to Little Troublesome Creek (stream restoration approach). Mitigation work within the Sites
included restoring 4,968 linear feet (LF) of perennial and intermittent stream channel and restoring,
enhancing, and creating 17.2 acres (ac) of riparian wetland. The Stream and Wetland Sites were also
planted with native vegetation to improve habitat and protect water quality. Conservation easements
have been recorded on the Sites and are in place along the stream and wetland riparian corridors to
protect them in perpetuity; 33.0 ac (Deed Book 1411, Page Number 2458) owned by Wildlands Little
Troublesome Creek Holdings, LLC and 19.0 ac (Deed Book 1412, Page Number 1685) owned by Jerry
Apple. Directions and maps of the Sites are provided in Figure 1 and project components are illustrated
for the Sites in Figures 2a and 2b.
The final Mitigation Plan was submitted and accepted by the North Carolina Division on Mitigation
Services (NCDMS) in June of 2011. Construction activities were completed by Fluvial Solutions in May of
2012. Planting and seeding activities were completed by Bruton Natural Systems, Inc. in May 2012.
Baseline monitoring (MY -0) was conducted between April and May 2012. Annual monitoring will be
conducted for five years on the Stream Site and for seven years on the Wetland Site with the close-outs
anticipated to commence in 2017 and 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.
1.1 Project Goals and Objectives
Prior to construction activities, the most significant watershed stressors identified during the technical
assessment were stream bank erosion and instability. Other stressors included declining aquatic
habitat, loss of forest, degraded riparian buffers, loss of wetlands, lack of urban stormwater detention,
and water quality problems related to increased sediment and nutrient loadings. As a result of the
aforementioned stressors, the Stream Site and Wetland Site had poor water quality due to sediment
pollution and poor habitat due to lack of riparian and wetland vegetation. In particular, the Stream Site
lacked stable streambank vegetation despite being surrounded by mature vegetation. The Stream Site
also lacked in -stream bed diversity and exhibited unstable geomorphic conditions. Table 4 in Appendix
1 and Tables 10a, and 10b in Appendix 4 present the pre -restoration conditions in detail.
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 4 Annual Report — FINAL 1-1

The Sites were designed to meet the over -arching goals as described in the Mitigation Plan (Wildlands,
2011) to address the effects from watershed and project site stressors. The project is intended to
provide numerous ecological benefits within the Cape Fear River Basin. While many of these benefits
are limited to the Sites project area, others, such as pollutant removal and improved aquatic and
terrestrial habitat, have more far-reaching effects. The following project specific primary goals
established in the Mitigation Plan include:
• Stabilize stream dimensions;
• Stabilize stream pattern and profile;
• Establish proper substrate distribution throughout the streams;
• Establish wetland hydrology for restored wetlands; and
• Restore native vegetation throughout wetlands and buffer zones.
Secondary project goals (unmeasured) established in the Mitigation Plan were to address the effects
from watershed and project site stressors include:
• Decrease nutrient and urban runoff pollutant levels;
• Decrease sediment input;
• Decrease water temperature and increase dissolved oxygen levels;
• Create appropriate in -stream habitat;
• Create appropriate terrestrial habitat; and
• Decrease channel velocities.
The primary and secondary project goals were addressed through the following project objectives:
• Riffle cross sections of the restoration and enhancement reaches were constructed to
remain stable and will show little change in bankfull area, maximum depth ratio, and width -
to -depth ratio overtime.
• The project was constructed so that the bedform features of the restoration reaches will
remain stable overtime. This includes riffles that will remain steeper and shallower than the
pools, and pools that are deep with flat water surface slopes. The relative percentage of
riffles and pools will not change significantly over time. Banks were constructed so that
bank height ratios will remain very near to 1.0 for nearly all of the restoration reaches.
• Stream substrate will remain coarse in the riffles and finer in the pools.
• A free groundwater surface will be present within 12 inches of the ground surface in the
restored wetland areas for 7 percent of the growing season measured on consecutive days
under typical precipitation conditions.
• Native vegetation appropriate for the wetland and riparian buffer zones were planted
throughout both the Wetland and Stream Sites. The planted trees will become well
established and survival success criteria will be met.
• Off-site nutrient input will be absorbed on-site by filtering flood flows through restored
floodplain areas and wetlands, where flood flows can disperse through native vegetation
and be captured in vernal pools. Increased surface water residency time will provide
contact treatment time and groundwater recharge potential.
• Sediment input from eroding stream banks was reduced by installing bioengineering and in -
stream structures while creating a stable channel form using geomorphic design principles.
Sediment from off-site sources will be captured by deposition on restored floodplain areas
where native vegetation will slow overland flow velocities.
• Restored riffle/pool sequences where distinct points of re -aeration can occur will allow for
oxygen levels to be maintained in the perennial reaches. Creation of deep pool zones will
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 4 Annual Report — FINAL 1-2

lower water temperature, helping to maintain dissolved oxygen concentrations.
Establishment and maintenance of riparian buffers will create long-term shading of the
channel flow to minimize thermal heating.
• A channel form that includes riffle/pool sequences and gravel and cobble zones creating
habitat for macroinvertebrates and fish. Large woody debris, rock structures, root wads,
and native stream bank vegetation were introduced to substantially increase habitat value.
• Adjacent buffer areas were restored by removing invasive vegetation and planting native
vegetation. These areas will be allowed to receive more regular and inundating flows.
Riparian wetland areas were restored and enhanced to provide wetland habitat.
• By allowing for more overbank flooding and by increasing channel roughness, local channel
velocities can be reduced. This will allow for less bank shear stress, formation of refuge
zones during large storm events and zonal sorting of depositional material.
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 mitigation project was developed to restore a high quality of
riparian function to the streams, wetlands, and riparian corridors.
1.2 Monitoring Year 4 Data Assessment
Annual monitoring and quarterly site visits were conducted during Monitoring Year 4 (MY -4) to assess
the condition of the project. The stream and wetland mitigation success criteria for the Sites follow the
approved success criteria presented in the Mitigation Plan (Wildlands, 2011).
1.2.1 Vegetative Assessment
A total of 35 (22 at the Wetland Site; 13 at the Stream Site) vegetation plots were established within the
project easement areas using standard 10 meter by 10 meter vegetation monitoring plots. UT1 was
constructed within a narrow cleared corridor to minimize disturbance to the surrounding mature
vegetation. Due to the narrow planted corridor along UT1, vegetation plots were not established.
Instead, a visual assessment of the planted corridor is used to evaluate vegetation growth success. The
final vegetative success criteria will be the survival of 260 planted stems per acre in the riparian corridor
of the Stream Site at the end of MY -5, and 210 planted stems per acre within the Wetland Site at the
end of MY -7.
The MY -4 vegetative survey was completed in June 2015. The 2015 annual vegetation monitoring
resulted in an average stem density of 520 stems per acre for the Wetland Site, which is greater than the
final requirement of 260 stems/acre and approximately 26% less than the baseline (MY -0) density
recorded (701 stems/acre). At the Wetland Site, three of the plots did not meet the final success criteria
and averaged 202 stems per acre; however with the inclusion of volunteer species the plots are on track
to meet the success criteria for MY -7. These three plots are located on one of the wettest parts of the
Wetland Site. This area is one of the lowest parts of the Wetland Site, and has standing water on it
frequently. In the past, Wildlands has observed higher planted tree mortality in areas with frequently
standing water, compared to the drier parts of projects. This area will be monitored for tree survival
during future monitoring years. There was an average of 12 stems per plot in MY -4 as compared to 17
stems per plot during MY -0 for the Wetland Site. All 13 plots at the Stream Site are on track to meet the
MY -5 success criteria of 260 planted stems per acre. The average stem density at the Stream Site was
716 stems/acre, which is well above the final requirement, but approximately 25% less than the baseline
density recorded (953 stems/acre). There was an average of 18 stems per plot in MY -4 compared to 24
stems per plot in MY -0 for the Stream Site. Refer to Appendix 2 for vegetation plot photographs, the
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 4 Annual Report — FINAL 1-3

vegetation condition assessment table, and the Current Condition Plan View Map, and Appendix 3 for
vegetation data tables.
1.2.2 Vegetation Areas of Concern
Isolated areas of invasive species including kudzu (Pueraria montana), multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora),
and Japanese stiltgrass (Microstegium vimineum) have been documented at the Stream Site. During
MY -4 kudzu and multiflora rose were sprayed to control these invasive plants and keep them from
spreading farther into the easement. The presence of these species does not appear to be affecting the
survivability of planted stems, but these areas will be closely monitored during subsequent site visits
and further controlled if deemed necessary.
1.2.3 Stream Assessment
Morphological surveys for the MY -4 were conducted in May 2015. With the exception of some isolated
areas of bank erosion and pool deposition, all streams within the Stream Site are stable with little to no
erosion and have met the success criteria for MY -4. Refer to Appendix 2 for the visual assessment table,
the Integrated Current Condition Plan View Map, and reference photographs. Refer to Appendix 4 for
the morphological data and plots.
In general, cross sections show little to no change in the bankfull area, maximum depth ratio, or width -
to -depth ratio. Cross Sections on UT1 show a decrease in cross-sectional area and bankfull width. This
is due to sediment deposition from Little Troublesome Creek during bankfull events. This is normal and
is not a sign of instability. Surveyed riffle cross sections fell within the parameters defined for channels
of the appropriate Rosgen stream type. Several pool cross sections on the Stream Site have shown an
accumulation of sediment on the point bars resulting in a slight narrowing of the pool cross
sections. Since point bars are depositional features, this is fully expected. As discussed in the Mitigation
Plan, narrowing of the channel over time is expected for restored alluvial streams and is an indication of
stability. The surveyed longitudinal profile data for the stream restoration reaches illustrates that the
bedform features are maintaining lateral and vertical stability. The riffles are remaining steeper and
shallower than the pools, while the pools are remaining deeper than riffles and maintaining flat water
surface slopes. The longitudinal profiles show that the bank height ratios remain near 1.0 for all of the
restoration reaches. UT1 longitudinal profile data is showing deposition throughout the stream. This
sediment deposition appears to be from bankfull events on Little Troublesome Creek. This is normal
and expected on small streams that flow into large channels. It is not affecting channel stability but will
be monitored.
In -stream structures such as root wads, used to enhance channel habitat and stability on the outside
bank of meander bends are providing stability and habitat as designed. During MY -3 bank scour was
documented in the meander bend at STA 207+50-208+80 (Cross Section 12) on Little Troublesome
Creek. Undercutting of the rootwads resulted in an area of bank scour within this meander bend. This
was repaired during MY -4 by lowering the rootwads and adding brush toe to fill in any voids. Geolifts
were installed with brush whips and live stakes to stabilize the stream bank. Since the repair work, this
section of Little Troublesome Creek appears stable and will continue to be monitored for any signs of
instability.
Pattern data will only be completed in MY -5 if there are indicators from the profile or cross sections that
significant geomorphic adjustments have occurred. No changes were observed that indicated a change
in the radius of curvature or channel belt width; therefore, pattern data is not included in the MY -4
report.
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 4 Annual Report — FINAL 1-4

1.2.4 Stream Areas of Concern
Depositional areas observed on UT1 will be monitored for indications of long term instability and a
maintenance plan will implemented if deemed necessary. At the beginning of October, the Stream Site
had an approximately 50-100 year flow event (estimated from rack lines that were 3-4 feet above
bankfull) as Hurricane Joaquin moved along the North Carolina coast. At a post storm site visit, it was
observed that this major flow event caused a few isolated areas of bank scour. Wildlands is currently
working with a contractor to repair these areas during the winter of 2015/ 2016.
1.2.5 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. Bankfull events were recorded on Irvin Creek, Little
Troublesome Creek, and UT1 by crest gage or onsite observations (wrack lines) during the MY -1, MY -2,
MY -3, and MY -4 data collection. The Stream Site has met the hydrologic success criteria. Please refer to
Appendix 5 for hydrologic data. During the summer of MY -4 a trail camera was placed along Irvin Creek
and set to capture pictures every hour. Appendix 5 shows a few of the pictures taken with the trail
camera during bankfull events.
1.2.6 Wetland Assessment
Eight groundwater monitoring gages are established in the wetland restoration, enhancement, and
creation zones. The gages were installed at appropriate locations so that the data collected will provide
an indication of groundwater levels throughout the Wetland Site. A barotroll logger and a rain gage
were also installed onsite. To provide data for the determination of the growing season for the wetland
areas, two soil temperature probes were installed to collect growing season data. These probes are
used to better define the beginning of the growing season using the threshold soil temperature of 41
degrees or higher measured at a depth of 12 inches (USACE, 2010). During MY -1, MY -2, and MY -3 NRCS
WETS Data was used to determine the growing season for the Wetland Site. After discussions with the
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), it was agreed to use on-site soil temperature data to
determine the beginning of the growing season and use NRCS WETS data to determine the end of the
growing season. During MY -4, the beginning of the growing season was extended by 16 days based on
data from the soil temperature probes. All monitoring gages were downloaded on a quarterly basis and
maintained on an as needed basis. The success criteria for wetland hydrology is to have a free
groundwater surface within 12 inches of the ground surface for 7 percent of the growing season, which
is measured on consecutive days under typical precipitation conditions. All groundwater gages met the
annual wetland hydrology success criteria for MY -4. Refer to Appendix 2 for the groundwater gage
locations and Appendix 5 for groundwater hydrology data and plots.
The USACE requested to have the pre -construction groundwater gage data overlain with the MY -4 gage
data to illustrate the hydrologic response of the wetlands associated with rainfall events at the Wetland
Site. Wildlands overlaid the pre -construction groundwater well data with the closest monitoring
groundwater well data and rain data. Refer to Appendix 5 for pre and post construction groundwater
gage comparison plots.
1.2.7 Maintenance Plan
Wildlands is currently working with a contractor to repair isolated areas of bank erosion as described in
section 1.2.4 above.
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 4 Annual Report — FINAL 1-5

