20110821 Ver 1_Year 4 Monitoring Report_2015_20160328

MONITORING YEAR 4
ANNUAL REPORT
Final
LYLE CREEK MITIGATION SITE
Catawba County, NC
NCDEQ Contract 003241
NCDMS Project Number 94643
Data Collection Period: May 2015 -June 2015
Draft Submission Date: November 30, 2015
Final Submission Date: March 4, 2016
PREPARED FOR:
INC Department of Environment Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652

PREPARED BY:
WILDLANDS
E NG I NEE R I N G
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 28203
Kirsten Y. Gimbert
[e-mail]
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 4 Annual Report -FINAL

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Wildlands Engineering (Wildlands) completed a full -delivery project for the North Carolina Department of
Environmental Quality North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS) to restore and enhance
6,795 linear feet (LF) of perennial and intermittent stream channel and to restore and create 9.5 acres
(ac) of riparian wetland on a full delivery site in Catawba County, NC. The project proposes the generation
of 5,965 stream mitigation units (SMU's) and 7.6 wetland mitigation units (WMU's). The project stream
reaches consist of UT1, UT1A, UT1B (stream restoration) and UT1C and UT1D (stream enhancement level
II). The project wetland areas consist of RW1 and RW2 (wetland restoration and creation).
The Lyle Creek Mitigation Site, hereafter referred to as the site, is located west of NC Highway 10/ North
Main Street in the Town of Catawba, NC on an active tree farm surrounded by woods and residential land
use (Figure 1). The site is located in the Catawba River Basin Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03050101140010,
and North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) Subbasin 03-08-32, which is within a DMS
Targeted Local Watershed. This HUC qualifies as a service area for an adjacent HUC; as a result, the Lyle
Creek Mitigation Site was submitted for mitigation credit in the Catawba River Basin HUC 03050103. The
site is located on one parcel owned by the Garmon Family.
Prior to construction activities, the project streams were regularly modified and maintained and therefore
lacked bedform diversity, habitat, and riparian buffer. The lack of bedform diversity combined with
continued anthropogenic disturbance resulting in degraded aquatic habitat, altered hydrology, and water
quality concerns such as lowered dissolved oxygen levels. The primary goals of the project were to provide
ecological and water quality enhancements to the Catawba River Basin while creating a functional riparian
corridor at the site level, providing wetland habitat and ecological function, and restoring a Piedmont
Bottomland Forest as described by Schafale and Weakley (1990). These goals were achieved by restoring
5,411 LF of perennial and intermittent stream channel and 6.6 ac of wetland area, enhancing 1,384 LF of
intermittent stream channel and creating 2.9 ac of wetland area. Approximately 179 LF of stream was
excluded from the total project credit calculations from crossings (farm roads and power line easements).
Figure 2 and Table 1 present the restoration design for the site.
The following project goals were established to address the effects listed above from project site stressors:
• Wetland areas will be disked to increase surface roughness and better capture rainfall which
will improve connection with the water table for groundwater recharge. Adjacent streams will be
stabilized and established with a floodplain connection to promote hydrologic transfer between
wetland and stream;
• A channel with riffle -pool sequences and some rock and wood structures will be created in the
steeper project reaches and a channel with run -pool sequences and woody debris structures will
be created in the low sloped project reaches for macroinvertebrate and fish habitat. Introduction
of wood including root wads and woody 'riffles' along with native stream bank vegetation will
substantially increase habitat value. Gravel areas will be added as appropriate to further diversify
available habitats;
• Adjacent buffer areas will be restored by removing invasive vegetation and planting native
vegetation. These areas will be allowed to receive more regular and inundating flows. Riparian
wetland areas will be restored and enhanced to provide wetland habitat; and
• Sediment input from eroding stream banks will be reduced by installing bioengineering and in -
stream structures while creating a stable channel form using geomorphic design principles.
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 4 Annual Report -FINAL iii

Construction and planting activities were completed by River Works in April 2012. A Conservation
Easement held by the State of North Carolina has been recorded with the Catawba County Register of
Deeds on the 26.62 -acre Lyle Creek project study area within the Garmon parcel. The conservation
easement protects the project area in perpetuity.
Monitoring Year 4 (MY4) monitoring and site visits were completed during May, June, and November 2015
to assess the conditions of the project. All groundwater gages (GWG) at the site have met the required
hydrologic success criteria for MY4. As of 2015, all project streams have met the required success criteria
of exhibiting two overbank events in separate monitoring years. All streams within the site are stable and
meeting the MY4 success criteria with the exception of the upper reach (approximately 398 LF) of UT1A,
which has aggraded due to a large influx of sediment from above the project. The site's overall average
stem density of 428 stems/acre is greater than the final vegetative success criteria of 260 stems/acre for
MY5.
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 4 Annual Report -FINAL iv

LYLE CREEK MITIGATION SITE
Monitoring Year 4 Annual Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1:
PROJECT OVERVIEW..............................................................................................................1-1
Figure 2
1.1
Project Goals and Objectives.....................................................................................................1-1
Project Components and Mitigation Credits
1.2
Monitoring Year 4 Data Assessment..........................................................................................1-3
Table 3
1.2.1
Vegetative Assessment......................................................................................................1-3
Project Information and Attributes
1.2.2
Vegetative Areas of Concern.............................................................................................1-4
1.2.3
Stream Assessment............................................................................................................1-4
1.2.4
Hydrology Assessment.......................................................................................................1-5
1.2.5
Wetland Assessment..........................................................................................................1-5
1.2.6
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Assessment............................................................................1-6
1.3
Monitoring Year 4 Summary......................................................................................................1-6
Section2:
METHODOLOGY.....................................................................................................................2-1
Section3:
REFERENCES...........................................................................................................................3-1
APPENDICES
Appendix 1 General Tables and Figures
Figure 1
Project Vicinity Map
Figure 2
Project Component/Asset Map
Table 1
Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Table 2
Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3
Project Contact Table
Table 4
Project Information and Attributes
Appendix 2 Visual Assessment Data
Figure 3.0-3.3 Integrated Current Condition Plan View
Table 5a -e Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Table 6 Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Stream Photographs
Vegetation Photographs
Appendix 3 Vegetation Plot Data
Table 7 Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Table 8 CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Table 9 Planted and Total Stem Counts (Species by Plot with Annual Means)
Appendix 4 Morphological Summary Data and Plots
Table 10a -b Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table 11 Monitoring Data — Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters —
Cross -Section)
Table 12a -e Monitoring Data — Stream Reach Data Summary
Longitudinal Profile Plots
Cross -Section Plots
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 4 Annual Report -FINAL v

Appendix 5 Hydrology Summary Data and Plots
Table 13 Verification of Bankfull Events
Table 14 Wetland Gage Attainment Summary
Hydrology Summary Data and Plots
Monthly Rainfall Data
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 4 Annual Report -FINAL vi

Section 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Lyle Creek Mitigation Site is a full -delivery stream and wetland restoration project for the DMS in
Catawba County, NC. The site is located in the Catawba River Basin HUC 03050101140010, and NCDWR
Subbasin 03-08-32, which is within a DMS Targeted Local Watershed. This HUC qualifies as a service area
for an adjacent HUC; as a result, the Lyle Creek Mitigation Site was submitted for mitigation credit in the
Catawba River Basin HUC 03050103. The site is located west of NC Highway 10/ North Main Street in the
Town of Catawba, NC, on an active tree farm surrounded by woods and residential land use. The Site is
bounded by Lyle Creek to the north, NC Highway 10/ North Main Street to the east and an elevated
railroad right-of-way to the south.
The project stream reaches consist of UT1, UT1A, UT113 (stream restoration) and UT1C and UT11D (stream
enhancement level II). The project wetland areas consist of RW1 and RW2 (wetland restoration and
creation). Mitigation work within the site included restoring and enhancing 6,795 LF of perennial and
intermittent stream channel and restoring and creating 9.5 ac of riparian wetland and proposes the
generation of 5,965 SMU's and 7.6 WMU's. The stream and wetland areas were planted with native
vegetation to improve habitat and protect water quality. Construction and planting activities were
completed by River Works in April 2012. The site is located on one parcel owned by the Garmon Family.
A Conservation Easement held by the State of North Carolina has been recorded with the Catawba County
Register of Deeds on the 26.62 -acre Lyle Creek project study area within the Garmon parcel. The
conservation easement protects the project area in perpetuity.
Directions and a map of the site are provided in Figure 1 and project components are illustrated for the
site in Figure 2.
1.1 Project Goals and Objectives
Prior to construction activities, the project streams were regularly modified and maintained and therefore
lacked bedform diversity, habitat, and riparian buffer. The primary impacts to the project streams were
the result of mowing, ditching, vegetation maintenance, and dredging associated with tree farming
activities. As a result of the aforementioned land activities, the onsite streams were incised and overly
wide with shallow flow. The streams were unable to maintain their channel form and subsequently filled
in with sediment, organic matter, and vegetation. In -stream bedform diversity was extremely poor and
the longitudinal profile was dominated by shallow runs. The lack of bedform diversity combined with
continued anthropogenic disturbance resulted in degraded aquatic habitat, altered hydrology (related to
loss of floodplain connection and lowered water table), and water quality concerns such as lower
dissolved oxygen levels (due to shallow flow with few re -aeration points). Table 4 in Appendix 1 and
Tables 10a, 10b, and 10c in Appendix 4 present the pre -restoration conditions in detail.
The primary goals of the project were to provide ecological and water quality enhancements to the
Catawba River Basin while creating a functional riparian corridor at the site level, providing wetland
habitat and ecological function, and restoring a Piedmont Bottomland Forest as described by Schafale and
Weakley (1990). These goals were achieved by restoring 5,411 LF of perennial and intermittent stream
channel and 6.6 ac of wetland area, enhancing 1,384 LF of intermittent stream channel and creating 2.9
ac of wetland area. Approximately 179 LF of stream crossings (farm roads and power line easements)
were excluded from the total project credit calculations. The site's riparian areas were also planted to
stabilize streambanks and wetland areas, improve habitat, and protect water quality. The ecological uplift
can be summarized as starting from tree farming -impacted streams and wetlands and moving to stable
channels and wetlands in a protected riparian corridor. Restoration of dimension, pattern, and profile
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 4 Annual Report - FINAL 1-1

was implemented for UT1, UT1A, and UT113; enhancement of profile and dimension was implemented for
UT1C and UT11D. Wetland restoration and creation included RW1 and RW2. UT1A and UT113 discharge
into an anastomosed wetland complex upstream of their confluence with UT1 as depicted in Figure 2.
This anastomosed wetland complex was not proposed for stream mitigation credit. Figure 2 and Table 1
present the implemented design for the site.
Monitored enhancements to water quality and ecological processes established in the mitigation plan
(approved 8/2011) are outlined below, followed by expected project benefits which are associated with
restoration, but will not be monitored as part of this project:
Monitored Project Goals
• Wetland areas will be disked to increase surface roughness and better capture rainfall which
will improve connection with the water table for groundwater recharge. Adjacent streams will be
stabilized and established with a floodplain elevation to promote hydrologic transfer between
wetland and stream;
• A channel with riffle -pool sequences and some rock and wood structures will be created in the
steeper project reaches and a channel with run -pool sequences and woody debris structures will
be created in the low sloped project reaches for macroinvertebrate and fish habitat. Introduction
of wood including root wads and woody 'riffles' along with native stream bank vegetation will
substantially increase habitat value. Gravel areas will be added as appropriate to further diversify
available habitats;
• Adjacent buffer areas will be restored by removing invasive vegetation and planting native
vegetation. These areas will be allowed to receive more regular and inundating flows. Riparian
wetland areas will be restored and enhanced to provide wetland habitat; and
• Sediment input from eroding stream banks will be reduced by installing bioengineering and in -
stream structures while creating a stable channel form using geomorphic design principles.
Expected Project Benefits
• Chemical fertilizer and pesticide levels will be decreased by filtering runoff from adjacent tree
farm operations through restored native buffer zones and wetlands. Offsite nutrient input will be
absorbed onsite by filtering flood flows through restored floodplain areas and wetlands, where
flood flows can disperse through native vegetation and be captured in vernal pools. Increased
surface water residency time will provide contact treatment time and groundwater recharge
potential;
• Sediment from offsite sources will be captured during bankfull or greater flows by deposition on
restored floodplain areas where native vegetation will slow overland flow velocities,
• Restored riffle/step-pool sequences on the upper reach of UT1A, where distinct points of re-
aeration can occur, will allow for oxygen levels to be maintained in the perennial reaches. Small
log steps on the upstream portion of UT113 and UT1 Reach 1 Upper will also provide re -aeration
points; and
• Creation of deep pool zones will lower temperature, helping to maintain dissolved oxygen
concentrations. Pools will form below drops on the steeper project reaches and around areas of
woody debris on the low -sloped project reaches. Establishment and maintenance of riparian
buffers will create long-term shading of the channel flow to minimize thermal heating.
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 4 Annual Report - FINAL 1-2

