20110821 Ver 1_Year 5 Monitoring Report_2016_20170119

MONITORING YEAR 5
ANNUAL REPORT
Final
LYLE CREEK MITIGATION SITE
Catawba County, NC
DEQ Contract 003241
DMS Project Number 94643
Data Collection Period: February - November 2016
Draft Submission Date: November 30, 2016
Final Submission Date: December 5, 2016
PREPARED FOR:
rk�
INC Department of Environment Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652

PREPARED BY:
w
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 28203
Kirsten Y. Gimbert
[e-mail]
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Wildlands Engineering (Wildlands) implemented a full delivery project for the North Carolina
Department of Environmental Quality North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) 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 wetlands on a full delivery site in Catawba County, NC. The project
originally proposed 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, UT113 (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 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 resulted 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 associated with the site crossings (farm roads and power line easements) was excluded
from the total project credit calculations. Figure 2 and Table 1 present the restoration design for the
site.
The following project goals were established in the mitigation plan 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 5 Annual Report -FINAL

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 project area within the Garmon parcel. The conservation easement protects
the project area in perpetuity.
Monitoring Year 5 (MY5) monitoring and site visits were completed between February and November
2016 to assess the conditions of the project. A majority of groundwater gages (GWG) at the site have
met the required hydrologic success criteria for MY5, exceptions include GWG 6 and 9. These two gages
are the only ones that have not met hydrologic success criteria during a majority (at least 3 out of 5
years) of post -construction monitoring. 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 MY5 success criteria with the exception of the upper reach (approximately 394 LF) of UT1A.
UT1A has aggraded due to a large influx of sediment from upstream of the project. The site's overall
average stem density of 419 stems/acre is greater than the final vegetative success criteria of 260
stems/acre for MY5.
Based on the performance of project components through MY5, credit is not proposed for 394 LF of
stream restoration (394 SMU's) along UT1A that has aggraded due to offsite sediment sources. Credit is
not proposed for 0.6 acres of wetland creation (0.2 WMU's) in RW1 where groundwater gages (GWG 6
and 9) within the right floodplain of UT1 Reach 1 have not met hydrologic success criteria during the
majority of monitoring years. Based on these modifications to proposed credits the project is
anticipated to generate 5,571 SMU's and 7.1 WMU's.
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 5 Annual Report -FINAL

LYLE CREEK MITIGATION SITE
Monitoring Year 5 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 5 Data Assessment..........................................................................................1-3
Project Activity and Reporting History
1.2.1
Vegetative Assessment......................................................................................................1-3
Table 4
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............................................................................1-5
1.3 Monitoring Year 5 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 Plot 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
Appendix 4 Morphological Summary Data and Plots
Table 10a -b Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table 11 Morpholology and Hydraulic Monitoring 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 5 Annual Report -FINAL iii

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

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 UT1D
(stream enhancement level II). The project wetland areas consist of RW1 and RW2 (wetland restoration
and creation). Mitigation work within the site included restoring and enhancing 6,795 LF of perennial
and intermittent stream channel and restoring and creating 9.5 ac of riparian wetland and proposes the
generation of 5,571 SMU's and 7.1 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 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 6.4 ac of wetland area, enhancing 1,384 LF of intermittent stream channel and
creating 2.2 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,
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 5 Annual Report -FINAL 1-1

pattern, and profile was implemented for UT1, UT1A, and UT1B; 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.
The design streams and wetlands were restored to the appropriate type based on the surrounding
landscape, climate, and natural vegetation communities but also with strong consideration to existing
watershed conditions and trajectory.
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 5 Annual Report -FINAL 1-2

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 DWR. Annual monitoring and
quarterly site visits will be conducted to assess the condition of the finished project for five years, or
until success criteria are met. The stream restoration reaches (UT1, UT1A, and UT113) of the project were
assigned specific performance criteria components for stream morphology, hydrology, and vegetation.
The enhancement reaches (UT1C and UT1D) were documented through photographs and visual
assessments to verify that no significant degradational changes are occurring in the stream channel or
riparian corridor. Monitoring for wetland vegetation will extend 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 DMS
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
has been conducted for five years including stream, vegetation, and wetland assessment. The final
monitoring activities were 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 5 Data Assessment
Annual monitoring and quarterly site visits were conducted between February and November 2016 to
assess the condition of the project.
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 at the end of year five 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 MY1 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 conducted 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. These additional stems were assumed to be planted stems
missed in previous monitoring years.
The MY5 annual vegetation monitoring was completed in June 2016 and resulted in an average planted
stem density of 419 stems per acre for the site, which is greater than the final success criteria
requirement. All 35 vegetation plots individually meet the year 5 final criteria of 260 stems/acre. Planted
stem densities ranged from 283 — 607 stems per acre. A strong presence of volunteers was observed in
several plots. When volunteers are included the total stem densities ranged from 283 —1,619 stems per
acre with an overall average of 667 stems per acre. Between four and ten native woody species were
documented in the vegetation plots with 26 species present site wide.
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 5 Annual Report -FINAL 1-3

1.2.2 Vegetative Areas of Concern
The MY5 vegetation monitoring and visual assessment revealed few vegetation areas of concern.
Invasive species including Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), Chinese lespedeza (Lespedeza cuneate),
Johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense), kudzu (Pueraria lobata), and multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora) were
identified at a few isolated areas during MY5. The presence of these species does not currently appear
to be affecting the survivability of planted stems. Minor encroachment of the conservation easement
was observed as a result of adjacent field mowing performed by the surrounding tree farm. 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 but will be treated during Spring 2017. Additional conservation easement markers will be installed
along areas of encroachment.
1.2.3 Stream Assessment
Morphological surveys for MY5 were conducted between May and September 2016. The majority of the
streams within the site have met the success criteria for MY5. Aggradation was documented on the
upper portions of UT1, UT1A, and UT16 as a result of their contributing upstream watersheds. The
aggradation at the top of UT1 (Stations 100+17 and 100+95) is contained within the active channel and
resulted in a slight rise in channel bed elevation through this section. The minor amount of sediment
was first observed in MY4 and currently is not impacting the channel's overall stability and function.
Aggradation in UT1A was initially documented during MY3 between Stations 301+75 to 304+34 and
continued through MY4 when sediment filled the channel between Stations 300+36 to 304+34. During
MY5 sediment filled UT1A from Station 300+36 to 304+30. This portion of UT1A has served as a
reservoir for off-site sediment which has completely filled in this portion of channel. UT1B experienced
minor aggradation between Stations 201+52 and 204+30 to a lesser degree than UT1A. This aggradation
in not impacting the overall stability of UT113 as the channel has remained a single thread system with
some decrease in pool length and depth. Over time UT1 and UT16 should naturally transport this
sediment. Refer to 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 illustrate that the bedform
features are maintaining lateral and vertical stability throughout UT1, and the lower sections of UT1A
and UT1B. In UT1, the downstream section of UT1A, and the majority of UT1B, 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 UT1B are less distinguishable and resemble
shallow runs (Appendix 4, Longitudinal Profile Plots).
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 5 Annual Report -FINAL 1-4

Due to the sand/silt nature of the substrate throughout the project, fluctuations in bed elevations were
observed and expected as described in the mitigation plan. 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 continue to provide stability and habitat as designed. No
changes were observed during MY5 that indicate a change in the radius of curvature or channel belt
width. Therefore, no pattern data were collected during MY5.
1.2.4 Hydrology Assessment
As of MY5, two or more bankfull events have occurred in separate years within all the restoration
reaches (UTI, UT1A and UT1B). During MY5, one bankfull events was recorded on UT1 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 UTIA downstream of the aggraded section of the stream. Refer to Table 13 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 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 whose growing
season runs from April 8th 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 MY5 the two on-site soil temperatures
reached and/or stayed above 41 degrees Fahrenheit at 12 inches below the ground surface starting on
February 21St and 22nd which are 48 and 47 days, respectively, earlier than the Iredell County growing
season defined by the WETS data that starts on April 8th. Based on general experience the Interagency
Review Team (IRT) typically does not accept growing season start dates before March 9th in the
Piedmont. Therefore, the growing season was only extended by 30 days from March 91h to October 27th
(232 days).
All groundwater monitoring gages were downloaded on a quarterly basis and were maintained on an as
needed basis. The success criteria for wetland hydrology at this site 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. The majority of groundwater
gages (9 out of 11 gages) met the annual wetland hydrology success criteria for MY5. Exceptions include
GWG 6 and 9 located on the western side of the site. Monthly on-site rainfall was below average for the
majority of the growing season. 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 site
(UTI Upper Reach, UT1 Lower Reach and UT113) as shown on Figure 3. These sites were sampled before
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 5 Annual Report -FINAL 1-5

construction (December 2011), MY -2 (January 2014), MY3 (January 2015), and MY4 (January 2016).
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. Overall taxa
richness decreased from pre -construction to MY4 at the three sampling locations. Ephemeroptera +
Plecoptera + Trichoptera (EPT) taxa richness increased from pre -construction to MY4 on UT1 Lower
while EPT taxa richness decreased on UT1 Upper and UT113. MY4 NC biotic indices at each sampling
location were lower than pre -construction values indicating pollutant intolerant bugs are establishing
across the site.
1.3 Monitoring Year 5 Summary
Streams within the site are stable and functioning as designed. Aggradation documented in UT1A
persists. Wildlands has removed this 394 LF from the credit request. Lesser amounts of aggradation
where observed on the upper portion of UTI and UT113 however these channels are stable and
functioning as single thread channels. It is anticipated that aggraded sediment in UT1 and UT1B will be
evacuated from the system. The average stem density for the site has met the MY5 success criteria.
There have been more than two bankfull events recorded in separate monitoring years along each
restored project reach since construction commenced; therefore, the site has met the MY5 stream
hydrology attainment requirement. A majority of groundwater gages (9 out of 11 gages) met the
wetland hydrology success criteria for MY5. Wildlands has removed 0.6 acres of wetland creation
located on the west side of UTI in the area represented by GWG 6 and 9 from our credit request.
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 5 Annual Report -FINAL 1-6