1.3 Monitoring Year 4 Summary
With the exception of pool deposition on UTI and some isolated areas of bank scour on Little
Troublesome Creek, all streams within the Stream Site are stable and functioning as designed.
Deposition observed on UT1 will be monitored for indications of long term instability. Repair work is
being coordinated on Little Troublesome Creek and will be implemented this winter. The overall,
average stem density for the Sites is on track to meet the MY -5 and MY -7 success criteria; however, a
few individual vegetation plots did not meet the MY -7 success criteria as noted in the Integrated Current
Condition Plan View Map. While the stream hydrology success criteria was met during the initial two
years of monitoring, additional bankfull events were documented in MY -4. All groundwater gages met
the MY -4 success criteria. 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.
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 4 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). Cross section data was collected using a total
station and was georeferenced. All data collected for the Integrated Current Condition Mapping was
recorded using a Trimble handheld GPS with sub -meter accuracy and processed using 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 (USACE,
2003) standards. Vegetation monitoring protocols followed the Carolina Vegetation Survey-NCDMS
Level 2 Protocol (Lee et al., 2008). Reporting follows the NCDMS Monitoring Report Template and
Guidance Version 1.2.1 (NCDMS, 2009). Narrative background and supporting information formerly
found in these reports can be found in the Mitigation Plan documents available on NCDMS's website.
All raw data supporting the tables and figures in the appendices are available from NCDMS upon
request.
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 4 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 -DMS 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 Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS). 2009. Monitoring Report Template and
Guidance. Version 1.2.1. Raleigh, NC.
NC Interagency Review Team (IRT). 2009. DRAFT (For Public Review and Comment) Regulatory
Guidance for the Calculation of Stream and Buffer Mitigation Credit for Buffer Widths
Different From Standard Minimum Widths. Version 4.4.
Rosgen, D. L. 1994. A classification of natural rivers. Catena 22:169-199.
Rosgen, D.L. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Pagosa Springs, CO: Wildland Hydrology Books.
Rosgen, D.L. 1997. A Geomorphological Approach to Restoration of Incised Rivers. Proceedings of the
Conference on Management of Landscapes Disturbed by Channel Incision. Center For
Computational Hydroscience and Bioengineering, Oxford Campus, University of Mississippi,
Pages 12-22.
State Climate Office of North Carolina (SCONC). 2013. CRONOS Database ECONet weather station at
Upper Piedmont Research Station (REID), in Reidsville, NC.
http://nc-climate.ncsu.edu/cronos?station=REID&temporal=daily
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines. USACE, NCDENR-
DWR, USEPA, NCWRC.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2002. Natural Resources Conservation Service,
Climate Information for Rockingham County, NC (1971-2000). WETS Station: Reidsville NW,
NC7202.
http://www.wcc.nres.usda.gov/ftpref/support/climate/wetlands/nc/37157.txt
United States Geological Survey (USGS). 1998. North Carolina Geology.
http://www.geology.enr.state.nc.us/usgs/caroIina.htm
Wildlands Engineering, Inc (2011). Little Troublesome Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan. NCDMS, Raleigh,
NC.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 2011. Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site Baseline Monitoring
Document and As -Built Baseline Report. NCDMS, Raleigh, NC.
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 4 Annual Report — FINAL 3-1

APPENDIX 1. General Tables and Figures

7)103220060
nCkIb
03010103240010 03010103
�010h1,Q3220060
i�
0303000,'
{
i
/
i
03010
Stream Sft
Lrocatlon t`
03030002010030
03030002
03030002010020
I
The subject project site is an environmental restoration site of the
NCDEQ Department of Mitigation Services (DMS) and is
encompassed by a recorded conservation easement, but is
bordered by land under private ownership. Accessing the site may
require traversing areas near or along the easement boundary and
therefore access by the general public is not permitted. Access by
authorized personnel of state and federal agencies or their
designees/contractors involved in the development, oversight,
and stewardship of the restoration site is permitted within the terms
and timeframes of their defined roles. Any intended site visitation or
activity by any person outside of these previously sanctioned roles
and activites requires prior coordination with DMS.
r i
n Hydrologic Unit Code (14)
- NCDMS Targeted Local Watershed
�a
1030
r
03010104
03010104021010
Wetland Sibs
Location
03030002010040
03030002020070
10104032010
Directions:
The proposed stream
mitigation project area
is located south of Turner
Road, east of the
intersection of Turner
Road and Way Street in
the City of Reidsville,
North Carolina. The
proposed wetland
mitigation project area
is located approximately
3,000 feet southwest of
the intersection of NC
Highway 150 and Mizpah
Church Road, south of
the City of Reidsville.
Figure 1 Project Vicinity Map
��+�I, 0 0.75 1.5 Miles Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
�► , I I I NCDMS Project Number 94640
W I L. 13 L A N 13 S Monitoring Year 4 -2015
L NG I N LL RI NG
Rockingham County, NC

Figure 2a Project Component/Asset Map
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
Stream Site
0 250 500 Feet NCDMS Project Number 94640
WILDLANDSI i I Monitoring Year 4-2015
ENGINEERING rk�
Rockingham County, NC

Conservation Easement
Wetland Restoration
Wetland Creation
Wetland Enhancement
N
X[
Figure 2b Project Component/Asset Map
— Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
_ Wetland Site
0 125 250 Feet NCDMS Project Number 94640
WILDLANDS I i I Monitoring Year 4-2015
ENGINtE R NG
Rockingham County, NC

Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2015
mvr
Mitigation Credits
StrearnA
Riparian
Wetland Non -Riparian Wetland
Buffer Nutrient
• -
Phosphorous Nutrient
OffsetNitrogen
Type R
RE
R
RE R RE
Totals 4,968
N/A
10.2
2.8 N/A I N/A
N/A I N/A
N/A
Project Components
F, Reach ID
As -Built
Stationing/
Location
Existing
Footage/
Acreage
Restoration or
Approach Restoration Equivalent
Restoration Footage/
Acreage
Mitigation
Ratio (SMU/
Cred itSA
WMU)
Irvin Creek - Reach 1
103+00 to 106+69
1,640
Priority 1 Restoration
1,793
1:1
1,793
108+80 to 123+05
123+05 to 128+52
Irvin Creek - Reach 2
1,505
Priority 1 Restoration
1,866
1:1
1,866
129+19 to 142+38
Little Troublesome Creek
200+97 to 211+73
1,080
Priority 1 Restoration
1,076
1:1
1,076
UTl
400+00 to 402+33
184
Priority 1/2 Restoration
233
1:1
233
Wetlands
RW1
N/A
N/A
Restoration Restoration
8.6
1:1
8.6
RWl
N/A
N/A
Creation Restoration
4.9
3:1
1.6
RW1
N/A
3.7
Enhancement Restoration Equivalent
3.7
1.3:1**
2.8
Restoration Level
Stream
(LF)
Component Summation
Riparian Wetland Non -Riparian
(acres) Wetland
Buffer
(square
feet)
Upland
(acres)
Riverine Non-Riverine
Restoration
4,968
8.6
Enhancement
3.7
Enhancement I
-
Enhancement 11
Creation
4.9
Preservation
High Quality Preservation
^There is potential to gain more Stream Mitigation Units if the NC IRT Draft Regulatory Guidance for the Calculation of Stream and Buffer Mitigation Credit (March 11, 2009) is used for calculating Stream
Mitigation Units.
* Stream and wetland credits were modified during Monitoring Year 4 based on examination of as -built surveys. Stream credits were also calculated using the 2003 Stream Mitigation Guidlines instead of using
the INC IRT Draft Regulatory Guidance for the Calculation of Stream and Buffer Mitigation Credit (March 11, 2009).
**The higher enhancement ratio was agreed to with Todd Tugwell, with the USACE, during a March 9, 2011 meeting for several reasons. The higher ratio is warranted because of the low
quality of the existing wetland enhancement zone. Previously the enhancement zone, like the restoration and creation zones, was used for farming. The hydrology of the site has been
altered by a drainage ditch and a berm along Little Troublesome Creek. There is no vegetation on the site except for some areas of grasses and cultivated crops. Enhancement activities
performed on the site will include improving the hydrology of the enhancement zone (as well as the creation and restoration zones) and restoring the native vegetation. Therefore the
functional uplift of the enhancement portion of the project will be nearly the same as that of the restoration zone and, thus, a high ratio for enhancement is appropriate.

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2015
Activity or Report
Mitigation Plan
Date Collection
Complete
June 2011
Completion or
Scheduled Delivery
June 2011
Final Design - Construction Plans
August 2011
August 2011
Construction
April 2012
May 2012
Temporary S&E mix applied to entire project areal
April 2012
May 2012
Permanent seed mix applied to reach/segments
April 2012
May 2012
Bare root plantings for reach/segments
April 2012
May 2012
Baseline Monitoring Document (Year 0 Monitoring - baseline)
May 2012
June 2012
Year 1 Monitoring
October 2012
December 2012
Year 2 Monitoring
October 2013
December 2013
Year 3 Monitoring
November 2014
December 2014
Year 4 Monitoring
November 2015
December 2015
Year 5 Monitoring
2016
December 2016
Year 6 Monitoringz
2017
December 2017
Year 7 Monitoringz
2018
December 2018
Seed and mulch is added as each section of construction is completed.
'Monitoring Year 6 and 7 include monitoring the Wetland Site only.
Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2015
Designer
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Jeff Keaton, PE
312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225
Raleigh, NC 27609
919.851.9986
Construction Contractor
Fluvial Solutions
Peter Jelenevsky
PO Box 28749
Raleigh, NC 28749
Planting Contractor - Stream Site & Wetland Site
Bruton Natural Systems, Inc.
PO Box 1197
Charlie Bruton
Freemont, NC 27830
919.242.6555
Seeding Contractor - Stream and Wetland Site
Fluvial Solutions
Peter Jelenevsky
PO Box 28749
Raleigh, NC 28749
Seed Mix Sources
Mellow Marsh Farm
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Arborgen
Dykes and Son Nursery
NC Forestry Service, Claridge Nursery
Monitoring Performers
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Stream, Vegetation, and Wetland Monitoring POC
Jason Lorch
919.851.9986, ext. 107

Table 4. Project Baseline Information and Attributes
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2015
Project Information
Project Name Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
County Rockingham
Project Area (acres) Stream Site: 33 acres, Wetland Site: 19 acres
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude) 36° 20' 96"N, 79° 39' 31"W
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province Inner Piedmont Belt of the Piedmont
River Basin Cape Fear
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8 -digit 03030002
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14 -digit 03030002010030
DWQ Sub -basin 03-06-01
Project Drainiage Area (acres) 3,245
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area 17%
CGIA Land Use Classification 55% Forest Land,17% Cultivated Land, 28% Developed
Reach Summary Information
Irvin Creek Irvin Creek Little
Parameters Troublesome UT1 RW1
Length of reach (linear feet) - Post -Restoration 2,095
1,932
1,171
233
N/A
Drainage area (acres) 525
584
3,245
62
N/A
NCDWQ stream identification score 44.5
44.5
45.5
26.5
N/A
NCDWQ Water Quality Classification C
C
C; NSW
C
C; NSW
Morphological Desription (stream type) Perennial
Perennial
Perennial
Intermittent
N/A
Evolutionary trend (Simon's Model) - Pre -Restoration Stage IV
Stage IV
Stage IV
Stage IV
N/A
Underlying mapped soils CsA
CsA
CsA
CsA
CsA / HcA
Somewhat
Drainage class Poorly-
Drained
Somewhat
Poorly-
Drained
Somewhat
Poorly-
Drained
Somewhat
Poorly-
Drained
Somewhat
Poorly -
Drained /
Poorly
Drained
Soil Hydric status No
No
No
No
No / Yes
Slope 0-2%
0-2%
0-2%
0-2%
1 0-2%
FEMA classification Zone AE
Native vegetation community Bottom -land forest
Percent composition of exotic invasive vegetation - Post -Restoration 0%
Regulatory Considerations
Regulation Applicable? Resolved? Supporting Documentation
Waters of the United States - Section 404
X
X
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Plan;
USACE Nationwide Permit No.27 and DWQ
401 Water Quality Certification No. 3689
Waters of the United States - Section 401
X
X
Division of Land Quality (Dam Safety)
N/A
N/A
N/A
Endangered Species Act
X
X
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Plan;
studies found "no effect" (letter from
USFWS)
Historic Preservation Act
X
X
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Plan;
No historic resources were found to be
impacted (letter from SHPO)
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)/Coastal Area Management
Act (CAMA)
N/A
N/A
N/A
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
X
X
Approved CLOMR
Essential Fisheries Habitat
N/A
N/A
N/A
*LF provided includes portions of the stream that will be monitored and has been reconstructed, but for which mitigation credit will not be claimed. Please refer to Table 1 for the
credit summary lengths.

APPENDIX 2. Visual Assessment Data

- ri7l�li.
.I.i.=.I&Ir.
e_t3
■
i
i ■ 1 .�
,Ar ■
r =-
e ■
Sheet 4 -
"t
- Aerial Photography
Figure 3.0 Integrated Current Condition Plan View
(Key)
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
0 250 500 Feet Stream Site
W I L D L A N D S I I I NCDMS Project Number 94640
ENGINEERING ll
_ Monitoring Year 4 - 2015
Rockingham County, NC
ILI
-
►' �`�
Sheet 1
IF141
■
r
■ JL
,,S�a
■
Conservation Easement
ti
Ery
■
Duke Power R/W
- ri7l�li.
.I.i.=.I&Ir.
e_t3
■
i
i ■ 1 .�
,Ar ■
r =-
e ■
Sheet 4 -
"t
- Aerial Photography
Figure 3.0 Integrated Current Condition Plan View
(Key)
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
0 250 500 Feet Stream Site
W I L D L A N D S I I I NCDMS Project Number 94640
ENGINEERING ll
_ Monitoring Year 4 - 2015
Rockingham County, NC
p
►' �`�
Sheet 1
■
■
N
■ JL
,,S�a
■
Conservation Easement
ti
�■
■
Duke Power R/W
}.
1
�"
■
Sewer Line Easement
.
1
*�I►
■
■
■
Vernal Pool
I ■
Gas Line
t Railroad
■
'.�
Stream Restoration
■
No SMU Credit
■
-
Cross -Section (XS)
Structure
■
Reach Breaks
ri
- ri7l�li.
.I.i.=.I&Ir.
e_t3
■
i
i ■ 1 .�
,Ar ■
r =-
e ■
Sheet 4 -
"t
- Aerial Photography
Figure 3.0 Integrated Current Condition Plan View
(Key)
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
0 250 500 Feet Stream Site
W I L D L A N D S I I I NCDMS Project Number 94640
ENGINEERING ll
_ Monitoring Year 4 - 2015
Rockingham County, NC

Figure 3.1 Integrated Current Condition Plan View
(Sheet 1 of 4)
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
0 75 150 Feet
Stream Site
W I L D L A N D S ` l i I NCDMS Project Number 94640
ENGINEERING
Monitoring Year 4 - 2015
Rockingham County, NC

y �> -- 'f!
f/ PP6 m'
Conservation Easementj C✓Duke Power RIW e
7 -
Easement
Vernal ••.
Irvin Cree each '� a
Railroad
Stream Restoration
No SMU Credit
Cross -Section (XS)
Structure
Reach Break
..Photo • .
Parcelsa
Vegetation Plot Condition - MY4
PP8
Alk
i
Criteria Met
Criteria •t Met
X17
7
PP9
Ah I�1
XS3 {
00
,0.1'
_
Irvin Creek Reach 2'11
PP12
loi /" r 4 i r I ;� r. I. �wI
2014 Aerial Photography

lktry
W I L D L A N D S ,' 0 75 150 Feet
ENGINEERING l I I
Figure 3.3 Integrated Current Condition Plan View
(Sheet 3 of 4)
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
Stream Site
NCDMS Project Number 94640
Monitoring Year 4 - 2015
Rockingham County, NC