The design streams and wetlands were restored to the appropriate type based on the surrounding
landscape, climate, and natural vegetation communities but also with strong consideration to existing
watershed conditions and trajectory.
The stream restoration success criteria for the site follows the approved performance criteria presented
in the DMS Mitigation Plan Template (version 1.0, 11/20/2009) and the Stream Mitigation Guidelines
issued in April 2003 by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and NCDWR. Annual monitoring and
quarterly site visits will be conducted to assess the condition of the finished project for five years, or until
success criteria are met. The stream restoration reaches (UT1, UT1A, and UT1B) of the project were
assigned specific performance criteria components for stream morphology, hydrology, and vegetation.
The enhancement reaches (UT1C and UT1D) were documented through photographs and visual
assessments to verify that no significant degradational changes are occurring in the stream channel or
riparian corridor. Monitoring for wetland vegetation will extend five years beyond completion of
construction. The wetland restoration and creation sections have been assigned specific performance
criteria for hydrology and vegetation. The final mitigation plan was submitted and accepted by the NCDMS
in August 2011. Construction activities were completed by River Works, Inc. in April 2012. Baseline
monitoring (MYO) and as -built survey was conducted between April and May 2012. Annual monitoring
will be conducted for five years including stream, vegetation, and wetland assessment. The final
monitoring activities will be conducted in 2016 with the close-out anticipated to commence in 2017 given
the success criteria are met. Appendix 1 provides more detailed project activity, history, contact
information, and watershed/site background information for this project.
1.2 Monitoring Year 4 Data Assessment
Annual monitoring and quarterly site visits were conducted between February and November 2015 MY4
to assess the condition of the project. The stream and wetland mitigation success criteria for the Site
follow the approved success criteria presented in the Lyle Mitigation Plan (approved 8/2011).
1.2.1 Vegetative Assessment
Planted woody vegetation is being monitored in accordance with the guidelines and procedures
developed by the Carolina Vegetation Survey-NCEEP Level 2 Protocol (Lee et al., 2008). A total of 35
vegetation monitoring plots were established during the baseline monitoring within the project easement
areas using a standard 10 by 10 meter plot. The final vegetative success criteria will be the survival of 260
planted stems per acre in the riparian corridor along restored and enhanced reaches at the end of year
five of the monitoring period. The interim measure of vegetative success for the site is the survival of at
least 320 planted stems per acre at the end of year three of the monitoring period.
The site was re -planted in late winter 2012 in response to the dead bare roots observed during the MY1
vegetative survey. Most likely, the mortality of planted stems during year 1 was a result of dry soil
conditions, low precipitation, and/or from grass suffocation or crowding of planted stems. Replanting was
conducted across the site with focus in and around areas not meeting success criteria after MY1 (such as
plots 4, 5, 7, 10, 12, 19, 21, 29, & 30) and included approximately 1,200 additional stems. The MY2
vegetation survey resulted in an 11% increase in stem density due to supplemental planting and the re -
sprout of existing bare roots. After the MY2 vegetation survey an additional supplemental planting was
warranted within the vicinity of plots 4, 6, and 19. During the spring of 2014, approximately 200 1 -gallon
containerized trees were planted in and around these plots.
During MY4 additional stems were observed in several plots whose composition, stem height, and location
correlate to the supplemental plantings in 2012 and 2014 and are assumed to be planted stems missed in
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 4 Annual Report - FINAL 1-3

previous monitoring years. The MY4 annual vegetation monitoring was completed in June 2015 and
resulted in an average planted stem density of 423 stems per acre for the site, which is greater than the
interim and final success criteria requirements. All 35 vegetation plots individually meet the year 5 final
criteria of 260 stems/acre. Planted stem densities ranged from 283 — 607 stems per acres with an overall
average of 428 stems per acre. A strong presence of volunteers was observed in several plots. When
volunteers are included the total stem densities ranged from 324 — 4,492 stems per acre with an overall
average of 807 stems per acre. Between three and nine native woody species were documented in the
vegetation plots with 27 species present site wide.
1.2.2 Vegetative Areas of Concern
The MY4 vegetation monitoring and visual assessment revealed few vegetation areas of concern, mostly
carrying over from MY3. Invasive species including Kudzu (Pueraria lobata), Johnson grass (Sorghum
halepense), and cattails (Typha Iatifolia) were actively managed during MY4. The presence of these
species does not currently appear to be affecting the survivability of planted stems, however, as discussed
in the maintenance plan Wildlands will perform maintenance as needed. Minor encroachment of the
conservation easement was observed in the left floodplain of UT1 (Stations 117+50 to 118+30) and left
floodplain of UT1D (Stations 505+70 to 507+00) during adjacent field grading performed by the
surrounding tree farm. Please refer to Appendix 3 for vegetation summary tables and raw data tables and
to Appendix 2 for vegetation plot photographs, the vegetation condition assessment table and Figures
3.0-3.3 for the Integrated Current Condition Plan View which outlines these areas of concern.
Maintenance Plan
Currently the invasive species identified on the site do not appear to be negatively affecting planted stems.
Visual assessment will be performed in 2015/2016 to determine if any additional maintenance is
necessary to promote survival of the remaining planted stems. In order to keep the invasive species Kudzu
under control, Wildlands treated the invasive areas around the upstream extents of UT1A during the fall
of 2015 using a glyphosate concentration. Additional conservation easement markers will be installed
along areas of encroachment.
1.2.3 Stream Assessment
Morphological surveys for MY4 were conducted between May and November 2015. The majority of the
streams within the site have met the success criteria for MY4. An exception is the upper portion of UT1A
that continues to experience aggradation from its contributing upstream watershed. During MY3
aggradation was observed between Stations 301+75 to 304+34 of UT1A. Since then aggradation has
extended upstream to Station 300+36. Minor aggradation was also observed between Stations 201+46
and 204+75 of UT1B during MY3. Follow up field assessments in MY3 indicated UT113 had naturally
transported the additional sediment and the channel was functioning as designed. During MY4, minor
aggradation was again observed in approximately the same section of UT1B (201+46 to 204+75). The
minor aggradation appears cyclic and not impacting the overall stability of UT1B. A small section of
aggradation was also observed at the top of UT1 (Station 100+17 to 100+95). The minor amount of
additional sediment has not impacted the channels' stability or function. Therefore, there are no
reportable areas of concern related to this section of UT1 or UT1B. Over time UT1 and UT1B should
naturally transport this sediment.
A beaver dam was observed at Station 111+50 of UT1 during an October site visit and removed. The
beaver dam had been rebuilt at Station 111+50 during a November site visit and an additional dam was
present downstream at Station 112+40. Both were removed during the November visit. Please refer to
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 4 Annual Report - FINAL 1-4

Appendix 2 for the visual assessment table, Integrated Current Condition Plan View (CCPV), photographs,
and Appendix 4 for morphological data and plots.
Surveyed riffle cross-sections fell within the parameters defined for channels of the appropriate Rosgen
stream type with the exception of cross-sections 9 and 13 along UT1A due to aggradation from the
contributing upstream watershed. Two additional cross-sections were installed in MY4 at Stations 308+41
and 310+26 of UT1A to characterize this downstream portion of the reach (refer to Figure 2 and 3). All
cross-sections were monitored within the guidelines presented in the mitigation plan. In general cross-
sections along UT1 and UT113 show little to no change in the bankfull area, maximum depth ratio, or width -
to -depth ratio.
The surveyed longitudinal profile data for the stream restoration reaches illustrates that the bedform
features are maintaining lateral and vertical stability throughout UT1, and the lower sections of UT1A and
UT16. In UT1, UT1B and the downstream sections of UT1A the riffles and runs are remaining steeper and
shallower than the pools, while the pools are remaining deeper than the riffles and maintaining flat water
surface slopes. The longitudinal profiles show that the bank height ratios remain very near to 1.0. In the
aggraded section of UT1A, the sediment load remains extended above the top of bank. Pools within the
aggraded section of UT113 are less distinguishable and resemble shallow runs (Appendix 4, Longitudinal
Profile Plots).
At the downstream end of UT1, near the confluence with Lyle Creek, minor aggradation documented in
previous monitoring years continues to persist. This aggradation is most likely attributed to backwater
conditions from Lyle Creek. Lyle Creek is under backwater influence of the managed Lake Norman/
Catawba River system. Due to the sand/silt nature of the substrate throughout the project, fluctuations
in bed elevations were observed and expected. These fluctuations within UT1 are temporary and seem to
typically correspond to storm events.
In -stream structures, such as brush mattresses and sod mats used to enhance channel habitat and stability
on the outside bank of meander bends are providing stability and habitat as designed. Pattern data will
be collected in MY5 only if there are indicators from the profile or dimensions that significant geomorphic
adjustments have occurred. No changes were observed during MY4 that indicated a change in the radius
of curvature or channel belt width.
Maintenance Plan
Aggradation continues to be documented along the upper portion of UT1A. The aggradation is due to
bank erosion and mass wasting occurring upstream of the site that is outside of the conservation
easement and off the property. Wildlands will continue monitoring the aggraded sections to determine if
the streams will evacuate the sediment or whether further remedial action is necessary.
1.2.4 Hydrology Assessment
As of MY4, two or more bankfull events have occurred in separate years within all the restoration reaches
(UT1, UT1A and UT113). One bankfull event were recorded on UT113 using a crest gage. Due to high
sedimentation rates on UT1A, the crest gage located at cross section 9 was relocated to station 305+16
on UT1A downstream of the aggraded section of the stream. Please refer to Table 14 in Appendix 5 for
hydrologic data.
1.2.5 Wetland Assessment
Eight groundwater monitoring gages (GWG 1 — 8) were established during the baseline monitoring
throughout the wetland restoration and creation areas. The gages were installed at appropriate locations
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 4 Annual Report - FINAL 1-5

so that the data collected will provide an indication of groundwater levels throughout the wetland project
area. Three additional gages (GWG 9 —11) were also installed during subsequent monitoring years. GWG
10 was added within the wetland restoration portion of RW1. GWG 9 and 11 were added to creation areas
in RW2. A barotroll logger and a rain gage were also installed onsite. Historical growing season data is not
available for Catawba County therefore the growing season used for success criteria in previous
monitoring years was applied from nearby Iredell County growing season data which runs from April Stn
to October 27th (202 days). Additional growing season data are being collected by two soil temperature
loggers that were installed, one within each wetland. Based on discussions with the United States Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE) the on-site soil temperature data may be used to determine the beginning of
the growing season and Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) WETS data to determine the end
of the growing season. During MY4 on-site soil temperatures reached and/or stayed above 41 degrees
Fahrenheit at 12 inches below the ground surface for 30 and 36 days earlier than the Iredell County
growing season defined by the WETS data. For this monitoring report the beginning of the growing season
was extended by 30 days from March 91h to October 27th (232 days) based on the soil temperature data.
All groundwater monitoring gages were downloaded on a quarterly basis and will be maintained on an as
needed basis. The success criteria for wetland hydrology is to have a free groundwater surface within 12
inches of the ground surface for seven percent of the growing season, which is measured on consecutive
days under typical precipitation conditions. All groundwater gages met the annual wetland hydrology
success criteria for MY4. GWG1 experienced a couple malfunctions during MY4 but still met success
criteria. The issues with GWG1 have been corrected. The beaver dam at Station 111+50 of UT1 created
backwater conditions upstream to approximately 109+50 during the latter part of 2015 (July — October).
The beaver activity may have enhanced surface hydrology in the vicinity of GWG's 6 and 9 during this
time. The beaver dam was removed during site visits in October and November 2015. This area will be
monitored during 2016. Please refer to Appendix 2 for the groundwater gage locations and Appendix 5
for groundwater hydrology data and plots.
1.2.6 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Assessment
Prior to site construction, three macroinvertebrate assessment locations were established at the Lyle
Creek Mitigation Site (UT1 Upper Reach, UT1 Lower Reach and UT1B) as shown on Figure 3. These sites
were sampled before construction (December 2011), during MY -2 (January 2014), and during MY3
(January 2015). Sampling was conducted using an abbreviation of the standard qualitative method (Qual
4) in compliance with the North Carolina Rapid Bioassessment Standard Operating Procedures for Benthic
Macroin vertebrates set by North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ, 2012). Samples
were assessed and identified at the species level by Pennington & Associates, Inc. Sampling indicated an
increase in overall taxa richness from pre -construction to MY3 on UTI Lower and UT1B while UT1 Upper
decreased slightly. Ephemeroptera + Plecoptera + Trichoptera (EPT) taxa richness increased from pre -
construction to MY3 on UT1 Upper and UT1 Lower while EPT taxa richness remained consistent on UT1B
between pre -construction and MY3. MY3 NC biotic Indices on UT1 Lower and UT113 remained lower than
pre -construction values indicating pollutant intolerant bugs are establishing across the site. The NC biotic
index on UTI Upper was slightly above the pre -construction index.
1.3 Monitoring Year 4 Summary
With the exception of upstream portions of UT1A and UT113, the streams within the site are stable and
functioning as designed. The average stem density for the site is on track to meet the MY5 success criteria.
There have been two bankfull events recorded in separate monitoring years along each restored project
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 4 Annual Report - FINAL 1-6

reach since construction commenced; therefore, the site has met the MY5 stream hydrology attainment
requirement. All groundwater gages met the wetland hydrology success criteria for MY4.
Summary information and data related to the performance of various project and monitoring elements
can be found in the tables and figures in the report appendices. Narrative background and supporting
information formerly found in these reports can be found in the Mitigation Plan documents available on
DMS's website. All raw data supporting the tables and figures in the appendices are available from DMS
upon request.
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 4 Annual Report - FINAL 1-7