Section 2: METHODOLOGY
Geomorphic data was collected following the standards outlined in The Stream Channel Reference Site:
An Illustrated Guide to Field Techniques (Harrelson et al., 1994) and in the Stream Restoration: A Natural
Channel Design Handbook (Doll et al., 2003). Longitudinal and cross-sectional data were collected using
a total station and were georeferenced. All Integrated Current Condition Plan View mapping was
recorded using a Trimble handheld GPS with sub -meter accuracy and processed using was Pathfinder
and ArcView. Crest gages were installed in surveyed riffle cross-sections and monitored quarterly.
Hydrology attainment installation and monitoring methods are in accordance with the USACE (2003)
standards. Vegetation monitoring protocols followed the Carolina Vegetation Survey-NCEEP Level 2
Protocol (Lee et al., 2008).
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 5 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,
NCDEQDWQ, 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.
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 5 Annual Report -FINAL 3-1

APPENDIX 1. General Tables and Figures

Conservation Easement
Hydrologic Unit Code (14)
DMS Targeted Local Watershed
d
0305010114
Directions:
From 1-40 exit 138, follow
Oxford School Road south
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.
Follow 3rd Avenue NW around
and to the right to approach the
Catawba Tree Farm gate.
The subject project site is an environmental restoration
site of the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)
Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) and is encompassed
by a recorded conservation easement,but is bordered
by land under private ownership. Accessing the site
may require traversing areas near or along the easement
boundary and therefore access by the general public is not
permitted. Access by authorized personnel of state and
federal agencies or their designees/contractors involved in
the development, oversight,and stewardship of the restoration
site is permitted within the terms and timeframes of their
defined roles. Any intended site visitation or activity by
any person outside of these previously sanctioned roles
and activites requires prior coordination with DMS.
3.
yr a
R.— Owl ,
:r. 4yh lacer r
10305011150 20
11FININhAw Ike
I
Project Locationi
AA
yes
0305�01 150
6
lli
Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project Number 94643
Monitoring Year 5
Catawba County, NC
0 2,000 4,000 ft
1 �I
WTLDLANDS
ENC, NEER N17,

%�•�, 1 % �,t, —,�� / �>
Lo -
I 1 /
14
I
_ I
• ♦ ♦ �`
Ir ;
1
Figure 2. Project Component/
Asset Map
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project Number 94643
Monitoring Year 5
Catawba County, NC
Conservation
Easement
Stream
Stream Restoration
(Credit no longer
proposed)
Stream
Enhancement
Braided Reach (No
credit)
Wetland
Wetland
Wetland Creation (No
Credit)
Power
0 150 300 ft
%�r/
WILDLANDS
EHCIWEERIHCI

Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.94643
Monitoring Year 5 - 2016
or
Mitigation Credits
Nitrogen
Stream Riparian Wetland
Non -Riparian Wetland
Buffer Nutrient Phosphorous Nutrient Offset
Upland
(acres)
Offet
Type R RE
R RE
R RE
6.4
Enhancement
Totals 5,571 N/A
7.1 N/A
N/A N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Creation
As -Built
Existing
Preservation
-
As -Built Mitigation
High Quality
Reach ID
Stationing/
Footage
Approach
Restoration or Restoration
Length/Area
Mitigation Ratio
Credits (SMU)
Location
LF
Equivalent
(LF/acres)
UTI
100+00-
4,071
Priority 1/2
Restoration
3,951 LF'
1:1
3,951
141+30
UT1a
300+00-
1,141
Priority 1
Restoration
221 LF"'
1:1
221
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 LF'
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
5.6 AC'
1:1
5.6
planting
grading,
RW1
N/A
N/A
Creation
1.0AC7
3:1
0.3
planting
RW2
N/A
N/A
grading,
Restoration
0.8 AC'
1:1
0.8
planting
grading,
RW2
N/A
N/A
Creation
1.2 AC"'
3:1
0.4
planting
or
• .•
Restoration Level
Stream
(linear feet)
Riparian Wetland Non -Riparian Buffer
Wetland
(acres) (acres) (square feet)
Upland
(acres)
Riverine Non-Riverine
Restoration
5,017
6.4
Enhancement
-
Enhancement I
Enhancement II
1,384
Creation
2.2
Preservation
-
-
High Quality
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 UTla that is in the anastomosed wetland complex
' Excludes downstream 243 LF of UTlb that is in the anastomosed wetland complex
° Includes length from station 4+48 to 6+11 where left bank buffer width ranges from 28.7' to 50'. The right bank buffer width in this area ranges from 65.5' to 102.6'.
s Excludes length from station 300+36 to 304+30 which has filled as a result of heavy sedimentation from off-site sources.
6 Excludes 0.6 AC of wetland creation in RW2 where groundwater gages 6 and 9 haven't met success criteria in a majority of monitoring years.
7 Excludes stream footprint within wetland area.

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.94643
Monitoring Year 5 - 2016
Activity or Report
Plan
Date Collection Complete
May 2011
Completion or Schedum
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
Supplemental Planting
N/A
December 2012
Year 2 Monitoring
October 2013
November 2013
Supplemental Planting
N/A
April 2014
Year 3 Monitoring
June 2014
December 2014
Beaver dam removal on UTI Reach 2
N/A
February 2015
Year 4 Monitoring
June 2015
March 2016
Beaver dam removal on UTI Reach 1 Lower
N/A
October & November 2015
Beaver dam removal on UTI Reach 2
N/A
February & July 2016
Year 5 Monitoring
Feb -Nov 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)
DMS Project No.94643
Monitoring Year 5 - 2016
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Designer
1430 S. Mint St, Suite 104
Emily Reinicker, PE
Charlotte, NC 28203
704.332.7754
River Works, Inc.
Construction Contractor
6105 Chapel Hill Rd
Bill Wright
Raleigh, NC 27607
336.279.1002
River Works, Inc.
Planting Contractor
6105 Chapel Hill Rd
George Morris
Raleigh, NC 27607
336.279.1002
River Works, Inc.
Seeding Contractor
6105 Chapel Hill Rd
George Morris
Raleigh, NC 27607
336.279.1002
Seed Mix Sources
Green Resource
Nursery Stock Suppliers
ArborGlen
Superior Tree
Mellow Marsh Farm
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Monitoring Performers
Kirsten Y. Gimbert
Stream, Vegetation, and Wetland Monitoring POC
704.332.7754, ext. 110

Table 4. Project Information and Attributes
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.94643
Monitoring Year 5 - 2016
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
DWQSub-basin Catawba River Subbasin 03-08-32
Project Drainage Area (acres) 315
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area 5%
CGIA Land Use Classification 50% Forested, 20% Developed, 17% Agricultural, 8% Shrubland, 5% Herbaceous Upland
Parameters UT1 UT1A UT1B UT1C UT1D RW1 RW2
Length of reach (linear feet) - Post -Restoration 3,951' 615' 845'
677
707
N/A
N/A
Drainage area (acres) 315 56 78
26
9
96
134
NCDWQ stream identification Lyle Creek- 11-76-(4.5)
NCDWQ Water Quality Classification Lyle Creek - WS-IV;CA
Morphological Desription (stream type) of Pre -Existing F5 4, F6 4, G6 4
F6 4
F6 4
F6 4
F6 4
N/A
N/A
Morphological Desription (stream type) of Design BSc, C6
B6c, C6
C6
C6
C6
N/A
N/A
Evolutionary trend (Simon's Model) - Pre- Restoration Stage II - Channelized
Chewacla
Wehadkee
Underlying mapped soils Chewacla loam
Chewacla
fine sandy
Chewacla
Congaree
loam and
Chewacla
loam
loam
complex
Wehadkee
loam
loam
fine sand
somewhat
somewhat
somewhat
poorly
somewhat
somewhat
Drainage class
poorly
frequently
poorly
moderately
drained and
poorly
poorly drained
drained
flooded
drained
well drained
frequently
drained
flooded
Soil Hydric status Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Slope 0-2%
0-2%
0-2%
0-2Y
0-2%
0-2%
0-2Y
FEMA classification AES
Native vegetation community Palustrine Emergent System
Percent composition of exotic invasive vegetation - Post-
0%
Restoration
111MI! Regulatory Considerations
Regulation Applicable?
Resolved?
Supporting Documentation
Waters of the United States - Section 404 X
X
USACE Nationwide Permit No.27 and DWQ 401 Water Quality
Certification No. 3689
Waters of the United States - Section 401 X
X
Division of Land Quality (Dam Safety) N/A
N/A
N/A
Lyle Creek Mitigation Plan: two federally listed species, the bald
eagle (Holioeetus leucocephalus ) and dwarf -flowered hearleaf
(Hexastylis naniflora ), 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 USFWS)
X
X
No historic resources were found to be impacted (letter from SHPO
Historic Preservation Act
X
X
and THPO)
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)/Coastal Area N/A
N/A
N/A
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
No -rise certification and floodplain development permit approved by
X
X
Catawba County floodplain administrator.
Project area has warm water fisheries; found no reason to object to
Essential Fisheries Habitat
X
X
the restoration project (letter from NCWRC).
' Excludes 179 LF of crossings
' Excludes 419 LF of UT1a in the anastomosed wetlands complex
n Excludes 243 LF of LIM 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.
'The project area does not have an associate regulated floodplain; however, the project reaches and wetland areas area located within the floodway and flood fringe of Lyle Creek.