PP18
u
�i
flrvi Creek Reach 2 Conservation
PowerDuke
Sewer
Vernal
Line Easement
••.
aGas
Line
PP19
!
Railroad
v
Stream
RestorationNo
+�
���
,$P20
! w
SMU
Designed
Credit
Bankfull
�
a
�P
Cross
Structure
-Section (XS)
Reach
Break
•
s• �
Photo Point (PP)
Parcels
- Little Troublesome
Vegetation
Plot Condition - MY4
reekCriteria
Criteria
Met
Not Met
i7
...
PP2�5�
N UT1
CD
`
'
PP21�
v
XS12
r
PP22
L
I, s
��
i
PP23
�s
=
i
2014 Aerial Photography
1

Figure 3.5 Integrated Current Condition Plan View
i„tvv Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
kWetland Site
W I L D I_. A N D S 0125 250 Feet NCDMS Project Number 94640
E NG I N t t it 114Gkq I I Monitoring Year 4-2015
Rockingham County, NC

Table Sa. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2015
Irvin Creek Reach 1 (1,793 LF)
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Total
Number in
As -Built
Number of Amount of
Unstable Unstable
Segments Footage
%Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust % for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0 0
100%
Degradation
0 0
100%
(Riffle and Run units)
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
16 16
100%
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
16 16
100%
Condition
Length Appropriate
16 16
100%
Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
16 16
100%
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide)
16 16
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, caving, or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3. Engineered
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs
36
36
100%
Structures
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the
sill
24
24
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms
24
24
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
1S%
31
31
100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining -Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth
> 1.6 Rootwads los providing some cover at baseflow
12
12
100%

Table 5b. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2015
Irvin Creek Reach 2 (1,866 LF)
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Total
Number in
As -Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
%Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust % for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0
0
100%
Degradation
0
0
100%
(Riffle and Run units)
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
16 16
100%
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
15 15
100%
Length Appropriate
15 15
100%
Condition
Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
15 15
100%
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide)
15 15
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, caving, or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3. Engineered
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs
35
35
100%
Structures
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the
sill
19
19
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
9
9
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
15%.
19
19
100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining —Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth
> 1.6 Rootwads los providing some cover at baseflow.
19
19
100%

Table 5c. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2015
UT1 (233 LF)
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Total
Number in
As -Built
Number of Amount of
Unstable Unstable
Segments Footage
%Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust % for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0 0
100%
Degradation
0 0
100%
(Riffle and Run units)
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
6 6
100%
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
4 4
100%
Length Appropriate
4 4
100%
Condition
Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
4 4
100%
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide)
4 4
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, caving, or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3. Engineered
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs
6
6
100%
Structures
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the
sill
6
6
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
0
0
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
is%.
0
0
100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining —Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth
> 1.6 Rootwads los providing some cover at baseflow.
0
0
100%

Table 5d. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2015
Little Troublesome Creek (1,076 LF)
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Total
Number in
As -Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
%Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust % for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0
0
100%
Degradation
0
0
100%
(Riffle and Run units)
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
5 5
100%
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
4 4
100%
Length Appropriate
4 4
100%
Condition
Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
4 4
100%
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide)
4 4
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, caving, or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3. Engineered
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs
9
9
100%
Structures
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the
sill
6
6
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
1
1
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
15%.
4
4
100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining —Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth
> 1.6 Rootwads los providing some cover at baseflow.
4
4
100%

Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2015
Planted Acreage 33.7
Easement Acreage 52
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Mapping
Number
% of
Planted
Acreage
% of
Areas of points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
1,000 0
0
0.0%
Combined
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Threshold
of
0
Planted
Acreage
(Ac)
Polygons
Acreage
Bare Areas
Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material.
0.1
0
0
0.0%
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 4, or 5 stem count
Low Stem Density Areas
0.1
0
0.0
0.0%
criteria.
Total
0
0.0
0.0%
Areas with woody stems of a size class that are obviously small given the monitoring
Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor
0.25 acres
0
0
0%
year.
Cumulative Total
0
0.0
0.0%
Easement Acreage 52
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Mapping Number
Threshold of
(SF) Polygons
Combined
Acreage
% of
Planted
Acreage
Invasive Areas of Concern
Areas of points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
1,000 0
0
0.0%
Easement Encroachment Areas
Areas of points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
none 0
0
0%

Stream Photographs
Monitoring Year 4

y.
Photo Point 1— looking upstream (5/4/2015) Photo Point 1— looking downstream (5/4/2015)
k
Photo Point 3 — looking upstream (5/4/2015) Photo Point 3 — looking downstream (5/4/2015)
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data— Stream Photographs

Photo Point 4 — looking upstream (5/4/2015) Photo Point 4— looking downstream (5/4/2015)
1j•
Photo Point 5 — looking upstream (5/4/2015) Photo Point 5 — looking downstream (5/4/2015)
Photo Point 6 — looking upstream (5/4/2015) Photo Point 6 — looking downstream (5/4/2015)
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data—Stream Photographs

Photo Point 7 — looking downstream (5/4/2015)
Photo Point 9 — looking upstream (5/4/2015) Photo Point 9 — looking downstream (5/4/2015)
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data— Stream Photographs

Photo Point 11— looking upstream (5/4/2015) Photo Point 11— looking downstream (5/4/2015)
Photo Point 12 — looking upstream (5/4/2015) Photo Point 12 — looking downstream (5/4/2015)
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data— Stream Photographs

Photo Point 13 - looking upstream (5/4/2015) 1 Photo Point 13 - looking downstream (5/4/2015)
Photo Point 14 - looking upstream (5/4/2015) Photo Point 14 - looking downstream (5/4/2015)
Photo Point 15 - looking upstream (5/4/2015) Photo Point 15 - looking downstream (5/4/2015)
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data- Stream Photographs

Photo Point 17 — looking upstream (5/4/2015) Photo Point 17 — looking downstream (5/4/2015)
V.r
AMM.-
Photo Point 18 — looking upstream (5/4/2015) Photo Point 18 — looking downstream (5/4/2015)
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data —Stream Photographs

Photo Point 19 — looking upstream (5/4/2015) 1 Photo Point 19 — looking downstream (5/4/2015)
Photo Point 20 — looking upstream - Irvin (5/4/2015) 1 Photo Point 20 — looking upstream — LTC (5/4/2015)
Photo Point 20 — looking downstream - LTC (5/4/2015)
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
rr' Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data — Stream Photographs

Photo Point 21— looking upstream (5/4/2015) 1 Photo Point 21— looking downstream (5/4/2015)
Photo Point 22 — looking upstream (5/4/2015) 1 Photo Point 22 — looking downstream (5/4/2015)
Photo Point 23 — looking upstream (5/4/2015) Photo Point 23 — looking downstream (5/4/2015)
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data—Stream Photographs

Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data— Stream Photographs

Vegetation Photographs
Wetland Site
Monitoring Year 4

Vegetation Plot 1 (6/3/2015) 1 Vegetation Plot 2 (6/3/2015)
Vegetation Plot 3 (6/3/2015) 1 Vegetation Plot 4 (6/3/2015)
Vegetation Plot 5 (6/3/2015) I Vegetation Plot 6 (6/3/2015)
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data—Vegetation Photographs

Vegetation Plot 7 (6/3/2015) 1 Vegetation Plot 8 (6/3/2015)
Vegetation Plot 9 (6/3/2015) 1 Vegetation Plot 10 (6/3/2015)
Vegetation Plot 11 (6/3/2015) I Vegetation Plot 12 (6/3/2015)
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
k� 'L
, W Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data—Vegetation Photographs

Vegetation Plot 14 (6/3/2015)
Vegetation Plot 15 (6/3/2015) 1 Vegetation Plot 16 (6/3/2015)
Vegetation Plot 17 (6/3/2015) I Vegetation Plot 18 (6/3/2015)
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
+' Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data—Vegetation Photographs

Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
k� 'L
, W Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data—Vegetation Photographs

Vegetation Photographs
Stream Site
Monitoring Year 4

c 11 p4,
4
1
i
Vegetation Plot 26 (6/3/2015)
x, .
q
P
�-
'+��},l��
Vegetation Plot 27 (6/3/2015)
x I , 9
-E-C
y ..
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
qwv Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data —Vegetation Photographs
Vegetation Plot 28 (6/3/2015)
q
P
�-
'+��},l��
Vegetation Plot 27 (6/3/2015)
x I , 9
-E-C
y ..
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
qwv Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data —Vegetation Photographs
Vegetation Plot 28 (6/3/2015)

AN
Aiwke
O IN
Vegetation Plot 30 (6/3/2015)
Vegetation Plot 33 (6/3/2015) I Vegetation Plot 34 (6/3/2015)
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
qwv Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data —Vegetation Photographs

Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
k� 'L
, W Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data—Vegetation Photographs

APPENDIX 3. Vegetation Plot Data

Table 7. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2015
MY4 Success Criteria
Plot Met (Y/N)
Tract Mean
1 Y
91%
2 Y
3 Y
4 Y
5 Y
6 Y
7 Y
8 Y
9 Y
10 Y
11 Y
12 Y
13 Y
14 Y
15 N
16 N
17 N
18 Y
19 Y
20 Y
21 Y
22 Y
23 Y
24 Y
25 Y
26 Y
27 Y
28 Y
29 Y
30 Y
31 Y
32 Y
33 Y
34 Y
35 Y

Table 8a. CVS Vegetation Table - Metadata
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2015
Wetland Site
Report Prepared By
Jesse Phillips
Date Prepared
8/12/2015 15:17
database name
LTC - Wetland Site MY4 cvs-eep-entrytool-v2.3.1.mdb
database location
F:\Projects\005-12700 Little Troublesome Creek\Monitoring\Monitoring Year 4\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.
Proj, planted
Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre, for each year. This excludes live stakes.
Proj, total stems
Each project is listed with its TOTAL stems per acre, for each year. This includes live stakes, all planted stems, and all natural/volunteer stems.
Plots
List of plots surveyed with location and summary data (live stems, dead stems, missing, etc.).
Vigor
Frequency distribution of vigor classes for stems for all plots.
Vigor by Spp
Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species.
Damage
List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences and percent of total stems impacted by each.
Damage by Spp
Damage values tallied by type for each species.
Damage by Plot
Damage values tallied by type for each plot.
Planted Stems by Plot and Spp
A matrix of the count of PLANTED living stems of each species for each plot; dead and missing stems are excluded.
ALL Stems by Plot and spp
A matrix of the count of total living stems of each species (planted and natural volunteers combined) for each plot; dead and missing stems are excluded.
PROJ E CT SU M MARY -------------------------------------
Project Code
94640
project Name
Little Troublesome Creek -Cotton Rd Site
Description
Wetland Mitigation Site
Required Plots (calculated)
16
Sampled Plots
22

Table 8b. CVS Vegetation Table - Metadata
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2015
Stream Site
Report Prepared By
Jesse Phillips
Date Prepared
8/12/2015 15:11
database name
LTC - Stream Site MY4 cvs-eep-entrytool-v2.3.1.mdb
database location
F:\Projects\005-12700 Little Troublesome Creek\Monitoring\Monitoring Year 4\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
Proj, planted
Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre, for each year. This excludes live stakes,
Proj, total stems
Each project is listed with its TOTAL stems per acre, for each year. This includes live stakes, all planted stems, and all natural/volunteer stems
Plots
List of plots surveyed with location and summary data (live stems, dead stems, missing, etc.)
Vigor
Frequency distribution of vigor classes for stems for all plots.
Vigor by Spp
Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species.
Damage
List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences and percent of total stems impacted by each
Damage by Spp
Damage values tallied by type for each species.
Damage by Plot
Damage values tallied by type for each plot.
Planted Stems by Plot and Spp
A matrix of the count of PLANTED living stems of each species for each plot; dead and missing stems are excluded
ALL Stems 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
94640
project Name
Little Troublesome Mitigation Site
Description
Stream Mitigation Site
Required Plots (calculated)
13
Sampled Plots
13

Table 9. Planted and Total Stem Counts
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2015
Wetland Site
Current Plot Data (MY4 2015)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
94640-WEI-0001
PnoLS P -all T
94640-WEI-0002
PnoLS P -all T
94640-WEI-0003
PnoLS P -all T
94640-WEI-0004
PnoLS P -all T
94640-WEI-0005
PnoLS P -all T
94640-WEI-0006
PnoLS P -all T
cerrubrum
red maple
Tree
5
Inus serrulata
hazel alder
Shrub
2
2
2
1
1
1
2 2
2
1
1
1
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
3
3
3
2
2
2
5
5
5
3 3
3
3
3
3
Cephalanthus occidentalis
common buttonbush
Shrub
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
4 4
4
5
5
5
Fraxinus americana
white ash
Tree
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
3
3
23
7
7
7
3 3
3
11
11
11
2
2
2
Liquidambarstyraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
20
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
Nyssa sylvatica
blackgum
Tree
1
1
1
1 1
1
5
5
5
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
7
7
7
2
2
2
5
5
5
3
3
3
1
1
1
Quercus michouxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
1
1
1
3
3
3
1 1
1
1
1
1
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
4 1 4
4
1
1
1
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
Tree
Sambucus canadensis
Common Elderberry
Shrub
Unknown
Shrub or Tree
Stem count 14 14 14 10 10
size (ares) 1 1
size (ACRES)i 0.02 1 0.02
Species counti 5 1 5 I 5 1 4 1 4 1
Stems per ACREI 566.6 566.6 566.6 404.7 404.7
55
6
2226
20 20 20 18gl 18 21 21 21 12 12 12
1 1 1 1
1 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
1 6 1 6 1 6 1 7 1 7 1 7 5 1 5 1 5 5 1 5 5
809.4 809.4 809.4 728.4 728.4 728.4 849.8 849.8 849.8 485.6 485.6 485.6
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
Pnol-S: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes
T: Total Stems

Table 9. Planted and Total Stem Counts
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2015
Wetland Site
Current Plot Data (MY4 2015)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
94640-WEI-0007
PnoLS P -all T
94640-WEI-0008
PnoLS P -all T
94640-WEI-0009
PnoLS P -all T
94640-WEI-0010
PnoLS P -all T
94640-WEI-0011
PnoLS P -all T
94640-WEI-0012
PnoLS P -all T
cerrubrum
red maple
Tree
1
15
Inus serrulata
hazel alder
Shrub
2
2
2
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
3
3
3
2
2
2
6
6
6
2
2
2
4
4
4
1
1
1
Cephalanthus occidentalis
common buttonbush
Shrub
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Fraxinus americana
white ash
Tree
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
9
9
29
3
3
18
2
2
2
5
5
5
1
1
4
Liquidambarstyraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
5
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
Nyssa sylvatica
blackgum
Tree
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
3
3
3
5
5
5
4
4
4
3
3
3
1
1
4
Quercus michouxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
2
2
2
5
5
5
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
1
1
1
5
5
5
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
Tree
Sambucus canadensis
Common Elderberry
Shrub
Unknown
Shrub or Tree
Stem count 16 16
size (ares) 1
size (ACRES)i 0.02
Species counti 4 1 4 1
Stems per ACREI 647.5 647.5
36
4
1457
14 14 14 16 16
1 1
1 0.02 0.02
1 5 1 5 1 5 1 4 1 4 1
1566.'61566.61566.61647.51647.51
46 12 12 12 12 12 1 12 12 1 12 23
1 1 1
0.02 0.02 0.02
5 1 5 5 5 3 3 3 6 6 7
1862 1485.61485.61485.61485.61485.61485 6 485.6 485.6 930.8
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
Pnol-S: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes
T: Total Stems