Section 2: METHODOLOGY
Geomorphic data was collected following the standards outlined in The Stream Channel Reference Site:
An Illustrated Guide to Field Techniques (Harrelson et al., 1994) and in the Stream Restoration: A Natural
Channel Design Handbook (Doll et al., 2003). Longitudinal and cross-sectional data were collected using
a total station and were georeferenced. All Integrated Current Condition Plan View mapping was recorded
using a Trimble handheld GPS with sub -meter accuracy and processed using was Pathfinder and ArcView.
Crest gages were installed in surveyed riffle cross-sections and monitored quarterly. Hydrology
attainment installation and monitoring methods are in accordance with the USACE (2003) standards.
Vegetation monitoring protocols followed the Carolina Vegetation Survey-NCEEP Level 2 Protocol (Lee et
al., 2008).
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 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-EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation Version
4.2. Retrieved from http://cvs.bio.unc.edu/protocol/cvs-eep-protocol-v4.2-lev1-5.pdf.
North Carolina Department of Environment Quality (NCDEQ). 2012. Standard Operating
Procedures for Benthic Macroinvertebrates.
Rosgen, D. L. 1994. A classification of natural rivers. Catena 22:169-199.
Rosgen, D.L. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Pagosa Springs, CO: Wildland Hydrology Books.
Rosgen, D.L. 1997. A Geomorphological Approach to Restoration of Incised Rivers. Proceedings of the
Conference on Management of Landscapes Disturbed by Channel Incision. Center For Computational
Hydroscience and Bioengineering, Oxford Campus, University of Mississippi, Pages 12-22.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina, 3rd
approx. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, North Carolina.
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines. USACE, NCDEQ-
DWQ, USEPA, NCWRC.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2002. Natural Resources Conservation Service, Climate
Information for Catawba County, NC (1971-2000). WETS Station: Catawba 3 NNW, NC1579.
http://www.wcc.nres.usda.gov/ftpref/support/cl i mate/wetlands/nc/37035.txt
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2009. Natural Resources Conservation Service, Soil
Survey Geographic (SSURGO) database for Catawba County, North Carolina.
http://SoilDataMart.nres.usda.gov
United States Geological Survey (USGS). 1998. North Carolina Geology. http://
http://www.geology.enr.state.nc.us/usgs/carolina.htm
Weakley, A.S. 2008. Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, Georgia, Northern Florida, and Surrounding Areas
(Draft April 2008). University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill: Chapel Hill, NC.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 2011. Lyle Creek Mitigation Plan. DMS, Raleigh, NC.
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 4 Annual Report - FINAL 3-1

Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 2012. Lyle Creek Mitigation Site Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built
Baseline Report. DMS, Raleigh, NC.
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 4 Annual Report - FINAL 3-2

APPENDIX 1. General Tables and Figures

Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project No.94643)
Monitoring Year 4
Mitigation Credits
Nitrogen Phosphorous
Stream Riparian Wetland Non -Riparian Wetland Buffer
Nutrient Offet Nutrient Offset
Type R RE R RE R RE
Totals 5,965 N/A 7.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Project Components
As -Built Existing Restoration or Restoration As -Built Mitigation
Reachil) Stationing/ Footage Approach Equivalent Length/Area Mitigation Ratio Credits (SMU)'
Location (LF) (LF/acres)
UT1
100+00-
4,071
Priority 1/2
Restoration
3,951 LF1
1:1
3951
141+30
300+00-
Mai
1,141
Priority 1
Restoration
615 LF'
1:1
615
306+15
UT1b
201+52-
890
Priority 1/2
Restoration
845 LF'
1:1
845
209+97
in -stream
UT1c
400+00-
695
structures,
Enhancement II
677 LF4
2.5:1
271
406+77
grading,
planting
in -stream
UT1d
500+00-
760
structures,
Enhancement II
707 LF
2.5:1
283
507+07
grading,
planting
grading,
RW1
N/A
N/A
Restoration
5.8 AC
1:1
5.8
planting
grading,
RW1
N/A
N/A
Creation
1.1 AC
3:1
0.4
planting
grading,
RW2
N/A
N/A
Restoration
0.8 AC
1:1
0.8
--rplanting
grading,
RW2
N/A
N/A
Creation
1.8 AC
3:1
0.6
planting
Restoration Level
Component Summation
Stream Riparian Wetland Non -Riparian Buffer Upland
(linear feet) (acres) Wetland(square feet) (acres)
(acres)
��aaaa
�aaaaa
aaaa■�a
' Excludes 179 LF in crossings (farm road and power line easements). Includes length from station 125+42 to 125+60 where left bank buffer width ranges from 48.5' to 50'. The right bank buffer
width in this area exceeds 100'.
Excludes downstream 419 LF of UT1a that is in the anastomosed wetland complex
' Excludes downstream 243 LF of UTlbthat is in the anastomosed wetland complex
4Includes length from station 4+48 to 6+11 where left bank buffer width ranges from 28.7'to 50'. The right bank buffer width in this area ranges from 65.5'to 102.6'.

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

Table 4. Project Information and Attributes
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project No.94643)
Monitoring Year 4
Project Information
Project Name Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
County Catawba County, NC
Project Area (acres) 26.62
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude) 35° 42' 39.218" N, 81° 4' 54.628" W
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province Piedmont
River Basin Catawba
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8 -digit 03050101
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14 -digit 03050101140010
DWQ Sub -basin Catawba River Subbasin 03-08-32
Project Drainiage Area (acres) 315
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area 1 5%
CGIA Land Use Classification 50% Forested, 20% Developed, 17% Agricultural, 8% Shrubland, 5% Herbaceous Upland
Reach Summary Information
Length of reach (linear feet) - Post -Restoration
3,9511 615' 845' 677 707 N/A N/A
Drainage area (acres)
315 56 78 26 9 1 96 134
NCDWQ stream identification score
Lyle Creek - 11-76-(4.5)
NCDWQ Water Quality Classification
Lyle Creek - WS-IV;CA
F54,F64,G64
F64
F64
F64
F64
N/A
N/A
Morphological Desription (stream type) of Pre -Existing
Morphological Desription (stream type) of Design
BSc, C6
B6c, C6
C6
C6
C6
N/A
N/A
Evolutionary trend (Simon's Model) - Pre- Restoration
Stage II - Channelized
Chewacla
Chewacla
Chewacla
Wehadkee
Chewacla
Congaree
loam and
Chewacla
loam
loam
fine sandy
loam
complex
Wehadkee
loam
Underlying mapped soils
loam
fine sand
somewhat
somewhat
somewhat
frequently
somewhat
moderately
poorly
somewhat
poorly
drained
poorly
drained
flooded
poorly
drained
^ell drained
drained and
frequently
poorly
drained
Drainage class
flooded
Soil Hydric status
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Slope
0-2%
0-2%
0-2%
0-2%
0-2%
0-27/.
0-2%
FEMA classification
AES
Native vegetation community
Palustrine Emergent System
Percent composition of exotic invasive vegetation - Post-
Restoration
0%
Regulatory Considerations
Regulation Applicable? Documentation
Resolved?X
Waters of the United States - Section 404
X
USACE Nationwide Permit No.27 and DWQ 401 Water Quality
Certification No. 3689
Waters of the United States - Section 401
X
X
Division of Land Quality (Dam Safety)
N/A
N/A
N/A
Lyle Creek Mitigation Plan: two federally listed species, the bald
eagle (Halioeetus leucocephalus) and dwarf -flowered hearleaf
(Hexastylis noniflora ), are currently listed in Catawba County.
Endangered Species Act
Studies found "no individual species, critical habitat, or suitable
habitat was found to exist on the site" (letter to USFWS; no
response was received within the 30 -day time frame from
X
X
USFWS)
No historic resources were found to be impacted (letter from
Historic Preservation Act
X
X
SHPO and THPO)
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)/Coastal Area
N/A
N/A
N/A
No -rise Certification and floodplain development perm)
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
X
X
approved by Catawba County floodplain administrator.
Project area has warm water fisheries; found no reason to object
Essential Fisheries Habitat
X
X
to the restoration project (letter from NCWRC).
' Excludes 200 LF of crossings
2 Excludes 306 LF of UTla in the anastomosed wetlands complex
3 Excludes 243 LF of UTSb in the anastomosed wetlands complex
4 The Rosgen classification system is for natural streams. These channels have been heavily manipulated by man and therefore the Rosgen classification system is not applicable. These
classifications are provided for illustrative purposes only.
sThe project area does not have an associate regulated floodplain; however, the project reaches and wetland areas area located within the floodway and flood fringe of Lyle Creek.

Easement Area
Hydrologic Unit Code (14)
EEP Targeted Local Watershed
'Orn S hoof Rd
ff• �
y n ,
a
•
4 '
Ra + a• -.
alks
Country
Club
k Sh
296 m, a
• r
_ -
030501b1150 20
Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
NCDMS Project Number 94643
Monitoring Year 4
Catawba County, NC
0 2,000 4,000 ft
I I I I I
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
i
n0 f
0305010 40010
• i
Madifta � s
Directions:
From 1-40 exit 138, follow
Oxford School Road south
Project Location �' 03050101150.010 .,
for 2.2 miles. Oxford School
;
Road becomes North Main
Street (NC Highway 10) after
a bridge crossing at Lyle Creek.
From North Main Street, turn
right onto 3rd Avenue NW.
a
A
Follow 3rd Avenue NW around-
_ 285 m'
and to the right to approach the
''fir^
Catawba Tree Farm gate.
287rt
r� Bridges
The subject project site is an environmental restoration
a a
site of the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)
Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS) and is encompassed
by a recorded conservation easement,but is bordered
030501 1500 0
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
Sr
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.
e\\Fe -
3
Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
NCDMS Project Number 94643
Monitoring Year 4
Catawba County, NC
0 2,000 4,000 ft
I I I I I
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING

J
♦ I �
i. ♦ — —y s .. , I 1
♦ j "�,v � l : � 1 j
-pow t.r
4-0
70
s
Figure 2. Project Component/
Asset Map
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project Number 94643
Monitoring Year 4
Catawba County, NC
Conservation
L---1 Easement
Stream
Restoration
Stream
Enhancement
UT1A& UT1B (no
credit)
® Wetland
Restoration
Wetland Creation
Railroad
. i Power Lines
0 150 300 ft
%�O
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING

APPENDIX 2. Visual Assessment Data

d- +ati et.
r s.
O rI ,.i.i.r.Ia,..,.. t.,.,.,.,.i.1'Mi.i.,.,.
BOOM
% PP 18 i` r
a
TIM IMIMIMIMIMIM
UT1d Johnson Grass '" �, r6 �,.` PP 17-
i
PP 12
1 ♦a
- - i
® PP 3 't UT1 I ,
,t
P
PP 34
PP
-.-.� -.� --- Johnson Grafi'
s, �, �\PP 37
-4
Johnson Grass & PP 10 PP 1'
Japanese Honeysuckle! Q _ _ �1/ PP 12 44-'-' PP 15 _
Pf'13i PPj4 P
t
/ P / '/P 30 1 �� 1 \ PP 3511 PP 27JU PP 23
/ JE
1
,/
PP 9I PP 26
4,.i.i.i.iM 161.i�,.i.i.,.i: .:■�E}ir.FMelri.i i. i. i. i.�.�si - �i.i.i.i., i
/ V
P 25
3` 1 j 1
PP 28 � � 1 , �,P25
-a j� i UT1fi ar '
UT1
_ PP 2
' N
Sheet A
2014 Aerial
r
Okt 4
l
/ V
P 25
3` 1 j 1
PP 28 � � 1 , �,P25
-a j� i UT1fi ar '
UT1
_ PP 2
' N
Sheet A
2014 Aerial
r

r
20
21
s
CO
ILM
22
71 A.a a
}
IL
'.�
k.
,may, yyy�`• �� ..
,µ�, ..' '. '�• �.• 5.
tib"' ^.7 �.a �'_ .1'. i,• �` — - _.—,�_ Z�
AI
I ol�_ _.1:d1 y. r ; A _.� f i
Not,_"'.may ,32 / ' s , u tl • x•18 2
'Ot
•sz� �_r� f1"iy . t+". , +�q.."" 35
Conservation Easement
+ Power Lines 4 _ ra • ifi
Railroad L /'
Stream Restoration
— Stream Enhancement
UT1A & UT1B (no credit).' *`� _ .'_ _ # A..
® Wetland Restoration, _ `¢
Wetland Creation K , ;.. ai _ �` N, �- . z• +
-•- Designed Bankfull
1
s
Structures -
- Cross -Sections (XS)� Mfr - • `"" _ , . r,
Photo Points (PP)
Macroinvertebrate Sampling Sites -
Groundwater Gage (GWG) - MY4
40 H
Criteria Met ''t ♦ i
Criteria Not Met , ` �. J� f.►
Vegetation Plot MY4 i • ��
Criteria Met P ai
Invasive Areas
4
Easement Encroachment " Vit_ 1 /`� , " s -4-lit
y
s
Stream Problem Areas - MY4 r., I "''' tt•b ,,,
Stream Aggradation7.17
Beaver Activity
_ .t__M/14 Aerial Photogra'phy�
400
ktww
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING rk�
0 150 300 ft
I I I I I
Figure 3.1 Integrated Current
Condition Plan View (Sheet 1 of 3)
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
NCDMS Project Number 94643
Monitoring Year 4
Catawba County, NC

Figure 3.2 Integrated Current
Condition Plan View (Sheet 2 of 3)
nk�
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
W I LD LA N D S
ENGINEERING 0 150 300 ft NCDMS Project Number 94643
I i i i I t Monitoring Year 4
Catawba County, NC

WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
Figure 3.3 Integrated Current
Condition Plan View (Sheet 3 of 3)
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
0 150 300 ft NCDMS Project Number 94643
"L4 1 1 1 1 1 t Monitoring Year 4
Catawba County, NC

Table Sa. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94643)
Monitoring year 4
UTI Reach 1 Upper (700 LF)
Major Channel
Category
1. Bed
Sub-
1. Vertical Stability (Riffle and
Metric
Aggradation
Number Stable,
Performing as Total Number in
Intended As -Built
Number of Amount of
Unstable Unstable
Segments Footage
1 78
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
11%
Number with Footage with
Stabilizing Woody Stabilizing Woody Adjust % for Stabilizing
Vegetation Vegetation Woody Vegetation
Run units)
Degradation
0 0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
15 15
100%
Depth Sufficient
8 9
89%
3. Meander Pool Condition
Length Appropriate
9 9
100%
Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
9 9
100%
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide)
9 9
100%
2. Bank
1. Scoured/ Eroded
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth
and/or scour and erosion
0
0
100% 0
0
100%
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear
0
0
100% 0
0
100%
sustainable and are providing habitat
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100% 0
0
100%
Totals
0 0
100% 0 0 100%
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
3. Engineered
Structures
40
40
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the
sill
39
39
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
24
24
100%
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not
exceed 15%.
40
40
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining `Max Pool Depth : Bankfull
Depth >_ 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at baseflow.
6
6
100%

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

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

Table Sd. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94643)
Monitoring Year 4
UT1A (61S LF)
Major Channel
Category
Cha ".1 Sub-
CategoryJ1111111kh_
1. Vertical Stability (Riffle and
Metri,
Aggradation
Number Stable,
Performing as
intended
Total Number in
As -Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
1
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
398
% Stable,
Performing as
65%
Number with
Stabilizing Woody
Footage with
Stabilizing Woody
Adjust % for Stabilizing
1. Bed
Run units)
Degradation
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate 8 8 100%
Depth Sufficient
3
20
15%
3. Meander Pool Condition
Length Appropriate
3
11
27%
Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
11
11
100%
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide)
11
11
100%
2. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroded
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth
and/or scour and erosion
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
sustainable and are providing habitat
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
0
1 0
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3. Engineered
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
43
43
100%
Structures
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the
sill
43
43
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
35
35
100%
I
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not 43
exceed 15%.
43
Habitat
I. -
Pool forming structures maintaining `Max Pool Depth : Bankfull
Depth >_ 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at baseflow.
0
10
JO
0%
Pools are expected to fill in slightly and re -scour overtime due to the fine-grained substrate in the system.
Unable to assess structues between Stations 300+36 and 304+34 due to heavy aggradation.