APPENDIX 2. Visual Assessment Data

S
film I- I- I- I- I_ I- I- I- I - 1- I- 1- I- 1- 1- I- I- 1- I- I- I- I- I- I - I- IN I - 7- 1- I- I- 1- 1- I- 1- 1- I- I- I- I- I- 1- I- I- 1- 7- 1- I- I- I- 1-
G -
Sheet 3
■ �J
■ - I
■
■ I I 1 1 1 1 t f 1 1 1 1 1. 1 1 1 1I 1. I I 1 1
1-6�d-I�I�.��1-1-1-1-I-I-1-I-1-1�1-�-1`I`I-I-1-1-1 �I
,♦ i a 17773 ^."'aM1Y�I'
PP 32
i
t
■ ■ Q
34
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
4
i RW2
■ �'� . \\
■
UT1 i
i
■ i ,. i P
■ t ',1 �-
Sheet 1�:-
L
PP 15
13� \
P
PP 35
PP 2 7jr.,PP 23-- 1
S et 2
1 MI - 1 - I - I - 1 - I - r - I - I - I - I - I - 7 - 1 - I - I - r - I . . I . I . I .1.1.1 - I - 1 - I - I - 1 - I . I . 1 . 1 . I . I . I - I . I . 1 - 1 wI - I - I - I - I - I ■
y r +IE
41-
2014
Aerial

Figure 3.1 Integrated Current
Condition Plan View (Sheet 1 of 3)
w y WILDLANDS 1 Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
ENGPNEERING L o 100 zoo ft DMS Project Number 94643
1 i 1 i 1 Monitoring Year 5
Catawba County, NC

Figure 3.2 Integrated Current
Condition Plan View (Sheet 2 of 3)
W1L1ENGLPANENERDING5 L � Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
i ioo zio fDMS Project Number 94643
' I
Monitoring Years
Catawba County, NC

Figure 3.3 Integrated Current
Condition Plan View (Sheet 3 of 3)
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
W1L1llLAND5 rkA,
DMS Pro ect Number 94643
i I Zoo I 2I0 ft 1 Monitoring Year 5
Catawba County, NC

Table Sa. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94643
Monitoring year 5 - 2016
UTI Reach 1 Upper (700 LF)
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number in
As -Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of %Stable,
Unstable Performing as
Footage Intended
Numberwith
Stabilizing Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing Woody
Vegetation
Adjust %for Stabilizing
Woody Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability (Riffle and
Aggradation
1
77 89%
Run units)
Degradation
0
0 100%
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
15
15
100%
1. Bed
Depth Sufficient
8
9
89%
3. Meander Pool Condition
Length Appropriate
9
9
100%
100%
Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
9
9
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide)
9
9
100%
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 likely.
2. Bank
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercutsthat are modest, appear sustainable and are
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
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.
40
40
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill
39
39
100%
3. Engineered
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
24
24
100%
Structures
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%.
40
40
100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining "Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth 21.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at baseflow.
6
6
100%

Table 56. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94643
Monitoring Year 5 - 2016
UTI Reach 1 Lower (2.558 LFI
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Number Stable,
Metric Performing as
Intended
Number of
Total Number in
Unstable
As -Built Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
%Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing Woody
Vegetation
Footage with lizing
StabiWoody
Vegetation
Adjust %for Stabilizing
Woody Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability (Riffle and
Aggradation 0
0
100%
Run units(
Degradation 0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate 24 24
100%
1. Bed
Depth Sufficient 29 29
100%
3. Meander Pool Condition
100%
Length Appropriate 29 29
Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run) 29 29
100%
4. Thalweg Position
100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide) 29 29
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 likely.
2. Bank
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercutsthat are modest, appear sustainable and are
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
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.
34
34
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill
30
30
100%
3. Engineered
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
2
2
100%
Structures
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%.
34
34
100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining "Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth 21.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at baseflow.
4
4
100%

Table Sc. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94643
Monitoring Year 5 - 2016
UTI Reach 2 (883 LFI
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number in
As -Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
%Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing Woody
Vegetation
Adjust %for Stabilizing
Woody Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability (Riffle and
Aggradation
0
0
100%
Run units(
Degradation
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
12
12
100%
1. Bed
Depth Sufficient
10
10
100%
3. Meander Pool Condition
Length Appropriate
10
10
100%
Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
10
10
100%
[I. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide)
10
10
100%
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 likely.
2. Bank
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable and are
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
providing habitat
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, 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.
16
16
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill
13
13
100%
3. Engineered
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
4
4
100%
Structures
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%.
16
16
100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining -Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth z1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at baseflow.
4
4
100%

Table So. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94643
Monitoring Year 5 - 2016
UT1A (615 LFI
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number in
As -Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
%Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing Woody
Vegetation
Adjust %for Stabilizing
Woody Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability (Riffle and
Aggradation
1
394
36%
Run units)
Degradation
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
8 8
100%
1.Bed
Depth Sufficient
3 it
27%
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%
1.Scoured/Eroded
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or scour
and erosion
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears likely.
Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable and are
o
0
100%
0
0
100%
2. Bank
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.
43
43
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill
43
43
100%
3. Engineered
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
35
35
100%
Structures'
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%.
43
43
100%
4. Habitat0
Pool forming structures maintaining -Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth >_ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at baseflow.'
10
0%
' 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 300+36 and 304+30 due to heavy aggradation,

Table Se. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94643
Monitoring year 5 - 2016
UT1B (845 LFI
Major Channel
Number Stable,
Total Number in
Number of
Amount of
%Stable,
Number with
Footage with
Adjust %for Stabilizing
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Performing as
Intended
As -Built
Unstable
Segments
Unstable
Footage
Performing az
Intended
Stabilizing Woody
Vegetation
Stabilizing Woody
Vegetation
Woody Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability (Riffle and
Aggradation
1
278
67%
Run units)
Degradation
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
11
11
100%
1. Bed
Depth Sufficient
10
19
53%
3. Meander Pool Condition
Length Appropriate
10
19
53%
Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
19
19
4.Thalweg Position
Ffoo-"]
Thalwgcenteringatdownstream of meander bend (Glide)
19
19
1. Scoured/Eroded
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or scour
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
and erosion
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2. Bank
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable and are
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
providing habitat
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, 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.
31
31
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill
31
31
100%
3. Engineered
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
21
21
100%
Structures'
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%.
31
31
100%
Pool forming structures maintaining—Max Pool Depth : Bankfull
4. Habitat
z
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+52 and 204+30 due to aggradation

Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94643
Monitoring Year 5 - 2016
Planted Acreage 26.2
Easement Acreage 26.6
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Mapping
Number
Combined
Acreage
% of
Invasive Areas of Concern
Areas of points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
1000
9
Combined
3.0%
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Threshold
of
Planted
Areas of points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
none
11
0.3
Acreage
(Ac)
Polygons
Acreage
Bare Areas
Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material
0.1
0
0.0
0.0%
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 4, or 5 stem count
Low Stem Density Areas^
0.1
0
0.0
0.0%
criteria.
Total
0
0.0
0.0%
Areas with woody stems of a size class that are obviously small given the monitoring
Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor
0.25
0
0.0
0%
year.
Cumulative Total
0
0.0
i 0%
Easement Acreage 26.6
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Mapping
Threshold
(SF)
Number
of
Polygons
Combined
Acreage
%of
Planted
Acreage
Invasive Areas of Concern
Areas of points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
1000
9
0.8
3.0%
Easement Encroachment Areas
Areas of points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
none
11
0.3
1.0%
^Acreage calculated from vegetation plots monitored for site.

Stream Photographs

- our '
r `
` - A,L- "
• .K o!. -
Ar
•,
''k,"
g.
lal ;7
V4,
y"" pp f {�4F� '✓ F
40
M
{, s
y

Photo Point 4 — view upstream (07/13/16) Photo Point 4 —view downstream (07/23/15)
Photo Point 5 — view upstream (07/13/16) 1 Photo Point 5 — view downstream (07/13/16) 1
Photo Point 6 — view upstream (07/13/16) 1 Photo Point 6 —view downstream (07/13/16) 1

Photo Point 10 — view upstream (07/13/16) 1 Photo Point 10 — view downstream (07/13/16) 1
Photo Point 11— view upstream (07/13/16) 1 Photo Point 11— view downstream (07/13/16) 1
Photo Point 12 —view upstream (07/13/16) 1 Photo Point 12 — view downstream (07/13/16) 1

0
r. 0 yy'JJ Ilk u�A ✓� 'k ',..
Ahi
� % ,/ �� .'n.?. � dl P "9'���,�?r f1 h�•✓'r 'orf'_ �4"�..
9
P Y{ "(
�t y.
111111
r`
w .r
f

i
ir ' * 4
s�-1� '+. ,•i�, - k,p
y�+
s
e
14, "
!AMC r
Lk
M 7 !
i _ � y�,• 4rd � firms `l,
01 71

Photo Point 19 —view upstream (07/13/16) 1 Photo Point 19 — view downstream (07/13/16) 1
Photo Point 20 — view upstream (07/13/16) Photo Point 20 — view downstream (07/13/16)
Photo Point 21— view upstream (09/28/16) 1 Photo Point 21— view downstream (09/28/16) 1

r
• • ' • • I • • • ' • • •
sk
r I
I +
�y p�
[ _ �,a) s� ��•� � Vic. � n � f ,
Ell
Ilk
�� / F; � ' � e �a � ni " a �•��xIF7r`i� . 5l�',.7? � � yY' �
ea� r d ' ` �' !' ' [ Pt 1}q
�. s �- / i � �.. � � � •� r � � �. �fi c �� r � °� �4P�y, F � 4 .f � �- �y a. "� � 4'' � � �,�.�i
0 9 _
w
- . `r I � `- err _ � � H ' - , r "� r�` cp'� •I�.
r '

Photo Point 25 — view upstream (07/13/16) 1 Photo Point 25 — view downstream (07/13/16) 1
Photo Point 26 — view upstream (07/13/16) 1 Photo Point 26 — view downstream (07/13/16) 1
Photo Point 27 — view upstream (07/13/16) 1 Photo Point 27 — view downstream (07/13/16) 1

N s
5 y .00
tt
w p'- M? �r t, AX-,
iAM
pli
1V 1
lit
� f �
M U m l
s
_..
. ... _.
C
lit
M U m l
JP S. f
Erb
lit

Photo Point 31— view upstream (09/28/16) Photo Point 31— view downstream (09128116)
f Wow,
a R
Photo Point 32 — view upstream (09/28/16) Photo Point 32 — view downstream (09/28/16)
•N
�L �I
Ai P
F'.W y
r
ow.a
Photo Point 33 — view upstream (09/28/16) 1 Photo Point 33 — view downstream (09/28/16) 1

Photo Point 34 — view upstream (09/28/16) 1 Photo Point 34 — view downstream (09/28/16) 1
Photo Point 35 —view upstream (09/28/16) 1 Photo Point 35 — view downstream (09/28/16) 1
Photo Point 36 — view upstream (09/28/16) 1 Photo Point 36 — view downstream (09/28/16) 1

&
WO
L
Jn
.d r
'4t
F
r
I
Via
Ma
f�
,
Photo Point 37 —view upstream (09/28/16)
Photo Point 37
— view downstream (09/28/16)

Vegetation Plot Photographs

i
NEW
r
4 7 f p9R 4� 4
Fl
Tl

Vegetation Plot 7 (06/3/2016) 1 Vegetation Plot 8 (06/2/2016) 1
Vegetation Plot 9 (06/3/2016) Vegetation Plot 10 (06/2/2016)