Table 9. Planted and Total Stem Counts
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2015
Wetland Site
Current Plot Data (MY4 2015)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
94640-WEI-0013
PnoLS P -all T
94640-WEI-0014
PnoLS P -all T
94640-WEI-0015
PnoLS P -all T
94640-WEI-0016
PnoLS P -all T
94640-WEI-0017
PnoLS P -all T
cerrubrum
red maple
Tree
Inus serrulata
hazel alder
Shrub
2
2
2
1
1
1
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
2
2
2
3
3
3
2 2
2
2
2
2
Cephalanthus occidentalis
common buttonbush
Shrub
52
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
1
1
1
2
2
Fraxinus americana
white ash
Tree
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
5
5
5
2
2
2
2 2
24
1
1
1
3
3
4
Liquidambarstyraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
Nyssa sylvatica
blackgum
Tree
2
2
2
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
6
6
6
1 1
1
1
1
1
Quercus michouxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
1
1
1
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
4
4
4
2 1
2
2
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
Tree
Sambucus canadensis
Common Elderberry
Shrub
Unknown
Shrub or Tree
Stem count 14 14 14 16 16 16 5 5
size (ares) 1 1 1
size (ACRES) 0.02 0.02 0.02
Species count 5 5 5 6 6 6 3 3
Stems per ACRE 566.6 566.6 566.6 647.5 647.5 647.5 202.3 202.3
27
3
1093
6 6
1
0.02
4 4
242.8 242.8
56
4
2266
4 4 5
1
0.02
2 2
L161,91 161.9 202.3
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
Pnol-S: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes
T: Total Stems

Table 9. Planted and Total Stem Counts
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2015
Wetland Site
Current Plot Data (MY4 2015)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
94640-WEI-0018
PnoLS P -all T
94640-WEI-0019
PnoLS P -all T
94640-WEI-0020
PnoLS P -all T
94640-WEI-0021
PnoLS P -all T
94640-WEI-0022
PnoLS P -all T
cerrubrum
red maple
Tree
15
10
Inus serrulata
hazel alder
Shrub
4
4
4
2
2
2
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
1
1
1
5
2
2
12
Cepholanthus occidentalis
common buttonbush
Shrub
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
1
1
6
1
1
1
1
1
1
Fraxinus americana
white ash
Tree
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
4
4
4
2
2
7
5
5
15
2
2
17
2
2
14
Liquidambarstyraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
5
5
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
Nyssa sylvatica
blackgum
Tree
1
1
1
3
3
3
1
1
1
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
5
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
5
15
8
8
13
Quercus michouxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
5
5
5
1
1 1
1
1
1 1
1
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
Tree
Sambucus canadensis
Common Elderberry
Shrub
Unknown
Shrub or Tree
Stem count 11 11
size (ares) 1
size (ACRES)i 0.02
Species counti 4 4 1
Stems per ACREI 445.2 445.2 1
31 10 10
1
0.02
5 5 5
1255 4044j 404.71
25
7
1012
9 9
1
0.02
4 4
1364.21364.21
29 16 16
1
0.02
4 6 6
1174 647.5 647.5
56
8
2266
15
6
LMI
15
1
0.02
6
607 11295
32
6
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
Pnol-S: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes
T: Total Stems

Table 9. Planted and Total Stem Counts
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2015
Wetland Site
Annual Means
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
MY4 (2015)
PnoLS P -all 1 T
MY3 (2014)
PnoLS P -all T
MY2 (20 3)
PnoLS P -all T
MY1 (20 2)
PnoLS P -all T
MYO (2012)
PnoLS P -all T
cerrubrum
red maple
Tree
45
33
Inusserrulata
hazel alder
Shrub
17
17
17
17
17
17
20 20
20
31
31
31
62
62
62
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
46
46
61
41
41
42
43 43
43
55
55
55
75
75
75
Cephalanthus occidentalis
common buttonbush
Shrub
73
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
21
21
76
20
20
20
20 20
20
30
30
30
38
38
38
Fraxinus americana
white ash
Tree
1
1
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
74
74
197
70
70
170
64 64
64
68
68
68
71
71
71
Liquidambarstyraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
35
20
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
2
Nyssasylvatica
blackgum
Tree
21
21
21
21
21
21
25 25
25
27
27
27
17
17
17
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
62
62
80
60
60
86
67 67
67
75
75
75
82
82
82
Quercus michouxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
16
16
16
16
16 1
16
20 20
20
24
24
24
18
18
18
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
26
26 1
26
26
26
27
30 30
30
35
35
35
11
11
11
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
Tree
1
Sambucus canadensis
Common Elderberry
Shrub
25
Unknown
Shrub or Tree
7
7
7
Stem count 283 283 1
size (ares) 22
size (ACRES) 0.54
Species count 8 8
per ACRE 520.6 520.6
574 271 271
22
10LL
10565
553
14
1017
289 289 289 346 346 346 381 381 381
22 22 22
0.54 0.54 0.54
8 8 8 9 9 99Stems
531.6 531.6 531.6 636.5 636.5 636.5 700.8 1700.8 1700.8
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
Pnol-S: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes
T: Total Stems

Table 9. Planted and Total Stem Counts
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2015
Stream Site
Current Plot Data (MY4 2015)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
94640-WEI-0023
Pnol-S P -all T
94640-WEI-0024
Pnol-S P -all T
94640-WEI-0025
Pnol-S P -all T
94640-WEI-0026
Pnol-S P -all T
94640-WEI-0027
Pnol-S P -all T
94640-WEI-0028
Pnol-S P -all T
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
1
3
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
4
4
4
7
7
8
4 4 6
4
4
4
1
1
1
2
2
2
Corpinus caroliniona
American hornbeam
Tree
4
4
4
1
1
1
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
2
2
2
Froxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
12 12 12
6
6
6
7
7
7
3
3
3
Liquidambarstyracifluo
sweetgum
Tree
21
15
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
3
3
3
2
2
5
2
Platanusoccidentolis
American sycamore
Tree
5
5
8
2
2
5
2 2 2
5
5
5
12
12
13
10
10
10
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
4
4
4
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
Tree
2
2
2
Salix sericea
Isilky willow
IShrub
2
3
Unknown
IShrub or Tree
Stem count 13 13
size (ares) 1
size (ACRES) 0.02
Species count 4 4
Stems per ACRE 526.1 526.1
37
5
1497
25
8
1012
25
1
0.02
8
1012
50
10
2023
18 1 18 22
1
0.02
3 3 4
728.4 728.4 890.3
15
3
607 1
15
1
0.02
3
607 1
17
4
688
21 21
1
0.02
4 4
849.8 849.8
25
5
1012
15
3
607
15
1
0.02
3
607
15
3
607
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
PnoLS: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes
T: Total Stems

Table 9. Planted and Total Stem Counts
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2015
Stream Site
Current Plot Data (MY4 2015)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
94640-WEI-0029
Pnol-S P -all FT
94640-WEI-0030
Pnol-S P -all T
94640-WEI-0031
Pnol-S P -all T
94640-WEI-0032
Pnol-S P -all T
94640-WEI-0033
Pnol-S P-allT
94640-WEI-0034
Pnol-S P -all T
94640-WEI-0035
Pnol-S P -all T
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
5
5
5
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
1
6
6
6
9
9
9
7 7 9
2
2
2
4
4
4
3
3
8
Corpinus caroliniona
American hornbeam
Tree
3
3
3
2
2
2
6
6
6
7
7
7
1
1
1
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
1
1
1
Froxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
6
6
6
2
2
2
7
7
9
2 2 2
1
1
1
Liquidambarstyracifluo
sweetgum
Tree
6
5
5
10
20
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
2
2
2
4
4
4
1 1 1
5
5
5
Platanusoccidentolis
American sycamore
Tree
10
10
10
2
2
2
2
2
2
10 10 12
1
1
1
2
3
3
13
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
1
1
2
6
6
6
4
4
5
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
Tree
3
3
3
Salixsericea
Isilky willow
IShrub
2
Unknown
I
IShrub or Tree
Stem count 19 19
size (ares) 1
size (ACRES) 0.02
Species count3 3
Stems per ACRE 768.9 768.9
28
6
1133
14 14 19 22 22
1 1
0.02 0.02
5 5 6 4 4
566.6 566.6 7 .91 890.3 890.3
29
5
1174
20 20 24 10 10
1 1
0.02 0.02
4 4 4 4 4
809.4 809.4 971.2 404.7 404.7
26
6
1052
23 23
1
0.02
5 5
930.8 930.8
30
7
1214
15
6
607
15
1
0.02
6
607
56
8
2266
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
PnoLS: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes
T: Total Stems

Table 9. Planted and Total Stem Counts
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2015
Stream Site
Annual Means
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
MY4 (2015)
PnoLS P -all T
MY3 (2014)
PnoLS P -all T
MY2 (2013)
PnoLS P -all T
MY1(2012)
PnoLS P -all T
MYO (2012)
PnoLS P -all T
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
I
18
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
53
53
64
36
36
36
33
33
33
36
36
36
36
36
36
Corpinus caroliniona
American hornbeam
Tree
24
24
24
39
39
39
44
44
44
50
50
50
56
56
56
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
6
6
6
8
8
8
Froxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
49
49
51
52
52
52
55
55
55
63
63
63
67
67
67
Liquidambarstyracifluo
sweetgum
Tree
82
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
17
17
22
19
19
19
21
21
21
31
31
31
37
37
37
Platanusoccidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
64
64
85
64
64
64
65
65
65
67
67
67
68
68
68
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
15
15
17
16
16
16
17
17
17
20
20
20
22
22
22
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
Tree
5
5
5
5
5
5
11
11
11
13
13
13
11
11
11
Salix sericea
silky willow
Shrub
7
Unknown
Shrub or Tree
1
1
1
Stem count
size (ACRES)0.32
size (ares)L2J
Species count8
Stems per ACRE
230
230
378
235 235 235 251 251 251 286 286 286 306 306 306
13 13 13 13
0.32 0.32 0.32
8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 9 9 9
731.5 1731.51731.51781.41781.41 781.4 890.3 1890.3 1890.3 952.6 1952.6 1952.6
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
PnoLS: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes
T: Total Stems

APPENDIX 4. Morphological Summary Data and Plots

Table 10a. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2015
Irvin Creek Reaches 1 and 2
(-): Data was not provided
'Design parameters were expanded during the final design phase.
*LF provided includes portions of the stream that will be monitored and has been reconstructed, but for which mitigation credit will not be claimed. Please refer to Table 1 in Appendix 1 for the credit summary lengths.
APool to pool spacing calculations were measured using the most downstream pool in the meander for the as -built compared to the design pool to pool spacing, which included pools and plunge pools in the min and max values
Gage
Irvin
Min
Creek Reach
Pre -Restoration Condition
I Irvin Creek
Max Min
Reach
2
Max
Collins;
Min
Creek
Max
Reference Reach Data
UT to UT to
RockyParameter
Belews Creed
Min I Max Min I Max
SpencerCreek
Min I Max
Design'
Irvin Creek Irvin Creek
Min I Max Min I Max
Irvin
Min
Creek Reach
As-Built/Baseline
1 Irvin
Max Min
Creek Reach
2
Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
17.7
15.2
17.2
11.9
20.1
14.4
12.2
8.7
19.0
19.0
18.6
19.7
18.1
20.9
Floodprone Width (ft)
21.0
18.0
21.0
60
200
72
229
80+
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
Bankfull Mean Depth
1.5 1.9 2.0 1.6
2.7 2.0 1.3 1.2 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.6
1.6
Bankfull Max Depth
N/A
1.8
2.4
2.6
3.3
4.2
2.7
1.8
1.9
2.2
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.4
2.4
Bankfull Cross-sectional Area (ft2)
27.3 30.6 32.8 32.9 27.4 16.3 10.6 29.7 29.7 29.3 33.7 29.0
32.7
Width/Depth Ratio
11.5
8.0
8.6
4.4
12.1
7.6
9.1
7.3
12.0
12.0
11.5
11.8
11.3
13.3
Entrenchment Ratio
1.2 1.2 1.2 2.0 3.0 34.7 6.0 26.3 2.2+ 2.2+ 2.2+ 2.2+ 2.2+
2.2+
Bank Height Ratio
1.9
1
3.3
2.3
2.5
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
d50 (mm)
32.8 24.2 22.6 18.6
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
-
-
-
- -
- -
18
92
17
73
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.0010
0.0250
0.0019
0.0170
0.0030
0.0080
0.0606 0.0892
0.0100 0.0670
0.0060 0.0080
0.0070 0.0147
0.0039
0.0215
0.0021
0.0280
Pool Length (ft)
-
-
-
32
141
46
85
Pool Max Depth (ft)
N/A
2.1
3.7
2.3
3.3
2.4
4.6
2.2
2.5
2.8
4.0
2.9
4.0
3.7
4.2
3.6
4.0
Pool Spacing (ft)A
39
60
27
76
32
F 80
75
26 81
13 1 47
76
133
77
135
57
236
91
142
Pool Volume (ft3)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
39
81
46
94
31 32
24 52
57 152
58 154
52
151
49
86
Radius of Curvature (ft)
57
114
100
251
16 27
5 22
38 57
38 58
38
59
38
62
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
N/A
3.2
6.4
6.6
14.6
2.2 4.1
1.5 2.8
1.8 3.1
1.8 3.1
2.0
3.1
2.0
3.2
Meander Wave Length (ft)
86
175
175
348
71 101
54 196
152 228
154 231
150
235
166
229
Meander Width Ratio
2.2
4.6
3.0
5.5
2.15 2.22
2.8 6.0
3.0 8.0
3.0 8.0
2.7
7.9
2.6
4.5
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
0.1/0.6/15/56/98/>2048
0.1/0.3/5/25/31/45
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
SC/SC/23/49/64/128
SC/SC/19/49/79/180
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) Ib/ftz
N/A
0.88
0.42
0.38
0.43
0.38
0.41
0.40
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (Capacity) W/mz
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
0.67
0.82
0.82
0.91
1.68
3.40
1.10
0.50
0.82
0.91
0.82
0.91
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
17
17
-
-
-
-
17
17
17
17
Rosgen Classification
G4c G4c E4 E5 E4b E4/C4 C4 C4 C C
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
3.3
3.0
1
3.3
3.0
3.3
2.7
1
3.1
3.1
3.4
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
90 100 115 150 125 85 N/A 90 100 90 100
Q-NFF regression
N/A
110
126
Q-USGS extrapolation
- -
Q -Mannings
122
99
1
102
Valley Length (ft)
1,491 1,505 - -
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
1,640
1,505
-
-
-
2,057*
1,919*
2,095*
1,932*
Sinuosity (ft)l
1
1.1
1.0
-
1.2
1.1
1.1
1.3
1.2
1.3
1.2
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.0030
0.0070
0.0235
0.0132
N/A'
N/A'
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.0107 0.0043 0.0045 0.0049 0.0045 0.0047
(-): Data was not provided
'Design parameters were expanded during the final design phase.
*LF provided includes portions of the stream that will be monitored and has been reconstructed, but for which mitigation credit will not be claimed. Please refer to Table 1 in Appendix 1 for the credit summary lengths.
APool to pool spacing calculations were measured using the most downstream pool in the meander for the as -built compared to the design pool to pool spacing, which included pools and plunge pools in the min and max values