Table Se. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94643)
Monitoring year 4
UT113 (845 LF)
Major Channel
Category
Cha '".1 Sub-
CategoryJ1111111166_
1. Vertical Stability (Riffle and
Metri,
Aggradation
Number Stable,
Performing
intended
as Total Number in
As -Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
1
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
329
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
33%
Number with
Stabilizing Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing Woody
Vegetation
Adjust % for Stabilizing
Woody Vegetation
1. Bed
Run units)
Degradation
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate 11 11 100%
Depth Sufficient
8
19
42%
3. Meander Pool Condition
Length Appropriate
8
19
42%
Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
19
19
100%
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide)
19
19
100%
2. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroded
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth
and/or scour and erosion
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
sustainable and are providing habitat
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
31
31
3. Engineered
1. Overall Integrity
100%
Structures'
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the
sill
31
31
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
21
21
100%
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not 31 31
exceed 15%.
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining `Max Pool Depth : Bankfull
Depth >_ 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at baseflow.
0
0
100%
Pools are expected to fill in slightly and re -scour over time due to the fine-grained substrate in the system.
Unable to assess structues between Stations 201+46 and 204+75 due to aggradation.

Stream Photographs

Photo Point 1—view upstream (04/23/15) 1 Photo Point 1—view downstream (04/23/15)
Photo Point 2 —view upstream (04/23/15) 1 Photo Point 2 — view downstream (04/23/15) 1
Photo Point 3 — view upstream (04/23/15) 1 Photo Point 3 — view downstream (04/23/15) 1

d
a`:
n.�h .. -
� se's; �, s� y y tee, ��. �� ���.
,ti
,� 9
i� - ��I ns
"" � '�� }� a x �� ;,�+ s '° rf
f �� �
fi ��� � n � � z4yWf �I '
� �p ^�
�� x
.., � wY. ,/� -- :,� ,:�. � .r } .� :�.

r�•'Ai�R�.�'v 7g* x ;'. �! ' `v S?� �.���°' ' "kik"",'-;.
a
Y "r 40)
i r
WIP
9th I�r
9 ;?
Y �y. "-

Photo Point 10—view upstream (04/23/15) 1 Photo Point 10—view downstream (04/23/15)
Photo Point 11— view upstream (04/23/15) 1 Photo Point 11— view downstream (04/23/15) 1
Photo Point 12 — view upstream (04/23/15) 1 Photo Point 12 — view downstream (04/23/15) 1

Photo Point 13 — view upstream (04/23/15) 1 Photo Point 13 — view downstream (04/23/15) 1
Photo Point 14 —view upstream (04/23/15) 1 Photo Point 14 — view downstream (04/23/15) 1
Photo Point 15 — view upstream (04/23/15) 1 Photo Point 15 — view downstream (04/23/15) 1

Photo Point 16 — view upstream (04/23/15) 1 Photo Point 16 — view downstream (04/23/15)
Photo Point 17 — view upstream (04/23/15) 1 Photo Point 17 — view downstream (04/23/15) 1
Photo Point 18 — view upstream (04/23/15) 1 Photo Point 18 — view downstream (04/23/15) 1

�^
7 '
uz
a-� u
s
µ
:f
d
�
� 1
`f
`v
Ly
�^
7 '
uz
a-� u
s
µ
:f
d
�
� 1
`v

Photo Point 22 — view upstream (04/23/15) Photo Point 22 — view downstream (04/23/15) 1
Photo Point 23 — view upstream (04/23/15) 1 Photo Point 23 — view downstream (04/23/15) 1
Photo Point 24 — view upstream (04/23/15) 1 Photo Point 24 — view downstream (04/23/15) 1

y�
c• ��l ,. A
k � �
r �aX
Y
"
ii'ANi
i

Photo Point 28 — view upstream (04/23/15) 1 Photo Point 28 — view downstream (04/23/15) 1
Photo Point 29 — view upstream (04/23/15) 1 Photo Point 29 — view downstream (04/23/15) 1
Photo Point 30 — view upstream (04/23/15) 1 Photo Point 30 — view downstream (04/23/15) 1

r i ,
{s ,r F

sy e4 1ua! F a p'
9 r
HTt Y
a&
XG.Tz
)
1 r
k�x-
Iwo
WARM
red S
1
41,
a;.
I J Tf {
ff z3 iia pxft i Q
Ky woo
r
l:
yF 9 n
4,
t,70
y y •y 'yam �'� w>'Yk R
vi/wi }per F P 7i /f
f
�Y
i,iit �t
-�
� s
A ry
&WWW
k1.�
t S
d q
_ Jnc
sy e4 1ua! F a p'
9 r
HTt Y
a&
XG.Tz
)
1 r
k�x-
Iwo
WARM
red S
1
41,
a;.
I J Tf {
ff z3 iia pxft i Q
Ky woo
r
l:
yF 9 n
4,
t,70
y y •y 'yam �'� w>'Yk R
vi/wi }per F P 7i /f
f
�Y
i,iit �t
-�
r x z s"fiU' jug h0�' F: Wk
SO
I)1 f i F
P P Y
� s
A ry
k n!
too
_ Jnc
i
r x z s"fiU' jug h0�' F: Wk
SO
I)1 f i F
P P Y

�. �—
., ��
;r
� �
' ��
�
�
�
�,
' e,
I
�c
.jsF. l v`
i

Vegetation Photographs

Vegetation Plot 1 (06/4/2015) 1 Vegetation Plot 2 (06/4/2015) 1
I Vegetation Plot 3 (06/4/2015) 1 Vegetation Plot 4 (06/4/2015) I
Vegetation Plot 5 (06/5/2015) 1Vegetation Plot 6 (06/4/2015) 1

Vegetation Plot 7 (06/3/2015) 1 Vegetation Plot 8 (10/9/2015) 1
I Vegetation Plot 9 (06/5/2015) 1 Vegetation Plot 10 (06/5/2015) I
Vegetation Plot 11 (06/3/2015) 1Vegetation Plot 12 (06/3/2015) 1

Vegetation Plot 13 (06/3/2015) 1 Vegetation Plot 14 (06/4/2015) 1
I Vegetation Plot 15 (06/5/2015) 1 Vegetation Plot 16 (06/3/2015) I
Vegetation Plot 17 (06/4/2015) 1Vegetation Plot 18 (06/4/2015) 1

Vegetation Plot 19 (06/4/2015) 1 Vegetation Plot 20 (06/4/2015) 1
Vegetation Plot 21 (06/4/2015) 1 Vegetation Plot 22 (06/4/2015)
Vegetation Plot 23 (06/23/2015) 1Vegetation Plot 24 (06/3/2015) 1

Vegetation Plot 25 (06/3/2015) 1 Vegetation Plot 26 (06/3/2015) 1
I Vegetation Plot 27 (06/3/2015) 1 Vegetation Plot 28 (06/3/2015) I
Vegetation Plot 29 (06/3/2015) 1Vegetation Plot 30 (06/3/2015) 1

L`
: :«
�

APPENDIX 3. Vegetation Plot Data

Table 7. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94643)
Monitoring Year 4
MY4 Success Criteria Met
Plot (Y/N)
1 Y
Tract Mean
100
2 Y
3 Y
4 Y
5 Y
6 Y
7 Y
8 Y
9 Y
10 Y
11 Y
12 Y
13 Y
14 Y
15 Y
16 Y
17 Y
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 8. CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 946431
Monitoring Year 4
Report Prepared By
Ian Eckardt
Date Prepared
11/3/2015 15:32
database name
Lyle MY4 cvs-eep-entrytool-v2.3.1.mdb
database location
Q: �ActivePrcjects )005-02123 Lyle Creek Mitigation FDP� Monitoring �Monitoring Year 4�Vegetotion Assessment
DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT------------
Metadata
Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a summary of projects) and project data.
Plots
Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre, for each year. This excludes live stakes.
Stem Count by Plot and Spp
A matrix of the count of total living stems of each species (planted and natural volunteers combined) for each plot; dead and missing stems are excluded.
PROJ ECT SU M MARY -------------------------------------
Project Code
94643
project Name
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
Description
Stream and Wetland Mitigation
length (ft)
stream -to -edge width (ft)
area (sq m)
Required Plots (calculated)
135
Sampled Plots
135

Table 9. Planted and Total Stem Counts
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94643)
Monitoring Year 4
Current Plot Data (MY4 - 2015)
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
94643-WEI-0001
94643-WEI-0002
94643-WEI-0003
94643-WEI-0004
94643-WEI-0005
94643-WEI-0006
94643-WEI-0007
94643-WEI-0008
94643-WEI-0009
94643-WEI-0010
94643-WEI-0011
94643-WEI-0012
94643-WEI-0013
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
PnoLS P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS P -all
T
PnoLS P -all
T
Acerfloridanum
Southern Sugar Maple
Tree
Acer negundo
boxelder
Tree
1 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
1
1
Alnus serrulata
hazel alder
Shrub
1 1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
Callicarpa americana
American beautyberry
Shrub
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
Tree
1
1
1
Celtis laevigata
sugarberry
Tree
4
4
4
2
2
2
Cephalanthus occidentalis common buttonbush
Shrub
3
1
2
4
Cercis canadensis
eastern redbud
Tree
1
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
Cornusflorida
flowering dogwood
Tree
Diospyrosvirginiana
common persimmon
Tree
1
1
1
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
1 4
4
1 5
1 1
1
1 4
1 1
1
1 2
1 4
4
1 4
1 2
2
2
6
6
7
Hibiscus
rosemallow
Shrub
Juglans nigra
black walnut
Tree
Liquidambarstyraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
5
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
3
3
3
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Nyssa sylvatica
blackgum
Tree
4 4
4
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
4
4
4
Pinus rigida
pitch pine
Tree
1
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
4 4
4
1
1
1
3
3
3
1
1
1
4
4
4
6
6
46
3
3
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
Populus deltoides
eastern cottonwood
Tree
3
20
Prunus serotina
black cherry
Tree
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Rosa palustris
swamp rose
Shrub
1
1
Salix sp.
willow
Shrub
Salix nigra
Iblackwillow
Tree
2
10
9
4
1
Salix sericea
Isilky willow
Shrub
40
Sambucus canadensis
ICommon Elderberry
Shrub
1
Ulmus alata
1winged elm
Tree
Ulmus americana
JAmerican elm
Tree
Stem count
10 10
12
9
9
9
11
1 11
21
9
9
12
11
1 11
1 12
9
9
9
10
1 10
23
10
1 10
16
7
7
14
8
8
111
10
10
16
8
8
13
15
15
22
size (ares)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
size (ACRES) 1
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
Species countl
4
1 4
5
6
6
6
5
1 5
6
7
7
8
6
1 6
1 7
6
6
6
6
6
8
4
4
6
4
4
6
3
3
7
5
5
7
5
5
9
5
5
8
Stems per ACRE 404.7
404.7
485.6 364.2
364.2
364.2 445.2
445.2
849.8 364.2
364.2
485.6 445.2
445.2
485.6 364.2
364.2
364.2 404.7
404.7
930.8 404.7
404.7
647.5 283.3 283.3
566.6 323.7
323.7
4492
404.7
404.7
647.5 323.7
323.7
526.1
607
607
890.3
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
PnoLS: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes
T: Total Stems