Vegetation Plot 13 (06/2/2016) Vegetation Plot 14 (06/2/2016)

Vegetation Plot 25 (06/2/2016) 1 Vegetation Plot 26 (06/2/2016) 1
Vegetation Plot 27 (06/2/2016) Vegetation Plot 28 (06/2/2016) 1
Vegetation Plot 29 (06/2/2016) Vegetation Plot 30 (06/2/2016) 1

Vegetation Plot 31 (06/2/2016) 1 Vegetation Plot 32 (06/3/2016) 1
Vegetation Plot 33 (06/3/2016) 1 Vegetation Plot 34 (06/3/2016)
Vegetation Plot 35 (06/3/2016) 1

APPENDIX 3. Vegetation Plot Data

Table 7. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94643
Monitoring Year 5 - 2016
Plot MYS Success Met
/
Tract Mean
1 y
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
DMS Project No. 94643
Monitoring Year 5 - 2016
Report Prepared By
Alea Tuttle
Date Prepared
9/21/2016 16:44
Database Name
Lyle MY5 cvs-eep-entrytool-v2.3.1.mdb
Database Location
Q:\ActiveProjects\005-02123 Lyle Creek Mitigation FDP\Monitoring\Monitoring Year 5\Vegetation Assessment
DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT------------
Metadata
Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a summary of project(s) and project data.
Project Planted
Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre, for each year. This excludes live stakes.
Project Total Stems
Each project is listed with its TOTAL stems per acre, for each year. This includes live stakes, all planted stems, and all natural/volunteer stems.
Plots
List of plots surveyed with location and summary data (live stems, dead stems, missing, etc.).
Vigor
Frequency distribution of vigor classes for stems for all plots.
Vigor by Spp
Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species.
Damage
List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences and percent of total stems impacted by each.
Damage by Spp
Damage values tallied by type for each species.
Damage by Plot
Damage values tallied by type for each plot.
Planted Stems by Plot and Spp
A matrix of the count of PLANTED living stems of each species for each plot; dead and missing stems are excluded.
ALL Stems by Plot and Spp
A matrix of the count of total living stems of each species (planted and natural volunteers combined) for each plot; dead and missing stems are excluded.
PROJECT SUMMARY -------------------------------------
Project Code
94643
project Name
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
Description
Stream and Wetland Mitigation
Required Plots (calculated)
35
Sampled Plots
35

Table 9. Planted and Total Stem Counts
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94643
Monitoring Year 5 - 2016
Current Plot Data (MY5 - 20161
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
Scientific Name
Common Name
����aaaoao���00000©oa000000©aa000000©000
-
�0000aaoo©������000000������oom000©©©000
'
oom000mmmoommmmoommmmmmmoomoomoomoommmm
v©v©vv©000000
Species count
©©v©©©©©000000000000000©0000©vo©vo©oo©v
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
DMS Project No. 94643
Monitoring Year 5 - 2016
Current Plot Data (MYS 20161
Color for Density
Exceedsrequirements 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
Scientific Name
Common Name
�mmm©©©000���oa000000©vvoo©voodoo©000000
'
mmmmmmmmmoom00000mmmmmmmmmmoom®mmmmmmmm
- -
000©vo©000000
Species count
©©©©©v©©oo©00000000©oo©000©vv©oom0000©a
Color for Density
Exceedsrequirements 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
DMS Project No. 94643
Monitoring Year 5 - 2016
Current Plot Data (MYS 20161 1 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
MYS (2016)
MY4 (2015)
MY3 (2014)
MY2 (2013)
MYl (2012)
MYO (2012)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
Pnol-S
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
Pnol-S
P -all
T
Pnol-S
P -all
T
Pnol-S
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
Pnol-S
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
Pnol-S
P -all
T
Pnol-S
P -all
T
Pnol-S
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
Pnol-S
P -all
T
Pnol-S
P -all
T
Acerfloridanum
southern sugar maple
Tree
2
Acernegundo
boxelder
Tree
10
10
12
11
11
13
10
10
11
11
11
12
14
14
14
24
24
24
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
12
4
Alnus serrulate
hazelalder
Shrub
1
1
1
4
4
4
3
3
3
2
2
2
4
4
4
34
34
34
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
53
53
54
52
52
53
51
51
55
52
52
55
52
52
52
71
71
71
Callicarpa americana
American beautyberry
Shrub
I
1
1
15
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
Tree
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
2
2
2
17
17
17
Celtis loevigato
sugarberry
Tree
1
1
1
9
9
9
14
14
14
11
11
11
13
13
13
13
13
13
15
15
15
Cepholanthus occidentalis
common buttonbush
Shrub
4
5
2
3
3
1
1
4
34
50
35
22
Cercis canadensis
eastern redbud
Tree
1
1
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
7
1
3
3
13
3
3
11
Cornus florida
flowering dogwood
Tree
1
1
2
Diospyros virginiona
common persimmon
Tree
1
1
3
1
1
1
9
9
13
9
9
9
8
8
8
8
8
9
8
8
8
10
10
10
Froxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
1
1 1
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
3
3
3
1
1
2
2
2
3
1
1 1
1 1
80
1 80
1 97
82
1 82
1 95
74
1 74
1 84
77
77
88
63
63
63
69
69
69
Hibiscus
rosemallow
Shrub
1
Juglans nigra
black walnut
Tree
1
Liquidambarstyrociflua
sweetgum
Tree
2
10
2
3
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
15
15
17
16
16
19
17
17
19
20
20
21
20
20
20
52
52
52
Nyssa sylvotica
blackgum
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
4
5
5
5
39
39
41
40
40
40
38
38
38
40
40
40
38
38
38
48
48
48
Pinus rigida
pitch pine
Tree
2
Pinus toeda
loblolly pine
Tree
6
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
5
5
5
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
66
66
93
65
65
113
66
66
97
68
68
97
66
66
66
88
88
88
Populus deltoides
eastern cottonwood
Tree
1
1
1
1
14
29
10
7
Prunus serotina
black cherry
Tree
I
1
1
3
Quercus michouxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
1
1 2
2
2 1
1
2
2
2
13
13
13
13
13
13
14
14
14 1
12
12
12
12
12
12
1 14
14
14
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
6
6
6
1
1
1
4
4
6
23
23
25
23
23
24
23
23
24
22
22
22
27
27
27
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
Tree
1
1
1
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
1
1
Rosa palustris
swamp rose
Shrub
36
12
32
Salix bebbiano
Bebb willow
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
Salix nigra
black willow
Tree
17
72
1
Salix sericea
silky willow
Shrub
1
2
2
4
11
55
40
13
36
V3223212
Sambucus canadensis
common elderberry
Shrub
1
1
1
Ulmus alota
winged elm
Tree
1
5
Ulmus americana
American elm
Tree
5
Ulmus rubra
slippery elm
Tree
�21
4
Stem count
14
14
19
12
12
19
8
8
13
9
9
15
10
10
18
8
8
10
10
10
18
12
12
13
13
30
362
362
577
370
370
698
351
351
479
360
360
527
460
460
460
size (ares)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
35
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
0.86
Species couni
5
5
6
4
4
7
3
3
6
3
3
5
5
5
9
4
4
5
4
4
6
4
4
5
4
4
8
15
15
26
15
15
27
14
14
21
12
12
22
12
12
12
12
12
12
Stems per ACRE 1566.6
566.6
768.9
1485.6
1485.6
1768.9
323.7
1323.7
526.1
364.2
364.2
607
404.7
404.7
728.4
323.7
323.7
404.7
404.7
404.7
728.4
485.6
485.6
849.8
526.1
526.1
1214
418.6
418.6
667.2
427.8
427.8
807.1
405.8
405.8
553.8
416.2
416.2
609.3
372.3
1372.3
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
DMS Project No. 94643
Monitoring Year 5 - 2016
UT1 Reaches 1 and 2
Parameter
Gauge
UT1 Reach 1
Regional Curve
UTI Reach 2
UT1 Reach 3
Pre -Restoration
Reach 1
Condition'
Reach 2
Reach 3
UT to Lyle Creek
Reference Reach Data
UT to Catawba River
UT to Lake
Wheeler
Westbrook
Lowlands
UT1 Reach 1
Upper
Design
UT1 Reach 1
Lower
UT1 Reach 2
UT1 Reach 1
Upper
UT1 Reach 1
Lower
UT1 Reach 2
LL JUL JEq.
LL JUL JEq.
LL JUL JEq.
I Min I Max
Min I Max
Min I
Max
Min I Max
Min I Max
Min I Max
Min I Max
Min I Max
Min I Max
Min I Max
Min I Max
Min I Max
Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
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)
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
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
1.5
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 (ftZ)
n/a
111JL35.8
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
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
1.8
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
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)
Profile
ne Sand
Silt
Silt'
Fine Sand
V.Coarse Sand
V. Fine Gravel
Coarse Sand
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
0.0110 0.0300
0.0430
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 3
3 6
4
6
15 28
31 60
42
16 59
14 41
56 114
62 96
23 49
51 131
48 99
Pool Volume (ft )
Pattern
MEMEMEMEEMEM
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
N/A' N/A'
N/Az N/Az
N/Az
N/Az
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/AZ N/A'
N/Az N/Az
N/Az
N/Az
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/AZ N/A'
N/Az N/Az
N/Az
N/AZ
1.3 1 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/AZ N/Az
N/Az N/Az
N/Az
N/Az
39 1 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/AZ N/A'
N/Az N/Az
N/A'
N/A'
1.3
4
6 11
1.4 2.1
N/A N/A
2 5
3 5
N/A N/A
2 5
3 5
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
n/a
0.013/0.08/0.12/
0.3/1.2/4.8
0.0016/0.008/0
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
SC%/Sa %/G %/C9%/B%/ Be %
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) Ib/ft'
each 1 Upper: 0.48, Reach 1 Lower: 0.06, Reach 2: 0.24MEN=
MEN=
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/mZ
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
0.10 0.16
0.16 1 0.35
0.35 1
0.49
0.25
1.60
0.4
0.9
Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
FS'
5%
F6'
G6'
-
C5
-
E5
-
E4
-
E/C5
B5c
C6
C6
Bc
C
C
ROsgen Classification
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
0.7 0.9
0.8
2.
NONE=
3.0
1.2
2.4
-
-
-
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
17 24 24 42 42 52
14
15
28
33
119
N/A'
N/A6
14
15
28
Q-NFF regression
n/a
37
8 15
-
-
65
15 31
-
79
31
-
49
-
NEEMENEEMENEEM
-
-
-
651
2012
692
Q-USGS extrapolation
Q -Mannings
Valley Length (ft)
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 1.3
1.3
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.012
0.0011
0.0036°
0.0048
0.0046
0.006
0.0022
0.0142
0.0013
0.0047
0.0140
0.0015
0.0047
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.012
0.0011
0.00367
-
I -
- I
-
0.0142
0.0013
0.0047
0.0140
0.0015
0.0049
(-): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable
'Pre -Restoration Reaches differfrom 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).
6Data not provided in Neu -Con Umbrella Wetland and Stream Mitigation Bank Westbrook Lowgrounds Site Specific MitigationPlan (Environmental Bank and Exchange, 2002).
'Lowther reported a range of possible discharges from 46.8 to 108.9 cfs based on different Manning's'n' estimation techniques(Lowther, 2008).