Table 10b. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2015
Little Troublesome Creek and LIT1
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
N/A
5.2
28.7
refer to table 5a
1
7.8
32.3
10.9
32.6
1 41.0
Floodprone Width (ft)
8.0 93.0
100+ 285+ 36.7
200+
Bankfull Mean Depth
1.2 2.6
0.6 2.7 0.5 2.2
2.7
Bankfull Max Depth
1.9 3.3
0.9 3.8 1.0 4.1
4.17
Bankfull Cross-sectional Area (ft z)
6.4 73.6
5.0 86.6 5.1 77.4
87.1
Width/Depth Ratio
1 4.3 111.2
112.0 112.0 1 23.0 12.2
15.47
Entrenchment Ratio
1.5 3.2
2.2+ 2.2+ 2.2+
2.2+
Bank Height Ratio
1.2 1 2.5 1.6 1 2.8
1.0 1.0 1.0
1.0
d50 (mm)
0.8 9.7
0.4
20.7
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
N/A
refer to table 5a
11
26
79
142
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)l
0.0072 0.0500 0.0007 0.0110
0.0185 0.0369 0.0066 0.0088 0.0231 0.0600 0.0063
0.0126
Pool Length (ft)
18 48 88
159
Pool Max Depth (ft)
2.2 3.3 3.2 5.3
1.2
1.6 4.8
6.7 1.2 5.9
Pool Spacing (ft)^
29 42 46 127
24
43 129
226 35
59 206
267
Pool Volume (ft 3)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
N/A
119
refer to table Sa
27
62
113
258
27
62
113
258
Radius of Curvature (ft)
103 313
16 23 65 97 16 23 65
97
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
3.6 10.9
2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.0
3.0
Meander Wave Length (ft)
179 315
62 94 258 388 62 94 258
388
Meander Width Ratio
4.1
3.5 8.0 3.5 8.0 3.5 8.0 3.5
8.0
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
N/A
refer to table Sa
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
SC/SC/SC/4/13/>2048 0.2/0.5/1/22/30/>2048
SC/SC/0.4/44/64/128 SC/C/21/62/110/180
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) lb/ft'
0.96 0.41
a
N/A' N/A 0.34 0.38 0.53
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (Capacity) W/mZ
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
N/A
0.10
4.95
5.07
refer to table 5a
0.10
5.07
0.10
5.07
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
17 17
17 17 17 17
Rosgen Classification
G5 C5
C5 C5 C5 C4
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
4.4 5.0
2.7 4.3 2.7 4.2 1
4.8
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
14 370
14 370 14 370
Q-NFF regression
- 422
Q-USGS extrapolation
-
Q -Mannings
- 237
Valley Length (ft)
184 982
- -
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
184 1,080
240 1,158* 233 1,171*
Sinuosity (ft)
1.0 1.1
1.3 1.3 1.2 1.3
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
I - -
- - N/Al N/Al
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.0183 0.0033
0.0123 0.0044 0.0126 0.0038
(-): Data was not provided
1Design parameters were expanded during the final design phase.
2Restoration approach was adjusted from a priority 1 to a priority 2 during the final design phase.
3The critical shear stress analysis was not perfomed on the sand bed channels.
*LF provided includes portions of the stream that will be monitored and has been reconstructed, but for which mitigation credit will not be claimed. Please refer to Table 1 in Appendix 1 for the credit summary lengths.
^Pool to pool spacing calculations were measured using the most downstream pool in the meander for the as -built compared to the design pool to pool spacing, which included pools and plunge pools in the min and max values

Table 11 Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross Section)
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2015
Irvin Creek Reaches 1 and 2, Little Troublesome Creek, & UT1
Irvin Creek Reach 1
Dimension and Substrate
Base
Cross
MY1
Section
MY2 I
1 (Riffle)
MY3
MY4
MY5 Base
Cross
MY1
Section
MY2
2
I MY3
..(Pool)
MY4
MY5 Base
MY1
MY2 I
MY3
MY4
MY5 Base
Cross
MY1
Section
MY2
4 (Riffle)
I MY3
MY4 MY5
based on fixed bankfull elevation
722.4
722.1
718.7
718.1
Bankfull Width (ft)
18.6
17.7
17.5
17.5
17.5
19.9
18.0
18.3
16.5
14.7
31.1
31.1
34.5
31.0
28.9
19.7
20.2
25.5
20.5
19.3
Floodprone Width (ft)
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.6
1.5
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.9
2.2
2.4
2.7
2.9
1.9
1.9
1.6
1.7
1.6
1.7
1.7
1.3
1.4
1.4
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
2.4
2.5
2.4
2.4
2.4
3.7
4.0
3.9
4.0
4.2
4.2
4.2
4.5
4.4
4.3
2.6
2.7
2.6
2.5
2.6
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft')
29.3
27.2
26.0
24.5
22.4
36.8
38.6
43.1
44.0
42.7
57.6
57.6
56.5
51.2
46.4
33.7
34.4
33.0
28.8
27.3
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
11.8
11.6
11.8
12.6
13.6
10.7
8.4
7.8
6.2
5.0
16.8
16.8
21.1
18.8
18.0
11.5
11.9
19.8
14.6
13.6
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
•..
Irvin Creek Reach 2
Dimension and Substrate
Base
Cross
MY1
Section
MY2 I
5
MY3
MY4
MY5 Base
MY1
MY2
I MY3
MY4
MY5 Base -1
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5 Base
MY1
MY2
I MY3
..
MY4 MY5
based on fixed bankfull elevation
713.7
713.9
710.5
710.2
Bankfull Width (ft)
35.3
35.6
36.9
34.2
32.9
18.1
18.6
18.0
18.2
17.9
20.9
20.9
32.3
19.5
18.8
29.2
32.0
35.7
26.6
27.8
Floodprone Width (ft)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.2
1.2
1.6
1.5
1.7
1.5
1.5
1.6
1.4
1.1
1.4
1.4
1.7
1.6
1.5
1.7
1.6
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
4.0
4.1
4.2
4.1
4.0
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.7
2.4
2.4
3.6
3.6
3.9
3.7
3.8
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft')
47.9
46.0
49.2
42.3
40.6
29.0
27.8
30.7
27.8
27.1
32.7
28.7
35.1
27.3
26.6
50.1
50.0
54.8
45.5
45.5
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
26.0
27.5
27.6
27.6
26.7
11.3
12.4
10.6
11.9
11.8
13.3
15.2
29.7
13.9
13.3
17.0
20.5
23.3
15.5
16.9
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.8
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
Cross
Section
9 (Riffle)
UTI
Cross
Section
10 •..
Little Troublesome Creek
•..
Dimension and Substrate
Base
MY1
MY2 I
MY3
MY4
MY5 Base
MY1
MY2
I MY3
MY4
MY5 Base
MY1
MY2
FM -Y-37
MY4
MY5 Base I
MY1 I
MY2
I MY3
MY4 MY5
based on fixed bankfull elevation
707.5
707.2
708.9
707.5
Bankfull Width (ft)
10.9
8.0
8.3
6.9
5.8
9.3
9.6
8.9
7.9
6.0
32.6
33.0
31.9
32.1
32.6
41.0
42.2
42.1
40.4
39.2
Floodprone Width (ft)
36.7
35.7
34.3
33.9
34.0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.4
2.7
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.5
3.1
3.1
3.2
3.5
3.0
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.9
1.2
1.2
1.1
1.2
1.1
4.1
4.0
3.9
3.9
4.0
5.9
6.5
7.4
8.3
6.6
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
5.1
4.1
3.7
3.3
2.8
6.4
5.6
4.0
3.1
2.7
87.1
84.6
82.8
82.4
80.7
125.3
128.8
133.4
139.8
116.4
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
23.0
15.5
18.5
14.2
12.2
13.5
16.6
19.7
19.9
13.5
12.2
12.9
12.3
12.5
13.2
13.4
13.8
13.3
11.7
13.2
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Little Troublesome Creek
Cross Section 13
(Riffle)
Dimension and Substrate Base MY1 MY2 I MY3 MY4 MY5
based on fixed bankfull elevation 707.3
Bankfull Width (ft) 34.6 35.7 33.7 31.8 31.4
Floodprone Width (ft) 200+ 200+ 200+ 200+ 200+
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 2.2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.3
Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 4.2 3.9 3.9 3.9 4.0
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ftz) 77.4 74.8 74.4 73.6 70.7
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 15.5 17.1 15.3 13.8 13.9
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio 2.2+ 2.2+ 2.2+ 2.2+ 2.2+
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Table 12a. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2015
Irvin Creek Reach 1
(-): Data was not provided
Min
Max
Min
Med
Max
Min
Med
Max
Min
Med
Max
Min
Med
Max Min Med Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
18.6
19.7
17.7
19.0
20.2
17.5
21.5
25.5
17.5
19.0
20.5
17.5
18.4
19.3
Floodprone Width (ft)
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
Bankfull Mean Depth
1.6
1.7
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.3
1.4
1.4
Bankfull Max Depth
2.4
2.6
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.4
2.5
2.5
2.4
2.5
2.6
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft')
29.3
33.7
27.2
30.8
34.4
26.0
29.5
33.0
24.5
26.7
28.8
22.4
24.9
27.3
Width/Depth Ratio
11.5
11.8
11.6
11.7
11.9
11.8
15.8
19.8
12.6
13.6
14.6
13.6
13.6
13.6
Entrenchment Ratio
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
35.0
-
44.2
23.7
-
41.1
13.1
-
29.3
16.9
-
19.2
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
18
92
11
41
79
33
47
98
26
47
87
26
45
89
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.0039
0.0215
0.0008
0.0075
0.0174
0.0038
0.0060
0.0117
0.0023
0.0102
0.0142
0.0020
0.0071
0.0181
Pool Length (ft)
32
141
33
63
153
42
64
141
45
65
146
39
60
139
Pool Max Depth (ft)
3.7
4.2
4.0
4.2
4.3
3.9
4.2
4.5
4.0
4.2
4.4
4.2
4.3
4.3
Pool Spacing (ft)
57
236
63
105
227
86
120
203
81
115
278
78
108
216
Pool Volume (ft')
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
52
151
Radius of Curvature (ft)
38
59
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
2.0
3.1
Meander Wave Length (ft)
150
235
Meander Width Ratio
2.7
7.9
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
C
C
C
C
C
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
2,095
2,095
2,095
2,095
2,095
Sinuosity (ft)
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
N/A
0.0044
0.0039
0.0038
0.0037
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.0045
0.0048
0.0043
0.0043
0.0041
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
SC/SC/23/49/64/128
0.2/0.7/10/38/58/362
0.1/0.5/2/47/80/128
0.2/0.7/2.0/26.9/43.1/256
0.3/1.0/5.6/28.5/58.6/180
% of Reach with Eroding Banks
0%
0%
0%
0%
(-): Data was not provided

Table 12b. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2015
Irvin Creek Reach 2
(-): Data was not provided
Min
Max
Min
Med
Max
Min
Med
Max
Min
Med
Max
Min
Med
Max Min Med Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
18.1
20.9
18.6
19.8
20.9
18.0
25.1
32.3
18.2
18.9
19.5
17.9
18.4
18.8
Floodprone Width (ft)
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
Bankfull Mean Depth
1.6
1.6
1.4
1.5
1.5
1.1
1.4
1.7
1.4
1.5
1.5
1.4
1.5
1.5
Bankfull Max Depth
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.5
2.5
2.6
2.6
2.7
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
29.0
32.7
27.8
28.3
28.7
30.7
32.9
35.1
27.3
27.6
27.8
26.6
26.9
27.1
Width/Depth Ratio
11.3
13.3
12.4
13.8
15.2
10.6
20.1
29.7
11.9
12.9
13.9
11.8
12.6
13.3
Entrenchment Ratio
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
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
0.8
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
18.6
-
39.8
20.7
-
42.7
11.3
-
14.8
14
-
18.4
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
17
73
21
59
72
29
59
72
35
59
79
30
59
79
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.0021
0.0280
0.0026
0.0087
0.0149
0.0016
0.0078
0.0169
0.0040
0.0081
0.0151
0.0041
0.0085
0.0137
Pool Length (ft)
46
85
52
64
89
42
66
109
52
64
87
44
58
83
Pool Max Depth (ft)
3.6
4.0
3.6
3.9
4.1
3.9
4.1
4.2
3.7
3.9
4.1
3.8
3.9
4.0
Pool Spacing (ft)
91
142
89
123
139
88
126
140
87
124
162
88
122
156
Pool Volume (ft')
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
49
86
Radius of Curvature (ft)
38
62
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
2
3
Meander Wave Length (ft)
166
229
Meander Width Ratio
3
5
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
C
C
C
C
C
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
1,932
1,932
1,932
1,932
1,932
Sinuosity (ft)
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
N/A
0.0045
0.0048
0.0047
0.0046
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.0047
0.0049
0.0046
0.0050
0.0047
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
SC/SC/19/48/79/180
0.1/0.4/6/66/104/512
5/13/21/51/80/256
0.1/1.1/3.6/64/113.8/362
0.1/1.3/5.0/84.6/128/362
% of Reach with Eroding Banks
0%
0%
0%
0%
(-): Data was not provided

Table 12c. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2015
UT1
(-): Data was not provided
Min
Max
Min
Med
Max
Min
Med
Max
Min
Med
Max
Min
Med
Max Min Med Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
10.9
8.0
8.3
6.9
5.8
Floodprone Width (ft)
36.7
35.7
34.3
33.9
34.0
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
Bankfull Max Depth
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.9
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft')
5.1
4.1
3.7
3.3
2.8
Width/Depth Ratio
23.0
15.5
18.5
14.2
12.2
Entrenchment Ratio
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
13.3
42.4
36.7
36.7
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
11
26
14
20
31
9
17
28
21
25
27
9
33
36
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.0231
0.0600
0.0089
0.0217
0.0448
0.0225
0.0274
0.0446
0.0070
0.0173
0.0235
0.0119
0.0172
0.0423
Pool Length (ft)
18
48
15
23
36
20
28
43
17
27
31
17
25
26
Pool Max Depth (ft)
1.2
1.2
1.1
1.2
1.3
Pool Spacing (ft)
35
59
43
52
62
47
58
60
36
-
67
36
44
52
Pool Volume (ft-)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
27
62
Radius of Curvature (ft)
16
23
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
2.0
3.0
Meander Wave Length (ft)
62
94
Meander Width Ratio
3.5
8.0
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
C5
C5
C5
C5
C5
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
233
233
233
233
233
Sinuosity (ft)
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
N/A
0.0120
0.0136
0.0093
0.0106
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.0126
0.0121
0.0108
0.0113
0.0108
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
SC/SC/0.4/44/64/128
SC/0.1/0.5/501/90/128
SC/0.4/0.9/43/76/180
SC/0.3/0.4/50.6/90/180
SC/1.2/1.8/34.3/57.6/90
% of Reach with Eroding Banks
0%
0%
0%
0%
(-): Data was not provided