Table 9. Planted and Total Stem Counts
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94643)
Monitoring Year 4
Current Plot Data (MY4 2015)
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
•.•
•. it
•.• it
••.• MI
••.• MI
••.•
•. r
•.• it
••.•
•.• r
••.
••.
Acerfloridanurn
Platanusoccidentalis
•
..
®____________00©___0©©_________000______
•
®____________000000000000©©©____________
'
®®�®®®®mm00000000®®®®mmmmmm000mm®mm®®m®
•
©©0©©©©©©©©©000000©©0©©0©©0000000000©©0
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
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94643)
Monitoring Year 4
Current Plot Data (MY4 20151
Annual Summary
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
94643-WEI-0027
94643-WEI-0028
94643-WEI-0029
94643-WEI-0030
94643-WEI-0031
94643-WEI-0032
94643-WEI-0033
94643-WEI-0034
94643-WEI-0035
MY4 (2015)
MY3 (2014)
MY2 (2013)
MYl (2012)
MY0 (2012)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
Acerfloridanum
Southern Sugar Maple
Tree
2
Acernegundo
boxelder
Tree
11
11
13
10
10
11
11
11
12
14
14
14
24
24
24
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
1
1
4
Alnus serrulata
hazel alder
Shrub
1
1
1
4
4
4
3
3
3
2
2
2
4
4
4
34
34
34
33
33
33
33
33
33
13
13
13
25
25
25
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
7
7
7
4
4
4
2
2
2
5
5
5
5
5
5
52
52
53
51
51
55
52
52
55
52
52
52
71
71
71
Callicarpa americana
American beautyberry
Shrub
15
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
Tree
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
1 4
4
1 2
2
2
17
17
17
Celtis laevigata
sugarberry
Tree
4
4
4
14
14
14
11
11
11
13
13
13
13
13
13
15
15
15
Cephalanthus occidentalis common buttonbush
Shrub
2
7
1
6
4
3
5
50
35
22
Cercis canadensis
eastern redbud
Tree
1
1
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
1
1
1
2
2
2
7
1
3
3
11
Cornus florida
flowering dogwood
Tree
1
1
2
Diospyrosvirginiana
common persimmon
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
9
9
1 9
8
8
8
8
8
9
8
8
8
10
10
10
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
1
1
1
3
3
3
4
4
4
3
3
3
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
82
82
95
74
74
84
77
77
88
63
1 63
63
69
69
69
Hibiscus
rosemallow
Shrub
1
Juglans nigra
black walnut
Tree
1
Liquidambarstyraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
10
2
3
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
16
16
19
17
17
19
20
20
21
20
20
20
52
52
52
Nyssa sylvatica
blackgum
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
5
5
5
40
40
40
38
38
38
40
40
40
38
38
38
48
48
48
Pinus rigida
pitch pine
Tree
2
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
5
5
5
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
65
65
113
66
66
97
68
68
97
66
66
66
88
88
88
Populus deltoides
eastern cottonwood
Tree
1
1
2
1
1
29
10
7
Prunus serotina
black cherry
Tree
3
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
2
2
2
2
22
13
13
13
14
14
14
12
12
12
12
12
12
14
14
14
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
5
5
5
1
1
1
4
4
4
23
23
24
23
23
24
22
22
22
21
21
21
27
27
27
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
Tree
1
1
1
4
4
4
1
1
1
Rosa palustris
swamp rose
Shrub
1
5
5
12
4
36
12
32
Salix sp.
willow
Shrub
1
1
1
1
1
1
Salix nigra
blackwillow
Tree
1
2
1
2
3
11
72
1
Salix sericea
silky willow
Shrub
40
13
36
Sambucus canadensis
Common Elderberry
Shrub
1
Ulmus alata
winged elm
Tree
5
Ulmus americana
American elm
Tree
5
Stem count
13
13
15
12
12
22
8
8
12
9
9
18
10
10
17
11
11
18
10
10
21
12
12
32
14
14
35
370
370
698
351
351
479
360
360
527
322
322
322
460
460
460
size (ares)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
35
35
35
35
35
size (ACRES)
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.86
0.86
0.86
0.86
0.86
Species countl
5
5
1 6
4
1 4
8
3
3
6
3
3
65
5
9
4
4
6
4
4
8
4
4
6
4
4
8
15
15
27
14
14
21
12
12
22
12
12
12
12
12
12
Stems per ACRE 526.1
526.1
607
485.6
485.6
890.3 323.7
323.7
485.6 364.2
364.21728
. 4 404.7
404.7
688
445.2
1445.2
1728.4 1404.7
1404.7
1849.8 1485.6
1485.6
1 1295
566.6
566.6
1 1416 427.8
1427.8
1807.1 405.8
405.8
553.8 416.2
416.2
609.3 372.3
372.3
372.3 531.9
531.9
531.9
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 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
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94643)
UT1 Reaches 1 and 2
Monitoring Year 4
Parameter
Regional Curve
Gauge UT1 Reach I UT1 Reach 2 UT1 Reach 3
LL UL Eq. LL UL Eq. LL LIL Eq.
Pre
Reach 1
Min Max
-Restoration Condition'
Reach 2
Min Max
Reach
Min
3
Max
Reference Reach Data
UT to Lyle Creek LIT to Catawba River
Min Max Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
UT
Wheeler
Min
to Lake
Max
Westbrook
Lowlands
Min Max
UT1 Reach
Upper
Min
I
Max
Design
UT1 Reach I
Lower
Min Max
UT1 Reach 2 It
Min Max 1,Win
UT1 Reach
Upper
I
Max
UT1 Reach
Lower
Min
1
Max
UTI Reach
Min
2
Max
Bankfull Width (ft)
23.1
1 31.5
19.4
10.0
15.2
13.8
10.6
9.7
8.0
15.2
12.4
4.6
11.9
19.1
11.8
Floodprone Width (ft)
43.0
1 48.0
62.0
34.0
38+
80+
N/A'
100+
17.6+
33.4+
27.3+
66.7
62.6
79.6
69.7
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.65
0.93
1.05
0.5
1.5
1.3
0.8
0.6
0.8
0.9
0.6
0.6
0.7
1.0
Bankfull Max Depth
1.1
1.5
1.7
1.4
2.0
2.2
1.1
1.0
1.2
1.4
0.9
1.4
1.6
1.8
Bankfull Cross-sectional Area (ft)
n/a
14.9 19.2
18.1
10.5
7.3
20.8
17.4
8.0
4.6
12.4
11.5
2.7
8.8
13.1
11.7
Width/Depth Ratio
35.8 48.8
20.8
9.5
31.7
9.1
6.5
12.0
13.9
18.6
13.4
7.7
20.8
27.7
11.8
Entrenchment Ratio
1.5 1.8
3.2
3.4
2.5+
5.8+
15.7
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
Bank Height Ratio
1.6 3.0
1.4 2.3
1.7
2.4
1.0
1.0
N/A'
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
Very Fine Sand
Silt
Silt2
Fine Sand
V.Coarse Sand
V. Fine Gravel
Coarse Sand
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
- -
7
23
10
75
27
47
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.0030 0.0260
0.0033 0.0060
0.0030
0.0110
0.0055 0.0597
0.011 0.03
0.043
N/A'
0.0167
0.0283
0.0025 0.0032
0.0000 0.0005
0.0025
0.0598
0.0000
0.0289
0.0020
0.0180
Pool Length (ft)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
6
32
12 76
19 53
10
39
6
81
15
62
Pool Max Depth (ft)
n/a
1.9 2.3
2.5 5.9
4.1
5.6
1.7
2.9
1.4
1.5
1.2
1.8
1.6 2.4
1.8 2.7
1.2
2.9
1.4
3.6
2.1
3.4
Pool Spacing (ft)*
2.23.2
2.5 5.9
4.1
5.6
15 28
31 60
42
16 59
14.0
41.0
55.6 1142
62.2 96.1
23
49
51
131
48
99
Pool VolumeT7
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
N/A2 N/A2
N/A2 N/A2
N/A2
N/A2
21
55
26
64
14 20
N/A
N/A
36 78
41 65
N/A
N/A
36
78
41
65
Radius of Curvature (ft)
N/A2 N/A2
N/A2 N/A2
N/A2
N/A2
19 32
31 56
8
34
15 27
N/A
N/A
27 48
27 34
N/A
N/A
27
48
27
34
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
n/a
N/A2 N/A2
N/A2 N/A2
N/A2
N/A2
1.3 2.1
2.2 4.1
0.8
3.2
1.5 2.8
N/A
N/A
2 3
2 3
N/A
N/A
2
3
2
3
Meander Wave Length (ft)
N/A2 N/A2
N/A2 N/A2
N/A2
N/A2
39 44
65 107
40
191
50
N/A
N/A
100 166
113 161
N/A
N/A
100
166
113
161
Meander Width Ratio
N/A2 N/A2
N/A2 N/A2
N/A2
N/A2
1.3
4
6
11
1.4 2.1
N/A
N/A
2 5
3 5
N/A
N/A
2
5
3
5
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be %
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
n/a
0.013/0.08/0.12/
0.3/1.2/4.8
0.0016/0.008/■
0.019/0.13/0.26/0.9
n/a/0.1/0.2/0.5/4.0/ 8.0
0.3/0.4/1.8/12.8/25.2/ 90.0
N/A
N/A
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) Ib/ft2
Reach 1 Upper: 0.48, Reach 1 Lower: 0.06, Reach 2: 0.24
0.49
0.07
0.26
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Reach 1 Upper: 30, Reach 1 Lower: 4, Reach 2: 15
30
5
16
-
-
-
Stream Power (Capacity) W/m2
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
0.10 1 0.16
0.16 1 0.35
0.35
1 0.49
0.25
1.60
0.4
0.9
Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
5%
-
-
-
-
Rosgen Classification
F52
F62
G62
C5
E5
E4
E/C5
65C
C6
C6
Bc
C
C
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
0.7 F 0.9
0.8
2.7
3.0
1.2
2.4
-
-
-
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
17 24 24 42 42 52
14
15
28
33
119
N/A'
N/A'
14
15
28
Q-NFF regression
37
65
79
Q-USGS extrapolation
n/a
8 15
15 31
31
49
Q -Mannings
Valley Length (ft)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
651
2012
692
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
4017
-
-
-
-
761
2369
520
700
2558
883
Sinuosity (ft)
1.2
1.0
1.1
1.7
1.3
1.6
1.2
1.1
1.3
1.3
1.1
1.3
1.3
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.012
0.0011
0.0036°
0.0048
0.0046
0.006 1
0.0022
1 0.0142
0.0013
0.0047 1
0.0140
0.0015
0.0047
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.012
0.0011
0.0036°
t -
-
- I
-
1 0.0142
0.0013
0.0047 1
0.0140
0.0015
0.0049
(-): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable
'Pre -Restoration Reaches differ from the as-built/baseline reaches.
2Channel was straightened, moved, and/or maintained to prevent pattern formation prior to restoration.
'The Rosgen classification system is for natural streams. These channels have been heavily manipulated by man and therefore theRosgen classification system is not applicable. These classifications are provided for illustrative purposes only.
°UT1 Reach 3 drops down to meet the Lyle Creek water surface elevation, which accounts for a channel slope steeper than the valley slope.
sData not provided in reference reach report (Lowther, 2008).
sData not provided in Neu -Con Umbrella Wetland and Stream Mitigation Bank Westbrook Lowgrounds Site Specific MitigationPlan (Environmental Bank and Exchange, 2002).
'Lowther reported a range of possible discharges from 46.8 to 108.9 cfs based on different Manning's'n' estimation techniques(Lowther, 2008).

Table 10b. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94643)
UT1A and UT1B
Monitoring Year 4
Parameter
Gauge
Regional Curve
UT1A UT1B
LL UL Eq. LL UL Eq. Min
Pre -Restoration
UT1A
Max
Condition'
Min
UTIB
Max
Reference Reach Data
Min Max
UT1A Upper UT1A Lower
Min Max Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Design
UT1B 200 +00 to
Min
203+20
Max
r
r
Min
Max
Min
r
r•
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
200 +00 to
203+20
Min Max
UTIB 203+21r
r209+97
Min
Max
Min Max
Bankfull Width (ft)
n/a
8.7
16.3
refer to table 5a
6.5
8.0
4.6
4.5
Floodprone Width (ft)
21.0 42.0
14.3+ 11.0+ 30.5 67.3
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.53 0.48
0.5 0.6 0.4 0.5
Bankfull Max Depth
0.8 1.0
0.8 1.0 0.8 1.0
Bankfull Cross-sectional Area (ft2)
4.6 7,9
3.2 5.0 2.1 2.3
Width/Depth Ratio
16.5 33.6
13.3 12.8 10.4 8.7
Entrenchment Ratio
2.4 2.6
2.2+ 2.2+ 2.2+ 2.2+
Bank Height Ratio
0.8 1.0
1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
D50 (mm)
Silt' Silt'
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
n/a
-
-
- -
refer to table Sa
- - - -
-
-
-
-
- -
8
19
10
23
19
31
15
22
10
20
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.0035 0.0320 0.0056 0.0160
0.0350 0.0571 0.0156 0.0192 0.0263 0.0309 0.0145 0.0218 0.0045 0.0079 0.0353 0.0477 0.0086 0.0290 0.0224 0.0593 0.0072 0.0323 0.0032
0.0217
Pool Length (ft)
- - - -
4 14 10 25 18 64 15 22 16 20 5 12 12 34 23 40 17 41 28
42
Pool Max Depth (ft)
1.1 1.6
1.25 1.45 1.05 1.45 1.6 1.8 1.2 1.8 1.4 1.7 1.0 1.9 1.2 1.9 1.2 2.1 1.3 2.4 1.9
2.2
Pool Spacing (ft)
35 68 28 87
13 30 31 52 49 63 37 58 49 57 4 33 29 90 43 71 34 61 46
66
Pool Volume (ft)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
n/a
N/A'
N/A'
N/A'
N/A'
refer to table 5a
N/A N/A 25 35
35
39
23
39
29
41
N/A
N/A
25
35
35
39
23
39
29
41
Radius of Curvature (ft)
N/A' N/A' N/A' N/A'
N/A N/A 14 20 19 27 16 26 19 26 N/A N/A 14 20 19 27 16 26 19
26
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
N/A' N/A' N/A' N/A'
N/A N/A 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 N/A N/A 2 3 2 3 2 3 2
3
Meander Wave Length (ft)
N/A' N/A' N/A' N/A'
N/A N/A 53 82 83 106 78 86 79 90 N/A N/A 53 82 83 106 78 86 79
90
Meander Width Ratio
N/A' N/A' N/A' N/A'
4
5
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
n/a
refer to table Sa
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d5O/d84/d95/d100
N/A
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) Ib/ftz
0.35 0.06
0.84 0.28 0.6 0.32 0.12
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
20 4
60 17 38 20 7 -
Stream Power (Capacity) W/M2
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
n/a
0.05
0.13
refer to table 5a
Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
-
Rosgen Classification
F63 F63
B6 C6 C6 C E
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
2.0 1.6
2.8 2.6
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
8 13
9 13
190 352 279 326 227 0
Q-NFF regression
- -
Q-USGS extrapolation
4 9 10 18
Q -Mannings
Valley Length (ft)
- -
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
1141 890
201 414 320 398 279 201 414 32003980279
Sinuosity (ft)
1.0 1.0
1.1 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.2
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.0106 0.0085
0.0284 0.0095 0.0131 0.0086 0.0032 0.0296 0.0089 0.0187 0.0080 0.0039
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.0106 0.0085
0.0284 0.0095 0.0161 0.0086 0.0032 0.0294 0.0091 0.0190 0.0079 0.0039
(-): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable
'Pre -Restoration Reaches differ from the as-built/baseline reaches.
'Channel was straightened, moved, and/or maintained to prevent pattern formation prior to restoration.
The Rosgen classification system is for natural streams. These channels have been heavily manipulated by man and therefore theRosgen classification system is not applicable. These classifications are provided for illustrative purposes only.
°UT1 Reach 3 drops down to meet the Lyle Creek water surface elevation, which accounts for a channel slope steeper than the valley slope.
sData not provided in reference reach report (Lowther, 2008).
sData not provided in Neu -Con Umbrella Wetland and Stream Mitigation Bank Westbrook Lowgrounds Site Specific MitigationPlan (Environmental Bank and Exchange, 2002).
'Lowther reported a range of possible discharges from 46.8 to 108.9 cfs based on different Manning's W estimation tech niques(Lowther, 2008).