Table 10b. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94643
Monitoring Year 5 - 2016
UT1A and UT1B
Parameter
Gauge
UT1A UT16
UT1A
UT16
UT1A
Upper
UT1A
Lower
UT16 200+00 to 203+20
UT18; 203+21 to
207+18
UT1B 207+18 to
209+97
UT1A
Upper
UT1A
Lower
UT16 200+00 to
203+20
UT11B203+21 to
207+18
UT11B207+18 to
209+97
LL Eq. UL
Min
Min
Min Max
Min
Min
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min F Max
Min
T Max
Min I Max
Min I Max
Min I Max
Min I Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
n/a
8.7
16.3
refer to table 10a
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
HI
1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
D50 (mm)
Siltz SiltZ
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
n/a
-
-
- -
refer to table 10a
-
-
- -
-
-
-
-
- -
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 1.6
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/Az
N/Az
N/Az
N/Az
refer to table 10a
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/Az
N/AZ N/Az
N/A
N/A 14 20 19 27 16 26 19 26 N/A N/A 14 20 19 27 16 26
19 26
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
N/A2 N/Az N/Az N/Az
N/A
N/A 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 N/A N/A 2 3 2 3 2 3
2 3
Meander Wave Length (ft)
N/A2 N/Az N/Az N/Az
N/A
N/A 53 82 83 106 78 86 79 90 N/A N/A 53 82 83 106 78 86
79 90
Meander Width Ratio
N/A2 N/Az N/Az N/Az
N/A
N/A 4 5 4 5 3 5 4 5 N/A N/A 4 5 4 5 3 5
4 5
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
n/aW20::
0.06
4
refer to table 10a
0.84
0.28
0.6
0.32
0.12
N/A
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
c116/cI35/d5O/d84/d95/d100
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) Ib/ftz
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
60 17 38 20 7
Stream Power (Capacity) W/mZ
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
n/a
0.05
0.13
refer to table 10a
B6
C6
C6
C
E
Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
Rosgen Classification
F63
F6'
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
2.0
1.6
2.8 2.6
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
8
13
9 13
Q-NFF regression
-
-
EMEMENEEM
Em
190 352 279 326 227
Q-USGS extrapolation
4 9
10 18
Q -Mannings
Valley Length (ft)
-
-
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
1141
890
201 414 320 398 279 201 414 320 398
279
Sinuosity (ft)
1.0
1.0
1.1 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.2
1.2
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.0106
0.0085
0.0284 0.0095 0.0131 0.0086 0.0032 0.0296 0.0089 0.0187 0.0080
0.0039
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.0106
0.0085
0.0284 0.0095 0.0161 0.0086 0.0032 0.0294 0.0091 0.0190 0.0079
0.0039
(-): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable
'Pre -Restoration Reaches differ from the as-built/baseline reaches.
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).
6Data not provided in Neu -Con Umbrella Wetland and Stream Mitigation Bank Westbrook Lowgrounds Site Specific MitigationPlan (Environmental Bank and Exchange, 2002).
7Lowther reported a range of possible discharges from 46.8 to 108.9 cfs based on different Manning's W estimation techniques(Lowther, 2008).

Table 11. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross -Section)
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94643
Monitoring Year 5 - 2016
UT1 Reaches 1 and 2, UT1A and UT1B
Cross -Section 1(Riffle)
UTI Reach
1 Upper
Cross -Section 2 (Pool)
Cross -Section 3 (Riffle)
UT1 Reach
1 Lower
Cross -Section 4 (Pool)
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
6.5
13.6
10.8
10.3
10.6
8.9
9.9
19.1
13.7
18.2
15.5
15.6
13.4
21.6
15.3
17.4
16.4
17.3
16.2
Floodprone Width (ft)
66.7
65.4
65.4
65.4
66.8
67.0
---
---
---
---
---
---
62.6
63.4
55.7
55.7
63.4
63.4
---
---
---
---
---
---
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.3
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.7
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.9
0.8
0.9
2.4
1.9
1.8
1.1
1.4
1.3
1.6
1.3
1.5
1.5
1.6
1.5
2.4
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.3
2.3
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft)
2.7
2.7
2.3
1.7
2.1
2.1
14.2
9.8
8.1
5.1
5.0
4.9
13.1
9.0
10.8
8.1
9.5
8.9
22.0
16.1
17.9
17.0
17.3
17.8
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
7.7
12.8
16.0
15.2
43.8
20.1
13.0
12.0
13.0
22.2
15.9
19.7
27.7
20.9
30.7
29.6
25.6
20.1
21.1
14.6
16.9
15.8
17.5
14.8
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
2.2+
1 2.2+
1 2.2+ 1
2.2+
2.2+ 1
2.2+
1 N/A I
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Cross -Section 5 (Pool)
UTI Reach
I Lower
Cross -Section 6 (Riffle)
Cross -Section 7 (Riffle)
UTI Reach
2
Cross -Section 8 (Pool)
Dimension and Substrate
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
Base
MY3
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
Base
MY3
MY2
MY3
MY4
MYS
based on fixed bankfull elevation
Bankfull Width (ft)
15.6
14.4
18.0
15.9
14.4
15.1
11.9
12.4
13.5
13.4
12.6
12.8
11.8
8.7
14.7
12.1
13.1
11.0
23.6
16.9
22.7
21.0
20.5
22.5
Floodprone Width (ft)
---
---
---
---
---
---
79.6
80.3
76.9
76.9
79.7
79.7
69.7
70.8
65.9
65.9
71.8
71.7
---
---
---
---
---
---
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.9
0.8
0.9
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.7
1.0
1.1
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.9
1.2
1.3
1.1
1.0
1.0
0.8
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
2.1
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.8
1.7
1.4
1.2
1.4
1.4
1.2
1.3
1.8
1.7
1.8
1.7
1.8
1.6
3.0
2.1
2.7
2.9
2.3
2.2
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft)
16.4
13.7
14.8
13.8
11.8
12.9
8.1
8.5
8.8
7.6
7.4
8.3
11.7
9.4
11.8
10.9
11.4
9.3
27.4
21.3
24.4
20.9
19.6
18.6
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
14.9
15.1
21.9
18.3
17.6
17.7
17.3
18.0
20.8
23.6
21.7
19.7
11.8
8.0
18.3
13.5
15.1
12.9
20.3
13.4
21.0
21.1
21.4
27.2
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
N/A
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+
2.2+
2.2+
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
N/A
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
1.0
1.0
N/A
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
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
Base
MYl
MY2
I MY3
MY4
MY5
Base
MY3
I MY2
MY3 I
MY4
MYS
based on fixed bankfull elevation
Bankfull Width (ft)
4.6
1.9
2.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.9
---
2.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.5
3.1
4.8
2.8
4.0
3.6
6.0
6.4
8.5
4.7
6.7
4.9
Floodprone Width (ft)
30.5
31.4
27.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
---
---
---
---
---
---
67.3
66.5
64.2
53.8
45.4
67.8
---
---
---
---
---
---
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.6
---
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.3
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.3
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
0.8
0.4
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
---
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
1.1
1.0
0.7
0.6
0.7
1.2
1.0
0.7
0.5
0.4
0.4
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft)
2.1
0.6
0.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.3
---
0.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.3
1.0
2.3
1.2
1.3
1.2
4.5
3.9
3.1
1.3
1.5
1.3
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
10.4
1 6.2
5.2
0.0
0.0 1
0.0
10.7
8.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
8.7
9.8
10.0
6.4
12.6
10.7
8.0
10.6
23.4
17.9
29.7
18.5
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
2.2+
1 2.2+
1 2.2+
N/A I
N/A I
N/A
I N/A I
---
I N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
N/A I
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Dimension and Substrate
based on fixed bankfull elevation
Bankfull Width (ft)
Floodprone Width (ft)
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft)
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
Base
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
MY1
---
---
---
---
---
---
Cross -Section 13 (Riffle)
MY2 MY3
--- 5.7
--- 54.9
--- 0.4
--- 1.0
--- 2.0
--- 16.3
--- 2.2+
--- 1.0
MY4
0.0
---
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
N/A
N/A
MY5
0.0
---
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
N/A
N/A
Base
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
MY1
---
---
---
---
---
---
Cross -Section 14 (Run)
MY2 MY3
--- ---
--- ---
--- ---
--- ---
--- ---
I --- ---
--- ---
--- ---
MY4
8.9
200+
0.5
1.1
4.3
18.6
2.2+
1.0
MY5
7.0
200+
0.6
1.1
4.5
11.0
2.2+---
1.0
Base
---
---
---
---
---
--
MY1
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
Cross -Section 15 (Run)
MY2 MY3
--- ---
--- ---
--- ---
I --- ---
--- ---
--- ---
--- ---
--- ---
MY4
6.3
200+
0.4
0.8
2.2
17.7
2.2+
1.0
MYS
7.4
200+
0.4
0.8
2.9
19.2
2.2+
1.0