Table 12d. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2015
Little Troublesome Creek
(-): Data was not provided
Min
Max
Min
Med
Max
Min
Med
Max
Min
Med
Max
Min
Med
Max Min Med Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
32.6
48.8
33.0
34.4
35.7
31.9
32.8
33.7
31.8
32.0
32.1
31.4
32.0
32.6
Floodprone Width (ft)
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
200+
Bankfull Mean Depth
1.6
2.7
2.1
2.4
2.6
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.3
2.5
2.6
2.3
2.4
2.5
Bankfull Max Depth
4.1
4.2
3.9
4.0
4.0
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.9
4.0
4.0
4.0
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft')
79.6
87.1
74.8
79.7
84.6
74.4
78.6
82.8
73.6
78.0
82.4
70.7
75.7
80.7
Width/Depth Ratio
12.2
30
12.9
15.0
17.1
12.3
13.8
15.3
12.5
13.2
13.8
13.2
13.6
13.9
Entrenchment Ratio
2.2+
0.0
-
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
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
d50 (mm)
32.7
-
39.7
41.8
-
47.3
34.5
-
35.0
40.2
-
44.2
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
79
142
74
107
147
77
100
141
71
112
146
71
102
135
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.0063
0.0126
0.0061
0.0071
0.0178
0.0056
0.0080
0.0127
0.0056
0.0080
0.0139
0.0045
0.0095
0.0153
Pool Length (ft)
88
159
88
121
168
83
127
162
89
121
155
85
113
164
Pool Max Depth (ft)
5.9
6.5
7.4
8.3
6.6
Pool Spacing (ft)
206
267
194
219
297
208
242
289
218
223
316
249
258
265
Pool Volume (ft-)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
113
258
Radius of Curvature (ft)
65
97
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
2.0
3.0
Meander Wave Length (ft)
258
388
Meander Width Ratio
3.5
8.0
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
C4
C4
C4
C4
C4
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
1,171
1,171
1,171
1,171
1,171
Sinuosity (ft)
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
N/A
0.0039
0.0038
0.0034
0.0038
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.0038
0.0039
0.0037
0.0030
0.0034
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
SC/SC/21/62/110/180
SC/0.3/8/74/165/512
0.1/0.3/0.7/60/130/362
0.3/1.2/73.4/196.6/362
SC/0.5/5.6/90.0/157.1/362
of Reach with Eroding Banks
0%
0%
4%
1
0%
(-): Data was not provided

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2015
Irvin Creek Reach 1
730
725
720
-----
- ------
2
715
d
W
WOW
710
x
N
x
C)
x
7
x
705
700
10900
11100
11300 11500 11700
11900 12100 12300
Station (feet)
�— TW (MYO-4/2012)
t TW (MYi-10/2012) -t TW (MY2-6/2013)
t TW (MY3-5/2014)
- TW (MY4-5/2015)
------- WS (MY4-5/2015) ♦ BKF/rOB (MY4-5/2015)
• STRUCTURES (MY4-5/2015

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2015
Irvin Creek Reach 2
730
725
720
715
710
705
700
695
690
12300

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2015
UT1
708
707
rn o
X �
706
d
c
0
N
w
705
704
703
40000
40040
40080
40120 40160 40200 40240
Station (feet)
t TW (MYO-4/2012) t TW (MY1-10/2012) t TW (MY2-6/2013) t TW (MY3-5/2014) t TW (MY4-5/2015)------- WS (MY4-5/2015) ♦ BKF/TOB (MY4-5/2014)
rn o
X �

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2015
Little Troublesome Creek
715
N
X
M
X
710
705
---------------
c
0
R
d
W
700
695
690
20000
20200
20400
20600
20800 21000 21200
Station (feet)
tTW (MYO-4/2012)
—�— TW (MY1-10/2012)
tTW (MY2-6/2013)
tTW (MY3-5/2014)
TW (MY4-5/2015)
------- WS (MY4-5/2015)
• BKF/TOB (MY4-5/2015)
• STRUCTURES (MY4-5/2015
N
X
M
X

Cross Section Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2015
Cross Section I - Irvin Creek Reach 1
I•
NINE1
1110=
Fn_I
_
�■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
---''"'�•�11������
1111■■■■
1111■■■■■
11111111
11111�1�11�11�11111111
11111111111111■■l'N."IPPull
1111111
11111111
111111
1111111111111111111111111111111
11111111
1111
1 1 1 1 •1
1 .1 1 :1 •1 1/
Bankfull Dimensions
22.4 x -section area (ft.sq.)
17.5 width (ft)
1.3 mean
depth2.4
max •-.
s
h -
18.8 wetted parimeter (ft)
Y. '
•
width-depth13.6
•11.4
l7Mui
200.0 W flood prone area (ft)
entrenchment ratio
r
1. 1 low bank height ratio
_- -
Survey 1.5/2015
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2015
Cross Section 2 - Irvin Creek Reach 1
1rr■■��1i�7■■■■■■■��w��1�■w�■A■t■.....�■��mom
Bankfull Dimensions
42.7 x -section area (ft.sq.)
14.7 width (ft)
2.9 mean depth (ft)
4.2 max depth (ft)
18.8 ...
2.3 • radi
�� ` is ��w.. � �,•
5.0 width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 5/2015
- • Crew: Wildlands
.. e
DownstreamView

Cross Section Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2015
Cross Section 3 - Irvin Creek Reach 1
!!■■■■■!■��
�■■■■■■l.���..■�■■■!
■■■!■!��!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
DimensionsBankfull
.,
width (ft)
depth28.9
1.6 mean
4.3 max dept32.4 h
- —
-
hyd ..
.:
width-depth1.4
18.0
t
Survey Date: 5/2015
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2015
Cross Section 4 - Irvin Creek Reach 1
121+14 Riffle
721
720
719
$ 718
c
0
v 717
w
716
715
0 10 20
30
40
50
60 70
Width (ft)
tMYO (4/2012) tMY1 (10/2012)
tMY2 (6/2013) tMY3 (5/2014) t-MY4 (5/2015) —Bankfull
—Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
27.3 x -section area (ft.sq.)
19.3 width (ft)
1.4 mean depth (ft)
2.6 max depth (ft)
21.1 wetted parimeter (ft)
1.3 hyd radi (ft)
13.6 width -depth ratio
200.0 W flood area (ft)
Y
prone
10.4 entrenchment ratio
°
A
1.0 low bank height ratio
}
Survey Date: 5/2015
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2015
Cross Section 5 - Irvin Creek Reach 2
•
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■NOON■
NOON■
i_■_IM■■■■■■■■■■■■i
i■■■■■■■■■■■■
■
MEMO
0
NOON
■■■■■lll=.O■■■■
NONE
■■■■■11■■■■
.�I.ME■JrE11MMMMMNONE
■■■■■[i■■■R'
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
Bankfull Dimensions
40.6 . .1.2
32.9 width (ft)
t?
mean depth (ft)_
4.0 max depth (ft)
36.8 wetted parimeter (ft)
1.1 . radi
width-depth26.7
Survey Date: 5/2015
Field Crew: Wildlands b
k
DownstreamView

Cross Section Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2015
Cross Section 6 - Irvin Creek Reach 2
131+47 Riffle
717
716
715
714
°
713
'
712
c
v
w
711
710
Bankfull Dimensions
27.1 x -section area (ft.sq.)
17.9 width (ft)
y' V
1.5 mean depth (ft)
°
t ' T,
20
2.4 max depth (ft)
40 50 60
k:
19.0 wetted parimeter (ft)
f
Width (ft)
1.4 hyd radi (ft)
11.8 width -depth ratio
tMY1 (10/2012) tMY2 (6/2013)
tMY3 (5/2014)
tMY4 (5/2015) —Bankfull—Floodprone Area
200.0 W flood prone area (ft)
11.2 entrenchment ratio
1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 5/2015
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
i..
2•
View Downstream
'
c
v
w
711
710
0
10
20
30
40 50 60
Width (ft)
tMYO (4/2012)
tMY1 (10/2012) tMY2 (6/2013)
tMY3 (5/2014)
tMY4 (5/2015) —Bankfull—Floodprone Area

Cross Section Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2015
Cross Section 7 - Irvin Creek Reach 2
milsWON
11111111111111111
�►��111�J Ilttt
11111111111
,:
1111 111111111111
11l���/t 1 111
11111111111
111 111111111111
111���1 1 111
11111111111
Bankfull Dimensions
.`
26.6 x -section area .
18.8 width (ft)
1.4 mean depth (ft)
2.4 max •epth (ft)
:.
t`-
19.9 wetted parimeter (ft)
13.3 width -depth ratio
200.0 W flood • • -
-
10.6 entrenchment ratio
1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey D.
- • Crew: Wildlands_
_
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2015
Cross Section 8 - Irvin Creek Reach 2
11 E111
■N■■■■■■■■■�i�!■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
MEQ■■w
NNWr
,.
111111111111111111116040!411111
1 1 iii
1111111111LS
■■
, ,
Bankfull Dimensions
45.5 x -section area (ft.sq.)
27.8 width (ft)
-.
1.6 mean depth
`
3.8 max depth (ft)
t
32.1 ...
.. _
1.4 hyd ..
width-depth16.9
,•' r ��f?#ya
1
Survey Date: 1
Field Crew: Wildlands
F
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2015
Cross Section 9 - UTI
X11 .
1
1
��I
1 1 1 1
1 1 1 ••
Bankfull Dimensions
k
2.8 • •
1 •••
0.9 max depth (ft)
6.4 wetted parimeter (ft)
12.2 width -depth ra•
• moi, �v�
1 W flood • • -,+aw,
e,y .t n
entrenchment ratio
1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 5/2015
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
Downstream5.9
View

Cross Section Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2015
Cross Section 10 - UTI
400+94 Pool
710
709
009
708
c
707
v
w
706
705
0 10 20
30 40 50 60 70
Width (ft)
+MYO (4/2012) s MY1 (10/2012)
tMY2 (6/2013) tMY3 (5/2014) 4 MY4 (5/2015) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
2.7 x -section area (ft.sq.)
6.0 width (ft)
0.4 mean depth (ft)
1.1 max depth (ft)
7.2 wetted parimeter (ft)
0.4 hyd radi (ft)
13.5 width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 5/2015
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
a
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2015
oss Section 11 - Little Troublesome Creek
1
MEN
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■1000■■
monsoons
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
��wA�w�����`'R■■■■■■■■■■■■ori
•
r
NNOMM■■■soon
'
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■n►■■■■■■■sir■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
1
/ 1 •
1
1 1
.
:1 •1
1 1 1 1
1
1
1
..• .
80.7 x -section area (ft.sq.)
32.6 width (ft)
;i
2.5 mean depth (ft)
an
,
F
k
4.0 max depth (ft)
a
34.6 wetted parimeter (ft)
w`a z
13.2 width -depth ratio
111 W flood prone area (ft)
6.1 entrenchment
'•'2 'S'rift'
1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 1
'
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
DownstreamView

Cross Section Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2015
lCross Section 12 - Little Troublesome Creek
'
■■■■■■■■■■■■■!'til■■■■■■■t!�ir■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
Bankfull Dimensions
116.4 - • •
i yyy F, W
gid. F' �• -_
39.2 width (ft)
6.6 max depth (ft)
3
44.1 wetted parimeter (ft)
2.6 • . •
13.2 width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 5/2015
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2015
oss Section 13 - Little Troublesome Creek
1•
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
1
1• 1 1 1
1
1• 1 ... .
Bankfull Dimensions
1 . .
width (ft)
depth31.4
2.3 mean
433.2
Y
.y� F
wetted parimeter (ft)
2.1 hyd •
13.9 width -depth ratio
111 W flood prone area (ft)
6.4 entrenchment ratio
1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 1
_ `Ar_•w.
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
Y
m�mmom�.
-
F
DownstreamView

Reachwide and Cross Section Substrate Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2015
Irvin Creek Reach 1, Reachwide
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Particle Count
Riffle PoolTotal
Irvin Creek Reach 1 Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
4.0
7
7
7
7
Very fine
0.062
0.125
5
5
5
12
Fine
0.125
0.250
2
2
2
14
Medium
0.250
0.500
1
9
10
10
24
Coarse
0.5
1.0
1
10
11
11
35
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
4
10
14
14
49
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
49
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
1
1
1
50
Fine
4.0
5.7
50
Fine
5.7
8.0
3
3
3
53
Medium
8.0
11.3
6
1
7
7
60
Medium
11.3
16.0
4
3
7
1 7
67
Coarse
16.0
22.6
11
11
11
78
Coarse
22.6
32
7
2
9
9
87
Very Coarse
32
45
5
5
5
92
Very Coarse
45
64
4
4
4
96
Small
64
90
96
Small
90
128
3
3
3
99
Large
128
180
1
1
1
100
Large
180
256
100
..................................................
..................................................
Small
256
362
100
I
ural
Medium 1
362
512
512
1 1024 1
100
100
11-arge/Very Large 1
1024
1 2048 1
1 1
100
Bedrock
2048
1 >2048
100
Totall
50
I 50 1
100
1 100 1
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D1fi=
0.29
Di5 =
1.00
D50 =
4.0
D80. =
28.5
D95 =
58.6
D100 =l
180.0
Irvin Creek Reach 1, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90
Gravel J7,jJ ��C.b le
80I or In. Al
0 70
> 60
3 50
E Ir
�j 40
a� 30
2
a 20
10
0
0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000 100.000 1000.000 10000., u
Particle Class Size (mm)
f MYO-5/2012 --1Il-- MY1-10/2012 -A -- MY2-6/2013 t MY3-5/2014 —*— MY4-5/2015
Irvin Creek Reach 1, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100%
90%
80%
a°i 70%
IL 60%a
H 50%
A
U 40%
30%
V
j 20%
C 10%
0%
0 obti �ry5 tis 05 ti ti4 h� �^� �b b
titiiry ph �o �yw ��o ryyb �bti �titi oyk o�4
o. o. oti ti ti
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO-5/2012 a MY1-10/2012 ■ MY2-6/2013 ■ MY3-5/2014 ■ MY4-5/2015