Table 11. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross -Section)
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94643)
UTI Reaches 1 and 2, UT1A and UT1B
Monitoring Year 4
Cross -Section 13 (Riffle) I Cross -Section 14 (Run) I Cross -Section 15 (Run)
Dimension and Substrate Base MYI
MY2 MY3
MY4 MY5 Base
MYl MY2 MY3 I MY4 MY5
Base MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MYS
based on fixed bankfull elevation
Bankfull Width (ft) --- ---
--- 5.7
0.0 ---
--- --- --- 8.9
--- --- --- --- 6.3
Floodprone Width (ft) --- ---
--- 54.9
--- ---
--- --- --- 214.1
--- --- --- --- 200.8
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) --- ---
Parameter
0.0 ---
--- --- --- 0.5
Cross -Section 1 (Riffle)
Bankfull Max Depth (ft) --- ---
UT1 Reach 1 Upper
0.0
Cross -Section 2 (Pool)
--- --- --- 0.8
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft z) --- ---
--- 2.0
Cross -Section 3 (Riffle)
--- --- --- 4.3
UT1 Reach 1 Lower
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio --- ---
Cross -Section 4 (Pool)
0.0 ---
Dimension and Substrate
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5 Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5 Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5 Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4 MY5
based on fixed bankfull elevation
Bankfull Width (ft)
4.6
5.8
6.1
5.1
9.7
13.6
10.8
10.3
10.6
8.9
19.1
13.7
18.2
15.5
15.6
21.6
15.3
17.4
16.4
17.3
Floodprone Width (ft)
66.7
65.4
65.4
65.4
66.8
---
---
---
---
---
62.6
63.4
55.7
55.7
63.4
---
---
---
---
---
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.6
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.9
0.8
2.4
1.9
1.8
1.1
1.4
1.6
1.3
1.5
1.5
1.6
2.4
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.3
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft)
2.7
2.7
2.3
1.7
2.1
14.2
9.8
8.1
5.1
5.0
13.1
9.0
10.8
8.1
9.5
22.0
16.1
17.9
17.0
17.3
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
7.7
12.8
16.0
15.2
43.8
13.0
12.0
13.0
22.2
15.9
27.7
20.9
30.7
29.6
25.6
21.1
14.6
16.9
15.8
17.5
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
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.0
N/A
Cross -Section 5 (Pool)
Cross -Section 6 (Riffle)
Cross -Section 7 (Riffle)
Cross -Section 8 (Pool)
Dimension and Substrate
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5 Base
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5 Base
MY3
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5 Base
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4 MYS
based on fixed bankfull elevation
Bankfull Width (ft)
15.6
14.4
18.0
15.9
14.4
11.9
12.4
13.5
13.4
12.6
11.8
8.7
14.7
12.1
13.1
23.6
16.9
22.7
21.0
20.5
Floodprone Width (ft)
---
---
---
---
---
79.6
80.3
76.9
76.9
79.7
69.7
70.8
65.9
65.9
71.8
---
---
---
---
---
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
1.0
1.1
0.8
0.9
0.9
1.2
1.3
1.1
1.0
1.0
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
2.1
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.8
1.4
1.2
1.4
1.4
1.2
1.8
1.7
1.8
1.7
1.8
3.0
2.1
2.7
2.9
2.3
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft)
16.4
13.7
14.8
13.8
11.8
8.1
8.5
8.8
7.6
7.4
11.7
9.4
11.8
10.9
11.4
27.4
21.3
1 24.4
20.9
19.6
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
14.9
15.1
21.9
18.3
17.6
17.3
18.0
20.8
23.6
21.7
11.8
8.0
18.3
13.5
15.1
20.3
13.4
21.0
21.1
21.4
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
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Cross -Section 9 (Riffle)
Cross -Section 10 (Pool)
Cross -Section 11 (Riffle)
Cross -Section 12 (Pool)
Dimension and Substrate
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5 Base
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5 Base
MYi
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5 Base
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4 MYS
based on fixed bankfull elevation
Bankfull Width (ft)
4.6
1.9
2.1
0.0
0.0
5.9
---
2.7
0.0
0.0
4.5
3.1
4.8
2.8
4.0
6.0
6.4
8.5
4.7
6.7
Floodprone Width (ft)
30.5
31.4
27.0
0.0
0.0
---
---
---
---
---
67.3
66.5
64.2
53.8
45.4
---
---
---
---
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.6
---
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.3
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.3
0.2
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
0.8
0.4
0.6
0.0
0.0
1.0
---
0.5
0.0
0.0
1.0
1.1
1.0
0.7
0.6
1.2
1.0
0.7
0.5
0.4
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft z)
2.1
0.6
0.8
0.0
0.0
3.3
---
0.9
0.0
0.0
2.3
1.0
2.3
1.2
1.3
4.5
3.9
3.1
1.3
1.5
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
10.4
6.2
5.2
0.0
0.0
10.7
---
8.0
0.0
0.0
8.7
9.8
10.0
6.4
12.6
8.0
10.6
23.4
17.9
29.7
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
N/A
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
N/A
N/A
N/A
---
N/A
N/A
N/A
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0 J
1.0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Cross -Section 13 (Riffle) I Cross -Section 14 (Run) I Cross -Section 15 (Run)
Dimension and Substrate Base MYI
MY2 MY3
MY4 MY5 Base
MYl MY2 MY3 I MY4 MY5
Base MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MYS
based on fixed bankfull elevation
Bankfull Width (ft) --- ---
--- 5.7
0.0 ---
--- --- --- 8.9
--- --- --- --- 6.3
Floodprone Width (ft) --- ---
--- 54.9
--- ---
--- --- --- 214.1
--- --- --- --- 200.8
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) --- ---
--- 0.4
0.0 ---
--- --- --- 0.5
--- --- --- --- 0.4
Bankfull Max Depth (ft) --- ---
--- 1.0
0.0
1.1
--- --- --- 0.8
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft z) --- ---
--- 2.0
0.0 ---
--- --- --- 4.3
--- --- --- 2.2
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio --- ---
--- 16.3
0.0 ---
--- --- --- 18.6
--- --- --- 17.7
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio --- ---
2.2+
N/A ---
--- --- --- 2.2+
--- --- 2.2+
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio --- ---
--- 1.0
N/A ---
--- --- --- 1.0
--- --- --- --- 1.0

Table 12a. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94643)
UT1 Reach 1 Upper
Monitoring Year 4
Parameter
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
As-Built/Baseline
Min
Max
Min
MY -1
Med
Max
Min
MY -2
Med
Max
Min
MY -3
Med
Max
Min
MY -4
Med
MY -5
Max Min Med Max
Bankfull Width (ft)
4.6
5.8
6.1
5.1
9.7
Floodprone Width (ft)
66.7
65.4
65.4
65.4
66.8
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
Bankfull Max Depth
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.9
0.8
Bankfull Cross-sectional Area (ft z)
2.7
2.7
2.3
1.7
2.1
Width/Depth Ratio
7.7
12.8
16.0
15.2
43.8
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)
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
7
23
3
12
26
4
10
23
2
13
34
2
5
41
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.0025
0.0598
0.0043
0.0230
0.0518
0.0100
0.0260
0.0505
0.0096
0.0307
0.0879
0.0075
0.0348
0.1106
Pool Length (ft)
10
39
10
16
26
8
20
28
4
13
50
9
16
33
Pool Max Depth (ft)
1
3
0.3
0.7
2.4
0.3
0.8
1.1
0.5
1.3
2.5
0.6
1.2
1.9
Pool Spacing (ft)
23
49
17
29
61
12
39
61
8
27
68
16
30
83
Pool Volume (ft')
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
N/A
Radius of Curvature (ft)
N/A
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
N/A
Meander Wave Length (ft)
N/A
Meander Width Ratio
N/A
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
Bc
Bc
Bc
Bc
Bc
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
700
700
700
700
700
Sinuosity (ft)
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.0140
0.0147
0.0147
0.0150
0.0155
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.0140
0.0146
0.0150
0.0150
0.0153
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N /A
%of Reach with Eroding Banks
0%
0%
0%
0%
Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable

Table 12b. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94643)
UT1 Reach 1 Lower
Monitoring Year 4
Parameter
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
As-Built/Baseline
Min
Max
Min
MY -1
Med
Max
Min
MY -2
.,
Max
Min
MY -3
Med
Max
Min
MY -4
Med
MY -5
Max Min Med Max
Bankfull Width (ft)
12.3
22.4
13.3
15.2
17.1
13.5
17.0
20.5
13.4
15.7
16.4
12.6
14.1
15.6
Floodprone Width (ft)
62.6
79.6
63.4
71.9
80.3
55.7
66.3
76.9
55.7
66.3
76.9
63.4
71.6
79.7
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.5
0.7
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.5
0.7
1.0
0.6
0.6
0.6
Bankfull Max Depth
1.5
1.7
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.4
1.7
2.2
1.2
1.4
1.6
Bankfull Cross-sectional Area (ft)
10.1
14.3
9.5
9.6
9.7
8.8
10.1
11.5
7.6
10.9
17.0
7.4
8.5
9.5
Width/Depth Ratio
36.8
1
35.0
18.5
24.3
30.1
20.8
28.8
36.8
15.8
21.0
29.6
21.7
23.6
25.6
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
1.1
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
_
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
10
75
8
28
70
12
31
81
15
35
80
8
27
73
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.000
0.029
0.000
0.005
0.025
0.001
0.005
0.026
0.001
0.005
0.028
0.000
0.002
0.012
Pool Length (ft)
6
81
12
56
95
5
54
81
5
46
79
37
59
81
Pool Max Depth (ft)
1.4
3.6
0.7
1.2
2.0
0.4
1.2
1.9
1.9
2.3
4.0
2.0
2.5
3.7
Pool Spacing (ft)
51
131
29
82
118
35
80
117
39
86
124
59
88
115
Pool Volume (ft)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
36
78
Radius of Curvature (ft)
27
48
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
2
3
Meander Wave Length (ft)
100
166
Meander Width Ratio
2
5
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
C
C
C
C
C
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
2558
2558
2558
2558
2558
Sinuosity (ft)
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.0015
0.0024
0.0025
0.0024
0.0022
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.0015
0.0024
0.0023
0.0024
0.0023
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
%of Reach with Eroding Banks
0%
0%
0%
0%
(-): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable

Table 12c. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94643)
UT1 Reach 2
Monitoring Year 4
Parameter
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
As-Built/Baseline
Min
Max
Min
MY -1
Med
Max
Min
MY -2
Med
Max
Min
MY -3
Med
Max
Min
MY -4
Med
MY -5
Max Min Med Max
Bankfull Width (ft)
11.8
8.7
14.7
12.1
13.1
Floodprone Width (ft)
69.7
70.8
65.9
65.9
71.8
Bankfull Mean Depth
1.0
1.1
0.8
0.9
0.9
Bankfull Max Depth
1.8
1.7
1.8
1.7
1.8
Bankfull Cross-sectional Area (ft z)
11.7
9.4
11.8
10.9
11.4
Width/Depth Ratio
11.8
8.0
18.3
13.5
15.1
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)
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
27
47
11
24
48
27
34
48
20
37
64
20
28
40
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.002
0.018
0.002
0.013
0.021
0.000
0.008
0.016
0.0003
0.0071
0.0231
0.0000
0.0081
0.0204
Pool Length (ft)
15
62
20
46
68
28
44
58
20
44
63
37
53
61
Pool Max Depth (ft)
2
3
0.9
1.3
1.8
1.0
1.5
2.5
0.8
1.8
4.0
1.5
2.7
3.5
Pool Spacing (ft)
48
99
37
78
96
26
78
108
54
79
105
27
73
110
Pool Volume (ft')
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
41
65
Radius of Curvature (ft)
27
34
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
2
3
Meander Wave Length (ft)
113
161
Meander Width Ratio
3
5
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
C
C
C
C
C
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
883
883
883
883
883
Sinuosity (ft)
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.0047
0.0049
0.0049
0.0039
0.0036
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.0049
0.0049
0.0046
0.0035
0.0032
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be %
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
% of Reach with Eroding Banks 1
0%
0%
0%
0%