Table 12a. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94643
Monitoring Year 5 - 2016
UTI Reach 1 Upper
N/A: Not Applicable
Parameter
As-Built/Baseline
Min
Max
Min
MY -1
7 Med
Max
Min
MY -2
7Med
7 Max
Min
MY -3
7 Med
7 Max
Min
MY -4
7 Med
7Max
Min
MY -5
7Med
Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
4.6
5.8
6.1
5.1
9.7
6.5
Floodprone Width (ft)
66.7
65.4
65.4
65.4
66.8
67.0
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.3
Bankfull Max Depth
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.9
0.8
0.9
Bankfull Cross-sectional Area (ft)
2.7
2.7
2.3
1.7
2.1
2.1
Width/Depth Ratio
7.7
12.8
16.0
15.2
43.8
20.1
Entrenchment Ratio
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
D50 (mm)
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
7
23
3
12
26
4
10
23
2
13
34
2
5
41
2
8
21
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
0.0056
0.0520
0.1319
Pool Length (ft)
10
39
10
16
26
8
20
28
4
13
50
9
16
33
6
14
31
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
0.2
1.2
1.9
Pool Spacing (ft)
23
49
17
29
61
12
39
61
8
27
68
16
30
83
17
36
75
Pool Volume (ft)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
Radius of Curvature (ft)
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
Meander Wave Length (ft)
Meander Width Ratio
Additional Reach Parameters
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Rosgen Classification
Bc
Bc
Bc
Bc
Bc
Bc
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
700
700
700
700
700
700
Sinuosity (ft)
1.1
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
0.0146
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.0140
0.0146
0.0150
0.0150
0.0153
0.0156
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 MENEENEEM
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
N/A: Not Applicable

Table 12b. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94643
Monitoring Year 5 - 2016
UTI Reach 1 Lower
N/A: Not Applicable
arameter
As-Built/Baseline
Min
Max
Min
MY -1
Med
Max
Min
MY -2
Med
Max
Min
MY -3
Med
Max
Min
MY -4
Med
Max
Min
MY -5
Med
Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
12.3
22.4
13.3
15.2
17.1
13.5
17.0
20.5
13.4
15.7
16.4
12.6
14.1
15.6
12.8
13.1
13.4
Floodprone Width (ft)
62.6
79.6
63.4
71.9
80.3
55.7
66.3
76.9
55.7
66.3
76.9
63.4
71.6
79.7
63.4
74.1
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
0.7
0.7
0.7
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
1.3
1.4
1.5
Bankfull Cross-sectional Area (ft
10.110.1
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
8.3
8.6
8.9
Width/Depth Ratio
36.8
35.0
18.5
24.3
30.1
20.8
28.8
36.8
15.8
21.0
29.6
21.7
23.6
25.6
19.7
19.9
20.1
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+
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
1.0
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
Profile
NEW
Riffle Length (ft)
10
75
8
28
31
81
15
35
80
8
27
73
6
25
67
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.000
0.029
0.000
0.005
0.005
0.026
0.001
0.005
0.028
0.000
0.002
0.012
0.000
0.002
0.026
Pool Length (ft)
6
81
12
56
LOO.
54
81
5
46
79
37
59
81
38
52
74
Pool Max Depth (ft)
1.4
3.6
0.7
1.2
1.2
1.9
1.9
2.3
4.0
2.0
2.5
3.7
2.1
2.5
3.7
PoolSpacing(ft)
51
131
29
82
80
117
39
86
124
59
88
115
57
86
126
Pool Volume (ft)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
Radius of Curvature (ft)
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
Meander Wave Length (ft)
Meander Width Ratio
Additional Reach Parameters
36
27
2
100
2
78
48
3
166
5
Rosgen Classification
C
C
C
C
C
C
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
2558
2558
2558
2558
2558
2558
Sinuosity (ft)
1.3
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
0.0025
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)l
0.0015
0.0024
0.0023
0.0024
0.0023
0.0022
RI%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
N/A
I
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
%of Reach with Eroding Banks
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
N/A: Not Applicable

Table 12c. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94643
Monitoring Year 5 - 2016
LIT1 Reach 2
(-): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable
Min
Max
Min
Med
Max
Min
Med
Max
Min
Med
Max
Min
Med
Max
Min
Med
Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
11.8
8.7
14.7
12.1
13.1
11.0
Floodprone Width (ft)
69.7
70.8
65.9
65.9
71.8
71.7
Bankfull Mean Depth
1.0
1.1
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.9
Bankfull Max Depth
1.8
1.7
1.8
1.7
1.8
1.6
Bankfull Cross-sectional Area (ft)
11.7
9.4
11.8
10.9
11.4
9.3
Width/Depth Ratio
11.8
8.0
18.3
13.5
15.1
12.9
Entrenchment Ratio
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
D50 (mm)
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
27
47
11
24
48
27
34
48
20
37
64
20
28
40
17
30
42
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
0.0000
0.0059
0.0250
Pool Length (ft)
15
62
20
46
68
28
44
58
20
44
63
37
53
61
17
49
79
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
1.8
3.1
3.3
Pool Spacing (ft)
48
99
37
78
96
26
78
108
54
79
105
27
73
110
55
79
110
Pool Volume (ft')
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
Radius of Curvature (ft)
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
Meander Wave Length (ft)
Meander Width Ratio
Additional Reach Parameters
41
27
2
113
3
65
34
3
161
5
Rosgen Classification
C
C
C
C
C
C
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
883
883
883
883
883
883
Sinuosity (ft)
1.3
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
0.0044
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.0049
0.0049
0.0046
0.0035
0.0032
0.0034
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 NEENEENIEM
0%
0%
0%
(-): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable

Table 12d. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94643
Monitoring Year 5 - 2016
UT1A
MY4 & MY5 Dimension data taken from recently established cross-sections (XS14 & 15) within the braided section of UT1A.
N/A: Not Applicable
* Not calculated because the majority of UT1A was dry during MY5 survey
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
F
Max
Min
I
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
4.6
1.9
2.1
0.0
6.3
8.9
7.0
7.4
Floodprone Width (ft)
30.5
31.4
27.0
0.0
200+
200+
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.0
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.6
Bankfull Max Depth
0.8
0.4
0.6
0.0.
0.8
1.1
0.8
1.1
Bankfull Cross-sectional Area (ft)
2.1
0.6
0.8
0.0
2.2
4.3
2.9
4.5
Width/Depth Ratio
10.4
6.2
5.2
0.0
17.7
18.6
11.0
19.2
Entrenchment Ratio
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
N/A
2.2+
2.2+
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
N/A
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
8
19
10
23
4
27
9
31
8
46
4
10
8
14
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
0.0090 0.0348
Pool Length (ft)
5
12
12
34
4
31
4
30
7
22
12
39
11
22
Pool Max Depth (ft)
1.0
1.9
1.2
1.9
0.2
1.1
0.2
1.0
1.3
3.2
1.0
2.2
1.2
2.0
Pool Spacing (ft)
4
33
29
90
12
55
5
88
7
185
38
101
31
99
Pool Volume (ft')
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
Radius of Curvature (ft)
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
Meander Wave Length (ft)
Meander Width Ratio
Additional Reach Parameters
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
25
14
2
53
4
35
20
3
82
5
Rosgen Classification
C
E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C
C
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
201
414
615
615
615
615
615
Sinuosity (ft)
1.1
1.2
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
1
0.0164
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
N/A
%of Reach with Eroding Banks
0%
1
0%
0%
MY4 & MY5 Dimension data taken from recently established cross-sections (XS14 & 15) within the braided section of UT1A.
N/A: Not Applicable
* Not calculated because the majority of UT1A was dry during MY5 survey

Table 12e. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94643
Monitoring Year 5 - 2016
UT1B
Parameter
00 .M _
203+20.M�6n.
207+18
i
209+97
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min I Max
Min I Max
Min
I
Max
Min
Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
4.5
3.1
4.8
2.8
4.0
3.6
Floodprone Width (ft)
67.3
66.5
64.2
53.8
45.4
67.8
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.5
0.3
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.3
Bankfull Max Depth
1.0
1.1
1.0
0.7
0.6
0.7
Bankfull Cross-sectional Area (ft)
2.3
1.0
2.3
1.2
1.3
1.2
Width/Depth Ratio
8.7
9.8
10.0
6.4
12.6
10.7
Entrenchment Ratio
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
19
31
15
22
10
20
15
35
9 40
15 112
3
39
7
25
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
0.0000 0.0397
Pool Length (ft)
23
40
17
41
28
42
11
44
14 55
6 52
7
42
9
52
Pool Max Depth (ft)
1.2
2.1
1.3
2.4
1.9
2.2
0.4
1.5
0.1 1.5
1.7 3.1
1.2
3.3
1.6
3.0
Pool Spacing (ft)
43
71
34
61
46
66
28
77
32 79
51 140
23
176
29
185
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
C/E
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
320
398
279
997
997
997
997
997
Sinuosity (ft)
1.1
1.2
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
0.0098
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.0190
0.0079
0.0039
0.0081
0.0083
0.0085
0.0092
0.0091
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%
0%
N/A: Not Applicable

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94643
Monitoring Year 5 - 2016
UT3 Reach 1 Upper
77E
776
N
x
774
772
v
770
c
0
v
768
766
764
762
760
10000
10100
10200 10300 10400 10500
10600 10700
Station (feet)
�- TW (MYO-4/2012( -t- TW (MYI-10/2012) - TW (MY2-5/2013) TW (MY3-5/2014( t TW (MY4-5/2015( t TW (MY5-6/2016) .......
WS (MY5-6/2016) ♦ BKF/TOB • LOG VAN
X
N
x

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94643
Monitoring Year 5 - 2016
UTI Reach 1 Lower
772
a
X X
'^
X
X
770
768
766
v
764
0
a 762
760
758
756
754
10700
10900 11100
11300
11500 11700 11900 12100
Station (feet)
t TW (MYG-4/2012) —� TW (MYI-10/2012)
— TW (MY2-5/2013)
— TW (MY3-5/2014) t TW (MY4-5/2015)
t TW (MY5-6/2016) ......•WS(MY5-6/2016)
♦ BKF/TOB
0 LOG VANE
a
X X
'^
X
X

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94643
Monitoring Year 5 - 2016
UTI Reach 2
763
..........
n �
X X
762
761
760
759
v
w
4 758
v
w
757
...................................................
756
755
754
753
13200
13300
13400 13500
13600 13700
13800 13900
14000 14100
Station (feet)
TW (MYO-4/2012)
t TW (MY1-10/2012)
-TW (MY2-5/2013)
- TW (MY3-5/2014)
t TW (MY4-5/2015)
t TW (MYS-6/2016)
....... WS (MY5-6/2016)
♦ BKF/TOB
0 LOG VANE
..........
n �
X X