Reachwide and Cross Section Substrate Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2015
Irvin Creek Reach 1, Cross Section 1 (Riffle)
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Particle
Count
Total
Cross Section 1 Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
D35 =
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
1
1
1
111.2
Very fine
0.062
0.125
2
2
3
a
Fine
0.125
0.250
2
2
5
50%
Medium
0.250
0.500
5
5
10
m
Coarse
0.5
1.0
7
7 1
17
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
9
9
26
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
1
1
27
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
2
2
29
Fine
4.0
5.7
3
3
32
Fine
5.7
8.0
3
3
35
Medium
8.0
11.3
6
6 1
41
Medium
11.3
16.0
8
8
49
Coarse
16.0
22.6
6
6
55
Coarse
22.6
32
10
10
65
Very Coarse
32
45
11
11
76
Very Coarse
45
64
10
10
86
Small
64
90
6
6
92
Small
90
128
5
5
97
Large
128
180
3
3
100
Large
180
256
100
..................................................
Small
256
362
100
Small
Medium
Large/Very Large
362
512
1024
512
1024
20481
100
100
100
MENE..................................................Bedrock
2048
>2048
1
100
Totall
100
1 100 1
100
Cross Section 1
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
0.9
D35 =
8.0
D50 =
16.9
D80. =
59.6
D95 =
111.2
D100 =
180.0
Cross Section 1
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90
rav I Cob le
80 er
0 70
> 60
,n
E
tj 40
aLi 30
V
a 20
10
0
0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000 100.000 1000.000 10000.000
Particle Class Size (mm)
MYO-5/2012 f MY1-10/2012 —A—MY2-6/2013 —4-- MY3-5/2014 w MY4-5/2015
Cross Section 1
Individual Class Percent
100%
90%
c
80%
2
70%
a
60%
N
50%
U
40%
m
30%
v
a
20%
10%
0%
1,-- alauum"01111. I - -
Q, bL ti5 tih o5 ♦ ti 5 A ^ 4 3 ♦b b �ti b� b° qo ti� �o hb bV ♦ti A�
♦tiA
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO-5/2012 ■ MY1-10/2012 ■ MY2-6/2013 ■ MY3-5/2014 ■ MY4-5/2015

Reachwide and Cross Section Substrate Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2015
Irvin Creek Reach 1, Cross Section 4 (Riffle)
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
ParticleCross
Count
Total
Section 4 Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
D35 =
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
3
3
3
80.3
Very fine
0.062
0.125
6
6
9
E
Fine
0.125
0.250
1
1
10
Medium
0.250
0.500
1
1
11
0.010 0.100
Coarse
0.5
1.0
1
1
12
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
1
1
13
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
1
1
14
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
3
3
17
Fine
4.0
5.7
1
1
18
Fine
5.7
8.0
5
5
23
Medium
8.0
11.3
5
5
28
Medium
11.3
16.0
14
14
42
Coarse
16.0
22.6
15
15
57
Coarse
22.6
32
11
11
68
Very Coarse
32
45
18
18
86
Very Coarse
45
64
5
5
91
Small
64
90
6
6
97
Small
90
128
3
3
100
Large
128
180
100
Large
180
256
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
Medium
Large/Very Large 1
362
512
1024
512
1024
1 2048 1
1
100
100
100
Bedrock
2048
1 >2048
100
Totall
100 1
100
1 100
Cross Section 4
Channel materials (mm)
D36 =
3.6
D35 =
13.3
D50 =
19.2
Ds4 =
43.3
D95 =
80.3
D100 =
128.0
Cross Section 4
Individual Class Percent
100%
90%
c
80%
v 70%
a 60%
N
50%
U 40%
m
v 30%
>a 20%
c
10%
0%
0 o�ti �ry5 tih oh ti ti �6 A �^ lb ti' 110 tib �L a5 qo titin l60 tihb �bti heti ory� ��
O. O. O• '� ti 1 ti
Particle Class Size (mm)
■MYO-5/2012 MY1-10/2012 MY2-6/2013 ■MY3-5/2014 ■MY4-5/2015
Cross Section 4
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90
rave I
Cob le I erBed
80
ro,
0 70
> 60
.m
1 50
E
�j 40
c
u 30
W 20
10
0
0.010 0.100
1.000 10.000 100.000 1000.000 10000.000
Particle Class Size (mm)
--*-- MYO-5/2012
t MY1-10/2012 f MY2-6/2013 --#-- MY3-5/2014 w MY4-5/2015
Cross Section 4
Individual Class Percent
100%
90%
c
80%
v 70%
a 60%
N
50%
U 40%
m
v 30%
>a 20%
c
10%
0%
0 o�ti �ry5 tih oh ti ti �6 A �^ lb ti' 110 tib �L a5 qo titin l60 tihb �bti heti ory� ��
O. O. O• '� ti 1 ti
Particle Class Size (mm)
■MYO-5/2012 MY1-10/2012 MY2-6/2013 ■MY3-5/2014 ■MY4-5/2015

Reachwide and Cross Section Substrate Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2015
Irvin Creek Reach 2, Reachwide
Particle Class
Jmin
Diameter (mm)
max
Particle Count
Riffle Poo
Irvin Creek Reach 2 Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
1
159
84.6
16
16
Very fine
0.062
0.125
3
3
3
19
Fine
0.125
0.250
3
3
3
22
Medium
0.250
0.500
22
Coarse
0.5
1.0
7
7
7
29
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
3
12
15
15
44
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
1
1
1
45
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
1
2
3
3
48
Fine
4.0
5.7
2
1
3
3
51
Fine
5.7
8.0
1
1
1
52
Medium
8.0
11.3
2
2
2
54
Medium
11.3
16.0
4
1
5
1 5
59
Coarse
16.0
22.6
1
1
1
60
Coarse
22.6
32
3
3
3
63
Very Coarse
32
45
5
2
7
7
70
Very Coarse
45
64
5
5
5
75
Small
64
90
10
1
11
11
86
Small
90
128
9
9
9
95
Large
128
180
4
4
4
99
Large
180
256
99
..................................................
Small
256
362
1
1
1
100
Small
Medium
............ iiiiiii
:::;;;;;Large/Very Large
36 2
512
1024
5 12
1024
2048
1 0
0
100
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Totall
51
1 49
1 100
1 100
1 100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
Silt/Clay
D35 =
1.3
D50 =
5.0
DS4 =
84.6
D95 =
128.0
13100 =
362.0
Irvin Creek Reach 2, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90
raveCob le
I er
80 T11Elddrai
c 70
> 60
M
50
E
040
0) 30 41
U
m 20
10
0
0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000 100.000 1000.000 10000.000
Particle Class Size (mm)
tMYO-5/2012 ---MY1-10/2012 —e MY2-6/2013 +MY3-5/2014 —a—MY4-5/2015
Irvin Creek Reach 2, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100%
90%
80%
ami 70%
v
L 60%
U) 50%
U 40%
30%
v
'-> 20%
c 10% -
0%
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO-5/2012 ■ MYl -10/2012 ■ MY2-6/2013 ■ MY3-5/2014 ■ MY4-5/2015

Reachwide and Cross Section Substrate Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2015
Irvin Creek Reach 2, Cross Section 6 (Riffle)
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Particle
Count
Total
Cross Section 6 Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
3
3
3
Very fine
0.062
0.125
4
4
7
Fine
0.125
0.250
2
2
9
Medium
0.250
0.500
9
Coarse
0.5
1.0
1
1
10
Very Coarse
1.0
4
14
Very Fine
2.0E22.6
14
Very Fine
2.8
4
4
18
Fine
4.0
5
5
23
Fine
5.7
6
6
29
Medium
8.0
3
3
32
Medium
11.3
16
16
48
Coarse
16.0
5
5
53
22.6
10
10
63
se
32
11
11
74
se
45
6
6
80
Small
90
7
7
87
Small
128
9
9
96
Large
:64
180
3
3
99
Large
256
1
1
100
..................................................
Small
256
362
100
Small 1
Medium
362
512
1 512 1
1024
1
100
100
. .. Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Totall
100
1 100 1
100
Cross Section 6
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
3.3
D35 =
11.8
D50 =
18.4
Dg4 =
77.8
D95 =
123.1
D300 =
256.0
Cross Section 6
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90 rave
BO Cob le Bo I er
0 70
> 60
� 50
E
U 40
ami 3000
U
0. 20
10
0
0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000 100.000 1000.000 10000.000
Particle Class Size (mm)
7—MYO-5/2012 fMY1-10/2012 —i—MY2-6/2013 +MY3-5/2014 --*—MY4-5/2015
Cross Section 6
Individual Class Percent
100%
90%
80%
v 70%
a. 60%
N
50%
U 40%
m
30%
v
20%
C
0%
O �'L ,1,y5 tih �`� 1 ti ,ti0 b 5^ `b �"� tib ,Lb .5`L p5 �` q0 ,ti�� ��O ry�b ,�b`ti �titi OrI,D• �b�
O• O• O• 1 ry ti ti
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO-5/2012 ■ MY1-10/2012 ■ MY2-6/2013 ■ MY3-5/2014 ■ MY4-5/2015

Reachwide and Cross Section Substrate Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2015
Irvin Creek Reach 2, Cross Section 7 (Riffle)
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
ParticleCross
Count
Total
Section 7 Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
2
2
2
Very fine
0.062
0.125
3
3
5
Fine
0.125
0.250
3
3
8
Medium
0.250
0.500
2
2
10
Coarse
0.5
1.0
5
5
15
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
4
4
19
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
19
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
2
2
21
Fine
4.0
5.7
2
2
23
Fine
5.7
8.0
8
8
31
Medium
8.0
11.3
12
12
43
Medium
11.3
16.0
11
11
54
Coarse
16.0
22.6
13
13
67
Coarse
22.6
32
7
7
74
Very Coarse
32
45
7
7
81
Very Coarse
45
64
5
5
86
Small
64
90
4
4
90
Small
90
128
4
4
94
Large
128
180
4
4
98
Large
180
256
2
2
100
..................................................
Small
256
362
100
Small
Medium
362
512
512
1024
100
100
:......Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Totall
100 1
100
1 100
Cross Section 7
Channel materials (mm)
Dib =
1.2
Das =
8.9
D50 =
14.0
Ds4 =
55.6
D95 =
139.4
D100 =
256.0
Cross Section 7
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
TJ 7A7
90 rav
Cob Ie er
80
0 70
! 60
50
E
240
410
r-
30
U
CL 20
10
n
0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000 100.000 1000.000 10000.000
Particle Class Size (mm)
8 MYO-5/2012 MY1-10/2012 —e MY2-6/2013 +MY3-5/2014 —*—MY4-5/2015
Cross Section 7
Individual Class Percent
100%
90%
c
80%
a 70%
a. 60%
w
50%
U 40%
m
a 30%
'—a 20%
c 10%
0%
-�ry�` r�
oo
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO-5/2012 ■ MY1-10/2012 ■ MY2-6/2013 ■ MY3-5/2014 ■ MY4-5/2015

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2015
UT1, Reachwide
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Particle Count
Riffle Pool��2
UT1 Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
Das =
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
D84 =
2
D95 =
2
2
90.0
Very fine
0.062
0.125
1
1 1
1
3
Fine
0.125
0.250
3
Medium
0.250
0.500
1
6
7
7
10
Coarse
0.5
1.0
3
17
20
20
30
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
8
15
23
23
53
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
1
1
2
2
55
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
3
3
6
6
61
Fine
4.0
5.7
2
5
7
7
68
Fine
5.7
8.0
3
3
3
71
Medium
8.0
11.3
5
5
5
76
Medium
11.3
16.0
1
1
1
77
Coarse
16.0
22.6
1
1
1
78
Coarse
22.6
32
5
5
5
83
Very Coarse
32
45
5
5
5
88
Very Coarse
45
64
10
10
10
98
Small
64
90
2
2
2
100
Small
90
128
100
Large
128
180
100
Large
180
256
100
..................................................
Small
256
362
100
......
Small
Medium
Lar a/Ver Large
g Y
36 2
512
1024
5 12
1024
2048
100
100
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Totall
s0
I s0
1 100 1
100
1 100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
Dib =
0.6
Das =
1.2
D50 =
1.8
D84 =
34.3
D95 =
57.6
D100 =1
90.0
UTI, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90 rav
Cobble er
80
s 70
> 60
50
0
U 40
C
c.
30
° 20
10
0
0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000 100.000 1000.000 10000.000
Particle Class Size (mm)
+MYO-5/2012—a—MY1-10/2012—+—MY2-6/2013 s MY3-5/2014 �-5/2015
UT1, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100%
90%
80%
amt 70%
v
L 60%
U) 50%
w
iJ 40%
M 30%
v
'—> 20%
c 10%
0%
o bti
00 otiyh o. h 4 b o ti 5 6a Io $ 10 51:1 bti
y do ,yo
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO-5/2012 ■ MYl-10/2012 ■ MY2-6/2013 ■ MY3-5/2014 ■ MY45/2015

Reachwide and Cross Section Substrate Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2015
UTI, Cross Section 9 (Riffle)
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
ParticleCross
Count
Total
Section 9 Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
36.7
D84 =
0
Very fine
0.062
0.125
128.0
j 60
0
Fine
0.125
0.250
1
1
1
Medium
0.250
0.500
4
4
5
Coarse
0.5
1.0
3
3
8
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
11
11
19
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
19
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
1
1
20
Fine
4.0
5.7
20
Fine
5.7
8.0
20
Medium
8.0
11.3
20
Medium
11.3
16.0
20
Coarse
16.0
22.6
4
4
24
Coarse
22.6
32
14
14
38
Very Coarse
32
45
30
30
68
Very Coarse
45
64
19
19
87
Small
64
90
11
11
98
Small
90
128
2
2
100
Large
128
180
100
Large
180
256
100
..................................................
Small
256
362
100
I"
Small
Medium
362
512
512
1024
100
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Totall
100 1
100
1 100
Cross Section 9
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
1.7
D35 =
29.7
D50 =
36.7
D84 =
60.5
D95 =
82.0
D100 =1
128.0
Cross Section 9
Individual Class Percent
100%
90%
c
80%
v 70%
a 60%
N
50%
U 40%
m
v 30%
a 20%
c
LO%a
0%
k Aid d 11. iiL-L.J1w
0 obti 5 tih oh 1 ti ti� A �� 4 lb tib ti a5 b� qo �y4 1�o tihb 5bL htiti otib oto
o• o• o• \ � 1 'L
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO-5/2012 ■ MY1-10/2012 ■ MY2-6/2013 ■ MY3-5/2014 ■ MY4-5/2015
Cross Section 9
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90
rav 111.
Cob le er
80
070
j 60
50
40
U
30
CD
20
d
CL
10
0
0.010 0.100
1.000 10.000 100.000 1000.000 10000.000
Particle Class Size (mm)
9 MYO-5/2012
--E-- MY1-10/2012 —*--- MY2-6/2013 t MY3-5/2014 . MY4-5/2015
Cross Section 9
Individual Class Percent
100%
90%
c
80%
v 70%
a 60%
N
50%
U 40%
m
v 30%
a 20%
c
LO%a
0%
k Aid d 11. iiL-L.J1w
0 obti 5 tih oh 1 ti ti� A �� 4 lb tib ti a5 b� qo �y4 1�o tihb 5bL htiti otib oto
o• o• o• \ � 1 'L
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO-5/2012 ■ MY1-10/2012 ■ MY2-6/2013 ■ MY3-5/2014 ■ MY4-5/2015