Table 12d. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94643)
UT1A
Monitoring Year 4
Parameter
Dimension and Substrate- Riffle
UT1A
Min
Upper
As-Built/Baseline
Max
UT1A
Min
Lower
Max
Min
MY -1
Max
Min
MY -2
Max
MY -3
Min Max
Min
MY -4
MY -5
Max MI
Bankfull Width (ft)
4.6
1.9
2.1
0.0
6.3
8.9
Floodprone Width (ft)
30.5
31.4
27.0
0.0
200+
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.0
0.4
1
0.5
Bankfull Max Depth
0.8
0.4
0.6
0.0.
0.8
1.1
Bankfull Cross-sectional Area (ft)
2.1
0.6
0.8
0.0
2.2
4.3
Width/Depth Ratio
10.4
6.2
5.2
0.0
17.7
18.6
Entrenchment Ratio
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
N/A
2.2+
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
N/A
1.0
D50 (mm)
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
8
19
10
23
4
27
9
31
8 46
4
10
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.035
0.048
0.009 0.029
0.000 0.056
0.007 0.046
0.0032 0.0442
0.0152 0.0280
Pool Length (ft)
5
12
12
34
4
31
4
30
7 22
12
39
Pool Max Depth (ft)
1.0
1.9
1.2
1.9
0.2
1.1
0.2
1.0
1.3 3.2
1.0
2.2
Pool Spacing (ft)
4
33
29
90
12
55
5
88
7 185
38
101
Pool Volume (ft')
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
N/A
N/A
25
35
Radius of Curvature (ft)
N/A
N/A
14
20
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
N/A
N/A
2
3
Meander Wave Length (ft)
N/A
N/A
53
82
Meander Width Ratio
N/A
N/A
4
5
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
C
E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
201
414
615
615
615
615
Sinuosity (ft)
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.0296
0.0089
0.0162
0.0159
0.0154
0.0153
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.0294
0.0091
0.0160
0.0159
0.0168
0.0165
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G %/C%/B%/Be
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
% of Reach with Eroding Banks
0%
0%
0%
0%
MY4 Dimension data taken from newly established cross-sections within the braided section of UT1A.
N/A: Not Applicable

Table 12e. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94643)
UT1B
Monitoring Year 4
bwmm
200+00 to
203+20
UT113
203+21
207+18
to
UT113
207+18
209+97
to
MY -1
MY -2
MY -3
MY -4
MY -5
eter
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max Min Max
Bankfull Width (ft)
4.5
3.1
4.8
2.8
4.0
Floodprone Width (ft)
67.3
66.5
64.2
53.8
45.4
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.5
0.3
0.5
0.4
0.3
Bankfull Max Depth
1.0
1.1
1.0
0.7
0.6
Bankfull Cross-sectional Area (ft)
2.3
1.0
2.3
1.2
1.3
Width/Depth Ratio
8.7
9.8
10.0
6.4
12.6
Entrenchment Ratio
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
N/A
N/A
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1
1.0
N/A
N/A
D50 (mm)
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
19
31
15
22
10
20
15
35
9
40
15
112
3
39
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.0224 0.0593
0.0072 0.0323
0.0032 0.0217
0.0048 0.0589
0.0020 0.0340
0.0046 0.0164
0.0033 0.0950
Pool Length (ft)
23
40
17
41
28
42
11
44
14
55
6
52
7
42
Pool Max Depth (ft)
1.2
2.1
1.3
2.4
1.9
2.2
0.4
1.5
0.1
1.5
1.7
3.1
1.2
3.3
Pool Spacing (ft)
43
71
34
61
46
66
28
77
32
79
51
140
23
176
Pool Volume (ft-)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
35
39
23
39
29
41
Radius of Curvature (ft)
19
27
16
26
19
26
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
2
3
2
3
2
3
Meander Wave Length (ft)
83
106
78
86
79
90
Meander Width Ratio
4
5
3
5
4
5
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
320
398
279
997
997
997
997
Sinuosity (ft)
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.0187
0.0080
0.0039
0.0085
0.0086
0.0085
0.0088
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.0190
0.0079
0.0039
0.0081
0.0083
0.0085
0.0092
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
% of Reach with Eroding Banks
0%
0%
1
0%
0%
(-): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94643)
Monitoring Year 4
UT1 Reach 1 Upper
778
ti
X
N
X
776
774
772
V
Aa
770
c
0
'v
768
766
764
762
760
10000
10100
10200
10300 10400
10500 10600 10700
Station (feet)
-TW(MYO-4/2012)-TW(MYl-10/2012)
-TW(MY2-5/2013)
-TW(MY3-5/2014) �TW(MY4-5/2015)
•••••••WS(MY4-5/2015) ♦ BKF/TOB • LOG VANE
ti
X
N
X

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94643)
Monitoring Year 4
UT1 Reach 1 Lower
772
770
768
♦
766
♦ ♦
♦ ♦
a764
..
...
*.. ♦
♦ ♦
...
♦
.. ..... ... •
'w 762
w
... ....
v
�
x
X
x
760
758
756
754
10700
10900
11100
11300 11500 11700 11900 12100
Station (feet)
�TW(MYO-4/2012) tTW(MYl-10/2012)
-TW(MY2-5/2013)
-TW(MY3-5/2014) �TW(MY4-5/2015) •••••••WS(MY4-5/2015) ♦ BKF/TOB • LOG VANE

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94643)
Monitoring Year 4
UT3 Reach 2
763
762
761
. ... .......
♦
760
•
759
—
w
c
758
..............................................................
v
w 757
n o0
X x
x
756
755
754
753
13200
13300 13400
13500
13600 13700 13800 13900
14000 14100
Station (feet)
tTW (MYO-4/2012)
TW (MYl-10/2012)
tTW (MY2-5/2013)
tTW (MY3-5/2014)
+TW (MY4-5/2015)
......• WS (MY4-5/2015)
♦ BKF/TOB
• LOG VANE

Cross -Section Plots
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94643)
Monitoring Year 4
Cross Section 1 - UTI Reach 1 Upper
130+91 riffle
774
)
tMYO(4/2012) tMY1(10/2012) tMY2(5/2013) +MY3(5/2014) tMY4(5/2015) —Bankfull—FloodproneArea
0
�;�
772Sam—
"
v
w
770
0 10 20
30
40
50 60 70 80
Width (ft
Bankfull Dimensions
2.1 x -section area (ft.sq.)
}+'
9.7 width (ft)
0.2 mean depth (ft)`
0.8 max depth (ft)
10.0 wetted parimeter (ft)
0.2 hyd radi (ft)
43.8 width -depth ratio
Survey Date: May -15
{
t�
Field Crew: RD, AT
J
View Downstream (5/2015)
)
tMYO(4/2012) tMY1(10/2012) tMY2(5/2013) +MY3(5/2014) tMY4(5/2015) —Bankfull—FloodproneArea

Cross -Section Plots
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94643)
Monitoring Year 4
Cross Section 2 - UTI Reach 1 Upper
105+37 pool
772.s
77o.s
)
+MYO (4/2012) t MY1 (10/2012) tMY2 (5/2013) tMY3 (5/2014) +MY4 (5/2015) -Bankfull-Floodprone Area
0
X68.5
w
766.5
0 10 20 30 40
50 60 70
80 90
100
Width (ft
Bankfull Dimensions
f
5.0 x -section area (ft.sq.)
6�.
8.9 width (ft)
'.
0.6 mean depth (ft)
1.4 max depth (ft)
9.4 wetted parimeter (ft)
0.5 hyd radi (ft)
15.9 width -depth ratio
Survey Date: May -15
Field Crew: RD, AT
View Downstream (5/2014)
)
+MYO (4/2012) t MY1 (10/2012) tMY2 (5/2013) tMY3 (5/2014) +MY4 (5/2015) -Bankfull-Floodprone Area

Cross -Section Plots
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94643)
Monitoring Year 4
Cross Section 3 - UT1 Reach 1 Lower
110+80 riffle
767
766 move
Bankfull Dimensions
9.5 x -section area (ft.sq.)
15.6 width (ft) <
0.6 mean depth (ft)
1.6 max depth (ft)
16.2 wetted parimeter (ft)
0.6 hyd radi (ft)
25.6 width -depth ratio
Survey Date: May -15
in v
Field Crew: IE/RD
View Downstream (5/2015)
765
c
0
764
v
w
763
762
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Width (ft)
+MYO (4/2012) MY1 (10/2012) MY2 (5/2013) tMY3 (5/2014) —� MY4 (5/2015) —Bankfull—Floodprone Area

Cross -Section Plots
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94643)
Monitoring Year 4
Cross Section 4 - UT1 Reach 1 Lower
111+22 pool
766.5
764.5
c
0
.762.5
w
760.5
0 10 20
30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Width (ft)
MYO (4/2012) 0 MY1 (10/2012)
$ MY2 (5/2013) --$--MY3 (5/2014) --+--MY4 (5/2015) —Bankfull—Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
17.3 x -section area (ft.sq.)
17.4 width (ft)
1.0 mean depth (ft)
2.3 max depth (ft)
18.6 wetted parimeter (ft)
0.9 hyd radi (ft)
17.5 width -depth ratio
Survey Date: May -15
Field Crew: IE/RD
View Downstream (5/2015)

Cross -Section Plots
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94643)
Monitoring Year 4
Cross Section 5 - UT1 Reach 1 Lowerel
116+43 pool
764.5
�
c
62.5
v
w
–� MYO (4/2012) +MY1 (10/2012) �-MY2 (5/2013) �MY3 (5/2014) �MY4 (5/2015) —Bankfull—Floodprone Area
760.5
0 10 20
30
40
50
60 70
Width (ft
Bankfull Dimensions
11.8 x -section area (ftsq.)
4
7 j 1
14.4 width (ft)
0.8 mean depth (ft)
1.8 max depth (ft)
15.3 wetted parimeter (ft)
0.8 hyd radi (ft)
17.6 width -depth ratio
Survey Date: May -15
Field Crew: IE/RD
View Downstream (5/2015)
)
–� MYO (4/2012) +MY1 (10/2012) �-MY2 (5/2013) �MY3 (5/2014) �MY4 (5/2015) —Bankfull—Floodprone Area

Cross -Section Plots
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94643)
Monitoring Year 4
Cross Section 6 - UTI Reach 1 Lower
111+22 riffle
765
764
)
tMYO(4/2012) +MY1(10/2012) �-MY2(5/2013) �MY3(5/2014) �MY4(5/2015) —Bankfull—FloodproneArea
0
v
w 763
762
0 10 20
30
40 50
60 70 80 90
Width (ft
Bankfull Dimensions
7.4 x -section area (ft.sq.)
12.6 width (ft)
0.6 mean depth (ft)
1.2 max depth (ft)
13.1 wetted parimeter (ft)
0.6 hyd radi (ft)
21.7 width -depth ratio
Survey Date: May -15
Field Crew: IE/RD
View Downstream (5 2015)
)
tMYO(4/2012) +MY1(10/2012) �-MY2(5/2013) �MY3(5/2014) �MY4(5/2015) —Bankfull—FloodproneArea

Cross -Section Plots
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94643)
Monitoring Year 4
Cross Section 7 - UTI Reach 2
135+95 riffle
762.5
x
c
'w
760.5
w
756.5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Width (ft)
tMYO(4/2012) +MYl(10/2012) �MY2(5/2013) �MY3(5/2014) �MY4(5/2014) —Bankfull—FloodproneArea
0
758.5
Bankfull Dimensions
11.4 x -section area (ft.sq.)
13.1 width (ft)
0.9 mean depth (ft)
1.8 max depth (ft)
14.0 wetted parimeter (ft)
0.8 hyd radi (ft)
15.1 width -depth ratio
Survey Date: May -15
Field Crew: IE/RD
View Downstream (5/2015)
x
c
'w
w
756.5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Width (ft)
tMYO(4/2012) +MYl(10/2012) �MY2(5/2013) �MY3(5/2014) �MY4(5/2014) —Bankfull—FloodproneArea

Cross -Section Plots
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94643)
Monitoring Year 4
Cross Section 8 - UT1 Reach 2
111+22 pool
762
761
760
Bankfull Dimensions
t• � g
19.6 x -section area (ft.sq.)
20.5 width (ft)
1.0 mean depth (ft)
2.3 max depth (ft)
21.8 wetted parimeter (ft)'
td: t '� :� o- {• _ ? ti
0.9 hyd radi (ft)
21.4 width -depth ratio
` '
F�
`y
��r� 5
4
Survey Date: May -15
Field Crew: IE/RD _
View Downstream (5/2015)
759
0
v
758
w
757
-
756
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Width (ft)
t MYO (4/2012) MY1 (10/2012) MY2 (5/2013) �MY3 (5/2014) —®—MY4 (5/2015) —Bankfull—Floodprone Area