Cross -Section Plots
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94643
Monitoring Year 5 -2016
Cross Section 1- UT3 Reach 1 Upper
130+91 riffle
774
0
772
.m
v
w
770
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Width (ft)
—� MYO (4/2012)
—6 MY1(10/2012) +MY2 (5/2013) +MY3 (5/2014)
+MY4(5/2015)
tMY5(5/2016) —Bankfull—FloodproneArea
Bankfull Dimensions
2.1 x -section area (ft.sq.)
6.5 width (ft)
0.3 mean depth (ft)
0.9 max depth (ft)
6.8 wetted parimeter (ft)
0.3 hyd radi (ft)
20.1 width -depth ratio
Survey Date: May -16
Field Crew: RD/AT
View Downstream (5/2016)

Cross -Section Plots
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94643
Monitoring Year 5 -2016
Cross Section 2 - UTI Reach 1 Upper
105+37 pool
772.577770.50
v
u' 768.5
766.5
0 10 20 30 40 SO 60 70 80 90 100
Width (ft)
+MYO (4/2012) MY1 (10/2012) MY2 (5/2013) � MY3 (5/2014) t MY4 (5/2015) tMYS (5/2016) -Bankfull
JUT
?
i
Bankfull Dimensions
4.9 x -section area (ft.sq.)
9.9 width (ft)
0.5 mean depth (ft)
1.3 max depth (ft)
10.8 wetted parimeter (ft)
' j �1
0.5 hyd radi (ft)
Rq.
19.7 width -depth ratior:,�
Survey
Date: May -16
Field
Crew: RD/AT
View Downstream (5/2016)
v
u' 768.5
766.5
0 10 20 30 40 SO 60 70 80 90 100
Width (ft)
+MYO (4/2012) MY1 (10/2012) MY2 (5/2013) � MY3 (5/2014) t MY4 (5/2015) tMYS (5/2016) -Bankfull

Cross -Section Plots
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94643
Monitoring Year 5 -2016
Cross Section 3 - UTI Reach 1 Lower
110+80
riffle
767
766
-
765
c
v
w
764
0
763
-
762
0 10
20
30
40
50 60
Width (ft)
+MYO (4/2012)
MY1 (10/2012)
MY2 (5/2013)
—� MY3 (5/2014)
tMY4 5/2015
+MYS 5/2016)
Bankfull
—Flood roneArea
Bankfull Dimensions
ry
�
8.9 x -section area (ft.sq.)
ML
13.4 width (ft)
0.7 mean depth (ft)
1.5 max depth (ft)
14.0 wetted parimeter (ft)
0.6 hyd radi (ft)
20.1 width -depth ratio
Survey Date: May -16
Field Crew: IE/RD
View Downstream (5/2016)
-
c
v
w
764
763
-
762
0 10
20
30
40
50 60
Width (ft)
+MYO (4/2012)
MY1 (10/2012)
MY2 (5/2013)
—� MY3 (5/2014)
tMY4 5/2015
+MYS 5/2016)
Bankfull
—Flood roneArea

Cross -Section Plots
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94643
Monitoring Year 5 -2016
Cross Section 4 - LIT3 Reach 1 Lower
111+22 pool
766.5
764.5
c
0
w 762.5
760.5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Width (ft)
MYO (4/2012) MYS (10/2012) 0 MY2 (5/2013) t MY3 (5/2014) t MY4 (5/2015) +MY5 (5/2016) - Bankfull
F_
Bankfull Dimensions
17.8 x -section area (ft.sq.)
16.2 width (ft) `
1.1 mean depth (ft)
2.3 max depth (ft)
17.0 wetted parimeter (ft)
1.0 hyd radi (ft)
14.8 width -depth ratio
Survey Date: May -16
Field Crew: IE/RD
View Downstream (5/2016)

Cross -Section Plots
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94643
Monitoring Year 5 -2016
Cross Section 5 - LIT3 Reach 1 Lower
116+43 pool
764.5
C
O
'962.5
v
w
1
760.5
0 10 20
30 40 50 60 70
Width (ft)
—0—MYO (4/2012) --—MY1 (10/2012)
t MY2 (5/2013) tMY3 (5/2014) - 4 MY4 (5/2015) t MY5 (5/2016) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
12.9 x -section area (ft.sq.)
15.1 width (ft)
0.9 mean depth (ft)
1.7 max depth (ft)
15.8 wetted parimeter (ft)
0.8 hyd radi (ft)
17.7 width -depth ratio
Survey Date: May -16
Field Crew: IE/RD
View Downstream (5/2016)

Cross -Section Plots
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94643
Monitoring Year 5 -2016
Cross Section 6 - UTI Reach 1 Lower
111+22 riffle
765
—
- 764 4
A-
c
.0
R
v
w 763
762
0 10 20
30 40 50 60
70
80 90
Width (ft)
0 MYO (4/2012)
MY1 (10/2012) MY2 (5/2013)
—a - MY3 (5/2014)
—o—MY4(5/2015)
+MY5(5/2016) —Bankfull
—Flood roneArea
Bankfull Dimensions
�.
J••^:
8.3 x -section area (ft.sq.)
12.8 width (ft)
0.7 mean depth (ft)
1.3 max depth (ft)
13.3 wetted parimeter (ft)
0.6 hyd radi (ft)
19.7 width -depth ratio
Survey Date: May -16
6 I
A
r:
Field Crew: IE/RD
View Downstream (5/2016)

Cross -Section Plots
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94643
Monitoring Year 5 -2016
Cross Section 7 - UT3 Reach 2
135+95 riffle
7625
760.5
O
a�58.5
Bankfull Dimensions
9.3 x -section area (ft.sq.)
11.0 width (ft)
0.9 mean depth (ft)
1.6 max depth (ft)
12.6 wetted parimeter (ft)
0.7 hyd radi (ft)
12.9 width -depth ratio
Survey Date: Jun -16
Field Crew: IE/RD^
View Downstream (6/2016)
c
w
756.5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Width (ft)
+MYO (4/2012) tMY1 (10/2012) tMY2 (5/2013) �MY3 (5/2014)
tMY4(5/2014) tMYS(6/2016) -Bankfull-
FloodproneArea

Cross -Section Plots
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94643
Monitoring Year 5 -2016
Cross Section 8 - UT3 Reach 2
111+22 pool
762
761
760
Bankfull Dimensions
18.6 x -section area (ft.sq.)
22.5 width (ft)
0.8 mean depth (ft)
2.2 max depth (ft)
23.7 wetted parimeter (ft)
0.8 hyd radi (ft)
27.2 width -depth ratio
Survey Date: Jun -16
Field Crew: IE/RD
View Downstream (6/2016)
� 759
0
758
w
757
756
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Width (ft)
t MYO (4/2012) =-= MY1(10/2012) t MY2 (5/2013) t MY3 (5/2014) t MY4 (S/2015) t MYS (6/2016) - Bankfull

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94643
Monitoring Year 5 - 2016
UT1A
774
772
♦
770
768
a
°1 766
G
�
O
>
X
x
♦
w 764
♦ ♦
n
xm xO
X
762
♦.
760
758
30000 30100 30200 30300 30400 30500 30600
Station (feet)
t TW (MYO-4/2012) TW (MYI-10/2012) - TW (MY2-5/2013) - TW (MY3-5/2014) - TW (MY4-11/2015)
t TW (MYS-9/2016) ...... • WS (MY5-9/2016) ♦ BKF/TOB (MY5-9/2016) 0 LOG VANE/SILL

Cross -Section Plots
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94643
Monitoring Year 5 - 2016
Cross Section 9 - UT1A
302+19 riffle
766
768
C
O
767
765
v
w
764
763
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Width (ft)
--�—MYO (4/2012) + MY1(10/2012) tMY2 (5/2013) tMY3 (5/2014) ---� MY4 (11/2015) —�-MYS (9/2016) —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: Sep -16
Field Crew: IE/JM
View Downstream (9/2016)
766
C
O
765
v
w
764
763
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Width (ft)
--�—MYO (4/2012) + MY1(10/2012) tMY2 (5/2013) tMY3 (5/2014) ---� MY4 (11/2015) —�-MYS (9/2016) —Bankfull

Cross -Section Plots
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94643
Monitoring Year 5 - 2016
Cross Section 10 - UT1A
302+40 pool
768
767
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: Sep -16
Field Crew: IE/JM
View Downstream (9/2016)
766
c
o
�;,
—
-
765
v
w
764
763
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 46
Width (ft)
+MYO (4/2012) +MY1 (10/2012) tMY2 (5/2013) +MY3 (5/2014) tMY4 (11/2015) tMYS (9/2016) —Bankfull

Cross -Section Plots
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94643
Monitoring Year 5 - 2016
Cross Section 13 - UT1A
300+94 riffle
772
771
770
0
769
>
v
w
768
767
0 10 20
30 40 50 60 70
Width (ft)
t MY3 (5/2014)
t MY4 (11/2015) 4 MY5 (9/2016) -Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
I _ .
�
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
• 1 r
i...
Survey Date: Sep -16
Field Crew: IE/JM
View Downstream (9/2016)

Cross -Section Plots
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94643
Monitoring Year 5 - 2016
Cross Section 14 - UT1A
308+41
run
764
763
c 762
0
v
w
761
760
0 20 40
60
80 100 120
Width (ft)
+MY4(11/2015)
tMYS(9/2016)
-Bankfull Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
,•
4.5 x -section area (ft.sq.)
7.0 width (ft)
'
0.6 mean depth (ft)`:
1.1 max depth (ft)
7.4 wetted parimeter (ft)
,..
0.6 hyd radi (ft)
11.0 width -depth ratio
Survey Date: Sep -16
Field Crew: IE/JM
View Downstream (9/2016)