Reachwide and Cross Section Substrate Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2015
Little Troublesome Creek, Reachwide
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Particle Count
Riffle PoolTotal
Little Troublesome Creek
Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
5.7
4
4
4
4
Very fine
0.062
0.125
3
3
3
7
Fine
0.125
0.250
11
11
11
18
Medium
0.250
0.500
17
17
17
35
Coarse
0.5
1.0
8
8
8
43
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
3
3
6
6
49
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
49
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
49
Fine
4.0
5.7
1
1
1
50
Fine
5.7
8.0
1
1
1
51
Medium
8.0
11.3
1
1
1
52
Medium
11.3
16.0
2
2
2
54
Coarse
16.0
22.6
1
1
1
55
Coarse
22.6
32
6
1
7
7
62
Very Coarse
32
45
8
2
10
10
72
Very Coarse
45
64
5
5
5
77
Small
64
90
7
7
7
84
Small
90
128
8
8
8
92
Large
128
180
5
5
5
97
Large
180
256
1
1
1
98
..................................................
Small
256
362
2
2
2
100
I"
......: Small
Medium
Large
Y g
362
512
1024
512
1024
2048
100
100
100
"M Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Totall
50
1 50
1 100 1
100
1 100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
0.2
D35 =
0.5
D50 =
5.7
D, =
90.0
D95 =
157.1
13100 =1
362.0
Little Troublesome Creek, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100%
90%
80%
a� 70%
U
a 60%
W 50%
m
U 40%
cE 30%
v
'> 20%
c 10%
0%
O o6ti �,tih tih o5 ti � b �^ 4 ,�"� tib ti� �ti b5 q0 ��4 l�0 ry�b �bti �titi oy0. oa4
o. o. o• ti ti ti ti
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO-5/2012 ■ MYi -10/2012 ■ MY2-6/2013 ■ MY3-5/2014 ■ MY4-5/2015
Little Troublesome Creek, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90
rav
Cobble
lloili80 er
P.
0 70
i 60
� 50
E
�j 40
ami 30
U
a 20
10
EL
0
0.010 0.100
1.000 10.000 100.000 1000.000 10000.000
Particle Class Size (mm)
--*---MYO-5/2012
f-MY1-10/2012 —*—MY2-6/2013 --*—MY3-5/2014 :—: MY4-5/2015
Little Troublesome Creek, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100%
90%
80%
a� 70%
U
a 60%
W 50%
m
U 40%
cE 30%
v
'> 20%
c 10%
0%
O o6ti �,tih tih o5 ti � b �^ 4 ,�"� tib ti� �ti b5 q0 ��4 l�0 ry�b �bti �titi oy0. oa4
o. o. o• ti ti ti ti
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO-5/2012 ■ MYi -10/2012 ■ MY2-6/2013 ■ MY3-5/2014 ■ MY4-5/2015

Reachwide and Cross Section Substrate Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2015
Little Troublesome Creek, Cross Section 11 (Riffle)
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Particle
Count
Total
Cross Section 11 Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
D35 =
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
D80. =
80.9
0
113.8
Very fine
0.062
0.125
1
1
1
E
Fine
0.125
0.250
4
4
5
40%
Medium
0.250
0.500
3
3
8
0.010 0.100
Coarse
0.5
1.0
1
1
9
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
4
4
13
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
13
]0%a
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
1
1
14
Fine
4.0
5.7
1
1
15
oQObLo�yS 0h 1 1 y� h^ 4 `b tib Sy ph bD qo �y4 0, ryyb �bti heti
Fine
5.7
8.0
15
Medium
8.0
11.3
4
4
19
Medium
11.3
16.0
19
Coarse
16.0
22.6
3
3
22
Coarse
22.6
32
10
10
32
Very Coarse
32
45
19
19
51
Very Coarse
45
64
22
22
73
Small
64
90
16
16
89
Small
90
128
9
9
98
Large
128
180
2
2
100
Large
180
256
100
..................................................
Small
256
362
100
Small
Medium12
362
5
512
1 2
0 4
100
100
Lar a er Lar e g
1 24
0
2 048
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Totall
100 1
100
100
Cross Section 11
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
8.7
D35 =
33.8
D50 =
44.2
D80. =
80.9
D95 =
113.8
D100 =1
180.0
Cross Section 11
Cross Section 11
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
Individual Class Percent
90 U1 AN.
rave I
Cob le I er
80
0 70
80%
> 60
v
50
E
60%
cj 40
N
a=i 30
U
a� 20
40%
10
R
0
0.010 0.100
1.000 10.000 100.000 1000.000 10000.000
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-5/2012
f MY1-10/2012 —A --- MY2-6/2013 t MY3-5/2014 —*— MY4-5/2015
Cross Section 11
Individual Class Percent
100%
90%
c
80%
v
70%
a
60%
N
50%
U
40%
R
v
30%
20%
S
]0%a
0%
oQObLo�yS 0h 1 1 y� h^ 4 `b tib Sy ph bD qo �y4 0, ryyb �bti heti
005
`` ti0ti° ���
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO-5/2012 ■ MY1-10/2012 ■ MY2-6/2013 ■ MY3-5/2014 ■ MY4-5/2015

Reachwide and Cross Section Substrate Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2015
Little Troublesome Creek, Cross Section 13 (Riffle)
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
ParticleCross
Count
Total
Section 13 Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
5
5
5
Very fine
0.062
0.125
2
2
7
Fine
0.125
0.250
1
1
8
Medium
0.250
0.500
5
5
13
Coarse
0.5
1.0
13
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
13
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
13
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
13
Fine
4.0
5.7
1
1
14
Fine
5.7
8.0
14
Medium
8.0
11.3
1
1
15
Medium
11.3
16.0
1
1
16
Coarse
16.0
22.6
6
6
22
Coarse
22.6
32
14
14
36
Very Coarse
32
45
21
21
57
Very Coarse
45
64
22
22
79
Small
64
90
9
9
88
Small
90
128
8
8
96
Large
128
180
3
3
99
Large
180
256
99
Small
256
362
99
Small
Medium
362
512
512
1024
1
1
100
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Totall
100 1
100
1 100
Cross Section 13
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
16.0
D35 =
31.2
D50 =
40.2
D84 =
77.3
D95 =
122.5
D300 =
512.0
Cross Section 13
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90
rav I Cob le
80 er
0 70
> 60
3 50
E
�j 40
d 30
U
CD 20
10
0
0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000 100.000 1000.000 10000.000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO-5/2012 MY1-10/2012 —*--- MY2-6/2013 t MY3-5/2014 — MY4-5/2015
Cross Section 13
Individual Class Percent
100%
90%
c
80%
c2i
70%
a.
60%
N
50%
U
40%
m
v
30%
20%
E
10%
UKI'LL11,
0%
1 1 L-1— IL bw
4�1'�r1ortib��S
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO-5/2012 ■ MY1-10/2012 ■ MY2-6/2013 ■ MY3-5/2014 ■ MY4-5/2015

APPENDIX 5. Hydrology Summary Data and Plots

Table 13. Verification of Bankfull Events
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 4 -2015
Reach
Date of Data Date of
Collection Occurrence
Method
Irvin Creek
5/4/2015 U
Crest Gage
8/12/2015 7/28/2015
11/11/2015 U
Little Troublesome Creek
5/4/2015 U
Crest Gage
8/12/2015 7/28/2015
11/11/2015 U
UT1
5/4/2015 U
Crest Gage
8/12/2015 7/28/2015
11/11/2015 U
u: unknown
Table 14. Wetland Gage Attainment Summary
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2015
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/5.5 Days
Yes/18.0 Days
Yes/17.0 Days
Yes/25.0 Days
1
(2.4%)
(8.0%)
(7.5%)
(10.3%)
Yes/26/5 Days
Yes/61.5 Days
Yes/50.5 Days
Yes/59.0 Days
2
(11.7%)
(27.2%)
(22.3%)
(24.4%)
Yes/87.5 Days
Yes/195.5 Days
Yes/98.5 Days
Yes/84.0 Days
3
(38.7%)
(86.5%)
(43.6%)
(34.7%)
Yes/65.5 Days
Yes/165.5 Days
Yes/74.0 Days
Yes/62.0 Days
4
(29%)
(73.2%)
(32.7%)
(25.6%)
Yes/60.5 Days
Yes/24.0 Days
Yes/45.5 Days
Yes/29.0 Days
5
(26.8%)
(10.6%)
(20.1%)
(12.0%)
No/6.0 Days
Yes/17.5 Days
Yes/19.5 Days
Yes/24.0 Days
6
(2.7%)
(7.7%)
(8.6%)
(9.9%)
Yes/83.0 Days
Yes/70.0 Days
Yes/60.0 Days
Yes/65.0 Days
7
(36.7%)
(31.0%)
(26.5%)
(26.9%)
No/11.5 Days
Yes/31.5 Days
Yes/44.5 Days
Yes/26.0 Days
8
(5.1%)
(13.9%)
(19.7%)
(10.7%)
* NRCS WETS data was used to determine the growing season for monitorg years 1-3. After discussions with the US Army Corps
of Engineers, on-site soil temperature probe data is being used to determine the beginning of the growing season.

Bankfull Verification Photographs
Monitoring Year 4

Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
Appendix 5: Hydrology Summary Data and Plots - Bankfull Verification Photographs
�� �•�
- - � _
-
! . AF
Bankfull Event 1— Irvin Creek (7/23/2015 8:15am)
Bankfull Event 1— Irvin Creek (7/23/2015 9:15am)
17
t
of
1 1
`J�4r.. Yids 1
Bankfull Event 1-
Irvin Creek (7/23/2015 10:15am)
Bankfull Event 1- Irvin Creek (7/23/2015 11:15am)
-:
41e
_ .
_
1
Bankfull Event 2
- Irvin Creek (7/28/2015 3:23pm)
Bankfull Event 2 - Irvin Creek (7/28/2015 4:23pm)
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
Appendix 5: Hydrology Summary Data and Plots - Bankfull Verification Photographs

Bankfull Event 2 - Irvin Creek (7/28/2015 5:23pm) I Bankfull Event 2 - Irvin Creek (7/28/2015 6:23pm)
Bankfull Event 2 - Irvin Creek (7/28/2015 7:23pm) Bankfull Event 3 - Irvin Creek (11/9/2015 5:27pm)
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
Appendix 5: Hydrology Summary Data and Plots - Bankfull Verification Photographs

Groundwater Gage Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Wetland (NCDMS Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2015
Wetland RW1
20
10
0
-10
v
-20
v
c�
3 -30
-40
-50
-60
Little Troublesome
0
v
V)
Monito
WLn.
•3 0
OM4
o �
(D
0
Y
(6
i+
Ln
A. -k
�NWJ-
1.1 L 1.
J.
Rainfall Reference G<

Groundwater Gage Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Wetland (NCDMS Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2015
Wetland RW1
20
10
0
-10
v
-20
v
c�
3 -30
-40
-50
-60
C -0 T C 75GA Q > V
�i Q vii O
� g a z
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #2 — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0 o
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Wetland (NCDMS Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2015
Wetland RW1
20
10
0
-10
v
-20
v
c�
3 -30
-40
-50
-60
C -0 T C 75 on Q a-' > U
�i Q vii O
� g a z
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #3 — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0 o
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Wetland (NCDMS Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2015
Wetland RW1
Little Troublesome Creek Groundwater Gage #4
o
Monitoring Year 4 - 2015
N
@
cu
20
N
onLn
v>
oA Ln
6.0
0
c o
2
2 lD
10
(Dm-
-
C7
0
0
5.0
ru
c
0n
V
n
LL
IV! C,
4.0
10
— _ — — — — — —
— — — — — —
— — — —
— — —
— —
— — — — — —
— — —
—
— — — — — —
c
v
–
>
-20
3.0 °.
c
°J
'm
M
3
-30
2.0
-40
1.0
-50
LA
I
J
-60
0.0
C
T C to Q
r
�i �
; O
Q � Q n
z
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #4 — — Criteria Level

Groundwater Gage Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Wetland (NCDMS Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2015
Wetland RW1
20
10
0
-10
v
-20
v
c�
3 -30
-40
-50
-60
Little Troublesome
0
v
V)
Monito
WLn.
0 �
•3 0
o �
m
m
(O N 3
Rainfall Reference G<

Groundwater Gage Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Wetland (NCDMS Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2015
Wetland RW1
20
10
0
-10
v
-20
v
c�
3 -30
-40
-50
-60
Little Troublesome
0
v
V)
Monito
WLn.
0 ti
3 0
o m
� m
A N NM%.,
Ln
-r
ATM
1.1 J.
J
Rainfall Reference G<

Groundwater Gage Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Wetland (NCDMS Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2015
Wetland RW1
Little Troublesome Creek Groundwater Gage #7
o
Monitoring Year 4 - 2015
0
@
cu
20
N
on Ln
v>
oA Ln
6.0
0
c o
10
M
V4
0
(D
ro
p lD
C7 �
0
0
5.0
ru
c
0
n
w
4.0
10
_
_ _ _ _ _ _ —
_ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _
— — — —
_ _ _ _ _ _
v
>
cu
–
-20
3.0 °.
c
°J
m
3
-30
2.0
-40
1.0
-50
-60
0.0
C -0
T C 75 on Q a-'
=3vii
> U
0
�i
Q Q O
z
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #7 — — Criteria Level

Groundwater Gage Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Wetland (NCDMS Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2015
Wetland RW1
20
10
0
-10
v
-20
v
c�
3 -30
-40
-50
-60
Little Troublesome
0
v
V)
Monito
WLn.
0 ti
3 0
o �
m
l7 �
m
o
Axl
N
-
Rainfall Reference G<

Little Troublesome Creek 30-70 Percentile Graph for Rainfall in 2015 Reidsville, NC
10
9
8
7
c 6
c
0
0 5
.Q
G1
4
a
3
2
1
0
Jan -15 Feb -15 Mar -15 Apr -15 May -15 Jun -15 Jul -15 Aug -15 Sep -15 Oct -15
Date
2015 Rainfall Data (weather station) 30th Percentile 70th Percentile

Pre and Post Construction Groundwater Gage Comparison Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2015
Wetland RW1
30
20
10
0
c
-30
-40
50
-60
to 2 > U
LL Q Q vi O Z
Pre -Construction Rainfall Rainfall Pre -Construction Gage Depth Gage #2 — — Criteria Level
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
C
2.5 w
C
M
2.0 °C
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0

Pre and Post Construction Groundwater Gage Comparison Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2015
Wetland RW1
30
20
10
0
c
3
-30
-40
50
-60
00 Q > U
Pre -Construction Rainfall Rainfall Pre -Construction Gage Depth Gage #6 — — Criteria Level
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
c
2.5 9
C
2.0 Cr
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0

Pre and Post Construction Groundwater Gage Comparison Plots
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94640)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2015
Wetland RW1
r_
Little Troubesome Creek Groundwater Gage #7
0
Monitoring Year 4 - 2015
30to
Ln0
5.0
3 0
(D
20
inn ti
4.5
m
C O
0
3rq
°
4.0
10
t
0
3.5
0
w
3.0
S
m -10_
2.5 w
-20
2.0 °C
�
-30
1.5
40
1.0
-50
0.5
-60 II I_ i I I�_
n
hI_AU
1 0.0
LL
0o Q+"'
Q Q U)
> U
O Z
Pre -Construction Rainfall
Rainfall Pre -Construction Gage Depth
Gage #7 — — Criteria Level