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94643)
UT1A
Monitoring Year 4
774
772
...........
770
768
v
z 766
c
o
.n
x
i
764
V
>-<
x x
762
760
758
30000 30100 30200 30300 30400 30500 30600
Station (feet)
t TW (MYO-4/2012) t TW (MYl-10/2012) TW (MY2-5/2013) - TW (MY3-5/2014)
-TW (MY4-11/2015) ....... WS(MY4-11/2015) ♦ BKF/T0B(MY4-11/2015) • LOG VANE/SILL

Cross -Section Plots
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94643)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2015
Cross Section 9 - UT1A
302+19 riffle
768
767
c
765
v
w
764
766
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Width (ft)
tMYO (4/2012) MYl (10/2012) MY2 (5/2013) tMY3 (5/2014) +MY4 (11/2015) -Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
0.0 x -section area (ft.sq.)
0.0 width (ft)
0.0 mean depth (ft)
0.0 max depth (ft)
0.0 wetted parimeter (ft)
r
0.0 hyd radi (ft)
0.0 width -depth ratio
ll La.
Survey Date:
ti
Field Crew:
View Downstream (11/2015)
c
765
v
w
764
763
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Width (ft)
tMYO (4/2012) MYl (10/2012) MY2 (5/2013) tMY3 (5/2014) +MY4 (11/2015) -Bankfull

Cross -Section Plots
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94643)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2015
Cross Section 10 - UT1A
302+40 pool
768
767
766
765
Bankfull Dimensions r y , y gr. 1
0.0 x -section area (ft.sq.) , r
0.0 width (ft) f
0.0 mean depth (ft) '����
0.0 max depth (ft)
0.0 wetted parimeter (ft) °- 1
0.0 hyd radi (ft)
0.0 width -depth ratio
Y
Survey Date:
i Tt
Field Crew:
View Downstream (11/2015)
c
0
v
. -
w
764
763
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Width (ft)
tMYO (4/2012) MYl (10/2012) MY2 (5/2013) tMY3 (5/2014) +MY4 (11/2015) -Bankfull

Cross -Section Plots
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94643)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2015
Cross Section 13 - UT1A
c
300+94 riffle
770.5
4;
0
v
X68.5
-69.5
767.5
-20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Width (ft)
tMY3 (5/2014)
+MY4 (11/2015) -Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
0.0
x -section area (ft.sq.)
0.0
width (ft)
0.0
mean depth (ft)
0.0
max depth (ft)
0.0
wetted parimeter (ft)
0.0
hyd radi (ft)
0.0
width -depth ratio
Survey Date:
Field Crew:
View Downstream (11/2015)
c
4;
0
v
X68.5
767.5
-20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Width (ft)
tMY3 (5/2014)
+MY4 (11/2015) -Bankfull

Cross -Section Plots
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94643)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2015
Cross Section 14 - UT1A
308+41 run
764
763
762
0
v
w
761
�
760
-45 -25 -5 15
35 55 75 95 115 135
Width (ft)
—�—MY4(11/2015) —Bankfull
—Flood
Bankfull Dimensions
4.3 x -section area (ft.sq.)
8.9 width (ft)
0.5 mean depth (ft)
1.1 max depth (ft)
-
9.4 wetted parimeter (ft)
0.5 hyd radi (ft)
18.6 width -depth ratio
Survey Date:
Field Crew:
View Downstream (11/2015)

Cross -Section Plots
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94643)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2015
Cross Section 15 - UT1A
310+26 run
764
763
762
0
761
Bankfull Dimensions
2.2 x -section area (ft.sq.)
6.3 width (ft)
0.4 mean depth (ft)
0.8 max depth (ft)
6.5 wetted parimeter (ft)
0.3 hyd radi (ft)
17.7 width -depth ratio
Survey Date:
Field Crew:
View Downstream (11/2015)
v
w
760
-50 -30 -10 10 30 50 70 90 110 130 150
Width (ft)
+MY4 (11/2015) -Bankfull +Floodprone Area

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94643)
Monitoring Year 4
UT1B
772
770
768
w
..♦
766
o
♦
,
s
764
♦
.. ..
...
762
...... ..........
.... ........
.-I N
N N
X X
760
758
20000 20100
20200
20300 20400
20500 20600 20700 20800 20900 21000
Station (feet)
t TW (MYO-4/2012)
—w— TW (MYI-10/2012)
— TW (MY2-5/2013)
—TW (MY3-5/2014) —TW (MY4-5/2015) ...... • WS (MY4-5/2015) ♦ BI<F/TOB

Cross -Section Plots
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94643)
Monitoring Year 4
Cross Section 11 - UT1B
205+30 riffle
766
764
0
v
w
'
-FloodproneArea
762
0 10 20
30 40 50 60 70
Width (ft)
+MYO(4/2012) tMY1(10/2012)
tMY2(5/2013)
tMY3(5/2014) tMY4(S/2015) -Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
1.3 x -section area (ft.sq.)
4.0 width (ft)
0.3 mean depth (ft)
0.6 max depth (ft)
4.2 wetted parimeter (ft)
0.3 hyd radi (ft)
12.6 width -depth ratio
Survey Date: May -15
Field Crew: RD/AT
View Downstream (5/2015)
-FloodproneArea

Cross -Section Plots
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94643)
Monitoring Year 4
Cross Section 12 - UT1B
205+63 pool
765
764
v
)
+MYO(4/2012) tMY1(10/2012) tMY2(5/2013) tMY3(5/2014) tMY4(5/2015) -Bankfull-FloodproneArea
01
c
0
v 763
w
762
0 10 20
30
40
50 60 70 80
Width (ft
Bankfull Dimensions
1.5 x -section area (ft.sq.)
6.7 width (ft)
0.2 mean depth (ft)
0.4 max depth (ft)
6.7 wetted parimeter (ft)
0.2 hyd radi (ft)
29.7 width -depth ratio
Survey Date: May -15
Field Crew: RD/AT
;
View Downstream (5/2015)
)
+MYO(4/2012) tMY1(10/2012) tMY2(5/2013) tMY3(5/2014) tMY4(5/2015) -Bankfull-FloodproneArea

APPENDIX 5. Hydrology Summary Data and Plots

Table 13. Verification of Bankfull Events
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94643)
Monitoring Year 4
UT1, UT1A, and UT1B
Date of Data
Reach Collection
UT1 5/11/2012
Date of
Occurrence
U
MY of Occurrence
1
Method
Crest
Gage
10/31/2013
U
2
Crest
Gage
Year 4 (2015)
Year 5 (2016)
No/5 Days
Yes/49 Days (24%)
UT1A 7/10/2012
U
1
Crest
Gage
3/7/2013
U
2
Crest
Gage
6/30/2014
5/15/2014
3
Crest
Gage
2
(0%)
(56%)
(42.9%)
UT16 7/10/2012
U
1
Crest
Gage
3/7/2013
U
2
Crest
Gage
6/30/2014
5/15/2014
3
Crest
Gage
11/4/2015
U
4
Crest
Gage
Table 14. Wetland Gage Attainment Summary
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94643)
Wetlands RW1 and RW2
Monitoring Year 4
N/A: Gages 10 and 11 were installed after MYl. Gage 9 was installed during MY4.
for
Summary of Groundwater Gage Results Years 1 through 5
Success Criteria Achieved/Max Consecutive Days During Growing Season (%)
Gage
Year 1 (2012)
Year 2 (2013)
Year 3 (2014)
Year 4 (2015)
Year 5 (2016)
No/5 Days
Yes/49 Days (24%)
Yes/47 Days (23%)
Yes/59 Days
1
(2.5%)
(25.4%)
No/0 Days
Yes/93 Days (46%)
Yes/113.5 Days
Yes/99.5 Days
2
(0%)
(56%)
(42.9%)
Yes/29 Days
Yes/49 Days (24%)
Yes/52.5 Days
Yes/101.5 Days
3
(14%)
26%)
(43.8%)
Yes/27 Days
Yes/54.5 Days
Yes/47 Days (23%)
Yes/65.5 Days
4
(13%)
(27%)
(28.2%)
No/11 Days
Yes/41.5 Days
Yes/52.5 Days
Yes/75.5 Days
5
(5%)
(20.3%)
(26%)
(32.5%)
No/5 Days
Yes/16 Days
No/10 Days
Yes/35.5 Days
6
(2.5%)
(7.8%)
(5%)
(15.3%)
Yes/22 Days
Yes/179 Days
Yes/49.5 Days
Yes/79.5 Days
7
(11%)
(88%)
(25%)
(34.3%)
No/12 Days
Yes/53 Days (26%)
Yes/44.5 Days
Yes/63 Days
8
(6%)
(22%)
(27.2%)
N/A
N/A
N/A
Yes/17 Days (7.3%)
9
N/A
Yes/180 Days
Yes/45.5 Days
Yes/85 Days
10
(88%)
(23%)
(36.6%)
N/A
1
Yes/80 Days (39%)
1
Yes/50.5 Days
1
Yes/73.5 Days
11
(25%)
(31.7%)
N/A: Gages 10 and 11 were installed after MYl. Gage 9 was installed during MY4.

Groundwater Gage Plots
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94643)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2015
Wetland RW1
20
10
0
-10
cuv
-20
v
Y
f6
-30
-40
-50
-60
C -0> C W 0. �'' > U
i Q > Q Ln O z
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #1 — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0 o
c
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94643)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2015
Wetland RW1
20
10
0
-10
v
-20
v
Y
f6
-30
-40
-50
-60
c > c75 bD >
i Q Q Ln O Z D
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #2 — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0 o
c
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94643)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2015
Wetland RW1
20
10
0
-10
v
-20
v
Y
f6
-30
-40
-50
-60
c > c75 bD >
i Q Q Ln O Z D
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #3 — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0 o
c
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94643)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2015
Wetland RW1
20
10
0
-10
v
-20
v
Y
f6
-30
-40
-50
-60
c > c75 bD >
i Q Q Ln O Z D
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #4 — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0 o
c
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94643)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2015
Wetland RW1
20
10
0
-10
cuv
-20
v
Y
f6
-30
-40
-50
-60
C -0>, C bA Q +-' > U
i � Q > Q Ln O z
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #5 — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0 o
c
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94643)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2015
Wetland RW2
20
10
0
-10
cuv
-20
v
Y
f6
-30
-40
-50
-60
C -0>, C bA Q — > U
i � Q > Q Ln O z
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #6 — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0 o
c
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94643)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2015
Wetland RW2
20
10
0
-10
v
-20
v
Y
f6
-30
-40
-50
-60
C i C75 OA Q +—' > c.7
i Q Q Ln O Z D
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #7 — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0 o
c
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94643)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2015
Wetland RW2
20
10
0
-10
v
-20
v
Y
f6
-30
-40
-50
-60
C i C75 OA Q +—' > c.7
i Q Q Ln O Z D
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #8 — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0 o
c
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94643)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2015
Wetland RW1
Lyle Creek Groundwater Gage #9
o
C
Monitoring Year 4 - 2015
N
4/
Q)
20
UOQ.
�0
6.0
2
O N
10
0 m
-
c7 0
0
0 `-I
5.0
�
c
0
vn
w
4.0
v
-
3.0 7i
-20
S
m
m
cc
-30
2.0
-40
-
1.0
-50
I J1 L
oil
I
-60
0.0
c
> c bDa
Q
+� >
O Z p
�i
Q
in
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #9
— — Criteria Level

Groundwater Gage Plots
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94643)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2015
Wetland RW2
20
10
0
-10
v
-20
v
Y
f6
-30
-40
-50
-60
c > c75 bD a — >
i Q > Q vii O Z D
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #10 — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0 o
c
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94643)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2015
Wetland RW1
20
10
0
-10
v
-20
v
Y
f6
-30
-40
-50
-60
Lyle Creek Groundwater Gage #11
Monitoring Year 4 - 2015
c ;:4
3
o
m-
0
=
Nti.�wwM
O
4
o �
c
(D
0
_0
c
w
Ni \J
c > c bD a +�
i Q > Q Vn 0
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #11 — — Criteria Level
o v
Z 0
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0 7i
c
m
cc
2.0
1.0
0.0

Soil Temperature Probe Plots
Project Name (NCDMS Project No. 94643)
Wetland Number
Monitoring Year 4 - 2015
Lyle Creek Soil Temperature Probe #1
Monitoring Year 4 - 2015
90
80
70
LLIh
G1
i
3
60
L
v
CL
E
v
50
40
— — — — — —— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
30
> U
Q Q UI) O z o
Soil Probe #1 Temperature — — Criteria Level

Soil Temperature Probe Plots
Project Name (NCDMS Project No. 94643)
Wetland Number
Monitoring Year 4 - 2015
KE
80
►Ti,
LL
Gl
3
L 60
v
CL
E
v
ce
40
30
Lyle Creek Soil Temperature Probe #2
Monitoring Year 4 - 2015
cL > c — on a +� > u
a z
Soil Probe #2 Temperature — — Criteria Level

Monthly Rainfall Data
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 94643)
Monitoring Year 4
Figure 7. Lyle Creek 30-70 Percentile Graph for Rainfall in 2015 Catawba, NC
13
11
9
S
r7
0
Y
m
Q
�5
a`
3
OIL-
1 -
Jan -15 Feb -15 Mar -15 Apr -15 May -15 Jun -15 Jul -15 Aug -15 Sep -15 Oct -15 Nov -15 Dec -15
-1
Date
On -Site Gage Data
■ USGS Station 354616081085145
-30th Percentile
-70th Percentile
2015 rainfall collected by onsite rainfall gage and USGS station 354616081085145
Z 30th and 70th percentile rainfall data collected from weather station Catawba 3 NNW, NC1579 (USDA, 2002)
Onsite rainfall gage malfunctioned in October and November, 2015