Cross -Section Plots
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94643
Monitoring Year 5 - 2016
Cross Section 15 - UT1A
310+26
run
764
� 762
0
763
v
w
760
0 20 40 60 80 100
Width (ft)
+MY4 (11/2015) +MYS (9/2016) -Bankfull-Floodprone Area
761
Bankfull Dimensions
2.9 x -section area (ft.sq.)
7.4 width (ft)
0.4 mean depth (ft)
0.8 max depth (ft)'�
7.6 wetted parimeter (ft)
fir,
0.4 hyd radi (ft)
19.2 width -depth ratio
�h
Survey Date: Sep -16
Field Crew: IE/JM
View Downstream (9/2016)
� 762
0
v
w
760
0 20 40 60 80 100
Width (ft)
+MY4 (11/2015) +MYS (9/2016) -Bankfull-Floodprone Area

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94643
Monitoring Year 5 - 2016
LITO
774
UT18 enters project area at Station
201+52
772
770
• '
768
v
w
4
76617
v
�i�
764
762
760
758
20000 20100 20200 20300
20400
20500
20600
20700
20800 20900 21000
Station (feet)
t TW(MYO-4/2012) tTW(MYl-10/2012)-TW(MY2-5/2013)
-TW(MY3-5/2014)
-TW(MY4-5/2015)
-TW(MY5-6/2016)
•••••••WS(MY5-6/2016) ♦ BKF/TOB
N
N ay
H VI
X X
• '

Cross -Section Plots
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94643
Monitoring Year 5 - 2016
Cross Section 11 - UT1B
205+30 riffle
766
—c 764
0
v
w
762
FloodproneArea
0 10 20
30 40 50
60 70
Width (ft)
� MYO (4/2012)
+MY1(10/2012) � MY2 (5/2013)
+MY3 (5/2014)
+MY4(5/2015)
tMYS(MM/YYYY) —Bankfull
—
Bankfull Dimensions
1.2 x -section area (ft.sq.)
3.6 width (ft)
0.3 mean depth (ft)
0.7 max depth (ft)
4.0 wetted parimeter (ft)
0.3 hyd radi (ft)
�.
10.7 width -depth ratio
� d
Survey Date: Jun -16
Field Crew: IE/TM
View Downstream (6/2016)
FloodproneArea

Cross -Section Plots
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site DMS
Project No. 94643
Monitoring Year 5 - 2016
Cross Section 12 - UT3B
205+63 pool
765
c
w
764
762
0
763
Width (ft)
+MYO (4/2012) +MYl (10/2012) tMY2 (5/2013) +MY3 (5/2014) tMY4 (5/2015) +MYS (6/2016) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
1.3 x -section area (ft.sq.)
4.9 width (ft)
0.3 mean depth (ft)
0.4 max depth (ft)
5.1 wetted parimeter (ft)
0.3 hyd radi (ft)
18.5 width -depth ratio
c
71
R
Survey Date: Jun -16
Field Crew: IE/TM
View Downstream (6/2016)
c
w
762
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Width (ft)
+MYO (4/2012) +MYl (10/2012) tMY2 (5/2013) +MY3 (5/2014) tMY4 (5/2015) +MYS (6/2016) —Bankfull

APPENDIX 5. Hydrology Summary Data and Plots

Table 13. Verification of Bankfull Events
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94643
Monitoring Year 5 - 2016
UTl, UT1A, and UT3B
Reach
Date of Data
Collection
5/11/2012
Date
occurrenciLy
U
&0.-
1
Crest Gage
Yes/42 Days
UT1
10/31/2013
U
2
Crest Gage
(18.1%)
6/17/2016
U
5
Crest Gage
Yes/99.5 Days
7/10/2012
U
1
Crest Gage
UT1A
3/7/2013
U
2
Crest Gage
Yes/49 Days
6/30/2014
5/15/2014
3
Crest Gage
(14.0%)
7/10/2012
U
1
Crest Gage
3/7/2013 1
U
2
Crest Gage
UT113
6/30/2014
5/15/2014
3
Crest Gage
(28.2%)
11/4/2015
U
4
Crest Gage
Table 14. Wetland Gage Attainment Summary
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94643
Monitoring Year 5 - 2016
Wetlands RW1 and RW2
Gage I Success Criteria Achieved/Max Consecutive Days During Growing Season (%)
Year 1(2012) I Year 2 (2013) I Year 3 (2014) I Year 4 (2015) I Year 5 (2016)
N/A: Gages 10 and 11 were installed during MY2. Gage 9 was installed during MY4.
No/5 Days
Yes/49 Days
Yes/47 Days
Yes/59 Days
Yes/42 Days
1
(2.5%)
(24.0%)
(23.0%)
(25.4%)
(18.1%)
No/0 Days
Yes/93 Days
Yes/113.5 Days
Yes/99.5 Days
Yes/108 Days
2
(0.0%)
(46.0%)
(56.0%)
(42.9%)
(46.6%)
Yes/29 Days
Yes/49 Days
Yes/52.5 Days
Yes/101.5 Days
Yes/84 Days
3
(14.0%)
(24.0%)
26.0%)
(43.8%)
(36.2%)
Yes/27 Days
Yes/54.5 Days
Yes/47 Days
Yes/65.5 Days
Yes/48 Days
4
(13.0%)
(27.0%)
(23.0%)
(28.2%)
(20.7%)
No/11 Days
Yes/41.5 Days
Yes/52.5 Days
Yes/75.5 Days
Yes/233 Days
5
(5.0%)
(20.3%)
(26.0%)
(32.5%)
(100.0%)
6
No/5 Days
Yes/16 Days
No/10 Days
Yes/35.5 Days
No/9 Days (3.9%)
(2.5%)
(7.8%)
(5.0%)
(15.3%)
Yes/22 Days
Yes/179 Days
Yes/49.5 Days
Yes/79.5 Days
Yes/43 Days
7
(11.0%)
(88.0%)
(25.0%)
(34.3%)
(18.5%)
No/12 Days
Yes/53 Days
Yes/44.5 Days
Yes/63 Days
Yes/42 Days
8
(6.0%)
(26.0%)
(22.0%)
(27.2%)
(18.1%)
9
N/A
N/A
N/A
Yes/17 Days
No/9 Days (3.9%)
(7.3%)
10
N/A
Yes/180 Days
Yes/45.5 Days
Yes/85 Days
Yes/45 Days
(88.0%)
(23.0%)
(36.6%)
(19.4%)
Yes/80 Days
Yes/50.5 Days
Yes/73.5 Days
Yes/84 Days
11
N/A
(39.0%)
(25.0%)
(31.7%)
(36.2%)
N/A: Gages 10 and 11 were installed during MY2. Gage 9 was installed during MY4.

Groundwater Gage Plots
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94643
Monitoring Year 5 - 2016
Wetland RW1
20
10
0
-10
v
cu
-20
ai
Y
3: -30
-40
-50
-60
c > c UO >
Q � �n O p g ¢ z
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #1 — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0
c
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94643
Monitoring Year 5 - 2016
Wetland RW1
20
10
0
-10
v
cu
-20
ai
Y
3: -30
-40
-50
-60
C Q T C d4 Q +-' > U
a a V) o z° o
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #2 — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0
c
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94643
Monitoring Year 5 - 2016
Wetland RW1
20
10
0
-10
v
cu
-20
ai
Y
3: -30
-40
-50
-60
C Q T C d4 Q +-' > U
a a o z° o
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #3 — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0
c
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94643
Monitoring Year 5 - 2016
Wetland RW1
20
10
0
-10
v
cu
-20
ai
Y
3: -30
-40
-50
-60
C Q T C d4 Q +-' > U
a a o z° o
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #4 — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0
c
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94643
Monitoring Year 5 - 2016
Wetland RW1
20
10
0
-10
v
cu
-20
ai
Y
3: -30
-40
-50
-60
C Q T C d4 Q +-' > U
a a o z° o
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #5 — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0
c
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94643
Monitoring Year 5 - 2016
Wetland RW2
20
10
0
-10
v
cu
-20
ai
Y
3: -30
-40
-50
-60
C Q T C d4 Q +-' > U
a a Ln o z° o
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #6 — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0
c
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94643
Monitoring Year 5 - 2016
Wetland RW2
20
10
0
-10
v
cu
-20
ai
Y
3: -30
-40
-50
-60
c > c UO >
a a V) o z° o
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #7 — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0
c
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94643
Monitoring Year 5 - 2016
Wetland RW2
20
10
0
-10
v
cu
-20
ai
Y
3: -30
-40
-50
-60
C Q T C d4 Q +-' > U
a a V) o z° o
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #8 — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0
c
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94643
Monitoring Year 5 - 2016
Wetland RW1
20
10
0
-10
ai
Y
3: -30
-40
-50
-60
o Lyle Creek Groundwi
a,
Monitoring Year
W�
•3 0
o �
m
� m
w
0
m
.�
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth

Groundwater Gage Plots
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94643
Monitoring Year 5 - 2016
Wetland RW2
20
10
0
-10
v
cu
-20
ai
Y
3: -30
-40
-50
-60
C Q T C d4 Q +-' > U
a a o z° o
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #10 — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0
c
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94643
Monitoring Year 5 - 2016
Wetland RW1
20
10
0
-10
v
cu
-20
ai
Y
3: -30
-40
-50
-60
C Q T C d4 Q +-' > U
a a V) o z° o
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #11 — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0
c
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94643
Monitoring Year 5 - 2016

Soil Temperature Probe Plots
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94643
Monitoring Year 5 - 2016
o
Lyle Creek Soil Temperature Probe #1
v
Monitoring Year 5 - 2016In
CO
100
v, LO
c �
O
c o
�y
2 Q1
O N
90
l7 m
l7 0
°
o
80
Ui —
a
70
-
—
L
CU
E60
AdA-
a
50
40
— — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — —
— — — — — —
30
+ —
Ca--'
i
> U
O O
Q g Q n
z �
Soil Probe #1 Temperature — — Criteria Level

Soil Temperature Probe Plots
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94643
Monitoring Year 5 - 2016

Monthly Rainfall Data
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94643
Monitoring Year 5 - 2016
Lyle Creek 30-70 Percentile Graph for Rainfall in 2016 Catawba, NC
13
11
9
c
r7-
0
M
a+
CL
Z 5
a`
3
1
1
Jan -16 Feb -16 Mar -16 Apr -16 May -16 Jun -16 Jul -16 Aug -16 Sep -16 Oct -16 Nov -16 Dec -16
Date
On -Site Gage Data
USGS Station 354616081085145
-30th Percentile
-70th Percentile
2016 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 January, 2016